BOOK 


Co/ 


LAW  BMKS 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

SCHOOL  OF  LAW 


A  TREATISE 


ON  THE  LAW  OF 


CVRI^IERS 


BV    THE 

EDITORIAL  STAFF  OF  THE  MICHIE  COMPANY 

UNDER   THE   SUPERVISION   OF 

THOMAS  JOHNSON  MICHIE 


Volume  I 


The  Michie  Company,  Law  Publishers 

Charlottesville,  \'a. 

1915 


lA5e^'l  c- 


Copyright,  1915 

BY 

The  Michie  Company 


Table  of  Contents 


VOLUME  I 

PART  I 
CARRIERS  GENERALLY 


CHAPTER  I. 

Who  Are  Carrikks. 

I.  Common    Carriers   Defined,   §    1. 
II.   Common    Carriers    and    Private    Carriers    Distint,'uished,    §    2. 
II.   Persons    and    Corporations    Who    Are    Common    Carriers,    §§    3-1! 

A.  Railroad    Companies,    §    3. 

B.  Owners   of   Spur   Lines   or   Switches,   §   4. 

C.  Sleeping  Car  Companies,  §  5. 

D.  Street   Railways,   §   6. 

E.  Express   Companies,   §   7. 

F.  Transportation    and    Forwarding    Companies,    §   8. 

G.  Proprietors  of  Stage  Coaches,  §  9. 

H.  Proprietors    of    Omnibuses    and    Baggage    Wagons,    S    10. 
I.  Draymen   and   Truckmen,    §    11. 
J.  Telegraph  and   Messenger  Companies,  §   12. 
K.  Transfer  and  Storage   Companies,  §   13. 
L.  Livery    Stable    Keepers,    §    14. 
M.  Mail  Contractors,  §  15. 

N.  Owners    of   Ships    Carrying   Goods    for    Hire,    §    It). 
O.  Ferrymen,    §    17. 
P.  Boats   Engaged   in  Towing,   §   18. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Control  -vnd  Regulation. 

I.  Power  to   Control   and    Regulate   in   General,   §§    19-24. 

A.  Carriers    in    General,    §    19. 

B.  Railroad    Companies,   §   20. 

C.  Express    Companies,    §    21. 

D.  Delegation    of    Power.    §§    22-24. 

a.  In   General,   §   22. 

b.  To  Municipal  Corporations,  §  23. 

c.  To  Commissions,   §  24. 

II.  Companies,  Persons,  or  Instrumentalities  Affected  by  Regulations,  §§  25-28. 
A.  In  General,  §  25. 


6GV611 


Yy  tablK  of  contents. 

B.  Railroad    Companies,   §   2G. 

C.  Street    Railroad   Companies,   §   27. 

D.  Express   Companies,   §   28. 

III.  Licenses  and  Taxes,  §  29. 

IV.  Reports  and  Statements.  §  30. 

V.  Conduct   of   Business   in   General.    §§   31-34. 

A.  Common    Carriers    in    General.    §    31. 

B.  Railroad   Companies,  §  32. 

C.  Business    of    Transmitting    Money    to    Foreign    Countries,    §    33. 

D.  Hackman   and    Draymen,    §    34. 
\"L   Charges,   §§   35-95. 

A.  In   General,   §§   35-84. 

a.  Power  to  Regulate,  §§  35-79. 

(1)  In    General,    §    35. 

(2)  Delegation  of   Power.   §§   36-37. 

(a)  To   a    Commission,    §    36. 

(b)  To   a    Municipal    Corporation,    §   37. 

(3)  Classification  of  Railroads  for  Purposes  of  Regulations,  §§  38-39. 

(a)  Right   to   Classify,  §  38. 

(b)  Mode   of  Classification,   §   39. 

(4)  Limitation    of    Power,    §§    40-72. 

(a)  Reasonableness  of  Regulations,  §§  40-67. 
aa.  Regulations  Must  Be  Reasonable,  §  40. 
bb.   Mode    of   Determining    Reasonableness,    §§    41-67. 

(aa;   That    Carrier    Has    Performed    Services    for    Rate    Fixed    Not    Sole 

Criterion,    §    41. 
(bb)    Carrier    Entitled   to    Fair    Return   on    Investment,    §§   42-49. 
aaa.  In  General,  §  42. 

bbb.  Mode    of    Determining    Value    of    Property    or    Investment,    §§ 
43-49. 
(aaa)    In    General,    §    43. 

(bbb)   Fictitious    Capitalization   or    Excessive    Bonded   Debt,    §   44. 
(ccc)   Sworn    Return   of  Value   of    Property    Made   for   Purposes    of 

Taxation,    §    45. 
(ddd)   Value   of  Franchise,   §  46. 
(eee)   Consolidated    Corporation — Value    of    Assets    of    Constituent 

Corporations,    §    47. 
(fff)   Part   of   Railroad   within    State  to    Be    Regarded   in    Its    Rela- 
tion  to    Part   without    State,    §   48. 
(ggg)    Road   Purchased   at   Foreclosure   Sale   and   Reorganized,   §   49. 
(cc)   Carrier  Entitled  to  Earn  Interest  upon  a  Valid  Bonded  Debt,  §  50. 
(dd)   Ascertaining  Cost  of  Doing  Business  or  of  Operating   Road,   §  51. 
(ee)   Consideration  of  Net   Earnings  in   Determining  Reasonableness  of 
Rates    Prescribed,    §§    52-54. 
aaa.  Net  Earnings  Must  Be  Sufficient  to  Pay  Fair  Return  on  Invest- 
ment, §   52. 
bbb.  Mode  of  Computing  Net  Earnings  and  What  They  Include,  §  53 
ccc.  Earnings    of    Entire    Road    to    Be    Regarded,    §    54. 
(ff)   Interstate    Business    to    Be    Disregarded,    §    55. 
(gg)   Economic   Factors  and   Natural  Advantages  of  Localities  May  Be 

Considered,    §    56. 
(hh)    Equality   of   Rates    for    Like    Service,    §    57. 
(ii)   Adoption   of   Rates    Given   by   Carrier   to   Certain   Shippers,   §   58. 
(jj)   Accessibility  of  a  Place  to  High  Seas  as  Aflfecting  Rates,  §  59. 
(kk)   Betterments   and   Replacements   Should   Be   Considered,    §   60. 


TABLE   OF    COXTKNTS.  V 

(11)   Passenger   Traffic    Considered   as   Separate   and    Independent   from 
Freight    Traffic,    §    <J1. 
(nun)    Ivevcnue   'I'hat   Has   Been    Derived   from    Rate   under   Consideration, 

(nn)    ICi'fcct    of    Several    Sovereignties    Being    Interested,    §    03. 
(oo)   Apportioning  Value  of  Property  and   Expenses,  §§  04-65. 

aaa.  Necessity    for   Apportionment,   §   04. 

bbb.  Method   of   Apportionment.    §    05. 
(pp)   Line  of  Railroad  Operated  in   Connection   with   Other  Lines,  §  06. 
(qq)    Mode   of   Arriving   at    Effect   of   Statutes    Reducing   Rates.   §   07. 

(b)  Due    Process   of   Law,   §   08. 

(c)  Equal    Protection    of    Laws,    §    09. 

(d)  Taking   Private   Property   without   Just   Compensation.   §   70. 

(e)  Discrimination   against   Carrier   in    I-'avor  of   Certain    Individuals,   §   71. 
(f)   Limitations   u]ion    Power   of   a    Municipality   to    Reduce    Street   Railroad 

Fares,    §   7:3. 

(5)  Exemption    from    Regulation   l)y    Charter    or    Statute.    §§    73-78. 

(a)  In    General,    §    73. 

(b)  Necessity   for   Positive   and    Clear   Words   of    Exemption.   §§   74-75. 
aa.  Doctrine  Stated,  §  74. 

bb.  Doctrine   Illustrated,   §  75. 

(c)  Succession   to   Rights  of  Company    Entitled   to   Exemption,  §§   70-78. 
aa.  Purchase,   §   70. 

bl).   Lease,    §    77. 

cc.   Consolidation,   §    78. 

(6)  Loss  of  Power  by  Abandonment  or   Nonuser,   §   79. 
b.   Scope    and    Effect    of    Regulations,    §§    80-84. 

(1)  To  Whom  or  to  What  Business  or  Route  Regulations  Are  Applicable,  §  80. 

(2)  Obligations    Imposed   on    Carriers,    §   81. 

(3)  Measure   of   Compensation   Allowed,    §    82. 

(4)  Regulations  Will   Not   Be   Construed   to    Be    Retroactive,   §   83. 

(5)  When  a  Statute  Will  Be  Construed  as  Impliedly  Repealing  a  Prior  Stat- 

ute,   §    84. 

B.  Posting    Schedules   at    Stations,    §    85. 

C.  Local  and  Through   Rates.  §  86. 

D.  Long  and  Short  Hauls,   §  87. 

E.  Joint   Tariff   between    Two   or   More    Roads.   §   88. 

F.  Transfers   to    Connecting   Lines    of   Same    Company,   §   89. 

G.  Conditions  in  Grant  of  Franchise  and  Agreements  with  Municipalities,  §§  90-95. 

a.  Authority  to  Impose  Conditions  or  to  Make  Agreements,  §  90. 

b.  Change    of    Rates    of    Fare    Fixed    l)y    Franchise    or    Agreement,    §    91. 

c.  Effect  of  Acceptance   by   Carrier  of   Location   Granted   by    Municipality,   §   92. 

d.  Conditions   and   Agreements   Contrued,   §   93. 

e.  Waiver  of  Right  to  Charge  More  than  Amount  Stipulated  in  Franchise.  §  94. 
f.  Acquisition  by  Sale  or  Consolidation  of  a  Railway   Company  Having  a  Con-  . 

tract  with  a  Municipality,  §  95. 
VII.  Preferences  and   Discriminations,   §§   90-lOS. 

A.  The    Common-Law    Doctrine,    §   90. 

B.  Standard   Measure   of  Uniformity   in    Rates.   §   97. 

C.  Power  to   Prohibit    Preferences   and    Discriminations.   §   98. 

D.  Power    of    Legislature    to    Permit    Discrimination,    §    99. 

E.  Construction    of    Constitutional    and    Statutory    Enactments    and    Commission 

Orders    Forbidding    Preferences   or    Discriminations,   §    100. 

F.  Who  Are  Common   Carriers  within  the   Rule   Prohibiting  Discrimination.  §   101. 

G.  What   Constitutes   an   Unlawful    Preference   or  'Discrimination.   §    102. 
H.  What   Circumstances   Will   Justify    Discrimination.    §§    103-lOS. 


VI  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

a.  Business   of    Carrier   Unusually   or   Unexpectedly    Heavy,    §    103. 

b.  Difference   in   Conditions  under   Which    Shipment    Is   Made,   §   104. 

c.  Through   Rates   and   Local   Rates,   §    105. 

d.  Competition   with    Other    Carriers,    §    106. 

e.  Unusual  Traffic  Conditions  Attending  upon  a  General   Coal   Strike,   §  107. 

f.  Cost  of  Mining  Coal  to  Company  in  Whose   Favor  Discrimination  Is   Made, 

§    108. 
\TII.  Places    of   Stoppage,    §    109. 

IX.  Receipt  and  Transportation  of   Freight  and   Passengers,   §   110. 
X.  Exclusive   Privileges.   §§   111-114. 

A.  To    Express    Companies,    §    111. 

B.  To    Corporations    or    Individuals    Engaged    in    Transporting    Passengers    and 

Baggage  to  and  from   Railroad   Depots,   §   112. 

C.  To  Ships  Using  a  Wharf  of  Dock   Constructed  by  a  Railroad   Company,   §  113. 

D.  To  the  Use  of  a  Switch  Track,  §  114. 

XI.  Connections  with  and  Facilities  to  Other  Carriers,  §§  115-129. 

A.  In  General,  §  115. 

B.  Joint  Running  Arrangements,  §  116. 

C.  Connection  between  Roads  or  Trains,  §§  117-118. 

a.  Power  to  Require,  §  117. 

b.  Character  of  Requirements,  §  118. 

D.  Use  of  Terminals,  §  119. 

E.  Reception,   Transportation   and   Delivery    of   Cars,    Passengers   and    Freight,    §§ 

120-123. 

a.  Rule  at   Common   Law,   §   120. 

b.  Power  to  Require,   §   121. 

c.  Construction    of   Requirements,    §    122. 

d.  Excuses  for   Refusal  or  Neglect  to   Perform  Duty.  §   123. 

F.  Moving  or  Switching  Cars  from  a  Connecting  Line,  §   124. 

G.  Facilities  and  Accommodations  to  be  Furnished  by  Railroad  Companies  to  Ex- 

press Companies,  §  125. 
H.  Discrimination  in  Favor  of  One  of  Several   Connecting  Carriers,  §§   126-128. 

a.  Duty  to  Give  Like  Through  Rates  to  All  Connecting  Carriers,  §  126. 

b.  Discrimination  as  to  Interchange  of  Business,  §  127. 

c.  Discrimination  as  to  Prepayment  of  Freight  Charges,  §  128. 
I.  Transfers  between  Street  Railroad  Companies,  §  129. 

XII.  Use  of  Carrier's  Premises  and  of  Street  or  Premises  Adjacent  Thereto,  §§  130-132. 

A.  Exclusion  of  Persons  in   General,  §  130. 

B.  Regulations  for  Conduct  of  Persons,  §  131. 

C.  Rights  of  and  Restrictions  upon  Individuals  or  Corporations  Engaged  in  Trans- 

porting Passengers  or  Baggage,  §   132. 

XIII.  Free  Transportation  to  Police  Officers,  §  133. 

XIV.  Combinations   of  Carriers,   §    134. 

XV.  Proceedings  to  Enforce  or  to  Prevent  Enforcement  of  Regulations,  §§  135-173. 

A.  Right  of  vState  to  Insist  on  Compliance  with    Regulations,  §   135. 

B.  Judicial  Supervision  and   Remedies  in    General,  §§   136-159. 

a.  Scope  of  Judicial  Supervision,  §§  136-137. 

(1)  In   General,    §    136. 

(2)  As  to  Rates,  §  137. 

b.  Right  to   and   Mode   of   Obtaining   Relief,   §§    138-141. 

(1)  In  General,  §  138. 

(2)  Relief  against   Unreasonable    Rates,   §§   139-141. 
(a)   Relief  to  Carrier,  §§  139-140. 

aa.  Rates   Fixed   by    Legislature,   §    139. 
bb.  Rates    Fixed    by    Commission.    §    140. 


TABLE  OF    CONTENTS.  VII 

(h)   Relief  to  Public.  §  141. 

c.  Scope  of  Inquiry,  §  142. 

d.  What  Commission  Orders  Will   Be   Enforced,  §   143. 
€.  Revival  of  Causes  of  Action,  §   144. 

f.   Procedure  and  Evidence,  §§  14.5-159. 

(1)  Procedure  in   General,  §   145. 

(2)  Jurisdiction,   §   14G. 

(3)  Parties,   §§   147-148. 

(a)  By  Whom  Suit  May  Be  Brought,  §  147. 

(b)  Who  Are  Proper  Parties,  §  148. 

(4)  Intervention,  §  149. 

(5)  Pleading,  §§  150-152. 

(a)  Petition,  §   150. 

(b)  Demurrer,   §    151. 

(c)  When  Pleadings  Make  the  Taking  of  Testimony  Unnecessary,  §  152. 

(6)  Evidence,  §   153-157. 

(a)  Presumptions  and   Burden  of  Proof,   §§   153-156. 
aa.  In  General,  §  IS.']. 

bb.  As  to  Rates,  §§   154-155. 

(aa)   Rule  Stated,  §   154. 

(bb)   How   Presumption   May    Be   Overcome,   §    155. 
cc.  In  Proceedings  against  a  Carrier  for  Contempt,  §  156. 

(b)  Admissibility,   §   157. 

(7)  Judgment,   §   158. 

(8)  Procedure  upon  Review  of  Orders  or  Decisions  of  a  Commisssion,  §  159. 
C.   Injunction,  §§  160-173. 

a.  When  and  against  Whom    Injunction  Will   Lie.  §§   160-166. 

(1)  Injunction  against  Action  by  a  State  Commission,  §  160. 

(2)  Injunction  to  Restrain  Wrongful  and   Discriminatory  Acts   by   a   Carrier, 

§  161. 

(3)  Injunction  to  Restrain  a  Carrier  from  Charging  Unlawful  Rates,  §  162. 

(4)  Injunction  to  Compel  Transportation  at  Rate  Fixed  by  Law,  §  163. 

(5)  Injunction   to   Compel   Carrier  to   Furnish   Impartial  Service,   §   164. 

(6)  Injunction    to    Compel    Carrier    to    Stand    Cars    in    Front    of    a    Shipper's 

Property,  §  165. 

(7)  Injunction    to    Restrain    Persons    from    Soliciting    Business    in    or    Near    a 

Railroad  Station,   §   166. 

b.  Procedure  and  Evidence,  §§  167-173. 

(1)  Jurisdiction,    §    1G7. 

(2)  Parties,   §   168. 

(3)  Pleading— Petition.    Complaint,    or    Information.   §    169. 

(4)  Evidence — Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof.  §  170. 

(5)  Reference   to   a   Master,    §    171. 

(6)  Laches,  §   172. 

(7)  Decree,  §  173. 

X\'I.  Damages  for  Violations  of   Regulations,   §§   174-lSO. 

A.  Power  of  Legislature.  §  174. 

B.  When  an  Action  Will  Lie.  §§  175-177. 
a.  In    General,    §    175. 

1).   Failure   to   Stop  at   Station.   §   176. 
c.  Overcharge  or  Discrimination.  §  177. 

C.  Measure  of  Damages,  §  178. 

D.  Limitation  of  Actions,  §  179. 

E.  Petition   or   Complaint.   §   180. 

X\'II.  Penalties  for  \iolations  of  Regulations.  §§   181-275. 


VIII  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

A.  In   General,   §   ISl. 

B.  Overcharge  and  Discrimination,   §§  lS2-19(i. 

a.  Power  to  Impose  Penalty,  §  182. 

b.  Construction  of  Statutes  Imposing  Penalties,  §   183. 

c.  Repeal  of  Statutes   Imposing   Penalties,   §   184. 

d.  Conditions  Precedent  to  Right  of  Action  for  Penalty,  §  185. 

e.  Who  May  Recover  Penalty,  §  186. 

f.  For  What  Acts   Penalty   Is   Imposed,  §   187. 

g.  Unit  of  Measurement  in  Determining  What  Is  an  Overcharge,  §  188. 
h.  Number  of  Penalties  Recoverable,  §  189. 
i.  Amount  of  Penalty,  §   190. 

j.  What   Questions   May   Be   Raised   in  Action   for   Penalty,   §   191. 
k.  Defenses,   §§   192-195. 

(1)  Rates    Charged    No    Higher    than    Those    Fixed    by    Railroad    Commission, 

§    192. 

(2)  Mistake,   §   193. 

(3)  Facts  Not  Constituting  a  Defense,  §  194. 

(4)  Estoppel  to   Set  Up  Defense,   §   195. 

1.  Two   Penalties — Effect  of  Enforcement  of  One,   §   196. 

C.  Refusal  to  Transport   Passengers,   §   197. 

D.  Refusal   to   Sell   Mileage   Tickets   at   Reduced   Rates,   §    198. 

E.  Refusal  to  Furnish  Passenger  Tickets  Granting  Stop-Over  Privileges,  §  199. 

F.  Refusal  to  Give  a  Transfer,  §  200. 

G.  Refusal  to  Sell   Passenger  Tickets  of  a  Connecting  Carrier,  §  201. 

H.  Failure  to  Affix  Check  to  Baggage  and  to  Deliver  Duplicate  to  Passenger,  §  202. 
I.  Refusal  to  Redeem  Unused  Passenger  Tickets,  §  203. 
J.  Failure  to  Post  Schedules  of  Rates,  §  204. 
K.  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Receive  or  Transport  Freight,  §§  205-210. 

a.  Statute   Imposing  Penalty  Does  Not  Limit   Carrier's   Common-Law   Liability, 

§   205. 

b.  Who  May  Recover  Penalty,  §  206. 

c.  When  Penalty  Will  Be  Imposed,  §  207. 

d.  Number   of   Penalties    Recoverable,   §   208. 

e.  Tender  and  Refusal,  §  209. 

f.  Defenses,  §  210. 

L.  Refusal  to   Give  Shipper  a   Proper   Bill   of   Lading,   §   211. 

M.  Delay  in   Shipment   or   Transportation   of   Freight,    §§   212-220. 

a.  Power  to  Impose  Penalty,  §  212. 

b.  Who    May    Recover    Penalty,    §    213. 

c.  In    What    Cases    Penalty    Is    Imposed,    §    214. 

d.  Time  within  Which   Freight  Must  Be  Transported,  §  215. 

e.  When   Transportation   Terminates,   §   216. 
f.  Defenses,   §   217-220. 

(1)  Failure   to   Prepay   Charges,   §  217. 

(2)  Notice   to   Shippers    of   Conditions    Causing   Delay,    §    218. 

(3)  Sunday  Laws,  §  219. 

(4)  Estoppel  to  Set  Up  Defense,  §  220. 

N.  Failure  to  Give  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Freight  to  Consignee,   §  221. 

O.  Refusal  to  Deliver  Freight  or  Express  Matter  to  Consignee,  §§  222-226. 

a.  Constitutionality   of   Statute    Imposing   Penalty,   §   222. 

b.  Statute   Imposing  Penalty  Not  Merely  in  Aid  of  Common  Law,  §  223. 

c.  Where   Delivery   Must   Be   Made,   §   224. 

d.  Conditions   Precedent  to   Recovery   of   Penalty,   §  225. 

e.  Number  of  Penalties   Recoverable,  §  226. 

P.  Failure  of  Consignee  to  Unload   Cars  within   a   Prescribed   Time,   §   227. 


TARLR   OP    CONTENTS.  IX 

O.   Failure  to  Stop  at  Station,  §  228. 

R.  Failure  to   Furnish   or   Delay   in   Furnishing   Cars,   §   229-234. 

a.  Constitutionality  of  Statutes   Imposing  Penalties,  §  229. 

b.  Statutes    Imposing    Penalties    Strictly    Construed.    §    230. 

c.  Powers   and    Duties   of    Railroad    Commissions,    §   231. 

d.  Application  for  Cars,  §  232. 

e.  Places  at  Which  Cars  Must  Be  Furnished,  §  233. 
f.   Defenses,  §  234. 

S.   Failure  to  Pay  or  .A.djust  Claims,  §§  235-247. 

a.  Power  to   Impose   Penalty,  §  235. 

b.  Existence  of  Statutory  Conditions  Essential  to  Imposition  of  Penalty,  §  236. 

c.  Who  May   Recover  Penalty,  §  237. 

d.  Where  and  When  Cause  of  Action  .Arises,  §  238. 

e.  Necessity  of  Filing  Claim,  and  witli  Whom  It  May  Be  Filed,  §  239. 

f.  Sufficiency  of  Claim,  §  240. 

g.  Place  of  Payment  of  Claim,  §  241. 
h.  Who   Is   Liable  for  Penalty,  §  242. 

i.  Immaterial  in  What  Alanner  Loss  Was  Caused,  §  243. 
j.  Amount  of  Penalty,  §  244. 

k.  What  One   Claiming  Penalty  Must  Show,  §  245. 
1.  Defenses,  §§  246-247. 

(1)  Amount  Recoverable  by  Claimant  as  Affecting  Right  to  Penalty,  §  246. 

(2)  Efifect  of  Voluntary  Payment  of  Claim  after  Time  Limited,  §  247. 
T.  Failure  to  Make  Annual  Reports.  §  248. 

U.  Procedure  and  Evidence,  §§  249-275. 

a.  Venue,  §  249. 

b.  Time  within  W'hich  Action  Must  Be  Brought,  §  250. 

c.  Parties— By  Wliom  .'\ction  May  Be  Brought,  §  251. 

d.  Pleading,    §§    252-263. 

(1)  Declaration,   Petition,  or   Complaint,   §§  252-259. 

(a)  In  General,  §  252. 

(b)  Necessary  Allegations,  §§  253-258. 

aa.   In    Actions    for    Penalty    for    Overcharge,    §§    25:'-254. 
(aa)   Overcharge  in    Passenger   Rates,   §   253. 
(bb)   Overcharge  in  Freight  Rates,  §  254. 
bb.   In    actions    for    Penalty   for   Unjust    Discrimination    between    Shippers, 

§  255. 
cc.   In   Actions   for   Penalty   for   Refusal   to    Receive   or   Transport    Freight. 

§   256. 
dd.   In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight,  §  257. 
ee.  In   Actions   for   Penalty   for   Failure   to    Furnish    Double    Decked    Cars 
for  Sheep,  §  258.  •» 

(c)  Unnecessary   Allegations   May   Be   Rejected   as   Surplusage,   §   259. 

(2)  Answer— Sufficiency.  §§  260-263. 

(a)  In   Actions   for   Penalty   for   Overcharge,   §   260. 

(b)  In  Actions   for  Penalty  for  Unlawful  Discrimination   in   Rates.  §  261. 

(c)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight.  §  262. 

(d)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Furnish   Cars.  §  163. 

e.  Evidence.  §  264-272. 

(1)   Presumptions   and   Burden   of   Proof,   §§   264-267. 
(a)    In   Actions   for   Penalty   for   Overcharge.   §   264. 
(h)   In  .\ctions  for  Penalty  for  Discrimination  in   Rates,  §  265. 

(c)  In  Actions  for   Penalty   for   Failure  to   Receive  and   Transport   Freight, 

§  266. 

(d)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight.  §  267. 


X  TABLi;   OF    CONTEXTS. 

(2)  Admissibility,   §   26S-271. 

(a)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Overcharge,  §  268. 

(b)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Discrimination  in  Rates,   §  269. 

(c)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight,  §  270. 

(d)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Furnish   Cars,  §  271. 

(3)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  §  272. 

f.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact,  §§  273-274. 

(1)  In  Actions   for  Penalty  for   Discrimination   in   Freight   Rates,   §   273. 

(2)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight,  §  274. 

g.  Instructions,   §  275. 

XVIII.  Offenses  by  Carriers  or  Their  Agents,  §§  276-292. 

A.  In   General,  §  276. 

B.  Overcharge   or   Discrimination,   §   277. 

C.  Carrying  More  than  a  Prescribed  Number  of  Passengers,  §  278. 

D.  Failure  to  Deliver  Express   Matter  to  Consignee,  §  279. 

E.  Negligence  Causing  Death  or   Injury,  §§  280-282. 

a.  In  General,  §  280. 

b.  Who  May  Be  Prosecuted,  §  281. 

c.  Defenses,  §  282. 

F.  Indictment,   §§  283-286. 

a.  Conditions  Precedent  to  Indictment,  §  283. 

b.  Necessary  Allegations,  §  284. 

c.  Effect  of  Unnecessary  Allegations,  §  285. 

d.  Offenses  Covered  by  Indictment,  §  286. 

G.  Trial,    §§    287-292. 

a.  Jurisdiction,   §   287. 

b.  Evidence,   §§   288-290. 

(1)  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  288. 

(2)  Admissibility,   §  289. 

(3)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  §  290. 

c.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact,  §  291. 

d.  Charge,  §  292. 

XIX.  Offenses    by    Persons    Dealing   with    Carriers    or    LTsing   Their    Conveyances,    §§ 

293-298. 

A.  In  General,  §  293. 

B.  Sale  of  Passenger  Tickets  by  Brokers,  §  294. 

C.  Acceptance  and  Use  of  a  Pass,  §  295. 

D.  Stealing  or  Attempting  to  Steal  a  Ride  on  Railroad  Trains,  §  296. 

E.  Obstructing  Train  and    Endangering  Safety  of   Passengers,   §   297. 

F.  Indictment,   Accusation,   or   Complaint,   §   298. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Rules  and  Regulations  of  Carriers. 

I.  Scope  of  Treatment,  §  299. 
II.  Carriers  of  Goods,  §§  300-306. 

A.  General  Statement,  §  300. 

B.  Particular  Rules  and  Regulations,  §  301. 

C.  Changing  or  Modifying,  §  302. 

D.  Operation  and  Effect  as  to  Carrier,  §  303. 

E.  Duty  of  Agents  to  Enforce,  §  304. 

F.  Waiver  of  Regulations,  §  305. 

G.  Proof  of  Regulations,   §   306. 


TAHLK   OP    COXTliXTS.  XI 

III.  Carriers  of  Passengers,  §§   307-332. 

A.  Right   to   Make  and   Enforce   Rules  and   Regulations,   §§   307-318. 

a.  In   General,  §§   307-311. 

(1)  General  Rule.  §  307. 

(2)  Soliciting  Business  in  Cars,  §  308. 

(3)  Use  of  Station  Premises  by  Local  Carriers  and  Others,  §  309. 

(4)  Tickets  and  Fares,  §  310. 

(5)  Enforcement  of  Rules  and  Regulations,  §  311. 

b.  Must  Be  Reasonable,  §  312. 

c.  Must  Not  Be  Contrary  to  Law,  §  313. 

d.  Must    Not    Discriminate,    §   314. 

e.  Their  Reasonableness  as  Question  of  Law,  §  315. 

f.  Their  Reasonableness  as   Mixed   Question  of  Law  and   Fact,   §   31G. 

g.  Their    Reasonableness    Question   for   Jury,   §   317. 
h.  Their  Sufficiency  Is  Question  for  Jury,  §  318. 

B.  Notice  of  Rules  and  Regulations,  §§  319-323. 

a.  Passenger's   Contract  Rights   Not  Affected  by  Rules  of  Which   He  Was   Not 

Cheargeable  with  Notice,  §  319. 

b.  Duty  of  Passenger  to  Inform  Himself  of  Existence  of  Rules,  §  320. 

c.  Sufficiency  of  Publication  or  Notice,  §  321. 

d.  Bound  by  Rules  of  Which  He  Was  in  Ignorance,  §  322. 

e.  Rules  for  Conduct  of  Carrier's  Employees,  §  323. 

C.  Enforcement  of  Rules  and  Regulations,   §§  324-326. 

a.  Enforcement   Must   Be   Reasonable,   §   324. 

b.  Ejection  of  Passengers,  §  325. 

c.  Enforcement  l)y  Punishing  Prior  Breach,  §  326. 

D.  Waiver   of  Rules   and   Regulations,   §§   327-328. 

a.  Habitual   Failure  to  Enforce,  §  327. 

b.  Passenger's   Duty   to   Conform  to   Rules  as   Affected   Ijy   Lack   of    Fidelity   in 

Enforcing,  §  328. 

E.  Contributory  Negligence  of  Passenger  in  Note  Conforming  to  Rules  and  Reg- 

ulations,  §   329. 

F.  Carrier   Bound   by   Its   Own   Rules.   §§   330-332. 

a.  In  General,  §  330. 

b.  Rules  Not  Required  by  Law,  §  331. 

c.  Rules  Requiring  More  of  Carrier  than   Law.  §  332. 


PART  II 
CARRIERS  OF  GOODS 


CHAPTER  I\'. 

Duty  to  Ri-:ceivi-:  and  Carry. 

I.  General  Statement  and  Explanation  of  Rule,  §  333. 
II.  Duty  to  Furnish  Shipping  Facilities  and  Means  of  Transportation,  §§  334-341. 

A.  In  General,  §  334. 

B.  Notice  to  Carrier,  §§  335-338. 

a.  Time  of  Notice,   §  335. 


XII  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

b.  Requisites  and  Sufficiency  of  Demand.   §  336. 

c.  To  Whom  Given,  §  337. 

d.  Specifying  Condition  and  Danger  of  Goods,  §  338. 

C.  Place  of  Furnishing  Cars,  §  339. 

D.  Goods  Ready  for  Shipment,  §  340. 

E.  Adequacy  of  Facilities,  §  341. 
III.  Discrimination.   §§   342-355. 

A.  Right  to  Discriminate  Generally,  §  342. 

B.  Discrimination   in   Facilities   and   Cars,   §§   343-348. 

a.  In   General.  §  343. 

b.  Discrimination  in   Favor  of  One  of  Several   Connecting  Carriers,  §  344. 

c.  Preference   in    Delivery    and    Distribution    of    Cars.    §    345. 

d.  With   Respect  to  Use  of  Tracks,  §§  346-347. 
(1)    In   General.   §  346. 

(3)   With   Respect  to  Spur  Tracks.   Switches  and   Belt  Lines.  §  347. 

e.  Discrimination   in   Switch   and   Trackage   Charges,   §   348. 

C.  Preference  to  Shipper  in  Order  of  Forwarding  Goods,  §§  349-350. 

a.  In   General,   §  349. 

b.  Booking  Freight,  §  350. 

D.  Remedies   for   Discrimination,   §§   351-355. 

a.  Form   of  Action,   §§  351-353. 

(1)  Injunction   and   Mandamus,  §  351. 

(2)  Quo    Warranto.    §    352. 

(3)  Action  at  Law.  §  353. 

b.  Evidence,   §   354. 

c.  Damages,   §   355. 

IV.  Tender  and   Refusal.   §§   356-359. 

A.  In   General,  §  356. 

B.  Authority   to  Tender,   §   357. 

C.  Authority   to   Receive   Freight  and   Make   Contracts,   §   358. 

D.  Place  and  Time  of  Offer  for  Transportation.   §  359. 
V.  Payment  or  Tender  of  Charges.  §  360. 

\'I.  Time  and  Order  of  Shipment.  §  361. 
\'II.  Character  of  Goods  Tendered  for  Shipment,  §  362. 
\III.  Condition   and   Prepartion  of   Goods   Tendered,   §   363. 
IX.  Private    Owned   Trains   or    Cars,   §    364. 

X.  Shipment  C.  O.   D.,  §  365. 
XI.  E.xceptional  Causes  Justifying  Failure  or  Refusal.  §§  366-374. 

A.  General   Statement,  §  366. 

B.  Absence  of  Requisite  Conveniences  or  Capacity,  §  367. 

C.  Unusual  Press  of  Business,  §§  368-371. 

a.  In  General,  §  368. 

b.  Discrimination  or  Granting  Privileges,  §  369. 

c.  Duty  to   Advise   Shipper   of   Delay,   §   370. 

d.  Carriers  "Embargo,"  §  371. 

D.  Causes  beyond   Carrier's   Control,   §   372. 

E.  Failure  of  Shipper  to  Insure,  §  373. 

F.  Customs  and  Habits  of  Dealing.  §  374. 

XII.  Right  to  Discontinue   Service  to  Shipper,  §  375. 

XIII.  Destination  of  Goods  as  Affecting  Duty,  §  376. 

XIV.  Duty  as  to  Express  Companies,  §  377. 
XV.   Enforcement    of    Duty.    §§    378-379. 

A.  By    Injunction,   §   378. 

B.  By   Mandamus,    §   379. 
XVI.  Action  for  Refusal,  §§  380-382. 


TAIiLK   OF    COXTKXTS.  XIII 


A.  Right  of  Action,  §  380. 

B.  Procedure,    §    381. 

C.  Damages,   §   382. 

X\'II.  I'cnaltiis   Inr   Wr(jii-l'ul    Refusal,   §   383. 


chai"i'i:r  \'. 

Wlfl'.X    LlAlWI.lTV    Co.MMKNCES. 

I.   In   General,  §  384. 
II.   Necessity  for  and   Effect  of  Delivery  and  Acceptance,  §  385. 

III.  What   Constitutes   Delivery   and   Acceptance,   §§  38G-407. 

A.  In  General,  §  386. 

B.  Ordinary   Course   of   Business   as    Common    Carrier,   §    387. 

C.  Place  and  Time  of  Delivery,  §  388. 

D.  Notice    of    Deposit    and    Acceptance,    §§    389-392. 

a.  In   General,   §   389. 

b.  Actual  and  Contructive   Notice  and  Acceptance,  §§   390-392. 

(1)  In    General,   §   390. 

(2)  Constructive    Notice   and   Acceptance — Custom   or  Agreement,   §   391. 

(3)  Goods   Loaded    on    Cars.   §   392. 

E.  Authority  of  Agent  to   Receive   Goods,   §§   393-398. 
a.   In   General,   §  393. 

h.  Officers  and  Agents  in   General,  §  394. 

c.  Authority  of  Third  Persons — Special  Agents,  §§  395-397. 

(1)  In    General,    §    395. 

(2)  Delivery  to   Lighterman  to   Be   Carried  to  Ship.   §   396. 

(3)  Delivery  of  Cotton  to  Compress   Company,   §   397. 

d.  Proof   of   Authority,    §    398. 

F.  Complete   Delivery   for   Immediate   Sliipmcnt.   §§  399-406. 

a.  In    General,    §    399. 

b.  Exclusive    Possession    and    Control,    §    400. 

c.  Delivery    for    Immediate    Sliipment   or   Storage,    §§   401-406. 

(1)  In    General,  §   401. 

(2)  Something  to   Be   Done   Prior  to   Transportation,   §§   402-40(). 

(a)  In    General.   §   402. 

(b)  Absence   of   Directions   as   to   Sliipment.   §    403. 

(c)  Payment   of   Charges,    §   404. 

(d)  Deposit   Subject   to   Shipper's    Order,    §   405. 

(e)  Necessity  for  Loading  on   Cars,   §  406. 

G.  Necessity  for  and  Effect  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  407. 

IV.  Evidence  of  Delivery,  §§  408-411. 

A.  Presumptions   and    Burden    of    Proof,   §    408. 

B.  Admissibility   of   Evidence   to   Show   Delivery.   §   409. 

C.  Sufficiency  of   Evidence  of  Delivery,   §§   410-411. 
a.  In    General,    §    410. 

I).  Bill  of  Lading  or  Receipt  as  Evidence,  §  411. 
\'.  Question  of  Law  or  Fact,  §  412. 


XIV  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Bills  of  Lading. 

I.   Definition  and  Nature  Generally.  §  413. 
II.  Form  and  Contents,  §§  414-424. 

A.  In  General,  §  414. 

B.  Writing,   §   415. 

C.  Signature,   §   416. 

D.  Name  of  Consignee,  §  417. 

E.  Statement    of   \'alue   of    Goods.    §    418. 

F.  Notations   and   Marginal   Memoranda,   §   419. 

G.  The  Law,   §  420. 

H.  Published  Tariffs,   §  421. 
I.  Expense  Account  of   Carrier,   §  422. 
J.  Recitals  of  Fact,  §  423. 

K.  Special  Conditions  and   Limitations,   §  424. 
III.  Issuance    and    Acceptance,    §§    425-450. 

A.  Necessity   for   Issuance,   §   425. 

B.  Authority   to   Issue,   §§   426-442. 

a.  Agents   and    Employees,   §§   426-428. 

(1)  Agents   and    Employees  Who   May   Issue,   §§   426-427. 

(a)  Master  of  Vessel  and  Other   Employees,   §   426. 

(b)  Agents    and    Employees    of   Railroads,    §   427. 

(2)  Proof  or   Estoppel  to   Deny  Authority  of  Agent,  §  428. 

b.  Receipt  of  Goods  as  Prerequisite  to   Issuance,   §§  429-442. 

(1)  Necessity,    §§   429-438. 

(a)  In    General,    §    429. 

(b)  Authority    of    Agents    or    Employees,    §    430. 

(c)  As  against   Bona  Fide   Consignee  or  Transferee,   §§  431-437. 
aa.  Doctrine    Prevailing   in    Most   Jurisdictions,    §    431. 

bb.  Doctrine  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Certain  Other  States,  §  432. 
cc.  Conflict  of  Laws,  §  433. 

dd.  Effect  of   Custom   or   Course   of   Business,   §   434. 
ee.   Negligence    of    Carrier,    §    435. 
f¥.  Fraudulent  Bills  of  Lading,  §  436. 
gg.  Effect   of   State    Statutes,    §    437. 

(d)  Due    Bills    Promising   to    Issue    a    Bill    of   Lading,   §    438. 

(2)  Subsequent   Delivery   to    Carrier   as   Validating   Bill,    §§    439-442. 

(a)  In    General,    §    439. 

(b)  Where  Statute  Prohibits   Issuance  before   Receipt  of  Goods,   §  440. 

(3)  Presumption  as  to  Receipt   of  Goods,   §   441. 

(4)  Proof   of   Nonreceipt   of    Goods,   §    442. 

C.  Duty  to   Issue,   §  443. 

D.  Issuance    in    Duplicate,    §    444. 

E.  Acceptance    and    Assent    to    Provisions,    §§    445-450. 

a.  In    General,   §   445. 

b.  Assent    to    and    Acceptance    by    Consignor,    §§    446-450. 

(1)  Effect   of   Acceptance,    §   446. 

(2)  Presumptions  of  Absent  from  Acceptance,   §§  447-450. 

(a)  In    General,    §    447. 

(b)  Rebuttal   of  Presumption,   §§  448-450. 

aa.  Failure  of  Shipper  to   Sign   Bill,  §  448. 

bb.  Failure   to    Read   or    Examine    Bill,    §§   449-450. 

(aa)   In   General,   §  449. 

(bb)   Bill    Received    after    Goods    Shipped,    §    450. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS.  XV 

IV.  Validity.    §§    451-454. 

A.  Fraud   or  Mistake,  §  451. 

B.  Forfc'ery,   §   452. 

C.  No    Goods   Delivered   to    Carrier,    §   45:j. 

D.  Partial    Invalidity,    §    454. 

V.  Construction,    Operation    and    ICffect,    §§    455-513 

A.  General    Rules    of    Construction,    §    455. 

B.  Construction   of   Words   and    Phrases,    §   456. 

C.  Notice   of    Contents,    §   457. 

D.  Blanks   and   Unintelligible    Characters,   §    458. 
H.  Conditions  on  Back  of  Bill,  §  459. 

F.  Usage  and   Custom,   §  460. 

G.  Conflict  of   Laws,   §  461. 
H.  Foreign   Laws,   §   462. 

I.  Fraudulent  Bills  of  Lading.  §  463. 

J.  Partial    Invalidity,    §   464. 

K.  When   Bill   of  Lading  Part   of  Contract,   §   465. 

L.  Dual    Character   as    Contract    and    as    Receipt,    §§    466-479. 

a.  In   General,   §   466. 

b.  As    Contract    Generally,    §   467. 

c.  As   a    Receipt    in    General,    §    468. 

d.  Parol   Evidence  to  Vary  or  Contradict   Bill,  §§  469-479. 

(1)  As    a    Contract,    §§    469-470. 

(a)  Between    the    Parties,    §    469. 

(b)  Between    Consignor   and    Consignee,    §    470. 

(2)  Merger   of    Oral    Negotiations    and    Prior   Verbal    Agreements,    §    471. 

(3)  To   Explain  Ambiguities  and   Technical   Terms.   §   472. 

(4)  Parol  Evidence  to  Alter  or  Contradict  Receipt  Clauses  of  Bill.  §§  473-476. 

(a)  In    General,    §    473. 

(b)  Recital    of    Fact    of    Receipt    and    Quantity    of    Goods,    §    474. 

(c)  Recital   as   to    Quality   or   Condition   of   Goods.   §   475. 

(d)  Recital  as   to   Ownership  of  Goods,  §  476. 

(5)  Recitals   as   to    Rate   and    Receipt   of    Freight,    §    477. 

(6)  Destination    or   Place   of   Delivery,   §   478. 

(7)  Terminus   of   Road,   §   479. 

M.  As    Contract   of   Carriage,   §§   480-481. 

a.  As  Imposing  Liability  of  Common  Carrier,  §  480. 

b.  As   Contracts  to   Carry  Specified  Thing,   §  481. 

N.  As   Evidence   of   Fact   and   Time   of   Receipt   and    .Acceptance   of    Shipment,   §§ 
482-483. 

A.  As    Evidence    of   Fact   of    Receipt    and    .Acceptance    of    Shipment,    §    482. 

b.  Time  of  Receipt  of  Shipment,  §  483. 
O.  Destination    or   Place   of   Delivery,    §   484. 
P.  Person  to  Whom  Delivery  Authorized.  §§  485-487. 

a.  In    General,    §    485. 

b.  Open   and    Closed    Shipments,   §   486. 

c.  Direction   to   Notify  a   Named   Person.    §   487. 

Q.  As    Warranty    or    Evidence    of    Quantity,    Quality    or    Condition    of    Goods.    §§ 
488-494. 

a.  Effect   as   Warranty   of   Quantity,   etc..    §§   488-491. 

(1)  In   General,   §   488. 

(2)  Recital  That  Contents  L'nknown.  §  489. 

(3)  Recital    That    Goods    in    "Good    Order."    etc..    §    490. 

(4)  Recital   That   "Contents  L^nknown  and   in   Apparent   Good   Order."   §   491. 

b.  As   Evidence  of   Quantity.   Quality  or  Condition   of   Goods,   §§  492-494. 


XVI  TABLE   OF   CONTKNTS. 

(1)  As    Evidence    of    Quality    or    Condition    of    Goods,    §    492. 

(2)  As    Evidence   of    Quantity   or   Weight    of    Goods,    §§   493-494. 

(a)  In    General,    §   493. 

(b)  Bill    Made    Exclusive    Evidence    of    Quantity    l)y    Agreement,    §    494. 
R.  Effect   of   Understanding   Quantity,   §   495. 

S.  As    Evidence    or   Warranty    of   Title    or    Ownership,    §§    496-498. 

a.  In  General,  §  496. 

b.  As   Warranty    of   Title    of    Shipper,    §    497. 

c.  Shipment    Fraudulently    Procured   by   Person    Not   Owner   of   Goods,   §   498. 
T.   Effect  as   \'esting   Property   in    Consignee,    §§   499-510. 

a.  When    Property    Vests    in    Consignee,    §§   499-503. 

(1)  In    General,    §    499. 

(2)  Stoppage    in    Transitu,    §    500. 

(3)  Consignment    to    Enemy    or    Neutral,    §    501. 

(4)  Consignee    Making    Advances    on    Faith    of    Bill,    §    502. 

(5)  Removal    of    Goods    by    Unauthorized    Person,    §    503. 

b.  When    Property   Does    Not   Vest   in    Consignee,    §§    504-510. 

(1)  In    General,    §    504. 

(2)  Bill    Not    Delivered    to    Consignee,    §    505. 

(3)  Consignment    to    Be    Sold    on    Commission,    §    506. 

(4)  Goods   Billed  to  Shipper's   Order,   §§   507-508. 

(a)  In   General,   §   507. 

(b)  Bill  with  Draft  Attached  to  Be  Delivered  to  Purchaser  of  Goods,  §  508. 

(5)  Bill    to    Another    than    Purchaser,    §    509. 

(6)  Bill   to  A.   for  Use   of   B.,   §   510. 
U.  Stipulations  as  to  Value,   §   511. 

V.  Freight   and    Demurrage,   §    512. 
W.  As    Evidence   of   Carrier's   Liability  as  Warehouseman,   §   513. 
VI.  Transfer,    §§    514-589. 

A.  Negotiability,    §§    514-518. 

a.  General    Rule,    §    514. 

b.  Distinguished    from    Commercial    Paper,    §    515. 

c.  Effect   of   Statutes   Making   Bills   of   Lading  Negotiable,   §    516. 

d.  Bills    Marked    "Not    Negotiable,"    §    517. 

e.  When    Carrier    Incurs    Liability    of   Warehousemen,    §    518. 

B.  Transferability    or   Assignability,    §    519. 

C.  Mode    of   Transfer,    §§    520-536. 

a.  In    General,   §   520. 

b.  Delivery   of    Bill,    §§    521-531. 

(1)  In    General,    §   521. 

(2)  Intention    to    Pass   Title,    §    522. 

(3)  Necessity    for    Acceptance    of    Possession,    §    523. 

(4)  Possession  of  Bill  of  Lading  as  Evidence  of  Title  in  Holder,  §§  524-525. 

(a)  In    General,    §    524. 

(b)  Rebuttal    of    Presumption,    §    525. 

(5)  Exception    in    Favor   of   Stoppage   in   Transitu,   §   526. 

(6)  Right   of   Disposal    Retained   by    Consignor,   §§    527-528. 
aa.  In    General,   §   527. 

bb.   Consignor    Indebted    to    Consignee,    §    528. 

(7)  Necessity  for  Indorsement  to  Enable  Holder  to  Sue,  §  529. 

(8)  Necessity   for    Shipper's    Order,    §    530. 

(9)  Bill    of    Lading    Signed    in    Blank,    §    531. 

c.  Transfer    by    Indorsement    and    Delivery,    §§    532-534. 

(1)  In    General,    §    532. 

(2)  Necessity    and    Sufticiency    of    Indorsement    or    Assignment,    §    533. 


TAUKl-:    (Jl-     COXTKXTS.  XVII 

CA)    Necessity   for   Delivery   of   Bill,   §   y.ii. 

d.  Sale  or  Payment  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached,  §  535. 

e.  Attachment  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  oifti. 

D.  Persons   Who   Make  Transfer,   §§   5:J7-5;}y. 
a.  In  General,  §  537. 

\).  Consignee,   §   538. 

c.  Consignor  or  Agent,  §  539. 

E.  Consideration,   §   540. 

F.  KfTect  of  Transfer,  §§  5U-57(i. 
a.   In  General,  §  541. 

1).  As  Transfer  of  Contract  between  Consignor  and  Consignee,  §  542. 

c.  Operation  as  Constructive   Delivery  of  Goods,  §   543. 

d.  Rights  and  Title  of   Holder  Generally,  §§  544-570. 

(1)  In   General,  §  544. 

(2)  No  Goods  Delivered  to  Carrier,  §§  545-54(). 
(a)    In  General,  §  545. 

(1))   Title  to  Goods   Not  Shipped  or   Included   in   liill,   §   540. 

(3)  Goods  Shipped  Without  Authority  of  Owner,  §  547. 

(4)  .\ssignment  Made  After  Arrival  of  Goods,  §  548. 

(5)  Bona  Fide   Holders,   §§   549-552. 

(a)  General  Rule,  §  549. 

(b)  EfTect  of  Statutes  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Negotiable.  §  5.50. 

(c)  Estoppel    of    Carrier   to    Deny    Conditions    and    Representations    in    Bill, 

§  551. 

(d)  Duplicate  or  Triplicate   Bill,  §  552. 

(0)  Holder  with   Knowledge  of  Defects  in  Transferrer's  Title,  §  553. 

(7)  Holder  of  Lost  or  Stolon   Bill  of  Lading,  §  554. 

(8)  Holder  of  Forged  Bill  of  Lading,  §  555. 

(9)  Rights   and   Liabilities  as   to   Carriers,   §§   550-505. 

(a)  As  to  Delivery  of  Goods,  §§  556-502. 
aa.  Duty  to  Deliver  to  Transferee,  §  556. 

bb.  Production  and  Cancellation  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  557. 

cc.  Payment  of  Freight  and  Charges  as  Condition  Precedent,  §  558. 

dd.   Demand  of  Delivery,  §  559. 

ee.   Lial)ility  for  Misdelivery  or  Delay,  §  500. 

ff.  Waiver  or  Rights  to  Indorsement  of  Bill,  §  501. 

gg.   Duplicate  and   Triplicate   Bills,  §   502. 

(b)  Efifect  of  Custom  of  Carrier,  §  503. 

(c)  Explanation  of  Alteration  in  Bill,  §  564. 

(d)  Liability  for  Freight  and  Demurrage,  §  505. 

(10)  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Consignor,  §§  506-568. 

(a)  In  General,  §  500. 

(b)  As  Defeating  Stoppage  in  Transitu,  §  567. 
(,c)   Liability  for  Price  of  Goods.  §  568. 

(11)  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Consignee,  §§  509-571. 

(a)  In  General,  §  569. 

(b)  Claim  for  Advances  to  Consignor,  §  570. 

(c)  Liability  to  Consignee  on  Contract  of  Consignor,  §  571. 

(12)  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Third  Persons,  §§  572-576. 

(a)  Claims  of  Third  Person  against  Transferrers.  §  572. 

(b)  Against  Vendor  of  Consignor,  §  573. 

(c)  Against  Subsequent  Purchaser  of  Goods,  §  574. 

(d)  Subsequent  Liens,  §§  575-570. 
aa.  In  General,  §  575. 

bb.   Subsequent  .\ttachments,  §  570. 
G.   I'lodgc,  Mortgage  or  Collateral  Security,  §  577. 

1   Car— h 


XVIII  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

H.   Purchase   or   Discount   of   Draft   with   Bill   of   Lading  Attached,   §§   578-587. 

a.  Recording  Papers,  §  578. 

b.  Rights  and  Title  of  Purchaser,  §§  579-584. 

(1)  As  to  Consignor  and  Consignee,  §§  579-582. 

(a)  In  General,  §  579. 

(b)  Notice  That  Payment  to  Drawer  Unauthorized,  §  580. 

(c)  Drawer  Indebted  to  Drawee  or  Consignee,  §  581. 

(d)  Right  to  Sue  for  Purchase  Price  or  for  Conversion  of  Goods,  §  582. 

(2)  Rights  against  Carrier,  §  583. 

(3)  Rights  against  Third  Persons,  §  584. 

c.  Liability  of  Purchaser  for  Shortage  or  Inferiority  of  Shipment,  §  585. 

d.  Effect  of  Consignee's  Accepting  and  Paying  Draft,  §  586. 

e.  Charging  Unpaid  Draft  to  Drawer's  Account,  §  587. 

I.  Deposit  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached  for  Collection,  §  588. 
J.  Duplicate  and  Triplicate  Bills,  ?^  589. 

VII.   Effect  As  Binding  Intermediate  and  Terminal  Carrier,  §  590. 

VIII.  Modification  or  Rescission,  §  59L 

IX.  Surrender,   Discharge  or  Release,  §  592. 

X.  Actions.   §§  593-002. 

A.  Rights  of  Action  and  Defenses,  §  593. 

B.  Parties,  §§  594-595. 

a.  Plaintiffs,  §  594. 

b.  Defendants,  §  595. 

C.  Pleading,  §§  596-597. 

a.  Bill,  Petition,  or  Complaint,  §  596. 

b.  Answer,  §  597. 

D.  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading  or  Proof  of  Contents,  §  598. 

E.  Proof  of  Execution  of  Bill,  §  599. 

F.  Province  of  Court,  §  600. 

G.  Instructions,  §  601. 

H.  Directing  Verdict,  §  602. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
Shipping  Receipts. 

I.   Issuance,  Form  and   Requisites,  §  603. 
II.  Construction  and  Operation,  §§  604-617. 

A.  As  Contract  of  Parties,  §§  604-607. 

a.  In  General,  §  604. 

b.  Effect  of  Acceptance,  §  605. 

c.  Receipt  Filled  Out  by  Shipper,  §  606. 

d.  Conditions  on  Back,  §  607. 

B.  As  Contract  of  Bailment  or  Mere  Receipt  for  Goods,  §  608. 

C.  As  to  Initial  or  Connecting  Carrier,   §   609. 

D.  As  Agreement  to  Carry  to  Destination,  §  610. 

E.  As  to  Rate  of  Freight,  §  611. 

F.  Effect  of  Recitals  as  to  Receipt,  and  Quantity  of  Goods,  §  612. 

G.  Effect  of  Admission  That  Goods  in  "Good  Order,"  §  613. 
H.  Reference  to  Bill  of  Lading  to  Be  Thereafter  Issued,  §  614. 
I.  Effect  Where  Bill  of  Lading  Subsequently  Issued,  §  615. 

J.  Receipt  Accepted  after  Shipment  Received,  §  616. 

K.  Parol  Evidence  to  Alter,  Explain  or  Contradict,  §  617. 


TAIJIvK    OF    CONTENTS.  XIX 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Si'F.CIAL   C0NTR.\CTS. 

I.  Contracts  for  Transportation  of  Goods,  §§  618-711. 

A.  Power  to  Contract,  §§  618-621. 

a.  Power  to  Contract  as  Private  Carrier,  §  (318. 

b.  Power  to  Contract  Jointly  or  Severally,  §  CIO. 

c.  Power  to  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Terminus,  §  020. 

d.  Contracts  with  Connecting  Carrier,  §  G21. 

B.  Authority  to  Make  Contract,  §§  622-637. 

a.  Agents  of  Road,  §§  622-634. 

(1)  In  General,  §  622. 

(2)  Local  or  Station  Agent,  §§  623-631. 

(a)  Business  at  His  Own  Station,  §§  623-624. 
aa.  In  General,  §  623. 

bb.  Presumption  as  to  and  Proof  of  Want  of  Authority,  §  624. 

(b)  As  to  Station  Other  than  His  Own,  §  625. 

(c)  Shipments  to  His  Station  from  Another,  §  626. 

(d)  Respecting  Trains  in  Which  Shipment  to  Be  Made,  §  627. 

(e)  Point  Where  Railroad  Has  No  Oiifice  or  Agent,  §  628. 

(f)  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Carrier's  Own  Line,  §  629. 

(g)  Not  to  Deliver  without  Surrender  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  630. 
(h)   Notice  of  Special  Damages,  §  631. 

(3)  Traveling  Freight  Agent,  632. 

(4)  Live  Stock  Agent,  §  633. 
{'))   Express  Drivers,  §  634. 

b.  Receiver  of  Road,  §  635. 

c.  Power  of  Consignor  to  Bind  Consignee,  §  636. 

d.  Agent  of  Owner  or  Shipper,  §  637. 

C.  Form,  Requisites,  and  Validity,  §§  638-656. 

a.  In  General,  §  638. 

b.  Consideration,  §  639. 

c.  Ofifer  and  Acceptance — What  Constitutes  Contract,  §  640. 

d.  Mutuality  and  Meeting  of  Minds,  §  641. 

e.  Writing — Validity  of  Verbal  Contract,  §§  642-643. 

(1)  In  General,  §  642. 

(2)  Authority  of  Agent,  §  643. 

f.  Failure  or  Inability  of  Shipper  to  Read  Contract,  §  644. 

g.  Signing,  §  645. 
h.   Fraud,  §  646. 

i.  Mistake,  §§  647-648. 

(1)  As  to  Rate,  §  647. 

(2)  Misclassification  of  Goods,  §  648. 
j.  Discrimination  and  Overcharge,  §  649. 

k.  Necessity  for  Actual  Receipt  of  Goods,  §  650. 
1.   Effect  of  Partial  Invalidity,  §  651. 

m.  Conformity    to    Rates,    Rules    and    Classification    of   State    Corporation    Com- 
mission, §  652. 
n.  Evidence  as  to  Contract,  §  653-656. 

(1)  Parol  Evidence,  §  653. 

(2)  Bill  of  Lading  or  Receipt,  §§  654-655. 

(a)  In  General,  §  654. 

(b)  Whole  Document  in  Evidence,  §  655. 

(3)  Freight  Account  or  Bill,  §  656. 


XX  TAliLl-:    OF    CONTKNTS. 

D.  Construction,  Operation  and  Effect,  §§  (iST-GS!). 

a.  In  General,  §  l3oT. 

b.  Rules  of  Construction.  §  (Jo8-663. 
(1)   In  General,  §  GoS. 

(^2)   Practical  Construction  Given  by  Parties,  §  659. 

(3)  Separable  or  Entire  Contract,  §  6G0. 

(4)  Alternative  Conditions,  §  GGl. 

(5)  Contracts   Partly   Written   and   Partly    Printed,   §   G62. 

(6)  Clerical  Ei-rors,  §  GG3. 

c.  Laws  Governing,  §  GG4. 

d.  Course  of  Dealing,  Usage  and  Custom,  §  665. 

e.  Persons  Bound,  §  666. 

f.  Persons   Entitled  to  Benefit,  §  GGT. 

g.  When  Liability  Accrues,  §  668. 

h.  Duties  and  Obligations  of  Carrier  and  Shipper,  §  669-687. 

(1)  Obligation  as  Fixed  by  Law^,  §  669. 

(2)  Special  Contract  as  Superseding  Common-Law  Liability,  §  670. 

(3)  Effect  of  Acceptance  of  Rate  Offered.  §  671. 

(4)  Obligation   of   Carrier   to   Receive,   Transport   and    Deliver,   §§   G72-675. 

(a)  In  General,  §  672. 

(b)  Continuing  Offer  to  Carry,  §  673. 

(c)  Goods  to  Be  Carried  beyond  Terminus  of  Carrier's  Line,    §  674. 

(d)  Transportation  "at   Owner's   Risk,"  §  675. 

(5)  Obligation  of  Shipper  to  Furnish  Freight,  §  676. 

(6)  Point  Where  Goods  to  Be  Received,  §  677. 

(7)  Destination,  §  678. 

(8)  Property  Concerning  Which   Parties  Negotiating,  §  679. 

(9)  Quantity  to  Be  Shipped  or  Carried,  §  680. 

(10)  Option   as   to   Mode   of   Shipment,   §   681. 

(11)  Route,  §  682. 

(12)  Stop-Over  Privilege,  §  683. 

(13)  Loading  and  Unloading,  §  684. 

(14)  Time  of  Delivery  to  Carrier,  §  685. 

(15)  Time  to  Be  Consumed  in  Transportation,  §  686. 

(16)  Agreements  for  Liquidated   Damages,  §   687. 
i.  Liability  as  Bailee,  §  688. 

j.  Liability  as  Warehouseman,  §  689. 

E.  Transfer  or  Assignment,  §  690. 

F.  Performance  or  Breach,  §§  691-710. 

a.  What   Constitutes  a   Breach,   §§   691-692. 

(1)  When  Special  Effort  to   Perform   Required,  §  691. 

(2)  Shipment  of  Bonded  Goods  on  Unljondcd  Vessel,  §  692. 

b.  Demand  of  Performance,  §  693. 

c.  Tender  of  Property,  §  694. 

d.  Excuses  for  Breach  or  Nonperformance.  §§  695-709. 

(1)  Act  of  God,  §  695. 

(2)  "Perils  of  River,"   Navigation  and   Fire,   §   696 

(3)  Mobs  and  Strikes,  §  697. 

(4)  Military  Occupation,  §   698. 

(5)  Nonpayment  of  Freight,  §  699. 

(6)  Merchandise   Not  Branded  as  Required  l^y   Statute,   §  700. 

(7)  Nondelivery   by   Shipper,   §   701. 

(8)  Change  of  Legal   Rate,  §  702. 

(9)  Particular  Stipulations  or  Contracts,  §§  703-709. 

(a)  Time   Contracts,  §  703. 

(b)  Contracts  to  Carry  by  Particular  Train  or  Vessel,  §  704. 


T.XlilJ-:    or    CONTKXTS.  XXI 

(c)  Contract   to   Carry    rcrishablcs,  §   705. 

(d)  Stipulation  as  to  Destination  at  Which  Carrier  Has  No  Agency,  §  706. 

(e)  Contract  to  Carry  Beyond  Terminus,  §  707. 

(f)  Contract  for  Future  Transportation,  §  708. 

(g)  Contract  to  Carry   Specific  Quantity  or   Number,   §  709. 
e.  Waiver  of  Breach,  §  710. 

G.  Modification  or  Rescission,  §  711. 

II.  Contracts  for  Cars  or  Other  Means  of  Transportation,  §§  712-755. 

A.  Requisites  and  Validity,  §§  712-730. 

a.  Capacity  to   Contract,  §§   712-714. 

(1)  In  General,  §  712. 

(2)  Contract  to   Furnish   Cars   of  Another   Road,   §   713. 

(3)  Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  on  Line  of  Connecting  Road,  §  714. 

b.  Authority  of  Agent,  §§  715-723. 
(1)    Necessity,  §  715. 

(.2)   Authority  of  Station  AL;cnt,  §§  716-720. 

(a)  In  General,  §  71(). 

(b)  Proof  of  Authority,   §   717. 

(c)  Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished,  §  718. 

(d)  Station  or  Place  Where  Cars  to  Be  Furnished,  §  719. 

(e)  Verbal  Contract,  §  720. 

(3)  Traveling  Agent,  §  721. 

(4)  General  Freight  Agent,  §  722. 

(5)  Conductor,   §   723. 

c.  Certainty  and  Definiteness,  §  724. 

d.  Consideration,  §  725. 

e.  Date  of  Contract,  §  726. 

f.  Mutuality,  §  727. 

g.  Oflfer  and  Acceptance,  §  728. 
h.  Writing,   §   729. 

i.   Efifect  of  Partial   Invalidity,  §  730. 

B.  Construction  and   Operation,  §§   731-736. 
a.   In    General.   S    731. 

I).   Persons    Bound   and    Persons    Entitled   to   Benefit,   §   732. 

c.  Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished,  §  733. 

d.  Contract  with  Owner  of  Private   Railroad,  §  734. 

e.  Contract  for  Track  Facilities,  §  735. 

f.  Agreement  to  Haul   Defective  Car,  §  736. 

C.  Performance  or  Breach,  §§  737-755. 

a.  What   Constitutes  a  Breach,  §§  737-740. 

(1)  Refusal  to  Permit  Use  of  Cars,  §  737. 

(2)  Failure   to  Tender  Cars  in   Time,  §  738. 

(3)  Furnishing   Defective   Cars,   §   739. 

(4)  Requisition  Essential  Where  Contract  to  Furnish  as  Ordered,  §  740. 
1).   Liability  of  Carrier  for  Breach,  §§  741-753. 

O)   In   General,   §  741. 

(2)  Effect  of  Statute  .MKnving   Recovery  of  Penalty.  §  742. 

(3)  Tender  of  Property  for  Tran.sportation,  §  743. 

(4)  Road  Not  Owning  Cars,  §  744. 

(5)  Road   Not   Equipped  with   Cars   of  Character   to   Be   Furnislied,   §   745. 
(.6)   Failure  to   Furnish   Refrigerator  Cars,  §  746. 

(7)  Effort  to  Procure  Foreign  Cars.  §  747. 

(8)  Excuses   for   Breach   or   Nonperformance,   §§   748-753. 

(a)  In  General,  §  748. 

(b)  Act  of  God,  §  749. 

(c)  Unavoidable   Accident   or   Casualties,   §   750. 

(d)  Storms,    §    751. 


XXII  TABLE    OF    CONTEXTS. 

(e)  Wrecks,   §   752. 

(f)  Unprecedented  Traffic,  §  753. 

c.  Liability   of    Shipper   for    Breach,    §   754. 

d.  Waiver  of  Cause  of  Action  Against  Carrier,  §  755. 

III.  Merger,  §§  756-760. 

A.  General  Rule,  §  756. 

B.  Contract  Executed  after  Carriage  Begun,  §§  757-758. 

a.  In  General,  §   757. 

b.  Ratification  or  Adoption  by  Negotiation  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  758. 

C.  Written  Contract  Executed  after  Breach  of  Parol  Contract,  §  759. 

D.  Receipt  for  Freight  Accepted  after  Shipment  Received,  §  760. 

IV.  Modification  and   Rescission,  §  761. 

V.  Actions  against  Carrier  for  Breach   of   Contract,   §§   762-786. 

A.  Nature  and  Form  of  Remedy,  §  762. 

B.  Limitation,  in  Contract,  of  Time  for  Bringing  Action,  §  763. 

C.  Demand,   §   764. 

D.  Persons  Who  May  Sue,  §§  765-767. 

a.  Shipper,   §  765. 

b.  Forwarding  Agent,  §  766. 

c.  Consignee,  §  767. 

E.  Pleading,  §§  768-773. 

a.  Complaint,   Declaration  or  Petition,  §§   768-772. 

(1)  Where   Contract   Distributive  as   to  Time,   §  768. 

(2)  Necessary   Allegations,   §   769. 

(3)  Sufficiency  of  Allegation,  §  770. 

(4)  Theories  of   Case,  §   771. 

(5)  Aider  by  Subsequent  Pleadings  and  Verdict,  §  772. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer,  §  773. 

F.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance,  §  774. 

G.  Questions  for  Jury,  §  775. 
H.   Evidence,  §§   776-784. 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden   of  Proof,  §  776. 

b.  Admissibility,  §§   777-782. 

(1)  Relevancy   and   Competency,    §   777. 

(2)  Parol    Evidence,    §    778. 

(3)  Best  and  Secondary  Evidence,  §  779. 

(4)  Custom,  §  780. 

(5)  Necessity  for  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  781. 

(6)  Evidence  as  to  Net  Profits,  §  782. 

c.  Reception   of  Evidence,  §  783. 

d.  Sufficiency   of   Evidence,   §   784. 
I.   Instructions,   §    785. 

J.  Verdict,   §  786. 

VI.  Damages,   §§   787-798. 

A.  Liability,   §§   787-788. 

a.  In   General,  §  787. 

b.  Breach  of  Contract  Other  than  That  Sued  on,  §  788. 

B.  Duty  of   Shipper  to  Mitigate  Damages,  §  789. 

C.  Elements  of  Damage,  §§  790-793. 

a.  Loss  of  Profits,  §  790. 

b.  Expense  of  Renotifying  and  Reshipping,  §  791. 

c.  Increased  Freight  and  Extra  Charges,  §  792. 

d.  Breach  of  Particular  Contracts,  §  793. 

D.  Measure  of  Damages,  §§  794-795. 


TAllLK    OF    CONTKNTS.  XXIII 

a.   Breach  by   Carrier,  §  794. 
Ij.   Breach  by  Sliipper,  §  795. 

E.  Special   Damages,   §  796. 

F.  Proof  of  Damages,  §  797. 

G.  Release  of  Damages,  §  798. 

VII.  Interference  by  One  Carrier  with   Contract  of  Another,  §  799. 

VIII.  Contracts  to   Knrnish   Freight,  §  800. 

IX.  Contracts  for  Drayage  or  Hauling,  §  801. 

X.  Contracts  ]%nlarging  Carrier's  Liability,  §  802. 

CHAPTER  IX. 
TiTLii,  Custody  and  Control  of  Goods. 

I.  Title  and  Ris-'hts  of  Consignor  in  General,  §  803. 
II.  Title  and   Rights   of  Consignee   in   General,  §   804. 

III.  Title  and   Rights  of  Carrier  in   General,   §   805. 

IV.  Change   of  Destination,   §   806. 

V.  Seizure  under  Legal  Process,  §  807. 
VI.  Actions  by  and  against  Carriers,  §§  808-811. 

A.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Maintain  Action,  §  808. 

B.  Right  to  Maintain  Action  against  Carrier,  §§  809-811. 

a.  In  General,  §  809. 

b.  Right  of  Consignor,  §  810. 

c.  Right  of  Consignee,  §  811. 

CHAPTER  X. 

Transportation  and  Delivery  by  Carrier. 
I.  Duties  as  to  Transportation  in  General.  §  812. 
II.  Route  and  Deviation  Therefrom,  §§  813-834. 
A.  Selection  by  Shipper,  §§  813-826. 

a.  Right  to  Select,  §  813. 

b.  Requisites,  Construction  and  Proof  of  Agreement,  §§  814-815. 

(1)  Requisites  and  Construction,  §  814. 

(2)  Evidence,  §  815. 

c.  Deviation  by  Carrier,  §§  816-821. 

(1)  In  General,  §  816. 

(2)  Losses  for  Which  Carrier     Is  Liable,  §§  817-819. 

(a)  In  General,  §  817. 

(b)  Loss  Caused  by  Inevitable  Casualties,  §  818. 

(c)  Transportation  by  Connecting  Carriers,  §  819. 

(3)  Necessity   for  and   Justification   of   Deviation   or   Forwarding  by   Another 

Carrier,   §   820. 

(4)  Damages,  §  821. 

d.  Refusal  to  Route  Cars  as  Directed  by  Shipper,  §  822. 

e.  Shipment  over  Route  Contrary  to  Express  Direction  of  Shipper,  §  823. 

f.  Forwarding   by    Different   Boat   or   Conveyance   than    That    Stipulated,    §    824, 

g.  Carrier  Fraudulently  Inducing  Shipment  over  Longer  Route,  §  825. 
h.  Diversion  by  Order  of  Shipper  or  Consignee,  §  826. 


XXIV  TABLE    OF    CONTEXTS. 

B.   Selection  by  Carrier,  §§  827-834. 

a.  Right  to  Select  in  General,  §  827. 

b.  Regard  for  Rights  of  Shipper,  §  828. 

c.  Degree  of  Care  Required,  §  829. 

d.  Duty  to  Select  Safe  and  Direct  Route,  §  830. 

e.  Duty  to   Pursue   Usual   and   Customary   Route    and    Deviation   Therefrom,    §§ 

831-834. 

(1)  In  General.  §  831. 

(2)  Deviation,   §§  832-834. 

(a)  What  Constitutes,  §  832. 

(b)  Necessity  and  Justification,  §  833. 

(c)  Losses  for  Which  Carrier  Is  Liable  and  Nature  of  Liability,  §  834. 

III.  Duty  and  Necessity  of  Delivery,  §§  835-841. 

A.  Duty  to  Deliver,  §  835. 

B.  Liability  for  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Deliver,  §  836-841. 

a.  In  General,  §  836. 

b.  Excuse  for  Nondelivery  in  General,  §  837. 

c.  Right  to  Require  Receipt  before  Delivery.  §  83?» 

d.  Requiring  Proof  of  Right  to  Goods,  §  839. 

e.  Requiring  Production  and  Surrender  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  840. 

f.  Detention  for  Debt  or  Charges.  §  841. 

IV.  Mode   and   Sufficiency   of  Delivery   in   General,   §§   842-846. 

A.  In  General,  §  842. 

B.  What  Constitutes  Delivery,  §  843. 

C.  Carrier  by  Water,  §  844. 

D.  Duties  in  Making  Delivery.  §  845. 

E.  Effect  of  Custom  or  Usage,  §  846. 

V.  Time  of  Delivery,  §  847. 
VI.   Necessity  for  Personal  Delivery,  §  848. 
'VII.   Place  of  Delivery,  §§  849-853. 

A.  In  General,  §  849. 

B.  Usual  Place  at  Destination,  §  850. 

C.  Specified  Place,  §  851. 

D.  Intermediate  Point,  §  852. 

E.  Shipments  in  Carload  Lots,  §  853. 

VIII.  To  Whom  Delivery   May   Be   Made,  §§   854-857. 

A.  Consignee  or  Agent,  §  854. 

B.  Consignor  or  Agent,  §  855. 

C.  Actual  Owner,  §  856. 

D.  Holder  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  857. 

IX.  Misdelivery.    §§    858-866. 

A.  Liability  in  General,  §  858. 

B.  Fraudulent  Consignee,  §  859. 

C.  Delivery  without  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §§  860-865. 

a.  In  General,  §  860. 

b.  Liability  to  Bona  Fide  Holder,  §  861. 

c.  Laches  of  Holder  of  Bill,  §  862. 

d.  Bill  Attached  to  Draft,  §  863. 

e.  Duplicate  Bills,  §  864. 

f.  Direction  in  Bill  to  Notify  Third  Person,  §  865. 

D.  Defenses,  §  866. 


TAIiLI-:    OF    COXTKXTS.  XXV 


X.   Duty  of  Consignee  to  Remove  Goods,  §  8G7. 
XI.   I'"ailure  or   Refusal   of   Consignee   to   Receive   Goods,   §   868. 
XII.  Goods  Shipped  C.  O.  D.,  §  869. 

XIII.  Goods    S'eized   under   Legal   Process,   §§   870-874. 

A.  Liability  of  Carrier,  §  870. 

B.  Duties  of  Carrier,  §  871. 

C.  Seizure  under   Police   Regulations,  §  872. 

D.  Garnishment  of  Carrier,  §  87.3. 

E.  Rights  of  Attaching  Officer,  §  874. 

XIV.  Actions  for  I-aihire  to  Deliver  or  Misdelivery,  §§  875-1)0:!. 

A.  Conditions  Precedent,  §  875. 

B.  Form  of  .\ction,  §  876. 

C.  Joinder  of  .\ctions,  §  877. 

D.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue,  §  878. 

E.  Parties,  §  879. 

F.  Pleading,  §§  880-882. 

a.  Declaration,  Complaint  or  Petition,  §§  880-881 

(1)  In  General,  §  880. 

(2)  Necessary  .\llegations,  §  881. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer,  §  882. 

G.  Issue,   Proof,   and  Variance,  §  883. 
H.   Evidence,  §§  884-887. 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  884. 

b.  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill  of  Lading,  §  885. 

c.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §  886. 

d.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence,  §  887. 
I.   Damages,  §§  888-900. 

a.  Nominal  Damages,  §  888. 

b.  Exemplary  Damages,  §  889. 

c.  Compensatory  Damages,  §§  890-900. 

(1)  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Deliver,  §  890-893. 

(a)  Actual  Loss  Proximately  Resulting,  §  890 

(b)  Measure  and  Elements  in  General,  §  891 

(c)  Goods  Having  no  Market  Value,  §  892. 

(d)  Computation  of  Damages,  §  893. 

(2)  Misdelivery,  §  894. 

(3)  Delaying  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods,  §  895. 

(4)  Delaying  Notice  of  Refusal  of  Goods,  §  896. 

(5)  Mitigation  of  Damages,  §  897. 

(6)  Evidence,    §§    898-899. 

(a)  In  General,  §  898. 

(b)  Evidence  as  to  Value,  §  899. 

(7)  Inadequacy  of  Damages,  §  900. 
J.  Trial  and  Judgment,  §§  901-903. 

a.  Questions  for  Jury,  §  901. 

b.  Instructions,  §  902. 

c.  Verdict  and  Judgment,  §  903. 

CHAPTER    XI. 
Dklay  IX  Tr.\xsport.\tiox  or  Delivery 

I.   In  General,  §  904. 
II.   Diligence  Required  of  Carrier.  §  90,i. 


XXM  TABU-:    OF    CONTEXTS. 

III.  What  Constitutes  Reasonable  Diligence,  §  906. 

IV.  Perishable  Goods,  §  907. 

V.  Excuses  for  Delay,  §§  908-922. 

A.  In  General,  §  908. 

B.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  God,  Public  Enemy,  etc.,  §  909. 

C.  Delay  Caused  by  Seizure  under  Judicial  Process,  §  910. 

D.  Delay  Caused  by  Unusual  Rush  of  Business,  §§  911-914. 

a.  In  General,  §  911. 

b.  Duty  to  Provide  Proper  Facilities,  §  912. 

c.  Where  Carrier  Could  Have  Avoided  Delay,  §  913. 

d.  Notice  to  Shipper,  §  914. 

E.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  Consignor  or  Consignee,  §  915. 

F.  Delay  Caused  by  Rule  of  Carrier,  §  916. 

G.  Delay  Caused  by  Misdirection  of  Goods,  §  917. 
H.  Delay  Caused  by  Strikes  and  Riots,  §  918. 

I.  Where  Goods  Are   Perishable,  §  919. 
J.  Delay  under  Time  Contract,  §§  920-921. 

a.  In  General,  §  920. 

b.  Power  of  Agent  to  Alake  Contract,  §  921. 

K.  Duty  of  Carrier  after  Excusing  Cause  Removed,  §  922. 

VI.  Duty  of  Consignor  and  Consignee  to  Avert  or  Mitigate  Injury,  §  923. 
VII.  Duty  of  Consignee  to  Accept  Goods,  §  924. 
VIII.  Delay  Caused  by  Connecting  Carrier,  §  925. 
IX.  Damages,  §§  926-954. 

A.  In  General,  §  926. 

B.  Arising  Proximately  from  Delay,  §  927. 

C.  Arising  at  Time  of  Delivery,  §  928. 

D.  Nominal  Damages,  §  929. 

E.  Stipulated  Damages,  §  930. 

F.  Special  Damages,  §§  931-939. 

a.  In  General,  §  931. 

b.  Within  Contemplation  of  Parties,  §  932. 

c.  Notice  of   Special   Circumstances,   §§   933-938. 
(i;   Necessity  of  Notice,  §  933. 

(2)  Sufficiency  of  Notice,  §  934. 

(3)  Time  Notice  Given,  §  935. 

(4)  Notice  to  Agent,  §  936. 

(5)  Implied  Notice,    §  937. 

(6)  Evidence  to  Prove  Notice,  §  938. 

d.  Where  Cause  of  Delay  Known  to  Shipper,  §  939. 
G.  Exemplary  Damages,  §  940. 
H.  Measure  and  Elements  of  Damages,  §§  941-947. 

a.  In  General,  §  941. 

b.  Decrease  in  Market  Value,  §  942. 

c.  Loss  of  Profits,  §  943. 

d.  Expenses  Occasioned  by  Delay,  §  944. 

e.  Interest  on  Value  of  Goods,  §  945. 

f.  Mental  and  Physical  Suffering,  §  946. 

g.  Liability  as  for  Conversion,  §  947. 
I.  Mitigation  of  Damages,  §  948. 

J.  Goods  Intended  for  Use  of  Consignee,  §§  949-951. 

a.  In  General,  §  949. 

b.  Measure  and  Elements  of  Damages,  §  950. 


TAULli    OF    CCKNTKNTS.  XXVII 

c.  Particular  Goods,  §  951. 
K.  Goods  Intended  for  Sale,  §  952. 
L.  Goods  Intended  to  Be  Repaired,  §  953. 
M.  Time   of  Reporting  Claim   for  Damages,  §  954. 

X.  Actions  for  Delay,  §§  955-974. 

A.  Nature  of  Action,  §  955. 

B.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue,  §  95G. 

C.  Joinder  of  Causes  of  Action,  §  957. 

D.  Parties,  §  958. 

E.  Limitation  of  Actions,  §  959. 

F.  Prerequisites  to  Bringing  Action,  §  9G0. 

G.  Pleading,  §§   961-9G4. 

a.  Plaintiff's  Pleadings,  §§  961-963. 

(1)  In  General,  §  961. 

(2)  Particular  Allegations,  §  962. 

(3)  Amendments,  §  963. 

b.  Defendant's  Pleading,  §  964. 

H.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance,  §  965. 

I.  Dismissal  and  Nonsuit,  §  966. 

J.  Burden  of  Proof  and  Presumptions,  §  967. 
K.  Evidence,   §§   968-969. 

a.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §  968. 

b.  Weight  and  Sufificiency  of  Evidence,  §  969. 
L.  Instructions,  §§  970-972. 

a.  Province  of  Court  and  Jury,  §  970. 

b.  Necessity  and  Propriety  of  Instructions,  §  971. 

c.  Form,  Requisites  and  Sufificiency,  §  972. 
M.  Verdict,  §  973. 

N.  Judgment,  §  974. 

XI.  Demurrage,  and  Liability  of  Consignee  or  Owner  for  Delay,  §§  975-985. 

A.  In  General,  §  975. 

B.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Charge,  §  976. 

C.  Rules  and  Regulations  of  Carrier,  §§  977-979. 

a.  In  General,  §  977. 

b.  By  Whom  Promulgated,  §  978. 

c.  Notice,  §  979. 

D.  Time  and  Amount  of  Charge,  §  980. 

E.  Arrival  and  Continuance  at  Destination  and  Nature  Thereof,  §  981 

F.  Persons  Liable  for  Demurrage,  §  982. 

G.  Lien  for  Demurrage,  §  983. 

H.  Remedies  and  Defenses,  §§  984-985. 

a.  Of  Carrier,  §  984. 

b.  Of  Consignee,  §  985. 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Loss  OR  Injury  to  Goods. 

I.  What  Law  Governs,  §  986. 

II.  Nature  and  Validity  of  Contract  of  Transportation,  §  987. 

III.  Care   Required  of  Carrier,  §§  988-1010. 

A.  In  General,  §  9s». 

B.  Liability  as  Insurer,  §§  989-1010. 
a.  General   Rule,  §  989. 


XXMII  T.\r,LE    OF    CONTEXTS. 

b.   Exceptions  and   Excuses,   §§   990-1004. 
(1)    Act   of   God,    §§   990-994. 

(a)  In  General,  §  990. 

(b)  What   Constitutes   Act   of   God,   §   991. 

(c)  Negligence   Concurring  with   Act  of  God,  §  992. 

(d)  Where   Danger  Should   Have  Been  Anticipated,   §  993. 

(e)  Duty   to   Prevent   Act   of   God   from   Causing  Injury,   §   994. 
(2)   Act  of  Public   Enemy,  §§  995-997. 

(a)  In   General,  §  995. 

(b)  Thieves  and  Robbers,  §  996. 

(c)  Strikers.    Rioters,    Mobs    and    Insurrectionists,    §    997. 

(3)  Fault  of  Shipper   or   Owner,   §§   998-1002. 

(a)  In  General,  §  998. 

(b)  Goods   Improperly   Marked,    §    999. 

(c)  Goods    Improperly    Packed,    §    1000. 

(d)  Goods    Improperly    Loaded,    §    1001. 

(e)  Misrepresentation  or  Concealment  of  Nature  or  Value  of  Goods,  §  1002. 

(4)  Inherent    Infirmities    of    Goods,    §    1003. 

(5)  Act   or   Mandate   of   Public   Authority,   §   1004. 

c.  Carriers   to   Which    Rule   Applicable,   §§   1005-1009. 

(1)  In   General,  §  1005. 

(2)  Carriers   Not   Owning   Means   of  Transportation,   §   1006. 

(3)  Carriers  of  Money,  §  1007. 

(4)  Persons    Occasionally   Carrying,   §    1008. 

(5)  Forwarders,  §  1009. 

d.  Commencement  and  Termination   of   Liability,   §   1010. 

IV.   Goods  Shipped  on  Chartered  or  Private  Cars,  §  1011. 
V.  Acts  or  Omissions   Rendering  Carrier  Liable  in   General,  §§   1012-1016. 

A.  In  General,  §  1012. 

B.  Proximate   Cause  of  Loss   or   Injury,   §   1013. 

C.  Negligence   of  Agents  or  Servants,  §   1014. 

D.   Negligence  or  Misconduct  of  Third  Person,  §   1015. 
E.  Deviation  or  Delay,  §  1016. 

VI.   Mode  or   Means  of  Transportation,   §§   1017-1021. 

A.  In   General,   §   1017. 

B.  Means    of   Transportation    in    General,    §    1018. 

C.  Duty  as  to  Perishable  Goods,  §  1019. 

D.  Carrying  Goods  on  Open  Cars,  §  1020. 

E.  Means    for   Loading  and   Unloading,    §    1021. 

VII.   Duties  after   Injury,   §   1022. 
VIII.   ElYect  of   Insurance,  §§   1023-1029. 

A.  In   General,   §   1023. 

B.  Contract   for   Benefit   of   Insurance,    §§    1024-1029. 

a.  Power  to   Stipulate  and   Validity,   §   1024. 

b.  Operation  and   Effect,  §§  1025-1028. 

(1)  Right   of   Shipper   to   Recover   from   Carrier,   §    1025. 

(2)  Right  of  Carrier  to   Recover  from   Insurer,  §   1026. 

(3)  Effect   as   Defeating   Insurer's    Right   of   Subrogation,    §    1027. 

(4)  Inconsistent   Stipulations  in   Contract   and   Policy,   §   1028. 

c.  Suits   against   Carrier,   §    1029. 

IX.  Claims  for  Damages,  §   1030. 
X.   Extent   of   Lial)ility,   §   1031. 


TAIilJ-:    OF    COXTKNTS.  XXIX 

XI.  Actions   for   Loss  or   Injury,   §§   10:52-1089. 

A.  Nature    and    Form,    §    10:i2. 

B.  Right  of  Action  and   Defenses,   §§   103:!-10:i5. 

a.  In  General,  §  10:53. 

b.  Conditions    Precedent,   §    10:i4. 

c.  Defenses,    §    10:55. 

C.  Jurisdiction    and    Venue.    §    10:5(5. 

D.  Parties.  §   10:]7. 

I-.    I 'leading,   §§   10:5S-lo:.l. 
a.   Declaration,    Complaint,    Petition   or    P.ill,   §§   10:58-1049. 

(1)  In   General,  §  10:i8. 

(2)  Necessity    and    Sufficiency    of    Allegations,    §§    10:i9-104T. 

(a)  Plaintiff's  Title  or  Interest,  §  10:59. 

(b)  That    Defendant   a   Common    Carrier.   §    1040. 

(c)  As   to   Consideration,   §    1041. 

(d)  Delivery    to    and    Acceptance    by    Carrier,    §    1042. 

(e)  As   to   Contract  of  Carriage,   §   104:5. 

(f)  Negligence   of  Defendant,  §  1044. 
(g)    Description  of  Property.  §   1045. 

(h)   Damage   and   Value   of  Goods,   §   1040. 
(i)   Special  Statutory  Proceeding,  §   1047. 

(3)  Amendments,   §   1048. 

(4)  Aider    by    Answer,    §    1049. 

b.  Plea  or  .Answer,  §  1050. 

c.  Admissions    in    Pleadings.   §    1051. 

F.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance,  §§   1052-1055. 

a.  In  General,  §   1052. 

b.  Evidence   Admissible  under  Pleadings,   §   1053. 

c.  Matters   to   Be   Proved,   §   1054. 

d.  Variance,   §   1055. 

G.  Evidence,  §§   1056-1067. 

a.  Presumptions   and   liurden   of   Proof,   §§   105G-1060. 

(1)  Plaintifif's   Burden   of   Proof  in   General,   §   1056. 

(2)  Defendant's    Burden    of    Proof   in    General,    §    1057. 

(3)  Condition  of  Goods   When   Received  by  Carrier.   §   1058. 

(4)  Shipment  Composed  of  Several  Classes  of  Goods,  §  1059. 

(5)  Where   Transportation   under    Special   Contract,   §    1060. 

b.  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill   of   Lading,   §   1061. 

c.  Admissibility   of   Evidence,   §§    1062-1066. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1062. 

(2)  Declarations  and   Admissions.  §   1063. 

(3)  Opinion   Evidence,  §   1064. 

(4)  Documentary    Evidence,    §    10C)5. 

(5)  Parol  Evidence.  §  1066. 

d.  Weight   and   Sufficiency   of   Evidence.   §    1067. 
H.  Damages,  §§  1068-1085. 

a.  Extent   of   Liability.    Measure   and    Elements   of    Damages,    5;$    U)6S-10S0. 

(1)  In   General,  §    1068. 

(2)  Loss  of  Goods,  §   1069. 

("3)   Injury   to   Goods,   §§   1070-1072. 

(a)  In   General.   §   1070. 

(b)  Right   to   Abandon    Goods.   §    1071. 

(c)  W  iKMi   Damaged  Goods  Sold.  §  1072. 

(4)  Freight,    .Allowance    and    Deduction.    §    107:5. 

(5)  Interest.   §   1074. 

(6)  Expenses  of  Owner.   §   1075. 


XXX 


TAI'.LE    OF    CONTENTS. 


(7)  Goods    Shipped   under   Contract   of    Sale,    §    1076. 

(8)  Goods   Having    No   Market   Value,  §   1077. 

(9)  Profits,  §  1078. 

(10)  Special  Damages,  §  1079. 

(11)  Exemplary  Damages,  §  1080. 

b.  Duty  of  Owner  to  Mitigate  or  Avert,  §  1081. 

c.  Evidence   as  to  Value   or   Damage.   §§   1082-1084. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1082. 

(2)  Admissibility,  §  1083. 

(3)  Weight   and    Sufficiency,   §    1084. 

d.  Recovery   as   Afifected   by  Allegation   of   Damages,   §    1085. 
I.  Province   of  Court   and   Jury,   §§   1086-1087. 

a.  Tn  General,  §  1086. 

b.  Particular  Questions  of  Law  or  Fact,   §   1087. 
J.   Instructions,  §  1088. 

K.  Verdict,  §  1089. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Carrier   as   Warehouseman. 

I.  When  Liability  Begins  or  Ends,  §§  1090-1097. 

A.  Goods  Awaiting  Transportation,  §  1090. 

B.  Goods   Being  Transported,   §   1091. 

C.  Goods  Awaiting  Delivery  to  Consignee,  §§   1092-1097. 

a.  In   General,   §   1092. 

b.  Express    Companies    and    General    Carriers    by    Water,    §    1093. 

c.  Railroads   and   Carriers   by   Water   Having  Fixed   Schedule,   §   1094. 
d.  Necessity  for  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods,  §   1095. 

e.  What  Is   Reasonable  Time,   §   1096. 

f.  How  Long  Liability  Continues,   §   1097. 

11.  Duties  and   Liabilities,  §§  1098-1100. 

A.  In   General,   §    1098. 

B.  Degree  of  Care,  §  1099. 

C.  Acts  or  Omissions   Rendering  Carrier  Liable,   §  1100. 

III.  Actions   against   Carrier  as   Warehouseman,    §§    1101-1104. 

A.  In    General— Pleading,   §    1101. 

B.  Evidence,  §  1102. 

C.  Instructions,   §    1103. 

D.  Finding,  §  1104. 


VOLUME  II. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


Limitation  of  Liability. 

Power   of   Carrier   and   Nature   of   Right,    §§    1105-112L 

A.  In   General,   §   1105. 

B.  Effect  of  Charter   Provisions,   §   1106. 

C.  Effect  of  Statutory  and  Constitutional  Provisions  of  the   States.  §§   1107-11 IL 

a.  Georgia,    §    1107. 

b.  Illinois,   §   1108. 


TABI.E    OF    CONTENTS.  XXXI 

c.  Nebraska,  §   1109. 

d.  Texas,  §   1110. 

e.  Virginia,   §    1111. 

D.  Interstate   Shipments,   §§   1112-11  IG. 

a.  In   General,   §   1112. 

b.  Effect    of    Interstate    Commerce    Act,   §    1113. 

c.  Effect  of  State  Statutes,  §§  1111-1110. 

(1)  In    General,   §    1114. 

(2)  Statutes   of  Texas,   §    1115. 

(3)  Conflict  of  Laws,  §   lllG. 

E.  What   Law   Governs,   §§   1117-1120. 

a.  Validity   and    Enforcement,    §    1117. 

b.  Construction,  §  1118. 

c.  Right  of  Carrier   Incorporated   in   a   State   to  Contract  under   Laws  of  An- 

other State,  §   1119. 

d.  Stipulations   as   to   What   Law   Governs,   §    1120. 

F.  Property   Carrier   Not   Required   to   Transport,   §    1121. 

II.  Liabilities   Subject   to   Limitation,   §§   1122-1153. 

A.  General   Rule,  §   1122. 

B.  Liabilit}'    for    Loss    Arising   from    Carrier's    Own    Negligence,    §§    1123-1132. 
a.  Power  to  Limit  in  General,  §  1123. 

■b.  Effect    of    State    Statutory    and    Constitutional    Provisions,    §    1124. 

c.  Effect  of  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  §   1125. 

d.  Effect   of   Harter  Act,  §   1126.  " 

e.  Effect   of   Exemption   from   Special   Causes,    §    1127. 

f.  As   to    Interstate  Commerce,   §   1128. 

g.  Contracts   for  Transportation   Over   Connecting  Roads,   §   1129. 

h.  Property   Placed   on    Right  of   Way   by   Owner  for   His  Own   Convenience, 

§   1130. 
i.  Carrier  under  No  Legal  Duty  to  Move  Train  as  Agreed,  §  1131. 
j.  Release   of  Damages   from   Prior   Negligence,   §    1132. 

C.  Loss  by  Act  of  God,  §  1133. 

D.  Loss   Due   to   Inevitable   Accident   or   Casualty,   §    1134. 

E.  Loss   Due  to  Public  Enemy,  §   1135. 

F.  Loss   Caused   by   Thieves   or    Rol)bcrs,   §    1136. 

G.  Loss  by   Mistake   or  Accident,   §   1137. 

H.  Regulations  as  to  Delivery  and   Entry  of  Packages,   §   1138. 

I.  Stipulations  against   Lialiilitj'  for  Loss  of  Valuables  unless  Value   Disclosed, 
§   1139. 

J.  Failure   to   Furnish    Suitable   Cars,    §    1140. 
K.   Risk   of   Loading  and   Unloading,   §    1141. 
L.  Loss   by   Breakage,   §    1142. 
M.   Delay  or  Failure  to  Transport.  §§   1143-1145. 

a.  In  General,  §  1143. 

b.  Delay  Caused  by  Mol)s  and  Stiikes,  §  1144. 

c.  Loss   of   Market.   §   1145. 

N.   Decaj'   or    Injurj-   to   Perishables,   §   1146. 

O.  Loss   by   Rust,  §   1147. 

P.  Loss  by  Fire,  §  1148. 

Q.  Damages   from   Conduct   or    Running  of  Trains,   §   1149. 

R.  Notice  of  Arrival,  §   1150. 

S.  Safety  of  Goods  after  Arrival,   §  1151. 

T.  Liability  as  Warehouseman,  §   1152. 

U.  Release  of  Damages  Accrued  before  Execution  of  Written  Contract.  §  1153. 

III.  Manner  of  Limiting  Liability.   §§   1154-1247. 
A.   Special    Contract.    §§    1154-1234. 


XXXII  TAIUJ-.    OF    COXTF.XTS. 

a.  In    General,   §    1154. 

b.  Express  or  Implied  Contract,  §§  llo.")-ll.J7. 

(1)  In  General,  §   1155. 

(2)  Necessity    tor    Express    Contract,   §    1156. 

(3)  Implied   Contract,   §    1157. 

c.  Form   of   Limitation,   §§   1158-1183. 

(1)  Necessity   for   Written   Contract.   §    1158. 

(2)  Instruments   in    Which    Stipulation    Incorporated,    §§    1 159-1 1G3. 

(a)  Bill   of   Lading,   §   1159. 

(b)  Freight    Receipts,    §    1160. 

(c)  Express    Receipts,    §    llGl. 

(d)  Receipts    of    Compress    Company,    §    1162. 

(e)  Tickets.    Entry   of   Notice   on.   §    1163. 

(3)  Requisites   of   Stipulation,   §§    1164-1183. 

(a)   Stipulation    Must    Be    in    Body    of   Instrument,    §§    1164-1169. 
aa.  In   General,  §   1164. 

bb.   Provisions   Stamped  or  \\ritten   on   Face   of  Receipt   or   Bill  of  Lad- 
ing,   §    1165. 
cc.   Stipulations   on    Margin   of   Contract,   §   1166. 
dd.  Printing   Appended    to    Contract,    §    1167. 
ee.  Memorandum   on   Freight  Card  or   Ticket,   §    1168. 
ff.  Notice  on   Back  of  Receipt  or  Bill  of  Lading,  §   1169. 
{h)   Stipulation    Must   Be   Legible   and   Intelligil)le.   §§   1170-1171. 
aa.  In   General,   §   1170. 

bb.  Inconspicuous  Conditions  and  Type,   §   1171. 
(c)   Must    Be   in    Express   and   Unequivocal   Terms,   §§    1172-1183. 
aa.   In   General,   §   1172. 
bb.  Use   of   General  \\'ords.   §   1173. 

cc.  What    Constitutes     an     Express    Contract     under     Georgia    Statute, 
§§    1174-1183. 
(aa)   In   General,   §    1174. 
(bb)   Parties    Who   May   Make,   §   1175. 
(cc)   Assent   of   Parties,    §§    1176-1183. 
aaa.   In    General,    §    1176. 

bbb.  Necessity   for   Shipper's   Assent,   §   1177. 
ccc.  What    Constitutes    Assent    of    Shipper,    §§    1178-1183. 
(aaa)  Acceptance  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §   1178. 
(bbb)  Acceptance   of  Ticket  or   Pass,   §   1179. 
(ccc)  Acceptance   of   Express   or   Freight   Receipt,   §    1180. 
(ddd)   Signing  Bill  of  Lading,   §   1181.    • 
(eee)   Contract   Prepared   by   Shipper,   §    1182. 
(fff)   Duress   or   Compulsion,   §   1183. 

d.  Consideration,    §§    1184-1194. 

(1)  Necessity,  §§  1184-1185. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1184. 

(b)  Instances,   §   1185. 

(2)  Sufficiency,   §§    1186-1194. 

(a)  In    General,   §    1186. 

(b)  Reduced    Rates,    §§    1187-1192. 
aa.  In   General,   §   1187. 

bb.   Reasonableness   of   Rates,   §    1188. 
cc.  Choice  of  Rates,  §  1189. 

dd.  Recital   That    Reduced    Rate    Given,    §§    1190-1191. 
(aa)   Necessity,    §    1190. 
(bb)   Falsity  of   Recitals,   §   1191. 
ee.  Contracts    Exacted   after   Carriage   Commenced,   §    1192. 


TAIUJ-:    OF    COXTKNTS.  XXXIII 

(c)   Shipper's   and    Kmploycr's   Passes,   §   il'J'S. 

(d)  Agreement   to  Transport   Over   Own   and   Cfjnnecting   Lines,   §    ll'J4. 

e.  Reasonableness    of    Limitation,    §    1195. 

f.  Fairness,   Fraud  or  Duress,  §   11 'JG. 

g.  Choice  between   Full  and  Limited   Liability,  §   1197. 
h.   Meeting  of  Minds  of   Parties,  §   1198. 

i.  Knowledge    and    Assent    of    Shipper,    §§    1199-1229. 

(1)  Necessity  in  General,  §   1J99. 

(2)  Doctrine    Requiring   Express   Assent,   §§   1200-1201. 

(a)  In   General,   §   1200. 

(b)  Duty   of   Carrier   to   Call    Sliipper's   Attention   to   Stipulation,   §    1201. 
(:{)    Doctrine    of    Iniijlied    Assent,    §§    1202-1219. 

(a)  In    General,    §    1202. 

(]))  intention   of   Parties,   §   120:{. 

( c)  Constructive    Notice    Generally,    §    1204. 
((!)  Duty   of  Shipper  to  Read  Contract,  §  1205. 

(e)  What   Constitutes   Acceptance   or   Assent,   §§   120G-1217. 

aa.  Acceptance  of  Freight   Receipt  or  Bill  of  Lading,  §§  1206-1208. 
(aa)   In  General,  §  1206. 

(bb)   Necessity  for  Signature  of  Consignor,  §  1207. 
(cc)    EfTect    of   Consignor's    Signing    P>ill   of   Lading,    §    1208. 
bb.  Receipt   Prepared  by  Shipper,  §   1209. 

cc.   Receipt    Referring     to     Ilill     of     Lading   Containing  Limitations,    §§ 
1210-1211. 
(aa)   Receipt    Prepared   by    Shipper,   §    1210. 
(bb)   Receipt    Prepared   by   Carrier,   §    1211. 
dd.  Acceptance   of   Express   Receipt,   §   1212. 

ee.  Acceptance   of  Dray  Ticket  and  Checks   of  Local  Carrier,  §   121.3. 
ff.  Fact    of    Shipment    under    Limited    Liability    Rate.    §    1214. 
gg.  Previous    Shipments    under    Limited    Liability    Contract,    §    1215. 
hh.  Customary   Use  of   Printed   Form  of   Receipt,   §   1216. 
ii.   Failure    to   Dissent   witliin    Reasonable   Time.    §    1217. 

(f)  Proof   of   Non- Assent,    §    1218. 

(g)  Question   for  Jury,   §   1219. 

(4)    Persons   Who   May   Give   Assent,   §§    1220-1229. 

(a)  In   General,   §   1220. 

(b)  Possession   of  Goods,   §   1221. 

(c)  Authority   of   Consignor  to   Bind   Consignee,   §§   1222-1225. 
aa.  In  General,  §  1222. 

bb.  Eflfect   of   Interstate   Commerce  Act  and    Elkins   Act,   §   1223. 

cc.  Instances   Where   Consignee   Bound,   §   1224. 

dd.  Instances    Where   Consignee    Not   Bound,   §    1225. 

(d)  Agent   of   Consignor,   §   1226. 

(e)  Person    Only    Authorized    to    Deliver   to    Carrier,    §§    1227-1228. 
aa.  In    General,    §    1227. 

bl).  Cartmen   or  Truckmen,   §    1228. 

(f)  Initial   Carrier.   §   1229. 

j.  Time   of  Agreement,   §§    12:!0-12:'>2. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1230. 

(2)  Issuance   of   Bill   of   Lading  or    Receipt   after   Shipment.   §§   1231-1232. 

(a)  In   General,   §   1231. 

(b)  Issuance    after   Loss,   §    1232. 

k.  Subsequent    Written    Agreement    Contemplated    liy    Parties.    §§    1233-1234. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1233. 

(2)  Knowledge  of  Rule   Requiring  Written   Contract,   §   1234. 
B.   Notice    or   Advertisements,    §§    1235-1242. 


1   Car— 


XXXIV  TABI.I-;    OF    CONTENTS. 

a.  General    Notice    or    Advertisements,    §§    1235-1236. 

(1)  In   General,   §  1235. 

(2)  Notice   Brought  to  Attention  of  Shipper,   §   1236. 

b.  Special   Notice   to  Owner   of  Goods,   §   1237. 

c.  Form  and   Sufficiency   of  Notice,  §  1238. 

d.  Reasonableness  of   Regulations,   §   1239. 

e.  Assent  of  Shipper,   §§   1240-1241. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1240. 

(2)  Express  Assent   Not   Essential,   §   1241. 

f.  Notice  to  Agent  of  Shipper,   §   1242. 

C.  Custom   and   Usage,   §   1243. 

D.  Ratification   of   Contract   of   Another   Carrier,   §    1244. 

E.  Instructions   to   Carrier's   Agent,   §   1245. 

F.  Arrangement   between    Express   and    Railroad   Companies,    §    1246. 

G.  Depositing  Freight  in  Warehouse  at  End  of  Route,  §  1247. 

IV.  Construction,    Operation   and    Effect,    §§    1248-1278. 

A.  Construction  Question  for  Court,  §  1248. 

B.  Rules    of   Construction    and   Application   Thereof,    §§    1249-1252. 

a.  Construed   against    Carrier,    §    1249. 

b.  Specific  as   Prevailing  over   General   Clauses,  §   1250. 

c.  Conflicting  Agreements,   §    1251. 

d.  Construction  of  Words   and   Phrases,   §   1252. 

C.  Written    Instrument  as   Complete   Contract,   §§   1253-1259. 

a.  Parol   Evidence  to  Vary  or  Contradict   Generally,  §   1253. 

b.  Merger   of   Prior   Parol   Negotiations,    §§   1254-1255. 

(1)  In    General,    §    1254. 

(2)  Bill    of    Lading    Issued    Subsequent    to    Contract,    §    1255. 

c.  Parol   Evidence  to   Show   Meaning  of  Words  and  Phrases.   §   1256. 

d.  Only  Part  of  Contract   Contained   in  Written   Agreement,   §   1257. 

e.  Effect  of  Waybill,  §   1258. 

f.  Parol   Agreement    Substituted    for   Written    Contract,    §    1259. 

D.  Effect  as   Measure   of   Liability   Generally,   §   1260. 

E.  Persons   Bound  and  Carriers   Benefited,  §  1261. 

F.  Property  to   Which   Applicable,   §   1262. 

G.  Losses  Covered,   §§   1263-1277. 

a.  Losses  Arising  from  Negligence,  §   1263. 

b.  Particular   Limitations,   §§    1264-1277. 

(1)  Loss   from  Causes  beyond  Carrier's   Control,   §   1264. 

(2)  Unavoidable  Dangers,   §   1265. 

(3)  Dangers   of   Navigation,    §    1266. 

(4)  Dangers   of  the    River,   §   1267. 

(5)  Shipment  "Released"  or  at  "Owner's  Risk,"  §  1268. 

(6)  Stipulation  as  to    Disclosure   of  Value   of   Property,  §   1269. 

(7)  Loss    from    Delay,    §    1270. 

(8)  Breakage  or  Leakage,   §   1271. 

(9)  Loading  and  Unloading,  §  1272. 

(10)  Defect  in  Cars,  §  1273. 

(11)  Loss  by  "Fire   and   Floods,"   §   1274. 

(12)  Loss    "in   Transit"    or   "in    Depot    or    Place    of   Transshipment,"    §    1275. 

(13)  Default  of  Subcarrier,  §   1276. 

(14)  Release   of    Claim    for   Accrued    Damages,    §    1277. 
H.  Estoppel  of  Sliipper,  §  1278. 

V.  Performance.    Discharge   or    Breach,   §    1279. 
VI.   Enforcement.   §§    1280-1327. 
A.   Pleading,   §§   1280-1290. 


TAliLK    Ol"    CONTENTS.  XXXV 

a.  Pclilioii,    Declaration    or   Cinnplaint,   §§    1280-1281. 
(1)   Necessary  Allegations,  §  1280. 

(3)   Sufficiency   of   Allegations,   §    1281. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer  and  Affidavit  of  Defense,  §§   1282-1289. 

(1)  Necessity   for   Special    Plea,   §§    1282-128:}. 

(a)  In    General,   §    1282. 

(b)  Demurrer,  §  1283. 

(2)  Allegations,  §§  1284-1287. 

(a)  Allegation   of  Reasonableness,  §   1284. 

(b)  Validity   under    Foreign    Laws,   §    1285. 

(c)  Negativing    Carrier's    Negligence,    §    1286. 

(d)  Shipping   Order,   §    1287. 

(3)  Afifidavit  of  Defense,  §   1288. 

(4)  Demurrer   to   Plea,   §   1289. 

c.  Reply,   §   1290. 

B.  Presumption   and    Burden    of   Proof,   §§    1291-1307. 

a.  Existence  and  Validity  of  Contract,   §§  1291-1300. 

(1)  Presumptions    Generally,    §    1291. 

(2)  Burden  of  Proof  Generally.  §  1292. 

(3)  Requisites   of   Contract,   §§   1293-1298. 

(a)  Reasonableness,   §   1293. 

(b)  Delivery,   §    1294. 

(c)  Consideration,    §    1295. 

(d)  Knowledge   of   Contract  and   Assent   of  Shipper,   §§    1296-1298. 
aa.  Jurisdictions  Requiring  Express  Assent,  §§  1296-1297. 

(aa)   Presumption,    §    1296. 
(bb)   Burden    of   Proof,    §    1297. 
bb.  Jurisdictions  in   Which   Assent   Presumed  from   Acceptance,   §   1298. 

(4)  Authority  of  Shipper's  Agent,  §  1299. 

(5)  Misrepresentation   of  Value   or  Contents  of   Package,   §   1300.  , 

b.  Showing   Loss   within    Exemption,   §§    1301-1306. 

(1)  In   General,   §    1301. 

(2)  Showing   Negligence   Vel   Non,   §§    1302-1303. 

(a)  Rule   Placing  Burden   on   Shipper,   §   1302. 

(b)  Rule   Placing   Burden    on   Carrier,   §    1303. 

(3)  Particular    Stipulations.    §§    1304-1306. 

(a)  Perils  of  Navigation,  §   1304. 

(b)  Loss  by  Fire,  §  1305. 

(c)  Mobs,  Riots,   Robbery  and  Strikes.  §   1306. 

c.  Performance  of  Conditions  Precedent  to  Recover,  §  1307. 

C.  Admissibility    of    Evidence.    §§    1308-1313. 

a.  Existence  and  Terms  of  Contract,  §  1308. 

b.  Signing,    §    1309. 

c.  Consideration,    §    1310. 

d.  Knowledge  and  Assent  of   Shipper,   §  1311. 

e.  Fairness  or  Fraud,  §   1312. 

f.  Merger  of  Parol  and  Subsequent  Written  Contract,  §  1313. 

D.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence,  §§  1314-1321. 

a.  Fact  of  and  Terms  of  Contract,  §  1314. 

b.  Requisites  and  Validity  of  Contract,  §§   1315-1320. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1315. 

(2)  Reasonableness.  §   1316. 

(3)  Consideration,   §    1317. 

(4)  Delivery,  §  1318. 

(5)  Knowledge   of   Contents   and    Assent   of    Shipper,    §§    1319-1320. 
(a")   Express    Assent    Required,   §    1319. 


XXXVI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

(b)    Proof   of    Express   Assent    Not    Required,   §    lo20. 
c.  Proof  of  Negligence  Vel  Non,  §   1321. 

E.  Variance,  §  1322. 

F.  Questions    for    Court,    §    1323. 

G.  Questions   for  Jury,   §§   1324-1325. 

a.  As   to   the   Contract,   §   1324. 

b.  As  to  the   Loss,  §   1325. 
H.   Instructions.   §   1326. 

I.  Direction   of   Verdict,   §   1327. 

VII.   Limitation  of  Amount  of  Lial)ility.  §§   1328-1383. 

A.  Power  to   Limit  and  Validity,   §§   1328-1330. 

a.  Effect  of  State   Statutes  and  Constitutional   Provisions,   §   i:;2H 

b.  Under  Interstate   Commerce   Act,   §   1329. 

c.  What  Law  Governs,  §  1330. 

B.  Methods   of  Limiting,   §§   1331-1344. 

a.  Agreed  Valuation  of  Shipment,  §§   1331-1342. 

(1)  In    General,    §    1331. 

(2)  Public    Policy,    §    1332. 

(3)  Method   of   Valuation,   §§    1333-1339. 

(a)  In    General,    §    1333. 

(b)  Declaration    of    Shipper,    §    1334. 

(c)  Arbitrary    Preadjustment   of  Value,   §§   1335-1338. 
aa.  In   General,  §   1335. 

bb.  What    Constitutes,    §    1336. 
cc.   Burden   of   Proof,    §    1337. 
dd.   Questions    for   Jury,    §    1338. 

(d)  Misrepresentation   of  Value   by    Shipper,    §   1339. 

(4)  Carriers   of   Baggage,   §   1340. 

(5)  Carriers   of   Express,   §   1341. 

(6)  Connecting  Carriers,   §   1342. 

1).   Stipulation    Prescribing   Measure   of    Damages,    §    1343. 
c.   Requiring    Declaration   of   Value   by    Shipper,    §    1344. 

C.  Form   and   Requisites   of   Agreement,   §§   1345-1364. 

a.  In    General,    §   1345. 

b.  Express    Contract,    §§    1346-1347. 

(1)  Necessity,  §  1346. 

(2)  Signature    of   Shipper,    §    1347. 

c.  Use    of   Printed   Forms    Containing   Arbitrary    Value.    §    1348. 

d.  Certainty    and    Definiteness,    §    1349. 

e.  Consideration,  §   1350. 

f.  Fairness,   Justness   and    Reasonableness,   §§    1351-1352. 

(1)  Necessity,   §   1351. 

(2)  Fraud  or  Duress,  §  1352. 

g.  Choice  of  Full   or  Limited   Liability,  §   1353. 

h.   Knowledge    and    Assent    of    Sliipper,    §§    1354-i:i63. 

(1)  Necessity,   §§   1354-1355. 

(a)  In   General,  §   1354. 

(b)  Illegible,    Unintelligil)le   and    Unexplained    Terms,   §    1355. 

(2)  What    Constitutes,    §§    1356-1362. 

(a)  Acceptance  of  Bill   of  Lading,  §  1356. 

(b)  Acceptance  of  Freight  or  Shipping  Receipt,  §§  1357-1358. 
aa.   In  General,  §   1357. 

bb.   Express   Receipts,   §    1358. 

(c)  Acceptance  of  Coupon  Receipts  of  Local  Carriers,  §  1359. 

(d)  Knowledge  of  Shipper  That   Rates   Based  on   Value  of  Goods,  §   1360. 


TABU-:    OF    CONTENTS.  XXXVII 

(e)  Misrepresentation    of    Value    by    Shipper,   §    i:jGl. 

(f)  Authority  of  Agent  or  Consignor,  §    i:5G2. 
(3)   Question   for  Jury,  §    13G:{. 

i.  Notice   to  Carriers  of  Character  of   Goods,  §   1304. 

D.  Operation  and   Effect,  §§   1365-1381. 

a.  As   Dependent  upon   Form   of   Stipulation,   §§   13G5-13G7. 

(1)  Agreed  Valuation  Placed  on  Shipment,  §  1365. 

(2)  Stipulation   Fixing   Measure   of   Damages,   §§    136G-1367. 

(a)  In   General,   §   136G. 

(b)  Value  at  Time  and   Place  of  Shipment,  §   1367. 

b.  Losses  Covered,  §§   1368-1377. 

(1)  Limitation  of  Liability  for  Negligence,  §§  1368-1371. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1368. 

(b)  Rule   That   Carrier   Not    Liable,   §    1369. 

(c)  Ruk-    'I'liat    Carrier    Liable,   §    1370. 

(d)  Burden   of   Proof  of   Negligence,   §   1371. 

(2)  Losses    Not   Involving   Negligence,   §§    1372-1377. 

(a)  In    General,   §    1372. 

(b)  Delay   in   Transportation,   §    1373. 

(c)  Change   of   Route,   §   1374. 

(d)  Delivery    to    Wrong    Person,    §    1375. 

(e)  Embezzlement   of   Goods    by    Employee    of    Carrier,    §    1376. 

(f)  Conversion   by    Carrier,   §    1377. 

c.  Goods  Included,  §  1378. 

d.  Computing  Amount  of  Recovery,  §  1379. 

e.  Measure  of   Damages  Where   Stipulation  Void,  §   1380. 

f.  Partial   Loss,  §   1381. 

E.  Waiver    of    Stipulation,    §    1382. 

F.  Pleading   and    Proof,    §    1383. 

VIII.  Requirement  of  Notice  of  Loss  and  Presentation  of  Claim,  §§  1384-1470. 

A.  Power  to   Stipulate  and  Validity,   §§   1384-1387. 

a.  In   General,  §   1384. 

b.  Effect  of  Federal  Statutes,  §  1385. 

c.  Effect  of  State  Statutes,  §  1386. 

d.  Laws   Governing  and   Foreign    Laws,   §    1387. 

B.  Reasonableness  of  Stipulations,  §§   1388-1403. 

a.  General   Jvlule,   §   1388. 

b.  Interstate  and  Foreign  Sliipments,  §   1389. 

c.  Reasonableness   of  Time   Allowed,   §§    1390-1393. 

(1)  Necessity,   §   1390. 

(2)  What  Constitutes,  §  1391. 

(3)  Power  of  State   Court   to   Determine.   §   1392. 

(4)  Under  Texas  Statute.  §  1393. 

d.  Notice   before    Removal   from    Destination,   §    1394. 

e.  Amount   of  Damages,   etc.,   on   Reshipment,   §   1395. 

f.  Statement   of   Full   Amount   of  Claim,   §    1396. 

g.  Notice  to  Delivering  Carrier,  §  1397. 

h.  Statement   of   Nature   and    Place   of    Injury.   §    1398. 
i.  Respecting   Officer   or   Agent   to    Be   Notified.   §   1399. 
j.   Pleading   and    Proof    of    Reasonableness,    §§    1400-1402. 

(1)  In   General.  §   1400. 

(2)  Admissibility    of    Evidence.    §    1401. 

(3)  Weight  and   Sufficiency  of   Evidence,   §    1402. 
k.  Questions    for   Jury,   §    1403. 

C.  Losses   Arising   from    Carrier's   Negligence,  §   1404. 

D.  Form   and   Requisites   of   Stipulation.   §§   1405-1410. 


XXXVIH  TABLK    OF    COXTltXlS. 

a.  Instruments   in   W'liich   Contained,   §   1403. 

b.  Stipulation    Placed   on    Margin,   §    1406. 

c.  Certainty  and  Definiteness,   §   1407. 

d.  Consideration,   §  1408. 

e.  Assent   of  Shipper,   §   1409. 

f.  Signature  of  Consignor  or  Consignee,   §   1410. 

E.  Construction,  §§  1411-1413. 

a.  In   General.   §   1411. 

b.  "Removal,"    §    1412. 

F.  Operation  and  Eflfect.  §§  1413-1431. 

a.  In    General,   §   1413. 

b.  Strict   Enforcement,   §   1414. 

c.  Limiting  Liability,   §   1415. 

d.  Limiting   Liability    for    Negligence,    §    1416. 

e.  Limitation   of   Right   to   Sue,   §   1417. 

f.  Limitation   of  Time   within   Which   Action   May    Be    Brought,   §   1418. 

g.  Carriers   Entitled  to   Beneht,   §   1419. 

h.  Shipments  to  \\'hich  Applicable,  §  1420. 
i.  Losses   to   Which   Applicable,    §§    1421-1430. 

(1)  Claims   Accruing  before    Execution   of   Contract,   §   1421. 

(2)  Delay   in    Furnishing   Cars,   §    1422. 

(3)  Special   Damages   from   Delay,   §§    1423-1424. 

(a)  In   General,   §   1423. 

(b)  Loss   of   Market   or   Decline   in   Value,   §    1424. 

(4)  Loss  by   Misdelivery,   §   1425. 

(5)  Nondelivery,   §    142G. 

(6)  Unauthorized    Diversion,    §    1427. 

(7)  Carrier's   Conduct  as   Warehouseman.   §   1428. 

(8)  Failure   to   Return   Freight   Refused   by  Consignee,   §   1429. 

(9)  Failure  to  Collect   for   C.   O.   D.   Parcel   or  Return   Same,   §   1430. 
j.   Right   to    Require   Carrier   to   Trace   Shipment,   §   1431. 

G.  What   Constitutes   and   Sufficiency   of   Notice,   §§   1432-1439. 

a.  Necessity  for  Actual   Notice,   §    1432. 

b.  Writing,  §  1433. 

c.  Verification   or   Affidavit,   §    1434. 

d.  Complaint   by   Letter,   §    1435. 

e.  Inquiry    Requesting   Property   to    Be   Traced,    §    1436. 
f.  Filing  Suit  and  Service  of  Citation,  §  1437. 

g.  Copy  of  Telegraph   Message  to  Consignor,  §   1438. 
h.  Officer  to   Whom    Given,   §    1439. 
H.   Effect   of   Failure    to    Give    Notice,    §§    1440-1442. 

a.  In  General,  §  1440. 

b.  Failure  without  Fault  or  Negligence  of  Shipper,  §  1441. 

c.  Where   Extent  of  Damages  Cannot   Be  Ascertained   Until  after   Expiration 

of  Time   Limit,   §   1442. 
I.  Computing   Time    within    Which    Notice    Must    Be    Given,   §    1443. 

J.   Duty    to    Present    Claim    witliin    ReasonaI)le    Time    Although    Stipulation    Un- 
reasonable, §  1444. 

K.  Facts   Excusing   Failure  to  Give  Notice,  §§  1445-1450. 

a.  Refusal    of   Consignee    to    Receive    Goods,    §    1445. 

b.  Carrier  Having   Knowledge  of  Loss   or   Injury  and  Oi^portunity   to   Investi- 

gate, §  1446. 

c.  Carrier    Having    Examined    Goods    at    Destination,    §    1447. 

d.  vShipment    Burned    in    Yards   witli    Carrier's    Knowledge,    §    1448. 

e.  Destruction   of   Shipment   While   in   Carrier's   Possession,   §    1449. 

f.  Failure  to  Give  Notice  Induced  by  Conduct  of  Carrier  or  Its  Agent,  §  1450. 


TABLI-:    OF    CONTEXTS.  .  XXXIX 

L.   Waiver    of    Notice    or    Defects    Therein,    §§    1451-1466. 

a.  Right  to  Waive,  §   1451. 

b.  Effect   of  Waiver,   §   1452. 

c.  What  Constitutes  a  Waiver,  §§  1453-1465. 

(1)  Conduct    Inconsistent    with    Intent   to   Enforce    Stipulation,   §   1453. 

(2)  Notice    Received    in   Time    vi'ithout    Objection    to    Sufficiency,    §    1454. 

(3)  Custom  to   Accept  Verbal  Notice,  §   1455. 

(4)  Request    for    Further    Information,    §    1456. 

(5)  Mere    Denial   of   Liability,   §    1457. 

(6)  Denial   of   Liability   on    Other   Grounds   than    Defect   of    Notice,    §    1458. 

(7)  Treating-  UnveriTied  Claim  as  Pending  for  Adjustment,  §  1459. 

(8)  Notice    Received    after    Expir:;tion    of   Time    Limit,    §§    1460-1465. 

(a)  In   General,   §    1460. 

(b)  Returning  Notice   to   Claimant  for  Correction,  §   1461. 

(c)  Refusal   to   Pay   on    Other   Grounds   than   Failure   to    Notify   in   Time, 

§  1462. 

(d)  Request    for    InforniatidU    and    Promise    to    Adjust    Claim,    §    1463. 

(e)  Attempt   to   Trace   or   Find   Shipment,   §   1464. 
(f)   Attempt    to    Lessen    Shipper's    Loss.   §    1465. 

d.  Proof  of  Waiver,  §  1466. 

M.  Pleading  and  Proof  of  Breach,   §§   1467-1469. 

a.  Burden,  §  1467. 

b.  S'ufficiency  of  Plea  or  .\nswer,   §   14G8. 

c.  Sufficiency   of    Evidence,    §    1469. 
N.   Instructions,   §    1470. 

IX.  Contracts   for   Benefit  of   Insurance,   §   1471. 

X.  Limiting   Liability   to   That   of   Forwarder   or   Warehouseman,    §    1472. 

XI.  Stipulations    Limiting   Time    within    Which    Suit    Must    Be    Brought.    §§    1473-1497. 

A.  Power   and   Validity,    §§    147,1-1479. 

a.  In  General,  §  1473. 

b.  Under    State    Statutes,    §§    1474-1479. 

(1)  Statutes  Prohibiting  Limitation  of  Common-Law  Liability,  §  1474. 

(2)  Statute  Prohibiting  Limitation  of  Time  of  Bringing  Suit,  §§  1475-1478. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1475. 

(b)  Montana,  §  1476. 

(c)  Oklahoma,    §    1477. 

(d)  Texas,   §    1478. 

(3)  Conflict  of  Laws,  §   1479. 

B.  Form    and    Requisites,    §§    1480-1483. 

a.  Reasonableness,  §  1480. 

b.  Assent  of  Shipper,  §  1481. 
■c.  Consideration,  §  1482. 

d.  Stipulations   on   Back   of  Contract,   §   1483. 

C.  Operation   and   Effect,   §§   1484-1496. 

a.  .\s    Limiting    Common-Law    Liability    of    Carrier,    §    1484. 

b.  As  Bar  to  Action  Brought  after  Expiration  of  Time,  §§  1485-1490. 

(1)  General    Rule,   §   1485. 

(2)  When   Cause    of   Action    .Accrues,    §    1486. 

(3)  Necessity   for    Knowledge   of   Loss,   §    1487. 

(4)  Time    Consumed    in    Correspondence.    §    1488. 

(5)  What    Constitutes    Commencement    of   .Action,    §    1489. 

(6)  Removal   of   Bar,   §    1490. 

c.  Losses   or   Injuries   to   Which   .\pplicable,   §   1491. 

d.  Waiver  or   Estoppel  to   Rely  upon    Stii)ulation,  §§   1492-1496. 
(\)   .Authority  of  Agent,  §  1492. 


XL 


TAULi:    OF    COXTKNTS. 


(2)  Effect   of   Fraud   or   Misrepresentations   of   Carrier,   §   1493. 

(3)  What  Constitutes  Waiver,  §  1494. 

(4)  Pleading  and    Proof,    §    1495. 

(5)  Proof  of  Waiver,  §  1496. 
D.  Instructions,   §   1497. 

XII.  Stipulations  as    to   Time    of    Service    of    Process,    §    1498. 

XIII.  Stipulations  Abrogating    Rules    of    Evidence,    §    1499. 

XIV.  Stipulations  Requiring  Adjustment   of  Claims,   §   1500. 

CHAPTER   XV. 
Charges  axd  LiExs. 

I.  Definition,  §  1501. 

II.  Rate  or  Amount  of  Freight,  §§  1502-1519. 

A.  Reasonableness   of  Charge,  §   1502. 

B.  Right  of   Carrier  to   Fix  Rate,   §§   1503-1504. 

a.  Charter  Regulations,  §  1503. 

b.  Duty  to  Consult  Shippers  and  Consignees,  §  1504. 

C.  Standards  for   Fixing  Charge,   §§  1505-1506. 

a.  Measure  or  Weight,   §   1505. 

b.  Value  or  Risk  Assumed,  §  1506. 

D.  Special   Contracts   as    to   Amount    of   Charge,   §§   1507-1515. 

a.  Capacity,  §  1507. 

b.  Requisites,   §§   1508-1509. 

(1)  Meeting  of  Minds,  §  1508. 

(2)  Consideration,    §    1509. 

c.  Validity,   §§   1510-1511. 

(1)  Value   as   Basis    of   Charge.   §    1510. 

(2)  Conformity    to    Published   Tariffs,    §    1511. 

d.  Construction,    Operation   and    Effect,   §§    1512-1513. 

(1)  As   to   Rate,   §   1512. 

(2)  As  to  Valuation  and  Weight,  §   1513. 

e.  Duration,  §  1514. 

f.  Breach,  §   1515. 

E.  Undervaluation,   §   151G. 

F.  Misclassification,   §   1517. 

G.  Illegal  Rate  Charged,  §   1518. 

H.  Misrepresentation    of    Rate,    §    1519. 

III.  Right   to   and   Payment   of   Freight,   §§    1520-1541. 

A.  Right   to   Demand    Prepayment,   §    1520. 

B.  Effect  of  Failure  to  Demand   Prepayment,  §   1521. 

C.  Time  of  Payment,  §  1522. 

D.  Place   of   Payment,   §   1523. 

E.  Tender  of  Payment,   §   1524. 

F.  Demand,  §   1525. 

G.  Accrual    of    Right    to    Payment,    §§    1526-1532. 

a.  Deliver   Goods,   §§    1526-1527. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1526. 

(2)  Part  Performance,  §   1527. 

b.  Opportunity  to   Examine   Goods,  §   1528. 

c.  Where  Consignee   Can   Not   Be   Found,   §   1529. 

d.  Failure  to  Deliver  Not  Due  to  Fault  of  Either   Party,   §   1530. 

e.  Erroneous   Recital  in   P.ill  of  Lading  as  to   Amount  of  Shipment.  §   1531. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XLI 

f.  Conversion   of   Part   of  Goods  by   Carrier,   §    15,'i2. 
H.   Right  of  Carrier  to  Karn  Freight  for   Entire  Distance,  §  1533. 
I.  Dead   Freight,   §    1534. 
J.   Partial   or  Pro   Rata   Freiglit,  §§   1530-1537. 

a.  In   General.  §   1535. 

b.  Part    of    Cargo    Delivered,    §    1536. 

c.  Cargo  Accepted  at  Intermediate  Point,  §  1537. 

K.   Intent  to   Evade   Blockade  or  Revenue  Laws,  §  1538. 

L.  Stranding,  §  1539. 

M.  Vessel    Condemned    Ijy    Foreign    Tribunal — Fraud    of    Owner,    §    1540. 

N.  Bond   to  Secure   Freight,  §   1541. 

IV.   Rights  of  Connecting  Carrier,  §§   1542-154G. 

A.  Power  of  Initial  to  Bind   Succeeding  Carrier,  §   1542. 

B.  When  Freight  Due  or  Demandable,  §  1543. 

C.  Right   to    Divide   Through    Freight,   §    1544. 

D.  Combination  as  to  Rates,  §  1545. 

E.  Advances    for   Charges   and    Expenses,    §    1546. 

V.  Persons   Liable   for   Charges,   §§    1547-1548. 

A.  Consignor,    §    1547. 

B.  Consignee,   §   1548. 

VI.  Compensation   for   Stoppage   in   Transit   for    Inspection,   etc..   §   1549. 
VII.  Demurrage.  §  1550. 
VIII.  Storage    Charges,    §    1551. 

IX.  Reshipmcnt    and    Rcconsignmcnt    Charges,    §    1552. 
X.   Lien  for  Charges,  §§  1553-1595. 

A.  Right   to  Lien,  §§  1553-1555. 

a.  In    General,    §    1553. 

b.  Connecting  Carriers,  §  1554. 

c.  Transfer   Companies,    §    1555. 

B.  Operation  and   Effect,   §§   1556-1573. 

a.  In  General,  §  1556. 

b.  Property    Covered,    §§   1557-1562. 

(1)  Property  of  the   Government,  §   1557. 

(2)  Property  Carried  without   Authority,  §   1558. 

(3)  Missent   Goods,  §   1559. 

(4)  Property    Included   by   Mistake    in    Bill    of   Lading,    §    1560. 

(5)  Agent    Violating    Instructions    in    Shipping    Goods.    §    1561. 

(6)  Shipment    Obtained    by    Misrepresentation    of    Carrier,    §    1562. 

c.  Extent  of  Lien,  §§  1563-1568. 

(1)  Amount  Shown  by   Bill  of   Lading,   §    1563. 

(2)  Charges   Secured,  §§   1564-1568. 

(a)  Charges    Not    Connected   with    Carriage,    §    1564. 

(b)  Charges    for    Continuous    Transit    on    Successive    Lines.    §§    1565-1568. 
aa.   In   General,   §   1565. 

bb.  Advances  for  Back  Charges,  §  1566. 
cc.  Feeding  and  Caring  for  Stock,  §  1567. 
dd.  Duties  Paid  by  Prior  Carrier,  §  1568. 

d.  Goods  Missent,  §  1569. 

e.  Priorities,   §§   1570-1572. 

(1)  Assignment  for   Benetit   of   Creditors.   §    1570. 

(2)  Stoppage   in   Transitu.   §   1571. 

(3)  Bona    Fide    Purchasers,    §    1572. 

f.  Rights  of  Owner  of  Goods  against  Wrongdoer,   §  1573. 


XLII  TABLK    OF    CONTKNTS. 

C.  Waiver  or   Discharge,   §§   1,")T4-1582. 

a.  Express  Waiver,  §  1574. 

b.  Delivery   of   Goods   by   Carrier,   §    1575. 

c.  Goods  Taken    from   Carrier's   Possession   by   Operation   of   Law,   §    1576. 

d.  Delivery  to   Assignee   for  Creditors,   §   1577. 

e.  Goods   Wrongfully  Taken   from   Carrier.   §   1578. 

f.  Delivery   of   Part   of   Shipment.   §    1579. 

g.  Refusal  to  Deliver  on   Other  Grounds,  §  1580. 

h.  Injury  to   Goods   by   Fault   of  Carrier,   §    1581.  • 

i.  Damage  to  Consignee  by  Delay,  §  1582. 

D.  Preservation  of  Lien,  §§   1583-1584. 

a.  Storing   Goods   in   Warehouse,   §   1583. 

b.  Delivery  to  Consignee  as  Agent  of  Carrier,  §   1584. 

E.  Subrogation   or   Substitution,   §   1585. 

F.  Enforcement,    §§    1586-1594. 

a.  Sale,  §§  1586-159:!. 

(1)  At   Common   Law,   §   1586. 

(2)  Under  Statute,  §   1587. 

(3)  Manner   of   Sale,   §   1588. 

(4)  Notice,  §   1589. 

(5)  Advertisement   and   Description   of   Goods,   §   1590. 

(6)  Retention   of  Freight,   §   1591. 

(7)  Right   to   Overplus,    §    1592. 

(8)  Damages  for  Wrongful  Sale,  §  1593. 

b.  Suit,  §   1594. 

G.  Remedy  for  Wrongful  Assertion  of  Lien,  §  1595. 

XL  Actions  for  Charges,  §§  1596-1600. 

A.  Right   of   Action,    §   1596. 

B.  Jurisdiction,  §  1597. 

C.  Form  of  Action,  §   1598. 

D.  Set-Off  and  Recoupment,  §  1599. 

E.  Amount  of  Recovery  or  Damages,  §  1600. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Discrimination  in  Rates  and  Overcharge. 

L  Discrimination   in   Rates,   §§   1601-1632. 

A.  Right  to  Discriminate,  §§  1601-1603. 

a.  At  Common   Law,  §   1601. 

b.  Effect  of  Statutes   Generally,   §   1602.' 

c.  Authority  of  Station  Agent,  §  1603. 

B.  Unjust  or   Unreasonable   Discrimination,   §§   1604-1622. 

a.  General   Rule,  §   1604. 

b.  What    Constitutes    Unjust    Discriniiiuition,    §§    1605-1609. 

(1)  General   Rule,  §  1605. 

(2)  Questions  of  Law  or  Fact,  §  1606. 

(3)  Conformity  to  Published  Rates,  §  1607. 

(4)  Grant  of  Exclusive  Advantage  or  Monopoly,  §   1608. 

(5)  Rebates  and  Drawbacks,  §  1609. 

c.  Grounds  for  and   Elements  of   Discriminations,   §§   1610-1622. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1610. 

(2)  Particular   Grounds  of   Discrimination,   §§   1611-1622. 

(a)  Character  of  Shipment,  §   1611. 

(b)  Condition    or   Character   of    Shipper,    §§    1612-1613 
aa.  In  General,  §   1612. 


TABLE    OF    CONTKNTS.  X I.I  11 

bb.  Dealers  and  Manufacturers,  §  1G13. 

(c)  Place  of  Production  and  Ownership,  §   1614. 

(d)  Time   and   Quantity,   §   IGIT). 

(e)  Distance    and    Direction,    §§    HilO-lGlS. 
aa.  In  General,  §  161G. 

bb.  Long  and  Short   Hauls,  §   1G17. 

cc.  Difference  as   to   Other   Parts  of   Road,   §   1618. 

(f)  Large  and   Small   Shipments,  §   1610. 

(g)  Rates   Offered    to    Meet   Competition    or   Secure   Customers,   §    1620. 
(h)   Shipper  from  Spur  Track,  §   1G21. 

(i)  Carriage   to   Point   on   Belt   Line,   1622. 
C.  Remedies  for  Discrimination   in   Rates,  §§  1623-1632. 

a.  Injunction   and    Mandamus.    §    1G23. 

b.  Quo  Warranto,  §  1624. 

c.  Action   at   Law,   §§   1G25-1G31. 

(1)  Right  of  Action,  §  1625. 

(2)  Jurisdiction,   §   1626. 

(3)  Limitations,  §   1627. 

(4)  Petition  or  Complaint,  §  1628. 

(5)  Evidence,   §§   1629-1631. 

(a)  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  1629. 

(b)  Admissibility,  §  1630. 

(c)  Weight  and   Sufficiency,   §    1631. 

d.  Damages,   §   1632. 

II.  Excessive  Charges,  §§   16o:)-3  6.'5o. 

A.  Right   to   Make,   §   1633. 

B.  What   Constitutes  an   Overcharge   and   Effect,   §   1634. 

C.  Recovery    Back    of   Overcharge,    §§    1635-165.5. 

a.  Right   to   Recover,   §§   1635-1G3G. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1635. 

(2)  Necessity    for    Protest — Voluntarj-    Payment,    §    1636. 

b.  Carriers  and   Persons  Liable,  §§   1637-1638. 

(1)  Overcharge    Exacted    by-    Connecting    Carrier,    §    1637. 

(2)  Favored    Shipper   to   Whom    Excess   Charges   Paid,   §   1638. 

c.  Form  of  Action,  §§   1639-1640. 

(1)  Action   for   Money   Had   and    Received,   §   1639. 

(2)  Statutory   Redress  as   Al^rogating  Common-Law   Remedy,   §   1640. 

d.  Jurisdiction,   §   1641. 

e.  Limitations    and   Lapse   of  Time.    §    1642. 

f.  Demand  of  Repayment,  §  1643. 

g.  Persons   Entitled  to   Recover,   §    1644. 
h.  Declaration   or  Complaint,  §   1645. 

i.   Issues  and   Proof.   §   IGIG. 
j.   Reference,   §   1647. 
k.  Judicial    Notice,    §    1648. 
1.   Examination    of    Witnesses,    §    1G49. 
m.   Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  1650. 
n.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,   §   1651. 
o.   Weight    and    Sufficiency    of    Evidence.    §    1G52. 
p.  Questions    for   Jury,   §    1653. 
q.  Charge   of  Court,  §   1654. 
r.  Amount   of   Recovery,   §    1655. 


XLIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER    XVII. 

Stoppage  in   Transitu. 
I.  Scope  of  Treatment,  §  1656. 

II.   Nature   of   Right   in    General.   §§    1657-1660. 

A.  Definition  of  and  Nature  of  Right  in   General,  §  1657. 

B.  Origin  and  Status  of  Doctrine,  §  1658. 

C.  Must  Be  in  Transitu,  §  1659. 

D.  Insolvenc}^  Essential  to  Existence  of  Right,  §   1660. 

III.  Property   Subject  to   Right,   §   1661. 

IV.  Sale  on  Credit  and  Nonpayment  of  Price,  §§   1662-1668. 

A.  Nonpayment   of   Price,   §§   1662-1665. 

a.  In   General,   §   1662. 

b.  Goods    Shipped    in    Payment    of   Antecedent   Debt,   §    1663. 

c.  Vendor  Indebted  to  Vendee.  §   1664. 

d.  Consignor   Indebted   to   Consignee,   §   1665. 

B.  Part   Payment,   §   1666. 

C.  Acceptance  of  Bills  or  Notes,  §  1667. 

D.  Credit,   §   1668. 

V.  Insolvency  of  Vendee,   §§   1669-1671. 

A.  Right  Based  on   Insolvency  of  Vendee,  §   1669. 

B.  Nature   of  and   Existence   of   Insolvency,   §   1670. 

C.  Time   ©f   Existence   of  and   of   Notice   of   Insolvency,   §   1671. 

VI.  Persons   Entitled   to   Exercise   Right,   §§   1672-1683. 

A.  Privity  of  Contract,   §   1672. 

B.  Vendor   or   Quasi   Vendor,    §    1673. 

C.  Transferee  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  1674. 

D.  Principal  against   Factor,   §   1675. 

E.  Factor  against  Principal,  §   1676. 

F.  Agent  against  Vendee   of  Principal,   §   1677. 

G.  Part  Owner,  §  1678. 

H.  Holder  of  Lien,  §  1679. 

I.  Surety,   §   1680. 

J.  Consignee,   §   1681. 

K.  May   Be    Exercised   through   Agent,  §   1682. 
L.   General   Power  of  Consignor  to   Stop   Delivery   to   Consignee,   §   1683. 

VII.   Efifect   of  Attachment,   Execution,   or  Otlier  Lien  against  Vendee,   §  1684. 

VIII.  Whether    Right    May    Be    Defeated    by    Transfer    of    Bill    of  Lading   or    by    At- 

tempted Transfer  of  Title  to  Goods,  §§  1685-1691. 

A.  Transfer  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  1685. 

B.  Transfer  of  Duplicate   of  Bill   of  Lading,   §    1686. 

C.  Transfer  for  Antecedent   Debt,   §   1687. 

D.  Pledge  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  1688. 

E.  Subpurchasers   of  Goods,   §   1689. 

F.  Pledge  or  Mortgage  of  Goods,  §  1690. 

G.  Assignment  for  Benefit  of  Creditors,  §  1691. 

IX.  Duration   and  Termination   of  Transit,   §§   1692-1710. 

A.  Beginning   of  Transit,   §    1692. 

B.  Terminates  with  Delivery  to  Vendee,  §   1693. 

C.  What  Constitutes   Delivery,   §   1694. 

D.  Delivery  of  Part,  §  1695. 

E.  Possession  of  Goods  by  Carrier  after  Arrival  at  Destination  in  General,  §  1696. 


TAliLI-:    01*    COXTKXTS.  XLV 

F.  Possession  of  Carrier  as  Af^cnt  of  Consijjnce  or  as  Warehouseman,  §  l'J97. 

G.  Delivery  by  Carrier  to  Third   I'erson  in   General,  §   1698. 

H.   Delivery  by   Carrier  to   A^cnt,   or   Local   Carrier   for  Transmission   to   X'cndee, 
§   1699. 

I.  Delivery    to    Local   Carrier    Selected    by    Consignee,    §    1700. 

J.  Deposited   by   Carrier  at    Intermediate    Point,   §   1701. 
K.  Agent,   or   Local  Carrier,   Converted  into  Special  Agent   for  Vendee,   1702. 
L.  Seizure  under  Attachment  or   Execution,   §   no:i. 

M.  Intercepted  at   Intermediate   Point  l)y  Vendee,   or   His  Agent,  §   1704. 
N.  Delivery  to  Ship  Owned  or  Hired  by   Buyer,  §   1705. 
O.  Delivery  to  Carrier  for  Shipment  to  Third   Person,  §  1706. 
P.  Refusal  of  Buyer  to  Receive  Goods  and  Reconveyance  to  Seller,  §§  1707-1708. 

a.  Refusal   of  Consignee   to   Receive   Goods,  §   1707. 

b.  Reshipment    to    Vendee    after    Refusal    of    Consignor    to    Resume    Possession. 

§   1708. 
Q.  Reshipment  by   Buyer,  §   1709. 
R.  Entry  of  Goods  in  Custom  House  and  Retention  in  Bonded  Warehouse,  §  1710. 

X.  Waiver  or  Loss  of  Right.  §  1711. 

XI.  Manner  of  Exercise  of  Right,  §   1712. 

XII.  Rights  and  Liability  of  Carrier,  §§  1713-1719. 

A.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Investigate  and  Require  Indemnity,  §  1713. 

B.  Right   to    Bring   Goods   into   Court,   §   1714. 

C.  Right   of  Carrier  to   Retain   Goods   for  Charges   Due  by  Consignee,  §   1715. 

D.  Liability  of  Carrier  for  Refusal  or  l-'ailure  to  Stop  Goods  in  Transitu,  §  1716. 

E.  Lial)ility    for    Misdeli\cry,    §    1717. 

F.  Liability  of  Carrier  to  Consignee   or   Purchase  from   Consignee,   §   1718. 

G.  Actions   against   Carrier,   §    1719. 


CTLAPTKR   XVITT. 

Dkad  BoDiits. 

I.   Rights,   Duties   and   Liabilities   of   Carrier,   §   1720. 
II.   Actions,    §§    1721-1732. 

A.  I'orni  of  Action.  §    1721. 

B.  Who    May    Maintain    Action,   §    1722. 

C.  Pleading   and    Proof,    §    1723. 

D.  Evidence,    §§    1724-1725. 

a.  Admissibility,   §   1724. 

b.  Weight    and    Sufficiency,    §    1725. 

E.  Damages,  §§  1720-1729. 

a.  Nominal  Damages,  §  1726. 

b.  Expenses,   §   1727. 

c.  Mental  Suffering,  1728. 

d.  Excessive   Verdict,   §   1729. 

F.  Recoupment  of  Damages  in  Action  for  Transportation  Charges,  §  1730. 

G.  Instructions,  §   1731. 

H.   Questions  for  Jury,  §  1732. 


XLVI  TABLK    OF    COXTKXTS. 

PART  III 
CARRIERS  OF  LIVE  STOCK 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

Rights,  Duties  and  Liabilities. 
I.  Nature  of  Liability,  §   1733. 
II.  Duty  to  Receive  and  Carry,  §  1734. 

III.  Duties  in   Respect  to  Transportation,  §§   1735-1758. 

A.  Degree  of  Care  Required,  §§  1735-1739. 
a.   In   General,   §   1735. 

h.   Management   of  Train,   §   1736. 

c.  Sprinkling   Hogs,   §   1737. 

d.  Degree  of  Care  Measurable  by  Character  of  Property,  §   1738. 

e.  Care  during  Delay  in  Transportation,  §  1739. 

B.  Duty  as  to  Cars,  §§   1740-1746. 

a.  Duty  to   Furnish   Cars   in   General,  §   1740. 

b.  Sufficient   Number   of  Cars,   §   1741. 

c.  Cars   Must   Be   Suitable,  §§   1742-1744. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1742. 

(2)  Bedding,   §   1743. 

(3)  Using  Cars  the   Property  of  Others  than  Carrier,  §   1744. 

d.  Cars  Must  Be  Furnished  within  Reasonable  Time,  §  1745. 

e.  Duty  to   Place  in   Particular   Position   in   Train,   §    1746. 

C.  Duty  to  Provide  Stock  Pens,  §§   1747-1749. 

a.  In    General,   §   1747. 

b.  Character  of  Yards  or  Pens  Required.   §   1748. 

c.  Extra  Charge  for  Use  of  Stockyards,   §   1749. 

D.  Duty   as   to   Loading   and   Unloading,   §§    1750-1752. 

a.  In    General,   §   1750. 

b.  Duty  to  Designate  Proper  Cars  for  Loading,  §   1751. 

c.  Duty  to   Furnish   Safe  and   Suitable   Facilities,  §   1752. 

E.  Duty  to   Ship  by  Particular  Route,  §   1753. 

F.  Duty  to  Feed,  Water  and   Rest,  §§   1754-1758. 

a.  In  General,  §  1754. 

b.  Where   Shipper   Has  Assumed   Duty,   §§   1755-1758. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1755. 

(2)  Notice  of  Desire  to  Feed  and  Water,  §  1756. 

(3)  Duty  to  Provide   S'uitable   Places   and   Facilities   for   Feeding  and    Water- 

ing, §   1757. 

(4)  Duty  to  Furnish  Water,  §  1758. 

IV.  Special  Contracts  for  Transportation,  §§  1759-1770. 

A.  In   General,  §   1759. 

B.  Validity  of  Special  Contracts,  §§  1760-1763. 

a.  In    General,   §   1760. 

b.  Fraud,  §  1761. 

c.  Terms  and   Mode  of  Transportation,  §   1762. 

d.  Partial   Invalidity,   §   1763. 

C.  Authority  of  Agents  to  Make   Special  Contracts,  §§   1764-1706. 

a.  In  General,  §  1764. 

b.  To   Furnish   Cars   at   Specified   Time  and   Place,   §    ]7()5. 


TABLli    OF    CONTENTS.  XLVII 

c.   For   Rates,   §    1706. 

D.  Modification -or  Merger,  §§   1767-1769. 

a.  In   General,   §    1767. 

b.  Duress,  §  1768. 

c.  Want  of  Time  to   Read  Contract,   §   1769. 

E.  Construction   of   Contract,   §   1770. 
V.  When   Liability  Commences,  §  1771. 

VI.   Delivery   by   Carrier,   §§    1772-1781. 

A.  In   General,   §    1772. 

B.  Time  of  Delivery,  §   1773. 

C.  Necessity  for   Personal   Delivery,   §   1774. 

D.  Notice  to  Consignee,  §  1775. 
L.  Place  of  Delivery,  §  177G. 

F.  To  Whom  Delivery  May  Be  Made,  §  1777. 

G.  Care  of  Stock  Where  Consignee   Is  Absent,   §   1778. 
H.   Misdelivery,  §   1779. 

I.  Goods  Shipped  C.  O.  D.,  §  1780. 
J.  Damages   for  Wrongful   Deliver}'.   §   1781. 
VII.   Delay   in   Transportation    or   Delivery,   §§   1782-1826. 

A.  In   General,  §   1782. 

B.  Diligence   Required  of  Carrier,   §   178.3. 

C.  What  Constitutes   Reasonable  Diligence,  §  1784. 

D.  Excuses   for   Delaj^   §§   1785-1794. 

a.  In    General,   §   1785. 

b.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  God,  Public  Enemy,  etc.,  §  1786. 

c.  Delays  Incident  to  Course  of  Business,  §  1787. 

d.  Unusual  Rush   of  Business  or  ^^'ant  of  Facilities,  §  1788. 

e.  Inherent  Vices,  §  1789. 

f.  Stops  for  Food,  Water  and  Rest.  §  1790. 

g.  Delay  Caused  by   Operation   of  Law,   §   1791. 
h.  Acts  of  Owner,   §   1792. 

i.  Delay   Caused   by   Strikes,   §   1793. 

j.  Duty  of  Carrier  on   Happening  of   Excusing  Cause,  §   1794. 

E.  Delay  under  Special   Contract,   §   1795. 

F.  Damages   for   Delay   in    Transportation   and   Delivery,   §§   1796-1826. 

a.  Liability  for  Damages,  §§   1796-1803. 

(1)  In  General,   §   1796. 

(2)  Failure   to   Furnish   Cars   for  Shipment,  §   1797. 

(3)  Loss   Occurring  after  Cattle   Out   of  Carrier's   Hands,   §   1798. 

(4)  Special   Damages,   §§   1799-1801. 

(a)  Notice  of  Special  Circumstances,  §§  1799-1800. 
aa.   Necessity  for  Notice   of  Circumstances,   §   1799. 
bb.  What  Constitutes  Notice.  §  1800. 

(b)  What  Constitutes   Special   Damages,  §  1801. 

(5)  Remote  or  Speculative  Damages,  §  1802. 

(6)  Waiver  of  Damages,  §  1803. 

b.  Elements,   §§   1804-1810. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1804. 

(2)  Decline  in   Market,  §  1805. 

(3)  Expenditures  for  Keep  of  Animals,  §  1806. 

(4)  Expenses  of  Shipment  to  Another  Market,  §  1807. 

(5)  Slirinkage  in  Weight,  §  1808. 

(6)  Loss  of  Services  of  Animals,  §  1809. 

(7)  Death  of  Anim.als,  §  1810. 

c.  Measure  and  Amount.  §§  1811-1818. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1811. 

(2)  Diflference  in   Market  \'alue  at  Destination  as  Measure,  §  1812. 


XLVIII  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

(3)  Shipper  under  Contract  to  Deliver  at  Specified  Time,  §  1813. 

(4)  Refusal  to  Receive  Shipment,  §  1814. 

(5)  Breach  of  Agreement  to  Furnish  Cars,  §  1815. 

(6)  Shipment  for  Pasturage,  §  1816. 

(7)  Subsequent  Shipment  to  Another  Market,  §  1817. 

(8)  Interest,   §    1818. 

d.  Mitigation  and  Discharge  of  Damage,  §  1819. 

e.  Pleading,  §  1820. 

f.  Issues  and  Proof,  §  1821. 

g.  Evidence,  §§  1822-1823. 

(1)  Admissibility,  §  1822. 

(2)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  §  1823. 
h.  Instructions,  §  1824. 

i.  Judgment,  §§  1825-1826. 

(1)  Measured  in  United  States  Money  on  Shipment  to  Mexico,  §  1825. 

(2)  Excessive   Damages,  §  1826. 

VIII.  Liability  of  Carrier  for  Loss  or  Injury,  §§  1827-1871. 

A.  In   General,  §  1827. 

B.  Liability  as  for  Carriage   of  Goods,  §  1828. 

C.  Liability  as  Insurer,  §  1829. 

D.  Liability  for  Negligence,  §   1830. 

E.  Proximate   Cause,   §   1831. 

F.  Time  Liability  Arises,   §   1832. 

G.  Liability  for  Negligence  of  Agent,  §  1833. 

H.  Liability  in   Particular   Instances,   §§   1834-1843. 

a.  Furnishing  and  Repairing  Cars,  §  1834. 

b.  Careless  Moving  of  Cars,  §  1835. 

c.  Carriage  beyond   Destination,  §   1836. 

d.  Exposing  Stock  to  Fire,  Weather  or  Disease,  §  1837. 

e.  Negligent    Delivery,   §    1838. 

f.  Liability  for  Delay,  §  1839. 

g.  Liability  for  Deviation,  §  1840. 

h.  Liability  for  Injury  to  Cattle  in  Yards,  §  1841. 
i.   Liability   for   Loss   after   Delivery   to   Consignee,   §   1842. 
j.   Liability  for  Loss  on  Connecting  Carrier.  §  1843. 
I.    Circumstances    Exempting   from    Liability    as    Insurer,    §§    1844-1852. 

a.  In  General,  §  1844. 

b.  Loss  Arising  from  Act  of  God,  §§  1845-1846. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1845. 

(2)  Where  Carrier's  Negligence  Concurs,  §  1846. 

c.  Inherent  Vice  of  Animals,  §§  1847-1848. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1847. 

(2)  Where   Carrier's    Negligence    Concurs,    §    1848. 

d.  Loss  or  Injury  Caused  by  Shipper,  §  1849. 

e.  Waiver  of  Liability  by  Shipper,  §   1850. 

f.  Where  Shipper  Accompanies  Live  Stock,  §  1851. 

g.  Duty  of  Carrier  after   Excusing  Cause  Ceases,  §  1852. 
J.  Damages,  §§  1853-1871. 

a.  Elements  of  Damages,  §§  1853-1858. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1853. 

(2)  Interest,  §  1854. 

(3)  Slirinkage  in  Weight,  §  1855. 

(4)  Freight,  §  1856. 

(5)  Expenses,  §  1857. 

(6)  Feed  for  Cattle,  §  1858. 

b.  Measure  of  Damages,  §§   1859-1860. 
(1)  Total  Loss,  §  1859. 


TAI5LI-:  OF  CONTENTS.  XLIX 

(2)    Partial  Loss,  §   18G0. 

c.  Special  Damages,  §  18G1. 

d.  Speculative  or  Remote  Damages,  §  1862. 

e.  Mitigation  of  Damages,  §  18G3. 

f.  Evidence  of  Damages,  §§  1864-1869. 

(1)  Admissibility,    §§    1864-1868. 

(a)  Evidence  of  Market  Value,  §  1864. 

(b)  Evidence  of  Actual   Value,  §  1865. 

(c)  Evidence  of  Cost  and  Selling  Price,  §  1866. 

(d)  Evidence  of  Nature  and  Pedigree,  §  1867. 

(e)  Evidence  as  to  Damages  Per  Head,  §  1868. 

(2)  Weight  and  Sufificiency,  §  1869. 
g.   Instructions   as   to   Damages,  §  1870. 

h.  Payment  of  Freight  as  Prerequisite  to  Recovery,  §  1871. 
IX.  Limitation  of  Liability  of  Carriers  of  Live  Stock,  §§  1872-2054. 
A.  Limitation  of  Common-Law   Liability  as  Insurer,  §§   1872-1968. 

a.  Power  to  Limit  and  Validity,  §§   1872-1875. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1872. 

(2)  Effect  of  Statutory  and  Constitutional   Provisions,  §§  1873-1874. 

(a)  Federal  Statutes,  §  1873. 

(b)  State  Statutes,  §  1874. 

(3)  Conflict   of   Laws,   §   1875. 

b.  Extent  of  Limitation   Generally.  §   1876. 

c.  Duties  and  Losses  Which   May  P>e  Limited  or  Restricted,  §§  1877-1905. 

(1)  In  General,  §   1877. 

(2)  Negligence   of   Carrier,   §§   1878-1881. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1878. 

(b)  Injury   Caused    by    Fraud    or    Gross    Negligence,    §§    1879-1881. 
aa.   In    General,   §   1879. 

bl).  Jurisdiction   Allowing   Exemption,   §   1880. 
cc.    Conflict   of   Laws,   §    1881. 

(3)  Requiring  Shipper  to  Load  and  Unload  Stock,  §§   1882-1886. 

(a)  In  General.  §  1882. 

(b)  Under  Federal  Statutes,  §§  1883-1885. 
aa.    Hepburn   Act,   §   1883. 

bb.    Liability   for   Overloading,   §    1884. 

cc.  I'nloading  for  Food,  Rest  and  Water,  §  1885. 

(c)  Loss  by  Negligence  of  Carrier,  §  1886. 

(4)  Requiring  Shipper  to  Accompany  and  Care  for  Stock,   §§   1887-1891. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1887. 

(b)  Under  Constitutional  and  Statutory   Provisions,  §  1888. 

(c)  Loss  by  Negligence,  §  1889. 

(d)  Watering   and    Feeding,   §    1890. 

(e)  Estoppel  of  S'hipper  to  Deny  Validity,  §  1891. 

(5)  Requiring  Shipper  to  Select  or  Inspect  Cars,  §  1892. 

(6")   Loss  from  Size  and  Mode  of  Construction  of  Cars.  §  1893. 

(7)  Loss  Resulting  from  Defective  Cars,  §  1894. 

(8)  Loss  from   Failure  to   Provide  Suitable  Yards  and  Chutes,   §   1895. 

(9)  Limitation   to   Loss   Caused   by   Collision   or  Derailment.   §   1896. 

(10)  Injury  Resulting  from  Inherent  Vice,  Propensities  or  Defect  of  Animals, 

§§   1897-1899. 

(a)  In  General.  §  1897. 

(b)  Injuries   Caused   by   Freight.   §    1898. 

(c)  Loss   b}'   Tumping  from  Cars,   §   1899. 

(11)  Failure  to  Drench  Hogs.  §  1900. 

(12)  Loss   by   Suffocation,   §    1001. 

1   Car— d 


TAHLE  OF   CONTENTS. 

(13)  Loss   by   Mobs  and   Strikers,   §   1902. 

(14)  Stipulation  against  Loss  b}'   Delay,   §   1903. 

(15)  Nondelivery,  §  1904. 

(16)  Loss  Occurring  Prior  to  Execution  of  Contract,  §   1905. 

d.  Mode,  Form  and  Requisites,  §§  1906-1913. 

(1)  Express  Contract,  §  1906. 

(2)  Custom,   §   1907. 

(3)  Fairness  and   Reasonableness,   §   1908. 

(4)  Knowledge  and  Assent  of  Shipper,  §  1909. 

(5)  Power  of  Agent  to   Bind   Shipper,  §   1910. 

(6)  Choice   between   Full   and   Limited   Liabilit}'   Contracts,   §   1911. 

(7)  Consideration,  §  1912. 

(8)  Fraud,  Misrepresentation  and  Duress,  §  1913. 

e.  Construction,  Operation  and  Efifect,  §§  1914-1942. 

(1)  Rules  of  Construction,  §   1914. 

(2)  Duties   Restricted   and   Losses  and   Injuries   Covered,   §§    1915-1942. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1915. 

(b)  Loss  from   Negligence   of  Carrier   Generally,   §   191G. 

(c)  Injuries  from  Inherent  Vice  or  Defect  of  Animals,  §  1917. 

(d)  Requiring  Shipper  to   Load  and   Unload   Stock,   §§   1918-1921. 
aa.   In   General,   §   1918. 

bb.   Failure  to  Furnish   Cars  in   Reasonable  Time,  §  1919. 

cc.  Failure  to  Furnish  Proper  Facilities  for  Unloading,  §  1920. 

dd.   Carrier's   Unloading  without   Notice   to   Shipper,   §   1921. 

(e)  Requiring  Shipper  to  Accompany  and  Care   for   Stock,  §§   1922-1930. 
aa.  Operation  and  Effect  in  General,  §  1922. 

bb.   Injury  by   Negligence   of  Carrier,   §   1923. 

cc.   Escape   of   Stock,   §   1924. 

dd.  Watering  and  Feeding,  §  1925. 

ee.  Failure  to  Drench  Hogs,  §  1926. 

ff.  Care  of  Stock  While  in  Stockyards,  §  1927. 

gg.  Duty  to  Care  for  Stock  after  Unloading,  §   1928. 

hh.  Carriers  Allowing  Shipper  to  Ride  on  Passenger  Train,  §  1929. 

ii.  Failure  to  Deliver,  §  1930. 

(f)  Loss  While  in  Cars,  §  1931. 

(g)  Requiring  Shipper  to  Inspect  Cars  and  Stockyards,  §  1932. 
(h)    Injury  from  Use   of  Defective  or   Unsuitable   Cars,   §   1933. 
(i)    Arbitrary  Deviation   from   Route,  §   1934. 

(j)   Refusal  to  Allow  Shipper  to  Feed  and  Water  Stock,  §  1935. 

(k)   Collisions,  §   1936. 

(1)    Derailment,  §   1937. 

(m)   "P>reaking"  and  "Chafing,"  §   1938. 

(n)  Loss  by  Suffocation,  §  1939. 

(o)  Loss  by  Strikers,  §  1940. 

(p)    Stipulation  against   Loss   by   Delay,   §    1941. 

(q)   Injuries   Occurring   Prior   to    Execution    of   Contract,    §    1942. 

f.  Failure  of  Shipper  to  Comply  with  Contract,  §§  1943-1947. 

(1)  Shipper  Required  to  Load  and  Unload  Stock,  §  1943. 

(2)  Failure  of  Shipper  to  Accompany  and  Care  for  Stock,   §§   1944-1947. 

(a)  In  General,  §  1944. 

(b)  Duty  of   Carrier,   §   1945. 

(c)  Cars  Stopped  En  Route  by  Carrier,  §  1946. 

(d)  Injuries  from  Defect  in  Cars  Unknown  to  Shipj^cr,  §  1947. 

g.  Breach  or  Refusal  of  Carrier  to  Perform  Contract,  §§  1948-1949. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1948. 

(2)  Shipper  Required  to  Load  and  Unload  Stock,  §  1949. 
h.  Waiver  or  Estoppel  to  Rely  on  Exemption,  §  1950. 


TAULli  OF   CONTENTS.  M 

i.  Enforcement,  §§    \'.)',\-\dG8. 

(1)  Pleading,    §§    1951-1952. 

(a)  Petition  or  Complaint,  §  1951. 

(b)  Plea  or  Answer,  §   1952. 

(2)  Issues,   Proof  and  Variance,  §  1953. 

(3)  Evidence,  §§   1953-1966. 

(a)  Presumptions  and   Burden  of  Proof,  §§   1954-1959. 
aa.  As  to  the  Contract,  §  1954. 

bb.  As  to  the  Loss  or  Injury,  §§  1955-1959. 
(aa)  Cause  of  Loss,  §  1955. 
(bb)  Showing  Loss  within  Exception,  §  1950. 
(cc)    Negligence   of  Carrier,   §   1957. 
(dd)    Shipper  Required  to   Inspect  Car,  §   1958. 
(ee)    Shipper  Required   to   Care   for   Stock.   §   1959. 

(b)  Admissibility    and    Competency,    §§    19G0-1965. 
aa.    Contract    Itself,    §    1960. 

bb.   Custom.   §   1961. 
cc.  Carrier's  Course  of  Business,  §  1962. 

dd.  Choice  between  Full  and  Limited  Liability  Contract.  §  1963. 
ee.   Fraud,   §   1964. 
ff.  Negligence,  §  1965. 

(c)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  §  1966. 

(4)  Question   for  Jury,   §   1967. 

(5)  Instructions,   §    1968. 

B.  Limitation  of  Amount  of  Liability  and  Agreed  Valuation,  §§  1969-1998. 

a.  Power  to  Limit,  §§  1969-1974. 

(1)  In   General,  §   1969. 

(2)  Effect  of  Statutory  and  Constitutional  Provisions,  §§  1970-1972. 

(a)  Federal  Statutes,  §   1970. 

(b)  State    S'tatutes,    §§    1971-1972. 

aa.    Application    to    Interstate    Commerce.    §    1971. 
bb.    Statutes    of    Particular    States,    §    1972. 

(3)  Loss  by  Negligence  of  Carrier,  §  1973. 

(4)  Loss    by    Gross    Negligence.    §    1974. 

b.  Form,   Requisites  and  Validity,  §§   1975-1987. 

(1)  Form   and   What   Constitutes,   §   1975. 

(2)  Consideration,    §   1976. 

(3)  Reasonableness — Undervaluation,  §   1977. 

(4)  Arbitrary   Valuation,    §    1978. 

(5)  Assent  of  Shipper.  §§  1979-1981. 

(a)  Necessity.   §   1979. 

(b)  Acceptance   of  Bill   of  Lading,   §   19S0. 

(c)  Authority   of    Person    Shipping   to    Bind    Owner,    §    1981. 

(6)  Choice  of  Full  and  Limited  Liability  Contracts.  §  1982. 

(7)  Fraud    or    Duress,    §    1983. 

(8)  Fairness  and  Good  Faith,  §  1984. 

(9)  Permission    of    Railroad    Commissions,    §    1985. 

(10)  Partial    Invalidity,    §    19S6. 

(11)  Estoppel  by   Receiving  Benefit  of  Reduced   Rate,  §  19S7. 

c.  Construction.   Operation   and    Eflfect.   §§   19SS-1991. 

(1)  Construction    of  Terms.   §    1988. 

(2)  As  Measure  of  Rights  and   Obligations  of  Parties.   §§   1989-1990. 

(a)  In    General.   §   1989. 

(b)  As    Determining   Amount    of    Recovery.    §    1990. 

(3)  Losses    Covered,    §    1991. 

d.  Modification    and    Rescission,    §    1992. 

e.  Enforcement.   §§   1993-1997. 


Lil  TABLE  OF  CONTE;nTS. 

(1)  Pleading,    §    1993. 

(2)  Burden  of  Proof,   §   1994. 

(3)  Admissibility    and    Competency    of    Evidence,    §    1995. 

(4)  Weight   and   Sufficiency,   §   1996. 

(5)  Questions   for  Jury,   §   1997. 
f.    Damages,    §    199S. 

C.  Stipulation  for  Notice  of  Loss.  §§   1999-2051. 

a.  Power   and   Validity,   §§    1999-2004. 

(1)  In    General,    §   1999. 

(2)  Public   Policy,   §   2000. 

(3)  Eflfect   of  Constitutional   and    Statutory   Provisions,   §§   2001-2003. 

(a)  Provision   Prohibiting  Stipulation,   §  2001. 

(b)  Under   Texas    Statute,    §§    2002-2003. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2002. 

bb.    Conflict   of    Laws,    §    2003. 

(4)  Effect   of    Custom,    §    2004. 

b.  Reasonableness,    §§    2005-2012. 

(1)  Necessity,   §    2005. 

(2)  What   Constitutes,   §§   2006-2008. 

(a)  In    General.    §    2006. 

(b)  Respecting   Officer   or   Agent   to    Be   Notified.   §   2007. 

(c)  Particular   Stipulations  Considered,  §  2008. 

(3)  Pleading  and   Proof   of   Reasonableness,   §§   2009-2011. 

(a)  Presumption    and    Burden,    §    2009. 

(b)  Admissibility   of   Evidence,   §   2010. 

(c)  Weight  of   Evidence,   §   2011. 

(4)  Questions  for  Court  or  Jury,  §  2012. 

c.  Form   and    Requisites,    §§    2013-2015. 

(1)  Certainty  and  Definiteness,   §  2013. 

(2)  Name   of  Agent  to    Be   Notified,   §   2014. 

(3)  Consideration,    §    2015. 

d.  Construction,   Operation   and   Effect,   §§   2016-2031. 

(1)  Rules    of    Construction,    §    2016. 

(2)  Construction  of  Phrase  "Removal  from  Place  of  Destination,"  §§  2017-2015 

(a)  "Place  of  Destination,"  §  2017. 

(b)  What    Constitutes    a    Removal,    §    2018. 

(3)  Losses    of   Which    Notice    Must    Be    Given,    §§    2019-2031. 

(a)  In    General,   §   2019. 

(b)  Resulting  from  Negligence  Generally,  §  2020. 

(c)  Delay    in    Furnishing   Cars,    §    2021. 

(d)  Loss   by   Delay,   §   2022. 

(e)  Death  of  Animals  in  Transit  or  before  Removal,  §  2023. 

(f)  Statutory  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Feed  and  Water,  §  2024. 

(g)  Nondelivery,    §    2025. 

(h)    Stock   Removed   before   Arrival    at    Destination,   §   2026. 

(i)    Shrinkage   from   Shunting  or   Bumping   Cars,   §   2037. 

(j)    Injuries    Accruing    after    Unloading,    §    2028. 

(k)    Injuries    Not    Discoverable    within    Stipulated    Time,    §§    2029-2030. 

aa.    In   General,   §   2029. 

bb.    Right    to    Give    Additional    Notice,    §    2030. 
(1)   Claims  Accruing  Prior  to  Contract.  §  2031. 

e.  Sufficiency    of    Notice,    §§    2032-2035. 

(1)  In    General,    §    2032. 

(2)  Time    of    Presentation,    §    2033. 

(3)  Agent  Notified,  §  2034. 

""         (4)  Claims  Covered  by  Notice,  §  2035. 

f.    Effect  of   Failure    to   Give   Notice,   §   2036. 


TAHLK  or  CONTENTS.  LjII 

^     Facts    Relieving    from    Necessity    for    Notice,    §§    2037-2042. 

(1)  Carrier  Having  Notice  and  Opportunity  to   Investigate,  §  2037. 

(2)  Waiver,    §§    2038-2042. 

(a)  Power   to   Waive,   §  2038. 

(b)  Authority    of    Agent,    §    2039. 

(c)  What    Constitutes,    §§    2040-2042. 

aa.    Waiving    Written    by    Acting    on    Verbal    Notice,    §    2040. 
bb.    Want    of    Verification,    §    2041. 
cc.    Delay    in    Filing   Notice,   §   2042. 
h.    Enforcement,    §§    2043-2051. 

(1)  Form    of    Action,    §    2043. 

(2)  Pleading,   §§  2044-2046. 

(a)  Petition    or    Declaration,    §    2044. 

(b)  Plea    or    Answer,    §    2045. 

(c)  Replication    or    Reply,    §    2046. 

(3)  Burden   of  Proof,  §  2047. 

(4)  Admissibility    and    Competency,    §    2048. 

(5)  Weight    and    Sufficiency,    §    2049. 

(6)  Question   for  Jury,  §  2050. 

(7)  Appeal  and   Error,  §  2051. 

D.  Time    When    Suit    Must    Be    Brought.    §    2052. 

E.  Limiting   Loss    to   Carrier's    Own    Line.   §   2053. 

F.  Limiting  Liability  to  That  of  Forwarder,  §  2054. 


CILAPTER    XX.' 

Actions. 

L  Nature  and   Form   of  Action,   §§   2055-2058. 

A.  Right   of   Plaintifif  to   Sue    Either    Ex   Contractu   or   Ex    Delicto,   §   2055. 

B.  Action    for   Conversion,    §   205C. 

C.  Actions  Ex  Delicto,  §  2057. 

D.  Actions  Ex  Contractu,   §  2058. 
IL  Rights  of  Action,  §§  2059-2062. 

A.  In   General,  §  2059. 

B.  Right  of  Action  of  Owner,  §  2060. 

C.  Right  of  .'Xction  of  Party  in  Whose  Name  Stock  Shipped,  §  2061. 

D.  Right  of  Action  in  Consignee,  §  2062. 
in.  Time  to  Sue  and  Limitations,  §  2063. 
IV.  Parties  PlaintifT,  §§  2064-2066. 

A.  Owner.    §    2064. 

B.  Consignor,   §  2065. 

C.  Consignee,    §   2066. 
V.  Pleading.    §§    2067-2075. 

A.  Declaration,    Petition,   or   Complaint,   §§   2067-2074. 

a.  Stating  Cause   of  Action.  §  2067. 

b.  Averments   as    to    Damages    Sustained,    §   2068. 

c.  Matters   More   Properly   Coming  from   Defense,   §  2069. 

d.  Allegations  as  to   Contracts,  §§  2070-2072. 

(1)  Necessity   for   Setting   Out   Terms   of   Contract,   §   2070. 

(2)  Necessity    for   Alleging  .A.uthority   of  Carrier's   Agent,   §   2071. 

(3)  Allegations   as    to   Consideration    oi   Contract,    §    2072. 

e.  .^.negations  as  to  Negligence,  §  2073. 

f.  Amendments,    §    2074. 

B.  Answer,   §   2075. 

VI.   Issues   Raised   by   Pleading,   §   2076. 
VII.   Proof.   §  2077. 


LIV  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

VIII.  Variance.  §  2078. 

IX.  Evidence,   §§   2079-2103. 

A.  Presumptions   and   Burden   of   Proof,   §§   2079-2086. 

a.  In   General.   §  2079. 

b.  Contracts  and   Relation   Created  between   Parties,   §  2080. 

c.  Loss  of  or  Injury  to  Live  Stock  and  Cause  Thereof,  §§  2081-2086. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2081. 

(2)  Time   of   Injury,   §   2082. 

(3)  Negligence.    §§    2083-2086. 

(a)  In   General,   §   2083. 

(b)  Burden   on   Carrier   to   Prove   That   Tt   Was   Not   Negligent,   §   2084. 

(c)  Burden  of  Proving  Negligence  on  Shipper  Accompanying  Stock,  §  2085. 

(d)  Burden  on   Carrier  to   Excuse   Delay,   §  2086. 

B.  Admissibility    of    Evidence,    §§    2087-2094. 

a.  In   General.   §  2087. 

b.  Admissibility    under    Pleadings,    §    2088. 

c.  Secondary    Evidence,    §    2089. 

d.  Opinion    Evidence,   §   2090. 

e.  Delay  in  Transportation,  §  2091. 

f.  Evidence   Admissible   to   Show   Damages    Sustained,   §   2092. 

g.  Nature.   Condition   and   Character   of  Animal   Injured.   §   2093. 
h.  Evidence  as  to  Negligence,  §  2094. 

C.  Weight   and    Sufficiency,   §§   2095-2103. 

a.  Degree   of   Proof  Required,   §  2095. 

b.  Contracts,    §    2096. 

c.  Delay  in  Transportation,   §  2097. 

d.  Damages   Sustained,   §   2098. 

e.  Negligence,    §§    2099-2101. 

(1)  Making   Prima    Facie   Case   against   Carrier,   §   2099. 

(2)  Sufficiency    of    Proof    of    Negligence,    §    2100. 

(3)  Gross,   Willful,  or  Wanton   Negligence,  §   2101. 

f.  Showing  Proximate   Cause   of   Injury,   §  2102. 

g.  Failure   to  Unload,   Feed,   and   Water  Live   Stock.   §  2103. 

X.  Damages,   §  2104. 

XL  Questions   for   Jury,    §§    2105-2113. 

A.  General  Rule,  §  2105. 

B.  Contracts,    §    2106. 

C.  Estoppel  and  Waiver,  §  2107. 

D.  Cause   of   Injury,   §   2108. 

E.  Negligence,   §§  2109-2111. 

a.  While    Awaiting   Transportation    or    Delivery,    §    2109. 

b.  While    in    Transit,    §    2110. 

c.  Contributory   Negligence,    §    2111. 

F.  Delay.  §  2112. 

G.  Extent  of  Injury  and  Damages,  §  2113. 
XII.   Instructions   to   the  Jury,   §   2114. 

XIII.  Verdict  and  Findings,  §  2115. 


TAULI-:  OF   CONTEXTS.  LV 

PART  IV 
CARRIERS  OF  PASSENGERS 


CIlArTI'.R    XXI. 
Ri;lati()x  of  Carrikk  and  Passenger. 

I.  Who  Are  Carriers  of  Passengers,  §  2116. 
II.  What    Law   Governs    Relationship,   §   2117. 

III.  Duty  to   Receive  and  Carry,  §§  2118-2121. 

A.  In  General,  §  2118. 

B.  Offer  for  Transportation,   §  2119. 

C.  Grounds   for   Refusal   Considered,  §   2120. 

D.  Enforcement    of    Duty — Mandamus,    §    2121. 

IV.  Creation  of  Relation,  §§  2122-2125. 

A.  Who   May  Become   Passenger,   §  2122. 

B.  Relation  Created  by  Contract,  §  2123. 

C.  Notice  of  Intention   Essential,  §  2124. 

D.  Acceptance  by  Carrier   Essential,  §  2125. 

V.  When   Relation    of   Carrier   and    Passenger   Commences,   §§   2126-2136. 

A.  In   General,   §  2126. 

B.  Before    Reaching   Carrier's    Premises,   §   2127. 

C.  While  at  Station  in  Waiting  Room,  etc.,  §  2128. 

D.  Approaching  Train  to   Board,  §  2129. 

E.  After  Signalling  Street  Car,  §  2130. 

F.  Before  Entering  Vehicle,  §  2131. 

G.  .Attempting  to  Board  Train  or  Other  Vehicle,  §  2132. 
H.  Boarding  Train  at  Improper  Place,  §  2133. 

I.  On    Train    or    Car    Before    Its    Departure.    §    2134. 
J.  Before   Taking   Seat   in   Vehicle.   §   2135. 
K.  Mail   Clerks,   §   21?.C,. 
VI.  Termination   of   Relation,   §§   2137-2157. 

A.  In  General,  §  2137. 

B.  Leaving  Premises  Previous  to  Transportation,  §  2138. 

C.  Leaving  Train   or  Car   Before   Reaching  Destination,   §§  2139-2143. 

a.  With  Intention  to  Return,  §  2139. 

b.  Without  Intention  to  Return,  §  2140. 

c.  For  Purpose  of  Transfer,  §  2141. 

d.  To  Avoid  Imminent   Danger,  §  2142. 

e.  To  Assist  with  Vehicle,  §  2143. 

D.  Violation    of    Rules— .Assuming   Dangerous   Position,   §§    2144-2145. 

a.  In   General.  §  2144. 

b.  Leaving   Moving   Train    or   Car.   §   2145. 

E.  Transferring   Prior   to   Destination.   §   2146. 

F.  Time  and  Opportunity  to  Leave  Vehicle  at  Destination,  §§  2147-2148. 

a.  In   General,   §   2147. 

b.  Failure   to   Alight   within   a   Reasonable   Time.  §  21 4S. 

G.  After   Alighting  at   Destination,  §§  2149-2153. 

a.  In  General,  §§  2149-2150. 

(1)  Rules  as  to   Railroads,   §   2149. 

(2)  Rules  as  to  Street  Cars,  §  2150. 

b.  On  Carrier's  Premises  after  Alighting.  §  2151. 

c.  After    Leaving   Carrier's    Premises,    §§   2152-2153. 

(1)  In    General,    §   2153. 

(2)  Mail   Clerks,   §   2153. 


LVI  TABLE  OF  CONTEXTS. 

H.  Passenger    Continuing  Journey    Beyond    Destination,    §   2154. 

T.  Carriage   Beyond   Destination,  §  2155. 

1.  Ejection  of   Passenger,  §  2156. 
K.   Regaining  Status  on  Train   or  Car  after  Ejection,  §  2157. 

VII.  Relation  as  .Affected  by  Character  of  Vehicle  or  Position  Occupied,  §§  2158-2100. 

A.  Vehicle    Used   for   Transportation   of   Passengers,   §§   2158-2161. 

a.  Presumption   Arising   from   Character   of   Vehicle,   §   2158. 

b.  Boarding  Wrong  Train   or   Car,   §   2159. 

c.  Persons   Boarding  Special   Train,   §   2160. 

d.  Boarding  Train  Not   Stopping  at   Destination,  §  2161. 

B.  Vehicle  Not  Designed  for  Passengers,  §§  2162-2165. 

a.  In    General,   §   2162. 

b.  Acceptance    or    Invitation    b}'   Trainmen,    §    216:;. 

c.  Presumption   as  to  Status,   §  21C4. 

d.  Presumption   as   to   Trainmen's   Authority,   §   2165. 

C.  Relation  as  Affected  by  Position  Occupied,  §  2166. 

VIII.  Relation  as  Affected  by  Possession  of  Ticket  or  Payment  of  Fare,  S§  2!f)7-2178. 
.-\.  In  General— Proper  Ticket,  §  2167. 

B.  Prior  to  Payment  of  Fare,  §  2168. 

C.  Free   Transportation,   §§  2169-2173. 

a.  In   General,  §  2169. 

b.  Free  Transportation   to   Small  Children,   §   2170. 

c.  Persons   Travelling   on    Pass,    §§    2171-2172. 

(1)  In   General,   §   2171. 

(2)  Drover's    Pass    or   under   Shipping   Contract,    §   2172. 

d.  Free   Transportation   by   Permission   or   Invitation   of   Agent,   §   2173. 

D.  Refusal  to  Pay  Fare,  §  2174. 

E.  Evasion  of  Payment  of  Fare,  §  2175. 

F.  Nontransferrable  Ticket,  §  2176. 

G.  Payment   of   Fare   under   Collusive   Agreement,   §   2177. 
H.  Refusal  to  Accept  Fare,  Transfer  or  Ticket.  §  2178. 

IX.  Particular    Classes    of    Persons    Considered,    §§    2179-2192. 

A.  Circus    Company    Employees,    §    2179. 

B.  Postal  Clerks,  §  2180. 

C.  Express  Messengers,   §  2181. 

D.  Passengers  in  Sleeping  Cars  or  Express  Trains,  §  2182. 

E.  Sleeping  Car   Employees — Employees   on   Private   Cars,   §   2183. 

F.  Carrier's    Employees    Riding  upon    Its    Vehicle,    §§   2184-2186. 

a.  Riding  to   or   from   Work,   §   2184. 

b.  Riding  for  Purposes  Disconnected  with   ^Vork,   Custom  to  Give   Free  Trans- 

portation to  Carrier's  Employees,  §  2185. 

c.  Right  to  Transportation   Secured  by  Contract  of   Employment,   §  21S6. 

G.  Working   Passage   under   Agreement  with   Trainmen,   §   2187. 
H.  Newsboys  on   Street   Cars,  §  2188. 

I.  Persons   Engaged  in   Private   Business  under   Contract,  §  2189. 

J.  Employees  of  Third  Persons,  §  2190. 
K.  Persons   Travelling   on    Sunday,   §   2191. 

L.  Person  Forcibly  Carried  Aboard  by  Carrier's  Agents,  §  2192. 
X.  Union  Depots,  §  2193. 


CHAPTER   XX J  I. 
F.\Ri:-,  TicKKTs,  Special  Coxtract.s,  Transfers,  etc. 


I.   Right   of  Carrier  to  Compensation,   §   2194. 
II.  Amount  of   Fare,   §§   2195-2201. 
A.  In  General,  §  2195. 


TAIiI.E   01*   COiNTKXTS.  LvJI 

B.  Extra  Fare,  §§  2190-2201. 

a.  In   General,   §  2196. 

b.  Failure  to  Procure  Ticket,  §§  2197-2201. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2197. 

(2)  Reasonable  Opportunity  to   Procure  Ticket,   §§  2198-2199. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2198. 

(b)  Keeping  Ticket  Office   Open,  §  2199. 

(:0    Sufficiency  of  Attempt  to   Procure  Ticket.  §  2200. 
(4)    Waiver  of   Right   to  Demand   Extra   Fare,   §   2201. 

III.  Payment  of   Fare,   §§  2202-2206. 

A.  Time,    Place   and   Manner  of   Payment,   §   2202. 

B.  Necessity  for  Tender  of  Exact  Fare  and  Amount  for  Which  Change  Must  Be 

Made,    §   2203. 

C.  Medium   of  Payment,  §  2204. 

D.  Tender  of  Fare  to  Unauthorized   Employee,  §  2205. 

E.  Rectifying  Mistake,  §  2206. 

IV.  Excessive   and   Unauthorized   Charges,   §§   2207-2209. 

A.  Recovery   Back   of  Fare,  §  2207. 

B.  As  Authorizing  Recovery   of  Damages,  §  2208. 

C.  As  Authorizing  Recovery  of  Penalty,  §   2209. 

V.  Acts  and  Statements  of  Agents  or  Employees,  §§  2210-2211. 

A.  Of  Ticket  Agent,   §   2210. 

B.  Of  Conductor,  §  2211. 

VI.  Sale  of  Tickets,  §  2212. 

VII.  Nature   and    Effect   of   Ticket    in    General.   §§   2213-2217. 

A.  In  General,  §  2213. 

B.  Construction,  §  2214. 

C.  Transferability,   §§   2215-2217. 

a.  In  Absence  of  Restrictions,  §   2215. 

b.  Stipulation   against   Transfer,   §§   2216-2217. 

(1)  In    General,   §   2216. 

(2)  Injunction   against    Sale   of   Nontransferable   Tickets,    §   22J7. 

VIII.  Conditions  and  Limitations  in  Tickets,  §§  2218-2230. 

A.  In  General,  §  2218. 

B.  Stipulation  as  to  Continuous  Passage,  §  2219. 

C.  Limitation  as  to  Time  for  Which  Valid,  §§  2220-2221. 

a.  In  Absence   of  Limitation,  §  2220. 

b.  Limitations   as  to  Time,   §  2221. 

D.  Limitation   of  Use   of  Ticket   to    Particular  Train,   §    2222. 

E.  Prohibition   of   Transfer,   §   2223. 

F.  Prohibition   as   to   Detachment   of   Coupons,   §   2224. 

G.  Requirement    of    Identification,    Signature    and    Stamping,    §    2225. 
H.   Limitation   of   Liability,   §   2226. 

I.   Notice   and   Acceptance   of  Conditions,   §   2227. 

J.  Forfeiture  of  Tickets,  §  2228. 

K.   Waiver   of   Conditions,   §§   2229-2230. 

a.  Authority  of  Agent,  §  2229. 

b.  What  Amounts  to  Waiver,  §  2230. 

IX.   Exhibition    and    Surrender   of   Tickets,    §§   2231-2233. 

A.  Exhibition    of   Ticket.    §    2231. 

B.  Surrender   of  Ticket,   §   2232. 

C.  Where  Ticket  Lost  or  Wrongfully  Taken  Up,  §  2233. 

X.    Redemption    of   Tickets    and    Repayment    of   Charges,    §    2234. 
XI.  Special    Contracts    for   Transportation,    §§    2235-2238. 

A.  In   General,  §  2235. 

B.  Contract  for  Free  Carriage,  §  2236. 

C.  Contracts  Relating  to  Excursions,  §  2237. 

D.  Ratification  of  Contract  and  Waiver  of  Conditions,  §  2238. 


LVIII  TARLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

XII.  Transportation    by    Connecting    Carriers,    §    3239. 
XIII.   Passes,   §§   2240-2241. 

A.  In  General,  §  2240. 

B.  Revocation,  §  2241. 
\IV.  Transfers.    §§    2242-2250. 

A.  Power   of   Municipality   as   to   Transfers,   §   2242. 

B.  Duty  of  Carrier  to  Give  and   Honor  Transfers,  §   2243. 

C.  Right  of  Carrier  to   Require  Transfers,   §  2244. 

D.  Rules    of    Carrier,    §    2245. 

E.  Conditions  in  Transfers,  §  2246. 

F.  Wrong  or   Defective   Transfer,   §§   2247-2250. 

a.  Liability  of  Carrier,   §  2247. 

b.  Examination  of  Transfer  by  Passenger,  §  2248. 

c.  Care    Required    in    Asking   for   and   Using  Transfer,    §    2249. 

d.  Conductor's   Duty  with    Respect   to   Explanation   of   Passenger,    §   2250. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
Rights,  Duties  and  Liabilities  as  to  Transportation. 

I.   Duties   as  to  Transportation   in   General,   §§   2251-2255. 

A.  General   Statement  as   to   Nature   of  Undertaking,   §   2251. 

B.  Duty  to   Inform,   Direct  and   Escort   Passengers,   §  2252. 

C.  Liability  of  Carrier  for  Misinformation,  §  2253. 

D.  Duty   of  Passenger  to   Inform   Himself,   §   2254. 

E.  Mistakes  and   Delays  in   Furnishing  Tickets,  §  2255. 

[J.  Route,  Time  and   Means  of  Transportation,   §§   2256-2275. 

A.  Right  and  Duty  to  Ride  on  Particular  Train  or  Car,  §§  2256-2262. 

a.  In  General,  §  2256. 

b.  Round  Trip  Ticket,  §  2257. 

c.  Ticket  Calling  for  Particular  Train,  §  2258. 

d.  Ticket  Requiring  Change  of  Trains.  §  2259. 

e.  Trains  Not  Stopping  at  Passenger's   Destination,  §  2260. 

f.  Vehicles  Not  Designated  for  Passengers,  §  2261. 

g.  Several  Carriers  Using  Same  Road,  §  2262. 

B.  Route,   §  2263. 

C.  Failure   or  Delay   in  Transportation,   §§  2264-2275. 

a.  Failure  to  Fully  Perform  Contract,  §  2264. 

b.  Delay   in   Transportation,   §§   2265-2275. 

(1)  In   General,   §  2265. 

(2)  Published  Schedule  and  Connections,  §§  22C6-2273. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2266. 

(b)  Duty  to  Conform  to  Timetable,  §  2267. 

(c)  Right  to  Change  Schedule,  §  2268. 

(d)  Liability  Based  on  Negligence,  §§  2269-2273. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2269. 

bb.  Willful  Delay,  §  2270. 
cc.  Fault  or  Neglect  of  Agents,  §  2271. 
dd.  Interference   by  Third   Persons,   §  2272. 
ee.  Duty  to   Furnish   Other  Transportation,   §  2273. 

(3)  Special  Contracts  as  to  Time,  §  2274. 

(4)  Affect  as  to  Limited  Tickets,  §  2275. 

[II.  Nature  of  Liability  and  Degree  of  Care  Required,  §§  2276-2350. 

A.  Nature  of  Liability  in   General,  §  2276. 

B.  Liability  of  Act  of  God  or  Public  Enemy,  §  2277. 


TAHLK   OP   COXTKXTS.  LiX 

•C.   IJaljiliiy  as   Insurer,  §§  227S-2279. 

a.  In  General,  §  2278. 

b.  Lial)ility   Based  on   Negligence,  §  2279. 

D.  Liability  for  Negligence — Assumed   Risk,  §§  2280-2288. 

a.  In   General,  §  2280. 

b.  Proximate  and  Remote  Cause,  §§  2281-2288. 

(1)  General  Statement  of  Rules,  §  2281. 

(2)  Stations  and   Stopping  Places,   §   2282. 

(3)  Roadbed  and  Track,  §  228:5. 

(4)  Vehicles,  §  2284. 

(5)  Receiving  and   Discharging  Passengers,  §  2285. 

(6)  Accommodations    rnd    Duties    during    Tran^jiortation,    §    2286. 

(7)  Control  and  Management  of  Conveyance,  §  2287. 

(8)  Protection  of  Passengers,  §  2288. 

E.  What  Constitutes  Negligence,  §  2289. 

F.  Degree  of  Care   Required,  §§  2290-2::42. 

a.  In   General,  §  2290. 

b.  Statements  of  the  Rule.  §§  2291-2:528. 

(1)  In  General.  §  2291. 

(2)  Statements    Requiring   "Extraordinary,"    "Great,"    "Extreme,"    or    "Strict," 

Care,  §  2292. 

(3)  Statements    Requiring   an    Extremely   High    Degree   of   Care,   §§    2293-2310. 

(a)  In  General,  §  229:!. 

(b)  Statements   Requiring  the   "Utmost"   Care,   etc.,  §   2294. 

(c)  Statements   Requiring  the   "Most   Exact"    Care,   etc.,   §   229.5. 

(d)  Statements  Requiring  the  "Highest"  or  "Greatest"  Care,   etc.,   §  2296. 

(e)  Statements    Requiring    the    "Highest    Possible"    or    "Greatest    Possible" 

Care,  etc.,  §  2297. 

(f)  Statements    Wliicli,    in    Effect,    Require   the    Greatest    Human    Care,    etc., 

§  2298. 

(g)  The    Correctness    of    the    Statements.    §§    2299-2:;i0. 
aa.    In    General,    §   2299. 

bb.   Cases   Upholding  the   Statements,   §§  2:i00-2:;03. 
(aa)    In    General,   §   2.100. 

(bb)    Instructions    Exacting   the    Utmost   Care   Upheld.   §   2301. 
(cc)    Instructions   Exacting  the   Highest    Care   Upheld,   §   2302. 
(dd)    Instructions     in    Effect    Exacting   the    Greatest    Human    Care    Up- 
held,  §   2303. 
cc.   Cases    Declaring   the    Statements    Erroneous.    §§    2:504-2308. 
(aa)    In   General,  §  2304. 

(bb)  Instructions  Exacting  the  Utmost  Care  Declared  Erroneous.  §  230,"). 
(cc)    Instructions    Exacting    the '  Highest    Care    Declared    Erroneous.    § 

230  f). 
(dd)    Instructions    in    Eft'ect    Exacting    the    Greatest    Human    Care    Er- 
roneous, §  2307. 
(ee)    Instructions    in    Effect,    Exacting    the    Greatest    Human    Care    De- 
clared   Erroneous,   §   2308. 
dd.  Conflict  of  Authority  in  Texas.  §  2309. 

ee.    Sufficiency   of   the    Statements    W^hen    Properly    Limited    or    Explained. 
§   2:;  10. 

(4)  Statement    Ivoquiring    the    Highest    Care    Consistent    with    the    Possibility 

of   Injury,   §   2311. 

(5)  Statements  Requiring  the  Care  Exercised  by  Other  Similar  Carrier,  §  2312. 

(6)  Statement   Requiring  the   Care  L^sually   Exercised   liy   the   Particular  Car- 

rier. §  2313. 

(7)  Statements   Making  the  Care  of   Prudent   Men   the   Standard,  §§  2314-2322. 
(a)    In   General,   §   2314. 


I.X 


TABLE  OF  CONTEXTS. 

(b)  Statements   Requiring  the   Highest   Care   of   Prudent,   or   Very    Prudent, 

Men,   §   2315. 

(c)  Statements   Limiting  the   Care   by   the   Circumstances,   §§  2316-2319. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2316. 

bb.  Statements  Requiring  the  Highest  Care  of  Prudent  Men  under  the 
Circumstances,    §    2317. 

cc.  Statements  Requiring  the  Care  of  Very  Prudent  Men  under  the  Cir- 
cumstances,   §    2318. 

dd.  Statements  Requiring  the  Utmost  Care  of  Very  Prudent  Men  under 
the    Circumstances,    §    3319. 

(d)  Statements    Requiring   the    Utmost     Caution,    or    the     Caution     Charac- 

teristic of   Prudent   Men,  §   2320. 

(e)  Statements   Requiring  the    Highest   Care   of   Prudent   and    ST<iIlfuI    Rail- 

road  Men,   §  2321. 
(tj   Statement    Requiring   the    Highest    Care   of    Prudent    Men    in   the    Same 
Business,  §  2322. 

(8)  Statement    Requiring   the    Highest   or   Utmost   Practical   Care,   §   2323. 

(9)  Statements   Requiring  the   Highest   Practical  Care  of  Capable   and   Faith- 

ful Railroad  Men,  §   2324. 

(10)  Statements   Requiring  the   Highest  Reasonable  Care,  §  2325. 

(11)  Approved   Statements   of   the   Rule,   §   2326. 

(12)  Statutory  Rule  in  California  and  Other  States,  §  2327. 

(13)  Statutory  Rule  in  Georgia,  §  2328. 
c.  Application   of  the   Rule,  §§  2329-2342. 

(1)  Mode  of  Conveyance  Immaterial,  §§  2329-2334. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2329. 

(b)  Stage  and    Hackney   Coaches,   §   2330. 

(c)  Railroad,  §  2331. 

(d)  Street  Railways,  §  2332. 

(e)  Carriers  by  Water,  §  2333. 

(f)  Elevators,   §   2334. 

(2)  When  Passengers  Are  Carried  on  Freight  Trains,  §§  2335-2337. 

(a)  Assumption  of  Risk  by   Passengers,   §  2335. 

(b)  Degree  of  Care  Exacted  of  the  Carrier,  §  2336. 

(c)  Statutory  Rule  in  Mississippi,  §  2337. 

(3)  When  Passengers  Are  Carried  on  Freight  Elevators,  §  2338. 

(4)  When   Passengers   Are   Carried   Free,   §§   2339-2342. 

(a)  General    Rule,    §    2339. 

(b)  Kansas   Decisions,   §  2340. 

(c)  Montana   Statute,   §   2341. 

(d)  Care  Varying  with  Conditions  and  Circumstances,  §  2342. 
G.   Liability  as  Afifected  by  Statutes,  §§  2343-2349. 

a.  In   General,   §   2343. 

b.  Texas  Statute  Expressly  Adopting  the  Common   Law,   §  2344. 

c.  Nebraska    Statute    Making    Railroads    Liable   as    Insurers,    §§   2345-2349. 
(1)   Provisions  of  the  Statute,  §  2345. 

(3)    Constitutionality   of   the   Statute,   §   2346. 

(3)  Effect  of  the  Statute,  §  2347. 

(4)  Application  of  the  Statute.  §  2348. 

(5)  Enforcement  of  the  Statute  by  Other  than  Nebraska  Courts,  §  2349. 
H.   Exercise  of  Proper  Care   Question   for  Jury,  §  2350. 

IV.     As  to   Stations  and   Stopping  Places,   §§  2351-2385. 

A.  General   Rule,   §   2351. 

B.  Railroads,   §§   2352-2381. 

a.  General  Rule,  §  2352. 

b.  Duty  to  Provide   Station   Houses  and  Platforms,  §  2353. 


TAIiLK  OF   COXTEXTS.  LXI 

c.  Duty  as  to  Stoppin^^  Places  Unprovided  with   Platforms  and  Station   Houses, 

§   2354. 

d.  Duties  as  to  Safety  of  Station  Houses,  Platforms,  and  Grounds.  §§  2355-2376. 
(1)   General    Rule,   §   2355. 

(2)'  Approaches   to   Stations,   §§  2356-2357. 

(a)  General    Rule,   §   2356. 

(b)  More  than  One  Way,  §  2357. 

(3)  Station    Houses,   §  2358. 

(4)  Station   Platforms  and  Alighting  Places,  §§  2359-2369. 

(a)  General    Rule,   §   2359. 

(b)  Defects  in   Floor,  §  2360. 

tc)    Length,   Width   and   Elevation,   §   2361. 

(d)  Proximity  of  Platform  to  Track,  §  2362. 

(e)  Ingress   to   and    Egress   from   Platform,   §   2363.  • 

(f)  Obstructions   on   Platform,   §   2364. 

(g)  Snow  and   Ice  on  Platform,  §  2365. 

(h)    Injury  by   Objects  Thrown   on   Platform.   §§  2366-2368. 

aa.   In   General,  §   2366. 

bb.    Sparks    Flying    from    Passing    Engine,    §    2367. 

cc.  Mail  Pouches  Thrown  on   Platform.  §  2368. 
(i)    Runaway    Horse    on    Platform.    §    2369. 

(5)  Platform   Facilities   on    Only   One   Side   of  Track,  §  2370. 

(6)  Safe  Place  to  Board  or  Alight  and  Intervening  Tracks,  etc.,  §§  2371-2372. 

(a)  In  General.  §  2371. 

(b)  Running  Trains   on    Intervening   Tracks.   §   2372. 

(7)  Ways  to  and  from  Eating  Houses,  §  2373. 

(8)  Transfer    Accommodations,    §    2374. 

(9)  Premises   Contiguous   to.   Though   Not   Strictly   Part  of.   S'tation   Grounds, 

§  2375. 

(10)  Crowds  at  Stations.   §  2376. 

e.  Box  or  Stool  in  Lieu  of  Platform,  §  2377. 

f.  Lighting  Station  Houses,  Platforms,  and  Grounds,  §  2378. 

g.  When   Passengers   Are   Carried   on   Freight  Trains,  §  2379. 

h.   Duty  to  Inform   Passengers  as  to   Movements  of  Trains.  §  2:^80 
i.   Duty  as  to   Opening  Waiting  Rooms,  §  2381. 
C.  Street  Railways,  §§  2382-2385.  ^      <, 

a.  In  General,   §  2382. 

b.  When  Carrier  Has  No  Control  Over  Street.  §  2383. 

c.  When  Carrier  Responsible  for  Conditions.  §  2384. 

d.  Transfer   Accommodations.   §   2385. 
V.   As   to    Roadbed   and   Track.   §§   2386-2402. 

A.  In   General.  §  2380. 

B.  Roadbed.   §§   2387-2388. 

a.  Railroad   Companies,  §   2387. 

b.  Street  Railways,  §  2388. 

C.  Tracks  and  Appliances,  §§  2389-2402. 
a.   Railroad   Companies,  §§  2389-2397. 

(1)  In   General,  §  2389. 

(2)  Rails,  Ties,   etc.,   §  2390. 

(3)  Switches.  §  2391. 

(4)  Obstructions.  §§  2392-2397. 

(a)  In   General.   §   2392. 

(b)  Cattle  on  Track,  §  2393. 

(c)  Cars  on  Side  Tracks,  §  2394. 

(d)  Structures    Alongside   the   Track.    §   2395. 

(e)  Overhead  Structures.  §  2396. 

(f)  Obstructions    Caused    by   Third    Persons.    §   2397. 


LXII  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

b.  Street    Railways.    §§    2398-2401. 

(1)  In    General,    §    2398. 

(2)  Obstructions,    §§    2399-2401. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2399. 

(b)  Structures    Alongside    the    Track,    §    2400. 

(c)  Adjustment  of  Parallel  Tracks,  §  2401. 

c.  Liability   of  Carrier  Using  Track   of  Another   Company,   §   24(i2 

VI.  As   to   Vehicles.    §§   2403-2425. 

A.  General    Rule,    §    2403. 

B.  Railroads    and    Street    Railways.    §§    2403-2422. 

a.  Safe  Means  of  Ingress  or  Egress,  §  2404. 

b.  Cars,   Engines,   Couplings,   Bell-Ropes,   etc.,  §   2405. 

c.  Brakes,   §   2406. 

d.  Interior   of   Railroad    Coaches,    §   2407. 
e    Light,  Heat  and  Water,  §  2408. 

f.  Window    Guards,    §    2409. 

g.  Platform    Guards    and    Entrance    Doors,    §    2410. 

h.  Platforms   and   Steps   of   Cars,   §   2411. 

i.  Projecting  Bolts,   etc.,   Catching  Clothing  of   Passengers,   §   2412. 

j.  Projection  of  Wheel  Guard  from  Floor  of  Street  Car,  §  2413. 

k.  Construction   of  Steps   of  Street  Cars,   §  2414. 

1.  Wheel   Guards,   §   2415. 

m.   Motive   Power   of   Street  and  Cable   Cars,  §  2416. 

n.  Formation  of  Train,   §  2417. 

o.  Attaching  Improperly  Loaded  Car,  or  Car  of  Wrong  Gauge,  to  Train,  §  2418. 

p.  Precautions  against  Fires  and  Explosions,  §  2419. 

q.  Mixed  Trains,  §  2420. 

r.  Vestibule  Trains,  §  2421. 

s.  Palace   or   Sleeping   Cars   Forming   Part   of   Train,   §   2422. 

C.  Stage   and    Hackney   Coaches,   §   2423. 

D.  Carriers   by   Water,    §   2424. 

E.  Elevators,  §  2425. 

VII.  As  to   Means  of  Conveyance,   §§  2426-2434. 

A.  Scope  Note,  §  2426. 

B.  Inspection    and    Repair,    §§    2427-2432. 

a.  General   Rule,   §   2427. 

b.  Sufficiency  of  the  Inspection,  §§  2428-2431. 

(1)  In   General,   §   2428. 

(2)  Inspection  by  Employees  in  Charge  of  Train  or  Car.  §  2429. 

(3)  Inspection    of   Road   after    Extraordinary    Floods   or    Storms,    §   2430. 

(4)  Sufficiency  of   Inspection   a   Question   of   Fact.   §   2431. 

c.  Excuses  for  Failure  to  Repair,  §  2432. 

C.  Liability   for    Latent    Defects,   §   2433. 

D.  Liability  for  Negligence  of  Manufacturer  or   Builder,  §  2434. 
VIII.    Receiving   and    Discharging    Passengers,    §§    2435-2489. 

A.  Regulations  as  to  Time  and  Place  of  Receiving,  §  2435. 

B.  Rules  and  Regulations  as  to  Entering  Trains,  §  2436. 

C.  Duty  to   Stop   and  Take  Up,   §§   2437-2438. 

a.  In    General,    §    2437. 

b.  Flag  Stations,   §  2438. 

D.  Duty   to  Carry  to  and   Stop  at   Destination,   §§   2439-2449. 

a.  In   General,   §  2439. 

b.  Putting  Passenger  Off  at  Wrong  Station,   §  2440. 

c.  Failure  to   S'top   at  Destination,   §§  2441-2449. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2441. 

(2)  Flag  Stations,  §  2442. 

(3)  Station  at  Which  Train  Docs  Not  Stop,  §§  2443-2448. 


t.\i:li-;  of  contents.  LXin 

(a)  In   General,   §  2443. 

(b)  Statutory  Regulations,  §  2444. 

(c)  Contract  with  Reference  to  Usage,  §  244.5. 

(d)  Misrepresentation    or    Inducement,    §    2446. 

(e)  Acceptance  of  Ticket  or  Fare  as  Contract,  §  2447. 

(f)  Promises   of  Conductor,   §   2448. 

(4)    Excuses   for    Failure  to   Stop   at   Destination.   §   2449. 
E.  Duties  and  Liabilities  in  Taking  on  and  Letting  Ofif  Passengers,  §§  2450-2489. 

a.  Scope   of  Treatment,   §   24.00. 

b.  General    Rule — Reasonable    Opportunity,    §    2451. 

c.  Duty  to   Receive  and   Discharge   Passengers  at   Usual   Place.  §§  2452-2457. 

(1)  General    Rule,    §    2452. 

(2)  Failure  to  Stop  Train  at  Station,  §  2453. 

(3)  Failure   to  Stop   Train   Alongside   Station   Platform,  §  2454. 

(4)  When   Passengers  Are   Carried   on   Freight  or  Mi.xcd  Trains,  §  2455. 

(5)  Street    Railways,    §    2456. 

(6)  Waiver  by  Passenger  of  Right  to  Be  Set  Down  at  Usual  Place,  §  2457. 

d.  Duties  When   Passengers  Are  Received  at  Other  than  Usual  Place,  §  2458. 

e.  Management  of  Train  in  Drawing  Up  to  Platform  or  Stopping  Place,  §  2459. 

f.  Duty  to  Stop  Train  or  Street  Car,  §  2460. 

g.  Allowing  Reasonable  Time  to  Get  on  or  OfT,  §§  2461-2471. 

(1)  General  Rule,  §  2461. 

(2)  When  the  Train  or  S'treet  Car   Is   Merely  Slowed  Up,  §  2462. 

(3)  When   the  Train   or  Street   Car   Is   Stopped.   §§   2463-2469. 

(a)  General   Rule,   §   2463. 

(b)  Allowing  Time  to  Board  Railroad  Train,  §  2464. 

(c)  Allowing  Time  to  Alight  from  Railroad  Train,  §  2465. 

(d)  Allowing  Time  to  Board  Street  Car,  §  2466. 

(e)  Allowing  Time    to   Alight   from   Street   Car,   §   2467. 

(f)  Allowing  Time  to   Reach  Place  of  Safety,  §§  2468-2469. 
aa.    In    General,   §   2468. 

bb.  Time   to  Secure   Seat,   §  2469. 

(4)  What    Constitutes    a    Reasonable   Time,   §    2470. 

(5)  Starting  of  Vehicle  at  Signal  of  Unauthorized  Person,  §  2471. 

h.  Duty  to  See  Whether  Passengers  Have  Gotten  on  or  Ofif.  §§  2472-2474. 

(1)  Difiference  between  Obligation  of  Railroad  and  Street  Railway  Companies. 

§   2472. 

(2)  Duty  of   Railroad  Companies.  §  2473. 

(3)  Duty  of   Street   Railway  Companies.  §   2474. 

i.  Announcement  of  Stations  or  Stopping  Places,   §  2475. 
j.    Awaking   Sleeping   Passengers,    §   2476. 
k.   Assisting   Passengers  to    Board   or   Alight,   §   2477. 
1.   Notifying  Passengers  of  Starting  of  Train,   §  2478. 
m.   Directions  as  to   Boarding  Trains,  §  2479. 
n.   Liability  for  Act  of  Fellow  Passenger,  §  2480. 
o.   Misleading  Invitations  to  Alight,  §§  2481-2487. 

(1)  In   General.   §  2481. 

(2)  Announcing   Name   of   Station,   §   2482. 

(3)  Stopping  Train,    §   2483. 

(4)  Announcing   Station   and    Stopping  Train.   §§   2484-2486. 

(a)  General   Rule,  §  2484. 

(b)  Injury  to  Passenger  in   Consequence  of  Dangerous  Character  of  Stop- 

ping Place,  §  2485. 

(c)  Injury   to   Passenger  by   Movement   of  Train,   §   2486. 

(5)  Announcing  Station  and   Stopping  Train,  as   Required  by   Law,  at  Cross- 
ing,  §   2487. 

p.   Duty  to  W'arn  Passengers  of  Danger,  §  2488. 

q.   Misdirection   as   to   Arrival   or   Departure   of   Train.   §   2489. 


LXIV  TABLE  OF  CONTEXTS. 

VOLUME  III. 


CHAPTER    XXUI— {Continued.) 
Rights,  Duties,  axd  Liabilities,  as  to  Transportation. 

IX.  Accommodations  and  Duties  during  Transit.  §§  2490-2524. 

A.  Scope  Note,  §  2490. 

B.  Rules   and    Regulations,    §   2491. 

C.  Accommodations  in   General,   §  2492. 

D.  Particular    Accommodations,    §§    2493-2497. 

a.  In  General,  §  2493. 

b.  Railroads    and    Street    Railway    Companies,    §§   2494-2496. 

(1)  In   General,   §   2494. 

(2)  Chair  Cars,  §  2495. 

(3)  \\'hen  Passengers  Are  Carried  on  Freight  Trains,  §  2496. 

c.  Carriers   by   Water,   §   2497. 

E.  Providing  Accommodation    Inferior   to   Those    Agreed   Upon,   §   2498. 

F.  Classification    and    Separation    of    Passengers,    §§    2499-2508. 

a.  In  General,  §  2499. 

b.  Separation  of  Male  and  Female  Passengers,  §  2500. 

c.  Separation    of   White   and   Colored   Passengers,    §§    2501-2506. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2501. 

(2)  By  Regulations  of  the  Carrier,  §  2502. 

(3)  Statutes  Requiring  the  Separation,  §  2503. 

(4)  Statutes   Prohibiting  the   S'eparation,   §§   2504-2505. 

(a)  State   Laws,   §   2504. 

(b)  Acts  of  Congress,  §  2505. 

(5)  Degree   of  Care  and  Liability   Incurred.   §   2506. 

d.  Exclusion   of   Passenger  from   Car  because  of   Bad   Moral   Character,   §  2507. 

e.  Equality  of  Accommodations,  §  2508. 

G.  Particular  Rights  and  Duties  in  Transit,  §§  2509-2522. 

a.  Overloading  Conveyance,   §  2509. 

b.  Rights   and  Duties  as  to   Providing  Seats,   §   2510. 

c.  Allowing    or    Compelling    Passengers    to    Expose    Themselves    to    Danger. 

§§  2511-2514. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2511. 

(2)  Warning  Passengers  of  Danger,  §  2512. 

(3)  Removal  of  Passenger  from  Place  of  Danger  by  Force,  §  2513. 

(4)  Preventing  Passenger  Leaving  Moving  Train,  §  2514. 

d.  Allowing   Passenger   to   Alight  Temporarily   at   Intermediate   Station,  §   2515. 

e.  Duties  to  Drover  Alighting  at  Intermediate  Stations  to  Care  for  Stock,  §  2516. 

f.  Announcement  of  Station  and  Change  of  Cars,  §  2517. 

g.  Transfer  of  Passengers,  §  2518. 

h.  Opening  and  Closing  of  Car  Doors,  §  2519. 

i.  Rescue  of  Passenger  Falling  from  Train,  §  2520. 

j.  Duty  to   Care  for  Sick  or  Injured   Passengers.  §  2521. 

k.  Opportunity  to  Procure  "Food,  §  2522. 
H.  Stopping  Over  at  Intermediate  Stations,  §  2523. 
I.  Duty  as  to  Passenger  Boarding  Wrong  Train,  §  2524. 
X.  Management  of  Conveyance,  §§  2525-2552. 

A.  General  Rule,  §  2525. 

B.  Crowded  Trains   or  Cars,   §   2526. 

C.  Running  Trains  or  Cars  in  a  Manner  Calculated  to  Alarm  Passengers,  §  2527. 

D.  Avoiding  Dangers    Encountered   during  the  Journey,   §  2528. 

E.  In  Passing  through  Tunnels.  §  2529. 


TARLK   OF   CONTENTS.  LXV 

F.  In  Running  Trains  or  Cars  on  Wrong  Track,  §  2530. 

G.  In  Approaching  Switch  Apparently  Misplaced,  §  2531. 
H.  Omission  of   Signals    Required   by   S'tatute,   §   2532. 

I.  Moving   Disabled   Trolley   Car,   §   2533. 

j.  Absence  of  Driver  or  Motorman  from  Post  of  Duty,  §  2534. 

K.  Speed  of  Trains  or  Cars,  §  2535. 

L.  Jerks  and  Jolts  of  Trains  or  Cars.  §§  2536-2539. 

a.  Management  of  Train  in  General,  §  2536. 

b.  In  Making  Up  Trains,  §  2537. 

c.  In    Starting,    Stopping,    and    Running    Trains,    §    2538. 

d.  In  Recoupling  Trains  Which  Break  Apart,  §  2539. 
M.  Negligent  Handling  of  Engine,  §  2540. 

N.  Collisions.    §§    2541-2550. 

a.  In  General,  §  2541. 

b.  Collisions  between  Trains  or  Cars  Operated  on  the  Same  Track,  §  2542. 

c.  Collisions  of  Trains  v^^ith  Cattle  and  Other  Obstructions,  §  2543. 

d.  Collisions   of  Street  Cars  with   Road  Vehicles,  §  2544. 

e.  Collisions   with    Structures   Alongside   the   Track,    §   2545. 

f.  Collisions  with  Cars  on  Parallel  or  Side  Tracks,  §  2546. 

g.  Collisions  between   Vehicles  of  Different  Carriers,   §§  2547-2549. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2547. 

(2)  Collisions  between  Trains  of  Intersecting  Railroads,  §  2548. 

(3)  Collisions  between   Street  Cars  and  Trains  or  Cars  of  Intersecting  Rail- 

road,   or    Street    Railway,    Companies,    §    2549. 
h.  Collision  between  Automobile  Carrier  and  Other  Vehicle,  §  2550. 
O.  Upsetting  Coach,  §  2551. 

P.  Care  Required  as  to  Telegraph  Lines,  Operators,  etc.,  §  2552. 
XI.  Duty  to  Protect  Passengers,  §§  2553-256G. 

A.  General   Rule,  §  2553. 

B.  Knowledge  of  the  Commission  of  the  \\'rong,  §  2554. 

C.  Knowledge,  or  Duty  to  Know,  of  Passenger's  Peril,  §  2555. 

D.  Reason  to  Apprehend   Passenger's   Peril,  §§  2556-2562. 

a.  In   General,   §   2556. 

b.  Presence  of  Dangerous   Persons   on  Vehicle  or  Vessel,  §  2557. 

c.  Disorder  among  Passengers,  §  2558. 

d.  Intermingling  of  White  and  Colored  Passengers,  §  2559. 

e.  Negligence  of  Passengers  in  Getting  on  or  Oflf  the  Vehicle,  §  2560. 

f.  Scuffling  of  Hackmen  Near  Station,  §  2561. 

g.  Servants  of  Express   Companies,   etc.,  at  Station.   §  2562. 

E.  Limitation   of   Carrier's   Liability,   §§   2563-2566. 

a.  In    General,    §    2563. 

b.  Absence   of   Knowledge,   etc.,   of   Passenger's    Peril,   §   2564 

c.  Performance  of  Duty,  or  Inability,  to  Protect,  §  2565. 

d.  Acts  for  Which  Carrier  Liable,  §  2566. 

KTI.   Liability  for  Acts  and  Omissions  of  Servants,  §§  2567-2629. 

A.  In  General,  §  2567. 

B.  Negligence  of  Servants,  §  .2568. 

C.  Wilful  Acts  of  Servants,  §§  2569-2601. 

a.  In  General,  §  2569. 

b.  Assaults   upon    Passengers,    §§   2570-2592. 

(1)  In    General,   §   2570. 

(2)  Assaults   within   the   Scope   of   the    Employment,   §   2571. 

(3)  Assault  Outside  the  Scope  of  the   Employment,  §§  2572-2584. 

(a)  In    General,   §   2572. 

(b)  Minority   Rule.   §   2573. 

(c)  Prevailing  Rule,  §§   2574-2576. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2574. 

1    Car — e 


LXVI  TARLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

bb.  Limitation  of  the  Rule,  §  2575. 
cc.  Application  of  the  Rule,  §  2576. 

(d)  Acts  Which  Are  or  Are  Not  within  Scope  of  Employment,  §§  2577-2583. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2577. 

bb.  Acts  Done  in  Connection  with  Collection  of  Tickets  and  Fares,  §  2578. 

cc.  Assaults   by   Steward  and   Waiters   on    Steamboat,   §   2579. 

dd.  Assault   by    Baggage   Master,   §   2580. 

ee.  Assaults   Committed   after   the    Relation    of   Carrier   and    Passenger    Is 

Determined,  §  2581. 
ff.  Assault  by  Conductor  upon  Passenger  Who  Has  Alighted  from  Street 

Car,  §  2582. 
gg.  Accidental   Blow  by  Servants   Engaged  in   Playful  Scuffle,   §  2583. 

(e)  Presumption   as  to   Scope   of  Duty,   §   2584. 

(4)  Justifiable  Assaults,   §§   2585-2590. 

(a)  In   General,  §  2585. 

(b)  Acts    Done    in    Self-Defense,    §§    2585-2589. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2586. 

bb.  What    Constitutes    Self-Defense,    §§    2587-2589. 
(aa)   In  General,  §  2587. 

(bb)   Circumstances    Justifying    the    Act,      §  2588. 
(cc)   Degree   of  Force   Permissible,  §  2589. 

(c)  Forcible   Expulsion  of  Passengers,  §  2590. 

(5)  Assaults    Provoked    by    the    Passenger,    §    2591. 

(6)  Failure  of  Agent  to  Comply  with  Law  as  to  Uniform,  §  2592. 

c.  Insult  to  Passenger,  §  2593. 

d.  False  Imprisonment  and  Arrest,  §§  2594-2600. 

(1)  General  Rule,  §  2594. 

(2)  What  Constitutes   False  Imprisonment,  §§  2595-2600. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2595. 

(b)  The  Detention  or  Restraint,  §  2596. 

(c)  The  Unlawfulness  of  the  Detention  or  Restraint,  §§  2597-2600. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2597. 

bb.  Detention  to  Enforce  Payment  of  Fare,  §  2598. 

cc.  Arrest  without   Warrant,   §   2599. 

dd.  What  Constitutes  Probable  Cause.  §  2600. 

e.  Communication    of   Disease    by    Employee    to    Passenger,    §   2601. 
D.  Scope  of  Employment,   §§  2602-2616. 

a.  In   General,   §   2602. 

b.  Inviting  or  Directing  Passenger  to  Alight  at  Dangerous  Place,  §  2603. 

c.  Assisting  Passenger  on  or  Off  Train  or  Car,  §  2604. 

d.  Pushing  or  Pulling  Passenger   Ofif  Train  or  Car,  §   2605. 

e.  Directing  or   Permitting   Passenger   to   Alight   from   Moving  Train,   §   2606. 

f.  Giving  Information  to,  or  Instructing,  Passengers,  §  2607. 

g.  Acts   Calculated,   or   Intended,  to  Alarm   Passengers,   §   2608-. 
h.  Unintentional  Assaults  upon  Passengers,  §  2609. 

i.  Falling  against,  or  Jostling,  Passengers,  §  2610. 
j.  Directing  Passenger  to  Render  Assistance,  .§  2611. 
Icn  Refusing  Passenger  Entrance  to  Car,  §  2612. 

1,  Causing  Unnecessary   Delay   in  Transportation,   §  2613. 
m.  Making  Overcharge  for  Ticket,  §  2614. 
n.  Assaults  upon   Passengers,   §   2615. 
o.  False    Imprisonment   of  Passengers,   §   2616. 
E.  Who  Are  Servants,  §§  2617-2629. 

a.  In   General,   §   2617. 

b.  Independent   Contractors,   §    2618. 
■c.  Construction   Companies,   §  2619. 

d.  Persons   in   Charge   of   Sleeping,   or   Palace,   Cars,   §  2620. 


TAHLI-:  OF   CONTENTS.  LXVIl 

e.  Servants  Invested  with  Autliority  of  Peace  Officers,  §  2621. 

f.  Assistants   Engaged  by  Servants,  §  2622. 
g.  Servants   Employed  Jointly  by  Several   Masters,  §  2623. 
h.  Servants  of  Lessors  or  Lessees,  §  2624. 

i.  Servants  of  Receivers,  §  2625. 

j.  Pilots,    §    2626. 

k.  Postal    Agents,    §    2627. 

1.  Surgeon   Employed  by  Carrier,  §  2628. 
m.  Employees  Oflf  Duty,  §  2629. 
XIIL  Companies   and    Persons    Liable,   §§    2630-2667. 

A.  In    General,   §§   2630-2636. 

a.  Delegation   of   Duties   by   Carrier,   §   2630. 

b.  Liability  for  Negligence  in  Operation  of  Trains  of  Another  Carrier,  §  2631 

c.  Liability    of    Carrier    for    Injury    to    Passengers    of    Another    Carrier,    §    2632. 

d.  Liability  of  Employee  of  Carrier,  §  2633. 

e.  Liability    of    Electric    Company    Furnishing    Power,    §   2634. 

f.  Carrier  Transporting  Soldiers  for  Government,  §  2635. 

g.  Liability   of  Seller  of  Ticket,  §   2636. 

B.  Injury  Due  to   Concurrent   Negligence,  §§  2637-2641. 

a.  In   General,  §§  2637-2638. 

(1)  Negligent    Carriers    Liable,    §    2637. 

(2)  Negligence  of  Other  Carrier   Xo  Defense,  §  2638. 

b.  Collision    Resulting   from   Concurrent    Negligence   of   Two    Carriers,   §§   2639- 

2641. 

(1)  Negligent   Carriers    Liable,   §   2639. 

(2)  Negligence  of  Other  Carrier  No   Defense,  §  2640. 

(3)  Presumption   of   Negligence,   §   2641. 

C.  Stations   and   Approaches,   §§   2642-2646. 

a.  In  General,  §  2642. 

b.  Stations  Used  by  Several  Carriers.  §§  2643-2646. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2643. 

(2)  Duties  as  to  Passengers  of  Other   Carrier,   §  2644. 

(3)  Duty   to   Protect    Passengers    from    Negligence    of   Other    Carrier,   §   2645. 

(4)  Station    Owned    by    Independent    Company,    §    2646. 

D.  Liability   of   Carrier   Operating  Trains    Over   -A.nother's    Lines,    §§    2647-2651. 

a.  In    General.   §  2647. 

b.  Liability  for  Negligence  of  Owner  of  Road,  §  2648. 

c.  Liability  for  Injury  to  Passengers  of  Another  Lessee  of  Tracks,  §  2649. 

d.  Effect  of  Illegality  of  Contract  between   Companies,   §  2650. 

e.  As   Affected   by   Compensation    Received,   §   2651. 

E.  Liability   of   Lessor,   §§   2652-2658. 

a.  In  General,  §  2652. 

b.  Lessor   Liable   for   Negligence   of   Lessee,   §  2653. 

c.  Liability   for   Indignities   of   Fellow    Passengers,   §   2654. 

d.  Lessor's  Liability  to  Its  Own   Passengers,  §  2655. 

e.  Lease   Illegal  or  Ultra   Vires,   §  2656. 

f.  Leases  under  Statutory  Authority,  §  2657. 

g.  Liability  of  Lessor  of  Steamboat,  §  2658. 

F.  Liability  When   Railroad   Operated   by  Trustee,   §§  2659-2660. 

a.  Liability  of  Trustee,  §  2659. 

b.  Liability   of   Railroad   Operated   by   Trustee,   §   2660. 

G.  Railroads  in   Hands  of  Receiver,  §§  2661-2665. 

a.  Liability  of   Receiver,  §§   2661-2662. 

(1)  In   Official   Capacity,   §  2661. 

(2)  Personal    Liability   of   Receiver,   §.  2662. 

b.  Liability   of   Railroad,   §§   2663-2664. 
(1)   In    General,   §   2663. 


LXVIII  TABLE  OF  CONTE^NTS. 

(2)  After   Discharge   of  Receiver,   §  2664. 
c.  Liability   of   Profits   and   Income,   §   2665. 
H.  Who  Liable  for  Injuries  Occurring  on  Chartered  Conveyances,  §  2666. 
I.  Liability  for  Injuries  on  Consolidated  Lines,  §  2667. 
XIV.   Limitation    of   Liability,   §§   2668-2693. 

A.  Pov^-er  to   Limit   Liability   as   to   Passengers   for   Hire,   §§   2668-2671. 

a.  General   Rule,   §   2668. 

b.  Contractual   Exemption   from    Statutory   Penalty,   §   2669. 

c.  Statutory   Power  to   Limit   Liability,   §   2670. 

d.  Passengers   Received   on   Freight  Trains,   §   2671. 

B.  Power  to  Limit  Liability  as  to  Persons  Carried   Free  or  at  Reduced  Rates,  §§ 

2672-2677. 

a.  Limitation   of   Liability   in    Pass   Given   as    Mere    Gratuity,   §§   2672-2676. 

1.  In   General,  §   2672. 

2.  Degrees   of   Negligence,  §  2673. 

3.  Pass  Issued  in  Violation  of  Law,  §  2674. 

4.  Under  Statutory  Provisions,  §  2675. 

5.  Using  Nontransferable   Pass   of  Another,  §   2676. 

b.  Reduced  Rates  or  Passes  Based  upon  Some  Consideration,  §  2677. 

C.  Power  to  Limit  Liability  in  Drover's  Pass,  §§  2678-2683. 

a.  Drover  as   Passenger  for   Hire,  §  2678. 

b.  Carrier    Cannot    Limit    Liability    in    Drover's    Pass,    §§    2679-2681. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2679. 

(2)  Drover's   Return    Pass,   §   2680. 

(3)  Degrees  of  Negligence,  §  2681. 

c.  Stipulation  That  Drover  Is  Employee  of  Carrier,  §  2682. 

d.  Reasonable   Regulations   Binding,   §  2683. 

D.  Power  to  Limit  Liability  as  to  Persons  Engaged  in  Certain   Employments,  §§ 

2684-2689. 

a.  Limitation  of  Liability  in   Pass  Given   Employee,  §  2684. 

b.  Express   Messengers,  §  2685. 

c.  Mail   Clerks,  §   2686. 

d.  News   Agents,   §   2687. 

e.  Circus   Employees,  §   2688. 

f.  Employees   of  Pullman   Car   Companies,   §   2689. 

E.  Sufficiency     of     Assent     of     Passenger     to     Limitation     of    Carrier's    Liability, 

§§  2690-2691. 

a.  Passenger  for   Hire,   §   2690. 

b.  Persons   Carried   Gratuitously,   §   2691. 

F.  Authority  of  Master  to  Limit  Liability  of  Carrier  for  Injury  to  Servant,  §  2692. 

G.  Construction    of   Contracts    Limiting    Liability    of    Carrier,    §    2693. 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 
Contributory  Negligence: 

I.   Substantive  Law,  §§  2694-2828. 
A.   In    General,    §§   2694-2704. 

a.  Application   of  the  Doctrine  to   Carriers,  §  2694. 

b.  Care  Required  of  Passengers  in  General,  §  2695. 

c.  Care   Required   of   Children  and   Others   undci    Disability.   §§   2696-2699. 

(1)  Children,  §  2696. 

(2)  Intoxicated  Persons,  §  2G97. 

(3)  Blind  Persons,  §  2698. 

(4)  Persons  in  Feeble  Health,  §  2699. 

d.  Disobedience  of  Rules  or  Regulations  of  Carrier,  §  2700. 


TARLR   OF   CONTEXTS.  LXIX 

e.  Violation   of   CoiHlitioiis   in    Contract   of  Carriage,  §  2701. 

f.  Disregarding  Directions  or  Warning  of  Carrier's  Employees,  §  2702. 

g.  Acts  by  Permission  or  Direction  of  Carrier's  Employees,  §  2703. 
h.  Acts  in  Emergencies,  §  2704. 

B.  Awaiting   and   Seeking   Transportation,    §§    2705-27 lf>. 

a.  In  (icncral,  §  2705. 

b.  Seeking  Entrance  to  Depot  Which   Is  Obstructed  by   Train,  §  2700. 

c.  Passing    Down    Steps    Leading   to    Station,    §    2707. 

d.  Awaiting  Train  at  Station,  §§  2708-271 1. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2708. 

(2)  On   Platform,  §  2709. 

(3)  Walking  on  Track,  §  2710. 

(4)  Standing  Near  Track,  §  2711. 

e.  Using  Passageway  to  Train  Shed  at  Station,  §  2712. 

f.  Crossing  Tracks  to  Reach  Station,  Train,  or  Car,  §  2713. 

g.  Passing  Along  Track  or  Right  of  Way  to  Reach  Train  or  Car,  §  2714 
h.   Flagging  or  Signaling  Train,  §  2715. 

i.   Standing  within   Reach   of  Street  Car,  §  2716. 

C.  Entering  Conveyance,  §§  2717-2738. 

a.  In    General,  §  2717. 

b.  Time   of   Entering  Car,  §  2718. 

c.  Place  of  Entering  Car,  §  2719. 

d.  Manner  of  Entering  Car,  §  2720. 

e.  Entering  Particular  Car.  §  2721. 

f.  Entering  Elevator,  §  2722. 

g.  Negligence  of  Particular  Passengers,  §  2723. 
h.   Boarding  Moving  Conveyance,  §§  2724-2738. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2724. 

(2)  Speed  Car  Moving,  §§  2725-2726. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2725. 

(b)  Speed  Suddenly  Accelerated.  §  2726. 

(3)  Before  and  after  Stopping  and  Starting,  §  2727. 

(4)  Length  of  Time  Car  Stops,  §  2728. 

(5)  Signaling  Car  to  Stop,  §  2729. 

(6)  By  Invitation  of  Carrier,  §  2730. 

(7)  Injured  by  Act  of  Operative,  §  2731. 

(8)  Injured  by  Defective  Platforqi,  §  2732. 

(9)  Injured  by  Objects  Passed,  §  2733. 

(10)  Injury  to  Person  Carrying  Bundles,  §  2734. 

(11)  Injury  to  Children,  Women  and  Invalids,  §  2735. 

(12)  Transferring  from  One  Car  to  Another,  §  2736. 

(13)  Where  Carrier  Could  Have  Avoided  Injury,  §  2737. 

(14)  Entering  Moving  Elevator,  §  2738. 

D.  In  Transit.   §§  2739-2784. 

a.  Conduct  in  General,  §  2739. 

b.  Dangerous  Position,  §§  2740-2781. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2740. 

(2)  Sitting  Negligently  in  Seat,  §  2741. 

(3)  Standing  in  Car,  §  2742. 

(4)  Riding  on  Platform,  §§  2743-2756. 

(a)  In  General.  §  2743. 

(b)  Rules  and  Regulations  of  Carrier,  §  2744. 

(c)  Direction  or  Request  of  Employee,  §  2745. 

(d)  Custom   and    Usage,   §   2740. 

(e)  Causes  Justifying  Riding  on   Platform,  §§  2747-2750. 
aa.   Interior  Crowded,  §  2747. 


LXX  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

bb.   Interior  Uncomfortable,  §  2748. 
cc.  Door  to   Interior  Closed,   §  2749. 
dd.  Escaping  Danger,  §  2750. 

(f)  Injury   from   Particular   Causes,   §   2751. 

(g)  Particular  Acts  of  Negligence,  §  2752. 
(h)   Platform  of  Particular  Car,  §  2753. 

(i)  Where  Riding  in  Interior  Would  Have  Avoided  Injury,  §  2754. 
(j)  Where  Carrier  Could  Have  Avoided  Injury,  §  2755. 
(k)    Children  and  Intoxicated  Persons,  §  2756. 

(5)  Riding  on  Step  or  Footboard,  §§  2757-2763. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2757. 

(b)  Where  Car  Crowded,  §  2758. 

(c)  Where  Running  Board  Crowded,  §  2759. 

(d)  Injury  from   Particular   Causes,  §   2760. 

(e)  Injury  from  Particular  Acts  of  Negligence,  §  2761. 
(f)   Step   of   Particular    Car.   §   2762. 

(g)    Children,   §   2763. 

(6)  Limb   or  Other   Part   of   Person   Protruding   from   Car,   §§   2764-2771. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2764. 

(b)  Hand  or  Arm  on  Window  Sill,  §  2765. 

(c)  Hand  or  Arm  Out  of  Window,  §  2766. 

(d)  Hand  on  Railing  of  Platform,  §  2767. 

(e)  Arm  Around  Post,  §  2768. 

(f)  Head  Out  of  Window  or  Door,  §  2769. 

(g)  Body    Protruding   from   Train,   §   2770. 
(h)   Feet  and  Legs  Protruding,  §  2771. 

(7)  Riding  in  Car  Not  Intended  for  Passengers,  §§  2772-2781. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2772. 

(b)  Riding  on  Engine,  §  2773. 

(c)  Riding  in  Car  in  Front  of  Engine,  §  2774. 

(d)  Riding  in   Freight   Car,   §   2775. 

(e)  Riding  in  Baggage,   Express  or  Mail  Car,  §  2776. 

(f)  Riding  in  Car  Intended  for  Colored  Persons,  §  2777. 

(g)  Riding  on  Hand  Car,  §  2778. 
(h)   Riding  on  Top  of  Car,  §  2779. 

(i)   Passenger  Accompanying  Live  Stock.  §  2780. 
(j)   Passenger    Accompanying    Property,    §    2781. 
c.   Changing   Position.    §§    2782-2784. 

(1)  In  General,   §  2782. 

(2)  Going  on   Platform,   §  2783. 

(3)  Passing  from  One  Car  to  Another,  §  2784. 
E.  Leaving    Conveyance,    §§    2785-2828. 

a.  In  General,   §§   2785-2799. 

(1)  Care  Required  of  Passengers  in  General,  §  2785. 

(2)  Due  Diligence  in  Leaving  Car,  §  2786. 

(3)  On   Invitation  or  Direction   of  Carrier's   Employees,  §§  2787-2789. 

(a)  In   General,  §  2787. 

(b)  Facts   Justifying  Assumption   of   Invitation   to   Alight,   §§   2788-2789. 
aa.  Stopping  Cars.  §  2788. 

bb.  Announcing  Station,  §  2789. 

(4)  Using  Means  Afiforded  for  .^lighting,  §  2790. 

(5)  Unnecessary  Exposure  to  Danger,  §  2791. 

(6)  Place   of  Alighting,   §§  2792-2795. 

(a)  Right  to  Assume  Place   Safe,  §  2792. 

(b)  Duty  to  Look  before  Alighting,  §  2793. 

(c)  Knowledge   of   Character  of  Place,   §   2794. 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS.  LXXI 

(d)    Customary   Stupping   Place,  §  2795. 

(7)  Children    and    Others    under    Di.sal)ility,    §§    2790-2797. 

(a)  In  General,  §  279(5. 

(b)  Intoxicated  Passengers,  §  2797. 

(8)  Alighting  from  Train  in   Emergency,  §  2798. 

(9)  Negligence  as   to    Incidental   Dangers,   §   2799. 

b.  Preparing   to    Leave    Conveyance    before    It    Stops,    §§    2800-2801. 

(1)  Standing  in  Aisle  or  Seat,  §  2800. 

(2)  Going  on   Platform   or  Steps  before  Train   Stops,   §  2801. 

c.  Alighting  at   Place   Other  than   Station   or   Platform,   §§   2802-2800. 
(1)   In  General,  §  2802. 

(3)  By  Direction,  Invitation  or  Acquiescence  of  Carrier,   §  2803-2805. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2803. 

(b)  Stop  after  Calling  Station  as   Invitation,  §  2804. 

(c)  Slowing  Up  for   Railroad   Crossing — Custom,   §  2805. 

(d)  On  Advice  of   Fellow   Passenger,  §  2805^. 

(3j    Running  Past  or  Stopping  Short  of  Destination,  §  2806. 

d.  Alighting  at  Wrong  End  or  Part  of  Car  or  on  Wrong  Side  of  Train,  §§  2807- 

2810. 

(1)  Wrong  End  of  Car,  §  2807. 

(2)  Wrong   Side   of   Car,   §§   2808-2809. 

(a)  In   General,  §  2808. 

(b)  On    Invitation   or   Acquiescence   of    Carrier,    §    2809. 

(3)  Side  Door  of  Baggage  Car,  §  2810. 

e.  Alighting  from   Moving  Train   or   Car  in   General,   §§   2811-2819. 

(1)  General  Rule,  §   2811. 

(2)  Where   Danger  Obvious,  §   2812. 

(3)  Manner    of   Alighting,    §    2813. 

(4)  Children  and  Others  under  Disability,   §  2814. 

(5)  Justification  or   Excuse,  §§  2815-2819. 

(a)  Direction   or    Invitation    of   Carrier,    §§    2815-2818. 
aa.  In    General,   §  2815. 

bb.  Slowing  Up  for  Station  as  Invitation  to  Alight,  §  2816. 
cc.  Announcing    Station    as    Invitation,    §    2817. 
dd.  After  Boarding  Wrong  Train,  §  2818. 

(b)  Acts  in    Emergencies,   §  2819. 

f.  Alighting  from   Moving  Car  on   Failure  to   Stop  at   Station,   §§  2820-2S21. 

(1)  In   Geneial,  §  2820. 

(2)  By   Direction    or    Invitation    of   Carrier,   §   2821. 

g.  Alighting  from  Moving  Car  on  Failure  to  Stop  for  Sufficient  Time.  §  2822. 
h.  Defective  or  Unlighted   Platform   and   Obstructions   Thereon,   §  2823. 

i.  Leaving  Premises  by  Improper  Course,  §  2824. 
j.   Crossing   Other   Tracks,    §§    2825-2828. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2825. 

(2)  Application    to    Passengers    of    Requirement    to    Stop,    Look,    and    Listen. 

§   2820. 

(3)  Passenger  Alighting  from   Train   or   Car   before   It  Stops,   §  2827. 

(4)  Attempting  to  Crawl  between  Cars  of  Freight  Train,  §  2828. 
ff.   Procedure.  §§  2829-2968. 

A.   Pleading,  §§  2829-2835. 

a.  Petition  or  Complaint.  §  2829. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer,  §§  2830-2834. 

(1)  Proof  under   General   Denial.   §   2830. 

(2)  Special   Plea   of  Contributory   Negligence.   §§  2831-2832. 
(a)   Necessity,  §  2831. 

(h)   Sufficiency   of  Plea   of  Contrilnitory   Negligence.   §   2832. 


IvXXII  TABLE  OF  CONTEXTS. 

(3)  Plea   of  Assumption   of   Risk.   §   2833. 

(4)  Construction,   Operation  and   liffect,  §  2S34. 
C.   Repl}',  §  2835. 

B.  Issues,    Proof   and    X'ariancc,    §    2836. 

C.  Presumption  and  Burden  of  I'roof,  §§  2837-2853. 

a.  Doctrine    Placing    Burden    on    Plaintiff,    §    2837. 

b.  Doctrine   Placing   Burden   on    Carrier,   §§   283S-2853. 
(1)   In   General,   §   2838. 

(3)   Boarding  and  Alighting  from   Train   or  Street   Car,   §§  2839-2842. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2839. 

(b)  Train  or   Car   Prematurely   Started,   §  2840. 

(c)  Jumping  from  Train,   Car  or  Coach,  §  2841. 

(d)  Obeying  Order  or  Direction  of  Conductor,  §  2842. 

(3)  Riding  in  Wrong  Car  or  Place  Not  Intended  for  Passengers,  §§  2843-2844. 

(a)  Railway    Trains,    §    2843. 

(b)  Riding  on  Platform  of  Street  Car,  §  2844. 

(4)  Standing   in    Car,    §    2845. 

(5)  Elbow  Resting  on   Rail  at   Side  of  Street   Car,   §   2846. 

(6)  Violation  of  Carrier's  Rules,  §  2847. 

(7)  Resisting    Ejection,   §   2848. 

(8)  Incapacity    to   Appreciate    Danger,    §    2849. 

(9)  Assumption  of  Risk,  §   2850. 

(10)  Waiver  of  Provision  in  Stock  Pass,  §  2851. 

(11)  Imputed    Negligence,    §    2852. 

(12)  Last  Clear  Chance,  §  2853. 

D.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §§  2854-2880. 

a.  In  General,  §  2854. 

b.  Surroundings   of   Place    of    Injury,    §   2855. 

c.  Res    Gestae,    §    2856. 

d.  Opinion   Evidence,   §  2857. 

e.  General  Custom  or  Usage,  §  2858. 

f.  Habits   or  Customs   of   Injured   Passenger,   §  2859. 
g.   Character  for  Negligence  or  Prudence,  §   2860. 

h.  Previous    Experience   in   Traveling   on   Trains   or    Cars,    §    2861. 
i.  Injuries  to  Other  Passengers,  §  2862. 
j.  Rules  of  Carrier  and  Violation  Thereof,  §  2863. 
k.  Ordinances,  §  2864. 
1.   Evidence  as  to  Specific  Acts   of   Negligence,   §§  2865-2872. 

(1)  Acts   Unconnected   with    Injury,   §   2865. 

(2)  Drunkenness,    §    2866. 

(3)  Boarding  Moving  Train,   §   2867. 

(4)  Standing  in  Train,   §   2868. 

(5)  Riding  on   Platform,  §  2869. 

(6)  Riding  on  Running  Board,  §  2870. 

(7)  Putting  Head  or  Arms   Out  of  Car.   §   2871. 

(8)  Alighting  from   Moving  Train    or   Car,   §   2872. 

m.  Evidence    Disproving    or    Excusing    Contributory    Negligence,    §§    2873-2880.. 

(1)  Evidence  of  Absence  of  Negligence,  §  2873. 

(2)  Reason  for  Injured  Person's  Actions,  §  2874. 

(3)  Following  Directions   of  Conductor  or  Trainmen,  §  2875. 

(4)  Failure  to  Warn  Passenger  of  Danger,  §  2876. 

(5)  Construction  and  Equipment  of  Car,  §  2877. 

(6)  Absence   of  Conductor,   §   2878. 

(7)  Mode  of  Handling  Trains  at  Point  in  Question,  §  2879. 

(8)  Similar  Negligence  of  Other  Persons,  §  2880. 
E.  Sufificiency   of  Evidence,   §§  2881-2904. 


TAIilJ-.    OF    CO  XT  li  NTS.  LXXIII 

a.  In    General,   §   2SS1. 

b.  Entering  Car   or   Conveyance,  §§   2882-2«S(i. 

(1)  Disregarding  Carrier's  Provisions   for  Safety,  §  288<. 

(2)  Injury   on   or   Near   Station   IMatform,   §   2883. 

(3)  Boarding  Moving  Train   or   Car,   §   2884. 

(4)  Injury    by    Automatic    Car    Doors,    §    2885. 

(5)  Elevators,   §   28.SG. 

c.  In  Transit,   §§   2887-2895. 

(1)  Knowledge  of  Dangerous   Position.  Jj  2887. 

(2)  Riding  on   Freight  Train,  §  2888. 

(3)  Riding  on   Crowded   Street   Car,   §  2889. 

(4)  Riding  on   Platform   of  Train,  §  2890. 

(5)  Riding  on  Platform  vStcps  or  Running  Board  of  Street  Car,  §  2891. 

(6)  Putting  Head  or  Arms  Out  of  Car,  §  2892. 

(7)  Burning  Out  of  Fuse,  §  2893. 

(8)  Passenger  Driving  Stage  Coach,  §  2894. 

(9)  Crossing   in    Front    of  Moving   Train    to    Reboard   Train    on    Side    Track, 

§  2895. 

d.  Leaving   Conveyance,   §§    2890-2901. 

(1)  In  General,  §  289(). 

(2)  Falling,  §  2897. 

(3)  Alighting  from  Moving  Train   or   Car,  §  2898. 

(4)  Injury  Caused  by  Sudden  Movement  of  Train  or  Car,  §  2899. 

(5)  Alighting  from   Car  between  Stations,  §  2900. 

(6)  Passenger  Struck  by  Car  on  Parallel  Track,  §  2901. 

e.  Leaving  Depot  or  Station,  §  2902. 

f.  Willfulness  or  Wantonness  of  Carrier's  Servants,  §  2903. 

g.  Last  Clear  Chance,  §  2904. 

F.  Questions    for   Jury,   §§   2905-2921. 

a.  In  General,  §  2905. 

b.  Care    Required    of   or   in    Respect    to    Children    and    Others    under    Disability, 

§  2906. 

c.  Awaiting  and  Seeking  Transportation,  §  2907. 

d.  Entering  Conveyance  in  General,  §  2908. 

e.  Boarding  Moving  Conveyance,  §  2909. 

f.  Conduct  While  in  Transit  in  General,  §  2910. 

g.  Riding  on  Platform,  §  2911. 

h.  Riding  on   Steps,   P'ootboard   or   Projection   from   X'estibule,   §   2912. 

i.  Leaving  Conveyance  in  General,  §  2913. 

j.  Preparing  to  Leave  Conveyance  before  It  Stops,  §  2914. 

k.  Alighting  from  Moving  Conveyance,  §  2915. 

1.  Alighting  from  Conveyance  at  Place  Other  Than  Station  or  Platform.  §  2916. 

m.  Crossing  or  Walking  on  Track  after  Alighting  from  Car,  §  2917. 

n.  Acts  by  Permission  or  Direction  of  Carrier's   Employees,  §  2918. 

o.  Acts  in  Emergencies,  §  2919. 

p.  Question  of  Last  Clear  Chance,  §  2920. 

q.  Wanton    Conduct    Excusing    Contributory    Xogligence.    §    29f21. 

G.  Instructions,  §§  2922-2967. 

a.  General  Consideration,  §§  2922-2953. 

(1)  Duty  of  Court  Generally,  §  2922. 

(2)  Necessity  for  Requests.  §  2923. 

(3)  Correct  Declaration  of  Law,  §  2924. 

(4)  Terminology — Technical   Language,  §  2925. 

(5)  Clearness  and  Definitcness.  §  2926. 

(6)  Conformity  to   Pleadings  and   Issues,  §§  2927-2934. 
(a)    In   General.  §  2927. 


i,XXIV  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

(b)  Must    Be    Germane    to    Issue,    §    2928. 

(c)  Applicability  to  Evidence,  §  2929. 

(d)  Assuming  Facts  or  Matters  in   Issue,  §  2930. 

(e)  Sufficiency  of  Evidence,  §  2931. 

(f)  Party  by  Whom  Contributory  Negligence  Proved,  §  2932. 

(g)  Pretermitting  or   Ignoring  Proof,  §  2933. 
(h)   Sufficiency  of  Pleadings,   §  2934. 

(7)  Explanation  or  Definition  of  Contributory  Negligence,  §  2935. 

(8)  Degree  of  Care  Required  of  Passenger,  §  2936. 

(9)  Must   Postulate   Negligence   of   Passenger's  Act,   §   2937. 

(10)  Must    Hypothesize    State    of    Facts    .\uthorizing    Conclusion    of    Contribu- 

tory Negligence,  §  2938. 

(11)  Proximate  and  Contributory  Cause  of  Injury,  §§  2939-2944. 

(a)  In   General,  §  2939. 

(b)  Must    Hypothesize    Negligent    Act    of    Passenger    as    Pro.ximate    Cause, 

§    2940. 

(c)  Requiring  Plaintiff's  Negligence  to  Be  Sole  Cause,  §  2941. 

(d)  Requiring  Plaintiff's  Negligence  Alone  to  Be  Proximate   Cause,  §  2942. 

(e)  Requiring  Passenger's   Negligence  to   Contribute  to   Injury,   §   2943. 

(f)  Concurring  Negligence  of  Plaintiff  and  Defendant,  §  2944. 

(12)  Omitting  One  of  Two  Acts  of  Contributory  Negligence,  §  2945. 

(13)  Ignoring   Negligence   of  Defendant,   §   2946. 

(14)  Enunciating  Theories  of  Case,  §  2947. 

(15)  Conflicting  and   Inconsistent   Instructions,  §  2948. 

(16)  Misleading  Instructions,  §  2949. 

(17)  Instruction  Invading  Province  of  Jury,   §  2950. 

(18)  Repetition  of  Instructions,  §  2951. 

(19)  Objections  Obviated  by  Other   Instructions,  §  2952 

(20)  Harmless  Error,  §  2953. 

b.  Law    of    State   Where    Injury    Occurred,    §    2954. 

c.  Assumption  of  Risk,  §  2955. 

d.  Care  Required  of  Children  and  Others  under  Disability,  §  2956. 

e.  Awaiting  and  Seeking  Transportation,  §  2957. 

f.  Entering  Conveyance,  §  2958. 

g.  Conduct  in  Transit,  §  2959. 

h.  Leaving  Conveyance  in  General,  §  2960. 
i.  Alighting  from   Moving  Conveyance,   §  2961. 
i.  Disobedience  of  Rules  of  Carrier,  §  2962. 

k.  Acts  by  Permission  or  Direction  of  Carrier's  Employees,  §  2963. 
1.  Acts  in  Emergencies,  §  2964. 
m.  Injury  Avoidable  by  Cafe  of  Carrier,  §  2965. 
n.  Presumptions  and   Burden   of  Proof,  §  2966. 
o.  Comparative  Negligence  Rule  Lender  Georgia  Statute,  §  2967. 
H.  Verdict  and  Findings,  §  2968. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 
Ejection  of  Passengers. 

Rights  and   Liabilities   of   Carrier  in   General,   §§   2969-2973: 

A.  In  General,  §  2969. 

B.  Liability  for  Acts  of  Employees,  §§  2970-2972. 

a.  In  General,  §  2970. 

b.  L^nauthorized  Ejection,  §  2971. 

c.  Wrongful  Acts  During  Ejection.  §  2972. 

C.  Proximate  Cause  of  Injury,  §  2973. 


TABLI-:  OF   CONTEXTS.  LXXV 

II.   Grounds    for    Injection,   §§  2974-3012. 

A.  In  General,  §  2974. 

B.  Persons   Objectional^le   as   Passengers  and    Uisorderly   Conduct,   §§   2975-2976. 

a.  In  General,  §  2975. 

b.  Disorderly   Conduct — Drunkenness,  §   2970. 

C.  Disobedience  of  Carrier's  Rules,  §§  2977-2978. 

a.  In  General,  §  2977. 

b.  Particular  Rules,  §  2978. 

D.  Failure  to  Procure  Ticket  or  Pay  Fare,  §§  2979-3012. 

a.  Rights  and  Liabilities  of  Carrier  in  General,  §§  2979-2986. 

(1)  In   General,  §  2979. 

(2)  Allowing  Time  to  Procure  Fare  or   Produce  Ticket,  §  2980. 

(3)  Duty  to  Ascertain  as  to  Purchase  of  Ticket,  §  2981. 

(4)  Where  Ticket  Lost,  §  2982. 

(5)  Failure  .of    Carrier   to    Furnish    Kvidence    of   Right   to    Continue   Journey, 

§  2983. 

(6)  Refusal  to   Pay   Excessive   or  Second   Fare,  §  2984. 

(7)  Nonpayment  of  Fare  of  Child,  §  2985. 

(8)  Nonpayment  of  Past   Fare,  §  2986. 

b.  Requiring.  Ticket  as   Condition   Precedent   to   Right  of  Carriage,   §§  2987-2988. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2987. 

(2)  Carriage   on    Freight   Trains,   §   2988. 

c.  Defective  or  Invalid  Ticket.  §§  2989-3005. 

(1)  In  General,  §  2989. 

(2)  Failure  to  Comply  with  jC^onditions  of  Ticket,  §§  3990-2994. 

(a)  In  General,  §  2990. 

(b)  Conditions  against  Transfer,   §  2991. 

(c)  Conditions  as  to  Detachment  of  Coupons,  §  2992. 

(d)  Conditions  as  to  Identification,  Signature  and  Stamping,  §  2993. 

(e)  Conditions  as  to  Use  of  Mileage   Book,  §  2994. 

(3)  Time  Limit   of  Ticket   Expired,   §  2995. 

(4)  Passenger    on    Wrong    Train,    or    Route,    or    Carried     Past    Destination, 

§§  2996-3001. 

(a)  Passenger  on  Wrong  Train,   §§   2996-2997. 
aa.  In  General,  §  2996. 

bb.  Train  Not  Stopping  at   Passenger's  Destination,  §  2997. 

(b)  Passenger  on  Wrong  Route,  §  2998. 

(c)  Passenger  on  Wrong  Road,  §  2999. 

(d)  Passenger   on   Wrong   Part   of  Road,   §   3000. 

(e)  Passenger  Carried  Past  Destination,  §  3001. 

(5)  Effect  of  Mistake  of  Employee  Issuing  Ticket,  §  3002. 

(6)  Effect  of  Mistake  of  First  Conductor,  §  3003. 

(7)  Eflfect  of  Collateral  Agreement  with  Ticket  Agent,  §   3004. 

(8)  Conclusiveness    of    Ticket    or    Transfer    as    between    Passenger    and    Con- 

ductor, §  3005. 

d.  Ejection  through  Mistake  of  Holder  of  \alid  Ticket,  §  3006. 
€.  Extra  Fares  or  Charges,  §§  3007-3008. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3007. 

(2)  Failure  to  Procure  Ticket,  §  3008. 

f.  Tender  or  Payment  of  Fare  to  Avoid  Ejection.  §§  3009-3012. 

(1)  Duty  to  Pay  Fare  to  Avoid  Ejection,  §  3009. 

(2)  Effect  of  Tender  of  Fare,  §§  3010-3012. 

(a)  Before  Ejection.  §  3010. 

(b)  After   Ejection   Commenced,   §   3011. 

(c)  Effect  as  Waiver  of  Rights  under  Ticket,  §  3012. 
TIT.  What   Constitutes    Ejection,   §   3013. 


LXXVI  lABLE  OF  COXTIJNTS. 

lY.  Place   of  Ejection,   §§   3014-o015. 

A.  In    General,    §    3014. 

B.  Statutory    Regulation,    §    3015. 
V.  Manner  of  Ejection,  §§  3016-3018. 

A.  In    General,   §   3016. 

B.  Use  of  Force,  §  3017. 

C.  Ejection   from    Moving  Train   or   Car,   §   3018. 
\'I.  Right  of  Passenger  to  Resist   Ejection,   §   3019. 

\"II.  Ejection    of   Passenger   under    Disability,    §§   3020-3021. 

A.  In    General.    §    3020. 

B.  Drunken  Passenger,  §  3021. 

\'III.  Repayment  of  Fare  or   Return   of  Ticket,   §  3022. 

IX.  Readmission  after  Ejection,  §§  3023-3024. 

A.  Right  to  Readmission,  §  3023. 

B.  Effect  of  Readmission,  §  3024. 

X.  Companies  and  Persons  Liable,  §§  3025-3027. 

A.  In  General,  §  3025. 

B.  Connecting  and  Co-Operating    Carriers,    §    3026. 

C.  Carrier's  Employees,  §  3027. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

LicENSEiii,,  Trespassers,  Intruders,  Etc. 

I.  Duties  as  to  Safety  of  Station  Houses,  Platforms  and  Grounds,  §§  3028-3041. 

A.  In  General,  §  3028. 

B.  Approaches,    Passageways   and   Platforms,   §   3029. 

C.  Operation  of  Trains,  §  3030. 

D.  Duty  Owed  to    Particular   Classes   of  Persons,   §§   3031-3041. 

a.  Duty  Owed  to  Public  at  Large,  §  3031. 

b.  Duty  Owed  to  Trespassers,  Spectators,  Loiterers  and  Bare  Licensees,  §  3032. 

c.  Persons  Having  Business  with  Express  Company  or  Other  Carrier,  §  3033. 

d.  Persons  Posting  Mail  or  Receiving  Mail,  §  3034. 

e.  Persons  Having  Business  with  Passengers,  §  3035. 

f.  Hackman,   §   3036. 

g.  Person  Patronizing  Restaurant  on  Premises  of  Railroad  Company,  §  3037. 
h.  Policeman,  §  3038. 

i.  Person   Crossing  Station   Grounds,  §  3039. 
j.  Persons  Deviating  from  Passageways,  §  3040. 
k.  Persons  Meeting  Incoming  or  Speeding  Departing  Passengers,  §  3041. 

II.  Persons  at  Station  to  Assist  or  Take  Leave  of  Departing  Passengers,  or  to  Meet 

Incoming  Passengers,  §§  3042-3056. 

A.  Right  to  Enter  Premises,  §  3042. 

B.  Degree  of  Care  Required,  §§  3043-3047. 

a.  In   General,  §  3043. 

b.  As  to  Station,  Approaches,   Platforms,  etc.,  §§  3044-3047. 

(1)  Duty  in  General,  §  3044. 

(2)  Defects  in  Platform,  §  3045. 

(3)  Failure  to  Sufficiently  Light  Premises,  §  3046. 

(4)  Negligence  in   Handling  Baggage,   §  3047. 

C.  Entering  Train  or  Cars,  §  3048. 

D.  Affording  Opportunity  to  Leave  Train   or   Cars,   §§  3049-3056. 

a.  In    General,   §   3049. 

b.  Duty  to  Give  Notice  of  Starting,  §  3050. 

c.  Assumption  That  Persons  Boarding  Train  Are   Passengers,   §  3051. 
d.  Duty  as  Affected  by  Knowledge  of  Intention  of  Person  Boarding  Train,  §  3052. 


TAHl.l-:  OF  COXTKX'IS.  .  LXXV'II 

e.  Right  to  Assume  That  Train  Will  Stop  for  Usual  Lenj^nh  of  Time,  §  3053. 
f.  Notice   of   Purpose   in    Boardinj^  Train,   5J§   3054-:5055. 

(1)  Necessity,  §  3054. 

(2)  Sufificiency  of  Notice,  §  3055. 

g.  Right  to  Rely  on  Information  hy  Employee  as  to  Time  of  Stop,  §  3056. 

III.  Duties  and  Liabilities  as  to  Persons  on  Trains,  Cars,  etc.,  §§  3057-3063. 

A.  Trespassers,  §§  3057-305S. 

a.  Duty  Owed  in  General,  §  3057. 

b.  Trespassing   Children,   §   305S. 

B.  Invitees  and   Licensees,  §§  3059-30G3. 

a.  In    General,   §  3059. 

b.  Persons  on  Train  in  Violation  of  Rules  of  Carrier,  §  3000. 

c.  Children  Entering  Trains,  Cars,  etc.,  §  30G1. 

d.  Traffic   Policeman,   §   3062. 

e.  X'olunteer,  §  3063. 

IV.  Acts  and  Omissions  of  Servants  and  Third  Persons  for  Which  Carriers  Liable, 

§§    3064-3068. 

A.  Acts  of  Employees,  §§  3064-3066. 

a.  Lessee    of   Privilege   as   Servant,   §   3064. 

b.  Proximate  Cause  of  Injury,  §  3065. 

c.  Scope  of  Employment,  §  3066. 

B.  Acts    of    Third    Persons,    §§    3067-3068. 

a.  In  General,  §  3067. 

b.  Acts  of  Postal  Employees  in  Throwing  Mail   Bags  from  Train,  §  3068. 

V.  Ejection,  §§  3069-3072. 

A.  In   General,  §  3069. 

B.  From  Railroad  Stations,  §  3070. 

C.  From  Railroad  Trains,  §  3071. 

D.  From    Street    Cars,    §    3072. 

VI.  Contributory  Negligence  of  Person   Injured,  §§  3073-3082. 

A.  In   General,   §   3073. 

B.  Of  Postal  Clerks,  §  3074. 

C.  Of  Carrier's  Employees,  §  3075. 

D.  Of  Former  Passenger  Boarding  Train  to  Secure   Return  of  Money  Due  Him, 

§  3076. 

E.  Of  Persons  Going  to  Station  or  Train  to  Assist  or  Meet  Passengers,  §  3077. 

F.  Of  Persons  Boarding  Train.  Car,  or  Boat  to  See  or  Assist  Passengers,  §  3078. 

G.  Of  Persons  on  Train  or  Car  l)y  Invitation  or  Permission  of  Carrier's    Employ- 

ees, §  3079. 
H.  Of  Persons  Going  to  Railroad  Depot  on  Business,  §  3080. 
I.  Of  Persons  on  Station  Platform  Who  Have  No  Business  There,  §  3081. 
J.  Of  Trespassers,  §  3082. 

VII.  Actions,    §§    3083-3091. 

A.  Pleading,  §§   3083-3085. 

a.  Petition,  §  3083. 

b.  Answer  or   Pica,  §   30S4. 

c.  Variance,  §  3085. 

B.  Evidence,   §§   3086-3088. 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  3086. 

b.  Admissibility,  §  3087. 

c.  Weight   and   Sufficiency,   §   3088. 

C.  Questions  for  Jury,  §  3089. 

D.  Instructions,  §  3090. 

E.  Verdict,    §    3091. 


I^XXVIII  TABL1-:  OF  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXVIL 

Actions. 

I.  Scope  of  Chapter,  §  3093. 
II.  Right  of  Action,  §  3093. 
III.   Nature  and  Form  of  Action,  §  3094. 
VI.  Parties,  §  3095. 
V.   Pleading,  §§  3096-3143. 
A.  Declaration  or  Complaint,  §§  309G-3138. 

a.  In  General,  §  3096. 

b.  Actions  for  Failure  to  Perform  Contract  or  Duty  in  General,  §§  3097-3103. 

(1)  Refusal  to  Receive  and  Carry,  §  3097. 

(2)  Fraud,  Mistake,  or  Negligence  as  to  Ticket  or  Transfers,   §  3098. 

(3)  Misinformation  or  Incorrect  Informations,  §  3099. 

(4)  Failure  to  Stop  and  Receive,  §  3100. 

(5)  Putting  Passenger  on  Wrong  Train,  §  3101. 

(6)  Separation  of  Passengers,  §  3102. 

(7)  Failure  to  Set  Down  at  Destination,  §  3103. 

c.  Actions  for  Personal  Injuries,  §§  3104-3129. 

(1)  Pleading  in  General,  §  3104. 

(2)  Allegations  as  to  Contract  or  Relation,  §  3105. 

(3)  Allegations  as  to  Time,  Place  and  Vehicle,  §  3106. 

(4)  Allegations  as  to  Negligence  and  Cause  of  Injury,  §§  3107-3125. 

(a)  In  General,  §  3107. 

(b)  Specific  Averment  of  Negligence,   §   3108. 

(c)  General  Averment  of  Negligence,  §  3109. 

(d)  Restriction   of  General  Averment  by  Other   Averment,  §  3110. 

(e)  Averment  of  Basis  or  Bases  for  Negligence,  §§  3111-3122. 
aa.  In  General,  §  3111. 

l)b.  As  to   Stations  and   Stopping  Places,  §  3112. 

cc.  As  to  Roadbed  and  Track,  §  3113. 

dd.  As  to  Vehicle,  §  3114. 

ee.  Receiving  and  Discharging  Passengers,  §  3115. 

fif.  Accommodations  and, Duties  in  Transit,  §  3116. 

gg.  Assisting  Passenger,  §  3117. 

hh.  Carriage  beyond  Destination,  §  3118. 

ii.  Alighting  at   Intermediate   Station,  §  3119. 

jj.  Management  of  Conveyance,  §  3120. 

kk.  Protection  of  Passenger,  §  3121. 

11.  Assaults  and  Insults  by  Servants,  §  3122. 

(f)  Alleging  Act  to   Be  That  of  Carrier,  §  3123. 

(g)  Allegations  as  to  Agent  or  Servant  at  Fault,  §  3124. 
(h)   Violation   of   Statute   or   Ordinance,   §   3125. 

(5)  Connection  between   Negligence  and   Cause  of  Injury,  §  3126. 

(6)  Allegations  as  to  Injury  Sustained,  §  3127. 

(7)  Negativing  Assumed  Risks,  §  3128. 

(8)  Negativing  Contributory  Negligence,  §  3129. 
d.  Actions  for  Ejectment,  §§  3130-3136. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3130. 

(2)  Allegations  as  to  Breach  of  Duty.  §§  3131-3133. 

(a)  Unauthorized  and  Wrongful   Ejectment,  §  3131. 

(b)  Use    of   Unnecessary    Force.    §    3132. 

(c)  Ejection  at  Improper  Place,  §  3133. 

(3)  Allegations  as  to   Servant  at   Fault,   §  3134. 

(4)  Connection  between  Ejection  and   Injury,  §  3135. 

(5)  Negativing   Contributory    Negligence,   §    3136. 


TABLE  OF  CONTliNTS.  LXXIX 

e.  Pleading  Damages,  §§  3137-3138. 

(1)  In   General,  §  3137. 

(2)  Punitive    Damages,   §   3138. 

B.  Plea  or  Answer,  §  3139. 

C.  Replication,    §    3140. 

D.  Special    Demurrer,    iixceptions    or    Motion,    §    3141. 

E.  Amendment,  §  3142. 

F.  Aider  by  Subsequent   I'kadings  and  Cure  of  Error,  §  :j143. 

VI.  Issues,   Proof  and  Variance,  §§   3144-3102. 

A.  Issues.  §§  3144-3148. 

a.  In   General,  §  3144. 

b.  Issues  as  Affected  by  Plea  or  Answer,  §  3145. 

c.  Additional    Issues   by    Subsequent    Pleadings,   §   3140. 

d.  Under  Amended  Petition,  §  3147. 

e.  Elimination  of  Issues  by  Dismissal,  §  3148. 

B.  Proof,  §§   3149-3151. 

a.  Matters  to  Be  Proven,  §   3149. 

b.  Failure  of  Proof,  §  3150. 

c.  Sufficiency  of  Proof,  §  3151. 

C.  Variance,  §§  3152-3102. 

a.  In    General,   §   3152. 

b.  Tort   and   Contract,   §   3153. 

c.  As   to    Contract   of   Carriage,   §   3154. 

d.  As  to  Status  of  Plaintiff,  §  3155. 

e.  As  to  Negligence   or  Cause   of   Injury,  §§  3156-3159. 

(1)  In   General,   §   3156. 

(2)  Negligence    Averred    Generally    or    Specifically,    §    315J'. 

(3)  Active  or  Passive  Negligence,  §  3158. 

(4)  Wilful   or   Wanton    Negligence   or    Delay,    §   3159. 

f.  As   to  Persons  Liable,   §  3160. 

g.  As  to  Injury  or  Damages,  §  3161. 

h.  Amendment    to    Conform    to    Proof,    §    3162. 

VII.  Presumptions  and   Burden  of  Proof,  §§  3163-3193. 

A.  In   Action    for    P'ailure  to   Perform    Contract,    §   3163. 

B.  In   Actions   for    Ejection,   §   3164. 

C.  In    Actions    for    Personal    Injury,    §§    3165-3193. 

a.  As  to  Relation  of  Carrier  and  Passenger,  §  3165. 

b.  As  to   Injury,   §  3166. 

c.  As  to  Negligence   or   Cause  of  Injury,   §§   3107-3193. 

(1)  In   General,  §  3167. 

(2)  Connection   between    Negligence  and    Injury,   §   3168. 

(3)  Presumption  Arising  from   Evidence,   §§   3109-3174. 

(a)  General   Rule— Prima   Facie  Case,  §§  3169-3173. 
aa.  Negligence    Generally    Pleaded,    §    3169. 

bb.  Both    General  and   Specific  Negligence  Alleged,   §   3170. 
cc.  Specific   Negligence  Alleged.  §   3171. 

dd.  Assumption  of  Unnecessary  Burden  by  Plaintiff,  §  3172. 
ee.  Effect  of  Attempted   Explanation,  §  3173. 

(b)  Operation  and   Effect   of   Presumption,   §   3174. 

(4)  Rules  Applied  in   Particular   Cases,   §§   3175-3189. 

(a)  Stations   and    Stopping    Places,   §    3175. 

(b)  As  to  Roadbed  and  Track,  §   3170. 

(c)  As  to   \'ehicle,  §  3177. 

(d)  Receiving  and  Discharging  Passengers,  §§  3178-3181. 
aa.  In  General,  §  3178. 

bb.   Carriage    beyond    Destination,    §    3179. 


LXXX  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

cc.  Putting  Off  at  Wrong  Destination,  §  3180. 

(e)  Duties  and   Accommodation   in  Transit,  §   3181. 

(f)  Management   of   Vehicle,   §§    3182-3189. 
aa.  Jerks  and  Jolts,   §   3182. 

bb.   Breaking  Down   or   Overturning  of   Coach,   §   3183. 
cc.   Injury   from   Animals   Drawing   Coach,   §   3184. 
dd.  Derailment,   §  3185. 
ee.  Collision,  §   3186. 

ff.  Assaults,    Insults,    etc.,   by    Carrier's    Servants,    §    3187. 
gg.  Duty   to    Protect    Passengers    from   Third    Persons,    §    3188. 
hh.  Injury   Resulting  from   Effort  to   Escape   Danger,   §   3189. 

(5)  Willfulness   or   Wantonness,   §    3190. 

(6)  Passengers  on  Freight  Trains,  §  3191. 

(7)  Passengers   without   Reward,    §   3192. 

(8)  Contract    Assuming    Risk    or    Releasing    Liability,    §    3193. 
VUl.  Admissibility   of   Evidence,   §§   3194-3237. 

A.  Failure  to   Perform   Contract  or  Duty  in   General,   §§   3194-3199. 

a.  Evidence   to    Establish    Contract,    §    3194. 

b.  Failure   or  Refusal  to   Receive  and   Carry,   §   3195. 

c.  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Honor  Ticket,   Mileage,   etc.,   §  3196. 

d.  Failure  or   Refusal  to  Put   Off  at   Destination,   §  3197. 

e.  Protection    and   Accommodations,    §    3198. 

f.  Delay,    Failure    to    Make    Schedule,    Connections,    etc.,    §    3199. 

B.  In   Actions   for    Ejectment,    §§   3200-3208. 

a.  Relevancy    and    Materiality    in    General,    §    3200. 

b.  As  to  Contract  or  Relation,  §  3201. 

c.  Ejection   for   Failure  to   Produce  Ticket,   §  3202. 

d.  Ejection   for   Refusal  to    Pay   Fare,   §  3203. 

e.  Violation  of  Statutes,  Rules,  and  Regulations,  §  3204. 

f.  Time,    Place,    etc.,    of    Ejection,    §    3205. 

g.  General    Character   and    Disposition    of   Employee.    §    3206. 
h.  Evidence  as  to  Authority  to  Eject,  §  3207. 
i.  Ratification  of  Conductor's  Act,  §  3208. 

C.  In    Suits   for   Personal    Injury,   §§   3209-3237. 

a.  Relation   of  Carrier  and   Passenger,   §   3209. 

b.  As  to  Negligence  or  Cause   of  Injury,   §§  3210-3231. 

(1)  In   General,  §§  3210-3218. 

(a)  Relevancy  and  Materiality,  §  3210. 

(b)  Degree   of  Care,   §   3211. 

(c)  Facts   Constituting  Transaction,   §   3212. 

(d)  Statements  and   Declarations,   §   3213. 

(e)  Matter  to  Show  Notice  to  Carrier,  §  3214. 
(f)  Rules   of   Carrier,   §   3215. 

(g)   Habit   or    Custom,   §   3216. 

(h)   Evidence  of  Other  Accidents,  Transactions,  etc.,  §  3217 

(i)   Character   of   Parties,   §   3218. 

(2)  Stations   and   Stopping   Places,    §   3219. 

(3)  Condition   of  Track   or   Roadbed,    §    3220. 

(4)  Condition   of  Vehicle  and  Appliances,   §  3221. 

(5)  Receiving  and   Discharging  Passengers,   §§   3222-3223 

(a)  In    General,   §  3222. 

(b)  Time  to  Board  or  Alight— Sudden  Starting,  §  32P3 

(6)  Carriage    beyond    Destination,    §    3224. 

(7)  Accommodation  and   Duties    in  Transit,  §  3225. 

(8)  Management    of    Conveyance,    §§    3226-3229. 
(a)   In    General,    §    3226. 


TA15LE   OF    CONTENTS.  LXXXI 

(b)  Under  Allegation   of   Derailment,   §   3227. 

(c)  Under  Allegation   of  Collision,  §   3228. 

(d)  EfTort    to    Escape    Danger,    §    3229. 

(9)   Competency  of  Employees    or  Care  in  Selecting  Them,  §  3229^2- 

(10)  Failure    to    Protect    from    Third  Persons,  §  3230. 

(11)  Assaults,   Insults,  etc.,   l)y     Servants,  §  3231. 

c.  As  to   Injury,  §§  3232-3233. 

(1)  Evidence  as  to  Existence  of  Injury,  §  3232. 

(2)  Nature    and    Extent    of    Injury,    §    3233. 

d.  As   to  Damages,  §§   3234-3237. 

(1)  Damages  for  Breach  of  Contract,  §  32;-.4. 

(2)  In  Actions  for   Ejectment,   §   3235. 

(3)  In   Action   for   Personal   Injury,   §   3236. 

(4)  Punitive    Damages,    §    3237. 

IX.  Weight   and   Sufficiency   of   Evidence,   §§   3238-3287. 

A.  In  General,  §  3238. 

B.  As  to  Negligent  Acts  of   I-'.niployees,  §§  3239-3248. 

a.  In  General,  §  3239. 

b.  Ejecting  Passenger,   §   3240. 

c.  Assaulting  Passenger,  §  3241. 

d.  Escorting   Passenger   Across   Track,    §    3242. 

e.  Controlling   Conduct   of  Other   Passengers,   §   3243. 

f.  Aiding  in   Making  Arrests,   §   3244. 
g.  Negligently   Closing  Door,   §   3245. 

h.   Inviting    Passenger   on    Engine,   §   3240. 
i.   Putting  up   Berth,  §  3247. 
j.  Injury   to   Passenger   in    Custody    of    Employee,    §   3248. 

C.  As  to  Negligence  in  Respect  to  Condition  of  Carrier's  Premises,  §  3249. 

D.  As  to  Negligence  in  Respect  to  Condition  of  Means  of  Transportation,  §  3250. 

E.  As  to  Negligence  in  Management  of  Conveyances  in   General,  §   3251. 

F.  As  to  Negligence  Causing  Passenger  to  Fall  from  Vehicle,  §§  3252-3256. 

a.  In  General,  §  3252. 

b.  Defective    Means   and    Instrumentalities,   §   3253. 

c.  Negligent    Management    of   Conveyance,   §    3254. 

d.  Negligent  Pushing  Passenger  from  Car,  §  3255. 

e.  Negligence   after   Passenger   Has    Fallen,   §   3256. 

G.  As   to   Cause   of   Derailment,   §   3257. 

H.  As   to    Negligence    Causing   Collision,   §   3258. 
I.  As  to   Negligence  in   Taking   up   Passengers   in   General,   §§   3259-3269. 

a.  In   General,   §   3259. 

b.  Place  of  Taking  up  Passengers.  §  3260. 

c.  Passenger    Boarding    Moving   Train,    §    3261. 

d.  Passenger  Bearding  Car  on  Wrong  Side,   §  3262. 
c.   Negligent   Starting  Car,   §  3263. 

1.  Negligent    Backing    Car,    §    3264. 

g.  Negligent    Coupling    Cars,    §    3265. 

h.  Negligent   Pushing  of  Passenger  from  Train.  §   3266. 

i.  Negligent    Shutting   of    Gate   on    Passenger,    §    3267. 

j.  Passenger   Injured   by   Brake   Handle,   §   3268. 
k.  Failure  to  Control   Conduct  of  Other  Passengers,  §  3269. 
J.  As  to   Negligence   in   Setting  Down   Passengers,   §§  3270-3277. 

a.  In   General,  §  3270. 

b.  Defective   Instrumentalities  or  Premises,  §   3271. 

c.  Passenger   Alighting  from   Moving  Train,   §   3272. 

d.  Negligent  Stopping  of  Car,   §  3273. 

1   Car— f 


LXXXII  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

e.  Negligent  Starting  of  Car,  §  3274. 

f.  Negligent    Backing   of    Car,   §    3275. 

g.  Carrying    Passenger    Past    Station,    §    3276. 

h.  Passenger    Injured    after    Alighting,    §    3277. 
K.  As  to  Companies   or  Persons   Liable   for   Injuries,   §   3278. 
L.  Limitation   of   Liability,   §   3279. 
M.  Passenger    in    Elevators,    §    3280. 

N.  Evidence  to  Rebut  Presumption  of  Negligence  Arising  from  Injury,  §§  32S1 
3287. 

a.  In  General,  §  3281. 

b.  Injury  Caused  by  Defective  Means  of  Transportation,  §  3282. 

c.  Injury  Caused  by  Negligent  Management  of  Conveyance,   §  3283. 

d.  Injury   Caused    by    Negligent    Setting   Down    Passengers,    §    3284. 

e.  Injury   Caused  by  Derailment,   §   3285. 

f.  Injury  Caused  by  Collision,  §  3286. 

g.  Injury   Caused  by  Another   Passenger,   §    3287. 
X.   Questions   for   Court  or  Jury,   §§   3288-3320. 

A.  Actions   for    Breach    of   Contract    in    General,    §   3288. 

B.  Actions    for   Wrongful    Ejection,   §§   3289-3292. 

a.  In    General,   §   3289. 

b.  Whether"  Plaintiff  Was   Passenger,  §   3290. 

c.  Questions  as  to   Carrier's   Regulations,   §  3291. 

d.  Place   and    Manner    of    Ejection,    §    3292. 

C.  Actions   for   Personal    Injuries,   §§   3293-3320. 

a.  In   General,  §  3293. 

b.  Existence  of  Relation  of  Carrier  and  Passenger,  §  3294. 

c.  Care  as  to  Passengers  under  Disability,  §  3295. 

d.  Acts   of   Carrier's   Employees,   §   3296. 

e.  Number    and    Efficiency    of    Employees,    §    3297. 

f.  Acts  of  Fellow  Passengers  or  Other  Third   Persons,  §  3298. 
g.  Condition  and  Use  of  Carrier's  Premises,  §  3299. 
h.  Taking    Up    Passengers,    §§    3300-3301. 

(1)  In   General,   §   3300. 

(2)  Starting  or  Moving  Car  While  Passenger  Is   Boarding  Same,  §  3301. 

i.  Operation    of   Trains    at    Places    Where    Passengers    Are    Being    Received    or 

Discharged,    §    3302. 
j.   Railroad    Cars,    §    3303. 

k.   Cars    and    Equipment    of    Street    Railroads,    §    3304. 
1.  Tracks   and    Roadbeds.   §   3305. 
m.   Condition    of    Elevators,    §    3306. 
n.   Management    of    Conveyances,    §§    3307-3314. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3307. 

(2)  Overloading   or   Crowding   Cars,   §   3308. 

(3)  Rate    of   Speed,    §    3309. 

(4)  Sudden  Lurches,  Jerks,  or  Jolts,  §  3310. 

(5)  Passing   Other    Vehicle    or    Objects,    §    3311. 

(6)  Collision,    §   3312. 

(7)  Derailment  of   Cars.  §   3313. 

(8)  Management    of    Elevators,    §    3314. 

o.  Protection  of  Passengers  from   Incidental   Dangers,   §  3315. 
p.  Setting   Down    Passengers,   §§   3316-3318. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3316. 

(2)  Starting  or  Moving  Car   While  Passenger   Is  Alighting,  §  3317. 

(3)  Providing  Safe  Place  or  Means   for  Alighting,  §  3318. 
q.  Proximate   Cause  of  Injury,  §  3319. 

r.  Companies  Liable,  §  3320. 


TABLli  OF   CONTENTS.  LXXXIII 

XL   Instructions,  §§  3321-3368. 

A.  Actions   for  Personal   Injuries,  §§   3321-33(32. 

a.  General    Consideration,    §§   3321-333G. 

(1)  Right  to  and   Propriety  of  Instructions   GL-nerally,  §   3321. 

(2)  Form    and    Requisites,    §§    3322-332«. 

(a)   Correct,    Full   and    Fair    Statement    of    Law,    §    3322. 
(1))    Language    and    Terminology,   §   3323. 
(cj   Clearness   and    Definiteness,   §   3324. 

(d)  Argumentativeness,   §   3325. 

(e)  Misleading  Instructions,  §   332G. 

(3)  Requests  for  Instructions,  §  3327. 

(4)  Duty  to   Explain    Issues,   §   3328. 

(5)  Conformity  to   Pleadings  and   Issues,   §  3329. 

(6)  Applicability   to    Evidence,    §§   3330-3332. 

(a)  In   General,   §  3330. 

(b)  Ignoring  Evidence  or  Facts  in  Case,  §  3331. 

(c)  Assuming   Facts,   §   3332. 

(7)  Invading   Province   of  Jury,   §   3333. 

(8)  Harmless  Error,  §  3334. 
(.9)    Curing    Error,   §§   3335-333G. 

(a)   Obviating    Error    by    Other    Instructions,    §    3335. 
(h)    Subsequent    Explanation   of   Charge,   §   333G. 

b.  Existence  of   Relation   of   Carrier  and    Passenger,   §   3337. 

c.  Detinition    or    Explanation    of   What    Constitutes    Negligence,    §    3338. 

d.  Degree   of   Care   Required,   §   3339. 

e.  Acts   of   Carrier's  Servants,   Fellow-Passengers,   or  Third   Persons,   §   3340. 

f.  Condition    of   Carrier's    Premises,   §   3341. 

g.  Taking  Up   Passengers,   §   3342. 

h.  Starting  or   Moving  Car  While   Passenger   Boarding   Same,   §   3343. 
i.  Sufficiency   and    Safety   of   Means   of   Transportation,    §    3344. 
j.  Alanagement  of  Conveyances,  §  3345. 

k.  Causing  Passengers   to   Fall   from   Train   or   Car,   §  334G. 
1.  Sudden  Jerks,   Lurches   or  Jolts,   §   3347. 
m.   Collisions,    §   3348. 
n.   Derailment,  §  3349. 
o.   Elevators,    §§    3350-3351. 

(1)  Safety  and  Sufficiency,  §  3350. 

(2)  Management,   §   3351. 

p.  Setting    Down    Passengers    in    General,    §    3352. 
q.  Starting  or   Moving  Train   While    Passenger   Alighting,   §   3353. 
r.  Providing  Safe   Place   or   Means   for  Alighting,   §   3354. 
s.  Care    as    to    Persons    .Accompanying    Passengers,    §    3355. 
t.   Liability  to    Persons   Accompanying   Stock,   §   335G. 
u.  Proximate    Cause,    §    3357. 
V.  Companies    or    Persons  ■  Liable,    §    3358. 
w.  Presumptions   and   Burden   of   Proof,   §   3359. 
X.  Weight   and   Sufficiency   of  Evidence,   §  3360. 
y.  Credibility   of  Witnesses,   §   33G1. 
z.  Damages,   §   3362. 

B.  Actions   for   Breach   of   Contract   of   Carriage.   §§   33G3-3365. 

a.  Form,    Requisites   and   Sufficiency   in    General.   §   3363. 

b.  Acts   Constituting  Breach   and    Excuses  Therefor,  §  3364. 

c.  Damages,    §    3365. 

C.  Actions  for  Ejectment,  §§  3366-3368. 

a.  Form,   Requisites   and   Sufficiency'   in    General,    §    3366. 


LXXXIV  TABLE  OF   CONTENTS. 

b.  Right    to    Eject,   §   33G7. 

c.  Damages,   §   33G8. 

XII.  Verdict  and  Finding,  §  3369. 
XIII.  Appeal  and   Error,  §  3370. 
XI\'.   Costs,  §  3371. 


CHAPTER   XXVIII. 

Damages. 

I.  For  Breach  of  Contract  of  Transportation,  §§  3372-3399. 

A.  Elements  and  Aleasure  of  Damages  in  General,  §§  3372-3389. 

a.  In  General,  §  3372. 

b.  Breach  of  Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  for  an  Excursion,  §  3373. 

c.  Breach  of  Contract  to  Carry  to  a  Certain  Place  and  Return,  §  3374. 

d.  Breach  of  Contract  to  Issue  Annual  Passes,  §  3375. 

e.  Breach  of  Contract  Contained  in  Mileage  Book  to  Issue  an  Exchange  Ticket, 

§  3376. 

f.  Breach  of  Contract  to  Reserve  Drawing  Room  in  Sleeping  Car,  §  3377. 

g.  Breach  of  Contract  to  Hold  Train,  §  3378. 
h.  Change  of  Schedule  of  Trains,  §  3379. 

i.  Refusal  to  Sell  Ticket  to  One  Applying  for  Transportation,  §  3380. 

j.  Refusal  of  Transportation,  §  3381. 

k.  Failure  to  Stop  for  Person  Desiring  to  Take  Passage,  §  3382. 

I.  Failure  to  Stop  According  to  Previous  Notice  at  a  Particular  Place  at  a  Time 

Specified,  §  3383. 
m.  Failure  to  Stop  a  Sufficient  Time  to  Allow  Passenger  to  Get  on  or  Off  Train, 
§  3384. 

II.  Failure  to   Return   to   Passenger  That  Part  of  His  Ticket   Entitling   Him   to 

Transportation  by  a  Connecting  Carrier,  §  3385. 
o.  Delay  in  Transportation,  §  3386. 
p.  Getting  Off  at  Wrong  Station  or  Place  by  Direction  of  Carrier's  Employees, 

§  3387. 
q.  Failure  to  Carry  to  Destination,  §  3388. 
r.  Carrying  beyond  Destination,  §  3389. 

B.  Mental  Suffering,  §  3390. 

C.  Special  Damage  Dependent  on  Knowledge  of  Circumstances,  §  3391. 

D.  Exemplary  or  Punitive  Damages,  §§  3392-3399. 

a.  In  General,  §  3392. 

b.  Failure  to  Stop  Train  or  Car  at   Station  or  Where   Proper  Signal   Is   Given, 

§  3393. 

c.  Refusal  of  1  ransportation,  §  3394. 

d.  Delay  in  Transportation,  §  3395. 

e.  Failure  to  Carry  to  Destination,  §  3396. 

f.  Carrying  beyond  Destination,  §§  3397-3398. 

(1)  When  Exemplary  or  Punitive  Damages  Are  Recoverable,  §  3397. 

(2)  What  May  Be  Considered  in  Assessing  Damages,  §  3398. 

E.  Excessive  Damages,  §  3399. 

II.  For  Personal  Injuries,  §§  3400-3407. 

A.  Elements  and  Measure  of  Damages  in  General,  §  3400. 

B.  Elements   and   Measure   of   Damages    for   Assault,   Threats,    Insult    or   Abuse, 

§  3401. 

C.  Damages  Recoverable  for  Humiliation   Suffered  as  Result  of  an  Unlawful  Ar- 

rest, §  3402. 

D.  Exemplary  or  Punitive  Damages,  §§  3403-3405. 
a.  In  General,  §  3403. 


TABU-:   OF    CONTF.NTS.  LXXXV 

b.  For  Assault,  Threats,  Insult  or  Abuse,  §  3404. 

c.  For  Wrongful  Arrest,  §  3405. 

E.  Aggravation  and  Mitigation  of  Damages,  §  340G. 

F.  Excessive  Damages,  §  3407. 
III.   For  Ejection,  §§  3408-3423. 

A.  Elements  and  Measure  of  Damages  in  General,  §  3408. 

B.  Mental  Suffering,  §§  3409-3410. 

a.  Ejection  from  a  Railroad  Train  or  Street  Car,  §  3409. 

b.  Ejection  from  a  Ferryboat,  §  3410. 

C.  Exemplary  or  Punitive  Damages,  §§  3411-3421. 
a.   In  Actions  against  Carriers,  §§  3411-3420. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3411. 

(2)  Ejection  for  Refusal  to  Pay  Fare,  §  3412. 

(3)  Ejection   of   Passenger   Presenting  Ticket    Xot   Good   on    the   Railroad  or 

on  the  Particular  Train,  §  3413. 

(4)  Ejection  of  Passenger  Who  Has  a  Ticket  to  a  Station  at  Which  the  Train 

Does  Not  Stop,  §  3414. 

(5)  Ejection    under    Mistaken    Belief   That    Passenger's    Ticket    Is    Xot    Good, 

§  3415. 

(6)  Ejection  of  Passenger   Presenting  Ticket  the  Time   Limit   of  Which   Has 

Expired,  §  3416. 

(7)  Ejection  of  Passenger    Presenting  an   Improper  Ticket  or   One  Wrongly 

Made  Out,  §  3417. 

(8)  Ejection  from  a  Moving  Train  or  Street  Car,  §  3418. 

(9)  Ejection  of  Passenger  in  Consequence  of  Repudiation  of  Tickets  by  Gen- 

eral  Passenger   Agent,   §   3419. 

(10)  Passenger  Entering  Train  or  Violating  Rule  of   Carrier   for   Purpose  of 

Being  Ejected  and   Suing  Therefor,   §  3420. 
b.  In  an  Action  against  the  Conductor  of  a  Railroad  Train,  §  3421. 

D.  Aggravation  and  Mitigation  of  Damages.  §  3422. 

E.  Excessive  Damages,  §  3423. 


VOLUME  IV 

CHAPTER   XXIX. 
P.ASSEXGERS'  Effects. 

I.  Duty  of  Carrier  to  Transport,  §§  3424-3425. 

A.  In  General.  §  3424. 

B.  Eflfects  in  Custody  of  Passenger,  §  3425. 
II.  Rules  of  Carrier,  §§  3426-3428. 

A.   In  General,  §  3426. 

B.. Rules  as  to  Carrying  Particular  Property  into  Passenger  Cars,  §  342 

C.  Rule  as  to  Place  for  Delivery  of  Baggage,  §  3428. 
III.  What  Constitutes  Baggage,  §§  3429-3445. 

A.  In  General,  §  3429. 

B.  Effects  of  Immigrants,  §  3430. 

C.  Property  of  Others.  §§  3431-3432. 

a.  In  General,  §  3431. 

b.  Property  of  Members  of  Family,  §  3432. 

D.  Particular  Kinds  of  Property.  §§  3433-3444. 

a.  Commercial  Travelers'  Samples.  §  3433. 

b.  Dogs,  §  3434. 


LXXXVI  TABLE  OF   CONTENTS. 

c.  Household  Goods,  §  3435. 

d.  Jewelry  for  Personal  Use,  §  3436. 

e.  Merchandise.  §  3437. 

f.  Money.  §  3438. 

g.  Perishable  Property,  §  3439. 

h.  Property  to  Be  Used  for  Recreation,  §  3440. 
i.  Tools,  and  Professional  Instruments  and  Documents,  §  3441. 
j.  Watches,  §  3442. 
k.  Wearing  Apparel,  §  3443. 
1.  Weapons,  §  3444. 
E.  Questions   for   Court   or  Jury,   §  3445. 
IV.   Extra  Baggage  and  Special  Contracts,  §§  3446-3447. 

A.  In  General,  §  3446. 

B.  Authority  of  Carrier's  Agents,  §  3447. 

V.  Delivery  to  Carrier  and  Commencement  of  Liability,  §§   3448-3457. 

A.  In  General,  §  3448. 

B.  Necessity  of  Delivery,  §  3449. 

C.  Time  of  Delivery,  §  3450. 

D.  Liability  before  Purchase  of  Ticket  or  Demand  for  Check,  §  3451. 

E.  Place  of  Delivery,  §  3452. 

F.  Notice  to  Carrier,  §  3453. 

G.  What  Constitutes  Delivery  in  General,  §  3454. 
H.  To  Whom  Delivery  May  Be  Made.  §  3455. 

I.  Carrier's  Duty  to  Take  Charge  of  Baggage,  §  3456. 
J.  Goods  Awaiting  Transportation,  §  3457. 

VI.  Checks  and  Receipts,  and  Checking  Baggage,  §§  3458-3461. 

A.  Nature  and   Functions   of  Checks   and   Receipts,   §   3458. 

B.  Duties  and  Liabilities  of  Carrier,  §  3459. 

C.  Baggage  Company  Receiving  Railroad  Check,  §  3460. 

D.  Surrender  of  Check,  §  3461. 

VII.  Loss  or  Injury,  §§  3462-3482. 

A.  Personal  Baggage  in   General,  §§  3462-3473. 

a.  What  Law  Governs,  §  3462. 

b.  Liability  as  Insurer,  §§  3463-3469. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3463. 

(2)  Exceptions  and  Excuses,  §§  3464-3469.  # 
(a)  Act  of  God,  §  3464. 

(b;  Act  of  Public  Enemy,  §  3465. 

(c)  Act  of  Civil  Authorities,  §  3466. 

(d)  Spontaneous    Combustion    of   Other    Baggage,   §   3467. 

(e)  Contributory  Negligence  of  Passenger,  §  3468. 

(f)  Loss  by  Theft,  §  3469. 

c.  Liability  for  Negligence,  §  3470. 

d.  Effect   of   Nonpayment   of   Compensation,   §   3471. 

e.  Where  Passenger  Does  Not  Accompany  Baggage,  §  3472. 

f.  Baggage    Not    Carried   as    Incident   to   Transportation    of    Passenger,    §    3473. 

B.  Property  under  Control  of  Passenger,  §  3474. 

C.  Property  Other  than   Personal   Baggage,  §§  3475-3481. 

a.  Effect  of  Acceptance  with   Knowledge  of  Nature  of  Property,  §   3475. 

b.  Effect   of  Acceptance  without   Knowledge  of   Nature   of   Property,   §    3476. 

c.  Duty  to  Disclose  Nature  and  Value  and  Effect  of  Concealment,  §  3477. 

d.  Right  and  Duty  of  Carrier  to  Investigate,  §  3478. 

e.  Sufficiency   of  Notice   to   Carrier  of  Nature  of   Property,   §   3479. 

f.  Money   Intrusted   for   Safe-Keeping  to    Carrier   or   Its   Servants,   §   3480. 

g.  Effect  of  Regulations   Known   to   Passenger,   §  3481. 

D.  Contributory  Negligence  of  Passenger,   §  3482. 


TABLI-:  OF  CONTENTS.  LXXXVll 

VIII.   Baggage   of    I-'.jected    Passenger,   §   3483. 

IX.  Transportation    and     Delivery    to     Passenger     and     Termination     of     Liability, 
§§    3484-3492. 

A.  When  Baggage  Must  Be  Carried,  §  3484. 

B.  Packing  and   Conveyance,   §   3485. 

C.  Notice  of  Arrival  at  Destination,  §  3486. 

D.  Time,    Place  and   Manner  of   Delivery,   §   3487. 

E.  Delivery  to  Wrong   Person,  §  3488. 

F.  Time   for   Removal   of   Baggage    by   Passenger,   §   3489. 

G.  Duty  to   Care  for   Baggage  until   Reasonable  Time   for   Removal.   §   3490. 
H.  Termination  of  Lialjility,  §  3491. 

I.   Carriers'   -Agents,   §   3492. 

X.  Limitation  of  Liability,  §§  3493-349G. 

A.  Power  to  Limit   Liability,  §  3493. 

B.  Manner  of  Limiting  Liability,  §  3494. 

C.  Necessity  for  Consideration,   §  3495. 

D.  Construction    and    Operation    of    Limitation,    §    3496. 

XI.  Charges  and   Liens,   §§   3497-3498. 

A.  Charges,   §   3497. 

B.  Liens,   §   3498. 

XII.  Carrier  as  Warehouseman,  §§  3499-3505. 

A.  Baggage   Awaiting  Transportation,   §   3499. 

B.  Baggage   Awaiting  Delivery  to   Passenger,   §§   3500-3502. 

a.  In   General,  §  3500. 

b.  What  Constitutes  Reasonable  Time   for   Removal  of  Baggage,   §   3501. 

c.  Special   Contract  for  Storage,   §  3502. 

C.  Baggage   Awaiting   Delivery   to   or   by   Connecting   Carrier,    §   3503. 

D.  Duties  and  Liabilities,  §§  3504-3505. 

a.  In  General,  §  3504. 

b.  Liability  Dependent  upon   Existence  of  Negligence,  §  3505. 

XIII.  Connecting    Carriers,    §§    3506-3514. 

A.  Liability    of    Initial    Carrier.    §§    3506-3511. 

a.  In   General,   §   3506. 

b.  Sale  of  Through  Ticket  or  Collection  of  Fare  for  Entire  Route.  §§  3507-3508. 

(1)  Holding  That   Initial   Carrier  Liable   for  Losses   on   Other   Lines,   §  3507. 

(2)  Holding  That  Initial  Carrier  Not  Liable  for  Losses  on  Other  Lines.  §  3508. 

c.  Power  to  Limit  Liability  to  Own  Line,  §  3509. 

d.  Effect  of  Release  of  Connecting  Carrier,   §  3510. 

e.  Liability   as   Warehouseman,    §   3511. 

B.  Liability  of  Intermediate  or  Last  Carrier,  §  3512. 

C.  Effect   of  .Agreements   between    Connecting   Lines   and  Joint    Liability,   §   3513. 

D.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,   §   3514. 

XIV.  Palace  and  Sleeping  Car  Companies,  §  3515. 
XV.  Actions,   §§   3516-3530. 

A.  In  General,  §  3516. 

B.  Right  of  Action  and  Parties,  §  3517. 

C.  Pleading  and   Proof.   §§   3518-3519. 

a.  Necessity  and  Sufificiency  of  Allegations,  §  3518. 

b.  Evidence  Admissible  under  Pleadings,  §  3519. 

D.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §§  3520-3522. 

a.  In   General,  §  3520. 

b.  Plaintiff's   Burden   of   Proof,   §   3521. 

c.  Defendant's   Burden   of  Proof,   §   3522. 

E.  Witnesses.   §   3523. 

F.  Admissibility   of   Evidence,   §    3524. 

G.  Weight   and   Sufficiency  of   Evidence,   §   3525. 


LXXXVIII  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

H.  Questions  for  Court  or  Jury,  §  3526. 
I.  Instructions,  §  3527. 
J.  Damages.  §§  3528-3530. 

a.  Nominal  Damages,  §  3528. 

b.  Punitive  or  Exemplary  Damages,  §  3529. 

c.  Compensatory  Damages,   §   3530. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 
Palace  Cars  and  Sleeping  Car  Companies. 

I.  Nature  of  Liability  in  General.  §  3531. 
II.   Statutory    Regulations   as   to    Empty   Berths,   §   3532. 

III.  Duty  to   Receive   Passengers,  §§  3533-3535. 

A.  In    General,   §   3533. 

B.  Right   to  Demand   Compensation,  §   3534. 

C.  Regulations  as  to  Tickets,  §  3535. 

IV.  Contracts   for  Accommodations,   §§   3536-3544. 

A.  In  General,  §  3536. 

B.  Operation   and   Effect  in   General,   §   3537. 

C.  Breach  of  Contract  to  Reserve  Berth,  §  3538. 

D.  Contract  for  Use  of  Berth  in  Daytime,  §  3539. 

E.  Failure  of  Railroad  Company  to  Haul  Sleeper,  §  3540. 

F.  Voluntary  Abandonment  of  Contract  Rights,  §  3541. 

G.  Right  of  Husband  and  Wife  to  Occupy  Same  Berth,  §  3542. 
H.  Condition   Precedent  to   Rescission   of   Contract,   §    3543. 

I.  Implied  Agreement  of  Passenger,  §  3544. 

V.  Duties  and  Liabilities  as  to  Person  of  Passenger,  §§  3545-3548. 

A.  In   General,  §  3545. 

B.  Assaults,  Insults,  etc.,  §  3546. 

C.  Duty  as  to  Discharging  Passengers,   §  3547. 

D.  Contributory  Negligence  of  Passenger,  §  3548. 

VI.  Ejection  of  Passengers,  §§  3549-3557. 

A.  Right  to   Eject,  §  3549. 

B.  Liability  for  Wrongful   Ejection,   §§   3550-3551. 

a.  In   General,  §  3550. 

b.  Ejection  by  Railway  Company,  §  3551. 

C.  Grounds  for  Ejection,  §§  3552-3555. 

a.  Failure  to  Pay  Fare,  §  3552. 

b.  Failure  to  Procure   Proper  Railroad   Ticket,  §   3553. 

c.  Loss    of   Ticket,   §   3554. 

d.  Bringing  Improper  Articles  into  Car,  §  3555. 

D.  What   Constitutes   Ejection,  §  3556. 

E.  Manner  of  Ejection,  §  3557. 

VII.  Duties  and  Liabilities  as  to  Property  of  Passengers,  §§  355S-3573. 

A.  Nature  of  Liability,  §  3558. 

B.  Duty  to  Protect  Property,  §§  3559-3564. 

a.  In   General,   §  3559. 

b.  While  Passengers  Are  Asleep,  §  3560. 

c.  While  Passengers  Are  in  Toilet  Room,  §  3561. 

d.  Passenger   Sleeping  in   Smoker,   §   3562. 

e.  Duty   to    Anticipate    Presence    of   Thief,    §   35^3. 

f.  Duty     of    Ticket     Agent     to   Remove    Thief,    §    3564. 

C.  Property  Left  in  Car,  §  3565. 

D.  Thefts  by  Fellow  Passengers,  §  3566. 


TAI5LI-:  OF   CONTENTS.  LXXXIX, 

E.  Thefts  by  employees,  §   3567. 

F.  Nature  and  Amount  of  Property  as  Affecting  Liability,  §  3568. 

G.  Custody  of  Property  as  Affecting  Liability,  §  3569. 
H.   Limitation  of  Lialjility,  §  3570. 

L  Contributory   NeftliRence,  §§  3571-3573. 

a.  In  General,  §  3571. 

b.  What  Constitutes  Contributory  Negligence,  §  3572. 

c.  Where  Property  Stolen  by  Employees,  §  3573. 
Vin.  Liability  of  Railway  Company,  §  3574. 

IX.  Joint   Liability   of  Sleeping  Car  and   Railway    Companies,   §  3575. 
X.  Actions,  §§  3576-3587. 

A.  Nature  of  Action,  §  3576. 

B.  Parties,  §   3577. 

C.  Pleading,  §§  3578-3579. 

a.  Declaration  or  Complaint,  §  3578. 

b.  Necessity  for  Pleading  Contributory  Negligence,  §  3579. 

D.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance,  §  3580. 

E.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  3581. 

F.  Admissibility   of   Evidence,   §§   3582-3584. 

a.  In   General,   §  3582. 

b.  In  Actions  for  Wrongful   Ejection,  §  3583. 

c.  In  Actions  for  Loss  of  Property,  §  3584. 

G.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence,  §  35S5. 
H.   Instructions,  §   3586. 

I.  Questions  for  Court  or  Jury,  §  3587. 
XL  Damages,  §§  3588-3595. 

A.  Nominal  Damages,  §  3588. 

B.  Punitive   Damages,   §   3589. 

C.  Compensatory  Damages,  §§  3590-3594. 

a.  In   General,  §  3590. 

b.  Mental  Suffering.  §  3591. 

c.  Physical   Suffering,  §   3592. 

d.  Remote  Damages,   §  3593. 

e.  Damages  in   Contemplation   of   Parties.   §  3594. 

D.  Excessiveness  of  Damages,  §  3595. 


PART  V. 
CONNECTING  CARRIERS 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

Rights,  Duties  and  Liabilities. 

I.  Who  Are  Connecting  Carriers,  §  3596. 
II.  Rights,  Duties  and  Liabilities  in  General,  §  3597. 
III.  Carriers  of  Goods  and  Live  Stock,  §§  3598-3672. 

A.  Who  Is  the  Initial  Carrier,  §  3598. 

B.  Traffic  Arrangements  between  Carriers,  §§  3599-3600. 

a.  Validity,  §   3599. 

b.  Construction,    §   3600. 

C.  Transportation   beyond   Carrier's   Line,   §§   3601-3613. 
a.  Duty  to  Receive  and  Transport,  §  3601. 


XC  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

b.  Contracts  for  Through  Transportation,  §§  3G02-3605. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3602. 

(2)  Power  to   Contract,  §  3603. 

(3)  What    Constitutes   a   Contract   for   Through    Transportation,    §   3G04. 

(4)  Effect  of  Contract  and  Liability  for   Breach   Thereof,   §   3605. 

c.  Delivery  to    Succeeding    Carrier,    §§    3606-3612. 

(1)  Duty  to  Deliver  to  or  Notify  Succeeding  Carrier,  §  3606. 

(2)  Mode  and  Sufficiency  of  Delivery,  §  3607. 

(3)  Time   of   Delivery,    §   3608. 

(4)  Capacity   in   Which   Carrier  Acts   in   Making   Delivery,   §   3609. 

(5)  Right   to   Determine  to  What   Connecting  Line   Delivery   Shall   Be   Made, 

§   3610. 

(6)  Duty    of    Initial    Carrier    Where    Succeeding    Carrier    Refuses    to    Receive 

Goods,  or  Delivery  to  It  Is  Impracticable,  §  3611. 

(7)  Waiver  of  Delivery  by  Succeeding  Carrier,  §  3612. 

d.  Transmission  to  Succeeding   Carrier  of   Consignor's    Instructions,   §   3613. 

D.  Duty  to  Receive  and  Transport  Cars  and   Freight   Delivered  by  a  Connecting 

Carrier,    §    3614. 

E.  Duty  of  a   Forwarding  Consignee,   §   3615. 

F.  Capacity  in  Which  Connecting  Carrier  Acts  and  How  It  Is  Affected  by  Initial 

Carrier's  Contract  with  Shipper,  §  3616. 

G.  Dtliver>    lo   Consignee,   §  3617. 

H.  Use  by  Carrier  of  Connecting  Carrier's  Cars,  §  3618. 
1.  Delay   in   Transportation  or  Delivery,  §§  3619-3633. 

a.  Liability  in  General,  §   3619. 

b.  Liability  of   Initial   Carrier,   §§   3620-3628. 

(1)  In   General,  §  3620. 

(2)  Delay  Resulting  from   Failure  to    Conform   to   Shipper's   Directions   or  to 

Give  Proper  Notice  to   Succeeding  Carrier,  §  3621. 

(3)  Delay  Caused  by  Carrier's  Failure  to  Feed  and  Water  Stock,  §  3622. 

(4)  Delay  of  the  Succeeding,  or  of  a  Subsequent,  Carrier,  §§  3623-3628. 

(a)  Liability  in  Absence  of  Statute,  Contract,  or  Traffic  Agreement,  §  3623. 

(b)  Liability   Imposed  by  Statute,  §  3624. 

(c)  Liability  under  Contract,  §  3625. 

(5)  Delay     Resulting     from     Succeeding     Carrier's     Inability     to     Receive     or 

Forward    Goods,    §    3626. 

(6)  Liability  Where  Connecting  Carrier  Refuses  to  Receive  Goods,  §  3627. 

(7)  Defenses  in  Actions  for  Delay,  §  3628. 

c.  Liability  of  Intermediate  or  Last  Carrier,  §§  3629-3632. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3629. 

(2)  Delay   Caused  by  Preceding  or  Subsequent   Carrier,  §  3630. 

(3)  Liability  of  Second  Carrier  to  First  Carrier  for  Delay  in  Receiving  Goods, 

§  3031. 

(4)  Insufficient    Excuses   for.  Delay,   §   3632. 

d.  Effect  of  Traffic  Arrangements  between  Carriers,  §  3633. 

J.  Loss  of  or  Injury  to  Cars,  Goods,  or  Live  Stock,  §§  3634-3672. 

a.  Loss  of  or  Injury  to  Cars,  §  3634. 

b.  Loss  of  or  Injury  to  Goods  or  Live  Stock,  §§  3635-3672. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3635. 

(2)  Liability   of   Initial   Carrier,   §§   3636-3645. 

(a)  For  Loss  or  Injury  on  Its  Own  Line  or  before  Delivery  to  Succeeding 
Carrier,  §  3636. 

(h)    Liability  of  a  Forwarder,   §  3637. 

(c)  Liability  for  Loss  Occasioned  by  Failure  to  Transmit  Consignor's  In- 
structions to  Succeeding  Carrier,   §  3638. 


TAHLli   OF    CONTENTS.  XCI 

((I)    Effect   of    Failure   to   Give    Name   of    Consignor   to    Connecting   Carrier, 

(e)    Lial)ility   for  Loss   Caused  by   Delay  in   Furnishing  Cars,  §  :iG40. 
(f)   Liability  for  Loss  or  Injury  by  the    Succeeding  or  by  a  Subsequent  Car- 
rier, §§  3041 -3045. 
aa.   In   General,   §  3041. 

bb.   Statutory    Exemption    from    Liability,   §    3042. 
cc.  Liability   Imposed  by   Statute,  §  3643. 
dd.  Lialnlity  under  Contract,  §  3644. 
ee.  Diversion  of  Freight  from  Route  Stipulated,  §  3645. 

(3)  Liability  of   Intermediate   or   Last   Carrier,   §§   3640-3059. 

(a)  In    General,   §   3040. 

(b)  Where   Initial  Carrier  Contracts   for  Through   Transportation,  §  3647. 

(c)  When   Liability   Commences  and   Terminates,   §   3648. 

(d)  Liability   for   Injury   Occurring  after   Delivery  by   Intermediate    Carrier 

to  Shipper,  §  3049. 

(e)  Lialnlity  for  Loss  of  or   Injuiy  to   Property   Transported   in   Cars  of   a 

Preceding   Carrier,   §   3650. 

(f)  Liability  for  Failure  to  Give  Live  Stock  Rest,  Water,  and  Food,  §  3651. 

(g)  Liability  of  a  Carrier  Diverting  Shipment  from  Route  Stipulated,  §  3652. 
(h)    Liability    for    Loss    or    Injury    by    a    Preceding    or    Subsequent    Carrier, 

§§    3053-3057. 
aa.  In  General,  §  30^3. 

bb.  Liability   Imposed   by   Statute,   §   3654. 
cc.  Liability  under  Contract,  §  3655. 
dd.  Effect  of  Failure  to  Examine  Goods  or  to  Inspect  Manner  of  Loading, 

§    3056. 
ee.  Effect   of  Refusal  to  Deliver  Goods  until   tlie  Whole   Freight   Is   Paid. 
§    3657. 
(i)   Recovery  Over  Ijy  Initial   Carrier  from  a  Subsequent  Carrier,  §  3658. 
(j)   Facts    Not    Relieving    Carrier    from    Liability.    §    3659. 

(4)  Effect   of   Agreements    between    Connecting    Carriers    and   Joint    Liability. 

§§  3600-3072. 

(a)  In    General,   §   3060. 

(b)  Agreement  by  Carriers,  under  a   Certain  Name,  to  Carry  between  Dis- 

tant Points,  §  3661. 

(c)  Carriers  under  One  Management  or  Holding  Themselves  Out  as  a  Line 

for  Through  Transportation,  §   3602. 

(d)  Joint  Association  for  Transmission  of  Through  Freight,  §  3663. 

(e)  Establishment  of  Joint  or  Through  Tariffs  of  Rates,  §  36()4. 

(f)  Arrangement  as  to  Payment  and  Collection  of  Freight  Charges,  §  3005. 
(g)   Contracts  of  Shipment  Made  with  Joint  Agent  of  Carriers,  §  3666. 
(h)   Liability  for  Negligence  of  Joint  .A.gent,  §  3667. 
(i)   Damages    to    Freight    Resulting    from    Violation    of   Traffic    Agreement, 

§  3068. 
(j)   Agreements  Not  Exempting  Carrier  from   Lialiility  to  Owner  of  Goods, 

§  3009. 
(k)    Contract  Making  Payment  of  Freight  Charges  or  Indorsement  of  Guar- 
antee on  Waybill  Essential  to  Deliver}',  §  3670. 
(1)   Diversion  by   First  Two   Carriers  and   Receipt   by   Third   without   Suffi- 
cient Shipping  Instructions.  §  3071. 
(m)    Injuries  to  Live  Stock   from   Failure  to  ProperK'  Feed  Them,   §   3672. 
IV.   Carriers   of  Passengers,  §§  3073-3090. 

A.  Traffic  Arrangements  between  Carriers.  §  3073. 

B.  System   of  Dominant  and   Subordinate   Carriers,  §   3074. 

C.  Transportation   beyond    Carrier's   Line.   §§   3675-3678. 


XCII  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

a.  Duty  to  Transport,  §  3675. 

b.  Contracts   for  Through   Transportation,   §§  3676-3678. 

(1)  Power  to   Contract,   §   3676. 

(2)  What  Constitutes  a  Contract  for  Through  Transportation — Effect  of  Con- 

tract, §  3677. 

(3)  Liability  for  Acts  of  Agent  Making  the  Contract.  §  3678. 

D.  Obligation  of  Carrier  to  Honor  Tickets   Issued  by  Another  Carrier,  §  3679. 

E.  On   What    Trains    Passengers    Received   from    a    Connecting    Carrier   Must    Be 

Transported,   §   3680. 

F.  Through  Tickets  Limited  as  to  Time,  §  3681. 

G.  Injuries  to   Passengers.  §§  3682-3690. 

a.  In  General,  §  3682. 

b.  Liability  of  Initial  Carrier,   §§   3683-3689. 

(1)  Injury  on  Wharf  Connecting  Carrier's   Line   with   Steamboat,   §   3683. 

(2)  Injuries  on  the  Line  of  the  Succeeding  or  a  Subsequent  Carrier,  §§  3684- 

3689. 

(a)  Injuries  Resulting  from  Misrepresentation   of   Initial   Carrier's  Agent  as 

to  the   Best  Route,  §  3684. 

(b)  Injuries   Resulting  from   Negligence   of  a   Subordinate   Carrier,  §   3685. 

(c)  Liability  under  Contract,  §§  3686-3689. 
aa.  In   General,  §  3686. 

bb.  Effect   of   Sale   of   Coupon   Ticket,    §   3687. 

cc.  Liability  for  Accident  Happening  on  a  Special  Excursion  Train,  §  3688. 
dd.  Liability  for  Assault  by  Employee  of  a  Connecting  Carrier,  §  3689. 
c.  Effect  of  Agreements  between  Connecting  Carriers  and  Joint  Liability,  §  3690. 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

Limitation  of  Liability. 

1.  Carriers    of    Goods    and    Live    Stock,    §§    3691-3767. 

A.  Limitations  to  Carrier's  Own  Line  or  to  Carrier  Having  Custody  of  Property, 
§§  3691-3755. 
a.  Power  to  Limit  and  Validity,  §§  3691-3720. 

(1)  Carrier  Receiving  Consignment  to  Point  Beyond   Its  Own   Line,   §§  3691- 

3693. 

(a)  Power  to   Limit  in   General,   §  3691. 

(b)  American  Rule  as  to  Effect  of  Receipt  of  Goods,  §  3692. 

(c)  English  Rule  as  to  Effect  of  Receipt  of  Goods,  §  3693. 

(2)  Carrier  Contracting  to  Carry  Beyond   Its  Own   Line,  §§  3694-3711. 

(a)  In   General,  §  3694. 

(b)  Effect  of  Federal  Statutes,  §§  3695-3696. 
aa.  Prior  to  Hepburn  Act,  §  3695. 

bb.  Under  Hepburn  Act,  §  3696. 

(c)  Effect  of  State   Statutes,   §§   3697-3705. 
aa.  In   General,  §  3697. 

bb.  Georgia,  §  3698. 
cc.   Illinois,    §    3699. 
dd.   Iowa,   §   3700. 
ee.   Missouri,   §    3701. 

ff.  Nebraska,   §   3702. 

gg.   South    Carolina,    §   3703. 

hh.  Texas,   §  3704. 

ii.  Virginia,  §   3705. 

(d)  What   Amounts    to    Contract    to    Carry    Beyond    Carrier's  Own  Line,  §§ 

3706-3711. 


TAI5L1-:   OF    CONTENTS.  XCIII 

aa.   In  General,  §  3706. 

bb.  Collection  of  Charge  for   Entire  Distance,   §§  3707-3708. 
(aa)   By  Initial  Carrier,  §  3707. 
(hb)   By  Succeeding  Carrier,  §  3708. 
cc.  Agreement  to  Forward  Car  to  Destination,  §  3709. 

dd.  Car  Forwarded  Over  Connecting  Line  by  Order  of  Consignee,  §  3710. 
ee.   Effect   of  Through  Waybill,  §  3711. 
(3)   Losses  Which   May  Be  Limited,  §  3712. 
(4;    Carriers   Which    May    Contract,    §§    3713-3720. 

(a)  Connecting  Carriers  Which   Are   Partners,  §   37i:t. 

(b)  Initial   Carrier   Lessee   of  Connecting   Road,   §  3714. 

(c)  Kiyht   of   Initial    Carrier   to   Stipulate   on    Behalf   of   Succeeding   Carrier, 

§  3715. 
(6)   Power   of   Initial   Carrier  to   Make   Contract   Limiting   Liability   of   Suc- 
ceeding Carrier,  §§  3716-3717. 
aa.   In   General,  §   3716. 
bb.  Driver  of  Local  Transfer  Company.   §  3717. 

(e)  Intermediate  or  Terminal   Carrier,  §  3718. 

(f)  Power  of  Intermediate   Forwarder  to  Bind  Initial  Carrier,  §   3719. 

(g)  Express    Company,   §   3720. 

b.  Manner  of  Limiting,   §§   3721-3724. 

(1)  General  Notice,  §  3721. 

(2)  Usage   or   Custom,   §   3722. 

(3)  Stipulation  in   Bill   of  Lading  or   Receipt,   §   3723. 

(4)  Express    Contract,   §    3724. 

c.  Form  and  Requisites,  Contents  and   Legibility,  §§  3725-3730. 

(1)  Legibility,   §  3725. 

(2)  Reasonal)leness,   §   3726. 

(3)  Consideration,  §   3727. 

(4)  Time    of    Contract,    §    3728. 

(5)  Choice  l)etween  Full  and  Limited  Lialjility  Contract.  §  3729. 

(6)  Knowledge  and  Assent  of  Shipper,  §  3730. 

d.  Construction,    Operation    and    Effect,    §§    3731-3743. 

(1)  Construction  of  Words  and  Phrases,  §  3731. 

(2)  What   Law  Governs,  §  3732. 

(3)  Effect  of  Stipulation  as   to   Character  of  Train    Service,   §   3733. 

(4)  Carriers    Entitled    to    Benefit,    §§   3734-3736. 

(a)  Liability  Limited  to  Carrier's  Own  Line,  §   3734. 

(b)  Liability  Limited  to  Line  Having  Custody  of  Goods,  §  3735. 

(c)  Enurement  to  Benefit  of  Subsequent  Carrier,  §  3736. 

(5)  Losses  Covered,  §  3737. 

(6)  Effect  of  Specific  Exceptions  to   General  Exemptions,  §  3738. 

(7)  Liability    of    Succeeding    Carrier,    §    3739. 

(8)  Termination  of  Liability   of  Initial   or   Prior   Carrier,   §§   3740-3743. 

(a)  Delivery  to  Succeeding  Carrier,  §  3740. 

(b)  Refusal  of  Succeeding  Carrier  to  Receive  Shipment,  §  3741. 

(c)  Delivering    Stock    to    Stockyard    Company,    §    3742. 

(d)  Duty  to   Notify  Shipper  of  Inability  to   Deliver,   §   3743. 

e.  Breach   of  Contract  by   Initial   Carrier,  §  3744. 

f.  Modification  or   Rescission,  §  3745. 

g.  Merger  of  \"erbal   Contract  by   Subsequent  Written  Agreement,   §  3746. 
h.   Parol   Evidence  to  Explain  Ambiguity,  §  3747. 

i.  Waiver  and    Estoppel,    §  3748. 
j.   Enforcement,    §§   3749-3754. 

(1)  Plea  or  Answer.  §  3749. 

(2)  Nonsuit.   §   3750. 


^Civ  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

(3)  Presumption  and   Burden  of  Proof,  §  3751. 

(4)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  §  3752. 

(5)  Questions   for  Jury,   §  3753. 

(6)  Instructions,   §   3754. 
k.  Damages,    §   3755. 

B.  Limiting   Liability  to  That   of   Forwarder   or  Warehouseman,   §§   3756-3760. 

a.  Power  to  Limit  and  \alidity.  §§  3756-3757. 

(1)  In   General.   §   375G. 

(2)  Carriers  Which  May  Limit,  §  3757. 

b.  What  Constitutes  an  Agreement  "to   Forward."   §  3758. 

c.  Nature   and   Extent   of   Liability   as   Forwarder,   §   3750 

d.  Termination  of  Liability,  §  3760. 

C.  Goods    Carried  at   Owner's   Risk,   §   3761. 

D.  Exemption   from   Loss   by  Delay,   §  3762. 

E.  Exemption  from  Liability  for  Insufficient  or  Defective   Car,  §  3763. 

F.  Stipulation  against  Loss  by  Suffocation,   §  3764. 

G.  Limiting  Amount  of  Liability,  §  3765. 

H.  Condition  as  to  Filing  Claims  or  Giving  Notice  of  Loss,  §  3766, 
I.  Conditions  as  to  Time  of  Bringing  Suit,  §  3767. 

II.  Carriers  of  Passengers,  §§  3768-3777. 

A.  Power  to  Limit,  §§  3768-3770. 

a.  In  General,  §  3768. 

b.  Lines   under   One   Management,    §   3769. 

c.  Ticket  Agent  Acting  as  Agent  for  Connecting   Carrier,  §  3770. 

B.  Mode,    Form   and    Requisites,   §   3771. 

C.  Operation    and    Effect,   §§   3772-3775. 

a.  In   General,   §  3772. 

b.  Injuries   Covered,   §§   3773-3774. 

(1)  Injuries  to  Persons,  §  3773. 

(2)  Injuries  to  Baggage,  §  3774. 

c.  Termination  of  Liability,   §  3775. 

D.  Modification  or  Rescission,  §  3776. 

E.  Enforcement,  §  3777. 

III.  Right  of  Subsequent   Carrier  to  Benefit  of  Limitations  by   First   Carrier,   §§   3778- 

3786. 

A.  Contract   for  Through    Shipment,   §§   3778-3785. 

a.  General  Rule,   §  3778. 

b.  What   Law   Governs,   §  3779.    • 

c.  Contract  on  Behalf  of  Connecting  Line,  §  3780. 

d.  Invalidity  of  Condition  Apparent  on   Its   Face,  §  3781. 

e.  What  Constitutes  a  Through   Contract,  Form  and  Requisites,  §  3782. 
f.  Instances  of  Particular  Limitations,   §   3783. 

g.  Refusal  of  Subsequent  Carrier  to  Perform   Contract,   §  3784. 
h.  Pleading   and   Proof,   §   3785. 

B.  Contract  Not  for  Through  Shipment,  §  3786. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

Action. 

I.  Rights   of  Action,   §   3787. 
II.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue,  §  3788. 
III.  Parties,   §§    3789-3791. 

A.  By  Whom   or  in  Whose  Name  Action   May   Be   Brought,   §  3789. 

B.  Against  Whom   Action   May  Be  Brought — Joinder,   §   3790. 

C.  Necessary   Parties,   §   3791. 


TAIiLK   OF    CONTEXTS.  XCV 

IV.  Pleading,    §§    3792-3797. 

A.  Declaration,    Petition,  or   Complaint,   §§   3792-3795. 

a.  Essential   Averments,   §   3792. 

b.  Alternative  Averments,   §   3793. 

c.  Correspondence  between  Allegations  and   Proof,  §  3794. 

d.  Amendment,   §   3795. 

B.  Plea   or   Answer,   §§   379G-3797. 

a.  Sufficiency,  §  3796. 

b.  Effect  of   Failure   to   Deny  a   Partnership   Alleged    in    Petition,   §   3797. 

V.  Evidence,  §§  3798-3805. 

A.  Presumptions  and   Burden   of  Proof,   §§   3798-3801. 

a.  In   General,   §   3798. 

b.  As  to  Line  on  Which  Delay  Occurred,  §  3799. 

c.  As   to   Notification    of    Connecting   Carriers   by    Initial    Carrier   as    to    Condi- 

tions  of   Shipping   Contract,   §   3800. 

d.  As    to     Line    on    Which     Injury    or    Loss     Occurred    and    the     Responsibility 

Therefor,  §  3801. 

B.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,   §§  3802-3804. 

a.  In   Action   against  Initial  Carrier,   §  3802. 

b.  In  Action  against  Intermediate  or  Last  Carrier,  §  3803. 

c.  In  Action  against   Initial  and   Connecting   Carriers,  §   3804. 

C.  Weight  and   Sufficiency  of   Evidence,   §   3805. 
VI.  Measure  of  Damages,   §§  3806-3807. 

A.  In  Action  against  Initial   Carrier,  §  3806. 

B.  In  Action   against   Intermediate  or   Last   Carrier,   §  3807. 
VII.  Instructions,  §  3808. 

VIJI.  Province  of  Court  and  Jury,   §  3809. 
IX.  Verdio^  §  3810. 
X.  Judgment,   §   3811. 


PART  VI 
INTERSTATE  AND  FOREIGN  COMMERCE 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

Interstate  Commerce:  in  Gkneral. 

I.  In   General,  §  3812. 
II.  Statutory  Provisions,  §  3813. 
III.  Articles  of  Commerce,  §  3814. 
TV.   Means  and  Instruments  of  Commerce,  §§  3815-3828. 

A.  In  General.  §  3815. 

B.  Railroads,  §  3816. 

C.  Express  Companies,  §  3817. 

D.  Dining   Cars.   §  3818. 

E.  Terminal   Companies  and   Stockyards,  §   3819. 

F.  Warehouses  and  Elevators,  §  3820. 

G.  Pipe  Lines,  §  3821. 
H.   Bridges,  §  3822. 

I.  Ferries,  §  3823. 

J.  Ports,  Harbors  and  Wharves,  §  3824. 

K.  Connecting   Carriers.   §   3825. 

L.  Soliciting  Agents.  §  3826. 

M.   Steamboats.  §   3827. 

N.  Determining  Whether   Commerce   Is   Intrastate   or   Interstate.   5   3828. 


N^cvi  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

Regulation  and  Control. 

I.   Power  of  Congress,  §§  3829-3859. 

A.  In   General,  §  3829. 

B.  As  to  Charges,  §  3830. 

C.  As  to  Transportation  of  Live  Stock,  §  3831. 

D.  As  to  Transportation  of  Goods  Manufactured  by  Carrier,  §  3832. 

E.  As  to  Limitation  of  Liability  by  Carrier,   §  3833. 

F.  Subjects  of  Regulation,  §§  3834-3859. 
a.  In  General,  §  3834. 

-b.  Corporations  in  General,  §  3835. 

c.  Railroads,  §§  3836-3851. 

(1)  In   General,   §  3836. 

(2)  Power  of  Congress  to  Construct  Railroad,  §  3837. 

(3)  Safety  of  Persons  and  Property,  §§   3838-3846. 

(a)  In    General,   §   3838. 

(b)  Rolling  Stock  and  Equipment,  §§  3839-3846. 
aa.  In  General,  §  3839. 

bb.  Safety    Appliance    Act,    §§    3840-3844. 

(aa)   In  General,  §  3840. 

(bb)    Construction    of   Act,    §   3841. 

(cc)    Carriers  Subject  to  Act,  §  3842. 

(dd)   Appliances  Required  by  Act,  §  3843. 

(ee)   Enforcement  of  Act,  §  3844. 
cc.  Train  Crew,  §  3845. 
dd.  Hours  of  Labor,  §  3846. 

(4)  Protection   of  Lives  and  Limbs  of  Employees,  §§   3847-3848. 

(a)  In  General,  §  3847. 

(b)  Employers'   Liability  Act,   §  3848. 

(5)  Qualifications,  Duties  and  Liabilities  of  Employees,  §  3849 

(6)  Arbitration  between   Railroad  and   Employees,  §  3850. 

(7)  Conspiracy  to  Obstruct  Transportation,  §  3851. 

d.  Express  Companies,  §  3852. 

e.  Ships,  §  3853. 

f.  Wharves,  §  3854. 

g.  Bridges,  §  3855. 

h.  Navigable  Waters,  §  3856. 
i.  Packing  Houses,   §   3857. 
j.  Terminals  and   Stockyards,   §  3858. 
k.   Connecting  Carriers,  §  3859. 
II.   Power  of  State,  §§  3860-3937. 

A.  In  General,  §  3860. 

B.  Corporations,  §  3861. 

C.  Bridges,  §  3862. 

D.  Ferries,  §§  3863-3864. 

a.  In   General,  §  3863. 

b.  Granting  of  Franchises  and  Control,  §  3864. 

E.  Ships,    §    3865. 

F.  Railroads,  §§  3866-3879. 

a.  In  General,  §  3866. 

b.  Location  and  Plan  of  Construction  of  Railroad,  §  3867. 

c.  Purchase  of  or  Consolidation  with  Competing  Lines,  §  3868. 

d.  Requiring  Recordation  of  Lease,  §  3869. 

e.  Requiring  Railroad  to  Afford  Transportation,   §   3870. 

f.  Regulation  of  Charges  for  Transportation,  §§  3871-3880. 


TABLE  OF   COXTENTS.  XCVIl 

(1)  In   General,  §  3871. 

(2)  Prohibiting  Discriminations,   §   3872. 

(3)  Prohibiting  Greater  Charge  for  Shorter  than   Longer  Haul,  §  3873. 

(4)  Posting  Schedule  of  Rates,  §  3874. 

(5)  Sale  and  Redemption  of  Tickets,  §  3875. 
(C)   Commutation  Tickets,  §  387G. 

(7)  Mileage   Tickets,   §   3877. 

(8)  Limitation  of  Charges  to  Amount  Specified  in  Bill  of  Lading,  §  3878. 

(9)  Ferriage  Charges,  §  3879. 
(10)   Demurrage  Charges,  §  3880. 

g.  Regulations  to  Prevent  Injuries  to  Passengers,  §  3881. 
h.  Regulating  Relation  of  Master  and  Servant,  §§  3882-3887. 

(1)  In   General,   §   3882. 

(2)  Number  and  Character  of  Employees,  §  3883. 

(3)  Safety  Appliance  Acts,  §  3884. 

(4)  Employers'  Liability  Act,  §  3885. 

(5)  Hours  of  Service,  §  3886. 

(6)  Fellow  Servant  Doctrine.  §  3887. 

i.  Regulating  Rights  and  Privileges  of  Passengers,  §  3888. 

j.  Regulating  Speed  of  Running  Trains,  §  3889. 

k.  Running  Trains  on  Sunday,  §  3890. 

1.  Heating  of  Passenger  Cars,  §  3891. 
m.  Requiring  Trains  to  Stop  at  Certain  Stations,  §  3892. 

n.  Regulating  Duty  to  Accept  Goods,  §  3893. 

o.  Regulating  Time,   Place   and   Manner   of   Delivery,  ^§    3894. 

p.  Care  for  Live  Stock,  §  3895. 

q.   Routing  Goods,  §  3896. 

r.  Cartage  and  Drayage,  §  3897. 

s.  Compelling  Railroad  to  Elevate   Bridge,  §  3898. 

t.  Collection  of  Purchase  Price  for  Consignor,  §  3899. 

u.  Regulations  with  Respect  to  Limitation  of  Liability  of   Carriers,   §  3900. 

V.  Regulating  Liability  for  Delay,  §  3901. 

w.  System  of  Bookkeeping,  §  3902. 

X.  Reports,  §  3903. 

y.  Regulations  as  to  Crossing,  §  3904. 

z.  As  to  Liability  of  Officers  and  Agents,  §  3905. 
G.  Street  and  Electric  Railways,  §  3906. 
H.  Express  Companies,  §  3907. 
T.  Sleeping  Cars,  §  3908. 
J.  Warehouses  and  Elevators.  §  3909. 
K.  Packing  Houses,  §  3910. 
L.  Wharves,  §  3911. 
M.  Pipe    Lines,   §    3912. 
N.  Levees,  §  3913. 

O.  Terminals  and  Stockyards.  §  3914. 
P.  Navigable  Waters,  §  3915. 
Q.   Connecting  Carriers,  §  3916. 
R.  Particular  Articles  of  Commerce,  §  3917. 
S.  Particular   Regulations,   §§   3918-3923. 

a.  Charges,  §  3918. 

b.  Discrimination,  §  3919. 

c.  Bills  of  Lading,  §  3920. 

d.  Description  of  Goods,  §  3921. 

e.  Disposal  of  Freight  Refused  by  Consignee.  §  3922. 

f.  Reshipment  of  Goods,  §  3923. 

1   Car — g 


XCVIII  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

T.  Regulation  of  Relation  of  Consignor  and  Consignee,  §  3924. 
U.  As  to  Remedies,  §§  3925-3937. 

a.  Prerequisites  to  Bringing  Suit,  §  3925. 

b.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue  of  Suits,  §  3926. 

c.  Parties   to   Suits,   §   3927. 

d.  Summons  and  Process,  §  3928. 

e.  Evidence,  §  3929. 

f.  Proceeding  by  Attachment  and  Garnishment,  §  3930. 
g.  Removal  of  Cause  to  Federal  Court,  §  3931. 

h.  Equitable  Remedies,  §  3932. 

i.  Requiring  Claim  for  Damages  to  Be  Made  in  Prescribed  Time,  §  3933. 

j.  Requiring  Payment  of  Damages  in  Prescribed  Time,  §  393-1. 
k.  Lien  on  Vessel  for  Services  and  Material,  §  3935. 

I.  Seizure  for  Taxes,  §  3936. 
m.  Entry  of  Satisfaction  of  Mortgage. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 
Taxation, 

A.  Power  to  Tax,  §  3938. 

B.  Taxation   Amounting  to   Regulation   of   Commerce,    §§    3939-3981. 

a.  In  General,  §  3939. 

b.  Tax   on   Corporations    Engaged   in    Interstate    Commerce,    §§    3940-3947. 

(1)  In  General,  §  3940. 

(2)  Tax  on  Gross  Receipts,  §  3941. 

(3)  Tax  on    Franchise   or   Privilege,   §    3942. 

(4)  Tax  on   Capital  Stock,  §  3943. 

(5)  Tax  on  Transfer  of  Corporate  Stock,  §  3944. 

(6)  Tax   on   Right  of   Corporations   to    Consolidate,    §   3945. 

(7)  Tax   on    Property   Outside   of    State,    §   3946. 

(8)  Tax  on  Property  of  Foreign   Corporation,  §  3947. 

c.  Tax  on  Gross  Receipts,  §  3948. 

d.  Tax  on  Passengers  and  Freight,  §§  3949-3950. 

(1)  Passengers,    §    3949. 

(2)  Freight,  §  3950. 

e.  Tax  on  Privilege  and  Occupation,  §  3951. 

f.  Tax  on  Tolls,  §  3952. 

g.  Tax  on  Means  and   Instruments  of  Commerce,   §§  3953-3979 

(1)  In  General,  §  3953. 

(2)  Tax   on    Railroads,    §§    3954-3959. 

(a)  In    General,    §   3954. 

(b)  Tax  on  Franchise,  Privilege  and  Occupation,  §  3955. 

(c)  Tax  on  Capital  Stock,  §  3956. 

(d)  Tax  on  Rolling  Stock,  §  3957. 

(e)  Tax  on  Gross  Earnings,  §  3958. 

(f)   Payment  of  Bonus  to  State,   §  3959. 

(3)  Tax  on  Street  Railroads,  §  3960. 

(4)  Tax  on  Express  Companies,  §  3961. 

(5)  Tax  on  Sleeping  Cars,  §  3962. 

(6)  Tax  on  Refrigerator  Cars,  §  3963. 

(7)  Tax  on  Ships,  §§  3964-3972. 

(a)  In  General,  §  3964. 

(b)  Tax  on  Gross  Receipts,  §  3965. 

(c)  Tax  on  Interest  of  Citizen  in  Vessel,  §  3966. 

(d)  Tax  on    Persons   Residing  on   Ships,   §   3967. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS,  XCIX 


(e)  Tax  on  Agents,  I'ilots,  etc.,  §  3968. 

(f)  Registered   under    Laws   of   United   States,    §   3909. 

(g)  Registered   in  Another  State,  §  3970. 
(h)   Tax    on    Particular    Ships,    §    3971. 

(i)   Wharfage   Fees,  §   3972. 

(8)  Tax  on  Ferries,  §  3973. 

(9)  Tax    on    Bridges,    §    3974. 

(10)  Tax    on    Automobiles,    §    3975. 

(11)  Tax  on  Draymen,  §  3976. 

(12)  Tax  on  Pipe  Lines,  §  3977. 

(13)  Tax  on  Warehouses  and   Elevators,  §  3978. 

(14)  Tax   on   Packing   Houses,   §   3979. 
h.  The    Unit    Rule,    §    3980. 

i.  Stamp  Duty  on  Bills  of  Lading,  §  3981. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 
Interst.\te  Commerce  Act. 

1.  Statutory    Provisions,    §§   3982-3989. 

A.  Purpose  and  Object,  §  3982. 

B.  History   of  Act,   §   3983. 

C.  Constitutionality   of  Act,   §   3984. 

D.  Construction  of  Act,  §   3985. 

E.  Operation    and    Effect,    §    3986. 

F.  Time   of  Taking   Eflfect,   §   3987. 

G.  Repeal,  §   3988. 
IL  Definitions,   §  3989. 

in.  Carriers    Subject    to   Act,    §§    3990-3991. 

A.  In    General,   §   3990. 

B.  Particular    Carriers,    §    3991. 

IV.  Duties    Imposed   upon    Carrier,   §§   3992-4015. 

A.  Transportation,    §    3992. 

B.  To   Establish  Through   Routes,  §  3993. 

C.  Continuous   Carriage,   §   3994. 

D.  Facilities,    §§    3995-3997. 

a.  In    General,    §    3995. 

b.  Switches,    §    3996. 

c.  As   to    Connecting   Carriers,    §    3997. 

E.  Just    and    Reasonable    Rates,    §    3998. 

F.  Printing  and    Publishing   Schedules    of    Rates,    §   3999. 

G.  Reports   to   Commission,   §   4000. 

H.  Unloading,    Feeding   and    Watering    Stock,   §§   4001-4014. 

a.  Statutory    Provision,    §    4001. 

b.  Carriers   Liable   for   Penalty,   §   4002. 

c.  Knowingly   and   Willfully,    §   4003. 

d.  Separate    Oflfenses,    §    4004. 

e.  Negligence    of    Servant,    §    4005. 

f.  Preparation   and    Facilities,   §   4006. 

g.  Shipment    Through    Foreign    Country,    §    4007. 
h.  Shipment  under  Agreement,  §  4008. 

i.  Where    Stock    Confined   by    Another    Carrier,    §    4009. 
j.  Where    Penalty    Exacted    from   Another    Carrier.    §    4010. 
k.  Excuses  for  Failure  to  Unload,  etc.,  §  4011. 
1.  Cars   Provided   for  Food,  Water  and   Rest,  §  4012. 


C  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

m.  Damages,    §    4013. 
n.  Proceedings,  §  4014. 
I.  Icing  Perishable   Goods,   §  4015. 
\'.  Prohibitions    upon    Carriers,    §§    401G-4049. 

A.  Discrimination  and  Preferences,  §§  4016-4044. 

a.  In    General,   §   4016. 

b.  Undue   and   Unreasonable,    §   4017. 

c.  Similar   Service   and    Circumstances,   §   4018. 

d.  Persons   Discriminated   against,   §   4019. 

e.  Determining  Discrimination   or   Preference,   §  4020. 
f.  In    Charges,    §   4021. 

g.  In    Facilities,    §    4022. 

h.  In  Distribution  of  Cars,  §§  4023-4035. 

(1)  In    General,   §   4023. 

(2)  Between   Mining   Companies,    §§   4024-4033. 

(a)  In    General,    §   4024. 

(b)  Ownership    of    Cars,    §    4025. 

(c)  Fuel   Cars,   §   4026. 

(d)  Cars    Used    in    Intrastate    Commerce    Only,    §    4027. 

(e)  Determining   Mining   Company's   Share   of   Cars,    §§  4028-4033. 
aa.  In  General,   §  4028. 

bb.  Facts    Considered,    §§   4029-4033. 
(aa)  Agreement  of  Parties,  §  4029. 
(bb)   Rule    of   Carrier,   §   4030. 
(cc)    Capacity   and   Output   of   Mine,   §   4031. 
(dd)  Unfulfilled    Contract   of    Mining   Company,    §    4032. 
(ee)   Prompt   Return   of   Cars  by  Mining  Company,   §  4033. 

(3)  Between  Mining  Companies  on  Main  and   Branch   Lines,  §  4034. 

(4)  Between  Warehousemen,   §   4035. 

i.  In    Acceptance    and   Delivery    of    Freight,    §    4036. 
j.  In  Taking  on  and  Letting  Off  Passengers,  §  4037. 
k.  In    Manner    of   Shipment,    §    4038. 
1.   In   Time    of   Transportation,    §   4039. 
m.  In    Reshipping   Privileges,    §  4040. 
n.  In   Allowances   to   Shipper,    §   4041. 
o.  Remedies,   §§   4042-4044. 

(1)  Burden  of  Proof,   §   4042. 

(2)  Mandamus,   §   4043. 

(3)  Summary    Remedy,    §    4044. 

B.  Combinations    and    Monopolies,    §    4045. 

C.  Pooling   Agreements,    §    4046. 

D.  Transportation    of    Goods    Manufactured    by    Carrier,    §§    4047  4048. 

a.  In    General,   §    4047. 

b.  Manufactured   from  Wood,   §  4048. 

E.  Limiting  Liability,   §  4049. 

VI.  Connecting   Carriers,    §§    4050-4057. 

A.  Discriminations,    §    4050. 

B.  Facilities,    §§    4051-4052. 

a.  In   General,   §  4051.' 

b.  Use  of  Tracks,   §  4052. 

C.  Joint  Through   Routes,   §  4053. 

D.  Rates,   §  4054. 

E.  Liability    of    Initial    Carrier,    §§    4055-4057. 

a.  In  General,  §  4055. 

b.  Limiting   Liability,    §    4056. 

c.  Recovery   over   against    Other   Carrier,    §   4057. 


TAHUv   OF    CONTENTS.  CI 

VII.  Rates    and   Charges,    §§   40o8-4l49. 

A.  In    General,    §    4058. 

B.  Just  and  Reasonable,   §   4()5'J. 

C.  Established  by  Carrier,  §  40G0. 

D.  Established    by    Commission,    §§    4001-4005. 

a.  Under   Original   Act,   §   4001. 

b.  Under   Amendment   of    1900,   §   4002. 

c.  Prerequisites    to    Establishing,   §   40G3. 

d.  Form  and   Requisites  of   Order,   §   4004. 

e.  Review   of   Courts,   §  4005. 

E.  Established  by   Court,   §  4000. 

F.  Determination  of  Reasonableness   of  Rate,   §§   4007-4074. 
a.  In    General,    §    4067. 

1).  Judicial  Act,  §  4008. 

c.  Question    of    Fact,   §   4069. 

d.  Facts    Considered,   §   4070. 

e.  Mode    of    Determination,    §    4071. 
f.  Burden    of    Proof,    §    4072. 

g.  Evidence,   §   4073. 

h.  Review   of   Determination,   §   4074. 

G.  Discrimination  and   Preference,   §§  4075-4090. 

a.  In  General,  §  4075. 

b.  Like   and    Contemporaneous   Service,   §   4070. 

c.  Persons    Discriminated    against,    §    4077. 

d.  Determining  Discrimination   and    Preference,   §§   4078-4083. 

(1)  Competition,    §    4078. 

(2)  Quantity  of   Goods   Shipped,   §  4079. 

(3)  Long  and  Short  Haul,   §  4080. 

(4)  Disparity    between    Through    and    Local    Rates,    §    4081. 

(5)  Disparity   in   Rates   between   Different    Localities.   §   4082. 

(0)  Division    of    Freight    by    Connecting    Carriers,    §    4083. 

e.  Special   Rates,   §   4084. 

f.  Free  Transportation,  §  4085. 

g.  Reduced   Rates,  §   4080. 
h.  Rebates,  §§  4087-4090. 

(1)  In    General,    §   4087. 

(2)  What  Amounts  to   Rebate,   §  40S8. 

(3)  Effect   of   Granting   Rebate,   §   4089. 

(4)  Criminal    Liability,    §    4090. 
i.  Payment   of   Charges,   §   4091. 
j.  Demurrage    Charges,    §    4092. 

k.  Purchase   and   Sale   of  Goods,  §  4093. 
1.  Justified    Discrimination,    §    4094. 
m.  Effect    of   Discrimination,    §    4095. 
n.  Remedies,  §  4090. 
H.  Long   and    Short    Haul,    §§    4097-4110. 

a.  Statutory   Provision,   §   4097. 

b.  Similar    Circumstances    and    Conditions,    §    4098 

c.  Competition,    §    4099. 

d.  Shipments   Over  Same   Line,  §  4100. 

e.  Through  and  Local  Rates,  §  4101. 
f.  Group   Rates,    §   4102. 

g.  Cartage   Charges,   §  4103. 

h.  Shipment  Through  Foreign  Country,  §  4104. 

i.  Interest  of  General   Public,  §  4105. 

j.  Destination    of    Shipment,    §    4100. 


CII 


TABLE  OF   CONTENTS. 


k.  Consent  of  Commission  to  Charge,  §   4107. 
1.  Determining    Right    to    Different    Charge,    §    4108. 
m.  Establishing   Zones,    §    4109. 
n.  Remedies,   §   4110. 
I.  Pooling  Freights,   §   4111. 
J.   Mileage    Tickets,    §    4112. 
K.  Party-Rate  Tickets,   §   4113. 
L.  Excursion  Tickets,   §   4114. 
M.  Terminal    Charges,    §   4115. 
N.  Industrial  Track  Service,   §  4116. 
O.  Demurrage   Charges,   §  4117. 
P.  Charges    for    Reconsignment   of    Goods,    §   4118. 
Q.  Through   Rates,  §  4119. 
R.  Allowance    for    Service    of    Shipper,    §§    4120-4124. 

a.  In    General,    §    4120. 

b.  For    Elevation    of    Grain,    §    4121. 

c.  For    Construction    of    Grain    Doors    for    Cars,    §    4122. 

d.  For  Cartage,  §  4123. 

e.  For    Lighterage,    §    4124. 

S.   Printing    and    Publishing    Schedules,    §§    4125-4145. 

a.  In    General,    §    4125. 

b.  Statutory    Provision,    §   4126. 

c.  Shipment  Over  Connecting  Carrier,  §  4127. 

d.  Shipment  Through   Foreign   Country,  §  4128. 

e.  Form,    Requisites    and    Validity,    §§    4129-4131. 

(1)  In    General,    §    4129. 

(2)  Printed,    §    4130. 

(3)  Validity,    §    4131. 
f.  Contents,   §   4132. 

g.  Publishing,    §   4133. 
h.  Posting,    §   4134. 

i.  Filing  with    Commission,   §  4135. 

j.  Distributing  in  Offices  of  Agents,  §  4136. 
k.   Construction    of    Schedule,    §    4137. 

1.   Operation    and    Effect    of    Schedules,    §§    4138-4145. 

(1)  In    General,    §    4138. 

(2)  As    Standard    Charge,    §§   4139-4141. 

(a)  In    General,   §   4139. 

(b)  Contractual   Rate,   §   4140. 

(c)  Presumed    Legal    Rate,    §    4141. 

(3)  As  Constructive  Notice  to  Shipper,   §  4142. 

(4)  As    to   Joint    Rates,    §   4143. 

(5)  As    to    Privileges    and    Facilities,    §    4144. 

(6)  As  to  Contract  for   Exemption  from  Liability,  §  4145. 
T.  Change  of  Rates,  §  4146. 

U.  Payment    of    Charges    for    Transportation,    §    4147. 
V.  Enjoining  Enforcement   of  Rates,  §  4148. 
W.  Charges  of  Connecting  Carriers,  §  4149. 
VIII.  Interstate   Commerce    Commission,    §§   4150-4154. 

A.  In   General,   §   4150. 

B.  Salaries   and   Expenses,   §   4151. 

C.  Rules,    §    4152. 

D.  Powers    and    Duties,    §§    4153-4154. 

a.  In   General,  §  4153. 

b.  Particular    Powers,    §    4154. 


TAl'.LI-:   OF    CONTENTS.  CIII 

IX.  Civil    Proceedings    against    Carrier,    §§    4155-4219. 
A.  Proceedings  before   Commission,  §§  4155-4190. 

a.  In   General,   §  4155. 

b.  l-lxclusive    Jurisdiction,   §    415(5. 

c.  Summons  and  Process,  §  4157. 

d.  Parties,    §    4158. 

e.  Limitation   and   Laclics,   §   4159. 
f.   Pleadings,    §    41(Jt). 

g.   Burden   of    Proof   and    Presumptions,   §   4101. 
h.   Evidence,    §§    4102-41(35. 

(1)  In   General,  §  4102. 

(2)  Incriminating    Testimony,    §    4103. 

(3)  Power   to   Compel   Witnesses   to   Attend,   §   4104. 

(4)  Production   of   Books   and    Papers,   §   4105. 
i.  Hearing  and   Determination,  §§  4160-4181. 

(1)  Necessity,    §    4100. 

(2)  Extent   of   Hearing,    §   4167. 

(3)  Judgment  or  Order,  §§  4168-4181. 

(a)  Contents,   §   4168. 

(b)  Service   on    Carrier,   §   4169. 

(c)  Operation  and   Effect,  §  4170. 

(d)  Enforcing,    Enjoining  and   Annulling,   §§   4171-4181. 
aa.   In    General.    §    4171. 

bh.   Necessity    for   Lawful   Order,   §   4172. 
cc.  Nature  of  Proceeding,   §  4173. 
dd.  Jurisdiction   and    \'enue,    §   4174 
ee.  Parties,    §    4175. 
flf.  Pleadings,   §  4170. 
gg.   Evidence,   §§  4177-4178. 
(aa)  Admissibility,   §    4177. 
(bb)  Weight    and    Sufficiency,    §    4178. 
hli.  Hearing   and    Determination,    §§   4179-4180. 
(aa)   In   General,   §   4179. 

(bb)   Particular    Orders    of   Commission,    §    4180. 
ii.   Injunction,   §   4181. 
j.  Rehearing,    §    4182. 
k.  Review,   §§   4183-4189. 

(1)  Right  of  Review,   §  4183. 

(2)  Presumptions    on    Appeal,    §    4184. 

(3)  Harmless    Error,   §   4185. 

(4)  Scope   of   Review,    §    4186. 

(5)  Modification   of  Decree   of  Court,  §   4187. 

(6)  Remand  to  Commission,  §  4188. 

(7)  Supersedeas    Pending   Appeal,   §    4189. 

1.  Effect  of  Repeal   of   Statute   on    Pending  Proceeding's,   §   4190. 
B.  Proceedings   in    Federal    Courts,   §§    4191-4211. 

a.  In   General,   §  4191. 

b.  Statutory    Provision,    §   4192. 

c.  Jurisdiction  and  X'enue,  §§  4193-4200. 

(1)  In    General,    §    4193. 

(2)  Before    Hearing    by    Commission,    §    4194. 

(3)  After    Hearing   by    Commission,    §    4195. 

(4)  Offenses   Arising   in    Several    Districts,    §    4190. 

(5)  Mandamus,   §   4197. 

(6)  Injunction,   §   4198. 

(7)  In    Particular    Instances,    §   4199. 


CIV  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

(8)    Equity   Jurisdiction,    §    4200. 

d.  Proceedings   at   Law   or  in   Equity,   §  4201. 

e.  Parties.    §    4202. 

f.  Limitation    and    Laches,    §    4203. 

g.  Pleadings,    §    4204. 

h.  Issues,    Proof    and    \'ariaiice,    §    4205. 

i.  Presumptions  and   Burden  of  Proof,  §  420G. 

j.  Evidence,    §    4207. 
k.  Reference,    §   4208. 

1.  Judgment   and    Orders,    §   4209. 
m.  Costs,  §  4210. 
n.  Stipulation    of   Parties,   §   4211. 

C.  Proceedings   in   Commerce   Court,   §§   4212-4217. 

a.  Statutory   Provision,    §   4212. 

b.  Jurisdiction   in    General,    §   4213. 

c.  Power   to    Enforce   or    Enjoin    Orders    of    Commission,    §    4214. 

d.  Power  to  Enforce  or  Enjoin   Particular  Orders  of  Commission,   §  4215, 

e.  Power  to  Review   Order   of   Commission,   §  4216. 
f.  Procedure,    §   4217. 

D.  Proceedings    in    State    Courts,    §    4218. 

E.  Election  of  Remedies,  §  4219. 

X.   Criminal    Liability    of    Carrier,    §§    4220-4237. 

A.  In   General,   §  4220. 

B.  Discrimination    and    Undue    Preference,    §    4221. 

C.  Rebates,   §   4222. 

D.  Failure   to  File   and   Publish   Rates,   §  4223. 

E.  Departure    from    Publishing    Rates,    §    4224. 

F.  False   Billing  of  Goods,  §  4225. 

G.  Liability    for   Act    of   Agent,    §    4226. 

H.   Criminal    Proceedings    against    Carrier,    §§   4227-4237. 

a.  Jurisdiction    and    Venue,    §    4227. 

b.  Initiation   of  Proceedings,  §  4228. 

c.  Parties,    §   4229. 

d.  Indictment,    §§   4230-4234. 

(1)  For    Failure   to    File    Rates,    §   4230. 

(2)  For   Departure   from   Published   Rate,   §   4231. 

(3)  For   Discrimination   and   Preference,   §  4232. 

(4)  For  Granting  Rebate  or   Concession,  §  4233. 

(5)  Indictment    against    Express    Company,    §    4234. 

e.  Burden    of   Proof,    §   4235. 

f.  Evidence,  §  4236. 

g.  Instructions,   §   4237. 

XI.  Criminal   Liability  of  Officers  and  Agents,   §  4238. 
XII.   Criminal    Liability    of    Shipper,    §§    4239-4244. 

A.  Inducing    Carrier   to   Discriminate,    §   4239. 

B.  Receiving   Rebates,   §   4240. 

C.  False    Billing    of    Goods,    §    4241. 

D.  Indictment,    §    4242. 

E.  Issues,     Proof    and     Variance,     §    4243. 

F.  Evidence,  §  4244. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  CV 

PART  VII. 
CARRIERS  BY  WATER. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 

Cakriagk  of   Property. 

I.  General    Considerations,   §   4245. 
II.  Contracts  of  Affreightment,  §§  424G-4265. 

A.  Defined,   Classified   and   Distinguished,   §   424G. 

B.  Persons  Who  May   Make,   §  4247. 

C.  Contents,   Form  and   Requisites,  §§  4248-4249. 

a.  In  General,  §  4248. 

b.  Requisites   of   Contract,   §   4249. 

D.  Interpretation,   Operation   and   Effect,    §§   4250-4260. 

a.  Rules  of  Construction,  §§  4250-4256. 

(1)  General  Rules,  §  4250. 

(2)  What   Law   Governs,   §  4251. 

(3)  Qualifications    Imposed    by    Law,    §   4252. 

(4)  Knowledge    of    Course    of   Trade,   §    4253. 

(5)  Aids   to    Construction,   §§   4254-4255. 

(a)  Admissibility  of  Parol  Evidence,  §   4254. 

(b)  Opinion    Evidence,    §   4255. 

(6)  Construction   of   Particular  Words,    Phrases,    etc.,    §    4256. 

b.  Conditions  Precedent  and  Independent  Covenants,  Representations  and  War- 

ranties,   §§   4257-4260. 

(1)  In    General,    §    4257. 

(2)  Stipulations   as   to   Time   and   Place   of   Shipment,    §   4258. 

(3)  Stipulations   as   to   Tonnage   or   Measurement,    §   4259. 

(4)  Warranty    of    Seaworthiness,    §    4260. 

E.  Cancellation,   Modification   and   Release,   §  4261. 

F.  Performance,    Discharge    or    Breach,    §§   4262-4263. 

a.  In  General,  §  4262. 

b.  Who    Liable    on    Contract,    §    4263. 

G.  Abandonment  of  Contract,   §  4264. 
H.  Assignment   of   Contract,   §   4265. 

III.  Bill    of    Lading,    §§    4266-4275. 

A.  Definition,   §  4266. 

B.  Form   and    Contents,   §   4267. 

C.  Issuance   and   Acceptance,   §   4268. 

D.  Validity   of   Bills  of  Lading,  §  4269. 

E.  Construction,   Operation   and   Effect,    §   4270. 

F.  Transfer,   §   4271. 

G.  Effect  on  Connecting  Carrier,  §  4272. 
H.  Modification    or    Rescission,    §    4273. 

I.  Surrender,    Discharge    or    Release,    §    4274. 
J.  Actions   on   Bills   of   Lading,    §   4275. 

IV.  Transportation   and    Delivery,   §§   4276-4337. 
A.   General    Consideration,   §§   4276-4277. 

a.  Title,   Custody  and  Control  of  Goods,  §  4276. 

b.  Liability  as  Warehouseman,   §  4277. 


^,yj  TABLE   OF    CONTEXTS. 

B.  Duties  and  Liabilities  as  to  Transportation  and  Delivery,  §§  4278-4288. 

a.  In  General,  §  4278. 

b.  Loading  Goods,   §  4279. 

c.  Deviation  and  Delay,  §§   4280-4281. 

(1)  Deviation,   §  4280. 

(2)  Delay,  §  4281. 

d.  Failure   or   Refusal   to   Deliver,   §§   4282-4283. 

(1)  In    General,   §   4282. 

(2)  Short   Delivery,   §  4283. 

e.  Notice   of  Arrival  of   Goods,   §  4284. 

f.  Mode  and  Sufificiency  of  Delivery,  §  4285. 
g.  To  Whom  Delivery  May  Be  Made— Misdelivery,  §  4286. 
h.  Failure  or  Refusal  of  Consignee  to   Receive   Goods,  §   4287. 

i.  Transshipping  and   Forwarding,   §  4288. 
C.  Loss   or   Injury,    §§   4289-4311. 

a.  Liability   as    Insurer,   §§   4289-4296. 

(1)  In  General,  §  4289. 

(2)  Exceptions   and   Excuses,   §§  4290-4296. 

(a)  Act   of   God   or   Public   Enemy,   §   4290. 

(b)  Jettison,   §   4291. 

(c)  Humidity   and   Dampness   of   Ship,   §   4292. 

(d)  Seizure   under   Legal   Process,    §   4293. 

(e)  Fault   of   Shipper   or   Owner,   §   4294. 

(f)  Inherent  Infirmities  of  Property,  §  4295. 

(3)  Commencement   and  Termination  of   Liability,   §   4296. 

b.  Losses    during  Deviation   or   Delay,   §   4297. 

c.  Losses   during  Loading  of   Goods,   §  4298. 

d.  Stowage  of  Goods,  §§  4299-4301. 

(1)  In    General,    §   4299. 

(2)  Stowage   on   Deck,   §   4300. 

(3)  Dunnage,    §    4301. 

e.  Unseaworthiness  or  Unfitness  of  Vessel,  §§  4302-4304. 

(1)  In  General,  §  4302. 

(2)  Improper   Stowage   or   Overloading,-  §   4303. 

(3)  Incompetency   or   Insufficiency   of   Crew,   §    4304. 

f.  Navigation  of  Vessel,  §  4305.- 

g.  Negligence  in  Discharging  or  in   Caring  for  Goods  after  Discharge,  §  4306. 
h.  Acts  of   Employees   or  Third   Persons,   §    4307. 

i.  Duties  after  Injury  or  Disaster,  §  4308. 
j.  Effect  of  Insurance,   §  4309. 

k.  Estoppel   to  Deny   Liability   to   Deliver   in   Good    Order,   §   4310. 
1.  Persons  and  Vessels  Liable,  §  4311. 
D.  Actions,  §§  4312-4327. 

a.  By  Carrier,  §  4312. 

b.  Against    Carrier,    §§   4313-4327. 

(1)  In  General,  §  4313. 

(2)  Pleading,   §   4314. 

(3)  Issues,    Proof   and    Variance.    §    4315. 

(4)  Evidence,  §§  4316-4326. 

(a)  Presumptions   and    Burden   of   Proof,   §§   4316-4319. 
aa.  In   General,   §  4316. 

bb.  Cause  of  Loss  or  Injury  to   Goods,  §  4317. 

cc.  Stowage  of  Goods,  §  4318. 

dd.  Seaworthiness  or   Fitness  of  Vessel.   §   4319. 

(b)  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill  of  Lading.  §  4320. 

(c)  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §  4321. 


TAiiLl-:  01--  CONTEXTS.  CVIl 

(d)  Weight    and    Sufficiency    of    Evidence,    §§    4322-4326. 
aa.  In   General,   §  4322. 
bb.  Delivery  to   Carrier,  §  4323. 
cc.  Condition   of    Vessel,   §   4324. 
dd.  Evidence   as   to   Sea   Perils,   §   4325. 
ee.  Short   Delivery,   §  4320, 
(5)   Trial,   §   4327. 

E.  Damages,  §§  *4328-4336. 

a.  Failure   to   Receive   and    Carry   According   to    Contract,    §   4328. 

b.  Failure  to  Deliver  or  Misdelivery,  §  4329. 

c.  Delay   in   Transportation   or    Delivery,   §   4330. 

d.  Loss  or  Injury,  §§  4331-4336. 

(1)  In    General,   §   4331. 

(2)  Measure  and  Elements  of  Damage,  §  4332. 

(3)  Determination   of  Damages,   §  4333. 

(4)  Apportionment   of  Damages,   §  4334. 

(5)  Deductions,  §  4335. 

(6)  Evidence  as  to  Value  or  Damage,  §  4330. 

F.  Lien    of   Shipper   against   \'essel,   §   4337. 
Freight,   Lighterage  and   Demurrage,   §§  4338-4378. 

A.  Freight,  §§  4338-4354. 

a.  In   General,  §  4338. 

b.  Persons  Entitled  to  Collect  Freight,  §  4339. 

c.  Persons  Lial)le  for  Payment  of  Freight,  §  4340. 

d.  When    Freight   Earned,   §§  4341-4343. 

(1)  In  General,  §  4341. 

(2)  Freight   Pro  Rata  Itineris.  §  4342. 

(3)  Goods  Lost  or  Abandoned,  §  4343. 

e.  Amount   Recoverable,   §   4344. 

f.  Deductions  and  Offsets,  §  4345. 

g.  Change   of   Rates,   §   4346. 

h.  Lien    for    Freight,    §§    4347-4352. 

(1)  In   General,   §   4347. 

(2)  Time  Lien  Attaches,   §  4348. 

(3)  Property  Subject  to  Lien,  §  4349. 

(4)  Displacement  and  Waiver  of  Lien,   §  4350. 

(5)  Preserving    and    I-Znforcing    Lien.    §    43,jl. 

(6)  Subrogation   to  Lien,  §  4352. 

i.  Actions  to  Recover  Freight,  §  4353. 
j.   Recovery  Back  of  Freight,  §  4354. 

B.  Lighterage,   §  4355. 

C.  Demurrage,   §§   4356-4378. 

a.  In   General,   §  4356. 

b.  Charter  Party   Provisions,  §  4357. 

c.  Right    of   Vessel   to    Charge    in    General,    §    4358. 

d.  Delay    Fault   of  Vessel   or   Owner.   §   4359. 

e.  Delay   Caused  by  Act  of  God,   §  4360. 

f.  Negligence   or   Wrongful   Acts    of   Third    Persons,    §    4361. 
g.  Liability   of   Charterer   of   Ship,   §   4362. 
h.  Liability  of  Consignee,  §  4363. 
i.  Liability  of  Purchaser  of  Cargo,  §  4364. 
j.  Delay  in  Loading  or  Sailing,  §  4365. 
k.  Delay   during  \'oyage.  §   4366. 
1.  Delay  in  Unloading,  §  4367. 
m.  Effect  of  Custom  and  L'sage,  §  4368. 
n.  Demand  for  Demurrage,  §  4369. 


CVIII  TABI^i;   OF    CONTENTS. 

o.  Rate  and  Amount,  §  4370. 

p.  Lay  Days,  §  4371. 

q.  Indemnity,  §  4372. 

r.  Waiver  and   Release   of  Deiiuirrage,   §   4373. 

s.  Lien,   §  4374. 

t.  Actions,  §§  4375-4378. 

(1)  Libel,   §   4375. 

(2)  Defenses,   §  4376. 

(3)  Presumptions   and   Burden   of   Proof,   §   4377. 

(4)  Limitations    and    Laches,    §    4378. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

Carriage  of  Passengers. 

I.  Nature  of  Liability  of  \'essel.  §  4379. 
IL  What  Law  Governs,   §  43S0. 
III.  Statutory  Regulation  in  General,  §  4381. 
IV.  Regulation  as  to   Steam  Vessels,  §  43S2. 

V.  Regulations  as  to  Dangerous  Articles,  §  4383. 
VI.  Regulations  as  to  Immigrants  and  Other  Passengers  from  Foreign  Ports,  §  4384. 

VII.  Contracts,   Fares,   Passage   and  Tickets,   §§   4385-4390. 

A.  In   General,   §  4385. 

B.  What  Constitutes  Contract  and   Consideration,  §  4386. 

C.  Operation  and   Effect,   §   4387. 

D.  Performance  or  Breach  of  Contract,  §  4388. 

E.  Rescission,  §  4389. 

F.  Actions,    §    4390. 

VIII.  Accommodations   on   Vessel,   §§   4391-4398. 

A.  In  General,  §  4391. 

B.  Stateroom,  Berth  and   Bedding,  §  4392. 

C.  Food  and  Water,  §  4393. 

D.  Effect  of  Quarantine,  §  4394. 

E.  Delivery   of  Telegram,   §   4395. 

F.  Liability  for  Personal  Injuries,  §  4396. 

G.  Actions,   §  4397. 
H.  Damages,   §  4398. 

IX.  Voyage   and   Discharge  at  Destination,   §§   4399-4401. 

A.  Duties  and  Liabilities,   §  4399. 

B.  Actions,   §  4400. 

C.  Damages   and  Recovery  of  Passage   Money,   §   4401. 

X.  Personal    Injuries,    §§   4402-4428. 

A.  Care   Required  and  Liability,   §§  4402-4416. 

a.  In    General,   §   4402. 

b.  Consequences  Not  Reasonably  Anticipated  from  Act,  §  4403. 

c.  With  Respect  to  Machinery,  Appurtenances  and  Crew,  §  4404. 

d.  Care  of  Docks  and   Passage  Ways,  §  4405. 

e.  Personal  Injuries  from  Want  of  Proper  Accommodations,  §  4406. 

f.  Acts   of   Other  Passengers,    §   4407. 

g.  Negligence  or  Misconduct  of  Third  Party  Contributing  Cause,  §  4408. 
h.  Persons  to  Whom  Duty  to  Use  Care  Owed,  §  4409. 

i.  Officers  and  Employees  for  Whose  Negligence  Liability  Attaches,  §  4410.- 
j.  Intoxicated   Passenger,   §   4411. 
k.  Medical   Attention,   §   4412. 
1.  Acts   in    Emergency,    §   4413. 


TABLE   OF    CONTENTS.  CIX 

m.  Klection  to   Continue   \'oyage   against  Advice  of   Pilot,   §   4414. 
n.  Landing  or  Discharge  of  Passengers,  §  4415. 
o.  Care  Required   of  Tenant  of  Wharf,  §  4416, 

B.  Release  of   Right  of  Action,   §  4417. 

C.  Limitation   of   Liability,   §   4418. 

D.  Contributory    Negligence   and   Assumption   of   Risk,   §   4419. 

E.  Procedure,   §§   4420-442G. 

a.  Pleading.  §  4420. 

b.  Evidence,   §§   4421-4423. 

(1)  Presumption  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  4421. 

(2)  Admissibility  and   Competency.   §  4422. 

(3)  Weight  and   Sufficiency,  §  4423. 

c.  Questions  of   Eact,   §  4424. 

d.  Instructions,   §   4425. 

e.  Special  Verdict,  §  4426. 

F.  Liens,  §  4427. 

G.  Damages,  §  4428. 

XL  Ejection  of  Passengers,  §  4429. 
XIL  Passenger's  Eflfects,  §§  4430-4442. 

A.  Liability  as   Inn  Keeper  or   Insurer,  §  4430. 

B.  Delivery  to  and  Acceptance  by  Carrier,  §  4431. 

C.  Duty  to  Provide  Watchman,  §  4432. 

D.  Duty  to  Provide  State  Room  Door  with  Bolts  and  Locks,  §  4433. 

E.  Particular   Losses  for  Which  Vessel  Liable,  §  4434. 

F.  Passengers  Entitled  to  Recover,  §  4435. 

G.  Eflfects  for  Which  Recovery  Allowed,  §  4436. 

H.  Contributory    Negligence    of    Person    Complaining,    §    4437. 
I.  Baggage  Detained  by  Customs'  Officers,  §  443S. 
J.  Evidence,  §  4439. 
K.  Liens,   §   4440. 
L.  Damages,  §  4441. 
M.  Limitation  of  Liability,  §  4442. 

XIII.  Penalties   and   Forfeitures   for   Violations   of   Regulations,    §   4443. 

XIV.  Oflfenses  Incident  to   Carriage  of  Passengers.  §§  4444-4447. 

A.  What  Constitutes  and   Elements,  §  4444. 

B.  Defenses,   §   4445. 

C.  Indictment,  §  4446. 

D.  Evidence,    §    4447. 


CHAPTER  XL. 
,  LniiT-VTioNS  OF  Liability. 

I.  Limitation   by   Exceptions   in    Contract,    §§    4448-4493. 

A.  Implied   Exceptions,   §   4448. 

B.  Express   Exceptions   in   Bill   of  Lading  or  Shipping  Contract,  §§  4449-4480. 

a.  Power  and  Validity   Generally,  §§  4449-4450. 

(1)  In    General,  §   4449. 

(2)  What  Law  Governs,  §  4450. 

b.  Construction  Generally,  §  4451. 

c.  Operation   and   Effect   Generally,   §§   4452-4455. 

(1)  General   Rule.   §  4452. 

(2)  Partial    Invalidity,    §   4453. 

(3)  Right    of    Assignees,    §    4454. 

(4)  Loss   from  Negligence  of  Carrier  or  Servant?.   §  4455. 

d.  Particular    Exceptions,    §§    4456-4479. 


ex 


TABLE   OF    CONTEXTS. 


II. 


(1)  Perils   of   Sea,   Xavigation.   Lakes,   Rivers,   etc  ,   §§   4450-4403. 

(a)  In   General,   §   4456. 

(b)  Damage  by  Sea  Water — Leakage,  §  4457. 

(c)  Collisions,   Stranding,   Obstructions   of   Navigation,   §   4458. 

(d)  Explosions,   §   4459. 

(e)  Fire.   §  4460. 

(f)  Jettison,  §  4461. 

(g)  Storms,  §  4462. 

(h)   Negligence  of  Carrier  or  Servants,  §  4463. 

(2)  Exceptions   as   to  Warranty  of  Seaworthiness.   §   4464. 

(3)  Exceptions   of   Loss    or    Damage    Resulting    from    Negligence    of    Carrier, 

§  4465. 

(4)  Fire,  §  4466. 

(5)  Stowage    on    Deck,    §    4467. 

(6)  Loss  Through  Leakage,  §  4468. 

(7)  Risk   of   Due    Refrigeration,    §    4469. 

(8)  Risk   of   Mortality   or   Accident.    §   4470. 

(9)  Loss  from  "Sweating,  Natural  Decay  or  Sea  Water,"  §  4471. 

(10)  Loss   from   Heat  or   Heating,   §   4472. 

(11)  Theft,   §  4473. 

(12)  Delay  in   Delivery.   §   4474. 

(13)  Strikes   or   Stoppage   of   Labor,    §   4475. 

(14)  Limitation   of  Amount  of  Damages,   §  4476. 

(15)  Benefit  of   Insurance   Clause,   §   4477. 

(16)  Exception   of   Restraints   of   Princes,    Rulers,    or   People,   §   4478. 

(17)  Requirements  as  to  Notice  of  Loss  and  Time  to  Sue,  §  4479. 
e.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,   §  4480. 

C.  Provisions    in    Passenger   Tickets,    §§    4481-4493. 

a.  Liability    for   Personal    Injuries    to   Passenger,    §   4481. 

b.  Liability    for    Passenger's    Efifects,    §§    4482-4493. 

(1)  Validity,   Form  and   Requisites,  §§  4482-4487. 

(a)  Stipulation    That    Landing    Not    Part    of    Voyage,    §    4482. 

(b)  Stipulation    Limiting    Liability    to    Stated    Sum,    §§    4483-4487. 
■  aa.  Validity   Generally,   §   4483. 

bb.  Form  and  Requisites,  §§  4484-4487. 

(aa)   Meeting  of  Minds   of   Parties   Generally,   §   4484. 

(bb)   Knowledge  and  Acceptance,  §  4485. 

(cc)  Type    or    Printing,    §    4486. 

(dd)    Conditions   Printed    on   Margin   on    Back   of  Ticket,   §   4487. 

(2)  Interpretation,   §   4488. 

(3)  Operation  and    Effect,  §§  4489-4492. 

(a)  Stipulation  That  Landing  Not  Part  of  \'oyage,  §  4489. 

(b)  Stipulation   Limiting  Liability  to   Stated    Sum,   §§   4490-4492. 
aa.  Losses    Covered,    §    4490. 

bb.  Baggage    to   Which    Applicable,    §    4491. 
cc.  Tickets  as  Evidence,  §  4492. 

(4)  Compliance   with   Stipulation   for    Notice   of   Loss,   §   4493. 
Limitation   of  Vessel   Owner's   Liability   by  Acts   of   Congress,   §§   4494-4576. 

A.  Limited  Liability  Act,  §§  4494-4530. 

a.  General   Consideration,   §§  4494-4497. 

(1)  History   and    Object,    §   4494. 

(2)  Constitutionality,   §  4495. 

(3)  Part    of    Maritime    Law,    §    4496. 

(4)  Eflfect   of  Subsequent  Acts,   §   4497. 

b.  Construction,    §   4498. 

c.  Losses    Covered,    §§   4499-4505. 


TABLlv   OF    CONTENTS.  CXI 

(1)  Loss  or  Damage  to  Jewelry,  Precious  Metals,  Moneys,  etc.,  §  4499. 

(2)  Loss  or  Damage  by  Fire,  §  4500. 

(3)  Loss    or    Damage    for    Which    Liability    Limited    to    Value    of    Vessel   and 

Pending   Freight,   §§   4501-450.-,.* 

(a)  Maritime  and  Nonmaritime  Torts  Generally,  §  4501. 

(b)  Obligations    ICx    Contractu,   §   4502. 

(c)  Collision,    §    4503. 

(d)  Personal   Injuries  and  Death  by  Wrongful  Act,  §  4504. 

(e)  Salvage    Claim,    §   4505. 

d.  Condition   Precedent  to   Right  to   Limit   Liability,   §§  4506-4514. 

(1)  Seaworthiness    and    Sufficiency    of    Equipment,    §    4506. 

(2)  Want  of  Privity  or  Knowledge  of  Owner  of  Negligence  or  Defect,  §  4507. 

(3)  Surrender  of  Vessel  and  Pending  Freight  or  Interest  Therein,  §§  4508-4514. 

(a)  In    General,    §    4508. 

(b)  Particular    \'esscls    and    Parts    Thereof    Which    Must    Be    Surrendered, 

§  4509. 

(c)  Transfer    of    Interest    to    Trustee    or    Appraisement    and    Payment    into 

Court  of  Value,  §  4510. 

(d)  Bond   for   Payment  into  Court,   §  4511. 

(e)  Abandonment    to   Underwriters,   §   4512. 

(f)  Total   Loss  of  Vessel,  §  4513. 

(g)  EfTect  of  Failure  to   Surrender  Pending  Freight,   §  4514. 

e.  What    Constitutes    X'alue    of   Ship   and    Freight,    §§    4515-4524. 

(1)  Point  of  Time   at   Which   Value   Taken,   §  4515. 

(2)  Freight    and    Passenger    Money    Estimated,    §    4516. 

(3)  What   Constitutes    Earnings   of  Voyage,   §   4517. 

(4)  Ship   Subsidy    Money,    §   4518. 

(5)  Freight  Earned  by  Other  Vessels  on  Through  Shipment,  §  4519. 

(6)  Damages  for  Loss  of  Vessel  in  Collision,  §  4520. 

(7)  Insurance,   §   4521. 

(8)  Deduction  for  Expenses  of  Voyage,  §  4522. 

(9)  Expenses  of  Salvage  and  Allowance  for  Risk   of  Undertaking,   §   4523. 
(10)  Substitution  of  Another  Vessel,  §  4524. 

f.  Waters,  Vessels  and    Interests  to  Which  Applicable,   §   4525. 

g.  Proceedings  against  Which   Available,   §  4526. 
h.  Freighters   Entitled  to   Participate,  §   4527. 

i.  EfTect  of  Stipulation  in  Bill  of  Lading,  §  4528. 
j.  Remedies   Reserved,   §  4529. 
k.  Waiver    of    Right,    §   4530. 
B.  Harter  Act,  §§  4531-4547. 

a.  Purpose,   §   4531. 

b.  Construction,  §  4532. 

c.  Effect  of  Clauses  in  Bills  of  Lading  Relieving  from  Liability.  §  4533. 

d.  EfTect  on  Stipulations  in  Passenger  Tickets,  §  4534. 

e.  Loss  or  Damage  to  Which  Applicable,  §§  4535-4547. 

(1)  Losses   for  Which    Carriers   Liable   Generally,   §   4535. 

(2)  Loss  from  Latent  Defects,  Fault  or  Error  in   Navigation  or  Management 

of  Ship,  §§  4536-4539. 

(a)  In    General.   §   4536. 

(b)  Seaworthiness  as   Condition  Precedent,   §  4537. 

(c)  Instances   of   Fault  or   Error   in    Navigation   or  Management  of  Vessel, 

§    4538. 

(d)  Loss  before  Commencement  of  Voyage,  §  4539. 

(3)  Loss  from  Negligent  Loading  and  Stowage  or  Unloading,  §  4540. 

(4)  Loss  of  Tow  and  Cargo  by  Tug,  §  4541. 

(5)  Collision,   §   4542. 


CXII  TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

(6)  Personal   Injuries  and   Death   by   Wrongful  Act,   §   4543. 

(7)  Liability   for   Passengers'    Eflfects,   §  4544. 

(8)  Right  to   General  Average   Contribution,   §  4545. 

(9)  Duty    of    Master    of    Stranded    Vessel,    §    4546. 
(10)  Application   to    Foreign   Vessels,   §   4547. 

C.  Proceedings  to  Limit  Liability,  §§  4548-4576. 

a.  Nature    of   Proceedings,   §   4548. 

b.  Forms   and   Rules  of   Procedure,   §   4549. 

c.  Jurisdiction,   Venue   and    Courts,   §  4550. 

d.  Time  of  Taking  Proceedings  and  Laches,  §  4551. 

e.  Time  for  Filing  Claims,   §  4552. 

f.  Modes  in  Which   Limited   Liability  May  Be   Claimed,   §  4553. 

g.  Scope   of   Remedy,   §§   4554-4556. 

(1)  Ascertainment  of  Co-Existing  Claims,  §  4554. 

(2)  Contesting  All   Liability,   §  4555. 

(3)  Claims  Provable  in  Proceedings  to  Limit,  §  4556. 
h.  Process  to  Bring  Vessel  into  Court,  §  4557. 

i.  Power  of  Court  to  Shape   Course  of  Proceedings,  §  4558. 

j.  Consolidation  of  Suits,  §  4559. 

k.  Eflfect  of  Institution  of  Proceedings,   §§  4560-4565. 

(1)  Superseding   Other   Actions,   §   4560. 

(2)  Duty  of  Other  Courts  to  Suspend  Proceedings,   §  4561. 

(3)  Staying  or  Restraining  Proceedings  in  Other   Courts,   §   4562. 

(4)  Bar  to  Subsequent  Suit,  §  4563. 

(5)  Application  of  Doctrine  of  Res  Adjudicata,   §  4564. 

(6)  Eflfect  on  Course  of  Appeal,  §  4565. 
1.  Pleading,   §   4566. 

m.  Evidence,  §§  4567-4570. 

(1)  Presumptions   and   Burden   of   Proof,   §  4567. 

(2)  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §  4568. 

(3)  Weight   and   Sufficiency.   §   4569. 

(4)  Cross    Examination   of   Petitioner,   §   4570. 
n.  Decree,  §§  4571-4574. 

(1)  In   General,  §  4571. 

(2)  Reopening  Decree  to  Permit  Other  Claimants  to  Come  in,  §  4572. 

(3)  Allowing   Interest   on   Appraised    Value,    §    4573. 

(4)  Res  Adjudicata,  §  4574. 

o.  Apportionment  or  Distribution  of  Proceeds,  §  4575. 
p.  Costs  and  Expenses  of  Administration,  §  4576. 


Table  of  Cases 


Aaron   v.    Arlains    I'.xp.    Co.,   p.    571. 

V.   Jackson,   pp.    211,    771. 

I'.   Southern  Railway,  pp.  2623, 

2660. 

Aaronson    f.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

pp.    917,    918. 
Abbazia,     The. 
Abbe    V.    Eaton,    pp.    338,    339,    347, 

3884. 
Abbey  "■.   New   York   Cent.,  etc.,    R. 

Co.,   pp.   2126,   2265. 
Abbot,  Rlodgctt  r. 

■ Tolman    '■. 

Abbott  f.   Hradstrect,  pp.  3145,  3148. 

-■.   Hicks,   p.    194r). 

f.  Johnson  R.   Co.,  p.    1500. 

•'.    Oregon    R.     Co.,    pp.    2132. 

2873. 

Western,  etc.,  Railroad  v. 

Abbott  Gin  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    pp.    729,    734,    750. 
Abeel,    Fisher   '•. 
Abel    -i\     Northampton    Tract.     Co., 

pp.    2347,    2766. 
Abell,   Memphis,  etc.,   Packet   Co.  t'. 

f.    Western    Maryland    R.    Co., 

pp.   1538,  1564,  1565,  1582,  1760. 

Abels,    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    ■:■. 

Abeles   &    Co.,    Long   v. 

Abelson   f.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2235. 
Abercrombie  -■.    Stillman,    p.    1028. 
Aberdeen   Coal,   etc.,   Co.,   Bassett  f. 
Aberdeen,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ray    f. 

Strothcr  z'. 

Abilene  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V. 

r.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  1134, 

3812. 

Able,   Illinois  Cent.    R.    Co.   f. 
Abney    v.    Louisiana,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1773,    1798,    1800. 
Abrahams  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
.     p.   165. 
Abram    v.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1614,    1627,    1628,    1632,    2443. 
Abrams   v.   Milwaukee,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1076,    1364,    1381,    1400. 

V.   Piatt,   pp.    280,   283,   816. 

Acheson    -■.    New    York    Cent.,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    222. 
.'Vckerland,    Schoies    f. 
Ackerson   v.    Erie   R.    Co.,    p.    3067. 
Ackerstadt  v.   Chicago   City   K.   Co., 

p.    2887. 
Ackley,    Ciiicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

r.   Kellogg,   p.   3290. 

Acme  Paper  I'ox  Factory  f.  At- 
lantic, etc.,   R.  Co.,  p.  69(). 

Acres,    Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Actieselskabet  Barfod  !■.  Hilton,  etc.. 
Lumber    Co.,    p.    3954. 

Adairs,    L^nited    States   -•. 

z:  LTnited  States,  p.   3450. 

Adams,   Adams   Exp.   Co.  ?•. 

Birmingham    R.,   etc.,    Co.   z'. 

-■.     Rissell,     p.    494. 

f.    Blankenstcin,    pp.    547,    553. 

f.    Brig    Pilgrim,    pp.    305,    318, 

339,    355,    370. 

Brown    z\ 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

-'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2023,   2419,    2425,   2528,   2849. 

z:     Clark,     pp.     520,     581,     582, 

1142,    1160,    1171. 

■;•.    Colorado,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1123,   1129,   1364,   1368.  1375. 

Detroit,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    -'. 

{>race    '•. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    ^o.    ■:•. 

Hernsticld    v. 

Hersfield   z-. 

z:     Homeyer,     pp.     38b4,     3938. 

1  Car— h 


.\danis,    Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

z\   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

82  Ky.  603,  6  Ky.  L.  Rep.  686— 
p.   2406. 

z\  Louisville,      etc.,      R".      Co., 

134  Ky.  620,  121  S.  W.  419,  21 
.\m.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  321 — pp. 
2028,    2339,    2885. 

-■.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1703,  1872,  1873,  2065,  2364. 
f.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 

9  Misc.  Rep.  25,  29  N.  Y.  S. 

56,  59  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  720— p. 

3146. 

V.  New        Jersey        Steamboat 

Co.,  151  N.  Y.  163,  45  N.  E. 
369,  34  L.  R.  A.  682,  56  Am. 
St.  Rep.  616— pp.  728,  733,  749, 
3125,    4008. 

Newstadt    v. 

z:    New    York    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2S23. 

Noble    z: 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

•  Northern  Pac.  R.   Co.  v. 

"'.    O'Connor,    p.    404.. 

■  Orient   Mut.    Ins.    Co.   v. 

Postal    Telegraph-Cable    Co.    v. 

Pullman   Palace   Car  Co.  v. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

r.   St.      Louis,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(Mo.),  130  S.  W.  48— pp.  2642, 
2643. 

z:   St.      Louis,       etc.,     R.      Co. 

(Tex.    Civ.    App.),      137     S.      W. 

437— p.     1714. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:    Scott,    pp.    573,    579. 

Southern    R.    Co.    f. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

z:    The   Pilgrim,   p.    487. 

z:   Union  R.   Co.,  80  N.   Y.   S. 

264,  80  App.  Div.  136,  12  N.  Y. 
.\nn.    Cas.    386— p.    2694. 

f.     Union     R.     Co.,     21     R.     I. 

134,  42  Atl.  515.  44  L.  R.  A. 
273— pp.    78,    82,    2563. 

f.    Washington,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.  2181,  2343,  2884. 

• •  Waydell    v. 

Adams  &   Co.   v.   Haught,   pp.    1143, 

1144,     1145,    3894,    3941. 
Adams    Exp.    Co.,    Aaron   z'. 
z:  Adams,  pp.  961,   1029. 

Alcorn   z'. 

Allison    V. 

Bank    -•. 

Bernard   f. 

-■.    Berry,   etc.,    Co.,    p.    1080. 

Blackburn    z: 

Bland    z: 

z:    Bleich,    p.    489. 

Boscouritz     "•. 

z:    Bratton,   pp.    1045,    1457. 

Brown  z\ 

Buckland    -'. 

Burlingame    f. 

Burr    f. 

z:   Byers,  pp.   1058,   1062,   1063, 

3377. 

z:     Carnahan,     pp.     409,     978, 

986,  989,  992,  994,  1012,  1013, 
1064,    1070. 

z:  Chamberlin-Johnson-Du  Bose 

Co.,   pp.   800,    1053,    1057,    1068. 

I'.  Charlottesville  Woolen  Mills, 

p.    3525. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

— —  Cohn    f. 

f.    Commonwealth,    92    S.    W. 

935,  29  Ky.  L.  Rep.  230.  5  L. 
R.   A.,   N.    S.,  630— p.   245. 


.\dams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 
33  Ky.  L.  Rep.  967.  112  S.  W. 
577,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1182— 
p.    30. 

z:    Commonwealth,    206    U.    S. 

129,    51    L.    Ed.    987,    27    S.    Ct. 
606— p.    3538. 

V.    Commonwealth,    214    U     S 

218,    53    L.    Ed.    972,    29    S.    Ct 
633— p.   3427. 

Crawford   v. 

z:    Crawford,   p.    815. 

z:  Cressap,  p.   529. 

V.    Croninger.    pp.    731.    3521, 

3762. 

D'Aray  z: 

z:    Darnell,    pp.    535,    727,    890, 

911 

Davidson  z'. 

De  Wolff  V. 

Elzy    V. 

Farr     z'. 

F'erris  z: 

Fielder   z: 

Fitzgerald    v. 

Frank  i'. 

Gait    z: 

Ginsburg  z: 

z:  Gordon,  pp.  589,  602,  795. 

Graves  z'. 

z:    Green,    pp.    303,    722,    724, 

760,     761,     762,     936,    940,     1051. 
1054,   1059. 

C^.rogan  v. 

Gulliver   f. 

Harlan    z: 

z:     Harris,     pp.      1075,      1166, 

3383. 

Hayes   z'. 

z:  Haynes.  pp.  981.  988.   1049. 

z:  Hibbard,  pp.  613,  698,   1253. 

1258. 

High   Co.   z: 

Hill    z: 

Historical    Pub.    Co.    z: 

Hoeing   v. 

z:    Hoeing.   88   Ky.   373.    11    S. 

W.    205,    10    Ky.    L.    Rep.    999— 

p.    1075. 

f.    Hoeing,    9   Ky.   L.   Rep.    814 

—pp.    857,   858. 

f.    Holmes,    pp.    588,   815,   822, 

828,   1074. 

z:    Hundley,    pp.     1455.     1456. 

1470,    1479. 

Illinois    Custom    Tailoring    Co. 

Ingalls  z\ 

z:   Jackson,   pp.    506,    734,   745, 

750,   1268.  1334. 

Jacobson     f. 

Jacobson   &    Co.   i: 

I'.    Jones,    p.    604. 

Kelly  z: 

z:   Kentucky,  pp.  3556,  3592. 

f.  King,  p.  1033. 

Kirby  z-. 

Lachner    Bros,    z: 

z\    Lexington,    p.    28. 

z:  McConnell,  p.  567. 

z:   McDonald,   pp.   512,  848. 

Z-.    McDonough,    p.    492. 

:•.  Mellichamp,  pp.  937,  1068. 

Micheals   z\ 

f.  Nock,  pp.  209,  212,  320,  323, 

978,    979.    986,    1070. 

Nonotuck     z: 

Nonotuck    Silk   Co.    z: 

Norton    f. 

z'.    Ohio  State     Auditor,      pp. 

3552,     3556,  3571,     3591,     3592, 
3594. 

Orndorff  &    Co.    -•. 

Ornduff  &  Co.  z: 

Pendergast    f. 

Porteous    z: 


CXIV 

Adams       Express        Co.,       Railroad 

z:  Reagan,  pp.  10S7,  1088. 

. Regan    v. 

Saunders     f. 

. Schutter    i:  .^go 

i:   Scott,    pp.    l-'lJ-    l-5-^^'    ^iyl' 

-,..    Sharpkss   &    Sons,    pp.    770, 

958. 
Snider  z'. 

Soloman    f. 

Zn^^'taie,    pp.     143,     168.    170, 
3526.   ^  .- 

r.   State,  p.   28. 

,•    Stattaners,  pp.  818,  8.^:1,  »-/. 

1033,   1038,   1049,  lO/o. 

3Z  ?!°Ten'"Winkel,    pp.    5.9,    570 
f.    Tingle,    7   Ky.    L-^-^^^P"   ^^^ 

—pp.    564,    899,    904,    90/.  , 

%:.    Tingle,   10  Ky.  L.  Rep.   358 

"^pp.     493,     802,     896,     910,     916, 

919. 

IZ:  y'wafker,%p.    821,    823,    939, 
"7^28;  lYl9,  1361,  1362,  1396,  1454, 

Walker-Edmond   Lo.    <-'. 

" ^-     Wentworth,    pp.    551,    1212, 

1214,    1245,    1249,    1250. 
. !■.    Williams,    p.    617. 

Wilson   'c'. 

V.  Wilson,  p.   3291. 

•  Windolph     V. 

Wright  V. 

Zahloot    V.  P 

Adams  Mach.  Co.,   Southern  R.   Co. 

Adamson  '.■.  4,300  Tons  Pyrites  Ore, 

^'    1.  ^  Norfolk,    etc..    Tract.    Co., 
pp.    2314,    2400.  „    p      „, 

Adcock,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  .. 

Adcox,    St.    Louis,   etc  ,    R.    Co     . . 

Addison,  International,   etc.,   K.   >^o. 


'-  San  Antonio,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v 

3424,    3441,    3467. 
Adel  Lumber  Co.,  Self  v. 
Aden,   Yazoo,   etc.,   R.   \o.  v. 
Adger    V.    Blue    Ridge    R-    Co.,    pp. 

3142,     3144,     3145,     3157. 
Adirondack  Co.,   Catlin  r. 
Adix   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

908,   909,   910,   916. 
Adkins,  Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v. 
Adler    v.     Galbraith,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

-ii^z'.   Weir,    pp.    565,   889,   909. 

Adoue,    Moritz    v. 

V.    Seehgson    &    Co.,    pp.    307, 

309    356,   357,  365,  371,   384,   386, 

387,   389.  ^  ,,r  I      ,    T? 

Adrian   Knitting   Co.   v.   Wabash   R. 

Co.,  p.   548. 
Aetna  Ins.   Co.,   Ripley  y.      _ 
V.  Wheeler    (N.    \.),    J    Lans 

480— pp.    3341,    3342 
f.  Wheeler,    49    N.    Y.    616,    3 

Am.  R.  Rep.   390— pp.  3265, 

3286,  3302,  3341,  3384. 

. Wilson  V.  ,,.,,, 

Aetna  Life  Ins.   Co.   f.    Middleport, 

Aetna  Nat.  Bank  v.  Lnion,  etc.,  K. 

Co.,    p.    1222. 

V.  Water  Power  Co.,  p.  294. 

Agee   &   Co.   v.    Louisville,    etc.,    K. 

Co.,  pp.  4,  89. 
Aggi,   The.  ^ 

Aenew  v.  Steamer  Contra  Costa,  pp. 

^726,  727,  730,  732.  748    820 

Aguirre  v.  Parmelee,  pp.   1219,  1A5/. 
Agulino  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

p.    2729.  „     _ 

Ahern   v.    Boston    Elev.   R.    Co.,   pp. 

2525,    2549,    2943. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 

Ahern    v.    Minneapolis    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1557,    2750,    2777. 
■Vhlbeck    t.    St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     3139,    3140. 
Ahnapee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Goldberg   r 
'\igen     T'.     Boston,     etc..     Railroad 

pp.   869,    3311. 
\iken   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

273,    292,    3329. 

Leathers,     v.   ■ 

Quachita,    etc..    Packet    Co.    v 

•  Ragan  v. 

•;■.    Southern   R.    Co.,    pp.    1612 

1615,    1640,    2562. 
Aikin    r.     Frankford,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

p.    2182. 
Ainis   V.   Ayers,    p.    1211. 
Airey    '•.    Pullman    Palace    Car    Co., 

pp.    2074,    3047,    3227. 
Akers,    North    Missouri    K.    Co.    •r. 
Akersloot    v.    Second    Ave.    R.    Co., 

pp.   1892,  2818. 
Alabama,    Nashville,    etc.,    K.    Co.   v- 

Smith    V.  T-.j  1 

Alabama   &   T.    R.    R.    Co.    v.    Kidd. 

p.    589.  ^         ,    . 

Alabama  Cent.  R.  Co.  ''.  Humphries, 

p.    2582.  ,,  ^ 

Alabama     City,     Nashville,     etc.,     K. 

Co.    V.  ^  T,     J 

Alabama  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brady, 

pp.   639,   663,   695. 
Alabama    Great    Southern    R.    Co.    r. 

McCleskey,  p.  1051. 
Alabama'    Mid.     R.     Co.     v.     Darby, 

pp     292,    303,   587,   900. 
_L  r..  Guilford,  p.  1491. 

T.    Hatcher,    p.    2940. 

Interstate  Commerce  Conim.  v. 

McLaren     v. 

Scarbrough    '■. 

V.    Thompson,    p.     590. 

Alabama   Nat.    Bank  v.   Mobile,   etc., 

R.   Co.,   p.   558. 
Alabama      State      Board,      Western 

Union    Tel.    Co.    v. 
Alabama    Steel,    etc.,     Co.,    Osborne 

Ala'bama,    etc.,    R.    Co.     i:     Arnold, 

80  Ala.  600,  2  So.  337— pp.  2148, 

2873,    2913. 
z:   Arnold,   84  Ala.    159,   4    So. 

359,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  466, 

5  Am.  St.  Rep.  354— pp.  1797, 

1799,  2548. 
V.     Bates,  149  Ala.  48/,   43 

So.  98— pp.  2400,  2665,  2947. 
z'    Bates,  155  Ala.  347,  46 

So.    776— pp.    2864,    2949. 

z\    Beardsley,    p.    2002. 

V.    Bell,    pp.    2782,    3106. 

V.    Bessemer,   p.    3574. 

Blackburn    v. 

V.      Brady,      pp.      1256, 

1259,    2652,    2847. 

z:    Bullard,    pp.    2922,    2924 

Burnham    z'. 

Burns    v.  „^„ 

V.   Carmichael,   pp.    1863,    1968. 

■;■.    Cassell    Drug    Co.,    p.    3398. 

V.     Coggins,     pp.     1526,     1792, 

1964,    2863. 

V.    Collier,   p.    2577. 

■ Collins    V. 

V.  Commonwealth   Cotton  Mfg. 

— ^'w.'^Cox,    pp.    1524,    1868,    2580, 
2601,    2904. 

v.    Davis,    p.    3037. 

V.     Dear,    pp.     2947,     2948. 

V.    Drummond,    p.     1942. 

Easley    v. 

—  z\    Eichofer,    p.    601. 

—  V.     Ellott     &     Son,     pp.      741, 
743. 

—  Faison    v. 

—  Fore    V. 
Forsee   x-', 

—  V.     Frazier,     pp.     2484,     2530, 

2711.  ^  ,^^, 

—  V.    Gewin    &    Son,    p.     1461. 

—  V.    Gibbs,   p.    3100.  ^^^^ 

—  V.     Gilbert,     pp.     2602,     2606, 
2690. 


1257, 


Mabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  Godfrey, 
pp.  1773,  1793,  1794,  1795, 
2068,'  2592. 

z:   Goforth,    p.    842. 

V.     Grabfelder,     pp.     663,     814, 

895. 

V.    Guilford,    pp.    1689,    1692. 

Gulf     Compress     Co.     v. 

7'.    Hanes,    p.    2625. 

z:   Hawk,       pp.  1983,     2122, 

2176,    2177. 

■  V.  Heddleston,   pp.   2573,   2622, 

3046. 

v.   Hill,   90   Ala.   71,   8   So.   90, 

44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  441,  9 
L.  R.  A.  442,  24  Am.  St.  Rep. 
764— p.    1812. 

f.    Hill,    93    Ala.    514,    9    So. 

722,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  65,  47 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  501— pp. 
1717,  1718,  1721,  2693,  2734, 
2930,     3069. 

V.     Holmes,     pp.     2463,     2464, 

2495. 

Hooks    T. 

Jackson    v. 

Johnson    v. 

v.    Tones,    p.    2254. 

■  v.    kidd,    29    Ala.    221— p.    531. 

f .      Kidd,      35     Ala.     209— pp. 

550,    895,    898,    914,    960. 

t'.    Kuhn,    p.    2061. 

z\    Lamkin,    p.    3311. 

V.    Little,    pp    820,    823,    1035, 

1038,    1073. 

z'.     McKenna,     p.     644. 

V.    McKenzie,     pp.      508,     567, 

588,    691. 

V.    Mississippi    R.    Comm.,    pp. 

55,    56,    72. 

•:■.    Morris,    p.    424. 

Mt.    Vernon    v. 

r.  ,  Mount     Vernon     Co.,     pp. 

3300,    3302,    3338,    3391. 

Mt.    Vernon   Co.    v. 

Newman    v. 

Neyman    '■. 

z'.    Norris,    p.    331. 

V.   Organ   Power   Co.,   pp.    559, 

v.     Pouncey,    pp.     2608,    2769. 

f.     Purnell,     pp.     1676,    3053.    . 

z'.   Ouarles,    pp.    619,    741,    743. 

v.    Railroad     Comm.,     pp.     82, 

83,    84.    91.  ^„,^ 

V.    Sampley,     pp.    1742,     2016, 

2040,     2047,     2578,     2769,    2922. 

Searles  v. 

V.   Searles,    p.    782. 

■  V.   Sellers,      pp.       1867,       1869, 

1872,  2650,    3015,    3058. 

v.  Siniard,    pp.    2036,    2816. 

V.  Sparks,    p.    1382. 

V.  Stacey,    p.    1772. 

V.  Tapia,    p.    2711. 

V.   Thomas,   83   Ala.   343,   3   So. 

802— pp.    1364,    1434,    3359,    3391. 

V.   Thomas,   89   Ala.   294,   7   So. 

762,     18    Am.     St.     Rep.     119— pp. 
326,    819,    3359,    3360,    3361. 

V.    Tirelli,    pp.    516,    620. 

V.    Ventress,     pp.     2288,     2292, 

2385. 

Walter   v. 

Wells    V. 

V.  Wilkinson,     p.     3062 

.  V.    Yarbrough,    p.    1550. 

Alair   v.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1074,     1396,     1397. 
Alaska    Steamship    Co.,    Marks    v. 
Alaska,     etc..     Steamship    Co.,     Guf- 

fcy    V. 
Albany   Railway,    Dowd  v. 
Albany,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Fink   v. 

V.   Merchants',    etc..    Bank,    pp. 

328,   366,  378,  407,  582,   595,   596. 

People  V. 

Albatross  v.  Wayne,   p.    538.  _ 

Albemarle,  etc.,       R.      Co.,      Wein- 
berg  V. 

Alber,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Albers    Comm.    Co.,     Kansas,     etc., 
R.    Co.   v. 


TABLR    OF    CASES. 


CXV 


Albin 

1512 


1859, 


R 


730, 

782, 


etc., 


Albert    Dumois,    The. 
.Mbcrti,    Calvcston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 
Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 
1517,    isr.i. 

Gulf,     etc.,      R.     Co.,      pp 
2454. 
Albion    Lumber   Co.    -'.    DcXobra,    p 

1487. 
All)rtcht     7-.     New     York,      etc 

Co.,    p.    2137. 
Albright     V.      Peiin,      pp.      11, 

750.      753,     757.      765,      768, 

1685,     1689,     1691. 
Albritton    &    Co.     r.    Atlantic, 

R.    Co.,    p.    16.5. 
Albuquerque      Tract.     Co.,      Corco- 
ran   V. 
Alcorn    v.    Adams     Exp.     Co.,     pp. 

1253,    125S,    1257,    3403,    3411. 
Alden   v.    New    York    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.     1682,    1687,    1845. 

V.      Pearson,      p]).      456,      491, 

797,    798,    821,    1036. 

Alden   &   Co.   v.   Carver,   p.    1167. 
Alderctc,    El    Paso    Elect.    R.    Co.   v. 
Alderman    v.    Eastern     K.    Co.,     pp. 

364,    560. 
Alderson   v.    Gulf,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

594,    595,    847. 
Aldrcdgc,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Aldrich   v.   Cargo   of   246   5/20   Tons 

of    Egg    Coal,    p.    3943. 

?•.    Southern    R.    Co.,    p.    3750. 

Aldrich,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
can   Exp.    Co.,    p.    545. 

Alexander  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    153,   172,   176,  252. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

House   '•. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

■  V.    McGaffey,    p.    2613. 

I'.    New    Orleans   R.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    2035. 

Paris    Trans.    Co.    '■. 

T'.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co 

1476.    1479." 

Pensacola    Elect.    Co.    v. 

f.    Rochester,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    59 

Hun  616,  12  N.  Y.  S.  685,  35 
N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    701— p.   2894. 

I'.      Rochester,      etc.,     R.      Co., 

128  N.  Y.  13,  27  N.  E-  950,  48 
Am.  &  ICng.  R.  Cas.  46— p. 
2006. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

Alexandria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hern- 
don,  pp.  1767.  1773,  1798,  1911, 
1912,    1913,   2747. 

Alfalfa    Products    Co.,    Hawkins     v. 
Alford,    Campbell    i'. 

-'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2267. 

McHenry  v. 

Alger   f.    Lowell,   p.    2300. 

Aline,    The. 

Allam   v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    183 

Pa.  174,  38  Atl.  709,  39  L.  R.  A., 

N.    S.,    535— p.    534. 

V.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,      5 

Pa.    Dist.    R.    54— pp.    899,    903. 

r.   Pennsylvania     R.      Co.,       3 

Pa.    Super.    Ct.    325— p.   910. 

Allan  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  p. 
899. 

V.    State     Steamship     Co.,      p. 

2078. 

Allan    Line     Steamship     Co.,      Lar- 

sen  V. 
Allard,  Wynn  z: 
Allardt    v.    People,    p.    184. 
Allbritton,    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R. 

Co.  V. 
AUcorn,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -•. 
Allegheny    R.    Co.,    O'Donnell    v. 
Allegheny    Tract.    Co.,    Goorin    v. 

Holmes   "'. 

AUcghenv    Valley    R.    Co.,    Duflf    v. 

-•.    McLain,    p.    2411. 

O'Donnell    -•. 

Ruppel   z>. 

Scott  -'. 

Allen,     Atchison,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 


pp. 


Co.,    82 
655,     23 


R. 


.Mien,  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Camden,  etc..  Ferry  Co.,  p. 
3086. 

-'.     Cape     Fear,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

I)p.    230,    233,    234. 

•  :■.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    116 

Minn.     119,    133    N.    W.    462— pp. 

1598,    1601. 

—  V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Neb.     726,     118    N.    W. 

L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    278— pp.    1275 

1479. 
— —  Coleman    v. 

Colorado      Springs,      etc., 

Co.    r. 

Crooks  V. 

V.   Dry  Dock,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pj). 

1843,  2724,  2739. 

Fordyce    v. 

■:■.    Galveston    City   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1730,     1731,     1732,     2069,     2937. 

Harding    Paper    Co.    f. 

Hart  V. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

■  V.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1494. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

•  McDongal    r. 

-'.     Maine,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1246,     1248,     1249. 

r.    Mercier,    p.    1220. 

Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

V.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2669,    2689,    2857. 

V.    Oregon    R.,    etc.,     Co.,     98 

Fed.  16— pp.  3637,  3661,  3680, 
3691,  3693,  3718,  3719,  3826, 
3828. 

f.   Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     106 

Fed.    265— p.    3693. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z: 

z\   Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co., 

pp.  3550,  3570,  3579,  3580. 

Richmond   Passenger,    etc.,    Co. 

z:    Sackrider,    p.    771. 

•  -'.    St.    Louis    Nat.    Bank,    pp. 

358,    359,    369. 

z'.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    pp. 

2279,  2280,  2284,  2285,  2346, 
2893. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Sewall    V. 

z'.    Sewall    (N.    Y.),    2    Wend. 

327— pp.    10,    722,    728,    749,    762. 

V.    Sewall    (N.    Y.),    6    Wend. 

327— p.    236. 

V.    Sewall    (N.    Y.),    6    Wend. 

335— p.    239. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Texas,    etc.,     R.     Co.,      100 

Tex.  525,  101  S.  W.  792,  11  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  981,  15  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  618 — pp.  158, 
171,    174,    230,    261. 

z:    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.     (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  27  S.  W.  943— p. 
2120. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.   ■:•. 

V.       United     Tract.      Co.,       p. 

2684. 

Vose  V. 

V.     Williams,     pp.     350,     351, 

362,    363,    364. 

z'.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3093. 

Allen    Co.    f.    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1474. 
Allen-Fleming      Co.      v.       Southern 

R.    Co.,    p.    3393. 
Allen,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Canadian    Pac. 

R.     Co.,     pp.      966,     3294,     3347, 

3348. 
r.  Farmers',    etc.,    Nat.    Bank. 

pp.    353,   356,   366,   370,   376,   403, 

404. 
Allender    z'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

37     Iowa    264,    8    Am.      R.      Rep. 

115— pp.  1510,  1512,  1513,  1517, 

1571. 
-'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

Iowa  276— pp.  1875.  1913,  2066. 

Ohio,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 


Allenza  z:   Erie  R.  Co.,   p.   2878. 
Aller,     Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 
Allerton  z'.    Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p. 

1539. 
Alley  z'.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p.   2465. 
AUgood,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Alliance    Co.,    Chase   r. 
.Mliance    Ins.    Co.,    Fay   f. 
Allin     z:    Gulf,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

2650,    2654. 
.Ailing  V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3121,     3122,     3124,     3151,      3153, 

3192. 

Sherlock    v. 

Allis    f.    Voight,    p.    771. 

Allison    z'.    Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    2425,    2621. 
G.    H.    &    H.    R.    Co.    V. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z'.    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1752,    1755,    1757,   2677. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Allowance  for  Lining  and  Heat- 
ing   Cars,    In    re. 

Allowances    to    Elevators,    In    re. 
Allyn    &    Co.,    Halflf,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

V.    Willis    &    Bro.,    pp.      1212, 

1219,    1220,    1244,    1245. 

Almand,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

894,    898,    900,    917,    3406. 

Almy  f.   California,  p.   3594. 

-Alnwick,    The. 

Alpin,    The. 

Alsberg,    etc.,     Co.     v.     Latta,     pp. 

1228,    1232,    1233. 
Alslop    V.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

213,    214,    233. 
Alston,    Campbell    v. 
.Altland    f.    Atchison,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.    939. 
.Altcmeier     v.     Cincinnati,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1501,    1503,    1504,    1515. 
Alten    v.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    1903. 
.Alton    R.,     etc.,    Co.     v.    Webb,     p. 

2343. 
Alton,     etc..     Tract.     Co.    z:    Oliver, 

pp.  2365,  2757,  2887. 

z:       Oiler,      pp.     2365,       2671, 

2757,    2887. 

■  Redin    z\ 

.Altoona,   etc..   Elect.   Co.,   Thomas  v. 
Altschuler     v.    Atchison,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,   p.   3830. 
Altwein    '■.     Metropolitan      St.      R. 

Co..    pp.    2288,    2351,    2649,    2654. 

2640. 
Alumbaugh,      Louisville,       etc.,       R. 

Co.    f. 
Alvah,    The. 
Alvena,    The. 
.\Ivin,    Brulard    -■. 
Alvord,    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

AnVbach  z:  B.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  p. 
1076. 

f.   Baltimore,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  pp. 

947,    949,    953,     1363. 

T.   &   O.    C.   R.    Co.   f. 

Toledo,   etc.,   R'.    Co.    r. 

Ambrosini    v.      United      States,      p. 

3539. 

America,    The. 

American  Agricultural  Chemical 
Co.,    Farrow    -'. 

American  Baggage,  etc.,  Co..  At- 
lanta   Terminal    Co.    v. 

American  Banana  Co.  ;•.  United 
Fruit    Co.,    p.    3636. 

American  Book  Co.  z-.  Kansas,  p. 
3557. 

State  f. 

American  Brewing  Ass'n  v.  Tal- 
bot,  p.    619. 

American  Contract  Co.  i:  Cross, 
pp.    3114,    3123,    3129. 

American  Cotton  Oil  Co.  z:  Kirk, 
p.   3867. 

American  Exch.  Bank,  Chesa- 
peake,   etc.,    R.    Co.    Z-. 

American  Exp.  Co.,  Bagley  Eleva- 
tor  Co.    -■. 

Baldwin   f. 


CXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


American    Exp.    Co.   ■:■.    Baldwin,   pp. 
511.    890,    911,    916. 

Bank   z: 

Bardwcll    "'. 

Bennett    z: 

•   Boorman   z: 

Rrockway    •;•. 

Brooks    f. 

Bullard   f. 

f.    Burke,    p.    651. 

Christenson   z: 

Clark   z: 

Conti    V. 

Conway    Bank   v. 

Cox    f. 

T'.    Crawley,    p.    136. 

Diirgin    z-. 

Edwards    z\ 

!■.    Epply.    V-    571. 

T-.     Fletcher,     pp.     554,     555. 

Gerry    z\ 

Cowling    z\ 

— —  T'.    Greenhaigh,    pp.    543,    572. 

z\   Haggard,  p.   525. 

Hardy    c'. 

Hasse    '■. 

Hendricks    z'. 

V.      Hockett,      pp.      529,      767, 

770,    773,    890,    908. 

Howard    v. 

■ ■  Indiana    z\ 

z:  Indiana,     pp.    3591,    3594. 

v.   Iowa,   p.   3539. 

James    z\ 

•  z\      Jennings,      pp.      637,      651, 

653,    666,    681,    859. 
■ •  Jordan    ?■. 

Kimball    '•. 

Klauber    t, 

Leavens    z\ 

•  Lefebure   "■. 

z:   Lesem,   pp.    412,    570. 

•  McKahan    f. 

McMillan    v. 

Marshall    z: 

Martin    !■. 

Mather    z: 

Merrill    j'. 

V.    Miller,    p.    3434. 

z:    Mullins,   p.    577. 

z:     Ogles,      pp.      1567,       1568, 

1579,    2091. 

Pastore    ?•. 

— ■ —  Perkins    "'. 

f.     Perkins,     p.     764. 

Perkins    Co.   z'. 

<■.    Risley,    p.    875. 

r.    Sands,    pp.    822,    828,    946, 

1074. 

f.     Second      Nat.      Bank,      pp. 

728,   771,   3257,   3289. 

Smith    z: 

V.    Smith,    pp.    608,    619,    620, 

738,   753,   765,   766. 

z:      Southern      Indiana       Exp. 

Co.,    p.    3526. 

V.     Spellman,     pp.     996,     997, 

998. 

z:     Stack,    p.    549. 

z:    State,    p.    3526. 

r.    State   Board,   p.    3578. 

Swiney   v. 

Taft    Co.    V. 

United    States   v. 

r.     United     States,     pp.     3420, 

3614,    3684,    3686,    3695,    3696. 

Wells  z: 

z:    Wettstein,    p.    572. 

Winn    V. 

Wolf    z: 

American    Fire   Ins.,    Karnes   v. 
American    Forwarding    Co.,    Bare   v. 
American     Grocery     Co.     v.     Staten 

Island,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    1087. 
American     Hay     Co.    z'.    Bath,     etc., 

R.   Co.,  p.   3358. 
American       Lead       Pencil       Co.      v. 

Nashville,    etc..    Railway,    pp.    277, 

286,    289,    753,    754,    885. 
American     Merchants'     Union     Exp. 

Co.,    Gibson    v. 

Ketchum   z\ 

v.    Milk,    pp.    545,    553. 

z:   Phillips,   pp.   210,   243,    1286. 


.\merican  Merchants'  Union  Ex- 
press   Co.    z\     Scheir,     p.     1049. 

-•.    Wolf,    pp.    535,    565,    567, 

570,    572. 

American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Georgia  R. 
Co.,    pp.    311,    374. 

z:    Henderson,   pp.    391,    398. 

'•.    Lee,    p.    366. 

American  Oil  Works,  Pennsyl- 
vania   R.    Co.    z\ 

American  R.  Co.,  Aldrich,  etc., 
Mfg.   Co.   '•. 

American  Refrigerator  Trans.  Co., 
Hall   z: 

z:    Hall,    pp.    3549,    3552.    3556, 

3557.     3572,     3591,     3593,     3594. 

American  Roofing  Co.  z\  Mem- 
phis, etc..  Packet  Co..  pp.  490, 
491,  956,  964,  981,  997,  999, 
1013,    1015,    1032. 

American  Silk  Dyeing,  etc.,  Co.  -■. 
Fuller's    Exp.    Co.,   p.    990. 

American  Silver  Mfg.  Co.  z'.  Wa- 
bash  R.    Co.,   p.   3521. 

iVmerican  Standard  Jewelry  Co  ?■. 
Witherington,     pp.     890,     902. 

American  Steamship  Co.  z'.  Bryan, 
pp.    3146,    3147,    3156,    3195. 

American  Steel,  etc.,  Co.  z'.  Speed, 
p.    3517. 

American  Storage,  etc.,  Co.  ?■.  Wa- 
bash   R.    Co.,    pp.    331,    549. 

American  Sugar  Refin.  Co.  z\  Del- 
aware, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3608, 
3734,    3769,    3787. 

I'.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3673,    3700,    3750,    3768. 

v.   McGhee,   pp.   546,   565,    567, 

889. 

z\     Maddock,      pp.      306,      308, 

339,    3879,    3893. 

;■.    Rickinson,    pp.    4062,    4083. 

American       Thresherman       z\        De 

Tamble    Motors    Co.,    p.    384. 
.\merican     Tobacco     Co.,     Pittsburg, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
American     Trading     Co.,      Northern 

Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
American     Transp.     Co.,     Moore     ''. 

z:      Moore,       pp.       869,      1007, 

3161. 

American  Union  Coal  Co.  z'.  Penn- 
sylvania   R.    Co.,    pp.    3674,    3828. 

American  Union  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Rob- 
inson,   p.    535. 

T'.    St.   Joseph,    p.    3578. 

American,  etc.,  Exp.  Co.,  Cra- 
mer  -'. 

Ela    V. 

V.    Phillips,    p.    467. 

American,     etc.,     Ins.     Co.     z'.     Lan- 

dreth,    p.    1838. 

American,  etc..  Lumber  Co.,  Har- 
rington   V. 

American,  etc..  Marine  Ins.  Co., 
Duplan    Silk   Co.    v. 

.\merican,  etc.,  Timber  Co.  z'.  Kan- 
sas, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3639,  3687, 
3749. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

.\mericus,    etc.,    R.     Co.    "■.     Luckie, 

pp.   2118,    2404. 
Ames   7'.    Astor,    p.    728. 

Champion    -'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7'. 

z:      Fargo,      pp.      1270,      1292, 

1348. 

7'.   First   Div.,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  pp. 

485,    803,    831. 

z\    New    York   Union    Ins.    Co., 

p.    1118. 

V.   Palmer,    pp.    481,    520,    1153, 

1157,    1164. 

•  7'.     Reed,     p.     595. 

Smyth     7'. 

V.   Southern  Pac.   Co.,   p.   2441. 

v.   Union   Pac.   R.   Co.,    pp.    52, 

3607. 

United    States    7'. 

Ames  Mercantile  Co.  7'.  Kimball 
Steamship     Co.,     p.     3913. 


Ammon    7'.     Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    477,   479,   480,    821,   824. 
Ammons    7'.     Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2420,     2435,     2467,     2468,     2469. 
7'.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    3077, 

3078,     3079,     3083,     3086,     3091. 
Amory  7'.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   pp.   3124, 

3149,    3152,    3154,     3193. 
Amory    Mfg.    Co.    7'.    Gulf,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    282,    1013,    1024,    1025. 
Amos,    Ann    Arbor   R.    Co.  'v. 
Amos   D.    Carver,   The. 
Amoskeag    Mfg.     Co.,    Donnell    7'. 
Amsden    7'.    Dubuque,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   460. 
.^nacostia,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'.     Klein, 

p.     2876. 
Anaheim     Lighter    Co.,    Mendelsohn 

Anchor     Line     7'.     Dater,     pp.     989, 
1049,    3182. 

Ganguzza     7'. 

7'.    Knowles,    pp.    1032,    1033. 

Lancer   7'. 

Anchoria,    The. 

Anderson   7'.    Atchison,    etc.,   R'.    Co., 
pp.     821,     1037. 

Atlantic,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2904. 

Birmingham    R.    Co.    7'. 

Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co.   z: 

Boyce    z\ 

7'.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

3164^ 

Carolina        Portland        Cement 

Co.    7'. 

Central     R.,     etc.,     Co.     7'. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.    "•. 

7'.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    131 

Mo.    App.    580,    110    S.    W.    650— 


p.    2658. 
—  7'.     Chicago. 
Neb.    430,     129 


R.     Co.,     88 
W.     1008— p. 

R.     Co.,    pp. 


Citizens'     St. 

1901. 

City,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  pp.    1819, 
2200,    2894,    2972. 

Hammond    7'. 

Houston,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

■  Illinois       Cent.      R.       Co.       v. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 

7'.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1087. 

7'.      Louisville,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

62    Fed.    46— pp.    1945,    1946. 

'■.     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

134  Ky.  343,  120  S.  W.  298, 
34  R.  R.  R.  220,  57  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  220,  20  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  '920 — pp.  2425, 
2429,    2472. 

7'.     Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(Ky.),    120    S.    W.    301— p.    2717. 

7'.      Louisville,      etc.,     R.      Co. 

(Miss.),    15    So.    795— p.    637. 

Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.     Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2235,    2638. 

•  7'.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1540,  1541,  1542,  1543,  2865. 
2946. 

7'.    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

267.    271,    284. 

7'.    Moore    &    Co.,    p.    3950. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

- —  V.    North    Eastern    R.     Co.,    p. 
849. 

Palmer    Transfer    Co.    z-. 

Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Railroad    Co.    -■. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

z:     Scholey,     pp.     1711,     1837, 

1838,    2161,    2692,    2757. 

7'.      Seattle-Tacoma,      etc., 

Co.,    p.    2849. 

7'.   South     Carolina,      etc., 

Co.,    77    S.    C.   434.    58    S.    E. 
—p.    2669. 

7'.     South     Carolina,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    61    S.    E.    1096,    81    S.    C.    1 


pp. 


R. 


R. 

149 


—pp.      193i3,      1937,     2022,     2028, 

2916,     2944. 
Anderson.    Soutlurn    Pac.    Co.    r. 
V.   Southern   Pac.    R.   Co.   r. 

Texarkana,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.     United     States,     pp.     3418, 

3504. 

I'.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3197. 

Whitehead    ?'. 

Wilson    V. 

Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.     x'. 

Anderson     Art     Co.     v.     Greenburg, 

P-    1488. 
Anderson     Steamboat     Co.,     McKay 

.\n(lis,     Indianapolis,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
.\ndre\vs    '.■.    Capitol,    etc.,    R.     Co., 
p.    2182. 

•■•.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1981,     1986,     1987,     2888,     2889, 
2945. 

Delaware    v. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?'. 

V.    Fort    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3120. 

V.     Metr()i)nlitaii     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2829. 

Pittsburg,     etc.,     R.     Co.     ?•. 

Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

V.    Wall,    p.    4076. 

T'.   Yazoo,  etc..  R.   Co.,  !>.   1513. 

.\ndrist   ~r.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1707,     1964,  1965. 

.\ndroscoggin  Mills,         Evansvdle, 

etc.,    R.    Co.  t\ 

Railroad  Co.    '■. 

.\ndrus  v.  Columbia,  etc..  Steam- 
boat   Co.,    p.    3270. 

Angl,    La   Matte   v. 

.\ngle  V.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
pp.   550,  815,   821,   895. 

.\ngle  &  Co.  V.  Mississippi,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  pp.  531,  546,  591,  773, 
3176,    3329. 

Anglo-American  Oil  Co.,  Jay  ^\  ai 
Nam   '■. 

.\nglo-California  I'.atik  f.  Tolerton, 
etc.,   Co.  I'. 

Anglo-Egyptian   Nav.    Co.,    Dracachi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


.\ppeal,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co's. 
.\ppeal    of  Cumberland   \'al.    R.   Co., 

p.   67. 
Appeal    of    C.reat    Xorlhern    R.    Co., 

pp.    122,    127. 
.\ppleby    r.    St.    Paul    City    R.    Co., 

pp.     1638,    1647,    2432. 
■  7'.     South     Carolina,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  pp.  1865,  1884,  2831,  3066. 
.\pplewhite,  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
.\p()omattox       R.       Co.,       Powhatan 

Steamboat    Co.    :■. 
.\rayo   v.    Currel,    p.    1489. 
.\rbuckle,        Dowgate  Steamship 

Co.     V. 
> V.     Thompson,     pp.     493,     541, 

682. 
.\rcher  v.    Ft.   Wayne,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

pp.    1829,   2180. 

Gait    V. 

7'.    New    York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

106  N.   Y.   589,   13   N.   E.   318— p. 
1783. 

V.     New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N.     Y.),    19    Wkly.      Dig.      10— 

p.    2550. 
.\rctic    Uird,    The. 
.\rdison    i'.     Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co., 

249    111.     300.    94    N.     E.     501  — p. 

2359. 

•;•.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    155 

App.      274,      277— pp.      1770, 


111. 

2357. 
.\rend 

ship 
.\rents 
.\rey, 
.\rgo    Steamship    Co 


Anjou 


Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    p. 


Ann     .\rbor    R.     Co.    f.    Amos,    pp. 
1615,     2412,     2460,     2559,     3088. 

■;■.    Michigan   R.    Comm.,    p.   41. 

Nelson    Grain   Co.   z\ 

Railroad     Comm.     r. 

Serviss    '■. 

Stolze   '•. 

Weaver    f. 

Ann    .A.rbor,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    Wallace 

Annas   t'.    Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    2002,    2095,    2096. 
Annie    Faxon,    The. 
Annie   L.    N'ansciver,    The. 
.\nniston,     Douglass     ■:■. 

r.   Southern   R.   Co.,  p.   3574. 

.\nniston        Foundry,        etc.,        Co., 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Anniston    Transfer    Co.    i:    Gurlcy, 

pp.    526,    3135. 
Anniston,  etc.,   R.   Co.   7:   Ledbetter, 

pp.    895,    905. 
Anoka   Nat.    Bank,    Pennsylvania    R. 

Co.    t'. 
Ansell    f.     Waterhouse,     p.     2565. 
Anshen   r.   Boston   Elevated  R.   Co., 

pp.     1784,     2733. 
Ansteth   r.    I'.uffalo   R.    Co.,   p.    2519. 
.•\nthony,    Dillingham    t'. 
Hanover      function,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    7'. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

-■.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1812,    1846. 

.\ntonia,    Hammond,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 
Antoon.    Illinois,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Aplington      f.      Pullman      Co.,      pp. 

1631,    i2i2.    3240. 
.Vpollon,    The. 
Appeal,       Cumberland        N'alkv      R. 

Co's. 


Steam- 


?'.     Liverpool,     etc., 
Co.,    p.     1036. 

Pullman    Palace    Car   Co.   v. 
Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

Seago,    pp 
820.    3921. 
.\rjona.     United     States 
Arkadelphia     Mill.     Co. 
Merchandise    Co 
525,     602,     768, 
896,    3286. 
.\rkansas,    Chicago 


pp. 
772, 


Smoker 
3,  8,  267. 
779,     846, 


etc. 


R.    Co.    V. 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
.Vrkansas    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Bennett, 

pp.    1525.    2816,    2966. 
V.     Janson,     pp.      1682,      1742, 


1755,     n 


1821,     2779, 


■.    L^nited 
Canman, 


r'.    Canman, 
1835. 
Bank,     pp. 


1752, 
2807. 

Wallace   7'. 

Arkansas     Fertilizer    Co. 

States,    PI).    3776,    3836. 
Arkansas    Mid.    R'.    Co.    r 
pp.    1716.    1723. 

V.    Griffith,    p.     2695. 

r.    Rambo.    p.    2693. 

7:   Robinson,    pp.    2305,   2874. 

.Arkansas   Rate   Cases,   In   re. 
.Arkansas      River      Packet      Co.      t'. 

Hobbs,    p.    4004. 
Arkansas    Southern    R.    Co.    f.    Ger- 
man   Nat.    Bank,    p.    512. 

-'.    Murphy,    p.    1023. 

Arkansas,      etc..      Grain      Co.,      St. 

Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 
Arkansas,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
pp.    1745,    1812,    1834, 

f.     German     Nat. 

355.   356,  365,   370,  376,  377,   519, 
548,     566.     3540. 

f.   Griffith,   pp 

-■.    Harris,    p. 

Loewenberg    i 

7'.     Robinson, 

1795. 

7'.    Sain,    pp 

2544. 

7'.   Wirgfield,   p.    1756. 

-Arlington      Heights      Fruit      Co.     v. 

Southern      Pac.      Co.,      pp.      3674, 

3820,    3821. 
Armentrout    7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co..     pp.     378,     379,     744,     1228, 

3274. 
Amies,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 
Armijo,    Seligman    7'. 
Armistead    7'.     Shreveport,     etc.,     R 

Co.,    p.   860. 
Armistead     Lumber     Co.     :■.     Louis 

ville,    etc..     R.     Co.,    p.     524. 


CXVII 

I 


Armour   i:    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    310,    350    3879 
.\rmour    Car    Lines,    Williams    7'. 
.Armour   Packing   Co.,    Lacy   7'. 

7'.   United    States,   82   C.    C.    A. 

135,  153  Fed.  I,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  400— pp.  3700,  3705,  3740, 
3753,  3757,  3843,  3845,  3847, 
3850. 

V.    United    States,    209    U.    S. 

56,  52  L.  Ed.  681,  28  S.  Ct. 
428— pp.  3443,  3603,  3613,  3631, 
3665,  3684,  3736,  3737,  3750, 
3753,  3842,  3847,  3848.  3851, 
3852,    3853,    3854,    3855,    3857. 

Armour    &    Co.    v.    City    Council,    p. 

3528. 
Arms,    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Milwaukee,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Armsby    Co.,    Commercial    Bank    v. 
Armstead,     Southern     Exp.     Co. 
Armstrong,      Baltimore     Consol. 

Co.     7'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

Minn.    85,      47     N.    W.     459 


1548,   1549. 
148. 


pp. 
2507, 


1773,     1779, 
2509,    2510, 


R. 


Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   422— j).   896. 

V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    53 

Minn.    183,    54    N.    W.    1059— pp. 
1087,     1103. 

Die     Elbinger     7'. 

7'.    Fargo,    p.    408. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

V.   Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp 

937,  938,    1093. 

z:    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    p 

959. 

International,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.     Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co. 

48    N.    Y.    S.    597.    23    App.    Div 
137— p.    2804. 

7'.     Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co. 

55    N.    Y.    S.    498,    36    App.    Div 
525- p.    2687. 

7'.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p 

1321. 

f.     Montgomery     St.     R.     Co. 

pp.     197,     198,    2123.     2356,    2602 
2608,    2629,    2641,    2869. 

-:    Portland    R.    Co.,    pp.    1963, 

2248,    2822,    2825. 

Receivers    7'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

V.     United     States     Exp.     Co., 

p.  870. 

Armstrong,      etc.,      Co.      f.      Illinois 
Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp.    777,   825,    842. 
Arnett.    Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.   7'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Arnol,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Arnold,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t\ 

7'.    Atchison,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    81 

Kan.      400,      105      Pac.       541— pp. 
2447,    2471,    3078,    3079. 

z:    .Atchison,   etc..    R.   Co.,    106 

Pac.    42.    81     Kan.     530— p.     2117. 

7'.     Delano,    p.     1227. 

7'.    Haleiibake.    p.    11. 

7.     Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1595.    2094. 

7'.     Tores,     pp.     322.     333.    335, 

336,    729,    731,    733,    750,    933. 

Lake    Eric,    etc.,    I?.  ^Co.    7-. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

I'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

1412,  1427 

7'.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1544,  1560.  2448.  2853,  2855. 

z:    Rhode  Island  Co.,  pp.  205, 

1644,  2465.  2471.  3101. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 

Arnott  z:    Redfern,   p.    1490. 
Aronson   7'.    Cleveland,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.     814. 
Arpin   7'.    Owens,    p.    396. 
Arrington    7'.     Texas,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.    1712. 

f.     Wilmington,    etc..     K.     Co., 

pp.    564.    598. 

Arrowsmith    7'.     Nashville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    1575. 
Arthur  7'.   Pullman   Co.,  p.   3238. 

7'.    St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

526,    896. 


CXVIIl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Arthur   z-.    Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

281,     282,     307,     739,     780,     869, 

958,    970,    980. 
Arthur   B.,   The. 
Artisans'    Bank,    Hotchkiss   f. 
Asbell,    Columbus    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.    Kansas,    p.    3560. 

Asbury  v.  Charlotte  Elect.  R.,  etc., 
Co.,    pp.    1890,    2164,    2659. 

Ascher  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
pp.    1246,    1247. 

Ashby,    Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Ashcraft,    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Ashden  f  London  B.  &  S.  C.  R. 
Co.,  p.   790. 

Asheboro,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  r.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  pp.  476,  478,  486, 
488,  495,  642,  674. 

Asher  v.  East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   p.    1743. 

v'.   Texas,    pp.   3472,    3550. 

Asheville,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Asheville    St.    R.    Co.,    Cawfield    i: 
Ashford,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    v. 
Ashley,     Black     v. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■. 

z:     Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

955. 

Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Ryan.  pp.   3472,   3484,   3556. 

Ashmead,  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ashmore     f.     Pennsylvania     Steam- 
Towing,   etc.,   Co.,   pp.   946,   948. 

Ashtabula  Rapid  Transit  Co., 
Holmes    '■. 

r.     Holmes,     pp.     1679,     1714, 

1891,    1962. 

Ashton    V.    Detroit    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2368. 
Ashville    St.    R.    Co.,    Cawfield    f. 
Asiatic    Prince,    The. 
Ask,    The. 
Askew    V.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1039,    3344,    3374.    3375. 
Askew   &    Co.    '•.    Southern    R.    Co., 

pp.    369,    374,   403. 
Asmore,    Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Aspasia,    The. 

Aspell,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 
Ass'n,     St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 
Assyria,    The. 
Aston   V.    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    p. 

2686. 
Astor,    Ames    v. 

Aymar  '•. 

Astoria   Veneer   Mills,    Gass  v. 
Astsrup  V.   Lewy,   pp.    3896,    3910. 
Atchinson.      etc.,      R.      Co.,      Bibb 
Broom   Corn    Co.   v. 

Blevins   v. 

7'.    Ditmars,    p.    1270. 

Fentiman    f. 

Henry    v. 

f.    Washburn,    p.    740. 

Weyand  r 

Atchison  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.   490,   815. 

De    Baun    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Atch.,  Topeka  &  Santa  Fe,  Dun- 
can   7'. 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .\lk-n, 
pp.    1289,    1290,    1781. 

Altland    v. 

.'\ltschuler    v. 

Anderson    v. 

Arnold    v. 

Avey    V. 

-•.     Baldwin,    pp.     1123,     1412, 

1431,    1432,    1445,    1449,    1468. 

'■.   Bell,  p.   3756. 

Berg     7'. 

Bibb    Broom    Corn    Co.    v. 

V.   Bilinsky,    p.     1034. 

Blevins    '■. 

V.     Brewer,     pp.     3139,     3180, 

3186. 

V.     Bryan     CTex.     Civ.     App.), 

28     S.     W.     98— pp.     943,      1027, 
1315. 

V.     Bryan     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 


37     S.     W.     234— pp.     822,     1295, 
1440. 
\tchison.     Burgess    v. 

7'.    Calhoun,    89    Pac.    207,    18 

Okla.  75,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  681 — pp.  1697,  1720,  1785, 
1798.  1821,  1881,  1884,  1906, 
2777. 

v.    Calhoun,  29  S.  Ct.  321, 

213  U.  S.  1— p.  1700. 

— —  7'.  Cameron,  pp.  1608,  3316. 

7'.  Campbell,  p.  3496. 

Carder  7'. 

7'.    Chamberlain,    p.    3068. 

Chase    '■. 

Church   f. 

Clark    V. 

7'.    Cochran,    p.    2085. 

■  7'.    Coffin,    pp.     1410,    1430. 

f.     Cogswell,    pp.    2505,    2507. 

7'.    Collins,    p.    1423. 

7'.    Consolidated   Cattle   Co.,   p. 

391. 

Coon    I'. 

Cornelius   v. 

Craycroft    v. 

7'.    Crittenden,    pp.    427,    1087, 

1117. 

Crow    7'. 

Dangerfield    7'. 

Darling    v. 

Davis     V. 

7'.    Dawson,    p.    841. 

Decker    7'. 

Denver,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7". 

V.    Denver,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

82,  85,  102,  109,  110,  208,  222, 
240,  1134,  3258,  3267,  3268, 
3648,    3729. 

7'.     Dickerson,     pp.     195,     2468, 

2470. 

7'.   Dill,  pp.   973,   974,   978,   979, 

986. 

Dorsey    7'. 

7'.   Dwelle,      pp.      1598,      1600, 

2468,    2473. 

7'.    Elder,    149    111.    173,    36    N. 

E.    565— p.    1815. 

7'.    Elder,    50    111.    .\pp.    276— 

p.    2673, 

— —  z:     Elder,     57     Kan.     312.     46 
Pac.     310— p.     2694. 

Empire    State    Cattle    Co.    7-. 

7'.    Flinn,    p.    1687. 

-  V.    Foster    Lumber    Co.,    pp.    522, 
3811. 

Frazier   7'. 

•  Freeman    v. 

7'.    Frier,    pp.    1730,    1884. 

z:    Gants,   pp.    198,    1545,    1663, 

1666,  1860,  2453,  2454,  2471, 
2486,    2533. 

Gault    Lumber    Co.    z'. 

Glover     v. 

7'.    Grant,    pp.    325,    451,    452, 

453.  950,  971,  998,  1104,  1106. 
1110,    1352,    1468,    3366,    3392. 

Hanson    7'. 

7'.  Headland,  pp.  1542,  1551, 

1553,  1554. 

z\    Henry,  55  Kan.   715,  41 

Pac.  952,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
N.  S.  418,  29  L.  R.  A.  465— pp. 
2043,  2059,  2070,  3074. 

z:     Henry,  78  Kan.  490;  97 

Pac.  465,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  177 
—p.  744. 

7'.  Hinsdell,  p.  1164. 

•  V.      Hogue,   pp.   1598,   2468, 

3100. 

v.    Holloway,    pp.    1509,    1512, 

1518,    2151,    2152. 

7'.  Holmes,  p.  3760. 

7'.  Hughes,  pp.  1878,  2115. 

2249. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

V. 

V.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

182    Fed.    189— pp.    3820,    3821. 

7'.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

188  Fed.  229— pp.  536,  3728, 
3744,    3793. 

7'.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

190  Fed.  591- pp.  3670,  3672. 


Atchison,  Joerg  z\ 
V.    Johns,  p.  2539. 

V.     Johnson,  pp.  1548,  1551, 

2209,     2354. 

z\     Jordon     Stock     Food     Co., 

p.    480. 

Tustis  V. 

"Kiff    V. 

z:    Lambert,    pp.    1387,    1460. 

7'.    Lawler,    p.    848. 

Leslie    "■. 

z'.    Lindley,    p.    2525. 

V.     Loewe,    pp.     2361,     2820. 

Love    7'. 

z:   Love,    174   Fed.   59— p.    130. 

■  V.     Love,     23     Okla.     192,     99 

Pac.     1081— p.     128. 

Lusby    z'. 

McCabe  v. 

McCahe  7'. 

7'.   MacVeagh    '■. 

7'.   Madden,   etc.,   Co.,   pp.    746, 

834,     843. 

V.    Mason,    p.    973. 

Mathews   v. 

7'.    Means,    pp.    1483,    1484. 

Mendenhall    v. 

Merritt   Creamery   Co.   v. 

7'.    Miller,    p.    1007. 

Moore   z\ 

7'.    Moore,    p.    3761. 

Moorman    v. 

V.    Morris,    pp.    1087,    1098. 

V.    Nation,    pp.    1338,    1339. 

Noble    7'. 

V.     O'Connor,     p.     3555. 

Oklahoma  7'. 

Paddock  v. 

—  Palmer    v. 

—  V.    Parry,     p.     2866. 

—  Peck   7'. 

—  V.    People,    p.    215. 

—  V.  Poole,  pp.  1097,  1102, 
1419. 

— •  Prescott,  etc.,  R.   Co.  7'. 
— •  V.    Richardson,    p.    819. 

—  Roach   z\ 

—  v.  Roach,  pp.  3175.  3176, 
3180,  3181,  3182,  3315,  3316, 
3323. 

—  V.   Roberts,  p.  303. 

—  V.  Robinson,  pp.  3761,  3762, 
3840. 

—  7'.  Rodgers,  pp.  1051,  1368, 
1388,  3333. 

—  Rolfs    z: 

—  Rutherford,    p.    3394. 

—  Sachrowitz    v. 

—  Sauter    7'. 

—  Schloss   7'. 

—  '■.  Schriver,   pp.   477,   482, 
514,  517,  580. 
— •  Sewell  7'. 

—  f.  Shean,  pp.  1740,  }792, 
1793,  1964,  2272,  2273,  2275. 

—  Smith    7'. 

—  V.  Smythe,  pp.  858,  1025, 
1059,    3520. 

—  Star    Grain,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

—  State  7'. 

—  V.  State,  23  Okla.  210,  100 
Pac.    11— pp.    24,    125. 

—  7'.  State,  26  Okla.  166,  109 
Pac.    218— pp.    127,    141. 

—  z:  State,  28  Okla.  12,  115 
Pac.     1101— p.     118. 

—  7'.  State,  31  Okla.  767,  123 
Pac.    1065— p.    3502. 

— ■  V.  State,  33  Okla.  371,  125 
Pac.   721— p.    182. 

Stevens    7'. 

—  7'.    Stewart,    p.    3068. 

—  7'.  Superior  Refin.  Co.,  p. 
3774. 

— •  V.  Temple,  pp.  1107,  1423, 
1426. 

Linited    States   7'. 

7'.     United     States,     101     C.    C. 

A.  140,  718  Fed.  12— pp.  3623, 
3624,    3629,    3630. 

—  V.  United  States,  191  Fed. 
856— pp.    3675,    3699,    3722. 

—  V.  United  States,  203  Fed. 
56— pp.    3665,    3677. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXIX 


1498, 


1885, 


Atchison  v.  United  States,  232  U. 
S  199.  .34  S.  Ct.  291— pp.  3630, 
3631,   3666,   3670.    3764. 

V.    Veale   &    Co.,    p.    1354. 

Voslnirg   r. 

V.    Washlnirn,    pp.    945,     1361, 

1448,    1449,    1466. 

'.:      Weber,      pp.      1497, 

2419.     2420. 

Wichita    Sav.    Bank    v. 

V.    Wilkinson,    p.    3184. 

Wills    V. 

r.    Wood,    p.    2417. 

7'.    Worlcy,     pp.      1730, 

1967. 

V.    Wright,    pp.    1419,    1426. 

Aten,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Athanasaw     :•.      United     States,     p. 

3441. 
Athon,    Kvansville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Atkeson    :•.     Tackson,     p.     1488. 
Atkins    V.    Colbv.    pp.     1210,     1211, 

1212,     1228.    1229,    1232. 

Little    R'ock.    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Atkins    &•    Co.,    Steamboat    Co.    v. 
Atkins   Crocerv,   etc.,   Co..   Veitch   v. 
.A.tkinson   :•.   Mercer,    p.    2846. 

-•.     New     York     Transfer     Co., 

pp.     948.     950.     1054.     1065,     1069. 

Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

7'.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3458,    3510. 

V.    Southern   R.   Co.,   pp.    1626, 

24SS. 

V.  Wabash   R.    Co..   p.    1357. 

Atkinson    Tmprov.    Co.,    Sweedcn    v. 
Atkisson    V.    Steamboat    Castle    Gar- 
den,   pp.    563.    595,    596. 

Atlanta.    Old    Colony    Trust    Co.    v. 

•;■.    Old    Colony    Trust    Co.,    p. 

76. 

Atlanta  Baggage,   etc..   Co..   Kates  r. 

V.    Mizo,    pp.    512,    3139,    3140, 

3141. 

Atlanta     Consol.       St.     R.     Co.     v. 

Bates,     pD.      1524,      2277,      2297, 

2389,    2638,    2732. 
■ rt    Hardage,    pp.     2775 

3097. 

7'.       Keenv,      pp 

3025,    3030,    3088. 

White   7'. 

Atlanta    Nat.     Bank,     Southern     R. 

Co.  V. 
Atlanta    Sand,    etc.,    Co.,    Southern 

R.   Co.   7'. 
Atlanta    Stove   Works,    Southern    R. 

Co.   V. 
Atlanta    St.    Railroad,    Holly   v.  _ 
Atlanta    Terminal    Co.    v.    American 

Baggage,    etc.,    Co.,    p.    100. 
Atlanta,    etc..    Railroad.    Stiles    f. 
Atlanta,    etc.,   R.   Co.,   Branan   v. 
Brannon   v. 

Britton    7'. 

V.    Broome,   pp.   431.   721,   808, 

839,    948,    950,    1036.    1038. 

7'.    Bryant,    p.    2940. 

Brown    "'. 

Cole     -■. 

V.     Condor,     pp.     2040,     2057, 

3070,   3076. 

7-.    Crosby,   p.    2392. 

Davis  V. 

7'.    Dickerson,    pp.    1883,    1917 

Kvans   7'. 

Franklin    7'. 

7'.    r.ar.lner,    pp.    2369,    2370. 

Gasway    7-. 

Haralson,      pp.       2065. 

2125,    2227. 

7-.   Holcombe,    pp 


7-'.  Holcombe    &    Co.,    pp.    220, 


Horn^.         .    . 

Jacobs'    Pharmacy    Co.,    pp 


e.    pp 
s"    PI 
724,      739,     741,      752 
826,    876.    952,    1365 

7'.  Jarrett  7'. 

Jenkins    v. 


Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Kenny    v. 

Kenny    Co.    t'. 

McCord   V. 

McKcrall    v. 

Miller    V. 

Morrow    "'. 

Murphy   v. 

National     Bank     v. 

Ohlcn    V. 

Parris    v. 

V.    Potts,    p.    3095. 

Purvis    7'. 

;-  Sappington    v. 

'-  Sumrell    Z'. 

Tenhct    v. 

V.    Texas    Grate    Co.,    pp.    483, 

653,   865,   3253,   3279. 

Turley  v. 

Wilson   V. 

7'.    Wyly,    p.    2940. 

\tlanta,    etc..    Railway    v.    Wheeler, 

pp.   2285,   2349,   2374,   2380,   2911. 
.Atlantic,      Westphalen,-       etc.,       R. 

Co.    7'. 
Atlantic  &  N.  Car.  R.  Co..  Foard  r. 
.\tlantic    .Ave.    R.    Co.,    Cassidy    v. 

Morris    7-. 

Walker    f. 

Watkins  v. 

■  Whitbeck   v.  ^ 

.\tlantic    City    v.    Brown,    71    N.    J. 

L.    81,    58   Atl.    110— p.    1518. 
V.    Brown,    72    N.     J.    L.    207, 

62    Atl.    428— pp.   46,    84. 

7'.    Fonsler,    pn.    43,    85. 

.\tlantic   City    R.    Co.   v.    Clegg,    pp. 

1525,    2135,    2326,    2878.    2879. 

V.  Goodin,      pp.      2246,      2275, 

2276. 

V.     Kiefcr,     p.     2864. 

Laughlin   7'. 

Rogers    7'. 

.\tlantic  Coast  Line,  National   Lum- 
ber   Dealers   v. 

.Atlantic  Coast  Line  Co.,   Prentis  v. 
Atlantic   Coast   Line   Railroad,    Rich- 
ardson    7'.  ^  r,    ■ 

.Atlantic    Coast    Line   R.    Co.,    Bain- 
bridge    Grocery    Co.    v. 

Boss     7'. 

Bowden    v. 

Charles    v. 

Jenkins   v. 

Lowry   7'. 

Mazursky    v. 

Parnell    v. 

Penny   v. 

V.    Rice,    p.    1269. 

State    V. 

Von    Lehe   v. 

•  Watson    V. 

Winslow    Bros.    &    Co.    v. 

Atlantic    Compress    Co.    7'.    Central 

etc..    R'.    Co..    p.    963. 
Atlantic     Consol.     St.     R.     Co.     7' 

Kccnv,    p.    2481. 
.Atlantic    Exp.    Co.,    Seaboard,    etc.. 

Railway  7'. 

7'.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    108. 

.Atlantic    Ins.    Co.,    Conard   '■■ 
Atlantic   Mut.   Ins.   Co.   v.   McLoon. 

p.   211. 
Atlantic    Nav.    Co.    7.    Johnson,    pp. 

528.    531,    538,    539,    561.    903. 
.Atlantic   Railway.    Berrv  7'. 
.\tlantic,    etc..    Elect.    R.    Co.,    Oak- 

.Atlantic,    etc..    Railroad.    Caldwell  7'. 
Hopkins   7'. 

King    V. 

Moore    7'. 

Stiles    %: 

Wall   V. 

Wesner,    etc..    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

.Atlantic,   etc..   R.    Co.,    Acme   Paper 

Box    Factory   7'. 

.    .  .       .Abritton    &    Co.    f. 

805,     825,    Alexander  7'. 

-  .Anderson    7'. 

-  7'.    .Anderson,    p.    2148. 

-  Attorney    General    7. 


3083, 


1604,      2428, 


1076, 


1797.    2725. 


1139,    3744. 


Atlantic,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  Baker  v. 

Basnight  v. 

•  Bedsole    v. 

Bing   V. 

Black    V. 

Bowden    v. 

Bowdon    V. 

Box    V. 

Brick    V. 

Brown  v. 

Brunson    v.  . 

V.     Bryan,     pp.     1090,       llOi. 

1106,    1114,    1115. 

v.  Bryant,    p.    2857. 

Bullock   V. 

Burckhalter    v. 

P.urress   v.  ,,r     i  .     -. 

California    Powder    Works    v. 

Charles    v.  .„ 

,..    Coachman,    pp.    161,    Wjy, 

1292      13.50,      1400,     1402,      1432, 
1456!    1460. 

ZZ  .?Sn''&   Co.,   pp.    333,    337. 

338.    339,    341,    346. 
Colleton        Mercantile,         etc.. 

Co.  f. 

Commins    v. 

-Commonwealth    v. 

-;.        Commonwealth,     pp.      ^J. 

118.   3501. 
■  Cooper   7'. 

?°'' c'rosby,     pp.    2173,     2176. 

-~;^38-      2381,^616,     2629,     2640. 

2676,    2722. 

. Cummins    7'.  _ 

7'.     Dahlberg    Brokerage      Co.. 

pp.    343,    555,   570,   571,   586,   388. 

Darden   7'. 

— — ■  Davis   %: 
. •   Deans    7-. 

DeLorme    f. 

Deschamps    v. 

ZZ.  -!?"  Dexter,   pp.   341,   986,   1397. 

1^57.          ,  .  ,,,_ 
7'.    Dickinson,  p.   m>i- 

Dorsett    f. 

V.    Dothan  Mule     Co.,     pp. 

1362,    1376. 

Drawdy    7'. 

•  DuBose    V. 

Dunie    7'. 

Elliott  V. 

Ellis    V. 

7-.    Ellis,   pp.    116,    124. 

Farmers'       etc..   Cotton   Lo.  .. 

Farrell    7'. 

Florida    R.    Comm  rs    v. 

Foard  v. 

Ford    7'. 

Fulghum    7'. 

Fuller  7'. 

FuUerton    7. 

Garrett    7'. 

=  ?  G^aty,   pp.    219.    220. 

—  Gibson  v.  „,  .,,  .„, 
_  V.  Goodwin,  pp.  93,  53l,  383. 
595,   597. 

—  Green    Co.    7'. 

—  Griffin    7'. 
■ —  Grimsley    f. 
— ■  Guthrie    7'. 

—  Harvey   7'.  ,,-.. 

7'.    Henderson,    pp.    968,    3233. 

3284.    3350,    3400. 

—  Herring   7'. 

—  Hiers   7'. 

—  Huggins   7'.     ^        ,        „ 

—  7'.    Howard    Supply     Co.,     pp. 
319.    553,    595,    596.    600. 

—  Hunter   7'.  ^ 
7.           Interstate          Commerce 

Comm..   pp.   3791,   3792. 

!•.    Jacobs'    Pharmacy    Co.,    pp. 

757.    759. 

—  Jenkins  7-. 

Johnson   7'. 

7'.     Johnson,     pp.     2118,     2383. 

Jones  7'. 

Jones-Lane  Co.   v. 


cxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Kahn    i: 

King   Lumber,    etc.,    Co.   i-. 

Knowles    v. 

Floridienne,      etc.,      Co.,       So- 

ciete     Anonvme     r. 

r.    Laird',    58    Fed.    760,    7    C. 

C.     A.     489— p.     2570. 

r.    Laird,    17    S.    Ct.    120,    164 

U.    S.    393,    41     L.    Ed.     485— p. 
2571. 

Levan   v. 

Lipman    t'. 

Lupe    7-. 

McCord   z: 

McCullom   f. 

McCutchen     z: 

McKerall   v. 

McLarin    f. 

McLean    <■. 

McNeill    f. 

Macon    Grocery   Co.   "'. 

z:     Macon     Grocery     Co.,     pp. 

3766,    3822,    3840. 

McRackan    f. 

Mazursky     i'. 

z:    Mazursky,    pp.    3523,    3545. 

Meeks    '•. 

z:   Meinhard,   etc.,   Co.,   p.   491. 

Meyer   ;■. 

Milhous   V. 

Mills    V. 

Moore    z'. 

Nelson  v. 

North    Carolina    Corp.    Comm. 

V.  North  Carolina  Corp.  Coram., 

pp.  34,  38,  58,   103,   104. 

Owens   V. 

z:   Owens,    p.    2509. 

Parker    z: 

Parker    Buggy    Corp.    z: 

Parrott   z\ 

z:    Partridge,   p.   489. 

Peele   z: 

Pelot   V. 

Penny    v. 

Perrv   z: 

Philips    z: 

Phillips    f. 

Pincus    V. 

z:   Pipkin,   p.   2673. 

Post    v. 

V.    Potts,    p.    3010. 

v.     Powell,     pp.      1828,     1938, 

1939,     2020,     2160,     2600,.     2601, 
2632,   2633. 

Rabon  v. 

Railroad    Comm'rs    v. 

z:     Rice.     pp.     208,     244,     757, 

820,   826,    1345. 

-•.    Richardson,    p.    3364. 

Riverside    Mills    v. 

z:     Riverside    Mills,    pp.     731, 

3444,     3464,     3469,     3470,     3603, 
3604. 

Roberts  v. 

Robertson    v. 

Roundtree   v. 

Rountree  v. 

Ruffin    v. 

Sanders    f. 

-■.    Schirmer   &    Sons,   p.    3286. 

Scull    &    Co.    V. 

Sellers  v. 

Smith   V. 

Southerland    v. 

Spires    V. 

z:    Spires,    pp.    348,    349,    552, 

588. 

State    V. 

v.    State,    p.    3506. 

Stone    &    Co.    v. 

Strange  v. 

Stuckey    v. 

Sumrell   v. 

Sumter   Pine,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

Taylor   v. 

Thomas    v. 

Towles    V. 

Tuten    V. 

United   States  v. 

Vassor    z\ 

Venning    v. 


.\tlantic.     etc..      R.     Co.,      Virginia- 
Carolina    Peanut    Co.    Z'. 
•   \"on    Lehe    v. 

Wagner   z\ 

z:  Ward.  pp.    1083,   1092,   3469. 

Watson   >'. 

Webb   z: 

Weinberg    v. 

.\tlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Wells,  pp. 
437,    632. 

Westphalen   z'. 

Whaley  v. 

'■.    Wharton,    pp.    3514,    3516. 

Wilkins    V. 

Williams   f. 

Wilson    ''. 

Winslow    Bros.     &    Co.    v. 

Wright   z\ 

Atlantic,  etc..  Steamship  Co.  •:■. 
Guggenheim,  123  Fed.  330 — pp. 
3953,     3973. 

. ■  Z-.    Guggenheim,    147    Fed.    103, 

77    C.    C.    A.   329— pp.    3957,   3973. 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Supply  Co.,  Southern 
R.    Co.   z:       • 

Atlantic,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  z:  Philadel- 
phia,   pp.    3552,    3553,    3559,    3572. 

Western   Union   Tel.    Co.   v. 

.\tlas.   The. 

Atlas      Portland      Cement      Co.      ■;-'. 

Dougherty,    p.   3908. 
Atlas    Steamship   Co.,    Calderon   z: 

Wamsley    v. 

Attorney  General  f.  .Atlantic,  etc., 
K.    Co.,   pp.    59,    61. 

V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

66,    131,    134,    1197. 

■ V.     Delaware,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

3651,    3652,    3653,    3654. 

v.   Electric      Storage       Battery 

Co.,     p.     3558. 

z:  Hobart,    p.    3342. 

?■.     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3817. 

■  •;•.     Missouri    Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3539. 

z:   Old   Colony   R.    Co.,    pp.    22. 

61,    3500. 

z\      St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3539. 

T'.   The  Mid-Kent   Railway   Co., 

p.     3658. 

V.     Union     Stock     Vard,     etc., 

Co..    pp.    3469,    3612,    3613,    3616, 
3690,    3817,    3827,    3835. 

Atwater   z\    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    211,    1492,    1500. 
.\twell    z:    Miller,    p.    337. 
.Atwood   v.    Mohler,    pp.    3114,    3115, 

3127,    3130. 

V.    Reliance    Transp.    Co.,    pp 

3161,   3166. 

■;■.     Washington    Water     Power 

Co.,   p.   2329. 

Auburn,    etc..    Elect.    R.    Co.,    Dwyer 

Weeks   z'. 

Auburn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     Dwyer    '■. 

.Vuchincloss,    Gans    z\ 

.\udenried    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    220,    1179. 
Auditor   General,   Fargo   v. 
Auerbach     z:     New     York,     etc.,     K. 

Co.,    p.    1624. 

7'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    1625. 

Aufdenberg    z:    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1961,    2125,    2127. 
Augusta,    Cosgrove    v. 
.\ugusta-Aiken    R.   Co.,   Ussery  zk 
.\ugusta     Brokerage     Co.,     Central, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.    Central,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

84,    136,    138. 

V.     Central,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 

3541. 

.\ugusta     R.     Co.     z\     Glover,     pp. 

1803,    1804,    1829,    2298. 
Augusta    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z:    Lyle,    p. 

1993. 

z:     Smith,     p.     2857. 

Augusta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Christian    z'. 

City    Council    '•. 

Funderburg    v. 


.\ugusta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Funer- 
burg    z\ 

Mcintosh     z: 

Mitchell  v. 

Patterson  z\ 

z:    Randall,    79    Ga.    304,    4    S. 

E.     674 — pp.     2676. 

z:   Randall,    85    Ga.    297,    11    S. 

E.    706— p.    2766. 

?'.     Renz,     p.     2173. 

•  Richardson    f. 

Seals     z\ 

v.      Snider,  pp.  2173,  2174, 

2175,  2218,  2249,  2250,  2252, 
2342.  2357. 

Tompkins  '■. 

\'lasservitch    "'. 

z\    Wrightsville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3613.    3707. 

.\ugustus  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1721,  2011,  2012,  2013,  2072, 
2659. 

Auld  z:  Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  2220, 
2221,    2296,   2339. 

Ault   V.    Cowan,   p.    2674. 

.Quitman  Engine,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago,  etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp.    640,   3278. 

Aultman,  etc..  Machinery  Co., 
Standefer     v. 

Aurora,   E.   &   C.   R.   Co.,   Ruch  '.'. 

.\urora,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Moore   v. 

•  Ruch   z: 

z:   Ruch,  pp.   1562,   1745,   1986. 

Ausk    v.     Great    Northern    R'.     Co., 

pp.    1449,    1460. 
.\ustin,     Chesapeake,     etc.,     K.     Co. 

z:     Great     Western     R.      Co., 

pp.    211,    1566,    1577. 

Griggs     '•. 

Low   z: 

Parmelee    Z'. 

Robinson    7'. 

z:    St.    Louis,    etc..   Packet   Co., 

749,    770,    783. 

z\     St.     Louis,     etc..     R.     Co., 
1526.       1530,       1689,       1735, 
9,    1870,    2609,    2613. 
Savannah,     etc.,     R.     Co..     v. 

'■.    State,   p.    3428. 

z:   Talk,   pp.    344,    1173. 

V.    Tennessee,    pp.    3427,    3428, 

3528.     3539. 

Travelers'    Ins.    Co.    v. 

■:•.     Washington    Water     Power 

Co..    pp.    1743,    2912. 

.\ustin-.Stephenson    Co.    v.    Southern 

R.     Co..     pp.     1083,     1087,     1100, 

1101,    1412. 
.\ustin,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•.    Slator,    pp. 

442,    448,    1273,    1276. 
.\ustro-.\mericana     Line,     Haaga     z: 
.\ustro- American       Steamship       Co., 

Ramjak    z\ 

Smith    z'. 

.\uthur   V.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

952,    953. 
.\utomatic     Merchandising      Co.      v. 

Delaware,   etc.,  Co.,  46  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.    648— p.    574. 

z'.     Delaware,     etc.,     Co.,     233 

Pa.    581,    82    .\tl.    939— pp.     573, 
574. 

.Vutrey     f.     Georgia,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

865. 
Avant.    Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z: 
Averill    z:    McCook,    pp.    2089.    2090. 
.\verv   z\    New   York    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.'   191,    196,    1636,    1637. 

Texas,    etc.,   R.    Co.   z\ 

.\vey   z'.    Atchison,    etc.,    K.    Co..    p. 

2621. 
.\vey    7'.     Galveston,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2287,    2619. 
.\vinger   v.    South   Carolina    R.    Co., 

pp.   211,  221,  237,  265,  868,   1175, 

1180,    1188. 
.\vis,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 
.■\von,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Curtis   r. 
.Axtell,    Reed    7'. 

.\ydlett,    etc.,     Co.,     Treadwell    v. 
.\yers.    Ainis    7'. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.     Co.    7'. 


pn. 


pp. 
178 


TAI5LE    OF    CASES. 


CXXI 


Co 


■  71 
Am. 
741, 


Avers     V.     Rochester     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1688,    2893. 
Aylward   f.    Smith,   p.   709. 
Aymar  r.    .\stor,   p.    768. 
Ayres,     Bcebe    r. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Wis   372,    n    N.    W.    -43 
St.      RVp.      226— pp.      211. 
1271,     1307,     1322,     1451. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     73 

Wis.  215,  43  N.  W.  1122-pp. 
1322,    1480.  ^,     ^ 

%'.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2790.  .     .  „     „ 

Mississippi,   etc.,  K.    Lo.    .. 

. Morris,    etc.,    R.  Co.    r. 

Texas  Trunk   R.  Co.   r. 

V.  Western   R.    Corp.,   pp.   963, 

1007.    3161. 

Ayres    etc  ,   Co.   v.   Dorscy   Produce 
Co.,'   pp.    366.    369. 
T'. 
Babcock,    Calahan    :•.  _ 

V.   Herbert,   pp.    H,    /68 

V.  Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N.  Y.),  43  How.  Prac.  31/ — 
p.    3383.  „      _ 

1_  V.  Lake    Shore,    etc..    R.    Co., 

49  N.  Y.  491— pp.  429,  3252, 
3345,    3383,    3384. 

V.   Los      Angeles      Tract.      Co., 

pp.    2176.    2193,    2355. 

May    "'. 

V.    May.    pp.    328,    331,    333. 

7'.   Orbison,    p.    302. 

People    V. 

Ulman,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Bachant    v.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

pp.    530,    537.  ^     .  ,      ^. 

Bacharach  v.   Chester   Freight  Line, 

pp.    516,   636.  ^  ,  .      ^ 

Bachman    v.    Clyde    Steamship    Lo., 

pp.    4032,    4033.  I 

Backer  v.    Flagg,    p.    511. 
Backhaus    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    K.    <^o., 

pp.    529,    531,    897,    905. 
Backhouse   v.    Snced.   p.    728. 
Backman    v.     Charlestown,     p.     634. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.    ?■. 

Backus,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

Indiarapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

Bacon  r.  Casco  Bay  Steamboat  Co., 

P-    3994.  ^     ^ 

r.  Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  pp. 

607,    608,    618,    690,    1049. 

V.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2150. 

;■.    Ennis,    p.    3968. 

V.   Pullman      Co.,      pp.       3221, 

i222,    3228,    3242. 

Badcock  v.  Los  Angeles  Tract.   Co., 

p.    2234.  ^      ^ 

Baddeley,    Toledo,    etc..     R.     Co.    v. 

T.   W.   &  W.   R.    Co.   r. 

Baden.   Missouri   Pac.    R.   Co.   v. 
Badcnhoop,    Savannah    IClect    Co.    f. 
Bader     '■.     Southern     Pac.     Co.,     p. 

3104.  „ 

Bading     v.     Milwaukee     Elect.  R.. 

etc..    Co.,    p.    2908. 

Badovinac    v.     Northern      Pac.  K 

Co.,    p.    2616. 

Baer,    Baltimore    City    Pass.    R.  Co 


Bagwell,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co     r. 
Bahn    Diamond,    etc.,    Co.,    Mallory 

Steamship   Co.    r. 
Bahn,     etc..     Optical     Co.,     Mallory 

Steamship    Co.    v. 
Bahr,    Vogil    v.  r>     r       ~ 

Baier,    Missouri    Pac.    K.    *-o.    . . 
Bailey    v.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.    2151.  „      „ 
V.  Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    p. 

547.  „       ^ 
r.    Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.   2031.  ^      ^ 

Midland    \'alley    R.    Co.    i'. 

San    .Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v- 

r.     Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2280. 
V.   Shaw,    pp.    480,    481. 

Southern     Exp.     Co.    v. 

Southern   Pac.    Co.   ?•. 

.  r.     Tacoma     Tract.     Co.,     pp. 

2000,     2343.  ,^^^ 

V.   The    Sonora,    P-    1940. 

Bainbridge    v.     Union    Tract.      <-o., 

pp.  2192,  2195. 
Bainbridge    Grocery   Co.   7'    Atlantic 

Coast   Line   R.   Co.,  p.   277. 
Baines,    Darby    f. 

Baird,    Birmingham   R.,   etc.,   Co.    .. 
V.  Erie    R.    Co.,   p.    1203. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 


Den 


York,      etc.. 


Baer     Bros.     Mercantile     Co. 
ver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

r.   Denver,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     200 

Fed.    614— p.    3671. 

T.   Denver,     etc., 

U.     S.    479,     34     S. 
3660,     3785. 

Baer      &      Co.,      New 

Transp.     Line    i'. 
Bacrmann   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2825.    2835. 
Bagard,     Illinois     Cent.     K.     Co.     v. 
Bagbv,    Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 
Bacgage    Transp.     Co.,    Garrison    z: 
liacectt    T'.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2431.    2450.    2459.    2462. 
Baglcv.    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 
Baglev     Elevator     Co.     r.     .\mcncan 

Exp.   Co.,  p.   916. 


Baker   v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

989 
J..  Boston,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     PP 

5     219     2092.    2093,    2104. 

-  i:  Brinson,    pp.    1036,    1039. 

V.    Brooklyn    Union    Elev.    K. 

Co.,    p.    2054.  ■ 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    93 

Iowa     163,     63     N.     W.     667— p. 

2615.  T,  n          as 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.  Co.,    98 

Iowa  438,     67     N.     W.  376— p. 

600.  ^.  „        n_ 

■  V.  Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co..     9/ 

N.     W.     650,     91     Minn.     118— p. 
1475 
f.  Clark,    pp.    1785,    2872. 

Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  i: 

Gittings     r. 

r.  Intcrurban     St.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2904. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    .. 

T.   Louisville,      etc.,       R.      Co., 

pp.    7,    729.    1267,    1269. 

r.   Maher,     p.     7. 

r.  Manhattan       R.       Co.,       pp. 

1890,    2219. 

r.  Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

324,    997,    1049. 

;..   Missouri    Pac.    R,    Co.,    pp. 

ifOO,    3343. 

■  Munn    f. 

.  z:  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2790. 

Omaha    St.    R.    Co.    f. 

Paducah    Tract.    Co.    r. 

Robinson   ''• 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    K.    Co.    r. 

r.   St.      Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    215,    621,    622. 

Wabash   River   Tract   Co.   f. 

Wait   r.  ,_„ 

Baker  Co.   f.   Brown,   pp.   329,   3340. 
Baker    &    Co.    v.    New    \ork     etc., 

R.   Co.,   162   Fed.   496— p.   3913. 

f.     New    York,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

168   Fed.    248— p.    3920. 

Baker    Wire    Co.    r.    Chicago,    etc., 

R.    Co..    p.    137. 
Baldauf,    Camden,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■: 
Baldoni,    Georgia.    R.    Co.    r. 
Baldosta    St.    R.    Co.    r.    Fenn.    p. 

2885. 
Baldraff   r.    Camden,   etc..    Railroad, 

p.   3129. 
Baldwin,    American    Exp.    Co.    z: 

z:   American      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

523,    534. 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '••^„, 

z:  Collins,    pp.   759,    7o3,    1003, 

1005,    1007,    1008. 


Baldwin   Dixon  f. 

f.   Fair    Haven,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

P-    2026.  ^       ,     Tz.     n 

Baldwin    v.    Grand    Tru"k    R.    Co., 
87    N.    W.    380,    128    Mich.    417— 

-L-ffcrand     Trunk     R.     Co.      64 

N.   H.   596,   15   Atl.    411— p.   2479. 
i<    Great      Northern      K.      Co., 

pp.   620,    3278. 
LL  -,     Liverpool,    etc..    Steamship 

Co., 'pp.    1137,    1140,    1142 
r.  New     York,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

630.  ^     ^ 

People's   R.    Co.   f. 

7.     People's    R.    Co.,    pp.    1694, 

1736,    1741,    1981,    2034,    2772. 
7.    Seaboard,       etc..       Railway, 

pp.    2060,    2061,    2494 
— —  7'.   Sullivan     Timber     Co.,     p. 

612. 
Vinton  7'. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R-    Co.    f. 

Baldwin,   etc..    Land   Co.   r    Colum- 
bia,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp.    1200     373I. 

Bales,    Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    c: 
Balfour,   Oregon   R.,   etc.,   Co.   z: 
Balfour,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Poi:*'^"^.  etc 

Steamship    Co..     pp.     3869,     387,J, 

3874. 
Balk,    Harris  z-. 
Ball,    Galveston,    etc.,   R-    co.    t. 

Illinois    Cent.     R-    Co.    v. 

-  z:  Mabry,        pp.       1749.       1732, 
1755,     1756,     1757,     1989. 

Mills     7'.  ^       „ 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7.    Mobile,     etc.,     R.     Co..     pp. 

1566,     2892.  ^  u     »   <-„ 
-.    New   Tersey   Steamboat  Co., 

pp.   267,   273,   277,   280,   285. 
— —  New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co     z: 
7..  Grand    Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

1546.  „     - 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R-    CO.    . . 

7'    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1381,     1468. 
Ballantine,    Daniels    r. 
Ballard   z:    Cincinnati,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.     1851,     2846. 

Louisville,  etc..   R-   Co.   7. 

Ballentine     z:     ^'o^th  ,  ^^'^^^i""  , j^" 

Co.,     pp.     211,     236,     242,      246, 
Vs2    621,   733,   738,    1320,    1321. 

Ballou    7'.    Earle,    pp.    987,    1074. 

Baltimore,    Gunther    7'. 

Guy    z'. 

P.   C.    St.   L.   R.   Co.   z: 

The.  „ 

Baltimore     City     Pass.     K. 

Baer,    pp.    2876,    28/7. 

7'.  Kemp,   p.    2303. 

7'.   Nugent,      pp.      1/40,      2922, 

7.'    Wilkinson,     pp.      197.     199, 

203,    2122,    2123,    2147,    2245. 

Baltimore  Consol.  R.  Co.  7".  Arm- 
strong,   p.    2373. 

7..     Rifcowitz,    pp.     2333,     2334. 

Baltimore   Ins.   Co.,   Caze  z: 

Baltimore     R.      Co.,     Stewart     z: 

Baltimore  Steam  _Packet  Co.  z: 
Patterson,    p.    3877. 

7'.      Smith,      pp.      3120,      3121, 

3129.     3183,    3184. 

Tall    z:  ^     , 

Baltimore    Tract    Co.,    Cooke    z: 

7'.  Helms,    p.    227/. 

7'.   State,    pp.    1520     2138. 

Baltimore,    etc..    Barge    Co     '"•    f-^st- 

ern    Coal    Co.,    pp.    ^046     40/0. 
Baltimore,    etc..    Co.    z:    O  Donnell, 
P-    654. 

7'.   Rathbone.    p.    814. 

Baltimore,  etc..   Exp.   Co.  f.   Cooper, 

pp.    1097,    1102.  .     I,     , 

Baltimore,   etc..    R.   Co..   Ambach   z: 

Baggett    7-. 

7'.   Bambrey,     pp. 

3080.    3084. 

Bankard    7'. 

7'.  Barger,      pp.      2048, 

2064,    2770.    3071. 


Co. 


2461.     3078. 


2055, 


CXXIl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Barlick   v. 

Barnum    i\ 

Beasley    z-. 

■  Bevis    7-. 

f.    Blocher,   p.    2122. 

Boggctt    r. 

Boseley   z: 

Bosley  z\ 

Bostwick   z\ 

Bowie     z\ 

z:   Bradv,    pp.    945,    982,    1003, 

1006,    1007,    1036. 

•;•.   Breinig,    pp.     1501,     1711. 

Burch    f. 

z:    Burris,    p.    2090. 

z:   Cain,    p.    2063. 

z:   Campbell,     pp.     326,      1612, 

3162.      3163,      3164,      3175,      3176, 
3177.     3178,     3181,     3192. 

Canfield   r. 

Carpenter    v. 

z:   Carr,     pp.     190,     200,     1636, 

1851. 

■ ■:■.   Chambers,    p.    1792. 

Z-.   Christie,     p.     836. 

•;•.   Clift,   pp.    1286,    1330,    1451, 

3273.    3284,    3301,    3400,    3408. 

Cornette    <:•. 

f.    Co.x,     p.     2521. 

Coyle   f. 

Croft  '■. 

Cully   '•. 

z'.   Davis,    44    Ind.    App.     375, 

89    X.     E.    403— pp.     1662,    203S, 
2046,    2054. 

v.  Davis     (Pa.),    9     Sad.     147, 

12   Atl.    335— p.    1251. 

z:   Dever,   pp.   1330.   1333, 

1477. 

f.    Diamond    Coal    Co.,    pp.    89, 

1184,    1188. 

Doyle    v. 

'•.    Doyle,    pp.    960,    965,    966, 

982,    1004,    1007,    1049. 

Duggan    V. 

z:   Duke,       pp.       2101,       2104, 

2105. 

''.    Evans,       pp.       1616,       1618, 

1632.    1633,    2442. 

Fadley    z\ 

Farmers'    Loan,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Farris    v. 

V.   Fisher,    pp.     700,     701,     704, 

706,     707,     708,     709,     711,     717, 
782. 

Flanagan    z'. 

Flannery    '■. 

'•.   Fox.     pp.     821,     828,     1329, 

1365.    1456,    1457. 

Gledhill-Wall   Paper  Co.   z: 

Goodwin    i'. 

Green    z\ 

v.   Green,    pp.     536,     896,     900, 

903. 

v.  Hamburger,    p.    3763. 

v.  Harbin,   p.   2603. 

Hart    v. 

z:  Hauer,    pp.     1794.     1969. 

V.   Hausman,    p.    2975. 

Hess    V. 

Hostetter    z\ 

'■.  Hubbard,    1    O.    C.    C,    X. 

S.,  611,  12-25  O.  C.  D.  477— pp. 
947,    949,    1076,    1090. 

V.  Hubbard,     72     O.     St.     302, 

74  X.  E.  214,  16  R.  R.  R.  71, 
39  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
71— pp.    1054,    1107,    1422. 

t'.   Hudson,     117     Ky.    995,     25 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  2154,  80  S.  W. 
454 — pp.    1628,    1629.    1630,    3013. 

z:  Hudson,    29     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

298,   92   S.   W.   947— p.    3059. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 


—  T'.  Interstate  Commerce 
Comm.,  pp.  3430,  3457,  3458, 
3459,    3460,    3461,    3464. 

—  -'.  Jean,    pp.    2362,    2905. 

Tones    V. 

z:   Kane,    69    Md.    11,    13    Atl. 

387,     9     Am.     St.     Rep.     387— pp. 
2150,    2152. 


Baltimore,    etc.,    R.      Co.     z:      Kane     B 
(Md.),    17    Atl.    1032— p.    2375. 

Kean    z'. 

z:  Keedy,   pp.   844,   871. 

Keller     v. 

Kent   f. 

f.    Kent,    p.    2441. 

z:  Kirby,   88   Md.  409,  41   Atl. 

777— pp.    2851,    3027. 

z:   Kirby,   46   Atl.  975,   91    Md. 

313— p.    2713. 

f.    Kleespies,     p.     2083. 

z:  La  Due,   112  X.   Y.   S.  964, 

128     App.     Div.     594- pp.     3753, 
3811. 

f.  La     Due,     108     X.     Y.     S. 

659,      57      Misc.      Rep.      614 — pp. 
3752,    3761,    3777. 

■;'.   Leapley,     p.     1870. 

z:  Lee,    p.    2187. 

McCann    v. 

z'.  McDonald,    pp.    2417,    2426. 

McGraw    f. 

McKain    v. 

-  z\  McKenzie,  pp.  1577,  2128, 
2261,    2289. 

-  •;■.  McLaughlin,  pp.  2092, 
2098. 

-  z:   Mahone,    p.     1514. 

-  Marye  z: 

-  z:  Maryland,    p.    3575. 
— -  Maslin    v. 

-  Mills    -.'. 

-  Modern    Match   Co.    v. 

-  r.  Moon,    p.    4003. 

-  Moore    z\ 

-  z:  Morehead,  pp.  499,  500, 
512,  529,  533,  593,  729,  734. 
745,  750,  765,  804,  822,  825. 
826,  887,  889,  897,  899,  910,  912, 
1039. 

— •  v.  Mullen,  217  111.  203,  75 
X.  E.  474,  2  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S., 
115.  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
1015— pp.     2126,     2256. 

— -  ■;•.  Mullen,  120  111.  App.  88— 
p.     1919 

Xational     Bank    •:■. 

Xational    Tube    Works    Co.    z'. 

z\  Xew   Albany   Bo-x,   etc.,   Co.. 

pp.    3753,     3759. 

r.   Xoell,       pp.        1718,       1721, 

1726,    1810,    1821,    2673,    2694. 

r.  Xorris,       pp.       1544,       1546, 

2429,     2473. 
•  v.  Xugent,      pp.      1684.      1687. 

1712,     1722,     1846. 

z:  O'Donnell,     pp.      500,      514, 

517,  533,  573,  574,  577,  578, 
579,  580,  584,  596,  626,  630, 
634,   650,   660,   782. 

O'Xeil     z: 

z'.   Oriental    Oil    Co.,    pp.    836, 

861,    1040,    1059. 

People   z'. 

— —  Pitcairn    Coal    Co.    z'. 
•  T'.   Pitcairn       Coal       Co. 

3764,      3769,     3804,      3805. 
3817. 

r.   Pixley,      pp.        1854, 

3103. 

z\    Pumphrey,     pp.      518 

594,    595,   848. 

Quarrier    '•. 

?■.  Ragsdale,      pp.      814, 

1405,    1443. 

V.  Rambo,     pp.     2085.     2087. 

V.  Rathbone,      pp.      327.      337 

434,  723.   805,  806,  812,  987,  949 
1054,    1075. 

Ricketts    v. 

Robinson    v. 

Roderick    v. 

v.  Rose,    p.    2504. 

V.  Ross,    pp.    1084,    1087. 

Ruddell    V. 

v.  Rudv,       pp.       2583,        2584. 

2606,    2767,    2961. 

z\    Samuels,    p.    712. 

Sandusky-Portland  Cement 

Co.  z: 


altimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v.  Schu- 
macher, pp.  816,  841,  842,  910, 
911.  3286,  3289,  3300,  3360. 

- —  z\    Schwinding,  p.  2503. 

-  ■;'.  Sheridan,  p.  1696. 

-  Shore  &  Bro.  v. 

— ■  z:    Skeels,  pp.  814,  946,  1054. 

Smith  z: 

z:   Sperber  &  Co.,  p.  659. 

V.   State',  60  Md.  449,  12  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  149— pp.  1531, 
1746,  1792,  2273,  2275. 

V.     State,  63  Md.   135 — pp. 

2136,  2673. 

V.   State,  72  Md.  36,  18  Atl. 

1107,  6  L.  R.  A.  706,  20  Am. 
St.  Rep.  454— pp.  1953,  2212. 

z:   State,  81  Md.  371,  32  Atl. 

201— pp.  2275,  2732. 

Stewart  v. 

v.   Swann,  pp.   1746,   1755, 

1826,  2673. 

z:   Thornton,   pp.   194,   195, 

2411,  2412,  2464,  2565. 

V.   Trader,   pp.   2348,   2375, 

2376,  2378,  2383,  2384,  2969. 

Trexler  v. 

United    States'  ■;■. 

-  z'.  United     States,     p.     3735. 
•  Voight   ?'. 

•;■.   Voight,    pp.    214,    930,    947, 

977,    1575,    1578,    1579,    2105. 

■  Waring    &    Co.    v. 

Warner    z\ 

Washington   z\ 

v.   White,    p.    2899. 

-,,,   Whitehill,      pp.      217, 

1303,      1321,       1406, 
1462,      1463,      1468, 
1481,    1482. 
Whittington,    p.    2569. 
Wightman,    pp.    1715, 
1726,    1821,    2673. 
Wilkens,      pp.       294, 
305,     306,     307, 


243. 

1459, 

1480, 


1722 


228, 
1458, 
1471, 


1721, 


308, 
356, 


301, 
310, 
370, 


etc..        Lumber 


pp. 


pp. 


1450, 


1687, 


pp. 
3810, 


3060, 


519, 


1087, 


302, 

315,    331,    338,      339 
3312. 
Williams   z\ 

Williamsport, 

Co.    z: 

Wilson    V. 

Winters    z\ 

-^—  Wood    V. 

V.  Wood    &      Co 

3314. 

Woodford   z'. 

V.  Worthington, 

1711,  1726,  1813,  2695. 

Baltimore,    etc..    Railway,    Bank    v. 
Baltimore,     etc..     Steamboat     Co.    v. 
Brown,    pp.    337,    417,    3255. 

Merchants'    Xat.    Bank    v. 

Scott    V. 

Baltimore,    etc..    Turnpike    Road    z: 
Boone,    pp.   69,    1598,    3090,    3091. 

z'.   Cason,      pp.       2122,       2123, 

2177,    2801. 

V.   Leonhardt.    pp.     1722,    1817, 

1819,    2218.    2353,    2673. 

B.   &   B.    Turnpike,    People   z: 
B.   &  O.   R.   Co.,   Ambach  v. 

z'.  Dougherty,    p.    2334. 

.Johnson    v. 

Maslin    z'. 

V.  Reed.    pp.    2417,    2418 

Bamberg     v.    International     R. 

p.    2700. 

V.   South    Carolina    R.    Co 

854,    1329. 

Bambrey,       Baltimore,         etc., 

Co.    z: 
Bancroft   v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp., 

p.    2273. 


Co., 

,   PP- 

R. 


1166. 
Merchants'    De- 
Co.,      pp.      3264, 


Peters,    p 
Bancroft    &    Co. 

spatch    Transp., 

3301.    3377. 
Bancroft-Whitney 

Coast    Steamship    Co.    z-. 
Pacific    Coast,    etc.,    Co 


Co.,        Pacific 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXIII 


Bandy,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Bangor,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    Colbath    v. 

Pamroy    -'. 

Bangs,    Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Lowber   v. 

V.  Lowler,    p.    3865. 

Merchant's    Xat.    Bank   v 

Bank    v.    Adams    Kxp.    Co.,    pp-    3, 

7,  499,  726,  731,  739,  769,  ";9, 
781,  930,  931,  947,  952,  9.';3, 
9S4,  958,  959,  962,  977,  1011, 
1024,    3880,    3448. 

V.   American      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

.477,    492,    590,    591,    592. 

V.   Baltimore,      etc.,      Rail>".-av, 

p.    555. 

Bast    V. 

V.   Brown,     p.     10. 

V.  Cooper,     p.     3872. 

V.   Doyle,     p.     914. 

Freeman    v. 

Goetz  V. 

t».  Jones,    pp.     350,     353,     363. 

369. 

V.   Tones    Cotton    Co.,    pp.    394, 

395,    396. 

Means  v. 

New     York     Cent.,     etc.,      R. 

Co.  V. 

V.  New    YorK,    etc.,     R.      Co., 

p.   310.   313,   343,   360,   3879. 

Phillips  V. 

Second   Nat.   Bank  v. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    v. 

V.   Southern    Exp.    Co.,    p.    867. 

Bankard   v.    Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  1037,  1389. 
Banker,  Field  v. 
Banks   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1285. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co..     pp. 

839,    1115. 

Banner,    Ex    parte. 

Banner  Grain  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
ern   R.    Co.,    pp.    220,    541. 

Bannerman,  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    V. 

TJanning,   Wingard   v. 

Bansenier  v.  Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co., 
pp.  534,  536,  727,  732,  748.  894, 
899,    3170. 

Bante  f.  Metropolitan  St.  R'.  Co., 
p.    2820. 

Baralong,    The. 

Barber  v.  Brace,  pp.  333.  3905, 
3906. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2100. 

Meyerstein    v. 

Lazarus    '■. 

Minnesota  v. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

V.  Vlasto,    p.    3888. 

Western    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Barber   &   Co.   v.   Wheeler,   p.    3312. 
Barbour.    Jensen    -■. 

Melendy    v. 

T'.   South    Eastern    R.    Co..    pp. 

753     757. 

Barclay    v.'  Clyde,    p.    892. 

Coosa  River  Steamboat 

Co.    V. 

Hammonds    -■. 

Southern    R.    Co.   v. 

Bard    T'.     Pennsylvania    Tract.    Co.. 

p.    2173. 
Barden   v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2353. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Bardwell     -•.    American     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    1087,   1103. 

V.   Mobile,     etc.,     R.      Co..      p. 

2256. 

Bare    f.    American    Forwarding    Co.. 

p.    7. 
Barfield.   Georgia,   etc..    R.    Co.    '•. 

Southern     R'.     Co.     ■:■. 

Barger.    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■z'. 

Baring  v.    Clark,    p.    6n. 


Bark    Edwin,    The. 
Barker   v.    Brown,    p.    714. 

V.   Central    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    196,    199,    1603,    2428. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    243 

111.  482.  35  R.  R.  R.  470,  58 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  470, 
90  N.  E.  1057,  26  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,    1058— p.    1576. 

V.  Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    149 

111.    App.   520— pp.    1575,   2697. 

V.       Coflin.     pp.      1620,      1622, 

1624,    1973,    2447. 

V.  Havens,     pp.      1148.      1149, 

1150. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R'.     Co.. 

pp.    1968.    1969,    2351. 

-'.   Ohio      River      R.      Co.,      p. 

2132. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 

Rex    V. 

Smith    V. 

— —  V.  The    Swallow,    p.    3910. 
Barker   &    Co.    v.    Glascow,    pp.    633, 

682. 
Barker-Bond    Lumber    Co.    v.    Penn- 
sylvania   R.    Co.,    pp.    3892,    3973. 
Barkhouse,       Louisville,       etc.,       R. 

Co.   f.      .     . 
Barklcy,    Cincinnati,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Barkman     v.    Pennsylvania    R.     Co.. 

pp.    2080,    2081. 
Barksdale,    Virgiilia   Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 
Barlett     :>.    The     Philadelphia,      pp. 

533,    534. 
Barlick    v.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1687.    2016.   2027,   2029,   2034, 

2666,    2675,    2786. 
Barlow     v.     Jersey     Citv.     etc..     R. 

Co..   pp.    1521.   1556,   2147. 
— — •   Southern    R.    Co.    t'. 
Barnaby,    Brittan    7\ 

V.   State,    p.    3583. 

Barnard    v.    Campbell,    p.     1225. 
Goddard    "'. 

•  '•.      Kobhe.    p.    573. 

Philadelphia,    etc..     R'.     Co.     -■. 

•   Pojiham    -•. 

Barnes.    Brown   v. 

V.   Danville    St.    R..    etc..    Co., 

pp.  1682,  1742,  2166,  2340, 
2671.  2674.  2764,  2885. 

Evansville,  etc..  R.   Co.  r. 

T'.   Hewitt,    p.    1695. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

V.   Long  Island   R.    Co.,   84   N. 

F.    1108,   191    N.  Y.   528— p.    1051. 

'■.  Long  Island   R.    Co.,   93   N. 

Y.  S.  616,  47  Misc.  Rep.  318— 
p.    3349. 

Louisville,     etc..     Mail     Co.     v. 

Macon    Consol.    St.    R.    Co.    f. 

Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

T-.    Marshall,    p.    233. 

M.    P.    R.    Co.    f. 

T-.     New     York,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

p.    2680. 

Norfolk     Southern     R.     Co.     v. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    f. 

St.     Louis,     etc..     R.     Co.    f. 

— —  Southern    Exp.    Co.    r. 

Wiltse    V. 

Barnes   &   Co.,   M.   P.   R.    Co.   r. 
Barnet,    Gaither   f. 
Barnett,    Bush    f. 

f.  Central    Line    of    Boats,    p. 

474. 

Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

•  V.   East     Tennessee,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2249,    2262,    2263. 
— —  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.    V. 

Kansas,   etc,    R.    Co.   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Barnev,    Cardot   v. 

i:   D.    R.    Martin,    p.    2423. 

V.  Oyster     Bay,     etc.,     Steam- 
boat   Co.,    pn     192,    1499,    1500. 


Barnev    v.    Prentiss,    p.    1007. 

Sweet   V. 

Weed   '■■ 

Barnum  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    2563,   2564,    2621,    2622. 

Pettigrcw     v. 

Barnum  Grain  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
ern   R.    Co.,    pp.    360,    556. 

Barnwell,   Clark  v. 

Baron  f.  New  York  City  R.  Co., 
p.     1853. 

Baron,  etc.,  Co.,  Cincinnati  Tract. 
Co.    V. 

Barr,  South  Covington,  etc.,  St. 
R.    Co.    V. 

Barracouta,    Cumming    v. 

Barre  v.  Reading  City  Pass.  R. 
Co.,    pp.    2534,    2535. 

Barre,  etc..  Power  Co.,  Montpe- 
lier    -'. 

Barreda,    Masters  v. 

V.   Silsbee,    p.    326. 

Barrett,  Birmingham  R.,  etc., 
Co.   V. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   •:■. 

Greenwald  v. 

Hale  V. 

V.  Market     St.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

193,    1603,    2428. 

■  x:  New   York,    183   Fed.   793— 

pp.    3468,    3526. 

f.  New    York,     189    Fed.    268 

— ])p.    3526,    3576,    3579. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V  Rogers,    pp.    345,    3884. 

V.  Third     Ave.      R.     Co.,     pp 

1719,   1999,   2013. 

Barringer,  Maine  Bank  of  Buf 
falo   V. 

Maine    Nat.    Bank   v. 

V.  St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp 

2315,  2676,  2993,  2994. 

Barris  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp 

135,    1192. 
Barron    f.    Eldredge.    pp.    283,    882 

884,    894,    899,    913. 

V.   Mobile,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp 

816,    820.    946. 

Barron-Boyle     Co.,     Cleveland,     etc.. 

Railway  f. 
Barron,    etc.,    Co.    v.    C.    C,    &    St. 

L.    Co.,    p.    724. 
Barrons,    Starbird   v. 
Barrott    v.     Pullman's     Palace     Car 

Co.,    pp.    3217,    3221,    3222,    3223. 
Barrow,    Ex    parte. 

V.  Philleo,    pp.    801,    817,    838. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  z\ 

Barrow     Steamship     Co.     f.     Kane. 

pp.    2073.    2079,    3992. 
Barry,    Biggs    r. 

V.   Boston,     etc..     R.     Co..     pp. 

2399,    2988. 

Tweedie   Trading   Co.    ■:•. 

V.  Union   R.    Co..   p.    2548. 

f.  Union    Tract.    Co.,    p.^  1995. 

Bartelt   v.    Oregon   R.,    etc..    Co.,    p. 

1458. 
Bartemever   v.    Iowa,    p.    3539. 
Barter    &    Co.    f.    Wheeler,    pp.    289. 

884.      1012.      1023,      3180.      32o9. 

3286,    3299,    3302,    3382. 
Barth   z:    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

1518.    2874.    2877. 
Bartholomaus    f.    Milwaukee    Elect. 

R.,    etc.,    Co.,    p.    2812. 
Bartholomew    v.     New     York,     etc  , 

R.    Co..    pp.    1884,    1921,    225). 

r.   St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co. 

3160,    3168,    3169. 

Bartine,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    '<■. 
Bartle   r.    Houghton    County    St. 
Co..    pp.    2830.    2831. 

V.  New    \ork,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

193   N.   Y.    362,   85   N.    E.    1091— 
pp.    2360.    2904. 

■  V    New     York,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

105  N.   Y.   S.   522.    121    App.   Div. 
72— p.    2260. 


pp. 


R. 


CXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Rartlet   <:   Oregon   R.,   etc..    Co.,   pp. 

1363.      1365,     1367,      1375,      1379, 

1387. 
Bartlett,    Blodgett    r. 

Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

London,    etc.,    R.    Co.    <•. 

f.   New      York,     etc.,      Transp. 

Co.,    p.    1563. 

f.   Pittsburgh,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    586,    945,    1383,    1386. 

r.   The     Philadelphia,     p.     527. 

Bartley       v.      Metropolitan      St.      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1992.    2ii37,    2688,    2893. 
Bartnik    z:    Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    2674, 

2841. 
Barton,    Beardmore    ;•. 

V.  St.      Louis,      etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2203. 

Third  Ave.    R.    Co.   v. 

Bartow    ;■.    Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    659. 
Bartram,    Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Baruth    r.     Poughkecpsie,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    2723,    2738. 
Basing.    Butler    ■:■. 
Baskett   r.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2328,    2342. 
Basler    r.     Sacramento,    etc..     Elect. 

Co.,   pp.    1999,   2234. 
Basnight    v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    286,   289,   290,    884.    914. 

V.   Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3981. 

Bason,  Charleston,  etc..  Steam- 
boat   Co.    z: 

Bass  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
197,  200,  201,  1943,  1944,  1955, 
2123,  2421,  2422,  2423,  2485 
2607. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    39 

Wis.    636— p.    3104. 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     42 

Wis.    654,    24    Am.    Rep.    437 — pp. 
1943,    1955,    3066,    3104. 

V.  Cleveland,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.    1533. 

V.   Concord     St.     Railway,     pp. 

1928,    2231,    2239,    2821. 

z:   Glover,    pp.    302,    367,    378, 

518,    519,    542,    3274. 

Bassett  z:  Aberdeen  Coal,  etc.,  Co., 
pp.    222,    3862,    3931. 

z:   Connecticut    River    R.     Co., 

p.    894. 

v.    Los    Angeles   Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2671. 

V.   Spofford,    p.    480. 

Bast    z:    Bank,    p.    3871. 
Bastard   v.    Bastard,    p.    233. 
Hasting     r.     Brooklyn     Heights     R. 

Co.,    p.    2825. 
Batavia    Bank    7'.    New    York,    etc., 

R.   Co.,   p.   356. 
Batchis,    Jacksonville    Elect.    Co.    v. 
Eatchler,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Bates,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

.Atlanta   Consol.    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Bigby,   p.    581. 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     60 

Wis.    296,    19   N.    W.    72,    50   Am. 

Rep.    369,    14    Am.     &    Eng.      R. 

Cas.    700 — pp.    576,    579. 
z:   Chicago,    etc.,     R.    Co.,     140 

Wis.    235,     122    N.    W.    745— pp. 

908,    918,    1771,    2292,    2872,    2873. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     576. 

V.  Old    Colony     R.      Co.,     pp. 

1577.     1578,    2100,    2101. 

O'Rouke    z: 

Pittsburg,     etc..     Coal     Co.     v. 

z:   Stanton,   pp.    516,    573. 

V.  Todd,     pp.     337,     338,     339. 

V.   Weir,    pp.    480,     992,     1071. 

Bates    Mach.    Co.,     Elgin,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   V. 
Bath,   Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.  Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

344,    345,   817. 

jessel  V. 

Uessel   v. 


Bath,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    -Xnurican    Hay 

Co.    z: 
15atson  v.  Donovan,   p.   233. 
Batte,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   '•. 
Battis    z\    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2973. 

Ex     parte. 

Battle  z\  Columbia,  etc..  Railroad, 
pp.  278,  3123,  3125,  3137,  3138, 
3189,     3190. 

f.   Georgia    R.,     etc.,     Co.,     48 

S.   E.   337,    120  Ga.   992— p.   2573. 

v.  Georgia    R.,    etc.,     Co.,     48 

S.   E.   338,    120   Ga.    994— p.   2573. 

z:  Mobile,    p.    3582. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

■ Wells,    Fargo   &   Co.   z: 

Batton    z'.    South,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2029,    2033. 
Baty,   St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Bauer,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

North   Chicago   St.   R.   Co.  z: 

Baugh,    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z: 

z:   McDaniel,    pp.    3285,    3291. 

Baughman     j-.     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  p.   1075. 
Baum,     Evansville,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

z'.   Long     Island     R.     Co.,     d. 

1058. 

V.    New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2683. 

Baumann     z'.     New     York,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    636.  • 

Baumback     z'.     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    515,    636,    663,    664,    700,    702, 

703,   706,   708,  852,   1152. 
Baumstein    z\     New     York    City    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2042,    2661. 
Baunwall,    etc.,    Co.    z\    Furness,    p. 

3864. 
Baur,    North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.   z\ 
Bausch,    Camden,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Baxendale,    Black    z: 

v.  Bristol,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

221 

Hadley    z: 

-  Hart    z: 

z:   Railway    Co.,    p.     1181. 

Baxley   z'.    Tallahassee,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.   444,   445,   449,   460,   472 
Baxter,    Edminson    z: 

v.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1087,     1410. 

z\   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3035. 

Norton    z\ 

Bay,    Cincinnati,   etc.,    Packet   Co.   v. 
Bay    Cities    Consol.    R.    Co.,    Tunni- 

cliffe    v. 
Bay    City    Tract.,    etc.,     Co.,    Burke 

Niedzinski    z\ 

Bay  City  Tract.,  etc..  Elect  Co., 
Fortin    z\ 

Bay  City,  etc..  Elect.  Co.,  Nied- 
zinski   Z'. 

Bay  Shore  Lumber  Co.,  Mobile, 
etc..   R.    Co.  -■. 

Bay    State    Steamboat    Co.,    Mudgett 

Nevins    z'. 

Bayer,     Central     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
Bayles,    Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    z'. 

■ •  z'.  Kansas     Pac.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

221,    1180. 
Bayley,    Pickard    ?•. 
Baylor,     Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

Haynie    '■. 

Baylor    County    z\    Craig,    pp.    3392, 

3417. 
Baynes,    Hand    z.'. 
Bayonne      Knife      Co.      ?■.      Umbcn- 

hauer,      pp.      1209,      1211,      1214, 

1219. 
Bays.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Beach,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
lieaconsfield.     The. 
Beadell    z\       H^astern       Counties     R. 

Co.,    p.     192. 


Beadle    "'.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    48 

Kan.    379,    29    Pac.    696— p.    1198. 
•  i'.   Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     51 

Kan.    248,    32    Pac.    910— p.    1198. 
Beal    V.    Lowell,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2174,    2185,    2767. 
Z-.  South     Devon     R.     Co.,     p. 

3067. 
Bcall,   Cobb  -•. 
Beals,    Lake^  Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

The    Galena    z'. 

Beam     v.     Cleveland,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1254,    1258. 
Bean,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Green,       12       Me.       199— p. 

3163. 

V.   Green,      12      Me.      422— pp. 

1011,     3165. 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z: 

''.   Sturtevant,    p.    277. 

Bear,     Webster     v. 

Beard   v.    Connecticut,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1785,    2500. 
— ■ —  Cross    z\ 
■  z'.  Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

724,     765,     782,     786,     812,     3309, 

3394,    3395. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

v.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    pp. 

786,    3258,    3307. 

Bearden    v.    Madison,    p.    22. 
Beardmore    z\    Barton,    p.    3076. 
Beardsley,   Alabama,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

z:   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

162    N.    Y.    230,    56    N.    E    488— 
pp    38,    146. 

z'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

44    N.    Y.    S.    75,    15    App.    Div. 
251— p.    3500. 

Beardwell,      Union      Pac.      R.      Co. 

Beams,    In    re. 
Bearse,    Hodges    z'. 

V.   Ropes,    p.    4030. 

Beasley    z'.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     611,     691,     695,     1153.     1154, 

1159. 
Beasley,    etc.,    Co.,    Chesapeake,    etc., 

R.     Co.     z: 
Beatie,     Georgia    R.     Co.    z'. 
Beattie   z\    Boston    Elevated    R.    Co  , 

pp.     1682,     1719,    2313,    2684. 

"•.   Citizens',     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2253. 

7'.    Detroit       L^nited       Railway, 

pp.    1737,    1892. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Beatty,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;•. 
•  V.   Metropolitan,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2671,    2672. 
•  South    Covington,    etc.,    R.    Co, 

Beauchamp,   Ft.   Worth,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

V. 

J'.    International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1614,    1858,    1860,    2453,    2707. 

Beaulieu  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
pp.     1256,     1257. 

Beaumont  j'.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co..     pp.     529,     530. 

Beaumont    Land,    etc.,    Co.,    Walker 

Beave     z\      St.     Louis     Trans.     Co., 

pp.    2653,    2659,    2881,    2883,    2934. 

Beaver,     Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Beaver     Valley     Tract.     Co.,     Goeh- 

ring    z: 
Beck    z\    Johnson,     p.     3977. 

Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

,■.   Ouincv,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2472,    2474.  ' 

Becker  v.  Buffalo,  etc..  Tract.  Co., 
p.    2725. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.    f. 

Equi    Valley    Marble   Co.   v. 

'•.   Great     Eastern     R.     Co.,     p. 

3120. 

z:    Hallgarten,    pp.    1222,    1243. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXV 


Co.  V. 
,    Olanta    Coal 

Min.  ,  Co.,     p. 


R.     Co.,     161 
E.    899,     12 


Becker  :■.   Lincoln   Real    Estate,   etc., 

Co.,     174     Mo.     24(.,     73     S.     W. 

581  — |)j).    2117,    2648. 
^  T.   Lincoln     Real     Estate,     etc., 

Co.,    118   Mo.    App.    74,   93   S.    W. 

291— p.    1704. 
I'.    Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     jip. 

753,    901,    909,    911. 

Tuttle    r. 

JJeckett,    Cleviland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    I'. 

JJeckford,    Wliitney   v. 

Heckham    ::    Shouse,    pp.    728,    753, 

749,    769. 
Becknian   v.    Meadville,   etc.,    St.    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2073,    2080,    2088. 

V.   Southern       Pac.       Co.,       p. 

3619. 

Beckwith  v.  Chesliire  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1571,    2434. 

Locklin   z\ 

Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

lieckworth,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Bedell,    Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Richmond,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    320,   323,   451,   464. 

Bedford   v.    Terliune,    p.    3877. 
Bedford    Belt    R.    Co.,    Menaugh    v. 
liedford-ltowling    Green     Stone    Co. 

;■.    Owman,    p.    232. 
Bedford,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Rainbolt, 

pp.    1712,    1740,    1810,    2681. 
Bedsole    v.     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     2768,    3011. 
Bee    Bldg.    Co.,    Quimhy    7\ 
Beebe    v.     Ayres,     pp.     1620,     1973, 

1977,    2439. 

Illinois  Cent.   R. 

Beech    Creek    R.    Co. 

Min.    C6.    V. 

f.  Olanta    Coal 

239. 

Beecher,   Fordyce   v. 

V.  Long    Island 

N.     Y.    222,     55     N 

Am.   &   Eng.    R.    Cas.,   N.    S.,   295 

—pp.    1792,    2138. 

— —  f.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  55  N. 
Y.  S.  23,  35  App.  Div.  292— 
p.   2327. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Bcede    f.    Wisconsin    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    3396,   3409. 
Beedy    v.    Pacey,    pp.    565,    3932. 
Beekman   v.    Saratoga,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

pp.     211,    213,     1492. 
Beer  v.    Massachusetts,    p. 
Beers    i'.    Boston,    etc.,    R 

3110,    3144 

Dalton    r. 

f.  Wabash,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

6,     213,     251,     760,     3823. 

Beery  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.     1987,    2778,     2934. 

Toledo,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Beeson     f.     Chicago,     etc.,     R 

pp.     1499,     3082. 

Missouri     Pac.     K.     Co.     r. 

Beets,    St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 
Beezlcy,     Texas,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 
Beggs,    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 
Beglcy   I'.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    p. 

2330. 
Behen    7:    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2377. 
7'.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2921. 
Behlmer,   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

■:•.   Louisville,      etc..      R.      Co., 

71      Fed.     835— pp.     3714.     3718. 
3774. 

V.  Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

28    C.    C.    A.    229,   83    Fed.    898— 
pp.     3775,     3793. 

Behm     •:•.     Cincinnati,     etc..     Tract. 

Co.,     p.     2385. 
Behr  v.   Erie   R.    Co.,    p.   2473. 
Behrens,     Franklin     Printing,     etc., 

Co.    f. 

Franlclin,    etc..    Publishing    Co. 


3539. 
Co.,    pp. 


Co., 


Co. 
W. 


Co., 


pp. 


767, 


Behrens  t.    The    Furnessia,    p.    1959. 
IJeideiman,    Dow   f. 

Union    R.,   etc.,   Co.  v. 

United   R.,  etc.,   Co.  v. 

Beidler    v.    Branshaw,    p.    2165. 
Beiser    v.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  2339,  2884. 
liekins,  dates  ',•. 
IJekins    Household    Shipping    Co.,    '•. 

('.rand   Trunk   R.   System,   p.    1033. 
Belcher,     Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

I'.    Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    92 

Tex.  593.  598.  50  S.  W.  559— pp. 
625,  636,  637,  647.  696.  698, 
755,    826. 

f.   Missouri,       etc.,       R. 

(Tex.     Civ.     App.),     47     S. 

1020— p.    696. 
Beldcn,    Chandler   f. 
•  f.    Pullman     Palace     Car 

pp.    3201,    3202,    3215,   3233. 
Belfast,    Boon    &    Co.   v. 

The. 

Belfast,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Keys, 

3125,     3149. 
Bclgenland,     The. 
Helger    7'.     Dinsmore,    pp.    321, 

946,    987,    4032. 
Belknap,   Camden,  etc..   R'.   Co.   v. 
•  Camden,    etc..    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

Bell,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Atchison    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?•. 

— —  7'.  Central  Elect.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1874,  1878,  1891,  1902,  2688. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 

7'.    Drew,     pp.     3123,     3124. 

•  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

• Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Morgan    z\ 

7'.   Moss,   pp.    1207,    1211,    1218, 

1227.     1246,     1247. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    7'. 

Railroad    -'. 

7'.   Reed,     pp.     743.     815,     822. 

3907,    3908,    3911. 
•  7'.   Reynolds,    p.    659. 

7'.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

894,     899. 

SchoHield    7'. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    p. 

7'.   Southern     Railway,    p. 

Texas,    etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 

Webster    7. 

•  Wells    Fargo   &    Co.    7'. 

-  7'.   Wood,    pp.     3914,    3917. 
Bell     Bros.     7'.     Western,     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    432,    3359,    3367. 
Bellaire,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Interstate 

Commerce   Comm.   f. 
Bellefontaine    R.    Co.,    Burns    7'. 
Belleville,    Ivast    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.      7'. 
Bellman  7-.   New  York,   etc.,   R.    Co.. 

p.     1530. 
Bellows   Falls,  etc.,   St.   R.   Co.,   Rut- 
land   R.    Co.   7'. 
Bellsdyke.    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

ish    R.    Co.,    p.    1181. 
Belt   Elect.    Line   Co.   7'.   Tomlin,   pp. 

2228,    2657. 
Belton    Oil    Co.,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

— —  r.   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.    1140. 

Belvidere.    The. 

Belvidere    Bldg.    Co.    7'.    Bryan,    pp. 

2868,    2869. 
Bemis,   Wordcn   7'. 

Wordin    7'. 

Beniiss    7'.    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R. 

Co..  p.   2223. 
Bcnadum,      Indiana      Union      Tract. 

Co.     7'. 
Benbow    7\    North    Carolina    R.    Co., 

p.    537. 
Bendekovich     7'.     Omaha,     etc..     St. 

R.    Co..    p.    2356. 
Bender,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    7'. 
Bender  &  Co.  7'.  Bowman,  pp.   1213. 

1215,    1220,    1229,    1233. 


1785. 
795. 


R. 


North    Brit- 


Co.,    p. 
R.    Co., 

Co.. 


1207, 
1212. 


Co. 


pp. 


pp. 


Bendon     7'.     Union     Tract. 

2235. 
Kenedict    v.    Chicago,    etc., 

pp.    858,   862,   868. 
Kelly  7'. 

7'.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 

pp.  1953,  2200,  2205,  2206. 

7'.  Schaettle,  pp.  1206, 

1208,   1209,   1210,   1211, 
1213.  1214,  1215,  1220. 

Scheu  7'. 

Benefactor,    The. 

Benhan,    Liverpool,    etc.,    Co. 

Benjamin,    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

7'.    Levy,     p.    477. 

7'.   Metropolitan     St.     k'.     Co., 

151  S.  W.  91.  245  Mo.  598— 
pp.  1518,  1744,  1894,  258(T,  2878, 
2951. 

z:   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co.. 

84   N.   Y.   S.  458— pp.   2328,  2875. 

The    E. 

Benner     j'.     Equitable     Safety     Ins. 
Co.,     p.     3949. 

Lambert    v. 

Benner  Livery,   etc.,   Co.   ':    Busson, 

p.     2260. 
Bennett   r.   .\merican    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

573,    574.    578,    815,    821. 

.Arkansas    Cent.    R.     Co.    7'. 

Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Brien    r. 

7'.    Byram   &   Co.,   pp.    509,   511, 

540,    634,    728. 

Cantu    -■. 

7'.  Central,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

1747,     1971,    2038,    2045. 

Chicago    City    R.    Co.    7. 

7'.  Chicago    etc.,     R.     Co., 

488.    490. 

'■■   Drew.    p.    858. 

7'.   Dutton,  pp.   211,   222,    1007, 

1492. 

7-.    Filyaw,    pp.    804,    3176. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'  Louisville,       etc.,       R.       Co., 

pp.  1767,  1776. 
^'ew    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

57  Conn.  422,  18  Atl.  668— p. 
2272. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    5    Hun.    599— p.    :M56. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

69  N.  Y.  594,  35  Am.  Rep.  250— 
p.     1668. 

7'.  Northern     Pac.     Exp. 

pp.    731,    835,    1111,    1113. 

z:   Railroad    Co.,    p.    1637. 

Savannah    Elect.    Co.    7' 

7'.    Seattle       Elect.       Co., 

2784,   3028. 

X'allette     7'. 

7'.   United      States.      194      Fed. 

630.    114    C.    C.    A.   402— p.    3441. 

z:   United    States.    227    V.    S. 

333,    33    S.    Ct.    288— p.    3441. 

Bennington,   etc..    R.    Co..    Bvars   z: 
Bennitt    7'     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co  , 

pp.  3341,  3342. 
Bensley,  Chicago, 
Benson,    Decuir    7'. 

Ex     parte. 

7'.  Gray,     pp.     , 

z:  Manhattan   R.   Co..   p. 

— —  Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 
7'.   Oregon,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

8.    832,    931.    961.    977.    982. 

Richmond,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.  Taconia    R"..    etc..    Co.. 

2866.   2867. 

7'.    VYilmington     City 

pp.    1682,    1687.    1718.    18 
1895.    2231.    2778.    2825, 

Benson   &    Co.,    Ex    parte. 

Richmond    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Bent,  Fergusson  7'. 

Yazoo,  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 

Bent  &  Co..  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co. 


Co. 


pp. 


etc.,  R.  Co.  7-. 


1280. 


3882. 

2788. 


pp. 


pp. 


R.  Co., 
88.  1889, 
2903. 


CXXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Bente    f.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

Bentley   i'.   Bustard,    pp.    3899,    3900. 

Jacobs    i\ 

"Southwestern    R.    Co.    f. 

Bentson    f.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 

p.    2307. 
B<mvega    z:    United    States    Surety 

Co.,    p.    33. 
Berchfield,   Te.xas,  etc.,  R.   Co.   z: 
Berdan    &    Co.,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    K. 

Berden"&   Co.,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R. 

Berea  '  College     f.  Commonwealth, 

p.    3847. 

Berengere,    The.  t.     r- 

Berg   z:    Atchison,  etc.,    k.    Lo.,    p. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2769.  „      ^ 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     -J. 

f    Xarragansett  Steamship 

Co.. 'pp.    3252,    3289,    3294. 
f.   St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

3071.  ,,  „    ^ 

Berean  z:   Central  Vermont  K.  Co., 

pp.    1549,    1554,    1555,   2780. 
Bergeman   v.    Indianapolis,    etc.,    K.. 

Co.,    p.    352. 
Bergen    z:     Chicago,    etc.,    K.     ^o., 

p.    1049.  ^  ^ 

Bergen    County    Tract.    Co.    v.    De- 

marest,    p.    2694. 

Scott    V. 

Berger    v.     Chicago,     etc.,     K.     Co., 

pp.    2726,    2770. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z.   State,    p.    352. 

Bergin    z.     Missouri,    etc.,     K.     *-o., 

pp.    499,    3763. 
Bergman    v.     Indianapolis,     etc.,     K. 
Co.,    pp.    1207,    1226,    1231. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Bergner    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    492,    894,    899. 
Bergstrom  w.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    3132,    3133. 
Berje    v.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

516,   727.  ^^„ 

Berkelhamer    v.    Jolune,    p.    2437. 
Berkley   v.    Watling,    p.    337. 

V.  Whitling„  p.    294. 

Berkley     St.     R.     Co.     v.     Simpson, 

p.    2827. 
Berkowit,    Chicago    Terminal   Trans- 
fer   R.    Co.    V. 

z.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1589. 

Berkshire   St.    R.    Co.,    Liversidge  v. 

Vine   z. 

Berley    z.    Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     164,    846. 

z.  Newton,    p.    873. 

'.,•.   Seaboard,       etc.,       Railway, 

pp.     3049,    3052. 

Bermuda,    The. 
Bernadon    v.    Nolte,    p.    798. 
Bernard    z.     Adams     ICxp.     Co.,     p. 
1051. 

Coggs   V. 

Bcrnston      z.      Strang,       pp.      1209, 

1210. 

Bernhardt  z.     West     Pennsylvania 

R.    Co.,  pp.    1786,    2686. 

Bernheim,  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Bernheimer,    Rosenbush   v. 
Bernstein    v.    Dry    Docks,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,   p.    2314. 

V.  Weir,    p.    987. 

Bernstine  v.   Express  Co.,  p.  495. 
Berry     z.     Atlantic     Railway,      pp. 

2806,  2865. 

z.   Carolina,  etc..  Railway,  pp. 

2417,  2419. 

z.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1272,  1321,   1365,  1368,  1399, 
1432,  1478,  1481. 

Cooper   V. 


Berrv    z.      Cooper,     pp.      948,     961, 
1038,    1040. 

De   Witt   z. 

•  Florida   Cent.,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;•. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2509,  2511,  2512,  2514. 

z.  Missouri    Pac.    K.    Co.,    pp. 

1953,    2209,    2520,    2523,    2808. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

z.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2876. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    286, 

287,    289,    292,    295,    304,    882. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z.  Utica,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    73 

X.    E.    970,     181    N.    Y.     198— p. 
2157. 

■;•.   Utica,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    /8 

N     Y.    S.    542,    76   App.    Div.    490 
—pp.    2321,    2860. 

z.   West      Virginia,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,   pp.    529,    564,   872,   890,   897, 
899,  904,  907,   910,   946,  949,  970. 

Berry,    etc.,    Co.,    Adams    Exp.    Co. 


Berryhill,    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   t-. 
Berryman,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

BeVtellote     v.     Part     of     Cargo     of 

Brimstone,    p.    532. 
Bertonneau    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co., 

p.    721. 
Bertram     v.     People's     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1888,    1894,    1896. 

Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    ■:■. 

Berwind-White     Coal     Min.     Co.     v. 

Metropolitan     Steamship     Co.,     p. 

3346. 
Berwind.    etc.,     Min.     Co.,     Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 
Besecker  v.    Delaware,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    1793,    2833. 
Bessemer,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Bessemer,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Hall  z. 
Bc^senger    v.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2906. 
Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc.,   Iv. 

Co.,   pp.    326,    335,   454,    502,    508, 

509,    979,    1016. 
Best,   Cleveland,   etc.,   R.    Co.    ■;■. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

V.  Seaboard,    etc.,    Railway,    p. 

166. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Bethea     z.     Northeastern     R-      Co., 

pp.    984,    1629,    1632. 
Bethmann    z.    Old    Colony    R.    Co., 

pp.    1785,    2349. 
Bettis     z.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2480. 

Moss    V. 

Betts   z.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    92 

Iowa  343,  60  N.  W.  623,  26  L. 
R.  A.  248,  54  Am.  St.  Rep. 
558— p.    1273. 

z.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1^0 

Iowa  252.  129  N.  W.  962— pp. 
1395,    1441. 

z.   Fanners'     Loan,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    1343,    1370. 

V.  Lehigh    Valley    R.     Co.,    p. 

2138. 

V.  Wilmington     City     R.     Co., 

p.    2357. 

Betz,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

V.  Rhode   Island   Co.,   p.    2345. 

Beuris,    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Bevard    z.    Lincoln    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

1707. 
Beverley    v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2727,    2875,   2914. 
Bevis    V.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    3230,    3232,    3233. 
Beyer  z.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 
'       2213. 


Bibb   z.    Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

724,    822,    881. 
Bibb    Brown     Corn    Co.    z.     Atchin- 

son,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    606,    619, 

742,    743. 
Bibolet,        International,       etc.,       R. 

Co.    z. 
Bickford     z.     Metropolitan       Steam- 
ship Co.,   pp.    564,   565,   3902. 
Bickley,    Seddon    v. 
Bickley,     etc.,      Co.,      Southern     R. 

Co.   c'. 
Biddle,    Hestonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 
■;■.   Hestonville,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

pp.   2524,   2531. 

Kentucky    Cent.    R.    Co.    z. 

Bidgood,      Northern      Alabama      R. 

Co.    V. 

Bienville  Water  Supply  Co.  z.  Mo- 
bile,   p.    2641. 

Bierce  v.  Red  Bluff  Hotel  Co.,  pp. 
1246,    1249. 

Biessel,   Mephams  z. 

Bigbee,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  •;•.  Mo- 
bile,  etc.,   R.    Co.,   p.    3752. 

Bigby,   Bates  z 

Bigelow  z.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    423,    437,    468. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

z.   Heaton,    p.     1164. 

Rowley    z. 

z.  West    End,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1804. 

Bigger,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 
Biggie    z.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1781. 
Biggs   V.    Barry,   p.    1236. 
Bigham,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 
Biglcy,   Varble  z. 
Big  Sandy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.   Blanken- 

ship    (Ky.),    118    S.    W.    315— p. 

2261." 

V.  Blankenship,    133    Ky.    438, 

118  S.  W.  316,  23  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  345,  19  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.     264 — pp.     2083,    2088,     2127. 

■  Hurley    J'. 

Jennings    z. 

Bigwood    V.     Boston,     etc.,     St.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2675,    2780,    2885. 
Bilbv,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co    z. 
Bilinsk-y,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 
Bill.    Cooper    z. 
Billinger    z.     Clyde    Steamship    Co., 

pp.,  1942,    1943,    1955. 
Billings,    Sherley    v. 
Billingsley,      St.      Louis,      etc.,      R. 

Co.    z. 
Billington,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z. 
Bills,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.  'z. 

Ingalls    ■:■. 

z.  New    York    Cent.    R.     Co., 

pp.    1290,    1358,    1383,    1477. 

Bilotta    V.    Media,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1706. 
Binder,      West        Chicago      St.       K. 

Bjng    V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    K.    Co.    p. 

27u4. 
Biiigemann   v.   International   R     >..o.,- 

p,    1647. 
Bingenheimer,      Chicago,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   z. 
Bingham,     Harmony    v. 

z.   Lamping,    pp.    575.    576. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

•   Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z. 

z.  Rogers,     pp.     3161,     3166. 

z.   San     Pedro,     etc.,     R.     Co.^ 

pp.    1372,    1399,    1401.    1402. 

Binghamton    R.     Co.,    Townsend    z^ 
Birchard,    Mann    z. 

Sargent    v. 

Birchfield,    Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Birckhead    z.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R- 

Co.,    pp.    2588,    2605. 
Bird    z.    Brown,    p.    12_18. 

z.  Cromwell,    p.    788. 

z.   Georgia         Railroad,         PP- 

1       513,    582,    3414. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXVII 


Bird    V.    Railroads,    pp.    949,    1147, 

3261,     3330,     3331,     3352,     3363, 

3377,   3378,   3381.    _ 
Bird    of    Paradise,    The. 
Birdwell,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Itirge-Korbes     Co.,     St.     Louis,     etc., 

K.    Co.    V. 
Birley   v.    Gladstone,    p.    714. 
Birmingham   v.   Rochester   City,   etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    1811. 

z'.   Rochester,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1850. 

Birmingham  Elect.  R.  Co.  v.  Clay, 
pp.    2151,    2815. 

Birmingliam  Ore,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Grover,     p.     2589. 

Birmingham  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson, 
p.    1850. 

Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ad- 
ams,   p.    2585. 

V.   Anderson,      163      Ala.       72, 

50    So.    1021— p.    2238. 

7'.   Anderson,       3      Ala.       App. 

424,    57    So.    103— pp.    1491,    2571. 

V.   Baird,      pp.      2058,       2059, 

3075. 

V.  Barrett,    4    Ala.    App.    347, 

58      So.      760— pp.      1728,      2582, 

2602. 

V.   Barrett      (Ala.),      60       So. 

262— p.    2235. 

V.   Baylor,    p.    264L 

'■.  Bennett,    p.    2582. 

Bowie   V. 

V.   Brannon,  pp.  2148,  2333, 

2655. 

V.   Butler,  pp.  1709,  2620. 

V.     Bynum,  pp.  1558,  2347, 

■  2743,  2881. 

V.  Chastain,    p.    2609. 

z:   Clay,    p.    2648. 

V.  Coleman,     pp.     2771,     3008, 

3071. 

Cutcliff   V. 

V.   Dickerson,    p.    2282. 

V.  Ellard,     pp.     2750,     2929. 

V.  Enslen,    p.    2751. 

V.   Fisher,   pp.   2582,   2583, 

2613,  2862.  3000. 

z:   Girod,   pp.   2283,    2344, 

2358,  2938. 

V.   Glenn,   pp.   2017,   2058, 

2599,  2649,  2862,  2868,  .  3064* 
3065. 

V.   Glover,  pp.  2585.  2597. 

V.   Goldstein,  p.  2608. 

V.   Gonzalez,  pp.  2281,  2590. 

V.   Haggard,  pp.  2585,  2647. 

V.   Handy,  pp.  2348,  2596. 

V.   Harden,   pp.  2351,   2357, 

2361,  2395,  2609. 

V.   Hawkins,  pp.  1894,  2968. 

f.  Hunnicutt,  pp.  2578,  2583, 

2602,  2757. 

V.   James,   pp.   2114,   2175, 

2235,  2255,  2380,  2989,  2991. 

JefTerson  f. 

Johnson  v. 

V.   Jordan,   pp.   2583,  2589, 

2636. 

V.   Jung,  pp.  1898,  1899,  1903, 

1904,   2064,   2306,  2318,   2333, 
2369;  2584,  2939. 

Kennedy  z'. 

f.  King;  pp.  2597,  2920. 

V.   Landrum,  pp.  1805,  2273, 

2275,  2364,  2732,  2998,  2999. 

V.   Lee,  153  Ala.  79.  45  So. 

292— pp.  1899,  1904,  2281,  2332, 
2581,  2745,  2967. 

V.   Lee,  153  Ala.  386,  45  So. 

164 — pp.  2475,  3031. 

V.   Lide,  pp.  2319,  2395,  2649, 

2912. 

V.  McCurdv,    pp.    2585,    2598, 

2664. 

z:   McDaniel,    p.    2574. 

V.  McDonough,    pp.    190,    196, 

200,  1595,  2466,  2630.  2854. 

V.   McGinty,  pp.  1889,  1901, 

2596,  2658,  2906. 


Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mason, 
j4  So.  207,  137  Ala.  342— pp. 
2526,  2610. 

V.   Mason,  144  Ala.  387,  39 

So.  590— p.  2916. 

V.   Mayo,  p.  2974. 

Melton  V 

V.   Mindk-r,  pp.  2281,  2282. 

v.      Moore,  148  Ala.  115,  42 

So.  1024— pp.  2578,  2579,  2584, 
2636,  2697,  3001. 

-  :■.  Aloore,  151  Ala.  327,  43 
So.  841— pp.  2575,  2583,  2721. 

I'.  Moore,   163  Ala.  43,  50 

So.  115— pp.  2862,  2989. 

v.   Nolan,  pp.  3057,  3058. 

V.   Norris,   pp.   1518,   1899, 

2635. 

V.   Oden,  p.  2584. 

V.   Oldham,  pp.  2277,  2278. 

z:   Parker,  156  Ala.  251,  47 

So.  138— pp.  2589,  2599. 

z:   Parker,  161  Ala.  248,  SO 

So.  55— pp.  2017,  2047,  2606, 
2607. 

z:   Pritchett,  p.  2903. 

V.   Rutledge,  p.  2763. 

V.   Sawyer,   pp.   1580,   1720, 

2521,  2642. 

z\   Seaborn,     pp.      1532,      1541, 

1853,     1868,    2754. 

v.   Selhorst,     pp.      2743,     2862. 

Smith    -'. 

V.   Stallings,     pp.      1595,     2122, 

2420,    2'466. 

V.  Stanfield,    p.     2652. 

Sweet    I'. 

Tannchill    v. 

V.  Tate,    pp.   2620,   2623,   2624. 

z:  Taylor,     152    Ala.     105,     14 

So.    580- p.    2751. 

V.  Taylor,   60    So.   979,    6   Ala. 

App.    661— pp.    2608,    2862. 

— —  -•.  Turner,  pp.  1650,  2622, 
2663,     3078,     3079,     3080,     3106. 

Watkins    z\ 

V.   Weathers,  pp.  2580,  2589. 

V.   Wilco.\,   pp.   2580,   2589, 

2590. 

z:   Willis,  p.  2357. 

V.   Wise,  pp.  1516,  2582. 

V.   Wright,   pp.   2581,   2584, 

2611,  2631. 

v.  Yates,      pp.        1988,      2220, 

2281,     2583,     2608,     2653,     2890. 

z:  Yielding,      pp.      190,      1595, 

2122,     2466,      2483,      2622,      2625, 
2630. 

Birmingham,      St.      R.      Co.,      Rick- 

ctts   v. 
Birmingham    L'nion    R.    Co.   -'.   Hale, 

pp.    2688,    3004. 

Hill    -•. 

V.   Smith,      pp.        1899,       1901, 

1903,    2936. 

Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Holmes   I'. 

Jcmison    -'. 

Birney,  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

z\  Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

211,   471. 

Bisch,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    Z'. 
Bischoff    z'.    People's     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1737,    2128,    2261. 
Bishop    z\    Bishop,    p.    2785. 

Central    Pass.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Empire   Transp.   Co.,   33   N. 

Y.    Super.    Ct.    99— p.    723. 

V.   Empire      Transporting     Co. 

(N.  Y.),  48  How.  Prac.  119— 
p.  321. 

V.   Hlinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

2361,  2512,   2513,   2515,   2547, 
2890. 

P.   &   L.    E.   R.   Co.   z: 

z:   St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1697,    1708,    1823,    1986. 

Stockton   7'. 

V.   Stockton,     p.     2036. 

V.  Union    R.    Co.,    p.    2518. 

Bishopp,    People   v. 


Bissel    z:    Campbell,    p.    347. 

r.   Price,    pp.    337,    1161,    3285, 

3286,  3294,  3304. 

Bissell,    Adams   f. 

t.   Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

417,    1509,    2091. 

— — ^f.  New     York     Cent.     R.     Co. 

(N.    v.),    29    Barb.    602— p.    2099 

— —  V    New    York     Cent.    k.     Co.'. 

•^■-  ?i:J^-'   «^    -^"'-    '^^-c.    369 
— PD.    1368,    1850,    3161. 

Sturgess   v. 

Bissett,    Pensacola    Elect.    Co.    v 
Bitterman,        Louisville,       etc  R. 

Co.    i\  ' 

z:  Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co 

pp.    1616,    1617,    1618,    3726 

jivens,    Michigan,    etc..    R.    Co.    v 
Bivings,    Southern    R.    Co     v 
Bixby   v.    Deemar,   p.    3915 

15.  J.  Williard,  The. 

7^*5  7-4  0 'H*^'!"*''-  PP-  526,  728, 
Vii,  749,  7:>i,  765,  896  3327 
3328,  3330,  4038.       '      ' 

V.   Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co   nn 

191.  949  1075,  1857.  1858,  3049; 
3030,  3164,  3166,  3197 

V.   Baxendale.  p.  660 

~^r.   Boston     Elev.     R.     Co.,     p. 

"1^88-,  ^2ir3"^2"8i?'^    ^-    ^°-    PP- 

~^.^'8^r'^'  "*=■•  ^---^p-  Co.. 

''■•  CarroIIton    R.    Co.,    p.   2036. 

z:   Charleston,    etc.,      R ,      Co 

pp.    3056,    1681.  '  ' 

~r:„''-  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
/28,    733,    738,    746,    747 

Dallas,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

—  V.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  dd 
815     822,    823,    949,    1076,    3166! 

Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co    j' 

~7T7'"'-c'^^^V°P°'''^"  St.  R.  Co.. 
117  S  W  J  J  ^2,  217  Mo.  672— 
p.    2924. 

z\  Metropolitan     St.  '  R 

162    Mo.     App.     90,     144    S 
131— p.   2583. 

V.  New    York,    etc., 

pp.    2121,    2860. 

Pacific    Exp.    Co.    V 

~T&26.   ^"°"^     •■^'*^-      ^-     C°-      P- 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

— —  r.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
943  1084,  1085.  1392,  1408, 
1413. 

f.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    305,    306,    309,    337,    338. 

Black    Diamond    Coal,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
^  Railroad   Comm.,   p,   227. 
Black    Warrior,    Turner    z: 
Blackburn    v.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

•■•  Alabama,     etc.,  R.    Co.,    p. 

3047.  *^ 

St.     Louis,     etc.,  R.    Co.     v. 

Blackman     i\     Pierce,  pp.      1162. 

1219,    1237. 

United    States    E^p.    Co.    v. 

Blaclcmer,    etc.,    Pipe     Co.     z:     Mo- 
bile,     etc.,      R.      Co.,      pp 
1099,      1110,      1113,     3331, 
3335,    3342. 

Blackmon,      Nashville,      etc., 
way  V. 

Blackmore     z\     Missouri      Pac. 
Co.,   p.    3169. 

V.  Toronto      St.      R.     Co.,      p. 

1588. 

v.  Toronto,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1577. 

Blackstock    z:    New    York,    etc..    R. 

Co.,    pp.    246,    608,   627,    628. 
Blackwell    v.    Metropolitan,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    1830. 

f.  O'Gorman     Co.,     pp.     2160, 

2333,    2901,    2902. 

f.  Southern      Pac-      Co.,       p. 

1055. 


Co.. 
W. 


R.    Co., 


796, 
3334, 

Rail- 

R. 


CXXVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


1577, 


581. 
Rail- 


Co., 
pp. 

Co. 

83, 

109 

26, 

pp. 

1348. 
3415, 


Blades  v.  Des  Moines  City  R.  Co 
(loxva).  113  N.  W.  922— pp 
2332,    2875.  ^.        ^       ^ 

V.  Des    Moines    City    R.     Co. 

146    Iowa    580.    123    N.    W.    IOj/ 
—p.    2386.  ,      „ 

Blaidsell  Co.  7:  C_itizens_  JSat 
Bank,  pp.  374,  377,  39o,  396 
397.    404.  ^  „    ^ 

Blaikston  v.  Davies,  Turner  ic  Co. 
p.    3369.  ^.     „ 

r.lair  i:  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p 
1898. 

r.   Erie      R.      Co.,     pp. 

1578.    2105. 

Evans  7:  .,  ,      -in 

r.   Teffries,    pp.    3l4,    320, 

T.  Lewiston,      etc.,      St. 

wav,    pp.     2175.    2321,     2342. 

'Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    x 

T.  Milwaukee,      etc.,      K. 

p.    2682.  ^ 

r.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    Co., 

1502,     1889. 

r.    Sioux,  etc.,  R. 

(Iowa),    73    N.   W.    1053— pp. 
86,    91.  ^       ^ 

V.   Sioux,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

Iowa  369,  80  X.   W.  673— pp 
136,     167. 

r.  Wells      Fargo      &    Co 

856,  948,  950,  1272,  1345, 

1400,  1475,   1478,   3303, 

3763.  .  „.  „ 

Blaisdell  r.  Connecticut  River  K. 
Co.,   p.    895. 

z:   Long         Island        R.        Co. 

(Sup.),      131      N.    Y.      S.      14— p. 
2527. 

■:•    Long    Island    R.     Co.,     136 

X      Y.     S.     768,    152    App.    Div. 

218— pp.     2527,     2701. 
Blaisdell  &  Co.  v.  White  &  Co.,  pp. 

395,    396.    404. 
Blake    f.    Burlington,    etc,    R-^^o., 

78    Iowa    57,    42    N.    W.    580— p. 

2218.  ^,       „ 

V.   Burlington,     etc.,      K.      Co., 

89  Iowa  8,   56   N.  W.   405,   21    L. 
R.    A.    559— pp.    1953,    2218. 

■;•.   Camden    Interstate    R.    Co., 

p.    3003. 

v.   Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

2039,    2497. 

. Mahon   v. 

■ Winona,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Blakelv.    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

VValsh    r. 

Blakemore,     P.    C.     &     St.     L. 

Co.    V. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Blakiston      v.      Davies,      Turner      S 

Co.,   pp.   3,   479. 
Blakney    v.     Seattle     Elect.     Co.,     p 

2251. 
P.lalack,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v 
Blanchard    v.    Isaacs,    pp.    268,    269 

277,    285. 

f.   Page,     pp.    333,    337,      354 

370,    411,    490,    1148,    1149,    1150 
1  151. 

I!lanchette    z:    Holyoke    St.    R.    Co. 

pp.    1708,    2003,    2762,    3034. 
Bland    f.      Adams     Exp.      Co.,      pp 

727,    750. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    55 

Cal.     570,     36     Am.     Kep.     50— p. 
2492. 

V.   Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    65 

Cal.    626,    4    Pac.    672— p.     30^0. 

Blank  z:   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.,    182 

111.    332,   55   N.   E.   332— pp.    1578, 

2100,    2105. 
V.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co., 

111.    .\pp.    475— p.    99. 
Blankenship,     Big     Sandy,     etc., 

Co.    V. 
Blanktnstein,     .\dams    Z'. 
Blanton,    etc.,    Co.,    I    &    G.    X. 

Co.    v. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co 

Blatcher     z\     Philadelphia,     etc.. 


pp. 


R 


Co.,  pp.  1367,  1368,  2880,  3290. 


R. 

Co., 

Co. 

.      P- 

R. 

Co., 

R. 

Co., 

pp. 
pp. 

Co. 

573, 

36 
576, 


Bleecker  z'.    Colorado,    etc 

pp.    2040,    3064,    3065. 
Bleich,    Adams    Exp.    Co. 
Bleier     z'.      Bushwick     R. 

2349. 
Bleiwise     t'.     Pennsylvania 

p.     1842. 
Blevins    t'.    Atchison,    etc. 

pp.    2113,    2243. 
P)Iew    z\    Philadelphia    Rapid    Trans 

Co.,    p.    2700. 
Bliss,    The    A.    M. 
r.litch      z\      Central      Railroad. 

2188,    2220,    2237. 
Blitz    z'.    L^nion    Steamboat    Co. 

436,    3871. 
Bliven    z\    Hudson     River     R. 

(X.    Y.),    35    Barb.    188— pp. 

574. 

f.   Hudson     River    R.     Co 

X.    Y.    403— pp.     547,    574, 
577,    579. 

Bloch,  Merchants'  Despatch 

Transp.    Co.    t'. 

Merchants',    etc.,    Co.    '•. 

Merchants',  etc.,         Transp. 

Co.    V. 

Bloch     Bros.,      Merchants'      Transp. 

Co.    z: 
Blocher,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Block  z:    Fitchburg   R.   Co.,   p.    3311. 

Merchants'     Despatch     Transp. 

Co.,    p.    1268. 

v.   Third       Ave.      R.       Co.,      p. 

2723. 

'■.   Trent,    p.     3190. 

'■.  LTnited      States     Exp.      Co., 

p.    580. 

Blocker     '■.     Whittenburg,     ]ip.     745, 

747. 
Blodgett    z:     Abbot,     pp.     616,     617, 

633,     634,     681,     3415. 

c'.   Bartlett.    pp.     1876,     2172. 

Blomsness    v.    Puget    Sound    Elect. 

Railway,    pp.    1529,    2044. 
Blondel   z:    St.    Paul   City   R.    Co.,    p. 

2223. 
Blood,    Schmidt    z\ 
Bloom   z:    Richards,    p.    1861. 

7'.   Sioux    City    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

1701,    1805,    2274. 

Texas,    etc.,    K.    Co.    z\ 

Bloomer,    Graff    z\ 

Pittsburgh    R.    Co.    z'. 

Blooniingdale    7'.    Durell,    p.    843. 

''.   Wilsons,      etc.,      Line,      pp. 

3875,    3933. 

Bloomingdale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  1212,  1213, 
1222,  1229,  1246,  1247,  1249, 
1250. 

Bloomington,  P.  &  J.  Electric  R. 
Co.,    Cleary   z'. 

Bloomington,  etc..  Railway  z'.  Zim- 
merman,   p.    2357. 

Blossom  z'.  Champion,  pp.  480, 
532. 

v.    Dodd,     pp.     324,     931,     946, 

965,    966,    991,    1003,    1004,    1007, 
1018,    3163,    3164. 

z:   Griffin,    pp.     285,    286,     287, 

772,    882,    3369,    3370. 

Blount    ''.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    p. 

3353. 
Blowers    &    Co.    z/.     Canadian    Pac. 

R.    Co.,   pp.    551,   563,    581. 
Blue     z'.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     p. 

2354. 
Blue    Grass    Tract.    Co.    ?•.    Skillman, 

p.    1963. 
Blue   Hill    St.    R.    Co.,    Dugan   t-. 
Blue     Ridge     Collection     Agency     v. 

Southern     R.     Co.,     p.     155. 
Blue     Ridge     Light,     etc.,      Co.     v. 

Price,    p.    2876. 
Blue    Ridge    R.,    Co.,    Adger    v. 

Davis    Bros.    z'. 

Blumenthal     &    Co.,    Mullin    z: 
Blum,    Bonner   r. 

Louisville    R.    Co.    v. 

— —  7'.   Monahan,    p.    821. 


Blum  '■.  Southern  Pullman  Palace 
Car  Co.,  pp.  3201,  3202,  3215, 
3217,    3218,    3221. 

7'.  The    Caddo,    pp.    477,    488. 

494. 

Yazoo,    etc.,   R.    Co.   7-. 

Blum    &    Co.    7'.     Marks,     pp.     1214. 

1215,^  1219. 
Blum    Co.,    Yazoo,   etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 
P.lumantle   7'.    Fitchburg   R.    Co.,   pp. 

3133,    3150. 
r>lumentlial   7'.    Brainerd,   pp.   6,   355, 

488,     729,     850,     855,     897,     901. 

905.  1003,  1004,  1005,  1007,  1008, 

1009. 

7'.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

3124,  3151,  3152,  3193. 

Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 

7'.   LTnion    Elect.    Co.,    p.    2766. 

Blunt,     Sarjeant     7'. 

Blumenthal     7'.     Southern     R.     Co.. 

p.    23'). 
lilyth,    Oregon,    etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 
Blythe   7'.    Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

732,    738. 
Boal,     Cincinnati,     etc..     Mail     Line 

Co.     7'. 
Board    z\    Christie    Grain,    etc.,    Co., 

p.     1617. 

7'.   Cralle,    pp.    1696,    2076. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Xew    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    7'. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 

Public     Service    R.     Co.     7'. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.    7'. 

V.   Spalding,    p.     3586. 

United     States     Fidelity,    etc., 

Co.   V. 

Board  of  Corp.  Comm'rs,  Mat- 
thews   7'. 

Boardman,    Marshall    7'. 

Boatmen's  Sav.  Bank  7'.  Western, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  378,  387,  555, 
558,     3274. 

Boatmen's    Sav.    Inst.,     Fontaine    v. 

Boaz  7'.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  pp. 
797,  1287,  1365,  1367,  1378,  1284, 
1430. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Bobbink    7.     Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    896, 

1021. 
Bobbitt   7'.    United   R.    Co.,    p.    2595. 
Bobolink,    The. 
Bock,    Hauterman    7'. 
Bockelcamp     z'.      Lackawanna,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    1884,    1900. 
Boddy,     Street     Railroad    7'. 
Boden    7'.    Boston    Elevated    R.    Co.. 

pp.     1515,    2305. 
Bodley,     Ottawa    v. 
Boehl    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

816,    818,     821.     828,     1074,     1362, 

1363,  1388,  1389,  1457. 
Boehm  7'.  Duluth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1544,   1547,   1858,   2454,   2480, 

3021,  3079. 
Boer,  El  Paso  Elect.  R.  Co.  7'. 
Boering  7'.  Chesapeake  Beach  R. 

Co.,     20     App.     D.     C.     500- pp. 

2094,   2103,    2837. 

7'.   Chesapeake    Beach     R.     Co., 

24   S.    Ct.    515,    193   U.    S.   442,   48 
L.     Ed.     742— pp.     2103,     2105. 

Boesen,    Omaha    St.    R.    Co.    7'. 

v.  Omaha  St.   R.   Co.,  p.   2164. 

Boetgen     7'.     New     York,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    2324. 

Bogard,   Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   7'. 

7'.   Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1491,      1492,      1495,      1497,      2018, 
2030 

Bogardus     v.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2631. 
Bogart   7'.   State,   p.   3569. 
Boger,    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7'. 
Boggess     V.     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.     1544,    1548,    2314,    2486, 

2619,    2625. 
Boggett    V.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1638. 
Boggs,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


TAIlI.lv    OF    CASES. 


CXXIX 


I'.ogg   f.    Martin    (Ky,.),    13    I!.    M(jn. 
239— p.     1164. 

V.   Martin    (Ky.),    13    I!.    Mon. 

243— p.    1153. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

I'.oRk-.    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
lioiiannan     t.     Hammond,     pp.     727, 

732.    748,     752. 
P.ohannon,     International,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    ;•. 
-•.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2490, 

3018. 
I'ohn,    East    Saginaw    City    R.    Co. 

V. 

r.oice   V.    Dcs    Moines    City    R.    Co., 

pp.     1893.    28  ir,. 
■  T'.   Iliulson     River    R'.     Co.,     pp. 

1624,     1625,     1634. 

'•.   Ulster,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2880. 

r.oies   :■.   Hartford,   etc..    R.    Co.,   pp. 

820,     917. 
I'.oikens    v.    New    Orleans,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,     p.     1889. 
T.oland,    Hastings   -•. 
Ilolenian,    Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 
r.olen    '•.     Seaboard,     etc.,     Railway, 

p.     163. 
Roles,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

-  Oklahoma    R.    Co.    v. 
r.olgiano,    K\    Paso    Elect.    R'.    Co.   v. 
I'.olin    V.    HutTnagle,    p.    1241. 
lioiing    -'.    St.    Eouis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1612,    1013,    1622,    1623,    1632, 

3085. 
liollam,   State  r. 
r.ollcs    f.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2425. 

-  7'.  Lehigh    Valley    K.    Co.,    pp. 
773,    962,    1022. 

Merchants'     Despatch     Transp. 

Co.    r. 

Boiling,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.    v. 

7'.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2475,    2476,    3319. 
Boiling     &     Bro.,     Pine     BlufT     Iron 

Works    ?'. 
r.ollman,     Skilling     ,■. 
i!. lister,    Wilkie    t. 
Bolton.    Cliicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

J-.   Lancashire,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1228,    1232,    1234,    1242. 

Mclntire  R.   Co.   v. 

T'.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2105,     2217,     2640,     2999. 

Bolton      Steam      Shipping      Co.      v. 

Crossnian,    p.    3893. 
Bomar   f.    Maxwell,    pp.    3109,    3114, 

3115,     3116,     3118,     3124,     3125, 

3126.     3129,     3131,     3142,     3167. 
liommarius  ?■.  New  Orleans  R.,  etc., 

Co.,    p.     1902. 
lionar  r.  Mcrcliants'   Co.,  p.  608. 
I'-onasera     ?'.     I'uffalo,     etc..     Tract. 

Co.,    p.    1974. 
r.onaud.    Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ,■. 
lionce    f.    IHibuque    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1716,    1737,    1749. 
Bond   7:   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    110 

Mo.    App.    131,    84    S.    W.    124— 

p.    2655. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    122 

Mo.    App.    207,    99    S.    W.    30— 
p.    2359. 

Cowan    V. 

Reber    v. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ?■. 

r.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

91. 

Bonds-Foster        Lumber        Co.  :■. 

Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp.  3(il, 

367,    542. 

Bone,    St.    L.,    I.    M.    &    S.    R.  Co. 

St.    I,ouis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Boner      :■.      Merchants'      Steamboat 

Co.,    p.    728. 
Bonliglio    -•.     Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R. 

Co..    pp.    816,    1036,    1457. 
Bonilied,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.   v. 
Bonneau    f.     North     Shore    R.     Co., 

pp.    1720,    2696,    2980,    2981. 

1  Car— i 


Bonner    f.     Blum,    \>]>.     3115,     3132, 

3153. 

f.  l)e  Mendoza,  p.  3156. 

— ■  V.   Glenn,   pp.   1953,   2172, 

2174. 
— •  -  -'.  (■rumbach,  pp.  753,  2287, 

2694,  3146,  3147.  3155,  3156. 

Hale  f. 

-■.   Wingate.    pp.    1701,    1811. 

Bonney    f.     Buchwicke     R.     Co.,     p. 

2833. 
I'.onstead,    Morgan    Envelope    Co.    i: 
Borsteel    t.    \'anderbilt,    p.    2651. 
i'.ook    I'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

2457. 
r.ooker.    Van    Casteel    r. 
IJooks,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 
Boon    &    Co.    V.    Belfast,    pp.    751, 

1017. 

The    Belfast    r. 

I'oone.      Baltimore,     etc..     Turnpike 

Road    f. 
7'.   Oakland     Transit     Co.,     pp. 

22S8,    2743. 
I '.Done    Suburban    R.    Co.,    Cotant   v. 
lioornian     v.     American     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    987,     1007,     1030,    1034,    1044, 

1076,     1118. 
Ilooth,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.  Lloyd,    p.    3585. 

Lowe   t'. 

f.    Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

505. 

Pullman     Palace     Car     Co.     '■. 

Smith    7\ 

Southern    Pac.    Co.   '■. 

r.   Spuytcn,    etc..    Mill    Co.,    p. 

3052. 

The    G.    R. 

lioothe,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
liooton,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
I'oozer,    Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 
l'>orches,    Radel    Co.    v. 
Borda   !■.    Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1176,    1177,    1183. 
I'lOrdeaux   t'.    Erie    R'.    Co.,   pp.    1599, 

1601,     2468. 
liordcn,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Gilbert    Transp.    Co.    !■. 

jiorders,     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Boren.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    %•. 

The    G.    B. 

I'oring,     Montgomery,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

l!oVk,     New    York,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

liorn,     Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     '■. 

Born  Steel  Range  Co.,  Southern 
R.   Co.  V. 

Bornstein    f.    Lans,    p.    1140. 

Ilorough.    Simpson-Crawford    Co.    '■. 

Borough  of  Norwood  "'.  Western- 
Union    Tel.    Co.,    p.    3550. 

I'loscowitz  '■.  .\dams  Exp.  Co.,  pp. 
779.  834,  981,  996,  1033,  1046, 
1049. 

Boshear,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Bosley  f.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    822,    1075,    1363,    1459,    1479. 

Bosqui  7'.  Sutro  R.  Co.,  pp.  1737, 
2(,75,    2761,    2868,    2954. 

Boss  :■.  ^Vtlantic  Coast  Line  R. 
Co.,     pp.      3396,     3408. 

7'.   Providence,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1736,     1924. 

Boster  7'.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  191,  194,  195,  200,  2123, 
2468.    2563,    2564,    3099. 

Bostock,    Seaboard,    etc..    Railway   7'. 

Boston,    Coast    Line    R.    Co.    7-. 

Peverly    7'. 

Rosen    7'. 

Townsend    7'. 

Boston    &    .\.    R.    Co.    7'.    Boston    & 

L.    R'.    Co.,    p.    3610. 
Boston     &     L.     R.     Co..     Boston     & 

A.    R.    Co.   7'. 
Boston    &    Maine    R.     R.,    McLoon 


Boston    Dist.    Messenger    Co., 
kell    7'. 


Has- 


Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    Ahem    7'. 

Anjou    f. 

Anshen    z: 

Beattie    z'. 

Bentson    f. 

Beverley  i: 

Black     z: 

— —  P.odcn    v. 
— ■ — •   Brisbin     v. 
Burns   v. 

Bursteen    z\ 

Burus    7', 

— —  Carroll     r. 
Cohen    V. 

Conroy  ''. 

Coy    V. 

Craft    V. 

— ■ —  Craig    7'. 

Crowley    7'. 

Cutts   z: 

Donahoe    v. 

Uuchemin     v. 

EI  dredge    z: 

Eldridge    v. 

Farrington    '■. 

Gagnon    7'. 

Gardner    7'. 

Garland    7'. 

Glennen    7'. 

Hamilton    7'. 

Hannon     z'. 

Heshion    v. 

Hillman    7'. 

nines     7'. 

Hogner   7'. 

Ilolliday  7'. 

H organ    v. 

Hotenbrink    7'. 

Hunt     7'. 

James  7'. 

Jameson    z\ 

Kelley    7'. 

Kilduflf     7'. 

Krock     7'. 

Lanci    7'. 

Larson    7'. 

•  Lauchtamacher    z'. 

Lockwood     7'. 

■   Lyons     7'. 

McCIinchy     f. 

McCumbcr    7'. 

McDermott    v. 

McDonough    7'. 

McGann    7'. 

McGarry   7'. 

McLaren    7'. 

Marshall    '■. 

Martin    7'. 

Meade    7'. 

Millniore    7'. 

Minihan   7'I' 

Mullin     I'."*" 

Niland   7'.  > 

Pickford    # 

Pike  7'. 

Plummer    7". 

•  Rand    z: 

Sanderson   v. 

Scale   7'. 

7'.   Smith,    pp.    1893,    1993. 

Stevens    7'. 

Steverman   7'. 

McCarthy    7'. 

Sullivan     7'. 

Tlionias   7'. 

Tompkins    7'. 

T upper    7'. 

Twiss    7'. 

Weeks   7'. 

Welch    7'. 

Work   7'. 

Yancey  z: 

'S'ancy   7'. 

Zaniore   7'. 

Boston  Marine  Ins.  Co.  7".  Metro- 
l)olitan  Redwood  Lumber  Co.,  pp. 
4084.    4085. 

Richelieu,    etc..    Nav.    Co.    f. 

Boston    Railroad.    State    7'. 
lioston     Steamship    Co..     Scott    7'. 
Boston,    etc.,    Corp.,    Watts    7'. 
Boston,    etc..    Railroad.    Aigen    7'. 

Bachant    7-. 


cxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    Boucher    v. 

Bradford    v. 

Brooks    f. 

Bullard  v. 

Clement    v. 

Collins    i\ 

Commonwealth    ''. 

Converse   v. 

Duntlej'  V. 

Eaton    V. 

Elkins    f. 

Emerson    *'. 

Emery    v. 

Faulkner    v. 

Fisher    v. 

Flaherty    v. 

Fletcher   v. 

Flint    V. 

Floytrup   v. 

Gilman    v. 

Goodwin    v. 

• Gray    v. 

Hackett  v. 

Hett    V. 

Hooker    v. 

r.  Hooker,      pp.      3607,      3617, 

3743,   3750,   3762,   3763. 

Hull    V. 

Kambour    v. 

Keefe    "'. 

Kellogg    f. 

Lessard   v. 

Little    V. 

McDonald    v. 

Marr   v. 

Mayall   v. 

Mayo    V. 

Moriarty   v. 

Moses    V. 

Nealand    v. 

Norway    Plains    Co.    v. 

Nugent    c'. 

Nute   V. 

O'Laughlin    '•. 

V.  Ordway,    p.    3182. 

Parker    v. 

Piper  V. 

Pudor    c'. 

Savageau    'J. 

Shapiro    v. 

Silva  V. 

Smith    ''. 

Spofford    V. 

■ Spotford   V. 

State  V. 

Stevens   v. 

Washburn-Crosby    Co.    v. 

Wells    V. 

Weston    V. 

Whittemore    i\ 

Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Allerton   v. 

Ailing   V. 

Baker  v. 

Barden   v. 

Barry   v. 

V.  Bartlett,  pp.    1670,    1672. 

Beers    -'. 

Bigwood    V. 

Brewer    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Briggs   V. 


Brooks 

V.    Brown 

223— p.    1167. 
Brown, 


(Mass.),     15     Gray 

177    Mass.    65,    58 
52    L.    R.    A.    418— 


E.    189, 
100. 

Carpenter    v. 
Carroll    v. 
Carter   v. 
Cass   v. 
Cheney  v. 

V.   Chipman,    p.    1627. 
Claflin    V. 
Commonwealth  v. 
Dawson  v. 
Dewire     v. 
Doherty    v. 
Doyle    'd. 
Dunham    v. 
Duntley    v. 
Eaton    V. 
Elkins   V. 
■  England    v. 


,    R.    Co.,    Farnon    v. 

-  Fisher    v. 

-  Forbes    f. 

-  Forsyth     v. 

-  Foss    v. 

-  Fox   V. 

-  Fuller   V. 

-  Gaffman    v. 

-  Gould    V. 

Green    v. 

Heinlien    v. 

Hendrick    v. 

Heyward  v. 

Hickey     f. 

Hill     V. 

Inness   v. 

Johnson    v. 

Jones   V. 

June    'J. 

Keefe    v. 

— —  Keeley    v. 

Kuhlen    r. 

Lane   v. 

Latham    v. 

Lichtenhein    v. 

McDonough    v. 

McNamara   v. 

Marshall    v. 

Massell    v. 

■  Merrill     -.'. 

■  V.   Miller,    pp.    2642,    2921. 

Mohr    V. 

Moreland    v. 

Moses    V. 

Murdock    v. 

Najac   V. 

O'Brien    v. 

O'Dougherty  v. 

Peebles   v. 

People    V. 

Planz    V. 

Pomeroy   v. 

Powers     '•. 

•  '.'.    Proctor,    pp.    1624,    1858. 

Quimby    v. 

Ramsden    v. 

Redigan   v. 

Reynolds    v. 

•  Robertson    v. 

Sargent    t'. 

School     Dist.     V. 

r.   Shanly,    pp.    222,    236,    238. 

Shannon    v. 

Snowden   z\ 

Somer    v. 

Sonier   v. 

Stewart    v. 

'•.    Stockwell,    pp.    2338,    2880, 

2884. 

V.    Sullivan,    p.    100. 

Swetland    '•. 

Thompkins    f. 

Torrev    '■. 

V.   Trafton,     p.     1625. 

Twiss    V. 

United    States    v. 

■ Wadsworth    v. 

z\   Warrior     Mower     Co.,     pp. 

495,    681. 

Washburn-Crosby    Co.    v. 

Welch    V. 

Wheelwright    z'. 

— —  Whicher   v. 

V.  Whitcher,    p.    1151. 

White  v. 

Wiggin    V. 

Winslow    f. 

Wright  f. 

Young    ?■. 

Boston,    etc.,    R'.    Corp.,    Bancroft    v. 

Caswell    V. 

Chaffee    z: 

Commonwealth     "■. 

Darling   z>. 

r)unbar   v. 

Hall    r. 

Hill  Mfg.   Co.  V. 

Malone   z'. 

Newcomb   v. 

Rice    V. 

Sargent    v. 


Boston,    etc.,  ,R.    Corp.,    Schopman 

Stevens   v. 

Thomas   v. 

Treat  v. 

Watts   z: 

Western    R.    Corp.,    p.    114. 

Boston,     etc..      Railway,     Foley     v. 
Boston,     etc..     Steamship     Co.,     But- 
ler   z: 

Crozier   z'. 

Dodge   z>. 

Boston,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,   Bigwood  t'. 

V.  Carter   v. 

Cunningham   v. 

Foley    z'. 

Hamilton    v. 

Jones    '■. 

Kuhlen    z\ 

Marshall   v. 

Martin    v. 

Mason   z: 

Rose    V. 

Bostvidck  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (N.  Y.)  55  Barb.  137— pp. 
321,    323,   451. 

z'.  Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   45 

N.     Y.    712— pp.    325,     743,     997, 
3881. 

Brunswick,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

Boswell    z'.    Hudson    River    R.    Co., 

p.    946. 
Bosworth   v.    Carr,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
522,    523,    888,    3259. 

Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3286. 

Huntting    Elevator    Co.    z: 

Rau    V. 

V.   Walker,    p.    2486. 

Botany    Worsted    Mills,    Knott    v. 
■  z'.  Knott,      76       Fed.      582— p. 

4059. 

z:  Knott,    82    Fed.    471,    27    C. 

C.   A.   326— pp.   4018,   4058,   4069. 

z:   Knott,     21     S.     Ct.     30,     179 

U.    S.    69,    45     L.     Ed.     90— pp. 
4069,    4071. 

Bothlingk   v.    Inglis,    p.    1246. 
Botsford,    Law    v. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Bottorff,      Louisville,      etc.,      Packet 

Co.    -.'. 
Botts,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Bottum      V.      Charleston,      etc.,       R. 

Co.,   pp.   760,   761,   763,   832. 
Boucher    z:    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

pp.    1683,    2682,    2792. 
Boudrou,        Thirteenth,        etc.,        R. 

Co.     z: 
Bough    z'.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.   2631. 
Boughman    ?'.     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    485. 
Boughton,    Wright    v. 
Bouker   z\    Long   Island   K.    Co.,    pp. 

246,    621. 
Bouknight,    Washington-Virginia    R. 

Co.    r. 
Boulfrois  z:   United   Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

2116,    2153,    2249. 
Boulton,    White   z\ 
Bourgo   z'.    White,    p.    1840. 
Bourgogne,    La   f. 
Bourland    v.    Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    639,    643,   644,   645,   646,   647, 

648. 
Bourne   v.    CatlifF,    p.    892. 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

Bowden    v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2019,    2786. 

V.   Fargo,    pp.     821,    823. 

Bowdle  V.   Detroit,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1832,    2961. 
Bowdon    V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    517,    833,    895. 
Bowen,    Lee    z: 

z\  New    York    Cent.    R.     Co., 

p.  1725. 

-•.  Sirer,  pp.  3955,  3966,  3968. 

V.   Southern  R.  Co.,  p.  2280. 


TAliLK    OF    CASES. 


CXXXI 


Bowers  V.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p 
3095. 

V.   Pittsburgh,     etc.,     Railroad 

pp.    1627,    1636. 

V.  R'ichinond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p, 

2568. 

Mowers    Dredging    Co.,    McRae   v. 

Kowie  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
1  MacArthur  (8  D.  C.)  94— pp 
273,    274,    276,    288,    1281. 

V.   IJaitimore,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     1 

MacArthur  (8  D.  C),  609— pp 
1332,    1377. 

V.   Hirmingliam     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

pp.    1944,     1945,    2650. 

f.   Bufifaio,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

898. 

Gallagher    i'. 

V.  Greenville     St.     R.     Co.,    p 

2617. 

Bowker,   Kelley  v. 

Wilmshurst    r. 

Bowlby,    Brandt   -■. 

Howlds,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.,   Co.   v. 
Bowler,    etc.,    Co.,    Toledo,    etc.,    R. 
Co.    V. 

V.  Toledo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3125,    3141,    3149. 

Bowles,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 

Richmond    R'.,    etc.,    Co.    '■. 

7'.   Rome,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2813. 

Bowlin    ■:    Xye,    pp.    456,    796,    875. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.^ 

V.   Union      Pac.     R.      Co.,      p. 

2694. 

Bowling   Green    R.    Co.,    Lewis   v. 

Bowman,    Bender   &   Co.   r. 

■  -■.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

3418,  3419,  3420,  3421,  3427, 
3429,  3439,  3440,  3448,  3450, 
3480,  3494,  3538,  3539,  3549, 
3566,  3568. 

i:  Hilton,    pp.    733,    749,    772, 

77i,  822,  1154,  1157,  1161,  3901, 
3914. 

Kirkland   f. 

Kirkman     ?■. 

• -•.   Teall,    pp.    634,    635,    798. 

Whitmore   f. 

Bowne,     Continental     Coal     Co.     v. 

Mclntyre  '■. 

Bowring     -•.    Wabash     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1050,     1407. 
I?owring   &    Co.,   National    Board  v. 
Howsher    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2470. 
Box    -■.    -Vtlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

J(i55. 
Boyce   v.    .\nderson,    pp.    730,    1501, 

1684,    1714. 

V.  California     Stage      Co.,      p. 

2692. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   ■:■. 

t.    Manhattan   R'.    Co.,    p.    1783. 

Boyd,     Charleston,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

Grand   Rapids,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Hopkins  f. 

Michigan    Cent.    R.     Co.    f. 

Michigan    R'.    Co.    r. 

V.   Moselv,      pp.      1221,      1227. 

z:   Moses',    pp.    243,    244. 

Xorth    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    t'. 

Rock   Creek   Steamboat    Co.   t. 

'•.   Spencer,     pp.      1612,      1613, 

1622,  1626,  1631,  2092,  2093, 
2446. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Boyer,    K.x    parte. 

— - —  Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

L'nited    States    -■. 

Bovlan    r.    Hot    Springs    R.    Co..    pp. 

1(.27.     1632.     1634.     1635.     2444. 
Bovli-  r.   Bush   Terminal   R.   Co..   pp. 

321.     1074. 

-■.  McLaughlin,    pp.    728,    733, 

734.    741,    749. 

f.  Philadelphia,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    67. 

T'.  Reeder.   p.   654. 

Savannah,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Boyles,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 


Boyles    f.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1687,    1730,    1956. 
Bozarth,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 
IJrabbzson,      St.       Louis,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   r. 
Brabley  v.    Dunipace,   p.   333. 
Bracco     f.       Merchants'       Despatch 

Transp.    Co.,    pp.    654,    658. 
Brace,    Barber  f. 

Bracket    f.    McNair,    pp.    470,    653. 
Brackett    f.    Southern    Railway,    pp. 

1770,    1939,    2328. 
Brackney    t.    Public    Service    Corp., 

pp.    1714,    2165,    2896. 
Bradburn    -•.    Whatcom    County    R., 

etc..    Co.,    p.     1565. 
Bradford   v.    Boston,   etc.,    Railroad, 

p.    2503. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Cunard    Steamship    Co.,    p. 

865. 

V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1945,  2420,  2421. 

South    Carolina    R.     Co.     :■. 

V.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3176,    3310,    3313,     3413. 

V.  Taylor,    p.    2642. 

Bradley    v.    Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
147    Hi.     App.    397— p.    3174. 

-■.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     94 

Wis.    44,    68    N.    W.    410— p.    647. 

r.   Denton,    p.     473. 

J'.   Fort    Wayne,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    1992,    2354. 

Fuller   r. 

-'.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

'-  V.   Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co.,    145 

Fed.    569— p.    3911. 

'■.   Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co.,    153 

Fed.    350,    82    C.    C.    A.    426— pp, 
790,    792,   4065,   4066. 

V.  Northwestern     R.     Co.,     p 

816. 

— —  Seaboard   Air  Line  Railway  v. 

Seaboard    Air    Line    R.    Co.    v. 

Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Seaver    f. 

V.   Second  Ave.   R.   Co.,   54  N 

Y.  S.   256,   34  App.   Div.  284— pp 
2343,    2692,    2893. 

v.   Second     Ave.    R.      Co.,     90 

Hun    419,    35    N.    Y.    S.    918,    70 
N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    622— p.    2185. 

Bradncy      f.      Philadelphia       Rapid 

Transit   Co.,   p.   2150. 
Bradshaw     '•.     Irish     North-Western 

R.    Co.,    p.    898. 

V.   South     Boston     R.    Co..    pp. 

1650,    1977.    2431,    2459,    2572. 

Trinity,     etc..     R.     Co.     i". 

Bradstreet.    Abbott   v. 

-■.   Heran,    p.    530. 

Brady,    Alabama    City,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    'c. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2077,  2085,    2086. 

Lang  -'. 

i\  Manhattan   R.    Co 

V.  Old     Colony      R. 

2834. 

-'.  Springfield    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

1734,  1738,      1888,      1892,      1894, 

2585,  2595,    2598.      ' 

f.  State,    p.    178. 

Braflfett    f.    Brooklyn,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    26.    27. 
Bragg   V.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2640,    2764. 

V.  Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1533,      1585,      1763, 
2491.    2624. 

•  St.     Louis,    etc., 

Brainard,    Cutts    7'. 

Merrick    -•. 

7'.   Nassau     Fleet. 

2193,    2194.    2691. 

Brainerd,     Blume^lthal     %•. 
Converse    r. 

Morse    v. 

Braker    v.    Jarvis    Co.,    p.    3908. 
Hrame,   Norfolk,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f 


p.   2730. 
Co.,     p. 


2457,     2488, 
R-.    Co.    f. 

R.    Co.,    pp. 


Bramley  v.   Ulster,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  pp. 

373,    378. 
Branan    r.    Atlanta,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    370,    1206,    1207,    1208,    1209, 

1210,      1221,      1222,      1223,      1225, 

1228,    1229. 

-■.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.   2339, 

2617. 

Branch,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

77   N.   C.    347— p.   612. 

7'.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

88    N.    C.    570— p.    154. 

Brancroft-Whitney       Co.,         Pacific 

Coast,    etc.,    Co.   -•. 
Brand   v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

667,    668,   670,    341 1. 

V.  New  Jersey   Steamboat   Co., 

pp.    905,    911. 

7'.  Weir,    I).    853. 

Brandenburg,    Cincinnati,     etc.,     R. 

Co.      7'. 

Brandon.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

Brandstetter  Co..  Felix  v. 
I'.randt  f.  Bowlby,  p.  849. 
I'ranner,    Dunn    -■. 

Brannon    v.    .\tlanta,    etc.,     R.     Co., 
pp.    948,    960,    1282,    1283. 

Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Branshaw,    Beidler   7'. 

Branson,  Williams  7'. 
Brantford  City.  The. 
Brantley    Co.    v.    Ocean    Steamship 

Co..    p.    3840. 
Bras  z:   McConnell,  p.   103. 
Brashaw    7'.    Denver,     etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    544. 
Brashear   -•.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1879. 
Brasher,    Tennessee    Cent.     R.     Co. 

Brass,    St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Stoeser,      pp.      3432,      3527, 

3528. 

New  York  Cent.,  etc., 
pp.  1792,  2134,  2137, 


Brassell    ; 

R.    Co., 

2138. 
Bratcher, 


Texas,     etc.. 


Co. 


R.     Co., 

2694. 

Co.,    1 
77    Atl. 


R. 

Bratton,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    7'. 
Braucr.     Compania     De    Navigacion 
La    Flecha   '■. 

Compania.    etc..    La    FIccha   v. 

-•.  Oceanic     Steam    Nav.     Co., 

pp.    1317.    1474.    3932. 

Braun    7'.    Northern     Pac. 
pp.    2434.    2492. 

7'.    L'nion     R.     Co.,    p. 

7'.   Webb,    p.    3206. 

Braunstein    7'.     People's     R. 

Boyce's  (24  Del.)  310, 

738— pp.  2576,  2593,  2594,  2595, 

2602. 

7'.  People's  Co.,  2  Bovce's   (25 

Del.)  55,  78  Atl.  609— pp.  1682, 
1741,  1978.  2653.  2667.  2668, 
2671.     2693. 

Braunton    7'.    Southern    Pac.    Co..    p. 

871. 
Braus    7'.    Manhattan    Delivery    Co., 

p.    1067. 
Brauss.    City.    etc..    R.    Co.   7'. 
Bravard,    Cincinnati,    etc..    R. 
Brawley    7'.    United    States,    p. 
Brav.    Pennsylvania   Co.    i-. 

'-  V.  State,    p.    43. 

Bravmer    7.     Seattle,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    1640,    1853,    1854,    1855.    2425, 

2717. 
Brazil.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    7-. 
Brazzell    7'.    State,    p.    185. 
Breakwater    Co..    (Commonwealth    v. 
Breckinridge.      Louisville,      etc.,      R. 

Co.    7'. 
Breed    7.     Mitchell,    pp.     568.     581. 

788. 
Breeden  7'.  Seattle,  etc..  R.   Co.,  pp. 

2348.    2(.49.    2906. 
Breedii-g.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    f. 
Brcen    7'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2682. 

7'.   St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    pp. 

2710,     2726. 

Stumore    7-. 


Co.  V. 
3873. 


CXXXII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Breen    :■.    Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1621,     1976,      2425,      2426,      2482, 

2483. 
Breese    r.    Trenton    Horse    R.    Co., 

pp.    2584.    2596. 
Breese-Trenton   Mining   Co.   i:    Wa- 
bash  R.    Co.,    p.    3668. 
Brehm    f.    Great    Western    R.    Co., 

p.    2681. 
Brchme      z:      Dinsmore,      pp.      588, 

984,    986,    1006,    1060,    1067. 
Brehonv  ;•.    Pottsville  Union   Tract. 

Co..  'p.    2786. 
Brcinig.         Baltimore,         etc.,  R. 

Co.   :. 
Breithaupt,    McLean    v. 
B.    R".     Elect.    Co.,    Southern    E-xp. 

Co.    T. 
Brelsford,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Bremer    v.    Pleiss,    pp.    2149,    2150. 

Stewart  f. 

Bremncr     f.     Williams,     pp.      1681, 

1845. 
Brenan   z:    Shelton,    p.    806. 
Breniman,  Colorado,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Brennan     f.     Brooklyn     Heights     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2167,    2803. 

V.   Fairhaven,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1879,    2519,    2635. 

f.   Shelton.    p.    800. 

r.   Titusville,    pp.    3440.    3570. 

Brenner  v.   Jonesboro,  etc.,   R.    Co., 

p.    3086. 
Brenni.sen   z:    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 
100    Minn.    102,    110    X.    W.    362, 
363.     10    Am.    &    Eng.    .\nn.    Cas. 
169— pp.    786,   839. 

-■.  Pennsylvania    R.     Co.,     101 

Minn.    120, 'ill    X.    W.    945— pp. 
821,    824,    843. 

Brent,    Fergusson    v. 

Bresk>'     i'.      Minneapolis,     etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    3454,    3455,    3456. 
Brethauer,     Chicago    Union      Tract. 

Co.    V. 
Bretherton    f.    Wood,    p.    211. 
Brett,     Wilson     z: 
Brettncr    i:    Westchester    Elect.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2321,    2860. 
Brevig    v.     Chicago,    etc.,     R'.     Co., 

p.     1551. 
Brewer,   Atchison,  etc.,   R.    Co.    i'. 

Central    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3713,    3715,    3716,    3723. 

Edwards    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Xew     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  1577,  1578,  2104,  2105. 

Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 

i:   St.     Louis    Transit    Co.,    p. 

2188. 

Southern     R.     Co.     v. 

Brewer   Lumber  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 

R.     Co.,     pp.     1211,     1229,     1232, 

1233.    1234,    1245. 
Brewers',    etc.,    Mach.    Co.,    Seitz   v. 
Brewster,    Dwight    '•. 

c'.   Interborough   Rapid   Transit 

Co..    pp.    2039,    2046,    2075,    2771. 

Miller   V. 

t:   Xew    York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    967. 

Brezewitz    i:    St.    Louis,     etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    1938. 
Brian    v.    Oregon,    etc,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1623,     2661,     2711,     2784,      3100, 

3317,    3318,    3319. 
Briant    -'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   531,   537,  896,  904. 
Bribble,   Ft.    Worth,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Brice   Z-.    South    Covington,    etc.,    St. 

R.   Co.,  p.  2814. 

V.  Southern         Railway,        pp. 

1972,    2177,      2342,      2806,     2866, 
3007. 

Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 
3123,     3125,     3141,     3151, 


Bridges    z:    Tackson    Elect.    R..    etc., 
Co.,    pp.    2194,    2198,    2311. 

{■.  North    London    R.    Co.,    p. 

1926. 

f.   North      London,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.     1924. 

Walpole   f. 

Bridgeton,    Green    z'. 

Bridgeton,   etc..  Tract.    Co..  Paynter 

Bridgman  z\   The   Emily,    p.   471. 

Bricd  -•.   Mitchell,  p.  828. 

Bricn    z\     Bennett,    pp.     1515,     1517. 

Grove    ''. 

Brierly  v.   Union   R.   Co.,   p.   2974. 

Brig    Collenber,    The. 

Brig     James     Gray     z\     Ship     John 

Fraser.    p.    3478. 
Brig     Pilgrim,     Adams    •;■. 
Briggs     z\     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1154,    1155,    1156,    1161,    1168, 

1170,    3269. 

Camden,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?'. 

Camden,    etc.,    Transp.    Co.    -'. 

— —  V.   Durham      Tract.      Co.,      pp. 

1680,      1683,      1744,      1827,      2001, 
2678,    2698,    2860. 

z:  Xew    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.     636,    663. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co.   ?■. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    z'. 

z:  Union      St.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2151,   2152,   2159. 

Brigham,     Pittsburgh,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

"•.    Southern       Pac.       Co.,       p. 

2714. 

Taylor     f. 

Brigham   &   Co.   ?■ 
Brigham,   etc.,    Co 
Bright,    Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co 
Brightman   z\   Reeves,    p.   400. 

Terry    z\ 

•  V.  Union      St.      R.      Co 

2518,     2541. 
Brightwood    R.    Co.    z\    Carter,    pp 
2172,    2196. 

Harten    v. 

Brigman,     Hinote     f. 

Brignoli    ?■.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

p.    2695. 
Brill    V.    Eddy,    p.    2075. 
Brilliant,    The. 
Brimmer    f.    Illinois    Cent 


Carlisle,    p.    659. 
Phillips   z>. 


pp. 


R'.    Co., 
ComniL-rce 


Brick  ■• 
3120 
3184. 

Bricker 


Philadelphia,  etc.,     R. 
Co.,    pp.    1502,    1537. 

Bridge,    James    Music    Co.  v. 

Bridger,    Central    R.,    etc.,  Co.    z'. 


p.     2671. 
Brimson,         Interstate 

Comm.    -'. 
Brinck     z\     North      German     Lloyd 

Steamship    Co.,    pp.    4033,    4035. 
Brinegcr  ■»■.    Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.. 

p.    2172. 
Brinkmeier     z\     Missouri     Pac.     R. 

Co.,    p.     3457. 
Brinley,    I^ouisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 
Brinson,    Baker    z: 

Central     Railroad    z\ 

Central    R.    Co.    v. 

Brintnall   v.    Saratoga,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3183,    3407. 
Brisbane,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Brisbin   z'.    Boston    Elevated   R.    Co., 

pp.    2142,    2330,    2910. 
Briscoe   zj.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co  , 

pp.    2671,    2691,    2975. 
Bristoe   v.   Rensselaer,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    546,    583. 
Bristol,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Baxendale   v. 

Garton    ?•. 

Britain    Steamship    Co.,    Smith    z\ 

Britannia,    The. 

British    King,    The. 

British,   etc.,   Ins.   Co.  v.   Gulf,   etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    729,    775,    790,    791, 

792,    793,    794,    934,    935. 
British,     etc..     Marine     Ins.     Co.     v. 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   p.   790. 

f.   Portland       Flouring       Mills 

Co.,   pp.    3939,   3940,    3942. 

British,    etc..    Packet    Co.,    Smith    v. 
British,     etc..     Steam     Packet     Co., 

Caruana    z\ 
Brittan    v.    Barnaby,    pp.    511,     542, 

566,   1134,   1135,    1143,   1144,    1167, 

3939,   3940,   3941,   3947. 


Britton     -■.     .\tlanta,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
p.   2019. 

Cooper    Grocer    Co.    z'. 

Lexington    R.    Co.    t'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

■ St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    J'. 

z:   Street     R.     Co.,     pp.     1890, 

1901,     2226,     2936. 
Broadhurst,   Dallas,   etc.,   St.   R.   Co. 

Broadie   f.    Howard,    p.    3866. 
Broadway  '■.   San  Antonio  Gas.   Co., 

p.    2679. 
Broadway     R.     Co.,     Vail     t'. 
Broadway,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    McSwyny 

Morrison    v. 

New     York     v. 

Poulin     V. 

Putnam     z\ 

•  Valentine     v. 

Weymouth    v. 

Wilson    v. 

Broadwell    v.    Butler,    p.    907. 
Broadwood    v.    Southern    Exp.    Co., 

pp.    585,    756,    757. 
Brock  V.   Gale,  pp.    637,    3127,    3130, 

3131. 

McCall    -.'. 

z\   St.     Louis    Trans.     Co.,     pp. 

2521,     2546. 

Brockett    z\     Fair     Haven,     etc.,     R. 
Co.,    p.    2812. 

New   Jersey    Steamboat    Co.    v. 

Brockton      St.      R.      Co.,      Common- 
wealth   T. 

Brockton    Transp.  Co.,     Clifford    z\ 
Brockwav     v.     American     Exp.     Co., 

168    Mass.    257,  47    N.    E.    87— 

p.    1284. 

V.  American  Exp.      Co.,      171 

Mass.     158,     50  N.     E.     626— pp. 

939,    944,     1294,  1640. 

Brocton     Transp.     Co.,     Clifford     v. 
Brod    V.    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    pp. 

2595,     2684. 
Brodhcad,    Randall   v. 
Brodie     z\     Carolina,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1767,    1913,    2229,    2394,    2936. 
Broeck     v.     The     Barge     John     M. 

Welch,     p.    3586. 
Brogden,    People's    Nat.    Bank    z\ 
Bromberg,    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Bromley,     Midland     R.     Co.     v. 
V.  New     York,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

pp.    2211,    2212,    2223. 
Bromschwig    Tailors'    Trimming    Co. 

V.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp.   490, 

493. 
Bronson    v.    Oakes,    pp.    1835.    1836, 

2339,   2884. 

Richmond    ''. 

Brooke    7'.     Grand     Trunk     R. 

p.    1622. 

■  V.   Louisville,      etc., 

pp.    800,    801. 

z\   Nashville,       etc., 

p.    800. 

V.  New     York,     etc., 

pp.    311,    3879. 

V.   Pickwick,     pp.     3123,     3129. 

Brooke     Iron     Co.     v.     O'Brien,     pp. 

1221,    1236,    1243. 
Brookficld,    Jonesboro,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Thorp   '■. 

Brookhaven      Mach.       Co.,      Illinois 

Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 
lirooklyn    City    R.    Co.,    Black    r. 

Bruno    '•. 

Davenport    v. 

Day  ;■. 

Fleming    v. 

Gaffney    f. 

Ganley    v. 

Hitchcock  -'. 

Hourney    z\ 

Mulhado    ••. 

Paulson    z\ 

Saltzman    z'. 

Seidlinger    v. 

Spooner     z\ 

Van     Winkle    v. 

Wood    z\ 


R. 

Co., 

R. 

Co., 

R. 

Co., 

R. 

Co., 

TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXIII 


IJrooklyn    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     Dale 

Dixon   f. 

Paris    f. 

Brooklyn    Crosstown    R.    Co.,    Cod- 
dington_  v. 

McGlynn    "'. 

Brooklyn     Heights    R'.     Co.,    Basting 

Rrennan  :■. 

I!  nice     -: 

Cassio    V. 

Catterson    v. 

Clnistensen     •'. 

Clinton    j'. 

Coady    I'. 

Cohen    V. 

Colvin    I'. 

Cramer   7'. 

Daniel    "•. 

Dittmar    -■. 

Dochterniann    i'. 

Dorff    -■. 

Ha.st    -•. 

Elliott     7'. 

Ericius   r. 

I'oden    !•. 

Friedel    v. 

German    '■. 

Gillespie   f. 

Gilmore     i'. 

Giltman   f. 

Grogan     f. 

Grunfelder   -•. 

Tenkins     v. 

Johnson    -•. 

Hanley   i'. 

Hu"t    '''■ 

Kiefer     i: 

Koch    V. 

Kramer    v. 

Leonard    J'. 

Link    7: 

Maercker   f. 

Maurcr   v. 

Miller    r. 

Morrow   '•. 

Moskowitz     -•. 

— —  Nicholson    v. 

O'Brien    v. 

O'Connor    z: 

O'Reilly     r. 

People    V. 

Rosenblum    i\ 

Rothstein    -'. 

Rowe    V. 

Schncier    f. 

Sheppard    i'. 

Sickles   V. 

Stutsky    I'. 

Sullivan    v. 

Taft    V. 

Tooker     v. 

Tucker    v. 

Wise    '■. 

Woolsey    v. 

Brooklyn    Lumber    Co.,    Conkling    :■. 
Brooklyn    St.    R.   Co.   v.    Kelley,    pp. 

1714,    1715. 
Brooklyn      Union      Elev.      R.      Co., 


Baker 
Brooklyn, 


etc. 


Brooklyn,    etc 
Braffett   f. 

Brown     -'. 

Clyde    f. 

Cohen    -•. 

Connaughton 

Craighead    f. 

Dixon    -'. 

Kppendorf    "'. 

Paris    v. 

Feldheim   -•. 

Hirschberg    t 

Levine    f. 

McGrath     f. 

McVay    t'. 

Meschncck    "' 

Mulhado   f. 

Nolan    -■. 

Pollock    r. 

Reidman    v. 


Ferry    Co.,     Ilamel 
R.    Co.,    Blair    f. 


Co., 

pp. 

R. 

Co., 

V. 

St. 

Y. 

St. 

P- 

478. 

718 
R. 

Co.. 

Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Sheridan   :■ 

Stewart    f. 

Strutt    '.■. 

Waldman    v. 

Weber    z'. 

Brookover,    Lincoln    Tract    Co.    v. 
Brooks    :■.    American     Exp.    Co.,    p 

57-1. 
1'.   Boston,     etc.,     R'. 

1923,    2259. 

f.    Delaware,      etc., 

p.    585. 

f.    Dinsmore,      3     N 

Rep.     587— pp.     821,     828. 

<■.    Dinsmore,      6      N. 

Rep.   281— pp.   817,   828. 

Elmore   f. 

V.    Friend    Paper    Co. 

Ingalls    ?•. 

Levi    f. 

z:   Minturn,    pp.    708 

:'.   New     York,     etc., 

pp.    2134.    2733. 

Z'.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3157,     3198. 

-  z:    Old      Colony      R.      Co.,      p. 
1788. 

People   f. 

V.    Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1906,    2860. 

Southern    R.   Co.   "•. 

''.   Southern       Pac.       Co.,       pp. 

3439,   3441.   3461.   3462. 

The    John. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Brooks    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Southern    R. 

Co.,    pp.    153,    154,   537,    541. 
Brookstone     z\     Wescott     Exp.     Co., 

p.     603. 
Broom,     Slark     "•. 
Broome,    .\tlanta,    etc.,    K.    Co.    i'. 
Broomhead,     Donath    f. 
Brophy,    Germantown    Pass.    R.    Co. 

Brosius,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Hrosseau    &    Co.     ;■.     The    Hudson, 

pp.   735,   736. 
Brouty      f.      Five      Thousand      Two 

Hundred    and    Fifty-Six    Bundles 

of    Elm    Staves,    p.    338. 
Browarsky,     Miller    z'. 
Brower   z:    Peabody,    p.    372. 
1'.     Public     Service     Corp.,     p. 

2860. 

V.  Water    Witch,    p.    292. 

Brown     V.     Adams,     pp.     658,     662, 

663,     672,     674.     686,     964,     1086, 
1093.    1095.    1099. 

f.   -Adams    F,xp.    Co.,    pp.    946, 

1003,  1004.  1008,  1038.  1039. 

f.  Atlanta,  etc..  R.  Co.,  pp. 

272,  284. 

Atlantic    City   f. 

z:  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    161 

N.    C.    573,    77     S.      E.      777— p. 
2867. 

f.  Atlantic,    etc..     R'.     Co..    64 

S.     E.     1012,     83     S.     C.     53— p. 
2669. 

-•.   Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    87 

S.   C.   314,  69  S.   E.   510— p.  2994. 

z:  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    91 

S.  C.  377,  74  S.  E.   754— pp.    162, 
376. 

Baker    Co.    f. 

Baltimore    Steamboat    Co.    ?■. 

Baltimore,       etc..        Steamboat 

Co.   z: 

Bank  z: 

Barker    z\ 

z:    Barnes,    p.    2258. 

Bird    z: 

Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :•. 

z:  Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2565. 

z:  Camden,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p. 

1490. 

-•.   Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co..    pp. 

3169^    3172. 

Capital   Tract.    Co.   z\ 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

f.   Central,     etc..     R.     Co.,     p. 

2469. 

z:  Chester       Tract.       Co.,       p. 

2889. 


Brown  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 
Iowa  235,  1  N.  W.  487 — pp. 
2476,    2477,    2480. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     54 

Wis.   342,    11    N.   W.   356,  41    Am. 
Rep.    41— pp.    2563.    3045. 

:■.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     80 

Wis.      162,     49      X.      W.      807— p. 
2264. 

Cincinnati,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

J".   Cleveland,      etc.,      R.       Co., 

p.    549. 

Cobb    z: 

z'.  Congress,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1992. 

Danville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Dibble    v. 

z:    Eastern     R.     Co.,     pp.     324, 

1673,    3166,     3187,    3196. 

'■.    Ivlvira    Harbeck,    p.    3144. 

Ex    parte. 

V.   Floersheim    Mercantile    Co., 

pp.    370,    377. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2573,    3042,    3043,    3047. 

z:  Grand    Trunk    Railway,    pp. 

910,    912. 

Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.   -. 

-■.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2485,     3097. 

Hardee   v. 

z:    Harris,   pp.    1605,  3949. 

— —  f.   Houston,    p.    3549. 

• Houston,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z: 

HIinois    Cent.    R'.    Co.    v. 

7'.   HIinois    Cent.     R.    Co.,    pp. 

1085,     1361,     1408. 

V.  Interborough    Rapid   Transit 

Co.,    p.    2050. 

Jenkyns    v. 

z:  Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

190,    196,    2436,    2716. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

■'.    Louisville        R.        Co.,        pp. 

1716,    2371. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

-'.   Louisville,      etc.,       R.      Co., 

36    HI.    App.    140— pp.    958.    1023. 

-'.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    44 

S.    W.   648,    19    Ky.    L.    Rep    1873, 
103    Ky.    211— pp.    2488,    2491. 

Manchester,    S.    &    L.    R.    Co. 

z:   Manhattan   R'.    Co.,   p.    2677. 

-.   Marvland,    pp.     3418,     3439. 

3440,    3549.    3568. 

f.   Memphis,     etc..     R.     Co..     4 

Fed.    37— pp.    197,    2572. 

"'.   Memphis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     5 

Fed.     499— pp.     1499,     1943. 

z:  Memphis,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     7 

Fed.    51,    1    .Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas. 
247— pp.     197.     1499.     1949.     2487. 

-•.    Slinneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2483.    3101. 

Missouri,     etc..     R.     Co.     t-. 

f.   Missouri,    etc..    R.     Co.,    83 

Kan.   574,    112   Pac.    147— pp.   346. 
842. 

f.   Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co..    64 

Mo.    536- p.    3092. 

f.   New     York     Cent.     R.     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    31    Barb.    385— p.    2895. 

f.   New     York     C^nt.     R.     Co.. 

32   N.    Y.    597,    88    Am.    Dea    353 
—p.    2128. 

z:  New     York    Cent.     R.     Co.. 

34    N.     Y.    404 — pp.     1722,     1814. 
1986,    2004. 

f.   New     York,     etc..     R'.     Co., 

pp.    2248.    2286. 

North     Chicago     St.     Rt,     Co. 

z:    Northwestern    Railroad,    pp. 

849,    855. 

Ohio.  etc..   R.   Co.  :•. 

Orange    County    Bank   -'. 

f.  Oregon,    etc..    R.    Nav.    Co., 

pp.    273.    1267. 

Ostrander    :■. 

z:   Philadelphia,     etc..     R.     Co  , 

p.    3274. 


CXXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


h.. 


Brown,    Pittsburg,   etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.  Pontiac,    etc.,    K.     Co.,     p. 

1300. 

-:   Powell    Coal    Co.,    p.    308. 

Railroad   Co.   f. 

t .  Ralston.   25    Va.    (4   Rand.) 

SOA — pp.  1143.  1144,  3971. 

f.  Ralston,    36   Va.    (9    Leigh) 

532— pp.  703,  1143,  3963. 

f.  Rapid  R.  Co.,  120  Mich. 

483.    90    X.    W.    290— p.    2462. 

f.   Rapid    R.     Co..     134    Mich. 

591.    96     X.     W.    925— pp.    2462, 
3078.    3079. 

Richmond    R.,   etc.,    Co.   r. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    r. 

Roland,     etc.,     Co.     f. 

Rudolf    V. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Savannah     Mut.     Ins.     Co. 

pp.    1118,    1119. 

f.  Scarboro,     pp.     1502,     1507 

1522,   1527.   1558,  2208. 

t .   Seattle     City     R.     Co.,     pp 

1718.     1725,    1750,    2361,    2402. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

r.  Southern    Railway 

f.   Springtield     Tract. 

2598. 

f.  Sullivan,  p.  465. 

Texas  Mid.   Railroad  v. 

Texas   Mid.    R.    Co.   z: 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

The  J.    W. 

■ Tuckerman   7'. 

r.  Union     Pac.      R.      Co.,      p. 

2778. 

-r.  \"andalia  K.  Co.,  p.   564. 

Wabash    R.     Co.    v. 

;■.   Wabash,       etc.,       R.        Co., 

pp.    209,    249. 

V.  Walker,   pp.    3779,   3780. 

Washington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t. 

I'.  Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2152. 

f.   Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,      p. 

2694. 

Brown  &  Co.   v.   Mott  &  Bros.,   pp. 

540,    772,    3304. 
Brown,    etc.,     Coal     Co.    r.     Grand 

Trunk  R.    System,   pp.   89,   91. 
Brown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clayton,  pp.   10, 

765. 

f.  Pennsylvania    Co.,    pp.    504, 

525,     3298. 

Browne,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Hare  '■. 

f.    Raleigh,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1872,    1873,    1899,    1900,    2155. 

Brownell,    Swift    v. 
Brownfield,  Louisville   St.   R.   Co.  v. 
Brownirg   v.    Goodrich    Transp.    Co., 
pp.    822,     1036,    3365. 

V.  Long    Island    R.     Co.,     pp. 

529,    901. 

Brownlee,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Brownsville  Livery,  etc.,  Co.,  Mo- 
bile,   etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Brownsville,  etc..  Live  Stock  Co., 
Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Broyles  z:  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  2516,  1562,  1574,  2542,  2577, 
2581,    2718,    2719. 

Bruce  i'.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
p.    2802. 

Little  Rock,   etc.,   R.    Co.   t/. 

Bauce  &  Co.,  Cox,  Patterson  &  Co. 

Bruff   V.    Illinois   CeJit.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2141,    2675. 
Bruhl   V.   Coleman,   pp.  551,  552. 

'•.   Southern      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

540,     542,     544. 

Brulard    v.    -Mvin,    p.    1855. 
Brumbcrger  z:  Joline,  p.   2842. 
Brumley,    East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    V. 
Brundred    v.    Rice,    pp.    1184,    1197. 
Bruning  f.   Long  Island   R.   Co.,   p. 

1087. 
Brunk    z:    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

801,    3347,    3351. 
Brunnchow    v.     Rhode    Island    Co., 

p.  2619. 


Bost- 


1537, 


544. 
748. 
Co. 


Co.,    pp. 

Co.,    pp. 

Co.,    p. 


Bruno  z:    Brooklyn   City   R.    Co.,    p. 

2193. 
Brunson    f.    .\tlantic,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    897,    908,    910,    912. 

Central    R.    Co.   z: 

Brunswick    &    Co.    z:    United    States 

Exp.    Co.,    pp.    547,    555. 

Brunswick    Grocery    Co.    z:    Bruns- 
wick,  etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    912. 

Brunswick   Tract   Co.,    Foley   v. 

Hayter  f. 

Brunswick,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

wick,    pp.    2414,    2485,    2528 

Brunswick    Grocery    Co. 

^  z:  Gale,    pp.    1747,    2839. 

V.  Moore,       pp.      1S24, 

2038,    2040,    2045. 

Peeplcs    z\ 

■  z:   Rothchild    &    Co..    p 

z:   Smith,   pp.    732,    741 

Brusch    z:    St.     Paul,    etc.,    R 

p.    1951. 
Bruswitz  z:   Xethcrlands,   etc.,   Nav. 

Co.,    p.    2858. 
Cruty   z:    Grand   Trunk   K.    Co.,    pp. 

3128,    3130. 
Bruyere,    Great   Northern    R.    Co.    -'. 
I5ryan,    American    Steamship    Co.    z\ 

.Atchison,    etc.,   R.    Co.    z'. 

Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.    z: 

Belvidere    Bldg.    Co.    v. 

— —  Chicago,    etc.,    P..    Co 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

894,    910. 

z\   Memphis,    etc.,    R. 

3255,    3294,    3295. 

z\   Missouri    Pac.      R. 

2095. 

Savannah    St.,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Brvan    Fruit    Co.,     St.     Louis,     etc., 

R.    Co.    z'. 
Bryant,    Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

.Atlantic,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     v. 

Central    R.    Co.    z\ 

■  Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

■;■.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1542,    1543. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ■;•. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

903. 

-  V.  Rich,     pp.     2035,     2049. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

San   Antonio   Tract.   Co.   v. 

•  San    Antonio,    etc.,    Co.    z'. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z\ 

Southwestern     Railroad    f. 

7'.    Southwestern     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1286,     1365,      1367,      1377,      1378, 
1384,    3309. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Bryant   Lumber   Co.,    Fourche   River 

Lumber    Co.    v. 
Bryce,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Southern   R.    Co.,    125    Fed. 

958— pp.    2080,    2569. 

-•.   Southern        R.      Co.,        129 

Fed.    966— p.    2604. 

P.'Shears,    Railway    Co.   v. 

Buccola    V.    Shrcveport    Tract.    Co., 

p.    2316. 
Buchanan,    Gordon    z\ 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,   etc.,   Co.  z'. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Bucher  7'.   Cheshire  R.   Co.,  p.   2162. 

V.   Fitchburg    R.    Co.,    p.    2162. 

z\  New     York,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

pp.    1878,    2066,    2265. 

Buchwicke    R.    Co.    Bonney    v. 
Buck,   Dunbar  z: 

Kahnweiler    ?'. 

z\  Manhattan     R.     Co.,     2     N. 

Y.   S.   718,  9  N.  Y.   St.  Rep.  908, 
15    Daly   48— p.    2871. 

V.  Manhattan    R.    Co.,     10    N. 

Y.   S.   107,  32   X.   Y.   St.   Rep.   51, 
15    Daly    550— p.    2745. 

V.  Oregon,     R.,    etc.,    Co.,     pp. 

1380,    1476,    1477. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

822,    828,    946,    1037. 


Buck  z:  People's  St.  R..  etc.,  Co., 
108  Mo.  179.  18  S.  W.  1090— 
pp.    1697,    1760,    2524,    2658. 

z:   People's     St.     R.,    etc.,    Co., 

46  Mo.  App.  555— pp.  1559, 
1564,    2255,    2956. 

Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:  Webb,    p.    3213. 

Buck     Mountain     Coal     Co.,     ITazcl- 

ton    Coal   Co.   z\ 
Buckalow,     Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 
Buckbee   z:    Third    .\vc.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2881. 
Buckelew,     Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 
Buckeye,    Louis    z'. 
Buckeye     Nat.     Bank     z:     Huff,     p. 

385. 
■Buckingham,    Lamphear    z\ 

■  Scooner    Freeman    z'. 

Buckland    z:    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

767,    768,    770,    945,    995. 

z\  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1847. 

Buckler,    Kennedy,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Buckley,    Devereaux  '•. 

V.   Furniss,      pp.      1210,      1219, 

1220,  1227,  1231,  1232,  1237, 
1238. 

z:    Great    Western    R.    Co.,    pp. 

896,    900. 

z'.   New  York,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

2320. 

7'.  Old      Colony      R.      Co.,      p. 

1529. 

Buckman    v.    Levi,    p.    3136. 
Buckmaster     v.     Great     Eastern     R. 

Co.,   pp.    1670,   1671,    1673. 
Buckner,    Mcllroy    7'. 

Memphis,    etc..    Packet    Co.    7'. 

Bucksport,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Edin- 
burgh,   etc..    Redwood    Co.,    p.    26. 

Buckworth,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Budd      V.     New      York,      pp.      1136, 
3432,    3527,    3528. 

v.  United     Carriage     Co.,    pp. 

2161,    2368,   2693. 

Buddenberg     7'.     Chouteau     Transp. 

Co.,    p.    3985. 
Buddy    7'.     Wabash,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    536,    828,    894,    899. 
Budner   7-.    Public    Service   Corp.,    p. 

2877. 
Buehler    7-.     Union    Tract.     Co.,    p. 

2008. 
Buel    7'.    New    York    Cent.    R.,    Co., 

pp.    2184,    2261. 
Buenemann    z\     St.     Paul,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1773,    1798,    2305. 
Buffalo,    The. 

Buffalo  Office  Bldg.   Co.,   McGrell  7'. 
Buffalo    R.     Co.,    Ansteth    v. 

Montgomery  v. 

Pfeffer   7-. 

Tucker    v. 

Buffalo,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    Bowie  v. 

Burtis   v. 

Cattaraugus    Cutlery    Co.    v. 

Fenner    v. 

French    r. 

Inman    7'. 

LafFlin    v. 

Metz   V. 

7'.   O'llara,    p.    2095. 

Penn    7'. 

Roth    7'. 

Schlemmer    v. 

Wilkes    V. 

Willetts  7'. 

Buffalo,    etc.,    Tract.    Co.,    Becker   z 

Bonasera    7'. 

Donnelly   7'. 

Buffett    7'.    Troy,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

417,     1509. 
Buffington   v.    Curtis,    pp.    351,    363: 

366. 
Buffum,     Moniter     Mut.     Fire     Ins 

Co.    V. 
Buford,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Bugge    V.     Seattle     Elect.     Co.,    pp 

1532,    1970,    2367,    2863. 
Buie,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   7'. 

z:  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

3416. 

Building,  etc.,  Ass'n  v.  Griffin,  pp 
940,  949,  977,  1063,   1077. 


TADLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXV 


Hulah     Shaft   ^  Coal      Co.,      Pennsyl- 
vania   R.     Co.    f. 
Bulkley    v.    Naumkcag    Steam    Cot- 
ton     Co.,      pp.      281,      286,      291, 
3879,    3936,    3937,    3945. 
Bull,    Fretz   V. 

.  -•.   New     York     City     U.      Co., 

pp.    146,    1645. 
Billiard,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   American      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

270,    536. 

V.   Boston,    etc.,     Railroad,    pp. 
2730. 
Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 


1871, 
3606! 


pp. 


N. 


pp. 


Co., 

Atl. 
2251, 


..  Young,     pp.     581,     582. 
Bullcn,        North        German        Lloyd 

Steamship    Co.    -•. 
Bullitt,    Lohdell    r. 

f.   Louisville       R.      Co., 

1884,     1912,    2768. 

Bullitt   &    Co.,    Marsden    Co.    t 
Bullock    T'.    Atlantic,    etc.,     R. 

pp.    1532,   2452,   2479. 
V.   Butler    Exch.    Co.,    46 

273.      22    R.      L     105— pp. 

2596. 

r.  Butler     Exch.     Co.,     24     R. 

L     50,    52    Atl.      122— pp.      2307, 
2838,    2931,    2982,    2984. 

f.  Charleston,      etc.,      R.     Co., 

165,    636,    654,    837. 

Delaware,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
V.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co..    60 

T.    L.    24,    36    Atl.    773,    37    L. 

A.  417— pp.  3110,  3114. 
V.   Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61 

J.  L.  550,  40  Atl.  650— p. 
3072. 

z\  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    21 

Super.    Ct.    583— pp.    3114,    3120. 
3121,    3124. 

?'.  Haverhill,        etc..      Dispatch 

Co.,    pp.    3394,    3397,    3409. 

'•.  Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1527,    1532,    2511,    2545. 

V.  White    Star    Steamship    Co., 

pp.  3046,  3985,  3986. 

Bulte    Mining   Co.    v.    Chicago,   etc., 

R.    R.,   p.    3679. 
P.umbcar  -•.   United  Tract.    Co.,   pp. 

2193.    2894. 
Bumford,    Hoffbert    7-. 
Rump,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
Bunch    V.    Charleston,    etc., 

pp.     1721,    2671,    2881. 

V.  Great    Western    R.    Co.,    p. 

3146. 

United    States    i'. 

Western    R.    Co.    v. 

Rundick,    Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 
Rundy,    Chicago   City   R.    Co.   -•. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 

Bunker    v.     Pacific    Mail    Steamship 

Co.,    p.    3566. 
Runn,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Bunnell,    Potter  -•. 

Southern    R'.    Co.    -'. 

Rurbank    -■.     Illinois    Cent. 

p.    2503. 

McLean    ■;■. 

Burch    7'.     Baltimore 

p.    2477. 
Rurchard,    Thayer    ?•. 
Rurckhalter    r.      Atlantic, 

Co.,    p.    2704. 
Rurdettc     v.      Chicago      Auditorium 

.\ss'n,    p.    2674. 
Burdge.    Indiana,    etc., 
Sewell    z: 

Georgia   R.,   etc.,   Co.,   pp. 
1604,    2428,    2854. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Burger  v.   Omaha,   etc.,   St.   R.   Co., 

pp.    2319,   2329,   2401,   2619,   2876, 
2912. 
Burgess    ?■.    .Atchison, 
p.    2471. 

Choctaw,    etc., 

Lake    St.,    etc..    _ 

Lake,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Lee    c'. 

Southern    Kan 


R.    Co., 


R.    Co., 


etc.,    R.    Co., 


etc. 


Rurdick, 
Burge   ■: 

1603. 


R.  Co. 


R.  Co., 


R.  Co. 
R.  Co. 


R.  Co.  V. 


Burgess,  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 

'.:   Stowe,   pp.   2149,   2330. 

2902,    2983. 

V.   Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

p.    1028. 

Burgess    Co.,    Southern    Kansas    R. 

Co.    V. 
Burgevin    v.    New    York,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    3160,    3169,    3172. 
Burgher    f.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1016,    1367. 

V.  Wabash     R.     Co.,     pp.     971, 

973,    976,     1099. 

P.urgin  V.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.     2263. 

St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Iturgoine    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

2696. 
Burgoype    v.    Chicago    City    R.    Co., 

167   111.    App.    59— pp.    1743,   2809. 
V.  Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    187 

111.    Ai)p.    59— p.    1679. 
Burke,    .Xmerican    Exp.    Co.    t'. 

-•.   Bay    City    Tract.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.     1890,    2268,    2359. 

Camden,    etc.,    Transp.    Co.    f. 

— - —  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.   Co.   -■. 

f.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2619. 

V.  Clarke,    pp.    595,    848,    858. 

v.   Erie  R.   Co.,   pp.   319,   1019, 

1021,    1028.    1041. 

Houston,    R.    Co.    j'. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Loveland  v. 

V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co..    pp. 

198,    202,    1544,    1547,    2292,    2423. 

New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

f.   State,    pp.    2673,     2682. 

f.  LTnited     States     Exp.      Co., 

pp.  740,  821,  1339,  1456,  1457, 
1470. 

Burke    &    Co.,    In    re 

Burkett  r.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    3155. 

Burkhardt,  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Rail- 
way ''. 

National     Bank    z\ 

Burlingame   v.    .\dams    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

608. 
l>urlington.    Cramer   -•. 

:•.   Unterkircher,     pp.     28,     29. 

Burlington    Lumber    Co.,    Southern 

R.   Co.   r. 

z:  Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    148, 

151,    172,    3517. 

Burlington     Tract.     Co.,     Strong    v. 
Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Arms, 
pp.    515,    896. 

Blake   f. 

;•.  Chicago     Lumber      Co.,      p. 

714. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Clements  z\ 

-'.  Dev,    82    Iowa    312,    48    N. 

W.  98,  31  .\m.  St.  Rep.  477,  12 
L.  R.  .A.  436— pp.  75.  105,  124, 
125,   133,   143,    144,   1192. 

—  f.  Dey,  89  Iowa  13,  56  N. 
W.    267— p.    133. 

—  Doolcy    :•. 

—  Garvik    f. 

—  Gregory   f. 

—  Heiserman    f. 

—  Herriman    v. 

—  Higley    f. 

—  Independence   Mills   Co.   ;■. 

—  Lucas  1'. 

LUCUS     7'. 

—  McCune    r. 
- —  Matthioson    f. 

—  Neimeycr     Lumber    Co.    v. 

Northwestern    Fuel    Co.    v. 

z:   Northwestern       Fuel        Co. 

pp.    427.    1179,    3691. 

—  Player   z: 

Ratzer    z\ 

Ravmond    z: 

f.   Rose.    pp.    2435,     2436. 

Ryder   z: 

Warner    z: 

Whittlesey    z: 


Burnell  v.   New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.. 

pp.  773,  3160,  3169,  3171,  3174, 

3175,    3179,    3186,    3189. 
Burnett,    Marine    Fire    Ins.    Co.    v. 

-'.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1489,    1490. 

Quarman  v. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co. 

Burnham   v.    .Mabama,   etc. 

pp.    635,    821,   867,    1040. 

z:   Detroit,    etc.,     R. 

2433,    3101. 

-■.  Grand    Trunk    R. 

1614,    2492,    2713. 

z:  Wabash,    etc.,    R. 

1537,  1767,  1790. 

Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

r.   Winsor,      pp.      1210,      1243. 

Burn    Line    v.    United    States,    etc.. 

Steamship    Co.,    150    Fed.    423— p. 
3949. 

z:  United    States,   etc. 

.-.hip  Co.,   162  Fed. 
3939,  3949. 

Burns  v.   Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
2848,  3059. 

z:   Bellefontaine   R. 


R.  Co., 
Co..  pp. 
Co.,  pp. 
Co.,  pp. 


Steam- 
298— pp. 


Co. 
Co., 


pp. 


2174. 


Elev.  R.  Co.,  pp. 


Boston 
2177,  2178. 

f.  Burns,  p.  3966. 

f.  Chicago,  B.  &  Q.  Ry.  Co., 

pp.  1622.  1623,  1639. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (Mo. 

App.)     132    S.    W.    1— p.    969. 

z:  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    80 

N.     W.     927,     104     Wis.     646 — pp. 
1310.    1346,    1378,    3629. 

Clark  z: 

Collins   z: 

z:  Cork,      etc.,      R.      Co.,       p. 

1850. 

Great    Western 

Houston,     etc 


R.  Co.  V 
R.  Co.  I 
Pass.     R. 


Co., 
Co.. 


pp. 


. .    Tohnstown 
pp.    2192.    2197. 

-'.  Louisville,      etc.,      R. 

pp.    582,    801. 

McClelland   z: 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

z\   Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 

1824,  2339,  2674,  2885. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

South   Covington,    etc.,    St.    R. 

Co.   V. 

Rurnsed,   Richmond,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Burnside    :■.    Grand    Trunk   R.    Co., 
p.    634. 

f.  Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.   2363. 

f.  Union     Steamboat     Co.,     p. 

789. 

Burnside,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Tupman, 
pp.    1440,   1460,  3297,   3402. 

Burr  V.  .\dams  Exp.  Co.,  pp.  512, 
531,    535,    602. 

Pennsylvania    R 

f.   Pennsylvania 

1957,     1991,    1992, 

Burrell,   Hewlett   z: 
Burress    :■.     Atlantic, 

pp.     873,     3307. 
Burrctt,   Mallory  f. 
Burrill,    Crossman    z: 

z:  Crossman,     65     Fed.     104 

P-    "13- 

■:•    Crossman,      91      Fed. 

C.   A.   663— pp.   3954, 

Crossman,      130    Fed. 
C.   A.    189— p.   3954. 

..  North,    pp.    278,    279 

Burris,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

: .  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp 

493,   495. 

Burritt    z:    Rench,    pp.    494,    726. 
Burritt    Co.   f.   New   \ork.   etc..    K 

Co..    p.    562. 
Burroughs  v.   Grand   Trunk  R.   Co. 

pp.    909,    3378.  ^      ^ 

z:  Norwich,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

3259,    3327.    3339.  ^       ^       . 

Shepard,    etc..    Lumber    Co.   v 


33  C. 
65   C. 


.    Co.    r. 
R.     Co.,     pp. 
2218,    2691. 

etc.,    R.    Co.. 


543, 

3963. 

763. 


ex  XXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Burrow    &    Co.,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Burrijwes  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
83  Xeb.  497,  35  R.  R.  R.  373, 
58  Am.  &  Eng.  R-  Cas.,  N-  S., 
373,  123  X.  W.  1028— pp.  284, 
285.    288.    289. 

f.   Chicago.      etc.,        R.    .„Co., 

87  Neb.  142.  37  R.  R.  R-  4o0.  60 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X  S..  4.-.0, 
126    X.    W.    1084— p.    28 J. 

Burrows.   Clvde   Steamship  Co.  z: 

r.   Lownsdale.    p.    3994. 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

St.   Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.  ~<: 

Burrton   State   Bank   r.   Peasemoore 

Mil     n^      —     ^92,    393. 

Marlborough,     pp. 


Bu 


Mill.    Co..    pp.    392,    393. 
rslev    T'.     The     M     " 
3899',    3900. 


.    Raleigh,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
829,    830. 

Interborough 
Co.,      pp.      2562, 


Rapid 

2567, 


Bursteen    f.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 

pp.    3145.    3147,    3148. 
Burt    f.     Douglas    County,    etc.,     K. 

Co.,    pp.     1833,    2222. 

Highland,    Ave.,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Burtis  r.    Buffalo,    etc.,    R.   Co.,   pp. 

417,   418,   3295. 
Burton,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2074. 

z:  Larkin,    p.    2360. 

f.  New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

2019. 

;•.  Strachan,    p.    3939. 

z:  West      Jersey      Ferry      Co., 

pp.     1951,     19'55,     1956. 

z:  Wichita     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

2251. 

V.  Wilkinson,     pp.     573,     576. 

Burus    f.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2122. 
Burwell 

pp.    7! 
Busch 

Trans 

2568. 
Bush    z:    Barnctt,    p.    2692. 

z:  Campbell,   p.    2569. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z: 

f.   Romcr,    p.    553. 

Bush    z:    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    553,    940. 
Bush    Co.    z:    Central    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3908,    3909. 
Bush     Terminal     R.    Co.,     Boyle     v. 
Bushnell     z:    Wabash    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1037,     1479,    3335. 
Bushwick    R.    Co.,    Bleier    z: 
Bussell    z:     Quincy,    etc.,      R. 

pp.    1752,    1755,    2691. 
Bussey     z\     Charleston,     etc., 

way,    pp.    2621,    2705,    3318. 

z:  Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

246,    622,    623. 

Busson,    Bcnner   Livery,   etc.,   Co.   v. 
Bustard,    Bentley    v. 
Buston     z:     Pennsylvania     R.      Co., 
116     Fed.    235— p.    3411. 

:■.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     119 

Fed.  808,  56  C.  C.  A.  320— pp. 
3264,   3269. 

Buswell    V.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    p. 

32. 
Butcher,    Gulf,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

-•.  London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3126,    3194. 

Butchers',   etc..   Stock  Yards   Co.   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    pp.    92, 

145,    212,    221. 
Butler  z:   Basing,   pp.   269,   284. 

Birmingham   R.  etc.,  Co.  v. 

f.   Boston.       etc..       Steamship 

Co.,  pp.  4036,  4037,  4039,  4040, 
4042,  4053,  4054,  4071,  4072. 
4077,    4078,    4079,    4080. 

Broadwell   z: 

V.   Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3032. 

z'.  East     Tennessee,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  pp.  542,  543,  544,  894,  901, 
902. 

V.  Glens     Falls,     etc.,     St.     R. 

Co.,  121  N.  Y.  112,  24  N.  E. 
187— p.    2153. 


Co., 
Rail- 


Butler  z:  Glens  Falls,  etc.,  St.  R. 
Co.,  49  Hun  610,  2  X.  V.  S. 
72,  17  X.  V.  St.  Rep.  565— p. 
2307. 

Gulf,   etc..    R.    Co.   v. 

z:  Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3141,    3149. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Merwin     v. 

z:  New   York    City   R.    Co.,   p. 

2336. 

z:  Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    18 

Ind.    App.    656,    46    N.    E.    92— p. 
477. 

z:  Pittsburgh,      etc..      R.      Co., 

139     Pa.     195,     21     Atl.     500— pp. 
1818.     2206. 

St.    Louis,   etc..   R.    Co.   z: 

r.  St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2263. 

'•.    Smith,    pp.    477,    480. 

Southern    Kansas    R'.    Co.    Z'. 

z:   Stcinwav    R.    Co.,    p.    2422. 

-  z:  The    Arrow,    p.    428. 

z:  The    Steamboat    Arrow,    p. 

333. 

White    Water    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Wilmington     City     R.     Co., 

pp     1682.    1739,    1866,    1888,    1889, 
2561,    2667.    2686.    2779. 

Butler      County      R.      Co.,      United 

States   V. 
Butler    Exch.    Co.,    Bullock    ?'. 
Butler    Marble,    etc.,     Co.,     Central, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Butler,    etc.,     Granite    Co.,     Central, 

etc.,    R'.    Co.    z'. 
Butte    Elect.    R.     Co.,     Emerson     z\ 

Knuckey    v. 

•  Lehane    v. 

Previsich   v. 

Rand    z: 

Shane    z'. 

Butterick    Pub.    Co.    z:     Gulf,    etc., 

R.   Co.,  p.   3355. 
Buttfield    z:    Stranahan,    p.    3441. 
Button,     Davis    v. 
Butts   '•.    Cleveland,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    p. 

2187. 

Selma,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Buzbv    r.     Philadelphia    Tract.     Co., 

p.  '2278. 
Byars    t'.    Bennington,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.   79. 
Byers,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    z'.^ 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Tiis   z: 

P.ycrs   Bros.,   Texas,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 
I5yington    -'.     Simpson,     p.     1150. 
r.ynum,   Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
I'yram     &     Co.,     Bennett    v. 
Byrant,    Central    R.    Co.    v. 
Byrd,     Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.    ?'. 

'■.  New    Orleans,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     2148. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Byrley,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Byrne    v.    Fargo,    pp.    889,    911. 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

z:  Weeks,    p.     310. 

Byrnes    v.    Fuller,    p.     1246. 

Parker   v. 

Byron    v.    Lynn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1829,     1994,     1995,    2310,    2804. 
Byrum,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

C 

Cabeen      z\      Campbell,     pp.       1219, 

1220,    1237,     1239,     1240. 
Cable     V.     Southern     R.      Co.,     pp. 

2904,    3046. 
Cabot,    Denny  v. 
Cadmus,    Earle   v. 
Cadwallder     z:      Grand     Trunk     R. 

Co.,    pp. -3116,    3125,    3127,    3128. 
Cafiero   v.    Welsh,    pp.    337,    832. 
Cage    Cattle    Co.,    Ft.    Worth,    etc., 

R.   Co.  V. 
Cahawba,    Edwards    v. 
Caher   v.    Grand    Trunk   R.    Co.,    pp. 

2479,    3081. 


Cahill.     Denver,     etc..     R.     Co.     z: 

z'.   London,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Eng.),  10  C.  B.  N.  S.  154,  7 
Tur.  N.  S.  1164,  30  L.  J.  C.  P. 
"289,  9  W.  R.  653,  4  L.  T.  N.  S. 
246— pp.  3125,  3149,  3152,  3153. 

-'.   London,       etc.,       R.       Co., 

(Eng.),  13  C.  B.  N.  S.  818,  8 
Tur.  N.  S.  1063,  31  L.  J.  C. 
"P.    271,    10   W.    R.    321— p.    3117. 

Cahn      z:     Manhattan      R.      Co.,      p. 
2793. 

z\   Michigan      Cent.      R.      Co., 

pp.    531,    532,    536,    538.    894. 

7'.   Pockett's     Bristol      Channel 

S.    P.    Co.,    p.    1222. 

Cain,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

?'.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1854. 

v.    Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2414. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    t'. 

Calahan   v.    Babcock,   pp.    525,    1208, 

1219       1220,      1228,      1329,      1232, 

1233,     1234,     1236,     1244. 
Calais    Steamboat    Co.    ■:■.    Scudder, 

p.    3886. 
Calder     '■.     Southern     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2088,     3209,      3217,      3218,      3225, 

3228,    3240,    3241. 
Calderon    -'.     Atlas     Steamship     Co., 

pp.    986,    1081. 

V.  Atlas     Steamship     Co.,     pp. 

947,      952,       1073,      4057,       4058, 


North        Birmingham 


4059,    4060 

Calderwood, 
St.   R.    Co.    z: 

Caldwell     V.      Atlantic,      etc..      Rail- 
road,   p.    3043. 

v.   Erie    Transfer    Co.,    p.    828. 

Express    Co.    z\ 

z:   Felton.    p.    1297. 

Fleischman    z'. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    f. 

V.   Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1858,    1859,    2454. 

z'.  New    Jersev    Steamboat    Co. 

(N.    Y.),    56    Barb.    425- p.    2684. 

z\  New   Jersey    Steamboat    Co., 

47  N.  Y.  282— pp.  1041,  1722, 

1839,   1843,   1850,  2671,   2684, 
2841. 

V.   North  Carolina,  p.  3551. 

V.   Northern      Pac.       R.       Co., 

105     Pac.     625,     56     Wash.     223— 
pp.     2868,     2961,     3063,     3077. 

v.  Northern    Pac.    K.    Co.,    113 

Pac.     1099,      62      Wash.      420— p. 
2934. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z'. 

V.  Richmond,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.   4,    5,    1855,    1884,   2562,    2570, 
2578. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    v. 

z'.   Southern      Exp.        Co.,       p. 

750. 

z'.  United    States    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

763. 

Wright   V. 

Calebs,   Mercantile  Mut.    Ins.   Co.   v. 
Calcdonai,    The. 
Caledonia,    The. 
Caledonian    R.    Co.,    Hozier    v. 
Calender- Vanderhoof     Co.     v.      Chi- 
cago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    574,    724. 
Calhoun,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Pullman      Co.,      pp.       3202, 

3225. 

z'.  Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

pp.    3201,    3203,    3212,    3213,    3229. 

California,    Almy    z\ 

z:   Central     Pac.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3449,    3552,    3554,    3574. 

Ilooper    Z'. 

McCall    z'. 

The. 

California    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Wilson    v. 

Wright    7'. 

California    Ins.    Co.    z:    Union    Com- 
press   Co.,    pp.    283,    947,    953. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXVII 


California      Nav.,       etc.,      Co.,      Do- 

hcrty  r. 
In    re. 

Stockton     Lumber    Co.    v. 

Stockton     Milling    Co.    f. 

r.   Stockton      Mill.        Co.,      pp. 

3905,    3914,   4025. 

Trailing    v. 

California    Pac.    R.    Co.,    Drcsbach  r. 

California  Powder  Works  t.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  214,  238, 
944,    945. 

California    U.    Co.,    Procter    -.'. 

Wartllaw    :■. 

California    Stage    Co.,    Boyce    z: 

Fairchild    v. 

Thome   v. 

California    St.    Cable    R.    Co.,    Sam- 
uels 1'. 
California    St.    Co.,    Spearman    r. 
California    St.    R.    Co.,    Spearman    -'. 
California,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    Fraser    v. 

German   Fruit   Co.  -'. 

Metz   -'. 

Nagle    7'. 

Call,    Joliet    St.    R.    Co.    r. 

V.  Portsmouth,     etc.,     Railway 

p.    2145. 

Call    Pub.    Ct.,    Western    Union    Tel 

Co.    '.: 
Callahan.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    r. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Callaway    v.    Southern    R.    Co.,    55 

S.    K.    22,    126    Ga.    192— p.    563. 

V.  Southern    R.    Co.,    126    Ga. 

1  55    S.    E.    23— pp.    835,    861. 

Callendar,  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Callender,  Te.xas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Callender,    etc.,    Co.    v.     Short,     p. 

342. 
Calloway      r.      Mellett  ,     pp.      1613, 

2449,     2458. 
Calumet      Elect.      R.      Co.,      South 

Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   ■:•. 
Calumet   Stock   Farm,   Chicago,  etc., 

R.    Co.   r. 
Calumet,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Keck    -•. 
Calvert,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.    f. 
Cambols   v.    Phila.,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

417. 
Camden     Interstate     R.     Co.,     Blake 


De    Board    f. 

V.   Frazier,      pp.     3079,       3083, 

3084. 

Mannor   ': 

Nichols  7\ 

Camden        Iron        Works,        United 

States    •:■. 
Camden,    etc.,    Ferry    Co.,    .\llon    z\ 

Dudley    r. 

Camden,    etc..    Railroad,    BaldratT   •:•. 
Camden,    etc.,     R'.     Co.    -•.     Baldauf, 

pp.    1008,    3152,    3153,    3165,    3186, 
3189. 

V.  Bausch,    p.    2097. 

V.   Briggs,    pp.    66,     1136. 

Brown   v. 

Chapman    ?•._ 

Davis    V. 

Decry    -'. 

Farnham    v. 

■ 7'.    Forsyth     Bros.,    &    Co.,    pp. 

3372,     3380. 
,..   Hoosey,     pp.     1954,     1955. 

Lamb  f. 

Morgan   V. 

V.  Rice,    pp.    2348,    2635. 

Shay   "'. 

Williams     -■. 

Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  f.  Bel- 
knap, pp.  733,  749,  1007,  3136, 
3163. 

Black    r. 

f.   Briggs,    p.    66. 

V.  Burke,   pp.   211,    1003.    1687, 

3142. 

Edsall    r. 

Tenneson    -'. 

Lamb    -'. 

Maghee    -'. 

Manhattan    Oil    Co.    f. 

Cameron,    .Vtchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 


Cameron   f.    Citizens'    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2656. 
V.   Lewiston,    ct:.,    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1818,    1819,    1820,    2339,    2894. 
r.   Rich,    p.     1036. 

Texas     Cent.     R.     Co.     :•. 

V.   Union       Trunk      Line,      pp.  i 

1888,     1969,    2140. 

Wall    :•. 

Camors,    Watts   '.-. 

Camji    t.    Hartford,    etc..    Steamboat 
Co.,    pp.    805,    814,    930,    945. 

Kentucky    Hotel    Co.    -'. 

Western,    etc..     Railroad    v. 

Campbell    r.    Alford,    pp.    349,    356, 
362,  371,   383,   386.   387,  388,   389. 

r.   Alston,      pp.        1766,      1913, 

2744. 

.\tchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i\ 

liariiard    i'. 

Bissel    r. 

Bush    I'. 

Cabeen    j". 

Ca|>e    Girardeau    J'. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    149 

111.    .\pp.    1^0— p.    3455. 
r.   Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co..     86 

Iowa    587.    53    N.    W.    351,    17    L. 

R.    A.    443— p.    120. 

r.   Cornelius,    p.     1731. 

•  '.■.   Duluth,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     pp. 

1743,     1745,     1755,     2722. 

Dunkirk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.    Fisher,    p.    2627. 

Green    -•. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

International,    etc,    R.    Co.    7'. 

V.  Jones,   p.    1249. 

— ■ —  Levy    V. 

V.  Los     Angeles    R.     Co.,     pp. 

2124.    2257. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

f.  Marietta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

26,   73,    1135,    1136. 

T.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3161,    3168,    3171,    3186. 

Moore    r. 

V.  Morse,    pp.    729,    733.    743. 

749. 

Nebraska   City  v. 

New    Albany,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

New    Haven,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

■  ;■.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

pp.     3208.     3210,     3241,     3242. 
Rio    Grande,   etc.,   R.   Co.   -■. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

Seaboard,     etc.,     Railway,     pp. 

3056,    3226,    3227. 

Selma,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Strraino    T. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.    7'. 

State  7'. 

Wabash   R.   Co.  7'. 

— —  7'.  Yazoo,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2324. 
Campe  f.   Weir,   pp.   821.   823. 
Campion   i:    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co., 

p.    775. 
Canaday    v.    United     R.      Co.,     pp. 

1501,     1662,      1682,      1688,      2563, 

2651. 
Canadian    Northern    R.     Co.,     Shel- 

ton    :■. 
Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    .Mien,    etc., 

Co.     7'. 

.\ndcrson   7'. 

Blowers  r. 

Blowers    &    Co.    f. 

Brown     *'. 

Campion   '■. 

Dionne    i: 

DonncU    v. 

Dresser   7: 

Morse    ••. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    7'. 

7-.   North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co. 

p.    2357. 

Pouilin    7'. 

Poulin    7'. 


Canadian      Pac.      R.     Co.,      Richard- 
son    7'. 
— —  Waldron    i\ 

White    v. 

— ■ —  Worden    7\ 

Canadian,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Ilayman    v. 

Canal  Boat  Montgomery  -■.  Kent, 
pp.  257,  269,  500,  728,  733,  749. 
765. 

Canal    Co.,   Clarke   7\ 

Canal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Jones    7-. 

Canandaigua  Nat.  Bank  7-.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  p.  393. 

Candee    t.    Hayward,    p.    1198. 

7'.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    752,    1346,    1365. 

-'.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3176,    3180,    3316,    3321. 

CandiflF  7-.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1548,   1552. 

Cane  Belt  R.  Co.  i:  Peden,  Iron  & 
Steel    Co.,    p.    548. 

Cane  Hill,  etc.,  Co.  7:  San  .An- 
tonio, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  812,  813, 
833,    881,    3337. 

Canfield  7'.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
46  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  Rep.  238 — 
p.    816. 

7'.   Baltimore,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    75 

N.   Y.    144— p.   842. 

7'.   Baltimore,    etc., 

N.     Y.    532,     16    .\m. 


R 

& 
Rep. 


Co..  93 
Eng.  R. 
268— pp. 


etc.,      R. 

Co.     7'. 

Co.       7-. 

Co.,      p. 
pp.      3528, 


516,     721, 


Co. 
490. 


Cas.    152,    45    .\m. 
821.    823.    1037. 

North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    i'. 

Walcott   7'. 

Canham    7\    Rhode    Island    Co.,    pp. 

2731,    2732. 
Canman,    .\rkansas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

.\rkansas,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

Cannington,      St.     Louis, 

Co.     7'. 

Cannon,    Central,    etc.,    R. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

7-.   Mid-Gt.    W.     Ry. 

1  796. 

-'.   New      Orleans, 

3529,    3530,    3531. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Cannon   &   Son,    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R. 

Co.     7'. 

Cantling   v.    Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3111,   3122. 
Canton,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Fast   7'. 
Cantrell.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

7'.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

255. 

Cantu    7'.    Bennett,    pp. 

723,    751.    943. 
Cantwcll,    Choctaw,    etc.. 

7'.  Pacific    Exp.    Co.. 

Cape    Charles,    The. 
Cape    Fear,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

Mt.    Peasant    Mfg^ 

Cape      Girardeau 

3586. 
Capehart     f.      Granite 
591,    592,    595,    596. 

7'.  Seaboard,   etc., 

1087,    1089.    1091. 

Caperton,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Capital  Compress  Co.,  Missoun, 
etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Capital  Tract.  Co.  7\  Brown,  29 
App.  D.  C.  473,  12  L.  R.  .\..  N- 
S.,    831— pp.    2174.    217'>.    2343. 

Chapman    7-. 

Hart    7'. 

Hutchinson    7'. 

Jaquette   7'. 

Kohner    7'. 

Shortsleeves  f. 

Sullivan    t'. 

7.   Wathen.    p.    2911. 

Capitol,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    .-\ndrews    7-. 
Caples    7'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    862. 
Ca"peau,   Ferpiison  -•. 
Capoel,    Erie   R".   Co.   7'. 
Canper,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
Capps  7'.   Leachman.  pp.   1121, 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Capt.    Jack,    The. 
Caracas,    The. 


.Mien    V. 

Co.      7'. 


Campbell, 
Mills. 


P- 
pp. 


R.    Co..    pp. 


1122. 


CXXXVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Carbon  Slate  Co.  r.   Ennis,  p.  3968. 
Carder    f.    Atchison,    etc.,    K.    *-0., 

p     1212. 
Cardot   r.    Barney,   p.    2090. 
Cardwell    z:    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 

151,    152.    173. 
Careb    Prince.    The. 
Carew    r.    Rutherford,    p.    119d. 
Carev,    Commonwealth    r. 
Car<^i!l    Co.   '.■■   Minnesota,    pp.    o^i^, 

3527.  3528.  3590. 

Railroad,     etc.,     Comm.     r. 

Cargo.    The. 

Watt    r. 

Cargo    of    Brimstone,    In   re. 
Cargo    of    Cyrenian,    Wilhscroft    v. 
Carso    of    Tava    Sugar,    Mencke    v. 
Cargo    of    Lumber,    Eaton    v. 

Hagan    z-. 

Watt   V 

Cargo  of  3,408  Tons  of  Poca- 
hontas   Coal,    In    re. 

Ross   V.  ^  f     T- 

Cargo     of   246  5/20     Tons     of     Egg 

Coal.  Aldrich  -.■. 

Carhick,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    '•. 

Carib    Prince,    The. 

Carl,    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co^    v. 

Carleton.     Central,    etc.,     R.    <-o.    f. 

f.   Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1948,     2859. 

7'    New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p  '1012,    1062,    1081,    1082. 

r.  Rockland,  etc.,  St.  Rail- 
way,   p.    2733. 

'r.  Three        Hundred        Si.xty- 

Seven    Tons    of    Coal,    p.    3958. 

f    Union    Transfer,    etc.,    Co., 

DP    823,    1012,    1082. 

—L  ,..  Yadkin  K.  Co.,  PP-  2087, 
2568.  . 

Carlile,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

Carlinville,    Chicago,   etc.,   K.    Lo.   v. 

Carlisle,    Brigham    &    Co.    z'. 

Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

V.  Koekuk,     etc..     Packet    Co., 

p.    1442. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

Carlos   F.    Roses,   The. 

Carlson     z:      Oceanic     Steam      ^av. 

Co..    p.    3123. 
Carlton,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Western,     etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

Carlton    Hall,    The. 

Carlton    Produce     Co.    v.     \  elasco, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    3662,    3663. 
Carman,    Gilmore    v.      _    ,.   „     „ 
Carmantv   v.    Mexican    Gulf    K.    Co., 

pp.    2583,    2590. 
Carmichael,       Alabama,       etc.,       K. 

Co.    z: 
Carmody   v.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co., 

p.    1739. 
Carnahan,     Adams     Exp.     Co.     z\ 

z:  Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3198. 

Carnegie    z:     Morrison,     p.     1489^ 
Carney    v.    Cincinnati    St.    R.    Co., 
p.    1515. 

Emily  V.  ^        ^ 

Carolina    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Gvvyn    Har- 
per  Mfg.   Co.   V. 

Holmes  v. 

Means    f. 

Mitchell    V. 

Xance    z'. 

Phifer   v. 

Uoseman    f. 

Seawell    v. 

Sloan    z'. 

Carolina    Mid.    R.    Co.,    Brodie   v. 
Carolina     Portland     Cement     Co.     v. 

Anderson,     pp.     3923,     3943. 
Carolina,     etc.,     Co.,     General     Fire 

Extinguisher   Co.   v. 
Carolina,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   Brodie  z: 

Cottrell    V. 

General        Fire        Extinguisher 

Co.  V. 

Wampum    Cotton    Mills    v. 

Williams    f. 

Carolina,    etc..    Railway,    Berry   v. 


Carolina,     etc..    Railway     z:     Clinch 

Valley    Lumber    Co.,    p.    86. 
Caroline,    Whitmore    z: 
Carothers,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


961, 
pp. 


R.     Co.. 
345 — pp. 

Co.,     p. 


— —  z:  Pittsburg    R.    Co.,    p.     1683. 
Carpenter     '•.     Baltimore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   pp.    724,    727,    735,   736,    752, 

757,     765,     766,     851,     960,     "'' 

966. 
z:  Boston,    etc.,     R.     Co 

1720,    1787,    2078. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.   v. 

z:   Eastern    R.     Co.,    pp.     1087, 

1410. 

z:  Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

1976. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.    z\ 

f.   New     York,     etc.,     R.      Co. 

(N.    Y.),    14    Daly    457— p.    3239. 

z:  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

124  N.  Y.  53,  26  N.  E.  277.  11 
L.  R.  A.  759,  21  Am.  St.  Rep. 
644,  47  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
421— pp.  3125.  3145,  3208,  3215, 
3217,  3218,  3219,,'  3223,  3230. 
3238. 

z:   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    10 

X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  712— pp.  3201, 
3214.    3216,    3230,    3232. 

f.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

13  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  718— pp.  3218, 
3234. 

f.   New^     York,     etc., 

15     N.     Y.      St.      Rep. 
3217,    3230.    3239. 

z:  Trinity,     etc.,     R. 

2058. 

V.  United      States      Exp.      Co., 

pp.    944.    1051,    1063,    1067. 

z\   Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

3  Mackey  (14  D.  C.)  225— pp. 
2457,     2458. 

z'.  Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

121  U.  S.  474,  30  L.  Ed.  1015. 
7  S.  Ct.  1002— pp.  2034,  2054, 
2409. 

Carper.    Cincinnati,    etc..    R.    Co.    z\ 
Carr,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

:'.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co 

695,   696. 

z\   Eel     River,     etc., 

pp.    1880,^    1883,    2263. 

Hrebrik    z\ 

Manheim    '•. 

!■.   Pennsylvania      R'. 

482. 

V.   Schafer,    p.    784. 

V.  Toledo   Tract.    Co.. 

Carr,    etc..    Co.,    Bosworth    z. 
Carrick,    Chicago   City   R.    Co.    v. 
Carrico     ?■.      West    Virginia      Cent., 

etc..  R.  Co.,  pp.  1814,  1816, 
2073.    2115. 

V.  West      Virginia,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,  pp.  1712,  1715,  1816,  2116, 
2200,  2201,  2541,  2673,  2682, 
2941. 

Carrier    z:     Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    1190. 
Carrier    Cos.,    Insurance    Cos.     z-. 
Carrizzo  -'.   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    567,    709,    710. 
Carroll     z\     Boston     Elcv.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2678,    2679,    2980. 

z:  Boston,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2172,    2787. 

z'.  Central    Railroad, 

v.  Charleston,     etc., 

pp.    2117,    2118,    2857. 

Chicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Zf.  Hoi  way,    pp.    3961,    3963. 

V.  Interstate      Rapid      Transit 

Co.,    pp.    1958,    2199,    2206. 

Knoxville    Tract.    Co.    z'. 

z'.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1567,  1580,  2097,  2098. 

z\   Southern    Exp.    Co.,    p.    525. 

V.  Staten    Island    R.    Co.,    pp. 

211,  1538,  1589,  1682,  1684, 
1720,     1839,     1846. 

Carrollton      Furniture      Mfg.      Co., 
Mail    Line    Co.    v. 


pp. 
R.     Co., 


Co. 


P- 


1650. 


CarroFlton       Furniture      Mfg.      Co., 
United    States    Mail    Line    Co.    v. 
Carrollton   R.   Co.,   Black  v. 
Carrow.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    ■:'. 
Carruth,    Snow    z'. 
Carson.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Electric    R.    Co.    z-. 

7'.   Harris,    p.    3305. 

z:  Leathers,    p.    1854. 

Schuster    z'. 

Carstcn  z'.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
pp.    1616,    3079,    3083,    3084. 

Carstens  Packing  Co.  v.  Southern 
Pac.  Co..  pp.  1424,  1426,  1464, 
1467,     1470. 

f.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1361,  1364,  1365,  1396. 

Carswell  z'.     Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  1582,  2898. 
Carter  v.    IBoston,  etc..  St.  R.  Co., 

pp.  1515,  1516,  2142,  2329,  2863. 

2881,  2885. 

Brightwood    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Charleston,    etc..    R'.    Co.,    p. 

2517. 

7'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3276,    3277,    3278,    3405. 

Denison,     etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

Diamond   Joe   Line   v. 

7'.   Graves,    pp.    488.    490,    796, 

804. 

Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     z: 

7'.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2627. 

7'.   International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   569,   596,   600,   855,   865. 

7'.  Kansas    Citv,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  1846,  2673,  2743. 

z:   McDermott,  p.  1694. 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

7'.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.  3827. 

7'.  Peck,  pp.  3176.  3316,  3321. 

7'.  Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   p. 

1476. 

7'.  Rockford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1536,  1776,  1806. 

7'.   Southern    K.    Co.,    pp.    481, 

482.    490. 

7'.   Southern    Railway,    p.    3048. 

7'.   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

126    N.    C.    437,    36    S.    E.    14— 
p.     149. 

7'.   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

129    N.    C.    213,    39    S.    E.    827— 
p.    149. 

Carter    &    Co.    v.    Southern    R.    Co.. 

pp.     431,     721,     977,     1036,     1038. 

1112. 
Cartledge,    Georgia,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Cartwright   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.     1871,    2244,    2348. 

V.  Wilmerding,   p.    1244. 

Caruana     7'.      British,     etc..      Steam 

Packet    Co.,    p.    528. 
Caruth    7'.    Texas,    etc.,    R, 


p.     2903. 
R.     Co., 


Ill/ . 
Caruthers,    Ft.    Worth,    etc., 


Co.,    p. 
R.    Co. 


Carver,    Alden    &    Co.    7'. 

v.  Minncapolfs,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  2527.  .^   ^ 

Carvey  v.     Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.  2712. 
Gary  7'.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co., 

pn.  3158,  3160,  3168.  3174.  3175. 

V.   Los     Angeles     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1706,    1897,    2995. 

Arnstine    z'. 

Caryl,    People    7'. 

Casazza.    Chicago,   etc.,    K.    Co.    7'. 
Casco    Bay    Steamboat    Co.,     Bacon 

Case,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

7-.   Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1087. 

7'.  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

1869,    1906,    2905. 

Petersen  v. 

Case  of  the  State  Freight  Tax, 

pp.  3418.  3419,  3420,  3421,  3427, 

3447,   3480,   3549,   3550,  3553, 

3563,  3564,  3566,  3567,  3568, 
3594. 


TAIil.E    fJF    CASKS. 


CXXXIX 


Atlantic     Avt 


R.    Co., 
R.     Co., 


Caseday,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Casey,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     j'. 

Nasliville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Nashville,    etc..     Railway    i'. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2791. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1279. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.  t'. 

Cash    t'.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.    462, 

1268,    1456. 
Ca.«h    Grain     Co.,     St.     Louis,     etc., 

R.    Co.    V. 
Cashin,     McGhec    v. 
Cashman    v.     New     York,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.     1971. 
Cason,      Baltimore,      etc.,      Turnpike 

Road    V. 
Casper    v.     New    Orleans    R.,     etc., 

Co.,    p.    2666. 
Casper    &    Co.    f.    Dry    Dock,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    2196. 
Cass    J'.     Roston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

815,    821,    867,    910,    917,    918. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    3184,    3185. 

Cassady   z'.   Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co., 
pp.    2672,    2796,    3005. 

1'.  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1776,    2132. 

Cassally,    McNaughter    v. 

Cassasa  "■.    New   York,   etc.,    R'.   Co., 

p.    3238. 
Cassaway,     Walker    -•. 
Casseday,    St.    Louis,    etc.,     R.    Co. 

v. 
Cassedy  z'.  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 

p.    3210. 
Cassell,    Southern    R.    Co.    "■. 
Cassell     Drug     Co.,     Alabama,     etc., 

R.     Co.     r. 
Cassiano   "•.    Galveston,    etc 

p.    1622. 
Cassidy     z' 

p.    2185. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Cassidy,      etc.,      Comm.      Co.,       St. 

Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Cassilav    f.    Young    &    Co.,    pp.    511, 

619,  '734,    743,    853,    3902. 
Cassio  V.   Brooklyn   Heights   R.    Co., 

p.    2158. 
Castanola   v.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

p.    1223. 
Castelano    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2671. 
Castelli   z'.   Jereissati,    p.    477. 
Castello,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Castellucci     z\     Lehigh      X'allcy     R'. 

Co.,    p.    828. 
Caster,    Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Castle,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    z\ 
Castopulon,    Macon    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v. 
Caswell    '■.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp., 

pp.    1813,   2127,   2131. 

Sumner    z'. 

Catalanotto    z'.    Coney    Island,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.     2889. 
Catanzaro    z\    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

p.     3414. 
Catawissa,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Sandford 

Cate,   Sommer  -■. 

Caterham     R.     Co.     v.     London     R., 

p.    1780. 
Cates,    Evansville.    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Cathey    J'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R".    Co., 

pp.     2424,     2771. 
Catlett  -'.   Charleston,  etc.,   Railwav, 
p.    512. 

Columbian    Ins.    Co.    z'. 

Catlettsburg.    Packet   Co.  z: 
CatlitT,    Bourne    ?■. 

Catlin    f.    -Adirondack    Co.,    p.    796. 

Chicago   City    R.    Co.   v. 

Catron,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Catskill     Mountain     R.     Co.,     Lucas 

Root   f. 

Cattano  z\   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co.. 
pp.    2186,    2887,   2888. 


Cattaraugus  Cutlery  Co.  z:  Buffalo, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    3120,    3121. 

Catterlin,     Padley     z: 

Catterson  7'.  Brooklyn  Heights  R. 
Co.,    p.    2592. 

Cau  J'.  Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  j).    1040. 

f.   Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

930,   947,   958,   959,  970,   972,  974. 
977,    980,    986,    1035,    1036. 

Cauhle,    Waco,    etc..    Water    Co.    v. 
Caughell      J'.      Indianapolis      Tract., 

etc.,    Co.,   p.    1901. 
Causler,    Gad.sden,    etc.,     R.    Co.    v. 

International,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

Cauthen,    Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Cavallaro    :■.     Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

^  pp.    529.    896,    914,    3274. 
CaVanaugh     i'.      Chicago,     etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    3543. 
Cavender,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Cavenesse,     Little     Rock,     etc.,     R. 

Co.     V. 
Caveny   z'.    Ncely,    p.    1837. 
Cavin,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    •; . 
Cawfield    r.    Asheville    St.    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1890,    1891,    1901,    2116,    2230, 

2394. 
Cayce,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Cave    z:    Pool,    pp.    8,     1153.     1157, 

1164,    1165. 
Caylor,     Southern     Kansas     R.     Co. 

v. 
Cayuga,    The. 

Cayuga,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Davis    v. 
Cavwood    -■.    Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    p 
^  1830. 
Caze     z:     Baltimore     Ins.     Co.,     pp 

3939,   3941. 
Cazneau     :•.     Fitchburg    R.     Co.,     p 

1773. 
C,    C,    &   St.    L.    Co.,    Barron,    etc. 

Co.    z: 
C.   C.  C.  &  St.   L.  R'.   Co.  z'.   Simon 

p.    949. 
C.    D.    &    M.    R.    Co.,    Walter   v. 
Ceballos     <•.     Warren     Adams,     pp. 

820,    828,    1037. 
Cecil    Erie,    etc..    Despatch    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Cedar     Rapids,     etc..     Light     Co.     z: 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3639. 
Cedar    Rapids,    etc,     R.     Co.,    Hoff- 
man   J'. 

Huber   z'. 

Ilutcheis    V. 

Johnson    z: 

Johnston   z\ 

Centennial,    The. 

Central  .\merican  Steamship  Co.  r. 
Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co.,  pp.  488, 
490.     3341,     3342. 

Central  Branch,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Mc- 
Queen   -•. 

Central    City    Railway,    Mowrey    v. 

Central  Crosstown  R.  Co.,  Hast- 
ings   T-. 

McGill    r. 

Schaefer    z'. 

\'ogler    z: 

Central    Elect.    R.    Co.,    Bell    z: 

Rattan    f. 

Central    Iowa    R.    Co.,    Raben    z: 

Winter   f. 

Central  Kentuckv  Tract.  Co.  z: 
Chapman,  pp.  'l904,-  1905,  2752, 
2992. 

z:   Combs,    pp.     1901,    2371. 

z:  May,     p.    2860. 

Central  Line    of    Boats,    Barnett    v. 

Central  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Oklahoma 

State  Bank,     pp.     394,     396.     397. 

398. 

Central  Nat.    Bank,    Wilson    Grain 

Co. 


Central    Pac.    R.    Co.,    Newhall    v. 

I'.   People,    pp.    3553.    3591. 

Pereira    v. 

Plister   z: 

Quiglcy   f. 

Tarbell    z: 

Central    Park    R.    Co.,    Flynn    v. 
Central     Park,     etc.,     Co.,     Solomon 

I'. 
Central    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Barker 

Z'. 

Maher   f. 

Murphy    v. 

Solomon    -•. 

Twomley   r. 

Ward    z: 

Wynn    t". 

Central     Pass.     R.     Co.     z:     Bishop, 
pp.    2671,    2699. 

z:   Kuhn,  pp.  2009.  2013,  2699. 

V.   Rose.    14    Ky.  L-    Rep.    204 

—p.    2333. 

z:   Rose,    15    Ky.    L.    Rep.    209, 

22  S.   W.   745— pp.   2152,  2154. 

f.    Stevens,    p.    2381. 

Winnegar    -•. 

Central    Railroad,    Blitch    v. 

;■.   Brinson,    p.    2676. 

Carroll    z: 

z:   Combs,    pp.    3045,    3046. 

Davis    f. 

Harris    v. 

Hite    V. 

Logan    &    Co.    V. 

Perry    f. 

— '■ —  J'.    Rogers    &    Sons,    p.    863. 

z:   Smith,    p.    1800. 

Sorrell     z: 

I'.  Thompson,    pp.     1768,    1774, 

1789,    1791.    1920. 

York     Co. 


Central   R.   Co. 
2071. 


2840. 
2840! 


Brinson, 
Brinson, 


Brewer,  pp.  2063, 
64  Ga.  475— p. 
70      Ga.     207— p. 


Central   Pac.    Co., 
Central    Pac.    R. 
Cody    z'. 

Craven     z\ 

l")rew    T'. 

Hirshfield    z 

Kline    ;■. 

Lundv    ■:■. 

McQuilken  ; 


McQuilken   f. 
Co.,    California    "•. 


f.    Brunson,    pp.    831,    832. 

z:   Bryant,    pp.    961,    962,    1005. 

1267,      1269,     1365,      1367,      1378, 
1384,    3377. 

Bush    Co.    -■. 

V.  Combs,      pp.      3316,      3318, 

3374. 

Daly  z: 

Dobson    z: 

V.   Dwight    Mfg.    Co..    pp.    962. 

967.    968.    996,    999,    3278.    3350. 

Exton    f. 

Frank    Bros.    &    Co.    z: 

V.   Freeman,    pp.    1848,    2673. 

V.  Glass,    p.    2488. 

z:  Gleason,     p.     2045. 

— Hanlon    z: 

V.   Hasselkus,      pp.      962.      968. 

981. 

Haver   z: 

z:  Hearne.   pp.    1137.    1202. 

z:  Henderson,    pp.    1582,    1584. 

V.  Hite,    pp.    708,    3814. 

Jacobs    f. 

Kinney   z\ 

Kuttner    z-. 

Lamed    -•. 

Lehman,   etc.,   Co.   z: 

z:  Logan     &     Co.,     pp.     3272, 

3389,   3404. 

z:  McCartney,    pp.    1148,    1151, 

1193. 

McDonald  z: 

z:  Mackcy,    p.    2490. 

f.   Mauser,    p.    3754. 

Means    z: 

Mearns  f. 

:-.   Peacock,    pp.    2043,    2049. 

z:  Pickett,     p.     813. 

Redhing    z: 

z\  Rogers    &    Sons,    pp.    3307, 

3395.    3396,    3397. 

Runyan    z: 

Salceby   z-. 

z:   Sanders,      pp.      2693,      2807, 

2840. 


CXL 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Central   K.    Co.    z:    Senn,   p.    2775. 

r.    Smith,       69       Ga.       268— p. 

2256.  „     , 

z:    Smith.    76    Ga.    209,    2    Am. 

St.  Rep.  31— pp.  1752,  1755, 
1757,    1872.    1940,    1989,    2404. 

V.   Smith.   74   Md.   212,   21 

A.tl.  706,  48  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
eas.  60— pp.  1888,  2113,  2116, 
2118.  2667. 

Staines    v. 

i:   State    Board,    p.    3573. 

f.   Thompson,    p^.    1689,    2118, 

2239.    2942,    2951,    2985. 

Uptegrove    v. 

r.  Van    Horn,   pp.    1877,    1925, 

2114,    2587. 
V.  Whitehead,    pp.    1524,    1679, 

1885,    1910,     1912,    2085,    2990. 

Wiegand    f. 

W'illiams   f. 


Wolff    r. 

-,..   Wolff, 

3192. 

Wright    t 

York  Co 

Central    R 


pp. 


2712,       3191, 


J.      c  . 

•to.,    Co.    t'.    Anderson, 


Central  Stock  Yards  Co.  ■:■.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  192  U.  S.  508, 
48  L.  Ed.  565,  24  S.  Ct.  339— 
pp.  107,  1300,  3617,  3631,  3647, 
3648,    3656. 

Central  Transp.  Co.  v.  Pullmans 
Palace   Car    Co.,    pp.    10,    2092. 

Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   pp.   90,    166-,   172,   175. 

f.  Denver,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2077. 

V.  East     Tennessee,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    515,    796,    948. 

-•.  Georgia     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3410. 

Malott    ?■. 

r.   Pittsburg,      etc.,       R.       Co., 

p.     3616. 

V.   Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

641. 

Townsend    Brick,    etc.,    Co.    r. 

■;'.   Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3148. 

Central     Vermont     R.     Co.,     Bergan 


3394,      3397, 


3379,      3380, 


pp.   276,    532,   774,   894,  898,    1019 
— --  V.  Avant,    pp.    603,    697,    877, 
3330,   3347,    3354. 

f.   Baver,       pp. 

3409. 

Boaz   V. 

;•.    Bridger,      pp 

3383,    3385. 

r.  Bryant,   p.    1361. 

Coles    c'. 

'■.   Cooper,    p.    877. 

r.   Gamble,    p.    2807. 

V.   Georgia    Fruit,    etc.,    E-xch., 

pp.  336,  533,  607,  627,  629,  766, 
3250,  3255,  3257,  3260,  3278, 
3291,    3401. 

Harris    v. 

V.   Hasselkus,      pp.      320,      322, 

323,  336,  533,  607,  689,  820, 
821,  824,  825,  1099,  3255,  3350, 
3380. 

Henry   z: 

f.  Hines,    etc.,    Co.,    p.    727. 

i:  Lampley,      pp.       581,      582, 

796. 

Lehman,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

X'.   Letcher,    p.    2540. 

V.   Logan,    pp.    210,    438. 

Lv^tspeich    f. 

r.  Miles,    p.     1883. 

Paterson  v. 

T.   Perry.       pp.       1517,       1518, 

1767,  1768,  1791,  1916,  1917, 
1918,    1936,   2085,   3319. 

v.  Phillips,    pp.    2120,    2254. 

r.   Phinazee,     pp.     2087,     2121. 

V.   Pickett,    pp.    1364,    1421. 

v.   Roberts,     pp.      1626,      1665, 

2455,    2475,    2564,    3077. 

?•.  Rogers'    Sons,    pp.    3397. 

Skellie     V. 

z:  Skellie,    pp.    502,    533,    607, 

659,  693,  3257,  3263,  3276,  3277, 
3280,    3291,    3413. 

Smith   V. 

z:  Smith,    78    Ga.     694,    3     S. 

E.     397— p.     2940. 

V.  Smith,  80   Ga.   526,   5   S.    E. 

772— pp.     1494,     1801. 

z:   Smitha,   pp.   819,    1379. 

Stevens    r. 

V.  Strickland,     pp.      190,      193, 

1597,  1599,  1600,  1601,  2469, 
3079,    3086,    3098. 

Central    Railway,    Curtis   v. 

Central  Stock  Yard,  etc.,  Co., 
Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Central  Stock  Yards  Co.,  Louis- 
ville,   etc.,    R".    Co.   Z-. 

z:  Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   118 

Fed.  113,  55  C.  C.  A.  63,  63 
L.  R.  A.  213— pp.  3263,  3536, 
3655. 


Central,  ttc.  R.  Co.  z:  Dorsey,. 
116  Ga.  719,  42  S.  E.  1024— 
pp.    3047,    3049,    3052,    3053. 

z\   Dothan       Mule      Co.,       pp. 

3395,    3412. 

Eichberg    v. 

Ethridge    v. 

Felton    z'. 

•?■.   Felton,    pp.    466,    3393. 

Findlev    z\ 

-  v.  Floyd,   p.    1798. 

z:   Forehand,     pp.     2174,     2338. 

z\   Gaston,    p.    3554. 

v.   Geopp,     pp.     2646,     2696. 

7'.   Goodman,     p.     2875. 

J..   Gortatowsky,    pp.    426,    427. 

z:   Groesbeck,    pp.    3471,    3487. 

'c'.  Hall,    pp.    3,    741,    825,    962, 

963,      1005,       1055,      1057,      1268, 
1468,    1477. 

Hasselkus,     pp.     1016,     1017, 


1038. 


Cox    z: 

Hyman    z\ 

Johnson    &    Co.    ■;•. 

Newton    v. 

North     British,     etc.,    Ins.     Co. 

•  R'osenfeld   f. 

Rutland    R.     Co.    ■;■. 

r.    Soper,       pp.       1087,       1088, 

1118.     1123,     1125. 

State    z: 

Worthington    v. 

Central   Yellow   Pine   Ass'n   '■.   \'.   & 

P.   R.   Co.,   p.   3704. 
Central,  "etc.,     Co.,     Pickett     z: 
Central,     etc.,    R.      Co.    v.    Almand, 

pp.  2441,  2775,  3031. 

Ashley   v. 

i:  Ashley,      pp.        1967,      1968, 

2569,    3060. 

Atlantic    Compress    Co.    z'. 

Augusta    Brokerage    Co.    v. 

V.  Augusta       Brokerage       Co., 

pp.  88,  93. 

z:   Bagley,   pp.   1560.   2443, 

2477,   2487,   2624,   2717,   2852, 
2855,  3026. 

Bennett  z\ 

Brewer  v. 

Brown  z'. 

V.   Brown,  165  Ala.  493.  51 

So.  565— pp.  2064.   2342,  2638, 
2659,  2670,  2692,  2880. 

z:   Brown,  113  Ga.  414,  38 

S  E.  989,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  250 
—pp.  2040,  2042,  2045. 

z:  Brown,    138    Ga.    107,    74    S. 

E.    839— pp.    2722,    2915,    2917. 

Broyles    z'. 

z:   Burton,    pp.    867,    900,    903, 

906,    1019,     1021,    1038. 

V.  Butler     Marble,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    271,    800,    1020,    1055,     1056, 
1057. 

Cannon,       pp.        1628,        1629, 

2443,    2444,    2663. 

Carleton   z'. 

z:   Carleton,     pp.      1948,     2221, 

2576. 

V.  Carlisle,      nn.      1906,      1911, 

1915. 

V.  Chicago     Portrait    Co.,     pp. 

583,    595,    597,    1081. 

z:  Chicago     Varnish     Co.,     pp. 

782,  783,  784,  3284,  3352,  3394. 

V.  City     Mills    Co.,     pp.     961, 

962,     963,    968,     990,     1005,     1048. 

z'.  Cook,    pp.     244,     305,     317, 

333,    337,    338. 

Coweta    County    v. 

Davis    z\ 

Devi  no    Z'. 

Dixon    V. 

Dorsey   v. 

V.   Dorsey,    32    S.    E.   873,    106 

Ga.    826— pp.    1637,    1857. 


li 


..  Henderson,     p.     1431. 

V.  Hines,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    270, 

V.  Hoard,     pp.     1906,     1907. 

V.  Holloway,    pp.     1881,     1894,. 


..   Holmes,    pp.     2676,     2840. 

z:   I-Iunter,  pp.  2499,  2543. 

V.   Hurst,  pp.  1018,  1434. 

v.   Tames,  pp.  1460.  1461. 

V.   "Johnston,  pp.  1895,  2915,, 

2943,  2971. 

V.   Jones,  ISO,  Ala.  379,  43 

So.  575,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1240 
—pp.  3160,  3168,  3169,  3186. 

z:   Tones,  7  Ga.  App.  165,  66 

S.  E.  492— pp.  760,  797,  845. 

. V.   Joseph,  p.  3132. 

V.   Kavanaugh,  pp.  939,  942, 

969,  _  3351. 

Kellow  '■. 

King  z: 

Kiscr  Co.  I'.    \ 

z:   Knight,   pp.   3979,   3981. 

3984. 

z:   K;uhn,  p.   1742. 

V.   Lippman,  pp.  3,  727,  732, 

748,  754,  765,  981,  1003,  1684, 
1748,  1752,  1755,  1756,  1757, 
1989,  2092,  2093,  2094,  2098,. 
2892,  3141. 

McCall  v. 

McElvane  v. 

V.   McKinney,  pp.  1896,  2113,. 

2638,  2750,  2857,  2940. 

V.   McNab,   pp.   1899,   2654, 

2749,  2750,  2753. 

T'..Madden,   pp.   1747,   1911, 

1913,  1966. 

z:   Manchester  Mfg.  Co.,  pp. 

724,    842,    875. 

^..   Mercantile     Claim     Co.,     pp. 

819,    828,    .S39. 
'c'.   Merrill     &     Co.,      pp.      895, 

904,     90r,.     907,     948,     3351. 

z'.   Milledgeville      R.      Co.,      p. 

3284. 

•;■.    Montmollen,     pp.     540,     585, 

663,  664,  852. 

Moore  z\ 

V.   Morgan,  pp.  3047,  3062. 

z:   Morris,  pp.  228,  234,  260, 

264. 

V.   Motes,  pp.  190,  194,  196. 

z:   Murphey,  113  Ga.  514,  38- 

S.  E.  970,  53  L.  R.  A.  720— pp. 
947  948,  952,  953  958,  1055, 
1065,  1073,  3293. 

V.   Murphey,  116  Ga.  863,  43 

S  E.  265.  60  L.  R.  A.  817— pp. 
36,  501,  3250,  3257,  3291,  3330, 
3347,  3388,  3535. 

z:   Murphey,  196  U.  S.  194, 

49  L.  Ed.  444,  25  S.  Ct.  218— 
pp.  3523,  3537. 

Pilchcr  z: 

.  r.   Price,  pp.  2077,  3047. 

Raben  z'. 

Railroad    Comm.    ■;■. 

— ■ —  V.   Railroad    Comm.,    p.     130. 

zK  Ricks,       pp.       2092,       2093, 

2446. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXLI 


1526. 


1527, 


2328. 


of     Mahogany,     p. 
Illinois     Cent.      R. 


"Central,   etc.,   R.   Co.  t.   Rogers,   pp 
1018,    1365,    1367,    1384. 

V.   Rose,    p.    1880. 

Rushin  v. 

Shellnut    V. 

V.    Sigma       Lumber      Co.,      \>\) 

258,     285.    439,     722.     741,     778. 

V.   Sims,    pp.    3332,    3654. 

V.  Smitha,    p.    1073. 

Stephens   i'. 

Stewart    i'. 

T.   Storrs,      i)p 

2743,    2880. 

Tucker    v. 

Waldrup  V. 

7'.  White,    p 

Wilensky    ■■. 

Williams  7'. 

Williamson    v. 

Winncgar  v. 

T.   Wood,    p.    3061. 

Young   V. 

Century    lildg.    Co.,    Euckel    f. 

Orcutt    V. 

Century    Realty    Co.,    Cooper   v. 

Copper    V. 

Century    Throwing    Co.    i'.    Muller 

p.   351. 
Cerre,    Valle   v. 
Certain       Logs 

3864. 
Chadbourne     t. 

Co.,    p.    2873. 
Cliadwick     -'.      Five     Hundred     and 

Seventv-Six     Granite     Blocks,     pp. 

3938,    3944. 
Lane   j'. 

T'.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2971. 

CliafTc    7'.    Mississippi,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    482. 
Chaffee    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.     Corp., 

pp.    2136,    2326. 

<:  Consolidated     R.      Co.,     pp. 

1743,  2083,  2088,  2696,  2834, 
2895. 

Dickson   f. 

7:   Old      Colony      R.      Co.,      p. 

_  2135. 

Cliaffin,    Union    Steamboat    Co.    f. 
Chalk    &    Co.    V.    Charlotte,    etc.,    R. 
_  Co.,    pp.    779,    901,    904. 
Chalmers     z:    United     R.      Co.,     p. 

1996. 
Chamberlain,      Atchison,      etc..      R. 

Co.    f. 

r.   Chandler,    p.    1940. 

Edward    llines    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Hines   Lumber   Co.   f. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R".    Co., 

pp.   69.   3098. 

V.   Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2127. 

J'.   Pierson,      pp.      1760,      2095, 

2104,    2105. 

V.  Pullman     Palace     Car     Co.. 

p.    3224. 

Smith    V. 

?■.   Torgorm,    p.    484. 

T'.   \yest,     p.     681. 

Chamberlin-Johnson-Uu      Bose     Co., 

.\danis   E-xp.    Co.   -'. 
Chamber    of    Commerce     f.     United 

States,    p.    3836. 
Chambers,       Baltimore,       etc..         R. 

Co.    r. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

;■.    Kupper-Benson     Hotel     Co., 

pp.    1509,    1719,    1750,    2S.iS. 

Champane    7'.    La    Crosse     City     R. 

Co..    pp.    2397.    2825. 
Champion    j-.    Ames.    p.    3468. 

Blossom    '■. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Champlain    Transp.    Co.,    Dougan    i'. 

-; Farmers',    etc..    Bank   :•. 

Chancellor.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 
Chancv,    Fordvce   -•. 

Chandjer    v.    Belden.    pp.    373,    521. 

Chamberlain    '•. 

7'.  Fulton,  pp.  369,  371,  375, 

380.  381.  580,  1208,  1212,  1213, 
1218.  1219,  1220,  1222.  1224. 
1225,  1227,   1229.   1230,   1232, 


1233,  1234,   1235.   1238.   123V, 
1240.  1246. 
Chandler  ?■.  Sanger,  p.  1195. 

7'.  Sprague.   pp.   337,   342, 

364,  365,  369,  391. 

Chandler      Cotton       Oil       Co.,       Ft. 

Smith,  etc.,   R.   Co.  7'. 
Chancy    7'.    Louisiana,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1953,   2213. 
Chanslor,    Lemon    i'. 
Chapin    7'.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p|).    332.    337.    338,    1456,    1480. 

Cioold    7". 

Trowbridge    v. 

Chaplain      Transp.      Co..      Farmer's, 

etc..    liank   7'. 
Chapman   7'.    Camden,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.    799. 

7'.  Capital       Tract.       Co.,       37 

App.    D.    C.    470— p.    2739. 

7'.  Capital      Tract.      Co.,       37 

App^   D.    C.    479— pp.    2202.   2894. 

Central    Kentucky    Tract.    Co. 

V. 

Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Chicago,     etc.,     R'.     Co..     pp. 

849,    855. 

7'.   Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    2731. 

Fish   V. 

7'.  Great    Western    R.    Co.,    p. 

898. 

Irish    7'. 

Minnesota    Min.     Co.    v. 

"■.  New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.,  588,   818,   821. 

Sultana    t. 

— Washington,    etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 

Chapman,  etc..  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Tonesboro,  etc.,  R.  Co..  pp.  39, 
44,     1194,    3488,    3489,    3495. 

Chappcl    7'.    Comfort,    pp.    701,    713. 

Chappell,  Jacksonville   St.  R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Western    Railway,    pp.    774, 

1640. 


York    Silk    Mfg.    Co., 
R. 


Co.,     p. 


Charavay    7 

p.   351. 
Charbonneau    7'.     Nassau     Elect. 

Co.,    pp.    1646,    2411.   2560. 

Charge    to    Grand    Jury,    In    re. 
Charles   7'.    Atlantic    Cfoast    Line    R. 

Co.,    pp.    3396,    3404,    3523,    3545. 

3546. 

7'.  United     R.,     etc.. 

2668. 

Charles    Nelson.    The. 
Charles    River    Bridge    Co. 

ren    Bridge,    p.    1501. 
Charles      Schlesinger     & 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co 
Charleston,   Clyde   Steamship  Co.   v. 

Postal     Telegraph     Cable     Co. 

V. 

Charleston,   etc.,   Co.,   Price  7'. 
Charleston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Black    i'. 
Bottum    7'. 


War- 


Sons      V. 
.,    p.    545. 


Boyd. 


pp. 


Bullock  7'. 
Bunch    7'. 
Carroll    7'. 
Carter    v. 
Creech    7'. 
nilleshaw    7'. 
7'.    Duckworth 
Dunbar    7'. 
Frasicr    z\ 
Glover     7'. 
Ilartcr    7'. 
Jarrell    7'. 
Lavton    & 
Moo 


2579, 


pp.     805,     808. 


Sons    7'. 
p.    760. 


Muckenfuss    Mfg.    Co. 

Netherland   7'. 

Porter    7'. 

Sullivan    7'. 

Talbert    7-. 

7-.   Thompson,     p.     3697. 

Trakas    7'. 

Traynham    7". 

Trowbridge    7'. 

VVhite    Laundry    Co.    7'. 

Wilson    f. 


Charleston,     etc..     Railway,     Bussey 

Catlctt  T. 

Kirkland    7'. 

McGrath   Bros.  -■. 

Charleston,    etc..    Steamboat    Co.    7'. 

Bason,    pp.  729,    745,     746,     747, 

749,    3915. 

Charleston,  etc.,       Transp.        Co., 

Ross    i\ 

Charlestown,  Backman   v. 

Charlotte,    C.  &    A.    R.    Co.,    Palmer 

Charlotte  Flrct.  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  As- 
bury    7'. 

-Morrison    7'. 

-^ Overcash    7'. 

Charlotte  Trouser  Co.  7-.  Sea- 
board, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3149, 
3150,  3151,  3160,  3169,  3173, 
3174. 

Charlotte,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Chalk   7-. 

Chalk   &    Co.   7'. 

V.  Gibbes,      pp.      35,      39,      58, 

60,    3591. 

Griffith     7'. 

Johns    7'. 

Lipford   i: 

McLean   7'. 

Palmer    7'. 

Pinni.x     r. 

Sumner    7'. 

Thomas    7'. 

7'.   Wootcn.    pp.    820.   823,   848. 

Charlottesville  Woolen  Mills,  Ad- 
ams   h.\p.   Co.  V. 

Charnock  7-.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
51  C.  C.  A.  78,  113  Fed.  92— pp. 
983,    1040. 

V.  Texas,     etc..     R.     Co..     194 

U.  S.  432.  48  L.  Ed.  1057.  24 
S.  Ct.  671— pp.  777.  930.  958. 
959.  970.  980.  986.  1035.  1036. 
1037. 

Chartrand     7'.      Southern      Railway, 

pp.    508.    511.    3336.    3400. 
Chase    7'.     .Alliance    Co..    p.    3949. 

7'.  .Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co..    70 

Kan.    546.    79    Pac.    153— p.    3623. 

7'.   .Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    134 

Mo.  App.  655.  114  S.  W.  1141  — 
pp.    1769.    2499.    2506. 

Gardner    7'. 

f.  Jamestown    St.    R".    Co..    pp. 

2233,    2742,    2881. 

Larson  t. 

Mercantile    Mut.    Ins.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   New     York     Cent.     R.     Co„ 

pp.     1599,     1605,     2468. 

The    Mercantile,    etc..    Co.    i: 

Chase,    etc..    Co..    Ilammctt   7'. 

Roney    7'. 

Chastain,  Birmingham  R.,  etc.. 
Co.    7'. 

Chastine.    Memphis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   7-. 

Chatficld.    Snow    7-. 

Chattahoochee.    The. 

Chattanooga  Board  of  Trade  i: 
Southern    R.    Co..    p.     3'>79. 

Chattanooga  Rapid  Transit  Co.  7'. 
\'epable.  pp.  1569.  1570.  1582, 
15S3. 

Chattanooga  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Thompson,  pp.  215,  444,  449, 
470.    471.    848. 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  Hug- 
gins,  pp.  1508.  1561,  1563,  1748, 
1758.  1990,  2129.  2320.  2335. 
2401.    2603.    2618. 

7'.   Liddell.    pp.    2073.    2079. 

7-.   Lyon,    pp.     1856,    3061. 

Chautauqua    Tract.    Co..    Perkins    i: 
Chave   7'.    New    York.    etc..    R'.    Co.. 

p.    2518. 
Cluatham.   Houston,   etc..   R.   Co.  7-. 
Check   7\    Little    Miami    R.   Co..    pp. 

3139,    3181. 
Check,   Illinois  Cent.    R'.  Co.  v. 

7'.   Merchants'     Nat.     Bank,     p. 

3830. 

Cheetham    7'.     Union     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2(.94.    2S44. 
Chenewith.     Lackawanna,      etc..      R. 

Co.     7'. 


CXLII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Southern 
36,     3445, 

Hilson,    p. 


Chenev  f.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  '1858,    1974,'   1975. 

Hall    f. 

Samuel  v. 

Chenie,    Hemphill    v. 
Cheny.    Hall    r. 
Cherokee        Nation       v. 

Kansas     R.     Co.,     pp 

3447,    3449. 
Cherokee    Packet    Co.    v 

2507. 
Cherokee  R.   Co.,   Higgins  z: 
Cheronea       Steamship      Co.,      Xiver 

Coal  Co.  T'. 
Cherow,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Edwards    v. 
Cherrj-    -•.    Chicago,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     1618,     1621.     1639,     3319. 

V.  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1526,    1975. 

z:  Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2496. 

Chesapeake  &  O.  Ry.  Co.  -•.  La- 
vin,    p.    545. 

Chesapeake  Beach  R.  Co.,  Boer- 
ing   '■. 

Chesapeake   Ins.    Co.,    Marcardier   v. 

Chesapeake  Steamship  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants'   Xat.    Bank,    p.    556. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Canal  Co.  v. 
Hill,    p.    326. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
can Exch.  Bank,  pp.  949,  1346, 
1471,    3618,    3628. 

V.  Anderson,    p.    2531. 

'■.  Austin,       pp.      1881,      1948, 

1949,    1955,    1956,    2768. 

T.  Barger,      pp.      2656,      2727, 

2859. 

z\  Beaslev,      etc.,       Co.,       pp. 

729,    734,    75'0.    1051,    1057,    1078, 
3161,     3169,     3170,     3172. 

Birckhead   z: 

Boggess    z: 

f.   Borders,    p.     1882. 

Boster   z'. 

Boston    -'. 

z:   Bradford,    pp.    452.    461. 

-•.   Burke,       pp.      1682,       1689, 

1721.     2860. 

Carnahan   v. 

Claiborne    r. 

'•.   Clowes, 

2221. 

Cole   Z'. 

f.   Collinsworth 

Commonwealth 

c'.  Commonwealth,     p 

' Connell   v. 

— z:  Crank, 

2419,   3030. 

Davis   f. 

Downey   v. 

Duty    V. 

Felbin    v. 

Flood    z: 

z:   Fortune, 

V.  Friel,    p. 

z\  Gregston 

Grogan   z'. 

Hale    z: 

z:   Hall,    pp.      239,      727,      732, 

749,   751,   760,   764,   3125,    3126. 

v.  Hanmer,     p.     2566. 

Harden    v. 

z:   Harlan,    p.    3074. 

z:  Harris,      pp.      2126,      2239, 

2246,   2821. 

Herring    <■. 

Howard    <•. 

V.  Howard,      14    App.     D.     C. 

262— pp.  2085,  2086,  2088,  2900, 
2913. 

z:  Howard,     178     U.     S.     153, 

156,  44  L.  Ed.  1015,  20  S.  Ct. 
880— pp.  1821,  1837,  2085,  2086, 
2087,  2088. 

Howard  Supply  Co.  f. 

z:  Hunter,    p.    2587. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

Jenkins  v. 

V.   Jordan,   pp.   1953,   2212, 

2892. 


pp. 


pp. 


1985,   1986, 


p.  2652. 

3511. 


2417,   2418, 


pp.  2510, 
2241. 
pp.  2127, 


2545. 

2257. 


Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Kennedy 

z\   Kentucky,  p.  3511. 

z:   King,  pp.  1534,  1537,  1792, 

2273,  2864,  2878,  2879. 

Korn  T. 

z:   Lang,   pp.   1953,   2183, 

2392. 

f.  Lavin,  p.  853. 

Layne  ■:■. 

Lewis  ;■. 

z:  Lynch,   pp.   2706,   2846, 

3048,  3062. 

Magowan,   pp.   1268,   1356, 

1468,  1470. 

z:  Mathews,     pp.     1774,     2963, 

3000. 

z:  Maysville   Brick   Co.,    p.    94. 

z:  Meyer,      pp.       1774,      2508, 

2999. 

z:  Miller,    pp.    63,    64. 

f.  Morgan    '■. 

z:   Morgan,     pp.      1842,      1846, 

1850,    2642,    2777. 

V.   Morton,  p.  1204. 

V.   O'Gara,  etc.,  Co..  pp.  249, 

3247,  3258,  3267,  3279,  3280. 

z:   Paris,  107  Va.  408,  59  S. 

E.  398— pp.  2508,  2509,  2510, 
2514,  2540. 

V.   Paris.  Ill  Va.  41.  68  S.  E. 

398— pp.     2511,     2512,     2540. 

V.  Pew,     pp.     729,     936,     1396. 

Plummer  v. 

Price   z\ 

z:  Radbournc,     pp.     815,     821, 

824,    828. 

Raines   v. 

v.  Reeves,    pp.    2268,    2753. 

Ricketts  z\ 

V.  Robinett,     pp.     2417,     2425, 

2784. 

7'.  Robinson,   135   Ky.   850, 

123  S.  W.  308— op.  1798,  1799. 
1884,  1908,  2119,  2226,  2357, 
2359. 

f.  Robinson.   149   Ky.   258, 

147  S.  W.  886— p.  2357. 

Roy  z: 

Ryiand  z\ 

z:   Saulsberrv,   112  Ky.  91o, 

66  S.  W.  1051,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
2341,  56  L.  R.  A.  580— pp.  2411, 
2417. 

z:   Saulsberrv,   126  Ky.   179, 

31  Ky.  L.  Rep'.  624,  103  S.  W. 
254,  12  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  431— pp. 
566.  568,  569,  607,  614,  636. 

Selsor  7'. 

V.   Selsor,   pp.   1493,   1497, 

2419. 

Sha'^non  z\ 

z:   Smith,  p.  2244. 

z'.   Star.dard  Lumber  Co.,  p. 

3698. 

Starbuck  z'. 

z:   Stock  &  Sons.  pp.  802,  805, 

849,  853,  855,  1082,  3285,  3313, 
3390. 

Styles    z: 

V.  Topping,    p.    2234. 

Trice    z\ 

z:   Webb,   pp.    595,    596.    598. 

-.■.   Wells,    pp.    1944,    1945. 

White   z: 

z:   Wills,    p.    2260. 

Wilson    v. 

Woolwine    f. 

Zouch     V. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Railway  -'.  Rob- 
inett, pp.  2425,  2482,  2484,  2486, 
3064,    3070. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.. 
Morris    <'. 

Cheshire  Railroad  v.   Foster,   p.   483. 

Cheshire     R.     Co.,     Beckwith     r. 

Bucher    v. 

Harris   z-. 

Chester,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 


Chester   Freight   Line.    Bacharach   v.- 
Chester  Tract.   Co.,   Brown  z: 

Gaines    f. 

Mullen     z: 

Wood    z: 

Chester,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Grote   v. 
Chestnut    Bros.,    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    z: 
Chestnut     &     Bro,     Louisville,     etc., 

R.  Co.  z: 
Chevaillier   z:    Patton.   pp.    782,    788. 
Chevallier      z\       Straham,       pp.       9, 

729,     730,     731,     736,     739,     740, 

742,     750,     751,     752,     753,     768, 

771,    933. 
Cheyenne    v.    O'Connell,    p.    28. 
Chicago.    ."Xyres,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    z: 

Chicago    Union    Tract.    Co.    v.^ 

Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.    z\ 

Escanaba,    etc.,   Transp.    Co.   v. 

Harman    '•. 

Harmon    z\ 

Pennsylvania    Co.    z'. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Powers,    p.    2737. 

Chicago    &    A.    R.    Co.,    Gilchrist    v.- 

c'.   Noble,    pp.     1789,    2232. 

v.  Walker,    p.    1802. 

Chicago,  &  J.   E.   Ry.   Co.  z:  Lloyd,. 

p.  2249. 
Chicajgo     Auditorium     .Ass'n,     Bur- 

dette  z: 
Chicago,    B.    &    Q.    Ry.    Co.,    Burns 

Chicago     City     R.     Co.      A"kerstadt 

— —  V.  Bennett,    p.    2895. 

• z:   Bundy,    p.    2751. 

•  Burgoyne   v. 

!■.   Carhick,    pp.    2655.    2658. 

•  '•.   Carroll,      pp.      1517,      2645, 

2681,    2836,    3004. 
z'.   Casey,    p.    2015. 

v.   Catlin,    p.    2686. 

z\   Cooper,   p.   2050. 

Crauf    7'. 

v.   Crauf,   pp.   1742,   1890, 

1901. 

v.    Delcourt,    p.    2306. 

Devine    r. 

z:   Dinsmore,    162    111.    658,    44 

X.    E.    887— pp.    2119,   2226,    2688. 

V.  Dinsmore,      62      111.       App. 

473— p.    2821. 

Donnelly    z\ 

Ebsery    v. 

Elwood   z\ 

'■.   Engel,    p.    2699. 

FeitI    '■. 

z'.   Flynn,    p.    1744. 

V.   Foster,    80    N.    E.    762,    226- 

111.    288— p.    2649. 

—  V.  Foster,     128    111.    App.     571 
—p.    2954. 

—  Fuhry    z\ 

—  f.   Uatcs,     p.     2654. 

—  V.   Gregg,    p.    2251. 

—  Greinke    f. 

—  V.   Greinke,    pp.    2697,    2698. 

—  Healy    v. 

—  V.   Henry,       62       111.       142— p. 
3104. 

—  z:  Henry,    75    N.    E.    758,    218 
111.    92— p.    2859. 

—  Hickey   v. 

—  Hill   z: 

—  Jones    Z'. 

Kiley    z\ 

—  Lazer    z\ 

—  z:   Lowitz,    119   111.   App.   360— 
pp.    2232,    2752. 

—  V.  Lowitz,    75    N.    E.    755,    218 
111.    24— pp.    2752,    2753. 

V.   Lundberg,    p.    2357. 

z:   McCaughna,     117     III.     .'\pp. 

538— p.    2126. 

V.   McCaughna,     216     111.     202, 

74   N.   E.   819— pp.   2344,   2365. 

v.  McClain,    pp.    2656,    2895. 

McMahon   z\ 

Math    z: 

v.   Mead,    p.    2695. 

V.  Morse,    197    111.    327,    64    N. 

E.    304,   4   R.    R.   R.   215,   27   Am. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXLIII 


&    Kng.     R.     Cas.,    N.     S.,    215— •) 
pp.    ly/rf,   JSyi. 
Chicago    City    R.    Co.    r.    Morse,    98 
111.    App.    662— p.    2671. 

V.   Mumford,    p.    2249. 

V.  O'Donncll,    p.    2548. 

V.    Pelictier,     134     111.     120,     24 

N.   E.   770— pp.   2419,   3024. 

V.  Pelletier,  33  111.  App.  455— 

p.  2485. 

Pope  V. 

Potts  r. 

V.   Pural,  79  N.  E.  686,  224 

111.  324— pp.  1740,  2605,  2811, 
2861. 

V.   Pural,  127  111.  App.  652— 

pp.  2606,  2697,  2975. 

Ratner  v. 

V.   Robinson,  p.  2277. 

— —  T'.  Rood,  45  N.  E.  238,  163 
111.  477,  54  Am.  St.  Rep.  478— 
p.  2670. 

I'.  Rood,  62  111.  App.  550— p. 

2204. 

Schmidt  r. 

z:   Schmidt,  75  X.   E.  383, 

217  111.  396— p.  2174. 

V.   Schmidt,  117  111.  App.  213 

—pp.  2116,  2206. 

Sedoff  V. 

V.   Shaw,  pp.  1709,  2764. 

f.   Shreve,   226   111.    530,   SO   N. 

E.    1049— pp.    1742,    2895. 

V.    Shreve,     128    111.    App.    462 

—pp.    1720,    1999. 

Smaoska  v. 

Smith    V. 

z:   Smith,    80    N.    E.    716,    226 

111.    178— pp.    2952,   2976. 

r.   Smith,    124    111.    App.    627— 

p.    2340. 

Szczech   V. 

Van    Deventer   f. 

Ward    z: 

Wendling   v. 

Wilson    V. 

Wyckoff    f. 

:■.   Wyckoff,    p.    2796. 

Z'.  Young,    p.    2806. 

Chicago  Consol.  Tract.  Co.  v.  Ma- 
honey,    pp.    3025,    3030,    3031. 

Peterson    f. 

V.   Schritter,  78  N.  E.  820, 

222  111.   364— pp.   1750,  2113, 
2347,  2915,  2916. 

f.  Sehritter,  124  111.  App.  578 

—pp.     1742,     2342. 

Wojczynska    f. 

Chicago  Deposit  Vault  Co.  t:  Mc- 
Nulta,    p.    3252. 

Chicago  Elect.  V'ehicle  Co.,  Michi- 
gan   Cent.    R.    Co.    "'. 

Chicago  Exch.  Bldg.  Co.  v.  Nelson, 
64  N.  E.  369,  197  111.  334— pp. 
1488,    2232,    2353,    2902. 

V.  Nelson,    98    111.    App.    189— 

pp.    2149,    2227. 

Chicago   General   R.   Co.,   Dean_  r. 
Chicago    Junction     R.     Co.,     United 

States    f. 
Chicago     Junction      R.,      etc.,      Co., 

Willoughby    t'. 
Chicago  Junction,   etc..   Stock  Yards 

Co.,    Willoughby   z'. 
Chicago     Lumber     Co.,     Burlington, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Chicago    Packing,    etc.,    Co.,    Hobbs 

V.   Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

557,    558. 

Chicago   Portrait   Co.,    Central,    etc., 

R.    Co.    z: 
Chicago    R.    Co.,    Commercial    Club 

of    Omaha   "'. 

McDonnell    f. 

z:   Scurr,   pp.   3053.   3054,  3057. 

Chicago       Terminal       R.       Co.       v. 

Schmclling,    p.    1532. 
Chicago    Terminal    Transfer    R'.    Co. 
z:    Berkswitz,    p.    1689. 

•:■.   Young,   p.   2608. 

Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  z:  Breth- 
auer,  223  III.  521,  79  N.  E.  287 
—pp.    2646,    2713,    2714,    2849. 


Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  v.  Breth; 
auer,  125  111.  App.  204— pp.  2408, 
2487,    2564,    3106. 

V.  Chicago,     199     111.     484,    65 

N.  E.  451,  59  L.  R.  A.  631— 
pp.    27,    35,    43,    76,    77,    79,    126. 

V.  Chicago,     199    III.     579,     65 

N.  E.  470— pp.  59,  125,  175. 
1643. 

z:   Duckstein,    p.    2804. 

V.  Hampe,    p.    2653. 

z:  Hanthorn,    pp.    2394,    2925. 

z:   Kallberg,    p.     2297. 

V.  Lawrence,   p.   2173. 

V.   Leonard,    p.    267 1._ 

V.   Lowenroscn,   78   N.    Iv.   813 

222    III.    506— p.    2928. 

V.  Lowenrosen,    125    III.    .\pp 

194— p.    2647. 

z:   Lundahl,     pp.     2151,     2152 

2719,  2814. 

z:    McClevy,  pp.  2411,  2428 

V.   May,  p.  2860. 

z:   Mee,  75  N.  E.  800,  218 

III.  9,  2  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  725 
4  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  71— pp 
2678,  2978. 

z:  Mee,     136     111.     App.     98— 

pp.     1742,    2605. 

—  V.  Mommsen,    pp.    2671,    2692. 

—  v.  Ncwmiller,  74  N.  E.  410, 
215   III.   383— pp.   2386,   2684. 

'.   iNcwmiller,      116     III.     App. 


625— pp.    2130,    2684. 

7'.  O'Brien,     pp.      1520,      1537, 

2932,    2933. 

V.  Olsen,   pp.   2332.   2357. 

V.   Roberts,    p.    2649. 

V.  Rosenthal,    pp.     1536,    2864. 

z:   itraud,    p.    2690. 

Chicago    Varnish    Co.,   Central,   etc., 

R.    Co.    V. 
Chicago,     etc.,     Coal     Co.,     Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   :■. 
Chicago,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Clements,    p. 

3840. 

Eckerd  v. 

German    z\ 

Holland    z: 

Murray   z\ 

Peniston    "'. 

Walsh    V. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Abels, 
pp.  765,  821,  1075,  1397,  1418, 
1427,     1456. 

z'.  Ackley,     pp.     34,     36,     46, 

116,    3493. 

Adams     V. 

f.   Adams,    p.    2434. 

V.  Adams    Exp.    Co.,   p.    236. 

z:  Addizoat,     pp.     3159,     3168, 

3170. 

Adix   f. 

Aiken    -•. 

z'.  Alber,    p.    948. 

Albin    -•. 

Alford    z: 

Allen    z: 

Allender    z: 

v.  Ames,    pp.    553,    854. 

Anderson    f. 

V.   Anderson,    p.    74. 

Andrews    f. 

v.  Arkansas,     pp.     3447,     3450, 

3457,    3503.    3508. 

z:  Armes,      pp.       1883.       1886, 

2232. 

Armstrong   z\ 

v.   Armstrong,  p.  111. 

-•.  Arnol,   pp.   1723.   1744, 

1755.  1877.  1920.  1992.  2618. 

Atchison  v. 

Attorney    General   z\ 

Augustus    z\ 

Aultman    Engine,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

.\yers    z: 

Ayres    t'. 

Backhaus    z: 

Baermann    z: 

Baker    z: 

Baker   Wire   Co.   f. 

Banks    -•. 

■:■.    Bannerman,   pp.    1573,   2442 

Barber    f. 


Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co..    Barker   z: 

z:  Barnett,    p.    514. 

v.  Barrett,    16    111.    App.    1 — p. 

1533. 

V.  Barrett,    16    111.    App.    17 — 

p.    2485. 

V.  Barrett,    35    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

366,  80  S.  W.  660— pp.  1770, 
1779,     1821,    2874. 

Barris  v. 

Bass   z\ 

Bates    z\ 

Battis    V. 

V.  Baugh,   pp.    188.    1282. 

V.  Beatty,    27    Okla.    844,    116 

Pac.    171— pp.   753,   871. 

V.  Beatty,    34    Okla.    321.    118 

Pac.  367,  126  Pac.  736.  42  L. 
R.    A..    N.    S.,    984— p.    3487 

z:  Becker,      32      Fed.     849— p. 

z:  Becker,      35      Fed.     883— p. 

45. 

Beery  v. 

Beeson   v.  ^,  ., 

V.  Bell,    70    111.    102— p.    2121. 

V.  Bell,    1    Kan.    App.    71.    41 

Pac.    209— pp.    1705,    2923,    2927. 

Benedict  v. 

v.   Benjamin,    pp.    402,    817. 

Bennett    z\ 

V.  Bensley,   pp.   529,  893. 

Berg   v. 

Bergen    f. 

Berger  z: 

Bergner   z: 

Bergstrom  v. 

Berkowitz   ^•. 

Berry    z-. 

v.  Bcrwind,   etc.,    Min.    Co.,   p. 

3747. 

Bettis   z: 

Betts    r. 

Bigelow    z'. 

-  Biggie  I'.  .„,     _ 

-  v.  Bills,  104  Ind.  13,  3  N.  E- 
611— pp.  1545,  2453,  2454,  2483, 
2484,    2623.  ^„    ^^ 

-  V  Bills,  118  Ind.  221,  20  N. 
E.  775— pp.  1862,  1863.  2484, 
2768. 

-  T'.  Bingenheimer,  p.    2686. 

-  Black   z: 

-  Boehl   v. 

-  z:  Boger,  pp.  1636,  ISaO, 
2494. 

-  V.  Boggs,   p.   492. 

-  f.    Bolton,    p.    2247. 

-  Bond    f. 

-  z:    Bonified,   p.    2249. 

-  Book  t . 

-  Bosworth    z: 

z:   Bosworth,      pp.      522,      523, 

888,    3259. 

-  Bowman    v. 

-  Bowsher    f. 

z:   Boyce,       pp.       3114,       3113, 

3116,  3118,  3119,  3168,  3170, 
3171. 

-  z:  Boyles,  pp.  1532,  1762, 
1908. 

z:  Bozarth,    91    111.    App.    68 — 

p.    1087. 

:•.   Bozarth,    94    III.    App.    69— 

p.   978. 

-  Bradley  v. 

Brady   z: 

z:  Brandon,  pp.  2694,  2842. 

Brevig  y. 

Brignoli    Z'. 

z:   Brisbane,     pp.     1597.      1599, 

1600.    2467.    2482. 

Brown  z: 

Bryan  :•. 

z:   Bryan,  pp.  210,  2472,  3022, 

3088. 

Bryant  z\ 

z'.   Brvant,  p.  1569. 

Buie  'f. 

f.  Buie,  pp.  1749,  1755,  1991, 

2170. 

Bulte    Milling    Co.    z: 

Burgher  z\ 

Burgoine    z\ 


cxuv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Burke   z\  ^ 

'<.:   Burlington,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.   254,  255,  3658,  3823. 

Burns   t. 

V.   Burns,    p.    1641. 

Burrowes   v. 

z:   Bvrum,    153   111.    131.    38    N. 

E.  578— pp.  1684,  1745.  1884, 
2249. 

z:  Byrum,    48    111.    App.     41— 

p.   2361. 

-■.  Cain,   pp.    1981,   2734.   2806. 

Calender-\'anderhoof      Co.      t: 

T-.  Calumet    Stock    Farm,     194 

111.  9,  1  R.  R.  R.  162,  24  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  162,  61 
N.  E.  1095— pp.  981,  1032.  1033, 
1049,   1351,   1353,   1466,    1472. 

V.  Calumet     Stock     Farm,     96 

111.  App.  337,  pp.  1331,  1364, 
1371. 

f.  Calvert,    pp.    851,    859,    862. 

Campbell    v. 

i'.   Carlinville,     p.     3512. 

-'.   Carpenter,    pp.     1733,     1757, 

1816,    2214,    2295,    2296,    3000. 

Carrier   i: 

V.  Carroll,    36   Tex.    Civ.    App. 

359,  81    S.   W.    1020— p.    3366. 

z:   Carroll      (Tex.     Civ.    App.), 

151    S.   W.    1116— pp.    2495,    2851. 

Carter    z: 

Cartwright   f. 

f.    Casazza,    p.    2564. 

f.  Casey,   p.    1569. 

Castelano   z'. 

Cavanaugh    r. 

Cedar   Rapids,    etc..    Light    Co. 

Central    Trust    Co.    f. 

T'.   Chancellor,    p.    1514. 

Chapin    z: 

Chapman   f. 

z:   Chapman,  pp.  945,  951,  958, 

1075,     3330. 

Cherry  v. 

r.  Chestnut    Bros.,     pp.     1436, 

1437,   1438,   3273,   3300. 

z:  Chicago,    p.     58. 

z\   Chicago,      etc..      Coal      Co., 

pp.    85,    1180,    1195. 

Childers    v. 

Chinn    v. 

z\  Chisholm,     pp.     1574,     1615, 

2712,    3020,    3084,    3085,    3098. 

Christie    f. 

-  Church   V. 

z'.   Church,     p.     3333. 

Churchill    z: 

Clark   V. 

z:   Claunts,   pp.    1858,    2266. 

z:   Clayton,    pp.    3139,    3140. 

T'.  Clements,    p.    1275. 

Cleve     v. 

Clute   V. 

Coates    V. 

— ■ —  Coats    I'. 
Coine    V. 

z:   Colbv,   pp.    187,    188,    189. 

z:   Collier,    pp.    2092,    2093. 

f.  Collins,     pp.     3116,     3.o0. 

Colsch    V. 

Commerce   Comm.    v. 

Commercial    Bank  v. 

Condran    v. 

Congar  v. 

Conheim   z'. 

V.   Conklin,      pp.      3133,      3144, 

3149,   3150,   3185. 

z:   Conley,    p.    2465. 

Conroy    v. 

z:   Conway,     pp.      1408,      1425, 

1432. 

Cook  z: 

Corbett   v. 

Cornell    Z'. 

z:  Cotton,      pp.       3257,      3258, 

3291,    3348,    3349. 

Craker  z\ 

Cram   f. 

V.  Cram,   p.    135. 

Cramblet    v. 

Cramer    v. 


Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z:     Cramer, 
p.    3762. 

Cream    City    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Croaker  z\ 

Croom    z'. 

Crow    z: 

Curl     z: 

Curtis    r. 

z:    Curtis,   pp.    241,    3270. 

Daley    v. 

■  z:   Dane,    pp.    423,    3868. 

Daoust   V. 

Daube    v. 

Daugherty  v. 

Davis    z'. 

z:    Davis,    159    111.     53,    42    N. 

E.    382,    50    Am.    St.    Rep.    143— 
pp.     784,     981,     1033. 

f.   Davis,    54    III.    App.     130— 

pp.    784,    854. 

Dawson    z'. 

Dean    v. 

Decker    z: 

DeKay    z\ 

Denman    z; 

Denny     v. 

Denton    z\ 

Deskins    v. 

Devine   v. 

z:   Dewey,    p.    2137. 

v.   Dey,    p.    41. 

•;■.   Dickinson,      pp.      816,      817, 

848. 

V.   Dickson,   pp.    2215,   2933. 

Dieckmann    v. 

Dillnian    v. 

v.   Dingman,    p.    2244. 

v.   Dinsmore,    p.    1895. 

V.   Doan,    p.    2876. 

Dobney   z\ 

Dodge    v. 

z:   Dodson,    pp.    429,     1201. 

Dorn    z\ 

Dorr   Cattle   Co.  z: 

Dougherty    z-. 

•  Dowd   z\ 

V.   Drainage    Comm'rs        p.    58 

z:   Drake,    p.    2817. 

Dudley    v. 

Duell    z: 

V.   Dumser,     pp.       1951,      2180, 

3322. 

Dunlap    z'. 

z:   Durand,    p.    1936. 

Dye   V. 

z:   Eaton,     p.     1686. 

Eckerd    v. 

Ecton    V. 

Edgerton   v. 

Eickhof    t'. 

Eidem    v. 

Ellsworth    z\ 

Emery   v. 

z:   Erickson,      pp.      239,      1313, 

1323. 

Everett  z'. 

Faber   v. 

z:  Fahey,    pp.    3179,    3180. 

v.   Fairclough,    pp.    3160,    3168, 

3169. 

Farmington      Mercantile      Co. 

Faust  z\ 

V.   Feintuch,     pp.     3749,     3752, 

3788    3794. 

Fcldschneider    v. 

Felton  V. 

V.   relton,  p.   1981. 

f.   Ferguson,    p.    2166. 

Fick   v. 

Field   I'. 

z:   Field,  pp.  1548,  1549,  1556, 

1557,  1936,  2651. 

V.   Fifth  Nat.  Bank,  p.  1102. 

z'.   Filson,  p.  24. 

Finnegan  z\ 

V.   Fisher,   66   111.   152— pp. 

1852,  1854,  1855,  3044. 

V.   Fisher,  141  111.  614,  31  N. 

E.  406— pp.   1953,   2175,   2180, 
2345,  2940. 

z:   Fisher,  31  111.  App.  36- 

pp.  1937,  2755. 


1684,   1715, 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Fitzgerald  v. 

Fitzgibbon  t'. 

'•.  Flagg,  pp.  190.  1599,  2468, 

2479,  3083,  3084,  3085. 

z:   Flaherty,  66  N.  E.  1083, 

202  111.  151— p.  2746. 

v.   Flaherty,  96  111.  App.  563 

—p.  2331. 

Flavin  z: 

Flexman,       pp.        1540,      2042, 

2055. 

V.   Flynn,    p.     1682. 

Forbes    v. 

Ford    z\ 

Fowler     Comm.     Co.     z'. 

Fox    z\  , 

Foy    f. 

V.   Frazcr,      pp.       1532,       1533, 

1552,    1755,    1772. 

Fuller    v. 

Furman    z: 

Galliers    z: 

Galloway    ■;■. 

Gamble-Robinson     Comm.     Co. 

Gann    f. 

Gannon   v. 

z:   Gardiner,     pp.     932,     940. 

z\  Gardner,    pp.    3746,    3751. 

Z-.   Gasaway,     pp.     210,    238. 

Gates   V. 

z:   Gates,    p.    2085. 

Gatton   z\ 

George    z\ 

z:   George,       pp. 

2002. 

German   v. 

Gilbert    z: 

Gilbert    Bros.    v. 

■  z:   Gillett,     pp.    608,    609,    690. 

Glass  z'. 

V.   Gore,    pp.    2126,    2302,    2303, 

2746. 

Gould    '■. 

Gradert   ?'. 

V.   Gragg,    p.    1706. 

Graham    ■:■. 

z:   Graham,      pp.      1596,      1597, 

1599,     1601,    2467,    2468. 

Graham    Ice    Co.    f. 

Green   z\ 

-  Green    Bay    Lumber    Co.    z'. 
Green-Wheeler    Shoe    Co.    v. 

Gregory    z'. 

v.   Griffin,      pp.        2431,      2462, 

2475,    3106. 

^-  V.  Grimes,    pp.     1111,    1112. 

r.   Grimm,       pp.      1702,      1732, 

1740,     1834,     2693,     2813,     2897. 

Griswold    z'. 

■:■.   Groner,     p.     1777. 

V.   Gruss,    p.    2864. 

v.   Gustin,    p.     521. 

Habeck    c'. 

Hague  V. 

z:   Hague,       pp.      1764,      2240, 

2673. 

Haines    v. 

V.  Hale,    83    111.    3(.n.    25    Am. 

Rep.    403— pp.    1356,    1357. 

v.  Hale,     2     111.     App.     150— p. 

1012. 

Haley    v. 

•;•.   Halsell,     98     Tex.     244,     83 

S.    VV.    15— pp.    1462,    1463. 

z:   Halsell,    80    S.    W.    140,    35 

Tex.     Civ.     App.     126— pp.     1463, 
3248,    3310,    3404. 

V.  Halsell     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

81    S.    W.    1241— pp.     1322,     1323. 

■  v.   Halsell,    36    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

522,    81     S.     W.     1243— pp.     1002, 
1003,    3i27,    3365. 

V.   Hambel,    p.     2092. 

Hamilton    v. 

:■.   Hamler,     pp.    2102,     2103. 

Hancock   z\ 

Hanley    v. 

Ilannestead    v. 

Hanson    z\ 

Harden    v. 

z:   Hardie,    p.    2764. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXLV 


Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hardin    v. 

Harding    r. 

Hard  wick    Tarmcrs     Iviev.    Co. 

Farmers'      F.lcv. 


pp.      1007. 
p.    1534. 


1075, 


pp. 
pp. 


P- 


.     App. 
.     .\pii. 

2113. 
1196. 


327— 
322— 


pp. 


2425,      2437, 


pp. 


2424.    3083. 


1568. 


f.   Hardwick 

Co.,    p.    3488. 

Harklcss   V. 

T.   Harmon, 

1341. 
;■.   Harrison, 

Hart  r. 

Hartford    Fire    Ins.    Co. 

Hartwig    V. 

Harvey    v. 

Hawrigan   v. 

Haverlund   "'. 

liawk    V. 

r.  Hawk.    3< 

2096.    221(.. 

:•.    Hawk,    4. 

2215. 
Hazard  v. 
Hazel    r. 

Hazzard  v. 

. V.   Hazzard, 

. llecker    f. 

Heitman    v. 

Heller    v. 

,  Hemmingway  r. 

Hempstead    v. 

V.  Henderson,    p 

Hendrick    f. 

Herman    v. 

Herndon     v. 

',:   Herring 

2483. 

Hewes   v. 

Hewett  V. 

Hillis    r. 

Hinckley    v. 

iloeger    '•. 

Hoehn    v. 

V.  Holdridge 

Holland    v. 

V.  Hollis,   p.   3002. 

Hooper   i: 

f.  lloover,    p.    2337. 

Hopkins   f. 

Hospes   V. 

f.  Hosteller,    pp.     1269 

House  r. 

—. —  Howard    '<■. 

Howe    f. 

Hoyt    V. 

V.  Hubbell.    p 

Hughes    -'. 

Hull    v. 

Hutchinson   f 

V.   Hvatt.     pp 

J..  Ig'o,    pp.     1033,    1044. 

Hlinois   Match   Co.   t'. 

Imhoff    V. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

11  7.    Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

171  Fed.  680— pp.  3671,  3682, 
3801.  ^  ^ 

-.    Interstate  Commerce  Lomm., 

173  Fed.  930— pp.  3643,  3644, 
3804. 

Iowa  V.  ,,      ,.,      4  1 

V.  Iowa,    pp.    34,    36,    37     43. 

44,  60,  64,  65,  1134,  1136,  1179, 
3492,    3493,    3497. 

V.  Jaber,    p.    800. 

V.  James     (Kan.),      100      Pac. 

641 — p.    1994. 

r.   Tames,    81     Kan.     180.     105 

Pac.   4'0— pp.    1124,    1956,    2857. 

Jeffries   f. 

Jenkins    v.  _ 

V.  Jenkins,      pp.        "14.        /15i 

894,    1160. 

V.  Jennings,     pp.     1504,     150S, 

1509,   2647. 

Jerolman   v. 

Johnson    "'. 

Johnston   v. 

V.    Johnston.      pp.      293,      296 

341. 

Jolley   V. 

Jones    V. 

1    Car— j 


3752. 


1764,     2269. 


Chicago,   etc..    K.    Co.   r.    Jones,   pp. 

35.    1134,    1135.    1136,    1192. 
Junod    V.  „ 

r.    Kansas    City,    etc.,     K.    Co., 

-  f.   Kapp,    pp.     608,    609.    693, 
695. 

r.    Katzenbach,    p.    793. 

Kelly   V. 

:.   Kelly,    p.    2501. 

V.  Kelm.    p.    772. 

:•.   Kendall,     pp.     899.^    916 

r.  King.     pp.     499.     511.     645. 

646.    648. 

Kinnick    v. 

ZH  r.'KTrby,    pp.    499.    502'.     511. 
533,    1315.    3631,    3648. 

Kirk    V. 

Kiser    V. 

Kleszewski    v. 

Knowlton    v.  _     .       /- 

Knudsen-Ferguson     Fruit     Co. 

— ll  t'.   Koehler,    p.    2150. 

V.  Koerner.     pp.     1180,     1183, 

1189. 

Kreuziger   v. 

Kronshage    v. 

Krueger    f. 

Krug    V. 

Kyle   V. 

V.  Kyle.   p.    135. 

Lackland   v. 

V.   Lagerkrans,  pp. 

2325. 

-  Lamb   ;■. 

Lammert    '•. 

I'.   Lampman,      pp.      195 

1885.      1899,      1911.     2226, 
2313.    2351,    2724,    2743,    2749. 

-■.  Landauer.    36   Neb.   642.    54 

N.  W.  976.  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  640— pp.  1884,  2119,  2252, 
2824. 

V.  Landauer.    39   Neb.   803,    58 

N.    W.    434— pp.    2259.    2673. 

Larkin   v. 

Larson    v. 

Latta    V. 

f.  Latta.     184     Fed.     987.     106 

C.  C.   A.    664— p.    731. 

V.  Latta,    33    S.    Ct.    155,    226 

U.  S.  519.  57  L.  Ed.  328— pp. 
731.    3521. 


Chicago,    etc..     R.    Co.    f.    McDon- 

ough,    p.    2722. 
r.  McElroy.     p.     139. 

McFadden    v. 

McGee   v. 

McGrew   t'. 

McGuire  v. 

r.  McGuire.     pp.     3457,     3464, 

3465. 

McKcon    V. 

McKinley   v. 

McKinstrey    i'. 

V.   McLallen,      pp.      190,      196, 

197. 

—  McLean  f. 

—  McManus    v. 

—  McMillan   v. 

—  Madl    -.'. 

—  Manhattan    Rubber    Shoe    Co. 


2134, 


205, 
2248, 


245,    44 
P- 


61,  41 
60,  22  N. 
Rep.    17— 


Despatch    Transp. 
569,    570. 


pp 


p.    1908. 
pp.      1501, 


,    p.    20. 
1561,    2104, 


217. 


Laub    V. 

■  Laughlin    v. 

Lawson   v. 

Lay    V. 

Leavenworth       County      Com- 
missioners  V. 

V.  Ledbetter 

r.  Lee,    pp. 

Leland  v. 

Lemke    v. 

V.  Lena   Lumber   Co.,    p.    1198. 

Lennon   r. 

Lenord   v. 

Leonard   v. 

V.   Lewis,      pp.       1745,       1812, 

1813,    1840,    1985,    2843,    2951. 

Leyser   v. 

Lincoln    Grain    Co.    v. 

f.  Lindahl.    pp.    1951,    2342. 

Lindsay    v. 

Lindsley  v. 

Loeser    f. 

f.  Logan,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    82j 

839. 

Long    V. 

V.  Lowell. 

1792.      2124. 


2274,    2746. 

Lucy   v. 

Mc.Mistcr    v. 

McCarthy  v. 

McComb    V. 

McCorkle    f. 

McDanicl    r. 

McDermott    r. 

f.   McOermott, 

McDonald    v. 


pp.      201,       1791, 
2134,     2246,     2273, 


144. 


-  V.  Mann,    pp.    1548,    2094. 

-  V.  Manning,       pp.      728,      742, 
743,    745,    746,    747. 

Marion   v. 

Marquette    f. 

Marshall    Medicine   Co.   v. 

:•.   Martelle,     p.     2264. 

f.  Martin,     53     Pac.     461,     59 

Kan.  437,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  4— pp.  1708,  2078, 
2098,    2099. 

V.  Martin,    178   U.    S. 

L.    Ed.    1055,    20    S.    Ct. 
2098. 

Masterson    v. 

Mayne   f. 

V.   Means,     p.     2354. 

f.  Mehlsack,     131     111. 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
E.  812,  19  Am.  St. 
pp.    1572,    1722,   2516,    2929. 

V.  Mehlsack,      44       111.      App. 

124— pp.    2516,    2929. 

Meloche    v. 

Menzell    v. 

Merchants' 

Co.    f. 

V.   Merrill, 

Slerryman 

Merz    f. 

Meuer   v. 

Meyer    v. 

■:■.  Meyer, 

:•.  Michie, 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co. 

f.  Miles,       pp.       1309. 

1321.    1322.    3333. 

f.  Mill      Elevator,     etc 

pp.   647.   654. 

Miller    z: 

r.   Miller,   p.   3521. 

T-.  Mills,    pp.    1889.    1891. 

Milne   V. 

-  Milroy   -•. 

Miltimorc    f. 

Milwaukee    Malt    Extract    Co. 

— ll  Milwaukee         Mirror,  etc.. 

Works    v. 

V.  Minnesota,    pp.    34,    36,    39, 

40.    58,    60,    61,    62,    64,    lla,    116. 
119,    3668. 

Minor  ;•. 

Minter  f. 

Mitchell     V. 

:.  Mitchell,    pp.     1291,    1483. 

f.  Mock,    p.    2801. 

[  V.  Mohaupt,    p.    2166. 

I  M6hr  V.  _,„„       ,„,„ 

f.  Montfort,     pp.     988.     1049. 

3291.    3326. 

Moore    r. 

J-.   Moran.     pp.     1303,     2/82. 

ZZ  ?.^°M^rris.      pp.       1304,      1305. 
1333,     1341,     1344,      1466,       146/. 

-2^v.  itlL    pp.    788,    1039,    1040. 
1075. 

.xote   V. 

Mueller    v. 

;•.  Mulford,    pp.    3314.    331/. 


1572. 


1316, 
Co., 


CXLVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


etc., 


3079. 


"2   N. 

2343, 


App.    263 


Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•.    Mumford 
pp.    1889.    1901, 

r.   Murphy,    pp.    2894,    2954. 

Murray    z: 

Muster  ?■. 

■ Myers    ': 

V,  Myers,     pp.     2122,     2218. 

Mykleby    '■. 

National    Bank    f. 

National    Elevator,    etc.,    Co.  v. 

J'.   National        Elevator, 

Co.,    p.    541. 

National    Pole    Co.    '•. 

Nebraska    Transfer    Co. 

Neice    ''. 

V.  Neimann,    p.    779. 

Nelson   v. 

Nevius    f. 

'■.   Newburn,     pj).     2441, 

Newbv  '■. 

r.   Ne'well,   212   111.    332, 

E.    416— pp.      1953,     2087, 
2757,   2888. 

V.   Newell,     113    111 

—p.    2342. 

Newman   7\ 

' i'.  Newhouse     Mill,     etc.,     Co.. 

p-i.    642,    653,    675. 

Nichols    V. 

f.  Noble,   p.    1866. 

z:  Northern    Line    Packet    Co., 

pp.    3182,    3308,    3346. 

7".   Nuesch,    p.    663. 

O'Brien   f. 

i:   O'Brien,     p.     1578. 

O'Donnell    v. 

z:  Oglesby,    p.    3485. 

Oklahoma   z'. 

Oliver    &    Son    •;■. 

z:   Olsen,    p.    2494. 

Olson    z: 

O'Rourke   v. 

Orr    z: 

Osborne    z: 

z:   Osborne,      ,.j..     , 

3717,    3718,    3719,    3766,    3767, 

Otto    f. 

z:   Otto,    p.    2937, 

z:   Owen,    p.     1279. 

Owens    Bros.    i\ 

Page  V. 

Paine    z\ 

Painter    z: 

V.   Painter,     pp.     1219,     1220. 

Palmer  v. 

V.  Parkinson,    pp.    2504,    2525, 

2549. 

pp. 
1599, 


2080,       2083, 


pp.     3610,      3681, 


1187,       1596, 
2467,      2468, 


;•.  Parks, 
1597,  1598, 
2479. 

Parsons    v. 

Patee    z: 

Paterson   v. 

Patry    z: 

Pattee    z\ 

Patten    z: 

z'.   Peacock,    pp.    2479,    2564. 

Peat  V. 

Peck    V. 

Peet  v. 

Peik    z: 

v.  Pendergast,     p.     1633. 

People   V. 

V.  People,    56   III.    365,   8    Am. 

Rep.      690— pp.      221,      255,      541, 
542,    727,    732,    748. 

V.  People,    69   111.    11,    16    Am. 

Rep.    599— pp.    83,    97,    222. 

V.  People,   77   111.   443— p.    ^39. 

Peoria,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.  Peoria,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3303.  ^ 

Perkins    v. 

Pershing    v. 

Peterson   v. 

Petuson    V. 

V.  Pfeifer    &    Bro.,      pp.      549, 

566,    636,    663,    682,    3407 

Pike    r. 

V.   Pillsbury    (111.),     8     N.     E 

803— p.     1499. 

V.   PilLsbury,      123      III.      9      14 

N.    E.    ^2,    26    Am     &    Eng.    R. 


Cas.     241,     31     Am.     &     Eng.     R. 
Cas.    24,    5    Am.    St.    Rep.    483 — 
pp.    1492,    1499,    1684.    1724,    2021 
2032. 

Pine    Bros.    z\ 

Pioria,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

'■.    Planters'      Gin,      etc.,      Co., 

pp.  421,  610,  635,  641.  642,  646, 
650,  653,  662,  663,  669,  670,  672, 
673. 

Pledger    f. 

Plott   z: 

z:  Pollock,      pp.      433,        1281, 

1475,    1479. 

— —  z:   Pondrom,    p,    2200. 

z:   Poore,    p,     2001. 

Porter    ;-. 

Post     V. 

z'.   Posten,      pp. 

2098. 

Potter     z: 

Powers    7'. 

z\   Powers,        pp.        284,        28  S, 

1336. 

Pratt    c', 

T'.   Pratt,    pp.    1300,    1313. 

z:  Provine,    pp.    587,    816,    817. 

"'•   Pullman,      etc.,       Car      Co., 

pp.    1837,    1936.    3447. 

Quackenbush    z\ 

Quaife  f. 

z:   Radford,    p.    2479, 

V.   Railroad    Comm,,     173     Ind. 

469,    87     N.     E.     1030,     90    N      F 
1011 — pp.    119,    3489. 

z:   Railroad     Comm.,     175     Ind. 

630,  95  N.  E.  364— pp.  65,  108, 
117,    118,    133. 

V.   Railroad  Comm.,  132 

Wis.  654.  140  N.  W.  296— pp 
3485,    3515. 

Ralph   7', 

7'.   Ralston,     p.     1756. 

Randell    7'. 

7'.   Randolph,  pp,    1838.    1839, 

7'.   Ransom,   pp.    1999,    2011. 

Ray   7'. 

7'.   Kayburn,    p.    2365, 

Reading  7'. 

Redmon   v. 

Reed     7'. 

Reeves  v. 

7'.    Reyman,   pp.    787,    895.   899. 

Reynolds   7'. 

7'.    Rhodes,    p.    2081. 

Rice    7'. 

Richardson   7'. 

z:   Rielly,    pp.    2122,    2190. 

Riley    7'. 

z:   R'iley,    pp.    3081,    3098. 

Robert    7'. 

7'.   Roberts,    pp.    2479,    3082. 

Robinson    7'. 

7'.    Robinson,    p,    1803. 

Rohrig    7'. 

Rosenbaum    Grain    Co,    7'. 

Ross     7'. 

z:   Ross,   pp.    2034,   2607. 

7'.   Rowell,      pp.      2085,      2086 

2087,  2088,  2658,  2722,  2759 
3067.  >        'o^, 

Rudiger  zi. 

Russell    I'. 

— —  7'.     Ryan,     165    111.    88,    46    N, 

E.    208— p.    1792. 
;  V.  Ryan,    62    111.    App.    264— p. 

2501.  ' 

St.    Clair    7'. 

Sanders   v. 

Sattler    v. 

— -  7'.   Sattler,      pp.       1526,       1528, 
2240. 

Saunders    7'. 

Sawyer    t. 

7'.   Sawyer,    pp.    727,    894,    899 

ZK  Scales,  pp.  2155,  2158. 

Schaller     7'. 

Scheiber    7'. 

Schlag    v. 

Schlichting  7'. 

~7;  'I'-   ?^i^i"elling,    pp.    1537,    1701. 
2272,   22/3. 

Schmidt  z: 


Chicago,     etc.,    R.      Co.,      Schroeder 
Lumber    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Schuldt,    p.    1367. 

Schumacher  7'. 

7'.    Scott,   42   III.    132— pp.    894 

899,    910,    911.  '  ' 

S.    W.    294 — p.    825, 

Scott    Bros.    7'. 

Seigfried    7'. 

Seymour    7'. 

Shanahan   7'. 

7'.    Shannon,    p,     1785. 

Shaw  7'. 

Shea    7'. 

7'     Shea,    pp.    727,    760,    761. 

bhepard   7'. 

Sherlock    7'. 

Sherman    7'. 

Sherwood   7'. 

Siemonsma    7'. 

7'.    Simms,    p.    1087. 

~H)49'    3257"'  ^^'   ^^^"    ^°°"*'    '°'^'^' 

Simpson    7'. 

t'.    Simpson,    pp.    1833,    1836. 

Skinner    7'. 

Sleepy    Eye    Milling    Co.    7' 

~7ToV    Slattery,      pp.      1329,      1331, 
1384,    1454,    1470,    3629. 

v.-   Slaughter,     pp.     3362,     3405. 

Smith    7'. 

— —  7'.    Smith,      110      Fed.      473— p. 

7'.    Smith,     59    111.     App     24^— 

p.    1786.  ' 

7'.    Smith,    81     III.    App.    364— 

p.    3326. 

7'.    Smith,    124    III.    App.    627— 

pp.    2011,    2340. 

Snider    7'. 

Solan   z\ 

7'.   Solan,     pp.     937,     947,  950, 

955,   1073,   2092,   2098,   3480,  3481, 

3302,      3504,      3505,      3507,  3513 
3519,    3522,    4058. 

Spalding  7'. 

Spannagle    7'. 

7'.   Spears,      pp,       1417,       1420, 

1421,    1422. 

Spencer  7'. 

Spicer     7'. 

Spirk    7'. 

7'.    Spirk,       pp.       2415,       2455, 

2621,    2852. 

7'.   Stanbro,    pp.    341,    598. 

Starr    7'. 

State    7', 

z:    State,    86    Ark.    412,    111    S 

W.   456— pp.   3425,   3303,    3308, 

——7',    State,     51     N,     E,     924,     153 
Ind,    134— p.    3537. 

v.   State,   23   Okla.   94,   99   Pac 

901— pp.    31,    92. 

7'.   State      (Okla.),      128      Pac. 

908— p.    125. 

State    Nat.    Bank   7-. 

7'.   Steamboat     W.     G.     Wood- 
sides,    p.    1148. 

V.    Steear,  p,  3139. 

——7'.  Stepp,   pp.   1511,    1514, 

2084,  2325,  2363. 
z'.   Stewart,  p.  2150. 

7'.  Stibbs,  p.  1719. 

Stone  7'. 

7^  Stonecipher,  p.  1873. 

Stoner     7'. 

7'.    Storment,     p.     2268. 

Strand    z'. 

7'.    Stratton,    p.    2834. 

7'.   Streeter    7'. 

Stutz    7'. 

7'.    Suffern,   pp.   210,   212. 

Sunderland    Bros.    Co.    7'. 

Sutton     7'. 

z\   Swangcr,    p.    3514. 

Swedish-American     Nat.     Bank 

7'.   Swindlchurst,    p.    3554. 

7'.   Sykes,    p.     1773. 

Szczepanski   v. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXLVII 


Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     Taenzer     & 
Co.    V. 

Tallman    t'. 

Tcrre    Haute,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

7\   Territory,    p.    35. 

Thomas    ;\ 

r.  Thompkins,    |)|).    34,    39,    52, 

58,     115,     124,     129,     134. 

Thompson    *'. 

V.   Thompson,    19    111.    578 — pp. 

5,  210,  236,  239,  240,  760,  767, 
770,    3151. 

V.  Thompson,     100     Tex.     185, 

97    S.    W.    459— p.    940. 

f.  Thompson,      41      Tex.     Civ. 

App.  459,  93  S.  W.  702— pp. 
943,    1120. 

J'.   Thurlow,     pp.      1501,      1524, 

1536,    1539,    1558,    2292. 

Tiller    -. 

V.  Todd,    p.    1323. 

7'.   Traccy,    ]).     1537. 

Tracy    ?•. 

-  Tradewell   -■. 

Traffic        Bureau        Merchants' 

Exch.   V. 

Trezona    v. 

V.  Trotter,     60     Miss.     442 — p. 

2681. 

V.  Trotter,    61     Miss      417 — p. 

2966. 

V.   Troyer,     70     Neb.     287,     97 

N.    W.    308— p.    1568. 

V.  Troyer,    70    Neb.    293,    103 

...  W.  680— pp.  1548,  2308,  2777, 
2860. 

Trust   Co.   r. 

Tuley     '•. 

Tuttle    V. 

Uber     -•. 

■ Ullman    ;'. 

Unionville     Produce     Co.     ?•. 

— —  United    States   v. 

r.   United      States,      156      Fed. 

558,  84  C.  C.  A.  324.  26  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    551— p.    3731. 

r.  United      States,      157      Fed. 

830— pp.    3738,    3744,    3850. 

V.  United      States,      162      Fed. 

835— p.    3845. 

V.   United     States,     91     C.     C. 

A.  373,  165  Fed.  423,  20  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    473— p.    3455. 

V.   United      States,      194      Fed. 

342— pp.    3621,    3626,    3627. 

V.  United      States,      195      Fed. 

241— p.    3621. 

V.  United    States.    209    U.     S. 

90,  52  L.  Kd.  698,  28  S.  Ct. 
439— pp.  3443,  3613,  3736,  3737, 
3842,  3848,  3852,  3853,  3854, 
3855,   3857. 

V.  United    States,    212    U.     S. 

563,  S3  L.  Ed.  653,  29  S.  Ct. 
689— p.    3731. 

V.  United    States,    219    U.    S. 

486,  55  L.  Kd.  305,  31  S.  Ct. 
272— pp.    3495,    3605,    3765. 

-^  V.  United    States,    220    U.     S. 

559,  55  L.  Kd.  582,  31  S.  Ct. 
612— pp.    3450,    3452,    3456. 

Usher     7'. 

-'.   Yan    Dresar,    p.    1 387. 

Van     Cilder    ?•. 

Van    Patten    f. 

Vimont    -■. 

\'incent    -'. 

X'oelker     t'. 

^'oorhees    f. 

— —  Wakefield   v. 
■ Waldron    ?'. 

■ -:   Walker,    18    R.    R.    R.    596, 

41  Am.  &  Kng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
596,  217  111.  605,  75  N.  E.  520— 
pp.     1509,     1511,    2503. 

• V.  Walker.    29    Okla.    856,    119 

Pac.    993— p.    3291. 

f.   Wallace,    pp.    214.    236,    244. 

Walter    7: 

Walters    f. 

Walthers     '■. 

Ward    ?•. 

Wardwell    t'. 

7'.   Warren,    pn.    511.    526.    9lfi. 


Chicago,   etc.,   R".   Co.,   Washburn  v. 

Waterbury    z'. 

Way    -■. 

-  Welier     V. 
•   Weber    Co   V. 

Weeks     f. 

-  x:   Weeks,    p.    3038. 

:•.   WehriTian,      pp.      946,      9ol, 

9(,9,    977,    978,     1348,    1397,    1398. 

Weida    J'. 

Wcllman    v. 

V.   Wellman,     pp.     34,     46,     58, 

60,     115,     116. 

Wente     v. 

Wentz    V. 

Werner    f. 

— —  Western    Sash,    etc.,^  Co.    v. 

V.   Western,     etc..     Grain     Co., 

p.    3340. 

Wetzell    V. 

•  Whitaker    v. 

White    Live    Stock    Comm.    Co. 


3115, 
3131, 


436, 


207, 
1567, 


Whitham    f. 

Whitnack   v. 

— -  Whitney   v. 

V.   Whitten,     pp.      3113, 

3116,      3117,      3119,      3130, 
3197,    3199. 

Wiggins     Ferry    Co.    -'. 

Wightman    ,'. 

Wilcox   -'. 

f.   Wilcox,    p.    2655. 

Willard    I'. 

r.   Willard,    p.    2429. 

Williams    v. 

V.   Williams,      101      Ark. 

142   S.    W.   826— p.    1084. 

V.  Williams,      200      Fed. 

118     C.     C.     A.     393— pp. 
2098. 

v.  Williams,     55     III.     185,     8 

Am.  Rej).  641— pp.  190.  191,  193, 
196,    1943.    1944,    1950,   3050. 

v.   Williams,     85     N.     W.     832, 

61  Neb.  0O8.  55  L.  R.  A.  289— 
pp.    1272.    1344,    1384. 

r.   Wilson,      63      III.       167— p. 

3074. 

-•.  Wilson,    23    III.    App.    63— 

p.    2486. 

V.   Wimmcr,    pp.    2909,    3035. 

V.   Winfrey,     pp.     2119,     2249, 

2267,   2319,   2671,   2777. 

Winscott    f. 

Winsor    Coal    Co.    f. 

V.   Winters,      pp.     1531.      1537, 

1567,    1793,    2125,   2911. 

Wisecarver    v. 

V.  Witty,      pp.       1075,        1362, 

1363. 

V.  Wolcott,    pp.    210,    222,    224, 

234,  235,  253,  254,  258,  260, 
1142,    1194,    1195,    1196. 

Wolf     7'. 

v.   Wolfe,    pp.   659,    1764,    1765. 

2671. 

Wood    7'. 

7'.  Wood,  pp.  1536,  1537. 

7'.  Woodward,  pp.  727,  1292, 

1329,  1351,  1454,  1456,  1473, 
1474,  3251,  3258,  3268. 

Wooley    7'. 

7".  Woolner    Distilling    Co.,    p. 

711. 

7'.  Wool  ridge,    p.    2131. 

-  Woolsey  7'. 

Wright    V. 

-  York  7'. 

Young  7'. 

7'.   Young.    102    Ark.    590,     145 

S.  W.   203— pp.    143,   144,    174. 

7'.   Young.    58   Neb.   678.   79   N. 

W.  556,  14  .\in.  &  Kng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,   343— pp.    1764,    1766,    2604. 

7'.  Young  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

107  S.  W.  127— pp.  1299,  1322, 
1336. 

7'.  Zernecke,  59  Neb.  689,  82 

N.  W.  26,  17  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  76,  55  L.  R.  A. 
,,10— pp.  1764,  1766,  2676. 


Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Zernecke, 
183  U.  S.  582,  46  L.  Ed.  339, 
22   S.  Ct.  229— pp.  730,  731,  1686. 

Chicago,  etc..  Steamship  Co.  v. 
Lynch,  pp.  4000,  4002. 

Chicago,  etc.,  Tract.  Co.,  Garner 

Schlauder    v. 

Chicago,   etc..   Transfer  Co.   i'.    Kot- 

oski,    p.     2864. 
Chickering      v.      Fowler,      pp.      536, 

540,    566. 
Chiert    7'.     Interurban    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2465. 
Childers    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1033. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Childress,     Craig     i\ 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Childs    7'.    Little    Miami    R.    Co.,    p. 

818 
Chiles  7'.   Southern   R.   Co.,   p.   2848. 
Chillicothe   v.    Raynard,    p.    3161. 
Chilton     7'.     London,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2062. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

V.  St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     196,    1944,    1945,    2854. 

Cliilvers    v.    People,    p.    3587. 
China    Mfg.    Co.,    Missouri    Pac.    R. 

Co.    7'. 

Chinn    7-.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1479. 
Chinski,    Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    r. 
Chipman,     Boston,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
Chippewa     \'alley      Elect.      R.      Co., 

\Vanzer    7'. 
Chippewa,      etc.  ,     Elect.      R.      Co., 

Wanzer    '•. 
Chisholm,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Chittenden,    Roberts  7'. 

Robinson    7'. 

Chittim,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Chittv    7-.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R".    Co., 

pp.'  2128,   2129,   2130,   2262.   2656. 
Chlanda    7-.    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co., 

pp.    2666,    2697. 
Choate    7'.    Crowninshield.    pp.    752, 

765,    820,    828. 

7'.  Missouri    Pac.    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

1558,    1953,    2342. 

— —  San    .Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.  San    Antonio,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    1766,    1990,    1992,   2220,   2222, 
2892. 

Choctaw,    etc.,    R. 

7'.    Burgess. 

— —  7'.   Cantwell. 

Crutcher    7'. 

Harp    7'. 

7'.   Ilickcy, 

2966. 

7'.   Hill.    pp. 


Co.,    Bourland  v. 
p.     1880. 
p.    3053. 


pp. 


2916.      2944, 


2493,    3017.    3032, 
3079,    3080.  "3084,    3088,    3102. 

Lane  7'. 

Rodgers    x: 

7'.   Rolfe,    pp.    259,    458.    459. 

474. 

V.  Stanford,    p.    2728. 

V.  State,    pp.    92,    142. 

r.   Walker,  p.   645. 

7-.  Zwirtz,      pp.       3110.       3iM. 

3115,     3124. 

Chollette,    Omaha,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Omaha,     etc..     R.     Co..     26 

159.    41    N.    W.    1106.    t    L. 

135— pp.    1/64.   3315.   3317, 


Neb. 
R.    A. 

33 


Omaha,     etc., 
143.     49     N. 


R. 
W. 


Co..     33 
1114 — p. 


Neb. 

1764. 
Chorn    7'.     Missouri,    etc.,     R.    Co.. 

p.    2157. 
Chouteau  7'.   St.    .-Xnthony,  p.    110. 

7'.  Steamboat       St.       Anthony, 

pp.     239.     277. 

7'.   The    St.    .\nthony.    pp.    770, 

771. 

f.  L^nion     R..     etc..     Co..     pp. 

116.   422. 

Chouteau    Transp.    Co.,    Buddenberg 


CXLVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Chouteaux   f.    Leech,    p.    770. 

f.  Leech      &      Co.,      pp.      788, 

1008. 

Chovin.    State  t'. 

Chowning.     Willis    r. 

Chretien    -•.    New    Orleans    R.    Co., 

pp.    2127,    2129,    2262. 
Christall,    I'lint   v.  ,,  .   ^       „ 

Cnristensen  f.    Brooklyn  Heights    K. 

Co.,    p.    2149. 

z:   Metropolitan   St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2205. 

z:  Oregon,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1683,  1690,  1719,  2171,  2669, 
2673,    2841. 

Christenson  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
pp  320,  323,  728,  733,  749,  768, 
986.    3369,    3371,    3911. 

Christian  r.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    2814,    2848. 

f.   First    Division,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

p.     518. 

Tones    v. 

Lombard,    etc..    Pass.    R.    Co. 

V. 

Southern    R.   Co.   v. 

Christie,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

r.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2500. 

z:  Davis     Coal,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

3940. 

z:  Galveston   City   R.    Co.,    pp. 

1767,  1880,    2637,    2656. 

z:  Missouri     Pac.     K.     Co.,     p. 

1180- 
Christie     Grain,     etc.,     Co.,     Board 

ChVistl    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.     Co., 

pp.    3750,    3761. 
Christmas,    Yazoo,    etc.,    R.     Co.    i\ 
Christopher,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Kummer 

Chudnovski  v.   Eckels,  p.   1502. 
Chunn    z:     City,    etc..     Railway,     23 
App.    D.    C.    551— pp.    2878,    2879. 

z:   City,   etc..    Railway,   207   U. 

S.  302,  52  L.  Ed.  219,  28  S. 
Ct.  63,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
595— p.    2116. 

Church  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    3305. 

Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

f.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    81 

Neb.  615,  116  N  W.  520- pp. 
1268,    1454,    1456. 

z:   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  S. 

Dak.  235,  60  N.  W.  854,  26  L. 
R.  A.  616,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
!<;,  s.,  1— pp.  1668,  1968,  2456. 

Denver,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3753. 

Churchill  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    1973. 

Dantzler    Lumber    Co.    z'. 

In     re. 

Churchman,    Wilson    z'. 

Chy    Lung   v.    Freeman,    p.    3564. 
C.    H.    &    D.    R.    Co.,    Ferrell   v. 

Howe   V. 

Shaffer    &    Co.    z: 

Smith    z'. 

Wittman    z'. 

Cicero,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  Kane  v. 

f.    Meixncr,   p.    2151. 

Cincinnati    Chronicle    Co.    r.    White 

Line    Cent.    Transit    Co.,    pp.    847, 

856. 
Cincinanti    Grain    Co.    v.    Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    288. 
Cincinnati  Northern  R.   Co.,  Mercer 

Cincinnati    Northern    Tract.    Co.    v. 

R'osnagle,    p.    3085.     ■ 
Cincinnati    St.    R.    Co.,    Carney   v. 

z:   Fullbright,    pp.    1714,    2615, 

2618. 

Hollingsworth    v. 

V.  Kelsey,      pp.       1714,      2694, 

2697,     2844. 

McBee    v. 

V.   Snell,    pp.    2278,    2319. 


Cincinnati     Tract.     Co.     z:     Baron, 
etc.,    Co.,    pp.     1714,    1821. 

Dougherty    z\ 

Goodwin     z-. 

Hamburger    t-. 

I'.    Hamburger,    p.    1824. 

Holzenkamp    z\ 

z\   Holzenkamp,      74      O.       St. 

379,  78  N.  E.  529,  6  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  800,  113  Am.  St.  Rep. 
980— pp.     1503,    2685. 

V.   Holzenkamp,     3    N.     P..     X. 

S.,  537,  539,  16  O.  D.  N.  P. 
673— pp.    1508,    1516. 

f.  Leach,    p.    2187. 

Cincinnati,    etc..    Mail    Line    Co.    •:■. 

Boal,    pp.    771,    809,    3898. 
Cincinnati,      etc.,      Packet      Co.      f. 

Bay,    p.    3422. 
Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\     Aller, 

p.    2528. 

.Mtemeier     z\ 

Bailev 


Ballard    z: 

z:   Barklev, 

2774. 

Beiser    f. 

z'.    Berdan 

956,    959,    989 


pp. 


2425,      2634, 


948, 


&     Co.,     pp 
--,    .__    990,     1032. 
..   Brandenburg,    p.    2529. 

V.   Bravard,    pp.    2693,    2779. 

z:    Brown,      pp.       1714,      2682, 

2697,  2844. 

z:   Carper,   pp.   1544,   2126, 

2127,  2227,  2607. 

V.   Carson,   pp.   2447,   2459, 

2462,  2664,   3078,  3079,  3080, 
3083,  3098. 

v.   Case,  pp.  1303,  1305,  1442. 

V.   Chester,  p.  2604. 

z:   Cole,  p.  3096. 

z:   Cook,  p.  168. 

z:   Cooper,   pp.   1707,   1971, 

1972,  1991,  2121,  2997,  3008. 

Corry  ?'. 

Coursel 


Crawford  ? 
V.  Dagner, 
z!.   Disbro\ 


p.     1789. 

&    Co.,    pp.     1048, 
1361,    1365,    1367,    1384. 
,■.   Dufrain,    p.    2248. 

V.   Eaton,    pp.    2565,    2773. 

Fairbanks    &    Co.    z'. 

■;•.    Fairbanks    &    Co.,    pp.    726, 

782,    783,    3289,    3341. 

Farley    v. 

Fatman    z'. 

Fatman   &    Co.   z\ 

?•.   Giboney,    p.     1773. 

Glascock   7'. 

f.   Graves,    p.     1397. 

Gray    z: 

z:   Green,       pp.       1346,       1481, 

1482. 

?■.  Greening,  pp.  1454,  1456, 

3284,  3327,  3388,  3416. 

r.  Gregg,  pp.  1439,  3304. 

t'.  Grover,  ])p.  1457,  1467. 

Gwyn  V. 

f.  n.ansford  &  Son,  pp.  721. 

848,  858. 

z:    Harris   pp.   1612,   lol.^, 

2038,  2056,  2777,  3076. 

.  z'.   Holcomb,    p.    2374. 

Hollingsworth    i\ 

Howe   '■. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

V. 

v.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 162  U.  S.  184,  40  L. 
Ed.  9^5,  16  S.  Ct.  700,  4  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  223— pp. 
3609,  3610,  3632,  3633,  3667, 
3668,  3669,  3676,  3709,  3712, 
3723,  3730,  3737,  3767,  3770, 
3785,     3786,     3806,     3831. 

z'.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 167  U.  S.  479,  42  L. 
Ed.   243,    17    S.   Ct.   896— p.    3709. 

z>.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 206  U.  S.  142.  51  L. 
Ed.  995,  27  S.  Ct.  648— pp.  3634, 
3783,    3785,    3786,    3797,    3799. 


Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■.    Jackson, 
p.    2703. 

Jones    c'. 

z\   Kassen,    p.    1972. 

z:   Kern,    pp.     1454,     1458. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z:   Logan,       pp.       1462,       1463, 

1464,    1465. 

z:  Lohe,    68    O.    St.    101,   8    R. 

R.  R.  447,  31  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  447,  67  N.  E.  161, 
67  L.  R.  A.  637— pp.  2122,  2123, 
2184,    2189,    2190. 

V.   Lohe,    48    W.    L.    Bull.,    507 

—p.    2128. 

V.  Lorton,      pp.       1841,      2336, 

2969. 

McClain,     p.     2354. 

z:   McCool,    pp.    894,    899,    910. 

z:   Marcus,      pp.       760,       3117, 

3119,    3125,    3126,    3152,    3153. 

. Mercer  i'. 

z:   Miles    &    Son,    p.    3309. 

Mitchell    I'. 

v.  Morley,      pp.      1694,      1726, 

1822,  1937,  2113,  2213,  2521, 
2523. 

7'.    Mounts,    p.    1777. 

Muller    7-. 

Murnahan    7'. 

7'.   Murray,    pp.    2009,    2014. 

Mussellam    7'. 

7'.   Paine,    p.    3044. 

7'.   Parrott,    p.    341. 

7'.   Pendleton,    pp.     1334,     1473, 

1474,    3267,    3410. 

7'.   Peters,       pp.       1772,       2232, 

2615. 

7'.   Pontius,    pp.    319,    321,    322, 

323,  333,  949,  953,  989,  3251, 
3254     3342 

'■.   Kain'e,    pp.    1968,    2074. 

Reibel   7'. 

Revalee,     pp.     2268,     2655. 

7'.   Richardson,  pp.  3046, 

3047,     3049,     3065,     3066,     3074. 

7'.    Sanders,     p.     1367. 

— —  Shrum   7'. 

7'.    Skillman,     pp.     1596,     1597. 

1598,  1599,  1602,  2467,  2473, 
2476. 

7'.   Sleeper,      pp.     2087,      2088, 

2568,    2627. 

7'.   Spratt,    pp.     792.     848,    853. 

State   7'. 

7'.   Steele,     pp.     352,    402,     598. 

7'.   Strosnider,    pp.    3071,    3076. 

7'.    Stout,    p.     3299. 

7'.   Taylor,    pp.    2870,    3077. 

7'.   Troy,    p.    20. 

Tuttle    7'. 

7'.   Vivion,    p.    2955. 

■  7'.   Webb,     pp.     727,     732.     734, 

746.    1309. 

White    7'. 

Woodburn    7'. 

7'.    Worthington,        pp.  1705, 

2596,    2602. 

Zagelmeyer    7'. 

Cincinnati,    etc..    Railway    7'.     Burk- 

hardt,    p.    2617. 
Cincinnati,     etc.,      St.      R.      Co.      7'. 

Lohe,   pp.    2189,   2190,    2309,    2320. 

Schwartz    7'. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    Tract.    Co.,    Behm 


713. 


Norfolk,     etc.,     Railway,     p. 


V.  Rosnagle,     pp.     2409,     2428. 

Cisco   Oil   Mill,   Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

Citizens'    Bank,    Haas   v. 

7'.  Nantucket     Steamboat     Co., 

pp.    292,    770,    818,    1135. 

St   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Citizens'    Elect.    St.    R.     Co.,     Sau- 
van  7'. 

Williams    7'. 

Citizens'    Nat.     Bank,    Blaidsell    Co. 

P.    Fv.    Co., 


TAliLE    OF    CASES. 


CXLIX 


Citizens'       Nat.       Bank,        National 

Hank   V. 
Citizens'   R.   Co.  f.   Craig,   pp.    1712, 

1732. 

V.  Farliy,    p.    1697. 

V.   Hall,     pp.     1903,     2870. 

Ihiclscnkanip     f. 

McKeon    -•. 

Olscn    J'. 

Seymour  t'. 

V.   Sinclair,      pp.      1812,      1817, 

1821,     1822,     1978. 

V.  Wade,    pp.    1827,    1987. 

Wyatt    ?■. 

Citizens'     Steamboat     Co.,     Rathbun 

V. 

Citizens'   St.   R.   Co.,   Anderson  v. 

V.  Clark,       pp.       2464,       2483, 

2834. 

Conner    v. 

Dresslar    "•. 

Furgason   v. 

V.   HofTbauer,    pp.     1960,     1961, 

1982,  2297. 

V.   I-Iuflfer,  pp.  2618,  2645. 

V.   Jolly,  pp.  1519,  1522,  2143, 

2293,  2330,  2586,  2925,  2926. 

f.  Merl,  134  Ind.  609,  33  N. 

E.  1014— pp.  1711,  1740,  1969, 
2617. 

f.   Merl,     26     Ind.     App.     284, 

59    N.    E.    491— pp.     1518.     1880, 
1901,    2143,    2516,    2517,    2551. 

O'Roukc    -■. 

Prothero    J'. 

V.  Shepherd,     pp.     2066,     2595. 

V.    Spahr,     pp.     1880,     2618. 

V.   Stockdell,    p.    2835. 

V.   Twiname,     pp.     1721,     1749, 

2630. 

Udell    V. 

V.  Wagner,    p.    2615. 

V.  Willoeby,    134    Ind.    563,   33 

N.   E.   627— pp.   2483,   3029,   3095. 

V.  Willoeby,      15      Ind.      App. 

312,    43    N.    E.    1058,    58    Am.    & 
Eng.     R.     Cas.    485— p.     2042. 

Citizens'    Tract.    Co.,    Cameron   -.•. 

Wrasse    i\ 

Citizens',     etc..     Bank    v.     Southern 

R.    Co.,    pp.    353,    393,   872,   901. 
Citizens',    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Beattie    v. 

Farrell   r. 

V.  Twiname,   p.    1817. 

Citta    Di    Messina,    The. 
Citta    Di    Palermo,    The. 

City    Bank    v.    Rome,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     378,     3274. 
City    Council,    Armour    &    Co.    r. 

V.  Augusta,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3589. 

■:•.   Shoemaker,    p.    28. 

City    Elect.    Co.,    McDonald    ?■. 

Turner   f. 

City    Elect.    R'.    Co.,   Keeley  v. 

Mabry     .'. 

McDonald    v. 

Salmon    j'. 

-•.   Shropshire,    pp.    2053,    2482, 

2534. 

Turner    r. 

City     Mills     Co.,     Central,     etc.,     R. 

Co.      7\ 

City    of    Boston,    The. 

City    of    Kingston,    The. 

Citv     of     Portsmouth,     The. 

City    Passenger    R.    Co.,    Ilealey    v. 

City    Properties    Co.    f.    Jordan,    p. 

3554. 
City  R.   Co.  V.   Lee,  pp.    1957,   2198. 
City    Transfer    Co.    f.     Draper,    pp. 

3110,    3141. 
City      Waterworks      f.      White,       p. 

2642. 
City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Anderson    f. 

;■.   Brauss,      pp.      2564,      3054. 

3089,    3091. 

Harris    t. 

V.   Svedborg,    20    App.    D.    C. 

5..3_pp.    2320,    2687,    2909,    2938, 
2984. 

■;•.    Svedborg,     194    U.     S.    201, 

48    L.    Ed.    935,    24    S.    Ct.    656— 
p.    2320. 


P- 


2313. 
.,    pp. 


pp. 
pp. 


City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Wenzel    v. 

Wynn    i'. 

City,    etc..    Railway,    Cliunn   v. 

;•.   Findley,      pp.     1748,      1749, 

2826. 

Civil    Rights    Cases,    pp.    1945,    1948. 
Claflin    r.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

551,    728. 
Claiborne    v.     Chesapeake,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2060. 

V.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2116,    2208,    2519. 

Clancy   r.    Dutton,    p.    3943 

-■.    Vonkers     R.     Co.,     . 

Claiiton    V.     Southern     R.    C 

1836,    2172,    2225,    2884. 
Clapp  V.    Minneapolis,   etc.,    R'.    Co., 

p.    2737. 
Clapp     Bros.     &     Co.     v.     Peck,     pp. 

1211,     1228,     1229,      1232,      1233, 

1234. 

7'.   Sohmer     &     Co.,     pp.     1211, 

1225,    1226. 

Clare  v.   Northwestern   Pac.   R.   Co., 
p.    2852. 

Providence,      etc..       Steamship 

Co.    r. 

T.    Providence,   etc..   Steam- 
ship Co.,  p.  1988. 

Clariday,  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Clark,  .Adams  i'. 

T.    .American   Exp.   Co., 

137,  514,  515,  580,  640.  ^ 

V.   Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

2237,  2650,  2760. 

Baker  ?■. 

Baring  f. 

f.  Barnwell,  pp.  332,  336,  339, 

343,  732,  748,  752,  1035,  1036, 
1037,  3884,  3891,  3896,  3897, 
3900,  3901,  3903,  3921,  4017, 
4019,  4023,  4030,  4031. 

V.   Burns,  p.  3145. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 

Fed.  588,  4  McCrary  360— p. 
.2585. 

7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127 

Mo.  197,  29  S.  W.  1013,  2  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  307— pp. 

1723,  1738,   1999,  2011,  2015, 

2694,  2699. 
-^ Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   Clyde  Steamship   Co., 

3879. 

r.   Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

1569. 

Crawford  v. 

V.   Durham   Tract 

1519. 

V.   Eastern  R.  Co.,  pp.  72.->, 

726,  3174. 

r.  Eighth  -Ave.  R. 

1718,  1719,  2182,  2193 

V.   Faxton,  p.  3165. 

Finn  7: 

Fish  f. 

V.   Geer,  p.  2106. 

;•.  Great  Northern  R.  Co..  72 

Pac.  477,  31   Wash.   658— p.   2715. 

V.  Great   Northern   R'.    Co.,    79 

Pac.  1108,  37  Wash.  537— pp. 
2529,    2532. 

Green   v. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   '■. 

Hagar   f. 

V.  Harrisburg    Tract.     Co.,     p. 

2489. 

V.  Hiles,    p.    2678. 

T'.  Howard,    p.    2504. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Israel    v. 

J-.    lonesboro,      etc.,      R.      Co.. 

pp.    1595,    1596. 

—  ;•.    Kansas    City,    p.    3775. 

Lehigh    \alley    R.    Co.   !•. 

Little    Rock,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

•  X'.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

101  Ky.  34,  39  S.  W.  840,  18  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1082,  36  L.  R.  -A.  123 
—p.    2202. 

-'.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

49  S.  W.  1120,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1839— p.    2029^ 


P- 


Co., 


Co.,     pp. 
2286. 


Clark  V.  Lowell,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
1157. 

V.   Lynch,    pp.     1219,     1220. 

McDonald    f. 

V.   Manhattan   R.  Co.,   p.   2731. 

r.   .Martin,     p.     1058. 

Clark    f.    .Masters,    pp.    530,    531. 

V.  Mauran,     p.     1210. 

V.   Merchants',      etc.,      Transp. 

Co.,    p.    1198. 

..iissouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3982. 

Oil    Creek,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

!■.  Pacific     R.      Co.,     pp.      745, 

746,    749,    750. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    v. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    i'. 

!■.    Richards.      pp.      727.       732, 

748,    752,    768,    3907,    3914. 

T.   Russell,      pp.      1764,      1765, 

1766. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

820,    1370,    1457. 

f.        Scandinavian  -  American 

Bank,    p.    2984. 

Sharp    f. 

r.   Smith,    p.    2751. 

Southern    Kansas    R'.    Co.    v. 

State    V. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

— —  '■.  Ulster,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1292,     1294,     1295,     1297. 

7'.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2429. 

r.  Zarniko,     p.     2119. 

Clarke,    Burk    i'. 

t'.  Canal    Co.,   p.    256. 

i:   Crabtree,    p.    1170. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

'■.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1587. 

c'.  Needles,   pp.   286,    744,    882, 

884. 

7'.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     3564. 

7'.   Rochester,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    740,    1351. 

Waring     z-. 

Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  z-.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  551,  564, 
580,  596,  597,  598,  599,  645, 
668,    855,     1080. 

Clarkson,    Felton    7'. 

Clastrier   7'.    Sun    Mut.    Ins.    Co.,    p. 

3928. 
Claunts,    Chicago,   etc..    R.    Co.^  7'. 
Clay,    Birmingham    Elect.    R".    Co.    v. 

Birmingham     R.,    etc.,     Co.    7-. 

Southern   R.    Co.   7'. 

Claybrook     7'.      Hannibal,      etc..      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1665,    3089. 
Clav    Gin    Co.,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    7-. 
Clay   St.   Hill   R.   Co.,   Cook  :. 
Clay    Street    R.    Co.,    Tompkins    v. 
Clayton,    Brown,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.    7-. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    Z'. 

z:   Smith,    p.    1593. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   7'. 

Wallace    7'. 

Clearv  7'.  Bloomington,  P.  &  J. 
Electric    Ry.    Co.,    pp.    1745.    2000. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

Cleburne    Ice,    etc.,    Co.,    Gulf,    etc., 

R.    Co.   7'. 
Cleere,    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 
Clegg,    -Atlantic    City    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3694. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    p.     797. 

Clement    7'.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad. 

pp.    2351.    2909. 

7'.  Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co..    p. 

3674. 

z:   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    513.    517. 

7'.   Phoenix    Ins.    Co..    p.    3792. 

Clements    7'.     Burlington,     etc..     R. 

Co.,    p.    600. 


Ch 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Clements,   Chicago,   etc.,   Co.   f. 
Clenientson     i:     Grand     Trunk     R. 

Co.,    p.    1247. 
Clemmens      v.      Washington       Park 

Steamboat   Co.,   pp.    2666,   2913. 
Clemmons,   Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   z'. 
Clemston    z:    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co., 

p.    1221. 
Clendaniel    f.    Tuckerman,    pp.    564, 

565. 
Clerc    f.     Morgan's,    etc..      R.      Co., 

pp.    2117.     2118,     2119,     2336. 
Cleve  V.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    108 

N.  W.  982,   77   Neb.    166,   15  Am. 

&    Eng.    Am.    Cas.    13 — pp.    1306, 

1457. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     84 

Neb.     158,     120     N.     W.     959— p. 
1338. 

Cleveland,  Cleveland  City  R. 
Co.   f. 

t:   Cleveland      City      R.      Co., 

pp.    78,    79. 

f.   Cleveland     Elect.      R.      Co., 

pp.    78,    79. 

JefFersonville    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  New        Jersey        Steamboat 

Co.     (N.     Y.),     5     Hun     523— p. 
2756. 

z\  New    Jersey    Steamboat   Co., 

68   N.    Y.    3"06— pp.    1561,    1563. 

V.  New        Jersey        Steamboat 

Co.,    125    N.    Y.    299,    26    N.    E. 
327— pp.    1688,    2029. 

V.  New         Jersey         Steamship 

Co..    p.    2320. 

Cleveland,  C,  C.  &  St.  Ry.  Co., 
Huff   V. 

Cleveland  City  R.  Co.  v.  Cleve- 
land,   pp.    78,    79. 

r.   Conner,      pp.      1650,       2458, 

2459,   2464,   3077,    3078. 

r.   Osborn,     pp.       1687,       1995, 

2006,    2667,    2668. 

r.   Roebuck,    p.    2485. 

Cleveland  Elect.  R.  Co.,  Cleve- 
land   r. 

f.   Wadsworth.    p.    2113. 

Cleveland  Iron  Min.  Co.,  Saw- 
yer   V. 

Cleveland   R.   Co.,   Baeon    <■. 
Cleveland,    etc.,    K.    Co.,   Aronson   -'. 

z'.   Backus,      pp.      3552,      3571, 

3572,   3591,    3592,   3594. 

Bacon    z\ 

z:   Bartram,      pp.       191,        211, 

1492,  1493,  1559,  1564,  1602, 
1605,  1612,  1619,  1620,  1667, 
1858,     1937,     1974,     2425,     3140. 

Bass    v. 

Beam    v. 

V.  Beckett,    pp.    2468,    2470. 

z:  Best,    p.    1502. 

Brown    v. 

Butts   V. 

Cary   v. 

Case     t'. 

Clingan    v. 

z:  Closser,    pp.    113,    220,    222, 

422,  1176,  1178,  1179,  1180, 
1181,  1183,  1184,  1185,  1187, 
1188. 

T'.  Colson,    p.    2585. 

Colton    z'. 

v.   Curran,        pp.      949,      1567, 

1568,    2092,    2098,    2099. 

Davis  v. 

V.   Druien,     pp.     939,     941. 

Etter    V. 

Foster    z\ 

'•.   Freiberg,    p.    501. 

Frieberg    v. 

r.   Hadley,      pp.      2117,      2118, 

2682,     2683,     2791,     2925,     2970. 

v.  Harvey,     pp.     1799,     2593. 

z:  Hayes,     p.     3660. 

z:    Heath,    pp.    745,    746,    1305, 

1361.     1363. 

Hen  nigh   z'. 

V.  Henry,    170    HI.    94,    83    N. 

E.  710,  712— pp.  2,  214,  215, 
244,  245,  417.  727,  732,  748. 
951,    1720,    2102. 


'.     Henry 
636 — pp. 


3481 
3503, 


Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
(Ind.    App.),    80    N.    E 
2092,   2104. 

z:  Hirsch,    3705. 

V.   Holden,    pp.     700,     714. 

z:  Hollowell,    p.     1372. 

Hoyt    r. 

z:   Illinois,    pp.    35,    72.    97,    98, 

3512,      3513,      3514,      3515,      3516, 
3519,     3523,      3539,      3480, 
3484,     3491,      3497,      3498, 
3504,    3505. 

I'.  Jones,  p.  1714. 

V.   Kennedy,  pp.  1361, 

I'.   Ketcham,  pp.  1564, 

1566,  1760,  1761,  2206. 

V.   Kinsley,  p.  1615. 

Knecht    z'. 

—  z'.   Lamm,    p.    700. 

—  V.  La   Tourette,    pp.    322 
956,    960,    981,    1003^    1016. 

—  Leonard    Seed    Co.    z: 

—  V.   Louisville,    etc..    Stove    Co 
pp.    782,    783,    784. 

—  McClurg     ■;•. 

—  ■;•.   McNutt,    pp.     1033, 

■;•.   Manson,     pp.      1712, 

1715,      1762,      2113,      2120, 
2220,    2221. 

—  Manville   z'. 
— ■  z:   Maxwell,    p.    1873. 

Moline    Plow    Co.,    pp. 


1363. 
15bS, 


333, 


R. 


1045. 
1714, 
2126, 


477, 


479,     588. 


Monevhun,     p.     2167. 

z:  Newefl,      75      Ind.      542,      8 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  377— pp. 
1812,    1987,    2681. 

7'.   Newell,    104    Ind.    264,    3   N. 

E.  836,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.. 
492,  54  Am.  Rep.  312 — pp.  1740, 
2843. 

z:  Newlin,    p.    1413. 

V.  Offutt,     p.     3069. 

Parrill    z'. 

T.  Patterson,    p.     1365. 

z:   Patton,    203    111.    376,    67    N. 

E.    804— pp.    1360,     1387. 

z:   Patton,     104    111.    App.    550, 

555— pp.    1292,    1353. 

Penfield    z: 

i'.   Perishow,    p.    1361. 

T'.   Perkins,     p.     1462. 

V.   Potts    &    Co.,    pp.    435,    588, 

986,  990,  996,  997,  1087,  1102, 
1110. 

z:   Rudy,  pp.  798,  1339,  1353, 

1408,  1429,  1430. 

-•.  Sargent,  pp.  540,  541,  564, 

773,  1217. 

z:   Schaefer,  pp.  1027,   3396. 

Schmidt    "■. 


Cleveland,     etc.,     Railway    z:     Sites, 

p.    2797. 
Cleveland,      etc..      Tract.       Co.       z: 

Ward,    pp.    1695,    1848,    2740. 
Clifford     z:     Brocton     Transp.     Co., 

pp.    573,    767. 
Clift,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Clifton,     Missouri,    etc.,     R'.     Co.    v. 
Clinch     Valley     Lumber     Co.,     Caro- 
lina,   etc..    Railway    z\ 
Cline  z:   Pittsburg  R.   Co.,   pp.   2667, 

2690,    2886. 
Clines    V.    Frisbee,    p.    854. 
Clingan    z:    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    430. 
Clinton    V.      Brooklyn      Heights      R. 

Co.,    p.    2332. 

z'.   Root,     pp.     2126 

f.   Worcester,      etc 

Co.,    p.    81. 

Clippenger,    Texas,    etc., 

Clisbee,     Fisher    v. 

Cloes,    Lake    Erie,    etc.,  _R.    Co.   z: 

Close   z'.    Cooper,    p.    1955. 

Closser,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Clothworthy    z'.    Hannibal,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1884,    1899. 
Cloud,     Denver    Tramway    Co.    ■;■. 
Clough     i'.     Grand     Trunk,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    955,    1575. 

Packet    Co.    ■:•. 

Clow     z\     Pittsburg     Tract.     Co.,     p 

2692. 
Clowes,    Chesapeake,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v 
Cluck    •       "  ,         r,      .^.       _ 

2853. 
Clukey 

2954. 

Williamsport,   etc.,   R.   Co 


2127. 
St. 

R.    Co. 


Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 
■.     Seattle    Elect.      Co.,      p. 


pp. 


p. 


Scott 

z:   Scott, 

2322. 

Sellers    z\ 

Shoot    I'. 

Sisson    V. 

Smith    v. 

Starkey     z 

Stewart     ?■ 

V.   Stewart.    . 

''.   Sutherland, 

Tebbs  V. 

Voss    z'. 

z:   Wal wrath,    6     O.     Dec.     718 

—p.    3234. 

z:   Walrath,     38 

43  Am.  Rep.  433, 
R.  Cas.  371— pp. 
3225,    3226,    3231. 

Warren    v. 

,..  Wells,    61    O.    St.    268,    55 

N.    E.  "827—   p.    69. 

v.  Wells,    65    O.     St 

N.    E.    332,    58    L.    R. 
p.    143. 

z:  Wilson,    pp.    285,    292,    997 

1000. 

z:  Wright,    p.    553. 

Cleveland,      etc..    Railway 

ron-Boyle     Co.,     p.     3307. 

Knepfle    v. 


1561,       1562, 


2611. 
p.     2300. 


O.     St.     461, 

i   Am.   &    Eng. 

1837,     2074, 


313,     62 
A.    651  — 


P.ar- 


Clunn 

p.     1524. 
Clute    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

496,    637,    681,    682. 
Clutzbeher    z\    Union    Passenger    R. 

Co.,     p.     2541. 
Clyde,    Barclay   z'. 

7'.   Brooklyn,    etc.,     R'.     Co.,     p. 

1775. 

z\   Graves,   p.   831. 

z:    Hubbard,    p.    3261. 

Patterson    v. 

z:   Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1701. 

Clyde    Coal    Co.    z:    Pittsburg,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    469. 
Clyde   Steamship   Co.,   Bachman  v. 

Billipger    v. 

7'.    Burrows,    p.    727. 

V.   Charleston,    p.    3582. 

Clark    "■. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

Jennings    "■. 

— —  Sea    Coast    Lumber    Co.    7'. 

Stone     7'. 

C.  N.  Q.  &  T.  P.  R.  Co.,  Citizens' 
Nat.    Bank  7'. 

7'.   Graves,     p.     1454. 

Coachman,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Coady   V.    Brooklyn   Heights    R.    Co., 

p.    2795. 
Coal,  Two  Thousand  Tons  of. 
Coal    Co.   z'.    Estievenard,   p.    2190. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Coal,    etc.,    R.     Co.    7'.     Conley,    pp. 

44,    48,    49,    53,    66,    69,    119,    123, 

134,     178. 

Teel     7'. 

Coal,    etc..    Supply    Co.,    Neilson    v. 
Coast    Line    R.     Co.    7'.     Boston,    p. 

2829. 

Green    z'. 

Coatcs  7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.     114. 

Cooper  7'. 

V.   United     States     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    3290,    3312. 

Coats  7'.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  87 
N  E.  929,  239  111.  154— pp.  431, 
988,  1033,  1045,  3250,  3257,  3330, 
3347,  3357. 

7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  134 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CU 


111.   App.   217— pp.  539,  932,   1026, 

1046. 
Cobb   V.   Beall,    pp.    349,    478,    479. 
^..   UroVn,   pp.   332,   3273,   3300. 

V.  Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2043. 

Dows   V. 

Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

494. 

f.  Lindell    R.    Co.,    pp.    2597, 

2905. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1810,     1844. 

Cobb,    etc.,    Co.,    Illinois    Cent.    R. 
Co.    V. 

V.  Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     38 

Iowa  601— pp.  210,  231,  250,  253, 
261,  270,  277,  753,  871,  848, 
854 

f.   Illinois    Cent.     R.    Co.,    88 

111.     394— pp.     246,    626. 

Cobban    r.    Uoune,    p.    280. 
Coburn,    Commonwealth    •:■. 

v.   Moline.   etc.,   R.   Co.,   90   N. 

!•:.  741,  243  III.  448— pp.  2121, 
2177. 

V.  Moline,    etc..    R.     Co.,     149 

111.  App.  132— pp.  1559,  2178, 
2780. 

V.  Morgan's,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1623,    1631. 

f.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2229. 

Cochran,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-•.   Dinsmore,   p.    1037. 

Cochran,     etc.,     Co.,     Landauer     & 

Rro.    V. 
Cock,     International,     etc.,    R.     Co. 


Cocke  V.    Des   Moines   City    R.    Co 

p.    2897. 
Cockerel,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Cc 


pp. 
Co. 


Cockermouth      &      Worthington 

Co.,    Harris    -■. 
Cockrell,    Francis   v. 
:•.   Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

2293.     2308. 
Cocrehani,     Missouri,     etc.,     R. 


Coddington    v.    Brooklyn    Crosstown 
R.    Co.,    pp.    1721,    1722. 

Ogdcn    f. 

Cody    V.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1573,    1617. 

V.   Duluth      St.      R-.      Co.,      pp. 

2370,    2371,    2395. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -<.•. 

V.   Market     St.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2688,    3000,    3007. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

T'.   New     York.     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    1953,    2128,    2211,    2261. 

Coe  r.   Errol,   p.   3431. 

Frink    &    Co.    v. 

Holliday    i: 

V.   Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.,    3 

Fed.    775,    782— p.    3823. 

V.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    25 

Ky.   L.   Rep.    1679,   78   S.   W.   439 
—p.    2280 

Coeur     D'Alene.     etc..     R.     Co.     v. 

Union     Pac.     R.     Co..     pp.     3665, 

3668,     3681,     3719,     3756,     3766, 

3767. 
Coeur   D'Alene.   etc.,   Transp.   Co.   v. 

Ferrell,    pp.    86,    102. 
Coey,    Johnson    '•. 
Cofer.    Southern    R.    Co.    -'. 
Coflfee    V.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3111,    3135. 
Coffev   f.   Atlantic,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

161'. 

V.  Omaha,     etc.,     St.     R.     Co., 

79    Neb.    286.    112    N.    W.    589— 
pp.    2347.    2860. 

Coffin,   Atchison,   etc..   R.   Co.  v. 


Coffin  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
p.    611. 

Stout    :•. 

Coflin,    Barker    v. 

Coger  V.   Northwestern,  etc..   Packet 

Co.,    p.    1950. 
Coggin,   Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.  ?•. 
Coggins,   .Alabama,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Coggins    Co.,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co. 

V. 

Coggs    V.     Bernard,    pp.     729,     731, 

734,  7pO,  752,   1759. 
Coggswell    V.    Weir,    pp.    1044,    1049. 
Cogswell,    Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Strawn    v. 

V.  West    St.,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

1559,  1561,      1750,      1817,      1827, 

1841,  1988,      2004,      2073,      2080. 

2194,  2636,    2920,    2956. 

Cohen  r.  Boston  Elev.  R.  Co.,  p. 
2318. 

V.   Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 

pp.    2657,    2824. 

V.   Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    \>. 

2785. 

f.  Farmers'     Loan,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    2654,    2678,    2679,    2740. 

x:   Fro.st,     p.     3145. 

V.   Hume,   pp.   284,    1682. 

V.  Morris,       etc.,       Exp.       Co. 

(App.   Div.),    132   N.   Y.   S.   347— 
pp.    1067,    1070. 

-■.   Morris,    etc.,    Exp.    Co.,    136 

N.   Y.    S.   489,    151    App   Div.    672 
—pp.    1067,   1072. 

■  V.   New     York,     etc.,     R".     Co., 

pp.    3220,    3233. 

V.  Philadelphia    Rapid    Transit 

Co.,     p.     1898. 

V.   Rome    R.    Co.,    p.    587. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

3160,     3168. 

-■.    Sioux    City    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

1891,    2823,    2922. 

'•.   Southern    Exp.    Co.,   45    Ga. 

14S_p,,.    3257,    3291,    3295,_  3300. 

V.   Southern    Exp.    Co.,    53    Ga. 

128— pp.    135,    586,   820,    3281. 

'■.  United    States   Exp.    Co.,   p. 

1049. 

f.  West   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.     1888. 

Cohen  Bros.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  pp.  331,  iU.  333.  337,  338, 
339,    341.    585,    799,    808. 

Cohn  -■.   -Adams   Exp.   Co.,   p.   939. 

Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

-•.  Piatt,    p.     1282. 

-•.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  181 

Mo.    30.    79    S.    W.    961— pp.    94, 
136,     137. 

V.   St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

151     Mo.    App.    661,    133    S.    W. 
59,    131    S.   W.   881— p.   75. 

Cohn-Goodman    Co.    v.    Wells-Fargo 

Exp.    Co.,    p.    1068. 
Cohn    &   Co..    .Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Cohoes    R'.    Co.    :•.    Public    Service 

Comm.,    p.    70. 
Coine  z\    Chicago,   etc..    R.   Co.,   pp. 

2711,     3084. 
Colbath    -'.     Bangor,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    781,    3305,    3396,   3399. 
Colbeck   t'.    Sampsell,    p.    1542. 
Colburn     v.     Oberlin      BIdg.,      etc., 

Ass'n,    pp.    267,    294,    296. 
Colby,    .Atkins  v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Colder,    Laing   v. 

Cole  -•.  -Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
2016,    2040,    2041,    2057. 

-■.   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1997,    2820. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Georgia    R..   etc.,    Co.    -■. 

V.   Goodwin,  pp.  1003,  1004. 

1008,  3158,  3163,  3165. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :•. 


Cole  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.     1774. 

f.   Minneapolis,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

pp.    1054,    1074,    1454.    1456,    1458, 
1470. 

Persse  :•. 

V.  Rankin,    pp.    803,    810,    849. 

864. 

V.  Rowen,    pp.    Ill,    112,    192. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   The    -Atlantic,   p.    3937. 

V.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p. 

580. 

Cole   &   Co.,    Georgia   R.    Co.    v. 
Coleman   v.    Allen,   p.   2775. 

Birmingham   R.,   etc.,   Co.  v. 

Bruhl     v. 

f.   Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

2249,    2511,    2512,    2514,    2540. 

J  e  neks    v. 

'■.   Metropolitan    St.   R.   Co.,   p. 

2655. 

Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 

Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

f.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  1977,  2483,  2530,  2855,  3019, 
3030. 

V.   Pullman   Co.,   pp.   3472, 

3581. 

V.   Riches,  pp.  306,  308. 

V.   Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  p. 

2196. 

Southern  R'.  Co.  v. 

r.  Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  1611. 

1612,   1665,   1670,   1673,   1677, 
3042,  3044,  3045. 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 

-'.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

p.    3550. 

-'.  Yazoo,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2051. 

Coles  V.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  82 
Ga.    149,   9   S.    E.    127— p.   3386. 

V.  Central     R.,     etc.,     Co.,    86 

Ga.  251,  12  S.  E.  749— pp.  3250. 
3257,  3263,  3291. 

f.   Illinois,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

p.   989. 

t'.  Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

320,    323,    727,    1012,    1087,    1096, 
3326. 

Colfax  Mountain  Fruit  Co.  v. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  (Cal.),  46 
Pac.  668— pp.  3276,  3296,  3352, 
3361,    3394. 

V.   Southern  Pac.   Co..   50   Pac. 

775,    118    Cal.    648,    40    L.    R.    A. 
78— p.   3257. 

Colgate  f.  Pennsylvania  Co.  (N. 
Y.),    31    Hun   297— p.    558. 

f.   Pennsylvania     Co..     102     N. 

Y.    120,    6    N.    E.    114— p.    557. 

Colima.    The. 

Coll,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :. 

Collard    i:    S.    E.    Railway    Co.,    p. 

653. 
Collenberg,    The. 
Collender     ;■.     Dinsmore,     pp.      333, 

409,   412,    532,    591. 
Colleton     Mercantile,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Atlantic,   etc..    R.    Co.,    p.   3546. 
Collett   f.    London,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1575. 

f.  Railroad  Co.,   p.   1578. 

Collier.   -Mabama,  etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

Chicago,  etc..   R.   Co.  f. 

Louisville,     etc..     R.     Co.     v. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   r. 

-•.    Swinnev,    pp.    438,    630. 

Tavlor   &  'Co.    f. 

r.  'Valentine,    pp.    3907,    3908, 

3911,    3912. 

Collins  f.  .Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    895,    900,    917,    1152. 

.\tchison.    etc.,    R.     Co.    :■. 

Baldwin    :•. 

;•.    Boston,     etc..     Railroad,     p. 

3124. 

:.   Burns,    pp.    562,    914. 

Chicago,   etc..    R.    Co.   r. 


CLIl 


TABLE    OP    CASES. 


Collins   f.    Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.,   p. 

2385.  .  _        , 
Masonic      Fraternity      lemple 

Ass'n  V. 

Pharr    7: 

Savannah,    etc.,  R.    Co.    v. 

r.   Southern    R.  Co.,    p.    1876. 

r    Texas,     etc.,  R.     Co.,     pp- 

2033,    2091.  ^      ^ 

V    Toledo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     PP- 

2500,   2544,  2733. 

Witzler  f.  ^  _ 

Collins  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Free- 
man   >'.  _ 

Collinsworth,    Chesapeake,    etc.,    K. 

Collison'  f.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1988,    2719. 
CoUman   z:    Collins,    pp.    11 38,    lls9. 
Colly,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Colombia,  The. 
Colombo,    The. 

Colorado   Cent.    R.    Co.,   White  v. 
Colorado    Fuel,    etc.,    Co.,    Southern 

Pac.    Co.    i: 
Colorado    Mid.    R.    Co.   f.    McGarry, 

pp.  2761,  2762,  2980. 

Morris  v. 

Colorado    Springs,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z: 

Allen,    p.    1745. 

Farrier   v. 

Montgomery    z: 

,..   Petit,   pp.    1517,    2680,   2836. 

Snyder    v. 

Colorado,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Adams   v. 

Bleecker    v. 

z\  Breniman,   p.    1278. 

Clark   z: 

Consumers'    League    v. 

V.  McGeorge,    pp.    1728,     1742. 

',..  Manatt,  pp.   948,   972,    1055, 

1070. 

United    States   v. 

Colsch  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  149 
Iowa  176,  127  N.  W.  198  34 
L  R  A.,  N.  S.,  1013,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912    C.    915— p.    1270. 

V.  Chicago,       etc.,       R.       Co. 

(Iowa),  117  N.  W.  281— pp. 
1333,  1347,  1353,  1354,  1363, 
1366,  1377,  1454,  1456,  1466, 
1467.  „      ^ 

Colson,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Colt    zj.    McMechen,    pp.    728,    /33, 

737,    749,    821. 
Colton    V.    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   1037. 

v.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1633. 

Columbia  Elect.  St.  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
Dennis    v. 

Harrell   z: 

Wade   V. 

Columbia   Elect.,   etc.,   Co.    Wade  i;. 
Columbia   Grocery    Co.   v.    L.    &   IN. 

R.,   p.    3679. 
Columbia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Wise    v. 
Columbia  River,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   Gray 

Columbia    Southern   R.    Co.,    Radley 

Columbia    St.    R.,   etc.,    Co.,    Norton 

Columbia       Transfer       Co.       Model 

Clothing   Co.   1'. 
Columbia,       etc..      Elect.       R.      Co., 

White  V. 
Columbia,    etc..    Power    Co.,    Wade 

V. 

Columbia,    etc..    Railroad,    Battle    v. 

Dickerson    v. 

Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Abrahams 

V. 

Baldwin,  etc..   Land  Co.   v. 

Berley    v. 

Cobb  V. 

Comer     v. 

Faulk  V. 

Felder  z\ 

Fischer    v. 

Martin    v. 


Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Means, 
p.    2914. 

Moore    z\ 

Oliver    z: 

Pate    z: 

Piedmont    Mfg.    Co.    f. 

Pool    z: 

Radley  z: 

Wallingford    ?'. 

Columbia,    etc..    Steamboat    Co.,    An- 

drus    z\ 

Columbian  Ins.  Co.  z:  Catlett,  pp. 
3944,    3946. 

Columbian  Nat.  Bank  z:  White  p. 
396. 

Columbus  Iron,  etc.,  Co.  z\  Kan- 
awha, etc.,  R.  Co.,  p.  3820. 

Columbus  R.  Co.  v.  Asbell,  pp. 
1535,    2303,    2319,    2860,    2882. 

Holland    z: 

Columbus   R.,   etc.,   Co.,   Judge   v. 
Columbus   RoUing-Mill,   Minneapolis, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Columbus,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    Cox   z: 

V.   Farrell,    pp.    1780,    1924. 

v.   Flournoy,      pp.       533,      611, 


Kennedy,      pp- 
1454,     1456. 
Ludden,    pp.    8 


820, 
95,    900, 
1544, 


824, 
905, 
1593, 


Powell,       pp 

2528,    2607. 

T'.   Tillman,    p.    3412. 

V.  Wright,    p.    3591. 

Colver,    Griffin    v. 

Colvin  V.   Brooklyn  Heights  R.   Co., 

p.     2830. 
Colwell     z'.     Manhattan     R.     Co.,     p, 

2354. 
Combes, 
Combs, 

Co.   v. 

Central    Railroad    z'. 

Central    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Lakewood,    p.    29. 

Combs    &    Co.,    Stadhecker    z'. 
Comer    ■;■.     Columbia,     etc.,     R. 


Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   ■ 
Central      Kentucky 


Tract. 


Co., 
1634, 


pp.  1366,  1475,  1478,  3304. 

z:   Foley,  pp.  1616,  1617, 

2664,  3099,  3319. 

Stewart  t'. 

V.   Stewart,      pp.      1289,      1365^ 

1367,    1377. 

Comerford    z'.    New    York,    etc.,    R 

Co.,    pp.    2358,    2931. 
Comfort,     Chappell    z'. 
Comly    V.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,    pp. 

1509,    1515. 
Commander-in-Chief,  pp.   3890,  3897, 

3898,    3899. 
Commander-in-Chief,   The. 
Commerce,    The. 
Commerce    Comm.    z'.    Chicago,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    3634. 
Commercen,    The. 
Commercial     Bank    v.    Armsby    Co., 

pp.    361,    390. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

548. 

North   Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Pfeiffer,    p.    382. 

v.   Hurt,    pp.    356,    369. 

Commercial   Club   of   Omaha  z\   Chi- 
cago   R'.    Co.,    p.    3679. 

Commercial    Guano    Co.,    Savannah, 

etc.,   R.  Co.  V. 
Commercial     Nat.      Bank     f.      Heil- 

bronner,   p.    352. 

North    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.    z\ 

Commercial   State   Bank,   Ladd,   etc., 

Bank  v. 
Commercial     Union     Ins.     Co.,     St 

Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 
Commins    z'.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.   681,   684. 
Commissioners     of     Taxes     and     As 

sessments,    People   v. 
Commonwealth,   Adams   Exp.   Co.   v 

Atlantic,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v. 

v.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

38. 


Commonwealth,    Berea    College   v. 

V.   Boston,     etc..     Railroad,     p. 

181. 

•  V.   Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    65 

Mass.    (11   Cush.)   512— p.    179. 

z:   Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    134 

Mass.   211— p.    179. 

Z'.   Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1517,    1531. 

f.   Breakwater     Co.,     pp.     3505, 

3506. 

z:  Brockton     St.     R.     Co.,     p. 

20()9. 

?'.   Carey,    p.    111. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

101     Ky.    159,    40    S.    W.    250,    19 
Ky.    L.    Rep.    329— p.    3484. 

z\   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

24    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1886,    72    S.    W. 
360— p.    180. 

v.   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

24    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1887,    72    S.    W. 
758— p.    180. 

I'.  Chesapeake,      etc.,    R.     Co., 

24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1888,  72  S.  W. 
361— pp.    178,    180. 

z:  Coburn,    pp.    179,    181. 

V.   Connecticut   R.    Co.,    p.    147. 

V.   Connecticut     N'alley     St.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    68,    69. 

z'.   Corey,    p.    257. 

Crigler    z: 

Delaware,   etc..    Canal    Co.   z'. 

z:   Eastern     R.     Co..     71     Mass. 

(5    Gray)    473— p.     180. 

V.   Eastern    K.    Co.,    103    Mass. 

254,  4  Am.  Rep.  555— pp.  255, 
1857. 

?■.    Erie      R.      Co.,      pp.      3566, 

3567. 

■;•.   Fitchburg   R.    Co.,    p.    183. 

Henderson    Bridge    Co.   z'. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Tones,    pp.    183,    1646. 

z:  "Keary,    p.    3499. 

V.   Killian,    p.    185. 

z\   Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co..    pp. 

3551,    3560. 

Louisville,    etc..    Ferry    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •;•. 

f.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    20 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  491,  46  S.  W.  700— 
p."  84. 

-  z'.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 
Ky.  75,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1382. 
65   S.   W.    158— p.    180. 

-  7'.   McGinn,   p.    2424. 

-  z:   Mansfield,    p.    2422. 

-  z'.   Marcum,    p.    2417. 

-  V.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
3472. 

-  New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

-  z\  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.     3573. 

— •  Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

-  z\  Old  Dominion  Steamship 
Co.    z: 

-  Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    7'. 

-  7'.  People's  Exp.  Co.,  pp.  546, 
3434. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,      Steamship 

Co.    7'. 

7'.   Power,    pp.     Ill,     191,     201, 

2420,    2423,    25.28. 

Robertson   7'. 

Ryinan      Steamboat      Line     Co. 

z:   Sandford,    p.    180. 

z:   Selliger,    p.    3590. 

7'.   Smith,    p.     3577. 

Southern    Railway    7'. 

Southern    Ry.    Co.    ?'. 

7'.   Vermont,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

179,   182,   1586. 

United     States     Fidelity,     etc., 

Co.    7'. 

\'irginia    Passenger,     etc.,     Co. 

Washington    Southern    R.    Co. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLIII 


Mfg.     Co., 

Pullman's 

I'ullman's 

Cie,    De 

I'tc,    Vapeur 


etc 


Comnionwcaltli,     Washington,      etc., 
R.   Co.   V. 

WinchcstcT,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Worcester,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

141. 

Commonwealth     Cotton 

.Mabania,   etc.,    R.    Co. 
Commonwealth,     Xo.      1, 

I'alace     Car     Co.    '•. 
Commonwealth,      No.      2, 

I'alace    Car    Co.    -•. 
Compagnie    Francaise, 

I'elice    7'. 
Compagnie    Francaise, 

V.  Louisiana  State   Board,  p.  3441. 
Compania,       etc..       La       Flecha       v. 

Brauer,     pp.    947,    950.    952,    960, 

1012,      3911,      4018,     4020,      4022, 

4023,    4024,    4026. 
Compania,       etc.,       Navegacion       v. 

Spanish-.Vmerican        Light,        etc., 

Co.,    pp.    381.5,    38(.7,  _38(.8. 
Compagnie      Generale     Transatlanti- 

quc    Donovan   v. 

People    r. 

Weinberger    v. 

Companhia    Ue    Moagens    De    Barre- 

iro,   London   Assur.   v. 
Compta,    The. 
Compton,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-•.   Long     Island     R.     Co.,     p. 

1675. 

Southern,    etc.,    Tract.    Co.    v. 

V.  Van  V'olkenburgh,  pp.  2422, 

2847. 

V.  Western       Stage       Co.,       p. 

3249. 

Comptoir       d'Escompt       de       Paris, 

Rodger  v. 
Comstock,    In    re    v. 

Shannon    '■. 

Conard    v.    .Atlantic    Ins.     Co.,     pp. 

364,   367,   369,   i7i,   378,   383,   542, 

3274. 
Conatser,    Little    Rock,    etc.,    R 


Co. 


Concord   Railroad,   Osgood  f. 

Welch    V. 

Concord    R.    Corp.,    Johnson    v. 

Murch    f. 

Thorp     V. 

Concord   St.    Railway,    Bass   v. 
Concord,    etc..    Railroad,    Cutler    v. 

T.    Forsaith,      pp.      1181,      1182, 

1188. 

Conder,    Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Condict     '•.     ("jrand     Trunk     R'.     Co. 
(N.    Y.),   4    Lans    106— p.    3259. 

f.   Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     54 

N.   Y.    500—   pp.    628.    742. 

Condict  &  Co.  V.  Rosenfield  & 
Son,  pp.  1220,  1227,  1229,  1233, 
1248,    1249. 

Condon,     Lake     Erie,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

V. 

-'.    Marquette,      etc..       R.      Co., 

pp.    885,    886,    3264,    3287,    3301. 

Condor,     .Atlanta,    etc..     Railroad    f. 

Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Condran    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1572. 
Cone  V.   Southern  Railway,  pp.   273, 

286,    3134,    3135,    3139. 
Conestoga    Tract.    Co.,    Gensemer    f. 
Coneton   j'.   Old   Colony    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.     1905,    2825. 
Coney     Island     Co 


Dennan,     p. 
Co.,    Catal- 


4002. 
Coney    Island,    etc.,    R. 
anotto    '■. 

Cross     ?'. 

Lansing    v. 

Murphy    -■. 

Sheeron    '■. 

Congar     v.     Chicago,     etc 

pp.     562,     753,     756. 

T'.  Galena,     etc.,     R'.     Co. 

364,     478,     479,     484,     869, 
3298. 

Conger    v.    Hudson     River     R. 
pp.    628.    654,    728. 


R.     Co., 


pp. 

9.72, 


Conger  v.   St.   Paul,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   p. 

2785. 
Congress,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Brown   r. 
Conheim    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    674,    3157,    3198. 
Conkey    V.    Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    885,    887,    3284,    3302. 
Conklin,  Chicago,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v. 
— —  -'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     2501. 
Conkling   v.    Brooklyn    Lumber   Co., 

p.    3963. 
Conley,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Coal,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.   Forty    Second    St.,    etc.,    R'. 

Co.,   p.   2249. 

V.  Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2587. 

V.   Sherman,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

151. 

White     V. 

Conly,    Sherman,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Connaughton    v.    Brooklyn,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2787. 
Connecticut    Co.,    De    Cecco    v. 

Kebbe    V. 

Kruck   V. 

Moffit   V. 

Powers    f. 

Connecticut  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Erie 
R.    Co.,    p.    793. 

Connecticut  R.  Co.,  Common- 
wealth   V. 

Connecticut  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  El- 
wood  '■. 

Connecticut  River  R.  Co.,  Bas- 
sett   V. 

Blaisdell    v. 

Morse    v. 

Nutting   V. 

Stimson    f. 

Connecticut     River     Steamboat 

Co.,    Hall    V. 

Connecticut  N'alley  St.  R.  Co., 
Commonwealth    v. 

Sawin    '■. 

Connecting  Terminal  R.  Co.  v. 
Miller,  70  N.  E.  472,  178  N.  Y. 
194 — p.     3563. 

r.    Miller,    82    N.    Y.     S.    582, 

84    App.    Div.    174 — p.    3590. 

Connecticut,   etc.,    R'.    Co.,    Beard   f. 

Harvey   v. 

Connell  f.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  1692,  1715,  1723,  1735, 
2016,    2031,    2671,    3209. 

Hestonville         Passenger        R. 

Co.    V. 

-'.   Mobile,    etc.,    R.      Co.,     pp. 

1872,    1873. 

f.    New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2035. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    "'. 

V.   Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2954,    2977 

Connelly  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  60 
Hun.  495,  39  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
561,    15    N.    Y.    S.    176— p.    1680. 

;•.   Manhattan    R.    Co.,    142    N. 

Y.    i77,    37    N.    E.    462— pp.    1982, 
2000. 

Conner  f.  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.. 
105  Ind.  62.  4  N.  E.  441,  26 
.\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  210.  55  \m. 
Rep.     177— pp.    1880,    2152. 

:•.   Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.,   45    X. 

E.    662,    146    Ind.    430— pp.    1861, 
2370 

Cleveland    City    R.    Co.    t-. 

East      Tennessee,       etc.,        R. 

Co.   V. 

V.  Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2866. 

Connolly.    Lawson    v. 

f.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.    2276. 

T'.   Warren,      pp.      3115,      3119, 

3123,    3131. 

Connor  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.. 
p.    2830. 


R.    Co..    Poole    V. 


Connors  v.  Cunard  Steamship  Co.. 
p.    3976. 

V.   United     States,     p.     3849. 

Conolly    s".    Crescent    City    R.    Co.. 

p.   2488. 

Conqueror,    The. 

Conrad   v.    De    Montcourt,    p.    3943. 

Conrad  Schoop  Fruit  Co.  v.  Pitts- 
burg, etc.,    R.   Co.,   pp.   873,    1113. 

Conroy  v.  Boston  Elevated  R.  Co., 
p.    1535. 

-'.   Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

1527,     1772,      1962,      1970,      2166. 
2406,   2918. 

V.   Detroit       United      Railway, 

pp.  2688,  2799. 

V.   Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  p. 

2113. 

Consolidated    Cattle    Co.,    Atchison, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 
Consolidated   Coal   Co.,   St.    Louis  v. 
Consolidated      Klevator     Co.,      \'cga 

Steamship    Co.    v. 
Consolidated    li.    Co.,    Chaffee    r. 

Cosgrove    v. 

Lebov   V. 

Norton    -■. 

Sperry    v. 

Consolidated    St. 

Consolidated      Tobacco      Co.,      Ikel- 

heinier   ;•. 
Consolidated    Tract.    Co..    Flynn    v. 

Freeman    v. 

Friedman   -'. 

Sowash    f. 

V.  Taborn,      pp.      1647,      2432. 

2475. 

V.  Thalheimer.  pp.        2234. 

2688. 

Whalen   t'. 

Constable    v.      Xational      Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    251,    510,    528,    529.    531, 

539,     739,     891,     892,     902,     930, 

947,    958,    959,    4024.    4025,    4054. 
Constantine,      Louisville,      etc..      R. 

Co.    r. 
Consumers'    Ice    Co.,    Mott    v. 
Consumers'      League     v.     Colorado, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    23,   40. 
Contt     v.     American     Exp.     Co.,     p. 

3398. 
Continental    Coal    Co.    ;.    Bowne.    p. 

39(i4. 
Continental    Furniture   Co.,    Rhodes, 

etc.,  Co.  V. 
Continental    Ins.    Co.,    Craig    v. 
Contra    Costa,    Agnew    -•. 
Contra     Costa       Steam      Xav.      Co.. 

Yoemans    i'. 
Contreras,        Galveston.        etc.,       R. 

Co.    :•. 

V.   San    Antonio   Tract.    Co..    p. 

1730. 

Converse  v.  Boston,  etc..  Rail- 
road,   p.    562. 

V.   Braincrd,    p.    775. 

Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Xorwich,    etc.,    Transp.    Co., 

pp.   3249.   3266,   3286,   3302,    3313. 

J'.   Railroad      Co.,      pp.      2413, 

2419. 

Convoy's    Wheat,    The. 

Conway.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co    f. 

-•.   Lewiston,    etc..    R.    Co..    87 

Me.  283,  32  Atl.  901,  2  .\m.  & 
Kng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,'  339— p. 
1803. 

:•.   Lewiston,    etc.,    R.    Co..    38 

.\tl.  110,  90  Me.  199— pp.  1702, 
1805. 

V.  Metropolitan      St.     R.      Co., 

pp.    1516.    2597. 

-•.   Xew    Orleans,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

4(.    La.    Ann.    1429,    16    So.    362— 


p.    1889.  ^ 

—  f.  New 
Co.,  24  So. 
14t.— p.    2137. 

V.   Tavlor, 

3478,    3586. 


Orleans, 
780,    51 


etc..     R. 
La.     Ann. 


3476.      3477. 


CLIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Go.,      p. 

Co..    pp. 

7.      211S, 


Conwav     Bank    >•.     American      F.xp 

Co.  '(Mass.),     8    Allen     512— pp 

895,    911. 
Conwell     z:     Tri-City 

303o. 
Conwill    V.    Gulf,    etc..    R. 

1(>84,      1875,      2114,      211 

2373,    2937.    2986. 
Convers    '■.    Ennis,    p.    1228. 
Cook,    Central,    etc.,    K.    Co.    •:■. 

T'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 

Iowa  551,  46  N  W.  1080,  9  L. 
R.  A.  164,  25  Am.  St.  Rep.  512 
—pp.  220,  1135.  1178.  1183, 
1190,  1191,  1192,  1193,  1194, 
1196. 

V.   Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  136 

Iowa  497,  113  N.  W.  1079— pp. 
147,   1638. 

?•.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     78 

Neb.  64,  23  R.  R.  R.  606,  46 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  606, 
110  X.  W.  718— pp.  1085,  1408, 
1409. 

Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

i:    Clay    St.    Hill    R.    Co.,    p. 

2007. 

Eaton   V. 

f.  Erie   K.    Co.,    p.   871. 

z'.   Gourdin,    pp.    729,    733. 

V.  Houston,     etc.,     Nav.     Co., 

pp.  1502,  2525,  2544,  2548,  2549, 
2629. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.     Co.    t'. 

Mahony  v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

North    Chicago,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

z:  Pennsylvania,        pp.       3439, 

3564,     3568. 

Plant   Inv.   Co.   z'. 

V.   Smith,    pp.    4043,    4056. 

f.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2S75, 

3056. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Tilley    v. 

Cook    Brewing   Co.,    Louisville,    etc., 

R.    Co.    r. 
Cooke    i'.    Baltimore    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2334. 

z:   Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   1279. 

-•.   Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1098. 

Z'.   Springfield     Tract     Co.,     pp. 

1721,    1880. 

Union    Pac,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Cooley    V.     Minnesota    Transfer     R. 

Co.,   pp.   573,    579. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.    Co.,      pp. 

3044,     3052. 

Coolidge  z'.   La  Crosse   City  R'.    Co., 
p.    2800. 

Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z'. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Coon  f.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

2277,    2326. 
Cooney  z'.  Pullman   Palace  Car  Co., 

pp.   3113,   3123,   3125,   3129,    3130, 

3201,    3218,    3222,    3241. 
Coons,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Cooper   T'.    Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

69    S.    C.   479,   48   S.    E.   458— pp. 

2617,  2509,  2512,  2547. 

V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    78 

S.    C.»  562,     59    S.      E.     704— pp. 
2331,    2358. 

Baltimore,    etc.,     Exp.     Co.    v. 

Bank   v. 

Berry   z\ 

Z'.   Berry,     pp.     435,     727,     796, 

961,    1009. 

'•.   Bill,    p.     1228. 

Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    r. 

v.  Century     Realty      Co.,     pp. 

1488,     2659,      2667,      2673,      2935, 
2939. 

Chicago    City    R.    Co.    z\ 

Cincinnati,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Close   V. 


Cooper    c'.    Coates,    p.    301 

Ex   parte. 

Galveston,    etc., 

f.   Georgia     Pac, 

841. 

f.   Georgia,     etc. 

S.   C.   91,   34   S.    E. 
2127,    2265,    2280. 

z'.  Georgia,  etc. 

S.  C.  345.  39  S.  E.  543,  16  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  12— pp. 
2066,  2115,  2671,  2885,  2904, 
2906. 

Greenwood  Z'. 

Indianapolis    Union    R.    Co.    z'. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z'.   Kane,     p.     615. 

Lenahart    i\ 


R-.    Co.    z: 
.     R.     Co., 


R.     Co.,     56 

16— pp.    2126, 


R,     Co.,     61 


Leuckhart 
Z-.   London, 


etc. 


221. 


etc.. 


,     R.     Co. 
R.    Co.    z' 


P- 


Louisvi 

f.   McKcnna,    p.    2629. 

V.   Raleigh,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

727,  732.  740,  748,  820,  948, 
972,  1018,  1267,  1268,  1269, 
1337,  1339,  1361,  1364,  1365, 
1367,  1372,  1384,  1389,  1390, 
1433,  1454,  1456,  1470,  1476. 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   St.  Paul  City  R'.  Co.,  p. 

1890. 

z'.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Rail- 
way, p.  3396. 

Tran.sportation  Line  z'. 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 

z'.  Young,    pp.    595,    596,    597, 

638,    653,    660,    670,    672. 

Cooper  Grocer  Co.  v.  Britton,  p. 
693. 

Co-Operative     Ass'n,     Jones     z'. 

Cooperstown,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Hun- 
ter   Z'. 

Hunter    z'. 

Coopwood,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Coos  Bay,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  z'.  Siglin, 
p.    576. 

Coosa  River  Steamboat  Co.  z'.  Bar- 
clay,   pp.   302,   428. 

Cope    z'.    Cordova,    p.    536. 

Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Copeland,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Memphis,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z'. 

z:   Metropolitan     St.      R.      Co., 

p.    2137. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    K.    Co.    z'. 

z".   Southern    Railway,    p.     868. 

Copley,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Copp     z'.     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3839. 

Century    Realty    Co.,    p. 


Corey,    Commonwealth    z'. 

Cork        Distilleries      Co.      z\      Great 

Southern     R.     Co.,     p.     1239. 
Cork,    etc.,     R.     Co.     Burns    Z'. 
Corley     z'.     Southern     Railway,     pp. 

2444,    2463. 
Corlin   z'.    West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2156. 
Corliss,    Nassau   Elect.    R.   Co.   z'. 
Cormack    v.     New     York,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,     pp.     608,     1669,     1675,     1676. 
Cornelius   z'.    Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1097,    1102,    1419. 
Campbell   z'. 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     Z'. 

Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.    z'. 

Cornell     z:     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1612,    2650. 

Friedlander    &    Co.    z\ 

Tardine   z\ 

"Nebraska    Tel.    Co.    z'. 

Cornette   z'.    Baltimore,   etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.     2821. 
Cornforth,     Merchants'     Dispatch     & 
Transp.    Co.    z'. 

Transp. 

Lumber 


etc. 


Edgar 


Peoria,    etc.,    R. 


Wil- 


'St.     R.     Co.,     Will- 


Co., 


■.     Long     Island     R. 
New   York,    etc.,    R. 


Co., 
Co., 


Copper    z\ 
2585. 

Coppock 

^  p.    2105. 

Copson   z'. 
p.    2302. 

Coquillard    Wagon    Works'     Assign- 
ees,   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Corbett  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p. 
1315. 

Labbe    z\ 

z:  Twenty-Third     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1605,    2412. 

Corbin,    Wandell    z: 
Corcoran      z:      Albuquerque      Tract. 
Co.,    p.    2741. 

Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\   Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

3499. 

z'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.; 

pp.    2501,    2546. 

Cordes,     Niagara    v. 

Propeller    Niagara   v. 

Cordiner    z:      Los      Angeles      Tract 

Co.,    pp.    2082,    2084. 
Cordova,    Cape    z'. 
Core,     South      Covington,     etc.,      St 

R.    Co.    z: 


Merchants', 
Co.    Z'. 
Cornie     Stave     Co. 

Co.    v. 
Corning    &    Co.    z'. 

Co.,    p.    267. 
Cornish,     Robinson    z\ 
Cornwall,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    z'. 
Cornwall,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Rhoades    v. 
Cornwell,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    z'. 
Corporation    Comm.    z'.    Southern    R. 

Co.,    p.    3483. 
Corrigan    Conso!.    St.    R.    Co. 
kerson    Z' 

Willmot    z: 

Willmott 

Corrigan,     etc., 

mott   z\ 
Corrinth,    Moer    v. 
Corry    f.     Cincinnati,    etc.,     R. 

pp.    191,    2444,    2483. 
Corsar    "■.     Spreckels    &    Bros.     Co., 
pp.    3898,    3900,    3910,    3928,    4068. 
Corse    v.    Peck,    p.    3871. 
Corso    z:     New      Orleans,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    845,    852,    3271. 
Corson,    State   z'. 

Cortland,    etc..    Tract.    Co.,    Kay    z-. 
Corvallis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     State    Z'. 
Cory    V.    Thames    Iron     Works,     p. 

633. 
Cosgrove    v.     Augusta,     p.     112. 

z'.   Consolidated     R.       Co.,       p. 

2259. 

Cosmos    Cotton     Co.    z'.     First     ^at. 

Bank,     pp.     356,     373,      383,      391, 

394,    395,    396,    397. 
Cossitt    z'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1803,    2239,    2272. 
Costello    z:    St.    Louis    Transit    Co., 

p.     2146. 
Costigan     z:     Michael     Transp.     Co., 

p.    728. 

z:   Warren,     etc.,     St.     R.     Co., 

174    Mass.    553,    55    N.    E.    317— 
pp.    1978,    2585. 

Cotant   V.    Boone    Suburban    R.    Co., 

p.    2350. 
Cotchett   Z'.    Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1826,    2174,    2221,    2223. 
Cote    z'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     3394,     3396. 
Cotesworth,    Ford    z'. 
Cottengim,       Louisville,       etc.,       R. 

Co.    Z'. 
Cotter,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 
Cotting    V.    Godard,    pp.    3432,    3533 

3534. 

z'.   Kansas        City       Stockyards 

Co.,  79  Fed.  679— p.  3534. 

z\   Kansas   Citv   Stockyards 

Co.,   82   Fed.   839— pp.   3432, 
3533,  3534. 

•  z'  Kansas   Citv   Stockvards 

Co..  82  Fed.  850— pp.  3432,  3533, 
3534. 


TABLE    OF    CASF.S., 


CLV 


Cotting  V.  Kansas  City  Stockyards 
Co.,  183  U.  S.  79,  46  h.  Kd.  92, 
22    S.    Ct.    30— p.    35. 

Cotton,   Chicago,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

TelTcrsonvillc     R.     Co.     v. 

i.akc    Rrif,    etc.,    R".    Co.    v. 

Lane  I'. 

North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.  ^  f . 

CottrcU    V.    Carolina,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

141    N.    C.    383,    54   S.    Iv.   288— p. 
143. 

i:  Pawtuckct     St.    R.     Co.,    p. 

2170. 

Coudy    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2603,    2691. 
Couglitry,    Kemp    v. 
Coulahan    r.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2699. 
Coulson,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Coultas,    Rockford,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Coulter,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Kuykendall    r. 

Coulter    f.    Weir,    p.    3578. 

Council    7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1347. 

United     States     Exp.     Co.     v. 

Council    P.luffs    f.    Kansas,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.   3421. 
Counselman   f.    Hitchcock,    pp.   3779, 

3782. 
County    of    Cook,    Tilley    f. 
County    of    Mobile    ■:■.    Kimball,    pp. 

3418,     3419,     3420,      3421,      3439, 

3445,    3446. 
Coup   f.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

189,    214,    244.    774,    3271. 
Coupland     v.     Ilousatonic     R.     Co., 

pp.    1006,    1073,    1288,    1339,    1381, 

1475,    1480. 
Coursel    ?■.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2801. 
Coursey,    Southern    R.    Co.    r. 

r.   Southern       R.        Co..        pp. 

2249,     2258.     2291,     2358,     2689. 

Courteen  v.  Kanawha  Dispatch,  p. 
3356. 

Courtney,    Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    t: 

Courts  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1606,    3042. 

Cousar  Mercantile  Co.  v.  South- 
ern   R.    Co.,    pp.    153,    165. 

Cousineau  f.  Muskegon  Tract., 
etc.,  Co.,  145  Mich.  314,  318, 
108  N.  W.  720— pp.  1796,  2134, 
2875. 

V.  Muskegon    Tract.,   etc.,    Co., 

115  N.  W.  987,  152  Mich.  48— 
pp.    2027,    2328. 

Cousins     i\     Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R. 

Co..    pp.    2152,    2267. 
Coutourie,     Texas,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
Covcll   V.   Hill,   p.   302. 

?■.   Hitchcock.  pp.  1219, 

1220,  1229,  1232,  1238. 

Coventry    f.      Gladstone,     pp.     1224. 

1228.    1234.    1235. 
Covetts,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Covington,    Covington,    etc.,     Rridge 

Co.    z: 

V.  Pullman    Co.,    p.    3581. 

South       Covington,      etc.,      R. 

Co.  r. 

V.  Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2249,    2373. 

Covington      Stock      Yards      Co.      -■. 

Keith,    pp.    219,    1267,    1269,    1278, 

1279,     1280,     1299,      1301,      3647, 

3648,     3728. 
Zovington.      etc..      Bridge      Co.       z\ 

Covington,    p.    3588. 

-■.   Kentucky,      pp.      34,      3418. 

3421,  3433,  3473.  3474.  3475, 
3477.  3491.  3493.  3497.  3527, 
3552,    3571. 

Covington,    etc..    R.    Co..    Reinenian 

&    Co.    f. 
Covington,  etc..   St.   R.   Co..   Wise  v. 
Covington,      etc..      Turnpike      Road 

Co.    r.    Sandford.    pp.    34.    58.    60. 

115.    119.    3664.    367o.    3678. 
Cowan,    Ault   v. 


Cowan   V.    Bond,   p.    3697. 

Denver    City    Tramway    Co.  f. 

r.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

p.   641. 

Cowan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  Tennes- 
see, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  1182.  1187. 
1191. 

Ccjward  j'.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  726,  949,  3114,  3116, 
3123,  3124,  3129,  3161,  3162, 
3166,     3176,     3178,     3180. 

Cowden  v.  Pacific  Coast,  etc.,  Co., 
94  Cal.  470,  29  Pac.  873.  18  L. 
R.  A.  221,  28  Am.  St.  Rep.  142 
—pp.  1176,  1178,  1181,  1190, 
1191,    1204. 

Cowen,     Winters    ?'. 

'.:  Winters,     p.     3318. 

Coweta   County  v.   Central,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,   pp.    238,   243,    752,    755,    757, 

765,    815,    830. 
Cowham,    Haskell    i'. 
Cowherd,    Louisville,   etc..    R.   Co.   f. 
V.   St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

653,   679. 
Cowing    V.     Snow,     pp.    3944.     3945. 
Cowles,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 
Cowley    V.    Davidson,    pp.    438,    472, 

855. 

Litt  V. 

r.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3605,     3694. 

Cownie  Glove  Co.  v.  Merchants' 
Dispatch  Transp.  Co.,  pp.  3,  727, 
732,   748,  753,   765,   773,  818,   821. 

Cox.    Alabama,    etc.,     R.    Co.    ?•. 

T-.   -American      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

1296,    1467,    1474,    1477. 

z:  Atlantic,    etc..     R.    Co..    pp. 

149.    150. 

Baltimore,   etc..    R.    Co. 

7'.   Central     \'ermont     R 

pp.    986.     1040.    1087,    1088, 
1118,    1123,    1124. 

f.   Columbus,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

245.    585. 

r.   Foscue,     pp.     3888,     3897. 

-■.  High    Point,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     2860,     2900. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

f.   Los     Angeles     Terminal     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2425.    2426. 

V.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co..     p. 

159. 

Pecos,    etc..    R.    Co.   ;•. 

-■.  Pennsylvania  R'.   Co.,   p.   96. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Southern    Kansas    R.    Co.    z\ 

f.  United    States,    p.    1490. 

Waring   z\ 

Western    Gravel    Road    Co.    v. 

Cox  &  Co..  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 
Cox,   Patterson  &  Co.  -■.   Bruce  Co., 

p.    308. 
Cox.    etc..    Co.,    McClure    &    Co.    v. 

V.   Peterson,      pp.      333,       337, 

512,    540. 

Winston    ;•. 

Cox.    etc..    Grocery   Co.    z:    National 

Bank,    p.    385. 
Coxe   f.    Ileisley,    p.    759. 
Coxon  -'.    North    Eastern   R.    Co.,   4 

Ry.    &    C.    T.    Cas.    284— p.    907. 
Coy    z\     Boston    Elev.     R.     Co..    pp. 

2017,    2741. 

z:   Detroit,     etc..     Railway,     pp. 

80.    195,    1598. 

Cove    z:    People's    R.    Co.,    p.    2225. 
Coyer.    Pennsylvania    Co.    z: 
Coyle    Z-.     Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 
p.    2116. 

People's    R.    Co..    pp. 
1867,      1874.      1881, 
2290.    2653.    2686. 
Southern    R.    Co..    pp, 

1597.      1601.      1616. 
2434,    2466.    2468.    2483. 
Western   R.   Corp.,   pp.   292 
293,    883. 
Coyne  z:  United  R.  Co..   p.   2653. 
Cozine,   Lexington   R.   Co.   v. 


Co., 
1095, 


1741. 
1919. 


1596. 
2408. 


1682. 
1888. 


190. 
1634. 


Crabtree.    Clarke    :. 

I.  Washington  County   R.  V-o.. 

pp.    1614,    1621. 

Craddock     &    Co.     r.      Wells-Fargo 

Co.'s    Exp.,    p.    245. 
Crady,    Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   i: 
Craft    z:    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2779. 

Southern    Kxp.    Co.    v. 

Cragin   z:   New    York   Cent.    R-    Co.. 

51    N    Y.   61,   10   Am.   Rep.   559— 

pp.    728,   733,   749,    1340. 
■  ,.  New    York    Cent.     R.    Co.. 

51    N.    Y.    63— p.    292. 
Craig,     Baylor    County    v. 

V.  Boston     Elev.     R.     Co..     p. 

1993 

V.   Childress,    p.    11.    729.    733. 

737.    750,   822.    1011.    1020. 

Citizens'    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Continental     Ins.     Co.,     pp. 

4036,  4038.  4042,  4045.  4046, 
4049,    4054,    4055,    4056. 

Denison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Kinloch  r.  ,    „     /- 

Lake    Shore    Elevated    R.    Co. 

-^  z:  Marx.    pp.    349,    1207.    1208. 

Omaha   St.   R".   Co.  v. 

Railroad    "'. 

Tweedie  Trading   Co.   z: 

z:   Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.     1866. 

'250. 

Craighead  v.  Brooklyn,  etc..  R.  Co.. 

pp.    1821,    1957. 
Grain.    General    Oil    Co.    z-. 
Craker   z:   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co..   p- 

3076. 
Crallc.    Board   z:  ..,  ,    ^ 

Crall.   Western   Union  Tel.  t-O.  f. 
Cram.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    r. 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     84 

Neb.  607.  122  N.  W.  31.  26  L. 
R.    A..    N.    S..    1022— pp.    21,    134. 

135.    155.  T,      r-         «? 

z:  Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    83 

Neb.  586,  123  N.  W.  1043.  26 
L  R  A..  N.  S.,  1022— pp.  133, 
167,    168.  _.     _ 

Cramblet    z:    Chicago,    etc..    K.    Co.. 

p.    2677. 
Cramer     z:      American,     etc..      txp. 

Co.,    pp.    894.    899,    3289. 
r.  Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 

pp.  1817,  2172.  2894. 

z:  Burlington,    p.    2300. 

Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.   r. 

r.  Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co..    pp- 

3521,    3702,    3741.    3748.    3749. 

z:   Springfield    Tract.    Co..    pp. 

1997.     2595.  .        ,     „      r 

Crandall    z:    International     K.     Lo.. 
pp.    1647,    1648. 

z:  Minneapolis,    etc.. 

p.    2777. 

z:  Nevada,      pp.      3549 

3564.    3594. 

Crane.    Whitesell    r.        .    .      ,   „ 
Crane  Iron  Works  z:  L  nited  States. 

p.    3661. 
Crangle,    Moorehouse    z: 
Crank.   Chesapeake,   etc..    R.    Co.    t . 
Crarwell   z:   The   Fanny   Fosdick.   p. 

727. 
Crarv  z:   Lehigh   Valley   R.   Co..   pp. 

2097.    2704. 
Craucher.    Ohio.    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Crauf,  Chicago   City  R.   Co.   :•. 

f.  Chicago    City    R.    Co..    pp. 

1742.    1890,    1901. 

Craven     z:     Central     Pac.     R.     Co.. 
pp.    2297.   2370. 

:.   International      R-      C.>..      p. 

2878. 

f.  Ryder,    p.    1225. 

f.  State,    p.     177. 

Cravens.    Little    Rock.    etc..    R.    Co. 

z:  Rogers,    p.    101. 

Crawford.   Adams  Exp.   Co.   r. 


R.     Co.. 
3563. 


CLVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Crawford  f.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  191,  1637,  1638,  2122, 
2420,    2425,    2430,    2467. 

V.  Clark,     pp.     528,     539.    891, 

893. 

Oavis   7-. 

c'.   Georgia    Railroad,    p.     1748. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1984. 

I'.  Maine    Cent.    Railroad,    pp. 

2790,   2872. 

z:   Mellor,    p.    355. 

Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

San    Antonio    Tract.    Co.    v. 

f.   Southern      R'.      Ass'n,      pp. 

3256,    3258.    3289,    3294. 

f.   Southern    R.    Co..    pp.    1036, 

1366,    1458.   3518. 

f.   Williams,    p.     1145. 

Crawlcigh     z:     Galveston,     etc.,     R. 

Co..    pp.     1550,    2517,    2780. 
Crawley,    American    Exp.    Co.    z\ 
Crawshay   f.    Eades,    ".    1232. 
Craj'     z\     Hartford     Fire     Ins.     Co., 

p.    1118. 
Craybill,    Scioto    \'alley    Tract.    Co. 

Craycraft,     Louisville,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

Craj'croft    »•.    Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     320,    945,    994,    995. 
Crayton,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Cream  City  R.  Co.  v.   Chicago,  etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    799,    1013,    3166. 
Creamer   v.   West    End    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    1535. 
Creason   ''.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1824,    2296. 
Crcath,     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.     v. 
Creditors,    Markwald,    etc.,    Co.    z\ 
Credle   z'.    Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   p. 

1773. 
Creech    z:    Charleston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1520,    2152,    2600. 
Creed    z\    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    p. 
^  2210. 

Creedcn,    State   v. 
Creenan     z\     International     R.     Co., 

p.    1807. 
Crcery   z'.    Holly,    p.    333. 
Creety,    Georgia    Railroad    f. 
Crenshaw,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    v. 
Crenshawc  z\   Pearce,   p.   338. 
Crescent    City    R.    Co.,    Conolly   v. 

Cronan    '•. 

Ober     v. 

Summers  f. 

Crescent      Coal    Co, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

225,   251,    264,    1190. 
Crescent     Liquor     Co. 

245. 
Cressap,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    '■. 
Cresson     r.     Philadelphia,     etc 

Co.,    pp.    1638,    2430. 
Crews,    Pecos,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

V.  Richmond    &    D.    R.    Co.,    p. 

3704. 

— —  Terra    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Crickett,    McManus    '•. 
Crider,    Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    v. 
Crier,    Galveston,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 
Crigler     z:     Commonwealth,     87     S. 

W.    280,    25    Ky.    L.    Rep.    927— 

p.    3427. 

V.  Commonwealth,       120      Ky. 

512,    87    S.    W.    276,    27    Ky.     L. 
Rep.   918— p.    3427. 

V.   Commonwealth      (Ky.),      87 

S.  W.  281— p.  3427. 

Crilly,    Jackson    v. 

Crine  '•.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    pp.    1752,    1753,    1757,    1989. 

Crippen,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Crisham,    Davis   f. 

Crisp  f.  United  States,  etc..  Steam- 
ship  Co.,   p.    3961. 

Crispi,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Crissey  z\  Hestonville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    1961. 

Criswell,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Louisville, 
220,    222,    224, 


Piatt, 


R. 


Crittenden,     Atchison,    etc.,     K.     Co. 

— ^  z:   Wilson,    p.     U9S. 
Critzer,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    t. 
Croaker    z\    Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2038,    2042,    2047. 
Crocker,    First    Nat.    Bank   z: 

-'.  New  London,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  1601,  2413,  2466,  24o9,  2486, 
2493,  2494. 

Wood  z: 

Crockett  z\    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.    3334. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

CrofF    z:     Great     Northern     R.     Co., 

p.     1443. 
Croft     T'.     Baltimore,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     3176,     3177,     3181. 

z\   Northwestern  Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    3992,    3997,    3998. 

Crofts    Z'.    Waterhouse,    p.    1687. 
Croll     z\     Pullman     Co.,     pp.     3223, 

3231. 
Crommelin    '•.     NVw    York,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    700.    714,    715. 
Cromwell,    Bird    v. 

New   York,    etc.,   R.    Co.   t'. 

Cronan    z\     Crescent     City     R.     Co., 

pp.    1705,   1961. 

t'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

215,   247,   249,   261. 

Crone,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z\ 

Cronin     z\     Highland     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    1645. 
Croninger,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    ?■. 
Cronk  z:   Wabash   R.    Co.,    pp.    2694, 

2736,    2918,    3004. 
Cronkite    v.    Wells,    p.     280. 
Crook,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    t'. 
Crooks   V.    Allen,    p.    ^S81. 

v.  The     Fanny     Skolfield,     pp. 

3904,    3906. 

Croom     V.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1495,    1496. 
Crosby.    Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Fitch,     pp.     10,     510,     3889, 

Maine     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 
1614. 
Pere    Marquette    R.    Co.,    p. 

Seaboard,       etc..       Railway, 
pp.    2581,    2821,    2824. 
Cross,    American    Contract    Co.    z\ 

■:•.   Beard,   pp.   699,   717. 

z'.   Coney    Island,    etc..    It.    Co.. 

p.    2820. 

z'.   Detroit      Citizens'      St.      R. 

Co.,    pp.    2025,    2885. 

r.   Graves,    pp.    335,    340,    442, 

941,    960,    975,    1043,    1101,    1317. 

Hadley   v. 

z\   Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1561,    2436. 

■;■.   Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1773,     1776. 

v.   McFaden,  pp.  246,  441.  446, 

447,    448,   450,    621,    1272,    1293. 

■ Rio    (jrande    R.    Co.    z\ 

Crossan   z\   New    York,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    777,    1155,    1156,    1157,    3390. 
Crossley    &    Co.,     Georgia    R.,     etc., 

Co.   r. 
Grossman,     Bolton     Steam     Shipping 

Co.    z: 

Burrill     '■. 

V.    Burrill,    p.    3868. 

Gulf,    etc.,   R.   Co.   V. 

v.   Lurman,    p.    3482. 

Crosstown    St.    R.    Co.,    Does    z: 

Masterson    z\ 

Croswell     z:     Va.     Bibber,     pp.     361, 

362. 
Crotzer    v.    Freeport     R.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.     1891. 
CrouCii    t'.    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

pp.   211,   221. 

'■.  London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

211.   221. 


Croucher   r.    Wilder,    p.    3895. 
Crow    z\    Atchison,    etc.,    K.    Co.. 
3539. 

c'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

971,    1061,    1062,    1099,    1457. 

Galveston,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Galveston,     etc.,     R.     Co.     i 

■<■.   Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co. 

2907. 

Omaha,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Crowder,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R. 


Co. 


R.    Co.    V. 
Steamboat 


Cb. 


Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Crowe,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Crowell,    Flood    '■. 

z'.  Union    oil    Co.,    p.    3922. 

■ Van     Winkle    v. 

Crowell  Lumber,   etc.,   Co.,   Missouri 

Pac.    R.    Co.   •;■. 
Crowley  z'.    Boston   Elevated   R.   Co., 

pp.     1830,     1993,     2741. 
•  z'.   Fitchburg,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    pp. 

1646,    1647,    1649,    2425,    2431. 

•;■.   Hurd,    pp.    3956,    3960. 

z\   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     1470,     1457. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Crown     Coal     Co.,     Louisville,     etc., 

R.     Co.    z: 
Crowninshield,    Choate    ;■ 
Croxton,    Louisville,    etc., 
Crozier    v.    Boston,    etc., 

Co.,   pp.    3146,    3148. 

Louisville,    etc.,     R. 

Crudup,    Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v. 
Crull,    Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Crum,     Mexican     Nat.     R.     Co.     v. 
Crumbacker     ?•.     Tucker,     pp.     480, 

481. 
Crump  z'.    Davis,   pp.   2228,   2357. 

Southern    Kansas    R.    Co.    v. 

Crunk,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Cruse,     Illinois    Cent.     K.     Co.     ■:'. 

Sabine,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?•. 

Cruseturner,    International,    etc.,    R. 

Co.  z: 

Z'.   International,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  1766,  1967,  2884. 

Crutcher  v.    Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  642,  645. 

z:   Kentucky,  pp.  3427,  3429, 

3472,  3481,   3503,   3504,   3550, 
3570,  3571. 

South  Covington,  etc.,  St. 

Co.  V. 

Crystal     Palace     z\     X'anderpool, 

3145. 
Cubbage    z:    Estate,    p.    2319. 

Jacksonville    Elect.    Co.    v. 

z'.    Youngerman,        pp.         1743,. 

1750,    2869,    2883,    2901. 

Cudahy    Packing   Co.    z'.   Dorsey,    pp. 

479,    495. 
Cuddy   v.    Horn,    pp.    2083,    2091. 
Culberson    v.    Empire    Coal    Co.,    pp. 

1682,      2015,      2019,      2035,      2039, 

2050,    2051,    2578,    2606. 
Culbreth     '■.     Philadelphia, 

Co.,    pp.    524,    727,    752, 
Cullar     z'.     Missouri,     etc., 

p.    2826. 
Cullen,    Pennewill    z\ 

z'.   Seaboard,    etc.,    R. 

1194,    1197,    1198,    1201. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z'. 

Walsh    z'. 

Culliford  Z'.  Goniila,  pp 
Cullison,  Ohio,  etc.,  I 
Cully     V.     Baltimore,     t 

p.    1948. 
Culton,    Pattison   z\ 
Culver,    Gibson   v. 

z:   Lester,    p.    729. 

Montgomery,     etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

Niles    z\ 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Cumberland    Tel.,    etc.,   Co.    v.    Mor 

gan's,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    256. 

z\   Texas,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p 

257. 


R. 


P- 


R. 


etc 
757. 
R.     Co 


Co.,    pp. 


3868,   3873. 
Co.    z: 
c,     R.     Co., 


TABLE    OF     CASES. 


CLVII 


Cumberland  \allcy  R.  Co.,  Appeal 
of. 

Hoffman   i: 

V.   Maugans,     pp.     2255,     2333, 

2334. 

V.   Myers,    p.     1530. 

Ryan    v. 

Shutt  V. 

Cumberland     \'alley     R.     Co.'s     .Ap- 
peal,   p.    222. 
Cumberland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    State    v. 

V.   State,    p.    3590. 

V.   Thompson,    p.    1705. 

Cumbie,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   105 

Ark.    406,     151     S.     W.     237— pp. 
1090,    1109. 

V.  St.      Louis,      etc.,      R'.      Co. 

(Ark.),    151    S.    W.    240— pp.    247, 
446,    448,    449. 

Cuinhy  Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  Mis- 
souri,  etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 

Cumiiiing   f.    I'.arracouta,    p.    820. 

Cumniings  f.  Detroit  United  Rail- 
way,   p.    2989. 

— —  Graham    ?■. 

Wichita    R.,    etc.,    Co.    :•. 

V.  Worcester,   etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2189,    2197. 

Cummins    v.    -Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    695. 
V.   Dayton,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3282. 
Cunard    Steamship   Co.,    15radford   f. 

Connors    '■. 

— —   l^ggermont   ': 

Fonseca   i'. 

Glovinsky   v. 

Kelley   v. 

r.   Kelley,    pp.    283,    294,    306, 

338,   829,   3928,   3932,   4059. 

Levensohn  f. 

Mountford   7\ 

O'Brien   ■:■. 

O'Regan    -,\ 

Rabinowitz   z'. 

Rinlamaki     z'. 

Vitelli    '•. 

Wood  z: 

Zabron    -•. 

Cunning,    Tittabawassec    Boom 


Co. 

St. 
Co., 


pp. 


40 
834, 


Cunningham     z-.     Boston,     etc., 
K.    Co.,    p.    77. 

f.    Great      Northern      R. 

p.    757. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.    z: 

V.  International     R.     Co., 

2074,    2113,    2162. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.      Co., 

Pa.      Super.'    Ct.      212— pp. 
835. 

f.   Pennsylvania      R.      Co..      50 

Pa.    Super    Ct.    609— p.     1021. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 

r  Seattle    Fleet.    R.,    etc..    Co.. 

pp.    2059,    2060,    2411,    3104. 

Southern    R'.    Co.    f. 

T'.  Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.     1313, 

1339,     1454.     1470. 

Curl    '■.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2429,     2851.     3104. 
Curran.    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Curray.    Porter  z-. 
Currel,     .\rayo     f. 
Currell    f.     Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    457,    459.    1298. 
Curric    z:    Mendenhall,    p.    2906. 

V.   Raleigh,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

3484. 

,   Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
753.    765,    879. 
Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
The    M.    C. 
Currv   '•.    Georgia,    etc. 
1882.     1883. 

Hot    Springs    f. 

Illinois    Cent.    R. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R. 


Co.    z: 
Co.    z: 


R.    Co..    pp. 


Curry    -•.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    58 
Kan.    6,    48    Pac.    579— p.    3695. 

f.   Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     60 

Pac.    325,    61    Kan.    541— p.    3041. 

Mulford    Co.   V. 

:■.   Roulstone,    p.    1222. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    j'. 

Curtis    r.     Avon,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3173. 
Buffington    i'. 

-•.  Central    Railway,    p.   2009. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Chicago,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,    pp. 

455,   819.   832. 

z\  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

1489,  3116,  3120,  3129,  3141, 
3184. 

Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Detroit,     etc.,      R.     Co.,     p. 

2300. 

V.   Lcavitt,     p.     1489. 

v.   Louisville    City    R.    Co.,    94 

Ky.  573,  23  S.  W.  363,  21  L.  R. 
A.  649,  15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  351  — 
pp.    1603,    2433. 

f.   Louisville    City    R.    Co.,    14 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  272— p.  1603. 

Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  z: 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  «'. 

-'.  Rochester,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  pp. 

1684,  1687,  1720,  1823,  1847, 
2667,  2673. 

f.  Sioux,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p. 

3083 

v.   Southern  R.   Co.,  p.   2697. 

Wabash     R.     Co.     z: 

Curtis    Bros.,    Southern    Kansas    R. 
Co.    z: 

Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Cushing    -■.     Wells,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

594,    595,    596,    855. 
Cushman,    Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Cushney,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Cusick    -'.    Interurban    St.     R.    Co., 
p.    2311. 

Leavenworth    Elect.    R.    Co.    r. 

Custer,    Pullman    Co.    -■. 

Cutcliff     t'.      Birmingham     R".,     etc., 

Co.,    p.    2169. 
Cutler    Z'.    Concord,    etc..    Railroad, 

p.  2756. 

z\  Lennox,    p.    3865. 

z:   Winsor,    pp.    3865,    3916. 

Cutter,  Kansas  Pac.   R'.   Co.  z: 

Wells    Fargo    &    Co.    -■. 

f.   Wells     Fargo     &     Co.,     pp. 

846,    1059. 

Cutting    z'.     Florida-  R.,     etc.,     Co., 
p.    3664. 

f.  Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    pp. 

638,    653,    1167. 

'■.  Miner,    p.    659. 

Cutts   r.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    pp. 
2123,    2343,    2759,    2802.    2892. 

•:•.   Brainard,    p.    3256. 

Cuyler    -•.    Decker,    p.    2128. 
Cynthia.     Giles    z: 

D 
Dacus,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 
Dages,    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Daggett,    Ft.     Worth,    etc.,     R.    Co. 

— ^  z:  North     Tersev     St.     R.     Co.. 
p.    2914. 

z:   Shaw,     pp.     728,     733.     749, 

753.    765.    768. 

Spencer  '•. 

Dagnall    z\     Southern    R'.     Co.,     pp. 

1631,    2712. 
Dagner,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 
Dahlberg  ;■.   Minneapolis  St.   R.  Co., 

pp.    1718.    2008,    2201. 
Dahlberg     Brokerage     Co..     .\tlantic, 

etc..    R.    Co.    z: 
Dahrooge     f.     Pere     Marquette     R. 

Co..    p.    3154. 
Dakota    Cent.    R.    Co..    Oviatt   z: 
Dalby.   Philadelphia,   etc..   R.   Co.   f. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 


Dalby    &    Co.    z:    Mexican    Cent.    R. 

Co.,    p.    488. 
Dale     z:     Brooklyn     City,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,     p.     2145. 
Daley     z\     Chicago,     etc.,      R.     Co., 

pp.    1572,   2529,   2530,   2531. 

-•.    Port     Jervis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2876. 

V.   K'edburn,    p.    2649. 

Dalhi,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hoffbauer   z: 
Dallas,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

z\   Illinois    Cent.     R.    Co.,    pp. 

149L    2248,    2906. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Dallas   Consol.    Elect.    St.    R.    Co.   i. 

Ison,    pp.    1687,    1710. 

V.   Pettit,    p.    2807. 

Dallas     Consol.     Tract.     R.     Co.     :. 

Ranflolph,    pp.     1685,     lo93,     1731, 

1732,     1737. 
Dallas    Rajiid   Transit  Co.   z:   Payne. 

98  Tex.  211,  82  S.   W.  649,    15   R. 

R.     R.     25,    38    Am.    &     Eng.     K. 

Cas.,    N.    S.,    25 — pp.    1556,    1562. 
1563,      1879,     2151,     2319,     2359. 

2940. 

z:  Payne     (Tex.      Civ.     App.), 

78    S.    W.    1085— p.    1879. 

Dallas,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.,    Sievers    -■. 
Dallas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z:     Reeman. 
p.    1791. 

z:   Spickcr,    p.    2289. 

Dallas,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.  z:  Black, 
p.  2594. 

z:   Broadhurst,    pp.    1842,    1978, 

2684. 

V.  Gilmore,    pp.    1721,    2039. 

I'.   Lasch,    p.    2251. 

z:    Pettit,    pp.     2051,    2052. 

Dallenbach  z:   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.. 

p.    216. 
Dalton    -•.    Beers,    p.    3096. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

-'.   Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2848,     3037,    3047. 

Daly  z:  Central  R.  Co..  49  N.  Y. 
S.  901,  26  App.  Div.  200— p. 
2907. 

i:  Central    R.    Co..    57    N.    Y. 

S.     44,     38     App.     Div.     632— p. 
2828. 

Dalzell    z:    Saxon,    pp.    732.    738. 
Daniont    f.    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    p.    2263. 
Dampman    -•.    Pennsylvania    R'.    Co.. 

p.  2673. 
Dan,  The. 
Dana    f.    Fiedler,    p.    653. 

The. 

Danbech,     New    Jersey     Tract.     Co. 

V. 

Danbury.    Hinckley   -•. 

Danciger    '•.     Wells.     Fargo    &     Co., 

pp.    245,    3814.    3823. 
Dancy,    Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    -■. 
Dandridge,   Pennsylvania,   etc..   Nav. 

Co.    f. 
Dane.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    r-. 
Danforth,     Northern     Texas     Tract. 

Co.    7'. 
Dangerfield     -•.     Atchison,     etc..     R. 

Co.,     pp.     1628.     1636. 
Daniel  z-.    Brooklyn   Heights   R.   Co.. 
'    pp.    1574,    2448.    2487. 

North    .Mabama    Tract.    Co.    z: 

V.  North     Tersev    St.     R.     Co.. 

pp.    196.     1500.    3112. 

:•.   Petersburg       R.       Co..       pp. 

2045.    2046,    2049. 

Daniel    Ball.    The. 

Daniels  ■•.    Ballantine,    pp.    744.   847. 

-•.   Florida,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1632.  2057.  2663.  2850.  2851. 

Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    -•. 

Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Stephan    f. 

:•.   Western,    etc..    R'.    Co..    pp. 

1768.    1884.    1912.     1915. 

D'.Vnjou    :•.    Deaglc.    p.    485. 
Danshank.    Gulf.   etc..    R.    Co.   r. 


CLVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Dant  &  Co.  .^  Northwestern  Un- 
ion   Packet    Co..    pp.    512.    596. 

Dantzlcr  Lumber  Co.  z:  Church.il, 
p.    3968.  „ 

Danville    St.    Car    Co.    r.    Payne,    p. 

Dam^He  St.  R..  etc.,  Co.,   Barnes  r. 
Danville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Brown,   p. 

Da'nvUie,  etc..  Road  Co.  r.  Stew- 
art    DO     2082,    2083.  „      ., 

Danziger  f.  Interborough  Rapid 
Transit     Co.,     p.     20o4 

Daoust   f.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

Da    Ponte    v.    New    Orleans    Trans- 
fer  Co.,   p.    3141 
Darbv.   Alabama   ^'^    R.,  Co.  z. 
T'.   Baines,    pp.    3863. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.  V 

D'Arcais,    Southern   Pac.    R-    Co.    .. 
D'Arcy    v.    Adams     Exp.      Co.,      p. 

i067.  .  „  ^„ 

Darden  '•.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    1921. 

Thompson   v. 

Dare,    St.    Louis     etc.,    R.    Co.  v 

Dargan     r.     Pullman     Palace  Car 

Co      pp.    3201,    3202,    3215,    3216, 

3230.    3238.  _,     ^ 

Darling    i:    Atchison,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.    1477.  „      _ 

■    _  r.  Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    pp. 

3259,    3313. 

1-    Westmoreland,    p.    2/38. 

Darlington,       Missouri,        etc.,       K. 

't/ Missouri    Pac.    R.     Co.,    pp. 

700,   701,    702,    714,    718. 

Darlington  Lumber  Co  f.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  116  ?•  W. 
530,    216   Mo.    658— pp.    21o,   700. 

V.  Missouri       Pac.        R.        ^o. 

(Mo.),  147  S.  W.  1052— pp.  87, 
122,    138.  ^  .       _ 

Darnana  v.  La  Compagnie  Gener- 
ale   Transatlantique,    p.    Wii. 

Darnell,  Adams  Exp.   Co. 

V.  Illinois     Cent.     R 

3790. 

V.  Indiana,    p.    353/. 

Pacific  Exp.   Co.   V. 

V.   State,    pp.    3557.    3367. 

Darnell    Bros.,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    v. 
Darnell-Taenzer      Lumber      Co.      v. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.,    p.    3794. 
Darting    Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Dater,    .Xnchor   Line  z: 

Erie,     etc.,     Transp.     Co.     v. 

Daube   z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

677. 
Dauchy   z:    Silliman,    p.    /23^ 
Daughdrill,    Southern    R.    Co     z: 
Daugherty  z:   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    1553,    1569. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.      State,   p.    185.  „      „ 

Daughty    v.    Northwestern     R.     Co., 

p.    3307.  ^  ,. 

Dave    z:    Morgan's,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    1855     1867 
Davenport     v.     Brooklyn     City     K. 

Co.,  p.  2137. 

Fowler    v. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Powers  V. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

.    Sinnot    V.  ,        •      t. 

Davenport    Co.    v.    Pennsylvania    K. 

Co.,    p.    785. 
Davenport   Nat.    Bank   v.    Homeyer, 

pp.   355,    359,   363,    365,   366,   404. 
Davey    '••    Mason,    p.    3136. 
David,    Nashville,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
David    &    Carolina,    The 
Davidson    v.     Adams    Exp.     Co.,     p. 

3521. 

Cowley  V. 

Fay   V. 


Co. 


Davidson,  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'. 

V.   Graham,  pp.  728,  730,  731, 

733,  739,  740,  749,  751,  752, 
814  822,  946,  947,  949,  956, 
960,  981,  1003,  1007,  1019,  1032, 
1036.  3161. 

•  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 

McCauley   v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Oregon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

V.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2923. 

Texas  Pac.   R.   Co.  f. 

Weide    f. 

Davidson       Development       Co.       '•. 

Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  626,  638, 
654,    662,  "673. 

Davidson  Steamship  Co.,  Ohio 
Transp.    Co.    z\ 

7..  119.254  Bushels  of  Flax- 
seed,   p.    3947. 

Davies  z:  Eastern  Steamboat  Co., 
p.    3983. 

z:  Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,    p. 

530. 

Davies,    Turner   &   Co.,    Rlakiston   z: 
Davis,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1667,    2094. 

V.   Atlanta,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2354,   2913. 

-c'.  Atlantic    etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

612,    613,    614. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •;•. 

z:   Button,     p.     1487. 

z\   Camden,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2234. 

-  V.  Cayuga,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
3115,    3118,    3127,    3130,    3139. 

-  V.   Central     Railroad,    p.     2666. 

-  z:  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
319,  321,  323,  333,  337,  354, 
744,  914,  958,  959,  987. 

-  V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1577,  1578,  2101. 

-  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 

-  •;•.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4.t 
Fed.  543— pp.  1569,  1585. 

-  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 
Iowa  744,  49  N.  W.  77— pp. 
3163,  3187. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 

Wis.  470,  67  N.  W.  16,  1132, 
33  L.  R.  A.  654,  57  Am.  St. 
Rep.  935,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
X  S.,  622— pp.  1696,  1715,  2092, 
2098,  3001,  3034. 

V.   Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

146  Fed.  403— p.  3543. 

f.  Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

217  U.  S.  157,  54  L-  Ed.  708, 
30  S.  Ct.  463,  27  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  823,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  907— p.  3544. 

V.  Crawford,    p.    474. 

z:   Crisham,    pp    10,    1489. 

Crump     z'. 

Ft.    North,   etc.,   R'.   Co.   :■. 

Galveston,    etc.,     R.     Co.    z\ 

z:   Galveston,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1731,    2694,    2843. 

Georgia   R.,    etc.,    Co.    t'. 

V.  Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

2962. 

Ilayden   z'. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Houston,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     23 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  8,  59  S.  W.  844 
—pp.    3373,    3375,    3376. 

V.   Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  42,  68  S.  W. 
733— pp.  1768,  1771,  1796,  2788. 

Ho  watt   z\ 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.  Iowa    Cent.     R.     Co.,     2334. 

V    Jacksonville        Southeastern 

Line,     pp.     436,     804,     3294. 

Johnston    '■. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Davis  V.  Kansas,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  86 
S.  W.  995,  75  Ark.  165— pp. 
2242,     2906. 

V.  Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     53 

Mo.  317,  14  Am.  Rep.  457 — pp. 
1955,    2427,    2434. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2366. 

Lovell   z: 

V.  Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    20 

111.    412— pp.    894,    899. 

-  '■.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
III.  278,  74  Am.  Dec.  151— pp. 
3126,  3130,  3151,  3180,  3189, 
3190. 

-  Missouri,     etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

-  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
2645. 

-  Mobile,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 

z:   Mobile,     etc.,     R.      Co.,     p. 

1200. 

-  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
70  Minn.  37,  72  N.  W.  823— p. 
3355. 

-  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(N.    Y.),    1    Hilt.    543— p.    848. 

-  z'.  Oregon,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  p. 
2121. 

z'.   Paducah    R.,    etc..    Co.,    pp. 

1697,  2392,  2673,  3006. 

Reeve  f. 

z:   Russell,    p.     1224. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

San    Antonio    Tract.    Co.    v. 

Scruggs   z'. 

z:  Seaboard  .\ir  Line  Rail- 
way,   pp.    501,    1104,    3402. 


Seaboard,    etc..    Railway,    p. 
2547. 

Z-.   Smokeless      Fuel      Co.,      pp. 

3951,   3974. 

'•.   South      Carolina,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,  pp.  1616,  1618,  2442. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

-'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.     151, 

152.    176,    3423. 

Stiles    v. 

z:  Taff    Vale    R.    Co.,    p.    221. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:  Texas,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,      pp. 

1276,     1277,     1473,     1479. 

Wabash   R.   Co.,   p.    1363. 

r.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     89^ 

Mo.  i40,  1  S.  W.  327— pp.  728, 
730,  733,  734,  742,  746,  749, 
825. 

V.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     13 

Mo.     App.    449— pp.    828,    848. 

. ■  V.  Wakelee,     p.     3830. 

z:  Wallace,    p.    699. 

z'.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co.,. 

p.    1119. 

z\  Yazoo,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p- 

2848. 

Davis  Bros.  v.  Blue  Ridge  R.  Co., 
pp.  1039,  1353,  1381,  1392,  1473, 
1475. 

V.  Vandalia    R.    Co..    p.    1033. 

Davis     Coal,     etc.,     Co.,     Christie    v. 
Davis-Fowler     Co.,     Texas,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    V. 
Davis  &  Co.,  Graham  &  Co.  z: 

Morrison    r. 

Davison    v.    Von    Lingen,    pp.    3872', 

3873. 
Dawkins,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Dawley  v.   Wagner   Palace   Car  Co., 

pp.    3145,    3215,    3223,    3239. 
Dawson,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1881,  2146,  2155,  2300,  2749. 

v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

246,  247,  607,  621,   622,  1020, 
1021,  3279. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    4 

Ky.    L.    Rep.    731— p.    2862. 

z:  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co..    4 

Ky.   L.   Rep.   801,    11    -Vm.    &   Eng. 


TAULE    (jF    casks. 


CUX 


R.     Cas.       134— pp.      1870,      1884, 
1906,    2846,    30.S8. 
J)awson    V.    I.ouisvilk-,    etc.,    K.    Co., 
6     Ky.     L.     Rc-p.     068— pp.     3043, 
3050.    3058. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.   i'. 

r.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co,    pp. 

1087,    1413,    1477. 

Southern    R.   Co.   v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

Dawson     Bros.,     Missouri,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    V. 
Day    V.    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co.,    p. 
2524. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

O'Neal   -: 

V.   Owen,     pp.     190,     194,     195, 

196,     197,    1950,    2571. 

St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     -■. 

Shoninger    f. 

Smith    r. 

Taylor    r. 

Day,    etc.,    Co.    ■:■.    Ridley,    pp. 

485,    729,    734,    816,    817,    822. 

Dayton   v.    Parke,    p.    713. 

J'.   Pennsylvania,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2839. 

The    L.    P. 

Dayton,    etc.,    U.    Co.,    Cummins    :•. 
Dayton,    etc..    Tract.    Co.,    Filer    :•. 
Deagle,    D'.\njou    r. 
Deakc    f.    United    States    Exp.    Co., 

pp.    1331,    1465. 
Deakins,    Southern    R.    Co.    r. 
Dean    v.    Chicago    General    R.    Co., 

p.    1487. 

r.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

849. 

f.  King,     pp.     267,     283,     294, 

296,     306,     307,     309,      337,      338, 
339,    341,    411,    3893. 

Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Southern    R.    Co.   t'. 

Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

United    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

V.   Vaccaro,    p.    527,    542,    544, 

545,   596,   849,   892,   894,   901,   903. 

Deane,    United    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Deans    '•.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1108. 
Dear,  .Alabama,  etc.,  R.   Co.  -■. 
Dearborn,    First    Nat.    Rank   f. 
Dearden  v.   San   Pedro,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    2677,    2697,    2809,    2895. 
Deason,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Deaver-Jeter     Co.     v.     Southern     R. 

Co.,    pp.    493,    1084,    1110. 
De    Barnales,    Shepard   v. 
De    Baun    v.    Atchison,    p.    3896. 
Debbins    v.    Old    Colony    R.    Co.,    p. 

2136. 
De  Blois  T.   Great  Northern   R.   Co., 

p.    2506. 
De    Board   v.    Camden    Interstate   R. 

Co.,    pp.    1648,    2103,    2453,    2465, 

3097. 
Debes,    In    re. 
Decan    v.     Shipper,      pp.     369,      373 

374,    375,    377. 
De     Castillo,      Galveston,      etc.,      R 

Co.   z'. 

?'.   Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2822. 

De     Cecco     i\     Connecticut     Co.,     p 

1841. 
Decker    f.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.    191,    2420,    2421. 

?'.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1575,   2880.    2911. 

Cuyler    r.  ' 

Prentice    v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

De    Coursey.    United    States   -■. 

Decuir  i\  Benson,  p]).  190,  195, 
1947. 

■ Hall    -•. 

Dedham,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  West- 
wood   f. 

Deemar,    Bixby    '•. 

Deen    v.    Wheeler,    p.    807. 

Deep  River  Logging  Co.,    Harvey  f, 


Deer     Creek      Lumber     Co..      New 

York  Cent.   &   H.    R.   Co.   v. 
Deere     Plow     Co.     v.     Wyland,     p. 

3541. 
Deery    v.    Camden,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2247. 
De    Felice   V.    Compagnie    Francaise, 

etc.,    Cie,    p.    4009. 
Deford    r.    Seinour,    p.    484. 
iJefrier    f.      Nicaragua,      pp.      1941, 

3145.    4009. 
Defries,    F^agle    Packet    Co.    v. 
Degado   -.    Wilbur,    p.    359. 
De    Glopper    -■.    Nashville    R.,    etc., 

Co.,    pp.    1491,    1492. 
DeGrau   '.:   Wilson,    17    Fed.   698— p. 

916. 
-•.   Wilson,     22     Fed.     560— p. 

893. 
Dehsoy     v.     Milwaukee      Elect.      R. 

etc.,    Co.,    p.    2955. 
Deierling    ?■.     Wabash     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1027.     1030.     1292. 
Deininger.     In    re. 
Deitch,    Western,    etc 
DeKay 


pp.    1526, 
Delamatyr 

Co.,  pp. 
De  Land, 
Delaney  v. 

pp.    608 


R.  Co.  f. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
1963,  1964,  2139,  2140. 
V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
2229,  2263,  2348. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  King,  r. 
United   States   Exp.   Co., 

,,^ ,    645,    686,    1080,    3277. 

Delaney,   etc..    Iron    Co.   v.    Iroquois 

Transp.   Co.,   p.    3546. 
Delano,    Arnold    i'. 
Delaware   f.    .Andrews,   p 

-'.   Oregon    Iron   Co. 

1017. 

The. 

Delaware    Bank    r.     Smith,    p. 
Delaware     Mvit.     Safety      Ins. 

Insurance    Co.   i". 
Delaware    Mut.,    etc.,    Ins.    Co 

surance     Co.    v. 
Delaware    Railroad    Tax,    pp. 
3552,      3553,     3558,      3572, 
3591,    3593. 

Canal    Co 
3558. 


1861. 
pp.    1016, 


796. 
Co., 


Delaware,    etc.,     R.    Co.     i:     Frank, 
pp.    1616,    1617,    1618. 

Gable   -■. 

Gale    z: 

Gamble-Robinson     Comm.     Co. 

V. 

Goble   V. 

Harris   f. 

Henly    v. 

Hickenbottom   -■. 

Hoffbauer  z\ 

Hoffman    v. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm 

V. 

z:  Interstate    Commerce    Com 

mission,    166    Fed.    498 — pp.    3657 
3688. 

v.  Interstate    Commerce    Com 

mission,     169    Fed.    894— p.    3791 

Irvine   !■. 


Kingsley    - 

f.   Kuttcr, 

3636,    3668. 

Lester    z: 

Lync   I'. 

Martin    z: 

Mettler    z: 


pp. 


3632,      3633, 


Co, 


Napheys,    p.    2687. 
National       Newark       Banking 


Delaware,    etc 
monwcalth,    p. 

Draper    f. 

'■.   English 

Ham    V. 

Hope    r. 

Lewis    z: 

Menner    f. 

Palmer   -•. 

Sullivan     v. 

f.   Webster, 

Williams 

Delaware,    etc., 

eral   v. 

Automatic 


In- 


3549, 
3590, 


Com- 


T'. 


pp.  2126,  2255. 
Co..  Attorney  Gen- 
Merchandising    Co. 


Losie  '•. 

z:  United    States    i: 

Delaware,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    American 

Sugar    Refin.    Co.    z-. 

z:  Ashley,      pp.       1723,      1745, 

1752,  1754,  1757,  2003,  2097, 
2098,    2099,    2215,    2860. 

Atwater  -•. 

.Ayres    f. 

Bacon    -•. 

Besecker    z\ 

Brooks    f. 

Bullock    r. 

r.   Bullock,    p.    3113. 

Carr    :•. 

Case   z: 

f.  Central     Stock    Yard,      etc., 

Co.,  31  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  82, 
43  N.  J.  Eq.  71,  10  Atl.  490— p. 
242. 

-•.   Central     Stock     Yard, 

Co.,    43    N.    J.    Eq.    605.    i: 
374.     13    Atl.    615— p.     254. 

Colton    -•. 

-'.   Converse,     p.     3792. 

Curtis   ;■. 

Earne.'^t   z\ 

Eaton    z: 

Fcinbcrg    t'. 

Field   f. 

Forepaugh    z: 


etc.. 
Atl. 


Pease  z'. 

Poole    z: 

State    z: 

I'.   Stevens,    p.    3485. 

Taber    z: 

v.  Trautwein,     pp.     209,     1492, 

1589,    1590,    1767,    1775. 

United    States   z: 

z:  United      States,     pp.      3652. 

3654. 

\'osler  J". 

z:  Walsh,    p.    3084. 

Wood    7'. 

Woodbridge    z\ 

Delcourt,    Chicago   City   R.    Co.   v. 
De   Leon   ;■.    McKernan,   p.   3052. 
Delhi,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hoffbauer    t. 
Delk,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

J-.   St.     Louis,     etc.,     R..     Co., 

pp.   3452,    3455. 

Dellwood   Park   Co.,   O'Callaghan   v. 

Delmonte  z-.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  p. 
2563. 

Del   Norte,   The. 

Deloney.    Hot   Springs  R.   Co.   z: 

De  Lorme  f.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    842.    3285,   3545. 

Delta  Bag  Co.  z\  Frederick  Ley- 
land  &   Co..   p.  3905. 

f.   Kearns,     pp.     1225,     1228. 

De   Lucas   :•.    New   Orleans,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1646.    1647,    2438. 

Del   \'alle  z:   Richmond,   p.   3145. 

De  Mahy  -•.  Morgan's,  etc..  Steam- 
ship   Co.,     p.     1699. 

Demann  v.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co., 
pp.   2354.   2834. 

Demarest,  Bergen  Countv  Tract. 
Co.  z: 

Demars,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   z: 

Deniby,    Hot    Springs    f. 

De   Mendoza,   Bonner  :•. 

Dement.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

De   Milley,    Texas,   etc..   R.   Co.   z: 

-■.  Texas,  etc..   R.  Co.,  p.   1625. 

Deming    f.     Grand     Trunk    R.     Co., 

pp.  630.  631,  o33.  634.  667,  668, 
669.    678. 

f.   Merchants'        Cotton-Press. 

etc.,  Co..  pp.  7,  282,  778.  822, 
913,  931,  946.  949.  958,  972, 
1012.  1013.  1022,  1023,  3326. 
3348,   3349. 

;•.   Norfolk,    etc.,     R.     Co..     21 

Fed.  25,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
232— p.    3376. 

z:  Norfolk,  etc..   R.   Co.   (Pa.), 

17    Phila.    540— p.    3286. 

De   Montcourt.    Conrad  ;•. 


CLX 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


De  Mott  V.   Laraway,   pp.    511,   72S, 

788. 
Dempsey,     Fordycc    z\ 

Gillingham    z: 

Dempster    z\    Oregon,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.     2698. 
Denaby      Main      Colliery      Co.      f. 

Manchester,     S.     &     L.     R.     Co., 

p.   3685. 
Denham       r.       Washington       Water 

Power    Co.,    p.    2919. 
Denison,    Kingman   &    Co.   ■:■. 

f.  Carter,  98  Tex.  196,  82  S. 

W.  782,  107  Am.  St.  Rep.  626— 
pp.  2299,  2302,  2524. 

V.   Carter  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79 

S.  W,  320— pp.  2191,  2322. 

i:   Craig,  p.  2143. 

Fuller  z\ 

f,  Tohnson,  pp.   1532,   1562, 

2656,  '2657. 

z:  Randell,    pp.     2415,    2853. 

Denman    '■.    Chicago,     etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1438. 
Denmark,   The. 
Denmcad,   Slaughter  z: 
Dennan,    Coney    Island    Co.    f. 
Dennie,    Naylor  z\ 

Way    z\ 

Dennis    f.    Columbia    Elect.    St.    R., 
etc.,   Co.,   p.   3021. 

z:   Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1951,     1953,    2690. 

V.  Slyfield.      pp.      3867,      3868, 

3871,    3872,    3925. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

Dennison,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z:  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  27, 

81. 

Denny   v.    Cabot,    p.    3916. 

f.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1573,    2811. 

z:   Manhattan    Co.    (N.    Y.),    2 

Denio    115— p.    628. 

z:   Manhattan    Co.    (N.    Y.),    5 

Denio  639— p.    628. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.    744. 

z:  New    York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1977,   2439. 

V.  North   Carolina   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2122,  2176,  2264. 

V.   The    New    York    Central    & 

Hudson  R.  R.,  p.   1974. 

De  Nobra,  Albion  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Densmore     Comm.     Co.     z'.     Duluth, 

etc.,    Railway,    p.    784. 
Denton,   Bradley  v. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

818,    1040. 

z:  Great  Northern  R.   Co.,   pp. 

1670,    1672,    1675. 

Denver,   Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Denver      City      Tramway       Co.       f. 

Cowan,     pp.     2725,     2726,     2928, 

2932. 

-'.  Hills,        pp.        1536,        1834, 

2675,    2687,    2740. 

Denver       Consol.       Tramway       Co., 
Griffith    z: 

Posten    z\ 

z:  Rush,   p.   2688. 

Denver  Tramway  Co.  v.   Cloud,   pp. 
2565,  3089. 

v.  Owens,    p.    1889. 

V.  Reed,   pp.   2411,   2710,   3027. 

V.  Reid,      22      Colo.      349,     45 

Pac.    378— p.    2192. 

z:   Reid,    4    Colo.    App.    S3,    35 

Pac.    269— pp.    1718,    1749,    1833, 
2684. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\    Andrews, 
p.    1680. 

Atchison,  etc.,   R.   Co.  z\ 

V.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3247. 

Ti^er    Bros.    Mercantile    Co.    v. 

T'.   P-aer   Bros.    Mercantile    Co., 

p.    3773. 

z:  Bedell      pp.     1711. 

Blythe    v. 


Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Brashaw   ;•. 

f.   Cahill,   pp.    1442,    1449. 

Central   Trust   Co.   ■;•. 

z:  Church,   p.    3574. 

•:•.    Derrv,       pp.       1495.       1490, 

1531,     1532,     1579,     2121,     2322, 
2866,    3211,    3226,    3227. 

z:   De    Witt,    p.    538. 

Estes    z\ 

Felt   f. 

■;■.    Frame,    pp.    481,    486,    490, 

858. 

z\   Gunning,    pp.    2569,    2777. 

z:  Harris,    p.    1054. 

z:    Hill,  pp.  1153,  1155. 

V.   Hodgson,  pp.  1740.  1792. 

2833. 

Hopper  V. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm., 

pp.    3609,    3739. 

f.  Tohnson,   pp.   3113,   3116. 

3152,  '3155,  3156,  3187. 

Oppenheimer   z\ 

V.   Peterson,   pp.   839,  840,  905, 

907. 

z:  Pickard,    p.    2150, 

7'.   Pilgrim,     pp.     1702.     1834. 

Price    7'. 

z:   Roberts,    p.    3139. 

z:   Roller,    p.    2088. 

z:   Spencer,   pp.   2509,   2539, 

2546,  2859. 

z'.  Whan,   pp.    105,    1597.   2102, 

2106. 

Whittle  V. 

z\   Woodward,   p.    2693. 

Denver,  etc..   Transit   Co.    t'.    Dwyer, 

pp.    2197,    2625. 
De    Palos,    Hooker   v. 
Ue     Pascale,     Mahoning     Valley    R. 

Co.    '■. 
Depew   V.    New    York    City    R.    Co., 

pp.    2187,    2310,    2890. 
Depp,   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2597. 

Derby,    Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
De    Rochemont    '•.    New    York,    etc.. 

Railroad,    p.    3543. 
De    Rosear,    Mexican    Cent.    R.    Co. 

V. 

Derosia    f.     Winona,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    896,    899,    904,    907,    910,    914, 

915,    918. 
De    Rozas    z\     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2876. 
Derry,     Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    Z'. 

v.    Flitner,     p.     638. 

Dcrwort  z'.   Loomer,   pp.    1003,    1004, 

1007,    1741,    2856. 
De    Saussure,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Dcschamps  v.   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

82    S.     C.    26,    64    S.     E.     144— p. 

897. 

f.   Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     66 

S.   E.   414,   84   S.   C.   358— p.    1072. 

Deshler,    Rawls   z\ 

Oeshong,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■. 

Deskins    t.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.   1789,   1801,   1870,    1911. 
Dcslions  V.   La   Compagnie   Gencrale 

Transatlantiquc,     pp.     3979.     4012. 
Des    Moines    City    R.    Co..     Blades 

Boice   v. 

Cocke  z\ 

•  Mitchell  z: 

Parker  z'. 

Root    f. 

Des    Moines    R.    Co.,    Root   t'. 

Des    Moines    Val.    R.    Co.,    Rose    v. 

Des     Moines,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Hiatt 

V. 


Des   Moines,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Moore  i. 

De    Sola   f.    Pomares,    p.    3885. 

De    Soucey    v.    Manhattan    R.     Co., 

pp.    1993,    2169. 
Despatch     Line    ?'.     Glcnny     &     Co., 

pp.    283,    759,    760,    7<<2. 
Des     Portes    v.     Southern     Railway, 

p.    1619. 
Dessau,   Rosenthal  z\ 
Desso,    Houston    City,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

De    Tamble    Motors    Co.,    American 
Thresherman  v. 

Detchett     z\     Spuyten     Duvvil,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    2300. 
Detmold    z'.    Engle,    p.    3567. 
Detrich   z:   Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2582,    2583. 

'■.   Detroit      Citizens'      St.      R. 

Co.,    pp.    34,   63,   64,   77,   78,    79. 

J'.    Fort    Wayne,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1611. 

Detroit    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.,    Cross 

Detroit  '■. 

Detroit    City    R.     Co.,    Ashton    v. 

Heffron    z'. 

Kirchner    v. 

Lacas  '■. 

Upham     z\ 

Wormsdorf    z\ 

Detroit    City    Railway,    McCahill    v. 

Mahoney   v. 

Detroit    Elect.    Railway,    Keen    v. 

Nieboer   Z'. 

Detroit   Railway,    Selby  z'. 
Detroit    St.    R.    Co.,    Bowdle   v. 

Gardner    t'. 

Detroit     United     R.     Co.,     Thurston 

Walters    -■. 

Detroit    United    Railway,    Beattie    v. 

Conroy    v. 

Cummings   7'. 

Formiller   v. 

Gerlach    7'. 

Goodfellow    V. 

Kalis    7'. 

K rouse   z\ 

Malinowski    7'. 

Miller     7'. 

Ottinger    v. 

People     7'. 

Plefka    7'. 

Reese    7'. 

Rouston    7'. 

Sewell     7'. 

Sloan    7". 

Smith    7'. 

West    Bloomfield    Tp.    7'. 

Wilson    z: 

T)etroit.     etc.,     Ferry     Co.,     Meisner 

Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'.     -\dams, 
pp.    883,    1000,    1001. 

■ Bowdle    7'. 

Burnham    7'. 

Butler    7'. 

Carvey     7'. 

Curtis    7'. 

7'.    Curtis,    pp.     1881,    1918. 

Farmers',    etc..    Bank   "'. 

7'.    Farmers',     etc..     Bank,     pp. 

946,    1036,    3327,    3339. 

Freeman     7'. 

French    7'. 

Gates    7'. 

Gaukler   v.' 

Greenfield    7'. 

Interstate      Commerce      Comm. 

— ■ —  7'.   Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 
pp.    3430,    3608,    3634,    3635,    3637. 


'3713,     3716,     3720. 
3790. 

Keating    7'. 

Konieczny     7'. 

Light  v. 

7'.   McKenzie,    pp. 


3721,      3789, 


3258,    3275. 


TADLE    OF    CASES. 


CLXI 


Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    McLaren    v. 

V.   Michigan     R.     tomm.,     VV- 

41      46,     47,     50,     83.     121,     124, 
125. 

Minock  V. 

Pingree    r. 

Reason   v. 

Rice  V. 

Sm alley    r. 

r.   State,     p.    3508. 

Stoody   V. 

Strohn    ■:■. 

— —   Sturges    V. 

Sturgis    f. 

N'andercook    f. 

Walker    v. 

Detroit,    etc.,    Railway,    Coy   v. 
Dolbec    f. 

Kherts   V. 

Johnson    r. 

Kissanc    r. 

Richard    7'. 

V.   State,    p.    3454. 

Vining    v. 

Deutschmann  7\  'I'hird  .\ve.   R.  Co., 

p.    2752. 
Devainey,     Houston,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Devainy,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
De    Vane   f.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1501.    1506. 
Dcvcr,    Raltiniore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Devereaux     f.      Buckley,      pp.      638, 

640,   654,   656. 
De    Villers    f.    Schooner    John    Bell, 

pp.    727,    3256,    3898. 
Devin,    Woods   v. 
Devine     v.     Chicago     City     R.     Co., 

86     N.     E.     689,     237    111.     278— 

p.    3022. 

r.  Chicago  City  R.  Co.,  141 

111.  App.  583— pp.  2485,  2486, 
2487. 

t'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162 

111.  App.  243— pp.  1050,  1506, 
1556. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     100 

Iowa     692,     69     N.      W.      1042— 
pp.    1877,    2990. 

Dcvino     v.     Central,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2587,    2588. 
Devroe    z:     Portland    R.,    etc.,     Co., 

pp.    2777,    2859. 
Dewar     t-.      Mowinckel,     pp.     3955, 

3966,    3971. 
Dewey,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   t'. 
l)ev\-in,      Pittsburgh,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

Dewire     -'.     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1521,    2181. 
De    Witt    r.    Berry,    p.    3871. 

Denver,    etc.,     R.     Co.    ■:'. 

Hallenbcck  z'. 

De    Wolff    ;■.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

320.    323,    1063,    1064,    1075. 
Dexter,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

?'.   Seaboard,    etc.,    Railway,    p. 

1450. 

-•.   Syracuse,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3114,    3119,    3120,    3129. 

Dextcrville    Mfg.,    etc.,    Co.,    In    re. 
Dey,    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Deyo   V.    New    York    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1684,    1687,    1711,    1712,    1720, 

1726,    2285,    2667. 
De    Yoe    f.    Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    pp. 

2671,    2690,    2893. 
Diadem,    The. 
Diamond    Block    Coal    Co.    v.     Ed- 

mondson,    p.    2605. 
Diamond    Coal    Co.,    Baltimore,    etc., 

R.    Co.    z: 


Diamond  Glue  Co.  ■; 

Clue   Co.,   p.    3424. 
Diamond     Toe     Line     z\ 

914. 

^[yres   ;■. 

Diamond      Roller      Mill 

tional,     etc..     R.     Co. 


United   States 
;•.     Carter,     p. 


Dibble  :■.  Brown,  pp.  727,  732,  748, 
3109,  3114,  3115,  3116.  3117. 
3119.  3121,  3124.  312o.  3129. 
3131,  3132,  3141,  3142.  3143. 
3151,    3187,    3189.   3190. 

Morgan    z'. 

V.   Morgan,    pp.    530.    531,   736. 

741. 

Di    Benedetto    v.    Milwaukee    Elect. 

R.,    etc..    Co..    p.    3087. 
Dice    z\     Willamette    Transp..    etc.. 

Co..    pp.    1528.    1965. 

Dick.    Reed    v. 

Texas,   etc..    R.    Co.    ?. 

Dickens     f.     New     York    Cent.     R. 

Co..    p.    2228. 

Dickerman  r.  St.  Paul  LTnion  De- 
pot   Co.,    pp.    1636,    1851. 

Dickerson,    Atchison,    etc.,     R.     Co. 


.\tlanta,    etc.,    R 
Birmingham     R 


Co. 
etc.. 


Co. 


etc..       Railroad. 


pp. 


Co. 
R. 


Co. 


Co., 


pp. 


Co., 
236. 


Tnterna- 


Columbia, 
2860. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R'. 
:■.   Louisville,      etc., 
3756,    3776. 

Ohio,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R. 

V.   Seelve.   pn.   310.    338. 

Dickert    z:    Salt    Lake   Citv    R.    Co., 

pp.    1717,    1735,    1894,   2950,   2974. 
Dickinson.    .Xtlanta,    etc..    R.    Co.    z'. 

.Xtlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co.    z: 

V.   Dodds,  p.   3868. 

7'.  Haslet,  p.   3949. 

z:  Port    Huron,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

pp.     1815,    2365. 

T.  West    End    St.    R.    Co., 

1584.    1760. 

Dickman   z'.    Williams,    p.    1219. 
Dickson    t'.    Chaffee,    n.    575. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.    rv 

Z-.   r.t.     Northern     R'y.     Co 

211. 

7'.   Merchant's      Elevator 

p.    365. 

z\  Northern    R.    Co..    pp 

243. 

Pennsylvania   Co.    7'. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    7'. 

Dicckmann  7'.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

(Iowa).      105     N.     W.      526— pp. 

2138,    2786. 
7'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    145 

Iowa     250.     121     N.     W.     676.     31 

L.    R.    A..    N.    S..    338.    32    R.    R. 

R.   346,    55    Am.   &•   Eng.   R.   Cas.. 

N.    S.,  346— pp.    1509,    1512.   1513, 

1768,     1791,     1792,     2126.     2127, 

2140.     2326,     2673,     2860. 
Die    Elbinger   7'.    Armstrong,    p.    653. 
Diefcnbach,    Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 
Diehl,  Woodruff,  etc..   Coach   Co.  v. 
Diem     -■.     Koblitz.     pp.     1206,     1209, 

1210,     1211.     1212.     1213,^    1214, 

1245. 
Diepenbrock    7'.    Wove    Realty    Co.. 

pp.    2740,    2837. 
Dicrig     7'.     South     Covington,     etc., 

St.    R.    Co..    p.    2571. 
I'ies.   Louisville,   etc.,    R'.    Co.   7'. 

Railroad   7. 

Dii'tcrich    7'.    Fargo,    p.    238. 
Diither,     Grand     Rapids,     etc..     R. 

Co.     7'. 

Dietrich     7'.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co., 

pp.    1529.    1612.    l"862,    1974.    1975. 

Difcndaffer.     New     York,     etc..     R. 

Co.     7'. 

Diffenbaugh.     Interstate     Commerce 

Comm.   7'. 
Diffendal,      Philadelphia,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   7'. 
Diggs    7'.    Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

156    Fed.    564.    84    C.    C.    .\.    330. 

14    L.     R.     A..     N.     S.,     1029— p. 

1923. 


2751, 


Co. 
2249. 


Diggs    7'.    Louisville,    etc..     R.  Co.. 

158   Fed.  97.  85  C.  C.   A.  565— p. 

1923. 

Di     Giorgio.     Importing,     etc..  Co. 

7'.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    pp.  216. 

217.    249.    258.    261. 

Dilburn.     Louisville,     etc..     R.  Co. 

V. 

7'.  Louisville,  etc..  R'.  Co.,   156 

Ala.    228.    47    So.    210— pp.    1884. 
2249.     2252.     2361,     2744. 
2909. 

7'.  Louisville,      etc..      K. 

(Ala.).     59     So.     438— pp. 
2258. 

Dill.    Atchison,    etc..    R.  Co.    z: 

Missouri,     etc..     R.  Co.     z: 

7'.   South      Carolina      R.      Co.. 

no.   3139.   3142,   3198. 

Dillard   Bros,   z:   Louisville,   etc.,   R. 

Co..   pp.    931,   946,   972.   977.   979. 

087.    3161.    3162.    3166.    3330. 
Dillender     7'.     St.     Louis,     etc..     R. 

Co..     pp.     249.     262. 
Dille'haw     z:     Charleston,     etc..     R. 

Co..   np.    1770.    1771. 
Dillineham    7'.     .\nthony.    pp. 

2046. 

Fordyce    7' 

7'.  Hodges, 

z:  Labatt, 

7',   Pierce. 

7'.  Russell. 

2018. 

z:  Teeling. 

2505. 

7'.   Wood.  np.   1729.  1731, 

Dillman    7-.     Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

nn.    1858.    1859. 


p.    1938. 
p.    1193. 
p.    2514. 
pp.      2016. 


2042. 


20i; 


pp.     1779.      1793. 


1755. 
Co.. 


Dillon 
3500. 


Erie    R. 


Co.. 
Co., 


pp. 
64 


.Vpp. 
Anp. 


Co..    pp. 
Co..     In- 


Co. 
Co., 


Lindell     T<.     Co.,     64     Mo. 
41  g — n.    2444. 

Lindell     R.     Co..      71       Mo. 
631— pp.    1662.    1663. 
Dills.    Kentncky    Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 
Dilworth.    Missouri,   etc..    R.    Co.    r. 
Dimmev   z:    Wheeling,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

nn.    2261,    2766. 
Di-^mick     z:      Milwaukee,      etc..      R. 

Co..    pp.    910.    913. 
Dimmitt.    Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co     7'. 

t:  Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2260.   2701.   2844. 

7'.  Kansas,    etc..    R. 

3292,   3343. 

Dimmit     County     Pasture 
tcrrational,    etc..    R.    Co. 
Dimock.   The  IT.   F. 
rtimond.    Hall    7'. 
Dingman.    Chicago,    etc..    R 

f.  Duluth,     etc.,     R". 

101. 

Dininnv  7'.   New   York.   etc..   R.   Co.. 

nn.    3169,    3170.    3171, 
Dinnigan    7'.    Peterson,      pp.      19.-9. 

2693. 
Dinsmark.    Lendsberg  v. 
Dinsmore.   Belger   7-. 

Brehmc  7'. 

Brooks    7'. 

Chicago   City 

Chicago,     etc 

Cochran    7-. 

CoUender   7'. 

Cihormley    z: 

Gott     7'. 

Hirschberg    7'. 

Huntington    7'. 

Kirkland    7-. 

Landsberg    7'. 

Lansberg    7'. 

7-.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

108. 

Magnin    7-. 

Peck    7'. 

Rosebrooks    z: 

Smith   f. 

Trammel    7'. 

Wetzell   z: 

Dinwiddie,    Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co. 


R.   Co.   :■ 
.     R.     Co. 


1    Car— k 


CLXII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Dionne    v.     Canadian     Pac.     R.,     p. 

959. 
Disbrow     &     Co.,     Cincinnati,     etc., 

R.   Co.  f. 
Dishman,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Dismukes,  Mobile,  etc.,   R.   Co.  •:'. 
Disnev    '•.    Furness,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

3869,   3874,   3875. 
Dissen,    Fort    Produce    Co.    f. 
Dista  V.   Westchester   Elect.   K.   Co., 

p.    2835. 
Distler  v.    Long  Island   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1879,    1998,    2126,    2153. 
Ditchfield      V.      Philadelphia,      etc.. 

Tract.    Co.,    p.    2819. 
Ditmars,   Atchinson,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Dittey,     Ohio     River,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

Dittman,  etc..  Shoe  Co.  r.  Keokuk, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3170,  3172, 
3195. 

I'.  Mixon,    p.    3547. 

Dittmar    z:     Brooklyn     Heights     R. 

Co.,    p.    1796. 
Ditto,    Indiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Di.xey,    Murrell    r. 

r.  Philadelphia    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2691. 

Dixie    Cigar    Co.    z:    Southern    Exp. 

Co.,    pp.    977,    1087,    1089. 
Dixie    Tobacco    Co.,    Norfolk,    etc., 

R.    Co.   r. 
Dixon    V.    Baldwin,    p.    1240. 

'•.   Brooklyn,       etc.,      R.       Co., 

pp.     1805,    1812,    2147. 

V.  Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

285,  288,  289,  433,  520,   699,   700, 
701,   895,   910. 

I'.  Great    Falls,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1512,    1866,    2875. 

r.  Mobile,     etc.,     R'.'     Co.,     p. 

2387. 

■;•.   New    England   Railroad,    pp. 

1620,    1976,    1977,    2629. 

V.  Richelieu      Nav.       Co.,       p. 

3149. 

z:  Richmond,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     3183,     3399. 

z:  Yates,   p.    1225. 

Dlabola    z-.    Manhattan    R.    Co.,    p. 

2895. 
Doan,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

728,    817,   828,    1281,    1456. 

Doane,  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

-•.   Russell,    p.    1168. 

Dobbin   v.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.   543. 
Dobbins,    Little    Rock    R'.,    etc.,    Co. 

-•.  Little    Rock    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    2421,    2476,    3027. 

f.   Syracuse,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

215,     247,     248. 

Dobiecki   z:    Sharp,   pp.    1783,    2133. 
Dobnev    ■;•.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    225,    248. 
Dobson   z:    Central    R.    Co.,    p.    987. 

Knoxville    Iron    Co.    v. 

z:  New   Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1582. 

v.   Receivers,     pp.     1884,     2226, 

2357,  3066,  3070. 

Dochtermann    -'.     Brooklyn    Heights 

R.    Co.,    p.    2692. 
Dodd,    Blossom   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Dodd,    etc.,    Exp.    Co.,    Florman    v. 
Dodds,    Dickinson   z'. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   z'. 

Dodds    &    Co.,    Little    Miami,    etc., 

K.    Co.   V. 
Dodge    "'.     Boston,    etc..     Steamship 
Co.,    pp.    1504,    1505,    1506,    1528, 
1537,      1715,     1723,     1746,     1750, 
1964.     1965,     2125,     2950,    4004. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3330,    3536. 

V.  Hall,   pp.    1518,    1542,    1561. 

Kennedy  z'. 

z:  Meyer,     p.     486. 

Tempel    v. 


Dodge,    United    States    v. 
Dodson,    Chicago,   etc..    R.    Co.    z\ 

■ St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Doe,    Richards  z: 

Does    f.    Crosstown    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2700. 
Doggett    f.     Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.    2208. 
Doherr  z:   Houston,    123    Fed.    334— 

pp.  3903,  3905. 

'•.  Houston,  128  Fed.  594,  64 

C.  C.  A.  102— pp.  3922,  3926. 

• '■.   The    Etona,    p.    4071. 

Doherty  f.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 
1709,    1744,    2811,    2895. 

J'.   California     Nav.,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    3993,    4001. 

z:   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

191,    196,    200,    1595,    2122,    2427, 
2847,     3204,    3213. 

Dohn,     Indianapolis    L'nion    R.     Co. 

Dolan,    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z\ 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

Dolbee   v.    Detroit,    etc.,    Railway,    p. 

2653. 
Dolphin    '■.    Worcester     Consol.     St. 

R.    Co.,    p.    2950. 
Domenico  z\   El  Paso  Elect.  R.  Co., 

pp.    2664,    2778. 
Donahoe    z\    Boston     Elev.     R.     Co., 

p.    2954. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Donahue,    Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Trumbull   z\ 

Donald,  Scott  f. 

Donaldson,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

— —  z\   Perry    Co.,    pp.    3925,    4059. 

Pomeroy   "•. 

z'.   Severn     River     Glass     Sand 

Co.,    138    Fed.    691— p.    3962. 

-'.   Severn     River     Glass     Sand 

Co..    138    Fed.    694— p.    3962. 

The  J.   P. 

Donalson    z'.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1639. 
Donath     z\     Broomhead,     pp.      1211, 

1229,    1235,    1244. 
Donlon   Bros.   f.    Southern   Pac.   Co., 

pp.     948,    952.     1064,     1079,     1137, 

1138,    1140,    1398. 
Donnegan  v.   Erhardt,   p.    1815. 
Donnell   v.   Amoskeag   Mfg.    Co.,   pp. 

3950,   3965. 

V.  Canadian     Pac.     E.'.     Co.,     p. 

846. 

•  Sproat  ?'. 

Donnelly     v.     Buffalo,     etc.,     Tract. 
Co.,   p.    1889. 

z\   Chicago     City     R.     Co.,     p. 

2332. 

Donnovan   z'.   Pennsylvania    Co.,    pp. 

99,    111,    132. 
Donohue   v.    Public    Service    R.    Co., 

p.    2883. 
Donovan,   Batson  z\ 

z\   Compagnie    Generale   Trans- 

atlantique,   p.    723. 

• z'.   Greenfield,   etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2855. 

v.   Hartford     St.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1507,    2669. 

Highland     Ave.,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

f.  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1808. 

Pennsylvania   Co.   z\ 

-'.    Pennsylvania   Co.,    57   C.   C. 

A.    362,    120    Fed.    215,    61    L.    R. 
A.    140— pp.    99,    132. 

z\   Pennsylvania     Co.,     199     U. 

S.   279,   50   L.    Ed.    192,   26   S.   Ct. 
91— pp.   99,    111. 

— Reading     z\ 

Rucker    -'. 

z'.    Standard    Oil    Co.,    pp.    330, 

992,    993. 

— —  -'.  Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   jjp.   30, 

189,    190,   537. 
Doolan,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Dooley   z\    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2713. 
Doolin    V.    Omnibus    Cable    Co.,    p. 

2898. 
Doolittle    V.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1697,      1911,      1921,     2113,     2114, 

2115,    2174,    2361,    2861,    2892. 
Doremeyer,     Indiana,     etc.,     R.    Co. 

Dorff   '•.    Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 

p.    2882. 
Dorman,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Dorn  ''.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1821,    1842,   2319,   2671. 

Borough,    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Dorr  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  p. 
1992. 

z'.   New     Jersey     Steam     Nav. 

Co.,   pp.   946,    1003,   1004,   1007. 

Dorr    Cattle     Co.     z\     Chicago,     etc., 

R.     Co.,     pp.     1333,     1340,     1446, 

1466,    1477. 
Dorrah     v.     Illinois,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1906,     3057. 
Dorrance     z\     Michigan     United     R'. 

Co.,    pp.    2742,    2859,    2883. 
Dorrance     &     Co.     •;■.     International, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    235. 
Dorsett    V.     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2445,    2716,    3090. 
Dorsey    z\     Atchison,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

p.     1760. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■ c'.   Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2774,     3049. 

Cudahy    Packing    Co.   z\ 

Florida    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Packwood,    p.     3867. 

v.   Smith,    p.     3905. 

v.   State,    p.    3480. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    z'. 

Dorsey    Fuel    Co.,    Railway    Co. 
Dorsey     Produce     Co.,     Ayres, 

Co.    V. 
Doss   z\    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co 

2357,   2512.    2514. 
Dothan     Mule     Co.,     Atlantic, 

R.   Co.  z: 

Central,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z\ 

Dotson    v.    Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    2131, 

2133. 

Houston,    etc,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Dotterer,    Williams    &    Co.    z'. 
Doty   z:    Strong,    pp.    208,    209,    211, 

212,    222,    246,    820. 
Doublin    Whiskey    Distillery    Co.    z'. 

Midland,    etc.,    R.    Co..    p.    254. 
Dougan    v.    Champlain    Transp.    Co., 

pp.     1687,     1838. 
Dougherty,    B.    &    O.    R.    Co.    '■. 

c".   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2262. 

V.   Cincinnati     Tract.      Co.,     p. 

1515. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

V.   Missouri     R.     Co.,     81 

325.    51     Am.    Rep.    239,    21 

&     Eng.     R.    Cas.     497— pp.     1894, 

2691,    2692. 

?■.   Missouri     R.     Co.,     97     Mo. 

647,  8  S.  W.  900,  11  S.  W.  251, 
^7  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  206— 
pp.    1728,    1894,    2392,    2759. 

V.   Pittsburgh    R.    Co.,    p.    2685. 

■?'.  Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2223,    2365. 

Dougherty  Co.,  Atlas  Portland  Ce- 
ment   Co.    V. 

Doughitt  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.     2842. 

Doughty,   Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

Douglas,     Goodwyn,     etc.,     Co.    Z'. 

Missouri    Pac.     R.     Co.    z 

z\  People's      Bank,      pp. 

360,     364,     372,      387,      388, 
547. 

V.  Sioux   City    St.    R.    Co 

2013,    2897,    2950. 
Douglas    Co.    V.    Minnesota   Transfer 

R.    Co.,    pp.    760,     1074. 
Douglas    County    St.    R.    Co.,    Burt 


etc.. 


,    pp. 
etc.. 


Mo. 
.\m. 


356, 
389, 


pp. 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


ci.xiri 


Douglas   County,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    Burt 

Z'. 

Douglas     Sons,     Missouri     Pac.     R. 

Co.     V.  .    ,  ^ 

Douglas   &    Sons,    Missouri    Pac.    K. 

Co.    V. 
Douglas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Swintlle, 

pp.    1763,    1990,    2576,    2614. 
Douglass   I'.    Annistong,    p.    29. 

Galveston,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1303,    1320. 

Louisville,     etc.,     K.     Co.     ?■. 

z\   Montgomery,    etc.,     K.     Co. 

pp.    3189,    3190. 

Douthilt  V.   Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

p.  1747. 
Douyette    v.    Nashua    St.     Railway 

p.  2926. 
Uow   V.    Beidelman,    pp.    34,    36,   38 

39,    43,    44,    51,     58,    60,    01,    64 

115,    116,    124,    1136. 

V.  Portland  Steam  Packet   Co. 

pp.    821,    1456. 

z:   Syracuse,    etc.,    Railway,    p 

2103. 

Dowd   f.    Albany   Railway,    pp.    196 
2854,    3112. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1568,   2509. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co. 

pp.    2370,    2379. 

DowdcU      r.      United      States      i)ist 

Court,  p.  4083. 
Dowgate      Steamship      Co.      '■■      Ar 

buckle  p.  3903. 
Dowgiallo,    St.    Louis,  .etc.,    K'.    Co 

Downc,    Cobban    v. 
Downer,     People    l'. 

Pickett    V. 

The. 

Transportation  Co.  r. 

Downey     f.     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  pp.  203,  204,  2114,  2116, 
2123,    2208. 

V.  Hendrie,    pp.    2188,    2858. 

r.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2013. 

V.  Pittsburg    R.    Co.,    p.    2898. 

Downing,   International,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

r.  Outerbridge,    p.    517. 

Downman,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Downs,    Flower   -■. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    t'. 

■:•.   New     York     Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.     2225. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1638,    2430. 

Dows   v.    Cobb,    pp.    480,    485,    490. 

V.  Greene,    24    N.    Y.    638— p. 

364.  „     , 

V.  Greene    (N.    Y.),    32    Barb. 

490— pp.     1222,     1223. 

Iluntly    7'. 

-•.   National     Kxch.     Bank, 

352,     353,     364.     369,     373, 
390,    392,   396,   403,    3274. 

f.   Perrin,    pp.    372,    1221. 

Doyl,  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
Doyle,  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
'—  V.   Baltimore,      etc.,      R. 

pp.   963,    965. 

Bank   r. 

I'.   Boston,      etc.,     I\ 

2036,    2929,    2968. 

V.  Fitchburg       R.       Co..       162 

Mass.  66,  37  N.  E.  770,  25  L. 
R  A.  157,  44  .\m.  St.  Rep.  335 
—pp.     1584,     2092,     2093. 

V.   Fitchburg  R.   Co..   166  Mass. 

492,  44  N.  E.  611,  33  L.  R.  A. 
844,  55  .\m.  St.  Rep.  417— pp. 
1582,     1584,    2092. 

V.   Riser,   pp.   3123,   3125,   3126. 

3127,  3129,  3148,  3149,  3151. 
3189,    3191,    4008. 

Little    Rock    R.,    etc..    Co.    :■. 

f.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2682. 

V.  Roth    Mfg.    Co.,    p.    352. 


pp. 
378, 


Co.. 


Co.,     pp. 


Co.,    pp.    2621, 
Ohio,    etc.,    R. 


Dracachi     :'.     -Anglo- Kgyption     Nav. 

Co.,    p.    365. 
Drainage     Conim'rs,     Chicago,     etc., 

K.    Co.    V. 
Drake,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
■  T.  Great  Northern   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1291,    1333,    1342. 

V.   Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

230,   1109,   3267,   3268,   3298, 
3314,  3ii2. 

Oakford  v. 

f.    Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

199,    202,    1788,    2122,    2246. 

Draper,    City    Transfer    Co.    v. 

!■.   Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co., 

pp.     889,     896. 

T.    Evansville,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

pp.    1802,    2610. 

Drawdy    :•.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     2327. 
Dresbach  v.   California  Pac.   R.   Co., 

p.    537. 
Dresser    v.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1609,    3316. 

Meyer  v. 

■  %'.  West   Virginia  Transp.    Co., 

pp.    512,    581,   877.  _ 
Dresslar     v.     Citizens'     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.     1702,    2263,    2670. 
Drcssner     -•.      Manhattan      Delivery 

Co.,    pp.    478,    479. 
Drew,    Bell    r. 

Bennett    i'. 

:•.   Central     Pac.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1529,    1973. 

Pardee    v. 

z:    Si.xth    Ave.    R.    Co.,    26    N. 

Y.    49— p.    2065. 

V.   Si.xth    Ave.    R.    Co.,    42    N. 

Y.    (3    Keyes)    429,    1    Abb.    Dec. 
556— p.    2065. 

z'  Wabash    R. 

2852. 

Drew    Glass    Co.    z 

Co.,   p.    3343. 
Drey,    etc..    Glass    Co.    v.    Missouri 

Pac.    R.    Co.,    p.    991. 
Dreyer  t'.    Illinois,   p.    23. 
Dreyfus    z:    Mayer,    pp.    1219.    1221. 
— —  St.    Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 
Dreyfus-Weil     Co.,     Nashville,    etc., 

R.    Co.   V. 
Driess  z'.   Fricderick,   p.    1762. 
Drinkwater,    Herman   -■. 
Driscoll    -■.    Nidiols,    p.    456. 
Drisdale,    McGhee    z-. 
Drishell,   Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 
Driven,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f 
D.    R.    Martin,    Barney   z: 
Droymund    f.     Metropolitan    St.     R 

Co.,    p.    1569. 
Drolshagen  -■.    L^nion   Depot   R.   Co. 

p.   2534. 
Drought    &    Co.,    International,    etc. 

R.    Co.    -■. 
Drummond,    .Mabama.    etc.,    R.    Co 

— —  Quanah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

-'.    Southern       Pac.      Co.,       pp 

1573,     1616,    1632,     1634. 

Drummy  i'.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R 
Co.,  pp.   1777,   1780.  2325.  2873. 

Dryden  '•.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co. 
p.    1666. 

Dry    Dock,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    -Mien   -•. 

Bernstein    z: 

Casper  &   Co.   -'. 

nines  f. 

Kleffmann    ;■. 

Lewyt   -■. 

Littmann    '•. 

O'Neill    ;■. 

•    Rosen    z: 

Saffer    z: 

Schmitt   -'. 

Seitz    ;•. 

Taylor   -'. 

Tregear   -•. 

Walker    -•. 

Dryden,    Yoakum    ;•. 
Drysdalc.     Western, 

V. 
Duane,    Pearson   z: 


i?tc..     Railroad 


Dublin,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    McCook   v. 
Dubnow  r.   New   York  City   R.   Co., 

p.    1980. 
Du    Bose   V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1524,    1788. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1552,   1610. 

Dubuque,    Keckevoet    I'. 
Dubuque    St.    R'.    Co.,    Bonce    i'. 
Dubuque,    etc.,    Co.,    Bonce    v. 
Dubuque,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    .■\m>iden    v. 

Bonce  v. 

Francis    z: 

Nichols   z\ 

Duchemin     v.     Boston     KIcvatcd     R. 

Co.,    p.    1516. 
Duchess,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    People    v. 
Duck,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z'.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    pp 

1937,    2707. 

Duckstein,     Chicago     Union     Tract 

Co.     z: 
Duckworth,  Charleston,  etc.,   R.   Co 

Dudley  f.  Camden,  etc..  Ferry  Co. 
pp.    725,    726. 

I'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

268,     501,     551,     552,     553,     569 
796,    909. 

Eastern   z\ 

Easton   f. 

- .   Front     St.     Cable     R.     Co., 

p.    1900. 

Dudzik,    West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co. 

Ducll   f.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2646,   2822,    3033. 
DuflF    -•.    Allegheny    \alley    R.    Co., 

p.    1588. 

Holtzclaw  I'. 

Duflfy,   Gleason   ;•. 

z'.   Thompson,    pp.    3114,    3125, 

3129. 

Dufolt  f.   Gorman,   p.    1157. 
Dufour,    Simpson   i'. 
Dufrain,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Dufresnc,    South    Chicago    City    R. 
Co.    f. 

South     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Dugan  z:  Blue  Hill  St.  R.  Co., 
pp.    1585.    2100,    2866. 

■:■.   State,    p.    3480. 

Duggan  -■.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.   2060,    2061. 

-'.   New      Jersey,  etc..      Ferry 

Co.,  pp.    1682.    1742,  4002. 

Duhme  i'.  Hamburg- .-Xmerican  Packet 

Co.,    pp.    3992,    3999. 
Duke,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:■. 
Dulaney     f.     Philadelphia,     etc..     R. 

Co.,   pp.    311,   313. 

f.    L'nited      R.,      etc.,      Co.,      p. 

99. 

Dulany,    Sawyer   z\ 

Du    Laurans   z:    First    Division,    etc., 

R.     Co.,     pp.     1596,     1599,     1601, 

l(i02,      2467,     2468,     2469.      2470. 

2492,    3079.    3080,    3083,    3098. 
Duling  -•.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.    1667. 
Duluth    St.    R.    Co.,   Cody   ;•. 

Fosnes    z-. 

Jarmy   -•. 

Swanson    -•. 

Duluth-Superior  Mill.  Co.  z:  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp.  3435,  3436, 
3489. 

Duluth.      etc..      Railway.      Densmore 

Conim.    Co.    z: 
Duluth,   etc..   R.   Co.,    Boehm   :■. 

Campbell    -•. 

Dingman    z: 

Reed    :■. 

Dumas,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

1692. 

Oregon    R..    etc..    Co.    z: 

Oregon,    etc.,    Co.    z: 

Dumphy   ;.    Frie   R.   Co.,   p.    1502. 
Duniser,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 


CLXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Dun   f.    Seaboard,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2200,    2202. 
Dunbar    f.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp., 

P-    554.  ,     ,„_^ 

——  z:  Buck,   pp.    114x   38/6. 

r.   Charleston,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.  987,  990,  3354. 

Evans  f. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Ohio.   etc..    R.   Co.   '•. 

t'.  Port     Roval,     etc.     R.     Co., 

pp.    457,    458,    451,    3327. 
Dunbar,    etc.,    Co.    f.    Port    Royal, 

etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.   805.    ,       „     „      ^ 
Duncan    v.    Atch.,    Topeka   &    banta 

Fe,    p.    3666. 

Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

t'    Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.    728.   730,   733,   749,    753,   765. 
842,    867. 

International,    etc..    K.    *.-0.     t'. 

Louis%nlle,    etc.,    R.     Co.    f. 

r.  Maine    Cent.     R.     Co..     pp. 

2094.   2096. 

Morse    V. 

r.  Railroad   Co.,   p.   3681. 

Southern   Pac.   R.   Co.   r. 

Thompson   '<: 

v.    Wyatt     Park     K.      Co..      p. 

2249. 

Dunham  z:  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70 
Me.  164,  35  Am.  Rep.  314 — p. 
3282. 

z:  Boston,     etc..     R.     Co.     (N. 

Y.),   46    Hun    245,    11    N.    Y.    St. 
Rep.    472— pp.    722,    901,    906. 

Greve    &    Co.    v. 

v.  Public      Service      Corp..      p. 

2619.  „      „ 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    to.    ■_ 

Dunie     v.     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  587. 
Dunipace,    Brabley   v. 
Dunkirk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t-.    Campbell, 

p.    3573. 
Dunlap    r.     Chicago,     etc.,     K.     to  , 

p.    2792. 

V    International  Steamboat  Co  , 

pp.    3119,    3120,    3124,    3125,    3126. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.   z: 

z:  Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1635. 

z:    Steamboat       Reliance,        p. 

1684. 

Dunlop   V.    Edinburgh,    etc.,    K.    to., 

p.    1670.  ^      ^ 

Dunman.     Gulf.     etc..     R.     Co.     '•. 
Dunn    r.    Branner,    pp.    428.    3133. 

Durchman  v. 

Durchmann    '•. 

r.   Grand    Trunk    R.     Co.,    pp. 

1545,    1550,    1752,    1755. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.  Hannibal,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    po. 

855,   1087,   1091,   1099,   1392,   1417, 
3261,    3302. 

z:  New  Haven   Steamboat  Co., 

p.    3196. 

z'.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2354. 

Riddick    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.  V. 

Self   V. 

Yoakum   v.  r,  r^ 

Dunne    r.    New    York,    etc.,    R.  Co., 

pp.   2510,    2515. 

z\   St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

679,   3754. 

Dunnigan,   Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
uunning     v.     Lake     Erie,     etc.,     K. 

Co.,  p.  2269. 
DunniuKton     &     Co.     r.     Louisville, 

etc     R.   Co..   pp.   318,   885. 
Dunphy    r.    Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    1976, 

2439. 
Dunseth  v.  Wade,  p.   3297 
Dunson     v.     New     York     Cent.     K. 

Co  ,   pp.    742,   743,    750,   885,   886, 

3262,   3286. 
Duntley    v.     Boston,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

pp.    650,    1074,    1137. 
,Dunwody  v.  The  Campbell,  p.   3972. 


Duplan    Silk    Co.    f.    American,    etc.. 

Marine    Ins.    Co..    p.    3854 
Dupont,    Lehigh    N'alley   R.    Co.   •:■. 
Dupont,     etc..     Co.     v.      V  ance,     pp. 

3894,     3899.      3908,     3909,      3919, 

3945,    3946,    4021.   4022. 
Dupre,    Mann    Boudoir    Car    Co.    v. 
Dupree,    Texas    Exp.    Co.    7: 
Dupree    Comm.    Co.,    Texas    btcam- 

sliip   Co.  7'. 
Dupuis    V.     Saginaw     Valley     Tract. 

Co.,    p.    2860. 
Durand,    Chicago,    etc..   R.    Co    v 
Durchman    f.    Dunn,    101     Fed.    606  i 

—pp.    3959,    3972. 
r    Dunn,    106   Fed.    950,   46    C. 

C.    A.   62— p.    3957. 
Durden     v.     Southern     R.     Co.,     p. 

3042. 
Durell,    Bloomingdale    z\ 
Durfee   f.    Tohnstown,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.    2088.  " 

v.  Union      Pac.      R.      Co..      p. 

3100. 

Durgin    i:    American    Exp.    Lo.,    pp. 

320.    323,    945,    986.  _      . 

Durgy  Cement,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O  Brien, 

pp     1218,    1219,    1229,    1232. 
Durham    z'.    Louisville,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    2600,    2615. 
Durham    Tract.     Co.,     Briggs    z: 

Clark  V. 

Morarity     ''. 

Thorp    r. 

Durham,    etc.,    R.   Co.,    McNeill   f. 

Povthress   ?■. 

Durkin,    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ".'. 
Durrence,    Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Durvee  t'.   New   York,   p.   855. 
Dusar      z:      Murgatroyd,      pp.      850. 

3934. 
Dusenberry,     Highland     Ave.,     etc., 

R.    Co.    r. 

— Little   ?■. 

Dusenbury  7:  North  Hudson  County 

R.     Co.,     pp.     1817,     2901. 
Dutchess.   Tompkins   v. 
Dutton,  Bennett  v. 

Clancv    z'. 

v.   Str'ong,   pp.    3248,    3529. 

Duty    V.    Chesapeake,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    1882,    1891.    2598,    2859. 
Duval   V.  Pullman's  Palace   Car   Co., 

n.    3206. 
Duvenick    r.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    945,    973,    974,    1287,    1288. 
Duvernet     v.     Morgan's     Louisiana, 

etc.,    Co.,    p.    2272. 
Dwelle,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 
Dwight    V.    Brewster,    pp.    283,    762, 

769.    770.  ,     ^      ^ 

Dwight    Mfg.    Co.,    Centra!     R.     Co. 


Dykes,    San    .\ntonio,    etc.,    R.    Co 


Dvkstra    z:    Grand    Rapids,    etc.,    R 

'Co.,   pp.    2405,   2637,   2638. 
Dymock  z:   Midland   Nat.    Bank,   pp 

1221,    1224. 
z:   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

360,    361,    1221,     1224. 
Dysart    z\     Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    1544,    1550,    1553. 
Dyson,    Southern    R.    Co.    f. 


Rice   z'. 

Dwinellc  v.  New  York.  etc..   K.   Co., 

pp.    2038,    2045,    2047,    2075,    2567. 
D'Wolf   z:    Harris,    p.    478. 
Dwyer     v.     Auburn,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2258,    2823. 

Denver,    etc..    Trans.    Co.    z: 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

v.  Gulf.   etc..   R.   Co.,   pp.    156, 

328.    331,    518,    519. 

Houston,   etc.,   Nav.   Co.   ?■. 

z\  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2272. 

Dye    z:     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1923. 
■  Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

z:  Virginia    Mid.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1969. 

Dyer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  pp. 
522.  581,  683,  1154,  1167,  1171, 
1172.  „     ^ 

V.   Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p 

542. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z: 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    z'. 

v.  National    Steamship   Co.,    p 

3933. 

Dyke  z:  Fric,  K.  Co.,  pp.  1489 
1490,    1491. 


Fades,    Crawshay    z\ 

Fads    z:     Metropolitan     R.     Co.,    p. 

2418. 
Eagen    '•.    Jersey    City,    etc.,    St.    R. 

Co.,    p.    2277. 
Eager   -■    Tonesboro,    etc.,    Exp.    Co., 

p.    578." 

Stanton    ''. 

Eagle,    The. 

-...  White,    pp.    211,    523,    728, 

733,    749,    898. 

Eagle     Ins.     Co..     Wolcott    z'. 
Eagle     Packet     Co.     ■;'. '   Defries,     p. 
2683. 

St.    Louis   z'. 

Eagle  White  Lead  Co.  z\  Inter- 
state Commerce  Comm.,  pp.  3678, 
3798. 

Eaglesfield,    Ex    parte. 

Eakin,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Fames  z:  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1766.    1814. 

Earl,    Tones    <•. 

Earle,'  Ballou    z: 

V.  Cadmus,    pp.    1082,    3166. 

Merritt    z: 

Packard    r. 

Philips    "'. 

Phillips   V. 

Early-Clement    Grain    Co.,    Missouri, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 
Earnest    z\    Delaware,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.    480. 

z'.   Express    Co.,    p.    760. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Earn-Line    Steamship    Co.,    Northern 

Steamship   Co.   v. 
Earnwood,    The. 

Earwood,  Western,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\ 
Easier  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  p.  2381. 
Easley  z:   Alabama,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

2842. 
East    V.    Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 

p.    183. 
East   .\labama  R.   Co.,  Young  -■. 
East    Boston    Ferry   Co.,    Le   Barron 

Eastburn,    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
East   Carolina   R.    Co.,   Norman  z'. 
East     Coast     Transp.     Co.,     Indian 
River    Steamboat   Co.   z'. 


East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hall, 
pp.  268.  274,  286,  288,  292,  293, 
294,  331,  425,  478,  479,  487,  488, 
794.    795,    835. 

Hull    V. 

z:   Lee,  pp.  2087,  2497,  310j. 

East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Rushing, 

pp.  1762.  1866,  1885,  1887,  1928, 
2001,  2862. 

z:   Smith,  pp.   1825,   1834, 

2211. 

Fast    Louisiana    R.    Co.,    Ford    z'. 
Eastman,    Gale   z'. 

r.   Maine     Cent.     Railroad,     p. 

1*533.  ^     ,   , 

East   Omaha   St.    R.    Co.   z'.    Godola, 

pp.    1487,    1715,    1750,    1986,   2174. 
Fast    River    Ferry    Co.,    Fash   z: 
East   Saginaw   City   R.    Co.   z:    Bohn, 

pp.      1956.       1962,       2163,       2167, 

2191,     2524. 
East      St.      Louis,      Wiggins      Ferry 

Co.  z:  ^     ^ 

East    St.    Louis    Connecting    R.    Co. 

z:    Wabash,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    2383. 
East   St.    Louis,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   Asher 


Belleville,    p.    46. 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


CLXV 


East    St.     Eouis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 
Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    806. 

r.  Zink,    pp.    2323,    2720,    2733, 

2946. 

East    Side    Packing    Co.    v.     X'anda- 

lia    k'.    Co.,    pp.    40,    70. 
East   Tennessee    R.    Co.,    Miller   v. 
East      Tennessee,      etc..       Railroad, 

Moses  V. 
East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Bar- 

nett    V. 

T'.   Brumley.  pp.   321,   323,   987, 

3326,    3330,    3340,    3349,    3350. 

Butler    f. 

Central    Trust    Co.    v. 

V.   Conner,      pp.       1919,      2126 

2256. 

Cowan,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

Coward   v. 

Crine   v. 

V.   Fleetwood,    pp.    2040,    2045, 

2055,      205(.,      2919,      2959,      3071, 
307.S. 

Gibson   v. 

V.  Green,       pp.       1748,        1989, 

2160,    2171,    2840. 

V.  Hale,     pp.       7,     677,       862, 

1321,     1327. 

Heck    ;. 

V.  Herrman,    pp.      1283,      1353, 

1357,    1481. 

V.  Holmes    p.    2253. 

V.   Hughes,    92    Ga.    388,    17    S. 

E.  949— pp.  2120,  2126,  2266. 

V.   Hughes,    22    S.    E.    397,    97 

Ga.    330 — p.    2777. 

V.  Hunt,    pp.    709.    714.    1143. 

V.   Hyde,     pp.     2784,     3075. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 


East,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    VV'aldrop,    p. 

2373. 
Easter    v.    New     York,     etc.,      Exp. 

Co.,   p.   485. 
Eastern    Coal    Co.,     Baltimore,    etc., 

Barge   Co.   •■. 
Eastern    Cos.    R.    Co.,   Piggott   v. 
Eastern    Counties    R'.    Co.,     Bcadell 


V.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 39  C.  C.  A.  413,  99  Fed. 
52— pp.    3669,    3708. 

T'.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, 181  U.  S.  1,  45  L.  Ed. 
719.  21  S.  Ct.  516— pp.  3687, 
3699,  3713,  3714,  3716,  3721, 
3722,    3767,     3798,    3807,    3832. 

Johnson   v. 

V.  Johnson,   pp.   653,   658,   665, 

693,   854,    3257,    3281,    3282,    3291. 

V.   Johnston,   pp.   726,   848, 

1038,  1040,  1273,  1274,  1^75 
1364,  1391. 

Jones  T'. 

V.   Kelley,     91     Tenn.     699,     20 

S.  W.  312,  17  L.  R.  A.  691,  30 
Am.  St.  Rep.  902,  55  Am.  \ 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  621— pp.  515,  849, 
890,    894. 

V.   Kelly,     91     Tenn.     708,     20 

S.  W.  314— pp.  515,  890,  894, 
913. 

7'.  King,    pp.    1638,    2432. 

Lane    v. 

V.   Lee,    pp.    3009,    3068. 

Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Lockhart,     pp.     2771,     3047, 

3048,    3051. 

Lowe  V. 

'■.   Masscngill,    pp.    2248,    2260, 

2616. 

Miller   V. 

?•.    Miller,      pp.       1727,        1748 

2840,  2955. 

V.   Mitchell,  p.  2667. 

V.   Montgomery,    pp.    423 

3296,  3339. 

V.   Nelson,  pp.  211,  246,  479, 

488,  489,  490,  493,  533,  611,  621, 
622.  3262,  3275,  3280. 

Nicoll    V. 

V.  Rogers,      pp.      3257,      3280, 

3291. 

Trotlinger  r. 

L'nitcd    States    -■. 

V.   Watson,    p.    1794. 

V.  Whittle,      pp.      4.     5,      752, 

758,    774. 

Witt    r. 

V.   Wright,    pp.    1046.    3305. 

East    &      West     Indian      Dock      Co., 

Glyn    Miller,    etc.,    Co.    -■. 


Motteran   :•. 

Eastern    Exp.    Co.,    Grindle   v. 

Morley   r. 

Eastern     Kentucky    R.    Co.    v.    IIol- 

brook,    p.    252. 
Eastern    R.    Co.,    Alderman    v. 

Brown    v. 

Carpenter    i'. 

Clark    r. 

Commonwealth    :•. 

7'.    Ellis,    p.    3509. 

Ilartan    v. 

Harvey    j'. 

Hinton    i>. 

Krulevitz    v. 

.Merrill    z: 

Pressed     Steel     Car     Co.     v. 

Sears    -■. 

Snow    V. 

Stevenot    v. 

— Wentworth    ?■. 

Ijastern    Steamboat    Co.,    Davies     v. 
Eastern    Steamship   Co.,    Hix   v. 
Eastern     Wisconsin,     R.,     etc       Co 

Hirte   r. 
Eastern,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Jones   v. 

Ransome    f. 

Eastin,    Red    River,    etc.,    R.    Co     :• 
- —  Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 
Easton    -'.    Dudley,      pp.     419      441 

442.    443,    1296,    1443,    1469. 

Ex   parte. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Houston,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     n. 

1179.  '     '^ 

Insurance    Co.    f. 

V.  Waters,      pp.      1598,      2467, 

2470. 

Easton,     etc.,     Transp.     Co.,     Insur- 
ance   Co.    V. 
Eaton,    Abbe   f. 
~~^9s'  ^°^*°"'     ^*'=-     rvailroad,     p. 

f.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,  dd. 

1741,  1999,   2002. 

-:  Cargo       of       Lumber,  pp. 

3950,  3971.  *^ 

Chicago,    etc..    R.     Co.    v. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-:  Cook.   pp.    1211,    1215,    1226, 

1242,     1243. 

V.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1549,    1553,    1569. 

v.   Mclntire.     p.     1627. 

'■.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

894,    899.  ^ 

v.  Wilmington     City     R.     Co., 

pp.  1682,  1687.  1689,  1696,  1741 
1817,  1818,  1825,  1840.  1987 
2291,     2696. 

Ebaugh,    Ft.    Clark    St.    Railroad   v. 
Ebert    V.    Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1958,    1990,    1992,   2115,   2891. 
Eberts  t.    Detroit,  etc..  Railway,   pp. 

1585,    2100.    2835. 
Ebling    T .    Second    Ave.    R.    Co  ,    n. 

2306.  ^ 

Ebsery    i:    Chicago      City      R.      Co.. 

pp.     3032.    3034,    3035.    3036. 
Eby,    New      York     Cent,      etc.,      R'. 

Co.    -■. 

— Schumacher   !■. 

Echols,    Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Louisville,      etc..      R.      Co.! 

pp.   595.   596.   599.   848. 

Eckel    V.    Murphey.    p.    654. 

Eckels.    Chudnovski    ;•. 

Eckerd     -•.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1782.     1871,    2244. 
Eckert   ;•.    Pcnnsvlvania   R.    Co.,    pp. 

1087,     1111,       1408.      1433.      3263. 

3290. 

Reading   City    Pass.    Co.    -: 


Eckford.       International.       etc..      R. 

Co.    V. 
Eckles     V.     Missouri     Pac.     R      Co 

72    Mo.    App.    296— p.    3335. 
"7"  v.,    -^''^^""'■i    Pac.    R.    Co..    87 

S.    W.    99.    112    Mo.    App.    240— 

pp.    421.    3331,    3354. 
— —  V.  Norfolk,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2569,     2647. 
Eckman,     Purington-Kimball      Brick 

C  o.    i>. 
Eclipse      Towboat      Co.,      New      Or- 
leans  f. 

I'.   Pontchartrain      R.     Co.,     p. 

Ecton   V.    Chicago,   etc..    R.    Co..    pp. 

1303,    1305.    1308,    1312 
Eddins,    Gulf,    etc.,    K'.    Co.    v 
Eddy,    Brill   v. 

■:    Elliott,     p.     2427. 

——]■■   Harris,       pp.       1609,       1666, 

V.  Letcher,    p.    2001. 

AfcCann   v. 

Nichols  V. 

— —'■.   Rider,     pp.     30.     187.     19L 

193,    1494,    1596,    1599,    2436 

V.  Rowell,    p.    2435. 

f.   Searcy,     pp.     1666,     3060. 

V.   Still,    pp.    1798,    2873. 

— —  V.   Syracuse    Rapid    Transit    R. 

Co.,   pp.    1650,   2475. 

The. 

— —I'.   Wallace,     pp.      1754,      1872. 

18/8.     2066,      2125,      2126.      2256 

2440. 
Edelman   r.    Interurban    St.    R     Co 

p.    2655. 
Edelstein,      Philadelphia,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   V. 
Edgar   Lumber  Co.   v.  Comic   Stave 

Co..    pp.   220,    1183. 

Edgerly    v.    Union    St.    R.    Co.,    pn. 

2419,    2491.  ^^ 

Edgerton    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R     Co. 

240    111.    311,    88    N.    E.    808— pp.' 

484.   486,   916. 
— —  t.   Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    146 

111.    .\pp.    199— p.    492. 
— —  V.  V^^'     ^'oi'lf'     etc..     R.     Co., 

39    N.    Y.    227— p.    1755. 
f.   New     York.     etc..     R.     Co. 

(N.  \.),  35  Barb.  193— p.  2209 
Edinburgh,  etc..  R'.  Co..  Dunlop  v. 
Edinburgh.      etc..        Redwood      Co., 

Bucksport.    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Edins.    Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    :. 
Edison    V.     Pennsylvania     Co..     do 

741.   770.  ^*^ 

Edison      Elect.       Illuminating      Co., 

Moore   f. 
Ediing.     Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co     t- 
Edioflf,   Gulf.   etc..   R.   Co.   i. 
Edlund    f.    St.    Paul.    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.     1813.    1817.    2900. 
Edminson    -•.    Baxter,    p.    849. 
Edmond.    Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    :■. 
Edmonds.     Montgomery,      etc.,      R 

Co.  -■. 
Edmondson,     Diamond    Block     Coal 
Co.    V. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Edmunds     ;■.     Merchants'     Despatch 

Transp.    Co..    pp.    554.    555. 

f.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

p.    3208. 

Southern    R.    Co.    r. 

Edncy.    Oppenheimcr   j. 

Edsall    f.      Camden,     etc..     Transp. 

Co..    pp.    1012.    3383. 
Edson     :.     Southern     Pac.     Co..     n. 
120.  *^ 

f.   Western,    p.    573. 

Edward      Frohlich      Glass       Co.      f 

Pennsylvania     Co..     p.     784. 
Edward      Mines      Lumber      Co.      v. 

Chamberlain,    p.    3875. 
Edward    T.     Stotesbury.     The. 
Edwards     f.     American     Exp.      Co., 

pp.    508.    1283. 

V.    Brewer,    p.    1211. 

:■.   Caliawba,    p.    1036. 


CLXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Edwards    v.    Cheraw,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.   523. 

f.   Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1627,     1628,    2443. 

T.   Lee,    p.    1301. 

f.   Manufacturers'     Bldg.     Co., 

p.    1488. 

Missouri   Pac.    R.    Co.   r. 

Z-.  New      Jersey,     etc.,      Ferry 

Co.,    p.    1959.' 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

r.   Sherratt.     p.     284. 

f.   Smith,     p.     340. 

f.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2649 

3079,    3084. 

r.   The     Robert      F.      Stockton 

p.    3937. 

T-.   White     Line      Transit      Co. 

pp.  574,   575. 

Edwards    &    Co.,    Texas    Mid.    Rail 
road    z: 

i:  Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.     (Tex 

Civ.     App.),    81     S.     VV.     800— p 
283. 

z:  Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.     (Tex 

Civ.    App.),    84    S.    W.    1097— p 
779. 

Edwin    I.    Morrison,    The. 
Edye,    People    z: 

z:   Robertson,    18    Fed.    135,    21 

Blatchf.    460 — p.    3566. 

'■.   Robertson,     112    U.    S.    580, 

28    L.    Ed.    798,    5    S.    Ct.    247— p. 
3566. 

Eel    River,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Carr    v. 
Eells  Z-.    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

958. 
Efland  z'.    Southern    R.    Co.,   p.    164. 
Efron,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

■;•.   Wagner     Palace     Car     Co., 

pp.    3216,    3219,    3223. 

Egan  z\  Old  Colony  St.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

2347,    2694,    1750. 
Ege,    First    Nat.    Bank    v. 
Eggermont     z'.      Cunard     Steamship 

Co.,    p.    4034. 
Egner    v.    United    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

2815. 
E.    H.    Pray,    The. 
Ehrhard     f.      Metropolitan      St.      R. 

Co.,   p.    2804. 
Ehrhardt,    Prairie    Oil,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Ehrlich,     Ocean     Steamship     Co.     r. 
Ehrman,      Pullman's       Palace       Car 

Co.   z: 
Eichberg    z:    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1082. 

Merchants',  etc.,         Transp. 

Co.    V. 

Eichengrecn    z'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2060,    2061,    2071. 
Eichofcr,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Eichhorn   '•.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1767,    1773,   2145. 
Eickhof   V.    Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2684. 
Eidem   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

1586. 
Eidson    V.      Southern     R.      Co.,      p. 

2488. 
Eight       Hundred      and      Sixty-Nine 

Cedar  Logs,  Peterson  v. 
Eight  Ave.   R.   Co.,   Clark  v. 

Demann    z: 

Loudoun    z\ 

Maverick    v. 

Sanford    z'. 

Eiklcbcrry,    Walker    v. 

Eikrem    z'.    New    England    Briquette 

Coal    Co.,    p.    3973. 
Eisen,    Seigel   v. 
Eiswald    v.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

640. 
Ela    V.     American,     etc.,     Exp.     Co., 

p.    547. 
Elam   v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   p. 

744. 
Elben,   Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.   v. 
Elberta   Peach   Co.   z:   Georgia,   etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    445. 
Elder,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  International     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1603,     2420,     2424. 


Elder,      Planters'      Fertilizer       Mfg. 

Co.    z: 

■ Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "■. 

— —  Summeril    z\ 

Elder     Dempster      Shipping,      Poup- 

pirt    z\ 

'■.  Pouppirt,      pp.    3995,      3996. 

Elder,    etc.,    Co.    z:    St.    Louis,    etc., 

R.   Co.,  p.   402. 
Eldredge,    Barron    z\ 

?■.   Boston     Elev.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2196,    2347,    2860. 

Eldridge    v.     Long    Island     K.     Co., 
p.    2620. 

z\   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.   2898. 

North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    ■;•. 

Electric    R.    Co.   z'.    Carson,    p.    2676. 
Electric     Storage     Battery     Co.,     At- 
torney   General   z'. 

Elein    City    R.    Co.    z\    Wilson,    p. 

1986. 
Elgin      Condensed     Milk     Co.,       St. 

Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
Elgin,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bates    Mach. 

Co.,    200    111.    636,    66    N.    E.    326, 

93   Am.    St.    Rep.    218— p.    3296. 

v.   Bates     Mach.     Co.,     98     111. 

.\pp.  311— pp.  244,  981,  1033, 
1045,     3257,     3291,     3330,     3331. 

Elgin,     etc..     Tract.     Co.     z'.     Hench, 
p.    1817. 

Keeshan    v. 

Petersen     v. 

v.  Wilson,    75    N.    E.    436,    217 

111.  47— pp.  1711,  2696,  2757, 
2897. 

z:  Wilson,     120    111.    App.     371 

— pp.    1985,    2765. 
Elias,    Homesly    v. 
Eliason    z'.    Henshaw,    p.    3867. 
Eliza,    The. 
Eliza    Lines,    The. 
Elkhart,     Platter    v. 
Elkins     z:     Boston,     etc..     Railroad 

p.  486. 

z'.   Boston,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp.    1 

5,    209,    769,    3155,    3156. 

•  I'.   Empire      Transp.      Co.,      p 

1074. 

•  Ward's    Cent.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Elkins    &    Co.    z'.    New    York,    etc. 

Steamship    Co.,    p.    861. 
Ellard,    Birmingham   R.,   etc.,   Co.   '■ 
Eller    V.     Dayton,    etc..    Tract,     Co., 

p.   2189. 
Ellerd,   Texas,   etc.,    R'.   Co.   v. 
Ellershaw   z'.    Magniac,    p.    352. 
Ellet  z:    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co 

745,     746,         1680,     1809,     19 
Ellinger     v.     Philadelphia,     etc. 

Co.,  p.  2033. 
Eliot,  Eddy  z\ 
Elliott   '■.    .Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

3520. 

z'.   Brooklyn     Heights     R 

p.    2700. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Gulf,    etc.,     R.    Co.    z: 

z'.  James    Robb,    p.    1461. 

Elliott    z:    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    1991. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Nashville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

v.   Newport     St.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1745,  1819,  1820,  1957,  2125, 
2197. 

''.  New   York,   etc.,   R'.    Co.,    p. 

2442. 

Peters   -•. 

• •  z:   Rossell,    pp.    3898,    3930. 

7'.    Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2349,    2581. 

•  v.   Southern      Pac.      Co.,       145 

Cal.  441,  79  Pac.  420,  68  L.  R.  A. 
393— pp.  1623,  1624,  1626,  1634, 
2492,     2784. 

r.   Southern     R.     Co.,     155     N. 

C.    235,    71    S.    E.    339— p.    152. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 


pp. 
1. 
R. 


Co., 


Elliott   r.    Western,   etc.,   R.    Co..    p, 
3100. 

V.   Wilmington     City     R.     Co. 

pp.  1682,  1687,  1714,  1866,  1874! 
1888,  1919,  2119,  2225,  2288, 
2290,    2686. 

Elliott    &     Son,     Alabama,     etc.,     R 

Co.  f. 
Ellis,    Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

V.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

223. 

^ —  Eastern    R.    Co.    ?•. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

z'.   Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

200,    203,     1607,    2783. 

z'.  LIunt,     p.     1228. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

V.  New    York    City    R.    Co.,    p 

2005. 

Seaboard,    etc..    Railway    z\ 

z:   Willard,    pp.    338,    3384. 

Ellison   V.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,   p.    945 

Grand    Rapids,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Krudler   z\ 

Texas     Mid.     Railroad     z: 

Ellsworth    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.  1560,  1609,  1610,  2449,  2458 
2463,     2475. 

'■.   Pennsylvania         Co.,         pp 

1615,    1620,    1621,    1622,    1636. 

■:•.   Tartt,     pp.     3181,     3323. 

z:   Wild     Hunter,     p.     527. 

Ellwood    Z'.     Connecticut      R.,      etc. 

Co.,    p.    2906. 
Elmira    Shepherd,    The. 
Elmira,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Gregory   z\ 

Parker    v. 

Webster    z\ 

Elmore   z\    Brooks,    p.    513. 

■!'.   Naugatuck      R.       Co., 

1161,  3254,  3258. 

V.   Sands,   pp.   1612, 

2447. 

Elmslie,  Hagar  ?■. 
El  Paso  Elect.  R.  Co.  z'.    Alderete 
pp.  2418,  2662. 

v.   Boer,   pp.   1524,    1532 

1996. 

I'.  Bolgiano,    p.    2912. 

Domenico   v. 

z:   Kitt,    p.    2290. 

Z'.   R'uckman,    p.     1891. 

El    Paso,    etc.,    R.    C^o.   z\    Gutierrez 
pp.    3463,    3465. 

z>.   Harry,      pp.        1524,       1679 

1731.    2643,    2649. 

z:   Kitt,    p.    2199. 

T'.   Landon,     p.     2661. 

■  Sawyer   t'. 

Elphicke    z'.    Iroquois    Furnace    Co. 
p.    3972. 

The    C.    W. 

Elrod,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Elvira    Harbeck,     Brown    z'. 

The. 

Elvis,  Houston   Elect.    St.   R.   Co.  v. 
Elwood  v.    Chicago   City   R.    Co.,    p 
2670. 

z'.   Connecticut     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

pp.  2259,  2820. 

Elwood  Grain  Co.  ?•.  St.  Joseph 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3733,  3734. 

Ely,    Hathorn    z\ 

z>.  New  Haven   Steamboat  Co. 

p.  892. 

— ■ —  z:   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp 
1809,  2925,  2964. 

V.   Southwest  Missouri  R.  Co., 

pp.  1903,  1991,  1993,  1996.  1997, 
1998. 

Elzy   V.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    641, 

644,    670,    672. 
Embry,     Kansas     City     Southern    R, 

Co.    V. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   ?•. 

Emerson    v.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

pp.     88,     1642,     1643. 

-■.   Butte     Elect.     R'.     Co.,     pp. 

2568,    2677,    2806. 


pp. 

1624, 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLXVII 


ICmcrson    v.    McNeil,    p.    112. 

Pacific    Exp.    Co.    V. 

V.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

170. 

Emerson  Co.  v.  Reunis,   p.   3902. 

Emerson,    etc.,    Co.,    In    re. 

Emert   v.    Missouri,    pp.    3539,    3550, 

3552,    3572. 
Emery    v.     Boston,     etc..     Railroad, 

pp.    1884,    2908. 

r.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2539. 

z:   Hcrsey.  pp.   727,  732,  749. 

Emery's   Sons  r.    Irving   Nat.    Hank, 

pp.    334,    349,    351,    353,    358,    i(,2, 

3(,i,   367,   368,    371,   371,   380,   392, 

476,    477,   479. 
Emigh    f.     Pittsburg,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2564. 
Emily    V.    Carney,    p.    850. 

The. 

Emison    f.    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

295,   838. 
Emmerson,     Indianapolis     Southern 
R.    Co.   v. 

Indianapolis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Emmett,     Southern     Kansas    R.     Co. 

V. 

E.    M.    Norton,    The. 

Empey    ?'.     Grand    Ave.    Cable    Co., 

p.    2833. 
Empire    Brick,    etc.,    Co.,    Washburn 

Empire    Coal    Co.,    Culberson    f. 

Empire  Rubber  Mfg.  Co.,  Indiana, 
etc.,    R'.    Co.    V. 

Empire  State  Cattle  Co.  f.  Atchi- 
son, etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Fed.  480— 
p.    458. 

V.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    135 

Fed.  135— pp.  744,  1338,  3304. 

f.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  210 

U.  S.  1,  52  L.  Ed.  931,  28  S. 
Ct.  607,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.    70— p.    1283. 

Empire    State    Chemical    Co.,    Louis- 
ville,  etc.,    R.   Co.   V. 
Empire     '1  ransp.     Co.,     Bishop    v. 

Elkins    v. 

Parsons   "•. 

i:   Philadelphia,  etc..  Iron  Co., 

pp.   3955,   3960,   3961,   3973. 

:•.   Wallace,    p.    631. 

f.  Wamsutta    Oil    Refin.,    etc., 

Co..    pp.    783.   822,    827,   870,   871. 

Employers'       Liability      Cases,      pp. 

3439.     3441,     3459,     3461,     3463, 

3463,    34()5. 
Eni])loyers'    Liability   Cases,  The. 
Emporium     Department     Store     Co., 

Perrault   7'. 
Emrich,     Ohio,     etc.,     R.     Co.     f. 
Emslie,    Hagar    -■. 
Enches,     New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

V.  New    York,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   p. 

2822. 

Engel,    Chicago   City   R.    Co.    f. 
Engesether    ?■.     Great     Northern     R. 

Co.,    p.    1410. 
England    v.     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1920,    1921,   2238,    2248,   2256, 

2258,    2259. 

'•.   International,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    1626,    2451. 

Engle.    Detmold   v. 

Englehaupt  -:    Erie  R.   Co.,   p.   2820. 

Englert    v.    New    Orleans    R.,    etc., 

Co.,    p.    2082. 
English     r.     Delaware,     etc..     Canal 

Co.,    66   N.    Y.    454.    23    .\m.    Rep. 

69— p.    2487. 

V.    Delaware,     etc.,     Canal     Co. 

(N.  Y.),  4   Hun  683— p.   2709. 

Ezell    f. 

V.   Ocean    Steam    Nav.    Co.,    p. 

758. 

Ennis,    Bacon    i'. 

Carbon    Slate    Co.    "'. 

Convers   r. 

Enos,   Ft.   Worth,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 


ICnos,    Missouri,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Rhode    Island,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1585,    2698. 
ICnrich,   (Jhio,   etc.,   R.   Co.   i: 
ICnsch,    McNulta    :•. 
Ivnslen,     Birmingham     R.,    etc.,     Co. 

Ensley,    Jeffersonville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    f. 

luitzminger   -'.    Seaboard,   etc..    Rail- 
way,   p.    3057. 

Ivi)hland    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R'.    Co., 
]..     1697. 

f.   Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 

2068. 

Eppendorf     v.     Brooklyn,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1880,    2153,    2297. 
Eppes   f.    Tucker,    p.    1146. 
I'-Pply.   American   Exp.   Co.  t. 
Equitable    Powder    Mfg.    Co.    f.    St. 

Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   99   Ark.   497, 

138     S.     W.     964— pp.     549,     552, 

553,   601. 

f.   St.      Louis,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(Ark.),    150   S.   W.    1028— pp.   542, 
544. 

Iviuitable    Safety    Ins.    Co.,    Benner 

Equi   N'alley   Marble   Co.   v.    Becker, 

pp.    3877,    3883. 
Erastus    Corning,    The. 
Erb    V.     Great     Western     Ry.     Co., 

pp.    305,    308,    306,    314,    339. 

V.  Koekuk  Packet   Co.,   p.   835. 

v.   Morasch,  pp.   3481,   3503. 

E.   Reboulin  Fils  &  Co.,  In   re. 
Ivrhardt,    Donnegan    v. 

Ericius  T.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.   Co., 

p.    2819. 
Erickson,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Trumbull    f. 

Erie,   The. 

Erie   Boatman's  Transp.   Co.,   Spann 

Erie    Dispatch   v.   Johnson,    pp.    552, 

596. 
Erie    R.    Co.,    .\ckerson   z: 

Allenza   v. 

Baird    v. 

Bartnik   z: 

Bartow    i: 

Behr   r. 

Blair   '■. 

Bobbink  r. 

Bordeaux   -■. 

Burke   i'. 

V.  Cappel,    p.    3285. 

Chapman    '•. 

Commonwealth   z: 

Connecticut    Fire    Ins.    Co.    z'. 

Cook   f. 

•   Dillon    ;■. 

Dotson   Z-. 

Dumphy  z-. 

•  Dunphy    z\ 

Dyke    z: 

I^nglchaupt   -■. 

z:   Erie,    etc.,    Transp.    Co.,    p. 

4043. 

Euston    &   Co.   V. 

Falkenberg    z: 

Farmers',    etc.,    Nat.    Bank    f. 

Galloway  z\ 

Gill    z: 

Giovanelli    ''. 

Harper  z: 

Horton   :•. 

Isham  Z-. 

Knowlton    f. 

Kulman   ■■. 

z:  Littell,    pp.    2458,    3080. 

;•.   Lockwood    &    Son,    pp.    848, 

853,  855.  946.    1039,    1041,   3300. 

McElwain   z\ 

McGregor    ;■. 

Mason    -•. 

Morrison    ;■. 

z:  Pennsylvania,       pp.       3590, 

3591,    3593. 

People    I'. 


Erie    R.    Co.    i.    Pond    Creek    Mill, 
etc.,    Co.,    pp.    431,    432. 

Purdy    V. 

!■.   Purdy,    p.    34. 

Rogers,    etc.,    Mach.    Works    r. 

Russell   f. 

Scheu    r. 

Schwartz    &    Co.    t. 

Shelton  z. 

Spencer   v. 

Spiess    f. 

I'.   Star,     etc..     Mill.     Co.,     p. 

3371. 

:■.   State,    p.    3565. 

Steiger    V. 

Stoneman  v. 

Traphagen    v. 

Truesdell    '■. 

Truex    z: 

Union      Locomotive,    etc.,    Co. 

United    States    f. 

z:   United    States,    p.    3628. 

\alk    z: 

V.   Waite,   pp.   701,   702,   704. 

Walker    j'. 

-•.   Wanaque    Lumber    Co.,    pp. 

525,    539,    3761,    3770. 

Wentz    z: 

Whitworth  f. 

Wigg    z: 

:■.   Wilcox,    pp.    752,    931,    981, 

988,   989,    1004,   3372. 

Wood   z: 

Youghiogheny,    etc..    Coal    Co. 

Erie    Railway,    Phillips.     Co.    f.  ^ 

Erie    Transfer    Co.,    Caldwell    v. 
Erie,    etc.,    Co.    z:    Winter,    p.    2713. 
Erie,     etc..     Despatch     r.     Cecil,     p. 

1180. 
Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Millcreek    v. 
Erie,    etc.,    Transp.    Co.    v.    Dater, 

pp.    981,    1033,    1045. 

Eric    R.    Co.    z: 

McCoy    z\ 

Mannheim    Ins.    Co.    v. 

Phoenix    Ins.    Co.    v. 

Stewart   f. 

Errol,    Coe    v. 

Erskine  z:  Steamboat  Thames,  p. 
580. 

Ervin,   Indianapolis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 

Erwin  z:  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
2703. 

Escanaba,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  t .  Chi- 
cago, p.  3468. 

Eskew,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    i'. 

Georgia,   etc.,   R.    Co.   :. 

Esler  f.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  p.  2471. 
E.    Sondheimer  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent. 

R.   Co.,   p.   3679. 
Espenscheid,      Louisville,      etc.,      R. 
Co.    i: 

z:  Thames,    p.    891. 

Estate,  Cubbage  i. 

Estes  V.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
960,  1012,  1030,  1362,  1392. 
1419,  1458. 

z:   Missouri    Pac.    R.    C«.,    pp. 

1710,    2605,   2697.    2772. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t. 

J..   St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3141. 
Estey  ;.   Truxel,  pp.   1219,    1220. 
Estievenard,    Coal    Co.    f. 
Estill,    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1357,    1470,    1472. 

Ethridgc  z:  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    231. 

Etson  ;■.  Fort  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
110  Mich.  494,  68  N.  W.  298— 
pp.    1992,    1993,    1996,    2823. 

:•.   Fort    Wayne,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

114    Mich.    605,    72    N.     W.    598— 

p.    2890. 
Ettcr    z:     Cleveland,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    86. 
Eubank,    Louis%ille,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :. 


CLXVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Eubanks,    Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Western   Union   Tel.    Co.   v. 

Eubaugh,     Ft.     Clark    St.     Railroad 

Eufaula    Grocery    Co.    v.     Missouri 

Nat.  Bank,  p.  396. 
Eugene,    The. 
Eureka     Springs     R.     Co.     v.     Tira- 

mons,   pp.    1487,    1732,   2693,   2946. 
Europeon,    The. 
European,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hanson   v. 

Stevens    f. 

Euston   &   Co.    V.    Erie    R.    Co.,    pp. 

653,  678,  694. 
Eva    D.    Rose,   The. 
Evans     f.     Atlanta,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    402,    3307,    3394,    3395,    3397, 

3398,    3403,    3408. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Blair,   pp.    3951,    3964. 

V.   Dunbar,    p.     1439. 

V.  Fitchburg   R.    Co.,    pp.    728, 

733,     740,     749,     765,     766,     1341, 
1456. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Evans    V.    Interstate,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1881,    1896,    2964. 

Judd   r. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2440. 

v.  Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

190,    2435,    2466,    2468. 

Missouri   Pac.   R.  Co.   v. 

Missouri,   etc.,   K.    Co.   z'. 

V.  Mobile,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1442,    1445. 

Moore    f. 

V.  New    York,    etc.,    Steamship 

Co.,   p.    3887. 

V.  Rudy,    pp.    847,   856. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

V.  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1625,    1699. 

Schneider  v. 

V.  Southern  Pac.   Co.,  p.  2326. 

Lnion    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Werner  v. 

Evans,  etc..  Cultivator  Co.  v.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.,  p.    1215. 

Evansich,    Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Evans-Snyder-Buel  Co.,  Pecos,  etc., 
R.    Co.   f. 

Evansville  Elect.  R.  Co.  r.  Lerch, 
p.    2777. 

Evansville  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Meadows, 
p.    1983. 

Evansville,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  v.  Reh- 
koph,   p.    3931. 

Evansville,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Andros- 
coggin Mills,  pp.  3253,  3376, 
3380,   3381. 

V.   Athon,      pp.       1720,      1878, 

2066,    2248,    2546,    2617. 

V.  Barnes,    p.    1581. 

t'.  Baum,    p.    2483. 

V.  Gates,  p.   2458. 

V.    Darting,    p.    2020. 

Draper    f. 

V.    Duncan,      pp.      253,       1801, 

1870,     2242,     2394,     2575,     2578, 
2944. 

V.  Gilmore,   pp.    1596,   2467. 

V.  Keith,    pp.    273,     274,    753, 

798. 

V.   Kevekordes,     35     Ind.     App. 

706,  72   X.  E.  1135— p.  433. 

V.   Kevekordes   (Ind.   App.), 

69  N.  E.  1022—  pp.  969,  978, 
984,  986,  1016,  1294. 

Kyte,  pp.  1855,  1867,  2562, 

V.  Marsh,    pp.    521,    581. 

r.  Mills,  pp.   2216,   2656,  2691. 

Reid    V. 

Romine    f. 

Sage    V. 

f.   Weikle,   p.    2618. 

White   V. 

V.  Wilson,    pp.    1666,    2573. 

V.  Young,   p.    1007. 


Evansville,    etc.,    Steam    Packet    Co. 

z\    Wildman,    p.    2607. 
Evart    f.    The    Loundes,    p.    585. 
Evcleth,    Johnson    v. 
ICvening   Star,   Moore  v. 
Evens,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Everets,    Stewart   v. 
Everett     v.     Chicago,     etc,     R.     Co., 

pp.  1600,  1601,  2467,  2468. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

National    Bank    v. 

f.  Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 


pp. 
1550, 


pp. 


R. 


■;'.  Oregon,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

1544,      1545,      1547,      1548, 
2517. 

Saltus   z'. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    i>. 

"'.    Southern      Exp.      Co., 

759,    760. 

— —  V.   Vendryes,    p.    1489. 
Everhart    v.    Terre    Haute,    etc 

Co.,  pp.  2525,  2526. 
Evcrleigh     v.      Svlvester,     pp.      729, 

768. 
Evers     V.     Wiggins     Ferry     Co.,     92 

S.  W.  118,  116  Mo.  App.  130— 

pp.  3996,  3998. 

V.   Wiggins  Ferry  Co.,  105  S. 

W.  306,  127  Mo.  App.  236— 
pp.  4004,  4005. 

Evershed    v.    London    &    N.    W.    R. 
Co.,  p.  3685. 

V.   London   &   Northwestern    R. 

Co.,    p.    3692. 

Ewan   V.   Tredegar   Co.,   p.    3960. 
Ewart  V.  Kerr,   pp.   522,   581,   683. 

V.   Street     (S.     C),     2     Bailey 

157,  23  Am.  Dec.  131— pp.  729, 
730,  733,  734,  736,  745,  746,  750, 
788,  815. 

V.    Street     (S.     C),     2     Bailey 

421— p.    822. 

Ewing,   Leavenworth  f. 

V.   Leavenworth,    p.    3579. 

Excelsior    Coal    Co.,    In     re. 
Exchequer   Chamber,   p.    3153. 
Ex    parte    Banner,    p.    352. 

Ex   parte   Barrow,   pp.    1228,    1234. 
Ex    parte    Battes,    p.    34. 
Ex    parte    Benson,    p.    221. 
Ex    parte    Benson    &    Co.,    pp 

1177,    1178,    1179. 
Ex    parte    Boyer,    p.    4054. 

Brown,    pp.    2089,    2090. 

Ex    parte    Cooper,    pp.     1228,     1231, 

1232,    1234. 
Ex   parte    Eaglesfield,   p.    3566. 
Ex    parte    Easton,    p.    3939. 
Ex    parte    Falke,    p.    1246. 
Ex    parte    Fritz,    p.    3428. 
Ex    parte   Insley,    p.    3585. 
Ex    parte    Koehler,    25    Fed.    72 — p. 

74. 
Ex    parte    Koehler,    30     Fed.     867— 

pp.    3610,    3611. 
Ex    parte    Koehler,    31    Fed.    315,    12 

Sawy.    446— pp.    3696,    3713,    3714. 
Ex    parte    Lorenzen,    p.    1643. 
Ex  parte  Phenix   Ins.   Co.,   pp.   4038, 

4039,    4073,    4074,    4075,    4077. 
Ex   parte   Plessy,    p.    1945. 
Ex    parte    Slayton,    pp.    4072 

4074. 

Ex    parte    Terry,    p.    3467. 
Ex    parte    Vance,    i).    34. 
Ex    parte    Watkins,    p.    3467. 
Ex    parte    Yarbrough,    p.    3467. 
Ex    parte    Young,    p.    1 29. 
Exposition    Cotton     Mills,    Western, 

etc.,   R.   Co.   V. 

V.   Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

808,    3305,    3391. 

Express    Cases,    pp.    4,    253,    3668, 

3669. 
Express  Co.,  Bernstine  z 

V.  Caldwell,    pp.    9, 

948,   961,    977. 

Earnest   v. 

V.   Jackson,    p.    7. 


1175, 


4073, 


930,    947, 


Express   Co.    "'.    Kountze    Bros.,    pp. 
500,   503,   947,   953. 

Rosenfield   '■. 

'•.   Schwab,    p.    949. 

Weil    z: 

Exton  V.   Central   R.    Co.,   62   N.   J. 

L.   7,  42  Atl.  486,   14  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.    Cas.,    N.    S.,    240— pp.     1510, 

1512,  1513,  1514,  1518,  2027. 
V.   Central  R.  Co.,  63  N.  J. 

L.  356,  46  Atl.  1099,  56  L.  R. 

A.  508— pp.  2323,  2726,  2871. 
Ezell   V.    English,   p.   496. 

Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    v. 

Ezzell,    Robinson    v. 


Faber   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

200,     1602,    2424. 
Fadley    z'.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2247. 
Fagan,    Missouri    Pac.    Co.    ■;■. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Rhode  Island  Co.,  pp.  2700 

2765. 

Fahey,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Fahr     v.     Manhattan     R.     Co.,     pp 

2611,    2612. 
Fain  v.    Southern   R.    Co.,   p.    828. 
Fairbairn,     St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co 

V. 

Fairbank  v.  United  States,  pp.  3439 

3571,    3572,    3594. 
Fairbanks,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co 

V, 

Fairbanks    &    Co.,     Cincinnati,     etc. 
R.   Co.  V. 

i'.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

3376. 

Fairchild    v.     California     Stage    Co. 
pp.    1684,    2692. 

Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co.   '■. 

Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    z\ 

c'.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     944,     3277,     3382. 

Slocum    "■. 

V.   Slocum,    p.    814. 

Fairclough,     Chicago,     etc.,     Iv.     Co. 

Fairfax   v.   New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

67     N.     Y.      11— pp.     821,     3160, 

3168,  3169,  3194. 
V.   New  York,  etc..  R.  Co., 

73  N.  Y.  167,  29  .'\m.  Rep.  119— 

pp.    3115,    3116,    3125,    3132,    3181, 

3198. 
Fairfield   z'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1627. 
Fairford   Lumber   Co.   z\   Tombigbee 

Valley    R.    Co.,    p.    1200. 
Fair   Haven,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Baldwin 

Brennan    z'. 

Brockett     v. 

Fairmont       Coal       Co.,      Merchants' 

Coal    Co.    z'. 
Fairmount,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\    Stutler, 

pp.    1865,    1890. 
Faison    -'.    Alabama,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.   3399. 
Faithorn,    Patten    v. 
Falcon,    The. 
Faler,     New    Orleans,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Fales,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Falina    v.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1036. 
Falk,   Kemp  v. 

v.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1767,    1871. 

Falke,    E-x    parte. 
Falkenan    v.    Fargo,    p.    408. 
Falkenberg  v.   Erie  R.   Co.,   p.    1112. 
Falkner    v    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2436. 
Fall    River   Ironworks,    Taylor  -'. 
Fall    River    R.    Co.,    Jordan    '■. 
Falls    v.     San     Francisco,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    1786. 


tablk;  of   cases. 


CLXIX 


Falls  River,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.  f. 
Pullman  -Palace  <^ar  Co-  PP- 
3?01  3202,  3214,  3216.  3218, 
3219,    3230.       .      „   .,        ,  , 

Falvev  v.  Georgia  Railroad,  pp.  3, 
210,    3176,    3257,    3291,    3300. 

Metropolitan    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Northern    Transp.    Co.,    pp. 

994,     1036.  „       „ 

Fambro,     St.     Loiiis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Fa'mbrough,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Fane   r.    Philadelphia    Rapid    1  rans. 

Co.,    p.    27o5. 
Fanizzi   f.   New   York,    etc.,    R.   Co., 

P-       ^^'l-  -  517- 

Fanning  ?•.  Grcgorie,  pp.   34/4,  347.->, 

3476,    3477.  ^     ^, 
v.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1524,    1532,    1906. 
Fanny,    The. 
Fanshaw     v.     Norfolk,     etc..     Tract. 

Co.,    pp.    1898,    1902,    2409,    2418, 

2827. 
Fant    Fish    Co.,    Southern    hxp.    Co. 

Farber    r.     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co., 

p.    2516. 
Fargo,   Ames  v. 

Armstrong    z: 

1'.  Auditor   General,    p.   3537. 

Bowden    v. 

Byrne    v. 

Dietcrich   r. 

Falkenan    v. 

Giles     i: 

Gorham   Mfg.   Co.  v. 

Grossman    '<■. 

Harris     r.  _ 

V.   Hart,   pp.    3556,    3562,    3o/2, 

3590,    3594. 

Houseman    r. 

V.  Ledger-Standard       Co.,       p. 

30. 

Little    V. 

i.^cMurray    v. 

V.   Michigan,     pp.     3422,     3447, 

3475,  3491,  3497,  3553,  3554, 
3555,  3558,  3659,  3566,  3573, 
3579,    3602. 

Ncbcnzahl    r. 

Oderkirk    r. 

Richer   v. 

Rowden   'c. 

Shwartz   v. 

Sutro    V. 

Thompson    v. 

— —  Waldron   v. 

Westcott    r. 

Fargo    &    Co.,    Cutter    v. 

Faris     V.     Brooklyn,     etc.,     R.     <-o., 

pp.    2196,   2814. 
Parish    &    Co.    V.    Reigle,    pp.    /29, 

1685,      1715,      1726,      1735,      1821, 

1837,    1841,    2015,    2693. 
Farley    v.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1501,    1502,    1521,    1523. 

Citizens'    R.    Co.   ■:■. 

V.  Lavary,     pp.     8,     727,     732, 

749,    753,    765. 

V.  Norfolk,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

2127,   2257,    2267,    2988. 

V.   Philadelphia    Tract.    Co..    6 

Pa.   Co.   Ct.   Rep.    347— p.   2161. 

V.  Philadelphia  Tract.  Co.,   132 

Pa.    58,    18    Atl.    1090— pp.    1833, 
2686.  .-„,,. 

r.  R.    &    D.    R.    Co.,    81     \a. 

783 — p.    2116. 
Farlow    V.     Kcllv.     pp.     1813,     1813, 

21(.3,    2200,    2201. 
Farmen   v.   United   States   Exp.    Co., 

pp.    843.    917. 
Farmer,    Spivcy    '\ 

Farmers'    Fertilizer   Co.,   Reid   Phos- 
phate   Co.    V. 
Farmers'    Ins.    Co..    Patrick   t\ 
Farmers'      Loan     &     Trust     Co.     f. 
Henning,    p.    255. 


Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more,  etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    2095. 

Betts   V. 

Cohen   V. 

V.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    83 

Fed.    249— p.    3668. 

— —  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  57 
C.  C.  A.  533.  120  Fed.  873— 
pp.  451,  453,  3254,  3280,  3364, 
33(j5. 

t .  Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

915. 

Reagan   v. 

Stale  V. 

Stone    V. 

Farmers'   Union   Gin   Co.,    Si.    L'juis, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  V. 
Farmers',     etc..     Bank    v.     Chaplain 

Transp.    Co.,    16    Vt.    52,    42    Am. 

Dec.    491— p.    903. 
:•.   Champlain    Transp.    Co.,    18 

Vt.  131— p.  1010. 

'■.  Champlain  Transp.  Co.,  23 

\'t.  186,  56  Am.  Dec.  68 — pp. 
240,  278,  537,  602,  770,  1004, 
1007,  1008,  3346. 

Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

723. 

Farmers',  etc.,  Comm.  Firm,  Louis- 
ville,   etc.,    k.    Co.   V. 

Farmers',  etc..  Cotton  Co.  I-.  At- 
lantic,  etc..   R.   Co..   p.   3278. 

Farmers',     etc..     Ins.     Co..     Wagner 


Bank.     Allen 


Farmers',     etc.,    Nat 
etc.,   Co.  V. 

V.   Erie   R.   Co.,   12   N.    Y.    188 

—p.    310. 

T'.   Hanks,    104    Tex.    320.    137 

S.    W.    1120— p.    1751. 

V.  Hanks     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

128    S.    W.    147— p.    1751. 

V.  Hazeltine,    pp.     373.    375. 

Heiskell    :■. 

Hieskell    v. 

t'.   Logan,   pp.    352,   309. 

Farmers',  etc..  Trust.  Co.  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  83  Fed.  249— 
pp.    3787,    3788,    3791.    3795. 

— —  7'.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  112 
Fed.    829— p.    3891. 

V.  Northern  Pac.  Co.,  57  C.  C. 

A.    533.    120    Fed.    873— pp.  -«96, 
997.    1000. 

Farmington  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3394. 

Farnham  r.  Camden,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
pp.  917.  946.  949.  958.  988.  1018, 
1037.    1042,    1047,    1074,    3161. 

Farnon  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1960.    2120,    2168,    2891. 

Farnsworth  r.  National  Exp.  Co., 
pp.    70 1,    962,    997. 

— —  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    3356. 

Ulmer   v. 

Farr  v.  Adams  Exp.   Co.,  p.   818. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Smith   V.  . 

Farr,    etc..    Mfg.    Co..    Internatioral 

NaV.     Co.     '-■.  r^  nt 

V.   International    Nav.    Co..    94 

Ped.    675— p.    4061.    4083. 

V.  International    Nav.    Co..    98 

Fed.  636.  39  C.  C.  A.  197— pp. 
4062.    4063. 

Farrell  r.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
p.     167. 

—  :•.  Citizens',  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1903.    2909. 

—  Columbus,     etc..     R.     Co.    r. 

—  !•.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1721.    2117.    2239.    2240.    2242. 

—  ;•.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
2219.     2303.     2805. 

—  V.  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
pp.  1162.  1163.  1212.  1214.  1215. 
1220.  1229.  1232.  1235.  1248, 
1249! 


Farrell  &  Co.  v.  Great  Northern   R. 

Co..    p.    217. 
Farrier    v.    Colorado    Springs,    etc., 
R.     Co.,     pp.     2016,     2021,     2857, 
2858,   2859,   2870. 
Farrington    v.    Boston    Elevated    R. 
Co..    pp.    1803.    1804.    2820,    2821, 
2833. 
Farris    '•.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    555. 
Farrow     v.     .-Xmerican     Agricultural 

Chemical    Co.,    p.    3960. 
Farwell,   Gibbons  v. 
Farwell    Farmers'    Warehouse    Ass'n 
V.    Minneapolis,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 
85. 
Fash    -■.    East    River    Ferry    Co.,    p. 

2779. 
Fassett   V.    Ruark,   p.    762. 
Fast    I'.     Canton,    etc.,     Iv.     Co.,     p. 

1439. 
Easy   f.   International   Nav.   Co.,   pp. 

296.    819,    837. 
Faiman    4i:    Co.    :■.    Cincinnati,    etc., 
R.    Co..    pp.    503,    504,    505,    822, 
1039,    3251,    3356. 
Faucher    r.    Wilson,    pp.    726,    765, 

766,    771. 
Faul    v.    North    Jersey    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2798. 
Faulk    V.     Columbia,    etc.,     R.     Co., 
pp.    982,    1025,    1005,    1071,    1400, 
1403. 
Faulkner   v.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 
pp.   2674,   2791,    2792. 

V.  Hart.     82     N.     Y.     413.     11 

Am.   Rep.   574— pp.   722.  888,  896, 
901. 

V.  Hart.    44   N.    Y.    Super.    Ct. 

471— p.    709. 

Houston,    etc..    R.    Co.   f. 

Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   "■. 

O'Toolc   I'. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-'.   South     Pac.     Railroad,     pp. 

246,    621. 

f.    Wright,    pp.     10.    768. 

Fauntleroy,   Giles  v. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1040.  1455.  1456.  1458,  1467. 

V.   South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  pp. 

573,    574. 

-'.   Southern   R.    Co..    pp.    1246, 

1247. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Favre    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2201. 
Faxton,    Clark    v. 
Fay  V.   .-Mliance  Ins.  Co.^  p.   3940. 

-•.    Davidson,     p.     2776. 

Galena,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.      Co.. 

p.    2877. 

V.  New  World,  p.   725. 

Fav.    etc.,    Co.,    Midland    Valley    R. 

Co.    r. 
Faylor,   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Feagin    v.    Gulf,     etc..     R'.    Co.,    p. 

2650. 
Fearn    v.    West    Jersey    Ferry    Co., 

p.    2686. 
Fearn.   etc.,    Co.    v.    Richardson,   pp. 

294,    305.    306.   308.    338. 
Fears    :•.    State,    p.    239. 

Williams   v. 

Feary    v.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1986,    2594,    2644.    3001.    3003. 
Febo.   Galveston,   etc..   R.    Co.   v. 
Federal   St..   etc..   R.   Co.  r.   Gibson, 

p.    2700. 
Federal    Sugar    Refin.    Co..    Milburn 


Federal,    etc..    R.    Co..    McMillan    v. 
Feelv.   New   York.  etc..   R.    Co.   r. 
Feig'e  f.   Michigan,  etc..   R.   Co..  pp. 

896.   931.    986.    1012. 
Feil    f.    West    Jersey,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    1770.   2666. 
Fein    f.    Weir.    pp.    488.    7/9.    836, 

841. 


CLXX 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


R.    Co. 
Elect. 


pp. 
Rail- 


Co. 
R. 


Co., 


P- 


Feinberg  v.    Delaware,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    1270,    1278. 
Feintuch,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Feise    z:    Wray.      pp.      1211,      1215, 

1216. 
Feital    v.    Middlesex     K.     Co.,     pp. 

417,    1746,    2086,    2694,    3175. 
Feitl    V.    Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2668,    2671. 
Feld   r.    Piatt,    p.    1059. 
Felder    f.    Columbia,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    3176,    3181,    3182,    3185. 

Southwestern    R.    Co.    i' 

Feldheim   f.    Brooklyn,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    2181,    2672. 
Fcldman,      Northern      Alabama       R. 

Co.   r. 
Feldschneider    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  pp.   2098,  2683,   2895. 
Felix    '.:    Brandstetter    Co.,    p.    1228. 

The. 

Felker,   First   Nat.   Bank  -■. 

i:  First    Nat.     Bank,    pp.     395, 

396. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Fellows,    Fenkhausen   z-. 

z:   Powell,    pp.     305,    306,    308. 

Vedder    v. 

Felt,    f.    Denver,    etc. 

3453,  3455. 

Puget      Sound 

way    f. 

Felton,    Caldwell   z: 

Central,    etc.,    R 

V.  Central,     etc., 

3291. 

Chicago,   etc.,    K.    Co.   z: 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

2029. 

f.   Clarkson,    p.    1340. 

z:    Holbrook,"    pp.     2694,     2942. 

z:  Horner,      pp.      1715,      1752, 

1755,    2170. 

z:     McCreary-McClellan      Live 

Stock   Co.,    p.    3275. 

Fenig   '■.    North    Jersey    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2909. 
Fenkhausen    z:    Fellows,    p.     1215. 
Fenley,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Fenn,   Baldosta    St.    R.    Co.   ?-. 

z\  Timpson,    p.    1306. 

X'aldosta    St.    R.    Co.    -■. 

Fennell,    Missouri    Pac.    Co.   i>. 
Fenner  z:    Buffalo,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (N. 

y.),  46  Barb.  103— pp.  3287, 
3301. 

z:  Buffalo,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   44  N. 

Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep.  709— pp. 
889,    901. 

Fentiman  v.  .Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  734,  738,  742,  744,  753,  765, 
815,    822,    870,    873. 

Fenwick,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Ferguson  v.  Cappeau,  pp.  797,  804, 
805,    814. 

— —  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Ft.    Worth    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Herring,    p.    1244. 

V.   Michigan      Cent.       R. 

pp.    2429,    2473. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co 

2475,   2663,   2664. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Plessy    V. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

z'.   Southern    Railway,    pp.    733, 

742,    745,    825,    869. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Truax,    132    Wis.    478,    110 

N.  W.  395,  111  N.  W.  657,  112 
N.  W.  513,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
350,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
1092— pp.    1502,    1507,   2742,    2983. 

?■.  Truax,    136    Wis.    637,     118 

N.   W.   251— pp.   2320,   2883. 

Ferguson-McKinney  Dry  Goods 
Co.,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Fergusson  z-.  Brent,  pp.  728,  734, 
736,    737,    742. 


Co., 


pp. 


Fern,    Kentucky    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Fernandez    ?■.     Silva,    pp.     516,    580. 
Ferree,    Werner    Sawmill    Co.    v. 
Ferrell  z:   C,   H.   &   D.   R.   Co.,   pp. 
1683,    1789,    2016,    2032. 

Coeur    d'Alene,     etc.,     Transp. 

Co.   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Ferrell   &   Co.  z:   Great  Northern   R. 

Co.,    pp.    465,    3639. 

Ferris  z:   Adams   Exp.   Co.,   p.    3346. 

Ferrv  z\  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1890,    1897.    2827,    2995. 

Ferry    Co.,    St.    Louis    '•. 

Fertilizer,  Two  Hundred  &  Sixteen 
Loads  &  Six  Hundred  &  Sev- 
enty-Eight   Barrels    of. 

Fewings  z'.  Mendenhall,  83  Minn. 
237,  86  N.  W.  96,  55  L.  R.  A. 
713— p.    2029. 

z:   Mendenhall,    88    Minn.    336, 

93  N.  W.  127.  60  L.  R.  A.  601, 
97  -Am.  St.  Rep.  519— p.  1678, 
2781. 

Fewson,    Young   7'. 
Fibel    v.    Livingston,    pp.    984,    987, 
106(),    1068. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 
2076. 

z:     Shelby    Countv    Taxing 
p.    3474. 

Taxing      Dist.,      pp.        3552, 
3553,    3559,    3560,    3570,    3372. 
Ficklin   z\    Wabash    R.    Co.,   pp.    818, 

1479,    1268. 

Fidelity      Lumber       Co.      '■.       Great 

Northern    R.    Co.,    pp.    3764,    3787. 

Fidelity    Storage,    etc.,    Co.,    Lee    t'. 

Fieber'    ■;■.      Manhattan      Dist.      Tel. 

Co.,   p.    571. 
Field    v.    Banker,    p.    3878. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

945,  1008,  1049,  3326,  3330, 
3347,   3359. 

z'.   Delaware,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    p. 

2893. 

z:   French,     pp.     1488,     2883. 

-•.   Mills,    p.    3877. 

z:   New    York    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2724. 

Northey    7'. 

7'.   Spokane,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2083. 

V.  The      Lovett       Peacock,      p. 

531. 

Winhein    z\ 

Fielder  z\  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  pp. 
850,    1052,     1053. 

7'.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    92 

Tex.  176,  179,  46  S.  W.  633— 
pp.    85,    512. 

7'.   Missouri,       etc.,       R.        Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  42  S.  W.  362 
—p.    3469. 

z:   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2769. 

Fielders  z:  North   Jersey  St.   R.   Co., 

pp.    1806,    2911. 
Fielding,       Pullman's      Palace      Car 

Co.   v. 
Fielder,    Dana    z\ 

Fifth     Ave.     Coach    Co.,     Sturgis    v. 
Fifth    Ave.    Transp.    Co.,    Frobisher 

Fifth    Nat.    Bank,    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   v. 
Figlia    Maggiore,    The. 
Filbin    7'.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1809. 
File    V.     Wilmington     City     R.     Co., 

pp.      1878.       1890,         2142,     2290, 

2637,    2687. 
Filer    z:    New    York    Cent.    R.    Co., 

49   N.   Y.   47.    10  Am.   Rep.   327— 

pp.  1878,  2066,  2249. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R'.     Co., 

59   N.    Y.    351— pp.    2126,   2258. 

V.  New    York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

68    N.    Y.     124— pp.     1879,    2265. 


Files    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1549,     1556,     1569,     ^207,     2238. 
Filebrown   v.    Grand   Trunk   R.   Co., 

pp.     727,    995,     1003,     1007,     1008, 

1036. 
Filley   7'.    Pope,   p.    3872. 
Fillingham      7'.        Michigan      United 

Railways,    p.    2(i60. 

7'.    St.     Louis    Trans.     Co.,     pp. 

2238,    2592. 

Fillo    7'.    Jones,    p.    2745. 
Filson,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.    '■. 
Filyaw,    Bennett    7'. 
Finch   7'.    Gregg,    pp.    392,    394,    395, 
390. 

7'.   Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3101. 

Pier    7'. 

Findley  v.   Central,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    p. 
2657. 

City,    etc..    Railway    f. 

Smith    7'. 

State   7'. 

Fine    7'.     Interurban    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1699,   2817. 
Fine   &   Bro.   7'.    Southern    Exp.    Co., 

pp.    761,    854. 
Finger   7'.    Wichita    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

2358. 
Fink    7'.     .\lbany,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2454. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7'. 

Harrison    7'. 

Finkeldey     7'.     Omnibus     Cable     Co., 
pp.    1833,    1879,    2153,    2882,    2913. 
Finley   z\    Lewis,    p.    603. 

Pullman    Co.    7'. 

St.    I^ouis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Finn    v.     Clark     (Mass.),     10     Allen 
479— pp.    1148,    1150,    1151. 

7'.   Clark      (Mass.),      12      Allen 

522— pp.     1148,    1150,    1151. 

7'.    N'alley,     etc.,     R.      Co.,     i>. 

1893. 

7'.   Western       R.       Corp.,       102 

Mass.  283— pp.  500,  518.  519, 
1148,     1150,     1151. 

7'.   Western       R.       Corp.,       112 

Mass.  524,  17  x\m.  Rep.  128— 
pp.  478,  490,  491,  681.  1148, 
1150,    1151. 

Finnegan    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1515.    1875. 
Finney    Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Finseth    t'.     Suburban      R.      Co.,     p. 

2963. 
Fire    Ass'n    7'.    Leob,    25    Tex.    Civ. 

App.      508,     84     S.     W.      663— p. 

822. 

-■.   Loeb,     25     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

24,    59    S.    W.   617— pp.   843,    1047, 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Firebaugh    7'.      Seattle      Elect.      Co., 

pp.    2684,    2702,    2882. 
First    Div.,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ames    v. 

Christian    7'. 

Du    Laurans    v. 

Pinney     7'. 

First     Nat.     Bank,     Cosmos     Cotton 
Co.    V. 

7'.   Crocker,     pp.     353,     3(^2. 

7'.    Dearborn,      pp.      353,      362, 

363,    378,    3274. 

7'.   Ege,    pp.    349,    382,    401. 

Felker    z'. 

z:   Felker,    pp.    393,    400. 

7'.   Hartford    Fire    Ins.    Co.,    p. 

326. 

7'.  Kelly,    p.    353. 

Kessler    7'. 

Livingston     County    7'. 

7'.   McSwain,      pp.      355,      371, 

391,   479. 

v.   Marietta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1714,  3109,  3120,  3125,  3126. 
3129,    3146,    3147. 

7'.   Mineral       Wells,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    394.    395,    396. 

v.  Mt.    Pleasant    Mill    Co.,    p. 

359. 

Nebraska,    etc..    Grain    Co.    z. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLXXI 


First  Nat.  liank  v.  New  Vork,  etc., 
K.    Co.,   pp.    550,    557,   559. 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

555. 

V.  Northern    Railroad,    p.    558. 

Petitt   &   Co.   f. 

V.  Pettit,    p.     1224. 

V.   San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

77  S.  W.  410,  97  Tex.  201— pp. 
387,   390,   519,   580. 

V.   San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W. 
1033— pp.    390,    403. 

V.   Schmidt,    pp.    1221,    1224. 

V.  Shaw,    pp.    350,    430. 

Sioux    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Stewart,    p.    3864. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

United    States    ;•. 

Walsh,    etc.,   Co.    '-. 

V.  Walsh,     etc.,     Co.,     p.     391. 

v.   Wilkesbarre        Lace        Mfg. 

Co.,    pp.    371,    395. 

First  Trust,  etc..  Rank  v.  South- 
ern  Indiana   R.   Co.,   p.    3700. 

Fischer  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  Co.,  pp. 
1549,    1557,    1743. 

Klien    I'. 

V.  New    Vork   City   R.    Co.,    p. 

1648. 

Fish    V.    Chapman,    pp.    1,    2,    4,    8, 

10,  246,  257,  727,  732,  735,  736, 
737,  748,  765,  771,  1003,  1007, 
1069,    3153. 

i:  Clark      (N.      Y.),    2     Lans. 

176— p.  211. 

V.  Clark,    49    N.    Y.    122,    pp. 

11,  771. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Fisher  r.    Abeel,   p.    699. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Birmingham     R'.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

V.   Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

2730,    2873. 

Fisher  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
3268,    3269,    3287. 

Campbell     '■. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.  Clisbee,    p.    1682. 

V.   Geddes,  pp.  277,  3158. 

V.   Great   Northern   R.   Co., 

pp.  3442,  3719,  3720,  3753. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   855. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

v.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    140,    143,    1197. 

f.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

889,    897. 

Parmelee    v. 

V.   Paxon,    p.     1909. 

People   V. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Scharadin,    p.    3792. 

V.  Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1720,    1755,   2942. 

Texas  Cent.   R.   Co.   v. 

Texas,   etc.,    R".    Co.   f. 

V.  West      Virginia,      etc..      R. 

Co.,  39  W.  Va.  366,  19  S.  E- 
578,  58  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
337,  23  L.  R.  A.  758— pp.  1715, 
1718,    1719,    1723,    2191. 

f.  West      \'irginia,      etc.,       R. 

Co.,  42  W.  Va.  183,  24  S.  E. 
570,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  86,  33  L.  R.  A.  69— pp. 
1962.  2114,  2125,  2163,  2172, 
2179. 

Fisher   Bros.,   Yazoo,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Fishkill,    etc..    Road    Co.,    People   f. 
Fisk    V.    Newton,    pp.    534,    566. 
Fitch,   Crosby  f. 

^■.   Mason,     etc..      Tract.      Co., 

89  N.  W.  33,  116  Iowa  716— p. 
2759. 

r.  Mason,      etc..      Tract.      Co., 

100  N.  W.  618,  124  Iowa  665— 
pp.  2205,  2671,  2692,  2739,  3004, 
3006. 


Newberry,  pp.  230, 
1142,   1155,   1156, 

Block  V. 


93,  220,   1179, 


Fitch  '■.  Newberry,  pp.  230,  233, 
24(.,  1142,  1155,  1156,  1158, 
1 1  59. 

Filclilnirg    R.    Co 

IJlumantle   i: 

Buchcr    -'. 

Cazneau    7'. 

Commonwealth 

Doyle   !■. 

Evans   -■. 

i:  Gage,    pp 

1181,   1186. 

Graves    v. 

Harlow   i: 

JetTris    v. 

Kidder   •:•. 

Leary    -■. 

Leonard    -■. 

Littleticid    I'. 

I.ittlejohn    -'. 

Massachusetts 

Co.    '.: 

v.  Nichols,     pp 

1761,    2105. 

■  Northern     R.     Co. 

Percy    "■. 

Snow    '■. 

Swift    River    Co.    ; 

\"ermont,    etc.,    R'. 

Warren    r. 

Webster    r. 

White  f. 

Fitchburg    R.    Corp.,    Moore   v. 
Fitchburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.    Hanna, 

pp.    285,    287,    291,    1173. 
Fitchburg,    etc.,    St.     R.     Co.,     Or- 

mandroyd    f. 
Fite,    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 
Fitzgerald    f.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

210,     243,     244,     411,    816,    81" 


Loan, 
1752, 


Co., 


etc., 

1757, 


Chicago, 
3089. 

—  Kessenger   r. 

Kissenger   v. 

.   Fitzgerald 

p.    3753. 
.    Grand     Trunk 


etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 


etc. 


R. 


1675. 


Constr. 
Co.,     p. 
Midland    R.    Co.,    pp.    1670, 
Co..      pp. 


Flaherty,   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Northern    Pac.     R.    Co.,    p. 

2083. 

T.   St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    pp. 

2914,    2967. 

Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Flake,    Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Great    Northern    R 


Z-.   Southern      Pac 

2340.    2970,    3317. 

Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Yazoo,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

Fitzgerald,  etc.,  Constr.  Co.,  Fitz- 
gerald  7'. 

Fitzgibbon  -•.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
108  Iowa  614,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  270.  79  N.  W.  477 
—pp.    1543,    1544,    2652. 

'•.  Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    119 

Iowa  261.  6  R.  R.  R.  680,  29 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  680, 
93    N.   W.    276— p.    1545. 

Fitzhugh.    The    Genesee    Chief    r. 

-•.   Wiman,    pp.    333,    337. 

Fitzmaurice   r.    New    York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.    1573. 
Fitzpatrick,        Montgomerv        Tract. 
Co.    f. 

7:  New    Albanv,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1582. 

Fitzsimmons    -•.    Joslin,    p.    1212. 

-■.  Milwaukee,   etc.,   R".   Co.,   p. 

2037. 

-'.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    p.    546. 

Five       Hundreil      and       Seventy-Six 

Granite    Blocks.    Chadwick    7\ 
Five    Thousand    Two    Hundred    and 

Fifty-Six         Bundles         of        Elm 

Staves,   Brouty  -•. 
Fix,   Gretschmann   f. 

Lake    Erie,    etc.,    Co.,    "•. 

Lake    Erie,    etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 

Flagg.    Backer   f. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Jean,    etc.,    Co.    ;-. 

-'.   Manhattan    R.    Co.,    p.    2873. 

Parker    -•. 

Flaherty  7\  Boston,  etc..  Railroad, 
pp.    1705.    2510.    2540. 


l-'lakne 

p.    1303. 
Flanagan  v.   Baltimore,  etc., 

p.   2943. 

7'.  New   York,   etc.,    R. 

2828. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc., 

pp.    2273.    2276. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    :. 

Flanary      &      Co.,      Old       Dominion 

Steamship   Co.   7: 
Flanigan.    Southern    R.    Co.   -■. 
Flannagan.      Louisville,        etc..       R. 

Co.   f. 
Flannery  -■. 

pp.    2020. 
Flasli,     etc.. 

etc., 
Flautt 
Flavin 

3106. 

Fleck   -'.   Union    R.    Co.,   p.    2356. 
Fleetwood,      East    Tennessee,      etc.. 


Co., 
R.  Co., 
Co.,  p. 
R-.    Co.. 


Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

3072. 

etc.,     Co.     f.     New    Orleans, 
R.    Co..    p.    410. 
;■.    Lashley,    p.     11. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R. 


Co.,    p. 


:■.    Caldwell,    p.    184. 
etc.,    Co.    7'.    Southern 
pp.     3138.     3149,     3168, 
3186,    3189. 
Fleming    7'.    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co., 
pp.    1588,    2525. 

f.   Hammond,    pp.    270,    271. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   r. 

-•.   Kansas,     etc.,     R".     Co.,     p. 

1982. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

McLean    i'. 

r.  Mills,    p.    409. 

J'.   Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2669. 

Fletcher,     .\merican     Exp.    Co.    -•- 

'•.   Boston,        etc..         Railroad 

(Mass.).    1    Allen  9,   79  Am.   Dec. 
695— p.   2080. 

V.  Boston,    etc..    Railroad,     73 

N.    E.    552,    187    Mass.    463.    105 
Am.    St.    Rep.    414 — p.    2238. 

Urann  -•. 

Fletcher   Land   Co..    Hart  ■:■. 
Flexman.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    -. 
Flinn,    Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co.    -•. 

7:   Philadelphia,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    1567,    1708,    1741,    2092,    2103. 

Flint   v.    Boston,   etc.,    Railroad,    pp. 
1278,    1474. 

f.   Christall,    pp.    947,   4056. 

f.   Norwich.        etc.,         Transp. 

Co..    6     BlatchL     158.    Fed.     Caa. 
No.    4.873— p.   2024. 

-'.   Norwich,    etc.,    Transp.    Co., 

34     Conn.     554— p.     2024. 

Sulakowski   f. 

Flint,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   Haggerty   t. 

Hansen  ■:■. 

Hanson   7: 

Southern   R.   Co.  7: 

Hengstler    f. 

Jacobs    f. 

Lentz    7: 

Lewis    -•. 

7:  Stark.       pp.       1883.       1918. 

2585.   2647.   2648. 

7:  Weir,       pp.       1760.       3144. 

3184. 

Flintham.    Harmon   f. 

Flintshire.    Ullman    f. 

Flitner.   Derry  f. 

Floersheim    Mercantile    Co..    Brown 

Floershein    Mercantile    Co..    Brown 

Flood    T'.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    K.    Co., 
p.    2426. 

7:   Crowell.    p.    3969. 


CLXXII 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Flood,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Floody    -'.    Great   Northern    A.    Co., 

p.    2580. 
Florence,   Kansas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Florence,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.    Jensen, 

pp.    361,    362,    370,    548,    588. 

V.  Radetsky,   p.    575. 

Florida,   Osborne  i: 

V.  Pullman     Palace     Car    Co., 

pp.   3223,   3224. 

Florida      Cent.,     etc.,      R.      Co.      '.•. 
Berry,    pp.    533,    561,    62/. 

',:  Lucas,       pp.       !/•>-.       !'■*'' 

1749 

Florida     Fruit      Exch.,       Savannah, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Florida    R.      Co.      V.      Dorsey,      pp. 

1679       1682,      1744,      1880,      2268, 

2909,    2993,    2994. 
Florida    R.    Comra'rs     f._     Atlantic, 

etc..   R.   Co.,   pp.   23,   Sa,   6/. 
Florida    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Cutting   r- 
V.  Webster,     pp.     1757,     1812, 

Florida    So.    R.    Co.    t^    Hirst,    pp. 

193,    201,    202,    203,    204 
Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Berry,    p. 

895. 

Daniels   v.  __ 

V.  Geiger    pp.    239o,    2388. 

Gillman  v. 

f.  Hirst,       pp.        l/l3.       2122, 

2211,   2292. 

V.  Katz,    pp.     1854.    1856. 

z-.  Lucas,       pp.       2676,      2840, 

2945,    2954. 

Mclver   v. 

Railroad    Comm'rs    v. 

,..  Rudulph,     pp.     2839,     2840, 

2843,    2858. 

i:   Southern     Supply      Co.,      p. 

659.  ^^,, 

V.  Sullivan,    p.    2213. 

Susong  V. 

Taylor  v.  ^    , 

f.  United      States,      200      Fed. 

797— pp.    3681,    3803. 
V.  United    States,    234    U.    S. 

167,   34   S.   Ct.   867— p.    3673. 

r.  Wade.    pp.    1696,    l/Oa. 

Florida,   etc..   Tobacco   Co.,    Georgia, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 
Florman    z:     Dodd,    etc.,    E-xp.     Co., 

pp.     1034,     1067. 
Florshein  Bros,  z:  Howell,   p.    1219. 
Flory,    San    Antonio    Tract.    Co.    w. 

V.   San     Antonio      Tract.      Co., 

pp.    1910,    1913 

Flournoy,    Columbus,    etc.,    K.    Co, 

— —  Nashville,    etc..    Railway    v. 
Flower    '<■.     Downs,    p.    296. 

V.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,     p. 

2526.  ^     ^ 

Flovd,    Central,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Flo'vtrup    -■.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

pp.    1877,    2238,    2297,    2748. 
Flucks    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   1988. 
Fluker  -■.   Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  pp. 

190,    192,    205,    2525,    2527,    2528. 
Flushing,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Terry   v. 
Flynn    f.    Central    Park   R.    Co.,    p. 

2851. 
"Chicago    City    R.     Co.     v. 

V.  Consolidated      Tract.      Co., 

45    Atl.    799,    64    N.    J.    L.    375— 
p.    2204. 

v.  Consolidated  Tract.   Co.,   52 

Atl.    369,    67    N.    J.    L.    546— pp. 
1703,    2204. 

V.  Interborough    Rapid    Trans. 

Co.,    pp.    2687,    2690. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1036,    1037,    3394. 

Foard   V.   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    pp. 

499,   642,   654,   673,   3370, 
Fockcns  V.  United   States  Exp,  Co., 

pp.    821,    824,    843,    880. 


etc. 


R. 

etc.,  R. 
Railroad, 
R.  Co., 
pp. 

R. 


Foden   z:   Brooklyn    Heights   R.    Co., 

pp.    1900,    1904,    2687. 
Fogel     f.     San     Francisco, 

Co.,   p.    2298. 
Foggan    z\     Lake     Shore, 

Co.,   pp.   556,    1249. 
Foley    z'.     Boston,      etc., 

pp.    1993,    1994,    2169. 

z:   Boston,     etc.,     St. 

pp.    204,    205,    1742,    2035.^ 

V.   Brunswick    Tract.     Co., 

1684,    1687,    2997. 

Comer    z\ 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    ■;', 

Pacific    Exp.    Co.    z\ 

FoUiard,      International,       etc., 

Co.   z: 
Folmina,    The. 
Folsoni,    Kirk   !■. 

Folts,   International,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 
Fonda  z:   St.   Paul   City  R.   Co.,  pp. 

2326,    2878,    2879,    3009. 
Fonda,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Goller    z\ 
Fonseca   v.    Cunard    Steamship    Co., 

pp.    3141,    3164. 
Fonsler,   Atlantic  City  v. 
Fontaine    z'.    Boatmen's    Sav.    Inst., 

p.    340. 
Fookes,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Foot,    In    re. 
Forbes   z'.    Boston,    etc.,    R'.    Co 

370,     378,     389,     551,      553, 

595,    596,     597,    3274. 

"■.   Chicago     etc.,     R. 

1540,    1541,    2355,    2374. 

McGuinn    z: 

■ V.   Merchants'    Exp.,    etc 

p.    3924. 
Ford    v.    Atlantic,    etc 
3142,     3143. 
Chicago,     etc. 


I    pp. 
556, 


Co.,     pp. 


Co., 


3141, 
3750.' 


Co., 

Co., 


pp. 


-  f.    Cotesworth,    p.    355. 

-  z'.  East   Louisiana   R.    Co., 
1500,    2471,    2472. 

Ft.    Smith,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

-  Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Minneapolis    St.    R.    Co., 

3064. 

'.'.   Mitchell,    p.    279. 

z\   Paducah     City     Railway, 


559. 


Railway, 


7'.   Southern 

2650. 

Springer    t'. 

Fordyce    v.    Allen,    p.    2263. 

z:   Beecher,      pp.      1542,      1562, 

1563,    2428,    2473,    2483,    2493. 

V.  Chancy,      pp.      1729,       1731, 

2778. 

z'.   Dempsey,    p.    483. 

V.   Dillingham,    pp.    1868,    1883. 

Fullerton    v. 


pp. 


1577,       1814, 


pp.     156,     157 
pp.      726, 


pp. 


1596, 


740, 
1599, 


1689, 


v.  Jackson, 

2004. 

z:  Johnson, 

V.   McFlynn, 

1268,    1281. 

v.   Manuel, 

2468,   3103. 

V.   Merrill,     p.     1797. 

V.  Moore,    p.    2583. 

V.  Nix,   pp.    2565,   3062. 

V.  Withers,     pp.      1683, 

1691,     1729,     1731,     1738,     2669. 

Fore   V.    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2322. 
Forehand,    Central,    ect,.    R.    Co.    v. 
Foreman,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Missouri        Pac.        R.        Co. 

(Tex.),    46    S.    W.    834— p.    1966. 

V.  Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     4 

Tex.    Civ.     App.    54,     23    S.     W. 
422— pp.    1966,    2602. 

z'.  Norfolk,    etc.,    Co, 

V.  Pennsylvania     R. 

1576. 

Forepaugh     ?■.     Delaware, 

Co.,    p.    940. 
Formes,     Indianapolis     Tract.,     etc. 

Co,    V. 


p.    1536. 
Co.,     p. 


Formiller  -■.  Detroit  United  Rail- 
way, pp.  1888,  1892,  2653,  2656, 
2721,    2967. 

Forrest,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

Forrester,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

■;'.   Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     92 

Ga.  699,  19  S.  E.  811— pp.  615, 
017,  732,  741,  748,  765,  766, 
767,  3306,  3307,  3394,  3395,  3397, 
3405. 

z'.   Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     96 

Ga.    428,    23    S.    E.    416— p.    3306. 

z:   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2598,    2656. 

Forrester     &     Co.     '•.     Southern     R. 

Co.,    pp.    782,    783,    785. 
Forsaith,      Concord,      etc.,     Railroad 

Forsee  z\  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1596,  1599,  1605,  2467,  2468, 
2469,    3091. 

Forster,    O'Conner    v. 

Forsyth  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    2272. 

McCall   V. 

Forsyth    Bros.   &   Co.,    Camden,   etc., 

R.   Co.  v. 
Forsythe,    Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

■;'.   Kimball,   p.   3871. 

z'.  Los    Angeles      R.      Co.,      p. 

2005. 

V.  Walker,    pp.    756,    3370. 

Fort    ;■.     Saunders,    p.    862. 

z\   Southern   Railroad,    p.    3056. 

Texas,    etc..    Railroad    z\ 

Ft.    Clark    St.    Railroad    v.    Ebaugh, 

pp.    2420,    2421,    2422. 
Fort    Dodge,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ileggen 

Sandquist   v. 

Fort    Grain    Co.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Fort   Pitt    Tract.    Co.,    Gray   r. 
Fort     Produce     Co.     v.     Dissen,     pp. 

329,    478,    479. 
Ft.    Scott,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\    Sparks, 

p.    2217. 
Fort    Smith   Light.,   etc.,   Co.,    Oliver 

Z'. 

Ft.  Smith,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chandler 
Cotton   Oil    Co.,   pp.    1200,   3669. 

v.   Ford,    pp.    1856,    1867. 

z'.   Williams,    pp.    659,    676.  / 

Fort.    Wayne    Elect.    Co.,    Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Ft.    Wayne    Tract.    Co.    zi    Harden- 

dorf,    pp.     197,     200,     2123,     2193, 

2194,    2867,    2893. 
Ft.     Wayne,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     Archer 

Bradley   v. 

Detroit  z: 

Etson    7'. 

Kingston    7'. 

■  Werbowlsky    7'. 

Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  Tract.  Co.  v. 
Olingcr,    pp.    1901,    1903,   2599. 

Ft.  Worth  St.  R.  Co.  V.  Ferguson, 
pp.    2087,    2088,    2604. 

Ft.  Worth  Transfer  Co.  7'.  Isaacs, 
pp.     601,     871. 

Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Alex- 
ander,   p.    1342. 

Andrews    v. 

7'.  Beauchamp,   pp.   238,  695. 

■  z\   Bribble,    p.    2425. 

V.   Cage  Cattle  Co.,   p.    1279. 

7'.  Caruthers,   pp.   479,   483. 

V.   Cushman,  p.  1639. 

z:   Daggett,  pp.   1285,   1287, 

1289,  1343,  3357. 

Davis,   pp.   1518,   1770,, 


etc. 


R. 


1785. 


3345. 
1338.' 


Day,  pp.  2813,  2845,  289S. 
Enos,  pp.  1730,  2869. 

Fuller,   pp.   3311,  3337, 

Gallon,  pp.  208,  243,  1279,. 


TAI5LE    OF    CASES. 


CLXXIII 


Ft.   Worth,  etc.,   K.   Co.,   Garlington 


V.   Garrison,  p.  839. 

v.   Grcathouse,  pp.  474,  693, 

855  977,  1054,  1063,  1073,  1076, 
1077  1078,  1085,  1086,  1095, 
1096,  1116,  1117,  1122,  1304, 
1317,  1318,  1320,  1322,  1323, 
1327,  1341,  1350,  1398,  1414, 
1415,  1453,  1470,  1480,  1481, 
3368. 

V.   Gribhlc,  pp.  2434,  2480. 

V.   TIamin,  p.  1327. 

Hardin  7\ 

'.:   Hardin,  p.  1524. 

V.   Harlan,  pp.  831,  835,  837. 

V.   Harrold,  p.  1441. 

V.   Hyatt,  pp.  1938,  1939. 

V.   James,   pp.   1316,   1331, 

1332. 

Tones  i'. 

V.   Jones,  pp.  1630,  2444. 

V.   Kennedy,  pp.  1524,  1740. 

V.  Lock,   p.    1270. 

V.   McAnulty,     pp.     796,     1336, 

3289. 

-,'.  McCarty,  p.   3140. 

Martin   t. 

V.  Martin,    pp.    273,    274,    275, 

286,    292,    293,    295. 

7:  Mastcrson,    pp.    3271,    3272. 

V.  Richards,    p.    1326. 

r.   Riley,    pp.    268,    272,    273. 

:■.  Rogers,    21    Tex.    Civ.    .■\pn. 

605,   53   S.   W.   366— pp.   947,  950, 
2093,    2772. 

r.  Rogers,    24    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

382.     60     S.     W.     61— pp.      1729, 
1753,    1755,    2094,    2172,    2345. 

v.   Rosenthal       Millinery       Co., 

pp.    3122.    3149. 

r.  Shanley,  pp.  822,  3396. 

r.  Spear,   pp.   1766,   1910, 

1911,  2904. 

T'.   Stewart,    p.    2023. 

V.   Stingle,    pp.    1694,    2772. 

V.   Stone,    p.    1730. 

Sturdivant    ?■. 

V.  Underwood,     pp.    452,    453, 

461. 

-c'.   Viney,    pp.    1884,    1885. 

V.  Waggoner     Nat.     Bark,     pp 

276,    1279,     1336,     1340,     1479. 

r.  Walker,    pp.    2288,    2777. 

V.  White,      pp.       1988,       1991, 

2760. 

V.  Wilkerson,    p.    2913. 

r.   Williams,     pp.     3311,     3331, 

3337,    3367. 

r.   Wilson,    p.    1105. 

Woolridge    &    Sons    r. 

V    Word.    np.    753.    758,    1347. 

r.  Work.       pp.       1701,       1782, 

1797,  1910.  1913.  2873.  2875, 
2876. 

V.  Wright    (Tex.),    58    S.    W. 

846— p.    1043. 

V.   Wright,    24    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

291,  58  S.  W.  846— pp.  971,  978, 
984,  1002.  1016,  1048,  1374,  1393, 
1394,    3337,    3365. 

r.   Wright,    27    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

198.    64    S.    W.    1001— p.    1043. 

;■  Wright,    30    Tex    Civ.     App, 

234.    70   S.   W.    335— pp.   424,   451 

Fortier     f.      Pennsylvania     Co.,     p 

997. 
Fortin     -■.     T-av     Citv     Tract.,     etc. 

Fleet.  Co.,  p.  2934. 
Fortlage,  Harrison  v. 
Fortune,    Chesapeake,    etc..     R.     Co 


Forty     Second     St.,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
Howard   '■. 

I.a.v    :. 

Plait    V. 

Rott   V. 

Unger   v.  ,         ^       , 

Forty-Second,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Frank- 


Foscue,   Cox  f. 

Fosnes    v.     Duluth    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2252. 
Foss    r.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1867,  1912,  2122. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Foster.    Cheshire    Railroad    r. 

Chicago   City   R.   Co.   v. 

V.  Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3648. 

V.   Davenport,    pp.    3478,    3569. 

7'.   Frampton,     pp.     1231,     1235. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ',■. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Kansas,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     f. 

I.add   r. 

Lake   Shore,   etc..    R.   Co.   r. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?•. 

V.  Old    Coloncy    St.      R.      Co., 

pp.    2313.    2795. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Seattle       Fleet.       Co.,       pp. 

1504,      1505,      1519,      1521,     2154. 
2942,   2965. 

Thurston    v. 

V.   Union   Tract.    Co.,   p.    2393. 

Wabash     R.    Co.    :•. 

Foster    Lumber    Co.,    Atchison,    etc., 

R.    Co.   f. 

P'oulks,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    r. 

Fourchc  River  Lumber  Co.  •:'.  Bry- 
ant   Lumber    Co..    p.    3701. 

450  Tons  of  Kainit.  West  Hartle- 
nool    Steam    Nav.   Co.   f. 

Fourteenth     St.    R.    Co.,    Wilson    v. 

4  885  Baes  of  Linseed,  pp.  3936. 
3939.    3944.    3945,    3946,    3947. 

4,300    Tops    Pyrites    Ore,    .Adamson 


V.   Southern    R.    Co. 


Forty     Second     St. 
Conley   "•. 

Garner 

Hayes 


2507. 
etc.,     R.     Co., 


n'oust  r.   Lee.   p.   1339. 

Foward    r.     Pitlard,    pp.     729,     734. 

750,    752. 
Fowden   v.    Pacific   Coast    Steamship 

Co.,    p.    3998. 
Fowle    r.    Pitt.    n.    3288. 
Fowler,    Chickering    v. 

7'.  Davenport,     pp.     735,     808, 

810.    849,    850,    853.    855.    1014. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R".    Co.    7". 

Pullman   Palace  Car  Co.  7'. 

St.   Louis,   etc..   R.    Co.   7-. 

7'.  Sterling,    p.    337. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    7'. 

Fowler   Comm.   Co.  v.   Chicago,   etc.. 

R.    Co..   p.    245. 
Fowlks  7'.  Southern  R.  Co..  p.  3045. 
Fox.    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'  Boston,     etc..     R.     Co.,     pn. 

617,    638.    653.    658,    3276.     3410. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2912. 

GuK.    etc..   R.    Co.   7. 

V.  Holt.    pp.    520.    1170.    3865. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

-..   Metropolitan      St.     R.     Co., 

p.     2825. 

7'.  Michigan    Cent.   R.   Co..   pp. 

2116.    21<)1.    2322. 

So"thern    Kxn.    Co.    ?■. 

Fox    &•    Bro.    7'.    Willis    &    Bro..    pp. 

'212.    1244. 
1-nv     River     Valky,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

Z'mmer  7'. 
Fov    7-.    Chicago,    etc..    R.     Co..    p. 

3274. 

7'.  Trov.      etc..       R.       Co.,      p. 

3257.  ■  .^  _, 

Fraam    v.    Grand    Ranids,    etc..    K. 

Co..    pp.    3172.    3174. 
Frahm      v.      Siegel-Cooper     Co..      p. 

1751. 


Frair,    Johnson    7'. 

FralofT,    New    York,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

— —  7.  New     York,     etc..     R.     Co., 
p.    3197. 

Railroad    Co.    v. 

Frame,     Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

7'.   Oregon      Liquor     Co.,      pp. 

1212,     1219,     1220,     1229,     1237, 
1246. 

Frampton,    Foster   v. 
Francis  -.:   Cockrell,    p.    1849. 

7-.    Dubuque,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

894,    899. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   New    York    Steam    Co.,    p. 

2202. 

Francis   Wright,    The.        ^      „        ,„ 
Francisco  7'.   Troy,   etc.,   K.    Co.,   78 

Hun     13,    29    N.    Y.    S.    247.    60 

N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    797— p.    2194. 
:■    Trov,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   88   Hun 

464,   34    N.    Y.    S.   859,   68   N.    Y. 

St.     Rep.     792— pp.     1986,     2178, 

''889. 
Frank  v.    Adams   Exp.    Co..   p.    783. 

Delaware,     etc..     R.     Co.     7'. 

7'    Grand   Tower,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

pp     529,   900,   903,   907. 

— l!-  V.  Ingalls,  pp.  1610,  1612. 
1616. 

7'.  Keith,    p.    750. 

7'.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co.. 

pp.     1699.    2896. 

Frank  Bird  Transfer  Co.  v.  Krug. 
p     ''231. 

Frank"Br'os.  &  Co.  i:  Central  R. 
Co..    pi).    577.   897.   906.   916.   91/. 

Frank    Co..    Gulf.     etc..    R.     Co.    ?•- 

Frank  Simpson  Fruit  Co.  7'.  South- 
ern   Pac.    Co..    p.    329. 

Frank   Waterhouse   &   Co..    Sweeney 

Frank  oc   Co..   Southern   R.   Co.  7^^ 
Frankenberg.    Hlinois    Cent.    K.    Co. 

Fr'ankford.    etc..     R.     Co..     .-\ikin    7'. 

Randall   '.: 

Frankfort,     etc..     R.     Co..     Thomas 


Frankfort,  etc..  Tract.  Co..  Mar- 
shall   ': 

7'.    Marshall,    p.     18.-'3. 

Frankfurt  ■:  Weir.  p.  494. 

Franklin  r.  Atlanta,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
p.     2088.  ,  „     „ 

7..    Fortv-Second.    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.    2811.      ' 

Gulf,   etc..   R.    Co.   7'. 

7.    Louisville,   etc..   R.   Co..   pp. 

647.    651.    659.    660.    662.    679. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    7. 

,..  St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co..    p. 

''244. 
II  -•'  Southern      California    Motor 

Road   Co..   p.    1868. 
7-.   Visalia    Elect.     R.     Co..     p. 

2753.  „ 

Franklin      Printing,      etc..      Co.      .. 

Behrcns.  p.   2837.         „..,,,,- 
Franklin   Trust  Co.  f.   Philadelphia. 

etc..     R.     Co..     222     Pa.     96.     /O 

-\tl      949.     22    L.     R.     A..    N.     S.. 

828— PP.   311.   315.   337.    356.   360. 

372.    380.  _.     - 
7'.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R-..C"- 

237     Pa.     519.     85     Ml     83?— P- 

407.  ,  ,.  ,  .         ^ 

Franklin,     etc..     Publishing     Co.     >. 

Behrens.    p.    2689.  „     n       ,. 

Franks.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R-    Co     t . 
Fraser    f.    California,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

-lll^^.-'H'arplVHouseCo..  p.   1751. 

7'.  Witt.    p.    1211. 

Frasier  7'.    Charleston    etc .   R.   Co.. 

pp.    811.    1376.    1383.    1483. 
Fravwick    f.    Southern    Railway,    p. 

642.  .  r.    r„    -. 

Frazar.   St.   Lou.s.  etc..  »•  ^o.   . .  _ 
Frazee,    Louisville,    etc..    R-    Co.    .. 


CLXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Frazer,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

f.   Marsh,    p.    3864. 

f.   Smith,  p.   659. 

Frazer   &    Co.    r.    Milliard,    p.    1239. 
Frazier,     Alabama,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

f.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

517. 

Camden    Interstate    R.    Co.    f. 

f.  Kansas,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

232,    273.    284. 

z:   New     York,     etc.,     K.     Co., 

pp.    2085,    2086. 

Sanderson    "■. 

Young  :■. 

Frederich    '•.    X.    Y..    X.     H.    &    H. 

R.    R.,    3668. 
Frederick     '■.     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    818,    890,    917. 

V.   Marquette,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

pp.     1649,     2462. 

Frederick  Leyland  &  Co.,  Delta 
Bag    Co.    f. 

Fredericks  f.  Xorthern  Cent.  Rail- 
road,   pp.    1687,    1723,    2031,    2961. 

Freeback  f.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
p.    2517. 

Freed.    Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "'. 

Freedon  f.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    1498. 

Freeman  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1622,    1623,    1631,    1632. 

f.   Bank,    pp.    383,    393. 

Central    R.    Co.    v. 

Chy    Lung   ',: 

'c:  Collins    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3006. 

v.   Consolidated       Tract.      Co., 

p.    2910. 

z:   Detroit,     etc..     R.     Co.,     p. 

158. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

i'.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3282,    3388. 

V.  Metropolitan   St.   R.    Co.,   p. 

1936. 

!■.   Xewton,   p.    3140. 

f.  New   York   City    R.    Co.,    p. 

1644. 

V.  Fere   Marquette    R.    Co.,    p. 

2168. 

i:   Puckett,   pp.   1867,   1869, 

2721,  2750,  2753. 

f.  Quebedeaux,  p.  779. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

— — -  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1025,    1031. 

V.   Wilmington,       etc..      Tract. 

Co.,  pp.  1687,  1695,  1742,  1890, 
1996,  2234,  2290,  2653,  2687, 
2858. 

Ziegler    v. 

Freeman    &    Sons    Mfg.    Co.,    Pratt 

Freeport    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Crotzer    v. 
Freiberg,     Cleveland,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Freidenrich  f.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R'. 
Co.,     pp.     1633,     2442. 

Fremont     v.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2816. 
Fremont,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    French. 

pp.    1501,    1764,    2839. 

Heumphreus  v. 

v.   Hagblad,     pp.     1501,     1512, 

1513,    1524,    1537,    2580,    2590. 

V.  Xew     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    3330,    3347. 

r.    Root,    pp.   2211,    2653,    2851. 

Shellenberg  v. 

State    z: 

V.   Waters,       pp.       211,       1493, 

3262,   3289. 

French  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.   931,    1018,    1037. 

z:   Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2141. 

Field    V. 

Fremont,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Merchants',      etc.,      Transp. 

Co.,   pp.    1631,    3162,    3166. 


French,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t: 

V.  Star     Union     Transp.     Co., 

p.    573. 

Frere    f.    Von    Schoeler,    p.    3585. 
Fresno     City    R.     Co.,     Maxwell    -•. 

Renfro  z\ 

Fretwell   z:   Seaboard,   etc..    Railway, 

p.    2516. 
Fretz   r.    Bull,    p.    4054. 
Freudenstein,    Pullman     Palace    Car 

Co.    v. 
Frcy    Z-.    New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R'. 

Co.,    p.    617. 
Stockton    Z-. 

Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

The. 

Fri,     The. 

Friar,    Johnson   v. 

v.  Orange,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

2042,    2052. 

Friear,    Johnson    v. 

Fricberg   '■.    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   567,   872. 
Fried    v.     Wells     Fargo     &     Co.,     p. 

1046. 
Friedel     z\     BrookJvn     Heights     R. 

Co.,   p.    2860. 
Friederick,  Driess  v. 
Friedlander   v.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    306,    308,    317,    356,    357,    371, 

373,    376,    389. 
Friedlander    &     Co.     z:     Cornell,     p. 

279. 
Friedman     z'.      Consolidated     Tract. 

Co.,   p.    2910. 

■;■.   Metropolitan,     etc.,    Co.,    p. 

528. 

Seaboard     .\ir     Line     Railway 

Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Friel,    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 
Friend,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Woods,    pp.    729,    736,    737. 

Friend     Paper     Co.,     Brooks     z'. 
Friendschaft,    The. 

Frier,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    <■. 
Fries,   Pennsylvania    R'.    Co.   '■. 
Friesland,    The. 
Frink     '•.     Potter,     p.     2127. 

Woodbury    z\ 

Frink  &   Co.  v.  Coe,   pp.    1726,    1749, 

1837,    3069. 
Frisbee,    Clines    r. 
Frisby,    St.    Louis,   etc._,_  R.    Co.    z\ 

z\   Sheridan,    p.    551. 

Fritz,    Ex    parte. 

'•.   Southern    R.     Co.,    p.    2871. 

Frizzell    v.    Omaha    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

204,    2723. 
Frobisher     -•.     Fifth     Ave.     Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    1833,    1838. 
Frogley,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Frohlic'h    Glass   Co.    v.    Pennsylvania 

Co.,    pp.    432,    992,    993. 
Frohriep    z:     Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    1844. 
Eromme.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z-. 
Front     St.     Cable     R.     Co.,     Dudley 

Front     St.,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Hawkins 

Frost,    Cohen   '■. 

v.   Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,     pp. 

1922,     1964,     2163. 

f.  Los     Angeles     R.     Co.,     p. 

2882. 

Williams     -■. 

Frothingham    f.    Jenkins,    pji.     1153, 

1 1 66. 
Fruit    Dispatch    Co.,    Kemendo   z\ 
Fry   V.   Mercantile   Bank,   p.    713. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    <■. 

V.   St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    p. 

1703. 

State    z'. 

Fuhry    v.    Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2004. 
^'ulbright     z:     Wabash     R.     Co.,     p. 

1479. 
Fulgham,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


Fulghum    V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1784,   2128. 
Fulks    f.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2125,    2152,    2373,    2620,    2876. 
Fullbright,     Cincinnati     St.     R.     Co. 

Fuller     '■.     .Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     1476. 
•;•.    Boston,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2285. 

z:    Bradley,     pp.     3,     209,     602. 

Byrnes    v. 

f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

142,    173,    1197. 

z'.    Denison,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

1712,    2302. 

Ft.     Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.     c'. 

z\   Jamestown     St.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2744. 
•  T'.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    978. 

•;■.    Madison      Mut.      Ins.      Co., 

pp.    323,    984. 

z:   Naugatuck   R.   Co.,   pp.   210, 

2570,    2666,    2751. 

Railroad    Co.    z\ 

Toledo    Consol.    St.    R.    Co.    •:•. 

Wells,      Fargo     &    Co.'s     Exp. 

Fuller's     Exp.     Co.,     .American     Silk 

Dyeing,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Fullerton    z:    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  152. 

z:    Fordyce,  pp.   1781,  2089, 

2269. 

State  f. 

Fulmer,    Jenks    z\ 

z:   Southern    R.    Co.,    p.     1598. 

Fulton.    Chandler   '•. 

Mad    River,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Merriman    f. 

Fulton,'   etc..    Co.,     Merriman    '■. 

z:  Thompson,   p.    1209. 

Fulton,    etc..    Cotton    Mills    z: 

son    Xav.    Co.,    p.    553. 
Fults    z\    Metropolitan     St.    R'. 

pp.    2157,    2746. 
Funderburg     z:    .\ugusta,     etc. 

Co.,     pp.     191,      194,      199, 

1936,     2428. 
Funderburk,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Funk,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Funsten    Dried    Fruit,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Toledo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp.     765, 

870,    872,    3342. 
Fuqua,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 
Furgason    v.    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1911,    1912,    1918,    2026. 
Furlow,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Furman    z:    Chicago,     etc.,    R.    Co., 

57     Iowa     42,     10     X.     W.     272— 

p.    577. 

v.   Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co.,     62 

Iowa  395,  17  X.  W.  598,  6  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  280 — pp.  575, 
576. 

z\   Chicago,    etc.,    R'.     Co., 

Iowa    540,    46    X.      W. 
577. 

-'.   Union     Pac.     R. 

361,    378,    561,    3274. 

Furnam,   Putnam  z\ 

Furness,     Baunwall,     etc.,     Co.    v. 

Furness,   etc.,    Co.,    Disney   z: 

Johnstone    z\ 

f.    Leyland     Shipping     Co.,     p. 

3957. 

Swift   &   Co.   V. 

Furnish  z\  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
102  Mo.  438,  44  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  322,  13  S.  W.  1044,  22  .Am. 
St.  Rep.  781— pp.  1716,  1732, 
1740,    1812,    1842,    2694,    3005. 

•;■.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    102 

Mo.  669,  IS  S.  W.  315,  22  Am. 
St.    Rep.    800— p.    2694. 

Furniss,     Bucklry    z: 
Furstenheim    r.     Memphis,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,    pp.    3176,    3179. 


Hud- 
Co., 


,     R. 

1604, 


81 
1049— p. 

Co.,     pp. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLXXV 


Furthman,       Merchants'  IJcspatcli 

Transp.    Co.   v. 
Merchants'     Dispatch  Transp. 

Co.   r.                               ,  ^. 

Furthmann,      Merchants  Dispatch 

Transp.    Co.    v. 

FusstU,     St.     I.ouis,     etc.,  R.     Co. 


Gabbert  f.    llackett,   pp.    1559,    l.-ifo. 
Gable    r.     Delaware, .  etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2164,    2165.  ^,      ,^ 

Gabler    v.     McChcsney,     70     N.     Y. 

S.     191,    60    App.    Div.    583— pp. 

3956,    3961. 
V.    McChcsney,    70    N.    \.     S. 

195,  60  App.  Div.  590— p.  3964. 
Gaborron  r.  Kreeft,  pp.  352,  353. 
Gabriel   ':    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    1894. 
Caddie,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Gadsden,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v.    Causler, 

pp.    1736,    1739,    1869,    1883,   217d, 

2242. 

Boston,     etc.,     R 


Gafifman     : 

p.    3167. 
Gaffney    v. 

p.    2816. 
— —  r.   St.    Paul    City    R.    Co, 
1517,     1519,     1522, 


Brooklyn    City    K. 


Co., 
Co., 


,    PP- 
2859, 


733, 
Co., 


I>P- 


1515, 
2863. 

V.   Union   Tract.    Co.,    p.    2195. 

Gage,  Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v. 

V.  Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1914. 

f.   Jaqueth,    p.    302. 

Machine    Co.    f. 

V.    Morse,    pp.    355,    701,    714. 

f.   St.    Louis    Transit    Co..    pp. 

1958,     2166,     2337,     2738,     2882, 
2893. 

Tirrell   v. 

V.   Tirrell,    pp.     10,    728, 

749,   750. 

Gagnon   v.   Boston    Elevated   R 

p.    1830. 
Gail,    Smith    v. 
Gaines    v.    Chester    Tract.    Co 

1689,    2810. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Pullman    Southern    Car    Co.    '■. 

V.   Union,    etc.,    Ins.     Co.,     pp. 

322  325,  326,  781,  813,  897, 
946.  956,  981,  988,  996,  1000, 
1007,  1032,  1033,  1036,  1039, 
3880. 

Wilson    V. 

Gainesville    Mid.    Railway    f. 

son,    pp.     1881,    1892,     1893. 
Gaither    v.    Barnet,    p.     734. 
Galam,   The. 
Galaviz    v.     International,     etc., 

Co.,   p.    1552. 
Galbraith,    etc.,    Co.,    .\dler    r. 
Gale,    Brock   :•. 

Brunswick,    etc..    R.    Co.    ■ 

r.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

1973. 

V.   Eastman,    p.    1490. 

Levois  v. 

Galehouse  v.    Minneapolis,  etc., 

Co.,  p.  1524. 
Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co..  Congar 
f.  Fay.  pp.  1684,  1721, 

21 U,  2119,  2220,  2294, 

2377,  2400,  2951. 

f.   R-ae,     pp.     208,     210, 

228,    229.    233,    234,    246 
253,    607.    621.    653.    1153. 

V.   Yarwood.     15     111.     468~pp. 

210,     1738.    2220. 

r.    Yarwood,     17     111.     509.     63 

Am.    Dec.    682— pp.    2260.    2u72,. 

Hailinan,    p.    789 


lack- 


R. 


R. 


1727. 
2368. 


216. 
247, 


Galgate     Ship     Co.,     Starr     &     Co. 

Gallagher  '■.    Bowie,   pp.    1728.    1729. 

1749.     1984.     2034,     2037.     2942. 
liedding   f. 


Gallagher,    Merrick    v. 

Texas    Mex.    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2154,    2383. 

West     Philadelphia,     etc.,      R. 

Co.    V. 

Gallahcr,    New     York,    etc.,     R.    Co. 

Galiegly    V.     Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     2417,     3021. 
Gallena    v.     Hot     Springs     Railroad, 

pp.    2480,    2483,    2485. 
Galliers    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1447,    1448. 
Galligan   -•.   Old  Colony   St.   R.   Co., 

1).    2956. 
Galliher,    Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Galloway    v.    Chicago,    etc..    Iv.    Co., 

87  Iowa  458,  54  X.  W.  447,  58 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  245— pp. 

1712,  2258,  2367,  2514. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     56 

Minn.  346,  57  N.  W.  1058,  23 
L.  R.  A.  442,  45  .\m.  St.  Rep. 
468— pp.   2507,   2527. 

f.    Erie    R.    Co.,    95    X.    Y.    S. 

17,  107  App.  Div.  210,  17  X.  Y. 
Ann.     Cas.     209— p.     1286. 

T.  Erie   R.    Co.,    102   N.    Y.    S. 

25,  116  App.  Div.  777 — pp.  1012, 
1383. 

V.   Hughes,   pp.    531,   538. 

Gait   V.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    731, 

763,    767,    768. 

-•.   Archer,      pp.       1145,       1172, 

1173. 

Gallon,     Ft.     Worth,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Galveston  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
Railroad    Comm.    v. 

?■.   Railroad    Comm.,    p.    124. 

Galveston   City   R.   Co.,   Allen   v. 

Christie   v. 

V.   Hewitt,    pp.     1731,     1978. 

Galve.ston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Alberti, 

p.     1886. 

Allen    f. 

V.  Allison,       pp.      946,       3342. 

3357. 

Armstrong  v. 

V.   Armstrong,    p.     3545. 

^^  V.^lLlI,'  pp.  822,  847,  849, 
853,  854,  855,  861,  949,  950, 
954,  1055.  1069,  1073,  1077,  1079, 
1099,    1102,   nil. 

V.   Barnett,   pp.   490,   682,   802. 

V.   Bean,   pp.    2046,   2095. 

r.   Bell.   pp.    851,   860. 

r.   Berry,   p.   1885. 

V.  Boothe,      pp.      1087,      1095, 

1414,     1415. 

:■.   Borden,    pp.    583,    1302. 

-•.   Botts,     22     Tex.     Civ.     .App. 

609,   55   S.  W.   514— pp.  451,   996, 
1297,    3336. 

;■.    Botts    (Tex.    Civ.    App.).    70 

S.   W.    113— pp.    1318.    1352. 

Burton    v. 

Cassiano   v. 

Christie  v. 

r.  Contreras.    pp.    2o03.    2604. 

V.  Cooper,    70    Tex.    67,    8    S. 

W.    68— pp.    1916,    1964. 

f.   Cooper,    2    Tex.    Civ.    .\pp. 

42      20     S.     W.     990— pp.     1527, 
1885,    1916.    1964,    1965. 

Crawleigh    f. 

:•.   Crier,    pp.    738,    742,     1680, 

1691,    2844. 

V.   Crippen,    p.    1077. 

Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Crispi, 

pp.    1869,    1875,    1885,    1887. 
— —  f.    Crow,    pp.    522,    3469.    3604, 
3661,    3840. 

r.   Davidson,    pp.    2113,    2171. 

Davis    f. 

r.    Davis,    p.    2300. 

De   Castillo  f. 

. ;.   1/c    Castillo,    p.    2264. 


Galveston,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.    Donahoe, 
p.    2059. 

V.  Douglass,      pp.       652,      660, 

679. 

V.   Efron,     pp.     815,     849,    SSa, 

865,    1027,    1036,    1041. 

V.   Fales.    pp.    937,    3114.    3123, 

3132,   3536. 

:•.   Febo,    p.     1073. 

V.   Fink,    pp.    1502,    1503,    1882. 

2329,    2570. 

f.   Freeman,    p.    1440. 

-.■.   Garcia,    pp.    2589,    2604. 

f.  Gildca,    p.    695. 

V.  Giles,    p.    864. 

Good   I'. 

f.   Goodwin,    p.    2734. 

f.   Green,     p.     2694. 

V.  Harman,   p.   1408. 

Henderson  v. 

Herring    v. 

V.   Herring,        102      Tex.      100, 

113    S.    W.    521— pp.    1694,    2113. 

-  V.  Herring  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
24    S.    W.    939— p.    3358. 

-  f.  Herring  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
28    S.    W.    580— p.    1355. 

-  V.  Herring  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
36  S.  W.  129,  130— pp.  1120, 
1303,     1311,     1337,    2583. 

-  Hicks  f. 

-  V.  Home,  pp.  815,  822,  1027, 
1130. 

-  V.  House,  pp.  335,  1127, 
1129,  1199,  1202,  1203,  1204. 

-  !•.  Houston,  p.  3344. 

-  V.   Hubbard,  p.  1886. 

-  f.  Hunt,  pp.  700,  712,  897. 
901. 

-  V.   Ivey,  p.  3358. 

-  V.  Jackson,  pp.  286,  287, 
1279,  1332,  1335. 

-  V.  Jessee.  pp.  643,  659,  666, 
667,  668,  669,  672,  673,  683. 

Johnson  v.  „  ,,, 

f.  Johnson  (Tex.7,  19  S.  W. 

867— pp.  834,  855,  856,   1321, 
1350.  1353. 

V.   lohnson  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.), 

29  S.  "W.  428— p.  1353. 

V.   Karrer,  pp.   1313,   1319. 

13 '3 

~'J.   Kellev,   pp.   854,   1127, 

1128,  1351. 

V.   Kinnebrew.  pp.  1613,  1633. 

i:   Krenek.  p.  2249. 

V.   La  Prelle,  pp.  2051,  2053, 

2055,  2064,  2771. 

V.   Le  Gierse,  pp.  2113,  2114, 

2143.  2151.  2156,  2319. 

Liefert   v. 

-•.   Long,        pp.        1689.        1692, 

2028.    2030.    2417,    2418,    2419. 

Lytle   :•. 

McCartv    v. 

:•.   McMonigal.  pp.  2042. 

2046.    2705. 

McXeil    V. 

V.  Mathes,      pp.      1526.      1S8/, 

2269. 

f.  Matula.   p.   3398. 

V.   Matzdorf.    p.    2508. 

;.  Morris,  94  Tex.  505,  61  S. 

W.  709— pp.  1953,  2114,  2151, 
2172. 

!•.  Morris,   pp.   1956.   2221. 

2283,    2292. 

f.    Morrison,     p.     1766. 

Mullen    : . 

V.  Xoelke,    p.    1336. 

Norton  r. 

Norwood    "■. 

J-.   Parsley,      pp.     1689.      1691, 

1694,    2211,    2589,    2683,    2697. 

f.   Patillo,     pp.       1694,       1985. 

2220. 

'.-.   Patterson,  pp.  1605.  1606. 

;•.  Piper  Co..  pp.  3604,  3661, 

3662,  3663.  3840. 

V.   Powers,  p.  1337. 


CLXXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Ouilhot 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  123  S.  W.  200 
—p.    807. 

v.   Quilhot    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

134  S.  \V.  261— pp.  760,  763, 
764,  845. 

Ratteree  ''. 

7:  Roemer,    pp.     796,    2566. 

Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -•.    Sanchez, 

p.  2251. 

?-.  Schafermeyer,  p.  3398. 

f.  Schmidt,  p.  215. 

f.  Scott,  44  S.  W.  589.  18 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  321 — pp.  2078. 
2772. 

r.  Scott,  79  S.  W.  642.  34 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  501 — p.  2428. 

•:•.  Short,  pp.  507.  1094.  1140. 

1411.  3331. 

f.  Silegman,   pp.   333,   334, 

335,  337,  607,  637,  851,  864, 
865.  956.  1118  1122,  1123  11^7 
1128,  1272,  1360.        '    '  ' 

7:   Smith,   59  Tex.  406— pp. 

2151,  2249.  2263,  2319. 

'<:   Smith,  81  Tex.  479,  482, 

17  S.  W.  133— pp.  919,  2570, 
3160.  3161,  3169,  3174. 

7'.   Smith,     2     Tex.     App.     Civ. 

Cas..  §  138— pp.  639,  758,  778, 
880. 

!■.    Smith      (Tex.     Civ.      Anp.'), 

24  S.  W.  668— pp.  3160.  3161, 
3169. 

— —  T'.  Snead.  pp.  1562,  1565, 
1808.    1985. 

State  T. 

f.   Stovall.      pp.       471,        1,^14. 

1351. 

r.   Texas,       pp.      3551.       3552 

3559.    3560,    3561,    3562. 

7'.   Thompson  (Tex.  Civ 

App.),  23  S.  W.  930— pp.  1086, 
1096,     1107,     1415. 

7:   Thompson  (Tex.  Civ 

App.).  44  S.  W.  8— pp.  441.  443 
1295,    1325 

7:  Thompson         (Tex.  Civ 

App.).  44  S.  W.  810— p.  442. 

7:   Thorn.sberrv.    pp.    1767 

1798.  1878,  2357,  2570.  2639" 
2906,  2984. 

-—  f  Tuckett  (Tex.  Civ.  .App.). 

?L,^-  ■  ^-■''^— PP-  863.  881, 
1307,  1327,  1351,  1359. 

— —  7'.  Tuckctt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.). 

25  S.  W.  670— p.  856.      ' 

T-.  Turner,  p.  2473. 

r.   Waldo,  p.  1808. 

7:   Walker,  pp.  2733,  2734 

f.    Wallace    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

117  S.  W.  169— pp.  3445,  3602, 
3661,    3662. 

— —  7%  Wallace,  223  U.  S.  481,  56 
r..  Ed.  516,  32  S.  Ct.  205— pp. 
3444,    3469,    3470. 

7'.   Warnken.     pp.     1303,     1312 

1327. 

7:  Watson,    pp.    637.    643,    664. 

666. 

Williams  7'. 

7'.   Williams    (Tex.    Civ.    App  ) 

25  S.  W.  311— pp.  1092,  1093, 
1096. 

7:  Williams    (Tex.    Civ.    App), 

25  S.  W.  1019- pp.  864.  1085, 
1086.    1095,    1359,    1415,    1431. 

7\  Wiseman,    p.    1664. 

7'.   Wood,    etc..    Cattle    Co.,    p. 

1203.  ^ 

7'.   Word,    p.    262. 

7:   Young,       pp.      1841,       1999, 

2683,    2793. 

7'.   Zantzinger,    p.    2482. 

Galvin,      Warehouse,      etc.,      Supply 

Co.    7'. 

Gamble.    Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Gamble-Robinson      (Zomm.      Co.      v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp.    3632, 

3706. 


Gamble-Robinson  Comm.  Co.  v. 
Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.   430. 

7'.  Northern   Pac.   R.   Co., 

107  Minn.  187,  119  N.  W.  1068 
—p.  690. 

7'.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  119 

Min.  40,  137  N.  W.  19— pp. 
1113,  1115. 

Gammage,   St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co.  7. 
Gammett,    Holland   7'. 
Ganguzza   7'.    Anchor    Line,    p.    3989. 
Ganiard   v.    Rochester,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    2149,   2817. 
Ganlev    7'.     Brooklvn     Citv    R.     Co., 

p.    2803. 
Gann    7'.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    65 

Mo.    App.    670— p.    465. 

7:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     72 

Mo.    .App.    34— pp.    1297,    1315. 

Georgia    R.    Co.    7'. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Gannon    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.  1526,  1965,  2075,  2305.  2306, 
2366. 

7'.   New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2886. 

Gans   7'.    -Xuchincloss,    p.    3951. 

7'.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

r,ans  Steamship  Line,  Holman  7'. 
Gants,  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Gantt,   Pollock   &   Co.    7'. 

Garber   7'.    Joline,    p.    2810. 
Garberson        7'.  Transcontinental 

Freight    Co.,    p.    772. 
Garcia.    Galveston,    etc..    R.     Co.    7'. 

Mexican    Nat.    R'.    Co.    -■. 

Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

Garden    Grove    Bank    ?•.    Humeston. 

etc..    R.     Co.,    pp.    338,    356,    360, 
369,    378,    3274. 

Gardiner,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 
Gardiner     7'.     New     York.     etc..     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1075,    3163,    3164.    3166. 
Gardner,    Atlanta,   etc.,    R.    Co 

7'.   Boston     Elevated      R. 

pp.    1743,    2952. 

T.   Chase,     p.     333. 

Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.    Detroit      St.      R.     Co., 

1890,    3005. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.      R. 

122  S.  W.  389,  223  Mo.  389,  1 
Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1166 — 
PP.  1737,  1818,  2337.  2654.  2700. 
2738. 

•  V.   Metropolitan      St.      R.      Co.. 

167  Mo.  App.  605,  152  S.  W.  98 
—pp.     1891.    2241. 

7\   New    Haven,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

1502.    1506,    1537.    1543. 

New    Jersey    Tract.    Co.    7'. 

V.   New    Orleans,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    821,    829,    867. 

Pullman     Palace     Car     Co.     7'. 

Shaw    7'. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 

■  7'.   Southern     R.     Co.,     p.     969. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.   Wavcross,    etc..    R.    Co..    94 

Ga.  538,  19  S.  E.  757— pp.  1990, 
2575. 

V.  "^^''avcross,    etc..    R.    Co..    97 

Ga.  482.  25  S.  E.  334.  54  Am. 
St.  Ren.  435 — np.  1561,  1715. 
1718.  1989,  2334,  2335,  2839, 
2840. 

Gardner,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  Thomp- 
son   7'. 

Garey   ?■.    Meagher   &    Co..    n.    771. 

Garfield,   etc..    Coal    Co..   Morgan   v. 

Garland  t.  Boston  Flev.  R.  Co., 
pp.    2358,    2908. 

'■-    Southern    R.    Co..    pp.    1755. 

1989,    1991. 

Garlington    7'.    Fort    Worth,    e'c,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    654,    657,    693.    695. 
Garner  t.   Chicago,    etc..   Tract.    Co., 

pp.    2678,    2679. 

V.   Fortv-Second     St.,     etc.,     R. 

Co..    p.    1996. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   K.    Co.   7'. 


Co. 


pp. 
Co.. 


Garner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p 

285,    292. 
Garnett,    In    re. 
Garrett  7'.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p, 

1539. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Missouri,    etc,     R.     Co.    7'. 

O'Neill    7'. 

7'.    St.     Louis    Trans.     Co.,     pp. 

2410.    2534. 

Garrison  7'.  Baggage  Transp.  Co. 
94  Mo.  130,  6  S.  W.  701— p 
456. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

7'.   Memphis    Ins.    Co.,    p.    4021 

7'.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.     138 

150,    178,    3517. 

7'.   United   R.,    etc.,    Co.   7'.,   pp 

77.    1649.    2447,    2473,    2572. 

Garthright,    Richmond    R.,    etc.,    Co 


Garton    7'.    Bristol,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 
211,    213,    221,    225.    1181. 

Heme    7'. 

Zambctti    7'. 

Garvan   7'.    New   York,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    484,    486,    867,    1954,    3379. 
Garvey    7'.     Rhode    Island     Co.,     pp. 

1516,   2141. 
Garvik   7'.    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

124    Iowa    691,    100    N.    W.    498— 

pp.    2646,    2868. 

7'.   Burlington,     etc.,      R.     Co.. 

131  Iowa  415,  108  N.  W.  327, 
117  Am.  St.  Rep.  432— pp.  2341, 
2785. 

Gary    7'.     Gulf,     etc..     R.     Co.,     pp. 
1683,    1801,    1870,    2744. 

7'.   Wells,    Fargo    &    Go's    Exp., 

pp.    512,   594. 

Gasaway,    Chicago,    etc..   R.    Co.   7'. 
C^as    Co.    7'.    Glass    Co.,    p.    659. 
Gascogne,    La. 
Gascoigne    7'.    Metropolitan,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.   2872. 
Gashweiler  v.   Wabash,    etc..    R.    Co., 

T-n.    894,    899,    902. 
Gaskins    7'.    Southern     R.     Co.,     pp. 

478,    488. 
Gass    V.    Astoria    Veneer    Mills,    pp. 

332,     349,      360,     361,      365,      371, 

374,     381,     382.     542,     543.     546. 
7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    285,    3301,    3312. 

7'.   Southern    Pac.    Co..    p.    382. 

Gastka      North      Chicago      City      R. 

Co.     7'. 

Gaston,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Gasway    7-.    Atlanta,      etc..      R.     Co., 

pp.    2038.    2040,    2041,    2045,    2064, 

3064,   3073. 
Gate    City    St.    R.    Co.,    Houston    7: 
Gates   7'.    Bekins.    p.    581. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

361,  369,  371,  378,  544,  547, 
556,     3274. 

7'.  Detroit,      etc..      R.      Co..      p. 

538. 

7'.  Ouincy,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1562,  2473,    2474. 

•  7'.   Ryan,    pp.    712,    1511. 

Gatewood,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    7:. 

Gathright,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    418 

420,    465. 

Gathwright,     Pacific     Exp.     Co.    7'. 
Gattman,     Hamburg-American     Pac 

ket    Co.    7'. 
Gatton    V.    Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.   3494,    3606. 
7'.   United    States    Exp.    Co.,    p 

989. 
Gaukler    v.     Detroit,    etc.,     R'.     Co. 

pp.    2478.    2489,    2854. 
Gault  Lumber  Co.  7\   Atchison,   etc. 

R.    Co.,    pp.    715,    716. 
Gaunce    7'.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

2172,    2174,    2221,    2222,    2891. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLXXVII 


Cavett   T.    Manchester,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2248. 
Gavin,    Pullman    Palace    Car   Co.    z: 
Gay    1'.     Milwaukee    Elect.    R.,    etc., 

Co.,    pp.    2684,    2841,    3033. 
. Thomas  t'. 

Ware    -•. 

Gaylord,    Pullman    Palace    Car    Co. 

V. 

Gaynor  x'.  Old  Colony,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    1722,    1776,    1780. 
Gazelle,   The. 
G.    C.   &   S.    F.   R.    Co.   r.    Ilolliihy, 

p.    1350. 

V.  Levy,    p.    796. 

t'.   McGowan,  *  pp.     4,    5,    933, 

2092,   2095. 

V.   Moctze,    p.    935. 

Murray    Hro.    r. 

V.  Wilhelm,     p.     956. 

Gebus   V.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2858. 
Geddes,    Fisher   t. 

-'.   Metropolitan     R.      Co.,      pp. 

2878,    2887. 

United    States   v. 

Gee  1'.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Kng.),  6  Hurl.  &  X.  211— pp. 
637,    653,    674. 

T.   Lancashire,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(Eng.),    6     Hurl.      &     N.    217— p. 
646. 

Geer,    Clark   r. 

V.  Michigan      Cent.      R.      Co., 

pp.    145,    1672. 

Geiger,     Florida,    etc.,    K.     Co.    t. 

-•.   Pittsburg   R.    Co.,    pp.    1519, 

2947,   2959. 

Geis,     South     Covington,      etc.,     St. 

R.  Co.  %: 
Geiser,  The. 
•Geismer    z'.     Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,  p.  619. 
<ici*z  -•.   Milwaukee  City  R.   Co.,   p. 

2197. 
General      Elect.      Co.,     New      York, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

I'.   Southern    Railway,     p.     561. 

General     Fire     Extinguisher     Co.     v. 

Carolina,    etc..    Co.,    pn.    739,    744. 

•General  Iron  Screw  Collier  Co., 
Grill   r. 

General  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  i'.  Sher- 
wood,   pp.    4021,    4022. 

General    Oil    Co.   t'.    Crain.    p.    3568. 

General    Smith,    The. 

General  Transatlantic  Co.,  Guil- 
laume   t'. 

■Geneva,    etc.,    Tract.    Co.,    Paine    v. 

Gensemer  r.  Conestoga  Tract  Co., 
p.    2903. 

■Gent,   JctTersonvillc,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Gentleman,    The. 

Gentry,    Wells    Fargo    &    Co's    E-xp. 

Geogagn  z>.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

p.    2247. 
Geopp,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 
George,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

'•.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    108 

Mich.  572,  66  N.  W.  479— p.  818. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    214 

Mo.     551,     113    S.    W.     1099— pp. 
66,    1274,    1372,    1373,    1408.    1417. 

T'.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     57 

Mo.     .\pp.      358— pp.      815,      818, 
823,    1457. 

Georgia,     etc.,     R.     Co.     f. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ;■. 

Tones   ?■. 

"Midland    \'alley    R.    Co.    f. 

7:  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co..   pp. 

1722,  1812,  2693 

7'.   Skivington,    p.    1849. 

George    W.    Garlick,    The. 
George    W.    Roby,    The. 

George  &  Co.  <•.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.    Co.,   pp.    519,   557. 

New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

•Georgetown,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Smith, 

pp.     2204.     2337.     2893. 

1    Car— 1 


p.    1073. 
2702. 
pp.     1505,     1521, 


Georgia,    Ilennington   v. 

<".eorgia    l-ruit,    etc.,    ICxch.,    Central 

R.,   etc.,  Co.   V. 
Georgia   (iranite    R.    Co.,    Gregory   -•. 
Georgia     Home      Ins.      Co.,      Yazoo, 

etc.,   K'.   Co.   7-. 
Georgia      Pac.      R.       Co.,       Central 

Trust    Co.    T. 

Cooper  I'. 

Head  V. 

V.   Hughart, 

-'.    Love,    p. 

f.    Robinson 

1522. 

Smith    -•. 

-'.   Underwood,    p.     2202. 

Watson    T'. 

(Jeorgia    Railroad,     Bird    i'. 

Crawford    j'. 

f.   Creety,     pp.     3760,     3840. 

I'"alvey   ?■. 

Xunn    -■. 

-  artee   "•. 

'•.   Richards,    p.    601. 

V.   Spears,    pp.     727.    732,    740, 

748,  961,  962,  967,  968,  972,  981, 
1005,  1267,  1269,  1361,  1364, 
1369,    1372,    3379. 

Georgia     R.      Co.,     American     Nat. 

liank    r. 
•  -■.    Baldoni,      pp.      1631,      2409, 

2450,    2482,    3100. 
•  V.   Beatie,    pp.     727,     732,     748, 

959,     961,     962,    967,      968,      1005, 

1018,  1267,  1361,  1364. 

r.   Cole  &  Co.,  pp.  503,  3297. 

v.   Gann,  pp.  947,  961,  962, 

967,  968,  1003,  1007,  1019,  3306, 

3397. 

r.  Hayden,  pp.  3040,  3052. 

7'.  Homer,   pp.   1748,   2408, 

2409,  2432,  2481,  2775,  3090, 
3091,  3096. 

Home-Andrews    Comm.    Co.   i: 

f.  Johnson,  p.  765,  3172. 

Kerr  7'. 

;■.  Maddox,  p.  3247. 

Mitchell  7'. 

7'.  Newsome,  p.  2045. 

-■.  Olds,  pp.  1612,  2457,  2458, 

2481,  3092. 

Peavy  7'. 

■  V.   Smith,  pp.  22,  23,    35,  62. 

63. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Adams, 

pp.  1783,  2133,  2591,  3006. 

.Mlison  t'. 

-Almand  "■. 

7'.  Baker,  120  Ga.  991,  48  S. 

E.  355— pp.  3083,  3084. 
•  7'.  Baker,  125  Ga.  562,  54  S. 

E.  639,  20  R.  R.  R.  789,  43  .\m. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  789,  7 

L.  R.  A.,   N.  S,  103,  114  Am.  St. 

R'ep.  246,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 

Cas.  484— pp.  1613.  1644,  1648, 

1651,  2458,  2464,  3064. 

7'.  Baker,  58  S.  E.  88,  1  Ga. 

.\pp.  832— pp.  1949,  2058,  2075, 
2770. 

7'.  Baldoni,  p.  2528. 

Battle  7'. 

Burge  7'. 

7'.  Clarke,  p.   1615. 

— —  -•.  Cole,  pp.  1506,  1508,  1509. 
1517.  1518.  1747.  2777. 

Coleman  7'. 

7'.  Crossley    &    Co..    p.    1199. 

Havis    7'. 

z:   Davis,  pp.  2474.  2777. 

7'.  Dougherty,  pp.  1610.  2459. 

2460,  3093. 
7'.  Eskew,   pp.   2409.   2432. 

2464.   2475.  2485,   3078.   3079. 

3080.  3081,  3082,  3083. 
Fluker  7'. 

Forrester  7'. 

f.   Forrester,     p.     3397. 

V.   Gillcland,     pp.     1747,     2127. 

2128.     2367,     2400,     2839.     2899. 


Georgia    R..    etc..   Co.   v.   Greer,    pp. 
1492.    1493.    1494. 

z:   Haas,    p.    480. 

Ham    :■. 

Hardwick  f. 

Ilillman    v. 

Hornesby    j'. 

z:   Hopkins,    pp.    2055.    2056. 

Jackson    v. 

i:  Jctt.   p.   3061. 

Johnson    z\ 

Joseph    J'. 

z:   Keating,    pp.    1884.    1885. 

z:   Keener,    pp.    820,    823,    947, 

948,   1038,   1055,   1056,   1065, 
1075,  1079,  1080. 

Killian  v. 

r-  V.  Lloyd,       pp.       1790,      2591, 

2592. 
Lyndon    ?•. 

z:  Mc.Mlistcr.    pp.    1705,    2129, 

2689,     3045,    3063. 

McBride    f. 

z:   McCurdy,    pp.     1864,     1878. 

V.  Maddox,    p.    233. 

Miller   z: 

Morris    z: 

7'.    Murden,     83     Ga.     753,     10 

S.    E.    364— pp.    1596,    1597.   2633. 

z:   Murden.     86     Ga.     434,     12 

S.    E.    630— pp.    200,    1596,    1597. 
1599.    1600.    2469. 

V.  Murrah.    p.    3285. 

z:  Norris,    p.    2913. 

Pennsylvania    Steel    Co.    v. 

Phillips    7-. 


Phillips, 
3159,    3169. 

Pickens    z\ 

—  Pierce    v. 

—  Poole    z: 
Reeves, 


pp.      1538,      3158, 


3006. 


1364, 
1390, 


pp. 


2634,      2688. 


2056, 
2911! 


Reid,  pp.  972,  1270 
1365,  1367,  1372. 
1407,     1434. 

Rich,    p.    2069. 

Richmond,    pp 

2526. 

Rives,       pp. 


1361. 
1384. 


2040, 


1525, 
1912, 
626,    10    S. 


2601, 


S.    174,    32 
47— pp.   36, 


894,     898. 


1767.       1768. 


Railroau.      Mc- 


7'.   Smith.    83    Ga. 

E.    2-35— p.    3249. 

z:   Smith,    128    U. 

L.   Ed.   377,  9   S.   Ct. 
61,    62.    63.    64. 

"■.   Thompson,      pp. 

919.    3174.    3194. 

7'.   Tice,     pp.     2777,     2918. 

7'.   Usry,        pp. 

2350. 

Walker   7'. 

Wolfe  7. 

Wood    7'. 

Wright   7'. 

Wynn   7. 

Georgia     Southern 

Caffrey  7'. 

McCaffrey    &    Co.    7-. 

Georgia    Southern    R.    Co. 

son.   etc..   Co..   p.    724. 
Georgia     Southern,     etc.. 
Hicks   7-. 

7'.  Murray,    p.     1876. 

Georgia,    etc.,    Co.,    Autrey   7'. 
Georgia,    etc..    R.    Co.     f.    Asmore. 

pp.    1596,    1597,    1599,    1603,    2468. 
2473,    2493. 

z:  Barfield,   pp.    736,   813,   834. 

874. 

7'.   Bigelow,     pp.      1625,     2415. 

3089.    3103. 

Brown   7'. 

-•.    Brown,    p.     1615. 

7'.  Cartlcdge,    p.    2721. 

Cooper   7'. 

Curry   v. 

"•.   Durrencc,     p.     444. 

Elbcrta    Peach    Co.    z-. 

7'.    Elliott,    pp.    626.    796. 

z:   Eskew.    p.    1638. 


R. 


John- 
Co.. 


CLXXVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:    Florida, 
etc..  Tobacco  Co.,  p.  406. 

V.   George,  pp.  2840,  2491. 

T-.  Greer,   pp.   1031,   1271, 

1361.  1364,  1389,  1390. 

Hicks  r. 


pp. 
etc., 


Co., 


2820. 
pp. 


954.       1020,       103S,      1040,      1056, 
1071,    1081,    1137. 

Jones    r. 

V.   Knight,    p.    574. 

f.    Marchman,    pp.    269.    434. 

z:   Murray,    pp.    1922,    2240. 

Pattison,   pp.    894,   898,    899, 

Pound,    pp.    894,    898,    899, 
919. 
Ricks    r. 

-•.   Sizer   &    Co.,    p.    289. 

'■.   Smith,    p.     34. 

Suber    -■. 

'■.    Underwood,    p.    1816. 

'-.  Watkins,   pp.    1895,   2120. 

Whelan    '■. 

Geppert,  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.  "'. 
Geraldon,  Te.xas  Mid.  R.  Co.  t'. 
Gerrdy    '•.    Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.     1671,    1676,     1678. 
Geratv,    .Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
V.   .\tlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    211 

Fed.  227— pp.  3666,  3670.  3816. 

-■.    Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     81 

S.   C.   367,   62   S.   E.   444 — p.    1020. 

Gerber   z\   Wabash    R.    Co.,    p.    3751. 
Gerhard    '•.     Xeese,     pp.     565,     608, 

609,    610,    638,    677,    1144,    1146. 
Gerhard    Mennen    Chemical    Co.    v. 

Merchants*    Exp.    Co.,    p.    500. 
Gerlach    r.    Detroit   United    Railway, 

pp.    1826,   2721,   2777,   2881. 
German     v.     Brooklyn     Heights     R'. 

Co.,    pp.    2684,    2882. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    Co.,    150    111. 

App.    149— p.    2684. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     38 

Iowa    127— pp.    996,   997,    1374. 

T'.    Lake     Erie,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    442. 

German     Fruit     Co.     v.     California, 

etc.,    R.   Co.,   p.   435. 
German        Nat.        Bank,        .\rkansas 

Southern    R.    Co.    '■. 

Arkansas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  r. 

German      Security      Bank,      Holmes, 

etc.,    Co.    r. 

Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  t-.  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp  319,  321, 
325,  333,  335,  958,  987,  996,  3880, 
3881. 

Germania  Ins.  Co.  '■.  La  Crosse, 
etc..   Packet  Co.,   p.   891. 

Germanic,    The. 

Germann  z\  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
pp.    2786,   3075. 

Gcrmantown  Pass.  R.  Co.  t.  Bro- 
phy,   pp.    1820,   2200. 

V.   Walling,     pp.     2178,     2193, 

2343,    2344,    2347. 

Germany,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Gernon,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    t'. 
Gerreiss,    Kentucky   Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 
Gerren,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Gerry    v.    American     Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

1004,    1006. 
Gerson,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Gerstle    f.    Union    Pac.     R.    Co.,    p. 

1953. 
Getman,    Packard    t. 
Getz,   Stewart  Taxi   S?rvice  Co.  v. 
Gewin,    &    Son,    Alabama,    etc.,    R. 

Co.  J.'. 
Geyer    v.    United    States    Exp.    Co., 

pp.   944.    1273. 
Ghazee,    The. 
G.    H.   &   H.    R.   Co.   V.   Allison,   pp. 

503,    504,    508. 


G.    H.    &    H.    R.    Co.    V.    Moore,    p. 

2120. 
G.    H.    &    S.    A.    R.    Co.    f.    Stovall, 

p.     1321. 
■ — ■ — -  V.    \"an     Winkle     &     Co.,     pp. 

405,   830,   852. 

f.   Watson,    p.    858. 

Ghio    i'.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1903,    2252. 
Ghormley    v.    Dinsmore,     51     N.     Y. 

Super.   Ct.    196— p.    1108. 

f.   Dinsmore,    53    N.    V.    Super. 

Ct.    36— p.    1010. 

Gibbes,  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  -■. 
Gibbons  7\    Karwell,  pp.  551,  573. 
574,  579. 

V.   Ogden  pp.  3418,  3419,  3420, 

'  3439,  3440,  3474,  3476,  3477, 

3478,  3549,  3569,  3571,  3581. 

V.   Robinson,  pp.  337,  338. 

— —  f.   Wade,   pp.   948,    1007. 
Gibbs,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Southern     Exp.     Co.    v. 

T'.    \'an   Buren,   p.    3895. 

Giblin    7'.     National     Steamship    Co., 

pp.     1456,    1476. 
Giboney,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 
Gibson      v.      American      Merchants' 

L'nion    E-xp.    Co.,    pp.    3328,    3371. 

r.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

095,     697,     1116. 

r.   Culver,    pp.    534,    903. 

7-.    East     Tennessee,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    2476. 

Federal     St.,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

'r.    International      Trust       Co., 

177  Mass.  100,  58  N.  E-  278,  52 
L.  R.  A.  928— pp.  1488,  1690, 
2678,    2902. 

z'.    Internationa!    Trust   Co.,   72 

N.  E.  70,  186  Mass.  45^ — p. 
1696. 

Lake    Shore,    etc..    Railway    ■;■. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

■:■.   Little     Rock,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    785,    3395. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    x'. 

i'.    Stevens,    p.     383. 

\'alpy    ?■. 

Gibson  Line,  Levy's  Son  &  Co.  ■:'. 
Gidley,  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Giesen,     International,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Gilbert,    .Mabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

I'.    Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1284,     1306. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

•   International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Richards   v. 

Waite    V. 

i:   West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1723. 

Gilbert    Bros.     i\    Chicago,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,     pp.     727,     732,     7o5,      1268, 

1470. 
Gilbert    Transp.    Co.    -■.    Borden,    p. 

39()5. 
Gilbert,    etc.,    Co.,    Railroad   -■. 
Giibreath,    St.    Louis,    etc..    Railway 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Gilchrist    v.    Chicago    &    A.    R.    Co., 

pp.     1453,    1456. 

Lumberman's    Min.    Co.    '■. 

O'Brien    v. 

btimpson    f. 

Gilcher    t'.    Seattle    Elect.     Co.,     pp. 

2876,   2921. 
Gildea,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   ■:■. 
Giles    z'.     Cynthia,     p.     1J70. 

V.   Fargo,    pp.    785,    987. 

V.   Fauntlcroy,    pp.    3116,    3123, 

3130. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Great    Western    R.    Co.,    p. 

_  1498. 

Gilhooly    %'.    New    York,    etc.,    Nav. 

Co.,   p.   2846. 
Gilkinson    '.    The    Scotland,    p.    588. 
Gill  z:   Erie  R.  Co.,  pp.   209^  2100, 

3694. 


Gill,    McGregor   z: 

Mississippi,    etc.,    R.    Co.   -'. 

t'.   Rochester,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p, 

2489. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Williams   z'. 

Gilleland,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z' 

z:   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

-  1447. 

Gillen   t.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

p.    3102. 
Gillenwater     z\      Madison,     etc.,      R 

Co.,    pp.    1582,    1749,    1760,    2036 

2037. 
Gillespie     '■.     Brooklyn     Heights     R, 

Co.    pp.    2568,    3064,    3065. 

international     Text-Book     Co 

f.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

1309. 

Gillett,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z'.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp 

SCO,    785. 

Gilliland  7'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
p.    142. 

Louisville,    etc..    Mail  Co.    7'. 

7'.   Soutliern    R.     Co.,  pp.    954 

1012,    1290,    1388,    1427,  1475. 

Gillingham  7'.  Dempsey,  pp.  848 
850. 

7'.   Ohio     River     R.      Co.,     pp 

1487,      1492,      1542,     2038,     2059 
2075. 

Gillis    7'.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    pp 

2502,    2508. 
Gillman     7'.     Florida,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

p.    3054. 
Gillshannon      7'.      Stonv      Brook     R 

Corp.,    p.     1581. 
Gillum    7'.    New    York,    etc..    Steam 

ship    Co.,     pp.     2287,     2288,     3995 

4003. 
Gilly    7'    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

p.     2311. 
Gilnian     7'.     Boston,     etc.,     Railroad 

pp.    1831,    2349,    2794. 

7'.    Philadelphia,  pp.  3439,  3440 

356b. 

Gilmer,    Higley   7'. 

7'.   Highley,    pp.     1571,    2719. 

International,   etc.,   R.   Co.  7'. 

Kennon    7'. 

Kermon   7'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    Z'. 

Ryan    7'. 

Schafer    7'. 

Gilmore  7'.  Brooklyn  Heights  R, 
Co.,     p.     2683. 

7'.   Carman,    pp.    728,    739. 

Dallas,    etc.,    St.     R.    Co.    7'. 

Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Houston      Elect.      Co.,      pp, 

1732,     1737. 

7'.    Milford,    etc.,     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    1825. 

7'.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1774,    2073. 

7\    Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2928. 

Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 

Gilson    7'.    Gwinn,    p.    1158. 

7'.   lackson     County     Horse    R. 

Co.,     pp.     1684,     1685. 

Giltman  7'.  Brooklyn  Heights  R, 
Co.,  113  N.  Y.  S.'  1046,  129  App 
Div.    654— p.    2809. 

7'.   Brooklyn     Heights     R.     Co. 

113     N.     Y.     S.     1048,     129     .\pp 
Div.   919— p.   2809. 

Gilvin,    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 
Ciiiin     7'.     Ogdensburg    Transit     Co. 
pp.    1118,    1119,    1123,    4028. 

z\   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp 

2673,    2674,    2781.    2800. 

Ginna    z\    Second    .\ve.    R.    Co.,    pp 

2180,   2186. 
Girncll-Collins   Co.    7'.    Illinois   Cent 

R.   Co.,  pp.   484,  495. 
Ginnochio-jones    Fruit    Co.    7'.    Mis 

Eouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    551,    569 


TAIU.F,    OF    CASES. 


CLXXIX 


Ginsburg    -■.    Adams    Kxp.    Co.,    pp. 

430.     1067. 
Giovanelli  v.   ICrie  R.   Co.,   pp.    1881, 

2877. 
Girardeau    -■.     Soutlicrn     JJxp.     Co., 

pp.    587,    590. 
Girod,    15irminghain    R.,   etc.,   Co.   v. 
Girton     v.     J^ehigh     \ailey     R.     Co., 

p.    2363. 
Gisieson     -•.     Minneapolis,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    3101. 

Gist,    Missouri,    ttc,    K'.    Co.    v. 

Gittings   <■.    Hakcr,    p.    511. 

Gladson    v.    Minnesota,    pp.    97,    98 

103,      3481,       3482,      3483,      3503, 

3504,    3513,   3514,    351o. 

State   -■. 

Gladstone,    Hirley   v. 

Coventry     v. 

Mercantile    &     IC.xcliange    Hank 

Gladys,    The. 

Glasco   V.    New   York   Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    3109,   3157,   3180,   3187,    3191, 

3192. 
Glascock     V.     Cincinnati,     etc.,      R. 
^  Co.,    pp.    2259,    2315,    2719. 
Glascovv,    IJarker   &   Co.   ■:■. 
Glasgow,    Ivouisvillc,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Glasgow     Steam     Shipping     Co.     f. 

Tweedle    Trading    Co.,    pp.    3892, 

3893. 
Glass,    Central    R.    Co.   -■. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2653,    2655. 

>  V.   Goldsmith,     pp.     272,     290, 

in,    338,    339,     346. 

Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

Glassberg  v.   Interurban    St.    R.    Co., 

p.     2892. 
Glass  Co.,   Gas  Co.  v. 
Gleadell   v.   Thomson,   p.   892. 
Gieason,    Central    R.    Co.    v. 

V.    Duffy,       pi>.       4056,       4073, 

4074,  4079. 

V.   Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  pp. 

274,  278,  3111,  311S,  3116,  3122, 
3125,  3128,  3137,  3146,  3148, 
3156,  3157,  3164,  3165. 

V.   Willamette    \'alley,    pp. 

1940,    1941. 

Gledhill  Wall  Paper  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more,  etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    641. 

Gleeson  v.  Virginia  Mid.  R.  Co., 
pp  1575,  1680,  1807,  1808,  1809, 
1810,     2670,     3005. 

Glencoe  Land  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hudson 
I5ros.    Comm.    Co.,    p.    455. 

Glenk,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Glenn,     Birmingham     R'.,     etc.,     Co. 

Bonner   v. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    %\ 

V.   Southern      Kxp.      Co.,      pp. 

1087,    1090,    1091,    1107. 

V.   Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

p.     2576. 

Glennen  v.  Boston  Elevated  R.  Co., 
pp.  1682,  1727,  2016,  2020,  2021, 
2026,   2727,   2860. 

Glenny,  Great  Western  l)esi)atch, 
etc..    Shore    Line   i'. 

Glenny   \-    Co..    Despatch    Line   v. 

Glens     Fall,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Wright 

Glens  Falls,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  Reg- 
ner    v. 

Butler   V. 

Glidden    v.    New    York    Cent.,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    2218,   2892. 
Glidcwell,   Little   Rock,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

Glinn    -•.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,    p. 

1824. 
Globe    Nav.    Co.,    Revett    v. 

V.   Russ      Lumber,      etc.,      Co., 

pp.    3888,    3889,    3902. 

Globe     Transfer,     etc.,     Co.     Ketten- 

hofen    I'. 
Glossup,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


R.  Co.. 


Co.  V. 
\<       <'o.. 


Gloucester  Ferry  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania, pp.  3418,  3419,  3420, 
3421,  3423,  3429.  3433,  3445, 
3446,  3447,  3471,  3472,  3474, 
3475,  3476,  3477,  3478,  3479. 
3552,  3556,  3564,  3566,  3568. 
3572.  3581,  3584,  3587. 

Glover  V.     Atchison,  etc 
p.  2855. 

.Augusta  R.  Co.  :■. 

Bass  "■. 

Birmingham  R.,  etc 

"'.   Charlestiiii,     ■  i.- 

p.     3066. 

Hepp   V. 

Iluse    "'. 

-; Illinois  Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

Glovinsky      v.      Cunard      Steamship 

Co.,    4    Mi.sc.    Rep.    266,    24    N.    Y. 

S.    136— pp.    3118,    3129. 

V.   Cunard     Steamship     Co.,     6 

Misc.     Rep.     388,     26     N.     Y.     S. 
751— p.    3149. 

Glyn  Miller,  etc.,  Co.  v.  East  & 
West   Indian   Dock  Co.,  p.  401. 

().    X.    R.    Co.,    Martin   v. 

(ioben,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Goble  ■■.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
I)p.    1725,    2696. 

Godair,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Godair  Comm.  Co.,  Missouri,  etc., 
R.    Co.    -■. 

Godard,   Cotting  <■. 

Godbout    V.    St.    Paul    L'nion    Depot 

^  Co..   pp.   99,    101. 

Goddard    v.    Barnard,    p.    638. 

V.   Grand    Trunk    Railway,    pp. 

1722,    2041,    2042,    3072. 

-; Richardson  v. 

Godfrey,   .Mabaina,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

The   T.   \. 

V.    Meridian    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

1852,    2704,    3011,    3016. 

V.   New   York,   etc.,    R.    Co..   p. 

2551. 

V.   Ohio,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2078,    2090,    2453,    2460. 

V.  Pullman      Co.,      pp.      3115, 

3116,     3123,     3125,      3152,     3215, 
3221,    3236,    3239,    3240. 

Godkin,  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Godman,    Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Godola,     East     Omaha     St.     R.     Co. 

V. 

Gody  v.  Lyon,  j).  346. 
Goehring    v.     Beaver    X'alley    Tract. 
Co.,    pp.     1585,    1587,    2342,    2865. 
Goerner,    Little    Rock    R.,    etc.,    Co. 

Goetchins,  Pennsylvania  R'.   Co.  i'. 
Goetz  V.    Bank,   p.    396. 

V.   Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1615. 

V.   Metropolitan   St.    R.   Co.,   p. 

^  2731. 

Goforth,    .Mabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Goggin    -•.    Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

931,   948,    1087,    1408.    1425. 
Goins     V.      Western      Railroad,      pp. 

3042,  3056. 

-; V.    Western  R.  Co.,  p.  3059. 

Goldberg  v.    Ahnapee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  286,  729,  3134,  3195. 

V.   Interurban,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1695. 

f.   Kcw     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     1793. 

Southern    Exp.   Co.   v. 

Gold    Hunter,    The. 

Goldbowitz     V.      Metropolitan      Exp. 

Co.,   ]).   514. 
Golden     -■.     Pittsburg     R.     Co.,     dd. 

2452,    24o0. 
Goldey     t.      Pennsylvania     R.      Co., 
^  pp.    742.    1380.    1381,    1567. 
Golding.    Gulf,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 
Goldman.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Goldsmith,    Glass  f. 
V.   Holland      Bldg.      Co.,      pp. 

1488.    2982. 

f.   Tower    Hill    Steamship    Co.. 

pp.    1314,    1315. 


Goldstein,   Birmingham   R..  etc.,   Co. 

V. 

International,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co..    p. 

2655. 

V.   Sherman,     etc..     R.     Co..     \>. 

3338. 

V.  Southern    Railway,   pp.    162. 

163. 

Goldstein    Bros.,    Southern    R.    Co. 

Goller    V.    Fonda,    etc..    R.    Co..    p. 

2337. 
Gomez    -■.    New    York    City    R.    Co.. 

p.    1889. 
Gomila.    Culliford   v. 
Gomm   V.   Oregon    R..   etc..   Co..    pp. 

3166.   3175,   3176,   3177,   3178. 
Gonihier    v.    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    3155.    3158. 
Gonzales  t.  New  York,  etc.,  R".  Co., 

38   N.    Y.   440.  98   Am.    Dec.   58— 

pp.   2247.   2278. 

V.   New     York.     etc..     R.     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    39    How.    Prac.    407— 
p.    2116. 

f.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    50    How.    Prac.     126— 
p.   2247. 

Gonzalez,    Birmingham   R.,   etc.,   Co. 

Gooch    I'.    Stephenson,    p.    1198. 

Good  f.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  840,  1093,  1094,  1095.  1305, 
1410.    1473. 

Good    Hope,    The. 

Goodbar  -•.    Wabash    R.   Co.,   p.    285. 

Coodfellow  T.  Detroit  United  Rail- 
way,   p.    2036. 

Goodtield  V.  Piatt,  pp.  607,  670, 
1067. 

Goodholm,     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co. 

Goodin,    Atlantic    City    R.    Co.    v. 

f.  Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    653, 

660,    668. 

Goodkind     -■.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2700,    2859. 
Goodloe    V.    Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2045.    2050.   2069. 

V.   -Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2008.    2698. 

Goodman.    Central,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Great    Western    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville     R.     Co.     v. 

Mexican    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Oregon    R..    etc.,    Co.,     pp. 

753,     757,     817,     838.     879.     3304. 
3412. 

V.   Simonds.     19    Mo.     106 — p. 

381. 

V.   Simonds    (U.   S.),   20  How. 

343.     15     L.     Ed.     934— pp.     358. 
375. 

f.    Stewart,    pp.     1153.    1154. 

Goodrich.    Hermann    v. 

1-.   Norris.    pp.    ill,    337. 

V.   Thompson.    44   N.    Y.    324 — 

pp.    501.    789.    3267. 

f.   Thompson.  27  N.  Y.  Super. 

Ct.    75— pp.    771.    3289.    3297. 

Goodrich  Trans.  Co..  Interstate 
Commerce   Comm.   -•. 

f.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm.. 

pp.    3612.    3615. 

Goodrich    Transp.    Co.,    Black    v. 

Browning    :■. 

Cileason    f. 

-^; V\hite    :■. 

Goodridge.   Union   Pac.   R.   Co.  f. 
Goodsell    r.    Tavlor,    pp.    1722.    1750, 

1839.    1841.    2685. 
Goodspeed    %-.     Ithaca    St.     R.    Co.. 

184    N.    Y.    351.    n    N.    E.    392— 

p.   144. 

f.  Ithaca   St.    R.    Co..   88   .Xpp. 

Div.    147,    84    N.    Y.    S.    383,    14 
N.    Y.   Ann.    Cas.   6 — p.    144. 

Goodwin.    Atlantic,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

:■.   Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.,    50 

N.    Y.     154.     10    Am.    Rep.    457— 
pp.    527,    531,    564. 


CLXXX 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Goodwin  -■.  P.altimore.  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.).  58  Barb.  -95— pp.  893, 
907. 

f.   Boston,     etc.,     Railroad,     p. 

2183. 

r.   Cincinnati     Tract.     Co..     pp. 

2043,    2867. 

Cole    f. 

Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.    :•. 

Keeler  -■. 

Western,   etc..   Railroad  f. 

Goodwvn,    etc.,    Co.    •:•.    Douglas,    p. 

769. 
Goodvear.    Houston,    etc.,   R.    Co.    f. 
Goold  r.    Chapin   (N.  Y.),   10   Barb. 

612— p.    887. 

r.   Chapin,    20    X.    Y.    259.    75 

Am.   Dec.   398— pp.   523,  88(i,   887, 
888.    3265,   3360. 

Goold.   State   v. 

Goorin   v.    Allegheny    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2895. 
Gorbett,   Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Gordon,    Adams   Exp.    Co.   r. 

Z-.  Buchanan,      pp.       11,      768, 

822,    1020. 

-•.  Grand     St.,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1511,    1512,    1517. 

r.   Hutchinson,      pp.      8,      252, 

768,    771. 

■:•.  Little,    pp.    729,    946. 

?•.   Manchester,    etc..     Railroad. 

pp.    1612,    1670,    1671,    1672,    1673, 
1674. 

7-.   Nassau     Elect.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2906. 

r.   West    End    St.    R.    Co..    pp. 

1518,    2332. 

Gordon    Campbell.    The. 
Gore,    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

■ f.   Norwich,    etc.,    Transp.    Co., 

pp.    3146.    3148. 

Southern    R.    Co.    "'. 

Gorham     Mfg.     Co.     v.     Fargo     (N. 

Y.),   45    How.    Prac.    90— pp.    762, 
763. 

T.   Fargo,     35     N.     Y.     Super. 

Ct.   434— p.    763. 

Gorman.    Dufolt    ''. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

r.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co  , 

pp.    2739,    2810. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

Z'.    St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2595. 

V.   Southern      Pac.      Co.,       pp. 

3083,    3084. 

Gormer,    Tooker   t. 

Gormley,    Lake    Street,    etc.,   R.    Co. 

V. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Gortatowsky,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Gortikov,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 
Gortikow,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Gortikoy,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Gorton.    Miles   ■<■. 
Gosnell,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Goss   -■.   Northern   Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 
2777,    2841. 

Richardson  r. 

Smith    r. 

State    v. 

dossier   V.    Schepeler,    p.    1216. 

Gott     V.     Dinsmore,     pp.     725,     966, 

1001,    1003,    1004,    1007. 
Gottlieb,    Western    Union    Tel.     Co. 

Gottlob  V.  North  Jersey  St.  R.   Co., 

p.   2861. 
Gould    z:    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2791. 

z:  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co..     pp. 

2472,    2473. 

z:  Hill.    p.    739. 

f.   New   York,  etc.,   R.   Co  ,   p, 

2799. 


Co., 


R.    Co., 


Gould,  Tri-City  R.   Co.  r. 

Gourdin,    Cook    z\ 

Governor    Carey,    The. 

Cowling     f.     American     Exp.     Co., 

p.    969. 
Grabenstcin    '■.    Metropolitan    St.    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2302,    2910. 
Grabfelder,     Alabama,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Grabler    z:    New    York,    etc.,    Ferry 

Co.,    p.    2318. 
Grace     ■;■•.     Adams,     pp.      320,     323, 

337,  958,   984,   986,   1044,   3880. 

V.  St.   Louis  R.   Co.,   pp.    1734, 

2910,  2934,  2989,  2990,  2991, 
2996. 

Grace    &    Co.,    Wright   v. 

Gracie   z\    Marine    Ins.    Co.,    p.    510. 

v.   Palmer,    pp.    3,    3866,    3873, 

3944. 

Gracy,    Stewart    z: 

Graddy,     Southern     Railway    z 

Gradert    z:     Chicago,     etc.,     R 

pp.    1530,   1544,   1545. 
Gradin    z:    St.     Paul,    etc. 

pp.    1760,    2519. 
Grady,    Irvine    -•. 

z'.    St.     Louis    Trans.    Co.,    pp. 

2746,    2750. 

Graefe    z\     St.     Louis    Transit     Co., 

pp.    2088,    2160,    2925. 
Graeff  v.    Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

p.     2034. 
Graff   z:    Bloomer,    pp.    511,    540. 
Grafton,    The. 

Gragg,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Graham,     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    131 

Iowa  741,  107  N.  W.  595,  7  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  603,  17  Am.  St. 
Rep.    445— p.    2517 

—  z:  Chicago,  etc 
Wis.  473,  10  N 
1197. 

—  z'.    Cummings,    p.    3154. 

—  Davidson    z'. 

—  z'.  McNeill,  pp 
2173,    2180,    2343. 

—  Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
— I  z'.   Macon,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 
3251. 

—  z:  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  149  N 
Y.  336,  43  N.  E.  917— pp.  1797 
1951,     1952,     1953,     2069. 

—  V.   Manhattan   R.    Co.,    8    Misc 
305,    28    N.    Y.    S.    739— p. 


Grand   Rapids,   etc.,    R.    Co.   - 

■.    Die- 

ther,    pp.    703,    1142,    1143. 

■   Dykstra   f. 

V.   Ellison,      pp.      2010, 

2036, 

2161,    2867. 

Fraam   ?■. 

■  Hutford   z: 

•;■.   Huntley,      pp.      1684, 

1687, 

1734,      1823,      1848,      1985, 

2667, 

2736,    2758. 

v.   Martin,    pp.    2500,    2. 

41. 

Rickerson     Roller-Mill 

Co.     z: 

Starks    Co.    ■;■. 

■;'.   United      States,      pp. 

3844, 

3851. 

—  White   z: 

Grand    Rapids,    etc..    Railway 

,    Wolf 

R.     Co..     53 
W.     609— p. 


1951,      1953, 


Rep. 
2186. 


2465. 


New  York  City  R.  Co.,  p 
Pacific  R.  Co.,  pp.  1580 
Co.,         pp 


Pennsylvania 
1779,    2269. 

z'.  Planters'      Com'iircss      Co 

pp.     3956,     3963. 

Roberts    '■. 

Union    Exp.    Co.    z\ 

Graham   &   Co.    z'.    Davis   &    Co.,    po. 

730,     731,     739,     751,     752,     822, 

946.     948.     951.     956,     982,     1019. 

1032,     1036.     1039,    3898,    3921. 
Graham   Ice   Co.   v.   Chicago   etc.,   R 

Co.,    pp.    35,   44. 
Grahn     z\      International,      etc.,     R 

Co.,    pp.    1549,    2780. 
Gramling,    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   •:■ 
Gran    Canaria,    The. 
Grand    z:     Livingston,      158    N.     Y 

688,    S3   N.    E.    1125— p.    939. 

V.   Livingston,      4      App.      Div 

589,  34  N.  Y.  S.  490,  73  N.  Y 
St.  Rep.  646,  158  N.  Y.  688 
53    N.    E.    1125— pp.    942,    1013. 

Grand     Ave.    Cable    Co.,     Empey    f 

Tackson    -'. 

Taylor  z: 

Grand    Junction    R.    Co.,    Palmer    v 

Pickford   z: 

Grand  Rapids,  etc.,   R.   Co.  z:   Boyd 
p.    3034. 


Grand    St.,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    Gordon   v. 

■ Piatt   z: 

Grand     Tower     Mfg.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Ullman,    pp.    273,    274,    285,    286, 

288. 
Grand    Tower,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Frank 

Grand   Trunk   R.   Co.,   Armstrong   v. 

-Vscher   z'. 

Baldwin    z'. 

Brooke    f. 

Bruty    c'. 

Burnham    z\ 

Burnside    z'. 

Burroughs    Z'. 

Cadwallder     z\ 

Caher    '■. 

Carpenter   -■. 

Clementson    c". 

Clemston  z'. 

Condict    7'. 

Cutting   Z'. 

Deming    z\ 

Dunn    V. 

Dyer   -'. 

Fillebrown    z\ 

Fitzgerald   v. 

Frost    i'. 

Gurney  v. 

Hale    z: 

Hall    z: 

Harris   z'. 

Harvey    z'. 

Hecht   z\ 

Heineman   v. 

Holyoke    j'. 

Horseman    z'. 

Howell    V. 

z\   Ives,   p.    2116. 

Jennings    z'. 

Johnson    z'. 

Joslyn    V. 

Keeney    v. 

Kerr   v. 

Lee    z\ 

Maine    v. 

z'.   Michigan    R.      Comm.,      198 

Fed.    1009— pp.    24,    98,    3517. 

z\   Michigan     R.     Comm  .      231 

U.     S.    457,    34     S.    Ct.      152— p. 
3616. 

Puellftte   z\ 

V.   Parks,    p.    2082. 

Penton    ?■. 

Pratt   r. 

Rainey   ■;■. 

Renders    7'. 

Shaw   z'. 

■  Stapleton    v. 

State    z: 

Stearns   z\ 

z\   Stevens,    p.     1566. 

Taylor    -■. 

r.   United    States,    p.     3' 23. 

~Van    Dusan    z\ 

Vineburg   z'. 

z:  Walker,    p.    2015. 

Wheeler   z\ 

Willis   z: 

■ — - —  Woodward   r. 

Worthcn    Z'. 

Grand    Trunk    Railway,    Brown   z>. 

Goddard    z: 


TAi:i,r:    OF    CASF.S. 


CLXXXI 


Grand   Trunk   Railway,   Ilelliwcll   v. 

International     ICxp.    Co.    f. 

Jewell    V. 

Regan   r. 

Wilson   V. 

Grand    Trunk      R.     System,      liekins 
Household    Shipping   Co.    v. 

lirown.    etc..    Coal    Co.    v. 

Grand      Trunk      Western       R.      Co., 

Kelley  v. 

.i^undquist    v. 

Minahan   v. 

Williamson    f. 

Grand   Trunk,   etc.,    K'.    Co.,    Clough 

V. 

Kelley  v. 

Grand  Western  R.  Co..   Hawkins  v. 
Granger,    Merchant's    etc.,     Tran?p. 

Co.   V. 
Granier   v.    Louisiana,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1630,    2663. 
Granite    Mills,    Capehart    ;•. 
Grant,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7:   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2699. 

Grant  v.  New  Orleans  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
p.    1902. 

t:   Newton,    pp.      3114,      3126, 

3131. 

V.  Norway,    pp.    291,   294,    305, 

306,   308. 

Grant    v.    Raleigh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1813,    1815,    2734. 

V.   Spokane     Tract.       Co.,      pp. 

,,035,     3036. 

Taxicab    Co.   v. 

Poinaski    t'. 

Washington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Williams   f. 

,..   Wood,       pp.       1148,       1149, 

1150,    1151. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Grant      Bros.      Consti 

Fe,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Grant    St.    Fleet.    R'.    Co.,    Henry 

Vasele  r. 

Gratiot    St.    Warehouse   Co.   v 

souri,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp.    361 
486,    490,    742,    1062,    1063, 

7'.   St.      Louis,     etc.,     R. 

pp.  814,  908. 

Graven     v.      MacLeod,      pp.       1792, 

2247,    2273,    2275. 
Graves     v.     Adams     Exp.     Co.,     pp. 

982,   986,    1065,    1067,    1068,    1074. 

Carter   f. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Clyde   V. 

C.   N.   O.  &   T.   P.   Ry.   Co.  v. 

Cross   V. 

V.   Fitchburg    R.    Co.,    p.    3160. 

V.   Hartford,     etc..     Steamboat 

Co.,   pp.   511,  891,   896,   897. 

t'. '  Ilarwood,    p.    339. 

V.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    337,    1074. 

Memphis    St.    R.    Co.    7: 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    t'. 

v.  Norfolk,     etc.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2320. 

Receivers,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

San    .\ntonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  r. 

Gray,    Benson    -•. 

r.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

1774,    2037.    2069. 

V.   Cincinnati,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    190,    1949,    1950. 

7:   Columbia     River,     etc..     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1588,    2178. 

Fitchburg   R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Fort    Pitt     Tract.     Co.,     p. 

2277. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   T'. 

Houston,   etc..    R.   Co.   7\ 

7:    Tackson     &    Co..     pp.      431, 

3285,  "3327. 

McLendon,    p.    23. 

7\   Metropolitan,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2069,    2887,    2888. 


Co.,      Santa 


Mis- 

,    370, 

1074. 

Co., 


2514,      2532, 


Gray    v.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R".    Co., 

p.    3501. 
,..    Missouri        River        Packet 

Co.,   pp.   725,   853.   854,   855. 
7-.   .Moore,     p.    455. 

Morison    J'. 

Pittsburg,   etc.,    R.    Co._  7'. 

— —  Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

7:   St    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

679,   859. 

Spring   -'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  The    Reveille,    p.    808. 

r.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    p.    249. 

(irayson,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7: 
Grayson    County    Nat.     Bank,    Nash- 
ville,  etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

v.   Nashville,       etc..      Railway, 

pp.  327,  328,  353,  357,  389,  402, 
549,  555,  591,  597,  1101,  1102, 
3382. 

Greason    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

p.    429. 
Great    Eastern    R.,    Prevost    v. 
Great    Eastern    R.    Co.,    Becker   7: 

Buckmaster    7'. 

Schulze    I'. 

Great  Falls  St.  R.  Co.,  Hamilton  v. 
Great   Falls,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    Dixon   v. 

7:  Hill,    pp.    2294,    2295,    2731. 

Pierce   r. 

Great  Lakes  Towing  Co.  7:  Mill 
Transp.    Co.,    pp.     4037,    4040. 

Great  Northern  Exp.  Co.,  Spokane 
Grain    Co.   f. 

Great   Northern    R.    Co.,    Appeal    of. 

Ausk    I. 

Baldwin   7\ 

Banner    Grain    Co.    i'. 

Barnum    Grain    Co.    7\ 

Beaulieu    ?•. 

V.   Bruyere,    pp. 

2548. 

Clark   v. 

Croff    7: 

Crouch    7\ 

Cunningham    z'. 

Dc   Blois   7: 

Denton    t'. 

Dickson    v. 

Drake   7: 

Duncan   i'. 

Dyer    ;•. 

Engescther    7'. 

Farrell  f. 

Ferrell    &   Co.    v. 

Fidelity    Lumber    Co.    -■. 

Fisher    v. 

Flakne    v. 

Floody   V. 

Germann   7: 

Haluptzok    7: 

Hamlin    r. 

Hanson    '■. 

Harris   '■. 

-■.    Harrison,    p.    1574. 

7:  Hawcroft,    pp.     Iii65,     U 

1673. 

Herrman   '•. 

Holden    v. 

Janny    7: 

Tarrett   v. 

Jennings   f. 

Johnson    ?'. 

— : —  v.   Kalispell     Lumber     Co., 
3074. 

Klcven    v. 

Lamson  7: 

Lemcry    v. 

Lindh    7'. 

f.   Loonan      Lumber      Co., 

3712,    3811,    3812. 

McGuire    f. 

McKiblin     5'. 

McNamara    f. 

Mageau    f. 

Martin   '•. 

Mathews    :•. 

Melo'dy    7: 

Merriman   t'. 


Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    Nelson    r. 

Newbury    v. 

O'Connor   i'. 

I'.  O'Connor,    pp.    3750.    37  52. 

3762. 

O'Malley   v. 

Page    V. 

7:   Railroad     Comm.     (Wash.). 

92    Pac.    457— p.    43. 

7:  Railroad   Comm.,    52   Wash. 

33,    100    Pac.    184— p.    23. 

Reed    7: 

Reynolds   v. 

Roasted    f. 

Rolette   7: 

Rosted    7: 

Ryan    7: 

Schlosser  v. 

r.  Shcpcrd    (Eng.).     8     Exch. 

30,   30    Railw.   Cas.   310,   21    L.   J- 
Exch.    286— pp.' 3133,    3149. 

7:   Shepherd,     9     Eng.     L.     & 

Eq.    Rep.  477— p.   3125. 

Smith   V. 

Starr    :■. 

State    V. 

Steenerson    7\ 

Sultan    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v. 

Turner  f. 

United    States    7: 

7:  United     States,     pp.     3606. 

3842. 

N'ance    "'. 

Wahle   7: 

W'ells  :•. 

Wenzel    7: 

Zalk    7: 

Zetterberg    7: 

Great  Southern  R.  Co.,  Cork  Dis- 
tilleries   Co.    7: 

Great    Western,    The. 

Great  Western  Despatch,  Mack, 
etc.,   Co.   7: 

Great  Western  Despatch  Co.,  St. 
Paul    Roller   Mill    Co.   v. 

Great  Western  Despatch,  etc., 
Shore    Line    f.    Glenny.    p.    811. 

Great    Western     Dispatch,     Lcsinsky 

Great    Western    R.     Co.,    Austin    r. 

Brchm   7-. 

Buckley  f. 

Bunch    f. 

v.  Burns,    pp.    222,    236,    3279. 

Chapman    :•. 

Erb    T. 

— —  Giles   f. 

Goodman,   p.   3140. 


-  7:   Hawkins, 

-  Hay   f. 

-  Hurst    7: 

-  Lewis   7\ 

-  Longmore    7\ 

-  7:   McComas, 
74. 

-  7:  McDonald. 

-  Macrow    :■. 

-  ;■.    Miller,      pp. 


pp.     1: 


482. 
3394, 
2411. 


144(1. 

486. 
3408. 
2412, 


2476,  2480.  2607. 

Moffatt    7: 

O'Hanlan    7: 

O'Neill    :■. 

Parker    :•. 

Patscheider   7: 

Root    7: 

Sloman   :•. 

Stallard   7: 

7:   Sutton,    pp.    1181,    368.-«. 

Talley   ;. 

Webb    :•. 

7:  Wheeler,    p.    890. 

White   f. 

Williams    7: 

Woodgate    7-. 

Greathouse,    Ft.      Worth  ,    etc..     R. 

Co.   7: 
Greb    ;•.    Pennsvlvania    R.     Co.,     p. 

2048. 
Greek-.\merican      Produce      Co.      f. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.     Co..     pp.     528, 

530,    900. 


CLXXXII 


Greek-American        Sponge      Co.      v. 

Richardson    Drug    Co.,    p.    3420. 
Green.    .Adams    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

■:■.   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 

pp.    495,    556. 

Bean    f. 

f.  Boston,     etc     R.     Co.,     pp. 

763,    842,    858. 

f.   Bridgeton,    p.     1944. 

V.   Campbell,    p.    520. 

J'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    137 

S    W.    611,    156   Mo.    App.    259 — 
p.   1339. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    42 

Xeb.    379— p.    356. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

r.   Clark     (X.     Y.),'13     Barb. 

57_pp.    493,    494. 

r.   Clark      (X.    Y.),      5      Denio 

497_pp.   484,   488. 

r.   Clark,     12    X.     Y.     343— pp. 

487,    681. 

7'.   Coast  Line  R.  Co.,  p.  2091. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


990. 
1059, 


311, 

1051, 


Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7:  Houston     Electric      Co.,      p. 

1518. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

I-.   Indianopolis,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

p.    826. 

Lawrence   f. 

V.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1778. 

Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Metropolitan     St.     R-     Co., 

pp.    1903,    2358,    2656. 

7:   Middlesex     Valley     R.     Co., 

p.  2873. 

V.   Milwaukee,      etc..      R.      Co., 

38     Iowa       100— pp.     274,     3136, 
3187. 

7:   Milwaukee,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

41      Iowa      410— pp.      267,      3135, 
3137,    3138,    3194. 

7:  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1669,    1755,   2563. 

7:   Xew   York  R.   Co.,   p.    3183. 

v.   Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    p.     1103. 

f.   Pacific      Lumber      Co.,      pp. 

1755,     2368,     2656,     2696,     2930. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.   7\^ 

7:   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p 

1773. 

People's    Pass.    R.    Co.    7: 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

■ 7\  Pittsburg,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2858. 

Pullman    Co.    r. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   7\ 

State    V. 

Thompson    v. 

United    States    t. 

7-.  Van    Buskirk,    p.    3556. 

Walker    f. 

Ward   r. 

Green   Bay  Lumber   Co.  z:   Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    106. 
Green    Bay   Tract.   Co.,    Sigl   r. 
Green  Bay,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  Leasum  r 

Skow   '•. 

V.  Union     Steamboat     Co.,     p 

3251. 

Green   Co.  7:   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

p.   642. 
Green,    etc.,    Xav.    Co.    v.    Marshall 

pp.    500,    512. 
Greenburg,    Arderson    Art.    Co.    v 
Greene,    Dows   v. 

i:   St.    John,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

211,    240. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Greenfield   '•.    Detriot,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    190,   201,    202,   203,   204,    1494, 
1550,    2898,    2900,    2946,    2948. 

T.  Wells     Fargo     &     Co.,     pp. 

1082,    1083. 

Greenfield   Bank  v.   Leavitt.    p.   856. 
Greenville    Lumber    Co.    i:    Xational 
Pressed    Brick    Co.,    p.    380. 


Greenfield,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Don- 
ovan 7-. 
Greenfield's    Estate,    In    re. 
Grcenhalgh,    .American    Exp.    Co.    7\ 
Greenham,   Isham   ?•.  ^       ^ 

Greening,    Cincinnati,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

Greenleaf  Johnson  Lumber  Co., 
Robcrson    7\ 

Greensboro,  etc.,  Coal  Co.,  South- 
ern   R'.    Co.    1'. 

Greenthal,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Greenville   St.   R.    Co.,   Bowie  v. 
Greenville    Tract.    Co.,    McCartcr   v. 

McKittrick   v. 

Moore    7'. 

Greenville,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    Wilming 

ton,    etc.,    R.   Co.   t'. 
Greenwald      r.      Barrett,      pp. 
1051,      1052,      1054,      1055, 
1060,    1066. 

Mobile,  etc.,   R.   Co.   ■;•. 

7:   Weir,    115    X.    Y.     S 

130     App.      Div.      696— pp. 
1054,    1055,    1071,    3332. 

7:   Weir,     111     X.     Y.     S.     235 

59  Misc.   Rep.   431— pp.   948,   1053 
3444,    3604. 

Greenway,     Rowland    v. 

Greenway    Bro.    &    Co.,     Seawell     v. 

Green-Wheeler  Shoe  Co.  ?'.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  619,  741, 
743. 

Greenwich  Ins.  Co.  f.  Memphis, 
etc..  Packet  Co.,  pp.  3109,  3121, 
3124,    3149,    3150. 

Greenwood  v.  Cooper,  pp.  287, 
291,    861. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Xorth   Coast   Lighterage   Co.   v. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Greenwood      Grocery      Co.,      Yazoo, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   ■;■. 

Greer,   Georgia  K.,   etc.,   Co.  7\ 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.  7'. 

Houston,   etc.,    R.   Co.  ■;•. 

7\   Union      St.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2748,   2751. 

Warden    7\ 

Gregg,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    •;'. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;•. 

Finch   ?■. 

7\   Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co..    pp. 

567,  779,  894,  1153,  1164.  1167. 

V.  Xorthern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1513,    1515,   2139. 

Gregorie,    Fanning   v. 

Gregorio  7'.   Xew  York  City   R.   Co., 

p.    2688. 
Gregory     v.      Burlington,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1573,    2444. 

7'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

196,    197,    2420,    2422,    2492,    3112 

7:   Elmira,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1957,    2172. 

7:   Georgia    Grarite    R.    Co.,    p. 

1559,    1583,    1584,    1589. 

GulL     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

-■.    Sturgis      Nat.       Bank,      pp. 

375     399. 

r.   Wabash    R.    Co.,     pp.     882, 

884. 

V.   Webb,    p.    3136. 

Gregston,       Chesapeake,       etc.,      R. 

Co.  V. 
Greif    &    Bro.    v.    Seligman,    p.    478. 
Greinke,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    7\ 

v.   Chicago    City    R.      Co.,     pp. 

2575,    2605,    2796. 

Greismer    f.     Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    607,    608,    620,    627,    628, 

629,    634. 
Gresham,   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    f. 

Greso,    Penrsylvania    Co.    f. 

Gress   V.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

^249,   2252. 
Gretschmann  f.  Fix,  pp.  3995,  3997. 


Gretzncr    f.    Xew    Orleans,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2829. 
Greve   &   Co.   v.    Dunham,    pp.    1219, 

1220,    1229,    1232,    1242. 
Grev,      Hestonville       Passenger      K. 

Co.    7: 

f.  Mobile   Trade   Co.,   pp.   828, 

945,^  1035,    1038. 

Sharp    f. 

Gribble,    Ft.   Worth,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Grieff  r.    Switzer,   p.   821. 

Grier  v.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   p. 

818. 
Grieve  7'.   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

326,  330,  427,  821,  828,   1085, 

1366,  1390,   1448,   1456,   1457, 

1458. 
I'.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.    901,    910,    911,    916. 
Griffen    r.    Manice,    77     X.     Y.      S. 

626,    74    App.    Div.    371— p.    2668. 

v.   Manice,    73    X.    Y.    S.    559, 

36    Misc.    Rep.    364— p.    2668. 

Griffen    v.     Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.   288,   874. 

Blossom    7\ 

Building,    etc.,    Ass'n    v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

r.   Colver,    pp.    o38,    653,    659, 

667,    669,    678. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   r. 

f.    Interurban    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

146.    147. 

Tames   '•. 

"Xashville    St.    R.    Co.    z: 

Xashville     St.     Railway     f. 

7:  Pacific     Elect.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2234,    2688. 

Roy   V. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    p.    3066. 

c\   Utica,      etc.,    R.       Co.,       p. 

3318. 

V.  Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.    14o6, 

1945,    3746,    3763. 

Griffing       Florida       Orchard        Co., 

Hasler    Co.    f. 
Griffith,    .Arkansas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

Arkansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   Charlotte,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    p. 

1254. 

I',   Denver     Consol.      '1  ramway 

Co.,    p.    2857. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

7:   Ingledew,     pp.     493,     682. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •;'. 

Ladue   f. 

;■.   Missouri    Pac.     R.    Co.,    pp. 

1703,      1873,     2065,     2126,       2241, 
2576,    3073. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Scovill    7'. 

Smith   V. 

V.  Utica,      etc.,       R.     Co.,      p. 

2168. 

Griggs    7-.    Austin,    p.    3949. 

Texas    Mid.    Railroad    v. 

Grigsby,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

V.  Texas,     etc.,       R.      Co.,     p. 

622.  ^   , 

Grill    7'.    General    Iron     Screw    Col- 
lier Co.,   p.   3067. 
Grimes,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.  Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

443. 

Louisville,    etc.,     R'.     Co.    7'. 

7'.   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1640. 

z\   Pennsylvania  Co..         pp. 

pp.     1510,    1512,    1513,    1797. 

Grimes       Dry      Goods      Co.,      Scott 

Bros.    f. 
Grimm.    Chicago,    etc.,    U.    Co.    •:■. 
Grimshaw    r.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    1548. 
Grimsley    7:    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2020,    2021,    2022,    2420,    2871. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

Grindle     f.     Eastern     Exp.     Co.,     p 

594. 


TABLI-     OF    CASES. 


CLXXXIII 


GrinncU,    I.akcnian    i: 
Merrill    v. 

V.    Wisconsin      Cent.      Co.,      p. 

796. 

Grisim    -.:    Milwaukee    City    R.    Co., 

p.   2744. 
Grismore,     Pacific     Steam     Whaling 

Co.    J'. 
Grissinger    v.    International    R.    Co., 

p.     1803. 
Criswold    i'.    Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.    2511. 
V.   New     York      Ins.      Lo.,     p. 

1150. 
V.  New    York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1566,    2094,^  2102. 

Telegraph    Co.    v. 

f.   Wehb,    pp.     192,    193. 

Griton     v.     Lehigh     \alley     R.     Co., 

p.    2274. 
Grizzle,    Southern    R.    Co.    f. 
Groat,    Satterlee   "■. 
Groce,    Missouri,    etc.,    Iv.    Co.    f. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Groesbeck,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

Grogan    t.     Adams     Exp.     Co.,     pp. 

815,    822,     1074. 

T.   Urooklyn     Heights     R.     Co., 

p.  2870. 

f.   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1624,   2447. 

Groll     f.     Prospect     Park,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2873. 
Grom,     Pittsburg,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Pittsburgh,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Groner,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Groot     t'.     Oregon,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1284,    1285,    1304,    1351,    1464. 
Groseclose,     Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Groshong     r.     United     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1716,    1902. 
Gross,     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     r. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    r. 

Grossman  ?■.  l-argo,  pp.  572,  908. 
Grosvenor    v.    New    York    Cent.    R. 

Co.,    pp.    268,   269,   272,    277,   284, 

286,   292,   3137. 
Grotarian,    Guaranty    Trust    Co.    f. 
Grote    V.    Chester,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1850. 
Groton,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  Thorson  r. 
Grotsch    V.     Steinway     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2168,    2890. 
Grout   r    Hill,    p.    1242. 
Grove   r.    15ricn,    pp.    349,    351,    354. 

3883. 
Grover,    Birmingham    Ore.,   etc.,    Co. 

V. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Groves,  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Grubbs,  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  ■:■. 
Grubi  an    i:    The    Ontario,    pp.    3929, 

3930. 
Grunibach,    I5onner   ;■. 
Grummond.    EatTrey   '•. 
Grund    i'.    Pendergast.    pp.    21 U    468. 
Grundy.    Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Grunfelder   f.    Brooklyn    Heights    R. 

Co..   p.    1979. 
Grush.    Toledo,   etc.,    K.    Co.   f. 
Gruss.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   i'. 
Grzywacz    j.     New    York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    3127,    3128. 
Guadeloupe.    The. 
Gualala,   The. 
Guance    r.    Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

1991. 
Guarantv     Trust     Co. 

p.    399. 

Ilannay   f. 

Guardian.    The. 

Gude    r.    Pennsvlvania 

3390.    3398. 
Guenther    v.     Metropolitan     R.     Co. 

pp.    2368,    2725. 
Guess,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 
Guess     V.     Southern     Railway,     pp 

642,    677. 


<".uffey    r.     Alaska,    etc..     Steamship 

Co.,    p.    3937. 
(iulTey       Petroleum       Co.,       Unique 

Shipping   Co.    ;■. 

•  niggtnheim,    .\tlantic,    etc..    Steam- 

shij)    Co.    f. 

Harris   i\ 

•  juiding    Star,    The. 

Western    Mfg.    Co.    r. 

Cuiblhall,     The. 

C.uilfortl,    Alabama    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

.Mabama,    etc.,     R.     Co.    r. 

f.    Smith,       pp.       1229.       1232, 

1235.     1243. 
Guillaume    ?•.    General    Transatlantic 

Co.,    pp.    325,    550,    998. 
(luinan,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

:■.   Weaver    Coal,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

3970. 

Gulf  City  Constr.  Co.  z:  Louisville, 
etc.,    R.    Co..    pp.    564,    707,    1152. 

Gulf  Compress  Co.  f.  .Mabama, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    225,    232. 

I'.  Jones  Cotton  Co.,  p.   491. 

Gulf    Line    R.    Co.,    Payton   v. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Abram    f. 

V.  Adams,      pp.      2016,      2418, 

2ti2(>.    2639. 

.\lbin    V. 

.\lderson    v. 

r.  Allcorn,       pp.      879,      3353, 

3368. 

.\lley    f. 

.\llin    '•. 

Amory   Mfg.    Co.   v. 

Askew   V. 

-•.   Bagby     (Tex.     Civ.     A  pp.), 

115    S.    W.    858— pp.    1906,    1908. 

•  t.    Bagby     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

127    S.    W.    254— p.     1907. 

'■.    Baird,   pp.    1269,   1339,  2496, 

3'294,  3298,  3299,  3310,  3311, 
3331,  3337,  3344,  3366,  3375, 
3377. 

V.   Barnett    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

34    S.    W.    449— pp.    2409,    2433. 

-■.   Barnett,     47     S.     W.     1039, 

19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  626^pp.  1799, 
1800,    2873,    2874. 

V.   Batte    (Tex.    Civ.   App.),   81 

S.    W.    813— pp.    1326.    1350. 

v.   Batle     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

94   S.    W.   345— p.    1474. 

r.   Batte     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

107    S.    W.    632— p.    426. 

-  r.    Baugh.    pp.    533.    539,    1303. 

Baumbach    -•. 

Baumback    f. 

Beattie,    p.    1304. 

:.    Bell,     93     Tex.     632.     57     S. 

1766,     2170,     2319, 


Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    V.    Browne,    pp. 
520,    729,   822,   843,    1154,    1169. 

V.    Buford,    p.    2576. 

i:   Bunn,       pp.        1560,       2429, 

2493,  2529. 

;•.  Butcher,  pp.   1518,   1731. 

1770. 

I'.  Butler,   pp.   1340,   1352, 

1358. 

Butterick  Pub.  Co.  t . 

r.   Campbell,  pp.  1549.  1550, 

ISSl,  1572,  2114.  2208. 

V.   Chinski,   pp.   639.   640. 

697. 

i:   Clark,  pp.  522.  533.  539. 

549.  762,  849,  857.  858. 

z:   Clarke,   pp.   1118.   1121. 

1122.  1126,  3326. 

V.   Cleburne   Ice,  etc..   Co..  pp. 

590.    596,    599,    603. 

I-.  Cole,     101      Miss.     411,     58 

So.    208— p.   2821. 

f.   Cole,     4     Texas     .\pp.     Civ. 

Cas.,    §    97.     16    S.    W.     176— p. 
686. 

z:  Cole.  8  Tex.  Civ.  .App.  635. 

28    S.    W.    391— pp.     1293.     1296, 
2496,    3374. 

Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.    z:    Combes,    pp. 
426,    1296. 

z:   Compton    (Tex.   Civ.   .\pp.), 

38     S.     W.     220.     221— pp.     286. 
620.   667.    668.   671.   672,    738. 

z:   Compton   (Tex.   Civ.   .\pp.). 

38   S.   W.    1007— pp.   292.   293. 

z:  Conder,      pp.      2016.      2060, 

2414. 

Conwill     7'. 

■'•    Coopwood,    p.    1763. 

Copeland,     pp.     1610,     1613. 


Grotarian, 


R.    Co..    pp. 


W.     939— pp. 
2335.     2369. 

I'.    Bell,     24     Tex.     Civ.     .\pp. 

W.     614— pp.     1681, 


579.     58     S 
2603.   2635. 

-  Belton    Oil    Co.    z: 

z:    Belton     Oil     Co..     pp.     573, 

767,    838. 

-  -.-.   Bolton,    p.    2133. 

I'.    Booth.       pp.       1886,       1916, 

1917,    2287.    2288. 

z\   Booton.   4   Texas  .\pp.    Civ. 

Cas.,    §    67,     1-5    S.    W.    502— pp. 
663.   849.  850.  852. 

z:   Booton,    4    Tex.    .\pp.    Civ. 

Cas.,    8    230.    15    S.    W.    909— pp. 
586,    1051,    1078,    1079. 

z:   Booton.    4    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

103,    15  S.  W.  502— p.   526. 

z:  Boyce,    pp.    735,    746.    873. 

British,    etc..     Ins.     Co.    z-. 

British,    etc..    Marine    Ins.    Co. 

-  z:    Brown,     99     Tex.     349.     89 
S.    W.    971— pp.    419,    1295,    3289. 

-■.   Brown.    4    Tex.     Civ.     .\pp. 

435.   23   S.   W.    618— pp.   348.  403. 
2126,    2255. 

z:   Brown.    16    Tex.    Civ.    .\pp. 

93.     40     S.     W.     608— pp.      1732. 
2003,    2589,    263o. 


2709. 


1287. 
3413. 


744. 


Coulter,    p.    857. 
Courtney,    p.   919. 
Grossman,    p.    3337 
Cunningham,       pp. 


1275, 

Cushney,     pp.     3395.     3396, 
2448. 
665, 


Daniels,  pp.  1614. 
Danshank.  p.  2203. 
Darby,    pp.    584,    663, 


..   Davidson,    p.    1971. 

z:    Daw  kins,     pp.     1553.     1554. 

z:   Dawson,    pp.    1138,    1193. 

f.    Dennison.      22      Tex.      Civ. 

.\pp.  89,  58  S.  W.  834— p.  475. 

z:   Dennison,      25      Tex.      Civ. 

.\pp.  127,  60  S.  W.  281— pp. 
475,    503. 

z:    Dimmitt.    p.    464. 

z:   Dinwiddie,     pp.     419.     441. 

443.     1296. 

Donalson    f. 

f.    Downman.    p.    2185. 

:•.    Dunman.    pp.    953.    1274. 

z:    Dunn,   pp.    1287,    1291. 

Dwyer    :•. 

z:    Dwyer,    75    Tex.    572.    12    S. 

W.  1001.  7  L.  R.  A.  478.  16 
.\m.  St.  Rep.  926— pp.  15t..  157. 
254.    937,    938,    1120,    3311.    3403. 

z:    Dwyer,  84  Tex.   194.  19 

S.  W.  470— p.  157. 

z:   Dyer.  pp.  1597,  1599.  1600. 

2432,  2487. 

Ebert  z: 

r.  Eddins.  pp.  851.  937.  938. 

950.  954.  978.  1092.  1093.  1119. 
1120.  1121,  1122,  1302.  1356, 
1363.  3342.  3363.  3368 

z:    Edloff.    89   Tex.    454.    34    S. 

W.  414.  35  S.  W.  144— pp.  3309. 
3344.     3392.     3396.     3409.     3417. 

;•.   Edloff     (Tex.     Civ.     .\pp.). 

34   S.   W.  410— p.   3358. 

r.   Elliott,    pp.    1129.    1130. 

z:   Ellis,     pp.     58,     60. 

z:    Ellison.      pp.      729,      1270, 

1462.    1466,    1467. 


CLXXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.    Evansich,    p. 
2300. 

-•.   Everett,    pp.    515,   568,    664, 

796,    852. 

Feagin    f. 

■:■.   Ferguson-^IcKinney         Dry 

Goods     Co.,     pp.     872,    900,     907, 
916. 

z:  Fort   Grain    Co.    (Tex.    Civ. 

App.),   72   S.   W.   419— p.    172. 

z:  Fort    Grain   Co.    (Tex.    Civ. 

App.),   73   S.   W.   845— p.    172. 

V.  Fowler,    pp.    518,    549,    553, 

1299. 

z:   Fox,    pp.    1600,    1782,    1883, 

2116,    2150,    2373. 

z:  Frank   Co.,    pp.    539,   837. 

z:   Franklin,    p.    2790. 

z:   Freeman,    p.    519. 

f.    Fromme,    p.    442. 

f.   Funk,    p.    451. 

■:•.   Fuqua,   pp.   900,   903. 

'•.  Gann,  pp.    1284,   1287,   1290, 

1409. 

Gary  z: 

z:   Gatewood,      pp.      618,     629, 

631,     731,    752,    930,     957,     1021, 

1118,      1121,      1122      1124,      1128, 
1313,    3331. 

Gaunce  v. 

z:   Gilbert,    pp.    643,    645,    646, 

647,     659,     666,     667,     668,     674, 
686,   860. 

v.   Glenk,       pp.       1540,       1774, 

1775,    1780,    2504. 

V.   Godair,  pp.  847,  1355. 

V.   Golding,  pp.  1109,  1131, 

3331. 

z'.   Gorman,  p.  2577. 

z:   Gray,  pp.  1126,  1420,  3618. 

V.    Gregory,    p.    604. 

'•.   Griffith,    p.    3338. 

r.    Gross,    p.    1770. 

z'.   Guess,   p.   2515. 

z:   Halbrook,     pp.     1613,     2449, 

2463. 

V.   Harris,     pp.     551,     3355. 

Hassler    !■. 

V.   Head,       pp.       1869,       1875, 

2243,   2668,   2689. 

z:   Hefley,      pp.      1159,      3448, 

3498,  3499,  3500,  3668,  3735, 
3741,  3745,  3748,  3750,  3751, 
3753,    3754,    3755,    3760,    3764. 

V.  Henry,       pp.       1620,       1621, 

1635,     1974. 

V.   Higby,    p.    1729. 

V.   Hodge,    10    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

543,  30  S.  W.  829— pp.  264,  419, 
427,  441,  443,  446,  450,  457, 
468,  471,  1296. 

V.   Hodge     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

39    S.    W.    986— p.   472. 

z\   Hodges,   76   Tex.   90,    13    S. 

W.    64 — p.    1978. 

z:   Hodges    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

24  S.  W.  563,  2  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  574— pp.  1775, 
1784. 

V.   Holder,    pp.    344,    345,    829. 

V.   Holliday,   p.    474. 

V.  Holt,    pp.     1699,     2083. 

V.   House,    pp.   454,   463,    1318, 

1335,    1345. 

V.   Hughes,    pp.    1326,    1327. 

V.   Hume  Bros.,  87  Tex.  211, 

221,  27  S.  W.  110— pp.  211,  425, 
442,  443,  444,  450,  451,  657, 
1118,  1120,  1121,  1122,  1123, 
1129,  1130,  1295,  1324,  1452. 

V.   Hume  Bros.,  6  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  653,  657,  24  S.  W.  915— 
pp.  419,  441,  442,  450,  621,  624, 
1121,  1130,  1320,  1321,  1355. 

v.   Humphries,  pp.  485,  487, 

493,  513,  549,  553,  596,  602, 
604,  1440. 

r.   Hurley,  pp.  2626,  2775. 

— —  Johnson  v. 


iulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Jordan  z: 

!■.  Insurance  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  28  S.  W.  237— pp.  400, 
776. 

V.   Ions,  pp.  2496,  3374,  337b. 

V.   Irvine,  pp.  424,  442,  443, 

500,  502,  503,  508,  509,  1334, 
1473. 

z:   Jackson,  99  Tex.  343,  89 

S.  W.  968— pp.  419,  420,  426, 
442,  443,  1294,  1295,  1296,  1327, 
3251,  3289. 

z:    lackson,  4  Texas  App.  Civ. 

Cas.,  ■§  47,  15  S.  W.  128— pp. 
663,    852,    3160,    3169. 

z\  Jackson     (Tex.     Civ    App.), 

86  S.  W.  47— pp.  452,  1293, 
1294,    1295. 

V.   Johnson,     p.     2639. 

z:   Jones,    p.    3394. 

z'.  Jordan,  p.   1875. 

Kaase   ''. 

r.   Kemp,    pp.    854,    1351. 

z:    Key,    p.    1404. 

r'    Killebrew,    pp.     1684,     1738, 

2201. 

Kimble^     pp.      1289,      1378, 


1810, 
3353'. 


,   P- 

464, 


W. 

752, 


..  Kirkbride,  pp.  2533,  2717. 

v.   Kuenhle,  pp.   1634,  2441, 

2855. 

-  Laurel    Cotton    Mills    ?•. 

-  z:   Laurel      Cotton      Mills 
3757. 

?'.    LeatherwQJod,        pR. 

1139,    1202,    1203. 

— ■  v.   Lee,    pp.    1329,    1350. 

Leeke   z'. 

'V.  Levi      (Tex.:),      12     S. 

677— pp.    729,   733,   750,   751, 
753,    765,   935. 

,  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S. 
191,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45— pp. 
608,  609,  617,  618,  628, 
629,'  630,  729,  738,  739,  751,  752, 
765,    847,    957,    1307. 

-  z\    Lewine,     p.     544. 

-  -'.  Looney,  pp.  1625,  3316, 
3331,    3367,    3374,    3375. 

-  v.  Loonie,  82  Tex.  323,  18 
S.  W.  221,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 
891— p.    647. 

V.   Loonie,    84    Tex.     259,    263, 

19  S.  W.  385— pp.  169,  172, 
596. 

Lovett    z\ 

z:    Luther,    pp.    2040,    2057. 

■:■.   McAulay,   pp.    1311,    1327. 

v.   McCampbell,    p.    3337. 

McCardcll     z: 

McCartv    f. 

V.   McCarty,      pp.      286,      289, 

291,  419,  450,  451,  473,  474,  654, 
855,  960,  970,  971,  973,  976, 
1097,  1101,  1126,  1318,  13121, 
1322,    1350. 

z:   McCord,    p.    451. 

f.    McCormick,    p.    2430. 

f.    .McCorquodale,        pp.        248, 

268,  286,  294,  446,  448,  463,  594, 
621,  624,  638,  654,  729,  734,  744, 
1272,    1309,    1311,    1460,    1464. 

z:    McCown,    pp.    32_8,    519. 

■:■.   McGowan,    p.    2721. 

z\   McGown,    pp.     1513,     1558, 

1564,    1642,    1760,    2037. 

McLean   z\ 

V.  McLean,    p.    275. 

V.   McWhirtcr,    p.    2082. 

V.  Maetze,    pp.    562,    568,    627, 

657,  665,  666,  672,  673,  696,  756, 
1085. 

V.  Malone,    p.    3359. 

z:    Martin,       pp.       472,       1323, 

1324. 

V.  Mathews,   p.    1359. 

r.   Miami     Steamship    Co.,     30 

C.  C.  A.  142,  86  Fed.  407— p. 
3656. 


;ulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Z'.  Miami  Steam- 
ship Co.,  86  Fed.  567,  2  L.  R. 
A.   289— p.   3659. 

Mississippi    R.    Comm.   v. 

V.   Moody,    3    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

622,     22     S.     W.     J009— pp.     191, 
198,    200,    2418,    2420,    2422. 

v.   Moody     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

30    S.    W.    574— p.    3157. 

z:    Moore,    98    Tex.    302,   83    S, 

VV.    362— pp.     1859,    2455,    3839. 

f.   Moore     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

80    S.    W.    426— p.    3648. 

z-  Moorman,     pp.     1607,     1608- 

z:    Morgan,     pp.      1792,      1793, 

1986,   2327. 

Murray    v. 

V.   Nelson,    4    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

345,    23    S.    W.    732— p.    3729. 

z\   Nelson     (Tex.     Civ.     App), 

139  S.  W.  81— pp.  431,  649,  3344, 
3405. 

V.   North      Texas      Grain      Co., 

pp.    399,   400,    520,    568,    744,   911, 
1154,    1168,    1169. 

V.   Overton,     110     S.     W.     73',, 

101    Tex.    583,    19    L.    R.    A.,    N. 
S.,    500— p.     1712. 

7'.    Overton    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

107   S.   W.   71— p.   2832. 

Parks   z'. 

Patterson    &    Co.    z\ 

z:   Patterson    &    Co.,    p.    490. 

'■.    Pendery,     pp.     2289,     2340. 

V.   Pepperell      Mfg.      Co.,      pp. 

1024,    1025. 

V.    Pettit,     pp.     643,     645,     650, 

654,    666,    683. 

'c'.   Phillips,      pp.      2336,      2738, 

2883. 

z:    Pickens,    pp.    595,    638,    859, 

860. 

•;•.   Pitts    &    Son,    pp.    797,    852, 

3395. 

V.   Pomeroy,    p.    746. 

'■.    Pool,     pp.     274,     275,     2S4, 

286,    289,    290,    291. 

■;•.   Porter,    pp.     1303,    1310. 

7'.    Powers,     pp.     1893,     1894. 

Prokop    z<. 

I'.   Railroad     Comm.,     pp.      54, 

lis,    122,    123,    125,    126,    128. 

V.   Rather,      pp.       1544,       1613, 

2064,    2444,    2456,    2458. 

V.   Redeker,     pp.      1706,     17o3, 

2565,    2566. 

?■.  Riney,  pp.  1624,  1632,  2434, 

2447. 

z:   Roberts,  pp.  729,  734,  740, 

750,  815,  849,  862,  865,  881. 

■;■.  Rotter  Bros.,  pp.  478,  517, 

1250. 

7'.  Roundtree,  p.  1965. 

z:    Rowland,  82  Tex.  166,  IS 

S.  W.  96— pp.  2300,  2751.. 

z'.   Rowland,  90  Tex.  365.  38 

S.  W.  756— pp.  1895,  2151,  2268, 
2371,  2923. 

V.   Ryan,  69  Tex.  665,  7  S. 

W.  83— pp.  1825,  2163. 

v.   Ryan,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 

Cas.,  §  305,  18  S.  W.  866— p. 
1857. 

•  St.  John  V. 

V.    St.  John,  pp.  2444,  2445, 

2458,  2496,  3375. 

V.    Scott,  p.  2583. 

Selman  v. 

f.  Shelton,  72  S.  W.  165.  96 

Tex.  301— p.  2077. 

V.    Shelton,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

72,  69  S.  W.  653— pp.  1783,  19o9, 
2067,  2126,  2227,  2251,  2255, 
2265,  2303. 

z:    Shelton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

70  S.  W.  359— pp.  2067,  2126, 
2227,  2255,  2265,  2303. 

•  r.  Shieder,  pp.  2287,  2288, 

2289,  2666. 

z:    Shields,   pp.   1692.   1728, 

I   2022,  2028,  2030,  2037,  2857. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLXXXV 


Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     V.     Short,     pp. 
419,    3336,    3337,    3338. 

7'.    Simmons,     pp.     i350,     1352. 

V.   Smith,    74    Tex.    276,    11    S. 

W.  1104— pp.  1812,  2585,  2589, 
2604,  2638,  2669,  2694,  2760. 

i:   Smith,  87  Tex.  348,  28  S. 

W.  520— p.  1730. 

I'.  Smith,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

338,  30  S.  VV.  361— pp.  1823, 
1828,  1846. 

'  -'.    Somt-rvillc   Mercantile 

Agency,  pp.  568,  664. 

V.   Southwick,    pp.    1797,    2723. 

V.   Sparger,     pp.      1599,     2468, 

2469. 

i:   Stanley,   80   Tex.   42,   33    S. 

W.    109— p.    1032. 

V.    Stanley,     89     Tex.     42,     44, 

33  S.  W.  109,  2  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  480— pp.  451,  490, 
851,  971,  973,  1086,  1087,  1089. 
10<;|6,  1120,  1123.  1129,  1322, 
1325,  1353.  1355,  1414,  1422, 
1440. 

State    V. 

r.  State,    pp.    937,     1203. 

f.    Staton,       pp.       1339,       1342, 

1360. 

V.   Stewart,    p.    851. 

f.   Stricklin,    p.    1728. 

v.  Taliaferro,    p.    1345. 

V.  Taylor,    p.    484. 

V.   Tennant,    p.     3357. 

Terry    v. 

-■.  Terry,  pp.  1354,  3336. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   Texas,   pp.   3422,   3425, 

3492. 

V.    Texas      Star      Flour      Mills, 

pp.    742,    746,    845. 

t'.  Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    p.    107. 

f.   Thomjjson,    p.    3331. 

V.  Trawick,     68    Tex.      314,     4 

S.  W.  567,  2  .\m.  St.  Rep.  494, 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  49,  49 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  171— pp.  4, 
294,  729,  734,  750,  753,  765,  931, 
932,  933,  934,  935,  951,  971, 
977,  1083,  1085,  1087,  1088, 
1118,   1119,   1121,   1122,   1124, 

1127,  1129,  1268,  1269,  1330, 
1339,  1361,  1398. 

'.:   Trawick,  80  Tex.  270,  15 

S.  W.  568,  18  S.  W.  948— pp. 
268,  286,  287,  293,  294,  822, 
883.  934,  971,  1124,  1125,  1127, 

1128,  1129,  1278,  1332. 

Trout  '■. 

f.  Turner,  p.  1778. 

-c'.  Rowland,  pp.  2115,  2117, 

2118,  2250. 

V.   N'aughn,   pp.   951,   1413, 

3331,  3340.  3342. 

V.   Vinson,  pp.  1913,  2245. 

V.   Wagley,  p.  2546. 

V.  Wallen,      pp.      1689,      1692, 

2129,    2314. 

V.  Walters,    pp.    2287,    2616. 

f.   Ware,    p.     1322. 

x:   Warlick.    pp.     1749,     1782. 

f.    Wells,    p.     1771. 

Wells-Fargo     Kxp.     Co.,     p. 


1643. 


1120, 


3344. 
1415, 


V.  White,       pp.        1118, 

1125. 

-  V.  Wilbanks,    pp.     1125, 

-  V.  Wilhelm,    pp.      1272, 
1443. 

z:  Williams,     70    Tex.     159,    8 

S.  W.  78— pp.  1885,  1886,  1916, 
1917,  2114,  2289.  2606,  2821, 
2827. 

-•.  Williams,   4   Tex.   Civ. 

App.  294.  23  S.  W.  626— pp. 
1124,  1126,  1127. 

r.  Williams,   21   Tex.   Civ. 

App.  469.  51  S.  W.  653— pp. 
1800,  2507. 


Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.   Wilm,  p.  1351. 

r.    Wilson,   pp.   1502,   1504, 

1558,  1564,  1575,  1577,  1814, 
2004,  2212,  2589,  2603,  2604, 
3344. 

v.   Wiltnebert,  pp.   757,  758, 

759,  3308. 

I'.  Wolston,  pp.  484,  487. 

I'.  Wood,  pp.  935,  971,  997, 

1345,  1478. 

v.   Wortham,  p.  552. 

t:   Wright,  1  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 

402,  21  S.  W.  80— pp.  419,  450, 
4S2,  960,  976,  1099,  1412. 

V.   Wright,  2  Tex.  Civ.  .App. 

463,  21  S.  W.  399— pp.  969, 
1086,  1096,  1607,  1610,  1623, 
1624,  1625,  1626,  2450,  2464, 
2706,  3373,  3374,  3375. 

Wright,  10  Tex.  Civ.  .Xpp. 
30  S.  W.  294 — pp.  1623, 


179, 
1624. 


1358. 


Yates,    pp.     1408,    1409. 
York,        pp.        1110,       1352, 


Younger,     p.     2583. 

I'.  Zimmerman       &       Co.,      pp. 

775,   789,   790,   791,   792,   795,   822, 
824,    1041. 

Gulf,    etc.,    Tel.    Co.    V.    Richardson, 

p.    663. 
Gulick,    Indiana    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Gulliver    f.     Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

425,   428,   727,   732,   748,   768,   770, 

3298. 
Gulzoni   -•.    Tyler,   pp.    2089,    2377. 
Gunn    f.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2825. 
Gunning,    Denver,   etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Gunter,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Guntcrman,   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v. 
Gunther   ;■.    Baltimore,    p.    3582. 
Guntzer     i\    Yonkers     R.,     Co.,     p. 

2907. 
Gurley,    Anniston    Transfer    Co.    :•. 

V.   Springfield    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2146,    2341,    2721. 

Gurney    ?■.     Grand    Trunk    R. 

pp.    3119,    3120,    3121,    3151. 
Gurwitz   :■.    Weir.    p.    492. 
Gustin,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
Gustine    f.    Phillips,    p.    1209. 
Gutenfels,    The. 
Guthier     ■:•.     Minneapolis,      etc, 

Co.,    p.    3062. 
Gutierrez,    El    Paso.    etc..    R.    Co.    i'. 
Guthrie    v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    805. 
f.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1848. 
Guy    -•.    Baltimore,    pp.    3440,    3529, 

3530,    3531. 

Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

f.   Xew     York,     etc.,    R. 

pp.   2472,    2491. 

7-.  P.,    C.    C.    &    St.    R 


Co., 


R. 


pp. 


2429,    2474.    2483,    2533. 


Co., 
Co., 


Guyton,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

Gwinn,    Gilson    t'. 

Gwyn  V.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
1695. 

Gwyn  Harper  Mfg.  Co.  t:  Caro- 
lina Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp.  978,  1091, 
3394.    3400,    3402. 

Gwyn  Real  Estate  Trust,  etc., 
Co.   f. 

Gwyn,  etc.,  Co.  -■.  Richmond,  e  c, 
R.    Co..    p.    1217. 

Gyle   I'.   Jolinc.   p.    1507. 

Gyles  -'.  Southern  Railwav.  pp. 
2331,    2358.    2777. 

II 
Haaga    ?•.     .\ustro-.\mericana     Line, 
p.    4010. 

;■.   Citizens'     Rank,      pp.     308, 

355,    369.    3^(.. 

Georgia    R..    etc..    Co.    -■. 

f.    Kansas    Citv.    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    356.    360,    371,    403,    487.    495 
628,    629. 


Mtr- 
Co. 


Co 


Haaga  i:  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
Ill  Mo.  App.  706,  90  S.  W. 
1155— p.   2697. 

t.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    \2i 

Mo.    App.    79,    106    S.    W.    599— 
p.     1832. 

Southern   Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

I'.   Wichita    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

2142,    2145,    2328. 

Haase   i:    Oregon    R.,   etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

2145,    2148. 
Haase    &    Sons    Fish    Co.    v. 

chant's      Despatch      Transp. 

pp.    620,    689,    694,    1021. 
Habeck    v.    Chicago,    etc.,     R. 

pp.    2480,    2489. 
Haber,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Haberzettle   f.   Trinity,   etc.    R.    Co., 

pp.    638,    645,   650,   654,   660,    668. 
Hahil,   The. 
Hackett    T.     Boston     etc..     Railroad. 

pp.    636,     848,     851. 

Gabbert   i'. 

Hadd    V.    United    States,    etc.,    Exp. 

Co.,    pp.   426,    3259,    3286,   3289. 
Haddow   f.    Perry,    p.    3884. 
Hadencamp  i:   Second  Ave.   R.   Co.. 

p.    2181. 
Haderlein   v.    St.    Louis    R.    Co.,    jyp. 

2319,    2671. 
Hadfield  v.   Jameson,    p.    1146. 


642. 


R.    Co. 

1685, 


R.    Co. 
etc.,    R. 


1717, 

'  Co., 

Co.. 

pp. 

Co., 
Co., 


R. 


Hadley   v.    Baxcndale,   pp.   637 
645,    651,    652,    668. 

Cleveland,    etc., 

f.    Cross,       pp. 

1720,    1846. 

St.    Louis,    etc., 

Hafer    v.    St.    Louis, 

pp.    1119,    1123,    1124. 
Haff    f.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R. 

p.    1487. 
Hagan    i:    Cargo     of     Lumber, 

3948,    3957,    3958,    3962. 

Meigs    I'. 

V.   Philadelphia,    etc.,     R. 

p.    2263. 

-•.    Providence,    etc.,      R. 

p.    3087. 

':   Tucker,    p.    3952. 

Hagar    !•.    Clark,    pp.    3864,    3865. 

z:   Elmslie,    pp.    3970,   3972. 

Holland     Gulf     Steamshipping 

Co.   :•. 

Uren   f. 

Hagblad,    Fremont,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Hagerman     z\      Xorton,      pp.       709, 

3964,    3970. 
Ilagestrom   v.   West   Chicago    St 

Co.,    p.    2517. 
Haggard,    .\merican    Exp.    Co.    z: 

Birmingham     R..     etc.,     Co.     i: 

Ilaggerty    t.    Flint,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2495. 

-•.   Palmer,    p.    1222. 

Hague,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f 
Hahl  -■.   Laux,   pp.   1154,   1158,   1164 

1165. 
Hahn   z:   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p 

1019. 
Haight,   Pullman   Co.   f. 

-'.   Turner,     p.     3008. 

Haile     z:     Texas,     etc.,     R. 

1707. 
Hailcy,    Louisville,    etc.,    R 

Railroad   ;. 

Haille   z:    Smith,    p.    350. 
Hailman.   (lales  ;•. 

Haines  f.   Chicago,  etc..   R.  Co..  pp 
3124.    3149.    3151.    3153.    3188. 

L'nited    States    Exp.    Co.    ;. 

Haislup,    Pittsburgh,   etc..    R.    Co.    : 
Ilalbrook.    Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.    :■. 
Halbustro,    People  f. 
Hale    z:     Barrett,      pp.      522 

11  (.4.    11  (i5. 

Birmingham    Union    R. 

f.   Bonner,      pp.       663, 

1256. 

f.  Chesapeake,  etc..  R 

pp.  2025,  2026. 


Co..  p. 
Co.  :•. 


1159. 


Co. 
12 


4, 


Co., 


CLXXXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Hale,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   !■. 

East       Tennessee,        etc.,       R. 

Co.   f. 

V.  Grand    Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

2504. 

-•.    Henkel,      pp.      3447,       3778, 

3779,    3781. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    '•. 

Midland     \'alley    R.     Co.     f. 

z\    Milwaukee      Dock      Co.,      p 

355. 

-■.  Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p 

1444. 

I'.   New      Jersey     Steam      Xav 

Co.,    pp.     10, '430,    727,    732.    748 
768,     1003,     1004.     1007,     1490. 

Halenbake.    Arnold   r. 

Hales  V.   The   London   &   N.   W.    R 

VV.    Co.,    p.    253. 
Haley  z:    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

2490.    2491. 
f.  St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    pp 

1703,    1855. 
Halff,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Allyn   &   Co.,    pp 

1217,     1229,     1230,       1232,       1233 

1236,    1237,    1238,    1239. 
Hall,    American    Refrigerator    Trans. 

Co.   z: 

f.        American         Refrigerator 

Trans.    Co.,    pp.    3575,    3581. 

v.   Bessemer,       etc.,      R. 

pp.    1537,    1799. 

f.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp 

549,    894,    914. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •;•. 

z:   Cheney,    pp.    804,    821,    945, 

1036. 

Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Citizens'    R.    Co.   z\ 

z:  Connecticut  River  Steam- 
boat Co.,  pp.  1684,  1741,  2723, 
2776. 

z:   Dccuir,       pp.      1492,      1496, 

1936,      1937,      1947,      3511,      3513, 
3515. 

z:   Dimond,    pp.     1229,     1235. 

Dodge   '■. 

East    Line,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

z:   Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

898. 

Hlinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

z:   Keller,     pp.     394,     396. 

'•.    Mayo,    pp.    339,    3884. 

z:   Memphis,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     9 

Fed.    585— pp.    2437,    2486. 

V.  Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    15 

Fed.   57— pp.    2448,    2486. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Z'.   Morrisons'    Adm'r,     p.    843 

z:  Murdock,     p.     1759. 

V.   Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 


Co. 


pp. 


493. 

141.'' 

2860.' 


Norfolk,     etc.. 
Northern     Pac. 


R. 


R. 


Co., 
Co. 


z'.  Penn.sylvania    Co.,     p.     586 

z'l   Pennsylvania     R.      Co.,     p 

1023. 

Plantation    No.    4    z\ 

V.   Power,    pp.    Ill,    192,    2528 

Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co.    z 

V.   Railroad     Cos.,     p.     730. 

'  z\  Richardson,     p.     1210. 

Ryder    v. 

Skinner  z'. 

V.    South      Carolina      R.      Co., 

pp.    2469,    2716. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.    f. 

z:    Southern    Railway,    p.    2138. 

v.   State,   p.    1802. 

V.  Terre   Haute   Elect.    Co.,    p. 

2319. 

■ Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

z:  Union   Pac.   R.   Co.,  p.   256. 

Hall    &   Co.   z:    Renfro,    pp.    11,    727, 

732,   749,   765,   768,   872,    1340. 


Hall    Grain    Co.    <•.    Louisville,    etc  , 

R.    Co.,    pp.    626,   627,    689,    696. 
Hall,    etc.,     Mach.    Co.,    St.    Louis. 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Hallenbcck    z:      DeWitt,      pp.      323. 

9S4. 
Hallgartcn,    Becker   '■. 
Hailiday  z\   Haniihon,   pp.    317,   318. 

349,    350. 

'•.   St.     Louis,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    3180,    3377. 

Hailiday     Mill.      Co.     z\      Louisiara, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    1200,    1202. 
Ilallock,  Merchants'  Dispatch 

Transp.   Co.  f. 
Halloren,      International,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   z: 
Halsell,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?•. 
Halscy    z:    Warden,    pp.^   378,    3274. 
Haluptzok    z\     Great     Northern     R. 

Co.,    p.    2076. 
iialverson    z'.    Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    p. 

2174. 
Ham    z'.    Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co., 

pp.     1544,     1560,    2472. 

f.   Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

1688,    1979. 

Haman  v.  Omaha  Horse  R.   Co 

•2055,    2483. 
Hambel,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
Hambrick,        St.       Louis,      etc., 

Co.   '■. 
Hamburg-.American         Packet 

Duhme  z\ 

■;•.   Gattman,      pp.,      876, 

3124,    3152,    3187. 

Higgins    z\ 

Tarowski    7'. 

Koeningshein    "'. 

Moses    7'. 

Hamburg- Amerikanische,      etc., 

sellschaft.   United   States   v. 
Hamburg,     etc.,     Gesellschaft,     Nt 

York   Millinery,    etc.,    Co.    7\ 
Hamburg,   etc..    Packet   Co.,    Klein 


pp. 
pp. 

,  "r. 

Co., 
3119, 


Ge 


Hamburger,        Baltimore,      etc. 
Co.    '•. 

Cincinnati    Tract.    Co.    f. 

'".   Cincinnati     Tract.      Co 

1824. 

Hamburgh     American 
Hirschsohn    v. 

Hurwitz    z\ 

Hamel     Z'.      Brooklyn,      etc., 

Co.,    p.    2059. 

V.    New    York,    etc.. 


R 


Packet      Co, 


Hami 
779. 
Hamilton 


Ferry 
Co.,  p 
R.    Co. 


Boston    Elev 
pp.    2319,    2332,    2876. 

-  z:  Boston,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co. 
pp.    2307,   2878. 

-  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10; 
Iowa  325,  72  N.  W.  536— pp 
517,    562,    576,    592. 

i'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     IIS 

Iowa    650.    93     N.     W.      594— pp 
2529,   2530. 

-  V.  Great  Falls  St.  R.  Co.,  pp 
1736,    2696,    2955. 

Hailiday    z'. 

7'.    Kankakee     Elect.      R.     Co. 

p.    1901. 

Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    t'. 

z:   Metropolitan      St.     R.      Co. 

pp.    2586,    2643,    2671. 

z\   New     York     Cent.     R.     Co. 

pp.    1973,    1974. 

z:   Nickerson,    p.    484. 

v.   Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2491. 

z:   Pittsburgh,    p.    256. 

z'.    Southern    Pac.    Co.    "'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

V.  Texas,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2508. 

The. 

7.   Third    .\ve.    R.    Co.,    53    N. 

Y.    25— p.    3091. 

z:   Third      Ave.      R.      Co.,     13 

Abb.    Prac,   N.    S.,    318,   44    How. 


Prac.    294.    35    N.    Y.    Super.    Ct. 
118— p.     2413. 
Hamilton,    Toledo,    etc.,    R'.    Co..    p. 

7'.   West-End     St.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2007. 

7'.   Western,  etc.,       R.     Co., 

pp.    1316,    1321. 

Wilson    7'. 

Hamlen  &  Sons  Co.  7'.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp.  3740,  3754. 
3762. 

Ilamler,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hamlin  7'.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
p.    1<)70. 

Hamm,    Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '.■. 

Hammer,       Illinois      Cent.      R. 

Co.   '■. 

United    States    Exp.     Co.    7'. 

7'.   Wiggins       Ferry       Co.,       p. 

3550. 

Hammett  '■.  Chase,  etc.,  Co.,  p- 
3956. 

St.     Louis,      etc.,      R.     Co.      v. 

7'.  Wabash    R.    Co.,    p.    588. 

Hammond    7'.    Anderson,    p.    1208. 

Bohannan   7'. 

Fleming   7'. 

McClures    7'. 

7'.   Northeastern     R.      Co.,      pp. 

1503.    1575. 

Thorp    7'. 

Toledo,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hammond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'.    Antonia, 

p.   2612. 

7'.   Spvzchalski,         pp.  2015, 

2605. 

Hammonds   7'.    Barclay,    p.    1164. 
Hampe,    Chicago    L^nion    Tract.    Co. 

Hampton,    Houston,    etc.,  R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Occidental,     etc..  Steamship 

Co.,    p.    4004. 

Oostanaula,       etc..  Steamboat 

Co.      7'. 

7'.   Pullman     Palace      Car      Co., 

pp.     3215,     3217,     3221,     3232. 
Plamrick    Bros.    &    Co.    7'.    Southern 

R.    Co..    p.    176. 
Hanaw,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    7'. 
Hance   7'.    Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    48    Mo. 

.\pp.     179— pp.      209,      249,      1037, 

1047,    1456. 

7'.    Pacific     Exp.     Co.,     66     Mo. 

App.    486— p.    1456. 

r.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     56 

Mo.  App.  476— pp.  945,  970, 
3348. 

7'.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     62 

Mo.    .-Vpp.    60— p.   492. 

Hancock  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1372,    1373,    1423. 

Heilbroner     7'. 

Interurban    R.,    etc.,    Co.   7'. 

Lew-is   7'. 

<■.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2454. 

Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

z:   New     York,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

76  N.  E.  1096,  184  N.  V.  540— 
pp.    2363,    2910. 

7'.   New   York,    etc..    R.    Co.,   91 

N.  Y.  S.  601,  100  App.  Div.  161 
—V.    2350. 

Hand  7-.  Baynes,  pp.  502,  505, 
848,    3888,    3889,    3890,    3902. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.    z\ 

Simpson    7'. 

L^nion   Pac.    R.    Co.   '•. 

Handley    7'.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

p.   2516 
Handy,     Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    7,'. 

Hanes,    .Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Ilankerson,     Southwestern     R.     Co. 

Hanks,     Farmers',     etc.,     Nat.     Bank 

7-.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3734,   3768. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CLX  XXVII 


Ilanlov  V.  Itrooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
96  N  Y.  S.  249,  110  App.  Div. 
429— pp.     2850,    2852. 

V.   IJrooklyn     IKights     R. 

Ill    N.   Y.   S.   575,   127   App. 
355— p.    2005. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

1283,    1339,    1457,    1458,    I4r,0 

V.   Kansas,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

129,   3421,   3422,   3423,    3491. 

Lfmmon    •'. 

United  States  r. 

Ilanlon  v.   Central   R.   Co. 

7'.   Illinois     Cent.     R. 

1607,  1623,  1624,  1632 


Co., 
Div. 


pp. 


pp. 


p.  2066. 
Co..*  pp. 
1636. 


ITaninuT,    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Ilanna,  Vitchhurg,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 

Irterralional,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

;•.    Nassau,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1665,    2492. 

V.   Pitt,     p.     754. 

Hannay   v.    Guaranty   Trust    Co.,    p. 

399. 
Hanrav-Frerichs       &       Co.,       Texas 

Cent'.    R.    Co.   V. 
Ilannestad  v.   Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co., 

132    Iowa    232,    109    N.   VV.    718— 

p.   2820. 

Chicago, 


etc.. 


R. 


(Iowa),    118    N.    W.    38— p. 


Co. 

2315. 


Hannibal,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     Brown    v. 

Cantling    ■•. 

Clayhrook    '■. 

Clothworthy    r. 

Currell    v. 

Diinmitt    v. 

Douglass    V. 

Dunn    V. 

Cioetz    <•. 

Harris   v. 

Hicks    r. 

Higgins  '•. 

Holt   '■. 

Kelly    V. 

I.ogan    <■. 

i:    Martin,    11    111.    App.    386— 

pp.    1522,    2085. 

■:■.    Martin,     111     111.     219— pp. 

2224,   2930. 

Miller   f. 

Missouri     Coal,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Pruitt  f. 

Sawyer    <■. 

Sherman    '■. 

Snyder    7'. 

Spooner  7'. 

V.   Swift,     pp.     210,     267,    285, 

726,  731,  755,  759,  782,  1502, 
1679,  3I13>  3115,  3116,  3118, 
3124,  3127,  3128,  3141.  3142, 
3148.    3152,    3157,    3158. 

Swigert    V. 

Waller    7'. 

Ilanriford,     Little     Rock,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    7'. 
Ilanning,    Railroad    Co.    7'. 
Plannon   7-.    Boston    Kiev.    R.    Co.,   p. 

1971. 

V.    St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2656. 

Hanover    Tunction,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

.\nthony.    pp.    2126,    2164. 
Hanralian     7'.     Manhattan     R.     Co., 

p.    2144. 
Ilansberger     7'.      Sedalia      Klect.     R., 

etc.,   Co.,   pp.   2333,   2637,   2657. 
Hansen  7'.  North  Jersey  St.  R.  Co., 

64    N.    J.    L.    f'86,    46    .\tl.    718— 

pp.    1712,    1715,    1951. 

7'.   North     lersev     St.     R.     Co. 

(N.    J.),    43    Atl.    663— p.    2806. 

7-.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  p.  2818. 

Hansford    &    Son,    Cincinnati,    etc., 

R.    Co.   7'. 
Hanslev  7'.   Jamesville,  etc.,    R.   Co., 
115   N.   C.   602,   20   S.    E.   528,   32 
L.    R.    -\.    543,    44    .\ni.    St.    Rep. 
474— pp.    1510,    3054. 


Hansley  v.  Jamesville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
117  N.  C.  S(.S,  2i  S.  E.  443.  ii 
L.  R.  .\.  543,  53  .\m.  St.  Rep. 
600— pp.    1(.74,    3054. 

Hanson  v.  .Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    1286. 

7'.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     j). 

2906. 

7'.    European,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   |)p. 

2042,    2052,    3074. 

7'.    Flint,  etc..   R.   Co.,  pp.  305, 

m,    334,    410.    3255. 

V.    r.reat    Northern    R.   Co.,    pp. 

431,   948,   952,  978.    1056,    1063. 

••.   Haywood     Bros.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    4068. 

v.   Mansfield    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

2207. 

May  7'. 

7'.  Urbana,    etc.,     St.    R.     Co., 

p.    2770. 

Wells    Fargo    &    Co.    v. 

Harthorn,     Chicago     Union     Tract. 

Co.    V. 
Ilapgood    Plow    Co.    V.    Wabash    R'. 

Co.,    p.    912. 
Haralson,  .\tlarta,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 
7'.    San     .\ntonio     Tract.     Co., 

pp.    2357._  2648.    2659. 
Harbeck,   Keyser  ■-. 
Harber,     New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Harbin,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 
Harbison     7'.     Metropolitan     R.     Co., 

p.    2172. 
Harbor     Master    7-.     Sutherland,     p. 

3433. 
Harby  7'.   Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  608, 

3377,    3382. 
Hardage,     .\tlanta     Consol.     St.     R. 

Co.     7'. 

Hardaway   7'.    Southern   R.    Co.,    pp. 

1195,    1200,    1202,    3750. 
Hardee    7'.    Brown,    p.    3579. 
Harden,    Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co. 

7'.  Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  1267,  1271,  1289,  1339,  1341, 
1402,    1471. 

7'.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2335,   2891. 

Hardeiibergh'  7'.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  39  Minn.  3,  34  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  359.  38  N.  W.  625,  12 
.\m.  St.  Rep.  6]0— pp.  1571, 
1953,    1954.    1955.    2427,    2476. 

7'.  St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    41 

Minn.  200,  42  N.  W.  933— p. 
3099. 

Hardendorf,    Ft.   Wayne   Tract.    Co. 

Harder,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hardesty.    L'nited    R.,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 
Hardie.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Yazoo,    etc..    R.    Co.    '■. 

Hardie    &    Co.    7'.    Vicksburg,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    359,    360. 
Hardin    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 
p.   1990. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'    Ft.   Worth,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   33 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  448.  77  S.  W. 
431_pp.  1524.  1525,  1526,  1527, 
1749,    1752,    1979. 

7'.    Fort    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

49  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  184,  108  S. 
W.  490— p.   2725. 

7'.    Fort    Worth,    etc..    R.    Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  100  S.  W.  995 
-pp.     1991,    2209,    2891. 

Leisy   7'. 

Savannah,    etc..     R.     Co.    '•. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hardin   Grain   Co.  7'.   Missouri   Pac. 

R.     Co.,      pp.     «.40,     653.      1109, 
3334. 
Harding    7-.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.    2650. 


Harding  r.  .New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.   3083. 

7'.    Philadelphia    Rapid  Transit 

Co..    p.    2192. 

Western    Union    Tel.   Co.    v. 

Harding     Paper     Co.     v.     Allen,     p. 

1233. 
Hardman     7'.     Montana     L'nion     R. 

Co.,  pp.  910,  913. 
Hardway,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hardwick  v.  Georgia  R..  etc.,  Co., 
pp.    1690,    1881,    1971,    1995. 

Richardson    v. 

Hardwick  Farmers'  Elevator  Co., 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co.,     p. 

3501. 

Hardy  v.  .\merican  Exp.  Co.,  pp. 
572,    601,    874. 

V.    Milwaukee    St.     R.     Co.,    p. 

2985. 

7'.  North     Carolina     Cent.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2587. 

Parsons   7'. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    i: 

South    Covington,    etc.,    St.    R. 

Co.    V. 

Hare   v.    Browne,    p.    352. 

Haring,    New    York,   etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Harkey    7'.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

17  80-. 
Harkins    v.    Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    pp. 

2860,    2965. 
Harkless    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1541.   2435,    3084. 
Harkress    v.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2904. 
Harkow   7'.   New   York  City   R.   Co.. 

p.    1648. 
Harlan  7'.   .\dams   Exp.   Co..   p.   209. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.   Co.  7-. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc..    R.    Co.    7. 

Harlow    7.     Fitchburg     R.     Co.,     p. 

3191. 
Harman  v.   Chicago,   pp.   3479,   3569. 
3585. 

Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Norfolk,  etc..   R.   Co._  7_. 

Harmon    7'.    Chicago,    p.    3585. 

Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co.  r. 

7'.   Flintham,   pp.    1796.    2878. 

7'.  Jensen,   pp.    1573,    1631. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 

Norfolk,    etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 

Richardson    7'. 

Robinson    7'. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   United    R.    Co..    pp.    2289, 

2617. 

Washington,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Washirgton.     etc..     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2319,    2357. 

Harmonson,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co. 

Harmonv  7-.   Bingham,  pp.  437,  630, 

633,    1195. 
Ham.    Houston,    etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 
Harnden   Exp.   Co.,  Hubbard   &   Co. 

Harnden's    Exp.    Co.,    Meyer    :. 

Moriata   v. 

Harned,     Louisville,     etc..     R.     Co. 

7'.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

1087,      1088,      1107.      nil.      1114. 
1421. 

Harnett  7-.   Westcott  pp.  829.  836. 
Harp  7'.   Choctaw,   etc..   R.   Co..    118 
Fed.    169— pp.    30,    96. 

7'.   Choctaw,    etc..    R.    Co..    61 

C      C.     .\.     405.     125     Fed.     445— 
pp.  89.   187,   188.   189. 

7.   Southern   R.   Co..   pp.   2425. 

2430.  2444. 

Harper  -•.    Erie   R.   Co..   p.   2114. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.   Co.    :. 

Little    Rock.    etc..    R     Co.    7'. 

Philadelphia,    etc..     R.     Co.     :•. 


CLXXXVIII 


TAHI.K    OF    CASES. 


Harper  :■.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.   2135,   2324,   2777. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Southern   Transp.    Co.   ■:■. 

Harper  Bros.,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 

Harper  Furniture  Co.  z:  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  144  X.  C.  639,  57  S. 
E.  458,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
924 — pp.  493,  t>90. 

f.    Southern      Exp.      Co.,      148 

X.  C.  87,  62  S.  E  145,  30  L. 
R.  A..  X.  S..  483,  128  Am.  St. 
Rep.  588— pp.  638,  641,  642,  649, 
650,  654,  657,  658,  666,  667, 
668,    671,    674,   695. 

Harper    House    Co.,    Fraser    z'. 
Harrell    z:    Columbia    Elect.    St.    R., 
etc.,  Co.,  pp.  2117,   2816. 

Little   Rock,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

f.  Owens,    pp.    211,    728,    733, 

749. 

f.   Wilmington,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.   278. 

Harrill    Uros.    f.    Southern    R.    Co., 

pp.    157,   531,   3499. 
Harriman,       Interstate       Commerce 

Comm.    f. 

z:   Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

pp.    3600,   3767,    3780. 

Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.    -'. 

I'.   Reading,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2694,    2898,   2946. 

The. 

Harrington  f.  American,  etc..  Lum- 
ber  Co.,   p.    3958. 

z:   King,    p.    681. 

z:   Lvles,    pp.    729,    749,    768. 

z:  McShane,   pp.    11,    728,   730, 

733,    749. 

I'.  Manchester    St.    Railway,    p. 

2910. 

Pecos    River    R.     Co.    '■. 

Southern  R.  Co.  z\ 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.   Wabash    R.     Co.,    pp.     764, 

3267. 

Harris,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Arkansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Balk,  p.   577. 

Brown    -■. 

Carson    z: 

z:  Central    R.    R.,    p.    2547. 

z:   Central,    R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

706. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Cheshire    R.    Co.,    p.    846. 

Circinnati,    etc.,     R.    Co.    v. 

v.  City,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    p.    1582. 

V.   Cockermouth     &     Worthing- 

ton  R.   Co.,   p.   3692. 

v.  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    77 

X.  J.  L.  278,  72  Atl.  50— pp. 
•loio,    1633,    3065. 

z:  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    61 

X.    Y.    656— pp.    848,    855. 

' Denver,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v. 

D'Wolf  V. 

Eddy   V. 

V.    Fargo,    p.    649. 

v.   Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3257,    3289,    3338. 

V.   Great   Xorthern    R.    Co.,    p. 

1001. 

Z'.  Guggenheim,    p.    2902. 

Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.   z: 

Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z\ 

V.  Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    37 

Mo.    307— p.    814. 

z:   Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    89 

Mo.  233,  1  S.  W.  325,  58  Am. 
Rep.    Ill— pp.    2120,    2170. 

v.  Hart,   pp.    1227,   1229,   1232, 

1237,    1240,    1243. 

V.   Howe,      pp.      2092,      2496, 

3315,   3331,   3373,   3375. 

Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     z: 

Knoxvijle,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Kurfees   f. 

Lafaye    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Harris  z\  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    529,    564,    565.    890. 

f.   Minneapolis,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3357. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Moody,    30    X.    Y.    266,    86 

Am.     Dec.     375— p.    818. 

f.    Moody,     17     X.     Y.     Super. 

Ct.    210— p.    818. 

T'.   Xew    Jersey    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    185. 

v.  Xorthern    Indiana     R.     Co., 

pp.    753.    827,    1288,     1273. 

Z-.   Packwood,    p.    1037. 

V.   Panama    R.    Co.,    58    X.    Y. 

660— p.    1464. 

V.  Panama    R.    Co.,    16    X.    Y. 

Super.   Ct.   7— pp.   857,  862. 

V.  Panama    R.    Co.,    18    X.    Y. 

Super.    Ct.    312— p.   848. 

Pecos    \'alley,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2249,    2912. 

V.   Pratt,    pp.    381,    382,     1227, 

1237,    1238,    1239. 

V.  Puget  Sound  Elect.  Rail- 
way, pp.  1585,  1586,  2004,  2100, 
2645,    2697,    2720,    2762. 

Railroad   Co.  v. 

z\    Rayner,    p.    265 1. 

Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1535,    1536,    1537,    1806,    2934. 

V.   Stevens,   pp.    192,    197,   1513, 

1637,    1802,    2122,    2631. 

r.    Story,    pp.    323,    984. 

Tallulah    Falls    R.    Co.    v. 

Ten   Eyck  z\ 

■ z:  Tenney,      pp.      1206,      1219, 

1220,      1221,      1229,      1236,      1237, 
1238. 

Union   Pac.    R.    Co.    -'. 

•  f.   Union      Pac.      R.      Co.,      p. 

1816. 

-  V.   Union    R.    Co.,    p.    2268. 
United    States   v. 

U^nited    States    Exp.    Co.    :■. 

Harris  &   Co.,   Wabash   R.   Co.   z\ 
Harrisburg,    The. 

Ilarrisburg   Tract.    Co.,    Clark   ''. 

Xeff   V. 

■ Redington    -■. 

Ilarrisburg,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    Light    x. 
Harrison,      Chicago,    etc.,      R.      Co. 

— —  V.  Fink,  pp.  2055,  2058,  2466, 
2473,   2474,    2481. 

V.   Fortlage,    p.    3896. 

Great   'Xorthern    R.     Co.     v. 

V.  Hixson,    pp.    813,    837,    838. 

Mississippi,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z'.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

449,    453,    1018,     1044. 

Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.    z\ 

V.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1779. 

Xew    Orleans,    etc..    R.    Co.    ■;•. 

V.  Xew   Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  469,  470. 

V.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2564. 

V.   Roy,    p.    8. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,    R'.   Co.   v. 

Shepherd  f. 

V.    Smith,    p.    709. 

Southern   R.    Co.   v. 

z:    Stewart,    pp.    456,    3888. 

V.   Sutter   St.    R.    Co.,   p.    2699. 

V.   United    States,    p.    3441. 

V.  Weir,   69   X.    Y.    S.   957,   34 

Misc.    Rep.    519— pp.    1298.    1333. 

V.  Weir,     75     X.     Y.     S.     909, 

71     App.     Div.     248— p.     1348. 

Harrison     Granite     Co.    v.     Pennsyl- 
vania  R.   Co.,   p.   261. 
Harrold,    Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

z\  Winona,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2928. 
Harry,    HI    Pa?o,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "■. 


Harry,    Wilson    f. 

Harry     &     Bros.,     Houston,     etc.,     R 

Co.   '■. 
Harsliman    v.    Little    Miami    R 

p.    3251. 
z>.   Little     Miami,      etc., 

ways,    pp.    504,   851. 


Hart 


Allen,    pp.     728,     745, 


1()7,     1( 


Co., 
Rail- 

749, 
,    PP- 


Co., 


Co. 


pp. 
pp. 


St. 
72 


R.     Co., 
X.    Y.    S. 


St.     R. 
28   Misc. 


Co.. 
Rep. 


Co., 
Rei). 


Co., 


Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co 
69,     1199. 
Baxendale,    p.    243. 

V.   Capital      Tract.      Co., 

2i78,    2179,    2292. 

'■.    Chicago,    etc.,     R 

727,    753,    755,    774. 

Fargo   T-. 

Faulkner    v. 

t'.'  Metcher       Land 

1840. 

Harris    f. 

V.    Metropolitan 

65    .\pp.    Div.    493, 
797— p.    2567. 

v.   Metropolitan 

58   X.   Y.    S.    1087, 
7()6— p.    2829. 

<■.    Metropolitan     St.     R. 

69    X.    Y.    S.    906,    34    Misc. 
521— pp.    1521,    2486. 

z\   Xew    Orleans,    etc.,    R 

p.    2641. 

v.  Xorth  German  Lloyd  Steam- 
ship Co.,  95  X.  Y.  S.  733,  108 
App.    Div.    279— pp.   4009,   4010. 

V.   Xorth  German  Lloyd 

Steamship  Co.,  92  X.  Y.  S.  338, 
46  Misc.  Rep.  426— n.  4008, 
4011. 

V.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

930,  947,  953,  958,  1073,  10/6, 
1083,    1137,    1151,    1406. 

V.   Railroad,    p.    359. 

-■.   Rensslaer,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

3160,  3169,  3175,  3179. 

Rice    V. 

V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    r 

2667. 

V.   Spalding,     p.     848. 

7'.  State,    p.    3511. 

TexarKana    St.     R.     Co.    v. 

Western     Railway    v. 

Hartan  v.   Eastern  R.   Co.,   pp.   3317 

3322,    3323. 
Harten    v.     Brightwood     R.     Co.,     ]) 

2277. 
Harter    ' 

pp. 


Co.,    p. 


Cr 


Charleston,    etc.,    R. 
846,    3399,    3557. 
Hartford    City,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   f. 
Hartford    Deposit    Co.    v.    Pederson, 

p.    2883. 
r.   Sollitt,       pp.       1750,       2739. 

2756,   2984. 
Hartford    Fire   Ins.    Co.    z\    Chicago, 

etc.,   R.  Co.,   pp.   9,   947,    1277. 

Cray    z\ 

First    Xat.    Bank   ?•. 

Hartford    Ins.    Co.,    Riddl<  barger    v. 
Hartford    Steamboat    Co.,    Camp    v. 
Hartford    St.    R.    Co.,    Donovan   v. 
Hartford,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     Boies    v. 

Havens    z'. 

V.   Jackson,    pp.     1137,     1138. 

— —   Mcrriam   v. 

State    V. 

Hartford,       etc.. 

Camp    V. 

Graves   "■. 

Hartford,       etc..        Tramway        Co., 

Wheeler    v. 
Hartford,    etc.,   Transp.   Co.,    Pisai>ia 

Hartley    f.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co  . 

pp.    3248,    3262,    3329,    3330,    3331. 

3334,   3406. 
Hartman,     Louisville    R'.    Co.    '•. 
Hartmann     z\     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    430,   886,    894,    943. 
Hartshorn,    Price   v. 
Ilartshorne   f.    Johnson,    p.    1160. 


Steamboat       Co., 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


CLXXXIX 


Ilartung,     St.     Louis,    etc.,     R.     Co. 
Ilartwcll,     Louisville,     etc..     R.     Co. 

f.    Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    482,    802. 

Hartford,   The   City  of. 

V.   Northern     Pac.      Exp.      Co., 

pp.     989.     1085. 

Hartwell    R.    Co.    r.    Kidd,    pp.    808, 

828. 
Hartwig    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1873,    2140,    2727. 
Harty    i:    New    York,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

p.   2890. 
Ilartzig    !•.    Lehigh    Valley    R.     Co  , 

p.    2367. 
Harvard    College,    Stewart   v. 
Harvey    v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.. 

pp.    ir.l9,    2471. 
V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2124.     22.S7.     2385,     2929. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Connecticut,     etc.,     R'.     Co.. 

pp.    434,    469,    471,    638,    653,    659, 
1140. 

V.   Deep     River     Logging     Co., 

pp.    2209,    2334,    2836. 

r.   Eastern     R.     Co..     p.     2151. 

r.   Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

47L 

7'.   Louisiana    Western    R.    Co., 

p.    2504. 

Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co.    t. 

7'.   Rose,   pp.   11,  768. 

SchiefFelin    f. 

T.   Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   485,    1037. 

The   D. 

TTarville,    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.   f. 
Harvv    r.    Pike,    p.    404. 
Harwell.    Western    R.    Co.    f. 
Harwood,    Graves   v. 
Harzburg     &     Co.     r.     Southern     R. 

Co.,    pp.    3142.    3143,    3144,    3196. 
Hasbrouck    ?■.    New    York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    95    N.    E.    808,    202    X.    Y. 

363,    35    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    537, 

Ann.      Cas.      1912      D,      1150— pp. 

1912,      1913,      3109,      3115,      3116. 

3117,      3123,      3124,      3125,      3145. 

3146,   3148,   3156,   3186. 

V.    New     York,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

122   N.   Y.    S.    123,    137    .\pp.    Div. 
532— pp.    3142,    3144. 

Haselton  -•.  Portsmouth,  etc..  Rail- 
wav.  pp.  1516,  1518,  1535,  2788. 
2874. 

Haskell  v.  Boston  Dist.  Messenger 
Co..    p.    9. 

T.   Cowham,    pp.    3532,    3533. 

Hunt   r. 

Kansas   Natural    Gas   Co.    r. 

7'.   Manchester      St.      Railway, 

p.  2728. 

V.  Metropolitan      St.      R.     Co.. 

p.    2358. 

Spring  7'. 

Haskins  7-.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  K. 
Co.,    pp.    1863,    2437,    2455. 

fnited     Steamship    Co.    -•. 

Hasler  Co.  7'.  Grifling  Florida  Or- 
chard  Co..   p.    569. 

TTaslet.     Dickinson    '•. 
Hassard,      Philadelphia      City     Pas'^. 
R.   Co.   7'. 

Philadelphia,     etc..     R.     Co.     v. 

Hasse    7'.     .American     Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

572,    573,    889.    891. 
Hasselkus,     Central     R.,     etc.,     Co. 


Hasscll,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hasseltine    7'.    Southern    Railway,    p. 

1678. 
Hassen    7'.     Nassau     Elect.     R.     Co., 

p.    2194. 
TIassler    r.    Gulf,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

645,    646. 
Hastings    7'.    Poland,    p.    2989. 


Hastings    v.    Central    Crosstown    R. 
Co.,    pp.    2174,    2696,    2899. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    211.    262. 

V.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1938,    2340. 

7'.   Pepper,     pp.     10,     337,     728, 

733,    749,    753,    764,    3862. 

Hatch,    Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.    Minneapolis,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    1412,    1417,    1418,    1431. 

Pullman    Sleeping    Car    Co.    v. 

7'.   Pullman    Sleeping    Car    Co., 

p.    3237. 

Railroad    Co.    7'. 

7'.    Reardon,    p.    3556. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Willamette     Iron     Bridge     Co. 

Yazoo,     etc.,    R.     Co.    7'. 

Hatchard.     Hathaway    7'. 

Hatchell,   International,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hatcher,    Alabama    Mid.    R.    Co.    7'. 

— ■ —  Law    7'. 

Hatchkiss,    L.    S.    &    M.    S.    R.    Co. 

Hathaway   7'.    Hatchard.    p.    2629. 
Hathorn   7'.    EIv,   pn.    893,   910. 
Hatten    7'.    Railroad    Co.,    pp.     1493, 

1529,     1612,    1621.     1974. 
Hatter    &    Son,    Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 
Hattie    Palmer,    The. 
Hatton,    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 
Hauer,    Baltimore,   ctc_,   R.    Co.   z'. 
Haugh,    etc..    Transfer    Co.,     Lloyd 

Haught,    .Adams   &    Co.    7'. 
Haughton      7'.      The      Memphis,      p. 

3899. 
Hauk    7'.    New    York,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.    2505. 
Haurigan    7'.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.    87. 
Hause   &    Son    7'.    Tudson,    pp.    1209, 

1210,    1219,    1220. 
Hausman.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

7'. 

Haussman,    Pensacola.    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hauterman   7'.   Bock,   pp.    1206,    1243. 
Haven,    Ringgold   f. 
Havens,    Barker  7'. 

7'.   Hartford,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

2420,   2423. 

Haver  7'.  Central  R.  Co..  62  N.  T. 
L  282,  41  Atl.  916.  12  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S..  261.  72  Am. 
St.  Ren.  647.  43  L.  R.  A.  84— 
p.    2045. 

7'.  Central      R.       Co.,    45     Atl. 

593.   64   N.    J.    L.    312— p.    2485. 

Haverhill,    etc..    Dispatch    Co.,    Bul- 
lock   ;■. 
Haverhill,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co..    Tozier 

Haverlitnd  7'.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.    3035. 
Havcrstick,     Indianapolis,     etc.,      R. 

Co.    r. 
Hawcroyt,    Great    Northern    R.    Co. 

TTawes  7\    Southern    R.   Co.,   p.    163. 
Hawgood    T.    One    Thousand    Three 

Hu-dred   and   Ten    Tons   of   Coal. 

n.    701. 
Hawk.    Alabama,   etc..    R.    Co.    7-. 

Chicago,     etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

1755,    1993.    2703. 

Hawkhurst    Steamship    Co.    7.    Key- 

«er,    p.    3955. 
Hawkins    7.     .Mfalfa    Products    Co., 

pp.    369,    396,    398,   493. 

Birmingham    R.,   etc..    Co.   7'. 

7'.   Front    St.    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2164.    2667.    2673. 

Great    Western    R.    Co.    7'. 


Hawkins  v.    Great   Western   R.    Co., 
pp.    1374,    1380. 

V.   Hoffman,      pp.      79(),      3114, 

3115,  3117,  3121,  3123,  3124. 
3127,  3129,  3130,  3141.  3142. 
3145. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.  7'. 

Hawkinsville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Liv- 
ingston,   p.    1200. 

Hawlcy,    Louisville,    etc..  >R.    Co.    7'. 

f.   Screven,     pp.     3176,       3177, 

3179. 

Western    Transp.    Co.    7. 

Hay    7'.    Great    Western    R.    Co.,    p. 

1827. 

Missouri,   etc..    R.    Co.   -<.■. 

Molby  V. 

Mollory  v. 

Robertson    i'. 

Hayden    7'.    Davis,    pp.    573,    3892. 

Georgia    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,   etc.,   R'.   Co.   v. 

Hayes    7'.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    73    N. 

J.  L.  105,  62  Atl.  284— pp.  1065. 
1069. 

7'.   Adams    Exp.    Co..    74    N.    1. 

L.  537.  65  Atl.  1044.  23  R.  R. 
R.  506.  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,    506— pp.    1067,    1070. 

Cleveland,    etc,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Forty-Second     St.,    etc..    R. 

Co..  pp.  1993.  1996.  2804. 

Mis.'ouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

r.   Missouri,    etc  .    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1292,  1419,  1420.  'l421. 

7'.   New    York.    etc..    R.   Co.,   p. 

2429. 

Ormund   7'. 

7'.   St.    Louis  R.   Co..   pp.   2770. 

2771. 

7-.   Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.     1607. 

3052. 

7'.   Wells    Fargo     &      Co.,     pp. 

760,   764. 

Hayman   v.    Canadian,    etc.,    R'.    Co.. 
p.    563. 

7'.   Pennsylvania     R.      Co.,    pp. 

1720,     2671,      2674,      2675,      2686. 

7-.   Philadelphia      R.      Co.,      pp 

1339,    1451,    1457. 

Haynes.    .Adams    Exp.    Co.    7-. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   7'. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    7'. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   7-. 

7'.   Wabash    R.    Co.,    p.    753 

Havnes    &    Co.,    Missouri    Pac.     R. 

Co.    7'. 
Haynie   7'.    Baylor,    p.    771. 
Hays    7'.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

3086. 

7'.   Kennedy     (Pa.),     3      Grant. 

351— pp.   822.   828. 

7'.   Kennedy,    41     Pa.     378.    80 

Am.  Dec.  627— pp.  728.  733,  736. 
737,    749.    751,    752,    825. 

Mouille   7'. 

7'.   Mouille,     pp.      1163,      1208. 

1'14  1220,  1229,  1230,  1232. 
1237,    1238.    1240.    1243,    1245. 

7 .   Pacific   Mail    Steamship   Co  , 

pp.    3478,    3581,    3583.    3584. 

Pittsburgh,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

Ryan   7'. 

St.    Louis,    etc  .    R'.    Co.   t: 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

Third    Nat.    Bank   7'. 

7'.   Wabash     R.     Co.,     p.     2708. 

W'illiams   7'. 

Hays      Co.      r.     Pennsylvania      Co. 

pp.    1179.    3691. 
Hayter     7'.     Brunswick     Tract.     Co., 

p.    2483. 
Hay  ward,    Candee    7-. 

7-.   Middlcton,    pp.    IMS.    ll.-O. 

1151. 

Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co.    7'. 

Havwood    Bros.,    etc.,    Hanson    7'. 


cxc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Hazard    -•.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co., 
pp.    1720,    1752,    1754. 

Jordan    -■. 

Hazel   -•.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

939.   940,   941,    945. 
Hazeltine,   Farmers,   etc.,   Nat.   Bank 

Hazelton    Coal    Co.    f.    Buck   Moun- 
tain Coal  Co.,  p.  447. 
Hazen,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Hazlett,    Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

\"an    Studdilord  i: 

Hazman     f.     Hoboken     Land,     etc., 

Co.,   p.    1750. 
Hazzard,  Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

I'.  Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     p. 

1550. 

Head   z:    Georgia    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1628,     1629,     2408,    2444,    2566. 

Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.   V. 

Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   z: 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Z-.   Pacific    Exp.     Co.,    pp.    760, 

762,    763,    815. 

Head  Money  Cases,  pp.  3531,  3564. 
Headland,  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Healey    z-.    City    Passenger    R.    Co., 

pp.      2414,      2483,       2485,      2548, 

28515. 
Healy    v.     Chicago   Citv   R.    Co.,   p. 

2742. 

Sun    Co.    f. 

Heard,  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

z:   State,    p.    177. 

Hearne,  Central  R.  Co.  z\ 

Heath,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.  f. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  St.    Louis,    etc..    Railway  v. 

Heath    z:    South    Bound    R.    Co.,  p. 

722. 
Heathdene,    The. 
Heaton,    Bigelow    -■. 

!■.   Morgan's,     etc..     Steamship 

Co.,  pp.  933,  957,   958. 

Heazle  z:   Indianapolis,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

pp.    2693,    2953. 
Htbblethwaite    z:     Old    Colony     St 

R.    Co.,    pp.    2670,    2860. 
Hebert    v.     Portland     R.     Co.,      pp 

1585,    1586. 
Hecht   V.    Grand   Trunk   R.    Co.,    p 

869. 
Heck    z\     East    Tennessee,     etc.,     R 

Co.,   pp.    3614,    3640. 

z:   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p 

823. 

Hecker  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co,,    p 

2249. 
Hecksher,    Pottinger   v. 
Hedding   z:    Gallagher,     69     N.     H 

650,  45   Atl.   96,   76  Am.   St.   Rep 

204 — p.   3158. 

V.  Gallagher,     72     N.     H.     377, 

57    Atl.    225,    64    L.    R.    A.    811— 
p.    100. 

Heddleston,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hedge,  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hedger,  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  v. 
Hedges    z:     Hudson     River    R.     Co., 

49    X.    Y.    223,    3    Am.'  R.    Rep. 

346— pp.    896,    901,    907. 

v.   Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    29 

N.    Y.    Super.    Ct.    119— pp.    564', 
896,    901. 

I'.  Wilmington,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2735. 

Heenrich    v.    Pullman     Palace     Car 

Co.,    pp.    2037,    2627. 
Heff,    Matter   of. 
Heffron    v.    Detroit     City     R.     Co., 

pp.    1649,    1650,    2448. 

V.  Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

213,    432. 

z:   Pollard,     p.     490.      • 

Hefley,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Hegeman   v.   Western    R.    Corp.    (N. 

Y.),      16     Barb.      353— pp.      2673, 
2695,    2743. 

z:  Western    R.    Corp.,     13    N. 

Y.     9,    64     Am.      Dec.      517— po. 
1682,    1720,    1823,    1848,    1850. 


Heger,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Heggen  z\   Fort  Dodge,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.    2051,    2075. 
Heggie,    Nashville,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z\ 
Hcide,    Hubener   •;■. 
Heidenlieimer   z\   Johnston,    p.    1350. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    z-. 

Heidenheinier    &    Co.    z\    Schlett,    p. 

597. 
Heighway    z:    \'oorhees,    p.    2161. 
Heike   z:    L'nited    States,    p.    3778. 
Heil  t'.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

851,    1037,    1047,    3343. 
Heilbroner    v.     Hancock,     pp.     1172, 

1173. 
Heilbronner,         Commercial         Xat. 

Bank   v. 
Heilprin    &    Co.,    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   z: 
Heineman    t'.    Grand   Trunk    R.    Co., 

pp.   4,   749. 
Heinken,    Shenhard    •;•. 
Heinlien    z\     Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1510. 
Heins   f.    Savannah,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

2087. 
Heinz   z:    Railroad   Transfer    Co.,    p. 

1211. 
Heinze    f.     Interurban     R.    Co.,    pp. 

1901,    1998,    2357. 
Heirn    z'.      McCaughan,      pp.      1670, 

1851,    2565,    2566,    2567,    3043. 
Heiserman    f.     Burlington,     etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    67,      1194.      1195,      1196, 

1198. 
Heiskell     '■.      Farmers',      etc.,      Xat. 

Bank',    pp.    378,    402,    403,    404. 
Heisley,    Coxe   v. 
Ilcitman    z\    Chicago,    etc..     R'.    Co., 

pp.    1318,    1340,    1349,    1440,    1466. 

1480,    1482. 
Heittner,      International,      etc.,       R. 

Co.    z: 
Helena,    Nelson   f. 
Helena-Glendale  Steam  Ferry 

Co.    z\    State,    p.    3587. 
Helena    St.    R.    Co..^  Wall    z: 
Helena,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    Robinson    v. 
Helene,    The. 
Heller  v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

728,    1268,    1341.    1454. 

Lincoln    Tract.    Co.    v. 

Petrie  v. 

Hellivvell  z\  Grand  Trunk  Railway, 
pp.    246,    621,    623,    767,   3279. 

Hellman  z:  Holladay,  pp.  3120, 
3148,   3150. 

Helm  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  p. 
1296. 

Helms,     Baltimore     Tract.     Co.     v. 

Ileltzen    '•.    Union    R.    Co.,    p.    2829. 

Ilemmingway  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  67  Wis.  668,  31  X.  W.  268, 
28  .'\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  216 — pp. 
1872,   1877. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    72 

Wis.  42,  37  N.  W.  804,  33  Am. 
&  Eng.  K.  Cas.  511,  7  .Am.  St. 
Rep.  823— pp.  1878,  2255,  2952, 
2987. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Hemphill    v.    Chenie,    pp.    536,    3272. 
Hempstead  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    241,    252. 

z:  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    532,    589,    3389. 

Henadale  z:   Weed,    p.    1172. 
Ilench,    Elgin,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    r. 
Henderson,   American   Nat.    Bank   f. 

Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Central    R.    Co.    v. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Chicago,     etc.,     R.    'Co.    v. 


R. 


Co. 

1136 


Co. 


V.   Galveston,       etc., 

(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   38   S.   W 
—pp.    1949.    1950. 

z'.   Galveston,      etc. 

fTex.   Civ.   -App.),  42   S.   W.    1030 
—pp.     1937,     1950,    2773. 

Henderson    Bridge    Co.    z\ 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Henderson  z-.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  397, 
20  Fed.  430— p.  3145. 

z\   Louisville,       etc.,      R.      Co., 

llo  La.  1047,  41  So.  252,  114 
Am.  St.  Rep.  582— pp.  308,  311, 
312,    313,    315. 

f.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

123  U.  S.  61,  8  S.  Ct.  60,  31 
L.     Ed.     92— p.     3148. 

''.   Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2575. 

V.   Maid    of    Orleans,    pp.    851, 

852,    861. 

f.   Nassau     Elect.     R.     Co.,      p. 

2347. 

v.   New  York,  pp.  3418,  3420, 

3564. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Henderson  Bridge  Co.  z'.  Com- 
monwealth, 99  Ky.  623,  17  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  389,  31  S.  W.  486— p. 
3587. 

!■.   Commonwealth,     17     S.     Ct. 

532,  166  U.  S.  150,  41  L.  Ed. 
953— p.    3588. 

• •;•.   Henderson,    141    U.    S.    679, 

35  L.  Ed.  900,  12  S.  Ct.  114— 
p.     3587. 

'•.   Henderson,    173    U.    S.    592. 

43  L.  Ed.  823,  19  S.  Ct.  553— 
pp.    116,    3473. 

z:   Henderson,    173    U.    S.    624, 

43  L.  Ed.  835,  19  S.  Ct.  877— 
p.   3473. 

z:   Kentucky,    p.    3498. 

Henderson     Elevator     Co.,     Illinois 

Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 
Hendrick    z\    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1043,    1286,    1465,    1466,    1477. 
z\   Chicago,     etc.,     K.     Co.,     p. 

1534. 

Jefifersonville    R.     Co.    z\ 

z:   Walton,    pp.    932,    950. 

Hendrick     z'.     American     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    663,   681. 

Jeffersonville    R.    Co.,    v. 

Jeffersonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Hendrickson,    Leonard    f. 
Hendrie,    Downey    ?■. 

Hendri.x  z\  Wabash  R.   Co.,  p.    1351. 
liengstler  v.    Flint,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

984,    986,    1292. 
Henkel,    Hale   v. 

Henlein,    South,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Henly   v.    Deleware,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2439. 
Hennessey,   Missouri   Pac.   R.    Co.   v. 
Hennessy       v.       Muskegon       Tract., 

etc.,    Co.,    p.    2903. 
z\   St.     Louis,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.    2977. 
Hennick,    Stoutenburgh    v. 
Hennigh   v.   Cleveland,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.    1033. 

Pittsburgh,    C.    &    St.    L.    Ry. 

Co.   z: 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

z'.  Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Henning,    Farmers'    Loan    &    Trust 

Co.   '.■. 

z:   Louisville    R.    Co.,    p.    2993. 

Ilenningsen    z\    Watkins,    p.    397). 
Hennington     v.      Georgia,      pp.      34, 

1946,  3466,  3478,  3481,  3482, 
3498,    3499,    3504,   3505,    3512. 

Henrotin,    Wilcke    v. 

Henry  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R,  Co., 
p.    743. 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

v.  Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

828,    847,    848,    3397. 

Chicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Grant    St.    Elect.     R.      Co., 

pp.    1804,    2241,    2402,    2986. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.' 

■ — —  KeoKuk     Packet     Co.     v. 


TABI.K    OF    CASES. 


CXCI 


Henry,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Moore  &  Son  f. 

f.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Sangamon,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

Henry    H.    Hyde,    Montague   -: 

The. 

Henshaw,    Eliason    f. 

Quimit    V. 

V.   Rowland,    p.    526. 

Hcnsler    v.    Stix,    pp.      1488,     2645, 

2901. 
Hentz    &    Co.,    Lovell    v. 

V.   Lovell,     p.     362. 

Hepburn,    Wariicld   f. 

Hepner,    Union    I'ac.    R.    Co.    f. 

Hepp    r.    Glover,    pp.      1211,      12-9, 

1220,    1229. 
Ileran,    Hradstreet    v. 
Herbert,    I'.abcock    v. 

Lucas  V. 

V.  Portland    R.    Co.,    p.    2604 

r.   St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    pp 

1830,    1840. 

Herbich     v.     North     Jersey     St.     R 

Co.,    pp.    1893,    1894. 
Herbst    V.    The    Asiatic    Prince,    pp 

557,    3895. 
Herdnian    v.     New    York,     etc.,     R 

Co.,    p.    2252. 
Herf,    etc..    Chemical    Co.    v.    Lack 

awanna  Line,  70  Mo.   App.   274 — 

pp.    501,    513,    899. 

V.   Lackawanna    Line,    100    Mo. 

App.     164,      73      S.      W.     346— pp. 
899,   903,   939. 

Herman     v.    Chicago,    etc.,     R'.     Co., 
pp.    2314,    2315. 

V.    Drink  water,     p.     3189. 

Hermann    v.    (loodrich,    p.    901. 

r.   St.     Joseph     R.,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    1495,    2777. 

Herndon,     Alexander,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


-Alexandria,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3514. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Heme   v.    Carton,   pp.    236,    238. 
Hernsfield     v.     Adams,     p.     3297. 
Hernsheim    v.    Newport    News,    etc., 

Co.,   pp.   743,   778. 
Herold,       Western       Maryland       R. 
Co.    ■;■. 

Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

Herr    v.    Tweedic    Trading    Co.,    pp. 

3872,    3949. 
Herrick    f.     Gallagher,     p.     571. 

Lakeshore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Maysville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

Herriman     -■.     Hurlington,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    145. 
Herring    -'.    -Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.     331,     1076.     3522. 

f.   Chesapeake,      etc.,     R.      Co., 

pp.  619,  729,  734,  738,  744,  750, 
1267.     1338,    3260. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Ferguson    f. 

Galveston,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

v.   Galveston,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

102  Tex.  100,  113  S.  W.  521  — 
p.   2288. 

J'.  Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  108  S.  W. 
977— pp.  1694,  1752.  1755,  1978. 
1979,  2113,  2288,  2289,  2308. 

Lexington     R.     Co.     i'. 

f.   I'tley.     pp.     209,     211,     768. 

i\   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2300. 

Herrman,    East    Tennessee,    etc..    R. 
Co.  V. 

f.   Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.    2085,    3001. 

Hersev,    Emerv    r. 

Hersfield    r.    -\dams.    pp.    771.    3369. 

Hersh    ',-.    Northern    Cent.    R.     Co., 

pp.    68,    86,    1179. 
Herstine    f.    Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co., 

p.    2690. 
Hertel,   United    R.,   etc.,    Co.    z: 


Hertzberg,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    z: 
Heshion    v.    Boston     Elev.    R.    Co., 

p.   2192. 
Hess   V.    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 
2333. 

:•.   Missouri    Pac.     R.    Co.,    pp. 

nil,    1114. 

Pac.   R.   Co.   r. 
Service     R.     Co.,    p. 


etc., 

Co.   V. 
Co.. 

Co. 


R. 


Northern 

V.   Public 

2597. 

V.   South       Dakota     Cent.      R. 

Co.,    pp.    478,    493,    764,    831. 

Southern     Exp.     Co.    ;■. 

Hesse    v.    Meriden,    etc..    Tramway 

Co..    pp.    2196,    2301. 
Hessler,       International, 

Co.    V. 
Hester   Houston,   etc.,   R. 

V.   Savannah      Elect. 

2225. 

Hestonville    Passenger     R. 
Connell,   p.   2518. 

7'.   Grey,    p.    2548. 

Biddle 

p.    2535 


Biddle, 

Crissey    •'. 

Keller    v. 

Sandford 

Smedley   v. 

Hett   V.    Boston,   etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

521,    573,    575. 
Ileucke   v.    Milwaukee    City   R.    Co., 

pp.    1720,    1724,    1999,    2007,    2896. 
Heulc,    North    German    Lloyd   v. 
Ileumphries    v.     Fremont,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   pp.   753,   2217. 
Hewes  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   75 

N.    E.   515,    217   111.    500— p.    2206. 
r.   Chicago,    etc.,    R".    Co.,     119 

111.    App.    393— p.    2206. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.     2662. 

Hewett  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  614,  732,  734,  743,  3289, 
3402. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Hewitt,    Barnes    t'. 

. Galveston    City    R.    Co.    v. 

Hewlett    V.    Burrell,    p.    3895. 
Heyde  v.   St.   Louis  Trans.   Co.,   pp. 

2694,    2900. 
Hcyer,    Mottram    t'. 
Heyl    i:    Inman    Steamship    Co.,    pp. 

7.43,    821. 
Heyman,    Southern    R.    Co.    r- 
J..   Southern     R.     Co.,     p.     573. 

'•.   Stryker,    p.    512. 

Heyser,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Hey  ward    f.    Boston,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    1752,    2798. 
Hiatt   i:    Des    Moines,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1797,    2963. 
Ilibbard,     -\dams     Exp.     Co.     r. 

-■.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  1612,  1637,  1638,  1542,  2411, 
2413,  2420,  2424,  2431,  2473, 
-474. 

Hibbitts,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 
Hibernia     Ins.    Co.     f.      St.     Louis. 

etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  pp.  1037,  4021. 
Ilibler  r.  McCarthy,  pp.  776,  1017. 
Hickenbottom   v.    Delaware,    etc.,    K. 

Co.,  p.    1881. 
Hickey   v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2179,    2238. 

r.  Chicago     City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1559,    1574. 

Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Washington,   etc..    R.   Co.   ■:•. 

Hickman    r.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    189(.,    2232. 

Hickory  Marble,  etc..  Co.  v.  South- 
ern   R.    Co.,   p.    153. 

Hickox  r.  Naugatuck  R.  Co..  pp. 
285.  3125,  3126,  3135,  3139, 
3140. 

Hicks,   -Abbott  r. 

r.  Galvesto;!,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2(o6. 

f.   Georgia    Southern,    etc.,    R. 

Co..  pp.   2113.   2220.   2237. 


Hicks  V.    Hannibal,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p. 
3089. 

-•.   Pacific     R.     Co.,    pp.     2501, 

2503,    2536,    254L 

f.  Wabash     K.     Co.,     pp.    894, 

899,    3145. 

Hiers   f.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2831. 
Hieskell     f.      Farmers',     etc.,     Nat. 

Jiank,    p.    3274. 
Higby,  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Higdon,    Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

f.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Higgins    f.    Cherokee     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1569,    1689,     1826,    2541,    2775. 

'v.   Hamburg-.American      Packet 

Co..    p.    3913. 

r.  Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1953. 

J'.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3062. 

V.  New   Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.   2102. 

7'.   Southern   R.   Co..   pp.   2411, 

2482.    2528. 

V.   United     States      Exp.      Co., 

pp.      515.      568.     611,     638.     663, 
667.    668.    680,    695,    982. 

f.  United    States     Mail,     etc., 

Co.,  pp.   336,   337. 

-■.   Watervliet,      etc.,     R.      Co.. 

pp.    2411,    2483. 

Higgs,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Topeka    City    R'.    Co.    v. 

High  I'.    International,   etc.,    R.    Co., 


High    Co.    r.    -Adams    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

881. 
High    Point,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Cox    v. 
Highland      -Ave.,       etc.,     R.    Co.     v. 

Burt,    pp.    1899,    1900,    1903. 

Daniel   f. 

V.  Donovan,     pp.     1953,     2173, 

2180. 

I'.   Dusenberry,    p.    2641. 

Mc  Daniel    "'. 

'■.   Robinson,     pp.     2532,     2543. 

■:■.   Winn,    p.    2660. 

Higliland    St.    R.    Co.,    Cronin   v. 
Iliglev    f.    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.'  1196,  1198,  1199. 

Gilmer  i'. 

Highnote,   St.  Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co.  i'. 

V.  Gilmer,      pp.      1501,       1504, 

1505,    1559,    2516,    2725,    2726. 

Hildcbrand,  Porter  r. 

Hiles,    Clark  ;•. 

Hill   r.    -Adams   Exp.    Co.,    78    N.   J. 

L.    333,    74     -Atl.     674— pp.     486, 

1034,    1066. 

f.  -Adams     Exp.     Co.,     80     N. 

T.    L.    604,    77    -Atl.    1073— p.    987. 

-^—  r.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  82  N.  J. 
L.  373.  81  -Atl.  859— pp.  1029, 
1030.    1066,    1068. 

—  -Alabama,    etc..    R.    Co.   ;•. 

—  r.   Birmingham    L'nion    R.    Co., 
p.    2224. 

—  V.   Boston,    etc..     R.     Co..     pp. 
986,    994,    995,    1074,    1401,    1403. 

—  Chesapeake,   etc..  Canal  Co.  t: 

—  V.  Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 
2640,    2693. 

—  Choctaw,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 

—  Covell   f. 

—  Denner,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

—  r.  Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
811,   3327,   3347. 

—  Gould  V. 

—  Great    Falls,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

—  Grout   f. 

—  Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

—  f.  Humphreys,     pp.     534,    602. 

f.   Illinois,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     p. 

1209 

r.   Leadbetter.    pp.    114j,    11/2, 

r.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co.. 

pp.    2115,    2357,    2511. 

Lvons  f. 


CXCII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Hill,    McNeil    r.  ^        ^       ^ 

t .   Minneapolis      St.      R.      to., 

pp.    1737,    1742. 

z:  Missouri    Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3343.  „     ^ 

V.  New    Orleans,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    3065,    3068. 

— —  i:  Ninth  Ave.  R.  Co.,  p.  200o. 

V.  P.    &    R.    K.    Co.,    p.    2738. 

f.   Pullman      Co..       pp.      3209, 

3215.  3217,  3232,  3234. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i'. 

:■.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  67 

Ark.  402,  55  S.  VV.  21(>— o.  3273. 

f.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

S.  W.  523.  85  Ark.  529,  28  R. 
R.  R.  753,  51  .Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas..  N.  S.,  753— pp.  1524.  1534, 
1537,  1897,  2351,  2906,  2909. 

-•.  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  75  S.  W,  874 
—pp.  88,  226. 

V.   Scott,  p.  729. 

Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 

-•.  Starin,   pp.   4000,   4001, 

4003. 

V.   Sturgeon,  28  Mo.  323— pp. 

728.  730,  745,  746,  778,  821. 

f.  Sturgeon,  35  Mo.  212.  86 

Am.  Dec.  149— pp.  778,  1040. 

r.   Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co..  63 

N.  Y.  101— pp.  1624,  1636,  2447, 
2745. 

f.  Svracuse.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 

N.  Y.  '351.  29  .\m.  Rep.  163— 
pp.  321,  325.  333,  335.  984,  987. 

Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Z-.   Wadlev  Southern  R.  Co., 

pp.    40,    44.  '76. 

z:  West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2351. 

z'.  Western    Union     Tel.      Co., 

on.    1087,    1113. 

Hill    Mfg.    Co.    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R. 
Corp.,    pp.    892.    417,     3295. 

Providence,       etc..       Steamship 

Co.   V. 

f.   Providence.      etc..        Steam- 
ship  Co.,   p.   844. 

Hilliard,    Frazer    &    Co.    z\ 

z:  Goold,       pp.       1597,       2413, 

2467. 

Singleton    f. 

Swindler   v. 

z\  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.   894,  901. 

Hillis   z'.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

3147.     3221.      3222.      3224,      3229, 

3230. 
Hillman    -'.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 

p.    2505. 

'•.  Georgia    R.,    etc..    Co..    pp. 

1945,  2017,  2417,  2418,  2961, 
2962. 

Denver    City    Tramway    Co.    v. 

Hillsdale    Coal,    etc.,    Co.    z:    Penn- 
sylvania   R.    Co.,    p.    228. 

Hillsdale,      etc.,       Turnpike      R'oad, 

People  z: 
Hilson,    Cherokee   Packet    Co.   v. 
Hilton,    Bowman    v. 
Hilton     Lumber     Co.     v.     Atlantic. 

etc..    R.    Co..    136    N.    C.    479,    48 

S.   E.  813— p.  96. 

z:  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    141 

X.  C.  171,  53  S.  E.  823.  6  L. 
R.    A.,    N.    S.,    225- pp.    87.    96. 

Hilton,    etc..    Lumber    Co..    Actiesel- 

skabct    Barfod   v. 
Himelright     z:     Johnson,     p.     2537. 
Hinckley    z'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3087. 

z:   Danbury,    pp.      1742,     1959. 

z:  New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    pp.    333.    3297.    3298. 

z\  Wilson      Lumber      Co.,      p. 

3960. 

Hindoo,    Unnevehr    v. 

Hinds.    Nashville,    etc..    Railway    v. 

Pittsburgh,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Hindsdell,   Atchison,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 


Hindsman.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hine.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Pennsvlvania    Co.    f. 

The. 

Hines  z:  Boston  Elevated  R.  Co., 
pp.     1690,     1971. 

V.   Dry    Docke,     etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    2567. 

z\   Wilmington,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

pp.   86,    138. 

Hines  Lumber  Co.  v.  Chamber- 
lain,   p.    3941. 

Hines,  etc.,  Co.,  Central  R.,  etc., 
Co.    z: 

Hingham,  etc..  Turnpike  Corp.  '■. 
Norfolk,    p.    114. 

Hinkle  -'.  Southern  K.  Co.,  pp. 
822,    1039,    1107,    1389,    1427. 

Hinkley  z:  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.     3346. 

Hinote   z:    Brigman.    p.    2921. 

Hinsdale,    Southern    Kansas    R.    Co. 

Hinshaw    z\    Raleigh,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1868. 
Hinson   v.   Lott,    p.    3551. 
Hinton     v.      Eastern      R.      Co.,      pp. 

724.    821.    1036,    1038. 
Hiort    z:    London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

849. 
Hipp   I'.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    816, 

869,   873,    897. 
Hipsley    z\    Kansas,    etc.,      R.      Co.. 

pp.    2694,    2735. 
Hiram,    The. 
Hiram   Blow   &   Co.,    Louisville,   etc 

K.   Co.  z: 
Hirsch,    Cleveland,    etc..    R.    Co.    '.•. 

Z'.   Hudson      River      Line,      pp- 

816,   817. 

V.   Leathers,     p.     3295. 

Louisville,    etc.,     R.     Co.    "■. 

v.  New      England     Nav.      Co., 

93  N.   E.   524,   200   N.   Y.   263— p. 
417. 

7'.   New     England      Nav.      Co.. 

113    N.   Y.    S.    395,    129   App.    Div. 
178 — p.   3616. 

z:   Steamboat       Quaker       City, 

pp.   893,   901,   902,   910. 

z:  Union   R.    Co.,    p.    2799. 

Hirschberg     z'.    Brooklyn,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.   2877. 

z\   Dinsmore,    p.    1087. 

Hirschsohn     v.      Hamburgh      .Ameri- 
can  Packet   Co.,    p.    3119. 

Hirshfield    v.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.   896,    900. 
Hirst,   Florida   So.   R.   Co.   v. 

Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

Hirte     z'.    Eastern      Wisconsin,     R., 

etc.,    Co.,    pp.    2485,    2784. 
His   Creditors,    Lalande   ?■. 
Historical   Pub.   Co.  v.   Adams   Exp. 

Co.,    p.    3343. 
Hitchcock  z'.   Brooklyn   City   R.    Co., 

44    Hun    627,    8    N.    Y.    St.    Rep. 

848— p.    2683. 

V.   Brooklyn     City    R.     Co.,     SO 

Hun   606,   3   N.   Y.   S.   218,   21    N. 
Y.    St.    Rep.    945— p.    2821. 

Counselman    z\ 

Covell    v. 

Hite    z:    Central    Railroad,    pp.    708, 
716. 

Central    R.    Co.   z\ 

V.   Metropolitan     St.      R.      Co., 

pp.    1687,    1984,    1992,    2673,    2674. 
Hix    V.    Eastern    Steamship    Co.,    pp. 

931,    945,    983. 
Hixson,   Harrison   v. 
Hoadley    z'.    Northern    Transp.    Co  , 

pp.    320.   744,    958,    1034. 
lloagland,    Pennsylvani?    C">.    v. 
Hoar    z:    Maine    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1505,    1760. 
Hoard,   Central,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Hobart,    Attorney    General    z: 

Lake    Shore    Elect.    Railway   v. 

Lake   Shore,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 


Hobart  -■.    Norton,   p.    3902. 

Hobart    &    Co.    z:    Littlefield    Bros., 

pp.    352,    368. 
Hobbs,    Arkansas    River    Packet    Co. 

z:   Chicago    Packing,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    551. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 

z'.   Memphis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 

2579. 

— —  Southern    R'.    Co.    z'. 

V.  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

203.    2423,    2476,    2478. 

Hobensack,    Mershon    f. 

Hoblit    :■.    Minneapolis    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2319,    2986. 
Hoboken    Land,    etc.,    Co.,    Hazman 

Hochstim,      Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    r. 
Hocker,    Pullman   Palace  Car   Co.   v. 
Hockett,     .American     Exp.     Co.     Z'. 

Indianapolis     St.     R.     Co.     f. 

Hockfield    v.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 

700,  3426,  3495. 
Hocking     Valley     R.     Co.,     Johnson 

Coal  Min.  Co.  z: 
Klunk   I'. 

Railroad    Commission    '■. 

L'nited    States    "■. 

z:   United     States,      pp.      3604, 

3633,  3706,  3846. 

Hocking  Valley  Railway  -'.  Rail- 
road   Comm.,    pp.    1594,    1595. 

Hodapp,  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z\ 

Hodde,    Houston,    etc..    R.    Co.    z\ 

Hodgdon  '•.  New  York,  etc.,  K. 
Co.,    p.    709. 

Hodge,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 

Hodges    z\    I'earse,    p.    2726. 

Dillingham    '■. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    T. 

■;■.   New    Hanover    Transit    Co., 

pp.    1799,    2143. 

z\   Peacock,    p.     1168. 

Savannah    Elect.    Co.    •:•. 

f.    Southern     R.     Co.,     120     N. 

C.  555,  27  S.  E.  128.  8  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  46— pp. 
1880,      2906. 

r.   Southern     R.     Co.,     122     N. 

C.   992,    29    S.    E.    939— p.    2256. 

Williams    z'. 

V.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2562. 

Hodgson.    Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z:   Loy,    pp.    1210,    1228. 

Hodkinson    z\    London   &   N.    W.    R. 

Co.,  p.   3173. 
Hoeffner.      Springfield      Consol.      R. 

Co.      7'. 

Hoeflich,    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hoeger  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co  , 
pp.    3149,   3161,    3169,   3174. 

Hoehn  f.  Chicago  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  p. 
2248. 

Hoeing,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    -•. 

V.  Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    477, 

489. 

Hoelljes  7'.  Interurban  St.  R.  Co.. 
pp.    1650,    2425. 

Hoerr,  Peoria,  etc..  Terminal  Rail- 
way   V. 

Hoifard  7'.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
p.    3174. 

Hoffbauer,    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    z\ 

J'.   Delhi,      etc.,     R.      Co.,      pn. 

196.  1596.  1597,  2429,  2467. 
2473. 

Hoffbcrt   V.    Bumford,    pp.    822,    828. 
Tloffecker.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Hoffekl   z'.    United    States,    pp.    4048, 

4053. 
Hoffman   -•.    Cedar    Rapids,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    pp.    2723,    2918,    2932,    2943, 

2951. 

f.  Cumberland   \'alley   R.    Co., 

pp.    3289,    3327. 


TAHI.F.    OF     CASES. 


CXCIII 


Hoffman    v.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    508,    511,    (j07,    1112,    3355. 
Hawkins   t. 

Indiana    K.    Co.    r. 

V.   Lako    Shore,    etc.,     R.     di., 

p.    494. 

V.  National     City      Hank,      pp 

396,  397. 

T.  New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  87 

N.   Y.   25,   41    Am.    Rep.    337— pp. 
2529,   2530,   2533. 

V.  New     York,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

44   N.   Y.    Super.   Ct.    1— pp.    2548, 
2664. 

7'.  New  York,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   46 

N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  526— pp.  2414, 
2548. 

V.   Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1616,  2711. 

r.  Third   Ave.  R.   Co.,  pp. 

2669,  2672,  2691,  2695. 

V.   Union      Pac.     R.      Co.,      pp. 

3289,    3323,    3348. 

Western    Union    'I'el.    Co.    Z'. 

Hoffman    Co.,    Midland    Valley    Co. 

Hoffman    Coal    Co.,    Midland   Valley 

R.   Co.  V. 
Hoffman,    etc..    Stave     Co.     v.     St. 

Louis,   etc.,   R'.    Co.,   pp.   218,   261. 
HolTmans,    The. 
Hoffmayer,    Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Hogan    V.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    p. 
1596. 

V.  Metropolitan     St.      R.     Co., 

p.    2313. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.    t. 

N'incent  -•. 

Hogg,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 
Hogner  z:    Boston   Elevated   R.   Co., 

pp.    1501,    1505,    1507.    2853. 
Ilogue.    .\tchison.    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Hohl     f.     Norddeutscher     Lloyd,     p. 

4027. 
Hoke    r.    United    States,    p.    3441. 
Holbrook,      Eastern      Kentucky      R. 

Co.   I'. 

Felton   f. 

Murphy    v. 

Utica.    etc..    R.    Co..    pp.    2667, 

2673. 

r.   Vose,    pp.    1211.    1225. 

Hoick.    Landa    z\ 

Holcomb,     Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co. 
I'. 

Missouri    Pac.   R.    Co.   7'. 

Ilolcombe,    .Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.   Southern    R'.    Co.,    pp.    1513, 

1538,    2501,    2903. 

Ilolcombe    &    Co.,    .\tlanta,    etc..    R. 

Co.    z: 
Holden,   Cleveland,    etc.,   R.     Co.   z: 

z:  Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.    2331,    2357. 

Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   "'. 

Z-.  New     York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.   3402. 

V.   Rutland    R.    Co.,    p.    2625. 

Holder,   Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  z: 
Holderman,     Pennsylvania    Co.    z: 
Holuridgc,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:    Utica,      etc.,     R.      Co.,      pp. 

3159,    3171. 

Holladay.    Ilellnian   z-. 

z\   Kennard,       pp.      725,      72b, 

74(..    748.    751. 

Hollahan     f.    Metropolitan      St.     R. 

Co..    pp.    2679,    2899. 
Holland    z:    Chicago,    etc..     R'.     Co., 

pp.     694,     936,      955.     975.      1100. 

1308,    1311. 

-'.   Columbus   R.    Co.,   pp.    2043. 

2048,    20(i4. 

-■.   Gammett,    p.    3920. 

House    z\ 

Kansas  City,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Lake    Erie,    etc.,     R.    Co.    f. 

z\   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

■  p.    2235. 

Muser    z: 

1    Car — m 


R.    Co., 


etc., 
2319, 


1687, 


749, 
3143, 


Co., 


IluUand,    Rawson    ;■. 

:■.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2694. 

V.  725   Tons   of  Coal,   p.    3891. 

Southern     Exp.    Co.    z'. 

t.   West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1995,   2191,    2801. 
Williams    z\ 

Witheck   Z'. 

Holland     Hldg.     Co.,     Goldsmith     z: 
Holland    Gulf    Steamshipping    Co.    v. 

Ilagar,    pp.    3959,    3967. 
Iloleman    v.    Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     2888. 
Holley     z:     Jamestown,    etc..    Ferry 

Co..   p.   2785. 
Holliday    z\    Boston    Elev 

pp.     2339,     2859. 

z:  Coe,    p.     1143. 

G.   C.   &   S.    F.   R.   Co.  z: 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Longmeid    "•. 

•  United    States   z\ 

llollingsworth     z\     Cincinnati, 

R.     Co.,     pp.     2161,     2198, 
2346. 

V.   Napier,    p.    1227. 

I'.   Skelding,     pp.     1683, 

2810. 

Hollis,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
Hollistcr    z:    Nowlen,    pp.    733, 

1003,      1007,      3141,      3142, 

3163.     3165. 
Ilollman    !■.    Houston,    etc.,    R. 

pp.    1689,    2115. 
Ilollocher    -'.    Hollocher,    p.    340. 
Holloway,    Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co.   v. 

•   Central,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Memphis,    etc..     R.    Co.    z\ 

f.   Pasadena,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    2347,   2891. 

Selway  r. 

Hollowell,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.   •:•. 

Holly    z\    .Atlanta    St.    Railroad,    pp. 
1748,    2016,    2024,    2606,    2940. 

Creery   "'. 

z'.   Huggeford,    p.     1164. 

Louisiana    R.,    etc.,    Co.    -■. 

-•.  Southern  R'.  Co.,  p.  3163. 

Holman  z\     Gans  Steamship  Line, 

pp.  3963,  3965,  3969,  3970. 

Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.    z: 

z:  Union    St.    R.    Co.,   p.   2869. 

Holmes,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    t'. 

Alabama,    etc.,     R.     Co.    z: 

f.   .Allegheny     Tract.     Co.,     pp. 

1712,    1892,    2147,    2721,    2867. 

• .Ashtabula    R.apid    Transit    Co. 

-'.   .Ashtabula      Rapid      Transit 

Co.,    pp.     1714,    1716,    2113,    2249, 
2319. 

.Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

"'.   Birmingham,     etc..     R.     Co., 

p.    1567. 

z'.  Carolina    Cent.    R.    Co.,    p. 

3054. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Manter    f. 

-■.  North  German  Lloyd  Steam- 
ship   Co..    pp.    4035. 

z:   North,    etc..    Steamship   Co., 

.    p.    3167. 

7'.   Oregon,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2288. 

f.   Pennsvlvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

573. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Wakel^eld,    p.     2413. 

Holmes,    etc.,    Co.    z\    German    Se- 
curity   Bank,    p.    363. 

Holohan     -•.     Washington,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  p.  2116. 
Holsapple,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hoist    z:    Pownall,    p.     1232. 

Robinson   -■. 


Holt,    Fox    z: 

Gulf,    etc.,     R.    Co.    f. 

-.   Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    74 

S.    W.    631,      174     Mo.     524— pp. 
2474,     2663,     2715. 

-J.   Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    87 

Mo.    -App.    203— pp.    1562,   2715. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    t. 

Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wahl    -■. 

z:  Westcott.     pp.     1148,     1149 

1150. 

Holtzclaw  I-.    Duff,   pp.   894,   899. 

Hoi  way,    Carroll    -'. 

Holyoke    z\    Grand    Trunk    R.    C'j., 

pp.    2736,    2741. 
Holyoke    St.    R.    Co.,    Blanchette    : 

McGarry    v. 

Holzab    f.     New    Orleans,    etc.,    K 

Co.,   pp.    2127,   2260. 
Holzenkamp,    Cincinnati    Tract.    Co. 

I'. 

f.   Cincinnati    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

1504,     1508,    1509,     1517. 

Home    Industry    Iron    Works.    Ras- 

mussen    -■. 
Home    Ins.    Co..    Minneapolis,    etc., 

R.    Co.    z: 

?•.   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

855. 

Homer,    Georgia    R.    Co.    z: 

V.  Oregon,    etc..    R.     Co.,    pp. 

946,    3162,    3810,    3814. 

Ilomesly   z'.    Elias,    p.    538. 
Homeyer,    .Adams   r. 

Davenport  Nat.   Bank  r. 

Homiston    z:    Long    Island    R.    Co., 

p.    2432. 
Honea.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Honevman   -■.    Oregon,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.'    211.     236.     242,     243,     3122. 

3155,    3165. 
Hood,    Malott    z: 

z:   New     York     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    3175.    3321.    3327. 

Southern     Exp.    Co.    Z-. 

Hood  Rubber  Co.  z\  Rutland  Trans. 

Co..    pp.    3863,    3876. 
Hooe    Z-.    Mason,    p.    1145. 
Hook.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R'.    Co.   r. 
Hooker,     Boston,     etc..     Railroad    z: 

7'.  Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

3163,   3165. 

f.   De    Palos,    p.    1861. 

7'.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

pp.    3678,    3798. 

Jacobs    7'. 

-■.   Knapp,    p.    3835. 

McCotter   7'. 

Hooks    7'.     .Alabama,    etc.,    R.     Co.. 

pp.    1920,    1922,    2906. 
Hooks     Smelting     Co.     7.'.     Plante-s" 

Compress     Co..     p.     642. 
Hooper     '•.      California,      pp.      3445. 

3471. 
7'.  Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co..    pP 

490.    885.    3286.    3401. 

7'.  London  R.  Co..  p.   3180. 

7'.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    1701. 

Northern   Texas   Tract.   Co.  7-. 

z:   Wells,     Fargo    &     Co.,     pp. 

727.  732.  748.  966,  967.  1012. 
1013.    3289.    3360,    3370,    3371. 

Hooper  &  Co.,   Steamship  Wellesley 

Co.     7'. 
Hoosey,   Camden,    etc.,    R.   Co.    7-. 
Hoosier     Stone     Co.     7'.     Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    448. 
Hoover.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z-. 

Manning    7-. 

7'.   Pennsvlvania     R.     Co..     pp. 

92,  95.  U<..  1177.  1179,  1181. 
1183.  1184,  1185,  1186,  1187, 
1188,    1192. 

7'.   Tibbits    p.     1239. 

Hope  7'.    Delaware,   etc..   Canal    Co., 
p.   3372. 

Mierson    z\ 

Hopkins    7'.    .Atlantic,    etc..    Railroad, 
p.   30(.8. 


CXCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


Hopkins  r.   Boyd,   p.   2543. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p. 

2657. 

Georgia    R.,    etc..    Co.    t. 

Medburv    f. 

f.  Michigan      Tract.      Co..      p. 

2617. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.     Co.    ■:■. 

Mobile,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

333. 

L'nited  States  z: 

f.  United     States,     pp.     3418, 

3419,    3421,    3432,    3435,    3445. 

f.  Westcott.      pp.      986,      991, 

1006,    3115,    3127,    3128,    3166. 

Hopkinsville    Canning    Co.,    Illinois 

Cent.    R.    Co.    r. 
Hopper     f.     Denver,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2696. 
Hopperton     v.     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  p.    1865. 
Horan  v.   Rockwell,   pp.    1698,   2193. 
Horgan    r.     Boston     Elev.     R.     Co., 

p.    2051. 
Horn,   Cuddy  v. 

f.   New   Jersey   Steamboat    Co., 

p.    3998. 

Horn     Silver     Min.     Co.     f.     State, 

p.    3471. 
Hornbeck,     Texas,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
Hornberger,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co. 

Home.    Atlanta,    etc.,   K.    Co.   v. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Marsh    f. 

Riley    r. 

West     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Home- -Andrews       Comm.       Co.       v. 

Georgia  R.   Co.,  pp.   272,  284. 
Horner,    Felton    7'. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Hornesby   v.    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    1646,    1649,    2438. 

Hornstein  v.  United  Railways,  p. 
2668. 

Hornthal  v.  Roanoke,  etc..  Steam- 
boat   Co.,    pp.    917,    918. 

Horseman  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
p.   339. 

Horst,     Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Horton    f.    Erie    R'.    Co.,    pp.     1619, 

1620. 
Horton    V.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2128,    2809. 

f.  Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3431. 

Southern    R.    Co.    '■. 

V.   Southern   R.    Co.,    p.    114. 

Hosapple    v.     Rome,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1019,    1022. 
Hosea    v.    McCrory,    pp.    277,    280, 

723,    771. 
Hosking,    Western    Transit    Co.    v. 
Hoskins,         Merchants'         Dispatch 

Transp.     Co.    v. 

z:   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

464,    1044. 

f.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1575,      1576,      1577,      1985,     2585, 
2588. 

T.  Southern      Pac.      Co.,      pp. 

3137,   3139. 

Hosmer  t'.    Old   Colony   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1577,    2101,    2106. 
Hospes    V.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    1760. 
Hossfeld    South    Covington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   V. 
Hostetter  v.   Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

pp.    333,    454. 

Chicago    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-•.   Park,     pp.     328,     510,     1020, 

3889,    4021. 

Hot    Springs    v.    Curry,    p.    112. 

-l\   Demby,  p.    111. 

Hot  Springs  Railroad,  Gallena  v. 
Hot    Springs    R.    Co.,    Boyla'i    v. 

V.  Deloney,    pp.    2458,    3051. 


Hot    Springs    R.    Co.     '.■•      Iludgins. 
pp.    585,    587. 

z:  Trippe     &     Co.,     pp.     328ii, 

312. 

Hotchkiss     f.      Artisans'      Bar.k,     p. 
544. 

Kirtland    z\ 

Lake     Shore,    etc..     R.     Co.    v. 

Hotel    Stevens    Co.,    Wheeler    z: 
Hotenbrink    f.    Boston    Elevated    R. 

Co.,    p.    1830. 
Houck    z:     Southern     Pac.     R.     Co  , 

pp.    1944,    1949. 
Hough,    Jones    z\ 

Lynde    z'. 

Wolf    z: 

Houghton   z:    Louisville   R.    Co.,    pp. 
2820,   2956. 

z:    Market      St.      R.      Co.,      p. 

2699. 

Houghton    County    St.    R.    Co.,    Bar- 
tie  z: 
Houlder,    Steamship   Rutherglen    Co. 

Hourney   z:    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co., 

pp.     2181,     2810,     2895. 
Housatonic   R.    Co.,    Coupland   v. 

Sanford    z\ 

Tucker     v.     • 

House    !■.    Alexander,    p.    1166. 

■;■.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3118,     3123,     3127,     3128,     3177. 

Galveston,    etc.    R.    Co.    f. 

Gulf    etc.,     R.     Co.     z: 

z:   Holland,   pp.    331,    3i2,    333, 

337 

'z:   Metcalf,    p.    2738. 

-^ —  z:   Soder,     pp.     565,     753,     889, 

1144,    1146. 
Houseman  z:   Fargo,   pp.   3745,   3749. 
Houston,    Brown    z\ 

Doherr     v. 

Galveston,     etc.,     R.     Co.    z\ 

z:  Gate    City    St.     R.     Co.,    p. 

2545. 

Schurr  v. 

Shurr    z: 

Houston  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Desso, 
p.    1694. 

z:    Ross,     p.     1694. 

z:   Wheeler,    p.    1694. 

Houston  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nor- 
folk,  etc.,   R.    Co.    p.    3819. 

Houston    Direct   Nav.    Co.,    Cook   -■. 

z'.  Insurance      Co.,      pp.      935, 

937. 

Markham    z\ 

Houston     Elect.     Co.,     Gilmore    '•. 

Green    ;. 

Lewis     7'. 

c'.   Nelson,    p.     1731. 

z:   Park,    p.    2052. 

Townsend     ". 

Houston   Elect.   St.   R.   Co.  -.■.   Elvis, 

p.     2128. 
Houston      Transfer,      etc.,      Co.      f. 

Whitcomb,    pp.    857,    858. 
Houston,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.,    Cook    z'. 

'.'.   Dwyer,    pp.    729,     733,    750, 

768,    3899. 

I'.  Insurance  Co.,  p.  3331. 

Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
pp.  7,  512,  539,  549,  550.  551, 
552,    553,    563,    897,    901. 

z\  Anderson,    p.    3138. 

-  z:  Arey,   pp.    1627,    1630,   2443, 
2458. 

V.   Baker,    p.    1028. 

v.  Barden,    p.    809. 

-—  v.   Batchlcr,   32   Tex.   Civ.  App. 

14,  73  S.  W.  981— pp.  1537,  2055. 

z:   Batchler,   37   Tex.   Civ.   App. 

116,     83     S.     W.     902— pp.     2046, 
2055,    2607. 

Bath    z\ 

z:   Bath,     17     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

697,   711,  44   S.  W.   595— pp.   739, 
835,    959,    1039,    1041,    1042. 

•:•.   Bath,     40     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

270.   90    S.    W.    55— pp.    345,   837, 
838. 


Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Berry,    pp. 
2437,    2716. 

Bessling   &    Co.   -■. 

z\   Boiling,    pp.    1553,    2522. 

Boozer,    p.    1978. 

Brashcar    z\ 

z.    Bright,    p.    3509. 

z:   Brown,    33    Tex.    Civ.    .\pp. 

237,  238,  76  S.  W.  580— pp.  860, 
1316,    1317,    1327. 

z:   Brown,    37    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

595,    85    S.    W.    44— p.    1276. 

z:   Bryant,    pp.    1956,    2179. 

•  !•.    Buchanan,      38     Te.x.     Civ. 

App.      165,     84    S.     W.      1073— p. 

1474. 
. V.   Buchanan,      42      Tex.      Civ. 

App.    620,    625,    94    S.    W.    199— 

pp.    158,   507,   508,    1293. 
. Bullock    z\ 

v.   Burke,     pp.     729,     759,     858. 

862,    933,    934. 

z:   Burns,  pp.  1300,  1343. 

•;■.  Bush,  104  Tex.  26,  133  S 

W.  245,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1201— p.  2046. 

z:   Bush   (Tex.   Civ.   App.), 

123  S.  W.  201— p.  2048. 

z:   Campbell,   91   Tex.   551, 

561,  45  S.  W.  2,  42  L.  R.  A. 
225— pp.  136,  157,  158,  159,  160, 
161,  174,  230,  265,  421.  1276. 

z'.   Campbell  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

40  S.  W.  431— p.  472. 

z:    Cheatham,  pp.  1985,  2694, 

2898,   2900. 

7'.   Clemmons,    pp.     2116,     2163, 

2210. 

Cluck   T. 

v.   Cohn,   pp.    1532,    1906,    1908. 

1909,  2410. 

-  z:   Copley,  pp.  1881,  1882. 

■;'.  Crone,  p.  2439. 

Davis  V. 

z:   Davis,  88  Tex.  593,  32  S. 

W.  510— pp.  809,  1092,  1095, 
1122,  1414,  1415,  1431. 

z:   Davis,  11  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

24  31  S.  W.  308— pp.  959,  1079, 
1086,  1092,  1093,  1094,  1095, 
1107,  1116,  1117,  1409,  1414, 
1421,  1423. 

z\   Davis,  50  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

74,  109  S.  W.  422— p.  1105. 

V.   Devainy,  pp.   2234,   2452, 

2477. 

v.   Dotson,      pp.       1518,       1866, 

1884,    1920. 

7'.   Dumas,   pp.    3753,    3754. 

Easton    v. 

7'.    Easton,    p.    1532. 

Ellis   z: 

V.   Lverett,     99     Tex.     269,     89 

S.  W.  761— pp.  507,  3297,  3299. 
3300,    3311,    3398. 

—  V.  Everett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
86    S.    W.    17— p.    3487. 

—  Farrell    v. 

—  z:  Faulkner  (Tex.  Civ.  .'\pp.), 
56  S.  W.  253— p.  2782. 

—  z:  Faulkner  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
63  S.  W.  655— p.  2467. 

—  '■.  Ford,  pp.  1610,  1627,  2438. 

—  z'.   Foster,  pp.  608,  654,  657. 

—  7'.  George,  pp.  1694,  1729, 
1978. 

—  V.   Goodyear,  pp.  1895,  1907. 

—  V.  Gorbett,  np.  2037,  2065, 
2113,  2117,  2118,  2119. 

—  V.   Gray,  p.  1477. 

z\   Greer,   pp.   1685,   1719, 

1731,  1732,  1846,  2881. 

—  '■.  Grigsby,  p.  2531. 

—  z:  Groves,  pp.  809,  3337, 
334? 

—  z'.   Grubbs,    p.    1796. 

—  ^.   Hampton,    pp.     1575,    2205. 

—  V.   Harn.    pp.    517,    809,    852. 

—  V.  Harris,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
179,  70  S.  W.  335— pp.  1885, 
1886. 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CXCV 


Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :.  Harris 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  liO  S.  W.  550 
—p.    1989. 

V.   Harry   &    Uros.,    pp.    21,    22, 

38,    1^6,    512. 

Hays   V. 

r.   Hester,     p.      1104. 

V.   Hill,    63    Tex.    381,    51    Am. 

Rep.  642— pp.  417,  659,  1641, 
3 '51 

r'.   Hill,    70    Tex.    51,    7    S.    W. 

659— pp.    136,    1641. 

V.  Hodde,    pp.    268,    271,    272, 

273,    275,    276,    296. 

V.   Hogg,    pp.    546,    678. 

H oilman   v. 

Horton    v. 

V.  Houx,    pp.    509,    693. 

V.  Hubbard,    pp.    2597,    2598. 

r.  Jackson.    62    Tex.    209,    213, 

21  Am.  &.  Kng.  R.  Cas.  126— 
pp.  639,  662,  851,  853,  855,  856, 
1350. 

V.  Jackson    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

61  S.  W.  440— pp.  202,  2437, 
2849. 

V.    Taphet    &    Co.,    p.    839. 

V.  Johnson,      pp.      2172,      2176, 

2184,    2220,    2354. 

V.    Keeling,    102    Tex.    521,    120 

S.   W.   847— pp.    1730,    1731. 

V.   Keeling,    51    Tex.    Civ.    App 

386,    112    S.    W.   808— p.    1727. 

V.    Keeling    (Tex.     Civ.    App.), 

142    S.    W.    108— p.    1738. 

Lamline 


—  V.   Lee,  pp 

1691 

2807. 

—  f.  Leslie, 

pp. 

2113, 

2114, 

2116,  2117, 

2118, 

2119, 

2127, 

2257,  2263. 

V.  Lewis,       pp. 


360J 


3662. 


1781. 


3311. 


Lindsey,    p.    2844 
McCarty    r. 
McCarty,     pp 


1779, 

MjCullough,         pp. 
McFadden,    pp.     1039, 


3661, 

1780, 
1575, 
1041, 


McGIossom,  pp.  818,  864. 

V.   Mayes,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

31,  97  S.  W.  318— pp.  451,  453, 
1092,  1094,  1105,  1106,  1275, 
1286,  1414,  3336,  3348. 

J'.  Mayes,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

621,  99  S.  W.  1166— p.  1276. 

V.   Mayes,  201  U.  S.  321,  SO 

L.  Ed.  772,  26  S.  Ct.  491— pp. 
3480,-  3481,  3485,  3486,  3487, 
3503,  3504,  3515,  3516,  3517, 
3523. 

Metropolitian  Trust  Co.  r. 

V.    Miller,  p.  1766. 

f.  Moore,  pp.  4,  30,  187,  188, 

190,  191,  194,  198,  202,  1537, 
1544,  1550,  1553,  1554,  2122, 
2163,  2665. 

V.    Moss.  pp.  1884,  2639. 

V.   Ney,  pp.  858,  3395,  3396. 

r.       Norris,   pp.   202,   1808, 

2398,  2720. 

Oxslier  V. 

f.  Park,  pp.  931.  938,  946, 

949,  3289,  3326,  3331. 

J'.  Perkins,  pp.  2017,  2018. 

3228,  3229. 

f.  Peters,  p.  3518. 

f.  Phillio,   pp.   1510,   1513, 

2018,  2020,  2028,  2499,  2510, 
2527. 

Poole  "■. 

V.   Poole   pp.   1209,   1212. 

1215. 

Railroad  Comm.  v. 

•:•.   Raud,    pp.    1852.    2037. 

f.   Reason,    pp.    1783,    1798. 

f.   Richards,    59    Tex.    373,    377 

—p.   2163. 

7:   Richards,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

203,  49  S.  W.  687— pp.  1689. 
1808,     1846. 

I'.   Ritter,    pp.    2482,     2483. 


Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Robin.oi    v. 

V.    Robinson,       pp.       479,       486, 

488,    490,    491. 

V.   Rogers,   pp.   1678.   1822, 

2905. 

V.   Rowcll,    pp.     1991,    2643. 

Runnels    '•-. 

r.   Runnels,    p.     1879. 

r.   Rust,   pp.   82,   83,   220,    1180. 

1183. 

J'.   Schuttee,    p.    2153. 

V.  Scott,    pp.    507,    3412. 

V.   Smith,     63     Tex.       322,     22 

Am.  &  Eng.  R'.  Cas.  421 — pp. 
208,  211,  221,  222,  235,  246, 
247,  248,  262,  263,  264,  499, 
635,     657,     1493. 

V.   Smith     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

32  S.  W.  710,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,    N.    S.,    177— p.    1868. 

V.   Smith,    44    '1  ex.    Civ.    App. 

299,  97  S.  W.  836— pp.  984. 
1002,     1374,    3337. 

r.   Stell,    pp.    203,    2122,    2437. 

r.   Stewart,    37    S.    W.    770.    14 

Tex.    Civ.    App.    703— p.    2249. 

V.   Stewart,   21    Tex.    Civ.    -App. 

33,  50  S.  W.  580— pp.  1687, 
1882,    1896,    2818. 

-'.   Storey,   pp.    41,    52. 

V.   Summers,    92    Tex.    621,    51 

S.   W.   324— pp.    181 3,_  2638,   2734. 

V.   Summers  (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),  49  S.  W.  1106— pp.  1814, 
1847,    2589,    2638,    2657. 

r.   Swancey,     pp.      1822,      1841. 

Thweatt   v. 

■:•.  Trammel!,    pp.      533,      1278, 

1279,    1299,    1335. 

V.  United    States,   94   C.   C.   A. 

307,    168    Fed.   895— p.    3629. 

V.  United      States,      205      Fed. 

391— p.    3605. 

f.  United    States,    234    U.     S. 

342,   34   S.   Ct.   833— p.   3709. 

r.  Waller,    p.    2300. 

v.  Washington,         pp.         1563, 

2035,    2046. 

r.  White,        pp.        202,        2437. 

2849. 

-'.  Wilkcrson     Bros.,     pp.     787, 

881 

r.  Wilkms,    pp.     1752,     1990. 

7-.  Williams,      pp.      940,      1053, 

1079,    1352,    1358,    1359. 

Houtz  f.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp 
1298,  1361,  1362,  1363,  1364. 
1370,    1418,    1419. 

Houx,   Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

Ilouze  f.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    pp.    1476,    1477. 

Hovey,    McDonald    7\ 

V.  The    Sarah     E.    Brown,     p. 

483. 

Howard  -•.  American  Exp.  Co..  pp 
796,    949.    1069. 

Broadie   t'. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■. 

f.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  2088,  3258,  3373. 

f.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    p;i. 

1614,    1624,    2441. 

-•.    Clark  r. 

f.   Forty    Second    St.,    etc.,    R- 

Co.,    pp.    1889.    2306. 

f.  Hlinois    Cent.     R.     Co.,    pp. 

3439,    3441.    34(.l.    3462. 

r.   Louisville   R.   Co.,   pp.    1888. 

1894.    2372.    2816. 

Nashville    Railroad   f. 

f.  Old     Dominion       Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    550,    566. 

Peyroux    7: 

T.   Scarritt        Estate       Co.,      p. 

1735. 

Southern   R'.    Co.   "■. 

f.   State,   p.   3582. 

The. 

Tison    f. 

f.   Union    Tract.    Co.,    p.    2082. 

Howard  &  Co's  Exp..  Xewbcrger  x' 
Howard  Exp.  Co.  ;.  Wile.  p.  916. 
Howard    Supplv    Co.,    .\tlantic.    etc., 

R.    Co.    T. 


Howard  Supply  Co.  v.  Chesapeake, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    3815,    3824. 

Howatt  V.  Davis,  pp.  1207,  1209, 
1210,    1212,    1213,    1249. 

Howe    v.    C.    IL    &    D.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

477,  478. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

478,  803. 

V.  Cincinnati,      etc.,      R.      Co.. 

pp.    1209.    1210,    1211,    1212,    1213. 
1214,     1248,     1249,    1250. 

Harris   -■. 

f.   Lexington,    p.    903. 

V.  Northern     Pac.     R.    Co.,    p. 

2697. 

V.  Oswego,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

728,   730,   733,   749,   779,  781,   798. 

I.   Parker,    p.    3792. 

Howell,     Florshein     Bros.    v. 

I'.  Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3143,   4010. 

I'.   Lansing      City       Elect.      R- 

Co.,    pp.  •2118,    2260,    2400,    2869, 
2882. 

Linklater    i'. 

v.  Morlan,   p.   482. 

V.   St.    Charles    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1889. 

Southern   R.    Co.   :•. 

f.   Union    Tract.    Co.,    p.    2821. 

United    States   r. 

Howells,    Langdon    f. 

Howerton,      Indianapolis,      etc.,      R'. 

Co.   f. 
Howland    v.     Greenway,    pp.      3894, 
3897,    3898,    3901,    4017.    4019. 

V.  New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

2997. 

f.  Oakland      Consol.      St.      R. 

Co.,    p.    2764. 

f.  The    Henrj-    Hood,    p.    527. 

Howze    I'.     New    (Jrleans,     etc.,     R. 

Co..  p.    1129. 
Hove    z:    Pennsvlvania    R.    Co.,    191 
N.  Y.  101,  83' N.  E.  586,  17  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    641,    14    Am.    &    Eng. 
.Ann.    Cas.    414— pp.     1014.    1116. 

7-.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co..     100 

N.   Y.    S.    190.    114    App.    Div.   821 
—pp.   410.   874,    3406. 

Hoyle,    Pullman    Co.    f. 

Hovlman  7:   Kanawha,   etc.,    R.   Co. 

p'p.  2248.  2289,  2290. 
Hoyt    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    p 

541. 

7:  Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

157. 

7:  Nevada     Countv,     etc..      R 

Co.,   p.   917. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    p 

2235. 

v.   Sixth    Ave.    R'.    Co..    p.    65 

7:  Thompson,    p.    1489. 

Western    Transp.    Co.    f. 

Hozier    •:'.     Caledonian     R.     Co..     p 

1181. 
Hozzard  f.    Illinois,    etc..    R.   Co..   p 

316. 
Hrebrik    f.    Carr.    pp.      1526,      1528 

1964.    1965. 
Hubbard.    Baltimore,    etc.,    Co.    7-. 

Clyde    7: 

Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   7: 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   :■. 

7:   Mobile,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1489,     3116,     3131,     3141.     3142. 
3143.    3149.    3150. 

Hubbard    Bros.   &   Co.,    Southern   R. 

Co.    f. 
Hubbard    &    Co.    f.    Harnden    Exp. 

Co.,    pp.    749,    751. 
Hubbell,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    T-. 
Hubbersty    f.    Ward.    pp.    306.    308. 
Hubbs,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Hiibener    7:    Heide.     70    X.     Y.     S. 
1115.   62   App.    Div.   368— p.    2837. 

t .   Heide.    76     X.    Y.     S.    758. 

72    App.    Div.    200— p.    2837. 

Huber    7:    Cedar    Rapids,    etc..     R- 
Co..   p.   2206. 

;.   United,    etc..    German    Con- 
gregation,   p.    1861. 


CXCVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Huchel    I-.    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2410. 
Huchings    v.    Ladd.    p.    3410. 
Huchingson   f.   Texas   Cent.    K.    Co., 

p.    2510.  ^       .  „ 

Huddleston    7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    K. 

Co.,    pp.    1787,    2680. 
Hudelson,    Indiana    Cent.    R.    Co.    :•. 
Hudgins.    Hot    Springs    R-    Co.    r. 

Louisville    City    R.    Co.    f. 

Hudman,    Te.xas,    etc.,    R.    Co     t'. 
Hudson,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R;   Co.    f. 

r.   Lvnn,     etc.,      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2419,    2425,    24S9. 

Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co.    :■. 

t-.   Midland     R.     Co..     p.     3117. 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

653,    1112.    1113,    1321. 

Hudson    Bros.    Comm.    Co.,    Glencoe 

Land,   etc.,   Co.   t'. 
Hudson     Nav.     Co.,     Fulton,     etc., 

Cotton    Mills  v. 
Hudson    R.    Co.,    Johnscm    f. 
Hudson    River    Lighterage      Co.      r. 

Wheeler     Condenser,      etc.,      Co  , 

pp.    820,    823. 
Hudson     River    Line,     Hirsch    -: 
Hudson   River  R.   Co.,   Bailey  -■. 

Bliven    -'. 

Boice    "'. 

Boswell   J'. 

Butler   V. 

Conger    r. 

Hedges    f. 

Kent    V. 

V.  Lounsberry,    p.    483. 

McCormick    .•. 

Nelson   -■. 

Russell    i: 

Schroeder    i'. 

Sherman    f. 

Spade   '•. 

■ \'an    Schaick   z\ 

Webster    z\ 

Hudson    N'alley   R.    Co.,    Powell   r. 
Hudson,      etc.,      R.     Co.      r.      State 

Board,  96   N.   E.   435,    203    N.    Y. 
119— p.     3576. 

f.   State    Board,    127    N.    Y.    S. 

918,    143    App.    Div.    26 — n.    3553. 

Huelscnkamp  z:  Citizens'  R.  Co., 
34    Mo.    45— p.    2399. 

V.   Citizens'     R.     Co.,     37     Mo. 

537,  90  Am.  Dec.  399— pp.  1684, 
1715,    1720,    1721. 

Huerstel  z:  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.    2422. 
Huff,    Buckeye   Nat.    Bank   -: 

z:  Cleveland,   C.   C.   &   St.   Ry. 

Co.,   p.    1745. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Turner  z'. 

Huffer,     Citizens'     St.     K.     Co.    z: 
Huffman,    Lake    Erie,,    etc.,    R.    Co 

^  South,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Huffnagle,    Bolin    z: 

Hufford  z:  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R 
Co.,  53  Mich.  113,  18  N.  W. 
580— p.   2462. 

V.   Grand   Rapids,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

64  Mich.  631,  31  N.  W.  544.  8 
Am.  St.  Rep.  859— pp.  200, 
1649,    2462,    2713. 

v.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1922,    1997. 

Hugen,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Huggeford,   Holly   z: 
Huggins    f.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    1454,    1456,    3407. 

Chattanooga,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

Hughart,    Georgia    Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 
Hughes,   .Atchison,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

z:  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    150 

Iowa  232,  129  N.  W.  956— pp. 
2322,    2389. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    127 

Mo.  447,  30  S.  W.  127,  2  Am. 
&  Fng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  284— 
p.    1787. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.     C". 


Hughes,    Galloway    r. 

?■.  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

z:   New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2664. 

Pecos,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    r. 

Z-.   Pennsylvania     K.     Co.,     pp. 

940,   3520. 

z:  Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co., 

p.    3243. 

Smith    :■. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z\  Western        Railroad,  pp. 

3050,    3056,    3059. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Hughlett  z\   Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co  . 

p.    2252. 
Hughson     7'.      Richmond,      etc.,      R. 
Co.,   pp.    1579,    1580. 

7'.   Winthrop      Steamboat      Co., 

p.    3979. 

Huguelet      v.      Warfield,      pp.      1' 4 

1081. 
Huide   Koper,    McAfee   t'. 
Ilulbert  7'.   New  York  Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    1794. 
Hull    7'.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

190,  2016,   2035,   2412,   2422,   3112. 

7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

821,  945,  1036,  1038,  1456. 

7'.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

pp.  279,  1127,  1859,  1864,  1866, 
1881. 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

7".   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

pp.    1760,   2331. 

Owings    7'. 

7'.  Seaboard  Air  l,we  Rail- 
way,   p.    2949. 

Hull  &  Co.  7'.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,    pp.    569,    894,    910. 

Humble,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '.-. 

Humboldt,    The. 

Humboldt  Steamship  Co.,  Inter- 
state   Commerce    Comm.    7'. 

Hume,    Cohen   7'. 

Hume    Bros.,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Humeston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Garden 
Grove   Bank   f. 

Humphrey  z:  Michigan  U' ited  R. 
Co.,    pp.    2058,    3065,    3076. 

Tucker    7'. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Humphreys,    Hill    7'. 

•  V.   Perry,       pp.       3125,       3151. 

3152,    3153,    3154. 

Porterfield  7'. 

7'.   Reed,    pp.    869,    1167. 

7'.    St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 

Humphreysville      Copper       Co.        7' 

Vermont    Copper      Min.      Co.,      p 
668. 
Humphries,    Alabama    Cent.    R.    Co 


Hunt  ',•.  Missisi^ippi  Cent.  R.  Co 
pp.  294,  305,  306,  308,  315,  332 
333,    337,    338. 

7'.   Missouri,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     p 

712. 

7'.    Morris    (La.),    6    Mart.,    O 

S.  676,   12  Am.   Dec.  489— pp.  727 
737,     739. 

7'.   Morris,    12   N.   T.   L.    175,  22 

Am.    Dec.    300— p.    821. 

7'.  New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   93 

N.     E.     787,     212     Mass.     102— p. 
1590. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

(N.  Y.),  1  Hilt.  228— pp.  3285. 
3307. 

r.   Nutt,     np.     782,     783,     3354, 

3355. 

'•.   Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2326. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,     R.     Co.    7'. 

7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1558. 

1561. 

Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hunt     Bros.     7'.     Missouri,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    744. 
Hunter    7'.     .\tlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
p.   2224. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Cooperstown,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

112  N.  Y.  371,  19  N.  E.  820,  8 
Am.  St  Rep.  752,  2  L.  R.  A. 
832— p.    2127. 

i\    Cooperstown,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

126  N.  Y.  18,  26  N.  E.  958,  12 
L.    R.    A.    429— p.    2124. 

7'.   Coopertown,     etc.,     R.     C'j., 

p.    2373. 

Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

7'.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.    2253,    2282. 

7'.   New    York,    etc..     Salt    Co., 

p.     3869. 

7'.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     2595. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    7'. 

7'.   St.    Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  419,  3747,  3749,  3760. 

-'.  Southern  Pac.  R'.  Co.,  pp. 

3289,  3327,    3331. 

Southern  R.  Co.  7'. 

7'.   Southern  Railway, 

1662,    2661,    3044. 

Hunter   &    Co.,    Texas   Cent.    R 


Tract. 


pp. 
Co. 
Co., 


Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

7'.   Illinois     Cent.     K.     Co.,     p. 

1861. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

Hundley,    .Adams    Exp.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hungerford,    State    7'. 

7'.   Winnebago,      etc.,      Transp 

Co.,    p.    522. 

Hunnicutt,      Birmingham      R.,      etc  , 
Co.   v. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    7'. 

Hunt    7'.     Boston     Elev.    R.    Co.,     p. 
2797. 

V.  Brooklyn     Heights     R.     Co., 

p.    1646. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,     R.    Co. 

V. 

Ellis   v. 

Galveston,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

v.   Haskell,      p.       1145,        1168, 

1170. 

V.  Mctcalf,   p.    3865. 

V.  Metropolitan     St.     R.      Co., 

p.    2698. 

7'.   Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

3394,    3407. 


'.      Bos- 
3259. 


Hunterson     7'.    L^nion 

pp.    2153,    2290. 
Huntington  z>.   Dinsmore,   p.   408. 
Huntley,     Grand     Rapids,      etc.,      R. 

Co.  V. 
Iluntly    V.    Dows,    p.    701. 
Huntress,    The. 
Huntting      Elevator      Co. 

worth,    pp.    522,    523,    8i 
Hurd,    Crowley   7'. 
Hurlbut,         Jackson         Architectural 

Iron    Works   z'. 
Hurley   7'.    Big    Sandy,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   87. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

7'.   Metropolitan     St.      R.      Co., 

pp.    1902,    1997,    2268,    2269. 

Huron    Barge     Co.    i\      Turncy,     p. 

3966. 
Hurley    &    Son    7'.    Norfolk,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    564,    729,    878,    889,    897, 

910. 
Hurry   7'.    Hurry,    p.    3866. 
Hurst,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

7'.   Great    Western    R.     Co.,    p. 

1671. 

Monongahcla      R'iver       Consol. 

Coal,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

Railroad    Co.    7'. 

7'.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Hurt,    Commercial    Bank  v. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   7'. 

7'.   Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp 

2155,    2922. 


TABLE    OF    CASF.S. 


cxcvir 


etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1344,    1369,    1391. 


Hurt   V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1896. 

■  Union    Dray    Lint-    Co.    v. 

Ilurwitz       z'.       Hanil)urgh-Amcrican 

Packet    Co.,   pp.    3119,    3121,    3159. 
IIus   V.    Kempf,    p.    3942. 
1 1  use    V.    Glover,    pp.      3479,      3528, 

3529,    3530,    3531,    3569. 
Ilusen,    Railroad   Co.    v. 
Ilussey     i:      Saragossa,      pp.       1455, 

1456. 
Huston    V.    Peters,    p.    813. 
Huston    Bros,    i:    Wabash     R.     Co., 

p.    217. 
llutcheis    r.    Cedar    Rapids,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2384,    2403. 
llutclieson     7:    Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    74,    136,    939. 
Ilutcliings   V.    Ladd,    pp.    3251,    3270. 
JIutcliings    &    Co.    r.    Western,    etc., 

K.    Co.,    pp.     3109.     3114,      3124, 

3125,    3126,'  3167,   3168. 
Hutchingson,    Texas    Cent.    R.    Co. 

Ilutchins,  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   Macoinbcr,    p.    2227. 

V.   Penobscot  Hay,  etc.. 

Steamboat   Co.,   p.    2508. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3163,   3177. 

Schoolher   v. 

V.  United    States    Exp.    Co.  f. 

Hutchinson      '•.     Capital      Traction 

Co.,    p.     1963. 

'•.   Chicago, 

320,    323,    986 

Gordon   v. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 

V.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Stump  z\ 

V.   United      States      Exp.      Co., 

pp.    535,    564,    729,    734,    735.    750, 
751,     752,     772.     773,     891,    910. 

Hutchison    z:    Southern    R.    Co..    pp. 

1857.    1859.   3057. 
Hutchison       Lumber,         etc.,        Co., 

Tyron    Co.    z\ 
Hutkoflf    I'.     Pennsylvania      R.      Co., 

pp.    822,    823. 
Hutti,    Louisville   R.    Co.   z\ 
Hutto      z:      Southern      Railway,      p. 

3163. 
Hyades,    The. 

Hvatt.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    ?•. 
— ' —  Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z: 
Hyde,      East     Tennessee,     etc.,     R. 

Co.  V. 

V.  New    York,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,    p.    760. 

V.   Seattle    Elect.    Co..    p.    2810. 

Hvdraulic    Engineering    Co.    z-.    Mc- 

"Haffie.    p.    638. 
Hyett.    Moulthrop  z'. 
Hyman   -'.   Central   X'erniont   R.    Co., 

pp.    3179,    3183. 
Hynes,    International,    etc..     R.     Co. 

H."&    T.    C.    R.    Co.    -•.    Smith.    |  p. 
82.    216. 

z:   State,    p.    166. 

z:   Stewart     &     Co..      pp.      486. 

490,    596. 


Ickenroth  '■.  St.  Louis  Trans.  Co., 
p.    2483. 

Idaho.     Tlie. 

Igo.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    -■. 

Ikelheimer  -■.  Consolidate<l  To- 
bacco   Co.,    p.    1165. 

Hlinois,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Dreyer    '•. 

Hlinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Keokuk,   etc..    Bridge   Co.   v. 

Munn   I'. 

Ruggles  V. 

The. 

Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 

Hlinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    r.    .\ble.    pp. 

2262.    2267. 

z:   Adams,        pp       74o,        12S7, 

1288,    1379. 


Hlinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Alexander, 
pp.    714,    894. 

V.  Allen,   pp.    195,    1496. 

Ammon    v. 

V.  Anderson,    pp.    2098,    2099. 

V.  Antoon,    p.    3124. 

Ardison    i'. 

Armstrong   -•. 

Armstrong,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Arnold  ?'. 

V.  Aslimead,      pp.      250,      271, 

273,    285,    287,    288,    438,    745. 

r.   Ball,    p.    1893. 

z:    Bauer,       pp.       1597,       1601, 

2473,    2474. 

Beard   -•. 

z:    Beebe,     174     111.     13,    50    N. 

E.  1019,  43  L.  R.  A.  210,  66 
Am.  St.  Rep.  253,  11  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  163 — pp. 
429,  1489.  1490.  1757,  1992,  2097, 
2098,    2099,    2216. 

r.    Beebe,    69    HI.    App.    363— 

pp.    2092,    2093,    2671. 

z:   Billington,    p.     1592. 

Bishop   "'. 

z:    Black,    p.     2664. 

Blank    f. 

Bogard    t. 

7'.    Bogard,      pp.      1110,       1111, 

1114,    1429. 

z:   Boles,     p.     2824. 

Brand    z: 

r.    Brelsford,    p.    1339. 

. Brimmer    z\ 

z\   Brookhaven        Mach.        Co., 

pp.    521.    594,    666. 

Brown    -■. 

z:   Brown,    54    S.    W.     159,    21 

Ky.    L.    Rep.    1089— p.    1440. 

z'.   Brown,     77     Miss.     338,     28 

So.    949— pp.     2117,    2210,     2213. 

Bruff    r. 

Hlinois   Cent.    R.    Co.    z:   Bundy.   pp. 

217.    1480. 
•   Burbank   z\ 

z'.   Byrne,    pp.    447.    676. 

Carter    f. 

z:   Carter.    46    X.    E.    374.    165 

HI.  570,  36  L.  R.  A.  527— pp. 
565,    981,    1033,    3295,    3351. 

z:   Carter,    62    111.    App.    618— 

pp.    551.   891,   902,   903. 

z:   Chambers,     pp.     1855,     2262. 

Chadbourne   z\ 

V.   Cheek,   p.    2148. 

Cobb    z: 

V.  Cobb,    72    111.    148— p.    854. 

579. 

z:  Cobb,    72    III.     148— p.    854. 

Cobb,    etc.,    Co.   T'. 

z:  Cobb,    etc.,    Co.,     pp.     250, 

253,    438,    494,    622,    688. 

Collins    z: 

Collison    -■. 

V.  CoUey,       pp.      2777,       2890, 

2971. 

7'.  Commonwealth,    23    Ky.    L. 

Rep.  544,  63  S.  W.  448— pp.  73, 
180. 

7'.  Commonwealth,    23    Ky.    L. 

Rep.    1159,  64  S.  W.  975— p.   180. 
z\  Commonwealth.    28    Ky.    L. 

Rep.  802,  90  S.  W.  602— pp.    177, 

181,    183. 

z:   Copeland,  pp.  3109,  3125, 

3126,  3131,  3139,  3176,  3177, 
3185,  3189.  3190,  3315. 

-•.  Cotter,  p.  1520. 

-•.  Cowles,   pp.   411,   3180, 

3300,  3399. 

z:   Crady,  p.  2341. 

z:   Crudup,  p.  2101. 

z:   Cruse,  p.  2963. 

z\   Cunningham,  67  HI.  316 — 

pp.    2468.    3102. 

f.   Cunningham,    102    III.    App. 

206— p.    2248. 

-■.   Currv,       pn.       1353.       1450. 

3273,  3284.  3387.  3388.  34161 
3417.    3623. 

z:   Dacus,   p.    3076. 

Dallas    z: 


Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Dallas,  pp. 
1502,  1739,  1866,  1885,  1925, 
1996,    2119.    2228,    2777. 

Dallenbach    r. 

z:   Daniels,      pp.      1773,      2117, 

2135,    2325,    2326. 

Darnell     z: 

V.   Davenport,  pp.  2485,  2643, 

2646,  2713,  3023,  3027,  3038. 

V.   Davidson,  64  Fed.  301,  12 

C.  C.  A.  118— p.  2230. 

V.   Davidson,  22  C.  C.  A.  306. 

76  Fed.  517— pp.  1739,  1782, 
2296,  2963. 

-■.  Demars,  pp.  1641,  3041. 

r.  Dodds.  p.  3054. 

Doggett  ;■. 

z:   Doughty,  pp.  316,  317. 

V.   Downs,  p.  2724. 

z\   Dunnigan,  p.  1594. 

V.   Elben,  p.  1377. 

E.  Sondheimer  Co.  f. 

z:   Fleming,   pp.   1612.  2705, 

3013,  3050,  3063.  3076,  3757. 

z:   Foley,  p.  1795. 

-■.  Foulks,  191  111.  57,  60  N. 

E.  890— p.  3314. 

z:   Foulks,  92  III.  App.  391  — 

p.  3249. 

V.    Frankenberg,  pp.   1,  208, 

233,  727,  732.  748,  894,  1003, 
1007,  1049,  3291,  3326,  3341, 
3359. 

z:   Friend,  pp.  536,  894. 

Gage  z: 

Gilliland  v. 

f.  Glover,  p.  2332. 

z:   Gortikov.  pp.  1619,  2409, 

2449,  2459,  3095. 

—  Greek-American     Produce     Co. 


2243. 


1776,      2323, 


3220,     3221, 


z:  Green,    p. 

Gregg    z: 

Grieve   ;•. 

-'.  Griffin,      pp. 

2872. 

Grinnell-Collins    Co.    z\ 

V.   Gross,    pp.    814.    845. 

z:   Gunterman.    pp.    1711.    2017. 

2019.    2068.    2959. 

'•-   Hall.    p.    1377. 

Ilamlen    &    Sons   Co.    z: 

r.   Hammer,    pp.    2501,    2503. 

z:  Handy,      pp.      3125,      3126, 

3145.      3216,      3218, 
3224.    3228. 

Hanlon    '■. 

f.    Harper.       pp. 

2409,    2456.    2463. 

z:   Harris,    56    X.    E.    316,    184 

III.  57.  48  L.  R.  -V.  175— pp. 
1274,    1473. 

z:   Harris.     81     Miss.     208.     32 

So.  309.  59  L.  R.  A.  742,  95  Am. 
St.    Rep.    466— p.     1626. 

z:  Haynes,    63     Miss. 

1273. 

V.  Haynes.     64     Miss. 

So.    765— p.   662. 

z:  Head,  pp.   1673.  3044,  3045, 

3052. 

f.  Henderson      Elevator      Co., 

138  Ky.  220,  127  S.  W.  779— 
pp.    3747,    3750. 

f.   Henderson      Elevator      Co.. 

33  S.  Ct.  176.  226  U.  S.  441. 
57   L.    Ed.    290— pp.    3745.    3754. 

z:   Hobbs.   pp.    1458.    1459. 

z\  Holman,    p.    3706. 

z:   Holt,    pp.    1271,    1303.    1321. 

1343.  1353,  1375,  1376,  1378. 
3289. 

7'.   Ilopkinsville     Carn-ng     Co., 

123  Kv.  783.  97  S.  W.  426.  30 
Kv.   L.'  Rep.   78— pp.  671.  675. 

z:   Hopkinsville     Canning     Co  . 

132  Kv.  578,  116  S.  W.  T'S— 
pp.  495,  642,  644,  645.  646.  659, 
660,    903,    3277. 

f.   Hornberger,    p.    250. 

Howard    z: 

Humphries   f. 

Hurt    z: 

z:   Hurt.   pp.    2820,    2S22. 


1663. 


485— p. 
604.     1 


CXCVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Illinois  Cent.  R.   Co.  z:  Hutchinson, 

_!^  i'.'lilinois,  108  U.  S.  541.  27 
L.  Ed.  818.  2  S.  Ct.  839— pp. 
34,    35,   43,    44,   63. 

V.  Illinois,    163   U.    S.    142    41 

L.  Ed.  107.  16  S.  Ct.  1096— 
pp.  97.  3448,  3450,  3d13,  3314, 
3515.    3516. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 

ll  ',-    Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

pp.  3038.  3668.  3669,  3676,  3677. 
3712  3713,  3715,  3761,  3/70, 
3772,     3777!     3785,     3786,     3799, 

3803.  -,,-r,  OirO     ' 

f.  Jackson,      pp.      24d9,      2462,  , 

R     R'R.    is,    43    Am.   &   Eng.    R. 

Cas..    X.    S..    15,    75   N    E.    45/  — 

pp.   1567,   2293,  2365. 
V.   Jennings,  82  N.  E.  403,  229 

111     608— pp.    2207,    2666,    2787. 
__ f.  Johnson,      34     111.      389-p. 

1  'S.   Johnson,  67  111.  312— pp 

1599,  2468,  3102. 
r.  Johnson,  123  111.  App.  300 

no    "1793.    2241. 

r.  Johnson,  94  S.  W.  600,  116 

Tenn  "  624 — p.    515. 
— -""    Jolly,   pp.   2237,  2353,   2393. 

V.  Jones,    p.    3405. 

f.  Jonte,    p.    945. 

Jurkiewicz   r. 

t'.   Kecgan,    pp.    2130,    2872. 

f.   Kerl,    p.    1333. 

-,■.   Kerr,     125    111.    App.    363 — 

pp.    1695,    1696. 
— —  f     Kerr,    68    Miss.     14,    8    So. 
330— p.   3260. 

ZII  r."Kuhn,  pp.  1680,  1714, 
17?0  1724,  1808,  1810,  1812, 
182l'    2604.    2694,    2695. 

Lake      Shore      Nitro-Glycenne 

Co.    z: 

V.   Lancashire     Ins.     Co.,     pp. 

973,  975,  978. 

f.  Langdon,   p.    1469. 

V.  Latimer,     128    111.     163,     21 

K.    E.   7— p.   2487. 

f.   Latimer,    28    111.    App.    552 

—p.   2479. 

Law    z\ 

z:   Lence,   p.   3009. 

Lennon   i\ 

T.  Louthan,   pp.    1636,    2424. 

V.  Lutz,    p.    2262. 

f.  McClellan,     pp.     250,     438, 

516,  614,   615,  617,  624,   727,   732, 
748,   752,   765. 

McDonald    v. 

McMelon  r. 

McMichael    v. 

V.   McMillion,    pp.    1505,    1506, 

1537. 

McXaughton    v. 

Majestic   Coal,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

Marbury  v. 

V.  Marlett,      pp.      1622,      1623, 

2447. 

V.  Massey,      pp.      1921,      1963, 

2250. 

z:   Matthews,  pp.  3114,  3119, 

3121,  3150,   3151,  3152,  3153, 
3154,  3155,  3184. 

T.  Meacham,  pp.  1502,  1550, 

1569. 

v.  Miller,    p.    484. 

V.  Minor,      pp.      2020,      2951, 

2952. 

Mississippi   R.    Comm.   v. 

f.  Mississippi     R.     Comm.,     p. 

3516. 

T'.  Mitchell,      pp.      886,      3262, 

3286,    3301. 

V.  Moore,    p.    3053. 

Morris    <■. 

z:   Morrison,     pp.      945,      1364, 

1377. 


Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Mossbai 
ger,    pp.   650,   676,    677,    839. 

Mulberry    Hill    Coal    Co.   v. 

Mulberry,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Mulligan 


Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co 
p.    2909. 


-  MuUins  f. 

Nelson    f. 

V.  Nelson, 

2435. 

r.   Nelson, 


59      III. 


110— p. 


30     Kv.     L.      Rep. 


Souders, 
pp.      365, 


114,  "97  S.  W.  757— pp.  341,  642, 
645,     647,    650,    651,     653,     677. 

Newbergcr    Cotton    Co.    ■:■. 

f.   O'ConncU,    pp.     1743.     1832. 

r.   O'Keefc,     154     111.     508.     39 

N.    E.    606— p.    2174. 

z'    O'Keefe,    168    111.     115,    43 

N.  E.  294,  39  L.  R.  A.  149,  61 
.\m.   St.   Rep.   68— pp.    1555,    1561. 

V.   O'Keefe.    63    111.    App.     102 

—pp.    1502,    2096. 

V.    O'Keefe     (III.),     9     .\m.     & 

Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  611— pp. 
1520,    1521. 

7:   Owens,   p.    1382. 

-  Ozanne  z'. 

-  Painkinsky    z: 

-  z:   Parks,    p.    581. 

-  Patterson   v. 

-  Payne    i'. 

-  z:    Pearson,    pp.    1677,    3056. 

-  Pennington     r. 

-  People    r. 

-  V.  People,  121  111.  304,  12  N. 
E.    670— pp.    97,    142. 

-  V.  People,  143  111.  434,  33  N. 
E.    173,    19    L.   K.    A.    119— p.    98. 

-  z:  People,  19  111.  App.  141  — 
p.  215. 

-  ?■.  Peterson,  p.  1286. 

-  Phelps  V. 

-  V.   Phelps,  p.  250. 

-  Pierson  v. 

-  z:  Porter,  pp.  1575,  2678, 
2694,  2806. 

-  Pressley  Co.  v. 

v.   Proctor,  18  R.  R.  R-  531, 

41  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
531,  122  Ky.  92,  89  S.  W.  714, 
28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  598— pp.  1514. 
1517,  2134,  2136,  2137,  2138. 
2141.  2319,  2878. 

V.   Proctor,  102  S.  W.  826, 

31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  494— p,  2731. 

Ouinn  7'. 

r.  Radiord,  pp.   1085,   1397, 

1408. 

V.   Read,  p.  2095. 

V.   Reid,  p.  3093. 

Rice  z'. 

7'.  River,  etc..  Coke  Co.,  pp. 

216,  247,  264. 

z:   Roberts,   pp.   2705,   3013, 

3050,    3757. 

7'.   Rothschild,    pp.    1567,    2809. 

Royston    7'. 

7'.   Sandusky,    pp.    2220,    2900, 

3074. 

7'.    Schwartz,    11    111.    -^pp.    482 

—p.   482. 

z:   Schwartz,    13    111.    .\pp.    490 

—pp.    490,    491,     1016. 

Scorenson    v. 

■ 7\   Scruggs,    p.    1339. 

7'.    Segarl    &    Co.,    p.    3752. 

z:    Seilz,    pp.     1141,    1171. 

Shackt    7'. 

r.    Siddons,   pp.    1852,   2626. 

Siler    -■. 

z:   Simmons,     38     111.     242— pp. 

2615,    2620. 

z:   Simmons,    49    III.    App.    443 

—p.    1315. 

r.   Simpson,    p.    544. 

v.   Slatton,   p.   2268. 

z:   Smith.      37      So.      643.      85 

Mi=s.  349,  70  L.  R.  A.  642,  107 
Am.  St.  Rep.  293— pp.  1496, 
3042. 

z:   Smith    (Miss.),   59    So.    87— 

p.     3066. 
V.   Smyser,    pp.    267,.  270,    273, 

277,    285,    288,    292,    425. 

Sorenson  v. 


Southern      IJank, 
558,    561. 

7'.    Southern   Seating,   etc.,    Co., 

pp.    642,    643,    647,    650,    652,    678, 
679,  699,  816,   3355. 

State    7'. 

Steever   v. 

z:   Stevens,   pp.    3407,    3415. 

Stone    z: 

7'.   Strauss,    p.    2230. 

7'.   Sutton,   42   111.   438,   92   Am. 

Dec.    81— pp.    2468,    2479. 

7'.    Sutton,       S3      111.       397— p. 

3103. 

7'.   Swanson,    pp.    420,    588. 

Tate    7'. 

7'.  Taylor,      24      111.      323— pp. 

3189,    3190. 

V.  Taylor,    46    III.    App.    141  — 

p.    2826. 

7'.   Taylor,     24     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

1169,    70    S.   W.    825— p.   2317. 

7'.   Teams,    pp.     1456,     1474. 

Thacker   z\ 

z:   Trail,   p.   2265. 

7'.    Treat,       pp.        1514,       1783, 

1796,    2730. 

7'.   Troustine,      pp.      285,      723, 

3135.    3137. 

Udell   f. 

V.   Mnson,    pp.    2925,    2926. 

Wade    7'. 

7'.    Walker,    p.    1857. 

z\   Wall,    p.    2503. 

7'.   Warren,    pp.    1921,    2166. 

7'.   Waters,      pp.       1306,      1307, 

1315. 

z:  Watkins,    p.    839. 

White    7'. 

7'.   White,    p.     1758. 

J..   Wliittaker.   p.    2361. 

7'.   Whittemore,     pp.     188,     196, 

1637,    2122,    2479,    2854. 

Wilkc   7'. 

7'.   Williams,     pp.     1629,     1630, 

2-.20,    3083. 

Winne   7'. 

7'.   Winslow,    p.    2868. 

Woodward    z\ 

7'.    Word,       pp.       1455.       1456. 

1457,    1467,    1471. 

Illinois     Custom     Tailoring     Co.     v. 

.\dams   Exp.   Co.,   p.    1033. 
Illinois    Match    Co.    7'.    Chicago,   etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    330,    331.    988,    1029, 

1032,      1034,      3258,      3330,      3347, 

3351,    3412. 
Illinois'     So.  'R.     Co.,     Sparta     Gas, 

etc.,    Co.    7'. 
Illinois     Terminal     R.     Co.,     L  nited 

States    7'. 
Illinois,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Beard    v. 

Coles  7'. 

7'.  Davidson,   p.    1788. 

Dorrah    7'. 

Grieve   7'. 

Hill    z: 

Hozzard   z'. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

7'.   King.    p.     2077. 

Il.sley  z:  Stubbs,  pp.  1210.  1211, 
1215,    1216,    1217,    1225,    1241. 

Ilwaco  R.  etc.,  Co.,  Oregon,  etc  , 
R.    Co.   7'.  ^       ^. 

v.  Oregon,     etc.,     K.     Co.,     p. 

3656. 

Imhoff  7'.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  20 
Wis.     362— pp.     1533,     1780.    2949. 

7.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     22 

Wis.    649— p.    2520. 

Independence  Mills  Co.  7'.  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  803,  807, 
880,    888,    895. 

India,    The. 

Indian  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  East 
Coast   Transp.    Co.,    p.    102. 

Indiana,    American    Exp.    Co.    v. 

7'.  American      Exp.      Co.,      p. 

3578. 

Darnell    7*. 

V.   Pullman    Car    Co.,    p.    3580. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCIX 


Indiana    Cent.     R.     Co.    z:     Gulick, 

pp.  3189,  3191. 
;.    Hufklson,     pp.     1504.     1506. 

t .   Mundy,    pp.^  2094,    2096. 

Indiana     Natural     Gas.,     etc.,     Co., 

Manufacturers'  Gas,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Indiana  K.  Co.  v.  IIofTman,  p.  81. 
r.   .Maurcr.      pp.      2129,      2406, 

2922,    2923,    2926,    2932. 
Indiana   Union   Tract.    Co.   v.    Bcna- 

dum,  p.  1280. 

V.   Jacobs,  pp.  2230,  2591. 

r.  "Kfiter,   pp.   1742,   2228, 

2289,  2348. 

!■.  I.anglcy,  p.  1582. 

J'.  Love,  p.  1984. 

:■.  McKinney,  pp.  2586,  2694. 

V.   Mahcr,  pp.  2696,  2979. 

J'.   Ohne,     p.     2004. 

V.   Scribncr,     pp.     1841,     3998, 

4000,   4005.   4006. 

V.   Swafford,     np.     2359,     2585. 

Indiana,    etc.,    R.     Co.     r.     Burdge, 

pp.    2615,    2617,    2660. 

f.   Ditto,    pp.    2475,    2485. 

f.   Dorcmi-ycr,    pp.    573,    575. 

'.:    Empire     Rubber     Mfg.     Co., 

p.    434. 

'•.  James,    pp.    1476,    1477. 

%'.   Masterson,    pp.     1752,     1755, 

1991. 

Snnw    J'. 

r.  Zilly,    pp.    3141,    3158,    3174. 

Indianapolis    r.    Navin,    p.    35. 
Indianapolis    .\l)attoir    Co.    •:•.    Neid- 

lingcr,  ]).  1584. 
Indianapolis    iMcight    Bureau    f.     P. 

R.  Co.,  p.  3679. 
Indianapolis     Southern     R.     Co.     v. 

Emmerson,     p.     1742. 

f.   Tucker,      pp.       1524,       1742, 

1755,    2589,    2590,    2605,    2615. 

f.  Wall,    p.    2635. 

Indianapolis   St.    R.   Co.   v.   Hockett. 

159    Ind.    677,    66    N.    E.    39— pp. 
2267,   2358,   2991,    3000. 

V.  Hockett,   67  N.   E.    106,    166 

Ind.    196— pp.    2535.    2536,    2548. 

I'.   Lawn,     p.     2834. 

V.   Ray,     p.     2634. 

T.   Robinson,     p.     2390. 

r.    Schmidt,     pp.     2604,     2609, 

2613,    2671. 

Smith    f. 

V.  Tenner,    p.    1535. 

r.  Whitaker,   p.   2372. 

r.  Wilson,      pp.      1651,      2458, 

2464. 

Indianapolis       Tract.,        etc.,        Co., 
Caugliell   f. 

z\   Formes,    p.    2609. 

V.   Lawson,   pp.    1564,    3003. 

f.  Lockman,    pp.     2417,     2425, 

2487,   2494. 

V.  Miller,    p.     1889. 

V.   Pressell,      pp.      2230,      2591, 

2612. 

V.   Richey,    p.    2346. 

f.  Romans,    pp.    1583,    2013. 

Indianapolis      Union      R.      Co.      v. 

Cooper,    pp.    2045,    2658. 

r.    Dohn,    p.    100. 

Indianapolis,     etc.,     Co.     v.     Andis, 

p.    1580. 

f.   Klentchy,    np.    1564,    1565. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.    .Mien, 

p.    1363. 

r.   Backus,    pp.    3575,    3591. 

f.   Barnes,      pp.      1703,      2289, 

2609. 

'•.   Beaver,    p.    1567. 

Bergman   '■. 

Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Berg- 
man   '■. 

-■.   Birnev,      pp.       1673,      3042, 

3043,  3044.  ■ 

V.   Cox,  pp.  1007,  3162,  3163, 

3164. 

?'.   Emmerson,    pp.    1712,    2602. 

r.  Ervin,     118    111.     250,    8    N. 

E.    862,    59    Am.    Rep.    369— p.    89 

'■.    Ervin      (111.),     27     .\ni.     & 

Eng.    R.    Cas.    8— p.    1180. 


In '.ianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  For- 
ythe.    pp.    797,   945,    1040. 

Green   •■. 

I.   Hall,    p.     1984. 

V.   Haverstick,   p.   2193. 

Meazle   T. 

V.   Herndon,    p.    561. 

r.   Ilorst,       pp.       1550,       1558, 

15(7,  1694,  1714,  1715,  1721, 
1724,  1742,  1755,  1756,  1757, 
1958,    2034,     2286,     2304. 

f.    Howerton,    p.    3099. 

Interstate    Stockyards   Co.   v. 

V.  Jurey,    p.    1341. 

Keep    T. 

r.    Kennedy,     pp.     2436,     2784. 

McCollom  V. 

V.  Miliigan,    pp.    2775,    3102. 

V.  Murray,    pp.    532,    3288. 

Ober  V. 

V.  Pitzer,    p.    2516. 

f.   Remmy,   pp.   333,   805. 

Rice    f. 

V.    Rinard,       pp.       210,       1492, 

1596,    24(j8,    2470. 

f.   Rutherford,    pp.    1828,    1961, 

2202,    2279. 

v.   State,    p.    255. 

f.   Strain,    ]).    3357^ 

Union   Mut.   Ins.    Co.   f. 

r.   Wall,   pp.   2583,   2S85,_  2753. 

Indianapolis,     etc..     Rapid     Transit 

Co.    J'.    VValsh,    p.   ?.22S. 
Indianapolis,     etc..     Trans.     Co.     f. 

Walsh,    p.    2600. 
Iiidrani,     The. 
Indrapura,    The. 
Inferior   Court,    Powers   f. 
Ing,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Ingalls     -.     .\dams      Iv.xp.     Co.,     p. 

2505. 

V.  Bills,   pp.    1684,    1687,    1691, 

1722,  1837,  1842,  1846,  1848, 
2127,   22()0. 

f.    Brooks,    p.    3298. 

Frank    r. 

Libby  r. 

Ingledew,    Griffith    ;•. 

f.  Northern   Railroad,   pp.  638, 

653,    832. 
Ingles   z:    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2659. 

•  f.   Usherwood,    pp.    1215,    1216. 

liiglis.     Bothlingk    v. 
Ingrafia  f.   Samuels,   p.   2838. 
Ingraham    f.    Pullman    Co.,    p.    3243. 
Ingram  f.   Weir,   pp.    1119,    1123. 
Inhabitants    of    Norfolk,    Inhabitants 

of    Wrenthan    -•. 
Inhabitants     of     Wrcntham     z\     In- 
habitants   of    Norfolk,    p.     114. 
Inland,    etc.,    Coasting    Co.    f.    Tol- 

son,    pp.    21 1(),    2b70. 
Inman   z-.    ButTalo,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

898. 
f.   South   Carolina   R.    Co.,   pp. 

208,   251,   789,   790,   791,  792,  795, 

930.    947.    1035. 
Inman    Steamship    Co.,    Heyl    v. 
Sherman  !■. 

z\  Tinker,    p.    3530. 

Inman  &  Co.  f.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  pp.  252,  263,  2o4,  472. 
(.57,    1323. 

I'.   Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

187,  208,  257,  726,  948,  953,  954, 
9(.2,  963,  964,  975,  978,  985,  988, 
1003,  1026,  1027,  1030,  1048, 
1063,    1090. 

Inness     z:     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1516,    28(>4. 
In     re     .Mlowance     for     Lining    and 

Heating    Cars.    p.    3630. 
In    re    .MIowances    to    Elevators    (V. 

S.),    12    Interst.    Com.    K.    85,    88 

—p.  3732. 
In   re   Allowances   to    Elevators    (L^. 

S.),    14    Interst.    Com.    Com'n    R. 

315,    316— p.    3732. 
In    re    Arkansas   K.    Rates,    163    Fed. 

141— p.    54. 
In     re     Arkansas      R.     Cases,      187 

Fed.     290— pp.     34,     35,     39,     44, 

45,    47,    49,    53,    57,    3490. 


In   re    Beams,    pp.    1231,    1243. 

In   re    Burke   &   Co.,   pp.    1237,    1238. 

In    re    California    Xav.,    etc.,    Co., 

110     Fed.     670— pp.     1566,     1760, 

3998. 
In    re    California    Nav.,    etc.,    Co., 

110    Fed.    678— p.    4070. 
In   re  Cargo   of   Brimstone,   p.   3946. 
In   re  Cargo  of  3,408  Tons  of  Poc- 
ahontas  Coal,    p.    3965. 
In     re     Charge    to    Grand    Jury,     p. 

3697. 
In    re    Churchill,    p.    3907. 
In    re   Comstock,    p.    1216. 
In    re    Debs,    pp.    3440,    3443,    344   , 

3448,     34'.  1,     3467,     3468. 
In    re    Deininger,    p.    3428. 
In    re     Dexterville    Mfg.,    etc.,    Co, 

p.   2091. 
In    re     Lmerson,    etc.,    Co.,     117    C. 

C.   A.   635,   199   Fed.  95— p.  8. 
In    re    Emerson,    etc.,    Co..     117    C. 

C.   A.   639.    199   Fed.   99— p.   8. 
In   re    E.    Reboulin   Fils   &   Co.,    pp. 

362,    363. 
In  re   Excelsior  Coal  Co.,  pp.  4046, 

4085. 
In    re    Foot,    pp.    1239,    1240. 
In     re     Garnett,     pp.     4036,     4053. 

4054. 
In    re    Greenfield's    Estate,    pp.    323. 

984. 
In    re    Jeremiah    Smith    &    Sons,    p. 

4045. 
In    re    Kimball    Steamship    Co.,    pp. 

3992,    3997.    4046. 
In    re    Lakeland    Transp.    Co.,    pp. 

4028,    4049.^ 
In     re     Lenn'on,     pp.     3617,     3809, 

3818. 
In    re    Levin,    pn.    361,    362. 
In    re    Meyer,    p.    4037. 
In    re    Michigan    Steamship   Co.,    pp. 
,   4055,    4081. 
In     re     Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3. 
In     re     Morrison,     pp.     4036,     4049, 

4071,    4072,    4073. 
In    re    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co, 

p.    1372. 
In    re    New   York,    etc..    Goods    Co.. 

pp.    1208.    1219.    1228.    1232,    1233. 
In     re     948     Pieces    of    Lumber,     p. 

1170. 
In    re    Opinion    of    the    Justices,    p. 

1593. 
In    re    Pacific    Mail    Steamship    Co., 

pp.   4043.   4044. 
In   re   Paterson   Co..   pp.    1228.    1243. 
In     re     Petitions     of     Peterson 

625,    3301.    3302. 
In    re    Pooling    Freights,    pp.    3724, 

3852. 
In   re   Rahrer,   pp.   3418,   3420,   3429, 

3538,   3539. 
In   re  Ross.    196   Fed.   921— p.  4054. 
In    re    Ross,    204    Fed.    248.    122    C. 

C.    .\.    516— pp.    4046.    4079. 
In    re     Southern     Wisconsin     Power 

Co.,     140    Wis.    245.    122    N.    W. 

801— pp.    3468,    3535. 
In     re    Southern     Wisconsin    Power 

Co..    140    Wis.    265.    122    N.    W. 

809— pp.    3468.    3535. 
In    re    Swan,    p.    3467. 
In    re    Talbot,    pp.    1243.    1244. 
In   re  2.098   Tons  of  Coal.  p.   709. 
In    re    L'nion    Tank    Line     Co.,     p. 

3575. 
In   re  Westznthins,   p.    1224. 
In    re    Winbourn.    p.    2089. 
Inslee    z\     Lane,      pp.      1213, 

1220,      1229.     1232,      1233, 

1242. 
Insley,    Ex   narte. 
Insurance     Co.     r.     Delaware     Mut.. 

etc.,    Ins.    Co.,    pp.    723,    3705. 

f.   Easton,    pp.    790.    794. 

T'.   Easton.     etc.,     Transp.     pp. 

3921.    4031. 

Gulf.   etc..    R.    Co^   f. 

Houston    Direct   Nav.    Co.   f. 

Houston,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.    v. 


pp. 


1219. 
1234, 


cc 


Insurance    Co.    f.    Lake    Er-.e.    etc.,    I 
R.   Co.,   pp.   //'b,   846. 

V.   Leyland  '&    Co.,    p.    3921. 

Liverpool,    etc..    Steam    Co.    v. 

Merchants",    etc..    Storage    Co. 

Morgan    v. 

Nord-Deutscher    Lloyd    v. 

!•.  North    German    Lloyd    Co., 

pp.    3882,    3924,    3930,    4024,    4058, 
4062. 

f.  Railroad       Co.,       pp.       960, 

3258. 

f.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

854. 

Thompson   v. 

t:  Thwing,    p.     3906. 

f.   Young,    p.    3367. 

Insurance    Cos.    r.    Carrier    Cos.,   p. 

1182. 
Interborough     Rapid     Transit      Co., 
Brewster   i: 

I5ro\vn   v. 

Busch    i: 

Danziger  z: 

Flynn    -•. 

Kaplowitz   V. 

Kohm    f. 

Lang   i: 

McCormack  f. 

McGuire   z: 

McMahon   t\ 

Maillefert    z: 

Olopp   T-. 

O'Rourke   v. 

Rubin    f. 

Scholtz    z: 

Schwartz    z: 

Segelman    z'. 

\'ictorson   f. 

Wachser   z: 

Wertheimer   v. 

Windels  z\ 

International  Coal  Min.  Co.,  Penn- 
sylvania  R.    Co.   V. 

International  Exp.  Co.  '•.  Grand 
Trunk   Railway,   p.    109. 

International  Marine  Ins.  Co.,  Mis- 
souri   Pac.    R.    Co.   V. 

International  Mercantile  Marine 
Co.,   Kohn  V. 

'.■.   Smith,    pp.    3988,    4002. 

International    Nav.    Co.,    Farr,    etc., 

Mfg.    Co.   z: 

v.   Farr,     etc.,    Mfg.     Co.,     pp. 

3907,      3908,      3909,     4061,     4062, 
4063,    4065,    4066. 

Fasy  z: 

Kahaner   f. 

International     R.    Co.,     Bamberg    v. 

Bingemann   r. 

Crandall   v. 

Craven    v. 

Creenan   z\ 

Cunningham    v. 

Elder    z: 

Grissinger   v. 

Miller    z: 

Speck   V. 

Tietz  V. 

Ward   V. 

International  Steamboat  Co.,  Dun- 
lap   f. 

International  Steamship  Co.,  Mur- 
ray v. 

International  Text-Book  Co.  v. 
Gillespie,    p.    3557. 

International    Trust    Co.,    Gibson   v. 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z-.  x\d- 
dison,  97  S.  W.  1037,  100  Tex. 
241,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  880— p. 
2369. 

z'.  Addison    fTex.    Civ.    App.), 

93   S.   W.    1081— p.   2774. 

V.   Anderson,    82    Tex.    516,    17 

S.  W.  1039,  27  .\m.  St.  Rep.  902 
—pp.    2412,    2529,    2665. 

V.  Anderson,        3      Tex.      Civ. 

App.  8,  21  S.  W.  691— pp.  246, 
621,  624,  1311,  1397,  3344,  3345, 
3368. 

v.  Anderson,      15      Tex.      Civ. 

App.  180,  53  S.  W.  606— pp. 
1916,   2047,   2066. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


nternational,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  An- 
thony, pp.  1808,  1828,  19d6, 
'585. 

—  z:   Armstrong,    pp.    2036,    2067. 

—  z:  Aten,    pp.    863,    3354. 

—  Bcauchamp   z:  _ 

—  '■.   Bergman,      pp.       /29,        738, 
744,   747,   750.  .     ^^^^ 

—  z:   Best,    pp.    1610,    1635,    3322. 

—  z:   Bibolet,     pp.     1813,     2583. 

—  Z-.   Blanton,    etc.,    Co.,    p.    344. 

—  z:   Bohannon,    pp.     2480,    2782. 

—  f.   Caldwell,    p.    1078. 

—  z:  Campbell,     pp.      460,      2496, 
3342,   3375. 

—  Carter  ?'. 

—  -  Causler,  p.  2242. 
Clark   (Tex.   Civ.   App.), 


71  S.  W.  587— pp.  2592,  2729 
^'  Clark,  36  Tex.  Civ   > 


_  ,  .  -^PP- 

195,  81  S.  W.  821— pp.   1683, 

z:   Cock  (Tex.),  14  S.  W. 

242— pp.  1826,  2685. 

t..  (lock,  68  Tex.  713,  5  S. 

W.  635,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  521 — 
pp.  1554,  1679,  1753,  2522,  2665, 
2936. 

Z'.   Cooper,  p.  2526. 

V.   Copeland,  pp.  1716,  1893, 

2169. 

Cruseturner  z\  _ 

z:   Cruseturner,    pp.    l/o3, 

1758,  1979,  2754,  2755,  2911. 

r.  Davis,   pp.   1575,   1938, 

1939. 

z\   Diamond     Roller     Mills,     p. 

402. 

z:   Dimmit       County       Pasture 

Co.,  pp.  217,  268,  286,  289,  291, 
292,  293,  294,  295,  448,  851,  855, 
863,    1332,    1350,    1354. 

v.   Doolan,      pp.      1663, 

1778. 

Dorrance    &    Co.    r. 

z\   Downing,     pp.*    1885, 

1967,      2578,     2579,      2588, 
2613,   2748. 

f.   Drought    &    Co.,      pp 


1777, 


1920, 
2601, 


758, 


International,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hig'i   v. 

z:   lUibbs,    pp.     1823,    2880 

z:   Hugen,       pp.      1732,      1737, 

2035,     2066,     2639,     2649,     2660. 

r.  Hynes,  pp.  617,  618,  619, 

629,  734,  1307,  1309,  1314,  1330. 

V.   Ing,  pp.  1613,  1616,  2465, 

2642. 

z:   Irvine,   pp.   1547,   1735, 

1756. 

V.   Johnson,      1        Texas      .\pp. 

Civ.    Cas.,    §    354— p.     1611. 

z:   Johnson,       43       Tex.       Civ. 

App.    147,  95   S.   W.   595— p.    1778. 

z:   Jones,    pp.    1440,     1441. 

v.   Kentle,    pp.    2017,    2042. 

■;•.   Kilgo,    p.    2845. 

z:   Lane,    p.    2037. 

V.   Leake,    pp.    2482,    2483. 

Lee   7'. 

z:   Lewis,    pp.    621,     624, 

1271,    1285,    1311,    1326. 

z:   Lister,    p.    1600. 

McCarn   z\ 

v.   McCown,     pp.     3115, 

3125,    3132. 

v.   McCullough,         pp. 

1346. 

z:   McRea,    pp.    1285,    3628. 

z:   Mahula,     pp.     3377,     3381. 

v.   Miller,    pp.    2020,    2414. 

r.   Moody,    pp.    934,    959,    1028, 

3378. 

z:   Mulliken,     pp.     1518,     1712, 

1870,    2065,    2066. 

z:   Nefif,    p.    2128. 

z:   Nicholson,      pp.      853,      854, 

857,   858,   864. 

V.   Nowaski,    pp.     1330,     1342. 

r.   Ormond,     62    Tex.     274— p. 

2937. 

-..   Ormond,    64    Tex.    485— pp. 

1953,    2213. 

z:   Parish,    pp.    849,    932,    1355, 

1384,    1396. 

r.   Pcvey,       pp.      1768,        1778, 

1779. 


855, 

3116, 
1278, 


3368. 


Duncan,    p.    2028. 
Earnest,      pp.      1351, 


pp. 


1766, 


3355, 
1767, 


1702, 


1086, 
1121, 


2067, 


Eckford, 
1923. 

England   z'. 

'•.   Evans,    p.  .2704. 

V.   Folliard,      pp.      278, 

1895,    2114,    2265,    3137.    3138. 

r.   Folts,    pp.    1076,    1398,   3162 

3179,  3183,  3396,  3398. 

-,..  Foster,  p.   2727. 

Galaviz    z'. 

Garrett,     pp.     950,     954, 

1095,     1096,      1099,      1118, 
1416. 

V.  Giesen,     p.     2022. 

V.   Gilbert,       pp.      1544, 

2452,    2478,    3103. 

V.   Gilmer,    pp.    1912,    2065. 

z:   Goldstein,     pp.     1637,     1851, 

2424,    2435. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.    Gor- 
man,   p.    2159. 

Grahn    z\ 

z:   Griffith,    p.    334,    335,    1018. 

z:   Halloren,   pp.   729,   733, 

736,  745,  746,  1680,  1683,  1684, 
1712,  1731,  1738,  1807,  1808, 
1809,  1810,  1812,  1821,  1822, 
1841,  1845,  1982,  2034,  2037, 
2970. 

V.   Hanna,  p.  1554. 

V.   Harder,   pp.   1669,   1673, 

1674,  1676,  2662. 

V.  Hass-ell,     pp.       1562,       2117, 

2118,    2455,    2485,    2707. 

r.   Halchell,     pp.       686,       1316, 

1317,    1327. 

z:  Ilayncs,   p.   765. 

Z'.  Heittrcr.     pp.      1092,      1105, 

1106,    1115,    3353. 

:•.   Henderson,     p.     2017. 

V.   Hessler,    p.    2608. 


3199. 


Philips, 


pp. 


654, 


z:   Phillips,     pp.     1825,     2792. 

z:   Pool,    pp.     1272,    1347. 

Prirce    '•. 

-,;   Prirce,      pp.        1553,        1826, 

2522,    2685. 

T'.   Railroad    Comm.,    p.     107. 

r.   Rhoades,    p.    2287. 

z:   Ritchie,     pp.    635,     1314. 

■ Kozwadosfskie    z: 

■;■.    Sammon,     p.     2626. 

V.   Sampson,    pp.      1867,      2821. 

V.   Satterwhite,    38    S.    W.    401, 

15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  102— pp.  2249, 
2511,    2514,    2545,    2546. 

v.   Satterwhite,     19     Tex.     Civ. 

App.  170,  47  S.  W.  41— pp.  2301, 
2515. 

tr.   Server,    pp.     607,    608,    609, 

629,    630,    637,    957. 

z:   Shands,     p.     344. 

v.   Smith    z: 

z:   Smith     (Tex.),      1      S.      W. 

565— pp.    2452,    3103. 

z'.   Smith     (Tex.),     14     S.     W. 

642,  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas  324 
—pp.  17(,y,  1870,  1922,  2065, 
2126. 

V.    Smith,     40     Tex.     Civ.     Arp. 

432,   90    S.    W.    709— p.    2455. 

z'.   Startz,    97    Tex.    167,    77    S. 

W.    1— pp.   3331,   3367. 

z\   Startz     (Tex.      Civ.      .\p".), 

33  S.  W.  575— pp.  472,  1323, 
1324,    1326. 

Stewart   ?■. 

V.  Tasby,       pp.        1712,       1732, 

1737. 

z:  Terry,    p.    3048. 

z\  Thompson,    pp.     1813,     1814, 

2694. 

I,.   Thornton,     pp.     3326.     3331. 

■:■.  Tisdale,  pp.  607.  608.  62S. 

629,  638,  1396,  2642,  2643.  3180, 
3284,  3310,  3366,  3392,  3417. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCI 


International,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   True, 

pp.    443,    449,    971,    1274. 
— Ll  V.   Underwood,     (>2     Tex.      21, 
21    .\m.    &    Kng.    R.    Cas.    143— 

pp.    1104.    1110,    1111. 
——  V.  Underwood,      64    Tex.    463, 

27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  240— pp. 
1685,    2953. 

V.   Underwood,   67   Tex.    589,   4 

S.   W.   216— pp.   2088,   2578,   2579. 

United    States   v. 

f.   X'andfvcntcr,  pp.         932, 

938,  940,  943,  948,  949,  954, 
1063,    1077,    3377. 

V.  Washington,    p.    2052. 

V.  Watt,    pp.    4.36,    941,    987. 

Weed   V. 

V.  Welbourne,     pp.    786,    3326, 

r'.  Welch,    86    Tex.    203,     204, 

24  S.  W.  390,  58  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  70.  40  .\ni.  St.  Kip.  829— 
pp.  1683,  1684,  1729,  1731,  1766, 
1822,    2037.  ^  ,       ^ 

•;•.  Welsh     (Tex.     Civ.      App.), 

.     24    S.    W.    854— pp.    2172,    2174. 

r.   Wentworth,     87    Tex.     311, 

28  S.   W.   277— pp.    423,   475,   632. 

?■.   Wentworth,      8      Tex.      Civ. 

App.  5,  14,  27  S.  W.  680— pp. 
475,  502,  505,  SiO.  511,  631,  633, 
729,    734,    750,     1330,     1334. 

f.   Wilbourne,    pp.    3661,    3663. 

V.  Wilkes,    pp.    2429,    3105. 

Williams    v. 

V.  Williams,     pp.     1710,      1951, 

1953,    1956,    2028,    2182,    2601. 

V.  Young     (Tex.    Civ.      App.), 

28    S.    W.    819— p.    449. 

V.   Young    (Tex.      Civ.      App.), 

72  S.  W.  68— pp.  608,  609,  1304, 
1318,    1339,    1359,    3368. 

Interstate  Car  Transfer  Co.,  St. 
Clair    County    v. 

Interstate  Commerce  Comm.  I'.  Ala- 
bama Mid.  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  227— 
p.    3667. 

— —  f.  Alabama  Mid.  R.  Co.,  21 
C.  C.  A.  51,  74  Fed.  715— pp. 
3668,    3681. 

-'.  Alabama  Mid.  R.  Co.,  168 

U.  S.  144,  42  L.  Ed.  414,  18 
S.  Ct.  45— pp.  3631,  3633,  3637, 
3664,  3667,  3668,  3669,  3676, 
3683,  3684,  3687,  3688,  3690, 
3711,  3712,  3713,  3714,  3715, 
3716,  3721,  3722,  3723,  3725, 
3748,  3749,  3773,  3783,  3785, 
3786,  3798,  3800,  3803,  3806, 
3825,  3831. 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

!'.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 

Fed.  295— pp.  3714,  3721,  3794. 

V.   .\tchison,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

149  U.  S.  264,  37  L.  Ed.  727,  13 
S.  Ct.  837— p.  3770. 

V.   Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  234 

U.  S.  294,  34  S.  Ct.  814— pp. 
3635,  3676,  3690,  3728. 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

f.  IJaird,   pp.   3775,   377». 

3779,  3780,  3783. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    43 

Fed.    37— pp.    3605.    3631,    3725. 

V.   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    8 

R'.   &   C.    L.   J.    343— p.    1179. 

I'.   Baltimore,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

145  U  S.  263,  36  L.  Kd.  699,  12 
S.  Ct.  844— pp.  3448,  3600,  3601, 
3602,     3609,'    3631,     3632,     3633, 

3664     " 

3(>88 


3607,  3609,  3617,  3631.  3650, 
3664,  3683,  3711,  3724,  3735, 
3741,  3748,  3752.  3764,  3767, 
3768,  3769,  3770,  3779,  3780, 
3781,  3782,  3817.  3819.  3841. 
Interstate  Commerce  Comm.  v. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p.  3765. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  94 

Fed.  272— pp.  3796,  3799,  3835. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98 

Fed.  173— p.  3727. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 

C.  C.  A.  209,  103  Fed.  249— p. 
3667. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 

Fed.  1003— pp.  3601,  3605,  3632, 
3637,  3665,  3676,  3678,  3679, 
3682,  3813. 

-■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  *^o.,  186 

U.  S.  320,  46  L.  Ed.  1182,,  22 
S.  Ct.  824— pp.  3667,  3675,  3727, 
3728,  3741,  3742,  3798,  3803. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  209 

U.  S.  108,  52  L.  Ed.  705,  28  S. 
Ct.  493— pp.  3633,  3667,  3670, 
3676,  3678,  3682,  3699,  3764. 

r.   Chicago,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  215 

U.  S.  479,  54  L.  Ed.  291,  30  S. 
Ct.  163— pp.  3447,  3450,  3641, 
643,  3644. 

;■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  218 

U.  S.  88,  54  L.  Ed.  946,  30  S. 
Ct.  651— pp.  3670,  3671,  3674, 
3676,  3677,  3682,  3684,  3775, 
3797,  3799,  3802,  3804,  3805. 

;■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  218 

U.  S.  113,  54  L.  Ed.  959,  30  S. 
Ct.  660— pp.  3797,  3799. 

Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  _ 

v.   Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

Fed.  925,  54  .\m  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
365— pp.  1148,  3612,  3680,  3714, 
3717,  3718,  3796. 

T.   Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

64    Fed.    981— pp.    3792.    3801. 

V.   Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    76 

Fed.    183— p.   3667. 

T.   Cincinnati,     etc.,      R.       Co., 

124   Fed.    624— p.   3o38. 

f.  Cincinnati,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

146  Fed.  559— pp.  3635,  3685. 

T.   Cincinnati,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

167  U.  S.  479,  42  L.  Ed.  243,  17 
S.  Ct.  896— pp.  3631,  3664,  3668 


3667.   3683, 
3696,   3697, 


3636,   3637 
3686,  3687. 
3708,  3711,   3717 
3770. 

—  i:   Baltimore,      etc.,      R.       

225  U.  S.  326,  56  L.  Ed.  1107, 
32  S.  Ct.  742,  Ann.  Cas.  1914.\ 
504— pp.  3689,  3823,  3833.  3836 
3837. 

—  -■.   Bellaire,    etc. 
3425. 

—  V.   Bri'Ti«on.     "ti 
3440.      3445.      3447 


3725,  3726, 
Co., 


R.  Co. 


34 '8.  3439, 
3603,   3604, 


3669,  3675,  3676,  3684,  3709, 
3711,  3724,  3729,  3735,  3737, 
3747,  3748,  3749,  3764,  3767, 
3768,  3769,  3770,  3777,  3784, 
3785,  3817. 

:■.  Clyde  Steamship  Co.,  pp. 

3687,  3713,  3716,  3721,  3722, 
3798,  3807. 

- —  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ;•. 

V.   Delaware,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  64 

Fed.  723— pp.  0-08,  3801. 

!■.  Delaware,  etc..  R.  Co.,  216 

U.  S.  531,  54  L.  Ed.  605,  30  S. 
Ct.  415— pp.  3618,  3776. 

f.  Delaware,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

220  U.  S.  235,  55  L.  Ed.  448,  31 
S.  Ct.  392— pp.  3685,  3689,  3690, 
3797,  3805. 

Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 

Fed.  1005— pp.  3713,  3721,  3775. 

V.  Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     167 

U.  S.  633,  42  L.  Ed.  306,  17  S. 
Ct.  986— "o.  3430,  3610.  3637, 
3711,  3720,  3735,  3741,  3743, 
3744. 

f.   Diffenbaugh,  pp.         3679, 

3730,    3731,    3732.    3733.    3734. 

Eagle    White    Lead    Co.    : . 

East   Tennessee,     etc.,    R.     Co. 

r. 

-'.   East     Tennessee,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,  pp.  3668.  3680,  3712,  3716, 
3721,    3798.    3815. 

Goodrich    Trans.    Co.    '■■ 

7'.   Goodrich     Trans.      Co..      pp. 

3441.    3612.    3bl5.    3771.    3772. 


nterstate    Commerce    Comm..    Har- 
riman   i: 

J'.   Harriman,    p.    3784. 

Hooker    !■. 

z:   Humboldt     Steamship      Co., 

pp.  3612,  3670,  3675.  3767.  3773, 
3803,   3837. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    i: 

V.   Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co..    Dp. 

3447.  3450.  3639,  3640.  3641. 
3643,  3644,  3670,  3671,  3676, 
3684,  3797,  3802,  3803.  3804. 
3805,   3833. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc..    R.    Co., 

134   Fed.   942— p.    3796. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

202  U.  Si  613,  50  L.  Ed.  1171, 
26    S.    Ct.    766— p.    3668. 

V.   Lehigh     Valley     R.     Co.,    49 

Fed.    177— pp.    3787,    3801. 

V.   Lehigh     Valley    R.     Co.,    74 

Fed.    784— p.    3681. 

Louisville,    etc..    Railroad   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

f.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    73 

Fed.  409— pp.  3691,  3692,  3763, 
3789. 

-■.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.   Co..   101 

Fed.    146— p.    3808. 

V.       Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

102  Fed.  709— pp.  3785,  3799, 
3800. 

z:   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

118  Fed.  613— pp.  3669,  3670, 
3678,  3681,  3707,  3708,  3730, 
3784.  3786.  3790.  3792. 

V.  Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co.. 

190  U.  S.  273.  47  L.  Ed.  1047. 
23  S.  Ct.  687— pp.  3637,  3687. 
3711,  3714,  3715,  3720,  3722. 
3805.  3806.  3832. 

Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 

V.   Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co..  pp. 

3634,  3666.  3682. 

z:  New    York,    etc.,    K.    Co.    ;■. 

-'.  Northeastern      R.      Co.,      p. 

3668. 

z:  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3660,  3670,  3671,  3678,  3803, 
3805. 

Omaha,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Omaha,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

z:   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    3778.    3782. 

V.   Reichmann,    pp.    3442. 

3700. 

Southern  Pac.  Co.  f. 

z:   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   74 

Fed.  42— p.  3790. 

z:   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   123 

Fed.  597— pp.  3800.  3788.  3790. 

V.   Southern   Pac.   Co..   132 

Fed.  829— pp.  3725.  3763,  3796. 

z:   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   137 

Fed.  606— p.  3808. 

z:   Southern  Pac.  Co.,  234  U. 

S.  315,  34  S.  Ct.  820— pp.  3635. 
3676,  3o90,  3728. 

Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  z-. 

Southern  Pac.  Terminal  Co. 

z:   Southern  R.  Co..  105  Fed. 


703— pp.  3679. 

>•.  Southern 

741 — pp.  3(>77. 
3715.  3767. 

Stickney  :■. 

-•.  Stickney. 

Texas,  etc 


380/ 

R.  Co..  117  Fed. 

3681.  3691.  3713. 


Fed. 
3790. 


p.  3727. 

R.  Co.  :•. 
Texas,  etc..   R'.   Co..   52 
187— pp.  3691.  3692,  3699. 


Texas,  etc..  R.  Co..  57 
Fed.  948.  6  C.  C.  A.  653— pp. 
3o99.  3790.  3799. 

:•.  Union    Pac.      R.      Co..     np. 

3(i70.  3673.  3675,  3682.  3778. 
3797.  3799.  3802.  3803.  3805. 
3833. 

United    States   i'. 

I'.  Western     New     York      etc , 

R.    Co..    pp.    3775.    .v-95. 


ecu 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Interstate  Commerce  Comm.  r. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Fed. 
1S6 — pp.  3692,  3711,  3712,  3713, 
3716,    3729. 

z:  Western,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    35 

C.    C.    A.    217.    93    Fed.    83— pp. 
3666,    3714.    3716. 

Interstate  R.  Co.,  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z: 

Interstate'  Rapid  Transit  Co.,  Car- 
roll f. 

Interstate  Rapid  Trans.  R.  Co., 
Evans   f. 

Interstate  Stock  Yards  Co.  v.  In- 
dianapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3430, 
3605,    3o39,    3825,    3826. 

Interstate,    etc.,   R".    Co.,    Evans   v. 

Interstate,  etc..  Transfer  Co.,  St. 
Clair  f. 

Interurban    R.    Co.,   Heinze   v. 

McGovern  j'. 

Interurban  R.,  etc..  Co.  f.  Han- 
cock, pp.  1719,  1744,  2113,  2117, 
2201,  2202. 

Interurban    St.    R.    Co.,    Baker    v. 

Chiert    r. 

Cusick    f. 

Edelman   f. 

Fine    z: 

Glassberg   f. 

Griffin    z: 

Hoelljes    v. 

Johnson    v. 

Klein    v. 

■ Laverty   z\ 

Meyerowitz   f. 

Moon    Z'. 

Moritz    '■. 

Mullarkey  z\ 

Munzer    f. 

Murphy   z-. 

Stappcrs    f. 

Swigelsky    v. 

Wainwright    z'. 

•  Walsh   z: 

Winter    v. 

Interurban,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Goldberg 

Lynch  v. 

Intoxicating    Liquors,    State   v. 
Ionia    Transp.    Co.,    Lehigh    Valley 

Coal   Co.  V. 

z\  Two  Thousand  Ninety- 
Eight  Tons  of  Coal,  pp.  3953, 
3961,    3968. 

Ionic,   The. 

lonnone  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co.. 

pp.    1581,    1582. 
Ions,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Iowa,    American    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Bartemeyer    v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,-    p. 

3659. 

Monroe    r. 

Rhodes   v. 

Iowa    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Davis    v. 

McElroy    v. 

Mosteller   v. 

Newlin  v. 

Willard    '■. 

Ireland  t'.   Mobile,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

3253,    3331. 
Irelson    -•.    Southern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1843.    1846. 
Irish    V.    Chapman,    p.    237. 

f.   Milwaukee,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.   827,   885,   3302. 

V.  Northern     Pac.    R.    Co.,    p 

2126. 

Irish    North-Western   R.    Co.,    Brad- 

shaw   v. 
Iron    Co.,    New   Buffalo   z'. 
Iron   Mountain   R.   Co.   v.   Memphis, 

p.    3496. 
Iron    R.    Co.    v.    Lawrence    Furnac: 

Co.,    p.    143. 

V.  Mowery,     pp.     2113,     2128, 

2674,   2685,   2697,   2844. 

Irons,    Richmond   v. 
Iroquois,    The. 

Iroquois    Furnace    Co.,     Elphicke    v. 
Iroquois  Transp.   Co.,   Delaney,   etc., 
Iron   Co.   V. 


Irrawaddy,   The. 

Irvin,     Jeffersonville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Missouri   Pac.  R.   Co.  '■. 

z\  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1785,    1786. 

z\  Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3249. 

Irvine  f.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1719,    2667,    2674,    2923,    2924. 

z:   Grady,    p.    420. 

Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.  z\ 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

;-  Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Irving  z\  Pullman  Co.,  p.  3233. 
Irving     Nat.     Hank,     Emery's     Sons 

Irwin  z\  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1683,  1698,  1821,  1822,  1841, 
2020,    2027,    2029. 

f.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    3311,    3354. 

Irzo  z\   Perkins,   pp.    532,    712. 
Isaacs,     Blanchard    z\ 

Ft.    Worth    Transfer    Co.    z'. 

Mt.    Adams,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Third     Ave.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2040,    2045. 

Isaacson  z'.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    3139,    3175. 
Isbell     '■.     Pittsfield     Elect.     St.     R. 

Co.,     pp.     2113,     2953. 
Iseman    v.    South    Carolina,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1542,    2853. 
Tsenhower,   Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ■;•. 
Isham     -■.     Erie    K.     Co.,     pp.     1114, 

3280,  3355. 

z'.   Greenham,     pp.     521,     1142, 

1143,  1144,  1154,  1159,  1160, 
1171. 

Island  City  Boating,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
New     York,     etc..     Steamship     Co. 

V. 

Island     City     Mercantile,     etc.,     Co., 

Williams   z'. 
Isola    Di    Procida,    The. 
Ison,    Dallas    Consol.    Elect.    St.    R. 

Co.    V. 
Israel    '•.    Clark,    p.    1845. 
Italia,    The. 

Ithaca    St.    R.    Co.,    Goodspeed   -•. 
Ives,    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Polak,       pp.        1222,       1223, 

1227. 

•:■.   Smith,    p.    3724. 

Ivej',  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ivy,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Izlar    V.    Manchester,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2507. 
I.  &  G.  N.  R.  Co.,   Beauchamp  v. 

V.  Blanton,    etc..    Co.,    p.    817. 

v.   Ormond,    p.    2370. 

V.   Richard,    p.    1194. 

V.   Server,    p.    1020. 

I.,   etc.,    R.   Co.   V.   Juntzen,   p.    629. 

J 

.Tabcr,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Jackson,  v. 

.\dams    Exp.   Co.   v. 

v.  Alabama,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     p. 

2855. 

Atkeson   v. 

Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.     '■. 

-■.   Crilly,    p.     2188. 

Express    Co.    f. 

Fordyce   v. 

Gainesville   Mid.    Railway   v. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z'.  Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

2369,     2370. 

V.   Grand     Ave.     R.      Co.,     pp. 

1487,  1727,  1736,  1750,  1890, 
1891,  1905,  2241,  2932,  2933. 
2991. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Hartford,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Metropolitan     Railway     v. 

Mexican    Nat.    R.    Co.   v. 

Mobile,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 


Jackson    Mott    z-. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •:■. 

Z-.  Natchez,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

2183. 

f.   Nichol    (Eng.),    5    Bing.    N 

Cas.    508— p.    1162. 

<•.   Nichol    (Eng.),    5    Bing.    N 

C.  510,  35  E.  C.  L.  202— pp 
1228,  1232,  1234,  1239,  1240 
1248. 

v.  Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

1582. 

t'.  Old     Colonv     St.     R.     Co. 

pp.  2026,  2045,  2049,  2054,  2293 
2629,    3073. 

z\   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p 

139. 

z\    PhiladLi])hia      Tract.       Co. 

p.    2170, 

'■.   Rogers,    p.    211. 

T'.   Sacramento     \'al.      R.      Co., 

pp.  727,  732,  748,  773,  820,  825, 
896,   900,   910,  917. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    28 

So.  241,  52  La.  Ann.  1706— p. 
2533. 

v.   St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.,    87 

Mo.  422,  56  Am.  Rep.  460,  25 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  327 — pp. 
2038,    2072. 

z\  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    29 

Mo.    App.    495— p.    2249. 

v.   St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1556,    1962. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

'■.   Second    Ave.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2483,    2665. 

'•.    State,     pp.     177,     182. 

Stimson     z\ 

Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.     Co.    '■. 

'■.   The    Magnolia,    p.    4054. 

Walker    '■. 

Western    L^nion    Tel.    Co.    v. 

Jackson   &   Co.,    Gray  '■. 

St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

Jackson  &   Son  v.   New   York   Cent., 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    564,    899. 

Tackson  Architectural  Iron  Works 
'•.  Hurlbut,  pp.  8,  9,  726,  728, 
871. 

Jackson  County  Horse  R.  Co.,  Gil- 
son    zi. 

Jackson   Elect.  R.,   etc.,  Co.,  Bridges 

7'.   Lowrv,   pp.    201,    1850,    1866, 

1874,    1875,    2056,    3055. 

Tackson    Mnegar    Co.,    Yazoo,    etc., 

R.    Co.    7'. 
Jackson,    etc..    Tract.    Co.,    Leslie   z\ 
Jacksonville    Elect.    Co.    v.    Batchis, 

p.    2597. 

7'.   Cubbage,    pp.    2657,    2955. 

Jacksonville        Southeastern        Line, 

Davis    '■. 
Jacksonville   St.   R.   Co.   v.   Chappell, 

pp.  2113,  2118,  2667,  2817,  2936. 
Jacksonville  Terminal  Co.,  State  7'. 
Jacksonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'.    Neff, 

p.    2921. 
— - —  7'.   Southwortli,         pp.         2734, 

2761,    2949. 

State     7'. 

Jacob  V.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
2263. 

Nanson    z'. 

Jacobs   V.    Bentlev,    pp.    1228,    1232. 

'■ V.  Central     R.     Co.,     208     Pa. 

535,  57  .\tl.  982,  11  R.  R.  R. 
562,  34  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.     S.,     562— pp.     3162,     3164. 

V.  Central      R.      Co.,      19      Pa. 

Super.     Ct.     13— p.     3120. 

V.   Hooker,    p.    3285. 

Indiana    L^nion    Tract.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Southern     Exp.    Co.    v. 

V.  Third     Ave.     R.     Co.,     po. 

2061,  2070,  2409,  2458,  2459, 
2460,    2496. 

v.   Tutt,    pp.    3121,    3148,    3149, 

3170,     3171. 

V.  West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1980,   2722. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCIII 


Jacobs'       I'hariiiacy      Co.,       Atlanta, 

etc.,    U.    Co.    V. 

.Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Jacobson    v.    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co., 

p.  2657. 

Wisconsin,    etc..    Railroad    f. 

V.   Wisconsin,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3535. 

Jacobson  &  Co.  r.  Adams  Ivxp.  Co., 
pp.  431,  721,  763,  949,  1033, 
1039,     1061,     1076. 

V.   St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

945,    1564,    1570,    1760,    1953,   2095, 
2114. 

Unitid      Stales     .Metals     Retiii. 

Co.    V. 

Jacoby,     Kentucky    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.    Laussatt,    p.    480. 

Tagger    v.    I'eojjle's    St.     R.    Co.,    p. 

2358. 
Jaggernian,     Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Tabn,     Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
lakobsen     v.      Springer,     pp.     4006, 

4043. 
James    v.    .\merican     Kxp.     Co.,    p. 

691. 

Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

V.   Boston    Kiev.    R.   Co.,   87   N. 

E.    474,    201    -Mass.    263— p.    2809. 

z:    Boston     IClev.     R.     Co.,     90 

N.     E.     513,     204     Mass.     158— p. 
3008. 

Central,   etc.,   R".   Co.  %•. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7-.   Griffin,    pp.     1228,    1234. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   f. 

Indiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.   ;■. 

V.  James,    p.    1028. 

Jordan,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2785. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1781,  2549.   2550. 

f.  Oakland      Tract.       Co.,       p. 

1988. 

St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.    -<-. 

V.   Standard   Oil    Co.,    189    Fed. 

719— p.    3893. 

V.   Standard   Oil   Co.,    191    Ftd. 

827— p.    3944. 

Texas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Western    l^nion    Tel    Co.    f. 

James    Baird,    The. 

James   ISfartin,    The. 

James     Music     Co.     v.     Bridge,     p. 

1229. 
Tames    Robb,     KHiott    -■. 
Jameson     v.     Boston     F.lev.     R'.     Co., 

p.    2893. 
Hadfield    i: 

V.   Sweeney,    61    N.    Y.    S.    494, 

29    Misc.    Rep.     584— p.    3953. 

V.   Sweeney,    66    N.    Y.    S.    494, 

32    Misc.    Rep.    645— p.    3974. 

Jamestown    St.    R.    Co.,    Chase    r. 

Fuller    V. 

Jamestown,    etc.,    Kerry    Co..    Ilol'ey 

Janiesville,     etc.,     R.     Co..     Ilanslcy 

Tamieson,    St.    Louis,   etc.,   li.    Co.   v. 
Jamison    f.    San    Tose,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1735,    1810,'  1970,   2270. 
Tane    Grey,    The. 
Tannett,    Miller    r. 
Janncy  -•.  Tudor  Co.,   nn.   765,   3892. 
Tannin    v.    State,    n.    184. 
Tanny    v.    Great    Northern     R.     Co  , 

pp.  1548,  1552. 
Tansen     v.     Minneapoji*^,     t-tc,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2016. 
Janson,    .Arkansas    Cent.    R.    Co.    "• 
Tapbet    &     Co.,     Houston,    etc.,     U. 

Co.   '•. 
Jaques    f.     Sioux     Citv    Tract.     Co.. 

pp.  2148.  2876. 
Tacqueth,  Gage  t-. 
Jaquette    v.    Capital    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2586. 
Jarboe,    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 


Jardine    f.    Cornell,    pp.    2414,    2415, 

2483. 
Jarmy    z\     Duluth     St.     R'.     Co.,     p. 

1911. 
Jarowski        t.        Ilamburg-.American 

Packet    Co.,    p.    4003. 
Jarrard,     Missouri     I'ac.     R.     Co.    v. 
Jarrell    -'.    Charleston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2611,    2ol2,    2616. 

Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Jarrett   v.    Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2252. 

V.   Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.  488,   579,  804. 

Main   v. 

Jarvis    Co.,    Braker   v. 

jarvis,      etc..      Cold      Storage      Co., 

Lembeck  v. 
Jason,    The. 
Jasper    Trust    Co.    v.    Kansas    City, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    308,    316,    356, 

358,     359,     366,     367,     369,     371, 

374. 
Jay    Wai    Nam    ;•.    .\nglo-.American 

Oil    Co.,    p.    4067. 
Jean,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Jean    Webre    z'.    Kendall,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.   825,   826. 
Jean,    etc.,    Co.    :■.    Flagg,    pp.    816, 

829. 
Jefferson     -•.     Birmingham     R.,     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    2518,    2542. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

The. 

Jefferson     Ave.      R'.      Co.,      Sullivan 

Jefferson    P>ank,    Smith    v. 
leffersonville    R'.    Co.    v.    Cleveland, 
pp.    896.   898,    899,    907. 

V.  Cotton,   p.    515. 

V.  Hendricks,    pp.     1720,     1911, 

2117,   2118,    2263,    2615. 

V.  Rogers,    28    Ind.    1,    92    Am. 

Dec.  276— pp.  1594,  1596,  1599, 
2468,  2476,  2565,  3078. 

V.   Rogers,  38  Ind.  116,  10 

Am.     Rep.     103— pp.    2468,    2471, 
2565,    3092. 

V.   Swift,  .pp.   2256,  2263. 

— —  V.  White,    p.    513. 
leffersonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Ens- 
ley,    pp.     1450,    1452. 

V.   Gent,     p.     583. 

V.   Hendricks,    p.    2618. 

V.  Irvin,    pp.    556,    584. 

ivIcEwen  V. 

V.  Parmalee,   p.    1537. 

r.  Riley,    p.     1787. 

r.  Worland,    pp.    1450,    1452. 

Jeffray,    Lindsay    z'. 

Jeffries,    Blair    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

607,   614,    1288,    1310,    1363,    1481. 

Jeffris     t'.     Fitchburg     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1213,    1229,    1231,    1232,    1234. 
Tellett    '•.     St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    552,    570,    595,   596,    599,    848. 
Tellison,    Wabash    R.    Co.    ?•. 
Jemison     v.     Birmingham,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    296,    316. 
Tencks    -■.    Coleman,    pp.     191,    210, 

1488,    1492,    1499,    1500,    2122. 
Jenkins    f.    Atlantic    Coast    Line    R. 

Co.,  66  S.  E.  416,  84  S.  C.  360— 

p.    3396. 

J'.  Atlantic      Coast      Line      R". 

Co.,  t36   S.    E.   415,   84   S.   C.    361 
—p.    3396. 

V.  .Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    65 

S.    E.    636,    83    S.    C.    473— p.    795. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    84 

S.    C.    343,   66   S.    E.   409— p.    165. 

7'.   .Atlantic,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    84 

S.   C.  520,  66  S.   E.  407— pp.  761, 
762,    810,    854,    872,    .-(75. 

;■.    Brooklvn     Heia;hts     R.  Co.. 

29   .\pp.    niv.'  8.   51    N.   Y.   S.  216. 

5    N.    Y.    .\nn.    Cas.    315— pp.  193. 
2775. 

f.    Brooklvn     Heights     R.  Co., 

51    N.    Y.    S'.    868,    30    .\pp.  Div. 
(i22— p.^    1649. 

-■.   Chesapeake,      etc.,      R.  Co., 

pp.   2560,   2651,   3011.   3012. 


Jenkins,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

:•.   Chicago,       etc.,         R.       Co., 

pp.    753,     1505. 

Frothingham    !■. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 

V.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co  , 

pp.    1837,    i2i7. 

Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

f.   .Motlow,    pp.    726,    3155. 

Nobel's    Explosives    Co.    v. 

V.  Northern    Pac.     R.    Co.,    p. 

2789, 

V.  Pickett,    p.    280. 

f.    Southern     R.    Co.,    pp.     153, 

154,    172,     170. 

Jenks   I'.    Fulmer,   p.    1242. 
Jenkyns    v.    Brown,    p.    352. 

:•.   Usborne,     p.     1217. 

Jenneson   -•.    Camden,    etc.,    Transp. 

Co.,    p.    813. 
Jennings,   .American    Exp.   Co.   v. 

V.   Big     Sandy,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    3488,    3491. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.  Clyde      Steamship     Co.,     p. 

3893 

V.  Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    127 

N.  Y.  438,  28  N.  E.  394.  40  N. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  318,  49  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  98 — pp.  967,  1013,  1020, 
1101,    1087,    1090,    3258. 

V.  Grand    Trunk    R.     Co.,     52 

Hun  227,  5  N  Y.  S.  140,  2i  N. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  15— pp.  421,  433, 
974,    994,    995,    1000,    3372. 

T.   Grand    Trunk     R.    Co.,     15 

Ont.    -App.   477 — p.    1577. 

V.  Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.    204,    205.    • 

Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.   -•. 

Oakland    Cotton     Mfg.    Co.    i: 

V.   Smith,    pp.    978,    986,     1396, 

1402. 

V.  Union    Tract.    Co.,    p.    2237. 

Jensen   v.    Barbour,    pp.    1960,    2073, 

2076. 

Florence,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

Harmon     f. 

Jereissati,    Castelli    -•. 

Jeremiah    Smith    &    Sons,    In    re. 

Jerolman    :•.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2378. 
Terome    v.     Smith,    pp.     2430,     2640. 

f.  United   R.   Co.,   p.    1892. 

Jersey    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Barlow 

V. 

f.  Morgan,    pp.    1604,    2428. 

Xirk    T. 

Jersey  City,  etc.,  St.   R.  Co.,   Eagen 

Jersey,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Barlow    :■. 
Jersey,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Quagliana 

lessee,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Jesse   French   Piano,   etc.,   Co.,   San- 
ger  f. 
Tessel   i\   Rath,   pp.    308,   365, 
lesson  "•.   Soly,  p.   355. 
Jester,    Tippecanoe    Loan,    etc.,    Co. 

Tesup.    Neilson    f. 

Tett,    Georgia   R.,   etc.,   Co.   f. 

Tevons    T-.    I'nion    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1618,    2450. 
Tewell     J'.     Grand     Trunk    Railwav. 

pp.    564.    896. 

'■.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.   2879. 

Tewctt,   Klein  v. 

■ ?'.   Klein,   pp.   2137,    2138. 

Loomis    -■. 

McKinney    -•. 

-■.   Olscn.    pp.    i7i.    577. 

Slater    f. 

Terry  t. 

Jillson,   People   :•. 

lirachek     -•.     Milwaukee     Elect.     R'., 

etc.,    Co.,    pp.    1891,    2936,    3033. 
Joerg    ;•.     -Atchison,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.   765. 
Joestin"         Merchants'         Despatch 

Transp.    Co.    v. 
Johannes    v.    Phoenix    Ins.    Co.,    p. 

2560. 


CCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Tohanson    f.     Sondheim,     2     Alaska 
556— p.    3877.  .     ^    ,      ,,„ 

r.  Sondheim,     143     Fed.     620, 

76   C.   C.   A.   310— p.   3892. 

Tohn,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

z:  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

87  88,  95,  1740,  1762,.  2096, 
2560,    2673,    2703.  . 

John    Anda    Co.,     Pennsylvania    K. 

Co.    f. 
Tohn    H.     Pearson.     The. 
Tohn    H.    Starin,    The. 
Tohn    L.    Stephens,    Morrison    z: 
Tohns,   Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
'- V.  Charlotte,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

Tohnsen    z:    Oakland,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
■    pp.    1986,   2912. 

Johnson    z:    Alabama,    etc.,    K.    Co, 
■^    pp.    1036,    1363,    1364,    1388,    1482, 
1483.  „     ^ 

Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Atlantic   Nav.    Co.   z: 

Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

f.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

2315. 

Beck   z: 

z:  Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

p.    2589. 

z:  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

— —  z\  Brooklyn    Heights    R.     Co. 

p.  1695. 
— —  z:   B.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  p.  2116. 

z:   Cedar  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

p.  1789. 

z:   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

Iowa  25,  50  X.  W.  543— p.  2528 

z:   Chicago,  ttc,  R.  Co.,  58 

Iowa  348,  12  N.  W.  329— p 
2488.  „  . 

V.  Coey,  pp.  1708,  2013. 

V.  Concord  R.   Corp.,   pp.    191 

193,  1612,  1622,  1858,  1974 
1975. 

Denison,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Detroit,      etc..      Railway,    p. 

3023.  „.     ^ 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    K.    Co. 

'-  V.  East     Tennessee,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  pp.  209,  607,  608,  609,  1492, 
3281. 

Erie    Dispatch    v. 

z:   Eveleth,      pp.      1229,      1230, 

1231,    1232. 

Fordyce    z'. 

V    Friar,     pp.      U,     768,     869, 

931,    946,    949,    1020. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

z:  Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

2583,    2637. 

Georgia    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Georgia    R..    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

1593,    1594,    1597,    1599,    1601. 

Georgia,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

v.  Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

576. 

V.  Great    Xortliern    R.    Co.,    p. 

3455. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Miss. 

452,   34    So.    357— p.    483. 

V.  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    2    Tex. 

Civ.  App.  139,  21  S.  W.  274— 
p.    1822. 

Hartshorne    zj. 

Himelright   v. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Hudson    R.    Co.,    p.    70. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Interurban     St.     R.     Co.,    p. 

2690. 

Lexington    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Loper,    p.    3586. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2488. 

v.  McClung,  p.  2560. 

Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Mathews,   p.    638. 


Johnson      z:     Michigan      United      R. 
■    Co.,    pp.    I(i62,    2o61.    2705. 

z:   Midland    R.    Co.    (Eng.),    4 

Exch.    327— p.    221. 

z:  Midland    K.    Co.     (Eng.),    6 

Raihv.  Cas.  61,  1  Ry.  &  C.  Y. 
Cas.  16— pp.  211,  231,  236,  237, 
246. 

Miles   '•. 

Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.     f. 

z'.   Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3352. 

Moss  "•. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z>. 

f.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    508,    3267,    3268,    3298,    3361. 

V.   New     York,     etc..     Railroad, 

pp.    3631,    3648. 

J'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     2425. 

Patten    z: 

z\    Pensacola,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.  1,  4,  220,  221,  1135,  1175, 
1176,  1178,  1179,  1180,  1181, 
1184,     1187,     1191. 

Z'.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1529,    2451. 

■ "f.   Richmond,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

949. 

Roberts    z\ 

V.   St.     Joseph     R.,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    1735,    1890,    1963,    2151,    2267. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

'■.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2644,    2807. 

z:   Seaboard,      etc.,       Railway, 

p.    148. 

-'.   Southern      Pac.       Co.,      pp. 

3431,    3450,    3461,    3464. 

Southern   Pac.    R.    Co.   z: 

Southern    R.    Co.    '■. 

■:■.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2509, 

2512,    2513,    2639. 

■   Steamboat   John   Owen   z-. 

V.   Stoddard,    pp.    303,    3878. 

z:   Stone,       pp.       3115,       3124, 

3125,    3142,    3186,    3189,    3190. 

V.   Strader,    pp.    581,    582. 

z\   Texas     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1518,     7766,     1966,     2872. 

Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas    Trunk    R.    Co.    v. 

■ Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Three-Hundred  and  Eight- 
een and  One-Half  Tons  of  Coal, 
pp.     187,     188,    210,    213,    214. 

z:  Toledo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

320,    3297,    3415. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Union    Pac.    R.    Co..    29    R. 

I.    80,    69    Atl    298— p.    3544. 

r.   Union     Pac.     R.     Co.,      100 

Pac.    390,    35    Utah.  285— p.    2761. 

V.   Washington      Water     Power 

Co.,    pp.    1536,    2867,    2960,    3033. 

z:  West   Chester,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3180. 

West   Chicago   St.    R.    Co.   v. 

v.   West    Jersey,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1041,     1042. 

V.  Winona,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1722,  2229,  2831. 

v.  Yazoo,      etc.,      R'.      Co.,      p. 

2189. 

V.  Yonkers    R.     Co.,    p.     2225. 

Johnson    &   Co.   v.    Central    Vermont 

R.  Co.,  pp.  366,  689,  691,  902, 
3391. 

Johnson-Brinkman  Comm.  Co.  v. 
Wabash    R.    Co.,   pp.   656,   657. 

Johnson  Coal  Min.  Co.  z\  Hock- 
ing Valley  R.  Co.,  pp.  220,  254, 
255,    257. 

Johnson    R.    Co.,    Abbott   v. 

Johnson,  etc.,  Co.,  Georgia  South- 
ern   R.    Co.    V. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 

Johnston    z'.    Cedar    Rapids,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1866,    2923. 
Central,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1250,    1301,    1306. 

V.  Davis,    p.    581. 


Johnston,    East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R. 
Co.   z: 

Heidenheimer  z: 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

'■.   New    York    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

1888. 

z-  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1835,    1836. 

L'nion    Pac.    R.    Co.    z-. 

Johnstone     v.     Furness,     etc.,     Co., 

p.    3927. 

;■   Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

321.     323,     822,     984,     987,     1036, 
1039,     1074,     1389. 

'■.    Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2766. 

Johnstown     Pass.      R.     Co.,      Bums 

Johnstown,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Durfee 

Joiner,     Wrightsville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Joint    Traffic    Ass'n,    United    States 

Joiiet   St.   R.    Co.   V.   Call,   pp.   2725, 

2760. 
Joiiet,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Pell    v. 
Joliffe,    Steamship    Co.    t'. 
Joline,     Berkelhamer     v. 
' J?rumberger    z'. 

Garber    v. 

Gyle    r. 

Kaliniak   ''. 

Knaisch    '■. 

Reiss     c'. 

Stevenson   ■;■. 

Tolley     f.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    148. 
Tolliffe    z\     Northern     Pac.     R.     C')., 
'    pp.    949,    1388,    1389,    1473,    1480. 
Jolly,    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    z\ 
'-  Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 

'■.   Young,    p.    3865. 

Jonas    z\     Long    Island    R.     Co.,     p. 

2(i90. 
Tonasen    ''.    Keyser,    p.    3954. 
Jonasson    '•.    Weir,    p.    1067. 
Jones,     -Adams    Exp.     Co.    v. 
'- .Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Arnold  v. 

f.   Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1452,     1453,     1470. 

r.   Baltimore,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    4 

App.    D.    C.    158— p.    2366. 

-'.   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    10 

Mackey  (21  D.  C.)  34(.— pp. 
2125,    2255,    2731. 

Bank    z: 

z\   Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     163 

Mass.  245,  39  N.  E.  1019— pp. 
1505,  1506,  1519,  1520,  1521, 
2155. 

z:   Boston,     etc.,    R.      Co..    205 

Mass.  108,  90  N.  E.  1152— pp 
2092,    2093,    2299,    2718. 

Campbell    v. 

z'.   Canal,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2251. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    <■. 

v.   Chicago    City     R.    Co.,     pp. 

1994,    1995. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co  .     42 

Minn.  183,  43  N.  W.  1114— p. 
1878. 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     43 

Minn.  279,  45  N.  W.  444— pp. 
202,    2211. 

z:  Christian,     pp.     1207.     1210. 

z:   Cincinnati,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.  320,  323,  324,  983,  984,  985, 
3349,    3377. 

Cleveland,    etc.    R.    Co.    ?•. 

Commonwealth   v. 

7..   Co-Operative        Ass'n,        pp. 

2034,    2767,    2869. 

z:   Earl,   pp.    1247,    1249 

• z:   Eastern,     etc.,     R.     Co  ,     p. 

1181. 
v.   East     Tennessee,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,  p.   2548. 

Fillo  z: 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccv 


Co. 


Tones  v.  Ft.  Worth,  etc..  R.  Co..  p. 

2666. 

V.  George,   p.    ')3o. 

. V.  Georgia,    etc.,      R 

2254. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    :■• 

. i\   Hough,    p.    3881. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co     r. 

International,    etc.,    K.    <-o-    »' 

V.  Jones,       pp.       1231,        1232 

1239. 

LengsfieUl    t-. 

I.ittlejohn    ;■. 

Louisville,    etc 


147. 


„... ,„..    R.    Co.   r. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


pp. 
726, 


V.   Memphis,    etc..    Packet    Co., 
pp.    3932,    1482,    1483. 

Metropolitan    R.    Co.    r. 

',■.   Minneapolis,    etc.,      R.     Co., 

pp.    733,     742,     821,      825,      1331, 

f.   Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2028. 

Nashville,    etc.,     R.     Co.    r. 

V.  New    Kngland,    etc..    Steam- 
ship  Co.,    p.    878. 

V.  New    York    Cent.,    etc  ,    R 

Co.,  156  N.  Y.  187.  50  N.  E. 
856,  41  L.  R.  A-  490— pp.  1321, 
1883,    1998.    2814. 

Z-.  New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  61  N.  Y.  S.  721,  46  App. 
Div.    470— p.    2144. 

V.  New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

653.  _  „ 

V.  Norwich,    etc.,   Transp.    Co., 

pp.   3159,   3168,'  3170,   3171. 

Pacific    Kxp.    Co.    r. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    t\ 

V.   Pennsylvania    K.      Co 

2089,    3322. 

f.   Pitcher     &     Co.,     pp. 

732,    734,    736,    748,    768,    804      _ 

V.   Priester,      pp.      3U4,      3113, 

3126,     3130,     3131,     3132. 

Railroad    Co.    r. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

-J,   St.     Louis,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

125  Mo.  666,  28  S.  W.  883.  26 
I  R  A.  718,  46  Am.  St.  Rep. 
514— pp.    1580,    2092. 

V.   St.    Louis,   etc..    R.    Co.,    89 

Mo.    App.    653— p.    3340 

■    V.  Sims     (Ala.),     6     Port     138 

—pp.    477,    479. 

V.   Sims,    9    Port.    236,    Zi    Am. 

Dec.   313— p.   3916. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

'■.   Springfield    Tract.    Co..    pp. 

1890,    1902. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Texas,      etc.,       R.      Co.,      p. 

1884. 

V.  United     R.,     etc.,     Co..     pp. 

2160,    2289,    2293,    2333,    2334. 

V.   Voorhees,    pp.    8.    948,    960, 

1003,  1008,  1019,  3114,  3113. 
3123,  3125,  3129,  3152,  3153, 
3165,    3167. 

V.  Wabash,    etc.,    R."   Co.,    pp. 

1547,    2435. 

V.  Walker,    pp.     11,    296,    729, 

733,    750. 

V.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  p.  512. 

J..  Western     W-rmont    R.     Co., 

p.    211. 

Wood    r. 

Jones   Bros.   r.    Southern    R.    Co.,    p. 

25. 
Jones   Cotton   Co.,   Pank  v. 
Gulf   Compress    Co.    v. 

Southern     R.     Co.    v. 

Tones-Lane   Co.   r.    Atlantic,   etc.,   R. 
■    Co      pp.     1060,    1062,    1063,    1064, 

1412,  1418,  1454,  1456,  1470. 
Tonesbora,  etc.,  Exp.  Co.  Eager  i-. 
Tonesboro,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Brenner  f. 
■ Rrookfield,    p.    1593. 

Chapman,   etc..   Land   Co.   z-. 

Chapman,     etc..      Lumber     Co. 


lonesville    Mfg.     Co.     v.      Southern 
"    Railway,    pp.    817,    3292,    3537. 
tonte,     Illinois    Cent.     R.     ^o.    v. 
lop.s.    New   Orleans,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
ioplin,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
'oplin,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Tempfer   v. 
lordan    t'.    .\nurican    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 
■    766,    778. 

I'.irmingham    R.,    etc.,   Co^    f. 

Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co.     f. 

City    Properties    Co.    t. 

J..  Fall   River  R.  Co.,  pp. 

210   236,  239,  240,  277,  287, 
3125,  3126,  3138. 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V. 

V.   Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1439,  1440,  1454,  1456,  1481. 

r.   Hazard,    p.    804. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1776. 

Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 


1743, 
2895! 


Clark  V. 


, .   Patterson,    p.    646. 

V.  Pennsylvania    Co.,     p.      363. 

r.  Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

2700,    2701. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Jordan,   etc.,   Co.   r.   James,   pp.    328, 

333.    367,    517,     1154,     1160,    1207, 

1209,      1210,     1212,      1214,      1222. 

1225.    1229.    1235,    1239,    1248. 
Jorden    z\    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pn.     2658,    2683. 
Jordon    Stock    Food    Co.,    .\tchison, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 
Toseph,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 
■ T-.   Georgia     Tv.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

3307. 

McCormick   f. 

Toseph    Grant,    The. 

Joscy,    San    Antonio,   etc.,  .R.    Co.   v. 

Joshua    Barker,    The. 

Joslin.     Fitzsimmons     f. 

'- Sawyer   <■. 

Ward   V. 

Joslyn   z:    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    p. 

560. 
Joyce    I'.    Los    .\ngeles    R.    Co..    pp. 
2195,    2248,    2688. 

z:  Metropolitan      St.      R.     Co., 

pp.  1769,  2370.  2383,  2391,  2728, 
2875,    2951. 

z:  St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2828. 

f.   Swan,    p.    354. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.    f. 

Tovnes  z'.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  83 
"  Atl.  318,  234  Pa.  321— n.  1203^ 
. z\   Pennsylvania     R.     Co..     235 

Pa.  232,  83  Atl.  1016,  Ann.  Cas. 
19131),  964— pp.  607.  610,  622, 
624,    696. 

f.  Pennsylvania    R.     Co.,     239 

Pa.   93,   86   Atl.   653— p.   871. 

Tudah    z:    Kemp,    p.    513. 

Tudd  z-   Evans,   p.   615. 

■ f.  New    York,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,    117    Fed.    206,    54    C.    C.    A. 

238— pp.   908,   912,   913. 

7'.   New      York,       etc..      Steam- 
ship   Co.,    130    Fed.    991— p.    918. 

Opsahl   z: 

Judge    z:    Columbus    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    1603,    2428. 

z:  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

722. 

Judice   z:     Southern     Pac.    Co.,     pp. 

3046,    3058. 
Judson,    Ilause    &    Son    f. 

7'.  Western    R.    Corp.    (Mass.), 

4  .Allen  520,  81  .\m.  Dec.  718— 
pp.   288,  885,   3259,   3286. 

z:  Western    R.    Corp.    (Mass.), 

6  -Mien  486.  83  .\m.  Dec.  646— 
pp.  958,  1003.  1005,  1006,  1007. 
3347. 

Tump    Co..    Murray    7'. 

lumper,    Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.    z: 

Tune    7'.    Boston,    etc..     R.     Co.,     p. 

1509.  „ 

Jung.    Birmingham    R..    etc.,    Co.    7v 
Junker,    Watkins   7'. 


Junod  z:   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co..   pp 

3711,    3719,    3721. 
Juntzen,    I.,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Jurey,    Indianapolis,    etc.,    K.    ^o.    i. 

Mobile,   etc.,   R.    Co.    7'. 

Jurkiewicz   7'.    Illinois   Cent.    K.   Lo.. 

p.    2268. 
Turvelius,    Keyser   &    Co.    7. 
justis    7'.    Atchinson,     etc.,    K.     V.O., 

p.    1612. 


Kaase    v.    Gulf,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1533,    2482. 
Kahaner'7'.    International   Nav.   Co., 

V-   3986.  „      _ 

Kahn   v.    Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    pp. 

3174,    3188,    3195. 

Louisville,     etc..     R.     Co.     z: 

Merchants'     Despatch    Transp. 

Co.   '••  .  r,     n       . 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co     . . 

Kahnweiler   z:    Buck.    p.    1242. 
Kain   z:    Kansas   City,   etc.,    R.    Co.. 

Kaiser,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    -.■. 

V.  Northern     Pac.     R.     Co,    p. 

2141.  ^ 

Kalamazoo  Hack,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Sootsma,  pp.  101.  106.  190.  192. 
196 

Kalen    z:    United    States     p.    3441. 

Kalina  z:  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1042.    1432. 

Kaliniak  7'.   Joline.   p.   2897. 

Kalis  7.  Detroit  United  Railway, 
pp.    1820,    1952,   2926. 

Kalispell  Lumber  Co..  Great  North- 
ern   R.    Co.    7'. 

Kallaher,     Union     R.,     etc.,     ^o.     .■■ 

Kallberg.       Chicago     Union     Tract. 

Ka^lmJn     7'.      ^'nited      States      Exp 

Co.,  pp.   945,  948,  9^6    986     1006. 

1036,    1066,    1067,    3369,    33/0. 
Kambour   7'.    Boston,    ftc.    Railroad. 

pp     2116.    2120,    2254.    2361.    2'503. 
Kanawha    Dispatch,    Courteen    7. 
Kanawha,    etc..    R..    Co..    Columbus 

Iron,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

floylman   7'. 

Norvell  7'. 

Kane,    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

Barrow    Steamship   Co.    7'. 

r.  Cicero,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  PP- 

1502.  1519,  1538. 

Cooper    7'. 

Schwabacher  z: 

z:  State,    pp.    3588,    3389. 

United  States  r.  „      -i 

Kankakee     Elect.     R.     Co.,     Hamil- 
ton    7'.  .  T1        1       /-  -. 

Kansas.   American    Book   Co.    •.. 

Asbell   7-. 

Mugler   7'. 

Smilev     7'. 

The. 

Thomas  7'. 

Kansas   City.   Clark   7j. 

Kansas    City    Cable    R.    Co.,    Carter 


Ridenhour   z: 

Sharp    7-. 

Sweeney    7'. 

Weber   7'.  „.,, 

Kansas    City    Distillery     Co.,      lUl- 

Kantas'city     Elev.     R.     Co..    Raw- 
son    7'. 

Stevens    7'. 

Van    N'ranken   7'. 

Kansas    City    Southern    R.    <-o.    z: 

Embry.   p.    3399. 
Kansas    City    Stock-yards    Co..    «-ot- 

Kan"ls'city    St.    R.    Co      Ross   r. 
Kansas   Citv    Termiral    R.   Co.,   Ka« 

Vallev    Drainage    Dist.   7'. 
Kansas   Citv    Transfer   Co.    z:    Neis- 

wanger.   pp.   894.   899  _ 

Kansas   City.   etc..   R.   Co..   Blake   c. 

Brown   7-. 


CCVI 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


Co.,    Bayles 
p.    221. 


Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  Carter  :•. 

Cherry   f. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Cooke   T. 

Cross  f. 

Donovan  z: 

Haas   f. 

f.  Heard,    p.    1388. 

-•.  Heigdon,    pp.    3111,    3122. 

f.  Holland,   p.    1381. 

. Jasper    Trust    Co.    f. 

Kain    f. 

Kirkpatrick    -■. 

f.  Lilly,    pp.    272,    878. 

McDonald  ;■. 

■:   McGahey,     pp.     3115,     3148, 

3154,    3160.    3168,    3171,    3174. 

Marshall,    etc..    Grain    Co.    v. 

Marshall,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

f.  Mayes,    p.    2264. 

-•.   Morrison,      pp.      587,      689, 

900. 

O'Donnell   r. 

Owens    f. 

f.  Pace,    p.    1386. 

Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Pat- 
ten,  pp.   727,   3168,  3174. 

Patterson   v. 

Rivers    f. 

St.    Clair   v. 

Seawell    z: 

z:   Sharp,    pp.    3345,    3381. 

f.   Simpson,      pp.      948,      1074, 

1397,    1400. 

f.   Spann.    p.    804. 

■:•.  VVilliford,    p.    2207. 

Yarnell    v. 

Kansas    Natural     Gas    Co.    v.     Has- 
kell,   p.    3533. 
-; —  West    f. 
Kansas   Pac.    R 

!•'.   Bayles, 

J-.   Cutter,    p.    3070 

Goggin   r. 

z:  Kessler,    p.    3093. 

f.   Kunkel,     p.     2568. 

f.   McCann,    p.    700. 

z:  Miller,   p.   2681. 

f.  Montelle,    p.    3191. 

V.  Nichols,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    727, 

732,    740,    748,    1267. 

z:  Remolds,      8      Kan.      623— 

pp.   727,   740,    1036,    1362. 

z:  Reynolds,     17     Kan.     251  — 

pp.   945,    976. 

z:   Salmon,     pp.     1580,     1581. 

T.   Searle,    p.    811. 

Travers  z'. 

Kansas    Pac.    Railway,    Rice    v. 
Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Albers 

Comm.   Co..   79   Kan.   59,   99   Pac. 

819— pp.    1195,    1196,    1201. 

f.   -Albers       Comm.      Co.,      pp. 

1195,     3738,      3739,      3745,      3746, 
3747,    3756,    3766,    3853. 

.American,    etc.,    Timber   Co.    v. 

z:  Ayers,       pp.       1307,        1412, 

1413,    1420. 

z:  Barnett,    pp.    285,    288,    726, 

732,     748,     1357,     1482. 

Barth    f. 

Beadle   z: 

z:   Belknap,    p.    2749. 

z:   Berry,     pp.     1761,     2520. 

Blake   z. 

z:   Board,   p.   3423. 

Belles  V. 

Bowers   z'. 

Brown    z: 

z:   Butler,    p.     2604. 

z:   Carl,    91     Ark.     97,     121     S. 

W.    932— pp.    950,     3332,    3396. 

z:  Carl,   227   U.    S.   639,   33    S. 

Ct.    391— pp.    3752,    3762. 

Cherry  v. 

Council   Bluffs  v. 

Curry   z'. 

V.  Curry,    p.    3041. 

v.   Dalton,    p.    3049. 

Davis   J'. 

V.  Davis,       pp.       1919,      2120, 

2121,   2233,   2380,  2676,   2689. 

Dimmitt    v. 


Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Domugh, 
pp.  2090,  2114,  2126,  2250,  23>I, 
2966. 

f.    Enibry,    p.     3313. 

Erwin    z: 

v.   File,  p.   3057. 

1  leming    ■:•. 

I'.   Florence,    p.    2772. 

z:   Foster,      pp.      2416,       2459, 

2462,    2495,    2572,    3080,    3083. 

Frazier    v. 

Gallegly    z: 

Hanley  x'. 

Harkness  v. 

Hipsley   v. 

z.   Holaen,    pp.    2472,    2478. 

Kellerman   f. 

Kellerman    &    Son    '■. 

z\   Kirksey,     p.    2502. 

V.   Little,     pp.     1862,     3085. 

Live   Stock  Co.  v. 

r.   Love,     23     Okla.    224,      100 

Pac.    22— pp.    127,    128. 

Marshall   v. 

Marshall,     etc.,     Grain     Co.     v. 

Martindale   v. 

'•.    Matthews,     pp.     2282,     2359, 

2361,  2380,  2585,  2586,  2612, 
2657,    2859. 

z:   Morrison,     pp.     3127,     3128, 

3130,     31ji.    3132. 

One    Hundred    and    One    Live 

Stock    Co.    z: 

Patterson    7\ 

7'.   Railroad    Comm.,    p.     131. 

—  ?■.   Riley,     pp.     2461,     2463. 

—  Rivers    '•. 

—  v.   Rodchaugh,    pp.    3162,    3163. 

—  V.  Rosebrook-Tosey  Grain 
Co.,    pp.    276,    331,    796,    814. 

—  St.    Clair    V. 

—  z:   Sanders,  pp.  2000,  2636. 

—  '■.  Scott,  p.  2058. 

—  z\  Skinner,  pp.  3113,  3114, 
3115,  3116,  3117,  3119. 

—  V.   Smith,  p.  2740. 

—  V.   State,  pp.  178,  3121. 

—  z:  Stoner,  1  C.  C.  .A.  231,  49 
Fed.  209— pp.  2009.  2084,  2975. 

—  z'.  Stoner,  2  C.  C.  A.  437,  51 
Fed.  649,  52  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
R.  Cas.  462— p.  2010. 

—  Straus    -'. 

—  v.  Thomas,    p.    3174. 
— ■  z.  Tonn,       pp.       1139 


Kates  V.   Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co., 

pp.    3215,    3217,    3220,    3221,    3223, 

3224,    3231,    3237. 
Kates    Transfer,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Klas- 

sen,  pp.  834,  856,  857,  861. 
Katz,  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Katzenbach,     Chicago,    etc.,    K.     Co. 


Katzenbcrger 

Co.   r. 
Kauffman 
Kauffman 

R.    Co. 
Kaufman 


Louisville,     etc.,     R. 


■.    Robey,    p.    420. 
&     Co.,     Louisville 


etc., 
Rail- 


1204. 


1198, 
3771, 


z.  L'nited      States,      pp. 

3772,    3773,    3826,  3833. 

»■.   Washington,    p.    3176. 

i:  Watson,      pp.      2085,      2131, 

2324. 

z'.  West,    p.    1314. 

z:  White,    p.    2190. 

z:  Worthington,        pp.         1702, 

1867,     1874,     1880,     2264,     2356, 
2360. 

z:   Young,    pp.    2618,    2744. 

Kantner    v.    Philadelphia,      etc.,     K. 

Co.,   p.  2858. 
Kaplan     v.    Midland     R.     Terminal 

Co.,    p.    1330. 
Kaplowitz    ''.      Interborough      Rapid 

Transit   Co.,   p.    1786. 
Kapp,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Karnes  v.    American   Fire   Ins.    Co., 

p.    1119. 
Karr      z'.      Milwaukee      Light,      etc., 

Co.,    pp.    1515,    2134,    2135,    2137, 

2138,    2141,    2326,    2883. 
Karrer,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Kaskaskia    Bridge    Co.    v.    Shannon, 

p.    1172. 
Kaskcll,    North    Baltimore    Pass.    R. 

Co.  V. 
Kaspers,    North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co. 

North   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Kassen,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Railroad    Co,    z: 

Kates  :•.  .Atlanta  Baggage,  etc., 
Co.,  pp.  99,  100.  190,  192,  193, 
220,  221,   257,    1768. 

-'.  Atlanta,    etc..    Cab    Co.,    pp. 

3110,    3140. 


'.     Seaboard,     etc., 
way,    pp.   486,    519. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    ;■. 

Kaul     Lumber    Co.,     Lawrence    v. 
Kavanaugh,    Central,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v- 
Kavanaugh    &    Co.    z.    Southern     R. 

Co.,     pp.     939,      967,      981,      3333, 

3523. 
Kaw      Valley      Drainage       Dist.     v. 

Kansas    City   Terminal    R.    Co.,    p. 

3519. 
Kay   z.   Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co.,    57 

N.     E.    751,    163    N.    V.    447— pp. 

2679,    2731. 

?•.   Metropolitan      St.     R.      Co., 

51    N.    Y.    S.    724,    29    .\pp.    Div. 
466— p.    2697. 

Kean    z.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 
2121. 

z.   West   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  2186. 

Kearney  z.     Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
pp.  2338,  2884. 

z'.   Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1743,      1755,     1890,      1928,      2114, 
2226,    2245,    2315,    2825. 

Kearney    Mill,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Union 

Pac.   R.   Co.,   p.    1224. 
Kearns,    Delta    Bag    Co.    v. 
Keary,     Commonwealth    v. 
Keating    z.     Detroit,      etc.,    R.      Co., 

pp.    1834,    1841,    1986,    2757,    2859. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    t'. 

z'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

49    N.    Y.    673— p.    1917. 

z.   New    York,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(N.     Y.),     3     Lans    469— p.     2130. 

Keator    z.    Scranton    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

1517. 
Kebbe      7'.      Connecticut      Co.,       pp. 

1682,     1741,      1951,      1980,      2168, 

2881,     2888. 
Kechnie,    Powell   v. 
Keck    Z'.    Calumet,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2777. 
Keckevoet    v.    Dubuque,    p.    3586. 
Keedy,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 
Keefe,   z.    Boston,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1767,    1779,    1798,     2271,     2873. 

r.  Lexington,   etc.,    St.   R.    Co., 

pp.    77,   79. 

Keefer,    Louisville,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Keegan,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Third      Ave.      R.      Co.,      p. 

2896. 

Keel,    Rome    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Keeler   v.    Goodwin,    p._  1208. 

Southern    Etp.    Co.    t'. 

Keeley    v.    Bostoi.,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

1635,    2453. 

V.   City     Elect.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

1682,    1892,    2935. 

Keeling,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Keen   v.   Detroit   Elect.    Railway,   pp. 
2462,    2463,    2572. 

z:   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

2042,    2048. 

Keenan,    Walker   v. 
Keene   '•.    Lizardi,   pp.    2038,   2056. 
Keener,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v. 
Keeney    v.    Grand    Trunk     R.      Co., 
47    N.    Y.    525- p.    1385. 

z.   Grand    Trunk    R'.    Co.     (N. 

Y.),    59    Barb.    104— p.    222. 

Keeny,    Atlanta    Consol.    St.    R.    Co. 

Atlantic  Consol.   St.   R.   Co.  v. 

Keep    z.    Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2073,    2080. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCVlI 


Keep  -vlfg.   Co.   v.   Moore,   pp.    1164, 

Il(>7,    1220,    1221. 
Kceshan   -■.    Elgin,    etc..   Tract.    Co., 

pp.    2415,    2(.24. 
Kcc'tcr   I'.    Wilmington,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pi).    154,   612. 
Kciauver    ?•.    Philadelphia,    etc,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2668. 
Kehn,    Mc-rchants'    Despatch   Transp. 

Co.    f. 
Kehrcr    :■.    Stewart,    pp.    3577.    3593. 
Keifner    ;■.    Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1511,    1512,    1>92,   2134,   2137, 

2138,    2325. 
Keiter,    Indiana    Union    Tract.    Co. 

Union    Tract.    Co.    '•. 

Keith,   Covington    Stockyards   Co.   v. 

livansviile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Frank   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  New     York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    3123,    3142,    3143.    3184.    3189. 

Keitt.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Kelliain    v.     Steamship      Kensington, 

p.    1037. 
Kellar.    Sprowl    -'. 
Keller    -■.    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.  3328. 

Hal!  V. 

v.   Ilestonville,      etc.,      R,      Co., 

p.     1833. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

f.   Siou.x,     etc.,     1\.     Co.,     pp. 

1895,    1899. 

V.  Wove  Realty  Co.,  pp.   2740, 

2837. 

Kellerman   r.    Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   426,  969,  970,  986,  989,   1061, 

10(.2,    1399. 
Kellerman    &    Son    -'.    Kansas,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    978,    1012. 
Kelley     ;•.     15oston     Elev.     R.     Co., 

pp.  2026,  2027,  2730. 

f.    Howker,  pp.   306,   339,    1144, 

3884. 

•P>rooklyn   St.   R.    Co.   f. 

Cunard  Steamship  Co.  7\ 

v.  Cunard    Steamsliip    Co.,    p. 

3928. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  Grand    Trunk,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.     2102.     2667.     2640. 

V.   Manhattan    R.    Co.,   p    1713. 

Kellogg.    Ackley   r. 

f.   Boston,     etc..     Railroad,     p. 

2880. 

V.   Smith,    p.    2239. 

z'.   Suffolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

149.   232. 

Kellow  V.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1715,  1720,  1722,  1999,  2011, 
2183. 

Kelly   -.:   Adams   Exp.   Co.,   p.    1269. 

f.   Benedict,    pp.    806,    807. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    -■. 

7\  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p. 

2684. 

Cunard    Steamship    Co.    f. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Farlow  v. 

First   Nat.    Bank  v. 

V.  Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2263. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

V.   .ualott,    pp.    1578.    2105. 

V.  New     York     Citv     R.     Co., 

pp.     1645.     1646.     1668.' 

"'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1687,    1833,    2794. 

Pullman   Co.   ■:•. 

f.  Railway      Co.,      pp.      2519. 

2524. 

?'.   Southern    Railway,    pp.    819. 

1072.   1111,    1116. 

7'.   Southern,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

2737. 

Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Torrey    '•. 

Transfer    Co.    ?■. 

W.    &    A.    R.    Co.    f. 

Kelm,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    i'. 


Kelsey.    Cincinnati    St.    R.    Co.   v. 

Lake   Shore,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.   Michigan    Cent.    R.   Co.,   pp. 

1977,    2447. 

Kember    f.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

1070. 
Kemendo     i'.     Fruit     Dispatch     Co., 

pp.     (>92,    820,     826,     33i3,     3661, 

3662,    3663. 
Kemp,   Baltimore   City   Pass.    R.   Co. 

V. 

V.  Coughtry,    p.    728. 

V.   Falk,    p.     1224. 

Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

— —   Tudah    T. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  2306. 

Kempf.    Hus    -'. 

Kempton,    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Kendall.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Marshall,    p.    1240. 

Kendall,    etc..    Co..    Jean    Wcbre    ■:■. 
Kendrick,     Missouri,     etc.,     K.     Co. 

Southern    R.    Co.   v. 

Staub   '•. 

Kennard,    IloIIaday    z: 

New    Jersey    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   New    Jersey,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.   2113. 

Kennard  Glass,  etc.,  Co.,  Pennsyl- 
vania  Co.   '■. 

■ Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

Kennebec     Steamboat     Co.,     Rogers 

Kennedy  v.  Birmingham  R.,  etc., 
Co.,    pp.    2466,    2469. 

r.  Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  1683,  1719,  1720,  1756,  1757, 
2657. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Columbus,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Dodge,    p.    527. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

Hays    f. 

Indianapolis,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 

f.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.     2594.     2654. 

Mississippi    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 

Moore    f. 

7'.   Morgan,    p.    2587. 

7'.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2021.    2789. 

Robertson    &    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Roman,    p.    891. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2280, 

2284. 

— —  W^adley     Southern     R.     Co.    v. 
Kennedy    Bros.    7'.    Mobile,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    895.    900. 
Kennedv.    etc..    R.    Co.    7'.    Buckler, 

p.   2318. 
Kennelly,   West   Chicago   St.   R.   Co. 

Kenney  7'.  New  York,  etc.,  K.  Co., 
125  N.  Y.  422,  26  N.  E.  626— 
pp.     1579,    1580,    2105. 

7'.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

54  Hun  143,  7  N.  Y.  S.  225. 
26  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  636— pp.  2104. 
2105. 

Kennon  7'.  Gilmer,  S  Mont.  257, 
5  Pac.  847.  51  Am.  Rep.  45— 
pp.    1684.    1732.    1737. 

7'.  Gilmer,    131    U.    S.    22,    33 

L.  Ed.  110.  9  S.  Ct.  696— pp. 
1837.   2742.    3063. 

Kenny  Co.   7.   .Atlanta,   etc.,  R.   Co., 
_  pp.    525.    544.    912. 
Kensington.    The. 
Kent.     Baltimore,     etc..     R.     Co.    7'. 

7'.   Baltimore.      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1619.    1631.    1633.    1636.    3165. 

Canal    Boat    Montgomery    7'. 

7".  Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    pp. 

653,    1321. 

7'.   Lincoln,    p.    2737. 

-■.   Mason,    p.    2479. 

7'.  Midland    R.     Co.,    p.    3183. 


Kent,    Silver    v. 

7'.  Wadley,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

262. 

Kcntle,    International,    etc.,    R'.    Co. 

t'. 
Kentucky,    .\dams    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Covington,    etc.,    Bridge   Co.    :■. 

Crutcher    7'. 

Henderson    Bridge    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc..    Ferry    Co.    f. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

Kentucky    Cent.    R.    Co.    z:    Diddle, 

pp.    3012,    3049. 

V.   Dills,   pp.   2113,   2116,   3066. 

3068,  3069. 

V.   Fern,  p.  3012. 

Gerrciss,   pp.   2080,   2667. 

Z'.  Jacoby,    p.    2201. 

V.  McMurtry,    pp.    2580,    2638, 

3073. 

. Parks   7'. 

z:  Thomas,      pp.      1953,      1958. 

2210,    2211. 

Kentucky    Hotel    Co.    z\    Camp,    pp. 

1739.    1750.    1978,    2983. 
Kentucky      Wagon      ^'^-      Co.      7'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    700. 

7'.  Ohio,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  pp.    114. 

700.     701.     703,     704.     705,     70(,, 
707,   709,  714,   716.  717. 

Kentucky,  etc..  Bridge  Co.  z: 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  5, 
6.  3650.  3657.  3659.  3718.  3738, 
3787,    3789.    3795. 

7'.   McKinney,    pp.    1788,    234  J. 

2617. 

z:   Quinkert.  pp.  1720,  1877. 

1970.  1995,  2673,  2828. 

Kentucky,  etc..  Fire  Ins.  Co.  z: 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3265. 
3286. 

Kentuckv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Shrader. 
p.  2820. 

Smoot    7'. 

Kenwood    Bridge    Co.,    Pennsylvania 

Co.      7'. 

Keokuk  7'.  Keokuk  Northern  Line 
Packet    Co.,    p.    3586. 

Packet    Co.    7'. 

■  The. 

Keokuk  Northern  Line  Packet  Co., 
Keokuk  7'. 

7'.   True.   p.   2117. 

Williams    f. 

Keokuk  Packet  Co.  7'.  Henry,  pp. 
1543,    2512.    2541. 

Keokuk,  etc._.  Bridge  Co.  :•.  Illi- 
nois,   p.    3588. 

Keokuk,    etc..    Packet    Co.,    Loeffler 

—11  7-.  True.    p.    1740. 

Yerkes    7'. 

Keokuk,  etc..  K.  Co.,  Dittman,  itc. 
Shoe    Co.   7'. 

7'.  Missouri,   p.    3484. 

Kepper,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Kerl,   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.   7'. 
Kermit,    Van    Horn    7'. 

Kermon   z:   Gilmer,    pp.   2281,   2_S6. 

2287,    2291. 
Kern,    Cincinnati,    etc..    R.    Co.    7. 
Kerr.   Ewart  :■. 

7'.  Georgia    R.    Co..    p.    330/. 

z:  Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    pp. 

268.   272.   3136. 

Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v. 

McConnochie   7'. 

7'.   Norman,    pp.    820.    828. 

^—  7.   Schwaner,     pp.    3969,     3970, 

3971. 
Kerrigan   z\    Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.. 

p.    3374. 
Kerrv    7'.     Pacific     Marine    Co.,    p. 

4040. 
Kessenger   z:    Fitzgerald,    p.    38j6. 
Kessler  7.   First   Nati   Bank,  p.  3366. 

Kansas    Pac    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   New     York     Cent.     R.     Co. 

pp.   3175.   3181. 

7'.  New     York,     etc.,     R      Co.. 

p.    3182. 

Ketchani,     Cleveland,    etc..     R.     Lo. 


CCVIIl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ketcham,  Terre   Haute,  etc.,  R.   Co. 

Ketcheson    r.     Southern     Pac.     Co., 

pp.     1630,     1634,    2441. 
Ketchum     f.     American     Merchants 

Union     Exp.     Co.,     pp.     821,     823, 

1007. 

f.  New   York   City   R.    Co.,    p. 

1648. 

New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Ketrow.    Toledo    R.,    etc.,    Co.   f. 

Kcttell,    Sutton   r. 

Kettenhofen  r.  Globe  Transfer,  etc, 

Co..    pp.    10,   846. 
Kevekordes,     Evansville,       etc.,       R. 

Co.   !■. 
Key.   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   z: 
Keves.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    f. 
Keves-Marshall    Bros.    Livery   Co.   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    80     S. 

W.    53,    105    Mo.    App.    556 — pp. 

1267,    1477. 

%:  St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    113 

Mo.    App.    144,    87    S.    W.    553— 
p.    1407. 

Keys,    Belfast,   etc.,   R.   Co.   t: 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

N'andalia   R.    Co.   v. 

Keyser   f.    Ilarbeck,    p.    3879. 

Hawkhurst     Steamship     Co.     f- 

Jonasen     v. 

Schmidt    z: 

Skantze    v. 

Sorensen  f. 

Wold    V. 

Wood    r. 

Keyser     &     Co.     v.     Jurvelius,     pp. 

3959,   3967. 
Keystone,   The. 
Keystone   Lumber   Co.,    Yazoo,   etc., 

K.    Co.    V. 
Kevstone    Lumber    Yard    v.    Yazoo. 

e'tc,     R.     Co.,     94     Miss.     192,     47 

So.   803— p.    170. 

f.  Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     97 

Miss.    433,    53    So.    8— p.    613. 

Kibby    f.     Michigan    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.   3331,  3355. 
Kibler   v.    Southern    Railroad,    64    S. 

C.   242,   41    S.   E.   977— p.   2571. 

V.  Southern     Railway,     62     S. 

C.    252,    40    S.    E.    556— pp.    69, 
3090,    3091. 

Kichler,  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kickler,  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kidd,    Alabama    &    T.    R.     R.     Co. 

Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Hartwell    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

-.'.   Pearson,     pp.      3418,      3419, 

3420,    3421,    3424,    3440,    3539. 

Kidder     v.     Fitchburg     R'.     Co.,     p. 

109. 
Kiefer,    Atlantic   City  R.    Co.   i: 

I'.   Brooklyn     Heights     R.     Co., 

pp.  2172,  2187,  2797. 

Kiff   V.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
3377,    3380. 

V.  Old    Colony,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    574,    575,    579. 

Kight   V.    Metropolitan    R.  Co.,    pp. 
2129,   2887. 

V.  Wrightsville,     etc.,  R.     Co., 

pp.    889,    894,    898,    900,  910. 

Kilberry,    St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

Ki'lduff  !•.   Boston   Elevated  R.   Co., 

p.    1581. 
Kiley   v.    Chicago   City   R.    Co.,    189 

111.    384,    59    N.    E.    794,    52    L. 

R.   A.   626,   82    Am.    St.   Rep.   460 

—pp.    2462,    2487,    2572,    3081. 

V.  Chicago     City     R.     Co.,     90 

111    App.      275— pp.      2459,     3081, 
3090. 

Kilgo,     International,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Kilgore,   McGregor   &   Co.   v. 

Pennsylvania   R.    Co.   v. 

Killam    v.    Wellcsley,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2689,    2827. 
Killebrew,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Killian,    Commonwealth    v. 


Killian  r.   Georgia  R.,  etc.,   Co.,  pp. 

1S84,      1895,      1896,     2676,      2750, 

2753,    2909. 
Killmer  z:   New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.     1135,    1179,     1193. 
Killmeyer   z:    Wheeling    Tract.    Co., 

pp.    2126,   2127. 
Kilpatrick   z:    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

p.    2258. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Kimbal,     United     States    z\ 
Kimball    z:    American    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

1333. 

County    of   Mobile   v. 

Forsythe  v. 

z:   Pa'lmer,    p.    2214. 

f.  Rutland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

4  211,  243,  741,  797,  868,  946, 
1003,    1004,    1008,    1368. 

The. 

•:■.   Tucker,    p.    3866. 

-.;.  Western    R.    Co.,    p.    780. 

Kimball    Co.,    Kirk   z: 

Kimball  Steamship  Co.,  Ames  Mer- 
cantile   Co.    V. 

In    re. 

Wcisshaar  z'. 

Kimber     z:     Metropolitan,     etc.,     K'. 

Co.,    p.    2152. 

State    z: 

Kimble,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Kimbro,     Little     Rock     Tract.,     etc., 

Co.    z: 
Kimbrough,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Kime  z\  Southern  R.  Co.,  69  S. 
E.  264,  153  N.  C.  398— pp.  1412, 
1413,    1426. 

z:   Southern    R.     Co.,     156    N. 

C.  451,  72  S.  E.  485— pp.  1426, 
1482. 

V.  Southern     R.    Co.,     160    N. 

C.  457,  76  S.  E.  509,  43  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  617— pp.  948,  960, 
1005,    1426,    3303,    3372. 

Kimic  z\  San  Jose-Los  Gatos,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  pp.  2083,  2700,  2809, 
2895. 

Kinchen,     Southern     R.     Co.     v. 

Kindellan  -■.  Mt.  Washington  R. 
Co.,   p.    1582. 

King,   Adams    Exp.    Co.   z\ 

z:  Atlantic,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

161,    162,    163. 

Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

z\  Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1525. 

Chesapeake,    etc.    R.    Co.    z'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

Dean   v. 

z:   De    Land,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

538,    931. 

•  East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Harrington    z\ 

z:  Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2075. 

Illinois,   etc.,    R.    Co.    7'.^ 

r.   Macon,     'etc.,     R.i     Co..     p. 

3294. 

v.  Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

213,    432. 

Miles    V. 

Miller   v. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\   Nassau     Elect.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1645. 

v.  New         Brunswick,         etc  , 

Steamboat  Co.,  pp.  896,   901,   911. 

V.  Ohio,   etc..   R.   Co.,   p.   2023. 

v.   People's    Bank,    p.    2641. 

Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 

V.   Richards,    pp.    547,    1158. 

V.   Shepherd,    p.    734. 

Z'.   Sherwood,    p.    851. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2050, 

2566,    2578,    2831, 

Steamboat    Lynx    z'. 

■ bteamboat    New    World    z\ 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Wiggins    z: 


King    z\    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    2586,    2587,    2588. 

f.   Woodbridge,    pp.     321,     333, 

1016. 

z:  Woodridge,    p.    3880. 

z\  Yazoo,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p 

23i)6. 

King    County    v.    Northern    Pac.    R 

Co.,    p.    3554. 
King    Lumber,    etc..     Co.    z\    Atlan 

tic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    20,    3488. 
Kingman,     Louisville,     etc.,     K.     Co 

z\   Lvnn,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.   2704 

Kingman  '&     Co.     z\     Denison,     pp 

1227.    1229. 
Kingsbury,     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co. 

Z'. 

•  Shoemaker    z\ 

Kings    County,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Voor- 

bees   ?■. 
Kingsley   z\    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2794. 

Wabash    R.    Co.    z: 

King's     Mountain     R.     Co.,      Smith 

Kingston    >'.     Fort    Wayne,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    70    N.    W.    315.    112    Mich. 

40,   40    L.    R.   A.    131— p.    2120. 
,..   Fort     Wayne,     etc.,    R.     Co. 

(Mich.),   74   N.   W.    230— p.   2120. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Kingston    City    R.    Co.,    Smith    -■. 
Kingwood   Coal   Co.,   West   Virginia. 

etc.,    K.    Co.    z\ 
Kinloch   z'.    Craig,    p.    1216. 
Kinnavey     r.   Terminal   R.   Ass'n,    p. 

3710. 
Kinnebrew,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Kinner  -■.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

p.    1618. 
Kinney   z:   Central    R.   Co.,   32   N.    T. 

L.     407,     90     Am.     Dec.     675— pp. 

948,    2095. 
■ z'.  Central    R.    Co.,    34    N.    J. 

L.   513,   3   .\m.   Rep.   265— p.   2095. 

z\  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2033. 

O'Bryan   t'. 

7'.  Yazoo,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

1867. 

Yonge    Z-. 

Kinnick    z\     Chicago,     etc.,     ^;..     Co., 

pp.     1281,     1314. 
Kinsley,     Cleveland,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

?■.   Lake     Shore,    etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    3145,    3147,    3225,    3226,    3234. 

Pendleton   z\ 

Kinyoun     ?'.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,  pp.  1890,  1904,  2656. 
Kirby   z\    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    767, 

815,  818,  821,  945,  986. 
•  Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    242 

111.  418,  90  N.  E.  252— pp.  421. 
1298,  1315,  1393,  1468,  3708. 
3758. 

7'.   Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,     146 

111.    App.    31— p.     1033. 

7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1884,    2598. 

7'.   L'nion      Pac.      R.      Co.,      p. 

1617. 

Kirchner     7'.     Detroit     City     R.     Co., 
pp.    1889,    2396,    2995. 

7'.  Oil    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2167,     2174. 

Kird  V.    New   Orleans,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    2336,    2680. 
Kirk,    American    Cotton    Oil    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

896,    898. 

z:   Folsom,    pp.    818,    821,    825, 

1037,    1457. 

7'.   Kimball    Co.,    p.    3373. 

7'.   Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    pp.    191, 

1542       1644      2122,     2422,     2425. 
2466,'    2472,    2473,    2484. 

7'.  State   Board,    p.    3525. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCIX 


Kirkbridc,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Salter    v. 

Kirkendall    v.    Union    Pac.    R'.    Co., 

pp.    2097,   2098,   2673,   2696. 
Kirkham,    Missouri,    (.'tc.,    R.    Co.    v 
Kirkland    v.    Charleston,    etc..    Rail 

way.    pp.    2466,    2494,    2850. 

V.   Dinsmore,      pp.      321,      325 

931,   984,   987,   988,   990. 

f.  Texas,     etc.,     R.        Co.,     p 

1721. 

Kirkman   v.    Bowman,   |)p.    304,   305 

306,    307.    337. 

;■.  Shawcross,   p.   615. 

Kirkpatrick     v.     Kansas     City,     etc. 

R.    Co.,    pp.    365,    487,    494. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co 

109    S.    W.     682,    211     Mo.    68— 
pp.     1741,    2659. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co. 

143    S.    W.    865,     161     Mo.    App 
515— pp.    1558,   2671. 

Monteith    v. 

Kirksey,    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.^ 
Kirkwood.    Marquette,    etc.,    R.    Co 

V. 

Robinson    <•. 

Kirst    T'.      Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.    822,    824. 
Kirtland   v.    Hotchkiss,    p.    3549. 

V.  Montgomery,    pp.    726,    770 

Kiser    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

1468. 

Doyle   V. 

Kiser   Co.    v.    Central,    etc.,    R'.    Co. 

p.    3820. 
Kissane    v.     Detroit,    etc..    Railway 

p.    80. 
Kissenger    v.     Fitzgerald,     pp.     948 

1356,   3520. 
Kitchell   V.    \'anadar,    p.    481. 
Kitchen,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -• 

V.   Spear,      pp.       1219,        1220, 

1229.    1232.    1233. 

Kitt,    El    Paso    Elect.    K.    Co.    v. 
—, —  El    Paso,   etc..   R'.    Co.   r. 
Kizer    r.    Texarkana,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.   3694. 
Klair  v.    Philadelphia,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.     724,     732.     1293,     1339,     1350, 

1353.     1387,     1432,       1433,     1436, 

1437.    1451.    1475.    3395. 

-■.   Wilmington    Steamboat    Co., 

pp.   727,   730,   732,   748.   765.   1331. 
3901. 

Klass    V.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co  . 

p.    2649. 
Klass    Comm.    Co.     v.     Wabash     R. 

Co..  pp.   537,   539.   1097. 
Klassen.    Kates    Transfer,    etc..    Co. 

V. 

Klauber  t'.   American  Exp.   Co..   pp. 

729.   734.   735,   736,  745,  750.  753. 
_  756.    757. 

Kleespies.    Baltimore,  etc..    R.    Co. 

V. 

Kleffmann    v.    Dry    Dock,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    pp.    2164,   2321,   2860. 
Kleiber    t'.     People's     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1981,    2009,    2014,    2128,    2261. 
Klein,    Anacostia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.   Hamburg,    etc..    Packet    Co., 

p.   3169. 

-  J'.  Interurban      St.    R.      Co.,      p. 
2818. 

Jewett   V. 

V.   Tewett,    pp.    2089,  2137. 

Mobile,    etc..    R.    Co.  v. 

Klenk  v.    Oregon,   etc..    R.  Co.,    pp. 

2531.    3021. 
Klentschy,    Indianapolis,   etc.,    Co.   v. 
Klepper.    Texas,    etc..    R'.    Co.    v. 
Kleszewski     v.     Chicago.      etc..     R. 

Co..   pp.    2002.    2003. 
Kleven    v.    Great    Northern    R.    Co.. 

Xi.    3099. 
Klien   v.    Fischer,    p.    1226. 
Kline    r.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co.    27 

Cal.  400.  99  Am.  Dec.  282— pp. 

2411,  2412,  2533. 

V.   Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  39 

Cal.  587— p.  2533. 

1  Car — n 


Kline  v.  Milwaukee  Elect.  R.,  etc. 
Co.,  pp.  1711,  2022,  2023.  2028 
2786. 

V.   Santa  Barbara  Consol.  R 

Co.,  p.  1747. 

Klinger    v.     L'nited     Tract.     Co.,     p 

2694. 
Klitch,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Klunk    V.    Hocking    V'alley    R.    Co. 

p.    816. 
Klyman,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r 
Knaisch    :•.    Joline,    pp.    1706.    2800 
Knapp,   Hooker  -■. 

?•.   Lake     Shore,    etc..     R.     Co. 

p.   3817; 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p 

2784. 

Union    Steamboat    Co.   v. 

V.  Wells,    Fargo     &    Co.,     pp 

321,    409. 

Knapp,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McCaffrey,  p 
1153. 

Knecht  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R'.  Co., 
p.    1616. 

Knell  V.  L'nited  States,  etc.. 
Steamship  Co.,   p.    1007. 

Knepfle  v.  Cleveland,  etc..  Rail- 
way, p.    1972. 

Kniceley  v.  West  X'irginia  Mid.  R. 
Co..    p.    1582. 

Knieriem  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    pp.    3125.    3142.    3145. 

Knight.    Central,   etc..    R.    Co.   v. 

Georgia,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Pacific   Coast   Stage   Co..    p 

2795. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Pontchartrain      R.     Co..      p 

2150. 

V.  Portland,    etc..    R.    Co..    pp 

1531.      1746,      1794,     3181,     3316 
3317,   3320. 

V.   Providence,     etc.,     R.      Co. 

pp.    1142.    1143.    1144,    1147,    1154 
U6I.    3289.    3308. 

V.  Quincy.     etc..    R.    Co..    pp 

209.   249. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    -•. 

V.   St.    Louis,   etc..    R'.   Co..   pp 

487.   722. 

V.   Southern  Railway,        pp 

847,    897,   899,   905,   907. 

Knight    Co.,    United    States    v. 
Knight   &   Co.    v.    Southern   Pac.    R 

Co..  p.   66. 
Knoll r    V.      Pacific    Creosoting     Co. 

pp.    3904,    3905,    3910. 
Knopf    <'.    Richmond,    etc..    R.    Co. 

pp.    1642.    2852. 
Knorr  v.   Philadelphia,   etc..   R.   Co. 

p.   756. 
Knott,    Botany    Worsted    Mills    -■. 

V.   Bdtany       Worsted       Mills 

pp.    947.    4018,    4056,    4057,    4059 
4060.    4061. 

-'.  Raleigh,    etc..    R.    Co..    pp 

3305.    3395.   3402. 

Knowles.    --\nchor    Line    <•. 

V.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p 

912. 

V.  Norfolk,     etc.,    R.    Co.,     pp 

2622.    2623.    2634. 

Knowlton  r.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co. 
pp.    1453,    1469. 

f.   Erie  R.   Co..   pp.   949.   2092 

2098. 

V.  Milwaukee     Citv      R.      Co. 

po.    1589,    1890,    2942.'   2943. 

Knox    '■.    Xinetta.    p.    3937. 

Pittsburgh,    etc..     R.     Co.    v. 

V.   Rives,    etc.,    Co..   pp.   2,   726 

732.    748,    874. 

V.  South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    p 

67. 

-; —  Tiedeman   v. 

Knoxville    Iron    Co.    -■.    Dobson,    p 

1848. 
Knoxville    Tract.    Co.    v.    Carroll,    p 

2395. 

V.   Lane,      pp.        2038.       2040 

2056,    3064.    3072. 

V.  Wilkerson,     pp.     191,     1593 

1602,    1603,    1604.    2428. 


Knoxville.    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Harris, 

p.  3590. 
Knuckey    v.    Butte    Elect.     R.     Co.. 

41    \lont.   314,    109   Pac.   979— pp. 

2597,    2600,    2647,    2686.    2822. 

V.   Butte    Elect.      R.      Co..     45 

Mont.      106,     122     Pac.     280— pp 
2319,   2825,   2906. 

Knudsen-Ferguson  Fruit  Co.  v. 
Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co..    p.    3742. 

V.   Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co..    pp. 

3741,    3742,    3743,    3830. 

Kobbe,    Barnard    v. 
Koblitz,     I>iem    v. 

Koch  -■.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
p.   2870. 

V.  New    York   City    R.    Co.,    p. 

1647. 

— —  Wichita,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Koehler,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Ex    parte. 

Roberts   i\ 

Koehne  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
58  N.  E.  1089,  165  N.  Y.  603— 
p.   2956. 

V.  New     York,    etc.,    R.      Co.. 

32    App.    Div.    419,    52    N.    Y.    S. 
1088— p^    1715. 

Koekuk    Packet    Co.,    Erb   i'. 
Koekuk,    etc..     Packet    Co.,    Carlisle 

Loeffler    v. 

Koenig  v.   St.   Paul   City  R.   Co.,   p. 
,  2816. 

Koenigheim,    Osborn   v. 
Koeningsheim     v.     Hamburg     Amer- 
ican   Packet    Co.,    p.     1036. 
Koerner,    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   -■. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Koetter    f.    Manhattan    R.    Co.,    p. 

_  2036. 
Kohler   v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    p. 

2134. 
- —  V.  West  Side   R.   Co..   p.   3035. 
Kohm       f.         Interborough        Rap'd 

Trans.    Co..    p.    2887. 
Kohn    '■.      International     Mercantile 

Marine    Co.,    p.    3988. 

V.  Nassau    Electric    R.    Co.,    p 

1559. 

V.   Packard,    pp.    528.    536.   891. 

t'.  Richmond,      etc..      R.      Co., 

pp.    574,    576,    1216. 

Kohn    Bros.   f.    Washer,    p.    1864. 
Kohner    v.    Capital    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

2701,    2867. 
Kohr    r.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co , 

p.    2689. 
Kolb,    Montgomery,    etc..    R.    Co.   :■. 

v.   Southern  Railway,        pp. 

642.    644.    645. 

Kolp.    Texas,   etc..   R.    Co.   -•. 

Konieczny   z-.    Detroit,    etc..    R.    Co.. 
i       p.    2668. 
<  Konigin    Luise.    The. 

Konkle  -•.  St.  Paul  Citv  R.  Co..  p. 
2716. 

Koontz.    Wheeling,    etc..    R.    Co.    •■. 

V.  Wheeling.      etc..      R.      Co.. 

pp.    1208.    1212.    1222.    1225.    1226. 

I       1229.     1232.      1233,      1234.      1236, 

1239,    1244,    1251. 
'  Koran    -'.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 
'       pp.    1531,    1970.   2820. 
I  Korbe,    Louisville,    etc..    Tract.    Co. 

'  Korn    T'.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

'       pp.    2411.    2489. 

I  Korzib        f.       Netherlands-American 

;       Steam    Nav.    Co.,    p.    4001. 

I  Kotoski,      Chicago,      etc..      Transfer 

I    ^Co.  f. 

Koues   -'. 
p.    2906. 

Kountze    Bros. 

Kowalski,    Metropolitan    R. 
I  Kozminsky  v.   Oregon,  etc., 
I       p.    2446. 
[  Krackcr       v.       Philadelphia 

Transit    Co..    p.    2192. 
I  Kramer    ;•.      Brooklyn     Heights     R. 
I       Co.,    190  N.   Y.   310.  83   N.    E.   35 
—p.    2347. 


Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co  . 


Express    Co. 


Co.    f. 
R.   Co.. 

Rapid 


ccx 


TABLE    OF'    CASES. 


Kramer  f.  Brooklyn  Heights  R. 
Co.,  100  N.  Y.  S.  276,  114  App. 
Div.    804— pp.     1817,    2172,    2894. 

-•.  Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co.,   p. 

2830. 

Krauss,    Pullman    Co.    v. 

Kreeft,    Gaborron    -•. 

Kreis    f.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p 

2141. 
Kremer    -•.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    pp 

565,    567,    572,    889,    912.  _ 
Krender   f.    Wolcott,    pp.    756,    33^0 
Krenek,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 
Kreuziger  '•.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

p.   2847. 
Kriedcrmacher  r.   Union    R.    Co.,    p 

2154. 
Krieg   v.    Lehigh    Vallev    R.    Co.,    p 

2162. 
Krock  V.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,   pp 

2358,    2396,    2922. 
Kroeger   v.    Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    pp 

1519,    2147. 
Krohn  v.   Oechs,   pp.   850,   3934. 
Kromshinsky,    West    Chicago    St.    R 

Co.   '•. 
Kronshage   r.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

pp.   909,   910. 
Krouse   f.    Detroit   United    Railway 

p.    2820. 

■  Pittsburgh,     etc.,     R'.     Co.    v. 

Kruck  -■.   Connecticut  Co.,   pp.   2130 

2285,    2280,     2319,     2667,     2814. 
Krudler    v.     Ellison,     pp.     364,     477 

478,    488. 
Krueger    '•.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.     1623,    2449,    2464. 
Krug    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2805. 

Frank     Bird    Transfer     Co.     v 

Kruger   v.    Omaha,   etc.,    St.    R.    Co. 

p.    1963. 
Krulevitz    '■.     Eastern    R.     Co.,     140 
Mass.    573,   5   N.    E.    500,   26   Am 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.    118— pp.    2063 
2070. 

t'.   Eastern    R.    Co.,    143    Mass 

228,      9     N.      E.      613— pp.      2063 
2070. 

Krumm   v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

p.   2170. 
Kruse    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.    1543,    1546,    1551,    1554,    1569 

1572,    2521. 
Kucnhle,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Kuhlen   v.    Boston,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    pp 

1743,     2026,      2328,      2820,      2869 

2727. 
Kuhn,    Alabama,   etc.,   R'.    Co.    v. 

Central    Passenger    R.     Co.    v 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    -'. 

Kulman    v.    Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    2339 

2877. 
Kummer    7'.     Christopher,      etc.,      R 

Co.,    p.   2710. 
Kunkel,    Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    z\ 
Kunzmann    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R 

Co.,    p.    2835. 
Kupper,    Louisville    R.    Co.    v. 
Kuppcr-Benson     Hotel     Co.,     Cham 

hers  V. 
Kurfees   v.    Harris,   p.    1701. 
Kurzmann    v.    New    York,     etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2834. 
Kuteman,   Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   7'. 
Kuter    -'.    Michigan    Cent.    R'.    Co., 

pp.    236,    239,    240,    770,    3153. 
Kutter,    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 
Kuttner     z'.     Central      R.     Co.,      pp. 

2698,    2880. 
Kuykcndall   v.    Coulter,   p.    3417. 
Kyle,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    105 

C.   C.    A.    151,    182    F(d.    613— pp. 
1666,     1857. 

V.  Chicago,    etc..    R.     Co.,     84 

Neb.   621,   122  N.   W.   37— p.    135. 

V.  Laurens    R.     Co.,    pp.    849, 

850,   855,   3255,   3295. 

Kyser,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Kyte,    Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
K.    &   D.    M.    R.    Co..   McCoy   v. 
K.   &   N.    Turnpike,   People   v. 


Labor      f.      Tabcr,      pp.      524,      546, 

888. 
La    Barge   7'.    Union    Elect,    Co.,    pp. 

1820,     1980,     2199,    2337. 
Labatt,     Dillingham    7'. 
Labbc    7-.    Corbett,    p.    420. 
La    Bourgogne,     117     Fed.    261 — pp. 

4044,  4051,    4052. 

La  Bourgogne,  139  Fed.  433,  71 
C.  C.  A.  489— pp.  4042,  40.S1, 
4052. 

La  Bourgogne.  144  Fed.  781,  75 
C.  C.  A.  647— pp.  3979,  4012, 
4031,  4033,  4035,  4046,  4049, 
4051,  4052,  4072,  4081,  4082. 

La  Bourgogne,  210  U.  S.  95,  52  L. 
Ed.  973,  28  S.  Ct.  664— pp.  4035. 
4036,  4037,   4040,   4042,   4044, 

4045,  4049,  4050,  4051,  4052, 
4054,  4055,  4073,  4076. 

Lacas  c'.  Detroit  City  R'.  Co.,  pp. 

1889,  2226. 
Lacey  7'.  Minneapolis  St.  R.  Co., 

pp.  2337,  2860. 

7'.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  pp. 

728,  7ii,  749,  753,  765,  972, 
977,  978,  1027,  1030.  3299,  3389, 
3395,  3396,  3407. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 

La    Chapella,    St.    Marc    7'. 
Lachner    Bros.    7'.    Adams    Exp.    Co., 

p.    1477. 
Lackawanna       Line,        Herf,        etc.. 

Chemical    Co.   7'. 
Lackawanna,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Bockul- 

camp    7'. 

7'.   Chenewith,    pp.    1550,    1814, 

2037,    2092,    2106,    2173. 

Weisenberg   v. 

Yersack    -•. 

Lackland    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    287,    1335. 
Lackman    7'.     Union,     etc.,     R.     Co  , 

p.    2424. 
La      Conipagnie       Generale       Trans- 

atlantique,    Darnana    7'. 

Deslions    7'. 

Rundell    7'. 

Sterling    Amusement    Co.    7'. 

La  Conner,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  Lam- 
bert V. 

V.  Widmer,    p.    3890. 

Lacour    t'.    Springfield    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    1888. 
Lacroix,    Merchants'    Mut.    Ins.    Co. 

V. 

La    Crosse    City    R.    Co.,    Champane 

Coolidge    7'. 

La    Crosse,    etc..    Packet    Co.,    Ger- 

mania    Ins.    Co.   7'. 
Lacy    7'.     Armour     Packing     Co.,     p 

3590. 
Lacy,    etc.,    Co.,    Wolfe   7'. 
Ladd    7'.    Foster,    p.    1740. 

Hutchings    z'. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Ladd,      etc,     Bank      7-.      Commerca' 

State    Bank,    pp.    362,    384. 
Ladshaw    7'.     Southern     Railway,     p. 

2860. 
La    Due,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    <• 
Ladue    7'.     Griffith,      pp.      730,      772 

885,    3369,    3370. 
Lady     Franklin,     The. 
Lady    Pike,    The. 
I,afayc    z\    Harris,    p.    258. 
Lafayette     v.     Wells     Fargo     &      'o. 

Exp.,    p.    801. 
Lafayette,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Pattison. 

p.     1195. 

V.   Sims,     pp.     2125,     2165. 

Lafifitte    V.     New    Orleans,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2056,   2059,   2071. 
Lafflin    V.    Buffalo,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp 

1783,    1910,    2229. 
Laffrey    7'.    Grummond,    p.    3174. 
La     Floridienne     "'.     Seaboard,     etc.. 

Railway,     pp.     121,     137. 
La     Floridienne,     etc.,     Co.,     Soc'et 

Anonvme     z'.    Atlantic,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,  pp.  1198,  1202. 


La  Gascogne,  op.  4006,  4007. 
Lagerkrans,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

Laing  V.  Colder,  pp.  1684,  1720. 
2299,  2671,  2673,  3161,  3162, 
3165. 

V.   Rigney,     p.     3792 

Laird,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Pittsburg     Pract.      Co.,      pp. 

1650,    2450. 


R.    Co.    7'.    Acres,. 

015,      2020, 


pp 


1884, 
2585, 


969, 
1445, 


1899,. 
2590,. 


3085.. 


975, 
1446,. 


1720,      li 


2623, 
1602. 


Lake,    Wood 
Lake    Erie,    etc. 
p.    2565. 

7'.   Arnold, 

2580,  2606,  2615 

•  V.   Beals,   pp. 

1900,      1902,      1911, 
2632. 

V.   Cloes,    p.    2470. 

■  7'.    Condon,    p.    583. 

V.   Cotton,    p.    1740. 

Dunning   7'. 

•  7'.   Fix,    pp.    2461,    2565 

German    7'. 

Grimes    v. 

V.   Hatch.    6    O.    C.    C.    230,    3 

O.    C.    D.    430— pp.    897,    906. 

V.  Hatch,    52    O.    St.    408,    39 

N.    E.    1042,    61    Am.    &    Eng.    R. 
Cas.    293— p.    901. 

V.  Holland,      pp. 

1368,      1385,      1430, 
1450. 

7'.   Huffman,     pp. 

2357,    2583. 

Insurance    Co.    z\ 

7'.  James,    pp.     1252,     1253 

7'.    Lucas,    p.     2621. 

7'.  Matthews,  pp.  2543 

2625,  2715. 

•  7'.  Mayo,   pp.   1601, 

2467,  2468,  2480. 
• •  7'.  Morain,  p.  2744. 

z:    Oakes,  p.  3394. 

•  V.  Quisenberry,  pp.        1598, 

2467. 

•  V.  Zoffinger,    p.    2300. 

Lakeland    Transp.    Co.,    In    re. 
Lakeman    7'.    Grinnell,    pp.    292,    850, 

855,    3934. 
Lake    Roland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    State   7'. 
Lake    Rowland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    State 

Lake    Shore    Elect.    Railway    7'.    Ho- 

bart,   p.   2694. 
Lake    Shore    Nitro-Glycerine    Co.    7'. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    p.    829. 
Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Allen    v.- 

Anderson    7'. 

7'.   Anderson,    p.     1276. 

•  Babcock    v. 

7'.   Bangs,    p 

7'.   Bennett, 

Ronfiglio    7'. 

Bradley    7'. 

7'.   Brown, 

1960,     1978,     1992, 
2399,    2400,    2635. 

Caldwell    7'. 

•  Chamberlain     7'. 

V.   Cincinnati,    etc.,    R, 

20. 

Cole    V. 

Cousins    V. 

Cross  7'. 

7'.   Davis,    pp.    982,    1043,    1046, 

1049. 

Edwards  v. 

Evans   z'. 

Fisher    v. 

Foggan    7'. 

V.   Foster,    pp.     200,    201,     277, 

285,    3111,    3132,    3135. 

Frohriep   7'. 

Fuller    V. 

Geismer    7'. 

V.   Gibson,    jip.    826,    949,    1271, 

1369. 

Graves   7'. 

7'.   Greenwood,     pp.     198,     202,. 

2435,    2436. 

Greismer    7'. 

Grimsliaw   7'. 

Haskins    v. 


2263. 
pp.     628,     629. 


pp. 


1558, 
2037, 


1757, 
2383, 


Co. 


TAIU.n    OF     CASKS. 


CCXI 


Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Her- 
rick,    \>.    \T)1. 

V.   Hobart,    p.    2581. 

V.   lli.chstim,     p.    3148. 

—  ■!■.    llodapp,    pp.    562,   756. 

Ilolfnian    -■. 

V.   Ilotchkiss,     pp.    757,      1568, 

1712,    1714,    1766.    1792. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 

'-  V.  Kelscy,    180    111.    530,   54   N. 

E.  608— pp.  199,  1953,  2122, 
2123,    2206,   2345. 

V.   Kelsey,    76    111.    App.    613— 

p.    2167. 

Kinner  v. 

Kinsley  v. 

Knapp  V. 

V.   Luce,    p.    554. 

Luken  -'. 

McCasIin  ;■. 

McWilliams    f. 

Morgan  v. 

V.   Mortal,   pp.    191,    1612, 

1633,    2409,    2451,    2458. 

V.   National    Live    Stock 

178  111.  506,  53  N.  Iv.  326— pp. 
294,  295,  308,  477,  478,  483,  484, 
1016,    1215. 

V.   National    Live    Stock    I'.ank, 

59   111.    App.   451— pp.    555,    1245. 

V.   Ohio,     pp.     34,     97, 

3481,  3497,  3502,   3511, 
3513,  3515,  3519,  3523. 

Ohio  Dairy  Co.  v. 

V.  Orndorft",     pp.     2420 

2492. 

Percgo  V. 

V.   Perkins,    pp.    210,    236,    237 

238,  242,  243,  244,  931,  1018 
1451,    1459,    1460. 

V.   Peterson,     pp.     2531,     2552. 

2664. 

PfafFenback  v. 

V.   Pierce,   pp.   203,    1666,    1861, 

1862,    2455,    2482. 

Pitcher  v. 

V.   Prentice,     pp.     2034,     2413, 

3073,   3087. 

Robinson   v. 

Rolfe   V. 

V.  Rosenzweig,     pp.     198,     199, 

1544,    1560,    2122,    2477,    2503. 

V.   Salznian,    pp.    1959,    1972. 

Scholield 


1631, 
Bank, 


3447, 
3512, 


2434, 


pp.      1188,      1190, 


34,    38,    46, 
3513,    3668. 


74     N.     E. 


Scotielil    '■ 

V.    Scolield 

1192. 

Shelton   V. 

Smith    V. 

V.   Smith,    pp.    22, 

58,    59,    60,    61,    115, 

Spavin    i'. 

Spears    v. 

Stevens  v. 

■  V.   Teeters     (Ind.) 

1014— p.    2292. 

V.   Teeters,     166    Ind.    335,     24 

R.  R.  R.  36,  47  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  36,  n  N.  E. 
599,  5  L.  R'.  A.,  N.  S.,  425— 
pp.    1567,    1936,   2098,   2216,   2651. 

Van    Orman    v. 

Wallace  v. 

V.  Ward,      135 

N.    E.    520- pp.    17(. 

V.  Ward,    35    111 

pp.    1852,    2723. 

V.   Warren,    p.    3198. 

Wood  V. 

Lake    Shore,    etc..    Railway 

son,   p.    1347. 
Lake  St.   Elevated  R.   Co. 
p.   2268. 

Sandy   v. 

V.   Sandy,    p.    1680. 

Lake    St.,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

pp.    1518,    1519,   2874. 

V.   Gormley,   p.    1539. 

t'.  Shaw,   pp.   2655,   2656. 

Lake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Burgess,    p 

2145. 

Spears    i'. 


ni. 


26 


2732. 
.\pp. 


423- 


.    Gib- 
Craig, 


Burgess, 


Lakewood,    Combs    v. 
Lakin    v.    Oregon    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 
2036,    2038,    2076,    2163,    2739. 

V.   South      Side      Elevated      R. 

Co.,   p.    1743. 

V.   Willamette,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  2074. 

La  Kroma,  The. 

Lalande  v.   His   Creditors,    p.    359. 
Lamar    v.     New     York,     etc.,     Nav. 
Co.,   p.   233. 

Sawyer  "•. 

La    Matte    f.    Angl,    p.    1173. 

Lamb  "'.  Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co. 
(N.  v.),  2  Daly  454— pp.  211, 
775.  896,  897,  898,  907,  996, 
1000,      1001,     3299,     3345,     3346, 

V.  Camden,    etc.,    Transp.    Co., 

46   N.   Y.   271,   7   Am.   Rep.   327— 
pp.    1037,    1041,    1047,    3345,    3377. 

■  V.   Camden,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

325. 

-'.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

822,   855,    3415. 

V.   Parknian,    p.    765. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.   Western    R.    Corp.,    p.    917. 

Lambert,    .\tchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.   Benner,    p.   825. 

•  V.   La     Conner,     etc.,     Transp. 

Co.,     p.     3992. 

Natchez,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Rich    V. 

V.   Robinson,    p.    2629. 

Lambert-Murry      Co.      -•.      Southern 

Exj).  Co.,  pp.  656,  658. 
Lamberton,  Sanderson  v. 
Lambeth   v.    North   Carolina   R.    Co., 

pp.    1715,    2126,    2255,    2256,    2673. 
Lambkin,    San    Antonio    Tract.    Co. 

Lamkin,    .Alabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.   '■. 
Lamline    v.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2869,    2967. 
Lamm,     Cleveland,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 
Lammert    r.    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    2522,    2542. 
Lamont    &    Co.    v.    Nashville,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    503,    619,    744,    745, 

746,    747,    750,    871,    3902. 
Lamphear    -'.    Buckingham,    p.    2089. 
Lampkin   v.    Louisville,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

pp.    2043,    2045.    2578,    2608,    2609. 
Lampkins     v.     Vicksburg,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2664. 
Lamping,     Bingham    -'. 
Lampley,    .Mabania,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Lampman,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Lanison   f.    Great    Northern   R.    Co., 

pp.    1883,    2821,    2845,    2868. 

Lanata  v.  The  Henry  Grinnell,  p. 
520. 

Lancashire  &  Y.  Ry.  Co.,  Nichol- 
son   V. 

Lancashire  Ins.  Co.,  Illinois  Cent. 
R.    Co.   V. 

Lancashire,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Bolton 

Gee  V. 

— ^ —  Lees    V. 

Mitchell   V. 

Nicholson  v. 

Lancaster  "■.  Southern  R'ailwav,  p. 
3066. 

Lancaster  Mills  v.  Merchants'  Cot- 
ton-Press Co.,  pp.  481,  777,  894, 
958,    1023,    1030. 

Thomas   v. 

Lancaster   R.   Co.,   Muschamp  v. 
Lancaster,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Moss 

Lancer  ;■.   Anchor  Line,   p.   3462. 

Lanci  -■.  Boston  Elev.  R.  Co.,  p. 
2S()2. 

Lancon  v.  Morgan's,  etc..  Steam- 
ship  Co..    pp.    1721,    2219,    2800. 

Land   V.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    149. 
Landa    f.    Hoick,    pp.    573.    579. 

V.   Lattin.     pp.     357.     3"0.    371, 

374,   in,   381,   395,   396,   397,   400. 


Landa.    Mercantile    Banking    Co.    v. 

Smith    :■. 

Landauer,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Landauir   &    Bro.    f.    Cochran,    etc., 

Co.,    p.    1219. 
Lander.    Ohio    N'alley    R.    Co.    v. 

Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Landers    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Staten     Island     R'.     Co.,     p. 

1589. 

Landes     v.      Pacific     Railroad,     pp. 

292,    410,    488. 
Landis,    Western    Maryland    R.    Co. 

V. 

Landon,    El    Paso,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t-. 

V.   Proctor,    p.    278. 

Landreth.    American,    etc.,    Ins.    Co. 

Landrigan   v.    State,   pp.    190,    192. 
Landrum,   Birmingham   R.,   etc.,   Co. 

V. 

Landsberg     v.     Dinsmore,     pp.     767, 

889,    891.    946,    987. 
Lane    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

586,   831,   894.   908,   910.    918. 

-'.   Chadwick,    p.    572. 

V.  Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1936,      1951,      1953,      1954,     2211, 
2334,    2630,    2888. 

V.  Cotton,   p.   211. 

— '■ —  V.   East      Tennessee,      etc..      R. 
Co..    pp.    1602,    2435,    2436,    2468. 

Inslee    "•. 

International,    etc..    R.    Co.    -•. 

Knoxville   Tract.    Co.    v. 

V.  Newdigat,    p.    3658. 

V.  Old    Colony,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1166. 

-'.   Penniman,    np.    3944.    3945. 

Peoria,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Robinson,    p.    1239. 

-'.    Spokane.  Falls,   etc..    R.   Co., 

pp.  1990,  2335.  2891. 

Lang   V.    Brady,    p.    806. 

Chesapeake,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  Interborough   R^id   Transit 

Co.,    pp.    1902,    2290. 

V.   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

735. 

Langan.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
Langbehn,     Texas     &     P.     Ry.     Co. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

Langdon   v.   Howells,   p.    1573. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.     Co.    -■. 

-'.  New   York,   etc.,   R'.   Co.,   p. 

1198. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Pennsvlvania     R.     Co.,     186 

Fed.    237— pp.    3809,    3813. 

V.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     194 

Fed.  486— pp.  3649,  3688.  3826. 

Lange    v.    Metropolitan    St.    R'.    Co., 

p.    2312. 
Langford,    The. 
Langin   ■:■.   New   York,   p.    2872. 
Langley,    Indiana    Union    Tract.    Co. 

-'.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.   2691. 

Langlois,    Montana    L'nion    R.     Co. 

La'ngstaff    v.    Stix.    pp.     1234.     1235. 
Langton.    Marquette    '.-. 
Langworthy   v.    New   York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    770. 
Lanning,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Lannum,    Wabash    R.    Co.   v. 
Lans,    Bornstcin    ?•. 
Lansberg   v.    Dinsmore.    p.    3283. 
Lansing    :•.    Conev    Island,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  p.   2892. 

V.  New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 

1066. 

Potter    V. 

Lansing  City   Elect.   R.   Co..   Howell 

Lantz.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    r. 

Michigan,   etc..   R.   Co.   r. 

Lanin   -•.    Northwestern    Elevated   R. 

Co.,    pp.    1510,    1770. 


CCXII 


TABLE    OK     CASES. 


Lapointe    v.    Middlesex   R.    Co.,    pp. 

2392,   2403. 
Laporte     i'.     Wells     Fargo     &     Co.  s 

Exp.,   pp.   907,   908,   913. 
La    Prelle,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

LaVabee  Flour  Mills  Co.,  Missouri 
Pac.    R.    Co.   r. 

;•.   Missouri    Pac.    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

22.   89.    251,    252,    256,    257,    3470, 
3485.    3540. 

Laraway,    De    Mott  v. 
Lardner,    Murray   t'. 
Larkin,    Burton   -•. 

:•.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2765,    2895,   2953. 

Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.   Co.   -■. 

Larned  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  pp.  3144, 

3171. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Larsen     7:     Allan     Line     Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    3997,    3983,    4031. 

V.  Oregon,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp 

946,    977,    978,    1052.    1070,    1081 

Larson     r.     Boston     Elev.     R.     Co 
pp.    1971,    2353,    2758. 

V.  Chase,   pp.    1254. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

2150,   2157,   2365,   2917. 

V.   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co 

pp.    1927.    2362,   2906. 

Lasch,     Dallas,     etc.,     St.     R.     Cb 

Lashinsky    v.    Russian    Co.,    p.    466 

Lashley,    Falutt    7\ 

Lasker    f.    Third    Ave.    R.    Co.,    p 

1595. 
Lasky    V.    Southern    Exp. 

1088,    1112,    1121,    1123 
Latham    v.     Boston,     etc. 

p.    2091. 

Pecos   River   R.    Co 

f.   Spragins,       pp 

398. 

Latimer,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z' 

7:  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co. 

p.    2603. 

V.  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp 

1695,    1702.    1801,    2908. 

Latour  ?'.  Southern  Railway,  pp 
1609,    1669,    1673,    1674,    1677. 

La  Tourette,  Cleveland,  etc.,  R 
Co.  f. 

Latta,    .Msberg,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.   ■:■. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

432,   731,   1395. 

V.  New     Orleans,      etc.,      R 


Co.,     pp 
1128. 
R.     Co. 


385,      392 


Co.,  pp.  779,  846. 

Latta  Martin  Pump  Co.  v.  South- 
ern  R.   Co.,   p.    175. 

Lattin.    Landa    v. 

Lau,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 

Laub  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
1707. 

Laubheim  v.  Netherland  Steamship 
Co.,  p.   2078. 

Lauchtamacher  v.  Boston  Elev.  R. 
Co.,    pp.    2365,    2858. 

Lauderbach,    People's    Pass.    R.    Co. 

Laughlin  v.  Atlantic  City  R'.  Co., 
p.   2083. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

2395,  3183. 

Laughlin    Bros.    Co.   v.    Philadelphia. 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p    754. 
Laughton.    Watkinson    f. 
Laura,    The. 
Laurel    Cotton    Mills,    Gulf,    etc.,   R. 

Co.    t: 

'■.   Gulf,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    pp.    463, 

3632,     3633,     3686,     3701,     3704, 
3758. 

Laurel  Mercantile  Co.  <■.  ^.lobile, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    1477. 

Laurel,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  West  Vir- 
ginia Transp.  Co.,  pp.  4,  35,  36, 
38,    62. 

Laurence,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Laurens    R.    Co.,    Kyle    v. 


Laurent    v.    Vaughn,    pp.    473,    59o, 

849,     855. 
Lauricella,    Mexican    Cent.    R.    Co. 

Lausatt,   Jacoby   ?■. 

Lautercr   7\    Manhattan    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1700.     2150,     2157. 
Laux,    Hahl    <•. 
Lavarrello,    United    States    v. 
Lavary,    Farley   v. 
Laveille.    Louisiana   Nat.    Bank  7>. 
Laverty    v.    Interurban    St.    R.    Co.. 

p.    1996. 
Lavin.    Chesapeake    &    O.    Ry.    Co. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7\ 

Lavis    T'.    Wisconsin    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2219,    2585,    2691. 
Law  v.   Botsford,   p.    3884. 

'■.   Hatcher,   pp.    364,   485. 

f.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2485. 

■;■.  New     York     City     R.     Co., 

p.     1996. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Simmons   v. 

Lawler,     .\tchison,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

•  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Lawn,    Indianapolis    St.     R.    Co.    i'. 
Lawrence,      Chicago     Union     Tract. 
Co.   f. 

r.   Green,    pp.    2128.    2693. 

7'.  Kaul   Lumber   Co..   pp. 

1545.  1548.  1558.  15C4,  1752, 
2629. 

7'.   I,ieutenant   Admiral 

omberg.  pp.  765,  766. 

T'.  McGregor,   pp. 

333.  510.  511,  728, 
3888,  3902.  3914. 

7'.   Milwaukee,   etc. 

pp.  211,  242. 

v.   Minturn,   pp.   349,   351., 

364.  477,  743,  3899,  3900.  3903. 
3905,  3906,  3918,  3919,  4021. 
4022. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

pp.  .986,    1006. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    7'. 

r.   Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co., 

p.    3213. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7: 

V.   Winona,    etc..     R.     Co.,     pp. 

885,    886,    3264,    3287,    3289. 

Lawrence    Furnace,    Iron    R.    Co.    7'- 
Lawrenceburgh,      etc.,      R.      Co.      z'. 

Montgomery,    p.    2125. 
Lawshe    7'.    "Tacoma    R.,    etc.,     Co.. 

pp.    1650,    1853,    2457,    2459. 
Lawson    7'.     Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2217,    2388. 

V.   Conolly,    p.    8. 

Indianapolis    Tract.,     etc.,     Co. 


Call- 


303,      328, 
781,     871, 


R.      Co., 


Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Co.,     p. 


Ass'n    V. 
etc.,    R. 


v.   Seattle,     etc.,     R 
2389. 

Southern    Bldg.,    etc. 

Lax    V.    Forty    Second    St 

Co.,    p.    2352. 
Lay    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    pp. 
1303,    1312. 

Hodgson  7'. 

Layne  t.    Chesapeake,  etc..  R.  Co.. 

67  S.  E.  1103.  66  W.  Va.  607— 
pp.  2035.  2039.  2054,  2075.  2960. 

7'.  Chesapeake,  etc..  R.  Co.. 

68  W.  \'a.  213.  69  S.  E.  700.  31 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  414,  39 
R.  R.  R.  143,  62  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  143— pp.  1524, 
1526,  1527,  1529,  1533,  1537, 
1538,  1539,  2770,  2865. 

Layton  &  Sons  z'.  Charleston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  pp.  564,  899,  903. 

Lazard  7'.  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.,  pp.  339,  430. 

Lazarus  7'.  Barber,  124  Fed.  1007 
—p.  3904. 

V.   Barber.  136  Fed.  534.  69 

C.  C.  A.  310— pp.  3922,  3927. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Lazer   7'.    Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1762.   2699. 
Leach.    Cincinnati    Tract.    Co.    v. 

V.  New     York.     etc..     K.     Co., 

pp.    235,    439. 

V.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1757. 

Leachman,  Capps  7'. 
Leadbetter,  Hill  7'. 
Leader     7'.     Northern     R.     Co.,     p. 

849. 
Leaf,     Louisville,     etc.,     Tract.     Co. 

Leake,     International,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Leakey,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Leamons,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Leapley,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.^   Co.    7'. 
Leary    7'.      Fitchburg     R.      Co.,      pp. 
2317,    2670. 

7'.   United      States,      pp.      3864. 

3865. 

Leas    7'.    Ouincy.    etc..    R.     Co..     pp 

948,   973.    1062. 
Leask    V.      Scott,     pp.      1221,      1224. 
Leasum  7'.    Green   Bay,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    2126,    2216. 
Leathers   7'.    Aiken,    p.    3586. 

Carson   z'. 

Hirsch    7". 

Richmond,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     v. 

Strieker    7'. 

Work   v. 

Leathcrwood,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Leavens   7'.   American    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

319,   957. 
Leavenworth,    Ewing    7'. 
■  v.   Ewing.      pp.        3549,      3550. 

3551,    3577. 
Leavenworth     County     Coram'rs     7'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3484. 
Leavenworth    Elect.    R.    Co.    v.    Cus- 

ick,    pp.    1721,    1898.,    1899,    1901, 

2076.   2077. 
Leavenworth,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Maris, 

pp.    530,    531,    896,   900,   902,   905, 

907,    910. 
Leavitt,    Curtis   7'. 

Greenfield    Bank   -'. 

Le    Barron     7'.    East    Boston     Ferry 

Co.,  pp.    11,   1750,    1838. 

Thomas    7'. 

Leberman     z'.    New     Orleans,     etc  , 

Co.,   p.   492. 
Le    Blanc   v.    Sweet,    pp.    2671,    3994. 

3998. 
Le    Blanche     7'.     London,     etc..     R. 

Co..    pp.    1670,    1673,    1674. 
Lebov    z'.    Consolidated     R.     Co..     p. 

2518. 
Leclaire    v.    Tacoma    R.,     etc.,    Co., 

pp.    1529,    1678,    3060. 
Lecocq,    Piatt    7'. 
Le    Coteur   7'.    Lor  don    &    S.    W.    R. 

Co.,    p.    3147. 
Ledbetter,   Anniston,   etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 
■  Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Le    Deau   v.   Northern   Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1809,    2675. 
Leder   Bros.    St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co. 

Ledger-Standard    Co.,     Fargo    v. 
Le   Due   V.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1789,    1801,    1870,    1874. 
Lee,   American    Nat.    Bank  7'. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Birmingham     R..     etc..     Co.     7'. 

V.   Bowen,    pp.    378,    3274. 

7'.   Burgess,    pn.    236,    239,    240, 

770. 

Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  7'. 

City    R.    Co.    7'. 

East    Line,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

•  East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

7'. 

Edwards    7'. 

7'.   Fidelity    Storage,    etc.,    Co.. 

pp.    7.    499,    521.    601.    603. 

Faust    7'. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXIII 


Co.,  p 

Kxp.     Co. 

p.    3S70. 
R.    Co.    f 


Lee  V.  Grand     Trunk     K.      Jo.,     p. 

3125. 
Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  1766,  2288. 

f.  Kimball,  pp.  1221,  1224. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

v.   Marsh,   pp.   946,    1299,    1349. 

V.   New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1946,    1947,    2662. 

Northern    Pac.    R.   Co..^'. 

V.   Publishers,      etc.,     Co..      137 

Mo.     385,     38     S.     W.     1107,     p. 
2883. 

f.   Publishers,   etc.,   Co.,    56    S. 

W.    458,    155    Mo.    610— pp.    2869, 
2883. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    i'. 

V.   Raleigh,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    pp. 

753,    946,    1344. 

V.   Rhode    Island    Co.,_   p.    2154. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

J'.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

654. 

r.  Salter,    p.     1161. 

Smith    i'. 

Southern    R.    Co.    f. 

Texas,     t-tc,     R.     Co.     f. 

The   R.    E. 

f.   Wabash     R.    Co.,    pp.     1298 

3335. 

Leech,    Chouteaux    f. 

2'.  New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

569. 

Leech   &   Co.,    Chouteaux   v. 

Leek  r.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp 

2409,    3080. 
Leeke    f.     (iulf,     etc.,     R.    Co.,     pp 

2888,    2897. 
Lees  V.   Lancashire,   etc.,   R 

221. 
Lefebure    ?•.     American 

pp.    319.    323,    324. 
Leffingwell    ;■.    Warren, 
Leflar,    St.    Louis,    etc., 
Leftwich,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z 

Wickham    ?■. 

Legge    -'.    New    York,    etc.,    Iv.    Co. 

pp.    1538,    1789. 
Leggett      I'.     Western     New     York 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    1884,    2268. 
Le    Gierse,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co 

Lehane   v.    Hutte    Elect.    R.    Co.,    pp 

1890,    2820,    2821. 
Lehberger     f.      Public      Service      R 

Co.,    p.    1980. 
Lehigh     \'alley     Coal     Co.     r.     Ionia 

Transp.    Co.,    p.    3960. 
Lehigh     \'alley     Railroad,     Pavitt    v. 
Lehigh   X'alley   R.   Co.,   Betts  v. 

Bolles   V. 

Bradley    v. 

Castellucci    >•. 

r.   Clarke,    pp.    3789,    3793. 

Commonwealth     i\ 

Crary    v. 

Dorr    -•. 

-'.    Dupont      pp.      2125,       2133, 

2390,    2874,    3314,    3315,    3320. 

Girton    v. 

Griton    v. 

Hartzig    v. 

Herstine   v. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 

•"- Krieg   v. 

Long  V. 

Loomis   t'. 

McGeehan   "'. 

Meeker   f. 

V.   Meeker,      pp. 

3826. 

Merritt   :■. 

Minor   f. 

Murray    f. 

Naylor    &    Co.    f. 

Nelson    f. 

Neustadt  f. 

f.   Pennsylvania,        pp. 

3421,      3422,      3439,      3491, 
4036,    4054. 


3683.      377(1, 


3418, 
3560, 


Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co.    v.    Rainc-y, 

p.    3685. 
Stewart   v. 

United    States    f. 

V.   United    States,     110    C.     C. 

A.    513,    188    Fed.    879— pp.    3744. 
3761,    3774. 

r.   United     States,      204      Fed. 

986— p.     3802. 

Lehigh  X'alley  Transp.  Co.  v.  Pills- 
bury- Washburn  Flour  Mills  Co., 
pp.    3257,    3331. 

V.   Post    Sugar    Co.,     228     III. 

121,   81    N.    E.    819— p.    3288. 

V.   Post     Sugar     Co.,     128     111. 

App.    600— p.    326. 

Lehigh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Redner    v. 
Lehman   7\    Louisiana,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1884. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     v. 

Lehman,    etc.,    Co.    f.    Central    R., 

etc.,   Co.,   pp.   315,  355. 

-■.  Morgan's      Louisiana,      etc., 

Co.,    pp.    739,    821,    825. 

Young   V. 

Lehmer  f.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 
p.    2657. 

T'.   Pittsburgh       R.       Co.,       pp. 

2128,    2262,    2304,    2313. 

Lehr   f.    Steinway,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

1951,    2183,    2887. 
Leibengood    v.    Missouri,     etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    3512. 
Leibold,     Missouri,    etc.,     R.    Co.    '■. 
Leibs    Bros.    &    Co.,    Schneider    . 
Leigh,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    (^o.    ;'. 

■:•.   Smith,    p.    3136. 

Leigh    X'alley    R.    Co.,    Long    t. 
Lcisy    v.    Hardin,    pp.     3418,     3427, 

3429,    3440,    3538,    3539. 
Leitch    V.     L^nion     R^     Transp.     Co  , 

pp.    320,    323,    945,    986,    9o4,    966, 

1  066. 
Leiter,    Northwestern     Transp.     Co. 

Leland  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
910,    917. 

Nelson    <•. 

Leloup    c'.    Mobile,    pp.    3472.    j5S0, 

3552,     3555,     3571,     3572,     3590. 
Lemay    -'.     Sprir.gtield     St.     R'.     Co., 

p.    2637. 
Lembeck     ■:■.       Jarvis,       etc..       Cold 

Storage    Co.,    68    N.    J.     Eq.    492, 

59    Atl.    360— p.    1165. 

v.   Tarvis,    etc..     Cold     Storage 

Co.,    69    N.    J.    Eq.    781,    63    Atl. 
257— p.    1165. 

Lenicke,    Meyer    '■.  _ 

Lcmery    -■.    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

pp.    1526,    1527,    1528. 
Lemke    r.    Chicago,    etc.,      R.      Co  , 

pp.    897,    901,    905,    907. 
Lemmon    -•.    Ilanley,    p.    2696. 
Lemon   '■.    Chanslor,   pp.    1564,    1749, 

1760,    2692. 

''.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co  , 

pp.    3201,    3204,    3205,    3240. 

Lemont  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.   573,   577. 

f.  Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1497,    2419. 

Lenahart   v.   Cooper,   p.    1217. 

Lena     Lumber     Co.,     Chicago,     etc., 

R.   Co.   f. 
Lence,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    -•. 
Lendsberg    v.     Dinsmark,    p.     565. 
Lengelsen    ;■.    McGregor,    p.    2634. 
Lengstield    v.    Jones,    pp.    799,    829. 

840. 
Lenhart,    Pennsylvania    Co.    r. 
Leni.x    ?■.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2278. 
Lennon     f.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2361. 

f.  Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

267,    270,    271,    3136. 

In    re. 

Lennox,    Cutler    -•. 

The. 

Lenord  '■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
1102. 


Lent  -.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
120  N.  Y.  467,  24  N.  E.  653.  44 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  373 — pp. 
1768,    2224. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

54    N.    Y.    Super.    Ct.    317,    8    N.. 
Y.   St.   Rep.  93— p.   2884. 

Lentz    V.    Flint,    etc.,      R.    Co.,      p. 

1227. 
Leo   V.    St.    Paul,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    i  p. 

843,   3394,   3398. 
Leob,    Fire    Ass'n    f. 
Leonard    i'.    Brooklyn      Heights     R. 

Co.,   pp.    1686,    1844. 

Chicago    Union    Tract.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.    Co.,     54 

Mo.      App.     293— pp.      451,      728. 
1315,    1420. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.    Co.,     57 

Mo.   App.   366— p.    1315. 

V.   Fitchburg    R.    Co.,    p.    1464. 

V.   Ilendrickson,    pp.    728,    825. 

I'.  St.     Louis    Trans.      Co.,    p. 

2417. 

f.   Southern       Pac.       Co.,       p. 

2735. 

f.  Whitcomb,    7    Am.    &    Eng. 

R.   Cas.,   N.   S.,  520— p.   211. 

-.  Whitcomb,    70    N.    W.    817. 

95    Wis.    646—1).    1368. 

Leonard  Seed  Co.  f.  Cleveland, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    688. 

Leonhardt,  Baltimore,  etc.,  Tun.- 
pike    Road    f. 

Leovy    V.    United    States,    p.    3419. 

Lerch,    Evansville    Elect.    R.    Co.    v. 

Lerner  v.  Public  Service  R.  Co., 
pp.    2534,    2548. 

Leroy,    Wade    "'. 

Lesassier  v.  Southwestern,  pp.  381, 
1216,    1225. 

Lesem,    American    Exp.    Co.    '■. 

Lesinsky  f.  Great  Western  Dis- 
patch,   p.    798. 

Leslie  i'.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    2100,    2124,    2319. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t: 

V.   Tackson,     etc..     Tract.     Co., 

p.    2900. 

V.  Wabash,    etc,     R.     Co..     pp. 

1733,  1877,  2249. 

Lessard    v.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

p.    3163. 
Lesser,   St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  f. 

St    Louis,    etc..    Railway   i-. 

Lester,    Culver    -■. 

"■.   Delaware,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

546,    552,    501.    564,    580. 

'■.   McDowell,    p.    480. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

Steel    -■. 

Letcher,    Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Eddy  V. 

Letts  -■.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  pp.  1282., 
1372,  1412,  1413,  1421,  1424, 
1427. 

Lette-Spencer  Grocery  Co.  z:  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp.  573. 
1206,  1207,  1212,  1219,  1232, 
1233. 

Leu  f.  St.  Louis  Trans.  Co.,  106 
Mo.  App.  329,  80  S.  W.  273— 
p.    2333. 

-'.  St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    110 

Mo.    App.    458,    85    S.    W.    137— 
p.    2333. 

Leuckhart    t'.    Cooper,    p.    1248. 
Levan   z\   .Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2456,    2775,    2852,    3026,    3032. 
Levensohn      f.      Cunard      Steamship 

Co.,    p.    4009. 
Leveret   z\    Shreveport    Belt    R.    Co, 

pp.    2126,    2227.    2o80. 
Levering     i'.     Union     Transp.,     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    962.    979,    986. 
Levey   &   Co.,   Louisville,   etc..   Mail 

Co.   z: 
Levi    -•.    Brooks,    p.    2629. 

Buckman   z: 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

L.   N.   R.   Co.  T. 

-•.   Lynn,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   p.    769. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    z: 


CCXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Levi   V.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
3173.    3174. 

Steamboat    Baltimore   r. 

Levidow    x-.    Starin,    pp.    3999,    4001. 
Levien   r.    Webb,    pp.    3208,    3239. 
Levin,    In    re. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  2674,  2S5S. 

Levine  r.    Brooklyn,  etc..  R.  Co., 
p.  2699. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

Levins   f.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3126,    3145,    3147. 
Levinson   -•.    Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    17 
Tex.     Civ.    App.    617,    43     S.     W. 
901— pp.    1616,    1633,    1639. 

f.   Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    (Tex.), 

43   S.    W.    1032— p.    1633. 

Levinston,      Omaha,       etc.,      Bridge 

Co.  r. 
Levois  r.    Gale,    pp.    759,    763. 
Lew,    Benjamin    z. 
'-.  Campbell    (Tex.),    19   S.   W. 

438— pp.    1712,    1740,    1812,    1821, 

1841.    1978. 

V.  Campbell   (Tex.),   20   S.   W. 

196— p.    2772. 

G..    C.   &   S.    F.   R.   Co.   7. 

'•.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

511. 

-•.  New   York   City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2814. 

V.  Providence,    etc.,    Steamship 

Co.,    p.    4006. 

T'.   Southern      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

946,    958,    1008,    3377,    3382. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Toledo,    etc.j    R'.    Co.    ■<■. 

z:  Weir,    po.    488.    492,    568. 

Levy's    Son    &    Co.    "'.    Gibson    Line, 

p.   4066. 
Lewark    v.     Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    642,    675,    848,    859. 
Lewellen    Bros.,    Missouri,    etc..    R. 

Co.  i: 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Lewine,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "■. 
Lewis    '■.     Bowling    Green     R.     Co.. 

p.    1590. 

T'.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  284,  970.  1015.  3287,  3301, 
3362. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

'•.   Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co., 

pp.    2065,    2249,    2906. 

Finley   7'. 

?•.   Flint,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   p.    170  •. 

7'.  Great    Western    R.    Co..    ii 

1118. 

z:  Hancock,    pp.     3938,     3944 

3945. 

'■.   Houston     Electric     Co.,     pp. 

1515,   2288,   2289. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

International,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

z:  London,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     p. 

1926. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R"   Co.   '•. 

V.  Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

727,  732,  749,  765,  872,  896,  904, 
959. 

V.  M'Kee,    p.    365. 

V.  Mason,  p.   1211. 

Montgomery  St.  R.  Co.  v. 

-.'.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

pp.  1604,  2428. 

z:   New  York   Sleeping   Car 

Co.,  pp.  3215,  3216,  3217,  3218, 
3221j  3223,  3232,  3238. 

Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  Pennsvlvania     R.     Co.,     59 

Atl.  1117,  71  N.  J.  L.  339— pp. 
1311,    1339,    1365,    1455. 

z\   Pennsvlvania      R.      Co..     69 

Atl.  821,  22'0  Pa.  317,  18  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  279,  13  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.    Cas.    1142— p.    1580. 

v.  Portland    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

2938. 

Reed    Lumber    Co.    <•. 

z:   Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

521. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   t. 


Lewis    z:     Salena,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 
482. 

z:   Sharvcy.    pp.     1237.     1243. 

Smith    f. 

z:   Smith,    pp.    281,    S33,    1331, 

3926. 

Southern    R.    Co.   f. 

r.  Texas,     etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

1755. 

v.  The   Success,   p.   848. 

z:   Western      R.       Corp.,        pp. 

530,   788. 

i'.   Western,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

1622,    2446. 

Lewis    &    Co.    T'.    Ludwick,    pp.    721, 

733,    735,    750,    751,    752. 
Lewis,   etc.,    Co.    zr.    Louisville,   olc  , 

R.    Co.,    pp.    908,    909,    915. 

z:   Small    &    Co.,    pp.    394,    393. 

396,    397. 

Lewisohn     ?•.      National      Stcamshii) 

Co.,    p.    940. 
Lewiston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Cameron    r. 
Conway    z: 

-  White    z: 

Lewiston,     etc..    Railway,     White    t'. 
Lewiston,    etc.,    St.    R.     Co.,     Cam- 
eron  ?'. 

Lewiston,     etc.,     St.     Railway.     Blair 

•  Cameron    v. 

Stone  '■. 

Lewy,    Aststrup    '■. 

Lewyt    z'.    Dry    Dock,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1574. 
Lexington,    .\dams    Exp.    Co.    v. 
Howe  V. 
Lexington   Grocery   Co.   v.    Southern 

R.    Co.,    pp.    151,    155. 
Lexington    R.    Co.      v.     Britton,      p. 

1893. 

v.   Cozine,    p.    3070. 

<•.   Herring,      pp.      1516,      1518, 

2297,    2332,    2357,    2752. 

z:   Johnson,    pp.    2950,    3068. 

z:  Lowe,       pp.        1884,       2225. 

2926. 

z:   O'Brien,    p.    3031. 

Sandlin    z\ 

Lexington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\    Lyons, 

pp.    2459,    2462,    2713,    3083,    3106. 
Lexington,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Keefe 

Leyland    &    Co.,    Insurance    Co.    z'. 
Leyland      Shipping      Co.,      Furness, 

etc.,    Co.    v. 
Leyser  ?■.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1613,    2447,    2481,    2483. 
Leysor,  Merchants'  Despatcli 

Transp.   Co.  '■. 
Lezinsky     ?'.    Metropolitan      St.      R. 

Co.,   pp.    2059,   2071. 
Libby   v.    Ingalls,    p.    571. 

V.   Maine  Cent.   R.  Co.,   pp. 

1575,   1680,  1684,   1723,   1746, 
1810,  1842,  1844. 

z>.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

948,      1099,       1303,       1318,      1320. 
1329. 

License      Cases,      pp.      3418,      3427, 

3429,    3538,    3539. 
Lichtenthaler,    Lockhart    Z'. 
Lichtenhein      z\     Boston,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    920. 
Lickbarrow     z.'.    Mason      (Eng.),      6 

East.    21— p.    371. 

V.   Mason    (Eng.),    2    T.    R.    63 

—p.    1221. 

z:   Mason,     27     T.     R.     (Eng.), 

177— pp.    306,    308. 

Liddell,    Chattanooga,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Liddicoat,    North     Birmingham     St. 

R.   Co.   z: 
Lide,    Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z' 
Liefert    f.    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co  , 

pp.    521,    1158,    1159. 
Lieserowitz,    We.st    Chicago    St.    R. 

Co.  V. 
Lieurance,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
I        V. 

I  Lieutenant       Admiral        Callomberg, 
'      Lawrence  v. 


Lifeware,    Nichols    -•. 
Light    z'.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 
2433,    2849,    3104. 

:■.   Harrisburg,      etc.,      R.     Co., 

p.    2855. 

Lightburne     z'.     Taxing     Dist.,     pp. 

3569,    3583. 
Lightcap,     Pittsburgh,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Lightfoot     Missouri,      etc..      Railway 

Lightfoot   &    Son   z\    St.    Louis,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    744. 
Lignante     ?'.    Panama     R.    Co.,     pp. 

3982,    3984. 
Ligon   z'.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

642,      643,    645,      646,      647,      667, 

675. 
Lillie,   Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 
Lillis  z\   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2479,   2482,   2529. 
Lilly,    Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z\   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

3055. 

Lilly    Co.    z:    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.     1190,     1191. 
Limburger     <■.     Westcott,      pp.      962, 

964,     1007. 
Lin   V.    Terre    Haute,    etc.,    Railroad, 

pp.    3160,    3168,    3183. 
Lin    Sing    z'.    Washburn,    p.    3566. 
Linam,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Linch    z\    Pittsburgh    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

1880. 
I  Lincoln,    Kent   z\ 

J'.  New  York,  etc..  Steam- 
ship   Co.,    p.    4010. 

The   City   of. 

Lincoln    Grain    Co.    f.    Chicago,    etc  , 

R.    Co.,   pp.    575,    597. 

Lincoln  Rapid  Transit  Co.,  Spell- 
man  z\ 

Lincoln  Real  Estate,  etc.,  Co., 
Becker  z\ 

Lincoln  St.  R.  Co.  v.  McClellan, 
pp.    1746,    1750,    1766,    2403,^  2(.71. 

Lincoln  Tent,  etc.,  Co.  z\  Missouri 
Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp.    402,    418. 

Lincoln    Tract.    Co.,    Bevard    v. 

z'.   Brookover,    p.    2687. 

V.   Heller,      pp.        1487,      2668, 

2669,    2671. 

'■.   McCarty.    p.    2859. 

•  z:   Shepherd,     pp.     2673,     2842. 

Zyrell    ?'. 

V.  Webb,      pp.        1487,       2664. 

2667,    2668,    2838. 
Lincoln,    etc.,    Bldg.    Co.,    Becker    v. 
Lind,     Stnomvart    Maatschaffy    Ned- 

erlandsche    Lloyd    "'. 

r.   United     States,     p.     3882. 

Lindahl,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■. 
Lindblom,       Northern       Commercial 

Lindcll  R.   Co.,   Cobb  r. 

Dillon   7'. 

Lindenbaum   z'.    New   York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2083,    2700,    2812,    2977. 
Linden    Oil    Co.,    Smith    <■. 
Lindh    T.     Great    Northern     R.     Co!, 

pp.    1254,    1257. 
Lindley,    Atchison,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    ?•. 

V.   Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3395. 

z'.  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1857,    1860. 

Lindsay  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    2235. 

V.  Jeffray,    p.    2642. 

?'.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

2412,  2620,   2622,   2784,   3083, 
3085. 

Railroad  Co.  ?■. 

- — -  7'.   Southern   R.   Co.,    pp.    2184. 

2251     2262. 

7'!  Wabash     R.     Co.,     p.     2626. 

Lindsay,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Mullen,    pp. 

3418,      3419,     3420,      3479,      3528, 
3530,    3547. 
Lindsey,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

T.   Maine     Steamship      Co.,      p. 

4034. 


TAIJLF,    OF    CASES. 


CCXV 


Lindsay     '■.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co., 

pp.     1575.    1939 
r.  Wabash    K.    Co.,    pp.    24S3. 

2849.  ,,      „ 

Lindslev    i'.    Chicago,    etc.,     K.    «-o., 

pp      728,     740.    821,     1036,     1330. 

1339,    1388,    1456. 
Linhoff   V.    Seattle,   etc..    R.    Co.,    p 

Link    v.    Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 

p.   2300. 
Linkc,    Pullman    Co.    v. 
Linklatcr    r.    Howell,    p.    3930. 
Linseed,    4,885     Bags    of. 
Linton,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    " 

Lipford    r.    Charlotte,    etc.,    R 

pp.    747,   776. 
Lipman    %:     .Atlantic,    etc.,     K 

pp.    3090,    3670. 
Lippnian,     Central,    etc.,     R-   >o-    '^'- 

f.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      P- 

632.  „     „ 

Lipscoml),    Norfolk,    etc.,    R-  .Co.    v. 

Liquid  Carbonic  Co.  f.  Norfolk, 
etc.,  R-.  Co.,  pp.  931,  936,  949, 
1084,  1085,  1090,  1098,  1100, 
1106.  .        , 

Lister,     International,     etc.,     K 


Co., 
Co., 


Co 


pp. 


Listic,    The. 

Litt   V.    Cowley,    p.    1246. 

Littell.   Krie   R.   Co.   v. 

Little,   .Mabama,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r    Boston,    etc.,     Railroad,     pp. 

815,    817,    818,    821,    827,    848. 

V.   Dusenberry,     p.     2089. 

V.  Fargo,   p.    1009. 

Gordon    v. 

Kansas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ''. 

V.   Semple,     p.     539. 

Te.xas    Mid.    Railroad    f. 

Western    R.    Co.    v. 

Littlefield    v.    Fitchburg    R.    Co.,    pp 

41.     169. 
Littlefield   Bros.,   Ilobart   &   Co. 
Littlejohn   v.    Fitchburg   R.    Co 

1760,   2086. 

V.  Jones,    p.     768. 

V.  Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2853. 

Little   Miami   R.   Co.,   Check  f. 

Childs   V. 

r.   Dodds  &   Co..   pp.   296,   365 

367,    369,    370,    306,    309,    318. 

Ilarshman   :■. 

?•.   Washburn,    pp.    3269, 

3288. 

J..  Wetmore,     pp.     2043, 

2049. 
Little    Rock    R..    etc..    Co.    v. 

bins,    pp.    2784,   3027,    3088, 

f  Doyle,  p.    1880. 

V.  Goerner,  pp.   3018,   3094 

Sloan   V. 

Little     Rock    Tract.,     etc..     Co. 

Kimbro.    pp.    2401.    2402. 

V.   Nelson,      op.      2120 

2544,    2550,    2295. 

V.  Walker,    p.    2070. 

T'.   Winn.    p.    3094. 

Little    Rock,    etc..    Co.,    Dobbins    v. 
Little   Rock,   etc,    R.    Co.   v.    .\tkins, 
p.    2249. 

T.   Bruce,    p.     530. 

f.   Cavencsse,   p.   2936. 

V.  Clark,    p.    144. 

V.   Conatser,    pp.    228,    263. 

r.  Corcoran,   pp.    1036,    1040. 

r.   Cravens,    pp.    973,    974. 

r.   Daniels,    p.    1194. 

r.   Dean.    pp.    1625.    1976. 

V.   F.ast      Tennessee,      etc 

Co..    pp.    3655.    3809.    3841. 

f.   Eubanks,    p.    974. 

Gibson     -'. 

V.   Glidewell,      pp.      549, 

636,    767. 

V.   Hanniford,    p.    141. 

V.   Harper,    pp.    103h,    1040. 

V.   Harrell,    p.    2810. 

V.  Hunter,    pp.    285,    288,    884, 

3168,   3174. 


Little    Rock.   etc..    R.    Co.   v.    .Miles,  I 
pp.    1567,    1725.    1761. 

J..   Miller    Coal    Co.,    p.    598. 

r.  Odom,    pp.    3261,    3358. 

z\  Oppenheimer.     p.    96. 

V.   Record,      pp.      3116,      3127, 

3130,    3163.    3176,    3196. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.,    41 

Fed.   559— pp.   3659,   3718. 

T.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    59 

Fed.    400— pp.    3656,    3660. 

-•.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    63 

Fed.    775,    11    C.    C.    A.    417,    26 
L.   R.   A.    192— pp.   3656,   3659. 

V.  Talbot,    pp.    725,    726,    732, 

'748,    765. 

;■.   Talbot  &  Co.,  pp.  958,   1036, 

1040,    1047. 

Taylor    Co.   v. 

Taylor   &   Co.   t. 

-  Taylor,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

V.  Trainer,    p.    3013. 

Littmann  v  Dry   Dock,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

p.    2196. 
Liveright,    Pennsylvania   Co.   v. 
Liverpool    Dock,   Turner   v. 
Liverpool,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Benhan,    p. 

1490. 

V.  Phoenix    Ins.    Co.,    p.    1490. 

i:   Saitta,    pp.    893,    911. 

-;—  V.   Suitter,    p.    893. 
Liverpool,     etc..     Steam    Co.    v.    In- 
surance  Co.,   p.    10,   793. 

Liverpool,  etc..  Steam  Co.  v.  Phe- 
nix  Ins.  Co.,  pp.  1,  2.  4,  10, 
721,  790.  793,  795,  930.  931,  932, 
942,  947,  950,  955,  956,  1073, 
1151,1  3869,  3870,  3897,  3898^ 
3917,  -4017,  4018,  4021.  4023, 
4024,    4031,    4057. 

Liverpool,      etc..       Steamboat 


Steamship 


Co., 
Co., 


3270. 
2044, 


Dob- 
3102. 


2518, 


First     Xat. 


Texas,    etc. 


R. 


562, 


Redmond 
Liverpool,       etc. 
Arend  f. 

Baldwin    v. 

Redmond    v. 

Steers    v. 

Liversidge   "•.    Berkshire    St.    R.    Co., 

p.   2421. 
Livery    v.    Philadelphia,    p.    742. 
Live     Stock     Co.     V.     Kansas,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    640. 
Livczay,     Wall     7'. 
Livingston,    Fibel    v. 
Grand    i\ 

Hawkinsville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -.■. 

■:•.   Miller,   pp.    484.    573.    574. 

•  r.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    3286,    3299. 

•  Russell    f. 

Livingston     County     t 

Bank,   p.   3484. 
Lizardi,    Keene    v. 
Llano    Live    Stock    Co 

K.   Co.   f. 
Lloyd,    Booth    f. 

Chicago    &    J.    E.    Ry.    Co.    r. 

Georgia     R.,    etc.,    Co.    z: 

I'.  Haugh,    etc..    Transfer    Co., 

pp.     1,     10,    485,     722.    800,    822, 
845,   857. 

Rau,ch    7\ 

Lobb    V.     Seattle,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

2701. 
Lobdell    r.    Bullitt,    p.    1839. 
Lobner  r.   Metropolitan   St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1980,    2309,    2344,    2887. 
Lock,    Ft.   Worth,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 
Locke,    Mexican    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Lockhart.    East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R 

Co.   f. 
f.  Lichtenthaler,   p.    1580. 

MoUison    f. 

Toledo,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 

f.   Western,    etc.,    R'.    Co..    pp 

481,    482,    487.    490. 

Locklin   r.    Bcckwith,   p.   2560. 
Locknian.     Indianapolis     Tract.     Co. 

— —  Indianapolis    Tract.,    etc..     Co. 

Lockport,    The. 


Lockwood  V  Boston  Elevated  R. 
Co..  pp.  1508.  1515,  1516,  1522. 
1523.  1709.  1892,  2143,  2328, 
2946. 

New    York   Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

New    York,    etc..    R.    Co.    t. 

Railroad    Co.    t'. 

Lockwood    Mfg.    Co..    Southern    K. 

Co.   r. 
Lockwood  &   Son,   Erie  R.  Co.  v. 
Loeb,    Fire    Ass'n    v. 
V.   Peters,    pp.    380.    381.    382. 

387.   391.    1214.   1221,   1225. 

i:  Wabash     R.    Co.,     pp.     537. 

539.  „     ,    . 

Loeffler     v.     Keokuk,     etc..     Packet 

Co.,    pp.    513,    595. 
Locscher,    Nordcmeyer    i-. 
Loeser  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1375,    1476. 
Loewe,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Loewenberg    v.     .Arkansas,     etc.,     K. 

Co.,    p.    521.  . 

Loftis,    Pennsylvania    Co.    v. 
Loftus   r.    Metropolitan   St.    K.    Co., 

'-  V.  Union    Fecry    Co.,    p.    1687. 

Logan,    Central    R.,    etc.,   Co.   v. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

Farmers',    etc.,    Nat.     Bank    i. 

V.   Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1612,    1862.    2454,    2639. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V    Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co.. 

pp.   2694,   2736,   2968,   2981. 

V.   Pontchartrain     R.     Co..     pp. 

1007,    3157,    3158,    3163,    3165. 

V.   Smith,    p.    381. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   United    R.    Co.,    p.    1710. 

Logan    &    Co.    r.    Central    Railroad. 

pp    5     222     257.   3247,   3271.   3386. 
—11  Central     R.     Co.     f.  . 

Logan   Coal  Co.  v.   Pennsylvania  K. 

Co..    pp.    3641,    3642,    3643. 
Logan,    etc,    Co..    Chicago,    etc..    K. 

Co.   V.  _ 

Logwood  V.   Memphis,   etc.,   K.   t_o.. 

pp.     1944.     1949.  ^       ^      n 

Lohe,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    St.    K.    *-0. 


Lollar,   Southern  R.   Co.  v. 

Lomas   v.    New    York    City    R.    Co.. 

p.   2691. 
Lombard,    Lowenstein    v. 
Lombard,    etc.,    Co.,    Lowenstein    z: 
Lombard,     etc..     Pass.     R.     Co.     -■. 

Christian,   p.   2637. 
London  &  N.  W.   R.   Co.,   Evershed 

Hodkinson   v. 

London  &  S.  W.  R.  Co..  Le  Coteur 

— ^  Tyler    v.  ^  ...       rx 

London    Assur.    v.    Companhia     De 
Moagens    Do    Barreiro,    pp.    3.6, 

London    B.    &    S.    C.    R.    Co.,    Ash- 
den   V. 

Richards  f. 

London    R.,    Caterham    R.    Co.    v. 
London    R.    Co.,    Butcher   :■. 

Hooper    r.  ^.         .  ^        , 

London,     etc..      Fire     Ins.     t-o.      y 

Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  \. 
200,  39  N.  E.  79,  43  Am.  St. 
Rep.    752— pp.   285,    287,   289.   291. 

—  V.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co..  68 
Hun  598,  13  X.  Y.  S.  231.  32 
N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  581— pp.  83o. 
1010,    1021. 


London,     etc.,     R. 
p.     1239. 

Butcher    v. 

Cahill    V. 

Chilton   V. 

Collett    z: 

Cooper  ;. 

Crouch    V. 

Hiort    :. 

LeBlanche    f 

Lewis    V. 


Co. 


Bartlett. 


rex  VI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Lovell   f. 

Marriott    f. 

Painter    f. 

Palmer    "'. 

— —  Phelps    f. 

Richards    f. 

Simpson    v. 

Weller     v. 

West  i: 

London,    etc..    Railway,    Maddox    v. 
Londoner,   Union,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 
Lone    Star   Salt   Co.   z:    Texas,   etc., 

R.    Co.,    90    S.    W.    863,    99    Tex. 

434,    3    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    828— 

p.    475. 

r.  Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.     (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  86  S.  VV.  355— p. 
474. 

Long  f.    Abeles  &   Co.,   p.   642. 

i:  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     48 

Kan.  28,  28  Pac.  977,  53  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  45.  15  L.  R. 
A.  319,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  271  — 
pp.    2018,    2030. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,    R'.     Co.,     15 

Okla.  512,  86  Pac.  289,  6  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  8^,  6  Am.  &  E.  g. 
Ann.    Cas.    1005— p.    1256. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

-c:  Leigh    \'alley    R.    Co..     pp. 

1578,    2105,    2106. 

V.  Louisville,   etc..   Packet   Co., 

pp.    728,    73i,    766,    776,    1152. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 

I'.  Mobile,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

581,    582. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co. 

pp.  323,  333,  335,  451,  984,  1016 
1017,    3880,    3881. 

V.   Pennsylvania     R,     Co.,     ip 

733,    738,    3186. 

V.   Red     River,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    2748,    2903. 

San     Antonio,     etc.,     R.     Co 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    '•. 

Longfellow,   The. 

Long    Island   R.    Co.,    Barnes   f. 

Baum    f. 

Beecher    v. 

Blaisdell   v. 

Bouker    7: 

Brownirg   z'. 

Bruning    v. 

Compton     V. 

CoppocR'  V. 

Distler    '•. 

Eldridge   v. 

Ilogan    f. 

Homiston    i\ 

Jonas    V. 

McDonald   V. 

Moffatt    V. 

Mott    v. 

Mullin   V. 

Nelson   v. 

Rogers    v. 

Root   V. 

Stoddard   7'. 

Strong  V. 

Tingley    v. 

Valentine    v. 

Werle    v. 

Willis  V. 

Long  &  Son,  Nashville,  etc..  Rail- 
way   t'. 

Longley,    Maine    Stage    Co.    v. 

Longmeid   v.   Holliday,    p.    1849. 

Longmore  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
pp.     1775,     1785. 

Loomer,    Derwort    -•. 

Loomis   V.   Jewett,    p.    2479. 

V.  Lehigh    Valley   JR.    Co.,    208 


)1     N. 


907— 


132 
Div. 


N.     Y.     312,     10 
pp.    782,    3734. 

—  V.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co 
N.  Y.  S.  138,  147  App. 
195— p.    3743. 

I'.  Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

417,     581. 

—  Wallace  v. 


Loon,    The. 

Loonan  Lumber  Co.,  Great  North- 
ern R'.  Co.   c'. 

Looney,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Loonie,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Loper,    Johnson    v. 

Loraine  r.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    255,    256. 

Lord  V.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp. 
277,    279,    292,    652,    653,    672. 

I'.  Manchester       St.       Railway, 

pp.     2312,    2796. 

V.  Midland   R.    Co.,   p.    1671. 

V.  Pueblo,    etc.,    Rctin.    Co.,    p. 

2858. 

V.   Steamship     Co.,     pp.     3418, 

3420,    4036,    4054.^ 

Lord,    etc.,    Co.    !■.    Texas,    etc.,    K. 

Co.,     pp.     430,     503,     3334. 
Lord    Byron,    Robinson   v. 
Lorenzen,    Kx    parte. 
Loria,    Sucsskind-Schatz    Co.    v. 
Loring,    Taggard   v. 
Lorton,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 
Los    Angeles    Pac.    Co.,    Morgan    v. 
Los   Angeles   R.    Co.,    Campbell    r. 

Cary    v. 

• Forsjthe    f. 

■  trobt    T. 

Joyce   V.  ^ 

Los   Angeles   Terminal    R.    Co.,    Cox 

— ^  Raub   z: 

Los     Angeles     Tract.     Co.,     Babc^ck 

Badcock  z\ 

Bassett    v. 

Cordiner    v. 

Osgood   V. 

Losie     V.     Delaware,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

2669. 
Lothrop,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    v. 
Lotspeich    z\    Central    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    3250. 
Lott,    Hinson    v. 

More,   etc.,    Co.   v. 

z\  New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2535. 

Lottawanna,    The. 

Lottery    Case,    pp.    3428,    3441. 

Lotz,     North     Chicago     St.     K.     Co. 

Loudoun    !■.     Eighth    Ave.     R.     Co  , 

pp.    1687,    2009,   2671,    2764,    2'J7^, 

2979. 
Lough  z'.   Outerbridge,   pp.   220,   222, 

1135,      1175,      1175,      1179,      1180, 
1181,      1185,     1188,      1189,      11^0, 

1193,    1194. 
Loughin    z'.    McCaulley,     p.    4075. 
Louis    z'.    Buckeye,    p.    84d. 
Louisiana,    Morgan    z\ 
Nathan    v. 

Pittsburgh,   etc..   Coal    Co.   v. 

v.   Texas,    pp.    3441,    34oS. 

Louisiana      Board,     Morgan'^,     etc.. 

Steamship    Co.    v. 
Louisiana     Nat.     Bank     v.     Laveilie, 

p.    309. 
Louisiana     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v.     II'  lly, 

pp.    3665,    3754. 

Oxendine    v. 

■  Stothard    ''. 

Williams    v. 

Louisiana    State    Board,    Comiiagnie 

Francaise,    etc.,    \'apeur    v. 
Louisiana    Western    R.    Co.,    Hai  vey 

V. 

— —  Marx   z'. 

Louisiana,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    Al)ney    v. 

Chancy    v.- 

■ Granier   v. 

Holliday    Mill    Co.    z: 

Lehman   ^'. 

Marsalis    i'. 

Marx    z\ 

V.   Railroad     Comm.,     pp.     45, 

47,    49. 

v.   Rider,       pp.        1854,       3011, 

3015,     3060. 


.1888,     1901. 


2883,    2888. 
2903. 


Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  United 
States    z\ 

z\   United      States,      pp.      3651, 

3661,      3728,      3784,      3802,      3804, 
3805. 

Louisville   &    N.    R.    Co.   z:    Walksr. 

p.     74. 
Louisville    City     R.     Co.,     Curtis    v. 

V.   Hudgins,    p.    2278. 

f.   Mercer,    p.    2480. 

V.   Wcams,    pp.    1728,    1737. 

Louisville   R.   Co.   z:    Blum,   p.    2083. 

Brown    v. 

•  Bullitt    z\ 

z\   Goodman,    p.    2083. 

Henning   z\ 

Houghton   7'. 

Howard   v. 

t'.    Hutti,    p.    2427. 

z:   Kupper,    pp.    2035,    2060. 

t'.   Meglemery,   25    Ky.   L.   Rep. 

1587,     78     S.     W.     217— pp.     1535, 
1536,    2272,    2381. 

r."  Meglemery,    79    S.    W.    287, 

25    Ky.    L.    Rep.    2062— p.    2989. 

c'.   Mitchell,     pp.      1524,     2115, 

21  111,    2278,    2364,    2878. 

Nussbaum    v. 

•:•.   Owens,    pp.    2862,    2992. 

-■.   Park,    pp.    1712,    1715,    1739, 

1749,    1830. 

•  z\   Pulliam,    pp. 

Sacrey    v. 

Samuels  z\ 

z\   Sheehan,    pp. 

z\   Steubing,    p. 

Stringfield     z'. 

Sweet  V. 

z:   Wellington,    p.    2962. 

z:  Wilder^     pp.      1888,      1893, 

2878. 

v.  Williams,    p.    2891. 

I'.   Worley,    p.    2777. 

Louisville  St.  R.  Co.  z\  Brown- 
field,    pp.    2695,    2861. 

Louisville  Union  Benev.  ^Ass'n, 
Sayre   f. 

Louisville,  etc..  Ferry  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 57  S.  W.  624,  22  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  446,  1O8  Ky.  717 — 
p.    3587. 

z'.   Commonwealth,     57    S.      W. 

626,     22     Ky.     L.     Rep.     480,     24 
L.    Rep.    1339— p.    3587. 

z'.   Kentucky,     pp.     3475,     3478, 

3552,    3581,    3584,    3587. 

z:  Nolan,    pp.    1750,    2793. 

Louisiana,     etc.,     Lumber     Co.,     St. 

Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Louisville,  etc..   Mail  Co.  v.  Barn.'S, 

pp.  1698,  4004. 

V.   Gilliland,  pp.  4000,  4002. 

■  z:   Levey  &  Co.,   pp.   3284. 

3294. 
Louisville,   etc..    Packet    Co.   v.    B  nt- 
orff,    p.    650. 

Long    z: 

z:   Mulligan,    p.    4002. 

z:   Rogers,      pp.      3872,      3876. 

3878,    3882,    3888,    3897,    390?. 

■  v.   Smith,    pp.    823,    3912. 

Louisville,  etc..  Railroad  r.  liter- 
state  Commerce  Comm.,  pp.  2666, 
3668,  36/3,  3675,  3676,  3678, 
3679,  3680,  3681,  3682,  3683, 
3764,    3799,    3802. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Adams    z'. 

Agee    &    Co.    z\ 

i:  Allen,    pp.    3745,    3752. 

V.   Allgood,     pp.     484,     581. 

z:  Alumbaugh,    p.    2709. 

Anderson    z'. 

Anthony     v. 

Armistead    Lumber    Co.    ''. 

Arnold    -'. 

V.   Arnold,     22     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

199,    56    S.    W.    809— p.    1302. 

•  V.  Arnold,    102    S.    W.    322.    31 

Ky.   L.    Rep.   414— pp.    2814,    2965, 

Attorney    General    f. 

Bailey    v. 


taiu.k  of   cases. 


CCXVII 


Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Baker   v. 

V.   Ballard,  85  Ky.  307,  3  S. 

W.  530,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  7,  7  .\m. 
St.  Rep.  600— pp.  2057,  2768, 
3011,  3065,  3071. 

r.   Ballard,  88  Ky.  159,  10 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  735,  10  S.  W.  429, 
2  L.  R-.  A.  (i94— p.  3062. 

J'.  Barkhouse,  p.  548. 

Baughman  r. 

Baxter  v. 

V.   Bays.  p.  1537. 

V.   Bean,  p.  2249. 

Behlmer  f. 


—  z'.   Behlmer, 

169  U.  S.  644. 

42  L.  ICd.  889, 

18  S.  Ct.  502— 

p.  3808. 

—  7'.  Behlmer, 

175  U.  S.  648, 

44  L.  lul.  309, 

20  S.  Ct.  209— 

pp.  3602,  3610,  3638,  3664,  3713, 
3714,  3715,  3716,  3721,  3722. 
3730,  3785,  3786,  3798,  3806, 
3807. 

V.   Bell,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  393— 

pp.  628,  1419. 

V.   Bell,  lot)  Ky.  203,  18  Ky. 

L.  Rep.  735,  8  Am.  &  Kng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  413,  38  S.  W.  3— 
pp.  1567,  2092,  2093,  2302,  2756. 

Bennett  z: 

V.   Bennett,    pp.    3277,    3407. 

V.   Berg.    pp.    1737,    2223 

V.   Beriiheim,    pp.    537,    602. 

Berry   r. 

V.   Berry,    pp.    200,    1593. 

7'.   Betz,    p.    1446. 

Beyer   '■. 

V.   Bigger,    pp.    733,    749,    765, 

1339,    1472. 

7'.    Bisch,   pp.    1752,    1961,   2126, 

2179,    2189. 

Bitterman   '•. 

z'.   Bitterman,    p.    1616. 

V.  Bizzell,      pp.      2628,      3019, 

3031. 

V.   Blair,    pp.    2443,    2445,    3097. 

V.   Board,   p.    2861. 

Boughman    f. 

V.  Bourne,     15     Kv.     L.     Rep. 

445— pp.     821,     3267.  "3326,     3372. 

z\  Bourne,     16     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

825,  29  S.  W.  975— pp.  3262, 
3344. 

V.  Bowlds,   p.   2760. 

V.   Breckinridge,       pp.        2456, 

2459,    2474,    2493,    3098. 

V.   Brewer,     pp.     1497,     2029. 

Briant     z'. 

Brinegcr   z\ 

z:   Brinley,    p.    130o. 

z:   Britton,     39     So.     585,     145 

Ala.   645— pp.   580,   591,    592,   602. 

f.    Britton,     149     Ala.     552,     43 

50.  IDS- pp.   590,  592,  601. 

Brooke    -'. 

Brown    !■. 

z:   Brown,     123     Fed.     946— pp. 

51,  57. 

V.   Brown,     28     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

772,  90  S.  W.  567— pp.  1454, 
1456,    1457. 

v.   Brownlee,      pp.      320,      908, 

910,    958,    986,    988,    1023. 

Bryant    v. 

Burns    z\ 

Butchers'    Stock   Yards   Co.    v. 

Butchers',     etc.,     Stock     V'ards 

Co.  z: 

7'.   Byrley,    pp.    3065,    3073. 

Cain  f. 

z:  Campbell    (Ky.),    122    S.    \V. 

848— p.     2208. 

z\  Campbell,       54       Tenn.       (7 

Heisk.)  253— pp.  515,  3257,  3291, 
3329.    3330,    3360,    3364. 

CandifF    z\ 

f.   Cannon,   pp.    1663,    2647. 

Caples    -■. 

?■.   Carothers,   pp.   2721,  2772. 

V.  Castello,   p.    1897. 


Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'.    Catron, 
p.    1947. 

V.  Cayce,   pp.   1865,  2575. 

v.   Cecil,     145     Ky.     271,     140 

Ky.  186— pp.  1312,  1313,  1329, 
1455. 

V.   Cecil,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  402— 

pp.  2127,  2260. 

Central  Stockyards  Co.  z\ 

I'.  Central  Stock  Yards  Co  , 

30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  18,  97  S.  W. 
778— pp.  82,  83,  94,  107,  108, 
131,  3247,  3262,  3275,  3518, 
3535. 

V.   Central  Stock  Yards  Co., 

212  U.  S.  132,  133,  S3  L.  Ed. 
441,  29  S.  Ct.  246— pp.  98,  106, 
224. 

7'.   Champiorj,    pp.     2663,    3094. 

7'.   Chestnut    &    Bro.,    p.    3354. 

7'.  Church,      pp.      1739,      2585, 

2917,    2939,    3225,    3226. 

Cincinnati   Grain   Co.  v. 

Clark    z'. 

Clarke  v. 

Clement    7'. 

V.  Coal    Co.,   p.    247. 

V.  Cockerel,    p.    1831. 

v.  Cody,    pp.    805,    1443,    1445. 

Coe    7'. 

Coffee  7'. 

Coles  z'. 

<•.   Collier,    pp.    1906,    2264. 

Commonwealth    7'. 

7'.   Commonwealth,  99  Ky.    132, 

18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  42,  35  S.  W. 
129,  33  L.  R.  A.  209,  59  Am. 
St.   Rep.   457— p.   35. 

7'.  Commonwealth,  99  Ky.  663, 

37    S.    W.    79— p.     1949.  ^ 

'•.   Commonwealth      (Ky.),      46 

S.    W.    702— pp.   85,   86,    180. 

7'.  Commonwealth,       104      Ky. 

226,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1102,  1380, 
46  S.  W.  707,  47  S.  W.  210, 
598,  43  L.  R.  A.  541— pp.  74, 
118,    180. 

7'.   Commonwealth,       105       Ky. 

179,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1099,  48 
S.  W.  416,  43  L.  R.  A.  550— 
pp.    178,    180. 

7'.  Commonwealth,       106      Ky. 

633,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  232,  51  S. 
W.  164,  1012,  90  Am.  St.  Rep. 
236— pp.     74,     1187. 

7'.  Commonwealth,       108.     Ky. 

628,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  328,  57  S. 
W.   508— pp.   96,    178. 

-■.   Commonwealth,       114       Ky. 

787,  24  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1593,  1779, 
71    S.    W.    910— p.    180. 

7'.   Commonwealth,    21     Ky.    L. 

Rep.   239,   51    S.   W.    167— p.    182. 

7'.  Constantine,  pp.  2248,  3069, 

3073. 

V.   Cook,  pp.  1854,  1867,  1906, 

1922. 

7'.  Cook    Brewing    Co.,    96    C. 

C.  A.  322,  172  Fed.  117.  40  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  798— pp.  257, 
3538. 

7'.  Cook    Brewing   Co.,    223   U. 

S.  70,  56  L.  Ed.  355,  32  S.  Ct. 
189— pp.    3427,    3809,    3810,    3814. 

7'.  Coons,  p.  2397. 

7'.  Cooper,  142  Ky.  533,  134 

S.  W.  920— p.  1479. 

7'.  Cooper,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

496—  pp.  3284,  3327,  3347. 

7'.   (iooper,     19     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

1152,    42     S.     VV.     1134— p.     3289. 

V.  Cooper,    56    S.    W.    144,    21 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1644— pp.  1297, 
3297. 

Copp    7'.  ,  ,  , 

7'.   Coquillard     \\'agon     \\  orks 

.\ssignees,    p.    3757. 

Corcoran    '■. 

7'.   Cornelius,     pp.     2667,     2668. 

7'.   Cottengim,     p.     1571,     1604, 

2474,   2532,   2715,   2717. 


Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z:    Cotton- 
gim,    pp.    2474,    3088,    3105. 

Courts    7'. 

V.  Covetts,    p.    3061. 

V.  Cowherd,      pp.       726.      7.'2. 

748.    773,    820.     1035,    3349. 

Crawford  -■. 

V.  Craycraft,    p.    453. 

z'.  Crayton,   p.    2705. 

Crescent   Coal   Co.   v. 

7'.   Crowe,    p.    3694. 

Crowley   v. 

V.   Crown    Coal   Co.,    p.   91. 

V.  Croxton,    pp.    2915.    2924. 

7'.  Crozier,      pp.      945,       1362, 

3284,  3414. 

V.   Crunk,   pp.   2249.   2406, 

2510,  2513,  2586,  2588,  2992» 
2994. 

7'.  Cunningham,  p.  869. 

V.   Dancy,  pp.  1867.  1869. 

7'.  Daugherty,  pp.  1775.  2130. 

2859. 

Davis  7'. 

Dawson  -'. 

v.   Deason,   pp.   1880.   2120, 

2233.  2351,  2828,  2906,  2927, 
2974. 

Depp  7'. 

I'.  Depp,  p.  2253. 

Dickerson  7'. 

7'.  Dickerson,  pp.  3738,  3755, 

3777. 

v.   Dies,  p.  1837. 

Diggs  7'. 

Dilburn  7'. 

7'.  Dilburn,  pp.   1720,   1884, 

1899,  2294,  2319,  2379,  2380. 

Dillard  Bros.  v. 

Dinsmore  7'. 

7'.   Donaldson,    p.    2661. 

Doughitt    7'. 

7'.   Douglass,    p.    2068. 

Douthitt    7'. 

Du    Bose    7'. 

7'.  Du    Bose,    p.     1494. 

v.  Duncan,    pp.    3280.    3391. 

7'.   Dunlap.  pp.  831.  1042. 

Dunnington    &    Co.    7'. 

Durham   7'. 

v.  Dyer.     pp.     2150.     2723. 

7'.  Eakin.      pp.       2361,       2989. 

2993. 

Echols     7'. 

7'.   Echols,   p.   816. 

7'.   Edmondson,         pp.         2114. 

2155.    2267. 

Eichengreen   7'. 

v.  Ellis,    p.    2489. 

7'.  Empire  State  Chemical   Co., 

p.    718. 

7'.   Espenscheid,    p.    2511. 

7'.   Eubank,   pp.   74,   3480,   3491. 

3493,    3497,    3498,    3540. 

Fairfield   7'. 

7'.   Farmers',        etc.,        Comm. 

Firm,   pp.   3269,   3280,   3343. 

Favre  7'. 

7'.  Faylor,      pp.      1564, 

2001,    2098,    2696,    2698. 

7'.  Ferrell,      pp.      2532, 

3030,   3066,   3069. 

7'.  Fish,   pp.   2440,   3100. 

7'.  Fisher,    pp.    1694,    3206. 

7'.  Flannagan,     pp.     210,     229. 

231.     268,    448,    468,    635,     1176, 
1180. 

f.  Fleming,      pp.      196, 

1612,  1637,  1638,  1972, 
2425,  2430,  2431,  3081, 
3092. 

7'.  Forrest,      pp.      1503,      1718, 

2040,     2480,     2483,     2776. 

7'.  Fort   Wavne  Elect.  Co.,  pp- 

477,  492,  493.  554. 

- z:   Foster,  pp.  417.  3289.  3294. 

7'.  Fowler,   pp.   3026,  3082. 

3089.  ,.,, 

7'.  Fox,  pp.  1697,  2/33.  2/36. 

2920. 

Franklin  7'. 


1566, 


3022. 


1495. 
2415. 
3090. 


CCXVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    f.    Frazee. 
pp.    986,    1072,    1400. 

Frederick    f. 

Freeman    f. 

7-.  Fulgham.    pp.   94,    332.    333. 

V.   Caddie,    pp.    2754,    3047. 

r.   Gaines.    99    Ky.    411,    36    S. 

W.  174.  IS  Kv.  L.  Rep.  387.  59 
Am.  St.  Rep.  465— pp.  2449. 
2459. 

z:  Gaines,    152    Kv.     255,     153 

S.  W.  216— p.  2878. 

'•.  Garrett,   pp.   1503,   2429, 

2472.  3092. 

r.  Gatewood,    pp.    2477,    2533. 

George    &    Co.    v. 

Gerardv    i'. 

r.   Gerson,    pp.    725,   804. 

r.  Gidley,    pp.    741.    876,    908, 

1038. 

Gilleland   v. 

Gillespie   v. 

f.   Gilmer,    pp.    530,    563,    848. 

r.  Glasgow,     pp.     1512,     1739. 

2134,   2577,   2593,   2864. 

r.   Goben,      pp.      2433,      2484, 

2625. 

V.  Godman,   pp.   210,   229,   287, 

1281,    1442,    1449. 

z\   Gormlev,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

188,  109  S.  W.  346,  111  S.  W. 
289— pp.  1317,  1318,  1344,  1349, 
1351,  1353,  1357,  1480. 

z:   Gormley  (Ky.),  121  S.  \V. 

965— p.  1283. 

r.  Grant,  pp.  1364,  3415. 

Green  z\ 

z:   Gregory,  pp.   1828,   1837, 

2794. 

z:   Grimes,      pp.       1938,      2319, 

2862,    2912. 

z\  Grundy,    p.    3054. 

z:  Guinan,      pp.      1596,      1598, 

2716,    3068,    3091. 

Gulf    City    Constr.    Co.    v. 

Guthrie    v. 

z:   Guy,    p.    3062. 

z:   Guyton,   p.   2921. 

r.  Hailey,    pp.    1544,    1549. 

r.  Hale,    pp.    1893,    1894. 

Hall     Grain    Co.    z'. 

V.   Harmon,  pp.   1491,   1895, 

1900,  2387. 

z:   Harned,  pp.  1390,  1477. 

Harris  z'. 

z:   Harris,      pp.       1542,       1627,< 

2442,   2473. 

z\  Hartman,    p.    2364. 

Hartmann    '■. 

Hartwell   f. 

V.  Hartwell,      pp.      477,       598, 

1250. 

z:  Hawley,    pp.     1458,     1459. 

V.  Head,    p.    2338. 

V.  Hedger,      pp.      819,       1363, 

1457. 

z'.  Heilprin     &     Co.,     pp.     567, 

636. 

Henderson    v. 

V.  Hendricks,    pp.    1815,    2671, 

2682. 

V.  Henry,    p.    2729. 

z:  Higdon,    pp.    225,    231.    237, 

251,    263,    537,    538,    1184,    3471. 

Higgins    z: 

Hill    V. 

V.   Hine,    pp.    2436,    2437,   2494, 

3078,    3079,    3083,    3085. 

V.  Hiram      Blow     &      Co.,      p. 

599. 

Z'.   Hirsch,    p.    1774. 

z:   Holsapple,     pp.     1705,     1923. 

Hoosier   Stone  Co.  v. 

Hopperton    z'. 

z'.  Hughes,    p.    3505. 

Hughlett    V. 

z:  Hull,    pp.    1256,    1257. 

Hunter    v. 

Hutcheson    v. 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Interstate 
Commerce   Comm.   v. 

V.   Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

108  Fed.  988,  46  C.  C.  A.  685— 
p.    3715. 

V.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

184  Fed.  118— pp.  3671,  3672, 
3774,    3801,    3809. 

7'.   Interstate     R.     Co.,     p.     104. 

Irwin    z: 

V.   Jackson,  p.  3057. 

Jenkins  v. 

V.   Jenkins,  pp.  1854,  3060. 

Johnson  v. 

V.   Johnson,  92  Ala.  204,  9  So. 

269,  25  Am.  St.  Rep.  35- pp. 
2425,  2489. 

^—  z:  Johnson,  108  Ala.  62,  19 
So.  51,  31  L.  R.  A.  372— pp. 
2488,  2489. 

z\   Johnson,  33  So.  661,  135 

Ala.  232— pp.  900. 

z:   Johnson,  44  111.  App.  56 — 

p.  2248. 

z:   Johnston,  pp.  1870,  2i)60. 

Jones  V. 

z:   Jones,  83  Ala.  376,  3  So. 

902— pp.  2636,  2778. 

z:   Jones,  108  Ind.  551,  9  N. 

E.  476,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
170— pp.  1813,  1987,  2693,  2758, 
2807,  2888,  3008. 

V.   Jones,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  494 

—pp.  531,  896. 

V.   Joplin,   pp.   2468,.   3092, 

3103. 

V.   Jordan,  pp.  2476,  3101. 

V.   kahn,  pp.  1152,  1153. 

V.   Katzenberger,  pp.  729,  733. 

750,  1268,  3142,  3143,  3166, 
3226,  3228. 

v.   KaufFman  &  Co.,  p.  392. 

— ■  z\   Keefer,  pp.  214,  253,  254, 

1578,  2092,  2093,  2100,  2105, 
2106. 

V.   Keith,  p.  2243. 

-■.  Keller,   pp.   1533,   3055, 

3063. 

-■.  Kelly,   pp.   2037,   20(.9, 

2222. 

!■.  Kelsey,   pp.   848,   1344, 

1405. 

'■.  Kemp,  pp.  1739,  2890. 

z:   Kendall,  p.  2609. 

V.   Kentucky,  161  U.  S.  677, 

696,  40  L.  Ed.  849,  16  S.  Ct. 
714— pp.  34,  39,  3481,  3484. 

V.   Kentucky,     183    U.     S.     503, 

46  L.  Ed.  298,  22  S.  Ct.  95— 
pp.  26,  35,  36,  58,  59,  63,  73, 
3497,    3498. 

Kentucky     Wagon      Mfg.      Co. 

Kentucky,      etc..      Bridge      Co. 


3029. 

1575,     3068. 


1620,      1622. 


-  V.  Kimbrough,     p. 

-  Z'.   Kingman,     pp. 
— ■  Kinney    v. 

V.   Klyman,     pp. 

1973,    2440. 

-  Lampkin  z'. 

-  V.    Landers,      pp.      462,      1107, 
1422,     1425. 

-  V.   Lawler,    p.    2149. 

V.  Lawson,     88     Ky.     496,     11 

S.    W.    511- pp.    513,    585. 

z'.  Lawson,     9     Ky.     L.     R'cp. 

681— pp.    515,    594,    595. 

Z'.   Lazarus,      pp.      1427,      1428, 

1458,    1459. 

V.   Lee,  pp.  1910,  2066,  2721, 

2932. 

Levy  Z'. 

Lewis  f. 

7'.  Lewis,  p.  3021. 

Lewis,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

f.  Linton,  pp.  2085,  2087. 

V.   Logan,   pp.   2419,   2488, 

2490. 

r.   Long,    pp.    2001,    2146. 


Louisville,     etc.,    R.     Co.    ■:■.     Lucas, 
pp.    1739,    1767,    1779,    1797. 

Lunsford    "'. 

McCampbell    v. 

McCarthy    z\ 

z:   McCarty,    p.    1454. 

iucChord    '■. 

z:   McClaiH,    p.    3068. 

McClelland    i: 

f.   McClintock,   pp.    1454,    1456, 

14()2. 

z:  McCool,    p.    585. 

■;■.   McCoy,    p.    2949. 

McDonald    ■;•. 

McDowell   ?■. 

v.   McKwan,     17     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

406,  31  S.  W.  465,  2  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  438— 
pp.    2025,    2027,    2768. 

z:   McEwan,    21     Ky.    L.    Rep. 

487,  51  S.  W.  619— pp.  2025, 
2027. 

•  '■.   McGuire     &     Co.,     pp.     515, 

517,    799,    895,    900. 

z:   McKenna,     pp.     1720,     1808. 

1814,    1821,     1825,     1827. 

z\   McKcnzie,     pp.      738,     953. 

955. 

McKinley   v. 

McMurtray    v. 

McMurtrv    v. 

•  f.   McNafly,     PP-      l-<98,      1507, 

3095. 

7'.   Magnvis    Co.,    p.    1151. 

r.   Mahan,      pp.      3160,      3168, 

3170,     3172,     3174. 

Malcomb    -■. 

V.   Manchester    Mills,    pp.    487, 

833,    1037,    1041. 
Manning    z'. 

z:   Marshall,    p.    2809. 

Martin,      pp.       1285,       1457, 

Mask,   pp.    1869,    1870,    1886, 

Mason,     4     Ala.     App.     353. 
58   So.   963— pp.   2429,   2631,   2664. 

-..   Mason,    79   Tenn.    (11    Lea) 

116,     16     Am.     &     Eng.     R.     Cas. 
241— pp.   849,  865,   1352,    1355. 

z:   Massie,    p.    2321. 

V.   Maybin,      pp.      2426,      2442, 

3088. 

Melbourne   z\ 

v.   Meyer,  pp.  324,  325,  798. 

986,  996,  999,  1004,  3349,  3350. 

z:   Miles,    pp.     190,     198,     1858. 

r.   Miller,       pp.       1813,       1986, 

2405,    2673,    2839. 

V.   Mink,     pp.     305,     641,     643, 

645,    648,    671,    674,    680. 

v.   Minogue,    pp.    1737,    2002. 

z\  Mississippi,     pp.     34,     1946, 

1947,    3497,    3498,    3511. 

z:   Moore,    ISO    S.   W.    849,    150 

Ky.    692— pp.    2256,    2319. 

z:    Moore     (Ky.),     121     S.     W. 

666— p.    2845. 

Morningstar   Z'. 

v.   Morris,    p.    2185. 

Moses    z'. 

z>.   Moss,    p.    2533. 

z\  Mothershed,    p.    2641. 

Mottlcy    z: 

z:   Mottley,    133    Ky.    652,    118 

S.   W.   982— pp.    1643,   3694,  3695. 

'■.  Mottley,  219  U.  S.  467. 

55  L.  Ed.  297,  31  S.  Ct.  265, 
34  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  671— 
pp.  3464,  3631,  3664,  3665,  3684. 
3686,  3694,  3696,  3750,  ^753, 
3765,  3766. 

Mount  z: 

;..  Mount,   pp.   2347,   2375, 

2638,  2728,  2730,  2780. 

Mouton  V. 

V.   Mulder,   pp.   1684,   2036, 

2342,  2344,  2885. 

7'.  Newman,  p.  2566. 


TAIir.K    OF    CASKS. 


CCXIX 


Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   f.    N'icholai, 
pp.    121,    7G5,    1632. 

V.   Oden,   p.   900. 

O'Donncll    v. 

7'.  Ohio     \'alley     Tic     Co.,     p. 

3435. 

Olivier    r. 

OrfltT   V. 

Owen   V. 

V.   Owen,     p.     1283. 

V.   Owens,    pp.     1075,    1397. 

Page    V. 

Parsons-Applcgate    Co.    v. 

Patterson    -•. 

V.   Patterson,  pp.  1953,  1954 

V.   Payne,  133  Kv.  539,  118 

S.  W.  352,  19  Am.  &  Kng.  Ann. 
Cas.  294— pp.  1798.  2729.  2744. 

f.  Payne,  104  S.  W.  752,  31 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  1173— pp.  2245, 
2904. 

V   Pedigo,  108  Ind.  481,  8  N. 

R.  627,  27  Am.  &  ICng.  R.  Cas. 
310— pp.  1717,  1723,  1740.  1986, 
2638. 

r.   Pedigo.  108  Ind.  481,  8  N. 

S.  W.  116— p.  1268. 

Pence  v. 

V.   Perkins,  144  Ala.  325,  39 

So.  305— pp.  2622,  2784,  2849, 
3022. 

V.   Perkins,  -52  .Via.  133,  44 

So.  602— pp.  2581,  2660. 

V.   Pferdmenges,  etc.,  R'.  Co., 

p.  311. 

V.  Pittsburg,     etc..     Coal     Co., 

pp.    102,    132. 

v.   Plummcr,    p.    830. 

V.   Plunkett,     p.     2546. 

V.  Popp,    pp.    2517,    2974. 

V.  Price,    pp.    584.    590,    602. 

7'.   Queen     City     Coal     Co..     99 

Ky.  217,  18  Kv.  L.  Rep.  126, 
35    S.    W.    626— p.    216. 

V.  Queen     City    Coal     Co.,     13 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  832— pr>.  208,  210, 
216,    242.    257,    263,    264. 

V.   Quick,     p.     3051. 

Qtiinn     ;■. 

V.  Quinn,     145     Ala.     657,     39 

So.   616— pp.   2476,   2935. 

V.   Ouinn,     146     Ala.     330,     39 

So.    756- pp.    2649,    2706. 

V.  Railroad     Conim.,     19     Fed 

679— p.    20. 

V.   Railroad    Comm.,     191     Fed. 

757— pi).    3470.    3471. 

V.  Railroad    Comm..     196    Fed. 

800— pp.  35.  44,  46,  49,  50,  51, 
54,   56. 

Railroad    Conim'rs   v. 

V.   Railroad    Conim'rs,    p.     31. 

V.  Rash   &    Co.,    p.    1348. 

Rawitzky    v. 

V.  Ray,    pp.    2057.    2066.    2074, 

2805.    2957,    2972,    3075,    3226. 

R'earv   -■. 

Reed    r. 

V.   Renfro.   np.   1949.   2025, 

2026,  2030,  2755. 

J'.  Rcnicker.  p.  2648. 

V.   Revnolds.  pp.  2131,  2680. 

2902. 

Rhodes  7'. 

7'.   Richeson.    p.    3074. 

7'.   Richmond,    p.     2001. 

V.   Ricketts,     93     Kv.     116,     19 

S.   W.    182— p.    1788. 

7'.  Ricketts.  96  Ky.  44.  27  S. 

W.  860,  16  Ky.  L.  Rep.  281.  6 
Am.  &  Kng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  186 
—pp.  1788,  2245,  2246,  2271. 

V.  Ricketts,     18     Kv.     L.     Rep. 

687,  37  S.  W.  952— pp.  1788, 
1798,     1883. 

V.  Ricketts,    52    S.    W.    939.    21 

Ky.   L.   Rep.  662— pp.   2271,   2965. 

Rilev    V. 

V.   Ritchcl,      pp.       1949,      3014, 

3050,  3059. 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ritti-r, 
85  Ky.  368,  3  S.  W.  591,  9 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  22,  28  Am.  &  Kng. 
K.  Cas.  167— pp.  1684,  1723, 
1814,  2671.  2673,  2839. 

V.   Ritter,  2  Ky.  L.  Rep.  385 

—pp.  2694,  3068. 

7'.  Ritter,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  44 

—p.  2671. 

Robertson  7'. 

r.  Robinson,  pp.  1303,  1318, 

1320. 

V.  Rommele,  p.  2880. 

V.  Roncy,      pp.      2820,      3052, 

3053,    3062. 

Rose    7'. 

St.    Louis    Drayage    Co.    '<•. 

V.   Sandlin,    p.    2637. 

7'.   ScalL   pp.   2162,   2754,   2796. 

7'.  Scott,  108  Ky.  392,  22  Ky. 

L.  Rep.  30,  56  S.  W.  674,  50 
L.  R.  A.  381— pp.  1570,  1582, 
1584. 

7'.  Scott,  133  Ky.  724,  118  S. 

W.  990,  19  Am.  &  Rng.  Ann. 
Cas.  392— pp.  3444,  3773. 

■■.   Scott,  141  Kv.  538,  133 

S.  W.  800,  Ann.  Cas.  1912  C, 
547,  34  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  206— 
pp.  1607,  1860.  3086,  3090. 

7'.  Scott.  219  U.  S.  209,  55 

L.  Ed.  183,  31  S.  Ct.  171  — 
pp.  3444,  3469,  3603. 

Schoenfeld  v. 

V.   Scale,  160  Ala.  584,  49  So. 

323— pp.  1856.  2706,  2845.  3014. 

7'.  Scale,  172  .Ma.  480,  55  So. 

237— pp.  2341,  2651,  2753,  2846. 
2847,  2986. 

Sears  v. 

V.   Setser.     13S     Ky.     476,     128 

S.  W.  341— pp.  2418,  2420,  2477, 
2784. 

7-.   Setser,     149     Kv.     162.     147 

S.    W.    956— pp.    26231    2624. 

Shcffer    7'. 

Shelbyville    R.     Co.    7'. 

Shclton    7'. 

7'.    Sherrod,    pp.    1063,    1073. 

Shinkle,    etc..    Co.    v. 

Shumate    v. 

7'.   Sickings,   p.   2202. 

Siler    7'. 

7'.   Siler,   p.   3494. 

Sinnott    7'. 

Smith    7'. 

V.   Smith,    135    Ky.   462.    122   S 

W.  806— pp.  2402,  2500,  2507, 
2538.    2872. 

7'.   Smith    fKy.).   2   Duv.   556— 

pp.  2694,  2778,  3070. 

V.   Smith,  10  Kv.  L.  Rep.  497 

—p.  1937. 

V.  Smith,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  974 

—pp.  2126,  2178,  2242. 

7'.  Smith,  14  Ky.  L.  Rep.  814 

—pp.  1303,  1321,  1419,  1458. 

■ — —  7'.  Smith,  123  Tenn.  678,  134 
S.  \V.  866- pp.  1269.  1371.  1393. 
1399,  1471,  3522. 

Smiths  -■. 

7'.  Smitha,   pp.   1284,   1329. 

1362,  1384,  1454,  1456.  1458. 
1473,  1479.  1481,  1482,  1483. 

V.   Snead.  p.  2643. 

V.   Snider,   pp.   1711,   1713, 

1715,  1739,  1810,  1840.  J847, 
2371.  2671,  2673. 

7'.  Southern  Flour,  etc.,  Co., 

pp.  326,  327.  336. 

7-.   Sowell.      pp.       1008,       1075, 

1387,    1395.     1397,    1404. 

7'.   Spalding,    p.    494. 

7'.   Spalding.       etc..       Co.,       pp. 

1270,    1454,    1457.    1458. 

7'.   Spaulding,    p.    576. 

7'.   Sninke,    pp.    2562.    30!*1. 

V.   Stacker,     pp.     2267,     2268, 


Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Stalcup   v. 

Starnes   v. 

State    V. 

V.   State,    p.    1946. 

V.  Steele,    pp.     1107,    1422. 

V.   Steenberger,         po.         2060. 

2958. 

7'.   Stephen,   p.    1625. 

Stiles    -■. 

7'.   Stiles,    pp.    285,    287,    899. 

1284,    1332,    1336. 

V.   Stillwell,     pp.     2356.     2386, 

2985. 

Stony  Fork  Coal  Co.  v. 

V.  Storms,    pp.    2562.    3094. 

Strull    7'. 

V.  Stuber,    p.    1580. 

7'.  Sullivan,    pp.    2488.    2490. 

V.  Summers,   pp.   2773,   3089. 

-'.   Sumner,   p.   635. 

Swan    V. 

Tanner    z\ 

7'.   Tarter,   p.    3353. 

Tecumsch    Mills    v. 

7'.   Tennessee       Brewing      Co., 

pp.    3305,    3395,    3396.    3403. 

7'.  Tharpe,    pp.    1056,    1057. 

V.  Thompson,    107   Ind.   442,   8 

N.  E.  18,  9  N.  E.  357,  57  Am. 
Rep.  120,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  88— pp.  1542,  1543.  1715. 
1739,  1740,  1810,  1844.  1981. 
2613,  2673. 

7'.  Thompson,      144     Ky.     765. 

139  S.  W.  939— pp.  1279.  1353. 
1460,    1471. 

V.  Thompson,      etc.,      Co.,      13 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  973— pp.  1038,  1386, 
1389.  1448. 

7'.  Thompson,  64  Miss.  584.  1 

So.  840,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
541- p.  1790. 

-'.  Thornton,    p.    2523. 

7'.  Tilleson,   p.    3030. 

7'.  Touart,    pp.    246,    499,    603. 

802,    1038,    1041,    3349. 

7'.  Treadway,    pp.    1773.    1797. 

1799. 

7'.  Trent,   p.    1284. 

Troutman    7'. 

7'.  Tuggle,    p.    2480. 

V.  Turner,     137    Ky.    730,     12-. 

S.  W.   372— pp.    1795,    1796.    1939. 

7'.   Turner,       100      Tenn.       (16 

Pickle)  213,  47  S.  W.  223,  43 
S.  W.  223,  43  L.  R.  A.  140— 
pp.  191,  195,  196,  198.  200.  203. 
1622.    1631.    1632.    1633.    3094. 

United    States   7'. 

V.  L'nitcd     States.     108     C.     C. 

A.    326.    186    Fed.    280— p.    3454. 

f.  United    States.    197    Fed.    5S 

—pp.    3649.    3679.    3836. 

V.  United    States    (U.    S.).    39 

Ct.    CI.    405— p.    884. 

V.  United  States   Fidelity,  etc., 

Co.,   pp.  556.  559. 

f.  \'ancleave.    p.    75.    3425. 

7'.  Vcnable.    pp.    1071.    1075. 

7'.  Vincent,    pp.    2025,    2030. 

A'irginia   Coal.   etc..    Co.   v. 

\'irginia.    etc..     Iron     Co.    '■. 

Wald    7'. 

Walker   7-. 

7'.  Walker.     177     Ind.     38,     97 

N.   E.   151— pp.    1789.   1806. 

7'.  Walker.    110    Kv.     061.     23 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  453.  63  S.  W.  209— 
p.'  137. 

Warficid  7-. 

7.   Wartield.     129    Ga.    473,    59 

S.  E.  234— pp.  727.  -i2,  748. 
752.    765.    800.    806.    807. 

7'.  Warfield.    3    Ga.    App.    187. 

59    S.    E.   604— p.   806. 

7'.  Warfield.    6    Ga.    App.    550. 

65  S.  E.  308— pp.  1056.  1412. 
1420. 

7-.  Warfield,     pp.      1338.     1453. 

1464.    1471. 


ccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


L.       Rep. 

L.      Rep. 
L.    R.    A. 


Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Wathen, 
21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  82,  49  S.  VV.  185 
—pp.  1436,  1438,  1439,  1450, 
1455. 

V.  Wathen,     23    Ky.     L.     Rep. 

2128,  66  S.  W.  714 — pp.  1473, 
1479. 

Watson    -'. 

f.   Weathers,    p.    2601. 

V.  Weaver,    21    Ky.     L.     Rep. 

30,    50    L.    R.    -V    381— p.    1834. 

-■.  Weaver.  77  Tenn.   (9  Lea). 

38,  42  Am.  Rep.  654,  16  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  218- pp.  3139, 
3175,  3176,  3177,  3178,  3180, 
3182,     3257,    3291. 

Weightman   v. 

!•.  Welsh,    p.     2710. 

West    Coast    Naval    Stores    Co. 

f.  West    Coast    Xaval      Stores 

Co.,    pp.    3248,    3258.    3268,    3729. 

V.  White,    p.    3065. 

V.  Whitman,    p.   2485. 

Wicks  1-. 

1-.  Widman,    p.    1087. 

Williams    f. 

V.  Williams,    5    -Ma.    .\pp.    615, 

56    So.    865— p.    3363. 

f.  Williams.    95    Ky.     199.     15 

Ky.  L.  Kep.  548,  24  S.  W.  1, 
44    .\m.    St.    Rep.    214 — p.    108. 

Wilsev  V. 

V.  Wilsev,      9    Ky. 

1008— p.   3085. 

V.  Wilsey,      1 1    Ky. 

419,    12    S.    W.    275.    5 
855— pp.    2468,    3083,    3101. 

Wilson    '•. 

f.   Wilson,    123    Ga.    62,    51    S. 

E.  24,  3  .\m.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
128— p.    1254. 

V.  Wilson,     119     Ind.     352,     21 

N.  E.  341,  40  \m.  &  Eng.  K. 
Cas.   85 — pp.   333,   335. 

V.  Wilson,     124     Ky.     846,     30 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1055,  100  S.  W. 
290,  8  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  1020— 
pp.    2515,    2539. 

Wilson    Sewing    Mach.    Co.    v. 

'•.   Wolfe,     128     Ind.     347,     27 

X.  E.  606,  25  Am.  St.  Rep.  436 
—pp.  2420,  3081,  3088. 

f.  Wolfe,  80  Ky.  82,  3  Ky. 

L.  Rep.  576— pp.  2281,  2501. 

Wood  V. 

V.   Wood,   pp.   1884,   2066, 

2126,  2581,  2607,  2609. 

Woolery  v. 

I'.  Wright,    pp.     1613.     1628. 

Wyler-Ackerland    &    Co.    v. 

Wyler,    etc..    Co.   v. 

f.   Wvnn,     pp.     740.     750,    822, 

828.  1075,  1076,  1080,  1268, 
1406,    1454,    1456,    1457. 

V.  Yowell,    p.    2171. 

V.  Yudelson,      pp.      347,      406, 

833,    837. 

Zimmern's    Coal    Co.    v. 

Louisville,  etc..  Stove  Co.,  Cleve- 
land, etc.,   R.   Co.  V. 

Louisville,  etc..  Tract.  Co.  v. 
Korbe,  175  Ind.  450,  93  N.  E- 
5,  94  N.  E.  768— pp.  1682,  1721, 
2599,    2992. 

V.  Korbe    (Ind.    -A pp.),    90    N. 

E.  483— pp.  1901,  1903,  2599. 

V.   Leaf,  p.  1890. 

r.  Snead,  p.  2659. 

V.   Walker,   pp.   1750,   2350, 

3035,  3037. 

V.  Worrell,      pp.      1709,      2701, 

2702. 

Lounsberry,    Hudson    River    R.    Co. 

Louthan,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Love,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

123,    130. 

Georgia  Pac.   R.   Co.  v. 


Love,  Indiana  Union  Tract.  Co.  r. 
Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Ross,    etc.,    Co.,    p.     1138. 

Lovejov,    Spencer   r. 

Lovelady,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Loveland  r.  Burke,  pp.  755,  788. 
Lovell    V.    Davis,    p.    3873. 

Hentz   &   Co.    v. 

V.  Hentz   &   Co.,    p.    362. 

V.  London,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

286,    3134,    3135. 

V.  Newman   &   Son,   p.   362. 

Lovely,     Western     Union     Tel.     Co. 


etc.,    Co. 


Travis,      p. 
R.     Co.,     p. 


R. 


R. 


Co., 


Co.    '■. 
Co., 


pp. 


Loverin, 

3425. 
Lovett     f.     Gulf,     etc 

2164. 

'■.    Salem,     etc., 

2535. 

Loving,    Texas,    etc..    R 
Lovings    V.     Xorfolk 

1638,    2431. 
Low   r.   Austin,    p.    3549. 
Lowber,    Bangs   r. 

V.   Bangs,       pp.       3868,       3869, 

3872,    3873. 

Lowe  V.    Booth,   p.   946. 

'C.   East      Tennessee,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,   p.    611. 

Lexington    R'.    Co.    v. 

V.   Moss,    pp.    634,    635. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 

Raleigh,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.    Seaboard,    etc..    Railway,    p. 

3518. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Lowell,    Alger   i'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Lowell   Wire    Fence   Co.   v.    Sargent, 

p.    3256. 
Lowell,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Clark   r. 
Lowell,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Deal    v. 
Lowenrosen,    Chicago    Union    Tract. 

Co.  f. 
Lowenstein    v.    Loinbard,    etc.,    Co., 

pp     454,    1000,    1006,    1017,    4027. 

i:  Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.     1289, 

1290. 

Lowenthal     v.     Vicksburg,     etc., 

Co.,    p.    1847. 
Low^ery,   Mt.   .Adams,   etc.,   K.   Co 
Lowitz,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    f. 

Parmelee   ''. 

Lownsdale,    Burrows    '■. 

Lowry    V.    Atlantic    Coast     Line 

Co.,    p.    3396. 

Jackson     Elect.     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

Montague    &    Co.    v. 

Loy,    Hodgson   v. 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1542,    2459,    2463,    2473,    2486. 

Loyal,    The. 

Loyd,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
L.    S.    &   M.    S.    R.    Co   V   Hatchkiss, 
p.  2098. 

V.   Salzman,    p.    1972. 

Lucas    V.    Burlington,    etc.,    R 

p.  1395. 

V.   Catskill     Mountain     R, 

p.  2149. 

Florida    Cent,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i\ 

—  Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

—  V.   Herbert,    pp.     112,     192. 

—  Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

—  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

—  V.  Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.   2349. 

—  f.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  p. 
1986. 

—  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp. 
2412,     2414,     2433,     3084,     3088_ 

—  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1547,    1550.    2149,    2720. 

—  v.  New  Bedford,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  2248,  2263,  2264,  2286.  2=;i0 
2512,    2540,    2544. 

—  ''.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  iip 
1779,   2084. 


R. 


R. 


Co., 
Co., 


Luce,    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z-. 
Lucesco    Oil    Co.     t'.      Pennsylvania 

R.    Co.,    pp.    848,    855,    870. 
Luck,    Union    Pac.    R.   Co.   v. 
Luckel    V.    Century    Bldg.     Co.,    pp. 

2234,    2902. 
Luckie,    -Kmericus,    etc..    Railroad   v. 

.\mericus,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Lucus    v.    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1402. 
Lucy    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2021,    3077. 
Ludden,    Columbus,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Luddy    V.    Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2885. 
Ludeman   v.    Third    .\vc.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2829. 
Ludgate     Hill     Steamship     Co.,     Ru- 
bens   V. 
Ludinsky  v.  New  York  City  R.   Co  , 

p.   2808. 
Ludlam,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Ludvig    Ilalberg,    The._ 
Ludwick,    Lewis    &    Co.    v. 
Ludwig   T'.    Meyre,    pp.    580,    596. 
Lugner    ?■.      Milwaukee      Elect.      R., 

etc.,    Co.,    pp.    1509,    1561,    1562. 

1572,    2413,    2415. 
Luken   V.    Lake    Shore,   etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    3435,    3508,    3509. 
Lukens,     Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Lumberman's     Min.       Co.       ■:•.      Gil- 
christ,  p.   470. 
Lund,    Stubbs    v. 
Lundahl,    Chicago   Union    Tract.    Co. 

Lundoerg,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    ■;•. 
Lundquist    ?•.     Grand    Trunk    West- 
ern   R.    Co.,    p.    3689. 
Lundy    r.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1625. 
Lunsford    v.      Louisville,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    2237. 
Lupe    T'.    .Atlantic,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    pp. 

728,    740,    818. 
Lupin   V.    Marie,    p.    1229. 
Lurman,    Grossman    v. 
Lu.sby    V.     Atchison,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1735,    1754,   2205,   2778. 
Luse    V.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1884,     1895,    1897,    1900. 
Lustig   V.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2728. 
Lutcher,     etc..     Lumber     Co.,     Wade 

Luther,     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 
Lutz,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 

Pullman    Co.    '■. 

Luxton   -■.    North    River   Bridge   Co  . 

pp.    3445,    3446,    3449. 
Lycett    V.     Manhattan    R.     Co.,    pp. 

2323,    2872. 
Lydian    Monarch,    The. 
Lydon    v.    Robert    Smith    Ale    Brew. 

Co.,   p.    2642. 
Lyle,    .Augusta    R.,   etc.,    Co.    ■;■. 
Lyles,    Harrington    v. 
Lynch,    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Chicago,     etc..     Steamship     Co. 

'-  Clark    V. 

V.   Interurban,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2248. 

V.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2684. 

V.   Metropolitan,    etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    2062,    2070. 

Randall    ?■. 

V.   St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    p. 

1703. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.   Co.    v. 

Union       Refrigerator       Trans. 

Co.    f. 

Western    Maryland    R.    Co.    v. 

Lynch,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Byron    v. 
Lynchburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ti.lett    v. 
Lynde   v.    Hough,   p.    3877. 
Lvndon     v.     Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co., 

'p.    1952. 


TABLE    OF    CASF.S. 


CCXXI 


Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 


Michigan,  pp.  3538.  3539. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.,  pp. 
1952,   1953,  1980,   1986, 


Lyne    r 

3709. 
Lyng  t 
Lynn    ', 

1951, 

2125. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Lynn,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Byron  :■. 

Hudson    '<■. 

Kingman    v. 

Levi   7'. 

Mecsel   1'. 

Mesel   V. 

Nichols    V. 

O'Neil   V. 

O'Neill    V. 

Spade  V. 

Spicer    V. 

Sweetland  v. 

Wilde   V. 

Wills   V. 

Lyon,    Chattanooga,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Gody    r. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

f.  Union      Pac.      R.     Co.,      p. 

1827. 

Lyon   &   Co.,   Southern   Pac.   K.   Co. 

Lyons   '■.    Boston    Elevated    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1824,    1832. 
V.  Hill,    p.    571. 

Lexington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

J'.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

119  N.    Y.    S.    703— pp.    561,   902, 
916. 

V.  New    York,    etc.,     R.      Co., 

120  N.     Y.    S.    1132,     136     App. 
Div.    903— p.    917. 

Pennsylvania    R.     Co.    i'. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

V.  Texas,    etc.,     R.      Co.,      pp 

2711,    2718. 

Lytle  T'.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
100  Tex.  292.  99  S.  W.  396— 
pp.     1617,     1618. 

V.  Galveston,      etc..      R.       Co. 

(Tex.    Civ.    App.),      100     S.     W. 
199— p.    1618. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    796. 

801. 

L.   &   N.   K.,   Columbia   Grocery    Co. 

— —  Dillard    Bros.    v. 

V.  Levi,    p.    850. 


M. 

Mabry,    Ball    v. 

?•.  City      Elect.     R.     Co..      pp. 

2409,  3083,  3084. 

Mc.\bsher     ?■.    Richmond,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.   452. 
McAfee    r.    Huide    Koper,    p.    2221. 
McAIan  ?•.   New   York,   etc.,   Bridge, 

p.   2249. 
Mc.Mister   v.    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.. 

pp.    241,    574,    578,    1285,    1357. 
McAllister,    Georgia    R..    etc.,    Co.   t- 

V.  People's    R.    Co.,    pp.    2637, 

2656. 

r.   Southern  Pac.  Co.,  p.  3912. 

Mc.Mnin,    Ocean    Steamship    Co.    v. 

Tlie    Ocean    Steamship    Co.    v. 

McAndrew    -•.    Whitlock.    52    N.    Y. 

40,    11     Am.    Rep.    657— pp.    527, 
531,    536,    545,    776,   896. 

r.  Whitlock,    32   N.    Y.    Super. 

Ct.    623— p.    892. 

McAnellia,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

McAnulty,    Ft.    Worth,    etc..    R.    Co. 

V. 

McArthur,    Mobile,    etc..    R.    Co.    r. 

f.  New     York     Citv     K.     Co., 

p.   2724. 

f.  Sears,     pp.     728,     730.     737, 

749,    768. 

McArthur     Bros.     Co.    r.    622,    714 

Feet    of   Lumber,    p.    3953. 
McAulay,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   :■. 


McBeath    v.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    820,    1087,    1457. 
McBee  r.   Cincinnati    St.   R.   Co.,   p. 

2113. 
McBride    f.    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.     2947. 

V.   Milwaukee     Elect.     R.,    etc., 

Co.,   p.   2863. 

r.   St.     Paul    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

3009. 

Woodworth   v. 

McBrier,    Pioneer    Fuel    Co.    i'. 
McBurnie    v.    Stelsly,    p.    4. 
McCabe    v.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   530. 
McCafFerty  v.   Penn^vlvania   R.   Co., 
pp.    1812,    2681,    290.^. 

West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    r. 

McCaffery     7:     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2658,    2990. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    ?'. 

McCaffrey  &  Co.  r.  Georgia  South- 
ern Railroad,  pp.  542,  543,  875, 
3284. 

McCahan      Sugar       R'efin.       Co.       -■. 

Steamship    Wildcroft,    p.    3927. 
McCahc    -■.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    653. 
McCabill    V.    Detroit    City    Railway, 

p.    2535. 
McCall  V.   Brock,   pp.   729,   730,   733, 

740,  749,  815,  822. 

V.   California,  pp.  3418,  3419, 

3420,  3421,  3435,  3471,   3473, 
3550,  3551,  3570,  3573. 

T.   Central,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   p. 

3387. 

V.   Forsyth,  p.  2660. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "•. 

McCampbell,    Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Louisville,   etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1337,     1338,     1339,     1450,     1457. 

McCann  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    773. 

V.   Fddy,    p.    3334. 

Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Newark,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 

r.  Sixth      Ave.       R.      Co.,      p. 

2549. 

McCants,    Savannah    Elect.     Co.     f. 
McCardell    r.    Gulf,    etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.   2018,   2019. 
McCarn    !■.    International,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,.  pp.    3331,    3337.    3377. 
McCarter    v.    Greenville    Tract.    Co.. 

p.    1545. 
McCarthv   v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 

pp.    23'06,    2816. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2426. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Hibler    v. 

•:'.  Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

741,  752.     755,     758,     759,     824, 
1038,    3308. 

Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Railway    Co.    :•. 

McCartney,    Central    R.    Co.    v. 

Hibler    f. 

McCarty,    Ft.    Worth,    etc..    R' 


V. 


Co. 
Co., 


7'.   Galveston,      etc., 

p.  3331. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

z:  Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co..   pp.    l.=;8. 

166,  418,  419,  441,  442,  443. 
448,  456,  466,  1118,  1121,  1122. 
1124,    1126. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

7'.   Houston,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    p. 

1729. 

Lincoln    Tract.    Co.    '•. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   "'. 

7'.   New    York,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    897,    899. 

V.   St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co  , 

p.    2683. 

McCasIand,  Wabash,  etc.,   R.   Co.   :■. 


McCaslin    ?■.    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1884,    2065,    2126,    2255, 

2595. 
McCaughan,    Heirn    f. 
McCaughn    r.    Milliot,    p.    3940. 
McCaughna,    Chicago    City    Iv.    Co. 

V. 

McCauley  r.  Davidson,  10  Minn. 
418,    Gil.    335— pp.   422,   806,   807. 

V.   Davidson,       Gil.       150,       13 

Minn.    162— p.    477. 

7'.  Rhode       Island       Co.,      pp. 

2613,    2617. 

V.   Springfield    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1994. 

V.  Tennessee,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1543,    1544,    2122,    2177. 

McCaulley,    Loughin    f. 

McCherry    7'.    Snare,    etc.,    Co.,    p. 

2000. 
McChesney,     Gabler     v. 
McChord     7'.      Louisville,     etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    34,    39,    129. 
McClain,    Chicago,    City    R.    Co.    :■• 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   t: 

McClanahan,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co. 

7'. 

V.  St.     Louis,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     1781,     2668. 
McClary,    Northern    Transp.    Co.    i'. 

V.  Sioux     City,    etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    1673,    1674,    1765. 

McCleave,    South     Covington,     etc., 

St.    R.   Co.   V. 
McClellan,    Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.   f. 

Lincoln  St.   R.  Co.  v. 

McClelland   z:    Burns,    p.    2957. 

7'.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., -p. 

2490. 

McCleskey,    Alabama    Great    South- 
ern R.  Co.  7'. 
McCIevy,  Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co 

McClinchy  7\  Boston  Elevated  R. 
Co.,    pp.    1885,    2906. 

O'Brien    7'. 

McClintock,  Louisville,  etc..  R 
Co.    7'. 

7'.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p 

2248. 

Welch    7'. 

McCloskey,     Pennsylvania     R.     Co. 

McCluer  7-.  Manchester,  etc..  Rail- 
road,   pp.    840,    3313. 

McClung,     Johnson    7-. 

McCIure  7'.  Philadelphia,  etc..  R 
Co.,    pp.    1529.    1973.    2476. 

7'.   Richardson,    p.    278. 

McClure    &    Co.    7'.    Cox,    etc.,    Co., 

p.     1017. 
McClures    7'.     Hammond,     pp.     729, 

768. 
McCIurg  7-.   Cleveland,  etc.,   R.   Co.. 

p.    1802. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

McCollin   7'.    Railroad   Co.,    p.    2131 
McCollom   7'.    Indianapolis,    etc..    R. 

Co.,   p.    1482. 

7'.   Minneapolis,    etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.    547. 

McCollum    7'.     Southern     Pac.     Co . 

pp.    1612,    2340,    3317. 
McComas,     Great     Western     R.     Co. 

McComb    7.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.. 


p.    247. 


R 


McCombs     f.     North     Carolina 

Co..  p.  912. 
McConnclI.    Adams    Exp.    Co.   7. 

Bras  7. 

7'.  Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p 

3289. 

7'.  Pedigo,   p.    101. 

McConnell     Bros.    f.     Southern     R 

Co.,    pp.    787,   872.   873,   947.   948 

1076. 
McConnochie  7-.  Kerr,  p.  3854. 
McCook.    Averill   r. 


CCXXII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Co., 


McCook    r.     Dublin,     etc.,    R.     Co., 
pp.    1596,    1597,    2467. 

V.  Northup,  pp.   2466,  2478. 

Turner    f. 

McCool,     Cincinnati,     etc..     R.     Co. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Memphis,    etc..    Packet    Co.    v. 

McCord    z:    Atlanta,     etc.,     R.     C?., 

pp.    1682.    2203. 

V.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

822. 

Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.    r. 

-•.  State,    p.    3440. 

f.   Western     L'nion     Tel 

pp.    309,   313. 

McCorkle    z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2158. 
McCormack    z:    Interborough    Rapid 

Transit    Co.,    pp.     1770,    2685. 

State    z: 

McCormick.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    pp.  I 

3123,    3129,    3179,    3182. 

z'.  Joseph,   p.    352.  I 

Newport     News,     etc..     Elect. 

Co.    z:  •■ 

v.  Pennsylvania   Cent.    R.    Co.,  I 

49  N.  Y.  303— p.  596. 

v.  Pennsylvania   Cent.   R.   Co., 

80  N.  Y.  353— pp.  733,  3144,  ] 
3197.  „ 

V.   Pennsylvania  Cent.  R.  Co.,  ' 

99    N.    Y.    65,    1    N.    E.    99,    52 
Am.    Rep.    6— p.    3194. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

z:   Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    p.    2881. 

McCotter   z:    Hooker,   p.    428. 
McCown,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

McCoy    z:    Erie,    etc.,    Transp.    Co., 

p.   945. 
— —  t:   Keokuk    &    D.    M.    R.    Co., 
pp.   727.   740,   821.   828,   945,    1329, 
1339,    1456. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:  Millville     Tract.      Co.,      pp. 

2488,  2490,  2491,  2855. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    v. 

McCranie  z:  Wood,   p.   749. 
McCrary   v.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    285,    1303. 
McCready  v.   Thorn,   p.    3865. 
McCreary-McClellan  Live  Stock  Co., 

Felton   V. 
McCrory,    Hosea    z: 
McCue    z:    Northern    Pac.    K.    Co., 

pp.   38,  49. 
McCullen    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2482,    2485. 
McCulloch    z:    McDonald,    p.    562. 
McCullom  z:   .Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.   2355,   2908. 
McCullough,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

i:  Wabash,    etc.,   Co.,    p.    1383. 

McCumber  -■.   Boston   Elev.    R.   Co., 

pp.  1951,  1980,  2767. 
McCune  t.   Burlington,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

pp.  1075,  1357,  1396. 
McCurdy,  Birmingham  R.,  etc.,   Co. 

V. 

Georgia   R.,   etc.,    Co.   v. 

McCurrie    v.     Southern     Pac.     Co., 

pp.    1720,    2338,    2890. 
McCutchen  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.    3425. 
McCutcheon,   Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

V. 

McDade    v.    Norfolk,    etc..    R'.    Co., 
pp.    1524,    1537,    1538,   2054.    3066. 

V.  Philadelphia    Rapid    Transit 

Co.,  p.   2182. 

McDaniel,   Baugh  v. 

Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

430,    939,   943.    1275,    1490. 


McDaniel    z\     Highland     -Ave., 
R.    Co..    pp.    1584,    2224. 

Mc  Daniels,     Wabash    R.     Co.    '• 

McDermon    f.     Southern     Pac. 
p.    2102. 

McDermott  f.    Boston   Elev.   R. 
pp.    2316,    2825. 

Carter    z-. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -•. 

f.   Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co., 

1767,    1914.    2372. 

McDonald,    .Adams    Exp.    Co.    t 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ; 

Boston, 


Co., 
Co., 


etc. 


2266. 


,     Railroad,     p. 
Co.,     pp.     1862. 


V.  Central 

3317. 

v.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     26 

Iowa  124,  96  Am.  Dec.  114— 
pp.    1767,    1773,    1776,    1780,    1784. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    29 

Iowa    170 — pp.    1776,    1784,    2733. 

v.  City      Elect.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2396,    2986. 

z:   Clark,    p.    2914. 

Great    Western    R.    Co.    v. 

z'.   Hovey,   p.   3631. 

z\  Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co..     pp. 

1782,    1871,    1928,    2244. 

z\   Kansas    Citv,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    2065,   2275. 

. c'.   Long     Island     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1884,    2226. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2083. 

McCulloch   V. 

f.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1698,    2590,    2694,    2911. 

z\  Montgomery      St.      Railway, 

pp.    2185,    2745,    2752.    2957. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    z\ 

•  Reinhart    v. 

z'.   St.      Louis,      etc..      R.      Co.. 

pp.    1572,   2851. 

V.   Savannah      Elect.      Co.,      p. 

2903. 

Schubach    '■. 

•  Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

V.  Unaka    Timber   Co.,    p.    o52. 

V.  Western    R.    Corp.,    pp.    885. 

901,    3263,    3264,     3301,    3302. 

McDonald  Brick  Co.'s  Assignee, 
Newport  News,   etc.,    Co.   v. 

McDongal   '.-.   Allen,   p.   3123. 

McDonnell  v.  Chicago  R.  Co.,  p. 
2685. 

McDonough,    .Adams    Exp.    Co.    v. 

■  Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.     z'. 

r.   Boston     Elev.     K.     Co.,     191 

Mass.  509,  20  R.  R.  R.  641,  43 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  641, 
78  N.  E.  141— pp.  199,  200,  202. 
2122,    2176,    2178,    2310,    2906. 

V.  Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    208 

Mass.  436,  94  N.  E.  809— pp. 
2677,    2684. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■ -'.  Metropolitan     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1518,    2152,    2332. 

Michigan,     etc., 

Toledo,    etc.,    R 

McDowell,    Lester   v. 
■ z\  Louisville,   etc., 

1451,    1454. 
McDuffee     z.     Portland 

road,     pp.     220,    222, 

1180,    1182,    1183. 
McDuffie    V.     Seaboard. 

way,    145    N.    C.    397, 

122— p.    159. 

zf.   Seaboard,       etc., 

145    N.    C.    399,    59    S. 
p.    159. 

McDurmitt    Grain    Co., 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Mace  V.   Reed,   p.   3066. 

V.  Southern   R.    Co.,   pp.    1608. 

2451,    2456. 

McEacheran    z'.    Michigan    Cent.    R. 

Co.,    pp.    3327,    3341,    3358. 
McElree,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


McElroy,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.   Iowa     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3110,   3121. 

z\  Nashua,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    pp. 

1720,    1813,    2077. 

v.   Railroad    Co.,    p.    2631. 

McElvain     ?'.      St.     Louis,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   pp.   954,   971,   977,   980,    1029, 

1084. 
McElvane   z\    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co, 

pp.    1704,    1917,    2510,   2543. 
McElveen    '■.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 

320,     333,     335,     337,     962,     968, 

1016,^     31277,     3293,     3331,     3347, 

3401. 
McElvev.    Savannah     Elect.    Co.     z'. 
McEIwain   z:    Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    2704. 

• Spurgeon    z\ 

McElwee,     West     Chester,     etc.,     R'. 

Co.  z: 

Western,    etc..    Railroad    v. 

McEntee   z'.    New   Jersey    Steamboat 

Co..   p.   513. 
Macer    f.    Third    Ave.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1704. 
McEwan,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


R.     Co.     V. 
Co.    z: 

R.   Co.,  pp. 


etc.. 
1176, 


etc. 
59 


Rail- 

1178. 


Rail- 

S.    E. 


Railway 
E.     123— 


St.     Louis. 


R. 


Co.. 


.  pp. 
451. 
1 333. 


pp. 


McKinnon    zf. 

McEwen    v.    Teffersonville,    etc., 

Co..    pp.    560,    1150. 
McFadden  v.   Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co., 
pp.    1770,    2671. 

Houston,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

7'.   Metropolitan     St.      R. 

pp.    1696,    1721,    2083,    2604. 
■ Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co 

320,  334,  337,  340,  426, 
806.  975,  1043,  1061,  1074, 
1375. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Morrison    f. 

'■.   Steamboat      Niargara, 

3125.    3126. 

McFaden.    Cross    z\ 

McFall,     Toledo,     etc..     Tract.     Co. 

— —  z:  Wabash     R.     Co.,    pp.     818, 

821,    1454,    1456. 
McFarland  z:   Parr  &  Co.,   pp.    1143, 

1147. 

v.  Wheeler,    p.    1104. 

Mac    Feat    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

Co.     (Del.),    5    Pen.     52,    62    Atl. 

898— pp.    2289,    2860. 
v.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

rDel.),     6     Pen.     513,     30     R.     R. 

R.    254,   53   Am.   &    Eng.   R.   Cas., 

N.     S.,     254,     69 

1505,  1508,  1517, 
McFee    v.    Vicksburg 

p.     1812. 
McFetridge,    etc.,    Co 

1228,     1232,    1234. 
McFlynn,     Fordyce    z\ 
McGaffey,    .Alexander    v. 
McGahey,  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.   Co. 

McGann    v.     Boston     Elev.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1988,    1997,    2805. 
McGarry     v.     Boston     Elevated     R. 

Co..    pp.    1903,    2348. 

Colorado    Mid.     R.    Co.    v. 

■ 7'.  Holyoke     St.     R.     Co..     pp. 

1592,  2482,  2782. 
McGearty  z'.   Manhatton   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1797,  2731,  2874. 
McGee    ?•.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    700,    701,    714. 

-•.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

197,    198,    1544,    1547,    1752,    1755, 
1874,    1928,    2126,    2228,    2747. 

McGeehan  -'.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 

p.    2134. 
McGeorge,     Colorado,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

McGhee,     .American     Sugar     Refin. 
Co.    z: 

z:   Cashin,     130     Ala.     561,     30 

So.    367— pp.    2621,    2647. 

z:   Cashin    (.Ala.).    40    <=o.    63— 

pp.    2470,    2710,    2713,    3083. 


Atl.      744 — pp. 
1561,    2732. 
etc.,    R.    Co., 

V.    Piper,    pp. 


TABUC    OF    CASES. 


CCXXIII 


McGhec   V.    Drisdale,    p.    24A(>. 

V.  Reynol.ls,    117    Ala.   413.   23 

So.    68—1.1).    2443.    24(.2,    2572. 

V.   Reynolds,    129    Ala.    540.    29 

So.    961— pp.    2622,   2633. 
McGill     r.     Central     Crosstown     R. 

Co.,  p.  2817. 

V.   Michigan      Steamship      Co., 

pp.    4055,    4081. 

f.   R'owand,     pp.     3118,     3123, 

3127.     3129,     3144.      3188.     3189, 
3190. 

McGilvary,   Texas,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

7'.   West    Knd    St.    K.    Co.,    pp. 

2043,    2050. 

Mc(jinn,    Commonwealth   v. 

T.   New    Orleans   R.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    2676. 

McGinnis   f.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

p.    3100. 
McGinty,    liirmingham    R.,    etc..    Co. 

Z', 

McGivney,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

McGlossom,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

McGlynn  r.  Brooklyn  Crosstown  R. 
Co.,   p.    1970. 

V.  Nassau    Elect.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2876,  2878. 

McGovcrn     r.     Interurban     R.     Co.. 

pp.    1807.   2239.   2350.   2387.    2987, 

2997. 
McGowan.      G..     C.    &•    S.      F.      R. 

Co.   V. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

V.  New     York     City     R.     Co., 

pp.    1647,    1648. 

r.   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.   500. 

McGowcn  f.  Morgan's,  etc..  Steam- 
ship Co.,  pp.  1597,  1598,  1602, 
2467,    2468. 

Rutherford    r. 

McGown,      G.      C.      &      S.      F.      R. 

Co.    r. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 

McGranc   v.    Nassau    Elect.    R.    Co., 

p.    2654. 
McGrath   v.    Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.    2193. 

-•.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2594. 

McGrath    Bros.    f.    Charleston,    etc.. 

Railway,    p.    797. 
McGraw   r.    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    499,    512,    533,    614,    617,    729, 

734,  735,   736,  741,   742,   744,  750, 

753,   765. 
,..  Southern   R.    Co.,   pp.    1556, 

1557.  ,    ^, 

McGregor    v.    Erie    R.    Co..    35    N. 

J.  L.  89— pp.  1136,  1137,  1194, 

1195. 

r.   Erie     R.      Co..      35      N.     J. 

L.     115— pp.     145,     1136. 

V.  Gill.    pp.    3.    4.    10. 

Lawrence    %'. 

Lengelsen    f. 

V.  Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

809,  872.  897.  901.  906,  961. 
1000,  1001.  1003.  1027.  1030. 
1044. 

St.    Paul    Fire,    etc.,    Ins.    Co. 

Thompson    Towing,   etc..    .'\ss'n 

McGregor     &     Co.     z:     Kilgore.     pp. 

728.    773.    788.    848,    887.    3901. 
McGrell  V.  Buffalo  Office  Bldg    Co., 

p.    1751. 
McGrew    v.    Cliicago.    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2693. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    109 

Mo.  582,  19  S.  W.  53— pp.  447, 
467. 

r.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co..    114 

Mo.    210.    21    S.    W.   463— p.    169. 

z:  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co..    177 

Mo.   533.   76   S.  W.   995— p.   71 


McGrew    f.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.. 

230    Mo.    496,    132    S.    W.    1076— 

pp.    73,   75,    120.   220,    1180,    1183, 

1193. 
McGucken  f.   Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.     1558. 
McGugan.       Philadelphia,     etc..      R. 

Co.  z\ 
Mcf)uinn   v.    Forbes,   p.    1950. 
Mcfiuirc    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.  3480. 

I'.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  153 

Fed.    434— p.    3329. 

V.  Great  Northern  R.   Co..   118 

N.  W.  556.  106  Minn.  192— 
p.   2777. 

I'.  Interborough    Rapid    Trans. 

Co.,  p.  2874. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

McGuirc  &   Co..   Louisville,   etc..   R. 

Co.  '.: 
McHaffie.      Hydraulic      Engineering 

Co.    f. 
McHenrv   -•.    Alford.   p.    3559. 
. V.   Philadelphia,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

pp.    529.    896.    910. 

Wallen    v. 

Machine     Co.     v.     Gage.     pp.     3529, 

3564.    3568. 
Machlin    v.     Pennsylvania    R.     Co., 

p.   2880. 
McHugh    z:    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co., 

pp.    2903.    2987. 
Mcllroy    z:    Buckner.    pp.    323.    984. 
Mclntee   v.    New    Jersey    Steamboat 

Co..    p.    518. 
Mclntire.    Eaton   v. 
Mclntire  R.   Co.  f.   Bolton,   p     1530. 
Mcintosh   z:    Augusta,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3198. 

V.  Oregon    R.,    etc..    Co..    pp. 

208,  213,  236,  824,  931,  946, 
948.  969,  971,  975,  977,  1030, 
1043. 

Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Sinclair,    p.    709. 

Mclntyre    z:    Bowne.    p.    3864. 

z'.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.   2222. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Mclntyre     Bros.     &     Co.    v.     South 

Atlantic  Steamship  Line,  p.  3879. 
Mclver    v.     Florida,    etc..    R.     Co., 
p.    2485. 

Parker   v. 

Mclwen    ?•.    Smith,    p.     1225. 
Mcjimpsey  z:   Southern   Railway,   p. 

2860. 
Mack    v.     Savannah,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2186,    2575. 

-•.   State,    pp.    184,    185. 

Mack,    etc.,    Co.    z:    Great    Western 

Despatch,   pp.   956,   960.   981.   989, 

991,    1003,    1032. 
McKahan     z'.     .\mcrican     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    1026,    1353,   1356,    1405. 
McKain   z:    Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.   2075. 
McKay      t'.      .Anderson      Steamboat 

Co..    p.    4000. 

z:  Ohio     River     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2425.  2457.  2458.  2463.  2564. 
2566. 

People    V. 

McKee.    Lewis    z\ 

z:   Owen.       pp.       3145.       3146, 

3147. 

z:   St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    p. 

2152. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z: 

Wright   z\ 

McKenna,    Alabama,     etc..     R.     Co. 

Cooper    ?'. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.  North    Hudson    County    R. 

Co..  pp.    1889.   2877. 

McKenzie,     Alaliama,    etc.,     R.     C  o. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Detroit,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 


McKenzie,  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 

:•.   Michigan   Cent.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1288.     1303.     1307. 

Northwestern    Transp.    Co.    f. 

Pine    Bluff,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

Southern    R.   Co.   v. 

Texas,    etc.,    K.    Co.    r. 

McKeon    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1720,    1909,    1910,    3211. 

V.  Citizens'    R.    Co.,    pp.    2116, 

2191. 

-•.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

2530,   2532,    2533. 

McKerall   z\    .\tlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    526,    642,    645,    647,    654,    660. 
McKcrnan,    I)c    Leon    v. 

f.   Manhattan      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2420,    2851. 

Mackey,    Central    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

McKibbin     z:     Great     Northern     R. 

Co.,    pp.    3121,    3122,    3124.    3185, 
3194. 

7'.  Wisconsin   Cent.   R.    Co.,   p. 

3145. 

Mackic,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 
McKimble     z:     Boston,     etc..     Rail- 
road,   pp.    1573.    1788.    2911. 

z:   Boston,     etc..     R.     Co..     pp. 

1535,    1537,    1805. 

McKinlay     z:     Morrish,     pp.     3901, 

3918,    3919. 
McKinlcy   z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    200,    2042,    2043,   3064. 

Z-.  Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    2425,    2456,    2457,    2477,    2481, 
2483. 

McKinney,     Central,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Indiana    Union    Tract.    Co.    v. 

z:  Jewett,    pp.    515.    728,    896. 

Kentucky,    etc..    Bridge    Co.    v. 

z:   Neil,    pp.    1749,    1837.    2692. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

McKinnon    v.    McEwan,    p.    642. 
McKinstrey     f.     Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1084,    1087. 
McKinstry  z:   St.   Louis  Trans.    Co., 

p.     2597. 
McKittrick      v.      Greenville      Tract. 

Co.,    pp.    2669,    2673,    2678,    2688. 

2862. 
Macklin    r.    New    Jersey    Steamboat 

Co.,   p.    3146. 
McKnight,         Philanthropic         Bldg. 

Ass'n    I'. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

McKoy    z:    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1736,    2117. 
McLain,    Allegheny    \"alley    R.    Co. 

f.   St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1936,    1954. 

McLallcn,     Chicago,     etc.,     R'.     Co. 

McLanahan    f.    Universal    Ins.    Co., 

p.    3907. 
McLane,   Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    i\ 
McLaren   z\    Alabama   Mid.    R.    Co., 

p.    2158. 

z\   Boston     Elevated     R.     Co., 

pp.    1769,   2872. 

f.  Detroit,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

624,    3250. 

z:  Standard   Oil    Co..    p.    3893. 

McLarin    -■.    -Vtlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     2249,     2540. 
McLaughlin,      Baltimore,      etc.,      R. 
Co.    z: 

Boyle    z: 

Martin   f. 

z:    Martin,    p.    492. 

•   Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i: 

Peixotti    J". 

f.   Svracuse  Rapid   Trans.   Co.. 

p.   2818.' 

McLean  z:  .\tlantic.  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
pp.  2117.  2164.  2214.  2308,  2374. 
2702,    2777. 

z:   Breithaupt.    pp.    1218.    1219. 

1228,    1232,    1242. 


CCXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


McLean  -•.  Burbank,  11  Minn.  277, 
Gil.   189— p.   2693. 

'-.   Burbank.      12     Minn.      530. 

Gil.    438— pp.    2561,   2608. 

T.   Charlotte,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

141. 

t    Chicago,     etc.,     R".     Co.,     p. 

3102. 

V.  Fleming,    p.    308. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   V. 

f.  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co..    p.    786. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■• 

Toohy    z: 

McLendon,    Gray    r. 

t .   Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.    3334. 

3335.    3354. 

MacLeod,    Graven    v. 

f.   Graven,    p.    2276. 

McLiney,     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co. 

McLoon,     Atlantic     Mut.     Ins.     Co. 

V.  Boston    &    Maine    R.    R..    p 

3666. 

McMahon  -•.  Chicago  City  R.  Co., 
88  N.  E.  223,  239  111.  334— 
pp.    2056.    2958. 

-c'.  Chicago    Citv    R.    Co.,     143 

111.     App.    608— p    2057. 

7-.  Interborough  Rapid  Tran- 
sit  Co.,   p.    2022. 

t:  Macy,    pp.    321,    987. 

I'.   New    Orleans    K.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    1986,    2166,    2177. 

V.  New     York     Elev.     R.     Co., 

p.    2789. 

V.  Third      Ave.      R.      Co.,      p. 

1665. 

McManus  -•.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
138  Iowa  150.  115  N.  W.  919, 
128  Am.  St.  Rep.  180— pp.  1201, 
1203,  1453,  1357,  3326,  3365, 
3416. 

t'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    156 

Iowa  359,  136  N.  W.  769— pp. 
419,  1201,  1321,  1355,  1462,  3251, 
3406,   3752. 

V.  Crickett,   p.    2041. 

V.   Thing,    pp.    3036,     3037. 

McMasters   '•.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

pp.  531,  532,  960. 
McMechen,  Colt  '•. 
McMeekin   r.    Southern   Railway,    82 

S.  C.  468,  64  S.   E.  413— pp.   341, 

365,   379,   645,   675. 

z\   Southern     Railway,     85      S. 

C.  381,  67  S.  E.  745— pp.  164, 
3327,     3393. 

McMelon    v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    2240. 
McMichael   v.   Illinois  Cent.   R.    Co., 

pp.    2253,    2258. 
McMillan    v.     American     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    27,    1009,    1391,    1409. 

i:   Chicago,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  pp. 

690,  1377,  1378,  3264,  3270,  3271, 
3406. 

z:   Federal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp 

201,  2420,  2422,  2482. 

z:  Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

213,  301,  320,  323,  337,  432 
896,  900,  913,  945,  979,  983, 
984,  986,  1003,  1004,  1007,  1009, 
1010.    1036,    3377,    3378,    3380. 

McMillion,     Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co. 

McMonigal,    Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

McMurray   v.    Fargo,   p.    1439. 

z'.   Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co., 

p.   3230. 

McMurtry,    Kentucky   Cent.    R.    Co 

V. 

v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2156,    2158,    2159,    2856,    2857. 

McNab,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
McXair,    Bracket    z\ 
McNairy,   Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
McNally,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


V.  Metropolitan     St. 

p.    2243. 


R.     Co., 


McNamara  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R'.  Co., 
p.    2702. 

V.  Great  Northern    R.   Co.,   pp. 

1548,   1552. 

f.   St.     Louis    Trans.     Co.,     pp. 

3071,    3075. 

z\  Washington     Terminal     Co., 

pp.    3449,   3469. 

McNamare,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co 

McNaughter  v.    Cassally,   p.   3875. 
tIcNaughton    v.     Illinois    Cent.     R. 

Co.,    p.    1769. 
McNealy    z:    State,    p.    182. 
McXear,     Marshall     v. 
IcXeeley,  Southern  R.   Co.  f. 
McNeil,    Emerson   v. 

V.  Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    pp. 

451,    452. 

Graham    z\ 

V.   Hill,     pp.     312,     369. 

— —  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
McNeill    Z'.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co., 
pp.    424,    3348,    3392. 

V.   Durham,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     130 

N.  C.  256,  41  S.  E.  383— p. 
2644. 

f.   Durham,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    135 

N.  C.  682,  47  S.  E.  765,  67  L.  R 
A.    227— pp.    1503,    1564,    2096. 

Graham   f. 

Southern    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Z-.   Southern    R.     Co.,    pp.     129, 

3423,    3481,    3491,    3517,    3518. 

McXichol    !■.    Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

245. 
McXulta,      Chicago      Deposit     \'ault 

Co.   -•. 

V.   Ensch,    pp.     1877,    2089. 

McXulty,    Parmelee    v. 

7'.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1582,    1585. 

West    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

McNutt    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t' 
Macomber,    Hutchins    v. 

Macon     v.    Southern     Railway,     pp 

152,    153. 
Macon    Consolidated    St.    R.    Co.    "■ 

Barnes,      pp.      1747,      1748,      1749 

1817,    2955,    3001,    3007. 
Macon    Grocery    Co.,    Atlantic,    etc. 

R.   Co.  V. 

V  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     163 

Fed.   738— p.   3819. 

v.   Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    215 

U.  S.  501,  54  L.  Ed.  300,  30  S. 
Ct.    184— p.   3818. 

Macon  R.,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Castopulon, 
pp.    2357,    2860. 

Myrick   z\ 

Primus    i'. 

v.   Vining,    p.    2997. 

Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  -■.  Anderson, 
pp.    2285,    2404,    2998. 

z:   Barnes,     p.     1986. 

Carswell    z'. 

Graham    v. 

V.   Graham,    p.    102. 

V.  Holt,    p.     1686. 

- — -  V.  Johnson,  pp.  190,  198,  199, 
1684,    2173,    2723. 

King   z>. 

V.   Mayes,     p.     2087. 

f.   Meador     Bros.,       pp.      1228. 

1229,    1232,    1235. 

V.   Moore,    99    Ga.    229,    23    S. 

E.  460— pp.  1989,  2404,  2974. 

V.   Moore,  108  Ga.  84,  3i    S- 

E.  889— pp.  1748,  1749,  1757, 
1768,  1894,  1895,  1989,  2118, 
2169. 

V.  Moore,    125    Ga.   810,    54    S. 

E.    700— pp.    2491,    2624. 

Owens  z'. 

V.  Walton,    pp.    681,    684,    685. 

Withers    -•. 

Yesbik   z'. 

Macon,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  Master- 
son    7'. 

McPadden  '•.  New  York  Cent.  R 
Co.  (N.  Y),  47  Barb.  247— p 
2900. 


McPadden    v.    New    York    Cent.    R. 

Co.,    44    N.    Y.    478,    4    Am.    Rep. 

70S— pp.    1682,    1684,    1687,    1715, 

1845,    2790. 
McPeak    z'.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2068,    2126,    2256,    2868. 
McQueen    v.    Central    Branch,    etc  , 

R.    Co.,    p.    1581. 
McQuerry    z'.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    pp.     2420,    2421,    2483. 
McQucsten     z\     Sanford,     pp.     267, 

3183,    3188. 
McQuilken    z\    Central    Pac.    Co.,    p. 

2245. 

Z-.  Central      Pac.      R.     Co.,      p. 

2320. 

McRackan  v.  Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.  148,  149. 
McRae     v.    Bowers     Dredging     Co., 

Co.,  p.  3585. 
International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Metropolitan      St.     K.      Co., 

pp.    2585,    2o83. 

v.   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    191,    193,    1607,    1(.14,    1626. 
McRea,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Macrow    z\    Great    Western    R.    Co., 

pp.    3115,    3116,    3117,    3119,    3123. 

3127,     3129,    3149. 
McShane,    Harrington    i\ 
McSloop  z\   Richmond,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1883,    1895,    2267. 
McSwain,     First    Nat.     Bank    i'. 
McSwegan   v.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co., 

p.    563. 
McSwyny     z\     Broadway,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  p.  2859. 
McTeer    z'.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

3523,    3545. 
Mactier    z\    Wirgman,    p.    3865. 

Steele    v. 

McVay    v.    Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1710. 
Mac\'eagh     z'.      Atchison,     etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    573,    577,    578,    744,    887, 

895. 
McVeety   v.    St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1550,    1572. 
McVeigh,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    v. 
McWhirter,     Gulf,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

McWilliams   z'.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R. 

Co.,    pp.    2021,    2871. 
Macy,    McMahon    v. 

z'.  New  Bedford.,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.    2889. 

Parker    z'. 

Madan    .'.    Sherard,    pp.    991,    1050, 

3163,     3164,     3196. 
Madara    z\    Shamokin,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2698. 
Maday    z'.    United    States,    p.    3967. 
Madden,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z-. 

v.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2653,    2673. 

r.  Port    Royal,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

35  S.  E.  381,  14  S.  E.  713,  23 
Am.  St.  Rep.  855,  52  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  286— pp.  1767, 
1867,    2596. 

v.   Port     Royal,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

41  S.  C.  440,  19  S.  E.  951,  20  S. 
E.  65,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,   384— pp.    1767,    1867,    1911. 

Madden,     etc.,     Co.,     Atchison,    etc  , 

R.    Co.    v. 
Maddock,    American      Sugar     Refin. 

Co.    V. 
Maddox,    Georgia    R.    Co.    z'. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z/. 

-■.   London,     etc.,     Railwav,     p. 

1971. 

Southern    R.    Co.   •:•. 

Maddox    &    Co.,    Southern    Pac.    R. 

Co.    V. 
Maddry,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    -'. 
Madigan    i'.    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co  , 

p.    2853. 
Madison,    Bearden    Z'. 
Madison     Elect.    R.    Co.,    Vassau    '■. 
Madison    Mut.    Ins.   Co..    Fuller  z'. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXV 


Madison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Gillcnwatci' 
A77,       488, 


po. 


f.   WhitescI 

491,    493,    494. 

Madl    r.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1745.     1762,     1981. 
Mad    River,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■.    Fulton, 

pp.    3125,    3189,    3190. 
Madsen    v.    Utah,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2777. 
Maeller,    Young   v. 
Maercker    f.    Brooklyn    Heights    R. 

Co.,  pp.  2192,  2285. 
Maetze,  G.  C.  &  S.   F.  R.  Co.  v. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 

Magdeburg   Ins.    Co.   v.    Paulson,   p. 

853. 
Mageau   v.    Great    Northern   R.    Co., 
113   N.    W.    1016,    102    Minn.    399 
—p.   2777. 

V.  Great     Northern       R".      Co., 

119    N.    W.    200,    106    Minn.    375 
—p.   2777. 

Magee   v.    New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1743,    2026,    2860. 
Maggie     Hammond,     The. 
Maghee    v.     Camden,     etc.,     Transp. 

Co.,     pp.     3361,     3380. 
Magill    -•.     Seaboard,    etc..     Railway 

pp.  1491,  2717,  3028. 
Magniac,  Ellershaw  f. 
Magnin   '■.    Dinsmore,    62    N.    Y.    35 

50   How.   Prac.   457,   20  Am.   Rep 

442— pp.    753,    759,    764,    857. 

f.    Dinsmore,     70     N.     V.     410 

26    Am.    Rep.    608— pp.    514,    582. 
663. 

V.  Dinsmore,   38   N.    Y.   Super. 

Ct.   248— pp.    759,    1047. 

Magnus    -■.     Piatt,    pp.     421,      1074. 

1110,    1186. 
Magnus    Co.,     Louisville,     etc..     R 

Co.  V. 
Magoffin    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co  , 

p.    1576. 
Magowan,    Chesapeake,    etc..    R.    C'l. 

V. 

Magrane  v.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co., 
pp.    2172.    2697.    2931,    2973. 

Magrath,    Patten    -•. 

Maguire  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co..  pp. 
1953,    2121,    2174. 

Mahaffey  v.  Wisconsin  Cent.  R. 
Co.,    p.    431. 

Mahan.    Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    i' 

Mahattan    Delivery     Co.,    Braus     v. 

Maher,    Baker   v. 

V.  Central    Park,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

67  N.  Y.  52— pp.  1888.  2190. 

V.   Central  Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

39  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  155- p. 
2146. 

Indiana    Union    Tract.     Co.    f. 

T.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co.. 

p.    2678. 

Mahnke    v.    New    Orleans,    etc..    R. 

Co.,    p.    2274. 
Mahogany.    Certain    Logs    of. 
Mahon   ■'.    Blake,    pp.    534.    545. 

f.   Oliver      IJranch,     pp.      1457. 

821. 

Mahone,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Mahoney,     Chicago     Consol.     Tract. 
Co.   :•. 

V.   Detroit    City     RaiUvav,     pp 

1647,    2425,    2431. 

I'.   Philadelphia     Rapid      Trans. 

Co.,   p.    2820. 

Mahoning  \'allev  R.  Co.  -■.  De 
Pascale.    p.    3096. 

r.   O'Hara.    p.   2903. 

Mahony   v.    Cook,    p.    1589. 

Pittsburgh,    etc..     R.     Co.    v. 

Mahula.    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Maid   of   Orleans,    Henderson   -•. 
Maignan    -•.    New    Orleans,    etc..    R'. 

Co..    pp.     531.    896.    900. 
Maillefert      :•.      Interbrough       Rapid 

Transit    Co.,    p.    1707. 

1  Car — o 


Mail     Line    Co.    v.    Carrollton    Fur 

niture   Mfg.    Co.,    p.    803. 
Main   v.   Jarrett,   p.   302. 

Seaboard    .Air    Line    R.    Co.    v, 

Maine   v.    Grand   Trunk    R.    Co.,   pp. 

3551,    3559,    3561,    3591,    3593. 

The. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Maine    Bank    of    Buffalo    v.    Barrin' 

ger,    p.     367. 
.Maine    Cent.    Railroad,    Crawford    f, 

Eastman    -■. 

Maine   Cent.   R.   Co.,    Blumenthal   v. 

Crosby  v. 

Duncan   v. 

Hoar   r. 

Libby   V. 

Lord    V. 

New    England    IC.xp.    Co.    v. 

Rodick    V. 

Sayles  v. 

State   V. 

Taylor    f. 

Wood   7'. 

Woodbury    -•. 

Maine   Nat.    Bank    v. 

392. 
Maine     Stage     Co.     v. 

483. 
Maine    Steamship     Co 

Wells   -■. 

Maine,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

Libby    f. 

Palmer    r. 

Mairs    f.     Manhattan 

.\ss'n,    p.    855. 
Majestic,    Potter    v. 

The. 

Majestic    Coal,    etc.,    Co.    ■ 

Cent.    R-.    Co..    p.    3644. 
Major   V.    Oregon,    etc.,    R 

1734,    2918.     2951. 
Malarin.    Perry   i\ 
Malcom    -'.    Richmond,    etc 

pp.     1917,    2176,    2187. 
Malcomb     v.      Louisville, 

Co.,   p.   2563. 
Malecck   v.    Tower    Grove,    etc 

Co.,    p.    2769. 
Malinowski   '•.    Detroit   United   Rail- 
way,  pp.   2825,   3005. 
Mallard,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Mallette,    Montgomery,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Mallory   '■.    Burrett.    pp.    1161.    3294. 

V.   Tioga   R.    Co.,   pp.    222,    728, 

749,     775,     3283. 

Mallory     Steamsliip     Co.     r.      Bahn 

Diamond,     etc.,     Co.,     pp.     3920, 

3923,    3929,    3932.    4060. 
Mallory,    etc.,    Co.,    Shidlovsky    v. 
Malloy    V.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co., 

p.   2645. 
Malone    f.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp., 

pp.    1673,    3161,    3163,    3184,    3187. 

3196. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R'.    Co.   -'. 

— —  -•.  Metropolitan  E.xp.  Co., 
pp.    1006,    1068. 

V.   Pittsburgh,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    2410,    3081. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

— —  -'.  Te.xas,     etc.,      R.     Co.,       p. 

2295. 
Maloney     v.      Metropolitan 

Co..   p.   2314. 
Malott     V.     Central      Trust 

1575. 
-■.   Hood,    p.     3430. 

Kelly    -•. 

v.   Sample,    p.    2594. 

;•.   Weston,    p.     2094. 

Mamie.    The. 

Manatt,    Colorado,  etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Manchester  Liners  v.  Virginia-Car- 
olina   Chemical    Co.,    p.    3869. 

Manchester  Mfg.  Co.,  Central, 
etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

Manchester  Mills,  Louisville,  etc  , 
R.    Co.    :•. 


Barringer,  p. 

Longley,  p 

,    Lindsay  v. 
Allen    -•. 

Real     Estate 


Illinois 
Co.,    pp. 

Co., 
R. 
R. 


R. 


etc.. 


St. 
Co.. 


Manchester    Mills.    Railway    Co.    f 
Manchester,     S.     &    L.     R.     Co.     v 
Brown,    g.    958. 

Denaby    Main    Colliery    Co.    x 

Manchester    St.     Railway,     Harring- 
ton   V. 

Haskell    V. 

Lord  V. 

Manchester,    etc. 


Railroad,    Gordon 


McCluer   v. 

Manchester,    etc.,    R.    Co.    Gavett    f. 

Izlar    i\ 

Manchester,    etc..    Railway,    Swan   v. 
Mangum     v.      North     Carolina,     U 
Co..    pp.    1769,    1786. 

Texas,    etc.,     R.    Co.    v. 

Manhattan    Co.,    Denny   f. 
Manhattan    Delivery    Co.,    Dressner 

T'. 

Manhattan     Dist.    Tel.    Co.,    Tieber 


Manhattan  Oil  Co.  v.  Camden,  etc.. 
Transp.  Co.  (N.  Y.J,  52  Barb. 
72.  5  Alb.  Prac,  N.  S.,  289— pp. 
2i77,    3380,    3381. 

,'.  Camden,    etc.,    Transp.    Co  , 

54    N.    Y.    197— pp.    3377,    3381. 

Manhattan    R.    Co.,    Baker    v. 

Benson   v. 

Boyce    v. 

Brady  v. 

Brown    -■. 

Buck   V. 

Cahn   V. 

Clark    V. 

Colwell    J'. 

Connelly    v. 

De   Soucey  v. 

Dlabola  v. 

Fahr   r. 

Ferry    -'. 

Flagg   f. 

Graham  v. 

Hanrahan    v. 

Kelley  v. 

Koetter   v. 

Lauterer    i-. 

Lycett  V. 

McGcarty   v. 

McKernan    v. 

Merwin    v. 

Oppenheimer   v. 

Palmeri   f. 

Robinson    v. 

Rusk  r. 

Ryan    f. 

Schestauber   v. 

Shea   V. 

Smith   V. 

— — -  Solomon   v. 

Spaeth    -■. 

Stein    f. 

Thomson   "'. 

Timpson   v. 

Manhattan       Real       Estate        Ass'n. 

Mairo   v. 
Manhattan     Rubber     Shoe     Co.     v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp.    565, 

567. 
Manheim   f.    Carr,    p.    526. 
Manice,    Griffen    "•. 
Manistee    River    Imp.    Co..    Sands   :■. 
Manistee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Perkett    :. 

Starks    Co.    :•. 

Manitoba.    The. 
Manitou,    The. 

Manitowoc      "•.       Manitowoc,      etc.. 

Tract.    Co.,   p.   77. 
Manitowoc,    etc..    Tract.    Co..    Mani 

towoc    "'. 
Mann    v.    Birchard,     pp.     818,     822 

1008.   3414. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

V.   Philadelphia    Tract.    Co.,    p 

2188. 

Nann    Boudoir    Car    Co.    v.    Dupre 
pp.    3080,    3206. 

Searles   -'. 

.Mannheim    Ins.    Co.     f.    Erie,     etc. 
Transp.    Co.,    p.    3736. 


CCXXVl 


Manning,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

t:  Hoover,   pp.    816,   818. 

r.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2434.  „      _ 

West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

r.  West    End    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2238.  _ 

Mannon    z:    Camden    Interstate    K. 

Co..    pp.    2367,    2793. 
Mansfield,    Commonwealth    r. 

Miller    f. 

Mansfield  R.,  etc.,  Co..  Hanson  z: 
Manson.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f . 
f.   New     York,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.   709,   717. 
Mantcr   f.    Holmes,    p.    394o. 
Manuel,    Fordyce    '•. 
Manufacturers'        Bldg.       Co.,       t.cl 

wards   f.  .   i     ^ 

Manufacturers'    Commercial    Co.    v. 

Rochester    R.    Co.,    117    N.    Y.    S. 

989-pp.   389,   390 

:•.   Rochester    R.     Co.,     126    .\. 

Y.    S.    1051,    142   App.    Div.   249— 
pp.    388.    389. 

Manufacturers'    Gas,     etc.,     Co.     f. 

Indiana    Natural    Gas,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    3428. 
Manufacturing   Co.,    Railroad  Co.   i'. 
Manville   r.   Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1583,    1714. 
Maples   r.    New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.   2429. 
Marable    f.     Southern    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1683,    1687,     1752. 
Marande   z:   Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    42 

C     C      \.    317,    102     Fed.     246— 

pp.    843,    873,    1040.   ^ 
_-  '.■.  Texas,     etc.,     R.    Co.,     184 

U.    S.    173,  46   L.    Ed.   487,   22   S. 

Ct.    340— pp.    510,    869,    872,    873, 

953.  ^     ^ 

Marbourge   v.   Seattle,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    1997,   2359. 
Marbury    v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    2886. 
Marcardier  v.   Chesapeake  Ins.    Co., 

p.  3864. 
March    v.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

520. 
Marchman,   Georgia,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Marcott     v.    Minneapolis     St.,     etc., 

R.    Co.,   pp.    1939,   3233. 
Marcum,    Commonwealth    v. 
Marcus,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f    New        Haven        Steamboat 

Co.,    p.    1103. 

V.  Omaha,     etc.,     Bridge    Co., 

p.  3932. 

Marcy    v.    Warner,    p.    798. 
Marechal    Suchet,    The. 
Margaret,    The. 
Margo   v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2752,    2821. 
Marie,   Lupin   f. 
Marietta,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Campbell   v. 

First   Nat.    Bank   '<.: 

Peters,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Marigold,    United    States    v. 

Marin,    Sullivan   -■. 

Marine    Bank   v.    Wright,     pp.     353, 

363. 
Marine    Fire    Ins.    Co.    v.    Burnett, 

p.   3911. 
Marine    Ins.    Co.,    Gracie   v. 

V.  St.      Louis,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.   246,  282. 

Marine     Nat.    Bank     v.     Barringer, 

pp.   361,   362,   371. 
Marinovich,    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co. 


T.\BLE    OF    CASES. 


Marker,    Mitchell   f. 

r.  Mitchell,    pp.    1722,    l/aO. 

Market    St.    R.     Co.,     Barrett    r. 

Cody   r. 

Houghton    f. 

Seller    r.  . 

Markham       f.        Houston        Distnc. 

Nav.    Co.,   pp.   2081,   2083. 
Marks     z:     .Maska     Stcam.ship     Co.. 
pp.    2043,    3991. 

Blum  &  Co.  v. 

West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    r. 

Marks,    etc.,      Co.,      Southern      Exp. 

Co.    '••  ^     J. 

Markwald,     etc.,     Co.  z:     Creditors. 

pp.    1237,    1240. 

Marlborough     St.     R.  Co.,     Savage 


Marion  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
59  Iowa  428,  13  N.  W.  415,  44 
Am.     Rep.    687— pp.     2529,     2530. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     64 

Iowa  568,  21   N.   W.  86— p.   2718. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    v. 

Marion     St.     R.    Co.    v.    ShaflFer,    p. 

2180. 

Sirk  f. 

Maris,     Leavenworth,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


Marlett,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Vicksburg    R.,     etc.,     Co.     z: 

Marlow   v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    pp 

1629,    2445. 
Marmonstein     v.     Pennsylvania      K 

Co.,    pp.    3161,    3181. 
Maroney    v.     Old     Colony,     etc  ,     R 

Co.,    pp.    197,    2453,    2714. 
Marquette   z:    Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.. 

pp.    1953,    2856. 

■;•.   Langton,       pp.       817,      832, 

851,  853. 

Marquette,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Condon    z\ 

Frederick   f. 

z\  Kirkwood,      pp.      816,      817, 

3249,    3267,    3274,    3395,    3397. 

Lucas   z'. 

Marr   v.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

1798,    2026. 

v.  Western     Union      Tel.    Co  , 

pp.   9,   979. 

Marriott    f.    London,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    193,    194. 
Marrs,    St.    Louis,    etc.,   R.    Co.    z\ 

Texas  Cent.   R.   Co.   f. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

Marsalis   z:    Louisiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    2262,    2676. 
Marsden    Co.    z:    Bullitt    &    Co.,    pp. 

853,    3919. 
Marsh,    Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Frazer   ''. 

. z:   Home,    p.    1037. 

Lee   z\ 

Price   V. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    z\ 

7'.   Rhode      Island        Co.,       pp. 

2395,   2750. 

V.  Union      Pac.      K.     Co.,      pp. 

1156,    1166. 
Marshall     '■.    American     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    533,    534,    565,    566. 

Barnes  z\ 

z:   Boardman,    p.     3865. 

z'.   Boston     Elevated     R.     Co., 

p.    1515. 

—  z'.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
3018. 

—  Z'.  Boston,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 
2969. 

—  Green,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.    z\ 

—  V.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
3335. 

—  Kendall   v. 

—  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

—  z'.  McNear,    p.    3954. 

—  V.  Nashville  R.,  etc.,  Co..  p. 
1641.  „       ^ 

—  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  45  Barb.  502— pp.  236, 
543,    851. 

V.  New     York     Cent.     R.     Co., 

48    N.    Y.    660— p.    615. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Pennsylvania    R'.    Co.    ?'. 

z:   Pontiac,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3145. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ■:■. 

V.   St.      Louis,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

pp.    2573,    2575,    3061. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Southwestern      R.      Co.,      p. 

2320. 


Marshall,       Staten       Island       Rapid 
Transit    Co.     <•. 

■;'.   Staten    Island    Rapid    Tran- 
sit   R.     Co.    z: 

Western    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Marshall     Field    &    Co.,     Steiskal    v. 
Marshall    Medicine    Co.    v.    Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3335. 
Marshall,   etc..    Grain   Co.   v.   Kansas 

Citv,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp.   590,   3274, 

3334,    3335,    3340. 
Marshall,     etc.,     R.     Co.     f.     Kansas 

City,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    p.    342. 
Marston,    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    z: 
Martelle,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Martha,  The. 
Martin    ?■.    American    Exp.    Co.,    pp 

797,    807,    3377,    3382. 

Boggs    z\ 

z:   Boston     Elev.     R.     Co.,     pp 

2798,    2877. 

z\  Boston,     etc.,     St.     R.     Co. 

p.    2702. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Clark    z: 

z\   Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

3043,    3049. 

-  v.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    p 
856. 

-  Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

-  z:   Ft.     Worth,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
pp     270,    274,    286,    292,    293,    805. 

-  z'.  G.   N.   R.   Co.,   p.    1780. 

-  Grand   Rapids,   etc.,    R.    Cu. 

-  V.   Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p. 
247. 

-  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

McLaughlin   z'. 

7'  McLaughlin,    p.    484. 

7'.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1721,    2787. 

7'.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2452. 

7'.   Old     Colonv     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1834,    2313,    2740. 

Omaha,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Oregon     R..     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

3487. 

P.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  Co  V 

Pittsburg,   etc.,  R'.   Co.  v. 

v.  Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1576,    3507. 

Pullman   Palace   Car   Co.   z: 

7'.   Rhode  Island  Co.,   pp.   1602, 

1603. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

z\   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    55 

Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314,  56  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  112— pp.  283, 
294,    296,    308,    315. 

v.   St.      Louis,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  56  S.  W.  1011 
—pp.    1712,    1884. 

7'.    Second     Ave.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2228,   2688. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1522. 

2251,  2853. 

7'.  Southern  Railway,  77  S.- 

C.  370,  58  S.  E.  3— pp.  1867, 
1884,  1911,  2862,  2913. 

7'.  Southern   Railway,   89   S. 

C.  32,  71  S.  E.  236— pp.  2575, 
2626,  2627,  2773,  3016,  3051, 
3052. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

The  D.  R. 

United    States    z: 

7'.   West,    p.    3480. 

West   Chicago   St.    R.   Co.   v. 

Martindale  v.    Kansas,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.     1861. 
Martino,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
Martyn,    State    7'. 
Marx,    Craig    7'. 

7'    Louisiana    Western    K.    Co., 

pp.    2409,    2448,    3100. 

7'.   The    Britannia,    p.    3906. 

Marve    z\    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.   3552,   3556,   3557,   3571,   3572. 


TAHLK    (;F    CASF.S. 


ccxxvir 


Maryland,    IJaltimorc,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Rrown    z>. 

Railroad    Co.    v. 

V.   Railroad   Co.,   p-    3871. 

Ward   V. 

Maryland  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ruden,  pp. 
336,    340,    348. 

Maryland,  etc..  Railroad  7:  Tucker, 
pp.  2484,  2850,  2852,  2855,  3028, 
3029,    3030,    3031,    3032,    3088. 

Marysvillc,    etc.,    St.     R.    Co.,    Nye 

V. 

Mary   Washington,   'I'lic. 

Mashen,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Smith    f. 

Mask,   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.  r. 

Maslin  v.  Haltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co  , 
pp.  5,  734,  741,  750,  815,  949, 
1038,  1039,  1054,  1075,  1209, 
1338,    1567,    1568,    2098. 

Mason,    Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.    v. 

V.   lioston,     etc.,     St.     R.     Co  , 

pp.    1820,    2346. 

Davey    v. 

V.   Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    2997. 

Hooe   V. 

Kent  V. 

Lewis   V. 

I.ickbarrow  7'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp 

287,    1279. 

V.  Missouri,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,     p 

2300. 

— r^  Montgomery    St.    R.    Co.    r. 
— —  Montgomery    St.    Railway    :'. 

v.   Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2055,    2959. 

V.  Nelson      Cotton      Co.,      pp. 

391,    392,    394,    395,    396,    397. 

7-.  St.     Louis,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.    2655. 

V.  Seaboard  -Xir  Line  Rail- 
way,   p.    2445. 

V.   Wilson,     p.     1219. 

Mason    City,    etc..    Tract.    Co.,    Titch 

Mason,    etc.,    Co.,    Fitch   v. 
Mason,    etc..    Tract.    Co.,    Fitch   7\  ^ 
Masonic     Fraternity     Temple     .\ss'n 
f.    Collins,    pp.    2353,    2901,    2983. 
Massachusetts,    Heer    f. 

Plumlcy    7\ 

Thurlow   r. 

Western   Union   Tel.   Co.  v. 

V.   Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

pp.    3551,    3552,    3572,    3591. 

Massachusetts     Loan,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Fitchburg   R.    Co.,   pp.    595,   597. 
Massell     f.     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

I)p.    2517,    2535. 
.Masscngill,     East     Tennessee,     etc., 

R.   Co.  r. 
Massey,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

Massie,    Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 
Masters  7\   Rarreda,  p.  351. 

Clark   V. 

Masterson   v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.. 

pp.    2480,    3099. 
V.  Crosstown    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1888.    1890,    2687,    2908. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Indiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

V.  Macon,     etc.,     St.     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2252,    2253. 

Mateer,   Ohio   Cent.    Tract.    Co.   ;•. 
Math    7:    Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1750,    2192,    2193,    2895. 
Mather    7'.    -Xmerican     Exp.    Co.,    p. 

858. 
Mather-McDowell         Lumber         Co. 

Southern   R.   Co.,  f. 
Mathes,    Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.    '■. 
Matheson    ?■.    Southern    R.    Co..    pp. 

488,   491,   496,   640,   641,   677,   859, 

860,    1063.    1072. 
Mathew,    Wabash    R.    Co.    7'. 

r.  Wabash    Fv.    Co.,    p.    1495. 

Mathews   f.    .Vtchison,    etc.,    R.    Co, 

p.    2081. 


Mathews,    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

z'.  Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p. 

2319. 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Johnson  r. 

V.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1520,    1712,    1713,    2152. 

Mathias   v.    O'Neill,    p.    2714. 
Mathis    V.     Southern     Pac.     Co.,     p. 
2970. 

v.    Southern     R.     Co.,    jjp.    219, 

440,    449. 

f.   Thomas,     p.     1166. 

Weston,    etc..     Railroad    ?•. 

Matilda   A.    Lewis,   The. 

Matter    of    Heff,    p.    3539. 

Matteson    ?■.     New    York    Cent.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2900. 

1'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Cn. 

pp.    3140,    3160,    3170,    3188,    3H4. 

Matthews  v.  Board  of  Corp. 
Comm'rs,    p.    72. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7'. 

Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2133. 

f.  Poythress,    pp.    358, _  375. 

Pullman    Palace   Car   Co.   :•. 

Wallace    f. 

Matthieson    f.     Burlington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2131,    2132,    2379,    23.0. 
Mattison    v.     New    York    Cent.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    3160.    3169. 
Matula,    Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.    i: 
Matz     '•.     St.     Paul.     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.     1830.    2174.    2187. 
Matzdorf.    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Man    &    Co.,    Stuart    7\ 

Mauch    Chunk,    The. 

Maugans,      Cumberland      X'alley      R. 

Co.    r. 

Cumberland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

Maughon,    Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.   f. 
Mauldin  -'.   Seaboard  Air  Line  Rail- 

w.TV,    pp.    265,    499. 
•Maumce     Valley     R.,     etc.,     Co.     v. 

Montgomery,     p.     2088. 
Mauran,     Clark     -•. 
.Maurer     7'.      Brooklyn     Heights     R. 

Co.,    p.    2830. 

Indiana    R.    Co.    •:■. 

Mauritz  7\  New  York.  etc..  R.  Co., 
pp.  1631.  3116.  3119,  3123,  3128, 
3129,  3130,  3131,  3163,  3165. 
3177,    3178,    3179. 

Mauro,    Walker   ;•. 

Maury  f.  Talmadge,  pp.  1749. 
1951,    2757. 

Mauser,   Central    R.   Co.   ?■. 

Maverick  f.  Eighth  Ave.  R.  Co  . 
pp.     1726,    1735.    1804. 

Maxson  ?•.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.. 
pp.    2447,   2462. 

Ma.xwell,     Bomar    v. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Fresno     City     R.     Co.,     pp 

1720,    2347.    2860. 

Missouri,   etc..   R.   Co.  -i'. 

Pecos,    etc..    R'.    Co.    f. 

May.  Babcock  '■. 

'■.    Babcock.    p.    337. 

Central     Kentucky    Tract.     Co. 

Chicago    Union    Tract.    C^o.    -• 

f.  Harson,    pp.    II,    7(i8.    1682 

1750,  2288. 

f.  Ontario,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

1581. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co^   f. 

f.  Shreveport    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

2017.  2058. 

May   Queen,    Merriman   f. 

Mayall     f.     Boston,     etc..     Railroad 

pp.    277,    1011. 
Maybin.    T<ouisville.    etc..    R.    Co.   '■. 

■;•.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    p. 

3272. 

Mayer.    Dreyfus    7: 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 


Mayer    Bros.,    Co.,    St.    Louis,    etc., 

R.    Co.    i: 
Mayes,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■. 

Kansas  City,   etc.,   R.   Co.  i'. 

Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    K'.    Co.    7: 

Mayfield    f.    Southern    Railway,    pp. 

1454,    1455.    1470.    1471.    3408. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Maynard    v.    (Jregon    R.,    etc..    Co , 

p.  2925. 
Mayne    v.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  1699. 
Mayo,    Birmingham    R.,   etc.,   Co.   f. 

V.  Boston,     etc..     Railroad,     p. 

2274. 

Hall   :. 

Lake    Erie    R.    Co.    7-. 

Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 

Mays,   Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.   -'. 
Mays,ville     Brick     Co.,     Chesapeak  •, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Maysville,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     i:     Her- 

rick,    p.    3068. 
Mazursky    7'.     Atlantic    Coast    Lint- 

R.     Co.,     pp.     3396,     3397,     3404, 

3523,    3545,    3546. 

.Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Mazzie,    Missouri,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 
Mazzie    &    Co.,    Missouri,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   z: 
Meacham,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    7: 

Railroad    r. 

Mead,  Chicago  City  R.   Co.  r. 
Meade   v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2351,    2352,    2907. 
Meador    v.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.  2694. 
Meador   Bros.,    Macon,   etc..    K'.    Co. 

V. 

Meadors  &   Co.,    Southern    Pac.    Co. 

Meadows,    Evansville    St.    R.    Co.   7-. 
Meadville,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Beck- 
man   r. 
Meagher  &  Co.,   Garey  f. 
Means,  Atchison,  etc..   R.  Co.  f. 

V.   Bank,     pp.     369,     373,     383. 

387. 

?'.  Carolina    Cent.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2756. 

r.  Central    R.    Co.,     139    Fed. 

543,   71    C.   C.   A.   331— p.   2259. 

r.  Central    R.    Co..    48    N.    Y. 

S.  366,  23  App.  Div.  298— p 
2259. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :. 

Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7: 

Mearns   '■.    Central    R.    Co.,   p.    2360. 
Mears   r.    New    York.    etc..    R.    d.. 

pp.  345.  411.  799.  817.  820. 
823.  828.  829.  832.  834.  835. 
969.  973.  986.  1035.  1038.  1045. 
3345,    3379. 

Taillon    '■. 

Mcch.i'nics'      Bank     f.     New     York. 

etc..    R.    Co..    p.    372. 
Medbery   f.    Sweet,   p.   473. 
Medbury  f.   Hopkins,   p.    1489. 

7-.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.   653. 

Medea,    The. 

Media,     etc..     Elect.     R.     Co..     Ria 

Media,    etc..    R.    Co..    Bilotta    t. 
Mee.    Chicago    L'nion    Tract.    Co.    f. 
Meek    t.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co.. 
p.    2721. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    x'. 

Meeker.     Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co.    r. 

:•.   Lehigh    Vallev    R.    Co..    pp. 

3650.    ibt.S.    3815.    3816. 

Meeking.    Union,    etc..    R'.    Co.    7'. 
Mecks  :•.   .Atlantic,  etc.,   R.   Co..   pp. 

2155.    2150.    2331. 
Meesel    t.    Lynn.    etc..    R.    Co.,    p- 

1951. 
Meglemery.    Louisville    R.    Co.    7: 
Mehalek     f.     Minneapolis,     etc..     R. 

Co..   p.    155^ 
Mehlsack,     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


CCX  XVIII 


TABI.K    OF     CASES. 


Meier   z:    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    pi). 

1682,      1684,      1687,      1720,      1823, 

1846,    2671.    2673. 
Meigs   f.    Hagan,    p.    494. 
Meinhard,    etc.,    Co.,    Atlantic,    etc  , 

R.   Co.   r. 
Meirson   f.    Hope,    p.    573. 
Meisner  z:    Detroit,   etc..    Ferry   Co., 

pp.    12,    1491,    1499. 
Mei.xner,    Cicero,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 
Melbourne     f.     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    524,    531,    539,    3276. 
Melendy   v.    Barbour,    p.    801. 
Melford   f.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2638. 
Mellen,    United    States   i'. 
Mellett,    Calloway    -■. 
Mellichamp,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    r. 
Mellier   f.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    Transp. 

Co.,  p.  437. 
Mellor,    Crawford    i: 

f.   Missouri    Pac.    R.     Co.,    pp. 

1575,    1580. 

Meloche    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    285,    287,    292,    303. 
Melodv   f.    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

pp.    3750,    3759,    3760. 
Melton     V.      Birmingham     R.,     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    1536,    1868,    2317. 

Southern   R.    Co.    <•. 

Memphis,     Iron     Mountain     R.     Co. 

Memphis    Ins.    Co.,    Garrison    v. 

Memphis  News  Pub.  Co.  ?■.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  pp.  208,  210,  222, 
223,    224. 

Memphis  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Graves,  pp. 
1650,    2458.   2460. 

f.   Norris,    p.    2978. 

r.   Shaw,   pp.    1763.    1884,   1887, 

2017,    2042,    2056,    2722,    2777. 

Memphis,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  v.  Abell, 
p.    1302. 

American    Roofing    Co.    -'. 

V.   Buckner,    pp.    1567,    4003. 

Greenwich    In.s.    Co.    v. 

Jone!^    '•. 

z:   McCool,     pp.    2673.     2742. 

f.  Xagel,    IS    Ky.    L.    Rep.    742 

—pp.    3047,    3051,    3057,    3058. 

z:   Nagel,     97     Ky.     9,     16     Ky. 

L.    Rep.    748.    29    S.    W.    743— pp. 
3057,    3058. 

V.  Overman    Carriage    Co.,    pp. 

3912,    3993. 

Rankin    t'. 

Sugg  V. 

Whittenton    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bc-sf^n, 

pp.    203,    1943,    1954,    1955,    2427, 
2481,   2712. 

Bloomingdale,    etc.,    Co.    -•. 

Brown   v. 

Bryan   z: 

Bussey   "•. 

z:   Chastine,   p.   2438. 

V.  Copeland,   p.   2279. 

Evans   v. 

V.   Freed,    pp.     477,    478,    1215. 

Furstenheim    z\ 

German   Fire  Ins.   Co.   v. 

Germania   Fire   Ins.    Co.   f. 

Goodloe  V. 

z:  Green,    p.    3053. 

Hall    V. 

Hobbs    V. 

V.  Holloway,    pp.     1087,     11 0''. 

1108,     3183,     3298,     3299,     3330, 
3377,    3383,    3395,    3396. 

Logwood   Z'. 

z:  Nolan,       14      Fed.      532— p. 

3579. 

z:   Nolan.    27    Alb.    L.     T     217, 

4    Ky.    L.    Rep.    840— p.    3579. 

z:   Reeves,    pp.    422,    737,    743, 

744,     747,     748,    825,     1037,     1047. 

Robinson   z'. 

Robinson,    etc.,    Co.    z\ 

z:   Salinger,   p.    2190. 

v.   Southern    Exp.    Co.,    p.    103.  ' 

V.  State,   p.   29. 


Memphis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z\    Stockard, 
pp.    3257,    3258. 

!■.   Stringfellow,         pp.         1925, 

1926. 

Watson  v. 

z'.  Whitfield,     pp.     1872,     1912, 

1913,    2681. 

Menacho  v.   Ward,    pp.    220,    1179. 
Menaugh    v.    Bedford    Belt    R.    Co., 

pp     1551,     1569. 
Mencke    z:     Cargo     of    Java     Sugar, 

p.    3949. 
Mendel!,     Newport     News,     etc.,     R. 

Co.   z: 
Mendelsohn      z:      Anaheim      Lighter 

Co.,  pp.  847,  860. 
Mendenhall     t'.     Atchison,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1551,    1552. 

Currie   z\ 

Fe wings  z\ 

Mendoza     z:     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2571. 
Menner     z\     Delaware,     etc.,     Canal 

Co.,    pp.    822,    826,    872. 
Mensing   z:    Michigan,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    1790,   2126,   2230. 
Menzell     -•.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.     1012. 
Mephams  -■.    Biessel,   pp.   3901,   3903. 
Mepoter,   The. 
Mercantile     Bank,    Fry    z\ 
Mercantile    Banking    Co.    v.    Landa. 

pp.    328,    370,   384,    387. 

Mercantile   Claim   Co.,   Central,  etc., 

R.   Co.  V. 
Mercantile   Mut.    Ins.   Co.   '■.    Calebs, 

p.    790. 

V.  Chase,    pp.    770,    946. 

Mercantile    Trust     Co.,     Reagan     v. 
Mercantile     &     Exchange     Bank     -•. 

Gladstone,  p.  1248. 
Mercer,  .Atkinson  z\ 
■  z\   Cincinnati,     etc.,      R.     ,Co., 

pp.     1912,    2352. 

Louisville    City    R.    Co.    z\ 

X'ewport     News,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Merchants'        Bank,       New       Jersey 
Steam    Nav.    Co.    !■. 

V.   Union     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

359,    370,    487. 

Merchants'     Coal     Co.     v.     Fairmont 

Coal    Co.,    p.    3841. 
Merchants'    Co.,    Bonar   v. 
Merchants'    Cotton-Press    Co.,    Lan- 
caster   Mills    z'. 
Merchants'    Cotton    Press,   etc.,    Co., 

Deming  z'. 
Merchants'     Despatch     z\     Smith,     p. 

841. 
Merchants'    Despatch    Co.    !■.    Smith, 

pp.    736,    739. 
Merchants'     Despatch    Transp.      Co., 

Bancroft  &  Co.  z: 
z:   Bloch,   pp.    7,   321,   322,    770. 

782,     822,     828.     949,     953,     987, 

1025.  3291,  3330,  3369. 

Block    z: 

z:    Bollcs,    pp.    762,    763,    3379. 

Bracco   '■. 

z:  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

727. 

Edmunds    ?•. 

r.   Furthmann.     pp.     430,     965 

981,    996,    997,    1033. 

V.  Joesting,       pp.       987,       994, 

1033. 

V.   Kahn,     pp.     732,     742,     748. 

770,    773,    3297. 

z'.   Leysor,     pp.     945,     1032. 

Robinson    Bros.   f. 

Struebing   Co.    zk 

Talbott   V. 

V.  Theilbar,    pp.    980,    1049. 

Merchants'     Despatch,     etc..     Co.     z'. 

Merriam,    np.    534,    555,    559,    894, 
908,    910,   911,    914. 

Wilde   V. 

Merchants'     Dispatch     Trai  sp.     Co  . 
Cownie    Glove    Co.   z'. 


Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Furthmann.  pp.  320,  321,  324, 
325,  328,  331,  332,  337,  409,  411, 
451,    452,    996.    999. 

Haasc    &    Sons    Fish    Co.    v. 

z'.   Hallock,    pp.    536,    894,    900. 

z:  Iloskins,     14     Ky.     L.     Rep. 

927— p.    909. 

z\  Hoskins,     19     Ky.     L.     R'ep. 

799,     41     S.     W.     31,    44     S.     W. 
362— p.    813. 

Rand    z: 

Shelton    z\ 

Singer    V. 

Merchants'  Dispatch,  etc..  Co.  z'. 
Cornforth,  pp.  770,  784,  786, 
945. 

-'.   Moore,    p.    538. 

Merchant's     Elevator     Co.,     Dickson 

Merchants'       Exp.       Co.,       Gerhard 

Mennen    Chemical    Co.    v. 
Merchants'    Exp.,    etc.,    Co.,    Foibts 

Merchants'     Mut.     Ins.     Co.     i\     La- 

croix,  p.    1118. 
Merchants'   Nat.   Bank  z-.   Baltimore. 

etc..   Steamboat  Co.,   p.   556. 

r.    Bangs,    pp.    352,    362. 

Chesapeake    Steamship    Co.    v. 

Cheek    z\ 

National    Bank    z\ 

Shaw     7'. 

Merchants'     Steamboat     Co.,     Boner 


.-\ss'n,     v.     Word, 

Bank,      Albany, 

Co.,      Lancaster 

Storage     Co.     v. 
pp.    3705,    3708. 
Transp.        Co., 


Mercha'-ts',     etc., 

p.    744. 
Merchants',      etc. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Merchants',      etc. 

Mills    r. 
Merchants',     etc., 

Insurance  Co., 
Merchants',        etc., 

Clark   V. 

z:   Eichberg,      pp.       330,      802. 

1029,    1072,    1114,    1130. 

French     '■. 

7'.   Granger,     pp.     131,     3863. 

Lazard    ''. 

'■.   Moore,    pp.    714,    894,    1045. 

3349,    3350. 

T'.   Moore   &   Co.,    pp.   551,    SS3, 

562,    1081,    1102. 

X'orth    z: 

Southern    Cotton    Oil    Co.    v. 

z:   Story,    pp.    911,    915,    918. 

L'nited     States     z-. 

Weil    z: 

Mercher     <■.     Texas     Mid.     R.     Co., 

pp._  1526,  2251. 
Mercier.  Allen  z\ 
Meredith    '•.    Seaboard,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    613,    3276,    3277,    3393. 
Merida,   The. 
Meriden,   etc..    Tramway    Co.,    Hesse 

V. 

Meridan    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Godfrey    v. 
Mering    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    pp. 

1064,     1071,     1389. 
Meriwether  z\   Ouincy,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

pp.    1294,    129.1,    1296,    1315,    1423, 

1425. 
Merl,   Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.   z'. 
Merriam    -•.    Hartford,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   267,   271,   273,   274,   285,   3136. 

Merchants'        Despatch,        etc., 

Co.    V. 

Merrick   z:    Brainard,    pp.    483,    789. 

V.  Webster,    p.    503. 

Merrielees    v.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2642,    2800,    2808. 
Merrill    z'.    American    Exp.    Co..    pp 
986,     nil,     1113,    3369,    3370. 

f.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

42. 

Chicago,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     v. 

z'.   Eastern    R.    Co.,    139    Mass. 

238,    1    N.    E.    548,    52    Am.    Rfp. 
705— p.     1521. 

z:   Eastern    R.    Co.,    139   Mass. 

252,   29   N.    E.    666— p.    2749. 


TAiu.i-:  or   CASES. 


CCXXIX 


Alcrrill,    I'ordyce   v. 

V.   Grinnell,      pp.      728,      3118 

3125,     3126,     3129,     3130,     3131 
3132,    3I4I. 

- — -  V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co. 

p.    2759. 
— —  V.  Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,   pp 

1511,    1770,    2724. 

V.   Pacific     Transfer     Co.,     pp 

•  983,     984,     1050,     3192. 

Sommerville    v. 

Merrill  &  Co.,   Central,  etc.,   R.   Co. 

V. 

Merrimack,    The. 

Merriman    i'.    Fulton,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 
1295,    1864. 

r.   Great     Northern     Exp.     Co.. 

p.     578. 

V.  May    Oueen,    pp.    960,    964, 

980,    982,    994,    1003,    1004,    1008. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Merritt    v.     Earle,    29    N.     Y.     115, 

86  Am.  Dec.  292— pp.  736,  737, 
742,    749. 

r.  Earle     (X.     Y.),     31     Barb. 

38— pp.  728,  730,  733,  734,  736, 
812,    815,    822. 

V.   Lehigh     X'alley     R.     Co.,     p. 

3151. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1884,    2259. 

V.  Old    Colony,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    285.    287,    291,    780. 

Southern    R.    Co.    !■. 

Merritt    Creamery    Co.    v.    Atchison, 

etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp.    733,    749. 
Merritt,      etc..      Wrecking      Co.      v. 
Vogeman,   127    Fed.   770— p.   3972. 

V.   X'ogeman,     143     Fed.     142 — 

p.    3957. 

Merry,    Slimmer   r. 

Merryman   v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1767,    1798,    1914,    2744,    2873. 
Mer.shon    Z'.    Hobensack,    pp.    1,    209, 

211,   728,   730,   733,   737,   749,   781, 

796,    804,    3914. 
Merton   v.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    1825. 
Merwin  v.   Butler,   p.    517. 

V.  Manhattan    R.    Co.,    113    N. 

Y.  659,  21  N.  E.  415— pp.  1952, 
1953. 

V.  Manhattan   R.   Co.,   48   Hun 

608,  1  N.  Y.  S.  267,  16  N.  Y. 
St.    Rep.    20— pp.    1952.    2186. 

Merz   r.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..   pp. 

481,    574,    577. 
Meschneck     -•.     Brooklyn,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   pp.   2664,   2673. 
Mesel     ''.     Lynn,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2173. 
Messenger   r:    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

36    N.    J.    L.    407.     13     Am.     Rep. 

457— pp.  220,  1135,  1180,  1181, 

1184. 

V.   Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37 

N.  J.  L.  531,  18  Am.  Rep  754— 
pp.  211,  212,  220,  221,  222,  1147, 
1184,  1185,  1189. 

V.   \"alley,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1522,    1523,    1561.    1779,    1798. 

Messino,   N.   &  C.   R.   Co.   f. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :•. 

Metcalf,    House    t'. 

Hunt    f. 

7'.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2133,  2283,  2284. 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 

-■.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1509,    1510,     1511,    1512. 

Metropolitan    Exp.    Co.,    Goldbowitz 

V. 

Malone  v. 

Metropolitan   R.    Co.,    Eads   v. 

z:   Falvey,    p.    2881. 

Geddes    v. 

Guenther    z\ 

Harbison    z\ 

T'.  Jones,    p.    2748. 

Right  f. 

i:   Kowalski,    p.    2889. 


Metropolitan   R.  Co.,  McDonough  z: 

I'.  Quincy    R.    Co.,    p.    114. 

Snashall    -•. 

r.   Snashall,     pp.     2115,     2180, 

2190. 

Metropolitan     Railway     -■.     Jackson, 
p.    1971. 

Richardson   z'. 

Metropolitan    Redwood    Lumber   Co., 

Boston    .Marine    Ins.    Co.    v. 
Metropolitan    Steamship     Co.,     Ber- 
windwhite    Coal    Min.    Co.    v. 

Hickford   J'. 

.\Ietr()i)olitan    St.    R.    Co.,    Alten    v. 

.Mtwcin    7-. 

• .\nderson     v. 

.Andrews    v. 

.Armstrong    v. 

Bante   v. 

Itartley   v. 

Baskett  z: 

Behen    z>. 

Benjamin  v. 

Bente  z: 

Bessenger  v. 

Black   V. 

Bogardus    v. 

Hough    f. 

Bragg    V. 

Cattano    v. 

Cattans    z: 

Christensen    v. 

Coleman    v. 

Connor   v. 

Conway    v. 

Copeland    v. 

Coulahan    v. 

Crow    z: 

■   Dc    Rozas    V. 

Detrich    Z'. 

Dowd   V. 

Doyle   f. 

Drogmund    v. 

Ehrhard  v. 

Elliott   V. 

Fay   v. 

Feary    z'. 

Forrester  v. 

Fox     7'. 

Frank    z'. 

Freeman    v. 

Fremont   v. 

■ Fults    z: 

Gabriel    7.'. 

Gardner    z: 

Ghio    7'. 

Goetz  z'. 

Goldstein    7'. 

Goodkind    z'. 

Goodloe    '•. 

Grabenstein    v. 

Grant  7'. 

Green   7'. 

Gunn    v. 

Hamilton   v. 

Hart    V. 

Haskell    v. 

Henderson    v. 

Hite   V. 

Hogan    V. 

Hollahan   z'. 

Holland   z: 

■ Hooper    7'. 

■  7'.   Hudson,    p.    2926. 

Hufford   z: 

Hunt    7'. 

•  Hurley    V. 

Ingles   z: 

James    v. 

Joyce   7'. 

Kay   7'. 

Kennedy  -'. 

Kinyoun   v. 

Kirkpatrick  v. 

Klass    7'. 

Kohr  7". 

Koran   7,'. 

Koues   V. 

Kramer   v. 

Lange   7-. 

Langley     z: 


pp.      1571,       1760. 


Metropolitan    St.    R.   Co.,   Latimer  :■. 

Lehner  7. 

Leginsky    7. 

Lobner     7'. 

Loftus   7'. 

Logan    V. 

Lucas   7'. 

Lynch   7'. 

McDonold    z: 

McFaddcn    v. 

McNally  v. 

McQuerry    '•. 

McRae    7'. 

Maher  v. 

Maloney   v. 

Mathews    Z'. 

Meek    z: 

Mendoza  z: 

Merrill    z: 

MichelKon   v. 

Miller   v. 

Monroe   7'. 

Moore  ''. 

-'.   Moore, 

1984. 

Muller    V. 

Mulligan    v. 

Munroe    z: 

Murphy    v. 

Neuer    z\ 

Ormond    z'. 

Parker    z'. 

Percy   v. 

Peterson   v. 

Pierce    7'. 

Price    7'. 

Ouinn    7'. 

Raming    -•. 

Ramson    7'. 

Redmon   z: 

Reidy    '•. 

Richardson 

Roedecker   ■ 

Roscoe   V. 

V.  Ryan,    p. 

Scott    V. 

Scroggins    7 

Seelig    z: 

Setzler   v. 

Sexton    7'. 

Shelby    z: 

Smith    7'. 

Spaulding  z 

Stauffer    z: 

Steinle  v. 

Sternfels   z: 

Sterrett    7-. 

Suse   v. 

Thompson    ; 

V'essels   v. 

Walker   7'. 

Ward   7'. 

Warren, 

2885. 

Wellman 

Wible   z: 

Wilder   7'. 

Willis    7'. 

Witters  v 

Wolf    7'. 

Wood    V. 

Woods  7'. 

Metropolitan    Trust 


2277. 


pp. 


2359,       2860, 


ton,    etc., 
58,    60. 


Co.      7'. 
R.   Co.,   pp.    35, 


Hous- 
50,   56. 


Metropolitan     West 
Co.,    Plutschow    7', 

7'.   Sutherland, 

Metropolitan,    etc., 


Side    Elcv.     R. 


p.    1544. 

Co.,    Friedman 


Metropolitan,    etc..    R.    Co..    Beatty 

Blackwell   7. 

Gascoigne    7'. 

Cray   -•. 

Kimber    7'. 

Lynch   ?•. 

Moore    7'. 

Mettler   7'.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.   2585. 


ccxxx 


TABI.I-:    OF    CASES. 


Co. 


Mettlestadt    v.    Ninth    Ave.    R.    Co.. 

p.    2249. 
Metz     :.     Huffalo,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 

2090. 

i:   California,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

3109,  3114,  3115,  3116,  3119, 
3120. 

Meuer  r.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  pp. 

430.   431,   2099. 
Mexican  Cent.  K.  Co.,  Dalby  &  Co. 

'-  r.  De   Rosear,   pp.    3115,    3123, 

3125,    3129.    3142. 

f.  Goodman    (Tex.     Civ. 

App.),  43  S.  W.  580— pp.  1606, 
1614,  2441.  2572,  2623,  3721. 

r.  Goodman,   20  Tex.   Civ. 

App.  109,  48  S.  W.  778— p. 
2444. 

f.  Goodman     (Tex.    Civ. 

.\pp.).  55  S.  W.  372— p.  2438. 

-  r.  Lauricella,   87  Tex.  277, 

28  S.  \V.  277,  47  -Am.  St.  R  p- 
103— pp.  1815.  2004.  2589,  2b6(., 
2679.  2694,  2843,  3004. 

f.  Lauricella    (Tex.    Civ. 

App.),  26  S.  W.  301,  303— pp. 
1694,  1741,  1755,  1756,  2809. 

r.  Locke,   p.   840. 

r.  Mitten,    pp.    1589,    2633. 

• Pvman     Steamship    Co.    v. 

Mexican   Qulf   R.    Co.,   Carmanty   r. 
Mexican    Nat.   R.   Co.    c'.   Crum,   pp. 
1762.    2523.   2544. 

z:  Garcia,      pp.        1326,      1328, 

1350. 

f.  Tackson,  p.  2103. 

V.   Savage,  pp.  1280,  3344. 

r.  Ware,  pp.  937,  1491,  3114. 

3115,    3123. 

Mexican    Prince,    The. 
Mevcr  T.   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 
3186.    3188. 

Chesapeake,     etc., 

Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

f.   Chicago,     etc., 

515. 

Dodge  V. 

V.  Dresser,    p.    308. 

r.  Harnden's     Exp. 

931.   994,    1018. 

In   re. 

'•.  Lemcke,     p.     570. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

• Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■ V.  Pacific    R.    Co.,    p.    2856. 

V.   Peck,     pp.     313,     337,     338 

339.    347,    3884. 

Pecos,  etc.,  R.   Co.  f. 

?•.  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co..    pp 

1496.  1497,  1737,  2022,  3201 
3202.    3212. 

Scharff   v. 

'•.   Second     Ave 

2414.    2853.    2856. 

-■.   \'icksburg.      etc.,      R. 

pp.   270,   273,   274,   778,   852. 

T-.  Wells,    Fargo     &     Co., 

3562.    3578. 

Witherbee    t. 

Meyor   Co.,   Southern   Exp.   Co.   v. 
Meyer-Schmid      Grocer       Co.,       St 
Nicholas   Hotel    Co.   v. 

Wheless  r. 

Meyere    <•.    Nashville,    etc..    Railway 

pp.    2172.    2179,    2182. 
Meyerle.    Rothermel    t'. 
Meyerovvitz    f.    Interurban 

Co.,    p.    2816. 
Meyers    -•.    Missouri,    etc., 

pp.    1031.    1043,    1062. 

7-.   Pullman      Co.,       pp.      3217 

3218,    3219,    3220.    3221,    3224 

Southern   R.   Co.   v. 

r.  Wabash,    etc.,    R. 

1379. 

Wolfe  V. 

Meverstein      v.     P.arber, 

3274. 
Meyre,   Ludwig  v. 
Meyers,    Michigan,    etc.,    K 


R. 
Co.    r 
R.     Co 


Co.,      pp. 


R.     Co., 


St.     R. 
R.    Co., 


Co., 


Miami  Powder  Co.  f.  Port  Royal, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  16  S. 
E.  339,  21  L.  R.  A.  123,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  688— pp.  522, 
581,    683,    697,    798,    854. 

v.   Port     Roval,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

47    S.    C.    324,    25    S.    E.    153— p. 
798. 

Miami     Steamship     Co.,     Gulf.     etc.. 

R.    Co.    7. 
Michael    Transp.     Co.,    Costigan    -■ 
Michaels     z:    New     York     Cent.      K. 

Co.,    pp.    619,    728,    734,    742,    743, 

744,    775,    3282. 
Michalitschke     v.    Wells,     Fargo     & 

Co.,    pp.    986,    1072. 
Micheals    t.     Adams     Exp.     Co.,     p. 

1047. 
Michelson    f.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2876. 
Michie,    Chicago,    etc,    R.    Co.    t'. 
7'.  New    York,    etc.,    R'.   Co.,   p. 

3706. 

Railroad    Co.    v. 

Michigan,    Fargo    7\ 

Lyng  r. 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Armour   v. 

V.   Boyd,    pp.    325,    430,    996. 

z:  Burrows,    pp.    236,   246,   611. 

616,     621,     663,     734,      739,      744. 
3276,    3277,    3410. 

Cahn    V. 

z:   Carrow,      pp.       3121,      3123, 

3124,    3149,    3152,    3153,    3154. 

'•.  Chicago    Elect.   Vehicle   Co., 

pp.    3326,    3330. 

c'.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.      Co.,    p 

579. 

z:   Coleman,     pp.      1712,      1727. 

1734,    1899,    1900,    2145,    2146. 

z:   Curtis,     pp.     734,     741,     770, 

3281. 

—  Davies    v. 

—  Dobbin    f. 

—  Ferguson  v. 

—  Fox    z\ 

—  Geer   f. 

—  z:   Hale,      pp.     433,    898.     932, 
945,  962,  974,    1007,    1008. 

—  7'.   Harville,     p.     567. 

—  Kelsey   v. 

—  Kibby   z'. 

—  Kirby    z: 

—  Knudsen-Ferguson     Fruit     Co 


pp. 


378, 


pp. 


124. 


Co. 


Michigan    R.    Comm.,    (".rand    Trunk 
R.    Co.   z: 

V.  Michigan    Cent.    K'.    Co.,    p. 

3535. 

Michigan    R.    Co.   z:    Boyd,    p.    1489. 
Michigan     Southern,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

Baker   •;•. 
Michigan     Steamship    Co.,    In    re. 

McGill    z: 

Michigan    Tract.    Co.,    Hopkins    v. 

Snyder   z\ 

Michigan    United    R.    Co.,    Dorrance 

Humphrey    z'. 

Johnson     ,■. 

Ross    Tp.    7'. 

Schultz    7'. 

Michigan     United    Railway,     Filling- 
ham    V. 
Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Baker    7'. 

Bissell     7'. 

7'.   Bivens,    pp.    536,   852. 

Buffett    7'. 

7'.   Caster,     p.     471. 

7'.   Coleman,    p.    1788. 

Davis    7'. 

7'.   Day,    pp.    614,    3276. 

Feige   7'. 

Heffron    "'. 

Hunt    7'. 

King   7'. 

z:   Lantz,    pp.    2615,    2618. 

V.   McDonough,    pp.     210, 

243,     247,     267,     285,     944, 
1272,    1307,    1361. 

McMillan    z: 

Mensing    7'. 

7'.   Meyers,    pp. 

7'.   Oehm,       pp. 

3152. 

Richards   7'. 

z'.   Shelton,    p. 

v.   Shurtz,    pp. 

912. 

Whippel    V. 

Midd    7'.    Wells, 


Michigan   R 

Mills    z: 

z:   Mineral    Springs    Mfg.    Co., 

pp.  417,  883,  885,  965,  982,  986, 
1007,  1015,  1066,  1067,  3161, 
3326,    3327,    3329. 

Moore   7'. 

z:   Murphy,    pp.    131,    134. 

Myrick    7'. 

O'Dca  7'. 

7'.   Phillips,    pp.    353,    361. 

Pingrec   7-. 

Rothschild    zi. 

Sclutlte   7'. 

Smith    -■. 

z:   Smithson,    p.    241. 

Tubbs    V. 

United    States    7'. 

Van    Camp   v. 

v.   Ward,   pp.    536,   900. 

Whipple     '■. 

Michigan     Comm.,     Michigan     Cent. 

R.    Co.    7'. 
Michigan    R.     Comm.,     Ann     Arbor 

R.    Co.   V. 

Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 


242, 
121.8. 


267,    3188. 
3118,       3124. 


3023. 
285,    291, 


586. 


884. 


Middleport,    .Fitna    Life    Ins.    Co 
Middlesex,    The. 
Middlesex    R.     Co 

7'.    Lapointe 

Maguire  z: 

Vinton    7'. 

Wilton    7'. 

Middlesex    Valley 
Middlesex,    etc 

son   7'. 

Rairitan    River    R 

Middleton,    Hayward    7' 
Mid.    Great   W.    Ry.    Co 


Feital 


R.    Co.,    Green    v 
Tract.    Co.,    Peter- 


Co.      7'. 

Cannon 


Midland      Great      Western     R,     Co., 

Wallen    7'. 
Midland    Nat.    Bank,    Dymock    v. 

7'.   Missouri    Pac.     R.    Co.,    pp. 

343,    356,   377,   378,   380,   384,    390. 
532,    560,    561,    3274. 

7'.   Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     1 

Mo.    App.    417,   62    Mo.    App.    531 
—p.    558. 

7'.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     62 

Mo.   .App.'  531,   1   Mo.   App.   Rep'r 
417— p.    359. 


Co. 


Midland     R 
3182. 

Fitgzerald    7'. 

Hudson   7'. 

Tohnson    7'. 

Kent    z: 

Lord    V. 

Mutton   7'. 

Mylton   V. 

Readhead    v. 

Runney    v. 

Shepherd    "'. 

Thompson    z\ 

Midland    R'.    Terminal    Co 


Bromley,     p. 


Kaplan 


Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    7'.    Adkins, 
np.    3288,    3291. 

r.  Bailey,     p.     2511. 

V.   Ezell,    pp.     1409,     1430. 


TAUI.K    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXI 


1998,    2121, 
216, 


Doublin 


Midland   Valley  R'.   Co.  :■.   Fay,  etc., 
Co..    pp.    559,    562. 

V.  r.oorge,    p.    781. 

r.   Half,    p.    3395 

T.  Hamilton,     pp 

2687,  2973. 

. !■.  Hoffman   Coal   Co.,   pp 

463,    464,    468,    469,    3840. 

V.   Page,     pp.     1885,     2908. 

V.   Pugh,    pp.     1348,    1439. 

■ V.   State,    24     Okla.     817,      104 

Pac.     1086— p.     128. 

r.    State,     35     Okla.     672.     130 

Pac.    803— pp.    31,    41. 

Stratford  v. 

Midland,      etc.,      R.      Co  . 

Whiskey     Distillery     Co.     v. 
Midvale   Steel   Co.,    Pennsylvania  R 

Co.  V.  ,  , 

Mierson     v.     Hope       (N-      Y.), 

Sweeney    56— p.    903. 

V.  Hope,   32   N.    Y.   Super.    Ct. 

561— p.   773. 

Mieuli    .'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2778. 
Miko,    Southern    R.    Co.    r. 
Milam     v.    Southern     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1385,    1478,    3396,    3413,    3415. 
Milburn     v.     Federal     Sugar     Refin. 

Co.,    p.    3891. 
Mileham,      West      Chicago      St.      R 

Co.   r. 
Miles,    Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    r. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

7.:  Gorton,   p.    1211. 

V.  Johnson,    p.    1682. 

V.  King,    p.    2892. 

Little    Rock,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

',:    St.   Louis,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   pp. 

2294,    2388,    2687,    2876,    2968. 

. West    Chester,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Miles    &     Son,     Cincinnati,    etc.,     R. 

Co.  V. 
Miletus,    Westray    '■. 
Miley  v.  Northern  Pac.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

158,  2097. 
Milford,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Gilmore 

MiVhous    f.    .vtlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.   642. 

I'.   Southern    Railway,    p.    2626. 

Milhouse    v.    Southern    Railway,    pp. 

1856,    3013.    3043,    3055. 
Milk,    American    Merchants'    Union 

Exp.   Co.   r. 
Millar     f.    St.     Louis 

pp.    2656,    2825. 
Millard    t.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3124,    3149. 

r.   Webster,    p.     1247. 

Mill    Bay,   The. 

Mill     Elevator,     etc.,    Co.,    Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 
Mill      Transp.      Co.,      Great      Lakts 

Touring    Co.    -■. 
Millcrcek    r.    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

133. 
Milledgcville    R.    Co.,    Central,    etc., 

R.   Co.   V. 
Miller,    .\mcrican    Exp.    Co.    r. 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

f.  Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     143 

N.    C.    115,     55    S.     E.     439— pp. 
2319,    2940,    2976. 

r.  .Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co..  57 

S.  E.  345,  144  N.  C.  545— p. 
2160 


Idler  V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123 

X.     W.    449,     85    Neb.     458— pp. 

1363,    3605. 
t.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     Ua 

N.    W.    794,    135   Wis.    247.    17    L. 

R.    A.,   N.   S..    158— p.   2190. 

t:  Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p- 

992. 

Connecting    Terminal    Co.    v. 

Connecting    Terminal     R.    Co. 


T.   Detroit      United 

2550. 

East    Tennessee,    etc., 


Railway, 
R.    Co. 
R. 


Co., 


Trans.     Co.. 


Atwell    i: 
Boston,    etc., 
V.   Brewster, 
Brooklyn 


R.    Co. 

p.    2883. 
TIeights 


Co., 
Div. 


R. 

108  N.  Y.  S.  960.  124  Am). 
S37_pp.  1527,  2042.  2049. 

r.   Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

Ill  N.  Y.  S.  47,  127  App.  Div. 
197— p.  2482. 

'.:   Browarsky,  p.  3886. 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  K'.  Co.  f. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

J'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  62 

Mo.  App.  252— pp.  449,  450.     


.  East  Tennessee,  etc., 
pp.  1920,  1925,  2906. 

V.   Georgia     R'.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp 

699,   700,    701,   702,   703,   704,    705. 
708,    709,    711,    714. 

Great    Western    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Hannibal,      etc.,       R.      Co., 

pp.    305,    331,    345. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Hlinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Indianapolis    Tract.,    etc.,    Co 

r.   International      R.      Co.,      p 

2731. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   lannctt,    p.    862. 

Kansas    Pac.    R.   Co.    f. 

T.    King,     1<>6    N.     Y.     394,    59 

N.      E.      1114— pp.      3017,      3025, 
3032. 

r.  King,    84    Hun    308,    32    N. 

Y.    S.    332,    65    N.    Y.    St.    Rep. 
490— p.    2567. 

r.   King,    53   N.   Y.    S.    123,    32 

App.    Div.    389— p.    2773. 

Livingston    7'. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   ■;■. 

V.   Mansfield,      pp.       700,      701, 

702,    714,    717. 

V.   Metropolitan      St.     R'.     Co., 

pp.     1892,     1894,    1904,    2688. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

t'.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3330,    3335,    3343. 

T.  New  Jersey   Steamboat   Co.. 

p.    1937. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Norfolk,     etc.,     Tract.     Co.     f. 

O'Brien    i: 

I'.  Ocean    Steamship    Co..    118 

N.    Y.     199,    23    N.    E.    462— pp. 
1847,    2955. 

■:•.   Ocean     Steamship     Co.,     43 

Hun  640,  6  N.  Y.   St.  Rep.  664— 
p.    2682. 

Ohio   Tract.    Co.   r. 

-'.  Pendleton,     pp.     833,     1331, 

3926. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    '■. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    f. 

r.    Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans. 

Co.,    p.    2817. 

Pittsburg,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Plotz    f. 

St    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

T'.  St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1518,    1894,    2877. 

Seward    &    Co.    t. 

-•.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    p. 

3292. 

-'.   South     Covington,     etc.,     R'. 

Co.,    p.    2908. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1670, 

1673,    1674,    2845,    3044,    3056. 

V.   Steam    Nav.    Co.,    pp.    52-'. 

728.     730,     733,     739,      740,      749, 
887,    888,    891,    896. 

f.   Sullivan    &    Co..    p.    476. 

Te-xas    Cent.    R.    Co.    r. 

Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.   ;•. 

:■.   Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3311,    3342.    3390. 

Trice    r. 

V.  United   R.   Co.,   p.    2697. 

United    States    i'. 


Miller  r.   West   Jersey,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.  2593. 
Miller    Coal    Co.,    Little    Rock,    etc  , 

R.    Co.    -:  ^.    , 

Miller     Grain,     etc.,     Co.     v.     Lni.n 

Pac.   R.   Co.,   pp.   455,   3292.   3336. 
Miller      Levee      Dist.      No.      2,      St. 

Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Millett   f.    New    York,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    1532,    1794. 
Milligan,    Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

V.  Texas,      etc..      R.      Co.,      p. 

2637. 
Milliman     f.     New     York.    etc..     R. 
Co..     66     N.     Y.     642— pp.     1498, 
2121.  ^      ^ 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    4    Hun    409,    6    Thomp. 
&    C.    585— p.    2121. 

Milliot,    McCaughn    r. 

Millmore     i-.     Boston     Elevated     R. 

Co.,    p.    1902. 
Mills    f.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1721. 

-  r.  Ball,  p.   1247. 

-  r.  Baltimore,   etc..   R.   Co.,   pp. 
3315.    3318. 

-  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Field    V. 

Fleming  v. 

V.  Michigan   Cent.    R.   Co.,   pp. 

886,   896,   901,    3262,    3267. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R'.    Co.   f. 

i:  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1493,  1596,  1599,  1600,  1602» 
1766,  2114.  2151.  2250.  f225l, 
2301,  2319,  2331,  2467,  2468, 
2750,    2866,    2912,    2941. 

r.  National    Steamship    Co.,    p. 

852. 

Powell    '■■ 

V.  Seattle,    etc.,     R.     Co..     pp. 

1665,  2482,  2483.  2485.  2534. 
2855. 


Railway,     82     S. 
E.    238— pp.    152, 

Railway,     90     S. 
E.    772— pp.    642. 


Southern 
C.  242,  64  S. 
610. 

V.  Southern 

C.    366,    73    S. 
645.  860. 

Summers    z: 

Thomas   "■. 

X'andewater    f. 

:•.   Weir,   pp.   984.   987,    3349. 

Millsaps,   Yazoo,   etc..    R.   Co.   v. 
Millville  Gas  Light  Co.  r.   Sweeten 

p.   2584. 
Millville   Tract.    Co.,    McCoy  v. 
^Iiln,    New    York    f. 

Rowland   f. 

Milne   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp 
278.    333,    338,    341. 

Ross  !•. 

.Milnor  v.    New   York,   etc.,   R. 

pp.    3175.    3177.    3182.    331^ 
Chicago,    etc 


R. 


Chicago,   etc.,    R. 
58. 
Milwaukee     Elect. 


Citv    R.    Co.,    Geitz   f. 


Milroy     r. 

p.    432. 
Miltimore    ' 

pp.    753, 
Milwaukee, 

etc.,    Co. 

Yates 

Milwaukee 

Grisim    f. 

Heucke   v. 

Knowlton    f. 

Schoenfeld    v. 

White   t . 

Milwaukee   Dock  Co.,   Hale   :■ 
Milwaukee   Elect.    R.   etc..   Co. 
ing  -■. 

Bartholomaus   :•. 

Dehsov    '•. 

Di    Benedetto   f. 

Gay   f. 

Tirachek    v. 

Kline    f. 

Luger   V. 

Lugner   ?'. 

McBride  i: 


Co., 

Co.. 

Co.. 

R.. 


Bad- 


CCXXXII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Milwaukee    Elect.    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 
Milwaukee,    p.    62. 

Sure    f. 

Milwaukee     Light,     etc.,     Co.,     Karr 

Milwaukee  Malt     Extract     Co.     t'. 

Chicago,  etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.     238, 

257. 

Milwaukee  Mirror,    etc..    Works    v. 

Chicago,  etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    3122, 

3172,    3173. 

Milwaukee  Northern    R.    Co.,    Otto 

Milwaukee    St.    R.   Co.,    Hardy   t. 

Schmitt  f. 

Milwaukee,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     .\brans 


3063,     3067. 


907. 


Trans.  Co.,  Unud 

2696. 

Railway, 


Annas  v. 

f.  Arms,     pp 

Blair    z: 

Chamberlain    v. 

Conkey  v. 

Delamatyr    ■•. 

Dimmick    '■. 

r.   Fairchild,    pp.  _897 

!■.   Finney,    p.    1677. 

Fitzsimmons    '■. 

Green    "■. 

Irish    f. 

Kirst    r. 

Lawrence    v. 

Lucas  V. 

Parker  i'. 

Pierce  v. 

v.   Smith,    pp.    430,    3329. 

Spencer  f. 

Stimson    r. 

Wood  v. 

Yorton    t'. 

Milwaukee,   etc.. 

States  r. 
Mims    V.    Mitchell,    p. 

f.   Seaboard,       etc., 

pp.    1502,    2846. 

Minahan    z:    Grand    Trunk    Western 

R.   Co.,   pp.   2693,   2898. 
Mindler,    Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co. 

V. 

Minds  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  pp. 
88,  97,    136,    139. 

Miner,    Cutting    v. 

Mineral  Springs  Mfg.  Co.,  Michi- 
gan   Cent.    R.    Co.    ?■. 

Mineral  Wells,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Fi  st 
Nat.    Bank  '■. 

Miners'  Co-op.  .Ass'n  i\  The  Mon- 
arch,   pp.    3933,    3936,    3937,    3945. 

Minihan  '•.  Boston  Elev.  R.  Co  , 
197  Mass.  367,  83  N.  E.  871  — 
p.    2982. 

V.  Boston     Elev.     R.     Co..     91 

N.     E.     414,     205     Mass.     402— p. 
2806. 

Mink,    Louisville,    etc.,    K.    Co.    f. 
Minneapolis    St.    R.    Co.,    .\hern    ;■. 

Dahlberg   v. 

Ford    V. 

Hill    V. 

Hoblit    V. 

Lacey   v. 

Morrill    v. 

V.  Odegaard,    pp.     1709,    2008, 

2677. 

Piper  V. 

Rhea   v. 

Minneapolis   St.,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Mar- 

cott    I'. 
Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Beck- 

with,    pp.    58,    60. 

Benedict   v. 

Bresky     ?•. 

Brown   f. 

Burnside    v. 

Cain     i: 

Carver   v. 

Church     '•. 

Clapp    V. 

Cole    V. 

V.  Columbus     Rolling-Mill,      p. 

3867. 

Crandall    z-. 

Drummy    v. 


Minneapolis,    etc..    R.    Co..    Il'.d.idge 

Farwell     Farmers'     Wareho.se 

Ass'n   z\ 

Galehouse    z\ 

Gcbus    :'. 

Gillen    V. 

Gisleson    z: 

Gray    z'. 

Grimes    i'. 

Guthier   z: 

Haff  z: 

Harris    f. 

Hatch     z: 

z\    Home    Ins.    Co.,    p.    333. 

Hull    z: 

In     re. 

Jansen    f. 

Jones   f. 

Larson   z: 

McCollom   V. 

Marcott  z'. 

Mehalek    z'. 

■;■.   Minnesota,    J  34    U.    S.    46", 

33  L.  Ed.  985,  10  S.  Ct.  473- 
pp.    63,    64. 

Z'.   Minnesota,    186    U.    S.    257, 

264,  46  L.  Ed.  1151,  22  S.  Ct. 
900— pp.  34,  39,  46,  50,  52,  53 
55,  58,  72,  75,  76,  120,  124,  126, 
3486,    3647,   3669,   3674. 

Mitchelson    z: 

Morris    c'. 

Morse    7'. 

■  Ortt    V. 

Patzke    z: 

'■.   Railroad     Commr.,     pp.     44. 

48,    114.    119,    125,    126. 

Ramm    z\ 

Sever    v. 

Shea    z'. 

Southard    f. 

State    z: 

Steidl   V. 

Sullivan    z'. 

Symonds   •:'. 

Wehmann    v. 

White    r. 

Minnesota   z\    Barber,    p.    3529. 

Cargill    Co.   f. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   z\ 

Gladson   j'. 

Minneapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •;•. 

L^nited    States    Exp.    Co.    z'. 

Minnesota     Min.     Co.    z:     Chapman, 

pp.    728,   739,   888,    1145,    1146. 
Minnesota   Transfer    R.    Co.,    Cooley 

Douglas  Co.  z'. 

Minnetonka,    The. 
Minnie    E.    Kelton,    The. 

Minnish     v.     Southern     R'.     Co.,     p. 

1253. 
Minock    v.-    Detroit,     etc.,     R.     C  >., 

pp.    1920,    1926. 
Minogue,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co 

Minor     ,■.     Chicago,     etc.,  R.     Co., 
pp.    3172,    3174. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.  -•. 

Illinois,   etc.,    R.    Co.  v. 

■ — —  v.   Lehigh    Valley    R.     Co.,    p 

2912. 
Minot   V.    Philadelphia,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

Fed.     Cas.     No.     9,     645,     2     Abb. 

U.   S.   323,  7   Phila.   555— p.   3574. 

'■.  Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(U.  S.),  18  Wall.  206,  21  L. 
Ed.    888— p.    3593. 

Roulo    z'. 

Minter     z\     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co  , 
p.    1306. 

V.   Pacific     Railroad,     pp.     277, 

280,    3133,    3136,    3149. 

Minter    Bros.    v.     Southern     Kansas 

R.    Co.,    pp.    3347,    3348. 
Minturn,    Brooks   z'. 

Lawrence   z\ 

Z-.   Warren     Ins.     Co.,    p.     3949. 

Mires    z:     St.     Louis,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  975,  1031,  1045,  1074,  3745, 
3761. 


29, 

pp. 

Co., 


2988. 


Han- 


Co.     V.     Fennell,     p. 
R.    Co.,    Adams    z'. 


Missimer    -'.     Philadelphia,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1829,    2579. 
Mississippi,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

— —  MobiK-,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

The. 

Mississippi    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Hunt    v. 

z\   Kennedy,     pp.     3115,     3116, 

3119,    3124,    3199. 

Mississippi     Mills     ?•.     Union,     etc.. 

Bank,   pp.    1212,    1219,    1220,    1229. 
Mississippi      R.      Comm.,      Alabama, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:   Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

62. 

• Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

'•.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co., 

129,    3513,   3514,    3515,    3516. 

Mississippi      River,      etc.,      R. 

Steffen   z'. 
Mississippi     Southern     Exp.     Co. 

Moon,     pp.     1033,     1036. 
Mississippi,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    -Vngle 

.Angle    S:    Co.    '•. 

z'.   .\vres,    pp.     1715,     17.55. 

■  Chaffe    z: 

•:■.    Gill,    p.    3057. 

z\  Harrison,     pp.     1897, 

Missouri,     Emert    v. 

Keokuk,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

z:  Webb,     pp.     337,     339 

Welton    z\ 

Missouri   Coal,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z' 

nibal,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   p.   283. 

Missouri    Nat.    Bank,    Eufaula    Gro- 
cery   Co.    v. 

Missouri     Pac. 
344. 

Missouri    Pac. 

Anderson    z\ 

.Armstrong     v. 

Attorney    General    t'. 

z'.   Baden,   p.    3334. 

z\   Baier,    pp.    1764,    1765. 

Baker    z: 

V.   Beeson,   pp.    324,   452,    1049, 

3881. 

Bennitt    z\ 

Berry    z\ 

Blackmore    z\ 

-■.    Boiling,   p.    175. 

Bolton    z\ 

z\   Brazil,   p.    3070. 

z:   Breeding,   pp.   817,   819,  828, 

840,    851,   860. 

Brinkmeier   Z'. 

Bryan    z'. 

Burke    '•. 

Burriss    "'. 

•;■.   Callahan,     pp.      1816,     2145, 

2217,    2302,    2033,    2738. 

Campbell   v. 

Carroll    ''. 

Castanola 

-■.   Castle, 

3510. 

V.  Castle, 

L.     Ed.    875, 
3507. 

z:   Childers    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

29    S.     W.    559,     560,— pp.      1106, 
1116,    1117. 

-■.    Childers,    1    Tex.    Civ 

302,  21  S.  W.  76— pp. 
10»6,  1093,  1094,  1095, 
1097,    1107,    1411,    1415,    1416 

'•.   China     Mfg.     Co.,     pp.     815, 

822,  843,  937,  959,  1027,  1041, 
1048,  1130. 

Choate   -'. 

Christie   Z'. 

Christl     Z'. 

V.   Collier,    p.    2736. 

v.   Cornwall,      pp.      951,      1087, 

1097,      1268,      1339,      1361,      1480. 
1481,    1410. 

z:   Creath,     pp.     805,     3331. 

V.   Crowell    Lumber,    etc.,    Co.. 

pp.    1141,    3261. 

— —  z:   Curtis,    p.     1640. 

Darlington    Z'. 

Darlington    I,umber    Cc.    Z'. 


\72     Fed.     841— p. 

224    U.    S.    541,    56 
32     S.     Ct.     606— p. 


.\pp. 
1053, 
10961, 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


ccxxxiir 


Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Douglas 
&  Sons,  pp.  282,  293.  295,  816, 
818,  847. 

Drey,  etc..  Glass  Co.  v. 

Duvenick  r. 

E  c  k  1  e  s  T ' . 

r.   Edwards,  75  Tex.  334.  12 

S.  W.  853— pp.  1083,  1405. 

V.   Edwards,  78  Tex.  307,  14 

S.  W.  607— pp.  457,  1077,  1336, 
1346,  1349,  1396,  1443,  1469, 
1477,  1480. 

Ephland  v. 

Estes  V. 

7'.  Evans,  p.  1763. 

V.   Fagan,  72    Tex.  127,  9  S. 

W.  749,  2  L.  R.  A.  75,  13  Am. 
St.  Rep.  776— pp  213,  328,  654, 
693,  740,  741,  833,  849,  932,  979, 
1009,  1010,  1086,  1093,  1094, 
1095,  1107,  1122,  1284,  1304, 
1322,  1339,  1340,  1353,  1355, 
1370,  1391,  1398,  1409,  1415, 
1416,  3368. 

-•.  Fagan  (Tex.  Civ.  .App.), 

27  S.  W.  887,  888 12/1, 

1357. 

f.  Fagan   (Tex.  Civ.  App. ), 

29  S.  W.  1110— p.  1341. 

Farber  ?'. 

Ferguson  v. 

Foreman  i\ 

v.   Foreman,  73  Tex.  311,  11 

S.  W.  326,  15  Am.  St.  Rep. 
785- pp.  1929,  1966,  2287,  228;. 

v.   Foreman    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

46  S.  W.  834— pp.  1879,  1882, 
1885,    1978,    1988,    2290,    2633. 

Freeback    "'. 

Furnish    f. 

-'.   Gernon,    jip.    836,    863. 

V.   Goodliolm,    p.    683. 

V.   Graves,    pp.    292,    293,    424, 

1267,    1269,    1274,    1347,    1446. 

dress    '•. 

Griffith    V. 

V.   Grocsbeck,     p.     3241. 

Hale   f. 

r.  Hall,  pp.  611,  1479,  1481. 

1482. 

Handley  v. 

Hanks  v. 

Hardin  Grain  Co.  v. 

f.  Harmonson,  pp.  448,  1276. 

Harned  v. 

V.   Harper  Bros.,  pp.  426,  856. 

V.   Harris,  67  Tex.  166,  2  S. 

W.  574— pp.  4,  741,  809,  933, 
937,  938,  940,  950,  951,  854, 
977.    978.  1027,  1063,  1078, 


1086, 
1096, 
1267, 
1410, 
1432, 


1097, 
1268, 
1411, 
33r,8. 
■.  Harris, 
1257— pp. 


1093, 
1107, 
1330, 

1413, 


1094, 
1121, 
1339, 

1415, 


1085, 
1095, 
1122, 
1409, 
1431, 


1     Tex.    Civ.    Cas., 
210,       237,       238, 
729,    769,   993,   934,   937,   938,   940, 
946,   957,   1053,   1267,   1409. 

Harrison   r. 

■!■.   Haynes,    pp.    512,    533,    537, 

897,   901,    1299. 

V.   Heath,    pp.    819,    1472. 

Heck    r. 

V.   Heidenheimcr,        pp.        349, 

355,  356,  357,  361,  365,  369, 
370,  371,  380,  381,  387,  389,  401. 
513,  516,  549,  551,  553,  580, 
1222,    1224. 

Helm    f. 

f.  Hennessey,    pp.    2583,    2589, 

2683,    2721. 

Hess  f. 

r.   Hcwett,    pp.    849,    855,    858. 

Hickman     -■. 

Hill    r. 

-'.   Holcomb,   pp.    1746,    1755. 

Hoskins    f. 

Hull    &    Co.    V. 

•!'.  International      Marine     Ins. 

Co.,  pp.  790,  791,  793,  794,  937, 
938,    993. 


Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    Irvin    -■. 

V.   Irvin,    p.    2357. 

V.   Ivy,    71    Tex.    409,   9    S.    W. 

346,  1  h.  R.  A.  500,  10  Am. 
St.  Rep.  758— pp.  1567,  1578, 
2092,  2098,  2099. 

V.   Ivy,  79  Tex.  444,  15  S. 

W.  692— pp.  344,  1468,  3618. 

James  v. 

r.  Jarrard,  p.  1808. 

7:   Johnson,  pp.   1680,   U.84, 

1689,  1690,  1691,  1725,  1808, 
1812,  2735,  3068,  30f.9. 

I'.  Kaiser,  p.  3085. 

f.   Kingsbury,    pp.    1272,     1284. 

Kreis   -•. 

Larabee    Flour    Mills   Co.    f. 

V.  Larabee     Flour     Mills     Co., 

p.   26. 

V.  Lau,   pp.   478,   479. 

Lenix     J'. 

Letts-Spencer     Grocer     Co.     i'. 

?■.   Levi,    pp.    628,    629,   630. 

Ligon    V. 

Lincoln    Tent,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

r.   Long,   pp.    1730,    1766,   1783, 

1927,    2230,    2934. 

V.  McCIanahan,  pp.  1600,  2468, 

2469. 

McFadden    v. 

7:   McFadden,     pp.     267,     2S1. 

283,  284,  293,  306,  307,  308,  314, 
331,  356,  357,  371,  373,  389. 
3879. 

McGee   v. 

McGinnis   t. 

McGrew    i'. 

•  7'.   Mackey,    p.    2034. 

Mackoy   -•. 

f.  McLiney,   p.   365. 

McPeak   f. 

Madden   v. 

Magoffin    i'. 

Martin     ',: 

V.   Martino,   pp.   2444,   3075. 

•  Mason   r. 

Mellor    i: 

Midland    Nat.    Bank    -'. 

V.  Mitchell,     pp.     1680,     1808, 

1812,    3069. 

Moore    v. 

Morrow  f. 

Nathan    f. 

V.  Nebraska,    pp.    34,    61. 

v.  Neiswanger,         pp.  1773, 

1798,   2730. 

z:  Nevill,     pp.     726,     751,     752, 

896,     900. 

T'.  Nevin,    p.    811. 

-r.  Newberger,     pp.     920,     896. 

f.  Nicholson,      pp.     405,      406, 

424,    464,    829,    1027,    1272,    1303. 

Otis    Co.    -'. 

Paddock    -•. 

V.   Paine,        pp.        1035,       10S9. 

1094,  1095,  1096,  1107,  1309, 
1411,    1414,    1415,    1416. 

Partello     t: 

Patterson    -'. 

f.  Peru    Van-Zandt    Imp.    Co., 

pp.  495,  521,  597,  641,  654.  678. 
679,  681,  682,  683,  1153.  1154. 
1166,     1167. 

Pinkerton    ?'. 

Z-.  Railroad         Comm'rs,         pp. 

3484,     3486. 

V.   Rclf,    p.    1187. 

Richmond    -•. 

i:   Riggs,     pp.     285,     288,     884, 

918. 

Roark   r. 

Rodgcrs  V. 

Rucker     v. 

V.   Rushin,    pp.    802,    860. 

r.   Russell     (Tex.),     15     S.    W. 

206— p.    14(.9. 

'•.  Russell     (Tex),     18     S.    \V. 

594— pp.    1328.    1329.    1469. 

V.  Ryan,  pp.    1051,    1078,   1079. 

3289. 

Sanderson  i'. 


Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    Saxton   -■. 

-■.    Scott,     4     Tex.      Civ.      .Apn. 

76.    26    S.    W.    239— pp.    491.    8!5, 
822,     1441,     1457. 

T'.  Scott,    2    Texas    App.    Civ. 

Cas.,      I      324— pp.      1111.      1115. 
1428. 

Shelby  v. 

V.   Sherwood,      pp.     861,     8(.4, 

935,     936,     937,     938.     939.     958, 
959.    1409. 

v.   Shuford.      pp.      1688,      ,Vi(,<». 

3070. 

V.   Slater,   p.   3181. 

Smith    V. 

V.   Smith,    60    Ark.    221,    29    S. 

W.    752— pp.    140,    144,    170.    171. 
175. 

V.   Smith     (Tex.),     16     S.     W. 

803— p.   954. 

-c'.   Smith,   84    Tex.    348,    19    S- 

W.    509— pp.    485,    490,    802,    810. 
831,    1441,    1460. 

Spohn    -'. 

Sprague    f. 

State    I'. 

Tate   V. 

Taylor  f. 

J'.  Texas,     etc.,      R.      Co..     31 

Fed.    862— pp.    3712,    3714.    3723. 

-'.   Texas,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      34 

Fed.   92— p.   2150. 

z'.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  Fed. 

879— p.    2150. 

f.  Texas,     etc.,      R.      Co.,      41 

Fed.     913,     18     .\m.     &     Eng.     R 
Cas.,    N.    S.,   412— pp.    1456.    3624. 

Thero    "■. 

Tibby   -■. 

'■.   Tietken,      pp.      2098,      2099.. 

2365. 

Todd    -•. 

Tucker    f. 

-•.   Twiss,    p.     3294. 

United    States    -■. 

f.   United     States,    47     Ct.     CI. 

266— p.   738. 

V.  United    States,     189    U.     S. 

274,    47    L.    Ed.    811.    23    S.    Ct. 
507— pp.    1134,    3769,    3808. 

7:  V'andeventer,        pp.        1085,. 

1408. 

Wagner    v. 

Walter    -•. 

Walters   f. 

Ward    ;■. 

r.   Watson. 

2148,    2630. 

-:  Weil,    p. 

-■.  Weissman,    pp.    520,    625. 

White    -■. 

f.   Wichita   Wholesale   Grocery 

Co.,   pp.    530,    531,    769,   896,   898. 
3282,    3283,    3299. 

Willcox   f. 

Wilson    ;■. 

Wolfe    -•. 

7'.   Wortham,     pp.     1771,     1779, 

1797,      1910,      1914,     2386,     2821, 
2985. 

z:   Wright,    p.     174. 

:•.  York,  p.  759,  3114.  3115. 

3116,  3125,  3126,  3130.  3131,. 
3132. 

Young  -'. 

',-.   Young,  p.  839. 

Zuendt  '•. 

Missouri    R.    Co.,    Carroll    f. 

Dougherty  '•. 

Missouri    River   Packet   Co.,   Gray  Z'. 
Missouri,    etc.,    Railroad.    Perkins   "'. 
Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    .\bbott    Gin 
Co.   :•. 

.Adams    !•. 

r.   Allen,     39    Tex.     Civ.     .\pp. 

236.     239,     87     S.     W.      168- pp. 
1352.    1356,    1409. 

-.   .Mien.     53     Tex.     Civ.     App 

433,    115    S.    W.    1179— p.    2819 

f.  .Wis,    100    Tex.    33,    93    S  . 

W.    424— pp.    2284,    2292,    2630. 


pp.      1773, 
546. 


CCXXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  -■.  Avis,  4' 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  72,  91  S.  W.  877 
—pp.    2164,    2207,    2215,    2725. 

V.   Ball,    pp.    1942,    2028,    2649. 

V.  Beard,     pp.     275,     286,     287. 

288,  289.  290,  292,  293,  845, 
866,   875,   880. 

Belcher   v. 

-•.   Belcher,     88     Tex.     549,     il 

S.  W.  518— pp.  419,  420,  443, 
859,    1296. 

f.  Belcher,   89    Tex.    428,    430, 

35  S.  VV.  6— pp.  641,  646,  647, 
648,    649,     676,     1316. 

f.  Belcher    (Tex.    Civ.    App.). 

41    S.    W.    706— p.    1347. 

Bergin   i'. 

Bibb    V. 

-•.  Blalack,    p.     1577. 

Booth    V. 

V.   Bowles,   pp.   3425.   3751, 

3760. 

Bromschwig  Tailors'  Trim- 
ming   Co.    I'. 

Brown   f. 

V.   Brown     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

39  S.   W.    326— p.   2172. 

t'.   Brown     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

156    S.    W.    519— p.   2853. 

V.   Buchanan,    pp.     1771,     1910, 

1911,    1913. 

V.   Bvrd,    pp.    1522,    1938. 

T.   Byrne,     40     C.     C.    A.     402, 

100    Fed.    359— p.    1335. 

V.  Byrne,    3    Ind.    T.     740,    49 

S.  \V.  41.  13  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  17— pp.  287,  1436, 
1438. 

V.  Capital     Compress     Co.,     p. 

701. 

V.   Carpenter,     pp.     654,     657. 

3661,    3662,    3663,    3664. 

V.  Carter,    95    Tex.    461,    68    S. 

W.    159— pp.   932,   934,   935. 

f.   Carter,     9     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

677,  690,  29  S.  W.  565- pp.  207, 
208,  232,  253,  405,  424,  425, 
451,  453,  474,  937,  970,  971, 
973,  976,  977,  978,  979,  980, 
996,  1030,  1034,  1092,  1093, 
1095,    1096,    1120. 

V.   Chilton,    p.    2090. 

V.  Chittim    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

40  S.    W.    23— pp.    1354,    1359. 

V.   Chittim,    60    S.    W.    284,    24 

Tex.    Civ.    App.    599— p.    1337. 

Chorn    '■. 

Claiborne    <■. 

f.   Clark,     pp.     1285,     1288. 

V.  Clayton,  pp.  863,  875,  3395. 

V.   Clifton,    p.    674. 

V.  Cobb,    p.    1323. 

V.  Cocreham,      pp.      405,      943, 

1028,     1120,     1121. 

Cohen    Bros.    v. 

V.  Cook,    8    Tex.      Civ.      App. 

376,  27  S.  W.  769— pp.  849, 
1352,    1688. 

V.  Cook,     12    Tex.     Civ.     .\pp. 

203,  33  S.  W.  669— pp.  1959, 
1967,   2116,   2725. 

Cox   V. 

V.  Cox    &    Co.,    pp.    569,    596. 

V.  Criswell,    pp.    1784,    2988. 

Cullar    V. 

V.  Cumby       Mercantile,       etc., 

Co.,   p.    841. 

V.   Darlington         (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),   30    S.    W.    251— p.    1323. 

V.   Darlington         (Tex.  Civ. 

App.),    40    S.    W.    550— p.    474. 

V.   Davidson,      pp.      745,       862, 

866. 

Davis  V. 

V.  Davis,    pp.    1126,    1418. 

V.   Dawson,     pp.      1593,      1858, 

1859,  2478. 

V.  Dowson    Bros.,    p.    856. 

V.   Dement,    pp.    674,   807,   831. 

849,   857. 

V.  Dill,   pp.    1766,   2866. 


Missouri,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    -■.    Dilworth, 

95  Tex.  il7,  67  S.  VV.  88— p. 
1359. 

•:'.   Dilworth    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

65     S.     W.     502— p.    3281. 

Doss    V. 

Dumas    v. 

V.   Dunbar,    49   Tex.    Civ.    ^\pp. 

12,  108  S.  W.  500— pp.  1770, 
2729,    2730,    2733. 

V.   Dunbar,    57    Tex.    Civ.    .-\pp. 

411,    122    S.    W.    574— p.    2733. 

Dymock  v. 

Dysart    v. 

-'.   Early-Clement      Grain      Co.. 

p.    622. 

v.^  Edling,    p.    2003. 

Eichhorn    i\ 

I'.   Elliott,    pp.    iiil.    3338. 

•  V.   Enos,        pp.        1730,        1766, 

2869. 

Ephland    '■. 

7'.    Evans,    p.    2121. 

Evans,    etc..    Cultivator    Co.    ■;■. 

f.   Faulkner,    p.    649. 

Fielder    z'. 

i\   Flood,    35    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

197,  79  S.  W.  1106— pp.  1812, 
1821,     1826,     1842,     2095,    2167. 

f.  Flood      (Tex.      Civ.     App.), 

70    S.    W.    331— p.    2095. 

V.   Fookes,     pp.     1639,     3499. 

V.   Foster,    97    Tex.    618,    80    S. 

W.     1197— pp.     3322,     3375,     3401. 

V.  Foster     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

87   S.  W.  879— pp.  2630,  3401. 

V.  Frogley,    p.    1420. 

V.   Fry,    pp.     1321,    1325,    1355, 

1419. 

V.   Garrett,    39    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

246,  87  S.  W.  172— pp.  1474, 
1477. 

v.   Garrett     (Tex.     Civ.     App.). 

96  S.    W.    53— p.    1359. 

V.  Gerren,     pp.     2016,     2039. 

Gillett   V. 

Ginnochio-Jones    Fruit    Co.     ?■. 

V.   Gist,    p.    1600. 

i:   Glass,   pp.    1614,    1679,    1856. 

V.   Godair      Comm.       Co.,      pp. 

943,    1120,    1121,    1122,    1129. 

Gratiot    St.    Warehouse    Co.    v. 

Green    '■. 

V.   Groce,    p.    568. 

V.   Haber,       pp. 

3482,     3504,     3505, 
3542. 

V.  Hancock,     26 

109    Pac.      220— pp. 
1123,    1395,    1397. 

-'.    Hancock,      26 

109    Pac.    223— p.    1408. 

Harned    r. 

z'.   Harriman,     pp.     3521 

3752,    3762,    3827. 

V.  Harris,     p.    851. 

Harrison    v. 

'•.   Harrison,    97    Tex.    611.    80 

S.  W.  1139— pp.  3322,  3375, 
3401. 

-'.   Harrison,        56      Tux.      Civ. 

App.  17,  120  S.  W.  254— p. 
1700. 

V.   Harrison    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

77    S.    W.    1036— pp.    2081,    2082. 

V.   Hawkins,     pp.     1254,     1256. 

V.  Hay,    pp.    1687,    1688. 

Hayes  -•. 

V.  riaycs,    p.    1333. 

V.   Hazlett,    pp.    660,    670,    672. 

V.  Hibbitts,    pp.    2064,    2510. 

V.  Hopkins,    p.    639. 

V.  Huff,    98    Tex.    110,    13    R. 

R.  R.  344,  36  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  344,  81  S.  W. 
525- pp.  1547,  1549,  1552,  1555, 
2665,  2720,  2780,  2783,  2865, 
2948. 

V.  Huff    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    78 

S.    W.    249— pp.    202,    1555. 

Hunt    -•. 

Hunt    Bros.    v. 


3448, 
3513, 


Okla. 
1119, 


3481, 
3514, 


254, 
1121, 


Okla.       256, 


3545, 


pp.      504,       1096, 


1269. 

1255. 
51,     56. 


Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate 
Commerce  Commissioner,  pp. 
3677,  3684,  3788,  3790,  379i., 
3797. 

V.   Tahn,     p.     1990. 

f.  Jarrell,    pp.    851,    863. 

V.  Jenkens,    pp.    565,    567,    599, 

602,    603. 

Johnson    v. 

Tones   r. 

V.   Kahn,    p.    809. 

V.   Kendrick,     pp.     1768,     1906, 

1908,    1909,    2034,    2058,    3211. 

V.   Kirkham,    pp.    1408,    14^8. 

V.   Kyser,  87  S.  W.  389,  3? 

Tex.  Civ.   App.   355 — pp.  441, 
1293,  1294,  1355. 

V.  Kyser,    43    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

322,  95   S.  W.   747— pp.  608,   1269, 
1304,    1345. 

Leibengood 

7'.   Leibold, 

1288,    1334. 

Levi    i\ 

V.   Levine,    p.    572. 

t'.   Lewellin     Bros.,     p 

V.   Linton,     pp.     1254, 

— —  V.   Love,     pp.    46,     47, 

57,    130. 

V.   McCann,     pp.      3292, 

3523,    3536. 

McCrary    i\ 

V.   McCutcheon,    p.    177G 

V.   McElree,     pp.      1884, 

2598. 

V.   McFadden,     89      Tex 

33      S.    W.     853— pp.      525 
1022. 

V.   McFadden  (Tex. 

App.),    32    S.    W.     18— p.    780. 

■;'.   McLaughlin,    pp.    972,    1062 

'■.   McLean,    pp.    574,    784,    786 

813,    845,    846,    859,    861. 

McPeak    v. 

Mason    v. 

V.   Maxwell,    pp. 

"'.   Mazzie,      pp. 

3396. 

Meador   •:■. 

V.   Meek,       pp.       3109, 

3114,     3115,       3116.     3117 
3128,    3130,    3131,    3132. 

Melford    v. 

-■.   Meyer,    p.    3558. 

Meyers    i'. 

Midland     Nat.     Bank    v. 

Millard    v. 

Miller    v. 

7'.    Miller,     8     Tex.     Civ.  App. 

241,  27     S.  W.   905— pp.  1768, 
2512,  2514. 

7'.  Miller,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

428.  39  S.   W.  583— pp.  2509. 


3293. 


2252. 


138, 
775, 


Civ. 


3226,  3227. 
3342,   3395, 


3113, 
3127, 


2515. 


20  Tex.  Civ.  Anp. 
W.  168— pp.  1907, 


7'.  Miller, 

570,  50  S. 
1909,  2846. 

Mills  V. 

7'.  Mills,  p.  1563. 

V.   Mitchell,  79  S.  W.  94,  34 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  394— pp.  1730. 
1770,  1822,  1842,  2841. 

V.   Mitchell,  47  Tex.  Civ.  Apn 

307,  105  S.  W.  827— pp.  2449 
2458. 

V.   Mitchell  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.). 

87  S.  W.  841— p.  1999. 

V.   Moody,  p.  2603. 

V.   Moore,  pp.  831,  834,  852. 

V.   Morgan,  49  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

212,  108  S.  W.  724— pp.  1908, 
2289,  2706. 

V.   Morgan  (Tex.  Civ.  .'\pp.). 

138  S.  W.  216— p.  2481. 

7'.  Murphy,   pp.   1614,   1623. 

1631,  1632. 

Navin  v. 

V.   New  Era  Milling  Co.,  79 

Kan.  435,  100  Pac.  273— pp.  220, 
1183,  1197. 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CCXXXV 


Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ?■.  Xcw  Kra 
Millini?  Co.,  80  Kan.  141,  101 
Pac.    1011— pp.    3434,    3537. 

Och    V. 

V.  Ovcrficld,     pp.     1525,     1526, 

1527,  1924,  1964,  2162,  2599, 
2613. 

Patrick   :■. 

V.   Patrick,    p.    995. 

Patterson   v. 

V.   Perry,     8     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

78,  27  S.  W.  496— np.  1524, 
1532,  1679,  1906,  1909,  2036, 
2067. 

J'.   Perry      (Tex.      Civ.      App.), 

95   S.   W.   42— p.    1825. 

r.  Pope,   pp.    1541,   2058,   2064. 

V.   Price,        pp.       1525,       1526, 

1964,    1966,    2064. 

V.  Pullen,       pp.      539,        1289, 

1386,    1418. 

V.   Ouinn.    p.     1328. 

V.   Kaney,     i.p.     2063,     2064. 

V.   Redus,     pp.     2648,     2654. 

RigGcins   V. 

J'.   Rines   &   Co.,   pp.    520,    569, 

596,    1154. 

7'.   Rodgcrs,    p.    2319. 

Rogers   V. 

Ross     V. 

• Russell     -i\ 

V.   Russell,    8    Tex.     Civ.     .\pn. 

578.  28  S.  W.  1042— PI).  1524, 
1738,      1865,      1866,      1918,     2018, 


2024. 


114, 
1269, 


1732. 


Russell,    40    Tex.    Civ.  .App. 

88    S.    W.      379— pp.  1268. 
1330,    1339. 
Sadler,    p.     3509. 

Scarborough,         pp.  1713, 

pp.     1752,  1755. 


V.   Schroedcr 

Schwartz    '■. 

Sealy   v. 

V.   Sealy,    pp.    311.    313.    329. 

V.   S<-lev.     pp.     551.     562. 

7'.    Slierrill.     pp.     1797,    2911. 

Sickles   V. 

7'.  Simmons,  pp.   1561,  1562, 

1596,  1707. 
7'.  Simonson,  pp.  589,  3540. 

7'.  Smith,  81  C.  C.  A.  598, 

152  Fed.  608.  10  Am.  &  Frg. 
Ann.  Cas.  939— pp.  1542.  2425, 
2429,  2472,  2473,  2474.  3079. 

7'.  Smith,  6  Tnd.  T,  99,  89  S. 

W.  668— pp.  3079,  3080,  3083, 
3104. 

7'.    Smith      (Tex.      Civ.      .\pp.). 

133    S.    W.    695— p.    1711. 

7'.   Snced,    pp.    247.    1311.    1370. 

7'.  Sproles,    pp.    686,    687. 

Spry    7'. 

Spurlock    7'. 

V.   Stanfield    Bros.,    p.    1306. 

7'.   Stark    Grain     Co.,     pp,    618, 

624,  625,  690,  1005,  3281,  3661. 

V.  State,    p.    128. 

Steckdaub   7'. 

7'.   Stoncr,       pp.       207,        11. V5. 

3755. 

V.  Farwater,    p.    3084. 

7'.  Thompson,      pp.      320,      502, 

506. 

7'.   Trinity       County       Lumber 

Co.,  pp.  1139,  1141,  '1176,  3753. 
3755. 

7'.   Tripis.     pp.     754,     787,     811, 

870.   871,   872. 

Truel    ;•. 

7'.   Truskett,    44    C.    C.    .\.    179, 

104  Fed.    728— p.   662. 

7'.   Truskett.     2     Ind.     T 

53    S.    VV.    444— pp.      1,^21. 
1351. 

7'.   Truskett  (Incl. 

App.),    17    Am.    &    Kng.    R. 
N.    S..    273— p.    620. 

7'.   Truskett,     22     S.     Ct 

186  V.  S.  480,  46  L.  Ed.  1259— 
pp.    1308,    1326.    3411. 


633. 
1331, 


Torr. 
Ca-.. 


943, 


Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Turley, 
85  Fed.  369,  29  C.  C.  A.  196— 
p.    2132. 

V.  Turley.    1     Ind.    T.    275,    i7 

S.    W.    52— pp.    2324,    2390. 

V.  Turner,    p.    3509. 

V.   Union     Ins.     Co.,     pp.     274, 

282,   338,   339. 

V.  United     States,      pp.      3623, 

3624,    3626,    3629,    3630. 

V.   Vance,      pp.       2583,      2637, 

2721. 

7'.  Vandiver,     pp.     1255,     1257. 

Waggoner   v. 

7'.  Walden,    p.    1081. 

Watkins    Merchandise     Co.     v. 

V.   Watkins     Merchandise     Co., 

p.    868. 

V.   Weaver,     p.     3104. 

V.  Webb.     pp.     209,     643,     644, 

654,  849,  851,  1305,  1316,  1323, 
1326,    3410. 

7'.   Welch,     p.     3051. 

V.   Wells,       pp.        1358,       1392, 

3311. 

V.  White,       pp.       1771,       1797, 

1913,    2065. 

7'.  Williams,      91       Tex.       255. 

257,  42  S.  W.  855— pp.  1502, 
1556,     1562,    1596,    2543,    2665. 

7'.   Williams    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

40     S.     W.     350— pp.     1542,     1557. 

•  Winfrey    7'. 

Withers    v. 

7'.   Withers,       pp.       424,       425, 

451,  457,  937,  969,  996,  997, 
1120,    1394,    1445. 

7'.   Witherspoon,     18    Tex.    Civ. 

App.  615,  45  S.  W.  424— pp. 
264,   472. 

7'.   Witherspoon        (Tex.       Civ. 

App.),    38    S.    W.    833— p.    472. 

V.   Wolf.    pp.    1711,    1866. 

7'.  Woods     (Tex.     Civ.     App), 

31    S.    W.    237— p.    1279. 

7'.  Woods     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

117    S.    W.    196— p.    1308. 

7'.   Wright,     pp.     2772,     2778. 

7'.   Wylie     (Tex.      Civ.      App.), 

26    S.    W.    85— p.    2250. 

Wyrick   7'. 

Missouri,  etc.,  R'ailwav  v.  Light- 
foot,    p.    2458. 

Mitchell  7'.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1509.    1511,    1512. 

Breed    7-. 

Bried    7'. 

7'.  Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

822,  1039,  1388. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  138 

Iowa  283.  114  N.  W.  622— pp. 
2696,  2763,  2895.  2896,  2897. 

?■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 

Mich.  236,  16  N.  W.  388,  47 
.\m.  Rep.  566,  18  .\m.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  176— pp.  1687,  1927, 
2119,  2667,  2673. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  132 

Mo.  App.  143,  112  S.  W.  291— 
pp.  1755,  2703,  2800. 

7'.  Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1642. 

V.  Des    Moines    City    R.    Co., 

pp.    2866,    2906,    2996. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    K.    Co. 

Ford   7'. 

7'.   Georgia     R.     Co.,    pp.     1364, 

1431.  1436,  1447. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    7. 

-■.   Lancashire,    etc.,     R.,     Co., 

p.    892. 

Louisville    R.    Co.    7'. 

Marker    7'. 

7'.   Marker,    pp.    1733,    1750. 

Minis  7'. 

Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.    7'. 

Mi.=souri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7". 

V.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     2163. 


Mitchell,    Xoble    v. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Puget     Sound     Elect.     Railway 

7'. 

Railroad   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 

7'.   Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1986,     2184,     2294,     2295,     2695, 
2766. 

Southern    R.    Co.   v. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2447, 

2463. 

V.   Steelman,     p.     3565. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  United    R.     Co.,    p.    2054. 

V.  United      States     Exp.      Co., 

pp.    821,    825,    1036,    1047. 

V.   Weir,    p.    596. 

Wells    Fargo   &   Co's     Exp.     7-. 

V.  Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1686,      1916,      1965,     2666,     2667, 
2788. 

White  V. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Mitchell  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  181  Fed.  403— 
pp.    3687,    3701,    3709,    3710,    3732. 

7'.    Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     183 

Fed.  908— pp.  3773,  3812. 

V.   Pennsvlvania  R'.  Co.,  33  S. 

Ct.  916,  230  U.  S.  247.  57  L. 

Ed.    1472— pp.    3734.    3813.    381S. 
Mitchell     Crittenden     Tie     Co.,     St. 

Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 
Mitchelson   7'.    Minneapolis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.   501. 

Mitsui  V.  St.  Paul  Fire,  etc.,  Ins. 
Co.,    p.    3940. 

Mittleman  7'.  Philadelphia  Rapid 
Transit    Co.,    pp.    2164.    2365. 

Mitten,    Mexican   Cent.   R.    Co.   v. 

Mixon,    Dittman,    etc..    Shoe    Co.    v. 

Mizo,   Atlanta    Baggage,   etc.,   Co.   7-. 

M.  K.   &  T.   R.   Co.,   Rvan  &  Co.  v. 

M.   M.   Chase.   The. 

Moakes    '■.    Nicholson,    p.    352. 

Moakler  7'.  Willamette  \'al.  R.  Co.. 
p.    2201. 

Moates.    Small   7'. 

Moberly,      Northern      Texas      Tract 

Co.    V. 
Mobile,    Battle    7'. 

Bienville     Water     Supply     Co. 

7'. 

Leloup    7'. 

Osborne   7'. 

Postal    Telegraph-Cable    Co.    :. 

Southern    Exp.   Co.   7'. 

Mobile    County,    Ware,    etc.,    Co.   '•. 
Mobile    St.    R.    Co.    7'.    Walters,    pp. 

2628,    2709,    3020,    3023. 
Mobile    Trade    Co.,    Grey    v. 
Mobile,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   Alabama   Nat. 

Bank    7'. 

Allen    Co.    7'. 

Anderson     7'. 

7'.    .Ashcraft,     48     -Ma.     15 — pp. 

2294,    2726,    3068.    3069.    3070. 

7'.  Ashcraft,     49     -Ala.     305— p. 

2739. 

Ball    7'. 

?•.  Barber,   p.   2636. 

Bardwell    7'. 

Barron  7'. 

7'.   Bay      Shore      Lumber 

pp.  555.  562.  593. 

7'.   Bell,    p.    2611. 

Bigbee,    etc..    Packet    Co. 

Blackmcr,    etc..    Pipe    Co 

7'.   Blakely,    p.    1738. 

7'.   Bogle,      pp.        1556, 

2207. 

7'.   Brandon,    p.     165. 

7'.   Bromber.    p.    3430. 

7'.    Brownsville,         etc.. 

Stock     Co.,     pp.     946,     972. 
1412. 


Co.. 


1557 


Live 
977. 


CCXXXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Mobile,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   Central    .\mer- 
ican   Steamship   Co.   t . 

Commonwealth    f. 

ConncU    f. 

i:   Copeland,    p.    3291. 

Davis   f. 

r.   Davis,    p.    2090. 

v.   Dismukes.     pp.     1159,     1160. 

3654,    3853. 

Dixon    ;•. 

?■.   Francis,    pp.    1481_.    3356. 

z:  Greenwald,    p.    3546. 

Grey    r. 

-•.  Hopkins,      pp.      945,      3160, 

3163.    3176,    3195. 

Hubbard    f. 

Ireland   -•. 

'•.    Jackson,    pp.    2784,    3028. 

r.    Tarboe,    pp.     1007,    1015. 

z:   Turey,  pp.  326,  332,  334, 

422,  4"24,  848,  854,  1353,  3866, 
3872. 

Kennedy  Bros.  t-. 

V.   Klein,  p.  2127. 

Laurel    Mercantile    Co.    v. 

Long   z: 

f.   McArthur.    p.    1855. 

f.   Mississippi,    pp.    3484,    3485. 

z:   Mullins,    p.    1477. 

— —  z:   Phillips     &     Co.,     pp.     759. 


762. 


848. 


Prewitt,    pp.    210,    773, 


Reeves, 
Robbins 


pp.     2814,     3043. 
Cotton       Co.,      p. 


Russell    z: 

T'.   Sessions,    p.   41. 

State    ;■. 

z:   State,    pp.    3484,    3485. 

f.    Steiner,    etc.,     Co.,    pp.     67. 

1195,    1197. 

^•.   Tupelo         Turniture        Mfg. 

Co.,   pp.    1036,    3394. 

z:   United    States,    p.    3624. 

z:   Walsh,     146     Ala.     290,     40 

So.    559— pp.    2348,   2906. 

V.  Walsh,     146     Ala.     295,     40 

So.     560— pp.     2125,     2228,    2238, 
2243,    2728,    2997. 

V.  Wciner,    pp.    728,    733,    749, 

945,    981,    1003,    1004,    1007.    ' 

V.  Williams,     52     Ala.     278— p. 

p.    876. 

V.  Williams,    54    Ala.    168 — pp. 

493,    531,    589, 

V.  Wisdom,    p.    1604. 

Wooten   f. 

— Zackery    z: 

Zeigler    BroP.     ■■. 

Mock.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Model     Clothing     Co.     v.     Columbia 

Transfer   Co.,   p.    8. 
Modern     Match     Co.     z:     Baltimore. 

etc.,    R.   Co.,   pp.   843,   869. 
Modesitt  -;.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.    1473. 
Moeller  v.   United  R.   Co.,   242  Mo. 

721,    147    S.   W.    1009— p.    2874. 

v.  United     R".     Co.,     133     Mo. 

App.     68,     112     S.     W.     714— pp. 
1865,    1998,    2599. 

V.   United  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.), 

147  S.  W.  1009— pp.  1880,  2359. 

Young  v. 

Moer    V.    Corrinth,    p.     1172. 
Moffatt    V.    Great    Western    R.    Co., 
p.   287. 

V.  Long     Island     R.     Co.,     p. 

3157. 

Moffatt    Comm.    Co.    z'.    Union    Pac. 

R.   Co.,   p.   744. 
Moffitt     z'.      Connecticut      Co.,      pp. 

2142,     2144,    2747. 
Mogi,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.   v. 
Mohaupt,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Mohawk,    Propeller. 
Mohler,    Atwood    '•. 
Mohns       V.       Netherlands-American 

Steam    Nav.    Co.,    p.    3990. 
Mohr    Z-.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1228,    1229,    1239,    1245. 


Mohr   '•.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.,    |ip. 

894,    899. 
Molby    -■.     Hay,    p.     1215. 
Moline     Plow     Co.,     Cleveland,     i"C., 

R.    Co.   z: 
Moline,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Coburn    z\ 
Moll.     Padgitt     r. 
Moliie   Mohler,    The. 
Mollison  '■.    Lockhart,    p.    1243. 
Molloy    z:    Hay,    p.    1234. 

"'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2531. 

Pioneer    Fuel    Co.   Z'. 

Moltrum,     South     Chicago     Citv     R. 

Co.  V. 
Mommsen,     Chicago     Union     Tract. 

Co.  '•. 
Monarch     Fruit     Co.,     Scheuermann 

Monday  '■.    St.    Toseph   R.,   etc.,   Co., 

pp.    2583,    260'5. 
Mondou   z'.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    3421,    3441,    3447,    3450,    3462, 

3463,      3464,      3465,      3466,      3506, 

3507. 
Monell    v.    Northern    Cent.    R.    Co. 

(N.  Y.),   16  Hun   585- p.   799. 

V.  Northern   Cent.   R.    Co.    (N. 

Y.),   67    Barb.    531— p.    3295. 

Moneyhun,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Mongahela    St.    R.    Co. 


Muhlhause 
Co.     z: 


Moniter     Mut.      Fire     Ins 

Buffum,    p.    986. 
Monmouthshire    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Peg- 

ler    z: 
Monongahela     Bridge     Co.,     United 

States    ;■. 
Monongahela     Xav.     Co.     z\     L^r.  ited 

States,    pp.    3441,    3445,    3479. 
Monongahela     River     Consol.     Coal, 

etc.,     Co.     ''.     Hurst,     pp.     4056, 

4080. 
Monongahela     St.     R.      Co.,     Muhl- 

hause   z'. 
Monongahela,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Muhl- 

hause   z-. 
Monahan,    Blum    z\ 
Monatt,    Colorado,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 
Monro   v.    The    Baltic,    p.    798. 
Monroe   t'.    low'a.    p.    940. 

z:  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.   2877. 

z:  United     R.     Co.,     pp.     1890, 

1903,    1919,    2228. 

Monroe    Nat.     Bank,    ^'arney    ?'. 
Monroe    Progressive    League    z\    St. 

L.,    etc.,    Ry.,    p.    3679. 
Monta,   Southern  R.    Co.   v. 
Montague    v.     Henry     B.     Hyde,     p. 

963. 

T'.   The    Isaac    Reed,    pp.    3905, 

3922. 

Montague  &  Co.  z\  Lowry,  p.  3421. 
Montana    Cent.     R.     Co.     z\    United 

States,    pp.    3619,    3623. 
Montana    Union    R.    Co.,    Ilardman 

z'.  Langlois,    p.    101. 

Montana,    etc.,     K.     Co.    v.     Morlev, 

pp.    46,    50,    56,    247. 
Monteath,     Parsons    '•. 
Montegudo   v.    Silva,   p.    3892. 
Monteith    v.    Kirkpatrick,    i)p.     1161, 

1162. 
Montelle,   Kansas   Pac.    R.    Co.    z'. 
Montello,    The. 

Montford,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Montfort,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Montgomery  v.   Buffalo   R.    Co.,    165 

N.     Y.     139,     58     N.     K.     770— p. 

2854. 

T.  Buffalo    R.    Co..    48    N.    Y. 

S.     849,     24     App.     ])iv.     454— p. 
2422. 

■ ■  z'.  Colorado    Springs,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1901,    2115,    2117,    2233. 
East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Kirtland   v. 


Montgomery,     Lawrenceburgh.     etc., 
R.    Co.   z: 

Maumee    \'allcy    R.,    etc.,    Co. 

• St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■ Tavlor,    etc.,    R.     Co.    j'. 

T. 'B.   &   H.   R.   Co.   V. 

Montgomery   St.    R.    Co.,   Armstrong 


2976. 


Lewis, 


pp. 


2812, 


■;•.   Mason,      pp.       2230,      2282, 

2591. 

Montgomery  St.  Railway,  McDon- 
ald  r. 

Montgomery  Tract.  Co.  7'.  Fitz- 
patrick,    pp.    2563,    2572,    2624. 

'•.   Whatlev,     pp.     2015,     2016, 

2020,    2023,    2871. 

Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i'.  Bor- 
ing,   pp.    1965,    2941,    3040. 

z:   Culver,    p.    3183. 

Doughlass    z\ 

''.    Edmonds,      pp.      583,      831. 

833,   834,   837. 

-'.   Kolb,     pp.     271.     27 i.     274. 

275,    277,    292,    303,    425.    845. 

V.   Mallette,     pp.      1739,     2843, 

2957. 

z:   Moore,     pp.     828,     3285. 

z\   Stewart,     pp.      1899,      1900,,. 

2125,   2364,   2745. 

<■.   Thompson,    pp.     1590,    2271, 

2499,    2502,    2507,    2509. 

Montmollen,     Central,    etc.,     R.    Co. 

Monton    ?■.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   820. 
Montpelier     z'.     Barre,     etc..     Power 

Co.,    p.    80. 
Montpelier,   etc..   Railroad  -'.   United 

States,     p.     3073. 
Mooar      Lumber      Co.,      Pittsburgh, 

etc..    Railway   '■. 
Mood    f.    Western    L^nion    Tel.    Co., 

p.    643. 
Moody,    Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Harris    v. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z'. 

c'.    Southern    R.     Co..    np.     164, 

636.    827,    874,    3336,    3353,    3354, 
3359. 

■:•.   Springfield    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2198,    2303,    2739. 

State     v. 

Moon,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

v.   Interurban       St.       R.       Co., 

pp.     1650,     2460. 

■ Mississippi    Southern    Exp.    Co.. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Southern     Exp.    Co.    z'. 

Mooney     f.     Seattle,     etc..     Railway, 

p.    1983. 
Moor,   Veazie  z'. 
Moore,    American    Transp.    Co.    z'. 

z'.  American    Transp.    Co.,    pp, 

4036,    4038,    4039,    4040,    4054. 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 

<■.   Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2484,   2493. 

V.   Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

487,   642. 

V.  Aurora,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2268. 

z'.   Baltimore,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     518,     552,     553,     1272,     1276, 
1277,    1313,    1449. 

Birmingham    z\ 

Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co.     zr. 

Brunswick,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

■:•.   Campbell,    p.    112. 

I'.  Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1613,  1615,    2461,    2564. 

Charleston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\  Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1347,  1456. 

Z'.  Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1571,  2043,      2051,      2052,      2467, 

2476,  2482. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXVII 


Moore  V.   Des   Moine'i.  etc.,   R'.   Co.. 
pp.    1717,    1721.   2918. 

V.   Edison     Elect.     Illuminatinf? 

Co.,    p.    2204. 

V.   Evans     (N.     Y.),     14     I'.arb. 

38— p.  822. 

V.   Evans     (K.     Y.).     14     liail) 

524—  pp.   94r,,   3161. 

V.   Evening    Star,    p.    3134. 

7'.   Fitchburg      R.      Corp..      pp 

2411,     3024. 

Fordycc    v. 

r...   H.   &   H.   R.    Co.   V. 

Cray  v.' 

7'.   Greenville     Tract.     Co.,     pp. 

2674,   2702. 

Ciilf,  etc.,   K".   Co.  -•. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   •<-. 

Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     :■. 

Keep    Mfg.    Co.    7'. 

7'.    Kennedy,    p.    328. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Merchants'    Dispatch,    etc.,    Co 

Merchants',    etc..    Transp.    Co. 

Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co.    ;■. 

7-.    Metropolitan,    etc.,     R.     Co  , 

pp.    ISCS,    2603. 

7'.   Michigan     Cent.     R.     Co.,     3 

Mich.    23— p.    3287. 

7'.   Michigan    Cent.     R.     Co.,     3 

Mich.    371— p.    540. 

7'.   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2637. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    -,-. 

Montgomery,    etc.,     R'     Co.     7'. 

-■.   Nashville,      etc.,      Railroad, 

pp.    2483.    2709.    2628,    2635. 

Nashville,    etc..    Railway    f. 

New   Orlea-is.    etc..   R.    Co.   7'. 

V.   New     York.     etc..     R.     Cr>., 

173  Mass.  335,  53  N.  E.  816.  53 
N.  E.  816,  73  .\ni.  St.  Rep.  298 
—p.    3182. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

126  N.  Y.  671,  27  N.  E.  791, 
4  Silvernail  Ct.  App.  485 — p. 
855. 

V.  Northern   Texas   Tract.    Co.. 

pp.    1730,    2184,    2345,    2758. 

Oakes  v. 

7'.  Ohio     River     R.     Co..     pp. 

1615.    1643,   2437. 

Patterson    v. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7. 

7'.   Saginaw,    etc.,    R.    Co..    115 

Mich.  103,  72  N.  W.  1112— np. 
1684,  1687,  1754,  2209,  2883, 
2951. 

V.   Saginaw,  etc..  R'.  Co.,  78 

N.  W.  666,  119  Mich.  613— pp. 
2144,  2169,  2891. 

"■.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  p. 

2494. 

7'.    Shcridiiie,    p.    488. 

Southern    I'"xp.    Co.   7'. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7-. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   -■. 

Tysen    7'. 

?'.   Woonsocket      St.      R.      Co., 

p.    2747. 

Moore    &    Co.,    .Anderso"    -'. 

Merchants',    etc.,    Transp.    Co. 

7'.   Ignited    States,    p.    3965. 

Moore    &•    Son    7'.    Ilenrv.    pp.    417, 

418,    538. 
Moorehousc    7'.    Crangle.    p.    2537. 
Mooresvilie    Cotton    Mills,    Southern 

R.    Co.   7'. 
Moorman   7'.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.   2912. 

Gulf.   etc..   R.   Co.   7'. 

Moorshead     7'.     United     R.     Co..     p. 

2088. 
Moose.    Shcnandoaii    \'alley    R.    Co. 

Morain.     Lake     Erie,     etc..     R.     Co. 

Moran,    Chicago,    etc..    R'.    Co.    7. 


.\loran    7'.    New    Orleans,    pp.    3478,  ' 
3549,    3555.    3581.    3584. 

7'.  Portland   Steam  Packet  Co., 

p.    486. 

7'.   Struges.    p.    4078. 

-■.   \'ersailles     Tract.     Co.,     pp. 

1895,     2322. 
Moran    Rros.    Co.    7'.    Northern    Pac. 

R.    Co..    p.    683. 
Moraritv     7'.     Durham     Tract.     Co.. 

pp.     1912,     2904. 
Morasch,     Erb    -•. 
Moravian,   The. 
More,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Lott.    pp.    1214, 

1219,    1220,    1229.    1242. 
Morehead,     Haltimore.    etc.,     R.    Co 

Morehouse  7'.   Texas  Trunk   R.   Co.. 

pp.    445,    465. 
Morel    7'.    Roe,    p.    3911. 
Moreland    v.    Boston,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.     1717,    1728. 
Morey    v.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2043,     2785. 
Morgan    7'.    P.ell,    p.    855. 

7'.  Camden,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2247. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Chesapeake,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

pp.  1841,  1850,  2683. 

Dibble  7'. 

7'.  Pibbl".  pp.  5n.  "=12,  527 

533.    743,    870.    1299.    3893.    3994, 
3895. 

7'.  Garfield,      etc..      Coal      Co., 

p.   3950. 

Gulf,  etc.,   R'.   Co.   7'. 

7'.   Insurance      Co.,      pp.      718. 

3939. 

Jersey  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 

Kennedy  7'. 

7'.   Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1953,    2181.    2612. 

7'.   Los    Angeles    Pac.    Co..    pp. 

1829,    2310. 

7'.   Louisiana,     pp.     63.     64. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Oregon       Short       Lire       R'. 

Co.,    p.    2782. 

7'.   Oregon,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2516,    2517. 

V.  Parham.      pp.      3474.      3571. 

3581,    3584. 

Peete    7'. 

■  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Saks.    pp.    1488.    2330. 

7'.  Southern   Pac.   Co..  p.   2352. 

Stockard   '•. 

The    Styria   7'. 

Williams    &    Sons   7'. 

7'.   Woolverton,    96    N.    E.    3  =  4. 

203    N.    Y.    52.    36    L.    R.    A..    N. 
S.,    640— p.    1058. 

7'.   Woolverton,     120    N.     Y.     S. 

1008,      136     .\pp.      Div.     351 — pp. 
1050,     1068. 

Morgan    Envelope   Co.   7'.    Bonstead. 

p.    1219. 
Morgan.       etc.,       Co.      7'.       Railroad 

Comm.,    pp.     119,     124. 
Morgan's   Louisiana,  etc.,   Co.,   Duv- 

ernet    7'. 

Lehman,   etc.,   Co.   7'. 

Morgan's,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Clerc    7'. 
- — — •  Coburn    7-. 

Cumberland    Tel.,    etc.,    Co.    -•. 

Morgan's,      etc.,       Steamship      Co  , 

Dave   7'. 

DeMahy    7'. 

Ileaton    7'. 

Lancon   7-. 

Lehman,  etc..   Co.  7'. 

7'.  Louisiana    Board,    pp.    3528. 

3529,    3530. 

McGowen     7'. 

7'.   Railroad     Comm.,     pp.     45, 

47.    49,    54. 

Morganton  Mfg.  Co.  7'.  Ohio,  etc  , 
R'.  Co.,  pp.  Z27,  777,  1016,  3395. 
3399. 


Morgolofski,     People's    Bank    7'. 
Moriarty   7.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad. 

pp.     1786.    2874. 
Moriata     '■.     Harnden's     Exp.     Co.. 

pp.    992,    994,    995. 
Morison  v.   Gray,   p.   1216. 
Merit    V.    Adoue,    pp.    376,    405. 

V.   Intcrurban    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2658. 

Morlan,    Howell   f. 

Morley,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

-•.   Eastern    Exp.    Co.,   pp.   824, 

842. 

Montana,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Morning   Glory,   Thomas  v. 

Morning    Light,    The. 

Morningstar    7.    Louisville,    etc.,     R. 

Co..    p.    2448. 
Morrill    7'.    Minneapolis    St.    R".    Co., 

pp.    1649.    1650.    1651,    1853,   2475. 

2564,    3078,     3081. 
Morris,    Alabama,   etc..    R.    Co.   7'. 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.  Atlantic    Ave.    R.    Co..    pp. 

2711,   2854. 

Central,   etc.,   R.   Co.   r. 

V.  Chesapeake,   etc.,    Steamshii 

Co..   125  Fed.  62— pp.  3871,  3873. 
3877. 

7'.  Chesapeake,   etc..    Steamship 

Co.,    148    Fed.    11.    78    C.    C.    A. 
179— pp.    3871.    3872. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   7'. 

7'.  Colorado    Mid.    R.    Co.,    p. 

3044. 

Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   7'. 

v.  Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co..    pp. 

1546.    1553,    1570. 

Hunt  f. 

7'.  Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp 

1921,    1962,    2820. 

Louisville,    etc.,    K".    Co.    v. 

V.  Minneapolis,    etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    816,   817,   842,   867. 

7'.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1687. 

Norfolk,     etc..     Terminal     Co. 

7'. 

7'.   O'Brien,    p.    2638. 

Prcscott,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

Richmond,    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

7-.   Shryock.   pp.    1219,    1242. 

Southern   Kansas  R.  Co.  7'. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    7'. 

7.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co..  p.  3159. 

7'.  Wier,    p.    822. 

7'.  Wilson      Sons     &     Co.,      p. 

3918. 

Morris    Bldg.,    Ass'n,    Russo    v. 
Morris     County    Tract.     Co.,     Trus- 

sell    7-. 
Morris-Scarboro-Moffit  Co.  7'.   Sout!'.- 

ern    Exp.    Co.,   p.   3546. 
Morris,     etc.,     Exp.     Co..     Cohen    :• 
Morris,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7'.    Ayres,    pp 

534,    891,    896.    899.    2848. 

7'.   Sussex     R.     Co..    pp.     1147 

1189. 

Morrisdale  Coal  Co.  7'.  Pennsyl 
vania  R.  Co..  176  Fed.  748— pp 
3770.   3774. 

7'.  Pennsvlvania     R.     Co.,     10'> 

C.  C.  A.  269,  183  Fid.  929— 
pp.  3774,  3813. 

7'.  Pennsvlvania 

U.    S.    304."  ii    S 
3811,    3813. 

Morrish,     McKinlay     7'. 
Morrison     t-.      Broadway,     etc.,     R 
Co.,    pp.    1880,    2153. 

Carnegie     7'. 

7'.  Charlotte     Elect.     R..     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    1890.    2348. 

7-.   Davis   &   Co..    pp.    733.    734 

738,     744.     1014. 

7'.   Erie      R.      Co 

2250.    2255. 

('.alveston.    etc..    R.    Co.    7'. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   7'. 

In     re. 

7'.  John    L.    Stephens,   n.    2444 

Kansas  City.  etc..   R.   Co.   7. 


R.     Co..    2in 
Ct.    938— pp. 


pp.      1953. 


ccxxxvin 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Morrison  f.  McFadden,  pp.  73S, 
746.    747,    778.    782. 

North   American    Transp.,    etc., 

Co.    f. 

;■.   Xorth      American      Transp.. 

etc..    Co..    p.    3040. 

I'.   Phillips,    etc..     Constr.     Co., 

pp.  322,  323,  946.  984,  985,  98^ 
1044,    1274,    1370,    1393,    3161. 

r.   Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    p.    2934 

Southern    R.    Co.   f. 

!•.  The    Tohn    L.    Stephens,    p 

1941. 

Morrison's   Adm'r,   Hall   "'. 
Morrison's    Faust    Co.,    Texas,    etc., 

R.   Co.  V. 
Morrissev    v.     Wiggins     Ferry     Co., 

pp.     1715,  '2116. 
Morro    Castle,    The. 
Morrow    -•.    Atlanta,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2509,    2512,    2540,    2547. 

r.   Brooklyn    Heights    R.     Co., 

pp.    2643,    2878. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

640,  641,  642,  649,  670,  671, 
680,    681,    1080,    1101. 

V.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

pp.  3205.  3214.  3217,  3219,  3223, 
3224,    3225,    3237,    3238,    3239. 

Morse  :■.  Brainerd,  pp.  417,  3260, 
3294,    3327,    3328. 

Campbell   f. 

t'.  Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp 

1375,    1376. 

Chicago    City   R.    Co.    v. 

i'.   Connecticut    River    R.     Co.. 

p.    3191. 

7\   Duncan,    p.    1852. 

Gage    f. 

z\   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2737,    2738. 

V.  Newton      St.      R.      Co.,      p. 

2858. 

t'.   Southern   K.    Co.,    pp.    2443, 

2564. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Thomas  z\ 

Waring     v. 

Wellman    i'. 

Morse    Ironworks,    etc.,    Co.,    Price 

Morsman,   United   States  v. 

Mortal,   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Mortland    v.     Philadelphia,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    3169. 
Morton,     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■ ?•.   Tibbett,    p.     211. 

Moseley,   United   States  f. 
Mosely,    Boyd    f. 

Wayland  f. 

AiOses  ■::  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
N.  PL  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  222— pp 
270,  273,  274,  287,  289,  728 
882,    883,    884,    1004,    1005,    3309 

V.  Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   32   N 

H.  523,  64  Am.  Dec.  381— pp 
511,  896,  900,  901,  904,  906 
1003,  1004,  1007. 

Boyd  V. 

z\  East  Tennessee,  etc..  Rail- 
road,   pp.    1628,    1629,    2443,    3317. 

V.   Hamburg- .American      Packet 

Co.,    p.    4031. 

f.   Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1509,   1795,    1798. 

V.   Norris,     pp.    582,    728,    733, 

749,    753,     796. 

V.   Port     Townsend,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.     1477. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Moses  Taylor,  The. 

Mosher  t-.  St.  Loui=.  etc.,  R.  Co., 
23    Fed.    326— p.    2462. 

v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    127 

U.  S.  390,  32  L.  Ed.  249.  S 
S.  Ct.  1324— pp.  1616,  1627, 
1628,   2496. 


Mosher     &     Co.     -<■.     Southern     Ivxp. 

Co.,    pp.    531.    550.    551.    574.    961, 

962,    981,    3176,    3257,    3291,    3295, 

3350,    3351. 
Moskowit    v.    Brooklyn    Heights    R. 

Co.,     p.     2194. 
Moss,    Bell    r. 

r.   Bettis,    pp.    1,   2,   8,   11,    768, 

771,    951,    1020. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Johnson,    p.    2208. 

r.   Lancaster,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    3321. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Lowe   ?'. 

I'.   North      Carolina      R.      Co., 

p.    2655. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    T'. 

Mossbarger,    Illinois    Cent.     R'.    Co. 

Mosteler  v.   Iowa  Cent.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1454,    1456,    1457,    1458. 
Mote   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3156,-    3tl60,     3168,     3170,     3173, 

3174. 
Motes,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Mother,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Mothershed,    Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

Motlow,    Jenkins    ?•. 
Mott     V.     Consumers'     Ice     Co.,     p. 
2041. 

%■.  Jackson,    p.    458. 

V.   Long     Island     R.     Co.,     p. 

539. 

Mott    &    Bros.,    Brown    &    Co.    x'. 

Mott   &   Co.,   Brown   v. 

Motteran     v.     Eastern     Counties     R. 

Co.,    p.     199. 
Mottley,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.      Co. 


R. 


Co., 


z'.  Louisville,      < 

3695. 

Mottram    z'.    Heyer,    pp.    1243,    1244, 

1246,    1247. 
Mouille,    Hays    z'. 

r.   Hays,     pp.     1220,     1245. 

Moulthrop    v.    Hyett,    pp.    659,    671. 
Moulton    V.    St.    Paul.    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.     728,     740,     948,     1074,     1363, 

1400. 
Mounot,   Taylor  •;•. 
Mount,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

V.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1365,    1367. 

Mt.  Adams,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Isaacs, 
pp.    1821,    1829,    2666. 

V.   Lowery,    p.     2007. 

z:  Reul,    pp.    1688,    1951. 

Mountford     z:      Cunard      Steamship 

Co.,    p.    4007. 
Mt.     Pleasant     Mfg.     Co.     z:     Cape 

Fear,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp.   234,    1194, 

1195. 
Mt.    Pleasant    Mill    Co.,    First    Nat. 

Bank    z: 
Mount    Vernon    Co.,    .Mabama,    etc., 

R.    Co.    z: 

V.  Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    84 

Ala.    173,   4    So.    356- p.   3286. 

V.   .Alabama,     etc.,    R.     Co.,    92 

Ala.     296,     8     So.     687— pp.     285, 
3265,    3286,    3302. 

Mt.    Washington    R.    Co.,    Kind  llan 

V. 

Mounts,     Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Mouton  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  C"., 
pp.  815,  866,  972,  986,  988.  <^89, 
992,     1018,     1035,     1038,    3349. 

Mowery.    Iron    R.    Co.    ''. 

What     Cheer    Sav.     Bank    -'. 

Mowinckel,    Dewar   z'. 

Mowrev    v.     Central    City     Railway, 

p.    2i50. 
Moyer   z'.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    pp. 

897,    910,    917.    3174. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Moylan     f.     Second     Ave.     R.     Co., 

p.    2006. 


Mozely,  West,  End,  etc.,  St.  R. 
Co.    z: 

M.  P.  R.  Co.  f.  Barnes  &  Co., 
np.  724,  734,  735,  739,  742,  753. 
765,  766,  767,  811,  815,  825,  849 
854,    855,    1051,    1072,    1078,    10;9 

f.   Ryan,    p.    3373. 

Mrar  z\  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.. 
p.    949. 

Muckenfuss  Mfg.  Co.  '•.  Charles- 
ton,  etc.,   R.    Co.,   p.    152. 

Muckle  z\  Rochester  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1650,   2449,   2458,   2462. 

Mudford,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Mudgett    z\     Bay     State     Steamboat 

Co.,     p.     3146. 
.Muehlhauser    z'.    St.    Louis    R.    Co., 

pp.    1559,    1564,    1760.    1829.    2120. 

2233.     2802,     2889,     2969. 
Mueller    z\     Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co.. 

p.    1633. 

v.   Washington     Water     Power 

Co.,    pp.     1743,    2595,    2657. 

MuTg,   Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Mugler    V.    Kansas,    pp.    3538,    3539. 
Muhlhause     f.     Mongahela     St.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1796,    1986,    2875,    2878. 
Muhling,    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Mulberry    Hill    Coal    Co.    z'.    Illinois 

Cent.     R.     Co.,     257     111.     80,     ICO 

N.    E.    151— p.    3488. 

V.   Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.,     I6l 

111.    App.    272— pp.    215,    229,    231, 
247,    261. 

Mulder,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v- 

Muldoon    z:     Seattle    City    R.     Co., 

7     Wash.     528,     35     Pac.     422,     38 

Am.     St.     Rep.     901,     22     L.     R. 

A.    794— pp.    2095,    2103,    2174. 

V.   Seattle     City     R.     Co.,     10 

Wash.    311,    38    Pac.    995,    45    Am. 
St.    Rep.    787— pp.    2095,    2103. 

Muldowney       z'.       Pittsburg,        etc.. 

Tract.     Co.,     pp.     191,     196,     1603, 

2428,     2467,     2473. 
Mulford,    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Mulford    Co.    V.    Curry,    p.    3554. 
Mulhado    v.    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co., 

pp.    1890,    2228,    2245,    2910. 
Mullan   V.   Wisconsin   Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    2031. 

New  York  City   R.    Co., 


•'.    Interban    St.    R.    Co., 
W.    &    B.    R.     Co.,     p. 

p. 


Mullane 

p.    2195. 
Mullarkey 

p.    2816. 
'■.   P. 

3285. 
Mullen,    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co. 

V.   Chester        Tract.       Co.. 

2081. 

z:   Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1752,    1755. 

Lindsay,    etc.,    Co.    ■:■. 

Muller,    Century    Throwing    Co.    z\ 
- — —  z\   Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

424. 

?'.    Metroiiolitan    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2829. 

V.   Second     .\vc.      R. 

2803. 

Mulligan    z\    Illinois    Cent, 
pp.   320,   321,    323,   984, 
3261,    3349. 

z'.   Louisville,         etc., 

Co.   V. 

f.   Metropolitan      St.      R. 

pp.    2154,    2815. 

Z'.   New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2072. 

V.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

565,   889. 

z:   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1669, 

2662,      2708,      2845,      2848,      3011, 
3014. 

Mulliken,      International,      etc..     R. 

Co.    z\ 
Mullin    I'.     Bluementlial     S:     Co.,     p. 

2576. 
?•.   Boston     Elcv.     R.     Co.. 

2765,    2814. 


Co.,     p. 

R.    Co., 

B6,   3257, 

Packet 
Co., 


pp. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXIX 


Mullin    V.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    p. 
2462. 

State    ■■. 

Mullins,    American    Exp.    Co.    v. 

r.   Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2473.    2474. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas    Trunk    R.    Co.    r. 

Mumford.   Chicago   City   R.    Co.   -•. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Mundy,    Indiana    Cent.^   R.    Co.    v. 
Munford,    Telegraph    Co.    f. 
Munn   V.    Maker,   p.    1014. 

V.  Illinois,    pp.    34,   37,    38,    .=^9, 

60,        1136,      3432,       3492,       3493. 
3527,    3668. 

Munoz    Successors,    Rio    Crande    R. 

Co.   z: 
Munro    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1769,     1781,    2617. 
Munroe     i'.      Metropolitan      St.      R. 

Co.,  p.   2154. 

V.  Philadelphia  Warehouse 

Co.,   p.    3886. 

V.   Third       Ave.      R.       Co..       p 

2249. 

Munsey    r.    Webb,    pp.    1751,    2911 
Mumson    Steamship    Line   v.    Stcigcr 

&    Co..    p.    4022. 
Munster    '■.    Southeastern      R.     Co. 

pp.    3129,    3130. 
Munzer    -■.    Interurban    St.    R.    Co. 

p.    2700. 
Murch     V.    Concord     R.     Corp.,     pp 

1487,    1548,    2140. 
Murden,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 
.Murdock    v.    IJoston,    etc.,      R.    Co. 

133    Mass.    15,    43    Am.    Rep.    480 

—p.    3042. 

T.   Boston,     etc.,     K.     Co..     137 

Mass.     293,     50     .\m.     Rep.     307— 
pp.    1977,    2459,    2713. 

Hall   r. 

Murgatroyd,    Dusar    -■. 

Murnahan    -'.     Cincinnati,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2591. 
Murphey,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Eckel    :■. 

Murphy,      Arkansas      Southern       R. 
Co.   V. 

I'.  Atlanta,    etc.,    R.     Co..    pp. 

1687,     1689,     1970,     2669,     2840. 

V.   Central    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2413. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.  Coney   Island,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  2694. 

V.   Holbrook,  pp.  2089,  20  0. 

V.   Interurban  St.  R.  Co.,  p. 

2892. 

V.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1903,    1904.    1997,    2635. 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    '■. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R.    Co., 

p.   2735. 

V.    New     York,     etc..     R.     Co., 

p.    2784. 

f.   North     Tcrsev     St.     R.     Co., 

58  Atl.  1018,"  71  N.  1.  L.  5— p. 
2151. 

f.  North     Jersey     St.     R.     Co.. 

80  Atl.  331.  81  N.  J.  L.  706,  35 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  592— pp.  1830, 
1831,    2795,    2884. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1521. 

I'.   Southern      Pac.       Co.,       pp. 

1694,    1720.    2697. 

V.   Southern    Railway,    pp.    8^7, 

899,    911. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  LTnion     R.     Co.,     pp.     1497, 

2419,    2856. 

V.  Wells-Fargo     &    Co.      Exp., 

pp.    931.    982,    1064. 

J'.   Western.       etc..       Railroad. 

pp.    1944.    2020,    2417. 

Murphv    Hardware   Co.    ;■.    Southern 
R.    Co.,    p.    150. 


Murphy,     etc.,     Co.     v.     Staton,     pp. 

499.     512,     533,     729.     730,     734. 

750,    753,    815,    822,    825,    826. 
Murrah,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    i'. 
Murray    i'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3494,    3665,    3840. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Georgia       Southern,     etc.,      R. 

"f.  Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.   70. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,     R.    Co.    y. 

V.   International  Steamship 

Co..    pp.    285,    287,     3135,     3174, 
3188,    4008. 

7:  Jump    Co.,    pp.    3891,    3948, 

3953,    3962. 

V.  Lardner,    pp.    358,    375. 

V.   Lehigh     \al.      R.      Co.,     pp. 

1746,    1749,     1939,    2077. 

V.  Pawtuxet       \'alley      St.      R. 

Co.,   p.   2841. 

V.  Postal    Tel.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

9,   418,   549. 

z:   Rhode    Island    Co..    p.    2315. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

<■.   Seattle       Elect.       Co.,       pp. 

1779,    2231,    2350,    2911. 

The    D.    C. 

z:  Warner,    pp.    486,    570._ 

Wynantskill     Knitting     Co.     f. 

Murray   &    Bros,    z:    G..    C.    &    S.    F. 

R.    Co.,   pp.    138,    1198. 
Murrell   v.    Dixey,    p.    854. 

z:   Pacific    Exp.     Co.,    pp.    637. 

642,    653,    660,    677. 

The. 

Murtishaw,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 
Mupchamp    '•.    Lancaster    R.    Co.,    p. 

3176. 
Musco  r.    I'nittil    Surety   Co..   p.   i3. 
Muscogee   R.    Co.,    Redd  z\ 
Muser    z:    Holland,    p.    945. 
Musgrove,    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co. 

Mushrush,    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Musick,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

v.  United    R.     Co.,     pp.     1996, 

2658. 

Muskegon    Booming    Co.    z:    V:  der- 

hill,    p.    1238. 
Muskegon     Tract.,     etc.,     Co.,     Cou- 

sineau   -'. 

Henncssy   z\ 

Musselcrag.    The. 

Mussellam    z'.     Cincinnati,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.     341,     837,     839,     3404, 

3415. 
Muster    z\    Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

p.    2078. 
Muth,    San    Antonio    St.    R.    Co.    ;•. 

San    Antonio,    etc..    R.    Co.    z\ 

Mutton  z:   Midland  R.  Co.,  p.   3129. 
Mutual       Trans.      Co.       z:      United 

States,   p.    3730. 
Myer,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 
Myers,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

f.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

92,   137. 

Cumberland    \'alley    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

Powell     z: 

"    Pullman    Co.,    p.    3237. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co..    p. 


1182. 

z:  Southern        Railroad,        pp. 

2848.   3011. 

Southern    R.    Co.   z: 

Myerson    Z'.    Woolverton,    p.    3394. 
Mvkleby    z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

■p.    2653. 
Mylton  z:   >rid'a"d  R.   Co..  p.   3180 
Mynard    z:    Sviacuse.    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    740.    1329. 
Mynott.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    :. 
Myres    z:     Diamond    Joe     Line,     pp 

438.    440. 
Myrick    z:    Macon    R..    etc..    Co.,    p. 

2175. 

T'.  Michigan      Cent.      R.      Co.. 

Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,    001,    9    Biss. 
44_pp.    1278,    3302. 


Myrick    v.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co., 

107    U.    S.     102,    106,    27    L.    Ed. 

325,    1    S.    Ct.    425— pp.    208,    424. 

726,      1267,       3177,      3179,       3250. 

3251,     3252,      3258,      3260,      3262. 

3273,    3285.    3296,    3327,    3414. 
Myrtle,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Myzell,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :. 

N 
Nagel,     Memphis,     etc..     Packet    Co. 

V. 

r.  United     R.     Co.,    pp.     2636. 

2699. 
Nagle    T'.    California,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1684,    1735,    2241. 
Nail    City,    The. 
Nailson,    Southern    R.    Co.    i: 
Naive,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 
Najac    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

3136.   3175.   3176. 
Nance  r.   Carolina  Cent.   R.   Co.,   p. 

2226. 
Nanson     :•.    Jacobs,     pp.    543,     545, 

547,    555,    3247. 
Nantucket    Steamboat   Co.,    Citizens 

Bank  z\ 
Napheys,    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 
Napier.    Ilollingsworth    f. 
Najiolitan     Prince,    The. 
Nappier,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 
Naranja,    The. 
Narragansett    Pier    R.    Co.,    Podrat 

V. 

Narragansett    Steamship    Co.,    Berg 

Standish   ■:■. 

Nash  f.  Towne,  p.   326. 

z:  Yonkers    R.    Co.,   p.    2899. 

Nashau    Lock     Co.     v.     Worcester. 

etc..    R.    Co.,    p.    3311. 
Nashau    St.    Railway.    Douyette   z: 
Nashua,    etc..    Railroad.    Smith    v. 
Nashua,    etc..    R.    Corp.    McElroy   v 
Nashville     Grain     Exch.    z:     L  nited 

State.s,    pp.     3791,    3800. 
Nashville    Railroad    z:    Howard,    pp. 

1811,     1817,     2163,     2737,     2952. 

2970. 
Nashville   St.   R.   Co.   v.   Griffin,   pp. 

200,   201,    1595,   2466,   2470,   2480. 

3105.  ,     .,, 

Nashville,    etc..    Railroad,    Moore    f. 
Nashville,   etc..   R.    Co.   z:    Alabama. 

134    Ala.    414,    32     So.     731— pp. 

29,   3574. 

f.  Alabama,    128   U.    S.   96,   32 

L.  Ed.  352,  9  S.  Ct.  28— pp. 
3466,  3480,  3481,  3502,  3504. 
3505. 

Arrowsmith   f. 

z:  Bates,   p.    2628. 

Brooke  i\ 

z:   Casey,    pp.    1895,    1896. 

z:  Codv.   p.   462. 

z:   David,   pp.    729,   733,   /4/. 

—  De    Glopper    z'. 

—  Drake   ;■. 

—  z:  Dreyfuss-Weil  Co.,  pp.  567, 
3433. 

—  f.  Elliott,  pp.  1683.  1693, 
1714,    1721,    1848. 

—  v.  Estes,  54  Tenn.  (7  Heisk.) 
622,  24  .\m.  Rep.  289— pp.  750, 
751,    752.    767. 

—  z:  Estes,  78  Tenn.  (10  Lea) 
749,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  210 
— pp.    574.    767. 

—  z:   Flake,    p.    2024. 

—  z:  Grayson  County  Nat. 
Bank.  93  S.  W.  431.  100  Tex. 
17— pp.  342,  478.  542,  546,  036. 
3274.  _. 

—  z:  Gravson  County  >at. 
Bank  (Te'x.  Civ.  App.L  91  S.  W. 
110(,_pp.    361.    371,    519,    558. 

—  Hall  z:  ,^,„ 

—  r.  Heggie.  pp.  1-88.  3628, 
3629.  ^  ^ 

Interstate     Commerce     l.omm. 


CCXI. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co..    Irvin    r. 

V.   Tackson,     pp.     7,     618,     /  29. 

750,    931.    946.   949,   954,    1020. 

;•.  Johnson,    p.    2736. 

V.  Jones,    pp.    1821,    1848. 

f.   King,    pp.    733,    746. 

Lament  &   Co.   f. 

7-.  Lillie,     pp.     729,     733,     750, 

3146,      3147,      3201, 


31       Tt-nn. 

1985. 

33        Tcnn. 


n42,      3143 
3202,   3226. 

Marshall    "'. 

-  Mason  f. 

-  z'.  Messino, 
Sneed)    220— p 

z:   Messino, 

Sneed)    220— p.    1561. 

Moore   f. 

z:   Parker,      pp.       820, 

1285,     1438,      1445,       1446, 
1483. 

Parks  z'. 

Payne  J'. 

Peoria  Packing  Co.  -•. 

!■.  Price,   pp.   3212, 


1035, 
1459, 


3226, 


!22 


/. 


r.  Sprayberry,  56  Tenn.  (9 
Heisk.)  852— pp.  3175,  3177, 
3181,  3182,  3315,  3316,  3323. 

"'.  Sprayberrv,  67  Tenn.   (8 

Baxt.)  341,  35' Am.  Rep.  705— 
pp.  3176,  3177.  3315,  3316.  3321. 

'•.  Stone,  pp.  729,  733,  750, 

822.    973,    984,    1392,    1393,    1406, 
3348,    3362. 

Townsend  "■. 

z:  Walley,    p.    482. 

Washburn    -•. 

Woodruff    f. 

Xashville,    etc.,     Railway,     American 
Lead    Pencil    Co.    z'. 

■ '■.   Blackmon,    p.     2862. 

z:   Casey,    p.    2282. 

z\   Flournoy,    p.    313. 

Grayson     County     Nat.      Bank 

V. 

z:  Hinds,    pp.    945,    948. 

-•.   Long     &      Son,      pp.      1087, 

1091. 

Meyere   -'. 

Moore   "•. 

f.   Moore,      pp.       2417,       2418, 

2419.    3020,    3022,    3023,    3028. 

Thompson    f. 

Nassau    Elect.    R.    Co.,    Brainad    f 

Charbonneau    '■. 

f.   Corliss,    p.     2747. 

Gordon    f. 

Ilassen    z\ 

Henderson    z'. 

King   V. 

Kohn    z\ 

McGlynn   v. 

■ McGrane    -•. 

Poulscn    z\ 

Robson    I'. 

Sheehan    z^. 

Snediker    t. 

Stanbridge    z'. 

Toylor    z\ 

Walsh    z: 

Nassau,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hanna   z\ 

Natchez,    The. 

Natchez,    etc..    R.    Co.,   Jackson    z: 

v.   Lambert,    pp.    1695,    1869. 

Snyder   z'. 

Stone    T. 

Nathan     z\      Louisiana,     pp.      3549, 
3581. 

z\   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

492. 

V.   Shivers,     p.     1169. 

Nation,    Atchison,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f 
Natioral    Bank   v.    -Atlanta,    etc..    R. 

Co.,   pp.   356,    378,    547,    559,    560, 
561,    588,   600,   601,   3274. 

V.   Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

329,   330,   360,   361,    363,   372,   380. 
393,    1221,    1222. 

f.  Burkhardt,    p.    245. 


National  Bank  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co  pp.  294,  305,  306,  308,  309. 
310,  313,  314,  337,  33S,  358,  373, 
516,    547. 

r.   Citizens'      Nat.      Bank,      pp. 

356,   365,   388. 

Cox,    etc..    Grocery    Co.    r. 

r.   Everett,    p.    385. 

z:   Merchants'    Nat.    Bank,    pp. 

355,    391,    3883. 

7'.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    559. 

:■.   Southern    R.    Co.,    p.    528^ 

National    Board    7\    Bovvring    &    Co.. 

p.    3939. 
National     City,     San     Diego     Land, 
etc.,    Co.    T'. 

The. 

National    City    Bank,    Hoffman    :\ 
National     Elevator,     etc.,     Co.,     Chi- 
cago,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V. 

z:  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

542. 

National    Exch.    Bank,    Dows   z\ 
National     Exp.     Co.,     Farnsworth    z\ 

Soumet   z'. 

Winchell  v. 

National    Life    Ass'n,    Wells    -'. 

National  Line  Steamship  Co.  '■. 
Smart,  pp.  889,  897,  899,  3160. 
3169,    3172,     3174,     3188. 

National  Live  Stock  Bank,  Lake- 
Shore,   etc.,    R.    Co.   T. 

National  Lumber  Dealers  Associa- 
tion V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line,  p. 
3630. 

National  Newark  Banking  Co.  -■. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  372, 
376,    377. 

National  Pole  Co.  "■.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    200    Fed.    185— p.    3841. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    211 

Fed.     65— pp.     3812,     3826,     3841. 

National  Pressed  Brick  Co.,  Green- 
ville   Lumber    Co.    »'. 

National  Rice  Mill  Co.  v.  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  R'.  Co.,  pp.  746,  747, 
825,   843. 

National     Steam     Nav.     Co.,     Tolano 

National     Steamship    Co.,    Constable- 

— ^   Dyer   z: 

Gibbin    z\ 

Lewisohn    v. 

Mills   '•. 

Robertson    ?■. 

V.   Tugman,     pp.      1194,      1199, 

1201. 

National    Tube    Works    Co.    t'.    T>al- 

timore,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    p.     68. 
Naugatuck   R.    Co.,    Elmore   v. 

Fuller   V. 

Hickox    V. 

■:■.   Waterbury    Button     Co.,     p. 

3254. 

Naumkeag    Steam    Cotton    Co.,    Bul- 

kley  V. 
Nave   V.    Pacific   Exp.    Co.,    pp.    819, 

821,   828. 
Navin,    Indianapolis   z'. 
•  V.   Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1109. 
Naylor    v.     Dennie,     pp.     381,     382, 

1229,     1232,     1242. 

Shepherd   t'. 

Naylor  &  Co.  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R. 
Co.,    p.    3789. 

N.    Castle,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Wilson    7'. 

Neal  z\  Pender-Hicyman  Hard- 
ware Co.,   pp.   642,   654,   669,   675. 

Rathbone. 

— —  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Saunderson,     pp.     728,     733, 

735,    750,   811. 

T.   Southern        Railway,  pp. 

1802,       2162,    2328,    2872. 

Neal   &  Co.   z'.   Wilmington,    etc.,    R'. 

Co.,    pp.    894,    901,    909,    911. 
Nealand    v.    Boston,    etc..    Railrrad 

pp.    3160,    3168,    3174,    3195. 


Neale    f.    Springfield    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2141. 
Neberzahl    -■.    Fargo,    p.    545. 
Nebraska,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
Nebraska     City     z:       Campbell,       p. 

3063. 
Nebraska    Meal    Mills    r.    St.    Lou:s. 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    557,    559. 
Nebraska    Tel.    Co.    z:     Cornell,     p. 

71. 
Nebraska    Transfer    Co.    v.    Chicago, 

etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.    717. 
Nebraska,    etc..    Grain    Co.    z\    First 

Nat.    Bank,    p.    399. 
Nederland,    The. 
Needham,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.   z: 
Needles,    Clarke   z\ 
Needy     z\     Western     Maryland     R. 

Co..    p.     1457. 
Neel,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 
Neely,    Caveny    z\ 
•  Norfolk,   etc.,   R.    Co.   z\ 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   I'. 

Neese,   Gerhard   -'. 

Neff  z:  Harrisburg  Tract.  Co.,  p. 
2396. 

International,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z\ 

Jacksonville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Neice    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1549. 
Neidlinger,       Indianapolis      Abattoir 

Co.  V. 
Neil,    McKinney    z\ 

Peck    z: 

•  State  z: 

Neill    z<.    Rogers    Bros.    Produce    Co., 

pp.     391,     573. 
Neilson    '■.    Coal,    etc..    Supply    Co., 

pp.    3907,    3909,    3928. 

z:  Jesup.    pp.     712,    713,     11.51. 

Neimann,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Neimeyer  Lumber  Co.  7'.  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  1208,  1209, 
1215. 

Neiswanger,    Kansas    City    Transfer 

Co.    7'. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    7'. 

Nellie   Floyd,   The. 

Nellis  7'.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
pp.    168,    1599,    1601,    2466. 

Nelson  7'.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
2263. 

■  Chicago    Exch.    Bldg.    Co.   v. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 

Neb.  57,  23  R.  R'.  R.  613,  46 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S„  613, 
110  N.  W.  741— pp.  285,  287, 
1304,  1307,  1332,  1448,  1458. 

7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

N.  W.  933,  130  Wis.  214— pp. 
1908,  2323,  2912,  2913. 

East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 

7'.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  pp. 

619,  745,  1036,  1113,  1404,  1436, 
1437,  1438,  1441,  1445,  1456, 
1465. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

V.   Helena,      pp.      2285,      2286. 

2288. 
■ Houston    Elect.    Co.    7'. 

z:  Hudson     River     R.     Co.,     p. 

994. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3208,    3225,     3226,    3228. 

V.   Lehigh     Valley     R.     Co.,     p. 

2893. 

7'.  Leland,    p.    4054. 

Little    Rock    Tract.,     etc.,     Co. 

, 7'.   Long     Island     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1542,    2444,    2449,    2493. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    7'. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1816,     1959,    2296. 

7'.    Stephenson,     pp.    753,     7:^7. 

■ Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

L^nion    Pac.    R.    Co.    7-. 

7-.   I'nion    R.    Co.,    p.    2737. 


-i.\i;i,i-:  01'  CASES. 


ccxu 


Nelson   V.    Woodruff,    Ked.    Cas.    No. 

10,    117— pp-    741,    765,    766. 
f.   Woodruff         (U.        S.),        I 

Black    156,    17     L.     Ed.     97— pp. 

336,    344,    1035,    3921. 
Nelson    Cotton   Co.,    Mason   v. 
Nelson    Grain    Co.    v.    Ann.    Arbor 

R.   Co.,   pp.    543,   557. 
Nenno    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3328,    3334. 
Neslie   V.    Second,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1767,    1805,    1831. 
Nestor,     Northern     Commercial     Co. 

V, 

Netherland    -•.    Charleston,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    165. 
Netherland     Steamship     Co.,     Laub- 

heim    v. 
Netherlands- .American     Steam     Nav. 

Co..    Korzil)   I'. 

Mohns    -■. 

Netherlands,    etc.,    Xav.    Co.,     I'.rus- 

witz    2\ 
Nettie    Quill.    The. 
Nettles    -'.    South    Carolina    R.    Co., 

pp.    607,    611,    636,    654,    660. 
Neuer   v.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2042,    2054,    2772. 
Newmann    f.    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co., 

p.    2802. 
Neustadt   r.    Lehigh    Valky    R.    Co., 

p.    3787. 
Nevada,    Crandall    v. 
Nevada       County,      etc.,       R.      Co., 

Hoyt   ■:: 
Nevill.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    r. 
Neville    f.     Pennsylvania,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    3943. 

f.  St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

2214. 

Nevin,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

pp.   3203,   3207,    3208,   3212,   3228. 

Nevins  r.  Bay  State  Steamboat  Co., 
pp.   3117,   3118,   3159,   3169,   3170. 

Nevius  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  p. 
1475. 

New  Albany  Box,  etc.,  Co.,  I'.alti- 
more.   etc.,   R.    Co.   ■:■. 

New  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell,  pp.    524,    773,   894. 

Fitzpatrick    r. 

Newark,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    McCann, 

p.   2167. 
New    Bedford,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Lucas 

V. 

Macy  r. 

New    Bedford,    etc..    Steamboat   Co., 

Simmons   v. 
Newberger  v.   Howard  &  Co's   Exp., 

p.    321. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Newberger    Cotton    Co.     v.     Illinois 

Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp.    1039,    1041. 
Newberger    &    Bro.,    Missouri    Pac. 

R.     Co.    V. 
Newberry,    Fitch    '■. 
New      Brunswick      Steamboat,      itc. 

r.    Tiers,    pp.    285,    728,    733,    734, 

735.    736,    739,    742,    745.    749. 
New    Brunswick,    etc.,    R.    Re. 
New     Brunswick,      etc..     Steamboat 

Co.,    King  f. 
New   Buffalo   r.    Iron    Co.,    p.    3484. 
Newburn,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Newburv  r.   Great  Northern   R.   Co.. 

p.   2820. 

V.   Seaboard    .-Vir    Line    R.    Co.. 

p.    3133. 

Newburyport,    etc.,    R.    Co..    Quested 

Newby   r.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 
1281. 

Southern    E.xp.   Co.   ;'. 

Newcomb  -•.    Boston,   etc.,   R.    Corp., 

p.    486. 

f.  New     York,     etc.,  R.     Co., 

169  Mo.  409,  69  S.  W.  348— pp. 

2113,  2251,  2729,  2741,  2874. 

1   Car — p 


Newcomb  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  81  S.  W.  1069,  182  Mo.  687 
—pp.  1698,  2361,  2382,  2729, 
2925,    2938,    2959,    2965. 

Newfligat,     Lane    v. 

Newell,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

'i'.  Nixon,    p.    589. 

V.   Smith,    pp.    855,    2089,   3294. 

New   England,   Porter  v. 

New     England    Briquette    Coal    Co., 

ICikrcm   '■. 
New    England    Exp.    Co.    f.    Maine 

Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp.    109,    220,    222. 

1135. 
New    ICngland    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Stann, 

p.    463. 
N\w    luigland    Nav.    Co.,    Ilirsch    v. 

New    luigland    Railroad,    Dixon  v. 
New   Iviland  R.  Co.,   Dixon  v. 
New    iCngland,    etc..    Steamship    Co., 
Jones  '•. 

v.   Paige,  pp.   1337,  1365,   1367, 

1390,  4023. 

New     Era    Milling     Co.,     Missouri, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Newhall     v.     Central     Pac.     R.     Co., 

pp.    551.    1221. 

Rhodes    f. 

Slieppard    f. 

r.   Vargas,      13       Me.      93,     29 

Am.  Dec.  489— pp.  1210,  1211, 
1215,  1216,  1218,  1219,  1229, 
1241,    1245,    1247. 

V.  Vargas,     15     Me.     314.     3' 

Am.    Dec.    617— p.    1165. 

— —  Western    Transp.    Co.    •»■. 
New    Hanover   Transit    Co.,   Hodges 

V. 

New   Haven    Rolling   Mill   Co.,    R'el- 

yea   7'. 
New    Haven    Steamboat    Co.,    Dunn 

V. 

Ely    V. 

Marcus  -'. 

Russell   Mfg.   Co.  f. 

New  Haven,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Campbell, 

pp.    1153,    1166. 

Gardner   v. 

State   v. 

T'.   State,    p.    1857. 

New    Haven,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Shepanl 


Smith   r. 

Newhouse    Mill,    etc.,    Chicago,    etc., 

R.    Co.   v. 
New  Jersey   Cent.   R.   Co.,   Harris  v. 
New    Jersey    R.    Co.    ■;•.    Kennard,    p. 

1829. 

V.   Palmer,    p.    3074. 

New  Jersey   R.,    etc.,    Co.,   Kennard 

V. 

V.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

-"2     240,    1029,    3283,    3284. 

;■.   Pollard,      pp.      1733,       2673. 

■  Ripley    r. 

New    Jersey    Steamboat    Co.,    .\dams 

— —  Ball    -: 

Brand   r. 

f.   Brockctt,    pp. 

2039,       2043,     2045, 
2123,    2124.    3023. 

Caldwell    f. 

Cleveland    v. 

Horn    V. 

McEntee   v. 

Macklin    v. 

Miller     i: 

Ontario    Bank    f. 

Swartliout    i'. 

Way    f. 

Withers    f. 

Zinn    V. 

New   Jersey   Steam    Nav.    Co.,    Dorr 

-1^  Hale   ;•. 


New  Jersey  Nav.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  pp.  208,  210,  213, 
485,  726,  731,  739,  740,  930, 
945,  947,  953,  958,  960,  961,  964, 
980,  1003,  1004,  1006,  1007, 
1035,  1037,  1153,  3906,  3917, 
3919,    3937,    4024,    4025. 

New  Jersey  Steamship  Co.,  Clevc- 
lancf  7'. 

New  Jersey  Tract.  Co.  v.  Dam- 
bech,    p.    2524. 

f.   (Gardner,    58    N.    J.    L.    176, 

31    Atl.    893— p.    1684. 

V.  Gardner,     38    Atl.    669,    60 

N.    J.    L.    571— p.    2249. 

New  Jersey,  etc..  Ferry  Co.,  Dug- 
gan  T. 

Edwards   i-. 

New    Jersey,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Stevens 

N'ewlin,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R*.    Co.    v. 

V.  Iowa  Cent.  R.  Co.,  p.  2315. 

New   London,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Crocker 

V. 

Newman  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.     1812,    2808. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

2320,  2322,  2860. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  New    York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2062,    2063. 

Northern   Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

San    .\ntonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Newman   &   Co.   r.    Smoker,   p.   995. 
Newman    &    Son,    Lovell    v. 
Newmark   i:    New     York,     etc.,     R- 

Co.,    p.    1666. 
Xcwmeyer,     Pennsylvania    Co.    f. 
Newmiller,     Chicago     Union     Tract. 

Co.   r. 
New   Orleans,    Cannon   z\ 

V.  Eclipse     Tow-Boat     Co.,     p. 

3585. 

Moran   z'. 

The. 

New    Orleans    Anchor    Line,    Prick- 

ett  V. 
New    Orleans   City   R.    Co.,    Wardle 

New  Orleans  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  z:  New 
Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  958, 
1007.    1037. 

New     Orleans   R.     Co.,   Chretien     z: 

New  Orleans  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  -Alex- 
ander  z\ 

■  Bommarius    z\ 

Casper    f. 

Englert    z: 

Grant    f. 

McGinn    ;■. 

McMahon    v. 

Perkins    f. 

Pitard    v. 

Trenchard    f. 

New     Orleans     Transfer      Co.,     Da 

Ponte   ?•. 
New    Orleans,    etc.,    Co.,    Leberman 


201 5r     2034, 
2053,     2122, 


New    Orleans,    etc. 

neider  z\ 
New    Orleans,    etc. 

britton,   p.   2697. 

Bates   v. 

Bemiss  z: 

Boikens   f. 

'.   Burke,    pp. 

Byrd   f. 

Carter    r. 

Chapman    z: 
Conway  z: 
Corso    z: 
Damont   r. 
lie   Lucas  f. 
Dobson    f. 
z\  Faler,    p 
Flash,    etc., 
Gardner  z: 
:•.   George 

706,     707 


Railroad, 
R.    Co.    r 

2020.    3072. 


Sch- 

a:i- 


705. 


787. 
Co.    z: 

c     Co..     pp. 
708.    715. 


700. 


Gilly    f. 
Gonthier  z: 


CCXLII 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


1868,       2568, 


pp.      2015. 
2050,     2051, 


2016, 
2052, 


ill6, 


New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Grctz- 
ner   v. 

Harrison   v. 

f.  Harrison,   p.    2526. 

Hart   -•. 

Higgins  V. 

Hill   z: 

Holzab    V. 

Houze    z: 

Howze    T'. 

z:   Hurst,      pp. 

3058,   3062. 

In    re. 

z'.   Topes, 

2034,  "  2045, 

2053.    2054,    2417,    2418. 

Kird   z: 

Laffitte    z: 

Latta   z: 

Lee    z: 

Lott   z: 

Malinke    z\ 

Maigman    z\ 

z:   Moore,      pp.       3115, 

3151,    3186. 

National    Rice    Mill    Co.    v. 

New    Orleans    Mut.    Ins.    Co. 

Peters   v. 

Randall   v. 

Reems    v. 

Rutledge  -•. 

Santhur    ?•. 

V.   Schneider,    pp.     1818,     1829, 

2894. 

V.   Shackelford,         pp.         3121, 

3149. 

Shamblin   v. 

Simms    &    Sons    v. 

Smith    J'. 

Smith    Bros.    &,   Co.    v. 

z:   Statham,      pp.     1495,      1496, 

1899,     1910.    1911,    1914,     1972. 

Stone    c'. 

z:  Thomas,    pp.    2214,    2215. 

Thompson    '■. 

Threefoot    '•. 

v.  Tyson,    p.    598. 

—  Weber    -■. 

Weeks   v. 

Wilson    z\ 

Newport    Dock   Company   v.    Wilson, 

p.    645. 
Newport     News,     etc.,     Co.,     Hern- 

shcim   V. 

V.   McDonald    Brick    Co.'s    As- 
signee,  pp.   439,   473. 

r.  Thomas,    p.    3078. 

z:   United    States,    p.    3626. 

Newport    News,    etc.,    Elect.    Co.    v. 

McCormick,       pp.        2249,        2264, 
2357. 
Newport    News,     etc.,      R.      Co.     v. 
Mendell,   p.   3407. 

z:   Mercer,    pp.    210,    242,    446, 

450,   467,   650,    1321,    1351. 

V.  Nixon,    p.    485. 

— —  V.  Reed,    pp.    420,    621. 
Newport,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    Elliott    v. 
New   Quay    Co.,    Sheridan   v. 
New     Ruperra      Steamship     Co.     v. 

2,000     Tons     of     Coal,     pp.     3955, 

3960,    3969. 
Newsom    ''.      Thornton,      pp.      1216, 

1221. 
Newsome,   Georgia  R.   Co.   v. 
Newstadt  z'.   Adams,   p.    1036. 
Newton,   Berley  v. 

V.   Central     Vermont     R.     Co., 

pp.    2353,    2354,    2890. 

Fisk  z: 

Freeman   v. 

Grant   z\ 

Pearce  v. 

V.  People's    R.    Co.,    p.    2587. 

Seymour    v. 

Van   Etten  v. 

Newton    St.    R.   Co.,    Morse  v. 

Nolan   f. 

Newton,    etc.,    Co.,    Wabash    R.    Co. 


Newton,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Partelow 

Quinlan     '•. 

New    World,    Fav    v. 

The. 

New    York,    Barrett   f. 

z:  Broadway,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 


27. 


New 


Budd   z\ 
Duryee   v. 
Henderson  r. 
Langin    z'. 
Miln,    p.    3427. 
New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 
Philadelphia     Fire     Ass'n     ?•. 
v.   Roberts,    pp.     3471,     3555. 
z:   Starin,    p.    768. 
The. 
Weill    V. 
Workman 
York    Cent. 


&    H.    Iv.    Co. 


Deer    Creek    Lumber    Co.,    p.    421. 
New    York    Cent.    R.    Co.,    .'Mdcn    v. 

Avery  ?'. 

■ Barker    z'. 

Bills    z: 

Bissell    z'. 

Bowen    z\ 

Briggs    7'. 

■ Brown   ?■. 

Buel    z: 

Burnell    z\ 

■ — ■ —   Chase    ?'. 

Coffin    V. 

Cragin   v. 

■ Denny    ''. 

Deyo    V. 

Dickens    v. 

Downs   z'. 

■ Dunson   z\ 

Filer    z'. 

■ ■  Glasco    ''. 

Grosvenor    z'. 

Hamilton   z\ 

Hempstead   v. 

Holden    v. 

■ Hulbert   v. 

Irwin    z'. 

Jackson    &    Son    v. 

Johnson    v. 

Keith    V. 

• Kessler   v. 

— — •  Lewis    V. 

7'.   Lockwood,      pp.      790.      7^i, 

945,  947,  948,  1567,  1711,  1714. 

• Long   V. 

Mclntyre    v. 

■ McPadden   v. 

Marshall     v. 

Matteson   z\ 

■ Mattison    z'. 

Michaels   7'. 

Murphy    '■. 

Nellis    z: 

Odell    V. 

Page   z'. 

Pemberton    Co.    v. 

People   7'. 

Perkins    7'. 

■ Porter   7'. 

Reed   z'. 

Smith    V. 

Sprague    v. 

Squire    7'. 

Thyll    V. 

Ward  v. 

Wells  V. 

New   York   Cent.,    etc.,   Co.,    Root    7'. 
New     York     Cent.,     etc.,      R.      Co., 
Abbey 


Acheson    z'. 
New     York     Cent 
Bank,    p.    553. 

Brassell    7'. 

7'.   Eby,     pp. 

Fisher   v. 

Frey  z'. 

Glidden    z'. 

Hinckley     z'. 

Jackson    & 

• Jones   V. 


etc.,     R.     Co. 


822,    867. 


Son 


New   York  Cent..,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   Rin- 
toul    7'. 

Robinson    z'. 

Sinsheimer    z'. 

Wells   V. 

Winchell   v. 

Wolford    T. 

New    York    City    R.    Co.,    -Adams   v. 

Baron    z'. 

Baumstein    7'. 

Bull     7'. 

Butler   7'. 

Depew    7'. 

Dubnow    7'. 

Ellis    7'. 

Field    7'. 

Fisher    z'. 

Freeman    v. 

Gomez    V. 

Graham    v. 

Gregorio    z'. 

■  Harker    7'. 

Johnston    7'. 

"Kelly    7'. 

■ Ketchuni    7'. 

Koch   7'. 

Law    7'. 

Levy    7'. 

Lomas   7'. 

Ludinsky    7\ 

Mc.\rthur    7'. 

McGowan    7'. 

Mullane    7'. 

Schwartz    7'. 

Senior    7'. 

Sheppard    v. 

Silber    7'. 

• Tauger    <■. 

Wagner    7'. 

■  Wasserman    z'. 

Weiller    7'. 

Wells    7'. 

New     York     Elev.     R.     Co.,     McMa- 

hon   z'. 
New    York    Ins.    Co.,    Griswold    7". 
New     York     Mail       Steamship     Co., 

Spaids   V. 
New    York    Millinery,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

Hamburg,     etc.,     Gesellschaft,     p. 

344. 
New    York    R.    Co.,    Green    7'. 
New  York   Sleeping  Car    Co.,    Lewis 

V. 

New   York   Steam   Co.,   Franc's  7'. 
New    York    Transfer    Co.,    Atkinson 

V. 

New    York    Union    Ins.,    Co.,    Ames 

V. 

New  York  &   E.   K.   Co.,   Harmon   7'. 
New   York,   etc..    Bridge,   McAlan   v. 

Rogers  7'. 

New    York,    etc.,    Co.,    Hamil    7'. 

Robinson    7'. 

V.  Weiss,    pp.    292,     296,     600. 

New    York,    etc.,    Exp.    Co.,    Easter 


Goods   Co., 
,     Nav.     Co. 


Grab- 
In    re. 


Gil- 


Railroad,       De 


New    York,    etc.,    Ferry    Co. 

bier   z'. 
New    York,    etc. 
New    York,     etc., 

hooly   V. 

•  7'.   Lamar  7'. 

New      York,      etc 

Rochemont    v. 

Johnson    7'. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Abbey    v 

Agulino   V. 

Allbrecht    v. 

Alden    7'. 

Archer    7'. 

Auerback  v. 

.Avery   z'. 

Baker    v. 

Baker    &    Co.    7'. 

Baldwin    7'. 

v.   Ball,     pp. 

1957,    2212. 

Bank    v. 

Barnes    v. 

Bartholomew 

Bartle   v. 


211,     1712,     1953. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXLIII 


New    York,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     ISatavia  i  Xew 
Bank  V. 

Baum    7'. 

Baumann   v. 

Baxter   v. 

Beardsley    v. 

Bellman    v. 

Bennett    ?•. 

f.    Bennett,     pp.      1632,     2462, 

2481,    3319. 

Bisscll    v. 

Black    ?'. 

■   Blackstock    "•. 

•  -'.    Blumenthal,  pp.  1567, 

17SS,    1757,     1827,    2673. 

V.   Board,     74     N.     J.     h.     367, 

65    Atl.    860— p.    3474. 

V.   Board,  76   X.  J.   L.   664,   74 

Atl.    954,    16    Am.    &    Eng.    Ann. 
Cas.   858— p.    3474. 

V.   Board,    227    U.    S.    248,    33 

S.    Ct.   209— p.    3501. 

Boetgen   v. 

?•.   Bork,   p.    112. 

Brassell   f. 

Breen    v. 

Brewer  v. 

Brewster    v. 

Bromley    v. 

Brooke    i\ 

Brooks   f. 

Brown    v. 

Bucher  r. 

Buckland   r. 

Buckley  t'. 

Burgevin    v. 

Burkett    V. 

z:   Burns,      pp.       1582,       1585, 

1954. 

Burritt   Co.   v. 

Burton    v. 

V.   Callahan,     pp.     2584,     2604, 

2605,   2645. 

Candee   -•. 

Carleton    v. 

Carpenter    v. 

Carrizzo    v. 

Casey    f. 

Cashman   v. 

Cass  r. 

Cassasa    r. 

Charles   Schlesinger   &    Sons   ;■. 

Chave  i: 

Clark  V. 

Clement  v. 

Cody   V. 

Cohen   v. 

Coleman    ■:■. 

— —  Comcrford    '•. 

Commonwealth     "'. 

i'.   Commonwealtii,        p.      3498. 

Conklin    v. 


813, 


Connell    t. 

Connolly    v. 

7:  Cooper,   p.   2009. 

Copson   V. 

Corcoran    v. 

Cormack    r. 

Cote   f. 

Crocker   '•. 

Crommelin    -■. 

Cromwell,    pp.    219. 

Crossan    -■. 

j\   Daughtrtv, 

1982,     2695. 

Davis    >•. 

Denny    r. 

r.   Difendaffer 

Dininny   f. 

f.   Doane,      pp.       1755,       1772. 

1873,    1913. 

Downs   -'. 

Dunne    f. 

Dwindle   v. 

■   Dwyer   ■;■. 

Edgerton    7: 

Elliott     f. 

Enches  r. 

V.   Enches,     pp.     2248,     2377. 

Estill    '■. 

Estill,     pp 


.    785. 
1721. 


2104. 


Co.    r. 
167,    lo8. 


Co.,      pp. 


York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Fairfax 
Falk    r. 

—  Fanizzi    v. 

—  Farnsworth    i'. 

—  v.   Feely,    pp.     1593,     1635. 

—  First    Nat.    Bank    v. 

—  Fitzmaurice    v. 

—  Flanagan    v. 

—  V.    F'lynn,    p.    2645. 

—  FralofF  v. 

—  V.   Fraloff,    p.    1073. 

—  Frazier   v. 

—  Freedon    -'. 

—  -■.    F'remont,    etc.,    R. 

—  V.   Gallahcr,    pp.    91, 
173,^  176. 

—  Gannon   z'. 

—  Gardiner    v. 

—  Garvan   v. 

—  Gass   V. 

—  T'.   General      Elect. 
3608,   3732,    3742. 

—  Geogagn    v. 

—  Godfrey   v. 

—  Goldberg    v. 

—  Gonzales    v. 

—  Gorman   v. 

—  Gould  V. 

—  Grieve  v. 

—  Griswold    v. 

—  Grzywacz  v. 

—  Guy   V. 

—  Hancock    v. 

—  V.   Ilarbcr,    p.    2113. 

—  Harding    v. 

—  V.   Haring,     pp.     2412,     2413. 
— •  Harty    v. 

—  Hasbrouck   v. 

—  Hastings    v. 

—  Hauk    V. 

—  Hays   V. 

—  Herdman    t'. 

—  Hibt)ard  v. 

—  Hinkley   i'. 

—  Hodgdon  v. 

—  Hoflfard  v. 

—  Hoffman    v. 

—  Hood   V. 

—  Howland    v. 

—  Hoyt   V. 

—  Huerstel    v. 

—  Hughes   V. 

—  Hunt   T'. 

— ■  ;•.  Interstate  Commerce  Com 
mission,  168  Fed.  131 — pp.  3672 
3673,    3709,    3710,    3777. 

—  V.  Interstate  Commerce  Com 
mission,  200  U.  S.  361,  50  L 
Ed.  515,  26  S.  Ct.  272— pp 
3601,      3602,     3604,      3605,      3606 

3685,  3686,  3698 
3753,  3754,  3758 
3786,     3818,     3821 


662,    848, 
SS5,   875,    1349,    1353,    1356, 


854. 
1463. 


3631,  3684, 
3707,  3750, 
3759,     3765, 

-  lonnone 

Isaacson   z: 

Jewell    V. 

Johnson    t'. 

Jordan    -•. 

Keating    v. 

Kelly    V. 

-  Kemp  -■. 
— •   Kenncy    f. 

Kessler    v. 

'■.    Kctchum, 

Killmer    f. 

Knieriem   v. 

-  Koehne   v. 

Kohne    -•. 

Kunzniann    - 

- —   Kurzmann    *■ 
— ■   Langdon    v. 

Langworthy 

Lansing    f. 

Lawrence    "•. 

Leach   f. 

Leech    -'. 

Legge    :■. 

Lcmont   f. 

Lent    V. 

Levins    T'. 

L,indenbaum 

Livingston    v 


Xew    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lock- 
wood,    pp.    1694,   2045. 

Lustig    V. 

Lyons  t. 

McCarty   f. 

— —  McCullen    V. 

McKeon    I'. 

McPadden    v. 

Magee    v. 

Manson  f. 

Maples    v. 

Martin   v. 

Matteson   v. 

■ — —   Mawitz    z'. 

Mears    v. 

Mechanics'     Bank    ?•. 

V.  Medbury    v. 

Merritt    i*. 

Michie    f. 

Mieuli   f. 

-•.   Miller,    88    N.    Y.    S.    373, 

94    App.    Div.    587— p.    3563. 

!■.   Miller,  26  S.  Ct.  714,  ^02  U. 

S.    584.   50   L.    Ed.    1155— p.   3555. 

Millett    V. 

Milliman   v. 

Milnor    -■. 

Mitchell    V. 

Molloy    z\ 

Mondou   z\ 

v.   Moore    z>. 

Morris    r. 

Mulligan    v. 

Murphy    -•. 

T'.  Mushrush,    pp.    2507,    2509, 

2543,    2729. 

Xewcomb   '•. 

Newman   v. 

Newmark  z'. 

V.  New    York,    pp.    1946,    3481, 

3503,    3513. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    3657,   3658,   3660,   3777,   3792. 

Nicholas    v. 

Nolan   z\ 

Norfolk    Hardwood    Co.    z\ 

O'Brien    v. 

Odell     V. 

O'Gorman  v. 

Olds  z: 

O'Neil    v. 

O'Neill  z: 

Parsons  v. 

Paulitsch   z\ 

Peck    z: 

Peerless    Mfg.    Co.    i'. 

Pemberton    Co.    z\ 

V.   Pennsylvania,       pp.        3549. 

3551,     3552,       3553,     3559,      3560, 
3571,    3572,    3573,    3592. 

People    Z-. 

v.  People,    p.    255. 

Perley   z: 

Piper   f. 

Porter    v. 

Potts   z: 

Poucher   '■. 

Rathbone  f. 

Reed  ; . 

z:   Reilley,     p.     2084. 

—  Reimcr  f. 

Renaud   -■. 

Reynolds    -•. 

Rich   V. 

Richardson  r. 

Robastelli    i'. 

V.  Robbins,     p 

Roberts   v. 

Robertson   f. 

Robinson    f. 

— —  Rowland    f. 
Saltsman    ;■. 

Sayles    z\ 

V.  Sayles,    pp. 

Schiff  V. 

Schreiner   Z'. 

f.   Scovill,    p.    99. 

Scully    f. 

v.   Seiberling    &    Co.,    pp. 

704.    707. 

Sessions    -'. 

Sevbolt    z\ 


2605. 


964,     1007. 


CCXLIV 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


New  York.   etc..  R.  Co.,   Sheldon  f. 

Simpson   -'. 

Smith   V. 

Squire    f.  .     ,.  , 

f.   Standard   Oil   Co.    (N.    \.). 

20    Hun     39— p.     436. 

f.  Standard    Oil     Co.,    87     N. 

Y.    486— p.    530. 

State    V. 

Stowe    V. 

Straiten    ■:•. 

Strough    f. 

Tanner     v. 

Taylor   v. 

Thorp  f. 

Thorpe    v. 

Thyll   i: 

Tierney   v. 

Townsend  v. 

Tracy    ?. 

Trieber   r. 

Trimble    r. 

Tweedie    Trading    Co.    v. 

. Ulrich    z: 

United    States    z: 

:.   United      States,      165      Fed. 

833,  91  C.  C.  A.  519— pp.  3622, 
3629.  ^    , 

r.  United      States,      203      Fed. 

953_pp.    3620,    3625,    3626. 

z:  United     States.     212     U.     S. 

481,  53  L.  Ed.  613,  29  S.  Ct. 
304— pp.  3603.  3604.  3684.  3701, 
3843,    3846,    3847,    3849,    3852. 

r.  United    States,    212    U.     S. 

500,  53  L.  Ed.  624,  29  S.  Ct. 
309— pp.  3604,  3664,  3665,  3701. 
3705.     3754,     3849. 

\'an   Ostran   v. 

\'aughn    V. 

T'.   X'ict,    p.    1586. 

\'rcden burgh    v. 

Ward   f. 

• Waterbury   v. 

Watkins   ■;•. 

Watson  V. 

Weeks    f. 

Weinschenk    '■. 

West    v. 

Weston    I'. 

Whitney   v. 

Wibert   v. 

Wickwire  Steel   Co.  f. 

7-.   Williams,     199     N.     Y.     108, 

92   N.   E.   404— p.   3507. 

V.   Williams,      120     N.     Y.      S. 

1137,  136  App.  Div.  904— p.  3507. 

V.  Williams,     118     N.     Y.     S. 

785,    64    Misc.    Rep.    15— p.    3507 


New    York,   etc.,    Transp.    Co.,    Hart- 
lett    i: 

United    I'ruit    Co.    -'. 

New     York.     etc..     Transp.     Line     f. 

Raer   &   Co..   pp.   840,    3388,   3396. 

3405.    3415. 
Ney,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   "'. 
Neyman    v.    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    1572. 
Niagara    v.    Cordes,     pp.     302,     332. 

333,     724,     726,     7i2,     748.     752, 

768.     1142. 

The. 

Nicaragua.     Defrier    v. 

Tho.^ 

Niceto,    The. 
Nichol,    Jackson    ?•. 

Nicholai,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


Nicholas  z\  New   York.  etc. 

,  R.   Co., 

p.    896. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co. 

Nichols     I'.     Camden     Intei 

?tate     R. 

Co.,    p.    3038. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,     90 

Mich.     203,    51     N.    W. 

361,     52 

Am.     &     Eng.     R.     Cas. 

304— pp. 

1788.    1886,    1906,    1909. 

r.   Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,     94 

Iowa     202,     62     N.     W. 

7r,9 — p. 

Willing, 
2533. 

-  Wing   V. 

- —  Winship    ''. 

'i'.  Winter, 

1614,      1622, 
2409,    2487. 

Wood   -•. 

f.   Woods, 


pp. 


pp. 
1977, 


2454,      2474, 


1529, 
2054, 


1608, 
2408, 


Co., 

pp. 

Co. 

pp. 

Co., 

pp. 

274 

277 

P- 

1616 

Co 

,      P 

R. 

Co. 

Pac.    R 

etc. 


1917. 
Co., 


r.  York 

3756. 

Young  ?•. 

Zimmer    t'. 

New    York,    etc..    Salt    Co. 


pj).    3753, 


Hunter 


New   York,   etc..    Steamship   Co.,    El- 
kins  &  Co.  '■. 


Evans    V. 
Gillum    V. 
Hyde  v. 
V.  Island 


City     Boating,     etc., 


Ass'n,    p.    812. 

-  Judd  :-. 

Lincoln    v. 

Ralli  r. 

Robinson    v. 

Savage    v. 

L'nion    Steamship    Co.    v. 

Viner   z\ 

Waltham    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

V.  Weiss,   pp.   410.   862, 

v.   Wright,    pp.    3348,    Z2G7 . 


1432.  _ 

Driscoll   V. 

V.   Dubuque,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1782,    2249,    2729,    2750. 

V.    i.ddy,     p.     1257. 

Fitchburg    R'.     Co.     ■;•. 

V.   Lifeware,    p.    382. 

t'.   Lynn,      etc.,      R. 

2745,    2908. 

z\  Oregon,     etc.,     R. 

441,    448.    449. 

V.   Sixth      Ave.      R. 

1880,    2357,    2803. 
'■.    Smith,   pp.    6,    272, 

841,    918. 

V.   Southern    Pac.   Co., 

Southern    R.    Co.    "'. 

v.   bnion      Pac.      R. 

2480. 

V.  Washington,     etc., 

pp.    1775,    1776. 

Nichols,    etc.,    Co.,    Kansas 

Co.    -■. 
Nichols,   etc..   Lumber  Co.  -'.   Uniti  d 

States,      pp.      3700,      3844,      3851. 

3855. 
Nicholson    z\    P>rookIvn    Heights    R. 

Co..    pp.    2450.    2458.    2462. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Lancashire    &    Y.    Ry.    Co., 

pp.    1780,   1790. 

Missouri     Pac.     R'.     Co.     v. 

Moakes    t. 

V.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

782.    1021. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Nickerson.     Hamilton    "'. 

Nickev    -•.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

-.    574. 
Nickles   v.    Seaboard    Air    Line   Ra'l- 

way.    pp.     2097.    2722. 
Nickless,   Ohio,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

Ohio.   etc..   R.   Co.   V. 

Nicolette     Lumber    Co.     v.     People's 

Coal    Co..    pp.    714.    715,    1160. 
Nicoll    V.    East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R, 

Co.,    pp.    1430,    1436.    1437. 
Nieboer    v.    Detroit    Elect.    Railway, 

p.    2125. 
Niedzinski   %!.    Bay   City   Tract.,    etc., 

Co.,    pp.    2980.    2898. 
Niemann,   Russell  v. 
Xies    V.     Brooklvn    Heights    R.    Co  , 

pp.     2637,     2893. 
Nightingale    7'.    Union    Colliery    Co., 

D.     1 567. 
Niland  '■.    Boston    Elcv.   R.   Co..   208 

Mass.     476,     94    N.     E.     703— pp. 

2006,  2007. 
r.   Boston  Kiev.  R.  Co.,  100 

N.     E.     554,     213     Mass.     522— p. 

2898. 


Niles   r.    Culver,    pp.    333,    335,    412. 
Nilson    V.    Oakland    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

1515,      1720,      1880,      2306,      2596, 

2657. 
948   Pieces  of  Lumber.   In   re. 
Nines  '•.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3343. 
Ninetta.    Knox    ■:•. 
Ninfa,    The. 
Ninth    Ave.    R.    Co.,    Hill    v. 

Mettlestadt     v. 

Niolon,    Smyrl   v. 

Nirk    V.    Jersey    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1957,    1994,    2172,    2957. 
Nith,    The. 
Nitro-Glycerine    Case,    pp.    236,    238. 

The. 

Nittany,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Bald  Eagle, 
etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

Niver  Coal  Co.  v.  Cheronea  Steam- 
ship  Co.,    pp.    3955,    3960,    3969. 

Nix,    Fordyce   t'. 

South    Carolina    R.    Co.    v. 

Nixon,    Newell    -'. 

Newport     News,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Nobel's    Explosives    Co.    v.    Jenkins, 

p.    3874. 
Noble  z\    Adams,    p.    1241. 

'■.   Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

198,      1857,       1858,      1862,      2454, 
2651. 

Chicago  &  A.   R.   Co.  r. 

Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.   Mitchell,    p.    3570. 

Robinson    z\ 

V.   St.     Joseph,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    1817,    1833,    2114,    2175.    2743. 

Nocita   z>.    Omaha,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1995,    2332. 
Nock,     Adams    Exp.     Co.    v. 
Noelke,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Noell,     Baltimore,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 
Nolan,     Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

?'.   Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1953.    2174. 

•  Louisville,    etc.,  Ferry    Co.    v. 

•  Memphis,    etc.,  R.     Co.    z\ 

t'.  Newton     St.  R.     Co.,     pp. 

1992,    2759,    2797. 

"'.   New     York,  etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2451. 

z'.  Ohio,      etc.,  R.      Co.,      pp. 

3189,    3190. 

Pullman      Southern      Car      Co. 

Nolte,    Bernadon    v. 

Nolton    z'.    Western    R'.     Corp.,     pp. 

1564,  1578,  1759. 
Nonotuck    Silk    Co.    z\    Adams    Exp. 

Co.,    256    111.    66,    99   N.    E.    893— 

pp.    477.    993,    1053. 

?'.   Adams    Exp.    Co.,    256    III. 

76,    99    N.    E.    897— pp.    477,    993. 

V.   Adams    Exp.     Co.,     166    111. 

App.    519— pp.   821,    1053. 

z'.   .\dams    Exp.    Co.,    166    111. 

App.    525— p.    1053. 

Nonpariel,    The. 

Noonan    z\    Wells-Fargo    &    Co.,    pp. 

983,     1064. 
Norddeutscher   Lloyd,   Hohl   t'. 

7'.   Insurance     Co.,     pp.     3908, 

4063. 

Nordemeyer   v.    Loescher,    pp.    3114. 

3168. 
Norfolk,     Ilingham,     etc..     Turnpike 

Corp.  V. 
Norfolk     Hardwood      Co.      z'.      New 

York,   etc.,   R.    Co..    p.    1243. 
Norfolk    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Northington 

Norfolk  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Barnes,    pp.    484.    1163. 

Norfolk- Virginia  Peanut  Co..  Pe- 
tersburg,   etc..    Steamboat    Line   v. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    Co..    Foreman    v. 

Norfolk,    etc..    Railroad,    Snipes    v. 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  .\dams, 
pp.    700,    701,    702,    704.    717. 


TAI'.I.r.    <il"     CASKS. 


CCXLV 


Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Anderson, 
pp.    1629,    2445,    3091,    3101. 

Rasnight   r. 

;■.    IJirchficl.!.     pp.     2016,     2962. 

Bragg    I'. 

V.   Hranu-,       pp.       2042,      20^2, 

2054,    2482,    2483,    2484,    2485. 

V.  Burge,    p.    2116. 

V.   Commonwealth,       114       Pa. 

256,    6    Atl.    45— p.    3574. 

V.   Commonwealth,       103       \'a. 

289,  49  S.  K.  39— pp.  42,  45, 
125. 

Crcdle    r. 

f.   Crull,    pp.    485,    1440,    3417. 

Doming  v. 

V.   Dixie       Tobacco       Co.,       p 

3445. 

Kcklcs    i: 

Everett   v. 

Farley  v. 

f.   Ferguson,     pp.     1985,     216/, 

2210,  2756. 

V.   Galliher,   pp.   211,   1492, 

1501,  1510,  1517,  1561,  2059. 

Graves   v. 

t-.   Groseclose,    pp.     1561,    1562, 

1881,    2723. 

Hall    V. 

r.   Ilarman,     91      Va.     601,     22 

S  K  490,  44  L.  R.  A.  289,  50 
Am.  St.  Rep.  855— pp.  287,  949, 
1280,    3290. 

V.  Harman,    104    \'a.    501.    52 

S.   E.  368— pp.  327,  328,   1065. 

Houston    Coal,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Hurley    &    Son   v. 

i'.   Irvine,     84     \'a.     553,     .t     b. 

E.    532- p.    3111.  „ 

V.   Irvine,     85     Va.     21/,     /     S. 

E.  233,  1  L.  R.  A.  110— pp. 
3011,    3111,    3196. 

Knowles  v. 

V.   Langdon,    pp.    319,    327. 

Lewark   z'. 

V.  Lipscomb,     pp.     1673,     3054. 

3060. 

Liquid    Carbonic    Co.    v. 

Lovings   '<■. 

McConnell    v. 

McDade   r. 

V.   Marshall,    p.    1680. 

V.  Neely,       pp.       3030,       3079, 

3080,    3084,    3100. 

Norton    Board   t'. 

V.   Old        Dominion        Baggage 

Co.,    p.    102. 

V.  Pendleton,    156    U.    S.    667, 

673,  39  L.  Ed.  574,  15  S.  Ct. 
413— pp.  34,  63,  64,  65. 

r.   Pendleton,  86  Va.  1004,  11 

S.  E.  1062— pp.  35,  62,  168. 

T'.  Pennsylvania,   pp.   3430, 

3434,  3471,  3472,  3473,  3550. 
3569,  3574. 

f.  Pinnacle  Coal  Co.,  p.  71. 

V.   Potter,  pp.  521,  658. 

V.   Prinnell,  pp.  2354,  1865. 

1884. 

V.   Read,  pp.  797,  3300. 

z:   Reeves,  pp.  750.  822,  1088. 

1094,  1395,  1417,  2627,  3338, 
3368. 

V.   Rhodes,   pp.   1683, 

1984,     2587,      2666,      2694, 
2798. 

V.   Shipper's       Compress 

pp.    440,    632,    637. 

V.   Shott,    p.    1575. 

I'.   Sims,    pp.    3539,    3570 

Smith     T'. 

Spencc    i\ 

V.   Stevens,    p.     1816. 

I'.    Stone,       pp.       3014. 

3050. 

Story    V. 

V.   Stuarts'     Draft     Mill.     Co., 

pp.   897,   901,   905. 

V.  Sutherland.    89    Va.    703,    17 

S.    E.    127— p.    3290. 


Norfolk,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Suther- 
land, 105  Va.  545,  54  S.  E.  465 
—pp.    455,    1284,    1442,    3389. 

I'.  Tanner,      pp.      1566,      1722, 

2095,    2096. 

Thackcr   Coal,    etc.,   Co.   J'. 

Tiilett    i: 

United  States  v. 

f.    United     States,     101     C.     C. 

A.    249,    177    Fed.    623— p.   3454. 

V.   United      States,      195      Fed. 

953— pp.    3680,    3777,    3798. 

Wall    r. 

White    V. 

— . —  V.   Wilkinson,     pp.     655,     661, 

(.78.    690.    691,    3393. 

■  V.  Williams,     pp.     1717,     1718. 

V.  Wood,    p.    2502. 

V.  Wysor,    pp.    191,    194,    195, 

196,     198,     1627,     2442. 

.\orfolk,    etc.,    Railway,    Cincinnati, 
Co.    V. 
Steamboat    Co.,    Rag- 


etc.    Tract. 
Norfolk,    etc., 

land    V. 
Norfolk,      etc 


1719. 
2777, 


Co. 


3016, 


Terminal      Co.      v. 
Morris,   pp.   1518,   1902. 

f.   Rotolo,    179    Fed.    639,    103 

C.   C.   A.    197— p.   2654. 

V.  Rotolo,    112    C.    C.    A.    583, 

191    Fed.  4— pp.  2115,  2156,  2320, 
2587,    2858. 

V.  Rotolo,    115    C.    C.    A.    183, 

195     Fed.     231— pp.     2115,     2160, 
2295. 

Norfolk,    etc..    Tract.    Co.,    .\damson 

V. 

Fanshaw    r. 

r.   Miller,    p.    2627. 

V.   Rephan,    p.    2587. 

Thompson    v. 

Norman    v.     East    Carolina    R.    Co., 

pp.    2458,    2459. 

Kerr    v. 

V.   Southern   R.    Co.,    pp.    1631, 

2852. 

•  Weir    z: 

Norman    Prince,    The. 

Normile    f.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    252,    523,    528,    754,    776,   872. 

902. 

f.   Oregon     R'.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

1363,    1376,    1397,    1450,    1477. 

r.  Wheeling     Tract.      Co.,      p. 

2319. 

Norrington     v.     Wright,     pp.     3872, 

3873, 
Norris.   .Mabama,   etc.,   R.   Co.  f. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.^  v. 

Birmingham,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •:•. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Goodrich   f. 

Houston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Memphis    St.    R.    Co.    i: 

Moses   -■. 

'■.   St.     Joseph,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

p.    489. 

f.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1808,    2671. 

V.   Savannah,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

620,    625,    653. 

V.   Southern    Railway,    p.    2028. 

Norris,    etc..    Co.,    O'Brien   r. 
North,    Burrill    f. 

V.   Merchants'.      etc.,      Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    378,    3274. 

North  .Mabama  Tract.  Co.  f.  Dan- 
iel, 158  Ala.  414,  48  So.  50— 
p.    3061. 

V.   Daniel,  3  Ala.  App.  428,  5/ 

So.    120— p.   2770. 

Northam,  The  C.   II. 

North        American       Transp.        Co., 

Smith    f. 
North    .American    Transp.,    etc.,    Co.. 

Morrison  -■. 

V.   Morrison,    p.    3052. 

Ransberry    f. 

Sloan   -■. 

Smith    i\ 

North  Baltimore  Pass.  R.  Co.  f. 
Kaskell.    pp.    2200,    2204,    2699. 


North    Beach,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   Turner 

V. 

Wheaton  f. 

North     ISirmingham     St.     R.     Co.    v. 
Caldcrwood,    pp.    1889,    2655. 

•  ■■.   Liddicoat,     pp.     1772,     1876, 

2600. 
North     British     R.     Co.,     Bellsdyke, 

etc.,  Co.  ?•. 
North     British,     etc.,     Ins.     Co.     v. 
Central      N'ermont      R.      Co.,      pp. 
1118,     1123. 
.North    Carolina,    Caldwell    z: 
North      Carolina      Cent.      R.      Co., 

Hardy  z. 
North    Carolina    Corp.    Comm.,     -At- 
lantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 

V.  .Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

103,     104. 

V.  Southern    R.    Co.    (N.    C), 

61     S.     E.     271— p.     118.         _ 

V.  Southern    R.    Co.,     lal     N. 

C.    447,    66    S.    E.    427— pp.-  3487, 
3517. 

North     Carolina     R.     Co..     Bcnbow 

Denny    v. 

Lambeth    -'. 

McCombs    7'. 

Mangum    v. 

Moss     7'. 

Patterson    v. 

Phillips    V. 

Smith    J'. 

Zachary    v. 

f.   Zachary,    p.    3613. 

North    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    r. 

Gastka.    p.    2534. 
North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  r.   Bauer, 

53    N.    E.    568,    179    111.    126,    45 

L.    R.    A.    108— p.    2174. 
i:   Bauer,    79    111.    App.     121  — 

pp.    2186.    2236. 
— —  r.   Boyd,   pp.   2698.   2811. 

V.   Brown,    p.    2387. 

Cantield    z: 

z:  Canfield,    p.    1702. 

V.  Cook,       pp.       1746,       1888, 

1898,    1901. 

Cotton,    pp 


2698,    2762. 
Eldridge," "  pp.     2240,     2320. 

V.   Raspers,     186     111.     246,     57 

N.    E.    849— pp.    2304.    2746. 

^..   Kaspers,    85     III.     App.    316 

—p.    2333. 
t'.  Lotz.    p.    2313. 

z:  O'Donnell.    p.    1710. 

z:   Polkey.    pp.    2885,    2921. 

Schaefer   '■. 

Schneider    f. 

z:   Schwartz,   pp.    2594.   2692. 

Strong    z: 

z:  Thurston,    p.    2525. 

z:  Williams,     pp.     1521.     1819, 

?158,    2385,    2391,    2950.    2957. 

z:  Wiswell.    p.     2152. 

Z-.  Wrixon.    p.    2156. 

North      Coast      Lighterage      Co.     v- 
Greenwood,     p.     3984. 

!•.   Sullivan,    p.    3984. 

North     Eastern     R.     Co..     .\nderson 


Bethea  :■. 
Coxon    -■. 
Hammond     z: 
Interstate     Commerce 


Comm. 


McCartan   : . 

Oxlade    f. 

Porcher   z: 

Pounder   z: 

Robson    f. 

Rumsey   z\ 

State    z: 

Northern     z:     Williams,     etc..     Co., 

P-    527. 
Northern    Alabama    R.    Co.    z:    Bnl- 

good,    p.    1269. 

z:   Feldman.    p.    488. 

Northern   Belle,   The. 


CCXLVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Northern     Cent.     Railroad,     Freder- 

icl's  t'. 
Northern    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Ilersh    v. 

Monell    V. 

z:   Newman,     pp.     3071,     3072. 

f.  O'Connor,   pp.   190,   193, 

200.  1636,  1850,  1851. 

Orem,    etc..    Produce    Co.    v. 

Seibels     r. 

!•    State,  pp.   2115,   2116,  2118. 

farbell    f. 

Tilburg    V. 

Northern  Commercial  Co.  r.  Lind- 
blom,  pp.  3911,  3918,  3925,  3933, 
3934,    3978. 

t.   Nestor,   pp.    3991,   3993. 

Northern    Eastern    R.    Co.,    Oxlade 

Northern     Indiana     R.     Co.,     Harris 

Northern  Indiana,  ntc,  R.  Co., 
Priestly    v. 

Northern  Line  Packet  Co.,  Chi- 
cago,   etc.,    R.    Co.    1'. 

f.   Shearer,    p.    490. 

Northern    Nav.    Co.,    Van    Anda    v. 
Northern    Pac.    Co.,    Farmers',    etc., 

Trust  Co.  V. 
Northern     Pac.     E-xp.     Co.,     Bennett 

Hartwell    f. 

Pratt  f. 

State    V. 

Thomas    v. 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  i:  Adams, 
116  Fed.  324,  54  C.  C.  A.  196,  3 
K  R.  R.  734,  26  .\m.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.,    N.     S.,    734— pp.     1936, 

— ^V.  Adams,  192  U.  S.  440,  48 
L.  Ed.  513,  24  S.  Ct.  408— pp. 
1565,    2092,    2094,    2096. 

Alair    z: 

Allen    i: 

f.  American  Trading  Co.,  pp. 

451,  453,  607,  621,  1000,  3251, 
3252.  3254,  3255,  3258,  3280, 
3365,  3891,  4028. 

.Atkinson  z: 

::   .\tkinson,    pp.    3458,    3460. 

Badovinac    <■. 

z\   Barnes,    2    N.    Dak.    310,    51 

N.   W.   386— p.   3572. 

z:  Barnes,    2    N.    Dak.    395,    51 

N.    W.    786— p.    3572. 

Bonds-Foster    Lumber    Co.    z: 

Braun    ?■. 

V.  Brewer,    p.    3572. 

Brooks   '■. 

Bullard    v. 

Caldwell   Z'.' 

Carsten   z'. 

Carstens    Packing    Co.   v. 

Cooke    i'. 

Cowley  I'. 

Doherty   v. 

Duluth-Supcrior     Mill.     Co.    v. 

Dunlap   z\ 

Farmers'     Loan,    etc.,     Co.    v. 

Farmers',    etc..    Trust    Co.    v. 

First   Nat.    Bank   z: 

Fisher   f. 

Flaherty    z\ 

Finch  V. 

Gamble    Robinson    Coram.    Co. 

Goss  z\ 

Gregg    V. 

Hall    i: 

Hastings   v. 

V.  Hess,   pp.    1828,   2289,   2293, 

2788. 

Hoffman  z: 

Hoskins   v. 

Howe    z: 

Hudson    z'. 

interstate     Commerce     Coram. 

V. 

Irish   v. 

Jenkins  v. 

John   V. 


Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    JoIifTe    v. 

Judge    z: 

Kaiser   f. 

z\  Kempton,   p.    1121. 

Z-.   Kcyes,    pp.    47,    54. 

King    County    t'. 

Knapp  z\ 

Le    Deau    v. 

f.   Lee,    pp.    47,    48,    3490. 

Leek    V. 

z:   Lewis,    p.    488. 

Lilly    Co.    ■;•. 

Loy    z'. 

McCue   V. 

z:   Marinovich,    pp.    2719,    2865. 

Miley    v. 

Moran    Bros.    Co.    v. 

Mulligan    f. 

Normile    z\ 

North     Vakima    Brewing,    etc., 

Co.   z: 

Oakes    v. 

Ohage  z\ 

Olson     c'. 


Northern     Steamship    Co. 
Line    Steamship    Co.,    p. 


f.     Eain- 
3959. 
Dan- 


Co. 


Orcutt 
Oregon 


Short     Line, 
etc.,   R.    Co. 


R. 


Northern   Texas   Tract.    Co. 
forth,    p.     1721. 

z:   Hooper,    p.    2846. 

z:  Moberly,    p.    1990. 

Moore  v. 

V.   Roye,  pp.  1823,  1825,  2120, 

2867. 

Northern     Transp.     Co.,     Falvey     z: 

Hoadley    v. 

v.   McClary,      pp.       259, 

595,    596,    848,    854,    3306. 


309, 


z:   Sellick,    p. 

Van    Schaach 
Schaack 
Schaak,    ■ 
etc.,    Co. 
■.     Field, 


521. 


Van 

Van 

Northern,    etc.,    Co.,    Bennett    v. 

Northey    z:    Field,    p.     1228. 

North    German    Lloyd   z:    Heule,    p. 

1151. 
North     German     Lloyd     Co.,     Insur- 
ance    Co.     T'. 

North      German      Lloyd      Steamship 
Co.,   Brinck  ?■. 
p. 


4008. 


Oregon, 

Ostroot    v. 

T.   Pacific    Coast    Lumber,    ^  tc  , 

Ass'n,    pp.    3820,    3821. 

z\   Pauson,    pp.    1630,    2444. 

■  Fhettiplace    J-. 

Pierson    f. 

Poole    T'. 

z\   Railroad    Comm.,    52    Wash 

440,    100    Pac.    987 — p.    43. 

z:   Railroad    Comm.,    57    Wash 

134,    106    Pac.    611— p.    125. 

Raworth    x'. 

z'.   Raymond,    p.    3572. 

Rhodes    z'. 

Richey,    etc.,    Co.    z'. 

Rose    'c\ 

Rothchild    Bros.    z\ 

Roy    z: 

Sager     v. 

Sanden    »■. 

Serwe    z\ 

Shaw   7'. 

Shepard    v. 

Shumaker   v. 

Southern     Flour,     etc.,     Co.     j' 

Speck  ■;■. 

State   z: 

f.   Strong, 

Switzler    f. 

Taugher    v 

Treleven    i 

V.  Trcssler 

Tudor     V. 

Valentine    i'. 

Walch    r. 

Wells,    Fargo    & 

Whitlock    V. 

Wile    V. 

Wiles   V. 

Willison    z: 

Willson    z: 

Wilson    '•. 

Windrailler    v. 

Wunsch   r. 

Wyman    "•. 

Yegen  v. 

Northern        Pac. 

United    States   '■. 

z:   United    States,    p.    3621 

Northern    Railroad,    First   Nat.    Bank 

V. 

Ingledew    v. 

Northern    R.    Co.,    Dickson    z\ 

z:   Fitchburg   R.   Co.,   pp.   3270, 

3290. 

Ingledew    v. 

Leader    r. 

V.   Page,    pp.    1637,    2425. 

Wylde    V. 

Northern  Securities  Co.  v.  United 
States,  pp.  34,  3418,  3419,  3421, 
3424,  3441,  3445,  3.447,  3481, 
3484. 


V.   Bullen, 

Hart    z: 

Holmes    z'. 

■  Parker    z\ 

Pratt    V. 

•  Smith    z'. 

Tewes    ?■. 

White     z: 

v.  Wood,    p.    3980. 

Northhampton     St.     R.     Co.,     Robin- 
son   Z-. 

Northampton     Tract.     Co.,     Abel     v. 

Northampton,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Wright 


North      Hudson 
Dusenbury   z\ 

McKenna 

North    Hudson 
Northington     v. 
Co.,    p.    2814. 
North    Jersey    St. 


County      R.      Co., 

R'.     Co.,    Rochat    v. 
Norfolk     R.,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    Daggett 


3572. 


p.    3572. 


Co.    z: 


Terminal        Co. 


Daniel    ?'. 

Faul  V. 

Fenig   v. 

Fielders   '■. 

Gottlob    '■. 

Hansen    ;■. 

Herbich    v. 

Murphey    z'. 

Murphy    v. 

Olsofrom    v. 

Pascell     z'. 

T.   Purdy,    pp. 

Rodman    f. 

Schmidt   i'. 

Walsh   '■. 

North  London,  etc.- 

V. 

North    Missouri     R 
pp.    1352,    1480. 

Ballentine    ''. 

North     Park     St. 


2670,    2858. 


,  R.   Co.,   Bridges 
.    Co.    ".'.    Akers, 

R.     Co.,     Rouser 

North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Commercial  Bank,  pp.  267,  355, 
371,  373,  377,  389,  511,  512, 
542,  543,  547,  558,  559,  561, 
566,  1267,  1269,  2199,  1302, 
3258,    3273. 

North     River     Bridge     Co.,     Luxton 

V. 

Northrop   v.    Richmond,    p.    1594. 

V.   Syracuse,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    (N. 

Y.),    3    Abb.    Dec.    386— p.    901.  _ 

V.   Syracuse,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (N. 

Y.),   5  Abb.   Prac,  N.   S.,  425— p. 
901. 

Northrup    z'.     Railway,    etc.,    Afsur. 

Co.,    p.    1514. 
North    Shore    R.    Co.,    Bonneau   z: 
North     Staffordshire    R.     Co.,    Peck 

V. 

Thomas    v. 

North    Star,   The. 


TABLR    OF    CASKS. 


CCXLVII 


North   Texas   Grain   Co..   Gulf,   etc., 

R.    Co.    V. 
Northup,   McCook  i'-  ^     ^        .      . 
Northwestern    Elev.    R.    Co.,    Lapin 

. Vischcr   r. 

Northwestern    Fuel    Co.,    Burlington, 

etc.,    Co.    V. 

■ Burlington,    etc.,    K.    Co.   v. 

I,,   Turlington,     etc.  ,     K.      Co., 

pp.    228,    448. 
Northwestern    Ins.    Co.    v.    Phoenix, 

etc.,    Co.,    p.    1118. 
Northwestern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     Clare 

V. 

Northwestern    Railroad,    Brown    :■. 
Northwestern   R.   Co.,   Bradley  r. 

Daughty   r.  ,  .      „        r     (, 

Northwestern    Steamship    Co.,    Crott 

V. 

V.  Ransom,   p.    3984.  , 

Northwestern    Transp.     Co.    v.    Lei- 

ter,    pp.    4020,    4023. 

V.   McKenzie,    p.    325. 

Northwestern     Union     Packet     Co., 

Dant  &   Co.  v. 
Northwestern      Warehouse      Co.      z'. 
Oregon    R..    etc.,    Co.,    159    Fed. 
975!%.     188.     189,     3602.     3631, 
3632,    3633,    3639,    3647. 

r.   Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     32 

Wash.   218,   73   Pac.   388— p.   88. 

Northwestern,      etc..       Packet      Co., 

Coger   V.  _ 

North     Yakima    Brewing,     etc..     Co. 

r.   Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  pp.  901. 

904.   905. 
North,   etc.,   Steamship   Co.,   Holmes 

North,   etc.,   St.   R.   Co.,   Outen  v. 
Norton     f.     Adams     Exp.     Co.,     p. 
1080.  .      ,,. 

r.  Baxter,    pp.    333.    iis,    ii', 

339 

-c'.   Columbia    St.    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    2251. 

V.  Consolidated     R'.     Co.,     pp. 

1651,      2425,      2459,      2462.      2471. 
2486. 

V.  Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1813,    2640,    2653,    2696. 

Hagerman    v. 

Hoart    V. 

Pullman    Co.    v. 

V.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2702. 

The  E.  M. 

V.  The    Richard    Winslow,     p. 

893. 

■:■.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  n.  2223. 

V.  Union  R.   Co.,   p.    1676. 

Winslow    V. 

Norton    Board   v.    Norfolk,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    105,    106. 
Norvcll    V.    Kanawha,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1683,    1952.    1953,    2172,    2182, 

2192,     2194,     2342,     2800. 
Norway,    Grand  v. 

Grant    v. 

Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Railroad,  pp.  700,  773,  894,  899, 
910.    3160.    3168. 

Norwich.   The  City  of. 

Norwich  Co.  v.  Wright,  pp.  4036, 
41038.  4039.  4040.  4048,  4049, 
4050,  4052,  4053,  4071,  4072, 
4073.     4075.     4084. 

Norwich,  etc..  R.  Co.,  Burroughs 
1'. 

Norwich,  etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  Sim- 
kins    V. 

Norwich,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  Con- 
verse   i'. 

Flint   V. 

Gore     %\ 

Jones    '■.  ^ 

Norwood  ■■.   Galveston,   etc..   R.    Co., 

p.    1950. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    K'.    Co.    v. 

Nourse  v.   Snow,   pp.   438.   471. 
Nowaski.   International,   etc..    R.   Co. 

V. 

Nowlen.   Ilollister  v. 


Nowlin.    Southern    R.    Co.    :-. 

Noyes,    Woodruff    v. 

Noyes    &    Co.    V.    Rutland,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    211,    417. 
Nudd  V.  Wells,  pp.  499.  596,  632. 
Nuesch,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Nugent,     Baltimore     City    Pass.     R. 

Co.    r.  „     ^ 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Boston,     etc..     Railroad,     p. 

1820. 

r.   Smith,    1    C.    P.    Div.    27— 

p.     209. 

— !-  r.   Smith,    1    C.    P.    Div.    423— 

p.    729. 
Nunn     V.      Georgia      Railroad,      pp 

190,     1899.     1908.     1909,     1910. 
Nunnelee     ?'.     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R 

Co.,   p.   755. 
Nussbaum   v.    Louisville    R.    Co.,    p 

2534. 
Nuswanger,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co 

Nute   r.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad,   pp 

2368,    2767,    2870. 
Nutt,   Hunt  V. 

Secomb,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Nutter     V.     Southern     Railway,     p 

2430.  ^,^„ 

V.   Sydenstricker.    p.    2360. 

Nutting    V.     Connecticut     River     R 

Co..    p.    3259. 
Nuzum,     Pittsburgh,     etc..     K.     Co 

V. 

Nye.    Bowlin    r. 

V.   Marysville.      etc.,       St.       R. 

Co..    pp.    1603.    2420.    2424. 

N.    Y.,    N.    H.    &    H.    R.    R.,    Fred- 

erich   v. 
N.   &   C.    R.   Co.   V.   Mcssino.   pp.   3, 

4,    1808,    1821. 


O 


Oakerson    v.     .\tlantic,     etc..     Elect. 

K.    Co.,    p.    2906. 
Oakes,     Bronson     v. 

Lake    Eric,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Moore,    p.     1164. 

I-,  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co..    pp. 

728,  730,  733.  749,  3114.  3124. 
3128.    3132,    3149,    3150. 

Oakey  v.    Russell,    pp.    798.   851. 

Oakford    v.    Drake,    pp.    1215,    1216. 

Oakland  Consol.  St.  R.  Co.,  How- 
land   V. 

Oakland  Cotton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jenn- 
ings,   p.    3864. 

Oakland  Sugar  Mill  Co.  v.  Wolf 
Co..    p.    3830. 

Oakland   Tract.    Co..   James  f. 

Nilson   V. 

Oakland   Trans.   Co..    Boone   f. 
Oakland,       etc..       Elect.       Railway, 

Siemsen  f. 
Oakland,    etc.,    R.    Co..    Redfield    v. 
Oaklund,  etc.,  R.  Co..  Johnsen  v. 
Oak   Ties.   Ten   Thousand   &   Eighty 

Two. 
O'Bannon     v.     Southern     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    273.    285. 
Ober    V.    Cresent    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1807,    2617. 

f.   Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

P-    1228.  ^   „ 

Oberlin    Bldg.,    etc.,    Ass  n,    Colburn 

Oberndorfer   f.    Pabst,    p.    2767. 
O'Brien     v.     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

138   Mass.   387.   52   .\m.   Rep.   279 

—p.    1581. 

;■.   Boston.        etc..         R.         Co. 

(Mass.).  15  Gray  20,  77  \m. 
Dec.  347— pp.  1542,  2473.  2474. 
2493. 

—  Brooke    Iron    Co.    f. 

—  V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
p.     h(>7. 

—  Chicago    Union    Tract.    Co.    v. 

—  Chicago,  etc..   R.   Co.  :'.^ 

—  V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  p. 
2101. 

—  r.  Cunard  Steamship  Co..  pp. 
2078,    4000. 


O'Brien,    Durgy    Cement,    etc.,    Co. 

.    ^''-  V.  Gilchrist,  pp.   331.   334,  337, 
338,    339,    345,    346. 

Lexington    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  McClinchy,    p.    744. 

V.  Miller,      pp.       3894,      3917. 

4047,  4048,  4050,.  4051,  4052, 
4053. 

Morris   v. 

V.   New    York,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2472. 

V.  Norris,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    381. 

382  1210,  1211,  1212,  1214. 
1219,    1221,    1246,    1249. 

V.  St.   Louis  Trans.  Co..  84   S. 

W  939,  185  Mo.  263,  105  Am. 
St.     Rep.     592— p.     2959. 

V.  St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    110 

5  W.    705,   212   Mo.    59,    15    .\m. 

6  Eng.   Ann.   Cas.   86— p.   2054. 

Trinity,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Vicksburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

O'Bryan  r.   Kinney,  pp.   320,   333. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

O'Callaghan   -.■.    Uellwood    Park   Co.. 

89  N  E.  1005,  242  111.  336,  26 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1054,  17  Am. 
&    Eng.    Cas.    407— p.    2672. 

V.   Dell  wood      Park      Co.,      149 

III.    App.    34— p.    1488. 

Occidental,      etc.,      Steamship      Co., 

Hampton   v.  ,        ,         ^ 

Ocean  Ins.  Co..   Sun  Mut.   Ins.   Co. 

Ocean    Steam   Nav.    Co.,    English   r. 
Ocean   Steamship   Co.,   Brantley   Co. 

— ^  V.   Ehrlich,      pp.      1223.      1225. 
1226.     1228,     1231. 

V.   McAlpin,    p.    1047. 

Miller  V. 

V.   Savannah,  etc..   Supply  Co., 

pp     212.    226.    227,    3862,    3863. 

...  Way,    p.    764. 

;•.   Wilder,    pp.    513.    816. 

Oceana.    The. 

Oceanic    Steam    Nav.    Co..     Brauer 


Carlson    v. 

Wheeler    v. 

Och    f.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2684. 
Ochs    V.    Price,    p.    478. 
O'Clair    v.     Rhode    Island    Co.,     p. 

2697. 
O'Connell,    Cheyenne    v. 

Pennsylvania   Co.    f. 

V.   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1684.     1735. 

O'Connell      Lumber     Co..      Security 

State    Bank    v. 
O'Conner,     .Adams    f._ 

■:•.   Forster.    p.    471. 

Northern    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Scranton      Tract.      Co.,      p. 

2861. 

O'Connor.   Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

f.  Brooklyn     Heights    R.     Co., 

pp.     1645.    1646. 

Great   Northern   R.   Co.  z\ 

V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,   118 

Minn,  m,  136  N.  W.  743.  41 
L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  391— pp.  762. 
1049.    3522. 

V    Great   Northern   R.   Co..   120 

Minn.  359.  139  N.  W.  618— 
p.    3520. 

Ocracoke.     The. 

Oddy  r.   West   End   St.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1905.    2317. 
O'Dea    f.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.. 

pp.    2268,    2907. 
Odcgaard,    Minneapolis    St.    R.    Co. 

Odell    f.    New    York    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1573.    1574. 
— —  -•.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2865. 
Oden.    Birmingham    R..    etc..    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    "■■ 

Oderkirk    f.     Fargo,     58     Hun     347. 

11    N.    Y    S.     871.    34    N.    \.    St. 

Rep.     166— pp.    523.    bOl. 


CCXLVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  61  Hun  418,  16 
X.  V.  S.  220,  41  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
9— p.    549. 

Odgen,    Gibbons   f. 

Odil.    Railroad   v.  ^      ^ 

Odom,     Little     Rock,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

— —  f.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2227. 
O'Donnell   v.    Allegheny   R.    Co..    p. 

2719. 

V.  Allegheny    Valley     R.     Co., 

pp.    1570,    1582,    1812.    2126,    2210. 

Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago   City   R.    Co.  v. 

X'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1501,    1504,    1505,   2863. 

V.  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1587. 

z:  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2167. 

North  Chicago  St.   R.   Co.  z: 

Railroad  Co.  f. 

O' Dougherty     v.     Boston,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    522. 
Oechs,   Krohn  v. 

Oehm,    Michigan,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 
Oflfutt,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 
O'Field  f.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2325,    2873. 
O'Gara    v.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co., 

pp.    1699,    1736,    2694,    2901,    2981. 
O'Gara,   etc.,   Co.,    Chesapeake,    etc., 

R.   Co.  V. 
Ogden   f.    Coddington,    p.   495. 

Gibbons    v. 

'c\  Parsons,    p.    3869. 

Ogdensburg    Trans.    Co.,    Ginn    v. 
•  Rudell    t: 

Ogdensburg,    etc.,    R.    Co..    Pratt    ?■. 

V.  Pratt,     pp.     417,     783,     3289, 

3294,    3295,    3297,    3340,    3413. 

Ogg   v.    Shuter,    pp.    352,    353. 
Ogles,    American    Exp;    Co.    v. 
Oglesby,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
O'Gorman    -•.    New    York,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   pp.    196,   3112. 
O'Gorman    Co.,    Blackwell    v. 
Ohage    r.     Northern     Pac.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1607,    1666,    1667,    1671.    1936. 
O'llanlan  v.  Great  Western  R.   Co., 

p.    849. 
O'Hara,    Buffalo,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Mahoning     \'alley     R.     Co.     v. 

Ohio,    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Shields     z: 

Ohio  Cent.    Tract.    Co.    r.    Mateer, 

p.  2151. 

Ohio  Dairy  Co.  ■:■.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 

R.  Co.,    p.   227. 
Ohio  Oil   Co.,   United   States  v. 
Ohio  River    R.    Co.,    Barker    v. 
Gillingham    i\ 


McKay   z'. 

Moore    v. 

Poling  V. 

Sheets    v. 

Ohio   River,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.    Dittey, 

p.    3558. 

Morgantown   Mfg.   Co.  ?■. 

Ohio    State    Auditor,     Adams     Exp. 

Co.   V. 
Ohio  Tract.   Co.  v.   Miller,   p.   2810. 
Ohio      Transp.      Co.      z:      Davidson 

Steamship    Co.,    p.    4048. 
Ohio    Valley    R.    Co.    v.    Lander,    p. 

3511. 

-'.   Watson,  pp.   1753,   1755, 

1812,  2736. 

Ohio     Valley     Tie     Co.,     Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Ohio    V'alley   Trust   Co.   v.   Wernke, 

pp.     1488,    2617. 
Ohio     Valley,     etc.,     Co.,     Western, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Ohio,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Nickless,  p.   1567. 
Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z:    Allender    p. 

2189. 

V.  Applewhite,   pp.    1858,    1860. 

V.  Beuris,      pp.      2635,      2637, 

2760,    2761. 

V.   Brown,    p.    1872. 

Brunk    z: 

V.   Cope,    p.    2461. 


Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■.    Crauchcr,    p. 
2622. 

z:   Gullison,    p.    2711. 

z\   Dickerson,    p.    1550. 

. Drew    Glass    Co.    "'. 

z\    Dunbar,    pp.    607,    608,    758. 

765,    774,    1350. 

Emison   z\ 

z:   Emrich,   pp.   490,   491,    3291. 

Falkner    f. 

Godfrey    v. 

r.   Ilatton,       pp.       203,       1803. 

2575. 

— , —  Kentucky    Wagon    Mfg.    Co.    '•. 

King  z: 

z:   Lander,   pp.   1944,   1945, 

1946. 

z:  McCarthy,   p.    1171. 

•  Morganton    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

z:   Muhling,     pp.     1561,     1564, 

1755,    1760,    1761. 

z\  Nickless,      pp.      798,      1447, 

1460. 

Nolan   z\ 

V.   People,     p.      1865. 

V.   Schiebe,    pp.    2124,    2258. 

z:   Selby,   pp.    1567,    1760,   1761, 

1987,     2098,      2586,     2593,     2632, 
2666,    2721,    2726. 

Ohio,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Smith,     p. 
1884. 

z:   Stansberry,    pp.    2118,    2269, 

2378. 

v.   Stratton,    p.    2248. 

•  z:   Swarthout,    pp.     1858,    2575. 

V.  Tabor,   pp.    821,    1390,    1408, 

1456. 

z:  Voight,     p.     3005. 

V.  Yohe,     pp.     573.     574,     577, 

583,    732,    748. 

Ohleman,   IJnion   Exp.    Co.   v. 
Ohlen   z:    Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

727,     730,     732,      748,     752,     765, 

800,    828,    867. 
Ohne,   Indiana   Union   Tract.    Co.   v. 
Oil    Citv,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Kirchncr    v. 
Oil    Creek    R.    Co.,    Tanner    z: 
Oil    Creek,    etc.,    R.     Co.    z:    Clark, 

pp.     1529,     1974. 
O'Keefe,     Illinois    Cent.    R.     Co.    v. 
Oklahoma  v.   Atchison,   etc.,   K.   Co., 

p.    37. 

z'.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  p.   37. 

z'.  Oklahoma    R.    Co.,    p.    87. 

Oklahoma     City     R.     Co.,     Stephens 

Oklahoma   R.   Co.   v.   Boles,   p.   2357. 

Oklahoma    z\ 

?•.   Powell,     p.     76. 

z\   St.         Joseph's  Parochial 

School,    p.    68. 

Oklahoma  State  Bank,  Central 
Mercantile    Co.    z-. 

Olanta  Coal  Min.  Co.  v.  Beech 
Creek    R.    Co.,    p.    239. 

O'Laughlin  v.  Boston,  etc..  Rail- 
road,   p.    2417. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    -■. 

Olcott    V.    Supervisors,    p.    36. 
Old    Colony    R.    Co.,    .\ttorncy    Gen- 
eral   z\ 

Bates   z: 

Bethmann    v. 

Brady    v. 

Brooks    z'. 

Chaffee    z: 

Debbins    z'. 

Hosmer   Z'. 

Robertson    v. 

Sullivan    v. 

V.   Tripp,    pp.    101.    Ill,    192. 

Old     Colony    St.     R.     Co.,     Cassady 


Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co.,    Martin    v. 

Pitcher   -•. 

Powers    V. 

Spooner    v. 

Thayer  z\ 

Timms     z'. 

Webber    -•. 

Old    Colony    St.     Railway,     Sullivan 

V. 

Old    Colony    Trust    Co.,    .Atlanta    v. 

?'.  .\tlanta,    pp.    43.    76,    79. 

Old    Colony,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Buckley 

Gaynor    v. 

Kiff    z: 

Lane    v. 

Maroney    v. 

Merritt    v. 

Todd   V. 

Old  Dominion  Baggage  Co.,  Nor- 
folk,   etc.,     R.     Co.    z: 

Old  Dominion  Steamship  Co.  Z'. 
Commonwealth,     p.     3583. 

v.   Flanary     &     Co.,     pp.     1090, 

1106,    1108,    1115,    3663. 

Howard    v. 

Patterson    z'. 

z'.   X'irginia,     pp.     3572,     3583, 

3584. 

Oldham,   Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  z'. 
Olds,     Georgia     R.     Co.     t'. 

f.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

172     Mass.     73.    51     N.     E.     450— 
pp.    1746,    1752. 

7'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

94    N.    Y.    S.    924,    107    App.    Div. 
26— pp.     1269,     1393,     1437,     1476. 

Olfermann  v.  Union  Depot  R'.  Co., 
pp.    1888,    2390,    2397,    3005. 

Olinger,  Ft.  Wayne,  etc..  Tract. 
Co.     V. 

Olive,     Receivers    v. 

Oliver,    Alton,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    v. 

T'.   Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    55 

S.   C.  541,   33  S.  E.   584— p.   1909. 

■;•.   Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    43 

S.    E.    307,    65    S.    C.    1— pp.    2755, 
2909,    3067,   3376. 

—  z'.  Fort      Smith      Light,      etc., 
Co.,    pp.    1682,    1742,    2113,    2195. 


Coneton  v. 
Egan  V. 
Foster   z'. 
Galligan    t'. 
Ilebblethwaite   v. 
Hunt    V. 
Jackson   v. 
Jordan    r. 
Luddy    :•. 


St.    Louis,    etc.,    Iv.    Co.    ?■. 

United    States,    etc.,    Pump   Co. 

w. 

Oliver   Branch,    Mahon   v. 

Oliver  &  Son  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    pp.    158,   247. 

Olivier  ■;■.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1980,    2126,    2178. 

Oiler,    .'\lton,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    '■. 

Olopp  ■;'.  Interborough  Rapid  Tran- 
sit   Co.,    p.    1717. 

O'Loughlin,     Texas     Cent.     R.     Co. 

V. 

Olsen,     Chicago     Union     Tract.     Co. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

z'.    Citizens'    R.    Co..    pp.    1687, 

1739,    1999,    2007,    2099,    2765. 

Jewett  V. 

Z'.   Smith,    p.    3532. 

Olsofrom    z'.     North     Krsey    St.     R. 

Co.,   p.    1744. 
Olson     7'.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  2244,  2248,  2351. 

V.   Northern    Pac.     R.    Co..    pp. 

191,   2122,   2437,   2459,   2460,   2784, 
3082,   3098. 

z:   St.     Paul,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 

2126. 

Oluf,    The. 

Olund   z'.    Worcester    Consol.    St.    K. 

Co,    pp.     1523,    1957,    2345,    2889, 

2890. 
Olympia,    The. 

Omaha    Elevator    Co.,    State   z'. 
Omalia    Horse    R.    Co.,    Haman    v. 
Omaha    R.    Co.,    Haman    v. 
Omaha     St.     R.     Co.     v.     Baker,     p. 

2819. 

Boesen   z\ 

V.   Boesen,    pp.    2678,    2842. 

z:  Craig,   pp.    1712,   2249. 

Frizzell    v. 


TARLE)    OF    CASKS. 


CCXLIX 


Levin- 


Omaha    St.    R.    Co.,   Pray   t 
Omaha,    etc.,    Bridge    Co.    t 
ston,    pp.     1890,    1901. 

Marcus    v. 

Patterson  v. 

State    V. 

Omaha,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    Burger   r. 

Chollctte   f. 

V.  Chollettc.      33      Neb,       143, 

49    N     W.    1114— pp.    1('80,    2119. 

r.   Chollette,    41    Neb.    578,    59 

jsl     w    921 — pp.    1764,    1766,   2173. 

:  f.   Crow,    47     Nfb.    84,    66    N. 

W.   21— pp.    1568,   2215. 
V.  Crow,    54    Neb.    747,    74    N. 

W     1066,   69    .\m.    St.    Rep.    741  — 

pp.    2327,    3316. 
V    Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

pp.     3604,     3612. 

V.   Martin,      pp.       If 


2152, 


2158. 

Shuler    V. 

Wait    r. 

VVillfong    -•. 

Omaha,    etc.,     St.     R.     Co.,     P.ende 

kovich   V. 

Burger    v. 

Coffey    -c. 

V.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

179    Fed.    243— p.    3614. 

r.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

222    U.    S.    582,    56    L.     Kd.    324. 

32  S.   Ct.  833— p.   3808. 
T\   Interstate  Commerce  Comm., 

33  S.    Ct.    890,    230    U.     S.     324, 
57    L.    Kd.    1501,    46    L.    R.    A., 

■  N.    S.,    385— p.    3614. 

Kruger    7'. 

Nocita   '■. 

O'Malley  v.   Great   Northern   R.   Co.. 

pp.     1044,    1407. 
O'Mara    f.     St.    Louis    Transit    Co.. 

pp.    1501,    1515,    1516,    1517,   2333. 
Omnibus    Cable    Co.,    Doolin    <■. 

Finkeldey   v. 

Tobin   :■. 

O'Neal    r.    Day,    p.    889. 
119,254    Bushels    of    Flaxseed,    Dav- 
idson   Steamship    Co.    v. 

One    Hundred   and   One    Live    bt-ock 

Co.    f.     Kansas,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    p. 

1113.  ,      , 

One     Hundred     and     Twelve     Sticks 

of   Timber,    p.    713. 
Oneida,    The. 
O'Neil    -'.     Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.    1884,    2044,    2543,    2588. 

V.  Lynn,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  p.  2827. 

■;•.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1683. 

r.  X'ermont,   p.    3539. 

O'Neill    V.    Dry-Dock,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2007. 
— —  V.  Garrett,   pp.    1219,    1238. 

v.  Great    Western    R.    Co.,    p 

898 

v.  Lynn,     etc.,     R.      Co.,     pp. 

2297,    2298. 

Mathias    f. 

f.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    285,    289,    884. 

Perishable       Freight       'I  ransp. 

One  Thousand   Three   Hundred   and 
Ten    Tons    of    Coal,    Ilawgood    v. 
Ontario,    The. 
Ontario       Bank      r.      New      Jersey 

Steamboat    Co.,    p.    545. 
Ontario    Steamboat   Co.,    Rice   r. 
Ontario,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    May    t\ 
Oostanaula,    etc..    Steamboat    Co.    f. 

Hampton,    p.    839. 
Ophir    Silver    Min.    Co.,    Perkins    t. 
Opinion    of   the   Justices,   In    re. 
Oppenheim     v.      Russell,      pp.      233. 

1248. 
Oppenheimer     r.     Denver,     etc.,     K. 

Co.,    p.    2712. 

V.   Kdney,    p.    863. 

Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

f.  Manhattan      R.      Co.,      pp. 

2060.    2486. 


Oppenheimer      &      Co.      v.      United 

States     Kxp.     Co.,     pp.     760,     943, 

1007,    1009. 
Opsahl   V.   Judd,   p.    1589. 
O'Ouin,    Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Orange     County     Bank     v.     Brown, 

pp.    3123,    3125,    3126. 
Orange,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Frair    v. 

•  Wright   r. 

Oranmore,    The. 

Orbison,  Babcock  v. 

Orcadian,    The. 

Orcutt    V.     Century    Bldg.    Co.,    99 

S     W.    1062,    201    Mo.    424,    8    L. 

R.     A.,     N.     S.,     929— pp.     1502, 

1503,   2677,    2983. 

V.  Century    Bldg.    Co.,    112    S. 

W     532,    214    Mo.    35— pp.    2685, 
2741,    2837. 

?'.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1539,    2521. 

Order    r.     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     3467. 
Ordway,     Boston,    etc..     Railroad    v. 
O'Regan    T.    Cunard    Steamship    Co.. 

pp.     939,     1639,     2092. 
Oregon,    The. 
Oregon   Co.   r.    Roe,   pp.    2331,   2742, 

2883.  „        .   , 

Oregon    Coal,    etc.,    Co.,    Pettyjohn 


Oregon  Iron  Co.,  Delaware  v. 
Oregon  Liquor  Co.,  Frame  v. 
Oregon  Pac.  R.  Co.,  Lakin  i\ 
Oregon   R.    Co.,   Abbott  '<: 

Rathbone     v. 

■   Simmons    f. 

Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Allen    r. 

■  V.   Balfour,  90  Fed.  293,  32 

C.  C.  A.  57— pp.  4076,  4084, 
4085.  „  „   ,. 

;■.   Balfour,    .179    U.    S.    33,    43 

L.     Kd.     82,     21     S.     Ct.     28— pp. 
4036,     4071,     4072. 

Bartlet   7'. 

Buck    r.  ,      „.^ 

f.    Campbell,     173     Fed.     937- 

p.     3489. 

— —  V.  Campbell,     177     Fed.     318— 

p.    65. 
V.  Coolidge,    p.    3811. 

f.   Dumas,    pp.    92,    450.   459. 

z:   Fairchild,      pp.       103,       104, 

3810. 

Farmers'    Loan,   etc.,    Co.   f. 

Gomm    V. 

Goodman     v. 

Haase  v. 

Kearney   v. 

Lacey  v. 

McGregor   f. 

Mcintosh    r. 

Martin    v. 

Maynard    v. 

Normile  v. 

Northwestern    Warehouse    Co 


Peabody  r. 

Prettyman    v. 

Sheblc    f. 

Smith    Meat    Co.    v. 

Sullivan    r. 

Taffe    f. 

f.   Thisler,    p.     3749. 

United    States    r. 

Wells,    Fargo   &   Co.    v. 

Wells,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Oregon    Short    Line    R.    Co.,    Brian 

Morgan  f. 

Oregon    Short    Line,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V.     Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

241,    253. 
Oregon-Washington     R.,     etc.,     ^-o.. 

Brown   r. 
7.  United     States,     pp.     3621, 

3627,    3629. 
Oregon,   etc.,   Ass'n.   Union   Pac.    R. 

Co.   r. 
Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Benson  v. 

V.   Blyth,     pp.     729,    734,     />0, 

779,    810,    845,    949. 

Brian    r. 

Christensen     :■. 


Oregon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Davidson, 
pp.   99,    101,    112. 

Davis   i: 

Dempster    v. 

Everett     v. 

Groot   I'. 

Holmes   v. 

Homer    v. 

Honeyman    v. 

Ilwaco    R'.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

V.  Ilwaco     R.,     etc..     Co.,     p- 

3656. 

Klenk  v. 

Kozminsky  r. 

Larsen   i'. 

Lindsay   i'. 

Major    f. 

Morgan  t'. 

Nichols    V.  „     ^        -1 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co._.    3l 

Fed.  465— pp.   3318,  3648,  3636. 

J..  Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,    9 

C     C     .\.    409,    61    Fed.    158— pp. 
lio,    3657,   3775. 

Skottowe    t'. 

Blatter     r. 

Tarr    r. 

United    States    f. 

Wells  f. 

Williams   v. 

Oregon,    etc.,    R.    Nav.    Co.,    Brown 

O'Reilly  r.  Brooklyn  , Heights  R- 
Co.,  179  N.  Y.  450.  72  N.   E.  3  1/ 

■  '"f'v.  Brooklyn  Heights  .R-,,Co.. 
95  App.  Div.  253,  89  N.  \.  S. 
41— pp.    110,   147. 

Orem,  etc.,  Produce  Co.  t^.  North- 
ern  Cent.    R.   Co.,   pp.    /8/,   82/. 

Pennsvlvania    R.    Co.    f. 

Organ  Power  Co.,  Alabama,  etc.. 
R.    Co.    r. 

Oriental    Oil     Co.,    Baltimore,    etc.. 

Orient   MuV.   Ins.   Co.   :■.    Adams,   p. 

4021. 
Oriflammc,   The. 
Ormandroyd      v.      Fitchburg.      etc.. 

St.   R.   Co.,   p.   2029. 
Ormond    f.    Hayes,    p.    133/. 

I.    &    G.    N.    R.    Co.    f. 

International,    etc„    R.    Co.    .. 

r    Metropolitan     St.     R.     «-"■• 

p.    2826.  „  „       „ 

Ormsbv     v.     Union     Pac.     R.     ^o., 
"pT614,  848,  945,  963,  964,   1003. 

1007,     1087,     1107,     1311,     1413. 

1422.  _     ^ 

Orndorflf,   Lake    Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

OrndorfT     &     Co.     r.     .\dams     Ex". 

Co.,    pp.    1008,    1075. 
Ornstine  f.   Cary.   p.   348_4_. 
O'Rouke    f.     Bates     P-     '''• 
f.   Citizens'     St.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2458,     2464.  ,    .„ 
:•.   Two   Hundred    '.nd    rwc-n'y- 

One  Tons  of  Coal,  p.    332. 
O'Rourkc   V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Cc, 


pp. 


252.    756. 


"  Interborough    Rapid    1  >&ns. 

_l°k  Vreet'-  R.     Co..     PP..i602. 

1612.    1613.    1648.    1649,    \6r,0. 
Orr    V.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    p 

3343 
i  r".  Planters'     Phosphate,     ct*- 

Co.,   pp.   361,   362.   365.    370.   JSO. 

398.  „      , 

Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    :. 

Orser,    Sturtevant    :. 

Orth  i:   Saginaw  Valley  Tract.  Co., 

pp.    1892     2153,    2333     27(.0.    J81| 
Orthwcin's    Sons    v.    V^.lchlta    Mill. 

etc.,    Co.,    pp.    349,    4/8. 
Ortf    -:    Minneapolis,    etc..    R-    Co.. 

pp.   3258.   3279,   3289,   3294.   332/. 

3-»02.  .  .    .  ... 

Osborn     v.     Koenigheim,     pp.     •»-■"'• 

365.  .„     ^ 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

Thomas    z: 


CCL 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Osborn  f.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  123 
Mich.  669,  82  N.  W.  526— p. 
3489. 

f.  Wabash    R.    Co.,    126    Mich. 

113,    85     N.     W.     466 — p.     54. 

Osborne  v.  Alabama  Steel,  etc., 
Co.,    p.    2281. 

Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     f. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3712,    3719,    3720,    3723. 

V.  Florida,      pp.      3570,      3571, 

3579. 

r.   Mobile,      44      Ala.      493— p. 

3577. 

V.  Mobile    (U.    S.),    16    Wall. 

479,    21     h.     Ed.    470— pp.     3549, 
3561,    3566,    3571. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

x:  State,    p.    28. 

V.  L^nion    Ferry    Co.,    p.    1780. 

Osceola,    The. 

Osgood  f.  Concord  Railroad,  pp. 
74,    145. 

I'.   Los     Angeles     Tract.     Co.. 

pp.    2696,    2979. 

Oskamp  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  1 1 
O.  C.  C.  543,  5  O.  C.  ».  145— p. 
553. 

V.   Southern    Exp.    Co.,    61     O. 

St.    341,    56    N.    E.    13— pp.    511, 
539,    542,    549,    551,    553.    554. 

Oskamp,    etc.,    Co.,     Southern     Exp. 

Co.    -■. 
Oslen   f.    Citizens'    R.    Co..   p.    1709. 
Osterhoudt    v.     Southern     Pac.     Co., 

pp.    1108,    1109,    1117. 
Ostrander   v.    I5rown,    p.    527. 
Ostroot    V.    Northern    Pac.    R.     Co. 

p.    1063. 
Oswego    St.    R.    Co.,    Watson   v. 
Oswego,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Howe   i-. 

Price  V. 

Otis,    State   V. 

Otis    Co.    V.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    779,    780,    844,    1037. 
O'Toole   v.    Faulkner,    p.    2089. 

f.   Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

2161,     2248. 

Otrich  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
154  Mo.  App.  420,  134  S.  W. 
665 — p.    1305. 

f.   St.      Louis,     etc.,     R.      Co., 

164    Mo.     App.     444,     144     S.     W 
1199— pp.     1267,     1304. 

Ottawa  V.   Bodley,   p.    111. 
Ottinger     f.     Detroit     United     Rail- 
way,   pp.     1893,     1993. 
Otto,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1742,  1757,  1928,  2362. 

— —  V.   Milwaukee   Northern   R. 

Co.,  pp.  1902,  1994,  2510,  2512, 

2536,  2539. 
Otts  V.     Shreveport  Tract.  Co.   o 

2778.  '  ■ 

Ouachita  Packet  Co.  -•.  Aiken,  nn 
3528,    3529,    3530,    3531,    3532. 

Ouachita,  etc..  Packet  Co.  v.  Aiken, 
p.     3586. 

Ouellette    v.    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co., 

pp.     1922,    2240. 
Onilhot,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Ouimit    V.    Henshaw.    pp.    278,    897 

901,   3130,   3135,   3138,   3158,   3159! 

3160,     3161,     3169,     3170,     3173, 

3178. 

Outen  f.  North,  etc.,  St.  K.  Co. 
p.    2262. 

Outerbridge,     Downing    v. 

Lough  V. 

Outland   v.    Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co 

pp.    445,    446,    447,    449,    467,    368* 
470. 

Overall,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 
Ovcrcash     v.     Charlotte     Elect.     R 

etc.,   Co.,   pp.  2761,  2981. 
Overfield,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Overman     Carriage     Co.,     Memphis 

etc..    Packet    Co.    r. 
Overton,    Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co    v 

State   V. 


Oviatt  V.    Dakota  Cent.    R.    Co..   pp. 

1548,      1723,      1743,      1752,      1755, 

1827. 
Owen,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Day    V. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1110,    nil,    1408,    1428,    1448, 
1477. 

McKee   v. 

V.  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    pp. 

142,    700,    701. 

Selma    St.,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

V.   Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2349.    2904. 

Owens,    .\rpin   x\ 

.Atlantic,   etc.,   R.    Co.   •;■. 

V.   Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     147 

N.     C.    357,    61     S.     E.     198— pp. 
2265,    2575,    2577,    2661. 

V.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     67 

S.    E.    993,    152    N.    C.    439— pp. 
2126,    2862. 

Denver   Tramway    Co.    v. 

Harrell    v. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

;■.    Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2066,    2993. 

Louisville    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •;■. 

■:•.   Macon,     etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

1497. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Wabash    R'.    Co.,    p.    2243. 

V.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2061. 

Owens     Bros.    v.    Chicago,     etc.,     R 

Co.,    pp.     1436,    1437,     1476. 
Owings    V.    Hull,    p.    3870. 
Owman,       Bedford-Bowling       Green 

Stone   Co.    V. 
Oxanna  Land  Co.,   Watson  v. 
Oxen  dine     v.      Louisiana     R.,      etc  , 

p.    2777. 
Oxlade    V.     Northeastern     R.     Co.,    9 

W.    R.    272,    3    L.    T.    671— p.    211. 

V.   Northeastern    R.    Co.,    1     C 

B.,    N.     S.,    454,     3    Jur.,     N.     S., 
637,    26    L.    J.    C.    P.    129— p.    242. 

V.   Northeastern  R.  Co.  (Eng.), 

15    C.    B.,   N.    S.,    680,    109    E.    C. 
L.    680— pp.    211,   241,   242,   253. 

V.   Northern     Eastern     R.     Co., 

1     Nev.    &    McN.     Ry.    Cas.     72— 
p.     1181. 

Oxley    7:    St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    945,    1386. 
Oxsher  v.    Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   n 

2511.  ' 

Oyster    Bay,    etc.,      Co.,     Barney    v. 
Oyster     Bay,     etc..     Steamboat     Co., 

Barney    v. 
Ozanne    '■.     Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1822,    1837. 
Ozier,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 


Pacific   Coast    Stage   Co.,    Knight   v. 

Pacific  Coast  Steamship  Co.  v.  Ban- 
croft-Whitney Co.,  pp.  852,  1087, 
1091,  1101,  3907,  3910,  3921, 
3923,    3929,    4028. 

Fowden    v. 

Pacific     Coast,     etc.,     Co.,     Cowdcn 

V. 

Pacific   Creosoting   Co.,    Knohr  v. 
Pacific    Elect.     R.     Co.,    Griffin    v. 

Reynolds    v. 

Wyatt    V. 

Pacific  Exp.  Co.  V.  Black,  pp.  278, 
279,   293,    295,   648,   663. 

Cantwell    v. 

V.   Critzer,    p.    553. 

V.   Darnell,    pp.    666,    670,    674, 

687,    937,      938,     950,     954,      1088. 
1091,    1121. 

V.   Darnell      Bros.,      pp.       638, 

642,    643,    686,    1086,    1096. 

V.   Emerson,    p.    1480. 

•;■.    Foley,    pp.    409,    1074. 

Gathright    v. 

V.   Gathwright,     pp.     418,     465, 

1252,    1255. 

Green   v. 

Hance    f. 

Head    '■. 

?'.   Hertzberg,      pp.      553, 

555,  729,  849,  932,  933, 
1055,  1076,  1078,  1080. 

V.   Jones,  ])p.  643,  645, 

690,  856,  859,  860. 

V.   Lothrop,   pp.    1359,    1360. 

McNichol    V. 

Murrell   v. 

Nave  V. 

•  V.   Needham,      37      Tex.       Civ. 

App.    129,    83    S.    W.    22— pp.    419, 
420,    457,    467,    470. 

V.   Needham    (Tex.    Civ.   App.), 

94    S.    W.    1070— pp.    692,    694. 

V.  Pitman,    pp.    759,    760,    933. 

937,    940,    941,    1060. 

Pittman    %■. 

Plaff   V. 

V.   Redman,    pp.    647.    651. 

Rudman,      pp.      991,       1029, 


554, 
1054. 


648, 


Pabst,    Oberndorfer    z\ 

Pabst    Brewing    Co.,    State    r. 

Pace,     Kansas     City,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Pace    Mule    Co.    ?■.     Seaboard,    etc., 

R.   Co.,    160   N.   C.    252,   75    S.    E. 

994— p.  .1477. 
V.   Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    160 

N.  C.  215,  76  S.   E.  513— pp.  331, 

948,     1076,    3522. 
Pacey,     Beedy     -•. 
Pacific,    Queen    of    the. 

Seller   r. 

Pacific   Aviation   Co.   r.   Wells   Fargo 

&  Co.,   pp.   349,   572. 
Pacific     Clipper    Line,     Union     Feed 

Co.  V. 
Pacific    Coast    Co.    v.    Reynolds,    pp. 

4050,    4051,    4053. 

V.  Yukon   Independent  Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    3880,    3882,    3889,    4027, 
4028,    4029,    4030. 

Pacific  Coast  Lumber,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Pacific  Coast  R.  Co.  v.  United 
States,   p.    3451. 


Seibert,      44      Fed.      310— p. 

V.   Seibert,    142    U.    S.    339,    35 

L.  Ed.    1035,    12    S.    Ct.    250— pp. 
3551,    3577,    3578. 

Shearer   v. 

c'.   Shearer,   p.   555. 

State  V. 

Thomas    v. 

United    States   v. 

;-  V.   Wallace,    p.    945. 

Pacific    Lumber    Co.,    Green    '■. 
Pacific   Mail   Steamship   Co.,    Bunker 

V. 

•  Hays  v. 

In    re. 

Spiegel    V. 

•  Swift    V. 

;-  Yonge    -■. 

Pacific    Marine    Co.,    Kerry    v. 
Pacific    Railroad,    Landes    v. 

Minter   f. 

Rankin   -'. 

Thomson    "'. 

Vail   v. 

Pacific    R.    Co.,    Clark  v. 

Graham   v. 

Hicks    I'. 

Meyer    v. 

Tucker     v. 

Pacific    R.    Removal    Cases,    p.    3449. 
Pacific    Steam    Whaling   Co.    v.    Gris- 

more,    pp.    3980,    3981. 
Pacific    Transfer    Co.,     Merrill    v. 
Pacific,      etc.,      Nav.      Co.,      United 

States   V. 
Packard    v.    Earle,    pp.    532,    538. 

V.  Getman     (N.     Y.),     6     Cow. 

757,    16    Am.    Dec.    475— pp.    268, 
271,    292,    581,    582. 

V.   Getman    (N.    Y.),    4    Wend. 

613,    21    Am.    Dec.     166— pp.    551, 
553,    581,    582. 

Kohn   V. 


TAIII.I".    OF    CASES. 


ecu 


Packard    v.    Taylor,    etc..    Co.,    pp. 
726,    732,    748,    3179,    3284. 

V.  The   Louisa,   p.   3937. 

Packer,   The   E.   A. 

Packet   Co.  v.      Catlettsburg,   i)p. 
3474,  3528.  3529,  3530.  3531. 

-Ji^v.   Clough,  pp.  1564,  3994 

r.  Keokuk,  pp.   3474,  3^29, 

3530,  3531.         ,,^,   ,.„ 

r    St.  Louis,  pp.  3474,  3^28, 

3529,  3530,  3531. 

Packwood,  Dorsey  i: 

Harris    v. 

Paddock    r.    Atchison,    etc..    R.    Lo.. 
pp.    2416,    2488,    2497,    3212. 

f  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co..  153 
Mo.  524,  56  S.  W.  453— pp.  1391. 
1452. 

V.   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co..      1 

Mo.   App.   87,  60   Mo.   App.   328— 
P-   973.  „      ^ 

_— -  V.  Toledo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

956. 
Padgitt    r.    Moll.    p.    1587.  _ 
Padlcy    V.    Cattirhn.    p.    853. 
Paducah     City     Railway,     Eord    r. 

Wynn     ;•. 

Paducah    R..    etc..    Co.,    Davis    r. 
Paducah    St.    R.    Co.    :■.    Walsh,    p. 

2268. 
Paducah    Tract.    Co.    v.    P.aker,    pp. 

2590,    2672,    2688. 
Paducah.     etc..     Ferry     Co..     Rtasor 

Paducah,    etc.,    R.    Co..     Sncllhakev 


Page.    Blanchard    r. 

V.  Chicago,     etc..     R.  Co..     p. 

3414.                                    ^  ^. 

V.  Great    Northern    R.  Co.,    p. 

221-  ,,     ,, 

i:   Louisville,    etc..    K.    Lo.,    p. 

2610. 

Midland    Valley    K.     Co.    r. 

r    New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1968,    2451. 

Northern    R.    Co.   r. 

Page    &    Co.    7'.    Sandusky,    etc.,    R. 

Co  pp.    267,    283,    331,   337.    355. 
367.  370.     373,     380,     381,     384, 
403.  457. 
Paige.  New     England,    etc..    Steam- 
ship Co.   I'. 

f.   Smith,    pp.    6.    760. 

Paine  r.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1605,    3092. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Geneva,     etc..     Tract.      Co., 

pp.    1825,    2368,    2684. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Painkinsky   r.    Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.. 

pp.    328.    965. 
Painter,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -■. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.    Co.,     pp. 

2668,    2858. 

V.   London,     etc..     R.     Co.,     p. 

•   192. 

Palfrey   r.    United   R.    Co.,   p.    1320. 
Palmas,    The. 
Palmer,    Ames    ■:■. 

J'.   Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

619,     721,     3279. 

. r.   Charlotte,    etc..    R.    Co..    pp. 

1638.     2432. 

■:•.   Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co.,    pp. 

3263.    3286,    3314. 

f.   Delaware,    etc.,     Canal    Co.. 

pp.    1715,    1720,    1826,    1844.    1847. 
1850. 

Gracie  -r. 

V.   Grand    Tunction    R.    Co.,    p. 

211. 

Haggerty    r. 

Kimball     f. 

— ■ —  r.   London,.        etc..       iR.        <-o. 

(Eng.).    L.    R.    1    C.    P.    588.    35 
L.   J.    C.    P.    289— p.    221. 

■>•.   London.        etc..       R.        Co. 

(Eng.-t.    L.    R.    6    C.    P.     194.    40 
L.    T.   C.    P.    133— p.    221. 

. v.   Maine,     etc..     R.     Co..     pp. 

2061.    20(i3,    2070. 


Palmer,    New    Jersey    R.    Co.    f. 

Pennsylvania    R".    Co.    v. 

r    Pennsylvania     R.     Co..     pp. 

U,84,    1687,    1831. 

Southern     Exp.     Co.     r. 

f.   Utah,  etc..   R.   Co.,   p.   2079. 

r.   Warren      St.      R.     Co.,     pp. 

2698,    2701,    2897. 

f.  Winona     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p 

2667.  .     , 

Palmer    Transfer    Co.    v.    Anderson 

p.    100. 
— —  -•.   Smith,    p.    2718. 
Palmeri    v.    Manhattan    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2056,    2059,    2071. 
Palsey    t.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2336. 
Panama,   The   City   of. 
Panama    R.    Co.,    Hams    f. 

Lignante    f. 

Sanbern   '■. 

Schwartz   f. 

Weed  V. 

Panther     Lumber     Co.,      Sanderson 

Pape,   St.    Louis,   etc..   R.   Co.   r. 

Para,    The    City   of. 

Paramore    z:    Western    R.    Co.,    pp. 

244,   3306,   3309,    3394,   3398. 
Pardee  v.    Drew,   pp.   3114,    3124 
Pares    7'.    St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2291. 
Parham,    Morgan   v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    f. 

Woodruff   v. 

Paris.   Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 

Paris  Trans.  Co.  v.  Alexander,  p. 
2657. 

Paris,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Robinson, 
pp.  1493,  1497,  1498,  2666,  2667, 
2669.  .       ,  „      „ 

Parish,    International,    etc.,    R.    >-o. 


'-  V.  Ulster,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     192 

N      Y.    353,    85    N.    E.     153— pp. 
59,    1620,    2442. 

r.  Ulster,   etc.,    R.    Co..   90    N. 

Y.    S.    1000,    99    App.    Div.    10— 
pp.    2462,    2463. 

Parish    &    Co.    i'.    Yazoo,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    249. 
Park,    Hostetter    v. 

Houston    Elect.    Co.    f. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville   R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Preston,  pp.  433.  728.  822, 

1000,  1001,  1030.  3880. 

r.  Southern  Railway,  pp.  268, 

3134,  3139,  3140.  3185,  3301. 

Parke,  Dayton  r. 
Parker  v.     .Atlantic,  etc..  K.  Co., 
pp.  148,  822,  1040. 

Hirmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 

V     Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  pp. 

1683,   1736,   1762,  2695,  2760, 
2761,  2898,  2930,  2980. 

—  f.   I'.yrnes.    p.     1245. 

—  ■;■     Des     Moines     City     R.     Co.. 
pp     2012,    2561,    2763.    2895.    2976. 

—  V.   Elmira.    etc.,     R.    Co.,     pp. 
72,     144. 

—  V.  Flagg,    pp.     727,    732,    739. 
749.  ,  „     ,. 

—  V.  Great    Western    R.    Co..    p. 
292. 

—  Howe  V.  ,, , 

—  r.  Mclver.   pp.   1229.   1232. 
1237.  1241. 

—  i:  Macv.    p.    3300. 

f    Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co.. 

p.    1750.  „       „ 

r.   Milwaukee,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    531,    892,    897,    906. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

t'.   North         German         Lloyd 

Steamship    Co.,    p.    4010. 

V.   Railroad   Co..    p.    148. 

T.\   St.    Louis    Transit    Co..    p. 

1710. 

Schulz   V.  _„, 

f.  United    R.     Co..    pp.     1903. 

2248.     2614.  ^       „ 

V.  Washington,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

p.   2867. 


Parker    r.    Winlow,    p.    709. 

Parker     Buggy     Corp      r.     At'ant'^- 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    478,    493,    494. 
Parkersburg,        Parkersburg,        etc., 

Transp.    Co.    i. 

Transportation    Co.    v. 

Parkersburg,     etc.,     Transp.     Co.     v- 

Parkersburg.    p.    3433. 
Parkinson.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t. 
Parkman,    Lamb   v. 
Parks,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp.    436, 

467,  634.  „     ^ 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Kentucky  Cent.   R.   Co.,  pp. 

2512,    2539,    2540. 

V    Nashville,   etc.,    R.    Co..   pp. 

1906,    1938.  ^         .      „ 
t'    St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    p. 

1891.  „      _ 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co..   pp. 

2113       2197,      2279,     2280,     2283, 
2416,    2884,    2940,    2971. 

f.   San     .\ntonio     Tract.     Co.. 

pp.    2114,    2381,    2382. 

Parlicr    :■.     Southern     R.     Co..     pp- 

1884,    2908. 
Pdrmalee,     JefTersonville,     etc.,     K. 

Co.   V. 
Parmelee,    Aguirre   v. 

r.  Austin,  p.  3189. 

r.  Fisher,  pp.   3113.   3114. 

3115.  3118.  3127.  3129.  3130. 

f.   Lowitz.   p.   8. 

V.  McNulty,     pp.    3189,     3190. 

V.  Western      Transp.     Co.,     p. 

Parmelee     Co.    v.      Wheelock,      pp 

2010,   2950,   2953. 
Parmer,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Parnell    r.    Atlantic    Coast    Line    R. 

Co.,    pp.    3396,    3398,    3414,    3416. 
Parr   &    Co.,    McFarland   r. 
Parramore,    Southern    R.    Co.   f. 
Parrent     v.     Rhode     Island     Co.,     p. 

2697.  ,  „      „ 

Parrill    v.    Cleveland,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1087.    1117. 
Parris   v.    Atlanta,    etc..    R.    Co..    pp. 

2174,    2186. 
Parrish    '■.    Pensacola,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

P-   2921.  .  „       „ 

Parrott    V.    Atlantic,     etc..    K.     *-o., 

pp.    2714,   2715,   2853. 

Cincinnati,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Parry,    .\tchison.   etc..    R.   Co.  ?'. 

Pcnnsvlvania    R.    Co.    v. 

Walker   -•. 

Parshley.    State    v. 

Parsley.    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    .-. 

Parsons  r.  Chicago,  etc^  ?- S-^" 
11  C  C.  A.  489,  63  Fed.  903— 
pp.    3680,    3719. 

-  ■  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  167 
TT  s  447  42  L.  Ed.  231.  17  S. 
Ct  887— pp.  3631.  3684.  3708. 
3711.  3718.  3719.  3735  3/41. 
3748.    3775.    3827.    3829.    3830. 

—  V.   Empire     Transp.      Co..      pp. 
4044     4045.    4046.    4062. 

—  v.  Hardv.     pp.     541.    607.    609. 
618,    619,    628,    634,    635,    728. 

V.  Montcath,    p.    740. 

New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


(N.    Y.).    37    Hun    128-p.    22/8. 

f.  New     York.    etc..     R.     Co., 

113  N.  Y.  355.  21  N.  E.  143.  3 
L  R  A  68?.  10  Am.  St.  Rep. 
450— pp.     1526,     1964,    2275. 

Ogden    V. 

r.  United      States      Exp.      Co., 

pp.   796,  851,   852.  . 

Parsons- Applegate       Co.      -■•„Louis- 

ville,    etc..    R.    Co..    pp.    6.-;8.    698. 
Parsons-Willis       Lumber        Co.       f. 

Stuart,    p.    3471. 
Part    of    Cargo    of    Breinstone.    Ber- 

tellote    f.  T,   -1       J      „^ 

Partee     v.     Georgia      Railroad,     pp. 

66,   1494.  .  or-. 

Partello    r.     Missouri    Pac.     K.    Co., 

p.    2671. 


CCLIl 


'lABLE    OF    CASES. 


Partelow    f.     Xewton,    etc..     St.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1994,    2758,    2889,    2949. 

Partridge,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v- 

V.  Woodland     Steamboat     Co., 

p.  2024. 

Pasadena,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  Hollowaj'  v. 
Pascell  f.   North   Tersev   St.   R'.   Co., 

p.  2690. 
Passaic,  The. 
Passenger     Cases,     pp.    3421,     3474, 

3564,    3565,    3566,    3571,    3581. 
Passenger    Railway    f.     Young,     pp. 

2038,    2064,    2411. 
Pastore    :■.    American    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

1071. 
Pate  T.   Columbia,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    pp. 

3683,   2694,   2899. 

t'.  Tar     Heel     Steamboat     Co., 

p.  4004. 

Paterson  z:    Central  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
pp.  2185,  2250,  2259. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

817,   843,   851. 

v.   Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans. 

Co.,   p.   2690. 

Paterson   Co.,   In    re. 
Patillo,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i-. 
Patria,    The. 

Patrick    '■.     Farmer's    Ins.     Co.,    pp. 
1113,    1118. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

424,   426. 

Shackelford    v. 

Patrick  Henry,   The. 

Patridge     v.     Woodland     Steamboat 

Co.,   p.   2927. 
Patron   v.    Silva,    p.    516. 
Patry   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    77 

Wis.   218,  46  N.  W.   56— p.   3092 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     8^ 

Wis.      408,     52     N.     W.     312— p 
2478. 

Patscheider    v.     Great    Western    R 

Co.,    p.    3169. 
Pattee  v.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp 

1812,      1813,      2734,      2736,      2918 

2942. 
Patten  v.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

1780. 

V.  Faithorn,     p.     3509. 

f.  Johnson,    p.    3159. 

Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Union    Pac.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

1155,   1156. 

Patterson   v.    Augusta,   etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.  2562. 

Baltimore     Steam-Packet       Co. 

Cleveland,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Clyde,     pp.     1037,     1047. 

Patterson,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

645,    671,    677. 

Jordan  f. 

V.   Kansas,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     pp. 

320,    323,    984,    986. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

z'.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2164. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3422,    3482,    3487. 

f.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

822,    1385,    1420. 

V.  Moore,   p.    517. 

V.  North   Carolina   R.   Co.,   pp. 

728,   749,   750. 

V.  Old      Dominion      Steamship 

Co.,  pp.   1611,  3981. 

f.  Omaha,     etc..    Bridge     Co. 

pp.   1891,    1996. 

z:   San       Francisco,      etc.,       R 

Co.,    pp.    2839.    3003. 

Southern   Pac.    Co.   f. 

i'.    Southern   Pac.   Co.,   p.   2850 

Southern    R.    Co.    z-. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

V.  Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1813,  2086. 

Washington,     etc.,     R'.     Co.     v 


Patterson    Tobacco    Co.,     Richmond. 

etc.,  R.   Co.  f. 
Patterson   &   Co.,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co. 


etc.,      R. 


Co.,      pp. 
Richmond 


z:  Gulf, 

831,  832. 

Patterson,       etc.,      Co., 

etc.,   R.   Co.  z\ 
Pattison    z'.    Culton,    pp.    3.-)5,     1225. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    T'. 

•  Lafayette,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -•. 

Patton,    Chevaillier    t'. 

Cleveland,     etc..    R.     Co.    v. 

r.   Magrath,       pp.       729,       73:», 

768,    1008. 

z:   Pickles,    p.    2oS0. 

■;•.   Texas,       etc.,       R'.      Co.,      ii. 

2670. 
Patzke   7-.   Minneapolis,   etc.,   R.   Co  , 

p.    2820. 
Paul,    Pennsylvania    Co.    v. 

V.   Pennsylvania       R.      Co.,      ]). 

1076. 

V.   Salt    Lake    Citv    R.    Co.,    8,5 

Pac.    563,    30    Utah    41— pp.    2395, 
2688. 

V.   Salt    Lake    City    R.    Co.,    34 

Utah    1,    95     Pac.    363— pp.    2671. 
2687. 

z\   \'irginia,    pp.    3440,    3447. 

Paul   Citv   R.   Co.,   Pine   '•. 
Paul,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    Smith   v. 
Paulitsch    z\    New    York,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,   pp.    1665,    1881. 
Faulk,    Southwestern    R.    Co.    '•. 
Paulsen    z\    United    States,    p.    3441. 
Paulson    V.    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co, 

p.    2815. 
Paulson,     Magdeburg    Ins.      Co.     '■. 
Pauson,    Northern     Pac.     R.    Co.    ■:■. 
Pavey,    Southern    Kansas    R.    Co.    z\ 
Pavitt    V.    Lehigh    \'aney     Railroad, 

p.    1420. 
Pawtucket    St.    R.    Co.,    Cottrcll   ?■. 

Pawtuxet    Valley    St.    R.    Co.,    Mur- 
ray   Z'. 
Paxon,    Fisher    v. 

Sharer    z-. 

Paxson    Bros.    v.    Warfield,    pp.    393, 

391. 
Payne,     Dallas     Rapid     Transit     Co. 

Danville    St.    Car    Co.    ■;■. 

z\   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1539. 

• Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

T'.   Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1921,    2188,    2923,    2987. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Sleade   z'. 

c'.   Spokane     St.     R.      Co.,      pp. 

1716,    1750,    2950. 

I'.   Springfield    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1520,    2333,    2928,    2948. 

Terre    Haute    Tract.,    etc.,    Co. 

V. 

z'.  Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2094. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  z\ 

Paynter    z\     Bridgeton,    etc.,     Tract. 

Co.,    p.    2672. 
Payton    r.     Gulf    Line    R.     Co.,    pp. 

1851,    2566. 
P.,   C,   C.  &  St.   R.   Co.,   Guy  T'. 
P.,    C.    &    St.    L.    R.    Co.    T'.    lilake- 

more,    pp.    322,    455,    981. 

z:  Martin,     pp.     1537,     1714, 

Peabody,    Brower    -<•. 

V.  Oregon      R.      etc.,      Co.,      p. 

2663. 

Peacock,    Central    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   i. 

Hodges   z\ 

Peale,   Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pearce,     Crenshawe    z\ 

V.  Newton,    pp.    731,    746. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Wabash    R.    Co.    v. 

Pearl,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pearson,    Alden    v. 

v.   Duane,       pp.       210,        1492 

1496,      1497,      2416,      2419,      3083 
3097,  3978. 


Pearson,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Kidd  z: 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Pease    ?'.     Delaware,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(N.    Y.),    11     Daly    350— p.    2474. 

i'.   Delaware,   etc.,    R.   Co.,    101 

N.    Y.    367,    5    N.    E.    37,    54   Am. 
Rep.   699— p.    2473. 

?'.   Sloahee,    p.    1223. 

Peasemoore       Mill.       Co.,       Burrton 

State   Bank  ?■. 
Peat     -'.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     p. 

2778. 
Peavey    &     Co.     ■:■.     Union     Pac.     R. 

Co..    pp.    3(.79,    3732,    3733.    3734, 

3791,    3798. 
Peavy   ?•.    Georgia    R.    Co.,    pp.    2055, 

2417,    2418,    2482. 
Peck   V.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1938,   2859. 

Carter    z: 

7'.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1285,     1298,      1362,      1363,      1477, 
1478. 

Clapp    Bros.    &    Co.    ■:'. 

Corse    i: 

■;■.   Dinsmore,      pp.      308.      333. 

337,    838,    840. 

Meyer   "'. 

z:   Neil,    pp.    1749,    1999.    2036. 

z'.   New    York,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(N.  Y.),  8  Hun  286— pp.  2412, 
2413. 

z\   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

70  N.  Y.  587— pp.  191,  1943, 
2485. 

I'.   North         Staffordshire         R. 

Co.,    p.    790. 

■ 7'.   St.     Louis    Trans.     Co.,     pp. 

2384,   2403.    2687,    2985.    2990. 

■;•.   Springfield    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

1996,    2657. 

V.   United    States,    p.    3888. 

7'.   Weeks,    pp.    614,    746,    806, 

1003,    1007. 

Pecos  River  R.  Co.  7'.  Harrington, 
p.   507. 

z:   Latham,    pp,    443,    448,    454, 

462,    1319,    1342. 

Pecos  Valley,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Har- 
ris,  p.   3753. 

Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Cox,  pp.  418, 
1441. 

v.   Crews,    p.    3332. 

z.:   Evans-Snyder-Buel    Co..    100 

Tex.  190,  97  S.  W.  466— pp. 
757,  758,  947,  1099,  1101,  1102, 
1417,    1420. 

7'.    Evans-Snider-Buel     Co.,     42 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  60,  93  S.  W. 
1024— pp.  447.  464,  971,  1277, 
1290,    1305,    1318. 

z:   Hughes,    pp.    503.    940,    947, 

1078,    1080,    1363,    1381. 

7'.   Maxwell,     pp.     645,     696. 

7'.   Meyer,    p.    487. 

7'.   Porter,    pp.     521,     589,    598, 

3729,    3750. 

Runnells    7. 

7'.   Trower,     pp.     1737.     1755. 

Twichell    7'. 

7'.   Twichell,     pp.      1730,     2033. 

Wallace    7'. 

7'.   Williams,    p.    1762. 

Pedon,     Iron      &     Steel      Co.,      Ca-e 

Belt    R-.    Co.    7'. 
Pederson,    Hartford    Deposit    Co.    v. 

7'.   Seattle   Consol.    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2261. 

Pedigo,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z. 

McConnell    7'. 

Peebles  z\    Boston,   etc.,   R.    Co..    p-i. 

348,    580,    590,     595,     596,      1142, 

1171. 
Peele   7'.    .Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

337,    338,    346,    501,    587. 
Peeples   z'.    Brunswick,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2038,    2040,   2045,   2049,   2605, 

2610. 
Peerless    Mfg.     Co.     z:     New    York. 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    779,    833,    843. 
Peet    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     19 

Wis.     118— p.     3253. 


TAIiM".    OF    CASES. 


CCI.III 


Peet  V.  Chicago,  clc.  K.  Co..  20 
Wis  594,  91  Am.  Ucc.  446— pp. 
236'  253.  '.07,  (.08.  610,  611,  615, 
618!    (.54,    3258,    3401. 

Pette    V.    Morgan,     pp.     3330     33»l. 

Pegler    r.    Monmouthshire    K.,    etc, 

Peik  v.''' Chicago,    etc      R.    Co..    pp. 

34.    36.      i7,    46,     63.      116.      122. 

3492,    3493,    3497,    3668. 
Peirce,    lilaekman    v. 
Peixotti    r.     McLaughlin,     pp.     314_, 

Pell   -y.   Joliet,   etc..   R.    Co..   238   111. 

510,    87    N.      K.      542— pp.      1742, 

2079,    2311,    2641,    2882,    2894. 
V.  Joliet,      etc.,      R.     Co.,      142 

111.  App.  362-pp.  2079,  2337. 
relU-titr,  Chicago  Lity  K.  to.  -.■. 
Pelot    V.    Atlantic,    ttc,    R.    to.     pp. 

1735,    2039,    2575,    2580,    2o06 
Pclton    7'.    Rensselaer,    etc.,    K.    Lo., 

pp.    896,    901,    902 
Pcmherton    Co.    v.    New    \  ork,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    782,    958 
Pembina    Consol.,    etc..    Mill.    Co 

Pennsylvania,     pp.     58.     (.U 

3473,  '3570. 
Pence    t.     Louisville,     etc., 

P.    1857. 

Toledo,  etc.,  R.   Co.   - 

V.  Wabash    R.    Co.. 

2127,    2150.    2227,    2399. 
Pendegast.    Whitin    v. 
Pender    f.    Robbins.    p.    U- 
Pendergast   v.    Adams    Iv-xp.    Co.,    pp. 

3254.    3353. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Grund   r. 

V.  Union   R.   Co.,   p.   2174. 

Pender-lleyman        Hardware        Co.. 

PenderyV  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Pendleton,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    K.    (^o. 

1684,      1693, 


3472, 
,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2126, 


PP 


pp 


V.  Kinsley,      PP 

1750,    2045,   2047. 

. Miller   v. 

. Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.   ■:•. 

Pleasants   v. 

z:   Richmond,      etc.,      R.      t.o., 

pp.    1509,    2114.    2117,    2131,    2136. 

Pwitield   V.    Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    2077,    2422.    2494. 
Peninsular    R.    Co.,    W  hite    t'. 
Peninsula,    etc.,     Co.     r.     Shand,     p. 

1490.  „ 

Peniston    r.    Chicago,    etc.,    to., 

1767,    1793,    1798,    1964. 

Railroad    Co.    v. 

Penn,    Albright   r. 

. V.   Buffalo,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

436,    728,    1269,    1280     137x 
Penn   Clothing   Co.   v.   United   States 

Exp.   Co.,   pp.   946,   1029. 
Penn    Collieries    Co.,    Sheridan   v. 
Penn   R.    Co.,    New   Jersey   R.,   etc.. 

Penn    Refin.      Co..     Western      New 

York,   etc.,   R.   Co.  '.: 
f.   Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3730.    3731.  ^     ^      ,, 

Pennewill    z:    Cullen     PP-    2,    4     11, 

209,    727,    732,    748,    732,    8(.8. 
Penniman,    Lane   z\ 

Tinslcy    v.  .       r  o 

Pennington      v.     ^'I'VP'S,  Cent.     K. 

Co.,    pp.    \(^2i.    1(.24.    1634.    2447. 

X'    Philadelphia     Co.,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1624,    2447. 

Sehncideau    &    Co. 

Pennock.     Pennsylvania 
Pennock.    Pullman    Co.     c. 
Pennsylvania,    Cook    v. 

Erie   R.    Co.   T. 

Gloucester    Ferry    Co.    r. 

Lehigh    N'alley    R.    Co.    v. 

New    York,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    ■:■. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Pembina     Consol.,     etc..     Mill. 

Co.   -■.  ^  ,  • 

Philadelphia,     etc..     Steamship 

Co.  '■.  ,        ^ 

Pullman's    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 


R.     Co.     t 


Pennsylvania,     Reading    Railroad    v. 

Schmidt    "■. 

SchoUenberger    v. 

Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    f. 

V.   Wheeling,   etc..    Bridge   Co., 

p.    3477. 

Pennsylvania  Cent.  R.  Co.,  Mc- 
Cormick  v. 

V.   Schwarzenberger,    pp.    3165, 

3178,   3373,   3375. 

Pennsylvania  Co.  r.  Bray,  pp.  1635, 
2461,  2463,  2470,  2471,  2708, 
3025. 

Brown,  etc.,   Co.  v. 

V.  Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

501,     730. 

V.  Chicago,    p.    100. 

V.  Clark,    pp.     1306,     1442. 

Colgate    V. 

-  V.  Coyer,    p.    2703. 

-  V.   Dickson,    p.     3289. 

-  Donnovan  v. 

-  Donovan    v. 

-  V.   Donovan,    pp.    99,    132. 

Edison    V. 

-  Edward    Frohlich   Glass  Co.   v. 

Ellsworth   V. 

r.    Fairchild,     pp.     1489,     1490, 

3400. 

Fortier    v. 

Frohlich    :•. 

Frohlich    Glass    Co.    r. 

Graham    v. 

r.  Greso,    79    111.    App.     127- 

pp.    2092,    2093. 

-  V.   Greso,    102    111.    App.    2^2- 
pp.    1502,    1567. 

Grimes    v. 

Hall    V. 

Hays    &    Co.    V. 

r.   lline,   pp.    1625,   2425,   2437, 

2447. 

V.  Hoagland,    p.    1854. 

r.   Ilolderman,     pp.     o83,     384. 

Jordan    v. 

V.   Kenwood     Bridge     Co.,     pp. 

291,    752,    754,    758,    830. 

V.  Kcnnard     Glass,     etc.,     Co., 

-J^  ^T^^Lenhart,     pp.     2446,     2468, 

2709,   2718.  „,,       ^^, 
r.   Liveright,       pp.      8l3,      821, 

3168,   3169.  ^       ^„„      _^ 
V.   Loftis,    72    O.     St.    288,     /4 

N     E     179,     106    Am.     St.     Rep. 

597_pp.     3317,    3322. 
V.   Loftis,     72    O.    St.     300,    74 

N.    E.    182— pp.    3317,    3322. 

Lucas   V.  ..       . 

V.  McCaffrey,      173      111.      169, 

SO  N.  E.  713— pp.  1537.  2246, 
2275,  2746,   2747,  2857,   2879. 

r.  McCaffrey,     68     111.       App. 

635— p.    2247. 

V    Marion,     104     Ind.     239,     3 

N.  E.  874— p.  2577.  . 

V.  Marion,    123    Ind.    4l3,    23 

N  E  973,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  330. 
7  "l.  R.  A.  687— pp.  1767,  1779, 
2296.  I 

f.   Miller,      pp.        3117,      3121. 

3124.  3142.  3151.  3153.  3154. 
3174. 

V.  Newmeyer.    pp.    1753,    1/37, 

1987,    2767,    2888. 

V.  O'Connell,    p.    166. 

Pennsylvania  Co.  f.   Paul,  pp.   1953. 

2343,   2974. 

Pierce   f. 

V.   Poor,     pp.     477,     479.      489. 

492.   682.  ^^^^ 

I'.   Purvis,    pp.     2093.    2696. 

V.   Roy,    pp.    1714,    1718.    1719. 

1722.  1735.  1738.  1821.  1837. 
2776,    3225. 

Scofield  V. 

V.   Scofield.    p.    2484. 

V.  Sheares,      pp.      1083,      1084. 

1087.   1090. 

Siynfy   r. 

Stoner    v. 

Struble   v. 


Pennsylvania    Co.,    Taylor    v. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

i:  Toomey,   p.    2530. 

V.  United    States,    p.    3654. 

!•.  Walker,    p.    1450. 

V.  Wentz,       pp.       1857.      I838. 

1861,    2455. 

V.  Witte.    p.    2605. 

V.  Yoder,    pp.    822,    947,    949. 


1076.  ^  .     , 

Pennsylvania    Miller    State    Ass  n    r. 

P.    &   Q.    Ry.    Co.,    p.    700. 
Pennsylvania   Railroad,  Tobin  v. 

Weil  V. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    Aaronson    v. 

Alexander    r. 

Allam    :•.  .,     , 

V    American     Oil     Works,     pp. 

1162,    1163,    1248,    1249. 

American    Union    Coal    Co.    r. 

V.  Anoka   Nat.    Bank,   pp.   827, 

828 

-i^'^Ji:      pp.       1722.      2.13, 
2263. 

Banks   v. 

Barker-Bond     Lumber     Co.     :•. 

Becker  v. 

Begley   v. 

r.   Bell.    p.    2133. 

V.   Berry,    pp.    3251,    3232. 

Bleiwise   v. 

Blount  v. 

Blue   V.  „     ,..„ 

V.  Board,  pp.  24,  31,  88,  3300. 

V.   Brooks,       pp.      1542,      2665, 

2676,    2762. 

Brakman    v. 

Brennisen    :'. 

Buck    V.  ^     ,     ^ 

r.  Bulah    Shaft    Coal    Co.,    p. 

706. 

Burnett   v. 

Burns   v. 

Burr   V. 

V.   Burr,    pp.    790,    /92. 

Buston   V. 

Camdec  v. 

Carr     v. 

Carter    v. 

Catanzaro  v. 

r.  Clark,     pp.     614,     690. 

V.  Coggins       Co.,       pp. 

3488. 

Comly   V. 

V.  Commonwealth,     p.     3363. 

f.   Connell.      112    111.    295       34 

Am.    Rep.    238-pp.    2462,     2482. 
^487       2495,     2496,    3079,    3080. 

-1-  r.  Connell,  127  111.  419.  20 
E.  89— pp.  2856,  3079,  3080. 
3083. 

V.  Connell.    26    111.    App.    594 

—pp.    2855,    3105. 

Conroy   "'. 

Cooley    f. 

Cox   t'. 

Creed    r. 

Cunningham    z-. 

Dampman    v. 

Davenport   Co.   v. 

Dietrich    v. 

Di     Giorgio,      Importing,      etc. 


3426, 


Co. 


Donovan    "•. 
Drake    J'. 
Dunn   V. 
Eckert  f. 
Flower    f. 
Foreman   i". 
V.   Fries,     p. 
Gillis  x: 

■  Ginn   ■:■. 
•  Glinn    r. 

■  V.  Goetchius, 

-  Cioldey    t'. 

-  Greb    v. 

-  Green   r. 

-  ;-.   Green, 

-  Gude   f. 

-  Hall   v. 

-  Harrison    f. 

-  Harrison    Granite    Co. 

-  Hart  r. 


745. 


pp.    765,    766. 


pp.    1767,    2871. 


CCLIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


1073.      3443, 
3504.      3519, 


Coal       Mill. 


Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,    Hayman    f. 

i:  Henderson,    pp.    i567,    2098, 

2131. 

Hillsdale    Coal,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Holmes   f. 

Home    Ins.     Co.    v. 

Hoover   i: 

Hove    T'. 

Hughes  f. 

f.  Hughes,      pp. 

3481,     3482,     3502, 
3600,    3650. 

. Hutchins    v. 

Hutkoff   r. 

V.   International       

Co  97  C.  C.  A.  383,  173  Fed 
1— pp.  3688,  3700,  3709,  3710, 
3738.  ^     ,       ,.. 

z:  International       Coal       Mm. 

Co  ,  230  U.  S.  184,  35  S.  Ct. 
893— p.    3814. 

Tackson    v. 

'z:  Tohn    Anda    Co.,     pp.     962, 

981. 

Tones    f.  

z:   Tones,   pp.  2087,  2089,  3252, 

3258.  " 

Toynes    f. 

v.   Kennard     Glass,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    939,    1036. 

Kennedy    '■. 

. z:   Kilgore,    p.     1884. 

Kilpatrick  v. 

V.  Knight    58    N.     T.     L.     287. 

33  Atl.  845— pp.  3119,  3120, 
3185. 

v.  Knight,    192    U.    S.    21,    48 

L.  Ed.  325,  24  S.  Ct.  202— pp. 
3572,  3589. 

Kohler  z: 

Lang   z: 

Langdon    v. 

f.   Langdon,    p.    2211. 

Le\vis   z\ 

Lindsey    r. 

Lippmann   '•. 

Logan    Coal    Co.    v. 

Long    z: 

Lucesco    Oil    Co.   v. 

V.  Lyons,       pp.       1884,       1895, 

2267. 

McCafferty  v. 

V.  McCaffrey,    pp.    2667,    2858. 

McClintock  z\ 

z:   McCloskey,    pp.    2127,    2217. 

Machlin  v. 

z\   MacKinney,    pp.   2669,   2781. 

McMasters    v. 

McXulty   z: 

McSwegan    v. 

Margo    v. 

Marmonstein     z'. 

V.   Marshall,    p.    699. 

•  Matthews    v. 

Maxson    v. 

Meier  v. 

Messenger  '■. 

z:  Midvale   Steel    Co.,   pp.    700, 

707,   708,   716,   717,   718,    1137. 

V.  Miller,      87       Pa.       395- p. 

1038. 

V.  Miller,   87   Pa.   577,    1 3   Atl. 

324,   4  Am.   St.   Rep.   670— p.   822. 

Minds   V. 

Mitchell    Coal,   etc.,    Co.   v. 

V.  Mogi,    pp.    3753,    3758. 

Morrisdale    Coal    Co.    v. 

Moyer    v. 

■  V.  Naive,    pp.     534,    565,    611, 

612,    822,    894,    901,    903. 

New  Jersey   R.,   etc.,   Co.   z'. 

v.   Orem,     etc.,     Produce     Co., 

pp.    835,    861,    3297. 

Palmer    v. 

V.   Palmer,    p.    3105. 

V.  Parry,    pp.     1612,     1620. 

Paul  V. 

V.   Pennock,    p.    576. 

V.  Peoples,      pp.      1789,      1881 

2562. 

Perry  v. 

z:   Peters,    pp.    1884,    2360. 

Petrie   v. 


Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  z:  Philadel- 
phia' County,  pp.  35.  44,  48,  5(i, 
62,     124. 

Powell    z: 

Price    f. 

z:  Price,   pp.    1502,    1537,    1576, 

2102. 

■  Puritan    Coal    Min.    Co.    ■:■. 

Quinn    z\ 

Rager   ''. 

z'.   Raiordon,  pp.  816,  820.  827, 

1037,    1389,    1456. 

Rathgebe    f. 

Rawson  f. 

Reed   z: 

z:  Reed,   pp.   2065,    2157. 

Reese   v. 

■  R'idgway    Grain    Co.    i'. 

Ritz   v. 

•  Rivers    v. 

Roberts  z\ 

Rothstein    z'. 

Rowdin    v. 

Rowland    v. 

■  Runyon    v. 

z:   Russ,   p.    1787. 

•  Ryer  z\ 

■  Salberg    r. 

v.   Samuel,    pp.    708,    712. 

Schofield    z\ 

V.   Scroggins    Co.,    p.    3501. 

Sherman    z\ 

Shipper    '•. 

Shockley    i'. 

Sleeper  -'. 

z:   Smith,    p.    804. 

z\   Spiker,    p.     1622. 

. Spofford     t'. 

■  Staake    z\ 

z'.    Stern, 


pp.__369,     371,     378, 
1796, 


532,    547,    556,    3274 

z\   Stockton,     pp.     1779 

2817,    2874,    2875. 

•   Sutton    c'. 

•  Taylor    z\ 

Thomas    z'. 

Trace    ?•. 

Tucker   ?'. 

Tuesco    Oil    Co.    "'. 

Tyler   z: 

United    States   v. 

v.   Vandiver,   pp.    2413,   2490. 

X'ankirk    -'. 

i\  Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1627,     2497. 

Walnut  Coal  Co.  v. 

Walthour    v. 

Watkins   v. 

Weaver    v. 

z:  Weiller,    p.     1074. 

i'.   Wemple,     65     Hun     252,     20 

N.   Y.    S.   287— p.    3573. 

z:  Wemple,    138    N.    Y.     1,    33 

N.    E.    720,    19    L.    R.    A.    694— p. 
3573. 

Wertheimer   ?•. 

v.   White,    p.     2275. 

Willock  z: 

•  '•.   Wilson,    p.    809. 

Wood    z: 

Wright    z: 

Young    Z'. 

■ r.   Zebe,       33       Pa.       318— pp. 

2113,    2246. 

z:  Zebe,    37    Pa.    420— p.    2246. 

Pennsylvania    R.     Go's.     Appeal,    p. 

3886. 
Pennsylvania     Steam     Towing,     etc., 

Co.,   Ashmore   v. 
Pennsylvania    Steel    Co.    v.    Georgia 

R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    1248,    1249. 
Pennsylvania  Tract.    Co.,    I^ard    c'. 
Pennsylvania,    etc.,    Co.,    Neville    z'. 
Pennsylvania,      etc.,      Nav.      Co.      v. 

Dandridge,    p.    769. 
Pennsylvania,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Dayton 

'-  V.  Waltman,    pp.    897,    898. 

V.  Woodworth,  pp.    1577,   1578. 

Penny    z>.    Atlantic    Coast    Line    R. 

Co.,  p.   2657. 

z:  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1711,    1927,    2020,    2079,    2234. 


Penobscot   Ray,   etc.,   Steamboat  Co., 

Hutchins    z\ 
Pensacola    Elect.    Co.    z\    Alexander, 

pp.     2777,    2860,    3003. 

r.   Bissett,   p.   28()1. 

Pensacola      Tel.      Co.      '■.      Western 

Union    Tel.    Co.,    pp.    3418,    3446, 
3447,    3471. 
Pensacola,    etc.,    Co.,    Williams    Co. 

Pensacola,     etc.,    R.     Co.    z:    Haufs- 
man,    pp.    2921,    2929. 

Johnson    z'. 

■ Parrish    z'. 

State   z'. 

•  '■.    State,    pp.    61,    124,    1192. 

Storrs   7'. 

■ Wilkinson    z\ 

Penton     z<.     Grand    Trunk     R.     Co., 

p.     3169. 
People    T'.    Albany,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

255. 

AUardt  v. 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

■;•.   Babcock,    pp.    211,    236,    239. 

z\   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

172. 

■:•.    Bishopp,    94    N.    Y.    S.    773, 

106    App.    Div.    266— p.    3541. 

V.   Bishopp,    89    N.    Y.    S.    709, 

44    Misc.    R'ep.    12 — p.    354K 

V.   Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

255. 

''.   Brooklyn     Heights     R.     Co., 

p.    70. 

V.   Brooks,    p.    3582. 

■:■.   B.    &   B.   Turnpike,   p.    1501. 

V.   Caryl,    pp.    2417,    2418. 

Central    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

7'.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     55 

111.  95,  8  Am.  Rep.  631— pp. 
541,    542. 

■ z:   Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co..    223 

111.  581,  79  N.  E.  144,  7  Am. 
&   Eng.    Ann.    Cas.    1— p.    3524. 

Chilvers    z\ 

z'.   Commissioners       of      Taxes 

and    Assessments,    p.    3582. 

■ 7'.   Compagnie    Generale    Trans- 

atlantique,    pp.    3564,    3565. 

V.    Detroit       United       Railway, 

154  Mich.  514,  118  N.  W.  9,  32 
R.  R.  R.  158,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   N.    S.,    158— pp.    1646,    1647. 

7'.    Detroit       LTnited       Railway, 

162  Mich.  460,  127  N.  W.  748— 
p.   81. 

. 7'.   Downer,    p.    3565. 

z:   Duchess,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

255. 

7'.   Edye,   p.    3565. 

7'.   Erie     R.     Co.,     198     N.     Y. 

369,  91  N.  E.  849,  29  L.  R.  A., 
N  S.,  240,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.    811— pp.    3426,    3458. 

7'.    Erie   R.    Co.,    119    N.    Y.    S. 

873,  135  App.  Div.  767— pp.  3457, 
3458. 

V.   Fisher,    p.   3421. 

V.   Fishkill,    etc..    Road    Co.,    p. 

1501. 

v.  Halbustro,   p.    2562. 

7'.   Hillsdale,      etc..       Turnpike 

Road.    p.    1501. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

7,'.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 

32. 

. '  Illinois,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Tillson,    p.    2473. 

z'.  k.   &   N.   Turnpike,   p.    1501. 

V.   McKay,    p.    1499. 

V.  New     York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.   1501. 

New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co.   z\ 

V    New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N.  Y.),   22  Hun   533- p.   264. 

V.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(N     Y.),   9   Am.    &   Eng.    R.    Cas. 

I,  28    Hun    543,    2    Civ.    Proc.    R. 

II,  2  McCarty  Civ.  Proc.  345— 
pp.  211,  212,  251,  255,  256,  257, 
1500,    1501. 


TAIU.K    OF    CASKS. 


CCLV 


People   r.    New    York     etc.,    K     Co 
104    N.    Y.    58,    9    N.    h.    836.    58 
Am.   Rep.   484— p.    117. 

r    New    York,    etc..    R.    Co.,    5 

N.    Y.    S.    945_p.    1835 

V.  New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    8 

IM    Y    S.  672,  55   Ilun  409,  608— 

. Ohio,    etc.,    R.     Co.    r. 

V.   Prillen,     p.     3583. 

. V.  Roberts,   p.   3586. 

. V.  Rochester,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

255.  ,  ,^,, 
V    State    Hoard,    p.    i^si- 

Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Walcott    V. 

Walling    r. 

V.   Weaver,    p.     3570. 

Wilcox    V. 

Peoples,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    t. 
People's    Hank,    Douglas   v. 

V.   Morgolofski,    p.    1750. 

People's    Coal    Co.,    Nicolette    Lum- 
ber  Co.    I'.  ,  , 

People's    Exp.    Co.,    Commonwealth 

People's   Nat.    Bank   v.    Brogden,    98 
Tex.   360,  83   S.   W.    1098— p.   400. 

r.   Rrogden    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

84    S.    W.    601,    602— p.    400. 

People's  Passenger  R.  Co.  v.  Green, 

pp.    1530,    1905,    2116,    2191. 
—11  V.  Lauderbach,  pp.   2203,  2913. 

Baldwin 


Pcrc      Marquette     R.      Co.,     United 

States  I'. 

Withcy     V. 

Perishable     Freight     fransp.     Co.    2: 

O'Neill,    p.    872. 
Perishaw,     Cleveland,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


V.  Baldwin,     pp. 

1695. 

Bertram   v. 

Bischoff  y. 

Braunstein     v. 

Coye  V. 

Coyle    V. 

Kleiber    v. 

McAllister  v. 

Newton    v. 

People's     Sav.     Rank 

etc..    Transit    Co.,    p 
People's      Steamboat 

Steamboat    Co.    ■:•. 
People's    St.    R.    Co.,   Jager 

Pitcher  %: 

People's     St.     R.,     etc., 

V. 

Van  Natta  r. 

People's,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

p.    1827. 
Peoria     Packing     Co.     v 
etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp.   981, 


1682,     1694, 


Waterloo 
659. 
Co.,      Weems 


Co.,     Buck 


'.     Weiller, 

Nashville, 
1046. 
R.    Co.,    Chicago,    etc.. 


Peoria,    etc 
R.    Co.    V. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

209     210,     236.     240,     1493,     3271, 
3282,    3283,    3304. 

Corning  &   Co.   f. 

V.   Lane,    p.    2210. 

V.  Reynolds,    p.    2693. 

Rosenfeld    v. 

Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.  f. 

«.  United     States,     etc.,     Co., 

pp    727,  732,   748,  819,  916,   3282, 
3283. 

Peoria,    etc..     Terminal     Railway    r. 

Hoerr,    p.    2425.  I 

Pepper,     Hastings    '■.  \ 

Pepperell    Mfg.    Co.,    Gulf,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   V. 
Pequeno    ?■.    Taylor,    p.    1241. 
Percy  v.   Fitcliburg  R.   Co.,   p.   2504. 

r.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1646,    1(.47.    2442. 

Union    Sul'iluir    L  o.    -■_. 

V.  Union      Sulphur      Co.,      pp. 

3952.   3968. 

Perego  v.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,    K.   t-o., 

pp.    1775.    2272. 
Pereira   v.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

337,    412,    1017,    3278, 
Pere    Marquette    R.    Co.,    Crosby    v. 

Dahrooge    v. 

Freeman    v. 

Pere   Marquette   R.    Co.   f.    Strange. 

pp.  1508.  1512.  1514,  1713,  1768, 
1797,  1799,  1800,  1918,  2137. 
2873. 


Perkett    v.    Manistee,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    483     489..  ^  r       ., 

Perkins,    American    F;xp.    Lo.    .'. 

f.   Chautauqua    Tract.    Co.,    pp. 

516,   517. 

r.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1758.  ,„      ^ 

Cleveland,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Irzo   t'. 

Lake   Shore,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   Missouri.       etc.,       Railroad, 

pp.    2474,    2715,    2718. 

T    New    Orleans    R.,   etc.,   Co., 

p.    1905. 

f    New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1759,    2095,    2096. 

V.  Ophir    Silver    Min.    Co.,    p. 

436.  „     ^ 

V.  Portland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

417,    418,    848,    3295,    3410. 

V.  Wright,    pp.    3161,    3167. 

Perkins   Co.   v.   American    Rxp.    Co., 

pp       421,     440,      441,      456,      83I, 

1049.  „     ^ 

Perley   v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3149,    3150. 
Perrault    ?■.    Emporium     Department 

Store  Co.,  pp.   1488,  2331,  2901. 
Perrin,    Dows    v. 

1:  United     States      hxp.      Co.. 

p.    990. 

Perry   v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1619,    2446. 

V.   Central    Railroad,    pp.    I3l4. 

1791,    1916,    1917,    2966. 

Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Haddow    v. 

Humphreys   v. 

V.   Malarin,    p.    1985. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    •c'. 

V.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2418. 

r.  Philadelphia,     etc.,     R'.     Co.. 

pp.    1578.    2105. 

V.  Pittsburgh,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1603,    2434. 

7..   Spreckles'    Sugar-Refin.    Co., 

•p.    3963.  „   ^ 

— —  V.  Thompson,  pp.  324,  966. 
996. 

V.  Torrence,    p.    3581. 

Westcall    V. 

Wood   r. 

Perry    Co.,    Donaldson    f. 

Pershing    r.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.  1723,  1734,  1743,  1810,  2695, 
2841. 

Persiana,   The. 

Person,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Persse   r.    Cole,    p.    594. 

PeruA'an  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  Mis- 
souri   Pac.   R.    Co.   V. 

Peters.    Bancroft  r. 

Cincinnati,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

f.    Elliott,    p,    1224. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Huston    V. 

Loeb   7'.  T^     /- 

f    New   Orleans,    etc.,    K.    Co.. 

p.    1273. 

Pennsylvania  R.   Co.   r. 

V.  Rylands,    pp.    1721,    2086. 

Peters,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Marietta,    etc^, 

Co.,    pp.    26,     1135,     1136,     1193, 

1196. 
Petersburg   R.    Co.,    Daniel   f. 
Petersburg,   etc..    Steamboat    Line   f. 

Norfolk-Virginia    Peanut     Co.,     p. 

3936. 
Petersen    v.    Case,    p.    J2/9. 

T.Elgin,  etc..  Tract.  Co..  8/ 

N  E.  345,  238  HI.  403— pp.  1^07, 

V.   Elgin,  etc..  Tract.  Co..  142 

HI.   App.  34— pp.   1559,   1958, 
2319,  2334,  2947. 


Peterson  v.    Chicago  Consol.  Tract. 
Co.,  pp.  2356.  2388,  2906 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  KU 

Iowa  92,  45  N.  W.  573— pp.  3178. 
3179,  3193.         „   ^, 

!.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     19 

S  Dak.  122,  102  N.  W.  593,  18 
R  R.  R.  48,  41  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  48— pp.  818.  1451. 
1453.    1467,    1471,    1472. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co..     95 

N  W  532,  119  Wis.  197,  100 
Am.   St.    Rep.   879— p.   2100. 

Cox,     etc.,     Co.    '.■. 

Denver,   etc.,    R.   Co.  v. 

Dinnigan  v. 

z:   Eight    Hundred    and    Sixty- 
Nine    Cedar    Logs,    p.    3942. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 

Lake    Shore,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

J'.   Metropolitan      St.      R.      Co.. 

2596,   2751,   2924. 

V.  Middlesex,   etc.,    Tract.    Co.. 

pp.    2771,    3087. 

v.  Schultzc-Berge,    p.    3913. 

V.  Seattle   Tract.   Co.,   p.   2100. 

V.  State,  p.   3512. 

V.  Tacoma,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

81. 

Petit,    Colorado     Springs,     etc..     R. 

Co.    -.■. 
Petitions    of    Patersen,    In    re. 
Petitt    &    Co.    V.    First    Nat.    Bank, 

p.   388. 
Petrie   v.    Heller,   p.    3891. 

?■.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1529,     2440. 

Petties,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t. 
Pettigrew     ■<■.      Barnum,     pp.     3114. 

3119,    3123.    3124.    3129. 
Pettit,    Dallas,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.    :. 

First   Nat.    Bank   :. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

Scott   V. 

Petty    f.     St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2479. 
Pettyjohn  v.  Oregon  Coal,  etc.,  Co., 

p.    4023. 
Pctuson    -'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1578. 
Peverly    r.    Boston,    p.    1838. 
Pevey,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Peyroux   v.   Howard,    p.   3584. 

Pevtavin,   Williams   :•. 

Pe'vton    V.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1826,    1986. 

Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

Peytona,    The. 

Pfaelzer     z:     Pullman     Palace     Car 

Co.,    pp.    3221,    3222. 
Pfaffenback     f.     Lake     Shore,     etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    2931. 
PfeflFer  v.    Buffalo   R.    Co.,   p.    2146. 
Pfeifer    &    Bro.,    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.   v. 
Pfeiffer.    Commercial     Bank    f. 
Pferdmenges.     etc..     R.     Co..     Louis- 
vile,   etc..    R.   Co.   f. 
Pfister   f.    Central    Pac.    R.    Co..   pn. 

108,  210,  236,  237,  238,  2.'9. 

240  244,  1593,  3110,  3113.  3124. 

3126. 
Pharos,    The. 

Pharr  r.    Collins,    pp.    320,    1160. 
Phelps,    Illinois    Cent.    R'.    Co.   z: 

f.  Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp 

230.    250. 

z:  London,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

3126.    3128.  ^     ^ 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

St.     Louis,    etc..     Railway    z_. 

7-    Windsor       Steamboat      Co.. 

p.    2089. 
Phenix    Ins.    Co.,    Ex    parte. 
Phenix    Ins.    Co..    In    re. 

Liverpool,    etc..    Steam    Co.    V. 

Phettiplacc  f.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.. 

pp.    1598,   2468.    2469.   2480. 
Phifer    z:     Carolina    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    987.    3348  -r  1     r« 

Philadelphia.  Atlantic,  etc..  Tel.  Co. 

Gilman   ;■. 


CCLVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Philadelphia.    Livery   r. 

r-    Philadelphia    Rapid    Transit 

Co.,  ■  224    Pa.    544,    34    R.    R.    R. 

590,    57    Am.    &    Eng.    K.    Cas  . 

N     S      590.   73   .Ml.  923— p.    1<>44. 
•£.    Philadelphia    Rapid    Transit 

Co.,    228    Pa.    325,    77    Atl.    501— 

p.  78. 

Sharpless    v. 

Wilcox   f.  ^     ^ 

Philadelphia    City    Pass.    R.    Co.    z: 

Hassard.    pp.    2120,    2741.  . 

Philadelphia     County,     Pennsylvania 

R.    Co.    I-.  ^     ,  „ 

Philadelphia     Fire     Ass  nr     v.     iNew 

York.   pp.   3447,   3472 
Philadelphia    R.    Co.,    Hayman    v. 
Philadelphia      Rapid      Trans.       Co., 

Blair    z: 

Blew    V. 

Bradney    '■. 

Cohen  z\ 

Fane  z: 

Harding   v. 

Kracker    v. 

McDade   z: 

Mahonev    v. 

Miller    r. 

Mittleman   f. 

Paterson   -'. 

Philadelphia    f. 

Ouinn   v. 

Rice    f. 

Rist   '.•. 

Sanson    f. 

Scanlon    v. 

Sligo    V. 

Snowden    v. 

Thomas    v. 

Thorne  v. 

Tilton  V. 

White    V. 

Widener    f. 

Wright    f. 

Philadelphia    Steam    Propeller    Co  , 

Shank   f. 
Philadelphia    Tract.     Co.,     Buzhy    '■. 

Dixey    v. 

Farley  v. 

Jackson   v. 

Mann   v. 

Reddington   v. 

Walters   v. 

Philadelphia  Warehouse  Co.,  Mun- 
roe   V. 

Philadelphia,  etc..  Iron  Co.,  Em- 
pire   Transp.    Co.    v. 

Philadelphia,    etc.,    Co.,    Blair    v. 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Allen, 
pp.   2583,   2584,   2585. 

z:  Alvord,    p.    2819. 

Andenried  v. 

f.  .Anderson,    72    Md.    519,    20 

Alt.  2,  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
345,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  483,  8  L. 
R.  A.    673— pp.    1746,    1923,   2680. 

z:  Anderson,    94    Pa.    351,    39 

.\m.  Rep.  787,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  407— pp.  1809,  1834,  1850, 
2671,  2681. 

V.  Barnard,    p.    1151. 

Beaumont    v. 

Z'.  Beck,   p.   3298. 

Blatcher    v. 

Borda    z\ 

r.   Boyer,       pp.      1715,       2009, 

2014. 

Boyle   V. 

Bricker   v. 

Brooks   V. 

Brown  v. 

Cambols   v. 

Clarke   z: 

Colburn    v. 

i:   Crawford,     pp.     1509,     2044, 

2960,    3064. 

Cressen    v. 

Cresson    v. 

Culbreth   z: 

z:  Derby,       pp.       1502,       1565, 

1694,  1714,  1722,  1727,  1759, 
1813,  1815,  2036,  2037,  2039, 
2045,    2519,    2567. 


Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Diff- 
endal,  pp.  753,  766,  3303,  3396, 
3406,    3411. 

Downey  v. 

Dulaney  v. 

Duling    z: 

z:   Edelstein,    p.     1925. 

Ellinger   z: 

Fairchild    ': 

Flanagan    ■:•. 

Flinn   v. 

Franklin    Trust    Co.    v. 

Gilmore   v. 

Graeff  z: 

V.  Green,      pp.       1511,       l3l2, 

2609,    2770,    2607. 

Hagan   v. 

V.   Hand,     p.     2394. 

V.  Harper,      pp.       749,       3139, 

3183. 

Z-.  Hassard,    p.    2254. 

Hewes    v. 

r.   Hoeflich,      pp.     2434,      3071, 

3087,   3090. 

Hunter  v. 

Interstate     Commerce      Comm. 

7'.   Interstate     Commerce     Com- 
mission,   pp.    3687,    3788. 

Johnson   '■. 

Kantner   v. 

Kefauver   z: 

Klair    z\ 

Knorr    "•. 

v.   Larkin,    p.    2483. 

Laughlin    Bros.    Co.    v. 

r.   Lehman,    pp.    210,    233,    242, 

1316,    3282. 

Levin    7'. 

McClure    '.'. 

V.   McCormick,     p.     1925. 

McFeat 


pp. 


2327,    2872. 


3891, 


Tow- 


V.  McGugan 

McHenry   t. 

Minot  v. 

Missimer   i\ 

Mortland    z'. 

National    Bank   v. 

•  V.   Peale,        pp.       3890 

3942. 

Pennington  z\ 

Perry    v. 

i\   Philadelphia,        etc. 

boat  Co.,   p.    1589. 

Powell  i: 

Proud   z\ 

•  V.  Ramsey,    p.    3413. 

V.   Rice,    pp.    2461,    3089. 

r.   Schubert,     pp.     3464,     3465. 

Seibert   v. 

Shive    z\ 

Smith   V. 

Spear   v. 

■  Sullivan   v. 

Swift  V. 

Reed    v. 

Ritter    V. 

Thomas    v. 

Truax   z\ 

United    States   v. 

f.   Venable    Bros.,    p.    805. 

Walters    r'. 

Wcisman    "'. 

Wernvvag  "'. 

Winkler    v. 

v.  Wireman,      pp.      476,      481 

1218,    1228. 

Wood  V. 

Yates  V. 

T'.   Young, 

2131,   2902. 

Philadelphia,     etc..     Steamboat    Co., 

Solomon   z'. 
Philadelphia,    etc..    Steamship   Co.   z: 

Commonwealth,    p.    3582. 

v.  Pennsylvania,        pp.        3423, 

3427,  3446,  3471,  3473,  3480. 
3551,  3553,  3555,  3559,  3560, 
3562,    3582. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,  Towboat     Co., 

Philadelphia,    etc.,  R.    Co.    v. 

Philadelphia,  etc..  Tract.  Co., 
Ditchfield   v. 


pp. 


1787,       1826, 


Philanthropic    Bldg.     Ass'n    v.     Mc- 

Knight,    p.     1195. 
Philippine    Trading     Co.    z\     United 

States,    pp.    3950,    3951. 
Philips  V.   Earle,   p.   270. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Philipson,    Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
Philleo,    Barrow    ;■. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Sanford,    pp.    729,    730,    745, 

746,    768,    782,    788. 

Phillips,    American    Merchants'    Un- 
ion   Exp.    Co.    V. 

American,     etc.,     Exp.     Co.     v. 

V.   .\tlantic,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

201,    2493. 

V.   Bank,    pp.    362,    363. 

•  f.   Brigham,    etc.,    Co.,    p.    511. 

Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

V.   Earle,    pp.     759,    763,     800, 

3136. 

Georgia   R.,   etc.,    Co.    7\ 

v.   Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

1619,  2092,  2093. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.   Co.   '•. 

Gustine  i-. 

International,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 

V.   North    Carolina    R.    Co.,    pp. 

417,    3254,    3259,    331 L 

'l\   Raynes,    p.    3567. 

1-.   Rensellaer,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2158. 

r.   St.    Charles    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1970,   2238. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Seaboard,    etc..    Railway    v. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    114    Ga. 

284,   40    S.   E.   268— pp.   90,    1596, 
1597,    1599,    2466,    3468. 

z\   Southern     R.     Co.,     124     N. 

C.    123,    32    S.    E.    388,    45    L.    R. 
A.    163— pp.    1513,    1561,    1802. 

Vicksburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

7'.   Western     Union     Tel.     Co  . 

p.    1105. 

Phillips  &   Co.,   Mobile,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

Phiilipsburg    Horse    Car    R.    Co.    z: 

State    Board,    p.    3576. 
Phillips    Co.     z:    Erie     Railway,     pp. 

706,    716. 

v.   Pruitt,    82    S.    W.    628,    26 

Ky.   L.   Rep.   831— pp.   2330,   2902. 

Z-.  Pruitt,    83    S.    W.     114,    26 

Ky.    L.    Kep.    1105— p.    2902. 

Phillips,  etc.,  Constr.  Co.,  Mor- 
rison  z\ 

Phillipson,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    z. 

Phillsbury,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

Phinazee,    Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Phoenicia,   The. 

Phcenix  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  St.  Louis, 
etc.,   K.    Co.    z\ 

Phoenix    Ins.    Co.,    Clement    v. 

■ ■  V.   Erie,      etc.,       Transp.      Co.. 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,  112,  10  Diss. 
18— pp.   790,   79i. 

V.   Erie,       etc.,      Transp.      Co., 

117  U.  S.  312,  29  L.  Ed.  873,  6 
S.  Ct.  750,  1176— pp.  481,  790. 
791,  793,  930,  947,  953,  956,  958, 
1083,    4025. 

Johannes   •;■. 

Liverpool,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Liverpool,    etc.,     Steam    Co.    7-. 

Phoenix     Pot-Works      v.     Pittsburgh. 

etc.,   pp.   822,   844,   869. 
Phoenix    Powder    Mfg.    Co.    z.    Wa- 
bash  R.    Co.,    101    Mo.    App.    442. 
74    S.    W.    492— pp.    870,    976. 

V.  Wabash    R.     Co.,     120    Mo. 

App.  566,  97  S.  W.  256— pp.  975, 
1062. 

Phoenix,    etc.,     Co.,    North    Western 

Ins.    Co.   V. 
Phoenix,    etc..    Oil    Co.,    St.    Louis, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 
Physioc,    South    Covington,    etc.,    St. 

R.   Co.  V. 
Piburn,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Picard   z\    Ridge   Ave.,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1880. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCLVIl 


!113, 


1881. 


Pichard,   I   &  G.   N.   R.   Co.   v. 
Pickard   t.    Bayley,    pP-   439,   723. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

J'.   Pullman    Southern    Car   Co., 

pp.  3471,  3474,  3552,  3555,  3563. 
3564,    3579,    3594. 

Pickens     v.    Georgia     R.,    etc.,     Co. 
pp.    2562,    2578. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

%■.   Richmond,    etc.,    It.    Co.,   pp 

2473,    2474,    2493. 

V.   South      Carolina,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    2774,    2835,    2847. 

Pickering    f.    Weld,    i)p.    1010,    3914. 
Pickett,    Central    R.    Co.    -■. 

Central    R.,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

V.  Central,  etc.,  Co.,   pp 

2747. 

7-.    Howncr,    p.    512. 

Jenkins   "'. 

'•.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3068. 

Pickford    v.    Boston     Ivlev.     R.     Co.. 
p.    2877. 

V.   Grand       Turction       R.       Co. 

(Eng.),  8  M.  &  VV.  372,  9  D.  P. 
C.  766,  2  Railw.  Cas.  592,  5  Tur. 
731— p.   234. 

V.   Grand   Junction    R.    Co.,    12 

M.  &  W.  (Eng.  E-xch.)  766— p. 
631. 

Raphal    v. 

Rowe   f. 

VVyld    f. 

Pickles,    Patton    "'. 
Pickleseimer,      Richmond,     etc., 

Co.   V. 
Pickwick,    Brooke    v. 
Pidgeon   i\    United    R'.    Co.,    p.    2645. 
Piedmont    Mfg.    Co.     v.     Columbia, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    209,    211,    238, 

302,    997,    3259. 
Piedmont    R.'    Co.    v.    Reidsvillc,    p. 

■3574. 
Pier    r.    Finch,    pp.    1612,    1625. 
Pierce,    Hlackman    f. 
— ■■ —   Dillingham    v. 

V.   Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

2250,    2253,   2688. 

f.   Great     Falls,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.     1982,    2635,    2694.    2809. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Metropolitan   St.    R.    Co.,   p. 

2830. 

V.  Milwaukee,     etc., 

pp.   725,   726. 

V.   Pennsylvania    Co 

-'.   Southern       Pac. 

781,  '1015,    1072. 

Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.   <■. 

Pierce    Co.    f.    Wells    Fargo    &    Co., 

pp.    951.    1061,    1066,    3846. 
Pierson,    Chamberlain    v. 

'•.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2709,   3079. 

V.   Northern     Pac.     R.    Co.,     52 

Wash.  595,  100  Pac.  999— pp. 
1284,    1287,     1476,    1477. 

V.  Northern     Pac.     R'.     Co.,    61 

Wash.    450,      112     Pac.     509— pp 

1371,      1402,      1403,      1420, 


R. 


R.      Co., 

p.     1974. 
Co.,       pp. 


1361, 
1422. 

Piggott 
2738. 

Pike    V 


Eastern    Cos.    R.    Co.,    p. 
Co.,    pp. 


Boston    Elev.    R. 

2122,   2190. 
'■.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

909,    910,    3169,    3174. 
— ; —  Harvy   v. 

Pilburn,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pilcher    v.    Central,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    647.    652,    656,    684. 
Pilgrim,    Denver,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pillow,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pillsbury,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pillsbury- Washburn        Flour        Mills 

Co.,       Lehigh       X'alley       Transp. 

Co.     7'. 

Pilot   Boy.   The. 

Pirn    7'.     St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    p 

2235. 
Pincus    V.    Atlantic,     etc..     R.    Co.. 

pp.    1505,    1514.    1517,    1518. 

1    Car — q 


Pindell  7'.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
34    Mo.    App.    675— p.    899. 

i:   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   41 

Mo.    App.    84— pp.   894,    895,   899. 

Pine   7'.    St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,   pp. 

1644,    3089. 
Pine    BlulT    Iron    Works    v.    Bolting 

&    Bro.,    p.    642. 
Pine    Bluff,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    McKen- 

zie,    pp.    276,    292. 
Pine    Bros.     7'.    Chicago,       etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    1310. 
Pine    Grove,    Talcott   7'. 
Pine    River    Logging    Co.    v.    United 

States,    p.    3873. 
Pingree    7'.     Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    573,   578,    1158. 

v.   Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,    p 

38. 

Pinkerton    7'.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co. 

pp.    742,    870. 
Pinnacle    Coal    Co.,     Norfolk,     etc. 

R.   Co.  7'. 
Pinney    v.    First    Division,    etc.,    R 

Co.,   pp.   896,  899,   904-. 
Pinnix    v.    Charlotte,    etc.,    R.     Co 

p.    476. 
Pioche,    etc.,    Co.,    Robinson    v. 
Pioneer      Fuel      Co.      7'.      McBrier 

710,   715,   3962,      3972. 

-  V.  Molloy,    p.    3547. 

Piper    7'.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    p 

1589. 
■  Galveston,     etc.,    Co.    v. 

McFetridge,    etc.,     Co.    v. 

-■.  Minneapolis    St.    R'.    Co.,    p. 

1890. 

7'.  New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  89 

Hun.  75,  34  N.  Y.  S.  1072,  68 
N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    835— p.    2219. 

7'.  New  York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   50 

N.  E.  851,  156  N.  Y.  224,  41  L. 
R.  A.  724,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  560 
—pp.   2119,   3211. 

— —  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 

— —  West,    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

Piper    Co.,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Pipkin,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Pisapia    7'.     Hartford,    etc.,    Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    343,    360. 
Pitard  <•.  New  Orleans  R..  etc.,  Co., 

pp.    187.5.    2152,    2281. 
Pitcairn    Coal    Co.,    Baltimore,    etc., 

R.    Co.    7'. 

'■.    lialtimore,      etc..       R'.      Co., 

154  Fed.  108— pp.  3642,  3643, 
3645,  3646. 

7'.  Baltimore,  etc..   R.   Co., 

165  Fed.  113— pp.  3607,  3617, 
3631,  3633.  3637,  3640,  3641, 
3642.  3643,  3645,  3646,  3649, 
3650,    3777. 

Pitcher  7'.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
55  Hun  604.  8  N.  Y.  S.  389.  28 
N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    647— p.    1567. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

61  Hun  623,  16  N.  Y.  S.  62,  40 
N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    896— p.    2147. 

f.  Old   Colony   St.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1743,    1824,    2756,    2885. 

7'.   People's     St.     R.     Co.,     154 

Pa.  560,  26  Atl.  559— pp.  1905, 
2518. 

-  7'.  People's  St.  R.  Co..  174 
Pa.    402,    34    Atl.    567— p.    1905. 

Pitcher   &   Co.,   Jones   7". 

I'itch    Pine    Lumber     Co.,     Tweedie 

Trading   Co.   7'. 
?itcock,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pitlock  7'.   Welk,   etc.,   Co.,  pp.   267, 

268,    285,   434. 
Pitman,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    7'. 
Pitt,    Fowle    7'. 

Ilanna    7'. 

Pittman  <•.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  pp; 
931,  937,  940,  941.  1053,  1056, 
3536. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Pitts  &  Son.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.   Co.  7'. 
Pittsburg,    C.    &    St.    L.    K'y.    Co.    7'. 

Hennigh,    p.     1638. 
Pittsburg    R.     Co.,     Carothers    '•. 


Pittsburg   R.   Co.,   Cline  v. 

Downey  7'. 

Geiger   7'. 

Golden    v. 

Lehner    v. 

Williams    v. 

Pittsburg  Tract.   Co.,   Laird  7'. 
Pittsburg,    etc..    Coal    Co.    7'.    Bates, 
p.  3440. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    Railroad,    Bowers   v. 
Pittsburg,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Aldridge, 

pp.     1831,    2245.    2670. 

V.  American    Tobacco   Co.,    pp. 

270,  274,  275,  285,  295,  305, 
338,    841. 

7'.  Andrews,     pp.     2200,     2201, 

2202,    2204,    2336. 

V.  Barrett,    pp.    286,    287,    289. 

733,  749,  765,  882,  883,  884, 
885.  946,  956,  966,  967,  981, 
1009,  1032,  1039,  1045. 

V.   Bingham,   pp.   208,   209, 

210,  1492,  1493.  2502,  2528. 

V.   Brown,   pp.   584,   1438. 

1568,    2098,    2100,    2863. 

r.   Bryant,    pp.    409,    411,    3327. 

3330. 

Central    Trust   Co.   7-. 

7-.  Chicago,    pp.   487,   483,    727, 

732,    741,    743,    748,    752,    3270. 

Clyde    Coal    Co.    v. 

Conrad    Schoop    Fruit    Co.    v. 

Dennis    v. 

7'.   Donahue,     pp.     2413,     2519. 

Emigh  V. 

7'.  Gray,  pp.    1531,    1532,    1540. 

7-.  Grom,       pp.       1491,       2669, 

2679.    2698,    2915. 

Hamilton    v. 

Harper  v. 

Harris    v. 

7'.   Hennigh,    p.    3099. 

V.  Higgs,    p.    2643. 

-■.   Hollowell,      pp.      727,      732, 

748,    751,    752. 

Keifner    7'. 

Loraine   r. 

7'.  McCIurg,     pp.     1828,     2202. 

Martin    7'. 

V.   Martin,    pp.     1524,    1922. 

7'.  Miller,    p.     2259. 

V.  Mitchell,       pp.       821.      825, 

973.  978,  1051,  3255,  3327,  34>9, 
3604,    3688,    3840. 

7'.  Morton,    pp.    207,    210,   231, 

247,  252,  253,  258,  263,  765, 
766,  3258. 

7'.  Nash,     pp.     538,     539.     894. 

899. 

O'Toole  7'. 

Phoenix     Pot-Works    7-. 

7'.   Pillow,    p.     1497. 

Powell    7'. 

Robb    7'. 

V.  Ross,    p.    2594. 

7'.   Russ,        pp.        2413,        1631, 

2564,    3024,    3025,    3087. 

V.   Sheppard,    p.    1142. 

V.   Slusscr,    p.    3022. 

Smith    T. 

7'.   Thompson,    pp.     1745.    2693. 

Tucker    7'. 

7'.   Viers,    pp.    3343,    3387. 

Wald  7'. 

Welsh    V. 

7'.  Williams,     pp.     1812.     2693. 

2844. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co..    Green 

Pittsburg,      etc..     Tract.      Co..     Mul- 
downey  7'. 

Reber  7'. 

Pittsburgh,    Hamilton    7'. 

Pittsburgh    R.    Co.    7-.     Bloomer,    p. 

2825. 

Dougherty  f. 

Golden   7'. 

Lehner   7'. 

Pittsburgh    Tract.    Co.,    Clow    7-. 

Laird  f. 

Linch  T-. 


CCLVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Pittsburgh,    etc..   Coal   Co.   v.   Louis- 
iana,   p.    3482. 
Pittsburgh,     etc.,     Railroad,     Bowers 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Backus, 
133    Ind.    625,    33    N.    E.    432— p. 

-V.   Backus,  134  U.  S.  421,  38 

L.  Ed.  1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1114 — pp. 
3552,  3575,  3591,  3592,  3593. 

Bartlett  z: 

f.   Berrvman,    p.    1668. 

f.   Blakcmore.    pp.    1033,    1035. 

f.   Board,    pp.    3473,    3588. 

f.   Brigham,   p.    1769. 

Butler   f. 

■:   Caldwell,  p.  1962. 

-•.  Coll,  pp.  1628,  1629,  1630. 

V.   Dewin,  p.  2434. 

Fleming  v. 

r.   Gray  (Ind.  App.),  59  N. 

E;.  1000— pp.  2610,  2645,  2824. 

f.  Gray,  28  Ind.  App.  588, 

64  N.  E.  39,  4  R.  R.  R.  120,  27 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  120 
—pp.  2065.  2066,  2249. 

r.  Haislup,  pp.  2621,   2622, 

2623. 

V.  Hartford    City,     p.     3524. 

7'.   Hays,    p.    457. 

r.   Hazen,    pp.     627,    628,    629. 

r.   Hennigh,    p.    2432. 

f.  Higgs,      -pp.      2092,      2097, 

2630,    2844,    2845. 

i:  Hinds,      pp.       1687,      2024, 

2033. 

r.  Hollowell,      pp.      250,      608, 

617,    627,    628,    629. 

Huchel    '■. 

T.   Hunt,   pp.   3535,   3659. 

V.   Klitch,    p.    2847. 

v.   Knox,     pp.     607,     653,     683, 

685,    695. 

V.   Krouse,      pp.      1534.      2113, 

2127,  2257.  2303,  2520,  2537, 
2545,    2549. 

T.   Lightcap,     pp.     1666,     2451, 

2453,    2457. 

V.   Lvon,     pp.     193,     196,     197, 

3113,    3197. 

z:   Mahony,    pp.    214,    2105. 

Malone   z-. 

z:   Moore,    p.    143. 

1:  Nuzum,      50      Ind.      141,      19 

Am.  Rep.  703— pp.  204,  205, 
1663,    1667,    1677,    1858,    3013. 

-•.   Kuzum,      60      Ind.      533 — p. 

1608. 

Perry   v. 

Phoenix    Pot-Works    z'. 

z:   Pillow,   pp.   200,   2024,   2845. 

z:  Racer,    5   Ind.   App.    209,    31 

N.  E.  853— pp.  246,  445,  821, 
1038,    1444. 

z:   Racer,     10     Ind.     App.     503, 

37   N.    E.   280— p.   454. 

Reynolds   z\ 

z:   Reynolds,     pp.     2451,     2458. 

-■.   Richardson,    pp.    2022,   2602, 

2610. 

z:  Russ,    pp.    2487,    3080,    3096. 

Russell     V. 

f.  Schenman,  171  Ind.  71.  84 

N.  E.  988— pp.  1702.  1835, 
2594,  2880. 

V.   Schepman  (Ind.  App.),  82 

N.  E.  998— p.  1834. 

z'.   Sheppard,  pp.  949,   1363, 

1368,  1461,  1462,  1465. 

V.   Spencer,  p.  2813. 

z:   State,   pp.   3481,   3483, 

3508. 

f.   Street,       pp.       2444,       2445, 

2468. 

Tucker    z\ 

United    States    z'. 

Z'.   Vandync,     pp.     1497,     1498, 

1602,    1636. 

V.  Van   Houten,    p.   2427. 

Wald    V. 

Welsh    V. 

-'.   Wiegel,    p.    2873. 

z:  Wood,     pp.     253,     259,     260, 

653,    660,    661,    3840. 


Pittsburgh,    etc..    Railway    z\    Mooar 

Lumber    Co.,   p.    714. 
Pittsburgh,     etc..     Tract.     Co.,     Mul- 

downey   z\ 

Schenkel    '■. 

Pittsfield    Elect.    St.    R.    Co.,    Isbill 

— —  Tobin   r. 

Pittsfield,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    Ryan    '. 

Pitzer,     Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Pixley,     Baltimore,    etc.,    U.    Co.    •:■. 

z:  Third  Ave.   R.   Co.,   p.   2805. 

Place   z:    Union    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    607, 

615,    617,    618,    632,    770,    816. 
Plaff    V.    Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    251    HI. 
243,     95     N.     E.     1089— pp.     848, 
993,     1033. 

r.   Pacific     Exp.     Co..     159    111. 

App.      493— pp.      493,      848,      865, 
3541. 

Plant   Inv.   Co.  z:   Cook.   p.   3993. 
Plantation    No.    4    z:    Hall,    p.    325(i. 
Planter,    The. 
Planters'    Compress    Co.,    Graham    v. 

Hooks    Smelting    Co.    -'. 

Planters'     Fertilizer     Mfg.     Co.     r. 

Elder,    pp.     338,     339,     346,     3893, 

3920,   3942. 
Planters'     Gin,     etc.,     Co.,     Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 
Planters'    Phosphate,    etc.,    Co.,    Orr 


etc.,     Co. 


Planz    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

253'2,     2541. 
Piatt,    Abrams    z: 

Cohn    ;■. 

Crescent    Liquor    Co.    v. 

Feld   z: 

z\   Forty    Second    St.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2245. 

Goodfield    V. 

V.  Grand    St.,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1535. 

V.   LeCocg.      150      Fed.      391  — 

pp.    7,    25,    26. 

V.   Lecocg,    85    C.    C.    A.    621, 

158  Fed.  723,  15  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  558— pp.  30,  33.  93,  187,  232, 
233. 

Magnus   f. 

z\    Richmond.       etc..       R.       Co., 

pp.    791,    793,    958,    1041. 

\^igouroux   z'. 

z\  Wells,   p.    363. 

Wilson    Z-. 

Platte,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Wheat    v. 

Platter  z:   Elkhart,   p.    1166. 

PJattor     z:     Seattle     Elect.     Co.,     p. 

2860. 
Player    z'.    Burlington,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

p.    2216. 
Pleasants     z\     Pendleton,     pp.     1208, 

1212. 
Pledger    ?■.     Chicago,    etc..     R.     Co., 

p.    2332. 
Plefka    .'.    Detroit    United    Railway, 

p.     1826. 
Pleiss,    Bremer  z'. 
Plessy,    Ex    parte. 

z\   Ferguson,     pp.     1945,     1946, 

3511. 

Plimpton,      \'an      Camp      Hardware, 

etc.,    Co.    r'. 
Plott   z:     Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

191,    1857.    1859. 
Plotz    V.    Miller,    p.    801. 
Plumley  v.   Massachusetts,  pp.   3481, 

3504. 
Plummer    z:    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1784,    2142,    2324,    2860,    2875, 

2876,    2932,    2941,    2966. 

'■.   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3473. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   ■?■. 

Plunkctt,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Plutschow  V.  Metropolitan  West 
Side    Elevated   R.    Co.,    p.    2155. 

Pockett's  Bristol  Channel,  S.  P. 
Co.,    Cahn    v. 

Podrat  V.  Narragansett  River  R. 
Co.,   pp.    3372,    3397.  _ 

Poe,     Sanford    z'. 


Pohle    V.    Second    Ave.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2304. 
Pokanoket,    The. 
Polak,    Ives    '■. 
Poling    -■.     Ohio    River    R.     Co.,    p. 

2078. 
Polkey,    North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co. 

V. 

North    Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

V. 

Pollard,    Heffron    z\ 

New    Jersey    R. 

Railroad  Co.   '■. 

z\   Reardon,    pp.    335,    3886. 

Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

z\   \'inton,    pp.    267,    293,    301, 

304,  305,  306,  307,  308.  331, 
355,  356,  357,  371,  373,  388, 
3879,    3936,     3937. 

Pollock  V.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    2807. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

•  Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Pollock   &    Co.    z:    Gantt,    p.    659. 
Pomares,    De    Sola    z'. 
Pomaski    v.    Grant,    p.    2193. 
Pomeroy    z\     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2346,    2894. 

V.   Donaldson,    p.    768. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Pomeroy,  etc.,   Co.   z\   Will,   pp.   357, 

362,    367,    368. 

Pomroy  v.  Bangor,  etc.,  K.  Co., 
pp.    1742,    2119,    2316.    2777. 

Pond  Creek  Mill,  etc..  Co.,  Erie 
R.    Co.    ■?'. 

Pond-Decker  Lumber  Co.  z\  Spen- 
cer,   pp.    1141,    3410,    3754. 

Pondrom,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Pontchartrain  R.  Co.,  Eclipse  Tow- 
boat    Co.    z'. 

Knight    z'. 

Logan  z\ 

Pontiac,   etc..    R.    Co. 

Marshall    ■;■. 

Soper    ?'. 

Pontius.     Cincinnati, 


Brown   v. 


etc.,     R.     Co. 


Pool,    Caye   ?■. 

V.    Columbia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

482,    593. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    zj. 

Southern     Pac.     Co.    '•. 

Pool     Shipping    Co.     z:     Samuel,     p. 

3961. 
Poole,    Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Consolidated    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1789. 

V.  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3323. 

f.   Georgia    K'.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

1881,   1970. 

Houston,    etc.,   R.    Co.   z'. 

■;■.   Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1239,    1240,    1247. 

V.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co..    pp. 

1397,    1399,    1602,    2467,    2468. 

Pooling     Freights,     In     re. 
Poor,    Pennsylvania    Co.    v. 
Poore,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co     z: 
Pope    z:    Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2150,   2131. 
. Filley    z: 

Missouri,    etc.,    R,    Co.    ■;•. 

Southern     Exp.     Co.    ■;•. 

7'.   Wisconsin      Cent.      R.      Co., 

pp.    217,    444,    446,    462. 

Popham  z'.  Barnard,  pp.  1087,  1088. 
1090,    1107.    3340,    3354.  ^ 

Popp,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Poppe,    Zerega    v. 

Popper,    United    States    z: 

Porcher  z\  Northeastern  R.  Co., 
pp.     729,     733,     749. 

Portage  County  Mut.  Fire  Ins.  Co. 
z:    West,    p.     1118. 

Port  Blakely  Mill  Co.  z:  Sharkey, 
p.     1317. 

Port  Huron,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Dickin- 
son     V.  ^  T^     , 

Port     Jervis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Daley 


TAni.K    OF    CASKS. 


ccux 


Port    Royal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Dunbar 

V. 

Dunbar,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Madden    v. 

Miami    Powder    Co.    v. 

Port  Townsend,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  Moses 

V. 

Porteous  v.  Adam.s  Exp.  Co.,  112 
Minn.  31,  127  N.  W.  429— pp. 
764,  1054,  1055,  1056,  1074, 
1075. 


V 

Adams 

^vT: 

Co., 

115  Minn. 

281, 

132 

N. 

296— 

-pp. 

1034, 

1059 

Porter 

?'. 

Char 

leston 

,    etc 

,    R. 

Co., 

p.    3 

545. 

Ch 

cage 

,     etc 

.,     R 

Co 

,     20 

III. 

407, 

71 

Am. 

1  )ec. 

280 

—pp. 

3118, 


566,  727,  730,  732,  739,  748, 
894,    895,    899,    3170. 

'■.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     20 

Iowa   73— pp.   799,   878.  879,   3168. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    80 

Mich.  156,  44  X.  W.  1054,  20 
Am,  Si,  Hop.  511— pp,  1828, 
1914. 

V.   Currav.   pp.   848,   853, 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

T'.  llildebrand,  pp.  3116, 

3127,  3128. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co, 

V.  New    England,    p. 

V.   New     York     Cent. 

1599,    1600,    2468. 

V.   New     York,     etc., 

2104, 

Pecos,    etc,    R,    Co, 

7'.   Raleigh,     etc.,     R. 

etc,    R 


pp. 


p. 


186: 
R. 


R. 


Co.. 
Co., 


E.xp. 


Co., 

,    Co.. 
Co., 


pp. 


3944. 
Brit- 


1102. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Union    Pac.    R,    Co,   v. 

Voorhees   -■, 

Porterfield       -■.        Mumiihreys, 

1268,     1270, 
Porteus   ?',    Watney,    p.    713. 
Portland    Bank    -'.    Stubl)s,    p. 
Portland    Flouring    Mills    Co., 

ish,    etc.,    Marine    Ins,    Co,    v. 
— — •  t'.   Portland,      etc.      Steamship 

Co,,    pp,    3945,    3946,    3948, 
Portland   R,   Co,,   Armstrong  ■:■. 

Hebert    ,■. 

Herbert  v. 

Raymond    v. 

Portland    R.,    etc.,    Co..    Devroe    v. 

Lewis    7'. 


V.   Railroad 

Comm,,     56     O'c. 

468,    105    Pac. 

709,    109    Pac,    273 

—pp.     62,    84, 

88,     90,     95,     113. 

178. 

V.   Railroad 

Comm,,     57     Ore, 

126,    105    Pac. 

715— p,    90, 

Portland     Steam 

Packet     Co,,     Dow 

V. 

Moran   -•. 

Portland,    etc.. 

Railroad,     McDuffeu 

Portland,     etc,     R.     Co.,     Knight    x-, 

Perkins   ;■. 

Railroad    Comm'rs,    f. 

Tobin    '•. 

Watson  f. 

Portland,    etc..    Steamship    Co.,    Bal- 
four,  etc.,    Co.   -■. 

Portland     Flouring     Mills     Co. 

V. 

Portsmouth,    The. 

Willey   V. 

Portsmouth,    etc., 
Portsmouth,     etc. 

Haselton    f 

Portsmouth,    etc. 

p.    729. 

Portwardens,    Steamship    Co.    f. 
Posch    -■.     Southern     Elect.     R.     Co,, 

p.    2332. 
Post    f.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1084,    1086,    1097,    1110,    1113. 

<•.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp 

1573.  1616,  2442. 


R',  Co,,  Sager  v. 
Railway,  Call  v. 

Steanipackct  Co,. 


Post  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  503, 
1135,  1147,  3248,  3250,  3268, 

V.   Texas,   etc,   R.   Co.  ,  p. 

2505. 

Postal  Telegraph-Cable  Co.  v. 
Adams,  pp.  3472,  3551,  3552, 
3553,    3571,    3572,    3591,    3803. 

V.  Charleston,    pp.    3473,    3474, 

3552,    3572. 

V.   Mobile,    p.    3550, 

Murray    v. 

Murray    Co.    "'. 

Postal    Tel.,    etc.,    Co.,    White   v. 
Posten,   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.   f. 

f.    Denver     Consol.     Tramway 

Co.,    p.    2358. 

St.    Eouis,    etc.,    R,    Co.    -■, 

Post      Sugar      Co,,      Lehigh      X'alley 

Transp,    Co,   ?', 
Poteet    -',    Western    Llnion    Tel,    Co., 

p.    643. 
Potlatch     Lumber    Co.    v.     Spokane 

Falls,   etc..   R.    Co.,   p.    3819. 
Potomac     Ferry     Co.,     Stewart    v. 
Potter    v.^  Bunnell,    p.    2089.  ^ 

-■,   Chicago,    etc,    R.    Co.,    pii. 

2615^,    2619. 

•   Frink  v. 

-■.    Lansing,    p.    490. 

-■.    Majestic,    p.    963. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

Wells   Fargo  &  Co.  v. 

-■,   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1790. 

Pottinger     v.     Hccksher,     pp.     1236, 

1237,     1243. 
Potts,    .\tlanta,    etc,    R,    Co.    v. 

'■.  Chicago     Citv     R.     Co.,     p. 

2810. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

T.   New     York,     etc,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1153,    1154,    1162,    1163,    1166, 
1248. 

V.  Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

209,   249,   782,   931,   945,   946. 

Potts  &  Co.,  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V. 

Pottstown  &  R.  St.  R.  Co..  Ram- 
say   V. 

Pottsville  Union  Tract.  Co.,  Bre 
hony   ?■. 

Poucher  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   pp.    1567,   2099. 

Poughkeepsie,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Baruth 

Pouilin     <■.     Canadian    Pac.     R'.     Co  , 

p,    2564, 
Poulin    V.    Broadway,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2233. 

T'.   Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2440,    2453,_  2462. 

Poulsen    V.    Nassau     Elect.     R.     Co., 

p.    2882. 
Pouncey,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pound,    Georgia,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Pounder    v.     Northeastern    R.     Co., 

p.    2032. 
Pouppirt,    Elder    Dempster    Shipping 

Co.    V. 

V.    Elder     Dempster     Shipping, 

pp.    3976.    3988,    3996,    3998,    4001. 

Powell,    .\tlantic,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Columbus,    etc.,    R.    Co.   '•. 

Fellows  i\ 

'■.   Hudson    N'allev    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2656,   2658,   2685. 

V.    Kechnie,      pp.      1228,      1232, 

1233     1234. 

-J.   ifills,     pp.     728,     7ii.     749, 

769. 

f.   Myers,       pp.       3159,       3160, 

3165,    3169.    3170, 

Oklahoma    Ry,    Co,    '•, 

•■.    Pennsylvania      R,      Co,,      pp. 

1275,    1380. 

•  -■.    Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp,    1508,    1509,    1524,    1533,    1534, 
1537,    1774, 

;■,   Pittsburg,     etc..     R.     Co..     5 

O.  Dec.  89,  2  \m.   L.  Rec.  403— 
pp.  1593,  2447.  2631.  2632. 

V.   Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 

O.    St.    70— p.    1624.     • 

Price   ;■. 


Powell    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    1562,    2661,    2715,    2849,    2853. 

Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v. 

United    States    -■. 

Powell    Coal    Co.,    Brown    f. 
Powelson    v.    United    Tract,    Co.,    p. 

2777. 
Power,    Commonwealth    -•. 

Hall    V. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Powers     J'.     Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2520,    2521. 

Chicago   r. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     130 

Iowa    615,     105    N.    W.    345— pp. 
828,    1367,    1456,   3395,   3408. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co..    108 

Minn.    319,    121     N.    W.    897— p. 
2858. 

-'.  Connecticut   Co.,   p.    1535. 

V.   Davenport,     pp.     509,     510, 

511,    727,    732,    748,    3888. 

Galveston,    etc.,    K.    Co.    ?'. 

■ ■  Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 

f.   Irtferior     Court,     pp.     209. 

1493. 

V.  Old   Colony   St.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1806,    2341,    2755,    2872. 

Richmond,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

•  Wisconsin,    etc..    R.    Co, 

Powers     Mercantile     Co.     f. 

Fargo   &   Co..   pp.   821,   939 
Powhatan    Steamsboat    Co.    v. 

mattox    R.    Co.,    pp.    3258 

3308. 
Pownall,  Hoist  v. 
Poythress   -•.    Durham,    etc,    R.    Co., 

pp.    528,    896,    901,    904,    907. 

Matthews    ■:•. 

Pozzi    V.    Shipton,    p. 
Prairie    Oil,    etc.,    Co 

p.    3589. 

V.   United   States,    p.    361. ■>. 

Pratt,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

2011. 

V.   Freeman   &    Sons    Mfg.    Co. 

pp.     1206,     1212. 

V.   Grand    Trunk    R.     Co..     pp 

267,    269,    275,    285,    286,    291. 

Harris    -•. 

V.  North  German  Lloyd  Steam 

ship    Co.,    p.    3990. 

. V.   Grand    Trunk 

3259,     3265,     3286, 
3302. 

V.  Northern   Pac.   Exp 

495. 

— —  Ogdensburg,  etc.,  R. 

V.   Ogdensburg.  etc.. 

pp.  753.  783.  3311. 

Railroad  Co.  v. 

San  .\ntonio,  etc,  R.  Co,  f 

Wabash,  etc,  R.  Co.  f. 

Pray  r.     Omaha  St.  R.  Co..  pp 

1487.   1746,   1750,   1951,   1952 
1953,  2181,  2888. 

The  E.  H. 

P.    R.    Co.    Indianapolis   Freight    Bu 

reau  v. 
Prendergast   v.  Williamson,   pp.    349 

356,    362,    383. 
i  Prentice    v.    Decker,    pp.    991.    1007 

3163,   3164.   3165. 

Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

• -■.   United    States,    etc..    Steam 

ship  Co.,   p.   3865. 
Prentis  -•.   .\tlantic  Coast   Line  Co. 

pp.    13.    119,    128.    129. 
Prentiss.   Barney   v. 

V.   Savage,    p.    1489. 

Prescott.    etc..    R.    Co.    t 

etc..   R.   Co..  p.   3660. 

V.   Morris,      pp.       1978 


Wells 

.Appo- 
3266. 


2565. 
v.    Ehrhardt, 


R.    Co..    pp. 
3287,     3300, 


.   Co.,   p. 

Co.    '•. 
R,     Co.. 


.\tchison. 
1999. 
pp.     2344.    2345. 
Ins. 


2314.    2368. 

T'.   Smith. 

President.   The 

President,     etc.,     Ins.     Co.  _?-. 

Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co..   p.   787. 
Presley     Co.     f.     Illinois     Cent. 

Co..'  pp.    833.    843. 
Presque    Isle.    The. 


CCLX 


TAHLE    OF    CASES. 


Pressed    Steel    Car    Co.    f.     Eastern 

R.    Co.,   p.   612. 
Pressell,     Indianapolis    Tract.,    etc., 

Co.   -.'. 
Pressley  v.   State,   pp.    184,  2425. 
Pressley    Co.    z:    Illinois    Cent.    R. 

Co.,    pp.    824,    3406. 
Preston,    Park    v. 
Brethrow    v.    West    Jersey,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    p.    2895. 
Prettyinan   '•.    Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co  , 

p.    848. 
Previsich    f.     Butte    Elect.     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2343,    2345,    2649,    2667. 
Prevost    ;■.    Great    Eastern    R.,    pp. 

1671,    1672. 
Prewitt,    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Price,    Bissel    v. 

Blue    Ridge     Light,    etc.,     Co. 

V. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Charleston,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

162,     165. 

V.  Chcsaneake,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

pp.    1637,    2425. 

V.   Denver,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

1155. 

V.  Hartshorn,     pp.     630,     734, 

736,    3899. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Marsh,    p.    633. 

■  T.  Metropolitan     St.      R.     Co., 

pp.  2671,  2677,  2697,  2763,  2809, 
2915,   2920,   3002. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Morse   Ironworks,   etc.,    Co., 

p.    3952. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Ochs  z: 

z:   Oswego,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

553. 

Pennsylvania   R.    Co.   v. 

z'.  Pensylvania      R.      Co.,      \>. 

1576. 

z'.   Powell,    pp.    477,    479,    488, 

493,    511,    531,    892,    901. 

I'.  St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    p. 

1824. 

z:   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    88 

S.  VV.  575,  75  Ark.  479,  112 
Am.  St.  Rep.  79— pp.  1498,  2121, 
2322,    2670,    2866. 

I'.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    72 

Mo.  414,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
365— pp.    1878,    2263. 

Sams   z\ 

Walker    z: 

Price,    etc.,    Co.    f.    The    L'riel,    pp. 

821,   848,    1037,    1457. 
Prickett     z:     New     Orleans     Anchor 

Line,   p.    1537. 
Priddy,     Wabash    R.    Co.    v. 
Pridgeon,    United    States    v. 
Priester,    Jones    z: 
Priestly    v.    Northern    Indiana,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    653,    657,    659,    666, 

670. 
Prillen,     People     v. 
Primrose     v.     Western     Union     Tel. 

Co.,     pp.    9,    732,    748,    848,    854, 

930,    947,    1073,    2092. 
Primus     v.     Macon     R.,     etc.,     Co.. 

p.    2575. 
Prince,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

"'.   International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  279,  1542,  1549,  1554,  1558, 
1564,    1565,    1572,    1760. 

Stannard    f. 

Prince    .Albert,    The. 

Prinnell,     Norfolk,    etc.,    R.     Co.    '■. 

Prinzess    Irene,    The. 

Priscilla,     The. 

Pritchard,    Savannah    Elect.    Co.    z\ 

Pritchard,       etc.,       Co.,      Savannali 

etc.,   R.    Co.   z: 
Pritchett,    Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co. 


California     R.     Co.,     p. 


V. 

Proctor 

3086. 
Proctor,   etc.,   Co.   v.   United    States 

188     Fed.     221— pp.     3728,     3800. 

3834,    3835. 


Proctor,   etc.,   Co.   f.   United   States. 

225  U.  S.  282,  56  L.  Ed.  1091. 

32     S.  Ct.  761— pp.  3770,  3795, 
.  3797,   3810,   3811,   3833,   3834, 

3835,  3836,  3837. 
Proctor,  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
■  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  '•. 

Landon    f. 

•  z\    Southern   California   R.    Co., 

pp.    3078,    3079,    3080. 

Southern    R.    Co.    t-. 

Prokop  I'.  Oulf.  etc..  R.  Co..  pp. 
1700,    1800,   202S,   2029. 

Propeller    Burlington,    The. 

Propeller    Commerce,    The. 

Propeller  Mohawk,  pp.  1020,  3941, 
4021,    4023. 

Propeller  Niargara  z\  Cordes,  pp. 
1,  10,  208,  1019,  1035,  3888, 
3889,  3890,  3896,  3897,  3903, 
3904,  3905,  3906,  3908,  3911, 
3914,  3915,  4017,  4019,  4.020, 
4042,     4054. 

Propst   Lumber   Co.,   Railway   Co.   z\ 

Prospect    Park,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     Groll 

Prosper!  z'.  Rhode  Island  Subur- 
ban  R.    Co.,    p.   2036. 

Protection,   The. 

Prothero  f.  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co  , 
pp.    1721,    2377. 

Proud  ;•.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.     1832,     1843.^ 

Providence    Ins.    Co.,    Wagner   z\ 

Providence,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     Boss    ''. 

Hagan   z\ 

Knight    z\ 

•  Randall    z: 

X'aughan 

Washburn,    etc.,     Mfg.     Co.    ?■. 

Providence,      etc.,      Steamshi[)      Co., 

V.   Ciare,   pp.   2810,   2857,   2913. 

Hill    Mfg.    Co.    z: 

z:   Hill     Mfg.     Co.,     pp.     4036, 

4037,  4038,  4045,  4049,  40S3. 
4071,  4072,  4073,  4075,  4077, 
4078,     4079,     4083. 

Levy    Z-. 

Province,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Provine,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co 
Pruitt     c'.     Hannibal,     etc.,     R. 

pp.    230,   277,   278,   287,    742, 

1304. 

Phillips    Co.    '•. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

-•.    San     Pedro,     etc.,     R. 

pp.    2173,    2342,    2356. 

Prussia,    The. 

Public  Service  Comm.,  Cohoes  R. 
Co.   V. 

-■.   Westchester   St.    R.    Co.,   pp. 

77.    131. 

Public    Service    Corp.,    I'.rackney    z'. 

Brower     z\ 

Budner     z'. 

Dunham   v. 

Whilt     z: 

Public  Service  R.  Co.  z\  Board 
p.     87. 

Donohue    v    . 

Hess    -■. 

Lehberger    j'. 

Lerncr    z\ 

Publisher,    etc.,    Co.,    Lee    z-. 
Puckett,    Freeman    -•. 

St.    Louis,,  etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    i)p.    2458 

2460. 

Pudor     V.      Boston,      etc..      Railroad. 

pp.    3189,    3190. 
Pueblo,    etc.,    Refin.    Co.,    Lord    v. 
Puet    Sound    Elect.    Railway,    Bloms- 

ness    V. 

V.   Felt,    pp.    2250,    2360. 

•  Harris   '•. 

'•.   Mitchell,    p.    128. 

-•.   Railroad     Comm.,     pp.     45, 

48,    56.    94,    117,    127. 

Pugh,    Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    z: 
Sheriffs    -.•. 

United    States    v. 

Pullen,     Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     r. 
Pulliam,     Louisville    R.     Co.    v. 


3205,       3213, 


Co., 

1303, 


Co. 


3123, 


3215, 


pp. 

pp.    3238,    3239. 
pp.       2613,       3210, 


Pullman    Car    Co.,    Indiana   v 

Stearn    z-. 

Pullman    Co.,    Aplington    v. 

Applington    z\ 

Arthur     •;■. 

Bacon    z\ 

Calhoun    z\ 

Coleman    Z'. 

Covington    '■. 

Croll    V. 

-'.   Custer,      pp. 

3214,    3236. 

z\  Czintz,    ]).     3237 

z'.   Finley,    p.    3211 

Godfrey   z 

— ■ —  z'.   Green, 

3219,     3221. 

z\   Haight. 

Hill     z: 

z\   Hovle, 

3229,     3240. 

Ingraham    z\ 

Irving    z\ 

z:   Kelly,   pp.   3201,   3208,   3210. 

V.   Krauss,      pp.      3203,      3204, 

3207,    3239,    3240. 

T'.   Linke,    p.    3544. 

V.   Lutz,    pp.    1909,    3203,    3210 

3240,    3243. 

■  Meyers  Z'. 

•  Myers     z: 

r.   Norton,      pp. 

3226,    3228,    3231. 

f.   Pennock,     p.     3243. 

V.   Riley,   pp.    3203,   3205,   3206, 

3210,    3229.    3230. 

Z!.   Schaffner,     pp.     3123, 

3222,    3231. 

t'.    Schober,     pp.      3232, 

3237,    3239. 

Smith    z: 

Springer    ''. 

?'.    Stern,    p.    3209. 

7'.    Vandcrhoeven,      pp. 

3124,      3127,      3129,      3221, 
3225.      3229,      3232,      3233, 

Weingart    7". 

Wilkirs   '•. 

7'.   Willett,       pp.       3041, 

3242,    3243. 

Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  7'.  Adams, 
120  Ala.  581,  24  So.  921,  45  L. 
R.  A.  767,  74  Am.  St.  Rep. 
53— pp.  3201,  3202,  3214,  3217, 
3218,  3219,  3220,  3222,  3224, 
3225,    3229,    3'3^    3235.    .■S?36. 

7'.   Adams,  30  So.  757,  78  Miss. 

814,     84     Am.     St.     Rep.     647 — p. 
3580. 

Airey    z\ 

7-.   Arents,      pp.       3217,       3230, 

3234. 

z:   Bales,    80    Tex.    211 

W.     785— p.     3210. 

7'.    Bales      (Tex.),      14 

855— p.     3207. 


3208,      3209, 


3215, 
3235, 


3123, 
3222, 
3234. 


1203, 


Barker, 

3242. 

Beldcn    7'. 

7'.    Booth, 


pp. 


pp. 


1495 


15    S. 

S.     W. 

1496, 


2563.       3206, 


3212,    3228,    323!.    3232,    3243. 

7'.   Cain,    pp.    3205,    3206,    3214, 

3232. 

Calhoun    7'. 

Campbell    7'. 

— •  Cassedy    7-. 

Chamberlain    7'. 

Cooney    7'. 

Dargan    7'. 

Edmundson    7'. 

Falls    River,     etc.,     Mach.     Co. 

Florida    7'. 

z:  Fowler,      pp.      3206,      3240, 

3242. 

7'.  Freundenstein,    p.    3231. 

7'.  Gardner,    pp.    3217.    3218. 

7'.  Gavin,       pp.       3202,       3215, 

3218,  3220,    3228. 

•  z:   Gavlord,  6  Kv.  L.  Rep. 

279— p.  3216. 

V.   Gaylord,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

58- pp.  3201.  3202.  3215.  3217, 

3219.  3221.  3222.  3224.  3230. 


TAIW.K    OF     CASKS. 


CCLXI 


Co.,     llainp- 


3207,      3212, 
3235,     3236, 


Pulliiian     Palacu     Cai 
ton    V. 

Heenrich   v. 

V.  1  locker,      pp. 

3214,      3226,      3228, 
3242,    3243. 

V.  Hunter,    pp.    3222,    3238. 

v.  Lawrence,    pp.    3201,    3202, 

3203,    3210. 

V.  Lee,    pp.    3204,    3212. 

Lemon  v. 

Lowe,       pp.        3202,       3215, 


3223. 


3229. 


McDonald,  pp.  3241,  3242. 
Marsh,  pp.  3204,  3207. 
Martin,   pp.   3215,   3217, 

Matthews,  pp.  3201,  3202, 
3218,   3220,   3224,   3225, 


3215 
3235 
Morrow  v. 

f.  Nelson,   pp.   3206,   3231, 

3243. 

Nevin  f. 

Pfaelzer  -.'. 

V.   Pollock,   pp.  3146,  3147, 

3201,  3215.  3218,  3221,  3230. 

V.   Keed,  pp.  3098,  3204,  3213, 

3241,  3243. 

Scaling  f. 

V.   Smith,  73    111.  360,  24  Am. 

Rep.  258— pp.  3201,  3202,  3214, 
3215,  3216. 

V.   Smith,    79    Tex.    468,    14    S. 

W.  993,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  356, 
13  L.  R.  A.  215— pp.  1910,  3211, 
3230,    3231. 

Stevenson    f. 

V.  Taylor,    p.    3205. 

Tracy    v. 

Welch    V. 

Whitney    v. 

Williams   v. 

V.   Woods,    p.    3233. 

Pullman       Sleeping       Car      Co 

Hatch,    pp.    3215,    3216,    3235 
Pullman       Southern       Car     Co. 
Gaines,   p.    3580. 

:■.   Nolan,    p.    3580. 

Pickard   i: 

Tennessee  v. 

Simms    r. 

Pullman,    etc.,     Car      Co., 

etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 
Pullman's   Palace   Car  Co 

Harrott  r. 

Central   Transp.    Co.   ?■. 

f.   Commonwealth,    Xo.    1.    107 

Pa.    148— p.    3580. 

i:   Commonwealth,    Xo.    2,    107 

Pa.    156 — p.    3580. 

Duval   f. 

r.   Ehrman,    "p.    3214. 

V.   Fielding,    p.    3208. 

i:  Hall.    pp.    3201.    3202.    3214, 

3215,    3216.    3217. 

i:  Harvey,      pp.      3215,      3220, 

Hatch   f. 

r.   Hayward,     pp.     3556,     3680. 

Hughes   J'. 

Kates   f. 

f.   King,    pp.    3202.    3203,    3212, 

3238.    3241. 

Lawrence    T'. 

McMurray   t'. 

V.   Martin,     pp.     3220,     3221. 

— 77rV   Pennsylvania,         pp.       3551, 

3552,     3333,      3556,     3557,     3559, 
35/1,     3572.     3580.     3584.      3590, 


Purcell  r.  Southern  Kxp.  Co.,  pp 
412,  587,  775.  818,  820,  945,  948 
1003,     1026,    1043. 

Purdy,    Erie    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    3500. 

North    Jersey    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

Purifoy,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
PuringtonKimball      J!rick       Co.      v. 

Eckman,    p.    2346. 
Purinion,    Van    liuskirk   t. 
I'uritan    Coal    Min.    Co.    !•.    Pennsyl- 
vania  K.   Co.,  pp.   225,  228,   3637, 

3645,    3840. 
Purnell,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v 
Purple    V.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pn. 

1543,      1546,      1551,      1553,      1534. 

1569. 
Purtell   V.   Ridge  .\ve.   Pass.    R.   Co., 

p.   2255. 
Purvis  !■.    Atlanta,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2652,    3021.    3022. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    i: 

Putnam    v.    IJroadway.    etc..    K.    Co  , 

36    N.     Y.      Super.     Ct.      195— pp. 
2417,   2420. 
— — -  V.   Hroadway,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    55 
N.    Y.    108,    15    Abb.    Prac,   X     S 
383.    14    Am.    Rep.    190— pn     1497 
1498,    2030. 

f.    Furnani,     p.     3W7 . 

i:   Tillotson,    p.    304. 

V'icksburg,    etc.,    K.    Co.    f 

Pym,    Sweet    v. 

Pyman  Steamship  Co.  v.  Mexican 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  164  Fed.  441 — d 
3954.  ^' 

— —  r.  Mexican  Cent.  R.  Co..  169 
Fed.    281,    94    C.    C.    A.    557-p. 

P.    W.    &    B.    R.    Co.,    Mullarkey   v. 

P.    &   L.    E.    R.    Co.    V.    Bishop,    pp. 

1490,    1576.  I'    IP- 

^\,-^:     ^-^V,  ^^y-     ^"°-'     Ptnnsylvan  a 

Millers    State    Ass'n    v. 
P.   &   R.    R.    Co.,   Hill   z: 


Chicago, 
Allen   I'. 


Rohrback   :■. 

Pumphrey,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Pural,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 
Purcell    r.    Richmond,    etc.,    R     Co 

pp.    1851,    1852.    25o2,    2565,    30i4' 

3055. 

— —  :••  St.  Paul  City  K.  Co.,  pp. 
1697,  1981.  ^^ 

Southern    Exp.    Co.   v. 


O 

Quackenbush    z:    Chicago,     etc        K 

Co.,    pp.    1755,    1990.    2168. 
Quagliana    r.    Jersey,     etc.,     St      R 

Co.,    p.    2814. 
Ouaife  z:   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co..   on 
1798.    1871.  ^^ 

Quanah.     etc.,      R.     Co.    v.     Drum- 

mond,   p.    700. 
Quantz    z'.    Southern     R.     Co  ,     no 

1538,    1539.    2506. 
Ouarles,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
(Juarman    v.    Burnett,    p.    2076. 
Quarrier  v.    Baltimore,   etc.,    R     Co 

pp.    278,    839.    849. 
Quayle,   Washington,   etc.,   R.   Co    v 
Ouebedeaux,   Freeman  v. 
<jULen,    The. 
yueen     City     Coal     Co.,     Louisville. 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Queen    of   the    Pacific,    pp.    326     790 
852,    930,    945,    1012,    1013,  '1073,' 

Queen    of    the    Pacific.    The. 
Querini    Stamphalia,    The. 
Quested    r.     Xewburyport,     etc       R 
Co.,    p.    2089. 

Quick,    Louisville,   etc.,    R  Co     v 

Quigley     f.    Central     Pac.  K' "    Co 

Fed.    Cas.    No.    11,    510,  5    Sawy.' 

107— p.    1610. 

z:   Central  Pac.     R.     Co.,      11 

Nev.    350,    21  Am.    Rep.    757— pp. 

2409,       2429,  2430,     3078,     3079, 
3083,    3084. 

Quilhot,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co    v. 
Quimby  :■.    Bee   BIdg.   Co.,   po     17C>? 
1750.   2165.    2983. 

f.  Boston,    etc.,    R.      Co.,      69 

Me.    340— p.    2680. 

— —  z:  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co..  150 
Mass.  3o5.  23  N.  E.  205,  40  Am 
&•  Eng.  R.  Cas.  693,  5  L.  R.  .\. 
846— pp.     986,     1642,    2095.     2104. 

z:   Vanderbilt,    pp.    1612,    3160, 

3168,    3315,    3987. 


Quinby    t.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    v. 
1340.  ' 

Quincy  R.  Co.,  Metropolitan   R.  C... 
v. 

Quincy,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    Beck   ;. 

Bussell    V. 

Gates    J'. 

Knight  V. 

Leas   V. 

Meriwether  v. 

Ratcliflf   V. 

Ratliff   z: 

Ratliff    Bros.   v. 

Richmond  v. 

Shohoney   -■. 

Thompson    f. 

\'an    Buskirk    z\ 

X'encill  f. 

Quincy,    etc.,     St.     R.     Co.,     Spauld- 
ing  z: 

Quinkert,     Kentucky,     etc..      Bridge 
Co.  z\ 

Quinlan    z:    Newton,     etc..     St      R 
Co..   p.  2230. 

f.  Utica,   p.    2737. 

Quinn    r.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    d 
2182.  ' 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co..   do. 

2025.   2030. 

z:   -Metropolitan      St.     R.      Co 

pp.    2143,    2311,    2391.   2393,    2954. 

Missouri,   etc..    R'.   Co.   z: 

v.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co..     pp 

1448,    1461.  '^' 

z:   Philadelphia     Rapid      Tran- 
sit Co..   p.   2153. 

z:   Shamokin,    etc.,    R.    Co..    dd. 

2128,    2261. 

r.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    n 

2203. 

South    Covington,    etc.,    R.    Co 

V. 

Quisenberry,    Lake     Erie,     etc.,     R. 

Co.   v. 
Quo,    Savannah,    etc..    R.    Co.   i'. 


R 


Raben    z:    Central   Iowa    R.    Co  .    73 

Iowa  579,   35   N.  W.  645,  33   Am. 

&•    Eng.    R-.    Cas.    520,    5    Am.    St. 

Rep.     708 — pp.     1899,     1911. 
z\   Central    Iowa    R.      Co..      74 

Iowa    732,     34    N.     W.     621— pp. 

2249,    2284,    2367. 
Rabinowitz     z:     Cunard     Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    3979,    3980. 
Rabon   z:    Atlantic,   etc..    R.    Co..    p 

166.  ^ 

Racer.  Pittsburgh,   etc.,   R.   Co.  z: 
Racine    Boat    Co.,    Reed  z: 
Rackusin,    Texas,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    :. 
Radbourne,      Chesapeake,      etc..      R. 

Co.  V. 
Radel    Co.    z:    Borches.    p.    2161. 
Radetsky,    Florence,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Radford.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   :. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z-. 

Radley    -•.    Columbia     Southern      R. 
Co..    pp.     1502.    1510,     1512.     1513, 

1555,    1530,     1557.     1558,    2207. 
Rae.   Galena,  etc..   R.   Co.  v. 
Ragan     z:      Aiken,      pp.      74,      1136, 

1180,    1183,    1189. 
Rager    z:    Pennsylvania    R.    Co..    pp. 

2125,    2179. 
Ragland    f.    Norfolk,     etc..     Steam- 
boat  Co..   pp.    3991,   4006. 
Ragsdale.   Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co.   t. 

Railroad  Co.  -•. 

Railway    :■. 

f.   Southern    R.    Co.,   46    S.    E. 

832,    119    Ga.    627— p.    1474. 

f.    Southern    R.    Co..    69    S.    C. 

429,    48    S.    E.   466— p.   832. 

t.  Southern    R.    Co.,    51    S.    E. 

540,    72    S.    C.    120— p.    836. 

V'icksburg,    etc..     R.     Co.    z: 

Rahilly    z:    St.    Paul,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1617,    2438,    2492. 
Rahrer,    In    re. 


CCLXII 


TABLK  OF  CASES. 


Railey   Bros..   Southern   R.   Co.  v. 
Railroad   f.    Bell,   p.   630. 

z:  Craig,    pp.    931,     946,     949, 

977,   979,   997.  ^„,      ^^, 

X-    Dies,     pp     782,     783,     953, 

1021,    1267,    1268,    1269,    1276. 

V.  Gilbert,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    931, 

946     949,   970,   972,   973,   978,   979, 

980.  ,.  „      ,.,, 

V.   Hailev,    pp.     1569,    2.i21. 

Hart  r. 

f.   Meacham,    p.    2521. 

f.   Mitchell,      58       Tenn.       (U 

Heisk.)    400— pp.   822,    1684,    1687, 
2666.  ,  ^.,      ,, 

f.   Mitchell,    98    Tenn.    27.    31, 

40    S.     W.    72— pp.      1763,      1887, 
1895,    1896,    1972. 

t:  Odil,      pp.     501.      503.      sOj, 

506.    3298. 

State   -•. 

z:   Stockard.    p.    3329. 

Warfield    z: 

Railroad    Comm.     z\      Adams      Exp. 

Co..  pp.    156,   535,   536. 

.Mahama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Ann    Arbor   R.    Co.,    p.    699. 

Black   Diamond   Coal,   etc.,    Co. 

Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z: 

V.   Central,     etc.,     R.     Co..     159 

Ala.    550,    49    So.    237— p.    92. 

z:   Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     9.t 

C.    C.    A.    117,    170    Fed.    225— p. 
130. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z: 

Galveston    Chamber     of     Com- 
merce   V. 

r.   Galveston         Chamber        of 

Commerce,    pp.    56,    115,    124. 

Great    Northern    R.    Co.    z\ 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

z:   Hucking    Valley    R.    Co.,    79 

O.    St.    419,    87    N.     E.     548— pp. 
127,    128. 

z:   Hucking    Valley    R.    Co.,    82 

O.   St.   25,   91   N.    E.   865— pp.   91, 
125. 

Hocking    \'alley    Railway    v. 

z:  Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

21,    24,    25,    121. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z\  Louisiana    R.,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

Louisiana,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    ■c'. 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

Minneapolis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Morgan,    etc.,    Co.    •;■. 

ivlorgan's,    etc.,    Steamship    Co. 

V. 

Northern   Pac.   R.   Co.  v. 

Portland    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z'. 

Puget     Sound    Elect.     Railway 

z:  Rosenbaum    Grain    Co.,    pp. 

129,    3498. 

Seaboard    Air    Line    R.    Co.    v. 

Southern    Indiana   R.    Co.    v. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.   v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    '■. 

State  z\ 

Texas,    etc.,    R'.    Co.   z'. 

'■.   Texas,    etc.,    R.     Co.     (Tex. 

Civ.    App.),    140    S.    W.    829— pp. 
23,   3524. 

'  z:   Texas,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    229    U 

S.    336,    33    S.    Ct.    837— p.    3740 

Thompson   z'. 

Vandalia   R.    Co.   v. 

z:  Weld,    96    Tex.  394,    73    S. 

W.    529— pp.    45,    83,  227,    228. 

'■.  Weld    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    68 

S.    W.    1117— pp.    45,  120. 

Western    Railway  v. 

Z-.   Worthington,  pp.        3491, 

3492.    3495,   3740. 

Railroad     Comm.     Cases,     pp.     3480, 

3481,      3482,      3491,      3497,      3498, 

3503,    3511. 
Railroad    Commissioner    z'.    Hocking 

Valley    R.    Co.,    p.    3643. 
Railroad    Comm'rs   '■.    .Atlantic,    etc.. 

R.    Co..    56    Fla.    525,    47    So.    870 

—p.    138. 


Railroad  Comm'rs  z:  Atlantic,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  59  Fla.  612,  52  So.  4— 
pp.    31,    67,    82,    501. 

z:   Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     61 

Fla.   799,   54   So.   900— pp.    23,   33, 
123,    3485. 

z:  Atlantic,        etc.,        R.        Co. 

(Fla.),    60    So.    186— p.    126. 

v.   Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     54 

S.   E.   224,   74   S.   C.  80— pp.   3514, 
3516. 

z:  Florida,     etc.,     R.     to.,     )/ 

Fla.    522,    49    So.    43— pp.    20,    30, 
104. 

■ •:•.    Florida,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     58 

Fla.    524,    SO    So.    425— pp.      104, 
117,    121,    123,    127,    219. 

z:   Florida,     etc..     R.     Co.,     64 

Fla.    112,    59    So.    385— pp.   42,   85, 
86,     126. 

z\   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    57 

Fla.    526,    49    So.    39— pp.    23,    29. 

z'.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

62    Fla.    315,    57    So.    175— pp.   31, 
32.    33,    57,    124,    3503. 

•;■.    Louisville,       etc.,       R.       Co. 

(Fla.).    57    So.    673— pp.    32,    123, 
3502. 

Missouri    Pac.    K.    Co.    v. 

■;■.    Portland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

98,   210. 

Railroad   Co.  z\   ,\nderson,   pp.    1683, 
1726,    1769,    1799. 

z:   -Androscoggins       Mills,      pp. 

739,    1014. 


Railroad  Co.  z:  Riclunond  (U.  S.), 
19  Wall.  584,  22  L.  Ed.  173— p. 
3448. 

z:   Richmond.     96     U.     S.     521, 

24    L.     Ed.    734— pp.    34,    59.    60, 
3481,    3503. 

Shaw  ?'. 

z:   Skillman,     pp.      1135,     2420, 

2425,    2429,    2533. 

I-.    Smith,      p.      2516. 

z:    \-arnell.    pp.    726,    7i2,    748, 

752. 

z:   Walbrath,    p.    2685. 

z:   Wisner,    p.    981. 

Railroad   Cos.,    Hall   z\ 

Railroad    Transfer    Co.,    Heinz    z\ 

Railroad,      etc.,      Comm.     •:■.      Cargill 

Co.,    p.    3590. 

Railway    Transfer    Co.    t'. 

Railroads,    Bird    z\ 
Railway,    Waller    v. 

Watson    z\ 

Webber    z\ 

Railway    Co.,    Baxendale    v. 

z:   B'Shears,    p.    98. 

z:   Dorsey    Fuel    Co.,    p.    700. 

Kelly    z: 

z:   McCarthy,    pp.     3251,    3294, 

3297,    3830. 

z\   Manchester    Mills,    pp.    972, 

977,    979,    1684,    1687. 

Propst       Lumber       Co.,      p. 


,  195. 
3123, 
3153, 

3418, 
3493, 


3480, 


Bennett   z'. 

z:   Brown,    p.    1948. 

Collett    z: 

Converse    Z'. 

Duncan    ?•. 

V.   Fraloff,    pp.     190,     193 

197,  3113,  3115,  3116, 
3129,  3130,  3132,  3152, 
3161,    3162,    3167. 

z:   Fuller,     pp.      35,     72, 

3419,  3420,  3445,  3448, 
3498,    3499,    3500. 

V.   Hanning,    p.    2506. 

V.   Harris,   p.    2091. 

z:   Hatch,    p.    902. 

Hatten    z: 

z:   Hurst,    p.    767. 

z:   Husen,      pp.       3420, 

3564. 

•  Insurance    Co.    z'. 

z:  Jones,       pp.        1682,       2163, 

2208. 

z:  Kassen,      pp.      2113,       2116, 

2117. 

r.  Lindsay,  pp.  3871,  3948. 

J'.   Lockwood,      pp.      1.      2,      4, 

214  238,  244,  930,  931,  930, 
952,  953,  977,  1089,  1756,  1757, 
1761,    2092,    2098,    4024,    4057. 

•  Longmire   v. 

McColIin    z'. 

McElroy    ?'. 

V.  Manufacturing       Co.,       pp. 

208,  930.  958,  960,  961,  964,  965, 
1003,  1004,  1035,  3258,  3262, 
3264,    3286,    4025. 

Maryland    v. 

z:   Maryland        (U.       S.).       20 

Wall.  643,  22  L.  Ed.  446— p. 
3871. 

z:   Maryland       (U.       S.).        21 

Wall.  456,  22  L.  Ed.  678— pp. 
34,    36,    120,    3484,    3497,    3563. 

v.   Michie,    p.     1572. 

V.   O'Donnell,      pp.     610,      624, 

728,    733,    749,    753,    766. 

Parker    z'. 

z'.   Peniston,    pp.    37,    3553. 

. Peters,    etc.,    Co.    z'. 

z'.   Pollard,      pp.      1722,      2353, 

2670. 

v.   Pratt,  pp.  782,   783,   784, 

930  947,  952,  953,  960,  961, 
3251,  3252,  3253,  3258,  3260, 
3262. 

V.   Ragsdalc,   pp.   653,   666, 

950. 

z:   Ray,  p.  2932. 

V.   Reeves,  p.  732. 


700. 


1076. 


1043, 
1083. 


Sheppard,  p.  1076. 

Simon,     pp.     759,     760,     762, 

Sowell,    pp.    949.    974,    979, 
1062,      10()3,      1064,      1065, 


Stevens,    np.    947,    952,    953. 
2092,    2097,     2100. 

z:   Vallely.      i.p.      2417,      2420, 

2480,    2489,    2533. 

Walling   T'. 

z'.   Wilson,     p.     1569. 

v.  Wynn,    pp.    7,    949. 

Railway    Comm'rs,    Southeastern    R. 

Co.    z: 
Railway    Gross    Receipts,    State    Tax 

on. 
Railway    Transfer    Co.    z\    Railroad, 

etc.,    Comm.,    p.    120. 
Railway,     etc.,     Assur.     Co.,     North- 

rup  z'. 
Rainbolt,   Bedford,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Raine,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 
Raines   z\    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1522,    1876. 
Raincy    '■.    Grand     Trunk     R.     Co., 

pp.    2689,    2816. 

Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co.    z\ 

Seaboard   .\ir    Line    Railway   v. 

LTnion   Pac.    R.    Co.   ■;'. 

Zimmerman    z\ 

Rainier     Mill,     etc.,     Co.,     Washirg- 

ton    Marine    Co.    ?•. 
R'aiordon,    Pennsvlvania    R.     Co.    j'. 
Raleigh     Iron    Works     z'.     Southern 

R.    Co.,    pp.    3495,    3545. 
Raleigh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Browne    v. 

I'urwfell    z'. 

Cooper    7'. 

Currie    z\ 

Grant    Z'. 

Hinshaw    '■. 

Knott    ?'. 

Lee  7'. 

7'.   Lowe,    pp.    356.     357,      360, 

371,    376,    548. 


pp.     3699,     3752. 


etc..    Steam- 
4052,    4053, 


Porter 

7'.   Swanson 

Vaughan    7'. 

Washington    7'. 

Watkins    7'. 

Ralli    7'.     New     York, 

ship    Co..     pp.     3935 
4068. 

7'.   Troon,    pp.    4021,    4022. 

Ralph    7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

489. 
Ralston,    Brown    7'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Rambo,    Arkansas    Mid.    R'.    Co.    t 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 


TAULB   OI^    CASi:S. 


CCLXIII 


Ramey,    Southern     Rxp.    Co.    v. 

Tallulah     Falls     R.     Co.     v. 

Raining   r.    Metropolitan    St.    R-    Co> 

pp     1504,    1587,    1588,   2164,   2535, 

2536,    2648.  . 

Ramiak   r.    Austro-.Xmerican    bteam- 

ship    Co..     pp.     1722.     1822      3990. 
Rainni   v.    Minneapolis,   etc.,    K.   V-O., 

pp.    1510,    2863.  ^      c       T> 

Ramsay    v.    Pottstown   &    R.    St.    K. 

Co..    p.    2192. 
Ramsden    v.     Roston,    etc.,     K.     Lc, 

pp.    2043,    2048,    2049,    2064. 
Ramsey,    Philadelphia,    etc.,    U.    Co. 

V. 

United    States   f. 

Ramson  r.   Metropolitan   St.   K.   Co., 

p.    2165. 
Ranchau    r.     Rutland    R.     Co.,     pp. 

3164.    3185. 
Rand    v.    Boston     KUvated    R.    Co., 

pp.    1888,    1892,    2329,    2816,    2878. 
!_  r    Butte    Klect.    R.      Co.,     pp. 

2770,    2867,    2914,    3010. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r.  ^ 

•:•.   Merchant's    Dispatch     1  rans- 

portation    Co.,    p.    958. 

Shattuck  V. 

Randall,    .\ugusta,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

V.   Brodhead,  p.  3967. 

r.  Frankford,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2026. 

V.  Lynch,    p.    717. 

r    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1626,    1634,    2444,    2451. 

r.   Providence,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2799. 

V.  Richmond,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

233,    234,    3272. 

V.   Sprague,    p.    709. 

V.  Sterling,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2677.  „      ^ 

Kandell    7:    Chicago,    etc..     R.     Co 
pp.    1559,   2472,   2484,   26^3,   2855, 
2856. 

Denison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?•. 

Randle,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Randolph,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?•. 

Dallas    Consol.    Tract.    R.    Co. 

V.   Wiley,    p.    3966. 

Ranev,   Missouri,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Rangcnier     v.     Seattle      Elect.      Co., 

pp.    2121,   2233,    2384. 
Rankin,    Cole   v.  „     ,         /^ 

V.  Memphis,    etc..    Packet    Co., 

pp.     569,    889,     1151.     1154.     1168, 

V.   Pacific     Railroad,     pp.     894, 

899. 

Ranney    v.    St.    Johnsbury,    etc.,    K. 

Co.,   pp.   2294,   2295,   2728. 
Ranous    v.     Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    pp. 

1996,    1998,    2355. 
Ransberry        ■:■.      North        .-\merican 

Transp.,      etc.,      Co.,       pp.      3045, 

3046. 
Ransom,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Northwestern     Steamship     Co. 

7'. 

Ransome    v.    Eastern,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1181. 
Raphal   v.   Pickford,   p.   614. 
Rapid   R.   Co..   Brown  '•. 
Rapid    Tran-.    R.    Co.    ;•.    Smith,    pp. 

2604,  2(.14. 

V.   Strong,   pp.   1866,   1904, 

1978.  1979,  1997,  2857. 

Rapp,    Relf   V. 

Rappahannock,    The. 

Rappaport  v.   Whites'    Exp.    Co..    pp. 

1019,    1067. 
Raritan   River   R.    Co.   r.    Middlesex. 

etc..     Tract.     Co..     pp.     113.     115. 

116.  ^     ^ 

Rash  &  Co.,  Louisville,  etc.,  K.  Co. 

Rasnuissen    -•.    Home    Industry   Iron 

Works,    p.    3950. 
Rathbone,    Baltimore,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.  Xcal,  pp.   607,  848. 

V.  New    York,     etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.   956,    1020. 


Rathbone  v.  fJregon  R.  Co.,  p. 
1553. 

V.  Union     R.     Co.,     pp.     1880, 

1891. 

Rathbun  r.  Citizens'  Steamboat  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  1  City  Ct.  R.  107— p. 
571.  ^ 

V.  Citizens'       Steamboat      Co., 

76  N.  Y.  376,  32  Am.  Rep.  321— 
p.    571. 

Rather.    Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Vincent    v. 

Rathgebe    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

p.    2324. 
Ratliff   V.    Quincy.   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1304,    1305,    1308,    3335. 
Ratliflf    Bros.    v.    Quincy,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    1301. 
Ratley,    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Ratner   v.    Chicago   City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2895,    2924. 
Rattan  v.   Central   Elect.   R.    Co.,   p. 

2682. 
Rattcree   v.    Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    1534,    1695,    2646. 
Ratterman    v.    Western    Union    Tel. 

Co.,    pp.    3551,    3559,    3566,    3567, 

3568.  „     ^ 

Ratzer    v.    Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    309,    355,    373,    i77,   378,   379, 

3273,    3275. 
Ran     V.    Bosworth,     pp.     522,     523, 

888,    3259.  ,    ^ 

Raub    V.    Los    Angeles    1  ermtnal    R. 

Co.,   p.    1883. 
Ranch  r.    Lloyd,   p.    2607. 
R'avensdale,   The. 
Rawitzkv     v.       Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1623,    1628,    2447. 
Rawlings    v.     Wabash    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1855,  1864,  2848.  2913. 
Rawls  T.  Deshler,  p.  1222. 
Raworth     ?■.    Northern     Pacific     R. 

Co.,   p.   3679. 
Rawson    r.     Holland      (N.    Y.),     47 

How.    Prac.    292,    5    Daly    155— p. 

500. 

,,.  Holland,    59   N.    Y.    611.    17 

Am.      Rep.      394— pp.      886,      896, 

901,  3345. 

V.   Kansas    City    Elev.    R'.    Co., 

p.    2593. 

V.   Pennsylvania    R.      Co.      (N. 

Y.),    2    Abb.    Prac,    N.    S.,    220— 
p.   3132. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     48 

N      Y.    212,'  8    Am.    Rep.    543— 
pp.    1007,    1612,    3163,    .-165. 

Ray   V.    Aberdeen,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 
2363. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1695,    1993. 

7\   Cortland,     etc..     Tract.     Co., 

pp.     2460,    2475. 

Indianapolis  St.  R.   Co.  i'. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    v. 

Railroad    Co.    t'. 

St.   Louis,  etc.,  R'.  Co.  V. 

-•.   Southern    R.    Co.,    p.     165. 

State    J'. 

V.   United   Tract.    Co.,    pp.    196, 

2620,    3112. 

Ray    Bros.,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Rayburn,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Ravmcr,    South    Covington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    r. 
Ravmond    v.     Biylington,      etc.,      R. 

Co..    pp.    1718,    2285. 

Northern    Pac.    K.    Co.    v. 

V.   Portland    R.     Co..    p.    2956. 

Schwinger    -'. 

V.  Tvson,      pp.      3866,       3868, 

3944,    3946.    3947. 

Raynard,    Chillicothe   r. 

Rayner,    Harris    v. 

Raynes,    Phillips   v. 

Raynor  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

p.    2630. 
Rea   f.    Media,    etc..    Elect.    R.    Co. 

pp.    2329,    2828. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 


Rea  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
pp.  281,  627.  728,  733,  734,  742, 
746,    749,    828,    844,     1036,     1037, 

V.  Spaulding,    30    N.    Y.    630, 

86    Am.    Dec.    426— pp.    619,"  733, 
742,   743.   749,  775. 

V.   Spaulding.   18  N.  Y.   Super. 

Ct.    395— pp.    738,    767. 

Readhead    v.    Midland    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1682,    1845. 
Reading    v.    Chicago,    etc.,     K.    Co.. 

p.    1335. 

V.   Donovan,    pp.    469,   470. 

V.  United  Tract.   Co.,   p.   78. 

Reading    City    Pass.    R.    Co..    Barre 

'-  V.  Eckert,    p.    2694. 

Reading    Railroad    v.    Pennsylvania. 

p.    3561.  ^       „      . 

Reading,  etc.,   St.  R.  Co.,  Harriman 

Ready       v.       Steamboat       Highland 

Mary,    p.    3912. 
Reagan,    .\dams    Exp.   Co.   v. 

V.   Farmers'     Loan,     etc.,     Co., 

154  U.  S.  362.  38  L.  Ed.  1014. 
14  S.  Ct.  1047— pp.  34,  39,  46, 
48.  58.  60,  61,  115,  116,  119. 
121  122,  124,  129,  130,  133, 
3668.  ,     ^  ^         - 

V.  Farmers      Loan,     etc.,     Co.. 

154  U.  S.  420.  38  L.  Ed.  1031. 
14  S.  Ct.  1062— pp.  34,  38,  39, 
119,     124,     129,     133. 

V.   Mercantile    Trust    Co.,     154 

U.  S.  413.  38  L.  Ed.  1028.  14 
S.  Ct.  1060— pp.  119,  129.  3497, 
3591. 

V    Mercantile    Trust    Co.,    134 

U.  S.  418,  38  L.  Ed.  -030.  14 
S.  Ct.  1062— pp.  34,  37,  39,  119, 
124,     129,     130,     133. 

V.   St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    pp. 

2928,    2996. 

St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 

Real     Estate     Trust,     etc.,     Co.     r. 

Gwyn.    p.    2266. 
Realm,    Wentworth    v. 
Rearden   v.    St.    Louis,   etc..   R-    Co. 

(Mo.).  114  S.  W.  961— pp.  1830, 

1866,  1928,  2245. 
^•    St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2l3 

Mo.  105,  114  S.  W.  961— pp. 

2321,  2350,  2915,  2987,  2996. 
Reardon,  Hatch  v. 

Pollard    V. 

Reary    i\    Louisville,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp  1548,  1552,  1981,  2502,  2520, 
2541.  .  „      ^ 

Reason  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  852,  881.  3284,  3285,  3394. 
3414.  „     ^ 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Reasor  i:   Peducah.   etc.,   Ft-JO'   Co.. 

pp.    10,    1498,    1500,    2475,    2709. 

3078.  ,.,„    .,, 

Reaves  v.   Waterman,   pp.    /-V,    '•'•>• 
Rebecca,   The. 
Reber   v.    Bond.    p.    1758. 

V.   Pittsburg,    etc..    Tract.    Co  . 

pp.    1987,    2126,   2179.   2888.   2889. 

Receivers  v.  Armstrong,  pp.  12/7. 
1967.    1990.    2217. 

Dobson  V. 

V.  Olive,    p.    1314. 

r.  Wright,    p.    1281. 

Receivers,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Graves, 

p.   448.  ^.     ^ 

Record,    Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Rector.  Waliash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Red  Bluff  Hotel  Co.,  Bierce  v. 
Red    River.   The.  c     .•„ 

Red    River,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f.    Eastin. 
p.    228. 

Long    V. 

Redburn.    Daley   f. 

Redd  f.   Muscogee   R.   Co..  p    2360. 
Redding   f.    South    Carolina    K.    Co.. 
pp.   2037,   2038.   2665. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.    v. 

Reddington    r.     Philadelphia    Tract. 

Co.,    p.    2158. 


CCLXIV 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Redeker,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Redeny,   Spalding  v. 
Redfern,    Arnott    v. 
Redfield    f.    Oakland,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
p..   1984. 

VValrath    v. 

Redhing     f.     Central     R.     Co.,     pp 

2325,    2879. 
Redigan    v.     Boston,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

pp.    2505,    2506. 
Redin    v.    Alton,    etc..    Tract.     Co. 

p.    2752. 
Redington      v.      Ilarrisburg      Tract 

Co.,  p.  2875. 
Redman,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.   v. 
Redmon    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.   796,   3340. 

V.  Aletropolitan     St.     K.     Co. 

pp.    1487,   2003,   2691,   2692,   2975 

State  f. 

Redmond  v.   Liverpool,   etc.,   Steam 

boat   Co.,   pp.    527,   566. 
Redmond  v.   Liverpool,   etc.,   Steam 

ship  Co.,   pp.    536,   545. 
Redner   i-.    Lehigh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

1514. 
Redus,   Missouri,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Reed,    Ames   v. 

v.  .\xtell,    p.    2270. 

B.    &   O.    R.    Co.    V. 

Bell   f. 

■;■.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1643,    1667. 

Denver    Tramway    Co.    f. 

V.   Dick,    p.    541. 

V.  Duluth,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1870. 

V.   Great      Northern      K.      Co., 

pp.    2436,    2849. 

Humphreys   v. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1972. 

Mace    v. 

Newport     News,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

V.  New    York     Cent.     R.     Co., 

p.    2735. 

V.  New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2051. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2157. 

t.  Philadelphia,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

pp.    234,    284,    285,    288,    424,    752, 
755,    776. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 

v.  Racine    Boat    Co.,    pp.    352, 

372. 

V.  Richardson,     pp. 

i'.  Rome,  etc.,   Iv 

1349,  1353,  1463. 

Segura  v. 

State  t. 

V.  Texas,  etc., 

1628,  1034,  2441. 

1/.  Trenton,    pp.    66,    110. 

V.  United     states,      pp.       731, 

736,  3865,      3877,      3898,      3939, 
4017. 

V.  United   States   Exp.    Co.,    n. 

3359. 

V.  Weld,    p.    712. 

V.  Wilmington    Steamboat   Co., 

pp.    727,    732,    748,    752,    765. 

V.  Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2114,  2117,    2299. 

Reed  Lumber  Co.  v.  Lewis,  d. 
671.  ^ 

Reeder,    Boyle    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Wells     Fargo     &     Co.,     pp. 

1058,    1071,    1083. 

Reem  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  77 
Minn.  503,  80  N.  vV.  638— pp. 
1712,    1952. 

V.   St.    Paul     City    R.     Co.,    b4 

N.     W.     652,     82     .Minn.     98— p. 
3009.  ^ 

Reeman,    Dallas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Reems    v.    New    Orkans,    etc.,    R 

Co.,    pp.    2694,    2842. 
Reese    v.    Detroit    United    Railway, 

p.    2890. 


532,     538. 
Co.,     pp. 


R.     Co.,     pp. 


Reese    '■.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    pp. 

191.    1597,    1598,    2467,    2468. 
Reeside,    The. 
Reeve    r.     Davis,    p.    3865. 
Reeves,    Brightman    z\ 

Chesapeake,    ttc,    R.    Co.    'j. 

V.  Cliicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co..    pp. 

1708,    26^-4,    2697,    2762. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

.Nicmpliis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

.\lobile,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Nortolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Railroad    Co.    v. 

f.   Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1664,     2777. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Southern    R.    Co.,   pp.   2774, 

3016. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

851,    1119,    1359. 

Regan  v.  Adams  Exp.   Co.,   p.   1290. 

V.  Grand     Trunk     Railway,     p. 

3304. 

V.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2688. 

Rrgner     v.     Glens     Falls,     etc.,     St. 

K.    Co.,    pp.    2408,    2421,    2/u8. 
Rehkoph,     J:,vansville,     etc.,     Packet 

Co.    V. 
Reibel    f.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   2202,   2612. 
Reich,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Rcichmann      Interstate      Commerce 

L.omm.    c'. 
Reid,    Denver   Tramway  Co.   v. 

V.    ivvansville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     7i2,     748,     753. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    < . 

• Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

bledge    V.  . 

boutnern     R.     Co.     t. 

V.   Southern     R.     Co.,     149     N. 

C.  423,  03  S.  E.  112— pp.  148, 
di2,     o30,     3517. 

z\   Southern  R.  Co.,  150  N. 

C.  753,  04  tj.  L.  874 — pp.  1j1, 
3d17. 

V.   Southern     R.     Co.,     153     N. 

C.  490,  09  S.  E.  618— pp.  207, 
3259,    3517,    3603,    3745. 

lexas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.    Vazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

22i0,     2380. 

Reidman   v.    Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2836. 
Reid     Phosphate     Co.     v.     Farmeis' 

Fertilizer    Co.,    p.    334. 
Reidsville,    Piedmont    R.    Co.    v. 
Reidy    v.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2815. 
Reigle,   Farish   &   Co.   v. 
ReiUey,     Aew     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Reimer   v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2789. 
Reineman   &   Co.   v.   Covington,    etc., 

R.  .Co.,    p.    1104. 
Reinliart   v.    McDonald,    p.    3575. 
Reisenleiter    v.     United    R.     Co.,     p. 

2835. 
Reiss   V.    Joline,    p.    2798. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Texas,     etc.,      R.      Co.,      98 

Fed.  533,  i9  C.  C.  A.  149— 
pp.    540,    3361. 

V.   Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  99   Fed. 

1006,   39   C.      C.  A.   008— p.   3361. 

V.   Wilmington     City     R.     Co., 

pp.  1683,  1874,  1888,  1889,  2248, 
2667,    2668,    2778. 

Relt,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Rapp,    pp.    759,    703. 

Reliance   Transp.    Co.,   Atwood   v. 
Relyea  v.   New   Haven  Rolling   Mill 

Co.,  pp.  305.  311,  337,  3879, 
3884,   3943. 

Remmy,  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v. 

Renaud  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
201  Mass.  553,  38  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  689,  44  R.  R.  R.  632, 
67    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S., 


632,    97    N.    E.    98— pp.    190,    197, 
2293. 
Renaud   f.    New    York,   etc.,    R.    C'n  . 
92    N.    E.    "10,    206    Mass.    557— 
pp.    2781,    2878. 

V.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co  , 

210  Mass.  553,  97  N.  E.  98,  38 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  689,  67  Am 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  632.  44 
R.  R.  R.  632— pp.  1495,  1531. 
1742,  2122,  2123,  2163,  2172, 
2421. 

Rench,    Burritt   v. 

Renders    v.    Grand    Trunk    R.     Co., 

p.    2897. 
Re     New     Brunsw-ick,     etc.,     R.,     p. 

255. 
Renfro    ''.    Fresno    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2688. 
Hall   &   Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Texas     Cent.      R.     Co.,     p. 

1853. 

Renfroe,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Renicker,     Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Cci. 

R'enneker  v.  South  Carolina  R 
Co.,    pp.    1684,    2113,    2378. 

Renney  v.  Webster,  M.,  B.  &  F. 
City    St.    Ry.    Co.,    p.    1764. 

Rensselaer,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Brist  e 

Pelton    -'. 

Phillips   V. 

Rensslaer,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Hart    v. 
Rentz,    Seaboard    Air    Line    Railway 

Renz,    Augusta,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Rephan,     Norfolk,     etc.,     Tract.     Co. 

Republic,    The. 

Reschke    '■.    Syracuse,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2727,    2869.    2875. 
Reul,    Mt.    .Vdams,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Reunis,    Emerson    Co.    •:'. 
Revalee,     Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Revett  V.  Globe  Nav.  Co.,  pp.  3876, 

3877,    3933. 
Rex   V.    Barker,    p.    255. 

v.   Severn,     etc..     R'.     Co.,     pp. 

255,   256. 

Rexroad,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Reyman,     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
Reynolds,    Bell    v. 

V.   Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     121 

Mass.     291— p.     3409. 

V.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     43 

N.  H.  580— pp.  1214,  1218,  1229, 
1230,  1232,  1234,  1235,  1246, 
1247,     1248,     1249. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

145,     170. 

— • —  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1110,  1300,  1366,  1376,  1424, 
1425,  1430,  1444. 

Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  z\ 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

McGhee  f. 

v.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    593. 

Pacific    Coast    Co.    '■. 

V.  Pacific     Elect.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1644. 

Peoria,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2455. 

V.  Richmond,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1687,    1720,    2159,    2669. 

Robertson   v. 

V.  St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1539,    2084. 

V.   Scott,    p.    352. 

V.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Rail- 
way,   p.    1197. 

Reynolds  Bros.,  Western  Union 
Tel.   Co.   V. 

Rhea  v.  Minneapolis  St.  R.  Co., 
pp.    2672,    2858. 

Rhoades,   International,   etc.,   R.   Co. 


TAHIJC    OF    CASKS. 


CCLXV 


Rhoads    r.    Cornwall,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.     1509,     1524,    2860. 

South    Florida   R.   Co.   v. 

Rhode-    Island    Co.,    Arnold    v. 

I'.etz    V. 

Brunnchow    v. 

Canhani    i. 

Fagan    '.■. 

Garvey  v. 

Lee     V. 

McCauley  v. 

Marsh   v. 

Martin    v. 

Murray    v. 

O'Clair    v. 

Parrcnt     v. 

Riley    v. 

Simone   v. 

Tildcn  V. 

Tucker   v. 

Wilbour   V. 

Wilbur    V. 

Wilcox     7' 

Rhode     Island 

Enos  V. 

Prospcrt 

X'errone 

Rhode    Island, 

V. 


Suburban      R.     Co., 


etc.,    R.     Co.,     Enos 


Co.   V. 

R'.    Co.,    pp. 

203i2,     2588, 


323, 


Co., 

pp. 
1428, 


Staples   z\ 

Rhodes,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Iowa,    pp.    2423,    3538,   3539. 

V.  Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

945,    1377. 

f.   Ncwhall,    pp.    338,   339,    347, 

3884. 

Norfolk,   etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;•. 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

160. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Rhodes,     etc.,     Co.     v.     Continental 

Furniture    Co.,    pp.    302,    477. 
Rice,   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    pp. 

806,    894,    895,    899. 

Brundred    r. 

Camden,    etc.,    R 

V.   Chicago,     etc., 

1683,     1737,      1814,     _-. 
2668,     2672,     2681,     2839,     2841 

V.   Detroit,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    pp. 

80,    1611. 

V.   Dwight    Mfg.    Co.,    pp. 

984. 

V.  Hart,    pp.    894,    899. 

V.  Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co, 

3144. 

T.  Indianapolis,     etc.,     R. 

pp.    819,    821,   848. 

z'.  Kansas    Pac.     Railway, 

nil,     1112,      1113,      1413. 
1429. 

:-.   Ontario    Steamboat    Co.,    pp. 

598,    848,    853. 

V.  Philadelphia    Rapid    Transit 

Co.,    pp.    2192,    2195. 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Southern    Kansas   R.    Co.    ■;'. 

Stone   V. 

V.  Wabash    R.     Co.,     pp.    969, 

1398,     1407. 

Rich,     Bryant    v. 

Cameron   v. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

r.   Lambert,     pp.     1035.     3896, 

3903,     3921,    4019,    4023.     4031. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

p.   2567. 

Richardson   v. 

Richard    ;•.     Detroit,    etc..     Railway, 

p.    3323. 
Richards.    Bloom   v. 

Clark    -c'. 

!'.   Doe.    p.    337. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Georgia    Railroad   v. 

r.   Gi'lbert,    pp.    727.    768. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 

King    T. 

•:•.   London,     etc..     R.     Co.,    pp. 

211,    3125.    3147,    3148. 

V.  Michigan,   etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

894.    899.    900. 


pp. 

R.  Co.,  149 
t  Am. 
3— pp. 

1110,      1119, 

R.     Co.,     62 


531, 
891. 


Richards  v.    Westcott,    pp.    759,    764. 
Richardson,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

'-  V.  Atlantic    Coast     Line     Rail- 
road,   p.    3090. 

Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Augusta,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2875. 

V.  Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co 

892,     898,     901. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.. 

Mo.    311,    50    S.    W.    782,    13    Am 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S.,    170— pp. 

969,      1013,      1061.      " 

1403,     1426. 

7'.   Chicago,     etc., 

App.     1 — pp.    1---. 
.'.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    61 
Wis.    596,    21    N.    W.   49— p.    1444. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

ieain,    etc.,    Co.    .. 

V.  Goddard,      pp.      527, 

534.     536,     539,     540,     566, 
3894,     3895. 

V.   Goss,    p.    1234. 

Gulf,    etc.,    Tel.    Co.    v. 

Hall    r. 

i:   Hard  wick,    p.    3867. 

V.   Harmon,     pp.     4036,     4037. 

4039.    4040.    4042,   4077. 

McClurc    V. 

V.   Metropolitan      Railway,      p. 

1971. 

v.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.     1739.     1740. 

— —  V.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
pp.    954,    1097,    1117. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    K'.    Co.    z\ 

Reed    7. 

V.   Rich,    pp.    1154,    1160,    1171. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

7'.   Whiting,     pp.     3938,     3944, 

3945. 

Richardson    Drug    Co.,    Greek-.\mer- 

ican    Sponge    Co.    7-. 
Richardson     Fueling     Co.     f 

mour,    p.    4040. 
Richelieu,    Senecal    7'. 
Richelieu    Nav.    Co.,    Dixon    i 
Richelieu,     etc.,     Nav.     Co.     7 

ton     Marine    Ins.     Co.,    pp 

3909. 
Riches,    Coleman    v. 

7'.   Fargo,    p.    600. 

Richeson,    Louisville,    etc.,     R.      Co. 

V. 

Kichey,     Indianapolis     Tract.,     etc., 

Co.    z: 
Richey,    etc.,    Co.    z\    Northern   Pac. 

R.  Co.,  pp.  218,  229,  264. 
Richmond     v.      Bronson,      pp.      596, 

599. 

Del    Valle   v. 

Georgia   R.,    etc.,    Co.    z: 

7'.   Irons,    p.    4075. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.  Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1989. 

Northrop   7'. 

7'.   Quincy,      etc.,     R.      Co.,     p. 

2249. 

Railroad   Co.    z'. 

7'.   Southern       Pac.       Co.,      pp. 

1550,   2094,   2097. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   7. 

The. 

V.  Union      Steamboat     Co.,     8 

Abb.   N.   C.   66— p.   540. 

7'.   Union     Steamboat     Co.,     8" 

N.    Y.    240— pp.    532.    598. 

Richmond  &   D.   R.  Co.,  Crews  7'. 
Richmond     City     R.     Co.     7'.     Scitt, 

pp.    1718,    1798,    1804,    1805,    1914. 

2576. 
Richmond    Passenger,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Allen,  p.   2294. 
Richmond    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Bowles, 

p.    2743. 

7'.  Brown,   p.    1645. 

i:   Garthwright,    p.     1952. 


1798.      1884. 


Co., 

3303, 


3S. 


Sey- 


Bos- 
3907. 


Richmond  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  West,  pp. 

2569,     2635,      2647,     2655,     2721. 

2795. 
Richnuiid   Tract.   Co.   v.   Wilkinson,. 

p.    2535. 

-■.   Williams,   pp.    1865,    2268. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    .•.    Ashby. 

pp.    1613,    1857,    1862.    1971.    1975, 

1093. 

Bedell    z: 

z:   Bedell,    p.    684. 

z:   Benson,    pp.    406,    513,    515, 

734,    741,   743,   856. 

Bowers    V. 

-  -  7'.    Brown,    p.    80. 

Burgin  v. 

V.   Burnscd,    p.    1568. 

C>'idwell    V. 

r.  Childress,  pp.    1990.  2780. 

Clyde   V. 

Conley  v. 

Dixon   7'. 

Farrell    t'. 

V.   Greenwood,   pp.   1721.   2010, 

3069. 

Gwyn,    etc.,    Co.    z\ 

Ilughson    V. 

7'.  Jefferson,     pp.     2017,     2018. 

2020,    3077. 

Johnson    v. 

Johnstone   v. 

Knopf   7'. 

Kohn     7'. 

7'.   Leathers,    p.     2919. 

Lewis   -•. 

Lindley    v. 

Littlejohn    v. 

Mc.Vbsher    v. 

McSloop    V. 

Malcom    v. 

7'.   Morris,      pp. 

2254. 

z:   Patterson       Tobacco, 

pp.       3292,       3293,      3504, 
3513,    3523,    3536. 

V.  Patterson,    etc..    Co..    , 

7'.   Payne,     pp.     931,     946,    94J, 

1054,    1075. 

Pendleton    7'. 

Pickens    7'. 

z'.   Pickleseimer,    p.     2159. 

v.   Picklesimer,     p.     2159. 

Piatt   7'. 

— -  7'.  Powers,  149  U.  S.  43.  37 
L.  Ed.  642,  13  S.  Ct.  748— pp. 
2134,    2136,    2274.    2858.    2859. 

V.  Powers.    149    U.    S.    209.    14 

S.  Ct.  281,  38  L.  Ed.  131— p. 
1792. 

Purcell   V. 

Randall   7. 

Reynolds    7'. 

-•.   Richardson,    43    S.    W.    465, 

19  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1495— p.  3279. 

V.   Richardson,   23   Ky.   L- 

Rep.  2234,  66  S.  W.  1035— p. 
3350. 

Rudd  V. 

Samuels  v. 

7'.  Scott,  86  Va.  902,  11  S. 

E.  404,  44  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
418— p.  1928.  ^  ^ 

V.   Scott,  88  Va.  958,  14  S.  E. 

763.  16  L.  R.  .A.  91— pp.  2200, 
2312,  2616,  2797. 

v.   Shomo.  pp.  320,  323.    333, 

335,  3250,  3326,  3347,  3354. 

Smith    7'. 

z:  Smith,    pp.    1922,    2242. 

Spellman   z\ 

7'.  Trousdale  &   Sons,   pp.   820. 

1311,    1457,    1459. 

Turner    i'. 

7'.   Vance,       pp.      2636,       3069, 

3070. 

N^an    Lindley    7'. 

Walsh   7'. 

Waters    v.  _ 

f.  White,    pp.    724.    730.    /34. 

739,  741,  743.  745.  747.  748, 
818.  820.  825.  826,  871.  876.  8//, 
894.    898,    900.    903,    1038. 

Whitney    Mfg.    Co.    z: 

Willcox   7. 


CCLXVI 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Wood  '■. 
Richter  '■.  United  R.  Co.,  p.  2778. 
Rick  V.   Wells    Fargo    Co.,   pp,    1330, 

1456,    1476.     1483,     1484. 
Rickerson         Roller-Mill        Co.        -■. 

Grand    Rapids,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3261,    3289,    3296,    ii27 . 
Kickert     -•.    Southern     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2257,    2517. 
Ricketts    ;■.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(X.     v.),    61     Barb.     18,    4    Lans. 

446 — pp.    3359,    3377. 

Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    59    N. 

Y.  637 — p.  3254. 

f.  Birmingham   St.   R.   Co., 

pp.  2079,  2255. 

i'.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   p 

3066. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Rickinson,     American     Sugar    Refin. 

Co.   '.: 
Ricks,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

f.  Georgia,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     p. 

2156. 

Riddick  v.   Dunn,  p.  3894. 
Riddlebarger   f.    Hartford   Ins.    Co., 

p.    1118. 
Ridenhour  f.    Kansas   City   Cable   R. 

Co..    pp.    1890,    1896,    2120,    2236, 

2322,    2916,   2994. 
Rider,    Eddy   v. 

Louisiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

V.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3149. 

Ridge    Ave.     Pass.     R'.     Co.,     Purtell 

Stager   v. 

Ridge   Ave.,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Picard   v. 
R'idgeway    Grain      Co.    v.      Pennsyl- 
vania  R.    Co.,   pp.    589,    1102. 
Ridley,    Day    Catlin    &    Co.    ■;•. 

Day,   etc.,    Co.    c'. 

Riedel    v.    Wilmington    City    R.    Co., 

p.     2587. 
Riegel    &    Co.,    Union    R.,    etc.,    Co. 

Riegler,    South    Covington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.  V. 
Rielly,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Rifcowitz,      Baltimore      Consol.      R'. 

Co.    7. 
Riggins    T.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

p.    423 
Riiri,s,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    7 . 
Rigney,    Laing   'o. 
Riley,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

i".  Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     p. 

1568. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    ?•. 

V.  Home,   p.   729. 

Jeffersonville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1189. 

Pullman   Co.   v. 

i'.   Rhode       Island       Co.,       pp. 

1831,    1832,    2225. 

Roberts   f. 

United    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

V.   Vallcjo-Fcrry    Co.,    p.    1509. 

T.  Wrightsville,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  1621,  2579,  2593,  2610,  3389. 

Rinard,  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

V. 

Rines     &     Co.,     Missouri,     etc.,     R. 

Co.  V. 
R'iney,    Gulf,    etc.,   R.    Co.    '•. 
Ringgold    V.    Haven,    pp.    816,    818, 

819,    848,    3933. 
Ringwalt    v.     Wabash    R.     Co.,    pp. 

728,    733,    749,    3188. 
Rintamaki      v.      Cunard     Steamship 

Co.,    pp.    3925,    3926. 
Rintoul    V.    New    York     Cent.,     etc., 

R.    Co.,   21    Blatchf.   439,    17    Fed. 

905— pp.    790,    791,    824. 

V.  New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   20   Fed.   313— p.   793. 

Rio  Grande  R.  Co.  v.  Cross,  5  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  454,  456,  23  S.  W.  529 
— pp.    33,    855,    856,    935,    3384. 

V.   Cross      (Tex.      Civ.      App.), 

23    S.    W.    1004— p.    856. 


Co., 


pp. 


740, 


Rio  Grande  R.  Co.  v.  Munoz  Suc- 
cessors,   p.    856. 

— —  Woodhouse  "'. 

Rio  Grande,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell,   pp.    2726,    3454. 

i\   R'ubenstein,     p.     2693. 

•  Rudy    V. 

Ripley   f. '  Aetna    Ins.    Co.,    p.    1118. 

V.   New     Jersey    R.,     etc.,     Co., 

p.    1638.  ^ 

Rippy    &    Co.    V.    Southern    Railway, 

p.     165. 
Rislcy,    .American    Exp.    Co.   f. 
Rist    V.    Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans. 

Co.,    pp.    2668,    2679. 
Ritchel,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Ritchey,    Texas    Mid.    Railroad    v. 
Ritchie,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Ritter,    Houston,    etc.,  R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,  R.    Co. 

'•.   Philadelphia,  etc.,     R. 

p.    1597. 

Ritz    V.     Pennsylvania    R.     Co 

1267,    1281. 
River,   etc..   Coke   Co.,   Illinois   Cent. 

R.    Co.    V. 
R'ivers   v.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2467,    2468,     2849. 

T'.   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   80   N. 

.1.    L.    217,    76   .\tl.    455- pp.    1744, 
1830,    1836. 

V.   Pennsylvania     R.      Co.,     83 

N.    J.    L.    513,    83    Atl.    883— pp. 
1744,    1835,    1836,    2180,    2884. 

Riverside  Mills,  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   V. 

T.  Atlantic,     etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

3604,    3832. 

Rives,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Rives,    etc.,    Co.,    Knox   ■<'. 
Rixford    -■.     Smith,      pp.      728 

753,    757,    758,    765,    766. 
Roach,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Atchison,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

3514. 

•   Southern    R.    Co. 

\'irginia,    etc.,     R 

•  Wood    V. 

Roane,    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Roanoke    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Sterrett, 

108    Va.    533,    62    S.     E.    385,     19 

L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    316— pp.    2671, 

3003. 
V.   Sterrett,     111     Va.     293,     68 

S.    E.    998— pp.    2667,    2673,    2838, 

2970. 
Roanoke,       etc..        Steamboat       Co., 

Hornthal    v. 
Roark  v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1938,    1939. 
Roasted   i\    Great    Northern    R'.    Co., 

p.    1669. 
Robb  V.    Pittsburg,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

191,    1637,    2446. 
Robbins,   New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Pender  v. 

— — •  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.   Shelby        County         Taxing 

Dist.,  pp.  3455,  3471,  3555. 

Robbins    Cotton    Co.,    Mobile,    etc., 

R.    Co.    V. 
Roberson       z<.       Greenleaf     Johnson 

Lumber  Co.,   p.    1583. 
Robert  V.   Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  pp. 

979,    1489,    1491,    3166,    3522. 
Robert   Dollar,  The. 
Robert    Smith    Ale    Brew.    Co.,    Ly- 

don    V. 
Roberts,  Atchison,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

V.   Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1510,  1769,   1785,   1882,  2151, 
2332,  2365,  2369,  2876. 

Central    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Chicago    Union    Tract.    Co.    v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-'.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2693. 

v.   Chittenden,    p.    587. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.   %'. 

V.   Graham,     pp.     2625,     2626. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.  Johnson,     p.     2803. 


Co. 


Roberts   v.    Koehler,    p.    1973. 

New    York    f. 

V.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2138,    2140. 

-'.   Pennsylvania      R'.      Co.,      p. 

2349. 

People    "'. 

V.   Riley,     pp.     425,     428,     820, 

821,    945,    1007. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

139,    169. 

V.   Sierra    R 


Co.,     pp. 
2309,     2677, 


1746, 
2806, 


1758,     2165 
2920,    2982. 

V.   Smith,     p.     2850. 

■  V.   Southern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1557. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■   Tousey    V. 

V.  Turner,    p.     11. 

7'.   Union    Line    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

546,    891,    901,    902,    905,    912. 

Van   Buskirk  v. 

■;•.   Wabash    R.    Co.,    p.    2077. 

?'.   Yarboro,     pp.     549,     553. 

Yazoo,    etc..    R.    Co.    z'. 

Robertson   v.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    152,    172,    582. 

V.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1505,    1506. 

V.   Commonwealth,     p.     3582. 

Edye    V. 

"■.   Hay,    p.    3886. 

■  V.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.       Co., 

pp.  1663,  1969,  2774,  3012. 

V.   National        Steamship      Co., 

60  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  132,  17  N. 
Y.  S.  459,  42  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
694— pp.    847,   851,   853,    856. 

V.   National     Steamship    Co.,     1 

App.  Div.  61,  37  N.  Y.  S.  69, 
72  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  223— pp.  430, 
431. 

T'.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1558,    1572,    2665. 

V.   Old     Colony      R.      Co.,      pp. 

214,    244,     1574,     1575. 

V.   Reynolds,    p.    396. 

•  ?'.    Southern    R.    Co.,    p.    954. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

?'.   Wabash    R.     Co.,    pp.    2874, 

2930. 

i\   West    Jersey,     etc.,     Co.,     p 

1535. 

Robertson    &    Co.    v.    Kennedy,    pp 

8,    727. 
Robertson,   etc.,   Co.,    Voss   &   Co.   v. 
Robey,    Kauffman    ?■. 
Robinett,    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R'.    Co 

V. 

Chesapeake,     etc..     Railway     v. 

Robinson,      American     Union      Exp 

Co.   V. 

Arkansas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

Arkansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Atchison,    etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

•  f.   Austin,    pp.    580,    681. 

V.  Baker,       pp.       1142,       1155, 

1156,    1158,    1159. 

V.   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    64 

C.  C.  A.  281,  129  Fed.  753— pp. 
187,    188,    189. 

V.   Baltimore,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

222  U.  S.  506,  56  L.  Ed.  288,  Z2 
S.    Ct.    114— pp.    3785,    3810. 

V.   Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    64 

W.  Va.  406,  63  S.  E.  323— pp. 
1194,    1198,    1201,    3824. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Chicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 

■  Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2804,   3228. 

'■.   Chittenden,    p.    892. 

-■.   Cornish,     pp.     728,     749. 

r.    Ezzell,    p.    1195. 

Georgia    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Gibbons    f. 

V.   Harmon,    p.    36. 

V.   Helena,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1519,     1803,     1866,     1889,     2649. 

Highland  Ave.,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Ilolst,    p.     3889. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


TAIUJC    OK    CASES. 


CCLXVII 


Robinson    r.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    479,    -iHi,.    493. 

Indianapolis    St.*  R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Kirkwood,    p.    2089. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    465. 

Lambert    -■. 

Lane    7'. 

V.   Lord    liyron,    p.    3658. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Manhattan    R.    Co.,   p.    2156. 

V.    .Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

305,     306,     308,      314,      317,      573, 
575,   577. 

V.  New    York    Cent.,    etc.,     K'. 

Co.,    p.    1843. 

V.  New    York,     etc.,      Co.,      p. 

3377. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

203   N.   Y.   627,   97   N.    E.    1115— 
p.    3141. 

V.   New     York,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

129    N.    Y.    S.     1030,      145     App. 
Div.   391— pp.   3150,    3174. 

V.   New    York,    etc.,    Steamship 

Co.,    69    N.    E.    1130,    177    N.    Y. 
565- p.    3409. 

V.   New    York,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,   63    App.    Div.    211,    71    N.    Y. 
S.    424— pp.    1036,    3384. 

V.   New    York,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,    74    N.    Y.    S.    384,    36    Misc. 
Rep.    705— p.    4025. 

r.   Noble,    pp.    1171,    3942. 

J'.   Northhampton     St.     R.     Co., 

p.     1907. 

Paris,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  Piochc,    etc.,    Co..    p.     1498. 

V.  Rockland     St.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2418. 

V.   St.    Tohnsbury,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

pp.    2104,  "2105. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    75 

Mo.   494— p.   424. 

V.  St.      Louis,      etc.,     R.      Co., 

103  Mo.   App.    110,   77   S.   W.   493 
—p.   2697. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Shelden    r. 

Southern    Pac.    Co.    f. 

i\       Southern     Pac.      Co.,      pp. 

195,    1976. 

V.   Superior     Rapid    Trans.     R'. 

Co.,    p.    3087. 

r.  United     States,     p.     328. 

Verrall  f. 

Robinson  Bros.  v.  Merchants'  Des- 
patch Transp.  Co.,  pp.  320,  429, 
431,  432,  848,  854,  992,  1013, 
1034. 

Robinson,  etc.,  Co.  ■?■.  Memphis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed.  129— pp. 
293,    486,    3879. 

V.   Memphis,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    16 

Fed.    57— pp.    293,    3879. 

Robostelli    T.     New     York,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1574,    1767,    1789. 
Robson  '•.  Nassau   Elect.   R.   Co.,   p. 

2884. 

■;■.  North    Eastern    R.    Co.,    p. 

1871. 

The    Northern    Hclle    v. 

Rochat    f.     North     Hudson    R'.     Co., 

p.     1995. 

Rochester  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Birm- 
ingham '■. 

Rochester    R.    Co.,    Ayers    -'. 

Manufacturers'         Commercial 

Co.   z'. 

Muckle  V. 

Sias   V. 

Rochester,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Alexander 

Birmingham   f. 

Clarke  v. 

Curtis  V. 

Ganiard    v. 

Gill   I'. 

People    V. 

Weber    -•. 

Rock  Creek  Steamboat  Co.  r.  Boyd, 
p.    3017. 

Rock  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stev- 
ens,  pp.    1856,    1857. 


R.    Co.,    Tibbits 
Carter    v. 


Rock    Island,    etc., 
&    Son   r. 

Rockford,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

V.  Coultas,    p.    2220. 

Rockland    St.    R.    Co.,    Robinson    r. 

Rockland,  etc.,  St.  Railway,  Carle- 
ton    z: 

Rockwell,    Horan    z'. 

Rocky  Mt.  Mills  z:  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  641,  642,  654, 
660,  662,  670,  675,  698.  3277, 
3282. 

K'odebaugh,    Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Roderick  z'.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    753,    1344. 

Roilgcr  I'.  Comptoird'  Escompt  dc 
Paris,    p.    1224. 

Rodgers,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Choctaw,    etc.,     R.    Co.,     p. 

2369. 

z'.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

619,    744. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Rodick  -•.    Maine   Cent.    R.   Co.,   pp. 

1769,    1773,    1786. 
Rodman  v.  North  Jersey  St.  R.  Co., 

p.    2898. 
Rodocanachi,    Soule    v. 
Roe,    Morel    i'. 

•  Oregon   Co.  v. 

Roebuck,    Cleveland    City   R.    Co.   v. 

Southern   R.   Co.  "■. 

Roedecker    :•.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    1710. 
Roemer,    Galveston,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    i'. 
Roeser,   Union   Pac.   R.   Co.  v. 
Rogan   r.   Wabash   R.   Co.,   p.   679. 
Rogers  7'.   -Atlantic  City  R.   Co.,   pp. 

1637,    1638. 
•  Barrett    "'. 

Bingham    ?■. 

Central,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

■ •  Cravens  v. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.^  Co.    z: 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

•  Jackson    '•. 

JefFersonville     R'.     Co.     Z'. 

z'.   Kennebec      Steamboat      Co., 

pp.    2094,    2103. 

-•.  Long    Island     R.     Co.     (N. 

Y.),    38    How.    Prac.    289— p.    278. 

v.   Long     Island     R.     Co.     (N. 

Y.).    2    Lans.    269— p.    3138.  _ 

Louisville,    etc..    Packet    Co.    "'. 

z'.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3326,    3331. 

7'.   New    York,    etc..    Bridge,    p. 

2730. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

7'.   Schneider,    pp.     1228,     1232, 

1233,    1234. 

Zerrill    7-. 

•  7'.  Texas,    etc.,      R.     Co.,      pp. 

1304,  1306,  1308,  1309. 

7'.   Thomas,     pp.      1207,      1214, 

1221. 

T. 


&    P.    R.    Co.    7 

7'.   Weir,    p.    573. 

7'.   West,     p.     1143. 

■  7'.   Western     Union 

p.   643. 

7'.  Wheeler,    43    N. 

p.    769. 

7'.  Wheeler,    52    N. 

pp.    278,    287,    884,    3286 

Whitney    7'. 

Rogers    Bros.    Produce    Co. 


Tel.  Co., 
Y.  598- 
Y.    262— 

Neill 


Rogers'    Sons,    Central    R.,   etc.,   Co. 

Rogers  &   Sons,   Central   Railroad  z: 

Central    R.    Co.    7'. 

Rogers,    etc.,    Mach.    Works   z'.    Erie 

R.     Co..     pp.     66,     132,     211,     212, 

240,    254,    255,     1136,     1190. 
Rohrback    7'.    Pullman's    Palace    Car 

Co.,    pp.    2039,    3210. 
Rohrig   7'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

147. 
Rokeby,  The. 


Co.,  32  Ga. 

3109,  3159, 
3175,  3183, 

Keel,     pp. 


Fire   Ins.    Co.  z\ 


Roland,    etc.,     Co.     v.    Brown,     pp. 

401,    402. 
Rolette   7'.    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

pp.    2125,    2182,    2309,    2343. 
Rolfe,    Chotaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.   3397,   3408. 

R'olfs   V.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2463. 
Roller,    Denver,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Rollins   v.    Seaboard,   etc.,    Railroad, 

pp.    151,    152,    154,    173. 
Roman,    Kennedy   7'. 
Romans,     Indianapolis    Tract.,    etc., 

Co.  z'. 
Rome    R.    Co.     z'.    Sloan,     pp.     595, 

3303,    3397,    3414. 

7'.   Sullivan,    etc.,    Co.,    14    Ga. 

277— pp.  514,  539,  551,  553,  580, 
894,    898,    1003,    1007. 

7'.   Sullivan,    etc.,    Co.,    25    Ga. 

228— pp.  533,  546,  607,  3250, 
3251.  3257,  3272,  3275,  3277, 
3278,    3279. 

7'.   Sullivan,    etc., 

400— p.    3291. 

7'.   Wimberly,    pp. 

3160,     3168,      3174, 
3186,    3189,    3193. 

Rome    R.,    etc.,    Co.    i 

1879,    2332,    2589,    2602. 
Rome,   etc.,   R'.   Co.,   Bowles  7'. 

City   Bank  7'. 

Hosapple  7'. 

London,   etc. 

■ Reed  z: 

■  Simpson    r. 

Webster   v. 

Romer,    Bush   7'. 

Romine   7'.    Evansville,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1979,    2902. 
Rommele,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

7'. 

Roney  z\  Chase,  etc.,  Co.,  pp.  3961, 

3964. 

■  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z-. 

Rood,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 
Root   7'.    Catskill    Mountain    R.    Co., 

p.    2691. 

Clinton   7'. 

v.   Des    Moines    City    R.    Co., 

pp.    2301,    2357,    2823,    3000. 

7'.   Des    Moines    R.      Co.,      pp. 

2115,    2380,    2903. 

Fremont,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Great    Western    R.    Co.    (N. 

Y.),  65  Barb.  619,  1  Thomp.  & 
C.    10— p.    3401. 

7-.  Great    Western    R.    Co.,    45 

N.    Y.    524— pp.    417,    3289,    3294. 

7'.      Great   Western   R.   Co.,   55 

N.    Y.    636— p.    3302. 

•  7'.   Long     Island     R.     Co.,     pp. 

220,  1135,  1179,  1183,  1184,  1185, 
1188,   1193. 

7'.  New    York    Cent,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.  3214,  3216,  3219,  3220,  3221. 
3223,   3224,  3225,  3230. 

J. opes,    Bearsc    -•. 

Roscoe   7'.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 
pp.    2637,   2882,    2883,   2886,   2938. 
Rose,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R?   Co.    Z'. 

7'.  Boston,  etc.,   St.    R.   Co.,   p. 

1803. 

Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Central    Pass.    R.    Co.    7. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Des    Moines    \'al.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1760,    2092,    2095,    2096. 

Harvey   z: 

7'.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3029. 

7'.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3161.   3164. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   7. 

Thompson  "•. 

7-.  West    Philadelphia    R.    Co., 

p.    2388. 

7'.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

pp.    2057.    24S1. 

Rosebrook-Josey     Grain     Co.,     Kan- 
sas,  etc.,    R.    Co.   -■. 


CCLXVUI 


table:  of  cases. 


Rosebrooks    z:    Dinsniore,    p.    814. 

Rose    Co.,    Southern    E-xp.    Co.    f. 

Rosedale,    The. 

Rose    Innes,    The. 

Roseman  v.    Carolina  Cent.   R.    Co., 

p.    2489. 
Rosen   v.    Boston,   p.    2781. 

-•.  Dry   Dock,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2196. 

Rosenbaum    v.     St.     Paul,    etc.,     R'. 

Co.,    pp.    1555,    1752. 
Rosenbaum    Grain    Co.    t'.    Chicago, 

etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp.    129,    3498. 

Railroad    Comm.    v. 

Rosenberg    v.    Third    Ave.    R.    Co., 

p.    1541. 
Rosenberry,    St.    Louis,   etc.,   K.   Co. 

Rosenblum   v.   Brooklyn    Heights   R. 
Co.,    p.    2007. 

V.  Weir,    p.    779. 

Rosenbush   z:    Bernheimer,    p.    3545. 
Rosencranz    v.    Swofford    Bros.    Dry 

Goods    Co'.,    p.    476. 
Rosenfeld    v.    Central    Vermont    R. 
Co.,    pp.    420,    592. 

z\  Peoria,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1012,    1061,    1065,    1075. 

Rosenfield  z:    Express   Co.,   pp.    517, 

547,    573,    594. 
Rosenfield  &  Son,  Condict  &  Co.  z\ 
Rosenheim     &     Sons,     Southern     R'. 

Co.    i: 
Rosenkovitz  z\  United  R.,   etc.,   Co., 

pp.    1587,    2044,    2666,    3018,    3019, 

3020. 
Rosenstein    v.    Vogemann,    pp.    3887, 

3893,    3913,    3926. 
Rosenthal,    Chicago     Union     Tract. 

Co.   V. 

v.   Dessau,    p.    1226. 

•  Wallace  v. 

z:  Weir,     170    N.     Y.     148,     63 

X.    E.    65,    57    L.    R.    A.    527— pp. 
582,  987. 

V.  Weir,   66   N.   Y.    b.   841,    54 

App.     Div.     275— pp.     1249,     1251. 

Rosenthal        Millinery        Co.,        Ft. 

Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
RQSenzweig,     Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.   V. 
Rosik,    United    R'.,    etc.,    Co.    ■:•. 
Rosnagle,        Cincinnati         Northern 

Tract.  Co.  v. 

Cincinnati,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    v. 

Ross,    Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Cargo     of     3,408     Tons     of 

Pocahontas    Coal,    pp.    3951,    3967 

Ross    V.'    Charleston,     etc.,     Transp 
Co.,   pp.    3864,    3865. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

T.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

490,    899. 

Houston   City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

In   re. 

z'.  Kansas   City   St.    R.    Co.,    p 

70. 

V.  Milne,    p.    2560. 

V.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

3124,    3149,    3160,    3168. 

State  V. 

V.  Tw)y,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  pp.   753, 

758. 

Water  v. 

Ross    Tp.    V.    Michigan     United     R. 

Co.,   p.    80. 
Ross,   etc.,    Co.,    Love   v. 
Rossell,    Elliott    !•. 
Rossier  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  pp.  3149, 

3174. 
Rested   V.    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

p.    1969. 
Roth    V.    Buffalo,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

907,  3160,  3169,  3170,  3171,  3174. 
Roth    Mfg.    Co.,    Doyle    v. 
Rothchild    Bros.    v.    Northern    Pac. 

R.    Co.,    pp.    766,    772,    773,    779. 
Rothchild    &    Co.,    Brunswick,    etc., 

R.    Co.    V. 
Rothermel   v.    Meyerle,   p.    3567. 
Rothschild,   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.   v. 

V.  Michigan   Cent.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

894,    899. 


Rothstcin  '■.  Brooklyn  Heights  R. 
Co.,   p.    2565. 

■:■.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2253,    22o3. 

Rotolo,    Norfolk,    etc.,    Terminal   Co. 

Rott   z:    Fortv    Second    St.,    etc.,    R. 

Co..   p.    2513. 
Rotter     Bros.,     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Roulo  V.   Minot,   pp.   2353,  2901. 
Roulstone,    Curry    •;•. 
Roundtree,     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     '■. 
Rountree    v.    -Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.     135,    2776. 

Weir    V. 

Rouser  z:  North  Park  St.  R.  Co., 
pp.     1627,     1650. 

T-.   Washington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2229. 

Rousseau,    Winona,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

R'ouston  V.  Detroit  United  Rail- 
way, pp.  1842,  2002,  2895,  2896, 
2897. 

Rowan  z-.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  pp. 
789,    1041. 

Rowand,     McGill    v. 

Rowden    z\    Fargo,    p.    1036. 

Ro»din  I'.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
pp.    1567,    2704. 

Rowe  z:  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
71  App.  Div.  474,  75  N.  Y.  S. 
893— pp.    191,    194. 

V.   Brooklyn     Heights     R.     Co., 

81  N.  Y.  S.  106,  80  App.  Div. 
477— pp.    2424,    2425. 

.  z:   Pickford,   p.    1234. 

Rowell,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Eddy     z: 

Houston,   etc.,    R'.    Co.   z\ 

Rovven,    Cole    v. 

Rowland,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
•  Henshaw   v. 

V.   Miln,    pp.    531,    892. 

■;■.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    1138,    1160. 

Z'.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p 

67. 

Rowley    v.    Bigelow,    pp.     317,     355 

369,    372,    1207,    1215,    1241,    1242 

3878. 
Roxborough,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    Wood 

roffe  V. 
Roy    z\     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    424,    3252,    3258,    3259,    3327 

v.   Griffin,    pp.    286,    292. 

Harrison    v. 

z\  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

306,    309,    315. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    z\ 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 

Royal    Exch.    Sliipping    Co.,    Tarbel! 

V. 

Royal     Sceptre,     The. 

Roye,    Northern    Texas    Tract.     Co. 

V. 

Royston    v.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.     2020,    2962. 
Rozwadosfskie       v.       International, 

etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp.      1539,      1763, 

1798,    1799. 
Ruark,    Fassett    z'. 
Rubens   v.    Ludgate    Hill    Steamship 

Co.,    49    Hun    608,    2    N.    Y.    S. 

30,    21    Abb.    N.    C.    464,    17    N. 

Y.    St.    Rep.    17— p.    806. 

V.  Ludgate       Hill       Sceamship 

Co.,  65  Hun  625,  20  N.  Y.  S. 
481,  48  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  /32— pp. 
292,    722,    1010. 

Rubenstein,  Rio  Grande,  etc,.  R. 
Co.   V. 

Rubin  V.  Interborough  Rapid  Tran- 
sit   Co.,    p.    1971. 

z:  Wells    Fargo    Exp.    Co.,    p. 

567. 

Ruch,   Aurora,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Aurora,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1562,    1745,   1986,   2344,   2602. 

Rucker  v.  Donovan,  pp.  579,  1219, 
1246,    1247,    1248. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R'.    Co.,    pp. 

1551,    2163. 


Rucker   z:    State,    p.    1637. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Ruckman,     El"   Paso     ICkct.     R. 


Co. 


Rudd    z\     Richmond,     etc..     R.     Co., 

p.     2116. 
Ruddell   f.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    765. 
Rudell    T.    Ogdensburg    Transit    Co., 

pp.    452,    997,     1000. 
Ruden,    Maryland    Ins.    Co.    z'. 
Rudiger    z\     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2772. 
Rudnian,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    ■;■. 
Rudolf   -'.    Brown,    p.    4040. 
Rudulph,    Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Rudy,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Evans   z\ 

■:'.   Rio     Grande,,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2450,    2476. 

R'uebsam    z:    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co., 

p.    2632. 
Ruffin     z'.     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2370,    2911,    2963,    2964. 
Rugee,     Sherman    v. 
Ruggles    I'.    Illinois,    pp.    34,    43,    44, 

63,     124,    3493,    3497. 
Rumbell,    the.    J.     E. 
Rumfield,     St.     Louis,     etc. 


Northeastern 


R.    Co. 
R.     Co., 


Rumsey     z\ 

p.    3161. 
Rundell    ?■.    La    Campagnie    Generale 

Transatlantique,    p.    3977. 
R'unnells     z\     Pecos,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.     2164. 
Runnels,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■;■.   Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1989,    1990. 

Runney     z\     Midland     R.      Co.,      p. 

1577. 
Runyan    z:    Central    R.    Co.,    41    Atl. 

367,    61    N.    J.    L.    537,    43    L.    R. 

A.    284,    68    Am.    St.    Rep.    711— 

pp.    2705,    3110,    3112,    3115,    3116, 

3123,    3124. 

V.  Central    R.    Co.,    64    N.    J. 

L.    67,    44   Atl.    985,    48    L.    R.    A. 
744— pp.    3112,    3113. 

7'.   Central    R.     Co.,     65     N.    J. 

L.     228      47     Atl.     422— pp.     3064, 

3111,    3112. 
Runyon     v.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co., 

p.    2455. 
Ruppell  T'.  Allegheny  Vallev  R.   Co., 

p.   848. 
Rush,      Denver      Consol.      Tramway 

Co.   V. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

■  United    States    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Rushin     f.     Central,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2562,    2563,    2566. 

Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.     v. 

Rushing,     East    Line,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Rusk  -'.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  pp. 
2686,    2788. 

Tootle    V. 

Russ,     Pennsylvania    R.     Co.     v. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   The    War    Eagle,    pp.    1724, 

1750. 

Russ  Lumber,  etc.,  Co.,  Globe  Nav. 
Co.    V. 

Russel   v.    Smith    Grain    Co.,    p.    397. 

Russell  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  501,  1436,  1437,  1438,  1445, 
1462,    1464,    1469,    1476,    1479. 

Clark    V. 

Davis    V. 

Dilingham   v. 

Doane   v. 

V.   Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    931,    946, 

994,    996,     1070. 

-'.   Hudson     River     R.     Co.,     p. 

1586. 

V.  Livingston      (N.      Y.),      19 

Barb.    346— pp.    1,    209. 

z:   Livingston,     16    N.    Y.    515 

—p.    546. 

Missouri   Pac.    R".    Co.   v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


TAIILK  OF   CASKS. 


CCLXIX 


R.     Co., 

Co.,     pp. 


Russell   T.    Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   p. 
2443. 

z:   Mobile,     etc..      R.     Co.,     p. 

3397. 

f.   Niemann,    p.     713. 

Oakey  '•■. 

Oppenheim   '■■ 

■ V.    Pittsburgh,      etc  . 

pp.    1760,    1761,    2102.   210(.. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    K.    Co.    r. 

V.   Seattle,     etc.,     R. 

2602,    2697. 

Terrell      7: 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Wbitesides   r. 

Russell     Grain    Co.    v.    Wabash    R. 

Co.,   pp.    537,   539. 
Russell     Mfg.    Co.    v.    New    Ilayen 

Steamboat    Co.,    50    N.     \.     121  — 

pp.    531.    825,    891,    902,    917,    919. 
■;•    New    Haven    Steamboat   Co., 

52    N.    Y.    657— pp.    891,    902. 
Russian    Co.,    Lashinsky   f.  ^ 

Russo   r.    .Morris    IJUlg.,    etc..    Ass  n, 

p.    2838. 
Rust.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ,. 
Ruth    r.     St.     Louis    Tract.     Co.,    p. 

2428.  ,.  „ 

Ruth     &     Son,     Southern     Lxp.     ^_o. 


Rut'herfonl,    .\tchison. 


etc.,    R.    Co. 


Ryland  v.   Chesapeake,  etc.,   R.   Co., 
pp.    515,    580,    664,    665.  | 

Kylands,    Peters    r.  | 

Ryman      Steamboat      LJne      Co.      r.  | 
Commonwealth,    p.    3542. 

K.    &    JJ.    R.    Co.,    Farley    i: 


Sabine    Tram    Co.,    Texarkana,    etc., 
R.   Co.   •: 

f.  Texarkana,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.   175. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Sabine,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cruse,    pp. 

140,  169,  172. 
Sabioncello,  The. 
Sachrowitz     f.     Atchison,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2655. 
Sackrider,     Allen    v. 
Sacramento   Valley    R.    Co.,   Jackson 

Sacramento,    etc.,    Elect.    Co.,    Eas- 
ier   V. 
Sacremento   Valley   R.   Co.,   Jackson 

Sacremento,    etc..    Elect.    Co.,    Has- 

ler    r. 
Sacrey     :.      Louisville     R.     Co.,     p. 

2911. 
Sadler,     Missouri,    etc..    R.     Co.    v. 
Saeger  t:  Wabash  R.  Co.,  pp.  2656, 


Carew   f. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   McGowen,     p.     1682. 

f.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  1625,  1626,  2705. 

r.   Shreveport,     etc.,      R.      Co., 

p.    1812. 

Rutland    f.     Southern     Railway,     pp. 

643.    654,    658. 
Rutland    R.     Co.    v.     Bellows     I'alls, 

etc.,     St.     R.     Co.,     p.     106 
J'.   Central     N'ermont     K.     v-o., 

pp.    3558,    3559. 

Ilolden   V. 

Ranchau    t. 

Sargent    v. 

Sprigg     T'. 

Wiley    V. 

Rutland    Trans.    Co.,    Hood    Rubber 

Rutland,'    etc.,    R.     Co.,     Kimball    f. 

Noyes    &    Co.    ?■. 

Rutledgf,       Uirmiiigham       R.,       etc., 

'r."New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2358. 
Ryan,    Ashley    r. 

Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

V.  Cumberland    Valley    R.    Co., 

p.    1581. 

Gates   ' . 

f.   Gilmer,    pp.    1742,    2693., 

f.   (ireat      Northern      R.      Co., 

p.   483. 

— —  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ': 

z:   Hays.    p.    2090. 

V.   Manhattan       R.       Co.,       p. 

Metroijolitan    St.    R.    Co.   v. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

M.    P.    R.    Co.    f. 

■:■.   Pittsfield,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

2329.    2877. 

St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Ryan  &  Co.  z:   M.    K.   &  T.   R.  Co., 

pp.  303,  321,  324,  430,  791,  815, 
822,  823,  825,  934,  937,  943, 
966,  985,  987,  988,  992,  993, 
1003,  1006,  1008,  1027,  1039, 
1041,    1042.    1130,    1154,    1158. 

Ryberg   f.    Snell,    pp.    1213,    1228. 

Ryder  r.  I'.urlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    544. 

Craven     j'. 

f.   Hall.     p.     339. 

Ryer  J-.  I'ennsylvania  R.  Co..  34 
N.  Y.  S.  583,  25  Misc.  Rep. 
289— p.    1249. 

i:  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      26 

Misc.  Rep.  715,  56  N.  Y.  S. 
1083— p.    996. 


2825. 
Saffel,    Standard    Forging    Co.    z: 
Saffer    v.     Dry-Uock,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2744. 
Safford,    San    Antonio,    etc.,    R'.    Co. 

V. 

Sage  f.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1596.  1597,  1599,  1602,  2467, 
2468,    2711,    2715. 

Sageman    ?■.    Weir,    p.    1067. 

Sager  z:  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
pp.    245,    2102,    2104. 

Z-.  Portsmouth,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  727,  733,  749,  781,  782,  1003, 
1007,  1008.  1037,  1038,  1040. 
1380. 

Saginaw    \'al!ey    Tract.    Co..    Dupuis 

— ^  Orth    z: 

Spangler    z: 

Saginaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Moore    z: 
Sahlgaard  z:    St.    Paul   City   R.   Co., 

pp.     1880.     1888.    2152.    2154. 
Saiko   i:    St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2198. 
Sain,    Arkansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\- 
St.    Anthony,   Chouteau   f. 
St.    Bernard,    The. 
St.     Charles     St.     R.     Co..     Howell 


Phillips     z: 

St.    Clair   f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

P-    821. 

V.   Interstate,      etc..      Transfer 

Co..    pp.    3475,    3476,    3477,    3478. 

Z-.   Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

76  Miss.  473,  24  So.  904,  71 
Am  St.  Rep.  534— pp.  1673, 
1677.  ^      ^ 

f.   Kansas    City,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

28  So.  957,  77  Miss.  789— pp. 
1632,    3316. 

St.    Clair    County    z:    Interstate    Car 

Transfer    Co..    p.    3587. 
St.    Cuthbcrt,    The. 
St.    Georg.    The. 
St.    Hubert.    The. 
St.    John.    Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

z:   Gulf.   etc..   R.   Co..   pp. 

1683,  2288.  2291. 

•:•.  Southern  Exp.  Co..  p.  726. 

\'an  Santvoord  z-. 

z:   \'an  Santvoord.  pp.  1007, 

3347. 

St.   John,   etc..   R.    Co..   Greene  v. 
St.  Johnsbury.  etc..  R.   Co..  Ranney 


Robinson    z\ 

Wilder    '•. 

St     Joseph.    American    Union     Exp. 

Co.     f. 


St.    Joseph    R..    etc..    Co..    Hermann 

Johnson   z\ 

Monday    v. 

Willis    V. 

St.  Joseph  Stock  Yards  Co.,  LTnited 
States    V. 

V.   United    States,    p.    3620. 

St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Elwood 
Grain    Co.    z: 

V.   Hedge,       pp.       17^4,       2128, 

2289,     2293. 

Modesitt    f. 

Noble    f. 

Norris    ■■. 

i:  Wheeler,     pp.     1548,     1552, 

1761,    2523. 

St.       Joseph's       Parochial       School, 

Oklahoma  R.  Co.  y. 
St.    Joze    Indiano,    The. 
St.    Laurent.   The. 
St.   L.,   I.   M.  &  S.   R.  Co.  z:  Bone 

p.    772. 
St.   L.,   etc.,   Ry.,   Monroe   Progress 

ive    League    v. 
St.   Louis  V.   Consolidated  Coal  Co. 

p.    3585. 

r.   Eagle    Packet    Co.,    p.    3479 

V.   Ferry    Co.,    pp.    3475,    3584 

Packet    Co.   i'. 

V.   St.    Louis    R-.    Co.,    p.    178 

z'.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co. 

p.    3550. 

St.  Louis  Drayage  Co.  v.  Louis 
ville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   p.    3659. 

St.  Louis  Hay,  etc.,  Co.,  Southern 
R.    Co.    V. 

St.  Louis  Ins.  Co.  z:  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  pp.  930,  3249,  3260, 
3288,    3311,    3327. 

St.  Louis  Merchants'  Bridge  Ter- 
minal   R.    Co.   z\   Tassey,   p.    1303. 

St.    Louis    Nat.    Bank,    .Mien    f. 

St.    Louis   R.    Co..    Grace   f. 

Haderlein    z: 

Hayes   ;■. 

•:■.   Kennedy,    p.    1885. 

Muehlhausen     f. 

St.    Louis    z'. 

St.     Louis    Transit    Co..    .\Ilen    z: 
•  .Xston    I'. 

Heave    z: 

Behen    z\ 

Berry    f. 

Breen   v. 

Brewer    z\ 

Brock   !■. 

Brod    z: 

Carmody    z'. 

Chadwick    ;■. 

Chlanda   z\ 

■  Costello    z: 

Davidson    v. 

Dryden    v. 

Fillingham   z: 

Flaherty    f. 

Fry    V. 

Gage  f. 

Garrett    J'. 

Gorman    v. 

Grady    f. 

Graefe   ?■. 

Haley   v. 

Hannon    f. 

Heyde   z: 

Ickenroth    f. 

Jacobson    z\ 

Leonard   v. 

Leu    f. 

Lynch    f. 

•  Madigan   f. 

McGrath    z: 

McHugh    f. 

McKee     z: 

McKinstry    f. 

^IcNamara   z: 

Millar     T. 

Neumann    z: 

O'Brien    z: 

O'Gara    z\ 

O'Mara   z: 

Parker    f. 

Parks   f. 


CCLXX 


table:  of  cases. 


Co.,    Austin    '■. 
Grain    Co.,    South- 


St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    Peck 

Pirn     z: 

Price     r. 

Reagan    v. 

Regan    z: 

Ruebsam    i: 

Ruth    r. 

Scamell   f. 

Schloemer  v. 

Schmitt    '•. 

Shanahan    i'. 

Sliareman    '•. 

Sinionton    <■. 

Smith    f. 

Suininertield  '■. 

T-.   Thompson,     p.     2991. 

\'an   Horn  r. 

Wegeschiede    z: 

W'ellmeyer    z\ 

Westervelt   z\ 

Williamson    '■. 

• — —  Woas   -'. 
St.    Louis,    etc. 

Doan   '•. 

St.    Louis,    etc. 

ern    R.    Co.    '■. 

<•.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    3666, 

3692,    3729,   3799. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    Packet    Co.,    -Austin 

V. 

St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     .\belson 

Adams    f. 

z:  Adams,    pp.    311,    312. 

f.   Adcock,   pT).    190.    19o,    1862. 

-•.  Allen,      181      Fed.      710— p. 

3518. 

z:   Allen,     31     Okla.     248,     120 

Pac.  1090,  39  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
309— pp.    486,   488. 

Allison     V. 

V.   Anderson,    p.    1882. 

v.  Arkansas,     "pp.     3486.     3488. 

z\   Arkansas,     etc..     Grain     Co., 

pp.    568,   569,   589,   3541. 

•  Armentrout   z\ 

z\  Atchison,    p.    1863. 

Attorney    General    ?'. 

Aufdenberg   f. 

Baker    z: 

z:  Baker,   pp.   1914,   2125, 

2126,  2227,  2352,  2387. 

z:  Ball,  pp.  1731,  1971,  2172, 

2342,  2344. 

z:  Barnes,  p.  1292. 

z:  Barnett,  pp.  1781,  3001. 

Barringer  ■;'. 

•  Bartholomew  '■. 

Barton    ?•. 

z\   Battle,      pp.       1797,       2084, 

2270. 

z:   Baty,  pp.  2458,  3095,  3099. 

V.   Beach,  p.  839. 

Beard  v. 

z:  Beecher,    pp.    1538,    1539. 

z\   Beets,     pp.     1125,     1335. 

Bell   7'. 

V.   Berger,   pp.   2052,   2053, 

2701,  2868. 

V.   Berry,  60  Ark.  433,  30  S. 

W.  764,  28  L.  R.  A.  501,  46 
Am.  St.  Rep.  212— pp.  3116, 
3125,  3126,  3132,  3133,  3148, 
3150. 

z:   Berry,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 

Cas.,  §  166,  15  S.  W.  48— p. 
1673. 

V.   Berry,  42  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 

470,  93  S.  W.  1107— p.  805. 

V.   Berryhill,  p.  1853. 

V.   Bilby,  p.  428. 

V.   Billingsley,    pp.    2336,    2800. 

V.  Birdwcll,    pp.    820,    3395. 

V.  Birge-Forbes    Co.,    p.     3490. 

V.   Blackburn,    p.    3010. 

z:  Bland,    pp.     511,    745,    746, 

747. 

Boling     z\ 

Boiling   V. 

V.   Bone,    pp.    958.    1040. 

V.   Boshear,    102    Tex.    76,    113 

S.  W.  6— pp.  444,  466,  1459, 
1475,     3251. 


789, 


1870, 


1030, 
1339, 


35 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Z'.  Boshear 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  108  S.  W.  1032 
—pp.  1099,  1116,  1373,  1432, 
1453,    3542. 

z'.   Boyer,   pp.    1812,    1979. 

Z-.   Brabbzson,    pp.     1755,    2352, 

2820,    2890. 

Bradford   '■. 

'■.   Bragg,    pp.     3051.    3103. 

T'.   Branch,     45     Ark.     524 — pp. 

2478,    3082. 

z:  Branch,    10(.    .\rk.    2(,9,    153 

S.    W.    118— p.    3083. 

v.   Brass,     pp.     779,     780 

809. 

Brezewitz    ,■. 

■;■.   Briggs,       pp.       1797, 

2727,    2824,    2991,    2994. 

z:   Britton,    p.    2807. 

!■.   Brosius,       pp.       973, 

1039,   1062,   1268,   1274, 
1373,  1388,  1470. 

z'.   Brown,  62  Ark.  254, 

S.  W.  225- p.  2710. 

f.  Brown,  93  Ark.  35,   123 

S.  W.  763— p.  2446. 

r.  Brown,  97  Ark.  505,  134 

S.  W.  1194— pp.  3080,  3083. 

z\   Bryan  Fruit  Co.,  p.  1105. 

r.   Brvant  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

92  S.  W.  813— p.  1532. 

•;■.  Bryant,  46  Tex.  Civ.  .App. 

601,  103  S.  W.  237— pp.  1693, 
1704,  2254. 

V.   Brvce,  pp.  943,  1035,  1120, 

1414,  1415. 

V.    Burgin,   pp.   956,   1123, 

1383. 

?'.  Burke,  p.  2778. 

?'.  Burns,  71  Tex.  479,  9  S. 

W.  467— pp.  1896,  2666,  2668, 
2689,  2831. 

z:   Burns  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

80  S.  W.  104— pp.  1352,  1354. 

z\   Burrow  &  Co.,  pp.  285, 

292,  833,  836,  846. 

?'.  Burrows,  pp.  2336,  2670. 

Buch  T'. 

r.   Butkr,  pp.  1124,  1376. 

z:   Byers,  pp.  1885,  1886. 

T.   Byrne,  pp.  2316,  2825. 

'■.  Caldwell,  89  Ark.  218,  116 

S.  W.  210— pp.  504,  975.  3356. 

z\   Caldwell,    93    Ark.    286,    124 

S.  W.  1034— pp.  1773,  1774, 
1776,    2085,    2350. 

V.   Campbell,     pp.     1731,     1861, 

1938,    1956. 

•:•.   Cannington,    pp.    445,    1298. 

z:   Cannon,    pp.    2114,    2116. 

■::■.   Cannon     &     Son,     pp.     121, 

127. 

Cantrell    ?'. 

•:■.   Cantrell,      pp.      1878,      2125, 

2255 

V.   Carlile,    pi).    3289.    3396. 

v.   Carlisle,    pp.    693,     1312. 

V.   Caseday,    pp.    1700,    1780. 

Casey     Z'. 

z'.  Cash    Grain     Co.,    pp.    427, 

687. 

z:   Casseday,    92    Tex.    525,    50 

S.   W.    125— pp.    2114,    2386,    2391. 

v.   Casseday    (Tex.    Civ.    -\pp.), 

48    S.    W.    6— p.    1792. 
7-.   Cassidy,     etc.,     Comm.     Co., 

p.     1358. 
•  f.   Gates,     87     Ark.      162,      112 

S.     W.     202— p.     3043. 

V.   Gates,     15     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

135,  38  S.  W.  648— pp.  405,  664, 
678. 

■  Cathey    f. 

z:   Cavcnder,      pp.      285,      288, 

290,  291,  779,  780,  1012,  1025, 
1278,  1384,  1387,  1388,  1436, 
1438,    1445,    1446,    1452,    1477. 

•  Chilton     '•. 

Chitty   z: 

z'.   Citizens'      Bank,      pp.      302, 

304,  305,  306,  307,  308,  317, 
331,  332,  333,  336,  337,  359,  379, 
403,    882,    884. 


St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Clark   7'. 

7'.   Clark,    pp.     869,    879,     1049, 

1393,  1480,  1481,  1482. 

7'.  Clay  Gin  Co.,  pp.  88,  93, 

95. 

•  -'.  Cleary,  pp.  320,  333,    985, 

1361,  1460. 

f.  Cleere,   pp.   2363,   2537, 

2551,  2984,  2998. 

Clegg  V. 

Cobb  z: 

■ 7'.   Cobb,    pp.    1742,    1752.    1755. 

Cohen     ?'. 

7'.    Cohen,       11]).       3355,       3367, 

3395^ 

Cohn    7'. 

7'.   Commercial  Union  Ins.   Co., 

pp.    283,    293,    294,    296,    306,    307, 
308,     318. 

7'.   Coolidge,       pp.       615,       617, 

640,     653,     658,     820,     969,     3267, 
3277,     3394. 

7'.   Copeland,     pp.     1289,     1298, 

1362,  1364,      1421. 
• Cossitt    f. 

Coudy   7'. 

7'.   Coulson,    p.     1525. 

Council     7'. 

Cowherd    7'. 

7'.   Cox,     60     Ark.     106,     29     S. 

W.    38— p.    2271. 

7'.  Cox,     2(,     Okla.     331,     109 

Pac.    511— p.    1997. 

7'.   Crawford,    p.    544. 

Creason    v. 

Crockett  v. 

Cronan    7'. 

7'.   Crowder,     pp.      1449,      1462, 

1464,    1466,    1477. 

f.   Culver,     p.     1664. 

Cumbie   7'. 

7'.   Cumbie,    pp.    657,    663,    683, 

1027,    1105,    1116,    1117. 

'•.   Cunningham,  pp.  2509,  2515, 

2551,  2552. 

7''.  Dalbv,   pp.   1596,   1599, 

2467,  2468,  2497,  2564. 

7'.   Dallas,       pp.       2488,       2491, 

2784. 

7'.    Dare,    p.    3042. 

7'.    Davenport,     p.     1312. 

7'.   Davis,     56    Ark.     SI,     19     S. 

W.     107— p.     3088. 

7'.    Davis,      132      Fed.      629— p. 

3592. 

Dawson    7'. 

7'.    Day,    pp.    3020,    3105. 

Delk    7'. 

7'.    Delk,     p.     3456. 

7'.    Deshong,    p.     3410. 

7'.    IMckerson,    p.     3198. 

Dillender     7'. 

Doan    7'. 

—  7'.    Dodd,     p.     913. 

—  7'.    Dodson,    p.     1469. 

—  7'.  Dolan  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. ), 
77    S.    W.    415— p.    1478. 

—  7'.  Dolan  (Tex.  Civ.  A])]).),  84 
S.    W.    393— p.    1350. 

—  7'.  Dorman,  pp.  210,  242,  704, 
1272. 

—  v.   Dowgiallo,    p.    2042. 

—  z'.   Dreyfus,    pp.    568,    569. 

—  Duck   7'. 

—  7'.    Duck,    pp.    1706,    1938. 
— -  V.   Dunham,       jip.       513,       581, 
857. 

—  '■.  Dunn,  ])i).  1395,  1410, 
1411,     1417. 

—  Dunne    7'. 

—  rCaton    7'. 

—  7'.  Edwards,  94  Ark.  394,  127 
S.     W.     713— pp.     155,     3501. 

—  7'.  Edwards,  78  Fed.  745,  24 
C.    C.    A.    300— p.    3278. 

—  7'.  Edwards,  227  U.  S.  265, 
33     S.     Ct.     262— p.     3501. 

—  Eells    7'. 

—  El  am   z'. 

—  Elder,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

—  V.  Elgin  Condensed  Milk  Co., 
175  111.  557,  51  N.  E.  911,  67 
Am.  St.  Rep.  238— pp.  320,  334, 
336,    452,    454,    462. 


TAHLIC  OF   CASES. 


CCLXXI 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V  Klgin 
Condensed  .Milk  Co.,  74  111.  App. 
019,  13  Am.  &  Kng.  R.  Cas.,  I^.. 
s/']12_pp.  452,  454,  462,  997. 
3272,    3365. 

Kllet    r. 

V.   Elrod,    p.    2635. 

I-ly    r. 

Emerson    7'. 

Equitable     Powder     Mfg.     Co. 


-  5'' Evans,     94     Ark.     324,     126 
S.    W.    1058-pp.    3048,    3062 

-—  V.   Evans,  99  Ark.  69,  137  S. 

W   568— pp.  2224,  2375,  2400. 

2760,  2777.     ,^    ,^„  ,^  „ 
V.   Evans.  78  Tex.  369,  14  S. 

W.   798— p.   465. 

V.  Evens,    p.    3068. 

V.   Fairbairn,    pp.     2500.    2503. 

V.  Fambro,     pp.     |2357,     2676. 

Fanning   v.  n-        r 

V.   Farmers'     Union     Oin     Co., 

DP     607,    642,    647,    650,    659.    667. 

-  V.   Farr,   p.   2242. 

V.  Faulkner,    p.    3761. 

V.   Fenley,    p.    3664. 

V.   Ferguson,    p.     1702. 

Fielder  "■. 

r.   Finley,   PP.   1729,   1732, 

1762,   1766,   17(>7,   1863,   1866, 
1911.  2114,  2117.  2118,  2378. 

V.   Fire  .Ass'n,  pp.  274,  7o4. 

Flucks  V. 

Flynn  v.  ^  ^       ^ 

V.   Foster  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

89  S.  W.  450— pp.  857,  1351, 
1352. 

V.   Foster,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

517.  103  S.  W.  194— pp.  2118, 
2234.  2753.  2832,  2847. 

V.  Foster     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

112    S.    W.    797— pp.    1524,    1531. 
1532. 

V.   Fowler,      pp.       1558,      2861, 

2863. 

Franklin    v.  _ 

V.   Franklin,     pp.      1510,     laU, 

2037.    2040,    2059. 

V.   Franks,    p.    2846. 

T.   Frazar,    p.    3331. 

Freeman    v. 

V.   Freeman,    p.    140. 

V.   French,    p.     1256. 

V.  Frisby,   pp.    140,    143. 

Fulks    V.  ,      „„ 

V    Furlow.     81     Ark.     496,     99 

S.    W.    689— pp.    2448.    3100. 

V.  Furlow.    89    Ark.    404,     117 

S  W.  517— pp.  972.  1090,  1097, 
1099,     1104.  ,,,, 

V.  Fussell,      pp.      l--'62,      1371, 

2057,    2429,    2529. 

V.  Gammage.    p.    2630. 

V.   Cans,    p.     578. 

Garner    -'. 

V.   Garner,    pp.    1853,    3055. 

George    "'. 

V.   Germany,    pp.    1883.    1966. 

V.   Gibson,     p.     141. 

V.   Gilbreath,   87    -Vrk.    572,    113 

S.  W.  200— pp.  1991,  2288.  2293, 
2335.  ^        .       ^ 

V.  Gilbreath    (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

144    S.   W.    1051— pp.    557,    558. 

r.  Gill,    54     Ark.     101,     15     S. 

W.  18,  11  L.  R.  A.  452— pp.  140, 
144. 

■:■    Gill,    156   U.    S.    649.    39    L. 

Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct.  484— pp.  34. 
46,  53,  58,  oO,  64,  115,  liv, 
3668.  _    , 

V.   Glossup,    pp.    21  (.2.    2242. 

%'.   Gorman,    pp.     1372,     1393. 

I'.   Gosnell,     pp.     1756.     1993. 

V.   Gramling,     pp.     3272,     3442. 

Gratiot    St.    Warehouse   Co.    v. 

Gray  v. 

V.   Gravson,  pp.   1427.   1430, 

3332,  3840. 

Greason  v. 


St  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.    Green,  St 
85  Ark.  117,  107  S.  W.  .168,  14 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1148— pp.  1720, 

V.   Green,  99  Ark.  572.  139  S. 

W.  307— p.  2410. 

T.   Green,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

13,  97  S.  W.  531— p.  3149. 

V.   Greenthal,  p.  2022. 

V.   Gresham,  p.  1830. 

Grier    v.  , 

V.  Griffith,      pp.      1513,      1331, 

2047,    3373. 

V.  Grimsley,     pp.     1776,     2280, 

2323,  2508. 

V.   Grocc,  pp.  3042.  3051. 

V.  Gunter,    39   Tex.    Civ.    App. 

129,     86     S.     W.     938— pp.     1303, 
1320,    1325. 

V.   Gunter,    44    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

480,     99     S.     W.     152— pp.     1306, 
1310. 

Haas    V. 

V.   Hadley.    pp.    38.    46,   48,    49. 

57.     3490. 

Ilafer    v. 

Hahn   v. 

r.  Hall.    etc..    Mach.    Co.,    pp. 

556,    563,    593,    603. 

Holliday    v. 

V.  Hambrick.      pp.      940,      943, 

1053,    1120,    1409. 

t'.   llammett,  !>p.     1563,     1636, 

2468,     3083.  ,    ^, 

r.   Hardwav,  pp.     3114.     3123, 

3160,    3168.  ^^„, 

V.  Hardy,       PP.       1940,       3204, 

3212,  3239. 

v.  Harmon,  pp.  1580,  2168. 

V.  Harper,   pp.   1532,   1546, 

2478,  3102. 

r    Harrison,    89    S.    W.    53,    76 

Ark.    430— p.    2768. 
f.   Harrison,       i2      Tex.      Civ. 

Ad-..   368,   72,   S.  W.   38— pp.    1683, 

1712,    1731. 

Hart    V. 

Hartley    v. 

V.   Hartung.     pp.      1/33,     1/56, 

2142,    2329,    2336. 

V.  Hatch,      pp.      3208.      3209, 

3234,    3236. 

■;.   Hawkins,     p.     3139. 

V.   Haynes,  p.  1887. 

I'.   Hays,  pp.  1035,  1088,  1092, 

1095,  1116,  1117. 

Heil    '■. 

V.   Henderson,    pp.    1472.    j308, 

V.   Hendricks,    pp.    2717,    2718. 

Hcnnessy   v. 

V.   Henry,    pp.    851,    852. 

V.   Heyser,    pp.    1106.3469. 

■:■.   Highnote,    p.    2265. 

Hill    V. 

;  f.   Hill,    14    HI.    .\pp.    579— pp. 

89,    235. 

V    Hill,    97    Tex.     506,    80     S. 

W.    368— p.    88. 

r.  Hill    (Tex.    Civ.   App.),    103 

S.    W.    227— pp.    1506,    1643. 

V.   Hindsman,    p.    666. 

Hoffman,    etc..    Stave   Co.    f. 

Holland    v. 

V.  Holmes,      pp.      1991,      2319, 

2892. 

V.  Honea,      pp.       1092,       1117, 

1358. 

r.   Hook,   pp.    1699,    1777. 

Hopkins   v. 

Huddleston    v. 

f.   Humphreys,   pp.    1526,   1964, 

196(.,     1978,     1988. 

V.   Hunt,   pp.    1303,   1305,   1358. 

Hunter   v. 

V.   Hurst,    pp.     1030,     1107. 

Hurt    r.  - 

V.   Hutchinson,   pp.  T  5 14,    1792, 

2135,    2136,    2286,    2325. 

Inman    &    Co.    f. 

Insurance    Co.    f. 

Jackson  v. 


Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Jackson, 
pp.     1757.    2860.    2928. 

-  V.  Jackson  &  Co.,  pp.  782, 
787,    844. 

-  V.  Jacobs,  pp.  nil.  1112. 
1428. 

-  V.  James,  pp.  1119,  1427, 
1475. 

-  V.  Jamieson,    pp.    344,    3399. 

-  Johnson  v. 

-  V.  Johnson,  53  Ark.  282,  13 
S.  W.  1096— p.  156. 

-  V.  Johnson,  59  -Vrk.  122,  26 
S.  W.  593— pp.  1792.  2272,  2274. 

-  V.  Johnson,  25  Okla.  833,  108 
Pac.  378,  36  R.  R.  R.  165,  59 
Am.  &  Eng.  R'.  Cas.,  N.  5., 
165— pp.  191,  1623,  2420,  2447. 

V.   Johnson,  100  Tex.  237,  97 

S.   W.   1039— pp.   1766,   1779, 
1780.  1797,  2654,  2913.  2941. 

V.  Johnson.   29  Tex.   Civ.    .\pp. 

184.     68     S.     W.     58— pp.      \<-'J, 
2042,    2051,   2484. 

Johnston    v. 

Jones    V. 

V.  Jones,   93    Ark.    537.    123    S. 

W.      1025— pp.      335,      94S.      970, 
1271,    1303,    1365.    1376. 

V.  Jones      (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

29   S.    W.   695— pp.   505,    1314. 

Jorden    v. 

Keen  v.  ^,. 

t.   Keitt.  pp.   1701,   1826,  22'3. 

f.   Keller,      pp.       1083,       1084, 

1098,     1100. 

T.   Kennedy,     pp.     1712,     1911. 

1913,     2592,     2595. 

Keyes-Marshall     Bros.     Livery 

Co.    f. 

;.    Keys,   pp.   1476,   1477.   3393. 

7\   Kilberry,      pp.      539.      1462, 

1463,     1464,    3284,    3352. 

f.   Kilpatrick    (Ark.).    17    Am. 

&  Kng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  212— 
p.  1563. 

f.  Kilpatrick,  67  Ark.  4/,  34 

S  -w,  971— pp.  2412,  2414,  2486. 
2530. 

Kirby   v. 

V.   Kitchen,     pp.      1588. 

2935. 

Knight    V. 

f.   Knight,   81    Ark.    429, 

W.     684— pp.     3038.     3047, 

-J^l:.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79.  30 
L.  Ed.  1077,  7  S.  Gl.  1132— 
pp.  267.  281.  282,  284,  285.  288. 
290  305.  306,  307,  308.  331, 
339,  343,  344,  811.  814,  878. 
919. 

Krumm   f. 

Kruse    %•.  .  , ,  , 

r.  Ladd,   pp.    1371.    1413,   1416. 

1427,    1475. 

f.   Lamb,    p.    673.  _ 

■:■.   Larned,    pp.    309.    539.    360. 

Latimer   i'. 

f.  Laurence,    p.    26ol. 

—  V.  Law,    pp.    752.    1087,    1345. 
1419. 

—  I'.  Lawrence,    pp.     1492.    2865. 

—  Leach  f. 

—  V.  Leamons.     pp.     2364,     2366, 

2824,   2905,  2988. 

V    Lcder     Bros..     79     .\rk.     59. 

95    S.    \V.     170— p.    95 

—  r.   Leder    Bros..    87    Ark.    298, 
112    S.    W.    744—   pp.    229,   2l.4. 

—  Le    Due    :■. 

—  Lee  f. 

—  V.  Lee.    p.    259. 

f.   Leflar,      pp.       184.. 

2693,    2808.    2919. 

:.   Leftwich,     pp.     2163, 

2338. 

—  V.   Leigh,   pp.   1953. 
2427. 

r.  Lesser,   pp.   1399, 

3377. 


liil 


99  S. 
3048. 


2673, 
2172. 
1955. 
1404, 


CCLXXII 


TAHLH  OF  CASKS. 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewellen 
Bros.,  192  Fed.  540,  113  C.  C. 
A.     414— p.     3745. 

V.  Lewellen  ■  Bros.     (Tex.    Civ. 

.\pp.),    116    S.    W.    116— p.    1337. 

V.  Lewis,       pp.       1869,       1875, 

2476,    2478. 

-  Libby  V. 

V.   Lieurance,     p.     3410. 

Lightfoot    &    Son    v. 

Lillis   f. 

Lilly    i: 

r.   Linam,    p.    2495. 

Little   Rock,   etc.,    R.    Co.   ■:•. 

f.   Louisiana,       etc..       Lumber 

Co..  pp.  503,  506. 

r.  Lovelady,  p.  1482. 

'■.  Lowe,  pp.  1778,  2561. 

V.   Loyd,   pp.   1567,   2320, 

2685. 

r.  McAnellia,    pp.    2034,    2037, 

2410,    2413,    2783. 

McCaffery    '■. 

McCarty    v. 

McClanahan   v. 

f.   McCullough        (Tex.        Civ. 

App.),  2i  S.  W.  285— pp.  1907, 
1908,    1915,    1970.     ■ 

V.   McCullough,     18     Tex.     Civ. 

App.),  534,  45  S.  \V.  324— pp. 
1666,  1683,  1685,  1738,  1908, 
1969,    2706. 

McDonald   v. 

f.   McDurmitt     Grain     Co.,     p. 

861. 

McElvain    v. 

—^  '■.   McGivney,    pp.    3259,    3292, 
3387,   3394. 

V.   Mclntyre,      pp.      822,      836, 

940,  954,  977,  980,  994,  1039, 
1053,  1056,  1062,  1063,  1065, 
1077,  1079,  1398. 

r-.  McKee,  p.  156. 

V.  Mackie,      pp.       1609.      1613, 

1942,    2017,    2033. 

f.   McKnight,    pp.    3387,    3388. 

McLain    v. 

V.   McXamarc,    p.     3483. 

-  i:  McNeil,    p.    1419. 
T.    McVVhirter,     p.     3510. 

f.   Maddry,    pp.     2122,    2129. 

Magrane    v. 

V.   Mallard,    p.    3074. 

Malloy  v. 

'■.   Malone,    pp.    1881,    2824. 

Marine    Ins.    Co.    v. 

f.   Marrs,    p.    3263. 

Marshall    v. 

V.  Marshall,    81     Pac.     169,    71 

Kan.    866 — p.    2964. 

'•.   Marshall,    74    .\rk.    597,    86 

S.    VV.    802— pp.     782,    783,    3290. 

Martin    v. 

f.   Martin     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

35    S.   W.   28— pp.   270,   917. 

z\   Martin,    26    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

231,  63  S.  W.  1089— pp.  1532, 
1533,    2287. 

V.  Martin     (Tex.     Civ.     .\pp.), 

87    S.    W.    387— p.    1712. 

Mason   v. 

V.  Massey,    p.    2267. 

V.   May,   pp.   595,   646. 

'■.   Mayer    Bros.     Co.,     p.     558. 

Metcalf  f. 

Meyer   v. 

Miles    '.■. 

v.   Miller,       pp.       1139,       1141, 

1182,   3148,    3151,   3155. 

f.  Miller    Levee    Dist.    No.    2, 

p.   3533. 

Mires   v. 

V.   Mitchell    (Ark.),    43    R.     R. 

R.  673,  66  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,    673— p.    287. 

V.  Mitchell,     57    Ark.    418,    21 

S.  W.  883— pp.  694,  1738,  1740, 
1840,    2693. 

V.   Mitchell,    101    Ark.   289,    142 

S.  W.  168,  37  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
546— pp.  1285,  1290,  1311,  1332, 
1361,    1362,    1366. 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell 
Crittenden  Tie  Co.,  pp.  1642, 
1643. 

— ■ — -  V.  Montgomery,  pp.  285,  288, 
291,    884. 

V.  Moon,    pp.    940,    954,    1053, 

1062,   1072,   1075,   1349,   1409, 
3382,  3542. 

Moore  f. 

-•.   Morgan,      pp.      1554,      2164, 

2334. 

Mosher   z\ 

-'.   Moss,    p.    218. 

V.   Mudford,    44    Ark.     439— p. 

636. 

t'.   Mudford,     48     Ark.     502,     3 

S.     W.     814— pp.     642,     645,     053, 
658. 

Munro    v. 

Murphy    v. 

V.   Murphy,    pp.    271,    276,    285, 

288,   292. 

■  -■.   Murray,    pp.    2129,    2294. 

c'.    Musgrove,     pp.     817,     842. 

V.   Musick,      pp.       131(),       1324, 

1326,    1394. 

V.   Myer,   p.    3303. 

Myers    v. 

V.   Mynott,     pp.     2410,     3106. 

z\   Myrtle,     pp.     2435,     3101. 

V.   Myzell,     p.     3068. 

V.   Neal,    pp.    1872,    3038. 

Nebraska    Meal    Mills   v. 

V.   Neel,     pp.     262,     263,     285, 

292,    661,    778,    3249,    3313. 

v.   Neely,    pp.    2219,    2860. 

-  f.   Nelson,    pp.    2098,    2099. 

Nenno    v. 

Neville    v. 

Nicholson    j'. 

Nickey    i\ 

Nines    v. 

Norris    "■. 

Norton    v. 

V.   Norwood,     pp.     3554,     3571. 

Nunnelee    v. 

O'Connell   ir. 

Odom    V. 

O'Field   V. 

V.  Oliver,       pp.       1835,       1836, 

2225,    2884. 

z:   Osborn,   pp.   2421,   2484, 

3082. 

V.   Osborne,  p.  ,  2696. 

Otrich  z'. 

Owen  z'. 

Oxley  '-. 

v.   Ozier,  pp.  229,  231,  1351. 

Palsey  z'. 

z:   Pape,  pp.  826,  1052. 

Fares  7'. 

V.   Parks',  76  S.  W.  740,  97 

Tex.  131— pp.  1822,  1826,  2289, 
2666,  2678,  2694,  3008. 

z:   Parks   (Tex.   Civ.   App.), 

73  S.  W.  439— pp.  1822,  2643. 

V.   Parks,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

480,  90  S.  W.  343— pp.  1713, 
1826,  2684. 

V.   Parmer,  p.  1455. 

V.   Pearcc,  159  Ala.  141,  49 

So.  249— p.  2582. 

•  z:   Pearce,  82  Ark.  339,  101 

S.  W.  763— pp.  1123,  1124. 

V.   Pearce,  82  Ark.  353,  101 

S.  W.  760,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  125— pp.  607,  969,  970, 
974,  1413,  1432,  3394,  3395. 

V.   Pearson,  pp.  3045,  3056. 

■  z'.   Person,   pp.   1883,   2125, 

2255,  2374. 

z'.   Pcttics,    p.    1956. 

Petty    7'. 

z:   Phelps,    pp.    645,    653,    658, 

662. 

V.   Phillips,   pp.   931,   946,    1084, 

1087,     1096,     1410,     1412,     1425. 

V.   Phoenix,    etc.,    Oil    Co.,    pp. 

851,    622,    973. 

z:   Piburn,      pp.       1354,       1473, 

3623. 


St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Pindell    v. 

V.   Piper,    pp.    3257,    3343. 

z:   Pitcock,     pp.     2095,     2096. 

z'.   Pollock,      pp.      1697,      2220, 

2338,    2890,    2933. 

Porter    z\ 

z:   Postcn,     p.     2o95. 

Powell    c'. 

z:   Power,    pp.    2773,    2776. 

President,   etc..    Ins.    Co.   v. 

Price    V. 

z:   Pruitt,     80     S.     W.     72,     97 

Tex.    487— pp.    1978,   3014. 

z\   Pruitt     (Tex.     Civ.     App.). 

79     S.     VV.     598— pp.     1544,     1977. 
1978,     2452. 

z'.   Puckctt,    pp.     1419,     1425. 

z\   Pumphrey,    p.     687. 

f.    Purifoy,    pp.    1744,    1745. 

;■.   Randle,     pp.     3287,     3297. 

z\   Ratley,    p.    2357. 

■  z\   Ray,      13     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

628,    35    b.    W.    951— p.    3157. 

r.   Ray    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    127 

S.    W.    281— pp.    762,    3661,    3662. 

Read    z\ 

7'.   Reagan,    pp.    2485,    2532. 

Rearden   7'. 

7'.    Renfroe,    pp.    219,    784,    785, 

3396. 

v.   Rexroad,    p.    1971. 

Reynolds    7'. 

7'.  Rice,  pp.  1816,  2164,  2213, 

2214. 

7'.  Richardson,  87  Ark.  101, 

112  S.  W.  212— pp.  2338,  2892. 
7'.  Richardson,  87  Ark.  602, 

113  S.  W.  794— pp.  2933,  2954. 

V.   Ricketts,  96  Tex.  68,  70 

S.  W.  315— pp.  2117,  2118,  2234, 
2319,  2341,  3053. 

V.  Ricketts,  22  Tex.   Civ.  App. 

515,    54    S.    W.    1090— pp.     1532, 
1541,    1908. 

pp. 


2495, 


3090, 


Roane 

3104. 

7'.   Robbins,     pp.      1073,      10"6, 

1078. 

Roberts    7'. 

Robinson    7'. 

7'.   Rogers,       pp.       430,       1062, 

1053. 

7'.   I-'osc,     20     III.     App.     670— 

pp.    539.    551. 

:•    Rose    (Tex.    Civ.    App.).    9S 

S.   W.    ::05— p.    1887. 

Ro'-.er'baum    v. 

7'.    Rosenberry,    45    Ark.    z;56^ 

I'P     2266,    2706. 
7'.    Rosenberry     (.\rk.),     11      S. 

W.     21k— p.     2252. 
7'.    Pumtield,    p.    1778. 

7'.   Rush,    86    Ark.    325,    111    S. 

W.    263— pp.    2331,    2357,    2375. 

7'.   Rush,     93     Ark.     631,      123 

S.    W.    804— pp.    2316,    2397. 

7'.   Russell,    p.    2820. 

Rutherford    v. 

7'.   Ryan,     p.     2070. 

St.   Louis  Ins.   Co.  7'. 

7'.    Samuels    &    Co.,    p.     3784. 

'■.    Sanderson,    pp.     1562,    2015, 

2864. 

•  7'.   Sandiage,    p.    694. 

Sarger.t    7'. 

7'.   Savage,      pp.       1985,      2694, 

2758,    2761. 

Schaefer    7'. 

Scott    County   Milling   Co.   v. 

Segal     7'. 

■   Senf   z: 

Seyfarth    7'. 

7'.    Sharrock,    p.    1403. 

7'.   Shaw,   pp.    1698,   2027,   2376, 

2958. 

Shclton    7'. 

-  7'.    Sherlock,    pp.    727,    1402. 
•  Shoptaugh    7'. 

Short    7'. 

Sliular    7'. 

Silverman    7'. 

Simmons    Hardware    Co.   v. 


TAHLE)  OF  CASES. 


CCLXXriI 


St.     Louis,    etc..     R.     Co.,     Skilcs    v. 

Sloan    &    Co.    "'. 

Smcltzcr    T. 

Smith    V. 

• V.   Smith,     11     Te.x.    Civ.     App. 

550.   32   S.    W.   828— p.   851. 

T.   Smith,    29    Tex.     Civ.     App. 

451,  49   S.   W.  627— p.    1299. 

• V.    Smith,     a     Tl-x.     Civ.     App. 

520,   77    S.    W.    28— p.    1349. 
• V.   Smitli,    34    'I'cx.     Civ.     App. 

612,   79   S.    W.    340— p.   2301. 

T.   Smith,    38    Tex.     Civ.     App. 

507,    86    S.    W.    943— p.    2171. 

'•.   Smiick,    pp.    945,    978,    1012, 

1013,     3166. 

V.   Snecd,    p.    1419. 

V.   Snt-ll,    p.    2883. 

V.   Sommcriand,     p.     2004. 

V.   South,       pp.       1596,       1600, 

2467,    2468. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.   -•. 

V.   Spann,    pp.    1372,    3378. 

-•.  Si)ring     River     Stone     Co., 

p.    3754. 

Sproulc   V. 

'•.    State,    84    Ark.    150.    104    S. 

W.    llOo— pp.    30,    149,    150,    216, 
607. 

r.   State,   85    Ark.    284,    107    S. 

W.    989— p.    3516. 

V.   State.    85    Ark.    311.    107    S. 

W.    1180,    122    Am.    St.    Rep.    33— 
pp.    161,    3486,    3488. 

v.   State,    87    Ark.    562,    113    S. 

W.    203— p.    3423. 

V.   State,   97    Ark.    473,    134    S. 

W.   970— p.   3483. 

V.   State,    99    Ark.     1,     136    S. 

W.    938— pp.    20,    23,    3483. 

• r.  State,     24     Okla.     805,     105 

Pac.    351— pp.    118,    128. 

V.  State,     26     Okla.     62.     107 

Pac.    929,    30    L.    R.    A..    N.    S., 
137— pp.    3482,   3502,    3517. 

V.  State,     26     Okla.     764,     110 

Pac.    759— p.    127. 

V.   State,    27    Okla.     426,      112 

Pac.    1121— p.    84. 

f.   Stell,   p.    2688. 

Sterling   v. 

V.   Stevenson,    54    Ark.    116,    15 

S.    W.    22— p.    70. 

V.   Stevenson,    156    U.    S.    667, 

39    L.    Ed.    573,    15    S.    Ct.    491  — 
pp.    34,    53,    144. 

V.   Stewart,  pp.  1986,  2004. 

V.   Stokes,  pp.  3355,  3368. 

V.   Stone,  78  Ark.  318,  95  S. 

W.  470— pp.  3139,  3196. 

■ V.   Stone,  78  Kan.  510,  104 

Pac.  1067— p.  491. 
■ V.   Stonecypher,  p.  457. 

Sturgeon  v. 

Sutton  V. 

V.   Sweet,  57  Ark.  287,  21  S. 

W.  587— pp.  1728,  1754. 

f.  Sweet,  60  Ark.  550,  31  S. 

W.  571— pp.  1719,  1727,  1732. 

V.   Sweet,  40  S.  W.  463,  63 

Ark.  563— p.  2926. 

Tarrant  v. 

V.   Taylor,  84  S.  W.  1035.  74 

Ark.  31— p.  2777. 

V.   Taylor,  87  Ark.  331,  112 

S.  W.  745— pp.  257,  1294,  1295, 
1433. 

■ V.   Taylor.  210  U.  S.  281,  52 

L.     Ed.     1061,     28     S.     Ct.     616— 
pp.     3450.     3452,     3456. 

Thayer    -■. 

T'.   Thomas,    pp.    1495,    2571. 

Thompson    v. 

V.  Thompson,     pp.     608,     609, 

696. 

Tickell     V. 

Tinkle   -■. 

-C-.   Tittle,       pp.        1789,        1866, 

1956. 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tomlin- 
son,  pp.  2501,  2537,  2538,  2546, 
2550,    2551. 

V.  Townes,    p.    688. 

V.  Townsend,    p.    1860. 

r.   Trihbey,    pp.     1298,     1402. 

Trigg    V. 

r.  Trimble,  p.  3086. 

V.   Trotter,  p.  1880. 

V.   Tucker,  pp.  1643,  2440. 

Tuggle  V. 

Turner  i'. 

V.   Turner,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

625,  20  S.  W.  1008— pp.  684, 

1096,  1313,  1329,  1411,  1414, 
1416. 

'•.   Turner     (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

84  S.  W.  1094— pp.  1885,  1886, 
2825. 

f.  Tyler    Coffin    Co.,    pp.    515, 

580,    664,    665. 

United    States    f. 

V.  United   States,   94   C.   C.   A. 

437,    169    Fed.    69— p.    3621. 

V.   United      States,      209      Fed 

600— pp.     3621,     3625. 

Van    Clevc    v. 

V.  Vaughan,-  84   Ark.    311,    105 

S.   W.    573— pp.    1304.    1460.    1461. 

V.   \'aughan.    88    Ark.    238,    113 

S.  VV.  1035— pp.  1272,  1307. 
1308,    1332,    1382,    1408. 

V.  Waggoner,    pp.    1585,    1760. 

1308,     1332,    1382,    1408. 

f.   VVainwright,     p.     2876. 

V.  Waldert     Grocery     Co.,     p. 

863. 

'■.   Waldrup,    p.    144. 

f.   Walker,    p.    2860. 

— —  V.  Wallace.  90  Ark.  138.  118 
S.  W.  412.  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
379— pp.    694,    947,    948,    3294. 

V.  Wallace,  32  Tex.   Civ.   App. 

312,  74  S.  W.  581— pp.  1537, 
1700,     1778. 

c'.   Warren,    p.    970. 

r.   Waters,      pp.      2411,      2412, 

2419,    3027. 

V.  Watkins.    pp.    402,   836,   837, 

838,    840. 

V.   Watson,    pp.    2294,    2857. 

Wayne    r. 

■  r.   Weakly,    pp.    320,    323,    819, 

945,  986,  988,  1073,  1399,  1457, 
3377. 

V.  Wells,    pp.    975,     1372. 

Wernick     '■. 

West    V. 

-■.   Wester,    p.    3542. 

Wheeler    v. 

White    v. 

V.   White,    48    Ark.    495,    4    S. 

W.  52,  30  .^m.  &  Eng.  R.  Ca--. 
545— p.    1797. 

f.   White.    99    Tex.    359.    89    S. 

W.  746,  2  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  110. 
122  Am.  St.  Rep  631— pp.  1608, 
1668,    3320. 

1-.   White      (Tex.     Civ.      Apn.), 

34  S.  W.  1042— pp.  1544,  1549, 
1551. 

r.  White     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

86    S.    W.    71— p.    2573. 

-■.  White     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

103    S.   W.   673— pp.   614,   638. 

Whitehead    -■. 

V.  Whittle,    p.    2140. 

f    Wiggati,    pp.    1580,    2536. 

Wilburi.    -■. 

f.  Wilhelm,     pp.     1318,     1320. 

I-.  Williams,      100      Ark.      ?56, 

140    S.    W.    141— pp.    2416,    3029, 

3082. 

T-.  Williams    (Tex.    Civ.   App.), 

il  S.  W.  225.  2  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.,   N.   S.,   541— p.    1120. 

T'.   Williams    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

37    S.    W.    992— p.    2490. 

Williamson    z\ 

Wilson    f. 


Grocery     Co.,     p. 


St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Wilson, 
70  Ark.  136,  66  S.  W.  661,  91 
Am.  St.  Rep.  74 — pp.  2027,  2033. 
2961,    2964,    3010. 

V.  Wilson,    85    Ark.    257,    107 

S.   W.   978— pp.    1386.    1436,    1437, 
1444,     1452. 

Winter     v. 

Witting   V. 

■ -■.  Woldert 

v.  Wolf.   pp.    1139.   3754,  3758. 

V.  Woodruff,    pp.    2416.    2488. 

2495. 

V.  Woodruff     Mills,     pp.     317, 

318. 

V.  Woods.      pp.      1768.      2889. 

2932. 

T.  Wright,    105    Ark.    269,    150 

S.   W.   706— pp.    1881,   2579,  2878. 

r.  Wright,    75    S.    W.    565,    33 

Tex.     Civ.     App.     80— pp.     2606. 
2607,   2701. 

i'.   Wynne      Hoop.      etc..      Co.. 

pp.    216,    217.   247,   259,   260,   263, 
265. 

r.  Young.      pp.      1412,      1413, 

1423. 

r.  Yount.      pp.      2568.      3084. 

3085. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  Railway  r.  Gil- 
breath,    pp.    321,    485. 

t.   Heath,    pp.    614,    690. 

V.   Lesser,    pp.     726,    732.    740. 

748,    1035. 

i:   Phelps,    p.    854. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    Transp.    Co.,    Hib- 

ernia    Ins.    Co.    v. 

Mellier    -•. 

St.   Marc  V.    La   Chapella,   p.   595. 
St.    Nicholas    Hotel    Co.    f.    Meyer- 

Schmid    Grocer    Co.,    p.    1229. 
St.    Patrick,    The. 
St.   Paul   City   R.   Co.,   Appleby  :■. 

Berg  -■. 

Bishop   1'. 

Blondel    v. 

Cooper    '•. 

Edlund  V. 

Fonda   z\ 

■ Gaffney   v. 

Herbert   v. 

Jackson    f. 

Joyce   f. 

Koenig    v. 

Konkle   z'. 

McBride    v. 

Miller  f. 

Pine   I'. 

Purcell    V. 

Reem   r. 

Sahlgaard   7\ 

Saiko   '■. 

Schacherl    '■. 

Schmeltzer    f. 

Smith    ;■. 

Steeg    V. 

Wick    f. 

Willard    z: 

Winchell    f. 

St.  Paul  Fire,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.  f.  Mc- 
Gregor,   p.    1129. 

Mitsui   f. 

St.  Paul  Roller  Mill  Co.  z:  Great 
Western  Despatch  Co.,  pp.  353. 
1221,    1223,    1224. 

St.  Paul  L^nion  Depot  Co..  Dick- 
erman    z\ 

Godbout  z\ 

St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Ahlbeck    :. 

.\rthur    f. 

Bishop   Z-. 

Brusch   ;•. 

Buenemann   f. 

Butler    z. 

Conger  i'. 

Edlund   z: 

Estes  -•. 

Gradin   z-. 

Hardenbergh     i'. 

Jackson    i-. 


1   Car— r 


CCLXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


St.    Paul,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Jacobus    v. 

Jellett   f. 

Leo    '■. 

McVeety   z: 

Matz    -•. 

Moulton   V. 

Olson   V. 

Purcell    z: 

Rahilly   r. 

Rosenbaum   v. 

Sccord    '■. 

Smith   z: 

Watson    f. 

St.    Qucntin,    The. 

Saitta,    Liverpool,    etc.,    Co.     v. 
Saks,    Morgan    z'. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    ■:•. 

Salbcrg  f.    Pennsylvania   R.    Co.,    p. 

593. 
Saleeby   v.    Central    R.    Co.,    184   X. 
V.   597,  77   N.   K.    1196— pp.   3167, 
3186. 

f.  Central    R.    Co.,    90    N.    Y. 

S.  1042,  99  App.  Div.  163,  15 
N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  353— pp.  3149. 
3150. 

Salem,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   Lovett  v. 
Salena,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Lewis  v. 
Sales    Z-.     Western     Stage    Co.,     pp. 

1715,    1724,    1837. 
Salinger,    Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-'.    Simmons,      pp.       268,       272, 

292,    525,    537,    566,    568. 

Sallcy    f.     Seaboard,    etc..    Railway, 

pp.    155,    3278. 
Sallv    Magee,    The. 
Salmon    z:    City    Elect.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2177. 

Kansas  Pac.   R.   Co.  z'. 

Salmon     Falls     Mfg.     Co.     v.     The 

Tangier,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,  266, 
1    Cliff.    396— pp.    527,    892. 

z\  The   Tangier,    Fed.    Cas.    12, 

267,  3  Ware  110— pp.  527,  892, 
893. 

Salt   Lake   City   K.    Co.,    Paul    v. 
Salter    v.    Kirkbride,    p.    626. 

Lee  7\ 

Saltmarsh    v.    Tuthill,    p.    358. 
Saltonstall    v.    Stockton,      pp.      210, 
1492,    2562,    2692. 

Stokes   7'. 

Saltsman    -■.     New    York,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    838. 
Saltzman    v.    Brooklyn    City    R.    Co., 

p.    2888. 
Salzman,    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

'-  L.   S.   &   M.   R.   Co.   7. 

Saltus     V.    Everett,     pp.     361,     371, 

373. 
Sambuck   z'.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    p. 

2696. 
Sammon,      International 

Co.   z: 
Samms    v.    Stewart,    pp.    2,    4,    208, 

233,   726,    731,   771. 
Sample,   Malott  v. 
Samples,     Southern    Kansas    R.    Co. 

Sampley,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Sampsell,    Colbeck   z'. 

Sampson,      International,      etc.,      R. 

Co.  z: 
Sams   V.    Price,    p.    2568. 

Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Samuel    ?'.    Cheney,    pp.    553,    554. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 

Pool    Shipping    Co.    v. 

Samuel    E.    Spring,    The. 
Samuel     F.     Houseman,     The. 
Samuels,    Baltimore,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.   California       St.      Cable      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1986,    2638,    2802. 

Ingrafia  v. 

V.  Louisville        R.       Co.,       pp. 

1888,   2876,   2931. 

Z'.   Richmond,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1867,    3058. 

Wells    Fargo    Exp.     Co.    v. 


etc.,      R. 


Samuels   &    Co.,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    :•. 
Samuelson   '■.    State,    p.    21. 
San   Antonio    Gas   Co.,    Broadway   v. 
San    Antonio    St.    R.    Co.    z:    Muth, 

pp.    7,    1978,    1979,   2584,   2589. 
San   Antonio   Tract.    Co.   v.    Bryant, 

pp.    1556,    1808,    1811,    1812,    1819. 
San    Antonio   Tract.    Co.,    Contreras 

— ~  V.   Crawford,    p.     2056. 

z:   Davis,       pp.       2039,       2057, 

2059,  2768,  2769,  2771. 

Flory  V. 

z:   Flory,   pp.   1766,   1830, 

1913,  1928,  2749,  2904. 

Haralson  v. 

z:   Lambkin,  pp.  2056,  2057, 

2059,  2768.  2769. 

Parks  '•. 

V.  Williams,     pp.     2588,     2634. 

Necker    c". 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  Co.  z'.  Bryant, 
p.    2174. 

San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ad- 
ams,  pp.    1577,   2614. 

V.  Addison,    p.    855. 

V.  Bailey,  p.    158. 

z:   Barnett     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

27    S.    W.    676— p.    1309. 

v.   Barnett,       12        Tex.        Civ. 

App.  321,  322,  34  S.  W.  139— 
pp.   960,   970,   972,    1318. 

■ z:  Barnett,    27    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

498,  66  S.  W.  474— pp.  451,  453, 
454,     1018,     1296,     3342,     3366. 

V.   Botts,  p.    1050. 

Cane    Hill    Cold    Storage,    etc., 

Co.   V. 

Cane    Hill,    etc.,    Co.    ?'. 

Cane    Hill,    etc..    Orchard    Co. 

Choate    V. 

z'.   Choate     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

35    S.    W.    180— p.    2801. 

V.   Choate,    22    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

618,  619,  56  S.  W.  214— pp.  1991, 
1992,    2222,    2804,    2890. 

z:   Dolan,    pp.    814,    978,    1394. 

z:   Dykes,       pp.      1614,        1856, 

1878,    1885,    2662. 

• First    Nat.    Bank   v. 

z'.   Fisher,     p.     1361. 

z'.   Graves,    pp.    6871.    3387. 

V.   Griffin,     p.     3416. 

z:   Griffith,    p.    688. 

z\   Tackson,  pp.  2287,  2618. 

V.   Josey,  pp.   607,  637,  660, 

693. 

•  V.   Lester,  p.  2381. 

V.   Long,  4  Tex.   Civ.   App. 

497,  22  S.  W.  499— p.  1767. 

V.   Long  (Tex.   Civ.   App.), 

26  S.  W.  114,  116— pp.  1694, 
1744. 

V.   Lynch  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

40  S.  W.  631— pp.  1544,  1550, 
1554,  1569,  2720. 

V.    Lynch   (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

55  S.  W.  517— pp.  202,  1680, 
1684,  1738,  1810,  2090,  2299, 
2335,  2665,  2720. 

V.   Muth,   pp.   1812,   1817, 

1821. 

•  V.   Newman,    pp.      1632,      2444, 

2465. 

V.  Pratt,    89    Tyx.    310,    34    S. 

W.    445— pp.     1321,     1323. 

•  V.  Pratt    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    32 

S.   W.    705,   706— p.    1323. 

V.   Robinson,      73       Tex.       277, 

285,  11  S.  W.  327— pp.  2669, 
2679,    2758. 

V.   Robinson,    79    Tex.    608,    15 

S.    W.    584— pp.    1752,    1766.    - 

V.  Safford,    pp.     1852,    2573. 

Sanchez   v. 

z:   Stribling,    p.    142. 

Swank  v. 

Thompson   v. 


San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son,   pp.    616,    655,    657,    3355. 

z\   Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

47,  99  S.  W.  418— pp.  216,  217, 
418,  424,  425,  426,  442,  444, 
1295,  1318,  1320. 

f.  Timon  (Tex.  Civ. 

110  S.  W.  82— pp.  1294, 

-'.  Trigo   (Tex.   Civ. 

101  S.  W.  254— p.  2159. 

c'.  Trigo,  108  S.  W.  1193,  49 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  523— p.  1966. 

f.  Turner,  pp.  232,  608,  1304, 

1310,  1354,  3336,  3337. 

?'.  Turney,   pp.   1518, 

1771,    2327,    2873. 

V.   Wallace,    p.    2163. 

■ Wilcox   z'. 

•  z'.   Williams,       pp.       419, 

425,     451,     1002,     1003,     3337. 

V.  Wright,    pp.    451,    851,    971, 

984,  997,  1373,  3348,  3365. 

Sanbern  z\     Panama  R.  Co.,  pp. 
3927,  3935. 


App.), 
1318. 
App.), 


1770, 


424, 


etc..       Lighterage 

3918,    3923,    4065. 
V.     Southern     Pac. 


z\   Wright, 

Co.,    pp.    3909. 

San     Bernardino 

Co.,   p.    3568. 
Sanchez,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

88    Tex.    117,    30    S.    W.    431— p. 
2276. 

V.   San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

3    Tex.    Civ.    App.    89,    22    S.    W. 
242— pp.     1792,    2318. 

z'.   San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    27    S.    W.    922 
—p.    1526. 

Sanden  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
pp.  1613,  1621,  1631,  1632,  1634, 
2439. 

Sanders  z\  .Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.     1462,    1477,    1479. 

Central   R.   Co.   z\ 

z'.   Chicago,     etc.,    R.    Co.,     p. 

2199. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1884, 

2126,     2250,     2252,       2253,     2257, 
2403,    2676,    2924. 

V.   Southern    Railway,    pp.    864, 

878. 

Wallace   v. 

V.   Young,    pp.     11,    768,     1750, 

1839. 

Sanderson   v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 
■    pp.     1687,     1994,    2892. 

V.   Frazier,      pp.      1735,       1749, 

2204,      2288, 


1838, 
2757. 


2249. 


Lamberton,     p. 
Missouri     Pac. 


2289,      2692, 


3387. 
R.     Co. 


Panther     Lumber     Co., 
1582,   1585. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Sandfield,    The. 

Sandford     v.      Catawissa,      etc., 

Co.,    pp.    213,    220,    222. 

Commonwealth    v. 

Covington,         etc.. 

Road    Co.    t'. 

V.   Hestonvillc,     etc., 

136    Pa.      84,      20     Atl. 
1958,    1960,    2805. 

v.   Hestonville,      etc., 

153     Pa.     300,      25    Atl 
2785. 

z'.   Seaboard,      etc., 

pp.    155,    173,    176,    341,    348. 

Sandhoval,    The    Willie    D. 

Sandiagc,    St.   Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

San  Diego  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional   City,    p.    116. 

Sandlin  z'.  Lexington  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1879,    2353,    2357,    2359. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Sandquist    f.    Fort    Dodge,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2875. 
Sands,    American    Exp.    Co. 


Turnpike 

R.     Co., 

799— pp. 

R.      Co., 

,     833— p. 

Railway, 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCLXXV 


Sands,     Elmore    v. 

V.  Manistee    River    Imp.     Co., 

p.    3479. 

Sandusky,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Sandusky-Portland     Cement     Co.     v. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3812. 
Sandusky,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     Page     & 

Co.   V. 
Sandy,    Lake    St.    Elev.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Lake    St.    Elev.    R.   Co.,    pp. 

1680,    1743,    2809,    2933. 

Sanford,    Covington,    etc..    Turnpike 
Co.  V. 

V.   Eighth   Ave.    R.    Co.,    23   N. 

Y.  343,  80  Am.  Dec.  286— pp. 
2414,    2483. 

V.   Eighth     Ave.     R.     Co.,     20 

N.    Y.    Super.    Ct.    122— p.    2487. 

V.   Ilousatonic       K.      Co.,       pp. 

■    484,    488,    1087,    1089,    1097,    1098. 

McQuestcn   v. 

Philleo   V. 

V.   Poe,    p.    3576. 

Southern    Kansas   R.    Co.    v. 

San    Francisco,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Falls 

V. 

Fogel   f. 

Patterson    v. 

Wheeler    r. 

Sangamon,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Henry, 

p.    653. 
Sanger,   Chandler  v. 

f.  Jesse     French     Piano,     etc  , 

Co.,    pp.    940,    1063. 

Virginia    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Sanitary     Dist.,     Strecter    -•. 

San    Jose-Los    Gatos,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

Kimic   V. 
San   Jose,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   Jamison    v. 
San    Paulo,    The. 
San    Pedro,    The. 
San    Pedro,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Bingham 

Dearden    v. 

Pruitt   V. 

Thomas    v. 

V.   Thomas,    p.    2386. 

San    Rafael,    The. 
Sansom     v.     Southern     R. 

1836. 
Sanson       v.       Philadelphia 

Trans.    Co.,    pp.    2691,    2861 
Santa     Barbara     Consol.       R.     Co., 

Kline   v. 
Santa   Clara    v.    Southern     Pac.     R. 

Co.,   pp.    58,   60. 
Santa    Fe,    etc.,    R.    Co.     v.     Grant 

Bros.    Constr.    Co.,    13    Ariz.    186, 

108    Pac.    467— pp.    2,    4,    5,    434, 

723,    870,    945,    969,     1038,    1040. 

V.  Grant    Bros.      Constr.      Co., 

33  S.  Ct.  474,  228  U.  S.  177,  46 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  148— pp.  440, 
3846. 

Santee,   The. 

Santhur   v.    New    Orleans,     etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.   753. 
Santissima    Trinidad,    The. 
Sappington   -■.    .\tlanta,   etc.,   R.    Co.. 

pp.    3046,    3047,    3051. 
Saragossa,    Ilusscy    -■. 
Saratoga,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    Bcekman   ;-. 

Brintnall  v. 

Weed    r. 

Sargent   v.    Birchard,    p.    815. 

V.   Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    pp. 

109,    253,    1179,    1182. 

Cleveland,     etc.,     R.     Co.     f. 

Dowell    Wire    Fence    Co.    v. 

V.  Rutland    R.    Co.,    pp.    3470. 

3501. 

V.  St.   Louis,  etc 

1785,     1798,      1799, 
2270,    2271. 

Sarjeant  v.  Blunt,  p. 
Satterlee  r.  Groat,  p. 
Satterwhitc,    International,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    V. 
Sattler,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p 

2313. 


Co.,     p. 
Rapid 


R.   Co.,   pp. 

2130.      2269. 

1169. 
771. 


Sauer,    Sawyer    v. 

Saul,    United    States   v. 

Saulsbcrry,     Chesapeake,     etc.,      R. 

Co.  V. 
Saunders    v.    Adams    Exp.    Co.,    76 

N.    J.    L.    228,    69    At).     206— p. 

1054. 

V.   Adams    Exp.    Co.,    78   N.    J. 

L.  441,  74  At).  670— pp.  417, 
440. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2691. 

Fort    v. 

V.  Southern      Pac.      Co.,      pp. 

1567,    1816,    2098. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    726, 

981,  3114,  3115,  3124,  3128, 
3148,     3152.     3161,     3162,     3166. 

z\   Southern    Railway,    p.    754. 

Saunderson,    Neal   v. 

Sauter     v.     .Atchison,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.  632,  732. 
Sauvan    v.    Citizens'    Elect.    St.    R. 

Co.,  p.  1894. 
Savage  v.    Marlborough   St.    R'.    Co., 

p.    2697. 

Mexican   Nat.    R.    Co.    v. 

%'.   New    York,    etc..    Steamship 

Co.,    p.    3990. 

— ■ — •   Prentiss    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wabash    R.    Co.    v. 

Savagcau   v.    Boston,   etc..    Railroad, 

pp.    1769,    2132,   2680,   2873. 
Savannah    Elect.    Co.   v.    Badenhoop, 

p.   2708. 
V.   Bennett,    p.    2919. 

Hester    v. 

r.   Hodges,   pp.   2039,   2045. 

V.  McCants,     pp.     1524,     2047, 

2048,    2868. 

McDonald    v. 

V.  McElvey,     pp.    2751,     3010 

V.   Pritchard,    pp 

V.  Wheeler,     pp. 

2607. 

Savannah   Mut.   Ins.   Co.,   Brown   v. 

Savannah  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bry- 
an,   pp.    2040,    2047,    3075. 

Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  '<■.  Austin, 
pp.    3293,    3354. 

V.   Bonaud,       pp.      1670, 

1673,    3042,    3044. 

V.  Boyle,       pp.       1577, 

2022,    2031. 

V.   Bundick,    p.    1160. 

Central    Trust    Co.    v. 

Chicago    Packing,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

f.   Coleman,    p.    544. 

V.   Collins,    pp.    412,    760,    761, 

861,    880,    3251,    3366. 

V.   Commercial       Guano        Co., 

pp.  492,  681,  732,  741,  742,  745, 
825,  3248,  3252,  3257,  3291, 
3296. 

Cotchctt    V. 

!■.   Elder,    pp.    501,    3402.      ■ 

7-.  Flaherty,     pp.     2145,     2323, 

2676. 

V.   Florida  Fruit  Exch.,>  pp. 

3631,  3664.   3667,   3668,   3669, 
3675,   3684,  3711,   3724,   3729, 
3735,  3747,  3748,  3764, 
3769,  3770,   3777,   3784. 
3817. 

r.  Godkin,  p.  2046. 

■:'.   Hardiji,    p.    3389. 

V.  Harris,    pp.    816,    820,    828 

3394,    3395. 

Heins    v. 

V.  Hoffmayer,     pp.     819,     863 

1035,    3399. 

V.  Mcintosh,    pp.    3139,     3179 

Mack  V. 

Norris    v. 

f.   Pritchard,      etc.,      Co.,      pp 

406,  637,  638,  642,  653,  660 
674,    677,    680,    3278,    3410. 

f.  Quo,  pp.  2040,  2041,  2047 

Sellers  f. 


2923,  2924. 
1750,  2042, 


1671, 
2016, 


3767, 
3785, 


Savannah,  etc.,  R'.  Co.  v.   Sloat,  pp. 
551,  948,  1079,  1080,  1364. 

Smoak  i\ 

V.  Steininger,    p.    839. 

V.  Talbot,    pp.    521,    547,    1157. 

V.  Wall,   pp.    1696,   2067,   2258, 

2608. 

Wenz    V. 

f.  Wilcox,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    573, 

574,    576,    577,    578,    727,    748. 

Savannah,    etc..    Supply    Co.,    Ocean 

Steamship    Co.    v. 
Sawin   -'.   Connecticut   X'alley   St.   R. 

Co.,    pp.    1742,    1817. 
Sawyer,     Birmingham    R'.,    etc.,    Co. 

V. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

550. 

V.  Cleveland    Iron     Min.     Co., 

p.  347. 

V.   Dulany,  pp.  1698,  2034. 

t.  El  Paso,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

2562,  2563. 

Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1687,  1724,   1727,  1738, 


—  V. 

1681, 
1981. 


Joslin,  pp.  1229,  1230. 

T.   Lamar,  p.  3069. 

-■.   Sauer,    pp.     1726,    2115. 

Saxon,    Dalzell    v. 

Watts   &    Co.   y. 

Saxton  ■:■.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
pp.    2511,    2542,    2547,    2552. 

Sayers,   Virginia,  etc.,   R.   Co.  ■:■. 

Sayles  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  p. 
2777. 

New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.   •:■. 

t'.  New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   p. 

1049. 

Sayre    v.    Louisville    Union    Benev. 

Ass'n,    p.    113. 
Sayward,    Stevens    v. 

V.   Stevens,    p.    854. 

Scalf,    Louisville,   etc.,    R.   Co.   -..•. 
Scaling  V.   Pullman   Palace  Car  Co., 

pp.    3201,    3215,    3217. 
Scamell    ''.    St.    Louis    Transit    Co., 

pp.    1704,    2316. 
Scammon    v.    Wells,     Fargo    &    Co., 

pp.    516,    748,    760. 
Scandinavian-American    Bank,    Clark 

Scanlan,     X'icksburg,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Scanlon       v.       Philadelphia       Rapid 

Transit    Co.,    p.    2238. 
Scarboro,   Brown  v. 
Scarborough,    Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co. 

Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Scarbrough     x:     Alabama     Mid.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2074. 
Scarritt    Estate    Co.,    Howard   r. 
Scales,   Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   :■. 
Schacherl   v.    St.    Paul   City   R.    Co., 

p.    2152. 
Schaefer    v.    Central    Crosstown    R. 

Co.,    pp.    2229,    2909. 

Cleveland,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    2484. 

V.   St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1501,    1505,    1506,   2152,   2372, 
2686. 

f.   Union     R.     Co.,     pp.     1933, 

2347. 

Schaeflfer    v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1036,    1387,    1454. 
.  Schaettle,    Benedict    t: 
Schafer,    Carr    v. 

V.  Gilmer,      pp.      2312,      3005, 

3074. 

Schafermeyer,     Galveston,     etc.,     K. 

Co.   r. 
Schaffner,    Pullman    Co.    v. 
Schaller    :■.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  970.  987.   1030,  1031.  1046. 
bchalscha    v.     Third     Ave.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2877,    3144. 
Scharadin,    Fisher    f. 


CCLXXVI 


TAr-LK    OF    CASES. 


Scharbauer,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Scharff  -•.  Mever.  pp.   349.  351,   3:>2, 

362,     363,     365,     367,     368,     387. 
Scharnagl,     Tolchcster     Beach     Imp. 

Co.   f. 
Schartz,  Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  ■:•. 
Schaufler,   South,  etc.,  R.   Co.  r. 
Schaiin,    Western    Maryland   R.    Co. 

Scheiber    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2356. 
Scheir,    American   Merchants'   L  nton 

Exp.    Co.   f. 
Schenberger   f.    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.. 

p.     3754. 
Schenkel    f.    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    I  ract. 

Co.,     pp.     1983,    2886. 
Schepeler,    Gossler   v. 
Schepers    f.    Union     Depot    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1501,    1520,   2151. 
Schepman,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Schestauber    v.    Manhattan    R.    Co., 

pp.    2144,    2806. 
Scheu    '■.    Benedict,    pp.    564,    799. 

f.   Erie    K.    Co..    p.    553. _ 

T.   Union   R.    Co.,   p.    2654. 

Scheuermann      v.       Monarch      Fruit 

Co.,    pp.    369,    387. 
Schiebe.    Ohio,    etc.,    R.     Co.    'c'. 
Schieffelin   -■.   Harvey,   pp.    728,    73 1. 
Schiff    Z-.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     452,     3353,     3377. 
Schilling   r.   Union   R.    Co.,    p.    2908. 

7.   Winona,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

1740,     1752,     1755. 

Schilling    &    Co.,    United    Steamship 

Co.   f. 
Schindler    r.     Smith,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

477,    478. 
Schirmer,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 
Schlag    V.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2739. 
Schlauder    i:    Chicago,    etc..    Tract. 

Co.,    pp.    1709,    2083,    2654,    2897. 
Schlemmer   -'.    Buffalo,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     3461. 
Schlett,    Heidenheimer    &:    Co.    ■:■. 
Schley     f.     Susquelianna,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.     1532,     1533. 
Schlichting  v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

])p.    519,    558. 
Schlittler,     Southern    R.     Co.    t'. 
Schloemer     '•.      St.      Louis     Transit 

Co.,    pp.    6,    1736,    2860. 
Schloss    f.    Atchison,    etc.,    K.     Co., 

pp.    138,    156,    158,    331. 

-.•.   Wood,    pp.    209,    868. 

Schlosser     v.      (^rcat     Northern     R. 

Co.,   pp.  485,    1401. 
Schmelling,     Chicago     Terminal     R. 
Co.    f. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Schmeltzer  v.   St.   Paul   City   R.   Co., 

p.    2819. 
Schmidt   r.    Blood,    pp.    714,    822. 

Chicago   City   R.    Co.   f. 

r.  Chicago    City    R.    Co.,    239 

111.   494,   88   N.    E.    275— pp.    2083, 
2764,    2779. 

r.  Chicago    City    R.    Co.,     144 

111.    App.    512— pp.    2012,    2897. 

' v.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

286,    289,    884. 

V.   Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1664,    2446,    3041. 

First   Nat.    Bank  z'. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Indianapolis    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

t.   Kcyscr,    p.    3955. 

T.  North     Jersey     St.     K.     Co., 

66    N.    T.    L.    424,    49    Atl.    438— 
pp.    1520,    1880,   2157,   2875. 

V.  North    Jersey    St.    R.    Co., 

(N.    J.),    58    Atl.    72— pp.     2152, 
2153,   2157. 

f.   Pennsylvania,    p.    1226. 

The. 

Schmitt  z:    Dry   Dock,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

p.     2756. 


Schmitt    z:    Milwaukee    St.    R.    Co.. 
pp.    3082,    3086. 

7'.   St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.,    pp 

2816,    2818. 

Schneider  7'.    Evans,   pi).    1147.    1154 
1155,    1156,    1157,    IK.l,    3341. 

7-.   Leibs      Bros.     &      Co.,      pp 

1226,    1236. 

7'.   New     Orleans,     etc.,      Rail 

road,    p.    2200. 

New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7' 

Rogers  7'.  I 

7'.  North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.. 

p.    2322. 

7'.   Second     .Ave.     R.     Co.,     133 

N.  Y.  583,  30  N.  E.  752,  4  Sil- 
vernail  Ct.  App.  232— pp.  2009, 
2011. 

7'.   Second     -\ve.     R.     Co.,     15 

N.  Y.  S.  556,  39  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
370,  59  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  536— 
pp.     2083,    2896. 

T.   &   P.   R.   Co.   7. 

Texas,   etc.,   R'.    Co.   z\ 

Schneier    7'.     Brooklyn     Heights     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2664,    2673. 
Schober,    Pullman    Co.    7'. 
Schoenfeld    f.     Louisville,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    1331. 

7'.  Milwaukee    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2197. 

Schoer,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    7'. 
Schofield    7'.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co. 

p.    1638. 
Scholes   7'.    Ackerland,    pp.    589,    592. 
Scholey,    Anderson    7'. 
Scholfield    7'.    Bell,    p.     1242. 
Schollenberger   7'.    Pennsylva-na,    pp. 

3427,    3428,    3440,    3445,    3539. 
Sclioltz       7'.       Interborough       Rap  d 

Trans.    Co.,    p.    2680. 
School     Dist.     7'.     Boston,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    806. 
Schoolher  7'.   Hutchins,   p.   862. 
Schooner    Freeman    7'.    Buckingham, 

pp.    3866,    3873,    3879,    3917,    3936, 

3937,    3945. 

The. 

Schooner     John     Bell,      De      X'llkrs 

Schopman  z:   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Corp., 

pp.    1560,    2080,    3180,    3323. 
Schotten,    Symns   7'. 
Schottler,       Spring      Valley      Water 

Works   7'. 
Schreiner    7'.     New     York,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    2322. 
Schritter,     Chicago     Consol.     Tract. 

Co.    7'. 
Schriver,     Atchison,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

7'. 

Schroeder  7'.   Hudson   River   R.    Co., 
pp.    417,    534,    580,    587. 

Missouri,    etc.,    K.    Co.    7'. 

Schroeder    Lumber    Co.    7-.    Chicago. 

etc.,     R.      Co.,      pp.      1268,      1274, 

1475. 
Schubach    7'.     McDonald,     pp.     1616, 

1617,    1634. 
Schubert,       Philadelphia,      etc.,       R. 

Co.   7'. 
Schuldt,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7;. 
Schulte    7'.    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    2898. 
Schultz  f.   Michigan  United  R.   Co., 

pp.  1997,  2353,  2603. 

V.   Second     Ave.     R.     Co.,     p. 

1704. 

7'.   Southern     Pacific,     p.     3o30. 

Springer    7'. 

7'.  Third    Ave.    R.    Co.,    89    N. 

Y.    242— p.    3105. 

z:   Third    Ave.    R.    Co.,    46    N. 

Y.    Super.    Ct.    211— p.    2414. 

Schultzc-Berge,   Peterson  7'. 

Schulz    V.    Parker,    p.    21. 

Schuize    7'.    Great    Eastern    R.    Co., 

p.    665. 
Schumacher,      Baltimore,  ^   etc.,      R. 

Co.     7'. 


Schumacher    z:      Chicago,      etc.,      R 
Co.,   pp.    700,    707,    714,    715.    894 

-  7'.   Eby,   pp.    353,   373,    1222 
Schurr   7-.    Houston,   pp.    1504,    2266 
Schurtz,    Michigan,    etc.,    Co.   7'. 
Schuster   7'.    Carson,   pp.    1212,    1219 
Schutte  7'.   Weir,   pp.    1051.    1053. 
ochuttee,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7' 
Schutter    7'.     .\dams    Exp.     Co.,     pp 

836,    1036. 
Schuyler,    Southern    Pac.    Co.    7'. 

7'.  Southern   Pac.   Co.,   pp. 

1502,  1503,  1575,  2649,  2652, 
2665,  2863,  3695,  3696. 

Witbcck    7'. 

Schuylkill    Valley   Tract.    Co.,    Skean 


Schwab,    Express    Co.    z\ 
Schwabacher     7'.     Kane,     pp.      1214, 

1247. 
Schwaner,    Kerr    7'. 
Schwartz     7'.     Cincinnati,     etc..     St. 

R.    Co.,    pp.    2197,    2198. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Interborough    Rai)id    Transit 

Co.,    p.    2567. 

■  z!.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2094,    2416. 

7'.   New     York     Citv      R.      Co., 

p.    1889. 

North   Chicago   St.    R.   Co.  7'._ 

7'.   Panama    R.     Co.,    pp.    3251, 

3260,    3333. 

Schwartz    &     Co.     7'.     Erie     R.     Co., 

pp.   765,   785. 
Schwarzenberger,  Pcnnsylva-ia 

Cent.     R.    Co.    7'. 
Schweitzer,    White    7'. 
Schwinding,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Schwinger  7'.  Raymond,  pp.  781. 
799. 

Scioto  Valley  Tract.  Co.  7'.  Cray- 
bill,    pp.    2419,    2481. 

Scofield,    Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

— —  z:  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
pp  5,  20,  221,  227,  1181,  1184, 
1188,    1189,    3819. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Pennsylvania  Co.,  pp. 

1975,    2259,    2432. 
Scopman       7'.       Boston,        etc.,        R. 

Corp.,    p.    1508. 
Scorenson    7'.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    1510. 
Scotland,  The. 
Scott,    Adams    7'. 

.Adams    Exp.    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Allegheny    Val.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

779,    958,    1022. 

7'.   Baltimore,     etc.,     Stcaml)oa- 

Co.,    pp.    744,    778. 

-..    Bergen    County    Tract.    Co., 

63  N.  T.  L.  407,  43  Atl.  1060— 

pp.  17l"5,  1957,  1991. 
^.  Bergen  County  Tract.  Co., 

48  Atl.  1118,  64  N.  J.  L.  326— 

pp.  2174,  2344,  2688. 

V.  Boston    Steamship    Co.,    pp. 

638,    653. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2077,    2476,    2496,    2574. 

7'.   Donald,    pp.    3538,    3539. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Gulf,    etc.,    K.    Co.    7'. 

Hill    v. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Leask  v. 

^ouisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

,r    Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1504,    1701,    2144,    2577. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    7'. 

7'.    Pettit,    p.    1234. 

Reynolds    7'. 


TAIII^R  OF  CASES. 


CCLXXVII 


Scott,    Richmond    City    R.    Co.    v. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    !■. 

Texas    Rxp.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    l-Ic,    R.    Co.    ?•. 

V.  United    States,    p.    3869. 

Scott     Bros.     f.     Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    520. 
V.   Grimci      Dry      Goods      Co., 

pp.    1237,    1238. 
Scott  &   Co.,   Te.Nas,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 
Scott    County     Milling    Co.    r.     St. 

Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp.   970,   1110. 
Scotthorn      r.      South       StafTodshirc 
^  R.   Co.,^  p.    1217. 
Scovcll,    Tanni-r    f. 
Scovill     ;■.     Griffith,     pp.     515,     591, 

036,    638,    b(<i.  . 

New   York,   etc.,    R.    Co.   -■. 

Scrammon    v.    Wells    Fargo    &    Co., 

pp.     727,     732. 
Scranton      v.      VVhcclcr,      pp.      3420, 

3440,    3441. 

Scranton    Tract.    Co.,    Keator    v. 

O'Conncr  -•. 

Thane     f. 

-; Thaync    -'. 

Screven,     Ilawley     7'. 

Scribner,   Indiana  Union   Tract.   Co. 

Scritter,      Chicago      Consol.      Tract. 

Co.    V. 
Scrivener,  Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.  r. 
Scroggins     v.     Metropolitan     St.     R. 

Co.,    p.    2252. 

Scroggins   Co.,   Pennsylvania  R.   Co. 

Scruggs   -'.    Davis,    p.    1501. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    i'. 

Scudder,     Calais     Steamboat     Co.     ■:•. 
Scull    &    Co.    7:    Atlantic,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.    141. 
Scully   r.     New     York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2263. 
Scurr,    Chicago    R.    Co.   v. 
Scutt,    Thomas    v. 
Seaboard,    The. 
Seaboard   .\ir   Line   R.    Co.   v.    Main, 

p.    2104. 

Newbury    f. 

f.   Railroad     Comm.,     pp.'     46, 

54,   58. 

Seaboard    Air    Line    Railway,    Bald- 
win   t'. 

f.   r.radley,      pp.      2511,      2512, 

2513,     2546,     2917. 

Cooper    f. 

Davis    ?■. 

f.   Friedman,     pp.     810,     1332, 

3265,    3267. 

Hull    f. 

Mason    -•. 

Nickles   t'. 

*•.   Raincy 

I'.   Rentz, 

685,    688,    1448. 

Reynolds  f. 

Simmons    7\ 

Skipper   v. 

f.   Smith,    p.    2625. 

Seaboard     R.     Co.,     L^nited 


Co.,    p. 
Atlantic 


40,     47,     52,     53, 


Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -<■.    Scarbor- 
ough,   pp.    2429,    2621,    2851,   3025. 

Smith   T. 

Taylor    t. 

I'.    Thompson,    p.    2676. 

V.   Western,     etc.,     R. 

3249. 

Seaboard,    etc..    Railway    :■. 
Exp.    Co.,    pp.    961,    963. 

iialdwin    f. 

ISerley    i: 

Best    V. 

Bolen     T. 

?■.    Bostock,     pp.     2369,     2370 

Campbell   I'. 

Crosby    f. 

Dexter  v. 

V.    Ellis,     pp 

54,    55,    124,    126. 

Entzminger    t. 

Fretwell    z: 

Johnson   f. 

Kaufman    7'. 

La   Floridienne 

Lowe    I'. 

McDuffie    r. 

Magill    V. 

Mauldin    v. 

Mims    7'. 

■  Nickles     t'. 

V.   Phillips,    pp. 

588,    591,    600. 

Salley    v. 

Sandford    v. 

Sanford    f. 

Singletary    v. 

r.   Smith,   pp.    1789,   2490. 

State   -: 

Summerlin    f. 

-; Taber  ■:■. 

Seaborn,    Birmingham    R.,    etc 


556,    583, 


.,    Co. 
Clyd2 


R.  Co., 
Co.  ;•. 
K.    Co., 


pp. 


pp. 
pp. 


1907,     1909. 
608,     609,     621 


Seaboard,      etc.. 
Seaboard,     etc.. 


Railroad, 
R. 


States 
Rollins 


Co.,     Capehart 
1018,      1378, 


z'.  Cauthen,     pp 

1384.     1433,    2950. 

Charlotte  Trouser  Co.  - 

Cullen   7'. 

Currie   "•. 

Dun    7'. 

Horton    7'. 

Inman   &   Co.   v. 

Kearney    7'. 

Meredith    7'. 

7.   O'Quin, 

2417,    3089. 

Outland   7'. 

-: Pace  Mule   Co.   r. 

Reeves  7-. 


pp. 


408,      2409, 


Sea    Coast     Lumber    Co.     v. 

Steamship    Co.,    j).    3893. 
Seago,    Argo    Steamship    Co. 
Seagraves,    State   '■. 
Seale    7'.     Boston     Elev. 

2749. 

Louisville,    etc..    R 

7'.   State,    p.    3512. 

Seals    i:    Augusta,    etc., 

2566. 
Sealy,    Missouri,   etc.,    R.   Co.   7'. 
7'.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

304,    317,    358,    359,    364. 
Searcy,    Eddy  7'. 
Searle     7'.     Kanawha,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1715,    1719,    1726,    2586,    2588. 

Kansas    Pac.    R.    Co.    z: 

Searles,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
''■   Alabama,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     n 

827. 

'  7'.   Mann     Boudoir     Car     Co., 

p.     3203. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Sears   v.    Eastern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1670, 

1671,     1672. 
~'-   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

1667. 
Mc.\rthur    z: 

7'.   Seattle    Consol.    St.    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1725,    1732,    1999,    200(). 

Teall    7'. 

7'.   Wills,    p.    1162. 

7'.  Wingate.   pj).   305,   306,  309, 

337,  3884. 

Seasongood  z:  Tennessee, 
Transp.  Co.,  pp.  213,  214 
277,  279,  283,  3248,  3249, 
3862,   3863. 

Seattle    7'.     Seattle 
68,  81. 

Co 


Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    Clukev    7' 

De   Yoe   7'. 

Firebaugh     -•. 

Foster   7'. 

Gilchcr  v. 

lialverson   r. 

Harkins  v. 

Hyde   7. 

Kirk    7'. 

Kroeger    7'. 

McCormick    v, 

Morrison    z: 

Murray   v. 

Plattor   r. 

Rangenier    v. 

Ranous   v. 

Seattle   z: 

Sullivan  z: 

Weir    z: 

Seattle     Elect.     R.,     etc..     Co..     Cun- 
ningham   7'. 

Woo  Dan  7'. 

Seattle-Tacoma,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    An- 
derson  J'. 

Seattle    Tract.    Co.,    Peterson    ;•. 
Seattle,   etc.,    Nav.    Co.,    White   7. 
Seattle,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Bailey   v. 

Braymer    v. 

Breeden    z: 

Connell   7'. 

Conner    7'. 

Dennison    7'. 

Elliott    f. 

Gilmore    r. 

Harris    z'. 

Johnstone    v. 

Jordan  v. 

Lawson    7'. 

Lir.hoff  7'. 

Lobb    z: 

Marbourg   7". 

Mills    r. 

Russell    7'. 

Walters    7'. 

Seattle,    etc..     Railway,    Mooney    z 
Seaver    7'.    Bradley,    p.    1488. 
Seawell    7-.    Carolina    Cent.    R.    Co 
pp.     1514,    2871. 

7'.   Greenway     Bro.     & 


3114. 


Kansas    City,    etc.. 


Co.,     p 
R.    Co. 


Seattle   City    R 

Muldoon 

Seattle    Consol, 

son    7'. 

Sears   7'. 

Seattle     Elect. 

Blakney    ; 

Bugge    7'. 

Caywood 


St. 


Elect 
,    Brown 
K.    Co., 


Co., 


etc., 
231. 

3262, 

pp. 


Pcde 


etc., 
1231 
Ave. 

Black    ; 

Bradley    7'. 

Coleman    7'. 

Ebling  7'. 

Ginna    7'. 

Hadercamp    7'. 

Jackson    7'. 

Martin    7'. 

Meyer    7'. 

Movlan    7'. 

Muiler  7'. 

Pohle    7'. 

Schneider    -•. 

Schultz    7'. 

Second     Ave.     Tract, 


Co.  z:   Nutt,   pp.    1213 
1232,    1234.    1240. 
R.     Co.,    Akersloot    -■ 


Co.,     Willis 
Bank,    American    Exp. 
398. 


Co..     Bennett    7'. 


Second    Nat. 
Co.    7'. 

7'.    Bank,    p 

Sutherland   7'. 

7'.   Walbridge.    p.    370. 

Second,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Neslie    ;•. 
Secor    7'.    Toledo,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    p. 

2248. 
Secord    7'.    St.    Paul,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1547.    1561.    2078. 
Security     State    Bank    7'.    O'Connell 

Lumber   Co.,    p.    352. 
Security   Trust   Co.   7-.    Wells.    Fargo 

&    Co.'s    Exp.,    pp.    549,    551.    554. 

Sedalia    Elect.    R.,    etc.,    Co..    Hans- 

berger  7-. 
Seddon    7'.    Bicklcy.    pp.    1838.    2686. 
Sedoff     7'.     Chicago     Citv     R.     Co., 

p.    2697. 
Seefahrer.    The. 


CCLXXVIII 


TABI^E    OF    CASES. 


Seelig    -•.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.    1986. 
Seeligson    &    Co.,    Adove    f. 
Seelye,    Dickerson    i: 
Segal    f.     St.     Louis,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2025,    2031,    2871. 
Segari  &   Co.,   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co. 

Segelman     z\     Interborough     Rapid 

Trans.    R.    Co.,    p.    2792. 
Segura   z:    Reed,    pp.    527,    531,    896. 
Sehneideau    &    Co.    z\     Pennington, 

p.    587. 
Seibels    f.    Northern    Cent.    R.    Co., 

p.    3544. 
Seiberling    &    Co.,    New    York,    etc., 

R.    Co.   f. 
Seibert,    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    ■:■. 
f.   Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   553. 
Seide,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    f. 
Seiders,    Te.xas,    Tel.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 
Seidlinger     r.     Brooklyn     City      R. 

Co.,    p.    2895. 
Seigel     z:     Eisen,     pp.     2204,     2811, 

2894. 
Seigfried   z'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    341,    1213. 
Seinour,     Deford    f. 
Seitz    f.    Brewers',    etc.,    Mach.    Co., 

p.    3871. 

z\   Dry    Dock,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2307. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Sejalon    v.    Woolverton,    p.    822. 
belby    z\    Detroit    Railway,    p.    2241 

Ohio,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    1273,    1408,    1412. 

Seley,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "'. 
Self   '■.    Adel    Lumber    Co.,    p.    1489 

'■.   Dunn,    p.    768. 

Selhorst,       Birmingham      R.,       eta. 

Co.  f. 
Seligman    v.    Armijo,    pp.    578,    751 

Greif  &  Bro.  z'. 

Seller    v.    Market    St.    R.    Co.,    pp 
2322,     2894. 

z:   Pacific,    pp.    411,    818,    829 

945,    997,    998,     1007,     1033. 

Sellers,  -Mabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

r.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p> 

1628. 

-•.  Cleveland,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp 

1858,  1863. 

z.  Savannah,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

pp.    301,    518,    519,    553,    603. 

Sellick,     Northern     Transp.     Co.     v 
Selliger,    Commonwealth   v. 
Sellman,    Steele  v. 
Selma    St.,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Owen 

pp.    2014,    2127,    2129,    2234,    2260 

2261,    2262,    2606. 
Selma,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Butts,    pp 

210,    726,    732,    748,    3270,    3302 

z:   Campbell,     pp.     2582,     2598 

Selman    v.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

2287,  2288,  2289,  2348. 
Selsor,     Chesapeake,     etc. 


R. 
R. 


Co 
Co. 


z:  Chesapeake,     etc 

p.    3090. 

Selway  !■.  Holloway,  p.   3136. 

Semple,    Little   Z'. 

Seneca,    The. 

Senecal   v.    Richelieu,    p.    3136. 

Senf    v.     St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    2649,    2657. 
Senior    v.    New    York    City    R.    Co., 

187   N.   Y.    559,   80   N.    E.    1120— 

p.    68. 

-■.   New    York     City     R.     Co., 

Ill    .App.    Div.    39,    97    N.    Y.    S. 
645— p.   27. 

Senn,   Central    R.    Co.   v. 
S.    E.    Railway   Co.,    Collard    <■. 
Serrains   z:    Campbell,    1    Q.    B.    283 
—p.    713. 

z:   Campbell,    25     Q.     B.     Div. 

501— p.    713. 

Server,   I.  &   G.   N.    R.   Co.   v. 


etc.,      R.      Co.^ 


759,     763,     770, 


364, 


Server,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co 

Serviss  v.  Ann  Arbor  R.  Co.,  pp 
1526,    1789,    1880,    2686,    2858. 

Serwe  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  p 
3081. 

Sessions,     Mobile,     etc.,     R.    Co.    z\ 

z:  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    3214,    3216. 

v.   Southern      Pac.       Co.,       pp 

1572,    2810. 

— —  z:  Western  R.  Corp.,  pp.  602 
872,    894,    907. 

Setser,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

betzler  -•.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co. 
pp.    2356,    2759,    2798,    2937. 

Seven    Bros.    No.    1,   The. 

725    Tons    of    Coal,    Holland   v. 

Sever   v.    Minneapolis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

^  p.    2691. 

Severn  River  Glass  Sand  Co.,  Don- 
aldson  V. 

Severn,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   Rex  v. 

Sevier  z\  Southern  Railway,  pp. 
2357,    2359. 

z'.   \'icksburg, 

pp.    1909,    1912. 

Sewall,    Allen    f. 
f.  Allen,     pp 

3145. 

Wood  V. 

Seward,    Smith    z'. 

Seward    &    Co.    z>.    Miller,     pp 

372,    377,    385,    390. 
Sewell   v.   Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1579. 

V.  Burdick,   L.    R.    10   App.    74 

—p.    365. 

V.   Burdick,    10    App.    Cas.    79, 

105— p.    3881. 

V.   Detroit        United      Railway, 

pp.     2679,     2696,     2979. 

Sexton    V.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2152,    2876. 
Seybolt   -•.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1575,    1576,    2101. 
Seyfarth   v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    830. 
Seymour    z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    1741,    1786,    2113,    2226 
V.   Citizens'    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2008,      2126,      2127,      2192, 

2894. 

V.  Newton,      pp.      1215, 

1219,    1229,    1232. 

Richardson    Fueling    Co.    v. 

Shackelford   f.    Patrick,    p.    861. 
Shackleford,    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R 

Co.   V. 

V.   Wilcox,     p.     3905. 

Shacklet,    Union    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Wabash,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Shackt  z:   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.,   pp 

759,    760. 
Shaffer,    Marion    St.    R.    Co.    -•. 
Shaffer   &    Co.    v.    C.     H.    &    D.     R 

Co.,   p.   336. 
Shamblin    v.    New    Orleans,    etc.,    R 

Co.,    p.    2308. 
Shamokin,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Madara    z\ 

■ Quinn  V. 

Shanahan   v.      Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

p.    2999. 
"'.   St.     Louis    Trans.     Co.,    pp 

2332,    2590. 
Shane    v.    Butte    Elect.     R.     Co.,    p 

2976. 
Sliand,    Peninsula,    etc.,    Co.    z\ 

The. 

Shands,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Shanley,    Ft.    Worth,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Shanly,    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Shannon    v.     Boston,    etc.,     R.     Co.. 
pp.    1512,    1776. 

V.   Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1578,   2101. 

Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Comstock,    p.    653. 

Kaskaskia    Bridge   Co.    z\ 

Shapiro    -■.      Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

p.    3406. 


1819, 
2197, 


1218, 


Shareman    z\    St.    Louis    Trans.    Co., 

p.    2657. 
Sharkey,    Port    Blakely    Mill    Co.    v. 
Sharp    r.    Clark,    pp.    436,    461,    531, 

540,     1452. 

•  Dobiecki    v. 

•  z:  Grey,    pp.    1681,    1682,    1845. 

z'.   Kansas    City    Cable    R.    Co., 

pp.    1834,    2683,    2945. 

Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Sharpe    z'.      Southern     R.    Co.,     pp. 

642,     654,     673,     689. 

Wabash   R.   Co.   ?■. 

Sharpless    z\     Philadelphia,     p.     213. 
Sharpless   &   Sons,   Adams    Exp.    Co. 

Sharer    v.    Paxson,    pp.    1521,    2066, 
2157. 

Sharrock,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Sharvey,    Lewis   ■:■. 
Shattuck  r.    Rand,   p.    1684. 
Shaw,    Bailey   z'. 

Chicago   City   R.    Co.   v. 

z:   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    173 

111.    App.    107— pp.    2695,    2843. 

z\   Chicago,         etc.,       R.        Co. 

(Iowa),   113   N.   W.   478— p.    1639. 

Daggett   z'. 

First    Nat.     Bank    f. 

V.   Gardner,     pp.    335,     540. 

V.   Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

3125. 

Lake   St.,   etc.,   R.   Co.  z: 

Memphis    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

Merchants'     Nat.     Bank,     p. 


233. 


z:  Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3138. 

z\  Railroad   Co.,    pp.    355,    356, 

358,   359,    371,    373,   374,    375,    376, 
389,    3877,    3886. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.     Co.    z\ 

?'.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    pp. 

663;    849,    850. 

The    John    K. 

z\  United    States,    p.    3864. 

Wilson   f. 

Shawcross,    Kirknian    v. 

z'.   Camden,    etc.-,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

2699,    2978. 

Shea,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

V.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3302. 

— —  v.  Manhattan   R.   Co.,   p.   2059. 

f.   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1038. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    z'. 

United    States    z'. 

Shealey   v.    South    Carolina,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2382. 
Shean,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Shearer,    Northern   Line   Packet    Co 

Pacific    Exp.    Co.    V. 

V.   Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    p.    554. 

Sheares,    Pennsylvania    Co.    z'. 
Sheble   Z'.    Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

3182,    3395. 
Sheboygan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Tolleman 


Shedd    7'.     Troy,    etc.,     R.    Co., 

1620,    1632,    1973. 
Sheehan,    Louisville    R.    Co.    '■. 
V.   Nassau    Elect.    R.    Co., 

2156,    2819. 
Sheeks,    Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R. 


Shecron    v.    Coney    Island,    etc. 

Co.,    pp.    2193,    2890. 
Sheets    V.    Ohio     River    R.     Co.,     p 

2465. 
Sheffer    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

p.    1894. 
Shelby    -•.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co. 

p.    2045. 
-■.   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p 

439. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Shelby    County    Taxing    Dist.,    Fick 

len   V. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCLXXIX 


Shelby    County    Taxing    Dist.,    Rob- 
bins   V.  ^  r,         1. 

Shelby    Ice,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Southern 

R.    Co.,    147    N.    C.    61,   60    S.    E- 

723— pp.    176,    3422. 
r.   Southern     R.     Co.,     147     N. 

C.  66,  60   S.   E.  721— p.   176. 
Shelbyville     R.     Co.     v.    Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp.    102,    105. 
Shelden    r.    Robinson,    pp.    588,    821, 

823,    832. 
Sheldon  V.  New  York,  etc.,   K.   Co., 

pp.    379,    1102. 
_11  r.  The   I'ncle   Sam.   p.   2563. 

r.  Wabash    R.    Co.,     p.     3539. 

Shcllenberg     v.    Fremont,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    513. 
Shellnut    v.    Central,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    208,    236,    482,    547. 
Shelton,    lirenan   v. 

Urennan  v. 

f  Canadian  Northern  R.  Co., 

pp  1081,  1082,  1489,  2094,  2790. 
—11  V    Erie  R.  Co.,  pp.  38,  2447, 
2450,  2459,  2462,  2463. 

Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V. 

r.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

7  O  Dec.  161,  1  W.  L.  Bull.  190 

V.   Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co„ 

29  O.  St.  214— pp.  1638,  2423, 
2431.  „  „ 

r.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2205.  ^.  ^    ^ 

V.  Merchants  Dispatch  Trans- 
portation Co.,  59  N.  Y  258  48 
How.  Prac,  257— pp.  286,  432, 
776,   958,   992,   993. 

V  Merchants'  Dispatch  Trans- 
portation Co.,  36  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.    527-pp.    292,    425. 

Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r    St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1372,    1413.  ^   ., 

7.    Southern        Railway,  PP- 

2673,    2761,    2912,    2981. 

Shenandoah  \"alley  R.  Co.  v- 
Moose,    p.    2935. 

Shenk  v.  Philadelphia  Steam  Pro- 
peller   Co.,    pp.    545,    897,    899 

Shepard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    3031. 

V.   De     Barnales,     p. 

f.   Heinken,    p.    519. 

V.  New    Haven,    etc 

p.    2655.  „     ,, 

V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3489,  3490,  3491,  3693. 

Simpson   v. 

Shepard,      etc..       Lumber      Co.,      r. 

Burroughs,    pp.    1221,    1223.    1224, 
1226,    1229.  ^     „ 

Sheperd,   Great  Northern   R.   Co.   r. 

Shepherd,    Citizens'     St.     R.    Co.    v. 

Gieat    Northern    R.    Co.    v. 

v.  Harrison,    p.    352. 

King   V. 

Lincoln    Tract.    Co.    v. 

V.  Midland   R.   Co.,   p.    1786 

V.  Naylor,    pp.    306,    337,    338, 

339,    3882,    3884.    3885 
Sheppard    r.    Brooklyn    Heights    R. 

Co.,    p.    1714.  ^      ^ 
r    New     York     City     R.     Co., 

P-    2036.  ,    ,      ,^„ 

-  -  ,..   Newhall.     47     I-ed.     468— p. 
1222 

T    Newhall,     54     Fed.     306,     4 

C.    C.    A.    352— pp.    1226,    1244. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •:'. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Railway    Co.    v. 

V.   State,    p.    3519. 

Sherard.    Madan    f. 
Sherbert,   Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co. 
Sheridan,     Baltimore,     etc.,     K 


1148. 
R.    Co., 


Sheridan   v.    Penn    Collieries   Co.,    p. 

3963. 
Sheridine,   Moore  v. 
Sheriffs   V.    Pugh,    p.    3864 
Sherley   v.    Billings,    pp.    1739.    2048, 

'049,    2064,    3070. 
Sherlock    V.    Ailing,    pp.    2078.    3445, 

3482,   3504,    3505,   3551. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3133,    3149.  ^     ^ 

St.    Louis,   etc..   R.    Co.   r. 

Sherman    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co., 
pp.    1636,    1977. 

V.   Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

200,  1507,  1559,  1564,  1760, 
1953.  2036.  2069,  2178,  2209, 
2526.  „  ^ 

r  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  pp. 

511,  901,  902,  3275,  3281,  3406. 

■:•.  Inman  Steamship  Co.,  pp. 

847,   854. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.      Co.,      p. 

627. 

r.  Rugae,    pp.    1219.    1220. 

V.   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   pp. 

1740.  2583.  2603.  2694,  2842, 
2861. 

V.  Wells,    pp.     595.     596.    728. 

733,   749,   767,   770,   848,   855. 

Sherman,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Conley   v. 

V.  Conly,    p.    151. 

Goldstein   v. 

Sherrad,    Woodruff    v. 

Shcrrard,    Woodruff    v. 

Sherratt,    Edwards   v. 

Sherrill,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    •:■. 

Sherrod,    Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Sherwood   v.    Chicago,    etc  ,    R-    Co., 

82  Mich.  374,  46  N.  W.  773,  44 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  337— pp. 
1876,    1877,    2405.  „      „         „„ 

r.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    88 

Mich.  108,  50  N.  W.  101— p. 
2750. 

General    Mut.    Ins.    Co.    v. 

King  V. 

Missouri   Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Shidlovsky    r.    Mallory,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    665,    936. 
Shicder,  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i: 

r    Southern    Railway,    p.    64b. 

Shields,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co    r. 

V.  Ohio,   pp.   34,   63,   3484. 

V.  State,    pp.    35,    1857. 

Shinkle,    etc.,      Co.      '■■      Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3801. 
Ship   Howard,   The. 

f.  Wissman,    p.    3901. 

Ship     John       Eraser,      Brig     James 

Gray  v. 
Shipman,   Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 
Shipper,    Dccan    r. 
r.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp- 

220,     1179,     1186.  ^-     r  11 

Shippers'     Compress     Co.,     Nortolk. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  -■. 
Shipton,  Pozzi  r. 
Shirk,     Western     Maryland     K.     Co. 


Shore  &   Bro.  v.   Baltimore,  etc.,   R. 

Co.,    p.    3544. 
Shores    Lumber    Co.    v.    Starke,    pp. 

459,    472. 
Short,    Callender,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Galveston,   etc.,    R.   Co.   f. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 

V.  St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1560,    2474,    2852,    2853. 

V.  Simpson,    p.    365. 

Shorlsleeves   v.    Capital    Tract.    Co., 

pp.    1648,    2442,    2493,    2708. 
Shott,   Norfolk,    etc..    R.    Co.   t. 
Shoulder,    Wahl   r. 
Shouse,    Beckham    v. 
Shrader,    Kentucky,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Shreve,   Chicago   City    R.    Co.   v. 
Shreveport   Belt   R.   Co.,    Leveret   v. 
Shreveport    Tract.    Co..    Buccola    v- 

May  V. 

Otts    V. 

Spurlock   V. 

Shreveport.   etc.,   R.   Co..   Armistead 


Co. 


-  V  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co..  pp. 
1495,  1698,  1951,  1961,  202o, 
2118. 

Frisby   f.  ,_ 

I-.  New    Quay    Co.,    p.    5/3. 


Shive   V.    Philadelphia,    etc.,   R.    Co., 

ShiveU    Texarkana,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Shivers,    Nathan   v. 

Western    Maryland    K.    Co.    -. 

Shockley    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

pp.    3259,    3393,    3415. 
Shoemaker,   City   Council  r 
r.   Kingsbury,      pp.       4,      1492, 

1714,    1717,     1718,     1740. 
Shohoney    f.    Quincy,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    3483. 
Shomo.    Richmond,    etc..    K.    Co.    .. 
Shoninger   v.    Day,    p.^  889. 
Shoop,   Union    Exp.   Co.   ;■. 
Shoot    f.     Cleveland,     etc..     K.     Co., 

pp.   607,  608,   690. 
Shoptaugh    V.    St.    Louis      etc  .     K. 

Co.,    pp.    247.    258,    260,    262. 


Rutherford    v. 

Shriver,    Atchison,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Sioux     City,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    757.     821,    945,    1036,      1038. 
3183,    3396.  ^      _ 

Shropshire.    City    Elect.    R.    Co     v. 
Shrum    V.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2174,    2611. 
Shryock,    Morris   v.  _,      „ 

Shuford,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v- 
Shular    V.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  2425. 
Shuler   f.    Omaha,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2604.  _  ^. 

Shumaker    v.      Northern      Pac.      K. 

Co.,    p.    1433. 
Shumate   v.   Louisville,   etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.  2173. 
Shurr   -.■.    Houston,    pp.    1545.    1546. 
Shurtz.    Michigan,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Shuter,   Ogg  v 
Shutt    V.      Cumberland      \  alley      K. 

Co.,    p.    2386. 
Shwartz  v.   Fargo,   p.    1068. 
Sias   V.    Rochester    R.    Co.,    p.    2189. 
Siceloff,    Union    Tract.    Co.    f. 
Sickings,    Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Sickles    f.      Brooklyn     Heights      R. 

Co.,  p.    1595. 

V.  Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1706.      2128.    2220.      2221.      2224. 
2296.  „      _ 

Siddons,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    t'. 
Sidekum    f.    Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2736. 
Sidonian,    The. 

Siegel-Cooper    Co..    Frahm    v. 
Siemonsma  v.   Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.. 

pp.    1303.    1361.    1370.    1468. 
Siemsen     r.     Oakland,     etc..     Elect. 

Railway,   p.   1850. 
Sierra  R.  Co.,  Roberts  v. 

X'alente    '■. 

N'alenti^  v. 

Sieveking,    Smith    t. 

Sicvers    f.    Dallas,     etc.,    Nav.     Co., 

pp.    3061,    3987. 
Siffken  r.   Wray,  p.    1217. 
Sigl    V.    Green    Bay    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2155. 
Siglin,   Coos   Bay,   etc.,   Nav.   Co.   f. 
Sigma    Lumber    Co.,     Central,     etc., 

R.   Co.   ;•. 
Sikh,    The.  ,    ,     ^.        ry     r 

Silber    v.    New    York    City    R.    Co.. 

p.   2877.  _,     _ 

Silegman.  Galveston,  etc..  K.  Co.   t . 
Siler    r.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co..    p. 

42. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.  Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

42. 
Silliman,    Dauchy   f. 
Silsbee,    Barreda    r. 
Silva  V.    Boston,   etc..   Railroad,    pp. 

1717,    2348.    2885. 

Fernandez   v. 


CCLXXX 


TABLK  OF  CASES. 


Silva.    Montegudo  -■. 

Patron    f. 

Silver  i:  Kent,  pp.  586,  594,  653, 
666. 

;■.  Tobin,   p.    3586. 

Silverman    v.    St.     Louis,     etc.,     R. 

Co..  pp.  789,  816,  817,  821,  851, 
852. 

z:  Weir,    p.    3654. 

Silvia,   The. 

Simkins    v.    Norwich,    etc.,    Steam- 
boat   Co.,    p.    3268. 
Simmonds,    The    Ship    Freedom    v- 
Simmons,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Illinois    Cent.    R'.    Co.    v. 

r.   Law,    4    Abb.    Dec.    241.    42 

X.   Y.   217— p.   3257. 

I'.  Law,    21    N.    Y.    Super.    Ct. 

(8    Bosw.)     213— pp.    726,    887. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.  Xew  Bedford,  etc..  Steam- 
boat Co..  97  Mass.  361,  93  Am. 
Dec.  99— pp.  1723,  1746,  1839, 
3988,  3989,  3991,  3999,  4002, 
4003. 

V.  New  Bedford,  etc..  Steam- 
boat Co.,  100  Mass.  34 — pp. 
2740,    4005. 

f.  Oregon  R.  Co.,  pp.  1548, 

1561,  1584,  1585,  2743. 

Salinger  v. 

f.  Seaboard  Air-Line  Rail- 
way,  pp.    218,   2115,   2357,    3047. 

The    Huron    v. 

Simmons      Hardware       Co.      v.      St. 

Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    330,    969, 

3335,    3338,    3348. 
Simms,    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.    t. 

V.  Pullman,    etc.,    Car    Co.,    pp. 

2629,    3206. 

V.  South    Carolina    R.    Co..    26 

S.    C.    490,    2   S.    E.    486— p.    2280. 

;■.    South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    27 

S.  C.  268,  3  S.  E.  301,  30  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  571 — pp.  1815, 
1910,    1913. 

Simms    &    Sons     v.    Xew     Orleans, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    1372,    1375. 
Simon,  C.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.   Co.  v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Railway    Co.    v. 

V.   Steamship    Fung    Shuev,    p. 

945. 

Thompson-Houston    Elect.     Co. 

Simonds,   Goodman   ?■. 

Simone    z:    Rhode    Island    Co.,     pp. 

2698,    2861. 
Simonson,     Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

Simonton  v.  St.  Louis  Trans.  Co., 
p.    2393. 

Winter    v. 

Simpson,    Berkley    St.    R.    Co.    v. 
— Byington   f. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Chicago,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     pp. 

21,    38. 

r.   Dufour,    pp.     576,    727. 

z:   Hand,    p.    728. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Kansas  City,  etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.  London,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

653. 

z:  Xew     York,     etc.,     R'.     Co., 

pp.    3121,   3124. 

V.  Rome,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2826. 

V.  Shepard,    p.    3693. 

Sliort   V. 

Simpson-Crawford    Co.    f.    Borough, 

p.    3589. 

Sims,     Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Jones    z: 

Lafayette,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Xorfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

— — •  Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Sinclair,    Citizens'    R.    Co.    v. 

Mcintosh    v. 

Southern   Exp.    Co.   v. 


Singer  '<■.  Morchai'ts"  Despatcli 
Transp.     Co..    pp.    409,     549,    555. 

Singletarv  z\  Seaboard,  etc.,  Rail- 
way,   pp.    2347.    2348,    2911,    2926. 

Singleton  v.  Hilliard,  pp.  729,  739, 
982. 

Southwestern    Railroad    z\ 

f.   Southwestern     Railroad,     p. 

2087. 

Siniard,   Alabama,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 
Sinking   Fund   Cases,    p.    36. 
Sinnot     V.      Davenport,      i)p.      3478. 

3569. 
Sinnott    f.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1628,    2443. 
Sinsheimer     z\     New      York      Cent., 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    553. 
Sioux  City  Stock  Yards  Co.,  L^nitcd 

States    '■. 
Sioux    City    St.    R.    Co.,    Dougla';   ?■. 
Sioux     City     Tract.     Co.,     Bloom     ?■. 

Cohen  z\ 

Jaques    f. 

Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.  f.  First  Nat. 
Bank,    pp.    312,    3879. 

Jaques    f. 

Sioux    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    McClary 

V. 

■ Shriver   v. 

State    V.  • 

Sioux    Falls    Tract.    System,    Wright 

Sioux,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Blair   :•. 

Curtis    ''. 

Keller    z\ 

Sira    ''.    Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.    2032, 

2454,    2786. 
Sirk   c'.    Marion   St.   R.   Co.,   p.    223u. 
Sisson    z\    Cleveland,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    633,   638,   653,   655,   656,    IjIo, 

1382,    3404. 
Sites,    Cleveland,    etc..    Railway   ?'. 
622,714    Feet   of   Lumber,    McArthur 

Bros.    Co.    z'. 

Co.,    Drew    z\ 


R. 


Sixth    .\ve. 

Hoyt    7'. 

McCann    i\ 

Nichols    z\ 

— —  Wolfkiel    V. 

Siyufy  7'.    Pennsylvania   Co. 

Sizer,     Bowen     7'. 

Sizer    &    Co.,    Georgia,    etc.. 


p.    601. 
R.    C... 


Skantze    -■.    Keyser,    p.    3954. 
Skean    z'.     Schuylkill    Valley    Tract. 

Co.,   p.    2827. 
Skeels,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Skelding,     Hollingsworth     7'. 
Skellie,    Central    R.    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

f.   Central     R.,      etc.,      Co..      p. 

633. 

Skiles  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    2594. 

Wabash    R.    Co.    7'. 

Skilling    V.    Bollman,     73    Mo.     665. 

39    Am.    Rep.    537— pp.    351,    369, 

380,    381,    387,    401. 
-v.   Bollman,    6    Mo.    App.    7ii — 

p.    365. 
Skillman,    Blue    Grass   Tract.    Co.    7'. 

Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.     7'. 

Railroad    Co.     7'. 

Skinner  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
12    Iowa    191— pp.    518,    585. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     12 

Tex.    707,    709,    7    S.    W.    504— p. 
518. 

V.   Hall,    p.    3284. 

• Kansas,    etc.,     R.    Co.    t'. 

Southern    R.    Co.    7'. 

v.   Wilmington,     etc.,     K.     Co., 

pp.     1877,     1970. 

Skipper  f.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Rail- 
way,   p.    3537. 

Skipwith,    Walker    ?•. 

Skivington,    George    7'. 

Skottowe  z'.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    2143. 

Skow  v.  Green  Bay,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
pp.    1779,    1798,    2910. 

Skylark,     The. 


Slark   7'.    Broom,    p.    3864. 
Slater   7'.    Jewett,    p.    1672. 

Missouri    Pac.     R.     Co.    v. 

7'.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    pp. 

729,    733,     737,    749,     1036. 

Slator,    Austin,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7. 

Slatter  7'.    Oregon,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

2784,   3020. 
Slattery,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Slalton,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 
Slaugliter,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.    Denmead,    p.    878. 

Slavton,    Ex    parte. 

Sleade   z\    Payne,   pp.    511,    527,    531, 

900,    906. 
Sledge   z\    Reid,    p.    675. 
Sleeper,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.   Pennsylvania      R.     Co.,     pp. 

1560,    2439. 

Sleepy  Eye  Milling  Co.  7'.  Chicago, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    494. 

Sligo  7'.  Philadelphia  Rapid  Tran- 
sit   Co.,   p.    1803. 

Slimmer    v.    Merry,    p.    768. 

Sloahce,    Pease   7'. 

Sloan  '•.  Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.,  p. 
396. 

V.   Detroit        United      Railway, 

pp.    2809,    2898. 

7'.   Little    Rock    R.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    2695,    2843,    2899. 

7'.   North      American     Trar.sp., 

etc.,    Co.,    pp.    3015,    3987. 

Rome    R.    Co.   7'. 

Sloan    &    Co.    7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    K. 

Co.,    p.    782. 
Sloane  7'.    Southern   Cal.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1()38,      1715,     1718,      2432,      3027, 

3078,    3082,    3086,    3098. 
Sloat,    Savannaii,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Slocum,     Fairchild    7'. 

7'.   Fairchild,     pp.      946,      1003, 

1007. 

Sloga,    The. 

Sloman    v.    Great    Western    R.    Co., 

pp.    3149,    3150,    3154,    3184. 
Sloop,    Wabash    R.    Co.    v. 

7'.  Wabash    R.     Co.,      93      Mo. 

App.   605,  67   S.   W.   956— p.    1479. 

7'.   Wabash     R.     Co.,     117     Mo. 

App.     204,     84     S.     W.      Ill— pp. 
969,    1479. 

Slusser,    Pittsburg,   etc.,    R.    Co.   7'. 
Sly    7'.     Union     Depot     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2120,    2159. 
Slytiekl,    Dennis   v. 
Small     7'.     Moates,     p.      1225. 
Small    &    Co.,    Lewis,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Smalley     v.     Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2186,    2892,    2099. 
Smaoska    -'.     Cliicago    Citv    R.     Co., 

p.    2858.^ 
Smart,      National      Line       Steamship 

Co.    7'. 
Smedley    7'.      Ilestonville.      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1715,    1811,    1817. 
Smeltzcr   7'.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3341,    3604. 
Smiley    v.    Kansas,    p.    3775. 
Smissen,    Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 
Smith    7'.    Alabama,    pp.    3445,    3466, 

3473,     3478,      3480,      3481,      3482, 

3483,      3502,     3503,      3504,      3505, 

3551,    3570. 

American     ICxp.     Co.    7'. 

7'.   American      ICxp.      Co.,      pp. 

986,    1074,    3326. 

7'.   Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1491,   2100. 

— v.   Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,      p. 

2676. 

Augusta    R.,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

7'.  Austro-.\mericaii  Steam- 
ship  Co.,   p.    587. 

Ay  1  ward    7'. 

Baltimore     Steam 


V.   Baltimore,    etc 

846,   870,   880. 

7'.    Barker,     p.     1209. 


Packet     Co. 
R.    Co.,    pp. 


TAl'.LK  i)l-    CASES. 


CCLXXXI 


Smith    :•.    I'iriiiingham    R.,    etc.,    Ci  , 
pp.    2145,    2150,    2158,    2752. 

Birmingham    Union    R.    Co.    "■. 

r.   lioolh,     110      Fid.      680— p. 

4055. 

V.   liooth,     122     Ft<l.     626,     58 

C.    C.    A.    479— p.    3917. 

Hoston    Elev.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Hoston,    etc.,     Railroad,    pp. 

3114,  3122,  3124,  3129,  3151, 
3194. 

V.    liritain    Steamship    Co.,    pp. 

3887,    3913. 

f.   liritish,     etc..     Packet     Co., 

pp.    1696,    1838. 

IJrunswick,    etc.,     R.     Co.    -■. 

lliitler   r. 

Central    Railroad   f. 

Central   R.  Co.   f. 

Central    R.,    etc.,    Co. 

T.   Central     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     jip. 

1755,    1874,   2964. 

V.   Chamberlain,        pp.         1944, 

1950. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

^hicago    City    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago     City     R.     Co.,     p. 

2725. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    163 

•111.    App.    476— p.    2087. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,     K'.     Co.,     55 

Iowa   33,    7    N.    W.    398— p.    2538. 

-■.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    108 

Mo.  243,  18  S.  W.  971,  52  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  483— pp.  1732. 
1886,    1991,    2952. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    119 

Mo.   246,   23    S.   W.    784— p.    2886. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     43 

Wis.    686— pp.    139,    1197. 

V.  C.     IT.    &     1).     R.    Co.,    pp. 

3114,    3115,    3124. 

Clark  V. 

Clayton    ;•. 

V.   Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

609. 

Commonwealth     v. 

Cook    r. 

f.   Day,  p.   3992. 

TJfelaware    Bank    f. 

V.   Detroit       United       Railway, 

pp.  2362,  2909. 

?'.  Dinsmore,  p.  1103. 

Dorscy 

etc.,    R.    Co. 


Kast    Line, 
Edwards    z\ 
V.   Farr,    p. 
V.   Findley, 
Frazer  v. 
Gail,    pp. 


3549. 
p.    1141. 


..    __..,    ,,,..    1228.    1230. 
Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Georgetown,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Georgia    Pac.     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1717,     1922,     1923,    2240,    2253. 

Georgia   R'.    Co.   v. 

Georgia   R.,  etc.,   Co.   r. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Goss,    pp.    1218,    1219. 

f.   Great    Northern    U.    Co.,    92 

Minn.     11,     99     N.     \V.     47— pp. 
1442,    1456. 

-•.   Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    15 

X.    Dak.     195,     107    X.    VV.    56— 
pp.    3749,    3753. 

V.  Griffith,    p.    852. 

Guilford  V. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

H.   &   T.    C.    R.    Co.   t: 

Haille   v. 

Harrison   f. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

V.   Hughes,    p.     1068. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Indianapolis    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2663. 

International     Mercantile     Ma- 
rine  Co.  T'. 

International,    etc..     R.    Co.    "'. 

f.   International,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    1092. 


Smith,    Ives   !■. 

Jennings  -.■. 

r.  Jefferson      Bank,      pp.      375, 

382. 

Jerome    t: 

Kansas,  etc.,   R.   Co.  ;•. 

Kellogg   'c: 

f.   King's     Mountain     R.     Co., 

p.    877. 

i\   Kingston    City     R.    Co.,     p. 

2232. 

Lake   Shore,  etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

T.   Lake     Shore,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    22,    59,    60,    3500. 

■ V.    Danda,   pp.   342,   343,   407. 

V.   Lee,    p.    540. 

— —   Leigh     V. 

Lewis    "'. 

7'.    Lewis,    pp.    493.    494,    682. 

>•.   Linden     Oil    Co.,     pp.    478, 

480,    481,    547. 

Logan    V. 

■ Louisville,    etc..    Packet    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   124 

Ind.  394,  24  N.  E.  753— pp.  1549, 
1553,    1569,    2577,   2608. 

■ 7'.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    95 

Ky.  11,  15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  390,  23 
S.  W.  652,  22  L.  R.  •>.  72— pp. 
2530,    2532,    2533,    2632. 

Mclwen    z'. 

-'.  Manhattan  R.   Co.,   pp.   201, 

2422. 

X'.  Mashen,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

511. 

Merchants'     Despatch    r. 

Merchants'   Despatch   Co.   f. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     Iv.     Co., 

69  X.  Y.  S.  176,  59  App.  Div. 
OO— p.   2895. 

■;•.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

86  X.  Y.  S.  1087,  92  App.  Div. 
213— p.     2809. 

T'.   Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1289,    1451. 

Milwaukee,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.     i\ 

V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

296,    304. 

Missouri,    etc.,     R.     Co.    r. 

-■.   Xashua,    etc.,    Railroad,    pp. 

529,    896,    901,    912. 

•  Xewcll    V. 

■;•.   Xew    Haven,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  728,  733,  740,  1273,  1321, 
1353. 

-'.  New   Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    500. 

f.  New     York     Cent.     R.     Co. 

(N.  Y.),  43  Barb.  225— pp.  817, 
828,    3183,    3304,    3396. 

f.  Xew    York    Cent.     R'.     Co., 

24  N.  Y.  222— pp.  1567,  2098, 
2099. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

41   N.   Y.   620— p.   3394. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

46  N.  J.  L.  7,  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.    399— p.    1816. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(X.    Y.),    29    Barb.    132— p.    1578. 

-■.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

149  Pa.  249,  24  Atl.  304— pp. 
112,   192. 

Nichols    -'. 

T'.  Xorfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2042. 

z\  Xorth       American      Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    734,    3985,    3986. 

■:■.   Xorth    Carolina    R.    Co.,    60 

X.    C.    202— p.    3191. 

V.  North    Carolina    R.    Co.,    64 

N.  C.  235— pp.  1008,  1039,  1042. 
3162,    3163. 

z:  North    Carolina    R.    Co.,    68 

N.     C.     107— p.     833. 

Z-.   Xorth   Carolina   R.   Co..    147 

X.  C.  448.  61  S.  E.  266,  17  L. 
R.  .\.,  X.  S.,  179— pp.  1790. 
2SoO. 


Smith  :■.  Xorth  Germa  \  Lloyd 
Steamship  Co.,  142  Fed.  1032-- 
pp.    4011,    4032. 

-'.  Xorth  German  Lloyd  Steam- 
ship Co.,  151  Fed.  222,  80  C.  C. 
A.   574— p.   4033. 

Nugent    :•. 

Ohio,  etc.,   R.   Co.  z: 

Olsen    f. 

Paige   I. 

Palmer     Transfer    Co.     i 

-•.   Paul,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   p. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    i'. 

f.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R. 

87  Md.  48,  38  Atl.    1072— p. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     K 

11  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  Rep.  555 — p. 

i:   Pittsburg,      etc.,       R. 

pp.    2470,    3084. 

Prescott.    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

f.  Pullman      Co.,      pp. 

3230,    3241,    3242. 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co. 

Railroad   Co.   f. 

Rapid    Trans.    R.    Co.    v. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V.   Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

2168. 

Rixford  v. 

Roberts   f. 

-■.  St.    Louis    Transit    Co., 

1820,    2337. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

J'.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

647,     132     S.     W. 


2117. 

Co.. 
3072. 

Co.. 
16;9. 

Co., 


3205, 


pp. 


Ark, 

841. 


96 
926— p. 


Mo. 

2079. 


St.    Louis,   etc.,    R. 
418,    55    Am.    Rep. 


Co.,   85 
380— p. 

Co.,    9 


V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'. 

Mo.    App.    598— p.    2079. 

V.  St.    Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   181 

U.  S.  248,  45  L.  Ed.  847,  21 
S.    Ct.    603— p.    3539. 

-  z:  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1515,  1517,  1746,  1749.  1750. 
2002,    2696,    2697,    2698.    2845. 

-  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
2639. 

Seaboard     Air     Line     Railway 

z:  Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1512,    1513,    2593. 

Seaboard,    etc..    Railway   :•. 

v.   Seward,    pp.    11,       768,    796. 

z:   Sieveking    (Eng.),    4    El.    & 

Bl.    945— p.    713. 

-•.   Sieveking    (Eng.),    5    El.    & 

B.  589— p.    701. 

— ■  South  Covington,  etc.,  St.  R. 
Co.   V. 

!■.  Southern      Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

412,    421,     570. 

Southern     R.     Co.     z\ 

z:   Southern     Railway,     SO     S. 

C.  1,  61    S.    E.   205— p.   2251. 

z:   Southern  Railway,  70  S. 

E.  1057,  88  S.  C.  421,  34  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  708— pp.  1606,  1607. 
1609,  1632,  1634,  2463,  3090. 
3091. 

Z-.   Southern  Railway,  88  S. 

C.   541,   71    S.   E.   47— p.    1639. 

-•.   Southern     Railway.     89     S. 

C.  415,  71  S.  E.  989,  36  L-  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  230— pp.  165,  311. 
14t>0,    1461,    3273,    3396,    3403. 

Sprague  v. 

Springer    Transp.    Co.    :•. 

f.   State,         26  '"enn.         (7 

Humph.)     43— p.     2062. 

:■    State,    46    S.    W.    566.    100 

Tenn.  ( U.  Pickle)  494,  41  L- 
R  A.  432— pp.  21,  1945,  1946, 
1947.    3511. 

z:  State   (Tex.   Cr.   App.).   146 

S.    W.    900— p.    3508. 

Stephen    z: 

Texas,   etc..   R.   Co.   z: 

t .  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

250 1,    2503,    2504. 


CCLXXXII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Smith  f.    The   Wall,   p.   861. 

-•.   Turner,    p.    3565. 

t'.  Union      Trunk      Line,      pp. 

1805,    2279. 

Wegener    -■. 

Wegner    f. 

-•.  Western    Railway,    pp.    732, 

738,   746. 

f.  Western     Union    Tel.     Co., 

83  Ky.   104,  7  Kv.   L.   Rep.   22,  4 
Am.    St.    Rep.    126— p.    1119. 

Z-.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

72    S.    C.    116,    51    S.    E.    537— p. 
643. 

-•.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.   2832.   3049. 

-■.  Wrightsville,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

p.   2130. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Young  '•. 

Smith  Bros.  &  Co.  f.  New  Orleans, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    3310. 
Smith    Co.    V.    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    pp.    1210,    1211,    1214,    1229. 
Smith    Grain    Co.,    Russel    v. 
Smith   Meat  Co.  j'.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 

Co.,   p.    1413. 
Smith    &    Co.    z:    Southern    R.    Co., 

pp.    162,    163. 
Smith,    etc.,    Co.,    Schindler   r. 
Smitha,    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1087,    1097,    1098,    1411,    1412, 
1413. 

Smithers     v.     Wilmington     City     R. 

Co..    pp.    1744,    1821,    1840,    1865, 

2667. 
Smithson,    Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co. 

V. 

Smitson   v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    pp. 

1895,      1921,      1926,      2360,      2907, 

2910,   2987,   2995. 
Smoak    -•.    Savannah,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    2500,   2508,   2733. 
Smokeless   Fuel   Co.,    Davis   -•. 
Smoat    V.     Kentucky,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1948. 
Smurthwaite   -•.    Wilkins,    p.    365. 
Smyrl   f.   Xiolon,   pp.   729,   733,   737, 

749,    815,    822. 
Smyser,   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v. 
Smyth  V.   Ames,  pp.   34,   36,   37,  44, 

46,    47,    49,    50,     54,    58,    60,    61, 

115,    116,    129,    130,    3447,    3491, 

3497. 
Smythe,  Atchison,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Smoker,  Newman  &  Co.   ;■. 
Smoker    Merchandise    Co.,    Arkadel- 

phia  Mill.  Co.  f. 
Smuck,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Snap,    The. 

Snare,    etc.,    Co.,    McCherry   v. 
Snasball,    Metropolitan    R.    Co.    v. 
Snashall     v.     Metropolitan     R.     Co., 

pp.    2180,    2668. 
Snead,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    v. 

Snediker   v.    Nassau    Elect.    R.    Co., 

p.   2813. 
Sneed,    Backhouse   v. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Snell,    Cincinnati    St.    R'.    Co.    v. 

Ryberg    v. 

Wright    f. 

Snellbaker     v.     Paducah,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1600,    2467,    2663,    3096. 
Snelling   v.    Yetter,    p.    883. 
Snider     v.     Adams     Exp.     Co.,     pp. 

982,    984,    986,    1007,    3326,    3346. 

Augusta,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

v.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2812. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Snipes    V.    Norfolk,    etc..    Railroad, 

pp.    1518,    1561,    1902. 
Snow  V.    Carruth,   pp.    292,   3935. 

V.  Chatfield,    p.     2629. 

Cowing   V. 


Snow    v.    Eastern    R'.    Co.,    p.    3191. 

z:  Fitchburg  R.   Co.,   pp.    1787, 

2078. 

V.  Indiana,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

335,   812,    814,    3268. 

Nourse  V. 

f.  The  Inca,   p.   528. 

Snowden    z'.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2222. 

f.  Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans. 

Co.,   p.    2860. 

Snyder  v.  Colorado  Springs,  etc., 
K.   Co.,  p.   2031. 

f.  Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1569. 

f.  Michigan      Tract.      Co.,      p. 

2821. 

V.  Natchez,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2506. 

Southern    R.     Co.    f. 

i'.   Supreme    Ruler,    p.    3830. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

V.  L'nion    Depot    Co.,    p.     193. 

Societe,   The. 

Soder,   House  v. 

Sohmer   &   Co.,    Clapp    Bros.    &    Co. 

Solan,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■. 
•  f.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2098. 
Sollitt,    Hartford    Deposit    Co.    v. 
Soloman    z\    Adams     Exp.     Co.,    pp. 

796,    949,    1069. 
Solomon    r.    Central    Park,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  pp.  2191,  2199,  2263. 

v.   Manhattan   R.   Co.,   p.   2155. 

V.  Philadelphia,  etc..  Steam- 
boat Co.,  pp.  891,  892,  896,  901, 
904. 

Soly,    Jesson    "'. 

Somer    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1983. 
Somerset    Tract.    Co.,    Withee    "■. 
Somerville  Mercantile  Agency,  Gulf, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Sommer   z'.   Gate,    p.    723. 
Sommerland,     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R'. 

Co.    v. 
Sommerville   v..    Merrill,    p.    805. 
Sondheim,   Johanson   v. 
Sonia    Cotton    Oil    Co.    i'.    Steamer 

Red     River,     pp.     332,     333,     337. 

340,     342,     349,    683,     1016,     1142, 

1153,    1154. 
Sonier   f.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2878,    2879. 
Sonneborn    &    Co.    z\     Southern    R. 

Co.,     pp.     742,    3142,     3143,     3144. 
Sootsma,      Kalamazoo      Hack,      etc., 

Co.   z: 
Soper,  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  f. 

v.  Pontiac,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1110,    nil,    1114! 

V.  Tyler,    p.    435. 

Sorensen    z'.    Keyset,    p.    3954. 
Sorenson    z'.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co., 

pp.     1762,     1866. 
Sorrell  v.   Central   Railroad,   p.    124. 
Sottile    Bros.,     Southern     Exp.     Co. 

v. 
Souders,   Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.   v. 
Soule    V.    Rodocanachi,    p.    828. 
Soumet    f.    National    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

321,    409,    990,    994,    995. 
South,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 
South     Amboy,     Susquehanna     Coal 

Co.    V. 
South      Atlantic      Steamship      Line, 

Mclntyre   Bros.   &   Co.   v. 
South    Bend    z'.    Turner,    p.    2634. 
South     Boston     R'.     Co.,     Bradshaw 

Wakefield  v. 

South    Bound    R.    Co.,    Heath    -'. 
South     Carolina     Ins.     Co.,     Spring 

South     Carolina     R.     Co.,     Avinger 

Bamberg   '■. 

Bradford    v. 

z:   Bradford,    p.    841. 


South    V-arolina    R.    Co.,    Dill    v. 

Faust    X'. 

-  Hall    z: 

Inman    v. 

Knox    "'. 

Mavbin    z\ 

Miller   z: 

Nettles    V. 

V.  Nix,    pp.    2411,    2415,    2472, 

2473,    2480,    2482,    2493. 

Quinn   z\ 

Redding  v. 

Renneker   r. 

Shaw  V. 

Simms     v. 

Slater    v. 

\'an     Winkle     &     Co.     z. 

Wardlaw   z'. 

South    Carolina,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    An- 
derson   ■;■. 
Appleby     v. 

Davis   V. 

Iseman    v. 

Pickens  v. 

South  Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Du- 
fresne,  65  N.  E.  1075,  200  111. 
456— pp.     1702,    2151,    2890,    2966. 

• z\   Dufresne,      102      111.      App. 

493— pp.     2295,     2332. 

V.   Moltrum,    pp.    2577,    2586. 

v.  Zerler,    pp.    2595,    2632.    * 

South     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Calumet    Elect.    R.    Co.,    p.    113. 
South     Covington,     etc.,     R. 
Beatty,    p.    1536. 

f.   Covington,    p.     3525. 

v.  Hossfeld,    p.    2321. 

Miller    '•. 

• V.  Quinn,       pp. 

3060. 

V.   Raymer,    p. 

z\   Riegler,    pp. 

Taylor    f. 

i'.   Ware,     pp. 

White    v. 

Wise    v. 

South  Covington,  etc.,  St.  K.  Co. 
V.   Barr,   pp.    1846,    1988. 

Brice    c'. 


Co. 


1644,      1762, 


2967. 
2950,   2972. 


>127,    2260. 


-'.   Burns,    p. 

"'.    Core,    p. 

V.   Crutcher, 

2219. 

Dierig   ?•. 

7-.   Geis,     p. 


2784. 
1904. 
pp.     2005,     2127, 

2825. 


f.  Hardy,  pp.  2194,  2300. 

f.  McCleave,  pp.  1959,  2203. 

z:   Physioc,  p.  2198. 

z:   Smith,   pp.   2320,   2684, 

2882,  2956. 

South    Dakota    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Hess 

South     Devon    R.     Co.,     Beal    v. 
South     I''astern     R.     Co.,     Barbour 

South  Florida  R.  Co.  -•.  Rhoads, 
pp.  193,  194,  196,  2122,  2420, 
2421,    2423,    2479,    2625,    3106. 

South  Orange,  etc..  Tract.  Co., 
Wheeler    -•. 

South    Pac.    Railroad,     Faulkner    z\ 

South   Side   Elevated   R.    Co.,   Lakin 

V. 

South  Side  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Trich. 
p.    3001. 

South  Staffodshire  R.  Co.,  Scott- 
horn    z\ 

South,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Batton    v. 

V.   Henlcin,     52     Ala.     606,     23 

Am.    Rep.    578— pp    210,    242,    726, 
732,     740,     748,    828,     945,     1038, 

1339,    1396,    1399,    1405. 
Hcnlein,     56     Ala.     368— p. 


1329, 
1073.' 


HLififman,     pp.      1862, 


2255, 


823. 


2067, 
2126, 


Schaufler,     pp.     2114, 
2257,    2364,    2648. 
Thompson,    p.    2636. 
Wilson,    pp.    663,    810,    820 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCLXXXIII 


South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Wood,  66 
Ala.  167,  41  Am.  Rep.  749,  9 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  419— pp. 
530,  536,  537,  726,  732,  748,  819, 
820,    899,    900,    960. 

V.  Wood,   71    Ala.   215,  46   Am. 

Rep.     309,     16     Am.     &     Eng.     R. 
Cas.   267— po.    818,   819. 

V.  Wood,  72  Ala.   451,   18  Am. 

&     Eng.     R.     Cas.     634— pp.     494, 
599,    848. 

Southard  •<-.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  325,  958,  9(.9,  970,  996, 
1032,     1033,    1041,    3312,    3363. 

Southard  Exp.  Co.  v.  Moore,  pp. 
969,    970. 

Southeastern  R.   Co.,   Munster  v. 

7'.   Railway    Comm'rs,    p.     221. 

Southerland     v.     Atlantic,     etc.,     K. 

Co.,  p.  1424,  1462,  1479. 

1'.   Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1502,   2517,   2696. 

Southern  Bank,  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.   V. 

Southern  Bldg.,  etc.,  Ass'n  r.  Law- 
son,    pp.    1721,    1751. 

Southern  California  Motor  Road 
Co.,    Franklin    '■. 

Southern  California  R.  Co.,  Proc- 
tor  f. 

Sloane    v. 

Southern    Cotton    Oil    Co.    v.    Mer- 
chants',     etc.,      Transp.      Co.,      p. 
3915. 
Southern    Elect.    R.    Co.,    Posch    i\ 
Southern    Exp.    Co.,    Alslop   z'. 

f.   Armstead,      pp.      493,      535, 

802,  896,  982,  1007,  1010,  1066. 

V.   Ashford,   pp.   767,   769, 

1332,    1473,    1483. 

V.   Railey,   pp.   765,  807,  826. 

Bank  r. 

f.   Bank,    pp.    751,    1087,    1091. 

V.   Barnes,    pp.    945,    962,    963, 

981,  1005,     1043,     3347. 

i:  B.    R.    Elect.    Co.,   p.    582. 

V.    Briggs,    pp.     354,    653,    658, 

665,    1061. 

Bruhl   -•. 

Broadwood    -•. 

Caldwell   V. 

v.  Caldwell,     pp.     1083,     1084, 

1087,    1090,    1091,    1100,    1101. 

7'.   Caperton,      pp.       485,      489, 

982,  1007,   1066,   1067,   1087,   1091. 

Carroll    v. 

Cigar    Co.    v. 

Cohen     v. 

V.  Craft,     pp.    296,    490. 

f.   Crook,    pp.    582,    767,    769, 

1006,    1007,    1060,    1097. 

z'.   Dickson,    pp.    335,    542,    543, 

545,    546,    551. 

Dixie    Cigar    Co.    v. 

Eiswald    V. 

V.   Ensley,     p.     3576. 

Everett    -■. 

f.   Everett,    pp.    531,    544,    545, 

547,    550,    759. 

z:   Fant     Fish     Co.,     pp.     478, 

513,    542,    546,    787,    789. 

Fine   &   Bro.   v. 

Fitzsimmons    v. 

z:   Fox,     pp.     760,     809,     1051, 

1273,  1329,  1331,  1466,  1467. 

r.  Gibbs,  pp.  431,  1077. 

Girardeau  z\ 

r.   Glenn,     pp.     733,    734,    750, 

955,   956,    1087,    1090,   1106. 

V.  Goldberg,    p.    3539. 

T.   Hanaw,    pp.    430,    431,    568, 

652,  653,  655,  660,  664,  680,  940. 
948,  950,  954,  968,  1052,  1057, 
1068,  1075. 

Harper  Furniture  Co.  -•. 

z:   Hess,  pp.  767,  770,  3179. 

3183,    3394,    3395,    3403. 

z:  Hill,    81    Ark.    1,    98    S.    W. 

371— p.     1062. 

r.   Hill,   84   Ark.    362,    368,    105 

S.    W.    877— p.    846. 


Southern    Exp.    Co.    z:    Holla:  d,    pp. 
535,    889. 

v.  Hood,    p.     3578. 

z:  Hunnicutt,     pp.     945,     1087, 

1088,    1099. 

:■.  Jacobs,     pp.         851.       1462, 

1463,    3410. 

V.  Kaufman,      pp.      753.      756, 

894. 

z:  Keeler,    pp.    762,    936,    1051, 

1057,    1059. 

Kember   z\ 

Kremer    v. 

Lambert-Murry    Co.    z\ 

Lasky    z: 

Levy    z\ 

z:   Long,    p.    3815. 

McTeer    Z'. 

:.   McX'eigh,    pp.    7,    267,    268, 

269,  272,  273,  284,  286,  771,  796, 
804,    883,    2563. 

z:  Marks,   etc.,   Co.,   p.   3369. 

Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.   Meyer-  Co.,    pp.    980,    3332. 

V.   Mobile,    p.    3577. 

V.  Moon,     pp.     210,    213,    728, 

948,    977,    978,    979,    981,    1039. 

Morris-Scarboro-Moffitt         Co. 

V. 

Mosher    v. 

Mosher    &    Co.    z: 

z:   Newby,     pp.     7,     269,     270, 

285,  727,  732,  748,  767,  962, 
968,  969,  1035,  1040,  1061,  3257, 
3291.    3300. 

O'Bannon   -■. 

Oskamp  !■. 

V.  Oskamp,   etc.,    Co.,    pp.    539, 

543. 

V.  Owens,     p.     862. 

z:  Palmer,    pp.    482.    582,    586, 

727,   962,    1019,   3300,   3377. 

V.  Pope,    pp.    763,   802. 

Porter    z: 

Purcell    f. 

z:  Purcell,    pp.    727,    871,    879, 

948,  961,  962,  967,  981,  1003, 
1050,    3257,   3291,    3300. 

z:  Ramey,      pp.      1370,      1454, 

1456. 

-.'.   Rose     Co.,     pp.      187,     208, 

236,    239. 

J'.  Ruth     &      Son,      pp.      1102, 

1105. 

St.    John    V. 

z:  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    10 

Fed.     869— p.     7. 

z:   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    5 

Myers  Fed.   Dec,   §    1511— p.   210. 

Z-.   Saks,    pp.    3305,    3310,    3395, 

3398. 

z:   Seide,    pp.    821,    1039,    1075. 

f.  Shea,  pp.  727,  962,  3257, 

3291,  3295,  3300. 

f.   Sinclair,    pp.    514,    551. 

Smith    -■. 

z:   Sottile    Bros.,    pp.    578,    579. 

V.  State,    pp.    7,    239. 

z:   Stevenson,    pp.     1071,    1105, 

1107.     1108,     1110,     1112. 

Thompson   z\ 

V.  Thornton,    pp.    876,    3299. 

United  States  Watch  Case  Co. 

z:  Urquhart,     pp.     3367,     3393. 

J'.   \'an    Meter,    pp.    554,    3275. 

■ '  Virginia-Carolina         Chemical 

Co.    z: 

N'isanska    -■. 

z:  Williams,   p.    544. 

z\   Womack,   pp.    729,   750,   751, 

752,  761,  777.  811,  822,  957,  962, 
992,     1020. 

Wood    z: 

z\   Wood,    p.    761. 

Southern     Flour,     etc.,     Co.,     Louis- 
ville,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:  Northern    Pac.     R.     Co.,    p. 

^  3543. 

Southern    Indiana    Exp.    Co.,    Amer- 
ican   E.xp.    Co.    z: 


Southern      Indiana       Exp.       Co.      f. 

United    States    Exp.    Co.,    pp.    27, 

3431,    3614. 
Southern      Indiana      R.      Co.,      First 

Trust,    etc..    Bank   :■. 

Z-.   Railroad     Comm.,     pp.     35, 

44,    76. 

Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
gess Co.,  pp.  950,  954,  1120, 
1121,  1194,  1284,  1322,  13761, 
3853. 

V.   Butler,    p.    2707. 

V.  Caylor,    p.     1778. 

Cherokee    Nation    v. 

V.  Clark,   pp.    3121,    3151. 

z:   Cox,  95  S.  W.  1124,  43 

Tex.  Civ.  .App.  79 — pp.   1293, 
1335,  1343,  1344,  3650. 

z.   Cox,  47  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  84. 

103  S.  W.  1122— pp.  218,  443. 
1296. 

z:   Crump,   pp.   1322,   3405, 

3416,  3417. 

z:   Curtis   Bros..   pp.   1028, 

1086,  1902,  1096,  1097,  1102. 

v.   Emmett,  pp.  1706,  1929. 

z:   Hinsdale,   pp.   198,   199, 

2122,   2435,   2436,   2467,   3085, 
3086. 

Minter  Bros.  :■. 

7.  Morris,  100  Tex.  611,  612. 

102  S.  W.  396— pp.  485,  490, 
1441. 

z:   Morris  (Tex.  Civ.  .App.), 

99  S.  W.  433— pp.  450.  1314. 

z:   Pavey,   pp.   1923,   2239, 

2747. 

z:   Rice,  pp.  2409,  2411,  2412, 

3078,  3079,  3083,  3085.  3093, 
3096. 

z:   Samples,  pp.  248,  1319. 

I'.  Sanford,  p.  2856. 

V.   State,  p.  3511. 

v.  Wallace,     pp.      2478,     2711, 

2849. 

7'.  Walsh,      pp.       1715,       1813. 

2694. 

I'.   Yarbrough,    p.    1331. 

Southern    Pacific,    Schultz   z\ 
Southern    Pac.    Co.,    .-Xmes   -■. 

V.  Anderson,      pp.      451,      971, 

978,   997,    1028.    1054,    1055,    1076. 
1297,    1326,    1350,    1374,    1398. 

.Arlington     Heights     Fruit     Co. 

— ^  7'.  Arnett,  50  C.  C.  A.  17.  Ill 
Fed.  849— pp.  458,  1353,  1444. 
1461,    1462,    1465. 

:•.  Arnett,     126     Fed.     75,     61 

C.    C.    A.    131— pp.    1305,    1345. 

Bader  7-. 

7'.   Bailey,       pp.       1606,      2769, 

2776. 

7-.   Bartine,   pp.    35,    39.   44.    45. 

48,    50. 

Beckman  7'. 

7'.    Bender,   p.    2532. 

Bertonneau   7'. 

Blackwell  7'. 

7.   Board,     78     Fed.     236— pp. 

26,    44,    47,    52. 

7.   Board,    87    Fed.    21— p.    51. 

:■.   Booth,    p.    50o. 

Braunton    z: 

Brigham    z: 

Brooks   7'. 

Buswell    7'. 

7'.   Campbell,     pp.     3536.     3537. 

Carstens    Packing    Co.    7'. 

-■.   Cavin,    p.    2(1/0. 

Colfax   Mountain    Fruit   Co.    7-. 

7'.   Colorado     Fuel,     etc.,     Co.. 

pp.    3668,    3t)74,    3788,   3832. 

7-.   Crenshaw,    pp.     3332,    3440, 

3u54,    3840. 

Darnell-Taenzer     Lumber     Co. 

Delmonte   z: 

Donlon    Bros.    :•. 

Drummond    7'. 

Edson   7'. 


CCLXXXIV 


T.M'.LK    OF    CASES. 


Southern    Pac.    Co.,    Elliott    ;■. 

Esler    f. 

Evans   :. 

Fitzgerald    f. 

Frank     Simpson    Fruit    Co.     f. 

Gass   -■. 

Gorman    v. 

f.   Hall.    p.    2731. 

f.   Hamilton,    p.    3024. 

'■.   Hogan,      pp.       1744,      2604, 

2693.    2696,    2945. 

Hoskins    f. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 

V.   Interstate  Commerce  Comm  , 

177   Fed.   963— p.    3798. 

V.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm  , 

188  Fed.  241— pp.  536,  3728, 
3793. 

f.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm  , 

200  U.  S.  536,  50  L.  Ed.  585, 
26  S.  Ct.  330— pp.  3258,  3267, 
3600,  3601,  3604,  3605,  3634, 
3667,  3724,  3725,  3-729,  3741, 
3751,  3752,  3757,  3786,  3787, 
3796. 

V.  Interstate  Commerce  Comm  , 

219  U.  S.  433,  55  L.  Ed.  283, 
31  S.  Ct.  288— pp.  3670,  3671, 
3672,  3677,  3797,  3799,  3803, 
3804,  3805. 

Johnson    v. 

Judice     f. 

ketcheson    v. 

Leonard    v. 

Lynn    v. 

McAllister    v. 

McCollum    V. 

McCurrie    f. 

McDermon    v. 

Marlow   v. 

Mathis    V. 

!■.   Meadors    &    Co.,    pp.    3606, 

3661,     3663. 

Mering  v. 

Morgan   v. 

Murphy    v. 

Nelson  f. 

Nichols   '■. 

Osterhoudt    v. 

Patterson    v. 

V.   Patterson,     pp.     1605,     2472. 

V.   Phillipson,    pp.     640,      1078. 

Pierce   v. 

V.  Pool,    p.    3792. 

-. V.  Railroad     Comm.,     p.     3496. 

!■.   Redding,      pp.     1152,      3678. 

3730,    3753,    3755. 

Richmond    v. 

Robinson    t. 

v.   Robinson,    p.    146. 

Sambuck    v. 

San    Bernardino    v. 

Saunders    v. 

V.   Schoer,    pp.    745,    746. 

Schuyler    v. 

V.   Schuyler,     p.    3005. 

Sessions   v. 

Sherman   v. 

■ Smitson    v. 

State   <■. 

V.  Tarin,    pp.    1982,    2899. 

Teale   v. 

Thompson  v. 

Tower   Co.   i'. 

United  States  v. 

z:  United     States,     pp.      3679, 

3793. 

Walther   r. 

Wedckind   v. 

Wieland    v. 

Woods   V. 

Southern   Pac.    R.    Co.,    Bland    v. 

f.   D'Arcais,    p.    763,    828,    849, 

1077,    1079. 

f.   Duncan,    p.    864. 

Fisher  v. 

f.  Haas     rrex.),     17     S.     VV. 

600— p.    1146. 

r.   Haas    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    21 

S.   W.    1021— p.    1146. 


1130, 


Southern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    Ilouck    '•. 

Hunter    f. 

Irelson  f. 

I'.  Johnson,        pp.       628,      629, 

1314. 

r.    Kennedy,    p.    2484. 

Kerrigan    r. 

■ Knight    &    Co.    f. 

z:   Lyon   &    Co.,    99   Miss.    186, 

54  So.  728,  34  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
234.  Ann.  Cas.  19131),  800— p. 
3332. 

•;•.   Lvon     &     Co.      (Miss.),     54 

So.    784— p.    3332. 

-'.  Maddox    S:     Co.,     pp.     724, 

763.  863,  931,  954,  1051,  1054, 
1055,  1069,  1072,  1073,  1076, 
1077,  1078,  1079,  1137,  1322, 
1398,   3368. 

z\   Meadors    &    Co.,    p.    3302. 

Mitchell    r. 

Nelson  '■. 

7'.   Philipson,     pp.      816, 

1131. 

Roberts   i'. 

Santa  Clara  v. 

Saunders    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wilson    7'. 

Southern  Pac.  Terminal  Co.  r.  In- 
terstate Commerce  Comm.,  pp. 
3608,    3638.    3639,    3655,    3740. 

Southern  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co., 
Blum   V. 

Southern     Railroad,     Fort    '■. 

Kibler   V. 

Myers    T'. 

Southern    R.    Ass'n,    Crawford    <■. 

Summer  v. 

Southern  R.  Co.  ■:•.  Adams.  115  Ca. 
705,   42   S.    E.   35— pp.    1408,    1412. 

V.  Adams,    52    Ind.    App.    322, 

100  N.  E.  773— pp.  2585,  2645, 
2693,    2696. 

V.  Adams   Mach.    Co.,   pp.   528, 

529,  839,  849,  872,  874,  880,  904, 
906,    959. 

Aiken    v. 

V.  Aldredge,      pp.       907,      910, 

913,   917,   918,   919,   920. 

Aldrich    V. 

Allen-Fleming    Co.    v. 

f.   Allison,    pp.    587,    590,    591, 

816. 

Ammons    '•. 

Anniston    t'. 

•  V.   Anniston        Foundry,       etc., 

Co.,    p.    135. 

Asheboro,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

z:  Asheville,     p.     3559. 

Askew    &    Co.    7'. 

Atkinson    t'. 

V.  Atlanta  Nat.    Bank,   jjp.    549, 

584. 

'■.   Atlanta      Sand,     etc.,       Co., 

pp.  96,  115,  159,  160,  101,  173. 
247. 

z'.  Atlanta      Stove     Works,      ]>. 

55. 

.\uld   z: 

Austin-Stephenson    Co. 

I'.   Bandy,       pp.      2125, 

2255,    2820. 

Barbour   ?■. 

i:   Barfield,    p.     2118. 

V.   Barlow,      pp.      1628, 

2092,  2093,  2465,  3083. 

Bell    V. 

Berry    v. 

z'.   Bickley,    etc.,    Co.,    pp.    286, 

3134,   3137,    3301. 

Bird   z: 

f.   Bivings,    pp.    269,    1346. 

Blue  Ridge  Collection  .Agen- 
cy  V. 

Bluthenthal    z: 

Bohannon   '■. 

V.   Born    Steel    Range    Co.,    p. 

529. 

Bo  wen    v. 

■ Branan   z\ 


2137, 


1629, 


Southern  R.  Co.  f.  Brewer,  32  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  43,  105  S.  W.  160— pp. 
2696,   3069. 

'■.  Brewer,  32     Kv.  L.  Rep. 

1374,  108  S.  W.  936— pp.  2673. 
2702,  3068.  3069. 

z\    ]?rooks,  pp.  1683, 

1721,  1992. 

Brooks  Mfg.  Co.  v. 

f.  Brown,  p.  3543. 

z'.   Bryant,   pp.   2775,   3047. 

3061. 

—  Bryce  -'. 

'■.    Bunnell,      pp.      2410,      2460, 

2709,    2710,    2713. 

z\    Burgess,      pp.       1754.      1919, 

1928,    2362,    2570,    2641,    2954. 

Burlington    Lumber    Co.    z\ 

Z-.   Burlington       Lumber       Co., 

pp.    3492,    3494. 

Cable    -'. 

Calder    f. 

Callaway    z\ 

Canandiagua     Nat.     Bank    f. 

Cardwell    -'. 

• Carter   v. 

Carter   &   Co.    z'. 

t'.   Cassell,    pp.    1629,    3103. 

Chattanooga     Board     of    'I'rad.- 

Chiles  '■. 

?'.   Christian,     p.     2433. 

Citizens',    etc.,    Bank    ■:•. 

Clanton    z-. 

r.   Clariday,    pp.    2251,    2357. 

V.   Clay,    pp.    2544,    2820. 

Clegg    z\ 

z\   Cofer,     pp.     640,     692,     695. 

Coleman    z\ 

c\   Coleman,   pp.   652,    661,   667, 

670,    671,    673,    680. 

Collins   z'. 

z\   Commonwealth,     33    Ky.     L. 

Rep.  430,  110  S.  W.  372— pp. 
177,    181. 

V.   Commonwealth,         98        \'a. 

758,  37  S.  E.  294— pp.  105,  118, 
122,    127. 

-'.   Commonwealth,       107        \'a. 

771,  60  S.  E.  70,  17  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S.,    364— p.    3487. 

Cook  V. 

Corporation    Comm.    ?•. 

Coursey    z\ 

-■.   Coursey,    pp.    2291,    2399. 

Cousar     Mercantile     Co.     z\ 

Coyle    z'. 

Crawford   z\ 

z:   Crone,      pp.  2056,       2608, 

2644,    2770. 

-•.   Crowder,    130  Ala.    256,    30 

So.    592— p.    1754. 

z:   Crowder,  135  Ala.  417,  33 

So.  335— pp.  2602,  2893. 

V.   Cullen,  221  HI.  392,  24  R. 

R.  R.  195,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  195,  77  N.  E.  470— 
pp.  1503,  1567,  2947. 

V.   Cullen,  122  111.  App.  293 

—p.  1569. 

V.   Cunningham,  152  .\la.  147, 

44  So.  658— pp.  1742,  2975. 

z\   Cunningham,     123     Ga.     90, 

50  S.  E.  979— pp.  2118,  2119, 
2160^,    2378,    2682. 

■ Curtis    z\ 

Dagnall    z'. 

v.   Daughdrill,    pp.    1607,    1669. 

Davidson    I)evelo])ment    Co.    v. 

Davis  ?'. 

z:   Davis,    p.    3009. 

v.   Dawson,    pp.    2697,   2703. 

z\   Deakins,    pp.    489,    494. 

V.   Dean,       pp.        1866,        1881, 

2777. 

Deaver-Jeter    Co.    ?■. 

z:   Decker,    pp.     1760,    2092. 

V.   DeSaussure,         pp.         1()I8, 

1638. 

Doolittle   z'. 

Durden    v. 


TAHLK  OF   CASKS. 


CCLXXXV 


Southirn      Y<.     Co.    i:      Dyson,     pp. 
2578,   2623. 

KasliT  I'. 

r.    Edmundson,         i)p. 

3188. 

Hd wards   v. 

Efland    r. 

lvi<lson   f. 

Klliott    r. 

Fain    v. 

Faust    r. 

V.   Flanigan,    pp.      1612, 

1626,  1()'>4,  \(,(>0,    2453. 

,-.  hlcming,  pp.   1579, 

2467. 

■:•.   Forrist,      pp.       1420, 

1447,    1481,    1532. 

Forrester   &   Co.    I'. 

Fortune   i'. 

Fowlers 


3186, 


1613, 
1601, 
1438, 


&      Co.,      pp.       330, 


pp. 


776,     3390. 


P- 


3359. 


263,   JS   S. 
379,   .•.3   S. 


2280, 
1159, 


Frank 
3356. 

Fritz  V. 

Fulmer    i'. 

Gardner    v. 

r.   Gardner 

Garland   v. 

Garrison    v. 

Gaskins  v. 

Gilliland  v. 

J-.  Goldstein    Bros. 

Goodin    %\ 

V.   Gore,    p.    2403.  _ 

V.   Greene,     p.     3554. 

t'.   Greensboro,    etc.,    Coal    Co., 

p.  3518. 

i:  Gresham,  .p.    2062. 

Griffin   r. 

V.   Grizzle,    p.    3525. 

Hamrick    Bros.    &    Co.    i. 

Harley   v. 

Hardaway  v. 

r.  Hardin,   101 

E.   847— p.    2771 

V.   Hardin,    107 

E.   436— p.    2225. 

Harp    V. 

Harrill   Bros.   v. 

V.  Harrington,   pp.    1503,    1373 

1577,      1938,      1939,      2162,      ""°" 
2536,    2754. 

1'.   Harrison,     pp.      303, 

3605,    3654,    3752,    3760. 

Harzburg   &   Co.   v. 

r.   Hatter   &   Sons,   p.    848. 

Hawes  r. 

r.   Hawkins,     pp.     2447,     2462. 

2652,    2709,        3083,     3094,     3099. 

Heyman  r. 

V.  Heymann.    p.    573. 

Hickey   Marble,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Higgins   f. 

Hinkle   v. 

Hipp    '■•  .    „ 

V    Hobbs,    118    Ga.    227,   4.-)    S. 

E     23,   63   L.   R.   A-   68— pp.    1895, 
1910,     1915,    2706,    3012,    3047. 

,:   Hobbs,    49    S.    E.    294,    121 

Ga.  428— p.   2820. 

Hockfield  r. 

Hodges    T. 

Holcombe    v. 

Holly   V. 

V.  Horner,       pp 

1061.    1407. 

Horton   '•. 

z:   Horton.    p.    2995. 

r.   Howard,    pp.     1872,    2446. 

f.  Howell,    p.    2641. 

r.  Hubbard       Bros.       Co.,      p. 

3414.  „     ^ 

V.  Hubbard    Bros.    &    Co.,     p. 

V.   Humphries,    pp.    3047,    3048, 

r".  Hundlcv.     PP.     2282,      2356, 

2603,   2t>\i:\   2654. 

Hunt   T. 

r.   Hunt,     pp.     3488.     3489. 

■:•.   Hunter,    p.     2531. 

Hutchison    v. 


491, 


1720, 
1899, 


802,      1048, 


Southern    R.    Co.,     Interstate     Com- 
merce Comm.  "■. 

Jenkins    -■. 

Johnson     i'. 

r.   Johnson,    39    So.    376,    144 

Ala.   361,    113   Am.    St.   Rep.   48— 
p.    2815. 

V.  Johnson,  2  Ga.  App.   36,  58 

S.     E.     333— pp.     292,     296,     303, 
484.    486,    490,    491,    868. 

r.  Johnson,    70     S.     E.     69,    8 

Ga.    App.   654— p.    1611. 

r    Jones,   132  Ala.  437,  31    So. 

501— pp.    1399,    2572. 

V.  Jones,    8    Ga.    App.    225,   68 

S.    E.     1011— pp.     1596,    2466. 

V.  Jones.    33    Ind.    App.    333, 

71    N.    E.    275— pp.    2605,    2611. 

Jones    Bros.    ?•. 

f.  Jones    Cotton    Co.,    pp 

780. 

-  r.  Jordan,   p.    2634. 

-  Kavanaugh   &   Co.   f- 

7'.   Kendrick,     pp.     1684, 

1868,     1883,      1884,      1885, 
1906,    1907,    3049,    3053. 

Kennedy    v. 

-  Kime  v. 

r.  Kinchen,   pp.   563,   570,   586. 

King  f. 

f.  King,  87  C.  C.   A.   284,   160 

Fed.    332— p.    3525.  . 

r.   King,  217  U.   S.   524,   54  L. 

Ed.  868,  30  S.  Ct.  594— pp. 
3503,    3524. 

V.   Lanning,     pp.      3014.      3013, 

3055. 

Latta  Martin   Pump   Co.   '■. 

r.   Lee,  167  Ala.  268,  52  So. 

648— pp.  2017,  2033,  2651. 

V.   Lee,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1360, 

26  R.  R.  R.  285.  49  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  X.  S..  285.  10  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  837,  101  S.  VV.  307— pp. 
1566,  2780. 

V.   Levy,  pp.  726,  732,  748, 

752,  815,  996,  998,  3294,  3349, 
339' 

V.   Lewis,  pp.  648,  661,  692, 

3950. 

Lexington  Grocery  Co.  v. 

Lindsay  v. 

I'.  Lockwood  Mfg.  Co.,  pp. 

700,  707,  714,  715,  1152. 

V.   Lollar.  p.  2652. 

z:   Lowe,  170  Ala.  598,  54  So. 

51— pp.  71,  1195. 

t:Lowe.  139  Ga.  362,  77    S. 

E.  44— p.  161. 

r.   Lynn,  pp.  2416,  2629,  2630, 

2710. 

Lytle    f. 

McConnell    Bros,    z: 

Mace  z'. 

McElveen   z'. 

McGraw   z'. 

z:   McKenzie,    pp.    2443,    2564. 

z:   AlcXecley,    p.    2582. 

McNeil   f. 

V.   McNeill,    pp.    47.    71. 

v.  Maddox,    pp.    490,    491. 

Marable    z\ 

r.  Marshall,    pp.      1641,     1673, 


Southern  R.  Co.  :.  Miller,  33  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  505,  30  R.  R.  R.  311,  53 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  311, 
no  S.  W.  351— pp.  1674,  1853, 
3016. 


1674.    3041,    3044;    3060. 

Martin   v. 

z'.   Mather-McDowell       Lumber 

Co.,    p.    218. 

Matheson   z\ 

Mathis  ;■. 

f.   Melton, 

So.     1008— pp 

z:  Melton,    133   Ga 

E.    665— pp.    22,     35. 
3950. 

Memphis   News    Pub.    Co.    ;•. 

r.   Merritt,     pp.     2485,     2784. 

v.  Meyers,   p.    2676. 

z:   Miko.    p.    495. 

Milam    z\ 

Miller    z: 


158     Ala.     404.     47 
2574,    2650. 

277.   65    S. 

39,      3487, 


z:  Miller     (Ky.),     120     S.     W. 

278— p.  2845. 

Minnish   f. 

Mitchell   z: 

r.   Mitchell,    139    Ala.    629,    37 

So.    85— p.    3588. 

V.   Mitchell,     98       Tenn.       (14 

Pickle)      27,    40    S.     W.     72— pp. 
1884,   2361. 

z:  Montag,   pp.  817,  821,   1038. 

Moody   f. 

z:   Moody,     151    Ala.     374,     44 

So.    94— pp.    663,    664. 

z:  Moody,     169     Ala.     292,     53 

So.    1016— p.    665. 

z:   Moore,    pp.    218,    229,    258. 

J.  Moorcsville      Cotton     Mills, 

pp.    795,   809. 

v.   Morgan.    171    Ala.    294,    54 

So.    626— p.    2357. 

z:   Morgan       (.Ma.),      59      So. 

432— pp.    2379,   2380._ 

f.   Morrison,    p.    582. 

Morse   "•. 

f.   Moses,    pp.    2561.    3093. 

■  Mulligan  z: 

Murphy   Hardware   Co.   f. 

z\   Myers,    p.    3052. 

z:  Nailon,    p.   828. 

-•.   Nappier.      pp.      1951.      2175. 

2180,     2181,     2343,      2649,      2887, 
2921.   3009.    3072. 

National   Bank  z: 

V.   Nicholas.   135   Ga.   11,  68   S. 

E.    789— pp.    2155,    2404. 

z:  Nichols,    74    S.    E.    268,    137 

Ga.    670— p.    2915. 

Norman    -•. 

North    Carolina    Corp.    Comm. 

— —  z:   Nowlin,      pp.      1608,      2068, 
3059. 

-c'.   O'Brvan.    37      S.      E.      161, 

112    Ga.    127— pp.    2707,    2767. 

z:  O'Brvan.    115    Ga.    659,    42 

S.   E.  42— h.    1907. 

z:  O'Brvan,     119    Ga.     147,    45 

S.    E.    1000— pp.   3009,   3058. 

z:   Parham,      pp.      2249.      2357. 

2510.    2820. 

Parlier   '•. 

f.  Parramore,    p.     1447. 

z\   Patterson,    p.    2513. 

Phillips   V. 

Pickett    z: 

Post    z: 

;.   Proctor.    3    -Ma.     .\pp.    413. 

57    So.    513— pp.    479.    488,    1284. 

Puckett  ;. 

Ouantz  V. 

Ragsdale    z: 

i:  Railey  Bros.,  p.   1303,   1307. 

-  z:  Railroad    Comm.,    pp.    3429, 
3454.    3508,    3509. 

-  Raleigh    Iron    Works    z: 

Ray   z: 

Reeves   f. 

z\   Reeves,   pp.  1747.   1768, 

1797.  1910.  1912,  1913,  2904. 

Reid  f. 

z:   Roid,  222  U.  S.  424.  56  L. 

Ed.   257.  32   S.  Ct.   140— pp. 
3492.  3607,  3810. 

z:   Reid,  222  U.  S.  444.  56 

L.  Ed.  263.  32    S.  Ct.  145— p. 
3492. 

z:   Rhodes,  p.  17S7. 

Rickert  :•. 

z:   Roach  (Ind.  App.).  77  N. 

E.  606— p.  2613. 

z:   Roach.  78  N.  E.  201.  38 

Ind.  App.  211— pp.  2590,  2613, 
2632. 

Robertson  z\ 

I'.  Roebuck,  pp.  2236,  2954. 


CCLXXXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Southern  R.  Co.  f.  Rosenheim  & 
Sons,  pp.  1508.  3110,  3134,  3141, 
3142,    3143,    3174. 

V.   St.    Louis    Hav,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    1152,    1217. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    Grain    Co.    f. 

z\  St.    Louis,    etc.,    Grain    Co., 

pp.   3680,   3729.   3785,   3793,   3802. 

f.   Sams,     p.     2404. 

Sanders    z'. 

Sansom    z: 

Saunders    f. 

-•.   Schlitter,     pp.     1194,     1199. 

Sharpe   ;. 

Shelbv    Ice,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

i:   Skinner,    pp.     1540,    2996. 

z:  Smith.    30   C.    C.    A.    58,    86 

Fed.  292,  40  L.  R.  A.  746— pp. 
1502,    1504,    1505. 

z:   Smith,     125     Ky.     656,     31 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  243,  25  R.  R.  R. 
652,  48  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  652,  102  S.  W.  232— pp.  287, 
288,   741,  873,   884. 

-•.   Smith,    28    S.     E.     173,    95 

Va.    187— pp.   2163,   2187. 

Smith    &    Co.    z: 

'•.   Snyder,    p.    3453. 

Sonneborn    &    Co.    zr. 

Speaks  z\ 

Sprague    z: 

Stafsky  v. 

Stallings    v. 

Stanley   v. 

State   V. 

Steele    v. 

Stembridge    z'. 

Story    Lumber    Co.    '■. 

z:   Strickland,    pp.    2220,    2237, 

2309. 

Stringfield    z\ 

z\   Strozier,    pp.    391,    559. 

•  Summers    f. 

Suttle    z: 

Teague    v. 

— —  Terry    z\ 

Thomas    v. 

z:   Thomas,    pp.     1353,    3405. 

f.  Thurman,    121    Ky.    716,    28 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  699,  679,  90  S.  W. 
240,  2  L.  K.  A.,  N.  S.,  1108— 
p.    2410. 

z:  Thurman,    25    Ky.    L.    Rep. 

804,    76    S.    VV.    499— p.    2574. 

Tift  z: 

V.  Tift,    pp.    3810,    3818,    3824, 

3825,    3831,    3832. 

V.  Tollerson,       129     Ga.      647, 

59    S.    E.    799— pp.    1412,    1425. 

V.  Tollerson,     135    Ga.    74,    68 

S.    E.    798— p.    1285. 

Twitty    v. 

United   States  z'. 

V.  United      States,      193      Fed. 

664 — p.    3836. 

V.  United      States,      204      Fed. 

465— p.    3693. 

V.  United    States,    222    U.     S. 

20,  56  L.  Ed.  72,  32  S.  Ct.  2— 
pp.   3450,   3451,   3452,   3457,    3458. 

v.   Vandergriff,         pp.  1989, 

1992. 

V.  Vaughn,    p.     3289. 

Virginia,    etc..    Training    Ass'n 

Walker  v. 

V.  Walker,    p.    3076. 

Walker    liros.    v. 

V.   Wallace,      pp.     1437,      3268, 

3269. 

Wall-Huske    Co.    v. 

V.  Wallis,      pp.      1852,       2569, 

2570,    2574,    3059. 

V.  Walton,    p.    3089. 

V.  Waters    &    Co.,     pp.     3306, 

3397. 

Watson   V. 

V.  Watson,    pp.    190,    193,    196, 

1612,  1622,  1623,  2092,  2093, 
2408,    2420,    2446. 

Waxelbaum    v. 

Way  V. 


139    Ga.    357,    7 
722,     786,     807 

339,    7 


Southern    R.    Co.,    Weaver   -•. 

z:  Webb.     143     Ala.     304,     39 

So.  262,  111  Am.  St.  Rep.  45, 
5  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  97 — 
pp.     3027.     1357,     1405,     1421. 

V.  Webb.   148  Ala.  661,  41    So. 

420— p.    1302. 

z:  Weob,    116    Ga.    152.    42    S. 

E.  395,  59  L.  R.  A.  109— pp. 
2082.    2804. 

Weber   v. 

Weisinger    z'. 

Welborn    '■. 

V.  West,  pp.    1582,   1718,    1840. 

1841. 

z:  White,       pp.       3176,       3178, 

3192,    3373,    3374. 

Whitley    z'. 

■ z\  Wideman,     pp.     2412,     2532, 

3032. 

z'.  Wilco.x,    p.    423,    437,    458. 

459,  460,  462,  463,  1138,  1139, 
3758.    3760. 

Willett    z: 

■ Williams    z\ 

z\   Williams, 

S.     E.    153 — pp. 
879. 

-'.  Williams,    139    Ga. 

S.    E.    168— p.    876. 

Withrow    V. 

Wood    z: 

r.  Wood,    114    Ga.    140,    39    S. 

E.  894,  55  L.  R.  A.  536— pp. 
1630,  2444,  2561,  3089,  3093. 
3101. 

V.  Wood,    114    Ga.    159,    39    S. 

E.  922,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.. 
N.  S.,  611— pp.  1941,  1942,  3144. 

z\   Wooley,   pp.   2706,   2846, 

2848,  3056. 

V.  Wright,      pp.      1532,       1679, 

1911,     1912. 

Yorke    Furniture    Co.    ?■. 

• •  Young   V. 

Southern   Railway,  Aaron  z\ 

Bell   V. 

Brackett   v. 

Brice   v. 

Brown   v. 

Calder   v. 

Carter    v. 

Chartrand   "'. 

V.   Commonwealth,     p.     97. 

Cone    z'. 

Copeland   v. 

Corley   v. 

Des    Fortes    z'. 

Ferguson    '•. 

Fleischman,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Ford    V. 

General    Elect.    Co.    :■. 

Goldstein   v. 

V.  Graddy,      pp.      1321,      1353, 

1470. 

Guess   V. 

Gyles   V. 

Hall     V. 

Hasseltine   v. 

Hunter    v. 

Hutto    V. 

Jonesville    Mfg.    Co.    v. 

Kelly   V. 

Kibler    v. 

Knight    V. 

Kolb    V. 

— — -  Ladshaw   v. 

Lancaster  v. 

Latour  v. 

Mcjimpsey  v. 

McMeekin     v. 

Macon    v. 

Martin   z\ 

Mayfield    v. 

Milhous   V. 

Milhouse   v. 

Mills     z: 

Moody  V. 

Mulligan    v. 

Murphy  v. 

Neal    z: 

Norris    v. 


Southern    Railway,    Nutter   z'. 

Park    V. 

Rippy  &  Co.  z\ 

Rutland   v. 

Sanders   v. 

■ Sevier    i'. 

Shelton   -■. 

Shieder    z\ 

Smith    V. 

Sullivan    v. 

Sutton   V. 

Tant    V. 

Talleson  v. 

Trapp    z\ 

Traywick  z'. 

Turner    v. 

Wehman    v. 

Whittle   z: 

Wilcox    7'. 

■ ■  Williford    V. 

Yarborough    z\ 

Southern  Railway   Co.,   Moody  v. 

Southern  Seating,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill- 
inois   Cent.    R'.    Co.    t'. 

Southern  Seating,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Southern  Supply  Co.,  Florida,  etc., 
R.    Co.   '. 

Southern  Transp.  Co.  r.  Harper, 
p.    3989. 

Southern  Wisconsin  Power  Co.,  In 
re. 

Southern,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis 
Bros.,   pp.    1410,    1420. 

Kelly    V. 

V.  Walsh,  _p.     1744. 

Southern,    etc.,   Tract.    Co.   v.   Comp- 

ton,    p.    3088. 
Southside,    The. 
Southwark,    The. 
Southwest     Missouri     R.     Co.,     ICly 

V. 

Southwest,   etc.,   Elect.   R.   Co.,   Tan- 

ger   V. 
Southwest,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   Wilbur   v. 
Southwestern,    Lessassier    v. 
Southwestern     Railroad     v.     Bryant, 

p.    3391. 

Singleton    v. 

t'.  Singleton,      66      Ga.      252 — 

pp.    1494,    1543,    1546,    2126. 

V.  Singleton,    67    Ga.    306 — -pp. 

2125,  2126,      2249,      2257,      2550, 
2941. 

V.  Thornton,     pp.     1365,     1367, 

1377,  1378,    1384,    3300. 

Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Bentley, 
p.   3170. 

Bryant    v. 

V.   Felder,     pp.     700,    893,    898, 

900. 

V.  Hankerson,    p.    2300. 

Marshall    v. 

z:  Paulk,    pp.     2127,    2260. 

V.  Webb,    pp.     210,    267,    271 

274. 

Southwick,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z\ 
Southworth,     Jacksonville,     etc.,     R 

Co.    V. 
Soviero    v.    Westcott    E-xp.     Co.,    p 

3139. 
Sowash  V.    Consolidated   Tract.    Co. 

p.    1804. 
Sowell,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 

Railway   Co.  v. 

Soyo    Maru,    The. 

Spade  V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  pp 
285,   289,   290,    587. 

V.  Lynn,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p 

1690. 

Spaeth    V.     Manhattan     R.     Co.,     p 

2686. 
Spahr,    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    v. 
Spaids    V.    New    York    Mail    Steam 

ship   Co.,   pp.    749,   3143. 
Spalding,    Board    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1313,    1437. 

Hart    V. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v. 

V.  Redeny,    p.    1224. 


TAI5LIC  OF  CASES. 


CCLXXXVII 


Spalding,    etc.,    Co.,    LouIsviIIl-,    etc., 

R.    Co.   V. 
Spanlger    r.    Saginaw    Valley    Tract. 

Co.,    pp.    1803.    2350.    2820. 
Spanish-American     Light,     etc.,     Co., 

Compania,    etc.,    Navegacion    '•■. 
^pann    v.     Krie     Hoatman's    Transp. 

Co.,   pp.   437,   473,   634. 

Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Spannagle   i\    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1501,    1504,    1505,    1665,    2154. 
Sparger,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Sparks,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Ft.    Scott,  .etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

T.  The    Sonora,    p.    1940. 

Sparta  Gas,  etc.,   Co.  v.   Illinois   So. 

R.    Co.,    p.    67. 
Spartansburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Spears 

Spaulding,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


V.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2646. 

Read   v. 

r.  Ouincy,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1905. 

Spavin  V.   Lake   Shore,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.    2133. 
Speaks  V.   Southern  R.   Co.,  p.   3240. 
Spear,    Ft.    Worth,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Kitchen    v. 

t.   Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

119   Pa.   61,    12   Atl.   824— p.   2861. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

3  Pa.   Co.   Ct.   Rep.   472— p.   2669. 

V.  Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

5   Pa.   Co.   Ct.   Rep.   393— p.   2684. 

Spearman     v.     California     St.     Co., 
p.    2816. 

V.   California    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1901,     1991. 

Spears,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

(jeorgia    Railroad   v. 

:•.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    K.    Co., 

pp.    1,    209,    725. 

V.   Spartansburg,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    897,    899. 

Speck   V.    International    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1803,    1805. 

V.  Northern    Pac.    K.    Co.,    p. 

2271. 

Speed,     American     Steel,     etc.,     Co. 

V. 

Speer  v.  West  Jersey,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.    1902. 
Spellman.    American    Exp.    Co.    v. 

V.  Lincoln   Rapid   Transit   Co., 

pp.    1487,    1716,    1720,    1750,    1766, 
2994. 

V.  Richmond,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    2708,    3094. 

Spence    v.     Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co., 
p.   1555. 

V.  Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

492. 

Spencer,    Boyd   ^■. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2675,    2734. 

r.   Daggett,    p.    768. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    2821. 

V.  Lovejoy,     pp.     1615,     1616, 

1622,    1976,    3319. 

V.  Milwaukee,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    p. 

2203. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

Pond-Decker   Lumber  Co.   v. 

V.   White,    pp.     1148,    1149. 

Wright    -•. 

Sperber    &    Co.,    Baltimore,   etc.,    R. 

Co.    V. 
Sperry  v.    Consolidated   R.   Co..    pp. 

3145,    3146,    3147,    3188,    3193. 
Speyer  -•.   The  Mary  Belle  Roberts, 

p.   3935. 
Spicer   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3074. 

V.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co..  p.   2773. 

Spicker,    Dallas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 
Spiegel    V.    Pacific    Mail    Steamship 

Co.,   p.    577. 


Spiess    V.    Erie    R.    Co.,    pp.    2851, 

3374. 
Spikcr,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    v. 
Spinks,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Spires,    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2016,    2022. 

Spirk,    Chicago,    etc.,    R".    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2852. 

Spivey   V.    Farmer,   p.    1488. 
Spofford,    Bassett    v. 

J'.   Boston,     etc..     Railroad,     p. 

93. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

267,    268,    269,   270,    272. 

Spohn  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  87 
Mo.  74,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
252— pp   2020,   2785. 

Z-.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    101 

Mo.     417,     14     S.     W.     880— pp. 
2020,     2918,     2945. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    116 

Mo.   617,   22   S.   W.   690— p.   2020. 

Spokane    Falls,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Lane 

Potlatch   Lumber  Co.  v. 

Williams   7\ 

Spokane   Grain   Co.  v.   Great  North- 
ern   K-xp.    Co.,   p.    1314. 
Spokane   St.   R.   Co.,   Payne  v. 

State   z\ 

Washington    v. 

Spokane     Tract.     Co.,     Grant    v. 
Spokane,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Field   v. 

Taylor    v. 

Spooner  v.  Brooklyn  City  R.  Co., 
p.    2193. 

V.   Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

3115,  3116,  3124,,  3127,  3130, 
3131. 

V.   Old  Colony  St.  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1994,   2165,    2318. 

Spotford   V.    Boston,    etc..    Railroad, 

p.    1179. 
Spragins,    Latham    f. 
Snrague,    Chandler   v. 

r.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1408,    1412. 

V.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    896.    901,    3302. 

Randall    v. 

V.   Smith,      pp.        1685,        1719, 

2081,  2082. 

7'.  Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  1754, 

2670,  2671,  2890. 

V.  West,    p.    712. 

Spratt,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 
Sprayberry,    Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


Spreckels  &   Bros.   Co.,   Corsar  v. 
bpreckles'    Sugar-Refin.    Co.,    Perry 

Sprigg  V.  Rutland  R.   Co.,  pp.   1294, 

2098. 
Spring  V.   Gray,   p.    3864. 

V.  Haskell,    pp.    595,    596,    855. 

V.   South     Carolina     Ins.     Co., 

pp.    1225,    1226. 

Spring   River    Stone    Co.,    St.    Louis, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Spring     V'alley     Water     Works     v. 

Schottler,   pp.    59,   60. 
Springer    v.    Ford.    189    111.    430,    59 

N.    E.   953,    52    L.    R.    A.    930,   82 

Am.      St.      Rep.      464— pp.      1488, 

2104,    2685.     2864. 

r.  Ford,    88    111.    App.    529— p. 

1750. 

Takobsen    v. 

\:   Pullman      Co.,      pp.      3142, 

3143,   3216. 

V.   Schultz,   pp.    1488.   2671. 

v.  Westcott,    pp.    987,    1067. 

Springer     Transp.     Co.     v.     Smith, 

pp.    2038.    2046.    3071. 
Springfield  Consol.  R.   Co.  z:  HoefT- 

ncr.    pp.    2397.    2834. 
Springfield   St.    R.    Co.,   Gurley  v. 

Lacour   z\ 

Lemay    z-. 

McCauley  f. 


Springfield,    St.    R.    Co.,    Moody    z: 

Neale  v. 

Payne    z-. 

Springfield  Tract.   Co.,   Brady  v. 

Brown   v. 

Cooke   V. 

Cramer    v. 

Jones  -'. 

Peck   V. 

■ ■  Wolven    V. 

Sproat    ;■.    Donncll,    p.    3865. 
Sproles,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.  _  v. 
Sproule    V.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1575,    1692,    1698. 
Sprowl     r.     Kellar,     pp.     732,     734. 

735,    747. 
Spry   z:    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2561. 
Spurgeon    v.    McElwain,    p.    1861. 
Spurlock   f.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  1170. 

z:   Shreveport  Tract.  Co..  p. 

2683. 

Spuyten    Duyvil,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Det- 

chett   V. 
Spuyten.    etc..    Mill    Co.,    Booth    v. 
Spyzchalski,   Hammond,  etc..  R.  Co. 

Spyzehalski,      Hammond,      etc.,      R. 

Co.    V. 
Squire   z:    New   York,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    323,   945,   958,   984.   994.    1074. 

1368,     1369,     1370.     1371,     1397. 
Staake   v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co..    p. 

514. 
Staccy,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Stack,    American    Exp.    Co.    v. 
Stacker,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Stadhecker    Z'.     Combs     &     Co..     pp. 

593,    768,    829,    840,    841,    864. 
Stafford    V.    Watson,    p.    712. 
Stafsky  z-.   Southern   R.   Co.,   p.   567. 
Stager  z:   Ridge   .\ve.   Pass.   R.   Co.. 

pp.    2152,    2689. 
Staincliffe,    The. 
Staines  z\  Central  R.  Co.,  pp.  2364, 

2366. 
Stakes    z:    Saltonstall,    p.     1722. 
Stalcup   z:    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1549,    1569. 
Stallard   v.    Great    Western    R.    Co., 

p.    3158. 
Stallings,      Birmingham,      etc..      Co. 

Birmingham     R.,     etc..     Co.     z\ 

-■.   Southern    R.    Co.,    p.    140. 

Stanbridge  v.   Nassau  Elect.   R.   Co., 

p.    2699. 
Stanbro,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Standard     Forging     Co.     z:     Saflfel, 

p.    2602. 
Standard    Lumber    Co.,    Chesapeake, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Standard     Milling     Co.     v.     White 

Line    Cent.    Transit    Co..    pp.    429. 

812.    894,    910,     916,     1012,     1015, 

1041. 
Standard    Oil    Co.,    Donovan    r. 

James   z\ 

McLaren     z\ 

New    York,   etc.,   R.    Co.    f. 

Steamship    Den   ;■. 

United    States    :■. 

V.  United      States,      pp.      302, 

3762. 

\'an    Santcn    z\ 

Village    Steamship   Co.   t'. 

Standard,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  Suther- 
land -■. 

Standefer  r.  Aultman,  etc.,  Ma- 
chinery Co.,  p.   693. 

Standish  z:  Narragansett  Steamship 
Co..    pp.    1637,    1638,    2062.    3979. 

Stanfield,   Birmingham   R.,   etc.,    Co. 

Stanfield    Bros.,    Missouri,    etc..    R. 

Co.    f. 
Stanford.    Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Stanley,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

z:   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2017, 

2870. 

Western    Maryland    R.    Co.    v. 


CCLXXXVIII 


TADLE    OF    CASES. 


Stanley    Dollar,    The. 

Stannard  z:   Prince,   pp.    32S9,    3369, 

3370. 
Stansberry,    Ohio,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Stanton,    Bates   f. 

I.   Eager,    pp.    355,    1227. 

Stanton      Tanning      Co.,      ^  aughan 

Macb.    Co.   '•. 
Staples    V.    Rhode    Island,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    1820. 
Stapleton    7.    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co., 


pp. 


285.    288.   885,   888,    3301. 


Stappers   f.    Interurban    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1830,    2161,    2882. 
Star    Grain,    etc.,    Co.    r.    Atchison, 

etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.    166. 
Star    of    Hope,    The. 
Star     Union     Transp.     Co.,     French 

Star,    etc.,    Mill.    Co.,    Erie    R.    Co. 

Starbird   f.    Barrons,    p.    473. 
Starbuck    f.     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    619,    3902,    3903. 
Starin,    Hill    v. 

Levidow    '•. 

New    England    Mfg.    Co.    f. 

New   York  v. 

Stark,    Flint,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Stark     Grain     Co.,     Missouri,     etc., 

R.    Co.    '.'. 
Starke,    Shores   Lumber   Co.    f. 
Starkev   f.    Cleveland,    etc..    R'.    Co.. 

p.    3'544. 
Starks    Co.    v.    Grand    Rapids,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    3675. 
■:•.  Manistee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3276. 
Starnes   v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1075. 
Starr    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2023. 

T-.  Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p. 

2102. 

Starr    &    Co.,    Galgate    Ship    Co.,    p. 

3865. 
Startz,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

State,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    r. 

V.  Adams    Exp.    Co.,    171    Ind. 

138,  85  N.  E.  ii7.  19  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  93— pp.  3433,  3526,  3633, 
3707. 

V.  Adams    Exp.     Co.,    85    Xeb. 

25,  122  X.  W.  691— pp.  117, 
119,    126. 

V.  American      Book      Co.,       p. 

3557. 

Ame.rican    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

'•.   Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pj). 

245,    1153. 

V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R.   Co., 

52  Fla.  578,  40  So.  875— p.  95.^ 

f.   -Atlantic  Coast  Line  R'.   Co., 

52   Fla.   646,   41    So.   705— p.   95. 

Atlantic,    etc,    R.    Co.    v. 

■ V.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    48 

Fla.    146,    27    So.    657— p.    116. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     51 

Fla.  578,  646,  40  So.  875— p. 
430. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     56 

Fla.   601,   47    So.    387— p.    170. 

• V.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    56 

Fla.  617,  47  So.  969,  32  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  639— pp.  20,  23,  152, 
3524. 

Austin    -■. 

Baltimore   Tract.    Co.   v. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

• V.  Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3565. 

Barnaby    v. 

• Berger    v. 

Bogart   V. 

V.  Bollam,    pp.    1612,    3499. 

V.  Boston,    etc..     Railroad,     75 

X.  H.  327,  74  Atl.  542— pp.  114, 
122,    131,    134. 

■ '•.  Boston,     etc..    Railroad,     76 

N.    H.    146,    80    Atl.    858— p.    26. 


Mo. 

3485, 


Neb. 

216, 


Co.,     68 
400,    38 


Co.,    239 
785 — pp. 


State,    Brady   f. 

Bray    i\ 

Brazzell    z'. 

Burke    z\ 

V.   Campbell,     pp.     1542.     2493. 

V.  Central     X'ermont     R.     Co., 

pp.  35,  44.  86,  93,  1175,  1179, 
1180,  1182,  1183,  1185,  1188. 
1189,    1191,    1199. 

Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R'.    Co.,    86 

Iowa  641,  53  N.  W.  323— p. 
123. 

'•.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     90 

Iowa  594,   58  N.  W.    1060— p.  42. 

f.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     38 

Minn.  281,  37  N.  W.  782— pp. 
121,    125,    1191. 

-'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R, 

Minn.    381,    71     N.    W 

L.    R.    A.    672,    64   Am.    St.    Rep 

482— p.    21. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R 
196,     143     S.     W 

3488,     3512. 
Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     71 

593,     99     N.     W.     309— pp. 
248. 

—  -•.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136 
Wis.  407,  117  N.  W.  686,  19 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  326— p.  3510. 

—  '•.  Chicago,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  152 
Wis.  341,  140  N.  W.  70— p. 
3527. 

— ■  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.  '■. 

—  z:  Chovin,  pp.  190,  193,  194, 
210,  1492,  1596,  1597,  2122, 
2467. 

—  t'.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  117,  220,  235,  782,  1189, 
1190. 

—  '•.   Clark,    p.    1612. 

—  v.   Corson,    p.    3586. 

—  t'.   Corvallis,    etc.,    R. 
35,     36. 

—  Craven   z\ 

—  ''.   Creeden,    pp.     ITi 

—  Cumberland,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z- 

—  V.  Cumberland,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
p.    3495. 

—  Darnell    v. 

—  Daugherty    v. 

—  V.   Delaware,    etc.,    R 
N.    J.    L.    473— p.    3565. 

—  c'.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 
N.  T.  L.  55,  57  Am.  Rep.  543— 
pp.  '220,    1184. 

—  Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?'. 

—  Detroit,    etc..    Railway   z\ 

—  Dorsey   v. 

—  Dugan  V. 

—  Erie     R'.     Co.     V. 

—  V.   Farmer's     Loan,     etc. 
p.    38. 

—  Fears    v. 

—  z\   Findley,    p.    18 

—  V.   Fremont,     etc.. 


Co.,    pp. 


895. 


Co.,    30 


Co. 


Neb. 
120. 


Neb. 

1192. 


313,     35     N. 


51. 
R. 
W. 


Co.,    22 
118— p. 


Fremont, 
117,     36 


etc., 
N. 


R. 
W. 


Co..    23 
305— p. 


V.   Fry,    p.    1612. 

V.   Fullerton,    p.    3S63. 

-  v.  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 
3560. 

V.   Gladson,     p.     98. 

V.  Goold,   pp.    199,    1597,   2425, 

2467. 

V.   Goss,    p.    238. 

V.  Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    pp. 

179,     1526,     1964,     1965. 

V.  Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p. 

3484. 

z>.   Green,    p.    2837. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

-  V.  Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    937. 

H.    &   T.    C.    R.    Co.    V. 

Hall    V. 

Hart    v. 

V.  Hartford,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

255,    1500,    1501. 


State,    Heard    v. 

Helena-Glendale     Steam     Ferry 

Co.  z: 

Horn    Silver    Min.     Co.    v. 

Howard    -■. 

f.   Hungcrfoid,         pp.         1596, 

1600,    2467. 

'■.   Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

124,    1184,    3553,    3563. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Into.xicating       Liquors,       83 

Me.    158,   21    Atl.   840— p.   480. 

-■.   Intoxicating     Liquors,      105 

Me.  138,  76  .Xtl.  265,  29  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  745,  20  .\m.  &  Erg. 
Ann.   Cas.   668 — p.   525. 

Jackson    v. 

z\    lacksonville     Terminal     Co., 

pp.     105,    117,    3483,    3534. 

?'.    Jacksonville,   etc..    R.    Co.    p. 

116. 

Jannin    '  . 

Kane    ;■. 

Kansas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

t'.   Kimber,    p.    1493. 

V.   Lake    Roland,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2122,    2123,    2356. 

Landrigan   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Z-.   Louisville,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    177 

Ind.    553,   96   N.    E.    340— p.    3483. 

f.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    97 

Miss.  35,  51  So.  918,  53  So.  454, 
.Ann.    Cas.    1912C,    1150— p.    3545. 

McCord    v. 

z'.   McCormack,    p.    258. 

Mack   V. 

McXealy    7'. 

-■.   Maine     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

179,    182,    183. 

T.   Martyn,    pp.    83,    184. 

Memphis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   -•. 

Midland    Valley    R.    Co.    v. 

'•.   Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

40  Minn.  156,  41  X.  W.  465— 
p.    125. 

-'.    Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

80  Minn.  191,  83  N.  W.  60,  89 
Am.  St.  Rep.  514— pp.  50,  52, 
55,    75,    76,     120,     124,     126. 

z'.   Missouri        Pac.        R.        Co. 

(Mo.),    144    S.   W.    863— p.   225. 

V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,     71 

Mo.  .\pp.  385,  7  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  66— pp.  3113, 
3115,    3117,    3127. 

V.   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     64 

Neb.  679,  90  N.  W.  877— pp. 
181,    182. 

Missouri,     etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

-'.   Mobile,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

120,    123. 

z\   INIoody,    p.    3540. 

V.   Mullin,    p.    478. 

'■.   Neil,     p.     3565. 

New    Haven,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

z\  New    Haven,    etc.,    Co.,    i7 

Conn.     153 — p.    255. 

V.  New    Haven,    etc.,    Co.,    43 

Conn.    351- p.    1857. 

V.   New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.     3572,     3574. 

z\   Northeastern      Y\.      Co.,      p 

255. 

Northern    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

■  V.   Northern     Pac.      Exp.     Co. 

.  p.    3577. 

?■.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp 

124,     126. 

V.  Omaha      Elevator      Co.,      p 

3528. 

V.  Omaha,     etc..     Bridge     Co 

p.    3525. 

Osborne    z\ 

'■.   Otis,   p.    1288. 

V.   Overton,      pp.       193,      1529, 

1973,    1974,    1975,    2425,    2427. 

T'.   Pabst       Brewing       Co.,       p. 

3549. 

V.   Pacific     Exp.     Co.,     pp.     22, 

131. 


TAl'.LE  OF   CASES. 


CCLXXXIX 


State   7'.    Parshlcy,    p.    890. 

Pensacola,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

V.  Pensacola,      etc.,       K.      Co., 

p.    72,    114. 

Peterson    i'. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Pressley    t. 

!■.   Railroad,    p.    2715. 

i:   Ray,    p.    1612. 

V.   Redmon,    p.    3203. 

V.   Reed,    p.     100. 

r.   Ross,    p.    2483. 

Rucker    j'. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -'. 

Samuelson   ?•. 

V.   Seaboard,    etc..    Railway,    4'^ 

Fla.    129,   37   So.   314— pp.   40,   54. 

i:   Seaboard,    etc..    Railway,    48 

Fla.    150.    37    So.   658— p.    126. 

V.   Seaboard,    etc.,    Railway,    48 

Fla.  152,  37  So.  658— pp.  40, 
54. 

t'.  Seaboard,   etc..    Railway,    56 

Fla.    670,   47    So.    986— p.    170. 

7'.   Seagraves,     p.     3435. 

Seale    f. 

Sheppard    i'. 

Shields  f. 

V.   Sioux     City,     etc.,     R.-    Co., 

p.   255. 

Smith     r. 

Southern     Exp.    Co.    r. 

Southern    Kansas   R.    Co.   ■:■. 

I'.   Southern    Pac.    Co.,    p.    126. 

-•.   Southern     R.     Co.,     119     N. 

C.  814,  25  S.  E.  862,  5()  Am. 
St.    Rep.    689-p.    3512. 

z:  Southern    R.     Co.,     122    N. 

C.  1052,  30  S.  E.  133,  41  L. 
R.    A.    246— p.    93. 

V.  Southern    R.     Co.,     125     N. 

C.  666,  34  S.  E.  527— pp.  180, 
181. 

V.   Spokane     St.     K.     Co.,     53 

Pac.  719.  19  Wash.  518.  41  L. 
R.  A.  515,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  739 
—p.    1487. 

-■.   Spokane        St.        R.        Co. 

(Wash.),  11  Am.  &  I'.rg.  R. 
Cas.,    N.    S.,    62— p.    255. 

Sternberg   v. 

Summitt    v. 

f.   Sutton,     p.     113. 

V.  Telegraph    Co.,    p.    3577. 

V.  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3459,    3510. 

V.  Thompson,   20   N.    II.    250— 

p.    1637. 

T.  Thompson,    84    Pac.    476.    47 

Ore.  492,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
480— pp.    1612,    3499. 

Turnpike    Co.    '•. 

r.  Union    Depot    Co.,    pp.    100, 

192,    193. 

r.  Union      Pac.      R.      Co.,     67 

Neb.  141,  93  N.  W.  222— pp. 
181,    182. 

f.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  87  Xeb. 

29,  126  N.  W.  859— pp.  83,  90, 
95. 

United    Exp.    Co.    ?•. 

i'.  United     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

2890. 

United    States   Co.   v. 

United    States    Exp.     Co.    f. 

f.  United   States   Exp.   Co.,   81 

Minn.  87,  83  N.  W.  4(>5,  50  L. 
R.  A.  667,  83  Am  St.  Rep.  366— 
p  29. 

■!'.  United     States    -Exp.     Co., 

114  Minn.  346,  131  N.  W.  489. 
37  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1127— pp. 
3526,   3572.   3576,   3578. 

\'aughan  v. 

f.  Wabash   R.    Co.,    p.    3510. 

Wadlev    Southern    R.   Co.   f. 

V.  Wa'rtield,     p.     166. 

I'.   Wells,     Fargo     &     Co.,     80 

Neb.   838.    115    X.   W.    625— p.    22. 


State  f.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  85 
Xeb.  42,  122  N.  W.  697— pp. 
119,    126. 

Wells    Fargo    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Western    Maryland    R.    Co.    v. 

— - —  J'.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

I).    3550. 

Western,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

7'.  Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3494,    3496. 

-  '.:  White  Oak  R.  Co.,  pp.  187, 
255. 

•  -'.   Winona,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

138. 

V.  Woodruff,    etc.,    Coach    Co., 

p.     3580. 

?•.   Wrightsville.     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    25,    3250,    3257,    3291. 

State     r>oard,     American     ICxp.     Co. 


Co. 


Horse      Car      R. 

Pipe    Co.    V. 
Chicago,    etc., 


Central     R.     Co. 

Hudson,    etc.,    R 

Kirk    V. 

People    v. 

Phillipsburg 

Co.   f. 

Tide    Water 

State    Nat.     Bank 

R-.    Co..    pp.    3334,    3354 

State   Freight   Tax,   Case   of  the. 

State  Railroad  Tax  Cases,  pp.  3556, 
3573.    3590.    3591,    3593. 

State    Steamship   Co.,    Allan   '•. 

State  Tax  on  Railway  Gross  Re- 
ceipts, pp.  3549,  3552,  3553, 
3558,     3561,     3567,     3568. 

State  Tonnage  Tax  Cases,  pp.  3418, 
3420,  3445,  3468,  3531,  3549, 
3569,   3581. 

Staten    Island    R.    Co.,    Carrol    r. 

Carroll    f. 

Landers   "•. 

Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  Co.  r. 
Marshall,    pp.    705,    710. 

Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  R.  Co. 
V.    Marshall,    pp.    705.    710. 

Staten  Island,  etc.,  R.  Co..  Ameri- 
can   Grocery    Co.    '•. 

Whitaker   t. 

Statham,   New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.   Co. 

Staton,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Murphy,   etc.,   Co.   j-. 

Murphv.    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Staub    f.    Kendrick.    pp.    3122,    3127. 
Stauffer  7-.   Metropolitan   St.   R'.   Co., 

pp.    1679,    1683,    2583,    2590,    2895, 

2951,   2953. 
Steam    Nav.    Co.,    Miller    v. 
Steamboat    Albatross    v.    Wayne,    p. 

532. 
Steamboat     Baltimore     7'.     Levi,     p. 

1143. 
Steamboat    Castle    Garden,    .\tkisson 

V. 

Steamboat     Co.     7'.     Atkins    &     Co., 

pp.     487,    490. 
Steamboat    General    Pike,    Wayne  7'. 
Steamboat    Highland    Mary,    Ready 

Steamboat  John  Owen  7'.  Johnson, 
pp.    511,  "512.    542,    570. 

Steamboat  Jones  Powell  z:  Thomp- 
son,    p.     3251. 

Steamboat  Lvnx  -•.  King,  pp.  733. 
748,    749,    788. 

Steamboat  New  World  -■.  King,  pp. 
15(i4,     1711,     1714,     2670.     3067. 

Steamboat     Niargara,     McFadden    z: 

Steamboat    Quaker    City.    Hirsch    z: 

Steamboat    Reliance,     llunlap    '•. 

Steamboat    St.    Anthony,    Chouteau 

Steamboat    Thames,     Erskine    ;•. 
Steamboat    W.    G.    Woodsides,    Chi 

cago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 
Steamer    Contra    Costa.    Agnew    7'. 
Steamer    Red    River.    Sonic    Cotton 

Oil    Co.    7'. 
Steamer    Webb.    The. 
Steamship    Co..    Calderon    7'. 


Steamship    Co.    v.    Joliffc,    pp.    3418, 
3420,    3445. 

Lord   V. 

z'.   Portwardens,    pp.    3530. 

3531,  3549. 

Steamship     Den     7'.     Standard     Oil 

Co..    pp.    3941,    3943. 
Steamship    Fung    Shuey    Simon    z\ 
Steamship     Kensington,     Kelham     f. 
Steamship    Rutherglen    Co.    z\    Houl- 

der,    p.    3962. 
Steamship    Wellcsley   Co.    v.    Hooper 

&   Co.,   pp.   789,   3910,   3923,   3924, 

3933,    4068. 
Steamship        Wildcroft,         McCahan 

Sugar    Refin.    Co.    f. 
Stearn     v.      Pullman     Car     Co.,     p. 

3230. 
Stearns    z\     Grand     Trunk     R.     Co., 

p.     589. 
Stearns,    etc..    Lumber    Co.,    United 

States   7'. 
Steckdaub  -•■.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

I)p.    3335,    3343. 
Stecar,   Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Steeg    z:     St.     Paul     City     R.     Co., 

pp.    1888,    1896. 
Steel   V.    Lester,    p.    3865. 
Steele,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\  McTyer,    pp    734,    737.    771, 

3926. 

V.  Sellman,    p.    361. 

7'.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    1754, 

1755,    2697,    2914. 

7'.  Townsend,     pp.     333,     828, 

834.    986,     1007,     1038. 

Steelman,    Mitchell    <■. 

Steenberger,      Louisville,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   v. 
Steenerson    z:     Great    Northern    R. 

Co.,    pp.     41,    49,     SO,     115,     116, 

124. 
Steers  z-.    Liverpool,  etc..   Steamship 

Co.,     pp.     822,    987,     3163,     3164, 

4032,   4034. 
Steever  7-.   Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.,   p. 

140. 
Steffen     z\     Mississippi     River,     etc., 

R.     Co.,    pp.    423,    469,     679. 
Steidl   7'.    Minneapolis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3268,    3405. 
Steiger  7'.     Erie   R.     Co.,   pp.     1300. 

1362,    1370. 
Steiger    &    Co.,    Munson    Steamship 

Line  V. 
Stein  7'.  Manhattan  R'.  Co.,  p.  2791. 
Steinberger,     Western     Union     Tel. 

Co.    7'. 
Steiner,    etc.,    Co.,    Mobile,    etc..    R. 

Co.     7'. 
Steininger,    Savannah,  ,etc.,    R.    Co. 

Steinle  7'.    Metropolitan   St.    R.    Co.. 

p.    2908. 
Steinman    7'.   Wilkins,    p.    714. 
Steinway   R.   Co.,    Butler  7'. 

Grotsch   7'. 

Wells   7-. 

Steinway,    etc.,    R.    Co..    Lehr    7'. 
Steinwender       z:        The       Mexican 

Prince,    p.    3909. 
Steiskal    7'.    Marshall     Field    &    Co.. 

238    111.    92,    87    N.    E.    117— pp. 

1750,    2685. 

7'.  Marshall    Field    &    Co..    142 

111.    App.    154— p.    2578. 

Stell,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7-. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7'. 

Stelsly,    McBurnie   7. 

Stembridge    7-.    Southern    R.    Co.,    p. 

2886. 
Stephan   7'.    Daniels,   p.    1195. 
Stephen,    Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 

z:  Smith,   p.    2480. 

Stephens    7'.    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    147. 

7'.  Oklahoma    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

1696. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7. 


1   Car — s 


ccxc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


pp. 


P- 


Stephens,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  Tuck- 
erman  f. 

-■.  Tuckerman,     etc.,    Co.,     pp. 

340,   433,    1038. 

Stephenson,   Gooch  ;•. 

Nelson  '■. 

i:  United   States    E-xp.    Co.,   p. 

592. 

Stepp.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -•. 
Sterling,   Fowler  t'. 

f.  St.   Louis,   elc,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

630.    689,    1304,    1313. 

Sterling  Amusement  Co.  z\  La 
Compagnie  Generale  Transatlan- 
tique,    pp.   4032,   4033,   4034,   4035. 

Sterling   Salt   Co.,   United   States  *. 

Sterling,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Randall   f. 

t .   Wise,    p.   2309. 

Stern,   Pennsylvania  R.   Co.   v. 

Pullman  Co.  v. 

V.  Westchester    Elect.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2681,    2882. 

Sternberg    f.    State,    p.    1611. 
Sternfels    f.     Metropolitan      St.     R. 

Co.,   pp.   2082. 
Sterrett  f.  Metropolitan  St.   R.   Co., 

pp.    2677,   2927. 

Roanoke    R.,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Stettaners,    Adams    Exp.    Co.   v. 
Steuart,   Texas   Cent.   R'.   Co.   v. 
Steubing,    Louisville    R.    Co.    v. 
Stevenot  v.   Eastern  R.   Co.,  p.   579. 
Stevens    v.    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2479. 

V.  Boston    Elev.    R.     Co., 

2243,   2745,   2820. 

f.  Boston,     etc..     Railroad, 

515. 

v.  Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    pp. 

1154,   1158. 

Central   Pass.   R.   Co.  t. 

f.  Central    R..    etc.,     Co.,    pp. 

1517,  1747,  1748,  1767,  1917, 
1918,    1936. 

Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

v.  European,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2695. 

Gibson    z'. 

Grand   Trunk   R.    Co.    z'. 

Harris  v. 

Illinois  Cent.   K.    Co.   v. 

V.  Kansas    City    Elev.    R.    Co., 

pp.   1869,    1890,   1907,  2639. 

V.  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    322,    1016,    3251,    3331,    3340. 

V.  New    Jersey,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1708,    2009. 

"Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Railway    Co.    v. 

Rock    Island,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Sayward    i\ 

V.  Sayward     (Mass.),     3    Gray 

108— pp.    797,    798,   853. 

V.   Sayward     (Mass.),    8    Gray 

215— p.  854. 

V.   Wheeler,  pp.   1212,   1222, 

1229,  1231,  1232,  1234,  1236, 
1239. 

V.  Wichita   Valley  R.   Co.,    pp. 

1625,    1679. 

Stevenson    v.    Joline,    p.    1892. 

V.  Pullman     Palace     Car     Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.J,  26  S.  W.  112 
—pp.  3201,  3202,  3215,  3223, 
3237. 

V.  Pullman     Palace     Car     Co. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  335 
—pp.    1028,   3202,   3215. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    '■. 

Toledo,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Wells   Fargo    &   Co.,    52    O. 

St.    687,    44    N.    E.    1148— p.    981. 

V.  Wells     Fargo     &     Co.      (S. 

Ct.),  33  W.  L.  Bull.  247— p.  949. 

V.  West     Seattle     Land,     etc., 

Co.,   p.   2705. 

Steverman  v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co., 
pp.    1697,    1744,   2129,   2368,   2639. 
Steward,   Harrison   v. 

Montgomery,    etc.,    R'.     Co.    v. 

Stewart,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Stewart    v.    Baltimore    R.    Co.,    pp. 
1477,    1479. 

f.  Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1639. 

■:■.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2222. 

I-.   Bremer,    p.    438. 

-'.   Brooklvn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2042,    2045,  '2567. 

z:  Central,     etc.,    R.     Co.,     p. 

773. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 

Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

V.  Cleveland,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    pp. 

462,   969,   984,   997,    1016. 

Comer   Z'. 

v.   Comer,    pp.    141,    436,    1134, 

1194,    1203. 

Danville,    etc..    Road    Co.    r. 

V.   Erie,   etc.,   Transp.    Co.,   pp. 

417,    418,    3248. 

z:   Everets,    p.    2737. 

First    Nat.    Bank   v. 

Ft.    Worth,   etc.,    K.   Co.   -■. 

Goodman   z\ 

Gracv,       pp.      267,     268,     269, 

276,   280,   284,   778. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 

Harrison    .'. 

z\  Harvard    College,    pp.    2331, 

2864. 

Houston,    etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

v.  International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1767.    1768.    1770,    1771,    1773, 
1779,    1780,    1798,    1800,   2593. 

Kehrer    -■. 

''.   Lehigh    \'alley   R.     Co.,    pp. 

1180,    1181. 

Montgomery,    etc.,    R.     Co.    ?'. 

?■.   Potomac        Ferry      Co.,       p. 

1170. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Samms  z\ 

z\  Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3284. 

Texas   Cent.   R.   Co.   v. 

Texas,    etc.,    K.    Co.   z'. 

—  Thompson   z\ 

Trinity    Valley    R.    Co.    -•. 

Stewart  &   Co.,   H.   &   T.    C.   R.   Co. 

Stewart    Taxi    Service    Co.    v.    Getz, 

pp.    2647,   2810. 
Stibbs,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z'. 
Stickney,         Interstate         Commerce 

Commission   v. 

z\   Interstate     Commerce     Com- 


pp. 


6/^/, 


3728,      3741, 


mission 

3797. 

Stierle   v.   Union   R.    Co.,   p.    1726. 
Stiles    z\      Atlanta,      etc..      Railroad, 

pp.    1747,    1748,    2539, _  2839,    2941. 

V.   Davis,   p.   573,    575. 

Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   i. 

i'.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

727,    749,    765,    1329. 

Still,    Eddy   r. 

Stillman,    Abercrombie   "'. 

Stillwell,   Louisville,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

"'.  The    J.     D.    Hall,    p.    3935. 

Stimpson    v.    Gilchrist,    p.    460. 
Stimson     -■.    Connecticut     River     R. 

Co.,    pp.    3117,    3121,    3124,    3151, 
3182,    3192. 

v.  Jackson,    pp.    531,    538,    562, 

753,   756. 

V.   Milwaukee,      etc.,      R.     Co., 

pp.    1824,    2161. 

Tucker    z'. 

Stingle,    Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    K.    Co.    z: 
Stix,    Hensler   v. 

Langstaff  v. 

Stock  &   Sons,   Chesapeake,   etc.,   R. 

Co.  V. 
Stockard,    Memphis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   ?■. 

V.  Morgan,     pp.      3552,     3560, 

3570. 

Railroad    ?■. 

Stockdell,    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    v. 
Stocking,    N'icksburg,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Stocksdale,     Western     Maryland     R. 
Co.   V. 


Stockton,    Bishop   v. 

f.   Bishop,    p.    2634. 

z:   Frey,    pp.    1687,    2693. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    r. 

Saltonstall   f. 

Stockton  Lumber  Co.  -'.  Califor- 
nia Nav.,  etc.,  Co..  pp.  752,  3914. 

Stockton  Mill.  Co.,  California  Nav., 
etc.,  Co.  7'. 

z\  California    Nav.,    etc.,    Co., 

pp.    3903,    3911,    3914,    3915. 

Stockwell,    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Stockyards     Terminal     Co.,     United 

States   t'. 
Stockyards  Terminal  R.   Co.,  United 

States  V. 
Stoddard,   Johnson  v. 

z\  Long    Island      R.     Co.,      p. 

946. 

Stoeser,  Brass  z\ 

Stokes,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

z:   Saltonstall,  pp.  1501,  1684, 

1685,  1687,  1691,  1749,  2128, 
2670. 

Stotze  Z'.  Ann  Arbor  R.  Co.,  pp. 
3396,  3399,  3408. 

Stone  J'.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  pp.  611, 
639,  641,  642,  644,  651,  670,  671, 
851. 

T'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47 

Iowa  82,  17  .'Xm.  R.  Rep.  461, 
29  Am.  Rep.  458— pp.  1529,  1973, 
1977,  2425,   2429,   2434,   2439, 


2635. 


149 
■pp. 


—  -'.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
Iowa    240.     128    N.     W.     354- 
1460,    1466. 

—  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 
Mich.  76,  33  N.  W.  24,  30  Am. 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.    600— p.    1884. 

Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   8    S. 
1,    65    N.    W.    29— pp.    1318, 

Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    88 
98,   59  N.   W.   457— p.   2413. 
Clyde    Steamship      Co.,    pp. 
3914. 
['.   Farmers'     Loan,     etc.,      Co., 
pp.   34,   37,   39,   58,   59,   60,   61,   62, 
63,    64,    115,    116,     129,    1592. 
Ft.    Worth,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Illinois    Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

63,   65. 

Johnson  z\ 

z\   Lewiston,     etc.,      St.       Rail- 
way,   pp.    1820,    2754. 

Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

V.   Natchez,    etc.,    R.     Co..     pp. 

115,  125. 

z\  New    Orleans,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  63. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z\  Rice,    pp.    538,    539. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

— —  z:   Swift,    pp.    404,    549. 

V.  Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

305,    356. 

z:  Waitt,    pp.   524,    540,   546. 

V.  Wisconsin,    pp.    34,    36,    116. 

Stone    &    Co.    z'.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   pp.   98,    152. 
Stonecipher,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Stonecypher,  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co. 

V. 

Stoneman  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y. 
429— p.    3149,    3150. 

V.   Erie     R.     Co.     (N.     Y.),     1 

Sheld.    286— p.    3132. 

Stoner  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
412,   998. 

Kansas,   etc.,  R.   Co.   v. 

Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     Z'. 

z'.   Pennsylvania    Co.,    p.    2146. 

Stony    Brook     R.     Corp.,     Gillshan- 

non  V. 
Stony    Fork    Coal    Co.    v.    Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    3688,    3833. 
Stoody  V.   Detroit,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1990,    2645,    2703. 
Stoomvart     Maatschaffy     Nederland- 

sche    Lloyd    z:    Lind,    p.    3958. 


TAP.LK  OF  CASES. 


CCXCI 


Storer,    Tracy   v. 

Storey,    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Storment,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Storms,  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v- 
Storrs,    Central,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

V.   Pensacola,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pP- 

122,    124. 

Story,   Harris  v. 

Merchants',    etc.,    Transp.    Co. 


R.    Co.,    pp. 
3051,     3052, 


Southern    R. 


Stock 
Min. 


Co., 

Yard, 
Co., 


R. 


V.  Norfolk,    etc., 

1497,      1499,     3012, 
305€. 

Story    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Co.,    pp.    640,    641.    642,    689,    694. 
Stothard  v.   Louisiana   R.,   etc.,   Co., 

p.    164. 
Stout,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

V.   Coffin,     pp.     812,    814. 

Stoutenburgh    v.    llennick.    p.    3472. 
Stovall,  G.,  H.  &  S.  A.  R.  Co.  r. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Stovi'e,    Burgess   -•. 

J'.  New    York,     etc.,    R. 

pp.    894,    899,    917,    918. 

Strachan,    Burton    v. 
btrader,    Johnson    r. 
Straham,   Chevallier  v 
Strahorn     v.      LTnion 

etc.,    Co..   p.   482. 
Straight     Creek     Coal 

Straight    Creek    Coal,   etc.,    Co.   v. 
Straight     Creek    Coal,     etc.,     Co.    r. 

Straight     Creek    Coal     Min.     Co., 

pp.    6,    225,    226,    1194. 
Strain,   Indianapolis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  -'. 

V.   X'icksburg,     etc.,       R.      Co., 

pp.    1511,    1785. 

Straiton  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

pp.    3177,    3181. 
Stranahan,   Buttfield  :'. 
Strand   f.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2233. 
Strang,    Berndston   -•. 
Strange    v.     .^tlantic,     etc 

pp.    642,    645,    677,    3191 

Ptre     Marquette    R. 

Stratford      v.     ^  .dland 

Co.,   p.    2412. 
Strathairly,    The. 
Strathdon,    The. 
Stratton,     Chicago, 

Ohio,    etc.,    R 

Straud,    Chicago    L^nion    Tract.    Co. 

Straus  V.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75 
Mo.  185,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
384— pp.    1884,    1899,    1900,    2248. 

V.   Kansas,     etc..     R.      Co.,      86 

Mo.   421,  27  Am.  &   Eng.   R.   Cas. 
170— pp.    1899,    1900. 

Straus  &   Bro.   f.   Wessel   &   Co.,   p. 

479. 
Strauss,   Illinois   Cent.   R.    Co.   :■. 

V.  United     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

2319. 

V.  Wilson,    p.    916. 

Strawn    v.    Cogswell,    p.    659. 
Street,    Ewart   v. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Street   Railroad  v.   Boddy,    pp.    1514, 

1535. 
Street    R.    Co.,    Britton    r. 

O'Rouke    V. 

Streeter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    140. 

r.   Sanitary    Dist.,    p.    3802.  ^ 

Stribling,   San   Antonio,  etc.,   R.   Co. 

Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Strieker  v.   Leathers,   p.    594. 

Southern    R.    Co.   v. 

Strickland,    Central    R.,   etc.,    Co.   v. 
StricKlin,   Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Stringfellow,    Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Z'. 

Stringfield  f.  Louisville  R.  Co.,  pp. 
2418,    2420,    2490. 

V.  Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    948, 

1076. 


etc. 
Co. 


R.    Co., 
3199. 
Co. 
Valley 


R.    Co. 


Strohn  V.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 
Wis.  554,  94  Am.  Dec.  564— pp. 
322,    325,    412,    987,    1044,    3881. 

t.   Detroit,    etc.,    R.      Co.,     23 

Wis.    126,    99    Am.    Dec.    114— pp. 
631,    632,    634,    729,    734. 

Strong  f.  Burlington  Tract.  Co., 
pp.     2005,     2006,     2895.     2897. 

Doty  7'. 

Dutton    V. 

-■.  Long     Island     R.    Co..     pp. 

822,    987. 

-'.   North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co., 

p.  2502. 

Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Rapid    Transit    R.    Co.    v. 

-.    United     States,     p.     3875. 

Strong,    etc.,    Co.,    Tweedie   Trading 

Co.  -■. 
Strosnider,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Strother   v.    Aberdeen,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2059,    3073. 
Strough  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 

p.   236. 

V.  New    York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    248,    262,    617. 

Strouss  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

277,     726,     731,     737,     746.     853, 

3121,  3124,  3132,  3133,  3143, 

3144,  3148,  3149,  3151. 
Strozier,  Southern  Iv.  Co.  i\ 
Struble  V.     Pennsylvania  Co.,  pp. 

2131,  2137,  2274,  2326. 

Terre  Haute,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 

Struebing  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Des- 
patch Transp.  Co.,  pp.  822,  823, 
843. 

Struges,   Moran  v. 

StruU    V.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   3050. 
Strutt     c'.     Brooklyn,     etc.,     R 

p.    3995. 
Stryker,    Heyman    v. 
Stuart    f.     iMan    &     Co.,     pp. 

1213,      1214,      1219,      1220, 

1230.     1231,      1232,      1233, 

1237. 

Parsons-Willis    Lumber    Co.    v. 

Stuart's    Draft    Mill.    Co.,    Norfolk, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  !■. 
Stubbs,    Ilsley    v. 

r.   Lund.        pp.       1210,        1211. 

1241,    1242. 

Portland     Bank    v. 

Stuber.    Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Stuckev    V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2570. 
Stumore   v.    Breen,    p.    3879. 
Stump    z\    Hutchinson,    p.    814. 
Stupeck,    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.   "'. 
Sturdevant   v.    Tuttle,    pp.    267,    294, 

296. 
Sturdivant  v.    Fort   Worth,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1823,    1825,    1828,    2172. 
Sturgeon,    Hill    v. 
Sturges  -■.    Detroit,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

848,    1318,    1320.    1352. 

f.   St.    Louis,   etc..   R.   Co..   pp. 

420,    542.    559,    3602. 

Sturgess    V.    Bissell,    p.    848. 
Sturgis  f.   Detroit,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 
1775.    2271. 

f.  Fifth    Ave.    Coach    Co..    pp. 

2724,    2725. 

Sturgis    Nat.    Bank,    Gregory    v. 
Sturtevant,     Bean     i'. 

f.   Orser,    p.    1242. 

Stutler,    Fairmount.   etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 
Stutsky     r.      Brooklvn      Heights     R'. 

Co.,    p.    2870. 
Stutz   f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1874.   3050. 
Styles   -•.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2485. 
Styria,    The. 
Suber   -'.    Georgia,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2175,    2249,    2251,    2540. 
Sublett,    Taylor,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Suburban    R.    Co.    Finseth   %-. 
Sue.    The. 


Co. 


1212, 
1229, 
1235, 


Sue,    L'nion    Pac.    R.    Co.    :•. 
Suesskind-Schatz     Co.    v.     Loria,     p. 

592. 
SuflFern,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Suffolk,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Kellogg  v. 
Sugg  V.    Memphis,   etc.,  Packet   Co., 

p.    3192. 
Susri;s.   Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   -j. 
Suittcr,    Liverpool,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Sulakowski   v.    Flint,    p.    770. 
Sullivan    v.       Boston      Elevated     R. 

Co.,   p.    1495. 

Boston,    etc.,    R'.    Co.   f. 

V.   Brooklyn     Heights    R.    Co., 

p.    1648. 

Brown   V. 

V.  Capital      Tract.       Co.,       pp. 

2672,    2677. 

!■.  Charleston,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2673. 

f.   Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co., 

pp.    2729,    2872,    4003. 

Florida,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

v.  Jefferson    Ave.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1690,     1744.     1750. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Marin,     pp.     2331.     2901. 

•  V.   Minneapolis,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2508. 

North    Coast     Lighterage     Co. 

— ^  V.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  p. 
2060. 

V.  Old     Colony     St.     Railway, 

p.   1494. 

r.  Oregon     R.,    etc..    Co.,    pp. 

2663.    3087. 

r.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    i814.    1986,    2682. 

-■.   Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    86   Pac. 

786,      44      Wash.      53— pp.      2121, 
2867. 

V.  Seattle    Elect.    Co.,    97   Pac. 

1109,  51    Wash.    71— p.    2756. 

V.  Southern         Railway,         pp. 

3140,  3157,    3197. 

r.  Thompson,    pp.      532,      535. 

V.  Union    K.    Co.,    p.    2833. 

V.  Union   Tract.    Co.   f. 

V.  Vicksburg,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

2501. 

Sullivan-Sanford  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Watson,    p.    2092. 

Sullivan    Lumber     Co.,    Baldwin     v. 

Sullivan    &    Co.,    Miller   v. 

Sullivan,  etc..   Co..   Rome   R.   Co.  v. 

Sultan  R..  etc.,  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
ern   R.   Co..   pp.   71,  95,   435,   465. 

Sullana    f.    Chapman,    pp.    511,    540. 

Summcrfield  v.  St.  Louis  Trans. 
Co.,    p.    2664. 

Summeril   i:   Elder,   p.    1210. 

Summerlin  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  Rail- 
way,   pp.    1267.    1339,    1361.    1375. 

Summerour,    Western,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Summers  r.  Crescent  City  R.  Co.. 
pp.    1820.   2199.   2202. 

Houston,   etc..    R.    Co^  v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :•. 

V.   Mills,    p.    1207. 

r.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.     25, 

148. 

Summitt    v.     State,     pp.     Ill,     191, 

192,    194,    205. 
Sumner   v.    Coswell,    p.    3862. 

v.  Charlotte,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

267,    284,    286,    289,   438.    4o4. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Southern      R.      Ass'n. 

1147,    1158. 

Sumrell    f.     Atlantic,    etc 

pp.    345.   874. 
Sumter    Pine,    etc.,    Co.    x 

etc..    R.    Co..    p.    162. 
Sunbeam,    The. 
Sun  Co.  i:   Healy,  p.  4067. 
Sun   Mut.    Ins.   Co.,   Clastrier  v. 

-■.  Ocean    Ins.    Co..     p.     3908. 

Sunday    Creek    Co.,    United    States 


pp. 
Co., 
Atlantic, 


R. 


CCXCII 


TADLE    or    CASES. 


Sunny   Creek   Co.   v.   United   States,  ' 

pp.    3604,    3706,    3846.  { 

Sunderland    f.     Westcott,     pp.      526, 

946,    1007. 
Sunderland    Bros.    Co.    v.    Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    728,     733,    743, 

746,    749,     1203. 
Superior      Court,      United     Tanners 

Timber   Co.   f. 

Webster   r. 

Superior     Rapid       Trans.      R.      Co., 

Robinson    f. 
Superior       Refin.       Co.,        Atchison, 

etc.,   R.    Co.   z: 
Supervisors,    Olcott    '•. 
Supreme    Ruler,    Snyder   T. 
Sure    f.    Milwaukee    Elect,    k.,    etc., 

Co.,    p.    2028. 
Suse    i\     Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2895. 
Susong     f.     Florida,     etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    1348,    1365,    1367,    1384,    1386, 

1451.    1454,    3377,    3397. 
Susquehanna    Coal     Co.     v.     South 

.\mboy,    p.    3568. 
Susquehanna,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Schley  v. 
Sussex   R.    Co.,   Morris,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

Sutherland,    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Harbor   Master  t. 

Metropolitan   West    Side    Elev. 

R.   Co.   V. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   Second   Nat.    Bank,   pp.   482, 

576. 

I'.   Standard,     etc.,     Ins.      Co., 

p.    2173. 

Sutherlin,    Underwriters'    Agency   v. 
Sutro    i:    Fargo,    pp.    1037,    1041. 
Sutro    R.    Co.,    Bosqui    f. 
Sutter   St.   R.   Co.,   Harrison  v. 
buttle     V.     S-outhern      R.      Co.,      pp. 

1756,    2120,    2219,     2335. 
Sutton    T.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3292. 

Great     Western     R.     Co.     v. 

Illinois    Cent    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Kettell,    pp.     337,     338. 

f.  Pennsylvania      R.    Co.,     pp. 

J824,     2674,     2686,     2885. 

J'.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3751. 

z:   Southern         Railway,         pp. 

1743,     2080,      2645,      2673,      2674, 
3000. 

State    z: 

Svedberg,    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Sverfd,    The. 

Swafford,  Indiana  Union  Tract.  Co. 

Swan,    In    re. 

Joyce   V. 

z:  Louisville,   etc.,   K.    Co.,   pp. 

700,    707,    711. 

V.  Manchester,     etc..     Railway, 

pp.    94,    2467,    2468,    2493. 

z:  Wiley,   etc.,    Co.,    p.    3967. 

Swancey,  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Swanger,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Swank  V.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

p.    340. 
Swann,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Swanson    z:    Duluth    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2833. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

Raleigh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Swarthout    f.     New    Jersey     Steam- 
boat   Co.,    p.    1839. 

Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Swedish- American      Nat.      Bank      z-. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.     309, 

314. 
Sweeden    v.    Atkinson    Improvement 

Co.,    pp.    1751,    2036,    2037. 
Sweeney    v.     Frank     Waterhouse    & 

Co.,  p.  488. 

Jameson  z: 

v.   Kansas  City  Cable  R.  Co., 

pp.  2005,  2006,  2130,  2236,  2401, 
2402,  2671,  2896.  2927,  2978. 

• V.  Union    R.    Co.,    p.    2328. 


Sweeney    f.    Union    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

1991. 
Sweet  z:   Barney,   pp.   522,   541,   542, 

543,  544. 

f.  Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co., 

136  Ala.  166,  33  So.  886— pp. 
2355,  2907. 

z:   Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co., 

39  So.  767,  145  Ala.  667— pp. 
2115,  2250,  2258,  2988,  2990. 

Le    Blanc    z'. 

V.  Louisville    R.    Co.,    p.    2911. 

Medberv    '■. 

Z'.  Pym,     p.     1217. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Sweeten,   Millville   Gas   Light   Co.   f. 
Sweetland    z:    Lynn,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.     201,     202,     204,     205.     2122, 

2177,    2342,    2344. 
Sweetzer,     West     Virginia     Transp. 

Co.     r. 
Sweitzer,    Verner    z: 
Swetland    z\    Boston,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.     615,      728,      733,      741.      777, 

3416. 
Swift    V.     Brownell,     p.     4047. 

Hannibal    R.    Co.    f. 

Hannibal,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 

Jeffersonville    K.    Co.    z'. 

V    Pacific   Mail    Steamship    Co  , 

pp.   325,  454,  486,  802,  996,   3251, 
3313.  „      ^ 

z:  Philadelphia,     etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.    3494,    3665. 

Stone   v. 

z:   Tatner,    pp.    3864,    386o. 

Swift     River     Co.     z:     Fitchburg     R. 

Co.,    pp.    638,    642,    647,    651,    660, 
681. 
Swift    &    Co.    z:    Furness,    etc.,    Co., 
p.    3888. 

V.  United    States,    p.    3686. 

Swigelsky  v.  Interurban   St.   R.   Co., 

p.    2843. 
Swigert    7'.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1881,     1900,    2152. 
Swindle.    Douglas,    etc.,    R.     Co.    t'. 
Swindlehurst,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Swindler    z:    Hilliard.    pp.     10,    946, 

1036.    1039. 
Swiney    -•.    American    Exp.    Co..    pp. 

7-:>7      732.     748.     842,     1340,     1443, 

1451,    1434.    1456,    1470,    1481. 
Swinney,    Collier   z\ 
Switzer,     Grieff    '■. 
Switzler    z:    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.. 

p.     1215. 
Swoflford     Bros.      Dry      Goods     Co., 

Rosencranz   z'. 
Sword    z:    Young,    pp.    554,    731. 
Sybil,    The. 

Sydenstricker,    Nutter    z\     _ 
Sykes,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 
Sylvester,    Everleigh    z\ 

Tufts  V. 

Symns  v.  Schotten,  pp.  1219,  1229, 
1232,    1233. 

Symonds  z'.  Minncanolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   pp.   2333.    2777. 

Symons  v.  10,466  Barrels  of  Ce- 
ment,   pp.    3885,    3945. 

Syracuse  Rapid  Trans.  Co.,  Mc- 
Laughlin  z: 

Svracuse  Rapid  Trans.  R.  Co., 
'Eddy   z: 

Syracuse,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Dexter   z: 

Dobbins   v. 

Hill    r. 

Mynard    v. 

Northrop  z'. 

Reschke    z\ 

Syracuse,    etc..    Railway.     Dow    z\ 
Szczech    r.     Chicago    City     R.     Co., 

p.    2811. 
Szczepanski     7\     Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   pp.    1564,    1990. 


Taber  z:  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  4  Hun  765— pp.  2240, 
2748. 


Taber  '■.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 
N.  Y.  489— pp.  1876,  1877,  1925, 
2362. 

Labar   z'. 

z\   Seaboard,    etc.,    Railway,   81 

S.  C.  317,  62  S.  E.  311— pp. 
1669,  1677,  2662,  2783,  2799, 
3050,   3226. 

■:•.  Seaboard,   etc..   Railway,   66 

S.  E.  292,  84  S.  C.  291,  19  Am. 
&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1132— pp. 
1669,    2662,    2846,    3226. 

Tabor,    Ohio,    etc.,   K.    Co.   '■. 
Taborn,      Consolidated      Tract.      Co. 

Tacoma  R.,  etc.,   Co.,   Benson  v. 

Lawshe  t'. 

Leclaire     v. 

-■.   Turner,    p.    3009. 

Tacoma     Tract.     Co.,     Bailey    z'. 
Tacoma,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Peterson    z\ 
Taenzer     &     Co.     z:     Chicago,     etc.. 

R.  Co.,  95  C.  C.  A.  436,  170 
Fed.    240— pp.    6,    447,    3247. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    191 

Fed.  543— pp.  3753,  3754,  3757, 
3759,     3830. 

Taffe    z'.    Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

3327,    3328,    3329. 
Taff  Vale  R.   Co.,   Davis  z: 
Taft    V.    Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co., 

p.    2184. 
Taft     Co.     c'.     .\merican     Exp.     Co., 

pp.    724,    818,    843. 
Taggard    <'.    Loring,    p.    3864. 
Taggart,    Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Western   Union  Tel.   Co.   v. 

Taillon    v.    Mears.    pp.     1707,    2287, 

2289,    2667,     2860. 
Talbert   z:    Charleston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1599,    2322,    2876. 
Talfjot,     American      Brewing     .\ss'n 

• In    re. 

Little   Rock,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Savannah,    etc.,    I\'.    Co.    "■. 

Tuller    z: 

Talbot     &     Co.,     Little     Rock,     etc., 

R.   Co.  v. 
Tallbott     z:      Merchants'      Despatch 

Transp.    Co.,    pp.    940,    941. 
Talcott     V.     Pine     Grove,     pp.     255, 

1501. 

z:  Wabash    R.    Co.,    159   N.    Y. 

461,    54    N.    E.    1— p.    3154. 

z:  Wabash    R.    Co.,    50    N.    Y. 

St.  Rep.  423,  66  Hun  456,  21  N. 
Y.  S.  318— pp.  3121,  3152,  3176, 
3178. 

Taliaferro,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Talk,    Austin    7'. 

Tall  z:  I'.altimore  Steam-Packet  Co., 
pp.    2032,    2033,    2724. 

Tallassee  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  z:  Wes- 
tern Railway,  117  Ala.  520,  23 
So.  139,  67  .-Vm.  St.  Rep.  179— 
pp.     332,     333,     1016. 

7'.   Western    Railway,    128    Ala. 

167,  29  So.  203— pp.  726,  773. 
905. 

Tallassee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Baxley   z\ 
Talley    z\    Great    Western    R.    Co., 
pp.    3146,    3156. 

Texas,    etc.,    T\.    Co.    7'. 

Tallman    '•.     Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    3170,    3172. 
Talluah     Falls     R.     Co.     7'.     Harris, 
pp.     1885,    2249,    2777. 

-•.   Ramey,  _  p.     2090. 

Talmadge.    Maury    z: 

7'.  Zanesville,    etc..    Road    Co., 

pp.     1694.     1714. 

Tampico,    The. 

'1  anger    7'.     Southwest,     etc..     Elect. 

R.    Co.,    p.    2414. 
Tannehill    z'.    Birmingham    R.,    etc., 

Co.,    pp.    2252,    2383,    2640. 
Tanner   z'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1738. 

z\  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  870. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


TAIiLK  OF  CASKS. 


CCXCIII 


Tanner  z:  Oil  Creek  R.   Co.,  p.  903. 

v.   Scovell,     PI..     1231.     1232. 

Tant  f.    Soiitlurn    Railway,    p.    1606. 
Tapia,    .Mabania,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Tapp,    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 
Tarbell     r.     Central     Pac.     R.     Co., 

pp     210,    1491,    1559,    1604,    2428, 
2571,     3061.  ^     ^ 

z:  Korthern   Cent.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1529.    2440.  ^    .      . 

V.   Royal    F.xch.    Shipping    Co., 

110   N.    Y.    170,    17   N.    K.    721,    (. 
Am.    St.    Rep.    350— pp.    904,    91 3. 

V.   Royal    Kxch.    Shipping    Co., 

53   N.   V.   Super.   Ct.    190— p.   904. 

Tarbox  t'  F.astern  Steamboat  Co., 
pp.    281.    337,   815,    816,    817.    829. 

Tardos  r.  Toulon,  pp.  821,  823. 
828. 

Tar    Heel    Steamboat    Co.,    Pate    v. 

Tarin.    Southern    Pac.    Co.    v. 

Tarkington,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Tarr  f.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 
147,    2427. 

Woostcr   f. 

Tarrant   r.    St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2425. 
Tarter.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   :■. 
Tartt,    Ellsworth    i\ 
Tarvin    t.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3144. 
Tarwater,    Missouri,   etc.,    R'.    Co.   v. 
Tasby,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Tasscy,  St.  Louis  Merchants'  Bridge 

Terminal    R.    Co.   z\ 
Tate.    Birmingham    R.,    etc..    Co.    v. 

V.  Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     p. 


2870 
1033 


t'.   Missouri     Pac.     K.     t( 


Wabash    R.    Co..    p.    2635. 
, V.  Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co..     pp. 

267,   277.    284.    285,   303. 
Tatner,    Swift    f. 
Tauger   r.    New    York    City    R.    Co., 

p.    2777. 
Taugher   v.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.     514.    577,    586,    600,    842. 
Taxicab     Co.    v.     Grant,     pp.     1669, 

2628,    2(>31. 
Taxing    Dist.,    Ficklen    ■:■. 

Lightburne   z-. 

Tayloe,    Willard    v. 

Taylor     f.     Atlantic,     etc.,     R. 

pp.     1537,    2019,    2831. 

Birmingham   R.,    etc..    Co 

Bradford   f. 

V.   Brigham,   p.    3916. 

Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Conway    z: 


Co., 


Day,    p.    27. 


pp. 


pp. 


J'.   Dry   Dock,  etc.,   R.   Co 

2253.    2304. 

z:  Fall    River    Ironworks 

3956,    3972. 

z:  Florida,    etc..     R.     Co.,     pp. 

30.    222.    223. 

Goodsell   V. 

z:   Grand     Ave.     R.     Co.,     137 

Mo.    363,    39    S.    \V.    88— p.    2083. 

:■.   Grand     -Ave.     R.     Co.,     185 

Mo.   239.  84   S.  W.   873— p.   2656. 

i:   Grand    Trunk    R.     Co..    pp. 

1716,      1720,      1725,     1735,      1736, 
1812. 

. Gulf,   etc..    R.    Co.   f. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 

f.   Maine     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

818,    32(>0.    3327. 

r.   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co..     76 

Kan.   467.  92  Pac.   606— pp.   3484, 
3486.    3511. 

z:   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     26 

Mo.    App.    33o— p.    2249. 

z:  Mounot,   p.    3125. 

T'.  Nassau    Elect.    R'. 

1649,     1678. 

f.  New     York,     etc., 

p.    2731. 


Co. 
R. 


pp. 
Co.. 


Taylor     v.     Pennsylvania     Co.,     pp. 
1796,     2820. 

V.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

953,   977. 

Pequeno    z\ 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

i:   Seaboard,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1634. 

I'.  South    Covington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2542. 

V.  Spokane,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    p. 

2776. 

f.   Taylor,    p.    420. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   The      Robert      Campbell,      p. 

440. 

Tindall   -■. 

— —  Trindall    "'. 
\'an   Hern   v. 

-.■.  Wabash    R.    Co.    (Mo.),    38 

S.   W.   304,  42   L.   R.   A.   110— pp. 
1938,    2340,   2886. 

z:   Wabash  R  Co.,  130  Mo. 

App.  582,  109  S.  W.  1059— pp. 
3212,  3228,  3229. 

r.  Weir,    p.    1067. 

Taylor    &    Co.    f.    Collier,    pp.    595, 

596,    848,    853. 

z:  Little    Rock,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    970.    3377.    3383. 

Taylor,   etc..    Co..   Little   Rock.   etc.. 
R.    Co.    z:    pp.    945,    3330. 

Packard     v. 

laylor.    etc.,    R.    Co.    z:    Sublett.    p. 

1397. 
T    B.  &  H.   R.   Co.  V.   Montgomery. 

pp.    849.    1079,    1270,    1397. 
Teague    z:     Southern     R.     Co..     pp. 

594,    599. 
Teal   V.    walker,   p.   947. 
Teale     v.     Southern     Pac.     Co..     p. 

2270. 
Teaii.     Bowman    v. 

i:   Sears,     p.     3370. 

Teams.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 
Tcbbs    z\     Cleveland,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    436.    459.    477,    478. 
Tecumsch    Mills    z\    Louisville,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    941,    944. 
Teel  v.  Coal,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  pp.   20^3, 

2054.     2868,     2959. 
Teeling,    Dillingham    f. 
Teeters,     Lake     Shore,    etc.,     R.     Co 

Telegraph'  Co.    z:    Griswold,    pp.    9, 
949. 

t.  Munford,  pp.  9,   3330,   3340. 

949. 

otatc  v. 

v.  Texas,       pp.       3447,       3471, 

3549,      3550,      3552,      3564,      3566, 
3568,    3572. 

Tempel    z:    Dodge,    p.     1028 
Tempfer     v.     Joplin,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.     2117,     2384. 
Temple,    x\tchison,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 
Templeton,    \'an    Horn    z: 
Terns,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Tencdos,    The. 

Ten    Eyck  z\   Harris,   p.    588. 
Tenhet     z\     .\tlanta,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    869. 
Tennant.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 
Tenner,    Indianapolis    St.    R.    Co.   v. 
Tennessee,    .\ustin    z-. 

z:   Pullman    Southern    Car   Co., 

p.     3579. 

lennessee    Brewing    Co.,    Louisville, 

etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Tennessee   Cent.    R.   Co.   z:    Brasher. 

pp.    1854,   2820,   3045,   3050,   3054. 
Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    McCauley 

Tennessee,    etc.,    Transp.    Co.,    Sea- 

songood    '■. 
Tenney.    Harris    z\ 
Ten    Thousand    &    Eighty-Two    Oak 

Ties,    pp.    3965,    3971. 
10,466    Barrels    of    Cement,    Symons 


Ten     Winkel,     -Adams     ICxp.     Co.     z: 
Terhune,    Bedford  r. 
Terminal    R.    .\ss'n    Kinnavey   J. 
Terre    Haute    Elect.    Co..   Hall   z: 
Terre     Haute     Tract.,     etc..     Co.     i'. 

Payne,      pp.      1721,      1901.      1922, 

2599. 
Terre     Haute,     etc.,     Railroad,     Lin 

V. 

Terre   Haute,  etc.,   R.   Co.   z\    Buck, 

pp.    1715,    1922,   2243.   2831. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3283. 

z:  Crews,    p.     782. 

Everhart  v. 

z:   Fitzgerald,    pp.     1619,    2411, 

2457. 

Harvey  v. 

V.   Jackson,  pp.  2037,  2068. 

V.   Ketcham,  p.  22. 

Payne  z\ 

z;   Peoria,  etc..  R.  Co.,  p. 

IDS. 

z:   Sheeks.   pp.   1813.   2126. 

2604,  2644,  2673,  2808. 

z:   Sherwood,  pp.  1036.  1361, 

1362,  1380,  1386. 

Stewart  f. 

V.   Struble.    p.    1301. 

z:   \anatta,   pp.   2437,  3096. 

Terrell    f.    Russell,    p.    3416. 
Terril    z:    Rogers,    p.    1164. 
Territory,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Terry    z'.    Brightman,    p.    38''iS. 

Ex    parte. 

V.   Flushing,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1529,     1973. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:  Gulf.   etc..   R.   Co..   p.    1359. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

z:  Jewett,      pp.       1792,       1986. 

2138. 

z:   Southern    R.     Co.,    p.    959. 

Texas    Mid.    R.    Co.    v. 

Tewes     v.     North      German     Lloyd 

Steamship  Co.,  186  N.  Y.  151. 
78  N.  E.  864,  8  L.  R-  A..  N. 
S.,     199— pp.    4032,    4033.    4035. 

Z-.  Aorth  German  Lloyd  Steam- 
ship Co.,  78  N.  E.  1113,  186  N. 
Y.     525— pp.    4033,    4035. 

Texarkana  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Hart,  p. 
1983. 

Texarkana.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Ander- 
son,   p.    3046. 

Kizer  z: 

Sabine    Tram    Co.    v. 

z:  Sabine   Tram    Co.,    pp.    175, 

3491. 

z:   Shivel,    pp.    857.    3542. 

Texas.    Asher    v. 

Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.   v. 

Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 

Louisiana   z: 

Telegraph   Co.   z\ 

The. 

Waters-Pierce    Oil    Co.    z: 

Western     Union     Tel.     Co.     f. 

Texas     Cent.     R.     Co.     t'.     Burnett. 

pp.    1721,    1729,    2669,    3008. 

f.   Cameron,    pp.    1737.    2036. 

V.   Dorsev,    pp.    353,    461,    500, 

787,    803,    879. 

f.   Fisher,    p.    971. 

V.   Flanarv    (Tex.    Civ.    App.), 

45    S.    W.    214— p.    912. 

z:   Flanarv     (Tex.    Civ.    App.). 

50  S.  W.  726— pp.  844,  908.  910. 
912.  915. 

—  v.   Fowler,    pp.    405,    406. 

—  Z-.  Hannay-Frerichs  &  Co..  pp. 
152.  154.  171.  172.  173.  487.  653, 
662. 

—  Huchingson   f. 

z:   Hunter  &  Co.,  pp.  729, 

734.  750.  765.  1269.  1330.  1339. 
1340,  1349.  1353. 

—  f.   Hutchingson,    p.     2514. 

—  lohnson    f. 

—  'z:   Marrs.    pp.    3321,    3388. 

—  :■.  Miller,  pp.   632,   1319,   1321. 


CCXCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Texas   Cent.    R.    Co.   f.    Morris,   pp. 
1104,    1408,    1413. 

f.   O'Laughlin,    pp.    1275,    1347. 

V.  O'Loughlin,   pp.   3357,   3358, 

3368. 

f.  Pittman,    p.    1293. 

Renfro    z\ 

r.  Stewart,     pp.      1715,     2120, 

2167. 

f.  Watson,    pp.    851,    875. 

r.   Wheeler,    pp.    2744,    2873. 

Texas  Exp.   Co.  v.   Dupree,  pp.   759, 

760.    933,    935,    1009,    1010,    3331, 
3337. 

z:  Scott,    pp.    753,    759,    763, 

933. 

z:  Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    65. 

Texas    Grate    Co.,    Atlanta,    etc.,    R. 

Co.  r. 
Texas    Mex.    R.    Co.    v.    Gallagher, 
pp.    1002.   1003,   1297,  3337. 

z:   Willis,    p.     3141. 

z\  Wilson,    p.    1755. 

Texas   Mid.    Railroad  z:    Brown,    pp. 

1518,     1781,     1798,    1881,    2729. 

f.   Edwards    &    Co.,    pp.     281, 

846,    1001. 

f.   Ellison,    p.    1526. 

z:  Griggs,      pp.      1510,      1513, 

1721,    1778,    1779. 

z:  Little,    pp.    1778,    1779. 

Mercher    z: 

z:   Ritchey,    pp.    1886,   2268. 

Texas    Mid.    K.    Co.    ■:•.    Dean,    pp. 

2018.  2019,  2035,  2061. 

Edwards  &  Co.  z: 

z:   Frcy.    pp.    1773,    1782,    2679. 

i:   Geraldon,     pp.     2412,     2849. 

v.  Johnson,    pp.    1823,    2792. 

f.  Jumper,      pp.      1822,      1826, 

2684. 

Mercher    v. 

f.   Terry,       pp.       1763,       1906, 

1907,    2707,    2832. 

Texas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Davidson, 
pp.  1881,  1882,  1883,  2289,  2291, 
2968. 

V.  James,      pp.       1858,       1869, 

2425,    2457,    2472,    2483. 

Texas    Star   Flour   Mills,   Gulf,   etc., 

R.    Co.   z: 
Texas     Steamship     Co.     z:     Dupree 

Comm.    Co.,   p.   491. 
Texas     Tel.,     etc.,     Co.     z\     Seiders, 

p.    1117. 
Texas    Trunk    R.    Co.    v.    Ayres,    p. 

2721. 

f.  Johnson,    p.    1985. 

Morehouse    v. 

'z:    Mullins,    p.    1966. 

Texas    &    P.    Ry.    Co.    v.    Langhehn, 

pp.     1120,     1124. 
Texas,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Nicholson,    p. 

1291. 
Texas,    etc..    Railroad    v.    Fort,    pp. 

3179,    3181. 
Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   Abilene  Cotton 

Oil  Co.  z: 

f.  Abilene  Cotton   Oil   Co., 

pp.  716,  3470,  3601,  3631,  3664, 
3674,  3684,  3708,  3709,  3735, 
3737,  3741,  3747,  3750,  3752, 
3757,  3760,  3764,  3766,  3769, 
3770,  3785,  3806,  3809,  3810, 
3822,  3824,  3840,  3841. 

v.   Adams,  78  Tex.  372,  14  S. 

W.  666,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  56— 
pp.  1096,  1107,  3331,  3337,  3367, 
3377,  3395,  3396. 

V.   Adams,  72  S.  W.  81,  32 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  112— pp.  2163, 
2170. 

z:   Alexander,  pp.  1118,  1906, 

1909. 

Allen  -.'. 

z:   Allen,  pp.  171,  230,  261, 

1276. 

'•.  American,  etc.,  Timber  Co., 

p.    3814. 

V.  Andrews,    p.    1441. 

V.  Armstrong,    51     S.    W.    835, 

93    Tex.    31— p.    3050. 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Armstrong 
(Tex.  Civ.  .Vpp.),  41  S.  W.  833 
— pp.    1609,    1664. 

z:   Arnett,    88    S.    W.    448,    40 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  76 — pp.  445,  457, 
462. 

z:  Arnett     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

101    S.    W.    834— p.    1320. 

f.   Arnold,    pp.    820,    851,    1355, 

1390,     1470. 

Arrington    v. 

xVrthur    z: 

V.  Atchison,    p.    1693. 

Arthur  z\ 

V.  Avey    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    33 

S.    W.    704— pp.    466,    851,     1355. 

f.  Avery,    19    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

235,  46  S.  W.  897— pp.  451, 
4-2,  970.  971,  976,  1031,  1373, 
1374,    2098,    2099. 

V.  Bagwell,    p.    2314. 

'■.   Barber,    pp.    862,    863,    1096, 

1359,    1360,    1416. 

V.   Barron,  78  Tex.  421,  14  S. 

W.  698— pp.  1680,  1808,  1809. 

z\   Barron,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

546,  23   S.  W.  557— p.  1808. 

-  V.  Barrow,  33  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
611,  77  S.  W.  643— pp.  158,  448, 
1273. 

-  z\  Barrow  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
94  S.  W.  176— p.  171. 

-  z'.   Beckworth,    pp.    1704,    1886. 

-  V.   Beezley,    p.    2065. 

-  v.   Bell,    pp.     1858,     1860. 

-  Z-.   Berchfield,    p.    851. 

-  Berje   v. 

-  i'.   Berry,     p.     3337. 

-  z'.   Best,    pp.    2499,    2503,    2507. 

-  z:  Bigham,  90  Tex.  223,  38 
S.    W.    102— pp.    1332,    1336. 

-  V.  Bigham  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
47    S.    W.    814— pp   3336,    3413. 

-  •;•.  Bigham  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
67    S.    W.    522— p    686. 

-  z:   Birchfield,  p.  3357. 

-  -•.  Black,  87  Tex.  160,  27  S. 
W.  118— pp.  1544,  1547,  1549, 
1551,  1552,  2665,  2702. 

-  V.  Black,  23  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
119,  57  S.  W.  330— pp.  2550, 
2551,  2783. 

r.   Bloom,  85  Tex.  279,  20 

S.  W.  133— p.  2090. 

-  v.  Bloom,  164  U.  S.  636,  41 
L.  Ed.  580,  17  S.  Ct.  216— p. 
2090. 

-  V.   Boggs,  pp.  1328,  3356. 

V.   Boleman,  p.  2614. 

f.  Bond,  pp.  2429,  2473. 

z:   Boren,    p.    2037. 

V.   Born,    pp.    1896,_  1897,    1900. 

V.   Bowlin,    p.    2075. 

V.   Boyd,   pp.   2090,   2163,   2164, 

2207. 

Boyles   v. 

V.  Bratcher,    p.    2870. 

Breen   v. 

V.   Brown,   pp.   1780,   1784, 

1798,  2963. 

z:   Bryant,  p.  1886. 

V.   Buckalew,  pp.  1729,  1730, 

1826,     1846. 

z\   Buckelew,     pp.     1685,     1728, 

1729,  2666,  2667. 

V.   Buckworth,     p.     1693. 

V.   Bump,    pp.    1752,    2777. 

V.   Byers   Bros.   (Tex.   Civ. 

App.),  73    S.    W.  427— pp.  1285, 
1377,  3337,  3338. 

V.   Byers   Bros.   (Tex.   Civ. 

App.),  84  S.  W.  1087— pp.  1002, 
1289. 

V.   Callendar,  pp.  3359,  3361. 

V.   Callender,  pp.  1014,  3262, 

3264,  3266,  3936. 

-•.  Capper,  pp.  816,  817,  826, 

3385. 

V.   Capps,  pp.  897,  3114,  3115, 

3121,  3124,  3125,  3149,  3169. 

z:   Carlton,  pp.  241,  1712. 

Caruth     V. 


Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z:    Casey,    pp 
2425,    2480,    2529,    2624,    3105. 

Cassadv    z\ 

v.  Cass'idy,    p.    1540. 

•  Cau  V. 

Cavallaro   v. 

Charnock    z\ 

V.   Cisco     Oil     Mill,     pp 


3746,      3747, 


3735, 
3757, 


3741,     3745, 
3824,    3853. 

V.  Clark,    p.    3753 

-•.  Clayton,      pp.      886, 

3288,    3361. 
Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Clippenger, 
pp.    1813,    1986,   2681,   2761,   2900. 

Cockrell    v. 

V.   Coggin,    90    S.    W.    523,    40 

Tex.    Civ.    App.    583— p.    1325. 

V.   Coggin,    44    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

423,     99     S.     W.     1052— pp.     741, 
1309,     1338. 

z:   Cole,    pp.    1978,    2114,    2117. 

Collins   z\ 

z:   Cook,     p.     857. 

z'.   Cornelius,     pp.     1777, 

f.   Coutourie,    p.    917. 

'■.   Crockett,     pp.     2287, 

2545. 

v.   Crowley,    pp.    692,    1116. 

Cumberland    Tel.,    etc.,    Co. 


3265, 


1799. 


2302, 


194. 


Currie, 
1310. 
Curry, 


pp. 
64 


31,     187,     189, 
Tex.       85— p. 
App.     Civ. 

688,     1712, 


Curry,     2     Tex. 
§    453— p.    596. 
Davidson,     pp.     1 
1731,    1738. 
- —  Davis   V. 

-  z:  Davis,  93  Tex.  378,  54  S. 
W.  381,  55  S.  W.  562- pp.  487, 
1441. 

V.  Davis,     2     Tex.     App.     Civ. 

Cas.,  §  191— pp.  430,  431,  849, 
931,  937,  940,  941,  942,  946, 
950,    954,    1385,    3364,    3382. 

— ■  v.  Davis-Fowler    Co.,     p.     785. 

z:   Dawson,    pp.     1341,     1342. 

Demilley    z: 

z:   De    Milley,    60    Tex.     194— 

pp.     1808,    2736,    2941. 

Z'.   Demilley  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

41  S.  W.  147— pp.  1625,  2447, 
3099. 

V.   Dennis,   pp.   1624,   2409, 

2450,  2463. 

V.   Dick,    pp.    1537,    2019. 

z:   Diefenbach,    pp.    1571,    2421, 

2482,     2529,     3026. 

V.   Dishman,       38      Tex.       Civ. 

App.  277,  85  S.  W.  319— pp.  862, 
1355. 

v.   Dishman,       41       Tex.       Civ. 

App.  250,  251,  91  S.  W.  828— 
p    1359. 

Donovan    v. 

z'.   Dorsey,    p.    812. 

V.  Driskell,    p.    540. 

z:  Dye,    p.    2496. 

Eames    v 

'■.   Eastin,    pp.    502,    503,    505, 

507,    509,    1283,    1334,    1335,    1337. 

z:   Edins,    pp.     1347,    1365. 

z:   Edmond,    p.    2042. 

V  Ellerd,    pp.    1359,     1360. 

V.   Elliott,    22    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

31,   54   S.  W.   410— pp.   202,    1610. 

z:   Elliott,    26    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

106,    61    S.    W.    726— p.    1879. 

V.  Fambrough,   pp.    1279,   1335, 

1354,      1359. 

v.   Felker,    40    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

604,  90  S.  W.  530- pp.  621,  624, 
630,  729,  733,  836,  1272,  1279, 
1280,    1300,    1311. 

v.   Felkei-  99  S.  W.  439.  44 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  420— pp.  1278, 
1300,  1301,  1339,  3364. 

V.   Fenwick,  pp.  30,  932,  934, 

935,  1502,  1504,  1558,  1575^ 
1577,  2102. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCXCV 


Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.     r.     Ferguson, 
pp.   3130,   3175.   3179,   3181. 

I'.  First    Nat.    Bank,    pp.    549. 

550. 

V.   Fisher,    p.    093. 

Friedlander   f. 

V.   Funderburk,        pp.        2509, 

2514. 

V.  Gallagher,    pp.    426,    443. 

r.   Garcia,       pp.       1550,       1569, 

1871,     1919,     1920,     1922,     1923, 
2906.  ^^   , 

V.  Gardner,     pp.     2288,     2291, 

—I-  z'.  Gilniore,   pp.   843,   872,   901. 

V.  Goldman,     pp.     1526,     1885, 

1887. 

V.  Graves,    pp.    2051,    3075. 

V.  Gray    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    71 

S.    W.    316— pp.    1866,    1882. 

V.  Gray,    45     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

208,    99    S.    W.     1125— pp.    3337, 
3344,    3366,    3367. 

Grigsby   v. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   r. 

V.  Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp.    107, 

3247,    3271. 

Haite   f. 

r.  Hall,    p.    3412. 

'  Hamilton   v. 

V.  Hamilton,    pp.     1823,     1827, 

1843,    1845,    1985,    2807. 

V.  Hamm,    pp.    293,    304,    425, 

441,  460,  462,  932,  934,  937,  951, 
957,    3369. 

V.  Hardin,      pp.      1808,      1812, 

1846. 

Harkey    r. 

V.  Harrington,   pp.    1972,    1973. 

V.  Hassell,    pp.    659,    666,    668, 

671,    672,    694. 

V.  Hawkins,     pp.    1118,      1122, 

3331,   3344. 

V.  Hayden,     pp.       191,       1^44, 

1549,    1550,    1551,    1552,    2720. 

V.Hays,    pp.    235,    259,    1142. 

Hobbs   f. 

V.  HoiT«ckcr,      pp.     849,     8^3, 

854. 

V.   Hornbeck,    p.    801. 

V.   Hudman,     pp.     1771,     1779, 

1780,  1795. 

v.   Huffman,  p.  1771. 

i:   Hughes,  99  Tex.  533,  91  S. 

W.  567— pp.  158,  159,  1276. 

V.   Hughes  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

41  S.  VV.  821— p.  2017, 

V.   Humble,  pp.  1776,  2872. 

V.   Humphries,  pp.  2065,  2066. 

Interstate  Commerce  Comm. 

'-  V.  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, pp.  3600,  3601,  3602, 
3607,  3609,  3617,  3631,  3632, 
3633,  3637,  3638,  3664,  3665, 
3667,  3668,  3676,  3684,  3686, 
3687,  3692,  3698,  3711,  3712, 
3714,  3721,  3722,  3725,  3730, 
3749,  3767,  3768,  3769,  3770, 
3773,  3775,  3776,  3783,  3784, 
3785,  3786,  3790,  3806,  3807, 
3816,  3841. 

V.   Isenhowcr,  p.  1278. 

V.   Jackson,   pp.  1083,   1086, 

1093,  1104,  1105,  1408. 

f.  Tames,  pp.  3082,  3084. 

V.   Johnson,  76  Tex.  421.  13 

S.  W.  463,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  60— 
p.  2090. 

V.   Johnson,   2   Texas   App. 

Civ.  Cas.,  §  185— pp.  1941,  1943, 
2017. 

Jones  r. 

V.   Jones,  pp.  1504,  1510,  1513, 

2018,  2020,  2033. 

V.   Kelly  (Tex.   Civ.  App.), 

47  S.  W.  809— p.  2237. 

V.   Kelly   (Tex.  Civ.   App.), 

74  S.  W.  343— pp.  402.  3338. 

;•.  King,  p.  1394. 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kingston, 
pp.  1938,  1941,  2019,  2033,  2048, 
2070,  2120,  2707,  2786,  2796. 

V.   Kirk,  p.  2649. 

Kirkland  :•. 

f.   Klepper  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

24  S.  W.  567— pp.  487,  490.  802, 
851.  1123,  1347,  1352,  1353,  1441. 

V.   Klepper,  29  Tex.  Civ.  .App. 

590,  69  S.   W.   426— pp.   520, 
1154,  1162,  1169. 

V.  Kolp,   pp.    624,   661. 

V.  Kuteman,     pp.     75,     1187. 

V.   Lacey,     pp.     2091,     2342. 

V.  Langbehn,      pp.     607,     614, 

617.    1092. 

v.  Lawrence,    pp.    3125,    3130. 

i\  Leakey,    pp.    1825. 

r.   Lee,   pp.    1798,    1884. 

Levinson    v. 

Lewis    V. 

Lindley   v. 

V.  Llano    Live    Stock    Co.,    p. 

819. 

-  V.  Logan,   pp.    405,    838,    3331. 

Lone    Star   Co.   t. 

Lord,  etc.,  Co.  r. 

V.  Loving,    p.    158. 

V.  Ludlam,    52    Fed.    94,    2    C. 

C.    A.    633— pp.    3012,    3017. 

V.  Ludlam,   57    Fed.   481,   6  C. 

C.   A.    454— pp.    1854,    1857,    1858, 
1860,    1861,    2453. 

V.  Lynch.    97    Tex.    25,    75    S. 

W.    486— pp.    3336,    3388,    3392. 

f.   Lvnch     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

73    S.    W.    65— p.    2464. 

z:  Lynch,    43    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

121,   94    S.   W.    1093— p.    2458. 

Lyons   z\ 

z:  Lyons,    pp.    2035,    2480. 

t'.  McCoy,    p.   2115. 

r.  McDonald,    pp.    1624,    2437, 

2477,    2529. 

V.  McGilvary,    pp.    1881,    2514. 

V.  McKenzie    (Tex.),    2    Posey 

307,    308— pp.    1779.     1799,     2790. 

f .   McKenzie,      30     Tex.      Civ. 

App.  293,  70  S.  W.  237— p.   1887. 

r.  McLane,     pp.     1767,     1768, 

1779. 

f.  McNairy,    p.     3413. 

Malone  v. 

z:  Mangum,    pp.    1779,    1794. 

Marande   v. 

f.  Martin,    pp.    540,    664,    849, 


-  z:  Maughon,    p.     1738. 

-  z:  Mayer,     pp.       2230,       2270, 
2341,    2873. 

-  f.  Mayfield,     pp.     1518,     1783, 
1885,    1917,    1964,    1965,    2162. 

z:  Mays,      pp.       1768,        1777, 

1778. 

Miller    f. 

z:  Miller,    79    Tex.    78,    82,    Ij 

S.  W.  264,  11  L.  R.  A.  395,  23 
Am.  St.  Rep.  308— pp.  7,  1532, 
1730,  1731,  1737,  1766,  1817, 
1821,  1865,  1884,  1886,  1910, 
1913.  2114,  2396,  2569,  2938, 
2992,   2993. 

r.  Miller  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  88 

S.   W.   499— p.   467. 

Milligan    V. 

Missouri   Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

J'.  Mitchell,      pp.     1885,      1887, 

1917. 

V.  Moore,    pp.    1700,    1778. 

V.  Morrison's    Faust    Co.,    pp. 

278,   3115,    3127,   3128. 

f.  Morse,    pp.    885,    910,    916, 

1047. 

z:  Mother,   p.   2532. 

V.  Mugg,    98    Tex.    352,    83    S. 

W.  800,  107  Am.  St.  Rep.  632 
—pp.    1141.   1142. 

;•.  Mugg.  202  U.  8.  242.  50 

L.  Ed.  1011,  26  S.  Ct.  628— pp. 
1153,  3668,  3750,  3753,  3754, 
3755,  3760. 


exas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  pp. 
31,  189,  190,  1766,  1767,  2091, 
2615,  2940. 

-.  Murtishaw,  pp.  1326,  1350. 

V.   Nelson,  pp.  630,  1326. 

r.   Nicholson,  pp.  211,   242, 

268,  286,  292,  293.  294,  304, 
4i8,  424,  425,  437,  446,  448, 
449.  450,  654,  655,  656,  657, 
687,  729,  767,  849.  1318,  1321, 
1323,  1328. 

V.  Orr,    pp.    1731.    1738. 

V.  Overall,     pp.       2114.     2116. 

2117,   2171,  2172.  2290,  2672. 

r.  Owens,    pp.    932,    934,    935. 

Patton   I'. 

V.  Payne,    99    Tex.    46,    87    S. 

W.  330,  70  L.  R.  A.  946,  122 
Am.    St.    Rep.    603— p.    2471. 

V.  Payne,    15    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

58,  38  S.  W.  366— pp.  597,  833, 
849,  850,  855,  858,  862,  936,  938, 
959,    1041,    1042. 

V.   Payne      (Tex.    Civ.     App.). 

156    S.    W.    1126— p.    615. 

V.  Pearl,    pp.    191.    2065.    2421. 

2484. 

Peyton    f. 

V.  Pierce,    p.    2722. 

V.  Pollard,      pp.      1704,      1869, 

1906. 

z:  Porter,    pp.     1871,    2239. 

Post   i: 

V.  Powell,    13    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

212,  35  S.  W.  841— pp.  1623, 
1625. 

V.  Powell,    34    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

575,  79  S.  W.  86— pp.  175,  176, 
1277,    1319. 

V.   Rackusin.    p.    813. 

Railroad    Comm.    z-. 

z:  Railroad    Comm..    183    Fed. 

1005— p.    3442. 

-■.  Railroad   Comm..    112   C.   C. 

A.     538.     192    Fed.    280— p.     134. 

V.   Railroad      Comm.       (Tex.). 

150   S.   W.   878— pp.   23.   25. 

V.  Randle,      pp.      1357,      1359, 

1360,   3336. 

V.  Ray     Bros.,     pp.     443,    463, 

466,    467. 

-'.  Rea,    pp.    1954,    2340. 

Reed  i: 

V.  Reed,    p.    2287. 

V.  Reeder,   76   Fed.   550,   22   C. 

C.    A.    314— p.    2999. 

V.  Reeder,    170    U.    S.    530,   42 

L.  Ed.  1134,  18  S.  Ct.  705— p. 
2124. 

Reeves   f. 

z:  Reeves,     pp.     1116,     1122. 

z:  Reich,      pp.       1778,        1779, 

1798,    1799,    1800. 

r.  Reid,   p.    1768. 

Reiss   z:  ^ 

z:  Reiss,   99    Fed.    1006,   39    C. 

C.  A.  680— p.  540. 

z:   Reiss,  183  U.  S.  621,  626, 

46  L.  Ed.  358,  22  S.  Ct.  253— 
pp.  326,  327,  429,  540,  1014, 
3258,  3262,  3264,  3266,  3286, 
3302. 

v.   Richardson,  pp.  1906,  1907. 

z:  Richmond,      pp.     866,      869, 

9j7,  938,  941,  949,  954,  959, 
1039,   1041,    1050. 

V.  Robertson,   p.    889. 

Rogers  f. 

-■.  Rucker,   p.    1172. 

V.  Russell,    pp.    3127,    3131. 

-•.  Sabine     Trans.     Co.     (Tex. 

Civ.  App.),  121  S.  W.  256— p. 
3426. 

I'.  Sabine  Tram.  Co.,  227  L. 

S.  Ill,  33  S.  Ct.  229— pp.  3490, 
3740. 

z:  Scharbauer.    p.    1483. 

z:   Schneider,    pp.    897,    910. 

z:  Scott,    pp.    2718,    2863. 

z:  Scott   &   Co.,    p.    248. 


CCXCVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i:  Scrivener, 
pp.  323,  426,  753,  933,  987,  1327, 
1408,    3331,    3339. 

I'.   Sherbert,    p.    3077. 

V.   Sherrod,    99    Te.x.    382.    384, 

89   S.   W.    956— pp.    1359,    1443. 

V.   Sherrod    (Te.x.    Civ.    App.), 

57  S.    W.    363— pp.     1355,     1359, 
1443. 

f.   Shipman,    pp.    1276,    1324. 

V.   Sims,     pp.    866,     877,    1352. 

z:   Slator,    p.    1480. 

V.   Smissen,       pp.        738,      785, 

1303,    1309,    1326. 

Smith    f. 

c'.    Smith      (Te.x.      Civ.     App.), 

24    S.    VV.    565- p.    3326. 

z:   Smith,    34    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

571,     79     S.    W.     614— pp.      174, 

1277,  1319,    1459. 

z:   Smith,    38    Tex.     Civ.    App. 

4,  84   S.   W.   852— pp.    1607,   2425, 
2428,   2430. 

z:   Snyder,    pp.    1339,    1352. 

Southerland    i'. 

Z-.   Southerland     Pac.     R.     Co., 

p.    113. 

State   v. 

z>.   Stephens,  pp.  1359,  3357. 

z'.   Stewart,  38  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

595,  86  S.  W.  631— p.  1325. 

f.  Stewart,  43  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

399,  96  S.  W.  106— pp.  1303, 
1323. 

!•.  Stewart,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

514,  114  S.  W.  413— p.  1269. 

V.   Stewart,  228  U.  S.  357,  33 

5.  Ct.  548— pp.  2270,  2341. 

V.   Storey,  68  S.  W.  534.  29 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  483— pp.  1827, 
1828,  2031,  2871. 

z:   Storey,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

156,     83    S.    VV.     852— pp.     1691, 
2016,    2028. 

z:   Stribling,     pp.      932,      1285, 

3362,   3628. 

z:   Suggs,        pp.       1823,       1841, 

1843,    2695. 

V.  Talley,    p.    844. 

V.  Tankersley,    p.    849. 

v.  Tarkington,    pp.    2056,    2057. 

Tarvin    z\ 

z:  Taylor,    3    Texas    App.    Civ. 

Cas.,    §    192— p.    849. 

c'.   Taylor    (Tex.     Civ.     .\pp.), 

58  S.   W.    166— pp.    2398,    2731. 

V.  Taylor,    31    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

617,    73    S.    W.    1081— p.    2075. 

V.  Terns,     p.     2849. 

Texas    Exp.    Co.    z-. 

z\  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

422,    1137,    1139. 

Townsend    -•. 

V.  Townsend,     pp.      784,      865, 

881. 

V.  Tracy,   p.    1326. 

V.  Truesdell,     pp.     851,      1322. 

1326,    1328,    1350. 

V.  Turner     (Tex.     Civ.     .\pp.), 

37     S.    W.     643— pp.     729,     730, 

1278,  1330,    1335. 

V.   Turner,    43    Tex.    Civ.    .\pp. 

608,   97    S.   W.    509— p.   493. 

Tyler  v. 

United    States    v. 

V.  United     States,      pp.      3605, 

3693. 

V.  Wagley,    p.    2879. 

V.  Walker,    p.    937. 

V.  Warner,      pp.      837,       3284, 

3290. 

z:  Weatherby,    p.    3140. 

V.  Weisman    &    Co.,    p.    3338. 

V.  Wever,    pp.    889,    915. 

V.  Wheat,    pp.    268,    293,    295, 

405,   425,   464,   802,   829,   830.   882. 

V.  White,     101     Fed.     928,     42 

C.    C.    A.    86,    62    L.    R.    A.    90— 
p.    2891. 

z\   White,    4    Texas    Civ.    .\pp. 

Cas.,    §    259,    17    S.    W.    419— pp. 
1545,    1857,    1860. 


pp. 


App. 
1093, 


R.    Co., 

Norfolk, 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z-.  White,  35 
Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  521.  80  S.  W. 
641— pp.     1347.     3410. 

Whitehurst   -•. 

z:   Whiteley.     pp.     1920,     2067, 

2824. 

z:  Williams,    pp.    2043,    2048. 

Williamson    &    Co.    t . 

z\   Wilson,     p.     461. 

"'.   VV'ilson      Hack      Line, 

849,   857,   862,   864,   880. 

f.  Wood,   p.    303. 

v.  Woods,     8    Tex.     Civ. 

462,  28  S.  W.  416— pp. 
1695,  1876,  1884,  1919. 

t'.  Woods,  IS  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

612,  40  S.  W.  846— pp.  1684, 
1769,  1771.  1918,  1920,  2904. 

Wren  "■. 

-■.  Wright,  p.  662. 

■ z\   Wynn,     pp.     lOlO,     1663. 

Young    7'. 

Thacker    f.     Illinois    Cent. 

p.     1758. 
Thacker    Coal,    etc.,    Co.    z\ 

etc.,  R.   Co.,   pp.   3669,   3675,   3840. 
Thalheimer,       Consolidated       Tract. 

Co.   z: 
Thames,    Erskine    v. 

The. 

Thames    Iron    Works,    Cory    z\ 
Thane     c'.     Scranton    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2190. 
Tharpe,    Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v- 
Thayer    z\    Burchard,    pp.    216,    246, 

621,    623,    3944. 

V.  Old   Colony   St.   R.    Co.,   pp. 

2417,    2419,    2755,   2859,    2955. 

z\   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

945. 

Thayne    f.    Scranton    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2174. 
The   Abbazia,   pp.    3928,    3929. 
The   Aggi,   93    Fed.    484— p.    3924. 
The    Aggi,    107    Fed.    300,    46    C.    C. 

A.    276— pp.    3927,    4023. 
The   .\lbert   Dumois,   pp.   4006,   4041, 

4042,    4043,    4070,    4076. 
The   Aline,    pp.    746,    747. 
The     Alnwick,     p.     3914. 
The    Alpin,    p.    3911. 
The   Alvah,    p.    3874. 


The    Alvena,    74    Fed. 


-p.    4004. 


The   Alvena,    79    Fed.    973,    25    C.    C. 

A.    261— p.    4024. 
The   Amos    D.    Carver,    p.    4037. 
The    -V.    M.    Bliss,    p.    3866. 
The    America,    p.    3924. 
The      Anchoria,      77      Fed.      994 — p. 

3988. 
The    Anchoria,    83    Fed.    847,    27    C. 

C.    A.    650— p.    3989. 
The    Annie    Faxon,    pp.    4037,    4047. 
The    Annie    L.    \'ansciver,    p.    3989. 
The   .\pollon,    p.    701. 
The  .Artie  Bird,  pp.  997,   1087.  3880, 

3881,    3923,   3933. 
The      .\rgyle     z\      Worthington,      p. 

1148. 
The    Arrow,    Butler   ^■. 
The    -Arthur    B.,    pp.    3949,    3987. 
The   Asiatic   Prince,    103    Fed.    676 — 

pp.     3921,    3945. 
The    .Asiatic    Prince,    108    Fed.    287, 

47  C.   C.  A.  325- p.   3895. 
The   Asiatic   Prince,   Herbst  f. 
The    Ask,    p.    3918. 
The    Apasia,    pp.    3904,    3906,    3907. 
The    .\s.syria,    pp.    3959,    3969. 
The   -Atlantic,    Cole   z'. 
The    Atlas,    pp.    3917,    4040,    4043. 
The    Baltic,    Monro    v. 
The    Baltimore,    pp.    4040,    4041. 
The    Baralong,    p.    3922. 
The        Barge        John       AI.       Welch, 

Hroeck  r. 
The    Bark    Edwin,    p.    291. 
The    Bcaconstield,    p.    483. 
The    Belfast,    40    -Ala.     184,    88    -Am. 

Dec.  701— pp.  3882,  3926. 


4048, 
4073, 
4080, 


3936, 


The   Belfast    (U.    S.),    7    Wall.   624, 
19    L.    Ed.    266— pp.    3917,    3936, 

4054. 

Boon  &  Co.  z: 

■;■.   Boon    &    Co.,    p.    751. 

The    Belgenland,    p.    4024. 
The    P.elvidere,    p.    3903. 
The     Benefactor,     pp.     4036, 

4049,     4050,     4071,      4072, 

4074.     4076,      4078,      4079, 
_    4082,    4084. 
The    Berengere,    p.    3934. 
The    Bermuda,    p.    1151. 
The    Bird     of    Paradise,     pp. 

3944,    3945,    3946,    3947,    3949. 
The   B.    T.    Willard,    p.    1170. 
The    Bobolink,    pp.    893,    912,    3896. 
The    Brantford    City,    p.    430. 
The    Brig    CoHenberg,    p.    3902. 
The    Brilliant,    pp.    4021,    40o4. 
The     Britannia,      87      Fed.      495 — p. 

3892. 
The    Britannia,    153    L^. 

L.     Ed.     660,     14     S. 

3908. 

Marx    z: 

The    British    King,    pp. 

4067. 
The   Buffalo,   pp.   4046,  4048. 
The    Caddo,    Blum    z\ 
The     Caledonia,     43    Fed.     ( 

Fed.    567— pp.    335,    451,    3881. 
The    Caledonia,    157    U.    S.    124,    39 

D.     Ed.     644,     15     S.     Ct.     537- 

pp.    637,    1318,    3897,    3907, 

3921,      4017,      4018,      4019, 

4026. 
The    California,    p.    829. 
The    Campbell,    Dunwody    z\ 
The    Cape    Charles,    p.    4. 
The    Capt.    Tack,    p.    4046. 
The    Caracas,    (3.    3988. 
The    Careb    Prince,    pp.    4019, 
The    Cargo,    pp.    3952,    3971,    3972. 
The     Carib     Prince,     p.     4058,     4061, 

4071. 
The   Carlos    F.    Roses,    pp.    355,    356. 

371,    373,    388,    479. 
The    Carlton    Hall,    p.    4023. 
The    Cayuga,    pp.    4040,    4041. 
The     Centennial,     7       Fed.     601— p. 


S.    130,    38 
Ct.     795 — p. 


3909,    3928. 


n,    50 


3908, 
4023, 


4023. 


31    Fed.    816— pp. 


4042, 
4006, 


3888, 


3870, 


4030. 
The    Centennial, 

3982,    3984. 
The    Charles    Nelson,    p.    4012. 
The    Chattahoochee,    pp.    4041, 

4043,     4049,       4056,     4061, 

4070,    4071. 
The   C.    H.   Northam.   p.   4055. 
The     Citta     Di     Messina,     pp. 

3890,    3902,    3922. 
The    Citta    Di    Palermo,     pp. 

3880,    3881,    3883,    3944. 
The    City    of    Boston,    p.    3993. 
The    City    of    Hartford,    p.    1037. 
The   City   of   Kingston,   p.    3998. 
The    City    of    Lincoln,    pp.    891,    893, 

908. 
The    City     of    Norwich,     pp.      4036, 

4048,      4049,      4050,      4052,      4053, 

4055,    4072,    4084. 
The     City     of     Panaina,      pp.      1502, 

1685,     1694,     1714,     1821,     1823. 
The   City   of   Para,   p.    3911. 
The    City    of    Portsmouth,    p. 
The    Colima,    pp.    3908,    3910. 
The    CoUenberg,    p.    3942. 
The    Colombia,    p.    3950. 
The   Colombo,    p.   829. 
The    Columbia,    Williams    7'. 
The     Commander-in-chief, 

499,    522,    726,    768. 
The    Commerce,    p.    4054. 
The    Commercen,    p.    3938. 
The    Compta,    p.    4030. 
The    Concjueror,    p.    3950. 
The     Convoy's     Wheat,     pp. 

3896. 
The   C.   W.    Elphicke,    117    Fed.    279 

—pp.    3908,    4063,    4080. 
The   C.    W.    Flphicke,    122    Fed.    439, 

58    C.    C.    A.    421— pp.    3928,   4061. 


pp. 


3994. 


483. 


3871, 


TABLK  OF   CASES. 


CCXCVII 


The   Dan,   \>.   3862. 

'J  tie    Dana,    pp.    3910,    3914. 

The  Daniel  r.all,  pp.  3429,  3434, 
3440,    3445,    4054. 

The  David  &  Caroline,  pp.  752, 
757. 

The   D.   C.   Murray,   pp.    1941,   3983. 

The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall. 
579,  600.  20  L.  Ivd.  779— pp.  301, 
302,  303,  304,  307,  308,  318, 
319,  328.  329.  331,  332,  334. 
336,  339,  499,  732,  743,  748,  752, 
930,  386(.,  3867.  3878,  3879,  3882, 
3890,  3893.  3897,  3903.  3904, 
3905.     390(.,      3926,      3936,      3938, 

3945,  4017,    4019. 

The  Delaware,  161  U.  S.  459,  40 
L.  Ed.  771,  16  S.  Ct.  516— pp. 
4041,    4056,   4057,    4058,    4070. 

The    Del    Norte,   p.    3546. 

The    Denmark,    p.    1151. 

The    D.    Harvey,    pp.    3898,    3903. 

The    Diadem,    p.    3905. 

The    Downer,    pp.    3992,    3997. 

'Ihe   D.   R.   Martin,   p.    1500. 

The  Eagle,  p.  4054. 

The  E.  A.  Packer,  p.  3871. 

The  Earnwood,  pp.  3903,  3906, 
3934. 

The  E.  Renjamin.  p.  3937. 

The  Eddy,  pp.  318,  520,  536,  566, 
567,  891.  1167,  3917,  3919, 
3936,   3939,   3941.   3944.   •!945, 

3946.  3947. 

The      Edward       T.      Stoteshury.      p. 

3971. 
The    Edwin    I.    Morrison,    pp.    948, 
3897,      3907,     3908,      3909,      3910, 
3921,     3923,      4017,      4023,      4030, 
4031,    4065. 
The    E.    H.    Pray,    pp.    1210.    12^?. 

1250. 
The    Eliza,    p.    1170. 
The    Eliza    Lines,    102    Fed.    184— p. 

3943. 
The    Eliza    Lines,    114    Fed.    307.    52 

C.    C.    O.    195— pp.    3934,    3941. 
The    Eliza    Lines.    199    U.    S.    119, 
26    S.    Ct.    8,    50    L.    Ed.    115,    4 
Am.    &    Eng.    Ann.    Cas.    406— pp. 
3876.    3939. 
The    Elmira    Shepherd,    p.    799. 
The      Elvira       Ilarbeck.      pp.      1016. 

3167. 
The    Emily,    p.     10. 

Bridgman    ;■. 

The    E.    M.    Norton,    pp.    815,    818, 

3920. 
The    Employers'    Liability    Cases,    p. 

3847. 
The    Erastus    Corning,    p.    3993. 
The    Erie,   p.    3864. 
The    Etona,    Doherr   v. 
The    Eugene,    p.    3979. 
The    European,    pp.    3977,    3983. 
The    Eva    D.    Rose,    151    Fed.    704— 

pp.    3883,    3894. 
The    Eva    D.    Rose,    153    Fed.    912— 

p.    3892. 
The    Falcon,    pp.    587,    817. 
The    Fanny,    p.    3938. 
The    Fanny    Fostick.    Cranwcll    r. 
The    Fanny    Skolfuld.    Crooks    r. 
The    Farmer,    p.    483. 
The    Felix,    p.    365. 
The    Figlia    Maggiorc,    p.    365. 
The     Folmina,      143      Fed.      636— p. 

4026. 
The    Folmina,    153    Fed.    364,    82    C. 

C.  A.  440— pp.  3921,  3929. 
The  Folmina.  212  U.  S.  354,  53 
L.  Ed.  546,  29  S.  Ct.  363.  15 
Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  748 — pp. 
3897,  3898,  3899,  4017,  4020, 
4021.  4030.  4031. 
The      Francis      Wright,      pp.      3792. 

3873,    3909. 
The    Frey,    92    Fed.    667— p.    4071. 
The    Frev,    106    Fed.    319.    45    C.    C. 

A.    309— pp.    3921,    3930,    3031. 
The    Fri.    140    Fed.    123— p.    4080. 
The    Fri,    154    Fed.    33i.    83    C.    C. 
A.    205— pp.    3862,    3883,    4058. 


The  Frien.lschaft,     pp.     349,    350. 

The  FriesL-irid,     pp.     3924,     3929. 

The  Furnessia,    Itehrens   v. 

The  Oalam,    p.    4076. 

The  Galena  r.   Ikals,   p.   808. 

The  Gazelle,    pp.    1170,    3940. 

The  G.   15.    Boren,   pp.   3910,   3937. 

The  Gieser,    p.    494. 

The  General     Smith,     p.     3584. 

The  Genesee    Chief   f.    Fitzhugh,    p. 

,.  ■*°^^- 

The    Gentleman,    p.    4044. 

The  George  L.  Garlick,  p.  4050. 
The  George  W.  Roby,  p.  4049. 
The    Germanic,     107    Fed.    294 — pp. 

4060,     4069. 
The    Germanic,    124    Fed.    1.    59    C. 

C.    A.    521— pp.    4056,   4060. 
The    Germanic,    196   U.    S.    589,   599, 
49    L.    Ed.    610,    25    S.    Ct.    317— 
pp.    790,    4057,    4059,    4071. 
The    Ghazee,    pp.    3920,    4027. 
The    Gladys,    p.    3911. 
The   Gold   Hunter,   pp.    595,    596. 
The    Good   Hope,    190    Fed.    597— p. 

3893. 
'ihe  Good  Hope,    197   Fed.    149.   116 
C.     C.     A.     573— pp.     3922.     3928, 
4026. 
The     Gordon     Campbell,     pp.     3890, 

3928. 
The  Governor   Carey,   p.   3906. 
The    Grafton,    pp.    527,    536,    538. 
The    Gran    Canaria,    pp.    3900,    3905. 
The   G.    R.    Booth,   91    Fed.    164,   33 

C.    C.   A.   430— p.   4019. 
The   G.   R.   Booth,    19   S.   Ct.   9,    171 
U.    S.    450,    43    L.     Ed.    234— pp. 
4020.    4021,    4022,    4023,    4030. 
The    Great    Western,    pp.    947,    4049, 

4050,    4053,    4075. 
The    Guadeloupe,    p.    3924. 
The    Gualala,    pp.    3898.    3906. 
The    Guardian,    p.    3980. 
The    Guiding    Star,    53    Fed.    936 — 

pp.    789,    3916. 
The    Guiding    Star,    62    Fed.    497— 

p.   337. 
The     Guildhall,     58     Fed.     796— pp. 

1033,    1046. 
The    Guildhall,     12    C.    C.    A.    445, 

64    Fed.    867— p.    3915. 
The    Gutenfels,    p.    3890. 
The    Habil.    pp.    3917,    3918,    3919. 
The     Hamilton,     146     Fed.     724,     77 
C.     C.    A.     150— pp.    4042,    4043, 
4080. 
The    Hamilton,    207    U.    S.    398,    52 
L.    Ed.    264,    28    S.    Ct.    133— pp. 
4042,    4043.   4070.   4076. 
The      Ilarriman,      pp.      3869  ,     3875. 

3940.    4017. 
The    Harrisburg.    p.    4024. 
The    Hattie    Palmer,    p.    514. 
The    Hcathdene.    p.    3891. 
The    Helene.    p.    365. 
The  Henry  B.  Hyde,  82  Fed.  681— 
pp.    939.    986,    3870,    3878,    3880, 
3882,     4017. 
The    Henry    B.    Hyde,    32    C.    C.    A. 
534.  90   Fed.    114— pp.   3921,   3922, 
4030. 
The    Henry    Grinnell,    Lanata    ■:■. 
The    Henry    Hood,    Howland    f. 
The   H.    F.   Dimock,   pp.   4084,  4085. 
The    I  line,    p.    4054. 
The     Hiram,    pp.     3902.    3936,     3937. 
The    HotTmans,    pp.    4037,    4055. 
The    Howard,    p.    765. 
The    Hudson.    Brosseau    &    Co.    ■;•. 
The    Humbolt.    pp.    3145.    4008. 
The    Huntress,    pp.    549.    752.    756. 
The  Huron  -■.   Simmons,   p.   3916. 
The  Hvades,  118  Fed.  85— pp.  3929. 

3930. 
The    Hyades,    124    Fed.    58,    59    C. 

C.    A.    424— p.    4082. 
The   Idaho,    pp.    317.    318,    351,    375. 

376.    516.    547,    573,    3878. 
The    Illinois,   p.    3937. 

W'arner   -'. 

The    Inca,    Snow    f. 


The    India,    p.    3864. 

The    Indrani,    pp.    4066,    4067. 

The    Indrapura,     171     Fed.    929 — pp. 

3888,    3889.    3890,    3902. 
The    Indrapura,    178    Fed.    591— pp. 

3907,   3909. 
The    Indrapura.    190    Fed.    711— pp 

3907.    3923,    3929. 
The   Ionic,    pp.    3117,    3124,    3153. 
The    Iroquois,    p.    3993. 
The     Irrawaddy.     pp.     3907,     4024. 

4056,    4057.    4061.    4070. 
The     Isaac     Reed,     .Montague    '■. 
The  I  sola   Di  Procida,  pp.   305,  306, 

339,    3879. 
The  Italia,    184   Fed.   366— pp.   3921, 

3929. 
The  Italia,    187  Fed.  ,113,   109  C.  C. 

A.    33— p.   3913. 
The    James    Baird.    pp.    3960.    3965. 
The   James    Martin,    p.    3941. 
The     Tane    Grey,     pp.     4000,     4044. 

4053. 
The   lason.   pp.   4057.  4070.   4071. 
The   J.    D.    Hall,    Stillwell   t. 
The    Jefferson,    p.     1037. 
The   J.    E.    Rumbell,    p.    4076. 
The    John    ]?rooks,    pp.    3155.    3156. 
The    John    H.    Pearson,    p.    3871. 
The     lohn     II.     Starin,     pp.     4080. 

4083". 
The   John    K.    Shaw.    p.    352. 
The  John  L.   Stephens,  Morrison  z-. 
The  "John    M.    Welch,   p.    3586. 
The   Joseph    Grant,    p.    336. 
The    Joshua    Barker,    p.    514. 
The    t.    P.    Donaldson,    pp.    10,    12. 
The   "T.    W.    Brown,    p.    336. 
The    Kansas,    p.    3902. 
The    Kate    Dale,    White    '.: 
The    Kensington,    88    Fed.    331 — pp. 

3921,     4018,    4070. 
The    Kensington,    94    Fed.    885.    36 

C.    C.    A.    533— pp.   4011.   4059. 
The     Kensington.     183    U.     S.    263. 
269,    46    L.     Ed.     190,    22    S.    Ct. 
102— pp.     942,     947,     1073.     3162.. 
3163,      3186,      4018,     4024.      4032, 
4047.    4058,    4059. 
The    Keokuk,    pp.    3936,    3937. 
The    Kevstone,    p.    566. 
The   Kimball,   pp.    3944,   3946.    3947. 

3949. 
The    Kongin    Luise.    173    Fed.    811  — 

p.    3949. 
The    Konigin    Luise.    185    Fed.    478, 

107   C.   C.    A.    578— p.    3922. 
The    Ladv    Franklin,    pp.    267,    306.. 
307,     308.     331.     332,     336,     338, 
3936,    3937,    3945. 
The   Lady    Pike   pp.    10.   3897.   3898. 

3899.    3901,    3911,    4017. 
The    La    Kroma,    p.    3920. 
The    Lanashire,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Wil- 
son   V. 
The    Langfond,    p.    3898. 
The    Laura,    p.    3977. 
The   Lennox,    pp.    3922.   4030. 
The    Listie.    pp.    3908.    3923. 
The    Lockport,    pp.    3907.    3921. 
The    London   &   N.   W.    R.    W.    Co.. 

Hales  '■. 
The  Longfellow,   pp.   3928.   3978. 
The    Loon.    p.    3879. 
The     Lotlawanna.     pp.     4024,     4036. 

4053. 
The    Louisa.    Packard    :. 
The    Loundes,     Evan    :•. 
The    Lovett   Peacock.    Field   f. 
The   Loval.    198    Fed.    591— p.   4040. 
The    Loval.    204    Fed.    930.    123    C. 

C.    .\.'252— p.    4040. 
The    L.    P.    Dayton,   p.    12. 
The   Ludvig   Ilolberg.    p.    1037. 
The    Lydian    Monarch,    p.    4030. 
The     Maggie     Hammond,     pp.     726. 
731.   768.    3888.    3890.   3896,   3897.. 
3908,     3915,     3917,      3936,      3937.. 
3938.    3945.    394(>. 
The    >iagnolia.    Jackson    :. 
The    Main    t.    Williams,     pp.    4037.. 
4045,    4047,    4050. 


CCXCVIII 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


The    Maine,    p.    401". 

The      Majestic,      56      Fed.      244— p. 

3161. 
The    Majestic,    166    U.    S.    375.    41 

L.     Ed.     1039,     17     S.     Ct.     597— 

pp.    735,    736,    825,    960,    961,    963, 

964.  3162,  3163,  3898,  3921,  4009, 

4017,  4018,  4020. 
The  Mamie,  p.  4078. 
The  Manitoba,  104  Fed.  145 — pp. 

3909,  3928,  4063. 
The  Manitoba.  122  U.  S.  97,  30 

L.  Ed.  1095,  7  S.  Ct.  1158— 

p.    4041. 
The     Manitou,      116     Fed.     60 — pp. 

4019,    4063,    4081. 
The   Manitou,    127    Fed.    554,    63    C. 

C.    A.    109— p.    3926. 
The     Marechal     Siichet,     pp.     3929, 

3930. 
The    Margaret,    p.    12. 
The     Marlborough,     Bursley     "•. 
The    Martha,    pp.    820,    828,    829. 
The   Mary   Ann.   White   f. 
The    Mary     Belie    Roberts,     Speyer 

The     Mary     Washington,     pp.     530, 

891,    893,    903. 
The    Matilda    .A.    Lewis,    p.    3901. 
The    Mauch    Chunk,    p.    4085. 
The   M.    C.    Currie,    pp.    3887,   3900, 

3901. 
The    Medea,    pp.    3907,    3910,    3921, 

3928,    3929. 
The   Memphis,   Haughton  v. 
The    Mepoter,    p.    365. 
The   Mercantile,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Chase, 

p.    3879. 
The    Merida,    p.    4067. 
The    Merrimack,    pp.    1207,    1209. 
The  Mexican  Prince,  82   Fed.  484 — 

p.    4067. 
The   Mexican   Prince,   91    Fed.    1003, 

34    C.    C.    A.    168— p.    3909. 

Steinwender   v. 

The   Middlesex,   pp.    527,   892,   3894. 
The    Mid-Kent    Railway    Co.,    Attor- 
ney   General   v. 
The    Mill    Bay,    p.    532. 
The    Minnetonka,    132    Fed.    52 — pp. 

4010,     4011,     4032. 
The   Minnetonka,    146    Fed.    509,    77 

C.     C.     A.    217— pp.     4090,    4033, 

4035,    4038. 
'i  ..e    Minnie    E.    Kelton,    p.    3930. 
The     Mississippi,     76     Fed.     375 — p. 

3913. 
The     Mississippi,      120     Fed.      1020, 

56   C.   C.   A.   525— pp.   3904,   4025, 

4062,    4069. 
The    M.    M.    Chase,    pp.    573,    574, 

576,   577,    746. 
The   Mollie   Mohler,    p.    3911. 
The   Monarch,    Miners'   Co-op.  Ass'n 

V. 

The    Montello,    p.    4054. 
The    Moravian,    pp.    757,    829. 
The  Morning   Light,   pp.   3899,   4017. 
The    Morro    Castle,    pp.    4032,   4033. 
The   Moses   Taylor,    p.    3979. 
The   Murrell,   p.   4069. 
The     Musselcrag,     pp.     3905,     3923, 
3935. 

The    Nail    City,    p.    891. 

The    Napolitan    Prince,    p.    3993. 

The    Naranja,     pp.     1087,     1089. 

The    Natchez,    p.    1228. 

The    National    City,    p.    3985. 

The    Nederland,    pp.    1846,    2667. 

The    Nellie    Floyd,    pp.    3907,    3908, 

3928,    4021,    4025. 
The  Nettie  Quill,   pp.   3866,   3867. 
The    New    Orleans,    p.    818. 
The    New   York   Central    &   Hudson 

R.    R.,    Denny   v. 
The    New    World,    pp.    1725,    1759, 

3990. 
The    New    York,    p.    4054. 
The    Niagara,    p.    4064. 
The    Nicaragua,    p.    3982. 

Defrier    v. 


The  Niceto,  p.  3901. 
The  Ninfa,  p.  3923. 
The    Nith,    36    Fed.    86,     13    Sawy. 

368— p.    3933. 
The    Nith,    36    Fed.    383,     13    Sawy. 

481— pp.    3906,    3911. 
The    Nitro-Glycerine    Case,     p.     766. 
The  Nonpariel,   p.   3917. 
The      Norman      Prince,      pp.      3868, 

3938. 
The    North    Star,     169    Fed.     711  — 

pp.    4001,    4006. 
The    North    Star,    106    U.    S.    17.    27 

L.   Ed.   91,   1   S.   Ct.   41— pp.   4036, 

4041,  4042,  4049,  4077,  4080. 
The  Northern  Belle,  pp.  3897,  3907, 

3908,  3909,  3910. 

T'.   Robson,    p.    782. 

The  Ocean   Steamship  Co.  -'.   McAl- 

pin,    p.    828. 
The    Oceana,    p.    3923. 
The    Ocracoke,    p.    3994. 
The    Olive    Branch,    Mahon   v. 
The    Oluf,    p.    612. 
The   Olympia,   pp.    3866,   3872,    3934. 
The    Oneida,    pp.    3908,    3923,    3935, 

3936,   4069. 
The   Ontario,    pp.    3929,   3930,    4024, 

4067. 

Grubnan  v. 

The    Oranmore,    p.    3870. 

The    Orcadian,    pp.    3904,    3905. 

The     Oregon,      133     Fed.     609,     68 

C.     C.     A.     603— pp.     3980,     3982, 

3983,    3988,    4031. 
The     Oregon,     I     Deady,     179     Fed. 

Cas.     No.     10,553— pp.     286,     291. 
The    Oriflamme,    pp.    1737,    1941. 
The     Osceola,     p.     4043. 
The    Palmas,    pp.    3908,    4069. 
The  Passaic,   190  Fed.  644— p.  4073. 
The     Passaic,     204     Fed.     266,     122 

C.    C.    A.    466— p.    4037. 
The      Patria,      118      Fed.       109— p. 

3930. 
The  Patria,   132  Fed.  971,  68  C.  C. 

A.    397— pp.    3921,    3922,    4030. 
The    Patrick    Henry,    p.     598. 

The    Persiana,     156     Fed.     1019— p. 

3904. 
The    Persiana,     185    Fed.    396,     107 

C.    C.   A.   416— pp.    4029,   4060. 
The  Peytona,   Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,058, 

2    Curt.    21— pp.    826,    3878. 
The  Peytona,   Fed.   Cas.  No.    11,059, 

1     Ware     541— p.     3905. 
The    Pharos,    p.    3903. 
The   Philadelphia,    Bartlett   v. 
The     Phoenicia,     90     Fed.     116— p. 

4031. 
The     Phoenicia,     99     Fed.     1005,     40 

C.    C.    A.    221— pp.    Z92Z,    3927. 
The    Pilgrim,    Adams    v. 
The    Pilot    Boy,    p.    1839. 
The    Pokanoket,    p.    3936. 
The     Portsmouth,     Fed.      Cas.     No. 

11,295,    2    Biss.     56— p.     3900. 
The    Portsmouth    (U.    S.),    9    Wall 

682,     19    L.     Ed.     754— pp. 

3915,  4021,  4022,  4023. 
The  Planter,  p.  3937. 
The   President,   pp.   1941, 

3985,  3987. 
The  Presque  Isle,  pp.  3917 

4031. 

The   Prince   Albert,    p.    588. 
The    Prinzess    Irene,    p.    3988. 
The    Priscilla,    p.    4011. 
The     Propeller     Burlington,     p.     12. 
The    Propeller    Commerce,    pp.    483, 

3897,    3898,    3899. 
The    Protection,    pp.    439,    3934. 
The  Prussia,  88  Fed.  531— pp.  4019, 

4026. 
The    Prussia,    93    Fed.    837,    35    C. 

C.   A.    625— pp.   4026,   4059. 
The     Prussia,      100     Fed.     484— pp. 

3877,    3883,   3890. 
The  Queen,  pp.  820,  823,  852,  3907, 

3921,      3923,      3929,      4018,      4028, 

4030. 


3912, 


3982 


3921, 


The  Queen   of  the   Pacific,   pp.   3921, 

o923,    3929,    4028,    4029. 
The    Querini    Stamphalia,    p.    339. 
The   Rappahannock,    173    Fed.    829 — 

pp.    3907,    3921. 
The    Rappahannock,     184    Fed.    291, 

107    C.    C.    A.    74— p.    3930. 
The    Ravensdale,    pp.    3894.    3947. 
The    Rebecca,    pp.    3900,    3905,    3906, 

3937. 
The    Red    River,    pp.    477,    492,    513, 

566. 
The    Reeside,    p.     1009. 
1  he   R.    E.    Lee,   pp.   3145,   3147. 
The   Republic,    pp.    4037,    4045. 
The    Reveille,    Gray    r. 
The   R.    G.   Winslow,   p.    3903. 
The    Richmond,    pp.    531,    538. 
The     Richard     Winslow,     Norton    t. 
The    Robert    Campbell,    Taylor    v. 
The    Robert    Dollar,    p.     3546. 
The    Robert    F.     Stockton,    Edwards 

The    Rokeby,    p.    3923. 

The    Rosedale,    p.    4070. 

The    Rose    Innes,    p.    3930. 

The    Royal    Sceptre,    p.    3910. 

The    Sabioncello,    p.    3903. 

The    St.    Anthony,    Chouteau    v. 

The    St.    Bernard,    pp.    711,    3962. 

The    St.    Cuthbert,    p.    3901. 

The    St.    Georg,    p.    3913. 

The     St.     Hubert,     102     Fed.     362— 

p.    1108. 
'Ihe    St.    Hubert,    46    C.    C.    A.    603, 
107     Fed.     727— pp.     1087,     1100, 
1108,    1109,    3897,    4029. 
The     St.     Joze     Indiano,     pp.     352, 

1209,    1210. 
The    St.    Laurent,    p.    891. 
The     St.     Patrick,     p.     3903. 
The    St.    Ouentin,    pp.   4027,   4031. 
The    Sally    Magee,    pp.    349,    350. 
The    Samuel    E.    Spring,    p.    820. 
The   Samuel    F.   Houseman,   p.    3929. 
The     Sandfield,     79     Fed.     371— pp. 

3921,    3930,    4019,    4021,    4065. 
The   Sandfield,    92    Fed.    663,    34    C. 

C.    A.    612— pp.    3924,    4023,    4061, 

4066. 
The    San    Paulo,    p.    3926. 
The     San     Pedro,     pp.     4039,     4043, 

4077,    4078,    4079. 
The     San     Rafael,     p.     4048. 
The    Santee,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    12,328, 

2    Ben.    519— pp.    527,    552,    553. 
The    Santee,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    12,330, 

17     Blatchf.     186— p.     892. 
The    Santissima    Trinidad,    p.    3874. 
The    Sarah    E.    Brown,    Hovey    v. 
The    Schmidt,    p.    712. 
The     Schooner     Freeman,     pp.     304, 

305,    306,    308,    331. 
The    Scotland,     105    U.     S.    24.    26 

L.      Ed.      1001— pp.     4024,      4036, 

4049,     4050,      4053,      4054,      4071, 

4072,    4073,    4075,    4083. 
The    Scotland,    118    U.    S.    507,    30 

L.    Ed.    153,    6    S.    Ct.    1174— pp. 

4036,     4042,      4049,     4050,     4053, 

4072,    4075. 

Gilkinson    v. 

The    Seaboard,    p.    3937. 
The    Seefahrer,    p.    3885. 
The  Seneca,   163  Fed.   591 — p. 


The    Seneca,    172    Fed 

C.    A.    68— p.    3920. 
The    Seven    Bros.    No. 
The    Shand,    p.     3935. 
The    Ship    Freedom    i 

p.    365. 
The    Ship    Howard,    p. 
The    Sidonian,    p.    3880. 
The    Sikh,    p.    3893. 
The     Silvia,     pp.     3907,    3908 

4060,      4061,      4062,      4068, 

4083. 
The    Skylark,    p.    3878. 
The    Sloga,    p.    4030. 
The    S.    L.    Watson,   p.   3865. 
The    Snap,    p.    726. 


3892. 
370,    97    C. 


1,    p.    3917. 
Simmonds, 
337. 


3909, 
4071, 


TAIiLK  '>!■■"   CASKS. 


CCXCIX 


The    Socicte,    pp.    3941,    3945. 
The    Sonora,    Bailey   v. 

The    Southsidc,    p.    3995. 
The    Southwark.    108    Fed.    880.    48 
C.     C.     A.     123— pp.    4058,    4065, 
4081. 
The    Southwark,     191     U.     S.     1,    48 
L.   Ed.   65,  24   S.   Ct.    1  — pp.   3907, 
3923,      3924,      4056,     4057,     4058. 
4059,     4060,     4061,      4063,    4065, 
4066. 
The   Soyo  Maru,   p.   3904. 
The    Staincliffe,    p.    820. 
The    Stanley    Dollar,    p.    3040. 
The    Star    of    Hope,    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

13,313,     2     Savvy.     15— p.     3926. 
The   Star   of   Hope   (U.   S.).   9   Wall. 

203,    19    L.    I'd.    638— p.    4022. 
The     Star    of     Hope     (U.     S.),     17 
Wall.     651,     21     L.     Kd.     719— pp. 
3903,    3905. 
The     Steamboat     Arrow,     Butler     v. 
The    Steamer    Webb,    p.     12. 
The    Strathairly,    pp.    3977,    3978. 
The     Strathdon,    89     Fed.     374— pp. 

3891,     3896. 
The    Strathdon,     101     Fed.    600,    41 

C.    C.    A.    515— p.   3927. 
The   Styria,   93   Fed.   474— pp.   3894, 

3895. 
The    Styria,    95    Fed.    698— p.    3933. 
The    Styria,    101    Fed.    728,    41    C. 
C.    A.    639— pp.   3874,   4027,   4028. 

7'.  Morgan,    p.    3874. 

The   Success,    Lewis  r. 

The    Sue.    pp.     1944,    1949.       ^ 

The    Sunbeam,    pp.    4048,    40o4. 

The    Svend,    p.    4030. 

The    Swallow,    Barker   v. 

The    Sybil,    p.    3948. 

The  T.  A.  Goddard,  pp.  3865,  3916, 

3937. 
The   Tampico,    p.    3919. 
The    Tangier,     Salmon     Falls     Mfg. 

Co.   r. 
The     Tenedos,     137     Fed<     443— p. 

The  Tenedos.  151  Fed.  1022,  82 
C    C    A.   671— pp.   4062,  4065. 

The    Texas,    p.    3978. 

The  Thames  (U.  S.),  14  Wall. 
98.  20  L.  Ed.  804— pp.  319,  333, 
370,  377.  378,  403,  547,  566, 
3274,    3867,    3895. 

The  Thame?,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,Sj9, 
7  Blatchf.  226— pp.  486,  558,  559 

The    Thomas     Ewing,     Van     Syckel 

The  Titania,   124  Fed.  975- pp.  893, 

910. 
The   Titania,   65   C.   C.   A.   215,    131 
Fed.     229— pp.     295,    3883,     3894. 
The    Titanic,    p.    4079. 
The    Tjomo,    pp.    3924,    3929. 
The    Tommy,    p.    4047. 
The  Tornado,   pp.   3939.   3940,  4017. 
The   Toronto,    pp.    393C   4019,   4027. 
The     Tribune,     p.     3866. 
The    Tusker,    np.    338,    339. 
The    Tvbee,    p.    527. 
The   Uncle    Sam,    Sheldon    r. 
The    Uriel,    Price,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
The  Valencia,  pp.   3980,  3981,  4031, 

4034. 
The    N'aughan,    p.    3933. 
The    Victorio,    p.    3906. 
The    Victory,    pp.    1037,    3922,   4084. 
The    \'incenzo,    p.    817. 
The    Viola,    pp.    3963,    3965. 
The   Vueltabajo.   pp.   3981,   3984. 
The  Wall,    Smith  v. 
The    Wanata,    pp.    4040,    4042,    4049. 
The    War     I-iagle.     Russ    v. 
The    Water    Witch,    pp.    3906,    3915, 

3918. 
The    Wellington,    pp.    336,    3900. 
The   Western    States,    151    Fed.   929 

—pp.    3990,    3991. 
The   Western   States,    159   Fed.    334, 

86   C.   C.   A.   354— p.   4009. 


The    Westminister,    102    Fed.    366 — 

pp.     1108,     1109. 
The    Westminister,    116    Fed.    123— 

pp.    1116,    1117. 
The     Westminister,     62     C.     C.     A. 

406,    127    Fed.   680— pp.   818,   820, 

3920,  3921,  4029,  4030. 
The  Wildcroft,  126  Fed.  229— p. 

820. 
The  Wildcroft,  130  Fed.  521,  6j 

C.  C.  A.  145— pp.  3927,  4067, 

4081. 
The  Wildcroft,  201  U.  S.  378.  SO 

L.    Ed.    794.    26    S.    Ct.    467— pp. 

4061,    4065,    4066,    4080. 
The    Wildenfels,    pp.    3862,    3930. 
The    William    .Marshall,    p.    712. 
The    William    Power,    p.    3928. 
The  William  Taber,  pp.  820,  828. 
The    Willie,    p.    3908. 
The   Willie    D.    Sandhoval,   pp.    293, 

305,  306,   338,   587,   816. 
The   Winnebago,   p.    3546. 
The    Witch    Queen,    p.    3937. 
The    Zenobia,    pp.    726,    741. 
The   Zone,    pp.    820,    4030. 
Theilbar,        Merchants'        Despatch 
Transp.    Co.   r. 
\  Thero   '-.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 
1309. 
Thing,    McManus  f. 
Third    Ave.    R.     Co.,    Barrett    v. 

V.   Barton,    p.    2127. 

Block    i: 

Buckbee   v. 

Deutschmann    t. 

Hamilton    f. 


Hansen 

Hoffman    v. 

Isaacs  V. 

Jacobs  V. 

Keegan  f. 

Lasker    v. 

Ludeman   f. 

Maccr   I'. 

McMahon    v. 

Morris    v. 

Munroe   r. 

Norton    ?■. 

Rixley    f. 

Rosenberg     f. 

Schalscha    t'. 

Schultz    V. 

Wallace   ■:•. 

Zimmer    v. 

Third  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hays,  pp.  371 
384,    385,    391.  ^       , 

Thirteenth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Boudrou 
pp.    2002,    2183. 

Thisler,    Oregon    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v. 

Thomas,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v 

i:  Altoona,     etc.,     Elect.     Co. 

P    2876.  .  ^      „ 

Thomas  f.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
pp.    311,    313.    331,    488. 

V.  Boston     Elev.     R.     Co.,     p 

2672.  ^,     ^ 

V.  Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.,    pp 

210,    894,    910. 

r.   Carlotte,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp 
1878. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

2436,     2o32. 
Frankfort,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 


..  Gay,    p.    3571. 

-  f.  Kansas,    p.    3539. 

-  Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-  Kentucky    Cent.    R.    Co.   i._ 

;•.  Lancaster     Mills,     pp.     /44, 

775,    778. 

V.  Le    Baron,   p.    3944. 

Mathis  t'. 

f.   Mills,    p.    2496. 

V.   Morning     Glory,     pp.     727, 

732,   749,  945. 

V.   Morse,   p.    400. 

New    Orleans,    etc..    R.    Co.    f 

Newport     News,     etc.,     Co.     z: 

r    North   Staffordshire   R.   Co. 

pp.  211,  236,  237. 


Thomas  :■.   Northern   Pac.   E.tp.  Co., 
p.  579. 

V.  Osborn,      pp.      3865.      3866. 

3867. 

V.  Pacific    Exp.   Co..    p.   519. 

V.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co..      p. 

583. 

V.   Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans. 

Co.,    p.    2860. 

V.   Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  1824,  2674,  2781. 

Rogers    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f. 

San    Pedro,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

t'.   San     Pedro,     etc..     R.     Co.. 

pp.    2342,    2356. 

f.   Scutt,    p.    3871. 

Southern    R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Southern     R.     Co..     122    N. 

C.  1005,  30  S.  E.  343— pp.  3042. 
3043.    3055. 

V.  Southern     R.     Co.,     131     N. 

C.  590.  42  S.  E.  964,  6  R.  R. 
R.  860,  29  -Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.  S.,  860— pp.  728,  730,  749, 
3186,   3194. 

Wabash  R.   Co.   v. 

V.  Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

246. 

Wells    V. 

v.  Wells-Fargo     Exp.     Co.,     p. 

1339. 

Western  R".  Co.  -■. 

Thomas,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wabash, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    853,    854,    855. 

Thompkins  f.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
p.    190. 

Thompson,    Alabama    Mid.     R.    Co. 

Arbuckle   v. 

Central    Railroad   f. 

Central    R.    Go.    '.: 

— —  Charleston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Chattanooga    Southern    R.    Co. 

V. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

f.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    189 

Fed.    723,     111     C.    C.    A.    261— 
pp.    2348,    2884. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     27 

Iowa,  appx.,   561 — pp.  757,   781. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     22 

Mo.     App.     321— pp.     1118,     1119, 
1122,    1124,    1125. 

Cumberland,    etc.,    R".    Co.    z: 

V.   Darden,    p.    3532. 

Duffy     f. 

V.  Duncan,    p.    2372. 

i:  Fargo    (N.    Y.).    4    Thomp. 

&    C.    665,    2    Hun    379— pp.    476, 
477. 

-.■.  Fargo,    49    N.    Y.    188,    44 

How.     Prac.     176,     10    Am.    Rep. 
342— pp.    484,    490. 

V.  Fargo,    63     N.     Y.    479— p. 

489. 

Fulton,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

Galveston,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z: 

t .  Gardner,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.   1803,   1927. 

Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z: 

Goodrich    f. 

f.  Green,    pp.    1736,    2386. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Hoyt  I'. 

V.  Insurance    Co.,    p.    3871. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

z:   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.  1833.  2968.  ,^,^ 

_1  t.  Midland  R.  Co.,  pp.  1670. 
1672. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   r. 

Montgomery,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

r.  Nashville,      etc..      Railway, 

pp.    1569,    2577. 

i:  New    Orleans,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

P-    1864. 
— —  z:   Norfolk,     etc..     Tract.     Co., 

pp.    2357,    2912. 

Perry   r. 

Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 


ccc 


TA]iLK    OF    CASES. 


Thompson   f.    Quincy,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    624,    1303,    1309. 

f.   Railroad    Comm.,    p.    45. 

f.   Rose,    p.    579. 

St.    Louis    Trans.    Co.    ■:•. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

f.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2683. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

f.  San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     423.     457,     458,     463,     1138, 
1139,    1195. 

Seaboard,  etc.,  K.   Co.  z\ 

South,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z: 

I.   Southern    Exp.    Co..    p.    1()3. 

z:   Soutliern   Pac.   Co'.,   p.   3306. 

State   z: 

Steamboat    Jonas    Powell    v. 

f.   Stewart,    p.    1241. 

Sullivan    :'. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Travis   ;■. 

f.   Truesdale,    pp.     1636,    2443. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    z\ 

Ward    z: 

Winslow    z\ 

z:   Winslow,      128     Fed.      73— 

p.    3917. 

z:  Winslow,     130    Fed.     1001  — 

p.    3966. 

z:  Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1564,   1566,   1828. 

Thompson-Houston     Elect.     Co.     v. 

Simon,    p.    211. 
Thompson     Towing,     etc.,     .\ss  n     z: 

McGregor,    pp.    4048.    4082. 
Thompson,      etc.,      Co.,      Louisville, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 
Thomsen    &    Co.,    Tweedie    Trading 

Co.    z: 
Thomson,    Gleadell    v- 

'c'.  Manhattan   R.   Co.,   p.   2030. 

t/  Pacific     Railroad,     pp.     37, 

3553. 

Thorn,    McCready    v. 
Thome   v.    California    Stage   Co.,    p. 
2835. 

V.  Philadelphia    Rapid    Transit 

Co.,    p.    2328. 

Thornsberry,      Galveston,      etc.,      R. 

Co.    V.  Ti      ,- 

Thornton,     Baltimore,     etc.,     R.     v„o. 

International,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z: 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i . 

Xewsom    v. 

Southern    Exp.    Co.    z: 

Southwestern     Railroad    Z'. 

Western    R.    Co.    v. 

Thorp  V.   Brookfield,  p.   2300. 

v.  Concord    R.    Co.,    pp.    1636, 

2453. 

V.   Durham      Tract.      Co.,      pp. 

2357,    2375,    2907. 

z:  Hammond,    pp.    3865,    3932. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1953,    1955,   2074,   3204,   3213, 
3226,   3227. 

Thorson  f.  Groton,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 
pp.    1682,    1739,   2561,   2562,   2793. 

Threefoot  v.  New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    p.    3398. 

Three  Hundred  &  Eighteen  &  One- 
Half    Tons    of    Coal,    Johnson    v. 

Three  Hundred  Sixty-Seven  Tons 
of    Coal,    Carleton    v. 

Thurlkill,    Whitesides    i'. 

Thurlow,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

V.   Massachusetts,    p.    3427. 

Thurman,    Southern  R.   Co.   v. 

z\  Wells,     Fargo     &     Co.,     pp. 

231,   869. 

Thurston  z:  Detroit  United  R.  Co., 
pp.     1709,    2666,    2895. 

V.  Foster,    p.    3875. 

North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Union     Pac.      R.     Co.,      pp. 

1492,    1495,    1498,    1499. 

Thweatt    v.    Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     2028,     2031. 
Thwing,   Insurance  Co.  v. 


Thyll    X'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    817,    829,    1038. 
Tibbett,    Morton    :■. 
Tibbits,    Hoover    z: 
Tibbits   &   Son   z:   Rock  Island,   etc.. 

R.    Co.,    p.    346. 
Tibbv  f.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1580,    2092,    2098,    2296. 
Tice,   Georgia   R.,   etc.,    Co.   z\ 
Tickell    z:    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1752,    1755. 
Tide     Water      Pipe      Co.      z-.      State 

Board,   p.   3589. 
Ticdeman    !■.    Kno.x,    pp.    359,    1221. 
Tierney  z\   New   York,   etc.,    R.   Co., 

pp.    211,    236,    615,    616,    744. 

Willard    Mfg.    Co.    f._ 

Tiers,  New  Brunswick  Steamboat, 
etc.,   Co.   z\ 

New    Brunswick,    etc.,    Co.    z\ 

Tictken,    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
Tictz    f.     International     R.     Co.,     p. 

1957. 
Tift,    Southern    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Southern    R.    Co.,    123    Fed. 

789- pp.    3666,    3821,    3841. 

v.   Southern    R.    Co.,    138    Fed. 

753— pp.  1190,  1193,  1201,  3674, 
3792,    3793,     3795,    3797. 

Tiis  z\   Byers,   p.   717. 

Tilburg    V.    Northern    Cent.    R.    Co., 

217    Pa.    618,    66    Atl.    846,    12    L. 

R.     A.,     N.      S.,      359— pp.      2852, 

2855,   3078. 

z:  Northern   Cent.   R.   Co.,   221 

Pa.    245,    70    Atl.    723— p.  *2364. 

Tildcn      Z-.     Rhode      Island      Co.,     p. 

2822. 
Tiller    V.      Chicago,      etc.,      R'.      Co., 

(Iowa),  24  R.  R.  R.  581,  47  Am. 

&    Eng.    R.    Cas.,   N.    S.,    581,    112 

N.    W.    631— pp.    821,    1458. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    142 

Iowa  309,  120  N.  W.  672— pp. 
1303,  1304.  1305,  1310,  14o8, 
1473,    1479. 

Tilleson,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co._  ■;'. 
Tillett    V.    Lynchburg,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.   2125. 

V.  Norfolk,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1990,    2169. 

Tilley  z\  County  of  Cook.  dd.  24' 
3867. 

z:    Norfolk,     etc.,     R, 

244. 

Tillman,    Columbus,    etc.,    R 

Z-.   Kansas    City    Distill 

p.    1233. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ''. 

Tillotson,    Putnam    "■. 

Tilton  z'.   Philadelphia   Rapid   Trans. 

Co.,    pp.    2691,    2893. 
Timnions,     Eureka    Springs     R.     Co. 

Timms    V.    Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1994,   2804. 
Timon,    San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Timpson,    Fcnn   v. 

V.  Manhattan   R.   Co.,   p.    1786. 

Tindall  V.   Taylor,   p.   3274. 
Tingle,    Adams    Express    Co.    z\ 
Tinglcy    v.    Long    Island    R.    Co.,    p. 

2096. 

Tinker,    Inman    Steamship    Co.    ■;% 

Tinkle  z\  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    1502,    1755. 

Tinsley    z'.    Penniinan,    p.    2696. 

Tioga    R.    Co.,    Mallory    z\ 

Tippecanoe  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Jes- 
ter,   pp.     1488,    2620,    2982. 

Tipton   V.    Topeka   R.    Co.,    p.    2739. 

Tirrcll,    Gage   f. 

v.   Gage,    p.    618. 

Tirelli,    Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 
Tisdale,    International,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Tison  V.  Howard,  pp.  355,  356, 
357,    360,    361,    362,    367,    375. 

Titania,    The. 

Tittabawassee  Boom  Co.  v.  Cun- 
ning,   p.    3428. 


pp. 

Co.,     p. 

Co.    I', 
lery    Co., 


R.     Co.,     p. 


Co. 


PP 


Co. 
Dec. 


Tittle,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Titusville,     Brennan    v. 

Tjomo,    The. 

Toberman    f.    Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    1033. 
Tobin     '■.     Omnibus     Cable     Co.,     p. 

2992. 

c'.    Pennsylvania     Railroad,     p. 

2814. 

z:   Pittsfield    Elect.    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    2659,    2898,    2938 

I'.    Portland,     etc., 

2505. 
■ Silver   V. 

Vicksburg   z'. 

Todd,    Bates  •:■. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

z'.   Missouri     Pac.     R. 

1995,    2637,    2691. 

z:   Old    Colony,    etc.,     R. 

(Mass.),  3  Allen  18,  80  Am.  _ 
49— pp.  1564,  1566,  1759,  2201. 

v.  Old     Colony,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

(Mass.),    7     Allen     207,     83    Am. 
Dec.    679— pp.     1759,    2203. 

Tolano  z'.   National   Steam  Nav.   Co., 

p.    3145. 
Tolchester      Beach        Imp.      Co.       v- 

Scharnagl,    pp.    2044,    2867. 
Toledo    Consol.    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

ler,    pp.    1541,    2083,    2699. 
Toledo    R.,    etc.,    Co.    ■;■.    Ketrow,    p. 

2657. 
Toledo    Tract.    Co.,    Carr    -■. 
Toledo,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z>.  Ambach,   pp. 

728,  749,  765,  1039,  3122,  3133, 

3141,  3144,  3184. 

7'.  Baddeley,  pp.  1718, 

2950,  2993. 

Bansemer  z'. 

T'.  Beery,  p.  1305. 

z\   Beggs,   pp.   1572, 

2096,  2097,  2683. 

r'.  Boaz,  p.  1371. 

Bowler,  etc.,  Co.  z'. 

z\    Bowler,   etc.,  Co., 

3109,   3124,   3133, 


1076, 

3150,    3151,    3153,    3155. 

I'.   Brooks, 

1550,    1572. 

'•.  Broo<s 

1572. 

Collins    Z'. 

Dages, 


Ful- 


1719, 


1573. 


pp.     7. 
3149, 


n      111.      245— pp. 
51       111.      292— p. 


3149, 


.._-„,      pp.        3124, 
3i50,    3151,    3153,    3154. 
V.   Durkin,    p.    1456. 
T'.    Eastburn,    p.    1467. 
V.   Elliott,    pp.    91,    1180. 
V.   Foss,    p.    2637. 
Funsten    Dried   Fruit,   etc.,   Co. 

V.   Gilvin,    pp.    288,    292. 
z:   Crush,    pp.     2500,    2501. 


pp. 


1036, 
3115, 


1291, 


3116, 


Hamilton, 
1330,    1388. 

z\   Hammond,    pp. 

3117,    3125,    3127. 

Johnson   v. 

z:   Kichler,    p.    864. 

z:   Kickler,    p.    865. 

v.   Levy,    pp.    1018,    1460, 

7:   Lockhart,      pp.      694,      3278, 


3279. 


2461, 


3091 


z\  McDonougli,        pp. 

2565,    3103. 

z\   Maine,    p.    2501. 

z\   Merriman,    p.    3253. 

Paddock   v. 

•:■.   Patterson,     pp.     2435. 

z:   Pence,     pp.     210,     1492. 

f.   Pennsylvania    Co.,    54    Fed. 

730,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  307, 
19  L.  R.  A.  387— pp.  255,  3819, 
3823. 

;■.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  54  Fed. 

746,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  293, 
19  L.  R.  A.  395— pp.  254,  3658. 

z:   Roberts,  pp.  455,  458,  474. 

Secor  V. 

V.   Stevenson,  pp.  1767,  1768, 

1800. 


TAULE  OF  CASES. 


CCCI 


Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Tapp,    pp.  1 

727,    732,    748,    752,    821,    3157. 
J..   Thompson,    pp.     1291,     1345. 

Toberman    v. 

,..  Williams,      pp.     190,      2420, 

2423 
,.;  Wingate,    pp.      1782,      1878, 

1884,    1911,    2615. 

f.   Wren.    pp.    224,    227,    228. 

V.  Wright,      pp.       1596,      1597, 

2425,    2467,    2479. 

Toledo,  etc.,  Tract.  Co.  !■.  McFall, 
pp.    1762,    1763,    1890,    1896. 

Tolcr  V.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 
2909. 

Tolcrton,  etc..  Co.  r.  Anglo-Cali- 
fornia    r.ank,    pp.    394,    396,    399. 

Tollcman  -•.  Sheboygan,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  1695,  1958,  1959,  2309, 
2800. 

Tollerson,    Southern    R.    Co.   v. 

Tolleson  r.  Southern  Railway,  pp. 
2081.    2949. 

Tolman    '.■.    Abbot,    pp.    3327,    3353. 

Tolson,    Inland,    etc..    Coasting    Co. 

Tombigbec    Valley    R.    Co.,    Fairford 

I,unil)er    Co.    v. 
Tomlin,    I5elt    Ivlect.    Line   Co.    r. 
Tomlinson,    St.    Eouis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

-..   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3089. 
Tommy,    The. 
Tompkins   i'.    Augusta,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2494. 

V.   Boston     Elev.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1528,    1682,    1719,    2122,    2176. 

Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Clay      Street      R.      Co.,      p. 

2083. 

V.   Dutchess,  pp.   726,  734,  /35, 

736,    741,    768. 

Toncray,   White   '■. 

Tonn,   Kansas,   etc..   R.   Co.   f. 

Toohy    z:    McEcan,    pp.    1707.    1839, 

2150,    2636. 
Tooker    '<:      Brooklyn      Heights      K. 

Co.,   p.   2798. 

V.   Gormer,    pp.    570,^  3^2. 

Toomey,     Pennsylvania     Co.     v. 
Tootle    V.    Rusk,    p.    477. 

Topoka    City    R.    Co.    7'.    Higgs     pp. 

1725,      1749,      1951,      1980,     2009, 

2194. 
Topeka    R.    Co.,    Tipton    v. 
Topp    r.    United    R.,    etc..    Co.,    pp. 

2117.    2118,    2228,    2317. 
Topping    Chesapeake,    etc..     R.    Co. 

Torgorm,    Chamberlain    v. 

Tornado,    The. 

Toronto,   The. 

Toronto    St.    R.    Co..    Blackmore    t. 

Toronto,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     Blackmore 

ToVpe,    West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.   z: 
Torpey      '■■      Williams,      pp.       3123, 

3125,   3126,   3129,    3168. 
Torrence,    Perry   f. 
Torrev    v.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2173. 

r.  Kelly.   pp.    3985.   3986, 

3987. 

Touart,    Eouisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Toulon,    Tardos    v. 
Tousey  v.    Roberts,   p.    1750. 
Tower    r.    Utica,    etc.,    R'.    Co..    pp. 

3146,  3148. 
Tower    Co.    v.    Southern    Pac.    Co., 

184    Mass.    472,    69    N.    E.    348— 

pp.    3923,    3925.    3932. 

T.   Southern      Pac.      Co.,        195 

Mass.     157,    80    N.      Iv.     809— pp. 
3925,   4025. 

Tower    Grove,    etc..    R.    Co.,    Male- 
Tower '  Hill     Steamship     Co.,     Gold- 
smith   -'. 
Towles  r.    Atlantic,   etc..   R.   Co.,   p. 

646. 
Townc.   Nash   r. 


Co. 
R. 


Townes,    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Townsend    f.     Binghamton     R.     Co., 
p.   2183. 

r.  Boston,    p.    2320. 

1'.   Houston       Elect.       Co.,       p. 

2589. 

V.  Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   pp. 

2260,   2616. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    2431,    3086. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Steele   i'. 

Texas,   etc.,    R. 

J'.  Texas,     etc., 

2627. 

Townsend    Brick,    etc.,    Co. 

tral   Trust   Co.,  p.    108. 
Townsend.    etc..    Dry    Goods    Co.    v. 

L'nited   States    Exp.    Co.,   pp.    431, 

1059,    1074. 
Tozer,    United    States    i 
Tozer 

3842. 
Tozier   v.     Haverhill,     etc.,     St 

Co.,   p.   2971. 
Trabing   f.     California     Nav.,     etc., 

Co..    121    Cal.    137,    53    Pac.    644, 

8  Am.  &  Eng.   Corp.   Cas..   N.   S., 

095_pp.    2038.    2059.    2070. 

I'.   California     Nav.,     etc.,     Co., 

133    Cal.    XX.    65    Pac.    478— pp. 
3102.    4004.    4007. 

Trace   v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co..    pp. 

827.    1453.    1454.    1455.    1470. 
Tracey,   Chicago,  etc..   R'.   Co.   v. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 


Co.,     p. 
-•.    Cen- 


United    States",    pp.    3719, 
R. 


Tracy 
1335. 


IS 


New  York,    etc.,   R.    Co..   p. 
Co., 


Pullman     Palace     Car 

p.    3230. 

■;•.  Storer.    p.    517. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Trade    Mark    Cases,    p.    3420. 
Trader.    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Tradewell   v.    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    493.    842.    3398. 
Traffic     Bureau     Merchants'      Exch. 

7\    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co..    p.    3734. 
Trafton,    Boston,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Trail.   Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   ',■. 
Trainer,    Little    Rock,    etc.,    R. 


Co. 

Co., 

39, 


Trakas   r.    Charleston,   etc..    R. 

pp.   614,   616.   617.   766,  3398. 
Trammel    r.    Dinsmore,    pp.    35 

115,    116,    128.    129. 
Trammell.    Houston,    etc..    R".    Co.   i'. 
Trankersley.    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Transcontinental    Freight    Co..    Gar- 

berson  z\ 
Transfer    Co.     v.    Kelly,     pp.     728. 

733.    749,    1684,    2081. 
Transit    Co.    r.    Vcnable,    pp.    203, 

1561,    2697. 
Trans-Missouri         Freight         Ass  n. 

United   States   t-. 
Transportation    Co.    r.    Downer,    pp. 

1020.      1037.      3921.      4017,     4020, 

4031. 

-'.  Parkersburg.    pp.    3468. 

3474,   3528,   3529.   3530.  3531, 
3532. 

Walker  f. 

r.  Wheeling,     pp.     3474.     3581, 

3583,    3584. 

Transportation    Line    r.    Cooper,    p. 

3977. 
Traphagen  r.  Erie  R.  Co..  pp.   1822, 

1823. 
Trapp    f.     Southern      Railway,      pp. 

1862.   3057. 
1  raube.    Union   R..   etc..   Co.   -■. 
Trautwein.    Delaware,    etc..    R.    Co. 

Travelers'    Ins.    Co.    r.    .-\ustin,    pp. 
1502.    1581.    1584. 

-  ravers  -•.   Ka-'sas   Pac.  R.   Co.,   pp. 

2411,   2412,    2414. 
Travis,   Loverin.   etc..   Co.   ■:■. 

•;■.  Thompson.    W-     !'-''■♦•     H^^, 

1158. 


Travis    i-.    Wells    Fargo    &    Co.,    ii. 

1051. 
Trawick,   Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  f. 
Travnham    i'.     Charleston,    etc.,    R. 

Co..    p.   3524. 
Traywick    v.    Southern    Railway,    p. 

677. 
Treadway,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

r.  ^ 

Treadwell   z:    Aydlelt,    etc..    Co..    pp. 

1228.    1229.    1231,    1242.    1245. 

:■.   Whittier.     pp.      1488,     1735. 

1750.    1839.     1843,    1845,    1850. 

Treat   z:   Boston,   etc..    R.   Corp.,   pp. 
1878,    1951,    2360. 

Illinois    Cent.    R'.    Co.    f. 

Tredegar   Co.,    Ewan   :■. 

Tregear   f.    Dry    Dock,    etc.,    R.   Co.. 

p.    2186. 
Treleven   z:    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.. 

p.    500. 
Trenchard  r.   New   Orleans   R.,   etc.. 

Co.,    p.    2810. 
Trent,    Block    :■. 

Louisville,    etc..    R'.    Co.    v. 

Trent,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.    z\    Wood,   p. 

729. 
Trenton.   Reed  t. 
Trenton    Horse   R.   Co..    Breese   z: 
Trcssler,    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.    t . 
Trexler   r.    Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1343,    1457,    1478. 
Trezona    z:    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.. 

pp.    1624.    1638.    2446.    2447.    2622. 
Tribbey.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Tribune,    The. 
Trice    z-.    Chesapeake,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    1609,    2449,    2458.    2463. 
_1  f.  Miller,    pp.    522,    533,    549, 

552,    1009.  ^      _ 

Trich,    South    Side   Pass.    K.    Co.   ;. 
Tri-City  R.   Co.,   Conwell  t. 

r.  Gould,    p.    2952. 

Trieber  z'.   New   York.   etc..   R.    Co.. 

p.    1889.  „      „ 

Trigg    z:    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.    3048.    3049.    3061. 
Trigo.   San   .\ntonio,  etc.,  R.   Co.  r. 
Trimble  z:   New   York.   etc..   R.   Co.. 

56   N.   E.    532.    162    N.    Y.    84.   48 

L     R.     A.     115— pp.     3111.    3149. 

3150,    3154,    3184. 
-■    New     York.     etc..     R.     Co.. 

39    App.    Div.    403.    57    N.    Y.    S- 

437— pp.    822.    3149,    3162. 

St.     Louis,     etc..     R.     Co.     z: 

.Lrimyer,    Washington,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Triiidall    z:    Taylor,    pp.    377,    378. 

Trinity  County  Lumber  Co.,  Mis- 
souri, etc..  R.  Co.  z: 

Trinity  \'alley  R.  Co.  z:  .Stewart, 
pp.  1588.  1752,  1755,  1/d6,  198.-«. 
2004,    2208.  ^     ^  ^ 

Trinitv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Bradshaw. 
p.  2769. 

Carpenter   Z'. 

z:   Geppcrt.    p.    3518. 

Haberzettle   ;. 

!■.   O'Brien,    pp.     1769.    2903. 

Walling  ;■. 

Tripis.    Missouri,   etc..    R.    Co.   z: 
Tripp.   Old  Colony   R.   Co.  :. 
Trippe    &    Co.    Hot    Springs    R.    Co. 

Troop.   Ralli   z: 

Trotlinger   z:    East    Tennessee,    etc., 

R     C'o..    pp.     191,     194.     198.     199. 

203.    1550.    1592.    1858.    1863. 
Trotter.   Chicago,   etc..   R.   Co.   :. 

St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  t . 

Trousdale   &    Sons,    Richmond,    etc.. 

R-     ^°-    ''■  ^  r,      r- 

Troustine.    Illinois    Cent.    K.    Co.    z: 

Trout    ;■.    Gulf,  etc..    R.     Co..    pp. 

1304.    13(.8.  ^ 

z:  Watkins  Livery,    etc.,    Co.. 

p.    1489. 

Troutman     z:    Louisville,      etc.,      K. 

Co..   p.    2860. 
Trowbridge      t.     Chapin.      pp.      26/. 

279.    285. 


CCCII 


TABLE    OP    CASES. 


Trowbridge    t:    Charleston,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  p.  824. 
Trowell   f.   Youmans,    pp.    551,    553, 

581. 
Trower,    Pecos,   etc..    R.    Co.    f. 
Troy,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

Wilson  i: 

Troy,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Buffett  t. 

Foy  V. 

Francisco    f. 

Ross    -. 

Shedd  t . 

Trover,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Truax,    Ferguson    '■.  , 

f.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.   246,   267,    277,   284,   285,    727, 
732,   748,   765,   3265. 

True,     International,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Keokuk    Northern    Line    Pack- 
et  Co.  r. 

Keokuk,   etc..    Packet   Co.   v. 

Truel  f.   Missouri,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  pp. 

1612,  1613. 
Truesdale,    Thompson    f. 
Truesdell  z:   Erie   R.   Co.,  99   X.   Y. 

S.,     694.     114    App.     Div.     34— pp. 

2229,  2231,  2822. 

f.   Erie   R.    Co.,    104   X.    V.    S. 

243,   119  App.  Div.   371— pp.   2349, 
2911. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7-. 

Truex   i:    Erie    R.     Co.,     pp.     2080, 

2171. 
■Trumbull   T'.   Donahue,   p.   2758. 

V.  Erickson,      pp.     1736,      1953, 

1954,     2115,      2120,     2121,     2169, 
2180. 

Truskett,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 
Trussell    t:    Morris    Countv    Tract. 

Co.,   pp.    1744,   2345,   2889. 
Trust   Co.   f.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.  45,   57. 
Truxel,   Estey  v. 
Tryon    Co.    v.    Hutchinson    Lumber, 

etc.,   Co.,   p.   816. 
Tubbs  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.   Co.,   p. 

2504. 
Tucker  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

p.    2005. 

z:  Buffalo    R.    Co.,    pp.    2199, 

2311. 

z:  Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2226,    2348,   2394. 

■ Crumbacker   v. 

Eppes  v. 

Hagan    r. 

V.  Housatonic   K.    Co.,    p.    514. 

z\  Humphrey,    pp.    1215,    1216, 

1232. 

Indianapolis    Southern    R.    Co. 

Kimball   f. 

Maryland,    etc..    Railroad    v. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

45,    67. 

V.  Pacific    R.    Co.,    p.    1311. 

z:  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,      p. 

777. 

V.   Pittsburgh,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.  2364,  2779,  2860. 

z:   Rhode  Island  Co.,  p.  1828. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

z\   Stimson,    p.     3865. 

Tuckerman   f.    Brown,    p.    3916. 

Clendaniel   v. 

Z'.   Stephens,        etc.,        Transp. 

Co.,    p.    2. 

Tuckerman,       etc.,     Co.,      Stephens, 

etc.,    Transp.    Co.    z'. 
Tuckett,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 
Tudor  V.   Northern  Pac.   R.    Co.,   p. 

1836. 
Tudor  Co.,  Janney  z\ 
Tuerk,  West  Chicago   St.   R.   Co.  v. 
Tuesco   Oil    Co.   v.   Pennsylvania   R'. 

Co.,   p.   853. 
Tufts  z:    Sylvester,   p.    1227. 
Tuggle,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

r.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1442. 


Tugman,     National      Steamship      Co. 

Tuley    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2215. 
Tuller    r.    Talbot,    pp.     1723,     1728, 

1744,    1745,   2076. 
Tunnicliffe    z:    Bay     Cities     Consol. 

R.    Co.,    p.    1832. 
Tupelo    Furniture     Mfg.     Co.,     Mo- 
bile,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Tupelo,    etc.,      Mfg.      Co.,      Mobile, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Tupman,    Burnside,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Tupper  -•.   Boston   Elev.   R.   Co.,   pp. 

1994,   2799. 
Turley  v.   Atlanta,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   pp. 

2175,    2263,    2264,    2360,    2540. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Turner,  Birmingham  R.,   etc.,  Co.  f. 

z:   Black     Warrior,      pp.      820, 

829. 

z:   City   Elect.   K.   Co.,   pp. 

1747,  1803,   1804,   2385,  2404, 
2996. 

Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.     1608,     1677,     3044,     3051. 

• Gulf,    etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 

Haight    r. 

z:  Huff,    pp.    532,    538,    903. 

z'.  Liverpool     Dock,     pp.     1215, 

1216. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

z:   McCook,     pp.      2454,      2621, 

2647,   2648. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

z:  North    Beach,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2411,    2414,    3087,    3097. 

z:   Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1643. 

Roberts   v. 

— ■ —  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Z-.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

333,  451. 

• •  San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Smith    i'. 

South    Bend    -•. 

z\   Southern    Railway,    p.    3198. 

Tacoma    R.,    etc.,    Co.    z'. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 

v.   Vicksburg,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1782,    1892. 

•  Western,    etc..    Railroad    ;■. 

Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Z!.  Western,        etc..        Railroad, 

pp.    1561,    2040,    2633. 

Turney,    Huron    Barge    Co.    v. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Wilson,    pp.     11,     488,    729, 

730,   731,   733,   737,   750,   768,   822, 
1009.    1020. 

Turnpike    Co.    v.    State,    p.    1501. 
Turrentine    t'.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    894. 
Tusker,    The. 
Tuten   V.    Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1524,     1767. 
Tuthill,    Saltmarsh    v. 
Tutt,   Jacobs   z\ 
Tuttle   t.    Becker,   p.   364. 

Z-.  Chicago,     etc.,    R.      Co.,    p. 

2683. 

V.   Cincinnati,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.  2488,  2491,  2784. 

Sturdevant   z>. 

Tweedie  Trading   Co.   z>.    I'.arry,    194 
Fed.    286— pp.    3967,    3973. 

z:   Barry,     205     Fed.     721,     124 

C.    C.   A.    15— pp.    3967,    3973. 

V.   Craig,    pp.    3957,    3959. 

Glasgow    Steam    Shipping    Co. 

Herr  v. 

V.  New    York,    etc.,      R.     Co., 

166    Fed.    993— pp.    3959,    3973. 

V.  New    York,     etc.,    R.      Co., 

194    Fed.    281— p.    3962. 

Z'.   Pitch      Pine      Lumber      Co., 

146   Fed.    612— p.    3953. 

V.   Pitch      Pine      Lumber      Co., 

156    Fed.    88— p.    3963. 


Tweedie     Trading     Co.     f.     Strong, 
etc.,    Co.,    pp.    3952,    3966,    3967. 

v.   Thomsen    &    Co.,    pp.    3957, 

3974. 

Twenty-Third    St.    R.    Co.,    Corbett 

Twichell,    Pecos,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

-'.  Pecos,     etc.,       R.      Co.,     p. 

2019. 

Twiname,    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

Citizens',    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Twiss    Z-.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

204.    1557,   2193,   2195. 

■  Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.    ?■. 

Twitty   '•.    Southern    R'.    Co.,    p.    149. 
Two    Hundred    &    Sixteen    Loads    & 

Six      Hundred      &      Seventy- Eight 

Barrels    of    Fertilizer,     p.     3972. 
Two      Hundred       and      Twenty-One 

Tons  of  Coal,  O'Rouke  -'. 
Twomley    z\    Central    Park,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,     pp.     2128,     2766. 
2,098    Tons    of    Coal,    In    re. 

Ionia    Transp.    Co.    -•. 

Two    Thousand    Tons    of    Coal,    pp. 
3953,    3961. 

New    Ruperra    Steamship     Co. 

T.'w.  &  W.  R.   Co.  V.  Baddeley,  p. 

1884. 
Tybee,   The. 
Tvler,    Guizoni   f. 
-^—  f.   London    &    S.    W.    R.    Co., 

p.    573. 

'■.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2834. 

Soper    z\ 

— —  z:  Texas,     etc.,    R.      Co.,      pp. 
1731,    2796. 

z'.  Western     Union     Tel.     Co., 

p.    1049. 

Tyler  Coffin  Co.,   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

Co.   z: 
Tyroler   f.   Warden    of    City    Prison, 

pp.    20,    21,    184. 
Tyrrell    v.    Lincoln    Tract.     Co.,     p. 

3l. 
Tysen   v.    Moore,    p.   879. 
Tyson,  JNew    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Raymond   v. 

T.   &  P.   R.   Co.  z:   Rogers,   p.   3330. 

V.   Schneider,     pp.      528,      533, 

935. 

•  Williams    v. 

U 

Uber    z'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

593,    602,    754,    779,    822. 
Udell    V.    Citizens'    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1556,    2198,    2536. 

z:  Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

786,   870. 

Uessel   V.    Bath,    p.    308. 
Ullman    z\     Chicago,    etc..     R.     Co., 
pp.   987,    1066. 

z\   Flintshire,     p.     10.57. 

Grand    Tower    Mfg.,    etc.,    Co. 

Ulman,     etc.,     Co.     z:     Babcock,     p. 

1229. 
Ulmer   v.    Farnsworth,    p.    245. 
Ulrich    V.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2095,    2097. 
Ulster,    Clark,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 
Ulster,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Boice    f. 

Bramley    z'. 

Parish    z\ 

Umbenhaucr,    Bayonne     Knife     Co. 

Unaka   Timber   Co.,    McDonald  z: 
Underbill,    Muskegon    Booming    Co. 

v. 
Underwood,     Ft.     Worth,     etc.,     R. 

Co.   v. 

Georgia   Pac.    R.    Co.   v. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

— — ■  International,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 
Underwriters'    Agencv    "■.    Sutherlin, 
pp.    798,    799. 


TAI5LK  OF  CASES. 


CCCIII 


Unger  v.    Forty-Second  St.,  etc.,   R. 

Co.,   p.    1750. 
Union   Bridge  Go.  v.  United  States, 

p.   3468. 
Union    Colliery    Co.,    Nightingale   r. 
Union     Compress      Co.,     California 

Ins.   Co.  V. 
Union    Depot   Co.,    Snyder   v. 

State   V. 

Union   Depot  R.   Co.,   Drolshagen  v. 

Olfermann    r. 

Schepers   v. 

Sly  V. 

Union    Dray   Line   Co.   f.    Hurt,   pp. 

3262,    3264,    3269,    3301. 
Union   KUct.  Co.,   Blumenthal  z: 

La  Barge  v. 

Union  Exp.  Co.  7\  Graham,  26  O. 
St.   362— p.    1039. 

f.  Graham,    26    O.    St.    595— 

pp.    243.    753,    757,   824,   826,   948, 
953,    1792. 

f.  Ohleman,      pp.      511,      535, 

891. 

Place   f. 

t'.  Shoop,   p.   521. 

Union    Feed    Co.    -■.    Pacific   Clipper 

Line,   p.   466. 
Union   Ferry   Co.,   Loftus  v. 

Asborne    v. 

Union  Freight  R.  Co.  v.  VVinklcy, 
pp.   1148,    1150. 

Union  Ins.  Co.,  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V. 

Union   Line   Exp.    Co.,    Roberts   i'. 

Union  Locomotive,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Erie  R.   Co.,   p.   212. 

Union  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Indianapo- 
lis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  730,  739, 
822,  9S3,  1007,  1013,  1019,  1039, 
1041. 

Union   Oil   Co.,   Crowell  v. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    Ames   r. 

Andrist   i'. 

V.  Beardwell,    pp.     684,      1002. 

V.  Botsford,    pp.      1837,     2773. 

Bowlin  '■. 

Brown   '■. 

Coeur  D'.Mene,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

V.  Cooke,   p.   700. 

Durfee    .'. 

V.   Evans,       pp.       1699,       2324, 

2873. 

Falina  f. 

Furman   i\ 

Gerstle    v. 

V.  Goodridge,    pp.    34,    82,    97, 

135,    145,    171,    3750. 

Hall   z: 

f.  Hall,    p.    255. 

f.  Hand,        pp.       1726,      2696, 

2734,   2736. 

Harris   f. 

v.   Harris,    pp.    1813,     1815. 

V.  Hepner,    p.    816. 

Hoffman    v. 

Houtz  V. 

Interstate     Commerce     Comm. 

Jevons  f. 

Johnson    v. 

f.  Johnston,  pp.  356,  361,  369, 

370,    377,    378,    384,    547,    556. 

Kalina    v. 

Kearney    Mill,    etc.,    Co.    z: 

Kirby    f. 

Kirkcndall   z\ 

Z'.  Langan,   p.    1385. 

V.  Luck,     p.     2820. 

Lvise     f. 

Lyon    z'. 

March    z\ 

Marsh    z: 

z:   Marston,       pp.      996,       999, 

3351. 

f.  Metcalf,    p.    489. 

Miller    Grain,    etc.,    Co.,    z\ 

f.   Mitchell,    p.    2547. 

MofFatt    Comm.    Co.    z\ 

:■.   Mover,    pp.    515.    914.    918. 

t.   Nelson,    pp.    1305,    1471. 

f.  Nicholas,    pp.    1572,    1577. 


Union    Pac.    R'.    Co.,    Nichols    v. 

V.  Oregon,     etc.,     Ass'n,       pp. 

3820,  3821. 

Ormsby    ?■. 

Patten   z\ 

r,    pp.    1 

—  Peavey  &   Co.   v. 

—  Purple   V. 

—  Quinby    v. 

—  V.  Rainey,  pp.  752,  1343, 
1368. 

—  z:  Roeser,    pp.    2199,    2201. 

—  Schenberger    v. 

—  State   V, 

—  V.  Stupeck,  50  Colo.  151,  114 
Pac.  646— pp.  820,  1035,  1057. 

—  V.  Stupeck  (Colo.),  144  Pac. 
646— p.  977. 

—  V.  Sue,  pp.  1773,  1779,  2147, 
2952,  2953. 

—  r.  Taggart,  pp.  97,  135,  145, 
171. 

—  z:  Thompson,  pp.  1085,  1408, 
1473,  1479. 

—  Thurston    v. 

—  United    States    v. 

—  V.  United  States,  59  Fed. 
813,   8    C.    C.    A.    282— p.    3814. 

—  z:  United  States,  99  U.  S. 
402,  25  L.  Ed.  274,  14  Ct.  CI. 
587— p.    3677. 

—  V.  United  States,  117  U.  S. 
355,  29  L.  Ed.  920,  6  S.  Ct.  772, 
21    Ct.    CI.    502— pp.    72,    1179. 

—  V.  Updike  Grain  Co.,  101  C. 
C.  A.  583,  178  Fed.  223— pp. 
3632,   3733.    3734,   3826. 

—  v.  Updike  Grain  Co.,  222  U. 
S.  215,  56  L.  Ed.  171.  32  S.  Ct. 
39— pp.  3433,  3607,  3634,  3731, 
3732,   3733. 

—  z'.   \'incent,    pp.    806,    3247. 

—  Webster   z'. 

—  Wentz-Batcs      Mercantile      Co. 


z:  Whitney, 

V.  Wolf,    pp 

Union    Passenger 

her  v. 
Union    R.    Co., 

Barry  v, 

Bishop  V. 

Braun  v. 

Brierly  -'. 

Cheetham   z'. 

Fleck   -■. 

Harris   '■. 

Heltzen    z>. 

Hirsch    "■. 

Kriedermacher   v. 

Murphy   z\ 

Nelson    z\ 

Norton    z-. 

Pendergast    v. 

Rathbone  v. 

Schaefer    i\ 

Schcu    z: 

Schilling   V. 

Stierle   "'. 

Sullivan    v. 

Sweeny    z'. 

Weir   z: 

Wright    f. 

Union    R.    Transp. 
L'nion   R.,   etc.,    Co. 

z:   Kallaher,     114 

N.    E.   77— p.   2077. 

V.  Kallaher,    12   HI 

p.    2497. 

Merchants*    Bank    : 

Riegel     &     Co., 


p.    2961. 

1596,    1597. 
R'.    Co.,    Clutzbu 

Adams    v. 


Co.,    Lietch 
Chouteau   -■. 
111.     325, 


App.    400, 


1018. 


pp.     410, 


Shacklet,    pp.    1999,    2000. 

Traube,   p.   848. 

Yeager,    pp.    305,    317,    524. 

Trans.    Co.    f. 

149,  44  L.   Ed. 

631 — pp.     3556, 


L'nion    Refrigerator 

Lvnch.   177   U.   S. 

708.     20     S.     Ct. 

3557,    3581. 
z:  Lvnch.    55 

Utah    378,    48    L. 

3575. 


Pac.     639.     18 
R.    A.    790— p. 


Union   Steamboat  Co.,   Blitz  v. 

Burnside   z-. 

-■.  Chaffin,     pp.     4075,    4083. 

Green    Bay,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

f.   Knapp.    p.    528. 

Richmond    "'. 

Union  Steamship  Co.  v.  New 
York,  etc..  Steamship  Co.,  pp. 
3899,   4017. 

Union  Stock  Yard  Co.  f.  West- 
cott,  p.   561. 

Union  Stock  Yard,  etc.,  Co.,  At- 
torney   General    z-. 

Strahorn   z\ 

United    States    z\ 

Union     Stock     Yards    Co.,      United 

States  V. 

■ Winnett   ''. 

Union      Stock      Yards,      etc.,      Co., 

United  States  z\ 

f.  Western     Land,     etc.,     Co., 

p.   3871. 

L'nion    St.    R.    Co.,   Briggs  v. 
■ Brightman    v. 

Edgerly    z: 

Greer   z: 

Holman    z: 

Union    Sulphur   Co.,    Percy   v. 

z:   Percy,    p.    3967. 

Union    Tank    Line    Co.,    In    re. 
Union    Tract.    Co.,    Bainbridge    z: 

Barry   v. 

Bendon    v. 

Buehler  v. 

Foster  z\ 

Gaffney    z-. 

Howard   v. 

Howell    z: 

Hunterson    v. 

Jennings    f. 

z\   Keiter,    p.    2285. 

z:   Siceloff,    p.    2595. 

V.  Sullivan,    p.    2346. 

Sweeney    f. 

Union  Transfer,  etc.,  Co.,  Carle- 
ton  v. 

Union    Transp.    Co.,    Gaines    z: 

Union  Transp.,  etc.,  Co.,  Lever- 
ing f. 

Union   Trunk  Line,   Cameron   z: 

Smith    T. 

Union,      etc.,       Bank,       Mississippi 

Mills  z\ 
Union,   etc.,   Ins.   Co.,   Gaines  v. 
Union,     etc.,      R.    Co.,     -Etna    Nat. 

Bank  f . 

Lackman   f. 

T.  Londoner,    pp.    1772,    208^, 

2507. 

z:  Meeking,    p.    99. 

Unionville   Produce  Co.   z:   Chicago, 

etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp.   619,  690,   695. 

Unique  Shipping  Co.  z:  Guftey 
Petroleum    Co.,    p.    4022. 

United   Carriage   Co.,    Budd  v. 

United   Exp.    Co.   z:   State,   p.    3^2=. 

United  Fruit  Co.,  American  Ba- 
nana Co.  J'.  _ 

f    N'ew      York,    etc.,      Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    889,    900.   904. 

United  R.   Co.,   Bobbitt  z: 

Canaday   z: 

Chalmers  z\ 

Coyne   z\ 

Groshong   z: 

Harmon  i\ 

Jerome  '■. 

Logan    f. 

Miller   f. 

Mitchell   f. 

i.Ioeller    z: 

Monroe    Z'. 

Moorshead    f. 

Musick    r. 

Nagel   z: 

Palfrey    z: 

Parker  z-. 

Pidgeon   z: 

Reisenleiter   v. 

Richter    v. 

United  R.,  etc..  Co.  :•.  Beidelman, 
pp.   2397,   2688,   2830. 


CCCIV 


TAIiLIC    OF    CASES. 


United  R.,   etc.,  Co..  Charles  t: 

z:   Dean,    p.    2898. 

V.   Deane,    p.    2023. 

Dulaney  '•. 

Egner  %■. 

Garrison     7'. 

V.   Hardesty,   p.   2443. 

z:  Hertel,    p.    2753. 

Jones    f. 

z:  Riley,       pp.       2113,        2166, 

2376. 

Rosenkovitz    -■. 

z:   Rosik,   pp.   23S7,   2359,   2906. 

2989,    2990. 

State    -■. 

Strauss    f. 

Topp  '■. 

z:   VVeir,    pp.    2358,    2825. 

f.  Woodbridge,         pp.  2146, 

2243,    2688. 

United  Railroads,  Waniorek  z\ 
United  Railways,  Hornstein  -■. 
United    States,    .\dair    f. 

z:  Adair,    pp.    3466,    3467. 

Addyston    Pipe,    etc..    Co.    z\ 

Ambrosini    z\ 

American    Exp.    Co.    '•. 

V.  American      Exp.       Co.,       p. 

3614. 

z:  Ames,    p.    4049. 

Anderson    r. 

z:  Arjona,    pp.    3428,    3439. 

Arkansas    Fertilizer    Co.    v. 

Armour    Packing    Co.    z\ 

Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

z:  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    142 

Fed.    176— pp.    3811,    3821,    3825. 

v.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    163 

Fed.     Ill— pp.    3843,    3844,    3849. 

V.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    166 

Fed.    160— pp.    3621,    3622,    3627. 

z'.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    185 

Fed.  105— p.  3618. 

z:   Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  220 

U.  S.  37,  55  L.  Ed.  361,  31  S. 
Ct.  362— p.  3459. 

V.  Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    234 

U.  S.  476,  34  S.  Ct.  986— pp. 
3711,    3713,    3723,    3837. 

Athanasaw   z'. 

z'.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3623. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

v.   Baltimore,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

153    Fed.    997— p.    3843. 

z:  Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    159 

Fed.  33,  86  C.  C.  .\.  223— p. 
3622. 

V.  Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   170 

Fed.  456— p.  3454. 

V.   Baltimore,      etc.,       R.      Co., 

225  U.  S.  306,  56  L.  Ed.  1100, 
32  S.  Ct.  817— pp.  3795,  3800, 
3801,  3808,  3834,  3836,  3837, 
3838,    3839. 

z:  Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   231 

U.  S.  274,  34  S.  Ct.  75— pp. 
3638,    3731,    3735,    3804. 

Bennett   v. 

z:  Boston,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     p. 

3622. 

Z-.  Boyer,   p.   3469. 

Brawley    -■. 

z:   Bunch,   p.   3856. 

z'.   Butler    County    R.    Co.,    p. 

3660. 

V.   Camden     Iron     Works,     pp. 

3855,   3857,   3858. 

Chamber     of     Commerce     -■. 

V.  Chicago     Junction     R.     Co., 

p.    3625. 

Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z: 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    81 

Fed.    783— p.    3424. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     62 

C.  C.  A.  465,  127  Fed.  785— p. 
3726. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    143 

Fed.    353— p.    3430. 

v.  Chicago,       etc.,       R'.       Co., 

148  Fed.  646 — pp.  3608,  3700, 
3701,   3702. 


United 
Co., 


Fed. 
3850. 


States    z: 
149    Fed. 
Chicago,    etc., 
84 — pp.    3702, 


z\  Chicago,    etc.. 

Fed.    984— p.    3628. 

'•.   Chicago,    etc.. 

Fed.    770— p.    3627. 

'■.   Colorado,    etc.,    R. 

Fed.   321— p.  3425. 

'■.   Colorado,    etc.,    R. 

Fed.    342— p.    3434. 

Connors    t'. 

Cox  f. 

Crane    Iron    Works    f. 

z\   l)e       Coursey,       pp 


3848, 


3852 
Fed. 


Delaware,     etc.,      Co., 
315— pp.    3651,    3652. 

—  f.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co., 
U.  S.  366,  53  L.  Ed.  836, 
Ct.    527— p.     3443. 

—  Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:• 

—  "•.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co 
Fed.  101— pp.  3699,  3816. 

—  V.   Delaware,   etc.,   R. 


213 
29  S. 


Co., 


152 
3845 


Fed.  269— pp.   3607,   3610, 


941 


3519. 


'■.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  213 

Fed.  240— pp.  3653,  3654. 

r.    Dodge,    pp.    1944,    1948. 

V.   East     Tennessee,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    p.    3619. 

Erie    R.    Co.    z\ 

-  z:  Erie  R.  Co.,  166  Fed.  352 
—pp.    3453,    3454. 

z:   Erie    R.    Co.,    191    Fed. 

—p.    3628. 

Fairbank    z\ 

T.   First    l^a.t.     Bank, 

Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Geddes.     131     Fed.     452,    65 

C.    C.    A.    320— p.    3424. 

-  r.  Geddes,  180  Fed.  480— p. 
3453. 

Grand    R'apids,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.    !■. 

Great    Northern    R.    Co.    z'. 

'•.   Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p. 

3430. 

I'.   Green,    p.    3427. 

V.  Hamburg- Amerikanischc.-. 

etc.,    Gesellschaft,    p.    3440. 

z\   Hanley,      pp.      3843, 

3850. 

Harris    -'. 

z\   Harris,   p.   3619. 

-  Heike   z\ 

Hocking   \'alley    R.    Co. 

r.   Hocking      \'alley      R. 

pp.    3706,    3846,    3848. 

Hoffeld   V. 

-  Hoke  V. 

z:   Holliday,    pp.    3418,    3420. 

Hopkins   V. 

z\  Hopkins,    pp.    3432,    3555. 

Houston,    etc.,     R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Howell,    pp.    3746,    3854. 

I'.   Illinois     Terminal     R.     Co., 

3442,    3744,    3845. 

z'.   International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
3451. 

—  z\  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission,   p.    3773. 

—  '•.  Joint  Traffic  Ass'n,  32  C. 
C.   A.  491,  89   Fed.    1020— p.   3724. 

—  z.'.  Joint  Traffic  Ass'n,  171  U. 
S.  505,  43  L.  Ed.  259,  19  S.  Ct. 
25— pp.     3436,     3440,     3441,     3447. 

—  Kalen   z: 

—  z:   Kane,    p.    2487.  _ 

—  Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

—  V.  Kimbal,     pp.     303,     3867. 

—  i:  Knight  Co.,  pp.  3418, 
3420,    3421,    3424,    3445. 

—  -■.   Lavarrello,    p.    4013. 

—  Leary   v. 

—  Lehigh   Valley   R.    Co.   f. 

—  z:  Lehigh  \'alley  R.  Co.,  115 
Fed.    373— pp.    3423,    3610. 


3849, 


Co.. 


PP 


P- 


Co., 


United    States   z\    Lehigh    X'alley   R. 
Co.,      184      Fed.      546— pp.      3744, 


Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  184 
971— pp.  3620,  3623,  3625. 
Lehigh  Valley  R.  "Co.,  204 
705,      123    C.    C.     .\.     9— p. 


f.   Lehigh    \'allev    R.    Co..    220 

U.    S.   257,    55   L.   Ed.    458,   31    S. 
Ct.    387— pp.   3651,   3653. 

Leovy    T. 

Lind   z\ 

Louisiana,    etc.,    R. 

v.   Louisiana,      etc. 

pp.    3660,    3673. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

-■.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp 

3619,    3629,    3630. 

Maday    '■. 

z'.   Marigold,    p.    3445. 

-•.   Martin,    p.    3697. 

z:   Mellen,    pp.    3718 

t'.   Merchants',       etc. 

Co.,   pp.    3748,   3751. 

z:   Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.,    43 

Fed.    26— pp.    3845,    3852. 

v.   Michigan      Cent.       R 

122    Fed.      544— pp.      3815, 
3827. 

J'.   Miller,      pp.        3735, 

3747,  3844,  3853. 
Milwaukee,  etc., 
142      Fed.      247— pp. 


Co. 
R. 


Co. 


3746, 


Co., 
3829. 


3852. 
Transp. 


Co.. 

3825, 

3745, 

Trans. 
3809. 


Milwaukee,  etc..  Trans. 
Co.,  145  Fed.  1007— pp.  3705. 
3827,    3832,    3855. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    ''. 

■:■.   Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3813. 

Missouri,    etc.,     R'.     Co.    f. 

Mobile,   etc.,    R.    Co.   '■. 

7'.   Monongahela      Bridge     Co., 

p.    3468. 

Monongahela    Nav.    Co.    7'. 

Montana   Cent.   R.    Co.   7'. 

Montpelier,     etc..     Railroad     7'. 

Moore    it    Co.    7'. 

7'.   Morsman,     pp.     3614,     3851. 

7'.   Moseley,     p.     3768. 

Mutual   Trans.    Co.   7'. 

Nashville    Grain    Exch.    v. 

Newport    News,    etc.,    Co.    7'. 

New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

?■.   New     York,     etc.,      R.     Co., 

146  Fed.  298— pp.  3705,  3846, 
3850. 

7'.   New     York,     etc..     R.     Co., 

153  Fed.  630— pp.  3606,  3737, 
3744,  3848. 

7'.  New  York,   etc.,  R.   Co., 

156  Fed.  249— pp.  3619,  3624. 

7'.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

157  Fed.  293— p.  3844. 

V.   New  York,   etc.,   R.  Co., 

168  Fed.  699,  94  C.  C.  .\.  76— 
p.  3622. 

7'.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

186  Fed.  541- p.  3628. 

7'.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

191  Fed.  938— pp.  3622,  3628. 

7'.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

212  U.  S.  509,  53  L.  Ed.  629,  29 
S.  Ct.  313— pp.  3420,  3686,  3842, 
3843. 

Nichols,  etc..  Lumber  Co.  7-. 

Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 

V.   Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 

Fed.  831— pp.  3639,  3641,  3642. 
3643,  3818,  3830. 

7'.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  138 

Fed.  849— p.  3816. 

v.   Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74 

C.  C.  A.  406,  143  Fed.  266— pp. 
3631,  3640,  3816. 

iNorthern  Pac.  Terminal  Co. 


Co., 
3616. 


Co. 


Northern       Pac 
144     Fed.       861 


Terminal 
pp.      3432. 

Northern       Pac.       Terminal 
81    Fed.    879— p.    3626. 


TAULK  OF   CASKS. 


CCCV 


United  States  t.  Northern  Pac 
Terminal  Co.,  186  Fed.  947 — pp 
3619,     3020,     3625. 

Northern     Securities    Co.     j'. 

V.  Ohio   Oil    Co.,    p.    3615. 

V.  Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p 

3622. 

Oregon-Washington      R.,      etc. 

Co.   r. 

I'.  Oregon,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

3621,   3f.24,   3626,   3627. 

Pacific    Coast    R.    Co.    t. 

V.   Pacific     Kxp.    Co.,    pp.    816 

820. 

z\   Pacific,     etc.,     Nav.     Co.,     p 

3813. 

Paulsen  f. 

Peck   r. 

Pennsylvania   Co.    7\ 

r.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

3737,    3750,    3849,    3851. 

I'.   Pere   Marquette    K'.    Co.,   pp. 

3619,    3624. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

184   Fed.   543— pp.   3744,  3761. 

V.   Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

188    Fed.    484— p.    3440. 

Philippine    Trading    Co.   -•. 

Pine   River   Logging  Co.   v. 

V.   Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3430. 

r.  Popper,    pp.    3468,    3857. 

f.  Powell,    p.    3266. 

Prairie    Oil,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

V.   Prideon,    p.    3467. 

Proctor,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

V.  Pugh,     p.     3908. 

f.   Ramsey,    pp.    1,    5. 

Reed    f. 

Robinson   -■. 

St.  Joseph  Stock  Yards  Co.  ■:■. 

V.   St.      Joseph      Stock      Yards 

Co.,    pp.    3469,    3609,    3621. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

V.   St.   Louis,   etc.,  R.   Co.,    107 

Fed.    870— pp.    3622,    3629. 

V.  St.      Louis,     etc.,     R'.      Co., 

177  Fed.  205,   101   C.  C.  A.  375— 
p.    3623. 

f.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   189 

Fed.    954— p.    3460. 

V.   Saul,    pp.    1835,    3428. 

Scott  r. 

7'.   Seaboard    R.    Co.,    p.    3611. 

Shaw    -'. 

r.  Shea,  pp.  3864,  3866. 

T.   Sioux   City   Stock   Yards 

Co.,  pp.  1,  5,  3619,  3o20,  3622, 
3625. 

Southern  Pac.  Co.  r. 

V.   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   157 

Fed.  459— pp.  3619,  3622,  3626, 
3630. 

V.   Southern   Pac.   Co.,   162 

Fed.  412— pp.  3622,  3623,  3825. 

Southern  R.  Co.  -■. 

V.   Southern  R.  Co.,  135  Fed. 

122— p.  3434. 

V.   Southern  R.  Co.,  164  Fed. 

347— pp.  3439,  3451,  3453. 

Standard  OU    Co.  -•. 

V.   Standard  On  Co.,  148  Fed. 

719— pp.  3607,  3700,  3703,  3850, 
3855. 

f.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  155  Fed. 

305— pp.  3434,  3442,  3762,  3854, 
3855,  385o. 

■:•.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  170  Fed. 

988— pp.  3736,  3855,  3856,  3857. 

f.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  183  Fed. 

223— p.  3752. 

V.  Standard  Oil   Co.,    192    Fed. 

438— p.   3842. 

;•.   Stearns,    etc..    Lumber    Co., 

p.     3856. 

V.  Sterling    Salt    Co.,    p.    3856. 

V.   Stockyards     Terminal     Co., 

172  Fed.  452— p.  3626. 

V.   Stockyards   Terminal   R. 

Co.,  178  Fed.  19,  101  C.  C.  .\. 
147— pp.  3608,  3620. 

1    Car— t 


213 


160 


United    States,    Strong    ?■. 

Sunday   Creek   Co.   :■. 

T'.   Sunday  Creek  Co.,  p.   3765. 

Swift    &    Co.    V. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z-. 

J'.   Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  pp.   712, 

3667,     3752,     3846. 

Tozer   V. 

r.   Tozer,     37     Fed.    635,    2    L. 

R.    A.    444— pp.    3845,   3848,   3852. 

7.  Tozer,   39   Fed.   369— pp. 

3634,  3635,  3692,  3698. 

r.  Tozer,      39      Fed.     904— pp. 

3685,    3692,    3698. 

?'.  Trans-Missouri  Freight 

-Vss'n,  pp.  3447,  3600,  3601,  3602, 
3617,  3650,  3684,  3711,  3724, 
3735. 

Union    Bridge    Co.    7'. 

L'nion     Pac.     R.     Co.     f. 

r.   Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    94    C. 

C.  A.  433,  169  Fed.  65— pp.  3621, 
3627. 

<■.  Union     Pac.     R.     Co.,     188 

Fed.     102— p.     3659. 

-•.   Union     Pac.     R.     Co., 

Fed.   332— pp.   3619,   3623. 

r.  Union     Pac.     R.     Co., 

U.  S.  1,  40  L.  Ed.  319,  16  S. 
Ct.    190— p.    3449. 

-■.  Union    Pac.   R.   Co.,  234   U 

S.  495,  34  S.  Ct.  995— pp.  3711 
3713,    3723,    3837. 

f.  L'nion    Stockvard,   etc.,   Co. 

pp.  3613,  3616,  3631,  3690,  3736 
3777,     3835. 

f.   L'nion    Stockyards    Co.,    pp 

3432,    3456. 

United    States   Shipping   Co.   zr 

f.   X'acuum    Oil    Co..    153    Fed 

598— pp.  3756,  3842,  3850,  3852 
3857. 

f.  Vaciuim    Oil    Co.,    158    Fed. 

536— p.     3442. 

\'an     Schaick    z: 

'■.   X'ermilvc,    p.    483. 

Wabash    R.    Co.    -•. 

— —  ;■.   VVabash   R.   Co.,   p.   3626. 

f.   Washington,    p.     1948. 

f.   Wells,    Fargo    Exp.    Co.,   pp. 

3614,  3632,  3636,  3690,  3695, 
3697. 

West     Virginia     Northern     R. 

Co.   V. 

z:  West    Virginia   Northern    R. 

Co..    pp.    3641.    3644,    3645. 

White    <•. 

Wight   -•. 

T._  Williams,    p.    3697. 

Wilson    f. 

Wisconsin    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.   Wood,       pp.       3433,       3611, 

3703.    3739,    3844,    3855. 

Yturbide    z'. 

United   States   Dist.   Court.    Dowdell 


United     States    Exp.     Co.    -•. 
p.     3576. 

-Armstrong  -•. 

f.   Rachman,      pp.      822 

953.     956,    960,     982,     lOOo 
1036,    1039,    107(1. 

z\   Hackman.     pp.      1, 

770,    947,     107(..     1792. 

Block    ■: 

Brunswick    &    Co.    f. 

Burke    -■. 

Caldwell    z: 

Carpenter    z\ 

Coates    "'. 

Cohen   z\ 

Z-.   Council,      pp. 

1439. 

IK-ake    j'. 

Delaney    ?•. 

Farmen    i'. 

Fockens    z\ 

Gatton   z: 

Geyer    z\ 

-■.    Haines,    pp. 

;•.   Hammer,    p. 


Allen, 


948, 
1032, 

768, 


1332,      1436, 


985,   988. 
546. 


United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Harris, 
pp.    1087,    1106. 

J'.   Hemmingway,    p.    3579. 

Higgins   !•. 

V.   Hutchins,   pp.   727,   732,  748. 

770. 

Hutchinson   z'. 

f.  Joyce,    pp.    1404,    1406. 

Kallman    v. 

V.   Keefer,    pp.    245,    492,    493 

570. 

V.  Koerncr,    p.    1141. 

z:  Minnesota,    pp.    3551.    3552. 

3562,    3578. 

Mitchell    z: 

Oppenheimer   &    Co.    v. 

Parsons   z'. 

Penn    Clothing   Co.   v. 

Perrin    -■. 

Reed    z: 

z:  Rush,   pp.   767,   770,   3289. 

Southern     Indiana     Exp.     Co. 

V. 

State    V. 

z:   State,    pp.    22,    179. 

Stephenson    z\ 

Townsend,     etc..      Dry     Goods 

Co.    z: 

\'icksburg,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Wichcrn    i\ 

United  States  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co 
V.    Board,    p.    3792. 

z:  Commonwealth,   p.    3426. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

United    States    Glue    Co.,    Diamond 

Glue    Co.    f. 

United     States     Mail     Line     Co.     v. 
Carrollton     Furniture     Mfir.     Co 
p.    3299. 

United  States  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  Hig- 
gins  z: 

Van    Winkle    --. 

United     States     Metals     Refin.     Co. 

z:     Jacobus,     p.     3924. 
United     States    R.     Co.,     Moeller    z: 
United      States      Shipping      Co.      r. 

United   States,   pp.   3952,   3966. 
United    States   Surety   Co.,    Benvega 

Z'. 

United    States    Watch    Case    Co.    z: 

Southern      Exp.      Co.,     pp.      1091, 

1097,    1098,    nil. 
United     States,     etc.,     Co.,     Peoria. 

etc.,   R.   Co.   z: 
United  States,  etc.,   Exp.  Co.,   Hadd 

v. 
United    States,    etc..    Pump    Co.    z: 

Oliver,    p.     1226. 
United    States,   etc..    Steamship    Co., 

Burn    Line    ;■. 

Crisp   -■. 

Knell    -•. 

Prentice    z\ 

United  Steamship  Co.  z:  Haskins, 
pp.    3926.    3934. 

-;—  z:   Schilling   &    Co..    p.    3934. 

T'nited    Surety    Co..    Musco    z\ 

L'nited  Tanners  Timber  Co.  ;•.  Su- 
perior  Court,   p.    1181. 

United    Tract.     Co.,     Allen    z: 

Boulfrois     I'. 

Bumbear    -■. 

Klinger   i'. 

Powelson    z: 

Ray  z: 

Reading    f. 

L'nited,   etc.,    German    Congregation, 

Huber  i-. 
L'niversal    Ins.    Co.,    McLanahan    :• 
Unnevehr  f.   Hindoo,   pp.   892,   3894 
Unterkircher,    Burling^ton    -■. 
Updike    Grain    Co.,    Union    Pac.    R 

Co.    -■. 
Upham   :■.    Detroit   City   R.    Co.,   pp 

2174,    2180. 
Uptegrove    f.     Central     R.     Co.,     p 

422. 
Urann    z:    Fletcher,    pp.    3864,    3865 
L'rbana,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Hanson 


Uren 


Hagar.    p.     3959. 


CCCVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Urquhart,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    f. 

Usborne,     Tenkyns     f. 

Usher   f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1665. 
Usherwood,    Ingles   f. 
Usry,    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Ussery    v.    Augusta-Aiken    R.     Co., 

p.    2848. 
Usury   f.    Watkins,    pp.    1752,    1994. 
Utah,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    Madsen    f. 

Palmer    v. 

Utica,     Ouinlan    f. 

Utica,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Griffin    t'. 

Holbrook    v. 

Holdridge    f- 

Tower    V. 

Utica,   etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Berry   v. 
Utley,    Herring    v. 


Vaccaro,     Dean     v. 

Vacuum     Oil     Co.,     United     States 

VaVl  V.  Broadway  R.  Co.,  147  N. 
Y.  377,  42  N.  E.  4,  30  L.  R.  A. 
626— pp.    1953,    2177,   2281. 

f.  Broadway    R.    Co.,    6    Misc. 

Rep.  20,  26  N.  Y.  S.  59,  31  Abb. 
N.  C.  56,  58  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
124 — p.    2859. 

v.  Pacific     Railroad,     pp.     738, 

741. 

Valdosta    St.    R.    Co.    f.    Fenn,    pp. 

1531,    1747,    1762.      , 
\"alencia.    The. 
Valente  i:   Sierra  R.   Co.,  pp.    1822, 

2953,    3002. 
Valenti  v.    Sierra   R.   Co.,   pp.    1747, 

2916. 
Valentine    v.     Broadway,     etc.,     K. 

Co.,    p.    2152. 

Collier     v. 

z:  Long    Island     R.    Co.,     pp. 

516,    588. 

f.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1743,    1798,   2778,   3239. 

Valk  V.    Erie   R.    Co.,    p.    942. 
Valle   V.    Cerre,    pp.    359,    363,    365. 
\  allejo    Ferry    Co.,    Riley   v. 
\'alleley.    Railway    Co.    i'. 
Vallette    v.    Bennett,    p.    895. 
Valley  City  St.,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  Mess- 
enger   V. 
Valley,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Finn   v. 

Messenger    v. 

Valpy    V.    Gibson,    p.     1231. 

Vanadar,    Kitchell    v. 

Van    Anda    v.    Northern    Nav.    Co., 

p.    3996.  ^     ^ 

Vanatta,   Terre   Haute,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

Van   Buren,   Gibbs  v. 
Van    Buskirk,    Green    v. 

V.  Purinton,    pp.     1158,    llo9. 

V.  Quincy,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     131 

Mo.  pp.  357,  111  S.  W.  832— 
p.    1441. 

V.  Quincy,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    143 

Mo.  App.  707,  128  S.  W.  216— 
pp.   1398,   1399. 

V.  Roberts,      pp.      1612,      1673, 

1676,     2712,     3044,     3317. 

Van    Camp    v.    Michigan    Cent.    R. 

Co.,     pp.     146,     1671. 
Van    Camp    Hardware,    etc.,    Co.    r. 

Plimpton,    p.    579. 
Van    Casteel   z:    Booker,   p.    352. 
Vance,    Dupont   de   Memours   &   Co. 

V. 

Dupont,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Ex    parte. 

V.  Great  Northern  R.   Co.,   pp. 

2324,    2658,    2874. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Richmond,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

V.  Vandercook    Co.,    pp.    3538, 

3539. 

Vancleave,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Van    Cleve    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  p.    1885. 
Vandalia    R.    Co.,    Brown    v. 


\'andalia     R.    Co.,    Davis    Bros.    f. 

East    Side    Packing    Co.    f. 

T-.   Keys,    pp.    2089,    2090. 

z\  Railroad     Comm.,     p.     3506. 

N'anderbilt.     Bonsteel    v. 

Ouimby   z\ 

Whitman    :■. 

Williams 

\'andercook  z\ 

p.  1708. 
Vandercook  Co.,  \'ance  - 
\'andergriff,  Soutlicrn  R^ 
\'anderhoeven,  Pullman  Co.  ■:•. 
\'anderpool.  Crystal  Palace  "'. 
Van    de    \'enter   i'.    Chicago    City    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1488,     1738,     1741,    1749. 

International,    etc. 

Missouri    Pac.    R. 

\'andewater     ■;■.      Mills, 

3867,    3936,    3945. 
\'andiver,     Missouri,     etc.. 


Detroit,  etc.,  R.   Co., 


Co. 


R.    Co. 

Co.    V. 
pp.      3864, 

R.     Co. 


Van 


Pennsylvania    R.     Co.    '<■. 
Dresar,    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 


Co. 


Van     Dusan    z'.     Grand     Trunk    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1636,    2462,    2463,    3078, 

3079. 
Vandyne,     Pittsburgh,    etc.,     R.     Co. 

^^andyne,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     Pittsburgh 

Van  Etten  z:  Newton,  pp.  319,  331, 
332,     333,     337,     354,     355. 

A'an  Gilder  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  285,  288,  3134,  3168, 
3174. 

Van    Hern    f.    Taylor,    p.    727. 

Van    Horn,    Central    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Kcrmit,       pp.       773',       3115, 

3127,    3130,    3146,    3167. 

C-.   St.     Louis     Trans.     Co.,     p. 

2398. 

f.  Templeton,    pp.    1675,    3044. 

Van     Houten,     Pittsburgh,     etc.,     R. 

Co.   z: 
Vankirk    v.     Pennsylvania     R'.     Co., 

p.    2855. 

White    z: 

\'an    Lindley   i'.    Richmond,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,     p.     3352. 
Van    Meter,    Southern    Exp.    Co.    z: 
\'ann.   White   v. 
Van   Natta   z'.    People's    St.    R.,    etc., 

Co.,    pp.     2888,    2889. 
Van     Orman    z:     Lake     Shore,     etc., 

R.     Co..     pp.     1992,     2010,     2765, 

2809,    2896. 
\'an   Ostran   v.   New   York,   etc.,    R. 

Co.,    p.    2251. 
Van     Patten     z'.     Chicago,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.     3665,     3751. 
Van    Santen    -'.     Standard    Oil    Co., 

pp.    310,    338,    339. 
Van    Santvoord,     John    v. 

St.    John    ;■. 

z:   St.     John,     pp.     73-1,     3268, 

3290. 

Van    Schaach    v.    Northern    Transp. 

Co.,    pp.    958,    994,    1037. 
Van    Schaick    v.    Hudson    River    R. 

Co.,     p.     2271. 

f.   United     States,      pp.     4012, 

4013. 

Van   Studdiford  v.   Hazlett,   p.    1640. 
Van   Syckel  v.   The  Thomas   Ewing, 

p.   3899. 
Van    Volkenburgh,    Compton    z: 
Van   Vranken  z'.    Kansas  City   Elev. 

R.    Co.,    pp.    2798,    2989. 
Van    Winkle    v.    Brooklyn    City    R. 

Co.,     p.     1824. 

v.   Crowell,    p.     3871. 

V.  United     States     Mail,     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    573,    574,    576,    597. 

Van  Winkle  &  Co.,  G.  H.  &  A. 
R.    Co.    V. 

V.   South    Carolina    R.    Co.,    pp. 

821,     825. 

\'arblc  z\   Bigley,   pp.   2,    12. 
N'argas,     Newhall     z'. 
Varnell,    Railroad    Co.    v. 


\"arnell,  Washington,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 
Varncy    z:    Monroe    Nat.     Bank,    p. 

397. 
Vasele    -■    Grant    St.    Elect.    R.    Co., 

pp.     1804,    2327. 
\'assau    z:    Madison    Elect.    R.    Co., 

p.     3087. 
\'assor     z\     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1587. 
\'aughan     z\      Providence,     etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1155,    1156. 

z'.   Raleigh,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

831. 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    z'. 

v.   State,    p.    177. 

The. 

Washington,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

\'aughan      Mach.     Co.     z'.      Stanton 

Tanning    Co.,    pp.    478,    493. 
\'aughn.     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Laurent    ■:•. 

• ■:'.   New     York,     etc.,     K.     Co., 

p.   888. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z'. 

Veale  &  Co.,  Atchison,  etc.,   R.   Co. 

Ve'azie  v.  Moor,  pp.  3418,  3420, 
3445,     3479. 

Vedder  z:  Fellows,  pp.  188,  1637, 
2854.  _     , 

^'ega  Steamship  Co.  v.  Consoli- 
dated   Elevator    Co.,    p.    348. 

\'eitch  z'.  Atkins  Grocery,  etc.,  Co., 
p.    398. 

Velasco,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Carlton  Pro- 
duce   Co.    i'. 

\'enable,  Chattanooga  Rapid  Tran- 
sit  Co.    z\ 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Transit    Co.    v. 

X'enable     Bros.,     Philadelphia,     etc., 

R.    Co.    z'. 
\^encill     z'.     Quincy,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1308,    r309. 
Vendryes,    Everett   v. 
N'enning    ''.     Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    3284,    3537. 
Ventress,     Alabama,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

V. 

\'ermilye  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  p. 
483. 

L'nited    States    f. 

Vermont,     O'Neil     z'. 

Vermont  Cent.  R.  Co.,  Vermont, 
etc.,    R.    Co.   -c'. 

Waterman     v. 

Vermont  Copper  Min.  Co.,  Hum- 
phreysville    Copper   Co.    f. 

Vermont  Mut.  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  Wil- 
liams   Z'. 

Vermont,  etc.,  Iv.  Co.,  Common- 
wealth  Z'. 

■;■.   Fitchburg    R.    Co.,    pp.    222, 

3283. 

z\   Vermont    Cent.    R.    Co.,     p. 

3575. 

Winslow    c'. 

Winslow,   etc.,   Co.  z'. 

Verner    z\    Sweitzer,    pp.    324,    728, 

730,    733.    749,    1003,    1006,    1008, 

1035,      1036,      1487,      3164,      3165, 

3189. 
\'errall    z\    Robinson,    p.    573. 
\'errone   v.    Rhode    Island    Suburban 

R.     Co.,     pp.     2193,     2194,     2195, 

2884. 
\'ersailks    Tract.     Co.,     Moran    r. 
Vessels  -'.    Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 

p.    2860. 
Vibbard,    Ware    River    R.    Co.    z\ 
Vicksburg  z:   Tobin,  pp.    3474,    3529, 

3530. 
Vicksburg    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Marlett, 

p.    3095. 

Waldauer    f. 

Vicksburg,  etc..  Co.  z:  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  pp.  211,  236, 
244. 

Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Hardic  & 
Co.    Z'. 

Lampkins     v. 

Lowenthal    z: 


TAiii.i';  ')[■•  cAsrs. 


cccvir 


Vicksburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    McFee   v. 

Meyer  f. 

V.   O'Brien,    p.    2773. 

V.   Phillips,    p.    2547. 

V.  Putnam,     pp.      1812,     2734, 

2738,   3060. 

V.   Ragsdale,      pp.      246,      469, 

621,    635,    645,    848. 

J'.   Scanlan,    p.    2774. 

Sevier    ;■. 

V.   Stocking,    p.    3403. 

Strain   f. 

Sullivan    v. 

Turner  v. 

Walker   -.■. 

Vict,   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Victoria,    The. 

Victorson     f.     Interborough     Rapiil 

Transit    Co.,    p.    2028. 
Victory,    The. 
Viers,    Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

Vigouroux   f.   Piatt,   pp.    1052,    1091. 
Vigus,    Wallace   v. 

Village    Steamship    Co.    v.    Standard 

Oil    Co.,    p.     3948. 
Vimont    -i'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    2256,    2304. 
\'incent    f.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co., 

pp.    536,    541,    894,    1180,    1183. 

r.  Hogan,   p.    3913. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

v.  Rather,    pp.    657,    775. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

f.   Vazoo,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

3303. 

X'incenzo,   The. 

Vine  i:  Berkshire  St.  R.  Co.,  pp. 
1902,     2228,     2352,     290ii. 

Vineburg  t'.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
pp.   3161,  3169,   3170,   3171. 

Viner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Steam- 
ship Co.,   p.   544. 

\'iney,    Pt.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

\ining  ;■.  Detroit,  etc..  Railway,  80 
N.  W.  1080,  122  Mich.  248— p. 
2461. 

i:   Detroit,    etc.,    Railway,     133 

Mich.     539,     95     N.     W.     542— p. 
79. 

Macon    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

\'inson,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   v. 

\'inton    V.    Baldwin,    p.    1166. 

r.  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  pp.    1497, 

1498,    2419. 

Pollard   i: 

N'irginia,  Old  Dominion  Steamship 
Co.    T. 

Paul    r. 

Webber   r. 

N'irginia    Bibber,    Croswx>ll    f. 
N'irginia-CaroHna        Chemical        Co., 
Manchester    Liners    r. 

r.   Southern       Exp.      Co.,      pp. 

1090,    1098,    1106,    1115. 

West    Hartlepool    Steam    Nav. 

Co.  f. 

\'irginia-Carolina  Peanut  Co.  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  N.  C. 
148,    71    S.    H.    71— p.    669. 

r.   .Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (N. 

C),   82    S.    K.    1— pp.    3749,    3753. 

Virginia  Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  Sanger, 
pp.  1715,  1720,  1814,  1816,  2073, 
2901. 

Virginia  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Louis- 
ville,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    1197. 

Virginia  Mid.  R.  Co.  f.  Barksdale, 
p.    2116. 

Dye  V. 

Gleeson    v. 

\"irginia  Passenger,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth,    p.    80. 

\"irginia,  etc..  Iron  Co.  f.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  K.  Co.,  pp.  3740,  3755. 

\irginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  PP- 
1609,  2425,  2463,  25o5,  2855, 
3018,   3019. 

z:  Roach,    pp.    1544,    1558. 

f.   Savers,    pp.    765,    949,    1008, 

1363,    1369. 


R. 


Virginia,     etc.,     R.     Co.     :.     White, 

p.    2116. 
N'irginia,     etc..     Training     Ass'n     v. 

Southern    R.    Co.,   p.    1404. 
\'isalia    Elect.    R.    Co.,    Franklin    f. 
N'isanska     v.    Southern      Kxp.      Co., 

pp.    761,     1082. 
N'ischcr    v.    Northwestern     Kiev.     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2667,    2673. 
Vitelli    z:     Cunard     Steamship    Co., 

p.    3913. 
\'ivion,    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Vlasservitch     f.     .\ugusta,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1500,    3112,    3116,    3127, 

3130,    3131,    3198. 
X'lasto,     I5arber    r. 
\'oclker    r.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3430. 
\"ogel    f.    Bahr,    p.    2700. 
Vogeman,     Merritt,     etc.,     Wrecking 

Co.    V. 
\'ogemann,    Rosenstein    z: 
N'ogler     z'.    Central      Crosstown 

Co.,  pp.  2172,  2803. 
N'oight,    Allis   V. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    f.  ^ 

f.   Baltimore,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    1577,    2104,    2105. 

Ohio,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Voils,    Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
\'on    Lehe    v.    Atlantic    Coast    Line 

R.    Co.,    pp.    3397,      3404,      3523, 

3545,    3546. 
Von    Linen,    Davison   v. 
V'on    Schoeler,    Prere    z: 
Voorhees    z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    634. 

Heighway  v. 

Jones   V. 

f.   Kings   County,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2201. 

z\   Porter,    p.     2568. 

X'osburg   z:    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    158. 
Vose   z:    Allen,    p.    891. 

Holbrook   z\ 

Vosler    V.    Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2873. 
Voss  f.   Cleveland,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  pp. 

3201,    3214,    3215,    3220,    3223. 
Voss  &  Co.  z:   Robertson,   etc.,   Co., 

p.   355. 
Vredenburgh  v.   New  York,  etc.,  K. 

Co.,   p.   2232. 
V.    S.   &   P.   R.    Co.,    Central   Y'ellow 

Pine   Ass'n   z\ 
X'ueltabajo,   The. 

W 

Wabash     R.     Co.,    Adrian    Knitting 
Co.    V. 

American    Silver    Mfg.    Co.    v- 

American     Storage,      etc.,     Co. 

V. 

Amory    z'. 

Atkinson    Z'. 

Bowring    z. 

Breese-Trenton    Mining    Co.    z\ 

f.   Brown,        pp.        795,       1111, 

1113. 

Burgher    ''. 

Bushnell    r. 

t .   Campbell,     pp. 

1463. 

Cash   f. 

Craig   f. 

Cronk  z'. 

Cunningham   -•. 

z:  Curtis,    pp.    98 

Davis    V. 

Deierling    v. 

Drew    t'. 

Ficklin  v. 

V.   Foster,    pp.    653,    948. 

Fulbright    v. 

Gerber  v. 

Goodbar    %: 

Gray    f. 

Gregory   v. 

Griffin   z: 

Hammett  v. 


Wabash  R.   Co., 


Hapgood  Plow  Co. 
&      Co.,     pp.     662, 


z\  Harris 

1033,    3330. 

Hayes   z: 

Haynes   v. 

Hays    V. 

Hendrix    v, 

Hicks   z: 

Huston    Bros 

V.  Jellison, 

2667. 

Johnson-Brinkman    Comm.    Co 


pp.      1524,      1558, 


1353,     1354, 


1,    992,    1031. 


pp. 


1714. 


208,        1153, 


z:   Kingsley,     pp.     2531,     2532. 

Klass    Comm.    Co.    v. 

V.   Lannum,       pp.       451,       996, 

1371. 

Lee  V. 

Detts   V. 

Lindsay    v. 

Lindsey    v. 

Loeb   V. 

Lowenstein    v 

7'.    McDaniels, 

McFall    f. 

Mcl.endon    z: 

Mathew    f. 

f.   Mathew,    p.    2971. 

Merrielees  v. 

z:  Newton,   etc.,   Co.,   pp.    687, 

688. 

Osborn    v. 

Owens  V. 

z\  Pearce,      pp. 

1160,    1161,    1162. 

Pence   v. 

Phoenix    Powder    Mfg.    Co.    z: 

r.   Priddy,      pp.      3494,       3521, 

3756,    3761. 

Rawlings    v. 

Rice    T. 

Ringwalt   v. 

Roberts  v. 

Robertson   v. 

Rogan    z'. 

Rossier  f. 

Russell    Grain    Co.    f. 

Saeger  f. 

V.  Savage,      pp.      2045,      2047. 

2412. 

r.   Sharpe,    pp.    619,    728,    742, 

743.    746,    749,    932. 

■  Sheldon   f. 

Sira    !■. 

z:   Skiles,    p.    1792. 

Sloop    f. 

?•.   Sloop,    p.     3746. 

State    z: 

Talcott    z. 

Tate  f. 

Tavlor  v. 

;•.  Thomas,    222    111.     337.     78 

N.    E.    777,    7   L.    R.     A..     N.    S., 
1041- pp.    981,    1033,    1421,    3257. 

'.  Thomas,    122    HI.    App.    569 

—p.    1362. 

United  States  r. 

z:  United    States,    168    Fed.,  1 

—p.   3451. 

-•.   United    States,    178    Fed.    5, 

101    C.   C.  A.   133,  21   Am.  &   Eng. 
Ann.     Cas.     819— pp.     3623.     3624. 

West     Side     Belt     R.    Co..     p. 

3483. 

Wise  f. 

f.   Wright,    p.    437. 

Voumans    :. 

Vount    ;•. 

Wabash   River   Tract.   Co.   z:    Baker, 

pp.    2356.    295(1. 
Wabash,    etc..    Co..    McCullough    z\ 
Wabash,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Anderson    -•. 

Ball    z: 

Beers   z: 

Birney  f. 

Black   z: 

f.  Black, 

Bond    z: 

Brown    z: 

Buddy   :■. 

Burnham 


pp.    210,    242,     1413. 


CCCVIII 


table:  of  cases. 


Wabash,  etc..  R.   Co.,   Central   Trust 
Co.     :•. 

Cole   z: 

- — -  Coup    f. 

Davis   f. 

East    St.    Louis   Connecting   R. 

Co.  f. 

East    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

f.  Friedman,    p.    2681. 

Gashweiler   v. 

Hance    f. 

T'.  Illinois,     pp.     34,     73,     3420. 

3422,  3439,  3440,  3447,  3480, 
3491,  3493,  3497,  3498,  3511, 
3513.  3527,  3566,  3567,  3568, 
3579. 

t'.  Jaggerman,    pp.    538,    539. 

Jones   z: 

Leslie    :■. 

Loomis    V. 

McBeath  r. 

-•.  McCasland,    p.     1479. 

Meyers    z: 

Patterson    f. 

Pennsylvania   R.    Co.    z'. 

-.   People,    p.    90. 

t.   Peyton,    pp.    945,    2077. 

Potts  z: 

■ ■  z:   Pratt,    p.    1289. 

z:   Rector,      pp.       2917,      2938, 

3066. 

Rider  z: 

z:   Shacklet,    p.    2083. 

Sidekum    v. 

Stone   z'. 

Strouss   z: 

Thomas   v. 

Thomas,    etc.,    Mfg.    Jo.    v. 

■  Walker   z: 

Wilt    z: 

z:   Wolflf,    p.    3320. 

Wachser      z\      Interborough      Rapid 

Transit    Co.,    p.    2023. 
Wasco,    etc.,    Water    Co.    f.    Ca.ib'-e, 

p.    1352. 
Wade,    Citizens'    R.    Co.    <■. 

z:  Columbia  Elect.   St.   R".  t.tc, 

Co.,    pp.    1687,    2128,    2262,    2382. 

Dunseth   v. 

Florida,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ;'. 

• Gibbons   f. 

z\  Illinois     Cent.     R.      Co.,      p. 

2820. 

'•.   Leroy,    p.    3063. 

f.   Lutcher,    etc.,    Lumber    Co., 

p.    1847. 
V.  Wheeler    (N.    Y.),    3    Lans. 

201— p.    884. 
z:   Wheeler,    47    N.    Y.    658— p. 

285. 
Wadley   Southern   R.   Co.,   Hill   z: 

V.  Kennedy,    p.    1747. 

z:   State,    pp.    22,    25,    84,    110, 

138. 

Wadley,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Kent    v. 
Wadsworth   v.    Boston,   etc.,    R.    Co., 
p.    2672. 

Cleveland    Elect.    R.    Co.    v. 

Waggoner  v.   Missouri,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

p.    1269. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.   ■:■. 

Waggoner    Xat.     Bank,     Ft.     Worth, 

etc.,    R.    Co.   V. 
Wagley,    Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.  Co.    v. 

V\agner    ?■.     .\tlantic,  etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.       1798.       2192,  2242,      2342, 

2940,    2944. 

Citizens'    St.    R.  Co.    v. 

z\  Farmers',    etc.,    Ins.    Co.,    p. 

2689. 

Missouri     Pac.      R.     Co.,      pp. 

1544,  1545,  1561,  1667,  1752, 
1755,    1953,    2209,    2899. 

z\  New     York    City     R.     Co., 

pp.   1897. 

V.  Providence       Ins.      Co.,      p. 

793. 

Welding   -■. 

Wagner   Palace  Car  Co.,   Dowley  v. 

Efron   V. 


Wahl   z:    Holt.    p.    3255. 

■;•.   Shoulder,     pp.     2285.    2615. 

Wahle    f.    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

pp.    1048,    1304,    1338,    1349,    1391, 
1469. 
Wainwright     z\    Interurban     St.     R. 
Co.,   p.    2655. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wait   i:    Baker,    p.    352. 

z:  Omaha,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1752,    1992. 

Waite,    Eric    R.    Co.    ?■. 

Gilbert,    pp.    638,     660. 

Waitt.    Stone    '■. 

Wakefield   z'.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    1313,    3390. 

Holmes  f. 

z'.  South    Boston    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1569,    1647. 

Wakelee,    Davis   z\ 

Walbridge,     Second     Nat.     Bank     z\ 

Walcott    V.    Canfield.    p.    2704. 

z:   People,    p.    3577. 

Wald    ■;■.    Louisville,    etc.,     R.      Co., 
pp.    896,    3160,    3168,    3173,    3174. 

r.   Pittsburgh,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

162  111.  545,  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L. 
R.  A.,  356,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  332 
—pp.  619,  735.  736,  738,  741, 
743,    746,    770,   3143,   3144. 

z'.   Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    60 

III.    App.    460— p.    3141. 

Waldauer     v.     \'icksburg     R.,     etc., 

Co.,    pp.    2409,    2716. 
Walden,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.     z\ 
Waldert     Grocery     Co.,     St.     Louis, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Waldman   v.    Brooklyn,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

p.     2086. 
Waldo,    Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   '•. 
Waldron    z:    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co., 

p.    429. 
■ '•.   Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

210,  277,  285,  1492,  3133,  3140, 

3148,  3159. 
V.   Fargo,  pp.  728,  733,  749, 

1474,  1478,  1479. 
Waldrop,  East,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  -'. 

Waldrup    V.    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2593. 
Walger   z'.   Jersey    City,    etc.,    St.    R. 

Co.,    pp.     1517,     1969,    2878. 
Walker,    Adams    Exp.    Co.    '■. 

V.   Atlantic     Ave.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2801. 

z'.  Beaumont    Land,    etc.,    Co., 

p.    2673. 

Bosworth    z'. 

Brown    z\ 

— —  7'.   Cassaway,     pp.     520,      1154, 
1155,     1159. 

Chicago    &    A.    R.    Co.    z: 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

f.   Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

370,    384.    579. 

V.   Dry    Dock,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1627. 

z:   Eikleberry,     p.    909. 

r.   Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    2699. 

Forsythe    ?'. 

Ft.   Worth,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

— ■ — -  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Z'.   Georgia     R'.,     etc.,     Co.,     pp. 

2259,    2264. 

Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.    z\ 

z:   Green,    p.    2218. 

Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     r. 

f.  Jackson,     p.     3154. 

Jones   z\ 

z:   Keenan,     pp.     1301,     3742. 

Little     Rock     Tract.,    etc.,     Co. 

Louisville    &■    N.    R.    Co.    r. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

484. 

Louisville,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    v. 

v.   Mauro,    pp.    359,    364. 

r.   Metropolitan    St.   R.   Co.,   p. 

1988. 


Railroad,     p. 

3068,    3069. 
Co.,  p.   2286. 


Walker    z:    Parry,    p.    2921. 

Pennsylvania    Co.    '■. 

■  r.   Price,    p.    2463. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

v.   Skipwith,     pp.      1008,     1011. 

3164,    3165. 

Southern   R.    Co.   "■. 

■;•.    Southern    R.    Co..    pp.    1424, 

1456,    3415. 

Teal    z: 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  z\ 

V.  Transportation        Co..        pj). 

947,    4036,    4038,    4054.    4055. 

V.   Vicksburg,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    p. 

2263. 

-■.   Wabash,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp. 

1573,    1621. 

Western    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

Wilmington    Steamboat    Co.    v. 

Walker    Bros.    v.    Southern    R.    Co., 

p.    153. 
Walker-Edmond  Co.  z\   Adams   Exp. 

Co.,    p.    1070. 
Wall,    Andrews   t'. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc., 

3198. 

z\   Cameron,    pp. 

z:   Helena   St.   R. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co. 

Indianapolis    Southern    R.    Co. 

V. 

Indianapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co.     z\ 

v.  Livezay,    p.    2692. 

■  V.  Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

3543. 

Savannah,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '■. 

Wall-Huske     Co.     z:      Southern     R. 

Co.,   pp.    151,    153,    154,    155,    176. 
901. 
Wallace     f.     Ann     Arbor,     etc.,     R'. 
Co.,   p.    1642. 

-'.   Arkansas    Cent.    R.    Co.,    p. 

130. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

V.  Clayton,    pp.    724,    738,    746, 

871. 

Davis  z\ 

Eddy   z: 

Empire    Transp.    Co.    v. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

v.   Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.  821,  nil.  1114.  1379,  1429, 
1477,    1479,    3407. 

z:   Loomis,     p.     3484. 

z:    .Matthews.      pp.       208, 

481.     573.      962,      9L.7.     968, 
1046. 

Pacific    Exp.    Co.   z'. 

z'.   Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p 

Rosenthal,     p.     3269. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

San    .\ntonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

z:   Sanders,     43     Ga.     486— pp. 

825,    826,    962,    1-048.    1049. 

z:   Sanders,     50     Ga.     134— pp. 

825,   841. 

Southern    Kansas    R.    Co.    z\ 

Southern    R.    Co.   z\ 

-•.   Third      -Ave.     R.      Co.,      pp. 

152,    2249,   2307. 

V.  Vigus,     pp.    837,    848,    850, 

853,    3892. 

r.  Western,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    98 

N.  C.  494,  4  S.  E.  503,  34  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  553,  2  .^m.  St. 
Rep.    346— pp.    1752,    1755,    2168. 

z\   Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    101 

N.  C.  454,  8  S.  E.  166,  37  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  159— pp.  1992, 
2803. 

z:   Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1773,    1774. 

Wallen,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

V.  McHenry.     pp.     1492.     2559. 

Waller    v.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2249,    2295. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    "'. 

V.   Midland    Great    Western    R. 

Co.,    p.    849. 

z:   Railway,    p.    859. 

z'.   Wilmington     City      R'.      Co., 

pn.    1518.    2150,    2653. 


257, 
969, 


13-9. 


TABLK  OF   CASES. 


CCCIX 


Walley,    Xashvillc,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 
Walling,       Gc-rniantown       Passenger 
K.   Co.  V. 

f.     People,      pp.      3419,      3421, 

3538,  3539. 

V.   Railway  Co.,  p.  2180. 

V.  Trinity,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2164,      2184,      2191,      2199,      2293, 
2741. 

Wallingford    f.     Columbia,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    783,    822,    849,    868,    946, 

1036. 
Wallis,    Southern    R.    Co.   v. 
Walnut     Coal     Co.    v.     Pennsylvania 

R.    Co.,    p.    135. 
Walpole    i:    Bridges,    pp.    732,    735, 

748. 
Walrath,   Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Railroad    Co.    v. 

V.  Redfield,    p.    855. 

Walsh   i'.    Adams    IC-xp.    Co.,    p.    602. 

V.   Blakely,      pp.      1209,      1239, 

1240. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    Co.,    p.    3041. 

V.   CuUen,      pp.       1583,       1584, 

1750,    2578. 

Delaware,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Indianapolis,         etc..         Rapid 

Transit   Co.   v. 

Indianapolis,    etc.,    Trans.    Co. 

V.  ^ 

r.  Intcrurban    St.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2196,    2894. 

Mobile,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

V.   Nassau     Klect.     1\.     Co.,     p. 

2654. 

V.  North    Jersey    St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2895,    2931. 

Paducah    St.   R.    Co.   f. 

V.  Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2727. 

Southern    Kansas   R.    Co.   v. 

Southern,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.      , 

West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    i\ 

Williams    t'. 

V.   Wright,    pp.    3129,    3141. 

Walsh,    etc.,    Co.,    First    Nat.    Bank 

V. 

V.   First    Nat.    Bank,    p.    391. 

Walter    v.    Alabama,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    486,    3309,    3353,    3389,    3395, 
3412. 

V.  C.     1).    &    M.    K.    Co.,    pp. 

2125,    2227. 

V.   Missouri     Pac.     R.    Co.,     p. 

1441. 

Walters    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
pp.    2248,    2361,    2909. 

V.   Detroit    United    R.     Co.,    p. 

900. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   r. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2366,     2820. 

Philadelphia    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

Seattle,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 
2004,   2701. 

V.  Western,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

314. 

Waltham    Mfg.    Co.    v.    New    York, 

etc..     Steamship     Co.,     p.     3304. 
Walther   -■.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    pp. 

1559,     1565,     2095,     2096,     2097. 
Walthers    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2150. 
Wallhour    v.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co., 

pp.    1866,    1887,    2225. 
Wailman,      Pennsylvania,      etc.,      R. 

Co.   V. 
Walton,    Ilendrick   -■. 

Macon,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Southern    Iv.    Co.   '•. 

Wampum    Cotton    Mills   -•.    Carolina. 

etc.,    R.   Co.,    pp.    150,    151,    175^ 
Wamsley    v.     .\tlas     Steamship     Co., 

168  N.   Y.   533.  61    N.    F.   896,  85 

Am.    St.    Rep.   699— pp.   663,   3931. 
i\    .\tlas    Steamship   Co.,   56   N. 

Y.    S.    284,    i7    App.    Div.    553— 

p.    3931. 
Wamsutta      Oil    Refin.,      etc.,      Co., 

Empire    Transp.    Co.    r. 


Wanaque   Lumber   Co.,    Ijic    R.   Co. 

V. 

Wanata,    The. 

Wandell     v.     Corbin     (N.     Y.),     38 

Hun    391— p.    2341. 
■  V.  Corbin,    49    Hun    608,    1    N. 

Y.  S.  795,    17   N.   Y.   St.  Rep.   718 

—pp.    1525,    2163. 
Waniorek    v.    United    Railroads,    pp. 

2303,   2648,    2760. 
Wanzcr   v.    Chippewa    \'alley    Elect. 

R.    Co..     pp.     1724,      1727,      1736, 

1745,   2129,   2889,   3034. 
Ward,    .\tlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Central    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.  2187. 

V.   Chicago  City  R.  Co.,  p. 

1890. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  165 

111.  462,  46  N.  E.  365— pp.  1922, 
2577. 

V.   Chicago,  etc.,  R'.  Co.,  87 

Kan.  824,  126  Pac.  1083— pp. 
1367,  1369. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    102 

Wis.     215,     78     N.     W.     442— pp. 
2343,   2405,   2793. 

■ Cleveland,    etc..    Tract.    Co.    f. 

V.  Green,    p.    3866. 

Hubbersty  v. 

V.  International     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2114,  2192,  2195,  2346. 

f.  Joslin,     p.     3792. 

Fake   Shore,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.   Maryland,     pp.     3549,     3552. 

Menacho   v. 

V.   -Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2876. 

Michigan    Cent.    R.    Co.^  v. 

V.   Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1084,     1087,      1090,      1097,      1098, 
1103,    1107,    1116,    3700. 

V.   New     York     Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    630,    638,    653. 

v.   New    York,     etc.,    R.      Co., 

pp.    2435,    3182. 

•  V.  Thompson,    p.    3864. 

Warden    v.    Greer,    p.    849. 

Halsey    v. 

Warden    of    City   Prison,   Tyroler   v. 
Waidlaw    ;■.    California    R.    Co.,    p. 
2146. 

V.   South   Carolina   R.   Co.,   pp. 

822,   897,   917. 

Wardle     ■■.     New     Orleans     City     R. 

Co.,  p.    1889. 
Ward's    Cent.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Flkins, 

pp.   262,   263,  471. 
WardwcU    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1602,    2420,    2467,    2470,   2492. 
Ware  v.   Gay,   pp.   2586,   2656,   2693. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Mexican    Nat.    R.    Co.    v. 

South   Covington,   etc.,    R.    Co. 


Ware  River  R.  Co.  v.  Vibbard,  p. 
1106. 

Ware,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mobile  County, 
p.    3421. 

VN'archouse,  etc..  Supply  Co.  ■:•.  Cal- 
vin,   pp.     1153,     1154,     1170,    3972. 

Warfield  i:  Hepburn,  62  Fla.  409. 
57  So.  618— pp.  2577,  267o. 
2583,    2602. 

Huguelet  v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '<■. 

V.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

3024. 

Paxson    Bros.    v. 

V.   Railroad,    p.    2434. 

State  f. 

Waring    f.    Clarke,    p.    3977. 

V.  Cox,    p.    1216. 

f.   Morse,    p.    3905. 

Waring  &  Co.  ;■.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  pp.  208,  233,  257,  511, 
533,    539.    607,    o08,    081,    682. 

Warlick,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Warner  ?■.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
pp.    1686,    1792,    2134,    2135,   2136 

t'.    Burlirtgton,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    3145,    3168.    3173.    3174. 


Warner,    Marcy    v. 

Murray   v. 

Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ?•. 

V.  The  Illinois,   Fed.   Cas.   No. 

17,    1840— p.    527. 

V.  The       Illinois       (Pa.),      17 

Phila.    549— p.   527. 

V.  Western     Transp.     Co.,     p. 

759. 

Warnken,    Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Warren,   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Cp.   j-. 

V.   Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

723,    1045. 

Connolly  v. 

i:   Fitchburg   R.    Co.,   pp.    1510, 

1512,  1513,  1514,  1518,  1722, 
1746,    1790,    1792,    2135. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 

Lake   Shore,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Leffingwell    V. 

Metropolitan    bt.    R.    Co.    v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wright,     etc.,     Wirecloth      Co. 

V. 

Warren    Adams,    Ceballos   i: 
Warren       Bridge,       Charles        River 

Bridge     Co.     v. 
Warren    Ins.    Co.,    Minturn    v. 
Warren    St.    R.    Co.,    Palmer   r. 
Warren,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Costigan 

V. 

Warrior    Mower    Co.,      Boston,      R. 

Co.    V. 
Washburn,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

z:  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2710. 

V.  Empire    Brick,   etc.,    Co.,    p. 

3964. 

Lin    Sing   '.■. 

Little    Miami    R.    Co.    f. 

f.  Nashville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

1550,  1570,  1760,  1761,  1953, 
2213. 

Washburn-Crosby  Co.  z:  Boston, 
etc..   Railroad,   pp.   411,   3362. 

Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  f.  Prov- 
idence, etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  3259, 
3296,    3340. 

Washer,    Kohn    Bros,    z: 

Washington  t.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    p.    2116. 

Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

International,    etc.,^   R.    Co.    v. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

r.   Raleigh,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p, 

3322. 

"j.'    Spokane     St.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1823,  1826,  1959,  2161. 

United    States   z: 

Washington  County  R.  Co.,  Crab- 
tree    f.  ^  T,    ■ 

Washington  Marine  Co.  z\  Rain- 
ier Alill,  etc.,  Co.,  pp.  3951,  3966, 
39(.8,    3969. 

Washington  Park  Steamboat  Co., 
Clemmens    z\ 

Washington  Southern  R.  Co.  z\ 
Commonwealth,     p.     3494. 

Washington  Terminal  Co..  McMan- 
ard    Z-. 

Washington-Virginia  R.  Co.  z: 
Bouknight,    pp.    2674,    2694.    2861. 

Washington  Water  Power  Co.,  .\t- 
wood  "'. 

.\ustin   I'. 

Dcnham   z-. 

— ^  Johnson    "'. 
"Mueller    f. 

Washington,    etc.,     R.     Co..     .\dams 

Brown    f. 

z:   Brown,     pp.     2087,     2090. 

Carpenter    -•. 

z:  Chapman,     pp.     2235,     2288. 

i\  Commonwealth,     p.      125. 

z:  Grant,    p.    2858. 

Harmon   z: 

z:   Harmon,     pp.      1878.     1889, 

2116.    2236.    3063. 


cccx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i\  Ilickey, 
5  App.  D.  C.  436— pp.  2127, 
2260,    2656. 

z:  Hickey,    166   U.    S.    531,    17 

S.    Ct.    661,   41    L.    Ed.    1101— pp. 
1709,    1999.    2012,    265o. 

Holohan    r. 

Lemont    ;•. 

:.   Lukens,    p.    2911. 

Nichol   l\ 

Owen    i'. 

Parker   v. 

•:■.  Patterson,    pp.     1519,     1520. 

1523. 

V.  Quayle,    p.    2535. 

f.   Trimyer,     pp.      1735,      2011, 

2764,    2765,    2897,    2976. 

?•.   N'arnell,      pp.      1684,      1685, 

1693,    1720. 

I'.  \'aughan,     pp.     1714,     1722. 

1791,    2271,    2364,    2732. 

Wasserman    v.    New    York    City    R. 

Co.,    pp.     16,    48,    2652. 
Water  -•.    Ross,   p.    1221. 
Waterbury  f.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   2132. 
i:  New     York,     etc.,     R.    Co., 

pp.    1553,    1554,    1564,    1565,    1566, 

1760,    1761. 
Waterbury    Button    Co.,    Naugatuck 

R.   Co.  f. 
Water  Power  Co.,  ^tna  Nat.   Bank 

Water   Witch,    Brower   i\ 
Water  Witch,   The. 
Waterhouse,    Anscll    z\ 

Crofts  i: 

Waterloo,     etc..     Transit     Co.,     Peo- 
ples'   Sav.    Bank  f. 
Waterman,    Reaves    i: 

f.    X'ermont    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

459,    460. 

Waters,   Easton  ?■. 

Fremont,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.     -j. 

• f.  Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

468. 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 

Waters   &   Co.,    Southern   R.    Co.   v. 
Waters-Pierce   Oil    Co.   v.   Texas,   p. 

3472. 

Watervliet,    etc.,   R.    Co.,  Higgins  v. 

Wathen,    Capital    Tract.  Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.  Co.   -■. 

Watkins  v.  Atlantic  Ave.  R.  Co., 
pp.    2895,    2896. 

t'.   Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co., 

pp.    2185,    2235,   2250,    2282,    2355. 

Ex  parte. 

Georgia,    etc.,    R'.    Co.   v. 

Henningsen  v. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Junker,   p.   855. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3168. 

f.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

190,    1625,    1636,    3316,    3322. 

V.  Raleigh,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2126,    2255. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Usury   -•. 

Watkins   Livery,   etc.,    Co.,    Trout   v. 
Watkins      Merchandise       Co.,      Mis- 
souri,  etc.,   R.   Co.   V. 

V.  Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

727,    732,    749,    753,    1118. 

Watkinson    i'.     Laughton,    pp.    850, 

855. 
Watling,    Berkley    v. 
Watney,    Portcus    v. 
Watson    V.    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    499,     612,    613,      689,      3277, 

3393. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V. 

Galveston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Georgia     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2262. 

G.    H.   &   S.   A.    R.    Co.   V. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Watson  -'.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.  1612,  1613,  1627,  1628,  1631, 
1632,    1633,    1635. 

V.   Memphis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

268.    278,    286,    729,    733,    750. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

I'.  New    York,    etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.     1620,     1630. 

Ohio    Valley    R.     Co.    t. 

V.  Oswego      St.      R.      Co.,      p. 

2856. 

V.  Oxanna  Land  Co.,  pp.   1794, 

2270. 

V.  Portland,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1957,     2172,     2173. 

v.   Railway,    pp.    3176,    3177. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

V.   St     Paul,     etc,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1721. 

Southern    R.    Co.    f. 

-■.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    2017, 

2784. 

Stafford    f. 

Sullivan-Sanford     Lumber     Co. 

V. 

Texas    Cent.    R.    Co.    -•. 

The   S.   L. 

Watt  z\  Cargo  of  Lumber,  pp.  3878, 
3958. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    '•. 

Watters,    .Mobile    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    t'. 

V.  Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2362. 

Watts  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R'.  Corp., 
pp.   285,   288,   884. 

V.   Camors,      pp.      1170,      38(i9, 

3870,    3873. 

Watts    &     Co.     -'.     Saxon,     pp.     741, 

742,    745,    747.    779. 
W'axelbaum     -•.     Southern     R.     Co., 

pp.     430,     939,     1033. 
Way    V.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    64 

Iowa    48,     52    .\m.    Rep.    431,     19 

N.    W.    828— pp.     1572,    1573. 

V.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     73 

Iowa  463,  34  .\m.  &  Kng.  R. 
Cas.  286,  35  N.  W.  525— pp. 
1572,     2517,     2644. 

■  V.   Dennie,    p.     514. 

r.   New   Jersey    Steamboat    Co., 

p.     3586. 

Ocean    Steam^liip   Co.   ?'. 

V.   Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    760, 

3396. 

Waycross,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Gardner  v. 
Waydell  v.  Adams,  pp.  3884,  3885. 
Wayland    v.    Mosely,    pp.    331,    332, 

337,   339. 
Wayne,   Albatross   v. 

V.     St.     Louis,     etc.,     R.    Co.   v. 

pp.    1743,    2575,    2674. 

Steamboat    Albatross    t'. 

V.   Steamboat      General       Pike, 

pp.    328,    332,    333. 

Weakly,  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wcams,  Louisville  City  R'.  Co.  v. 
Weatherby,  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Weathers,   Birmingham   R'.,  etc.,   Co. 

V. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Weaver   v.    .\nn    .\rbor    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1567,     1640,    2097,    2098. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co.     v. 

V.   Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      p. 

2142. 

People    T. 

7'.   Southern    R!    Co.,    p.    756. 

Weaver  Coal,  etc.,  Co.,  Guii;an  :■. 
Webb,    Alton    R.,   etc.,   Co.    r. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

3192,    3197. 

Braun  v. 

Buck    z\ 

Chesapeake,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 

Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

V.   Great    Western    R.     Co.,    p. 

957. 

Gregory    v. 

Griswold    v. 


Webb,    Levien    ?■. 

Lincoln    Tract.     Co.    -•. 

Missouri    v. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R'.    Co.   v. 

Munsey    f. 

southern    R.    Co.    v. 

Southwestern    R.    Co.   v. 

Williams    f. 

z\  Winter,   pp.   477,   480. 

Webber   v.    Old    Colony    St.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1749,    2679,    2691. 

V.   Railway,    p.    3177. 

i\   Virginia,   pp.   3549,   3568. 

Weber,   Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v. 

r.   Brooklyn,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2418,  2482,  2484. 

v.   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  p. 

489. 

V.   Kansas  City  Cable  R.  Co., 

pp.  1710,  1988,  2113,  2251,  2833. 

f.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  1879,  2689. 

V.   Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp. 

1647,  2438,  2458. 

— —  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  pp.  196, 
1596,  2709,  2854. 

Wessel  &  Co.  v. 

Weber  Co.  '■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
92  Iowa  364,  60  N.  W.  637— 
pp.     3112. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,     113 

Iowa  188,  20  Am.  &  Fng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  464,  84  N.  W.  1042— 
pp.  203,  2122,  3112,  3124,  3155, 
3162,  3165. 

Webster  v.    Bear,  pp.  371,  372. 

V.  Bell,    p.    3576.  ^ 

Delaware,    etc..     Canal     Co.     -■. 

• V.   Elmira,      etc.,      R.      Co.,      p. 

2694. 

''.   Fitchburg   R.    Co.,   pp.    1505, 

1506,     1537,     1555. 

— — ■  Florida    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

'■.   Hudson     River     R.     Co 

1999. 

Merrick    "'. 

Millard   • 

— • —  V.   Rome 

2213,    2860. 

V.  Rome,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    115    N. 

Y.  112,  21  N.  E.  725— pp.  1815, 
2897. 

T.   Superior    Court,    p.    34. 

V.  Union      Pac.      R.      Co.,      pp. 

1029,    133^,    1387,    3624. 

Webster,    M.,    B.    &    F.    City    St.    Ry. 

Co.,   Renncy  ■:'. 
Wedekind     v.     Southern     Pac.     Co., 

p.    2811. 
Weed   z\    Barney,    pp.    572,    901. 

Henadale     v. 

z\   International,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.     1332. 

V.   Panama    R.    Co.,    17    N.    Y. 

362,  72  Am.  Dec.  474— pp.  623, 
2038,    2070. 

V.  Panama    R.    Co.,    12    N.    Y. 

Super.  Ct.  193— pp.  1670,  1673, 
1676. 

z'.   Saratoga,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

805,    3119,    3125,    3126,    3184. 

Weeks  v.  Auburn,  etc..  Elect.  R. 
Co.,    p.    1956. 

V.   Boston     Kiev.     R.     Co.,     p. 

2169. 

Byrne    t'. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

z'.  Chicago,     etc.,     Iv.     Co.,     p. 

3038. 

Z'.   New    Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2134,    2136,    2155. 

V.   New     York,     etc.,      R.     Co. 

(N.  Y.),  9  Hun  669— pp.  3123, 
3125,    3126,    3145,    3147. 

V.  New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   72 

N.  Y.  50,  28  Am.  Rep.  104— 
pp.    3114,    3147. 

Peck  V. 

Weems    Steamboat    Co.    '•.     People's 

Steamboat   Co.,    p.    3655. 
Wegener    f.    Smith,    p.    713. 


p. 


etc.,     R.      Co.,     pp. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


cccxr 


"Wegeschicde    v.    St.    Louis    Transit 

Co.,  p.  2290. 
Wcgner   v.    Smith,    p.    355. 
Wehnian    v.     Southern     Railway,     p. 

3185. 
Wehrmann,     Chicago,    etc.,     R.    Co. 


V.  Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     969.     970.     971,     1031,     3262, 
3264,    3287,    3312. 

Weida    v.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    1298. 
Weidc    V.    Davidson,    p.    838. 
Wcightinan     v.     Louisvilk-,     etc.,     R 

Co.,     pp.     1910,     1912. 
Weikle,    Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Weil    V.    Express    Co.,    p.    864. 

f.   Merchants',      etc.,      Transp. 

Co.,     p.     3256. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    -■. 

V.  Pennsylvania      R'.      R.,      p 

3666. 

Weill  V.  New    lork,  pp.  3995,  3997. 
Weillcr  V.    New   York   City   R.    Co., 
p.    2860. 

Pennsylvania   R    Co.    v. 

People's,    etc.,    R.    Co.   -■. 

Weinberg     ?■.     Albemarle,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    3327. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,     R.     Co.,    65 

S.    E.    634,    83    S.    C.   468— p.    864. 

V.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     83 

S.     C.     470,     65     S.     E.     637— p. 
165. 

Weinberger   v.    Compagnie    Generale 
Transatlantiquc,     pp.     4011,     4032. 
Weiner,    Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Weingart  v.   Pullman  Co.,  pp.   3230, 

Weinschenk   v.    New    York,    etc.,    R 

Co.,    p.    1994. 
Weir,     .Xddoms    v. 

Adler    V. 

Bates    V. 

Bernstein   v. 

Brand    f. 

Campe    '■. 

Coggswell   !•. 

Coulter   -■. 

Fein    t\ 

Flint,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Frankfurt    i\ 

Greenwald    f. 

Gurwitz    -'. 

Harrison   v. 

Ingram    v. 

Jonasson   v. 

Levy    f. 

Mills    r. 

iuitchell    V. 

V.  Norman,    p.    3578. 

Rogers    v. 

Rosenblum    v. 

Rosenthal    f. 

V.  Rountree,     pp.     2101,     2104, 

2105,   3519. 

Sageman    v. 

Schutte   V. 

V.  Seattle    Elect.    Co.,   p.   2887. 

Silverman   i'. 

Taylor   v. 

7-.  Union    R.    Co.,    p.    2685. 

United    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

VVliite    -■. 

Weisenbcrg     v.      Lackawanna,     etc., 

R.    Co..    p.    2276. 
Weisinger    v.    Southern    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1282,    1465. 
Weisman    v.     Philadelphia,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    558. 
Weisman    &    Co.,     Texas,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    %: 
Weiss,    New    York,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

New      York,     etc..      Steamship 

Co.    f. 

Weisshaar     .v.      Kimball     Steamship 

Co..    pp.    3992,    3997,    4045.    4046. 

Weissman,     Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co. 

V. 

Welborn     f.     Southern     R.     Co.,     p 
292. 


Welbourne,     International,    etc.,    R 

Co.   f. 
Welch    v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    n 

2777.  '    ' 

V.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp 

945,    1375.  "^ 

V.  Concord    Railroad,    pp.    896, 

901,    905,    909. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

r.   McClintock,   pp.   3944.   3945. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

I.  Northern     Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

1374.  *^ 

V.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    16    Abb.    Prac,    N.    S., 
352— pp.    3216,    2223,    3224. 

J'.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co. 

(N.    Y.),    Sheld.   457— p.    3214. 
—^  The    John    M. 
Weld,     Pickering    f. 

Railroad    Comm.    v. 

Reed    ■: 

Welding   v.    Wagner,    p.    3216. 
Welkr  V.   London,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   do. 

1924.    1926. 
Wellesley.    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Killam    v. 
Wellington,     Louisville     R.     Co.     v 

The. 

Wellman,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

t.  Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

38. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.     1888,     2875. 

V.   Morse,    p.    3953. 

Wellmeyer  f.   St.   Louis  Transit  Co., 

pp.     1998,     2184,    2343,    2355. 
Wells    -'.     Alabama,     etc.,     K'.     Co., 
pp.    1859,    2706. 

;■.   .American      Exp.      Co.,      44 

Wis.     342— pp.     529,     543. 

V.   American       Exp.       Co..      55 

Wis.  23,  11  N.  W.  537,  12  N. 
W.  441,  42  Am.  Rep.  695— 
p.    547. 

Atlantic,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

V.  Boston,    etc..    Railroad,    pp. 

2712.    3031. 

Chesapeake,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

Cronkite   v. 

V.  Great      Northern      R.      Co., 

pp.  499,  949,  960.  961,  977,  3109, 
3127,  3128,  3132,  3149,  3162, 
3166,    3167.    3189. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

J'.   Maine     Steamship    Co.,     pp. 

573,    574,    577,    578,    579. 

Midd   f. 

Missouri,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

J'.   National       Life      .\ss'n,      p. 

650. 

f.  New    York    Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2095,    2103. 

V.   New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1511,    1512.    1518. 

f.    New    York   Citv   R.    Co.,   pp. 

1645.     1646. 

Nudd    r. 

V.  Oregon,     etc.,     R'.     Co.,     p. 

108. 

Piatt    -■. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

Sherman    :-. 

V.   Steinway    R.    Co..    p.    2231. 

f.   Thomas,      pp.      1147,      1156. 

3359. 

V.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

pp.    268,   272,   273,   304. 

Wells    Fargo    Co.,    Hayes   v. 

Rick   -'. 

Wells    Fargo    Exp.    Co.,    Cohn-Good 

man    Co.    f. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

Rubin   V. 

V.  Samuels,   pp.   658,   635,   686, 

687,    692,    695. 

V.   State,    p.    3428. 

Thomas  -■. 

L^nited    States    ;•. 

r.   Williams.      pp.      465.      858, 

1139,    1195,    1202. 


Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Battle,  pp. 
638,  643,  644,  646,  674,  686,  689, 
860. 

V.   Bell,    p.    810. 

Blair  J. 

Cutter    f. 

V.  Cutter,   pp.   846,    1059. 

Danciger  v. 

Fried    v. 

Greenfield    v. 

V.  Hanson,   pp.    515,    585,    587, 

589,   593,  663,  664,   866. 

Hooper    v. 

Jones    V. 

Knapp    !■. 

Meyer    v. 

Michalitschke   v. 

Noonan    ;■. 

r.   Northern     Pac.     R.     Co.,     p. 

3576. 

i:  Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

379.  ^ 

Pacific    .Aviation    Co.   v. 

Pierce    Co.    v. 

r.   Potter,    p.     1478. 

Powers    Mercantile    Co.    t. 

Reeder    :■. 

Rowan  f. 

Scammon     j'. 

Scrammon   v. 

State   f. 

Stevenson  v. 

Thurman    v. 

Travis    v. 

Wertheimer    v. 

V.  Windham,      pp.      543,      549. 

580. 

Wells   Fargo  &   Co.    Exp.,   Lafayette 

V. 


Murphy    v. 
Wells-Fargo    Co.'s    Exp.,    Craddock 
&   Co.   f. 

V.   Fuller,     4     Tex.     Civ.     App. 

213,  222,  2Z  S.  W.  412— pp.  322, 
Zn,  335,  502,  503,  508,  509,  511, 
1257,    1259. 

f.   Fuller,    13    Tex.    Civ.    App. 

610,  35  S.  W.  824— pp.  12S3. 
1254,    1255,    1256,    1257. 

Gary    f. 

v.  Gentry,    pp.   831,   832. 

Laporte    v. 

z\   Mitchell,    p.    834. 

Murphy    f. 

Security    Trust    Co.    f. 

Wells,    etc.,    Co.,    Gushing    v. 

'■■  Oregon     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     p. 

108. 
Pitlock    t: 

Ziegler    r. 

Welsh,    Cafiero    f. 

International,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co    v. 

V.   Pittsburg,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

211,  243,  728.  733.  749,  822,  948, 
951,   996,    1363,    1368. 

White    t . 

Welton  -•.   Missouri,   pp.  3418,  3419, 

3421,    3445,    3446.    3549,    3568. 
Wemple,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.   v. 
Wendling    v.    Chicago    City    R.    Co., 

p.    2309. 

Wente  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Neb.  175,  112  N.  W.  300— p 
1455. 

I'.  Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co..     79 

Neb.  179,  115  N.  W.  859.  15  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  756— pp.  1301,  1477, 
1478. 

Wentworth,    .Adams    Exp.    Co.   :. 

:•.    Eastern   R.   Co.,   p.    1798. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Realm,    p.    817. 

Wentz    f.     Chicago,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    3697. 

V.  Erie      R.     Co.,     pp.      1623, 

1635. 

Pennsylvania   Co.   r. 

Wentz-Bates      Mercantile      Co.      v. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p.    87. 


CCCXII 


TABLE    OF    CASEIS, 


Wenz    t:    Savannah,    etc..    R.    Co. 

pp.    1628,   2408,   2482,   2528,   3098 
Wenzel    :•.    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp 

1984,     2192. 

z:  Great    Northern    R.    Co.,    p 

251. 

Werbowlsky    f.    Fort    Wayne,    etc. 

R.     Co.,     pp.     1826,     1833,     1890 

2249. 
Werle   z:    Long   Island    R.    Co.,    pp 

1937,    1951,    1953,    1986,    2181. 
Werner    z:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

pp.    2065,    2066,    2229,   2745,    2949 

z\  Evans,      pp.      3114,      3115 

3127. 

Werner    Sawmill    Co.    z:    Ferree,    p 

494. 
Wernick  r.   St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co. 

p.    796. 
Wernke,    Ohio   Valley   Trust   Co.    z- 

Ohio    Valley,    etc.,    Co.    f. 

Wernwag    z:    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,     p.     549. 
Wertheimer    -•.    Interborough    Rapid 
Transit    Co.,    p.    1929. 

c'.  Pennsylvania      R.      Co.,      1 

Fed.     232,     17     Blatchf.     421— pp. 
320,     323,     1024,     1037,     1042. 

"'.  Pennsvlvania     R.     Co.,     W. 

N.    C.    (Pa.),    272— p.    321. 

z:  Wells,     Fargo     &     Co.,     pp. 

477,   479. 

Wescott,    Limburger  f. 

Sunderland    v. 

Wescott   Exp.    Co.,    Brookstone   f. 
Wesner,   etc.,   Mfg.   Co.   f.   Atlantic, 

etc..    Railroad,    pp.    642,    677. 
Wessel   &   Co.,   Straus  &  Bro.  v. 

f.   Weber,    p.    479. 

West,    Chamberlain    f. 

f.   Kansas     Natural     Gas     Co., 

pp.    3433,    3533. 

Kansas,    etc.,   R.    Co.   '■. 

V.  London,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

221. 

Martin    v. 

v.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.    2865. 

Portage      County      Mut.      Fire 

1:.-?.    Co.   v. 

Richmond    R.,   etc.,    Co.    z: 

Rogers    !■. 

Z-.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2233. 

Southern    R.    Co.    f. 

Sprague    v. 

West  Asheville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Wit- 
sell  z: 

West  Bloomfield  Tp.  v.  Detroit 
United    Railway,    pp.    1594,    1611. 

Westchester  Elect.   R.   Co.,   Brettner 

Dista  V. 

Stern    v. 

Westchester  St.  R.  Co.,  Public 
Service   Comm.   v. 

West  Chester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  John- 
son   V. 

z:  McElwee,    p.     2857. 

z:  Miles,    pp.    191,    1943,    1944, 

2417. 

West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  z:  Binder, 
pp.    2156,    2519. 

z:   Dudzik,    pp.    2151,    2249. 

Hagestrom   v. 

z:   Johnson,  180  111.  285,  54 

N.  E.  334— pp.  1743,  1827,  2125, 
2933. 

V.   Johnson,  77    111.  App.  142 

—p.  2160. 

z:  Kennelly,    p.    2759. 

V.  Kromshinsky,    p.    1743. 

■ V.  Lieserowitz,  pp.         2990, 

3006. 

z:  McCafferty,   pp.    2398,   2922. 

V.  Manning,     pp.     1561,     1562, 

2119,    2244. 

V.   Marks,    182    111.     15,    55    N. 

E.      67— pp.      1818,      1820,      1959, 
3002. 


West  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  ;■.  Marks, 
82   111.    App.    185— pp.    2196,    2883. 

z:  Martin,    154  111.   523,   39  N. 

E.    140— p.    2011. 

v.  Martin,    47    111.    App.    610— 

p.   2696. 

Z-.  Mileham,   p.   2586. 

z:  Piper,    p.    2083. 

z\  Torpe,     p.     2304. 

z:  Tuerke,   193   III.   385,  61    N. 

E.  1087,  1  R.  R.  R.  1,  24  .\m. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  1— pp. 
1842,     1843,     1845,     2007,     2897. 

z:  Tuerk,    90    111.    App.     105— 

pp.    1709,    1842. 

Z'.  Walsh,    p.     1535. 

V.  Williams,    p.    2810. 

West   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Cohen 

— —  z:   Home,    pp.    2117,    2118. 

Kean    '•. 

z:   McNulty,    p.     3033. 

West  Coast  Naval  Stores  Co., 
Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z\ 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

102. 

Westcott  f.  Fargo  (N.  Y.),  63 
Barb.  349,  6  Lans.  319— pp.  815, 
817,    1097,    1098. 

f.   Fargo,     61     N.     Y.     542,     19 

Am.    Rep.    300— pp.    1116,    3371. 

Harnett    z\ 

Holt    z: 

Hopkins    z\ 

Richards    z\ 

Springer    -•. 

Sunderland    v. 

— '■ — •  Lnion  Stock  Yard  Co.  '■. 
Westcott  Exp.  Co.,  Soviero  z\ 
West   End   St.   R.   Co.,   Corlin  z: 

Creamer    f. 

Dickinson    f. 


Co.,     Bigc'low 


West     End,     etc.,     St.     R.     Co.     z: 

Mozely,    pp.    1889,    2249,    2987. 
Wester,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 
Western    Gravel    Road    Co.    f.    Cox, 

p.    659. 
Western     Land,     etc.,     Co.,     Union 

Stock    Yards,    etc.,    Co.    i'. 
Western   Mfg.    Co.   v.    Guiding    Star, 

pp.    820,    856. 
Western    Maryland    R.     Co.,     Abell 


V.  Herold,      pp. 

2390. 


n43,      2149, 


z:  Landis,    p.    3408. 

Z-.   Lynch,    p.     1642. 

Needy    ?•. 

V.   Scliaun,    p.    2783. 

i:   Shirk,  p.  1567. 

z:   Shivers,   pp.   2670,   2695, 

2859,  2898,  2900. 

z:   Stanlev,  p.  1982. 

v.   State, 'pp.  1701,  2262,  2401, 

2703,  2880,  2926,  2969,  3006. 

V.   Stocksdale,  pp.  1630,  2443, 

2462. 

Western    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
Interstate   Commerce   Comm.   v. 

Leggett  v. 

V.  Penn,  pp.   3613,  3654,   3731, 

3776,      3787,      3789,      3791,      3793, 
3795,   3796,   3797,   3840. 

Western       Pennsylvania       R.       Co., 

Bernhardt    f. 
Western    Railroad,    Goins    v. 

Hughes   '•. 


Chappell    V. 
686,     784,     1028, 

Comm.,  pp.  45, 


Western  R.  Co.  ;■.  Bunch,  pp.  284, 
286. 

Goins  "'. 

V.   Harwell,  91  Ala.  340,  8 

So.  649,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
358— pp.  320,  323,  825,  983,  985, 
986,  1035,  1388,  1389,  1395,  1396, 
1399,  1454,  1455,  1456,  1457, 
3377,    3378,  3380,  3383,  3384. 

z:   Harwell,     97     Ala.     341,     11 

So.  781,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
3'51— pp.  1073,  1096,  1107,  1395, 
1396,  1399,  1422,  3380,  3384, 
3385. 

Kimball   '■. 

— —  Z-.   Little,     p.     895. 

Paraniore    z\ 

f.   Thomas,    p.    577. 

f.   Thornton,    p.    576. 

'•.   Walker,    p.    1846. 

V.   Young,    p.     1864. 

Western     R.     Corp.,    Ayres    v. 

Boston,    etc.,    R.    Corp.    v. 

Coyle    z'. 

Finn    v. 

Hegeman   v. 

Judson    V. 

•  Lamb    "■. 

McDonald   z: 

Nolton    '■. 

Sessions    '•. 

Western     Railway, 
■  z\   Hart,     pp. 

3309. 

'■.   Railroad 

46,   49,    50. 

Smith    r. 

Tallassee   Falls   Mfg.   Co.   z-. 

Western    Sash,   etc.,    Co.   v.    Chicago, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    3334,    3536. 
Western     Stage    Co.,    Compton    v. 

Sales    f. 

Western     States,    The. 

Western    Transit    Co.     v.      Hosking, 

pp.    1033,    1049. 
Western     Transp.     Co.     f.     Barber, 

p.    1167. 

v.  Hawley,    pp.    537,    1243. 

■  f.   Hoyt,    pp.    1145,    1161. 

V.   Marshall,    pp.    476,    1230. 

V.  Newhall,    pp.    727,    805,    815, 

888,  965,  1003,  1004,  1006,  1007, 
1026,     1033,     1036. 

Parmclee    z\ 

Warner    z: 

Western    Union    Tel.     Co.    z'.     Ala- 
bama   State   Board,    p.    3559. 

z\  Atlantic,    etc.,    Tel.    Co.,    p. 

5. 

V.   Bertram,    p.    406. 

Borough   of  Norwood  z: 

■  Burgess    z\ 

-  7-.   Call     Pub.     Co.,     pp.     1180, 
3441,    3448,    3449,    3602. 

Coleman    ''. 

'■.   Cooper,    p.     663. 

Cowan   z\ 

z:   Crall,    p.    659. 

z\   Crider,     p.     613. 

Davis   r. 

1'.   Eubanks, 

Glenn    z\ 

z'.   Gottlieb,     pp.      3553,      3572, 

3590,    3592. 

-■.   Harding, 

Hill   z: 

z\   Hoffman,    p.    663. 

V.  Jackson,   p.    1116. 

V.  James,    pp.    34,    3504. 

z\   Lovely,    p.    3366. 

McCord    v. 

'v.  McCoy,    p.    613. 

Marr   z\ 

Massachusetts    f. 

7'.   Massachusetts,       pp.       3550, 

3551,    3552,    3553,    3572,    3591. 

Mood    z\ 

■ Pensacola    Tel.     Co.    v. 

t/.   Pennsylvania,      128     U.      S. 

39,  32  L.  Kd.  345,  9  S.  Ct.  6— 
p.    3559. 


p.    1119. 
pp.      3553, 
p.     613. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCCXIII 


Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  j'.  Penn- 
sylvania, 195  U.  S.  540,  49  L. 
Ed.    312.    25    S.   Ct.    133— p.    3592. 

Phillips    V. 

Poteet   ?'. 

Primrose    r. 

Rattcrman    i'. 

I'.   Reynolds    Bros.,    p.     9. 

Rogers    f. 

St.    Louis   V. 

Smith    V. 

State   V. 

f.   Steinbergen,    p.    613. 

J'.  Taggart,      pp.      3552,     3553, 

3572,  3590,  3591,  3592,  3593, 
3594. 

V.  Texas,   p.   9. 

Tyler    ;■. 

f.   Wingate,    p.    613. 

Wolf    r. 

V.  Woods,    pp.    1488,    1750. 

f.  Yopst,    p.    1087. 

Western    \'ermont    R.    Co.,   Jones  v. 
Western,    etc.,    Grain    Co.,    Chicago, 

etc.,   R.  Co.  :■. 
Western,    etc..    Railroad    v.    Abbott, 

p.    2840. 

f.   Camp,     pp.     893,     898,     900, 

910,   912. 

z:   Drysdale,  p.  2009. 

7'.  Goodwin,  p.  2257. 

r.   McElwee,  pp.  3251,  3257, 

3291,  3330. 

Murphy  v. 

Turner  f. 

V.   Turner,   pp.   1494,   1544, 

1547,  1550,  2038,  2039,  2042, 
2043,  2045,  2411,  2481,  2482, 
2483,  3064,  3087. 

r.   Wilson,    p.    2125. 

Western,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   Bell   Bros,  i: 

Boatmen's     Sav.     Bank    v. 

V.   Burnham,    p.    2917. 

V.   Carlton,   p.    3. 

Covintgon    f. 

Daniels   v. 

f.   Deitch,    p.    2867. 

V.   Earwood,     pp.     1912,     1915. 

Elliott  V. 

Exposition    Cotton    Mills    v. 

f.   Exposition      Cotton       Mills, 

pp.  788,  939,  942.  948.  954,  1490, 
3304,  3306,  3377,  3390,  3396, 
3397,    3403. 

Hamilton    ;■. 

V.   Herold,    p.    2123. 

V.   Hunt,    p.    2666. 

Hutchings    J'. 

Interstate     Coipmerce      Comm. 

Kentucky,    etc.,    Fire    Ins.    Co. 

I'.   Ledbetter,    pp.    2429,    3105. 

Lewis   i: 

Lockhart    v. 

McGucken    v. 

Mitchell   V. 

V.  Ohio    \'alley,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

320,  328,  335,  558,  560,  573, 
575. 

Penn    Refin.    Co.   v. 

Seaboard,    etc.,    K.    Co.    r. 

State    z: 

V.  State,    p.    2127. 

r.   Summerour,    pp.     654,    695. 

r.   X'oils,   pp.    1561,   1562,   1914, 

2065. 

Wallace    z'. 

Walters   I'. 

Wilkes  z: 

Westervelt  -■.  St.  Louis  Transit 
Co.,   pp.    1890,   2088,   2985. 

Westfall    z\    Perry,    p.    1352. 

West  Hartlepool  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v. 
450  Tons  of  Kainit,  pp.  3955, 
3956. 

Z-.  \'irginia-Carolina  Chemi- 
cal  Co.,  p.   3955. 

West   Jersey    Ferry    Co.,    Burton    v. 

Fearn   f. 


West    Jersey,    etc.,    Co.,    Robertson 

V. 

West    Jersey,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Feil    v. 

Johnson    v. 

Miller    z: 

Prcthrow    i\ 

Speer    f. 

Wilson    J'. 

West      Memphis      Packet        Co.       v. 

White,    pp.   2024,   2057. 
Westminster,   The. 
Westmoreland,    Darling   f. 
Weston    I'.     Boston,    etc..    Railroad. 

pp.    641,   672,    676. 
F'dson  J'. 

Malott  V. 

V.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1786,    2132. 

Weston,  etc.,  Railroad  v.  Mathis, 
p.   865. 

West  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  Bern- 
hardt  r. 

Westphalen  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  pp.  1289,  1348,  1457,  1458, 
3409. 

West    Philadelphia   R.    Co.,    Rose   v. 

West  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R'.  Co.  v. 
Gallagher,  pp.  1829,  1960,  2126, 
2174,    2884. 

Whipple   J'. 

Westray   z\    Miletus,    p.   854. 

West  Seattle  Land,  etc.,  Co.,  Stev- 
enson   z: 

West  Side  Belt  R.  Co.,  Wabash  R. 
Co.    z: 

West   Side   R.   Co..   Kohler  -■. 

Westside    St.    R.    Co..    Woodward   v. 

West   St.,   etc.,    R.    Co..    Cogswell   v. 

West  \'irginia  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Carrico    v. 

West  X'irginia  Mid.  R.  Co.,  Knice- 
ley  z\ 

West  \'irginia  Northern  R.  Co., 
United    States   -•. 

t .   United      States,      pp.      3645, 

3649,    3650. 

West  X'irginia  Transp.  Co.,  Dres- 
ser  -•. 

Laurel,'  etc.,   R.   Co.   r. 

z\   Sweetzer,      pp.      4,    35,      36, 

38,   62,    1194,    1199. 

West    X'irginia,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Berry 

Carrico    v. 

Fisher   f. 

z:  Kingwood      Coal      Co.,      p. 

3826. 

Wcstwood    T'.    Dedham,    etc.,    St.    R. 

Co.,   pp.    77,   82,    131,    132. 
Wcstznthins,    In    re. 
Wetmore.    Little    Miami    K.    Co.    :•. 
Wettstein,    American     Exp.     Co.     f. 
Wetzell   f.    Chicago,   etc..    R.    Co.,   p. 

786. 

z:  Dinsmore.    pp.    987,    1082. 

Wever,    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 
Wevand   z-.   Atchinson,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    350,    363,    364,    369,    376,    377, 
548,    3274. 
Weymouth     z'.    Broadway,     etc.,     R. 
Co.,   142  N.  Y.  681,  37  N.   E.  825 
—p.    1953. 

t'.   Broadway,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    2 

Misc.  Rep.  506,  22  N.  Y.  S. 
1047,  51  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  612— p. 
1953. 

Whalen   z\   Consolidated   Tract.   Co., 

pp.    1715.    2069.    2674.    2887. 
Whaley    ?■.    Atlantic,    etc..     R.     Co., 

pp.   478.   496. 
Wham,    Denver,    etc..    R.    Co.    ;■. 
Wharton,    Atlantic,    etc..    R.    Co.    :■. 
What   Cheer   Sav.    Bank  -•.   Mowery, 

pp.    385,    386. 
Whatcom     County      R.,      etc.,      Co., 

Bradburn   -•. 
Whatley,     Montgomery     Tract.     Co. 

Wheat    z:    Fiatte,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    p. 
576. 
—  Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 


Wheaton    f.    North    Beach,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1889,    2953. 
Wheeler,    Ailna    Ins.     Co.    z\ 

Atlanta,    etc..    Railway    r. 

Barber   &    Co.    v. 

Barter    &    Co.    i: 

Dean   z: 

z\  Grand    Trunk    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2116,    2212,    2867. 

Great  Western  R.   Co.   i: 

z'.   Hartford,      etc.,      Tramway 

Co.,   p.   2087. 

z:  Hotel       Stevens        Co.,       p. 

2375. 

Houston    City,    etc,    R.    Co.    i\ 

McFarland   z: 

f.   Oceanic    Steam    Nav.      Co.. 

52  Hun  75.  5  N.  Y.  S.  !01.  22 
N    Y.    St.    Rep.    590— p.    888. 

"'.  Oceanic    Steam      Nav.     Co.. 

72  Hun  5,  25  N.  Y.  S.  578,  S5 
N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    715— p.    4032. 

f.  Oceanic    Steam     Nav.     Co., 

125  N.  Y.  155,  26  N.  E.  24S,  21 
Am.  St.  Rep.  729,  Silverniil  Ct. 
App.     276— pp.    822,    3195. 

Rogers  -■. 

St.    Joseph,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :■. 

V.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    Iv.    Co.,    p. 

817. 

f.   San  Francisco,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    210,    221,    1493. 

Savannah    Elect    Co.    f. 

Scranton   -'. 

f.   South    Orange,    etc..    Tract. 

Co.,    pp.    2346,    2894. 

Stevens   z\ 

Texas   Cent.   R.   Co.   v. 

Wade   ;. 

Wheeler   Condenser,  etc.,   Co.,   Hud- 
son   River    Lighterage    Co.    z: 
Wheeling    Transportation    Co.    z\ 

Wheeling,     etc.,     Transp.     Co. 

Wheeling    Tract.    Co.,    Killmeyer    x'. 

Normile    f. 

Wheeling,    etc..    Bridge    Co.,    Penn- 
sylvania   c'. 
Wheeling,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    Dimmey    z\ 

Koontz    '•. 

z:   Koontz,    15    O.    C.    C.    288, 

9    O.    C.    D.    102— pp.    380,    1224. 

-•.   Koontz,    61    O.    St.    551,    56 

N.  E.  471,  76  Am.  St.  Rep.  435 
—pp.   525,   1229,   1232,   1233.   1234. 

Wheeling.       etc.,      Transp.      Co.     f. 

Wheeling,    p.    3581. 
Wheelock,    Parmelee   f. 

Parmelee    Co.    -•. 

Wheelwright     f.     Boston,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.   2139. 
Whelan    -■.     Georgia,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

p.    2260. 
Wheless     z\     Meycr-Schmid     Grocer 

Co.,    p.    1229. 
Whicher     z:    Boston,     etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    3216,    3217,    3230. 
Whilt    v.    Public    Service    Corp.,    74 

N.     T.     L.     141,     64     Atl.     972— p. 

1961'. 

f.  Public     Service     Corp.,     76 

N.  J.  L.  729,  72  Atl.  420,  74 
Atl.     568— pp.     1961,     1969. 

Whippel    ;•.    Slichigan,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1821,    1840. 
Whipple  z:   Michigan    Cent.    K.    Co.. 

90    N.    W.    287,    130    Mich.    460— 

p.    2809. 

;■.   Michigan       Cent.      R.      Co.. 

106  N.  W.  690,  143  Mich.  41— 
p.    2900. 

f.   Michigan     Cent.       R.      Co.. 

143  Mich.  47.  106  N.  W.  692— 
pp.    2645.    2900. 

z:  West    Philadelphia,    etc..    R. 

Co..    p   2170. 

Whitaker   z\    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 
pp.    815.    821. 

Indianapolis    St.    R.    Co.    f. 

z:   Staten   Island,   etc..   R.    Co.. 

p.    2888. 


CCCXIV 


table:  of  cases. 


Whitbeck   t:    Atlantic    Ave.    R.    Co., 

p.    2765. 
Whitcher,    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
VVhitcomb,    Houston    Transfer,    etc., 

Co.  f. 

Leonard   "■. 

White    V.    Atlantic    Consol.     St.     R. 
Co..   p.    2158. 

Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

'•.  Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1828,    2793. 

-•.  Boulton,    p.     1694. 

Bowigo  r. 

f.  Canadian    Pac.     K.    Co.,    p 

578. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■:•. 

f.  Chesapeake,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

p.   2469. 

f.  Cincinnati,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

pp.    1343,   1345. 

City   Waterworks   f. 

f.  Colorado   Cent.    R.    Co.,   pp 

910,   915. 

V.  Columbia,     etc..      Ivlcct.      R 

Co.,  p.    1992. 

Columbian    Nat.    P>ank    f. 

'•.   Conley,    p.    744. 

Eagle  f. 

V.   Evansville,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

pp.    2454,    2621,    2622,    2623. 

r.   Fitchburg   R.    Co.,    pp.    1741 

1991,    2079,   2083,   2885. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r. 

V.  Goodrich    Transp.    Co.,    pp 

286,  287,  883,   1011. 

f.  Grand  Rapids,   etc.,   R.   Co. 

p.    2433. 

z:  Great    Western    R.    Co.,    p 

957. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   '■. 

Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.   "■. 

f.   Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1546,    1549,    1758,    1759. 

Jeffersonville    R.    Co.    v. 

Kansas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

'■.  Lewiston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p 

2731. 

1-.  Lewiston,      etc.,       Railway 

pp.    1536,    1805,    1807. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.  Milwaukee      City      R.      Co. 

pp.   1986,  2889. 

V.  Minneapolis,     etc.,     R.     Co 

pp.   670,   740,   767. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp 

211,    242,    440,    3364. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    z'. 

z:  Mitchell,    p.    1237. 

V.  Norfolk,     etc.,     R.     Co.,    pp 

2045,    2091,    3864. 

V.  North  German         Lloyd 

Steamship    Co.,     pp.     610,     3867 
3868. 

f.   Peninsular       R.       Co.,       pp 

2125,    2210. 

Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    ■:■. 

V.  Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans 

Co.,  p.   2908. 

V.  Postal     Tel.,     etc.,     Co.,     p 

10. 

Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.   f. 

z:  St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 

3142,    3144. 

V.  Schweitzer,   pp.   477,    493. 

V.  Seattle,   etc.,   Nav.    Co.,    pp. 

3990,   3995. 

t.   South     Covington,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,  pp.  2054,  2701,  3070. 

Southern   R.   Co.  v. 

Spencer   z\ 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z'. 

z:  The    Kate    Dale,    p.    470. 

V.  The    Mary    Ann,    p.    12. 

z:  Toncray,    36    Va.    (9    Leigh) 

347 — p.    435. 

f.  Toncray,   46   Va.    (5   Gratt.) 

179— pp.    434,    435,    436,    456,    776, 
3875,    3934. 

Virginia,    etc.,     R.     Co.    z: 


White   ^■.    United    States,    p.    3865.  _ 

Z-.   Van     Kirk,     pp.     333.     337 

338,    451. 

z:  Vann,    pp.    1011,    1148. 

'•.  Weir.    pp.   3377,    3379. 

z:  Welsh,       pp.       1212,      1214 

1231,    1232. 

f.  West    End    St.    K.    Co.,    p 

2248. 

West    Memphis    Packet    Co.    v. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

White   &   Co.,    Blaisdell   &   Co.   r. 
White    Laundry    Co.    f.    Charleston 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    165. 
White   Line   Cent.    Transit   Co.,   Cin 
cinnati    Chronicle    Co.    z\ 

Standard    Milling    Co.    v. 

White    Line    Transit    Co.,     Edwards 

White    Live     Stock     Comm.    Co. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    1365. 

White   Oak   R.    Co.,    State   z: 

White    Star    Line,    Woods    z\ 

White  Star  Steamship  Co.,  Bul- 
lock   f. 

White  Water  R.  Co.  v.  Butler,  pp. 
1755,    1867,    1872. 

Whites'    Exp.    Co.,    Rappaport    z'. 

Whitehead  z:  Anderson,  pp.  1228, 
1231,  1234,  1235,  1239,  1240, 
1246,    1247. 

Central   R.    Co.   v. 

v.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    99 

Mo.  263,  11  S.  W.  751,  39  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  410,  6  L.  R.  A. 
409— pp.  1547,  1755,  1959,  2003, 
2522,    2542,    2544,    2579,    2947. 

f.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R 

Mo.    App.    60— p.    2122. 

V.  Wilmington,     etc., 

pp.    321,    323,    983. 

Whitehill,     Baltimore, 


Co.,    22 

R.     Co., 

R.    Co. 

etc.,    R.    Co., 

R.    Co. 


etc.. 


Whitehurst    v.    Texas 

pp.  24,  778,  980. 
Whiteley,  Texas,  etc. 
Whitesel,  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v 
Whitesell  z:  Crane,  pp.  3189,  3190. 
Whitesides    -■.    Russell,    p.    946. 

v.  Thurlkill,    p.    728. 

Whitefield,     Memphis,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


Whitham    v. 
p.    1668. 


Chicago,    etc.,    R. 
772. 


Co., 


Whitin   z:    Pendegast, 

Whiting,    Richardson    v. 

Whitley    v.    Southern     R.    Co.,     pp. 

2509,    2513,   2547. 
Whitling,    Berkley    v. 
Whitlock,    Mc.\ndrew    z\ 

z:  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2076,    2960,    3075. 

Whitman,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

'-  V.  Vanderbilt,    p.    3.962. 

Whitmore  v.    Bowman,   pp.    11,    768. 
V.   Caroline,     pp.     3125,     3126, 

3133,   3155. 
Whitnack   v.    Chicago,   etc.,    R'.    Co., 

pp.    326,    330,    331,    332,    333,    334, 

3285. 
Whitney    v.      Beckford,      pp.      1155, 

1156,    1157,    1159. 

z'.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

849,     855,     908,     910,     918,     3161, 
3169. 

f.  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1585,    2671. 

V.   Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

p.  3224. 

V.   Rogers,  pp.  1143,  114o. 

Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Whitney     Mfg.     Co.     v.     Richmond, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    p.    524. 

Whittaker,    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    y. 

Whittemore  v.  Boston,  etc..  Rail- 
road, 76  N.  H.  388,  83  Atl.  125 
—p.    2435. 

V.  Boston,    etc..    Railroad    (N. 

H.),    86    Atl.    824— p.    2561. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z\ 


Whittfii.    Cliicag(j.    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Whittcnburg,    Blocker    v. 
Whittenton    Mfg.    Co.    z\    Memphis, 

etc..    Packet    Co.,    p.    829. 
Whittier,    Treadwell    v. 
Wliittington,      Baltimore,      etc.,      R. 

Co.    z: 
Whittle   z\    Denver,    etc.,   R.    Co.,    p. 

2001. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

V. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

'•.   Southern    Railway,    pp.    683, 

684,   687,   688.   692,    3336. 

Whittlesey    z\     Burlington,     etc.,     R'. 

Co.,    pp.    2735,    3007. 
Whitworth  ■;■.   Erie  R.   Co.,   pp.   1037, 

1041,     1047,      3282,      3377,      3379, 

3381. 
Wibert    -'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(N.    Y.),     19    Barb.    36— pp.    246, 

253,    621,    653,    655. 

f.  New  York,  etc.,   R.   Co.,    12 

N.    Y.    245- pp.    608,    618. 

Wible   V.    Metropolitan    St.    R.    Co., 

p.   2831. 
Wichern     z:      United      States      Exp. 

Co.,   p.    1045. 
Wichita    Mill,    etc.,    Co.,    Orthwein's 

Sons    r. 
Wichita   R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Burton   v. 
■  v.  Cummings,    p.    2312. 

Finger   v. 

Haas   '■. 

Wichita  Sav.  Bank  -■.  Atchison, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    311,    312,    3879. 

Wichita    Valley    R.    Co.,    Stevens    '■. 

Wichita  Wholesale  Grocery  Co., 
Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    z\ 

Wichita,  etc..  Grocery  Co.,  Mis- 
souri  Pac.    R.    Co.   V. 

Wichita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koch,  47 
Kan.  753,  28  Pac.  1013— pp. 
1411,     1424,     1425. 

z\  Koch,     8     Kan.     App.     642, 

56.  Pac.     538— pp.     1420,     1426. 

Wic^  V.  St.  Paul  City  K.  Co.,  p. 
2816. 

Wisconsin   Cent.   R.   Co., 
2512. 
:■.     Leftwich,     pp.     2906, 


Wickert  '•. 
pp.    2511 


Wickham 

2973. 
Wicks    V.    Louisville,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1597,    2467. 
Wickwire    Steel    Co.    v.    New    York, 

etc.,      R.     Co.,      pp.      3668,      3820, 

3822. 
Wideman,    Southern    R.    Co.    f. 
Widener      v.      Philadelphia      Rapid 

Transit   Co.,   p.    2028. 
Wideman,     Louisville,     etc.,    R.     Co. 

V. 

Widmer,    La    Conner,    etc.,    Transp. 

Co.   z: 
Wiegand    v.     Central      R.     Co.,      pp. 

3160,    3163,    3108,    3170,    3171. 
Wicgel,    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Wieland   v.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    pp. 

1667,    1668. 
Wier,    Flint,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Morris   z\ 

Wigg   z:    Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    2795. 
VViggani,    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ?■ 
Wiggin    t'.    Boston,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    pp. 

348,    517,    580,    590. 
Wiggins   v.    King.    p.    2462. 
Wiggins   Ferry   Co.   v.   Chicago,   etc., 

R.    Co.,    p.    3268. 

V.   East     St.    Louis,      102      III. 

560— p.    3587. 

z:   East    St.    Louis,    107    U.    S. 

365,  27  L.  Ed.  419,  2  S.  Ct.  257 
—pp.  3474,  3475,  3476,  3477, 
3581,    3584,    3587. 

Evers  -■. 

Hammer    z\ 

Morrissey   v. 

Wight  J'.       United  States,  pii. 

3436,  3437,      3684»,  3685,  3687, 

3690,  3694,  3702,  3711,  3712, 
3741. 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


CCCXV 


Wightman,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

L  ,..  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1627,    2443. 
Wilbanks,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   r. 
Wilhour    V.     Rhode     Island    Co.,     p. 

2795. 
Wilbourne,     Iiitcinational,     etc.,     R. 

Co.    ?'. 
Wilbur,    Degado   v. 

;•.   Rhode       Island       Co.,       pp. 

2587,    2590,    2675. 

r.  Southwest,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2697. 

Wilburn  i:    St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

p.    2608. 
VVilcke   r.    Ilenrotin,    p.    2121. 
Wilcox,     Birmingham     R.,    etc.,     Co. 

V. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,     R'.     Co.,     24 

Minn.    269— pp.    545,    592. 

f.   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    135 

Mo.    App.    193,    115    S.    W.    1061 
—p.    1062. 

Eric   R.   Co.   f. 

V.   People,    p.    3549. 

V.  I'hiladclpliia,    p.    3155. 

V.   Rhode       Island       Co.,       p- 

2785. 

i:   San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     1549,    2483. 

Shacklcford    v. 

Southern    R.    Co.    %•. 

r.   Southern         Railway,         pp. 

1663,  2846,  2847,  2848. 

Wilco.x,     etc.,     Co.,     Savannah,    etc., 

R.   Co.  r. 
Wild    Hunter,    Ellsworth    r. 
Wililcroft,    The. 
Wilde    V.     Lynn,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2195. 
...   Merchants'  Despatch 

Transp.   Co..   pp.   333,    1000,    1001. 
Wildcnfels.    The. 
Wilder,   Croucher  -■. 

Louisville    R.     Co.    "'. 

V.   Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2691,   2737. 

Ocean    Steamship   Co.   r. 

V.   St.   Tohnsbury,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.     211,    "229. 

Wildman,     Evansvillc,     etc.,     Steam 

Packet  Co.  v. 
Wile,  Howard   Exp.   Co.   t-. 
V.   Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2671,    2690. 
Wilensky    v.    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

72   S.   E.  418,   136   Ga.   889,   Ann. 

Cas.    1912D.    271— p.    522. 

V.  Central,     etc.,     R.     Co..     10 

Ga.    App.    8,    72    S.    W.    516— p. 
522. 

Wiles   V.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    p. 

3105. 
Wiley,   Randolph  r. 

7:  Rutland  R.  Co.,  p.  2363. 

Wiley,    etc.,    Co.,    Swan    -'. 
Wilhelm,    G.    C.    &    S.    F.    R.    Co. 

— ^  Gulf,    etc..    R.    Cn.    T'. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Cn.    z: 

Wilke  'i:    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1269.     1457. 
Wilkens,    Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f. 
Wilkerson,   Baltimore   City   Pass.   K. 

Co.   r: 

r.  Corrigan      Consol.      St.      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1986,    2682. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.   f. 

Knoxville   Tract.   Co.   ■:•. 

Wilkerson    Bros.,    Houston,    etc.,    R. 

Co.  V. 
Wilkes  i:   Buffalo,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   pp. 
1582,    2864. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -•. 

V.   Western,    etc.,    R.    Co..    pp. 

1768,    1776,    2575. 

Wilkesbarre    Lace    Mfg.    Co.,    First 

Nat.   Bank  -•. 
Wilkie    T.     Bolster,    p.    2684. 


Wilkins    z:     Atlantic,     etc.,     R.    Co., 
pp.    568,    1108. 

Houston,   etc.,   R.    Co.   t'. 

f.    Pullman    Co.,    p.    3208. 

Smurthwaitc  i\ 

Steinman     v. 

Wilkinson,     Alabama,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

V. 

Atchison,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -r. 

Baltimore    City    Pass.    R.    Co. 

Burton    r. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    i'. 

T.   Pensacola,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2921. 

Richmond  Tract.   Co.  v. 

Will,    Pomeroy,    etc.,    Co.    f. 
Willamette      Iron      Bridge      Co.      v. 

Hatch,    p.     3441. 
Willamette    Transp.,    etc.,    Co.,    Dice 

Willamette   Valley,   Gleason   f. 
Willamette    Val.     R.     Co.,     Moakler 

Willamette,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Lakin    v. 
Willard,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

z:   Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1397.     1472. 

Ellis  -•. 

r.   Towa     Cent.     R.      Co.,     pp. 

2809,    2863. 

z:   St.    Paul    City    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2426,   2487,    2855,    3106. 

f.  Tavloe,    p.    3871. 

Willard    Mfg.     Co.    f.     Tierney,     p. 

392. 
Willcox    ?•.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co., 

p.    1249. 

z:   Richmor.d,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

117. 

Willett,   Pullman   Co.   z: 

f.   Southern    R'.    Co.,   pp.    3393, 

3397. 

Willetts    z\     Buffalo,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    1495.    2426. 
Willey   '•.    Portsmouth,   p.    2737. 
W^illfong    z:    Omaha,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    3524. 
William    Marshall.    The. 
William    Power,    The. 
William    Taber,    The. 
Williams,     Adams     Exp.     Co.     v. 

Allen    z: 

■  z:     .\rmour      Car      Lines,      pp. 

248,    263. 

z\  .\tlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.,     56 

Fla.  735,  48  So.  209,  24  L.  R. 
A..  N.  S..  134— pp.  642,  643, 
661,    669,    687. 

z:  .\tlantic,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    69 

S.  E.  402,  153  N.  C.  360— p. 
2559. 

T.  Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

806. 

Z-.  Branson,   p.    10. 

Bremner    ?•. 

z:  Camden,     etc..     R.     Co..     p. 

2316. 

T'.   Carolina,    etc..    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2568,  3042.  3043.  3055. 

;■.   Central   R.    Co..   p.    1490. 

r:   Central,     etc..     R.     Co..     pp. 

1390.    1455. 

Chicaeo.    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

Z-.  Chicago,    etc.,    K.    Co.,    pp. 

2637,    2695. 

T'.  Citizens'    Elect.    St.    K.    Co.. 

pp.  2739.  2779.  2791. 

Crawford    "'. 

z\   Delaware,    etc..    Canal    Co., 

pp.    516,    890. 

Dickman    -•. 

z:   Fears.    110    G.i.    584.    35    S. 

E.  699,  50  L.  R.  .\.  685— p. 
3566. 

z:   Fears.    179    U.    S.    270.    45 

L.  Ed.  186,  21  S.  Ct.  128— pp. 
3418,  3419,  3420.  3421.  3435. 
3566.    3569.    3570. 

Ft.    Smith,   etc..    R.    Co.    •: . 

Ft.    Worth,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 


Williams    z:    Frost,    pp.    3189,    3190. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

i:  Galveston,      etc.,      R.      Co., 

pp.    2128,    2646,    2906. 

z:  Gill,    pp.    2046.    2055.    3032. 

V.  Grant,    pp.    727,    732,    737. 

748.    752. 

z:  Great   Western    R.    Co..    pp. 

211,    238. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■:■.   Hays,    p.    3865. 

:•.   Hodges,    pp.    1233.    1235. 

T.  Holland,    pp.    565,    567. 

. Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i'. 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v. 

International,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    7: 

jr.   International,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

pp.  1950,  1951.  1979,  2344,  2755. 
2888 

v.  Island       City        Mercantile, 

etc.,    Co.,    p.    659. 

I'.    Keokuk        Northern        Line 

Packet    Co.,    p.    3145. 

z:  Louisiana    R.,    etc.,    Co..    p. 

2532. 

Louisville  R.    Co.   v. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Louisville,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   150 

Ala.  324,  43  So.  576,  10  L.  R. 
A..  X.   S..  413— pp.   2577,   2609. 

z:  Louisville,      etc.,      R.      Co. 

(Ala.).    58    So.    315— p.    332. 

z:  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co..   98 

Ky.   247,   32   S.   W.   934— p.   2527. 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.   z: 

Mobile,   etc.,    R.    Co.   z: 

New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

Norfolk,     etc..     R'.     Co.     v. 

North    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    r- 

z\  Oregon,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

1585,   2097. 

Pecos,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

z\   Pevtavin,     p.    285. 

z:  Pittsburg    R.    Co..    p.    2671. 

Pittsburg,  etc..  R.   Co.  v. 

z:  Pullman     Palace     Car     Co., 

40  La.  .Vnn.  87.  3  So.  631.  33 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  407,  8  Am. 
St.   Ren.   512— p.   3210. 

z:  Pullman     Palace     Car     Co.. 

40  La.  Ann.  417,  4  So.  85,  33 
\m  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  414.  8  .\m. 
St.  '  Rep.  538— pp.  2042.  2074. 
3226. 

Richmond    Tract.    Co.    z: 

St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 

San    -Xntonio    Tract.    Co.   v. 

San    .\ntonio.    etc..    R.    Co.    z\ 

Southern    Exp.    Co.   z\ 

Southern  R.   Co.   :•. 

f    Southern   R.  Co..    102   Miss. 

617,  59  So.  850— pp.  1777,  1778, 
2084.  ,.    -, 

z:   Southern     R.     Co..     l3.->     N. 

C  '60,  42  R.  R.  R.  105,  65  -Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  105,  71 
S  ,r^  346— pp.  267,  268,  274. 
278.  286,  3134,  3135,  3136,  3186, 
3188.  „     _ 

z:   Spokane  Falls,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

pp.    2671,    2793. 

Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    f. 

z:  The    Columbia,    p.    800. 

The   Main   z: 

Toledo,    etc..    R.    Co.    z: 

Torpey    z: 

z:  T.  &  P.  R.  Co.,  p.  2120. 

United   States  z:  ,     .,,, 

z:    Vanderbilt.    pp.    1612.    1613. 

1681,    2772.    3046. 

!•    Vermont     Mut.     Fire     Ins. 

Co..    p.    1118. 

z:  Walsh,    p.    3604. 

,.    Webb.    22    Misc.    Rep.    513. 

49  N.  Y.  S.  1111— pp.  3125.  3126, 

-J^^z-  Webb,  58  N.  Y.  S.  300.  27 
Mi'C.  Ren.  508— pp.  3214.  3217. 
3221.    3222. 

Wells.     Ppreo    Fvn.    Co.    t'. 

West    Chicago    St.    R.    Co.    z: 


CCCXVI 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Williams  z:  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    p.    294. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

v.  Yazoo,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1429. 

Williams  Co.  i-.  Pensacola,  etc.,  Co., 

p.   619. 
Williams    &    Co.    f.     Dotterer,    pp. 

1206,    1210. 
Williams    &     Sons    z:     Morgan,     p. 

779. 
Williams,    etc.,    Co.,    Northern    v. 
Williamson  -■.   Central,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

pp.    1679,    1747,    1864,    3045,    3055, 

3089. 

f.  Grand    Trunk    Western    R. 

Co.,    pp.    1524,    2772. 

Prendergast   z-. 

z:  St.    Louis    Transit    Co.,    pp. 

2181,    2262.    2919,    2920. 

z:  St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2008,    2699. 

Williamson  &  Co.  f.  Texas,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   pp.   319,   513,   516,   729. 

Williamsport,  etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  pp.  493, 
812. 

Williamsport,    etc.,    R'.    Co.,    Clunn 

V. 

Willie   D.    Sandhoval,   The. 
Willie,    The. 

Willilord,  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    V. 

V.   Southern         Railway,         pp. 

1518,   2328,    2673,    2790,    2873. 

Willing,     New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co. 

Willis,     Birmingham     R.,     etc.,     Co. 

t:  Chowning,    p.    3398. 

V.  Grand     Trunk     R.     Co.,     p. 

945. 

z:   Long    Island     R.     Co.     (N. 

Y.),    32    Barb.    398— p.     2182. 

V.  Long   Island   R.   Co.,   34   N. 

Y.  670— pp.  1953,  1955,  2004, 
2181. 

f.  Metropolitan   St.   K.   Co.,   71 

X.  Y.  S.  554,  63  App.  Div.  332— 
p.    2907. 

I'.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

78  N.  Y.  S.  478,  76  App.  Div. 
340,  33  Civ.  Proc.  R.  199— pp. 
2656,   2658. 

■ f.   St.     Joseph     R.,     etc.,     Co., 

p.    1710. 

z:   Second     Ave.      Tract.      Co., 

pp.    2012,    2261. 

Texas    Mex.    R.    Co.    v. 

Willis    &    Bro.,    Allyn    &    Co.    v. 

Fox    &    Bro.    f. 

Williscroft   z:    Cargo   of   the    Cyren- 

ian,     pp.     3957,    3962,     3973. 
Willison    z:    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    1460,    1466. 
Willmington    Steamboat    Co.,    Klair 

Willmott  V.  Corrigan  Consol.  St. 
R.  Co.  (Mo.),  16  S.  W.  500— 
pp.    2797,    2802. 

V.  Corrigan      Consol.      St.      R. 

Co.,  106  Mo.  535,  17  S.  W.  490 
—pp.  1558,  1740,  2372,  2388, 
2797,  2802,   2916. 

Willock     t-.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co., 

pp.    729,    733,    749,    779,   782,    790, 

791,    950. 
Willoeby,    Citizens'   St.    R.    Co.   z: 
Willoughby     '•.      Chicago     Junction, 

etc..     Stock    Yards    Co.,    pp.     91, 

3703. 
Wills    V.     Atchison,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.     1698,     1708,     1721,    2015. 

Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  p.  2188. 

Sears  v. 

Willson    V.    Northern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

pp.    3084,    3097. 
Wilm,   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
Wilmerding,    Cartwright    z\ 
Wilmington     City    R.     Co.,     Benson 


Wilmington    City 

Butler  z: 

Eaton    z'. 

Elliott     z: 

File    f. 

Reiss  z\ 

Riedel  v. 

Smithers    v. 

Waller    v. 

Wilmington     Steamboat 


R.    Co.,    Betts 


Co.,    Klair 


Reed  z: 

z:   Walker,     p.     4002^ 

Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     .Mien 

Arrington  v. 

Atlantic    Exp.    Co.    v. 

Black   z: 

Branch     z: 

Carter    v. 

Clark    V. 

z:    Greenville,    p.    3272. 

Harrell    r. 

Hedges   f. 

Herring   !■. 

Hiliiard  f. 

Hines    z\ 

Hodges    V. 

Keeter   z'. 

King    f. 

■   Lan.l    z: 

McGowan    z\ 

McRae   '•. 

Neal    &   Co.    z: 

Owens     t'. 

Potter   z\ 

Raynor     -■. 

■ Rocky    Mount    Mills    z\ 

Rose    z: 

Selby    V. 

■ ■   Skinner   v. 

Smith    z'. 

Tomlinson    v. 

Turrentine    v. 

Wallace   z: 

•  Wells    v.       . 

Whitehead  v. 

Williams    v. 

Young    V. 

Zemp    c'. 

Wilmington,    etc.,    Tract.    Co.,    Free- 
man   V. 
Wilmshurst     f.     Bowker,     p.     352. 
Wilsey,    Louisville,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 

z'.   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1529,  1597,  1973,  1975,  2432, 
2467,      2468,      2663. 

Wilson,  Adams   Exp.   Co.   z\ 

V.  Adams   Exp.    Co.,   p.    549. 

z'.  .-Etna    Ins.    Co.,    p.    1118. 

Z'.   Anderson,   p.    573. 

V.  Atlanta,     etc.,    R.     Co.,    pp. 

267,  270,  284,  288,  603,  610,  654, 
848,    853. 

■  z'.  Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    129 

Fed.   774— p.   244. 

z:  Atlantic,     etc.,    R.     Co.,    79 

S.    C.    198,    60    S.    E.   663— p.    164. 

V.  Atlantic,    etc.,     R.     Co.     (N. 

C),   75   S.   E.    1090— p.   846. 

v.  Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.,    pp. 

3221,    3224. 

V.  Brett,   p.    3067. 

V.  Broadway,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2764. 

z\  California     Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    513,   820,   896,   900,    916,   917. 

V.  Charleston,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   p. 

2280. 

V.   Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

pp.  946,  997,  1054,  3139,  3142, 
3145,  3160,  3164,  3165,  3166, 
3176,  3177,  3178. 

Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 

V.  Chicago    City     K.     Co.,    pp. 

2679,   2809,    2810. 

Z-.   Churchman,    p.     1218. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Crittenden    v. 

De    Grau   v. 

z:   Detroit       United      Railway, 

pp.    1531,    1795,    2278. 


Co. 
Co 
R 


956, 

P- 

P- 
P- 


Wilson,    Elgin    City    R.    Co.    ■;■. 

Elgin,  etc.,  Tract.  Co.  v. 

Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Faucher   v. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Fourteenth    St.    R.    Co.,    p. 

2373. 

Gaines,    pp.    63,    64. 
Grand    Trunk    Railway,     56 
60,     96     Am.     Dec.    435— pp. 
3109,     3134,     313S,     3167. 
Grand    Trunk     Railway,     57 
138,     2     Am.     Rep.     2o— p. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

V.   Hamilton,       pp.       II, 

740,     755,     763,     764,     768, 
1267,     1268,     1270,     1271. 

V.  Harry,    pp.  _  3308,    3359. 

Indianapolis    St.    R.    Co.    <■, 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

z:   Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

801. 

Mason    ;■. 

?•.   Missouri     Pac.     R. 

1321. 

z'.  N.    Castle,    etc.,    R. 

653. 

f.   New    Orleans,    etc., 

63     Miss.     352 — pp.     1606, 
1875,     2068. 

z:  New   Orleans,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

68    Miss.    9,    8    So.    330— pp.    1869, 
1875,    2068 

Newport    Dock   Co.iipany   z. 

■ V.  Northern    Pac.    R.    Co., 

1722,    2128,    2260,    2682. 

Pennsylvania   R.    Co.    v. 

:■.    Piatt,     p.    987. 

Railway    Co.    z: 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 

v.   St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1253,     1256,     1258,     1259. 

v.   Shaw,  pp.   3445,  3446,   3449. 

South,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'.  ^ 

V.   Southern    Pac.    R.    Co. 

917,    1040. 

Strauss   v. 

Texas    Mex.    R.    Co.    '■. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

V.  The      Lanashire, 

Co.,    p.    653. 

z'.   Troy,    p.    855. 

Turney    '•. 

?'.   United    States,    p. 

Western,    etc..    Railroad 

t'.   West    Jersey,    etc.,    R. 

p.    2463. 

Yazoo,    etc.,    R. 

v.   York,       etc., 

634. 

Wilson    (jrain     Co.    v. 
Bank,    p.    393. 

Wilson    Hack    Line, 
Co.  V. 

Wilson    Lumber    Co.,    ^     -- 

Wilson    Sewing    .Mach.    Co.   r.    Louis- 
ville,   etc.,    R.    Co..    p.    547. 

Wilson    Sons    &    Co.,    Morris    v. 

Wilsons,    etc..     Line,     Blooniingdale 


Co., 

1852, 


pp. 


pp. 


etc.,      R. 


3461. 


Co., 

Co.    z: 
Railway,      p. 

;■.    Central    Nat. 

Texas,    etc.,    R. 

Hinckley 


Wilt    z\    Wabash,    etc. 
2430,    2431. 

'.     Middlesex 
108,     9     Am. 


R.    Co.,    pp. 


Wilton  z:  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  107 
Mass.  108,  9  Am.  Rep.  1  1— p. 
2521. 

z:  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  125  Mass. 

130— pp.    1564,    1571,    2524. 

Wiltse    z:    "arnes,    pp.    571,    572. 
Wiman,     Fitzhugh     ■•. 
Wimberly,    Rome    R.    Co.    '•. 
Wimmer,    Chicago,    ct'.,     R.    Co.    v. 
Wimpleberg    -'.    Voiiker.5    R.    Co.,    p. 

2321. 
Winbourn,     In     re. 
Winchell   z:   National    Exp.    Co.,   pp. 

863,    1008. 

V.  New    York    Cent.,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   p.    1998. 

z:   St.     Paul     City     R.     Co.,     p. 

2814. 


TAHLK  OP  CASKS. 


cccxvir 


Winchester,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Com- 

inonwt-aUh,    p.    23. 
Windds      V.       Interborough      Rapid 

Trans.     Co.,     p.     2872. 
Windliam,    Wells   Fargo   &   Co.   v. 
Windmillcr     v.     Northern     Pac.     R. 

Co..    pp.    1063.    1071. 
Windolph    V.    Adams    Exp    Co.,    p. 

3520. 
Windsor    Steamboat    Co.,    Phelps    v. 
Winfrey,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

■!'.   Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1695,    2389. 

Wing    J'.    New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     747,    3300. 
Wingard    '•'.    UanninR,    p.    1164. 
Wingatc,    Bonner   v. 

Sears   v. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    -■. 

Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    v. 

Winefitld,    .\rknnsas,   etc..    R.    Co.   v- 
Winhein   r.    Field,    p.    2594. 
Winkler     r.     Philadelphia,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    p.    3431. 
Winkley,    Union    Freight    R.    Co.    v. 
Winlow,    Parker   r. 
Winn    ?'.    .American    Exp.    Co.,    pp. 

819,    834.    861.    932.     1051,    1052, 

1055,  1447,  1448,  3763. 

Highland    -Vve.,    etc.,    R.     Co. 

V. 

Little     Rock    Tract.,     etc.,     Co. 

Winne     v.     Illinois     Cent.     R.     Co., 

pp.    819,    821,    828,    856. 
Winnebago,    The. 
Winnebago,  etc.,  Transp.   Co.,  Hun- 

gerford    v. 
Winnegar   -•.    Central    Pass.    R.    Co., 

pp.    210,    1491,    1492,    2042,    2043, 

2044. 
Winnett  v.  Union  Stock  Yards  Co., 

pp.   2,   3,   6. 
Winona    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    Palmer  v. 
Winona,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Blake,    pp. 

34,    36,    63,    116,    208,    3493,    3497. 

Derosia    v. 

Harrold    -•. 

Johnson    v. 

Lawrence  v. 

V.  Rousseau, 


pp. 


1762,  1994, 
I90i;.  2236,  2583.  2585.  2599, 
2603,   2611,   2615,  2823,   2825. 

Schilling    V. 

State   -'. 

Winscott    f.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2507,    2508. 
Winship  '•.   New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

p.    2903. 
Winslow    V.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.    2138. 

Illinois  Cent.   R.   Co.  v. 

V.  Norton,    pp.    362,    369,    373, 

1221. 

The  R.   G. 

Thompson   v. 

'c.    Thompson,     128     Fed. 

p.     3882. 

V.   Thompson.     134     Fed. 

67   C.    C.   A.    470— p.    3882. 

V.   X'ermont,    etc.,    R.    Co 

897,  901. 

Win.slow  Bros.  &  Co.  v. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  N.  C 
S.    E.    965— p.    1399 

V.   Atlantic,     etc., 

S.  C.  344,  60  S. 
1350,  1403.  1406, 
3537,  3546. 

Wi'isl<-.w,  etc..  Co.  V.   \'ermont.  etc., 

R.    Co..    pp.    551,    554. 
Winsor,    Burnham   r. 

Cutler   V. 

Winsor    Coal    Co.    ?■.    Chicago,    etc.. 

R.  Co.,  pp.  41,   1198. 
Winston   f.    Cox,    etc..    Co.,    p. 
Winter     :•.     Central     Iowa     R. 

pp.     1998,     2638 

Erie,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

—^  V.      Interurban      St.      R.      Co., 
p.   2685. 

New    York.    etc..    R.    Co.    i\ 


7i— 

546. 

.    pp. 


Atlantic. 
250,    65 

Co.,     79 
709 — pp, 


R. 
E. 
3396,     3522, 


543. 
Co., 


Winter  -•.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  K.  Co., 
p.    1855. 

V.  Simonton,    p.    3865. 

Webb  V. 

Winters  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
pp.    2164.    2214,    2292,    2806. 

Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

Cowen   :■. 

z\   Cowen,    p.    3095. 

'■.    Hannibal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    j). 

2200. 

Winthrop  Steamboat  Co.,  Hugh- 
son    V. 

Wireman,  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    V.      . 

Wirgman,    Macticr  v. 

Wisconsin,    State   v. 

Stone   f. 

V.  Young,    pp.    327,    338. 

Wisconsin    Cent.    Co.,    Grinnell    v. 
Wisconsin    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Beede    f. 

Lavis   -•. 

McKibbin    f. 

Mahart'ey  v. 

Mullan    V. 

Pope   T. 

V.   United    States,    p.    3702. 

Wickert   v. 

Wisconsin,  etc..  Railroad  v.  Jacob- 
son,  pp.  34,  103,  3486,  3535, 
3047. 

Wisconsin,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Jacobson 

V. 

V.  Powers,    pp.    3592,    3593. 

Wisdom,   Mobile,   etc.,   K'.   Co.   v. 
Wise,     Binninsjhain     K.     etc.,    Co.    f. 

V.   Brooklyn     Heights    R.     Co., 

p.    2879. 

V.  Columbia   R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

2378,    2391,    2947". 

■;■.  Covington,   etc.,   St.   R.   Co., 

p.  2050. 

V.   South     Covington,    etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    2050,    2053,    2056. 

Sterling,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

V.   Wabash    R.    Co.,    pp.    1882, 

2144. 

W'isecarvcr     f.      Chicago,      etc.,      R. 

Co.,    pp.    1318,    1330,     1349,    13o7, 

3276. 
Wiseman,     Galveston,     etc.,     R.     Co. 


Wisner,    Railroad    Co.   i'. 
Wissman,    Ship    Howard  v. 
Wise  well.     North     Chicago 

Co.    7'. 
Vvitbeck   v.     Holland     (N. 


St.     R. 

Y.),     55 

Barb.    443,    38    How.    Prac.    273— 
pp.    535,   890. 

-■.  Holland,    45    N.    Y.    13— pp. 

286,    535. 

V.   Schuyler,    pp.     278,    279. 

Witchia   R'.,  etc.,   Co.,   Haas  v. 

Witch   Queen,    The. 

Withce    -'.    Somerset    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

1820. 
Witherbce   v.    Meyer,    p.    659. 
Witherington,      American      Standard 

Jewelry    Co.    v. 
Withers,    Fordyce   ?■. 

f.  Macon,     etc.,      R.    Co.,    pp. 

1217,    1218. 

Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   '•. 

V.  Missouri,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    p. 

453. 

f.  New   Jersey   Steamboat   Co., 

pp.    492.    776,    798. 

Witherspoon,   Missouri,   etc.,   R. 


Co. 

Co., 
pp. 
R. 


Withey    :•.    Pere    Marquette    R 

pp.    3120,    3121,    3123. 
Withrow    V.    Southern    R.    Co., 

(.52.   679. 
Witsell   '•.    West    Asheville,    etc. 

Co.,   p.   2761. 
Witt    f.     East    Tennessee,    etc..    R. 

Co.,   pp.    557,   564. 

Fraser  -•. 

Witte,    Pennsylvania    Co.    f. 
Witters  -•.   Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co., 

p.    1084. 


Witting  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
101  .Mo.  631.  14  S.  W.  743.  20 
.\m.  St.  Rep.  636,  10  L.  R'.  A. 
602— pp.  844,  1037,  1041,  1047. 
1061,    1074. 

r.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    28 

.Mo.    App.    103— pp.    1036.    1037. 

Wittman    v.    C.    H.    &    D.    R.    Co.. 

pp.    2614.    2697. 
Wittnebert,   Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
Witty,    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i: 
Witzler    :■.     Collins,    pp.     270,    273. 

274,    306.   317,   337,   338,   810. 
Woas  f.    St.    Louis   Trans.    Co.,    pfi. 

2701,    2767,    2857,    2871. 
Wojczynska      r.      Chicago      Consol. 

Tract.    Co.,    p.   2696. 
Wolcott,   Chicago,   etc.,    R.   Co.   v. 

-•.   Eagle    Ins.    Co.,    p.    3943. 

Krendcr    -■. 

Wold  V.    Keyser,   p.    3954. 

Woldcrt    Grocery     Co.,    St.     Louis, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Wolf    V.     American    Exp.     Co.,    pp. 

619,   724,  728,   733,   734,  742,   745, 

749,    821,    1036. 

American     Merchants'      L'nion 

Exp.  Co.  v. 

V.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2363,  2644,  2906. 

V.  Grand  Rapids,  etc..  Rail- 
way, pp.  277,  3137,  3141,  3142. 
3143,  3193. 

V.   Hough,    p.    1156. 

-•.  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

p.    2306. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    -■. 

St.     Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■.-. 

z:  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  p.  ?J"3. 

•  Union   Pac.   R.   Co.  I'. 

V.  Western     Union     Tel.     C'l., 

p.    1087. 
Wolf   Co.,   Oakland   Sugar    M'll    Co. 

Wolfe,   Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   :•. 

V.  Georgia     R.,     etc.,     Co.,     33 

S.   E.   239,    124   Ga.   693— p.   2574. 

V.  Georgia     R..     etc..     Co..     2 

Ga.  App.  499,  58  S.  E.  899— pp. 
1949,  2017,  2042,  2056,  2057, 
2058. 

r.  Lacv,     etc..     Co.,     pp.     849. 

855. 

Louisville,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

V.  Meyers,    pp.    331.   337. 

V.  Missouri    Pac.    Ry.    Co..    p. 

550. 

Wolff.    Central    R.    Co.    r. 

r.   Central     R.     Co..     pp.     31/6. 

3179,    3181. 

Wabash,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Wolfkiel   f.    Sixth    Ave.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1888.    2859,    2877. 
Wolford    :•.    New    York    Cent.,    etc.. 
R.    Co.,    85    N.    E.    1118.    191    N. 
Y.    554— pp.    1907.    2352. 

V.  New    York    Cent.,    etc..    R. 

Co.,  102  N.  Y.  S.  1008.  118  App. 
Div.    553— p.    2348. 

Wolston,   Gulf.  etc..   R.   Co.   r. 
Wolven    V.    Springfield    Tract.    Co.. 

pp.    2585.    2604. 
Womack.    Southern    Exp.    Co.    r. 
Wood    V.    American    Nat.    Bank,    p. 

2627. 

.Atchison,   etc..   R.    Co.   i-. 

V.   Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.,    p. 

528. 

Bell    V. 

Bretherton    v. 

V.  Brooklvn    City    R.    Co.,    p. 

2199. 

Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

V.  Chester    Traction    Co..     pp. 

1690.    2192. 

Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    r. 

;•.   Chicago,    etc..     R.     Co..     pp. 

614.    633.    (.34.    734. 

V.  Crocker,    pp.    729,   89/.   901. 

O04.   007. 


CCCXVIII 


TAULK    OF    CASES. 


Wood  f.   Cunard  Steamship  Co.,  pp. 
4009,    4011.    4032,    4034. 

-■.   Delaware,    etc.,    R.     Co.,    p. 

2850. 

Dillingham    f. 

i:   Erie    R.    Co.,    p.    723. 

z:   Fleetwood,    p.    410. 

z:  Georgia    R'.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

1938,    285;,   2941. 

Grant    f. 

Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

f.   Tones,    pp.    2113,    2114. 

i:  kevser,    pp.    3954,    3970. 

■:•.  Lake,    p.    1195. 

z:  Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1877,    2114,    2236. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Z-.  Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   pp. 

2025,    2030. 

McCranie    z-. 

z:  Maine    Cent.    R.     Co..      pp. 

727,     749,     3109,     3158,     3167. 

Merchants',    etc.,    Ass'n    v. 

z:  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

181    Mo.    433,    81    S.    \V.    152— p. 
2874. 

z:  Metropolitan      St.     R.      Co., 

107     Mo.    App.     372,    81     S.     W. 
1273— p.  2874. 

z:  Milwaukee,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

po.    524.    885,    886,    887,   897,    907, 
3264,    3286. 

z:  'Sew     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    2200,    2903. 

Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

North    German     Lloyd     Steam- 
ship  Co.   f. 

z\  Pennsylvania     R.      Co.,      p. 

1787. 

V.  Perry,     pp.    331,     336,     337, 

339. 

V.  Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1575,    2696. 

-■.  Richmond,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 

2132. 

z:  Roach,    pp.     1209,     1210. 

Schloss  z: 

V.  Sewall,    pp.    3953,    3959. 

South,    etc.,    K.    Co.    v. 

Southern   Exp.   Co.  z'. 

f.   Southern      Exp.      Co.,       pp. 

948,  1056,  1065,  1075. 

Southern  R.  Co.  v. 

i:  Southern   R.    Co.,   pp.    1412, 

1428. 

Texas,   etc.,    R.    Co.   -'. 

Trent,    etc.,    Nav.    Co.    v. 

United    States    v. 

V.  Yeatman,    pp.     1219,      1239, 

1240. 

Wood    &    Co.,    Baltimore,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    T. 

Wood,    etc..    Cattle    Co.,    Galveston, 

etc.,    R.    Co.    V. 
Woo  Dan  z:   Seattle  Elect.   R.,  etc., 

Co.,    pp.    2156,    2391,    2746. 
Woodward,   Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.  z'. 
Woodbridge    v.     Delaware,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.    2524. 

King  z: 

United    R.,    etc.,    Co.    '■. 

Woodburn     z-.     Cincinnati,    .etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    422,    1014,    3346. 
Woodbury  v.  Frink,  pp.   587,  817. 

z'.  Maine     Cent.     R'.      Co.,      p. 

2134. 

Woodford    v.     Baltimore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1303,    1307,    1319,    1363, 

1453,    1459,    1479. 
Woodgate  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 

p.    1670. 
Woodhouse   v.    Rio    Grande   R.    Co., 

pp.    33,    139,    140,    142. 
Woodland    Steamboat    Co.,    Patridge 

V. 

Woodridge,    King    v. 

United   R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Woodroffe     v.      Roxborough,       etc., 

R.   Co.,   p.   2196. 
Woodruff  V.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.   Co., 
p.    1217. 


Woodruff.    Nelson    i-. 

z:  Noyes,    pp.     1219,    1244. 

f.   Parham,    p.    3594. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.    Co.   -•. 

z:     Sherrad,      pp.      982,      1066, 

1067. 

Woodruff   Mills,    St.   Louis,   etc.,    R. 

Co.   f. 
Woodruff   Sleeping,   etc..   Coach   Co. 

;■.     Diehl.     pp.     3146,     3215,     3216, 

3217,   3218,   3219. 
Woodruff,   etc..   Coach   Co.,   State  ^■. 
Woods  z:   Devin,    pp.    727,   732,    748, 

3130. 

Friend  :'. 

z:  Metropolitan     St.     R.     Co., 

pp.    1636,    1651,    2462,    2463. 

Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

New   York,   etc.,   R.    Co.   z\ 

Pullman    Palace    Car    Co.    z: 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z\ 

v.   Southern      Pac.        Co.,       p. 

2537. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Western    Union    Tel.    Co.    f. 

■:•.   White    Star    Line,    p.     1795. 

Woodward,   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.   z\ 

z:   Grand     Trunk    R.     Co.,     p. 

581. 

v.  Illinois     Cent.     K.     Co..      1 

Biss.    403,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    18006— 
pp.   848,   854,   3339. 

•;■.    Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    Fed. 

Cas.     No.     18007,     1     Biss,     447— 
pp.    3339,    3376,    3379. 

v.  Westside     St.    R.      Co.,     p- 

2160. 

Woodworth    z:    McBride,    p.    585. 

Pennsylvania,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Woolcott,    Krender    v. 

Wooldridge    &    Son   v.    Fort    Worth, 

etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.    932,    934,    935. 
Woolery  -'.    Louisville,  etc.,   R.    Co., 

pp.    1752,    1755,   2127,   2129,   2261, 

2262,    2702. 
Wooley    z\     Chicago,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.    540,    710,    717. 

Southern   R.    Co.   "'. 

Woolner     Distilling     Co.,     Chicago, 

etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Woolridge,   Chicago,   etc..   R.    Co.   ?■. 
Woolsey     z:     Brooklvn     Heights     R. 

Co.,    pp.    1783,    1927,    1928. 

V.   Chicago,    etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

1503,     1587. 

Woolverton,    Morgan    z: 
Myerson     v. 

Sejalon    z\ 

Woolwine    f.     Chesapeake,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,   p.   2502. 
Woonsocket    St.    R.    Co.,    Moore    z: 
Wooster     v.    Farr,    pp.     354,      1148. 

1150,   1151. 
Wooten,    Charlotte,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

z\       Mobile,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2332. 

Worcester   Consol.    St.   R.    Co.,   Dol- 
phin  f. 

Olund  z'. 

Worcester,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    Common- 
wealth z\ 

Nashua    Lock    Co.    z'. 

Worcester,    etc.,    St.    R.    Co.,    Clin- 
ton  z: 

Cummings    z'. 

Word,    Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    K.    Co.    f. 

Galveston,    etc.,'R.    Co.   z\ 

Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    z: 

Worden    v.    Canadian    Pac.    R'.    Co., 

p.  849. 
Wordin  v.   Bemis,  pp.   528,   699,  702, 

718. 
Work   v.    Boston    Elev.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

1991,    1994,    2797. 

Ft.    Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

z:     Leathers,     pp.     3873,     3897, 

3907,    3909,    3923. 
Workman   f.    New   York,    p.    4076. 
I  Worland,      Jeffersonville,      etc.,      R. 

Co.    V. 


Worley,    Atchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Louisville    R.    Co.    f. 

Wormsdorf   z\    Detroit   City    R.    Co., 

pp.    1684,    1687,    1827,    1833,    2742, 

2763. 
Worrell,      Louisville,       etc.,       Tract. 

Co.  V. 
Wortham,    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Missouri     Pac.    R.     Co.    z\ 

Worthen    '•.    Grand    Trunk    R.    Co., 

pp.    2171,    2762. 
Worthington,      Baltimore,     etc.,     R. 

Co.   z: 

f.   Central     Vermont     K.     Co., 

pp.    2183,    2869. 

Cincinnati,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Railroad    Comm.    ■:•. 

The    Arglye    z: 

Wove    Realty     Co.,     Diepenbrock    v. 

Keller   z\ 

Wrasse    z\    Citizens'    Tract.    Co.,    p. 

2518. 
Wray,    Feise   ■:'. 

Siffken    v. 

Wren     v.     Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 
1253. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Wright  ;•.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  230  Pa. 

635,    79   Atl.    760— p.    3520. 

z:  Adams     Exp.     Co.,     43     Pa. 

Super.     Ct.     40— p.     3521. 

Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

-■.  Atlantic,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2141. 

Birmingham    R.,    etc.,    Co.   v. 

?■.   Boston,      etc.,      R.     Co.,      p. 

2895. 

V.   Boughton,     pp.     3256,     3327, 

3339. 

V.   Caldwell,       pp.      267,      271, 

3136,  4008. 

-'.   California     Cent.      R'.      Co., 

pp.  197,  1940,  2122,  2427,  2478, 
2482,  2486,  2492,  2854,  3023, 
3204,    3239. 

v.  Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2021,   2027. 

Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

Columbus,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

■   Faulkner    ''. 

Ft.  Worth,   etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

z\  Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp. 

1684,  1747,  1748,  1840,  1845, 
2722,    2940. 

z'.  Glens    Falls,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    1610,    2413. 

V.   Grace     &      Co.,      pp.      3907, 

3908,   3922. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

Louisville,     etc.,     R.     Co.     :>. 

z:   McKee,    pp.    802,    804,    806. 

Marine    Bank    v. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    -'. 

Missouri,     etc.,     R.     Co.     '•. 

Nevvf      York,      etc..      Steamship 

Co.   v. 

Norrington    z\ 

v.  Northampton,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

p.   1581. 

Norwich    Co.    f. 

Z'.  Orange,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

2427. 

V.  Pennsylvania     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2673,    2682,    2888. 

Perkins   v. 

V.  Philadelphia     Rapid     Trans. 

Co.,    p.    3068. 

Receivers   v. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r. 

San    Antonio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z/. 

V.   Sioux      Falls      Tract.      Sys- 
tem,  pp.   2669,   2777. 

V.   Snell,   p.   233. 

Southern    R.    Co.    z'. 

z'.   Spencer,    p.    1169. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

The    Francis. 

Toledo,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    v. 


TABLK  OF  CASES. 


CCCXIX 


Wright  :■.  Union  R.  Co.,  ]>\>.  2544, 
2628. 

Wabash   R.   Co.   v. 

Walsh   i: 

Wright,  etc.,  Lighterage  Co.,  San- 
bern    f. 

Wright,  etc.,  Wirecloth  Co.  f.  War- 
ren,  p|).    551,    552,    5(>1. 

Wrightsville.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Augusta, 
etc.,   R.   Co.   z: 

f.   Joiner,   p.    2924. 

Kight  V. 

Riley    r. 

Smith    V. 

State   T. 

Wrixon,    North   Chicago    St.    R.    Co. 


Northern    Pac.    R. 


Co., 
Mo. 
Mo. 


Wunsch    V 

p.    3125. 
Wyatt   7:    Citizens'   R.    Co.,    55 

485— pp.     2249,     2254. 

V.  Citizens'    R.     Co.,     (>2 

408— pp.    2376,    2377,    2396. 

z:   Pacific    Elect.    R.    Co.,    pp. 

2686,    2687,    2690,    2820.    3007. 

Wyatt    Park    K.    Co..    Duncan    z\ 
Wyckoff,    Chicago    City    R.    Co.   z: 

V.   Chicago,    City     R.     Co.,    pp. 

2741,    2860. 

Wyland,    Deere    Plow    Co.    -'. 

Wyld    V.    Pickford.    p.    23i. 

Wylde  !■.  Northern  R.  Co.,  pp. 
2354,    283(.. 

Wyler-.Ackerland  &  Co.  z:  Louis- 
ville, etc.,   R.   Co.,  p.   654. 

Wyler,  etc.,  Co.  z'.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   pp.  499,   533,  807. 

Wylie,    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wyly,    Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

Wyman  z\  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co. 
pp.    1571,    1620.   2476. 

Wynantskill  Knitting  Co.  z:  Mur 
ray,    pp.    529,   877,   904. 

Wynn  z:   Allard,   p.   2300. 

z\  Central    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

133  N.  V.  575,  30  N.  K.  721,  4 
Silvernail  Ct.  App.  214 — pp 
1827,    1844,    2003,    2869. 

z:  Central    Park,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

14  N.  Y.  S.  172,  38  N.  Y.  St 
Rep.    181— p.    2698. 

V.  City,      etc.,      R'.      Co.,       pp 

2518,   2519,   2524,   2548. 

r.  Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    pp 

1603,   1604. 

Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    -■. 

V.  Paducah     City    Railway,     p 

2978. 

Railway    Co.    v. 

Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Wynne    Hoop,   etc.,    Co.,    St.    Louis, 

etc.,   R.   Co.  z: 
Wyrick    f.     Missouri,    etc.,    R.     Co., 

pp.     426,     969,     978,     984,      1044, 

1293,    3761. 
Wysor,    Norfolk,    etc..    R.    Co.    :■. 
W.   &  A.   R.   Co.  z:   Kelly,   p.   488. 


Yadkin    R.    Co.,    Carleton    z\ 
Yancey  ;-.    Boston    Elevated   R.   Co., 

pp.    1521,    1556,    1905,   2330,   2861, 

2866,     3007. 
Yarboro,    Roberts    z\ 
Yarborough     f.     Southern     Railway, 

p.   846. 
Yarbrough,    .Mabaina,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Ex    parte. 

Southern    Kansas   R.    Co.    r. 

Yarnell    ;■.    Kansas     City,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.     1893,    1911,  1912,    2511, 

2667,    2686. 

Yarwood,    Galena,    etc.,  R.    Co.   z: 

Yates,    Birmingham    R.,  etc.,    Co.    v. 

Dixon    z\ 

Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    :■. 

z:  Milwaukee,    p.  3529. 

!•.  Philadelphia,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

p.  2732. 


Yazoo,    etc.,    R.     Co.    !■.     .\den,    p. 
2341. 

V.  Anderson,    p.    2531. 

.Xndrews    v. 

z:   Baldwin,     pp.     3115,     3116, 

3119,     3120,     3123,     3126,     3127, 
3129,    3151,    3185. 

z:   Beattie,    pp.    1880,    2357. 

z:   )5ent    &     Co.,     pp.     31,    315, 

316,   429,   3540. 

z:   Blum,   89   Miss.   242,   42   So. 

282,    11    Am.    &    Eng.    Ann.    Cas. 
272— pp.    621,    622,    625. 

V.   Blum,     102     Miss.     303,     59 

So.   92— pp.   900,   911. 

V.  Blum    Co.,    pp.    615,    621. 

Brown   r. 

v.   Byrd,   pp.    2115,    2117,    2175, 

2176,    2180,    2184. 

Campbell    z\ 

V.   Christmas,      pp.      651,      661, 

666,   683,   697. 

Coleman  z\ 

Daugherty    v. 

Davis    i\ 

Dougherty  v. 

z:  Faust     (Miss.),     32     So.     9 

—p.   3055. 

V.   Faust    (Miss.),    34    So.    356 

—p.   3059. 

z:   Fisher    Bros.,    pp.    258,   263. 

z:   Fitzgerald,    pp.    3071,    3076. 

-■.  Georgia      Home     Ins.     Co., 

pp.   3119,   3129. 

z'.   Grant,    p.    2641. 

f.   Greenwood       Grocery      Co., 

96     Miss.    403,    51      So.      450— p. 
3501. 

;■.   Greenwood      Grocery      Co., 

227    U.    S.    1,    33    S.    Ct.    213— p. 
3488. 

z:  Hardie,    pp.    2776,    3057. 

-•.  Hatch,    p.    2820. 

-•.   Hughes,    94    Miss.    242,    47 

So.  662.  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  975 
—p.  3172. 

— —  -■.  Hughes   (Miss.),   50   So. 
627— p.  3054. 

z:   Humphrey,  pp.  2301,  2336, 

2641,  2676,  2690,  2861. 

z\   Jackson  Vinegar  Co.,   p. 

161. 

Johnson    -'. 

-■.   Keystone     Lumber     Co.,     p. 

25. 

— — •  Keystone    Lumber    Yard    f. 

King    z: 

Kinncv    z\ 

-•.   McCall,    p.    3180. 

z'.   McKay,    p.    625. 

Metcalf   f. 

V.   Millsaps,       pp.       739,       744, 

1041. 

-•.  Mitchell,     pp.     3013,     3015, 

3055. 

Parish    &    Co.    v. 

Reed    f. 

Rcid    z: 

V.  Roberts,      pp.      1708,      2144, 

2862. 

f.  R'odgers,    p.    3092. 

z:  Searles,    pp.    235,    700,    701, 

705,    706,    716,    717,    718. 

z:  Shelby,     pp.     2526,     2785. 

V.   Smith,     82     Miss.     656,     35 

So.    168— p.    3017. 

V.  Smith    (Miss.),   60   So.   73— 

p.    1918. 

Tate    r. 

Thompson    z: 

z:   Tillman,    p.    2802. 

Tolcr    "■. 

\'incent    z\ 

z:  White,    pp.    2848,    3015. 

Williams   "•. 

z:   Williams,   p.   3018. 

f.   Wilson,    p.     1016. 

Yeager,    Union    R.,    etc.,    Co.    '•. 
Yeatman,   Wood  "■. 

Yecker  -•.    San   .-Xntonio   Tract.   Co., 
p.    2319. 


Yegen    r.     Northern     Pac.     R.     Co., 

pp.    301,    348,    387. 
Yeomans    z'.     Contra     Costa     Steam 

Nav.   Co.,   pp.    1577,    1588. 
Yerkes     v.      Keokuk,     etc.,     Packet 

Co.,    p.    2683. 
Yersack    z\     Lackawanna,     etc.,     R. 
2277. 
Macon,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    p. 


Co.,  p. 
Yesbik    z: 

303. 

Yettcr,    Snelling  Z'. 
Yielding,    Birmingham    R.,    etc., 


Co. 

27U 
820, 


Yoakum    v.    Dryden,    pp.    268, 
272,    275,    276. 

z\   Dunn,    pp.     663,    671, 

847,    850,    859,    876. 

Yoder,    Pennsylvania    Co.    v. 
\'ohc,    Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Yonge    z:     Kinney,    pp.    2298,    2693. 

V.  Pacific  Mail   Steamship  Co.. 

p.     3040. 

Yonkers    R.    Co.,    Clancy   i: 

Gunter     Z'. 

Johnson    i'. 

Nash    z: 

Wimplcberg   -•. 

Zeccardi    r. 

Yopst,    Western    Union    Tel    Co.    :•. 
York   i:    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp. 
28,    3574. 

Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   ;. 

Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co    -•. 

York    Co.    f.    Central    Railroad,    pp. 

208,   726,   732,   739,   748,   930,   944, 

947,   958,   959,  960,  961,  964,   970, 

1003,    1180.    4025. 
York    Silk    Mfg.    Co.,    Charavay    z'. 
York,    etc.,    Co.,    New    York,    etc.. 

R'.    Co.    V. 
York,    etc.,    Railway,    Wilson    v. 
Yorke    Furniture    Co.    z:     Southern 

R.    Co.,    pp.    3681,    3753. 
Yorton   -■.    Milwaukee,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 

54    Wis.    234,    11    N.    W.    482.    41 

Am.    Rep.    23— pp.    1976,    2460. 
• •  ;•.   Milwaukee,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

62    Wis.    3'u,    21    N.    W.    516,    23 

N.    W.    401— pp.    3078,    3079. 
Youghiogheny,     etc..     Coal     Co.     v. 

Erie    R.    C6.,    p.    255. 
Youmans.    Trowell    ■•. 

•  -■.  Wabash    R.    Co.,    p.    1551. 

Young   f.    Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    pp.. 

2353,     2354,     2797. 

Bullard    f. 

Cassilay    z-. 

z'.  Central,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     p. 

1619. 

Chicago    City    R.    Co.    z\ 

•  Chicago  Terminal   Transfer  R. 

Co.   z: 

Chicago,    etc.,    R'.    Co.    ■:•. 

f.  Chicago,     etc..     R.     Co.,     p.. 

2286. 

Cooper  :•. 

"■.   East    Alabama     R.     Co.,    p. 

517. 

Evansville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    f. 

Ex    parte. 

f.   Fewson,    p.    1941. 

-■.   Frazicr.    p.    3479. 

Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ;•. 

Insurance    Co.    f. 

International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z: 

Jolly    ;•. 

Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z'. 

z\   Lehman,    etc..    Co.,    p.    395. 

-•.   Maeller,    p.    701. 

Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.     :•. 

-•.  Missouri     Pac.    R.    Co.,    93 

Mo    App.    267— p.    2233. 

-•.  Missouri   Pac.    R.    Co.    (Mo. 

App.),    84    S.    W.    175— pp.    2235. 
2293.    2666.    2825. 

z\   Moeller.    p.    355. 

z:  New     York,     etc.,     R.     Co.. 

pp.     1514,    1796. 

Passenger    Railway    f. 

:•.   Pennsylvania     R.     Co..     pp.. 

2495,    3182,  '3318. 


cccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Young.   Philadelphia,   etc.,   R.   Co.   f. 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    :•. 

Sanders    f. 

T.   Smith,    pp.    524.    534,    316S. 

■:•.  Southern    R.    Co.,    pp.    830, 

877. 

Sword   '•. 

t:  Texas,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     pp. 

2485,    2488,    2533. 

Western  R.  Co.  v. 

V.  Wilmington,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    915,    916. 

Wisconsin    v. 

Young    &    Co.,    Cassilay    v. 
Younger.    Gulf.    etc..    R.    Co.    •:•. 
Youngerman.    Cubbage   z: 
Yount,   St.    Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.   ■:•. 

f.  Wabash   R.    Co.,   p.    530. 

Yowell,  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Yturbide  f.  United  States,  p.  3696. 
Yudelson,    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Yukon     Independent     Transp.     Co., 
Pacific   Coast    Co.    f. 


Zabron    z-.     Cunard    Steamship     Co., 

p.    3979. 
Zacharv,    Xorth    Carolina    R.    Co.    f. 
z\    Xorth    Carolina    R.    Co.,    p. 

3431. 


Zackery    z:  Mobile,    etc.,     R.     Co., 

pp.    1495,  1496. 

Zagelmeyer  z-.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,     pp.  69,     1598,     2467,     2470, 

3078. 

Zahloot     Z'.  Adams     Exp.     Co.,     p. 

944. 
Zalk     z:     Great     Xorthern     R.     Co., 

pp.    803,    808. 

Zambetti    v.  Garton,    p.    3868. 

Zamore    v.  Boston     Elev.     R.     Co., 

pp.    2176,  2974. 

Zanesville,  etc..     Road     Co.,     Tal- 

madge    z: 

Zantzinger,  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Zarniko,    Clark   '•. 

Zebe,    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    z\ 

Zeccardi     z'.     Yonkers     K.     Co.,     pp. 

1525,    1526,    2042,    2051. 
Zeigler  z\    Wells,   etc.,    Co.,   pp.    807, 

850. 
Zeigler     Bros.     -■.     Mobile,     etc.,     R. 

Co.,    pp.    3168,    3170,    3172,    3186, 

3188,   3195. 
Zemp   V.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.    2673,    2856,    2861. 
Zenobia,    The. 
Zerega   z\    Poppe,    p.    757. 
Zerler,    South    Chicago    City    R.    Co. 

Zernecke,    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 
Zetterberg     r.     Great     Xorthern     R. 
Co.,   pp.    217,    218. 


Ziegler    ;■.     Freeman,    pp.    587,    816, 

842. 
Zilly,    Ir.diana,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Zinimer    z\    Fox    River    \'alley,    etc., 

R.    Co.,    pp.    2310,    2344,    3000. 

-■.   Xew     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

137    X.    Y.    460,    33    X.    E.    642— 
pp.    984,    987,    1074,    1397,    1403. 

z'.  Xew     York,     etc.,     R.     Co., 

16    X.    Y.    S.    631,    62    Hun    619, 
42    X.    Y.    St.    Rep.    63— p.    1381. 

r  Third   Ave.    R.    Co.,   p.    1699. 

Zimmerman,        Bloomington,        etc., 

Railway  '•. 

z:   Raincy,    p.    3948. 

Zimmerman    &    Co.,    Gulf,    etc.,    R. 

Co.    z: 
Zimmern's    Coal    Co.    '•.     Louisville, 

etc.,   R.   Co.,   p.   489. 
Zink,    East    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

t'.  * 

Zinn   i'.   Xew   Jersey   Steamboat   Co., 

pp.    511,    602,    896,    901,    902. 
ZofFingcr,    Lake    Erie,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

Zone,   The. 

Zouch    -•.    Chesapeake,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

pp.     931,     949,     970,     1054,     1071, 

1075,     1363. 
Zuendt    f.     Missouri    Pac.    R.     Co., 

pp.    2209,    2899. 
Zwirtz,    Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    ■;■. 


Cf^RI^TKR^ 


PART  I 
CARRIERS  GENERALLY 


CHAPTER  I. 

Who  Aric  CauriiCrs. 

1.  Common   Carriers   Defined,   §    1. 
II.   Common   Carriers  and   Private  Carriers   Distinguished,   §  2. 
III.  Persons   and   Corporations   Who  Are   Common   Carriers,   §§   3-18. 

A.  Railroad    Companies,   §   3. 

B.  Owners   of   Spur   Lines  or   Switches,   §   4. 

C.  Sleeping  Car  Companies,  §  5. 

D.  Street  Railways,  §  6. 

E.  Express  Companies,  §  7. 

F.  Transportation  and  Forwarding  Companies,  §  8. 
.     G.  Proprietors  of  Stage  Coaches,  §  9. 

H.  Proprietors   of  Omnibuses   and   Baggage   Wagons,   §   10. 

I.  Draymen  and  Truckmen,   §   11. 

J.  Telegraph   and   Messenger   Companies.   §    12. 
K.  Transfer  and   Storage  Companies,   §   13. 
L.  Livery  Stable   Keepers,   §    14. 
M.  Mail  Contractors,  §  15. 

N.  Owners  of   Ships   Carrying  Goods   for   Hire,   §   16. 
O.  Ferrymen,  §   17. 
P.  Boats  Engaged  in  Towing,  §  18. 

§  1.  Common  Carriers  Defined. — A  common  carrier  is  one  who  under- 
takes for  hire  to  transport  the  goods  of  those  who  may  choose  to  employ  him 
from  place  to  place. ^     The  tests  whether  a  carrier  is  a  "common  carrier"  are: 


1.  Common  carriers  defined. — rutted 
States. — Propeller  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21 
How.  7.  22,  1()  L.  Ed.  41;  Liverpool,  etc.. 
Steam  Co.  z:  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S. 
307.  440,  32  L.  Ed.  788.  9  S.  Ct.  469:  Rail- 
road Co.  7'.  Lockwood,  17  Wall.  357,  377. 
21  L.  Ed.  627:  United  States  v.  Sioux 
City  Stock  Yards  Co.,  162  Fed.  556,  judg- 
ment affirmed,  167  Fed.  126;  United 
States  t'.  Ramsey,  116  C.  C.  A.  568,  197 
Fed.  144. 

Florida. — Johnson  v.  Pensacola.  etc..  R. 
Co.,  16  Fla.  623,  26  Am.  Rep.  731. 

Georgia. — Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349, 
46   Am.   Dec.   393. 

lUiiiois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Frank- 
enburg.  54   111.  88,  5  Am.   Rep.  92. 

Xezv  Haiuf>s!iire. — Elkins  v.  Boston, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,  23   X.   H.   275. 


AVtc  York. — Spears  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  67  Barb.  513. 

Ohio. — United  States  Exo.  Co.  v.  Back- 
man,  28  O.  St.  144,  affirming  2  Cin.  R. 
251,   13   O.   Dec.   885. 

Tennessee. — Moss  v.  Bettis,  51  Tenn.  (4 
Heisk.).   661,   13   Am.   Rep.   1. 

Every  person  who  undertakes  to  carry 
for  compensation  the  goods  of  all  per- 
sons, indifferentlv,  is  a  common  carrier. 
Mershon  r.  Hoben^ack,  22  N.  J.  L.  372, 
affirmed   in   23   N.   J.   L.   580. 

One  holding  out  to  the  public  as 
ready  to  undertake  for  hire  the  trans- 
portation of  goods  and  so  inviting  custom 
of  the  pul:ilic  is  a  conmion  carrier. 
Lloyd  r.  Haugh,  etc..  Transfer  Co.,  223 
Pa.  148,  72  Atl.  516.  See.  also,  Russell 
V.   Livingston    (N.  Y.),   19   Barb.   346. 

A    person    engaged    in    the    business    of 


§  1 


CARRIERS. 


First,  he  must  be  engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying  goods  for  others  as  a  pub- 
lic employee,  and  so  hold  himself  out ;  second,  he  must  undertake  to  carry  goods 
of  the  kind  to  which  his  business  is  confined ;  third,  he  must  undertake  to  carry 
by  the  methods  bv  which  his  business  is  conducted  and  over  his  established  roads; 
fourth,  transportation  must  be  for  hire:  and,  fifth,  an  action  must  lie  against 
him  if"  he  refused  without  reason  to  carry  such  goods  for  those  willing  to  com- 
ply with  his  terms.-  -  It  is  not  necessary,  to  constitute  one  a  common  carrier, 
that  a  stipulation  should  be  entered  into  as  to  the  amount  of  freight  to  be  paid. 
But,  unless  a  right  to  compensation  exists,  the  common-law  liability  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  is  not  created,  though  there  may  be  the  responsibility  of  a  manda- 
tan-  incurred.-*  Common  carriers  undertake  generally,  and  not  as  a  casual 
occupation ;  -*  but  in  order  to  make  them  such,  it  is  not  necessary  that  this  should 
1)6  their  exclusive  business,  or  that  they  should  be  continuously  or  regularly  em- 
nloved  in  it.  They  may  combine  it  with  another  and  several  avocations,  and 
yet' be  common  carriers.' and  subject  to  the  "extraordinary  liabilities  which  have 
been  imposed  upon  them  in  consequence  of  the  public  nature  of  their  employ- 
ment." ^  In  determining  whether  a  person  or  corporation  engaged  in  trans- 
porting goods  for  others  is  a  common  carrier  the  mode  employed  in  such  trans- 


carrj-ing  for  others  generally,  to  and 
from  any  point,  is  a  common  carrier. 
Pennewill  v.   CuUen    (Del.),  5  Har.  238. 

A  common  carriet-  is  one  who  holds 
himself  out  in  coinmon.  that  is,  to  all 
people  alike,  that  he  is  engaged  in  the 
business  of  transporting  persons,  or  cer- 
tain kinds  of  property,  and  is  prepared 
and  ready  to  carry  for  all  who  apply,  on 
the  same  terms.  Judgment,  80  N.  E. 
636,  reversed.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Henry,  170  Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  710. 

Any  person  or  corporation  offering  its 
services  to  all  persons  similarly  situated 
and  performing  as  its  public  vocation  the 
services  of  transporting  passengers, 
freight,  or  intelligence  is  a  common  car- 
rier in  the  particular  spheres  of  such  em- 
ployment. Winnett  r.  Union  Stock  Yards 
Co.  of  Omaha.  81  Neb.  67,  115  N.  W.  627. 

When  a  carrier  has  a  regularly  estab- 
lished business  for  carrying  all  or  certain 
articles,  and  especially  if  that  carrier  is 
a  corporation  created  for  the  purpose  of 
the  carrying  trade,  and  the  carriage  of 
the  articles  is  embraced  within  the  scope 
of  its  chartered  powers,  it  is  a  common 
c'arrier.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steam  Co.  v. 
Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397,  404,  32  L. 
Ed.  788,  9  S.  Ct.  469;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Lockwood  (U.  S.),  17  Wall.  3.S7,  377.  21 
L.    Ed.    627. 

A  common  carrier  is  such  by  virtue  of 
his  occupation,  and  not  by  virtue  of  the 
responsibilities  under  which  he  rests,  and 
therefore  the  nature  of  his  occupation  as 
a  common  carrier  is  not  affected  by  a 
restriction  upon  his  responsibilities, 
whether  the  restriction  be  by  law  or  by 
contract.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam  Co.  v. 
Phenix  Ins.  Co..  129  U.  S.  397,  440,  32 
L.    Ed.    788,    9    S.    Ct.    469. 

2.  Santa  Fe.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Grant  Bros. 
Constr.  Co..  13  Ariz.  186,  108  Pac.  467. 
See,  also,  Varble  v.  Bigley  (Ky.),  14 
Bush   698,   29   Am.    Rep.   435,   and   Samms 


V.  Stewart.  20  O.  69,  55  Am.  Dec.  445. 
Compare  Tuckerman  v.  Stephens,  etc., 
Transp.    Co..    32    N.    J.    L.    320. 

The  two  distinguishing  characteristics 
of  a  common  carrier  are  in  respect  to  his 
duty,  he  being  obliged  to  transport  goods 
offered,  and  in  respect  to  his  risk,  he  be- 
ing lial)le  as  an  insurer.  Varble  v.  Big- 
ley   (Ky.),   14  Bush  698,  29  Am.   Rep.  435. 

To  render  one  a  common  carrier  his 
undertaking  must  be  general  and  for  all 
people  indifferently.  The  undertaking 
may  he  evidenced  by  the  carrier's  own 
notice  or  practically  by  a  series  of  acts, 
by  his  known  habitual  continuance  in 
this  line  of  business.  He  must  assume  to 
be  the  servant  of  the  public,  he  must  un- 
dertake for  all  people.  A  special  under- 
taking for  one  man  does  not  render  a 
person  a  common  carrier.  One  who  fol- 
lows carrying  for  a  livelihood  or  who 
gives  out  to  the  world  in  any  intelligible 
way  that  he  will  take  goods  or  other 
commodities  for  transportation  from 
place  to  place  whether  for  a  year,  a  sea- 
son or  less  time  is  a  common  carrier  and 
subject  to  all  the  liabilities  of  such. 
Fish  V.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Dec. 
393. 

3.  Knox  V.  Rives,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Ala.  249, 
48   Am.    Dec.   97. 

4.  Fish  V.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am. 
Dec.  393;  Varble  v.  Bigley  (Ky.),  14 
Bush  698,  29  Am.  Rep.  435;  Samms  v. 
Stewart,  20  O.  69.  55  Am.  Dec.  445;  Moss 
r.  Bettis.  51  Tenn.  (4  Heisk.)  661,  13  Am. 
Rep.  1. 

A  person  whose  business  is  not  the 
carrying  of  goods,  and  who  does  not  hold 
himself  out  to  the  world  as  such,  will  not 
be  regarded  as  a  common  carrier,  al- 
though he  may  occasionally  carry  goods 
for  hire.  Samms  v.  Stewart,  20  0.  69, 
55    Am.    Dec.    445. 

5.  Moss  V.  Bettis.  51  Tenn.  (4  Heisk.) 
661,  13  Am.   Rep.  1. 


3  WHO    AKK    CAKKIKKS.  §§     1-2 

portation  is  immaterial/'  Xor  is  it  essential  to  constitute  a  common  carrier  that 
the  person  or  cf)rporation  undertaking  such  service  own  the  means  of  transpor- 
tation.' l!ut  a  carrier  who  hires  his  vehicle,  or  his  team,  or  his  servant,  for  the 
purposes  of  transportation,  does  not  assume  the  liabilities,  and  acquire  the  rights 
of  a  common  carrier.**  If  a  man  holds  himself  forth  to  the  public  to  carry  for 
hire,  he  is  a  common  carrier  as  much  in  his  first  trip  as  in  his  second,  third,  or 
fourth.-'  .\  common  carrier  of  goods  which  transports  live  stock  is  as  to  the 
latter  i)ropcrtv  also  a  common  carrier.^*'  In  some  states  there  are  statutes  de- 
fining common  carriers,  and  some  of  these  definitions  have  been  interpreted  by 
the  courts."  Persons  carr\ing  on  a  transportation  business  under  circumstances 
which,  in  law,  constitute  them  common  carriers,  can  not  devest  themselves  of 
that  character,  nor  secure  an  exemption  from  its  liabilities,  by  declaring  in  their 
bills  of  lading,  etc.,  that  they  are  not  to  be  deemed  common  carriers.  What  they 
are  is  to  be  determined  by  the  nature  of  their  business.^ - 

A  common  carrier  of  passengers  is  one  who  undertakes,  for  hire,  to  carry 
all  persons  indilTcrcnil)-  who  may  ai)i)ly  for  passage.  It  is  not  essential  that 
the  fare  should  be  paid  in  advance,  or  tendered,  to  establish  the  relation  and 
reciprocal  duties  of  carrier  and  passenger;  it  is  enough  that  it  is  understood 
that  it  is  to  be  paid.^-- 

The  State  as  a  Common  Carrier. — When  the  state  engages  in  business  as 
a  common  carrier  it  assumes  the  same  obligations  and  liabilities  which  are  in- 
cident to  that  business  when   it  is  conducted  b\'  indixiduals." 

§  2.  Common  Carriers  and  Private  Carriers  Distinguished. — A  com- 
mon carrier  is  one  who  ojicnly  i)rofesses  to  carry  tor  hire  the  goods  of  all  per- 
sons who  comply  with  its  terms,  while  a  private  carrier  is  one  who  takes  goods 

6.  .\rkadelphia  Milling  Co.  z\  Smoker  re  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  101  Minn. 
Merchandise   Co.,    100   Ark.   37,   139  S.   W.       132.    112    N.   W.    13. 

680.  "Any     other     carrier     engaged     in     the 

7.  Cownic  Glove  Co.  '■.  Mercliants'  Dis-  transmission  of  messages  or  transporta- 
patch  Transp.  Co.,  130  Iowa  327.  106  N.  tion  of  passengers  or  freight  for  hire," 
W.  749.  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  419,  4  L.  R.  A.,  as  used  in  the  Nebraska  statute.  Laws 
N.  S.,  1060;  Blakiston  z\  Davies.  Turner  1907,  p.  320,  c.  90,  §  4,  defining  a  com- 
&  Co.,  42   Pa.   Super.  Ct.  390.  mon     carrier    to    be    a    corporation,    etc., 

8.  Gracie  v.  Palmer  (U.  S.),  8  Wheat.  owning,  managing,  or  controlling  a  rail- 
60.5,    5    L.    Rd.    696.  road,    etc.,    or    any    express    company,    car 

9.  Fuller  v.   Bradley,  25   Pa.   120.  company,     sleeping     car     companj',     and 

10.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Hall,  124  freight  line  company,  telegraph  and  tele- 
Ga.  322,  52  S.  E.  679,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  phone  companies,  and  any  other  carrier 
898,  110  Am.   St.   Rep.   170.  engaged   in   the   transmission   of  messages 

11.  Statutory  definitions.— By  the  or  transportation  of  passengers  or  freight 
Georgia  statutes,  Civil  Code,  §§  2263,  for  h:re,  means  only  such  companies  as 
2264.  a  common  carrier  is  defined  to  be  by  their  public  profession  hold  them- 
one  who  undertakes  to  transport  goods  selves  out  as  engaged  in  transmitting 
for  a  compensation  and  who  pursues  the  messages  or  transporting  passengers  or 
business  constantly  or  continuously  for  freight  for  hire,  and  as  willing  to  per- 
any  period  of  time  or  any  distance  of  form  such  services  for  any  person  hav- 
transportation.  These  sections  of  the  '"f?  occasion  to  employ  them.^  \\  innett 
Code  were  taken  from  the  common  law.  ''■  Unjon  Stock  \ards  Co..  81  Neb.  67,  115 
Central,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Lippman,   110   Ga.  ^^-   ^^  •    ^'27. 

665,   36   S.    E.   202,   50   L.    R.   A.   673.  12.      Common    carriers    can    not    divest 

Carriers    of    passengers,    do    not    come  themselves   of   that  character  by   declara- 

within   the   definition  of  common  carriers  tions    to    the    contrary.— B.ink    i:    Adams 

contained    in    the    Georgia    Civil    Code,    in  E.\p.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174.  23   L.   Ed.  872. 

connection  with   §  2276  thereof.     Central.  13.    Common  carrier  of  passengers  de- 

etc,    R.    Co.   7'.    Lippman,    110   Ga.   665,    36  fined.— N.    lS:    C.     R.    Co.    z:    Mossino.    33 

S.   E.  202,  50  L.  R.  a.  673.  Tenn.    (1    Sneed),   220;    McGregor   z:   Gill, 

A    corporation   is   none   the   less   a   gen-  114   Tenn.   521,  86  S.  W.   318,   108  Am.  St. 

eral  carrier,  as   defined   by   the   Minnesota  Rep.   919. 

statute.    Gen.   St.    1894,   §   379,   because   its  14.    The   state   as   a   common   carrier.— 

articles    do    not    in    terms    prescribe    that  Western,   etc.,    R.    Co.   f.    Carlton,    23    Ga. 

one  of  its  powers  is  to  carry  freight.      In  180. 


i§  2-3 


CARRIERS. 


for  transportation  in  a  particular  case.^''  It  is  not,  every  carrying  of  passengers 
for  hire  that  constitutes  a  party  a  common  carrier.  A  party  having  the  con- 
veniences for  carrying  persons  may  in  some,  or  perhaps  many,  cases  carry  pas- 
sengers for  liire.  when  done  at  the  instance  of  passengers  and  for  their  accom- 
modation, without  incurring  the  responsibiUties  of  a  common  carrier.  He  would 
be  a  private  carrier,  and  held  accountable  under  rules  much  less  stringent.^*^ 
Railroad  contractors  who  consent  to  carry  a  passenger  on  a  construction  train 
for  hire  are  not  to  be  deemed  common  carriers,  but  only  private  carriers  for 

hire.''' 

Common  Carrier  Acting  as  a  Private  Carrier. — A  common  carrier  may 
become  a  private  carrier,  or  a  bailee  for  hire,  when,  as  a  matter  of  accommo- 
dation or  special  engagement,  it  undertakes  to  carry  something  which  it  is  not 
its  business  to  carry. ^"^ 

§§  3-18.  Persons  and  Corporations  Who  Are  Common  Carriers— 
§  3.  Railroad  Companies.- — A  railroad  company  is  a  common  carrier  of  both 
persons  and  property,^''  unless  there  is  something  in  its  charter  to  relieve  it  from 


15.  Common  carriers  and  private  car- 
riers distinguished. — The  Cape  Charles, 
19S  Fed.  34(1.  See,  also,  Samms  r.  Stew- 
art.   20    O.    (39,    55    Am.    Dec.    445. 

Those  who  are  engaged  in  the  business 
of  carrying  for  all  who  apply,  indiscrim- 
inately, upon  a  particular  route,  by  what- 
ever mode  of  transportation  they  conduct 
their  business,  must  be  regarded  as  com- 
mon carriers;  while  those  who  undertake 
to  carry  in  a  single  instance,  for  a  par- 
ticular person,  not  being  engaged  in  the 
business  as  a  general  employment,  even 
for  a  portion  of  the  time,  must  be  con- 
sidered private  carriers.  Johnson  v.  Pen- 
sacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fla.  623,  26  Am. 
Rep.   731,   735. 

A  private  carrier  is  one  who,  without 
being  engaged  in  such  business  as  a  pub- 
lic employment,  undertakes  to  deliver 
goods  in  a  particular  case  for  hire  or  re- 
ward. Pennewill  r.  Cullen  (Del.),  5  Har. 
238. 

One  who  is  employed  to  tear  down  a 
house  for  another  and  deliver  the  brick 
and  lumber  at  another  place  is  simply  a 
private  carrier  for  hire.  McBurnie  i'. 
Stelsly,  29   Ky.  L.  Rep.   1191,  97   S.  W.  42. 

16.  X.  &  C.  R.  Co.  V.  Messino,  33 
Tenn.  (1  Sneed),  220;  McGregor  v.  Gill, 
114  Tenn.  521,  86  S.  W.  318,  108  Am.  St. 
Rep.   919. 

17.  Shoemaker  v.  Kingsbury  (U.  S.), 
12  Wall.   369,   20   L.    Ed.   432. 

18.  Common  carrier  acting  as  a  private 
carrier. — Railroad  Co.  v.  Lockwood  {U. 
S.),  17  Wall.  357,  377,  21  L.  Ed.  627;  Liv- 
erpool, etc.,  Steam  Co.  v.  Phenix  Ins. 
Co.,  129  U.  S.  397,  440,  32  L.  Ed.  788,  9 
S.  Ct.  469;  Santa  Fe,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Grant 
Bros.  Constr.  Co.,  228  U.  S.  177,  33  S. 
Ct.  474,  reversing  on  other  grounds,  13 
Ariz.    186,   108   Pac.   467. 

"For  example,  if  a  carrier  of  produce, 
running  a  truck  boat  between  New  York 
City  and  Norfolk,  should  be  requested  to 
carry  a  keg  of  specie,  or  a  load  of  ex- 
pensive furniture,  which  he  could  justly  re- 


fuse to  take,  such  agreement  might  be 
made  in  reference  to  his  taking  and  car- 
rying the  same  as  the  parties  chose  to 
make,  not  involving  any  stipulation  con- 
trary to  law  or  pul)lic  policy."  Railroad 
Co.  V.  Lockwood  (U.  S.),  17  Wall.  357, 
377,    21    L.    Ed.    627. 

19.  A  railroad  company  is  a  common 
carrier. —  United  States. — Express  Cases, 
117  U.  S.  1,  23,  29  L.  Ed.  791,  6  S.  Ct. 
542,  628. 

Georgia. — Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46 
Am.  Dec.  393;  Caldwell  v.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  89  Ga.  550,  15  S.  E.  678;  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whittle,  27  Ga. 
535,    73  Am.   Dec.   741. 

Xezi'  York. — Heineman  z'.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  31  How.  Prac.  430,  1 
Sheld.   95. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore, 
49  Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98;  G.,  C.  & 
S.  F.  R.  Co.  V.  McGown,  65  Tex.  640; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  67  Tex. 
166,  2  S.  W.  574;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tra- 
wick,  68  Tex.  314,  4  S.  W.  567,  2  Am.  St. 
Rep.    494. 

Railroad  companies  are  common  car- 
riers engaged  in  public  employment  af- 
fecting the  public  interest.  Laurel,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.,  25 
W.  Va.  324;  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co. 
V.   Sweetzer,   25   W.  Va.   434. 

A  railroad  company,  which  serves  busi- 
ness houses  located  along  a  spur  track 
by  delivering  to  them  cars  of  freight  and 
cars  to  be  freighted  and  shipped,  is  a 
common  carrier  with  respect  to  the  use 
it  makes  of  the  track.  Agee  &  Co.  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Ala.  344,  37 
So.  680. 

A  railroad  company  carrying  live  stock 
for  hire,  for  such  as  choose  to  employ 
it,  is  a  common  carrier;  and  none  the 
less  so  that  this  is  not  its  principal  busi- 
ness. Kimball  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
26   Vt.   247,   62   Am.    Dec.    567. 

Under  Georgia  statutes.  Code  of  1882, 
§   2083,  and   Acts   of  1855,  p.   155,   railroad 


WHO  ARE  CARRIERS. 


§  3 


tlie  lieavy  responsibilities  of  that  character.-"  A  railroad  company  which  charges 
for  the  transportation  of  cattle,  but  permits  the  shijjper  to  travel  on  a  free  pass 
upon  the  cars  to  take  care  of  the  cattle,  is  a  common  carrier  for  hire,  both  as  to 
passenger  and  cattle.-^  A  railroad  company  transpfjrlinj,^  at  reduced  rates  men 
and  supplies  required  by  a  construction  company  in  grading  an  extension  is  not 
acting  as  a  common  carrier.--  Evidence  that  twice  in  two  years  a  railroad  com- 
pany had  carried  goods  in  passenger  trains  does  not  tend  to  prove  that  they 
intended  to  hold  themselves  out  as  common  carriers  of  goods  in  passenger 
trains.--'  The  character  of  common  carrier  imposed  upon  a  railroad  company 
can  not  be  surrendered.  It  is  imposed  as  the  consideration  which  the  public  are 
to  receive  in  return  for  the  grants  and  privileges  under  the  charter.  The  com- 
pany, perhai)s,  may  abandon  its  franchise  and  cease  operating  its  road,  but  until 
then,  at  least,  the  condition  that  it  shall  be  a  common  carrier  subsists.-^ 

Terminal  Company. — A  terminal  railroad  company  owning  no  cars  of  its 
own  and  transporting  only  the  railroad  cars  of  other  companies  is  a  common 
carrier. ■-''• 

Lessee  of  Railroad. — The  lessee  of  a  railroad  is  a  common  carrier  over  a 
line  leased  and  controlled  by  it  as  much  as  over  its  own  line,  and  is  responsible 
in  damages  in  respect  to  the  leased  road,  as  well  as  its  own,  to  any  person  who 
has  a  ris^ht  of  action  gi\en  liini  b\-  law  against  railroad  companic'-.-'' 

Railroad  Company  Acquiring  by  Contract  Right  to  Use  Bridge. — \\  here 
a  railroad  company,  by  contract  witli  a  bridge  company,  acquires  the  right  to 
use  a  bridge,  with  its  approaches,  for  its  engines,  cars,  and  trains,  the  railroad 
company,  and  not  the  bridge  company,  is,  as  to  all  freight  transported  by  the 
former  o\er  the  bridge,  the  common  carrier.-' 

Receivers. — A  receiver    of    a    railroad,  operating  the    same,    is    a    common 


carrier 


28 


companies  are  common  carriers  and  lia- 
ble as  such  in  the  transportation  of 
freight.  Falvey  v.  Georgia  Railroad,  7() 
Ga.   597,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.   58. 

Under  a  New  Hampshire  statute,  Pub. 
St.  I'.Hil.  c.  !(■>(),  §S  21-23,  providing  that 
ever)'  railroad  corporation  which  shall 
contract  for  the  transportation  of  milk 
in  large  quantities  shall  establish  a  tariff 
for  its  transportation  by  the  can,  it  seems 
that  a  railroad  company  becomes  a  com- 
mon carrier  of  milk  on  entering  into  a  con- 
tract with  a  firm  to  furnish  it  \vith  spe- 
cial cars  for  the  transportation  of  milk. 
Baker  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  X.  H. 
100,  65  .^tl.  .ISf). 

A  railroad  company,  organized  under 
the  statute  of  Ohio,  is  a  common  carrier, 
and  is  subject  to  judicial  control  to  pre- 
vent the  abuse  of  its  powers  and  privi- 
leges. Scofield  V.  Railway  Co.,  4,'^  O.  St. 
571.  3  N.   E.  907. 

20.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whit- 
tle, 27  Ga.  5.35,  73  Am.  Dec.  741;  Caldwell 
7'.  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.,  89  Ga.  550,  15 
S.    E.   ()78. 

Railroad  companies  are  common  car- 
riers, though  this  is  not  stated  in  their 
charter.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son,  19   Til.   578. 

21.  Railroad  company  charging  for  car- 
rying cattle  but  permitting  shipper  to 
travel  free. — .Maslin  r.  luiltinuire,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   14  W.   \a.    ISO,   35   .Am.   Rep.   748. 

22.  Transporting   at   reduced   rates   for 


construction  company  grading  extension. 
— Santa  I-'e,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant  Bros. 
Constr.  Co.,  228  U.  S.  177,  33  S.  Ct.  474, 
reversing    13    .Ariz.    186,    lOS    Pac.   467. 

23.  Effect  of  evidence  that  goods  had 
been  carried  in  passenger  trains. —l".lkins 
V.    Boston,   etc.,    R.    C^.,   23    X.    H.   27.'.. 

24.  Railroad  company  can  not  surren- 
der its  character  of  common  carrier. — 
\\'estern  Union  Tel.  Co.  i\  .\tlantic,  etc., 
Tel.  Co..  1  Wkly.  Law  Bull.  201,  7  O. 
Dec.  163.  affirmed  in  5  O.  Dec.  407,  1 
Wkly.    Law   Bull.   309. 

A  railway  company  can  not,  by  con- 
tract, lay  down  its  public  character  as  a 
carrier  of  passengers  and  goods,  which 
the  law,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  em- 
ployment in  which  it  engages,  fixes  upon 
it,  and  become  a  mere  private  carrier. 
G.,  C.  cS:  S.  F,  R.  Co.  :■.  McGown.  65  Tex. 
()40.   ()45. 

25.  Terminal  company  is  a  common 
carrier. — United  States  i\  Sioux  City  Stock 
Yards  Co..  162  Fed.  556,  judgment  af- 
firmed  in    167    Fed,    126. 

26.  Lessee  of  railroad  is  a  common 
carrier. — Logan  &  Co.  v.  Central  Rail- 
road. 74  Ga^  684:  Caldwell  v.  Richmond, 
etc.  R.  Co.,  SO  Ga,  550.  15  S.  F,  67s. 

27.  Railroad  company  acquiring  by 
contract  right  to  use  bridge. — Kentucky, 
etc..  Bridge  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
37    Fed.   .Mn,   2    L.    R,   A.   2S0. 

28.  Receiver  operating  railroad  is  a 
common  carrier. —  United    States  f.    Ram- 


§§  4-6 


CARRIERS. 


§  4.  Owners  of  Spur  Lines  or  Switches. — Corporation  Voluntarily 
Contracting  to  Switch  Cars  Over  Its  Tracks. — \Miere  a  corporation,  which 
is  under  no  legal  ohligalion  to  do  so,  voluntarily  contracts  to  switch  cars  over 
its  tracks,  between  two  or  more  railways,  for  which  service  it  collects  a  certain 
switching  charge  for  switching  the  cars,  loaded  or  empty,  but  charges  no  traffic 
rates  on  the  freight  transported  or  transferred  in  the  cars,  such  corporation,  in 
the  performance  of  such  service,  assumes  none  of  the  responsibilities  of  a  com- 
mon carrier,  but  only  those  of  a  switchman.-" 

Lumber  Company  Building  a  Spur  Line. — A  spur  railway  line  built  by  a 
lumber  company  on  its  own  land,  forming  a  connecting  line  between  a  railroad 
and  its  mill,  some  miles  distant,  for  the  purpose  of  transporting  its  own  products 
to  the  railroad  for  shipment,  which  had  no  rolling  stock  except  an  engine  and 
logging  cars  and  which  neither  did,  nor  held  itself  out  to  do,  carrying  for  the 
public,  is  not  a  common  carrier.-^*^' 

Mine  Owner  Constructing  a  Railroad  Switch. — One  who  constructs  a 
railroad  switch,  under  a  statute  authorizing  the  owner  of  a  coal  mine  within 
three  miles  of  a  railroad  to  condemn  a  right  of  way  for  a  railroad  switch  to 
get  his  product  to  market,  and  providing  that  the  owner  of  such  road  shall  be, 
so  far  as  they  are  applicable,  governed  by  the  laws  relating  to  other  railroads, 
is  not  a  "common  carrier,"  in  contravention  of  a  constitutional  enactment,  pro- 
viding that  no  corporation  engaged  in  the  business  of  common  carrier  shall  own 
a  mine,  so  that  it  can  either  ship  or  permit  to  be  shipped  by  the  lessees  of  its 
mine  all  products  thereof   free   of   charge. ^^ 

§    5.   Sleeping  Car  Companies. — See  post,  "Palace  Cars  and  Sleeping  Cars." 

§  6.  Street  Railways. — Street  railways  are  common  carriers  of  passengers, 
with  duties  and  responsibilities  similar  to  those  of  a  railroad  company. -^^ 


sey,  116  C.  C.  A.  568,  197  Fed.  144;  Beers 
V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  244; 
Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38  Vt.  402,  91 
Am.  Dec.  349.  350;  Paige  z:  Smith,  99 
Mass.  395;  Nichols  r.  Smith,  115  Mass. 
332. 

29.  Corporation  voluntarily  contracting 
to  switch  cars  over  its  tracks. — Kentucky, 
etc..  Bridge  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
37   Fed.   567,   2  L.   R.   A.   289. 

As  to  terminal  companies,  see  ante, 
"Railroad    Coni])anies."    §    ?,. 

Stockyards  company  transporting 
freight  a  common  carrier  under  laws  of 
Nebraska. — A  stockj-ards  company  owned 
about  lliirty-five  miles  of  railway  track, 
including  what  was  known  as  a  transfer 
track.  Several  private  industries  were 
conducted  adjacent  to  the  premises  of 
the  company.  The  transfer  track  con- 
nected with  the  track  of  several  railroads. 
The  stockyards  company  was  engaged  in 
the  carrying  of  freight  in  car  load  lots. 
Cars  billed  to  the  stockyards  or  the  in- 
dustries adjacent  thereto  were  placed  on 
the  transfer  track  by  the  railroad  over 
whose  line  shipped,  and  from  there  hauled 
by  the  stockyards  company,  with  its  own 
engines,  to  the  pens  or  sheds  in  the 
yards,  or  to  the  industries  which  were 
to  receive  the  freight.  Outgoing  cars 
were  hauled  by  the  stockyards  company 
to  the  transfer  track,  where  they  were 
received  by  a  railroad.  The  railroads  for 
such    service     were    charged    $1    per     car. 


The  stockyards  company  did  not  deal 
with  the  general  public,  but  only  with 
the  railroads  and  the  industries  located 
adjacent  to  its  premises,  and  with  the 
consignees  and  consignors  of  live  stock 
who  received  shipments  or  loaded  ship- 
ments in  its  yards.  It  transported  freight 
over  its  own  tracks  from  one  industry  to 
another,  and  was  not  engaged  in  the  pro- 
duction of  commodities.  Its  vocation 
was  purely  one  of  service  to  others,  and, 
with  the  exception  of  feeding  live  stock 
in  transit,  the  service  rendered  was  the 
transpor'tation  of  freight.  Held,  that  the 
stockyards  company  was  a  common  car- 
rier within  the  constitutional  amendment 
adopted  at  the  general  election  in  1906, 
creating  a  state  railway  commission,  and 
Laws  1907,  p.  320,  c.  90,  §  4,  defining  a 
common  carrier  to  be  any  corporation, 
etc.,  owning,  operating,  etc.,  any  railroad, 
etc.  Winnett  z'.  Union  Stock  Yards  Co.. 
81    Neb.    67,    115    N.    W.    627. 

30.  Lumber  company  building  a  spur 
line. — Taenzer  &  Co.  z\  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,    95   C.    C.   A.   436,    170    Fed.   240. 

31.  Mine  owner  constructing  a  railroad 
switch. — Straight  Creek  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Straight  Creek  Coal  Min.  Co.,  135  Ky. 
536,  122  S.  W.  842,  construing  Const,  of 
Ky.,  §  210,  and  Ky.  St.  1909,  §  815  (Rus- 
sell's   St.    §    5352). 

32.  Street  railways  are  common  car- 
riers of  passengers. — Schlocmcr  v.  St. 
Louis  Transit  Co.,  204  Mo.  99,  102  S.  W. 


WHO   ARK   CARRIERS. 


!§  7-8 


§  7.  Express  Companies. — Ivxprcss  conii)anies,  engaged  in  carrying  tor 
hire  nujnc\ ,  g<jo<ls,  an>l  parcels,  from  one  locality  to  another,  although  not 
using  their  own  vehicles  for  the  purpose  of  transportation,  are  common  car- 
riers.^-' and,  as  such,  subject  to  all  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  common 
carriers  at  common  law.-'"* 

An  expressman  carrying  the  baggage  of  a  railway  passenger  from  the  de- 
pot to  hoU'ls  and  private  houses  is  a  common  carrier,  and  is  liable  for  the  loss 
of  baggage   while   in   his  care   and  custody.-*'' 

§   8.  Transportation     and    Forwarding     Companies.— A    transportation 

company,  not  ouniiii;  or  contmlling  any  niean>  of  ctjnveyance  itself,  out  cii 
gaging  on  its  own  behalf  in  the  business  of  transporting  goods  through  the 
agency  and  over  the  lines  of  other  carriers  of  its  own  selection  and  employ- 
ment, is  a  common  carrier,  and  subject  to  all  the  responsibilities  attaching  to 
that  character."""'  Forwarding  companies  which  undertake  for  hire  to  transport 
bairrasje   from   its  starting  ijoint  to  its  final  destination,   such  transaction  being 

oo     o  oi  ^  ••1*1 

within  the  ordinary  course  of  their  busmess,  are  common  carriers  within  the 
meaning  of  the  law.-'"  Even  if  the  expressed  purpose  of  a  forwarding  com- 
pany's "business  were  material,  its  designation  that  it  was  a  "forwarder"  and 
"distributor"  would  be  sutificient  to  estop  it  from  claiming  that  it  was  a  mere 
forwarder  and  not  a  common  carrier.^'''  A  "forwarding  merchant"  or  "for- 
warder" is  one  who  ships  or  sends  forward  goods  for  others  to  their  destina- 


565;  San  Antonio  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Muth,  7 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  443,  27  S.  W.  752,  af- 
firmed in  9:5  Tex.  719,  no  op.;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Miller,  79  Tex.  78,  82,  15  S.  W. 
204.   11   L.   R.  A.  395.  23  Am.   St.   Rep.  308. 

33.  Express  companies  are  common 
carriers. — Sec  post,  "Transportation  and 
Forwarding  Companies,"   §  8. 

United  States. — Bank  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,   93   U.   S.    174,   23    L.    Ed.   872. 

Georgia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  State, 
107  Ga.  670,  33  S.  E.  637,  46  L.  R.  A. 
417,  73  Aoi.  St.  Rep.  146;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  z'.  Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am.  Dec. 
783. 

Tennessee. — Baker  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  78  Tenn.  (10  Lea)  304;  Railway  Co. 
i:  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  319,  333,  14  S.  W.  311; 
Express  Co.  v.  Jackson,  92  Tenn.  32(),  21 
S.  W.  666. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
49   Tex.   748,    30   Am.    Rep.    116. 

I'irginia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Veigh,   61    Va.    (20    Gratt.)    264. 

The  express  business  is  a  branch  of 
the  carrying  trade.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  f. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   10  Fed.  869. 

An  express  company,  that  receives  and 
agrees  to  transport  goods  from  one  des- 
ignated place  to  anotlier  designated 
place,  for  a  compensation,  in  tiie  ordi- 
nary means  of  conveyance,  is  a  common 
carrier,  although  not  the  owner,  and  hav- 
ing no  interest  in  the  conveyance  by 
which  tiie  goods  are  transported.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Backman,  28  O.  St. 
144,  affirming  2  Cin.  R.  251.  13  O.  Dec. 
885,  followed  in  14  O.  C.  D.  435,  approved 
in  Toledo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bowler,  etc., 
Co.,    63    O.    St.    274,    58    N.    E.    813. 

Under  the  South  Dakota  statute  Rev. 
Civ.    Code    1903,    §     1577,    providing    that 


every  one  who  offers  to  carry  persons, 
propert}',  or  messages  is  a  common  car- 
rier of  whatever  he  thus  offers  to  carry, 
an  express  company  offering  to  carry 
money  for  hire  is  a  common  carrier 
thereof.      Piatt   v.    LeCocq.    150    Fed.    391. 

34.  Railway  Co.  v.  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  319, 
333.  14  S.  W.  311;  Merchants',  etc., 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392,  6  S. 
W.  881.  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  847;  Baker  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Tenn.  (10  Lea) 
304;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 
53  Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  271;  East  Tennessee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hale,  85  Tenn.  69,  1  S. 
W.  620;  Express  Co.  v.  Jackson,  92  Tenn. 
326,    21    S.    W.    666. 

An  express  company  is  a  common  car- 
rier and  as  such  is  bound  to  receive  and 
transport  articles  and  property  offered 
to  it  for  shipment  under  reasonable  rules 
and  regulations.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
State,  107  Ga.  670,  33  S.  E.  637,  46  L.  R. 
A.  417.  73  Am.  St.  Rep.  146;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am. 
Dec.    7S3. 

35.  Expressman  carrying  baggage  a 
common  carrier.  —  Baker  z\  ^hlhc^ 
(.Mich.),    Ilowcll.    X.    1'.   ;!9. 

36.  A  transportation  company  a  com- 
mon carrier. — See  ante.  "Express  Compa- 
nies."  §   7. 

Deming  t.  Merchants'  Cotton-Press, 
etc..  Co.,^  90  Tenn.  306,  17  S.  W.  89,  13 
L.  R.  A.  518;  Merchants.'  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.  z:  Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392,  6  S.  \V.  881, 
6   Am.   St.    Rep.   817. 

37.  Forwarding  companies  are  com- 
mon carriers.  Bare  f.  American  For- 
warding Co.,  146  111.  App.  388.  judgment 
atfirme'd   in  242   111.  298.  89   N.   E.   1021. 

38.  Lee  v.  Fidelity  Storage,  etc..  Co., 
51    Wash.   208,  98   Pac.   658. 


§§  8-11 


CARRIERS. 


8 


tion  bv  the  instrumentality  of  third  persons  without  himself  incurring  the  lia- 
bility of  a  carrier  to  deliver  them,  and  neither  includes  a  consignor  shipping 
goods   nor   a   carrier   engaged   in    transporting   them.-'-* 

§   9.  Proprietors   of  Stage   Coaches. — Proprietors    of    stage    coaches    are 

common   carriers.-*" 

§  10.  Proprietors  of  Omnibuses  and  Baggage  Wagons. — The  propri- 
etor of  a  line  of  omnibuses  and  baggage  wagons,  engaged  in  the  business  of 
carrying  for  hire  passengers  and  baggage,  or  either  alone,  between  the  hotels 
and  depots  of  a  city,  is  a  common  carrier.-*^ 

§  11.  Draymen  and  Truckmen. — Persons  who  are  engaged  in  the  busi- 
ness of  transporting  goods  from  place  to  place  in  a  city,  in  drays  or  transfer 
wagons,  may  be  common  carriers.^-  Persons  engaged  in  the  business  of  gen- 
eral truckmen,  making  a  specialty  of  moving  heavy  machinery,  who  keep  a 
large  number  of  trucks  and  horses,  and  employ  the  necessary  help,  are  com- 
mon carriers. ■^^  A  wagoner  who  carries  goods  for  hire,  is  responsible  as  a  com- 
mon carrier,  though  transportation  is  only  an  occasional  and  incidental  employ- 
ment.^'*     A   regular   tariff  of   charges   is   not   essential   to  create   a   truckman   a 


39.  A  "forwarding  merchant"  or  "for- 
warder."— In  re  Emerson,  etc.,  Co.,  117 
C.  C.  A.  635,  199  Fed.  95;  S.  C,  117  C. 
C.    A.    639,    199    Fed.    99. 

40.  Proprietors  of  stage  coaches  are 
common  carriers. — Jones  v.  \'oorhees,  10 
O.   145. 

41.  Proprietors  of  omnibuses  and  bag- 
gage wagons. — Parmelee  v.  Lowitz,  74 
111.    ^1C>.   24   Am.    Rep.   276. 

When  a  traveler  delivers  a  trunk  to  a 
city  baggage  expressman,  to  be  trans- 
ported from  depot  to  hotel  for  hire,  and 
without  taking  passage  himself,  the  car- 
rier is  answerable  as  a  carrier  of  mer- 
chandise. Parmelee  v.  Lowitz,  74  111.  116, 
24  Am.  Rep.  276. 

42.  Draymen  may  be  common  carriers. 
— Arkadelphia  Milling  Co.  v.  vSmoker 
Merchandise  Co..  100  Ark.  37,  139  S.  W. 
680.  See,  also,  Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga. 
349,  46  Am.  Dec.  393:  Lawson  v.  Con- 
nolly  (Mich.),  141   N.  W.  623. 

Carrying  goods  by  means  of  ox  team 
and  slide. — One  carr3'ing  goods,  for  hire, 
from  place  to  place  about  town,  as  a  com- 
mon employment,  by  means  of  an  ox 
team  and  slide,  is  a  common  carrier. 
Robertson  v.  Kennedy,  32  Ky.  (2  Dana) 
430.  26  .-Xm.  Dec.  466. 

One  who,  under  a  license  so  to  do, 
hauls  goods  within  the  limits  of  a  city 
for  any  person  desiring  his  services,  is  a 
common  carrier;  and,  while  he  can  not  be 
compelled  to  go  beyond  his  territorial 
limits,  yet,  if  he  undertakes  to  do  so,  he 
is  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  the 
whole  distance.  Farley  v.  Lavary,  107 
Ky.  523,  21  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1252,  54  vS.  W. 
840.   47    L.    R.   A.   383. 

A  person  engaged  in  the  business  of 
carrying  freight  by  wagons  from  depots 
to  other  places,  and  of  delivering  pack- 
ages for  all  persons  who  choose  to  em- 
ploy him,  is  a   common  carrier.     Caye  v. 


Pool,  108  Ky.  124,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1600, 
55  S.  W.  887,  49  L.  R.  A.  251,  94  Am. 
St.    Rep.    348. 

A  drayman  who  is  directed  by  a  ship- 
per to  take  her  goods  to  the  depot  and 
ship  them  is  a  common  carrier  (citing 
Words  and  Phrases,  vol.  2,  p.  1317). 
Benson  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Utah 
241,   99    Pac.    1072. 

Drayage  company  transferring  goods 
between  railroads. — A  drayage  and  trans- 
fer company  which  carried  goods  be- 
tween St.  Louis  and  East  St.  Louis,  trans- 
ferring them  between  railroads  which  had 
no  other  connection,  receiving  compen- 
sation out  of  the  freight  collected  by  the 
final  carrier,  was  a  common  carrier  of 
goods,  and  liable  as  such.  Model  Cloth- 
ing Co.  V.  Columbia  Transfer  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),    139    S.    W.    242. 

43.  General  truckmen  are  common  car- 
riers.— Judgment,  36  N.  Y.  S.  808,  15 
Misc.  Rep.  93,  affirmed.  Jackson  Archi- 
tectural Iron  Works  z>.  Hurlbut,  158  N. 
Y.  34,   52   N.   E.  665,  70  Am.   St.   Rep.   432. 

44.  Wagoner  a  common  carrier  though 
transportation  is  only  an  occasional  em- 
ployment.— Gordon  v.  Hutchinson  (Pa.), 
Watts  &  S.  285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464.  See, 
also,  Moss  V.  Bettis,  57  Tenn.  (4  Heisk.) 
661,   13  Am.   Rep.   1. 

Where  a  planter,  employing  his  wag- 
ons in  hauling  his  cotton  crop  to  mar- 
ket, and  habitually  lading  them  on  their 
return  trips  with  goods  to  be  transported 
for  hire,  receives  such  goods,  and  exe- 
cutes his  receipt  therefor,  undertaking  to 
deliver  them  to  the  consignee  in  good 
order,  and  without  delay,  at  the  custom- 
ary rate  of  charges,  he  will  be  responsible 
as  a  common  carrier.  Harrison  v.  Roy, 
39   Miss.   396. 

Defendants,  whose  usual  business  was 
farming,  but  who,  during  the  season  of 
hauling,  employed  a  team  in  transporting 


WHO   AKF.   CAKRIHRS. 


§§  11-12 


common  carrier.*^ 

§  12.  Telegraph  and  Messenger  Companies. — Telegraph  companies  re- 
semble railroad  companies  and  oilier  common  carriers,  in  that  they  are  instru- 
ments of  commerce,  and  in  that  they  exercise  a  pubHc  employment,  and  are 
therefore  bound  to  serve  all  customers  alike,  without  discrimination.  They  have, 
doubtless,  a  duty  to  the  public  to  receive,  to  the  extent  of  their  capacity,  all 
messages  clearly  and  intelligibly  written,  and  to  transmit  them  upon  reasonable 
terms.  But  they  are  not  common  carriers.  Their  duties  are  different,  and  are  per- 
formed in  different  ways;  and  they  are  not  subject  to  the  same  liabilities.'*'^  In 
Massachusetts  it  has  been  held  that  a  telegrapii  company,  furnishing  messengers  for 
the  delivery  of  packages,  does  not  assume  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier,  but 
only  agrees  that  the  messenger  furnished  shall  be  a  suitable  person  for  the  work.'*'' 
But  in  the  District  of  Columbia  it  has  been  held  that  companies  engaged  in  sup- 
plying messenger  service  to  the  public  are  to  a  certain  extent  common  carriers, 


goods  for  hire  between  two  places,  were 
common  carriers.  Chevallier  v.  Straham, 
2  Tex.  115,  47  .Am.   Dec.  Ci.'iO. 

45.  Regular  tariff  of  charges  not  es- 
sential to  create  truckman  a  common 
carrier. — Jiidf?mcnt,  'M'>  X.  Y.  S.  n(is,  15 
Misc.  Rep.  93,  affirmed.  Jackson  Archi- 
tectural Iron  Works  v.  Hurlbut,  158  N. 
Y.   34,   52   N.   K.   G()5,  70  Am.   vSt.   Rep.   432. 

46.  Status  of  telegraph  companies. — 
Primrose  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  154 
U.  S.  1,  38  L.  Ed.  883,  14  S.  Ct.  1098;  Ex- 
press Co.  z\  Caldwell.  21  Wall.  264,  22 
L.  Ed.  556;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Texas,  105  U.  S.  460,  26  L.  Ed.  1067; 
Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  175  U.  S.  91,  44  L.  Ed.  84,  20  S. 
Ct.    33. 

Telegraph  companies  are  not  public 
carriers  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term, 
yet  on  account  of  the  public  nature  of 
their  employment,  they  have  in  many 
cases  been  held  to  a  very  similar  re- 
sponsibility. Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Reynolds  Bros.,  77  \'a.  173,  46  Am.  Rep. 
715'. 

Although  a  telegraph  company  is  not 
a  common  carrier,  yet  its  relation  with 
senders  of  messages  over  its  lines  is  of 
a  commercial  nature,  and  contracts  that 
the  company  shall  not  be  liable  for  the 
negligence  of  its  servants  are  affected,  in 
some  degree,  by  similar  considerations. 
Hartford  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  175  U.  S.  91,  44  L.  Ed.  84,  20  S. 
Ct.  33;  Express  Co.  r.  Caldwell.  21  Wall. 
264,  22  L.  Ed.  556;  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co.  V.  Texas,  105  U.  S.  460,  26  L.  Ed. 
1067;  Primrose  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 
Co..  154  U.  S.  1,  38  L.  Ed.  883,  14  S.  Ct. 
1098. 

Telegraph  companies,  though  not  com- 
mon carriers,  are  engaged  in  a  business 
that  is  in  its  nature  almost,  if  not  quite, 
as  important  to  the  public  as  is  that  of 
carriers.  Like  common  carriers  they  can 
not  contract  witli  tlieir  employers  for  ex- 
emption from  lialiility  for  the  conse- 
quences of  their  own  negligence.  But 
they  may.  by  such  contracts,  or  by  their 
rules     and     regulations     l)rought     to     the 


knowledge  of  their  employers,  limit  the 
measure  of  their  responsibility  to  a  rea- 
sonable extent.  Whether  their  rules  are 
reasonable  or  unreasonable  must  be  de- 
termined with  reference  to  public  policy, 
precisely  as  in  the  case  of  a  carrier.  E.x- 
press  Co.  v.  Caldwell,  21  Wall.  264.  269, 
22  L.  Ed.  556;  Primrose  v.  Western  Un- 
ion Tel.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  1,  38  L.  Ed.  883, 
14   vS.    Ct.    1098. 

Although  there  is  much  analogy  be- 
tween the  common  carrier  and  the  tele- 
graph company,  both  are  in  the  exer- 
cise of  a  quasi  public  occupation,  and 
both  have,  by  the  public,  conferred  upon 
them  valuable  franchises,  and  both  may, 
and  do.  invoke  the  high  prerogative  of 
exercising  the  state  right  of  eminent  do- 
main. Still  telegraph  companies  are  not 
common  carriers,  nor  are  they  insurers, 
either  of  the  accurate  transmission  or  the 
sure  and  prompt  delivery  of  messages. 
They  are  liable,  however,  for  losses  con- 
sequent upon  their  negligence.  Marr  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  85  Tenn.  529, 
536,  3  S.  W.  496;  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Mun- 
ford,  87  Tenn.  190,  10  S.  W.  318.  See, 
also.  Telegraph  Co.  v.  Griswold,  37  O. 
St.    301,    41    Am.    Rep.    ."00. 

47.  Telegraph  companies  furnishing 
messengers. — Murray  i\  Poslal  Tel.,  etc., 
Co..  210  Mass.  188,  9'6  X.  E.  316. 

The  knowledge  of  a  messenger  com- 
pany that  messengers  sent  out  by  it  were 
sometimes  employed  to  carry  money  does 
not  render  the  company  a  common  car- 
rier, where  the  company  exercises  no  con- 
trol over  the  messenger  during  his  em- 
ployment by  a  patron.  Haskell  v.  Bos- 
ton Dist.  Messenger  Co.,  190  Mass.  189, 
76  N.  E.  215,  2  L.  R.  .-X..  -X.  S.,  1091,  112 
Am.   St.   Rep.   324. 

Where  a  bill  for  rent  was  intrusted  to 
a  messenger  furnished  by  a  messenger 
company,  and  the  amount  collected  by 
the  messenger,  the  company  did  not  be- 
come a  common  carrier  and  insurer  of 
the  bill  and  the  money.  Haskell  v.  Bos- 
ton Dist.  Messenger  Co.,  100  Mass.  189, 
76  N.  E.  215,  2  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  1091.  112 
Am.   St.   Rep.   324. 


§§  12-16 


CARRIERS. 


10 


must  serve  impartially  all  who  require  their  services,  are  liable  on  proof  of  neg- 
lio-ence ;  and  under  some  circumstances,  and  always  by  special  contract,  they 
mav  make  themselves  insurers."** 

§  13.  Transfer  and  Storage  Companies. — A  transfer  and  storage  com- 
pany engaged  in  a  business  of  warehousing  goods  and  forwarding  them  for  a 
com'pensatron  in  car  load  lots  is  a  common  carrier,  so  as  to  make  it  liable  as  such 
for  the  destruction  of  the  goods  while  in  its  warehouse.-*"'  So  a  company  char- 
tered to  do  a  general  warehouse  and  storage  business,  but  engaging  as  well  in 
moving  household  goods  and  advertising  that  business  in  a  way  to  solicit  custom 
from  the  general  public,  is  a  common  carrier,  notwithstanding  it  claims  the  right 
to  select  those  whom  it  will  serve,  and  its  custom  is  to  discriminate,  accepting 
some  and  rejecting  others  as  it  may  choose.'^" 

§  14.  Livery  Stable  Keepers. — A  livery  stable  keeper,  who  lets  a  convey- 
ance for  a  special  journey,  and  furnishes  a  driver  therefor,  is  merely  a  private 
carrier  for  hire,  and  is  bound  only  to  exercise  that  degree  of  care  and  skill  in 
the  selection  of  a  vehicle,  team,  and  driver,  which  a  prudent  man  would  bestow 
in  such  a  matter,  an-d  is  not  liable  for  injuries  caused  to  a  person  in  the  vehicle, 
occasioned  by  negligent  driving.-^* 

§  15.  Mail  Contractors. — A  contractor  to  carry  the  mail  between  a  rail- 
road station  and  the  postofhce  in  a  town  is  not  a  common  carrier  and  owes  a 
railroad  mail  clerk  no  further  duty  than  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care.-''- 

§  16.  Owners  of  Ships  Carrying  Goods  for  Hire. — By  the  settled  law, 
in  the  absence  of  some  valid  agreement  to  the  contrary,  the  owner  of  a  general 
ship,  carrying  goods  for  hire,  whether  employed  in  internal,  in  coasting  or  in 
foreign  commerce,   is  a   common  carrier. ^^     But  it  is  the  business  of  carrying 


48.  White  v.  Postal  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  25 
App.  D.   C.  364. 

49.  Transfer  and  storage  companies. — 
Ketteiihofen  v.  Globe  Transfer,  etc.,  Co. 
(Wash.),    127   Pac.   295. 

50.  Lloyd  V.  Haugh,  etc.,  Transfer  Co., 
223   Pa.    148,  72  Atl.   516. 

51.  Livery  stable  keeper  merely  a  pri- 
vate carrier. — McGregor  v.  Gill,  114  Tenn. 
521,   so    S.   W.   318,    108   Am.    St.    Rep.    919. 

52.  Mail  contractors. — Davis  v.  Cris- 
ham,  213   Mass.  151,  99   N.   E.  959. 

53.  Owners  of  ships  carrying  goods 
for  hire. — i'liitcd  States. — Liverpool,  etc.. 
Steam  Co.  v.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397, 
437,  32  L.  Ed.  788,  9  S.  Ct.  469;  Propeller 
Niagara    v.    Cordes    (U.    S.),    21    How.    7, 

16  L.  Ed.  41;  The  Lady  Pike  (U.  S.),  21 
Wall.  1,  22  L.  Ed.  499;  The  J.  P.  Donald- 
son,   167    U.    S.    599,    603,    42    L.    Ed.    292, 

17  S.  Ct.  951;  Central  Transp.  Co.  t'. 
Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.,  139  U.  S.  24, 
51,  35   L.   Ed.   55,   11  S.   Ct.  478. 

Connecticut. — Crosby  v.  Fitch,  12  Conn. 
410,   31  Am.   Dec.   745. 

Georgia. — Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349, 
46  Am.  Dec.  393. 

Massachusetts.  —  Hastings  v.  Pepper 
(Mass.),  11  Pick.  41;  Gage  v.  Tirrcll 
(Mass.),  9  Allen   299. 

North  Carolina. — Williams  v.  Branson, 
4  N.  C.  17,  5  N.  C.  417,  1  Car.  Law  Rep. 
224,  4  Am.   Dec.  562. 

Owners  of  steamboats  carrying  freight 
and  parcels  for  hire  are  common  carriers. 


and  subject  to  their  liabilities.  Crosby  v. 
Fitch,  ^12  Conn.  410,  31  Am.  Dec.  745; 
Hale  V.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  15 
Conn.  539,  39  Am.  Dec.  398;  Brown,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Clayton,  12  Ga.  564;  The  Emily,  5 
Kan.  645;  Allen  r.  Sewall  (N.  Y.),  2 
Wend.  327;  Bank  v.  Brown  (N.  Y.),  3 
Wend.  158;  Swindler  r.  Hilliard  ( S.  C), 
2   Rich.   Law  286,  45  Am.  Dec.  732. 

A  steamboat  company,  holding  itself 
out  to  the  public  as  a  carrier  of  passen- 
gers and  freight,  is  a  "common  carrier." 
Reasor  v.  Paducah,  etc..  Ferry  Co.,  152 
Ky.  220,  153  S.  W.  222.  Steamboats  on 
inland  rivers  are  common  carriers. 
Faulkner  v.  Wright  (S.  C),  1  Rice  107. 

But  a  steamboat  is  not  liable  as  a  com- 
mon carrier,  unless  the  carriage  of  the 
goods  was  undertaken  for  hire.  Chou- 
teau V.  St.  Anthony,   16  Mo.  216. 

Goods  were  shipped  by  the  owner  upon 
a  steamer  belonging  to  defendant,  along 
with  a  large  amount  of  merchandise  be- 
longing to  other  parties.  The  steamer 
performed  regular  service  in  the  trans- 
portation of  merchandise  for  hire  be- 
tween the  ports  of  Liverpool  and  New 
York.  Held,  that  defendant  was  liable  as 
a  common  carrier.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steam 
Co.  V.  Phenix  Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397,  32 
L.  Ed.  788,  9  S.  Ct.  469;  Liverpool,  etc.. 
Steam  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  129  U.  S. 
464,   32    L.    Ed.   800,  9   S.    Ct.   480. 

The  owner  of  a  canal  boat  employed 
in    transporting    property    for    hire    is    a 


11 


WHO   AKK   CAKKIKKS. 


§§  16-17 


goods  for  others,  not  a  single  act.  known  to  the  consignor  to  be  outside  the 
usual  employment,  which  fixes  the  liability  of  a  common  carrier.-'^-*  Therefore, 
where  the  owner  of  a  vessel  keeps  it  for  his  own  use,  the  mere  fact  that  he 
hires  it  to  another  bv  a  special  agreement  will  not  make  him  liable  as  a  common 
carrier;'"'-  and  where  ihc  master  of  a  vessel,  engaged  chiefly  in  carrying  naval 
stores  takes  in  charge  a  box  of  jewelry,  without  including  it  in  a  bill  of  lading, 
and  without  anv  contract  as  to  tlie  price  for  carrying  it,  he  is  only  liable  as  an 
ordinary  bailee,' and  not  as  common  carrier.-^'"  A  boat  used  by  its  owners  for 
their  own  purposes,  and  those  of  others  who  agree  to  pay  certain  rates  for  the 
transportation  of  ibcir  goods  from  one  point  to  another,  and  which  is  not  shown 
to  have  been  held  out  as  a  common  carrier,  cannot  be  declared  to  be  such,  at 
the  instance  of  one  of  the  agreeing  parties.'''  He  who  receives  and  forwards 
goods,  assuming  the  expense  of  transportation,  for  which  he  is  compensated  by 
the  owner,  but  having  no  concern  in  the  vessel  by  which  the  goods  are  sent,  nor 
any  interest  in  the  freight,  is  not  a  common  carrier.''"'  To  make  the  owner  of 
a  vessel  liable  as  a  common  carrier,  it  is  not  necessary  that  his  trips  should  be 
regular  between  the  same  points,  it  being  suf^cient  if  he  is  engaged  in  carrying 
for  others  generally  to  and  from  any  point.'"" 

§   17.  Ferrymen. — A    ferryman,   occupying  a    position    in   a   line   of   public 
travel,  and  holding  himself  out  for  general"  emi)loyment,  is  a  common  carrier."" 


common  carrier.  Arnold  7'.  Halcnl^ake 
(N.   Y.),   5   Wend.   33. 

Freighters  of  cotton  and  tobacco  on 
flat  boats  are  common  carriers.  Jones  f. 
Walker,    13   Tenn.    (.5    Verg.)    427. 

Conveying  goods  from  one  place  on 
a  river  to  another. — One  who  undertakes, 
for  a  rewaril,  to  convey  proGuce,  or  goods 
of  any  sort,  from  any  place  upon  a  river 
to  another,  becomes  thereby  liable  as  a 
common  carrier.  Craig  v.  Childress.  7 
Tenn.  (Peck)  270.  14  Am.  Dec.  751;  John- 
son V.  Friar.  12  Tenn.  (4  Yerg.)  4S,  26 
Am.  Dec.  215;  Gordon  i\  Buchanan.  13 
Tenn.  (5  Yerg.)  71,  72;  Turney  v.  Wilson, 
15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  304,  27  Am.  Dec.  515; 
Moss  V.  Bettis.  51  Tenn.  (4  Heisk.)  661, 
13   Am.    Rep.    1. 

Where  the  owners  of  a  steamboat  took 
produce  to  be  carried  and  sold  by  them 
for  a  certain  freight,  and  were  Ijringiiig 
back  on  the  same  vessel  the  money  which 
they  obtained  on  the  sale,  when  the  ves- 
sel and  money  were  accidentally  con- 
sumed by  fire,  under  the  Ui'age  of  trade 
they  were  acting  as  common  carriers  in 
going,  as  factors  in  selling  the  produce, 
and  as  common  carriers  in  bringing  back 
the  money,  and  are  liable  for  its  loss, 
notwithstanding  the  accident.  Harring- 
ton z:  McShane  (Pa.),  2  Watts  443,  27 
Am.    Dec.   321. 

54.  What  fixes  liability  of  a  common 
carrier. -iMsh  z:  Clark.  4'.i  X.  V.  122,  af- 
firming; 2   I.ans.   1T<'). 

55.  One  hiring  vessel  by  special  agree- 
ment not  a  common  carrier. —  I'ennewill 
r.    Cullen    (Del).    5    Har.    2:!s. 

The  owner  of  a  canal  l)oat.  used  gen- 
erally for  transporting  his  own  merchan- 
dise, who  enters  into  a  contract  with 
common  carriers  to  transport  a  boat 
load    of    freight    for    an    agreed    price,    is 


not   a  common  carrier.     Fish  v.   Clark,  49 
N.    Y.    122.    affirm.ing   2    Lans.    176. 

56.  Carrying  box  of  jewelry  without 
contract  as  to  price  of  carriage. —  i'ender 
V.    Robbins,    :>\    X.    C.    207. 

57.  Agreement  not  making  owners  of 
boat  common  carriers. — I'lauu  z\  Lashley, 
36   La.   .\nn.   106. 

58.  Receiver  and  forwarder  of  goods 
who  has  no  concern  in  vessel. — Rolierts 
c'.  Turner  (  .\.  \.).  12  Johns.  232,  7  Am. 
Dec.  311. 

59.  Owner  of  vessel  carrying  to  and 
from  any  point,  a  common  carrier. — Pen- 
newill    7:    Cullen     (Del.),    :.    Har.    238. 

60.  Ferrymen    are    common   carriers. — 


.-IrkiVisas. — Harvey 
Am.    Rep.    595. 

California. — May  t 
63   Am.    Dec.   135. 

Iowa. — Whitmore 
4  Greene  14S. 

Kentucky.— HM    &    Co.    z:    Renfro,    60 
K}-.    (3   Mete.)    51. 

Ohio. — Wilson    z 


H>    Ark.    3, 
Hanson,  5   Cal.   360, 
•.    Bowman     (Iowa), 


Hamilton.    4     O.    St. 


Pi-nnsyh-ania. — Smith  v.  Seward,  3  Pa. 
342. 

Tennessee. — Sanders  v.  Young,  38  Tenn. 
(1    Head)   219,   73   Am     Dec.   17.s. 

7V.ra,j.— Albright  v.  Penn.  14  Tex.  290. 

A  public  ferryman  who  has  given  bond 
as  required  l)y  law.  is  a  common  carrier. 
Babcock  z:  Herbert.  3  Ala.  392,  37  Am. 
Dec.  695. 

A  ferry  company  is  a  common  carrier. 
Le  Barron  v.  I^a'st  Boston  Ferry  Co. 
(Mass.).    H    Allen   312.   87   Am.    Dec.   717. 

But  in  Michigan  it  has  been  held  that 
a  corporation  incorporated  under  Conip. 
Laws.  §§  6646-6659.  to  own  and  operate 
ferries  on  a  river,  which  owns  and  oper- 
ates   an    amusement    park    and    steamers 


§  18 


CARRIERS. 


12 


§   18.  Boats  Engaged  in  Towing. — A  steam  tug  which  engages  to  tow  a 
vessel  into  a  port,  is  not  a  common  carrier  nor  an  insurer. '^'^ 


for  the  transportation  of  persons  to  and 
from  the  park,  is  not  a  common  carrier 
while  engaged  in  transporting  such  per- 
sons, and  may  refuse  transportation  to 
any  one  at  its  pleasure.  Meisner  v.  De- 
troit, etc..  Ferrv  Co.,  154  Mich.  545,  118 
N.    W.    14. 

61.  Boats  engaged  in  towing. — The 
Margaret,  94  U.  S.  494,  24  L.  Ed.  146; 
The  J.  P.  Donaldson,  167  U.  S.  599,  603, 
42  L.  Ed.  292,  17  S.  Ct.  951.  Compare 
White  V.  The  Mary  Ann,  6  Cal.  462,  65 
Am.  Dec.  523. 

"An  engagement  to  tow  does  not  im- 
pose either  an  obligation  to  insure,  or  the 
liabilit}^  of  common  carriers.  The  burden 
is  always  upon  him  who  alleges  _  the 
breach  of  such  a  contract  to  show  either 
that  there  has  been  no  attempt  at  per- 
formance, or  that  there  has  been  negli- 
gence or  unskillfulness  to  his  injury  in 
the  performance.  Unlike  the  case  of  com- 
mon carriers,  damage  sustained  by  the 
tow  does  not  ordinarily  raise  a  presump- 
tion that  the  tug  has  been  in  fault.     The 


contract  requires  no  more  than  that  he 
who  undertakes  to  tow  shall  carry  out 
his  undertaking  with  that  degree  of  cau- 
tion and  skill  which  prudent  navigators 
usually'  employ  in  similar  services."  The 
J.  P.  Donaldson,  167  U.  S.  599,  603,  42  L. 
Ed.  292;  The  Steamer  Webb  (U.  S.),  14 
Wall.  406,  20  L.  Ed.  774;  The  Propeller 
Burlington,  137  U.  S.  386,  34  L.  Ed.  731,  11 
S.  Ct.  138;  The  L.  P.  Dayton,  120  U.  S. 
337,  30  L.   Ed.  669,  7  S.   Ct.  568. 

Plaintiffs  were  engaged  in  the  business 
of  towing  boats  on  the  Ohio  river  and  its 
tributaries,  but  were  not  shown  to  have 
held  themselves  out  to  the  public  as  ready 
to  tow  craft  for  all  who  might  seek  their 
services.  They  were  not  shown  to  have 
operated  on  a  definite  route  or  between 
established  termini,  and  there  was  no 
evidence  that  the  public  looked  to  them 
as  bound  to  carry  without  a  special  agree- 
ment, or  that  they  ever  intended  to  un- 
dertake to  do  so.  Held,  that  they  were 
not  common  carriers.  Varble  r.  Bigley 
(Ky.),  14  Bush  698,  29  Am.   Rep.  435. 


cnAi'Ti':R  II. 

Control  and  Rkgllation. 

I.  Power  to  Control  and   Regulate   in   General,   §§  l'J-2-i. 

A.  Carriers  in  General,  §  19. 

B.  Railroad   Companies,  §  20. 

C.  Express  Companies,  §  21. 

D.  Delegation  of  Power,  §§  22-24. 
a.  In    General,    §§  22. 

1).  To  Municipal  Corporations,  §  23. 
c.  To    Commissions,    §  24. 

II.  Companies,    Persons,    or    Instrumentalities    Afifectcd    by    Regulations,    §§  25-28. 

A.  In  General,  §  25. 

B.  Railroad   Companies,   §  26. 

C.  Street  Railroad  Companies,  §  27. 

D.  Express   Companies,  §  28. 

III.   Licenses    and    Taxes,    §  29. 
IV.  Reports  and  Statements,  §  30. 

V.  Conduct    of    Business    in    General,    §§  31-34. 

A.  Common  Carriers  in   General,  §  31. 

B.  Railroad  Companies,  §  32. 

C.  Business    of   Transmitting    Money    to    Foreign    Countries,    §  33. 

D.  Hackmcn  and   Draymen,  §  34. 

VI.  Charges,   §§  35-95. 

A.  In   General,  §§  35-84. 

a.  Power  to   Regulate,   §§  35-79. 
{1)   In   General,   §  35. 

(2)  Delegation   of   Power,  §§  36-37. 

(a)  To   a   Commission,   §   36. 

(b)  To  a   Municipal   Corporation,   §  37. 

(3)  Classification  of   Railroads  for   Purposes   of  Regulation,   §§   38-39. 

(a)  Right   to   Classify,   §   38. 

(b)  Mode  of  Classification,  §  39. 
{■i)    Limitation    of    Power,    §§  40-72. 

(a)  Reasonableness  of  Regulations,  §§  40-67. 
aa.  Regulations  Must  Be  Reasonable,  §  40. 
bb.  Mode    of    Determining    Reasonableness,    §§  41-67. 

(aa)   That   Carrier    Has    Performed    Services    for    Rate    Fixed    Not    Sole 

Criterion,    §  41. 
(bb)   Carrier    Entitled    to    Fair    Return    on    Investment.    §§  42-49. 
aaa.   In   General,   §  42. 

1,1,1).   Mode    of    Determining    Value    of    Property    or    Investment,    §§ 
43-49. 
(aaa)   In    General.    §  43. 

(bbb)   Fictitious    Capitalization    or    Excessive    Bonded    Debt,    §  44. 
(ccc)   Sworn   Return   of    \'aluc    of   Property    Made    for    Purposes    of 

Taxation,   §  45. 
{(Idd)   \'alue    of    Franchise,    §  46. 

(eee)   Consolidated    Corporation— Value    of    Assets    of    Constituent 
Corporations.    §  47. 


CARRIERS.  14 

{Hi)    Part    of    Railroad    within    State    to    Be    Regarded    in    Its    Rela- 
tion   to    Part    without    State.    §  48. 
(goo)   Road     Purchased     at     Foreclosure     Sale     and     Reorganized, 
§  49. 
(cc)   Carrier   Entitled  to   Earn  Interest  upon  a  Valid   Bonded   Debt,   §  50. 
(dd)   Ascertaining   Cost   of    Doing    Business   or   of   Operating    Road,   §    51. 
(ee)   Consideration    of    Net    Earnings    in    Determining    Reasonableness    of 
Rates    Prescribed,    §§    52-54. 
aaa.   Xet    Earnings    Must    Be    Sufficient    to    Paj-    Fair    Return    on    Invest- 
ment, §   52. 
bbb.   Mode   of  Computing   Xet   Earnings   and   What   They   Include,   §   5.3. 
ccc.  Earnings  of   Entire   Road  to   Be   Regarded,  §   54. 
(ff)   Interstate   Business  to   Be  Disregarded,  §  55. 
(gg)   Economic   Factors  and   Natural  Advantages  of   Localities   May   Be 

Considered,  §  56. 
(hh)   Equality   of    Rates   for    Like    Service,    §    57. 
(ii)  Adoption  of  Rates  Given  by  Carrier  to  Certain   Shippers,  §  58. 
(jj)   Accessibility  of  a  Place  to   High    Seas  as  Affecting  Rates,  §  59. 
(kk)   Betterments    and    Replacements    Should    Be    Considered,    §    60. 
(11)   Passenger    Traffic    Considered    as    Separate    and    Independent    from 
Freight  Traffic,  §   61. 
(mm)    Revenue  That  Has  Been  Derived  from  Rate  under  Consideration, 

§   62. 
(nn)    Effect   of    Several    Sovereignties    Being   Interested,   §    63. 
(oo)  Apportioning   Value    of    Property    and    Expenses,    §§    64-65. 
aaa.  Necessity   for  Apportionment,    §    64.  '  ' 

bbb.  Method  of  Apportionment,  §  65. 
(pp)   Line   of   Railroad  Operated   in   Connection  with   Other  Lines,   §   66. 
(qq)   Mode    of   Arriving   at    Effect    of   Statutes    Reducing   Rates,    §    67. 

(b)  Due    Process    of   Law,    §    68. 

(c)  Equal  Protection  of  Laws,  §  69. 

(d)  Taking    Private    Property   without   Just   Compensation,   §   70. 

(e)  Discrimination   against   Carrier   in    Favor  of   Certain    Individuals,   §   71. 
(i)   Limitations   upon    Power   of   a    Municipality    to    Reduce    Street    Railroad 

Fares,  §   72. 

(5)  Exemption    from    Regulation    by   Charter   or   Statute,    §§    73-78. 

(a)  In   General,   §  73. 

(b)  Necessity  for  Positive  and  Clear   Words  of  Exemption,  §§  74-75. 
aa.  Doctrine  Stated,  §   74. 

bb.  Doctrine  Illustrated,  §  75. 

(c)  Succession  to  Rights  of  Company   Entitled  to   Exemption,  §§  76-78. 
aa.  Purchase,   §   76. 

bb.  Lease,  §  77. 

cc.  Consolidation,    §    78. 

(6)  Loss  of   Power   by  Abandonment   or   Nonuser,   §   79. 
b.  Scope   and    Effect    of    Regulations,    §§    80-84. 

(1)  To  Whom  or  to  What  Business  or  Route  Regulations  Are  Applicable,  §  80. 

(2)  Obligations   Imposed  on   Carriers,   §   81. 

(3)  Measure   of   Compensation    Allowed,    §   82. 

(4)  Regulations  Will  Not  Be  Construed  to  Be  Retroactive,  §  83. 

(5)  W'hen  a  Statute  Will   Be  Construed  as   Impliedly  Repealing  a  Prior  Stat- 

ute,  §   84. 

B.  Posting  Schedule  at   Stations,   §  85. 

C.  Local  and  Through   Rates,  §  86. 

D.  Long  and   Short   Hauls,  §   87. 


15  CONTROL    AND    RFXULATION. 

E.  J  flint   Tariff   between   Two   or   More    Roads,  §   88. 

F.  Transfers  to  Connecting  Lines  of  Same  Company,  §  89. 

G.  Conditions  in  Grant  of  Franchise  and  Agreements  with  Municipalities,  §§  90-95. 

a.  Authority   to    Impose   Conditions  or  to   Make   Agreements,   §  90. 

b.  Change  of   Rates  of  Fare   Fixed  by   Franchise  or  Agreement,   §  91. 

c.  Eflfect   of  Acceptance   by  Carrier  of  Location   Granted  by  Municipality,  §  92. 

d.  Conditions  and  Agreements  Construed.  §  93. 

e.  Waiver  of  Right  to  Charge  More  than  Amount  Stipulated  in  Franchise,  §  94. 
f.  Acquisition  l)y   Sale  or  Consolidation  of  a  Railway  Company   Having  a  Con- 
tract with   a   Municipality.   §  95. 

VII.   Preferences  and  Discriminations.  §§  96-108. 

A.  The  Common-Law  Doctrine,  §  96. 

B.  Standard  Measure  of  Uniformity  in  Rates,  §  97. 

C.  Power   to    Prohibit    Preferences   and   Discriminations,   §   98. 

D.  Power  of  Legislature  to   Permit   Discrimination,  §  99. 

E.  Construction    of    Constitutional    and    Statutory    Enactments    and    Commission 

Orders  Forbidding  Preferences  or  Discriminations,  §  100. 

F.  Who  Are  Common  Carriers  within  the   Rule  Prohibiting  Discrimination.  §  101. 

G.  What  Constitutes  an  Unlawful  Preference  or  Discrimination.  §  102. 
H.  What    Circumstances   Will   Justify    Discrimination,   §§    lO.'i-lOB. 

a.  Business  of  Carrier  Unusually  or  Unexpectedly  Heavy,  §  103. 

b.  Difference   in   Conditions  under  Which    Shipment   Is   Made,  §  104. 

c.  Tlirough   Rates  and  Local  Rates,  §   105. 

d.  Competition  with  Other  Carriers.  §  106. 

e.  Unusual    Traffic   Conditions   Attending  upon   a   General   Coal   Strike.    §    107. 

f.  Cost  of  Mining  Coal  to  Company  in   Whose   Favor  Discrimination   Is   Made. 

§  108. 

VIU.   Places  of  Stoppage.  §  109. 

IX.  Receipt  and  Transportation  of  Freight  and  Passengers.  §  110. 

X.  Exclusive    Privileges,   §§   111-114. 

A.  To  Express  Companies,  §  111. 

B.  To    Corporations    or    Individuals    Engaged    in    Transporting    Passengers    and 

Baggage  to  and  from   Railroad   Depots.   §   112. 

C.  To  Ships  Using  a  Wharf  of  Dock  Constructed  by  a  Railroad  Company.  §  113. 

D.  To  the  Use  of  a  Switch  Track.  §  114. 

XL  Connections  with  and  Facilities  to  Other  Carriers.  §§  115-129. 

A.  In  General,  §  115. 

B.  Joint    Running    Arrangements,    §    116. 

C.  Connection   between    Roads    or   Trains.   §§    117-118. 

a.  Power  to  Require.  §  117. 

b.  Character  of   Requirements,  §   118. 

D.  Use  of  Terminals.  §   119. 

E.  Reception.    Transportation    and    Delivery    of   Cars.    Passengers   and    Freight,   §§ 

120-123. 

a.  Rule   at   Common    Law,    §   120. 

b.  Power  to  Require,  §  121. 

c.  Construction    of    Requirements.    §    122. 

d.  Excuses  for   Refusal  or   Neglect  to   Perform   Duty.  §   123. 

F.  Moving  or  Switching  Cars   fr-om  a  Connecting  Line,  §   124. 

G.  Facilities    and    Accommodations    to    Be    Furnished    by    Railroad    Companies    to 

Express  Companies,  §  125. 
H.  Discrimination   in    Favor   of   One    of   Several    Connecting  Carriers,   §§    126-128. 
a.      Duty   to    Give    Like   Through    Rates   to   All   Connecting   Carriers.   §    126. 


CARRIERS.  16 

b.  Discrimination  as  to   Interchange  of  Business,   §   127. 

c.  Discrimination   as   to   Prepayment   of  Freight  Charges.   §    128. 
I.  Transfers  between  Street  Railroad  Companies,  §  129. 

XII.  Use   of   Carrier's    Premises   and   of   S'treet   or   Premises   Adjacent   Thereto,   §§ 
130-132. 

A.  Exclusion    of    Persons    in    General,    §    130. 

B.  Regulations  for  Conduct  of  Persons,  §  131. 

C.  Rights   of  and     Restrictions    upon     Individuals     or    Corporations     Engaged    in 

Transporting   Passengers   or   Baggage,   §    132. 

XIII.  Free  Transportation   to   Police   Officers,   §   133. 
XI\'.  Combinations   of   Carriers.   §    134. 

X\'.  Proceedings  to  Enforce  or  to  Prevent  Enforcement  of  Regulations,  §§  135-173. 

A.  Right   of   State   to   Insist  on   Compliance   with    Regulations,   §   135. 

B.  Judicial   Supervision    and    Remedies   in    General,   §§    136-159. 

a.  Scope  of  Judicial  Supervision,  §§  136-137. 

(1)  In    General,   §    136. 

(2)  As    to    Rates,    §    137. 

b.  Right  to  and  Mode  of  Obtaining  Relief,  §§  138-141. 

(1)  In    General,    §    138. 

(2)  Relief   against    Unreasonable    Rates,    §§    139-141. 

(a)  Relief  to   Carrier,   §§   139-140. 

aa.  Rates   Fixed   by   Legislature,   §    139. 
bb.  Rates   Fixed  by   Commission,   §   140. 

(b)  Relief  to  Public,  §  141. 

c.  Scope   of   Inquiry,   §    142. 

d.  What  Commission  Orders  Will  Be  Enforced,  §  143. 

e.  Revival  of  Causes  of  Action,  §  144. 

f.  Procedure   and   Evidence,   §§   145-159. 

(1)  Procedure  in   General,  §   145. 

(2)  Jurisdiction,    §    146. 

(3)  Parties,   §§    147-148. 

(a)  By  Whom   Suit  May   Be   Brought.  §   147. 

(b)  Who   Are    Proper    Parties,    §    148. 

(4)  Intervention,   §   149. 

(5)  Pleading,   §§    150-152. 

(a)  Petition,  §  150. 

(b)  Demurrer,   §   151. 

(c)  When  Pleadings  Make  the  Taking  of  Testimony  Unnecessary,  §   152. 

(6)  Evidence,   §§   153-157. 

(a)  Presumptions   and    Burden   of   Proof,   §§    153-156. 
aa.  In  General,  §  153. 

bb.  As   to    Rates,   §§   154-155. 

(aa)   Rule   Stated,   §   154. 

(bb)   How   Presumption   May   Be   Overcome,   §   155. 
cc.  In   Proceedings  against  a  Carrier  for  Contempt,  §   156. 

(b)  Admissibility,  §  157. 

(7)  Judgment,   §   158. 

(8)  Procedure  upon  Review  of  Orders  or  Decisions  of  a  Commission,  §  159. 

C.  Injunction,  §§  160-173. 

a.  When   and   against  Whom   Injunction  Will   Lie,   §§   160-166. 

(1)  Injunction   against  Action   by   a   State   Commission,   §   160. 

(2)  Injunction    to    Restrain    W'rongful   and    Discriminatory   Acts   by   a   Carrier, 

§   161. 

(3)  Injunction    to    Restrain    a    Carrier   from    Charging   Unlawful    Rates,   §    162. 


17  CONTROL   AND   REGULATION. 

(4)   Injunction   to   Compel  Transportation  at   Rate   Fixed  by  Law,  §   163. 

(0)  Injunction    to    Compel    Carrier    to    Furnish    Impartial    Service,    §    164. 

(6)  Injunction    to    Compel    Carrier    to    Stand    Cars    in    Front    of    a    Shipper's 

Property,  §  165. 

(7)  Injunction    to    Restrain    Persons    from    Soliciting    Business    in    or    Near    a 

Railroad   Station,   §  166. 
b.  Procedure   and    Evidence,   §§   167-173. 

(1)  Jurisdiction,    §    167. 

(2)  Parties,   §   168. 

(3)  Pleading — Petition,    Complaint,   or    Information,    §    169. 

(4)  Evidence — Presumptions  and   Burden   of  Proof,  §  170. 

(5)  Reference    to   a    Master,    §    171. 

(6)  Laches,   §   172. 

(7)  Decree,  §  173. 

XVI.  Damages    for    Violations    of    Regulations,    §§    174-180. 

A.  Power  of  Legislature,  §  174. 

B.  When  an   Action   Will   Lie,   §§    175-177. 

a.  In   General,  §   175. 

b.  Failure  to   Stop  at  S'tation.  §   176. 

c.  Overcharge   or  Discrimination,   §   177. 

C.  Measure   of   Damages,    §    178. 

D.  Limitation   of  Actions,   §   179. 

E.  Petition  or  Complaint,  §   180. 

XVII.   Penalties  for  \iolations  of  Regulations,  §§  181-275. 

A.  In  General,   §  181. 

B.  Overcharge  and  Discrimination,  §§  182-196. 

a.  Power  to  Impose  Penalty,  §  182. 

b.  Construction    of    Statutes    Imposing    Penalties,   ^  183. 

c.  Repeal   of   Statutes    Imposing   Penalties,   §    184. 

d.  Conditions    Precedent   to   Right   of  Action    for   Penalty,   §   185. 

e.  Who   May   Recover   Penalty,   §   186. 

f.  For   What   Acts    Penalty   Is    Imposed,    §    187. 

g.  Unit  of  Measurement  in  Determining  What  Is  an  Overcharge,  §  188. 
h.  Xumber  of  Penalties  Recoverable.  §  189. 

i.  Amount   of  Penalty.   §   190. 

j.  What   Questions    May   Be    Raised   in    Action   for   Penalty,   §   191. 
k.  Defenses,  §§  192-195. 

(1)  Rates    Charged    Xo    Higher   than    Those    Fixed   by   Railroad   Commission, 

§   192. 

(2)  Mistake,  §  193. 

(3)  Facts   Xot   Constituting  a   Defense,   §   194. 

(4)  Estoppel   to    Set   Up    Defense,   §    195. 

1.  Two   Penalties — Eflfect  of  Enforcement  of  One,  §  196. 

C.  Refusal  to  Transport  Passengers,  §  197. 

D.  Refusal   to   Sell   Mileage  Tickets  at   Reduced   Rates,   §   198. 

E.  Refusal   to    Furnish    Passenger   Tickets    Granting   Stop-Over    Privileges,    §    199. 

F.  Refusal   to   Give  a  Transfer,   §  200. 

G.  Refusal   to   Sell   Passenger  Tickets   of  a   Connecting  Carrier,   §  201. 

H.  Failure   to    Affix    Check   to    Baggage   and    to    Deliver    Duplicate    to    Passenger, 

§   202. 
I.  Refusal  to   Redeem  L'nused   Passenger  Tickets,  §  203. 
J.  Failure  to  Post  Schedules  of  Rates,  §  204. 
K.   Failure   or   Refusal   to   Receive  or  Transport   Freight,  §§  205-210. 

1   Car— 2 


CARRIERS.  18 

a.  Statute  Imposing  Penalty  Does   Not  Limit  Carrier's  Common-Law   Liability. 

§  205. 

b.  \\"l;o  May  Recover  Penalty,  §  20G. 

c.  When    Penalty    Will    Be   Imposed,    §   207. 

d.  Number   of   Penalties    Recoverable,    §   208. 

e.  Tender   and    Refusal,   §   209. 

f.  Defenses,   §  210. 

L.   Refusal   to   Give   Shipper   a   Proper   Bill   of   Lading.   §   211. 
M.  Delay  in  Shipment  or  Transportation  of  Freight,  §§  212-220. 
a    Power   to   Impose   Penalt3%    §   212. 

b.  Who  May  Recover  Penalty,  §  213. 

c.  In    What    Cases    Penalty    Is    Imposed,    §    214. 

d.  Time   within   Which    Freight   Must   Be   Transported,   §   215. 

e.  \\"hen    Transportation    Terminates,    §    21G. 

f.  Defenses,  §§   217-220. 

(1)  Failure  to  Prepay  Charges,  §  217. 

(2)  Notice  to  Shippers  of  Conditions  Causing  Delay,  §  218. 

(3)  Sunday  Laws,  §  219. 

(4)  Estoppel   to   Set   Up   Defense,   §   220. 

N.  Failure  to   Give   Notice  of  Arrival  of   Freight   to   Consignee,   §  221. 

O.   Refusal   to   Deliver   Freight   or   Express    Matter   to   Consignee,   §§   222-226. 

a.  Constitutionality  of  Statute  Imposing  Penalty,  §  222. 

b.  Statute    Imposing   Penalty    Not    Merely   in   Aid   of   Common    Law,   §   223. 

c.  Where    Delivery    Must    Be    Made,    §    224. 

d.  Conditions   Precedent   to   Recovery   of   Penalty,   §   225. 

e.  Number    of    Penalties    Recoverable,    §    226. 

P.   Failure   of   Consignee   to   LTnload   Cars   within   a   Prescriljed   Time,   §   227. 

Q.  Failure  to  Stop  at  Station,  §  228. 

R.  Failure  to   Furnish   or  Delay  in   Furnishing  Cars,   §§  229-234. 

a.  Constitutionality   of   Statutes    Imposing   Penalties,   §   229. 

b.  Statutes    Imposing    Penalties    Strictly    Construed,    §    230. 

c.  Powers   and    Duties    of   Railroad   Commissions,   §   231. 

d.  Application   for   Cars,   §   232. 

e.  Places    at    Which    Cars    Must    Be    Furnished,    §    233. 

f.  Defenses,  §  234. 

S.   Failure   to   Pay   or   Adjust   Claims,   §§   235-247. 

a.  Power  to  Impose   Penalty,   §  235. 

b.  Existence  of  Statutory  Conditions  Essential  to  Imposition  of  Penalty,  §  23b, 

c.  Who   May   Recover   Penalty,   §   237. 

d.  Where  and  When  Cause  of  Action  Arises,  §  238. 

e.  Necessity  of   Filing  Claim,   and   with   Whom   It   May   Be   Filed,   §   239. 

f.  Sufficiency  of  Claim,  §  240. 

g.  Place   of   Payment  of  Claim,   §   241. 
h.  Who  Is  Liable  for  Penalty,  §  242. 

i.  Immaterial  in  What  Manner  Loss  Was  Caused,  §  243. 
j.  Amount    of    Penalty,    §    244. 
k.  What    One    Claiming    Penalty    Must    Show,    §    245. 
1.  Defenses,  §§  246-247. 

(1)  Amount   Recoverable   by   Claimant   as   Affecting   Right   to   Penalty,    §   246, 

(2)  Efifect  of  Voluntary  Payment  of  Claim  after  Time  Limited,  §  247. 
T.  Failure  to  Make  Annual  Reports,  §  248. 

U.  Procedure  and   Evidence,  §§  249-275. 

a.  Venue,  §  249. 

b.  Time   within    Which   Action    Must    Be    Brought,   §   250. 

c.  Parties — By    Whom   Action    May    Be    Brought,    §    251. 

d.  Pleading,    §§   252-263. 


19  CONTROL    AND    KIXULATION. 

(1)  Declaration,   Petition,   or   Complaint,   §§   2.J2-259. 

(a)  In   General,    §   252. 

(b)  Necessary    Allegations,    §§    25;{-258. 

aa.  In    Actions    for    Penalty    for    Overcharge,    §§    2o;i-254. 

(aa)  Overcharge  in   Passenger  Rates,  §  253, 

(hb)   Overcharge  in  Freight  Rates,  §  254. 
l,b.   In   actions   for    Penalty    for   Unjust    Discrimination   between    Shippers, 

§  255. 
cc.  In   Actions   for    Penalty   for    Refusal  to   Receive  or  Tran-port   Freight, 

§  3.")f). 
(Id.   In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight,  §  257. 
ce.   In    Actions    for    Penalty   for    Failure   to    Furnish    Double    Decked   Cars 

for    Sheep,    §    258. 

(c)  Unnecessary   Allegations    May    Be    Rejected   as    Surplusage,    §   259. 

(2)  Answer— S'ufficiency,    §§    260-263. 

(a)  In   Actions   for   Penalty   for  Overcharge,  §  260. 

(b)  In   Actions  for   Penalty  for  Unlawful   Discrimination   in   Rates,   §  261. 

(c)  In   Actions   for   Penalty   for   Delay  in   Transportation  of   Freight,  §  262. 

(d)  in    Actions    for    Penalty    for    Failure    to.  Furnish   Cars,   §   263. 

e.  Evidence,   §§   264-272. 

(1)  Presumptions  and   Burden  of   Proof,   §§  264-267. 

(a)  In   Actions   for   Penalty  for  Overcharge,   §  264. 

(b)  In    Actions    for    Penalty    for   Discrimination    in    Rates,   §    265. 

(c)  In   Actions   for   Penalty   for   Failure   to   Receive   and  Transport   Freight, 

§   266. 

(d)  In   Actions   for   Penalty  for  Delay   in  Transportation  of   Freight,   §  267. 

(2)  Admissibility,   §§   268-271. 

(a)  In    Actions    for    Penalty    for    Overcharge,   §   268. 

(b)  In    Actions    for    Penalty    for   Discrimination   in    Rates,    §   269. 

(c)  In   Actions  for   Penalty   for  Delay  in   Transportation  of  Freight.   §   270. 

(d)  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Furnish  Cars,  §  271. 

(3)  Weight   and    Sufficiency,   §   272. 

f.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact,  §§  273-274. 

(1)  In  .Actions  for  Penalty  for  Discrimination  in  Freight  Rates,  §  273. 

(2)  In  .\ctions  for   Penalty   for   Delay  in  Transportation  of   Freight.   §  274. 

g.  Instructions,  §  275. 

XVIII.  Offenses  by  Carriers  or  Their  .Agents,  §§  276-292. 

A.  In   General,   §   276. 

B.  Overcharge  or   Discrimination.   §  277. 

C.  Carrying  More  than  a  Prescribed  Number  of  Passengers,  §  278. 

D.  Failure    to    Deliver    Express    Matter    to    Consignee.    §    279. 

E.  Negligence    Causing    Death    or    Injury,    §§    280-282. 

a.  In    General,    §    280. 

b.  Who   May  Be  Prosecuted,  §  281. 

c.  Defenses,  §  282. 

F.  Indictment,   §§   283-286. 

a.  Conditions    Precedent   to   Indictment,   §   283. 

b.  Necessary    .Allegations,    §    284. 

c.  Effect   of   Unnecessary   Allegations,   §   285. 

d.  Offenses    Covered    l)y    Indictment.    §   286. 

G.  Trial,   §§  287-292. 

a.  Jurisdiction,   §   287. 

b.  Evidence,   §§  288-290. 

(1)  Presumptions  and    Burden  of  Proof,  §  288. 

(2)  Admissil)ility,   §   289. 


SS    19-20  CARRIERS.  20 

(3)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  §  290. 

c.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact,  §  291. 

d.  Charge,  §  292.  ^,    .     ^  sr 
XIX.  Offenses  by   Persons   Dealing  with   Carriers   or  Using  Their  Conveyances,   $?^ 

293-298. 

A.  In  General,  §  293. 

B.  Sale  of  Passenger  Tickets  by   Brokers,  §  294. 

C.  Acceptance  and  Use  of  a  Pass,  §  295. 

D.  Stealing  or  Attempting  to  Steal  a  Ride  on  Railroad  Trains,  §  296. 

E.  Obstructing   Train    and  Endangering    Safety    of    Passengers,    §    297. 

F.  Indictment.  Accusation,  or  Complaint,   §  298. 

§8  19-24.  Power  to  Control  and  Regulate  in  General— §  19.  Car- 
riers in  General.— The  Legislature  has  full  power  to  pass  laws  regulatmg  the 
intra'^tate  business  of  carriers ;  and,  where  not  unconstitutional,  the  laws  should 
be  en  forced.  1  Under  the  power  accorded  by  constitutional  enactment  to  regu- 
late intrastate  transportation,  the  legislature  has  authority  to  do  anything  nec- 
essary to  the  effectual  exercise  of  the  power  conferred.2  Such  enactment  should 
not  be  interpreted  so  as  to  render  impotent  or  inoperative,  but  so  as  to  pre- 
serve and  make  effective,  the  sovereign  power  of  the  state  to  regulate  common 
carriers.3  A  constitutional  provision  giving  the  legislature  full  power  to  cor- 
rect abuses  and  prevent  unjust  discrimination  by  common  carriers,  is  not  a 
grant  of  power  to  the  legislature,  nor  is  it  a  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the 
legislature,  but  an  express  recognition  by  the  constitution  of  a  power  existing 
in  the  legislative  department  of  government.-** 

§  20.  Railroad  Companies. — Railroad  companies  are  common  carriers,  re- 
ceiving from  the  state  a  delegation  of  a  portion  of  its  sovereign  powers  for  the 
public  good;  and  being  public  agents  and,  in  the  place  and  stead  of  the  govern- 
ment, exercising  public  duties,  they  are,  therefore,  .subject  to  the  legislative  and 
judicial  authoritv  to  correct  the  abuse  of  their  privileges  and  powers.^  Within 
the  limits  of  state  and  federal  constitutional  restrictions,  they  may  be  required 
by  law  to  refrain  from  so  using  their  property  as  to  injure  others,  and  by  ap- 
propriate pains  and  penalties  may  be  restrained  from  unjust  discrimination  and 
extortionate  charges,  compelled  to  observe  precautionary  measures  against  acci- 
dent, and  in  other  ways  regulated  for  the  public  welfare.'-  The  State  may,  by  stat- 
ute, require  railroads  to  perform  certain  duties  to  the  public  and  furnish  proper 
and  adequate  facilities  for  the  transportation  of  freight  and  passengers  intra- 
state.' The  police  power  is  a  fruitful  source  of  legislative  regulations  of  rail- 
roads for  tlie  public  benefit. «     A  j^olice  regulation  of  a  reasonable  and  proper 

1.  Power  of  legislature  to  regulate  in-  6.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
trastate  business  of  carriers.— King  Lum-  Comm.,  19  Fed.  679;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
ber,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Co.  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  O.  St. 
Fla  292,  50  So.  509.  See,  also,  Chicago,  604,  affirmed  in  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ledbctter  (Ark.),  153  S.  W.  v.  Troy,  68  O.  St.  510,  67  N.  E.  1051. 
801  7.     St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    State,    99 

2.  State  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fla.  Ark.  1.  136  S.  W.  938. 

617,  47  So.  969,  construing  Const,  art.  16,           8.    Prohibiting   sale    of  tickets    by  per- 

§  30.  sons    not    agents    of    carrier. — The    New 

3.  State  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fla.  York  statute,  Laws  1897,  c.  506,  §  1,  pro- 
617,  47  So.  969,  construing  Const.,  art.  16,  hibiting  the  sale  of  passenger  tickets  by 
§  30.  persons   not   agents   of  the   carrier,   is   not 

4.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  valid  as  a  police  regulation  of  carriers  as 
Co  57  Fla.  522,  49  So.  43,  construing  quasi  public  corporations.  Order  50  N. 
Const.,  art.  16,  §  30.  Y.     S.    56,    26    App.    Diy.    228     reversed. 

5     Power  to   control  and  regulate   rail-  Tyroler    z'.    Warden    of    City    Prison,    157 

road   companies.— Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.  N.  Y.  116,  51  N.  E.  1006,  43  L.  R.  A.  264, 

V.  Railroad   Comm.,  19  Fed.  679;   Scofield  68  Am.   St.  Rep.  763. 

V.  Railway  Co.,  43  O.  St.  571,  3  N.  E.  907.  Nor  is  such  act  valid  as  a  police  regu- 


21 


CONTROL   AND   REGULATION, 


§  20 


character  can  not  be  attacked  on  the  ground  that  it  imposes  unnecessary  burdens 
on  the  railroads  affected  by  it."  An  act  regulating  carriers  as  to  the  mode  of 
transportation  of  the  state  militia  is  not  an  unlawful  interference  with  the  car- 
rier's management  of  its  business. "^  In  many  of  the  states  the  power  of  the 
legislature  to  regulate  and  control  railroad  companies  is  defined  and  limited  by 
constitutional  enactment.' ^  The  fact  that  the  legislature  has  power  to  repeal 
the  charter,  and  thus  terminate  the  legal  existence  of  a  railroad  company,  does 
not  validate  an  act  wiiich  is  neither  necessary  nor  appropriate  to  carry  into  ex- 
ecution any  valid   power  of  the  state  over  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  the 


lation  of  the  manner  in  which  the  busi- 
ness of  ticket  tirokerage  may  be  con- 
ducted. Order  50  N.  Y.  S.  ofi,  2(>  App. 
Div.  228.  reversed.  Tyroler  v.  Warden  of 
City  Prison,  157  N.  Y.  IIG,  51  N.  E.  lOOG, 
43  L.  R.  A.  2f)4,  G8  Am.  St.  Rep.  TG.'L 

The  sale  of  a  valid  passenger  ticket  by 
a  broker  is  not  a  fraud,  on  either  the 
transportation  company  or  the  traveler, 
calling  for  protective  legislation  in  the 
exercise  of  the  police  power,  as  attempted 
by  Laws  1897,  c.  50G.  Order  50  N.  Y.  S. 
5G,  2G  App.  Div.  228,  reversed.  Tyroler  v. 
Warden  of  City  Prison,  157  N.  Y.  116,  51 
N.  E.  lOOG,  43  L.  R.  A.  204,  G8  Am.  St. 
Rep.  7G3. 

But  in  Tennessee,  it  has  been  held  that 
Acts  1905,  p.  H7;5,  c.  410,  prohibiting  per- 
sons other  than  the  authorized  agent  of 
common  carriers  to  sell  or  deal  in  pas- 
senger tickets  issued  and  sold  below  the 
standard  schedule  rate  under  contract 
with  the  original  purchaser,  entered  on 
the  ticket  to  the  cflfect  that  tlie  ticket  was 
nontransferable  and  should  be  void  in  the 
hands  of  a  person  other  than  the  original 
purchaser,  was  a  valid  exercise  of  the 
state's  police  power  to  prevent  fraud  and 
the  depreciation  of  public  morals.  Sam- 
uelson  V.  State,  116  Tenn.  470.  95  S.  W. 
1012,  115  Am.  St.  Rep.  805. 

Disposition  of  property  not  called  for 
by  consignee. — The  proviso  in  the  Minne- 
sota statute,  §  11,  c.  149,  Gen.  Laws  1895, 
requiring  railroads  and  transportation 
companies  to  turn  over  to  a  storage  com- 
pany or  pulilic  warehouseman  all  prop- 
erty which  the  consignee  fails  to  call  for 
or  receive  within  30  days  after  notice  of 
its  arrival,  is  unconstitutional  and  void, 
not  being  a  lawful  exercise  of  the  police 
power  of  the  state.  State  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  68  Minn.  381,  71  N.  W.  400,  38  L. 
R.  A.  672,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  482. 

9.  Reasonable  police  regulation  not  in- 
valid on  ground  that  it  imposes  unneces- 
sary burdens. — Smith  -r.  State,  100  Tenn. 
494.  4(;  S.  W.  566,  41    L.  R.  .•\.  432. 

10.  Regulation  of  mode  of  transporta- 
tion of  state  militia. — Simpson  t'.  Ciiicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  i;!7  X.  W.  2.  lis  Minn.  380, 
137  N.  W.  2.  41  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S..  524. 

11.  Constitutional  provisions  defining 
and  limiting  power  of  legislature. — In 
Iowa,  the  legislature  has  power  to  pro- 
hibit the  giving  of  free  passes  by  common 


carriers  for  tlie  general  welfare,  lience 
.'\cts  32d  Gen.  Assem.,  c.  112  (Code  Supp. 
1907,  §§  2157f-2157j),  forbidding  the  giv- 
ing of  free  passes  except  to  certain  em- 
ployees, is  constitutional.  Schulz  v. 
Parker    (Iowa),    139   X.   W.   173. 

The  Nebraska  Constitution,  art.  11,  §  4, 
providing  that  the  liability  of  railroads  as 
common  carriers  shall  not  be  limited, 
does  not  prohibit  the  legislature  from  in- 
creasing the  common-law  liability  of  com- 
mon carriers,  and  the  statute  will  not  be 
declared  void  on  complaint  of  the  carrier 
because  in  some  hypothetical  case  the  law 
might  work  to  the  disadvantage  of  a  ship- 
per. Cram  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
Xeb.  G07,   122  X.  W.  31. 

The  constitution  of  Texas,  art.  10,  §  2, 
confers  power  upon  the  legislature  to  pass 
laws  for  the  correction  of  all  abuses  of 
railroad  franchises  and  business  trans- 
acted in  pursuance  thereof,  to  regulate 
freight  and  passenger  tariffs,  and  prevent 
unjust  discrimination  and  extortion.  Rail- 
TDad  Comm.  :■.  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.,  90 
Tex.  340,  351,  38  S.  W.  750.  See  Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Harry  &  Bros.,  63  Tex.  250, 
259. 

Under  this  provision  it  rests  with  the 
legislature  to  determine  what  constitute 
abuses  and  to  fix  penalties  for  their  pun- 
ishment. Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harry 
&  Bros.,  63  Tex.  256,  259. 

The  power  to  correct  abuses  is  not  re- 
stricted to  such  as  are  connected  with 
freight  and  passenger  tariffs.  Railroad 
Comm.  V.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Tex. 
340.  38  S.  W.  750. 

The  word  "abuses"  as  used  in  this 
amendment  means  "any  improper  use  of 
a  right  or  a  privilege;  as,  abuse  of  a  fran- 
chise." The  language  "the  Legislature 
shall  pass  laws  to  correct  abuses"  is  com- 
petent to  express  a  command  to  the  leg- 
islative department  to  pass  laws  for  the 
correction  of  all  alnises  or  improper  uses 
of  the  franchises  which  had  been  granted 
or  might  be  granted  to  railroads  in  this 
state,  as  well  as  all  abuses  connected  with 
or  growing  out  of  Inisiness  transacted  in 
the  exercise  of  such  franchise.  Railroad 
Comm.  7'.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Tex. 
340,  351.  .38   S.  W.  750. 

It  was  left  to  the  legislature's  discretion 
to  decide  whether  the  abuse  to  be  cor- 
rected   should   be   declared    a    crime    and 


§§    20-24  CARRIERS.  22 

railroad  company. i-  The  internal  movement  of  freight  is  not  freed  from  state 
control  until  after  it  has  been  finally  released  by  the  consignor  to  the  carrier 
for  transportation  to  a  destination  fixed  beyond  the  state  line,  and  such  control 
is  not  lost  until  after  the  freight  has  been  billed  to  its  destination. ^^  Xhe  sur- 
render by  a  railway  company  of  its  special  charter,  to  accept  a  general  railroad 
law,  before  the  state  has  made  any  attempt  to  regulate  its  tolls,  frees  the  com- 
pany from  all  liability  to  the  state  under  a  charter  provision  that  when  declared 
dividends  shall  aggregate  a  specified  amount  the  legislature  '"may  so  regulate" 
the  tolls  that  not  more  than  a  fixed  percentage  shall  be  divided  annually  on  the 
capital  employed,  and  the  surplus  profits  shall  be  paid  over  to  the  state  treasurer, 
and  that,  "if  required,"  the  corporation  shall  furnish  the  legislature  a  statement 
of  expenditures :  and  such  liability,  therefore,  can  not  be  enforced  by  virtue  of 
subsequent  legislation,  without  impairing  the  rights  of  the  railroad  company 
under  the  federal  constitution. i-* 

§  21.  Express  Companies. — Express  companies  operating  over  railroads 
exercising  a  public  franchise  in  the  state  are  equally  subject  to  state  control 
and  regulation  with  the  railroad  companies  over  whose  lines  they  operate  wdthin 
the  limited  field  of  business  which  they  occupy. ^^  A  carrier  by  express  is  sub- 
ject to  legislative  control  though  not  organized  as  a  corporation. ^^^ 

§§  22-24.  Delegation  of  Power — §  22.  In  General. — The  legislature  of 
a  state  cannot  delegate  the  power  to  determine  the  form  of  the  contracts  wdiich 
common  carriers  of  persons  or  merchandise  must  make  concerning  transporta- 
tion to  private  persons  or  corporations.^' 

§  23.  To  Municipal  Corporations. — A  municipal  ordinance  prohibiting  per- 
sons, unconnected  with  railroad  trains,  except  passengers  and  other  persons  in 
the  act  of  taking  passage,  from  getting  off  or  on  engines  or  cars  in  the  city  lim- 
its, is  authorized  by  a  general  charter  power  to  pass  all  laws  and  ordinances  that 
the  mimicipal  authorities  may  consider  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the 
health,  peace,  prosperity  and  security  of  the  citizens  and  which  are  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  state. ^^ 

§  24.  To  Commissions. -^The  legislature  of  a  state  may  create  a  state  rail- 
road commission  and  delegate  to  it  power  to  regulate  railroad  companies  in  their 
relations  with  the  public.^''     In  some  states  the  power  to  so  delegate  its  authority 

punished   as   such,   or   whether   a   civil   in-  Fargo    &    Co.,    80    Xeb.    838,    115    N.    W. 

jury,   and   be   corrected   by   a    civil   action  625. 

given  by  statute  to  the  person  whose  16.  United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  State, 
rights  had  been  violated,  and  allowing  164  Ind.  196,  73  N.  E.  101. 
him  to  recover  a  fixed  sum  as  a  penalty,  17.  Power  can  not  be  delegated  to  pri- 
or as  exemplary  damages,  far  in  excess  of  vate  persons  or  corporations. — Attorney 
th^  actual  damages  suffered.  Houston,  General  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co..  160  Mass. 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Harry  &  Bros..  63  Tex.  256.  62,  35  N.    E.   252,  22   L.    R.   A.   112. 

12.  Power  to  repeal  charter.— Judg-  jg  Ordinance  regulating  the  getting 
ment  Smith  v.  Lake  Shore  etc.,  R.  Co,  ^  ^r  on  engines  or  cars.— Bearden  v. 
114    Mich.    460,    72    N.    W.    328,    reversed.  Ar^..HQnn    ~-^  Pn     isa 

-      ,         ,,,  1  Tt      r^  C       -iU      -.~o    T'  .XidGlSOn,     id    (ja.    1^4. 

Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  1(3   L.  ^        ...            ,                       j    .,    .   ^i 

S.  684,  43  L.  Ed.  858,  19  S.  Ct.  565.  .  I.t   will    not   be   presumed   that   the   mu- 

13.  When  state  loses  control  over  in-  '"C'pal  authorities  will  give  to  such  an 
ternal  movement  of  freight.— Larabee  ordinance  an  unreasonable  construction 
1-lour  Mills  Co.  r.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  so  as  to  prevent  those  having  relatives  or 
74   Kan    SOS    SS   Pac    7''  friends    arriving    or    departing    on    trains 

14.  Effect 'of  surrender  of  special  char-       from   entering  thereon    to   see   after  their 


ter  to  accept  general  railroad  law. — Judg- 


safetv  and  comfort.     Bearden  v.  Madison, 


..lent,  65  X.  K.  401,  159  Ind.  438,  reversed.  "^  Ga.  18-r. 

Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ketcham,  194  19.    Legislature  may  create  and  delegate 

U.  S.  579,  48  L.  Ed.  1124,  24  S.  Ct.  767.  power    to    railroad    commission.— Georgia 

15.     Control   and   regulation   of   express  R.     Co.     i.    Sinith.     70    Ga.     6'.)4:     \\  ayled 

companies.— State  v.   Pacific   Exp.   Co..   SO  Southern  R.   Co.  v.  State,  137  Ga.  497,  73 

Xeb    823.   115  X.  \V.  619;   State  v.  Wells,  S.    E.    741;    Southern    R.    Co.    v.    Melton, 


23 


CONTROL    AND    KIXUI.ATIOX. 


§  24 


is  conferred  on  the  legislature  by  the  constitution.  Some  of  these  constitutional 
provisions  have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts.-"  A  state  constitution,  if  it  sees 
fit,  may  unite  legislative  and  judicial  powers  in  a  railroad  commission.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  the  L'nited  States  which  forbids  such  action.^^ 
Railroad  commissioners  are  statutory  officers,  and  can  exercise  only  such  au- 
thority as  is  conferred  by  law,  or  by  fair  implication  as  incident  to  that  ex- 
pressly conferred.--  The  difficulty  of  making  a  specific  enumeration  of  all  the 
powers  the  legislature  confers  on  railroad  commissioners  for  the  regulation  of 
carriers  renders  it  necessary  to  confer  some  power  in  general  terms,  and  gen- 
eral powers  given  are  intended  to  confer  other  powers  than  those  enumerated. ^^ 
Railroad  commissions  must  exercise  the  power  delegated  to  them  within  legal  and 
constitutional  Hmitations  and  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  invade  the  legal  and  con- 
stitutional rights  of  others.-^  Whether  other  subjects  of  transportation  are 
regulated  by  railroad  commissioners  is  immaterial  in  considering  the  validity  of 
regulations  of  particular  subjects;  the  validity  of  one  legislative  regulation  not 
being  ati'ected  by  the  mere  failure  to  regulate  other  matters  within  the  legisla- 
tive power  and  the  choice  of  subjects  of  regulation  being  for  the  legislature, 
WMthin  its  powers.--^  Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  state  constitutions  and 
statutes   conferring   powers   on   railroad   commissions   have   been   interpreted   by 


133    Ga.    277,    65    S.    E.    665;    Gray   v.    Mc- 
Lendon,   134   Ga.   224,   67   S.    E.  859. 

A  state  may,  by  statute,  clothe  commis- 
sions and  administrative  bodies  with 
power  to  require  railroads  to  perform 
certain  duties  to  the  public  and  furnish 
proper  and  adequate  facilities  for  the 
transportation  of  freight  and  passengers 
intrastate.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State, 
'jy  Ark.  1,  13()  S.  W.  938. 

20.  The  constitution  of  Arkansas, 
Amend.  4,  authorizing  llic  creation  of  the 
railroad  commission,  is  not  a  limitation 
of  the  authority  that  may  be  vested  in  it 
for  effecting  all  the  purposes  for  which  it 
was  designed.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  99  .Ark.  1,  136  S.  W.  938. 

In  Colorado,  the  general  assembly  had 
power,  under  the  constitution,  to  create 
the  state  railroad  commission,  and  to  au- 
thorize it  to  regulate  and  control  the 
service  of  common  carriers  and  the  rates 
charged  for  such  service.  Consumers' 
League  v.  Colorado,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Colo. 
54,   125   Pac.   577. 

The  Constitution  of  Washington,  art. 
12,  §  18,  providing  tliat  a  railroad  and 
transportation  commission  may  be  estab- 
lished, and  its  powers  and  duties  fully  de- 
lined  by  law,  is  merely  declaratory  of  the 
power  of  state  regulation.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.  z:  Railroad  Comm.,  52  Wash.. 
33,   100   Pac.   184. 

21.  Power  to  unite  legislative  and  ju- 
dicial authority  in  commission.  Prentis 
V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Co.,  211  U.  S.  210, 
53  L.  Ed.  150,  29  S.  Ct.  67;  Dreyer  v.  Il- 
linois, 187  U.  S.  71,  84,  47  L.  Ed.  79,  23  S. 
Ct.  28;  Winchester,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth.  10i">   \a.  264,  55  S.  E.  174. 

22.  Commissioners  can  exercise  only 
authority  conferred. — Railroad  Comm'rs 
;.   Louisville,   ore.   R.   Co.,  57   Fla.   526,   49 


So.  39;   State  r.  .Atlantic,  etc.,   R.  Co.,   56 
Fla.   617,   47    So.   9i'.'.). 

23.  General  powers  confer  other  pow- 
ers than  those  enumerated. — Railroad 
Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Fla. 
799,    54    So.    900. 

24.  How  commission  must  exercise 
power. — Georgia  R.  Co.  r.  Smith,  70  Ga. 
694. 

A  state  corporation  commission  has  no 
authority  to  make  any  rule  or  regulation 
in  conflict  with  the  federal  constitution. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 
102   \a.   599,  46  S.   E.  911. 

A  state  railroad  commission,  in  pre- 
scribing a  system  of  bookkeeping  lor  in- 
trastate business,  does  not  conflict  with 
the  act  of  congress  (.Act  Feb.  4,  1887,  c. 
104,  §  20,  24  Stat.  379  [U.  S.  Comp.  St. 
1901,  p.  3169])  forbidding  railroads  to 
keep  any  other  accounts  than  those  re- 
quired by  the  interstate  commerce  com- 
mission. Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.  (Tex.),  150  S.  W.  878,  reversing 
iudgment  Railroad  Comm.  v.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  140  S.  W.  829. 

While  the  Georgia  statute,  act  of  Oc- 
tober 14,  1879,  creating  the  railroad  com- 
mission, is  constitutional  and  the  orders 
of  the  commissioners  in  pursuance  of  the 
authority  there  conferred,  are  valid  and 
binding,  their  powers  are  not  unlimited 
or  bevond  legal  control  by  the  proper  au- 
thorit'ies  of  the  state.  In  case  their  or- 
ders violate  the  chartered  rights  of  the 
companv.  such  violation  will  be  restrained 
and  enjoined  bv  proper  order  and  decree. 
Georgia  R.  Co.  z:  Smith.  70  Ga.  694. 

25.  Whether  other  subjects  of  trans- 
portation are  regulated  immaterial  in  con- 
sidering regulation  of  particular  subjects. 

Florida   R.  CommVs  z.  Atlaiuic.  eic,  R. 

Co.,  60  Fla.  218,  53  So.  601. 


§  ^^ 


CARRIERS. 


24 


the  courts.26     The  South  Dakota  statute  -'    regulating  common  carriers,  apphes 
to  express  companies  doing  business  within  tlie  state,  whether  incorporated  or 


26.  The  Constitution  of  Oklahoma, 
art.  9,  §  18  (1),  gives  the  corporation 
commiss^ion  authority  to  supervise,  fegu- 
late,  and  control  railroad  companies  in  all 
matters  relative  to  the  performance  of 
their  public  duties  and  their  charges 
therefor,  and  to  prevent  unjust  discrimi- 
nation. Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Filson 
(Okla.),   128   Pac.   298. 

Power  to  correct  abuses  irrespective  of 
their  connection  with  subject  of  tariffs. — 
The  Texas  statute,  Rev.  vSt.,  art.  45G2,  vest- 
ing in  the  railroad  commission  power  to 
regulate  freight  and  passenger  tariffs,  to 
correct  abuses,  and  to  prevent  unjust  dis- 
crimination and  extortion  in  rates;  and 
art.  4579,  making  it  the  duty  of  the  com- 
mission to  investigate  complaints  against 
railroad  companies  and  to  enforce  all  laws 
in  reference  to  railroads— are  an  express 
delegation  to  the  commission  of  power  to 
correct  abuses  defined  by  the  laws  regu- 
lating railroads,  irrespective  of  their  con- 
nection with  the  subject  of  tariffs.  Rail- 
road Comm.  V.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 
Tex.   340,  38   S.  W.  750. 

Power  to  see  that  proper  service  is  ren- 
dered.— The  constitution  of  Louisiana,  art. 
284,  which  authorizes  the  state  railroad 
commission  to  govern  and  regulate  rail- 
road freight  and  passenger  tariffs  and 
service,  merely  gives  the  commission 
power  to  see  that  proper  service  is  ren- 
dered, and  does  not  transfer  from  the  leg- 
islature to  the  commission  legislative 
powers.  Whitehurst  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    131    La.   139,   59   So.   42. 

Quality  and  reasonableness  of  intrastate 
service  and  compensation  therefor — Mich- 
igan statute. — Questions  relating  to  the 
quality  and  reasonableness  of  intrastate 
service  and  compensation  therefor  are 
primarily  addressed  to  the  railroad  com- 
mission under  Michigan  Railroad  Coin- 
mission  Act  (Pub.  Acts  1909,  No.  300,  as 
amended  by  Pub.  Acts  1911,  No.  139), 
subject  to  review  by  the  state  courts. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  R. 
Comm.,    198    Fed.    1009. 

A  telephone  is  a  facility  and  conveni- 
ence within  the  constitution  of  Oklahoma, 
art.  9,  §  18  (Bunn's  Ed.,  §  222;  Snyder's 
Ed.,  p.  238),  empowering  the  corporation 
commission  to  require  carriers  to  estab- 
lish and  maintain  all  such  public  service 
"facilities  and  conveniences"  as  may  be 
reasonable  and  just.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  State,  23  Okla.  210,  100  Pac.  11. 

An  order  of  the  corporation  commis- 
sion requiring  a  carrier  to  install  a  tele- 
phone in  its  station  in  a  town  will  not 
be  disturbed  where  it  appears  thata  tele- 
phone exchange  is  operated  in  the 
town,  also  that  there  is  an  exchange  in  an 
inland  town  of  about  three  hundred  popu- 


lation, and  that  the  two  towns  are  con- 
nected with  a  toll  line,  with  free  service 
to  the  subscribers  of  each  exchange,  and 
that  such  inland  town  receives  all  its 
freight  by  way  of  the  station,  and  that 
the  telephone  would  be  of  great  conven- 
ience to  the  patrons  of  the  station.  Atchi- 
son, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  State,  23  Okla.  210, 
100  Pac.  11. 

Regulations  as  to  passenger  tickets^ 
New  Jersey  statute. — An  order  by  the 
Board  of  Public  Utility  Commissioners 
requiring  tickets  for  intrastate  commu- 
tation service,  showing  both  termini  and 
the  same  as  to  special  intrastate  rates, 
was  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Board 
under  the  New  Jersey  Public  Utility  Law 
(P.  L.  1911,  p.  374),  if  its  determination 
as  to  the  existence  of  regulations  and 
practices  that  are  unjust  and  unreasonable 
and  the  subjection  of  persons  and  locali- 
ties to  prejudice  and  disadvantage  is  sus- 
tained by  proof.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Board,    83    N.    J.    L.    67,   83   Atl.   945. 

An  order  of  the  Board  of  Public  Utility 
Commissioners  requiring  tickets  showing 
both  termini  for  intrastate  commutation 
service  or  where  special  rates  are  granted 
is  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  board 
where  the  companies  refuse  to  sell  or 
quote  rates  for  the  commutation  or  spe- 
cial rate  tickets,  except  school  tickets,  to 
intrastate  passengers  to  their  termini,  and 
require  the  passenger  to  take  tickets  read- 
ing to  and  from  New  York  City.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  V.  Board,  83  N.  J.  L.  67, 
83   Atl.    945. 

Reciprocal  demurrage,  bills  of  lading, 
and  penalty  for  delay  in  shipment. — The 
Mississippi  statute,  Ann.  Code  Miss.  1892, 
§  4291,  provided  that  the  railroad  com- 
mission might  fix  all  charges  and  super- 
vise and  regulate  all  persons,  etc.,  who 
may  own  or  operate  express,  telegraph, 
telephone,  or  sleeping  car  companies. 
Acts  1898,  p.  97,  c.  82,  provided  that  all 
laws,  acts,  and  parts  of  acts  giving  au- 
thority to  the  railroad  commission  to  su- 
pervise common  carriers  shall  also  apply 
to  car  service  associations  or  other  asso- 
ciations governing  or  controlling  cars  or 
rolling  stock  and  railroads  at  whatever 
place  they  do  business  in  the  state,  and 
the  same  penalty  fixed  by  law  for  dis- 
obeying the  mandates  or  orders  of  the 
railroad  commission  shall  apply  to  the 
car  service  associations,  as  well  as  as- 
sociations of  other  characters.  The  pro- 
visions of  the  act  of  1898  were  incor- 
porated in  Code  1906,  §  4843,  as  _to_  the 
supervision  of  car  service  associations. 
Held,  that  the  railroad  commission  had 
power  to  make  rules  as  to  reciprocal  de- 
murrage,   and    to    make    rule    10,    adopted 

27.  Rev.  Pol.  Code,  1903,  c.  7. 


25 


CONTROL    AND   KKGLLATION. 


§  24 


not,  and  subjects  them  to  the  regulation  and  control  of  the  state  board  of  rail- 
road commissioners.-"' 


June  8,  1904,  and  effective  June  18,  1904, 
providing  that,  when  cars  are  properly 
loaded  and  shipping  instructions  given, 
the  railroad  agent  must  immediately  issue 
bills  of  lading  therefor,  and  that  if  a  car 
or  cars  are  detained  or  held,  and  not  car- 
ried within  twenty-four  hours  thereafter, 
the  railroad  shall  be  liable  to  the  shipper 
for  the  payment  of  $1  for  each  day  or  a 
fraction  of  a  day  that  the  car  or  cars  are 
thus  detained  or  held.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Keystone  Lumber  Co.  (Miss.),  43  So. 
G05. 

Time  of  shipment  and  transit  and  pen- 
alties.— The  North  Carolina  statute.  Laws 
1903,  p.  999,  c.  590,  §  3,  providing  that  it 
shall  be  unlawful  for  any  lailroad  com- 
pany to  omit  to  transport  any  goods  re- 
ceived by  it  for  shipment  for  a  longer 
period  than  four  days  after  receipt 
thereof,  unless  otherwise  agreed  on  be- 
tween the  parties,  or  unless  the  same  be 
destroj-ed,  or  to  allow  any  such  goods  to 
remain  at  any  intermediate  point  more 
than  forty-eight  hours,  unless  otherwise 
provided  by  the  corporation  commission, 
confers  power  on  the  commission  to  fix 
the  time  allowed  as  free  time  for  inter- 
mediate points,  and  to  make  regulations 
as  to  the  time  of  transit,  but  not  to  change 
the  time  allowed  as  free  time  at  the  point 
of  shipment,  nor  to  alter  the  penalties. 
Summers  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  138  X.  C. 
29.").   .50    S.    E.    714. 

Shipment  of  cotton. — Under  the  Texas 
statute,  Rev.  vSt.,  art.  4574,  declaring  it  to 
be  an  unjust  discrimination  for  any  rail- 
road to  give  undue  or  unreasonable  pref- 
erence or  advantage  to  any  particular  per- 
son or  localitx',  or  subject  any  particular 
description  of  trat^c  to  anj-  undue  or  un- 
reasonable prejudice,  delay  or  disadvan- 
tage; and  art.  45t)2,  empowering  the  rail- 
road commission  to  correct  al)uses — it  is 
competent  for  such  commission  to  pre- 
scribe regulations  governing  the  shipment 
of  cotton  and  the  compressing  of  cotton 
in  transit.  Railroad  Comm.  z'.  Houston, 
etc.,   R.    Co..   90  Tex.   340,   38   S.   W.   750. 

System  of  bookkeeping. — Lender  the 
Texas  statute.  Rev.  Si.  Ih95,  art.  4571 
(Rev.  Civ.  St.  1911,  art.  6GG7),  the  state 
railroad  commission  can  not  require  an 
arl)itrar3'  division  of  expenses  between 
freight  and  passenger  traffic,  but  in  pre- 
scribing a  system  of  bookkeeping  can 
only  require  the  recording  of  facts. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Railroad  Comm. 
(Tex.),   150   S.    W.   S7S. 

Notice  and  opportunity  for  hearing. — 
The  Georgia  statute.  §  0  of  the  Railroad 
Commission  Act  of  1907  (Civil  Code 
(1910),  §  2()r)3)  contemplates  that  notice 
and  an  opportunity  of  a  hearing  be  given 
to  persons,  railroads,  or  other  corpora- 
tions   interested    in    the    orders    issued    by 


the  commission,  and  that  provision  may 
be  made  for  such  notice  either  by  statute 
or  rule  of  the  commission.  This  section 
is  to  be  construed  to  mean  that  the  com- 
mission shall  not  issue  a  special  order  in 
a  particular  case,  directed  to  a  person  or 
corporation,  without  first  giving  notice 
and  an  opportunity  for  hearing  to  the 
person  or  corporation  so  to  be  affected 
thereby.  Wadley  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Stale,    137    Ga.   497,   73   S.    I',.    741. 

Time  when  liability  as  carrier  ends.^ 
The  South  Carolina  statute.  Civ.  Code 
1902,  §  2094,  giving  a  railroad  commission 
power  to  prescribe  rates  for  storage  of 
freight,  and  fixing  the  time  after"  its  ar- 
rival when  storage  charges  shall  begin, 
does  not  delegate  to  the  commission  the 
power  to  fix  the  time  when  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  ends,  and  that  of  ware- 
houseman l)egins.  Jones  Bros.  v.  South- 
ern  R.   Co.,  7t;  S.   C.  07,  5G   S.   H.  GGG. 

Contracts  for  shipment  of  goods. — Un- 
der the  Georgia  statutes,  the  state  rail- 
road commission  has  no  power  to  com- 
pel a  railroad  company  to  contract  for 
the  shipment  of  goods  beyond  its  own 
line.  State  v.  Wrightsville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
104  Ga.  437,  30  S.  E.  891. 

28.  In  South  Dakota  express  companies 
controlled  by  railroad  commissioners.— 
rialt  z\   LeCocq,   l.:u   Led.   jyi. 

Rev.  Civ.  Code,  S.  D.  1903,  §  1578,  pro- 
vides that  a  common  carrier,  if  able  to 
do  so,  must  accept  and  carry  whatever 
is  offered  him  at  a  reasonable  time  and 
place  of  a  kind  that  he  undertakes  or  is 
accustomed  to  carry;  and  Pol.  Code  1903, 
c.  7,  §  437,  prohibits  a  common  carrier 
from  subjecting  any  particular  descrip- 
tion of  trafiic  to  any  prejudice  or  disad- 
vantage in  any  respect  whatsoever.  Held, 
that  a  rule  of  an  express  company,  pro- 
viding that  shipments  of  money  would  be 
received  only  during  regular  office  hours 
if  tendered  before  the  departure  of  the 
last  train  on  which  the  shipment  could 
be  made,  which  operated  to  require  ship- 
ments of  currency  by  a  bank  to  be  ten- 
dered on  the  day  of  the  shipment  before 
G:30,  7,  or  7:45  a.  m.,  w^as  unreasonable, 
and  that  the  board  of  railroad  commission- 
ers had  power  to  order  the  express  com- 
pany, so  long  as  it  held  itself  out  as  a 
common  carrier  of  money,  to  receive 
same  for  transportation  at  all  reasonable 
business  hours  of  the  day  preceding  the 
departure  of  trains  at  the  hours  specified. 
IMait    v.    LeCocq,    150    Fed.    391. 

It  was  no  defense  to  an  express  com- 
pany's obligation  to  comply  with  the  rail- 
road commissioners'  order  that  shippers 
of  money  could  use  the  L'nited  States 
mails,  and  were  therefore  not  prejudiced 
by  the  express  company's  rule,  requiring 
presentation  of  money  packages  for  ship- 


§§    25-27  CARRIERS.  26 

§§  2  5-28.  Companies,  Persons,  or  Instrumentalities  Affected  by  Reg- 
ulations—§  2  5.  In  General.— Xo  one  can  be  compelled  to  engage  in  the  busi- 
ness of  a  common  carrier,  but  if  he  does  so,  he  becomes  subject  to  the  duties 
imposed  on  common  carriers.-^  In  the  constitution  of  California,  art.  12,  §  22, 
providing  for  a  railroad  commission  to  regulate  the  rates  to  be  charged  by  trans- 
portation companies,  the  words  "transportation  companies'"  include  individu- 
als.=^^' 

§  26.  Railroad  Companies.— A  railroad  company,  accepting  its  charter 
subject  to  a  constitutional  provision  prohibiting  greater  charges  for  shorter  than 
for  longer  hauls,  except  when  permitted  by  the  railroad  commission,  is  as  much 
subject ^o  the  provisions  for  exoneration  from  that  prohibition  as  to  the  prohi- 
bition itself,  and  can  not  claim  that  it  has  any  implied  contract  exemption  froni 
these  pro\  isions  by  virtue  of  its  charter  and  the  consequent  right  to  charge  rea- 
sonable rates  for  'its  service.^^^  A  constitutional  provision  forbidding  an  officer 
of  a  company  to  engage  in  the  business  of  transportation  as  a  common  carrier 
of  freight  or  passengers  over  the  works  of  the  company,  does  not  apply  to  the 
act  of  an  officer  of  a  railroad  company  in  causing  his  own  freight  to  be  trans- 
ported over  the  company's  road.^^  When  two  railroad  companies  voluntarily 
enter  into  an  agreement  for  joint  rates,  which  covers  all  stations  on  their  lines 
in  the  state,  they  virtually  create  a  new  and  independent  line,  and  become  sub- 
ject to  the 'law  preventing  unjust  discrimination  and  unreasonable  exaction. ^^ 
Where  the  railroad  of  one  company  is  purchased  by  another  railroad  company, 
in  pursuance  of  a  statute  authorizing  the  purchase,  in  the  absence  of  any  pro- 
vision of  law  to  the  contrary,  the  road  passes  to  the  purchasing  company  sub- 
ject to  the  same  restrictions  and  limitations  as  to  rates  chargeable  for  transpor- 
tation as  attached  to  it  in  the  hands  of  the  vendor.-^-' 

§  2  7.  Street  Railroad  Companies.— Whether  a  street  railroad  company 
is  subject  to  a  particular  law  regulating  railroad  companies  is  to  be  determined 
by  an  interpretation  of  the  terms  of  that  law."-^     A  railway  company  whicli  per- 


ment  at  unreasonable  hours.     Piatt  v.  Le- 
Cocq,    150   Fed.   391. 

Where  an  express  company  held  itself 
out  as  a  common  carrier  of  money,  it  was 
no  defense  to  an  order  of  the  board  of 
railroad  commissioners,  requiring  the  re- 
ceipt of  money  packages  for  transporta- 
tion during  reasonable  business  hours  of 
the  day  preceding  actual  shipment,  that 
to  obey  such  order  would  compel  the  ex- 
press company  to  transact  the  business 
at  a  loss.     Piatt  v.  LeCocq,  ir.O  Fed.  391. 

29.  Person  engaged  in  business  of  com- 
mon carrier  subject  to  duties  imposed.— 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Larabee  Flour 
Mills  Co.,  211  U.  S.  612,  53  L.  Ed.  352,  29 
S.    Ct.    214. 

30.  In  California  constitution  words 
"transportation  companies"  include  indi- 
viduals.—Soulhtrn  Pac.  Co.  r.  Board,  78 
Fed.   230. 

31.  Company  accepting  its  charter  sub- 
ject to  a  constitutional  provision. — Judg- 
ment, 51  S.  W.  164,  1012,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
232,  106  Ky.  633,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  236.  af- 
firmed. Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ken- 
tucky, 183  U.  S.  503,  46  L.  Ed.  298,  22 
S.    Ct.    95. 

32.  Prohibition  against  officer  of  com- 
pany engaging  in  busines  of  transporta- 
tion over  works  of  company.— Bucksport, 
etc.,   R.   Co.   V.    Edinburgh,   etc.,   Redwood 


Co..   16   C.   C.  A.  74,  6S   Fed.  972,  constru- 
ing Const,  art.  12,  §  1^^. 

33.  Companies  voluntarily  entering  into 
agreement  for  joint  rates. — Blair  v.  Sioux, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,   109    Iowa  369,   SO   N.   W.   673. 

34.  Purchase  by  railroad  company  of 
railroad  of  another  company. — Campbell 
T.  Marietta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  O.  St.  168,  fol- 
lowed in  Peters,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Railroad  Co., 
42   O.   St.   275,   283. 

Consolidation  of  railroad  companies  by 
Irase,  purchase,  or  otherwise. — For  an  in- 
terpretation of  certain  New  Hampshire 
statutes,  under  which  a  number  of  rail- 
road companies  were  consolidated  by 
lease,  purchase,  or  otherwise  with  the 
Boston  and  Maine  Railroao;  and  which 
contained  restrictions  as  to  increase  of 
rates  by  the  companies  so  consolidated, 
see  State  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  76  N. 
H.   146.  80  Atl.   858. 

35.  Street  railroad  companies.— Under 
Greater  New  York  Charter,  §  1538,  a  cor- 
poration operating  a  street  railroad  is 
not  subject  to  Railroad  Law,  §  104. 
BrafYett  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  204  N. 
Y  440  97  N.  E.  888,  afifirming  137  App. 
Div.    899,    122    N.    Y.    S.    1122. 

\  street  railroad  corporation  acquir- 
ing, under  General  Railroad  Law  (Laws 
1890,  c.  565)',  §  79,  the  raUroads  of  two 
companies,    is    not    within    Railroad    Law, 


27 


CONTROL    AND   REGULATION', 


§§  27-29 


forms  the  service  of  an  ordinary  street  railroad  in  a  city  under  a  franchise 
granted  by  the  city  is,  as  to  such  service,  a  street  railroad,  though  it  is  also  an 
interurban  railroad  engaging  in  carrying  passengers  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
city,  and  the  fact  that  the  State  Railroad  Commission  has  assumed  jurisdiction 
over  it  does  not  prevent  it  from  being  subject  to  the  franchise  so  far  as  it  oper- 
ates a  system  within  the  city.^"  Statutes  limiting  the  fare  to  be  charged  by  street 
railroad  companies  and  requiring  them  to  give  transfers,  have  been  interpreted 
by  the  courts  to  dclcrniiiic  what  companies  and  roads  came  within  the  scope  of 
their  provisions.''" 

.  §  28.  Express  Companies.  — In  h.wa.  un.kr  the  express  provisions  of  the 
Code,'^"^  laws  relating  to  the  transportation  of  propcny  by  railroad  companies 
are_ai)plical)le  to  express  companies.--'  The  statute  of  Indiana  prescribing  the 
duties  of  railroads  with  reference  to  intersecting  lines  ^"  relates  to  the  mere 
physical  connection  of  tlie  tracks,  and  has  no  application  to  express  companies.-*^ 

§  29.  Licenses  and  Taxes. — The  charters  of  some  street  railroad  com- 
panies contain  a  provision  requiring  them  to  pay  a  license  fee  to  the  city  in 
which  they  operate.^-  There  are  statutes  in  many  of  the  states  imposing  a  li- 
cense or  excise  tax  on  express  companies  doing  business  in  the  state.  Some  of 
these  statutes  have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts.-*"     Power  is  generallv  dele- 


§  101,  I)ut  within  §  104,  requiring  giving 
of  transfers.  Braffett  f.  Brooklyn,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  204  N.  Y.  440,  97  N.  E.  888,  af- 
firming order,  137  App.  Div.  899,  122  N. 
Y.   S.   1122. 

36.  Dennison  f.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
64   Wash.    167,    116    Pac.    638. 

37.  Under  Railroad  Law,  Laws  1890, 
p.  1113,  c.  565,  §  101,  as  amended  by  Laws 
1897,  p.  776,  c.  688,  relating  to  street  sur- 
face railroads,  and  providing  that  no  cor- 
poration constructing  and  operating  a 
railroad  under  the  provisions  of  this  ar- 
ticle, etc.,  shall  charge  any  passenger 
more  than  five  cents  for  one  continuous 
ride  from  any  point  on  its  road,  "or  on 
any  road,  line  or  branch  operated  l)y  it, 
or  under  its  control,"  to  any  other  point 
thereof,  etc.,  and  Railroad  Law,  Laws 
1890,  p.  1096,  c.  565,  §  39,  imposing  a  pen- 
alty on  anj-  railroad  corporation  receiv- 
ing more  than  the  lawful  rate  of  fare, 
etc.,  the  operation  or  control  of  a  road 
within  the  meaning  of  such  sections 
means  a  control  of  the  operation  of  the 
road,  and  not  merely  a  control  of  the 
corporation  or  individuals  operating  it  by 
reason  of  the  ownership  of  a  majority  of 
the  road's  capital  stock.  Senior  v.  New 
York  City  R.  Co.,  Ill  App.  Div.  39,  97 
N.  Y.  S.  645,  affirmed  in  187  N.  Y.  559, 
80  N.   E.   1120. 

Rev.  Code  Chicago,  §  1723,  providing 
that  the  rate  of  fare  "to  be  charged"  on 
any  street  railway  for  any  distance  within 
the  city  limits  shall  not  exceed  five  cents, 
and  that  at  any  point  where  a  line  of 
street  railway  does  now  or  shall  here- 
after join,  connect  with,  cross,  or  come 
within  a  distance  of  two  hundred  feet  of 
another  line  belonging  to  the  same 
owner,  any  passenger  shall  be  entitled  to 
a  transfer,  etc..  applies  not  only  to  com- 
panies   existing    at    the    time    the    section 


was  enacted,  but  to  those  coming  into 
existence  thereafter.  Chicago  Union 
Tract.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  199  111.  484,  65  N. 
E.   451,  59   L.   R.   A.   631. 

38.  Code,    §    2165. 

39.  Express  companies.— McMillan  v. 
American  Exp.  Co..  123  Iowa  236,  98  N. 
W.  629. 

40.  2  Burns'  Rev.  St.  1849.  §  5153;  Rev. 
St.    1881,    §    3903. 

41.  Decree,  88  Fed.  G59,  affirmea. 
Southern  Indiana  Exp.  Co.  r.  United 
States  Exp.  Co..  35  C.  C.  A.  172.  92  Fed 
1022. 

42.  Same  annual  fee  as  is  now  paid  by 
other  railroads. — The  charter  of  a  street- 
railroad  company  was  made  subject  "to 
the  payment  to  the  city  of  the  same  li- 
cense fee  annually  for  each  car  run 
thereon  as  is  now  paid  by  other  city 
railroads  in  said  city."  Two  railroads 
there  paid  $50.  one  $20.  and  three  noth- 
ing. Held,  that  $50  was  payable.  New 
York  7'.  Broadwav,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  N.  Y. 
275. 

43.  Florida  statute  imposing  license 
tax  on  express  companies. — A  Florida 
statute.  Gen.  Revenue  Law  June  2,  1893, 
c.  4115,  prohibits  one  from  engaging  in 
or  managing  the  pursuits  mentioned 
therein  without  first  taking  out  a  state 
license,  and  paying  the  occupation  tax 
and  license  prescribed  therein,  and  au- 
thorizes counties,  cities,  and  towns  to 
impose  further  taxes.  It  specifies  that 
express  companies  shall  pay  in  cities  of 
15,000  inhabitants  or  more  a  $200  license 
tax,  in  cities  of  10,000  to  15,000  $100,  in 
cities  of  5.000  to  10.000  $75,  in  cities  of 
3,000  to  5.000  inhabitants  $50.  jn  cities  of 
1.000  to  3.000  inhabitants  $25,  in  towns 
of  less  than  1,000  and  more  than  fifty  in- 
habitants $10.  The  violation  of  the  act 
is    made    a    misdemeanor.      Held,    the    act 


29 


CARRIERS. 


28 


gated  to  counties  and  municipal  corporations  to  impose  taxes  on  common  car- 
riers doing  business  in  the  county  or  municipality.  Some  of  the  statutory  pro- 
visions anil  charters  delegating  such  power,-*^  and  some  of  the  ordinances  en- 
acted in  pursuance  of  the  power  so  delegated.^-^  have  been   interpreted  by  the 


did  not  tax  or  regulate  or  apply  to  in- 
terstate commerce  as  distinguished  from 
state  or  local  commerce  carried  on  by 
an  express  company,  but  applies  only  to 
local  or  state  commerce,  and  a  company 
must  pay  a  license  tax  and  take  out  a 
state  license  before  doing  business  in  a 
city,  town,  or  village  having  more  than 
fifty  inhabitants;  and,  where  there  are  in 
one  county  several  cities,  towns,  or  vil- 
lages, the  company  must  take  out  a  sep- 
arate state  license  for  each  in  which  it 
may  intend  to  do  business  and  pay  the 
tax  and  fee  therefor.  Osborne  v.  State, 
33  Fla.  162,  14  So.  588,  25  L.  R.  A.  120, 
39  Am.   St.   Rep.   99. 

Ohio  statute  imposing  excise  tax  on 
express  companies. — The  amount  paid  to 
railroads  for  transportation  of  freight,  as 
mentioned  in  the  seventh  subdivision  of 
the  second  section  of  Act  May  14,  1894 
(91  Laws,  237),  imposing  an  excise  tax 
on  express  companies,  is  the  amount  paid 
for  transportation  of  freight  on  business 
done  wholly  within  Ohio.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.  V.   State,  55  O.   St.  69,  44  X.   E.   506. 

44.  Authority  to  impose  license  tax  not 
applicable  to  foreign  express  companies. 
—The  Kentucky  statute.  Act  March  _  2, 
1860,  required  foreign  express  companies 
doing  business  in  the  state  to  pay  a  li- 
cense tax.  The  charter  of  the  city  of 
Lexington  authorized  the  city  to  collect 
a  license  from  express  companies.  Held, 
not  to  apply  to  foreign  express  compa- 
nies. Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Lexington,  83 
Ky.  657,  7  Ky.  L.  Rep.  716. 

License  taxes  on  express  companies  au- 
thorized by  Florida  statute. — \  Florida 
statute.  Gen.  Revenue  Law  1893.  c.  4115, 
§  9,  prohil)its  any  person  from  engaging 
in  any  business  without  first  securing  a 
state  license,  and  paying  the  occupation 
tax  and  license  fee;  authorizes  counties 
and  incorporated  towns  to  impose  fur- 
ther taxes  of  the  same  kind,  not  exceed- 
ing 50  per  cent  of  the  state  tax  when 
the  business  is  carried  on  in  such  coun- 
ties or  towns;  and  directs  that  express 
companies  doing  business  in  the  state 
shall  pay  in  cities  and  villages  of  a  spec- 
ified population  certain  license  taxes. 
Held,  that  any  county  may  require  of 
each  company  doing  business  within  its 
limits  to  pay  for  doing  business  in  any 
city  or  village  in  the  county  a  license  tax 
not  exceeding  50  per  cent  of  the  amount 
paid  the  state  for  doing  business  in  such 
city  or  village,  and  any  incorporated  city 
or  town  may  also  impose  a  tax  for  as 
much  as  50  per  cent  of  the  state  tax  on 
any  company  doing  business  therein. 
Osborne  v.  State,  33  Fla.  162,  14  So.  588, 
25  L.  R.  .^.  120,  39  Am.  St.  Rep.  99. 


The  authority  of  a  city  under  its  char- 
ter to  collect  specific  taxes  on  express 
companies  doing  business  therein  is  not 
taken  away  as  to  the  Southern  Express 
Company  by  the  provision  of  aii  act  In 
relation  to  said  company  declaring  "nor 
shall  any  municipal  corporation  levy  ariy 
percentage  tax  upon  the  receipts  of  said 
company."  City  Council  v.  Shoemaker, 
51   Ala.    114. 

Tax  authorized  held  to  be  an  occupa- 
tion tax. — A  tax  authorized  by  a  city 
charter  to  be  levied  on  "auctioneers,  con- 
tractors, druggists,  *  *  *^  omnibuses, 
carts,  wagons  and  other  vehicles  used  in 
the  city  for  pay,"  in  addition  to  the  usual 
taxes  assessed  and  collected  on  all  prop- 
erty, is  a  tax  on  the  occupation;  and  the 
fact  that  a  defendant,  who  is  the  owner 
of  a  wagon,  used  it  in  one  or  two  in- 
stances for  hire  will  not  alone  support  a 
conviction  for  his  failure  to  procure  a 
license  for  such  wagon,  but  it  must  be 
shown  that  the  vehicle  is  kept  for  hire  or 
use  for  pay.  Cheyenne  v.  O'Connell,  6 
Wyo.   491,   4C,   Pac.   1088. 

45.  Ordinance  not  an  attempt  to  im- 
pose additional  tax  on  depot. — A  city  of 
the  second  class  adopted  an  ordinance 
imposing  an  occupation  tax  "on  each 
railroad  corporation  or  company  carrying 
or  transporting  freight  or  passengers  to 
or  from  any  point  or  place  within  the 
limits  of  this  city,  and  to  or  from  any 
point  or  place  within  the  limits  of  this 
city  and  any  point  or  place  within  the 
limits  of  this  state,  and  having  a  depot  or 
place  of  business  within  the  limits  of  this 
city  for  receiving  or  discharging  such 
passengers  and  receiving  and  delivering 
such  freight.  All  interstate  traffic  com- 
merce or  business  of  such  companies  or 
corporations  is  hereby  excepted  and  ex- 
empted from  the  levy  of  such  tax."  Held, 
that  the  ordinance  was  not  an  attempt  to 
impose  a  tax  on  the  depot  of  the  com- 
plaining company,  in  addition  to  the  tax 
arising  from  the  general  assessment  of 
its  property.  York  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    56    Neb.    572,    76    N.    W.    1065. 

Ordinance  held  not  to  include  hearses. 
— An  ordinance  imposing  a  license  on 
"each  vehicle  used  for  passengers,  not 
having  an  annual  hack  license,"  does  not 
include  hearses.  Burlington  v.  Unter- 
kirchcr,    99    Iowa   401,   6S   X.   W.    795. 

An  ordinance  imposing  a  license  for 
"every  vehicle  or  conveyance"  which  is 
"run"  for  hire  or  profit  does  not  apply  to 
a  conveyance  w]iich__  is  let  without  a 
driver,  and  is  under  the  personal  con- 
trol of  the  hirer  or  his  representative. 
Burlington  v.  Unterkirchcr,  99  Iowa  401, 
68  N.  W.  795. 


29 


CONTROL    AND   REGULATION. 


§§  29-30 


courts.  A  municipal  ordinance  imposing  a  license  fee  on  a  common  carrier 
must,  of  course,  to  be  enforceable,  be  a  valid  exercise  of  the  delegated  power."*" 
A  statute  providing  that  express  companies  shall  pay  a  privilege  tax  to  the 
state,  and  that  no  company  which  has  paid  such  tax  shall  be  liable  to  pa^^'  any 
other  tax  in  the  state,  precludes  a  city  from  levying  a  license  tax  on  an  express 
company. 4"  .V  railroad  company's  liability  to  pay  a  license  tax  required  of  a 
company  running  cars  through  a  city,  for  transporting  freight  or  passengers  to 
or  froni  it,  is  not  affected  by  its  not  having  an  agent  or  office  in  the  city.'**  A 
railroad  company  which  organizes  an  express  company  and  carries  on  a  regular 
express  business  as  a  part  of  the  business  of  the  railroad  company,  under  the 
management  and  control  of  its  officers,  and  by  its  own  agents,  is  subject  to  pay 
a  privilege  tax  imposed  by  statute  upon  express  companies.^'* 

§  30.  Reports  and  Statements. — Where  a  state  railroad  commission  is 
authorized  to  see  that  a  railroad  company  does  not  charge  rates  in  excess  of  the 
limits  set  by  its  charter,  it  is  entitled  to  reports  from  such  company.'^"  The 
United  States  Express  Company  being  a  joint-stock  company  and  possessing  the 
qualities  of  a  partnership,  but  being  a  common  carrier,  a  state  railroad  commis- 
sion has  the  legal  right  to  exact  from  it  as  a  common  carrier  information  as  to 
all  of  its  property  and  business  within  the  state,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  its 
charges  or  otherwise  regulating  its  business,  but  not  as  to  its  property  out  of 
the  state,  nor  as  to  its  interstate  business. -"^^  Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions 
of  statutes  relating  to  reports  and  statements  required  to  be  made  by  common 
carriers  have  been  interpreted  l)y  the  courts. ^'- 


46.  Ordinances  imposing  license  fees 
held  valid. — An  ordinance  of  the  town- 
ship of  Lakcwood,  prescribing  that  it 
shall  not  be  lawful  to  engage  in  tlic  busi- 
ness of  carrying  passengers  without  pay- 
ing a  license  fee,  and  punishing  the  vio- 
lation of  such  provision  with  a  fine,  and 
requiring  licensed  vehicles  to  stand  at 
certain  designated  places,  is  valid.  Combs 
V.  Lakcwood.  08  N.  J.  L.  582,  53  Atl. 
t)97. 

Under  the  Iowa  statute,  Code,  §  463, 
authorizing  cities  to  regulate,  license,  and 
tax  all  conveyances  for  hire,  an  ordi- 
nance imposing  an  annual  license  fee  "for 
each  two-horse  wagon  or  team,  $(5;  for 
each  one-horse  wagon,  dray,  or  cart,  $4; 
for  each  hack,  carriage,  coach  or  omni- 
bus, $10;"  and  providing  that  "each  ve- 
hicle used  for  passengers,  not  having  an 
annual  hack  license,  shall  pzy  a  license  of 
$1  per  day,"  is  reasonable  and  valid. 
Burlington  r  Unterkirclier.  '.)'.)  I'.wa  -ifil. 
68   N.   W.   795. 

An  ordinance  imposing  annual  license 
fees  on  the  owners  of  conveyances  run 
for  hire,  "for  each  two-horse  wagon,  $8; 
for  each  one-horse  wagon,  $5;  *  *  * 
for  each  omnibus,  $8;  and  for  each  hack 
or  carriage.  $10;"  and  which  exempts 
from  its  operation  vehicles  l)ringing  pro- 
duce to  market,  and  those  owned  by  liv- 
erymen, but  not  kept  on  the  street  or 
other  pul)lic  place  for  hire — is  a  reasona- 
lile  exercise  of  the  power  conferred  on 
cities  by  the  Iowa  statute,  Code,  §  463,  to 
regulate,  license,  and  tax  every  descrip- 
tion of  convevances  for  hire.  Burlington 
V.  Unterkirchcr,  99  Iowa  401,  68  N.  W. 
795. 


The  word  "carriage,"  as  used  in  said 
ordinance,  includes  single-horse  buggies; 
and  an  annual  license  may  therefore  be 
charged  for  them,  not  the  per  diem  li- 
cense provided  in  the  last  clause.  Bur- 
lington z'.  Unterkircher,  99  Iowa  401,  68 
X.    \V.    795. 

47.  Statute  precluding  city  from  levy- 
ing license  tax  on  express  company. — 
Douglass  7'.  Anniston,  104  Ala.  2yi,  If. 
So.   133,  construing  act   1S92-93. 

48.  Railroad  company  liable  for  license 
tax  though  having  no  agent  or  office  In 
city. — Xasiivillc.  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Alabama, 
134   Ala.   414.  32   So.   T:!1. 

49.  Railroad  company  carrying  on  ex- 
press business. — Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
State,  77  Tenn.  (9  Lea)  218.  42  Am.  Rep. 
673. 

50.  Reports  and  statements. — Missis- 
sippi R.  Conim.  7'.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 
Miss.  750.  29   So.  789. 

51.  State  v.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  81 
Minn.  87.  83  N.  \V.  465,  50  L.  R.  A.  667, 
h:;   Am.   St.   Rep.  366. 

52.  Lender  the  Florida  statute,  a  rail- 
road commission  has  no  authority  to 
adopt  or  enforce  a  rule  requiring  rail- 
roads to  report  to  such  commission  by 
telegram,  followed  by  a  written  report  of 
all  wrecks  and  their  causes,  and  the 
names  and  addresses  of  the  persons  killed 
or  injured  therein.  Railro.-\d  Comm'rs  v. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  57  Fla.  526.  49 
So.   39. 

Under  the  Indiana  statute,  act  of  March 
5.  1855  (Rev.  St.  1876.  p.  466).  "declaring 
express  companies  to  be  common  car- 
riers," etc..  it  is  the  duty  of  the  county 
recorder    to    procure    the    publication    of 


§§  31-32 


CARRIERS. 


30 


§§  31-34.  Conduct  of  Business  in  General— §  31.  Common  Carriers  in 

General. It  is  tlie  business  of  a  common  carrier  to  carry  persons  and  property 

for  hire.-''"'  The  carrier  has  a  right  to  conduct  such  business  according  to  law, 
free  from  the  interference  of  strangers.'-*  lUit  tliough  a  discretion  is  allowed  a 
common  carrier  in  the  discharge  of  its  pubhc  duties,  it  must  be  exercised  in 
good  faith,  within  the  limitations  of  the  law,  and  with  reasonable  regard  for  the 
public  welfare,  and  is  subject  to  review  and  regulation.^"''  A  carrier  may  pre- 
scribe reasonable  regulations  for  the  delivery  to  its  agents  of  property  for  trans- 
portation, but  it  can  not  impose  unusual  conditions  on  a  shipper,  or  require  him 
to  undergo  unusual  expense  in  delivering  his  goods  for  transportation.'"*  While 
a  common  carrier  may  not  be  bound  by  a  contract  which  renders  it  incapable  of 
performing  its  duties  to  the  public,  yet  where  the  subject-niatter  of  a  contract 
is  not  foreign  to  the  purposes  of  the  corporation,  but  is  widiin  its  authorized 
power,  and  is  not  forbidden  by  statute,  nor  otherwise  illegal,  it  will  not  be  nulli- 
fied bv  the  courts.''" 

Conduct  of  Business  by  Agents. — Agents  of  common  carriers  must  exer- 
cise the  same  kind  of  judgment  in  the  employer's  business  as  if  doing  business 
for  themselves,  and  what  would  convince  them  that  a  certain  fact  exists  is  no- 
tice to  the  carrier  of  the  existence  thereof,  so  that  agents  must  act  on  knowledge, 
probabilities,  information,  and  judgment  and  infer  facts  as  men  generally  do 
in  similar  matters  when  acting  for  themselves.^* 

§  32.  Railroad  Companies. — In  the  absence  of  charter  or  statutory  provi- 
sions atlecting  its  right,  it  is  competent  for  a  railroad  company  to  determine  for 
itself  within  what  limits  it  will  act  as  a  common  carrier,  what  business  it  will 
engage  in,  what  means  and  methods  of  transportation  it  will  employ,  what  goods 
it  will  carrv,  and  between  what  points  and  under  what  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions it  will  receive  the  same,  subject  always  to  the  limitation  that  it  must  act 
in  good  f-;ith,  reasonably,  and  not  arbitrarily  or  capriciously,  and  without  dis- 
crimination ;  doing  for  all  under  like  circumstances  what  it  does  for  any  one.^"-^ 


the  statement  required  of  any  such  com- 
pany by  the  2nd  section  of  such  act;  and 
the  company  is  liable  to  the  person  mak- 
ing such  publication  for  the  value  thereof 
where  not  made  on  contract.  Fargo  v. 
Ledger-Standard   Co.,   59   Ind.   496. 

53.  Character  of  business. — Texas,  etc  , 
R.  Co.  V.  Fenwick.  ,'j4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  222, 
226,  78  S.  W.  548,  affirmed  in  98  Tex. 
635,    no    op. 

54.  Rights  of  carrier  in  conduct  of  busi- 
ness.— Decree,  I.-jO  Fed.  .^91,  reversed. 
Piatt  z:  Lecocq,  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  158  Fed. 
723,  15  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  558. 

55.  How  business  must  be  conducted. 
— Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Flcjrida,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    .57    Fla.    522,    49    So.    43. 

56.  Regulations  for  delivery  of  prop- 
erty for  transportation. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  State,  84  Ark.  150,  104  S.  W. 
1106. 

57.  Contract  rendering  carrier  incapa- 
ble of  performing  its  duties. — Taylor  z-. 
Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Fla.  635,  45  So. 
574. 

58.  Conduct  of  business  by  agents. — 
Adams  Exp.  Co.  f.  Commonwealtli,  33 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  967,  112  S.  W.  577,  18  L.  R. 
A.,   N.   S.,   1182. 

59.  Rights  of  railroad  company  in  con- 
duct   of    its   business.  — Har[3    v.    Choctaw, 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  Fed.  169,  affirmed,  61  C. 
C.    A.   405,    125    Fed.   445. 

Right  to  make  reasonable  regulations. 
— A  railroad  company,  has,  unquestiona- 
bly, the  right  to  make  reasonable  regula- 
tions for  conducting  its  business;  and 
parties  dealing  with  it  must  conform  to 
such  regulations.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Moore,  49  Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98; 
Eddy  V.   Rider,  79   Tex.   53,   15   S.   W.   113. 

But  such  regulations  can  not  be  made 
and  enforced  if  violative  of  the  law,  with- 
out liability  to  a  person  injured  by  their 
enforcement.  Eddy  v.  Rider,  79  Tex.  53, 
15    S.   W.    113. 

That  a  regulation  of  a  railway  coni- 
pany,  that  freight  and  passengers  will 
he  carried  on  its  road  in  separate  trains, 
is  a  reasonable  regulation,  can  hardly  be 
doubted  by  any  one.  Houston,  e.tc,  R. 
Co.  V.  Moore,  49  Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98. 

Where  railroad  regulations  are  unnec- 
essary and  put  shippers  to  delay  and  ex- 
pense, the  carrier  may  be  liable.  Don- 
ovan V.  Texas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   64  Tex.   519. 

The  Texas  statute,  art.  4484,  Sayles' 
Civ.  Stats.,  gives  to  railway  corporations 
"the  right  to  regulate  the  time  and  man- 
ner in  which  passengers  and  property 
shall  1)C  transported,"  but  it  has  never 
1)een  thought  that  such  regulations  would 
be   enforced   by   the   courts   except   where 


31 


CONTk(JL   AND    KF.GULATION. 


§  32 


It  is  the  duty  of  a  railroad  company  to  provide  reasonably  adequate  facilities  to 
meet  tlie  present  and  prospective  demands  for  the  safety,  comfort,  and  con- 
venience of  the  public.""  It  may,  in  addition  to  the  facilities  and  accommoda- 
tions already  furnished,  be  required  to  render  a  ])articular  service  that  it  is  es- 
sentiallv  its  duty  to  render  for  the  reasonable  convenience  of  its  patrons  among 
the  public,  and  to  meet  the  reasonable  re<iuirements  of  the  public  service  un- 
dertaken."^ Contracts  for  the  carriage  of  freight  by  railroad  companies  are 
subject  to  regulation  under  the  law,  and  when  a  lawful  regulation  has  been  im- 
posed the  carrier  can  not  destroy  it  by  any  printed  form  of  contract  required  to 
be  signed  by  shippers.''-  In  all  the  states  there  are  constitutional  provisions  or 
statutes  regulating  railroad  companies  in  the  conduct  of  their  business,  or  pro- 
viding for  their  regulation  by  commissions  appointed  for  the  purpose.  Some  of 
the  si)ecirtc  reguhiticjus  with  which  railroad  companies  have  been  required  to 
comply  lia\e   l)een  construed   by  the  courts."-^ 


they  were  reasonable,  and  whether  or 
not  they  are  in  any  case  reasonable  is  a 
question  to  be  determined  according  to 
all  the  circumstances  of  such  case. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Currie,  33  Tex. 
Civ.  .'Kpp.  277,  76  S.  W.  810,  affirmed  in 
97   Tox.   ti4S,   no  op. 

Management  and  running  of  trains. — 
Railroad  companies  may  make  reasona- 
l)le  regulations  of  their  own  lor  the  man- 
agement and  running  of  their  trains,  or 
they  may  follow  general  customs  in  such 
management  and  running;  which,  when 
established,  known,  and  acted  on  by  the 
public,  may  impose  upon  the  companies 
duiiis  in  reference  to  others,  a  breach 
of  which,  to  their  injury,  might  render 
such  companies  liable  to  damages.  Tlie 
facts  involved  in  such  regulations  and 
customs,  upon  which  duties  would  arise, 
not  being  matters  known  to  the  court, 
would  have  to  be  proved  as  other  facts, 
where  a  breach  of  such  duties  might  be- 
come the  subject  matter  of  a  suit  for 
damages.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy, 
4(>  Tex.   3.")r>.  370,   26   .A.m.   Rep.   272. 

60.  Duty  to  provide  facilities  to  meet 
public  demands. —  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Railroad  Comm'rs   (Fla.),  58  So.  543. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  render 
a  service  that  is  reasonably  adequate  and 
of  most  convenience  to  the  greatest  num- 
ber of  the  public  affected  by  the  service. 
Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Louisville,  -etc.,  R. 
Co..   ()2    Fla.    315,   57    So.    175. 

61.  Additional  service.  —  Railroad 
Comm'rs  r.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 
Fla.    315.    57    So.    17  5. 

The  dipping  of  cattle  in  vats  by  a  rail- 
road transporting  them  from  points 
below  the  quarantine  line  to  points 
above  it.  under  quarantine  regulations 
prescribed  by  law,  is  so  involved  in  the 
carriage  of  such  cattle  as  to  constitute 
a  part  of  the  railroad's  public  service. 
Midland  \'alley  R.  Co.  v.  State,  35  Okla. 
672.    130    Pac.    S03. 

62.  Contracts  for  carriage  of  freight. 
— Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bent  &  Co. 
(Miss.),   47    So.    805. 

63.  Public  service  facilities  and  con- 
veniences  required   under   constitution   of 


Oklahoma. — The  provision  in  the  consti- 
tution of  Oklahoma,  art.  9,  §  18  (Bunn's 
Kd.  §  222j  relating  to  the  duties  of  the 
corporation  commission,  and  providing 
that  it  shall  from  time  to  time  require 
transportation  companies  to  maintain  all 
"such  public  service  facilities  and  con- 
veniences as  may  be  reasonable  and  just," 
means  everything  incident  to  the  general, 
prompt,  safe,  and  impartial  performance 
of  the  duties  to  the  public  at  large  im- 
posed by  the  state,  in  the  proper  exer- 
cise of  its  police  power,  on  transporta- 
tion companies.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State,    23    Okla.    94.    99    Rac.    901. 

Sale  of  passenger  tickets. — -An  order 
of  the  Board  of  l'ul)lic  L'tility  Commis- 
sioners of  New  Jersey  held  not  to  re- 
quire the  establishment  of  a  commuta- 
tion service  by  railroads,  but  merely  to 
require  that  tickets  shall  be  sold  for  an 
existing  service  designating  specifically 
the  termini  of  the  journey,  and  that  the 
rates  be  quoted  and  filed.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.  V.  Board,  83  N.  J.  L.  67,  83  Atl. 
945. 

.\n  order  of  the  Board  of  Public  Util- 
it}'  Commissioners  held  not  to  involve 
the  exercise  of  the  power  by  the  state  to 
compel  railroad  companies  to  issue  com- 
mutation or  other  special  forms  of  tick- 
ets, but  merely  the  power  to  end  unjust 
discrimination.  Pennsj'lvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Board,    S3    X.   J.    L.   67,   S3   Atl.    945. 

The  stopping  of  lumber  in  transit  for 
treatment  contemplated  bj^  Railroad 
Commissioners'  Rule  15  A,  prescribing 
the  charge  for  switching  cars  of  rough 
lumber  consigned  to  and  arriving  at  the 
city  of  Jacksonville  from  points  in  the 
state  to  any  planing  mill  in  the  Jackson- 
ville yards,  and  thence  after  lumber  is 
dressed  to  any  point  in  the  same  yards, 
is  in  the  nature  of  a  special  privilege, 
which  the  carrier  may  concede,  but  which 
the  shipper  can  not  demand  as  a  matter 
of  right.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,    K.    Co.,    59    I'la.    612,    52    So.   4. 

Prohibition  against  using  road  for 
street  railroad  purposes. — In  the  Califor- 
nia statute.  Act  May  20.  1861,  authorizing 
municipalities    to    grant    to    any    railroad 


§  32 


CARRIERS. 


32 


Maintenance  of  Warehouses.— A  railroad  company  has  no  power,  either 
express  or  inipHed.  to  maintain  a  regular  public  warehouse  as  an  incident  to  its 
duty  as  public  carrier ;  ^-^  and  it  can  not  be  compelled  to  maintain  such  a  ware- 
house   unless  it  has  the  power  to  act  as  a  public  warehouseman.''^ 

When  Regulations  May  Be  Enforced  Though  Service  Required  Is  Un- 
remunerative. — Even  though  a  particular  duty  of  a  railroatl  company,  if  en- 
forced, would  be  in  itself  unremunerative  and  burdensome,  such  a  result  would 
be  an  incident  to  the  service  voluntarily  undertaken,  in  consideration  of  the 
franchises  permitted  to  be  used  for  the  public  good,  and  the  property  rights  oi 
the  carrier  would  not  thereby  be  lawfully  invaded,  if  the  particular  service  is 
reasonably  necessarv  for  the  public  convenience,  and  the  burden  to  the  carrier 
has  some' fair  relation  to  the  benefits  accruing  to  the  public,  and  the  burden  of 
the  particular  service,  considered  with  reference  to  the  entire  business  of  the 
carrier,  does  not  in  reality  amount  to  a  denial  to  the  carrier  of  a  reasonable  com- 
pensation for  the  service'rendered  by  it  as  an  entirety.6«  If  the  performance  of 
a  particular  useful,  but  nonessential,  duty  by  a  common  carrier  will  as  a  part 
of  a  general  public  service  contribute  to  the  public  convenience,  the  fact  that 
the  particular  service  must  be  rendered  at  a  loss  does  not,  in  view  of  the  nature 
of  the  duty  required,  excuse  nonperformance;  but  the  loss  occasioned  by  the 
performance  of  a  particular  duty  may  be  considered  in  determining  the  rea- 
sonableness of  the  order  requiring  the  particular  service  to  be  rendered.^'  Where 
it  appears  that  a  particular  service  is  a  duty  vitally  necessary  to  the  public,  and 
its  performance  is  essential  in  adequately  rendering  a  general  public  service  as  a 
common  carrier,  the  fact  that  the  performance  of  the  particular  duty  will  be  un- 
remunerative will  not  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  duty  to  the  public  excuse 
nonperformance.''^ 


company  the  use  of  streets  for  the  pur- 
pose of  reaching  an  accessible  point  for 
a  depot,  the  provision  that  no  company 
availing  itself  of  the  act  should  use  its 
road  "for  street  railroad  purposes,  or  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  passengers  for  a 
consideration  from  one  point  to  another 
in  the  same  city,"  was  inserted  to  pre- 
vent competition  betweeji  railroad  com- 
panies covered  by  the  act  and  local  street 
railways,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  giv- 
ing the  public  at  large  the  right  to  travel 
free  on  such  railroad  within  the  city  lim- 
its. Buswell  V.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  114 
Cal.    44.5.    4fi    Pac.    291. 

G4.  Railroad  company  has  no  power 
to  maintain  a  public  warehouse. — People 
V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  233  111.  378,  84  N. 
E.    368. 

65.  Railroad  company  can  not  be  com- 
pelled to  maintain  a  public  warehouse. 
— People  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  233  111. 
378,    84    N.    E.    368. 

Illinois  statute  does  not  require  main- 
tenance of  warehouses. — The  Illinois 
statute,  Hurd's  Rev.  St.  190,5.  c.  114,  §  3, 
requires  railroad  companies  to  transport 
grain  in  bulk,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the 
statute  requiring  _them  to  maintain  regu- 
lar public  warehouses.  People  v.  Illinois 
Cent.   R.   Co..  233   111.  378,  84   N.    E.   368. 

66.  When  regulations  may  be  enforced 
though  service  required  is  unremunera- 
tive.—I^ailroad  Comm'rs  v.  Lou'svillc, 
etc.,   R.   Co..   62   Ela.   315,   57   So.    175. 

If  particular  regulations  are  reasonably 
useful  and  expedient  for  the  just  require- 


ments of  the  public  service  being  per- 
formed by  a  common  carrier,  thereby 
making  it  a  duty  of  the  carrier  to  render 
the  service,  the  regulations,  if  not  illegal, 
may  be  enforced,  even  though  the  serv- 
ice required  is  not  remunerative,  unless 
it  is  made  to  clearly  appear  that  the  par- 
ticular regulations  are  so  unreasonable 
and  arbitrary  that  their  enforcement  will 
operate  to  deny  to  the  carrier  a  reason- 
able compensation  for  the  entire  service 
rendered  by  it.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Fla.  315,  57 
So.  175. 

Common  carrier  held  entitled  to  rea- 
sonable compensation  for  service,  but  not 
necessarily  to  full  return  for  values  used 
in  rendering  the  service.  Railroad 
Comm'rs  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Fla.), 
57   So.   673. 

Prime  duty  of  carrier  to  render  safe 
and  reasonable  service  held  required  to 
be  performed  when  possible,  whether 
profitable  or  not.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Fla.),  57  So.  673. 

The  risks  and  burdens  of  contingency 
of  producing  return  for  property,  man- 
agement, and  labor  used  by  carrier  held 
to  be  assumed  by  the  carrier  in  volun- 
tarily undertaking  to  render  public  serv- 
ice. Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Fla.),   57   So.   673. 

67.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,   62   Fla.   315,   57   So.    175. 

68.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  62  Fla.  315,  57  So.   175. 


33  CONTROL   AM)   KKciULATIOX.  §    34 

Considerations  in  Determining  Whether  a  Regulation  Is  Confiscatory. 

— In  determining  whether  the  burden  of  a  particular  regulation  enforced  by 
state  authority  is  confiscatory  and  unlawful  because  it  prevents  a  railroad  com- 
pany from  receiving  a  reasonable  compensation  for  the  service  rendered,  taken 
as  an  entirety,  the  fair  actual  value  of  all  the  property  and  labor  and  manage- 
ment rightly  used  in  rendering  the  service  should  be  considered.  The  cost  of 
reproduction  of  the  projjerty  may  be  an  element  to  be  considered  in  ascertaining 
the  real  value  of  the  jjrcjporty  used,  but  it  is  not  the  value  that  is  to  be  arbitrarily 
considered  in  determining;  what  is  a  reasonable  compensation  for  the  service 
rendered  as  a  whole  1)\'  a  common  carrier.'"'' 

When  Courts  and  Commissions  Should  Not  Interfere  to  Modify  Es- 
tablished Rules. — Courts  and  commissions  should  not  interfere  to  modify  es- 
lalilishcd  rules  of  transportation  com])anies  on  account  of  trivial  troubles  and  in- 
cidental inconveniences,  nor  unless  clear  injustice  or  the  imminent  threat  of  it 
has   resulted   therefrom.'" 

Discontinuance  of  a  Train. — Though  information  necessary  to  determine 
the  question  whether  a  train  should  be  discontinued  is  inaccessible  to  the  rail- 
road commissioners  except  through  the  railroad  company,  it  does  not  relieve 
the  commissioners  of  the  duty  to  regulate  trains,  nor  deprive  them  of  any  au- 
thority they  have  to  acquire  the  necessary  information.'' 

Railroad  Companies  Can  Not  Escape  Duties  by  Surrendering  Manage- 
ment and  Control  of  Their  Roads.  —  Kailroad  companio  \oluntarily  assmne 
duties  to  the  public  from  wliich  they  cannot  free  themselves  by  surrendering 
the  management  and  control  of  their  roads  to  other  persons,  in  the  absence  of  a 
law  permitting  them  to  do  so.'- 

§  33.  Business  of  Transmitting  Money  to  Foreign  Countries. — A  stat- 
ute requiring  all  i)ersons.  who  add  to  their  business  of  selling  steamship  or  rail- 
road tickets  to  or  from  foreign  countries  the  business  of  receiving  money  for 
transmission  to  foreign  countries,  to  give  a  bond,  merely  regulates  the  carrying 
on  of  the  business  of  transmitting  money  to  foreign  countries  and  restricts  the 
business  b\-  rccfuiring  a  bond  to  prevent  fraud  and  the  commission  of  crime,  and 
is  valid  as  within  the  ])olice  power.'-' 

§  34.  Hackmen  and  Draymen. — A  municipal  ordinance  regulating  the 
business  of  carrying  passengers  and  freight  for  hire  in  hacks  and  other  vehicles 
on  the  streets  of  the  municipality  must  conform  to  the  municipal  charter  and 
must  not  l)e  unreasonable.''"* 

69.  Considerations  in  dete'mining  hy  the  sale  of  bonds,  and  to  secure  the 
whether  a  regulation  is  confiscatory. —  l)onds  by  a  mortgage  of  its  road,  capi- 
Railroad  Comni'rs  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  tal  stock,  franchises,  etc.,  did  not  author- 
Co.,  02  Fla.  .'Jl.T,  57  So.   175.  ize    the    company    to    surrender    the    con- 

70.  When  courts  and  commissions  trol  and  management  of  its  road  to  the 
should  not  interfere  to  modify  estab-  trustees  in  such  mortgage,  and  thus  re- 
lished rules. — Decree,  150  Fed.  391,  re-  lieve  itself  from  its  liabilities  and  duties 
versed.  Piatt  z'.  Lecocq,  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  to  the  state  and  the  public.  Rio  Grande 
158   Fed.   723.   15   L.   R.   A..   N.   S..  55S.  R.   Co.  7'.   Cross,  5  Tex.   Civ.   App.  454,  23 

71.  Discontinuance  of  a  train— Effect  S.  W.  529,  afHrmed  in  93  Tex.  648,  no 
of  inaccessibility  of  information. — Rail-  op.,  following  Woodhonse  f.  Rio  Grande 
road  Conim'rs  r.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61       R.   Co..  f,7  Tex.  416.  a  S.  W.  :!2;i. 

Fla.  799.  54   So.  900.  73.  Statute  regulating  business  of  trans- 

72.  Railroad  companies  can  not  escape  mitting  money  to  foreign  countries. — 
duties  by  surrendering  management  and  JudguuMU,  Bonvega  z\  United  States 
control  of  their  roads. — Woodhouse  v.  Suretv  Co.,  115  N.  Y.  S.  199:  Musco  v. 
Rio  Grande  R.  Co.,  67  Tex.  416,  3  S.  W.  United  Surety  Co.,  132  App.  Div.  300.  117 
323;  Rio  Grande  R.  Co.  v.  Cross,  5  Tex.  X.  V.  S.  21,  order  affirmed,  90  X.  E.  171, 
Civ.  App.  454,  456,  23  S.  W.  529,  affirmed  construing  Laws   1907.  p.  263,^  c.   185. 

in  93  Tex.  648,  no  op.  making  it   a  niisdomcanor  to  "stop,  stand, 

A  provision  in  a  railway  charter  which  74.    Ordinance   held  an  invalid  exercise 

authorized    the    company    to    raise    money       of  power  given  by  charter.— An  ordinance 

1   Car— 3 


CARRIERS. 


34 


§  35 

§§  35-95.  Charges— §§  35-84.  In  General— §§  35-79.  Power  to 
Regulate— §  35.  In  General.— The  power  to  regulate  and  control  tlie  rates 
of  carriers  is  within  the  poHce  power  of  the  state.'^  The  legislature  of  a  state 
has  the  power  to  prescribe  and  regulate  the  charges  of  a  railroad  company  for 
the  carriage  of  persons  and  merchandise  within  its  limits,  in  the  absence  of  a 
contract  vesting  in  the  company  authority  over  those  matters,  subject  to  the 
limitation  that  the  carriage  is  not  required  without  reward,  or  upon  conditions 
amounting  to  the  taking  of  property  for  public  use  without  just  compensation; 
and  that  what  is  done  does  not  amount  to  a  regulation  of  foreign  or  interstate 
commerce.'^     The  power  thus  to  prescribe  and  regulate  charges  is  m  many  of 


or  detain"  any  '"carriage,  hack,  or  vehi- 
cle" used  to  carry  passengers  or  freight 
for  hire,  on  any  of  certain  named  streets, 
or  in  front  of  any  public  hotel  in  the  city, 
except  when  actually  engaged  in  receiv- 
ing or  delivering  passengers  or  freight,  is 
an  unreasonable  and  oppressive  and  in- 
valid exercise  of  the  power  given  by  a 
city  charter  to  license,  tax,  and  regulate 
hackmen,  draymen,  etc.,  and  to  regulate 
stands  for  their  vehicles,  and  to  prevent 
the  incumbering  of  the  streets  with  any 
vehicle  whatsoever.  Ex  parte  Battis,  40 
Tex.  Cr.  App.  112,  48  S.  W.  513,  43  L.  R. 
A.   863.  76  Am.   St.   Rep.  708. 

Ordinance  held  not  void  for  unreason- 
ableness.— Provisions  in  the  city  ordi- 
nance establishing  a  hack  stand  which 
locate  such  stand  across  a  thoroughfare 
from  a  city  railroad  station,  and  at  a  dis- 
tance of  50  feet  from  the  sidewalk  in 
front  thereof,  and  which  require  the  driv- 
ers to  stay  with  their  vehicles,  and  for- 
bid them  leaving  such  vehicles  to  solicit 
passengers  or  to  assist  customers  to  the 
vehicles,  and  which  prohibit  runners 
therefor  on  the  thoroughfare  or  sidewalk, 
do  not  render  the  ordinance  void  for  un- 
reasonableness. Ex  parte  Vance,  42  Tex. 
Cr.   App.   619,  62  S.  W.  568. 

75.  Power  to  regulate  rates  within  po- 
lice power. — In  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases, 
l.-jT  Fed.  290;  Webster  v.  Superior  Court, 
67   Wash.   37,   120  Pac.   861. 

76.  Power  of  state  to  regulate  charges 
of  railroad  companies. — United  States. — • 
Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S. 
174,  179,  32  L.  Ed.  377,  9  S.  Ct.  47;  Stone 
V.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307, 
29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334;  Dow  v.  Bei- 
delman,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L.  Ed.  841,  8 
S.  Ct.  1028;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  North 
Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  206  U.  S.  1,  51 
L.  Ed.  933,  27  S.  Ct.  585;  Minne- 
apolis, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  186 
U.  S.  257,  264,  46  L.  Ed.  1151,  22 
S.  Ct.  900;  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed. 
1014.  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Illinois.  118  U.  S.  557,  30  L.  Ed.  244,  7 
S.  Ct.  4;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minne- 
sota, 134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S. 
Ct.  462,  702;  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Purdy,  185  U. 
S.  148,  150,  46  L.  Ed.  487,  22  S.  Ct.  605; 
Hennington  v.  Georgia,  163  U.  S.  299.  41 
L.  Ed.  166,  16  S.  Ct.  1086;  Western  Union 


Tel.    Co.    V.   James,    162   U.    S.   650,   40    L. 
Ed.   1105,   16  S.   Ct.  934;   Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.    Co.   V.   Ohio,   173   U.   S.   285,   43   L.    Ed. 
702,    19    S.    Ct.    465;    Munn    v.    Illinois,    94 
U.   S.   113,   24   L.    Ed.   77;    Railroad   Co.   v. 
Maryland  (U.  S.),  21  Wall.  456,  22  L.  Ed. 
678:   Rugs-les  v.   Illinois,  108  U.  S.  526,  27 
L.    Ed.   8l'2,   2   S.   Ct.   832;   Railroad   Co.  v. 
Richmond,    96    U.    S.    521,    24    L.    Ed.    734; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wellman,  143  U. 
S.    339,   36   L.   Ed.   176,   12   S.    Ct.   400;    Illi- 
nois   Cent.    R.    Co.   v.    Illinois,    108    U.    S. 
541,  27  L.  Ed.  818,  2  S.  Ct.  839;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,    R.    Co.   V.    Gill,    156   U.    S.    649,    39    L. 
Ed.    567,    15    S.    Ct.   484;    Smyth    v.    Ames, 
169    U.    S.    466,    523,    42    L.    Ed.    819.    18    S. 
Ct.   418;   Norfolk,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Pendle- 
ton,   156    U.    S.    667,    673,    39    L.    Ed.    574, 
15    S.    Ct.   413;   Shields   v.   Ohio,   95   U.   S. 
319,  24  L.  Ed.  357;  Union  Pac.   R.  Co.  v. 
Goodridge,    149   U.   S.    680,   37    L.    Ed.   986, 
13  S.  Ct.  970;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 
Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.   Ed.  858,  19  S. 
Ct.    565;    McChord   v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,    183    U.    S.    483,    46    L.    Ed.    289,    22    S. 
Ct.    165;    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Tomp- 
kins,   176   U.    S.    167,   44   L.    Ed.   417,   20   S. 
Ct.  336;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steven- 
son,   156   U.    S.    667,    39    L.    Ed.    573,    15    S. 
Ct.    491;    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Iowa, 
94   U.   S.   155.   24   L.    Ed.   94;    Peik  V.   Chi- 
cago,   etc.,    R.    Co..    94    U.    S.    164,    24    L. 
Ed.    97;    Chicago,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Ackley, 
94  U.   S.   179,   24   L.   Ed.  99;  Winona,  etc., 
R.    Co.   V.   Blake,   94   U. -S.   180,   24   L.   Ed. 
99;   Stone  v.   Wisconsin,   94  U.    S.    181,   24 
L.     Ed.    102;    Louisville,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 
Kentucky,    161    U.    S.   677,   696,   40   L.    Ed. 
849,  16  S.  Ct.  714;  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citi- 
zens' St.   R.   Co..  184  U.   S.  368.  387,  46  L. 
Ed.  592,  22  S.  Ct.  410;  Reagan  v.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  420,  38   L.  Ed. 
1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Reagan  v.  Mercantile 
Trust   Co.,   154  U.   S.   418,   38   L.    Ed.    1030, 
14   S.    Ct.   1062;  Wisconsin,   etc.,    Railroad 
V.  Jacobson,   179  U.  S.  287,  45  L.   Ed.  194, 
21   S.  Ct.   115;   Northern   Securities   Co.  v. 
United   States,    193   U.    S.    197,   378,   48   L. 
Ed    679,  24  S.   Ct.  436;   Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Mississippi,  133  U.  S.  587,  592,  33  L. 
Ed.     784,    10     S.    Ct.    348;    Covington,     etc., 
P,ridge  Co.  V.  Kentucky,  154  U.  S.  224,  38  L. 
Ed    970,   14    S.   Ct.    1094;    Missouri    Pac.   R. 
Co.  V.  Nebraska,  164  U.  S.  403,  41  L.  Ed. 
489,    17    S.    Ct.    130;    Covington,   etc..   Turn- 
pike Road  Co.  V.  Sandford.  164  U.  S.  578.41 


35 


COXTK(JL  AND  RIXULATIOX. 


35 


the  states  conferred  upon  the  legislature  by  express  constitutional  enactment;'" 
and  the  legislature  must  always  exercise  its  i)0\ver  within  constitutional  bounds."^ 
It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  a  statute  regulating  the  rates  to  be  charged  by 
a  railroad  company  that  it  shall  not  be  ambiguous  or  uncertain.'*' 


L.  Ed.  500,  17  S.  Ct.  198;  Cotting  v.  Kan- 
sas City  Stock  Yards  Co.,  1h:{  U.  S.  79, 
4G  L.  Ed.  92,  33  S.  Ct.  30;  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  541,  37  L.  Ed. 
818,  3  S.  Ct.  839;  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Gibbcs,  143  U.  S.  38f),  3.'5  L.  Ed.  1051, 
12  S.  Ct.  255;  Metropolitan  Trust  Co.  v. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Fed.  683;  In  re 
.Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187  Fed.  290; 
Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Bartine,  170  Fed. 
735;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,  196   Fed.  800. 

Georgia. — Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  70 
Ga.    694. 

Illinois. — Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  199  111.  484,  65  N.  E.  451,  59 
L.    R.    A.   631. 

Indiana. — Southern  Indiana  R.  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Comm.,  173  Ind.  113,  87  N.  E. 
966. 

Oregon. — State  v.  Corvallis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
59   Ore.  450,   117   Pac.   980. 

Pennsvl'c'ania. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Philadelphia  County,  320  Pa.  100,  68  Atl. 
676. 

Vermont. — State  v.  Central  Vermont  R. 
Co.,  81   Vt.   463,   71   Atl.   194. 

J'irginia. — Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Patterson,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Va.  670,  34  S.  E. 
361,  41  L.  R.  A.  511;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Pendleton,  86  Va.  1004,  11  S.  E.  1062, 
affirmed  in  156  U.  S.  667,  39  L.  Ed.  574, 
15  S.   Ct.  413. 

Jl'est  rirgiiiia. — Laurel,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.,  25  W.  Va. 
334;  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.  v.  Sweet- 
zer,  35  W.  Va.  434. 

The  legislature  either  directly  or  by 
delegation  of  authority  to  an  appropri- 
ate agency  has  power  to  fix  rates  to  be 
charged  by  railroad  companies,  provided 
the  rates  fi.xed  are  such  as  to  afford  rea- 
sonable compensation  for  the  services 
rendered.  Graham  Ice  Co.  z\  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  Wis.  145,  140  N.  W.  1097. 

The  state  government  of  Oklahoma 
has  full  power  to  regulate  the  charges 
for  intrastate  freight  and  passenger  traf- 
fic on  intrastate  railroads.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Territory,  31  Okla.  334,  97 
Pac.   367. 

The  right  of  the  legislature  of  Indiana 
to  regulate  the  fare  upon  street  railroads 
organized  under  the  act  of  1861  does  not 
depend  upon  the  reservation  in  §  11  of 
the  right  to  amend  or  repeal  said  act,  as 
the  power  would  exist  even  if  the  right 
to  amend  or  repeal  the  act  had  not  been 
reserved.  Indianapolis  v.  Navin,  151  Ind. 
139,  47  N.  K.  .-.:?.'.,  51  X.  E.  r^o.  41  L.  R.  A. 
337,    :!4l. 

Requiring  rates  to  be  fixed  annually. — 
Carriers  may  be  required  to  fix  their  rates 
annually    for    the    transportation    of    pas- 


sengers and  freight.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Illinois,  177  U.  S.  514,  517,  44  L. 
Ed.  868,  30  S.  Ct.  723;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Fuller  (U.  S.),  17  Wall.  560,  21  L.  Ed. 
710. 

77.  Power  conferred  by  express  consti- 
tutional enactment. — Trammel  r.  Dins- 
more,  43  C.  C.  A.  623,  103  Fed.  794,  af- 
firmed in  183  U.  S.  115,  46  L.  Ed.  Ill,  22 
S.  Ct.  45;  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Melton,  133 
Ga.  277,  65  S.   E.  665. 

Peculiar  provisions  of  constitutions 
construed  —Georgia  R.  Co.  ?'.  Smith.  70 
Ga.  (■)94:   Sliields  z\  State.  :36  O.  St.  m;. 

78.  Legislature  must  exercise  power 
within  constitutional  bounds. —  In  re  Ar- 
kansas   R-Mv    Cases,    is:    l-.-d.    290. 

Wiiere  a  railroad  is  incorporated  by  a 
state,  it  takes  its  charter  subject  to  the 
provisions  of  the  state  constitution  as  to 
regulation  of  rates  by  the  state.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S. 
503,   46   L.    Ed.   29S.  22   S.    Ct.   95. 

79.  Statute  void  for  uncertainty. — Ky. 
St.,  §  816,  providing  that,  if  any  railroad 
corporation  shall  charge  or  collect  more 
than  a  just  and  reasonable  rate  of  toll 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers  or 
freight,  it  shall  be  guilty  of  extortion, 
and  fixing  a  penalty  therefor,  is  void  for 
uncertainty,  in  that  it  fails  to  prescribe 
a  standard  as  to  what  is  just  and  rea- 
sonal)le,  l)y  which  the  carrier  can  regulate 
its  conduct.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth,  99  Ky.  132,  18  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  42,  35  S.  W.  129,  33  L.  R.  A.  209. 
59    Am.    St.    Rep.    457. 

Statutes  held  not  void  for  ambiguity  or 
uncertainty. — Act  May  3.  lS7o.  ^5  1,  wliich 
declares  that  any  railroad  company  which 
shall  charge  or  receive  more  than  a  fair 
and  reasonable  compensation  shall  be 
guilty  of  extortion,  is  not  void  for  un- 
certainty in  defining  the  offense,  since, 
when  construed  in  connection  with  the 
eighth  section,  which  provides  for  the 
making  by  the  railroad  and  warehouse 
commissioners  of  a  schedule  of  reasona- 
lile  maximum  rates  for  each  railroad  in 
the  state,  it  furnishes  a  uniform  rule  for 
tlic  guidance  of  the  railroads.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Jones.  149  111.  361.  37  N. 
E.  347,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  278,  24  L.  R.  A. 
141. 

Comp.  Laws.  §  6234,  subd.  7.  provides 
that  in  transporting  freight  by  car,  loaded 
by  the  shipper  and  unloaded  by  the  con- 
signee, no  railroad  shall  charge  for  trans- 
porting each  car  more  than  $8  for  any 
distance  not  exceeding  ten  miles,  and  not 
more  than  fifty  cents  a  mile  for  the  sec- 
ond 10  miles,  etc.  The  maximum  and 
minimum  car  load  of  the  various  classes 


CARRIERS. 


36 


§  35 

Basis  of  Power.— The  power  of  a  state  to  regulate  railroad  rates  and  charges 
arises  from  the  fact  that  railroad  companies  are  engaged  in  a  public  employment, 
affectincr  the  public  interest,  and  must  be  held  to  have  accepted  their  rights,  priv- 
ile<-es  and  franchises  subject  to  the  condition  that  the  government  creating  them 
or^he  cTovernment  within  whose  limits  thev  conduct  their  business,  may  by  leg- 
islation''protect  the  people  against  unreasonable  charges  for  the  services  ren- 
dered bv  them.''"  .  .  «  ,       ,        i  c 

Railroads  Incorporated  under  Act  of  Congress.— in  the  absence  of  any- 


of    freight    was     established     by     experts. 
Held,    in   an    action    to    recover    an    over- 
charge, that  the  statute  was  not  aml)igu- 
ous    or    uncertain    on    the    ground    that    it 
applied  to  the  transportation  of  cars  only, 
and   not   freight,   nor   was   it   uncertain   on 
the  ground  that  a  car  load  is  not  a  fixed 
quantitv.  since,  while  the  capacity  of  cars 
differs,' the   load   which    each   could   carry 
was     fixed     and     certain.       Robinson     z: 
Harmon,    157    Mich.    266,    117    N.    W.    661. 
80.     Reason    of    existence   of   power   by 
state   to    regulate.— rjH/rt/   Statcs.—Smylh 
V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  545,  42  L.  Ed.  819, 
18   S.    Ct.  418;   Railroad   Co.  v.   Maryland 
(U    S)    21  Wall.  456,  22  L.  Ed.  678;  Dow 
V.    Beidelman,    125    U.    S.    680,    687,    31    L. 
Ed    841,  8  S.   Ct.  1028;   Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  503,  46  L.   Ed. 
298,  22  S.  Ct.  95;   Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ackley,   94  U.   S.    179,  24   L.   Ed.  99;   Wi- 
nona, etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Blake,  94  U.  S.   180, 
24  L.   Ed.  99;   Stone  v.  Wisconsin,  94  U. 
S     181,    24    L.    Ed.    102;    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 
Co.    V.    Minnesota,    134    U.    S.    418,    33    L. 
Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  702;   Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94; 
Georgia  R.,   etc.,   Co.  v.   vSmith,  128  U.   S. 
174,    32    L.    Ed.    377.    9    S.    Ct.    47;    Peik   v. 
Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   94    U.    S.    164,    165. 
24   L.    Ed.   97. 

West  Virginia.— Ldiurol.  etc.  R.  Co.  v. 
West  Virginia  Transp.  Co..  25  W.  Va. 
324;  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.  v.  vSweet- 
zer.   25   W.    Va.    434. 

Railroad  companies  are  carriers  tor 
hire.  They  are  incorporated  as  such,  and 
given  extraordinary  powers,  in  order  that 
they  may  better  serve  the  public  in  that 
capacity.  They  are,  therefore,  engaged 
in  a  public  employment  affecting  the  pub- 
lic interest,  and  are  subject  to  legisla- 
tive control  as  to  their  rates  of  fare  and 
freight,  unless  protected  by  their  char- 
ters. Dow  V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680, 
31  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  503, 
46  L.  Ed.  298,  22  vS.  Ct.  95;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Ackley,  94  U.  S.  179,  24  L.  Ed. 
99;  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94  U. 
S.  180,  24  L.  Ed.  99;  Stone  v.  Wisconsin, 
94  U.  S.  181,  24  L.  Ed.  102;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33 
L.   Ed.   970,   10   S.   Ct.   462,  702. 

The  incorporation  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany by  a  state  and  the  granting  of  spe- 
cial privileges  to  carry  out  the  object  of 
incorporation,    more    particularly    the    au- 


thority to  exercise  the  state's  right  of 
eminent  domain,  and  the  obligation  as- 
sumed by  the  acceptance  of  the  charter 
to  transport  all  persons  and  merchandise 
upon  like  conditions  and  for  reasonable 
rates  affect  the  property  and  employ- 
ment with  a  public  use  and  thus  subject 
the  business  of  the  company  to  legislative 
control  in  the  interest  of  the  public. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphey,  116  Ga. 
863,  43  S.  E.  265,  60  L.  R.  A.  817,  citing 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U.  S. 
174,  32  L.   Ed.  377,  9  S.   Ct.  47. 

Under  the  rule  that  the  owner  of  prop- 
erty set  apart  to  a  public  use  impliedly 
agrees  to  be  governed  by  such  reasona- 
ble regulations  as  the  public  may  adopt 
to  promote  the  common  convenience  and 
general  welfare,  the  state  may  enact  rea- 
sonable regulations  fixing  the  rates  for 
transportation  of  freight  and  passengers. 
State  V.  Corvallis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  Ore. 
450,    117    Pac.   980. 

A    railroad    is    a    public    highway,    and 
none  the   less   so  because  constructed  and 
maintained   through   the   agency  of  a   cor- 
poration  deriving  its   existence   and  pow- 
ers   from   the    state.      Such   a   corporation 
was  created  for  public  purposes.     It  per- 
forms   a    function    of    the    state.      Its    au- 
thority   to    exercise    the    right   of   eminent 
domain    and    to    charge    tolls    was    given 
primarily  for  the  benefit  of  the  public.     It 
is     under     governmental     control     though 
such   control  must  be  exercised  with  due 
regard    to    the    constitutional    guarantees 
for  the  protection  of  its  property.     Olcott 
V.    Supervisors    (U.    S.),    16   Wall.    678,    21 
L.    Ed.    382;    Sinking    Fund    Cases,    99    U. 
S.  700,  25  L.  Ed.  496,  14  S.  Ct.  594;  Cher- 
okee  Nation  v.   Southern   Kansas   R.   Co., 
135    U.    S.    641,    34    L.    Ed.    295,    10    S.    Ct. 
965.      It    can    not,    therefore,   be    admitted 
that    a    railroad    corporation    maintaining 
a    highway    under    the    authority    of    the 
state  may  fix  its  rates  with  a  view  solely 
to  its  own  interests,  and  ignore  the  rights 
of  the  public.     But  the  rights  of  the  pub- 
lic    would    be    ignored     if    rates    for     the 
transportation   of  persons   or  property  on 
a    railroad   are   exacted   without   reference 
to    the    fair    value    of    the    property    used 
for    the    public    or    the    fair    value    of   the 
services    rendered,    but    in    order    simply 
that  the  corporation  may  meet  operating 
expenses,-  pay   the   interest   on   its   obliga- 
tions,   and    declare    a    dividend    to    stock- 
holders.    Smyth  V.  Ames,   169  U.   S.   466, 
544,    42    L.    Ed.    819,    18    S.    Ct.    418. 


Z7 


CONTROL.   AXU   Rl-GULATIOX. 


§  35 


thing  to  the  contrary  in  the  charter  or  statute  creating  a  railroad  corporation,  a 
state  may  reasonably  regulate  its  rates  and  tariffs  upon  intrastate  traffic,  al- 
though  it  is  inc(jr])oratc'(l   under  ;in  art  on  congress.'**^ 

State  Newly  Admitted  to  Union.— W  here  an  act  of  congress  regulating 
the  rates  on  a  railroad  in  a  territory  provides  that  such  regulations  shall  be  in 
force  until  a  state  government  shall  exist  in  the  territory,  when  such  govern- 
ment shall  be  authorized  to  regulate  the  cost  of  transportation  by  the  railroaa 
comi)any,  ui)«)n  tlie  organization  of  the  territory  as  a  state  and  its  admission  to 
the  L'nion,  ihc  rates  fixed  by  the  act  of  congress  cease  to  be  of  force,  and  the 
power  to  regulate  intrastate  rates  on  the  railroad  jjasses  into  the  control  of  the 
state,  subject  onlv  to  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  railroad  comi)any.''- 

Railroads  Incorporated  in  Several  States.— W  here  a  railroad  running 
throug'i  more  than  one  state  is  incorporated  under  tlie  laws  of  each  state  through 
which  it  passes,  it  is,  as  to  the  state  incorporating  it,  a  domestic  corporation, 
sul)ject  to  the  state  laws  not  in  conflict  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
including  state  laws  regulating  freights  and  fares  "for  business  done  exclusively 
within  the  state. ^■' 

Consolidated  Company,  Consisting  of  Domestic  and  Foreign  Corpo- 
rations.— Where  domestic  railroad  corporations  are  consolidated  with  foreign 
corporations  on  terms  which,  in  effect,  require  the  consolidated  company,  when 
operating  in  the  state  to  be  subject  to  its  laws,  the  state  may  legislate  for  the 
company  within  the  state  precisely  as  it  could  have  legislated  for  its  own  orig- 
inal com])anies,  if  no  consolidation  had  taken  place."^"* 

That  Income  Is  Pledged  to  Secure  Debts  Does  Not  Preclude  Regula- 
tion.— The  stale  may  limit  the  anunnU  of  charges  by  railroad  companies  for 
fares  and  freights,  unless  restrained  by  some  contract  in  the  charter,  even  though 
their  income  may  have  been  pledged  as  security  for  the  payment  of  obligations 
incurred  upon  the  faith  of  the  charter.^'' 

Power  to  Declare  What  Shall  Be  a  Reasonable  Compensation  or  to 
Fix  a  Maximum  Charge. —  \\\  the  common  law  carriers  or  other  persons  ex- 
ercising a  public  employment  could  not  charge  more  than  a  reasonable  compen- 
sation for  their  ser\ices,  and  it  is  within  the  ])ower  of  the  legislature  to  declare 


81.  Railroad  created  by  congress.-- 
Reagan  v.  Mercantile  Trust  Co..  154  U. 
S.  418,  38  L.  Ed.  1030,  14  S.  Ct.  1062 ; 
Smyth  V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  523,  42 
L.  Ed.  819.  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Thomson  v. 
Pacific  Railroad  (U.  S.),  9  Wall.  579,  19 
L.  Ed.  792;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Peniston  (U. 
S.).   18  Wall.   5.  21   L.    Ed.  787. 

The  provision  in  the  act  of  Congress 
of  July  1,  1862,  ch.  120,  12  Stat.  489.  in- 
corporating the  Union  Pacific  Railroad 
Company,  that  congress  might  reduce 
the  rates  of  fare  if  unreasonable  in 
amount  and  might  fix  and  estalilish  the 
same  by  law  whenever  the  net  earnings 
of  the  entire  road  should  exceed  ten  per 
cent  upon  its  cost,  exclusive  of  the  '^wo^ 
per  cent  to  be  paid  to  the  United  States, 
did  not  affect  the  right  of  the  several 
states  through  which  the  road  passes  to 
regulate  the  rates  within  their  respective 
limits.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466, 
522.  42   L.    Ed.   S19,    IS    S.    Ct.   418. 

82.  State  newly  admitted  to  union. — 
Oklahoma  v.  Atcliison.  etc..  R.  Co..  220 
U.  S.  277,  55  L.  Ed.  465,  31  S.  Ct.  434; 
Oklahoma  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  220 
U.  S.  302.  55  L.  Ed.  474.  31  S.  Ct.  442. 
affirming  21  Okla.  334,  97  Pac.  267. 


83.  Railroads  incorporated  by  several 
states. — Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan.  etc..  Co., 
116    U.   S.   307.   29    L.    Ed.   '^^?,^y.  6    S.    Ct.   334. 

84.  Consolidated  company,  consisting 
of  domestic  and  foreign  corporations. — 
Peik  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164, 
24   L.   Ed.   97. 

85.  That  income  is  pledged  to  secure 
debts  does  not  preclude  regulation. —  IVik 
c'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  94  U.  S.  164,  24 
L.  Ed.  97;  Munn  v.  Illinois.  94  U.  S.  113, 
24  L.  Ed.  77;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Iowa.   94   U.    S.    155.   24    L.    Ed.    94. 

The  fact  that  before  the  power  of  reg- 
ulation was  exercised,  the  company 
pledged  its  income  as  security  for  the 
payment  of  dcl)ts  incurred,  and  leased  its 
road  to  a  tenant  that  relied  upon  the 
earnings  for  the  means  of  paying  the 
stipulated  rent,  does  not  affect  the  va- 
lidity of  the  regulation,  as  the  company 
could  neither  grant  nor  pledge  more  than 
it  had.  and  its  pledgee  or  tenant  took 
the  property  subject  to  the  exercise  by 
the  state  of  the  same  powers  of  regula- 
tion which  might  have  been  exercised 
over  the  company  itself.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Iowa.  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94. 


§  36 


CARRIERS. 


38 


what  shall  be  a  reasonable  compensation  for  such  services,  or,  perhaps  more 
properly  speaking,  to  fix  a  maximum  beyond  wliich  any  charge  made  would  be 
unreasonable.'^^'  But  a  state  can  not  compel  a  railroad  company  to  contract  with 
any  individual  or  class  for  carriage  at  a  charge  less  than  the  established  or  reg- 
ular scale  of  fares.^"  In  some  states  the  legislature  is  expressly  empowered  by 
the  constitution  to  fix  maximum  rates  for  railroad  companies ;  *^*  and  some  of 
the  peculiar  provisions  of  statutes  fixing  such  maximum  rates  have  been  held  to 
be  constitutional.^^  Statutes  fixing  maximum  railroad  rates  are  not  invalid  be- 
cause they  have  caused  the  discharge  of  many  railroad  employees.'"^ 

§§  36-37.  Delegation  of  Power — §  36.  To  a  Commission. — There  can 
be  no  doubt  of  the  general  power  of  a  state  to  regulate  the  fares  and  freights 
which  may  be  charged  and  received  by  railroad  or  other  carriers  by  means  of  a 
commission  created  for  that  purpose. '^^     Such  a  commission  is  merely  an  admin- 


86.  Power  to  declare  what  shall  be  a 
reasonable  compensation  or  to  fix  a  max- 
imum charge. — United  States. — Munn  v. 
Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  Ed.  77;  Dow 
V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680,  686,  31  L. 
Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.  Ed. 
858,  19  S.  Ct.  565,  reversing  114  Mich. 
460,    72    N.    W.    328. 

Michigan. — Wellman  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  83  Mich.   592,  47  N.  W.  489. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harry 
&  Bros.,   63  Tex.   256,   259. 

J'irginia. — Commonwealth  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  106  Va.  61,  55  S.  E.  572. 

West  Virginia. — Laurel,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.,  25  W.  Va. 
324;  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.  v.  Sweet- 
zer,   25   W.   Va.  434. 

To  limit  the  rate  of  charges  for  serv- 
ices rendered  in  a  public  employment,  or 
for  the  use  of  property  in  which  the  pub- 
lic has  an  interest,  is  only  changing  a 
regulation  which  existed  before.  It  es- 
tablishes no  new  principle  in  the  law, 
but  only  gives  a  new  effect  to  an  old 
one.  Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24 
L.  Ed.  77;  Dow  V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S. 
680,   31   L.    Ed.   841,   8   S.   Ct.   1028. 

The  legislature  has  the  general  power 
to  fix  a  maximum  rate  per  mile  for  car- 
rying passengers  on  a  railroad.  Pingree 
V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  118  Mich.  314, 
76   N.   W.    0.-55,    53    L.    R.    A.    274. 

87.  Class  legislation  invalid. — Com- 
monwealth V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 
Va.  61,  07,  55  S.  E.  572. 

Statute  requiring  railroad  company  to 
sell  mileage  tickets  at  a  reduced  rate. 
— The  New  York  statute.  Laws  1895,  c. 
1027,  §  1,  requiring  railroad  companies  to 
sell  1,000-mile  mileage  tickets  at  a  re- 
duced rate,  is  not  a  valid  exercise  of  the 
right  of  the  state  to  fix  maximum  rates 
for  transportation,  but  an  arbitrary  en- 
actment in  favor  of  those  able  or  will- 
ing to  purchase  the  reduced-rate  ticket. 
Judgment,  15  App.  Div.  251,  44  N.  Y.  S. 
175,  reversed.  Beardsley  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  162  N.  Y.  230,  56  N.   E.  488. 

Statute  fixing  charge  for  carrying  mili- 
tia   held     constitutional. — The     Alinncsota 


statute.  Laws  1909,  c.  493  (Rev.  Laws 
Supp.  1909,  §§  2007-32,  2007-33),  re- 
quiring railroad  companies  to  carry  offi- 
cers and  men  of  the  national  guard  under 
military  orders  at  the  rate  of  one  cent 
per  mile,  held  constitutional.  Simpson  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  Minn.  3.S0,  137 
N.  W.  2,  41  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  524. 

88.  Legislature  empowered  by  consti- 
tution to  fix  maximum  rates. — Under  the 
Constitution  of  North  Dakota,  §  142,  the 
legislature  can  prescribe  maximum  rates 
for  the  transportation  by  common  carri- 
ers of  commodities  within  the  state,  if 
they  are  reasonable.  McCue  v.  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  19  N.  Dak.  45,  120  N.  W.  869. 

The  constitution  of  Texas  confers  upon 
the  legislature  the  right  to  fix  railroad 
maximum  rates,  and  relief  from  such 
rates  must  be  obtained  from  the  legis- 
lature, and  not  from  the  courts.  State 
V.  P'armers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Tex.  530, 
17    S.    W.   00. 

89.  Statutes  fixing  maximum  rates  held 
constitutional. — The  New  Jersey  statute. 
Gen.  Railroad  Law  1903,  §  38  (P.  L.  1903, 
p.  665),  providing  that  a  railroad  may 
charge  such  fare  as  it  shall  think  reason- 
able, not  exceeding  three  cents  per  mile, 
and  not  exceeding  in  the  case  of  railroads 
under  special  charter  three  and  one-half 
cents  per  mile,  and  providing  for  the  sale 
of  tickets  limited  as  to  time  for  less  than 
the  regular  fare,  is  constitutional.  Shel- 
ton  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  73  N.  J.  L.  558,  66  Atl. 
403,  9  L.   R.  A.,  N.   S.,  727. 

The  West  Virginia  act  of  1873,  c.  227, 
esta1)lishing  a  reasonable  maximum  rate 
of  charges  for  the  transportation  of  pas- 
sengers and  freight  was  constitutional. 
Laurel,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  West  Virginia 
Transp.  Co.,  25  W.  Va.  324;  West  Vir- 
ginia Transp.  Co.  v.  Sweetzer,  25  W.  Va. 
434. 

90.  Statutes  not  invalid  because  they 
have  caused  discharge  of  many  railroad 
employees. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hadlcy.    168    Fed.    317. 

91.  Regulation  by  commission. — Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  North  Carolina  Corp. 
Comm.,  200  U.  S.  1,  51  L.  Ed.  933,  27 
S.    Ct.    585;    Reagan    v.    Farmers'    Loan, 


39 


CONTROL,  AND  KKCULATION. 


§  30 


istrative  board  created  by  the  state  for  carrying  into  elVect  the  will  of  the  state, 
as  expressed  by  its  legislation.''-  The  state  may  require  the  railroads  of  the 
state  to  ])ay  the  salary  and  cx])eiises  of  such  cunimi^^ion."''' 

Constitutionality  of  Statutes  Creating  Commissions.— While  an  act  cre- 
ating a  railroad  commission  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  rates  is  not  invalid 
merely  because  it  delegates  such  power  to  the  commission,"-*"  or  because  it  em- 
powers the  commission  to  establish  joint  through  rates  or  tariffs  over  the  lines 
of  indei)endent  connecting  roads,'^^  all  of  its  provisions  must  be  certain  and  con- 
sistent,'"' and  it  must  not  attempt  to  make  the  rates  fixed  by  the  commission  con- 


etc,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  302,  32  L.  Ed.  1014, 
14  S.  Ct.  1047;  S.  C,  154  U.  S.  420, 
38  L.  Ed.  1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Rea- 
gan z:  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  418,  38  L.  Ed.  1030,  14  S.  Ct.  1062; 
McChord  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  183 
U.  S.  483,  46  L.  Ed.  289,  22  S.  Ct.  165; 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota, 
ISO  U.  S.  257,  264,  46  L.  Ed.  1151,  22 
S.  Ct.  900;  Dow  V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S. 
680,  31  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Tompkins,  176  U.  S.  167, 
44  L.  Ed.  417,  20  S.  Ct.  336;  Stone  v. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307, 
336,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418, 
33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  702;  In  re 
Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187  Fed.  290; 
Southern  Tac.  Co.  v.  Bartine,  170  Fed. 
725. 

A  state,  having  the  power  to  regulate 
commerce  within  its  boundaries,  may  es- 
tal)lish  a  board  or  commission  to  which 
it  can  intrust  the  power  to  fix  rates  for 
transportation  of  passengers  and  freight 
on  railroads  wholly  within  its  borders. 
Chapman,  etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Jonesboro, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  97  Ark.  300,  133  S.  W.  1119. 

The  provisions  of  the  constitution  of 
Georgia  requiring  the  legislature  to  pass 
laws "  regulating  freight  and  passenger 
tariffs  within  the  state,  and  regiilations 
adopted  by  the  railroad  commission  es- 
tablished by  the  statutes  passed  in  pur- 
suance thereof,  administered  subject  to 
the  limitation  tbat  the  carriage  can  not 
be  required  without  reward  or  upon  con- 
ditions amounting  to  the  taking  of  prop- 
erty for  public  use  without  just  compen- 
sation, do  not  violate  the  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  but  are  within  the 
powers  of  the  state,  and  have  full  force 
as  Dublic  law.  Trammel  v.  Dinsmorc. 
42  C  C.  A.  623.  102  Fed.  794.  Affirmed, 
18.T  U.    S.   115.   40   L.    K(l.    m.  22   S.   Ct.   45. 

92.  Nature  of  commission. — Reagan  z'. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc..  Co.,  154  U.  S.  302. 
38  L.  Ed.  1014.  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  S.  C.  154 
U.  S.  420.  38  L.  Ed.  1031.  14  S.  Ct.  1002; 
Reagan  r.  Mercantile  Trust  Co..  154  U. 
S.  418,  38  L.   Ed.  10:?0.   14   S.   Ct.  1062. 

93.  Power  to  make  railroads  bear  ex- 
penses of  commission. — Cliarlotte,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gibbes,  142  U.  S.  380,  35  L.  Ed. 
1051,  12  S.  Ct.  255;  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Kentucky.  161  U.  S.  677.  090.  40  L.  Ed. 
849,    16    S.    Ct.   714. 


An  act  requiring  the  state  railroad  cor- 
porations to  pay  the  salary  and  expenses 
of  the  state  railroad  commission  is  not 
in  conflict  with  the  fourteenth  amend- 
ment of  the  federal  constitution.  Char- 
lotte, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gibbes,  142  U.  S.  386, 
:>,•)    L.    Ed.    1051,    12   S.    Ct.   255. 

94.  Statute  not  invalid  because  it  del- 
egates power  to  commission. — Stone  v. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  110  U.  S.  307, 
29   L.    Ed.   636,  6   S.   Ct.  334. 

"Much  litigation  has  arisen  in  regard 
to  railroad  commissions.  At  first  rail- 
road companies  contested  the  constitu- 
tionality of  acts  creating  these  commis- 
sions and  conferring  upon  them  the 
power  to  fix  reasonable  rates  and  to 
make  reasonable  rules  and  regulations. 
The  most  common  ground  of  attack  v^as 
that  this  was  a  delegation  of  legislative 
power.  It  is  now  firmly  established  by 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  of  this  coun- 
try, both  state  and  federal,  that  such  pow- 
ers can  be  conferred  without  constituting 
an  unconstitutional  delegation  of  legisla- 
tive power."  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Melton, 
133    Ga.    277.   280,    05    S.    E.    005. 

The  Mississippi  act  creating  a  commis- 
sion and  charging  it  with  the  duty  of 
supervising  railroads  is  not  unconstitu- 
tional upon  that  ground  alone.  Stone  f. 
Farmers'  Loan.  etc..  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307, 
29   L.   Ed.   630,  6   S.   Ct.   334. 

95.  Power  to  provide  for  regulation  of 
joint  through  tariffs. — The  Minnesota  act 
of  1895,  creating  a  railroad  and  ware- 
house commission  and  defining  its  duties 
is  not  invalid  because  it  undertakes  to  au- 
thorize the  commission  to  establish  joint 
through  rates  or  tariffs  over  the  lines  of 
independent  connecting  roads,  and  to  ap- 
portion and  divide  the  joint  earnings. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota. 
1S<)  U.  S.  257,  40  L.  Ed.  1151,  22  S.  Ct. 
900. 

96.  Certainty  and  consistency  essential. 
— Stone  V.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc..  Co..  116 
U.    S.    307.   29    L.    Ed.   636.    6   S.    Ct.   334. 

The  Mississippi  statute  creating  a  com- 
mission and  charging  it  with  the  duty  of 
supervising  railroads  is  not  void  because 
of  the  uncertainty  or  inconsistencj-  of  its 
provisions.  Stone  r.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc., 
Co.,  116  U.  S.  307.  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct. 
334. 


§  36 


CARRIERS. 


40 


elusive,  but  must  leave  the  question  of  their  re^isonableness  open  to  judicial  in- 

quirv.^' 

Constitutional  Provisions  and  Statutes  Delegating  Power  to  Commis- 
sions Construed. — Sonic  of  the  constitutional  i)rovisions  and  statutes  creating 
railroad  commissions  and  authorizing  them  to  fix  and  regulate  charges  for  the 
carriage  of  passengers  and  freight  by  railroad  companies  operating  in  the  state 
have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts.'"^     JuristHction  so  extensive  as  to  place  in 


97.  Act  must  leave  question  of  reason- 
ableness of  rates  open  to  judicial  inquiry. 

—The  Minnesota  act  of  ^larch  7.  1SS7 
(General  laws  of  1887.  ch.  10),  estalilish- 
ing  a  railroad  and  warehouse  commission, 
as  interpreted  bj-  the  supreme  court  of 
that  state,  is  unconstitutional  in  that  it 
makes  the  rates  established  by  the  com- 
mission conclusive,  and  does  not  allow 
judicial  inquiry  into  their  reasonableness. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134 
U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  702. 

98.  Constitutional  provisions  and  stat- 
utes delegating  power  to  commissions 
construed. — Colorado. — Under  act  March 
22,  1907  (Laws  1907,  p.  532,  536-538),  §§3, 
12,  13,  14,  and  15,  state  railroad  commis- 
sion held  to  have  power  to  regulate  rates 
for  transportation  and  prohibit  unreason- 
able rates,  even  if  not  discriminatory  or 
preferential.  Consumers'  League  v.  Colo- 
rado, etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Colo.  54,  125  Pac. 
577. 

Florida. — By  a  contract  between  the  S.  A. 
L.  Ry.  Co.  and  the  F.  W.  S.  Ry.  Co.,  tlie 
former  agreed  to  furnish  to  the  latter  an 
equipment  for  its  line  of  railway,  to  be  oper- 
ated by  the  officers  of  the  former  in  connec- 
tion with  its  own  road,  the  latter  com- 
pany to  pay  for  the  use  of  the  equipment 
the  same  rentals  which  the  other  company 
charged  other  lines  for  the  use  of  similar 
equipments,  the  W.  S.  Co.  to  assume  its 
portion  of  the  salaries  of  the  officers  op- 
erating such  road,  the  S.  A.  L.  Co.  agree- 
ing to  guaranty  the  payment  of  certain 
bonds  issued  by  the  other  company,  and 
to  make  good  any  deficiency  in  the  op- 
erating expenses  and  fixed  charges.  Held, 
that  the  S.  A.  L.  Co.  controls  and  operates 
the  other  company,  within  the  railroad 
commission  law  (Acts  1899,  p.  78,  c.  4700, 
§§  3,  4),  prohibiting  any  railroad  from 
making  unjust  discrimination  in  its  freight 
or  passenger  rates  on  its  tracks,  or  on 
any  railroad  "which  it  has  the  right,  li- 
cense, or  permission  to  use,  operate,  or 
control,"  so  that  the  railroad  commission- 
ers had  power,  under  §  6  (page  80)  of 
said  law,  to  make  reasonaljle  and  just 
rates  for  freight  and  passenger  tarififs,  to 
be  observed  in  the  operation  of  the  road 
under  the  terms  of  the  contracts.  State 
V.  Seaboard,  etc..  Railway.  48  Fla.  129, 
37  So.  314;  S.  C,  48  Fla.  152,  37  So.  6.58. 
Affirmed  Seaboard,  etc.,  Railway  v.  Ellis, 
203  U.  S.  261,  51  L.  Ed.  175,  27  S.  Ct.  109. 

Georgia. — A  "joint  rate"  within  the 
meaning  of  Act  Oct.  14,  1879  (Acts  1878, 
p.  125),  §  5,  as  amended  by  Acts  1889,  p. 


131,  and  Civ.  Code  1895,  §  2189,  declaring 
that  the  railroad  commissioners  shall  have 
power  to  make  just  and  reasonable  joint 
rates  for  all  connecting  railroads  as  to 
traffic  passing  from  one  road  to  the  other, 
is  a  rate  charged  for  the  transportation  of 
goods  or  passengers  over  connecting  lines 
of  two  or  niore  railroads  and  divided 
among  them  for  the  services  rendered  by 
each  respectively.  Hill  v.  Wadley  South- 
ern   R.    Co.,   128    Ga.   705,   57   S.    E.   795. 

Where  the  railroad  commissioners  de- 
clared that  a  continuous  mileage  rate 
should  apply  to  two  connecting  railroad 
companies,  the  stock  and  bonds  of  one 
of  which  were  owned  by  the  other,  though 
each  had  its  separate  directors  and  was 
operated  separately,  applying  the  rate 
previously  fixed  for  the  owning  company, 
such  rate  was  a  joint  rate  within  the 
meaning  of  Act  Oct.  14,  1879  (Acts  of 
1878,  p.  125),  §  5,  as  amended  by  Acts 
1889,  p.  131,  and  Civ.  Code  1895,  §  2189, 
declaring  that  the  railroad  commissioners 
shall  have  the  power  to  make  just  and 
reasonable  joint  rates  for  all  connecting 
railroads,  and  the  action  of  the  commis- 
sioners was  not  ipso  facto  illegal  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  a  joint  rate  and 
not  authorized  by  the  statute,  if  the  rate 
so  fixed  was  reasonable  and  just.  Hill  v. 
Wadley  Southern  R.  Co.,  128  Ga.  705,  57 
S.  E.  795. 

A  "joint  rate"  as  authorized  by  Act 
Oct.  14,  1879  (Acts  1878,  p.  125),  §  5,  as 
amended  by  the  act  of  1889  (Acts  1889, 
p.  131;  Civ.  Code  1895,  §  2189),  declaring 
that  the  railroad  commissioners  shall  have 
power  to  make  just  and  reasonable  joint 
rates  for  all  connecting  railroads  as  to 
traffic  passing  from  one  road  to  the  other, 
may  be  made  by  deducting  some  pre- 
scribed per  cent  from  each  of  the  local 
rates  and  adding  together  the  two  rates 
thus  reduced,  but  such  method  is  not  ex- 
clusive. Hill  V.  Wadley  Southern  R.  Co., 
128   Ga.   705,  57   S.    E.  795. 

Illinois. — Under  the  act  establishing  the 
State  Railroad  and  Warehouse  Commis- 
sion and  defining  its  jurisdiction,  it  had 
jurisdiction  as  to  the  charges  of  common 
carriers  for  switching  cars  to  industries 
on  their  own  or  other  lines,  regardless 
of  whether  it  could  compel  service  with- 
out compensation,  or  whether  it  could 
compel  a  carrier  to  allow  its  cars  to  leave 
its  own  tracks.  East  Side  Packing  Co.  v. 
Vandalia  R.  Co.,  258  111.  397,  101  N.  E. 
600. 

lozi'a.^Act  Iowa,  April  5,  1888,  provides 


41 


CONTROL  AND  RI-XULATION. 


§  36 


the  hands  of  a  commission  ])0\vcr  to  make  general  maximum  rates  for  all  com- 
modities between  all  points  in  the  state  is  not  to  be  implied,  but  must  be  given 


for  the  regulation  of  transportation 
charges  by  railroad  companies,  and  for  a 
board  of  commissioners  to  fix  reasonable 
charf^es.  Section  17  requires  said  board 
to  make  a  schedule  of  maximum  rates, 
which  shall  be  deemed  prima  facie  rea- 
sonable. Sections  18  and  20  provide  that 
any  person  may  complain  that  the 
charges  made  or  published  by  any  com- 
pany arc  higher  than  those  fixed  by  the 
schedule,  or  that  the  latter  are  unreasona- 
bly high,  upon  which  the  board  shall  in- 
vestif^ate  the  complaint.  The  decision 
made  thereon  shall  set  out  the  maximum 
rates  to  be  charged  thereafter,  and  nei- 
ther the  decision  nor  the  schedule  therein 
contained  shall  lie  limited  to  the  case 
complained  of,  but  shall  extend  to  all 
such  rates  between  points  in  the  state, 
and  to  whatever  part  of  the  line  of  said 
road  within  the  state  as  may  have  been 
fairly  within  the  scope  of  the  investiga- 
tion. Held,  that  the  power  to  make  a 
full  schedule  is  not  only  conferred  by  § 
17,  but  is  given  also  by  said  other  sec- 
tions, in  case  a  complaint  has  been  made 
and  investigated.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Dey,  38  Fed.  656. 

Massachusetts. — The  authority  of  the 
board  of  railroad  commissioners  under 
Pub.  St.,  c.  112,  §§  192-194,  is  not  to  con- 
sider the  general  subject  of  rates,  but  to 
"ascertain  at  what  rates  facilities  for  the 
carriage  of  milk  under  contract  or  in  large 
quantities  are  furnished  by  the  railroad 
corporation,"  and  to  compare  them  with 
the  tariff  for  the  carriage  of  milk  by  the 
can.  to  fix  rates  by  the  can  "fairly  pro- 
portionate with  such  contract  or  large 
quantity  rates."  The  order  when  made  is 
to  have  the  force  and  efTecc  of  a  criminal 
statute,  which  calls  for  strictness  and  reg- 
ularity in  proceedings  under  it.  Little- 
field  V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  158  Mass.  1,  32 
N.   E.  859. 

Michigan. — The  legislature  by  enacting 
Pub.  .^.cts  1909,  No.  SOO.  permits  carriers 
to  charge  reasonable  and  just  rates  for 
services  performed  and  confers  on  the 
railroad  commission  the  power  to  ascer- 
tain whether  a  rate  is  reasonable  and  just. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  R. 
Comm.,    171    Mich.   325,  137   N.   \V.   329. 

Pub.  Acts  1909.  No.  300,  regulating  car- 
riers, creating  the  railroad  commission 
with  power  as  authorized  l)y  §  8  to  pro- 
mulgate demurrage  rules,  and  declaring  in 
§  3  that  tlie  act  shall  apply  to  the  trans- 
portation of  "property  between  point  ; 
within  this  state,  and  to  the  receiving, 
switching,  delivering,  storing,  and  han- 
dling of  such  property  and  to  all  charges 
connected  therewith,"  limits  the  power  of 
the  commission  to  promulgate  demurrage 
rules  to  cases  where  the  property  has  been 
or  is  to  be  transported  between  points 
within     the     state,     and     demurrage     rules 


adopted  by  the  commission  are  limited  to 
intrastate  transportation.  Ann  .•\rbor  R. 
Co.  V.  Michigan  R.  Comm.,  163  Mich.  49, 
127   N.  W.  746. 

Minnesota. — Under  Gen.  Laws  1887,  c. 
10,  as  amended  by  Laws  1891,  c.  106,  the 
state  railroad  and  warehouse  commission, 
when  reducing  rates  on  the  complaint  of 
any  one  that  rates  between  certain  points 
on  a  certain  railroad  are  too  high,  may, 
for  the  purpose  of  preventing  discriinina- 
tion  by  its  own  acts,  reduce  the  rates  on 
the  whole  line  or  system.  Steenerson  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  69  Minn.  353, 
72  N.  W.  713. 

MississipfJt. — Act  Miss.  March  11,  1884, 
confers  upon  the  railroad  commission  the 
power  to  control  all  rates  for  the  trans- 
portation of  goods,  wares,  and  merchan- 
tlise  from  points  within  the  state  to  points 
without  the  state,  and  from  points  with- 
out to  points  within  the  state.  Mobile, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Sessions,  28  Fed.  592. 

Missouri. — In  Laws  Mo.  1887  (Ex. 
Sess.),  making  it  the  duty  of  the  railroad 
commissioners  to  see  that  schedules  of 
rates  are  reasonable  and  just,  and  provid- 
ing that  they  "may,"  on  complaint  of  any 
person,  or  on  their  own  motion,  determine 
whether  the  schedule  of  rates  adopted  by 
any  common  carrier  is  reasonable  and 
just,  the  word  "may"  must  be  construed 
as  "shall,"  as  the  statute  is  intended  to 
be  mandatory.  Winsor  Coal  Co.  f.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  716. 

Oklahoma. — The  corporation  commission 
has  the  power,  under  Const.,  art.  9,  §  18, 
to  fix  a  reasonable  charge  to  be  paid  by 
shippers  to  the  railroad  for  the  dipping 
of  cattle  brought  above  the  quarantine 
line  before  delivery.  Midland  \'allev  R. 
Co.    V.    State,    35    Okla.    672,    130    Pac'  803. 

Texas. — The  railroad  commission  of 
Texas,  under  authority  from  the  legisla- 
ture, has  power  to  fix  railroad  passenger 
rates  not  exceeding  a  maximum  rate  of 
three  cents  per  mile,  and  may  fix  difTer- 
ent  rates  for  different  carriers,  subject  to 
the  constitutional  restriction  that  it  can 
not  deny  to  one  carrier  the  equal  protec- 
tion of  the  laws  by  prescribing  for  it  an 
unreasonably  low  and  confiscatory  rate, 
while  other  carriers  similarly  situated  are 
permitted  to  charge  a  higher  rate.  Hous- 
ton,  etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Storey,   149    Fed.   499. 

J'irginia. — The  constitution  of  \'irginia, 
§  156,  subsec.  "b,"  declares  that  the  state 
corporation  commission  shall  have  the 
power  of  regulating  all  transportation 
companies  in  relation  to  the  performance 
of  their  public  duties  and  clrarges  there- 
for, and  that  the  commission  shall  enforce 
such  rates  as  may  be  reasonable.  .\  trans- 
portation company,  the  business  of  which 
consisted  of  conducting  a  switch  line  and 
handling  cars  to  and  from  industries  with 
which  it  had  established  switching  connec- 


§  36 


CARRIERS. 


42 


in  language  admitting  no  other  reasonable  construction.^^  A  statute  requiring 
the  railroad  commissioners  to  fix  tables  of  maximum  charges,  is  not  to  be  ex- 
tended by  construction  to  authorize  the  fixing  of  such  charges  to  points  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  state. ^ 

Regulations  by  Commission  in  Excess  of  Statutory  Power. — Where  a 
railroad  commission  after  a  hearing  on  specific  complaint  as  to  a  rate  on  a  par- 
ticular commodity  makes  a  general  rate  tarilT  for  maximum  rates  on  all  commod- 
ities which  is  beyond  its  statutory  power,  the  whole  tariff  falls,  and  the  rate 
on  the  tariff"  on  the  particular  commodity  will  not  be  separately  sustained. - 

Necessary  Prerequisites  to  Regulations. — Where  rate  regulations  of  rail- 
road commissioners  are  not  necessarily  proper  as  a  matter  of  law,  or  the  pro- 
priety of  the  regulation  may  depend  on  circumstances,  there  should  be  an  in- 
vestigation before  the  regulation  is  made.^  Some  of  the  statutes  authorizing 
railroad  commission  to  fix  or  adjust  rates  require  the  commission,  before  doing 
so.  to  give  notice*  Under  other  statutes  the  commission  is  not  authorized  to 
adjust  rates  until  a  complaint  has  been  made,  and  their  action  is  limited  to  the 
rates  complained  of.^ 


lions,  observed  the  usual  custom  of  plac- 
ing cars  in  position  to  be  weighed  on  con- 
signees' or  shippers'  individual  track 
scales,  which  scale  service  was  necessary 
to  the  due  delivery  of  goods.  Held,  that 
the  Corporation  Commission  had  author- 
ity to  fix  the  charges  for  placing  the  cars 
in  position  on  such  scales.  Norfolk,  etc., 
R.  Co.  c'.  Commonwealth,  103  Va.  289.  49 
S.  E.  39. 

99.  Power  to  make  general  maximum 
rates  not  implied.— Siler  -v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  2i:i  U.  S.  175,  176,  53  L.  Ed.  753, 
29  S.  Ct.  451  (construing  Kentucky  rail- 
road commission  act). 

The  fact  that  the  legislature  of  a  state 
gives  to  a  railroad  commission  no  power 
to  raise  rates,  but  only  power  to  reduce 
rates  found  to  be  exorbitant  after  hearing 
on  specific  complaint,  is  an  argument 
against  construing  the  statute  so  as  to 
give  the  commission  power  to  fix  maxi- 
mum rates  on  all  commodities.  Siler  t'. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  213  U.  S.  175,  53 
L.  Ed.  753,  29  S.  Ct.  451. 

Power  to  make  a  general  schedule  of 
maximum  rates  for  the  transportation  of 
all  commodities,  upon  all  railroads,  to  and 
from  all  points  within  the  state,  upon  a 
general  and  comprehensive  complaint  that 
rates  are  too  high,  or  upon  like  informa- 
tion of  the  commission  itself,  is  not  con- 
ferred upon  the  Kentucky  railroad  com- 
mission by  Act  Ky.  March  10,  1900  (Acts 
1900,  p.  5,  c.  2),  authorizing  it,  upon  com- 
plaint that  the  rates  of  any  railway  com- 
pany are  extortionate,  or  upon  its  own 
information,  to  fix  a  reasonable  rate  if, 
after  hearing,  it  finds  the  rates  extortion- 
ate. Siler  ^'.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  213 
U.  S.  175,  53  L.  Ed.  753,  29  S.  Ct.  451; 
Siler  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  213  U.  S. 
199,  53  L.   Ed.  760,  29  S.  Ct.  458. 

1.  No  implied  power  to  fix  charges  to 
points  out  of  state. — Merrill  i:  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  X.  H.  259,  construing  St. 
1883,  c.  101. 


2.  Regulations  by  commission  in  excess 
of  statutory  power. — Siler  z'.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  213  U.  S.  175,  53  L.  Ed.  753, 
29  S.  Ct.  451. 

A  particular  rate  on  a  specific  com- 
modity fixed  by  the  Kentucky  railroad 
commission  will  not,  in  order  to  sustain 
its  validity,  be  separated  from  the  general 
order  fixing  a  general  schedule  of  maxi- 
mum rates  for  all  commodities,  upon  all 
railroads,  to  and  from  all  points  within 
the  state,  where  the  specific  order  was 
made  after  a  general  complaint  was  filed, 
and  is  itself  a  general  order,  and  was  made 
in  the  .exercise  of  the  unfounded  assump- 
tion of  the  power  under  Act  Ky.  March 
10,  1900  (Acts  1900,  p.  5,  c.  2),  to  make 
a  general  tariff  of  rates.  Siler  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  213  U.  S.  175,  53  L.  Ed. 
753,  29   S.    Ct.  451. 

3.  When  investigation  necessary  before 
regulation  is  made. — Railroad  Comm'rs  Z'. 
Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Fla.  112,  59  So. 
385. 

Before  making  a  railroad  rate  order,  the 
railroad  commissioners  should  inquire  into 
and  consider  the  interests  of  all  directly 
and  substantially  aflfected.  Railroad 
Comm'rs  i'.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Fla. 
112,   59   So.   385. 

4.  Notice  must  be  given. — Under  the 
Iowa  statute,  chapter  17,  §  3,  Acts  1890, 
authorizing  commissioners  to  establish 
joint  through  rates,  and  providing  that 
they  shall  be  governed  therein  by  the  act 
of  1888,  which  requires  notice  in  the  fix- 
ing of  rates,  a  joint  through  rate,  adopted 
without  notice,  is  void.  State  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,   90   Iowa   594,   58   N.   W.    1060. 

5.  No  power  to  adjust  rates  of  which 
no  complaint  has  been  made. — Under  the 
Washington  statute,  §  3  of  Act  1905,  p. 
147,  c.  81,  vesting  the  railroad  commission 
with  power  upon  complaint  made  "*  * 
*  after  a  full  hearing  to  make  any  find- 
ing declaring  any  existing  rate  for  the 
transportation  of  persons  or  property  to 
be  unreasonable,  discriminatory  or  insuffi- 


43 


COXTUOL    AND  KI-XULATIOX. 


§  39 


§  37.  To  a  Municipal  Corporation. — Authority  is  sometimes  conferred  by 
statute  or  cliarli-r  upon  nuuncipal  i,(»r| (orations  to  prescribe  or  regulate  the  charges 
of  carriers  within  tlie  municipality."  An  ordinance  fixing  a  rate  for  hire  of  hacks, 
etc.,  and  imjjosini^  fine  or  imprisonment  for  refusal  to  pay  such  rate,  was  within 
the' legislative  aiulioriiv  of  a  muuici])alily  authorized  to  regulate  such  convey- 
ances." 

§§  38-3  9.  Classification  of  Railroads  for  Purposes  of  Regulation— 
§  38.  Right  to  Classify.— Since  a  uniform  rate  of  charges  for  all  railroad  com- 
panies in  the  state  might  ojjerate  unjustly  upon  some,  it  is  proper  to  provide  in 
some  way  for  an  adai)tion  of  the  rates  to  the  circumstances  of  the  different  roads, 
and  the  general  assembly  may.  in  the  exercise  of  its  legislative  discretion,  do  this 
by  a  s\stem  of  classification."^ 

§  39.  Mode  of  Classification. — Whether  the  classification  shall  be  accord- 
ing to  the  amount  of  passengers  and  freight  carried,  or  of  gross  or  net  earnings, 
during  a  previous  vear,  or  according  to  the  simpler  and  more  constant  test  of 
the  length  of  the  line  of  the  railroad,  is  a  matter  within  the  discretion  of  the 
legislature  If  the  same  rule  is  applied  to  all  railroads  of  the  same  class,  there 
is  no  violation  of  the  constitutional  jM-ovision  securing  to  all  the  equal  protection 
of  the  laws.'' 


cient,  *  *  *  and  to  declare  and  order 
what'  shall  be  a  just  and  reasonable  rate 
*  *  *  to  l)e  imposed,  enforced,  or  per- 
formed or  followed  in  the  future  in  the 
place  of  that  found  to  be  objectionable," 
the  railroad  commission  has  no  power, 
upon  complaint  as  to  certain  rates,  to  ad- 
just rates  of  which  no  complaint  is  made, 
nor  to  forl)id  railroad  companies  operat- 
ing in  the  state  from  changing  their  ex- 
isting tariffs  not  theretofore  fixed  by  the 
commission,  without  the  consent  of  the 
commission.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.  r. 
Railroad   Comm.   (Wash.),  92  Pac.  457. 

Since,  under  such  section  the  commis- 
sion has  no  power  upon  complaint  made 
as  to  certain  rates  to  adjust  rates  of  which 
no  complaint  is  made,  a  complaint,  framed 
under  such  section,  in  wliich  the  commis- 
sion allege  that  certain  rates  are  fair,  just, 
and  reasonable,  raises  no  issue  which  the 
railroad  company  must  answer,  and  the 
commission  can  not  adjust  such  rates. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.  r.  Railroad  Comm. 
(Wash.),  92   Pac.  457. 

An  order  of  the  railroad  commission, 
changing  commodity  freight  rates,  is  void, 
where  no  complaint  has  been  made  against 
the  existing  rates,  and  no  hearing  had 
thereon.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Comm.,  52  Wash.  440,  100  Pac.  987. 

6.  Statutes  authorizing  limitation  of  rate 
to  be  charged  by  street  railroad  compa- 
nies.— Under  the  Illinois  statute.  1  Starr 
&  C.  Ann.  St.  (2d  Ed.),  pp.  689-715.  art. 
5.  §  1  (City  and  Village  Act  April  10. 
1872),  adopted  by  the  city  of  Chicago  as 
its  charter,  as  well  as  under  former  char- 
ters (Act  Fell.  14,  1851,  and  Act  Feb.  i:;, 
1863),  authorizing  the  city  to  regulate  and 
prescrilie  the  compensation  of  hackmen, 
cabmen,  omnilius  drivers,  and  "all  others 
pursuing  a  like  occupation,"  the  city  had 
power    to    enact    Rev.    Code    Chicago.    §§ 


1723,  1725,  limiting  the  rate  of  fare  to  be 
charged  by  street  railway  companies,  in- 
asmuch as  the  phrase  "others  pursuing  a 
like  occupation,"  when  construed  ejusdem 
generis,  includes  street  railway  companies. 
Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  199 
111.  484,  65  N.   K.  451,  59  L.  R.  A.  631. 

Charter  provision  not  authorizing  mu- 
nicipality to  fix  rates  of  fare. — A  provision 
in  the  charter  of  a  city  authorizing  it  to 
"pass  all  by-laws  concerning  carriages, 
wagons,  carts,"  etc.,  "and  every  b)'-law, 
ordinance  and  regulation  it  may  deem 
proper  for  the  peace,  health,  order  or 
good  government  of  the  city,"  does  not 
authorize  it  to  fix  rates  of  fare.  Old  Col- 
ony Trust  Co.  r.  Atlanta,  s:i  Fed.  39. 

it  is  within  the  power  of  Atlantic  City 
to  pass  ordinances  regulating  the  business 
of  omnibuses,  automobiles,  or  locomobiles, 
and  fixing  the  fares  to  be  charged.  At- 
lantic City  v.  Fonsler,  70  N.  J.  L.  125,  56 
Atl.   119. 

7.  Ordinance  authorized  by  legislative 
authority  to  regulate  conveyances. —  Bray 
■r.  State,  140  Ala.  17:2.  ;';:  So.  ;250. 

8.  Right  to  classify  roads  for  purpose  ol 
regulation. —  Dow  :.  Bciildnian.  l:.'.')  U.  S. 
(kso,  ;n  L.  ]\d.  841,  s  S.  Ct.  I02s. 

9.  Mode  of  classification. — Dow  v.  Beid- 
elman,  125  U.  S.  680.  31  L.  Ed.  841,  S  S. 
Ct.  1028;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94 
U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94;  Ruggles  V.  Illinois, 
108  U.  S.  526,  27  L.  Ed.  812.  2  S.  Ct.  832; 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z:  Illinois.  108  U.  S. 
541,  27  L.  Ed.  818.  2  S.  Ct.  8:59. 

Classification  according  to  amount  of 
business. — The  legislature,  in  the  exercise 
(if  its  power  of  regulating  fares  and 
freights,  may  classify  the  railroads  ac- 
cording to  the  amount  of  the  business 
which  they  have  done  or  appear  likely  to 
do  and  tix  their  rates  accordingly.     Dow 


40 


CARRIERS. 


44 


§§  40-72.  Limitation  of  Power— §§  40-67.  Reasonableness  of  Reg- 
ulations— §  4  0.  Regulations  Must  Be  Reasonable. — The  power  ot  a  state, 
either  through  its  legislature  or  a  conmiission,  to  regulate  the  rates  of  charge  of 
common  carriers  on  intrastate  business,  is  subject  to  the  limitation  that  such 
rates  must  be  reasonable.'"'  and  afford  just  and  reasonable  compensation  for  the 
services  performed^'  and  for  the  use  of  the  property  devoted  to  the  business, 
estimated  at  its  fair  \alue.'-     The  rights  of  carriers  and  the  public  with  respect 


V.  Beidelman,  135  U.  S.  680,  31  L.  Ed.  841, 
8  S.  Ct.  102S. 

Classification  accordiiig  to  trackage. — A 
classification  In-  statute  according  to  the 
length  of  the  several  lines,  with  different 
rates  for  passengers  for  roads  in  each 
class,  is  valid.  Dow  v.  BeiJelman,  125  L'. 
S.  ti-^^n.  ;!i  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028. 

Classification  according  to  gross  annual 
earnings  per  mile. — The  statute  of  Illi- 
nois of  April  15,  1871  (Illinois  Laws  of 
1871,  p.  640),  which  classified  the  railroads 
in  the  state  according  to  their  gross  an- 
nual earnings  per  mile,  and  puts  different 
limits  on  the  compensation  of  the  differ- 
ent classes  per  mile  for  carrying  a  pas- 
senger and  his  baggage,  is  constitutional 
and  valid,  in  restricting  to  the  limit  of 
three  cents  a  mile  existing  corporations, 
whose  charters  gave  them  power  to  make 
all  by-laws,  rules  and  regulations  not  re- 
pugnant to  law,  and  giving  their  direct- 
ors power  to  establish  such  rates  of  toll  as 
they  should  by  their  by-laws  determine. 
Ruggles  V.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  526,  27  L. 
Ed.  812,  2  S.  Ct.  832;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Illinois,  108  U.  S.  541.  27  L.  Ed.  818,  2 
S.  Ct.  839;  Dow  V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S. 
680,  31  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028. 

A  statute  regulating  the  rate  for  the 
carriage  of  passengers,  by  different  classes 
of  railroads,  according  to  their  gross  earn- 
ings per  mile,  is  not  in  conflict  with  art. 
1,  §  4,  of  the  constitution  of  Iowa,  which 
provides  that  "all  laws  of  a  general  nature 
shall  have  a  uniform  operation,"  and  "the 
general  assembly  shall  riot  grant  to  any 
citizen,  or  class  of  citizens,  privileges  or 
immunities  which  upon  the  same  terms 
shall  not  equally  belong  to  all  citizens." 
*  *  *  "The  statute  divides  the  railroads  of 
the  state  into  classes,  according  to  busi- 
ness, and  establishes  a  maximum  of  rates 
for  each  of  the  classes.  It  operates  uni- 
formly on  each  class,  this  Is  all  the  con- 
stitution requires."  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94. 

10.  Rates  prescribed  must  be  reasonable. 
■ — Southern  I'ac.  Co.  z\  Bartine,  170  Fed. 
725;  In  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187  Fed. 
290;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,  196  Fed.  800;  Chapman,  etc..  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Jonesboro,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Ark. 
300,  133  S.  W.  1119;  Southern  Indiana  R. 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm..  172  Ind.  113,  87 
N.  E.  966;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Phila- 
delphia County,  220  Pa.  100,  68  Atl.  676; 
Graham  Ice  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
153   Wis.    145,    140   N.   W.    1097. 

Whether  a  rate  for  the  carriage  of  goods 


and  passengers  by  a  railroad  company 
fixed  by  the  railroad  commissioners  is  le- 
gal depends  on  whether  it  is  reasonable 
and  just  or  unreasonable  and  confiscatory. 
Hill  V.  Wadley  Southern  R.  Co.,  128  Ga. 
705.  57   S.   E.  795. 

A  state  has  no  right  to  fix  a  rate  un- 
reasonably low,  though  it  may  prevent  a 
railroad  from  fixing  one  unreasonably 
high.  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Board,  78  Fed. 
236. 

A  corporation  performing  pul)lic  serv- 
ices and  the  people  financially  interested 
in  its  business  and  affairs  have  rights  that 
may  not  be  invaded  by  legislative  enact- 
ment in  disregard  of  the  fundamental 
guarantees  for  the  protection  of  property, 
and  regulations  of  rates  to  be  valid  must 
l)e  reasonable.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,   526,   42   L.    Ed.   819,   18   S.    Ct.   418. 

A  grant  to  the  legislature  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Nebraska  of  the  power  to 
establish  maximuni  rates  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  passengers  and  freight  on  rail- 
roads in  that  state  has  reference  to  "rea- 
sonable" maximum  rates.  It  can  not  be 
admitted  that  the  power  granted  may  bo 
exerted  in  derogation  of  rights  secured  l)y 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  ot 
that  the  judiciary  may  not,  when  its  ju- 
risdiction is  properly  invoked,  protect 
those  rights.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,  526,' 42   L.    Ed.   819,   18   S.   Ct.   418. 

11.  Rates  prescribed  must  afford  just 
and  reasonable  compensation  for  services. 
— Southern  Pac.  Co.  r.  Bartine,  170  Fed. 
725;  State  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  81 
Vt.  463,  71  Atl.  194;  Graham  Ice  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  153  Wis.  145,  140  N. 
W.   1097. 

Though  the  public  has  an  interest  in 
the  use  of  private  property  devoted  to  the 
railroad  service,  and  the  legislature  may 
l)y  statute  limit  the  charges  for  such  serv- 
ice, it  can  not  reduce  them  below  the 
point  of  fair  remuneration.  Coal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Conley,  67  W.  Va.  129,  67  S.  E.  613. 

12.  Rates  prescribed  must  afford  rea- 
sonble  compensation  for  use  of  prop- 
erty.— Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Bartine,  170 
Fed.   725. 

Confiscatory  orders. — In  Wisconsin  it 
has  been  held  that  "Confiscatory  orders" 
are  ordinarily.  Ijut  not  always,  unlawful 
and  unreasonable,  and  to  l)e  confiscatory 
an  order  of  the  railroad  commission 
regulating  rates,  or  charges  must  de- 
prive the  railroad  of  a  fair  return  upon 
its  property,  and  not  merely  reduce  former 
rates    or    charges.      Minneaoolis,    etc.,    R. 


45 


COXTR(JL  AND   RKGULATION. 


§  -40 


to  rates  are  reciprocal.  The  carrier  is  entitled  to  ask  a  fair  return  on  the  value 
of  its  ])roi)erty  it  employs  for  the  jjublic  convenience,  and  the  public  is  en- 
titled to  demand  that  no  more  he  exacted  from  it  for  the  use  of  the  public  high- 
way than  the  services  rendered  are  reasonably  worth.'-'  Statutes  fixing  rates  for 
transportation  by  carriers  will  not  be  held  unconstitutional  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  unreasonable  without  the  fullest  disclosure  of  all  material  facts.'-*  The 
reasonableness  or  unreasonableness  of  the  particular  ])rovisions  of  statutes,  com- 
mission orders  and  municipal  ordinances,  prescribing  or  regulating  the  rates  to 
be  charged  1)\  carriers  for  ilie  carriage  of  passengers  or  freight,  has,  in  a  num- 
ber of  cases,  been  delerniined  b\    the  courts. '•'• 


Co.  V.  Railroad   Coium.,   130  Wis.   14G,   110 
N.   W.   'JOo. 

State  railroad  commissioners  can  not 
enforce  a  schedule  of  rates  for  switching 
cars  in  a  city,  which  hxes  the  compensa- 
tion at  less  than  the  actual  cost  to  the 
company  for  the  work.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Becker,  35  Fed.  883. 

13.  Reciprocal  rights  of  carriers  and  the 
public,  in  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187 
Fed.    2U(). 

While  a  carrier  is  entitled  to  adequate 
recompense  for  the  service  it  performs, 
the  individuals  are  entitled  to  a  rate  that 
they  can  reasonably  afford  to  pay  for  the 
service  they  require.  The  company,  on 
the  one  hand,  has  the  right  to  derive  a  fair 
income  from  its  investment,  and  the  pub- 
lic, on  the  other  hand,  to  have  no  more 
exacted  than  the  services  in  themselves 
are  worth.  Puget  Sound  H,lect.  Railway 
V.  Railroad  Comm..  <),")  Wash.  75,  117  Pac. 
73'.). 

14.  Fullest  disclosure  of  all  material 
facts  to  show  unreasonableness  essential. 
— Tucker  f.  Missouri  I'ac.  R.  Co.,  S2  Kan. 
222,  108  Pac.  89. 

15.  Statutes  held  unconstitutional  as  be- 
ing confiscatory. — .A.ct  .Ma.  Vch.  14,  l'.)()7 
(Acts  li)07,  p.  104),  fixing  passenger  rates, 
and  Act  Nov.  23,  1907  (Acts  Sp.  Sess.  1907. 
pp.  91-159),  knowm  as  the  Eight  Group 
Acts,  relating  to  freight  rates,  held  uncon- 
stitutional as  to  complainant  railroad  com- 
panies as  confiscatory.  Western  Railway 
V.   Railroad  Comm.,  197  Fed.  954. 

The  passenger  rate  act  of  Illinois  of 
May  27,  1907,  fixing  maximum  fares  of  two 
cents  per  mile,  held  conliscatory  and  un-- 
constitutional,  as  applied  to  tlic  Chicago, 
Peoria  &  St.  Louis  Railway  Company  of 
Illinois.  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
199   Fed.  593. 

Evidence  insufficient  to  show  statutory 
rates  unconstitutional  and  confiscatory. — 
In  suits  to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of  Act 
Nev.  March  5,  1907  (St.  Nev.  1907,  p.  73. 
c.  44),  creating  a  railroad  commission  and 
authorizing  it  to  estal)lish  freight  rates 
on  intrastate  business,  not  higher  than 
those  prescribed  in  a  schedule  of  maxi- 
mum rates,  evidence  considered,  and,  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  one  complainant,  held 
insufficient  to  show  that  such  maximum 
rates,   if  adopted  and   enforced   would   be 


unconstitutional    as    confiscatory.      South- 
ern  l^ac.  Co.  V.  Bartine,  170  Fed.  725. 

Commission  order  held  unreasonable 
and  unjust.  R;iilroad  commi.-,>ion  order 
Xo.  553  of  August  0,  1900,  establishing 
freight  rates  for  the  hauling  of  sugar  cane, 
held,  under  the  evidence,  to  be  unreason- 
aide  and  unjust  within  Const,  art.  284,  con- 
ferring on  the  commission  authority  to 
adopt  reasonable  and  just  rates.  Mor- 
gan's etc.,  Steamship  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,   127    La.  030.  53  So.  S90. 

Commission  order  held  unreasonable 
and  confiscatory. — Railroad  Commission 
Order  \o.  970,  passed  February  26,  1909, 
estal)lishing  and  reducing  the  rate  on 
petroleum  and  its  products  in  less  than 
car  load  lots,  held  unreasonable  and  con- 
fiscatory. Louisiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i'.  Rail- 
road  Comm.,   131    La.   3S7,  59   So.   S20. 

Rate  fixed  by  commission  held  reason- 
able.— The  rate  fixed  h}-  tlie  corporation 
commission  of  twenty-five  cents  per  car 
for  placing  cars  in  position  to  be  weighed 
on  consignee's  or  shipper's  individual  track 
scales  is  reasonable.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  103  \"a.  2S9,  49  S. 
E.  39. 

One  commission  order  held  reasonable 
and  another  unreasonable. — Orders  made 
i)\'  the  railroad  commission  of  Louisiana, 
fixing  rates  on  gravel  and  sand  in  car 
loads,  considered,  and  one  held  reason- 
able and  valid,  and  another  void  as  un- 
reasonable. Thompson  v.  Railroad  Comm., 
19S   Fed.  091. 

Evidence  not  showing  rate  made  by 
commission  unreasonable  and  unjust. — 
Plaintiff  in  an  action  against  the  railroad 
commission  does  not.  as  required  by  the 
Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.  1895.  art.  4506, 
show  that  the  freight  rate  on  cotton 
made  by  it  is  unreasonable  and  unjust  to 
him  because  there  is  no  car  rate,  and  be- 
cause it  is  the  same  amount  per  one 
hundred  pounds  whether  pressed  to  a 
density  of  forty  pounds  to  the  cubic  foot, 
as  shipped  by  him.  or  to  a  density  of  only 
twenty  and  one-half  pounds,  as  shipped 
by  others.  Judgment,  Railroad  Comm. 
V.  Weld  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  OS  S.  W.  1117, 
reversed.  Railroad  Comm.  t.  Weld,  96 
Tex.    394.    73    S.    W.    529. 

Municipal  regulation  held  unreasonable. 
— .\  municipal  regulation  extending  tlie 
five    cent    fare    limit    of   a    street    railroad 


S    42  CARRIKRS.  46 

Rates  May  Be  Valid  as  to  Some  Railroads  Though  Not  Compensatory 

as  to  Others.— That  slate  statutes  fixing  railroad  rates  are  not  enforceable  as 
to  particular  railroads,  because  the  rates  as  applied  to  such  roads  are  not  com- 
pensatory, does  not  render  them  invalid  as  to  other  roads. i** 

Right'  of  Carrier  to  Increase  Rates  to  Meet  Changed  Conditions.— A 
carrier  has  the  right,  if  rates  have  been  fixed  too  low  in  the  past,  to  meet  changed 
conditions  by  increasing  them  if  the  increase  is  reasonable,  and  a  state  statute, 
which  denies  it  that  right  and  forces  it  to  continue  in  force  rates  which  are  un- 
remunerative  and  confiscatory,  is  unconstitutional  and  yoid.^' 

Right  to  Change  Rates  Which  Have  Been  Lowered  to  Meet  an  Exi- 
gency.— A  railroad  company  has  the  right  to  change  rates  which  to  meet  an  exi- 
gency have  been  made  so  low  as  to  be  unrcmunerative  when  the  necessity  there- 
for has  ceased  to  exist,  and  a  statute  which  prohibits  the  increase  of  such  rates 
is  unconstitutional  as  confiscatory. ^^ 

Conclusiveness  of  Statutory  Rate  in  Action  for  Freights.— A  carrier 
can  not  reco\er  for  the  transportation  of  property  more  than  the  maximum  fixed 
by  the  legislature,  by  showing  that  the  amount  charged  was  no  more  than  rea- 
sonable compensation  for  the  services  rendered. !•' 

§§  41-67.  Mode  of  Determining  Reasonableness— §  41.  That  Car- 
rier Has    Performed   Services   for   Rate   Fixed   Not   Sole    Criterion.— A 

freitdit  rate  fixed  by  a  railroad  commission  with  power  to  establish  reasonable 
and'^just  rates,  can  not  be  held  just  and  reasonable  solely  because  the  carrier  has 
performed  services  for  the  fixed  rate.-*^ 

§§  42-49.  Carrier  Entitled  to  Fair  Return  on  Investment— §  42.  In 
General. — The  basis  of  all  calculations  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  rates  to  be 
charged  by  a  corporation  maintaining  a  highway  under  legislative  sanction,  must 
be  the  fair  value  of  the  property  being  used  by  it  for  the  convenience  of  the 
public. 21  And,  having  regard  to  the  fair  value  of  the  carrier's  investment,  the 
rates  fixed  must  admit  of  its  earning  a  compensation  that  under  all  the  circum- 
stances is  just  to  it  and  to  the  public.--     A  carrier  can  not  be  compelled,  by  the 

held    invalid    for   unreasonableness.      East  21.    Value   of   carrier's   property   proper 

St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Belleville,    193  basis  of  calculations  as  to  reasonableness 

Pg'f]    f)-      '  of  rates. — Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Min- 

Ordinance   held   not   unreasonable. — An  nesota,   186  U.   S.  257,  46   L.   Ed.   1151,  22 

ordinance    permitting    an    omnibus    driver  S.   Ct.  900;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466, 

to    charge   only   ten    cents    for    carrying   a  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Missouri,  etc., 

passenger,  irrespective  of  the  distance,  is  R.  Co.  v.  Love,  177  Fed.  493;  Seaboard  Air 

not  unreasonable.    Atlantic  City  v.  Brown,  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  155  Fed. 

72  X.  J.  L.  207,  r)2  Atl.  428.  792;    Detroit,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Michigan   R. 

"l6.    Rates  may  be  valid  as  to  some  rail-  Comm.,   171   Mich.   325,   137   N.   W.   329. 
roads   though    not    compensatory     as     to  Whether    an    intrastate    freight    rate    is 

others. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hadley,  reasonable  or  confiscatory  depends  on  the 

Ids   Fed.  :n7.  valuation  of  the  railroad  company's  prop- 

17     Right  of  carrier  to  increase  rates  to  erty.    the    income    derived    from    the    rate, 

meet  changed   conditions.-Wcstern    Rail-  and    the      proportion     between     the     two. 

way  r.    Railroad   Comm.,   197   Fed.   954.  Montana,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Morley,  198  Fed. 

18.  Right  to  change  rates  which  have  '''-^^g  ^^^^^^  ^^  investment  must  be  just 
been  lowered  to  meet  an  exigency.-  ^^  ^^^^j^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^^  public-Lake  Shore, 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  ^.^^__  ^.  ^^_  ^^,  ^_^^;^j^^  ^..,  ^,_  g_  ^^^^  ^3  ^ 
196    Fed.    800.  £j_   g5g^    ;^9   g.    Ct.    565;    Chicago,   etc.,    R. 

19.  Conclusiveness  of  statutory  rates  in  q^  ^,  WeUman,  143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed. 
action  for  freights. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ^--g^  ^o  S.  Ct.  400;  Reagan  v.  Farmers' 
V.  Ackley.  94  U.  S.  179,  24  L.  Ed.  99;  Peik  ^^j^,^  ^^^^  q^^  I54  y.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed. 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164,  24  -[f,^.^^  ^^  g  q_  -^047;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
L.    Ed.  97.  V,    Gill,    156   U.    S.    649,    39    L.    Ed.    567,    15 

20.  That  carrier  has  performed  serv-  S.  Ct.  484;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
ices  for  rate  fixed  not  sole  criterion.— Uc-  466,   42   L.    Ed.   819,   18   S.   Ct.   418. 

troit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  R.   Comm.,  What    the    company    is    entitled    to    ask 

171  Mich.  325,  137  N.  W.  329.  is    a    fair    return    upon    the    value    of   that 


47 


COXTKOL  AN'D   RKGULATION. 


42 


establislinient  of  rates  by  a  state  commission,  to  transact  its  whole  business  at  a 
loss,  as  rates  which  would  so  operate  would  be  confiscatory.--*  And  rates  for 
railroad  transportation  are  not  unreasonable  only  when  they  amount  to  prac- 
tical confiscation,  nor  are  they  necessarily  reasonable  when  they  allow  any  divi- 
dend, however  small,  but  a  railroad  company  is  entitled  to  be  reimbursed  its 
charges  and  expenses,  and  to  receive,  besides,  an  adequate  return  upon  the  in- 
vestment.-'     r.ut  rales  charged  by  a  common  carrier  can  go  no  higher  than  the 


which  is  employed  for  tlic  public  conven- 
ience. On  the  other  hand,  what  the  pub- 
lic is  entitled  to  demand  is  that  no  more 
be  exacted  from  it  for  the  use  of  a  pub- 
lic highway  than  the  services  rendered  by 
it  are  reasonably  worth.  Smyth  v.  Ames, 
169  U.  S.  406,  547,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct. 
418. 

Whether  railroad  rates  prescribed  by  a 
state  commission  are  reasonable  involves 
a  determination  of  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty devoted  to  the  public  use  to  which 
the  rates  apply,  the  measure  of  a  reason- 
able return  on  that  value  and  whether  the 
rates  allowed  to  be  charged  arc  sufficient 
to  that  end.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Love, 
177    Fed.  493. 

The  reasonableness  of  rates  for  the  in- 
trastate carriage  of  freight  and  passen- 
gers established  by  a  state,  as  affecting  a 
particular  carrier,  can  not  be  determined 
alone  from  the  kind  or  amount  of  business 
done  by  such  carrier;  the  fact  remaining, 
which  must  be  considered,  that  it  is  en- 
titled to  earn  a  fair  return  on  its  invest- 
ment, if  it  can  l)e  done  without  making  the 
rates  oppressive.  In  re  Arkansas  Rate 
Cases,    1S7    Fed.   290. 

Carrier  entitled  to  reasonable  profit  on 
entire  intrastate  business. — While  a  rail- 
road is  not  entitled  to  earn  a  profit  on 
every  mile  of  its  road  nor  on  every  article 
carried  by  it,  it  is  nevertheless  entitled  to 
earn  a  reasonable  profit  on  its  entire  intra- 
state lousiness.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Xeill,   15.5   Fed.  756. 

A  rate  prescribed  by  a  state  railroad 
commission  for  the  carriage  of  a  particular 
commodity  will  nut  i)c  held  to  be  unrea- 
sonable, wliere  it  appears  that  it  is  more 
than  the  average  rate  received  by  the  road 
for  the  carriage  of  all  freight  for  the  pre- 
vious year.  Seaboard,  etc..  Railway  v. 
Ellis,  2015  U.  S.  2()1.  51  L.  Ed.  175,  27  S. 
Ct.   109. 

23.  Carrier  can  not  be  compelled  to 
transact  its  whole  business  at  a  loss. — 
Louisiana  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Railruad  Cumni., 
131   La.   387,  59   So.  820. 

In  a  suit  to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of 
a  carrier's  schedule  prepared  l^y  the  board 
of  railroad  commissioners,  a  table  was  in- 
troduced in  evidence  showing  the  operat- 
ing expenses  of  two  of  the  roads  affected 
for  four  years,  and  it  appeared  that,  if  the 
schedule  as  proposed  had  been  in  opera- 
tion at  that  time,  the  business  of  the  roads 
would  have  been  done  at  an  actual  loss, 
and  nothing  left  for  a  return  on  the  value 
of  the  property.     Held,  that  the  rates  of 


the    commission    were    unreasonably    low. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Keyes,  91  Fed.  47. 

The  constitution  of  Louisiana,  art.  284, 
gives  authority  to  the  Railroad  commis- 
sion to  adopt  reasonable  and  just  rates. 
Held,  that  the  commission  is  authorized 
to  make  rates  which  are  reasonable  and 
just  and  no  other,  and  no  rate  can  be 
reasonable  and  just  to  a  railroad  company 
which  is  established  safely  upon  the  basis 
of  the  company's  gross  revenue,  since 
gross  revenue  may  be  insufficient  to  meet 
expense  and  to  yield  a  return  upon  in- 
vested capital.  Morgan's,  etc.,  Steamship 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm..  127  La.  030.  53 
So.   890. 

24.  Railroad  company  entitled  to  receive 
an  adequate  return  upon  investment. — 
Soutlicrn    Pac.   Co.  v.   Board,   7>>   Fc-d.   236. 

If  a  railroad  is  not  ill  conceived,  greater 
in  extent  than  it  should  be,  or  unduly  ex- 
pensive in  construction,  and  is  operated 
wisely  and  economically,  rates  producing 
no  more  than  a  reasonable  return  on  its 
fair  value  would  not  be  unjust  to  any 
one.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Love,  177 
Fed.  493. 

Freight  rates  established  by  state  au- 
thority are  invalid  as  unreasonable  and 
confiscating,  if  so  low  that  a  carrier  can 
not  earn  a  fair  and  reasonable  return  on 
the  value  of  the  property  devoted  to  the 
service.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  199 
Fed.  621. 

The  railroad  commission  established  by 
the  Michigan  statute.  Pub.  Acts  1909.  No. 
300.  with  power  to  fix  reasonable  and  just 
rates,  must  consider  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty of  the  carrier  employed  for  the  public 
convenience,  and  give  it  a  fair  return  on 
such  value.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michi- 
gan R.  Comm..  171  Mich.  325.  137  N.  W. 
329. 

Under  the  Wisconsin  Statute.  Laws 
1905.  pp.  556,  559.  c.  362.  §§  12.  14.  requir- 
ing railroads  to  furnish  adequate  service, 
and  that  the  charges  and  rates  be  reason- 
alilc,  and  permitting  the  railroad  com- 
mission to  fix  reasonable  rates,  and  §  16, 
permitting  the  railroad  or  other  party 
in  interest  to  have  such  orders  reviewed 
in  the  circuit  court,  in  an  action  against 
a  commission  to  vacate  an  order  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  unlawful  or  unreason- 
able, in  determining  whether  any  order  is 
unreasonable,  the  court  must  consider 
that  every  unnecessary  burden  imposed 
upon  the  railroad  impairs  its  net  receipts 
and  diminishes  the  margin  between  its 
gross   receipts   and   the   amount    sufficient 


§  ^'- 


CARRIERS. 


48 


service  is  reasonably  worth  to  the  public,  even  though  charges  so  limited  would 
fail  to  produce  a  fair  return  to  the  carrier  upon  its  investment.-''  What  consti- 
tutes a  fair  return  to  a  carrier  on  its  investment  is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and 
fact.-*^  In  determining  the  question  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  profits 
realized  generally  on  similar  investments  in  the  locality  of  the  one  under  con- 
sideration,-'  and  to  the  legal  rate  of  interest  in  the  state. -'^     That  a  road  was 


to  assure  a  fair  return  on  the  value  of  its 
propert}',  plus  the  amount  of  its  fixed 
charges  and  operating  expenses,  and  that 
the  rights  of  the  public  and  of  the  rail- 
road require  that  this  margin  should  or- 
dinarily not  be  exhausted  or  impaired  by- 
orders  of  the  commission  as  fast  as  it 
accumulates.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Comm.,  136  Wis.  1  i(3,  116  N.  W. 
905. 

The  Missouri  statute.  Act  Feb.  27,  1907 
(Laws  1907,  p.  170),  establishing  two  cent 
passenger  fares  on  intrastate  railroads, 
and  Act  March  19,  1907  (Laws  1907,  p. 
171),  establishing  maximum  freight  rates 
held  confiscatory  and  unconstitutional  on 
evidence  showing  that  none  of  the  roads 
doing  business  thereunder  can  earn  to 
exceed  3  per  cent  net  income  on  its  state 
business,  while  as  to  some  the  business 
must  be  done  at  a  loss.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  c'.  Hadlcy.  1<18  Fed.  317. 

Sufficiency  of  evidence  as  to  unreason- 
ableness of  rates. — A  general  averment  in 
a  bill  that  a  tariflf,  as  established,  is  un- 
just and  unreasonable,  is  supported  by  the 
admitted  facts  that  the  road  cost  far  more 
than  the  amount  of  the  stock  and  bonds 
outstanding;  that  such  stock  and  bonds 
represent  money  invested  in  its  construc- 
tion; that  there  has  been  no  waste  or  mis- 
management in  the  construction  or  opera- 
tion; that  supplies  and  labor  have  been 
purchased  at  the  lowest  possible  price 
consistent  with  the  successful  operation 
of  the  road;  that  the  rates  voluntarily  fixed 
by  the  company  have  been  for  10  years 
steadily  decreasing,  until  the  aggregate 
decrease  has  been  more  than  50  per  cent; 
that,  under  the  rates  thus  voluntarily  es- 
tablished, the  stock,  which  represents  two- 
fifths  of  the  value,  has  never  received  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  dividends,  and  that 
for  the  last  three  years  the  earnings  above 
operating  expenses  have  been  insufficient 
to  pay  the  interest  on  the  bonded  debt, 
and  that  the  proposed  tariff,  as  enforced, 
will  so  diminish  the  earnings  that  they 
will  not  be  able  to  pay  one-half  the  inter- 
est on  the  bonded  debt  above  the  operat- 
ing expenses;  and  such  an  averment,  so 
supported,  will,  in  the  absence  of  any 
satisfactory  showing  to  the  contrary,  sus- 
tain a  finding  that  the  proposed  tariff  is 
unjust  and  unreasonable.  Reagan  v. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  302, 
38    L.    !•>!.    1014,    14    S.    Ct.    1047. 

25.  Rates  can  go  no  higher  than  service 
is  reasonably  worth  to  public. — Puget 
Sound  Elect.  J^ailway  v.  Railroad  Comm., 
05   Wash.   75,    117    Pac.   739. 


It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  a 
schedule  of  maximum  freight  rates  is  con- 
fiscatory and  unconstitutional  because  it 
fails  to  yield  a  reasonable  return  on  the 
investment.  Such  rates  must  be  reason- 
able not  only  to  the  company  but  also 
to  the  public,  and  the  fact  that  they  do 
not  prove  remunerative  to  a  new  road 
built  through  a  sparsely  settled  country 
where  there  is  at  present  little  local  busi- 
ness does  not  require  the  few  people  and 
the  small  business  to  pay  such  rates  as 
will  make  the  road  immediately  profitable 
to  its  stockholders.  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v. 
Bartine,    170    Fed.    725. 

Where  the  carrying  of  25  per  cent  of 
the  total  number  of  passengers  carried 
by  a  street  railroad  company  under  rates 
affecting  only  10  per  cent  of  the  passen- 
ger revenue  at  a  rate  less  than  what 
would  be  an  adequate  return  for  the  use 
of  its  property  affords  it  a  profit  over  the 
actual  costs  of  moving  the  passenger  and 
is  the  only  rate  the  passenger  can  afford 
to  pay,  such  a  rate  is  a  reasonable  rate, 
both  to  the  company  and  to  the  public. 
Puget  Sound  Elect.  Railway  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,   65   Wash.   75,   117   Pac.   739. 

26.  What  constitutes  a  fair  return  a 
mixed  question  of  law  and  fact. — North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Lee.  199  Fed.  62L 

27.  Ordinarily,  the  right  to  the  rate  of 
returns,  realized  generally  on  similar  in- 
vestments in  the  locality  of  the  one  un- 
der consideration,  is  deemed  reasonable 
and  fair,  if  the  investor  could  earn  it,  and 
the  rate  is  allowed  on  the  amount  ac- 
tually invested  in  good  faith,  fictitious 
valuations  being  rejected.  Coal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Conley,  67  W.  Va.  129,  67  S.  E.  613. 

28.  Rate  of  profit  allowable. — In  de- 
termining whether  passenger  rates  pre- 
scribed by  the  Pennsylvania  statute.  Act 
April  5,  1907  (P.  L.  59),  are  unreasonable 
in  so  far  as  a  particular  carrier  is  con- 
cerned, the  question  is  whether  such  rate 
will  enable  the  carrier  to  earn  a  net  in- 
come not  less  than  the  legal  rate  of  in- 
terest after  paying  fixed  charges  and  op- 
crating  expenses,  maintaining  the  plant, 
and  providing  a  suital)le  sinking  fund  for 
tlie  payment  of  del)ts  and  a  fair  profit 
to  the  owners  of  the  property.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  V.  Philadelphia  County,  220 
Pa.    100,    68    Atl.    676. 

Railroads  in  Alabama  are  entitled  to 
earn  a  net  profit  of  8  per  cent  on  the 
value  of  the  property  employed  by  thern 
in  intrastate  business,  so  long  as  the  busi- 
ness   is    done    without    discrimination    and 


49 


CONTROL  ANU  KKGULATIOX. 


§  43 


built  without  expectation  of  an  immediate  realization  of  a  fair  return  on  the  in- 
vestment does  not  justify  disallowance  of  such  return  if  it  can  be  earned  with- 
out cxactif^n  of  uiirc-a.sniiablc   rates.-"' 

Rate  on  a  Particular  Commodity. — A  reduced  rate  on  a  particular  com- 
modity is  not  reasonable,  if  established  without  regard  to  whether  it  will  pay  the 
cost  of  the  service,  or  yield  a  fair  return  to  the  carrier  on  the  cai)ital  invested.^*^ 

§§  43-49.  Mode  of  Determining  Value  of  Property  or  Investment— 
§  43.  In  General. — In  order  to  ascertain  the  lair  value  of  the  property  used 
by  the  carrier,  the  original  cost  of  construction,  the  amount  expended  in  perma- 
nent improvements,  the  amount  and  market  value  of  its  bonds  and  stock,  the 
present  as  compared  with  the  original  cost  of  construction,  the  probable  earning 
capacity  of  the  property  under  particular  rates  prescribed  by  statute,  and  the 
sum  required  to  meet  operating  expenses,  are  all  matters  for  consideration,  and 
are  to  be  given  such  weight  as  may  be  just  and  right  in  each  case."^     To  ascer- 


at  reasoiiaI)lc  rates.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comni.,  lOO  Fed.  800. 

And  a  schedule  of  rates  fixed  by  law 
which  will  not  permit  them  to  earn  such 
return  is  confiscatory  and  unconstitu- 
tional. Western  Railway  f.  Railroad 
Comm.,   197    Fed.   954. 

Railroad  companies  in  Arkansas  held 
entitled  to  earn  an  income  of  (5  per  cent 
per  annum  on  the  value  of  their  property 
employed  in  intrastate  business,  com- 
puted on  the  basis  of  the  assessed  valua- 
tion of  such  property,  and  from  the  earn- 
ings of  a  prosperous  year  to  reserve  a 
surplus  of  1..")  per  cent  in  addition;  and 
the  rates  established  by  the  Arkansas 
railroad  commission  and  the  two-cent 
passenger  law  of  Fel)ruary  9,  1907  (Acts 
Ark.  1907,  p.  10),  held  confiscatory  as  to 
such  companies,  and  their  enforcement 
enjoined.  In  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187 
Fed.  290. 

In  Minnesota  it  has  l)een  held  that 
where  the  evidence  shows  that  the  rates, 
as  reduced  by  the  state  railroad  and 
warehouse  commission,  would  produce 
2^  per  cent  net  income  on  the  cost  of 
reproducing  the  terminals,  and  5  per  cent 
net  income  on  the  cost  of  reproducing  the 
rest  of  the  road,  the  same  is  a  fairly  lil)- 
eral  income.  Steenerson  v.  Great  North- 
ern   R.    Co.,   69    Minn.    .353,    72    N.    W.    713. 

In  a  case  in  the  United  States  circuit 
court  in  Missouri  it  was  held  that  railroad 
property,  properly  built  and  managed,  is 
entitled  to  earn  an  annual  income  of  6 
per  cent  on  its  fair  valuation,  and  a  stat- 
ute fixing  rates  under  which  it  can  not 
make  such  income  is  confiscatory  and 
unconstitutional.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.    Ha.Iley.   ics   Fed.  317. 

29.  Immaterial  that  immediate  realiza- 
tion of  a  fair  return  was  not  expected. — 
Coal,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Conloy.  tlT  \V.  \a. 
129,   1)7    S.    F.   (il3. 

30.  Rate  on  a  particular  commodity. — 
I.,ouisiana  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Railrdail  Conini.. 
J  31   La.  387,  59  So.  820. 

A  reduced  rate  upon  a  particular  com- 
modity   transported    by    a    carrier    is    not 

1  Car— 4 


reasonable  and  just  within  the  constitu- 
tion of  Louisiana,  art.  284,  giving  the  rail- 
1  oad  commission  power  to  adopt  reason- 
able and  just  rates  when  it  is  established 
without  regard  to  whether  the  existing 
rate  is  high  or  low,  as  compared  with 
rates  on  other  commodities,  and  without 
regard  to  whether  it  will  pay  the  cost  of 
the  services  rendered  or  \ield  a  fair  re- 
turn to  the  carrier  upon  capital  invested. 
Morgan's,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,   127   La.  636,  53  So.   890. 

While  a  statute  of  a  state  requiring  a 
railroad  company  to  transport  a  particu- 
lar commodity  within  the  state  for  less 
than  cost  does  not  involve  the  taking  of 
property  without  due  process  of  law, 
vvithin  the  prohibition  of  the  fourteenth 
amendment  of  the  United  States  consti- 
tution, so  long  as  the  railroad  company 
obtains  a  fair  revenue  from  the  whole  of 
its  intrastate  business,  it  does  not  follow 
that  such  a  rate,  to  be  unreasonable  and 
rnjust,  within  Const.,  art.  284,  giving  au- 
thority to  the  railroad  commission  to  fix 
reasonable  and  just  rates  for  railroads, 
must  also  be  obnoxious  to  the  fourteenth 
amendment.  Morgan's,  etc..  Steamship 
Co.  :•.  Railroad  Comm.,  127  La.  636,  53 
So.    890. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  the  proper 
test  as  to  whether  rates  fixed  for  trans- 
porting coal  are  reasonable  is  not  whether 
the  rate  fixed  is  sufficiently  high  to  en- 
able the  carrier  to  earn  a  fair  compensa- 
t'on,  but  whether,  under  such  rates,  it  will  be 
enabled  from  its  total  freight  receipts  on 
all  its  intrastate  traffic  to  earn  a  sum, 
above  operating  expenses  reasonably  nec- 
essary for  such  traffic,  sufficient  to  yield 
a  fair  and  reasonable  profit  upon  its  in- 
vestment. McCue  f.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,   19  N.  Dak.  45.  120  N.  W.  869. 

31.  Mode  of  determining  value  of  prop- 
erty. Smvlli  :■.  .-Xnu'S.  169  I".  S.  466.  42 
!..    Ed.    819,    18    S.    Ct.    418. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty of  a  railroad  companj-  for  the  pur- 
pose of  determining  the  reasonableness  of 
rates  fixed  bv  a  state,  neither  the  market 


§45 


CARRIERS. 


50 


tain  the  value  of  a  railroad  to  determine  the  validity  of  a  rate  regulating  stat- 
ute the  most  reliable  test  is  the  cost  of  reproduction  of  the  road  when  the  stat- 
ute" was  enacted  taking  the  value  of  the  road  at  that  time  without  regard  to  what 
may  have  been  its  value  when  constructed.-'-  Courts,  in  determining  whether  a 
rate  for  frei<^ht  charges  fixed  bv  stale  authorilv  is  reasonable,  can  not  assume 
that  the  cost'^of  reproduction  of' a  line  of  railway,  or  that  the  present,  as  com- 
pared with  the  original,  cost  of  construction,  is  the  amount  of  stock  and  bonds 
outstanding,  or  that  it  is  what  the  road  has  cost  up  to  the  time  of  the  trial.-^^ 
The  assessed  valuation  of  the  property  of  a  carrier  is  entitled  to  great  weight  m 
determining  the  value  of  the  propertv  employed  for  the  establishment  of  rates.^ 
The  value  of  a  railroad,  like  that  of  any  other  business  property,  may  be  a  mat- 
ter of  growth :  and  its  location,  good  will,  and  established  business  are  elements 
to  be  considered  in  determining  such  value.-'^' 

§  44,  Fictitious  Capitalization  or  Excessive  Bonded  Debt.— If  a  rail- 
road corporation  has  bonded  its  property  for  an  amount  that  exceeds  its  fair 
value,  or  if  its  capitalization  is  largely  fictitious,  it  may  not  impose  upon  the 
public  the  burden  of  such  increased  rates  as  may  be  required  for  the  purpose 
of  realizing  profits  upon  such  excessive  valuation  or  fictitious  capitalization; 
and  the  apparent  value  of  the  property  and  franchises  used  by  the  corporation, 
as  represented  by  its  stocks,  bonds  and  obligations,  is  not  alone  to  be  consid- 
ered when  determining  the   rates  that  may  be   reasonably  charged.-'*^ 

§  45.  Sworn  Return  of  Value  of  Property  Made  for  Purposes  of  Tax- 
ation.—A  sworn   return  of  the  value  of  a  line  of  railroad,  made  to  the  state 


value  of  its  stocks  and  bonds,  the  cost  of 
construction,  nor  the  cost  of  reproduction 
of  the  property  is  absolutely  controlling, 
but  each  should  be  regarded  as  a  fact 
tending  to  show  fair  value,  and,  if  one 
only  of  such  facts  is  shown,  it  may  be 
assumed  that  it  represents  such  value. 
Sotithern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Bartine,  170  Fed. 
725. 

32.  Cost  of  reproduction  most  reliable 
test  of  value. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Conim.,  196  Fed.  800.  Compare 
Metropolitan  Trust  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  90  Fed.   683. 

In  the  valuation  of  the  property  ot  a 
railroad  company  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
termining the  reasonableness  of  a  state 
statute  regulating  rates,  as  affecting  such 
property,  a  fundamental  and  generally  con- 
trolling inquiry  is  the  cost  of  reproducing 
the  property  in  its  existing  condition  at 
the  time  of  the  inquiry.  Western  Rail- 
way  V.    Railroad    Comm.,    197    Fed.   954. 

In  Minnesota  it  has  been  held  that  the 
question  whether  the  rates  for  transpor- 
tation fixed  by  the  state  railroad  and  ware- 
house commission  are  unreasonable  and 
confiscatory  is  determined  by  ascertain- 
ing what,  under  all  the  circumstances, 
is  a  reasonable  income  on  the  cost  of  re- 
producing the  road  at  the  present  time. 
Steenerson  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  69 
Minn.    353,   72   N.   W.   713. 

33.  State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
80  Minn.  191.  83  N.  W.  60,  89  Am. 
St  Rep.  514,  affirmed  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  186  U.'  S.  257,  46  L. 
Ed.  1151,  22  S.  Ct.  900. 


34.  Assessed    valuation    of    property. — 

Detroit,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v.     Michigan     R. 
Comm.,   171   Mich.   325,   137    N.   W.   329. 

Evidence  of  a  greater  value  than  the 
assessed  value  must  be  shown  by  a  car- 
rier when  it  attacks  rates  fixed  by  the 
railroad  commission  created  by  the  Michi- 
gan statute.  Pub.  Acts  1909,  No.  300. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  R. 
Comm..   171   Mich.   325,   137    N.   W.   329. 

35.  Location,  good  will,  and  established 
business. — Metropolitan  Trust  Co.  v. 
Houston,   etc..    R.    Co..   90    Fed.    683. 

Circumstances  not  warranting  consid- 
eration of  value  as  a  going  concern. — But 
where  a  railroad  company,  owning  a 
monopoly  of  transportation  between  cer- 
tain points,  the  tonnage  of  which  con- 
sisted largely  of  coal  transported  from 
the  mines  to  a  junction  with  a  transcon- 
tinental line,  had  never  been  able  to  pay 
interest  on  its  bonds,  had  accumulated 
only  a  very  limited  equipment,  and  had 
not  prospered  to  any  material  extent,  it 
was  not  entitled  to  an  addition  to  its  re- 
productive value  in  determining  the  rea- 
sonableness of  a  freight  rate  for  added 
value  as  a  going  concern.  Montana,  etc., 
R.   Co.  7'.   Morley,   198  Fed.  991. 

36.  Fictitious  caoitalization  or  excess- 
ive bonded  indebtedness. — Smyth  v. 
Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S. 
Ct.  418. 

A  bonded  debt  of  a  railroad  is  neither 
a  complete  nor  accurate  criterion  of  the 
value  of  the  property  for  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  reasonable  or  confiscatory 
character  of  intrastate  freight  rates.  Mon- 
tana, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Morley,  198  Fed.  991. 


51 


COX'IROL  AND  RIXULATIOX. 


§  50 


authorities  for  purposes  of  taxation  by  an  officer  of  the  comijany,  is  evidence 
of  the  vahie  of  the  property,  to  be  considered  in  determining  the  reasonableness 
of  rates  or  charges  fixed  by  the  state  for  the  carriage  of  passengers  or  freight, 
but  is  not  conclusive  on  the  company  for  the  latter  ])uri)Ose,  and  does  not  estop 
it  to  show  thai  the  actual  cost  of  reproducing  the  i)r(.i)erty  would  be  nuich 
greater  than  the   value  scj  given.-'"^ 

§  46.  Value  of  Franchise.— In  valuing  the  properly  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  validity  of  a  state  statute  regulating 
rates,  the  value  of  the  company's  franchise  is  to  be  included,  and.  where  the  state 
by  its  tax  commission  has  placed  a  value  on  such  franchise  for  taxation  pur- 
poses, it  UKiv  fairly  be  taken  l)y  the  court  as  a  basis  for  its  finding.'*^ 

§  47.  Consolidated  Corporation— Value  of  Assets  of  Constituent  Cor- 
porations.— TIk'  valuation  ])laced  by  a  consolidated  street  railroad  corporation 
on  the  assets  of  the  constituent  cori)orations  will  not  bind  the  railway  commis- 
sion in  estimating  the  valuation  upon  which  the  corporation  should  earn  an  in- 
come, or  in  fixing  the  price  the  carrier  may  charge  for  transporting  passengers.'''^ 

§  48.  Part  of  Railroad  within  State  to  Be  Regarded  in  Its  Relation  to 
Part  without  State. — In  the  case  of  a  railroad  system  extending  into  or  ihr(nigh 
two  or  more  states,  the  part  within  a  state,  the  value  of  which  is  to  be  deter- 
mined upon  an  issue  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  rates  therein,  should  be  regarded 
in  its  relation  to  the  whole,  and  consideration  given  to  the  influence  upon  that 
value  of  property  outside  the  state  employed  in  aid  of  all  its  transportation  busi- 
ness.**" 

§  49.  Road  Purchased  at  Foreclosure  Sale  and  Reorganized.— Where 

a  road  was  purchased  at  a  foreclosure  sale  and  reorganized,  the  fact  that  the 
rates  fixed  will  not  pay  a  fair  return  on  the  original  cost  of  the  investment  docb 
not  show  them  to  be  unreasonable,  there  being  no  evidence  to  show  the  cost  of 
the  investment  to   the  persons  purchasing  and   reorganizing   it.-*' 

§   50.  Carrier  Entitled  to  Earn  Interest  upon  a  Valid  Bonded  Debt. — 

The  interest  upon  a   valid  bonded  debt  of  a  railroad  company,  contracted  in  a 


37.  Return  of  value  of  property  made 
for  purposes  of  taxation. —  l\ouisvillc'.  etc., 
R.    Co.   f.    lirowii.    12:!    l'\'(l.    940. 

The  return  of  a  valuation  of  a  part  of 
its  property  to  tlic  board  of  equalization 
docs  not  estop  a  railroad  company,  in  a 
proceeding  for  placing  a  valuation  on  the 
whole  property  for  the  purpose  of  fixing 
transportation  rates,  l)ut  is  competent 
evidence.  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Board,  S7 
Fed.  21. 

38.  Value  of  franchise. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.   Co.   V.    i<ailr(Kul   Conini..    VM\   Fed.   SOO. 

39.  Consolidated  corporation — Value  of 
sets  of  constituent  corporations. — Tyrrell 
V.  Lincoln  Tract.  Co.  (Xeb.),  134  X.  W. 
278. 

40.  Part  of  railroad  within  state  to  be 
regarded  in  its  relation  to  part  without 
state. Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ltn-e,  177 
Fed.    4',i:!. 

41.  Road  purchased  at  foreclosure  sale 
and  reorganized. — Dow  v.  Heidelnuiu,  12."> 
U.  S.  cso.  ;u  L.  Fd.  S41.  8  S.  Ct.  1028. 

A  state  statute  (Arkansas  Act  of  .A-pril 
4.  1887)  restricting  the  rate  for  carrying 
passengers   to    three    cents   a   mile    is    not 


sliowii  to  l)e  invalid  because  of  the  un- 
reasonableness of  its  provisions,  as  ap- 
plied to  a  railroad  bought  under  a  fore- 
closure sale  and  reorganized,  by  the  ad- 
mitted facts  that  with  the  same  traffic 
that  the  road  has.  and  charging  for  trans- 
portation at  the  rate  of  three  cents  per 
mile,  the  net  yearly  income  will  pay  less 
than  V/2  per  cent  on  the  original  cost  of 
the  road,  and  only  a  little  more  than  2 
per  cent  of  the  amount  of  its  bonded  debt, 
there  being  no  evidence  whatever  as  to 
how  much  money  the  bonds  cost,  or  as 
to  the  amount  of  the  capital  stock  of 
the  corporation  as  reorganized,  or  as  to 
the  sum  paid  for  the  road  at  its  purchase 
under  the  foreclosure.  It  can  not  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  price  paid  at  the  sale  un- 
der the  decree  of  foreclosure  equalled  the 
original  cost  of  the  road,  or  the  amount 
of  outstanding  bonded  debt,  and  without 
any  proof  of  the  sum  invested  by  the  re- 
organized corporation  the  court  has  no 
means,  even  if  it  would  under  any  cir- 
cumstances have  the  power,  of  determin- 
ing that  the  rate  of  three  cents  a  mile 
is  unreasonable.  Dow  v.  Beidelman.  125 
U.  S.  680.  31  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028. 


CARRIERS. 


52 


careful  economical,  and  honest  administration  of  its  business,  constitutes  a  fixed 
charge '  which  the  company  is  entitled  to  earn  before  its  net  earnmgs  above  oper- 
ating expenses  can  be  considered  as  dividends,  which  arc  sul)ject  to  regulation  or 
reduction  in  the  discretion  of  the  legislature.-^- 

§   51.  Ascertaining*  Cost  of  Doing  Business  or  of  Operating  Road.— 

As  the  reasonableness  of  a  schedule  of  rates  for  local  business  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany must  be  detemiined  bv  a  comparison  between  the  gross  receipts  and  the  cost 
of  doing  the  business,  it  can  not  be  determined  until  the  cost  of  doing  the  busi- 
ness is  ascertained.-'-"  In  ascertaining  the  cost  of  operating  a  railroad,  with  refer- 
ence to  determining  the  reasonableness  of  rates,  the  expenses  of  operation  are 
not  to  be  strictlv  limited  to  the  cost  of  running  trains,  excluding  all  betterments.^^ 
When  estimating  the  cost  of  operating  a  railway  per  ton  of  freight  per  mile  of 
carriage,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  reasonableness  of  a  tariff  of  rates 
fixed  by  a  state  railroad  and  warehouse  commission,  it  is  error  to  take  into  con- 
sideration an  amount  of  the  earnings  which  has  been  appropriated  and  paid  out 
as  dividends  on  stock  shares  of  such  railway.'*"' 

§§  52-54.  Consideration  of  Net  Earnings  in  Determining  Reasonable- 
ness of  Rates  Prescribed— §  52.  Net  Earnings  Must  Be  Sufficient  to 
Pay  Fair  Return  on  Investment. ^In  fixing  the  rates  of  a  carrier,  regard  must 
be  had  to  the  net  earnings,  and  these  must  be  sufficient,  under  the  proposed 
schedule,  to  pay  a  fair  return  on  the  carrier's  investment.-**'  But  a  schedule  of 
railroad  rates  established  by  state  authority  is  not  unreasonably  low  as  to  a  par- 
ticular road  because  it  will  not  enable  the  company  to  accumulate  from  its  net 
earnings  a  sinking  fund  for  the  payment  of  its  indebtedness.-*' 

two  and  the  net  earnings  ascertained. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Tompkins,  176 
U.   vS.    167,   44   L.    Ed.  417,   20  S.   Ct.   336. 

The  Nebraska  statute,  Act  April  12, 
1893  (Laws  1893,  p.  164,  c.  24),  prescrib- 
ing local  freight  rates  on  railroads,  which 
reduces  such  rates  29^^  per  cent,  is  invalid 
where  the  rates  prescribed  are  such,  as 
to  companies  operating  roads  within  the 
state,  and  doing  an  interstate  business, 
that  there  would  be  no  net  earnings  from 
transportation  of  freight  if  such  rates 
were  applied  to  all  their  business.  Ames 
V.  Union   Pac.   R.   Co.,  64   Fed.  165. 

Where  the  business  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany within  a  state  is  efficiently,  econom- 
ically, and  honestly  conducted,  and  its 
operating  expenses  are  no  greater  than 
such  management  requires,  and  the  net 
earnings  of  its  lines  within  the  state, 
above  operating  expenses,  both  from 
local  and  through  business,  are  less  than 
half  the  amount  required  to  pay  the 
interest  on  the  mortgage  debt  upon  lines 
within  the  state,  the  local  earnings  at  the 
same  time  being  insufficient  to  pay  half 
of  the  proportion  of  such  interest  justly 
chargeable  thereon,  a  state  regulation  re- 
ducing the  rates  it  is  permitted  to  charge 
on  local  business,  the  effect  of  which  will 
be  to  materially  decrease  its  net  earnings, 
is  unreasonable  and  unjust  and  a  viola- 
tion of  its  constitutional  rights.  Chicago, 
etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Smith.   110   Fed.   473. 

47.  Carrier  not  entitled  to  accumu- 
late sinking  fund  from  net  earnings. — 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Storey,  149 
Fed.  499. 


42.  Carrier  entitled  to  earn  interest  on 

a    valid   bonded    debt. — Chicago,     etc.,     R. 
Co.   r.    Smith,    110    h'cd.   473. 

43.  Necessity  of  ascertaining  cost  of 
doing  business. — Decree,  90  Fed.  363,  re- 
versed. Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tomp- 
kins, 176  U.  S.  167,  44  L.  Ed.  417,  20  S. 
Ct.   336. 

44.  Mode  of  ascertaining  cost  of  oper- 
ating railroad. — Southern  Pac.  Co.  v. 
Board,  78   Fed.  236. 

45.  State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
80  Minn.  191,  83  N.  W.  60,  89  Am.  St. 
Rep.  514,  affirmed  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Mi4inesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L.  Ed. 
1151,   22    S.    Ct.    900. 

46.  Net  earnings  must  be  sufficient  to 
pay  fair  return  on  investment. — Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Tompkins,  176  U.  S.  167,  44 
L.  Ed.  417,  20  S.  Ct.  336.  See,  also,  Sea- 
board, etc.,  Railway  v.  Ellis,  203  U.  S. 
261,  51  L.  Ed.  175,  27  S.  Ct.  109. 

Upon  a  bill  to  restrain  the  enforcement 
of  a  schedule  of  rates  for  the  carriage  of 
passengers  and  freight  published  by  the 
railroad  commission  of  a  state,  the  court 
in  reaching  its  conclusion  proceeded  upon 
the  theory  that  the  comparison  of  the  ac- 
tual gross  receipts  of  the  company  from 
the  business  within  the  state  with  those 
which  it  would  have  received  if  the  rates 
which  it  prescribed  had  been  in  force  was 
sufficient  to  determine  the  question  of  the 
reasonableness  of  the  rates.  It  was  held 
that  this  was  error;  that  the  question  of 
expenses  incurred  in  producing  the  gross 
receipts  should  have  been  taken  into  ac- 
count  and    a   balance    struck   between    the 


53 


CONTROL   AM)   KKCri.ATION'. 


§   53.  Mode  of  Computing  Net  Earnings  and  What  They  Include.— In 

cominUiii<,'  llic  net  im  onic  of  a  railroad  comi)any,  for  tlie  purpose  of  determining 
whether  the  rates  prescrihed  by  the  state  are  reasonable  or  confiscatory,  the^  in^ 
trastate  business  of  the  company  is  justly  chargeable  with  its  proper  proportion 
of  the  expense  incurred  by  the  company  in  maintaining  agents  in  various  parts 
of  the  country  to  solicit  business."*"  in  making  such  computation  net  earnings 
must  be  held  lo  include  earnings  apphrd  to  the  purchase  of  additional  etjuip- 
ment  and  other  improvements,-*"  and  ilic  fair  rental  value  of  the  dining  room, 
saloon,  check  stand,  etc..  privileges  in  a  jiassenger  station,  although  the  carrier 
grants  such  privileges  for  a  merely  nominal  rental.''"  In  computing  the  net  earn- 
ings, sums  paid  out  by  the  carrier  for  injuries  to  persons  may  properly  be  in- 
cluded in  operating  expenses.-^'*  In  com])Uting  the  net  earnings  from  its  intra- 
state business  miscellaneous  earnings  and  expenses,  not  directly  attributable  to 
either  intrastate  or  interstate  business,  may  jjroperly  be  apportioned  between 
the  two  on  the  ])asis  of  the  earnings  from  each  source. '■- 

§   54.  Earnings  of  Entire  Road  to  Be  Regarded. — .\  carrier  can  not  claim 

the  rif^ht  to  earn  a  net  profit  from  every  mile,  section  or  other  part  into  which 
the  road  mav  be  divided,  nor  attack  as  unjust  a  regulation  which  fixes  a  rate  at 
which  some  such  part  would  be  unremunerative,  as  it  would  be  practically  im- 
possible to  ascertain  in  what  proportion  the  several  parts  should  share  with 
others  in  the  expenses  and  receipts  in  which  they  particii)ated.''*-'  To  the  extent 
that  the  ([uestion  of  injustice  is  to  be  determined  by  the  effects  of  an  act  fixing 
the  rate  upon  the  earnings  of  the  company,  the  earnings  of  the  entire  line  must 
be  estimated  as  against  all  its  legitimate  expenses  under  the  operation  of  the 
act  within  the  limits  of  the  state.'''*  A  state  railroad  commission  may  reduce  the 
freight  upon  a  particular  article,  provided  the  company  is  able  to  earn  a  fair 
profit  ui)on  its  entire  business,  and  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  it  to  impeach  the 
action  of  tlie  commission  in  this  particular."'"' 


48.  Mode  of  computing  net  earnings 
and  what  they  include. — In  re  Arkansas 
Rate   Cases,   tST   Fed.  2'.H). 

49.  Coal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conley,  07  W. 
\'a.   129,  f)7   v^.   E.  613. 

50.  In  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187  Fed. 
290. 

51.  In  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187  Fed. 
290. 

52.  In  re  Arkansas  Rate  Cases,  187  Fed. 
290. 

53.  Earnings  of  entire  road,  and  not 
any  particular  part,  the  proper  criterion. 
—St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  iV\\\.  \:>C,  U.  S. 
649,  39  L.  Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct.  484;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Stevenson,  156  U.  S.  667. 
39   L.   Ed.   573,   15  S.  Ct.  491. 

54.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  ir)6  U. 
S.   649,  665,   39  L.   Ed.   567,   15   S.    Ct.   484. 

The  reasonableness  of  a  passenger  rate 
of  a  certain  amount  per  mile  fixed  by  the 
legislature  must  in  the  case  of  a  railroad 
company  be  determined  by  its  effect  on 
tlie  net  earnings  of  the  company  on  its 
entire  line  within  the  state,  and  not  by  its 
effect  on  any  subdivision,  even  though  it 
was  once  a  separate  road.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gill,  156  U.  S.  649,  39  L.  Ed.  567, 
15  S.  Ct.  484,  affirming  54  Ark.  101,  15 
S.   W.    18. 

55.  Freight  may  be  reduced  upon  par- 
ticular article  if  entire  business  earns  fair 
profit. — Minneapolis,   etc..    R.    Co.    i\    Min- 


nesota, 186  U.  S.  257,  46  L.  Ed.  1151,  22 
S.    Ct.   900. 

The  fact  that  if  rates  upon  all  goods 
carried  were  fixed  at  the  amount  imposed 
l)y  the  commission  upon  coal  in  carloads 
the  road  would  not  pay  its  operating  ex- 
penses does  not  show  that  the  rate  fi.xeci 
l)y  the  commission  is  unreasonable.  It 
may  well  l)e  that  the  existing  rates  upon 
other  merchandise,  which  are  not  dis- 
turbed by  the  commission,  may  be  suffi- 
cient to  earn  large  profits  to  the  company, 
though  it  may  earn  little  or  nothing  upon 
coal  in  carload  lots.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Minnesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L.  Ed. 
1151,  22  S.  Ct.  900. 

.•\  rate  fixed  by  a  railroad  commission 
on  a  certain  article  can  not  be  held  to  he 
unrcasonal)le  where  there  is  no  evidence 
from  which  a  reasonalile  deduction  can  be 
made  as  to  the  cost  of  transporting  such 
commodity,  the  amount  of  such  commod- 
ity carried,  or  the  effect  which  the  rate 
will  have  on  the  carrier's  income.  Sea- 
board, etc..  Railway  v.  Ellis,  203  U.  S. 
2C.1.    51    L.    1-.(1.    IT."..   27    S.    Ct.    109. 

But  in  Louisiana  it  has  been  held  that 
tliough  when  the  railroad  commission  es- 
tal>lishes  general  rates  affecting  the  en- 
tire intrastate  business  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany, the  revenue  derived  from  that  busi- 
ness can  be  considered  in  determining 
whether    such    rates    are    reasonable    and 


§  55 


CARRIERS. 


54 


§  55.  Interstate  Business  to  Be  Disregarded.— The  reasonableness  or 
unreasonableness  of  rates  prescribed  by  a  state  for  the  transportation  of  persons 
and  property  wholly  within  its  limits  must  be  determined  without  reference  to 
the  interstate  business  done  by  the  carrier,  or  to  the  profits  derived  from  it."'" 
The  state  can  not  justify  unreasonably  low  rates  for  domestic  transportation,  con- 
sidered alone,  upon  the  ground  that  the  carrier  is  earning  large  profits  on  its 
interstate  business,  over  which,  so  far  as  rates  are  concerned,  the  state  has  no 
control.  Xor  can  the  carrier  justify  unreasonably  high  rates  on  domestic  busi- 
ness upon  the  ground  that  it  will  be  able  only  in  that  way  to  meet  losses  on  its 
interstate  business. 5'  But  the  carrier's  earnings  or  losses  from  interstate  com- 
merce may  be  considered  in  determining  the  proportion  of  the  value  of  the 
property  assignable  to  local  business  and  for  other  purposes.^^ 


just  within  Const.,  art.  28-4,  giving  such 
commission  authority  to  establish  just 
and  reasonable  rates,  yet  where  the  rates 
are  fixed  on  a  particular  commodity,  the 
question  is  whether  they  produce  a  reve- 
nue, in  the  first  place,  sufficient  to  pay 
the  actual  cost  of  the  service  rendered, 
and,  in  the  next  place,  sufficient  to  yield 
a  fair  return  in  the  proportion  that  the 
business  of  handling  such  commodity 
bears  to  the  whole  intrastate  business 
upon  the  capital  employed,  a  possible  ex- 
ception existing  where  the  carrier  han- 
dles both  the  raw  and  manufactured  ma- 
terial, and  the  loss  on  the  one  haul  may 
be  made  good  by  the  gain  on  the  other, 
the  whole  constituting  one  and  the  same 
business.  Morgan's,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.  7'. 
Railroad  Comm.,  127  La.  636,  53  So.  890. 
And  in  Texas  it  has  been  held  that 
where  a  railroad  company  attacking  the 
reasonableness  of  the  rate  on  lumber  as 
fixed  by  the  railroad  commission  showed 
that  the  revenue  derived  from  hauling 
lumber  at  such  rate  was  not  sufficient  to 
pay  the  cost  of  transportation,  the  rate 
was  unreasonable,  though  a  railroad  com- 
pany can  not  select  an  unimportant  ar- 
ticle and  attack  the  rate  prescribed  for 
that  as  unreasonable  for  that  reason. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  102 
Tex.  338,  113  S.  W.  741,  IIG  S.  W.  795. 

56.  Interstate  business  and  profits  de- 
rived therefrom  to  be  disregarded. — 
Smyth  V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed. 
819,  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Keyes,  91  Fed.  47;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  196  Fed.  800;  In 
re  Arkansas  R.  Rates,  163  Fed.  141;  State 
V.  Seaboard,  etc.,  Railway,  48  Fla.  129,  37 
So.  314,  affirmed  in  203  U.  S.  261,  51  L. 
Ed.  175,  27  S.  Ct.  109;  Morgan's  etc., 
Steamship  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  127 
La.   636,  53   So.  890. 

In  determining  the  reasonableness  of 
local  rates,  the  interstate  traffic  which 
orignates  or  terminates  in  the  state  can 
not  be  divided  upon  a  mileage  basis,  and 
such  portion  thereof  as  is  done  within  the 
state  be  held  subject  to  state  control  and 
considered  in  fixing  rates.  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Keyes,  91  Fed.  47. 

The  basis  of  all  calculations  as  to  rea- 
sonableness of  rates  charged  by  a  railroad 


must  l)e  the  fair  value  of  the  property, 
and  as  to  rates  for  transportation  of  per- 
sons and  property  within  the  limits  of 
the  state,  the  reasonableness  of  such  rates 
must  be  based  on  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty devoted  to  domestic  commerce,  with- 
out reference  to  the  value  of  the  property 
devoted  to  interstate  commerce.  Sea- 
board Air  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm., 
155    Fed.    792. 

But  in  Michigan  it  has  been  held  that 
under  Act  No.  90,  Pub.  Acts  1891,  pro- 
viding for  fixing  the  rates  for  transpor- 
tation of  passengers  on  railroads,  it  is. 
competent  for  the  railroad  commissioner, 
in  fixing  such  rates,  to  include  in  the  com- 
putation the  amount  of  the  interstate 
fares  earned  by  that  portion  of  the  road 
lying  within  the  state.  Osborn  v.  Wa- 
basli  R.  Co.,  126  Mich.  113,  85  N.  W.  466. 

57.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L. 
Ed.   819,   18  S.   Ct.  418. 

"So  far  as  rates  of  transportation  are 
concerned,  domestic  business  should  not 
be  made  to  bear  the  losses  on  interstate 
business,  nor  the  latter  the  losses  on  do- 
mestic business.  It  is  only  rates  for  the 
transportation  of  persons  and  property 
between  points  within  the  state  that  the 
state  can  prescribe;  and  when  it  under- 
takes to  prescribe  rates  not  to  be  ex- 
ceeded by  the  carrier,  it  must  do  so  with 
reference  exclusively  to  what  is  just  and 
reasonable,  as  between  the  carrier  and  the 
pu])lic,  in  respect  of  domestic  business. 
The  argument  that  a  railroad  line  is  an 
entirety;  that  its  income  goes  into,  and 
its  expenses  are  provided  for,  out  of  a 
common  fund;  and  that  its  capitalization 
is  on  its  entire  line,  within  and  without 
the  state,  can  have  no  application  where 
the  state  is  without  authority  over  rates 
on  the  entire  line,  and  can  only  deal  with 
local  rates  and  make  such  regulations^  as 
are  necessary  to  give  just  compensation 
on  local  business."  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169 
U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418. 

58.  Purposes  for  which  earnings  or 
losses  from  interstate  commerce  may  be 
considered. — State  v.  Seaboard,  etc..  Rail- 
way, 48  Fla.  129,  37  So.  314;  S.  C,  48  Fla. 
152,  37  So.  658.  Affirmed  Seaboard,  etc.. 
Railway  v.  Ellis,  203  U.  S.  261,  51  L.  Ed. 
175,  27  S.  Ct.  109. 


55  CONTKOI,    ANIJ   KKGULATIOX.  §    58 

§  56.  Economic  Factors  and  Natural  Advantages  of  Localities  May 
Be  Considered. — A  railroad  commission,  in  fixing  its  schedule  of  rates,  may 
consider  an\-  ec(jnoniic  factor  which  may  intluence  freight  transportation,  and  may 
also  consider  the  natural  advantages  of  localities,  and  may  justify  a  classifica- 
tion of  commodity  rates  in  localities,  excepting  rates  between  designated  points 
from  the  general  classification;  and,  where  such  exception  is  made,  the  presump- 
tion is  in  favor  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  classification,  anrl  the  burden  is  on 
the  railroad  company  to  prove  that  it  is  illegal. •'•••  The  circumstances  of  each  rail- 
road and  each  market  or  locality  must  determine  the  rates  of  toll  jjroperly  to  be 
allowed  for  the  stoi)ping  of  a  commodity  in  transit  for  treatment,  since  while  the 
carrier  is  entitled  to  receive  some  compensation  beyond  the  mere  cost  of  such 
service,  the  cost  thereof  may  be  greater  or  less  in  one  city  than  another."" 

§  57.  Equality  of  Rates  for  Like  Service. — The  state  may  require  equal- 
ity of  rates  where  the  condiiicjiis  are  the  same,  and  an  order  of  a  railroad  com- 
mission, which,  in  effect,  makes  rates  equal,  is  valid.*^^  An  order  of  a  railroad 
commission  fixing  rates  on  one  road  only,  is  not  invalid,  where  the  effect  of  such 
order  is  to  equalize  rates.*'-  But  in  considering  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate  for 
the  carriage  of  freight,  a  railroad  commission  and  the  courts  are  justified  in  tak- 
ing into  consideration  what  is  known  as  "commercial  necessity,"  namely,  the 
application  of  princijiles,  when  fixing  rates,  which  are  forced  upon  common  car- 
riers by  various  conditions  and  circumstances  and  are  in  common  practice  among 
them — a  business  policy  which  actuates  and  influences  the  carriers  themselves 
to  disregard  a  rule  of  strict  comparison  and  strict  equality  as  between  bulk,  or 
weight,  or  \alue.  as  well  as  distance  of  carriage.*"'^ 

§   58.  Adoption  of  Rates  Given  by  Carrier  to  Certain  Shippers. — Even 

if  a  stale  may  not  compel  a  railroad  company  lo  do  lnisine>>  ai  a  loss  and  con- 
ceding that  a  railroad  company  may  insist,  as  against  the  power  of  the  state,  upon 
the  right  to  establish  such  rates  as  will  aff'ord  reasonable  compensation  for  the 
services  rendered,  yet  when  it  voluntarily  establishes  local  rates  for  some  ship- 
pers, it  can  not  resist  the  power  of  the  state  to  enforce  the  same  rates  for  all. 
The  state  may  insist  upon  equality  as  between  all  its  citizens,  and  that  equality 
can  not  be  defeated  in  respect  to  any  local  shipments  by  arrangements  made  with 
or  to  favor  outside  companies.'""* 

59.  Economic  factors  and  natural  ad-  siven  a  low  local  rate,  the  commission  is 
vantages  of  localities  may  be  considerea.  justified  in  making  that  rate  the  rate  for 
— Soutliern  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta  Stove  all.  It  is  not  bound  to  inquire  whether 
Works,  128  Ga.  207,  57  S.  E.  429.  it    furnishes    adequate    return    to    the    rail- 

60.  Florida  R.  Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic,  way  companj-,  for  the  stale  may  insist 
etc..   R.   Co.,  GO  Fla.  2 is.  ,"■).']   So.  GOl.  upon   equality,   to  be   enforced   under   the 

61.  State  may  require  equality  of  rates  same  conditions  against  all  who  perform 
under  like  conditions. — Seaboard,  etc.,  a  pul^lic  or  quasi  public  service.  Ala- 
Railway  V.  Ellis,  203  U.  S.  261,  51  L.  Ed.  Ijama.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mississippi  R.  Comm., 
IT.V   27   S.    Ct.   109.  203  U.   S.  490.  51   L.   Ed.  2S9.  27   S.   Ct.   163. 

62.  Validity  of  order  fixing  rates  on  When  voluntarily  the  \'icksburg  com- 
one  road,  where  rates  are  thus  made  equal.  panj-  estal)lished  a  local  rate  of  3VS  per 
— Seaboard,  etc..  Railway  v.  Ellis,  203  U.  cent  from  Vicksburg  to  Meridian  for 
S.  261,  51   L.   Ed.  175,  27  S.   Ct.   109.  those    who    had    within    90    days    made    a 

63.  "Commercial  necessity"  may  be  shipment  over  the  Shreveport  road.  It 
considered. — St;uc  t.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  estopped  itself  from  complaining  of  an 
R.  Co.,  80  Minn.  191.  S3  N.  W.  (50,  89  order  making  that  rate  applicable  to  all 
Am.  St.  Rep.  514,  affirmed  Minneapolis,  shipments,  no  matter  whence  thej'  arose, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota.  186  U.  S.  257,  46  and  in  favor  of  all  merchants,  whether 
L.   Ed.   1151,  22  S.   Ct.   900.  tliose    transporting    over    the     Shreveport 

64.  Adoption  by  state  of  rates  given  road  or  not.  Alabama,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
certain  shippers. — .Mabania.  etc..  R.  Co.  Mississippi  R.  Comm.,  203  U.  S.  496,  51 
V.   Mississippi  R.  Comm.,  203  U.  S.  496,  51  L.   Ed.  289,  27  S.  Ct.   163. 

L.  Ed.  289,  27  S.  Ct.  163.  The    power    of    a    state    to    enforce    an 

Whenever,  under  the  guise  or  pretense       equality    of    local    rates    as    between    all 

of   a    rebilling   rate,    some   merchants    are       parties    shipping    for    the    same    distance 


§  64 


CARRIERS.  56 


§  59.  Accessibility  of  a  Place  to  High  Seas  as  Affecting  Rates.— Though 
a  shipping  center  be  accessible  to  the  high  seas,  it  should  neither  be  entitled  to  any 
favorable' indulgence  in  the  matter  of  railroad  rates,  nor  the  object  of  adverse 
discrimination   on   that   account.*'"' 

§   6  0.  Betterments   and   Replacements    Should  Be    Considered.— State 

authorities,  in  tixing  rates  to  be  charged  by  raihoads,  should  take  into  considera- 
tion betterments  and  replacements  made  necessary  by  the  growth  of  traffic,  such 
as  replacing  wooden  by  iron  bridges,  and  similar  expenditures  beyond  ordinary 
repairs,  which  must  be  met  from  the  gross  earnings.'''^ 

§  61.  Passenger  Traffic  Considered  as  Separate  and  Independent  from 
Freight  Traffic. — In  determining  whether  the  passenger  rates  prescribed  by 
statute  are  unjust  as  to  a  particular  carrier,  the  passenger  traffic  of  the  road  should 
be  considered  as  a  separate  and  independent  subject  from  the  freight  traffic.'-' 

§  62.  Revenue  That  Has  Been  Derived  from  Rate  under  Considera- 
tion.— Where  a  freight  rate  has  been  made  for  the  future  and  a  reasonable 
time  has  passed  during  which  it  has  been  applicable,  the  revenue  derived  there- 
from should  be  regarded  in  determining  whether  it  is  remunerative  or  confisca- 
tory.«8 

§   63.  Effect    of   Several   Sovereignties    Being   Interested.— If.   by   the 

scope  of  the  operations  of  a  railroad  company,  several  sovereignties  are  inter- 
ested, the  special  insistence  of  the  officers  of  one  should  not  be  permitted  to  cast 
an  undue  burden  on  the  others.  The  factors  common  to  all,  affecting  the  rea- 
sonableness of  rates,  should  be  equitably  dealt  with  and  adjusted;  and  this, 
though  the  local  rates  of  a  single  state  are  alone  in  questions.^^'' 

§§  64-6  5.  Apportioning  Value  of  Property  and  Expenses— §  64.  Ne- 
cessity for  Apportionment. — To  determine  whether  a  rate  regulating  statute 
:s  reasonable  as  to  a  particular  company,  it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  the  value  of 
all  its  property  devoted  to  its  business  as  carrier  in  the  state,  and  to  apportion 
such  value  between  its  interstate  and  intrastate  business."  ^ 

over   the   same   road,   can   not  be   doubted,  in   fixing  its   rates   of   carriage,   but   it   can 

and  it  can  not  be  thwarted  by  any  action  not  make  the  traffic  of  a  future  year  bear 

of  a  railroad  company  which  does  not  in-  all    the    burdens    of    the    deterioration    of 

volve    an    actual    interstate    shipment,    al-  past   years,   since   each   year  should   carry 

though    done    with    a    view    of    promoting  the   burden   of  its   own  wear   and  tear,   so 

the   business     interests    of   the     company.  that,    when    renewals    become    necessary, 

Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.     Mississippi     R.  the   burden    is    equally   borne   by   all   con- 

Comm..  20,3  U.  S.  496,  51  L.   Ed.  289,  27  v'^.  tributing    features.       Puget    Sound     Klect. 

(3t     i(Y,>,  Railway  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  65  Wash.  75, 

65.  Effect  of  accessibility  of  a  place  to  117   Pac.  739. 

high  seas.— Railroad   Comm.  v.   Galveston  67.    Passenger  traffic  considered  as  sep- 

Chamljer  of  Commerce   (Tex.),   145  S.  W.  arate   and   Independent   from   freight   traf- 

573  fie. — Pennsylvania   R.    Co.  v.    Philadelphia 

Though    the    existence    of    water    com-  County,  220  Pa.  100,  68  Atl.  676. 

munication  might   compel    railroads   to   seek  68.     Consideration    of    revenue    derived 

lower   rates   to   a   certain   point,   it   would  from  rate.— Montana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 

not    entitle    that    point    to    demand    lower  ley,  T.is   l-ed.  991. 

rates  from  the  railroad.     Railroad  Comm.  69.     Effect   of   several   sovereignties   be- 

V.     Galveston     Chamber      of      Commerce  ing    interested.— Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

(Tex.),  14.-.  S.  W.  57:;.  L"ve.  ii:  Vl-<\.  49:;. 

66.  Betterments  and  replacements.—  70.  Necessity  for  apportionment.— 
Metropolitan  Trust  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc.,  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm., 
R.    Co.,   90   Fed.   683.  19'5    Fed.  800. 

A  railroad  company  may  properly  Where  the  same  property,  labor,  and 
charge  its  returns  with  an  annual  sum  to  management  are  used  at  the  same  time  by 
provide  for  depreciation  and  replacement,  a  common  carrier  in  interstate  and  in- 
and  have  such  sum  allowed  in  any  de-  trastate  commerce,  the  value  of  the  prop- 
termination  of  what  is  a  proper  return  crty  and  labor  and  management  used 
upon   its   investment,   to   be   approximated  should   Ijc   properly    apportioned   in   deter- 


>7 


COXTkOL  AND  RlXl-'LATlOX. 


§  66 


§  65.  Method  of  Apportionment. — While  the  authorities  are  not  entirely 
in  accord  as  lo  the  jirDiicr  uKlliod  of  apportioning  the  value  of  the  property  and 
the  expenses  of  a  railroad  company  engaged  in  both  intrastate  and  interstate 
business  for  the  puri)Ose  of  determining  whether  rates  on  intrastate  business 
established  bv  a  stale  arc  reasonable  or  confiscatory  with  respect  to  such  com- 
pany, the  weight  of  auiliority  would  seem  to  support  the  nde  that  the  revenue 
or  gross  earnings  basis  is  the  best  and  most  equitable  mode  of  apportionment, 
making  a  i)roper  allowance  for  the  greater  cost  of  the  intrastate  business." ^  The 
revenue  train  mileage  basis  used  by  railroads  in  apportioning  common  operating 
expenses  between  their  freight  and  passenger  business,  while  concededly  only  an 
approximation,  would  seem  to  be  the  most  satisfactory  for  making  such  appor- 
tionment for  the  purpose  of  determining  tbc  reascjnableness  of  a  state  statute 
fixing  passenger  fares." - 

§  66.  Line  of  Railroad  Operated  in  Connection  with  Other  Lines. — The 
fact  that  a  line  of  railroad  is  operated  in  connection  with  other  lines  owned  by 
the  same  company,  but  under  separate  charters,  whereby  the  earnings  of  such 
line  are  increased  and  its  operating  expenses  reduced,  does  not  prevent  its  being 
considered  as  a  separate  and  independent  line  for  the  purpose  of  determining 
the  reasonableness  of  rates  thereon,  fixed  by  the  state;  full  consideration  of  the 
joint  oi)eration  being  given  when  the  road  is  credited  for  the  increased  business 
and  reduced  expenses."^'' 


mining  the  reasonableness  of  the  conipen- 
sation  for  service  rendered  by  the  carrier 
in  the  intrastate  business  taken  sepa- 
rately and  as  an  entirety,  or  in  connec- 
tion with  the  interstate  business  concur- 
rently done.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  ()2  Fla.  315,  57  So.  175. 

71.  Apportionment  to  determine  whether 
rates  on  intrastate  business  are  reason- 
able.— Trust  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
199  Fed.  593;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Love,  177  Fed.  493. 

On  an  issue  as  to  whether  railroad  rates 
on  intrastate  business  established  by  a 
state  are  reasonal)le  or  confiscatory  with 
respect  to  a  railroad  company  doing  both 
.intrastate  and  interstate  business,  the  pro- 
portion of  the  entire  value  of  the  prop- 
erty of  the  company  in  the  state  which  is 
devoted  to  the  intrastate  business,  and  on 
which  it  is  entitled  to  earn  a  fair  return 
from  such  business,  may  fairly  be  deter- 
mined on  the  l)asis  of  the  earnings,  by 
taking  the  same  proportion  of  the  entire 
value  that  the  intrastate  earnings  bear  to 
the  entire  earnings  in  the  state  from  both 
intrastate  and  interstate  business.  In  re 
Arkansas    Rate   Cases,   187    Fed.   290. 

On  an  issue  as  to  whether  railroad  rates 
on  intrastate  Inisiness  established  bj'  a 
state  are  reasonable  or  confiscatory  with 
respect  to  a  company-  doing  both  intra- 
state and  interstate  business,  the  expense 
of  doing  the  intrastate  Inisiness  can  not 
properly  be  computed  alone  on  the  basis 
of  the  earnings  from  such  business  as 
compared  with  the  total  earnings  from 
both  classes ;  but  other  factors  should  be 
taken  into  consideration,  such  as  the  com- 
parative rates  received  for  and  expense  of 
handling  each  class,  the  kind  of  traffic 
forming  the  bulk  of  each,  especially  where 


tile  interstate  business  is  largely  in  the 
carriage  of  grain  and  similar  commodi- 
ties paying  a  low  rate,  which  forms  but 
a  small  part  of  local  shipments  and  other 
matters  which  under  the  particular  cir- 
cumstances affect  the  question.  In  re 
Arkansas    Rate    Cases,   187   Fed.   290. 

In  apportioning  the  cost  of  maintaining 
the  way  and  structures  of  a  railroad  be- 
tween its  intrastate  and  interstate  busi- 
ness, on  an  issue  as  to  the  reasonableness 
of  intrastate  rates  established  by  a  state, 
there  seems  no  fairer  basis  than  the  earn- 
ings from  the  two  classes  of  business; 
while,  on  the  other  hand  the  cost  of  loco- 
motive and  car  maintenance  which  should 
be  charged  to  each  class  of  business  can 
be  more  nearly  approximated  by  using 
the  car  mile  basis.  In  re  Arkansas  Rate 
Cases,  187  Fed.  290. 

In  determining  the  reasonableness  of 
freight  and  passenger  rates  established  by 
a  state  on  intrastate  railroad  traffic,  as 
applied  to  a  railroad  doing  both  inter- 
state and  intrastate  business,  the  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  of  handling  each  kind  ol 
business  as  related  to  the  earnings  from 
each  should  be  considered,  and  in  appor- 
tioning the  total  expenses  between  the 
two  kinds  of  business  the  best  method  is 
to  make  the  division  on  the  basis  of  the 
relative  earnings  from  each  class  of  busi- 
ness. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hadley, 
IC.S   Fed.   317. 

72.  Apportioning  operating  expenses  be- 
tween   freight    and    passenger   business. — 

Trust  Co.  i\  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  I'.t'.i  Fed. 
593. 

73.  Line  of  railroad  operated  in  connec- 
tion with  other  lines. — Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.   Brown,  123  Fed.  946. 


§  68 


CARRIERS. 


58 


§   67-  Mode   of  Arriving  at  Effect  of  Statutes  Reducing  Rates.— One 

of  the  most  satisfactory  modes  of  arriving  at  the  eti'ect  on  the  rcvennes  of  cor 
porations  of  stattites  redncing  rates  is  to  take  the  gross  and  net  income  for  the 
preceding  years,  if  it  be  probable  that  the  business  will  continue  in  substantially 
the  same  volume  and  at  the  same  cost,  and  compare  the  results  of  prior  years  un- 
der the  prior  laws  and  the  results  which  would  have  been  effected  if  the  reduced 
rates  had  been  applied  to  such  business.'-*  To  ascertain  whether  the  reduced 
rates  would  be  harmful  or  beneficial,  the  court  may,  in  case  of  dpubt,  order  them 
tested  by  actual  operation;  but  such  experiments  are  never  justifiable  where  the 
facts  presented  show  only  a  moderate  income  under  the  former  law  and  a  strong 
probability  of  scant  earnings  or  deficiency  under  the  reduced  rates.' ^ 

§  68.  Due  Process  of  Law. — A  railroad  corporation  is  a  person  within  the 
meaning  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
declaring  that  no  state  shall  deprive  any  person  of  property  without  due  process 
of  law.''^  and  under  pretense  of  regulating  fares  and  freights,  the  state  can  not 
do  that  which  in  law  amounts  to  a  taking  of  private  property  without  due  proc- 
ess of  law.'"  If  the  rates  are  fixed  at  an  insufficient  amount," «  or  without  judicial 
investigation." '•  the  companv  is  deprived  of  the  lawful  use  of  its  property,  and 


74.  Mode  of  arriving  at  effect  of  stat- 
utes reducing  rates. — Seaboard  Air  Line 
R.   Co.  V.   Railroad   Comm.,   155   Fed.  792. 

75.  Seaboard  Air  Line  R.  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Conim.,   155   Fed.   792. 

76.  Railroad  corporation  a  person 
within  fourteenth  amendment  of  federal 
constitution. — Santa  Clara  v.  Southern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  394,  30  L.  Ed.  118, 
6  S.  Ct.  1132;  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Gibbes,  142  U.  S.  386,  35  L.  Ed.  1051,  12 
S.  Ct.  255;  Covington,  etc.,  Turnpike  Road 
Co.  V.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  578,  41  L.  Ed. 
560,  17  S.  Ct.  198;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ellis,  165  U.  S.  150,  41  L.  Ed.  666,  17  S.  Ct. 
255;  Pembina,  etc.,  Milling  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania, 125  U.  S.  181,  31  L.  Ed.  650,  8 
S.  Ct.  737;  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Beckwith,  129  U.  S.  26,  29,  32  L.  Ed.  585, 
9  S.   Ct.  207. 

77.  Regulation  must  not  take  property 
without  due  process. — Stone  v.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307,  331,  29  L- 
Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gill,  156  U.  S.  649,  657,  39  L. 
Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct.  484;  Dow  v.  Bei- 
delman,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L.  Ed.  841, 
8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed. 
970,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  702;  Reagan  v.  Farm- 
ers' Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L. 
Ed.  1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed. 
176,  12  S.  Ct.  400;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.  Ed.  858, 
19  S.  Ct.  565;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S. 
503,  46  L.  Ed.  298,  22  S.  Ct.  95;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago,  166  U.  S.  226,  41 
L.  Ed.  979,  17  S.  Ct.  581;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Tompkins.  176  U.  S.  167,  44  L. 
Ed.  417,  20  S.  Ct.  336;  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L. 
Ed.  1151,  22  S.   Ct.  900;   Chicago,  etc.,  R. 


Co.  V.  Drainage  Comm'rs,  200  U.  S.  561,  50 
L.  Ed.  596,  26  S.  Ct.  341;  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm., 
206  U.  S.  1,  51  L.  Ed.  933,  27  S.  Ct.  585._ 

As  the  public  power  to  regulate  rail- 
ways and  the  private  right  of  ownership 
of  such  property  coexist  and  do  not  the 
one  destroy  the  other,  it  has  been  set- 
tled that  the  right  of  ownership  of  rail- 
way property  like  other  property  rights 
finds  protection  in  constitutional  guar- 
antees, and,  therefore,  wherever  the 
power  of  regulation  is  exerted  in  such  an 
arbitrary  and  unreasonable'  way  as  _  to 
cause  it  to  be  in  effect  not  a  regulation 
but  an  infringement  upon  the  right  of 
ownership,  such  an  exertion  of  power  is 
void  because  repugnant  to  the  due  proc- 
ess and  equal  protection  clauses  of  the 
fourteenth  amendment.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  206 
U.    S.    1,    20.    51    L.    Ed.    933,    27    S.    Ct.    585. 

78.  Insufficient  rates. — Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  697,  43  L. 
Ed.  858,  19  S.  Ct.  565;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed. 
176,  12  S.  Ct.  400;  Reagan  v.  Farmers 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed. 
1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gill.  156  U.  S.  649,  39  L.  Ed.  567, 
15  S.  Ct.  484;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Metro- 
politan Trust  Co.  V.  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co., 
90  Fed.  os:j. 

79.  Absence  of  judicial  investigation 
in  fixing  rates. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970, 
10  S.  Ct.  462,  702;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U. 
S.  466,  523,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  183 
U.   S.  503,  46  L.   Ed.  298,  22  S.   Ct.  95. 

Where  a  railroad  commission  arbitra- 
rily fixes  rates  of  fare  and  freight,  in  re- 
spect to  which  the  company  is  given  no 
opportunity    to   l)e    heard,    and    which    are 


59 


CONTROL   AN'L)   KKGLLATKjN", 


§  68 


thus,  in  substance  and  effect,  of  the  property  itself,  witliout  due  process  of  law 
and  in  violation  of  the  constitution,  lint  general  statutes  regulating  the  use  of 
railroads  in  a  state,  or  fixing  maximum  rates  of  charges  for  transportation,  when 
not  forbidden  by  charter  contracts,  do  not  necessarily  deprive  a  corjjoration  own- 
ing or  operating  a  railroad  within  the  stale  (jf  its  property  without  due  process 
of  law.^" 

Requiring  Sale  of  Thousand  Mile  Tickets. — An  act  re(|uiring  carriers  to 
keep  on  sale  at  their  principal  ticket  offices  thousand  mile  tickets,  and  fixing  a 
sum  to  be  charged  therefor,  and  .providing  that  such  tickets  shall  be  good  for  a 
certain  time  after  issuance,  is  invalid  as  taking  property  without  due  process  of 
iaw.**^  The  fact  thai  a  railroad  company  has  voluntarily  sold  one  thousand  mile 


confiscatory,  and  amount  to  depriving  it 
of  property  without  due  process  of  law, 
the  courts  may  give  relief  against  their 
enforcement.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kentucky,  183  U.  vS.  50;5,  4r,  L.  l^d.  298,  22 
vS.  Ct.  05. 

80.  General  statutes  fixing  maximum 
charges  not  necessarily  unconstitutional. 
— -Stone  z'.  Farmers'  L,oan,  etc.,  Co.,  110 
U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334; 
Munn  V.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  Ed. 
77;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Richmond.  96  U.  S. 
521,  24  h.  Ed.  734;  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works  V.  Schottler,  110  U.  S.  347,  28  L. 
Ed.  173,  4  S.  Ct.  48. 

Mode  of  determining  whether  rates  pre- 
scribed are  unconstitutional. — Tlu'  ques- 
tion of  whether  the  rules  prescribed  by 
a  city  ordinance  limiting  the  fare  to  be 
charged  by  street  railway  companies  are 
so  low  as  to  constitute  a  deprivation  of 
property  without  due  process  of  law  can 
not  be  determined  by  a  consideration  of 
the  earnings  of  a  portion  only  of  the  lines 
of  a  street  railway  company,  but  only  by 
estimating  the  earnings  of  the  entire  line 
as  against  the  expenses  of  the  entire  line. 
Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  199 
111.    579.    65    X.    H.    470. 

81.  Requiring  sale  of  thousand  mile 
tickets. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith.  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.  Ed.  858,  19  S. 
Ct.  565.  See,  also.  Attorney  General  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  Va.  61.  55  S.  E. 
572. 

"Regulations  for  maximum  rates  for 
present  transportation  of  persons  or  prop- 
erty bear  no  resemblance  to  those  which 
assume  to  provide  for  the  purchase  of 
tickets  in  quantities  at  a  lower  than  the 
general  rate,  and  to  provide  that  they  shall 
be  good  for  years  to  come.  This  is  not 
fixing  maximum  rates,  nor  is  it  proper 
regulation.  It  is  an  illegal  and  unjusti- 
fiable interference  with  the  rights  of  the 
company."  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.  Ed.  858,  19  S. 
Ct.   565. 

The  act  of  the  Michigan  legislature, 
No.  90  of  the  year  1S91.  amending  the 
general  railroad  law.  provided  as  follows: 
"That  one  thousand  mile  tickets  shall  be 
kept  for  sale  at  the  principal  ticket  offices 
of  all  railroad  companies  in  this  state  or 
carrying    on    business    partly    within    and 


partly  without  the  limits  of  the  state,  at 
a  price  not  exceeding  twenty  dollars  in 
the  lower  Peninsula  and  twenty-five  dol- 
lars in  the  upper  Peninsula.  Such  one 
thousand  mile  tickets  may  be  made  non- 
transferable, but  whenever  required  by 
the  purchaser  they  shall  l^e  issued  in  the 
names  of  the  purchaser,  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, designating  the  name  of  each  on 
such  ticket,  and  in  case  such  ticket  is  pre- 
sented by  any  other  than  the  person  or 
persons  named  thereon,  the  conductor 
may  take  it  up  and  collect  fare,  and  there- 
upon such  one  thousand  mile  ticket  shall 
be  forfeited  to  the  railroad  company. 
Each  one  thousand  mile  ticket  shall  be 
valid  for  two  years  only  after  date  of 
purchase,  and  in  case  it  is  not  wholly 
used  within  the  time,  the  company  is- 
suing the  same  shall  redeem  the  unused 
portion  thereof,  if  presented  bj'  the  pur- 
chaser for  redemption  within  thirty  days 
after  the  expiration  of  such  time,  and  shall 
on  such  redemption  be  entitled  to  charge 
three  cents  per  mile  for  the  portion 
thereof  used."  It  was  held  that  the  act 
was  void  as  taking  propertj'  without  due 
process  of  law.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.  Ed.  858,  19 
S.   Ct.  565. 

The  act  was  held  not  to  be  legislation 
for  the  convenience  of  the  public,  so  as 
to  be  validated  on  that  ground.  Judg- 
ment, Smith  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
114  Mich.  460,  72  N.  W.  328,  reversed. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  173  U. 
S.   684,   43   L.    Ed.   858,    19   S.    Ct.    565. 

In  New  York  it  has  been  held  that  a 
statute,  Laws  1895,  p.  961,  c.  1027.  as 
amended  by  Laws  1896,  p.  758.  c.  835. 
Laws  1897,  p.  622,  c.  484,  and  Laws  1898. 
p.  1326,  c.  577,  providing  that  any  corpo- 
ration operating  a  railroad  in  the  state, 
the  lines  of  which  e5cceed  100  miles  in 
length,  shall  issue  mileage  tickets  for  ei- 
ther 1,000  or  500  miles,  which  shall  en- 
title the  holder  thereof,  or  any  member 
of  his  family,  to  travel  thereon,  was  un- 
constitutional and  inoperative  as  to  cor- 
porations formed  prior  to  the  enactment, 
but  constitutional  as  to  corporations  or- 
ganized subsequent  thereto.  Judgment, 
113  App.  Div.  894,  98  X.  Y.  S.  1109,  re- 
versed. Parish  v.  Ulster,  etc..  R.  Co., 
192    X.    Y.    353,    85    X.    E.    153. 


§  69 


CARRIERS. 


60 


tickets,  good  for  a  vear  from  the  time  of  their  sale,  does  not  of  itself  authorize 
the  legislature  to  require  the  road  so  to  do.  nor  furnish  a  standard  hy  which 
to  measure  the  reasonableness  of  a  statute  requiring  the  company  to  sell  one 
thousand  mile  tickets  at  rates  less  than  the  regular  rates,  and  to  be  valid  for  two 
years. ■"*- 

§  69.  Equal  Protection  of  Laws. — Corporations  are  persons  within  the 
meaning  of  the  fourteenih  amendment  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
providing  that  no  State  shall  deny  to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal 
protection  of  the  laws/^'^  and  a  regulation  of  rates  which  in  effect  denies  a  rail- 
road company  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws  is  invalid.'^^  A  state  enactment, 
or  regulations  made  under  the  authority  of  a  state  enactment,  establishing  rates 
for  the  transportation  of  persons  or  property  by  railroad  that  will  not  admit  of 
the  carrier  earning  such  compensation  as  under  all  the  circumstances  is  just  to 
it  and  to  the  public,  would  deny  to  it  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  and  would 
therefore  be  repugnant  to  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  constitution. ''■'^  But 
general  statutes  regulating  the  use  of  railroads  in  a  state  or  fixing  the  inctximum 
rates  of  charges  for  transportation,  when  not  forbidden  by  charter  contracts,  do 
not  necessarilv  take  away  from  the  corporation  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.^*^ 

Requiring  Sale  of  Thousand  Mile  Tickets. — An  act  requiring  carriers  to 
keep  at  their  principal  ticket  offices  thousand  mile  tickets,  and  fixing  a  sum  to 
be  charged  therefor,  and  providing  that  such  tickets  shall  be  good  for  a  certain 
time  after  issuance,  is  invalid  as  depriving  the  carrier  of  the  equal  protection 
of  the  law.''' 


82.  Judgment,  Smith  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  114  Mich.  460,  72  N.  W.  328, 
reversed.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'. 
Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43  L.  Ed.  858,  19  S. 
Ct.    565. 

83.  Corporations  persons  within  four- 
teenth amendment  of  federal  constitu- 
tion.— Smyth  V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  522, 
42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Santa  Clara 
V.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  118  U.  S.  394, 
30  L.  Ed.  118,  6  S.  Ct.  1132;  Charlotte, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gibbes,  142  U.  S.  386,  35 
L.  Ed.  1051,  12  S.  Ct.  255;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Ellis,  165  U.  S.  150,  41  L.  Ed.  666, 
17  S.  Ct.  255;  Covington,  etc..  Turnpike 
Road  Co.  V.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  578,  592, 
41  L.  Ed.  560,  17  S.  Ct.  198;  Pembina,  etc., 
Milling  Co.  V.  Pennsylvania,  125  U.  S. 
181,  31  L.  Ed.  650,  8  S.  Ct.  737;  Minneap- 
olis, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Beckwith,  129  U.  S. 
26.    20,    32   L.    Ed.   285,   9    S.    Ct.    207. 

84.  Regulation  of  rates  denying  equal 
protection  of  laws  is  invalid. — Reagan  v. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362, 
38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Smyth  v. 
Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18 
S.  Ct.  418;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill, 
156  U.  S.  649,  39  L.  Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct. 
484;  Stone  v.  Farpiers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co., 
116  U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334; 
Dow  v.  Beidehnan,  125  U.  S.  680,  681,  31 
L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33 
L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  702;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339, 
36  L.  Ed.  176,  12  S.  Ct.  400;  Metropoli- 
tan Trust  Co.  V.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
90   Fed.   683. 

85.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42 
L.    Ed.   819,    18    S.    Ct.   418. 


In  so  far  as  a  carrier  is  thus  deprived 
of  its  property  without  judicial  investi- 
gation by  denial  of  the  right  to  charge 
reasonable  rates,  while  other  persons  are 
permitted  to  receive  reasonable  profits 
upon  their  invested  capital,  the  company 
is  deprived  of  the  equal  protection  of 
the  laws.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Min- 
nesota, 134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10 
S.    Ct.    462,    702. 

86.  General  statutes  fixing  maximum 
rates  not  necessarily  unconstitutional. — 
Stone  V.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U. 
S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334;  Munn 
V.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  24  L.  Ed.  77; 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Richmond,  96  U.  S.  521, 
24  L.  Ed.  734;  Spring  Valley  Water 
Works  V.  Schottler,  110  U.  S.  347,  28  L. 
Ed.    173,   4    S.    Ct.    48. 

Iowa  statute  held  constitutional. — The 
act  of  the  general  assembly  of  the  state 
of  Iowa,  entitled  "An  act  to  establish 
reasonable  maximum  rates  of  charges 
for  the  transportation  of  freight  and  pas- 
sengers on  the  different  roads  of  this 
state,"  approved  March  23,  1874,  is  not 
in  conflict  with  §  4,  art.  1,  of  the  consti- 
tution of  Iowa,  which  provides  that  "all 
laws  of  a  general  nature  shall  have  a 
uniform  operation,"  and  that  "the  gen- 
eral assemblly  shall  not  grant  to  any  cit- 
izen, or  class  of  citizens,  privileges  or 
immunities  which,  upon  the  same  terms, 
sliall  not  equally  belong  to  all  citizens." 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Iowa,  94  U.  S. 
155.    24    L.    Ed.    94. 

87.  Requiring  sale  of  thousand  mile 
tickets.— Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Smith, 
173   U.   S.  684,  43  L.   Ed.   858,   19   S.   Ct.  565. 

While    the    state    may    make    reasona- 


61 


CONTROL   AND   KKCULATIOX. 


§    /I 


§  70.  Taking  Private  Property  without  Just  Compensation.— A  reg- 
ulation of  cliarj^c-s  whicli  aninuiil-  lo  taking  of  prixate  iM-(.].(,Tly  without  just 
compensation  is  invalid. '^'^ 

Necessity  for  Adequate  Security  Where  Passengers  Are  Required  to 
Be  Carried  before  Fares  Have  Been  Paid  in  Money.  — if  it  be  assumed  that, 
under  the  power  to  regulate  the  fares  of  common  carriers  of  passengers,  the 
Legislature  can  require  the  passengers  to  be  carried  before  the  fares  have  been 
paid  in  money,  the  security  for  the  ultimate  payment  of  the  fares  in  money 
ought  to  be  as^  certain  as  that  re(|uired  when  private  ])roperty  is  taken  for  public 
uses,  and  a  statute  wliicli  docs  not  ])r()vi(le  adc(|uate  security  is  unconstitutional.'''^ 

§   71.  Discrimination  against  Carrier  in  Favor  of  Certain  Individuals 

—In   fixing  rates,  the  legislature   may   not  discriminate  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany and  in  favor  of  certain  individuals,  without  any  reasonable  basis  therefor.'"^ 


ble  reKiil'itions  for  the  ,t,rovernnicnl  of 
pul)lic  service  corporations,  and  to  that 
end  may  fix  a  reasonable  niaxinuim  rate 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers,  it 
can  not  arbitrarily  fix  a  maximum  pas- 
senger rate  of  two  cents  a  mile  on  mile- 
age books  of  five  hundred  miles  or  over 
and  require  the  carrier  always  to  keep 
the  same  on  sale  to  all  who  apply  there- 
for, and  to  redeem  them  at  a  later  pe- 
riod than  they  have  heretofore  redeemed 
mileage  books.  Such  legislation  is  class 
legislation,  and  it  is  not  for  the  protec- 
tion of  all  the  people,  but  of  the  fa- 
vored few.  It  discriminates  in  favor  of 
the  wholesale  buyer,  and  also  invades 
the  right  of  the  carrier  to  conduct  and 
manage  his  own  affairs.  It  denies  to 
the  carrier  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws,  and  so  is  unconstitutional.  Attor- 
ney General  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 
\a.   in,   55   S.    H.   572. 

88.  Taking  property  without  just  com- 
pensation.— Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc..  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014, 
14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U. 
S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Minnesota,  134  U. 
S.  418,  455,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462, 
702;  Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co., 
116  U..  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334; 
Dow  V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L. 
Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Georgia  R.,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  174.  32  L.  Ed. 
377,  9  S.  Ct.  47;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Nebraska,  164  U.  S.  403.  11  L.  Ed.  489, 
17    S.    Ct.    130. 

Under  pretense  of  regulating  fares  and 
freights,  the  state  can  not  require  a  rail- 
road corporation  to  carry  persons  or 
property  without  reward;  neither  can  it 
do  that  which  in  law  amounts  to  a  tak- 
ing of  private  property  for  public  use 
without  just  compensation.  Stone  r. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307. 
29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334;  Dow  v.  Bei- 
delman, 125  U.  S.  680.  31  L.  Ed.  841,  S 
S.  Ct.  1028;  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc..  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  :58  L.  Ed.  1014. 
14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Smyth  7'.  Ames.  lt>9  U. 
S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  SI9'.  IS  S.  Ct.  418;  Geor- 


gia   R.,   etc.,   Co.   V.   Smith,   128   U.   S.    174, 

32  L.   Ed.  377,  9  S.  Ct.  47;   Chicago,  etc., 
R.    Co.   V.    Minnesota,    134    U.    S.   418,   455, 

33  L.    Ed.  970,   10  S.   Ct.   462,  702. 

Under  Act  June  7,  1887  (Railroad 
Commission  Act),  authorizing  the  rail- 
road commissioners  to  prescribe  reasona- 
ble and  just  rates  of  freight  and  passen- 
ger transportation,  the  enforcement  of  a 
tariff  of  rates  which  will  not  pay  the 
expenses  of  operating  the  railroad  is  an 
abuse  of  the  discretion  given  to  the  com- 
missioners, and  amounts  to  taking  the 
company's  property  without  just  com- 
pensation. Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
State.   25    Fla.   310,   5   So.   833,   3    L.    R.   A. 

6';i. 

Tlie  act  of  Nebraska  of  1893,  entitled 
"An  act  to  regulate  railroads,  to  classify 
freights,  to  fix  reasonable  maximum  rates 
to  l)e  charged  for  the  transportation  of 
freights  upon  each  of  the  railroads  in  the 
state  of  Nebraska,  and  to  provide  penal- 
ties for  the  violation  of  this  act."  is  void 
as  taking  private  property  without  due 
compensation,  and  its  enforcement  may 
be  enjoined.  Smyth  z\  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466.  42  L.   Ed.  S19.  IS   S.   Ct.  418. 

89.  Necessity  for  adequate  security 
where  passengers  are  required  to  be  car- 
ried before  fares  have  been  paid  in 
money. — Attorney  General  :'.  Old  Col- 
on v  R.  Co..  160 'Mass.  62.  35  N.  E.  252, 
22 'L.    R.   a.   112. 

90.  Discrimination  against  carrier  in 
favor  of  certain  individuals. — Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  173  U.  S.  684,  43 
L.   Ed.  858,  19  S.  Ct.  565. 

The  power  of  the  legislature  to  enact 
general  laws  regarding  a  company  and 
its  affairs  does  not  include  the  power  to 
compel  it  to  make  an  exception  in  favor 
of  some  particular  class  in  the  community 
and  to  carry  the  members  of  that  class  at 
a  less  sum  than  it  has  the  right  to  charge 
for  those  who  are  not  fortunate  enough 
to  be  members  thereof.  This  is  not  a 
reasonable  regulation.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Smith.  173  U.  S.  6S4,  43  L.  Ed. 
858,    19    S.    Ct.    565. 


§  /■ 


CARRIERS. 


62 


§  72.  Limitations  upon  Power  of  a  Municipality  to  Reduce  Street 
Railroad  Fares. — Tlic  i>o\ver  of  a  municipality  to  reduce  street  railroad  fares 
is  subject  to  the  limitations  ( 1)  tluit  there  is  reasonable  need  on  the  part  of  the 
public  considering  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  service,  of  lower  rates  and  bet- 
ter terms  than  those  existing:  (2)  that  the  rates  and  terms  fixed  by  the  ordi- 
nance are  not  clearly  unreasonable,  in  view  of  all  the  conditions."^ 

§§  73-78.  Exemption  from  Regulation  by  Charter  or  Statute— §  73. 
—In  General.— The  power  of  a  state  to  regulate  the  rates  of  charges  of  _  rail- 
road companies  for  the  transportation  of  persons  and  freight  within  its  juris- 
diction, may.  as  to  a  particular  railroad  company  be  surrendered  or  m  some 
manner  qualified,  by  stipulations  in  the  charter  of  the  company,  or  other  legis- 
lation amounting  to  a  contract.-'-  The  charter  of  a  municipality,  authorizing 
it  to  prescribe  rates  for  transportation  of  passengers  or  property  withm  its 
limits,  and  a  statute  providing  that  the  act  regulating  carriers  shall  not  apply  to 
the  transportation  of  passengers  carried  solely  within  the  limits  of  cities  by 
street  and  other  railroads,  do  not  prohibit  the  state  railroad  commission  from 
regulating  rates  on  traffic  originating  or  extending  beyond  the  boundaries  of  the 
municipality.''-' 

§§  74-7  5.  Necessity  for  Positive  and  Clear  Words  of  Exemption 
—  §  74.  Doctrine  Stated.— The  right  of  a  state  reasonably  to  limit  the  amount 
of  charges  by  a  railroad  company  fo"r  the  transportation  of  persons  and  property 
within  its  jurisdiction,  can  not  be  granted  away  by  its  legislature  unless  by  words 
of  positive  grant  or  words  equivalent  in  law."-^     It  is  a  salutary  rule  of  interpre- 


91.  Limitations  upon  power  of  a 
municipality     to   reduce     street     railroad 

fares.— Milwaukee    Elect.    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Milwaukee.   S7    Fed.    .tTT. 

92.  Power  to  regulate  charges  may  be 
surrendered  by  charter  or  other  legis- 
lation.—Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Smith, 
128  U.  S.  174,  32  L.  Ed.  377,  9  S.  Ct.  47; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134 
U.  S.  418,  455,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct. 
462,  702;  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Smith.  70  Ga. 
694;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pendleton, 
86  Va.  1004,  11  S.  E.  1062,  affirmed  in 
156  U.  S.  667,  39  L.  Ed.  574,  15  S.  Ct. 
413. 

A  railroad  company  may  charge  rates 
within  the  limits  set  by  its  charter, 
though  they  exceed  those  fixed  by  the 
railroad  commission;  but  the  commission 
may  see  that  it  keeps  witliin  the  charter 
rates,  and  for  this  purpose  is  entitled 
to  reports  from  it.  Mississippi  R.  Comm. 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Miss.  750,  29  So. 
789. 

Under  the  constitution,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, prohibiting  the  legislature  from 
altering  or  revoking  corporate  charters 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  work  injustice 
to  the  incorporators,  an  act  prescribing 
maximum  passenger  rates  for  railroads 
lower  than  the  rates  the  corporation  was 
authorized  to  charge  by  its  charter  may 
be  unconstitutional,  though  the  rates 
prescribed  are  not  so  low  as  to  be  con- 
fiscatory. Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Phil- 
adelphia County,  220  Pa.  100,  68  Atl. 
676. 

But  in  West  Virginia  it  has  been  held 
that    a    legislature    can    not,    by    a   charter 


granted  to  a  railroad  company,  make 
stipulations  as  to  charges  which  will  be 
binding  on  future  legislatures.  Laurel, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co., 
25  W.  Va.  324;  West  Virginia  Transp. 
Co.  V.   Sweetzer,  25  W.  Va.  434. 

Accordingly  it  has  been  held  that  the 
legislature  has  a  right  to  establish  by 
general  act  a  maximum  schedule  of 
charges  for  the  transportation  of_  pas- 
sengers and  freight,  and  to  make  it  ap- 
plicable to  railroad  companies  operating 
under  previously  granted  charters,  though 
such  charters  empower  the  railroads  to 
contract  "in  reference  to  its  business  the 
same  as  private  individuals,"  or  "to  de- 
mand and  receive  such  sums  for  trans- 
portation as  it  deems  reasonable,"  or_  to 
"carry  freight  and  passengers,  charging 
reasonable  terms,"  or  though  it  is  au- 
thorized to  charge  a  fixed  rate  declared 
by  its  charter  to  be  exempt  from  legis- 
lative control,  and  though  no  right  to.  re- 
peal or  alter  the  charter  is  reserved  to 
the  legislature.  Laurel,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
West  Virginia  Transp.  Co..  25  W.  Va. 
324;  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Sweetzer.   25   W.   Va.   434. 

93.  Municipal  charter  and  statute  con- 
strued.^Portland  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Comm.,  56  Ore.  468,  109  Pac.  273, 
denying  rehearing  105  Pac.  709,  con- 
struing Portland  City  Charter  (Laws 
190:'.,  §   73)    and   Laws    1907,   p.   70.  §   11. 

94.  Necessity  for  positive  and  clear 
words  of  exemption. — Stone  v.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co..  IKi  U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636, 
6  S.  Ct.  49,  88,  91,  334,  348,  1191;  Chi- 
cago,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V.    Minnesota,    134    U. 


63 


CONTROL   AM)  KKC.ULATIOX. 


§  75 


tation,  founded  upon  an  obvious  public  pobcy,  that  such  exemptions  are  in 
derogation  of  the  sovereign  authority  and  of  common  right,  and  therefore  are 
not  to  Ije  extended  beyond  the  exact  and  express  requirements  of  the  grant 
construed  strictissimi  juris.''''  If  there  is  reasonable  doubt,  it  must  be  resolved 
in  fa\(»r  of  the  existence  of  the  jjower.'"' 

§  75.  Doctrine  Illustrated. — A  statute  which  gives  a  railroad  company  the 
right  to  lix  Muli  rates  as  ii  may  deem  reasonable  or  proper,'''  or  which  gives  the 
compaiu  the  right  to  regulate  rales  by  its  by-laws,  provided  such  by-laws  are  not 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  state,""'  or  which  gives  it  the  right  "from  time  to  time 


S.  41«,  45.-.,  Xi  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  4G2, 
702;  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minne- 
sota, i:i4  U.  S.  467,  33  L.  Ed.  985,  10  S.  Ct. 
473;  Gcor^na  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Smith,  128  U. 
S.  174,  32  L.  Ed.  377,  9  S.  Ct.  47;  Ruggles 
V.  Illinois,  lOS  U.  S.  526,  27  L.  Ed.  812,  2 
S.  Ct.  832;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois, 
108  U.  S.  541,  27  L.  Ed.  818,  2  S.  Ct.  839; 
Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S. 
180,  24  L.  Ed.  99;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Kentucky,  183  U.  S.  503,  46  L.  Ed.  298, 
22  S.   Ct.  95. 

The  state  has  the  power  to  regulate  its 
freight  and  passenger  fare  upon  railroads, 
unless  that  right  has  been  clearly  parted 
with  in  granting  charters  to  the  roads, 
and  where  this  right  is  parted  with,  the 
words  of  the  charter  must  amount  to  a 
positive  contract.  Georgia  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith.    70    Ga.    694. 

95.  Grant  of  exemption  construed 
strictly  against  company. — Xdrfulk,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pendleton,  156  U.  S.  667,  673,  39 
L.  Ed.  574,  15  S.  Ct.  413;  Morgan  v. 
Louisiana,  93  U.  S.  217,  23  L.  Ed.  860; 
Wilson  r.  Gaines,  103  U.  S.  417,  26  L.  Ed. 
401;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Miller, 
114  U.  S.  176,  29  L.  Ed.  121,  5  S.  Ct.  815. 

The  exemption  must  appear  by  such 
clear  and  unmistakable  language  that  it 
can  not  be  reasonably  construed  consist- 
ently with  the  reservation  of  the  power 
by  the  state.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Smith,  128  U.  S.  174,  32  L.  Ed.  377,  9  S. 
Ct.  47;  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citizens'  St.  R. 
Co.,  184  U.  S.  368,  46  L.  Va\.  592.  22  S.  Ct. 
410. 

96.  Doubt  resolved  in  favor  of  exist- 
ence of  power  to  regulate. — Stone  v. 
b'armcrs"  Loan,  etc.,  Co..  116  U.  S.  307, 
29   L.   Ed.   iVM.  6   S.   Ct.   :!:i4. 

97.  Statute  giving  company  right  to  fix 
reasonable  rates. — Peik  z\  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164,  24  L.  Ed.  97;  Stone 
r.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  347,  29 
L.    Ed.   650,   6   S.    Ct.   348. 

Where  the  charter  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany authorizes  the  president  and  the  di- 
rectors to  adopt  and  establish  such  a 
tariff  of  charges  for  the  transportation  of 
persons  and  property  as  they  might 
think  proper,  and  to  alter  and  change  the 
same  at  pleasure,  the  state  is  not  deprived 
of  its  power  to  regulate  the  rates  and 
charges.  Stone  z\  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
116   U.   S.   347,  29   L.   Ed.   650.   6   S.    Ct.   348. 

Where  a  charter  of  a  railroad  company 
provided  that   the   company  might  receive 


for  transportation  such  tolls  and  charges 
as  should  from  time  to  time  be  estab- 
lished, fixed  and  regulated  by  its  direct- 
ois,  and  that  the  act  should  l.e  liberally 
and  favorably  construed  so  as  to  favor 
all  the  purposes  and  objects  of  the  same, 
provided  that  nothing  contained  therein 
should  be  so  construed  as  to  prevent  the 
state  regulation  of  rates  for  transporta- 
tion within  the  state,  and  provided  fur- 
ther that  there  should  be  no  discrimina- 
tion in  favor  of  any  road,  it  was  held 
that  the  state  was  not  deprived  of  the 
power  to  regulate  the  rates  for  transpor- 
tation within  the  state.  Stone  v.  New 
Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  U.  S.  352,  29  L. 
Ed.  651,  6  S.  Ct.  349,  391. 

The  Chicago  and  Northwestern  R.  Co. 
was,  by  its  charter,  and  the  charters  of 
other  companies  consolidated  with  it,  au- 
thorized "to  demand  and  receive  such 
sum  or  sums  of  money  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  persons  and  property,  and  for 
storage  of  property,  as  it  shall  deem  rea- 
sonable." The  constitution  of  Wiscon- 
sin, in  force  when  the  charters  were 
granted,  provides  that  all  acts  for  the 
creation  of  corporations  within  the  state 
"may  be  altered  or  repealed  by  the  legis- 
lature at  any  time  after  their  passage." 
Held,  that  the  legislature  had  power  to 
prescribe  a  maximum  of  charges  to  be 
made  by  said  company  for  transporting 
persons  or  property  within  the  state,  or 
taken  up  outside  the  state  and  l.rought 
within  it,  or  taken  up  inside  and  carried 
without.  Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
94   U.    S.    164.   24   L.    Ed.  97. 

98.  Act  giving  company  power  to  fix 
rates  by  valid  by-laws. — Ruggk-.-^  :•.  Illi- 
nois, 108  U.  S.  526,  27  L.  Ed.  S12.  2  S.  Ct. 
832;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  108 
U.  S.  541,  27  L.  Ed.  818.  2  S.  Ct.  839. 

The  amended  charter  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany provided  that  the  board  of  directors 
should  have  power  to  fix  rates  by  by-laws 
and  to  levy  and  collect  the  same,  while 
other  parts  of  the  charter  provided  that 
the  by-laws  should  not  be  repugnant  to 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  or  of  the  state.  It  was  held  that 
the  state  migiit  regulate  the  rates  for  the 
charge  of  carriage  over  the  roads  not- 
withstanding the  first  provision  of  the 
amended  charter.  Ruggles  ?•.  Illinois,  108 
U.  S.  526,  27  L.  Ed.  812.  2  S.  Ct.  832;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois,  108  U.  S. 
541,   27    L.    Ed.    818,   2    S.   Ct.    839. 


§  77 


CARRIERS. 


64 


to  fix,  regulate  and  receive  the  tolls  and  charges  by  them  to  be  received  for  traiis- 
portation,"  •'■'  does  not  deprive  the  state  of  its  power,  within  the  limits  of  its 
general  a'uthoritv.  as  controlled  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  act 
upon  the  reasonal)lencss  of  the  tolls  and  charges  so  fixed  and  regulated.  On  the 
other  h.and,  if  the  charter  provides  that  the  charges,  which  the  company  may 
make  for  its  services  in  the  transportation  of  persons  and  property,  shall  be 
subject  only  to  its  own  control  up  to  the  limit  designated,  exemption  from  leg- 
islative interference  within  that  limit  will  be  maintained. ^ 

§§  76-78.  Succession  to  Rights  of  Company  Entitled  to  Exemption 

§   76.   Purchase. — A  special  statutory  exemption  or  privilege,  such  as  a  right 

to  fix  and  determine  rates  of  fare,  does  not  accompany  the  property  in  its  trans- 
fer to  a  purchaser,  in  the  absence  of  express  direction  to  that  effect  in  the  statute.^ 

§  77  Lease. — Where  a  railroad  corporation  which  has  the  same  power  as 
private  individuals  to  make  contracts,  including  the  power  to  make  by-laws  and 
make  all  rules  and  regulations  deemed  expedient  for  the  management  of  its 
aflfairs,  is  leased  to  another  corporation,  perpetually,  the  latter  is  not  exempt 
from  reasonable  regulations  of  rates  by  the  state." 


99.  Statute  giving  company  power  to 
fix,  regulate  and  receive  rates. — Stone  v. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307, 
29  L.  Ed.  636,  6  S.  Ct.  334;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  455, 
33  L.   Ed.  970,  10  S.   Ct.  462,  702. 

A  mere  grant  of  power  in  the  charter, 
to  the  directors  of  the  company,  to  make 
needful  rules  and  regulations  touching 
the  rates  of  toll  and  the  manner  or  col- 
lecting the  same,  cannot  properly  be  in- 
terpreted as  depriving  the  state  of  its 
general  authority  to  regulate,  at  any 
time  in  the  future  when  it  might  see  fit 
to  do  so,  the  rates  of  toll  to  be  collected 
by  the  company.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  455,  33  L.  Ed. 
970,  10  S.  Ct.  462,  702;  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  467,  33  L. 
Ed.   985,   10   S.   Ct.   473. 

1.  Charter  fixing  limit  beyond  which 
state  cannot  regulate. — (jcorgia  Iv.,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  174,  32  L.  Ed.  377, 
9  S.  Ct.  47.  See,  also,  Detroit  v.  Detroit 
Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  368,  46  L. 
Ed.    592,  22    S.    Ct.   410. 

Although  the  general  purpose  of  a 
proviso  in  a  statute  is  to  qualify  the  oper- 
ation of  the  statute,  or  of  some  part  of 
it,  it  is  often  used  in  other  senses,  and  is 
so  used  in  the  act  of  the  legislature  of 
Georgia  of  December  21,  1833,  incorpo- 
rating the  Georgia  Railroad  Company; 
and  that  act  does  not  exempt  the  corpo- 
ration created  by  it,  or  its  successors, 
from  the  duty  of  sul)mitting  to  reason- 
able requirements  concerning  transporta- 
tion rates  made  by  a  railroad  commission 
created  by  the  state.  Georgia  R.,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Smith,  128  U.  S.  174,  32  L.  Ed. 
377,  9   S.   Ct.  47. 

2.  Right  of  purchaser  of  exempt  com- 
pany to  exemption. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Gill.  l.V)  U.  S.  649,  39  L.  Ed.  567, 
15  S.  Ct.  484;  Morgan  v.  Louisiana,  93  U. 
S.   217,  23   L.   Ed.   860;  Wilson  v.   Gaines, 


103  U.  S.  417,  26  L.  Ed.  401;  Chesapeake, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Miller,  114  U.  S.  176,  29  L. 
Ed.  121,  5  S.  Ct.  813;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Pendleton,  156  U.  S.  667,  673,  39 
L.   Ed.   574,   15   S.   Ct.  413. 

Sale  under  foreclosure. — Where  one 
company  purchases  the  property  and  or- 
dinary franchises  of  another  at  a  sale  un- 
der foreclosure,  it  does  not  succeed  to 
the  rights  of  the  latter  as  to  exemption 
from  rate  regulation.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Pendleton,  156  U.  S.  667,  673,  39 
L.   Ed.  574,   15   S.   Ct.  413. 

3.  Lease. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94;  Dow  v. 
Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L.  Ed.  841, 
8   S.   Ct.   1028. 

A  corporation  having  a  perpetual  lease 
of  the  railroad  of  another  organized  un- 
der the  general  corporation  law  of  Iowa 
of  1851,  ch.  43,  with  the  same  powers  as 
private  individuals  to  make  contracts,  as 
well  as  the  power  to  establish  by-laws 
and  make  all  rules  and  regulations  deemed 
expedient  for  the  management  of  its  af- 
fairs, in  accordance  with  law,  was  held  to 
he  bound  by  the  subsequent  statute  of 
Iowa  of  1874,  ch.  68,  entitled  "An  act  to 
establish  reasonable  maximum  rates  of 
charges  for  transportation  of  freight  and 
passengers  on  the  different  railroads  of 
this  state,"  by  which  those  railroads  were 
classified  according  to  the  gross  amount 
of  their  earnings  per  mile  for  the  preced- 
ing year;  and  the  compensation  per  mile, 
which  those  of  each  class  might  receive 
tor  the  transportation  of  a  passenger  with 
ordinary  baggage,  was  limited  to  three 
cents,  three  cents  and  a  half,  and  four 
cents,  respectively.  Chicago,  etc.,  R  Co. 
V.  Iowa,  94  U.  S.  155,  24  L.  Ed.  94;  Dow 
V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L.  Ed. 
841,    8    S.    Ct.    1028. 

.\  foreign  corporation  leasing  a  rail- 
road is  subject  to  the  same  regulations 
that   the   lessor  would   have  been    subject 


65 


CONTROL    AND    REGL'LATION. 


§§  78-80 


§  78.  Consolidation.  — Where  the  charter  of  several  railroad  corporations 
provide  for  cxciii])lion  fnjiii  rate  regulation,  and  these  roads  are  subsequently 
acquired  by  a  corporation  formed  for  that  i)uri)Ose  and  which  succeeds  to  their 
ri'dits  "subject  to  all  laws  of  the  commonwealth  which  apply  to  raih-oad  corpora- 
tions generally."  the  stale  may  regulate  the  rales  of  the  consolidated  company.^ 

§  79.  Loss  of  Power  by  Abandonment  or  Nonuser.— A  power  of  govern- 
ment which  actuallv  exists  is  nol  1<.-1  1>\  nouu-er.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  the 
power  of  regulating  the  maximum  rates  of  fare  and  freight  was  not  exercised 
for  more  than  tweiUy  years  after  the  incorporation  of  a  railroad  company  is  un- 
important.' 

§§  80-84.  Scope  and  Effect  of  Regulations-  §  80.  To  Whom  or  to 
What  Business  or  Route  Regulations  Are  Applicable.— Applicable  Only 
to  Intrastate  Commerce.— An  order  of  a  state  railroad  commission  regulating 
freight  rates  should  be  interjjreted  to  apply  only  to  intrastate  commerce,  under 
the  rule  that  a  statute  should  be  so  construed  if  ])Ossible,  as  to  render  it  not  sub- 
ject to  an  objeolion  that  would  be  fatal  to  its  wilidit}'.'"' 

Statutes  Regulating  Rates  of  Railroad  Companies  Not  Applicable  to 
Street  Railways  or  Express  Companies. — A  >tatuie  declaring  that  railroad 
companies  shall  not  charge  more  than  three  cents  a  mile  for  the  transportation 
of  a  passenger  and  his  ordinary  baggage,  under  a  penalty,  does  not  apply  to  street 
railroads."  Nor  does  a  statute  regulating  the  rates  to  be  charged  by  railroad 
companies  apply  to  an  express  company.^ 

Passenger  Rate  Regulations  Not  Applicable  to  Carriage  on  Freight 
Trains.— Regulations  as  to  rates  of  fare  for  passengers  do  not  apply  to  passen- 

lor  an  order  requiring  railroads  main- 
taining a  physical  connection  in  a  city  to 
file  reasonable  rates  for  the  switching  of 
car  load  traftic  between  their  lines,  an  or- 
der of  the  commission  fixing  a  tariff  per 
car  load  for  the  movement  of  all  com- 
modities in  car  loads  in  the  switching 
service,  must  be  construed  as  applicable 
only  to  intrastate  commerce.  Chicago, 
etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm..  175  Ind. 
(•>:5n,  <).■)  X.  H.  3(34. 

7.  Regulation  not  applicable  to  street 
railroads. —  Hnvt  r.  Sixth  A\c.  1\.  Co. 
(X.   \.).    1    Daiy  .528. 

8.  Regulations  not  applicable  to  express 
companies. — The  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.. 
arts.  4;>.")(),  4257,  provide  that  nti  railroad 
company  shall  demand  or  receive  for 
transporting  a  passenger  exceeding  five 
conts  per  mile  or  a  fraction  thereof;  thot 
railroads  companies  may  charge  and  re- 
ceive not  exceeding  fift\^  cents  per  one 
hundred  pounds  per  one  hundred  miles 
for  transporting  freight,  but  the  charges 
on  each  class  or  kind  shall  l)e  uniform, 
and  no  unjust  discriminations  in  the  rates 
or  charges  shall  be  made  against  any 
person  or  place;  provided  that,  when  the 
distance  from  the  place  of  shipment  to 
the  point  of  destination  is  fifty  miles  or 
less,  a  charge  not  exceeding  thirty  cents 
per  one  hundred  pounds  may  be  made. 
Held  not  intended  to  apply  to  express 
companies.  Texas  Hxp.  Co.  v.  Te.xas, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,   4  Woods   370,   6   Fed.   426. 


to  iiacl  the  lease  not  been  made.  Stone  v. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co..  IIG  U.  S.  347,  21)  L. 
Hd.    650,   6    S.    Ct.    348. 

4.  Consolidation. — Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Pendleton,  156  U.  S.  667,  39  L.  Ed. 
574.    15    S.    Ct.   413. 

The  consolidation,  pursuant  to  the  stat- 
ute of  Ohio  of  April  10,  1856  (4  Curwen 
2791),  of  two  or  more  railway  companies 
works  their  dissolution.  All  the  powers 
and  franchises  of  the  new  company  which 
is  thereby  formed  are  derived  from  that 
statute,  and  are  subject  to  "be  altered, 
revoked,  or  repealed  by  the  general  as- 
sembly," under  §  2,  art.  1.  of  the  consti- 
tution of  that  state,  which  took  effect 
Septeml)er  1,  1851.  The  general  assembly 
does  not,  therefore,  im-pair  the  obligation 
of  a  contract  l)y  prescrilnng  the  rates  for 
the  transportation  of  passengers  by  the 
new  company,  although  one  of  the  origi- 
nal companies  was,  prior  to  the  adoption 
of  that  constitution,  organized  under  a 
charter  which  imposed  no  limitation  as 
to  such  rates.  Shields  v.  Ohio,  95  U.  S. 
319,    24    L.    Ed.    357. 

5.  No  loss  of  power  by  abandonment 
or  nonuser. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Iowa,   94   U.   S.    155,    24    L.    Ed.   94. 

6.  Regulations  applicable  only  to  intra- 
state commerce. — Oregon  R..  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Campbell,    177    Feci.    3  18. 

Wlierc  tlie  petition  of  shippers  filed 
witli    a   state    railroad    commission   prayed 

1   Car— 5 


§§  80-81 


CARRIERS. 


66 


ger  carriage  on  freight  trains.^ 

Phrase  "Continuous  Ride  in  the  Same  General  Direction,"  Construed. 

— The  phrase,  "continuous  ride  in  the  same  general  direction,"  in  an  ordinance 
relating  to  rates  of  fare  to  be  charged  by  a  traction  company,  means  a  journey 
over  the  company's  own  tracks.^" 

Two  Railroads  Operating  in  Connection  with  One  Another  Constitute  a 
Single  Road. — For  the  purpose  of  the  West  Virginia  statutes  regulating  railroad 
rates,  two  railroads  operating  in  connection  with  one  another  under  a  lease  or 
otherwise  constitute  a  single  road." 

Other  Peculiar  Provisions  of  Rate  Regulating  Statutes. — The  interpre- 
tation of  other  peculiar  provisions  of  rate  regulating  statutes  to  determine  to 
what  railroads  or  routes  they  are  applicable  will  be  found  in  the  appended  note.^^ 

§  81.  Obligations  Imposed  on  Carriers. — The  franchise  of  a  railroad 
company  granting  a  portion  of  the  sovereign  power  of  the  state,  in  consideration 
of  the  construction  of  the  road  and  the  performance  of  the  duty  of  common 
carrier,  imposes  upon  the  company  the  obligation  to  transport  merchandise 
and  passengers  on  the  temis  fixed  in  the  grant. ^'"^  Under  a  statute  prohibiting 
carriers  from  charging  shippers  more  than  the  public  tariff  rates,  such  rates  are 
compensation  for  the  performance  of  all  the  carrier's  common-law  or  statutory 
duties. 1^  Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  commission  rules  or  orders  reg- 
ulating charges  by  railroad  companies  have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts  to 
determine  what  service,  if  any,  is  tliereby  imposed  on  such  companies. ''•'^ 


9.  Passenger  rate  regulations  not  appli- 
cable to  carriage  on  freight  trains. — Par- 
tee  f.   Georgia    Railroad,   72   Ga.   347. 

10.  Phrase  "continuous  ride  in  the  same 
general  direction,"  construed. — Reed  v. 
Trenton,   SO  X.   J.   Eq.   503.   S5   Atl.   270. 

11.  Two  railroads  operating  in  connec- 
tion with  one  another  constitute  a  single 
road. — Coal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conley,  (i7  W. 
Va.  129,  67  S.  E.  613,  construing  Acts 
1872-73,  ch.  227,  and  Acts  1907,  ch.  41 
(Code    Supp.    1909,    §§    249Gal,   2496a3). 

12.  Regulation  applicable  to  whole 
route. — The  sixteenth  section  of  the 
charter  of  the  Camden  &  Amboy  Rail- 
road Company,  which  restricts  the  rates 
of  tolls  and  fares,  applies  to  the  whole 
route  between  the  cities  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia  and  every  mile  of  it. 
Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Briggs,  22 
N.  J.  L.  623.  See,  also,  Camden,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.   Briggs,   21   N.   J.  400. 

Act  not  applicable  to  any  railroad  un- 
der fifty  miles  in  length. — The  proviso  in 
the  West  Virginia  statute.  Acts  1907,  c. 
41  (Code  Supp.  1909,  §§  2496al-2496a3), 
that  nothing  in  the  act  shall  apply  to  any 
railroad  under  fifty  miles  in  length  and 
not  a  part  of  any  other  railroad  over 
fifty  miles  in  length,  means  the  same  as 
if  it  had  said  nothing  in  this  act  shall  ap- 
ply to  any  railroad  under  fifty  miles  in 
length  and  not  a  part  of  or  under  tlie 
control  of  any  other  railroad  whose  en- 
tire length  is  over  fifty  miles.  Coal,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Conley.  67  W.  \'a.  129,  67  S. 
E.    613. 

The  words  "under  the  control,  inan- 
agement  or  operation."  as  used  in  the 
proviso  of  such  statute,  providing  that 
the   act    shall    not    apply    to    any    railroad 


under  fifty  miles  in  length  under  the  con- 
trol, management,  or  operation  of  any 
other  road,  mean  the  same  as  the  words 
"a  part  of."  Coal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Con- 
ley, 67  W.  Va.   129,  67   S.   E.   613. 

Regulation  applicable  to  railroad  com- 
pany notwithstanding  it  had  changed  its 
name. — Tlie  Wisconsin  statute.  Laws 
1K74,  c.  273,  providing  tlie  maximum 
rates  to  be  charged  by  railroads  within 
Wisconsin  included  the  "Milwaukee  & 
vSt.  Paul  Railway  Company."  Just  prior 
to  the  passing  of  the  act  such  company 
changed  its  name  to  the  "Chicago,  Mil- 
waukee &  St.  Paul  Railway  Company," 
by  which  name  it  was  sued  for  a  viola- 
tion of  the  act.  No  other  company  was 
ever  known  by  the  first  name.  Held, 
that  the  provisions  of  the  act  applied  to 
the  defendant.  Attorney  General  v.  Chi- 
cago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    35    Wis.    425. 

The  rate  for  freight  to  which  the  South- 
ern Pacific  Railroad  Company  is  limited 
by  its  charter  has  no  reference  to  any 
road  except  that  which  the  company  is 
authorized  to  build  and  operate  in  Texas. 
Knight  &  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
41   Tex.   406. 

13.  Obligation  imposed  by  franchise. — 
Rogers,  etc.,  Mach.  Works  v.  Erie  R.  Co., 
20    N.    J.    I'"f|.    379. 

14.  Public  tariff  rates  compensation  for 
all  carrier's  duties. — George  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  214  Mo.  551,  113  S.  W.  1099, 
construing  Rev.  St.  1899.  §  1136  (Ann. 
St.    1906,    p.    975). 

15.  Commissioner's  rule  fixing  charge 
for  switching  held  not  to  compel  a  serv- 
ice.— Rule  15A  of  the  railroad  commis- 
sioners of  Elorida,  fixing  the  charge  for 
switching  cars  of  rough  lumber  consigned 


67 


CONTROL    AND    RKr,rr,.\TIf)X. 


§  82 


§  82.  Measure  of  Compensation  Allowed. — Where  the  measure  of  com- 
pensation of  a  carrier  is  fixed  1j)-  statute,  no  <,aeater.sum  can  be  lawfully  de- 
manded or  received,  and  all  evidence  that  charges  higher  than  those  so  fixed  are 
reasonable  is  immaterial  and  inadmissible.'*'  The  provisions  of  rate  regulating 
statutes  have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts  to  determine  the  basis  rate  for  local 
freight/'  the  distinction  l)et\veen  "single-line  rates"  and  "douljle-line  rates,"  '*• 
the  rate  chargeable  for  hea\y  articles,  '•'  the  cliarge  allowaljle  for  transportation 
in  addition   to  toll,-"  the  ri,i;lil  of  shii)])ers  to  demand  commutation  on   freight,-' 


to  and  arriving  at  the  city  of  Jackson- 
ville from  points  in  the  state  to  any  plan- 
ing mill  in  the  Jacksonville  yards  and 
thence  after  luniher  is  dressed  to  any 
point  in  the  same  yard,  merely  fixes  a 
rate  for  switching  cars  so  consigned  and 
arriving  and  does  not  seek  to  compel 
a  service.  Florida  R.  Comm'rs  v.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co..  ()()  Fla.  218,  53  So.  00 1. 
See,  also.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,   ")<»   Fla.  (112,   '^2  So.  4. 

The  word  "switching,"  as  used  in  a 
rule  of  the  railroad  and  warehouse  com- 
mission of  Illinois  regulating  charges,  is 
synonymous  with  tlu-  word  "iranster- 
ring."  The  service  contemplated  by  such 
rule  is  the  movement  of  loaded  cars  to 
or  from  the  junction  of  another  railroad 
for  distances  less  than  three  miles,  as 
distinguished  from  the  hauling  or  trans- 
porting of  them  from  one  station  or  place 
to  another  on  the  same  road.  Sparta 
Gas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois  So.  R.  Co.,  1.3o 
111.   App.   283,   afitirmed   93   N.   E.   312. 

Where  in  the  service  rendered  all  of 
the  elements  of  a  regular  transportation 
were  found,  such  as  collection  of  the  cars 
and  placing  them  for  loading,  the  haul 
after  they  were  loaded,  and  the  loss  of 
use  of  cars  at  the  end  of  the  haul,  the 
services  rendered  by  the  carrier  were  not 
a  "switch  movement"  of  cars  as  defined 
by  the  rules  of  the  railroad  and  ware- 
house commission  regulating  switching 
charges.  Sparta  Gas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois 
So.  R.  Co.,  155  111.  App.  283,  affirmed  in 
93    N.    E.    312. 

16.  Carrier  limited  to  measure  of  com- 
pensation fixed  by  statute. — Heiserman 
V.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  03  Iowa  732, 
18    N.    W.    903. 

17.  Basis  rate  for  local  freight. — The 
rate  on  freight  "carried  over  the  whole 
line  of  its  road,"  which  furnishes  the 
basis  for  the  additional  50  per  cent  al- 
lowed by  the  Alabama  statute.  Acts  1873, 
p.  62,  for  the  transportation  of  "local 
freight,"  is  the  rate  charged  on  freight 
taken  on  at  one  terminus  and  discharged 
at  the  other,  and  not  the  rate  for  freight 
brought  from  or  carried  to  a  point  be- 
yond the  termini  of  the  road.  The  basis 
rate  is  the  rate  prevailing  at  the  time  of 
shipment.  Mol>ile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steiner, 
etc.,    Co.,    01    .Ma.    559. 

18.  Distinction  between  "single-line 
rates"  and  "double-line  rates." — The  dis- 
tinction in  the  Kansas  statute.  Laws  1905, 
c.    353,   estai)lishing   rates    for   transporta- 


tion of  oil,  Ijetween  "single-line  rates" 
and  "double-line  rates"  is  between  rates 
for  shipment  over  a  single  line  and  for 
shipment  over  more  than  one  line. 
Tucker  v.  Missouri  F'ac.  K.  Co.,  82  Kan. 
222,   108    Pac.   89. 

19.  Rate  chargeable  for  heavy  articles. 
— W'herc  tlu-  chariiT  <•'  a  raiirorMl  com- 
jjany  authorized  it  "to  charge  for  the 
transportation  of  passengers  at  a  rate  not 
exceeding  seven  and  orie  half  cents  per 
1  lile,  and  for  th?  transportation  of  eoods 
by  weight  not  exceeding  fifty  cents  per 
one  hundred  pounds  per  one  hundred 
miles,"  held,  that  for  heavy  articles  the 
company  could  only  charge,  for  the  ac- 
tual distance  of  transportation,  the  rate 
allowed  by  the  charter.  Knox  v.  South 
Carolina   R.  Co.,  5  S.  C.  22. 

20.  Charge  allowable  for  transportation 
in  addition  to  toll. — '1  he  charter  of  a  rail- 
road coinijany  provided  "that  the  toll  on 
any  species  of  property  shall  not  exceed 
an  average  of  four  cents  per  ton  per  mile, 
nor  upon  each  passenger  an  average  of 
two  cents  per  mile."  Held,  that  the  com- 
pany might  charge  for  transportation  in 
addition  to  the  toll.  Boyle  v.  Philadel- 
phia,  etc.,   R.    Co.,   54   Pa.   310. 

Under  the  provision  of  the  charter  of 
a  railroad  company  authorizing  it  to  take 
toll  for  freight,  etc.,  "not  exceeding  four 
cents  per  ton  per  mile  for  toll,  and  three 
cents  per  ton  per  mile  for  transporta- 
tion," held,  that  the  company  had  author- 
ity for  demanding  the  aggregate  of  the 
sums,  viz.  seven  cents  per  mile  per  ton, 
for  private  freight  in  their  own  cars  on 
their  road.  Appeal  of  Cumberland  Val. 
R.   Co..   02   Pa.   2 IS. 

Amount  permitted  to  be  charged  for 
toll  and  freight. — The  thirteenth  section 
of  the  Pennsylvania  act  of  April  3,  1837, 
incorporating  the  Pittsburgh  &  Connells- 
ville  Railroad  Company,  authorized  the 
company  to  charge  a  toll  on  traffic  pass- 
ing over  its  road,  not  exceeding  five 
cents  per  ton  per  mile.  The  fourteenth 
section  authorized  the  company  to  charge 
for    freight    and    toll    for    goods    conveyed 

21.  Under  a  Pennsylvania  statute  com- 
muting "local  freight,"  millers  buying 
grain  west  of  Pennsylvania,  and  ship- 
ping it  to  Pittsburg,  and  thence  by  rail- 
road to  Philadelphia,  could  not  demand 
commutation  on  the  freight  for  the  lat- 
ter transit.  Rowland  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,    52    Pa.    250. 


§  82 


CARRIERS. 


68 


the  mode  of  ascertaining  average  charges.--  and  what  constitutes  the  operation 
or  control  of  one  railroad  by  another.--'  Statutes  and  municipal  ordinances  re- 
quiring street  railroad  companies  to  issue  tickets  to  school  children  at  reduced 
rates  have  also  received   judicial  interpretation.--*     ]\Iany  other  of  the  peculiar 


in  its  own  cars  "not  exceeding  twice  the 
rates  granted  in  the  preceding  section  for 
tolls  alone."  The  ninth  section  of  the 
act  of  April  10,  1846,  repealed  the  thir- 
teenth section,  and  provided  that  the  rates 
of  the  tolls  should  not  exceed  four  cents 
per  mile  per  ton,  and  two  cents  per  mile 
for  each  burden  or  freight  car,  every 
four  wheels  being  computed  as  a  car. 
Held,  that  the  act. of  18-46  did  not  amend 
the  act  of  1837  so  that  the  company 
could,  under  the  fourteenth  section  of 
the  former  act,  only  charge  double  the 
rate  authorized  by  the  act  of  1846,  and 
that  it  was  entitled  to  charge  for  toll  and 
freight  double  the  rate  authorized  by  the 
thirteenth  section  of  the  act  of  1837,  viz, 
ten  cents  per  ton  per  mile,  notwithstand- 
ing the  repeal  thereof.  National  Tube 
Works  Co.  z:  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Pa.),   8   Atl.    6. 

22.  Mode  of  ascertaining  average 
charges. — Under  the  Pennsylvania  stat- 
ute. Act  April  11,  1848,  incorporating  the 
D.  &  P.  Ry.  Co.,  as  amended  by  Act 
April  2,  1850,  §  2,  providing  that  "average 
charges  for  toll  and  transportation  shall 
not  exceed  four  cents  per  ton  per  mile 
for  freight,"  the  "average  charges"  are 
to  be  ascertained  by  dividing  the  entire 
receipts  by  the  whole  quantity  of  tonage, 
reduced  to  a  common  standard  of  tons 
moved  one  mile.  Hersh  v.  Northern 
Cent.   R.   Co.,  74  Pa.  181. 

23.  What  constitutes  the  operation  or 
control  of  one  railroad  by  another. — Un- 
der tlic  New  York  Railroad  Law  (Laws 
1890.  p.  1113,  c.  5C).'),  §  101)  as  amended 
by  Laws  1897,  p.  776,  c.  688,  relating  to 
street  surface  railroads,  and  providing 
that  no  corporation  constructing  and  op- 
erating a  railroad  under  the  provisions  of 
this  article,  etc.,  shall  charge  any  passen- 
ger more  than  five  cents  for  one  con- 
tinuous ride  from  any  point  on  its  road, 
"or  on  any  road,  line  or  branch  operated 
by  it,  or  under  its  control,"  to  any  other 
■point    thereof,      etc.,    and      Railroad    Law 

(Laws  1890,  p.  1096,  c.  565,  §  39)  impos- 
ing a  penalty  on  any  railroad  corpora- 
tion receiving  more  than  the  lawful  rate 
of  fare,  etc.,  the  operation  or  control  of 
a  road  within  the  meaning  of  such  sec- 
tions means  a  control  of  the  operation 
of  the  road,  and  not  merely  a  control  of 
the  corporation  or  individuals  operating 
it  by  reason  of  the  ownership  of  a  ma- 
jority of  the  road's  capital  stock.  Judg- 
ment, 111  App.  Div.  39,  97  N.  Y.  S.  645, 
affirmed.  Senior  v.  New  York  City  R. 
Co.,   187   N.   Y.   559,   80  N.   E.   1120. 

24.  "Public  schools"  held  to  include 
parochial  school  maintained  by  private 
benevolence. — Where    a      street    railroad's 


franchise  ordinance  required  the  issuance 
of  20-ride  tickets  at  the  rate  of  two  and  a 
half  cents  each  to  children  under  fifteen 
actually  attending  the  "public  schools  of 
the  city,"  such  quoted  clause  included  a 
parochial  school  maintained  l)y  private 
benevolence.  Oklahoma  R.  Co.  v.  St. 
Joseph's  Parochial  School,  33  Okl.  755, 
127    Pac.    1087. 

Under  the  Washington  statute,  Rem. 
&  Bal.  Code,  §§  4317,  4333,  and  4366,  the 
words  "school  children"  in  a  franchise 
granting  half  fares  to  school  children 
iield  to  apply  only  to  those  attending 
the  common  schools.  Seattle  v.  Seattle 
Elect.    Co.,   71   Wash.   213,   128    Pac.   220. 

The  word  "pupils,"  as  used  in  the  Mas- 
sachusetts statute  Rev.  Laws,  c.  112,  §  72, 
requiring  street  railroads  to  transport  the 
pupils  of  public  schools  at  half  rates, 
means  children  and  youths  attending  the 
public  schools,  and  does  not  include  stu- 
dents in  colleges  and  professional  schools, 
nor  young  men  or  boys  attending  nau- 
tical or  industrial  schools,  nor  adults  at- 
tending evening  schools  or  evening  high 
schools,  nor  children  attending  vacation 
schools.  Commonwealth  v.  Connecticut 
Valley  St.  R.  Co.,  196  Mass.  309,  82  N. 
E.    19. 

What  schools  are  "public  schools"  un- 
der Massachusetts  statute. — The  schools 
referred  to  in  the  Massachusetts  statute. 
Rev.  Laws,  c,  42,  §§  1,  2,  requiring  cities 
and  towns  to  maintain  certain  schools,  are 
open  under  proper  regulations  to_  all 
cliildren  of  the  city  or  town,  as  provided 
by  chapter  44,  §  3;  and  all  children  be- 
tween the  ages  of  7  and  14  are  obliged 
to  attend  such  schools,  unless  they  re- 
ceive equivalent  instruction  outside  of 
them,  as  provided  by  chapter  44,  §§  1,  2. 
Held,  that  Rev.  Laws,  c.  112,  §  72,  pro- 
viding that  street  railway  companies 
shall  transport  pupils  of  the  "public 
schools"  at  half  fare,  while  traveling  to 
and  from  the  schoolhouses  in  which  they 
attend  school,  referred  to  those  schools 
mentioned  in  chapter  42,  §§  1,  2,  which 
are  a  part  of  the  system  of  compulsory 
education  for  children,  and  did  not  in- 
clude other  schools  maintained  at  public 
expense,  such  as  industrial  schools,  nau- 
tical schools,  evening  schools,  etc.,  author- 
ized by  §§  10,  11,  12,  15,  16.  Common- 
wealth V.  Connecticut  Valley  St.  R.  Co., 
196  Mass.  309,  82  N.  E.  19. 

What  schools  are  "private  schools"  un- 
der Massachusetts  statute. — 'i'hc  Massa- 
chusetts statute,  Rev.  Laws,  c.  112,  §  72, 
requiring  street  railroads  to  transport 
"pupils  of  the  public  schools"  at  half 
rates,  was  amended  l)y  St.  1906,  p.  653,  c. 
479,    by    the    insertion    of    the    words    "or 


69 


COXTROL    AND    RKGULATIOX. 


§  82 


provisions  of  rate  regulating  statutes  or  commission  orders  have  been  construed 
by  the  courts  to  determine  the  amount  that  may  be  charged  by  carriers  for  the 

carriage  of  passengers  or  freight. ''^•'' 


private"  after  the  word  "public."  Held, 
that  the  word  "private."  as  so  used,  in- 
cluded only  such  schools  as  were  ejus- 
dem  generis  with  the  public  schools 
previously  mentioned,  namely,  in  which 
instruction  was  permitted  to  take  the 
place  of  the  compulsory  instruction 
required  in  the  public  schools  designated 
Ijy  Rev.  Laws,  c.  42,  §S  1,  2,  and  hence 
did  not  include  education  in  a  private 
business  college.  Commonwealth  v.  Con- 
necticut Valley  St.  R.  Co.,  19G  Mass.  'MY^, 
82   N.    E.   19. 

25.  West  Virginia  passenger  rate  regu- 
lation construed. — Tlic  West  Virginia 
statute.  Acts  l'.)07,  c.  41  (Code  Supp. 
I'.iOi),  §§  2496al-2496a.3),  divides  steam 
railroads  into  classes  for  the  purpose  of 
passenger  rate  regulation,  sul)jccting  all 
railroads  fifty  miles  long  and  over  to 
two  cents  a  mile  in  the  case  of  adults, 
and  leaving  all  others  subject  to  the 
former  legislation  applicable  to  them  at 
the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  act.  Coal, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Conley,  07  W.  Va.  129, 
67   S.    E.   613. 

Minimum  charge  of  ten  cents  for  a  pas- 
senger.— The  v^outh  Carolina  statute.  Rev. 
St.  isu:}.  §  1657,  authorizes  the  railroad 
commissioners  to  establish  reasonable 
rates  for  the  transportation  of  passengers. 
A  circular  issued  by  sucli  commissioners, 
dated  April  2,  1896,  authorized  a  charge 
of  ten  cents,  when  the  regular  fare  would 
be  less  than  that  amount.  Held,  to  au- 
thorize the  charge  of  ten  cents  where  the 
regular  fare  for  the  distance  traveled 
would  be  only  three  cents.  Kibler  v. 
Southern  Railway,  62  S.  C.  252,  40  S.  E. 
556. 

Carrier  authorized  to  charge  nearest 
multiple  of  five  whether  above  or  below 
actual  fare. —  Under  the  Oiiio  statute, 
Rev.  St.,  3374,  which  provides  that  rail- 
roads shall  charge  not  more  than  three 
cents  per  mile  for  the  transportation  of 
passengers,  but  that  the  fare  may  be  made 
that  multiple  of  five  nearest  reached  by 
multiplying  the  rate  by  the  distance,  the 
railroad  shall  charge  the  nearest  mutiple 
of  five,  whether  it  is  above  or  below  the 
actual  fare;  and,  in  case  the  fare  is  equally 
distant  from  the  multiple  next  l)clow  and 
the  one  next  above,  it  mav  charge  either. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wells.  61  O.  St. 
26S,    55    X.    E.    827. 

Charge  for  fraction  of  a  mile.— The 
Michigan  statute.  3  How.  Ann.  St.  § 
3323,  subd.  9,  which  authorizes  railroad 
companies  to  regulate  the  time  and  man- 
ner in  which  passengers  and  property 
shall  be  transported,  and  the  tolls  ana 
compensation  to  be  paid  therefor,  but 
provides  that  such  compensation  for 
transporting    any    passenger    and    his    or 


her  ordinary  baggage,  not  exceeding  a 
given  weight,  shall  not  exceed  two,  two 
and  one-half,  or  three  cents  per  mile,  ac- 
cording to  the  gross  earnings  per  mile  of 
each  road,  will  not  permit  a  charge  for  . 
a  fraction  of  a  mile,  unless  it  is  so  large 
a  fraction  as  to  make  the  charge  of  one 
cent  or  more  not  in  excess  of  the  rate  per 
mile  fixed  by  the  statute.  Zagelmeyer  v. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mich.  214, 
60  N.   W.  436,  47  Am.   St.   Rep.   514. 

Where  the  distance  between  two  points 
was  6.48  miles  a  railroad  had  no  authority 
to  charge  to  exceed  nineteen  cents  (the 
fraction  over  nineteen  cents  being  less 
than  one-half  cent),  under  Laws  1899,  Act 
Xo.  202,  establishing  a  rate'of  fare  3  cents 
per  mile.  Chamberlain  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  122  Mich.  477,  si   X.  W.  339. 

Charges  for  urban  and  suburban  pas- 
senger traffic. — The  Maryland  statute. 
Act  1860,  c.  259,  authorized  a  company  to 
lay  down  a  railway  for  passenger  cars 
between  the  city  of  Baltimore  and  Tow- 
sontown,  and  fixed  the  rate  of  fare  be- 
tween those  points.  Section  8  authorized 
the  company  to  extend  its  railway  into 
Baltimore,  subject  to  such  restrictions 
and  conditions  as  the  city  might  prescribe. 
By  an  ordinance  of  the  city  the  rate  of 
fare  was  fixed  at  five  cents  for  each  pas- 
senger for  all  distances  wathin  the  city 
limits.  Act  1865,  c.  115,  §  1,  authorized 
the  company  to  collect  from  each  pas- 
senger over  its  road  not  more  than 
thirty  cents  for  the  distance  between  the 
city  limits  and  Towsontown.  and  not 
more  than  6  cents  for  each  mile  or  frac- 
tion thereof  for  way  passengers  an  any 
portion  of  its  railroad.  Held,  that  the 
company  had  no  right  to  claim  from  a 
passenger  to  the  city  of  Baltimore,  from 
a  place  on  the  road  distant  less  than  a 
mile  from  the  city,  more  than  eleven 
cents;  that  is,  six  cents  for  the  fraction 
of  a  mile  beyond  the  city  limits,  and  five 
cents  for  the  route  over  its  road  in  the 
city.  Baltimore,  etc..  Turnpike  Road  v. 
Boone.  45   Md.   344. 

Street  surface  railroad  leasing  and 
operating  connecting  elevated  and  steam 
surface  roads. — The  Xow  York  statute, 
Laws  ls9(),  p.  1113.  c.  565.  art.  4.  entitled 
"Street  Surface  Railroads."  §  101  provides 
that  "no  corporation  constructing  and 
operating  a  railroad  under  the  provisions 
of  this  article  or  of  chap.  252.  p.  309.  of 
the  Laws  of  1884"  (relating  to  street  sur- 
face roads)  shall  charge  any  passenger 
more  than  five  cents  for  one  continuous 
ride  from  any  point  on  its  road,  or  on 
any  road,  line,  or  branch  operated  by  it, 
or  under  its  control,  to  any  other  point 
thereof,  or  any  connecting  branch  thereof 
within  the  limits  of  any  incorporated  city, 


83 


CARRIERS. 


70 


§  83.  Regulations  Will  Not  Be  Construed  to  Be  Retroactive. — Statutes, 
which  estabhsh  a  railroad  commission  and  provide  for  the  regulation  of  freights 
and  fares,  will  not  be  construed  to  have  a  retroactive  effect,  so  as  to  affect  pre- 


or  more  than  one  fare  within  the  limits 
of  any  such  city  for  passage  over  its  main 
line  and  any  branch  or  extension  thereof, 
if  the  right  to  construct  such  branch  or 
extension  was  acquired  under  the  pro- 
visions of  such  chapter  or  this  article. 
Section  10-1  requires  the  issuance  of  trans- 
fers to  any  point  on  any  railroad  operated 
by  it.  Held,  that  a  road  incorporated 
as  a  street  surface  railroad  which  leases 
and  operates  connecting  elevated  and 
steam  surface  railroads  does  so  under 
art.  3,  §  78,  which  applies  to  all  railroads, 
and  it  may  charge  more  than  one  fare 
for  a  continuous  passage  over  its  road 
and  the  elevated  and  steam  surface  roads, 
as  it  operate*  such  roads  under  their 
respective  charters,  and  its  right  in  this 
respect  is  not  changed  by  changing  its 
motive  power  from  steam  to  electricity. 
People  V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  187 
N.  Y.  48,  79  N.  E.  838. 

Power  of  company  limited  by  its  charter 
to  increase  passenger  rate  under  general^ 
act. — The  New  York  statute,  General' 
Railroad  Act  1850,  §  49,  conferred  all  the 
powders  and  privileges  in  the  act  on  cor- 
porations then  existing,  whether  created 
by  special  charter  or  under  the  general 
act  of  1848;  but  no  liabilities  were  im- 
posed on  them,  except  such  as  were  con- 
tained in  certain  sections,  and  which  were 
not  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of 
their  charters.  Held  that,  vvhere  an  ex- 
isting corporation  was  limited  by  its 
charter  to  a  rate  of  fare  for  passengers 
less  than  that  prescribed  by  the  act,  it 
was  authorized  by  such  act  to  increase 
its  rate  to  a  sum  not  exceeding  that  thus 
prescribed.  Johnson  v.  Hudson  R.  Co., 
49  N.  Y.  455,  reversing  32  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.    298. 

Bridge  Toll. — By  the  act  of  congress 
authorizing  the  construction  of  a  rail- 
way bridge  across  the  Arkansas  river  at 
Ft.  Smith,  Ark.,  it  is  provided  that  no 
higher  charge  shall  be  made  for  the 
transporation  of  passengers  over  the 
bridge  than  is  paid  for  similar  transporta- 
tion over  the  railroad  leading  to  the 
bridge.  Act  Ark.  Leg.  April  4,  1887, 
provides  that  only  three  cents  per  mile 
shall  be  charged  for  carrying  passengers. 
Held,  that  a  charge  of  seventy  cents  for 
eleven  miles  of  travel — thirty  cents  for 
transporation  ten  miles,  and  forty  cents 
for  bridge  tool — constituted  an  over- 
charge within  the  meaning  of  the  act. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stevenson,  54 
Ark.  116,  15  S.  W.  22. 

A  street  railroad  company  holding  a 
franchise  subject  to  the  railroad  law, 
and  succeeding  another  company  having 
a  similar  franchise  and  a  contract  with 
a  bridge   company  to  use   the   bridge   for 


its  cars  on  the  payment  of  one  cent  lor 
each  passenger  carried,  leased  its  fran- 
chise to  a  lessee,  who  operated  -lines  over 
the  bridge.  The  lease  did  not  give  any 
rights  to  cross  the  bridge,  but  a  traffic 
agreement  between  the  street  railroad 
company  and  the  lessee  gave  to  the  les- 
see the  privileges  the  company  had  by 
virtue  of  the  contract  with  the  bridge 
company.  Neither  the  street  railroad 
company  nor  the  bridge  company  con- 
ferred on  the  lessee  the  right  to  collect 
toll  for  persons  carried  across  the  bridge. 
Held,  that  Laws  1905,  c.  358,  providing 
for  a  fare  not  to  exceed  five  cents,  ap- 
plied to  the  lessee,  and  prohibited  it 
from  charging  six  cents,  though  it  paid 
one  cent  to  the  bridge  company,  since 
such  payment  was  merely  a  part  of  the 
operating  expenses,  and  the  collection 
of  the  one  cent  could  not  be  held  to  be 
collected  as'  toll  as  the  agent  of  the 
bridge  company.  Cohoes  R.  Co.  v.  Public 
Service  Comm.,  143  App.  Div.  769,  128  N. 
Y.    S.    384,   order   affirmed   95    N.    E.    1137. 

Switching  Charges. — TJnder  the  Rail- 
road Commission  Act,  defining  the  juris- 
diction of  the  state  board  of  railroad 
commissioners  and  the  meaning  of  the 
term  "transportation,"  held,  that  a  carrier 
could  not  divide  up  its  charge  for  switch- 
ing cars  so  as  to  charge,  in  addition  to  the 
regular  switching  charge,  a  car  rental  on 
cars  furnished  by  it  for  deliveries  to 
industries  on  its  own  or  other  lines. 
East  Side  Packing  Co.  v.  Vandalia  R.  Co., 
258   111.   397,   101   N.    E.   600. 

Authorizing  charge  of  fifty  cents  per 
hundredweight  per  hundred  miles. — Under 
the  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.,  art.  4257, 
authorizing  railroads  to  charge  fifty  cents 
per  hundredweight  per  hundred  miles,  a 
railroad  can  charge  fifty  cents  for  carry- 
ing less  than  a  hundredweight  that  dis- 
tance. Murray  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 
Tex.   407,    51   Am.    Rep.    650. 

Meaning  of  term  car  load. — Where  the 
term  "car  load,"  as  used  in  Rev.  St.  1879, 
§  833,  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
railroad  commissioners,  the  division  of 
freights  into  certain  classes,  and  the  fix- 
ing of  maximum  rates  at  so  much  per 
"car  load"  for  each  class,  has  been  con- 
strued by  the  commissioners,  whose  duty 
it  is  to  enforce  the  said  statute,  as  mean- 
ing, in  the  light  of  existing  usage,  ten 
tons  instead  of  all  that  a  car  can  safely 
carry,  this  construction,  being  reasonable 
and  just,  will  be  upheld,  especially  where 
it  has  been  acted  upon  long  enough  to 
have  become  a  rule.  Ross  v.  Kansas  City 
St.  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mo.  18,  19  S.  W.  541. 

What  are  "logs  and  box  materials"  un- 
der Alabama  statute. — Blocks  of  wood 
from  six  to  fifteen  inches  in  diameter  and 


71 


CONTROL    AND    RKCULATIOX. 


§§  83-84 


vionsly  existing  valid  contracts,  in  the  absence  of  some  indication  that  such  was 
the  legislative  intent.-*' 

§  84.  When  a  Statute  Will  Be  Construed  as  Impliedly  Repealing  a 
Prior  Statute. — A  statute  regulating  passenger  or  freight  rates  will  not  he 
construed  as  iniiiliedly  repealing  a  prior  statute  on  the  same  stibject,  unless  there 
is  an  unreconcilal)le  repugnancy,  or  the  new  law  is  intended  to  supersede  the 
})rior  one  and  comprise  in  itself  a  complete  system  of  legislation.-' 


tliirtj'-eiglit  to  forty-two  inches  long, 
sawed  from  round  logs  in  their  natural 
state,  are  not  classified  as  "logs  and  box 
materials"  by  the  Alabama  statute,  110 
commodities  act  (Laws  1907,  p.  209); 
and  a  contract  for  their  transportation, 
which  descril)cs  them  as  cordwood,  at  tlie 
rate  fixed  for  cordwood,  is  binding  on 
the  shipper  and  carrier;  and  the  mere 
fact  tliat  the  consignee  or  subsequent 
buyer  may  manufacture  tlie  blocks  into 
barrel  heads  does  not  justify  the  carrier 
in  reclassifying  them  as  logs  and  box  ma- 
terial, and  demanding  a  higher  rate  as 
a  condition  precedent  to  a  delivery. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  170  Ala.  598, 
54   So.   .51. 

26.  Regulations  will  not  be  construed 
to  be  retroactive. — Sultan  R..  etc.,  Co.  v. 
C.roat  Xortlicrn  R.  Co..  58  Wash.  ()04, 
109  Pac.  1020,  denying  hearing  in  banc 
109  P.  320,  construing  Law'S  1905,  c.  81, 
Laws    1907,   c.   226,   and   Laws    1909,   c.   9!^. 

27.  Statute  not  repealing  former  laws. 
— The  North  Carolina  statute.  Laws,  lUOT. 
p.  252,  c.  217,  regulating  passenger  and 
freight  rates  wnthin  the  state,  contains  no 
provision  repealing  laws  in  existence  at 
the  time  so  far  as  the  freight  rates  are 
concerned  and  with  reference  to  passenger 
rates  but  only  contains  §  6,  which  repeals 
Revisal  1905,  §  2618,  requiring  all  railroad 
companies  to  furnish  first  and  second 
class  passenger  accommodations.  Held, 
that  all  laws  in  existence  at  the  time  of 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1907.  and  not 
inconsistent  therewith,  were  still  in  force, 
under  the  rule  stated  in  the  text.  South- 
ern   R.    Co.   V.    McXoill.    1.-.,-.    i'ed.   756. 

Statute  not  repealed  by  statute  subse- 
quently enacted. — The  Missouri  statute. 
Rev.  St.  ISSU,  §  2C)29,  forbidding  any  rail- 
road from  charging  over  any  portion  of 
its  road  a  greater  compensation  than  it 
charges  for  the  transportation  of  similar 
quantities  of  the  same  class  of  goods  over 
any  other  portion  of  equal  distance, 
which  was  passed  in  pursuance  of  Const., 
art.  12,  §  12,  containing  much  the  same 
language,  and  requiring  the  passage  of 
suitable  enforcing  acts  by  the  legislature, 
was  not  repealed  by  Rev.  St.  1889,  §  2637, 
subsequently  enacted,  and  which  forbids 
railroads  from  charging  a  greater  aggre- 
gate compensation  for  the  transportation 
of  like  property  "under  similar  circum- 
stances and  conditions  for  a  shorter  than 
a  longer  distance  over  the  same  line  in 
the   same    direction,"   especially   since    an- 


other section  of  the  latter  act  fRev.  St. 
1889,  §  2659)  expressly  provides  that  it 
is  not  intended  to  repeal  any  law  in  force 
unless  in  direct  conflict  therewith;  but 
both  sections  may  stand  together,  the  for- 
mer regulating  freight  charges  in  any  di- 
rection over  any  part  of  the  road,  and  the 
latter  in  the  same  direction  under  like 
circumstances  and  conditions.  McGrew 
V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  177  Mo.  533,  76 
S.    W.    995. 

Statute  not  materially  modifying  pro- 
visions of  former  law. — The  Nebraska 
statute.  Act  1893,  known  as  the  "Maxi- 
mum Rate  Law"  (Sess.  Laws,  c.  24),  fix- 
ing maximum  rates  for  the  transportation 
by  rail  of  commodities  within  the  state, 
does  not  materially  modify  the  provisions 
of  the  law  enacted  in  1887  (Sess.  Laws.  c. 
60),  defining  the  duties  and  powers  of 
the  state  board  of  transportation,  grant- 
ing such  board  the  right  to  reduce  freight 
rates  or  modify  the  schedule  of  com- 
modities when  it  seems  to  them  just  and 
reasonable.  Judgment  58  Neb.  823,  80 
N.  W.  43,  affirmed  on  rehearing.  Ne- 
braska Tel.  Co.  v.  Cornell,  59  Neb.  737, 
82   N.   W.    1. 

Statute  repealing  prior  statute. — Re- 
visal N.  C.  1905,  §  2567,  subsec.  9.  giving 
railroads  the  right  to  make  passenger 
rates  within  a  limit  of  five  cents  a  mile, 
was  repealed  by  Laws  1907,  p.  675,  c.  469, 
§  7,  extending  and  enlarging  the  powers 
of  the  corporation  commission.  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  McNeill,  155  Fed.  756. 

Revisal  N.  C.  1905,  §  2567,  subsec.  9, 
conferring  on  railroad  companies  the 
right  to  make  passenger  rates  within  a 
maximum  of  five  cents  a  mile,  repealed 
by  implication  §  1099,  subd.  1,  which 
imposed  on  the  North  Carolina  railroad 
commission  the  duty  of  making  passen- 
ger rates.  Southern  R.  Co.  v  McNeill. 
155    Fed.    756. 

The  West  Virginia  statute,  subsections 
7  and  8,  §  82c.  c.  54,  Code  1891.  establish- 
ing classifications  of  freight  and  rates  of 
charges  therefor,  was  repealed  by  chap- 
ter 17,  Acts  1895,  authorizing  railway 
companies  to  establish  such  classifications 
and  rates,  under  certain  restrictions.  Nor- 
folk, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pinnacle  Coal  Co., 
44  W.  Va.  574,  30  S.  E.  196.  41  L.  R.  A. 
414. 

Effect  of  statute  upon  charter  vesting 
exclusive  right  to  fix  rates. — The  N<^rth 
Carolina  act  oi  IS'.)'.)  creating  a_  state  cor- 
poration   commission,    and    giving    it    the 


§§  85-86 


CARRIERS. 


72 


§  85.  Posting  Schedule  at  Stations.— Carriers  may  be  required  to  post  a 
printed  copv  of  their  schedule  of  rates  at  all  their  stations,-'^  and  in  some  states 
are  required  to  do  so  by  statute  or  commission  rule.-^ 

§  86.  Local  and  Through  Rates. — A  local  railway's  share  of  an  interstate 
rate  is  not  a  legitimate  basis  upon  which  a  state  railroad  commission  can  establish 
and  enforce  a  purely  local  rate.-^"  Under  a  statute  which  requires  a  railroad 
company  to  transport  freight  and  passengers  for  the  government  '"at  fair  and 
reasonable  rates,"  the  company  is  not  bound  to  transport  local  passengers  at 
through  rates,  if  the  local  rates  are  "fair  and  reasonable."'-'^  The  mere  fact  that 
•a  through  rate  for  carriage  betw^een  two  points  on  connecting  roads  within  the 
stale,  does  not  exceed  the  aggregate  of  the  local  rates  of  the  two  roads  for  car- 
riage between  the  same  points,  does  not  show  that  the  througli  rate  is  reasonable.^^ 


right  to  regulate  the  rates  of  railroads, 
operates  as  an  alteration  and  repeal,  pro 
tanto.  of  the  charter  of  any  railroad  com- 
pany of  the  state  which  vests  such  com- 
pany with  the  exclusive  right  to  fix  its 
rates.  Matthews  v.  Board  of  Corp. 
Comm'rs,  97  Fed.  400. 
The  New  York  statutes,  Laws  1890,  c. 
565,  §  37,  providing  that  "every"  railroad 
company  "may"  collect  certain  rates  of 
fare,  repeals  a  provision  of  a  charter  of 
a  railroad  company  (Laws  1872,  c.  591,  § 
5)  authorizing  it  to  fix  its  own  rates,  since 
the  intent  of  the  legislature  was  to  fix  a 
uniform  rule  as  to  railroad  fares.  Parker 
V.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  App.  Div.  383, 
49  N.  Y.  S.  1127,  judgment  affirmed  16.') 
N.  Y.  274,  59  N.  E.  81. 

28.  Carriers  may  be  required  to  post 
copy  of  rates  at  all  stations. — Cleveland, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Illinois,  177  L'.  S.  514,  517, 
44  L.  Ed.  868,  20  S.  Ct.  722;  Railroad  Co. 
V.   Fuller.   17  Wall.  560,  21  L.   Ed.  710. 

29.  Duties  imposed  by  requirement  to 
post  schedules  of  rates  in  stations. — Un- 
der rule  4,  adopted  by  the  railroad  com- 
mission of  Florida,  on  September,  23,  1889, 
requiring  each  railroad  company  to  "keep 
posted"  in  each  of  its  stations  copies  of 
rate  schedules,  and  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions of  the  board  regulating  the  trans- 
portation of  freight  and  passengers,  it  is 
not  sufiTicient  for  the  company  to  nail  up 
in  its  stations  a  pamphlet  of  eleven 
printed  pages  containing  the  information 
required,  nor  is  it  sufficient  to  bind  the 
schedules  together,  and  leave  them  open 
to  the  public  on  a  prominent  desk  in  the 
waiting  room  of  the  station.  State  v. 
Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Fla.  403,  9 
So.   89. 

Under  a  rule  of  the  Florida  railroad 
commission  requiring  railroad  companies 
to  post  up  in  their  stations  their  freight 
and  passenger  rates,  the  schedule  may  be 
printed  on  two  cards  so  posted  as  to  read 
as  one.  State  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
27    Fla.    403,   9    So.    89. 

Under  a  rule  of  the  Florida  railroad 
coinmission  requiring  each  railroad  com- 
pany to  "post  in  a  conspicuous  place,  and 
keep  continuously  posted  in  each  of  its 
stations,"  certain  rate  schedules,  it  is  not 


sufficient  for  the  company  to  send  the 
schedules  to  its  agents  with  instructions 
to  post,  but  it  must  see  that  they  are  con- 
tinuously kept  posted,  as  required  by  the 
rule.  State  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 
Fla.   403,   9   So.   89. 

Under  a  rule  of  the  Florida  railroad 
commission  requiring  each  railroad  com- 
pany to  post  in  its  stations  copies  of  the 
schedule  of  freight  rates  prescribed  for 
it  by  the  commission,  the  company  is  not 
required  to  post  special  rates  which  it  is 
authorized  to  make  for  temporary  use 
for  particular  persons  and  places.  State 
V.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Fla.  403,  9 
So.    89. 

Under  a  rule  adopted  by  the  Florida 
railroad  commission  requiring  each  rail- 
road company  to  post  in  its  stations  cop- 
ies of  the  schedules  of  its  passenger  rates, 
the  company  is  not  required  to  show  in 
the  schedules  the  rate  per  mile,  nor  the 
distances  between  stations,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  law  or  rule  of  the  commis- 
sion requiring  it.  State  v.  Pensacola,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    27    Fla.    403,    9   So.    89. 

30.  Basing  local  rate  on  local  carrier's 
share  of  intestate  rate  for  same  service 
improper. — Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mis- 
sissippi R.  Comm.,  203  U.  S.  496,  51  L. 
Ed.  289,  27  S.  Ct.  163;  Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  United  States,  117  U.  S.  355,  29  L.  Ed. 
920,  6  S.  Ct.  772,  21  Ct.   CI.  502. 

Service  rendered  in  transporting  a  lo- 
cal passenger  between  two  points  is  not 
in  law  identical  with  that  rendered  in 
transporting  a  through  passenger  be- 
tween the  same  points  as  part  of  the 
transit  over  the  distance  of  the  whole 
line.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  United  States, 
117   U.   S.  355,  29    L.    Ed.   920,   6   S.    Ct.   772. 

21  Ct.    CI.    502. 

31.  Carrier  not  bound  to  transport  lo- 
cal passengers  at  through  rates. —  Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  United  States,  20  Ct.  CI. 
70,  affirmed  in  117  U.  S.  355,  29  L.  Ed. 
920    6,    S.    Ct.    772,    21    Ct.    CI.    502. 

32.  Through  rate  equal  to  aggregate  of 
local  rates. — Minneapjlis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Minnesota,   186   U.   S.  257,  46   L.   Ed.  ,1151, 

22  S.    Ct.    900,    affirming   80    Minn.    191,    83 
X.    W.    60,    89    Am.    St.    Rep.    514. 


73 


CONTROL    AND    RICCULAT KJ.V. 


87 


§  87,  Long  and  Short  Hauls.— That  a  railroarl  company  should  fix  a  greater 
sum  for  carriage  for  a  k>s  (Hstance  than  the  maximum  allowed  for  a  greater 
distance,  is  u.nreasonaljlc,  as  a  matter  of  law.-*-  The  state  may  prohibit  railroad 
companies    from   charging   more    for   a   short   than    for  a   long   haul    where   the 


carriage  is 


wholly   within   the  state,"'^   but   when   such  a  provision,  as  construed 


33.  Greater  charge  for  less  distance  than 
maximum  allowed  for  greater,  unreason- 
able as  matter  of  law. — Cainphcll  r-.  Mari- 
ftta.   rtc,    Iv.    Cn.,   :.-:;   (  ).   St.    His. 

34.  State  may  prohibit  greater  charge 
for  short  than  for  long  haul.— Waltasli, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Illinois,  118  U.  S.  557,  30 
L.  Ed.  244,  7  S.  Ct.  4;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Kentucky.  183  U.  S.  503,  46  L.  Ed. 
298,    22    S.    Ct.    95. 

A  state  railroad  corporation  voluntarily 
formed  can  not  exempt  itself  from  the 
control  reserved  to  itself  by  the  state  1)y 
its  constitution,  and  if  not  protected  by  a 
valid  contract,  can  not  sucessfully  invoke 
the  interposition  of  the  federal  courts,  in 
respect  to  the  long  and  short  haul  clause 
in  tiic  state  constitution,  on  the  ground 
simply  that  the  railroad  is  property. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kentucky,  183 
U.  S.  503,  513,  46  L.   Ed.  298,  22  S.   Ct.  95. 

The  Constitution  of  Kentucky,  §  218, 
and  Ky.  St.  §  iS2i).  proliibiting  a  common 
carrier  charging  more  for  a  short  haul 
than  for  a  long  haul,  where  the  shorter 
distance  is  included  in  the  longer  dis- 
tance, are  not  in  conflict  with  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  or  any  act 
of  congress.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  544,  63  S.  W. 
448. 

The  Missouri  statute.  Act  April  1,  1872 
(Laws  1872,  p.  69),  entitled  "An  act  to 
prevent  unjust  discrimination  and  extor- 
tion in  the  rates  to  be  charged  by  the 
different  railroads  in  this  state  for  the 
transportation  of  freight  thereon,"  by  § 
1  (Rev.  St.  1899,  §  1126  [Ann.  St.  1906,  p. 
971])  prohibits  a  railroad  company  in  the 
state  from  charging  for  transportation  of 
property  for  any  distance  over  its  road 
any  larger  amount  as  compensation  than 
is  charged  by  it  for  the  transportation  or 
similar  quantities  of  the  same  class  of 
property  over  a  greater  distance  over  its 
road;  from  cliarging  different  rates  for 
receiving,  handling,  or  delivering  freight 
at  different  points  on  its  road,  or  any  road 
used  by  it  in  connection  therewith;  and 
from  charging  for  transportation  of  prop- 
erty over  any  portion  of  its  road  a  greater 
amount  as  compensation  than  is  charged 
by  it  for  transportation  of  similar  quanti- 
ties of  the  same  class  of  property  over 
any  portion  of  its  road  of  equal  distance. 
The  act  was  taken  substantially  from  the 
Illinois  law  (Laws  1871-72,  p.  635).  In 
1S7;{,  the  Illinois  law  was  declared  un- 
constitutional on  the  ground  that  the  con- 
stitution restricted  tiie  power  of  the  leg- 
islature to  prohibit  discriminations  to 
those    which    were   unjust    and    made    the 


question   of   the   injustice   of   any   alleged 
discrimination    of    a    judicial    question    for 
the  court,  and  that  the  legislature  had  no 
power   to  declare   anything   to   be   an   un- 
just   discrimination.      The    Missiouri    con- 
stitution  of   1865   did   not  limit   the   power 
of  the   legislature   to   prohibit   discrimina- 
tions   l)y    railroads,    but    Const.    1875.    art. 
12,   §    14    (Ann.   St.    1906,   p.   306),   adopted 
literally     from     the     Illinois     constitution 
(art.    11,  §   12),   the   portion   held  to   have 
been  violated  by  the   Illinois  law  provid- 
ing   that    railroads    are    public    highways, 
and  railroad   companies   common   carriers, 
and  that  the  general  assembly  shall  pass 
laws    to    correct    abuses    and    prevent   un- 
just  discrimination    and    extortion    in    the 
rates   of   freight   and   passenger  traffic  on 
the    different    railroads    in    the    state,    and 
shall     pass    laws     establishing     maximum 
rates    and    charges    for    transportation    of 
passengers   and    freight   on    the    railroads, 
and    enforce    all    such    laws    by    adequate 
penality.        The      Missiouri      constitution, 
also  by  art.  12,  §  12  (page  306),  providing 
that   it   shall   not   be   lawful   for   any    rail- 
road  company   to    charge    for   transporta- 
tion   of    freight    or    passengers    a    greater 
amount     for     a     less     distance     than     the 
amount    charged    for    a    greater    distance, 
and  that  suitable  laws  shall  be  passed  to 
enforce    the    provision,    adopted    the    very 
gist  of  the   statute    (the  so-called   "short- 
haul"    rule)    extending    its    provisions    to 
passengers   as   well   as    to   freight.      Held, 
that    the   intent   in   adopting   §    12   was    to 
establish  the  short-haul  rule  as  a  part  of 
the  fundamental  law  and  to  put  it  in  oper- 
ation,  and    the    provision    of   §    14,   direct- 
ing the  legislature  to  pass  laws  to  correct 
abuses   and   prevent   unjust   discrimination 
and  extortion  in  the  rates  of  freight  and 
passenger  traffic,  does  not  operate   as  an 
implied    limitation    on    the    power    of    the 
legislature   to  prevent  only  such   discrimi- 
nations as  are  unjust,  the  use  of  the  word 
"unjust"   not  being   intended   to   limit   the 
legislature's  power  in  that  regard,  but  to 
require    the    exercise    of   such    power,    and 
to   declare   what   shall   be   unjust   discrimi- 
nation,  and   such    provision   refers   to   dis- 
criminations generally,  whereas  the  short 
haul   rule,   established   by  §    12,   applies   to 
a  particular  class  of  discriminations,  spe- 
cifically  established  in  positive  and  explicit 
terms,  so  that  the  short-haul  provision  of 
.\ct    1872    was    not    rendered    unconstitu- 
tional   by    the    adoption    of   the    Constitu- 
tion   of    1S75.      McGrew   t-.    Missouri    Pac. 
R.  Co.   (Mo.),  132  S.  \V.  1076. 

The  Nebraska  statute,   Comp.   St.   1903, 
c.  72,  art.  5,  forbidding  railroads  to  charge 


§  87 


CARRIERS. 


74 


by  the  state  courts,  applies  to  or  interferes  with  interstate  commerce,  it  is  invalid.-^-'^ 
The  fact  that  competition  exists  at  the  longer,  and  not  at  the  shorter,  distance 
point,  does  not  constitute  such  a  dissimilarity  of  conditions  as  will  authorize  the 
carrier  to  charge  more  for  the  short  than  for  the  long  haul.'^'^  A  statute  prohib- 
iting the  charging  of  more  for  a  shorter  than  for  a  longer  distance,  applies,  al- 
though bv  the  original  contract  of  carriage  the  merchandise  was  to  be  carried  to 
a  station'  beyond  that  at  which  it  was  left.^"  A  statute  providing  that  railroad 
companies  shall  not  charge  more  than  a  certain  sum  for  the  transportation  of 
freight  of  a  particular  weight  or  bulk  a  certain  distance,  does  not  compel  them 
to  proportion  their  charges  to  the  distance  carried,  but  fixes  a  maximum  sum 
within  which  the  companies  may  charge,  subject  only  to  the  common-law  rule  that 
the  same  shall  be  reasonable  in  each  particular  case.^'^  The  short  haul  clauses, 
prohibiting  the  charging  of  more  for  a  shorter  than  for  a  longer  distance,  as 
embodied  in  the  constitutions  and  rate  regulating  statutes  of  the  several  states, 
differ  somewhat  in  phraseology.  The  peculiar  provisions  of  some  of  these  clauses 
have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts.^^    The  action  of  the  Kentucky  Railroad  Coni- 


fer transportation  for  a  specific  distance 
a  greater  sum  than  they  charge  for  car- 
riage over  a  greater  distance,  was  within 
the  legislative  discretion.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Anderson,  72  Neb.  856,  101  N. 
W.    1010. 

35.  Provision  as  to  long  and  short 
hauls  must  not  interfere  with  interstate 
commerce. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eu- 
bank, 184  U.  S.  27,  46  L.  Ed.  416,  22  S. 
Ct.    277. 

36.  Effect  of  competition. — Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  106  Ky. 
633,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  232,  51  S.  W.  164, 
1012,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  236,  affirmed  in 
183  U.  S.  503,  46  L.  Ed.  298,  22  S.  W.  95. 

Under  the  constitution  of  Kentucky, 
§  218,  providing  that  "it  shall  be  unlawful 
for  any  person  or  corporation  owning  or 
operating  a  railroad  in  this  state,  or  any 
common  carrier,  to  charge  or  receive  any 
greater  compensation  in  the  aggregate 
for  the  transportation  of  passengers  or 
of  property  of  like  kind  under  substan- 
tially similar  circumstances  and  condi- 
tions for  a  shorter  than  for  a  longer  dis- 
tance over  the  same  line  in  the  same  di- 
rection, the  shorter  being  included  within 
the  longer  distance,"  competition  does 
not  justify  a  carrier  in  charging  more  for 
a  shorter  than  for  a  longer  distance,  as 
the  words  "substantially  similar  circum- 
stances and  conditions"  relate  to  the  ac- 
tual cost  of  transportation.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  104  Ky. 
226,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1102,  1380,  46  S.  W. 
707,  47  S.  W.  210,  598,  43  L.  R.  A.  541; 
Hutcheson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 
Ky.  615,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  361,  57  S.  W. 
251. 

But  in  a  case  in  a  federal  court  it  was 
held  that  notwithstanding  the  Oregon 
statute,  Act  Feb.  20,  1885,  §  4  (Sess. 
Laws,  39),  declaring  it  unlawful  for  any 
person  engaged  in  the  transportation  of 
property  by  a  railway  to  charge  or  re- 
ceive any  greater  compensation  for  a 
short  haul  than  a  longer  one  in  the  same 
direction,     a     railway     corporation     may 


charge  less  for  a  long  haul  than  a  short 
one  in  the  same  direction,  when  the  rate 
for  the  long  haul  is  caused  by  other  lines 
of  transportation  competing  for  business 
at  the  point  from  whence  the  long  haul 
is  made;  and  where  the  road  of  such  cor- 
poration forms  a  part  of  a  line  of  trans- 
portation consisting  largely  of  water  car- 
riage, between  two  principal  points,  the 
rate  may  be  made  so  as  to  enable  it  to 
compete  with  another  road  that  consti- 
tutes a  part  of  another  line  of  water  and 
railway  trans'^ortation  between  the  same 
points.     Ex  parte  Koehler,  25  Fed.  73. 

37.  Provision  in  original  contract  of  car- 
riage not  precluding  application  of  short 
haul  clause. — Osgood  r.  Concord  Rail- 
road, 63  N.  H.  255,  construing  Laws  1879, 
c.   55. 

38.  Prohibiting  charge  of  more  than  a 
certain  sum  for  a  certain  distance.  Ra- 
gan  V.  Aiken,  77  Tenn.  (9  Lea)  009,  42 
Am.    Rep.   684. 

39.  Peculiar  Provisions  of  short  haul 
clauses  interpreted. — As  §  218  of  the  con- 
stitution of  Kentucky,  does  not  apply  un- 
less the  shorter  is  included  within  the 
longer  distance,  a  carrier  does  not  violate 
the  law  where  the  long  haul  is  altogether 
on  its  main  line,  while  the  short  haul  orig- 
inates on  a  branch  road,  as  the  shipment 
is-  an  entirety,  and  can  not  be  solit  into 
parts  to  bring  it  within  the  law.  Louis- 
ville &  N.  R.  Co.  V.  Walker,  110  Ky.  961, 
23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  453,  63  S.  W.  20. 

The  Missouri  statute,  Rev.  St.  1899, 
§  1126  (Ann.  St.  1906,  p.  971),  prohibiting 
a  carrier  from  charging  for  transporting 
goods  a  larger  amount  than  is  charged  for 
the  transportation  of  similar  quantities  of 
the  same  class  of  goods  over  a  greater 
distance  on  the  same  road,  regulates 
freight  charges  in  any  direction  on  the 
same  road,  as  applied  to  shipments  of  the 
same  class  of  property  in  similar  quanti- 
ties, and  is  not  repealed  by  §§  1129,  1133, 
1134  (Ann.'  St.  1906,  pp.  973-975),  prohibit- 
ing a  carrier  from  charging  more  for 
transporting    a    car    of     freight,    than    it 


75 


COXTKrjL    AND    RKGUI.ATKJX. 


§§  87-88 


mission  in  exonerating  a  carrier  from  the  operation  of  the  law  prohibiting  tiie 
charging  of  more  for  a  shorter  than  for  a  longer  distance  is  not  retrosi)ective, 
and  docs  not,  therefore,  affect  the  liability  which  the  carrier  had  previously  in- 
curred to  shippers  by  a  violation  of  the  law."*" 

§  88.  Joint  Tariff  between  Two  or  More  Roads. — The  power  of  the  state 
to  regulate  freight  charges  includes  the  power  to  establish  joint  through  rates 
over  separate  lines  within  its  borders  •'^  Where  a  joint  tariff  between  two  or  more 


charges  per  car  for  several  cars  of  a  like 
class  of  freight;  proiiibiting  rebating; 
making  it  unlawful  for  any  carrier  to  give 
any  undue  preference  to  any  person  in  tlie 
transportation  of  goods,  and  making  it 
unlawful  for  any  carrier  to  charge  any 
greater  compensation  in  the  aggregate  for 
the  transportation  of  like  kinds  of  prop- 
erty under  similar  circumstances,  for  a 
shorter  than  a  longer  distance  over  the 
same  line,  in  the  same  direction.  Cohn 
V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Mo.  App. 
061,  13:5  S.  W.  59,  transferred  from  su- 
preme  court   131   S.  W.   881. 

Act  April  1,  1873  (Laws  1872,  p.  69), 
relating  wholly  to  local  discriminations  by 
railroads,  contains  a  short-haul  provi- 
sion, and  prohibits  a  railroad  from  re- 
ceiving for  transportation  of  property 
any  greater  amount  as  compensation 
than  is  charged  for  the  transportation  of 
the  same  class  of  property  over  a  greater 
distance  upon  the  same  road  without  re- 
gard to  direction,  circumstances,  or  condi- 
tions. Laws  Extra  Sess.  1887,  p.  17,  §  4, 
(Rev.  St.  1899,  §  1134  [Ann.  St.  1906,  p. 
975]),  relating  to  discriminations  under 
"like  circumstances,"  or  "substantially 
similar  circumstances  and  conditions," 
embraces  a  short-haul  provision  applying  to 
hauls  in  the  same  direction  under  similar 
circumstances  and  conditions.  The  act  of 
1887  provided  that  it  was  not  intended  to 
repeal  any  law  then  in  force,  unless  in 
direct  conflict  therewith,  but  was  intended 
to  be  supplemental  to  such  laws.  Held, 
that  such  provision  as  to  repeal  furnishes 
the  sole  and  only  test  for  determining 
whether  the  act  of  1872  was  repealed  by 
the  act  of  1887,  and  the  two  laws  merely 
establishing  two  systems  for  preventing 
discriminatio'n  l)y  railroad  companies,  the 
later  act  containing  some  but  not  all  of 
the  things  contained  in  the  system  cre- 
ated by  the  former  act  and  many  other 
things,  they  are  not  in  direct  conflict  as 
to  the  short-haul  clause,  and  the  former 
act  was  not  repealed  l)y  the  latter  one  as 
to  such  provision.  McGrew  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  (Mo.),  132  S.  W.  1076. 

That  the  penalties  created  by  the  acts 
are  different,  it  being  necessary  in  order 
to  enforce  the  penalty  prescribed  by  the 
act  of  1887  (Laws  Extra  Sess.  1887.  p.  15) 
for  violating  its  short-haul  section,  to  al- 
lege and  prove  that  the  shorter  and 
longer  hauls  were  made  in  the  same  di- 
rection and  under  similar  circumstances 
and  conditions,  while  such  allegations  and 


proof  would  not  Ije  necessary  to  enforce 
the  penalty  prescribed  by  the  act  of  1872, 
and  that  in  a  proceeding  to  enforce  the 
latter  penalty  it  would  l)e  no  defense  to 
show  the  facts  making  defendant  liable 
to  the  other  penalties,  does  not  operate 
to  work  a  repeal  of  the  former  act  by  the 
latter  one.  McGrew  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.    (Mo.),    132    S.    W.    1076. 

The  Texas  statute,  Rev.  Stat.,  §  4257, 
prohil)iting  railroad  companies  from 
cliarging  more  for  a  short  than  a  long 
haul  is  not  confined  to  cases  where  the 
freight  is  being  transported  between  the 
same  points.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kute- 
man,  79  Tex.  465,  14  S.  W.  693. 

40.  Action  exonerating  carrier  from  op- 
eration of  short-haul  clause  not  retrospec- 
tive.— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Van- 
cleave,  110  Ky.  968,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  479, 
63  S.  W.  22,  construing  Const.,  §  218,  and 
Ky.   St.,  §  820. 

41.  State  may  establish  joint  through 
rates  over  separate  lines. — Burlington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dcy,  S2  Iowa  312,  48  N. 
W.  98,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  477,  12  L.  R.  A. 
436. 

Such  part  of  the  Minnesota  statute. 
Laws  1895;  c.  91,  as  authorizes  the  state 
railroad  and  warehouse  commission  to  es- 
tablish by  order  joint  through  rates  for 
the  transportation  of  freight  over  any  two 
or  more  connecting  lines  of  railway 
within  the  state,  and  to  compel  ol^edience 
thereto,  does  not  violate  any  of  the  con- 
stitutional provisions,  federal  or  state. 
State  V.  Alinneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 
Minn.  191,  83  S.  W.  60,  89  Am.  St.  Rep. 
511.  aftirmed  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
}^Iinnesota.  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L.  Ed.  1151. 
22    S.    Ct.    '.HlO. 

Commission  order  a  complete  fixing  of 
a  continuous  mileage  rate  between  two 
roads. — Circular  Xn.  325,  of  the  railmail 
commission,  declaring  that  continuous 
mileage  rates  shall  apply  to  the  Central 
Railroad  and  the  Wadley  Southern  Rail- 
way Company  for  transportation  of  pas- 
sengers and  freight  passing  between  those 
railroads  or  over  any  portion  of  either, 
such  rates  to  be  governed  by  the  freight 
and  passenger  tariflfs  prescribed  by  the 
Georgia  railroad  commission  for  the  Cen- 
tral of  Georgia  Railway  Company,  is  a 
clear  and  complete  fixing  of  a  continuous 
mileage  rate  between  the  two  roads, 
without  necessity  of  resorting,  to  ascer- 
tain its  meaning,  to  rule  Xo.  1  of  the  com- 
mission, declaring  that,  when  two  or  more 


§§  88-89 


CARRIERS. 


76 


roads  has  been  agreed  upon,  such  tariff  is  as  much  within  the  control  of  the  legis- 
lature as  if  it  related  only  to  transportation  over  a  single  line.^-  A  state  legislature 
may  authorize  its  railroad  commission  to  reduce,  as  unreasonable,  a  joint  through 
rate  agreed  upon  bv  two  or  more  railroads,  and  apportion  the  same  among  the 
several  railroad  companies  interested.-^-^  Under  a  statute  providing  that  the  rail- 
road commission  shall  have  power  to  fix  rates  for  all  connecting  lines  in  the  state, 
and  if  connecting  railroads  fail  to  agree  on  a  division  of  the  charges  the  coin- 
mission  shall  fix  the  pro  rata,  a  joint  rate  fixed  by  the  commission  is  not  void 
for  failure  to  divide  the  rate  between  the  companies.-* •* 

§  89.  Transfers  to  Connecting  Lines  of  Same  Company.*" — The  power 
which  the  legislature  of  a  slate  has  to  require  a  street  railroad  company  to  furnish 
transfer  tickets  entitling  passengers  to  ride  on  a  connecting  line  owned  or  con- 
trolled by  it  without  payment  of  additional  fare  it  may  delegate  to  the  corporation 
commission  of  the  state  ■*^'  or  to  the  municipality  in  which  the  lines  of  such  com- 
pany are  located."*"  Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  statutes  and  municipal 
ordinances  requiring  street  railroad  companies  to  give  such  transfers  have  been 
interpreted  by  the  courts."*^ 


connecting  lines  of  railroad  are  operated 
by  one  management,  or  where  the  major- 
ity of  the  stock  of  each  is  controlled  by  one 
of  such  companies,  the  lines  of  railroads 
of  all  shall  be  considered  as  constitut- 
ing but  one  railroad,  and  the  rates  shall 
be  computed  on  a  continuous  mileage 
basis.  Hill  z\  Wadley  Southern  R.  Co., 
12S    Ga.   70.-).   57    S.    E.   795. 

42.  Joint  tariff  agreement  within  control 
of  legislature. — Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Minnesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L.  Ed. 
1151,  22  S.  Ct.  900. 

Granting  that  a  state  has  no  right  to 
interfere  with  the  internal  economy  of  a 
railroad  farther  than  to  secure  the  safety 
and  comfort  of  passengers,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, to  fix  the  wages  of  employees  or 
control  its  contracts  for  construction,  or 
the  purchase  of  supplies,  it  has  a  clear 
right  to  pass  upon  the  reasonableness  of 
contracts  in  which  the  public  is  inter- 
ested, whether  such  contracts  be  made 
directly  with  the  patrons  of  the  road,  or 
for  a  joint  action  in  the  transportation 
of  persons  or  property  in  which  the 
public  is  indirectly  concerned.  Minne- 
apolis, etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota.  186  U.  .S. 
257,  40   L.    Ed.    1151,   22   S.    Ct.   900. 

43.  Reduction  of  joint  through  rate.— 
Judgment,  State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  80  Minn.  191,  8:5  N.  W.  60,  89  Am. 
St.  Rep.  514,  affirmed.  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L. 
Ed.   1151,   22   S.   Ct.   900. 

44.  Joint  rate  not  void  for  failure  to  di- 
vide rate  between  companies. — Southern 
Indiana  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  172 
Ind.  113,  87  N.  E.  966,  construing  Acts 
1907,  p.  458.  C.  241. 

45.  As  to  transfers  to  other  lines,  see 
post,  "Transfers  between  Street  Railroad 
Companies,"   sec.   129. 

46.  Order  requiring  transfers  within 
power  of  corporation  commission. — An 
order  that  a  street  railway  company  in 
Oklahoma  City  give  transfers  on  request, 


held  within  the  power  of  the  comoration 
commission  and  to  be  reasonable  and  just. 
Oklahoma  Ry.  Co.  v.  Powell,  33  Okla. 
737,    127    Pac.    1080. 

47.  Municipality  may  require  transfers 
under  power  to  limit  rate  of  fare. — The 
city  of  Chicago,  having  power  under  its 
charter  (1  Starr  &  C.  Ann.  St.  [2d  Ed.] 
pp.  689-715,  art.  5,  §  1)  to  limit  the  rate  of 
fare  to  be  charged  by  street  railway  com- 
panies, had  also,  as  a  necessary  incident 
thereto,  power  to  enact  Rev.  Code  Chi- 
cago, §§  1723,  1725,  requiring  street  rail- 
way companies  to  furnish  transfer  tickets 
entitling  passengers  to  ride  on  a  connect- 
ing line  of  the  same  company  without 
the  payment  of  an  additional  fare.  Chi- 
cago Union  Tract  Co.  z'.  Chicago,  199 
111.  484,  65  N.   E.  451,  59  L.   R.  A.  631. 

The  city  of  Atlanta,  Ga.,  has  no  author- 
ity to  impose  a  compulsory  system  of 
passenger  transfers  upon  the  Atlanta 
Consolidated  Street-Railway  Company, 
either  under  the  city  charter,  the  charters 
of  the  two  corporations  whose  property 
was  purchased  by  the  said  consolidated 
company,  the  state  statutes  ratifying  and 
confirming  the  incorporation  of  street  and 
surburban  railroad  compani.es,  or  under 
the  Constitution  of  Georgia  and  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  city  of  Atlanta,  made  in  pur- 
suance thereof,  consenting  to  the  occupa- 
tion of  its  streets  by  the  said  consoli- 
dated company.  Atlanta  v.  Old  Colony 
Trust  Co.,  32  C.  C.  A.  125,  88  Fed.  859, 
affirming  Old  Colony  Trust  Co.  v.  At- 
lanta, 83  Fed.  39. 

48.  Lessee  of  intersecting  roads  re- 
quired to  give  transfers. — Wlicre  a  street 
surface  railroad  is  operated  under  the 
New  York  railroad  law  (Laws  1890,  p. 
1082,  c.  565,  as  amended  by  Laws  1892, 
p.  1382,  c.  676),  and  leases  other  roads 
which  intersect  with  its  own  road,  the 
lessee  must,  under  section  104,  c.  676,  p. 
1406,  Laws  1892,  carry  any  passenger  de- 
siring to  make  one  continuous  trip  to  any 


77 


C(J\Tk(>L    AND    Ri:(".L'LAT10.V. 


§§  89-90 


§§  90-95.  Conditions  in  Grant  of  Franchise  and  Agreements  with 
Municipahties — §  90.  Authority  to  Impose  Conditions  or  to  Make  Agree- 
ments.— Municipal  corpuratifjus  are  fre(iuenlly  authorized  by  statute  to  impose 
conditions  as  to  the  rates  of  fare  to  be  charged  by  street  railroad  companies  in 
granting  to  such  companies  the  right  to  use  the  streets  of  the  municipality,  or 
to  enter  into  agreements  with  such  companies  relative  to  the  rates  of  fare  to  be 
charged.'"'  A  \  illage,  in  granting  a  franchise  to  a  street  railroad  company,  may 
l).'irgain  with  it  with  reference  to  rates  of  fare  between  points  in  the  village  and 
outside  i^oints ;  and  the  acceptance  of  the  franchise  with  such  a  condition  makes 
a  valid  contract."*"  A  nuuiicipal  contract  which  secures  to  the  public  for  a  term 
of  years  the  benefit  of  a  single  fare  of  not  more  than  five  cents  for  a  continuous 
passage  over  the  whole  length,  or  any  portion  of  consolidated  and  extended  street 
railwav  lines  does  not  \iolate  the  provision  of  a  statute  providing  that  a  municipal 


portion  of  any  railroad  cmi)racc(l  in  such 
contract  for  a  single  fare.  Judgment,  95 
App.  Div.  2.')3,  89  N.  Y.  S.  41.  affirmed. 
O'Reilly  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  179 
N.  Y.  4r.o.  72  N.   K.   517. 

Corporation  required  to  give  transfers 
to  road  of  which  it  is  the  beneficial  owner. 
— Under  Rev.  Code  Chicago,  §  1723,  pro- 
viding that  at  any  point  where  the  line 
of  a  street  railway  points,  connects, 
crosses,  or  comes  within  a  distance  of  two 
hundred  feet  of  any  other  line  owned  or  op- 
crated  by  the  same  company  any  pas- 
senger shall  l)c  entitled  to  a  transfer  en- 
titling him  to  ride  on  the  connecting  line 
witlmut  additional  charge,  a  street  rail- 
way corporation  is  required  to  give  trans- 
fers if  it  is  the  real  Ijcneficial  owner  of 
both  the  connecting  lines,  though  tlic  drj' 
legal  title  to  one  of  them  maj'  be  in 
another  corporation.  Chicago  Union 
Tract.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  199  111.  579,  65  N. 
E.    470. 

Carrier  not  prohibited  from  limiting 
time  within  which  transfer  can  be  used. — 
The  Maryland  statute,  Acts  1900,  p.  463. 
c.  3i;j,  requiring  the  street  car  company 
of  Baltimore  City  to  give,  on  request, 
eacli  passenger  paying  a  cash  fare  a  trans- 
fer for  a  "continuous"  ride,  does  not  pro- 
hibit the  company  from  limiting  the  time 
within  wliicli  a  transfer  can  be  used. 
Garrison  v.  United  R.  etc.,  Co.,  97  Md. 
347,  ."..")  Atl.  :!71,  99  Am.   St.   Rep.  4."')2. 

49.  Statutory  authority  to  impose  con- 
ditions or  to  make  agreements  as  to  rates 
of  fare. — Under  the  Wisconsin  statute, 
St.  1898,  §  1863,  as  amended  i)y  Laws 
1901,  c.  425,  authorizing  an  interurban 
railway  company  to  use  the  streets  of  a 
city,  providing  its  consent  is  obtained, 
and  providing  that  such  consent  may  be 
given  on  such  terms  as  the  common 
council  may  prcscrilie,  tlic  city  has  the 
power  to  refuse  consent,  and  so  can  im- 
pose as  a  condition  to  consent,  that  the 
railway  company's  fare  lietween  the  cities 
shall  not  exceed  ten  cents.  Manitowoc  v. 
Manitowoc,  etc..  Tract.  Co.,  145  Wis.  13, 
129  X.  W.  925. 

Binding  agreements  relative  to  rates  of 
fare  between  a  municipality  and  street 
railways  organized  either  under  the  Mich- 


igan tram  railway  act  as  amended  in  1861, 
or  under  the  street  railway  act  of  1867, 
which  can  not  l)e  altered  without  consent 
of  l)Oth  parties,  were  expressly  author- 
ized by  §  20  of  the  latter  act,  declaring 
tliat  railway  rates  shall  be  established 
Ijy  agreement  between  the  company  and 
the  corporate  authorities,  the  provisions 
of  which  section  were  by  §  29  made  ap- 
plicable to  all  street  railway  corporations 
alread}'  organized  and  in  operation.  De- 
troit V.  Detroit  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co.,  184 
U.  S.  368,  46  L.   Ed.  592,  22  S.   Ct.  410. 

Where  the  selectmen  of  a  town,  on 
granting  a  street  railway  location,  in- 
serted a  provision  fixing  the  maximum 
fare  to  be  charged  within  a  locality  cov- 
ering three  towns,  such  provision  was  a 
valid  exercise  of  power  granted  by  the 
Massachusetts  statute.  Pub.  St.  1882,  c. 
113,  and  was  not  afTected  by  St.  1898,  c. 
578,  withdrawing  such  power  from  local 
boards,  adopted  within  less  than  a  month 
after  the  location  became  effective. 
Westwood  t'.  Dedham.  etc..  St.  R.  Co.. 
209  Mass.  213,  95  X.   E.   SI. 

Statute  not  authorizing  municipality  to 
impose  a  limitation  on  rates.— Under  the 
Massachusetts  statute,  Pul).  St.  18S2.  c. 
113,  §  43  (Rev.  Laws,  c.  112,  §  69),  pro- 
viding that  a  street  railwaj'  company  may 
estal)lish  the  rates  of  fare,  subject  to  its 
cliarter  and  the  statutes,  and  in  view  of 
tlie  course  of  legislation  (Pub.  St.  1882, 
c.  113,  §§  44,  45;  St.  1898,  pp.  747,  748, 
c.  578,  §§  23,  26;  St.  1901.  p.  113,  c.  ISO)  re- 
lating to  limitations  and  revision  of  rates 
of  fare.  St.  1898.  p.  743.  c.  578.  §  13,  pro- 
viding that  the  selectmen  of  a  town,  in 
granting  a  location  to  a  street  railway 
company,  may  impose  such  conditions  as 
the  public  interest  may  require,  does  not 
authorize  them  to  impose  a  limitation  on 
tlie  rates  of  fare  the  company  may 
charge.  Keefe  v.  Lexington,  etc..  St.  R. 
Co..  185  Mass.  183.  70  X.  E.  37;  Cunning- 
ham V.  Boston,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co..  ISS  Mass. 
250,   74   X.    E.   355. 

50.  Authority  of  village  to  bargain  as 
to  fare  to  points  outside  village. —  Public 
Service  Comm.  v.  Westchester  St.  R.  Co., 
206  N.  Y.  209.  99  N.  E.  536,  affirming 
order  151  App.  Div.  914.  135  N.  Y.  S.  1138. 


;§  90-91 


CARRIERS. 


78 


corporation  shall  not.  during  the  term  of  a  street  railway  grant,  or  renewal 
thereof,  release  the  grantee  from  anv  obligation  or  liability  thereby  imposed, 
because  such  contract  deprives  the  municipality  of  the  right  to  regulate  fares 
over  a  portion  of  the  consolidated  lines,  reserved  in  an  ordinance  adopted  before 
the  consolidation,  granting  a  renewal  franchise  to  the  corporation  which  then 
owned  such  portion  of  the  lines.^i  Under  a  statute  authorizing  towns  to  make 
contracts  granting  franchises  to  corporations  operating  street  railways,  which 
provides  that  the  charge  for  service  shall  not  exceed  the  price  charged  by  the 
corporation  at  the  time  of  granting  the  franchise,  a  contract  which  limits  the 
rate  of  fare  to  less  than  that  then  charged  by  the  corporation  is  not  beyond  the 
town's  authority. ^- 

§  91.  Change  of  Rates  of  Fare  Fixed  by  Franchise  or  Agreement.— 

Where  street  railway  fares  have  been  established  by  agreement  between  a  mu- 
nicipality and  a  street  railway  company,  the  municipality  can  not  reduce  such 
fares  while  the  agreement  remains  in  force ;  ^^  nor  can  the  fares  so  established 
be  changed  bv  the  street  railway  company.^^  Under  statutes  conferring  power 
upon  municip'alities  to  determine  the  conditions  of  the  grant  of  a  franchise  to 
a  street  railroad  company,  including  the  rates  of  fare  to  be  charged,  but  no 
power  to  thereafter  prescribe  rates  of  fare,  if  a  grant  by  a  municipality  itself 
fixes  the  rate  of  fare  a  reserved  right  of  regulation  does  not  authorize  the  mu- 
nicipality to  thereafter  change  it  during  the  life  of  the  grant.-^-^  A  statute  pro- 
viding that,  after  a  grant  or  renewal  of  a  grant  is  made  by  a  municipal  cor- 
poration, it  shall  not,  during    the    term    of  such  grant  or  renewal,  release  the 


51.  Effect  of  statute  prohibiting  munici- 
pality from  releasing  carrier  from  any  ob- 
ligation imposed  by  its  franchise. — De- 
cree, Cleveland  City  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland, 
94  Fed.  .38.5,  affirmed.  Cleveland  v.  Cleve- 
land City  R.  Co.,  194  U.  S.  517,  48  L.  Ed. 
1102,  24  S.  Ct.  756;  Cleveland  v.  Cleveland 
Elect.  R.  Co.,  194  U.  S.  538,  48  L.  Ed. 
1109.  24  S.  Ct.  764,  construing  Bates  Ann. 
St.    Ohio    1897,    §    2502. 

52.  Statute  held  to  authorize  contract 
limiting  fare  to  less  than  was  formerly 
charged. — Adams  z'.  Union  R.  Co.,  21  R. 
I.   134,  42  Atl.   515,  44  L.   R.   A.   273. 

53.  No  right  to  reduce  street  railway 
fares  established  by  agreement  between 
a  city  and  the  railway  company  subse- 
quent to  the  amendment  of  March  27, 
1867,  to  §  34  of  the  Michigan  tram  rail- 
way act,  so  long  as  by  such  reduction 
rights  or  franchises  already  granted  were 
not  destroyed  or  impaired,  or  the  com- 
pany deprived  of  granted  rights  of  con- 
struction and  operation,  was  given  such 
city  by  the  provision  of  that  amendment 
forbidding  municipal  authorities  from 
making  any  regulations  or  conditions 
which  would  have  that  effect,  as  such 
provision,  being  a  general  one,  does  not 
limit  the  express  authority  of  the  munic- 
ipality, previously  conferred  by  §  20  of 
the  Alichigan  street  railway  act,  to  bind 
itself  by  an  agreement  fixing  street_  rail- 
way fares.  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citizens' 
St.  R.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  368,  46  L.  Ed.  592,  22 
S.   Ct.   410. 

No  permission  to  municipal  authorities 
to  reduce  street  railway  fares  without  the 
consent    of   the   company   below   the   rate 


at  which  they  were  fixed  in  compliance 
with  Michigan  Street  Railway  Act  J867, 
§  20,  which  declares  that  such  rates  shall 
be  established  by  agreement  between  the 
parties,  can  be  implied  from  the  further 
provision  of  that  section  that  the  rates 
of  fare  agreed  upon  shall  not  be  in- 
creased without  the  consent  of  the  city 
authorities.  Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citizens' 
St.  R.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  368,  46  L.  Ed.  592, 
22  S.  Ct.  410. 

54.  Agreement  precluding  railway  com- 
pany from  abolishing  sale  of  six  tickets 
for  twenty-five  cents. — Where  an  ordi- 
nance is  passed  granting  a  street  railway 
company  terms  for  an  extension,  and  pro- 
viding that  the  rate  of  fare  shall  not  ex- 
ceed five  cents  per  single  fare,  or  six 
tickets  for  twenty-five  cents,  such  being 
the  rate  of  fare  before  the  passage  of  the 
ordinance,  neither  the  railway  company 
nor  another  company  to  which  it  has 
leased  its  line  can  abolish  the  sale  of  six 
tickets  for  twenty-five  cents  from  points 
on  the  two  lines  for  which  the  extension 
was  allowed  by  the  city.  Reading  v. 
United  Tract.  Co.,  236  Pa.  197,  84  Atl. 
666.  Compare  Philadelphia  v.  Philadel- 
phia Rapid  Transit  Co.,  338  Pa.  335,  77 
Atl.   501. 

55.  Reserved  right  of  regulation  not 
authorizing  change  in  rate  of  fare — Stat- 
utes construed. — Cleveland  City  R.  Co.  v. 
Cleveland,  94  Fed.  385.  Affirmed,  Cleve- 
land V.  Cleveland  City  R.  Co.,  194  U.  S. 
517,  48  L.  Ed.  1102,  24  S.  Ct.  756,  and 
Cleveland  v.  Cleveland  Elect.  R.  Co.,  194 
U.    S.    538,    48    L.    Ed.    1109,    24    S.    Ct.    764. 


79 


CONTROL    AND    REGULATION. 


§§  91-93 


grantee  from  any  obligation  or  lialjility  imposed  by  the  terms  of  such  grant  or 
renewal,  does  not  prohibit  a  city  making  a  grant  of  a  franchise  to  a  street-rail- 
road company,  in  which  it  reserves  the  right  to  change  the  rates  of  fare  to  be 
charged,   from  thereafter  modifying  such   contract  on   sufficient  consideration. •'^•• 

§  92.  Effect  of  Acceptance  by  Carrier  of  Location  Granted  by  Mu- 
nicipality.— 'I'he  accei)tance  by  a  street  railway  company  of  a  location  granted 
by  a  municipality  does  not  make  valid  conditions  in  the  grant  as  to  fares,  which 
the  town  could  not  legally  impose,  nor  does  it  make  a  contract  as  to  fares  be- 
tween the  com])any  and   the   municipality.-" 

§  93.  Conditions  and  Agreements  Construed. — Many  of  the  peculiar 
provisions  of  conditions  or  reservations  in  grants  of  franchises  to  street  rail- 
road companies  and  of  agreements  between  municipalities  and  such  companies 
have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts.  The  courts  have  thus  been  called  upon 
to  determine  whether  a  municipality  has  reserved  to  itself  the  right  to  fix  or 
to  reduce  rates  of  fare,'''*  what  fare  the  carrier  is  authorized  to  charge,-'"'"  the 
amount   that    will    cnlille  a   passenger   to   carriage,''"   whether   it   is   the   carrier's 


56.  Statute  not  precluding  municipal- 
ity from  exercising  reserved  right  to 
change  rates  of  fare. — Cleveland  City  R. 
Co.  V.  Ck'vclaiul,  '.»4  Fed.  385.  Affirmed, 
Cleveland  v.  Cleveland  City  R.  Co.,  194 
U.  S.  517,  48  L.  Ed.  1102,  24  S.  Ct.  756, 
and  Cleveland  r.  Cleveland  Elect.  R.  Co., 
194  U.  S.  538,  48  L.  Ed.  1109,  24  S.  Ct. 
764,    construing    Rev.    St.    Ohio,   §   2503. 

57.  Effect  of  acceptance  by  carrier  of 
location  granted  by  municipality. — Keefe 
V.  Lexiiii^ton,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  185  Mass. 
183.  TO   N.    l-'.  'M. 

58.  Reservation  not  authorizing  mu- 
nicipality to  fix  rates  of  fare. — A  reserva- 
tion in  an  ordinance  <?ranting  the  use  of 
streets  for  a  street  railroad  that  such  road 
shall  be  "subject  to  all  the  laws  and  or- 
dinances now  in  force,  and  such  as  may 
be  hereafter  made,"  does  not  authorize 
the  city  to  fix  rates  of  fare,  unless  it  is, 
either  expressly  or  by  necessary  impli- 
cation, thereto  authorized  by  some  law 
of  the  state.  Old  Colony  Trust  Co.  r. 
Atlanta,    S3    Fed.    39. 

Reservation  not  authorizing  municipal- 
ity to  reduce  rates  of  fare. — A  reserva- 
tion in  an  ordinance  {^ranting  a  street 
railway  franchise  of  the  ri^ht  from  time 
to  time  to  make  such  further  rules,  or- 
ders, or  regulations  as  to  the  common 
council  may  seem  proper,  does  not  in- 
clude the  right  on  the  part  of  the  city 
at  its  own  pleasure  to  reduce  the  rates 
of  fare  agreed  upon  in  such  ordinance. 
Detroit  v.  Detroit  Citizens'  St.  R.  Co., 
184  U.   S.   3C.S,  40   L.   Ed.   592.  22  S.   Ct.   410. 

59.  Carrier  only  authorized  to  charge 
single  fare  for  ride  in  both  divisions  of 
city. — Where  city  ordinances  granted  the 
right  to  operate  street  railway  lines  in 
the  South  and  West  divisions  of  the  city, 
and  provided  that  the  rate  of  fare  for 
any  distance  should  not  exceed  five  cents, 
the  street  railway  company  was  not 
thereby  authorized  to  charge  a  fare  of 
five  cents  for  a  ride  in  one  division,  and 


another  fare  for  a  ride  in  the  other  di- 
vision, but  only  to  charge  a  single  fare 
for  a  ride  in  both  divisions.  Chicago 
Union  Tract.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  199  111.  484, 
65  N.  E.  4.-)i.  .^)9  L.  R.  A.  ty.n. 

Fare  chargeable  from  point  in  village 
out  toward  another  village. — A  railroad 
company  operating  a  road  through  the 
village  of  H.  to  the  village  of  W.,  being 
entitled,  under  its  franchise,  to  charge 
one  fare  of  five  cents  between  the  limits 
of  the  village  of  H.  and  the  village  of  W., 
where  a  charge  of  one  fare  was  made 
through  the  village  of  H.  to  a  point 
therein,  another  fare  could  be  charged 
from  that  point  out  toward  the  village 
of  W.,  without  incurring  the  penalty  for 
charging  excessive  fares,  under  Railroad 
Law,  §  39  (Laws  1890,  p.  1096,  c.  565). 
Byars  v.  Bennington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  App. 
Div.  34,  90  N.  Y.  S.  736,  affirmed  in  184 
X.   Y.    554,    76    X.    E.    1090. 

Rates  prescribed  between  certain 
points  binding  though  points  are  beyond 
limits  of  municipality. — .\  street  railway 
operating  its  lino  tlirough  a  village  under 
a  franchise  from  such  village,  which  pro- 
vides for  a  certain  rate  of  fare  per  mile 
between  certain  points,  is  bound  by  such 
rate,  even  though  the  points  specified  are 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  village.  Vining 
V.  Detroit,  etc..  Railway,  133  Mich.  539, 
95   X.   W.    542. 

60.  Right  to  ride  for  five  cents. — .\ 
franchise  to  a  street  railway  from  the 
village  of  W.,  situated  wholly  %vithin  the 
township  of  X..  providing  that  the  com- 
pany shall  be  entitled  to  charge  at  the  rate 
of  one  and  a  half  cents  per  mile,  except  as 
thereinafter  provided,  for  a  continuous 
trip,  provided  no  passenger  shall  be  car- 
ried for  a  less  fare  than  five  cents  for  any 
distance,  does  not  prevent  one  having  the 
right  to  ride  for  five  cents  between  any 
two  points  in  X.  township,  though  he  may 
pass  through  the  village  of  W..  or  go 
from  a  point  within   it  to  a  point  outside 


§  93 


CARRIERS. 


80 


duty  to  sell  tickets  at  a  stipulated  price/'^  what  obligation  the  carrier  is  under 
in  relation  to  the  giving  of  transfers/'-  who  may  travel  at  the  rate  prescribed, '^'^ 
what  institutions  of  learning  art 


included  in  the  word  "schools,"  where  a  street 


in  N.  township.  Kissane  v.  Detroit,  etc.. 
Railway.  121   Mich.  175,  79  N.  W.  1104. 

Through  passenger  entitled  to  ride 
through  township  and  villages  therein  at 
township  rate. —  In  Michigan,  where  the 
councils  and  township  boards  of  several 
cities,  villages,  and  townships,  under 
whose  ordinances  and  resolutions  an  elec- 
tric railway  runs,  fixed  a  rate  for  travel 
thereon  through  each  city,  village,  and 
township  respectively,  a  through  passen- 
ger would  be  entitled  to  ride  through  a 
township  and  the  villages  therein  at  the 
township  rate,  since  a  village  is  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  township  board  as  to 
all  but  village  affairs.  Coy  v.  Detroit,  etc.. 
Railway.    125    Mich.    G16,    85    N.    W.    6. 

Passenger  entitled  to  ride  beyond  town- 
ship limits  at  rate  prescribed. — Where  a 
township,  in  pursuance  of  the  Michigan 
statute,  Comp.  Laws  1897,  §  6446,  on 
granting  consent  to  an  electric  railway 
company  to  construct  and  operate  its  line 
along  the  highways  of  the  township,  im- 
posed a  condition  that  the  railway  com- 
pany should  not  charge  more  than  two 
cents  per  mile  for  each  passenger  carried, 
provided  that  no  single  fare  should  be  less 
than  five  cents,  a  passenger  taking  a  car 
in  the  township  was  entitled  to  ride  over 
the  entire  line  at  the  rate  of  two  cents  per 
mile,  though  it  extended  beyond  the  town- 
ship limits,  provided  that  the  total  amount 
paid  should  not  be  less  than  five  cents. 
Ross  Tp.  V.  Michigan  United  R.  Co. 
(Alich.),    130   X.   W.    358. 

61.  Franchise  requiring  sale  of  five  tick- 
ets for  50  cents. — A  street-railway  com- 
pany operating  under  a  franchise  requir- 
ing the  sale  of  five  tickets  for  fifty  cents, 
Avhich  sells  such  tickets  in  two  parts,  one 
of  which  is  good  to  a  named  point  on  the 
line,  and  the  other  part  good  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  trip,  will  not  be  heard  to 
say,  in  an  action  for  damages  for  refusal 
to  sell  five  tickets  to  one  who  had  paid 
his  fare  on  the  first  part  of  the  line  with 
a  stub,  intending  to  pay  for  the  remainder 
of  the  trip  with  a  stub  from  the  new  tick- 
ets, that  the  franchise  called  only  for  the 
acceptance  of  a  through  ticket  in  pay- 
ment of  fare,  and  hence  plaintiff  could  not 
recover  for  defendant's  failure  to  furnish 
a  ticket  in  two  parts,  not  called  for  by  the 
franchise.  Rice  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
122  Mich.  677,  81  N.  W.  927,  48  L.  R. 
A.    84. 

62.  Carrier  not  required  to  grant  trans- 
fers from  lines  in  one  city  to  those  in  an- 
other.— A  street  railway  company  per- 
mitted to  construct  a  railway  in  a  city  on 
condition  that  the  fare  for  riding  in  the 
city  be  five  cents,  and  that  it  gives  trans- 
fers to  all  of  its  lines,  took  an  assign- 
ment of  all  the  rights  and  succeeded  to  all 


tlie  obligations  of  another  street  railway 
companj-  which  had  constructed  a  line  in 
an  adjoining  city  on  the  same  condition. 
Held  tliat,  having  been  permitted  to  con- 
nect the  lines  without  any  such  condition, 
it  was  not  required  to  grant  transfers 
from  the  lines  in  one  city  to  those  in  the 
other.  Montpelier  v.  Barre,  etc..  Power 
Co..    76    \'t.    66,    56    Atl.    278. 

Country  passengers  entitled  to  same 
transfer  rights  as  city  passengers. — The 
franchise  of  a  street  railway  provided 
that  passengers  on  a  line  extending  into 
the  countrjr  should,  on  arriving  in  the 
city  at  a  certain  point,  be  transferred  to 
the  cars  of  another  line,  and,  when  so 
transferred,  should  have  the  same  rights 
and  privileges  as  passengers  on  that  line. 
Passengers  on  the  latter  Ihie  were  en- 
titled, without  additional  fare,  to  one 
transfer  therefrom  to  any  of  the  com- 
pany's cars  going  in  the  same  direction. 
Held,  that  passengers  on  the  country  ex- 
tension, on  arriving  in  the  city,  were  en- 
titled to  a  transfer  to  the  main  line,  and 
thereafter,  without  additional  fare,  to  a 
transfer  to  other  cars  going  in  the  same 
direction,  as  long  as  the  city  passengers 
were  entitled  thereto;  since  the  franchise 
entitled  country  passengers  to  the  same 
privileges  as  city  passengers,  and  not 
merely  to  the  same  number  of  transfers. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown,  97  Va. 
36,    32    S.    E.    775. 

Line  held  an  intersecting  line  within  ob- 
ligation to  give  transfers  to  intersecting 
lines. — Tlie  ordinance  granting  a  francliise 
to  a  street  railroad  company  provided  that 
it  should  sell  half-fare  tickets  between 
certain  hours,  and  give  transfers  at  points 
where  one  line  intersected  with  another. 
The  company  owned  a  line  which  ex- 
tended from  its  point  of  intersection  with 
another  line  to  the  city  limits,  beyond  which 
it  was  owned  by  a  different  corporation, 
which,  however,  ran  its  cars  with  the 
same  operatives  into  the  city  and  to  the 
point  of  intersection.  Held,  that  this  line 
was  an  intersecting  line,  to  which  the 
provisions  as  to  half-fare  tickets  and 
transfers  appHed.  Virginia  Passenger,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  103  Va.  644,  49 
vS.    E.   995. 

63.  Who  may  travel  at  the  rate  pre- 
scribed.— Where  the  ordinance  of  one  of 
several  villages,  townships,  and  cities,  un- 
der whose  ordinances  an  electric  railway 
runs,  entitled  such  railway  to  charge  at 
the  rate  of  one  and  a  half  cents  a  mile 
for  travel  on  its  road  between  any  two 
points  thereon,  any  member  of  the  public, 
though  not  a  resident  of  such  village,  was 
entitled  to  ride  at  such  rate.  Coy  v.  De- 
troit, etc.,  Railway,  125  Mich.  616.  85  N. 
W.   6. 


81 


CONTROL    AND    RKGLLATIOX. 


§§  ^-^3-94 


railway  company  is  required  to  provide  pupils  in  schools  transportation  at  half 
price/''*  and  the  effect  of  annexation  of  territory  by  the  municipality  subsequent 
to  its  agreement  with  the  carrier.'''^  A  construction  of  a  contract  in  a  franchise 
to  carry  school  children  for  half  price,  acquiesced  in  Ijy  the  parties  binds  their 
future  actions.'''' 

§  94.  Waiver  of  Right  to  Charge  More  than  Amount  Stipulated  in 
Franchise. — Where  a  town  granted  a   franchise   t(j   a   ■-irL-ci-raihoad   conipanN', 


64.  The  word  "schools"  is  one  of  broad 
signilication,  aiul  .sonictiincs  it  may  appear, 
by  the  connection  in  which  it  is  used,  to 
include  higher  institutions  of  learning; 
but  ordinarily,  and  without  something  to 
indicate  that  a  wider  meaning  was  in- 
tended to  be  given  to  the  word,  it  will  not 
be  taken  to  include  higher  institutions  of 
learning,  such  as  colleges,  universities,  or 
institutions  for  the  teaching  of  trades, 
professions,  or  business;  and  where  a 
street  railway  was,  as  a  condition  to  a 
grant  of  a  location,  required  to  provide 
to  pupils  in  attendance  upon  the  pul^lic 
schools,  the  state  normal  school  of  W., 
or  any  school  in  W.,  transportation  at 
half  price  while  going  to  and  from  school, 
neither  a  college  nor  a  business  institute 
in  W.  could  fairly  come  within  the  lan- 
guage of  the  restriction.  Clinton  v.  Wor- 
cester, etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  199  Mass.  279, 
85   N.   K.   507. 

65.  Ordinance  prescribing  rates  of  fare 
has  eflfect  in  territory  subsequently  an- 
nexed.— An  ordinance  accei)ce<l  In'  a  street 
railway  company  providing  that  at  certain 
hours  during  the  day  the  company  should 
charge  certain  fares  over  its  lines  within 
the  city  must  be  construed  strictly  against 
the  company,  and  therefore  has  equal  ef- 
fect in  territory  subsequently  annexed  to 
the  city.  People  v.  Detroit  United  Rail- 
way, 102  Mich.  460,  127  N.  W.  748,  affirm- 
ing judgment  125  N.  W.  700,  on  rehearing. 

.\i\  ordinance  was  passed  providing 
tliat  a  street  railroad  company  should 
furnish  workingmen's  tickets  at  a  re- 
duced rate,  good  over  any  of  its  lines  in 
the  city,  which  ordinance  was  accepted 
by  the  railway,  and  the  same  ordinance 
gave  the  railway  a  right  to  extend  its 
tracks  to  the  easterly  limits  of  the  city. 
Subsequently  the  railway  franchise  was 
assigned  to  a  united  company,  which 
thereafter  purchased  a  suburl)an  line 
wholly  without  the  limits  of  the  city. 
The  city  then  extended  its  limits  to  cover 
a  portion  of  the  territory  in  which  the 
purchased  railroad  was.  Held,  that  since 
there  were  two  methods  of  extending  a 
street  railway,  one  by  construction,  and 
the  other  by  purchase  under  Comp.  Laws 
1897,  §  ()448,  the  purchase  of  the  suburban 
railway  by  the  united  company  was  an 
"extension,"  and  hence  the  company  was 
bound  by  the  ordinance,  regardless  of  the 
franchise  of  the  suburban  railroad.  Peo- 
ple r.  Detroit  United  Railway,  1()2  Mich. 
4f)0,  125  N.  W.  70n.  judgment  affirmed  on 
rehearing  1:27   X.   W.   74S. 


Held,  also  that  the  ordinance  covered 
future  extensions  of  the  city  limits,  since 
it  was  reasonably  in  the  contemplation  of 
the  original  parties  that  thj  limits  would 
be  extended;  and  hence  the  company  was 
bound  to  give  such  reduced  fares  on  its 
purchased  line.  People  v.  Detroit  United 
Railway,  102  Mich.  400,  125  X.  W.  700, 
127    X.    W.    748. 

Passengers  within  territory  annexed 
must  be  carried  at  rate  prescribed. — A 
franchise  to  operate  a  system  of  street 
railroads  in  a  city  which  provides  that  the 
fare  shall  not  exceed  five  cents  between 
points  within  the  city  limits,  though  a 
transfer  shall  be  necessary,  is  applicable 
to  territory  subsequently  annexed  to  the 
city,  and  passengers  within  the  territory 
annexed  must  be  carried  for  five  cents. 
Dennison  v.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Wash. 
167,    116    Pac.    638. 

A  contract  between  a  city  and  a  street 
railway  operating  its  lines  in  the  city 
wliich  binds  the  company  to  carry  pas- 
sengers within  the  city  for  a  single  fare 
not  exceeding  five  cents,  and  to  issue 
transfers  to  all  passengers  for  a  contin- 
uous trip  one  way  to  and  from  all  lines 
in  the  city,  is  binding  on  the  company  op- 
crating  a  line  in  territory  outside  of  the 
city  under  a  county  franchise  on  the  ter- 
ritory being  subsequently  annexed  to  the 
city.  Peterson  z'.  Tacoma,  etc..  R.  Co., 
on  Wash.  400,  ni   Pac.  .'338. 

Carrier  bound  to  accept  transfer  to  pas- 
senger's destination  in  territory  annexed. 
— .\  street  railroad  operating  its  lines  in 
a  city  under  a  contract  to  issue  transfer 
tickets  free  of  charge  to  all  passengers  re- 
questing the  same,  who  might  board  its 
cars  at  any  point  on  any  of  its  lines  in 
the  city,  and  whose  destination  might  be 
to  any  other  point  on  any  other  line  of 
the  company's  road  in  the  limits  of  the 
city,  is  bound  to  transport  a  passenger 
tendering  such  transfer  to  his  destination 
on  the  company's  line,  though  that  be  in 
territory  annexed  to  the  city  after  the 
contract  was  made,  and  on  its  interurban 
line,  on  which  it  had  a  francliise  entitling 
it  to  charge  an  additional  fare  outside  the 
city  as  its  limits  were  before  the  annexa- 
tion of  territory.  Indiana  R.  Co.  f.  HoflF- 
man,  KU   Ind.  ."J93.  (■)9  X.   1{.  :!'.>'.i. 

66.  Construction  acquiesced  in  by  par- 
ties binds  their  future  actions. — Seattle 
f.  Seattle  l-.lect.  Co.,  71  Wash.  213,  128 
Pac.    220. 


1   Car— 0 


§§  94-96 


CARRir;RS 


the  contract  stipulating  that  the  fare  hetween  any  two  points  on  its  lines  should 
not  exceed  five  cents,  the  grantee  waived  its  right  to  charge  more  as  successor 
of  another  company  whose  charter  allowed  it  to  charge  ten  cents,  under  which 
charter  the  grantee'  had  established  a  fare  of  five  cents  for  a  continuous  ride/'" 

§  95  Acquisition  by  Sale  or  Consolidation  of  a  Railway  Compan} 
Having  a  Contract  with  a  Municipality. — Where  a  street  railway  company 
acquires  a  locaiion  from  the  selectmen  of  a  town,  which  provides  that  no  higher 
than  a  specified  fare  rate  shall  be  charged,  a  subsequent  corporation  acquiring 
the  assets  and  franchises  of  the  original  company  under  a  general  law,  author- 
izing such  acquisition  by  sale  or  consolidation  takes  subject  to  the  same  obli- 
gation."^ 

§§  96-1C8.  Preferences  and  Discriminations — §  96.  The  Common- 
Law  Doctrine. — Independent  of  statute,  every  common  carrier  must  carry  for 
all  to  the  extent  of  its  capacity,  without  undue  or  unreasonable  discrimination 
either  in  charges  or  facilities. •'''•^  It  can  not  so  operate  its  road  or  conduct  its 
business  as  to  give  an  undue  advantage  to  certain  individuals,  to  the  exclusion 
of  others.""  It  is  no  proper  business  of  a  common  carrier  to  foster  particular 
enterprise  or  to  build  up  new  industries,  but.  deriving  its  franchise  from  the 
legislature,  and  depending  upon  the  will  of  the  people  for  its  very  existence,  it 
is  bound  to  deal  fairly  with  the  public,  to  extend  them  reasonable  facilities  for 
the  transportation  of  their  persons  and  property,  and  to  put  all  its  patrons  upon 
an  absolute  equality.''^     But  it  has  been  held  that  a  common  carrier  is  permitted 


67.  Waiver  of  right  to  charge  more  than 
amount  stipulated  in  franchise. — Adams 
T.  Union  R.  Co..  21  R.  I.  134,  42  Atl.  515, 
44  L.   R.  A.  273. 

68.  Acquisition  by  sale  or  consolidation 
of  a  railway  company  having  a  contract 
with  a  municipality. — \\\stwood  z'.  Ded- 
ham.  etc..  St.  R.  Co..  209  M;tss.  213.  95  N. 
E.  81,  construing  St.  190G,  c.  463,  pt.  3, 
§§  144.  145. 

69.  Duty  not  to  discriminate  as  to 
charges  or  facilities. — .\tcliison,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  667, 
28    L.    Ed.    291,    4    S.    Ct.    185. 

A  railroad  company  as  a  common  car- 
rier is  required  to  treat  the  public  with 
equality  and  fairness.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Rust,  58  Tex.  9§. 

Section  6  of  the  constitution  of  Col- 
orado providing  that:  "All  individuals, 
associations,  and  corporations  shall  have 
equal  rights  to  have  persons  and  property 
transported  over  any  railroad  in  this  state, 
and  no  undue  or  unreasonable  discrimi- 
nation shall  be  made  in  charges  or  facili- 
ties for  transportation  of  freight  or  pas- 
sengers within  the  state,  and  no  railroad 
company,  nor  any  lessee,  manager,  or 
employee  thereof,  shall  give  any  prefer- 
ence to  individuals,  associations,  or  cor- 
porations in  furnishing  cars  or  motive 
power,"  imposed  no  greater  obligation 
upon  a  railroad  company  than  the  com- 
mon law  imposed  upon  it.  Atchison,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S. 
667,  28   L.    Ed.  291,   4   S.   Ct.   185. 

Where  a  railroad  voluntarily  estab- 
lishes as  to  a  certain  favored  class  of 
shippers  a  rate  so  low  as  to  be  unremu- 
nerative,    the    rate    must    nevertheless    be 


granted  to  all  alike.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  86  Miss.  667,  38 
So.  356,  affirmed  in  203  U.  S.  496,  51  L. 
Ed.  289,   27   S.   Ct.   163. 

70.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Central 
Stock  Yards  Co.,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  18,  97  S. 
W.   778. 

Carriers  may  not  discriminate  between 
markets  or  individuals  in  granting  the 
privilege  of  milling  lumber  in  transit. 
Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
59    Fla.    612,    52    So.    4. 

71.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Goodridge, 
149  U.  S.  680,  37  L.  Ed.  986,  13  S.  Ct._970 
(holding  that  this  principle  is  recognized 
in  the  "Colorado  act  of  1885  prohibiting 
discriminations   in   charges). 

Railway  companies  derive  their  charter 
rights  from  the  state  and  owe  an  equal 
duty  to  every  citizen,  and  they  can  not 
exercise  their  charter  rights  in  such  man- 
ner as  to  benefit  an  individual,  town  or 
community,  to  the  detriment  of  another. 
H.  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  63  Tex.  322. 

A  "rebilling  rate,"  to  receive  the  sanc- 
tion of  law,  must  operate  uniformly_  and 
fairly,  and  can  not  lawfully  be  restricted 
to  shippers  in  a  certain  locality  who  pre- 
viously receive  freights  over  a  certain 
other  favored  associate  carrier.  Alabama, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  86  Miss. 
667,  38  So.  356.  Affirmed  203  U.  S.  496, 
51   L.   Ed.  289,   27  S.   Ct.   163. 

A  true  rebilling  rate  is  one  in  which 
goods  received  in  unbroken  car  load  lots 
over  one  line  of  railway  can  be  rebilled 
over  the  same  or  another  line,  completing 
one  continuous  trip,  simply  changing  the 
consignee,  and  altering  the  destination  of 


83 


CONTROL    AND    RKGULATION. 


§§  96-98 


to  discriminate  in  freight  rates,  provided  the  circumstances  are  not  such  as  to 
make  such  (hscrimination  unjust  and  unreasonable,  and  that  one  complaining 
of  such  disrriniiiiation  is  refiuired  to  show  that  it  is  unjust  and  unreasonable.' - 

§  97.  Standard  Measure  of  Uniformity  in  Rates.— To  procure  uniform- 
ity in  llie  rales  of  carriers,  there  niu>l  lie  a  standard  measurement,  and  the  only 
standard  measure  i)ossil)le  in  order  to  insure  alisolute  uniformity  is  money."-' 

§  98.  Power   to    Prohibit   Preferences    and   Discriminations.— A    state 

acting'  throuf^li  its  legislature  ma}-  prohibit  a  coninioii  ca.rrier  from  t^ivingjjref- 
erences  and  from  making  discriminations  either  in  its  charges  or  facilities. 
This  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power.'-*  Ikit  in  exercising  this  power  the 
legislature  must  act  within  constitutional  limitations,^-''  and  the  provisions  of 
the  prohil)iting  statute  must  be  certain."'"'     I'ower  is  frequently  conferred  upon 


the  identical  siiipnicnt,  without  unloading. 
Alabama,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm.. 
8(5  Miss.  G67,  38  So.  350,  al'tirmed  in  20.3 
U.  S.  496,  51  L.  Ed.  289,  27  S.  Ct.  1G3. 

A  so-called  "rebilling  rate"  adopted  by 
a  railroad,  which  is  not  applied  to  con- 
signments arriving  over  all  connecting 
lines,  1)Ut  is  only  availal)le  to  those  re- 
ceiving freight  over  associate  lines,  and 
under  which  freight  rcconsigned  over  the 
rel)illing  road  does  not  complete  one  con- 
tinuous trip  without  rehandling,  and  is  not 
necessarily  the  identical  shipment  origi- 
nally consigned,  there  I)eing  a  custom  of 
granting  dealers  handling  freight  over  the 
associate  line  the  privilege  within  ninety 
days  from  the  date  of  their  "expense 
bills,"  or  receipts  showing  the  amount  of 
freight  received  over  such  line,  of  ship- 
ping an  equal  amount  of  freight  over  the 
relnlling  line  at  the  rate  adopted,  is  not 
a  true  rel)illing  rate.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  86  Miss.  667,  38 
So.  356.  affirmed  in  203  U.  S.  496,  51  L. 
Ed.   2S9,   27    S.    Ct.    163. 

72.  Discrimination  in  freight  rates  per- 
missible if  not  unjust  and  unreasonable. 
—Railroad  Comm.  v.  Weld,  Uf,  Tex.  :5',)4, 
73  S.  W.  .■')29,  rcversiuL;  t)S  S.  W.  1117: 
Houston,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Rust,  ."iS   Tex.  '.)S. 

73.  Only  standard  measure  of  uniform- 
ity possible  is  money. — State  v.  Union 
Pac.    R.    Co.,    S7    Xeb.    29,    126    N.   W.    859. 

"If  a  railway  company  can  adopt  the 
principle  of  barter  and  receive  in  return 
for  its  service  specific  articles  the  value 
of  which  may  vary  from  day  to  day,  and 
often  may  be  uncertain,  the  magnitude  of 
the  task  of  ascertainment  of  the  value  of 
each  article  alone  would  render  the  reg- 
ulation of  rates,  so  as  to  prevent  dis- 
crimination, alisolutely  impossible."  State 
V.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  87  Neb.  29.  126  N. 
W.   859. 

74.  Statute  prohibiting  discriminations 
an  exercise  of  police  power.  Tlu-  Ken- 
tucky statute,  St.  1903,  S§  818.  819.  pro- 
hiliiting  discriminations  by  common  car- 
riers and  providing  penalties  therefor, 
was  but  a  further  exercise  of  the  state's 
police  power  to  regulate  carriers  and  de- 
signed to  provide  a  means  of  compelling- 
obedience  to  the  mandatory  provisions  o! 


Const.,  §  213,  relating  to  the  same  subject. 
Eouisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Stock 
Yards  Co..  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1^,  97  S.  W. 
778. 

Power  of  legislature  to  prohibit  free 
transportation. — The  Nebraska  statute, 
Laws  1907,  p.  342.  c.  93,  prohibiting  the 
issuance  acceptance,  and  use  of  free  trans- 
portation, is  within  the  power  of  the  leg- 
islature to  regulate  the  business  of  com- 
mon carriers  by  preventing  unjust  dis- 
crimination. State  V.  Martyn.  82  Neb. 
225.    117   N.   W.   719. 

Power  of  legislature  to  prohibit  unjust 
discriminations  in  fixing  joint  rates. — The 
Iowa  statute,  .Vets  23(1  Gen.  Assem.,  c.  17, 
§  1,  providing  that  unjust  discriminations 
made  by  railroad  companies  in  fixing  joint 
rates  shall  lie  punished  under  Acts  22d 
Gen.  Assem.,  c.  28,  is  constitutional. 
Blair  v.  Sioux,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Iowa).  73 
N.  W.   1053. 

The  state  may  supervise  a  carrier's 
branch  roads  l)uilt  by  it  for  lumbermen, 
and  thereby  prevent  discrimination.  De- 
troit, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Michigan  R.  Comm., 
171    Mirh.    32.').    137    \.    W.    329. 

75.  Power  of  legislature  restrained  to  a 
prohibition  of  unjust  discriminations.— 
Tlie  Illinois  statute,  act  July  1,  1871,  mak- 
ing any  discrimination  by  railroad  com- 
panies in  their  charges  for  freight  a  penal 
offense,  and  providing  for  a  forfeiture  of 
all  their  franchises  for  any  willful  viola- 
tion of  the  act,  without  an}'  other  penalty 
for  the  first  offense,  violates  the  provision 
of  Const.,  art.  11,  §  15,  that  "the  general 
assembly  shall  pass  laws  to  correct  abuses 
and  prevent  unjust  discrimination  and  ex- 
tortion in  the  rates  of  freight  and  passenger 
tariffs  on  tlie  different  roads  in  the  state,  and 
enforce  such  laws  by  adequate  penalties, 
to  the  extent,  if  necessary  for  that  p.ir- 
pose.  of  forfeiture  of  their  property  and 
franchises."  The  power  of  the  legislature 
is,  liy  implication,  restrained  to  a  prohi- 
bition of  those  discriminations  which  are 
unjust.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
67   111.   11,   16   km.    Rep.   599. 

76.  Statute  void  for  uncertainty. — The 
Kentucky  statute,  §  818,  providing  that  it 
shall  be  unlawful  for  any  corporation  to 
make  or  give  "any  undue  or  unreasonable 


§  98 


CARRIERS. 


84 


corporation  or  railroad  commissions  to  make  and  enforce  snch  regulations  as 
mav  be  necessary  to  prexxnt  unjust  or  unreasonable  discriminations  by  carriers, 
or  to  correct  charges  made  by  a  carrier  which  are  unjustly  discriminatory." 
Certain  municipal  ordinances  prohibiting  discrimination  by  carriers  have  been 
held  valid."  ^ 


preference  or  advantage"  to  any  particular 
person  or  locality,  or  any  particular  de- 
scription of  traffic,  in  the  transportation 
of  a  like  kind  of  traffic,  is  void  for  uncer- 
taintv.  Commonwealth  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co..  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  491,  4r,  S.  W.  TOO. 
77.  Power  conferred  upon  corporation 
or  railroad  commissions. — The  railroad 
commission  of  Georgia,  under  the  author- 
ity given  by  Civ.  Code  1895,  §  2189,  to 
make  such  reasonable  rules  as  may  be 
necessary  to  prevent  unjust  discrimination 
in  transportation  of  freight,  has  power  to 
promulgate  a  rule  requiring  railroad  com- 
panies to  afford  all  persons  equal  facilities 
in  the  transportation  of  freight,  without 
unjust  discrimination.  Augusta  Broker- 
age Co.  V.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Ga. 
48,   48    S.    E.    714. 

Under  the  Railroad  Commission  Act  of 
1907.  the  commission  held  to  have  au- 
thority to  declare  as  an  unlawful  discrimi- 
nation a  course  of  conduct  of  a  company 
with  relation  to  connecting  lines.  Wad- 
ley  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  State,  137  Ga.  497, 
73  S.  E.  741. 

The  Mississippi  statute. — Code  1892,  § 
4297,  authorizes  the  railroad  commission 
to  determine  all  complaints  made  of  any 
tariff  of  rates  made  by  any  railroad,  or 
fixed  or  approved  by  the  commission,  on 
the  ground  that  the  charges  are  unjust 
or  discriminatory,  and  provides  _  that 
when,  by  investigation,  the  commission  is 
satisfied  of  the  justice  of  the  complaint, 
it  shall  give  notice  of  any  change  deemed 
proper,  and  require  compliance  with  the 
order.  Held,  that  the  commission  had 
power  to  abolish  a  condition  precedent 
to  the  enjoyment  of  a  so-called  "rebilling 
rate,"  voluntarily  established  by  a  rail- 
road, restricting  the  rate  to  the  exclusive 
benefit  of  those  who  had  received  pre- 
vious and  eaual  shipments  of  freight  over 
an  associated  line  connecting  at  one  termi- 
nus of  the  road,  and  to  convert  the  rate 
into  an  open  or  flat  rate,  so  that  all  deal- 
ers handling  grain  in  car  load  lots  could 
enjoy  the  rate  then  in  force  between  the 
termini.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,  8f)  Miss.  6G7,  38  So.  356,  affirmed 
in  203  U.  S.  490.  51  L.  Ed.  289.  27  S.  Ct. 
103. 

The  Constitution  of  Oklahoma,  art.  9, 
§  18,  providing  that  the  state  corporation 
commission  shall  require  carriers  to  es- 
tablish and  maintain  such  public  facilities 
as  may  be  reasonable,  and  from  time_  to 
time  shall  make  and  enforce  such  require- 
ments and  regulations  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  prevent  unjust  or  unreasonable 
discrimination  in  favor  of  any  person,  lo- 
cality,  etc.,   in    the   matter   of   car    service 


or  efficiency  of  transportation,  does  not 
give  such  commission  power  to  require  a 
carrier  at  its  owi\  expense  to  provide  such 
equal  facilities  between  private  persons  or 
corjiorations  as  to  overcome  or  equalize  dis- 
advantages caused  by  dissimilarity  of  lo- 
cation. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State, 
27    Okla.    426,    112    Pac.    1121. 

The  Railroad  Commission  Law  of  Ore- 
gon (Laws  1907),  p.  70,  c.  53,  §  11), 
makes  the  term  "railroad"  as  used  therein 
include  all  corporations  which  operate  by 
electric  power  any  interurban  railroad, 
etc.  Section  28  authorizes  the  railroad 
commission,  upon  complaint  of  any  mu- 
nicipality that  fares  are  unreasonable,  or 
discriminatory,  to  investigate  and  order 
just  and  reasonable  fares,  upon  finding 
that  those  complained  of  are  unreasonable 
or  unjustly  discriminatory.  Section  48 
makes  it  unlawful  to  charge  smaller  com- 
pensation to  persons  furnishing  part  of 
the  facilities  than  to  other  persons.  Sec- 
tion 49  makes  the  giving  of  an  unreason- 
able preference,  or  the  subjecting  of  any 
person  to  an  unreasonable  prejudice,  an 
unjust  discrimination.  Section  59  requires 
the  act  to  be  liberally  construed  to  attain 
the  public  welfare  and  substantial  justice 
between  passengers  and  railroads.  Sec- 
tion 61  makes  the  duties  of  railroads  the 
same  as  at  common  law,  and  the  remedies 
against  them  the  same,  except  where 
otherwise  provided,  and  makes  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act  cumulative.  Held,  in 
view  of  §  61,  that  the  railroad  commission 
could  correct  charges  made  by  an  electric 
railroad  company  which  were  unjustly 
discriminatory  as  to  a  locality,  upon  com- 
plaint of  a  town,  independent  of  Laws 
1909,  p.  158,  c.  97,  making  the  provisions 
of  the  railroad  commission  law  applicable 
to  any  locality.  Portland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Comm.,  56  Ore.  468,  105  Pac. 
709,  rehearing  denied  109  Pac.  273. 

78.  The  fact  that  an  ordinance  requires 
an  omnibus  driver  to  carry  any  person 
tendering  himself  as  a  passenger,  whether 
the  driver  desires  to  carry  liim  or  not, 
does  not  render  it  invalid.  Atlantic  City 
V.   Brown,  72  N.  J.  L.  207,  62  Atl.  428. 

An  ordinance  requiring  the  driver  of 
an  omnibus  under  all  circumstances  to  ac- 
cept a  person  tendering  himself  as  a  pas- 
senger was  held  not  wholly  void,  but  only 
so  far  as  it  imposed  the  penalty  pre- 
scribed therein  against  those  whose  re- 
fusal to  accept  a  person  who  offered  him- 
self as  a  passenger  was  justified  by  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  refusal  oc- 
curred. Atlantic  City  v.  Brown,  72  N.  J. 
L.   207,   62   A^\.   428. 

An  ordinance   making  it  unlawful   for  a 


85 


COXTROL    AND    REGULATION. 


§§   99-100 


§  99.  Power  of  Legislature  to  Permit  Discrimination. — A  .stale  con- 
stitution prohibiting  undue  or  unrcasonahk-  di^rriiniiiaiicju  in  charges  or  facil- 
ities for  the  transportation  of  passengers  within  the  state  takes  from  the  legis- 
lature the  power  of  abolishing  this  rule  as  applied  to  railroad  companies. ^» 
Hut  it  has  Ijccu  hcM  that  a  constitution  providing  that  "transportation  of  freight 
and  passengers  by  railroad,  steamboat,  or  other  common  carrier  shall  be  so 
rcndated  by  general  law  as  to  prevent  unjust  discrimination,"  authorizes  the 
legislature  to  prescribe  other  circumstances  and  conditions  than  those  prescribed 
in  the  constitution  in  which  carriers  may  discriminate  in  respect  to  charges  for 
transportation,  being  a  recognition  oi  tlie  justice  of  authorizing  discrimination 
deemed  just.^" 

§  100.  Construction  of  Constitutional  and  Statutory  Enactments 
and   Commission   Orders   Forbidding  Preferences   or  Discriminations. — 

Many  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  cejustilulional  and  statutory  enactments  and 
commission  (U'ders  forbidding  preferences  or  discriminations  by  carriers  have 
received  judicial  interpretation.  The  courts  have  been  called  upon  to  constnie 
such  enactments  or  orders  forbidding  unjust  discrimination,''^  forbidding  un- 
equal preferences,^-  forbidding  unjust  or  unreasonable  discriminauons  iii 
charges, •'^^  requiring  railroads  to  give  reasonable  and  equal  terms,  facilities  and 


driver  of  a  puljlic  convej-ance  to  refuse  to 
convey  any  passenger  in  Atlantic  City  is 
a  reasonable  exercise  of  power.  Atlantic 
City  V.  Fonsler,  70  N.  J.  L.  125,  56  Atl. 
119. 

79.  Power  of  legislature  to  permit  dis- 
crimination.— Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  674.  28 
L.  Ed.  291,  4  S.  Ct.  185  (construing  Colo- 
rado  constitution). 

80.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth (Ky.),  46  S.  W.  702,  construing 
Constitution    of    Kentucky,    §§    196,    215. 

81.  Statute  applicable  only  to  trans- 
portation "between  points  within  the 
state." — The  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.  is;).'), 
art.  4575,  providing  that,  if  any  railroad 
subject  to  the  act  unjustly  discriminates 
against  a  person,  it  shall  be  liable  to  the 
one  injured  thereby  for  a  certain  penalty, 
is  not  applicable  to  discriminations  as  to 
the  delivery  of  freight  shipped  from  an- 
other state;  art.  4580  providing  that  the 
act  shall  apply  to  and  afifect  only  the 
transportation  of  freight  and  cars  "be- 
tween points  within  the  state."  Judgment 
(Civ.  App.)  42  S.  W.  362,  affirmed. 
Fielder  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Tex. 
176.  46   S.  W.   633. 

Existing  contracts,  fairly  made,  not 
abrogated.  The  Illinois  statute,  .Act  July 
1,  is;;i,  proiiibiting  extortion  and  unjust 
discrimination  by  railroads,  was  not  In- 
tended to  interfere  with,  or  abrogate,  ex- 
isting contracts  for  the  carriage  of  goods 
fairly  made  prior  to  its  passage.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc..  Coal 
Co..  79   111.  121. 

Written  application  by  shippers  for 
cars. — The  Xehraska  statute,  Comp.  St. 
1909.  c.  72,  art.  5,  relating  to  rates  and 
unjust  discrimination  by  carriers,  was  m- 
tended  to  prevent  unjust  and  unlawful 
discrimination  by  carriers,  and  §  la 
thereof,    providing    that    all    shippers    of 


freight  in  car  load  lots  shall  enter  a  writ- 
ten application  for  cars  in  a  book  kept  for 
that  purpose  subject  to  public  inspection 
by  a  person  in  charge  of  the  carrier's 
business  at  a  shipping  point,  stating  the 
number  of  cars  desired,  when  and  where 
desired,  etc.,  provides  a  reasonable  method 
of  preserving  written  evidence  of  the  fact 
that  cars  were  ordered  by  the  shipper  Tor 
the  transportation  of  his  goods,  the  date 
of  his  order,  and  the  time  when  the  cars 
were  to  be  furnished.  Anderson  f.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Neb.  430.  129  X.  W. 
1008. 

82.  Carrier  required  to  build  spur  to 
accommodate  grain  elevator. — Unuer  the 
Minnesota  stat.ite,  Laws  1887,  c.  10,  §  2, 
subd.  b,  forbidding  carriers  to  give  un- 
equal preferences,  a  railway  company  is 
obliged  to  give  equal  facilities  for  ship- 
ping grain  to  all  persons  who  in  good 
faith  erect,  or  desire  to  erect,  ware-houses 
at  any  station;  and  if  it  refuse  a  request 
for  an  elevator  site  on  a  right  of  way 
such  as  it  grants  to  others,  and  the  ware- 
houseman buys  land  adjoining,  and  builds 
his  elevator  thereon,  the  company  can 
not  refuse  to  build  a  spur  on  its  land  to 
accommodate  his  business.  Farwell 
Farmers'  Warehouse  .Ass'n  z:  Minneapo- 
lis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  5.i  Minn.  S.  56  X.  W.  24S. 

83.  Statute  only  prohibiting  such 
charges  as  "unjustly"  discriminate.— Tiio 
Florida  statute  authorizing  the  Florida 
railroad  commission  to  fix  railroad  rates 
does  not  prohibit  discriminating  charges, 
but  only  prohibits  such  as  "unjustly"  dis- 
criminate, as  well  as  those  that  are  un- 
reasonable and  unjust.  Railroad  Comm'rs 
r.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Fla.  112,  59  So. 
3S5. 

While  an  unjust  discrimmation  will  not 
be  permitted  under  such  statute,  so  as  to 
make  the  service  of  a  carrier  remunera- 
tive, yet,  in  determining  whether  a  charge 


§  100 


CARRIERS. 


86 


accommodations,^-'    prohibiting    discrimination     in     freight     charges,^^    requiring 


is  unjustly  discriminating,  the  rights  ol 
the  carrier  are  to  be  considered.  Rail- 
road Comm'rs  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 
Fla.  112.  59  S.  W.  3S5. 

Statute  not  prohibiting  competition  for 
passenger  business. — The  Indiana  statute, 
Acts  1905.  p.  S3,  c.  53,  regulating  carriers. 
and  prohibiting  unjust  discrimination  m 
rates,  construed,  and  held  not  to  prohibit 
a  railroad  company  from  competing  with 
another  company  for  passenger  business. 
Etter  z:  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  171  Ind. 
5S1.  S()  X.  E.  1020. 

Prohibition  applicable  where  carriers 
voluntarily  fix  joint  rates. — The  Iowa 
statute,  Acts  22d  Gen.  Assem.,  c.  28,  pro- 
hibiting common  carriers  from  making 
unjust  discriminations  in  their  charges, 
applies  where  railroad  companies  volun- 
tarily fix  joint  rates.  Blair  v.  Sioux,  etc., 
R.   Co.    (Iowa).  73   X.  W.   1053. 

Commutation  tickets  permitted  to  be 
sold. — Passenger  tickets  sold  by  a  car- 
rier at  reduced  rates,  good  for  a  limited 
time  only,  held  to  be  comnmtation  tick- 
ets within  the  Indiana  statute.  Acts  1905, 
p.  96,  c.  53,  §  14,  prohibiting  unjust  dis- 
crimination in  rates,  but  permitting  the 
sale  of  commutation  tickets.  Etter  z'. 
Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.,  171  Ind.  581,  86 
X.   E.   1020. 

Tract  abutting  navigable  water  on 
which  is  a  dock,  a  "facility"  for  freight 
and  passengers. — A  tract  of  20  acres  ac- 
quired b}-  a  railroad  under  Act  Cong. 
March  3,  1875,  abutting  a  navigable  water 
on  which  is  a  dock  for  receiving  and  dis- 
charging freight  and  passengers  and  for 
forwarding  through  freight  and  passen- 
gers, is  a  "facility"  for  freight  and  pas- 
sengers .within  the  constitution  of  Idaho, 
art.  11,  §  6,  forbidding  undue  or  unrea- 
sonable discrimination.  Coeur  d'Alene, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  z'.  Ferrell,  22  Idaho  752, 
128  Pac.  5r)5. 

84.  Statute  requiring  railroads  to  give 
reasonable  and  equal  terms,  facilities  and 
accommodations. — The  N'ermont  statute, 
Acts  1882,  p.  47,  No.  36  (V.  S.  3902-3904), 
requiring  railroads  to  give  all  persons 
"reasonable  and  equal  terms  *  *  *  facilities 
and  accommodations"  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  freight,  etc.,  must  be  construed  in 
the  light  of  Acts  1882,  p.  47,  No.  37  (V. 
S.  3896),  authorizing  a  railroad  corpora- 
tion to  establish  rates,  etc.,  and,  when  so 
done,  it  requires  a  railroad  corporation  to 
make  rates  reasonable  and  equal  as  re- 
quired by  the  common  law,  and  it  is  but 
declaratory  of  the  common  law  defining 
the  rights  and  obligations  of  carriers; 
the  words  "facilities  and  accommoda- 
tions" relating  to  the  incidents  of  trans- 
portation, the  word  "terms"  signifying 
rates.  State  v.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co., 
81  Vt.  463,  71  Atl.  194. 

85.  Compensation  required  to  be 
equal  in  amount  for  equal  distances. — The 


North  Carolina  statute,  Code,  §  1966, 
makes  it  unlawful  for  any  railroad  cor- 
poration to  charge  for  the  transportation 
of  freight  a  greater  amount  "than  shall  at 
the  same  time  be  charged  by  it  for  the 
transportation  of  an  equal  quantity  of  the 
same  class  of  freight,  transported  in  the 
same  direction,  over  any  portion  of  the 
same  railroad  of  equal  distance."  Held, 
to  mean  that  the  compensation  to  be 
charged  shippers  respectively  for  carry- 
ing an  equal  quantity  of  the  same  class  of 
freight  for  each,  going  in  the  same  di- 
rection, must  be  equal  in  amount  for 
equal  distances,  no  matter  on  what  part  oi 
the  road,  and  although  the  freight  of  one 
shipper  is  to  be  transported  a  different 
and  longer  distance  than  that  of  the  other. 
Hines  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co..  95  N. 
C.   434.   59   Am.    Rep.   250. 

When  charges  must  be  the  same. — The 
requirement  of  the  constitution  of  Ken- 
tucky, §  215,  that  the  charges  shall  be  the 
same  for  receiving,  transporting,  and 
handling  freight  of  the  same  class  from 
and  to  the  same  points,  "and  upon  the 
same  conditions,"  relates  to  the  receiving, 
loading,  unloading,  transporting,  hauling, 
delivering,  and  handling  freight,  and  re- 
quires the  charges  therefor  to  be  the  same 
for  all  persons  alike,  except  when  the 
freight  is  transported  from  and  to  differ- 
ent points,  or  is  of  different  classes,  or  the 
cost  of  transporting,  including  savings  by 
reason  of  facilities  furnished  by  the  ship- 
per, is  different.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth   (Ky.).  46  S.  W.  702. 

Unlawful  to  obtain  transportation  at  a 
less  rate  than  that  established. — Under  the 
direct  provisions  of  the  Mrginia  Code  of 
1904,  §  1294c,  cl.  7,  it  is  unlawful,  after  the 
freight  rate  of  a  railroad  company  has 
been  authorized  and  published  by  the 
state  corporation  commission,  for  any 
person,  by  contract  or  other  device,  to 
obtain  transportation  at  a  less  rate,  and 
any  contract  for  such  reduced  transporta- 
tion is  void.  Carolina,  etc.,  Railway  v. 
Clinch  Valley  Lumber  Co.,  112  Va.  540, 
72   S.   E.   116. 

A  provision  in  a  railroad  charter,  that 
"average  charges  for  toll  and  transpor- 
tation shall  not  exceed  four  cents  per  ton 
per  mile  for  freight,"  construed  to  permit 
the  company  to  impose  more  than  four 
cents  per  mile  on  some  charges,  to  dis- 
criminate in  favor  of  longer  distances,  and 
to  fix  different  charges  per  mile  for  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  freight.  The  adjustment 
was  to  be  made  between  the  whole  road 
and  the  entire  public  who  used  it.  It  need 
not  bear  equally  on  each  individual.  Hersh 
V.   Xorthern   Cent.   R.   Co.,  74   Pa.   181. 

Word  "contemporaneous"  construed. — 
The  Xorth  Carolina  statute,  Revisal  1905, 
§  3749,  provides  that  if  any  carrier  shall 
collect  from  any  person  a  greater  com- 
pensation   for   transportation    of   property 


87 


CONTKOL    ANL)    KIXLLATKJX. 


§  100 


transportation  of  ire'v^ht  of  the  same  class  for  all  persons  for  the  same  method 
of  payment,'"'  forbidding  discrimination  in  charges  as  between  long  and  short 
hauls,'"*"  prohibiting  discrimination  in  passenger  charges.'^"'  prohibiting  issuance 
of  passes,  or  the  furnishing  of  free  transportation,^^  prohibiting  discrimination 


than  it  receives  from  any  other  for  doing 
a  like  and  conteniporaneons  service  in  the 
transportation  of  a  like  kind  of  traffic 
under  sul)stantially  siniikir  circumstances, 
it  shall  he  liatjle  to  a  fine  of  a  specified 
sum.  Held,  that  the  word  "contempo- 
raneous" means  a  period  of  time  through 
which  shipments  of  freight  are  made  by 
one  shipper  at  one  rate,  and  by  other 
shippers  at  another  rate.  Hilton  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  N.  C.  171, 
53  S.  K.  S3;!,  r.  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  22r,. 

Discriminatory  rate  void  though  agreed 
to  by  mistake. — Under  the  Nebraska 
statute,  Cobl)cy's  Ann.  St.  1903,  §  10,009, 
a  contract  between  a  railroad  company 
and  a  shipper  to  transport  merchandise 
for  a  less  rate  than  regularly  charged  to 
others  for  similar  service  is  void,  though 
the  rate  was  agreed  to  by  mistake;  and  an 
action  will  not  lie  against  the  carrier  for 
breach  of  the  contract  if  it  exacts  the 
regular  rate.  Judgment  113  N.  W.  983, 
reversed  on  rehearing.  Haurigan  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Neb.  139,  117  N.  W. 
100;  Wentz-Bates  Mercantile  Co.  v. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  85  Neb.  584,  123  N.  W. 
1085. 

86.  Under  the  Kentucky  constitution, 
§  215,  requiring  all  railway  companies  to 
transport  freight  of  the  same  class  for 
all  persons  for  the  same  method  of  pay- 
ment, and  Ky.  St.  1S94.  §  SIT,  declaring 
one  failing  to  do  this  guilty  of  unjust  dis- 
crimination, a  contract  by  a  lumber  com- 
pany to  carry  a  party's  freight  in  consid- 
eration of  a  former  grant  of  a  right  of 
way  for  a  railroad  can  not  be  specifically 
enforced  against  a  railroad  company  leas- 
ing the  right  of  way  and  doing  the  busi- 
ness of  a  common  carrier,  since  the  carry- 
ing of  the  freight  free  would  be  a  viola- 
tion of  the  constitution  and  statutes. 
Hurley  v.  Big  Sandy,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Ky.), 
125   S.  W.   :W2. 

87.  The  Missouri  statute,  Rev.  St.  1909, 
§  3173  prohibiting  discrimination  in  trans- 
portation charges  as  between  long  and 
short  hauls  of  Uie  same  class  of  freight 
on  the  same  road,  applies  where  the  trans- 
portation is  over  the  same  road,  but  not 
where  the  two  hauls  are  over  different 
lines  operated  by  difTerent  corporations, 
though  they  have  common  officers.  Dar- 
lington Lumber  Co.  r.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co^  (Mo.).    1  17   S.   W.    in.V,>. 

88.  Statute  prohibiting  unjust  discrimi- 
nation in  passenger  charges  liberally  con- 
strued.— A  statute  may  he  remedial  in 
part  and  penal  in  part  for  purposes  of 
construction,  so  that  the  penalty  clause  of 
the  Montana  statute.  Rev.  Codes.  §  4337, 
making  it  unlawful  for  any  carrier  to 
transfer    a  person  for  a  less  sum  than  is 


charged  for  a  similar  ticket  of  the  same 
class,  and  making  any  carrier  who  shall 
violate  the  statute  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  punishable,  etc.,  should  be 
construed  according  to  the  fair  import  of 
its  terms,  with  a  view  to  aflfectuating  its 
object  as  required  by  §8090;  but  the  part 
prohibiting  unjust  discrimination  in  charg- 
ing for  transportation  should  be  liberally 
construed  with  a  view  to  carrying  out  the 
legislative  intention.  John  v.  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  42  Mont.   T<,  111   Pac.  032. 

Statute  not  abrogating  system  of  three 
cent  fares  for  school  children. — The  New 
Jersey  Public  Utility  Law  (P.  L.  1911,  c. 
195).  §  18,  does  not  abrogate  the  system 
of  three-cent  fares  for  school  children 
previously  maintained  by  a  street  railway 
company;  such  section  applying  only  to 
such  preferences  as  are  "undue  or  un- 
reasonable." Public  Service  R.  Co.  z: 
Board.  81  N.  J.  L.  (52  Vr.),  303,  so  Atl.  27. 
89.  To  whom  carrier  may  furnish  trans- 
portation free. — The  constitution  of  Ok- 
lahoma, art.  9,  §  13,  prohibiting  railroad  or 
transportation  companies  from  issuing 
passes,  with  certain  exceptions,  does  not 
prohibit  a  municipal  corporation  operat- 
ing a  street  railway  from  furnishing 
transportation  free  to  its  policemen,  fire- 
men, and  United  States  mail  carriers,  and 
half-rate  tickets  to  school  children,  and 
free  transportation  to  children  under  a 
certain  age  while  traveling  with  a  parent 
or  guardian.  Oklahoma  v.  Oklahoma  R. 
Co.    (Okla.),   93    Pac.    48. 

By  such  constitutional  provision,  mu- 
nicipalities are  not  prohibited,  from  grant- 
ing franchises  for  street  railways  with 
conditions  contained  there  in  for  the  car- 
rying of  policemen,  firemen.  United  States 
mail  carriers,  and  children  under  a  cer- 
tain age  free,  and  for  the  furnishing  to 
school  children  of  transportation  at  a 
reduced  rate,  and  when  accepted  by  the 
grantee  of  the  franchise,  such  conditions 
are  valid.  Oklahoma  v.  Oklahoma  R.  Co. 
(Okla.),  93  Pac.  48. 

In  Montana,  railroad  companies  may 
issue  free  transportation  or  sell  tickets  at 
reduced  rates,  as  the  case  may  require,  to 
its  employees  and  members  of  their  fam- 
ilies; to  doctors,  nurses,  and  helpers  be- 
ing taken  to  wrecks;  to  soldiers  and  sail- 
ors going  to  or  coming  from  institutions 
wherein  they  are  kept:  to  ministers  or  j3er- 
sons  engaged  in  charitable  and  religious 
works;  an^d,  by  the  direct  provision  of 
Rev.  Codes,  §  4309.  to  members  and  em- 
ployees of  the  railroad  commission  travel- 
ing on  private  business.  §  4394  prohibitmg 
employees  of  the  commission  or  the  board 
of  commissioners  from  accepting  or  re- 
questing any  pass  for  themselves   or   any 


§  100 


CARRIERS 


88 


in  facilities  for  transportation  of  freight,'"'  prohibiting  the  giving  to  any  local- 
ity any  unreasonable  preference,^!  prohibiting  discrimination  between  passen- 
gers from  different  localities  as  to  transfer  privileges,^^  requiring  goods  to  be 
forwarded  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  received,"^  and  requiring  the  carrier 
to  permit  tracks  to  be  connected  with  its  track.^^ 


other  person  except  as  herein  otlierwise 
provided.  John  v.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
42   Mont.   18.   Ill   Pac.   632. 

Statute  not  retrospective. — Laws  1909, 
c.  12i>,  §  2,  provides  that  no  carrier  shall 
give  any  free  ticket,  pass,  or  transporta- 
tion for  passengers  between  points  within 
the  state  except  to  certain  specified  per- 
sons. Section  6  authorized  the  imposi- 
tion of  fines  for  violation  of  the  act.  De- 
fendant leased  a  railroad,  agreeing  in  the 
lease  to  transport  stockholders  of  the 
lessor  to  and  from  their  animal  and  spe- 
cial meetings  "free  of  charge."  Plaintiff, 
a  stockholder  of  the  lessor,  applied  for 
transportation  and  was  refused.  Held, 
that  the  issuance  of  the  pass  would  not 
be  a  violation  of  chapter  126,  since  it  can 
not  be  presumed  that  the  legislature  in- 
tended the  act  to  have  a  retrospective  ef- 
fect, rendering  former  valid  contracts  il- 
legal and  void.  Emerson  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Railroad.   75   N.   H.  427,  7.5   .\tl.  529. 

90.  Commission  rule  prohibiting  dis- 
crimination against  shippers  and  not 
against  commodities. — The  rule  promul- 
gated b}-  the  railroad  commission  of 
Georgia  that  carriers  shall  afford  all  per- 
sons in  the  conduct  of  their  interstate 
business  equal  facilities  in  the  transpor- 
tation and  delivery  of  freight,  prohibits 
discrimination  against  shippers  and  not 
against  commodities.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Augusta  Brokerage  Co.,  122  Ga. 
646,  50   S.   E.   473,  69   L.   R.  A.  119. 

A  siding  connection  is  a  "facility  for 
transportation"  within  the  Pennsylvania 
statute,  -Act  June  4,  1883  (P.  L.  72),  pro- 
viding that  any  undue  or  unreasonable 
discrimination  by  a  railroad  company  in 
facilities  for  the  transportation  of  freight 
shall  be  unlawful.  Minds  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.   Co.,  228  Pa.  575,  77  Atl.  909. 

Effect  of  an  unexpected  rush  of  busi- 
ness.— The  Arkansas  statute,  Kirby's  Dig., 
§  6804,  making  it  unlawful  for  carriers  to 
make  any  preference  in  furnishing  cars, 
and  requiring  them  to  furnish  without  dis- 
crimination sufficient  facilities  for  the 
carriage  of  freight,  is  but  declaratory  of 
the  common  law,  making  it  the  duty  of 
carriers  to  furnish  facilities  for  the  trans- 
portation of  freight  offered  in  the  regular 
course  of  business,  but  without  requiring 
them  to  furnish  facilities  for  an  unpre- 
cedented rush  of  business,  and  a  carrier 
unable  to  furnish  cars  for  all  shippers,  ])y 
reason  of  an  unexpected  rush  of  business, 
must  furnish  such  cars  as  it  has  to  all 
shippers,      without      discrimination.        St. 


Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clay  Gin  Co.,  77  Ark. 
35  7,    92    S.    W.    531. 

91.  Statutes  forbidding  the  giving  to 
any  locality  any  unreasonable  preference. 

— The  Xew  Jersey  Public  Utility  Law  (P. 
L.  1911,  p.  374)  is  not  merely  declaratory 
of  the  commutation  law,  but  forbids  the 
giving  to  any  locality  any  unreasonable 
preference  or  the  subjection  of  any  local- 
ity to  any  prejudice.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.   V.    Board,   83   X.   J.   L.   67,  83  Atl.   945. 

92.  How  commission  order  may  be 
complied  with. — An  order  of  a  railroad 
commission  requiring  an  electric  railroad 
to  cease  an  unlawful  discrimination  be- 
tween the  passengers  from  one  locality 
and  those  from  another  locality  by  de- 
sisting from  refusing  the  latter  the  same 
transfer  privileges  voluntarily  accorded  to 
the  former  may  be  complied  with  by  giv- 
ing transfers  to  all  or  by  desisting  en- 
tirely from  giving  transfers,  and  it  is  not 
a  positive  command  to  give  transfers. 
Portland  R.,  etc.,  Co.  i'.  Railroad  Comm., 
56  Ore.  468,  109  Pac.  273,  denying  rehear- 
ing  105   Pac.   709. 

93.  Phrase  "warehouses  or  depots" 
embraces  entire  station. — The  Texas  stat- 
ute. Rev.  St.  1895,  art.  4537,  directing  rail- 
roads receiving  goods  for  transportation 
into  their  "warehouses  or  depots"  to  for- 
ward them  in  the  order  in  which  they  are 
received,  and  making  them  liable  for 
losses  occasioned  by  a  failure  so  to  do,  re- 
quires a  railroad  to  forward  property  re- 
ceived for  shipment  in  the  order  in  which 
it  is  received,  though  merely  received  on 
a  platform  used  for  handling  that  kind  of 
property;  the  phrase  "warehouses  or  de- 
pots" embracing  the  entire  station  of  the 
road.  Hill  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  75  S.  W.  874,  reversed  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hill,  97  Tex.  506,  80 
S.  W.  368. 

94.  Connection  required  to  be  per- 
mitted only  where  such  privilege  had  al- 
ready been  granted. — L'ndc-i  tlie  Wash- 
ington statute,  1  Ballinger's  Ann.  Codes 
&  St.,  §  4322,  providing  that  it  shall  be 
unlawful  for  any  railroad  to  discriminate 
in  charges  or  facilities  for  transportation, 
and  that  every  road  permitting  any  one 
to  connect  a  track  with  its  track  for  the 
accommodation  of  any  elevator,  shall  ac- 
cord the  same  right  to  every  other  per- 
son soliciting  it,  a  railroad  cortipany  _  is 
not  required  to  permit  a  connection  with 
its  track,  except  where  it  had  already 
granted  such  privilege.  Northwestern 
Warehouse  Co.  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
32  Wash.  218,  73  Pac.  388. 


89 


CONTROL    AND    RKGULATION. 


§§  101-102 


§  101.  Who  Are  Common  Carriers  within  the  Rule  Prohibiting  Dis- 
crimination.—A  railway  coniijauy  hoMin.i(  il-^cll  <jui  lo  lliu  \>\\]>\\c  as  ready  V) 
do  switching,  which  requires  it  to  have  its  own  rails  and  right  of  way,  and  go 
upon  the  rails  and  right  of  way  of  another  company,  with  which  it  has  no  ex- 
press contract  relating  either  to  compensation  for  switching  or  to  track  rights, 
is  a  common  carrier,  and  as  such  must  switch  cars  without  discrimination  against 
a  disfavored  shipper.'-''-  A  railroad,  which  serves  business  houses  located  along 
a  spur  track  by  delivering  to  them  cars  of  freight  and  cars  to  be  freighted  and 
shipped,  is  a  common  carrier  with  respect  to  the  use  it  makes  of  the  track,  and 
is,  as  such,  bound  lo  treat  the  houses  located  along  the  track  without  discrim- 
ination, and  can  not  discontinue  its  service  as  to  one  and  continue  it  as  to 
others.^** 

§  102.  What  Constitutes  an  Unlawful  Preference  or  Discrimination. 

What  is  an  unlawful  preference  or  discrimination  is,  in  each  j)articular  case, 

a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact,  and  must  be  ascertained  by  applying  to  the 
facts  in  the  case  the  principles  of  the  common  law,  or  the  peculiar  provisions 
of  the  constitutional  or  statutory  enactment  or  commission  order  governing  the 
case.  Guided  l)v  this  basic  rule  of  interpretation  the  courts  have  in  many  cases 
determined  whether  an  unlawful  preference  was  shown,'-''  or  have  held  that 
certain    facts    in    evidence    constituted,''**    or    that    certain    facts    did    not    consti- 


95.  Who  are  common  carriers  -within 
the  rule  prohibiting  discrimination. — 
Larabec  Flour  Alills  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.    Co.,   74    Kan.    SOS,   S8    Pac.   72. 

96.  Agee  &  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    142    Ala.    344,    37    So.    6S0. 

97.  The  act  of  a  carrier  in  hauling  goods 
for  some  shippers  without  prepayment  of 
freight,  and  not  for  others  engag-cd  in 
the  same  business,  does  not  constitute  a 
violation  of  the  Michigan  statute,  Laws 
1907,  No.  312,  §  17,  making  it  unlawful 
for  a  common  carrier  to  give  any  prefer- 
ence to  any  shipper  or  subject  him  to  any 
undue  or  unreasonable  disadvantage  or 
prejudice.  Brown,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  System,  159  Mich-  565,  124  N. 
W.  .52S. 

Refusing  to  furnish  cars  for  loading  on 
station  track. — Defendant  railroad  com- 
pany, whicli  liad  previously  permitted  the 
loading  of  cars  with  coal  on  its  side  track 
at  a  station,  made  a  regulation  by  which  it 
withdrew  such  permission,  and  it  there- 
after refused  to  furnish  cars  to  be  so 
loaded  to  plaintiff  or  to  any  other  ship- 
per. During  such  time,  however,  certain 
mine  owners,  who  through  agreements 
with  the  company  had  constructed  pri- 
vate spur  tracks  to  their  mines,  were  fur- 
nished cars,  some  of  which  they  loaded 
from  wagons  while  standing  on  such  spur 
tracks  before  the  development  of  the 
mines  and  the  construction  of  tipples  for 
loading.  Held,  that  the  furnishing  of 
cars  for  such  purpose,  while  refusing  to 
furnish  cars  for  loading  on  the  station 
track  to  plaintiff,  who  had  constructed  no 
spur  track,  did  not  constitute  the  giving 
of  an  undue  preference,  either  under  the 
common  law  or  the  statute  of  Arkansas 
(Laws  1899.  p.  89),  prohibiting  the  giving 
of    any    preference    in    the    furnishing    of 


cars.  Judgment  118  Fed.  169,  affirmed. 
Harp  V.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co..  01  C.  C. 
A.  405,  125   Fed.  44.". 

98.  Less  charge  for  shipping  to  one 
consignee  than  to  others. — \Vhere  a  rail- 
road makes  a  less  cliarge  for  shipping  to 
a  certain  consignee  tlian  to  others  in  the 
same  citj',  there  is  an  unjust  discrimina- 
tion. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Hill,  14 
111.  App.  579. 

Contract  to  repay  shipper  a  portion  oi 
charge  paid  by  him. — A  railroad  company 
whose  line  extends  to  a  point  of  intersec- 
tion with  a  canal  of  the  state  can  not  make 
a  valid  contract  to  repay  to  a  shipper  a 
portion  of  the  freight  paid  by  him,  it  be- 
ing the  regular  rate  posted  by  the  com- 
pany and  received  from  other  shippers; 
such  contract  being  prohibited  bj'  the 
Ohio  statute,  Rev.  St.,  §§  3366,  3367,  to 
prevent  discrimination  in  rates  of  car- 
riage. Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Diamond 
Coal    Co.,   61    O.   St.   242,   55    X.    E.   616. 

Special  rebate  not  extended  to  other 
shippers. — A  contract  by  a  railway  com- 
pany with  a  shipper,  by  which  he  is  to 
ship  his  grain  at  the  regular  rates  paid  by 
all  shippers,  and  then  receive  a  special 
rebate,  extended  to  no  other  shipper,  or 
to  but  one  other  shipper,  is  contrary  to 
§§  2,  3  of  the  Illinois  act  of  1873.  against 
extortion  and  unjust  discrimination  (2 
Starr  &  C.  Ann.  St.,  c.  114,  pars.  146,  147), 
and  is  void.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Ervin,  118  111.  250.  8  X.  E.  862.  59  Am. 
Rep.    M'.i. 

Discrimination  against  local  purchasers. 
— Where  a  connnon  carrier  allowed  the 
purchasers  of  hogs  to  ship  them  to  a  cen- 
tral point  of  the  state  and  from  there  to 
ship  them  to  foreign  states,  charging  them 
only  the  interstate  rate  which  was  lower 
than  the  local  rate,  and  these  hogs  came 


102 


CARRIERS. 


90 


into  competition  with  those  of  purchasers 
making  only  local  shipments,  there  was 
an  unjust  discrimination  against  the  local 
purchasers  within  the  purview  of  Iowa 
statute.  Code.  §§  2124,  2125,  respectively, 
providing  that  no  common  carrier  shall 
give  anj'  preference  to  any  particular  per- 
son or  persons.  Central  Trust  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Iowa),  135  N.  W. 
721. 

But  under  these  sections  it  is  not  a 
discrimination  against  local  purchasers 
for  a  carrier  to  charge  persons  purchas- 
ing hogs  for  interstate  shipment  the 
lower  interstate  rate,  though  allowing 
them  to  assemble  the  hogs  to  a  central 
point  and  from  there  reship  them  to  for- 
eign states;  such  hogs  not  coming  into 
competition  with  local  shipments.  Cen- 
tral Trust  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Iowa),  135  X.  W.  721. 

Contract  to  furnish  transportation  in 
payment  for  advertising. — A  contract  by 
a  railroad  company  to  furnish  to  the  pro- 
prietors of  a  newspaper,  as  requested, 
transportation  at  the  statutory  rate  under 
certain  limitations  and  restrictions  not  re- 
quired in  ordinary  tickets,  in  payment  for 
advertising  to  be  furnished  "at  agreed 
rates,"  which  rates  are  not  specified  in 
the  contract,  but  are  to  be  settled  by  the 
parties  themselves  by  another  agreement 
contravenes  the  intent  and  purposes  of 
the  Nebraska  statutes  prohibiting  unjust 
discriminations,  which  seek  to  preserve  to 
every  individual  an  equal  right  to  the 
transportation  service  of  carriers,  since,  if 
a  proprietor  of  one  newspaper  maj'  be 
selected  by  a  carrier  to  receive  transpor- 
tation for  advertising  services,  while  the 
proprietor  of  another  can  not  avail  himself 
at  his  own  option  of  the  privileges  of 
such  a  contract,  there  would  be  no  uni- 
formity of  charge,  and  is  violative  of  rail- 
way commission  Act  (Laws  1907,  c.  90),  § 
14,  and  Cobbey's  Ann.  St.  1909,  §  10,GG2, 
prohibiting  common  carriers  from  charg- 
ing one  person  a  greater  or  less  compen- 
sation than  another  for  the  same  service 
and  from  charging  other  than  the  rates 
fixed  and  established.  State  v.  Union  Pac. 
R.   Co.,  87   Xeb.  29,   12G   X.  W.   859. 

Discrimination  between  passengers  in 
amount  of  fare. — Under  the  Georgia  stat- 
ute Civ.  Code,  §  2188,  prohibiting  dis- 
criminations by  carriers,  a  railroad  com- 
pany can  not  lawfully  demand  of  one  pas- 
senger more  fare  for  his  transportation 
from  one  station  to  another  on  its  line 
than  it  is  in  the  habit,  under  like  con- 
ditions and  circumstances,  of  charging 
others  for  the  same  service.  Phillips  v. 
Southern  R.  Co..  114  Ga.  284,  40  S.  E.  2<38. 

Discrimination  in  charges  in  favor  of 
certain  towns. — The  fare  charged  by  an 
electric  railroad  company  from  the  city 
limits  of  a  city  having  more  than  50,000 
population  to  certain  suburban  towns  was 
fifteen  cents,  without  transfer  privileges, 
while  that  charged  upon  another  division 


to  certain  other  towns,  which  were  a  less 
distance  from  the  city  limits,  was  ten 
cents,  with  transfer  privileges.  Held, 
that  there  was  an  unjust  discrimination 
in  charges  in  favor  of  the  towns  on  the 
latter  division,  which  the  railroad  com- 
mission properly  corrected.  Portland 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  57  Ore. 
126,    105    Pac.    715. 

Under  the  Oregon  Railroad  Commission 
Law  (Laws  1907.  p.  82,  c.  53,  §  28)  au- 
thorizing the  Railroad  commission,  upon 
finding  on  investigation  upon  the  com- 
plaint of  any  municipality,  that  fares  are 
unreasonable  or  discriminatory,  to  sub- 
stitute just  and  reasonable  fares  therefor, 
fares  may  be  changed  if  they  are  unjustly 
discriminatory,  though  not  unreasonable 
for  the  service  performed,  so  that,  where 
an  electric  railroad  company  voluntarily 
charged  five  cent  fare,  with  transfer 
privileges,  from  the  limits  of  a  city  of 
over  50,000  population,  within  which  the 
fare  was  limited  to  five  cents  by  statute, 
to  a  certain  town,  it  thereby  established 
the  value  of  similar  service  on  its  other 
lines,  and  it  was  an  unjust  discrimination 
to  charge  a  ten  cent  fare  on  a  different 
line  to  another  town  an  equal  distance 
from  the  limits  of  such  city,  and  that  the 
population  outside  the  city  limits  on  the 
five  cent  lines  was  denser  than  on  the 
ten  cent  lines,  or  that  the  fares  on  the 
former  lines  were  limited  to  five  cents  Dy 
a  contract  with  the  company's  predeces- 
sor, or  that  the  physical  conditions  at 
the  point  on  one  of  the  five  cent  lines 
where  it  crossed  the  city  limits  made 
it  impossible  for  passengers  to  leave  the 
cars  there,  was  immaterial.  Portland 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  56  Ore. 
468,  105  Pac.  709,  rehearing  denied  109 
Pac.    273. 

Inequality  in  charges  between  points  in 
state  and  a  point  in  another  state. — A 
charge  of  a  greater  sum  hy  a  railroad 
company  for  freight  to  a  point  in  another 
state  from  a  point  in  Illinois  than  from 
another  point  in  Illinois,  more  distant,  is 
an  unjust  discrimination,  within  the  Illi- 
nois statute.  Rev.  St.  1874,  p.  817,  §  87, 
prohibiting  unjust  discrimination  by  rail- 
road companies  in  rates  or  charges  for  the 
transportation  of  passengers  or  freight  on 
railroads  within  the  state,  where  it  is  not 
shown  that  such  inequality  in  the  charges 
is  all  for  carriage  entirely  l)eyon(l  the 
limits  of  Illinois;  the  presumption  being 
that  the  excess  in  charge  for  the  less  dis- 
tance affects  every  part  of  the  line  of 
carriage  between  the  more  distant  point 
and  the  state  line,  proportionally  with  the 
balance  of  the  line.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  People,  105  111.  236. 

One  car  load  of  lumber  is  of  "like  quan- 
tity" with  another,  witliin  tlie  Texas 
statute  forbidding  railroad  companies  to 
discriminate  in  their  freight  charges, 
though  the  two  car  loads  are  of  differ- 
ent  weight   and   dimensions.      New   York, 


91 


C(J.NTK(JU    AND    KKCLLATIOX. 


102 


tute,""  an  unlawful  discrimination.    In  determining  what  constitutes  unlawful  pref- 
erence or  discrimination  courts  have  been  ref|uired  to  interj^ret  peculiar  phraseol- 


ctc.    R.    Co.    V.    Gallalicr,    79    Te.x.    085,    15 

Rebilling  rate. —  ICvidcncc  that  the  ef- 
fect of  a  rel)illiiig  rate  adopted  by  a  com- 
plainant railroad  was  to  enable  a  dealer 
in  \'icksburg,  the  terminus  of  its  road 
reached  by  an  associate  line,  to  ship  a 
barge  load  of  grain  received  there,  over 
complainant's  road,  at  the  rate  of  three 
and  one-half  cents,  under  the  guise  of 
rebilling,  while  a  barge  load  of  grain  re- 
ceived there  by  a  dealer  in  Meridian,  the 
other  terminus  of  complainant's  road, 
could  only  be  shipped  over  the  same  upon 
payment  of  the  local  rate  of  ten  cents 
per  one  hundred  pounds,  showed  an  un- 
just discrimination  in  favor  of  those  re- 
ceiving freight  over  the  associate  line. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad  Comm., 
86  Miss.  6(J7,  38  So.  356,  affirmed  in  203 
U.   S.   400,   51    L.    F.d.   2S9.   27    S.   Ct.    103. 

Discrimination  in  joint  rates. — A  peti- 
tion alleging  tlial  two  railroad  compa- 
nies voluntaril}'  established  joint  rates, 
and  charged  plaintiff  a  rate  in  excess  of 
the  same  joint  rates  on  like  shipments, 
at  the  same  time,  which  were  made  to 
other  points,  for  like  distances,  over  their 
lines  of  road,  makes  a  prima  facie  case, 
showing  that  they  have  violated  the  Iowa 
statute,  Acts  22d  Gen.  Assem.,  c.  28,  as 
to  discrimination.  Blair  v.  Sioux,  etc., 
R.   Co.    (Iowa),  73  N.  W.   1053. 

99.  Different  rates  for  different  kinds 
of  coal. — The  fact  that  a  railroad  com- 
pany charges  a  higher  rate  for  carrying 
ordinary  commercial  coal  than  it  does 
for  carrying  an  inferior  quality  of  coal, 
which  is  used  by  railroads  exclusively,  is 
shipped  on  the  cars  of  other  companies, 
and  is  mined  and  shipped  during  months 
when  there  is  little  demand  for  ordinary 
coal,  does  not  show  unjust  discrimination. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crown  Coal 
Co..  43   111.   App.   22S. 

Competitive  rate  less  than  rate  of  com- 
peting carrier. — In  proceedings  under  the 
Ohid  statute,  Act  April  2,  1900  (98  Ohio 
Laws,  p.  342),  regulating  carriers  and 
creating  a  board  of  railroad  commission- 
ers, competition  is  an  element  to  be  con- 
sidered in  determining  whether  rates  are 
reasonable  and  just;  and  the  fact  that  a 
competitive  rate  is  less  than  the  rate  of 
the  other  competing  carrier  does  not  con- 
stitute unreasonable  discrimination.  Rail- 
road Comm.  V.  Hocking  \'alley  R.  Co., 
82   O.   St.   25.   91    X.    R.   805. 

Contract  to  pay  back  a  rebate. — A  con- 
tract by  a  railroad  company  in  consider- 
ation of  the  shipment  over  its  road  of  a 
large  lot  of  corn,  to  pay  back  a  rebate  in 
freight,  does  not  violate  the  Illinois  stat- 
ute to  prevent  unjust  discriminations  in 
freight  charges  by  railroad  carriers, 
where  such  contract  is  to  carry  the  grain 


at  the  customary  rates.  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   :■.    l-:ili<,tt,   70    111.  or. 

Agreement  not  intended  as  a  device  to 
pay  a  rebate. — The  certificate  of  incorpo- 
ration of  the  Chicago  Junction  Railways 
&  Union  Stock-Yards  Company  author- 
ized it  to  hold  shares  of  stock  in  an  Illi- 
nois corporation,  a  transit  company, 
which  owned  stock  yards  in  Chicago,  and 
a  belt  line  which  connected  all  the  rail- 
roads entering  the  city.  The  transit 
company,  most  of  whose  stock  was 
owned  by  the  junction  company,  de- 
pended on  the  permanent  market  for  cat- 
tle created  by  the  presence  of  slaughter- 
ing and  packing  establishments.  Some 
of  the  packers,  known  as  "nonassociate," 
contemplated  a  removal  from  the  vicinity 
of  the  stock  yards.  Other  of  the  pack- 
ers, known  as  "associate,"  purchased  a 
large  tract  of  land  at  a  distance  fr^m  Chi- 
cago, and  made  preparations  to  remove 
their  plants  and  establish  rtock  yards  of 
their  own.  The  junction  company  en- 
tered into  a  contract  with  the  associate 
packers,  by  which  it  was  to  give  them  a 
large  amount  of  interest-bearing  income 
bonds  in  consideration  of  a  conveyance 
of  the  land  purchased,  and  an  agreement 
not  to  remove  their  plants,  etc.  Held,  on 
a  bill  to  restrain  the  execution  of  the 
contract,  that  trackage  charges  paid  by 
the  railroad  companies  to  the  transit 
company  for  the  use  of  the  latter's  tracks 
were  not  repaid  by  the  packers  to  the 
railroads,  and  that  the  agreement  was  not 
intended  as  a  device  to  pay  a  rebate  to 
the  associate  packers  in  violation  of  the 
Illinois  statute  which  prohibits  discrimi- 
nation in  railroad  rates.  Willoughb}-  v. 
Chicago  Junction,  etc..  Stock  Yards  Co., 
50    X.   J.    F.(i.    050,   25    .Xtl.    277. 

Refusal  to  carry  goods  without  prepay- 
ment of  freight. — Plaintiff,  a  shipper, 
upon  a  showing  that  a  carrier  had  a 
credit  list  consisting  of  certain  custom- 
ers, some  of  whom  were  competitors  ot 
plaintiff,  for  which  it  carried  goods  with- 
out requiring  a  prepaj-ment  of  freight  and 
that  it  had  accorded  this  privilege  to 
plaintiff  over  a  jear,  was  not  entitled  to 
compel  the  carrier  to  haul  his  goods 
without  prepayment  of  freight  on  the 
ground  that  refusal  to  do  so  constituted 
discrimination.  Brown,  etc..  Coal  Co.  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  System.  159  Mich.  565. 
124    X.   ^V.   52^. 

A  failure  to  furnish  cars  by  a  railroad 
company  for  the  transportation  of  prop- 
erty is  not  such  unjust  discrimination  as 
is  contemplated  by  the  Iowa  statute. 
Acts  17th  Gen.  Assem.,  c.  77,  §  13.  Bond 
T'.  Waliash,  etc..  R.  Co..  07  Iowa  712.  25 
X.  W.   S92. 

A  carrier's  special  contract  to  furnish 
a  shipper  a  specified  number  of  cars  at 
specific  times  and  places  is  not  invalid,  as 


CARRIERS. 


92 


ogy  of  many  constitutional  provisions  and  statutes.  Among  the  enactments  that 
have  thus  received  judicial  interpretation  are  provisions  requiring  carriers  to 
furnish   without   discrimination    facilities   for   the  trans])ortation   of    freight/   re- 


contrarj'  to  public  policy  and  discrimi- 
natory. Oregon  R..  etc..  Co.  r.  Dumas. 
104    C.    C.  A.   641.    ISl    Fed.   781. 

Refusal  to  construct  side  track  and 
furnish  cars. — A  complaint  against  a  car- 
rier for  unjust  discrimination,  which 
merely  alleges  that  defendant  refused  to 
lease  its  land  to  plaintiff  that  he  niight 
build  a  warehouse  thereon;  that  plaintiff 
afterwards  erected  warehouses  not  on  its 
land,  but  near  defendant's  side  track,  and 
leased  them  to  a  co-operative  association, 
to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  handling 
and  shipping  grain;  that  said  lessee 
bought  wheat,  and  put  it  in  the  ware- 
houses for  shipment;  that  thereupon 
plaintiff  demanded  of  defendant  that  it 
construct  a  side  track  to  said  houses, 
which  demand  was  refused;  that  he  then 
demanded  that  cars  be  furnished  in  which 
to  ship  the  grain,  which  demand  was  also 
refused;  and  that  defendant  also  refused 
to  make  and  maintain  connections  with 
its  side  track  for  the  purpose  of  handling 
and  shipping  grain  therefrom,  and  has  re- 
fused to  recognize  plaintiff's  houses  as 
grain  houses  for  any  purpose,  and  refused 
to  allow  the  association  to  transact  its 
business  through  plaintiff's  houses — does 
not  state  a  cause  of  action.  Myers  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Minn.  371,  53 
X.   W.  962. 

Refusing  to  furnish  same  facilities 
where  conditions  are  different. — The  dif- 
ference between  the  business  of  persons 
receiving  and  shipping  dead  freight  over 
a  spur  track  upon  which  their  premises 
abut,  and  that  of  a  company  whose  prem- 
ises are  forty  feet  away  from  the  track, 
and  which  seeks  to  receive  and  ship  live 
stock,  is  so  great  that  it  is  not_  unjust 
discrimination  to  refuse  to  furnish  the 
same  facilities  to  the  latter  as  to  the 
former.  Butchers',  etc.,  Stock  Yards  Co. 
V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C.  C.  A.  290, 
67    Fed.   y.r,. 

Refusal  to  construct  side  track  to  an 
elevator  located  off  right  of  way. — The 
fact  that  a  railroad  permitted  the  loca- 
tion of  an  elevator,  maintained  by  a  pri- 
vate corporation,  on  the  industrial  track 
on  the  right  of  way,  does  not  render  its 
refusal  to  construct,  at  its  own  expense, 
a  side  track  to  a  competing  elevator,  lo- 
cated off  the  right  of  way,  an  unlawful 
discrimination,  within  the  Constitution  of 
Oklahoma,  art.  9,  §  18  (Bunn's  Ed.,  § 
222).  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  23 
Okla.    94,    99    Pac.    901. 

Furnishing  cars  to  shippers  owning 
spur  tracks  in  preference  to  those  not 
owning  tracks. — Where  all  shippers  in  the 
same  situation  at  a  given  point  on  a  rail- 
road are  treated  alike  in  the  matter  of 
furnishing   coal    cars,   the    mere   fact   that 


shippers  who  own  spur  tracks  are  fur- 
nished cars  in  preference  to  those  who 
do  not  own  tracks,  but  require  the  use 
of  the  railroad's  side  tracks,  which  are 
needed  by  the  railroad  to  conduct  its 
general  btisiness  and  serve  the  public,  is 
not  a  discrimination,  within  the  constitu- 
tion of  Arkansas,  art.  17,  §  3,  providing 
that  all  persons  shall  have  an  equal  right 
to  transportation  on  railroads,  and  for- 
bidding undue  or  unreasonable  discrim- 
ination. Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State, 
73  Ark.   373,     84   S.   W.  502,  92   S.   W.   26. 

Refusal  to  pay  cost  of  compressing  cot- 
ton at  a  certain  plant. — A  carrier  made 
no  distinction  in  rate  between  com- 
pressed and  uncompressed  cotton,  but 
included  in  its  rate  the  cost  of  com- 
pression, and  uncompressed  cotton  in 
a  designated  district  was  compressed  at 
a  distant  place  at  the  carrier's  expense 
at  a  plant  in  which  it  was  interested.  A 
plant  existed  in  the  designated  district, 
but  the  carrier  declined  to  pay  the  cost 
of  compression  there,  though  such  cost 
was  not  greater  than  that  paid  at  the 
other  plant.  It  accorded  to  both  places 
the  same  privilege  as  to  rebilling  and 
through  rating.  Held,  that  the  carrier 
was  not  guilty  of  discrimination,  in  vio- 
lation of  the  Alaljama  statute.  Act  Feb. 
23,  1907  (Laws  1907,  pp.  123,  129),  §§  17, 
32.  Railroad  Comm.  z'.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   1.59  Ala.  550,  49  So.  237. 

The  fact  that  a  railroad  company,  by 
agreement  with  a  manufacturing  concern, 
made  previous  to  the  latter's  organiza- 
tion, which  agreement  was  an  inducement 
to  its  organization,  charges  it  less  per 
ton  for  the  transportation  from  a  certain 
point  of  coal  to  be  used  for  manufactur- 
ing purposes  than  it  charges  a  dealer  in 
coal  for  like  transportation,  does  not 
constitute  an  "undue  or  unreasonable  dis- 
crimination," witliin  the  meaning  of  the 
Pennsylvania  statute.  Act  June  4,  1883, 
prohibiting  such  discrimination,  since  the 
charges  are  not  for  a  like  service  from 
the  same  place,  upon  like  conditions,  and 
under  similar  circumstances.  Hoover  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  156  Pa.  220,  27  Atl. 
282,  22  L.  R.  A.  263,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  43. 

1.  Number  of  cars  furnished. — On  the 
issue  whether  a  carrier  discriminated 
against  plaintiff  and  in  favor  of  a  rival 
shipper,  the  evidence  showed  that  the 
shippers  were  given  substantially  the 
same  facilities  for  transportation;  that  in 
one  month  plaintiff  was  given  five  cars 
and  the  rival  shipper  six;  that  in  another 
month  plaintiff  received  ten  cars,  while 
the  rival  shipper  received  seven;  that  in 
another  month  each  received  seventeen 
cars.  It  was  also  shown  that  from  the 
3d    to    the    10th    of    the    last    month    the 


93 


CONTROL    AND   REGULATION'. 


§  102 


quiring  railroad  corporations  to  give  to  all  i)ersons  reasonable  and  equal  terms, 
facilities  and  accommodations,-  providing  that  no  common  carrier  shall  receive 
from  any  person  any  greater  compensation  than  it  charges  any  other  person 
for  a  like  and  contcm])oraneous  service,'*  prohibiting  the  giving  of  unreasonable 
preferences  and  im])()sing  unreasonable  disadvantages  on  any  particular  person, 
locality,  or  any  descripti(jn  of  traffic  over  any  jjerson,  or  any  jjarticular  descrip- 
tion of  traffic  similarly  situated,-*  providing  that  no  discrimination  in  charges 
or  facilities  for  transportation  shall  be  made  between  places  or  persons  or  in 
the   facilities   for  the  transportation  of   the  same  classes  of   freight  or  passen- 


plaintiff  received  only  three  cars,  while 
his  rival  received  six.  Held,  insufficient 
to  show  a  discrimination  in  violation  of 
the  Arkansas  statute,  Kirby's  Dig.,  §  6804, 
making  it  the  duty  of  carriers  to  furnish 
without  discrimination  facilities  for  the 
transportation  of  freight.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Clay  Gin  Co.,  77  .Ark.  :i.57,  92 
S.    W.    53L 

Commission  rule  prohibiting  discrimi- 
nation against  shippers  not  against  com- 
modities.— Tlie  rule  promulgated  l)y  tlie 
railroad  commission  of  Georgia,  that  car- 
riers, "in  the  conduct  of  their  intrastate 
business,  shall  afford  to  all  persons  equal 
facilities  in  the  transi)ortation  and  de- 
livery of  freight,"  prohibits  discrimination 
against  shippers,  not  against  commodities. 
As  to  issuing  through  bills  of  lading,  or 
furnishing  its  cars  to  connecting  carriers, 
in  order  that  shipments  may  be  carried 
to  ultimate  destination  without  reloading 
at  terminal  points,  a  carrier  may  discrim- 
inate against  cotton  seed,  provided  all 
shippers  of  that  commodity  are  treated 
alike.  That  such  discrimination  is  dic- 
tated by  the  business  interests  of  the  car- 
rier, and  really  affects  but  a  single 
shipper,  because  he  is  the  only  person  at 
a  terminal  point  who  is  engaged  in  ship- 
ping cotton  seed  out  of  the  state,  can  not 
alter  the  matter.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Augusta  Brokerage  Co.,  122  Ga.  646,  50 
v^.  K.  47:i.  (•)'.)  L.  R.  A.  liu. 

2.  Words  "reasonable  and  equal  terms" 
construed. — .\.,  a  student  over  twenty 
years  of  age,  paid  to  a  railroad  corpora- 
tion tlie  regular  price  of  a  season  ticket 
entitling  him  to  transportation  over  its 
road,  between  two  stations,  for  three 
months.  The  directors  of  the  corporation 
had  authorized  its  president,  upon  special 
application  and  in  his  discretion,  to  allow 
season  tickets  to  be  sold  to  students  over 
twenty  years  of  age,  for  the  same  term, 
between  the  same  stations,  for  one-half 
the  price  .A.  paid,  and  such  tickets  had 
been  sold.  Held,  in  an  action  I)y  A.  to  re- 
cover of  the  corporation  one-half  of  the 
amount  paid  by  him,  that  there  was  no 
violation  of  the  Massachusetts  statute,  St. 
1874,  c.  372,  §  138,  which  requires  railroad 
corporations  to  give  to  all  persons  rea- 
sonable and  equal  terms,  facilities,  and 
accommodations;  that  the  requirement  of 
this  section,  which  is  re-enacted  from  St. 
1867,  c.  339,  is  to  be  construed  in  the  light 


of  the  decision  in  Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v. 
Gage  (Mass.),  12  Gray  393,  and  the 
words  "reasonable  and  equal  terms" 
arc  not  to  be  taken  as  used  in  a  strict 
literal  sense;  and  that  the  action  could 
not  be  maintained.  Spofford  v.  Boston, 
etc.,   Railroad,  128   Mass.  326. 

Carrying  coal  for  a  shipper  for  less  than 
is  charged  others. —  The  mere  fact  tiiat  a 
carrier  discriminated  in  favor  of  a  shipper 
of  coal  by  carrying  coal  for  it  between 
designated  points  at  fifty  cents  less  per 
ton  "than  it  granted  to  any  other  shipper 
does  not  show  a  violation  of  the  Vermont 
statute.  Acts  1882,  p.  47,  No.  36  (V.  S. 
3902-3904),  requiring  carriers  to  give  all 
persons  reasonable  and  equal  terms  and 
accommodations,  for  the  rates  charged 
may  have  been  reasonable  and  equal 
within  the  law,  though  less  in  amount. 
State  V.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  81  Vt. 
463,   71   Atl.    194. 

3.  Issuing  passes. — Under  the  North  Car- 
olina statute.  Laws  1891,  c.  320,  §  4, 
providing  that  no  common  carrier  shall 
receive  from  any  person  any  greater  com- 
pensation than  it  charges  any  other  per- 
son for  a  like  and  contemporaneous  serv- 
ice, it  is  unlawful  for  a  railroad  company 
to  issue  passes,  and  transport  people 
thereon  free  of  charge.  State  v.  Southern 
R.  Co..  122  N.  C.  1052.  30  S.  E.  133,  41 
L.    R.   A.   246. 

4.  Refusing  to  receive  packages  of 
money  between  certain  hours. — Tlio  Soutli 
Dakota  statute.  Rev.  Pol.  Code  S.  D.,  § 
437,  prohibits  any  common  carrier  from 
giving  unreasonable  preferences  and  im- 
posing unreasonable  disadvantages  on  any 
particular  person,  locality,  or  any  descrip- 
tion of  traffic  over  any  person,  or  any 
particular  description  of  traffic  similarly 
situated.  Held,  that  rules  and  practice  of 
an  express  company  to  refuse  to  receive 
packages  of  money  on  the  day  preceding 
that  on  which  the  only  trains  carrying 
express  matter  start  from  places  of  ten- 
der for  the  destination  of  the  packages 
between  6:29  and  8  a.  m.  do  not  violate 
the  section,  where  the  rules  and  practice 
are  universal,  apply  to  all  cities  and  towns 
except  certain  large  cities,  and  appb'  to 
40  cities  and  towns  in  South  Dakota. 
Decree  150  Fed.  39 L  reversed.  Piatt  :■. 
LeCocq.  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  158  Fed.  723. 
15  L.   R.  A..   N.   S..  55S. 


102 


CARRIERS 


94 


gersS'  prohibiting  railroad  companies  from  making  any  departure  from  their 
published  freight  rates  except  to  aid  in  the  development  of  industrial  enter- 
prises in  the  state,**  prohibiting  preferential  contracts  for  the  receipt,  delivery. 
or  transportation  of  freight,"  prohibiting  discrimination  between  localities,  or 
charging  a  greater  rate  for  a  shorter  haul.*^  providing  that  rates  of  fare  shall 
be  the  same  for  all  persons  between  the  same  points,''  and  providing  that  all 
individuals  shall  have  equal  rights  to  be  transported  over  any  railroad  in  the 
state,  and  making  it  unlawful  for  any  common  carrier  to  charge  any  person  for 


5.  Rates  prescribed  held  not  to  consti- 
tute an  unjust  discrimination. — The  con- 
stitution of  Washington,  art.  12,  §  15, 
which  provides  that  no  discrimination  in 
charges  or  facilities  for  transportation 
shall  be  made  by  any  railroad  between 
places  or  persons  or  in  the  facilities  for 
thi  transportation  of  the  same  classes  of 
freight  or  passengers,  is  not  violated  by 
rates,  ordered  by  the  railroad  commis- 
sion, which  do  not  charge  any  persons  or 
classes  of  persons  a  greater  or  less  rate 
for  the  same  service  than  is  charged  all 
other  persons  similarly  situated,  and 
which  have  a  like  effect  upon  all  who  are 
similarly  situated.  To  constitute  an  un- 
just discrimination,  the  company  would 
have  to  receive  a  greater  or  less  rate  from 
one  person  than  another  to  whom  it 
furnished  a  like  service  under  like  con- 
ditions, either  directly  or  indirectly.  Puget 
Sound  Elect.  Railway  z'.  Railroad  Comm., 
65    Wash.    75,    117    Pac.    739. 

6.  Rebate  on  coal  shipped  to  a  miller. — 
Under  the  Alabama  statute.  Code  1886,  § 
1161.  which  prohibits  railroad  companies 
from  making  any  departure  from  their 
published  freight  rates  except  to  aid  in 
the  development  of  industrial  enterprises 
in  the  state,  an  agreement  to  allow  a  re- 
bate on  coal  shipped  to  a  miller,  and  used 
by  him  in  manufacturing  corn  into  meal, 
is  valid.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Fulg- 
ham,  91  Ala.  555,  8  So.  803. 

7.  A  contract  by  which  defendant  rail- 
road company  agreed  not  to  establish  any 
other  stockyards  in  a  certain  city,  but  to 
deliver  all  live  stock  shipped  over  its 
roads  and  consigned  to  such  city  at  stock- 
3'ards  controlled  by  the  B.  Company,  etc., 
was  void,  as  in  violation  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  Kentucky,  §  214,  prohibitng  pref- 
erential contracts  for  the  receipt,  de- 
livery, or  transportation  of  freight,  and 
as  against  puljlic  policy.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Central  Stock  Yards  Co..  30  Ky. 
L.   Rep.   18,  97   S.  W.   778. 

Contract  for  transportation  of  freight 
at  less  than  regular  rate. — The  constitu- 
tion of  Kentucky,  §  214,  provides  that  no 
railway  shall  make  any  preferential  con- 
tract for  the  transportation  of  freight. 
Ky.  St.,  §  817  (Russell's  St..  §  5354),  makes 
it  an  offense  for  any  railroad  company  to 
charge  a  greater  or  less  compensation 
for  any  service  rendered  to  one  person  in 
the  transportation  of  passengers  or  prop- 
el ty  than  it  charges  any  other  person  for 


doing  a  like  service.  Held,  that  a  con- 
tract with  a  railroad  company  for  the 
transportation  of  freight  between  two 
points  in  this  state  at  a  rate  less  than  the 
regular  rate  of  such  company  is  contrary 
to  public  policy  and  void,  although  the 
shipper  was  ignorant  of  the  preference. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maysville 
Brick   Co.    (Ky.),    116   S.   W.    1183. 

8.  Discrimination  betw^een  localities,  or 
charging  a  greater  rate  for  a  shorter 
haul. — Where  a  railroad  company  charges 
higher  rates  for  carrying  freight  a  less 
distance  than  its  published  rates  for  car- 
rying it  a  greater  distance  in  the  same 
direction  over  the  same  road,  it  violates 
the  Missouri  statute.  Rev.  St.  1899,  §§ 
1133,  1134,  prohibiting  discrimination  be- 
tween localities,  or  charging  a  greater 
rate  for  a  shorter  haul,  though  it  does 
not  actually  carry  any  freight  the  greater 
distance.  Cohn  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
181    Mo.   30,   79    S.   W.   961. 

Plaintiff  shipped  coal  over  defendant's 
railroad  from  C.  to  K.,  the  rates  charged 
being  greater  than  rates  advertised  on 
the  same  date  for  shipments  of  coal  oyer 
defendant's  road  in  the  same  direction 
from  M.  to  K.,  a  greater  distance.  Held, 
an  unlawful  discrimination,  though  no 
coal  was  actually  shipped  from  M.  to 
K.  on  the  day  on  which  plaintiff's  coal 
was  shipped,  since  defendant,  in  adver- 
tising a  certain  rate  from  M.,  must  be 
deemed  to  have  charged  such  rate  within 
the  Missouri  statute.  Rev.  St.,  §  2637, 
making  it  unlawful  for  a  carrier  to 
"charge"  a  greater  compensation  for 
transportation  of  like  kinds  of  property, 
under  similar  circumstances,  for  a  shorter 
than  a  longer  distance  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Seawell  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
119   Mo.  222,  24   S.  W.  1002. 

9.  Giving  passenger  purchasing  ticket 
before  entering  cars  a  discount  from  ad- 
vertised fare. — A  regulation  of  a  railroad 
corporation  that  a  passenger  who  shall 
I)urcliase  a  ticket  before  entering  its  cars 
shall  be  entitled  to  a  discount  from  the 
advertised  rates  of  fare,  but,  if  such  ticket 
is  not  purchased,  the  full  rate  of  fare 
shall  be  charged,  is  a  reasonable  regula- 
tion, and  does  not  violate  a  rule  pre- 
scribed by  statute  that  the  rates  of  fare 
shall  be  the  same  for  all  persons  be- 
tween the  same  points.  Swan  v.  Man- 
chester, etc..  Railway,  132  Mass.  116,  42 
Am.  Rep.  432. 


95 


CONTROL    AND    KIXULATIOX. 


§§  102-103 


any  ticket  a  greater  sum  than  is  charged  for  a  similar  ticket  of  the  same  class. ^'^ 
Where  a  railroad  company  renders  services  to  one  corporation  so  as  to  enable 
it  to  serve  the  public,  and  without  sufficient  excuse  refuses  to  render  similar 
service  to  another  corporation  lawfully  authorized  to  serve  the  public,  it  is  an 
unjust  discrimination,  which  the  railroad  commissioners  have  the  power  to  make 
just  and  reasonable  rules  to  prevent.'^  Under  a  statute  providing  that  a  car- 
rier receiving  from  any  i)erson  a  greater  or  less  compensation  for  services  ren- 
dered or  to  be  rendered  by  it  than  it  receives  from  any  other  person  for  a  like 
service  shall  be  guilty  of  an  unjust  discrimination  forbidden  by  the  act,  a  car- 
rier may  not  exchange  transportation  for  services  or  property  by  way  of  barter.^- 
The  rule  that  a  contract  by  a  carrier  to  transport  goods  for  less  than  the  pub- 
lished rate  is  illegal  has  no  application,  where  there  is  a  consideration  for  the 
contract,  in  addition  to  and  independent  of  the  freight  rate  agreed  upon,  so  that 
the  rate  is  not  necessarily  discriminatory. ^^  The  fact  that  a  rate  imposed  by 
a  carrier  is  per  se  reasonable  does  not  disprove  the  charge  that  it  is  unlawful, 
for.  where  rates  are  relatively  unjust  so  that  undue  preference  is  afforded  to  one 
!ocalit\  or  undue  prejudice  results  to  another,  the  higher  rate  is  unjust,  thougli 
it  is  not  in  itself  excessive.'''"  When  the  facts  are  ascertained,  the  question  of 
the  existence  of  an  "undue  or  unreasonable  discrimination,"  within  the  meaning 
of  a  statute  prohibiting  such  discrimination,  is  for  the  court. ^'' 

§§  103-108.  What  Circumstances  Will  Justify  Discrimination — 
§  103.  Business  of  Carrier  Unusually  or  Unexpectedly  Heavy. — An  un- 
precedented demand  un  a  railroad  company  fur  cars  is  an  excuse  for  failing 
to  provide  cars,  as  required  by  a  statute  making  it  the  duty  of  carriers  to 
furnish,  without  discrimination,  sufficient  facilities  for  the  carriage  of  freight, 
where  the  company  has  sufficient  equipment  for  the  ordinary  demands.^^     Where 


10.  Giving  free  passes. — The  Constitu- 
tion of  Montana,  art.  1.5,  §  7.  provides 
that  all  individuals  shall  have  equal  rights 
to  be  transported  over  any  railroad  in  the 
state,  provided  that  exciirsion  or  commu- 
tation tickets  may  be  issued  and  sold  at 
special  rates.  Rev.  Codes,  §  4337,  makes 
it  unlawful  for  any  common  carrier  to 
charge  any  person  for  any  ticket  a  greater 
sum  than  is  charged  for  a  similar  ticket 
of  the  same  class,  and  §  S-JS-t  makes  everj- 
railroad  corporation  which  fails  to  ob- 
serve any  of  the  duties  prescribed  by 
law  in  reference  to  railroads  subject  to 
a  fine,  etc.  Held,  that  the  giving  of  all 
free  passes,  with  certain  exceptions  rec- 
ognized by  law,  was  prohil)ited,  so  that 
the  carriage  of  a  passenger  bj^  defendant 
on  a  pass  issued  without  compensation  to 
the  employee  of  another  railroad  com- 
pany which  issued  similar  free  passes 
for  use  l)y  defendant's  employees  was 
illegal.  John  z\  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
42    Mont.    IS,    111    Pac.    632. 

11.  State  V.  .\tlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.. 
51  Fla.  .■>78,  40  So.  875;  S.  C,  52  Fla.  646, 
41    So.   705. 

12.  Exchange  of  transportation  for 
services  or  property  forbidden. — Slate  r. 
I?nion  Pac.  R.  Co.,  87  Neb.  29,  126  X. 
W.  859.  construing  Cobbey's  Ann.  St. 
l'.»09,   §    l{).t)t;2. 

13.  Consideration  for  contract  to  trans- 
port goods  in  addition  to  freight  rate. — 
Sultan   R.,   etc..   Co.   :\   Great   Xortlicrn   R. 


Co.,    58    Wash.    «<)4,    1()!»    Pac.    1020,    deny- 
ing hearing  in   10'.)   Pac.  320. 

14.  A  rate  may  be  preferential  though 
not  unreasonable. — Portland  R.,  etc.,  Co. 
r.  Railroad  Comm..  56  Ore.  468,  105  Pac. 
709,    109    Pac.    273. 

15.  Question  of  existence  of  discrimi- 
nation is  for  court. — Hoover  r.  Pennsj'l- 
vania  R.  Co.,  156  Pa.  220.  27  Atl.  282.  22 
L.  R.  A.  2()3,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  43. 

16.  Unprecedented  demand  for  cars. — 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Leder  Bros., 
79  Ark.  59.  95  S.  W.  170,  construing  Kir- 
by's   Dig..  §  6804. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars  for  the  carriage  of 
freight,  the  evidence  showed  that  there 
was  a  shortage  in  cars  by  reason  of  an 
extraordinary  accumulation  of  freight, 
that  the  carrier  had  seven  cars  per  mile 
for  each  mile  of  its  main  line  and  branches 
which  compared  favorably  with  other 
carriers  in  that  part  of  the  country;  that 
it  in  anticipation  of  new  business  or- 
dered 1,500  new  freight  cars,  which  it 
thought  would  be  sufficient  to  handle  the 
Inisiness.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was  not 
liable;  it  being  bound  only  to  provide 
reasonable  facilities  for  the  carriage  of 
freight  offered  in  the  regular  course  of 
Inisiness.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Clay 
Gin   Co.,   77   Ark.   357.  92   S.   W.   531. 

The  refusal  of  a  railroad  company  to 
furnish  cars  to  the  owner  of  a  coal  mine, 
to  be  loaded  by  wagons  on  its  commercial 


§§    103-105  CARRIERS.  96 

there  is  a  press  of  business,  perishable  goods,  or  goods  the  inherent  character  of 
which  is  such  as  to  render  them  pecuharly  liable  to  serious  injury  from  delay, 
have  been  considered  of  such  exceptional  character  as  to  authorize  a  reasonable 
preference,  as  to  expedition  in  hauling  them,  over  freight  not  of  such  a  char- 
acter, in  absence  of  express  statutory  regulations  on  the  subject,  but  such  rule 
can  not  be  invoked  as  a  cloak  for  making  illegal  discriminations  for  one  shipper 
or  class  of  shippers  as  against  another  without  real  ground  for  its  application. i" 
That  a  railroad's  line  was  congested  is  not  an  excuse  for  refusing  a  siding  to 
a  coal  propertv,  where  the  railroad  afforded  siding  privileges  to  other  operators, 
and  a  reduction  of  the  cars  to  other  operators  would  have  prevented  an  in- 
crease of  the  total  traffic.''^ 

§  104.  Difference  in   Conditions  under  Which   Shipment  Is  Made.— 

Under  a  constitutional  enactment  providing  that  all  railroad  companies  shall 
haul  "freight  of  the  same  class  for  all  persons,  associations  or  corporations  from 
and  to  the  same  points  and  upon  the  same  conditions,  in  the  same  manner  and 
for  the  same  charges  and  for  the  same  method  of  payment,"  it  has  been  held 
that  a  railroad  company  may  charge  less  for  hauling  coal  used  for  manufac- 
turing purposes  than  it  charges  for  hauling  coal  used  for  domestic  purposes, 
as  the  fact  that  the  company  receives  the  manufactured  product  for  return  ship- 
ment in  the  one  case  and  not  in  the  other  constitutes  a  dift'erence  in  conditions 
which  authorizes  a  difference  in  charges. i'*  But  under  a  statute  providing  that 
any  carrier  charging  one  person  nwre  than  another  for  the  same  service  is 
gu'iltv  of  discrimination,  it  has  been  held  that  a  railroad  carrying  raw  material 
to  factories  can  not  charge  a  factory  which  agrees  to  ship  the  manufactured 
product  by  the  same  road  less  for  the  same  service  than  it  charges  a  factory 
which  will  make  no  such  agreement.-" 

§  10  5.  Through  Rates  and  Local  Rates. — A  constitutional  enactment 
providing  that  all  railways  shall  transport  freight  of  the  same  class  from  and 
to  the  same  points  for  the  same  charges,  does  not  prohibit  a  railway  company 

tracks  in  its  yards  at  a  station  at  a  time  and  property  transported  over  railroads, 
when  the  business  of  the  road  was  un-  and  no  unjust  or  undue  discrimination 
usually  heavy,  necessitating  the  constant  shall  be  made  in  charges  or  facilities;  and 
use  of  such  tracks,  and  its  supply  of  cars  that  no  discrimination  in  charges  or  fa- 
was  insufficient  to  handle  its  traffic,  while  cibties  for  transportation  shall  be  made 
at  the  same  time  it  furnished  cars  to  other  between  transportation  coinpanies  and 
mine  owners  on  their  own  private  tracks,  individuals,  or  in  favor  of  either."  Little 
to  be  loaded  by  tipple,  was  not  unrea-  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Oppenheimer,  64 
sonable;  nor  did  it  constitute  an  unlawful  Ark.  271,  43  S.  W.  150,  44  L._  R.  A.  3.53; 
preference  or  discrimination,  either  un-  17.  Perference  as  to  expedition  in  haul- 
der  the  common  law,  or  the  statutes  of  ing  perishable  goods.— Southern  R.  Co. 
Arkansas,  which  prohibit  any  preference  z'.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga.  35, 
or    discrimination      in    the      furnishing    of  08   S.   E.   807. 

cars.     Harp  v.   Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  118  18.    Congestion    on   line   no    excuse   for 

Fed    IGO    affirmed  in  61  C.  C.  A.  405,  125  refusing    a    siding.— Cox    v.    Pennsylvania 

Fed!    445.  !<•    Co.    (I'a.),    ,S5    Atl.    sr,3. 

Failure  to  furnish  facilities  at  points  19.  Shipping  to  manufacturer  where 
where  there  was  no  competition.— A  fail-  carrier  is  to  ship  manufactured  product. 
urc  on  the  part  of  a  railroad  company  to  —Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
furnish  facilities  for  forwarding  all  cot-  wealth,  108  Ky.  628,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  328, 
ton  offered  at  points  on  its  line  wlicre  57  S.  W.  508,  construing  Const.  §  215. 
there  was  no  competition,  when  it  fur-  20.  Hilton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
nished  sufficient  transportation  at  com-  R.  Co.,  136  N.  C.  479,  48  S.  E.  813,  con- 
pcting  points,  in  a  year  when  the  sliip-  struing  Laws  1899,  p.  301,  c.  164,  §  13. 
ments  of  cotton  were  unexpectedly  heavy,  A  carrier  may  not  give  one  customer 
is  not  such  unjust  discrimination  as  will  a  lower  rate  for  the  shipment  of  logs, 
subject  the  company  to  a  penalty  at  the  than  another,  merely  because  the  former 
suit  of  a  shipper,  under  Arkansas  statute,  ships  the  manufactured  product  over  the 
Act  March  24.  188.7,  providing  that  "all  carrier's  line.  Hilton  Lumber  Co.  ^'-  -"^t- 
individuals,  associations,  and  corporations  lantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  N.  C.  171,  53  S.  E. 
shall   have    equal    rights    to    have    persons  823,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  225. 


97 


CONTROL     AM)     RKGULATIOX. 


§§    105-109 


from  charging  a  througli  rate  whicli  is  less  than  the  sum  of  the  local  rates  he- 
tween  the  two  points.-^ 

§  106.  Competition  with  Other  Carriers. — The  establishment  perma- 
nently of  less  rates  of  freight  at  points  of  competition  with  other  roads  than 
is  fixed  at  other  places  for  the  same  distance  can  not  be  justified  by  showing 
that  the  rates  charged  at  such  other  places  are  reasonably  low,  and  that  the  rates 
charged  at  competing  ])oints  are  unreasonably  low.  Even  if  the  higher  rates 
are  reasonably  low,  when  regarded  with  reference  to  the  profit  upon  the  capital 
invested  in  the  road,  they  are  not  reasonable  in  the  trtie  sense  of  the  term,  if 
no  satisfactory  reason  can  be  given  for  charging  less  rates  for  the  same  or 
greater  services  to  persons  at  other  stations.  Railroad  corporations  should  not 
use  their  power  to  benefit  particular  individuals  or  build  up  particular  localities 
by  arbitrary  discriminations  in  their  favor  that  must  cause  injury  to  other  per- 
sons or  places  engaged  in  rival  pursuits,  or  occupying  rival  position^^.-- 

§  107.  Unusual  Traffic  Conditions  Attending  upon  a  General  Coal 
Strike. — L'nusual  traffic  conditions  attending  upon  a  general  coal  strike  do 
not  relieve  a  railroad  company  from  the  duty  of  furnishing  equal  transporta- 
tion facilities  to  a  coal  company.--^ 

§  108.  Cost  of  Mining  Coal  to  Company  in  Whose  Favor  Discrimi- 
nation Is  Irlade. — A  discriminating  rate  on  shipments  of  coal  can  not  be  justi- 
fied on  the  ground  of  the  cost  of  mining  coal  to  the  company  in  whose  favor 
the  rate  is  made.-'* 

§  109.  Places  of  Stoppage.— Subject  to  the  rule  that  it  must  not  unrea- 
sonably interfere  with  interstate  commerce.-'^  a  state  may  prescribe  the  places 
where'trains  shall  stop,  and  require  them  to  stop  there. -'^  Thus  trains  operating 
entirely  within  the  state  may  be  required  to  sto])  at  every  county  seat  through 
which  thev  i)ass.-'   and  this  is  true  even  though  such  trains  are  engaged  in  car- 


21.  Through  rate  less  than  sum  of  lo- 
cal rates. — Southern  Railway  v.  Common- 
wealth, 116  Ky.  907,  2.}  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1078, 
77   S.   W.  r.'n7,   constrninii'  Const.,  §  21."). 

22.  Competition  no  justification  for  dis- 
crimination.— Chica.L^o,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peo- 
ple, r,:  ill.  11.  k;  Am.  Rep.  :^\)\^. 

The  clause  of  the  Illinois  statute,  ap- 
proved May  2,  1873,  prohil)iting  discrim- 
ination by  railroads,  which  provides  that 
"competition  with  any  other  railroad  or 
means  of  transportation"  at  the  favored 
point  shall  be  no  defense  in  an  action  for 
unjust  discrimination,  held  to  mean  com- 
petition in  railroad  traffic,  and  not  merely 
competition  in  the  markets  and  lines  of 
merchandise  involved  in  such  discrimi- 
nation. Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
121    111.    :i(t4,    12    X.    K.    (570. 

Cut  rates  made  by  other  railroads  at 
competitive  points  are  no  excuse  lor  un- 
just discrimination  in  favor  of  such 
points.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
121  111.  :w\.  12  X.   1"..  (mO. 

23.  Unusual  traffic  conditions  attending 
upon  a  general  coal  strike. — Minds  :. 
Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,  22S   Pa.   o7.j,   77   Atl. 

90'.t. 

2-1.  Cost  of  mining  coal  to  company  in 
whose  favor  discrimination  is  made. — 
Union    Pac.    R.    Co.   v.    Goodridge,   14'J    U. 


S.  680,  37  L.  Ed.  986,  13  S.  Ct.  970;  Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Taggart,  149  U.  S.  69X,  37 
L.  Ed.  90,-j,  13  S.  Ct.  977. 

25.  Stopping  must  not  unreasonably  in- 
terfere with  interstate  Commerce. — Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Jllinnis,  177  U.  S.  ol4, 
518,  44  L.  Ed.  868.  20  S.  Ct.  722;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois.  163  U.  S.  142.  41 
L.    Ed.    107,   16   S.   Ct.    1()9C). 

26.  Requiring  trains  to  stop  at  certain 
places. — Gladson  v.  Minnesota,  166  U.  S. 
427.  431,  41    L.   Ed.    1064.   17   S.   Ct.  627. 

In  Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Ohio, 
173  U.  S.  285,  43  L.  Ed.  702.  19  S.  Ct.  465. 
a  statute  of  Ohio  providing  that  every 
railroad  company  should  cause  three  of 
its  regular  trains  carrying  passengers,  if 
so  many  are  run  daily,  Sundays  excepted, 
to  stop  at  a  station,  city  or  village  con- 
taining over  three  thousand  inhabitants, 
for  a  time  sufficient  to  receive  and  let  off 
passengers,  was  held  to  be,  in  the  absence 
of  legislation  by  congress  upon  the  sub- 
ject, consistent  with  tlie  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  when  applied  to  trains 
engaged  in  interstate  commerce  through 
tlie  state  of  Ohio.  Clevelantl.  etc.,  R.  Co. 
:■.  Illinois.  177  U.  S.  ">14.  519.  44  L.  Ed. 
S6S.  -jlt   S.   Ct.   722. 

27.  Requiring  trains  to  stop  at  county 
seats. — Gladson    v.    Minnesota.    166    U.    S. 


1    Car— 7 


§§  109-111 


CARRIERS. 


98 


rying  the  mail  and  also  make  connection  with  trains  running  into  another  state.^^ 

§  110.  Receipt    and    Transportation    of    Freight    and    Passengers.— 

There  are  statutes  in  some  stales  rccjuiring  railroad  companies  to_  receive  and 
transport  passengers  applying  or  freight  tendered  for  transportation.  ^  Such  a 
requirement  is  a  legitimate  exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the  state.-'^  Some 
of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  such  statutes  have  been  interpreted  by  the  courts.^^ 
The  duty  of  a  carrier  to  accept  goods  tendered  at  its  station  does  not  require 
it  to  accept  cars  offered  by  competing  roads  at  arbitrary  points  near  its  terminus 
for  the  purpose  of  using'  its  terminal  station.  A  law  requiring  the  carrier  so 
to  do  is  unconstitutional  as  taking  property  without  due  process  of  law.^^ 

§§   111-114.  Exclusive  Privileges— §   111.  To  Express   Companies.— 

Special  contracts  between  express  and  railroad  companies,  over  whose  lines 
express  matter  is  carried,  giving  special  and  exclusive  privileges  to  the  former, 


427,  41  L.  Ed.  1064,  17  S.  Ct.  627;  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Illinois,  177  U.  S. 
514,  44  L.  Ed.  868,  20  S.  Ct.  722  (holding 
that  a  statute  requiring  trains  to  stop  at 
county  seais  was  not  applicable  to  a 
through  express  train,  where  the  other 
train  service  at  this  point  was  sufficient 
for  the  public  need). 

An  Illinois  statute  required  all  trains 
to  stop  at  county  seats.  Upon  the  con- 
struction of  this  statute,  see  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  People,  143  111.  434.  33  N.  E. 
173,  19  L.  R.  A.  119,  in  which  case 
the  Illinois  decisions  are  considered.  Sim- 
ilar statutes  have  been  held  valid  in  Ar- 
kansas and  Minnesota,  and  mandamuses 
held  to  lie  to  enforce  them.  State  v. 
Gladson,  57  Minn.  385,  59  N.  W.  487,  24 
L.  R.  A.  502:  Railway  Co.  v.  B'Shears,  59 
Ark.  237.  27  S.  W.  2.  The  Arkansas  stat- 
ute required  trains  to  stop  within  the  cor- 
porate limits,  upon  the  application  of  not 
less    than    fifty    citizens. 

28.  Trains  carrying  mail  or  connecting 
with  interstate  trains. — Gladson  v.  Minne- 
sota, lor,  U.  S.  427.  41  L.  Ed.  1064,  17  S. 
Ct.  627:  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Illmoi<;. 
177  U.  S.  514,  518,  44  L.  Ed.  868,  20  S.  Ct. 
722. 

A  state  statute  requiring  every  rail- 
road to  stop  all  its  regular  passenger 
tiains  running  wholly  within  the  state  at 
its  stations  in  all  county  seats  long 
enough  to  take  on  and  discharge  passen- 
gers with  safety,  was  held  to  be  a  rea- 
sonable exercise  of  the  police  power  of 
the  state,  even  as  applied  to  a  train  con- 
necting with  a  train  of  the  same  company 
running  into  another  state,  and  carrying 
some  interstate  passengers  as  well  as  the 
mail.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Illinois, 
177  U.  S.  514,  518.  44  L.  Ed.  868,  20  S.  Ct. 
722;  Gladson  v.  Minnesota,  166  U.  S.  427, 
41    L.    Ed.    1064.   17   S.    Ct.    627. 

29.  Statute  held  a  legitimate  exercise 
of  police  power. — The  North  Carolina 
statute,  Revisal  1905,  §  2632,  declares  that 
it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  railroad  com- 
pany to  neglect  to  transport  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  any  goods  received  for  ship- 


ment and  billed  to  or  from  any  place  in 
the  state,  unless  otherwise  agreed  be- 
tween the  parties  or  unless  the  same  be 
destroyed,  under  a  penalty.  It  is  further 
provided  that  the  company  shall  be 
deemed  to  have  transported  the  goods  in 
a  reasonable  time  if  it  has  done  so  within 
the  ordinary  time  required  for  such  trans- 
portation, and  that  a  delay  of  two  days 
at  the  initial  point,  and  forty-eigth  hours 
at  one  intermediate  point  for  each  one 
hundred  miles  or  fraction  over  which 
goods  are  to  be  tranported,  shall  be  held 
to  be  prima  facie  reasonable,  and  a  fail- 
ure to  transport  within  such  time  shall 
be  held  prima  facie  unreasonable.  Held, 
that  the  statute  was  a  legitimate  exercise 
of  the  police  power  of  the  state,  and  rea- 
sonable in  its  provisions.  Stone  &  Co.  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  X.  C.  220,  56 
S.    E.    932. 

30.  Peculiar  provisions  of  statutes  con- 
strued.— The  requirement  of  the  Charter 
of  the  Portland  &  Oxford  Cent.  R.  Co.,  § 
8  (Sp.  Laws  1857,  c.  122,  §  8),  that  the 
corporation  "shall  be  obliged  to  receive, 
at  all  proper  times  and  places,  and  con- 
vey, persons  and  articles,"  etc.,  should  be 
construed  to  mean  that  the  times  and 
places  designated  for  the  purpose  named 
shall  be  in  fact  reasonable  and  consistent 
with  the  right  of  the  public  to  use  the 
road.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Portland,  etc., 
R.    Co.,   63    Me.    269,    18    Am.    Rep.    208. 

The  Michigan  Railroad  Commission  Act 
fPub.  Acts  1909,  No.  300,  as  amended  by 
Pub.  Acts  1911,  No.  139)  held  torequire 
receipt  and  transportation  of  freight  lo- 
cally consigned  between  points  in  the 
same  city  or  town,  whether  from  another 
railroad  or  not,  and  such  as  is  offered  at 
any  junction  or  transfer  point  for  deliv- 
ery on  sidings,  without  reference  to 
where  the  shipment  originated.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.  v.  Michigan  R.  Comm.,  198 
Fed.    100!). 

31.  When  carrier  not  required  to  ac- 
cept cars  offered  by  competing  roads. — 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Stock 
Yards  Co.,  212  U.  S.  132,  133,  53  L.  Ed. 
441,   29    S.    Ct.    246. 


99 


CONTROL    AND    KIXULATION. 


§§  111-112 


are  lawful."-  Where  a  street  railway  company  is  authorized  to  transact  ex- 
press business  over  its  lines,  it  is  entitled  to  limit  such  business  to  a  single  ex- 
press company,  provided  it  thereby  afifords  reasonable  express  facilities  to  the 
public. ^^ 

§  112.  To  Corporations  or  Individuals  Engaged  in  Transporting  Pas- 
sengers and  Baggage  to  and  from  Railroad  Depots. — The  preponderance 
of  auilKjrity  .supports  ilic  rule  that  a  railroad  company  may  grant  to  a  cor- 
poration or  individual  the  exclusive  right  of  entering  its  trains  to  solicit  the 
transportation  of  ])assengers  and  baggage, •^■*  or  the  exclusive  privilege  of  solicit- 
ing such  patronage  within  its  depot. ■''•"'  or  the  exclusive  privilege  of  soliciting 
business  on  the  dei)ot  grounds  and  of  inlying  there  the  business  of  a  carrier  of 
passengers   or  baggage.''''      It  b.as   also  been   h.eld   that   a   union   depot  company 


32.  Exclusive  privileges  to  express  com- 
panies.— Blank  i'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  80 
111.  App.  4T.j,  aftirnicd  in  182  111.  3:52,  55 
N.    E.    332. 

33.  Dulaney  ;■.  United  R.,  etc..  Co.,  104 
Md.    423,    {]-,  '.\l\.   45. 

34.  Entering  trains  to  solicit  transpor- 
tation of  passengers  and  baggage. — Kates 
V.  Atlanta  Bajiga.ye,  etc..  Co.,  107  Ga.  63G, 
34  S.  E.  372,  40  L.  R.  A.  431;  Godbout  V. 
St.  Paul  Union  Depot  Co..  79  Minn.  188, 
81    N.    W.   S35.   47   L.    R.   A.    532. 

35.  Soliciting  patronage  in  depot. — Don- 
ovan 7'.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  IIM)  L.  S.  279, 
50  L.  Ed.  192.  26  S.  Ct.  91.  affirming  60  C. 
C.  A.  168.  124  Fed.  1016;  Godbout  v.  St. 
Paul  Union  Depot  Co.,  79  Minn.  188,  81 
N.    W.    835,   47    L.    R.    A.    532. 

A  contract  entered  into  by  a  depot 
company  with  a  hack  company,  where 
such  hack  company  furnishes  men  to 
meet  all  trains  coming  into  the  city,  to 
allow  passengers  opportunity  to  arrange 
for  the  carriage  of  themselves  and  bag- 
gage from  the  depot,  and  also  furnishes 
a  man  at  the  depot  to  serve  incoming 
passengers,  the  rates  charged  for  such 
services  to  be  reasonable,  and  not  greater 
than  the  scale  of  charges  fixed  by  ordi- 
nance, in  consideration  of  which  such 
hack  company  is  given  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  soliciting  patronage  within 
the  depot  and  on  the  trains,  furnishes  a 
reasonable  and  proper  arrangement,  not 
interfering  with  the  rights  of  the  travel- 
ing public.  Godbout  v.  St.  Paul  Union 
Depot  Co..  79  Minn.  188,  81  N.  W.  835, 
47    L.    R.    A.    532. 

A  railroad  company  is  under  no  duty, 
as  a  common  carrier,  to  permit  a  hackman 
to  enter  its  stations  for  the  purpose  of 
soliciting  business  from  its  passengers, 
and  therefore  its  granting  of  such  right 
to  one  person  or  concern  does  not  entitle 
others  to  equal  privileges  on  the  same 
terms.  Pennsylvania  Co.  ?'.  Donovan.  116 
Fed.  907;  Donovan  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 
57  C.  C.  A.  362.  120  Fed.  215.  61  L-  R.  --\. 
140;  Donovan  t'.  Pennsylvania  Co..  60  C. 
C.  A.  168.  124  Fed.  1016.  affirmed  in  199 
U.    S.    279.   50    L.    Kd.    192.    26    S.    Ct.    91. 

Entry  to  depot  in  pursuance  of  a  con- 
tract   or    order. — All     hackmen    and    per- 


sons engaged  in  the  business  of  convey- 
ing passengers  and  baggage  for  hire  have 
tiie  right  of  entry,  without  discrimination, 
to  the  depots  of  a  common  carrier,  to  de- 
liver or  receive  passengers  or  baggage,  in 
pursuance  of  a  contract  or  order,  subject 
to  proper  rules  and  regulations,  for  the 
interest  of  the  traveling  public.  Godbout 
V.  St.  Paul  Union  Depot  Co.,  79  Minn. 
188.    SI    X.    W.    S:]5.    47    L.    R.    A.    532. 

36.  Soliciting  patronage  and  plying  busi- 
ness on  depot  grounds. — A  railroad  com- 
panj-'s  grant  of  the  exclusive  privilege  of 
soliciting  business  on  the  depot  grounds 
at  a  station,  and  of  "plying"  there  the 
business  of  a  carrier  of  passengers  or 
luggage,  and  forbidding  others  to  do  such 
acts  on  the  grounds,  where  not  inconsis- 
tent with  the  reasonable  accommodation 
of  passengers,  and  where  the  charges  are 
fair,  is  a  reasonable  provision,  such  as  the 
road  has  a  right  to  make.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Scovill.  71  Conn.  136.  41 
Atl.  246.  42  L.  R.  A.  157.  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
159;  Godbout  v.  St.  Paul  Union  Depot 
Co.,  79  Minn.  188.  81  X.  W.  835,  47  L.  R. 
A.  532.  See.  also.  Union,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\ 
Meeking.  42  Colo.  89,  94  Pac.  16,  and  Ore- 
gon, etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Davidson.  33  Utah 
370.  94  Pac.  10. 

A  railwa}'^  company  which  has  made  an 
arrangement  with  a  transfer  company  to 
furnish  at  its  passenger  station  all  the  ve- 
hicles necessarj'  for  the  accommodation 
of  the  passengers  arriving  there  on  its 
trains  or  on  the  trains  of  other  railroad 
companies  using  the  station  may  legally 
exclude  from  the  station  and  depot 
grounds  all  other  hackman  or  calmien 
seeking  entrance  for  the  purpose  of  so- 
liciting for  themselves  the  custom  or 
patronage  of  passengers.  Decree,  Don- 
novan  v.  Pennsylvania  Co..  60  C.  C.  A. 
168.  124  Fed.  1016.  affirmed.  Donovan 
7:  Pennsylvania  Co.,  199  U.  S.  279.  50 
L.   Ed.   19"2.  26  S.  Ct.  91. 

Job  teamsters,  though  common  car- 
riers, have,  in  the  absence  of  statutory' 
authority,  or  a  contract  with  a  railroad 
company,  no  right  to  solicit  on  its  depot 
grounds  the  carriage  of  passengers'  bag- 
gage: all  the  right  in  this  respect  being 
that  of  the  passengers  that  they  shall  be 


112 


CARRIERS. 


100 


may  grant  to  a  transfer  company  tb.e  exclusive  right  to  use  a  designated  por- 
tion of  its  depot  grounds  for  the  standing  of  hacks  and  vehicles,=^'  and  that 
a  railroad  company  mav  rent  to  a  corporation  or  individual  which  has  been 
given  the  exclusive  riglit  to  solicit  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  bag- 
^age,  a  portion  of  its^ baggage  room,  and  concede  to  it  or  him  the  privileges 
necessarily  incident  to  the  occupancy  and  use  thereof,  provided  that  so  domg 
does  not  'interfere  with  the  exercise  by  an>-  other  person  of  any  right  which  he 
mav  lawfullv  demand  of  the  company  as  a  common  carrier;-^     T.ut  it  has  been 


conveniently  and  satisfactorily  served  m 
the  matter  of  the  transfer  of  their_  bag- 
gage: and,  when  such  service  is  furnished, 
though  through  an  individual  to  whom 
the  company  has  granted,  for  a  consid- 
eration, the  exclusive  privilege  of  solicit- 
ing on  the  grounds  such  carriage,  others 
may  be  excluded  from  so  soliciting.  Hed- 
ding  v.  Gallagher,  72  N.  H.  377,  57  Atl. 
225,   t;4   L.    R.   A.   811. 

Where  a  railroad  company  contracts 
with  a  party,  giving  him  exclusive  right 
to  enter  its  grounds  to  solicit  the  patron- 
age of  passengers,  and  notifies  another 
party  of  such  contract,  and  forbids  him 
from  entering  to  solicit  patronage,  a  sub- 
sequent entry  of  such  latter  person  for 
such  purpose  is  unlawful.  Boston,  etc., 
R  Co.  V.  Brown,  177  Mass.  65,  58  N.  E. 
189.    52    L.    R.    A.    418. 

The  fact  that  he  does  so  under  a  con- 
tract with  a  certain  hotel  to  transport 
passengers  from  the  station  to  the  hotel 
will  not  avoid  his  liability  since  notice  to 
the  carrier  was  notice  to  the  hotel.  Bos- 
ton etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Brown,  177  Mass.  65, 
58   N.    E.    189,   52   L.   R.   A.    418. 

The  fact  that  the  person  to  whom  the 
privilege  was  sold  was  not  a  duly  licensed 
hackman  in  accordance  with  the  city  or- 
dinance was  no  defense  to  a  bill  by  the 
carrier  for  an  injunction  restraining  such 
hackman  from  entering  its  premises.  Bos- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Sullivan,  177  Mass. 
2?.o'  58  N.  E.  689,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  275. 
But  in  Indiana  it  has  been  held  that 
a  depot  corporation,  under  its  charter 
power  to  make  regulations  governing  its 
depot,  can  not  discriminate  between  the 
owners  of  public  vehicles  by  allowing  one 
to  stand  and  solicit  business  before  the 
entrance  to  its  depot,  and  exclude  others. 
Indianapolis  Union  R.  Co.  v.  Dohn,  153 
Ind.  10,  53  X.  E.  937,  45  L.  R.  A.  427,  74 
Am.   St.   Rep.   274. 

And  in  Mississippi  it  has  been  held  tliat 
a  railroad  can  not  authorize  one  hackman 
to  drive  into  its  inclosed  depot  grounds 
to  solicit  business  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others,  since  this  would  create  a  monop- 
oly, prevent  competition,  and  inconven- 
ience the  public.  State  v.  Reed,  76  Miss. 
211,  24  So.  308,  43  L.  R.  A.  134,  71  Am. 
St.    Rep.    528. 

In  Illinois  it  has  been  held  that  rail- 
way companies  can  not  grant  special 
privileges  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own 
lines  and  make  a  contract  with  one  which 
gives   him   the    right   to   carry   passengers 


from  their  depots  l)eyond  their  own  lines, 
and  exclude  others  from  sr-ch  privilege  of 
carriage.  Pennsylvania  Co.  z\  Chicago, 
isl  111.  2S9,  34  N.  E.  825,  53  L.  R.  A.  223. 
37.  Use  of  portion  of  depot  grounds  for 
standing  of  hacks  and  vehicles. — A  union 
depot  company  organized  under  the  (3hio 
statute,  Rev.  St.  1892,  §§  3446-3452,  may 
grant  to  a  transfer  company  such  ex- 
clusive right,  and  a  rule  of  such  company, 
excluding  therefrom  all  others  engaged 
in  a  like  business,  except  for  the  purpose 
of  delivering  passengers  or  receiving  pas- 
sengers who  shall  have  previously  em- 
ployed them,  is  reasonable,  and  may  be 
enforced,  so  long  as  the  company  fur- 
nishes adequate  accommodations  in  the 
way  of  vehicles  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
traveling  public,  and  makes  no  greater 
charge  for  carrying  passengers  and  bag- 
gage from  such  station  than  is  made  by 
others  for  like  services.  State  v.  Union 
Deoot  Co.,  71  O.  St.  379,  73  N.  E.  633, 
68    L.    R.    A.    792. 

But  in  Kentucky  it  has  been  held  that 
a  contract  l)y  which  a  railroad  company 
gave  a  transfer  company  the  exclusive 
use  of  a  part  of  its  depot  grounds  was 
void  as  amounting  to  a  practical  monop- 
oly of  the  transfer  business.  Palmer 
Transfer  Co.  v.  Anderson  (Ky.),  115  S. 
\V.   1.S2,   19   L.   R.  A.,  X.   S.,  7.V,. 

38.  Renting  portion  of  baggage  room. 
— Kates  V.  Atlanta  Baggage,  etc.,  Co.,  107 
Ga.    636,    34    S,    E.    372,    46    L.    R.    A.    431. 

Exclusive  right  to  carry  on  private  en- 
terprise in  baggage  room. — Where  a  cor- 
poration, acting  for  a  common  carrier_  in 
providing  a  baggage  room  and  receiving 
and  taking  baggage,  contracts  with  a  sec- 
ond corporation  to  allow  it  the  exclusive 
right  to  carry  on  a  private  enterprise  in 
its  baggage  room,  but  complied  with  its 
duty  to  a  third  corporation  as  a  member 
of  the  public  generally  by  receiving  and 
checking  such  parcels,  accompanied  by  a 
ticket  or  other  evidence  of  the  right  of 
transportation,  and  giving  such  third  cor- 
poration as  to  such  parcels  as  are  attended 
with  tickets  the  preference  over  the  par- 
cels tendered  by  the  second  corporation 
to  go  on  storage,  the  first  corporation 
does  not  violate  any  duty  to  the  third, 
and  tlie  latter  can  not  challenge  the 
legality  of  the  contract  between  the  first 
and  the  second  corporations,  or  enjoin 
operations  thereunder.  Atlanta  Termi- 
nal Co.  r.  American  Baggage,  etc.,  Co., 
125   Ga.  677,   54   S.   E.  711. 


101 


CONTROL    AND    RKGULATION, 


112 


held  that  a  railway  company  can  not  grant  to  one  hack  owner  the  exclusive  right 
to  tise  its  platform  for  receiving  and  discharging  passengers.^'-*  The  peculiar 
provisions  of  certain  c< institutional  enactments  and  statutes  have  been  construed 
and  have  been  held  uoi  in  i)reclude  a  carrier  from  granting  to  a  corporation  or 
individual  the  exclusive  privilege  of  soliciting  the  transportation  of  passengers 
or  baggage  on  its  trains,  or  in  its  dej^ot  or  dej^ot  grounds. •♦" 


39.  Exclusive  right  to  use  platform  for 
receiving    and    discharging    passengers. — 

McCoiiiK-li  z'.  VviUii".  '■'-  Ky.  4r,:,,  i:;  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  68lt,  18  S.  W.  15;  Montana  Union 
R.  Co.  f.  Langlois,  9  Mont.  419,  24  Pac. 
2()s,  IS  Am.  St.  Rep.  745,  8  L.  R.  A.  753. 
In  Michigan  it  has  been  held  that  in- 
dependently of,  as  well  as  under.  How. 
Ann.  St.,  §  3355,  providinj^  that  "all 
railroad  corporations  shall  grant  equal 
facilities  for  the  transportation  of  passen- 
gers and  freights  to  all  persons,  com- 
panies, or  corporations,"  a  railroad  com- 
pany can  not  grant  to  a  hack  and  bus 
company  exclusive,  or  even  better,  facili- 
ties for  delivering  and  receiving  passen- 
gers to  and  from  the  depot  than  that  al- 
lowed others  in  the  same  Inisiness.  Kala- 
mazoo Hack,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sootsma,  84 
Mich.  194,  47  N.  W.  667,  22  Am.  St.  Rep. 
69:'.,    10    L.    R.    -A.    819. 

In  Missouri  it  has  been  held  that  the 
owner  of  a  bus  line,  who  has  made  an 
approach  to  a  depot  platform  under  an 
oral  agreement  with  the  railway  com- 
pany that  he  should  have  its  exclusive 
use,  can  not  confine  the  teams  of  a  rival 
line  to  other  parts  of  the  platform,  at 
which  the  chance  of  getting  passengers 
is  not  so  good,  and  to  which  in  dry 
weather  vehicles  can  be  driven  or  backed 
up  with  some  difficulty,  while  in  wet 
weather  it  is  very  hard  to  do  so;  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  being  against  public  pol- 
icy and  the  spirit  of  Const.,  art.  12,  §  23, 
which  prohibits  •'discrimination  in  charges 
or  facilities  in  transportation  *  *  *  be- 
tween transportation  companies  and  in- 
dividuals, or  in  favor  of  either."  Cravens 
7\    Rogers,    101    Mo.    247,    14   S.   W.    106. 

40.  Constitutional  provisions  and  stat- 
utes not  precluding  grant  of  exclusive 
privileges. —  L'nder  the  Massachusetts 
statutes.  Tub.  St..  c.  112,  §  188,  providing 
that  "every  railroad  corporation  shall  give 
to  all  persons  or  companies  reasonable 
and  equal  terms,  facilities,  and  accommo- 
dations for  the  transportation  of  them- 
selves, their  agents  and  servants,  and  of 
any  merchandise  and  other  property,  upon 
its  railroad,  and  for  the  use  of  its  depot 
and  other  Iniildings  and  grounds,  and,  at 
any  point  where  its  railroad  connects 
with  another  railroad,  reasonal)le  and 
cciual  terms  and  facilities  of  interchange," 
a  railroad  company  can  give  to  a  particu- 
lar person  the  exclusive  right  to  come  on 
its  premises,  and  solicit  patronage  from 
passengers  arriving  at  or  leaving  the  sta- 
tion, and  maintain  trespass  against  the 
owner   of   express   teams — a   common   car- 


rier of  passengers  and  their  baggage  to 
and  from  a  railroad  station — for  using, 
without  the  consent  of  the  company,  the 
latter's  grounds,  buildings,  and  platforms 
for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  the  patron- 
age of  passengers.  Old  Colony  K.  Co. 
V.  Tripp,  147  Mass.  35,  17  N.  E.  89,  9  .Am. 
St.    Rep.    6(11. 

The  Michigan  statute,  Comp.  Laws 
1897,  §  (;2(i6,  requiring  all  railroad  com- 
panies to  grant  equal  facilities  for  the 
transportation  of  freight  and  passengers, 
etc.,  without  discrimination  in  favor  of 
any  individual,  company,  etc.,  does  not 
prevent  a  raiload  company  from  making 
an  agreement  with  one  engaged  in  trans- 
ferring baggage  and  passengers,  by  which 
he  is  permitted  to  go  upon  the  passenger 
trains  and  solicit  passengers  and  ba.ggage 
to  the  exclusion  of  others  engaged  in  the 
same  Inisiness.  Dintrman  v.  Duluth,  etc., 
R.  Co..   164   Mich.  :!;.'s.   i:50  N.  W.  24. 

The  Minnesota  statute,  Gen.  St.  1894, 
§  380,  sul)d.  1),  providing  that  a  common 
carrier  shall  not  make  or  give  any  unrea- 
sonable or  unequal  preference  to  anj'  par- 
ticular person,  firm,  or  corporation  in  any 
respect,  or  subject  the  same  to  any  preju- 
dice, applies  only  to  persons  having  con- 
tractual relations  with  the  carrier,  and 
does  not  forbid  the  granting  of  exclusive 
privileges  to  a  hackman  to  solicit  patron- 
age within  the  depot  and  on  the  trains 
of  a  common  carrier.  Godbout  v.  St. 
Paul  Union  Depot  Co.,  79  Minn.  188,  81 
X.  W.  835,  47  L.  R.  A.  532. 

The  constitution  of  Utah,  art.  12.  §  12. 
declaring  all  railroad  and  other  transpor- 
tation companies  common  carriers  and 
su])ject  to  legislative  control,  and  that 
such  companies  shall  receive  and  trans- 
port each  other's  passengers  and  freight 
without  discrimination  or  unnecessary  de- 
lay, even  if  applying  to  drivers  of  cabs, 
hacks,  and  express  wagons,  does  not  con- 
fer on  such  persons  the  right  to  enter  on 
a  railroad  company's  depot  grounds  to 
solicit  business,  or  prevent  a  railroad 
company  inhibiting  the  soliciting  of  busi- 
ness on  its  .grounds,  except  by  one  con- 
cern operating  carriages.  Oregon,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Davidson,  33  Utah  370,  94 
Pac.  10. 

Under  the  Virginia  statute,  .Acts  1891- 
92,  ]).  96.").  ])rovi(ling  that  common  car- 
riers shall  not  give  preferences  to  partic- 
ular persons  in  any  respect,  or  subject  any- 
particular  person  to  prejudice,  a  baggage 
transfer  company  could  not  restrain  a 
railway  company  from  allowing  a  rival 
Ijaggage   company   the   exclusive   privilege 


§§    113-116  CARRIERS.  102 

§  113.  To  Ships  Using  a  Wharf  or  Dock  Constructed  by  a  Railroad 
Company. — A  railroad  company  which  has  built  a  wharf  connected  with  its 
tracks  in  navigable  waters,  with  a  view  to  facilitating  the  handling  of  freight 
received  from  or  consigned  to  ships  using  such  waters,  is  bound  to  afiford  the 
owners  of  competing  vessels  equal  privileges  with  respect  to  the  use  of  the 
wharf  and  its  appliances/ ^  and  it  can  not  permit  its  use  by  such  vessels  or 
carrying  lines  as  it  may  select,  and  exclude  others  to  the  encouragement  of  a 
monopolv  and  the  hindrance  of  competition,  but,  where  such  use  is  permitted 
by  any,  it  must  be  open  to  all  on  equal  terms.'*^ 

Exclusive  Right  to  Receive  and  Discharge  Freight  and  Passengers  at 

Dock. — A  contract  by  a  railroad  company  granting  to  a  steamboat  company  the 
exclusive  right  to  receive  and  discharge  freight  and  passengers  at  a  dock  con- 
nected with  its  depot  grounds  is  an  unreasonable  discrimination.'* ^ 

§  114.  To  the  Use  of  a  Switch  Track, — A  contract  whereby  a  railroad 
company  undertakes  to  grant  to  a  coal  company  the  exclusive  right  to  the  use 
of  a  certain  switch  track  for  hauling  coal,  in  consideration  of  the  coal  company's 
agreement  to  permit  a  part  of  the  track  to  be  constructed  over  its  land,  is  void, 
as  against  public  policy,  and  furnishes  no  excuse  for  the  railroad  company's 
refusal  to  haul  coal  over  the  track  for  another  coal  company.-* ■* 

§§  115-129.  Connections  with  and  Facilities  to  Other  Carriers— 
§  115.  In  General. — Rule  at  Common  Law. — At  common  law  a  carrier  is 
not  bound  to  carry  except  on  his  own  line.  If  he  contracts  to  go  beyond,  he 
may,  in  the  absence  of  statutory  regulation  to  the  contrary,  determine  for  him- 
self what  agencies  he  will  employ .^-^  In  the  absence  of  statute  or  contract,  one 
railroad  company  can  not  compel  another  to  stop  trains  at  a  junction,  or  compel 
the  other  to  permit  the  use  of  half  a  mile  of  its  track,  etc.,  or  to  make  rates 
with  it.  and  haul  its  cars.^*^ 

§  116.  Joint  Running  Arrangements. — Under  a  statute  providing  that 
any  railway  corporation  may  make  joint  running  arrangements,  not  in  conflict 
with  law,  'with  any  corporation  operating  any  connecting  railway,  a  railway 
may  contract  with  connecting  lines  to  carry  beyond  its  line,  subject  only  to  the 

of    entering    its    grounds    to    solicit    l)ag-  nal  point  of  track  on  dock  to   steamboat 

g:-ge.      Norfolk,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Old    Do-  company. — A  railroad  corporation,  though 

minion  Baggage  Co.,  99  Va.  Ill,  37  S.  E.  it    has    the    right    to    erect    and    maintain 

784,  50  L.  R.  A.  722.  docks   as   incident   to   its   business,   and   to 

41.  Owners  of  vessels  must  be  afforded  hold  or  dispose  of  them,  can  not,  when 
equal  privileges. — Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  engaged  in  the  business  of  common  car- 
Graham,    117    Ga.    555,    43    S.    E.    1000.  rier,   lease   the    terminal   point   of   its   rail- 

42.  So  held  in  relation  to  a  wharf  built  road  track  on  its  dock  in  a  navigable 
by  a  railroad  company,  in  extension  of  a  stieam  to  a  steamboat  company,  and 
street,  out  into  the  deep  waters  of  a  har-  thereby  defeat  the  ingress  and  egress  to 
bor,  where  ships  from  all  ports  come  in  and  from  its  track  on  the  part  of  com- 
the  carrying  on  of  commerce,  and  where  peting  steamboat  companies.  Indian 
they  load  and  discharge  cargoes,  on  which  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  East  Coast 
wharf  the  company  has  laid  its  tracks,  Transp.  Co.,  28  Fla.  387,  10  So.  480,  29 
making  it  a  quasi  terminal  for  the  trans-  Am.  St.  Rep.  258. 

fer    of    goods    between    its    own    line    and  44,   Contract   granting   exclusive   use   of 

vessels    owned    by    other    carriers.      West  switch  track  void. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

Coast  Naval  Stores  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  ^.     Pittsburg,   etc.,   Coal   Co.,  Ill    Ky.   960, 

R.   Co.,  57   C.   C.  A.  671,   121    Fed.  645.  o;.    Ky.   L.   Rep.   1318,   64   S.   W.   969,   55   L. 

43.  Contract  held  an   unreasonable   dis-  r    \    got,  98  Am.  St.  Rep.  447. 
crimination.— Coeurd'Alene,  etc.,  Transp.  ^g     j^^j^     ^^    common    law.— Atchison, 
Co.  f.    i'crrcll,  22  Idaho  752,  128   Pac.  56o  ^     ^.^     ^.     p^.^^.^r,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    110 
(holdmg    that    such    discrimination    is    in  ^    ^    ^.^      ^8  L.  Ed.  291,  4  S.  Ct.  185. 
violation    of    the    Constitution    of    Idaho,  '        ...     -r,    r^  t       •     -i,^    ^.„ 
^j.^     J,     §   f.)                                                                   46.  Shelbyville  R.  Co.  z'.  Louisville,  etc., 

Railroad   company  can  not  lease  termi-        R-  Co.,  82  Ky.  541,  6  Ky.  L.  Rep.  611. 


103 


CONTROL    AXD    REGULATION'. 


§§  116-117 


qualification  that  under  such  agreement  arbitrary  rates  can  not  be  fixed  which 
are   discriminatory   in   their   nature.^'^ 

§§  117-118.  Connection  between  Roads  or  Trains — §  117.  Power 
to  Require. — 'I'he  slaie  ma}-  require  a  raihoad  ci>mpan\-  to  operate  iis  trains 
so  as  to  make  connection  witli  trains  of  other  roads,"*^  although  the  perform- 
ance of  such  duty  involves  a  loss  by  the  railroad  company.*'-*  Thus  a  carrier 
may  be  required  to  make  connection  with  the  trains  of  another  road  even  thoug'i 
an  additional  train  is  re(|uired  for  this  purpose,-"'"  and  a  state  may  compel  a  rail- 
road company  to  ac(|uirc  the  necessary  land  and  make  a  track  connection  for  the 
purpose  of  atifording  facilities  for  the  interchange  of  business  with  another  roaa 
although  in  order  to  carry  out  the  order,  the  company  is  required  to  exercise 
the  power  of  eminent  domain  and  incur  expenses. -"'i  But  such  a  requirement 
must  not  violate  the  constitutional  prohiijition  against  taking  property  without 
due  process  of  law.''-  The  places  and  persons  interested,  the  volume  of  busi- 
ness to  be  afifected,  and  the  saving  in  time  and  expense  to  the  shipper,  as  against 
the  cost  and  loss  to  the  carrier,  must  be  considered  in  determining  the  reason- 
bleness  of,  and  the  i)ul)lic  necessity  for,  an  order  of  a  state  railroad  commission 
requiring  trackage  connections  at  certain  points  between  comi)eting  railway  com- 
panies for  the  interchange  of  business,  which  is  attacked  as  taking  property  with- 
out due  jirocess  of  law.""'*     v'^ome  of  the    peculiar    provisions    of    state  statutes 


47.  Joint  running  arrangements. —  Bras 
V.  McConncll,  114  Iowa  401,  ST  X.  W. 
290.    construing    Code,   §    2W\i\. 

48.  Requiring  trains  to  connect  with 
trains  of  other  roads.— Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  North  CaroHna  Corp.  Comm., 
206  U.  S.  1,  51  L.  Ed.  933,  27 
S.  Ct.  585;  Wisconsin,  etc..  Railroad  i'.  Ja- 
cobson,  179  U.  S.  287,  45  L.  Ed.  194,  21 
S.  Ct.  115.  See,  also,  Gladson  v.  Minne- 
sota, 166  U.  S.  427,  41  L.  Ed.  1064,  17  S. 
Ct.   (>27. 

The  Corporation  Commission  Act  of 
North  Carolina  (Acts  1899,  pp.  291,  304, 
c.  164,  §§  1,  21),  giving  the  commission 
power  to  -require  a  railroad  company  to 
make  reasonable  and  proper  connection 
with  the  trains  of  other  roads  for  the 
convenience  of  the  traveling  public,  is 
within  the  power  of  the  legislature. 
North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  C.  1,  49  S.  E.  191,  115 
Am.  St.  Rep.  636,  affirmed  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm., 
206  V.  S.  1,  rn  L.  l-'.d.  933.  27  S.  Ct.  r,s5. 

49.  Connection  may  be  required  though 
it  involves  loss. — Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  206  U.  S.  1, 
51  L.  Ed.  933,  27  S.  Ct.  585;  Wisconsin, 
etc..  Railroad  v.  lacol)son.  179  U.  S.  287, 
45    E.    Ed.    194.  21    S.   Ct.   115. 

The  corporation  commission  of  North 
Carolina,  under  the  authority  given  by 
the  Corporation  Commission  .\ct  (.\cts 
1899,  pp.  291,  304,  c.  164,  §§  1.  21)  may 
require  a  railroad  company  to  make  con- 
nection with  a  train  of  another  railroad, 
though  it  costs  the  railroad  company  $15 
a  day  to  do  this;  its  net  earnings  in  the 
state  being  nearly  $2,000,000  per  year,  and 
several  thousand  passengers  a  year  being 
thus  saved  several  hours  and  the  incon- 
venience   oi    traveling    at    night.       North 


Carolina  Corp.  Comm.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  137  N.  C.  1,  49  S.  E.  191,  115  Am. 
St.  Rep.  636,  affirmed  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  206 
U.  S.  1.  51  L.   Ed.  933.  27  S.  Ct.  585. 

50.  Connection  may  be  required  though 
an  additional  train  is  necessary. — Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  North  Carolina  Corp. 
Comm.,  206  U.  S.  1,  51  L.  Ed.  933,  27  S. 
Ct.    585. 

The  fact  that  the  running  of  an  extra 
train  by  a  railroad,  in  order  to  comply 
with  an  order  of  a  state  corporation  com- 
mission requiring  it  to  be  run.  in  order 
to  make  connection  with  through  trains 
of  other  roads,  causes  some  pecuniary 
loss  to  the  company,  is  not  sutiicient  to 
show  the  injustice  or  unreasonableness 
of  the  regulation.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  206  U. 
S.  1,  51    L.   Ed.  933,  27  S.  Ct.  .-.s.-,. 

51.  Acquisition  of  land  necessary  in  or- 
der to  make  track  connection. — Wiscon- 
sin, etc..  Railroad  :\  Jacubson,  179  U.  S. 
287.  45   E.    Ed.   T.I4.  21  "S.   Ct.  115. 

52.  Due  process  of  law  required. — Ore- 
gon R.,  etc..  Co.  :■.  Fairchild,  224  U.  S. 
510,  56  E.  I-.d.  sc,:!,  :;:.>  S.  Ct.  :,:,:,. 

53.  Considerations  in  determining  rea- 
sonableness of  and  necessity  for  order  re- 
quiring trackage  connections. — (  >regon 
R..  etc.,  Co.  V.  Fairchild.  224  U.  S.  510, 
56   L.    Ed.   863,   32    S.   Ct.   535. 

No  public  necessity  is  shown  which  will 
justify,  under  the  due  process  of  law- 
clause  of  the  federal  constitution,  an  or- 
der of  a  state  railroad  commission  re- 
quiring trackage  connections  at  certain 
points  between  competing  railwaj-  com- 
panies for  the  interchange  of  business, 
where  the  commission  acted  without  any 
evidence  of  inadequate  service,  with  no 
proof  of   public   complaint   or   o\   a   public 


§§  11"-118 


CARRIERS. 


1(H 


conferring  upon  the  railroad  or  corporation  commission  of  the  state  power  to 
rec^uire  railroad  companies  to  make  connections  when  the  i)ublic  convenience 
requires  it.  or  to  make  regulations  in  relation  to  such  connections,  have  been 
interpreted  by  the  courts.^^ 

§  118.  Character  of  Requirements. — Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of 
statutes  rj([uiring  railroad  companies  to  make  connections,  or  to  furnish  facil- 
ities for  such  connections,  have  been  construed  by  the  courts  to  determine  the 
character  of  connections  or  facilities  required.""'' 


demand,  with  no  testimony  that  anj- 
freight  had  been  offered  in  the  past  for 
shipment  between  those  points,  or  that 
an}-  such  freight  would  be  offered  in  the 
future,  and  with  no  proof  as  to  the  vol- 
ume of  business  at  any  of  these  points, 
nor  the  amount  of  freight  that  would  be 
routed  over  the  track  connections  if  they 
were  constructed,  and  with  no  testimony 
as  to  the  probable  revenue  that  would  be 
derived  from  the  use  of  the  track  con- 
nections, or  if  the  saving  in  freight  or 
otherwise  that  would  result  to  the  ship- 
pers. Oregon  R..  etc..  Co.  r.  Fairchild, 
224  U.   S.  510,  56  L.    Kd.   hC,?.,  32  S.   Ct.   513.5. 

54.  Statutes  conferring  authority  on 
commissions  construed. — In  Florida  the 
special  and  general  authority  given  the 
railroad  commissioners  to  make  reason- 
able regulations  requiring  carriers  to 
provide  necessary  facilities  and  proper 
schedules  to  serve  the  uses  and  conveni- 
ence of  the  public  includes  authority  to 
make  reasonable  regulations  requiring 
facilities  for  making  connections  between 
different  roads.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v. 
Florida;  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Fla.  524,  50  So. 
425. 

The  powers  given  the  railroad  commis- 
sioners are  ample  to  authorize  them  to 
make  just  and  reasonable  regulations  of 
the  schedules  of  railroads  with  reference 
to  connections,  so  as  to  afford  reasonable 
convenience  and  comfort  to  the  public 
affected  by  the  service.  Railroad 
Comm'rs  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Fla. 
522,   49    So.   4.3. 

The  North  Carolina  statute,  Code  1883, 
§  1957  (9),  giving  railroad  companies  the 
right  to  regulate  the  time  and  manner 
in  which  passengers  and  property  shall 
be  transported,  is  modified  by  the  Rail- 
road Commission  Act  (Acts  1891,  p.  275, 
c.  320),  making  the  right  of  the  railroad 
companies  to  fix  the  time  of  running  their 
trains  subject  to  the  power  of  the  com- 
mission to  require  connections  to  be 
made  when  public  convenience  requires 
it  and  it  is  reasonable  and  just,  which 
provision  is  reenacted  in  the  Corporation 
Commission  Act  (Acts  1899,  p.  291,  c. 
164).  North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  C.  1,  49  S. 
E.  a91,  115  Am.  St.  Rep.  636,  affirmed 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  North  Carolina 
Corp.  Comm.,  206  U.  S.  1,  51  L.  Ed.  933, 
27    S.    Ct.   585. 

Under  the   corporation   commission   act 


(Acts  1899,  p.  291,  c.  164,  §  1),  providing 
that  the  corporation  commission  shall 
have  such  general  control  and  supervi- 
sion of  railroad  companies  as  is  neces- 
sary to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions 
of  the  the  act,  and  §  21,  providing  that 
all  common  carriers  shall  afford  all  rea- 
sonable, proper,  and  equal  facilities  for 
the  interchange  of  traffic  and  forwarding 
freight  and  passengers,  and  shall  make 
as  close  connections  as  practicable  for 
the  convenience  of  the  traveling  public, 
the  commission  has  power  to  require  a 
railroad  company  to  have  a  train  arrive 
at  a  certain  station  on  its  road  at  a  per- 
tain time,  so  as  to  connect  with  a  train 
of  another  company.  North  Carolina 
Corp.  Comm.  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 
N.  C.  1,  49  S.  E.  191,  115  Am.  St.  Rep. 
636,  affirmed  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  200  U.  S.  1, 
51    L.    Ed.   933,   27   S.    Ct.   585. 

In  Virginia,  the  state  corporation  com- 
mission may,  under  the  powers  conferred 
by  §  1294d,  subsection  37,  of  the  Code  of 
1904,  establish  as  many  connections  be- 
tween two  railroads  as  may  be  reasonably 
necessary  for  the  convenient  interchange 
of  traffic  between  such  roads,  and  for  the 
accommodation  of  said  roads  and  the 
public.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Inter- 
state  R.   Co.,  107  Va.  225,  57   S.   E.   654. 

55.  Connection  of  trains  required. — 
The  North  Carolina  Corporation  Com- 
mission Act  (Acts  1899,  p.  304,  c.  164, 
§  21),  requiring  connecting  lines  of  com- 
mon carriers  to  make  as  close  connec- 
tions as  practicable  for  the  convenience 
of  the  traveling  public,  does  not  mean 
a  simple  physical  connection  of  tracks, 
but  a  connection  of  trains.  North  Caro- 
lina Corp.  Comm.  z'.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
137  N.  C.  1,  49  S.  E.  191,  115  Am.  St.  Rep. 
636,  affirmed  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
North  Carolina  Corp.  Comm.,  206  U.  S. 
1,   51   L.    Ed.   933,   27   S.    Ct.   585. 

Statute  violated  by  changing  time  card 
so  as  to  discontinue  connection. — The 
Virginia  statute.  Act  March  3,  1«92,  §  4, 
requires  common  carriers  to  afford  all 
reasonal)le,  proper,  and  equal  facilities 
for  traffic  between  their  respective  lines, 
and  for  receiving,  forwarding,  and  deliv- 
ering passengers  and  property  to  and 
from  their  several  lines  and  connecting 
lines.  Held,  that  a  railroad  so  changing 
its  time  card  by  which  a  connection  with 
a    connecting    road,    which    is    of    general 


105 


cdXTRftL    AND    KKGULATION, 


§§  ll'>121 


§  119.  Use  of  Terminals. — In  some  states  there  are  statutes  re(iuiring.  or 
authorizing  tlie  railroad  commission  of  the  state  to  require,  railroad  or  terminal 
companies  to  permit  other  railroad  companies  to  use  their  terminals.  The 
charges  for  such  use  are  generally  fixed  or  regulated  by  the  statute  or  by  an 
order  of  the  commission.  The  peculiar  i)rovisions  of  some  of  these  statutes  have 
received  judicial  inter] )rctati()n."''' 

§§  120-123.  Reception,  Transportation  and  Delivery  of  Cars,  Pas- 
sengers and  Freight— §  12  0,  Rule  at  Common  Law. — Tlie  common-law 
ohligaticjns  of  a  raih'oad  CMinpany  to  a  cfjnncciiiig  line  as  to  reception,  transpor- 
tation, and  delivery  of  freight  are  the  same  as  those  e.xisting  between  such  com- 
pany and  an  individual  shi])per.'''  A  railroad  company  is  not  a  common  carrier 
of  the  sleeping  cars  of  another,  and  may  impose  terms  on  which  it  will  haul 
such  cars.-""^ 

§  121.  Power  to  Require. — It  is  competent  for  the  legislature  of  a  state 
to  prescribe  that  loaded  cars  shall  be  transferred  from  one  line  to  another  with- 
out breaking  Indk.  unless  at  the  expense  of  the  company  unloading  them."'-'  A 
provision  in  the  constitution  of  a  state  that  a  carrier  must  deliver  its  cars  to  con- 


convenicncc,  is  discontinued,  in  order  to 
furnish  better  facilities  to  several  towns, 
was  in  violation  of  the  statute.  South- 
ern Ry.  Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  98  Va. 
758,   37   S.    E.   294. 

56.  To  what  companies  statutes  apply. 
— The  power  conferred  du  tlic  railroad 
commissioners  by  the  Florida  statute 
Laws  IS!)'.),  c.  4700,  §  6,  with  reference 
to  requirint^  the  admission  into  passen- 
ger terminals  of  railroad  companies  de- 
siring or  required  by  the  commissioners 
to  enter,  and  to  fixing  reasonable  rates 
of  compensation  for  the  uses  of  such 
terminals,  has  no  reference  to  a  terminal 
station  owned  and  used  exclusively  for 
its  own  traffic  l)y  any  common  carrier  or 
railroad  company,  but  applies  to  those 
passenger  terminals  owned  or  operated 
by  a  terminal  company  or  individual,  or 
by  a  railroad  company  in  connection  with 
its  main  line,  when  such  terminal  com- 
pany, individual,  or  railroad  company 
undertakes  the  public  business  of  furnish- 
ing terminal  facilities  to  railroad  common 
carriers.  State  v.  Jackonsville  Terminal 
Co.,  41   Fla.  377,  27  So.  22.5. 

The  Peoria  &  Pekin  Union  Railroad 
Company  is  not  a  union  depot  company, 
and'  is  not  bound  by  the  Illinois  statutes 
regulating  the  charges  of  union  depot 
companies,  or  l)ound  to  let  other  rail- 
roads use  its  tracks  and  depots  on  any 
terms.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pe- 
oria, etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  111.  App.  435,  affirmed 
in    182    111.    501.   55    X.    E.   :577. 

Railroads  owning  joint  depot  not 
compelled  to  permit  its  use  by  another 
railroad,  —  The  X'irginia  statute.  Code 
l'.i()4,  §  7294c  (4),  provides  that  trans- 
portation companies  shall  afford  reason- 
able facilities  for  the  interchange  of 
traffic  lietwcen  their  respective  lines,  and 
for  the  forwarding  and  delivery  of  pas- 
sengers and  property  to  and  from  their 
several    lines    without    discrimination,    but 


that  the  section  shall  not  require  any 
such  company  to  give  the  use  of  its  track 
or  terminal  facilities  to  another  company 
engaged  in  the  like  business.  Section 
1313a  (16)  provides  that  the  corporation 
commission  shall  have  authority  to  re- 
quire all  corporations  doing  business 
within  the  state  to  discharge  any  pulilic 
duty  imposed  on  such  corporations  by 
the  constitution  or  by  law.  Held,  that 
§  1313a  (16)  did  not  define  or  create  any 
public  duty  to  be  performed  by  trans- 
portation companies,  and  did  not,  there- 
fore, modify  or  restrict  the  operation  of 
§  1294c  (4),  under  which  the  corporation 
commission  had  no  authority  to  compel 
railroads  owning  and  operating  a  joint 
depot  in  a  town  to  permit  the  use  of 
such  depot  and  its  terminal  tracks  by 
another  railroad  company.  Norton 
Board  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co..  ill  Va. 
59,   68    S.    E.   351. 

Power  of  commissioners  in  relation  to 
fixing  rates. — Under  the  Florida  statute, 
Laws  IS'.)'.),  c.  4700.  {;§  8.  10,  17.  is,  21, 
ample  provision  is  made  to  enable  the 
railroad  commissioners  to  ascertain  the 
facts  necessary  to  be  known  in  order  to 
arrive  at  and  fix  just  and  reasonable  rates 
for  the  uses  of  passenger  terminals  and 
the  privileges  thereof,  which  they  are  by 
§  6  empowered  to  prescribe  and  enforce. 
State  V.  Jacksonville  Terminal  Co.,  41 
Fla.    377.    27    So.    225. 

57.  Common-law  obligations  same  as 
to  an  individual  shipper. — Shell)yville  R. 
Co.  :•.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  82  Ky.  541, 
)")   Ky.   L.   Rep.  tm. 

58.  Railroad  company  not  a  common 
carrier  of  sleeping  cars. — Denver,  etc..  R. 
Co.    :■.    Wlian    (Colo.).   S'.)    Pac.    39. 

59.  Transfer  of  loaded  cars  without 
breaking  bulk. — Burlin,ij;ton.  etc..  R.  Co. 
:.  Dev.  s2  Iowa  312.  4S  X.  W.  98,  31  Am. 
St.   Rep.  477,   12   L.   R.  .\.  436. 


§§  121-122 


CARRIERS. 


106 


necting  carriers  without  providing  adequate  protection  for  their  return,  or  com- 
pensation for  their  use,  amounts  to  a  taking  of  property  without  due  process  of 
law  within  the  meaning  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  federal  constitu- 
tion.*^^* And  the  property  of  a  railway  company  is  taken  without  due  process 
of  law  where  such  company  is  compelled,  upon  payment  simply  for  the  service 
of  carriage,  to  accept  cars  offered  to  it  at  an  arhitrary  connecting  point  near  its 
terminus,  by  a  competing  road,  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  and  using  the  form- 
er's terminal   facilities."'^ 

§  122.  Construction  of  Requirements. — Many  of  the  peculiar  provisions 
of  constitutional  enactments  and  statutes  relating  to  the  reception,  transporta- 
tion, or  delivery  of  cars,  passengers,  or  freight  have  been  interpreted  by  the 
courts.  Among  the  provisions  that  have  received  judicial  interpretation  are 
enactments  requiring  every  railway  corporation  to  draw  over  its  road  the  cars 
of  connecting  railways :''-' enactments  requiring  that  where  railroads  cross  or 
connect  they  shall  furnish  each  other  with  accommodations  in  the  transportation 
of  passengers  and  goods ;  '^^  enactments  requiring  railroad  companies  whose  lines 
connect  to  receive  and  transfer  each  other's  passengers,  freight,  and  loaded  or 
empty  cars  without  delay  or  discrimination ;  ^^  enactments  requiring  all  railroad 
comp'anies  to  grant  equal  facilities  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  and 
freight  to  all  persons,  companies,  or  corporations;*""^  enactments  requiring  rail- 


60.  Requirements  constituting  taking 
of  property   without   due  process   of  law. 

— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Stock 
Yards  Co.,  212  U.  S.  132,  53  L.  Ed.  441, 
29  S.  Ct.  246,  reversing  30  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
18,  97  S.  W.  778.  (Section  213  of  the 
Constitution  of  Kentucky  held  violative 
of  Federal  Constitution.) 

61.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central 
Stock  Yards  Co.,  212  U.  S.  132,  53  L.  Ed. 
441,  29  S.  Ct.  246,  reversing  30  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  18,  97  S.  W.  778.  (Section  213  of 
the  constitution  of  Kentucky  held  viola- 
tive   of    Federal    constitution.) 

62.  Construction  of  enactments  relating 
to  reception,  transportation,  or  delivery 
of  cars,  passengers,  or  freight. — Plaintiff 
shipped  lunil;cr  to  Des  Moines  over  a 
certain  railroad.  The  cars  were  delivered 
to  a  terminal  company,  engaged  in 
switching  cars,  and  tendered  to  defend- 
ant company  to  be  hauled  to  points  on  de- 
fendant's line.  Defendant  refused  to  re- 
ceive the  cars,  but  offered  to  take  the 
lumber  on  its  own  cars,  stating  that  the 
first  carrier  had  forlndden  it  to  use  its 
cars.  Plaintiff,  in  a  talk  with  the  original 
carrier's  agent  after  the  original  contract 
of  shipment  was  made,  obtained  from 
him  permission  for  the  use  of  the  first 
carrier's  cars  by  defendant  in  the  ship- 
ment of  plaintiff's  lumber.  Held,  that 
an  order  directing  defendant  to  receive 
the  cars,  and  the  lumber  loaded  thereon 
tendered  by  plaintiff,  and  transfer  it  over 
defendant's  railway  to  the  stations  set 
forth  in  the  application,  and  to  receive 
and  transport  "all  such  other  and  further 
cars,  and  lumber  loaded  thereon,  as  may 
be  loaded  with  lumber  of  plaintiff,  and 
under  its  direction  and  control,  that  plain- 
tiff may  hereafter  tender  for  shipment 
over    defendant's    line,"    was    not   justified 


by  the  Iowa  statute.  Code,  §  1292,  pro- 
viding that  every  railway  corporation 
shall  draw  over  its  road  the  cars  of  con- 
necting railways.  Green  Bay  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Iowa  292, 
71   N.   W.  406. 

63.  Where  a  company  was  incorporated 
to  construct  and  operate  a  street  rail- 
road for  the  transportation  of  persons 
and  property,  and  with  right  to  occupy 
so  much  of  the  streets  and  highways  on 
its  route  as  necessary,  and  power  to  ac- 
quire such  real  estate  and  rights  of  way 
as  were  necessary  to  its  business,  and  to 
exercise  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  and 
its  tracks  approach  the  terminal  of  an- 
other road,  it  is  subject  to  V.  S.  c.  169, 
§  3860  et  seq.,  providing  that,  where  rail- 
roads cross  or  connect,  they  shall  furnish 
each  other  with  accommodations  in  the 
transportation  of  passengers  and  goods, 
and  it  is  not  essential  that  such  road  al- 
ready own  any  property  connecting  with 
the  property  of  the  other  road.  Rutland 
R.  Co.  V.  Bellows  Falls,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 
73   Vt.    20,   50   Atl.    636. 

64.  The  Virginia  statute  so  providing 
Const.  §  166  (Code  1904,  p.  cclxi)  does 
not  require  railroads  maintaining  and 
using  a  union  depot  to  permit  its  use  by 
another  railroad.  Norton  Board  v.  Nor- 
folk, etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  Va.  59,  68  S.  E.  351. 

65.  The  Michigan  statute  so  requiring. 
How.  Ann.  St.,  §  3355,  does  not  relate 
entirely  to  the  mere  carriage  in  the  cars 
of  the  road,  but  includes  the  receiving 
of  such  passengers  and  freight  at  its  de- 
pots, and  by  other  "persons,  companies, 
or  corporations"  at  the  point  upon  its 
road  where  the  carriage  ends.  Kalamazoo 
Hack,  etc.,  Co.  7'.  Sootsma,  84  Mich.  194, 
47  N.  W.  667,  10  L.  R.  A.  819,  22  Am. 
St.   Rep.   693. 


107 


CONTROL    AND    REGULATION, 


§§  122-123 


road  companies  to  deliver  and  switch  empty  or  loaded  cars  coming  to  or  going 
fiom  any  other  railroad  with  equal  i)romptness  and  dispatch,  and  without  dis- 
crimination, and  to  receive,  deliver,  and  transport  all  freight  from  and  to  any 
point  where  there  is  a  physical  connection  between  the  tracks  of  such  compa- 
nies; ''*'  and  enactments  recjuiring  railroad  companies  to  receive  all  freight  and 
passengers  coming  to  it  from  a  connecting  line,  and  going  to  points  on  its  line 
or  beyond,  and  to  transport  the  same  to  destination  or  the  next  connecting  lines, 
and  defining  connecting  railroads  as  railroads  which  connect  by  crossing  each 
other's  tracks  or  otherwise,  so  as  to  form  a  continuous  or  connecting  line  from 
one  point  in  the  state  to  another  point  in  the  state. '■' 

§  123.  Excuses  for  Refusal  or  Neglect  to  Perform  Duty.— The  refusal 
of  a  common  carrier  to  obey  the  mandatory  ])rovisions  of  a  constitutional  en- 
actment requiring  delivery  and  transfer  of  freight  from  and  to  any  point  where 
there  is  a  physical  connection  between  the  tracks  of  such  carrier  and  another 
road,  without  discrimination,  can  not  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  to  observe 
such  provisions  would  subject  the  carrier  to  inconvenience  or  increased  ex- 
pense.*^'^  Where  a  carrier  had  agreed  to  perform  switching  duties  imposed  by  a 
constitutional  requirement  and  was  willing  yet  to  perform  such  duties  for  all 
other  railroads,  except  with  reference  to  live  stock  consigned  to  complainant's 
stockvards.  it  could  not  claim  to  l)e  relieved  from  the  duty  of  switching  the  stock 


66.  The  constitution  of  Kentucky  whicli 
so  provided  Const..  §  213,  made  it  com- 
pulsory on  every  common  carrier  to  use 
its  terminal  facilities  in  receiving,  deliv- 
ering, interchanging,  transferring,  and 
transporting  freiglit  in  car  loads  or  less 
quantities  at  points  of  physical  connec- 
tion with  other  roads,  for  all  alike,  when 
so  requested.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  t'. 
Central  Stock  Yards  Co.,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
18,  97   S.   W.  778. 

Such  constitutional  provision  should 
not  be  construed  as  only  requiring  the 
carrier  to  transfer  and  deliver  to  other 
carriers  such  cars  as  it  might  receive 
from  other  carriers,  but  requires  such  de- 
livery of  its  own  cars  as  well.  Louisville, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Central  Stock  Yards  Co., 
30   Ky.   L.   Rep.   IS.   97    S.   \y.   778. 

1  he  duty  imposed  on  railway  compan- 
ies b-"  such  constitutional  enactment  does 
not  require  a  railway  company  maintain- 
ing a  live  stock  depot  as  a  point  of  de- 
livery for  cattle  having  a  municipality  as 
their  general  destination  to  receive  live 
stock  billed  to  a  similar  depot  at  sub- 
stantially the  same  point  on  another  rail- 
way, and  to  deliver  the  same  to  that  rail- 
way at  a  point  of  phvsical  coMnectmn 
between  the  two  roads  for  ultimate  deliv- 
ery there.  Decree  o.i  C.  C.  A.  63,  118 
Fed.  113,  affirmed.  Central  Stock  Yards 
Co.  V.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co..  192  U.  S. 
,500,   48    L.    Kd.    565.   24    S.    Ct.    339. 

67.  Under  the  Texas  statute  so  provid- 
ing Rev.  St.  art.  4535.  4536,  a  railroad  com- 
pany is  not  compelled  to  switch  freight 
which  was  not  consigned  over  its  lines 
from  the  lino  of  one  railroad  to  that  of 
another  in  the  same  city,  and  is  not  re- 
quired to  respond  in  damages  for  a  fail- 
ure so  to  do.  Tudgment.  Te.xas.  etc..  R. 
Co.     r.     Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     (Tex.     Civ. 


App.),  54  S.  W.  1031,  affirmed.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  Tex.  482, 
56    S.    W.    328. 

Railroads  which  intersect  or  cross  each 
other  either  at  grade  or  by  an  overhead 
and  grade  crossing  are  connecting  lines 
of  railroad,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
Texas  statute.  International,  etc..  R.  Co. 
r.  Railroad  Comm.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  86 
S.    W.    If),  judgment   affirmed   in   89   S.   \V. 

A  series  of  railway  switches  belong- 
ing jointly  to  several  railroads,  and  on 
which  it  is  possible  to  run  cars  from  the 
tracks  of  one  road  having  no  interest 
tlierein  to  those  of  another  road  al)Out 
iliree-quarters  of  a  mile  away,  in  the  same 
city,  is  not  a  connecting  line  between 
the  two  roads  under  the  1  exas  statute. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  54  S.  \V.  1031.  judg- 
ment affirmed  Gulf,  etc;.  R.  Co.  f.  Texas. 
etc..  R.  Co.,  93  Tex.  482,  56  S.  W.  328. 

Since  mere  switch  connections  between 
several  railroads  in  the  same  city  are 
not  connecting  lines  under  the  statute, 
the  owners  of  such  switch  connections 
were  not  obliged  to  make  transfers  there- 
on to  and  from  roads  not  their  own.  and 
by  performing  such  service  for  some 
roads  did  nt)t  subject  themselves  to  the 
performance  of  a  like  service  for  all 
roads  tendering  similar  business  and  of- 
fering like  compensation.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
.App.).  54  S.  W.  1031.  judgment  affirmed 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  T'.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co..  93 
Tex.  4s:2.  .-f.  S.  W.  32S. 

68.  Inconvenience  or  increased  expense 
no  excuse. — Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  t. 
Central  Stock  Yards  Co..  30  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
IS,  97  S.  \V.  778,  construing  Const.,  § 
213. 


§§  1-^3-125 


CARRIERS. 


108 


on  the  theory  that  such  switching  was  an  unreasonahle  use  of  its  cars/''*  A 
constitutional  provision  compelHng  one  railroad  company  to  receive  and  trans- 
fer over  its  line  cars  of  ajiother  company  is  not  intended  to  compel  a  road  to 
receive  cars  in  a  defective  or  unsafe  condition.'" 

§  12  4.  Moving  or  Switching  Cars  from  a  Connecting  Line. — There  are 
in  some  states  statutes  which  require  carriers  to  move  or  switch  the  cars  of  a 
connecting  carrier  from  the  tracks  of  such  carrier  on  to  its  own  tracks," ^  or 
which  authorize  the  railroad  commission  to  require  the  i)erformance  of  such 
service  hy  a  carrier.' - 

§  12  5.  Facilities  and  Accommodations  to  Be  Furnished  by  Railroad 
Companies  to  Express  Companies. — ^The  obligations  of  a  railroad  company 
to  the  public  as  a  common  carrier  do  not  require  it  to  furnish  express  facilities. 
to  all  alike  who  demand  them,'-'  or  to  furnish  an  express  company  facilities  for 
doing  an  express  business  upon  its  road,  the  same  in  all  respects  as  it  provides 
for  itself  or  attords  to  any  other  express  company.''*  A  railroad  corporation 
is  not  bound  to  furnish  an  expressman,  who  seeks  to  carry  on  his  business  over 
its  road,  with  facilities  and  accommodations  ditiferent  in  kind  from  those  fur- 
nished to  the  general  public ;  and  the  fact  that  it  has  furnished  him  with  facil- 
ities for  many  years,  and  that  he  has  therel)y  ac(|uired  a  valuable  business,  is 


69.  Switching  live  stock  not  an  unrea- 
sonable use  of  cars. — Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z'.  Central  Stock  Yards  Co.,  30  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  18,  97  S.  W.  778,  construing 
Const..  §  213. 

70.  Carrier  not  compelled  to  receive 
cars  in  a  defective  or  unsafe  condition. 
— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  95 
Ky.  199,  15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  548,  24  S.  W.  1, 
44  Am.  St.  Rep.  214,  construing  Const.,  § 
213. 

71.  Switching  charges. — The  Ohio  stat- 
ute. Rev.  St.  I'.tOS,  S§  -'''340,  3341,  which 
provide  that  when  the  tracks  of  two  rail- 
way companies  connect,  and  the  tracks 
of  one  lie  contiguous  to  coal  mines,  man- 
ufacturing establishments,  etc.,  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  such  company  on  request  to 
switch  the  cars  of  other  companies  on  to 
such  tracks  and  move  the  same  to  such 
coal  mines,  etc.,  to  be  loaded  or  unloaded, 
and  fixing  maximum  rates  per  car  which 
may  be  charged  to  the  companies  from 
whom  the  cars  are  received  for  such 
service  within  the  terminal  limits  of 
cities  and  towns,  provided  that  nothing 
therein  shall  require  any  company  to 
furnish  its  terminals  and  facilities  at 
such  rates  to  any  other  company  which 
shall  not  afford  similar  terminals  and 
reciprocal  facilities,  relate  only  to  the 
charge  which  such  railway  companies 
may  make  each  other  for  switching  serv- 
ices in  the  delivery  of  incoming  freight 
which  one  receives  from  the  other,  and 
create  no  right  of  action  against  either 
of  the  companies  in  favor  of  individual 
shippers,  if  the  switching  charge  is  in  ex- 
cess of  that  provided.  Townsend  Brick, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Central  1  rust  Co.,  109  C.  C. 
A.   381.   1^7   Fed.   03. 

72.  Authority  of  railroad  commission. 
— The  Indiana  statute,  Burns'  Ann.  St. 
1908,    §§    5206,    5533,    5540,    impliedly    au- 


thorize the  railroad  commission  to  re- 
quire a  carrier  to  move  a  car  from  a  con- 
necting line  to  its  public  tracks.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  175  Ind. 
r)30,    95    N.    E.    364. 

73.  Railroad  companies  not  required  to 
furnish     express     facilities   to  all  alike. — 

Ptister  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Cal.  169, 
11   Pac.   686,   59   Am.    Rep.   404. 

74.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  1,  29  L.  Ed.  791,  6 
S.  Ct.  542,  628,  1190,  reversing  10  Fed. 
210,  869;  overruling  Dinsmore  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Fed.  465;  2  Flip.  672, 
1  Ky.  L.  Rep.  42;  Wells,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ore- 
gon R.,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Fed.  517,  9  Sawy. 
370;  Wells  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Fed. 
667. 

The  North  Carolina  statute,  Acts  1891, 
c.  320,  §  4,  provides  that  it  shall  be  un- 
lawful for  any  common  carrier  to  give 
any  unreasonable  preference  to  any  par- 
ticular person,  company,  or  locality,  or 
any  particular  description  of  traffic,  or  to 
suljject  any  person,  company,  or  locality, 
or  any  particular  description  of  traffic,  to 
any  undue  disadvantage.  Held,  that 
tliis  section  does  not  change  or  enlarge 
the  duty  imposed  on  railroad  companies 
by  the  common  law,  under  which  they 
are  not  obliged,  because  they  furnish  fa- 
cilities to  one  express  company,  to  fur- 
nish other  express  companies  with  fa- 
cilities for  doing  an  express  business  on 
their  roads,  the  same  in  all  respects  as 
they  provide  for  themselves  or  afford  to 
any  particular  express  company,  where 
such  railroad  companies  have  never  held 
themselves  out  as  common  carriers  of 
express  companies.  Atlantic  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  463, 
16  S.  E.  393,  18  L.  R.  A.  393,  32  Am.  St. 
Rep.   805. 


lO'J 


CONTROL     AND    KKdULATIOX. 


§§   125-126 


immaterial."^  A  statute  requiring  each  railroad  to  give  all  persons  or  compa- 
nies reasonable  and  equal  terms  and  facilities  for  transjjortation,  does  not  pre- 
clude a  railroad  company  from  carrying  on  the  exjjress  business  itself,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  parties.'"  Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  ot  statutes 
relating  to  the  facilities  and  accommodations  retjuired  to  be  furnished  by  rail- 
road companies  to  express  coiui)anies  have  been  inter])rcted  by  the  courts."" 

§§  126-128.  Discrimination  in  Favor  of  One  of  Several  Connecting 
Carriers— §  12  6.  Duty  to  Give  Like  Through  Rates  to  All  Connecting  Car- 
riers.— 'l"he  [provision  of  a  slate  constiluliun  prohibiling  undue  or  uiirca^onable 
discrimination  in  charges  or  facilities  for  transportation  of  freight  or  passengers 
within  the  state,  does  not  require  a  railroad  comi)any  to  give  to  one  connecting 
carrier  the  same  through  rates  that  it  does  to  another,  unless  it  is  shown  that 
the  relative  situation  of  ilic  two  com])anies,  both  as  to  the  kind  of  service  and 
as  to  the  conditions  under  which  it  is  to  be  performed,  are  substantially  the 
same,  so  that  what  is  reasonable  for  one  must  necessarily  be  reasonable  for 
the  other.''* 


75.  Railroad  company  not  bound  to 
furnish  expressman  facilities  and  accom- 
modations different  from  those  furnished 
general  public. — Sari^ciU  f.  Bostdii.  etc., 
R.   Corp..    1  1")    Mass.  41Ci. 

76.  Railroad  company  not  precluded 
from  carrying  on  express  business  to  ex- 
clusion of  others. — Sargent  v.  Boston, 
Ltc,  R.  Corp..  11.")  Mass.  4ir),  construing 
St.    lS(i7,    c.    .'.iiii. 

77.  Peculiar  provisions  of  statutes  con- 
strued.— The  Maine  statute,  Pub.  Laws 
\'\-]).  2\),  18GS.  c.  1 '.»:;,  §  1,  provides  that 
"all  expressmen  *  *  *  shall  have  rea- 
sonable and  equal  terms  for  the  trans- 
portation of  themselves,"  etc.,  "upon  any 
railroad,"  etc.  Held,  that  a  railroad 
company  which  let  to  a  certain  express 
company  the  exclusive  use  of  a  separate 
apartment  in  each  car  of  its  trains,  and 
a.iATced  tliat  it  would  not,  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  contract,  let  any  space 
in  any  of  its  passenger  trains  to  any 
other  express  company,  was  liable  in 
damages,  under  such  statute,  for  refus- 
ing to  transport  the  goods  of  another  ex- 
press company,  where  the  demand  to  do 
so  was  made  l:)efore  the  expiration  of 
the  contract.  New  England  Exp.  Co.  f. 
Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188,  2  .\ni. 
Rep.   31. 

Rev.  St.,  c.  51.  §  i:U,  requiring  railroads 
to  extend  equal  facilities  and  accommo- 
dations to  all  express  companies  engaged 
in  business  within  the  state,  protects 
foreign  express  companies  as  well  as  do- 
mestic. International  Exp.  Co.  v.  Grand 
Trunk  Railway,  81  Me.  92,  10  Atl.  370. 

To  a  l)ill  in  equity  to  enforce  compli- 
ance with  the  statute,  defendant  an- 
swered that  it  was  doing  its  own  express 
business.  It  appeared  that  when  com- 
plainant demanded  accommodations  an 
express  company  was  operating  over  the 
road,  and  defendant  refused  to  permit 
complainant  to  do  so,  alleging  that  it 
was  inconvenient  to  accommodate  two 
companies.      On   the    trial    defendant   pre- 


tended that  the  express  company  was 
then  operating  over  the  road  as  its  agent 
until  its  facilities  could  be  perfected,  but 
no  contract  was  shown,  and  the  business 
appeared  to  be  conducted  as  liefore. 
Held,  that  it  was  but  an  attempt  to  evade 
the  statute,  and  an  injunction  would  be 
granted.  International  Exp.  Co.  v.  Grand 
Trunk   Railway,  81   Me.  92,  16  Atl.  370. 

The  Massachusetts  statute,  1894,  c. 
4()U,  §  1,  requiring  a  railroad  company  to 
give  to  "all  persons  and  companies  now 
engaged  in  only  a  local  express  liusiness" 
terms,  facilities,  and  accommodations  for 
transportation  of  merchandise  reasonable 
and  equal  to  those  furnished  other  com- 
l)anies  doing  business  over  the  railroad, 
having  regard  to  the  amount  and  char- 
acter of  the  service,  inures  to  the  benefit 
of  one  engaged  in  the  local  express  busi- 
ness, who,  at  the  time  the  act  was  passed, 
was  having  his  packages  carried  on  the 
freight  trains  of  a  railroad,  as  well  as  to 
one  who  was  using  the  passenger  trains 
of  the  railroad  for  such  purpose.  Kidder 
V.  Fitchburg  R.  Co..  165  Mass.  398,  43 
X.    E.    n.-.. 

78.  Duty  to  give  like  through  rates  to 
all  connecting  carriers. — Atchison,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S. 
067,   681,   28    L.    Ed.    291,   4   S.    Ct.   185. 

"At  common  law,  a  carrier  is  not  bound 
to  carry  except  on  his  own  line,  and  we 
think  it  quite  clear  that  if  he  contracts 
to  go  beyond  he  may,  in  the  absence  of 
statutory  regulations  to  the  contrary,  de- 
termine for  himself  what  agencies  he  will 
employ.  His  contract  is  equivalent  to  an 
extension  of  his  line  for  the  purposes  of 
the  contract,  and  if  he  holds  himself  out 
as  a  carrier  beyond  the  line,  so  that  he 
may  be  required  to  carry  in  that  way  for 
all  alike,  he  may  nevertheless  confine  him- 
self in  carrying  to  the  particular  route  he 
chooses  to  use.  He  puts  himself  in  no 
worse  position,  by  extending  his  route 
with  the  help  of  others,  than  he  would 
occupy  if  the  means  of  transportation  em- 


§§  l-'"-130 


CARRIERS. 


110 


§  127.  Discrimination  as  to  Interchange  of  Business.— A  railroad  com- 
pany need  not  slop  at  the  junction  of  one  railroad  and  interchange  business 
there,  because  it  has  established  joint  depot  accommodations  and  provided  fa- 
cilities for  doing  a  connecting  business  with  another  company  at  another  place, 
and  this  is  true  under  a  state  constitution  prohibiting  unreasonable  discrimina- 
tion in  favor  of  one  against  another  company  seeking  to  do  business  on  its 
road."^ 

§  128.  Discrimination  as  to  Prepayment  of  Freight  Charges.— By 
statute  in  some  states  railroad  companies  are  precluded  from  discriminating  be- 
tween connecting  carriers  as  to  the  prepayment  of  freight  charges.^" 

§   129.  Transfers  between  Street  Railroad  Companies.— Some  of  the 

peculiar  provisions  of  statutes  and  franchises  requiring  street  railroad  compa- 
nies to  give  transfers  to  other  lines  have  received  judicial  interpretation.si 
Where  a  traction  company  contracts  with  a  city  by  acceptance  of  an  ordinance 
granting  permission  to  maintain  its  railroad,  conditioned  that  specified  rates 
of  fare^shall  be  charged,  and  no  words  are  used  indicating  that  the  parties  are 
contracting  for  any  other  corporation,  its  obligation  is  to  carry  passengers  for 
the  stipulated  fares  only  over  its  own  lines.^- 

§§  130-132.  Use  of  Carrier's  Premises  and  of  Street  or  Premises 
Adjacent  Thereto— §  130.  Exclusion  of  Persons  in  General.— A  railway 
company  has  the  right  to  exclude  from  its  depots  and  warerooms  persons  who 


ployed  were  all  his  own.  He  certainly 
may  select  his  own  agencies  and  his  own 
associates  for  doing  his  own  work." 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  28  L.  Ed.  291,  4  S.  Ct. 
18.5. 

79.  Discrimination  as  to  interchange  of 
business. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Den- 
ver, etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  28  L.  Ed. 
291,  4   S.   Ct.   185. 

The  provision  of  the  constitution  of 
Colorado,  §  6,  prohilMting  undue  or  un- 
reasonable discrimination  to  be  made 
in  charges  or  facilities  for  transportation 
of  freight  or  passengers  within  the  state, 
and  of  §  4  giving  every  railroad  com- 
pany the  right  to  connect  with  any  other 
railroad,  does  not  require  the  railroad 
company  to  construct  a  station  or  make 
a  regular  stopping  place  at  any  point  at 
which  the  other  carrier  may  make  a  me- 
chanical union  with  its  tracks.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.,  110 
L'.    S.    067,   28    L.    Ed.   201,   4    S.    Ct.    185. 

80.  Discrimination  as  to  prepayment  of 
freight  charges. — Wadley,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State.  1:57  Ga.  497,  73  S.  E.  741,  constru- 
ing  Railroad    Commission   Act. 

The  charter  of  the  Northern  Pacific 
Railroad  Company,  Act  July  2,  1864,  §  5, 
requiring  the  company  to  permit  other 
companies  to  form  running  connections 
with  it  on  fair  and  equitable  terms,  in- 
cludes only  arrangements  as  to  the  time 
of  arrival  and  departure  of  trains  and  as 
to  stations,  platforms,  etc.,  and  does  not 
apply  to  discrimination  in  the  prepayment 
of  freight.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  9  C.  C.  A.  409,  61  Fed. 
158,  affirming  51   Fed.   465. 

81.  Construction    of    provisions    requir- 


ing transfers. — Under  the  New  York  stat- 
ute. Laws  1885,  p.  525,  c.  305,  making  it 
lawful  for  any  street  surface  railway  com- 
pany to  contract  with  another  such  com- 
pany for  the  use  of  their  respective  roads, 
and  Laws  1890,  p.  1082,  c.  565,  and  Laws 
1892,  p.  1382,  c.  676,  continuing  the  privi- 
leges of  contracting  and  the  obligations 
incurred  thereby,  and  providing  that 
street  railroads  entering  into  such  con- 
tracts shall  carry  or  permit  any  other 
party  to  such  contract  to  carry  between 
any  two  points  on  the  roads,  or  portions 
thereof,  embraced  in  the  contract,  any 
passenger  desiring  to  make  a  continuous 
trip  between  such  points  for  one  single 
fare,  not  higher  than  the  fare  lawfully 
chargeable  by  either  of  the  parties  for 
an  adult  passenger,  the  legislature  in- 
tended, in  consideration  of  the  privilege 
of  contracting,  to  require  that  the  lines  so 
brought  together  under  the  contracts 
should  carry  passengers  for  one  single 
fare  between  any  two-points  on  the  lines, 
to  the  end  that  the  public  convenience 
may  be  promoted,  as  expressed  therein. 
O'Reilly  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  95 
App.  Div.  253,  89  N.  Y.  S.  41,  judgment 
affirmed    in    179    N.    Y.    450,    72    N.    E_.    517. 

For  the  cohstruction  of  the  franchise  of 
a  street  railway  company  providing  for 
the  exchange  of  transfers  with  any  other 
company  operating  street  railways  which 
shall  give  and  receive  transfers  to  and 
from  the  lines  of  the  company,  and  stipu- 
lating for  a  basis  of  settlement.  See  Lin- 
hoff  V.  Seattle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Wash. 
544,    114    Pac.    431. 

82.  Contract  with  city  not  requiring  the 
giving  of  transfers. — Reed  v.  Trenton,  80 
x\.  J.    luj.   503,   85   Atl.  270. 


Ill  CONTROL    AND    REGULATION.    '  §§    130-132 

come  there  in  an  intoxicated  condition,  and  who  are  turbulent  and  troublesome 
and  disturb  and  interfere  with  the  agents  and  employees  of  the  company  in  the 
discharge  of  their  work,  and  may  also  exclude  therefrom  those  who  are  reported 
to  be  dishonest,  and  on  account  of  whose  past  presence  in  and  about  its  depots 
and  warerooms  freight  had  been  removed  without  the  company's  consent,  and  for 
which  it  was  compelled  to  pay  the  consignee  the  value  thereof. ^^  A  regulation 
by  a  railway  company  forbidding  peddlers  and  loafers  from  entering  a  passen- 
ger room  at  a  station  is  valid. '■^' 

§  131.  Regulations  for  Conduct  of  Persons. — A  railroad  corporation  has 
authority  to  make  and  carry  into  execution  reasonable  regulations  for  the  con- 
duct of  all  persons  using  the  railroad  or  resorting  to  its  depots,  without  pre- 
scribing such  regulations  by  by-laws ;  and  the  superintendent  of  a  railroad  de- 
pot, appointed  by  the  cori)oration,  has  the  same  authority  by  delegation. ^^  But 
the  superintendent  of  a  railroad  depot  has  not  a  right  to  order  a  person  to  leave 
the  depot,  and  not  come  there  any  more,  and  to  remove  him  therefrom  by  force, 
if  he  does  come,  merely  because  such  person,  in  the  judgment  of  the  superin- 
tendent, and  without  proof  of  the  fact,  had  violated  the  regulations  established 
by  the  railroad  corporation,  or  had  conducted  himself  offensively  towards  the 
superintendent.*^*' 

§  132.  Rights  of  and  Restrictions  upon  Individuals  or  Corporations 
Engaged  in  Transporting  Passengers  or  Baggage. ''" — A  common  carrier  of 
passengers  and  their  l)aggage  U>  and  from  railroad  stations,  in  the  business  of 
soliciting  the  patronage  of  passengers  at  a  railroad  station,  holds  no  relation 
with  the  railroad  company  as  a  common  carrier,  and  has  no  right,  without  its 
consent,  to  use  its  station  grounds  and  buildings. ^^  But  licensed  hackmen  or 
cabmen,  when  not  forbidden  by  valid  municipal  regulations,^^  may,  within  rea- 
sonable limits,  use  the  public  sidewalk  in  front  of.  adjacent  to,  or  about  the  main 
entrance  to  a  railway  passenger  station-  in  prosecuting  their  calling,  but  are  not 
entitled  to  congregate  upon  such  sidewalk  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  ingress  and 
egress  of  passengers  and  employees.'^*'  A  railroad  company  has  the  right  to  des- 
ignate the  places  abutting  on  the  station  ])latform  where  competing  hackmen. '^i 

83.  Persons  carrier  may  exclude  from  its  entering  a  passenger  room  at  a  station,  is 
depots  and  warerooms. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  valid;  but  a  hackman  with  a  check  for 
Co.  z\  Armstrong,  30  Okla.  134,  120  Pac.  baggage  may  enter  the  baggage  room 
952.  therefor.      vSummitt   v.    State,    76  Tenn.    (S 

84.  Sunimitt  v.  State,  76  Tenn.    (S   Lea)  Lea)    413,   41    Am.    Rep.   637. 

413,  41   Am.   Rep.   637.  89.    Municipal    regulations    as   to    places 

85.  Authority  to  make  regulations  for  at  which  hackmen  may  siand.— A  citv 
conduct  of  persons.— Commonwealth  v.  regulation,  requiring  hackmen  to  occupy 
Rower,  48  Mass.  (7  Mete.)  .596,  41  Am.  certain  designated  places  at  railway  de- 
Dec.  465;  Hall  v.  Power  (Mass.),  12  pots,  is  not  invalid.  Ottawa  v.  Bodlev, 
Mete.    482.    46    Am.    Dec.    698.  G7    Kan.    178,  72   Pac.   545. 

86.  Authority  of  superintendent  of  de-  ^,^^  ^^^.^^  ^  ^  municipality  to  regulate 
??w.    A      ''u          n'    (Mass.).    12    Mete.  ^,^^,   ^^^^^^   ^^   ^j^j^,^   hackmen   may   stand 

o'r,     A     ?^"  .V*''^"  '      .      f         1     •  ■   •  at  a  city  depot  is  not  afifected  bv  any  con- 

87.  As  to  the  grant  of  exclusue  pnvi-  ^^^^^  ^  hackman  mav  make  w'ith  a  pas- 
leges  to  corporations  or  individuals  en-  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^^^  ,^j,^^  ^^  ^  ^^^^  ^^j^^^  ^^^^^^ 
gaged  in  transpor  ing  passengers  or  ^,^^-  ^^^,■,„,,^^^^  ^,.  ^^.^  ^■,1',.  ,„arshal.  Ot- 
baggage,  see  ante.  To  Corporations  or  ^^^^..^  ,,  g^^„^  g,  ^^^^  j-.,  .,  p^^  ^^. 
Individuals      Engaged      in       transporting  -'  . 

Passengers     and    Baggage     to    and     from  90-    ^'S}\^   ^°   "^e   sidewalk   adjacent   to 

Railroad    Depots."    §    112.  station.— Decree.    Donnovan    f.     Pennsyl- 

88.  No  right  to  use  station  grounds  and  ^ania  Co.,  60  C.  C.  A.  168.  124  Fed.  1016, 
buildings  without  carrier's  consent.— Old  affirmed.  Donovan  r.  Pennsylvania  Co.. 
Colony  R.  Co.  v.  Tripp,  147  Mass.  35.  17  199  ^-  ^-  2''-'.  -0  h.  I-.d.  102.  26  K  Ct.  91. 
N.  E.  89.  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  661;  Common-  91.  Designation  of  places  where  com- 
wealth  V.  Carey,  147  Mass.  40,  17  N.  peting  hackmen  shall  stand. — Hot  Springs 
E.  97.  f.    Denil.y.    90    Ark.    574.    119    S.    \V.    1126; 

A  regulation  by  a  railway  company  for-  Cole  z'.  Rowen,  88  Mich.  219,  50  X.  W, 
bidding    hackmen    and    expressmen    from       138,   13  L.   R.  A.  848. 


132 


CARRIERS. 


112 


or  the  owners  of  competing  omnibus  lines,-'-  shall  stand  their  vehicles  while 
awaiting  the  arrival  and  departure  of  trains  and  where  they  shall  receive  and 
discharge,  passengers  and  baggage ;  and  where  it  adopts  regulations  assigning 
such  places,  and  a  hack  or  bus  driver  refuses  to  obey  them,  the  station  master 
is  not  guilty  of  assault  and  batter}^  in  taking  hold  of  him  and  ejecting  him  from 
the  stand  assigned  to  another.'-'^^  A  railroad  company  also  has  a  right  to  order 
that  hacks  shall  not  stand  at  a  particular  place  on  its  premises,^^  and  to  remove 
a  hackman  who  willfully  disobeys  such  order,  using  as  much  force  as  may  be 
necessarv.''"^  Prohibiting  the  soliciting  of  customers  for  any  hotel  on  a  depot 
platform  while  passenger  trains  are  stopping  is  not  an  interference  with  any 
common  right,  but  a  proper  exercise  of  the  police  power/-**^  ^Municipalities  are 
sometimes  empowered  to  regulate  the  soliciting  of  persons  arriving  on  trains/^' 
The  granting  by  a  railroad  company  to  one  concern  operating  carriages  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  soliciting  business  on  its  depot  grounds  gives  others  no  right 
to  do  so,  even  if  such  exclusive  privilege  be  void  as  creating  a  monopoly,  and 
though  the  grantee  thereof  be  not  excluded.'-''^ 


92.  Designation  of  places  where  owners 
of   competing    omnibus   lines   shall    stand. 

— Lucas  T.  Herbert,  148  Ind.  64,  47  X.  E. 
146,  37  L.  R.  A.  376;  Cole  v.  Rowen,  88 
Mich.  219,  50  N.  W.  138,  13  L.  R.  A.  848. 

93.  Right  of  station  master  to  enforce 
regulations  assigning  stands. — Cole  ?'. 
Rowen,  bS  Mich.  219,  50  X.  W.  138,  13  L. 
R.    A.    848. 

94.  Carrier  may  prohibit  hacks  standing 
at  a  particular  place  on  its  premises. — A 
railroad  company  has  a  right  to  order 
that  hacks  shall  not  stand  in  front  of  the 
entrance  to  its  station.  Smith  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Pa.  249,  24  Atl. 
304. 

Where  a  street  ran  through  and  under 
premises  occupied  by  plaintiff  as  a  rail- 
way station,  and  plaintiff  claimed  the  fee 
in  the  street,  subject  only  to  the  ease- 
ment, defendant  had  no  right,  against 
plaintiff's  protest,  to  take  up  a  stand  as 
a  hackman  on  such  street  within  the  line 
of  plaintiff's  premises,  and  plaintiff  might 
maintain  trespass.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Bork,  23  R.  I.  218,  49  Atl.  96.5. 

95.  Right  to  remove  hackman. — Smith 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Pa.  249, 
24  Atl.   304. 

96.  Prohibition  against  soliciting  cus- 
tomers for  hotel  on  depot  platform. — The 
power  conferred  on  towns  by  the  Arkan- 
sas statute,  Kirby's  Dig.,  §  5438,  to  regu- 
late soliciting  persons  who  arrive  on  trains 
for  hotels,  etc.,  and  by  §  5454,  to  regulate 
omnibuses,  drays,  etc.,  and  hotels,  or  an 
ordinance  passed  thereunder  prohibiting 
the  soliciting  of  customers  for  any  ho- 
tel, etc.,  on  a  depot  platform  while 
passenger  trains  are  stopping,  is  not  an 
interference  with  any  common  right,  but 
a  proper  exercise  of  the  police  power. 
Emerson  v.  McXeil,  84  Ark.  552,  106  S. 
W.   479.  ♦ 

Such  an  ordinance  is  none  the  less  valid 
because  the  platform  on  which  the  so- 
liciting is  prohiljited  is  the  property  of 
the  railroad  company.  Emerson  v.  Islc- 
Neil,  84  Ark.  552,  106  S.  W.  479. 


97.  Power  of  municipalities  to  regulate 
soliciting    persons    arriving    on    trains. — 

Under  the  Arkansas  statutes,  Kirby's 
Dig.,  §§  5438,  5454,  a  town  was  empow- 
ered to  pass  an  ordinance  prohibiting  the 
soliciting  of  customers  for  any  hotel,  etc., 
on  a  depot  platform  while  passenger 
trains  were  stopping.  Emerson  v.  Mc- 
Xeil,  84  Ark.   552,    106   S.   W.   479. 

Under  the  Arkansas  statute,  Sand.  &  H. 
Dig.,  §  5132,  giving  a  city  authority  to 
regulate  the  drumming  of  persons,  arriv- 
ing on  trains,  for  hotels,  etc.,  an  ordi- 
nance providing  that  every  person  ob- 
taining a  drummer's  license  shall,  while 
engaged  in  the  business,  wear  a  badge  of 
a  certain  character,  showing  for  what  he 
is  drumming,  is  not  void  as  unreasonable. 
Hot  Springs  r.  Curry,  64  Ark.  152,  41  S. 
W.  55. 

A  city  council  has  not,  under  the  "gen- 
eral welfare  clause"  in  the  charter  of  the 
city,  tlie  power  to  pass  an  ordinance  ab- 
solutely prohibiting  drummers,  runners, 
hackmen,  cabmen,  and  all  other  persons 
from  entering,  with  the  owner's  consent, 
a  union  passenger  depot  in  such  city,  "to 
solicit  custom  or  patrons."  Cosgrove  v. 
Augusta,  103  Ga.  835,  31  S.  E.  445,  42  L. 
R.   A.    711,   68   Am.   St.   Rep.   149. 

Construction  of  ordinance  prohibiting 
soliciting  for  hotels  at  railroad  depots. — 
An  ordinance  of  the  city  of  Hot  Springs 
made  it  unlawful  for  any  person  to  drum 
or  solicit  l)usiness  for  a  hotel  on  the 
trains  or  depots  of  any  railroads.  Peti- 
tioner was  a  hotel  keeper,  and  was  con- 
victed of  soliciting  patronage  for  his  ho- 
tel "on  the  platform"  of  a  railroad  station. 
Held,  that  the  word  "depot,"  in  the  ordi- 
nance, included,  not  only  the  depot  build- 
ing, but  the  platform  and  grounds  con- 
nected therewith,  and  used  by  the  com- 
pany for  its  business  with  the  public. 
Moore  V.  Campbell,  85  Ark.  581,  109  S. 
W.    544. 

98.  Effect  of  granting  one  concern  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  soliciting  business. — 
Oregon,     etc.,    R.      Co.    v.    Davidson,     33 


113  CONTROL    AXD    REGULATION.  §§    133-134 

§  133.  Free  Transportation  to  Police  Officers.— A  statute  requiring 
street  railway  coinpanics  to  grant  free  transijurialion  to  police  officers,  is  a  valid 
exercise  of  the  police  power  of  the  state,  since  policemen  are  frequently  re- 
quired to  he  on  street  cars  in  the  execution  of  their  duties  as  such.'-'* 

§  134.  Combinations  of  Carriers.— Contract  Fixing  Fares  at  a  Certain 
Sum. — A  coniract  heiween  a  street  railroad  coni])any  and  its  predecessor,  fix- 
ing the  ivissenger  fares  on  a  certain  line  at  a  certain  sum,  will  he  assumed  to  be 
valid  until  abrogated  by  law.^ 

Contract  Not  to  Reduce  Rates  During  a  Limited  Period.— An  agree- 
ment between  a  railruad  company  and  a  competitor  that  during  a  limited  period 
the  former  company  will  not  reduce  its  present  rates,  unless  required  by  law, 
is  not  contrary  to  i)nblic  ])olic-\-.-' 

Association  Agreement  Not  to  Carry  Freight  for  Less  than  Rate  Fixed. 
— An  agreement  by  the  members  of  an  association  that  none  of  them  shall  carry 
freight  for  less  than  the  rate  fixed  by  the  association,  without  reference  to 
whether  the  rate  is  reasonable  or  not,  is  illegal.-^ 

Agreement  Not  to  Cross  Competing  Company's  Tracks  at  Grade. — An 
agreement  by  a  street-railway  conii)any  with  a  competing  company  not  to  cross 
the  latter's  tracks  at  grade  in  the  future,  entered  into  when  the  parties  knew  the 
municipality  would  not  generally  permit  street-railway  crossings  except  at  grade, 
is  against  public  policy,  since  it  tends  to  create  a  monopoly."^' 

Pooling  Arrangements. — A  pooling  arrangement  between  rival  railroad  com- 
panies whereby  freight  rates  are  established  is  prima  facie  illegal.^  An  arrange- 
ment by  which  two  competing  systems  of  railroads  agree  to  divide  their  earnings 
for  traffic  between  given  points,  for  wdiich  they  were  previously  competitors,  is 
against  pul)lic  interest,  contrary  to  public  policy,  and  can  not  be  judicially  en- 
forced.'"' 

Agreement  to  Share  Through  Freight  Pro  Rata  with  a  Connecting 
Line. —  In  the  absence  of  any  statutory  regulations  upon  the  subject,  a  railway 
or  line  of  steamboats  may  agree  to  share  through  freight  pro  rata  with  a.  ^con- 
necting  line,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  lines,  without  incurring  any  liability  for 
the  loss  which  mav  result  to  the  other  lines  by  reason  of  such  arrangement." 

Uniform  Charge  for  Detention  of  Cars  by  Shippers.— A  car  service  as- 
sociation of  railroad  comi)anies.  organized  to  make  and  enforce  penalties  for  the 

Utah  370,  94  Pac.  10.     See  ante,  "To  Cor-  etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Calumet    Elect.    R.    Co., 

porations     or      Individuals      Engaged     in  171   111.  3'.)1,  49   X.   E.  57(5.            ,       ,     .   , 

Transporting  Passengers  and  Baggage  to  5.  Pooling  arrangement  whereby  freight 

and    from    Railroad    Depots,"   §    112.  rates   are   established.— Cleveland,   etc.,    R. 

99.    Free   Transportation   to   police   offi-  Co.  v.  Closser,  iL'ii  Ind.  348,  26  X.  h.  159, 

cers— State   :■.    Suttor,,   s;!   X.   J.   L.   4(),   84  22  Am.   St.   Rep.  593,  9   L.   R.  A.  754. 

\^\    io")7  6.  Arrangement  by  competing  roads  to 

*    1.   Contract      fixing   fares     at   a   certain  divide   earnings  for  traffic   between   given 

sum.-Portland    R.,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Railroad  pomts^-lexas     etc     ^^  ,^^- ,;•    ^-'^'^4^" 

<^                -t;    r^.-^      jfivi     in^    Par     7n'i     rp-  Pac.    R.   Co.,  41   La.   Ann.   9<o,  o   so.   oso, 

Comm.,    3h    Ore.    46h,    lOo    rac.     lUJ,    re  ^„     »         c.     o          ii- 

1         •          ,       •     1    inn    Do ^     o'-T  17    .Ain.    St.    Kcp.    44a. 

hearing  denied   109   Pac.   2  < 3.  ^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  competing.-Two   rail- 

2.  Contract  not  to  reduce  rates  during  ^^^.^^j  companies,  which  have  each  a 
a  Umited  period.— Rantaii  ku-er  k.  Lo  r.  through  and  separate  line  of  communi- 
MidiUesex,  etc..  'I  ract.  to.,  70  -\.  J.  L.  ^-^tion  between  two  given  points,  are 
7oL',   .")S   All.   :i:'.2.  competing    companies    for    all    traffic    be- 

3.  Association  agreement  not  to  carry  tween  such  points.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
freight  for  less  than  rate  fixed. — Sayre  v.  -.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co..  41  La.  .Ann.  970, 
Louisville    L'niiui     l'>enev.    Ass'n    (Ky.),    1  q   3o.    SSS,    17    Am.    St.    Reji.    44."). 

Duv.    143.    s.-,    Am.    Dec.    i>i:'..  7.   Agreement  to   share   through   freight 

4.  Agreement  not  to  cross  competing  pro  rata  with  a  connecting  line. — Eclipse 
company's  tracks  at  grade.— .hulgment  Towhoat  Co.  :•.  Pontchartrain  R.  Co.,  24 
70  111.  .\pp.  254,  attirmed.     South  Chicago,  La.  .\nn.   1. 

1   Car— 8 


§§    134-137  CARRlIvRS. 


114 


unreasonable  detention  of  cars  by  shippers,  is  not  rendered  invalid  by  the  fact 
that  all  the  nieml)ers  agreed  to  make  a  uniform  charge  for  detention.'^ 

Regulation  of  Freight  Association  as  to  Estimated  Weight  of  Tank 
Cars.^A  regulation  promulgated  and  observed  by  a  freight  association,  consist- 
ing of  numerous  railway  companies,  by  which  the  capacity  of  tank  cars  owned  by 
slnppers.  and  not  listed  in  what  is  denominated  a  "Joint  Tank  Line  Circular," 
showing  the  actual  weight,  shall  be  estimated  at  a  certain  number  of  pounds, 
will  not  be  declared  unreasonable,  in  the  absence  of  a  reliable  basis  for  computa- 
tion, or  anything  to  show  that  the  gross  amount  of  freight  charged  and  collected 
thereunder  was  excessive.^ 

§§  135-173.  Proceedings  to  Enforce  or  to  Prevent  Enforcement  of 
Regulations— §  13  5.  Right  of  State  to  Insist  on  Compliance  with  Regu- 
lations.— The  state  may  insist  on  a  compliance  as  to  the  present  and  future  with 
a  statute,  fixing  maximum  passenger  and  freight  rates,  and  nothing  short  of  a 
repeal  of  the  statute  can  defeat  the  right  of  the  state.'"' 

§§  136-159.  Judicial  Supervision  and  Remedies  in  General— §§  136- 
137.  Scope  of  Judicial  Supervision— §  136.  In  General.— The  courts  may 
compel  carriers  to  jjerform  a  positive  duty  imposed  b\-  law,  and  may  restrain  acts 
in  excess  of  the  powers  granted. ^^  In  the  absence  of  a  law  or  a  rule  of  the  rail- 
road commission  of  the  state  prescribing  the  type  to  be  used  in  printing  schedules 
of  rates  to  be  posted  by  railroad  companies  in  their  stations,  the  court  of  last 
resort  in  the  state  can  not  by  mandamus  direct  in  what  sized  type  they  shall  be 
printed. 12  Where  the  railroad  commission  of  a  state  has  ordered  a  railroad 
company  to  furnish  certain  service  to  passengers  and  shippers,  under  its  power 
to  require  railroads  to  furnish  adequate  service,  though  the  court  that  reviews 
such  order  would  not  have  made  it  under  the  circumstances,  had  it  been  sitting 
as  a  commission,  yet  if  competent  and  reasonable  men  might  differ  as  to  its  pro- 
priety or  reasonableness,  and  it  was  therefore  within  the  power  of  the  commis- 
sion, it  will  not  be  declared  unreasonable. ^^  In  determining  the  scope  of  the 
supen-isory  power  of  the  courts  over  the  orders  or  reports  of  railroad  comniis- 
sions,  consideration  must  of  course  be  given  to  any  statutory  provision  affecting 
the  matter.""^' 

§  137.  As  to  Rates. — -The  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  a  rate  of  charge 
for  transportation  by  a  railroad  company,  involving,  as  it  does,  the  element  of  rea- 
sonableness, both  as'  regards  the  company  and  as  regards  the  public,  is  eminently 
a  question  for  judicial  investigation,  requiring  the  process  of  law  for  its  deter- 

8.  Uniform  charge  for  detention  of  sonable. — Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
cars  by  shippers. — Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Railroad  Comm.,  136  Wis.  14G,  116  N. 
Co  V  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co..  98  Ky.  152,  17  W.  905,  construing  Laws  1905,  pp.  556, 
Ky.    L.    Rep."  726,   '.',2    S.   W.    595,   36    L.    R.  559,    c.    362,    §§    12,    14. 

A.   850,   56  Am.    St.   Rep.   326.  14.  In  Massachusetts  a  report  of  com- 

9.  Regulation  of  freight  association  as  missioners  is  not  to  be  treated  in  all  re- 
to  estimated  weight  of  tank  cars. —  spects  like  an  award  of  arbitrators.  All 
Coates  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  S.  Dak.  the  powers  of  the  commissioners  are  de- 
173,   65   X.   W.    1067.  rived    from   judicial   appointment,   and   the 

10.  Right  of  state  to  insist  on  compli-  court  will  so  far  supervise  their  award  as 
ance  with  regulations. — State  v.  Boston,  to  see  that  they  have  acted  within  the 
etc.,    Railroad,    75    X.    H.    327,   74   Atl.    542.  scope    of    the    authority    with    which    they 

11.  Power  of  courts  to  compel  and  re-  are  invested,  and  that  they  have  acted 
strain. — Horton  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  173  upon  all  matters  submitted  to  them. 
Ala.  231,  55  So.  531.  See  post,  "Injunc-  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.  v.-  Western  R. 
tion,"    §§    160-178.  Corp.    (Mass.),    14    Gray    253.      See,    also 

12.  Size  of  type  to  be  used  in  printing  Hingham,  etc.,  Turnpike  Corp.  v.  Nor- 
schedule  of  rates.- State  v.  Pensacola,  folk  (Mass.),  6  Allen  353;  Metropolitan 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  27   Fla.  403,  9   So.  89.  R.   Co.  v.  Quincy   R.   Co.    (Mass.),   12  Al- 

13.  When  commission  order  to  carrier  len  262;  Inhabitants  of  Wrentham  v.  In- 
as  to  service  will  not  be  declared  unrea-  habitants  of  Norfolk,  114  Mass.  555. 


115 


CONTROL    AND    REGULATION. 


§  137 


mination.^-"^  and  can  not  be  conclusively  determined  by  the  legislature. ^'^  It  is 
within  the  power  and  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  to  inquire  whether  rates  pre- 
scribed by  a  state  rajlroad  commission  are  unjust  and  unreasonable  and  such 
as  to  constitute  an  unconstitutional  invasion  of  i)roperty  rights. ^^  But  the  courts 
have  no  general  supervisory  jurisdiction  over  the  question  of  freight  and  pas- 
senger rates. ^**     The  extent  of  judicial  interference  is  protection  against  unrea- 


15.  Reasonableness  of  a  rate  a  judicial 
question. — Reagan  z\  l-'arniers'  Loan,  clc, 
Co.,  154  U.  S.  3(52,  38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14  S. 
Ct.  1047;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Minne- 
sota, 134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S. 
Ct.  4G2;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  VVellman, 
143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed.  17G,  12  S.  Ct. 
400;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
173  U.  S.  G84,  43  L.  Ed.  858,  19  S.  Ct. 
565;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  156  U. 
S.  649,  39  L.  Ed.  567.  15  S.  Ct.  484;  Smyth 
V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18 
S.  Ct.  418;  Covington,  etc..  Turnpike  Co. 
V.  Sandford,  164  U.  S.  578,  592,  41  L.  Ed. 
560,  17  S.  Ct.  198;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Tompkins,  176  U.  S.  167,  173,  44  L.  Ed. 
417,  20  S.  Ct.  336;  Stone  v.  Fai-mers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.  116  U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed. 
636,  6  S.  Ct.  334,  388,  1191;  Dow  V.  Beid- 
elman,  125  U.  S.  680,  681,  31  L.  Ed.  841, 
8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Steenerson  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  69  Minn.  353,  72  N.  W.  713; 
Stone  r.  Natchez,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Miss. 
646. 

There  is  a  remedy  in  the  courts  for  re- 
lief against  legislation  establishing  a  tar- 
iff of  rates  wliicli  is  so  unreasonable 
as  to  practically  destroy  the  value  of 
property  of  companies  engaged  in  the 
carrying  business,  and  especially  may 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  treat 
such  a  question  as  a  judicial  one,  and 
hold  such  acts  of  legislation  to  l)e  in 
conflict  with  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  as  depriving  the  compa- 
nies of  their  property  without  due  proc- 
ess of  law.  and  as  depriving  them  of  the 
equal  protection  of  the  laws.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gill,  156  U.  S.  649,  39  L. 
Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct.  484;  Stone  v.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed. 
636,  6  S.  Ct.  334,  388,  1191;  Dow  z:  Beid- 
elman,  125  U.  S.  680.  681,  31  L.  Ed.  841, 
8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970, 
10  S.  Ct.  462;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339.  36  L.  Ed.  176, 
12  S.  Ct.  400;  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc..  Co..  154  U.  S.  362.  38  L.  Ed.  1014, 
14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Covington,  etc..  Turnpike 
Co.  V.  Sandford.  164  U.  S.  578.  592,  41  L. 
Ed.  560,  17  S.  Ct.  198;  Smyth  V.  Ames, 
169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Kd.  819.  IS  S.  Ct. 
418. 

16.  Reasonableness  of  rate  can  not  be 
conclusively  determined  by  legislature.  - 
Smyth  V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466.  42  L.  Ed. 
819.  18  S.  Ct.  418;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Minnesota.  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed. 
970,  10  S.   Ct.  462. 


While  rates  for  the  transportation  of 
persons  and  property  within  the  limits 
of  a  state  are  primarily  for  its  determi- 
nation, the  question  whether  they  are  so 
unreasonably  low  as  to  deprive  the  car- 
rier of  its  property  without  such  compen- 
sation as  the  constitution  secures,  and 
therefore  without  due  process  of  law,  can 
not  Ije  so  conclusively  determined  by  the 
legislature  of  the  state  or  by  regulations 
adopted  under  its  authority,  that  the  mat- 
ter may  not  become  the  subject  of  judi- 
cial inquiry.  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,   42   L.   Ed.   819,   18   S.   Ct.   418. 

The  idea  that  any  legislature,  state  or 
federal,  can  conclusively  determine  for 
the  people  and  for  the  courts  that  what 
it  enacts  in  the  form  of  law,  or  what  it 
authorizes  its  agents  to  do,  is  consistent 
with  the  fundamental  law,  is  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  theory  of  our  institutions. 
The  duty  rests  upon  all  courts,  federal 
and  state,  when  their  jurisdiction  is  prop- 
erly invoked,  to  see  to  it  that  no  right 
secured  by  the  supreme  law  of  the  land 
is  impaired  or  destroyed  by  legislatinn. 
This  function  and  duty  of  the  judiciary 
distinguishes  the  American  system  from 
all  other  systems  of  government.  The 
perpetuity  of  our  institutions  and  the 
liberty  which  is  enjoyed  under  them  de- 
pend, in  no  small  degree,  upon  the  power 
given  the  judiciary  to  declare  null  and 
void  all  legislation  that  is  clearly  repug- 
nant to  the  supreme  law-  of  the  land. 
Smyth  V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed. 
819.    18    S.    Ct.    418. 

17.  Power  of  courts  over  rates  pre- 
scribed by  railroad  commission. — Tram- 
mel 7'.  Dinsmore.  42  C.  C.  A.  623.  102 
Fed.  794.  affirmed  in  1H3  U.  S.  115,  46 
L.  Ed.  Ill,  22  S.  Ct.  45;  Southern  R.  Co. 
V.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga.  35, 
68    S.    E.    807. 

The  courts  have  this  power  under  the 
1  exas  statute.  Rev.  St.  1895,  arts.  4565. 
4566.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm..  102  Tex.  338,  116  S.  W.  795.  re- 
versing   on    rehearing    113    S.    W.    741. 

18.  Courts  have  no  general  supervisory 
jurisdiction  over  rates. —  Ivaruan  River  R. 
Co.  r.  Middlesex,  etc..  Tract.  Co..  7i)  N. 
J.    L.    732,   58    Atl.    332. 

Under  the  Texas  statute,  Rev.  St. 
is'.i.").  arts.  4565.  456(>.  courts  are  not  en- 
titled to  inquire  as  to  the  motives  of  the 
railroad  commission  in  fixing  rates.  Rail- 
road Comm.  V.  Galveston  Chamber  of 
Commerce    (Tex.).    145    S.    W.    573. 


§  137 


CARRIKRS. 


116 


sonable  rates. ^^  and  the  jiuliciarv  ought  not  to  interfere  with  the  collection  of 
rates  established  under  legislative  sanction,  unless  they  are  so  plainly  and  palpa- 
bly unreasonable  as  to  make  their  enforcement  equivalent  to  the  taking  of  prop- 
erty for  Dublic  use  without  such  compensation  as  under  all  the  circumstances  is 
jus't  both'to  the  owner  and  to  the  public.-"  If  the  courts  decide  that  rates  fixed 
by  the  legislature  or  commission  are  unreasonable,  it  is  not  within  their  power 
to  prepare  a  new  schedule  or  provide  rates  which  they  may  deem  reasonable.-^ 
Xor  are  the  courts  concerned  whether  the  rates  fixed  be  unnecessary  or  merely 
speculative.--  Under  a  statute  prohibiting  a  railroad  company  from  discriminat- 
ing in  charges  or  facilities  in  the  transportation  of  freight  or  passengers,  a  court 
can  not  compel  a  railroad  company  to  allow  to  a  warehouseman  or  storage  com- 
pany tlie  same  service  at  the  same  rates  as  the  company  allows  to  another  ware- 
houseman, especially  where  such  service  and  rates  are  discriminating.-^     A  court 


19,  Extent  of  judicial  interference  is 
pretection    against    unreasonable    rates. — 

United  States. — Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co..  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed. 
1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed.  176, 
12  S.  Ct.  400;  Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6 
S.  Ct.  334,  388,  1191;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed. 
970,  10  S.  Ct.  462;  Smyth  v.  Ames.  169 
U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418; 
Dow  V.  Beidelman,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L. 
Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Peik  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164,  24  L.  Ed.  97; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ackley,  94  U. 
S.  179,  24  L.  Ed.  99;  Winona,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  180,  24  L-  Ed.  99; 
Stone  V.  Wisconsin,  94  U.  S.  181,  24  L. 
Ed.  102;  San  Diego  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
National  City,  174  U.  S.  739,  43  L.  Ed. 
1154,    19    S.    Ct.    804. 

Xew  Jersey. — Raritan  River  R.  Co.  v. 
Middlesex,  etc.,  Tract.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L. 
732,   58   Atl.    332. 

On  appeal  a  court  can  review  the  acts 
of  a  state  railroad  and  warehouse  com- 
mission only  so  far  as  to  determine 
whether  the  rates  fixed  by  it  are  unrea- 
sonable and  confiscatory,  and  to  what  ex- 
tent. Steenerson  v.  Great  Northern  R. 
Co.,   69   Minn.   353,  72   N.   W.   713. 

20.  San  Diego  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional City,  174  U.  S.  739,  43  L.  Ed.  1J54, 
l'.>  S.  Ct.  804;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed.  176, 
12  S.  Ct.  400;  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc..  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014, 
14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418.  See. 
also,  Hendersoti  Bridge  Co.  v.  Hoiioer- 
son,  173  U.  S.  592,  43  L.  Ed.  823,  19  S. 
Ct.   553. 

21.  Courts  can  not  prepare  new  sched- 
ule of  rates. — Dow  <;•.  Beidelman,  125  U. 
S.  680,  -.'A  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct.  1028;  Peik 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  U.  S.  164,  24 
L.  Ed.  97;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ack- 
ley, 94  U.  S.  179,  24  L.  Ed.  99;  Winona, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  180,  24  L. 
Ed.  99;  Stone  v.  Wisconsin,  94  U.  S.  181, 
24    L.    Ed.    102;    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 


Wellman,  143  U.  S.  339,  36  L.  Ed.  176, 
12  S.  Ct.  400;  Stone  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.,  116  U.  S.  307,  29  L.  Ed.  636,  6 
S.  Ct.  334,  388,  1191;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L- 
Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462;  Smyth  v.  Ames, 
169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct. 
418.  ■ 

It  is  not  the  function  of  the  courts  to 
establish  a  schedule  of  rates.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  within  the  power  of  courts  to 
prepare  a  new  schedule,  or  rearrange  one 
already  established.  The  inquiry  in  such 
case,  is  limited  to  the  effect  of  the  tariff 
as  a  whole,  including  therein  the  rates 
prescribed  for  all  the  several  classes  of 
goods,  and  the  decrees  must  either  con- 
demn or  sustain  the  act  of  quasi  legisla- 
tion. If  a  law  be  adjudged  invalid,  the 
court  may  not,  in  the  decree,  attempt  to 
enact  a  law  upon  the  same  subject  which 
shall  be  obnoxious  to  no  legal  objections. 
It  stops  with  simply  passing  its  judgment 
on  the  validity  of  the  act  before  it.  Rea- 
gan V.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  362,  38  L.   Ed.  1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047. 

The  courts  are  not  authorized  to  revise 
or  change  the  body  of  rates  imposed  by 
a  legislature  or  a  commission.  They  do 
not  determine  whether  one  rate  is  pref- 
erable to  another,  or  what,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, would  be  fair  and  reasonal)le, 
as  between  the  carriers  and  the  shippers. 
They  do  not  engage  in  any  mere  admin- 
istrative work.  Reagan  v.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed. 
1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Trammel  v.  Dins- 
more,  42  C.  C.  A.  623,  102  Fed.  794,  af- 
firmed in  183  U.  S.  115,  46  L.  Ed.  Ill, 
22    S.    Ct.    45. 

22.  Courts  not  concerned  whether  rates 
be  unnecessary  or  merely  speculative. — 
State  z'.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Fla.  146, 
37  So.  657,  affirmed  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Ellis,  203  U.  S.  256,  51  L.  Ed.  174,  27 
S.  Ct.  108;  State  v.  Jacksonville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  48  Fla.   153,  37   So.  658. 

23.  Court  can  not  compel  carrier  to 
carry  at  same  rate  it  carriers  for  another. 
— Chouteau  v.  Union,  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Mo. 
App.  286,  construing  Rev.  St.,  §  821. 


117 


CONTROL    ■\Sl)    RKGULATIOX. 


§§  137-138 


of  equity  should  not  lioM  iuwilid  an  act  of  the  legislature  fixinj^  maximum  rates 
of  a  carrier  until  a  fair  trial  has  been  made  of  continuing  business  under  the 
statutes,  and  the  ])ractical  result  of  such  rates  has  been  determined  ;-■♦  and  before 
such  a  statute  can  be  held  invalid,  the  receipts  and  earnings  of  the  carrier  must 
be  fully  sliown,  in  order  that  it  may  clearly  appear  that  a  prudent  and  honest 
management  within  the  rates  prescribed  would  not  secure  to  the  companv  rea- 
sonable coni]iensatiiin  for  the  usr  of  its  ])r(i|H'rt\-  and  condncling  il-  lni-ines<.-'^ 
Review  of  Findings  of  Commission  Where  Inquiry  Calls  for  Expert  Ev- 
idence.— On  (juestions  as  to  the  valuation  of  street  railroad  projjerty,  the  esti- 
mate (jf  future  earnings,  operating  expenses,  maintenance,  depreciation,  taxes, 
and  fixed  charges  and  other  results  reached  by  the  railroad  commission  in  fixing 
rates,  the  inquiry  calls  largely  for  expert  evidence,  and  the  findings  made  are 
necessarily  of  the  same  nature,  and  the  findings  should  not  be  disturbed  on  re- 
view unless  they  bear  evidence  of  having  been  reached  arbitrarilv  and  without 
a  full  consideration  of  all  the  controlling  facts,  but  courts  may  review  the  ques- 
tions submitted  in  so  far  as  they  reciuire  the  ap])lication  of  legal  principles. 2*^ 

§§  138-141.  Right  to  and  Mode  of  Obtaining  Relief— §  138.  In  Gen- 
eral.— Duties  imposed  upon  a  carrier  Ijy  statute  or  by  its  charter  ma}-  be  enforced 
by  mandamus,  quo  warranto,  or  such  other  summary  proceeding  as  the  law  may 
provide.-'  lUit  a  duty  ma}-  be  enforced  by  mandamus  only  where  it  is  specific  and 
plainly  inq)osed  ui)on  the  carrier.-'^  In  seeking  relief  from  orders  or  rules  of  a  rail- 
road commission  thought  to  be  unduly  burdensome  or  otherwise  illegal,  a  car- 
rier should  apply  to  the  commission  for  change  of  modification  before  resorting 
to  the  courts.--'  A  court  will  not  grant  relief  in  the  first  instance  where  relief 
is  within  the  power  of  the  commission  to  give  on  proper  application  therefor.^" 


24.  Practical  result  of  rates  must  be 
determined. — State  t'.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
s:.  -Wl).  ;.'.".,   1 ;-';.'  X.  W.  oui. 

25.  Receipts  and  earnings  of  carrier 
must  be  shown. — Slate  z\  Adams  l''.xp. 
Co.,  s.-)  Xeh.  :.',-),  1 :.':.'  X.  W.  691. 

26.  Review  of  findings  of  commission 
where  inquiry  calls  for  expert  evidence. 
—  Pii,^:et  Sound  F.lect.  Railway  f.  Rail- 
road  C(inim..  (■).")   Wash.  T.").    117   Pac.  TiJU. 

27.  Mandamus  and  other  remedies  not 
forbidden  by  implication. — Under  the 
constitution  of  Florida  Const.  1885,  art. 
1(),  §  .i(),  which,  after  specifying  that  the 
legislature  may  pass  certain  laws  regu- 
lating common  carriers,  "and  shall  pro- 
vide for  enforcing  such  laws  by  adequate 
penalties  and  forfeitures,  does  not,  by 
implication,  forbid  the  use  of  mandamus 
and  other  remedies  for  enforcing  duties 
imposed  by  laws  passed  to  accomplish 
the  purposes  specified;  and  the  courts  may 
apply  such  of  the  ordinary  remedies  as 
may  be  applicable.  State  z'.  Jacksonville 
Terminal    Co.,   41    Fla.    :>77,    27    S<>.   2'.!'). 

Quo  warranto  proceedings  authorized. 
— Where  a  railroad  company  ii.\es  a  rate 
of  freight  per  100  pounds  for  carrying 
petroleum  oil  in  iron  tank  cars,  substan- 
tially lower  than  its  rate  for  transport- 
ing it  in  barrels  in  car-load  lots,  it  is 
exercising  "a  franchise.  Privilege,  or 
right  in  contravention  of  law,"  within 
the  meaning  of  the  Ohio  statute,  Rev. 
St.,  §  ()7f)l.  cl.  4,  authorizing  quo  war- 
ranto   proceedings    against     corporations. 


State    7'.    Cincinnati,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    47    O. 
St.    130,    23    X.    H.    928. 

Summary  proceedings  to  enforce  duties 
imposed  on  a  street  railroad  company. — 
As  to  the  power  ui  the  Xcw  York  public 
service  commission  under  the  Public 
Service  Commission  Law  (Laws  1907,  c. 
429)  §§  48,  57,  to  enforce  duties  imposed 
on  street  railroad  companies  by  provi- 
sions in  their  charters  or  by  orders  of 
the  commission,  see  Willcox  v.  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  App.  Div.  44,  128 
X.  Y.  S.  26(5,  order  affirmed  in  201  N.  Y. 
577,    95    X.    F'..    1141. 

28.  Duty  enforceable  by  mandamus 
only  where  specific  and  plainly  imposed. 
— People  z'.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104 
X.    Y.    58.    9    X.    F.    S56.    5S    Am.    Rep.    4S4. 

29.  Court  will  not  grant  relief  in  first 
instance  where  commission  has  power  to 
grant  it. — Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Florida, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  58  Pla.  524,  50  So.  425. 

30.  So  held  under  the  Indiana  statute. 
Burns'  Ann.  St.  1908,  §  5537c,  empower- 
ing the  railroad  commission  to  grant  a 
rehearing  in  any  case  in  which  it  has 
made  a  final  order,  or  to  modify  any 
final  order  made  by  it.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  175  Ind.  630,  95 
N.    E.    364. 

Such  statute  provides  that  the  orders 
of  the  railroad  commission  shall  take  ef- 
fect not  more  than  thirty  days  after  en- 
trj'  thereof,  unless  suspended  or  modified 
by  the  commission,  and  impliedly  author- 
izes  the   commission   to   suspend   the   tak- 


138 


CARRIERS. 


118 


Whether  the  rules  and  regulations  adopted  by  a  state  corporation  conimissioii 
violate  anv  right  of  transportation  companies  can  only  be  properly  determined 
as  the  cjuestions  arise  in  concrete  cases,  and -upon  the  particular  facts  of  each 
case,  and  cannot  be  properly  decided  on  an  appeal  where  only  abstract  questions 
are  raised.-"^  If  any  rule  or  regulation  is  made  by  a  commission  which  in  its 
application  to  the  facts  of  a  particular  case,  violates  any  right  of  a  defendant 
protected  bv  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  he  may  have  its  validity  tested 
by  an  appeal  to  the  court  of  last  resort  in  the  state.-'-  The  right  of  appeal  from 
tlie  orders  or  decisions  of  a  state  commission  is  generally  regulated  by  constitu- 
tional provision  or  statute,  and  therefore  the  question  whether  an  appeal  lies 
in  a  particular  case  is  to  be  determined  by  a  proper  construction  of  such  pro- 
vision or  statute. ^^ 


ing  effect  of  any  order  pending  a  petition 
for  rehearing  or  modification  tliereof, 
and  a  part}'  aggrieved  by  an  order  of 
the  commission  can  not  resort  to  the 
courts  merely  on  the  ground  that  a  pe- 
tition for  rehearing  will  not  probably  be 
acted  on  by  the  commission  before  the 
time  fixed  by  the  statute  for  the  taking 
eflfect  of  the  order  unless  suspended  by 
the  commission.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Railroad  Comm.,  175  Ind.  630,  95  X.  E. 
364. 

Proceedings  before  the  railroad  com- 
misioner,  provided  for  by  the  Virginia 
statute,  Act  March  3,  1892,  and  his  in- 
ability to  have  the  cause  or  complaint  cor- 
rected, are  conditions  precedent  to  the 
exercise  of  the  jurisdiction  conferred 
upon  the  circuit  courts.  Southern  R. 
Co.  z:  Commonwealth.  98  Va.  758,  37  S. 
E.  294. 

31.  Validity  of  regulations  not  properly 
determinable  on  appeal  where  only  ab- 
stract questions  are  raised. — Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z'.  Commonwealth,  102  Va.  599, 
46  S.    E.  911. 

32.  Appeal  where  a  constitutional  right 
is  violated. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 
Coinnionwtalth,   102   \'a.   599,  46  S.    E.  911. 

33.  Construction  of  constitutional  pro- 
visions and  statutes. — Under  the  constitu- 
tion of  Kentucky,  §  218,  prohibiting  com- 
mon carriers  from  charging  more  for  a 
short  than  for  a  long  haul,  ))ut  providing 
that  the  railroad  commission  may  in 
"special  cases,"  grant  relief  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  section,  the  action  of  the  com- 
mission in  refusing  such  relief  can  not 
be  reviewed  by  the  courts.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  104  Ky. 
226,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1102.  1380,  46  S.  W. 
707.    47    S.    W.    210,    598,    43    L.    R.    A.    541. 

The  North  Carolina  statute.  Revisal 
1905,  §  1100,  authorizes  the  corporation 
commission  to  make  rules  governing 
railroad  companies  in  the  unloading  of 
freight,  etc.  The  commission's  rule  8, 
set  forth  in  its  circular  No.  36,  Report 
1905,  provides  that,  when  a  railway  com- 
pany fails  to  deliver  freight  at  the  depot 
within  48  hours  after  its  arrival,  the  ship- 
per or  consignee  shall  be  paid  $1  a  day 
for  the  delay.  Section  1074  provides  that, 
if  a  company  violates  a  rule  of  the  com- 


mission, and  recompense  for  the  injury 
done  thereby  to  any  one  as  may  be 
directed  by  the  commission  is  not  made, 
the  company  shall  incur  a  specified  pen- 
altJ^  Section  1064  authorizes  the  com- 
mission to  institute  investigations  to  as- 
certain if  their  rules,  etc.,  are  being  com- 
plied with.  On  the  hearing  of  a  complaint 
by  a  consignee  that  a  company  had  violated 
the  rule  the  commission  found  that  the 
company  should  pay  complainant  $1,  and 
ordered  it  paid.  Held,  that  the  order  was 
not  appealable;  the  commission  not  hav- 
ing power  to  enforce  complainant's  right 
of  recove'-v  by  'ts  own  process,  section 
1074  merely  authorizing  an  appeal  fro 
a  decision  effecting  or  purporting  to  ef- 
fect some  right  or  interest  of  a  party  to 
a  controversy,  and  in  some  way  determi- 
native of  some  material  questions  m- 
volved,  and  the  end  of  the  commission's 
investigation  being  merely  to  afford  it 
information  and  enable  it  to  act  intel- 
ligently in  determining  whether  it  should 
sue  for  the  penalty  authorized  by  the 
statute.  North  Corolina  Corp.  Comm.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.  (N.  C),  61  S.  E.  271. 

Under  the  constitution  of  Oklahoma, 
art.  9.  §  20  (Bunn's  Ed.,  §  231)  an  ap- 
peal lies  to  the  su])rf;,ne  Court  froni  the 
action  of  the  corporation  commission 
prescribing  rates,  charges,  or  classifi- 
cations of  traffic  or  affecting  the  train 
schedule,  or  requiring  additional  facili- 
ties, conveniences,  or  public  service,  or 
refusing  to  approve  a  suspending  bond, 
or  requiring  additional  security  thereon 
or  an  increase  thereof.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   V.    State,   24    Okla.   805,    105    Pac.   351. 

But  the  repeal  of  an  administrative  or- 
der by  the  corporation  commision,  pro- 
viding for  the  enforcement  of  penalities 
against  passengers  who  board  trains 
without  purchasing  tickets,  is  not  appeal- 
able, under  this  constitutional  provision. 
.\tchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  28  Okla. 
12,  115  Pac.  1101. 

Under  the  Wisconsin  statute,  Laws 
1905,  p.  549,  c.  362,  relating  to  a  review  of 
the  orders,  etc.,  of  the  railroad  commii- 
sion  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  orders  be 
confiscatory  in  character  and  effect  to 
enable  the  court  to  review  them,  such  a 
construction    being    negatived    by    Const., 


119 


CONTROL    AXD    RRGULATIOX. 


§§    139-140 


§§  139-141.  Relief  against  Unreasonable  Rates— §§  139-140.  Re- 
lief to  Carrier— §  139.  Rates  Fixed  by  Legislature.— Where  the  legislauire 
choose  lo  act  directly  on  the  buhject  by  theiu^elveb  establishing  a  tariff  of  rates 
and  prescribing  penalties,  there  is  no  opportiuiity  to  resort  to  a  compendious 
remedy,  such  as  a  proceeding  in  equity,  because  there  is  no  public  functionary  or 
commi's'-ion  which  can  Ijc  made  to  respond  and  therefore,  if  a  carrier  is  to  have 
any  relief,  it  must  be  found  in  a  right  to  raise  the  question  of  the  reasonableness 
of  the  statutory  rates  by  way  of  defense  to  an  action  for  the  collection  of  the 
penalties.^'' 

§  140.  Rates  Fixed  by  Commission. — Where  the  legislature  creates  com- 
missions or  boards  of  pubHc  works,  with  power  to  establish  rates  for  the  trans- 
portation of  passengers  and  freight,  the  remedy  for  a  tariff  alleged  to  be  un- 
reasonable should  be  sought  in  a  bill  in  equity  or  some  equivalent  proceeding, 
wherein  the  rights  of  the  public  as  well  as  those  of  the  company  complaining  can 
be  protected.^''  Whether  a  rate  fixed  by  such  a  commission  is  confiscatory  so 
as  to  deprive  the  carrier  of  its  property  without  due  process  of  law  witiiin  the 
meaning  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  constitution  of  the  L'nited  States 
depends  ui)on  the  valuation  of  the  property,  the  income  derivable  from  the  rate, 
and  the  proportion  between  the  two,  which  are  matters  of  fact  which  the  car- 
rier cannot  be  prevented  from  trying  before  a  competent  tribunal  of  its  own 
choosing.=^"  In  many  states  there  are  constitutional  provisions  or  statutes  pre- 
scribing the  method  for  bringing  the  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  rates 
prescribed  by  the  railroad  commission  before  the  courts  for  judicial  determina- 
tion.^' 


art.  7,  §  8,  giving  circuit  courts  appellate 
jurisdiction  of.  and  supervisory  control 
over,  all  inferior  courts  and  tribunals. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm.,    V.if,   Wis.    14(),   lir,   X.    W.   905. 

34.  Rates  fixed  by  legislature. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  156  U.  S.  649, 
39  L.  Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct.  484.  See,  also, 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Minnesota,  134 
U.  S.  418.  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462. 
But  see  Coal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Conley,  67 
W.    Va.    129,    67    S.    E.    613. 

Where  it  reasonably  appears  from  a 
consideration  of  all  the  evidence  that  the 
maximum  statutory  rates  allowed  to  a 
carrier  are  not  confiscatory,  but  afford  at 
least  some  profit,  the  courts  will  not  in- 
terfere, but  will  require  the  party  com- 
plaining to  apply  for  relief  to  the  rule- 
making power,  or  to  the  tribunal  pro- 
vided by  statute  with  power  to  increase 
such  rates  in  case  they  are  found  unrea- 
sonable. State  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  85 
K'eb.  25,  122  X.  \V.  691;  State  v.  Wells, 
Fargo   &   Co.,   85    Xeb.  42,   122   X.   W.   697. 

35.  Rates  fixed  by  commission. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  3  56  U.  S.  649, 
39  L.  Ed.  567,  15  S.  Ct.  484;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  134  U.  S.  418,  33  L. 
Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct.  462:  Reagan  v.  Farm- 
ers' Loan,  etc.,  Co..  154  U.  S.  362,  38  i^. 
Ed.  1014.  1047;  S.  C,  154  U.  S.  420,  38  L. 
Ed.  1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Reagan  v.  Mer- 
cantile Trust  Co..  154  U.  S.  !18.  38  L.  Ed. 
1030.  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  S.  C,  154  U.  S.  413,  38 
L.  Ed.  1028.  14  S.  Ct.  1060;  Covington,  etc., 
Turnpike  Co.  v.  Sandford.  164  U.  S.  578, 
592,  41    L.   Ed.  .■)•■.(),   17   S.   Ct.   198. 


36.  Prentis  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Co., 
211   U.  S.  210,  53  L.   Ed.  150,  29   S.  Ct.   67. 

37.  In  Indiana  a  carrier  may  present 
any  objection  to  an  order  of  the  railroad 
commission,  reducing  a  rate  charged,  in 
an  action  commenced  in  the  superior 
court  pursuant  to  Acts  1907,  p.  469,  c. 
241,  §  6,  pioviding  that  any  carrier,  etc., 
dissatisfied  with  an  order  of  the  commis- 
sion, may  within  thirty  days  begin  an  ac- 
tion against  the  commission  to  suspend 
or  set  aside  such  order.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  173  Ind.  469, 
87    X.    E.    1030. 

Under  the  constitution  of  Louisiana, 
art.  285,  any  party  interested  has  the 
right  to  appeal  to  the  courts  upon  the 
question  whether  a  rate  established  by 
the  railroad  commission  is  reasonable 
and  just.  Morgan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Railroad- 
Comm..    127    La.    636.    53    So.    890. 

A  Minnesota  statute,  Gen.  St.  1894,  § 
393,  provides  for  an  appeal  from  the  state 
railroad  and  warehouse  commission  to 
the  district  court,  and  that  upon  such  ap- 
peal the  district  court  shall  have  jurisdic- 
tion to  and  shall  examine  the  whole  mat- 
ter in  controversy,  including  matters  o." 
fact,  and  that  the  remedy  therein  pro- 
vided for  shall  be  in  addition  to  all  ex- 
isting legal  remedies.  Held,  that  where 
the  commission  made  an  order  fixing  a 
tariff  rate,  and  the  carrier  did  not  appeal 
from  such  order  on  hearing  in  the  dis- 
trict court,  the  carrier,  in  mandamus  pro- 
ceedings, was  entitled  to  an  examination 
of  matters  of  fact,  in  which  evidence 
might   be   taken   de   novo,   since   the   order 


;§    141-U2 


CARRIERS. 


120 


§  141.  Relief  to  Public. — The  state  may  fix  rates  and  authorize  them  to 
be  charged  and  place  them  beyond  the  power  of  the  interference  of  the  courts 
on  the  ground  that  tiiey  are  extortionate,  and  such  rates,  except  for  some  con- 
stitutional or  statutory  provision  so  authorizing,  cannot  be  adjudged  by  a  court 
to  be  extortionate.^^  Relief  from  onerous  and  burdensome  rates  of  transporta- 
tion imposed  under  state  authority  must  be  sought  in  the  competition  of  differ- 
ent lines,  and,  perhaps,  in  the  power  of  congress  to  estatlish  post  roads  and  fa- 
cilitate military  and  commercial  intercourse  between  the  different  parts  of  the 
country. ^^  But  where  a  carrier  charges  a  rate  which  is  in  violation  of  a  con- 
stitutional or  statutory  enactment  or  commission  order  relief  may  be  had  by  an 
action  instituted  by  an  individual  who  is  required  to  pay  such  rate  or  by  the  com- 
mission whose  order  the  carrier  has  violated,  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  such 
case  being  generally  prescriljed  ])y  constitutional  provision  or  statute."^" 

§  142.  Scope  of  Inquiry. — Under  a  statute  authorizing  an  action  against 
the  railroad  commission  by  a  party  dissatisfied  with  a  rate  made  by  it,  in  which 
such  party  must  show  that  the  rate  is  unreasonable  and  unjust  to  him,  the  in- 
quiry is  not  limited  to  whether  the  rate  is  so  unreasonable  and  unjust  as  to 
amount  to  the  taking  of  property  without  due  process  of  law.^^     A  court,  on 


is  not  conclusive  as  to  the  reasonableness 
of  the  tariff  in  the  absence  of  an  appeal 
therefrom.  State  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  80  Minn.  191,  83  N.  W.  60.  89  Am. 
St.  Rep.  514,  affirmed  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  T.  Minnesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46 
L.    Ed.    1151,    22    S.    Ct.    900. 

An  earlier  statute  in  this  state,  Gen. 
Laws  1887,  c.  10.  creating  the  railroad 
and  warehouse  commission  and  defining 
its  duties,  did  not  authorize  and  appeal 
to  the  district  court  from  an  order  of  the 
commission  prescribing  rates  to  be 
charged  by  common  carriers.  Railway 
Transfer  Co.  v.  Railroad,  etc.,  Conim.,  39 
Minn.   231,    39    N.    \V.    150. 

38.  Courts  can  not  interfere  with  rates 
fixed  by  state. — McGrew  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.    Co..    ;>:;(i    Mo.    496,    132    S.    W.    1076. 

39.  Where  relief  from  rates  imposed 
under  state  autfiority  must  be  sought. — 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Maryland  (U.  S.),  21 
Wall.   456,   22   L.    Ed.   678. 

40.  When  mandamus  is  a  proper  rem- 
edy.— Where  a  state  Ijoard  of  transpor- 
tation has  investigated  charges  of  unjust 
discrimination  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany, and  has  found  such  unjust  discrim- 
ination to  exist,  and  ordered  such  railroad 
company  to  reduce  its  rates  to  conform 
to  a  schedule  presented  by  such  l^oard, 
which  order  the  railroad  company  neg- 
lected to  comply  with,  mandamus  is  a 
proper  remedy  to  enforce  such  order. 
State  V.  Fremont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Neb. 
313,   35   N.   W.    118. 

In  Alabama,  mandamus  is  not  the  proper 
remedy  for  excessive  charges  by  a  rail- 
way company;  that  under  Code,  §  1698, 
allowing  double  damages,  etc.,  being  ade- 
quate. State  V.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 
Ala.    321. 

Action  by  railroad  commission  to  en- 
force its  orders  authorized. — On  the  com- 
plaint of  a  shipper,  the  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners    of    Iowa    required    a    rail- 


way company  to  conform  its  charges  to 
the  schedule  of  charges  prepared  by  the 
board,  and  informed  it  that  the  over- 
charge should  be  refunded  to  the  com- 
plainant. The  railway  company  refusing 
so  to  do,  the  board  sued  to  enforce  its 
order.  On  the  trial  the  board  did  not  de- 
mand a  refunding  of  the  overcharge,  nor 
did  the  company  attempt  to  show  that  the 
schedule  charges  of  the  board  were  un- 
reasonable. Held,  the  action  by  the  boara 
was  authorized  under  Acts  22d.  Gen. 
Assem.,  c.  28,  §  16,  providing  that  actions 
may  be  brought  to  enforce  the  lawful  or- 
ders of  the  board.  Campbell  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Iowa  587,  53  N.  W.  351,  17 
L.    R.   A.   443. 

Railroad  commission  without  jurisdic- 
tion to  compel  reinstatement  of  lower 
competitive  rate. — The  constitution  of 
California,  art.  12,  §  20,  prohibits  a  railroad 
corporation  which  has  reduced  its  trans- 
portation rates  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
petition from  raising  such  rates  without 
the  consent  of  the  authorities  vested  with 
the  power  to  regulate  such  rates.  Sec- 
tion 22,  authorizes  the  railroad  commis- 
sioners to  hear  and  determine  complaints 
against  railroads,  but  provides  that 
nothin.g  therein  contained  shall  prevent 
individuals  from  maintaining  actions 
against  railroad  companies,  and  author- 
izes the  recovery  of  exemplary  damages 
in  suits  based  on  excessive  charges.  Held, 
that  the  railroad  commission  has  no  ju- 
risdiction of  judicial  proceedings  insti- 
tuted before  it  to  compel  a  railway  com- 
pany to  reinstate  a  lower  competitive 
rate  which  it  had  formerly  made.  Edson 
V.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  133  Cal.  25,  65 
Pac.    15. 

41.  Scope  of  inquiry. — Judgment  Rail- 
road Comm.  V.  Weld  (Tex.  Civ.  App.). 
68  S.  W.  1117,  reversed  in  96  Tex.  394,  73 
S.  W.  529,  construing  Rev.  St.  1895,  arts. 
4565,   4566. 


121 


CONTROL    AND    RKGULATION. 


§§  142-147 


appeal  from  an  order  (jf  a  railroad  commission  fixing  rates,  will  not  enter  on 
an  inquiry  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  rates  based  on  a  comparison  with  rates 
which  were  canceled  by  the  carrier  before  the  commission  made  its  investiga- 
tion.-*-2 

§  143.  What  Commission  Orders  Will  Be  Enforced. — All  reasonable 
regulations  bv  a  railroad  conimi.s.siun  within  the  authority  conferred  upon  it 
should  be  enforced  to  carry  out  the  express  purpose  of  the  law  in  the  interest  of 
the  general  welfare;  but  unreasonable  regulations  are  not  within  the  authority 
conferred,  and  when  unreasonable  and  violative  of  constitutional  provisions  will 
not  be  en  forced.'' •' 

§  144.  Revival  of  Causes  of  Action. — An  amendatory  statute  authorizing 
suits  against  railroad  ccnniianics  for  violation  of  regulations  of  the  railroad  com- 
mission to  be  brought  within  twelve  months  after  the  termination  of  suits  by 
the  commission  to  enforce  their  rates,  does  not  revive  a  cause  of  action  that  ac- 
crued under  the  amended  statute  and  that  had  been  extinguished  by  la])se  of 
time  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  amendatory  statute. ■*■* 

§§  145-159.  Procedure  and  Evidence— §  145.  Procedure  in  General. 
— Proceedings  before  a  corporation  commission  for  contempt  for  viola- 
tion of  its  orders  are  governed  by  the  same  rules  as  obtain  in  courts.^''^ 

§  146.  Jurisdiction. — Statutes  creating  railroad  commissions  or  conferring 
power  upon  them  generall\-  prescribe  wdiat  courts  shall  have  jurisdiction  of  pro- 
ceedings to  enforce  or  to  prevent  enforcement  of  regulations  of  the  commis- 
sion. Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  these  statutes  have  been  interpreted 
by  the  courts.^" 

§§   147-148.  Parties— §   147.  By   Whom    Suit   May   Be    Brought.— A 

railroad  cori)oration.'''    or  the  beneficial  owner  thereof,'^  may  in\-oke  the  aid  of 


42.  Detroit,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Michicran  R. 
Conim..  171  Mich.  X'ir>.  i::7  X.  W.  :!^".i. 

43.  What  commission  orders  will  be  en- 
forced.— Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Florida, 
etc.,   R.    Co.,   58    Fla.   524,   50   So.  425. 

An  order  of  the  railroad  commissioners 
will  not  be  enforced,  notwithstanding 
the  carrier  failed  to  apply  to  the  commis- 
sioners for  relief  from  the  order  before 
disregarding  it,  where  it  is  in  effect  ad- 
mitted that  its  enforcement  will  be  inju- 
rious to  the  pul)lic  and  violate  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  carrier.  Railroad 
Comm'rs  r.  I'"lorida,  etc.,  R.  Co..  ."jS  Fla. 
524,    50    So.    4:J.-.. 

44.  Amendatory  statute  not  reviving 
cause  of  action  extinguished  by  lapse  of 
time. — La  Flo.ridienne  r.  Sealioard,  etc.. 
Railway.  59  Fla.  196,  52  So.  298.  constru- 
ing Laws  1907,  c.  5624,  amending  Gen. 
St.     1906,    §    2910. 

45.  Proceedings  before  corporation 
commission  for  contempt. — St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Cannon  &  Son,  31  Okla. 
476.    122    Pac.    231. 

46.  Proceedings  by  mandamus  to  en- 
force regulations  of  commission. — By  §  8 
of  the  railroad  and  warehouse  commission 
act  of  Minnesota  (Laws  1887,  c.  10)  the 
supreme  court  is  vested  (concurrently 
with  the  district  court)  with  original  ju- 
risdiction   of    all    proceedings    by    manda- 


mus, to  compel  compliance  with  the  regu- 
lations of  the  commission  with  reference 
to  transportation  rates,  as  provided 
therein.  State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
38  Minn.  281,  37  N.  W.  782,  reversed  in 
134  U.  S.  418,  33  L.  Ed.  970,  10  S.  Ct. 
462.    702. 

Jurisdiction  of  suit  to  prevent  enforce- 
ment of  regulation  of  commission. — Un- 
der the  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.,  arts.  4565, 
4566,  providing  that,  if  any  railroad  com- 
pany is  dissatisfied  with  any  rule  or  regu- 
lation adopted  by  the  railroad  commis- 
sion, it  may  file  a  petition  in  court,  stat- 
ing its  objections,  on  the  trial  of  which 
the  burden  shall  be  on  the  plaintiff  to 
show  that  the  rule  or  regulation  is  un- 
just and  unreasonable,  the  court  in  which 
such  petition  is  filed  has  jurisdiction  to 
determine  whether  the  regulation  is  un- 
reasonal>le  and  unjust.  Railroad  Comm, 
f.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Tex.  340,  38 
S.  W.  750. 

47.  Railroad  company  as  complaint. — 
Reayan  :■.  l'"arniers'  Loan.  etc..  Co.,  154 
U.  S.  :!"-,2.  :;s  L.   l-.d.   1()14,  14   S.  Ct.  1047. 

48.  Beneficial  owner  of  road  as  com- 
plaint.— Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc., 
Co..  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14  S.  Ct. 
1047. 

Clearly  a  citizen  of  another  state,  who 
has.    under    authority    of    the    laws    of   the 


§§  i-^'-i30 


CARRIERS. 


122 


the  courts  by  suit  in  order  to  determine  whether  the  contract  rights  created  by 
its  charter  are  violated  by  acts  regulating  rates.  A  statute  authorizing  the  rail- 
road commission  of  a  state  to  institute  proceedings  against  railroads  for  vio- 
lating or  neglecting  to  comply  with  any  law  of  the  state  as  to  railroads,  does  not 
preclude  the  attorney  general  from  proceeding,  of  his  own  motion,  whenever  he 
concludes  the  interests  of  the  public  require  it.-*»  A  voluntary  unincorporated 
association  is  without  legal  authority  to  institute  in  its  own  behalf  and  for  the 
benefit  of  another  proceedings  before  a  railroad  commission  challenging  the 
reasonableness  of  switching  charges. ^"^ 

§  148.  Who  Are  Proper  Parties. — To  proceedings  by  the  railroad  com- 
missioner of  a  state  to  require  two  railroad  companies  to  make  proper  connec- 
tions, one  of  such  companies  is  a  proper  party  although  it  has  already  made  the 
required  connection,  since  all  the  parties  should  be  before  the  court,  so  that  all 
the  matters  in  dispute  can  be  determined,  and  a  judgment  binding  on  both  cor- 
porations be  rendered.^^ 

§  149.  Intervention. — In  proceedings  before  a  railroad  commission  to  regu- 
late the  rates  of  a  common  carrier,  another  carrier,  not  a  party  to  the  proceed- 
ing, though  indirectly  affected  thereby,  cannot  intervene  as  a  matter  of  right.^^ 

§§  150-152.  Pleading-— §  150.  Petition. — A  railroad  company  attacking 
the  reasonableness  and  justice  of  a  prescribed  rate  being  required  to  show  by 
clear  and  satisfactory  proof  that  the  rate  is  unjust  and  unreasonable,  the  peti- 
tion must  allege  fact's  and  circumstances  that  would,  if  true,  authorize  the  court 
to  adjudge  the  rate  unjust  and  unreasonable  as  matter  of  law.-^^     1,1  ^  petition 


state,  become  pecuniarily  interested  in, 
or  the  beneficial  owner  of,  the  property 
of  the  corporation,  may  invoke  the  judg- 
ment of  the  federal  courts  as  to  whether 
the  contract  rights  created  by  the  charter, 
and  of  which  it  is  thus  the  beneficial 
owner,  are  violated  by  suljsequent  acts  of 
the  state  in  limitation  of  the  right  to  col- 
lect tolls.  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc., 
Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014.  14  S. 
Ct.  1047.  Compare  Peik  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   94   U.    S.   164,  24   L.    Ed.   97. 

49.  Authority  conferred  upon  commis- 
sion not  precluding  action  by  attorney 
general. — State  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad, 
7.j  X.  H.  327,  74  Atl.  542,  construing  Pub. 
St.   isin,  c.   155,  §  15. 

50.  Institution  of  proceedings  by  vol- 
untary unincorporated  association. — Dar- 
lington Lumber  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.   (Mo.),  147   S.  W.  1052. 

51.  Proper  parties  to  proceedings  to  re- 
quire carriers  to  make  connections. — 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  98 
Va.  758,  37  S.   E.  294. 

52.  Intervention. — Appeal  of  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  60  Minn.  461,  62  N.  W. 
826. 

53.  What  petition  attacking  reasonable- 
ness and  justice  of  rate  must  allege. — 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  102 
Tex.    338,    113    S.    W.    741. 

Petitions  held  insufficient. — A  petition 
which  alleged  that  the  hauling  of  lumljcr 
over  the  portion  of  the  complaining  com- 
pany's road  designated  in  the  petition  at 
the  rate  specified  by  the  railroad  com- 
mision  would  not  yield  sufficient  revenue 


to  pay  cost  of  transportation,  but  did  not 
state  the  earnings  of  the  railroad  in 
hauling  lumber  over  the  remainder  of  its 
road  nor  the  amount  of  luml^er  traffic 
from  points  beyond  the  stations  from 
which  the  objectionable  traffics  were  pre- 
scribed, was  insufficient,  since  the  com- 
pany could  not  select  one  rate  and  a  par- 
ticular part  of  its  road  for  the  application 
of  the  rate,  and  establish  therefrom  that 
the  rate  was  not  reasonable,  as  the  rate, 
when  applied  to  hauls  over  the  entire 
road,  might  afford  a  profit.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  102  Tex.  338, 
113   S.   W.   741. 

An  allegation  l)y  a  railroad  company 
that  the  rates  fixed  by  the  railroad  com- 
missioners for  it  are  unjust  and  unrea- 
sonalile  when  compared  with  the  rates 
permitted  on  other  lines  of  railroad  in 
this  state,  operating  under  the  same  con- 
ditions, does  not  overthrow  the  reason- 
ableness or  justice  of  the  rate  cotnplained 
of,  as  a  rate  reasonable  and  just  in  itself 
for  one  road  may  not  be  so  for  another, 
though  they  connect  with  each  other. 
Storrs  V.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Fla. 
617,    11    So.  226. 

Bills  held  sufficient— A  bill,  filed  by  a 
railroad,  charging  an  absolute  loss  on 
the  transportation  of  passengers,  occas- 
ioned by  the  operation  of  a  statute,  and 
less  than  a  reasonable  return  for  the  en- 
tire service  rendered  by  it,  verified  by 
oath  and  accompanied  by  statements, 
showing  in  detail  the  gross  income,  ex- 
penses and  net  earnings,  sworn  to  and 
sustaining    tlic      allegations     of      the      bill 


123 


CONTROL    AND    REGULATION. 


§§    150-153 


for  a  niandanuis  to  compel  a  railroad  company  to  accept  lawful  freight  rates, 
without  discrimination,  there  must  be  a  sufficient  allegation  to  enable  the  court, 
upon  awarding  the  writ,  to  command  the  company  to  do  a  specific  act  or  thing.^^ 
A  petition  made  to  a  railroad  commission  alleging  merely  that  complainant,  hav- 
ing in  view  the  shipment  of  coal  over  a  certain  road,  had  ai)plied  to  said  road 
for  ground  near  its  tracks  for  erection  of  a  coal  shed  to  be  used  when  shipping 
coal,  and  had  been  refused,  but  not  alleging  the  puri)0se  for  which  the  shed  was 
desired,  or  that  complainant  was,  or  ever  proposed  to  be.  a  shipper  or  dealer  in 
coal,  or  that  there  had  been  discrimination  in  granting  like  privilege  to  others, 
is  insufficient.^'' 

§  151.  Demurrer. — Where  the  petition  attacking  the  reasonableness  of  a 
rate  fixed  bv  a  railroad  commission  is  demurred  to,  the  court,  in  determining 
whether  the  unreasonableness  of  the  rate  is  established  by  clear  and  satisfactory 
evidence,  must  consider  the  allegations  of  the  petition  as  facts  proved  by  clear 
and  satisfactory  evidence.-"^''  But  it  has  been  held  that  averments  of  railroad 
companies  as  to  the  adequacy  of  public  service  being  performed  by  them  and  the 
future  effect  of  an  order  relative  to  such  service  made  by  state  authority,  are 
merely  conclusions  that  are  not  admitted  by  a  demurrer,  in  the  absence  of  aver- 
ments" or  specific  facts  to  sustain  the  conclusions.''" 

§   152.  When  Pleadings  Make  the  Taking  of  Testimony  Unnecessary. 

Where  it  clearly  appears  from  the  pleadings  that  a  regulation  of  railroad  coui- 

missioners  is  just,  it  is  unnecessary  for  the  court  to  take  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject.'""^ 

§§  153-157.  Evidence— §§  153-156.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of 
Proof— §  153.  In  General. — The  rules,  orders  or  findings  of  a  state  railroad 
commission  are  i)resumed  to  be  reasonable  and  just,''^  and  will  not  be  interfered 
with,  unless  their  invalidity  is  made  to  clearly  appear.''" 


proper,  is  sufficient  as  a  1)111  to  invalidate 
a  rate  regulating  statute.  Coal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Conley,  67  W.  Va.  129,  67  S.  E. 
613. 

Where  within  twenty  months  under  a 
state  constitution  passenger  rates  were 
reduced  thirty-three  and  one-third  per 
cent,  and  by  about  a  dozen  orders  of  the 
railroad  commission  freight  rates  on 
about  40  per  cent  of  the  intrastate  freight 
business  of  the  railroads  were  reduced 
about  40  per  cent,  a  bill  is  not  demur- 
rable or  defective  which  avers  that  the 
passenger  rate  is  confiscatory,  and  that 
the  effect  of  the  freight  rates  is  to  take 
the  property  of  complainant  without  just 
compensation,  though  the  bill  contains  no 
averment  that  each  order,  taken  by  it- 
self, is  confiscatory.  Love  v.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  C.  C.  A.  403,  185  Fed. 
321. 

54.  Petition  for  mandamus  to  compel 
acceptance  of  lawful  freight  rates. — State 
V.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co..  T)'.!  Ala.  321.  hold- 
ing that  an  allegation  that  relator  ten- 
dered "bales  of  lint  cotton"  to  the  railroad 
company,  without  specifying  any  number, 
was   fatally   indefinite. 

55.  Petition  in  proceedings  to  compel 
carrier  to  permit  erection  of  coal  shed. — 
State  i'.  Chicagd,  etc..  R.  d...  Sti  I<nva  <)41, 
53  N.  W.  323.  so  holding  as  to  a  petition 
made  under  McClain's  Code,  §  2061. 


56.  Effect  of  demurrer. — Judgment,  113 
S.  W.  741,  reversed  on  rehearing.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  102  Tex. 
338,     116    S.    W.     795. 

57.  Railroad  Comm'rs  x'.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  C.I..  ('.:!  Fla.  274,  .-,7  So.  ("iJ. 

58.  When  pleadings  make  the  taking 
of  testimony  unnecessary.  —  Railroad 
Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co..  61  Fla. 
799,  .")4   So.   900. 

59.  Rules,  orders,  or  findings  of  com- 
mission presumed  reasonable  and  just. — 
Railroad  Comm'rs  z\  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
58  Fla.  524,  50  So.  425;  Railroad  Comm'rs 
V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Fla.  274,  57 
So.   673. 

60.  Railroad  Comm'rs  r.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.   C    .,  63   Fla.  274,  57  So.  673. 

In  determining  whether  a  rate,  rule, 
regulation,  or  order  of  the  railroad  com- 
mission upon  a  subject  within  its  author- 
ity is  so  unreasonable  and  arlMtrary  as 
to  be  illegal  and  unenforcealile,  the  court, 
in  deference  to  the  governmental  func- 
tions conferred  by  law  upon  the  commis- 
sioners, will  not  only  require  the  prima 
facies  of  reasonableness  impressed  by  the 
statute  upon  the  rate,  rule,  regulation,  or 
order  to  be  overcome  by  admissions  or 
proofs,  but  will  require  the  admissions  or 
proofs  of  facts  tending  to  show  unrea- 
sonableness to  be  clear  and  convincing, 
evcrv    reasonable    doubt   being   yielded    in 


154 


CARRIERS. 


124 


§§  154-15  5.  As  to  Rates— §  154.  Rule  Stated.— It  is  a  rule  as  to 
which  all  the  authorities  are  in  agreement,  and  which  has  in  many  states  been 
embodied  in  the  constitution  or  statutes,  that  rates  fixed  by  the  legislature,''^  or 
by  a  commission  under  constitutional  or  legislative  authority, *■'-  are  prima  facie 


favor  of  the  rate,  rule,  regulation,  or  or- 
der. Railroad  Comm'rs  z:  Louisville,  etc., 
R.   Co.    (Fla.),  57   So.   175. 

Under  the  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.  1895. 
arts.  4665,  4566,  the  right  of  courts  to  set 
aside  a  determination  of  the  railroad  com- 
mission held  dependent  on  a  clear  show- 
ing of  unreasonableness.  Railroad  Comm. 
V.  Galveston  Chamber  of  Commerce 
(Tex.),  145  S.  W.  573,  reversing  judg- 
ment Galveston  Chamber  of  Commerce  r. 
Railroad  Comm.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  137  S. 
W.  737. 

61.  Presumption  as  to  reasonableness  of 
rates  fixed  by  legislature. — Ruggles  v.  Illi- 
nois, 108  U.  S.  5:26,  27  L.  Ed.  812,  2  S.  Ct. 
832. 

The  North  Dakota  statute,  Laws  1907, 
p.  73,  c.  51,  amending  and  re-enacting 
Rev.  Codes,  1905,  §  4395,  prescribing  max- 
imum coal  rates,  is  presumptively  valid, 
and  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to  prove 
that  such  rates  are  clearly  unreasonable. 
State  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19  N.  Dak. 
45,  120  N.  W.  869. 

While  the  rates  for  passenger  service 
prescribed  by  the  Pennsylvania  statute. 
Act  April  5,  1907  (P.  L.  59).  were  pre- 
sumptively reasonable,  such  presumption 
was  no  stronger  than  the  ordinary  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  the  constitutionality 
of  an  act  of  the  legislature,  and  was  of  no 
great  strength  or  sanctity,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  act  was  passed  \vithotit 
investigation  in  obedience  to  public  agi- 
tation. Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  z'.  Philadel- 
phia County.   220   Pa.   100,  68  Atl.  676. 

62.  Presumption  that  rates  fixed  by 
commission  are  lawful,  just  and  reason- 
able.—  United  States. — Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  186  U.  S.  257,  46  L. 
Ed.  1151,  22  S.  Ct.  900;  Dow  v.  Beidel- 
man,  125  U.  S.  680,  31  L.  Ed.  841,  8  S.  Ct. 
1028;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tompkins, 
176  U.  S.  167,  44  L.  Ed.  417,  20  S.  Ct.  336; 
Seaboard,    etc..    Railway   v.    Ellis,    203    U. 

•S.  261,  51  L.  Ed.  175,  27  S.  Ct.  109;  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ellis,  203  U.  S.  256, 
51  L.  Ed.  174,  27  S.  Ct.  108. 

If  the  rates  established  by  the  commis- 
sion are  not  conclusive,  they  are  at  least 
prima  facie  evidence  of  what  is  reason- 
able and  just.  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14 
S.  Ct.  1047;  S.  C,  154  U.  S.  420,  38  L.  Ed. 
1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Reagan  v.  Mercantile 
Trust  Co.,  154  U.  S.  418,  38  L.  Ed.  1030, 
14  S.  Ct.  1062. 

Florida.— Th.&  effect  of  the  Act  of  June 
7,  1887  (Railroad  Commission  Act),  is 
not  to  make  schedules  of  rates  prescribed 
by  the  railroad  commission  conclusive  as 
against  judicial  inquiry,  but  is  to  provide 
a   new    mode    of   proving   the    reasonable- 


ness and  just  character  of  the  rates  fixed, 
and  make  the  schedules  competent  and 
adequate  evidence  of  the  correctness  of 
the  action  of  the  commissioners,  in  the 
absence  of  countervailing  proof  that  they 
have  exceeded  their  powers,  or  abused 
their  discretion,  and  invaded  some  right 
of  the  railroad  company.  Pensacola,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  State,  25  Fla.  310,  5  So.  833,  3 
L.  R.  A.  661. 

Where  a  tariff  of  freight  and  passenger 
rates  has  been  established  by  the  railroad 
commissioners,  and  a  railroad  company  and 
the  commissioners  differ  as  to  whether 
such  rates,  considered  as  a  whole,  will 
prove  remunerative  to  the  company,  and 
there  is  room  for  a  difference  of  intelli- 
gent opinion  on  the  subject,  the  courts 
can  not  substitute  their  judgment  for  that 
of  the  commissioners,  but  the  tariffs  as 
fixed  by  the  commission  must,  in  so  far 
as  the  courts  are  concerned,  be  left  to 
the  test  -of  experiment.  Storrs  v.  Pensa- 
cola, etc.,  R.  Co:,  29  Fla.  617,  11  So.  226; 
Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  State,  25  Fla. 
310,    5    So.    833,    3    L.    R.    A.    661. 

Georgia. — Sorrell  v.  Central  Railroad, 
75   Ga.  509. 

Illinois. — State  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
246   111.   188,  92  N.   E.  814. 

Iowa. — Though  the  last  sentence  of  § 
3  of  the  "Joint  Rate  Act"  (23d  Gen. 
Assem.  c.  17)  is  utterly  unintelligible,  so 
that,  construed  by  itself,  it  would  enact 
that  the  rate  fixed  by  the  commissioners 
should  be  absolute  and  conclusive  as  to 
its  reasonableness,  yet  it  will  be  con- 
strued with  Acts  22d  Gen.  Assem.,  c.  28, 
of  which  it  is  amendatory,  and  which 
provides  that  the  rate  fixed  shall  be  prima 
facie  evidence  only  of  its  reasonableness, 
and  thus  construed  the  whole  act  is  valid, 
effective,  and  sensible.  Burlington,  etc., 
R  Co.  V.  Dey,  82  Iowa  312,  48  N.  W.  98, 
31  Am.  St.  Rep.  477,  12  L.  R.  A.  436. 

Louisiana. — Morgan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road  Comm.,   127    La.   636,  53   So.   890. 

Mfc/ri^'an.— Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Michigan  Comm.,  160  Mich.  365,  125  N. 
W.  549;  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Michi- 
gan R.  Comm.,  171  Mich.  335,  137  N. 
W.  329. 

Minnesota.—Steenerson  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  69  Minn.  353,  72  N.  W.  713, 
construing  Gen.*  Laws  1887,  c.  10,  as 
amended  by  Laws  1891,  c.  106;  State  v. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Minn.  191, 
83  N  W.  60,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  514,  con- 
struing Gen,  St.  1894,  §  392,  subd.  8,  and 
Laws  1895,  c.  91,  §  3,  subd.  c,  and  Id.,  § 
381,  subd.  c,  affirmed  in  186  U.  S.  257,  46 
L.    Ed.    1151,    22    S.    Ct.    900. 

Under  a  prior  statute  Gen.  Laws  1887, 
c.    10,   §    8,   the    determination   of   the   rail- 


125 


CONTROL     AND     RIvGL'LATIf  )N. 


§§  154-155 


presumed  to  be  lawful,  just,  and  reasonable,  and  the  burden  of  proving  the  con- 
trary is  on  the  carrier  or  other  person  questioning  the  fact.  And  the  rate  of 
fare  prcscriljcd  by  a  cii\  ordinance  limiting  the  rate  of  fare  to  be  charged  by 
street  railway  coniijanies  is  presumed  to  be  reasonable  until  its  unreasonableness 
is  shown,  and  the  burden  of  showing  the  rate  to  be  unreasonable  is  on  the  com- 
panies.''-^ A  statute  providing  that  rates  fixed  by  a  commission  shall  be  regarded 
as  prima  facie  reasonal)lc.  is  valid  ;  it  being  com]:»etent  for  the  legislature  to  pre- 
scri1)c  rules  of  evidence  fcjr  all  proceedings  under  the  laws.'''* 

§  155.  How  Presumption  May  Be  Overcome. — The  presumption  that 
rates  fixed  by  statute  or  by  a  slate  railroad  coninn>sion  are  lawful  and  reasonable 
can  be  overcome  only  by  showing  by  clear  and  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  are 
unlawful  or  unreasonable.  This  rule  has  in  many  jurisdictions  been  given  stat- 
utory sanction.''""  But  such  presumption  may  be  overcome  by  admissions  in 
pleadings  which  clearly  show  the  invalidity  of  the  rate  order,  or  admit  that  it 
is  unreasonable,  and  was  arbitrarily  made,  without  evidence  or  due  considera- 


road  and  warehouse  commission  as  to 
what  were  usual  and  reasonal)le  fares 
and  rates  for  the  transportation  of  per- 
sons and  property  by  a  railway  company 
was  held  to  be  conclusive;  and.  in  pro- 
ceedings by  mandamus  to  compel  com- 
pliance with  the  tariff  of  rates  recom- 
mended and  pul)Iished  by  them,  no  issue 
could  be  raised  or  inquiry  had  on  that 
question.  State  ::■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
38  Minn.  281.  37  N.  \V.  782;  State  v. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Minn.  l.'jC), 
41    N.    W.    46.5. 

Mississippi. — Stone  z\  Natchez,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    62    Miss.    646. 

Ohio.— Act  April  2,  1906  (98  Ohio 
Laws,  p.  342),  creating  a  board  of  railroad 
commissioners,  section  16,  par.  "e,"  giv- 
ing prima  facie  effect  to  determination  of 
commissioners,  applies  to  the  determi- 
nation of  facts  upon  evidence  as  to  un- 
reasonable rates,  but  does  not  counter- 
vail tlie  well-settled  rule  that  in  proceed- 
ings in  error  the  presumi)tion  is  that  the 
court  below  applied  the  law  correctly. 
Railroad  Comm.  v.  Hocking  Valley  R. 
Co.,  82   O.    St.   25,   91   N.    H.   86.5. 

O  Ida  ho  ma. —Const.,  art.  9,  §  22  (Bunn's 
Ed.,  §  235;  Snyder's  Ed.  p.  259),  makes 
an  order  of  the  corporation  commission 
prima  facie  just  and  reasonal^le;  but  such 
presumption  arising  in  favor  of  the  order, 
while  a  strong  one,  is  not  conclusive,  and 
may  be  rebutted.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  State,  23  Okla.  210,   100  Pac.   11. 

Where,  on  appeal  from  an  order  fixing 
freight  rates,  both  parties  appeared  and 
agreed  to  submit  the  appeal  on  the  rec- 
ord, and  waived  the  filing  of  briefs,  the 
order  would  be  affirmed,  in  the  absence 
of  a  showing  wherein  the  rates  fixed  were 
unreasonal)le  or  unjust.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  State    (Okla.),   128   Pa-c.  908. 

T<?.t-fl.y,— Judgment,  113  S.  W.  741,  re- 
versed on  rehearing.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Railroad  Comm.,  102  Tex.  338,  116  S.  W. 
795.  construing  Rev.  St.  1895.  arts.  4565, 
4566. 

I'irgiiiia. — Washington,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7\ 


Commonwealth,  112  Va.  515,  71  S.  E. 
539,  construing  Const.  1902,  §§  156d,  156f 
(Code    1904,    pp.    ccliv,    cclv). 

L'nder  Const.,  §  156,  subsec.  "f,"  pro- 
viding that  the  action  of  the  state  cor- 
poration commission  shall  be  regarded  as 
prima  facie  just  and  correct,  on  appeal 
irom  an  order  fixing  the  charge  which  a 
transportation  corporation  might  make 
for  placing  cars  to  be  weighed  on  con- 
signees' or  shippers'  individual  track  scales 
the  charges  fixed  were  prima  facie  cor- 
rect, and  the  finding  entitled  to  peculiar 
weight.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth,  103   Va.   289,  49   S.    E.  39. 

Il'ashingtoii. — The  findings  of  the  rail- 
road commission  in  determining  a  rate 
for  switching  cars  are  presumed  to  be 
correct.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road Comm..  57  Wash.  134.  106   Pac.  611. 

A  rate  for  switching  cars  which  has 
l)een  continued  in  force  a  considerable 
time  is  presumed  reasonable  and  remu- 
nerative. Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rail- 
road  Comm..   57    Wash.   134,   106   Pac.  611. 

ll^iscinisiii. — Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z\  Railroad  Comm.,  136  Wis.  146,  116  N. 
W.  905,  construing  Laws  1905.  p.  549.  c. 
362. 

63.  Presumption  that  rate  prescribed 
by  municipal  ordinance  is  reasonable. — 
Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  :•.  Chicago,  199 
111.   579.  65   N.   E.  470. 

64.  Statute  making  rates  fixed  by  com- 
mission prima  facie  reasonable  is  valid. — 
So  held  ;l^  l«<  llic  provision  in  the  Iowa 
statute  (23d  Gen.  .\ssem.  c.  17.  §§  3.  4), 
that  the  "joint  rates,"  and  the  division 
thereof  between  the  different  companies, 
as  fixed  by  the  commissioners,  shall  be 
regarded  as  prima  facie  reasonable.  Bur- 
lington, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Dey.  82  Iowa  312, 
48  N.  W.  98,  31  .^m.  St.  Rep.  477.  12  L.  R. 
.\.  436. 

65.  How  presumption  of  lawfulness  and 
reasonableness  of  rates  can  be  overcome. 
— Michimiii. — Detroit.  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 
Michigan  R.  Comm..  171  Mich.  335.  137 
X.    W.    329:     Michigan    Cent.     R.    Co.    v. 


155-156 


CARRIERS. 


126 


tion.^^  Speculative  suggestions  as  to  what  might  possibly  result,  with  no  show- 
ing of  the  actual  test,  are  insufficient  to  overthrow  the  findings  of  a  commission. «" 
Where  a  statute  makes  the  rates  adopted  by  the  railroad  commission  prima  facie 
evidence  that  the  same  are  reasonable,  and  a  fair  return  on  the  value  of  the  road, 
evidence  that  the  rates  are  not  a  fair  return  on  the  amount  of  the  bonded  debt, 
capital  stock,  and  current  debts  is  insufficient  to  overcome  the  prima  facie  rea- 
sonableness of  the  rates  adopted,  unless  it  is  also  shown  that  the  value  of  the 
road  equals  such  outstanding  liabilities."'^  \Miere  a  carrier's  contention  that  a 
rate  established  by  a  commission  is  unreasonable  is  supported  by  statistics  in 
which  it  appears  that  dividends  on  the  stock  are  calculated  as  a  part  of  the  oper- 
ating expenses,  the  carrier  does  not  rebut  and  overcome  the  prima  facie  charac- 
ter of  the  tariff  established  by  the  commission.'^''  Where  a  carrier  attempts  to 
establish  the  invalidity  of  a  statute  establishing  maximum  rates,  it  must  make 
full  and  complete  disclosure  of  all  revenue  derived  from  the  business,  and  the 
disbursement  of  the  same  for  all  purposes,  including  salaries  i)aid  to-  all  its  offi- 
cers, agents,  and  employees,  so  that  it  may  be  determined  whether  such  expendi- 
tures are  necessary,  as  well  as  reasonable.'" 

§   156.  In  Proceedings   against  a   Carrier  for  Contempt. — In  proceed- 
ings against  a  railway  company  for  contempt  for  violating  an  order  of  the  State 


Michigan  R.  Comm..  160  Mich.  36.5.  12.5 
N.  \V.  549,  holding  that  the  evidence  in 
a  suit  bj'  railroad  companies  to  avoid  an 
order  of  the  railroad  commission  fixing 
rates  for  excess  baggage  failed  to  show 
that  the  commission  did  not  have  before 
it  evidence  that  the  rates  theretofore  in 
effect  were  unreasonable,  or  that  the 
rates  fixed  by  it,  though  based  on  mile- 
age, instead  of  on  the  passenger  fare, 
were  unreasonable. 

Xorth  Dakota.— State  v.  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  19  X.  Dak.  45,  120  N.  W.  869. 
The  evidence  in  this  case  was  held  not 
to  overcome  the  prima  facie  presumption 
that  rates  for  transportation  of  coal  in 
car  load  lots  prescribed  by  Laws  1907,  p. 
7.3,  c.  51.  amending  and  re-enacting  Rev. 
Codes  1905.  §  4395.  were  reasonable. 

Texas.— GuM,  etc.,  R.  C.n  r,  Railroad 
Comm..  102  Tex.  338.  116  S.  W.  795,  re- 
versing on  rehearing  113  S.  W.  741.  In 
this  case  it  was  held  that  under  the  Texas 
statute,  Rev.  Stat.  1895,  arts.  4565,  4566, 
a  citizen,  as  well  as  a  railroad  company, 
instituting  an  action  to  contest  the  rea- 
sonableness of  rates,  must  show  by  clear 
and  conclusive  proof  that  the  rates  com- 
plained of  are  unreasonable. 

Wisconsin. — Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Comm.,  136  Wis.  146,  116  X.  W. 
905.  holding  that  the  "clear  and  satisfac- 
tory" proof  required  by  the  Wisconsin 
statute.  Laws  1905,  p.  549,  ch.  362,  is 
such  proof  as  is  necessary  to  establish 
fraud  or  prove  mistake  in  the  execution 
of  a  written   instrument. 

Rule  in  Florida. — In  Florida  it  has 
been  held  that  in  determining  whether  a 
regulation  of  the  railroad  commissioners 
is  unenforceable,  the  courts  will  not  only 
require  the  prima  facies  of  reasonable- 
ness impressed  by  the  statute  to  be  over- 
come, but  will   require   the  admissions   or 


proofs  to  be  convincing  beyond  reason- 
able doubt.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.   (Fla.\  60  So.  186. 

66.  Admissions  in  pleadings. — Railroad 
Comm'rs  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Fla. 
112,  59  So.  385. 

67.  Speculative  suggestions  with  no 
showing  of  actual  test  insufficient. — State 
r.  Seaboard,  etc.,  Railway,  48  Fla.  150, 
152,  37  So.  658,  affirmed  Seaboard,  etc., 
Railway  v.  Ellis,  203  U.  S.  261,  51  L.  Ed. 
175,   27    S.    Ct.    109. 

68.  Evidence  insufficient  to  overcome 
prima  facie  reasonableness  of  rates. — 
State  V.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  23  Ore.  424, 
31   Pac.  960. 

69.  So  held  in  interpreting  the  Minne- 
sota statutes,  Gen.  St.  1894,  §  392,  subd. 
8,  and  Laws  1895,  c.  91,  §  3,  subd.  c,  and 
Id.,  §  381,  subd.  c,  which  provide  that  the 
tariff  of  railroad  rates  made  by  the  state 
railroad  and  warehouse  commission  shall 
l)e  taken  by  the  courts  as  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  such  tariflf  was  equal  and  rea- 
sonable, the  burden  being  on  the  carriers 
to  show  to  the  contrary.  State  Z'.  Min- 
neapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  Minn.  191,  83  N. 
W.  60,  89  Am.  St.  Rep.  514,  affirming  Min- 
neapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Minnesota,  186  U. 
S.   2.->7.  46   L.   Ed.   1151,  22   S.   Ct.  900. 

70.  What  carrier  must  disclose. — State 
f.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  85  Neb.  25.  122  N.  W. 
691;  State  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  85  Neb. 
42,    122    N.    W.   697. 

In  the  absence  of  any  showing  as  to 
earnings  or  profits  of  a  street  railway 
company,  the  court  can  not  pass  on  the 
question  as  to  whether  an  ordinance  reg- 
ulating the  rates  of  fare  to  be  charged 
by  such  companies  amounts  to  a  depri- 
vation of  property  without  due  process 
of  law.  Chicago  Union  Tract.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, 199  111.  484,  65  N.  E.  451,  59  L. 
R.A.   631. 


127 


CONTK(JL    AND    KliCLLATKJX. 


§§  156-159 


Corporation  Commission,  where  the  railway  company  admits  the  act  of  violation 
with  which  it  is  charged,  but  attemi)ts  to  defend  against  the  proceedings  upon 
the  ground  that  it  was  done  through  a  misapprehension  of  the  order  or  as  a 
result  of  a  mistake,  the  burden  is  upon  the  company  to  establish  such  cause.' ^ 

§  157.  Admissibility.— In  proceedings  before  a  railroad  commission  to  reg- 
ulate the  rates  of  a  common  carrier,  the  commission,  and,  on  appeal,  the  court, 
should  be  liberal  in  receiving  evidence  on  the  question  of  what  is  a  reasonable 
rate,  and  may  hear  arguments  in  behalf  of  any  person  or  corporation Jnterested 
in  tiie  result.'-  On  a  hearing  to  enforce  compliance  with  any  orders  of  a  cor- 
poration commission  against  a  carrier,  the  latter  must  be  permitted  to  introduce 
evidence  to  controvert  tlie  reasonableness  of  the  order  complained  of.'^ 

§  158.  Judgment.— Where  a  railroad  company  is  cited  for  contempt  for 
the  violation  of  an  order  of  a  corporation  commission,  a  judgment  limited  in  its 
scope  to  finding  it  guilty  of  a  violation  of  its  own  tariffs,  not  based  on  any  charge 
in  the  complaint  and  the  citation  issued,  is  erroneous  and  must  on  appeal  be  set 
aside." ^  A  judgment  in  proceedings  under  a  statute  authorizing  a  court  to  order 
connecting  railroad  lines  to  make  connections,  which  fixes  a  schedule  for  certain 
connecting  trains,  to  be  in  efifect  if  the  companies  fail  to  agree  on  a  schedule 
making  a  desired  connection,  is  erroneous,  unless  it  provides  that  the  connecting 
roads  may  afterwards  agree  on  a  new  schedule,  not  in  conflict  with  the  law.'^ 

§  159.  Procedure  upon  Review  of  Orders  or  Decisions  of  a  Commis- 
sion.— The  procedure  upon  review  of  orders  or  decisions  of  a  commission  is 
governed  by  constitutional  provision  or  statute.  Therefore  questions  as  to  the 
mode  of  review,'*'  the  mode  of  procedure  necessary  to  obtain  it.''  what  is  pre- 


71.  Burden  of  proof  in  proceedings  for 
contempt. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  ■:■.  State, 
20   Okla.    Tti4,    110    Pac.   T.')!). 

72.  Admissibility  of  evidence. — Appeal 
of  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  60  Minn.  401, 
62  N.  W.  826. 

On  the  question  of  what  rate  of  return 
upon  its  investment  should  be  allowed  to 
a  street  railway,  that  in  the  locality  where 
the  railway  operated  the  prevailing  rate 
of  interest  on  loans  running  for  a  long 
time  and  backed  by  first-class  security 
was  7  per  cent,  that  on  ordinary  commer- 
cial paper  the  rate  was  8  per  cent,  and 
that  the  railway  appealing  from  rates  or- 
dered by  the  railroad  commission  had  it- 
self loaned  to  an  allied  corporation  a  large 
sum  on  its  notes  at  6  per  cent,  raising  the 
amount  by  an  issue  of  bonds,  may  be 
taken  into  consideration  on  the  question 
of  adequate  return.  Puget  Sound  Elect. 
Railway  v.  Railroad  Comm.,  65  Wash.  75, 
117   Pac.  7:59. 

73.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  20 
Okla.  160.   109   Pac.  218. 

74.  Judgment  in  proceedings  for  con- 
tempt.—  St.  i.nuis.  etc..  K.  Co.  r.  Cannon 
&  Sun.  :;i   Okla.  470.   12:2  Pac.  2:51. 

75.  Judgment  under  statute  authorizing 
court  to  order  railroad  connections. — 
Southern  1\.  Co.  r.  Commonwealth.  9S 
\'a.  75S.  ;;7  S.  E.  294.  construing  .\ct  of 
March  3,  1S92,  authorizing  the  circuit 
court  to  order  connecting  railroad  lines  to 
make   connections. 

76.  Mode   of  review. — In    Florida,   rules 


and  regulations  adopted  by  a  railroad 
commission  are  subject  to  review  as  ad- 
ministrative matters,  not  by  appeal  or 
writ  of  error  to  correct  mere  errors  or 
irregularities,  but  in  mandamus  and  other 
appropriate  proceedings  to  test  their  va- 
liditv.  Railroad  Comm'rs  r.  Florida,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   58    Fla.   524.   50    So.   425. 

77.  Mode  of  procedure  to  obtain  review. 
—The  Ohio  statute.  Rev.  St.,  §§  244-16, 
par.  "d,"  prescribing  the  mode  of  proce- 
dure necessary  to  obtain  a  review  of  a 
judgment  in  an  action  brought  under  such 
section  before  the  board  of  railroad  com- 
missioners because  of  alleged  unlawful 
discrimination,  applies  exclusively  to  a 
judgment  rendered  by  the  court  of  com- 
mon pleas  in  such  action.  Railroad 
Comm.  c'.  Hocking  Valley  R.  Co.,  79  O. 
St.   419,   87    N.    E.   548. 

.\t  any  time  within  twelve  months  from 
the  final  order  of  the  corporation  com- 
mission on  a  record  certified  in  accord- 
ance with  the  constitution  of  Oklahoma, 
art.  9,  §  22  (Bunn's  Ed.,  §  234),  any  party 
aggrieved  may  prosecute  an  appeal  from 
the  corporation  commission  by  applica- 
tion to  the  chairman  thereof  to  certify 
all  facts  on  which  the  case  appealed  from 
was  based,  together  with  the  evidence 
considered  by  the  commission,  as  well  as 
such  other  evidence  as  the  commission 
may  deem  proper  to  certify,  also  a  written 
statement  of  the  reasons  of  the  action 
which  will  constitute  the  record  for  re- 
view. Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t:  Love,  23 
Okla.  224,  100  Pac.  22. 


§§  159-160 


CARRIERS. 


128 


requisite  thereto/^  the  sufficiency  of  a  petition  therefor/^  the  time  within  which 
an  appeal  may  be  taken.*-"  whether  the  tiHng  of  a  bond  is  essential^^  and  the 
sufficiency  of  the  record  on  appeal.'^-  are  to  be  determined  by  a  proper  interpre- 
tation of  the  governing  constitutional  or  statutory  enactment. 

§§  160-173.  Injunction— §§  160-166.  When  and  against  Whom  In- 
junction Will  Lie — §  160,  Injunction  against  Action  by  a  State  Commis- 
sion.— The  proceedings  of  a  slate  raih'oad  commission  which  are  Icgishitive  in 
nature  are  not  proceedings  in  a  court,  and  are  subject  to  injunctive  process,  no 
matter  what  may  be  the  character  of  the  body  in  which  they  take  i)kice.'^^  It  is 
within  the  power  and  is  the  duty  of  the  courts  to  incpire  whether  rates  pre- 
scribed by  such  a  commission  are  unjust  and  unreasonable,  such  as  to  constitute 
an  unconstitutional  invasion  of  property  rights,  and.  if  so,  to  enjoin  their  en- 
forcement.^-* A  bill  against  a  commission  to  restrain  the  members  from  en- 
forcing such  a  rate  is  not  bad  as  an  attempt  to  enjoin  legislation  or  as  a  suit 


78.  In  Oklahoma  a  motion  for  new  trial 
is  not  a  prerequisite  to  an  appeal  to  the 
supreme  court  from  an  order  of  the  cor- 
poration commission.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Love.  23  Okla.  192,  99  Pac.  1081; 
Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Love,  23  Okla.  224, 
100  Pac.  22. 

79.  Petition. — A  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St. 
1895,    art.    4565,    provides    that    a    railroad 


based,  and,  on  appeal  from  such  order, 
certify  the  facts  so  found  to  the  supreme 
court.  Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  State, 
24  Okla.  817,  104  Pac.  1086;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  State,  24  Okla.  828,  104  Pac. 
1087;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  24 
Okla.    832,    104    Pac.    1089. 

Under   this    provision     the     facts     upon 
,'hich    the   action   of   the    commission   ap- 


company  dissatisfied  with   the   decision   of       pealed    from    was    based    and    which    may 

any    rate,    etc.,    adopted    by    the    railroad 

commission,    may    file    a    petition    setting 

forth  the  particular  cause  of  objection  to 

the  decision,  rate,  etc.,  or  to  either  or  all 

of   them,   in   certain   courts.      Held,   that   a 

railroad  company  in  such  an  action  is  not 

required  to  attack  all  the  rates  prescribed. 


be  essential  for  the  proper  decision  of  the 
appeal,  together  with  such  of  the  evidence 
iiUroduced  before,  or  considered  by,  the 
commission  as  may  be  selected  or  re- 
quired to  be  certified  by  any  party  in  in- 
terest as  well  as  such  other  evidence  as 
the  commission  may  deem  proper  to  cer- 


but  may  attack  one  rate  only.     Gulf,  etc.,       tify,  and  a  written  statement  by  the  com 


R.   Co.   V.   Railroad   Comm.,    102   Tex.   338 
113    S.    W.    741. 

80.  Time  within  which  appeal  may  be 
taken. — In  Oklahoma  any  proper  party 
may  appeal  to  the  supreme  court  from 
a  final  order  of  the  corporation  commis- 
sion at  any  time  within  one  year  from 
the  date  of  the  same.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   V.    Love,   23    Okla.    192,   99    Pac.    1081. 

Under  the  Ohio  statute.  Rev.  St.,  § 
244-16,  par.  "d,"  either  party  to  an  action 
before  the  railroad  commission  against 
a  railroad  for  unjust  discrimination  may 
appeal  within  sixty  days  after  judgment 
in  the  court  of  common  pleas,  or  take  the 
case  up  on  error.  Railroad  Comm.  v. 
Hocking  Valley  R.  Co.,  79  O.  St.  419,  87 
X.    R.    548. 

81.  Statute  requiring  compensatory  bond 
mandatory. — Tlie  provision  in  tlie  W  asli- 
ington  statute.  Laws  1909,  c.  93,  §  3,  re- 
quiring a  compensatory  bond  on  an  ap- 
peal from  an  order  sustaining  a  reduction 
of  passenger  rates  by  the  railroad  com- 
mission was  mandatory.  Puget  Sound 
Elect.  Railway  v.  Mitchell,  60  Wash.  660, 
111   Pac.   873. 

82.  Record  on  appeal. — Under  the  con- 
stitution of  Oklahoma,  art.  9,  §  22  (Bunn's 
Ed.  §  234),  the  corporation  commission, 
on  hearing  an  order  proposed  to  fix  rates 
to  be  charged  1)y  a  railroad  company  for 
hauling  intrastate  freight,  must  make  a 
finding     of    fact    on     which    the    order     is 


ission  of  the  reasons  for  its  action,  cer- 
tified by  the  chairman  of  the  commission 
under  its  seal,  constitute  the  complete  rec- 
ord for  an  appeal  to  the  supreme  court. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Love,  23  Okla. 
192,  99  Pac.  1081. 

When  the  commission,  in  fixing  rates 
for  intrastate  freight,  fails  to  make  a  find- 
ing of  facts  and  certify  the  same  to  the 
supreme  court,  on  appeal,  the  court  may 
remand  the  case,  with  directions  to  find 
the  facts  and  certify  them  before  the  ap- 
peal is  determined.  Midland  Valley  R. 
Co.   V.   State,   24    (Jkla.   S17,    104    Pac.    1086. 

83.  Proceedings  which  are  legislative  in 
nature  subject  to  injunctive  process. — 
Prcntis  r.  AtlaiUic  Coast  Line  Co.,  211  U. 
S.  210,  53   L.   Ed.   150,  29   S.   Ct.  67. 

The  making  of  a  rate  by  a  legislative 
body,  after  hearing  the  interested  parties, 
is  not  res  judicata  upon  the  validity  of 
the  rate  when  questioned  by  those  par- 
ties in  a  suit  in  a  court.  Litigation  does 
not  arise  until  after  legislation;  nor  can  a 
state  make  such  legislative  action  res  ju- 
dicata in  subsequent  litigation.  Prentis 
V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Co.,  211  U.  S.  210, 
53  L.   Ed.  150,  29  S.  Ct.  67. 

84.  When  enforcement  of  rates  pre- 
scribed by  commission  will  be  enjoined. — 
Trammel  v.  Dinsmore,  42  C.  C.  A.  623, 
102  Fed.  794.  affirmed  in  183  U.  S.  115,  46 
L.  Ed.  Ill,  22  S.  Ct.  45. 


129 


CONTROL   AND   REGULATION. 


§  160 


against  a  state. ^^'^  P>ut  where  the  duty  of  fixing  and  enforcing  rates  is  vested  in 
a  state  railroad  commission,  injunction  to  restrain  the  commission  from  pro- 
ceeding, the  illegal  ground  for  equitable  interposition  being  threatened  mul- 
tiplicity of  suits  and  irrci)aral)le  injury,  will  not  lie  before  the  rates  are  fixed 
at  all."^"  Proceedings  for  such  an  injuiuiioii  slmuld  not  be  commencefl  in  a  fed- 
eral court  until  the  rate  has  been  fixed  by  the  state  tribunal  having  the  last 
word.'''  The  enforcement  of  the  orders  of  a  state  railroad  commission  may  be 
restrained  on  the  ground  that  such  enforcement  would  cause  complainant  irrep- 
arable injury  in  its  business. ^'^  The  enforcement  of  rates  i^rcscriljed  by  such  a 
commission  may  l)e  enjoined  on  ground  thai  they  are  unjust  and  unreasonable;^'-' 


85.  Prcntis  v.  .\tlantic  Coast  Line  Co., 
211  U.  S.  210,  53  L.  Ed.  150,  29  S.  Ct.  67; 
Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  362,  38  S.  Ct.  1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Smyth 
V.  Ames,  169  U.  S.  466,  42  L.  Ed.  819, 
18  S.  Ct.  418;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tompkins,  176  U.  S.  107,  44  L.  Ed.  417,  20 
S.  Ct.  336;  Hanley  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
187  U.  S.  617,  47  L.  Ed.  333,  23  S.  Ct.  214; 
McNeill  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  202  U.  S.  543. 
50  L.  Ed.  1142,  26  S.  Ct.  722;  Mississippi 
R.  Comm.  v.  Illinois  Cent  R.  Co.,  203  U. 
S.  335,  51  L.  Ed.  209,  27  S.  Ct.  90;  Ex 
parte  Young,  209  U.  S.  123,  52  L.  Ed.  714, 

28  S.   Ct.   441. 

86.  Injunction  will  not  lie  before  rates 
are  fixed. — McChord  r.  Louisville,  etc.,  K. 
Co.,  183  U.  S.  483,  46  L.  Ed.  289,  22  S. 
Ct.  165;  Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc., 
Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14  S. 
Ct.  1047;  S.  C,  154  U.  S.  420,  38  L.  Ed. 
1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Reagan  v.  Mercan- 
tile Trust  Co.,  154  U.  S.  418,  38  L.  Ed. 
1030,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  S.  C,  154  U.  S.  413, 
38  L.  Ed.  1028,  14  S.  Ct.  1060;  Stone  r. 
Farmers'    Loan,    etc..    Co.,    116   L-.    S.   307, 

29  L.   Ed.   036,  6   S.   Ct.   334,  388,   1191. 

87.  While  a  party  does  not  lose  his  right 
to  complain  of  action  under  an  unconsti- 
tutional law  by  not  using  diligence  to 
prevent  its  enactment,  on  a  question  of 
railroad  rates,  when  an  appeal  to  the  su- 
preme court  of  the  state  from  an  order 
of  the  state  corporation  commission  fix- 
ii.g  such  rates  is  given  by  the  state  con- 
stitution, it  is  proper  that  dissatisfied  rail- 
roads should  take  this  matter  to  the 
supreme  court  of  their  state  before  bring- 
ing a  bill  in  the  circuit  court  of  the 
United  States.  Under  the  circumstances 
of  this  case  action  on  a  bill  was  sus- 
pended to  await  the  result  of  such  an 
appeal.  Prentis  v.  Atlantic  Coast  Line 
Co.,  211  U.  S.  210,  53  L.  Ed.  150,  29  S. 
Ct.   67. 

88.  Irreparable  injury — Facts  authoriz- 
ing preliminary  injunction. — Complainant 
owned  a  large  grain  elevator  at  Ft. 
Worth,  Te.x.,  and  was  engaged  largely  in 
buying  grain  in  other  states  for  shipment 
and  export,  shipping  the  same  over  the 
defendant  railroad  company's  lines  to  Ft. 
Worth,  which  was  its  southern  terminus, 
transferring  it  there  to  its  elavator  for 
cleaning    and    grading,    and    then    reship- 

1   Car— 9 


ping,  availing  itself  of  the  proportional 
tariff  on  through  shipments  put  in  force 
by  the  defendant  and  other  connecting 
companies.  The  Te.xas  railroad  commis- 
sion, also  made  defendants,  without  no- 
tice to  either  complainant  or  the  railroad 
company  entered  orders  requiring  the 
company  to  cancel  its  proportional  tar- 
iffs, prohibiting  it  from  permitting  grain 
shipped  on  export  billing  to  be  transferred 
into  complainant's  elevator,  and  requiring 
it  to  cancel  any  contracts  it  might  have 
with  complainant  whereby  it  had  under- 
taken to  pay  any  sum  of  money  for  any 
purpose  whatever.  It  was  further  re- 
quired to  file  a  notice  of  compliance  with 
such  orders  by  a  given  time,  under  pen- 
alty of  the  institution  of  "such  proceed- 
ings as  may  be  found  proper  and  ade- 
quate to  enforce  compliance"  therewith. 
Complainant  alleged  in  its  l)ill  that  de- 
fendant railroad  company  had  given  no- 
tice of  its  intention  to  obey  such  orders 
being  moved  thereto,  as  alleged  by  the 
fact  that  it  had  other  interests  pending 
before  the  commission  of  great  impor- 
tance to  itself.  Held,  such  facts  not  be- 
ing controverted,  that  complainant  was 
entitled  to  a  preliminary  injunction  re- 
straining the  commission  from  enforcing 
its  orders  until  the  final  hearing,  as  op- 
erating to  cause  complainant  irreparable 
injury  in  its  business.  Rosenbaum  Grain 
Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Fed.  46, 
order  affirmed  Railroad  Comm.  z\  Rosen- 
baum Grain  Co.,  130  Fed.  110,  64  C.  C.  A. 
444. 

89.  Injunction  on  ground  that  rates  are 
unjust  and  unreasonable.— Trammel  v. 
Dinsmore,  42  C.  C.  A.  623,  102  Fed.  794, 
affirmed  in  183  U.  S.  115,  46  L.  Ed.  Ill, 
22   S.   Ct.   45. 

On  demurrer  to  a  bill  to  restrain  en- 
forcement by  state  railroad  commission- 
ers of  a  tariff  of  rates  prescribed  by  them 
for  carriage  of  goods  by  a  railroad,  aver- 
ring that  such  tariif  was  unjust  and  un- 
rci'sonalile,  it  was  admitted  that  the  road 
cost  tar  more  than  the  amount  of  the 
company's  stock  and  bonds  outstanding, 
wh.ich  represented  money  invested  in  its 
cc>nsiruction;  that  there  had  been  no 
waste  or  mismanr.genient  in  the  constiuc- 
tion  or  operation;  that  supplies  and  la- 
bor   had    been    purchased     at    the     lowest 


160 


CARRIERS. 


130 


that  they  are  confiscatory ; ""  or  that  they  amount  to  the  taking  of  prop- 
erty without  due  process  of  huv  or  to  a  denial  of  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws.^i  But  where  the  statutory  remedy  in  ecpity  is  prompt  a  complainant  is 
not.  as  a  matter  of  law.  entitled  to  enjoin  enforcement  of  a  commission  order 


possible  price  consistent  with  the  suc- 
cessful operation  of  the  road;  that  the 
rates  voluntarily  fixed  by  the  company 
had  been  for  ten  years  steadily  decreas- 
ing, until  the  aggregate  decrease  had 
been  more  than  fifty  per  cent;  that  un- 
der the  rates  thus  voluntarily  established 
the  stock,  which  represented  two-fifths 
of  the  value,  had  never  received  anything 
in  the  way  of  dividends,  and  that  for  the 
last  three  years  the  earnings  above  op- 
erating expenses  had  been  insufficient  to 
pay  the  interest  on  the  bonded  debt;  and 
that  the  proposed  tariflf,  as  enforced, 
would  so  diminish  the  earnings  that  they 
would  not  pay  one-half  the  interest  on 
the  bonded  debt  above  the  operating  ex- 
penses. Held  that,  in  the  absence  of  any 
satisfactory  showing  to  the  contrary,  this 
justified  a  finding  that  the  proposed  tariff 
was  unjust  and  unreasonable,  and  a  de- 
cree restraining  it  being  put  in  force. 
Reagan  z'.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154 
U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047; 
Reagan  f.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  l.")4  U. 
S.   418,   38   L.    Ed.   1030,   14   S.   Ct.   1002. 

90.  Injunction  on  ground  that  rates  are 
confiscatory. — .\  court  of  equity  has  the 
power  to  enjoin  a  continuous  operation 
of  confiscatory  fare  and  rates  established 
by  a  railroad  commission,  which  had 
changed  a  lawful  status  in  existence  be- 
fore they  took  effect.  Love  i'.  Atchison, 
etc..  R.  Co..  107  C.  C.  A.  403,  185  Fed. 
321. 

In  an  action  to  enjoin  the  enforcement 
of  fares  and  rates  established  by  a  rail- 
road commission  as  confiscatory,  evi- 
dence held  to  show  no  abuse  of  discre- 
tion in  granting  the  prayer  of  complain- 
ant. Love  f.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 
C.   C.  A.   403,   185    Fed.   321. 

That  a  railroad  tested  the  fare  and 
rates  established  by  a  railroad  commis- 
sion for  several  months  is  no  ground  for 
denying  injunction  against  the  continued 
operation  of  this  fare  and  these  rates  on 
the  ground  that  they  were  confiscatory. 
Love  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  C.  C. 
A.  403,  185  Fed.  321. 

Railroad  companies,  that  will  be  de- 
prived of  parts  of  their  property  devoted 
to  public  use  without  just  compensation 
during  a  rate-making  process  by  provi- 
sions of  a  state  constitution,  or  a  state 
law,  or  a  state  commission,  prescribing 
tentative  rates  and  putting  them  in  ef- 
fect during  the  rate-making  process,  may 
obtain  an  injunction  to  the  same  extent 
that  they  may  after  the  process  is  com- 
plete. Love  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 
C.  C.  A.  403,  185  Fed.  321,  afifirming  or- 
ders  Atchison,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Love,    174 


Fed.  59  and  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Love. 
177   Fed.  493. 

A  preliminary  injunction  is  not  a  mat- 
ter of  strict  right,  and  it  is  often  the 
duty  of  a  court  to  refuse  such  an  injunc- 
toin  where  it  is  doubtful  what  upon  the 
final  hearing  may  be  ascertained  to  be 
the  real  facts  in  the  case,  and  where  the 
rights  of  the  complainants  are  such  that 
they  will  suffer  no  more  injury  if  they 
finally  succeed  than  would  he  inflicted 
upon  the  defendants  if  unjustly  enjoined. 
Especially  is  this  true  where  it  is  sought 
to  enjoin  the  operation  of  a  state  law 
fixing  railroad  rates  alleged  to  be  con- 
fiscatory but  which  has  not  yet  gone  into 
efifect,  when  it  is  probable  that  a  practical 
test  of  the  law  will  be  required  to  as- 
certain the  truth,  and  in  such  case  an  in- 
junction should  not  be  granted  on  ex 
parte  affidavits  alone  merely  stating 
opinions.  Decree  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Comm.,  161  Fed.  925,  reversed. 
Railroad  Comm.  z'.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
95   C.   C.  A.   117,  170  Fed.  225. 

In  a  suit  to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of 
rates  fixed  by  a  state  law  as  confiscatory, 
the  fact  that  bonds  may  be  required  from 
complainants  for  the  protection  of  pas- 
sengers and  shippers  against  loss  from 
overcharges  if  the  law  shall  be  finally 
held  valid  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for 
granting  preliminary  injunctions,  it  be- 
ing evident  that  such  bonds  would  not 
practically  give  adequate  protection  to 
many  of  such  passengers  and  shippers, 
where  the  amount  involved  was  small, 
Railroad  Comm.  z\  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
170   Fed.   225,   95   C.    C.   A.   117. 

91.  Taking  property  without  due  proc- 
ess of  law  or  denial  of  equal  protection 
of  laws. — Reagan  z'.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014, 
14  S.  Ct.  1047;  Smyth  v.  Ames,  169  U.  S. 
466,  522,  42  L.  Ed.  819,  18  S.  Ct.  418; 
Reagan  z'.  Mercantile  Trust  Co.,  154  U. 
S.   418,   38   L.    Ed.   1030,   14   S.   Ct.   1062. 

A  railroad  company  is  entitled  to  an 
injunction  restraining  a  state  railroad 
commission  from  putting  in  force  a  pro- 
posed tariff  schedule,  where  the  bill  al- 
leges that  the  rates  estal)lished  by  such 
schedule  will  amount  to  a  taking  of  com- 
plainant's property  without  due  process 
of  law,  by  reducing  its  earnings  far  be- 
low the  amount  required  to  pay  the  op- 
crating  expenses.  taxes,  and  fixed 
cliarges,  and  the  cause  is  submitted  for 
a  final  decision  on  demurrer  to  other  par- 
agraphs of  the  bill  and  without  any  de- 
nial of  such  allegation.  Wallace  v.  Ar- 
kansas Cent.  R.  Co.,  55  C.  C.  A.  192,  118 
Fed.   422. 


131 


Cr).\TKi)I,   AND  KKGL'I.ATION. 


§§  160-162 


fixing  rates,  pending  a  suit  to  set  aside  the  order."^  Where  a  fine  imposed  by  a 
railroad  commission  is  in  the  nature  of  an  interlocutory  order,  an  injunction 
against  its  collection  will  not  lie  if  there  is  an  amijle  remedy  without  it."''' 

§  161.  Injunction  to  Restrain  Wrongful  and  Discriminatory  Acts  by 
a  Carrier. —  W  Ikit  alleged  w  rongful  and  di>criniinaling  act>  oi  a  carrier  are 
of  daily  recurrence,  and  their  continuance  will  cause  further  and  irreparable 
injury  to  complainant's  business,  complainant  is  entitled  to  an  injunction  to  pre- 
vent the  wrongs  complained  of,  and  to  compel  the  carrier  to  perform  its  duty 
to  complainant,  without  discrimination. '•'■*  Injunction  lies  at  the  suit  of  a  shipper 
to  restrain  a  carrier  from  granting  discriminatory  favors  to  other  shippers  to 
his  prejudice  and  injury,  where  the  remedy  at  law  is  n(jt  adequate  or  effectual.'*'"' 

§  162.  Injunction  to  Restrain  a  Carrier  from  Charging  Unlawful 
Rates. — An  injunction  will  lie  at  the  suit  of  the  state  to  restrain  a  carrier  from 
charging  rates  in  excess  of  those  i)rescribed  by  statute :  ■"'  and  in  such  a  suit  the 
court  can  not  consider  whether  defendant's  obe<lience  to  the  law  will  cause  greater 
public  injury  than  its  disobedience.""  The  purchaser  of  a  part  of  a  street  rail- 
road is  subject  to  an  injunction  restraining  him  from  charging  a  10-cent  fare 
thereon,  contrary  to  the  terms  of  the  franchise.-''*  An  injunction  will  lie  at  the 
suit  of  the  selectment  of  a  town  who  have  granted  a  street  railroad  location  to 
restrain  the  railroad  company  from  enforcing  rates  in  excess  of  the  maximum 
specified  in  the  location. •'•' 


92.  Another  remedy  as  precluding  in- 
junction.—  .Micliiuan  Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Mur- 
phy, 156  Mich.  45'J,  120  N.  W.  1073,  hold- 
ing that  under  the  Michigan  statute.  Pub 
Acts,  1907,  p.  428,  No.  312,  §§  16,  22,  25, 
26,  complainants  were  not  entitled  to 
enjoin  enforcement  of  an  order  chang- 
ing excess  baggage  rates,  pending  a  suit 
to  set  aside  the  order. 

93.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Railroad 
Comm..   106   La.   583,  31   So.   131. 

94.  Injunction  to  restrain  wrongful  and 
discriminatory  acts  by  a  carrier. — ^Louis- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Stock  Yards 
Co..  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  18,  97  S.  W.  778,  con- 
struing constitution   §§  213,  214 

Where  alleged  arbitrary  and  discrimi- 
nating acts  of  a  carrier  in  refusing  to 
switch  and  deliver  stock  cars  to  a  con- 
necting carrier  for  transportation  to  com- 
plainant's stockyards  operated  to  irre- 
parably injure  complainant's  business, 
and  such  acts  were  violative  of  the  con- 
stitutional provision.  Const.,  §§  213,  214, 
prohibiting  discrimination,  the  right  to 
sue  to  restrain  such  acts  was  not  limited 
to  shippers  of  live  stock  and  commis- 
sion merchants,  but  extended  to  com- 
plainant as  well.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
f.  Central  Stock  Yards  Co.,  30  Ky.  L. 
Rep.   18,  97   S.   W.  778. 

95.  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  t'. 
Granger.   132   Ga.   167.  63  S.   E.  700. 

96.  Injunction  to  restrain  a  carrier  from 
charging  unlawful  rates. — The  attorney 
general  may,  tm  l)chalf  of  the  state,  en- 
join common  carriers  whose  rates  are 
fixed  by  law  from  violating  the  statute 
and  exacting  unlawful  and  excessive  rates 
and  charges.  State  7'.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.. 
80   Neb.   823,   115    N.   W.   619. 


Equit}'  may  enjoin  a  railroad  which 
has  taken  the  franchise  to  collect  tolls 
and  other  powers  granted  to  it  on  trust 
that  it  will  not  charge  the  public  more 
than  the  reasonable  rates  established  by 
the  legislature  from  tliereafter  charging 
rates  in  excess  of  those  established,  inde- 
pendently of  any  remedy  at  law.  State 
f.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  75  N.  H.  327, 
74  Atl.   542. 

The  legal  remedies  provided  by  the 
Wisconsin  statute,  Laws  1874,  c.  273,  did 
not  prevent  relief  in  a  suit  by  injunction 
by  the  state  against  the  railroad  com- 
panies. Attorney  General  f.  Chicago, 
etc..    R.   Co.,   35   Wis.   425. 

97.  Court  can  not  consider  injury  car- 
rier's obedience  to  law  will  cause. — At- 
torney General  r.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
35   Wis.   425. 

98.  Purchaser  of  part  of  street  railroad 
subject  to  injunction. — Pul)lic  Service 
Comm.  V.  Westchester  St.  R.  Co..  206  N. 
Y.  209,  99  N.  E.  536,  affirming  order  in 
151    App.    Div.   914,    135    X.    Y.    S.    113S. 

99.  Injunction  to  restrain  street  rail- 
road from  enforcing  rates  in  excess  of 
limitation  in  location. — W'estwood  f.  Ded- 
ham,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  2U'J  Mass.  213,  95 
N.   E.  81. 

Where  a  street  railroad  location  con- 
tained a  valid  provision  fixing  the  maxi- 
mum fare  to  be  charged  for  a  specified 
locality,  it  was  no  answer  to  a  suit.  I)y 
the  selectmen  of  a  town  granting  the  lo- 
cation, to  restrain  the  railroad  company 
from  enforcing  rates  in  excess  of  the 
maximum  specified,  that  the  management 
had  not  acted  arbitrarilj-.  that  the  increased 
fares  were  reasonable,  and  that  the  max- 
imum rates  specified  by  the  location  were 


CARRIERS. 


132 


§§  163-166 

§  163.  Injunction  to  Compel  Transportation  at  Rate  Fixed  by  Law.— 

An  injunction  will  not  lie  to  compel  a  common  carrier  to  transport  goods  at  the 
rate  fixed  by  law.^ 

§  164.  Injunction  to  Compel  Carrier  to  Furnish  Impartial  Service.— 

A  mandatory  injunction  will  lie  to  compel  a  railroad  company  to  fulfill  its  cor- 
porate obligation  to  furnish  impartial  service,-  and  it  is  no  defense  to  such  an 
action  that  the  plaintift'  has  an  adequate  remedy  by  an  action  at  law  to  recover 
damages  for  the  wrong  done.-' 

§  16  5.  Injunction  to  Compel  Carrier  to  Stand  Cars  in  Front  of  a 
Shipper's  Property. — A  mandatory  injunction  will  not  lie  to  compel  a  rail- 
road companv  to  stand  freight  cars  on  its  track  in  the  center  of  a  street  in 
front  of  a  shipper's  property  to  be  loaded,  in  the  absence  of  express  authority 
from  the  city  to  use  the  street  in  that  way,  and  of  conclusive  testimony  that  it 
would  not  be  prejudicial  to  the  use  of  the  track  by  the  company's  other  patrons."^' 

§  166.  Injunction  to  Restrain  Persons  from  Soliciting  Business  in  or 
Near  a  Railroad  Station.— A  railroad  company  may  enjoin  persons  from 
entering  its  station  for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  the  custom  of  incoming  pas- 
sengers*'for  cabs,  carriages,  express  w^agons,  and  hotels.-^  It  is  also  entitled  to 
injunctive  relief  against  the  constant,  unlawful  attempt  of  hackmen  and  cabmen 
to  enter  its  depot  grounds  to  solicit  patronage,  and  their  use  of  the  sidewalk  in 
front  of  the  station  so  as  to  interfere  unduly  with  the  ingress  and  egress  of 
passengers.''  An  injunction  is  justified  in  such  cases  by  the  inadequacy  of  any 
remedv  at  law." 


insufficient  to  pay  operating  expenses, 
and,  if  enforced,  would  result  in  the  cur- 
tailment of  service.  Westwood  v.  Ded- 
ham,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  209  Mass.  213,  95 
N.   E.  81. 

1.  Injunction  will  not  lie  to  compel 
transportation  at  rate  fixed  by  law.— Ro- 
gers Locomotive,  etc..  Works  r.  Erie  R. 
Co.,   20    N.   J.    Eq.   379. 

2.  Injunction  to  compel  carrier  to  fur- 
nish impartial  service. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  Coall  Co.,  Ill 
Ky.  960,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1318,  64  S.  W. 
969,  55   L.  R.  A.  601,  98  Am.   St.  Rep.  447. 

3.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburg, 
etc..  Coal  Co.,  Ill  Ky.  960,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1318,  64  S.  W.  969,  970,  55  L.  R.  A.  601, 
98  Am.  St.  Rep.  447. 

The  fact  that  plaintifif  may  recover 
damages  in  an  action  at  law  for  defend- 
ant's refusal  to  furnish  cars  for  loading 
coal  for  shipment  furnishes  no  reason 
for  refusing  a  mandatory  injunction  to 
compel  defendant  to  furnish  the  cars. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
Coal  Co.,  Ill  Ky.  960,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1318,  64  S.  W.  969.  55  L.  R.  A.  601,  98 
Am.   St.   Rep.   447. 

4.  Injunction  to  compel  carrier  to  stand 
cars  in  front  of  a  shipper's  property. — 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
Coal  Co.,  Ill  Ky.  960,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1318,  64  S.  W.  969,  55  L.  R.  A.  601,  98 
Am.  St.  Rep.  447. 

5.  Injunction  to  restrain  persons  from 
entering  station. — Pennsylvania  Co.  i'. 
Donovan,     116     Fed.     907;     Donovan     v. 


Pennsylvania  Co.,  57  C.  C.  A.  362,  120 
Fed.  215,  61  L.  R.  A.  140;  Donnovan  v. 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  60  C.  C.  A.  168,  124 
Fed.  1016.  Affirmed,  199  U.  S.  279,  50  L. 
Ed.   192,  26   S.   Ct.  91. 

6.  Injunction  to  restrain  persons  from 
entering  depot  grounds  and  using  side- 
walk.— Decree,  Donnovan  v.  Pennsylvania 
Co.,  60  C.  C.  A.  168,  124  Fed.  1016,  af- 
firmed. Donovan  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 
199  U.   S.  279,  50  L.   Ed.  192,  26  S.   Ct.  91. 

A  railroad  company  has  a  property 
right  to  a  free  and  unobstructed  entrance 
to  its  stations  for  its  passengers  and  em- 
ployees, and  is  entitled  to  protection  in 
such  right  by  injunction  to  restrain  hack- 
men  from  continuously  congregating  upon 
the  sidewalk  around  the  doors  of  a  sta- 
tion, for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  busi- 
ness, in  such  numbers  as  to  interfere 
with  ingress  and  egress;  but  such  an  in- 
junction should  go  no  further  than  is 
necessary  to  protect  complainant's  pri- 
vate right  of  property,  leaving  any  ob- 
struction to  the  use  of  the  street  or  walk 
by  the  public  generally  to  be  dealt  with 
by  the  municipality.  Pennsylvania  Co. 
7'.  Donovan,  116  Fed.  907;  Donovan  r. 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  57  C.  C.  A.  362,  120 
Fed.  215,  61  L.  R.  A.  140;  Donnovan  v. 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  60  C.  C.  A.  168,  124 
Fed.  1016;  affirmed  in  199  U.  S.  279,  50 
L.   Ed.    192,   26   S.   Ct.   91. 

7.  Injunction  justified  by  inadequacy 
of  any  remedy  at  law. — Donovan  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Co.,  199  U.  S.  279,  50  L.  Ed.  192, 
26  S.  Ct.  91,  affirming  60  C.  C.  A.  168, 
124    Fed.    1016. 


133 


CONTROI,  AND   RKGl'f.ATIOX. 


§§    167-169 


§§  167-173.  Procedure  and  Evidence— §  167.  Jurisdiction.— A  suit 
to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of  rates  by  a  corporation  commission  may  be  brought 
in  the  federal  courts,  where  the  proper  ground  of  jnris(Hction  exists,  as  it  is  not 
a  suit  against  a  state  within  the  eleventh  amendment  of  the  federal  constitution.* 

§  168.  Parties.  — Wlierc  the  supervisors  of  a  township  grant  to  a  street 
railway  comi)any  the  right  to  lay  its  tracks  on  a  highway,  but  stipulate,  as  a  con- 
dition of  tilie  grant,  that  the  company  shall  not  charge  a  fare  exceeding  a  certaiii 
amount,  and  the  company,  after  the  construction  of  its  road,  charges  a  fare 
exceeding  the  amount  stipulated,  owners  of  property  abutting  on  the  road,  who 
have  no  contract  with  the  company  as  to  the  rate  of  fare,  are  not  proper  parties 
to  a  bill  by  the  township  authorities  to  restrain  the  company  from  collecting  a 
greater  rate  of  fare  than  that  stipulated  in  the  contract. =' 

§  169.  Pleading— Petition,  Complaint,  or  Information.— The  question 
of  the  sut^ciency  of  the  averments  in  a  petition  or  complaint  in  a  suit  to  enjoin 
•a  state  commission  from  fixing  or  enforcing  certain  rates  has  in  several  cases 
been  passed  on  by  the  courts. i"  It  is  no  objection  to  the  granting  of  an  injunc- 
tion at  the  suit  of  the  state  to  restrain  a  railway  company  from  charging  rates 
exceeding  those  fixed  by  statute,  that  the  information  does  not  show  specific 
injury  to  the  public.     It  is  sufficient  that  the  facts  alleged  satisfy  the  court  that 


8.  Federal  courts  have  jurisdiction  of 
suit  to  enjoin  enforcement  of  rates.  Rea- 
gan z:  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014,  14  S.  Ct.  1047;  S. 
C,  154  U.  S.  420,  38  L.  Ed.  1031,  14  S. 
Ct.  1062;  Reagan  v.  Mercantile  Trust 
Co.,  l.'')4  U.  S.  418,  38  L.  Ed.  1030,  14  S. 
Ct.    1062. 

Where  an  act  creating  a  railroad  com- 
mission (Texas  act.  April  3,  1891,  §  6) 
provides  that  suits  against  it  may  be 
brought  "in  a  court  of  competent  juris- 
diction in"  a  designated  county,  the 
United  States  circuit,  court  for  that 
county  has  jurisdiction  of  a  suit  brought 
against  it  by  a  citizen  of  another  state 
to  restrain  enforcement  of  illegal  rates. 
Reagan  f.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  154 
U.   S.   362,   38   L.    Ed.   1014,   14   S.   Ct.   1047. 

A  federal  court  has  jurisdiction  to  re- 
strain the  illegal  acts  of  a  state  corpora- 
tion commission,  although  the  statute  un- 
der which  it  assumes  to  act  is  constitu- 
tional. Reagan  v.  Farmers'  Loan,  etc., 
Co.,  154  U.  S.  362,  38  L.  Ed.  1014.  14  S. 
Ct.  1047;  S.  C.  154  U.  S.  420,  38  L.  Ed. 
1031,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Reagan  v.  Mercan- 
tile Trust  Co.,  154  U.  S.  418,  38  L.  Ed. 
1030,    14    S.    Ct.    10()2. 

9.  Abutting  owners  not  proper  parties 
to  bill  by  township  authorities  against 
railway  company. — Millcrcck  :.  I-".ric,  etc., 
St.  R.  Co.,  2(»".»  I 'a.  :i(U),  5S  .Vtl.  oir:. 

10.  Averment  not  charging  that  rate 
established  is  unreasonable. — .-\n  aver- 
mout  in  a  petition  to  restrain  the  state 
railroad  commissioners  from  enforcing 
an  order  estaldishing  "tlirough  joint 
rates"  of  freight  from  points  on  plain- 
tiff's line  to  points  on  the  lines  of  con- 
necting carriers,  that  the  order  was 
made    without    authoritv    of    law,    and    in 


excess  of  the  powers  of  the  commission- 
ers, does  not  charge  that  the  rate  estab- 
lished is  unreasonable.  Burlington,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Dcy,  S!)   Iowa  13,  5(5   X.   W.  207. 

Averment  an  allegation  of  a  conclusion 
only. — An  averment  in  the  petition  to  en- 
join the  commissioners  from  fi-xing  a 
joint  rate  under  the  Iowa  "joint  rate  act," 
that  "by  said  acts  your  petitioner  *  *  * 
is  compelled  to  enter  into  involuntary, 
unreasonable,  and  unprofitable  contracts, 
*  *  *  compelling  the  operation  of  its 
road  at  a  loss,"  is  not  a  direct  allegation 
of  fact,  but  of  a  conclusion  only,  that  the 
effect  of  the  statute  will  be  to  compel  the 
operation  of  petitioner's  road  at  a  loss. 
Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Dey,  82  Iowa 
312.  4S  X.  W.  98,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  477,  12 
L.   R.  .\.  r.u\. 

Complaint  not  objectionable  as  indefi- 
nite and  uncertain. — A  complaint  in  an 
action  by  a  railroad  company  maintain- 
ing a  physical  connection  with  another 
railroad  companj-  in  a  city  to  enjoin  the 
railroad  commission  from  enforcing  an 
order  establishing  switching  tariffs  for 
the  city  for  the  movement  of  all  commod- 
ities in  car  load  lots  from  the  interchange 
track  to  the  points  of  loading  and  un- 
loading, which  alleges  that  in  construct- 
ing the  facilities  at  the  city  the  company 
lias  onl}'  provided  sufficient  facilities  to 
accommodate  its  own  business,  and  that 
it  does  not  have  facilities  to  handle  the 
btisiness  of  the  other  company,  is  not  ob- 
jectionable as  indefinite  and  as  relating 
merely  to  the  arrangements  for  handling 
the  business  to  and  from  the  tracks  where 
freight  is  to  be  loaded  and  unloaded,  in 
the  absence  of  a  motion  to  make  the 
complaint  more  definite  and  certain. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Railroad  Comm., 
175    Ind.   630,   95   X.    E.   364. 


§§  169-174  CARRIERS.  134 

defendant's  disobedience  of  the  law  may  be  ])ro(luctive  of  pubHc  injury.'' 

§  170.  Evidence — Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof.— Rates  to  be 
charged  bv  a  railroad  company,  made  by  a  state  railroad  commission,  charged 
by  law  with  the  duty  of  fixing  just  and  reasonable  rates,  are  presumptively  just 
and  reasonable,  although  the  statute  does  not  expressly  make  them  so,  and  the 
burden  rests  on  the  railroad  company  to  prove  to  the  contrary  before  it  is 
entitled  to  an  injunction  to  restrain  their  enforcement.''-  Since  a  suit  to  have  a 
statute  regulating  railroad  rates  declared  confiscatory  in  its  eft'ect  on  complain- 
ant's business  interferes  with  the  operation  of  a  legislative  act,  no  bill  for  that 
purpose  should  be  entertained,  nor  any  injunction  awarded,  except  on  the  show- 
n.g  of  a  strong  prima  facie  case.'-' 

§  171.  Reference  to  a  Master. — Upon  a  bill  to  enjoin  the  enforcement  of 
a  schedule  of  rates  prescribed  by  a  state  railroad  commission,  the  proper  practice 
is  to  refer  the  testimony  to  a  competent  master  to  make  all  needed  computations, 
and  fully  find  the  facts,  as  before  the  supreme  court  can  be  called  upon  to  make 
an  examination  of  the  case,  it  is  entitled  to  have  the  benefit  of  the  services  of  a 
competent  master  and  an  approval  of  his  findings  by  the  trial  court.''* 

§  172.  Laches. — The  right  of  the  state  to  enjoin  a  railroaa  from  contin- 
uing in  the  future  to  charge  rates  in  excess  of  the  maximum  fixed  by  the  leg- 
islature is  not  aft'ected  by  the  laches  of  the  state. '^ 

§  173.  Decree. — A  decree,  enjoining  the  enforcement  of  a  rate  statute  as 
confiscatory,  should  contain  a  clause  saving  to  the  defendant  the  right  to  pro- 
ceed at  any  time  in  the  future,  in  any  appropriate  way,  to  obtain  a  vacation 
thereof,  if.  under  altered  conditions,  it  is  no  longer  confiscatory."^ 

§§  174-180.  Damages  for  Violations  of  Regulations— §  174.  Power 
of  Legislature. — The  legislature  of  a  state  may  provide  by  general  law  that  a 
shipper  of  live  stock  may  recover  liquidated  damages  from  a  carrier  for  failure 
to  transport  such  stock  committed  to  it  for  transit  between  stations  in  the 
state.''  Fixing  the  damages  for  culpable  violations  of  a  statute,  which  impose 
a  limitation  of  the  time  for  the  transportation  of  live  stock  by  common  carriers, 
at  $10  for  each  car  for  every  hour  by  which  the  time  of  transportation  exceeds 
the  statutory  limit,  is  not  such  a  legislative  usurpation  of  judicial  functions  as 
renders  the  statute  repugnant  to  the  due  process  of  law  clause  of  the  constitu- 

11.  Information  in  suit  to  restrain  car-  fiscatory  but  afiforded  some  remunera- 
rier  from  charging  unlawful  rates. — At-  tion  above  expenses,  the  court  acted 
torney  General  r.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  within  its  discretion  in  denying  a  prelim- 
35   W  is.   42.'<.  inary   injunction    restraining   the    commis- 

12.  Rates  made  by  commission  pre-  sion  from  enforcing  its  order,  pending 
sumptively  just  and  reasonable. — Texas,  the  suit.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mur- 
etc.    R.    Co.    :'.    Railroad    Comm.,    112    C.  phy,  1.56  Mich.  459,  120  N.  W.  1073. 

C.   A.  y.'jH.   ]'.)2   Fed.  280.  13.   Injunction     on     ground     that     rate 

Discretion   of   court  properly    exercised  I'catute      is      confiscatory. — Coal,    etc.,    R. 

in    denying    preliminary    injunction. — The  Co.    r.    Coiiley,    ()~    W.    Va.    129,    67    S.    E. 

rates    fixed    l)y    the    railroad    commission  fil3. 

being   under    the    Michigan    statute    (Pul).  14.  Reference  to  master. — Chicago,  etc.. 

Acts    1907,    p.    417,    No.    312)    prima    facie  R.    Co.    v.    Tompkins,    17G    U.    S.    167,    44 

lawful  and  reasonable,  and  the  burden  to  L.   F.fl,  417,  20  S.  Ct.  336. 

prove  the  contrary  being  on  the  railroad  15.  Right  of  state  to  enjoin  not  affected 

contesting,     where     railroad       companies  by    laches. — State    t'.     Boston,    etc.,    Rail- 

whose   rates  were   being  inquired   into   l)y  road,   7.)    X.   H.   327,   74   .\tl.   542. 

the   commission    were    given    a    full    hear-  16.  Decree  should  contain  saving  clause, 

ing,    but    offered    no    testimony    and    did  — Coal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Conley,  67   W.  Va. 

not  appeal   to   the   commission   to   change  129,   67   S.   E.   613. 

the    rates,    and    in    a     suit    in    the     circuit  17.  Power  of  legislature. — Cram  v.  Chi- 

court   to  judicially  determine   the  validity  cago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    S4    Xeb.    607,    122    N. 

of    rates    fixed    by    the     commission    ad-  W.  31,  26  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  1022,  rehearing 

mitted  that  the  rates  fixed  were  not  con-  denied    123   N.   W.   1045. 


135 


CONTKOI.  AND  KIXULATIOX. 


§§  174-177 


lion  of  the  L'niled  States,  where  the  highest  court  of  the  state  holds  that  the 
statute  imposes  only  conij^ensatory  damages,  fixing  them  at  a  sum  certain  be- 
cause of  the  ditflculty  of  the  ascertainment  of  the  actual  damages  suffered.' '^ 

§§   175-177.  When   an   Action   WiU   Lie^§   175.  In   General.— It   is  a 

general  i)rinciple  applicable  to  common  carriers  that  when  a  duty  is  imposed  on 
them  by  law  an  action  may  be  sustained  against  them  by  any  person  who  is 
specially  injured  by  their  failure  to  perform  that  duty."^ 

§  176.  Failure  to  Stop  at  Station. — A  statute  providing  that  if  any  car- 
rier shall  do  any  act  prohibited  by  the  statute  or  omit  to  do  any  act  required  to 
be  done,  it  shall  be  liable  to  penal  damages,  does  not  render  a  railroad  com- 
pany liable  for  failure  to  stop  a  train  at  a  flag  station,  as  a  violation  of  a  stat- 
ute providing  that  every  railroad  company  shall  cause  all  its  trains  to  stop  on 
each  arrival  at  a  station  advertised  by  such  com[jany  as  a  station  for  receiving 
passengers.-" 

§  177.  Overcharge  or  Discrimination. — P,y  statute  in  many  states  carriers 
are  made  liable  for  damages  resulting  from  overcharge  or  discrimination.  The 
peculiar  provisions  of  some  of  these  statutes  have  been  interj^reted  by  the 
courts. -1     Where  a  carrier  has  charged  more  for  a  short  haul  than  for  a  long 


18.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cram,  228 
U.  S.  70,  33  S.  Ct.  437,  affirming  judg- 
ments Cram  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
Neb.  607,  122  N.  W.  31,  26  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  1022;  S.  C,  85  Neb.  586,  123  N.  W. 
1045,  16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1028;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kj'le,  22S  U.  S.  85,  33  S. 
Ct.  440,  affirming  judgment  Kyle  v.  Chi- 
cago,   etc..    R.    Co.,   S4    Xob.    r,2i.    123    N. 

W.    37. 

19.  Any  person  specially  injured  may 
sue. — Cohen  r.  Southern  H.xp.  Co..  5:5 
Ga.  12S. 

20.  Failure  to  stop  at  station — South 
Carolina  statutes  construed. —  Rountree 
V.  -Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  S.  C.  268,  53 
S.  E.  424,  construing  Civ.  Code  1902,  §§ 
2134,  2202. 

21.  Refusal  of  a  railroad  company  to 
permit  plaintiff  to  purchase  and  use 
wooden  cars  on  its  lines  lield  not  a  dis- 
crimination for  which  plaintiff  was  en- 
titled to  recover  damages  under  the 
Pennsylvania  statute.  Act  lune  4,  1883 
(P.  L.  72).  Walnut  Coal  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania   R.   Co.,   237    Pa.    410,   8,")   .\tl.   440. 

That  rate  charged  was  fixed  by  com- 
mission no  defense. — A  railroatl  compan)' 
making  an  unreasonal)le  freight  charge 
is  not  relieved  from  liability  to  the  ship- 
per in  treble  damages  therefore  under 
the  Iowa  statute,  Acts  22d  Gen.  Assem., 
c.  28,  §§  2,  9,  by  the  fact  that  the  rate 
charged  was  that  fixed  by  the  railroad 
commissioners  under  §  17,  providing  that 
the  commissioners  shall  make  a  schedule 
of  reasonalile  ma.ximum  rates,  which  shall 
be  "prima  facie  evidence  that  the  rates 
therein  fixed  are  reasonable."  Barris  f. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Iowa  375,  71 
N.   W.  339.  63  Am.   St.   Rep.   449. 

No  defense  that  unadjusted  claim  for 
damages  was  part  of  consideration  for 
discrimination. —  In    an    action    to    recover 


triple  damages  for  an  unjust  discrimina- 
tion as  to  charges  for  transportation  of 
freights  under  Colorado  Act  of  1885,  it 
is  no  defense,  that  the  company  claims 
that  part  of  the  consideration  for  the  car- 
riage for  the  person  in  whose  favor  the 
discrimination  was  made,  was  an  unad- 
justed claim  for  damages  held  by  him 
against  the  company,  where  the  evidence 
shows  that  the  claim  had  not  been 
brought  forward  or  pressed.  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.  c'.  Goodridge,  149  U.  S.  680,  37 
L.  Ed.  986,  13  S.  Ct.  970;  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Taggart,  149  U.  S.  698,  37  L. 
Ed.   905,    13    S.    Ct.    977. 

Facts  warranting  recovery  for  over- 
charge.— \n  Alaljania  statute.  Code,  § 
3460,  provides  that  any  railroad  which 
shall  exact  more  than  the  rate  specified 
in  any  bill  of  lading,  or  shall  make  any 
overcharge,  shall  be  liable  for  double  the 
damages  sustained,  unless  the  service  as 
to  which  the  extortion  was  committed 
was  performed  at  rates  previously  ap- 
proved by  the  railroad  commissioners, 
when  only  actual  damages  may  be  re- 
covered. Held  that,  where  bills  of  lad- 
ing for  coal  shipped  specified  a  rate  of 
fifty  cents  per  ton,  and  defendant  ex- 
acted seventy  cents  per  ton,  and  con- 
tended, in  an  action  to  recover  the  ex- 
cess, that  the  fifty-cent  rate  was  a  mis- 
take, and  that  tiie  seventy-cent  rate  had 
been  authorized  by  the  railroad  commis- 
s;oners,  and  had  been  posted  in  all  freight 
depots,  but  faileil  to  prove  that  such 
rate  had  been  so  allowed  or  posted  in  the 
place  to  which  the  coal  was  shipped, 
plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover  under 
the  statute.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Annis- 
ton  Foundrv,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ala.  315.  33 
So.   274. 

What  must  be  shown  in  action  under 
Missouri    statute. — Tliough,    in    an    action 


§§  177-179  CARRIERS.  136 

haul,  in  violation  of  a  constitutional  provision,  the  fact  that  the  statutes  ])ro- 
vide  only  for  indictment  of  the  carrier  for  violation  of  the  constitutional  pro- 
vision does  not  prevent  a  shipper  aggrieved  hy  such  violation  from  maintaining 
a   suit  against   the  carrier   for  damages   sustained   thereby. -- 

§  178.  Measure  of  Damages.— Where  a  seller  loses  the  benefit  of  the 
sale  by  the  refusal  of  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  him  with  cars  in  which  to 
ship  the  goods  in  violation  of  statute,  his  measure  of  damages  against  the  com- 
pany is  the  profits  lost  by  his  inability  to  fulfill  his  agreement,  provided  he 
would  otherwise  have  performed  the  same.--  Under  a  statute  making  a  rail- 
road company  liable  to  a  person  injured  by  unjust  discrimination  in  charges  '"for 
damages  treble  the  amount  of  the  injury  suffered."  the  "injury  suffered"  must 
be  proved,  and  it  is  not  to  be  measured  by  the  total  amount  of  the  discrimina- 
tions complained  of.--*  In  an  action  by  a  coal  company,  agahist  a  railroad  com- 
pany, for  discrimination  in  furnishing  transportation  facilities  under  a  statute, 
imposing  a  liability  for  damages  treble  the  amount  of  injures  suffered,  the  jury, 
in  assessing  damages,  may  consider  the  difference  between  the  mining  cost  and 
the  fair  average  selling  price  in  the  mining  region  at  the  period  of  discrimina- 
tion, though  such  is  not  absolutely  the  measure  of  damages,  and,  where  the 
discrimination  alleged  is  the  refusal  of  a  siding,  the  loss  on  unmined  coal  \vhich 
plaintiff  was  unreasonably  prevented  from  mining  by  the  refusal  of  the  siding 
may  be  considered.-^  Interest  is  not  recoverable  on  treble  damages  imposed  by 
a  statute  as  a  penalty  for  unjust  discrimination  in  charges  by  a  railroad  com- 
pany.2c  In  a  suit  for  damages  for  violation  of  the  rule  of  a  railroad  commis- 
sion prohibiting  unjust  discrimination  in  transportation  of  freight,  exemplary 
damages  may  be  recovered  if  it  appears  that  the  conduct  of  the  carrier  amounted 
to  a  willful  violation  of  law.-' 

§  179.  Limitation  of  Actions. — Actions  for  damages  for  violations  of 
statutory  and  commission  regulations  of  charges  and  discriminations  must  be 
brought'  within  tlie  time  limited  by  statute. ^'^ 

ao-ainst    a    railroad,    under    the     Missouri  W.   431,    reversed.      Houston,   etc..   R.    Co. 

stiitute     Rev.    St.    1899,   §   1136,   for   unrea-  v.   Campbell,   91  Tex.   551,   45   S.   W.   2,   43 

sonable   charges,   the   plaintiff  must   show  L.    R.    A.    225,    citing    Houston,    etc.,    R. 

that    the    charges     were    more     than    the  Co.  v.   Hill,  70  Tex.  51,  7   S.   W.  659. 
rates    fixed    by   the    carrier    and    approved  24.  How  injury  suffered  is  to  be  meas- 

by  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  ured. — Hoover    r.    Pennsylvania     R.     Co.. 

such    a    showing   is    not    necessary    in    an  156  Pa.  220,  27  Atl.  282,  30  Am.   St.   Rep. 

action   under   §§    1133     and   1134   for    dis-  43,  22  L.   R.  A.  263,  construing  Act  June 

crimination    between     localities,     and    for  4,   1883.  _ 

charging  a  higher  rate  for  a  shorter  than  25.    What     may    be     considered     m    de- 

for   a    longer   haul.      Cohn    v.    St.     Louis,  termining    measure    of    damages. — Minds 

etc,   R    Co.,   181    Mo.   30,   79   S.   VV.   961.  V.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    228    Pa.    575,    77 

Liability    of    express     company     under  Atl.    909    (action    brought    under    Act    of 

Mississippi   statute. — Under  the  Mississippi  June   4,   1883,   P.   L.   72). 
statute,  Ann.  Code  1892,  §§  4288,  4291,  an  26.    Interest   not   recoverable    on    treble 

express    company,    discriminating    out    of  damages  imposed  as  a  penalty.— Blair  r. 

distinct    purpose,    is    liable    to    the     party  Sioux,    etc..    R.    Co.,    109    Iowa   369,    80    N. 

discriminated   against  for  twice   the   dam-  W.   073. 

ages    sustained,    and    is     liable    in     actual  27.   When   exemplary   damages   may   be 

damages  to  one  discriminated  against  for  recovered. — Augusta      Brokerage      Co.    r. 

the    sum    he    has     paid    in    excess    of    the  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Ga.  48,  48  S.  E. 

rate  charged  others,  even   where  the   dis-  714. 

crimination   was   not   out   of  distinct   pur-  28.     Limitation    of   actions.— Under    the 

pose.     American   Exp.   Co.  z:   Crawley.   88  Florida  statute,   Gen.   St.   1906,  §  2910,  au- 

Miss.  525,  41   So.  261.  thorizing   suits   against   railroads   for   vio- 

22.  Damages  sustained  by  greater  lation  of  the  regulations  and  rates  of  the 
charge  for  short  than  for  long  haul. —  railroad  commissioners,  such  suits  to  be 
Hutchesoii  z\  Louisville,  etc.,  1^.  Co.,  108  brought  within  twelve  months  after  the 
Ky.  615,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  361,  57  S.  \V.  251.  alleged   injury,  the   time   thus   limited   is   a 

23.  Damages  where  benefit  of  sale  is  condition  precedent  to  the  suit  and  is  a 
lost  through  carriers  refusal  to  furnish  part  of  the  right  of  action  itself,  and  after 
cars.— Judgment    (Tex.    Civ.    App.)    40    S.        it    has   elapsed   the   right   of   action    is   ex- 


137 


CONTROL   AND   KIXULATION. 


180 


§  180.  Petition  or  Complaint.— The  pciiiion  or  complaint  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  resulting  from  violation  of  a  statutory  regulation 
must  conform  to  the  statute.  The  courts  have  in  several  cases  passed  upon  the 
sufficiency  of  such  petitions  or  complaints.-'-'  In  an  action  against  a  railroad 
comi)any  for  discrimination  in  freight  charges,  where  there  are  several  acts  of 
discrimination,  it  is  not  necessary  to  slate  eacli  as  a  separate  cause  of  action.^'' 
Where  in  a  suit  for  damages  for  violation  of  the  rule  of  a  railroad  commission 


tinguished.      La    Floridienne   v.    Seaboard, 
etc.,  Railway.  5(t  Fla.  l'.)6,  52  So.  298. 

The  Iowa  statute,  Laws  22d  Gen.  As- 
sem.,  c.  ~s,  §  11,  imposing  a  liability  to 
treble  damages  for  freight  overcharges 
by  railroads  above  the  established  max- 
imum rate,  making  it  a  misdemeanor  to 
so  overcharge,  and  giving  a  right  of  ac- 
tion to  the  person  injured  for  the  recov- 
ery of  such  damages  and  attorney's  fees 
on  first  making  fifteen  days'  written  de- 
mand, imposes  such  damages  as  a  pen- 
alty, and  not  as  compensation.  Hence 
the  action  is  governed  by  Code  187:3,  § 
2529,  subd.  1,  prescribing  a  two-year  lim- 
itation for  penal  actions.  Baker  Wire 
Co.  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  Iowa 
239,  7G  X.  W.  M'>. 

The  provision  of  the  Kentucky  statute, 
Ky    St.,   §    819,    that   all   prosecutions   and 
actions    '"under    this    law"    shall    be    com- 
menced   within    two    years    after    the    of- 
fense   shall    have   been   committed   or   the 
cause    of    action    shall    have    accrued,    ap- 
plies not  only  to  prosecutions  and  actions 
under    the    sections    immediately    preced- 
ing,   referring    to     extortion,     discrimina- 
tion, and  preferences,  but  to  an  action  un- 
der   the    section    immediately    following, 
relating    to     the     long     and     short     haul. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.     Walker,     110 
Ky.  961,  23   Ky.  L.  Rep.  453,  63   S.   W.  20. 
29.    Petition   held    sufficient. — In    an    ac- 
tion   against    a    railroad    company    for    the 
violation    of    the    Misstniri    statute.     Rev. 
St.     1899,    §    1133,     prohibiting     railroads 
from    giving   any   unreasonal)le   advantage 
to   any    locality,    or    sut)jecting   any    local- 
ity   to    unreasonable      disadvantage,      and 
§    1134,    prohibiting    them    from    charging 
higher    rates     for    a     shorter    than     for    a 
longer   haul,    a    petition    alleging   that    the 
defendant    has    charged     the    plaintiflfs     a 
higher    rate    for    shipping    freight    from    a 
certain    point    to     their     station    than,   its 
published   tariffs   from   the   same   point   in 
the  same  direction  to  stations  at  a  greater 
distance — specifying  the  difference  in   the 
charges,    and    the    amount    on    which    the 
excessive    freight    was   paid,    and    alleging 
that    merchants     doing     business    at     the 
other  points  were  given  an  undue  advan- 
tage  over  plaintiff's — sufficiently   states   in 
wdiat  way    they   were    injured   by   defend- 
ant's   acts.      Cohn    r.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    K. 
Co.,  181   Mo.  30.  79   S.   W.  961. 

Petitions  or  complaints  held  insuffi- 
cient.— .\.  petition  against  a  carrier  for 
trclile    damaaes    under    the    Iowa    statute. 


Code,  §§  2125,  2130,  forljidding  any  com- 
bination, contract  or  agreement  to  pre- 
vent the  carriage  of  freight  from  being 
continuous  from  place  of  shipment  to 
destination  and  authorizing  the  recovery 
of  treble  damages,  was  insufficient  to 
warrant  recovery,  where  it  failed  to  al- 
lege any  contract,  coml)ination,  or  agree- 
ment to  prevent  a  continuous  carriage 
from  the  point  of  shipment  to  destina- 
tion. Clark  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  130 
Iowa   254,    106   N.   W.   642. 

The  Iowa  Code,  §  2125,  requires  com- 
mon carriers  according  to  their  respec- 
tive powers,  to  afford  all  reasonable, 
proper  and  equal  facilities  for  the  inter- 
change of  traffic  between  their  respective 
lines  and  for  receiving,  forwarding,  and 
delivering  freight  to  and  from  their  sev- 
eral lines,  and  to  and  from  other  lines  and 
places  connected  therewith,  and  §  2130 
authorizes  a  recovery  of  treble  damages 
for  a  violation  of  §  2125.  Held,  that 
where  a  petition  against  a  carrier  failed 
to  allege  that  defendant  did  not  provide 
proper  facilities  for  the  interchange  of 
traffic  between  it  and  the  connecting 
carrier,  or  for  the  forw-arding  of  the 
freight  to  other  lines  and  places  con- 
nected therewith,  the  petition  did  not 
state  a  cause  of  action  for  treble  dam- 
ages, under  such  section.  Clark  f.  .\mer- 
ican  Exp.  Co.,  130  Iowa  254,  106  X.  W. 
642. 

A  complaint  against  a  railway'  com- 
pany alleging  that  it  refused  to  lease  its 
land  to  plaintiff  that  he  might  build 
warehouses  thereon,  and  that  he  erected 
two  warehouses  adjacent  to  defendant's 
side  track  and  partly  on  its  land,  but 
was  ordered  to  remove  the  same,  that 
afterwards  the  defendant  refused  to  con- 
struct a  side  track  to  these  buildings,  but 
riot  alleging  or  showing  by  facts  that 
unequal  or  unreasonable  preferences  or 
advantages  were  made  discriminating 
against  plaintiff,  or  that  the  defendant 
could  have  constructed  the  required  side 
track  on  its  own  land  so  as  to  reach  the 
warehouses,  did  not  state  a  cause  of  ac- 
tion for  unjust  discrimination  under  the 
Minnesota  statute.  Gen.  Laws  1887.  c. 
10.  §  2.  Myers  z:  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
50    Minn.    371,    52    N.    W.    962. 

30.  Not  necessary  to  state  each  dis- 
crimination as  a  separate  cause  of  action. 
—Cohn  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  181  Mo. 
30,  79  S.  W.  961.  so  holding  in  an  action 
under   Rev.   St.   1899.   §§    1133,   1134. 


§§  180-183 


CARRIERS. 


138 


prohibiting  unjust  discrimination  in  transportation  of  freight,  exemplary  dam- 
ages may  be  recovered  if  it  appears  that  the  conduct  of  the  carrier  amounted 
to  a  willful  violation  of  the  law,  allegations  of  the  petition  which  would  throw- 
light  on  the  question  as  to  whether  the  conduct  of  the  carrier  was  willful  will 
not  be  stricken  out  as  irrelevant. ^^ 

§§  181-275.  Penalties  for  Violations  of  Regulations— §  181.  In 
General. — The  state  has  power  to  impose  penalties  upon  carriers  for  failure 
to  discharge  public  duties,  provided  they  are  not  so  enormous  that  the  carier  is 
prevented  from  resorting  to  the  courts  to  determine  the  validity  of  the  statute.-^ - 
Power  is  sometimes  conferred  upon  a  railroad  commission  to  enforce  the  pen- 
alty incurred  for  an  injury  inflicted  by  a  carrier  in  violating  any  rule  or  regula- 
tion of  the  commission.-^^  Statutes  which  impose  penalties  upon  carriers  for 
neglect  of  duty  are  to  be  strictly  construed ;  and  those  who  seek  to  recover  such 
penalties  must  bring  their  cases  clearly  within  the  terms  of  the  statute.-'-* 

§§  182-196.  Overcharge  and  Discrimination— §  182.  Power  to  Im- 
pose Penalty. — I'iie  legislature  has  the  right  to  fix  a  money  penalty  upon  a 
railroad  company  for  charging  more  than  the  fixed  maximum  rates  of  toll  for 
carriage  of  freight  and  passengers.-*^ 

§  183.  Construction  of  Statutes  Imposing  Penalties. — A  statute  impos- 
ing- a  penalty  for  an  overcharge  or  discrimination  in  rates,  like  all  penal  statutes, 
must  be  strictlv  construed. ^'^ 


31.  Allegations  held  not  irrelevant. — 
Augusta  Brokerage  Co.  v.  Central,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   121   Ga.  48,  48   S.   E.  714. 

32.  Power  of  state  to  impose  penalties. 
■ — Garrison  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  1.50  X.  C. 
57.-J.   <J4    S.    E.    .578. 

Statute  not  unconstitutional  on  ground 
that  penalties  are  excessive. — A  state 
statute,  which  confers  on  a  railroad  com- 
mission the  power  to  require  railroads  to 
afford  the  usual  and  like  customary  fa- 
cilities for  interchange  of  freight  to  pa- 
trons of  each  and  all  routes  or  lines  alike, 
and  to  make  just  and  reasonable  rules 
for  preventing  unjust  discriminations,  and 
provides  for  notice  and  an  opportunity 
of  a  hearing  of  the  railroad  company  to 
be  affected  by  any  order  of  the  commis- 
sion, and  for  a  violation  of  an  order  of 
the  commission  imposes  a  penalty  on  the 
corporation  in  a  sum  not  to  exceed  $5,000, 
in  the  discretion  of  the  trial  judge,  and 
also  subjects  any  person  violating  or 
abetting  the  violation  of  the  order  to 
punishment  for  a  misdemeanor,  does  not 
offend  the  constitutional  guaranties  of 
due  process  of  law  and  the  equal  protec- 
tion of  the  laws,  in  that  the  railroad  to 
be  affected  by  the  order  is  prevented 
from  testing  the  validity  of  the  statute 
■or  the  order  of  the  railroad  commission 
because  of  excessive  penalties.  Wadlcy, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  State,  137  Ga.  497,  7,'i  S. 
E.   741. 

33.  Power  of  railroad  commission  to 
enforce  penalty. — The  authority  given 
the  railroad  commissioners  by  the  Flor- 
ida statute.  Gen.  St.  1906,  §  2910,  as 
amended  by  Acts  1907,  p.  108,  c.  5624,  ex- 
tends only  to  injuries  inflicted  by  a  car- 
rier  in  violation   of  a   rule,   rate,   or   regu- 


lation directly  affecting  its  duties  as  a 
common  carrier.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fla.  525,  47  So. 
870. 

Mere  liabilities  for  money  payments, 
imposed  by  a  rule  of  the  railroad  com- 
missioners upon  a  carrier  in  favor  of  a 
shipper  as  cumulative  remedies  for 
breaches  of  duties,  are  not  within  the 
statute.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,   R.   Co..  56   Fla.   525,   47   So.   870. 

34.  Penal  statutes  strictly  construed. — 
Schloss  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Tex. 
601,  22  S.  W.   1014. 

35.  Power  of  legislature  to  impose 
penalty  for  overcharge. — State  r.  Winona, 
etc.,    R.   C<J.,    19    Minn.    4:;4    (Gil.   .''^77). 

36.  Statutes  imposing  penalties  strictly 
construed. — The  Missouri  statute  requir- 
ing the  Board  of  Railroad  and  Warehouse 
Commissioners  to  investigate  the  reason- 
ableness of  rates  including  switching 
charges,  and  imposing  penalties  for  dis- 
obedience of  its  orders,  is  penal,  and 
must  be  strictly  construed.  Darlington 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
(Mo.),  ]47   S.  W.  1052. 

The  statutory  remedy  for  overcharge 
in  freight  afforded  by  the  Texas  statute, 
liev.  St.,  art.  4258,  is  not  exclusive,  but 
cumulative,  and  he  who  would  recover 
the  penalty  provided  by  it  must  bring 
jiimself  clearly  within  its  terms.  Murray 
&  Bro.  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  407, 
51  .\m.  Rep.  650. 

In  Hincs  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
95  N.  C.  434,  59  Am.  Rep.  250,  a  statute 
imposing  penalties  on  railroad  companies 
for  discriminations  in  freight  rates  was 
held  penal,  and  was  accordingly  construed 
with   the   utmost   strictness. 


139 


CONTROL  AND   KKGUI.ATION . 


§§    184-185 


§  184.  Repeal  of  Statutes  Imposing  Penalties.— A  statute  imposing  a 
penalty  for  an  unreasonable  discrimination,  payable  to  the  person  injured,  is 
not  repealed  by  a  subsefjuent  statute  which  has  no  reference  to  parties  discrim- 
inated against,  but  provides  in  the  interest  of  the  general  public  for  proceedmgs 
at  the  instance  of  the  commonwealth,  for  attacking  or  restraining  violations  of 
law  in  res])ect  to  discriminations,  and  making  such  a  violation  a  penal  offense, 
punishable  bv  hnc.'''  Xor  is  a  statute  prescribing  a  jjenalty  for  an  overcharge 
or  unjust  discrimination,  to  be  recovered  by  the  party  aggrieved,  repealed  by  a 
subsequent  statute  imposing  a  penalty  for  such  an  overcharge  or  discrimination, 
to  be  recovered  bv  the  state,  and  providing  for  the  recovery  of  double  damages 
by  the  parlv  aggrieved,  where  such  statute  provides  that  the  remedies  given 
shall  be  regarded  as  cumulative,  and  that  the  act  shall  not  be  construed  as  re- 
pealing any  statute  giving  such  remedies,  and  where  the  subject-matter  of  each 
statute  is  mcrclv  declaratory  of  the  common  law,  and  hence  not  repugnant.'^^ 

§   18  5.  Conditions  Precedent  to  Right  of  Action  for  Penalty.— Statutes 

imposing  penalties  fur  an  (jvcrchari^c  ur  discrimination  to  be  recovered  by  the  person 
aggrieved  sometimes  prescribe  certain  conditions  precedent  to^the  right  to  bring 
an  action  for  the  penalty,  as  that  the  bringing  of  the  action  shall  be  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  railroad  commission,-'  or  that  no  liability  can  be  incurred  for 
unreasonable  or  extortionate  charges  until  a  schedule  of  maximum  rates  ha^ 
been  made  by  the  railroad  commission,-*"  or  requiring  notice  to  the  carrier  of 
an  overcharge  and  its  refusal  to  refund,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  rig^it 
of  action."-'^ 


37.  Repeal  of  statutes  imposing  penal- 
ties.— Jackson  r.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
22S  Pa.  of)6,  77  All.  905,  and  Minds  r. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  228  Pa.  575,  77  Atl. 
909,  holding  that  the  act  of  June  4.  1883 
(P.  L.  7)  was  not  repealed  by  the  Act  of 
Alay  31,  1907  (P.  L.  352),  nor  by  the  Act 
of  May  31,  1907   (P.  L.  354). 

38.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McElroy,  92 
Ark.  600,  123  S.  W.  771,  holding  that 
Acts  of  1887,  p.  227,  was  not  repealed  by 
Acts  1899,  p.  86,  §  9  (Kirby's  Dig.,  § 
6802);  Roberts  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
95  Ark.  249,  130  S.  W.  531,  holding  the 
Act  of  March  24,  1887  (Kirby's  Dig.,  §§ 
6722.  6725)  was  not  repealed  by  the  Act 
of  March   11,  1S99   (Acts  ]S!)9.  p.  82). 

39.  Right  of  action — Discretion  of  rail- 
road commission. — Tlic  Wisconsin  stat- 
ute.   Acts    ISTC),    c.    .")7,    §    7.   provides    that 

■  all  railroad  companies  violating  tlie  pro- 
visions of  the  act  regulating  charges  shall 
forfeit  to  the  persons  paying  the  exces- 
sive rates  three  times  the  actual  daiu- 
ages  sustained,  and  that  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  railroad  commissioners  to  in- 
vestigate complaints  in  regard  to  such 
violation,  and,  on  finding  the  complaint 
well-founded,  to  report  the  facts  to  the 
attorney  general,  who  shall  thereupon 
prosecute  the  complaint,  at  the  expense 
of  the  state,  for  the  lienefit  of  the  party 
aggrieved.  Held,  that  there  was  no  ab- 
solute right  in  the  party  aggrieved  to 
bring  an  action  for  three  times  the  ex- 
cess, but  that  tlie  l)ringing  of  the  action 
was  in  the  discretion  of  the  commission- 
ers. Smith  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43 
Wis.   686. 


40.  No  liability  until  maxim  rates  have 
been  fixed  by  railroad  commission. — Un- 
der tlie  Illinois  statute.  Act  May  2,  1873, 
imposing  a  penalty  on  railroad  com- 
panies for  making  any  unjust  discrimi- 
nation in  freight  rates,  and  providing 
that  the  railroad  and  warehouse  com- 
missioners shall  fix  a  schedule  of  reason- 
able maximum  rates,  which  shall  be 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  reasonable- 
ness of  the  rates  therein  fixed,  no  liability 
can  be  incurred  for  unreasonable  or  ex- 
tortionate charges  until  such  schedules 
are  made  by  the  commissioners.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,   R.  Co.   :•.   People.   77   111.  443. 

41.  When  notice  and  refusal  to  refund 
is  required. — Under  the  Texas  statute. 
Rev.  St.,  arts.  4257,  4258,  and  the  acts  of 
April  19,  1879,  and  April  10,  1883,  amend- 
atory thereof,  limiting  freight  rates  to  be 
charged  by  railroads  to  fifty  cents  per 
one  luindred  pounds  per  one  hundred 
miles,  and  giving  the  right  *to  recover  a 
penalty  of  $500  from  railroad  companies 
for  willful  discrimination  in  freight 
charges  after  refusal  for  twenty  days, 
upon  notice,  to  refund  the  overcharge,  a 
notice  and  refusal  to  refund  are  only  re- 
quired where  a  charge  exceeding  the 
fifty  cent  rate  is  made.  W'oodhouse  t: 
Rio  Grande   R.  Co.,  67  Tex.  416.  3  S.  \V. 

Notice  should  so  identify  transaction 
that  it  can  be  investigated. — The  purpose 
of  a  statute  requiring  notice  of  an  over- 
charge and  giving  time  for  the  carrier  to 
refund  is  to  enable  the  carrier  to  ascer- 
tain whether  an  overcharge  has  been 
made,  and  to  enalile   it   to  do  so   the   no- 


§§  186-187 


CARRIERS. 


140 


§  186,  Who  May  Recover  Penalty. — L"iuler  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty 
on  a  carrier  for  demanding  greater  compensation  than  is  allowed  by  law  to  be 
recovered  in  a  suit  by  the  "party  aggrieved,"  a  passenger  whose  father  pur- 
chased a  ticket  for  her  use,  and  who  used  it  on  defendant's  passenger  train, 
was  held  to  be  a  "party  aggrieved"  and  entitled  to  maintain  the  action  for  the 
penalty.-*-  Under  such  a  statute  a  passenger,  who  was  wrongfully  required  to 
pay  to  the  auditor  on  defendant's  train  a  fare  in  addition  to  her  ticket,  can,  al- 
though she  was  not  the  purchaser  of  the  ticket,  maintain  an  action  for  the  pen- 
alty."*-^  The  voluntary  payment  by  a  passenger  of  an  unlawful  overcharge  does 
not  preclude  him  from  recovering  the  statutory  i^enalty.'*^  And  where  a  stat- 
ute imposing  a  penalty  for  charging  excessive  freight  rates,  to  be  recovered  by 
the  injured  party,  contains  no  exception  denying  the  right  of  action  to  a  person 
voluntarily  paying  the  charges,  such  right  of  action  is  not  affected  by  the  fact 
that  the  excessive  charges  may  have  been  paid  without  protest,  and  with  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts.-*-^  The  fact  that  a  passenger  got  on  a  train  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  subjecting  the  railroad  company  to  the  penalty  for  overcharge  does 
not  impair  his  right  to  recover  such  penalty.-^''  A  recovery  in  such  case  is  not 
defeated  by  the  fact  that  the  overcharge  was  ])aid  by  the  passenger  under  a 
champertous  agreement  with  an  attorney  to  induce  the  company  to  accept  the 
overcharge  and  then  recover  the  penalty.-*'  \\'here  the  agent  of  a  railway  com- 
pany collects  from  himself,  as  shipper  of  goods,  an  illegal  freight  charge,  and 
pays  the  same  over  to  the  company,  he  is  pari  delicto  with  the  company,  and 
can  not  recover  from  it  the  penalty  provided  for  such  illegal  charge.^"'^ 

§  187.  For  "What  Acts  Penalty  Is  Imposed. — For  what  acts  a  carrier  is 
liable  under  a  statute  or  commission  order  imposing  a  ])enalty  for  an  over- 
charge or  discrimination,  and  whether  a  liability  exists  in  a  particular  case,  is 
to  be  determined  by  a  proper  construction  of  the  terms  of  the  statute  or  order 
as  applied  to  the  facts  in  evidence.  Some  of  the  peculiar  provisions  of  such 
statutes  or  orders  have  received  judicial  interpretation. -^'^ 


tice  should  so  identify  the  transaction 
that  it  can  be  investigated.  Sabine,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Cruse,  83  Tex.  460,  18  S.  W. 
7.55.  See,  also,  Woodhouse  v.  Rio  Grande 
R.  Co..  67  Tex.  416,  3  S.  W.  323. 

Notice  to  agent. — Under  the  Texas  stat- 
ute. Sayles'  Civ.  St.,  art.  4258b,  §  10,  pro- 
viding that  penalties  for  overcharges  on 
freight  shall  not  be  recoverable  unless 
the  party  aggrieved  shall  give  notice 
thereof  in  writing  to  the  railway  com- 
pany or  to  the  agent  demanding  or  re- 
ceiving the  same,  if  it  is  claimed  that  no- 
tice was  given  to  an  agent  who  is  not  to 
be  deemed  the*  agent  of  the  railway  com- 
pany generally,  it  should  be  shown  that 
the  notice  was  given  to  the  agent  who 
demanded  or  received  the  overcharge,  as 
the  statute  requires  that  notice  be  given 
to  some  officer  of  the  company  clothed 
with  general  powers.  Sabine,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Cruse,  83  Tex.  460,  18  S.  W.  755. 

Under  this  statute  it  was  held  that  a 
notice  which  was  delivered  to  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  local  agent  who  received 
the  overcharge,  and  which  failed  to  give 
data  from  which  the  record  of  the  ship- 
ment could  be  found  on  the  company's 
books,  was  insufficient.  Sabine,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Cruse.  83  Tex.  460,  18  S.  W.  755. 

42.  Who  entitled  to  recover  under  stat- 


ute authorizing  suit  by  party  aggrieved, — 

St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Freeman,  95 
Ark.  218,  128  S.  W.  1024,  construing  Kir- 
by's  Dig.,  §  6620. 

43.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frisby,  95 
Ark.  281,  129  S.  W.  291,  construing  Kir- 
by's  DiK.,  §  0620. 

44.  Penalty  recoverable  though  pay- 
ment of  overcharge  was  voluntary. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gill,  54  Ark.  101,  15 
S.  W.  18,  11  L.  R.  A.  452. 

45.  Streeter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 
Wis.  294,  construing  Laws  1874,  c.  273. 
But  see  Stallings  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  92 
S.   C.  290,  75   S.   E.   449. 

46.  Penalty  recoverable  though  pas- 
sengers sole  purpose  was  to  subject  car- 
rier thereto. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Gill,  54  Ark.  101,  15  S.  W.  18,  11  L.  R.  A. 
452;  Fisher  r.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  46 
N.    Y.    644. 

47.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  r.  Smith,  60 
.■\rk.  221,  29   S.    W.   752. 

48.  Agent  of  carrier  collecting  from 
himself,  as  shipper,  illegal  charge. — 
Stecvcr  7'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa 
371,   17    X.   \V.   595. 

49.  Switching  charges. — A  car  of  wheat 
l)illed  to  an  elevator  company  over  de- 
fendant railway  was  set  by  its  employees 
on     tile    connecting    track    between     such 


141 


CONTROL    AND    RIvGLI.ATIOX. 


§  187 


Maximum  Rate  Not  Applicable  to  Transshipment,  Elevator  and  De- 
murrage Charges. — A  rate  charge  exceeding  the  maximum  allowed  by  statute 
for  through  transmission  over  defendant  road  and  a  connecting  road,  pursuant 
to  an  agreement  therewith,  will  not  be  held  to  be  in  excess  if  within  the  maxi 


line  and  thai  of  another  road,  and  I)}-  the 
latter  delivered  over  its  switching  tracks 
to  the  elevator  company;  the  former  c(jm- 
pany  having  no  authority  to  use  the 
lines  of  the  latter.  Held,  that  the  former 
company  in  collecting  from  the  shipper 
$;i  switcliing  charges  made  by  the  latter 
company  did  not  sul)jcct  itself  to  a  pen- 
alty under  rule  G  of  order  forty-five  of 
the  corporation  commission  of  Okla- 
homa, providing  that,  wliere  a  mill  is  lo- 
cated on  a  different  line,  a  switching 
charge  not  exceeding  $1  each  way  shall 
be  charged.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State.  :2(i Okla.    1  (W;,  10'.)   Tac.  21S!. 

Collection  from  consignee  of  more 
than  bill  of  lading  specifies.— The  Ar- 
kansas statute,  Sand.  <S:  H.  Dig.,  §  G254, 
making  it  unlawful  for  a  railroad  to  col- 
lect from  a  consignee  of  freight  more 
for  transportation  "than  is  specified  in 
the  bill  of  lading,"  and  declaring  a  pen- 
alty for  refusal  to  deliver  on  tender  of 
the  amount  specified,  does  not  apply 
where  goods  were  shipped  from  L.,  con- 
signed to  G.  at  H.,  via  R.,  but  the  bill 
of  lading  only  stated  the  charges  from 
L.  to  R.,  and  the  connecting  line  at  R., 
which  was  not  a  party  to  the  l)ill  of  lad- 
ing, accepted  the  shipment  from  the  origi- 
nal carrier,  and  paid  it  the  amount  of 
charges  claimed  l)y  it,  without  knowing 
that  they  were  more  than  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing specified,  and  then  refused  to  deliver 
to  consignee,  except  on  payment  of  its 
charges  and  those  it  had  paid  the  original 
carrier.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gibson, 
68  Ark.  34,  56  S.  W.  268. 

Under  such  a  statute  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  carrier,  where  the  weight  of  the 
goods  is  not  specified  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, to  w^cigh  them  within  a  reasonable 
time,  and  ascertain  the  charges,  according 
to  the  rates  specified  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing; and  if  it  fail  to  do  so,  and  refuse  to 
deliver  the  goods,  it  is  liable  to  the  pen- 
alty. Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Hanni- 
ford,  49  Ark.  291,  :,  S.  W.  294. 

Contract  of  affreightment — Method  of 
loading. — A  written  contract  of  atircight- 
ment  stipulated  that,  if  the  goods  were 
loaded  in  a  bo.x  car,  the  rate  should  l)e 
so  much  per  hundred  pounds  actual 
weight,  and,  if  loaded  on  a  flat  car,  so 
much  per  hundred  pounds  per  10,000 
pounds.  The  actual  weight  of  the  con- 
signment was  1,550  pounds,  and  the  car- 
rier loaded  a  part  in  a  box  car  and  part 
on  a  flat  car,  in  a  way  to  make  the 
freight  more  than  it  would  have  been  if 
the  whole  consignment  had  been  loaded 
on  either  car.  Held,  that  this  was  an 
overcharge,  and  that  plaintiff,  after  pay- 
ing    the     wliole     charge     and     complying 


with  the  Georgia  statutes.  Civ.  Code,  § 
2;il6,  was  entitled  to  recover  the  over- 
charge and  the  penalty  prescribed  by  said 
act.  Stewart  :•.  Comer,  100  Ga.  754,  2S  S. 
I'".   401,  02  .\m.   St.   Rep.  ;i5;j. 

Overcharge  by  conductor  not  ratified 
by  company. — The  West  Virginia  statute, 
Code  J>i9],  c.  54,  p.  559,  §  82c,  cl.  5,  im- 
posing a  penalty  of  $500  upon  railroads 
for  overcharge  in  freight  or  passenger 
rates,  does  not  apply  to  an  overcharge 
by  a  conductor  in  violation  of  the  com- 
pany's rates  and  rules,  which  the  com- 
pany is  not  shown  to  have  ratified.  Hall 
f.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  36,  28 
S.  E.  754,  41  L.  R.  A.  669,  67  Am.  St.  Rep. 
757. 

Transportation  of  freight  to  other 
states. — The  North  Carolina  statute. 
Code,  §  1966,  imposing  a  penalty  on  com- 
panies operating  in  the  state,  for  dis- 
crimination in  freight  charges,  does  not 
apply  to  the  transportation  of  freight  to 
otlier  states.  .  McLean  v.  Charlotte,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  96  N.  C.   1,  4  S.  E.  769. 

Higher  rate  for  carrying  freight  in  one 
direction  than  in  the  opposite. — A  car- 
rier, cliarging  a  higlier  rate  for  carrying 
freight  in  one  direction  than  it  does  for 
carrying  freight  of  the  same  class  in  the 
opposite  direction,  does  not  as  a  matter 
of  law  make  an  overcharge,  within  the 
North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal  1905,  §§ 
2642-2644,  imposing  a  penalty  on  a  rail- 
road charging  more  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  property  than  is  allowed  by  law, 
etc.  Scull  &  Co.  V.  .Xtlantic.  etc.,  K.  Co., 
144  N.  C.  180,  56  S.  E.  S76. 

Rule  as  to  short  and  long  haul  not  ap- 
plicable to  transportation  over  other 
roads. — Tlic  Massachusetts  statute,  St. 
1874,  c.  372,  §  140,  prohibiting  any  rail- 
road corporation  from  charging  or  re- 
ceiving more  for  transporting  freight  "to 
any  station  on  its  road"  than  for  trans- 
porting "the  like  class  and  quantity  of 
freight  from  the  same  original  point  of 
departure  to  a  station  at  a  greater  dis- 
tance on  its  road  in  tlie  same  direction," 
applies  to  transportation  over  its  own 
road,  and  not  over  other  railroads,  for 
which  it  charges  and  receives  nothing  ex- 
cept as  collecting  agent  of  other  corpora- 
tions. Commonwealth  v.  Worcester, 
etc..   R.  Co..  124   Mass.  561. 

Transportation  without  discrimination 
of  goods  destined  to  point  on  connecting 
line. — .\  sliipper  deiiKUuled  tliat  a  ship- 
ment sliould  be  transported  by  tlie  initial 
carrier  to  a  designated  point,  and  there 
delivered  to  a  connecting  carrier  for 
transportation  to  a  point  on  its  line. 
The  initial  carrier  refused,  and  the  writ- 
ten   contract    of    shipment    signed    by    the 


187 


CARRIERS. 


1^2 


mum,  after  deducting  transshipiuent.  elevator,  and  demurrage  charges  necessi- 
tated bv  the  existence  of  the  two  roads.'"' 

Switching  Charges  in  Addition  to  Lawful  Rate  for  Carriage.— W  here 
a  railroad  company  charges  for  the  carriage  of  freight,  in  addition  to  the  law- 
ful rate  for  carriage  between  the  place  of  shipment  and  the  point  of  destination, 
switching  charges  it  has  been  compelled  to  pay  for  transporting  the  freight  from 
another  railroad  line  to  its  own  line  at  the  place  of  shipment,  it  is  not  liable 
under  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty  for  an  overcharge. ^'^ 

Penalties  for  Unjust  or  Willful  Acts. — L'nder  the  statutes  in  some  states 
imposing  penalties  on  carriers  for  discrimination  it  is  only  an  unjust^-  or  a 
willful  '^^  discrimination  that  will  subject  the  carrier  to  the  penalty.  The  word 
"willfully;"  as  used  iit  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty  on  railroad  companies  for 
willfully' neglecting  to  post  rates  of  fare  and  freight,  and  for  overcharging,  does 
not  imply  malice,  so  that,  if  it  be  shown  that  tlie  company  designedly  omitted 
to  complv  with  the  act.  its  liability  for  the  penalty  is  fixed. ^-^ 

Preference  in  Furnishing  Cars  to  Owners  of  Spur  Tracks. — Where  all 
shippers  in  the  same  situation  at  a  given  point  on  a  railroad  are  treated  alike 
in  the  matter  of  furnishing  coal  cars,  the  mere  fact  that  shippers  who  own  spur 
tracks  are  furnished  cars  in  preference  to  those  who  do  not  own  tracks,  but 
require  the  use  of  the  railroad's  side  tracks,  which  are  needed  by  the  railroad 
to  conduct  its  general  business  and  serve  the  public  does  not  constitute  a  viola- 
tion of  a  statute  providing  a  penalty  for  unlawful  discrimination. ^'^ 

Additional  Charge  by  Train  Auditor. — Although    no    contention  is  made, 


shipper  bound  the  initial  carrier  to  carry 
the  property  to  another  point  and  there 
deliver  it  to  another  connecting  carrier 
for  transportation  to  the  point  of  desti- 
nation. The  shipper  signed  the  contract 
without  reading  it.  Held,  that  the  initial 
carrier  was  not  liable  to  the  penalty  im- 
posed by  the  Texas  statute,  Rev.  St.  1895. 
art.  4574,  subd.  2,  making  a  railroad  com- 
pany failing  to  transport  and  deliver 
without  discrimination  goods  destined  to 
any  point  on  a  connecting  line  guilty  of 
unjust  discrimination.  Judgment  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  374,  modified.  San 
Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Stribiing.  99  Tex. 
319,  89   S.   W.   963. 

But  such  statute  renders  a  railway  com- 
pany liable  for  the  penalty  imposed, 
where  it  fails  to  comply  with  a  contract 
of  shipment  binding  it  to  transport  goods 
to  a  designated  station,  and  which  states 
the  ultimate  destination  as  a  station  on 
a  connecting  carrier's  line,  but  carries  the 
shipment  beyond  the  designated  station 
and  there  delivers  it  to  another  connect- 
ing-carrier. Judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
86  S.  \V.  374,  modified.  San  Antonio. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Striblinrr,  99  Tex.  319,  89  S. 
W.  963. 

Injury  to  particular  person  need  not  be 
shown. — In  suits  by  the  state  against 
railroad  companies  for  unjust  discrimina- 
tion in  rates,  under  the  Illinois  statute 
approved  May  2,  1873,  no  injury  to  any 
particular  person  need  be  shown,  as  in 
actions  by  private  individuals  under  such 
law.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  People,  121 
111.  304,  12   N.   E.  670. 

50.    Maximum    rate    not     applicable    to 


transshipment,  elevator  and  demurrage 
charges. — Owen  z'.  Si.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
83   Mo.  4.J4. 

51.  Switching  charges  in  addition  to 
lawful  rate  for  carriage. — Gilliland  v.  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.,  81  Miss.  41,  32  So.  916, 
construing   Code,    §§    4287,   4288. 

52.  Only  unjust  discrimination  will  sub- 
ject carrier  to  penalty. — Under  the  Texas 
statute  Rev.  St.,  art.  4257,  as  amended  by 
Act  April  19,  1879,  and  the  Act  of  April 
10,  1883,  it  is  only  in  cases  of  unjust  dis- 
crimination by  railroad  companies  that 
the  penalty  against  them  for  such  dis- 
crimination can  be  enforced.  Woodhouse 
v.  Rio  Grande  R.  Co.,  67  1  ex.  416,  3  S.  W. 
323. 

53.  Only  willful  discrimination  will  sub- 
ject carrier  to  penalty. — To  subject  a  lail- 
waj'  company  to  penalty  for  unjust  dis- 
crimination in  rates,  under  the  Texas 
statute,  the  discrimination  must  be  "will- 
fully" made.  Woodhouse  v.  Rio  Grande 
R.    Co.,    67    Tex.    416,    419,    3    S.    W.    323. 

What  is  a  willful  act  of  discrimination. 
— A  "willful"  act  of  discrimination  in 
freight  charges  is  an  act  done,  "know- 
ingly or  intentionally,  and  without  rea- 
sonable ground  for  believing  it  to  be 
lawful."  Woodhouse  v.  Rio  Grande  R. 
Co.,    67    Tex.    416,    419,    3    S.    W.    323. 

54.  Word  "willfully"  does  not  imply 
malice. — Fuller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31 
Iowa  187,  construing  Acts  1862,  c.  169, 
§    2. 

55.  Preference  in  furnishmg  cars  to 
owners  of  spur  tracks. — Choctaw,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  State,  73  Ark.  373,  84  S.  W.  502, 
92  S.  W.  26,  construing  Act  of  March  11, 
1899    (Acts   1899,  p.  82,  c.  53). 


143 


CONTROL  AND  REGULATION. 


§§  187-191 


in  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  for  the  penalty  for  overcharge  of  fare, 
of  such  overcharge  by  the  ticket  agent,  yet,  if  the  train  auditor  wrongfully  made 
an  additional  charge.' the  two  acts  together  may  he  considered  as  the  act  of  one, 
for  the  ])ur])Ose  of  holding  the  railroad  liable. •''•" 

Charges  Collected  upon  Goods  Not  Delivered.— Charges  collected  upon 
"d  portion  of  a  shipment  which  was  not  delivered  is  an  overcharge  within  a  stat- 
ute, making  railroad  companies  liable  to  a  penalty  for  failure  to  refund  an  over- 
charge of  freight  within  a  specified  time.'"'" 

§  188.  Unit  of  Measurement  in  Determining  What  Is  an  Overcharge. 
— Under  a  statute  relating  to  penalties  for  charging  illegal  fares  on  railroads, 
which  fixes  the  rate  wliich  a  company  may  receive  for  the  transportation  of 
passengers  at  not  exceeding  three  cents  a  mile  for  a  distance  of  more  than  eight 
miles,  the  unit  of  measurement  is  one  mile,  and  the  limit  of  three  cents  applies 
first  to  nine  miles,  then  to  ten,  and  so  on,  and  for  any  distances  less  than  nine 
miles  it  does  not  apply.^® 

§   189.  Number  of  Penalties   Recoverable.— In  a  suit  against  a  carrier 

under  a  statute  imposing  a  penally  for  overcharging  a  passenger,  whether  the 
carrier  is  liable  to  but  one  penalty,  or  to  more  than  one,  where  there  has  been 
more  than  one  case  of  overcharge,  is  to  be  determined  by  a  construction  of  the 
terms  of  the  statute  imposing  the  penalty  and  the  facts  in  the  particular  case.'^^ 

§  190.  Amount  of  Penalty. — Tn  some  states  the  imposition  of  excessive 
penalties  is  expressly  forbidden  by  the  constitution.^"'  Before  judgment,  tlie 
penalty  imposed  upon  a  railroad  company  by  statute,  for  overcharges  for_  car- 
rying freight  or  passengers,  does  not  bear  interest,  if  the  statute  does  not  itself 
allow  it,  and  th.e  liability  is  not  of  that  character  which  entitles  it  to  draw  in- 
terest under  the  general  statutes  relating  to  interest.'''^ 

§   191.  What  Questions  May  Be  Raised  in  Action  for  Penalty.— Where 

the  le-M'slature  estalili<lies  a  iiassenger  rate  of  so  nnich  ]>er  mile,  and  prescribes 


56.  Additional   charge  by   train  auditor. 

—St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Frisby,  95  Ark. 
281,    12'.t    S.    W.    2(1 1. 

57.  Charges  collected  upon  goods  not 
delivered. — Cottrell  ?■.  Carolina,  etc.,  R. 
Co,,  141  N.  C,  383.  54  S,  E.  288,  constru- 
ing-  Revisal    1905,   §§   2642.  2644. 

58.  Unit  of  measurement  in  determining 
what  is  an  overcharge. — Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Wells,  <>5  O.  St.  313,  62  N.  K. 
332,  58  L.  R.  A.  651.  construing  Rev.  St. 
3376. 

59.  Number  of  penalties  recoverable. — 
A  carrier  charging  e.xcessive  fare  on  the 
sale  of  two  tickets  to  a  husband  for  him- 
self and  wife  is  subject  to  but  one  pen- 
alty under  the  .\rkansas  statute.  Kirby's 
Dig.,  §  6620.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Young,  102  Ark.  599,  145  S.  W.  203. 

Under  the  New  York  statute.  Laws 
1857,  p.  432,  §  1,  one  who.  at  different 
times,  was  charged  excessive  fare,  can  re- 
cover but  one  penalty  for  all  unlawful 
charges  prior  to  the  commencement  of 
the  action,  Fisher  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.   Co..   46   N.   Y.   644. 

The  Ohio  law  of  1873  gave  a  right  of 
recoverv  for  each  case  of  overcharge. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  33  O. 
St.  384,  31  Am.  Rep.  543,  distingfuishing 
46    N.    Y.    644. 


60.  Penalties  held  not  excessive. — The 
penalties  established  by  the  Iowa  "joint 
rate  act,"  being  not  less  than  $1,000,  nor 
more  than  $5,000,  for  the  first  offense, 
charging  more  than  the  rate  fixed  by  the 
commissioners,  and  not  less  than  $5,000 
nor  more  than  $10,000  for  every  subse- 
quent offense,  are  not  excessive,  within 
Const.,  art.  1,  §  17,  forbidding  the  im- 
position of  such  penalties.  Burlington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dev,  82  Iowa  312.  48  N.  W. 
98.  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  477,  12  L.  R.  A. 
436. 

Provision  in  Indiana  constitution  refers 
to  criminal  proceedings. — The  Indiana 
statute.  Acts  1901,  p.  149  (Burn's  Rev. 
St.  1901,  §  3312b,  et  seq.),  prohibiting  un- 
just discrimination  by  an  express  com- 
pany against  any  other  company  engaged 
in  the  same  business,  and  prescribing  a 
penalty  for  its  violation,  recoverable  by 
the  state,  is  not  repugnant  to  Const., 
art.  1.  §  16,  declaring  that  all  penalties 
shall  be  proportioned  to  the  nature  of  the 
offense,  as  the  provision  has  reference  to 
criminal  proceedings,  .\dams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
State,   161   Ind.  328,  67  N.   E.   1033. 

61.  Interest  not  allowed. — Iron  R.  Co. 
r.  Lawrence  Furnace  Co..  49  O.  St.  102. 
30   X.    E.    616. 


§§    191-194  CARRIERS.  144 

penalties  for  a  charge  in  excess  thereof,  to  he  recovered  of  the  carrier  hy  the 
passenger  excessively  charged,  the  question  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  rate 
so  fixed  by  the  legislature  may  be  raised  in  an  action  for  such  penalty. *^- 

§§  192-195.  Defenses— §  192.  Rates  Charged  No  Higher  than 
Those  Fixed  by  Railroad  Commission. — The  state  is  precluded  from  deny- 
ing that  the  traffic  rates  fixed  by  the  railroad  commission  are  reasonable,  and 
railroad  companies  can  not  be  subjected  to  penalties  prescribed  by  statute,  on 
the  ground  that  their  rates  are  unreasonable,  if  they  charge  no  more  than  the 
rates  thus  fixed.*^*^ 

§  193.  Mistake. — Under  a  statute,  which  provides  that  if  a  railroad  com- 
pany sh.all  charge  or  receive  any  greater  comj^ensation  for  the  transportation 
of  passengers  than  is  allowed  by  law,  it  shall  be  liable  to  a  penalty,  to  be  re- 
covered by  the  party  aggrieved,  the  wrong  is  in  the  fact  of  charging,  or  receiv- 
ing a  greater  compensation  than  is  allowed ;  and  where  the  company  or  its 
agent  demands  and  receives  for  a  fare  a  larger  amount  than  is  lawful,  knowing 
that  it  or  he  is  receiving  that  amount,  the  company  is  liable,  and  a  mistake  in 
making  the  overcharge  will  only  go  in  mitigation  of  the  penalty.*"^-*  Therefore, 
it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  under  such  a  statute  that  the  overcharge  was  made 
through  a  mistake  as  to  the  distance  between  stations.*"'-^  But  an  honest  mis- 
take of  an  agent  of  a  railroad  company  in  making  change,  whereby  he  receives 
a  larger  amount  than  is  lawful,  will  not  make  the  company  liable  to  the  penalty .*'^'' 
The  New  York  statute  ^"  providing  for  a  penalty  for  the  exacting  by  a  car- 
rier of  unlawful  rates  of  fare  expressly  exempts  from  its  operation  a  carrier 
making  an  overcharge  through  inadvertence  or  mistake  not  amounting  to  gross 
negligence.'''^ 

§  194.  Facts  Not  Constituting  a  Defense. — It  is  no  defense  to  a  com- 
plaint of  unjust  discrimination  that  the  privileges  allowed  to  the  favored  party 
may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time.'''^     If  a   railroad  receives   for  transportation  a 

62.  Question  of  reasonableness  of  rate  68.  Under  this  statute,  where  a  rail- 
fixed  by  legislature. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  road  makes  a  mistake  in  the  construction 
Co.  V.  Gill,  156  U.  S.  649,  39  L.  Ed.  .567,  of  its  "statutory  rights,  such  as  an  ordin- 
15  S.  Ct.  484;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  arily  prudent  person,  honestly  desiring 
Stevenson.  156  U.  S.  667,  39  L.  Ed.  573,  to  act  within  his  rights,  might  make,  it 
15  S.  Ct.  484,  491.  is    e.xempt    from    the    penalty.      Judgment 

63.  Rates  charged  no  higher  than  those  88  App.  Div.  147,  84  N.  Y.  S.  383,  14  N. 
fixed  by  commission. — Burlington,  etc.,  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  6,  affirmed.  Goodspeed  v. 
R.  Co.  V.  Dev,  82  Iowa  312,  48  X.  \V.  98,  Ithaca  St.  R.  Co.,  184  N.  Y.  351,  77  N. 
31  Am.    St.    Rep.  477,   12   L.   R.   A.  43f,.  E.    392. 

64.  Mistake  no  defense  where  amount  1  he  statute  does  not  impose  the  for- 
received  is  known. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  feiture  on  a  company  making  an  over- 
V.  Waldrop,  93  Ark.  42,  123  S.  W.  778,  charge  through  a  mistake  made  in  good 
construing  Kirby's  Dig.,  §  6620.  Com-  faith  as  to  the  effect  of  §  37,  of  the  act, 
pare  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDermott  making  the  rates  of  fare  for  the  trans- 
C\rk.),    152    S.    W.    983.  portation    of      passengers    depend    on    the 

65.  Mistake  as  to  distance  between  grades  which  were  overcome  by  the  road, 
stations  no  defense. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Goodspeed  z'.  Ithaca  St.  R.  Co.,  88  App. 
Co.  v.  Smith,  60  Ark.  221,  29  S.  W.  752;  Div.  147,  84  N.  Y.  S.  383,  14  N.  Y.  Ann. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McDermott  Cas.  6,  affirmed  in  184  N.  Y.  351,  77  N. 
CArk.).    152    S.    W.    983.  E.    392. 

66.  Hopest  mistake  of  agent  in  making  When,  under  tlie  advice  of  its  counsel, 
change  a  good  defense. — Little  Rock,  etc.,  a  railroad  company  makes  an  overcharge, 
R.  Co.  r.  Clark,  58  .-Xrk.  490,  25  S.  W.  504;  the  right  to  which  might  be  legally  con- 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Young,  102  Ark.  sidered  a  fairly  doubtful  question,  it  con- 
599,  145  S.  W.  203.  See,  also,  Chicago,  stitutes  an  inadvertance  or  mistake  not 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  McDermott  (Ark.),  152  S.  amounting  to  gross  negligence,  within 
W.   983.  the    terms    of   the    statute.      Parker   v.    El- 

67.  Mistake  not  amounting  to  gross  mira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  App.  Div.  383,  49  N. 
negligence — New  York  statute  construed.  Y.  S.  1127,  affirmed  in  165  X.  Y.  274,  59  N. 
—  Laws    1^90,   pp.    1095,    1096,   c.    565,   §§    37,        E.   81. 

39,    as    amended    by    Laws    1892,    p.    1392,  69.    No    defense    that    privileges    to    fa- 

c.   676.  vored    party    may   be   withdrawn. — Butch- 


145 


CONTROL  AND  REGULATION. 


§§    194-197 


carload  of  merchandise  to  a  station  on  its  r(xid  where  it  delivers  the  goods,  and 
they  are  accci>ted  by  the  consignee,  and  charges  more  than  it  charges  for  trans- 
porting the  same  a  greater  distance,  it  is  liable  to  the  penalty  imposed  by  a 
statute  forbidding  such  discrimination,  although  by  the  original  contract  the 
merchandise  was  to  be  transported  to  a  more  distant  station/'^  In  an  action 
against  a  railroad  c()in])any  to  recover  the  penalties  for  overcharges  for  trans- 
portation, where  there  was  a  special  contract  between  the  shipper  and  the  com- 
pany for  legal  rates,  the  plaintiff  is  not  remitted  to  an  action  for  breach  of  the 
contract,  and  such  contract  constitutes  no  defense."^  In  an  action  by  a  shipper 
to  recover  ])enal  damages  under  a  statute  forbidding  discrimination  in  freight 
rates,  the  railroad  company  can  not  set  up  in  justification  of  the  lower  rates  a 
contract  with  the  party  in  whose  favor  they  were  made,  whereby,  in  considera- 
tion of  the  lower  rates,  such  party  released  the  railroad  company  from  an  un- 
explained, indefinite,  and  unadjusted  claim  /or  damages  arising  from  a  tort; 
for  to  allow  such  a  defense  would  practically  emasculate  the  lawJ- 

§  195.  Estoppel  to  Set  Up  Defense. — In  a  (jui  tani  action  against  a  rail- 
road compan\-  for  the  i:)enalty  for  having  taken  overcharges  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  merchandise,  the  company,  in  making  defense,  is  not  estopped  from 
showing  that  the  i)ackages  alleged  to  have  been  overcharged  could  have  been 
charged  at  a  higher  rate,  or  that  they  were  all,  or  in  part,  exi)ress  matter,  and 
not  fully  charged  as  such,  or  that  for  small  packages  the  company  could  have 
charged  more."'' 

§  196.  Two  Penalties — Effect  of  Enforcement  of  One. — Where  a  stat- 
ute imposes  two  distinct  penalties  for  an  overcharge,  and  the  penalties  are  not 
alternative,  the  enforcement  of  one  will  not  prevent  the  enforcement  of  the 
other." -^ 

§  197.  Refusal  to  Transport  Passengers. — Under  statutes  in  some  ju- 
ri'^dictioiis  the  refusal  of  a  railroad  company  to  transport  a  passenger  without 
legal  excuse  subjects  the  company  to  a  penalty."'' 


ers',    etc.,    Stock    Yards    Co.    t'.    Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co..   14   C.   C.   A.  2'.M).  r.T   l-\'(i.   :{,->. 

70.  Facts  not  constituting  defense  to 
greater  charge  for  shorter  than  for  longer 
haul. — Osgood  z\  Concord  Railroad,  (>:!  X. 
H.   2r>'),   construin.t;    Laws    1S.")9,   c.   .")•"). 

71.  Special  contract  for  legal  rates  no 
defense. —  I\eynolds  ?•.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  s.-,  Mo.  <H). 

72.  Contract  with  party  in  whose  favor 
discrimination  is  made,  no  defense. — 
Union  I'ac.  R.  Co.  f.  Goodridgc,  1-19  U. 
S.  680,  37  L.  Ed.  98(5,  13  S.  Ct.  970;  Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.  f.  Ta!?gart,  149  U.  S.  698,  37 
L.  Ed.  90->,  i;;  S.  Ct.  977. 

73.  Carrier  not  estopped  to  show  goods 
could  have  been  charged  at  higher  rate. 
— Mc(".rc,L;or  7\  ICric  R.  Co..  3,)  X.  J.  L. 
ll.V 

74.  Two  penalties — Effect  of  enforce- 
ment of  one. — Herrinian  v.  Burlington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Iowa  187,  9  X.  W.  378,  10 
N.    \V.    340. 

Ihe  Iowa  statute,  Acts  15th  Gen.  As- 
sam., c.  68,  fixes  a  maximum  rate  for 
freight  charges,  and  provides  that  a 
higher  cliarge  shall  lie  "punished  hy  a 
forfeiture    of    $500    to    the    school    fund," 


and  that  the  company  "shall  forfeit  and 
pay  to  the  person  injured  five  times  the 
amount  of  the  charges,"  etc.  Held,  that 
an  action  under  the  first  clause  would 
not  he  a  bar  to  an  action  under  the  sec- 
ond. Herriman  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  Iowa  187,  9  N.  W.  378,  10  N.  W. 
340. 

75.  Refusal  to  transport  passengers. — 
A  Michigan  staute.  Comp.  Laws.  §  6235, 
requires  every  railroad  corporation  to 
furnisli  sufficient  accommodation  for  the 
transportation  of  passengers,  etc.,  and  de- 
clares that  on  refusal  to  transport  any 
passenger  without  legal  excuse  it  shall 
pay  for  such  default  damages  or  a  pen- 
alty at  the  party's  election.  Held,  that 
a  carrier  was  not  liable  to  a  passenger 
under  such  section  for  failure  to  trans- 
port her  by  a  particular  train,  which  had 
been  discontinued  and  proper  notice 
given,  provided  the  mistake  in  selling  her 
a  ticket  for  use  on  such  train,  was  an 
error  of  the  local  ticket  agent.  Geer  v. 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  142  Mich.  511,  106 
N.    W.    72. 

But  where  a  railroad  company  had  ad- 
vertised a  train  on  a  branch  line  to  leave 


1  Car— 10 


§§  198-200 


CARRIERS. 


146 


§  198.  Refusal  to  Sell  Mileage  Tickets  at  Reduced  Rates.— A  statute, 
making  a  railroad  company  liable  to  a  penalty  for  refusal  to  sell  a  1,000-mile 
mileage  ticket  at  a  reduced  rate,  is  void,  is  not  within  the  police  power  of  the 
state.' *^ 

§  199.  Refusal  to  Furnish  Passenger  Tickets  Granting  Stop-Over 
Privileges. — L'ndcr  a  statute  prescribing  a  penalty  for  the  refusal  of  a  carrier 
to*  furi^ish  passenger  tickets  granting  stop-over  privileges  without  the  payment 
of  additional  fare  to  persons  ^'desiring  a  passage,"  persons  who  demand  such 
tickets  solely  for  the  purpose  of  having  such  demand  refused,  and  thus  laying 
the  foundation  for  the  prosecution  of  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty,  are  not 
entitled  to  recover  the  penalty." 

§  2  00.  Refusal  to  Give  a  Transfer.— Under  statutes  in  some  states  the 
refusal  of  a  street  railroad  company  to  give  to  a  passenger  paying  one  single 
fare  a  transfer  to  other  lines  operated  by  the  company,  makes  the  company 
liable  to  a  penalty."^ 


a  connecting  point  shortly  after  the  ar- 
rival of  another  train,  and  had  sent 
printed  posters  to  its  agents  showing  the 
contemplated  operation  of  such  train,  but 
before  the  time  arrived  when  the  train 
was  advertised  to  be  put  on  notice  of  its 
withdrawal  was  sent  to  some  of  the  com- 
pany's agents,  and  was  published,  but  the 
agent  at  Y.  had  received  no  such  notice, 
by  reason  whereof  he  sold  a  ticket  to 
plaintiff  for  passage  over  such  branch 
line,  and  advised  her  of  the  running  of 
the  advertised  train,  and  on  her  arrival 
at  the  junction  point  she  was  compelled 
to  remain  there  overnight,  the  company 
was  liable  for  the  penalty  prescribed. 
Van  Camp  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  137 
Mich.  4GT,  100  X.  W.  771. 

76.  Statute  imposing  penalty  void. — 
Judgment  15  App.  Div.  251,  44  N.  Y.  S. 
175,  reversed.  Beardsley  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  N.  Y.  230,  56  N.  E.  488, 
so  holding  as  to  Laws  1895,  c.  1027,  §   1. 

77.  Refusal  to  furnish  passenger  tickets 
granting  stop-over  privileges. — Southern 
Pac.  Co.  V.  Robinson,  132  Cal.  408,  64 
Pac.  572. 

Certain  persons  combined  for  the  pur- 
pose of  creating  causes  of  actions  for  the 
penalty  prescribed  under  Civ.  Code,  § 
490,  and  demanded  tickets  with  the  stop- 
over privilege  of  a  railroad  company,  and 
also  demanded  passage  from  an  interme- 
diate station,  having  stopped  there,  for 
the  purpose  of  being  refused  passage  on 
a  subsequent  train,  nearly  3,000  times. 
Tney  did  not  desire  the  stop-over  privi- 
lege, but  in  making  their  demands  de- 
sired that  they  be  refused.  Held,  that 
they  could  not  recover  the  penalties  pro- 
vided by  the  statute,  since  it  referred 
only  to  persons  desiring  the  stop-over 
privilege.  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Robin- 
son, 132  Call.  408,  04  Pac.  572. 

78.  Refusal  to  give  a  transfer. — 'I' he 
New  York  statute.  Laws  1890,  p.  HOC, 
c.  56.J,  §  78,  as  amended  by  Laws  1892, 
p.  1398,  c.  676,  provides  that  any  railroad 
corporation  may  contract  with  any  other 


for  the  use  of  their  respective  roads,  and 
if  such  contract  shall  be  a  lease,  certain 
formalities  are  to  be  observed  in  its  ex- 
ecution. Section  104  (page  1114)  provides 
for  transfers  from  one  road  to  another 
upon  payment  of  a  single  fare.  Held, 
th  it  the  latter  section  applies  to  surface 
lines  leased  by  one  or  more  corporations 
to  another,  and  operated  by  the  lessee, 
so  as  to  render  the  lessee  liable  where 
transfers  are  tendered  and  refused  for 
the  penalties  provided  for  their  refusal. 
Judgment,  96  App.  Div.  636,  89  N.  Y.  S. 
1105,  modified.  Griffin  v.  Interurban  St. 
R.    Co.,    179   N.    Y.   438,   72    N.    E.    513. 

The  New  York  Railroad  Law,  Laws 
1892,  p.  1406,  c.  676,  §  104,  contemplates 
a  person  who  enters  on  or  continues  a 
trip  with  the  actual  desire  of  getting  to 
some  place,  and  whose  controlling  pur- 
pose is  interfered  with  by  an  unjust  re- 
fusal to  give  him  a  transfer,  and  who 
therefore  is  defeated  of  his  aim,  and  does 
not  apply  to  a  person  who  boarded  a  car 
merely  to  seek  information  as_  to  the 
custom  of  the  corporation  to  issue  or 
not  to  issue  transfers  at  a  certain  point 
over  a  certain  route,  which  information 
he  desired  for  use  in  litigation,  and  who 
had  no  definite  purpose  of  going  to  any 
particular  place,  since  he  was  not  pre- 
vented by  the  refusal  of  a  transfer  from 
accomplishing  all  he  had  intended,  and 
was  therefore  not  an  "aggrieved  party." 
Tudgment.  121  App.  Div.  582,  106  N.  V.  S. 
378,  affirmed.  Bull  v.  New  York  City  R. 
Co.,   192   N.   Y.  361,   85   N.    E.   385. 

In  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty  im- 
posed l)y  such  statute  it  appeared  that 
defendant  was  the  operating  company  of 
several  leased  lines,  under  a  contract  en- 
tered into  pursuant  to  the  statute.  Plain- 
tiff was  a  passenger  on  one  of  such  lines, 
and  demanded  a  transfer  to  another  of 
the  leased  lines,  which  was  refused. 
Held,  that  defendant's  liability  for  the 
penalty  could  not  be  defeated  because 
plaintiff's  initial  trip  was  on  one  of  de- 
fendant's   leased    lines,    to    be    completed 


147 


CONTKOI.   AND   KIXUI.ATION. 


§§  201-20J 


§  2  01.  Refusal  to  Sell  Passenger  Tickets  of  a  Connecting  Carrier. 
— A  statute  imi)Osing  a  i)enalty  for  refusing  to  sell  passenger  tickets  of  a  con- 
nectin'ij  carrier  at  the  rate  prescribed  b\'  the  railroad  commission,  is  not  un- 
con!-titufional,  as  coniijelling  a  railroad  company  to  become  the  agent  of  an- 
other railroad,  or  to  appoint  another  railroad  company  its  agent  against  its 
consent,  nor  as  depriving  a  railroad  of  the  right  to  select  its  own  agents.'^  In 
what  cases  the  liability  of  a  railroad  company  attaches  under  such  a  statute  is- 
to  be  determined  by  an  interi)rctati(jn  of  the  peculiar  ])r<t\ision<  of  the  statute.^'" 

§  202.  Failure  to  Affix  Check  to  Baggage  and  to  Deliver  Duplicate 
to  Passenger. —  I'nder  a  statute,  re(|uiring  a  railroad  company  to  affix  a  check 
to  every  parcel  of  baggage  and  to  deliver  a  duplicate  thereof  to  the  passenger, 
and  imposing  a  penalty  for  failure  to  do  so,  and  declaring  that  no  fare  shall 
be  collected  from  such  passenger,  the  liability  to  furnish  the  passenger  free 
transportation  on  refusal  to  deliver  him  a  check  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  pen- 
alty as  the  cash  i)enalty  therein  prescribed. '^^  A  railroad  corjjoration  which  in 
fact  receives  the  baggage  of  a  passenger  upon  a  train  on  which  it  is  not  bound 
to  take  it,  to  be  transported  over  a  portion  of  the  road  for  which  he  has  pur- 
chased a  ticket,  is  subject,  upon  refusing  to  check  the  baggage,  to  the  penalty 
prescribed   for  such   refusal. ^- 

§  203.  Refusal  to  Redeem  Unused  Passenger  Tickets. — Under  stat- 
utes in  some  jurisdictions  carriers  are  required  to  provide  for  the  redemption  of 
unused  passenger  tickets,  and  a  penalty  is  imposed  for  their  failure  or  refusal 
to  do  so.''*'' 


on  another  of  such  lines,  instead  of  on 
the  defendant's  line,  to  be  completed  on 
one  or  the  other  of  the  lessor  company's 
lines.  O'Reilly  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R. 
Co.,  95  App.  Div.  253,  89  N.  Y.  S.  41,  af- 
firmed in  179  X.  Y.  450,  72  N.  E.  517.  con- 
struing in  addition  to  the  above  statute, 
Laws  1885,  p.  525,  c.  305;  Laws  1890,  p. 
1082,   c.   505;    Laws    1892,   p.   1382,  c.   67(). 

The  penalties  provided  for  on  refusal 
of  transfer  on  payment  of  a  single  fare 
from  one  to  another  of  leased  surface 
railroads,  under  Laws  1890,  p.  1082.  c. 
565,  as  amended  by  Laws  1892,  pp.  1398, 
1406,  c.  676,  §§  78,  104,  are  not  cumula- 
tive, and  the  bringing  of  an  action  for 
one  penalty  is  a  waiver  of  all  previous 
penalties  incurred.  Judgment,  96  .\pp. 
Div.  636,  89  X.  Y.  S.  1105,  modified. 
Griffin  r.  Intcrurhan  St.  R.  Co.,  179  X.  V. 
438,  72   X.    I"..  513. 

79.  Statute  imposing  penalty  not  un- 
constitutiona]. — Stephens  z'.  Central,  etc  , 
R.  Co..  IMS  Ga.  625.  75  S.  E.  1041.  so 
holding  as  to  Civ.  Code,  1910,  §§  2752- 
2755. 

80.  In  what  cases  liability  for  penalty 
attaches. —  TIk'  (ioorgia  statute.  Civ.  Codf. 
1895,  §  2299,  compelling  a  railroad  to 
sell  any  ticket  of  any  other  railroad  com- 
pany with  which  it  may  he  directly  or 
indirectly  connected  for  passage  over  the 
lines  of  such  connecting  companies,  and 
§  2301,  imposing  a  penalty  for  violation 
of  §  2299,  to  be  recovered  either  by  the 
company  discriminated  against  or  by  the 
person  oflfering  to  buy  the  ticket,  or 
both,  are  intended  solely  to  prevent  one 
railroad    company      from      discriminating 


against  a  connecting  company,  and  no 
liability  attaches  for  the  penalty  imposed 
for  a  refusal  to  sell  a  ticket  to  a  point  on 
the  line  of  a  connecting  company,  unless 
such  connecting  company  shall  have  ten- 
dered its  tickets  and  requested  their 
sale.  Jones  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co  , 
132   Ga.   11,  63   S.   E.  627. 

81.  Failure  to  affix  check  to  baggage 
and  to  deliver  duplicate  to  passenger. — 
larr  r.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Idaho),  93 
Pac.  957,  construing  Rev.  St.  1S87,  §  2674. 

82.  Commonwealth  z\  Connecticut  R. 
Co.,  81  Mass.  (15  Gray)  447,  construing 
St.   1854,  c.   23. 

83.  Refusal  to  redeem  unused  passenger 
tickets. — I'nder  the  Iowa  statute  Code 
Supp.  1902,  §§  2128a,  2128b,  2128c,  where 
a  ticket  agent  refuses  to  sell  a  person 
a  ticket  to  a  certain  point,  and  so  induces 
him  to  bu^'  one  to  a  more  distant  point, 
which  ticket  the  agent  afterwards  refuses 
to  redeem  when  returned  unused,  the 
carrier  is  lial)le  for  the  penalty  unless 
lack  of  good  faith  on  the  part  of  plain- 
tiff in  the  purchase  is  shown.  Cook  z: 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  Iowa  497,  113 
X.   W.   1079. 

L'nder  such  statute,  where  the  telegraph 
operator  at  a  railroad  station  while  re- 
lieving the  station  agent,  refused  to  re- 
deem a  passenger  ticket,  the  mere  fact 
that  the  station  agent  had  been  au- 
thorized to  redeem  tickets  is  no  defense 
in  an  action  for  the  penaltv.  Rohrig  z: 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  Iowa  380,  106 
X.    \V.    935. 

For  a  construction  of  the  provisions  of 


204-206 


CARRIERS. 


148 


§  204.  Failure  to  Post  Schedules  of  Rates.— In  some  states  there  are 
statutes  requiring  railroad  companies  to  post  schedules  of  rates,  and  imposing 
a  penalty  for  their  failure  to  do  so.^"*  In  an  action  for  a  penalty  for  failure  to 
po-t  rates  made  by  a  railroad  commission,  the  railroad  company  can  not  mter- 
pose  as  a  defense 'that  the  commission  has  not  published  schedules  of  rates  for 
all  the  railroads  in  the  state  although  there  is  a  statute  providing  that  the  sched- 
ule shall  not  be  taken  as  evidence  until  schedules  have  been  prepared  for  all 
the  railroad  companies  in  the  state,  as  such  a  statute  only  applies  to  the  recep- 
tion of  the  schedule  as  evidence/'^-'^ 

§S  205-210.  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Receive  or  Transport  Freight— 
§  205.  Statute  Imposing  Penalty  Does  Not  Limit  Carrier's  Common- 
Law  Liability.— A  statute  requiring  railroad  companies  to  accept  freight,  and 
imposing  a  penalty  for  refusal,  and  making  it  unlawful  to  allow  freight  to  re- 
main unshipped  for  a  time  specified,  unless  agreed  to  by  the  owner,  does  not 
limit  the  carrier  s  common-law  liability,  nor  apply  to  delays  arising  from  the 
carrier's  negligence.*"^' 

§  2  06.  Who  May  Recover  Penalty.— The  "party  aggrieved,"  under  a  stat- 
ute authorizing  recoverv  bv  such  party  of  a  ])enalty  for  a  earner's  refusal  to 
receive  or  transport  freight,  is  one  injured  by  the  refusal.^'  The  party  injured 
in  such  case  is  the  shipper.^^  Under  such  a  statute,  an  agent  can  not  recover 
for  iie  use  of  his  principal  not  being  the  real  party  in  interest  ;'^»  nor  can  a 
connecting  carrier  to  whom  the  freight  is  consigned  recover  the  penalty ;  »*^  nor 


an  earlier  Iowa  statute  Acts  28th  Gen. 
Assem.,  c.  71,  §§  1,  2,  3,  see  JoUey  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  Iowa  491,  93  N. 
W.    555. 

84.  Failure  to  post  schedules  of  rates. 
—The  Arkansas  statute.  Act  March  24, 
1887,  §§  7,  12  (Sand.  &  H.  Dig.,  §§  6307, 
6312),  require  that  all  railroad  corpora- 
tions in  the  state  of  Arkansas  shall  keep 
posted  up,  at  every  depot  freight  office, 
printed  schedules  for  freight  rates;  and 
that,  for  a  violation  of  the  act,  they  shall 
forfeit  and  pay  for  every  such  offense 
a  certain  sum,  to  be  recovered  by  a  civil 
action  "by  the  party  aggrieved;"  but  that 
a  notice  in  writing  of  the  violation,  and 
a  demand  for  reparation,  must  be  served 
by  claimant  fifteen  days  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  action.  Held,  that  the 
reparation  contemplated  by  the  act  was 
compensation  for  injuries  or  wrongs  suf- 
fered from  the  failure  to  post  the  rates, 
and  that  hence  only  a  perscm  so  injuri- 
ously affected  was  entitled  to  the  penalty. 
Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  62  Ark. 
452,   36   S.   W.    186. 

A  notice  which  does  not  state  how 
claimant  was  aggrieved  by  a  failure _  to 
post  schedules,  the  extent  of  his  griev- 
ances, and  the  damage  occasioned  there- 
by, is  fatally  defective.  Arkansas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Harris,  62  Ark.  452,  36  S.  W. 
186. 

85.  Johnson  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  Railway, 
73  S.  C.  36,  52  S.  E.  644,  construing  Civ. 
Code    1902,    §    2093. 

86.  Carrier's  common  law  liability  not 
limited. —  Rehearing,  Parker  v.  Railroad 
Co..    131    X.   C.   827,   43    S.    E.   1005,   denied. 


Parker  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  N. 
C.  335,  45  S.  E.  658,  63  L.  R.  A.  827,  con- 
struing Code,  §§   19G4,   1967. 

87.  The  "party  aggrieved"  is  one  in- 
jured by  the  refusal. — McRackan  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  331,  63  S. 
E.    1042,   construing   Revisal    1905,   §    2631. 

88.  Shipper  the  party  entitled  to  re- 
cover penalty. — Crosby  v.  Pere  Marquette 
R.  Co.,  131  Mich.  288,  91  N.  W.  124;  con- 
struing 2  Comp.  Laws  1897,  §  6235;  Bur- 
lington Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
152  N.  C.  70,  67  S.  E.  167,  construing 
Revisal  1905,  §  2631;  Reid  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,    149    N.    C.   423,    63    S.    E.    112. 

A  consignor  of  goods,  who,  under  con- 
tract with  the  consignee,  was  permitted 
to  return  certain  goods  that  had  been 
shipped  to  him  by  the  consignee,  but 
was  not  to  receive  credit  therefor  on  his 
account  until  the  goods  were  received 
by  the  consignee,  is  the  party  aggrieved, 
within  the  North  Carolina  statute.  Laws 
1903,  p.  999,  c.  590,  §  3,  making  it  unlaw- 
ful for  railroads  to  omit  to  transport 
goods  received,  for  a  longer  period  than 
four  days  after  receipt  thereof,  and  pro- 
viding penalties  for  a  violation  thereof, 
which  they  shall  forfeit  to  the  party  ag- 
grieved, hummers  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
138   N.    C.   295,   50   S.    E.   714. 

89.  Agent  can  not  recover  for  use  of 
principal. — McRackan  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  150  N.  C.  331,  '63  S.  E.  1042,  con- 
struing   I^cvisal    1905,    §    2631. 

90.  Connecting  carrier  can  not  recover 
penalty. — Crosljy  v.  Pere  Marquette  R. 
Co.,  131  Mich.  288,  91  N.  W.  124,  con- 
struing  2    Comp.    Laws    1897,    §    6235. 


149 


CCIXTROI,   AND   KFXULATIOX. 


!§  206-209 


can  it  be  recovered  by  an  attorney  for  persons  who  attached  the  goods  shipped 
in  suits  a.^ainst  tlie  real  owner.'" 

§  207.  When  Penalty  Will  Be  Imposed. — In  what  cases  the  penalty  will 
be' imposed,  under  a  statute  imposing  a  penalty  for  a  carrier's  failure  or  re- 
fusal to  receive  or  transport  freight,  is  to  be  determined  by  a  proper  construc- 
tion of  the  terms  oi  the  statute  imposing  the  penalty;  such  statute  to  be  con- 
strued in  connecti(jn  with  any  other  statute  having  application  to  the  particular 
case.'-'- 

§  2  08.  Number  of  Penalties  Recoverable. — I'nder  a  statute  imposing  a 
penalty  for  a  transportation  company's  refusal  to  ship  freight  tendered  it,  and 
providing  that  each  article  refused  shall  constitute  a  separate  offense,  where  a 
railroad  company  refuses  to  transport  a  lot  of  cattle  a  separate  penalty  can  be 
recovered  for  each  head  thereof,  since  each  head  is  an  article  within  the  stat- 
ute.°^ 

§  209.  Tender  and  Refusal.— To  entitle  a  shipper  to  the  statutory  penalty 
for  refusal  to  receive  freight  for  shipment,  it  is  not  enough  to  constitute  a  ten- 
der that  he  place  the  freight  on  the  carrier's  platform  or  simply  ask  the  car- 
rier's agent  when  the  freight  can  be  shipped,  but  there  must  be  an  actual  tender, 
though  it  is  not  essential  that  any  particular  language  be  used,  but  it  is  suffi- 


91.  Attorney  for  persons  who  attached 
goods  can  not  recover  penalty. — Mc- 
Kackan  r.  Atlantic,  cIl..  R.  Co.,  1.")U  X. 
C.  331,  63  S.  E.  1042,  construing  Revisal 
190.3,  §   3fi31. 

92.  When  penalty  will  be  imposed. — 
The  Xcirtli  Carolina  statute.  Revival  r.M).'), 
§  2G31,  declares  that  freight  agents  of 
railroads  shall  receive  all  articles  of  the 
nature  received  hy  such  company  for 
transportation  whenever  tendered  at  a 
regular  depot  and  forward  the  same  by 
the  routes  selected  by  the  person  ten- 
dering the  freight  under  existing  laws 
and  for  a  failure  so  to  do  imposes  a  pen- 
alty of  $50  for  each  day's  delay  and  ac- 
tual damages.  Held,  that  where  a  freight 
agent  refused  to  accept  freight  on  Jan- 
uary 27,  1905,  or  issue  a  bill  of  lading 
therefor  because  of  alleged  lack  of  time 
to  ascertain  the  freight  rates,  but  per- 
mitted the  freight  to  remain  in  the  rail- 
road's warehouse  until  he  had  time  to 
ascertain  the  rates,  which  he  failed  to 
do  until  February  8th,  there  was  a  fail- 
ure to  receive  for  transportation  when 
tendered,  creating  a  liability  under  such 
section.  Twitty  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  141 
N.    C.    355,    53    S.    E.    957. 

But  since  Revisal  1905,  §  2632,  allows 
the  carrier  two  days  at  the  initial  point 
of  shipment  in  which  to  ship  freight,  it 
incurred  no  penalty  under  Revisal.  §  2631, 
for  not  shipping  by  the  train  which  was 
being  loaded  when  the  goods  were  of- 
fered for  shipment,  even  though  the  car- 
rier's employee  used  discourteous  and  un- 
warranted language  in  refusing  to  ship 
on  that  train.  Cox  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    148   N.    C.   459.   62   S.    E.   556. 

A  carrier  refusing  to  receive  cotton 
tendered    for    shipment,    and    to    issue    a 


l)ill  of  lading  therefor,  unless  the  shipper 
will  undergo  the  extra  expense  of  placing 
the  cotton  on  its  platform  covered  with 
cotton,  violates  the  Arkansas  statute, 
Kirby's  Dig.,  §  6803,  and  can  not  escape 
lial)ility  by  relying  on  §  528,  which  for- 
liids  a  carrier  from  issuing  a  receipt  for 
property  until  the  same  has  been  received 
into  its  custody.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  State,  84  Ark.  150,  104  S.  \V.  1106. 

In  the  North  Carolina  statute.  Code, 
§  1964,  imposing  a  penalty  for  the  refusal 
of  a  railroad  to  receive  goods  for  trans- 
portation at  any  regular  station,  the 
words  "regular  station"  denote  a  place 
where  the  railroad  transacts  regular  and 
orderly  business  with  suitable  buildings 
and  appliances,  and  with  agents  to  give 
bills  of  lading  and  receipts  to  shippers 
tendering  or  receiving  freight  at  all  ap- 
propriate times;  and  the  fact  that  a 
place  is  set  down  in  the  circulars  and  or- 
ders of  the  railroad  as  a  station,  and  that 
a  mail  train  stops  there  regularly  is  not 
sufficient  to  make  it  a  "regular  station." 
Land  z:  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  X. 
C.    48,    10   S.    E.   80. 

A  point  on  a  railroad  where  there  was 
never  any  station  agent,  no  agent's  of- 
fice, no  books  kept,  tickets  sold,  or  bills 
oi  lading  given,  but  where  conductors 
had  frequently  stopped  trains  to  receive 
and  let  off  freight  and  passengers,  is  not 
a  "regular  station"  within  the  meaning  of 
such  statute.  Kellogg  z:  Suffolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    100    X.    C.    15S,    5    S.    E.    379. 

93.  Separate  penalty  recoverable  for 
each  article. — Carter  r.  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.  Co..  126  X.  C.  437,  36  S.  E.  14;  S.  C, 
129  X.  C.  213,  39  S.  E.  827,  construing 
Code.    §    1964. 


§§  209-210 


CARRIERS. 


150 


cient  if  the  language  amount  in  common  understanding  to  a  tender  and  refusal. '^^ 
Where  a  shipper  is  permitted  to  place  lumber  on  a  car,  but  the  carrier  refuses 
to  receive  it  for  shipment,  this  is  a  "refusal  to  receive"  it,  within  a  statute  im- 
posing a  penaltv  for  such  refusal.''''  Under  a  statute  providing  that  a  carrier 
shall  forfeit  a  penalty  of  a  prescribed  amount  for  each  day  it  refuses  to  re- 
ceive freight  tentlered  for  shipment,  to  entitle  a  shipper  to  the  daily  penalty 
there  must  have  been  a  tender  and  refusal  each  day.^''^ 

§  210.  Defenses. — When  a  carrier  shows  the  existence  of  conditions  for 
which  it  is  not  responsible,  preventing  the  discharge  of  its  duty  to  receive  goods 
for  shipment,  it  will  not  be  held  liable  for  the  penalty  imposed  by  statute  for 
failure  to  receive  and  ship  goods.'''  But  it  is  not  a  sufficient  defense  to  an  ac- 
tion to  recover  the  statutory  penalty  for  a  carrier's  refusal  to  receive  freight 
for  shipment  that  the  consignee  of  freight  failed  to  unload  cars  consigned  to 
him,  creating  a  congestion  of  traffic  at  the  point  of  destination,'-^*  or  that  an  un- 
usual emergencv  has  caused  a  shortage  of  cars  so  that  goods  can  not  be  shipped 
out  as  rapidly  as  customary,-'^  or  that  the  defendant's  agent  who  re- 
fused to  receive  the  goods  for  shipment  was  ignorant  of  the  location  of  the 
station  to  which  the  goods  were  to  be  shipped,  which  was  located  on  a  rail- 
road maintaining  a  separate  organization  from,  but  operated  by,  defend- 
ant,i    or    that    the    shipper    asked    for    a    bill    of    lading    to    a    point    on    a 


94.  What  amounts  to  a  tender. — Wam- 
pum Cotton  Mills  r.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
1.50    X.    C.    f.OS.    64    S.    E.    586. 

Facts  not  amounting  to  general  tender 
for  shipment. — In  an  action  for  the  stat- 
utory penalty  for  a  carrier's  failure  to 
accept  meat  for  shipment,  the  evidence 
held  to  show  that  the  meat  arrived  too 
late  for  shipment,  and  was  voluntarily 
taken  away  by  the  shipper,  so  as  not  to 
be  a  general  tender  for  shipment.  Cox 
V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  4.59, 
62    S.    E.   .556. 

Place  and  time  of  tender. — To  entitle 
a  shipper  to  the  penalty  imposed  by  the 
North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal  1905,  § 
26.31,  for  a  carrier's  failure  to  receive 
freight  for  shipment,  it  must  be  tendered 
at  a  regular  depot  and  during  business 
hours.  Garrison  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  150 
N.    C.    575.    64    S.    E.    578. 

95.  What  amounts  to  a  refusal  to  re- 
ceive goods  for  shipment. — Garrison  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  575,  64  S.  E. 
578,   construing   Revisal   1905,   §   26.31. 

96.  Statute  requiring  a  tender  and  re- 
fusal each  day. — Wampum  Cotton  Mills 
T.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  608, 
64  S.  E.  586.  Compare  Garrison  v.  South- 
ern  R.   Co.,   150   N.    C.   575,   64   S.    E.   578. 

Where  a  shipper  placed  lumber  on  a 
car  with  the  carrier's  consent  and  de- 
manded a  bill  of  lading,  which  was  re- 
fused, and  went  to  the  agent  of  the  car- 
rier two  or  three  times  and  asked  if  he 
had  shipped  the  car  load,  and  he  said 
he  had  not,  and  plaintiff  refused  to  un- 
load the  car,  there  was  a  tender  and  re- 
fusal to  ship  on  each  day  from  the  time 
the  goods  were  placed  in  the  car  until 
they  were  finally  shipped,  within  the 
North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal  1905,  § 
2631,  imposing  a   penalty   of  $50   for   each 


day  a  carrier  refuses  to  receive  freight. 
Garrison  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C. 
575,    64    S.    E.    578. 

97.  Existence  of  conditions  for  which 
carrier  is  not  responsible. — Garrison  z>. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  575,  64  S. 
E.    578,    construing    Revisal    1905,    §    2631. 

Motive  power  tied  up  by  strike. — The 
North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal  1905,^  § 
2631,  requires  every  railroad  to  receive 
all  articles  for  transportation  whenever 
tendered,  and  imposes  a  penalty  of  $50 
for  each  day  it  refuses  to  receive  freight. 
Section  2633  imposes  a  penalty  for  re- 
fusing to  transport  freight  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  and  requires  shipments  to 
start  from  the  initial  point  within  two 
days  after  the  freight  is  received.  Held, 
that  a  carrier  could  plead  any  legal  ex- 
cuse to  avoid  the  penalty  for  failure  to 
receive  freight,  and,  if  a  carrier  was  un- 
abl:  to  transport  cattle  because  its  mo- 
tive power  was  tied  up  by  a  strike,  it 
would  not  be  Iial)le  for  the  statutory 
penalty  for  its  refusal  to  receive  the 
stock.  Murphy  Hardware  Co.  v.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  703,  64  S.  E.  873, 
22    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    1200. 

98.  Congestion  of  traffic  at  point  of 
destination. — Garrison  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
150  X.  C.  575,  64  S.  E.  578,  construing 
Revisal    1905,    §    2631. 

99.  Unusual  emergency  causing  short- 
age of  cars. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  84  Ark.  150,  104  S.  W.  1106,  con- 
struing   Kirby's    Dig.,    §    6803. 

1.  Carrier's  agent  ignorant  of  location 
of  station. — Goods  were  delivered  for 
shipment  to  a  station  on  a  railroad, 
which,  though  it  maintained  a  separate 
organization  for  local  purposes,  was  op- 
erated l)y  defendant  company  and  its  re- 
ceipts  paid   over   to   defendant's   treasurer 


151 


CONTROL  AXD  REGULATION. 


§§  210-212 


conncctinj^^  line,-  or  llial  a  connecting  carrier  refuses  to  receive  freight  for 
the  consignee,'*  or  thai  ihe  shipper  sutYered  no  pecuniary  injury  by  the  delay 
in  shipment  caused  by  tlie  carrier's  refusal.-*  it  being  the  duty  of  a  carrier  of 
interstate  commerce  to  file  and  publish  its  schedule  of  rates,  its  failure  to  do 
so  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  the  penalty  for  refusing  to  receive  for  trans- 
portation an  interstate  shi])ment.''  'J'hat  a  shipjjer  presented  goods  for  ship- 
ment to  v^cottsville.  'i'eiui.,  when  the  real  name  of  the  town  on  defendant's  line 
was  v'^cottville,  Tenn.,  did  not  relieve  the  carrier  from  the  statutory  penalties 
for  refusal   to  receive  goods   for  shipment   thereto.'' 

§  211.  Refusal  to  Give  Shipper  a  Proper  Bill  of  Lading. — Under  a 
statute  imposing  a  peiialiN  on  a  common  carrier  for  refusing  to  give  a  shipper, 
when  demanded,  a  bill  of  lading  or  memorandum  in  writing  stating  the  quan- 
tity, character,  order,  and  condition  of  goods  received  for  shipment,  a  rail- 
road company  is  not  liable  because  an  agent  refused  to  state,  in  a  bill  of  lading, 
the  weight  or  quantity  of  a  car  of  lumber,  loaded  by  the  shipper,  at  a  switch 
where  there  was  no  agent  or  means  of  weighing,  and  when  the  shipper  did  not 
furnish  the  agent  an  invoice  of  the  shipment."^ 

§§  212-220.  Delay  in  Shipment  or  Transportation  of  Freight— §  212. 
Power  to  Impose  Penalty. — A  stale  slaluic  prohibiting  delay  1j_\-  carriers  in 
the  shipment  of  freight,  and  providing  a  penalty  for  \iolation  thereof,  is  a  proper 
exercise  of  the  state's  police  power. '^     In  some  states  power  is  conferred  upon 


and  its  operating  reports  made  to  defend- 
ant's auditor,  and  tlie  salaries  of  its  em- 
ployees were  paid  by  defendant.  De- 
fendant's agent,  who  refused  to  receive 
goods  for  shipment  on  the  ground  that 
he  did  not  know  the  location  of  the  sta- 
tion, was  replaced  by  another  agent 
shortly  thereafter,  who  received  and 
shipped  the  goods  to  the  point  of  con- 
signment. Held,  that  defendant's  first 
agent  should  have  known  or  ascertained 
the  location  of  the  shipping  point,  and 
his  ignorance  of  its  location  would  not 
relieve  defendant  from  the  penalty  im- 
posed by  the  North  Carolina  statute,  Re- 
visal  1905,  §  2():31,  for  failure  to  receive 
goods  for  shipment.  Reid  v.  Southern 
R.   Co.,   150  X.   C.   753,   f)4   S.   E.   874. 

2.  Shipper's  request  for  bill  of  lading 
to  point  on  connecting  line. — Wampum 
Cotton  Mills  V.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 
N.  C.  ()12.  64  S.  E.  588,  construing  Re- 
visal,   §   ^iVM. 

3.  Refusal  by  connecting  carrier  to  re- 
ceive freight  for  consignee. — Wampum 
Cotton  Mills  z:  Carolina,  etc..  R.  Co.,  150 
N.  C.  1)1:.',  (14  S.  I{.  5SS,  construing  Re- 
visal,  §   2f):il. 

4.  No  pecuniary  injury  to  shipper. — 
Reid  z'.  Southern  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  753, 
64  S.  E.  874,  construing  Revisal  1905,  § 
2631. 

5.  Failure  of  carrier  to  file  and  publish 
schedule  of  rates. — Burlington  Lumber 
Co.  c'.  Soutliern  R.  Co.,  152  N.  C.  70,  67 
S.    E.    167. 

Under  the  North  Carolina  statute,  Re- 
visal 1905,  §  2631,  imposing  a  penalty  on 
carriers  for  refusal  to  receive  freight 
for  shipment,  a  carrier  is  liable  where 
freigiit   for  sliiimu'iU  to  anotiior  state  was 


tendered,  and  because  the  agent  did  not 
have  the  schedule  of  freight  rates  to  the 
point  of  destination  he  refused  for  over 
two  months  to  issue  a  bill  of  lading  of 
any  sort  even  to  the  end  of  its  line  or 
to  deliver  to  a  connecting  carrier.  Bur- 
lington Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
]5:i  X.  C.  71),  (•)7   S.  E.   167. 

6.  Mispelling  name  of  destination  point. 
— Reid  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  150  X.  C.  753, 
64    S.    E.    874. 

7.  Facts  not  rendering  carrier  liable. — 
Conley  z'.  Sherman,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Tex. 
295,  38  S.  W.  519,  construing  Rev.  St. 
1895,  art.  322;  Sherman,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Conly  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  37  S.  W.  253, 
construing  Rev.   St.   ]s;)5.  art.  322. 

8.  Power  to  impose  penalty. — Lexing- 
ton Grocery  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  136 
X.  C.  396,  48  S.  E.  801,  so  holding  as  to 
Laws  1901,  c.  634,  p.  868;  Wall-Huske  Co. 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  407,  61  S. 
E.    277. 

The  North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal 
1905,  §  2632,  which  provides  that  the 
party  aggrieved  may  recover  a  penalty 
for  a  carrier's  unreasonable  delay  in 
transporting  goods,  is  constitutional  as 
a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power.  Rol- 
lins X'.  Seaboard,  etc..  Railroad,  146 
N.  C.  153,  59  S.  E.  671;  Cardwell  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  146  X.  C.  218,  59  S.  E. 
673;  Davis  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  147  N.  C. 
68.    60    S.    v..    722. 

Texas  statute  held  constitutional. — The 
Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.  1S95.  art.  4496, 
imposing  on  a  railroad  company  a  pen- 
alty of  5  per  cent  per  month  on  the  value 
of  a  shipment  during  its  negligent  de- 
tention in  transportation,  does  not  vio- 
late Const.,  art.   1,  §  13,  declaring  that  ex- 


§§  212-213 


CARRIERS. 


152 


the  railroad  commission  to  adopt  rules  making  carriers  liable  to  a  penalty  for 
delay  in  the  shipment  or  transportation  of   freight." 

§  213.  Who  May  Recover  Penalty. — Statutes  imposing  penalties  on  car- 
riers for  delay  in  transporting  freight  generally  provide  as  to  who  shall  be  en- 
titled to  recover  the  penalty.  I'nder  the  North  Carolina  statute  the  penalty  may 
be  recovered  by  the  "par'tv  aggrieved,"  ^^  and  an  action  therefor  can  not  be 
brought  on  relation  of  the  "state. ^^  Cnder  the  South  Carolina  statute  the  pen- 
altv  may  be  recovered  "by  any  consignee  who  may  be  injured  in  any  way  by 
such  delav  or  bv  the  owner  or  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading."  ^- 


cessive  fines  should  not  be  imposed,  nor 
cruel  and  unusual  punishment  inflicted. 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hannay-Frerichs 
&  Co..  104  Tex.  603,  1-12  S.  W.  11G3,  mod- 
ifying judgment  130  S.  W.  250. 

9.  Power  of  railroad  commission. — Un- 
der the  power  to  require  carriers  to  fur- 
nish necessary  transportation  facilities 
and  to  prescribe  rules  to  secure  the  fur- 
nishing of  such  facilities,  etc.,  the  rail- 
road commissioners  may  adopt  a  rule 
making  a  carrier  liable  to  a  shipper  for 
$1  for  each  dav  a  car  properly  loaded, 
and  for  which  shipping  instructions  have 
been  given,  should  be  detained  in  viola- 
tion oi  the  rules  of  the  commissioners; 
and  such  a  rule  is  neither  excessive  or 
unreasonable,  nor  an  arbitrary  or  unjust 
discrimination  against  freight  not  so 
loaded.  The  failure  or  refusal  to  dis- 
charge the  liability  imposed  by  the  rule 
is  not  in  violation  of  law,  and  the  failure 
or  refusal  to  pay  the  liability  fixed  by  the 
rule  is  not  made  a  penal  violation  thereof. 
State  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fla.  617, 
47  So.  969. 

10.  North  Carolina  statute — Penalty  re- 
coverable by  "party  aggrieved."— Re- 
vised   1905,   §   2632. 

Where  goods  are  delivered  to  a  carrier 
for  transportation  and  a  bill  of  lading 
issued,  the  title,  in  the  absence  of  any 
direction  or  agreement  to  the  contrary, 
vests  in  the  consignee,  who  alone  is  the 
"party  aggrieved."  Elliott  v.  Southern 
R.   Co.,   155   N.    C.   235,   71   S.   E.   339. 

In  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty  by 
the  consignors  of  a  shipment  oi  hay,  one 
of  the  plaintiffs  testified  that  the  con- 
signees were  anxious  for  the  hay,  and 
that  they  paid  in  full  for  it  after  delivery. 
Held,  that  the  consignees,  and  not  the 
consignors,  were  the  parties  aggrieved, 
within  the  statute,  and  that  the  consign- 
ors were  without  right  to  sue  for  the 
delay.  Stone  &  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  144  N.   C.   220,  56  S.   E.  932. 

But  where  the  plaintiff  sold  goods  to 
one  at  a  distant  point,  delivered  them  to 
the  carrier,  and  received  a  bill  of  lading 
therefor,  and  delivery  at  the  buyer's 
home  was  a  part  of  the  contract  of  sale, 
it  was  held  that  plaintiff,  and  not  the 
consignee,  was  the  "party  aggrieved"  by 
the  unreasonable  delay,  since  the  plain- 
tiff  was    the    one   whose   legal    right    was 


denied.  Cardwell  z'.  Southern  R.  Co., 
146   N.   C.   218,   59  S.   E.   673. 

A_  consignor  shipping  goods  under  an 
agreement  that  the  consignee  shall  not 
pay  for  them  until  their  arrival  is  the 
"party  aggrieved"  by  delay  in  transporta- 
tion, and  he  may  recover  the  penalty, 
nothing  else  appearing.  Davis  v.  South- 
ern  R.    Co.,   147   N.   C.   68,  60   S.   E.  722. 

Where  goods  are  shipped  under  an 
open  bill  of  lading,  and  the  contract  be- 
tween the  shipper  and  the  consignee  pro- 
vides that  the  goods  are  not  to  be  paid 
for  until  received,  inspected,  and  weighed 
at  the  point  of  destination,  and  the  stip- 
ulation is  inserted  to  ascertain  the  quan- 
tity of  the  goods  and  the  price  therefor, 
the  title  remains  in  the  shipper,  who  is 
the  "party  aggrieved"  by  the  carrier's  de- 
lay in  transportation,  and  he  alone  may 
sue  for  the  penalty  though  the  carrier 
is  ignorant  of  the  contract.  Elliott  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  155  N.  C.  235,  71  S.  E. 
339. 

Plaintiff  loaded  and  received  a  bill  of 
lading  for  a  car  load  of  wood,  shipped  to 
the  consignee  to  be  sold  by  him  for  plain- 
tiff's benefit.  Held,  that  plaintiff,  and  not 
the  consignee,  was  the  "party  aggrieved" 
by  the  delay.  Rollins  v.  Seaboard,  etc., 
Railroad,   146   N.    C.   153,   59  S.   E.   671. 

11.  Robertson  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co., 
148   N.   C.  323,  62  S.   E.  413. 

12.  South  Carolina  statute — Penalty  re- 
coverable by  consignee  or  by  owner  or 
holder  of  bill  of  lading. — Act  March  25. 
1904   (^4   St.  at   Large,  pp.  671,  672.) 

Under  this  statute,  a  consignee,  not 
shown  to  be  either  the  owner  or  the 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading,  can  not  re- 
cover the  penalty  without  proving  that 
he  was  injured  by  the  delay.  Fullerton 
V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  333,  64 
S.    E.   142. 

But  the  holder  of  a  bill  of  lading  can 
recover  the  penalty  without  proving  any 
injury  by  the  delay.  Muckenfuss  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C. 
177,  63  S.  E.  747;  Mills  v.  Southern  Rail- 
way, 82  S.  C.  242,  64  S.  E.  238. 

A  consignee,  having  received  from  the 
carrier  satisfaction  for  total  loss  of  goods, 
is  no  longer  such  injured  consignee  or 
owner  of  the  bill  of  lading  as  can  maintain 
an  action  under  the  statute.  Macon  v. 
Southern  Railway,  81  S.  C.  167,  62 
S.   E.  6. 


153 


CONTROL  AND  KF.GULATION. 


§§  214-215 


§  214.  In  What  Cases  Penalty  Is  Imposed. — A  statute  authorizing^  re- 
covery of  a  i)cnall\'  for  delay  in  transporlaiion  of  freight  has  no  apjjlication  to 
loss  of  or  damage  to  goods.'-'  .\  statute  imposing  a  penalt\-  on  a  railroad  com- 
pany failing  to  transport  goods  received  by  it  for  shipment,  and  billed  to  any 
place  within  the  state,  for  a  longer  period  than  four  days  after  receipt  of  the 
same,  unless  (Otherwise  agreed  between  the  parties,  refers  to  a  delay  in  begin- 
ning the  transportaticju  or  starting  the  goods  from  the  station  of  tlieir  receipt, 
and  does  not  re([uirc  a  delivery  at  their  destination  within  the  time  specified.''* 
A  statute  imposing  a  ])enalty  for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  freight,  and  re- 
quiring a  delivery  at  destination  within  a  time  s])ecified,  does  not  apply  to  a  de- 
lay in  delivery  to  the  consignee  after  transportation  ceases,  nor  compel  a  car- 
rier to  deliver  loaded  cars  ofT  its  own  right  of  way  onto  the  private  track  of 
the  consignee.'"''  The  North  Carolina  statute,  imposing  a  penalty  on  carriers 
for  a  failure  to  transport  freight  within  a  reasonable  time,  applies  only  to  in- 
trastate shipments,  or  those  which  do  not  require  any  departure  from  the  bor- 
ders of  the  state  to  execute  the  contract  of  carriage."' 

§  215.  Time  within  Which  Freight  Must  Be  Transported. — Statutes 
imposing  a  penalty  for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  freight  sometimes  contain 
express  provisions  as  to  the  time  within  which  the  goods  must  be  transported. 
In  such  case  the  carrier  will  be  liable  to  the  penalty  if  the  transportation  is  de- 
layed beyond  the  prescribed   period.''' 


13.  No  application  to  loss  of  or  damage 
to  goods.  -So  holdint?  as  to  the  South 
Carolina  statute.  Macon  v.  Southern 
Railway,  81  S.  C.  167,  62  S.  E.  6;  Cousar 
Mercantile  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  82  S. 
C.  307.  64  S.   E.   :i91. 

14.  Delivery  at  destination  within  time 
specified  not  required. — Walker  Bros.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  137  N.  C.  163,  49  S.  E. 
84.    construin,^-    Acts    1903,    p.    999,    c.    .■■)90. 

15.  Statute  not  applicable  to  delay  in 
delivery  to  consignee  after  transporta- 
tion ceases. — Brooks  Mf,y\  Co.  v.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  1,J3  X.  C.  665,  68  S.  E.  243, 
construin.uf  Revisal  1905,  §  2632,  as 
amended   by  Acts   1907,  c.  461. 

Revisal  190,",,  §  2632,  providing  that  any 
railroad  failing  to  "transport"  within  a 
reasonable  time  goods  received  shall  pay 
a  penalty,  and  declaring  that  it  shall  be 
considered  that  'a  railroad  has  "trans- 
ported" freight  within  a  reasonable  time 
if  it  has  done  so  in  the  ordinary  time  n 
quired,  etc.,  imposes  a  penalty  on  a  rail- 
road for  failing  to  reasonably  "transport" 
goods,  as  distinguished  from  a  failure  to 
"deliver"  goods  to  the  consignee,  and 
for  a  failure  to  perform  the  first  the 
statutory  penalty  is  imposed,  while  for 
a  failure  to  perform  the  second  the  con- 
signee may  sue  for  damages.  Alexander 
t'.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  X.  C.  93,  .^)6 
S.    E.   697. 

16.  North  Carolina  statute  applies  only 
to  intrastate  shipments.  II  iekory  Mar- 
ble, etc.,  Co.  r.  Soutliern  R.  Co.,  147  X. 
C.  53,  60  S.  E.  719,  construing  Revisal 
1905,  §  2632.  considered  in  connection 
with   Code,   §§   1966. 

17.  Time  within  which  freight  must  be 
transported — North  Carolina  statutes  con- 
strued.—  Revisal    190,"),    §    2632.    imposing   a 


penalty  on  a  carrier  for  neglecting  to 
transport  within  a  reasonable  time  any 
goods  received  for  shipment,  and  provid- 
ing that  it  shall  be  deemed  to  have  trans- 
ported the  goods  in  a  reasonaljle  time, 
if  it  has  done  so  within  the  ordinary  time 
required  for  such  transportation,  and  that 
a  delay  of  two  daj's  at  the  initial  point  and 
forty-eight  hours  at  one  intermediate 
point  for  each  one  liundred  miles  shall  be 
prima  facie  reasonable,  etc.,  makes  a 
failure  to  transport  within  the  ordinary 
time  prima  facie  unreasonable,  and,  where 
the  transportation  is  not  within  the  or- 
dinary time,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the 
penalty  imposed,  less  two  days  at  the 
initial  point  and  forty-eight  hours  at  one 
intermediate  point  for  each  one  hundred 
miles,  but  the  two  days  at  the  initial  point 
and  forty-eight  hours  at  each  intermedi- 
ate point  are  not  the  standards  by  which 
reasonal:)le  time  is  measured.  Jenkins  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  146  X.  C.  178,  59  S.  E, 
663.  See,  also,  Wall-Huske  Co.  v.  South- 
ern   R.    Co..    147    X.    C.    407,    61    S.    E.    277. 

The  words  "ordinary  time,"  within  the 
statute,  mean  the  regular  customary  time 
within  which,  by  the  facilities  in  general 
use  for  the  performance  of  the  duty  of 
carrj-ing  goods,  the  carriage  should  be 
completed.  Jenkins  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
146    X.    C.    178,   59    S.    E.    663. 

Where  it  is  shown  that  the  point  of 
shipment  is  a  regular  station  on  the  car- 
rier's main  line,  leading  directly  to  the 
point  of  destination,  twenty-five  miles 
away,  though  tiiere  is  no  testimony  re- 
garding the  ordinary  time  required  for  a 
freight  train  between  the  two  points,  the 
jury  may  be  permitted  from  their  com- 
mon observation  and  experience  to  con- 
sider    and     determine     the     question     of 


§§  216-219 


CARRIERS. 


154 


§  216.  When  Transportation  Terminates.— Transportation  of  freight  by 
a  carrier  is  not  terminated  so  as  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  Habihty  for  a  pen- 
alty for  delay  on  the  train  hauling  the  freight  arriving  within  the  yard  limits 
of  the  point  to  which  the  freight  is  consigned,  nor  until  the  relation  of  carrier 
ends,  and  that  of  warehouseman  begins. ^^ 

§§  217-220.  Defenses— §  217.  Failure  to  Prepay  Charges.— Where  a 
carrier  does  not  require  prepayment  of  freight  charges  as  authorized  by  stat- 
ute, it  waives  such  prepayment,  so  that  failure  to  prepay  is  not  a  defense  to  an 
action  for  the  penalty  imposed  for  delay  in  transportation.^^ 

§  218.  Notice  to  Shippers  of  Conditions  Causing  Delay.— That  ship- 
pers were  notified  by  a  carrier  of  conditions  which  prevented  delivery  of  ship- 
ments in  the  usual  time  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  the  penalty  for  delay  in 
transportation,  as  a  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  the  facts  is  not  sufficient  to 
charge  the  shipper  with  notice  of  their  efifect  on  the  carrier.-" 

§  219.  Sunday  Laws.— Whether  the  fact  that  delay  in  the  shipment  or 
transportation  of  freight  by  a  railroad  company  was  caused  by  the  company 
not  running  its  trains  on  Sunday  is  a  defense  in  an  action  for  the  penalty  im- 
posed for  such  delay,  and  whether  Sundays  are  to  be  included  in  the  days  for 
which  such  penalty  is  allowed,  are  questions  to  be  determined  from  the  terms 


ordinary  time  between  the  points,  and,  in 
the  absence  of  explanation,  fix  the  amount 
of  the  wrongful  delay.  Rollins  v.  Sea- 
board, etc.,  Railroad,  14G  N.  C.  153,  59 
S.  E.  671. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  statute, 
the  evidence  showed  that  the  goods  were 
delivered  to  it  for  transportation  on  De- 
cember 7th,  and  were  delivered  to  the 
consignee  January  12th  following,  and 
that  the  distance  was  less  than  two- 
hundred  miles,  the  jury  were  justified 
in  finding  that  the  time  consumed  was  in 
excess  of  the  ordinary  time.  Jenkins  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  146  N.  C.  178,  59  S.  E. 
663. 

In  such  an  action  the  carrier  may 
show  that  extraordinary  unforeseen  con- 
ditions prevented  the  discharge  of  the 
duty  within  the  ordinary  time,  and,  where 
such  conditions  are  shown,  the  question 
of  reasonable  time  must  then  be  measured 
by  the  unusual  conditions.  Jenkins  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  146  N.  C.  178,  59  S.  E. 
663. 

A  station  at  which  a  car  must  be  taken 
out  of  a  local  train  which  comes  into  the 
station  and  then  placed  into  another  train 
leaving  the  station  for  the  point  of  des- 
tination is  not  an  "intermediate  point," 
within  the  statute.  Brooks  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  152  X.  C.  665,  68  S.  E. 
243. 

But  where  freight  less  than  a  car  load 
destined  for  a  point  on  a  branch  line 
was  loaded  into  a  car  intended  to  go 
through  without  breaking  bulk,  and  the 
car  at  the  junction  was  shifted  from  the 
carrier's  main  to  its  branch  line,  and 
transported  to  destination,  the  junction 
point  was  an  "intermediate  point"  within 
the    statute.       Wall-Huske    Co.    v.    South- 


ern   R.    Co.,    147    N.    C.    407,    61    S.    E.    277. 

Under  the  express  provisions  of  Laws 
1907,  p.  669,  c.  461,  the  time  allowed  for 
the  transportation  of  freight  by  Revisal 
1905,  §  2633,  namely,  the  actual  running 
time  for  freight  trains  between  the  point 
of  shipment  and  destination  plus  two  days 
at  the  initial  point  and  two  days  at  each 
intermediate  point,  if  any,  must  embrace 
within  them  the  day  of  delivery  if  the 
goods  were  applied  for,  and  for  every 
day  beyond  that  the  carrier  incurs  the 
prescribed  penaltv.  Wall-Huske  .  Co.  V. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  407,  61  S.  E. 
277. 

Under  Acts  1875,  c.  240,  imposing  a 
p-enalty  against  railroad  companies  for 
allowing  freight  received  foi  shipment  to 
remain  unshipped  for  more  than  five 
days,  unless  by  agreement,  five  full  run- 
ning days  are  intended,  including  Sun- 
day whenever  it  intervenes;  and  the  com- 
pany would  not  incur  the  penalty  until 
the  full  expiration  of  the  sixth  day  after 
receipt  of  the  goods.  Keeter  v.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  N.  C.  346.  See, 
also.  Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
88    N.    C.    570. 

18.  When  transportation  terminates.— 
Wall-Huske  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147 
N.  C.  407.  61  S.  E.  277,  construing  Re- 
visal   1905,   §    2632. 

19.  Failure  to  prepay  charges  no  de- 
fense where  prepayment  is  waived.— 
Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hannay-Frerichs 
&  Co.,  104  Tex.  603,  142  S.  W.  1163,  mod- 
ifying judgment  130  S.  W.  250. 

20.  Notice  to  shippers  of  conditions 
causing  delay. — Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Hannay-Frerichs  &  Co.,  104  Tex.  603,  142 
S.  W.  1163,  construing  Rev.  St.  1895,  art. 
4496. 


155 


COXTROI.  AND  KICGUI.ATIOX. 


§§  219-222 


of  the  statute  iiuposini,'  the  penalty  construcil  in  connection  with  any  statutory 
enactment  relatin<^  to  the  operation  of  trains  on  Sunday.-^ 

§  22  0.  Estoppel  to  Set  Up  Defense. — A  carrier  may  be  estopj)ed  by  its 
conduct  to  set  up  a  dcfeuM.-,  in  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty  prescriljed  by 
statute  for  a  delay   in   llie  shipment  of    freij^ht.-- 

§  221.  Failure  to  Give  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Freight  to  Consignee.— 
A  statute  imjjosing  a  penaky  on  a  railnjad  company  for  a  failure  to  give  no- 
tice of  the  arrival  of  freight  to  the  consignee  within  a  prescribed  time  after  its 
arrival,  and  which  also  imposes  a  reciprocal  demurrage  on  consignees  for  fail- 
ure to  remove  freight,  is  a  reasonable  regulation  in  aid  of  commerce,  and  not 
a   burden    upon    it.-'' 

§§  222-226.  Reftisal  to  Deliver  Freight  or  Express  Matter  to  Con- 
signee—§  22  2.  Constitutionality  of  Statute  Imposing  Penalty.— A  stat- 
ute entitling  a  consignee  of  merchandise  to  recover  the  amount  of  freight 
charges  for  every  day  the  carrier  refuses  to  deliver  after  tender  of  freight,  is 
not  repugnant  to  a  constitutional  provision  requiring  fines  and  penalties  to  be 
appropriated    for  laving  out  public  roads,  where  such  provision  refers  only  to 


21.  Effect  of  Sunday  laws. — Xebnislca. — 
In  an  action  under  C<)l)l)c\'s  Ann.  St.  1907, 
§§  10,()0()  and  lO.tiOT,  for  delay  in  shipment 
of  live  stock,  where  the  evidence  shows 
that  the  delay  was  caused  by  unloading 
the  stock  for  feed  and  rest  at  a  division 
point,  and  that  to  have  continued  the  ship- 
ment would  have  compelled  the  carrier 
to  operate  its  trains  on  Sunday,  and^  re- 
sulted in  delivery  of  said  stock  on  Sun- 
day, the  judgment  against  the  carrier  can 
not  be  sustained.  Cram  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  84  Neb.  607,  122  N.  W.  31,  2(i  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1022,  rehearing  denied,  12.3 
N.   W.    104.5. 

Xortit  Carolina. — Where  a  safe  ^  was 
delivered  to  defendant  carrier  on  Tues- 
day, January  22,  1907,  and  arrived  at  its 
destination  on  January  30th  after  passing 
one  intermediate  point  at  which  the  car- 
rier was  entitled  to  two  days'  delay  and 
the  safe,  if  transported  with  necessary 
diligence,  could  not  have  arrived  in  time 
for  delivery  before  Sunday,  defendant 
was  excused  I)y  Revisal  1905,  §  2839,  from 
making  a  delivery  on  Sunday  and  was 
therefore  entitled  to  a  deduction  for  that 
day  and  for  the  two  days  at  sucli  inter- 
mediate point  in  determining  the  length 
•  of  time  for  which  a  penalty  for  delay 
was  recoverable.  Blue  Ridge  Collection 
Agency  v.  Southern  R.  Co.  (N.  C),  01 
S.    E.    462. 

Where  freight,  if  transported  without 
improper  delay,  should  have  been  deliv- 
ered on  Friday.  January  18th,  and  was 
not  in  fact  delivered  until  Wednesday, 
the  23d,  the  carrier  was  not  entitled  to  an 
allowance  in  the  computation  of  penal- 
ties for  delay  imposed  by  Revisal  19()5.  § 
2(532,  for  the  intervening  Sunday,  since, 
the  default  having  begun  on  a  week  day, 
its  duration  was  measured  by  the  calen- 
dar not  exceeding  thirty  days,  irrespec- 
tive  of    intervening   Sundays    or   holidays. 


Wall-Huske    Co.   v.    Southern    R.   Co.,    147 
N.    C.   407,   61    S.    E.   277. 

Sinttli  Carolina. — Under  the  act  pro- 
viding a  penalty  for  failure  to  deliver 
freight  in  a  certain  numljer  of  hours, 
when  notified  that  prompt  shipment  is 
required,  Sunday  is  not  to  be  included  in 
the  days  for  which  the  penalty  is  allowed, 
as  freight  trains  are  prohil)ited  l)y  law 
from  running  on  Sunday.  Salley  v.  Sea- 
board, etc..  Railway'.  76  S.  C.  173,  56  S. 
E.  782.  See,  also.  Sandford  v.  Seaboard, 
etc..   Railway.   79   S.   C.   519.  61    S.    E.   74. 

22.  Estoppel  to  set  up  defence. — Where 
four  packages  were  delivered  to  defend- 
ant railroad  company  for  shipment  under 
a  single  bill  of  lading,  three  of  which  were 
mismarked,  but  notwithstanding  such 
fact  they  were  shipped  to  the  place  where 
they  were  marked,  and  the  package  which 
was  correctly  marked  was  not  shipped, 
defendant  was  estopped  to  claim,  in  an 
action  to  recover  a  penalty  for  its  fail- 
ure to  ship  the  correctly  marked  pack- 
age, that  the  four  packages  constituted  a 
single  shipment,  and  that  the  mismarking 
of  the  three  was  a  sufficient  excuse  for 
not  shipping  the  fourth.  Lexington  Gro- 
cery Co.  r.  Southern  R.  Co..  13f)  X.  C. 
396^   4S    S.    E.   SOI. 

23.  Failure  to  give  notice  of  arrival  of 
freight  to  consignee. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Cu.  :.  Iviwards. '.14  Ark.  374,  127  S.  W.  713, 
so  holding  as  to  the  Act  of  April  19,  1907 
(.A.cts  1907,  p.  453)  §  3,  requiring  railroad 
companies  failing  to  give  notice  of  ar- 
rival to  the  consignee  within  twenty-four 
liours  thereafter  to  forfeit  to  the  inter- 
ested party  $5  a  day  per  car  on  car  load 
shipments,  and  one  cent  a  hundred  pounds 
per  day  on  less  than  car  load  shipments 
with  a  minimum  and  maximum  charge  of 
five  cents  and  $5  respectively,  on  less  than 
car   load    shipments. 


§§  222-225  CARRIERS.  156 

fines  imposed  as  penalties  for  crimes  or  such  as  arise  from  forfeited  1)ail  bonds. ^^ 
§  223.  Statute  Imposing  Penalty  Not  Merely  in  Aid  of  Common  Law. 
— A  statute  imposing  a  penalty  on  an  express  company  refusing  to  deliver  ex- 
press matter  at  the  residence  of  the  consignee  in  a  city  of  more  than  2,500  in- 
habitants, is  not  merely  in  aid  of  the  common  law  requiring  carriers  of  goods  to 
make  personal  delivery.--^' 

§  224.  Where  Delivery  Must  Be  Made. — Where  no  depot  is  maintained 
•at  a  certain  place  on  a  railroad,  and  it  is  the  custom  to  deliver  freight  for  that 
place  from  the  depot  at  another  point  on  the  line,  the  conductors  of  freight 
trains  acting  as  freight  agents  at  the  former  place,  tender  of  the  charges,  and 
demand  for  the  goods  by  a  consignee,  can  be  made  at  the  latter  place  where  the 
goods  are  retained,  and"  the  penalty  imposed,  for  refusing  to  deliver  freight  on 
tender  of  charges,  is  incurred  by  refusal  to  deliver  there. -'^ 

§  225.  Conditions  Precedent  to  Recovery  of  Penalty. — Where  a  stat- 
ute imposes  a  penalty  upon  railroad  companies  for  a  refusal  to  deliver  freight 
to  a  consignee  upon  his  tendering  the  freight  charges  due  as  shown  by  the  bill 
of  lading,  an  owner  of  freight,  in  order  to  recover  the  penalty,  must  bring  him- 
self strictly  within  the  requirements  of  the  statute.-"  The  entire  freight  charges 
due,  as  shown  by  the  bill  of  lading,  must  be  paid  or  tendered  in  order  to  fix 
the  liability  for  the  penalty, ^^  and  where  the  bill  of  lading  does  not  represent 
the  amount  of  charges  that  are  legally  demandable  by  the  carrier  to  whom  the 
tender  is  made,  such  carrier  can  not  be  held  liable  for  the  penalty.-'-^  But  it  is 
not  necessary  that  the  bill  of  lading  shall  be  shown  at  the  time,  to  make  the 
tender  of  the  charges  effectual,  unless  its  production  is  demanded;-^"  and  the 
railroad  company  has  no  right  to  impose,  as  a  condition  to  the  delivery  of  the 
freight,  the  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading,  any  custom  to  the  contrary  notwitn- 
standing.'^  1  The  penalty  is  recoverable  only  when  the  railroad  company  that 
is  sought  to  be  charged  has  either  itself  executed  the  bill  of  lading,  or  has  au- 
thorized another  company  to  execute  it,  or  has  ratified  it  by  a  voluntary  act  on 

24.  Statute  held  not  unconstitutional. —  freight  upon  a  tender  of  its  proportion  of 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  c'.  Harry  &  Bros.,  the  charges,  and  it  is  thereupon  replevied, 
G3  Tex.  256,  construing  Const.,  art.  HI,  S  and  subsequently,  after  repairing  the 
24,  and   Gen.   Laws,   p.   35.  damage,    the    company    refuses    to   deliver 

25.  Statute  not  merely  in  aid  of  com-  the  remaining  goods  upon  a  tender  of 
men  law. — Railroad  Comm.  v.  Adams  their  proportion  of  the  charges,  but  of- 
Exp.  Co.,  171  Ind.  138,  85  N.  E.  337,  960,  fers  to  do  so  upon  the  payment  of  the 
construing  Acts  1901,  p.  97,  c.  62  whole  bill,  no  liability  for  the  penalty  is 
(Burns'  Ann.  St.  1901,  §  3312a).  incurred.     St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 

26.  Where    delivery    must    be    made.—  son,  53  Ark.  282,  13  S.  W.  1096. 

St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.  7'.    McKee    (Tex.).  Under    the   Texas    statute,    Sayles'    Civ. 

15  S.  W.  45,  4  Willson  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.,  St..  art.  4258a,  §§  1,  2,  3,  a  consignee  who 

§  8,  construing  Sayles'  Civ.  St..  art.  4258a.  tenders   the   amount   of  freight   shown   to 

27.  To  recover  penalty  strict  compli-  Ijc  due  by  an  expense  account  furnished 
ance  with  statutory  requirements  must  be  by  the  carrier,  which  is  no  part  of  the 
shown. — Schloss  v.  Atcliison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  bill  of  lading,  can  not  maintain  an  action 
85  Tex.  601,  22  S.  W.  1014,  construing  for  tiie  penalty.  Schloss  v.  Atchison, 
Sayles'  Civ.  St..  art.  4258a.  §§  1.  2,  3.  etc.,    R.    Co.,    85    Tex.    601,   22    S.    W.    1014. 

28.  Freight  charges,  as  shown  by  bill  29.  Fordyce  v.  Johnson,  56  Ark.  430,  10 
of  lading,  must  be  paid  or  tendered. — St.  S.    W.    1050. 

Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Johnson,    53    Ark.  30.  Bill    of    lading    need    not    be    shown 

282,   13    S.   W.    1096,   construing   Act    Fel).  unless     production      is     dernanded. — Gulf, 

27,    1885,    §    3;    Schloss    v.    Atchison,    etc.,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Dwyer,  75  Tex.   572,   12   S. 

R.    Co.,   85   Tex.    601,   22    S.   W.    1014,   con-  W.   1001,   7   L.   R.   A.   478,   16  Am.   St.   Rep. 

stru.ing    Sayles'     Civ.    St.,    art.     4258a,    §§  92f>,    construing    Laws    17th    Leg.    Sess., 

1,   2,   3.  p.   35. 

Under   the   Arkansas    statute.    Act    Feb.  31.  Railroad    company    can    not    require 

27,   1885,  §   3,   where   a   consignee   declines  surrender    of    bill    of    lading. — Dwyer    v. 

to  receive  a  portion  of  the  goods  because  Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.,   69   Tex.    707,   7    S.    W. 

they  are  damaged,  and  the  railroad  com-  504,    construing    Gen.    Laws    17th    Called 

pany    refuses    to    deliver    the    undamaged  Leg.  Sess.,  p.  35,  §  2. 


157 


CONTROL  AND  KKGUI.ATION. 


§§  225-228 


its  pari;  aiul  an  acceptance  of  freij:,'ln  by  a  company  from  a  connecting  com- 
pany, where  such  acceptance  is  by  statute  made  compulsory,  will  not  be  deemed 
a  ratification.-'- 

§  226.  Number  of  Penalties  Recoverable. — Inder  a  statute  providing 
that  the  carrier  shall  inform  the  consignee  of  the  amount  of  freight  charges  and 
deliver  the  freight  on  tender  or  payment  thereof,  and  that  any  failure  or  re- 
fusal to  comply  with  such  provisions  shall  subject  the  carrier  to  a  prescribed 
penalty  for  each  such  failure  or  refusal,  only  one  penalty  is  recoverable  on  one 
shipment,  though  there  are  several  demands  for  delivery  and  refusals  thereof.''^ 

§   227.  Failure    of    Consignee    to    Unload    Cars    within    a    Prescribed 

Time. —  Under  a  statute  making  a  consignee  liable  io  a  penalty  to  the  railroad 
company  for  failure  to  unload  cars  within  a  prescribed  time  after  delivery  and 
notice,  the  consignor  is  not  liable  for  failing  to  sec  that  cars  are  unloaded  at 
their   destination. '■' 

§  228.  Failure  to  Stop  at  Station. — Under  statutes  in  some  states  the 
failure  of  a  railroad  company  to  stoj)  a  passenger  train  at  a  station,  to  discharge 
a  i^assenger  who  has  purchased  a  ticket  to  such  station,  will  subject  the  company 
to  a  penalty.-'-'"     Where  a  passenger  goes  to  a  flag  station  on  a  railroad  at  n;glit, 


32.  Carrier  liable  only  when  it  has  exe- 
cuted, authorized  execution  of,  or  rati- 
fied, bill  of  lading.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dwyer,  7.5  lex.  572,  12  S.  W.  1001,  7  L. 
R.   A.   478,    16   Am.   St.    Rep.   926. 

Under  the  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.,  art. 
4251,  making  it  obligatory  on  a  railroad 
company  in  the  state,  witliout  delay,  to 
carry  over  its  road,  cars,  freight,  etc.,  re- 
ceived from  any  connecting  company,  a 
connecting  company  is  not  bound  by  a 
through  l)ill  of  lading,  under  which  it  re- 
ceives freight,  in  ignorance  of  its  terms, 
and  issued  by  the  original  carrier,  who 
had  no  authority  to  contract  for  it,  and  is 
therefore  not  liable  upon  its  refusal  to 
deliver  goods  on  tender  of  payment  or 
charges  specified  in  such  a  bill  of  lading, 
under  Laws  17th  Leg.  Sess.,  p.  .35,  impos- 
ing a  penalty  on  railroad  companies  for 
refusing  to  deliver  freight  upon  payment 
or  tender  of  the  charges  sliown  in  the 
bill  of  lading.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dwyer, 
75  Tex.  572,  12  S.  W.  1001,  7  L.  R.  A. 
478,    16   Am.    St.    Rep.    926. 

In  an  action  to  recover  the  statutory 
penalty  from  a  railroad  company  for  recus- 
ing to  deliver  certain  freight  on  tender  of 
the  charges  shown  on  the  bill  of  lading,  it 
appeared  that  the  freight  was  received 
for  shipment,  and  the  bill  of  lading  exe- 
cuted l)y  another  road;  that  defendants, 
on  receiving  the  goods  from  the  connect- 
ing line,  paid  the  charges  as  shown  on 
the  waybill,  which  were  in  excess  of  those 
on  the  bill  of  lading;  that  if  the  freight 
was  shipped  by  the  route  it  traveled,  the 
shipping  carrier  had  no  authority  to  l)ind 
defendant  and  the  connecting  line  to 
carry  at  the  rate  specified  in  the  bill  of 
lading;  that  if  shipped  at  an  authorized 
rate,  it  was  misrouted  l)y  a  preceding 
carrier,  for  whose  act  defendants  were 
not   responsible,   and   the    freight   came   to 


defendants  bound  by  the  charges  of  their 
connecting  line.  Held,  that  plaintiffs 
must  pay  the  rates  paid  by  defendants  to 
their  connecting  line  in  full,  their  remedy 
being  against  the  railroad  company  which 
shipped  goods  by  an  unauthorized  route, 
and  defendants  are  entitled  to  hold  tlie 
goods  until  the  freight  is  paid.  Fordyce 
V.  Johnson,  56  Ark.  430,  19  S.  W.  1().5<). 
Evidence  held  not  to  show  that  a  rail- 
road company,  against  whom  a  suit  was 
brought  to  recover  the  statutory  pen- 
alty, authorized  the  execution  of  the  bill 
of  lading  or  subsequently  ratified  it. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  -c-.  Dwver,  84  Tex.  194, 
19    S.   W.   470. 

33.  Only  one  penalty  recoverable  on 
one  shipment. — Harrill  Brus.  v.  Souili- 
ern  R.  Co.,  144  X.  C.  532,  57  S.  E.  3  3, 
construing    Revisal    1905.    §    2633. 

34.  Consignor  not  liable. — Judgment 
(Civ.  App.).  40  S.  \V.  431,  reversed.  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  t:  Campbell.  91  Tex.  551, 
45   S.  W.   2,  43   L.   R.   A.   225. 

35.  Failure  to  stop  at  station  to  dis- 
charge a  passenger. —  In  an  action  against 
a  railroad  company,  under  the  Michigan 
statute,  How.  Ann.  St..  §  3324,  to  recover 
a  penalty  for  failure  to  discharge  a  pas- 
senger at  his  destination,  it  appeared  that 
plaintiff  purchased  a  regular  passenger 
ticket  for  a  station  on  the  road;  that  pr:or 
to  the  arrival  at  such  station  the  train 
was  so  full  that  defendant  ran  through 
the  station  without  stopping,  there  being 
so  many  persons  waiting  for  the  train 
that  defendant  determined  it  was  unsafe 
to  stop.  Held,  to  show  no  "legal  or  iust 
excuse."  within  the  statute,  to  excuse  de- 
fendant from  lialnlitv  for  the  penalty. 
Hoyt  V.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.,  112  Mich. 
638,   71    X.    \V.    172. 

Under  the  Montana  statute.  Rev.  Codes, 
§    4330.    requiring    railroad    corporations. 


§§  228-231 


CARRIERS. 


158 


intending  to  take  a  train  that  has  been  in  the  hal)it  of  stopping  at  such  station 
when  signaled  so  to  do,  and  the  train  does  not  stop  for  him,  aUhough  the  usual 
signal  is  given,  he  may  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  the  failure  of  the 
railroad  company  to  '"furnish  accommodation  for  his  transportation."'"' 

§§   229-234.  Failure  to    Furnish,    or    Delay    in    Furnishing    Cars — § 

22  9.  Constitutionality  of  Statutes  Imposing  Penalties. — A  statute  impos- 
ing penalties  upon  carriers  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  when  application  for  such 
cars  has  been  made  by  a  shipper,  must  not  contravene  any  provision  of  the 
constitution.  Certain  statutes  imposing  penalties  for  such  derelictions  of  duty 
by   carriers   have   been   held   constitutional.'^" 

§  230.  Statutes  Imposing  Penalties  Strictly  Construed. — Statutes  im- 
posing a  penalty  for  failure  of  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  freight  cars  to 
an  applicant  therefor,  will  be  strictly  construed.'^ ^ 

§  231.  Powers  and  Duties  of  Railroad  Commissions. — Under  statutes 
in  some  states  the  state  railroad  commission  is  empowered  to  recjuire  railroad 


on  tender  of  the  "regular  rates  of  fare," 
to  furnish  tickets  entitling  the  purchasers 
to  ride,  and  providing  that  any  railroad 
failing  to  furnish  tickets  or  refusing  the 
passage  which  the  same  call  for,  must 
pa}'  to  the  person  so  refused  $200,  one 
purchasing  a  ticket  at  a  reduced  rate  may 
not  recover  the  penalty  on  failure  of  the 
railroad  to  stop  at  the  station  named  in 
the  ticket.  Miley  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  41  Mont.  51,  108  Pac.  5. 

36.  Failure  to  stop  train  when  signaled. 
— Freeman  z\  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  tjj 
Mich.  577,  32  X.  W.  833,  construing  How. 
Ann.    St.,    §    3324. 

37.  Statutes  held  constitutional. — That 
the  Arkansas  statute,  Laws  1907,  Act  No. 
1'j3,  pp.  4.J4.  4o3.  §§  1.  17,  requiring  railroad 
companies  to  furnish  cars  within  six  days 
of  application  therefor  made  the  duty  to 
furnish  cars  absolute,  and  did  not  ex- 
pressly provide  for  reasonable  defenses  to 
be  interposed,  did  not  render  it  uncon- 
stitutional, since  the  whole  law  is  not  in 
the  legislative  act,  but  in  the  constitution 
and  higher  rights  of  property,  and  a  vio- 
lation of  the  act  would  merely  be  prima 
facie  a  breach  of  duty,  which  would  not 
preclude  the  right  to  set  up  defenses. 
Oliver  &  Son  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 
Ark.   466.    117    S.   W.   238. 

The  provision  of  the  Kansas  act  relat- 
ing to  the  furnishing  of  cars  by  railway 
companies  to 'shippers  of  freight  (Gen.  St. 
1909,  §  7203 J,  which  allows  shippers  to  re- 
cover attorney  fees  in  action  successfully 
prosecuted  under  the  act,  does  not  deny 
the  railway  companies  the  equal  protec- 
tion of  the  laws  guaranteed  by  the  fed- 
eral constitution  because  they  are  not  al- 
lowed attorney  fees  if  they  are  successful 
in  such  suits,  or  because  they  are  not  al- 
lowed attorney  fees  in  actions  success- 
fully prosecuted  by  them  against  ship- 
pers for  the  detention  of  cars  contrary  to 
the  reciprocal  provision  of  the  act.  Vos- 
burg  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Kan. 
114,    130   Pac.    667. 

The  Texas  statute,  Rev.  Stat.  1895,  arts. 


4497-4502,  imposes  penalties  and  dam- 
ages on  carriers  for  failure  to  furnish  cars 
at  designated  points  within  certain  times 
after  demand,  and  declares  that  the  car- 
rier shall  not  be  bound  to  comply  with 
the  act  provided  it  is  prevented  from  do- 
ing so  by  strikes  or  other  calamities. 
Held,  that  the  exceptions  so  provided 
were  not  exclusive,  and  did  not  prevent 
the  carrier  from  pleading  any  legitimate 
defense  in  excuse  of  its  failure  to  com- 
ply with  the  act,  and  hence  the  same  was 
not  unconstitutional  as  a  deprivation  of 
the  carrier's  property  without  due  process 
of  law.  Allen  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 
Tex.  525,  101  S.  W.  792,  affirming  42  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    331. 

38.  Statutes  strictly  construed. — Judg- 
ment (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40  S.  "W.  431, 
reversed.  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cainp- 
bell,  91  Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A. 
225;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Buchanan, 
42  lex.  Civ.  App.  620,  94  S.  "W.  199; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Loving  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.,),  98  S.  W.  451,  452,  afifirmed  in  101 
Tex.  663,  no  op.;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :'. 
Barrow,  33  Tex.  Civ.  App.  611,  613,  77  S. 
■  W.  643,  affirmed  in  101  Tex.  663,  no  op. 
See,  also.  Schloss  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  85  Tex.  601,  22  S.  W.  1014;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Hughes,  99  Tex.  533,  91  S. 
W.   567. 

A  shipper  desiring  to  recover  the  pen- 
alty imposed  for  a  carrier's  failure  to 
furnish  cars,  must  comply  strictly  with 
the  law.  McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
79  Tex.  3.3,  38,  15  S.  W.  164. 

Statute  not  applicable  to  refusal  to 
furnish  cars. — By  refusing  to  furnish  cars 
on  request,  a  railroad  company  did  not 
incur  the  penalty  imposed  by  the  Texas 
statute.  Rev.  St.  1879,  art.  279,  providing 
that  for  refusing  to  transport  goods  com- 
mon carriers  shall  incur  a  penalty  of  not 
less  than  $5  nor  more  than  $500,  to  1  e 
recovered  by  the  owner  of  the  goods. 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  4 
Willson  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.,  §  68,  15  S. 
W.    203. 


159 


CONTROL    AND    KKGUI.ATION, 


!§  231-233 


companies,  when  cars  arc  applied  fur,  lo  furnish  them  within  a  prescribed  time, 
and  to  impose  a  penalty  for  llieir  failure  to  do  so."'-'  Under  a  Georgia  statute, 
as  preliminary  to  a  suit  against  a  railroad  company  for  tlie  penalty  imposed  for 
failure  to  furnish  cars,  the  railroad  commission  is  required  to  give  the  com- 
pany an  opportunity  to  present  a  defense  before  the  commission,  and  if  a  sufifi- 
cient  defense   is  made  the  company  is  relieved   from   further  liability.-*" 

§  232,  Application  for  Cars. — Before  a  carrier  can  be  held  liable  for  the 
penalty  prescribed  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  an  application  must  be  made  for 
such  cars*'  In  determining  the  sufficiency  of  such  an  application  the  terms  of 
the   statute  or  commission   nrdcr   imposing  the  penalty  must  be  considered. ■*- 

§   233.  Places   at  Which   Cars   Must  Be   Furnished. — Statutes  imposing 


39.  Rule  requiring  cars  to  be  furnished 
within  four  days  reasonable. — L'lukr  tlic 
Georgia  statute,  Laws  l',M)5,  p.  120,  §§  1, 
2,  3,  4,  the  Railroad  Commission  Storage 
Rule,  No.  y,  providing  that  when  a 
shipper  files  with  a  railroad  company 
written  application  for  cars,  stating  tiie 
character  of  freight  to  1)e  shipped  and  its 
destination,  the  railroad  company  shall 
furnish  such  cars  within  four  days,  Sun- 
days and  holidays  excepted,  etc.,  and 
for  a  violation  of  the  rule  shall,  within 
30  days  after  demand,  pay  the  shipper  $1 
per  day  per  car  after  expiration  of  free 
time,  is  a  reasonal)le  rule.  Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  i. •',.-,  Ga.  .'J."), 
68  S.   E.  8(17. 

40.  Georgia  statute — Presentation  of 
defense  before  Railroad  Commission. — 
Laws    I'.H).-),  p.    l;il,  S   :5. 

A  shipper,  acting  under  Railroad  Com- 
mission Storage  Rule  No.  9,  filed  with 
the  commission  a  complaint  for  delay  in 
furnishing  cars,  which  the  secretary  of 
the  commission  referred  to  the  manager 
of  the  railroad  having  charge  of  claims, 
who,  in  reply,  denied  the  charges,  and 
stated  tliat  he  understood  that  suit  had 
been  l)rought  on  the  claim  and  he  did  not 
suppose  it  worth  while  for  him  to  answer 
the  complaint  in  detail.  Held,  a  sufficient 
compliance  with  the  statute  requiring  the 
railroad  commission  to  give  a  railroad 
company  an  opportunity  to  present  a  de- 
fense before  the  commission  sft  as  to  au- 
thorize the  claimant  to  bring  suit  for  the 
penalty  imposed  by  Rule  i),  as  authorized 
by  Laws  190.3,  p.  120,  §  2.  Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga. 
35,  68   S.    E.   807. 

Railroad  Commission  Storage  Rule, 
No.  9,  requires  railroad  companies  to  fur- 
nish cars  prom])tly  upon  request  therefor, 
and  provides  that  when  a  shipper  files 
with  a  railroad  company  written  appli- 
cation for  cars,  stating  the  character  of 
freight  to  be  shipped  and  its  destination, 
the  railroad  company  shall  furnish  such 
cars  within  four  days,  Sundays  and  holi- 
days excepted,  etc.,  and  for  a  violation  of 
the  rule  shall,  within  thirty  days  after 
demand,  pay  the  shipper  $1  per  day  pe- 
car  after  expiration  of  free  time.  Held 
that,    under    tht    statute    entitling   railroad 


companies  to  present  defenses  before  the 
railroad  commission,  a  decision  of  the 
commission  that  a  company  had  not 
shown  sufficient  cause  to  relieve  itself 
from  liability  did  not  conclude  the  com- 
pany as  to  the  question  of  such  liability, 
upon  a  suit  by  the  complaining  shipper 
for  the  amount  claimed  Ijy  him  against 
the  company  for  failure  to  furnish  cars 
on  written  demand  within  four  days  as 
provided  ])y  the  railroad  commission  rule. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc., 
Co.,    135    Ga.   35,   68    S.    E.    SOT. 

41.  Necessity  of  application  for  cars. — ' 
In  Te.xas,  cars  must  be  fiiriiisiied  upon  a 
shipper  making  a  timely  demand  therefor. 
Rev.  St.  arts.  4494,  4496;  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  f.  Campbell,  91  Tex.  551,  560,  45  S. 
W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A.  225,  reversing  40  S.  VV. 
431. 

42.  Sufficiency  of  application  for  cars. — 
An  application  for  freight  cars  under  the 
Kansas  reciprocal  demurrage  law  (Laws 
1905,  p.  570,  c.  345,  §  2)  is  insufficient  to 
permit  recovery  of  penalty  for  failure  to 
comply  therewith,  §  3  requiring  that  it 
shall  state,  among  other  things,  the  time 
they  are  desired,  and  tlie  application  men- 
tioning no  time,  as  to  treat  the  absence 
of  such  statement  to  mean  "now"  would 
l)e  legislation,  and  not  interpretation.  Cox 
V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  SI  Kan.  186,  105 
Pac.  14. 

A  written  application  by  a  shipper  to  a 
carrier  for  a  freight  car  to  be  furnished 
within  two  days  is  not  a  compliance  with 
rule  9  of  the  North  Carolina  corporation 
commission,  requiring  carriers  of  freight 
to  furnish  cars  within  four  days  upon  ap- 
plication in  writing  therefor;  and  hence  a 
carrier  to  whom  such  application  was 
made  incurred  no  penalty  for  failure  to 
comply  therewith.  McDuffie  v.  Seaboard, 
etc..  Railway,  145  N.  C.  397.  59  S.  E.  122; 
S.   C,   145   N.    C.  399,  59   S.    E.   123. 

Under  the  Texas  statute.  Rev.  St.  1895, 
arts.  4498,  4499,  imposing  a  penalty  on  a 
carrier  for  failure  to  furnisii  cars,  on  ap- 
plication, and  requiring  the  application  to 
state  the  time  when  they  are  desired,  an 
application  for  a  car  "as  soon  as  possible" 
was  not  sufficient  to  bring  the  applicant 
within  the  statute.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Hughes,  99  Tex.  533,  91   S.  W.  567. 


§§  233-234 


CARRIERS. 


160 


a  penalty  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  generally  prescribe  the  places  at  which 
cars  shall  be  furnished.  Therefore  the  question  whether  a  carrier  is  liable  for 
the  penalty  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  at  a  particular  place  is  to  be  determined 
by  a  construction  of  the  terms  of  the  statute. ■^■' 

§  234.  Defenses. — In  an  action  by  a  shipper  against  a  railroad  company 
for  the  penalty  prescribed,  for  failure  of  the  company  to  furnish  cars  for  an 
interstate  shipment  upon  demand,  the  existence  of  conditions  for  which  the 
company  is  not  responsible  preventing  the  discharge  of  its  duty  to  furnish  the 
cars,  is  a  good  defense."*-^  But  in  such  an  action,  mere  proof  that  the  company 
did  not  have  sufficient  cars  to  comply  with  the  demands  made  upon  its  services 
when  cars  were  ordered  from  it  would  be  no  defense.^^  Alere  proof  that  there 
is  a  strike  on  a  railroad  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  failure  to  furnish  cars 
on  demand,  since  strikes  may  include  only  an  insignificant  number  of  employees 
or  those  engaged  in  some  department  in  no  substantial  way  interfering  with 
the  furnishing  of  cars  or  upon  the  happening  of  a  strike,  the  company  may  with- 
out sufficient  effort,  fail  to  conduct  its  business,  but  if  a  strike  is  of  such  mag- 
nitude and  character  as  to  render  the  company   unable,  by  the  use  of  proper 


43.  Penalty  not  recoverable  if  carrier 
has  no  agent  at  point  of  shipment. — The 
Texas  statute,  Rev.  St.  1895,  art.  4499, 
provides  a  penalty  for  the  failure  of  a 
railroad  company  to  furnish  freight  cars 
to  one  applying-  therefor;  and  art.  4500 
requires  such  applicant  to  "deposit  with 
the  agent  of  such  company,"  at  the  time 
of  making  his  application,  a  part  of  the 
freight  charges.  Held  that,  if  at  the  point 
of  shipment  the  company  has  no  agent, 
the  penalty  is  not  recoverable.  Judgment 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40  S.  W.  431,  reversed. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  91 
Tex.   551,  45   S.  W.   2,  4.3   L.   R.   A.   225. 

Furnishing  cars  at  switches. — The 
Texas  statute,  Rev.  St.  1895,  art.  4522,  en- 
acting that,  where  a  railroad  company 
constructs  a  switch,  it  is  bound  to  furnish 
cars  for  the  transportation  of  freight 
therefrom,  and  in  default  thereof  shall  be 
subject  to  the  same  penalties  as  in  other 
cases,  does  not  apply  to  an  action  under 
arts.  4497-4502,  passed  subsequent  thereto 
as  an  independent  law,  which  provide  a 
penalty  for  failure  of  a  railroad  company 
to  furnish  freight  cars  to  one  applj'ing 
therefor.  Judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40 
S.  W.  431,  reversed.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Campbell,  91  Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2, 
43    L.    R.    A.    225. 

Rev.  St.  1895.  art.  4498,  which  requires 
applicants  to  state  where  the  cars  are  de- 
sired, which  must  be  at  "some  station  or 
switch,"  does  not  make  every  switch  a 
receiving  and  discharging  station,  and  a 
switch  at  which  the  company  has  no 
agent  is  not  within  the  statute;  and  this, 
although  art.  4522  enacts  that,  where  a 
railroad  company  constructs  a  switch,  it 
is  bound  to  furnish  cars  for  transporta- 
tion of  freight  therefrom.  Judgment 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40  S.  W.  431,  reversed. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  91 
Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A.  225. 

Furnishing  cars  for  shipment  of  grain. 
• — Under    the    Minnesota    statute,    Gen.    St. 


1878,  c.  124,  if  a  railroad  company  itself 
furnishes  at  one  of  its  stations  suitable 
warehouse  facilities  for  receiving,  hand- 
ling, storing,  and  delivering  grain,  on  the 
terms  fixed  by  statute,  it  may  designate 
such  warehouse  or  elevator  as  the  exclu- 
sive place  at  which  it  will  receive  grain 
for  shipment  at  that  station,  and  may  re- 
fuse to  receive  it  and  furnish  cars  for  its 
shipment  at  any  other  place;  but  if  it 
fails  to  furnish  such  facilities  on  the  terms 
fixed  it  is  required  to  furnish  cars,  upon 
reasonable  notice,  in  which  to  ship  grain 
out  of  any  warehouse  adjacent  to  its 
tracks  at  such  station.  Rhodes  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  34  Minn.  87,  24  N.  W. 
347. 

S.,  by  agreement  with  a  railroad  com- 
pany, kept  and  maintained  an  adequate 
elevator  for  the  reception  and  delivery 
of  wheat  for  shipment  by  the  railroad, 
but  he  managed  it  in  his  own  name,  as 
his  own  business,  and  not  as  agent  for 
the  railroad  company;  and  he  received 
wheat  only  on  conditions  not  authorized 
by  Gen.  St.  1878,  c.  124,  §  7,  fixing  the 
charges,  etc.,  of  such  elevators.  The  rail- 
road con^pany  refused  to  furnish  cars  at 
any  otlier  elevator.  Held,  that  the  rail- 
road company  had  not  furnished  suital)le 
facilities  for  receiving,  storing,  and  hand- 
ling grain,  or  at  the  rates  and  on  the 
terms  fixed  by  law,  and  it  was  therefore 
required  to  furnish  cars,  upon  reasonable 
notice,  and  when  able  to  do  so,  for  ship- 
ment of  grain  out  of  other  warehouses 
adjacent  to  its  tracks  at  that  station. 
Rhodes  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  34  Minn. 
87,   24   N.   W.   347. 

44.  Existence  of  conditions  for  which 
carrier  is  not  responsible. — Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga. 
3."),    (i,S    S.     v..    807. 

45.  Insufficiency  of  cars. — Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga.  35, 
G8    S.    E.    807. 


161 


CONTROL  AND  RFXULATION. 


§§  234-236 


effort,  to  furnish  cars  on  demand,  it  will  be  a  good  defense  to  a  suit  for  the 
penalty  prescribed  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  after  written  application  there- 
for.^'^  The  fact  that  a  buyer  notified  a  railroad  company  not  to  carry  any  more 
of  the  seller's  property  consigned  to  the  buyer  does  not  absolve  the  company 
from  its  duty  to  tlie  seller  to  furnish  him  with  cars  for  transportation  of  the 
property  sold."*"  Where  the  rules  of  an  association  of  railroads  governing  the 
return  of  cars  prove  ineffectual  to  secure  the  return  of  a  carrier's  cars  after 
passing  into  the  possession  of  other  carriers,  such  rules  are  not  a  good  defense 
in  a  suit  brought  under  the  Arkansas  statute,  by  the  Attorney  General,  under 
direction  of  the  Railroad  Commission,  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  a 
shipper  with  cars."*'^ 

§§  235-247.  Failure  to  Pay  or  Adjust  Claims— §  235.  Power  to  Im- 
pose Penalty.- — A  statute,  ])enalizing  carriers  for  failing  to  settle  a  claim 
promptly  which  a  judgment  finds  to  be  just,  is  constitutional."*''  A  statute,  pro- 
viding for  a  recovery  of  50  per  cent  interest  and  reasonable  attorney's  fees  from 
carriers  for  failure  to  pay  claims  for  freight  lost  or  damaged  within  a  pre- 
scribed number  of  days  after  the  claim  is  filed,  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  state's 
police  power. •''"  The  penalty  imposed  is  not  so  exorbitant  and  unreasonable  as 
to  render  the  statute  unconstitutional."'' 

§  236.  Existence  of  Statutory  Conditions  Essential  to  Imposition  of 
Penalty. — The  statutory  penalty  required  of  a  carrier  for  its  failure  to  adjust 
a  claim  w'ithin  the  statutory  period  after  it  w'as  filed,  being  a  creature  of  the 
statute,  can  be  imposed  only  when  all  statutory  conditions  exist,  and  not  other- 
\vise.^2 


46.  Strike. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta 
Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga.  35,  G8  S.  E.  807. 

47.  Carrier  notified  by  buyer  not  to 
carry  seller's  property  consigned  to 
buyer — Jiult^ment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40  S. 
W.  431,  reversed.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Campbell,  91  Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2.  43 
L.   R.  A.  225. 

48.  Rules  of  association  of  railroads 
governing  return  of  cars. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  State,  S5  Ark.  311,  107  S.  W. 
1180,   construing   Kirljy's   Dig.,  §   G813. 

49.  Statute  imposing  penalty  held  con- 
stitutional.— The  Mississippi  statute.  Laws 
1908,  c.  196,  lield  constitutional.  Yazoo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson  Vinegar  Co.,  220 
U.  S.   317,   33   S.    Ct.  40. 

A  carrier  penalized  under  this  statute, 
for  failure  to  settle  a  claim  promptly 
which  a  judgment  finds  to  be  just,  can  not 
urge  that  the  statute  is  unconstitutional 
as  penalizing  the  failure  to  accede  to  an 
extravagant  claim.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jackson  Vinegar  Co.,  226  U.  S.  217,  33  S. 
Ct.  40. 

The  Georgia  statute.  Civ.  Code,  1910,  § 
2778,  imposing  a  penalty  on  carriers  for 
failure  to  adjust  and  pay  claims,  is  con- 
stitutional. Southern  R.  Co.  f.  Lowe,  139 
Ga.  362,  77  S.  E.  44. 

The  South  Carolina  statute.  Act  1903 
(24  St.  at  Large,  p.  81),  providing  a  pen- 
alty to  be  paid  the  consignee  by  a  car- 
rier for  failure  to  adjust  and  pay  within 
a  certain  time   a  claim   for  loss  of  freight 


while  in  its  possession,  is  constitutional. 
Coffey  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  S.  C. 
150.   (U)   S.    I^.   447. 

50.  Statute  imposing  penalty  a  valid  ex- 
ercise of  police  power. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Coachman,  59  Fla.  130,  52  So.  377, 
construing    Laws    1907,    c.    5618. 

51.  Penalty  not  exorbitant  and  unrea- 
sonable.— Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Coach- 
man,  59    Fla.    130,    52    So.   377. 

52.  Existence  of  statutory  conditions  es- 
sential to  imposition  of  penalty. — King  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  Railroad,  86  S.  C.  510,  68  S. 
E.  769. 

A  South  Carolina  statute  provides  a 
penalty  for  delay  in  payment  of  a  claim 
for  damages  to  goods  in  transit,  where 
the  shipper  recovers  the  full  amount 
claimed,  and  declares  that  no  such  claim 
sliall  be  filed  until  after  the  arrival  of  the 
shipment  or  some  part  thereof  or  until 
after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time  for 
arrival.  Plaintiff  filed  a  claim  for  $85  for 
damages  to  goods,  and,  on  defendant's 
failure  to  pay,  brought  action  for  $500 
damages  for  the  delay  in  arrival,  $200 
damages  to  the  goods,  and  $40  statutory 
penalties  for  the  delay,  and  recovered  a 
verdict  for  $90.  Held,  in  an  action  for  the 
penalty  for  failure  to  pay  the  claim  for 
damages  within  thirty  days  after  it  was 
filed,  that,  as  the  verdict  was  general,  the 
court  could  not  say  but  that  all  of  it  was 
for  the  delay  or  for  the  statutory  penalty 
for  delay,  or  at  least  enough  of  it  to  re- 
duce   it    below    the    amount   of    the    claim 


1   Car— 11 


§§  237-239 


CARRIERS. 


162 


§  237.  Who  May  Recover  Penalty.— The  purchaser  of  goods  shipped  to 
the  consignor's  own  order,  with  sight  draft  against  the  bill  of  lading,  which 
provides  that  the  purchaser  shall  be  notified  of  their  arrival,  is  the  "consignee 
aggrieved  "  within  a  statute  giving  such  person  a  right  to  recover  a  penalty  for 
failure  to  adjust,  within  the  statutory  period,  a  claim  for  non-delivery  of 
goods. ^^ 

§  238.  Where  and  When  Cause  of  Action  Arises.— A  cause  of  action 
against  a  railroad  companv  for  the  statutory  penalty  for  failing  to  adjust  a 
cfaim  for  lost  goods  within  the  statutory  limit  arises  at  the  point  of  destination, 
when  the  road   fails  to  adjust  the  claim. ^-^ 

§  239.  Necessity  of  Filing  Claim,  and  with  Whom  It  May  Be  Filed. 

Under   a    statute   providing   a   penalty    for    failure   of    a   carrier  to    adjust   a 

claim  for  loss  of  or  damage  to  goods  within  a  stated  time,  and  requiring  the 
filing  of  the  claim  with  the  agent  at  the  point  of  destination,  such  filing  is  a 
condition  precedent  to  a  recovery  of  the  penalty,  unless  there  is  a  waiver  of 
strict  compliance  with  the  statute."^  The  claim  in  such  case  may  be  filed  with 
the  nearest  agent  who  keeps  the  station  open  during  reasonable  business  hours, 
and  the  claimant  is  not  bound  to  file  the  claim  with  a  nearer  agent  who  leaves 
his  station  closed  most  of  the  time.^«  But  filing  a  claim  with  an  officer  of  the 
carrier  other  than  the  agent  at  the  point  of  destination  and  forwarding  the 
same  by  such  officer  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  to  the  agent  at  the  point  of 
destination  is  not  a  filing  wnth  the  agent  at  the  point  of  destination.s"^  Under 
a  statute,  making  each  carrier  of  goods  recognizing  and  acting  under  a  contract 
of  through  shipment  the  agent  of  the  other  connecting  carriers,  notice  of_  a 
claim  for  loss  of  goods,  served  on  the  agent  of  the  terminal  carrier,  is  notice 
to  the  initial  carrier,  issuing  its  through  bill  of  lading.-^^ 


filed,  and  also  that,  as  there  was  no  evi- 
dence that  the  shipment  or  some  part  of 
it  had  arrived  when  the  claim  was  filed 
or  that  a  reasonable  time  for  arrival  had 
elapsed,  plaintiff  could  not  recover.  Price 
V.  Charleston,  etc.,  Co.  (S.  C),  77  S.  E. 
703. 

53.  "Consignee  aggrieved." — Brown  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  S.  C.  377,  74  S. 
E.  754. 

54.  Where  and  when  cause  of  action 
arises. — Smith  &  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
84  S.  C.  ir,7,  r,5  S.  R.  1029. 

55.  Statutory  requirement  as  to  filing 
condition  precedent  to  recovery  of  pen- 
alty unless  waived. — King  z.'.  Atlantic,  etc., 
Railroad,  8(5  S.   C.  510,  68  S.   E.  769. 

Waiver  of  right  to  have  claim  filed. — 
Under  the  South  Carolina  statute,  24  Stat. 
at  Large,  p.  81,  prescribing  a  penalty  for 
failure  of  a  common  carrier  to  pay  a 
claim  for  damages  for  loss  of  freight 
within  ninety  days  after  the  filing  of  the 
claim,  where  defendant  railroad  company 
not  only  waived  the  right  to  have  a  claim 
filed,  but  promised  to  pay  it,  it  could  not 
thereafter  contend  that  the  claim  was  not 
filed.  Goldstein  v.  Southern  Railway,  80 
S.  C.   522,  61    S.   E.   1007. 

Facts  held  not  to  constitute  a  waiver. — 
In  an  action  for  goods  lost  by  a  carrier, 
and  the  statutory  penalty  for  failure  to 
adjust  the  claim  within  the  time  allowed 
after  a  claim  is  filed  with  the  agent  at 
the  destination  of  the  goods,  it  appeared 


that  plaintiff  had  had  a  conversation  with 
the  carrier's  local  agent  at  the  destination 
of  the  goods,  who  told  him  to  send  his 
claim  to  the  general  freight  agent,  which 
he  did.  In  the  correspondence  with  such 
agent  there  was  no  mention  of  the  stat- 
utory penalty;  and  at  that  time  defend- 
ant was  not  liable  for  it.  Defendant 
had  no  right  to  compel  plaintiff  to  file 
his  claim  with  the  local  agent.  Held,  that 
the  direction  by  such  agent  to  send  the 
claim  to  the  general  agent  was  not  a 
waiver  of  the  statutory  requirement  that 
the  claim  must  be  "filed"  with  the  agent 
at  the  destination  of  the  goods  before  the 
penalty  sued  for  can  be  recovered,  be- 
cause waiver  is  the  voluntary  relinquish- 
ment of  some  existing  right.  King  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  Railroad,  86  S.  C.  510,  68  S.  E. 
769. 

56.  Claim  may  be  filed  with  nearest 
agent  who  keeps  station  open  during  rea- 
sonable business  hours. — Sumter  Pine, 
etc.,  Co.  r.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  S.  C. 
376,    73    S.    E.    770. 

57.  Filing  claim  with  officer  other  than 
agent  at  the  point  of  destination. — Brown 
V.  Southern  Railway,  71  S.  C.  273,  51  S. 
E.    151. 

58.  Notice  of  claim  where  there  is  a 
through  shipment  over  roads  of  connect- 
ing carriers. — Smith  &  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  84  S.  C.  167,  05  S.  E.  1029,  construing 
Act   May  13.   1903   (24  St.  at  Large,  p.   1). 

Evidence  that  claim  was  filed  with  de- 


163 


CONTROL   AND   REGULATION. 


§  240 


§  240.  Sufficiency  of  Claim.  —  Tncler  a  statute  providing  that  claims 
against  carriers  shall  be  "tiled"  with  the  agent  at  the  point  of  destination,  a  ver- 
bal complaint  to  such  agent  about  the  loss  of  goods  is  insufficient,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  statutory  penalty  for  the  carrier's  failure  to  adjust  the  claim  within 
the  statutory  period  after  it  is  filed. '''••  The  term  "filing  a  olaim"  necessarily 
imi^lies  the  placing  of  some  written  or  printed  paper  showing  the  nature  and 
amount  of  the  claim  and  the  person  to  whom  due  with  the  proper  custodian.''" 
But  any  form  of  statement  which  shows  the  nature  of  the  claim,  the  amount 
of  the  loss,  and  in  whose  behalf  presented,  is  sufficient,  without  proof  that  the 
claim  is  valid. '"'^ 


fendant  at  point  of  destination. — Kvidciicc 
that  G.,  tlie  a^cnt  of  tlic  torniinal  carrier, 
received  plaintiff's  claim  for  lost  goods 
and  forwarded  it,  under  the  instructions 
of  defendant  initial  carrier's  agent,  to  de- 
fendant's general  claim  agent,  and  that 
the  latter  not  only  received  and  consid- 
ered the  claim,  but  returned  it  to  G.,  and 
received  it  from  him  again  with  further 
information,  was  evidence  that  the  claim 
was  filed  with  defendant  at  the  point  of 
destination,  in  an  action  to  recover  the 
statutory  penalty  for  failing  to  adjust  the 
claim.  Smith  &  Co.  f.  Southern  R.  Co., 
84  S.  C.  inr,  c>:>  S.  P..  io2<). 

59.  Verbal  claim  insufficient. — King  z\ 
Atlantic,  etc.,  Railroad,  8G  S.  C.  olO,  08 
S.   E.  TCi). 

60.  What  term  "filing  a  claim"  implies. 
—King  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Railroad,  86  S.  C. 
510,   68    S.    E.    769. 

The  North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal 
1905,  §  2634,  providing  that  every  claim 
for  loss  or  damage  to  property  while  in 
possession  of  a  carrier  shall  be  adjusted 
and  paid  within  sixty  days  after  the  fil- 
ing of  such  claim  with  the  agent  of  the 
carrier  at  the  point  of  destination,  and 
that  failure  to  adjust  and  paj^  the  claim 
within  tlie  period  prescril)ed  shall  sub- 
ject the  carrier  to  a  penalty  of  $.'30,  etc., 
is  a  penal  statute,  and  the  claimant  must 
present  his  demand  in  writing  in  order 
to  recover  the  penalty,  a  verbal  demand 
being  insufficient,  the  words  "to  file" 
meaning  "receiving  a  paper  into  custody." 
Thompson  z'.  Southern  l"'xp.  Co.  (X.  C), 
61   S.   E.   182. 

61.  What  form  of  statement  is  sufficient. 
— Hawes  i\  Southern  Iv.  Co.,  73  S.  C.  274. 
53  S.  E.  28."),  so  hold  wliore  the  action 
was   brought  under  24   St.   at   Large,  p.   81. 

Claims  filed  held  sufficient. — Under  the 
North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal  1905,  § 
2634,  which  provides  a  penalty  for  the 
failure  to  adjust  claims  for  loss  or  dam- 
age to  property  while  in  possession  of  a 
carrier  within  a  specified  time  after  pres- 
entation of  a  demand  in  writing,  a  writ- 
ten statement  setting  forth  the  purchase 
of  the  article  claimed  to  have  been  lost, 
with  the  price,  quantity,  name  of  vendor 
and  shipping  point,  is,  when  handed  to 
the  company's  agent  within  the  time  spec- 
ified by  the  statute,  with  a  statement  that 
it  was  for  the  goods  lost,  sufficiently 
definite  to  enable  the  company  to  inves- 


tigate tlie  claim,  and  will  satisfy  the  re- 
quirements of  the  statute.  Currie  v.  Sea- 
board, etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  N.  C.  432,  72  S. 
E.   493. 

The  South  Carolina  statute,  24  Stat,  at 
Large,  p.  81,  provides  that  every  claim 
for  loss  of  or  damage  to  freight  shall  be 
adjusted  and  paid  within  ninety  days,  in 
case  of  shipments  from  without  the  state, 
after  the  filing  of  such  claim,  and  pre- 
scribes a  penalty  for  failure  to  comply 
therewith.  Held,  that  where  plaintiff 
filed  with  defendant's  railroad  agent  the 
bill  of  lading,  invoice  of  goods,  and  a 
list  of  the  shortage  as  a  claim,  there  was 
a  sufficient  filing,  no  form  for  setting  out 
tlie  claim  being  prescribed  by  the  stat- 
ute. Goldstein  v.  Southern  Railway,  80 
S.   C.   522,   61   S.   E.   1007. 

It  is  not  essential  under  such  statute, 
if  the  claim  filed  is  otherwise  sufficient, 
tliat  the  claimant  should  attach  thereto 
the  freight  bill  or  receipt  and  bill  of  lad- 
ing. Hawes  z'.  Southern  R.  Co.,  73  S.  C. 
274,    53    S.    E.    285. 

Where  plaintiflf  called  defendant  rail- 
road agent's  attention  to  the  damaged 
condition  of  five  sacks  of  rice  shipped 
plaintifT,  and  stated  tliat  he  would  sell  the 
rice  for  what  he  could  get,  and  claim  the 
difference,  and  the  agent  had  knowledge 
that  the  amount  mentioned  in  the  claim 
filed  by  plaintiff  was  for  damages  to  all 
the  sacks,  the  fact  that  only  three  sacks 
were  stated  in  the  claim  filed  could  not 
defeat  a  recovery  for  the  statutory  pen- 
alty for  failing  to  adjust  the  claim  within 
tlie  time  required  by  law.  Bolen  f.  Sea- 
board, etc.,  Railway,  81  S.  C.  78.  61  S.  E. 
1024. 

The  North  Carolina  statute,  Revisal 
190.-),  §§  2642,  2643,  2644,  regulating  rail- 
road rates,  provides  that,  in  case  of  an 
overcharge,  the  person  aggrieved  may 
file  a  written  demand  for  a  return  of  the 
amount,  supported  by  the  freight  bill  and 
original  bill  of  lading,  and  prescribes  a 
penalty  for  noncompliance.  Plaintiff 
made  two  shipments,  on  which  distinct 
overcharges  were  made  and  collected, 
and  filed  this  claim:  "Inclosed  please  find 
claim.  Overcharge  in  freight  to  Lexing- 
ton, N.  C,  $7.96:  overcharge  in  freight 
to  Salisbury,  N.  C,  $139 — total  $9.35. 
Please  let  us  have  prompt  adjustment." 
Held,  that  the  claim  filed,  accompanied 
in  each  case  with  the  freight  bill  and  bill 


ss  241-244  CARRIERS.  164 

§  241.  Place  of  Payment  of  Claim.— A  statute,  requiring  claims  for 
dania'^es  to  freight  to  be  presented  to  the  agent  at  destination,  does  not  pro- 
vide for  the  place  of  payment.  The  carrier  as  the  debtor  must  find  the  claim- 
ant and  tender  pavment  to  him  within  the  statutory  period  m  order  to  avoid 
the  penalt^•  for  tionpayment,  but  may  require  the  claimant  to  state  where  he 
desires  payment  to  be  made,  when  payment  at  that  place  within  the  required 
time  will  prevent  the  penalty  from  attaching.<^- 

§  242.  Who  Is  Liable  for  Penalty.— The  delivering  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  the  p'enaltv  prescribed  for  failure  to  adjust  or  settle  a  claim  arising  out  of 
the  loss  of  freight  which  has  never  been  delivered  to  it;«3  and  this  is  so 
thoucrh  the  bill  of  lading  introduced  as  a  contract  of  shipment  does  not  provide 
that  "the  responsibilitv  of  any  carrier  shall  cease  on  delivery  to  the  connecting 
line  in  good  order ;  «'■*  and  in  such  cases,  the  fact  that  the  price  of  the  goods 
lost  was*' tendered  by  the  delivering  carrier  with  intent  to  collect  from  the  con- 
necting carrier  does'  not  render  it  liable  for  the  penalty  for  failure  to  settle  the 
claim.«5  Where  a  bill  of  lading  limits  the  carrier's  liability  to  loss  sustained  on 
its  own  line,  a  connecting  carrier  on  whose  line  a  loss  did  not  occur  can  not  be 
charged  with  the  penalty  imposed  for  refusal  to  pay  the  loss.^c  Where  a  stat- 
ute subjects  a  receiver  of  a  railroad  to  the  duties,  liabilities,  and  restrictions 
arising  from  the  operation  of  the  road  wdiich  are  attached  to  the  corporation, 
receivers  of  a  railroad  appointed  by  a  federal  court  are  subject  to  the  penalty 
prescribed  for  failing  to  adjust  and  pay  a  claim  for  loss  of,  or  damage  to, 
freight.^'^ 

§  243.  Immaterial  in  What  Manner  Loss  Was  Caused.— Under  a  stat- 
ute, providing  that  every  common  carrier  failing  to  adjust  any  claim  for  loss  of 
or  damage  to  interstate  freight  within  ninety  days  shall  pay  a  penalty  in  addi- 
tion to  actual  damage,  it  is  immaterial  in  what  manner  the  loss  was  caused;  the 
purpose  of  the  statute  being  to  give  the  consignee  a  special  remedy  for  the  car- 
rier's failure  to  deliver.*^^ 

§  244.  Amount  of  Penalty.— A  penalty  not  exceeding  $100  prescribed  by 
statute,  for  a  railroad  company's  failure  to  refund  on  proper  demand  an  over- 
charge'in  freight,  is  not  objectionable  as  disproportionate  to  a  claim  of  $1.39, 
since  it  is  not  imposed  to  facilitate  the  collection  of  claims,  but  to  enforce  the 
performance  of  a  carrier's  duties.*^^ 

of   lading,    amounted    to   a    separate    writ-  Where    the     court     found     that    certain 

ten    demand    for    each    overcharge    within  goods    were    never    delivered    to    defend- 

the    statute,    even    though    the    two    over-  ant,   the  terminal   connectmg  earner,   and 

charges   we're   set   out   in   one   instrument,  the   bill   of  lading  stipulated   that   no  car- 

and  demand  was  made  for  the  total  sum.  rier  shall  be  liable  for  loss  not  occurring 

Efiand  v    Southern  R.  Co.,  146  N.  C.  129,  on  his  line,  defendant  was   not  liable  for 

50   S    E    3j9  a  penalty  under  the   South   Carolina   stat- 

62'  Place  of  payment  of  claim.— Berley  ute.   Act   Feb.   2.3,   1903    (24    St.    at   Large, 

V    Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  232,  64  81),  imposing  a  penalty  for  failure  to  ad- 

S.    E.   397,   construing   St.    1903,   24   St.   at  just   or  pay  for  loss  or  damage  to  prop- 

Lar.'^e,  p.  81.  erty  while  in  possession  of  a  carrier.  Mc- 

"  63!   Delivering   carrier  not  liable  where  Meekin  v.  Southern  Railway,  8.5  S.  C.  381, 

freight  was  not  delivered  to  it. — Stothard  67  S.  E.  745. 

V.  Louisiana  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  127  La.  383,  53  67.    Receivers    liable    for    penalty.— Hu- 

So.    658,    construing   Act    No.   29    of    1908;  guelet   v.    Warfield,   84    S.    C.   87,   65    S.    E. 

McMeekin  v.   Southern   Railway,  85   S.  C.  985,   construing  Act  Feb.   23,   1903,  24   St. 

381,    67    S.    E.   745,    construing   Civ.    Code  at    Large,   p.    81    and     Civ.    Code     1902,    § 

1902,   §   1710.  2025. 

64.  McMeekin  v.  Southern  Railway,  85  gg  immaterial  in  what  manner  loss 
S.  C.  381,  67  S.  E.  745.  .^as  caused.— Wilson  v.  Atlantic,   etc.,   R. 

65.  Stothard  v.  Louisiana  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  f^^  ^,)  c^  q  ^gg^  gQ  g  ^  6g3_  constru- 
127   La    383.   53   So    658                         _  ing'Act  1903    (24  St.  at  Large,  p.  81). 

•''•^i^KT.°^^VofH        "^Whefn'^R  69.    Penalty    held    not    disproportionate 

rier  s    liability. — Moody    v.     boutnern    K.  ""•  .    *'     ^-^       ,        o      ^i  o    r>^     -iac 

Co.,  79  S.  C.  297,  60  S.  E.  711.  *«  claim.-Efland  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  146 


165 


CONTROL  AND  REGULATION. 


§§  245-247 


§  245.  What  One  Claiming  Penalty  Must  Show. — Under  a  statute  au- 
thorizing the  recovery  of  a  jjenaily  lor  a  carrier'^  failure  to  pay  for  loss  of 
freight,  one  seeking  to  recover  the  penalty  must  show  that  the  loss  occurred 
while  the  freight  was  in  possession  of  the  carrier,  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  the 
full  amount  of  his  claim.''"' 

§§  246-247.  Defenses— §  246.  Amount  Recoverable  by  Claimant  as 
Affecting  Right  to  Penalty. — Under  a  statute  imposing  a  penally  upon  car- 
riers for  failure  to  pay  a  claim  for  loss  of,  or  damage  to,  freight  within  a  pre- 
scribed jjeriod,  the  claimant  need  not  recover  the  full  amount  demanded  by  him 
in  order  to  authorize  the  imposition  of  the  penalty,  if  the  statute  contains  no 
such  limitation  upon  his  right  to  recover  it.'^  Ikit  the  rule  is  otherwise  where 
the  statute  expressly  makes  the  right  to  recover  the  penalty  depend  upon  the 
recovery  by  the  claimant  of  the  full  amount  claimed."- 

§   247.  Effect  of  Voluntary  Payment  of  Claim  after  Time  Limited. — 

In  North  Carolina  it  has  been  held  that  under  a  statute  imposing  a  i)enalty  upon 
a  carrier  for  failing  to  adjust  a  claim  for  loss  of  freight  within  a  prescribed  time, 
and  providing  that,  unless  the  claimant  recover  the  full  amount  claimed,  no  pen- 
alty shall  be  allowed,  the  jienalty  is  recoverable  though  the  carrier  voluntarily 
pays  the  claim  after  the  time  limited.'-''       15ut  in  South  Carolina,  in  construing  a 


N.  C.  12;).  59  S.  E.  359,  so  liolding  as  to 
penalty  i)rescribcd  by  Rcvisal  1905,  § 
2i;44. 

70.  What  one  claiming  penalty  must 
show. — Smith  z\  Southern  Railway,  89  S. 
C.  415,   71    S.   R.   9Sn. 

7L  Penalty  recoverable  though  full 
amount  demanded  is  not  recovered. — Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Brandon,  98  Miss. 
461,  53  So.  957,  construing  Laws  1908,  c. 
190,   §    1,   amending   Code    190(1.    i<   4070. 

72.  Statute  expressly  making  recovery 
of  penalty  dependent  on  recovery  of  full 
amount  claimed. — L'ndcr  the  express 
provisions  of  tlie  South  Carolina  statute. 
Act  Feb.  23,  1903  (24  St.  at  Large,  p.  81), 
no  recovery  of  the  penalty  can  be  had 
unless  there  is  a  recovery  of  the  full 
amount  claimed.  Bullock  i'.  Charleston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  375.  64  S.  E.  234; 
Cousar  Mercantile  Co.  z\  Southern  R. 
Co.,  82  S.  C.  307,  64  S.  E.  391;  Rippy  & 
Co.  r.  Southern  Railway,  80  S.  C.  524,  61 
S.  E.  976;  Price  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(S.  C),  77  S.  E.  703;  Ray  z:  Southern 
R.  Co.  (S.  C),  77  S.  E.  1012. 

But  where  plaintiff  in  an  action  under 
this  statute  for  loss  and  damage  against 
a  carrier  filed  a  claim  for  $16.88  and 
proved  a  liability,  exclusive  of  interest 
of  $16,871^,  it  was  held  entitled  to  recover 
the  penalty,  since  the  addition  of  interest 
raised  the  recovery  above  the  amount  of 
the  claim.  W'liite  Laundry  Co.  r.  Cliar- 
leston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  S3  S.  C.  209,  65  S.  H. 
239.  See,  also,  Weinberg  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  83   S.   C.  470,   65   S.    E.  637. 

It  was  also  entitled  to  recover  the  pen- 
alty in  such  case,  under  the  maxim,  "De 
minimis  non  curat  lex."  White  Laun- 
dry   Co.    V.    Charleston,    etc..    R.    Co.,    83 


8.  C.  209,  65  S.  E.  239.  See,  also,  Wein- 
berg V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  S.  C. 
470,    65    S.    E.    637. 

Under  the  above  statute,  where  the 
claim  was  for  $15  damage  in  the  aggre- 
gate for  damage  to  several  articles,  the 
fact  that  the  damage  proved  exceeded 
that  sum  w^as  not  a  bar  to  the  recovery 
of  the  penalty.  Netherland  f.  Charles- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  S.  C.  368,  60  S.  E. 
927. 

.■\nd  under  such  statute,  the  consignee 
may  sue  for  the  penalty,  if  the  time  has 
elapsed  without  adjustment  of  the  claim, 
at  the  same  time  he  sues  for  loss  or  dam- 
age to  the  property,  though  judgment 
for  the  penalty  can  not  be  rendered  un- 
til he  has  recovered  the  full  amount 
claimed  for  loss  or  damage.  Tenkins  v. 
.\tlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co..  84  S.  C.  343,  66  S. 
E.   409. 

The  South  Carolina  statute,  24  St.  at 
Large,  p.  1,  providing  for  a  penalty 
against  a  carrier  for  damage  to  freight, 
on  refusal  to  pay  the  claim  therefor  and 
recovery  of  the  amount  claimed,  does 
not  require  the  claimant  to  demand  in- 
terest; and  where  he  sues  for  the  actual 
amount  of  damage,  without  interest,  and 
recovers  the  amount  claimed,  he  is  en- 
titled to  the  penalty.  Abrahams  ?'.  Co- 
lumbia, etc..  R.  Co..  73  S.  C.  542.  53  S.  E. 
819. 

73.  Effect  of  voluntary  payment  of 
claim  after  time  limited — North  Carolina 
doctrine. — .\lbriiton  &  Co.  r:  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  485.  62  S.  E.  597, 
construing   Revisal   1905,   §   2634. 

The  purpose  of  such  statute,  being  to 
prevent  unjust  claims  for  losses,  the  fact 
that  defendant  voluntarih-  paid  the  claim 


§§  247-252  CARRIERS.  166 

similar  statute,  it  has  been  held  that  the  acceptance  by  the  claimant  of  such  a 
voluntary  payment  will  preclude  recovery  of  the  penalty."-* 

§  248.  Failure  to  Make  Annual  Reports. — In  Texas  a  railroad  company 
is  liable  to  a  penalty  for  failure  to  make  an  annual  report  to  the  comptroller  of 
public  accounts,'' o  and  it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  by  'the  state  to  recover  such 
penalty  that  the  failure  to  make  the  report  has  resulted  in  no  special  damage  to 
the  state." *^ 

§§  249-275.  Procedure  and  Evidence — §  249.  Venue. — The  venue  of 
an  action  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  a  penalty  imposed  for  violation 
of  a  statutory  regulation  is  generally  determined  by  the  statute  imposing  the  pen- 
alty. The  peculiar  provisions  of  some  of  these  statutes  have  been  construed  by 
the  courts  to  determine  the  venue  of  the  action  authorized  by  them."'^ 

§  2  50.  Time  within  Which  Action  Must  Be  Brought. — An  action  against 
a  carrier  to  recover  the  penalty  imposed  for  violation  of  a  statutory  regulation 
must  be  brought  within  the  time  limited  by  statute."'*  The  statutory  cause  of  action 
against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  for  the  shipment  of  freight  does  not 
arise  on  the  written  shipping  contract,  and  therefore,  provisions  in  such  contract 
that  an  action  thereon  must  be  brought  within  a  prescribed  number  of  days,  has  no 
application  to  a  cause  of  action  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  called  for  by  the 
contract.''-' 

§  251.  Parties — By  Whom  Action  May  Be  Brought. — See  ante,  "Who 
Mav  Recover  Penaltv."  §  186;  "AMio  May  Recover  Penalty,"  §  206;  "Who  May 
Recover  Penalty."  §213;    "Who  May  Recover  Penalty,"  §  237. 

§§  252-263.  Pleading— §§  252-259.  Declaration,  Petition,  or  Com- 
plaint—  §  2  52.  In  General. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  the  penalty 
imposed  for  violation  of  a  statutory  regulation,  the  declaration,  petition,  or  com- 
plaint must  state  a  cause  of  action  under  the  statute,-"  but  it  need  not  negative 

for  loss  upon  judgment  for  plaintiff,  and  chase    of    the    ticket    was    had.      Pennsyl- 

while   an    appeal   therefrom   was   pending,  vania  Co.  v.  O'Connell,  84  O.   St.  218,  95 

did    not    prevent    a    recovery    of   the    pen-  N.   E.   773. 

alty.     Rabon  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  149  78.   Time   within   which  action  must  be 

N.  C.  59,  62   S.   E.  743.  brought. — The    right    of    action    given    by 

74.  South  Carolina  doctrine. — Best  v.  the  Iowa  statute,  Code,  §  2130,  to  any 
Seaboard,  etc..  Railway,  72  S.  C.  479,  52  one  against  whom  a  common  carrier  has 
S.  E.  223,  construing  Act  Feb.  23,  1903  discriminated  in  its  rates  is  barred  within 
(24  St.  at  Large,  p.  81).  two    years,    unless    the    discrimination    is 

75.  Failure  to  make  annual  report. —  fraudulently  concealed.  Central  Trust 
Rev.    St.,   arts.   4249,   4250.  Co.   v.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (Iowa),   135 

76.  H.  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  V.  State,  61  Tex.  N.  W.  721. 

342.    344.  79.    McCarty    v.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    79 

77.  Venue. — Under    the    Kansas    statute,       Tex.  33,  15  S.  W.  164. 

Code  Civ.  Proc.  §  50  (Gen.  St.  1901,  §  80.  Pleading  held  to  state  a  cause  of 
4480),  as  amended  by  Laws  1903,  c.  379,  action. — A  declaration,  in  an  action  by 
§  1,  an  action  may  be  brought  against  a  the  state  against  the  receivers  of  a  rail- 
railroad  company  to  enforce  a  liability  road  company  to  recover  a  penalty  im- 
under  the  Mutual  Demurrage  Act  (Laws  posed  by  the  railroad  commissioners  for 
1905,  c.  345),  in  any  county  of  the  state  violation  of  the  Florida  statute,  Gen.  St. 
in  which  the  principal  office  or  place  of  1906,  §  2907,  providing  that  all  contracts 
business  of  such  railroad  company  is  lo-  and  agreements  between  railroad  com- 
cated.  Star  Grain,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Atchison,  panics  as  to  use  and  transportation  of 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Kan.  281,  116  Pac.  906.  cars  shall  be  submitted  to  the  railroad 
An  action  against  a  railroad  company  commissioners  for  inspection  and  cor- 
to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  by  the  rection,  in  order  to  insure  that  such  con- 
Ohio  statute.  Rev.  St.,  §  3376,  for  de-  tracts  are  reasonable  and  just,  and  to  in- 
manding  and  receiving,  on  sale  of  a  sure  prompt  delivery  of  freight  and  pas- 
ticket,  a  greater  sum  for  the  transporta-  sengers  to  points  of  destination,  held  to 
tion  of  the  passenger  than  that  allowed  state  a  cause  of  action.  State  v.  War- 
by  law,  should,  under  Rev.  St.,  §  5022,  field  (Fla.),  58  So.  367. 
be  brought  in  the  county  where  the  pur-  Under    the    Iowa    statute.    Acts    1890,    c. 


167 


CONTROL   AND   REGULATION, 


§  252 


matters  of  defense.'''     Where  an  alle,<,Mlinii  in  the  petition  in  such  an  action  is 


17,  §  1,  which  is  constitutional,  railroad 
companies  who  voluntarily  establish  joint 
rates  are  prohibited  from  making  any 
unjust  discrimination  in  sucli  rates  be- 
tween the  different  stations  on  their  re- 
spective lines,  while  §  5  prohiljits  any  un- 
just and  unreasonable  cliarge.  A  peti- 
tion to  recover  the  penalty  provided  in 
such  act,  which  alleges  that  defendant 
railroad  companies  established  joint  rates 
between  all  stations  on  tlieir  respective 
lines  in  the  state,  that  they  unjustly  dis- 
criminated between  the  different  points 
on  their  lines,  to  plaintiff's  damage,  and 
that  the  rates  cliarged  plaintiff  were  un- 
just and  unreasonal>le,  states  a  cause  of 
action;  and  that  it  contains  further  alle- 
gations showing  the  different  rates 
charged  between  different  points  does 
•  not  make  the  action  one  based  solely  on 
the  fact  of  such  differences  as  establish- 
ing the  unjust  or  discriminatory  char- 
acter of  the  rates  charged.  Blair  z:  Sioux, 
etc.,    R.   Co..   109   Iowa  .369,  80   N.   \V.   073. 

Where  a  petition  alleges  that  *joint 
rates  were  cstalilished  by  two  railroad 
companies  for  all  stations  on  either  line, 
the  rates  charged  for  the  same  class  of 
goods  over  like  distances  of  road  may  be 
considered,  not  only  in  arriving  at  the 
solution  of  the  question  of  unjust  dis- 
crimination, but  also  in  determining 
whether  a  rate  charged  was  unreasonable; 
and  an  allegation  that  a  lower  rate  was 
charged  for  transporting  like  goods  over 
the  same  distance  of  road  than  was 
charged  plaintiff  makes  a,  prima  facie 
case  of  unjust  discrimination.  Blair  t'. 
Sioux,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  Iowa  369,  80  N. 
W.   673. 

A  petition  against  a  carrier  alleged 
that  defendant  was  a  corporation  operat- 
ing a  railroad  between  certain  intrastate 
points  as  a  public  carrier,  and  that  the 
portion  of  its  road  extending  between 
two  points  was  a  main  line  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  miles  long,  and  the  other 
line  between  two  other  points  was  a 
branch  line  one  hundred  and  four  miles 
long;  that  on  September  8,  1905,  plain- 
tiff delivered  to  defendant  a  car  load  of 
live  stock  to  l)e  transported  between  the 
most  distant  points  named  within  the 
time  provided  by  statute  in  consideration 
of  the  regular  freight  rate;  that  defend- 
ant's train  left  the  starting  point  at  9 
o'clock  a.  m.  on  the  day  of  delivery,  but 
did  not  arrive  at  destination  until  4:35 
a.  m.  of  September  11th  following,  the 
time  consumed  being  fifty-two  hours  and 
eighteen  minutes  longer  than  that  per- 
mitted by  statute,  to  plaintiff's  damage 
in  the  sum  of  $520.  as  provided  by  the 
Nebraska  statute.  Cobbey's  Ann.  St.  1907. 
§§  10.606.  10.607.  Held,  that  such  peti- 
tion stated  a  cause  of  action.  Rehearing. 
84  Neb.  607,  122  N.  W.  31,  denied.     Cram 


V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85   Neb.  586,   123 
N.  W.  1045,  26  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1028. 

"In  an  action  for  the  statutory  penalty 
for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  goods, 
plaintiff  alleged  that  he  had  consigned 
to  him  from  a  specified  city  in  the  state 
certain  goods  designated  on  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  that  notice  was  given  the 
carrier  that  prompt  shipment  was  desired 
to  his  place  of  business  in  H..  within  the 
state,  that  aljout  three  weeks  elapsed 
after  shipment  Ijefore  the  goods  were  lo- 
cated by  plaintiff,  when  it  was  discovered 
that  they  had  been  negligently  taken  by 
the  defendant  to  H..  S.  C..  another  sta- 
tion on  defendant's  line,  and  in  violation 
of  the  provisions  of  an  act  of  the  Leg- 
islature of  1904  (24  St.  at  Large,  at  page 
071),  and  allowed  the  goods  to  remain  at 
the  said  station  for  the  time  and  period 
aforesaid,  wherefore  plaintiff  demands 
judgment  against  defendant  company  for 
the  sum  of  $90  penalty  as  provided  for  in 
the  act  of  the  Legislature  of  South  Car- 
olina of  1904.  at  page  671.  and  for  the 
costs  of  this  action."  Code  Civ.  Proc. 
1902.  §  88.  provides  that  pleadings  in  a 
magistrate  court  need  not  be  in  any  par- 
ticular form,  but  must  enable  one  of 
common  understanding  to  know  what  is 
intended.  Held,  that  the  complaint  suffi- 
ciently shows  that  plaintiff  is  suing  for 
the  per  diem  penalty  for  delay  in  the 
transportation  of  freight  as  provided  in 
24  St.  at  Large,  p.  071.  Farrell  i'.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  410.  04  S.  E.  226. 

In  an  action  under  the  Texas  statute, 
to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  an 
unlawful  discrimination  in  freight 
charges,  the  petition  alleged  that  the  de- 
fendant company  had  charged  plaintiff 
twelve  and  one  half  cents  per  one  .hun- 
dred pounds  freight  for  a  carload  of  lum- 
ber from  Houston  to  Wharton,  Texas, 
while  it  charged  one  McCoy  but  eight 
cents  per  one  hundred  pounds  for  a  car- 
load of  lumlier  at  or  about  the  same  date. 
Held,  sufficient.  New  York.  etc..  R.  Co. 
z:  Gallaher.  79  Tex.  685,  15  S.  W.  694. 

A  declaration  in  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  charging  an  illegal  freight 
rate,  which  alleges  the  weight  of  the 
freight,  the  time  and  place  of  delivery 
to  the  carrier  for  transportation,  the  place 
to  which  the  same  was  to  be  transported, 
the  distance,  and  the  amount  demanded 
and  received  by  the  carrier  for  freight 
charges,  and  that  such  amount  was  more 
than  the  lawful  rate,  contrary  to  the 
statute,  states  an  action  based  on  the  Vir- 
ginia statute.  Code  1860.  c.  61.  §§  1.  18. 
relating  to  railroads  and  imposing  a  pen- 
alty on  a  railroad  charging  more  than 
the  lawful  rate.  Hart  f.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co..  6  \V.  Va.  330. 

81.  Matters  of  defense  need  not  be 
negatived. — The     Ncl^raska     statute.    Cob- 


252-254 


CARRIERS. 


168 


not  an  allegation  of  fact,  but  a  conclusion  of  law,  it  should  be  stricken  out.^^ 
In  an  action  against  an  express  company  to  recover  a  penalty  imposed  for  unjust 
discrimination  against  another  company  engaged  in  the  same  business,  an  allega- 
tion of  a  particular  usage  and  custom,  in  reference  to  the  handling  of  express, 
between  defendant  and  other  express  companies,  with  wdiich  it  refused  to  comply 
when  tendered  a  package  by  the  company  claimed  to  have  been  discriminated 
against,  is  sutficient  to  show  that  the  facilities  denied  to  such  company  were  those 
which  were  extended  to  the  other  companies.^3 

§§  253-258.  Necessary  Allegations— §§  253-254.  In  Actions  for  Pen- 
alty for  Overcharge — §  2  53.  Overcharge  in  Passenger  Rates. — A  petition 
in  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  de- 
manding excessive  fare,  will  not  be  held  bad  for  failing  to  aver  that  the  pur- 
chaser of  the  ticket  was  in  fact  transported,  and  that  the  fare  was  paid  in  due 
course  of  business,  though  judgment  was  not  rendered  until  after  the  enactment 
of  a  statute  taking  away  a  right  of  action  save  in  such  cases. ''^■*  In  such  an  action 
it  is  not  necessary  that  the  complaint  should  set  out  the  various  enactments  con- 
solidating the  several  companies  which  make  up  the  defendant  company  so  as  to 
show  that  the  latter  company  is  restricted  to  a  fare  of  two  cents  per  mile  for 
each  passenger;  but  it  is  enough  to  allege  that  the  defendant  had  been  duly  or- 
ganized, that  it  was  entitled  to  demand  and  receive  of  passengers  a  certain  rate 
of  fare,  and  that  it  had  demanded  and  receive^l  a  higher  rate.*^-" 

§  254.  Overcharge  in  Freight  Rates. — In  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty 
imposed  for  charging  freight  rates  in  excess  of  the  maximum  rates  prescribed  by 
law,  the  petition  must  allege  that  the  rates  charged  were  in  excess  of  the  maximum 
rates  fixed  bv  statute  or  commission  order.^*^     In  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty 


bey's  Ann.  St.  1907,  §  10,G06,  provides 
for  a  specified  speed  in  the  transporta- 
tion of  live  stock,  provided  that  on 
branch  lines  not  exceeding  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  miles  in  length  stock  of- 
fered in  consignments  of  less  than  six 
cars  need  only  be  shipped  on  three  des- 
ignated shipping  days  a  week,  and  that 
the  carrier  need  only  conform  to  the 
schedule  on  the  day  so  designated.  Held, 
that  the  exceptions  contained  in  such 
proviso  were  matters  of  defense  which 
need  not  be  negatived  in  a  petition  by  the 
shipper.  Cram  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
85  Neb.  586,  123  N.  W.  1045,  26  L.  R.  A., 
N.   S.,    1028. 

The  declaration  in  an  action  against  a 
railroad  company  to  recover  penalties 
for  over  charges  is  sufficient  if  it  con- 
forms to  the  act  under  which  it  was 
drawn,  though  it  fails  to  aver  that  de- 
fendant is  not  within  the  exceptions  con- 
tained in  the  Virginia  statute.  Code  1873, 
c.  61,  §§  1,  58.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Pendleton,  86  Va.  1004,  11  S.  E.  1062, 
affirmed  156  U.  S.  667,  39  L.  Ed.  574,  15 
S.    Ct.   413. 

82.  An  allegation  which  is  a  conclusion 
of  law  should  be  stricken  out. — An  alle- 
gation in  the  petition,  in  an  action  against 
railroad  companies  for  unlawful  discrim- 
ination between  shippers,  "that  defend- 
ants, being  railroad  corporations,  were  at 
the  date  hereinafter  set  out,  and  are  now, 
under  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
state   of  Texas,  prohibited   from  willfully 


and  unjustly  discriminating  in  their  rates 
and  charges  for  the  transportation  of  any 
freight,  against  any  person  or  place,  and 
any  such  discrimination  is  unlawful,  and 
subjects  any  railroad  corporation  so  do- 
ing to  a  penalty  of  $500,"  is  not  an  alle- 
gation of  fact,  but  of  a  conclusion  of  law, 
and  should  have  been  stricken  out  as 
such,  but  the  refusal  to  do  so  was  harm- 
less error.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Gallaher,   79   Tex.   685,   15    S.   W.   694. 

83.  Allegation  sufficient  to  show  dis- 
crimination by  one  express  company 
against  another. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
State,    161    Ind.    328,   67    N.    E.    1033. 

84.  Actions  for  penalty  for  overcharge 
in  passenger  rates — What  allegations  es- 
sential.— Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Cook, 
37    O.    St.   265. 

85.  Nellis  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
30   N.   Y.   505. 

86.  Petition  held  not  to  state  a  cause 
of  action. — The  Missouri  statute,  Rev. 
St.  1889,  §  2639,  provides  that  railroad 
corporations  shall  print  schedules  show- 
ing the  rates  of  freight  established  by 
them,  not  to  exceed  the  maximum  rates 
established  by  law;  that  copies  shall  be 
posted  in  every  depot,  and  filed  with  the 
railroad  commissioners;  and  that  from 
the  date  of  such  filing  tlie  rates  sched- 
uled shall  not  be  in  excess  of  statutory 
maximum  rates  thereafter  in  force,  and 
shall  be  deemed  the  established  rates  un- 
til changed  as  provided  l)y  this  act.  Sec- 
tion   2631    provides    that    all    railroads    of 


169 


CONTROr,  AND  REGULATION. 


§§  254-256 


imposed  for  noncompliance  with  an  order  of  the  railroad  commission  fixing 
freight  rates,  if  the  defendant  was  entitled  to  notice  of  the  petition  to  the  com- 
mission asking  for  the  revision  and  fixing  of  rates,  and  an  opportunity  of  being 
heard  before  the  commission,  the  declaration  must  allege  that  it  had  such  notice 
and  opportunity.^'  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  for  charging  an  il- 
legal freight  rate,  it  is  not  necessary  to  allege  in  the  declaration  that  the  rates 
prescribed  by  the  statute,  fixing  the  rates  of  toll  on  railroads,  applies  to  the  de- 
fendant, or  that  ditYerent  rates  have  not  been  prescribed  by  law.^**  In  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  collecting  greater 
freight  charges  than  those  stipulated  in  the  bill  of  lading,  if  the  bill  of  lading 
provides,  "weight  and  classification  subject  to  correction,"  plaintitt  must  allege 
that  tlie  freight  charges  specified  therein  were  based  on  the  actual  weight  of  the 
freight.^'-' 

§  2  55.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Unjust  Discrimination  between 
Shippers. — Where  a  statute  provides  that  no  liability  shall  attach  for  the  making 
of  any  charge  which  is  authorized  by  the  tarift'  of  charges  approved  by  the  rail- 
road commission  and  also  prohibits  unjust  discrimination  between  shippers,  there 
may  be  unjust  discrimination  between  ship])ers,  though  the  charges  are  not  in 
excess  of  the  rate  ajjproved  by  the  commission ;  and  hence  in  a  petition  to 
recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  unjust  discrimination,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
allege  that  the  rate  charged  was  higher  than  the  maximum  rate  allowed  by  the 
commission.^" 

§  2  56.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Refusal  to  Receive  or  Transport 
Freight. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  the  statutory  penalty  fur  re- 
fusal to  receive  merchandise  for  transportation,  the  complaint  must  contain  a 
sufficient  allegation  of  a  tender  of  the  merchandise.^^  In  an  action  by  railroad 
commissioners  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  a  penalty  for  a  violation  of 


the  state  shall  be  common  carriers,  and 
prohibits  unreasonable  charges.  Section 
2643  provides  tiiat  on  violation  of  these 
sections  the  person  injured  may  recover 
three  times  the  amount  of  damages  sus- 
tained. Held,  in  an  action  to  recover 
penalties  for  charging  plaintifif  unreason- 
able rates  on  coal  shipped  by  him  over 
defendant  railroad  company's  line,  that  a 
petition  which  failed  to  allege  that  the 
rates  charged  were  in  excess  of  the  rates 
fixed  by  defendant  and  filed  with  the 
railroad  commissioners  and  posted  in  de- 
fendant's depots,  and  which  also  failed 
to  state  that  the  charges  were  in  excess 
of  the  maximum  rates  fixed  by  the  rail- 
road commissioners  or  by  the  statute, 
stated  no  cause  of  action.  McGrew  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  114  Mo.  210,  21  S. 
W.  463. 

87.  Declaration  held  insufficient  on  de- 
murrer.— In  the  record  of  hearings  be- 
fore the  board  of  railroad  commissioners 
on  a  petition  asking  for  the  revision  and 
fixing  of  tariff  rates  for  the  forwarding 
of  milk  over  a  railroad,  there  was  noth- 
ing to  indicate  that  the  railroad  had  no- 
tice of  the  petition,  or  an  opportunity  of 
being  heard  before  the  board.  In  an  ac- 
tion against  the  railroad  to  recover  a 
penalty,  under  the  Massachusetts  stat- 
ute. Pub.  St.,  c.  112,  §  194,  for  noncom- 
pliance w-ith  the  order  of  the  board, 
there  was  no  allegation  in  the  declara- 
tion to  show  tliat  the  defendant  had  such 


notice  or  opportunity  to  be  heard.  Held, 
on  demurrer,  that,  while  from  what  oc- 
curred at  the  argument  the  court  might 
suppose  that  the  defendant  was  before 
the  commissioners,  yet  it  could  not  go 
outside  of  the  record  before  it.  and  that 
the  order  was  invalid  for  want  of  a  no- 
tice to  the  defendant.  Littlefield  f.  Fitch- 
l)urg  R.  Co.,   158  Mass.  1,  32   X.   E.  S.Ji). 

88.  Allegations  held  to  be  unnecessary. 
— Hart  :•.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  W. 
Va.  336. 

89.  Necessary  to  allege  that  charges 
were  based  on  actual  weight  of  freight. 
— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Lcionie,  S4  Tex. 
259,  19  S.  \V.  385.  following  Sabine,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Cruse,  S3  Tex.  460.  IS  S.  \V.  753. 

90.  Unnecessary  to  allege  that  rate 
charged  was  higher  than  maximum  al- 
lowed.— Roberts  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
115  .\rk.  249,  130  S.  \V.  531.  construing 
act  of  1887  (Kirby's  Dig.,  §§  6722.  6725). 
read  in  pari  materia  with  the  act  of 
March   11.   1S90   (Acts   ISOO.  p.  82). 

91.  Allegation  of  tender  held  sufficient. 
—  In  an  action  under  the  North  Carolina 
statute,  a  ^complaint  alleging  a  tender  at 
defendant's  regular  depot  at  a  specified 
place  on  May  2,  1903,  and  that  the  de- 
fendant for  two  successive  daj-s.  to  wit, 
"on  Maj-  8  and  9,  1903,  failed  and  refused 
to  receive  the  same."  was  held  to  con- 
tain a  sufficient  allegation  of  tender.  Cur- 
rie  V.  Raleigli,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  N.  C.  535, 
47   S.   E.  654. 


§§  256-260  CARRIERS.  170 

a  rule  of  such  commissioners  in  refusing  to  transport  freight  offered  to  defend- 
ant, where  the  declaration  and  the  order  of  such  commissioners  attached  thereto 
fail's  to  set  forth  the  point  of  destination  to  which  defendant  refused  to  transport 
the  freight,  or  that  such  point  of  destination  is  within  the  state,  a  demurrer  is 
properly  sustained  thereto.^-  But  the  failure  of  such  order  to  show  the  point  of 
destination  is  cured  by  a  proper  allegation  in  the  declaration.'*!^ 

§  2  57.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight. 

—Where  an  action  is  brought  for  a  penalty  prescribed  for  delaying  shipments  by 
sidetracking  in  transit,  a  demurrer  is  properly  sustained,  wdiere  the  declaration 
does  not  allege  that  the  delay  sued  on  was  caused  by  such  sidetracking. ^^ 

§  2  58.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Furnish  Double-Decked 
Cars  for  Sheep. — A  petition  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover 
a  penalty  prescribed  for  failure  to  furnish  double-decked  cars  for  sheep,  on  re- 
quest, need  not  state  that  the  point  to  which  plaintiff's  sheep  were  to  be  shipped 
was  a  station  on  the  defendant's  road,  where  it  alleges  that  "the  defendant  was 
conducting  a  general  passenger  and  freight  business  over  the  line  of  its  railroad" 
between  the  point  of  shipment  and  the  point  of  destination. ^^ 

§  2  59.  Unnecessary  Allegations  May  Be  Rejected  as  Surplusage.— In 

an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  the  penalty  imposed  for  violation  of  a  stat- 
utory regulation,  unnecessary  allegations  in  the  petition  may  be  rejected  as  sur- 
plusage, and  will  not  vitiate  the  pleading.^^^ 

§§  260-263.  Answer— Sufficiency— §  260.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for 
Overcharge. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  a  statutory  pen- 
alty for  overcharging  passengers,  an  answer  attacking  the  statute  as  unconstitu- 
tional, in  that  by  its  terms  the  carrier  would  be  obliged  to  operate  its  railway  at  a 
loss,  is  insufficient  to  raise  the  constitutional  ciuestion,  unless  it  shows  that  the 
rate  fixed  is  unreasonable.^"  An  allegation  that  a  rate  of  passenger  fare  as  fixed 
by  statute  is  unreasonable,  in  that  the  cost  of  transporting  passengers  exceeds  the 
rate,  is  insufficient  to  present  the  question  whether  the  statute  is  constitutional, 
because  it  does  not  show  that  the  statutory  rate  makes  a  profit  on  the  carrier's 
aggregate  business  impossible.^'^     An  answer  alleging  that  an  overcharge  was  made 

92.  Effect  of  failure  to  state  point  of  gaged  in  such  business  to  be  common 
destination. — State  z:  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  carriers,  and  authorizes  them  to  carry  on 
Co.,   50   Fla.   601,   47   So.  387.  trade,    and    to    sue     and    be    sued,     by    the 

93.  State  v.  Seaboard,  etc..  Railway,  56  name  adopted  by  the  copartnership;  and 
Fla.  670,   47   So.  986.  hence  an   allegation,   in   an   action   for   the 

94.  Action  for  penalty  for  delaying  penalty,  that  the  company  discriminated 
shipments  by  side  tracking — Declaration  against  was  incorporated,  when  it  was 
insufficient.— Keystone  Lumber  Yard  v.  not,  may  be  rejected  as  surplusage.  Ad- 
Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Miss.  192,  47  So.  ams  Exp.  Co.  v.  State,  161  Ind.  328,  67 
803.  N.   E.  1033. 

95.  Petition  in  action  for  penalty  for  A  petition,  in  an  action  against  a  rail- 
failure  to  furnish  double-decked  cars. —  road  company  to  recover  the  penalties 
Emerson  f.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  prescribed  by  the  Missouri  statute,  Rev. 
Mo.   161,   10   S.   W.   1113.  St.,    §§    833-835,    for    overcharges,    is    not 

96.  Unnecessary  allegations  rejected  as  rendered  invalid  by  stating  the  maximum 
surplusage. —  Under  the  Indiana  statute,  rate  to  be  less  than  that  fixed  by  law. 
Acts  1901,  p.  149  (Burns'  Rev.  St.  1901,  Reynolds  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 
§   3312b,   et   seq.),   prohibiting  unjust   dis-  Mo.  90. 

crimination      by      an      express      company  97.    Answer    must    show   that   rate    pre- 

against    any    other    company    engaged    in  scribed    is    unreasonable. — Missouri     Pac. 

the    same     business,     and     prescribing    a  R.    Co.   v.    Smitli,    60   Ark.   221,   29    S.    W. 

penalty    for    its   violation,    recoverable    by  752. 

the     state,     the     company     discriminated  98.     Allegation     insufficient  to    present 

against    need     not    be     incorporated,    as  question  whether  statute  is  constitutional. 

Acts   1879,  p.   146,   relating  to   foreign   ex-  — Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.  Smith,   60  Ark. 

press    companies,    declares    all    copartner-  221,  29  S.  W.  752. 

ships,    associations,    and      companies    en-  Thus,    in    an    action    against    a    railroad 


171 


CONTROL  AND  RFXULATION. 


§§  260-264 


througli  mistake  as  to  the  distance  between  the  stations  on  defendant's  road  be- 
tween which  plainlilT  traveled  is  insufficient  on  demurrer. ■•'• 

§  261.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Unlawful  Discrimination  in  Rates.— 
In  an  action  by  a  shipper  against  a  railroad  company  to  recover  the  penalty  pre- 
scribed for  unlawful  (Hscrimination  in  rates,  an  answer  which  sets  up  as  a  de- 
fense a  contract  between  the  defendant  and  the  shipper  in  whose  favor  the  alleged 
discrimination  was  made,  is  insufficient  as  a  defense  if  it  fails  to  allege  that  such 
shipper  performed  his  obligation  under  the  contract  in  consideration  of  which  the 
alleged  (hscrimination  was  made.' 

§  262.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  a  penalty  jirescribcd  for  delay  in  traii>]>orting 

freight,  an  answer  alleging  that  owing  to  the  unusual  conditions  it  was  difficult  to 
secure  help  in  railroad  offices,  is  subject  to  exception,  in  the  absence  of  any 
allegation  of  how  that  fact  contributed  to  the  delay ;  -  and  in  such  an  action,  an 
answer  alleging  that  there  was  great  prosperity  in  the  country  at  the  time,  and 
that  trade  conditions  demanded  a  larger  number  of  cars  than  had  ever  been  re- 
quired, is  demurrable,  in  the  absence  of  any  allegation  of  how  the  ability  of  de- 
fendant to  move  freight  was  thereby  affected.-"^ 

§  263.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Furnish  Cars.— In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  the  penalty  prescribed  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  after  de- 
mand, an  answer  failing  to  allege  facts  showing  that  the  carrier  had  performed  its 
duty  of  providing  a  sufficient  number  of  cars  to  meet  the  ordinary  needs  of  its 
business,' which  it  could  reasonably  anticipate,  or  that  the  scarcity  of  cars  and 
existing  demands  for  them  were  the  result  of  circumstances  beyond  its  power 
reasonaldy  to  control  and  provide  against,  is  demurrable.-* 

§§  264-272.  Evidence— §§  264-267.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of 
Proof— §  264.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Overcharge.— In  an  action  against 
a  carrier  to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  overcharges  consisting  in  the  excess 
of  the  interstate  rate  over  the  rates  prescribed  by  the  railroad  commission  of  the 


company  to  recover  the  penahy  pro- 
vided for  a  violation  of  a  statute  limiting 
the  passenger  rate  to  three  cents  a  mile, 
an  allegation  that  the  rate  fixed  is  unrea- 
sonable, in  that  the  actual  cost  of  trans- 
porting each  passenger  and  his  baggage 
over  defendant's  road  is  more  than  three 
cents  a  mile,  and  that  hence  defendant  is 
compelled  to  transport  passengers  at  a 
loss,  is  bad  on  demurrer,  it  not  showing 
but  that  the  statutory  rate  permits  of  a 
profit  on  defendant's  aggregate  business. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  60  Ark. 
221,  29   S.   W.  752. 

99.  Answer  alleging  overcharge  through 
mistake  held  insufficient. — Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  c'.  Smith,  CO  Ark.  231.  20  S.  \V. 
752. 

1.  Answer  in  action  for  penalty  for  un- 
lawful discrimination  held  insufficient. — 
In  an  action  l)y  a  sliippcr  of  coal  to  re- 
cover penal  damages  from  a  railroad 
company  for  unlawful  discrimination  in 
rates,  the  railroad  company  pleaded  in  de- 
fense a  certain  contract  between  itself 
and  the  coal  company  in  whose  favor 
discrimination  was  alleged,  whereby,  in 
consideration  of  the  release  by  such  com- 
pany of  a  certain  claim  against  defendant 
for    damages,    and    its    agreement    to    fur- 


nish coal  to  defendant  for  use  in  its  lo- 
comotives at  cost,  or  at  a  maximum  price 
(which  was  alleged  to  have  proved  less 
than  cost),  defendant  agreed  to  allow  a 
rel)ate  of  forty  cents  per  ton  in  case  the 
coal  company's  shipments  of  coal  ex- 
ceeded 200,000  tons  annually.  Held  that, 
in  the  aljsence  of  any  allegations  that  the 
shipments  of  coal  exceeded  200,000  tons 
annually,  this  answer  constituted  no  de- 
fense. Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  z-.  Goodridge, 
149  U.  S.  680.  37  L.  Ed.  986.  13  S.  Ct.  970; 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Taggart.  140  U.  S. 
698.   37   L.   Ed.  905.   13    S.   Ct.   977. 

2.  Answer  in  action  for  penalty  for  de- 
lay in  transporting  freight. — Texas  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Hannay-Frerichs  &  Co..  104 
Tex.  603,  142  S.  W.  1163,  so  holding  in 
an   action   under  Rev.   St.   1895,  art.  4496. 

3.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  -■.  Hannav-Fre- 
richs  &  Co.,  104  Tex.  603,  142  S.  \V.  1163, 
so  holding  in  an  action  under  Rev.  St. 
1S95.   art.    4496. 

4.  Answer  in  action  for  penalty  for 
failure  to  furnish  cars. — ludgment.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  c'.  Allen,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
331,  98  S.  W.  450.  reversed.  Allen  f. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co..  100  Tex.  525.  101  S.  W. 
792,  citing  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Barrow 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.).  94  S.   W.  176. 


§§  264-267  CARRIERS.  172 

state,  the  burden  of  proving  that  the  shipment  was  a  domestic  shipment  is  on  the 
plaintiff.-^  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  under  a  statute  which  makes 
the  company  hable  for  a  penalty,  where  it  collects  greater  freight  charges  than 
those  stipulated  in  the  bill  of  lading,  if  the  bill  of  lading  provides  "weight  and 
classification  subject  to  correction,"  the  plaintiff  must  allege  and  prove  that  the 
freight  charges  specified  therein  were  based  on  the  actual  weight  of  the  freight.^*  . 

§  26  5.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Discrimination  in  Rates.— Where  a 
common  carrier  of  goods  discriminates  in  its  rates,  it  will  l)e  presumed  thatthe 
person  injured  is  the  shipper  who  actually  paid  the  freight.'  A  statute,  prohibit- 
ing a  railroad  company  from  charging  more  for  a  short  haul  than  for  a  longer 
haul,  and  making  all  such  discriminating  rates  prima  facie  evidence  of  the 
unjust  discriminations  prohibited  by  the  act,  does  not  prohibit  discriminations 
made  in  good  faith  because  of  differences  in  expenses  of  carriage  and  propor- 
tioned with  reference  thereto,  but  a  railroad  relying  thereon  must  prove  that  a 
greater  charge  for  a  short  haul  than  for  a  longer  haul  is  not  unjust  discrim- 
ination.^ 

§  266.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Failure  to  Receive  and  Transport 
Freight.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  penalty  for  failure  to  receive 
and  transport  an  interstate  shipment,  plaintiff  does  not  have  to  show  that  de- 
fendant has  filed  and  published  its  schedule  of  freight  rates  as  required  by  law, 
defendant  being  presumed  to  have  complied  with  the  law.-^ 

§  267.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight. 
— In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  for  the  penalty  imposed,  for  a  delay 
in  the  transportation  of  goods,  the  burden  of  showing  that  the  time  for  the 
transportation  was  unreasonable  rests  on  plaintiftV*'  but  he  makes  a  prima  facie 
case  by  showing  that  the  carrier  neglected  to  transport  the  freight  within  the 
ordinary  time  required. ^^  Where  delay  is  shown,  the  burden  is  on  the  defend- 
ant to  show  that  such  delay  was  not  negligent.^-  Where  by  the  terms  of  the 
statute  the  carrier  is  relieved  from  liability  if  the  goods  are  "burned,  stolen  or 
destroyed"  without  its  fault,  it  has  the  burden  of  proving  such  defense.  Mere 
proof   of   loss   in   such   case   raises   a   presumption   of   negligence. ^'^        Where   a 

5.  Burden  of  proving  shipment  was  a  more,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  246  111.  474,  92  N.  E. 
domestic  shipment. — GuU',  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  934,  construing  Hurd's  Rev.  St.  1909,  c. 
Fort    Grain    Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    72    S.       114,   §   126. 

W.  419;  S.  C,  7.3  vS.  W.  845.  9.    Carrier  presumed   to   have   filed   and 

6.  Burden  of  proving  that  charges  were  published  freight  rates. — Burlington  Lum- 
based  on  actual  weight  of  freight.— Gulf,  ber  Co.  r.  Southern  R.  Co.,  152  N.  C.  70, 
etc.,    R.    Co.  r.    Loonie,  84   Tex.   259,   19    S.  07   S.    K.   107. 

W.  385,   following  Sabine,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.  iq.    Burden    of    proving    that    time    for 

Cruse.  83  Tex.  400,  ]8  S.  W.  755.  transportation    was     unreasonable. — Alex- 

7.  Presumption  that  person  injured  is  andcr  r.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  C. 
shipper  who  actually  paid  the  freight. —  93^  r^o  g  jr.  697,  and  Jenkins  v.  Southern 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r,  Co,  146  N.  C.  178,  59  S.  E.  663,  con- 
(lowa),   135   N.  W.  721.  struing   Revisal  1905,   §  2632. 

8.  Effect  of  statute  relating  to  discrim-  ^^  p^.^^^  j^^j^  ^^^^  ^^^e  by  showing 
ination  between  long  and  short  haul  neglect  to  transport  within  ordinary  time. 
People  v.  Baltmiore,  etc.,_R.  Co.,  246  111.  _je„i,i„s  ,,  Southern  R.  Co.,  146  N.  C. 
474,  92  ^.  E.  934  construing  Kurds  Rev.  ^  g  p  ggg  construing  Revisal  1905, 
St.    1909,   c.   114,   §   126.  o    0630 

Under  such  a  statute,  where  a  railroad  ,„'"„,  r     u       •        a  ^  -,0    ««4. 

company    charged    with    unjust    discrimi-  12-.   Burden   of   showing   delay   was   not 

nation    in    charging    a    larger    freight    for  "^S^?^"*-tT"o^^%  ^^ Vn/v.v°'  /i.      ^Js 

hauling      a      shorter      distance      than      is  ^^^y-.^^'i'^Ji^    &    P°v    ^'^i    ^^^:    f^^'.    j^f 

charged  for  hauling  a  greater  distance  at  &•  W.  1103,  construing  Rev.  St.  1895,  art. 

the  same  time  over  the  same  line  did  not  4496. 

deny   the    facts    and    offered     no    explana-  13.  Burden  upon  carrier  to  prove  goods 

tion,  a  prima  facie  case  of  unjust  discrim-  were   burned,   stolen   or   destroyed. — Rob- 

ination   was   made   by   the   mere   proof   of  ertson  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148   N.   C. 

the    charge    warranting    a   verdict    against  323,  62  S.  E.  413,  construing  Revisal  1905, 

the    railroad    company.      People    v.    Balti-  §   2632. 


173 


CONTROL  AND  RKGULATION. 


§§    267-271 


written  bill  of  lading  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  a  car  is  admitted  in  evidence, 
the  carrier  is  presumed  to  have  known  what  it  was  doing  when  it  accepted  the 
car,  and  it  can  not  be  heard  to  say  that  it  did  not  have  possession  thereof  at  the 
time  it  issued  the  bill  of  lading.'-* 

§§  268-271.  Admissibility— §  268.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Over- 
charge.— ^Where  a  railroad  company  authorized  the  drayman,  delivering  to  the 
consignee  goods  carried  by  the  company,  to  collect  the  charges,  the  drayman's 
testimony  that  the  consignee,  on  paying  the  charge,  said  he  thought  it  was  too 
high,  is  admissible  in  an  aclion  by  the  consignee  to  recover  a  statutory  penalty 
for  overcharge.''' 

§  269.  In   Actions    for   Penalty   for   Discrimination   in   Rates. — In   an 

action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  discrimination  in 
rates,  evidence  to  be  admissible  must  be  relevant  to  the  issues  involved.'" 

§  2  70.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight. 
— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  the  penalty  prescribed  for  delay  in 
the  transportation  of  freight,  evidence  not  relevant  to  the  issues  involved  is  not 
admissible,'"  but  evidence  of  any  circumstances  which  contributed  to  produce 
the  delay  in  spite  of  ordinary  diligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  is  admissible 
to  disprove   negligence.''* 

§  271.  In  Actions   for   Penalty  for  Failure   to   Furnish   Cars. — In   an 

action  against  a  railroad  company  for  the  penalty  prescribed  tor  failure  to  fur- 
nish cars  for  freight  tendered,  if  the  company  complied  with  its  duty  to  fur- 
nish facilities  for  the  transportation  of  goods,  in  the  ordinary  conduct  of  its 
Inisiness,  it  is  relevant  to  prove  that  at  the  time  of  the  demand,  the  general 
movement  of  freight  through  the  country  traversed  by  the  company's  lines,  was 
unusually  large  and  more  than  was  normally  to  have  been  expected,  and  that 
therefore  it  could  not  comply  with  the  demand  for  cars.'''     In  such  an  action. 


14.  Presumption  that  carrier  had  pos- 
session of  car  when  it  issued  bill  of  lad- 
ing.— Sandford  r.  Seaboard,  etc.,  Rail- 
way. 71)  S.  C.  r,i9.  r,i  S.  K.  74. 

15.  Evidence  of  drayman  authorized  to 
collect  charges. — l'\iller  f.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   31    Iowa   187. 

16.  Evidence  held  relevant. — In  an  ac- 
tion again.st  a  railroad  company  under 
the  Texas  statute,  to  recover  the  penalty 
for  discriminating  in  freight  charges,  it 
appeared  that,  on  Deceml)er  12th,  plain- 
tiff shipped  a  car  load  of  lumber,  for 
which  defendant  charged  him  twelve  and 
one  half  cents  per  one  hundred  pounds, 
while  the  person  in  whose  favor  defend- 
ant was  alleged  to  liave  discriminated 
was  charged  eight  cents  per  one  hundred 
pounds  on  a  car  load  of  lumber  shipped 
by  him  on  December  8th,  from  and  to 
the  same  points.  Held,  that  a  letter, 
written  on  December  9th,  l>y  defendant's 
freight  agent  to  plaintiff,  in  which  the 
writer  says,  "as  regards  giving  rebate  on 
your  shipments,  I  would  say  that  we 
have  published  rates  on  lumber,  copies 
of  whicli  are  on  file  with  tlie  commis- 
sioner of  the  Texas  Traffic  .\ssociation. 
As  we  are  oliliged  by  agreement  to  main- 
tain rates,  you  will  see  how  utterly  im- 
possible it  is  for  us  to  go  into  the  rebate 
business,"    is    relevant   and   admissible,   as 


tending  to  show  that  defendant  had  not 
changed  its  freight  rates  between  Decem- 
ber 8th  and  12th.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.   Gallaher,  79  Tex.  68.5,   l.')   S.   W.  C94. 

17.  Evidence  held  irrelevant. — In  an 
action  under  the  North  Carolina  statute, 
Revisal  1905,  §  26.32,  it  is  not  relevant  to 
the  inquiry  whether  or  not  defendant 
knew  the  facts  which  gave  plaintiff  the 
right  to  sue.  Cardwell  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,   146   N.   C.  218,  59   S.   E.   673. 

In  such  an  action  evidence  that  plain- 
tiff told  defendant's  agent  that  plaintiff 
was  shipping  the  goods  to  be  sold  on  ac- 
count, and  that  he  could  get  no  money  un- 
til the  goods  were  sold,  is  not  relevant  to 
tiie  inquiry,  since,  when  plaintiff  estab- 
lishes that  he  is  the  part}'  aggrieved,  it 
bears  in  no  way  upon  his  demand  or  de- 
fendant's obligation,  whether  defendant 
knew  who  was  the  party  aggrieved,  either 
at  the  inception  of  the  matter  or  at  any 
other  time.  Rollins  7'.  Seaboard,  etc., 
Railroad,  146  N.  C.  153.  59  S.  E.  671. 

18.  Evidence  admissible  to  disprove 
negligence. — Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  i:  Han- 
nav-lM-orichs  &  Co.,  104  Tex.  603,  142  S. 
W.     11  ••-3. 

19.  Evidence  that  movement  of  freight 
was  unusually  large. — Southern  R.  Co.  f. 
Atlanta  Sand,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Ga.  35,  68  S. 
E.  807. 


;§  271-272 


CARRIERS. 


174 


evidence  of  defendant's  animosity  toward  the  consignee  is  admissible  as  strength- 
ening plaintiff's  theory  that  defendant  refused  to  furnish  cars,  but  the  cause  of 
such  animosity  is  immaterial.-"  It  is  not  competent  for  defendant  to  show  pre- 
vious delav  of  the  intended  consignee  in  unloading  similar  shipments,  the  car- 
rier's remedy  being  not  against  the  shipper  but  against  the  consignee  for  dam- 
age.-^  The'  exclusion  of  a  bond  entered  into  by  plaintiff  with  the  consignee 
for  the  performance  of  the  contract  for  shipment,  is  not  error  where  the  contract 
is  otherwise  established.--  \Miere  the  records  kept  in  the  train  dispatcher's 
office  show  the  number  of  cars  ordered  during  the  time  in  question  and  no 
eff'ort  is  made  to  produce  them  or  excuse  offered  for  not  doing  so,  there  is  no 
error  in  excluding  the  testimony  of  the  train  dispatcher  to  show  the  number 
of  cars  ordered,  the  witness  stating  that  he  can  not  give  the  number  from  mem- 
ory anywhere  near  accurately.-^  Evidence  is  properly  excluded  where  there 
is  no  pleading  to  warrant  its  admission.-'* 

§  272.  Weight  and  Sufficiency. — In  the  appended  note  will  be  found 
numerous  decisions  of  the  courts  as  to  the  weight  of  the  evidence  and  its  suf- 
ticiency  to  prove  particular  facts  in  actions  to  recover  the  statutory  penalty  pre- 
scribed for  an  overcharge  in  passenger  rates  -''  or  in  freight  rates  -'^  or  for  any 


20.  Evidence  of  carrier's  animosity  to- 
ward consignee. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Campbell,  91  Tex.  551,  561,  45  S.  W.  2, 
43  L.  R.  A.  225,  reversing  40  S.  W.  431. 

Declarations  of  conductor.  —  Declara- 
tions of  a  conductor  while  switching  cars 
for  loading  showing  carrier's  determina- 
tion to  furnish  no  cars  for  plaintiff's  ship- 
ments to  a  certain  consignee,  are  admis- 
sible. Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell, 
91  Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A.  225, 
reversing  40  S.  W.  431. 

21.  Evidence  of  previous  delay  of  con- 
signee in  unloading  inadmissible. — Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Campbell,  91  Tex.  551, 
45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A.  225,  reversing  40 
S.  W.   431. 

22.  Bond  between  plaintiff  and  con- 
signee for  performance  of  contract  for 
shipment. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell, 91  Tex.  551,  45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A. 
225. 

23.  Testimony  of  train  dispatcher  to 
show  number  of  cars  ordered. — Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
571,  79  S.  W.  614,  affirmed  in  98  Tex.  635, 
no  op. 

24.  No  pleading  to  warrant  admission 
of  evidence.— Where  the  answer  of  the 
defendant  did  not  allege  facts  showing 
that  it  had  performed  the  duty  laid  upon 
it  by  law  of  providing  a  sufficient  number 
of  cars  to  meet  the  ordinary  needs  of  its 
business,  which  it  could  reasonably  an- 
ticipate, nor  that  the  scarcity  of  cars  and 
the  existing  demands  for  them  were  the 
result  of  circumstances  beyond  its  power 
reasonably  to  control  or  provide  against, 
and  was  therefore  demvirrable,  evidence 
offered  to  show  the  facts  alleged  in  the 
answer  was  properly  excluded,  there  be- 
ing no  pleading  to  warrant  its  admis- 
sion. Allen  V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100 
Tex.  525,  101  S.  W.  792,  affirming  42 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  331. 


25.    Overcharge  in  passenger  rates. — In 

an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  penalty 
imposed  by  Arkansas  statute,  Kirby's 
Dig.,  §  6620,  for  charging  excessive  pas- 
senger fare,  evidence  held  to  justify  a 
verdict  against  the  carrier.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Young,  102  Ark.  599,  145  S.  W. 
203. 

In  an  action  to  enforce  the  penalty  for 
overcharges,  on  the  issue  whether  defend- 
ant (M.  P.  Co.)  operated  a  certain  rail- 
road, the  only  testimony  was  that  of  two 
employees  of  the  I.  M.  Co.,  that  they 
used  blanks  for  bills  of  lading,  etc.,  ap- 
parently prepared  for  use  of  defendant, 
but  they  did  not  state  that  the  blanks 
were  used  when  the  overcharges  were 
made;  that,  as  far  as  they  knew,  they 
were  furnished  by  the  I.  M.  Co.;  and  that 
the  passenger  tickets  and  baggage  checks 
appeared  to  have  been  prepared  for  the 
I.  M.  Co.  They  were  employed  and  paid 
by  the  I.  M.  Co.  One  of  them  testified 
that  he  had  received  notice  that  the  road 
would  be  operated  by  defendant,  but  he 
did  not  state  when  the  notice  was  given. 
Defendant  and  the  I.  M.  Co.  were  shown 
to  be  distinct  corporations,  and  the  road 
had  been  leased  by  a  third  company  to 
the  I.  M.  Co.,  and  the  blanks  were  printed 
l)y  defendant  and  furnished  the  lessee  as 
a  matter  of  economy.  Held,  insufficient 
to  show  that  defendant  operated  the  road 
either  jointly  or  with  others.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Wright,  65  Ark.  631,  47 
S.  W.  557. 

The  M.  Railroad  Company  is  not  shown 
to  have  operated  the  L.  Railroad,  when 
plaintiff  was  illegally  charged  for  trans- 
portation over  the  latter,  by  evidence  that 
the  S.  Railroad  Company  acquired  the 
greater  part  of  the  stock  of  the  L.  Rail- 
road Company,  and  that  the  M.  Railroad 
Company  acquired  the  greater  part  of  the 
stock   of   the    S.    Railroad    Company,    and 


175 


CONTROL  AND  REGULATION, 


!§  272-274 


unlawful  discrimination  in  rates,-"  for  refusal  to  j,(ive  trans fers,2«  for  refusal  to 
receive  freij^dit  for  shiijnient,-"-'  and  for  failure  to  furnish  cars.'*" 

§§  273-274.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact— §  273.  In  Actions  for  Pen- 
alty for  Discrimination  in  Freight  Rates.— In  an  action  against  a  earner 
for  the  penalty  prescribed  for  discriniinatii^n  in  freight  rates,  if  the  plaintiff  was 
the  consignee  of  the  goods  which  he  purchased,  delivered  at  his  plant,  the  ques- 
tion whether  he  suffered  damage  bv  reason  of  the  discriminatory  rates  is  one  of 
fact.31 

§  274.  In  Actions  for  Penalty  for  Delay  in  Transportation  of  Freight. 

— In  an  action  a,<;ainst  a  carrier  for  the  penally  imposed,  for  delay  in  transport- 


that  several  of  the  officers  of  the  two 
last-named  companies  were  the  same;  it 
appearing  that  the  two  companies  re- 
mained separate  corporations,  and  that 
they,  by  consent,  appointed  or  selected  the 
same  persons  officers  in  each  company  to 
reduce  expenses.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Boiling,  66  Ark.  G4(),  48  S.  W.  80G. 

On  aii  issue  whetlier  a  railroad  com- 
pany charged  plaintiff  more  than  the  fixed 
statutory  rate,  the  only  evidence  of  the 
distance  between  the  stations  was  given 
by  a  witness  who  was  not  a  surveyor,  but 
who  measured  the  railway  between  the 
stations  with  a  surveyor's  chain  of  which 
he  did  not  know  the  length.  He  meas- 
ured the  chain,  and  multiplied  the  number 
of  feet  in  a  chain  by  the  number  of  chains 
in  the  distance,  and  divided  the  product 
by  the  number  of  feet  in  a  mile,  which  he 
estimated  "something  like  5,000  feet, 
— 5,380."  Held,  that  the  evidence  as  to 
the  distance  was  not  so  conclusive  as  to 
necessitate  a  verdict  that  there  had  been 
an  overcharge.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith,   60   Ark.    221,   29    S.   W.    752. 

26.  Overcharge  in  freight  rates. — Evi- 
dence in  a  shipper's  action  against  a  car- 
rier to  recover  overcharges  and  statutory 
penalty  therefor  held  to  sustain  a  finding 
tliat  a  rate  made  by  the  railroad  com- 
mission did  not  apply  to  the  place  to 
which  the  freight  was  shipped.  Sabine 
Tram  Co.  v.  Texarkana,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.),  143  S.  W.  143,  affirming  judgment 
Texarkana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sabine  Tram 
Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),  129   S.   W.   198. 

Under  the  North  Carolina  statute.  Acts 
1903,  p.  999,  c.  590,  §§  1,  2,  prescribing  pen- 
alties for  making  overcharges  on  freight, 
the  question  whether  there  has  been  an 
overcharge  depends  on  whether  the 
amount  exacted  is  "in  excess  of  the  rates 
appearing  in  the  printed  tariff  of  said  com- 
pany or  more  than  is  allowed  by  law," 
and  in  an  action  for  the  penalties  the 
mere  unsworn  declaration  of  defendant's 
agent  that  there  was  an  overcharge  on 
the  goods  is  insufficient  to  sustain  a  find- 
ing of  an  overcharge.  Latta  Martin  Pump 
Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  138  N.  C.  300,  50 
S.   E.  686. 

A  shipment  originating  on  a  railroad  in 
another  state  was  made  on  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing accompanying  the  goods  specifying 
the    shipment     as    a    certain     number      of 


pounds  and  at  a  certain  rate  per  hundred, 
and  a  domestic  road  collected  only  the 
rate  specified  in  the  bill  of  lading.  Held 
not  evidence  of  an  overcharge  by  the  do- 
mestic road  within  the  North  Carolina 
statute.  Latta  Martin  Pump  Co.  v.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  138  N.  C.  300,  50  S.  E.  686. 

27.  Discrimination  in  rates.— In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  common  carrier  for  dis- 
crimination in  rates,  evidence  held  suffi- 
cient to  go  to  the  jury  on  the  question 
whether  the  alleged  discriminatory  rates 
occurred  in  interstate  or  local  shipments. 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R  Co 
(lowaj),  l.'Jo  N.  W.  721. 

28.  Refusal  to  give  transfers.— The  Il- 
linois statute,  Rev.  Code  Chicago,  §  1725, 
provides  that  any  street  railway  company 
rctusing  to  give  transfers  as  provided  by 
§  1723  shall  be  liable  to  a  penalty.  Evi- 
dence in  an  action  by  the  city  to  recover 
penalties  for  refusals  to  give  such  trans- 
fers considered,  and  held  to  show  that  de- 
fendant corporation  was  the  real  bene- 
ficial owner  of  the  connecting  lines,  and 
required  to  give  transfers,  though  the 
dry  legal  title  to  one  of  the  lines  was  in 
another  corporation.  Chicago  Union 
Tract.  Co.  z:  Chicago.  199  111.  579.  65  N 
H.   470. 

29.  Refusal  to  receive  freight  for  ship- 
ment.— Evidence  held  to  present  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  a 
shipper's  daily  tender  of  freight  to  a  car- 
rier to  entitle  him  to  the  statutory  pen- 
alty for  refusal  to  receive  the  freight  for 
shipment.  Wampum  Cotton  ^lills  v. 
Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  608,  64 
S.    E.   5S6. 

30.  Failure  to  furnish  cars. — Evidence 
considered  and  held  to  show  no  valid  ex- 
cuse for  delaj-  in  furnishing  a  shipper  with 
cars  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  to  af- 
ford no  basis  for  a  charge  that  if  the  car- 
rier used  ordinary  care  and  diligence  to 
furnish  the  cars,  and  could  not  furnish 
them  earlier  than  it  did,  it  would  not  be 
liable  for  damages  resulting  from  the  de- 
lay. Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Powell,  34  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  575,  79  S.  W.  86,  affirmed  in  93 
Tex.  635,  no  op. 

31.  Question  whether  plaintiff,  the  con- 
signee, suffered  damage. — Central  Trust 
Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Iowa),  135 
N.  W.  721,  so  holding  in  action  for  pen- 
alty  prescribed   by   Code,   §§   2124,   2125. 


§§  274-276 


CARRIERS. 


176 


ing  freight,  the  court  should  leave  the  question  of  delay  and  the  amount  of  re- 
covery to  the  jury,  with  proper  instructions  on  the  law.=^-  Where,  in  such  an 
action,  the  carrier  had  by  its  bill  of  lading  treated  the  goods  as  those  of  both 
plaintiffs,  and  there  is  testimony  in  corroboration  of  their  ownership,  the  issue 
of  ownership  is  for  the  jury,  though  counsel  for  plaintiff's  during  the  trial  in- 
advertently stated  that  one  of  plaintiffs  was  the  sole  owner,  which  statement 
he  withdrew  by  the  consent  of  the  trial  judge.-*^ 

§  275.  Instructions.— Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  penalties 
for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  goods,  the  evidence  shows  the  issuance  of  a 
bill  of  lading  on  a  designated  date,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  a  car  on  that 
date,  an  instruction  that  the  jury  in  computing  the  time  of  delay  should  count 
from  the  time  the  shipment  was  actually  received  by  the  carrier  or  was  withm 
its  control  is  properly  refused."^-*  In  an  action  for  the  penalty  prescribed  for 
negligent  delay  of  a  carrier  in  furnishing  a  shipper  with  cars,  a  charge  which 
seems  to  be  on  the  weight  of  evidence  in  assuming  that  the  delay  constituted 
negligence  will  not  be  held  error  on  that  account  where,  in  another  paragraph, 
the  qiiestion  of  whether  such  delay  was  negligence  is  treated  as  one  for  the  de- 
termination of  the  jury.'^^  A  judgment  wall  not  be  reversed  because  of  an 
erroneous  instruction,  if  the  error  is  in  favor  of  the  appellant.-^^ 

§§  276-292,  Offenses  by  Carriers  or  Their  Agents— §  276.  In  Gen- 
eral.  There  are  statutes  in  a  number  of  the  states  making  carriers  or  their 

agents  w^ho  violate  certain  statutory  regulations  liable  to  prosecution  by  the 
state.  Among  the  statutory  enactments  of  this  character  whose  validity  the 
courts  have  been  required  to  determine  or  whose  terms  they  have  been  called 
upon  to  interpret,  are  provisions  making  a  carrier  liable  to  prosecution  for 
failing  to   furnish   a  suitable  waiting  room   for  passengers,^^    or   for   failing  to 


32.  Delay  and  amount  of  recovery  for 
jury  under  proper  instructions. — So  held 
in  an  action  to  recover  the  penalty  pre- 
scribed by  the  North  Carolina  statute, 
Revisal  1905,  §  2632.  Shelby  Ice,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  66,  60  S.  E. 
721;  S.  C,  147  N.  C.  61,  60  S.  E.  723; 
Hamrick  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
146   N.    C.    185,   59   S.    E.   666. 

Whether  goods  are  transported  within 
a  reasonable  time,  measured  by  the  North 
Carolina  statute,  is  for  the  jury.  Alex- 
ander V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  C. 
93,  56  S.  E.  697;  Hamrick  Bros.  &  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  146  N.  C.  185,  59  S.  E. 
666. 

It  is  for  the  jury  to  ascertam  whether 
there  had  been  an  unreasonable  delay 
measured  by  the  ordinary  lime  required 
for  transportation,  and  how  much  delay 
there  had  been  after  making  due  allow- 
ance to  the  carrier  as  provided  by  the 
statute,  and  thus  determine  the  amount 
due  plaintiff,  and  the  judge  can  not  de- 
cide as  a  matter  of  law  what  amount  is 
due  though  the  jury  should  believe  the 
evidence,  for  the  jury  must  decide  the 
time  of  the  delay  before  the  amount  of 
the  penalty  can  be  ascertained.  Davis  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  68,  60  S.  E. 
722.  See,  also,  Jenkins  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
146  N  C.  178,  59  S.  E.  663;  Wall-Huske 
Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  407,  61 
S.   E.  277. 

But    the    court    must    define    the    term, 


"ordinary  time  required."  Jenkins  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  146  N.  C.  178,  59  S.  E. 
663. 

33.  Ownership  of  goods. — Sandford  v. 
Seaboard,  etc..  Railway,  79  S.  C.  519,  61 
S.   E.   74. 

34.  Action  for  penalties  for  delay  in 
transportation — Instruction  properly  re- 
fused.— Sandford  v.  vSeaboard,  etc.,  Rail- 
way,  79    S.    C.   519,   61   S.    E.   74. 

35.  Charge  on  the  weight  of  evidence — 
Error  cured. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pow- 
ell, 34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  575,  79  S.  W.  86,  af- 
firmed in  9S  Tex.  635,  no  op. 

36.  Erroneous  instruction  in  favor  of 
appellant  not  ground  for  reversal. — In  an 
action  to  recover  a  penalty  against  a  rail- 
road company  for  discrimination  in  rates, 
an  instruction  that  if  the  jury  believe  that 
defendant  charged  plaintiff  a  greater  rate 
than  it  did  the  other  shipper,  "for  a  like 
quantity  of  freight  of  the  same  class, 
from  the  same  point  to  the  same  point, 
and  in  the  same  direction,  and  that  such 
charge  was  unjust  and  willfully  made, 
then  such  charge  would  be  unlawful,  and 
you  will  find  for  plaintiff,"  is  not  ground 
for  reversal  because  it  fails  to  define  what 
would  be  an  "unjust"  charge,  if  the  rail- 
road company  is  the  appellant.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gallaher,  79  Tex.  685, 
15   S.  W.   694. 

37.  Failure  to  furnish  suitable  waiting 
room  for  passengers.— Whether  a  railroad 
sufficiently   complies    with   the    Kentucky 


177 


CONTROL  AND    REGULATION'. 


§  276 


furnish  separate  coaches  for  white  and  colored  passengers,-*^  or  making  a  par- 
ticuhir  officer  or  agent  of  tlie  carrier  Hable  to  a  prosecution  for  running  freight 
trains  on  Sunday,"-''  or  for  faiHng  to  keep  the  ticket  office  at  a  station  open  an 
hour  before  tlie  (lei)arture  of  a  train.-*"  ^ 


statute,  St.  iy03,  §  772,  requiring  railroads 
to  provide  a  convenient  and  suitable  wait- 
ing room  for  passengers,  is  a  question  of 
fact  depending  upon  the  size  of  the  city, 
town,  or  station  wiiere  the  railroad's 
trains  stop,  and  the  numl)er  of  passen- 
gers arriving  at  and  departing  therefrom. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 
28   Ky.  L.   Rep.  802,  90  S.  W.   G02. 

In  a  prosecution  under  such  statiJte, 
evidence  as  to  the  ventilation  and  heating 
of  the  waiting  room  in  question  should  be 
confined  to  the  period  of  thirty  minutes 
immediately  preceding  the  schedule  time 
of  the  departure  of  passenger  trains,  dur- 
ing which  the  railroad  is  required  by  Ky. 
St.  190;5,  §  784,  to  keep  the  waiting  room 
open  and  warm.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  802,  90  S. 
W.  r,02. 

38.  Failure  to  furnish  separate  coaches 
for  white  and  colored  passengers. — The 
Kentucky  statute,  St.  1903,  §  801,  as 
amended  by  Act  March  15,  1894,  provides 
that  the  provisions  of  §  795,  requiring  all 
railroads  to  furnish  separate  coaches  for 
white  and  colored  passengers,  shall  not 
apply  to  the  transportation  of  passengers 
in  a  caboose  car  attached  to  a  freight 
train.  Ky.  St.  1903,  §  772a,  provides  that 
all  railway  corporations  owning  or  operat- 
ing a  road  exceeding  five  miles  in  length 
shall  run  at  least  one  passenger  train  each 
way  daily,  provided  it  may  run  a  mixed 
train  carrying  both  freight  and  passen- 
gers. The  only  train  run  by  defendant 
on  a  certain  branch,  and  the  only  car  in 
which  passengers  could  ride,  was  a  caboose 
car,  and  defendant  sold  tickets  to  both 
white  and  colored  passengers  for  use  on 
such  caboose  car.  there  being  no  separate 
compartments  therein,  or  no  sign  on  the 
car  indicating  which  compartment  was  in- 
tended for  white  or  colored  passengers. 
The  prosecution  contended  that,  since  de- 
fendant was  bound  to  run  at  least  one 
passenger  train  daily,  the  caboose  car  in 
which  passengers  were  hauled  must  be 
considered  a  passenger  train  so  as  to  re- 
quire defendant  to  maintain  separate  com- 
partments therein.  Held,  that  the  train 
was  simply  a  freight  train  with  a  caboose 
attached,  even  though  it  carried  passen- 
gers, and  defendant  did  not  operate  any 
other  passenger  train  on  the  road,  and 
hence  the  case  was  within  the  exception 
contained  in  §  801.  and  defendant  was  not 
liable  for  failure  to  maintain  separate 
compartments  in  such  train.  Southern 
R.  Co.  V.  Commonwealth.  33  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
430,   110   S.   W.   372. 

39.  Running  freight  trains  on  Sunday. — 
The    Georgia    statute.    Renal    Code,   §   420, 


]jrohibiting  the  running  of  freight  trains 
on  Sunday  is  an  exercise  of  the  police 
power  of  the  state  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting a  violation  of  the  Sabbath.  It 
does  not  seek  to  impose  a  penalty  on  the 
corporation  for  the  violation  of  its  pro- 
visions, but  the  statute  is  enforced  by  the 
indictment  of  a  particular  officer  of  the 
corporation,  named  in  the  statute,  and  no 
other  than  the  one  so  named  can  be  law- 
fully convicted.  \'aughan  v.  State,  116  Ga. 
841,  43  S.   E.  249. 

The  statute  can  only  be  enforced  by  the 
indictment  of  the  superintendent  of  trans- 
portation of  the  company,  or  the  officer 
having  charge  of  the  business  of  that  de- 
partment of  the  railroad.  One  who  is 
merely  engaged  as  an  employee  in  the 
running  and  operation  of  the  train  com- 
mits no  offense  under  the  statute. 
\aughan  v.  State,  IIG  Ga.  841,  43  S.  E. 
249;  Craven  v.  State,  109  Ga.  266,  34  S.  E. 
561. 

In  case  there  are  two  persons  with 
equal  authority  in  charge  of  the  transpor- 
tation department  the  provision  for  in- 
dictment might  properly  be  directed 
against  him  under  whose  orders  the  train 
was  run,  but  it  is  not  contemplated  that 
two  persons  occupying  different  relations 
to  the  company  shall  be  equally  indict- 
able. Vaughan  v.  State,  116  Ga.  841,  43 
S.   E.   249. 

If  the  act  of  February  28,  1874  (Code, 
§  4578),  is  to  be  construed  as  allowing 
freight  trains  not  carrying  live  stock  to 
be  run  in  anj'  case  after  eight  o'clock  on 
Sunday  morning,  such  running  is  lawful 
only  when  the  given  train  has  been  ac- 
tually started  on  or  before  the  previous 
Saturday  night.  A  freight  train  not 
started  on  its  schedule  until  12:50  A.  M. 
of  Sunday  morning  can  not  be  lawfully 
run  either  before  or  after  eight  o'clock 
of  that  day.  Jackson  v.  State,  88  Ga. 
787,    15    S.    E.   905. 

It  is  not  justification  for  the  running 
of  a  freight  train  on  Sunday  that  the 
company  has  issued  general  rules  and  or- 
ders to  its  employees  not  to  do  so,  with- 
out also  showing  either  directly  or  by 
circumstances,  such  as  calling  upon  em- 
ployees to  account  for  their  misconduct, 
that  in  the  particular  instance  the  rules 
or  orders  were  violated  without  the  sanc- 
tion or  connivance  of  the  officer  indicted, 
that  officer  being  one  of  those  whose  duty 
it  was  to  control  the  running  of  the  train 
in  question.  Heard  v.  State,  92  Ga.  477,  17 
S.  H.  S.-.7. 

40.  Failure  to  keep  ticket  office  at  sta- 
tion open. — A  railroad  ticket  agent  is  not 
guiltv.  under  Code,  §  2359,  for  failing  to 


1    Car— 12 


§§  277-278 


CARRIERS. 


178 


§  277.  Overcharge  or  Discrimination. — At  common  law  it  is  an  in- 
dictable offense  for  a  common  carrier  to  unjustly  discriminate  between  mem- 
bers of  the  public  ;-*i  and  bv  constitutional  provision  or  statute  in  a  number  of 
the  states  common  carriers'  are  made  liable  to  prosecution  for  an  overcharge 
or  unlawful  discrimination.--  A  statute  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a  car- 
rier to  charge  more  than  a  fixed  sum  for  transportating  excess  baggage,  is  not 
violated  by  a  carrier's  knowingly  accepting  merchandise  as  baggage,  and  trans- 
portincr  it  as  such,  and  charging  therefor  a  rate  exceeding  the  maximum  amount 
allowed  for  carrving  excess  baggage.-'^  A  joint  trafhc  arrangement,  by  which 
connecting  carriers  haul  from  a  point  on  one  road  to  a  point  on  the  other  road 
for  less  than  the  first  carrier  charges  from  the  same  point  on  its  road  to  its 
terminus,  between  the  points,  is  not  in  violation  of  a  statute,  making  it  an  of- 
fense for  a  carrier  to  charge  more  for  hauling  for  a  shorter  than  for  a  longer 
distance  "over  the  same  line"  in  the  same  direction,  the  shorter  being  included 
in  the  longer  distance.-*-*  In  ignoring  an  unconstitutional  statute  limiting  its 
charges  for  transportation  of  passengers  and  appealing  to  equity  for  protection 
against  criminal  proceedings  to  compel  compliance  therewith,  a  railroad  com- 
pany relies  on  the  principle  allowing  an  injured  person  under  some  circum- 
stances to  redress  by  his  own  hands  the  wrong  done.^-'' 

§  2  78.  Carrying  More  than  a  Prescribed  Number  of  Passengers.— 
A  municipal  ordinance  requiring  a  street-railway  company  to  report  to  the  city 
quarterlv  the  number  of  trips  made,  and  number  of  passengers  carried,  and 
punishing  by  fine  the  carrying  of  more  than  18  passengers  on  the  average,  is 
a  regidation  reasonable  in  its  nature,  and  is  binding  and  valid.^'-^ 


keep  his  office  open  at  the  station  an  hour 
before  the  departure  of  a  train  coming 
at  an  early  hour,  where  the  company  did 
not  sell  tickets  at  the  station  for  such 
train,  but  permitted  the  passengers  to 
pay  regular  ticket  fare  on  the  train,  and 
had  given  notice  to  the  public  of  such 
practice.  Brady  v.  State,  83  Tenn.  (15 
Lea)  628. 

41.  Unjust  discrimination  indictable  of- 
fense at  common  la-w. — Garrison  v.  South- 
ern R.   Co.,   l.-iO  X.   C.  .J7.5,  04  S.   E.  578. 

42.  Unjust  discrimination  an  indictable 
offense. — Under  the  North  Carolina  stat- 
ute, Revisal  1905,  §  .3749,  it  is  an  indictable 
offense  for  a  common  carrier  to  unjustly 
discriminate  between  members  of  the  pub- 
lic. Garrison  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  150  N. 
C.    575,    64    S.    E.    578. 

Discrimination  in  rates  where  condi- 
tions are  the  same.— Section  217  of  the 
Kentucky  Constitution,  providing  that  the 
attorney  general  shall  institute  proceed- 
ings to  enforce  the  provisions  of  §  215, 
prohibiting  common  carriers  from  making 
a  discrimination  in  rates  where  the  con- 
ditions are  the  same  does  not  exempt  a 
carrier  from  indictment  for  a  violation 
of  those  provisions.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  108  Ky.  628,  22 
Ky.   L.   Rep.   328,   57    S.   W.   508. 

There  can  not  be  a  violation  of  §  315, 
unless  different  charges  be  made  for 
transporting  freight  of  the  same  class 
from  and  to  the  same  points  and  "upon 
the  same  condition."  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  105  Ky.  179, 
20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1099,  48  S.  W.  416,  43  L. 
R.   A.    550. 


Statute  applicable  though  conditions 
on  several  lines  are  not  the  same. — Rail- 
road Commission  (Laws  1907,  p.  93,  c.  53, 
§  48),  making  it  an  offense  for  any  rail- 
road company  to  collect  for  carrying  one 
person  more  than  it  demands  from  an- 
other for  a  like  contemporaneous  serv- 
ice, which  omitted  the  words  "under  sub- 
stantially similar  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions," as  used  in  Interstate  Commerce 
Law  (Act  Cong.  Feb.  4,  1887,  c.  104,  §  2, 
24  Stat.  379  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  1901,  p. 
3155]),  after  which  §  48  was  patterned,  ap- 
plies to  the  different  lines  of  an  electric 
railway  company,  though  the  conditions, 
such  as  the  cost  of  construction,  etc.,  are 
not  the  same  on  the  several  lines.  Port- 
land R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Railroad  Comm.,  56 
Ore.  468,  105  Pac.  709,  rehearing  denied 
109   Pac.   273. 

43.  Charging  more  than  fixed  sum  for 
transporting  excess  baggage.— Kansas, 
etc.,  Iv.  Co.  V.  State,  65  Ark.  363,  46  S.  W. 
421,  41  L.  R.  A.  333,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  933, 
construing  Act   April   19,   1895. 

44.  Charging  more  for  short  than  for 
long  haul. — Commonwealth  v.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1888,  72 
S.  W.  361,  construing  Ky.  St.,  §  820. 

45.  Ignoring  unconstitutional  statute 
and  appealing  to  equity  for  protection 
against  criminal  proceedings. — Coal,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Conley,  67  W.  Va.  129,  67  S.  E. 
613.  .,     , 

46.  Carrying  more  than  a  prescribed 
number  of  passengers— Ordinance  held 
valid.— St.  Louis  v.  St.  Louis  R.  Co.,  89 
Mo    44,  1  S.  W.  305,  58  Am.  Rep.  82. 


179 


CONTROL   AND   REGULATION. 


§§  279-283 


§  2  79.  Failure  to  Deliver  Express  Matter  to  Consignee. — The  Indiana 
statute,  rc(juirin^  express  companies  to  (leli\er  express  matter  to  persons  "to 
whom  the  same  is  directed,  living  within"  the  limits  of  cities  having  a  specihea 
population,  is  not  comi)lied  with  by  a  personal  delivery  to  the  consignee  at  the 
local   office.'*'' 

§§  280-282.  Negligence  Causing  Death  or  Injury— §  280.  In  Gen- 
eral.— In  a  criminal  prosecution  of  a  carrier  for  negligence  causing  the  death 
of  a  passenger,  the  same  rules  of  evidence  and  j^rinciples  of  law  a\)\)\y  as  in 
an  analogous  civil  action  for  damages."* ** 

§  281.  Who  May  Be  Prosecuted. — A  statute  providing  that,  if  the  life 
of  any  person  being  a  passenger  shall  be  lost  by  reason  of  the  negligence  of 
the  proprietor  of  any  railroad,  such  proprietor  shall  be  liable  to  fine,  applies  to 
all  corjjorations  owning  and  running  a  railroad.^'' 

§  282.  Defenses. —  In  a  prosecution  of  a  carrier  for  negligence  causing 
death  the  contril)utory  negligence  of  the  person  killed  is  a  good  defense.-"''^ 
But  the  fact  that  the  loss  of  life  was  caused  by  the  improi)er  conduct  of  third 
persons,  and  that  the  accident  would  not  otherwise  have  happened,  is  not  a  good 
defense,  if  the  carrier  or  its  servants  did  not  do  all  that  could  be  done  to  re- 
strain such  impro])er  conduct."'^  A  printed  indorsement  on  a  season  ticket, 
disclaiming  liability  for  any  personal  injury  to  the  holder,  is  no  defense  to  an 
indictment  of  the  corporation  under  a  penal  statute  for  gross  negligence. •"'- 

§§  283-286.  Indictment— §  283.  Conditions  Precedent  to  Indict- 
ment.— Where  a  constitutional  provision  or  statute  prescribes  certain  condi- 
tions precedent  to  the  return  of  an  indictment  against  a  carrier  for  a  criminal 
offense,  as  that  such  an  indictment  can  only  be  found  upon  the  recommenda- 
tion or  request  of  the  state  railroad  commission,  or  after  such  commission  has 
refused  to  exonerate  the  carrier,  the  performance  of  such  conditions  are  essen- 
tial to  the  return  of  a  valid  indictment. ^^ 


47.  Failure  to  deliver  express  matter  to 
consignee. —  L'nited  States  Exp.  Co.  r. 
State.  1C)4  Ind.  19G,  73  N.  E.  101,  constru- 
ing Burns'  Ann.  St.  1901,  §  .3:n2a. 

48.  Rules  of  evidence  and  principles  of 
law  applicable. — On  trial  of  a  railroad  cor- 
poration under  the  Maine  statute.  Rev. 
St.  1857,  c.  51,  §  42,  providing  that  a  rail- 
road company  may  he  prosecuted  and 
fined  for  carelessly  killing  a  person  who 
is  exercising  due  care,  it  appeared  that 
deceased  took  passage  from  A.  to  B.,  hut 
got  ofif  at  an  intermediate  station  when 
the  train  had  stopped,  and  was  killed, 
while  attempting  to  re-enter  the  cars,  by 
an  express  train  passing  on  an  interven- 
ing track,  and  defendant  requested  the 
court  to  charge  that,  if  the  track  was  for 
the  continuous  transportation  from  A.  to 
B.,  defendant  was  not  bound  at  any  inter- 
mediate station  to  furnish  ingress  and 
egress  to  deceased,  and  the  court  gave 
the  charge,  but  said  that  it  would  apply 
only  in  a  civil  suit  for  damages,  and  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  present  prosecu- 
tion. Held  error,  on  the  ground  that  the 
same  rules  of  evidence  and  principles  of 
law  apply  in  such  prosecution  as  in  anal- 
ogous civil  actions  for  damages.  State 
V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  58  Me.  176,  4  Am. 
Rep.  258. 

49.  Statute     applicable    to    all    corpora- 


tions  owning  and    running    a    railroad. — 

Commonwealth  t'.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp., 
65  Mass.  (11  Cush.)  512,  construing  St. 
1840,  c.  80. 

50.  Contributory  negligence. — State  v. 
Maine  Cent.  R.  Co..  si   Mc.  S4,  16  Atl.  368. 

But  it  is  no  defense  to  an  indictment 
against  a  railroad  company  under  the 
Alassachusetts  statute,  St.  1874,  c.  372,  § 
.  163.  providing  that  if,  by  reason  of  the 
negligence  of  such  a  compan}%  or  of  the 
unfitness  or  gross  negligence  of  its  serv- 
ants or  agents  while  engaged  in  its  busi- 
ness, "the  life  of  any  person  being  a  pas- 
senger is  lost  or  the  life  of  any  person  be- 
ing in  the  exercise  of  due  diligence  and 
not  being  a  passenger  or  in  the  employ- 
ment of  such  corporation,  is  lost,"  the 
corporation  shall  be  punished,  that  the 
passenger  was  not  in  the  exercise  of  due 
care.  Commonwealth  r.  Boston,  etc..  R. 
Corp.,  134  Mass.  211. 

51.  Improper  conduct  of  third  persons. 
— Commonwealth  i'.  Coburn,  i:^2  Mass. 
555,  so  holding  in  a  prosecution  under 
Gen.  St.,  c.  160.  §  34. 

52.  Indorsement  on  ticket  disclaiming 
liability  for  injury  to  holder. — Comnion- 
wealtli  c'.  \  ermont.  etc.,  R.  Co..  liw  Mass. 
7,  11  Am.  Rep.  ,501. 

53.  Conditions  precedent  to  return  of 
indictment. — As    to    the    validitv   and   con- 


CARRIERS. 


180 


§  284 

8  2  84  Necessary  Alleg-ations.— An  iiulictment  of  a  carrier  for  an  of- 
fense defined  bv  constitutional  or  statutory  enactment  must  allege  facts  that 
will  constitute  the  offense  as  defined  by  such  enactment,  nicludmg  all  its  es- 
sential elements  and  it  must,  of  course,  conform  in  its  allegations  to  any  stat- 
utory  requirement   as   to   indictment.^''      In   an   indictment   against  a   carrier  of 


struction  of  the  terms  of  certain  provis- 
ions of  the  constitution  and  statutes  of 
Kentucky.  Const.,  §§  217,  218;  St.,  §§  819, 
820,  see  the  following  cases.  Common- 
wealth V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Ky. 
75,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1382,  65  S.  W.  158;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  23 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  544,  63  S.  W.  448;  S.  C,  23 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1159,  64  S.  W.  975;  Louisville, 
etc  R.  Co.  z'\  Commonwealth,  104  Ky. 
226,'  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1102,  1380,  46  S.  W. 
707,  47  S.  W.  210,  598,  43  L.  R.  A.  541; 
S.  C,  114  Ky.  787,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1593, 
1779,   71    S.  W.   910. 

54.  Necessary  allegations  in  indictment 
for  discrimination.— An  indictment  against 
a  railroad  company  for  an  unlawful  dis- 
crimination in  the  transportation  of  pas- 
sengers, alleging  the  giving  of  a  free  pass 
over  its  road,  does  not  show  an  undue 
preference  when  it  fails  to  allege  that  by 
virtue  thereof  the  holder  received  free 
transportation.  State  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
125  X.  C.  666,  34  S.  E.  527. 

In  Kentucky,  an  indictment  against  a 
railroad  company  for  unjust  discrimina- 
tion must  allege  that  the  ofifense  was  will- 
fully or  knowingly  committed,  as  Const., 
§  217,  makes  that  an  essential  element  of 
the  ofTense.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth  (Ky.),  46  S.  W.  702. 

As  the  constitution  of  Kentucky,  §  215, 
requires  a  railroad  company  to  charge  the 
same  amount  of  compensation  for  trans- 
porting from  and  to  the  same  points 
freight  of  the  same  class  or  kind,  an  in- 
dictment for  violating  that  section  must 
allege  that  the  freight  in  question  was  of 
the  same  class  or  kind,  or  not  of  different 
classes  or  kinds.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Commonwealth  (Ky.),  46  S.  W.  702;  S. 
C,  105  Ky.  179,  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1099,  48 
S.  W.  416,  43  L.  R.  A.  550. 

And  as  such  provision  further  requires 
that  the  freight  must  be  hauled  on  the 
same  conditions,  and  in  the  same  manner, 
an  indictment  for  discriminating  in  charges 
must  allege  that  the  services  to  the  differ- 
ent persons  were  on  the  same  conditions. 
Commonwealth  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1886,  72  S.  W.  360;  S. 
C,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1888,  72  S.  W.  361. 

An  indictment  for  violation  of  such 
constitutional  provision  which  fails  to  al- 
lege that  the  discriminative  rates  were 
charged  for  services  to  the  different  per- 
sons "upon  the  same  conditions,"  is  fa- 
tally defective.  Commonwealth  v.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1887, 
72  S.  W.  758. 

Thus,  an  indictment  for  discrimination, 
in  violation  of  such  provision  is  bad, 
where  it  charges  the  hauling  of  freight  of 


the  same  class  between  the  same  points 
for  different  persons  for  different  charges 
"and  on  different  conditions."  Common- 
wealth V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1888,  72  S.  W.  361. 

Necessary  allegations  in  indictment  for 
charging    more    for    short    than    for    long 
haul.  —  In      an      indictment      under      the 
Kentucky     statute,     Ky.     St.     §      820,   _  it 
is    not    necessary     to    state    the     precise 
amount     charged     for     the     longer     dis- 
tance,   or  to    state  the    names    of  the  per- 
sons   in    whose    favor    the    discrimination 
was  made,  it  being  sufficient  to  state  that 
the  specified  amount  charged  or  received 
for  the  shorter  distance  was  greater  than 
that    charged    or    received    from    persons 
generally  for  the  longer  distance.     Louis- 
ville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   V.    Commonwealth,    104 
Ky.   226,   20   Ky.   L.    Rep.   1102,   1380,   46   S. 
W.  707,  47  S.  W.  210,  598,  43  L.  R.  A.  541. 
Even   if  it   is  a  condition   precedent   to 
such  an  indictment  that  the  railroad  com- 
mission  shall   make   an   investigation,   fol- 
lowed by  an  order  refusing  to   exonerate 
accused    from    the    operation    of   the    pro- 
visions of  section  218  of  the  constitution, 
an    indictment    stating    the    circumstances 
of  the  offense,  and  reciting,  "defendant  at 
said  time  not  having  been  authorized  by 
the  railroad  commission  of  this  common- 
wealth   to   charge   less   for   a   longer   than 
for  a   shorter   distance   for   transportation 
of  coal,"  is  sufficient.     Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  104  Ky.  226,  20  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1102,  1380,  46  S.  W.  707,  47  S.  W. 
210,   598,  43   L.   R.   A.   541. 

Necessary  allegations  in  indictment  for 
negligence  causing  death. — Under  the 
Massachusetts  statute,  St.  1840,  c.  80,  im- 
posing a  fine  on  any  common  carrier  by 
'  whose  negligence  the  life  of  a  passenger 
is  lost,  to  be  recovered  by  indictment,  the 
indictment  must  aver  that  deceased  left 
a  widow  or  heirs,  or  both,  as  the  case  may 
be,  and  an  averment  that  defendant  is  lia- 
ble to  the  fine,  to  the  use  of  the  admin- 
istrator and  heirs  at  law  of  the  deceased, 
is  insufficient.  Commonwealth  v.  Eastern 
R.   Co.,  71   Mass.    (5   Gray)    473. 

And  an  indictment  under  such  statute 
must  also  allege  the  taking  out  of  ad- 
ministration in  the  state.  Commonwealth 
V.  Sandford,  78  Mass.    (12  Gray)    174. 

An  indictment  against  a  railroad  cor- 
poration under  the  Massachusetts  statute, 
St.  1874,  c.  372,  §  163,  which  imposes  a  pen- 
alty on  the  corporation  where,  by  reason  of 
its' negligence,  or  of  the  unfitness  or  gross 
negligence  of  its  servants  or  agents  while 
engaged  in  its  business,  the  life  of  any 
person  is  lost,  alleged  that  one  S.  was 
traveling  on  the  highway,  and  in  the  ex- 


181 


CONTROL  AND  RKGULATION. 


§§  284-287 


passengers  for  negligence  causing  death  it  would  not  be  good  pleading  to  set 
out  in  the  indictment  the  evidence  which  tends  to  support  the  charge  of  neg- 
ligence, and  it  is  not  necessary  to  allege  the  specific  acts  the  neglect  to  do  which 
constitute  the  negligence  charged,  if  such  negligence  consists  in  the  omission 
to  perform  a  general  duty  and  not  in  the  omission  to  do  any  particular  act  or 
acts.^"'  An  indictment  against  a  railroad  company  for  an  unlawful  discrimina- 
tion in  the  transportation  of  passengers,  alleging  that  it  transported  a  passenger 
free,  is  sufficient  without  alleging  that  there  were  other  passengers  on  the  same 
train   paying   fare.''" 

§  28  5.  Effect  of  Unnecessary  Allegations. — While  an  indictment  against 
a  railroad  company  for  a  violation  of  a  statute  requiring  railroads  to  provide 
suitable  waiting  rooms  and  to  maintain  the  same  in  decent  rejjair,  is  sufficient 
if  it  merely  charges  the  railroad  with  a  failure  to  keep  convenient  and  suitaljle 
waiting  rooms  for  passengers,  yet  it  is  not  objectionable  because  specifying  the 
particulars  in  which  its  waiting  room  was  insufficient.'^" 

§  286.  Offenses  Covered  by  Indictment. — In  a  prosecution  of  a  railroad 
company  for  failure  to  maintain  separate  compartments  in  its  passenger  train 
for  white  and  colored  passengers  as  required  by  statute,  it  may  not  be  consid- 
ered whether  defendant  has  been  guilty  of  a  violation  of  a  statute,  requiring 
all  railroads  to  run  one  passenger  train  each  way  daily  on  the  roa<l,  even  though 
the  agreed  facts  show  that  defendant  had  not  complied  with  the  latter  statute. 
The  proper  manner  of  proceeding  in  such  case  is  by  indictment  under  the  latter 
statute.^^'* 

§§  287-292.  Trial— §  287.  Jurisdiction.— Where  in  a  statute  regulating 
carriers  every  transgression  of  its  pro\isions  is  characterized  as  an  "otiense." 
the  means  by  which  it  is  to  be  enforced  is  described  as  a  "prosecution,"  the 
verdict  is  called  a  "conviction"  and  the  judgment  a  "fine,"  the  penalties  pro- 
vided for  thereby  can  be  enforced  only  in  a  criminal  prosecution  which  is  not 
within   the  jurisdiction  of   a  court  ha\ing  no  original   criminal   jurisdiction.'"'' 


ercise  of  due  diligence;  that  a  locomotive 
engine  attached  to  a  freight  train  was 
passing  the  place  where  the  highway 
crosses  the  railroad;  that  a  locomotive  en- 
gine was  coming  in  the  opposite  direction; 
that,  while  defendant  was  thus  running 
the  last-named  locomotive,  it  was  its  duty 
in  approaching  the  crossing,  in  view  of 
the  position  of  the  first-named  locomotive, 
to  reduce  its  rate  of  speed,  and  give 
proper  signals  and  warnings,  but  it  neg- 
lected to  do  so,  and,  with  the  last-named 
engine,  ran  over  and  killed  S.  Held  that, 
as  the  negligence  alleged  was  that  of  the 
servants  of  the  corporation,  and  not  of 
the  corporation  itself,  the  indictment  was 
insufficient.  Commonwealth  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  Railroad,  1:^3  Mass.  .'?S3. 

55.  Allegations  not  necessary  in  indict- 
ment charging  negligence  causing  death. 
— Commonwealth  v.  Coburn,  132  Mass. 
555. 

An  indictment  under  the  Massachusetts 
statute,  Gen.  St.,  c.  160,  §  34,  against  a 
carrier  of  passengers  on  a  steamboat  to 
recover  the  penalty  therein  provided  for 
the  loss  of  life  of  a  passenger,  caused  by 
its  negligence,  alleging  that,  liy  the  negli- 
gence of  defendant,  the  boat  was  permitted 
to  be  defective  and  unsafe,  and  furnished 
with  a  hurricane  deck,  which  endangered 


the  safety  of  the  boat  and  passengers 
thereon,  and  that  by  defendant's  negli- 
gence the  deck  was  suffered  to  be,  and 
was,  overloaded  with  passengers,  was  not 
insufficient,  as  failing  to  allege  the  evi- 
dence which  tended  to  support  the  charge 
of  negligence,  or  the  specific  acts  the  neg- 
lect to  do  which  constituted  the  negligence 
alleged.  Commonwealth  7'.  Coburn,  132 
Mass.  5")'). 

56.  Indictment  for  unlawful  discrimina- 
tion in  transportation  of  passengers. — 
v'^tate   r.    Southern    R.    Co.,    12.5    X.    C.    OOr., 

34  S.  K.  r.2:. 

57.  Specification  of  particulars  not  ren- 
dering indictment  objectionable. — Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  7'.  Commonwealth,  2S  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  S02,  90  S.  W.  r)02,  so  holding  in  an 
indictment  for  a  violation  of  Kj-.  St.  1903, 
§  772. 

58.  Indictment  for  violation  of  one  stat- 
ute not  covering  violation  of  another  stat- 
ute.— Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth, 
33  Ky.  L.  Rep.  430,  110  S.  W.  372. 

59.  Jurisdiction. — State  v.  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co..  f.7  Xcl^.  141,  93  N.  W.  222;  State 
V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  64  Neb.  679,  90 
X.  W.  877. 

The  supreme  court  of  Nebraska  having 
no  original  criminal  jurisdiction  had  no 
jurisdiction    of    a    proceeding    to    recover 


§§  288-290 


CARRIERS. 


182 


§§  288-290.  Evidence — §    288.   Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof. 

— \\here  a  railroad  company  is  charged  with  not  having  tiled  a  taritt  sheet 
within  the  time  prescribed  by  the  Corporation  Commission,  and  the  evidence 
shows  that  the  taritY  sheet  has  not  been  filed,  the  presumption  is  that  the  omis- 
sion was  wilfid.""  In  a  prosecution  for  violation  of  a  statute  prohibiting  the 
running  of  freight  trains  on  Sunday,  if  there  was  any  legal  excuse  or  justifi- 
cation for  running  the  train  on  that  day,  the  burden  of  proving  the  same  is  on 
the   accused.'^  ^ 

§  28  9.  Admissibility. — On  the  trial  of  a  prosecution  against  a  railroad 
companv  for  charging  more  for  a  short  than  for  a  long  haul,  the  report  of  the 
railroad'  commission  that  defendant  had  been  repeatedly  guilty  of  the  offense 
is  admissible  as  evidence. ^'- 

§  290.  Weight  and  Sufficiency. — In  the  appended  note  will  be  found  de- 
cisions of  the  courts  as  to  the  weight  of  the  evidence,  and  its  sufficiency  to  prove 
particular  facts,  in  criminal  prosecutions  of  carriers  for  failure  to  file  a  tariff 
sheet  within  the  time  prescribed,'^-^  for  running  a  freight  train  on  Sunday, "^^^  and 
for  negligence  resulting  in  the   death  of   a  passenger."'^ 


the  penalties  prescribed  by  the  laws  of 
1893,  ch.  24,  §  9,  regulating  maximum 
freight  rates.  State  v.  Union  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  67  Xeb.  141,  93  N.  W.  222;  State  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  64  Neb.  679,  90  N. 
W.   877. 

60.  Presumption  that  omission  to  file 
tariff  sheet  was  willful. — Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  f.  State.  3.3  Okla.  371,  125  Pac.  721.  _ 

61.  Burden  of  proving  excuse  or  justi- 
fication for  running  train  on  Sunday. — 
Jackson  v.   State,  8S  Ga.  7S7,   15_S._  E.  90.5. 

62.  Report  of  railroad  commission  that 
defendant  had  been  repeatedly  guilty  of 
offense  admissible. — Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Commonwealth,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  239, 
51   S.  W.   167. 

63.  Evidence  justifying  finding  that  fail- 
ure to  file  tariff  sheet  was  willful. — Evi- 
dence held  to  justify  the  corporation  com- 
mission in  finding  that  the  failure  of  a 
railroad  company  to  file  a  tariff  sheet 
within  the  time  prescribed  was  willful. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  State,  33  Okla. 
371.   125   Pac.   721. 

64.  Evidence  not  supporting  indictment 
for  running  freight  train  on  Sunday. — The 
indictment  Ijcing  founded  on  §  4578  of  the 
Code,  and  charging  the  running  of  a 
"freight  train"  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
the  evidence  showing  that  the  train  run 
consisted  only  of  a  locomotive  and  cab, 
and  it  not  appearing  that  any  freight  was 
carried,  offered  to  l^e  carried  or  invited 
for  carriage,  the  indictment  was  not  sup- 
ported by  the  evidence,  a  locomotive  and 
cab,  when  not  run  for  carrying  freight  nor- 
intended  to  be  presently  used  for  such 
carriage,  not  being  a  freight  train.  Mc- 
Xealy  v.  State,  94  Ga.  592,  21  S.  E.  581. 

65.  Some  evidence  of  negligence  for 
jury. — Proof  that  a  passenger  was  killed 
in  a  collision  of  a  train  with  a  hand  car 
which  the  track  master  had  suffered  to 
be  on  the  track,  through  a  mistake  in 
time  occasioned  by  his  failure  to  observe 


correctly  the  hour  indicated  by  his  watch, 
held  to  be  some  evidence  of  negligence 
for  the  jury.  Commonwealth  v.  Ver- 
mont, etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  Mass.  7,  11  Am. 
Rep.    301. 

Evidence  insufficient  to  show  negli- 
gence causing  death, — A  passenger  on  a 
train,  which  was  running  rapidly  at  night 
on  a  road  of  frequent  and  sharp  curves, 
who  was  last  noticed  alive  while  he  was 
passing  through  a  car  in  which  there 
were  vacant  seats,  about  midway  of  the 
train,  saying  or  doing  nothing  to  indicate 
where  on  the  train  he  was  going,  or  the 
purpose  of  going,  was  found  dead  the 
next  morning,  lying  on  the  track  between 
the  rails,  his  body  being  in  a  mutilated 
condition,  at  or  near  the  place  of  a  sharp 
curve  in  the  road.  There  was  at  the 
time  a  saloon  car  hitched  to  the  rear  of 
the  train,  not  annexed  for  the  use  of  pas- 
sengers, but  presumably  to  be  transported 
to  a  station  on  the  road.  The  passen- 
ger cars  were  connected  closely  with  one 
another,  but  the  saloon  car  was  attached 
to  the  train  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave 
an  open  space  between  it  and  the  pre- 
ceding car  eighteen  inches  wide.  On  an 
indictment  against  the  company,  it  was 
alleged  that  the  passenger,  while  exer- 
cising due  care,  fell  through  the  open 
space  between  cars,  and  was  thereby 
killed  by  the  negligence  of  the  defend- 
ants. Held,  that  the  court  properly  di- 
rected a  nonsuit,  as  the  evidence  was  in- 
sufficient to  establisli  the  alleged  negli- 
gence of  the  defendant  and  that  the 
death  of  the  passenger  was  caused  there- 
by. State  V.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  81  Me. 
84,   16   Atl.   368. 

It  is  some  evidence  of  negligence  on 
the  part  of  a  passenger  that  he  under- 
takes, in  the  nighttime,  to  pass  through 
a  train  of  cars  while  the  train  is  moving 
rapidly,  unless  it  may  be  reasonably  in- 
ferred   that   he   has    some    excuse    for    so 


183 


COXTROL    AND    RKGULATIOX. 


§§  291-294 


§  291.  Questions  of  Law  and  Fact. — At  the  trial  of  an  indictment  against 
a  railroad  conipau} ,  iukIlt  a  >laUUc  imposing  a  penalty  for  negligence  in  certain 
cases,  the  court  should  not  take  the  case  from  the  jury,  on  the  defendant's  mo- 
tion, where  there  is  more  than  a  mere  scintilla  of  evidence  of  negligence."'^ 

§  2  92.  Charge. —  In  a  ])rosecution  of  a  railroad  company  for  violation  of  a 
statutory  regulation  the  charge  to  the  jury  must  not  be  misleading.*^'^  Where 
an  indictment  against  a  railroad  comi)any  for  a  violation  of  a  statute,  requiring 
railroads  to  provide  convenient  and  suitable  waiting  rooms,  alleges  that  the 
waiting  room  is  too  small,  not  sufficiently  ventilated,  nor  sufficiently  lighted,  an 
instruction  authorizing  a  conviction  if  the  waiting  room  is  too  small  or  not  suf- 
ficientlv  lighted  or  ventilated  is  not  subject  to  the  objection  of  pointing  out  in 
an  improper  manner  the  evidence  that  has  been  introduced.'''' 

§§  293-298.  Offenses  by  Persons  Dealing  with  Carriers  or  Using 
Their  Conveyances — §  2  93.  In  General. — \W  statute  in  some  states  certain 
acts  by  persons  dealing  with  carriers  or  using  their  conveyances  are  made  crim- 
inal or  penal  offenses.  Statutes  of  this  character,  the  provisions  of  which  have 
been  interpreted  by  the  courts,  are  enactments  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  a 
person  to  get  on  any  car  while  in  motion  to  obtain  transportation  thereon  as  a 
passenger,*'''  and  enactments  making  an  evasion  of  fare  b'y  a  passenger  an  in- 
dictable  offense.'" 

§  2  94.  Sale  of  Passenger  Tickets  by  Brokers. — In  Xew  York  it  has 
been  held  that  the  sale  of  a  valid  passenger  ticket  by  a  broker  is  not  a  fraud,  on 


doing  more  than  mere  restlessness  or 
curiosity.  State  z\  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co., 
81  Me.  S4,  ir>  Atl.  lifiS. 

66.  When  case  should  go  to  jury. — 
Commonwcaltli  :■.  l'"itclilnir,^-  R.  Co.,  92 
Mass.    (10   Allen)    isi). 

67.  Charge  held  misleading. — In  a  pros- 
ecution of  a  railroad  for  a  violation  of 
Ky.  St.  1903,  §  772,  requiring  railroads 
to  provide  a  suitable  waiting  room  for 
passengers,  a  charge  authorizing  a  con- 
viction if  the  railroad  neglected  to  pro- 
vide a  waiting  room  convenient  and  suit- 
able "for  the  accommodation  of  the 
passengers  and  the  pul)lic  traveling  on 
said  railroad  passenger  trains,"  was  mis- 
leading, in  that  it  was  not  restricted  by 
requiring  the  waiting  room  to  be  suffi- 
cient merely  for  the  passengers  who 
might  travel  to  and  from  the  station  in 
question.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
monwealth, 28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  802,  90  S.  W. 
602. 

68.  Instruction  not  objectionable  as 
pointing  out  evidence  in  improper  man- 
ner.—  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Common- 
wealth. 28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  802,  90  S.  \V.  (•.02, 
so  hoUHng  in  a  prosecution  for  violation 
of    Ky.    St.,    190:?.    §    772. 

69.  Getting  on  car  in  motion  to  obtain 
transportation  as  a  passenger. — The  Xew 
York  statute,  Pen.  Code,  §  426,  subd.  2, 
making  it  is  a  misdemeanor  for  a  person 
to  get  on  any  car  while  in  motion,  to  ob- 
tain transportation  thereon  as  a  passen- 
ger, applies  to  a  person  seeking  to  l>oard 
a  car  or  train  unauthorizedly,  or  intend- 
ing to  obtain  transportation  as  a  passen- 
ger surreptitiously,  and  not  to  one  who 
steps   on   a   car  while   in   motion,   in   good 


faith,  intending  to  become  a  passenger 
thereon.  Judgment  126  App.  Div.  936, 
110  N.  Y.  S.  1127,  reversed.  East  v. 
Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  193  N.  Y.  409, 
88    i\.    E.    751. 

70.  Evasion  of  fare. — It  is  not  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  convict  a  passenger  on 
a  railway  car  of  an  evasion  of  fare,  un- 
der the  Massachusetts  statute.  Pub.  St., 
c.  112,  §  197,  to  show  moral  turpitude  in 
such  act  of  evasion.  Commonwealth  t'. 
Jones,   174  Mass.  401,  54  N.  E.  869. 

The  charter  of  a  street-railway  com- 
pany required  it  to  give  transfers  for  a 
continuous  ride  to  any  point  on  its  lines. 
Two  lines  ran  parallel  through  a  street 
for  a  short  distance  to  a  transfer  point, 
where  one  of  the  lines  ended.  A  rule  of 
the  company  required  passengers  on  the 
line  ending  at  the  transfer  point  to  re- 
ceive transfers  for  the  other  line  there. 
Defendant,  knowing  the  rule,  boarded  a 
car  on  the  short  line,  tendered  his  fare, 
and  demanded  a  transfer  to  the  other 
line  immediately,  which  was  refused.  He 
left  the  car,  without  paying  his  fare,  be- 
fore reaching  the  transfer  point,  and 
boarded  a  car  on  the  continuing  line  and 
paid  his  fare.  Held,  that  he'  was  guilty 
of  an  evasion  of  fare,  within  Pub.  St..  c. 
112,  §  197,  prohibiting  persons  from  leav- 
ing cars  without  having  paid  the  fare  for 
the  distance  traveled,  though  he  had  no 
intention  to  defraud  the  company,  and, 
if  he  had  conformed  to  its  rules,  would 
have  been  entitled  to  a  continuous  ride 
over  the  route  traveled  for  one  fare. 
Commonwealth  r.  Jones,  174  Mass.  401, 
54  N.   E.  869. 


294-296 


CARRIERS. 


184 


either  the  transportation  company  or  the  traveler,  calHng  for  protective  legisla- 
tion in  the  exercise  of  the  police  power  J  ^  But  in  Texas  it  has  been  held  that 
a  statute  making  it  a  penal  offense  for  any  other  person  than  the  agent  of  a 
railroad  company  to  sell  its  tickets,  is  a  valid  exercise  of  the  police  power."- 

§  295.  Acceptance  and  Use  of  a  Pass. — In  some  states  the  acceptance 
and  use  of  a  railroad  pass  is  made  a  criminal  or  penal  offense."'^  Under  a  stat- 
ute making  it  unlawful  to  use  or  attempt  to  use  any  pass,  "which,  by  conditions 
expressed  thereon,  is  not  transferable,"  a  conviction  can  not  be  had  for  the  use 
of  a  pass  which  contains  no  other  restriction  as  to  transferability  than  the  in- 
dorsement, "if  presented  by  any  other  person  than  the  person  named  thereon, 
the  conductor  will  take  up  pass  and  collect  fare."  ''^ 

§  296.  Stealing  or  Attempting  to  Steal  a  Ride  on  Railroad  Trains, — 

The  legislature  of  a  state  has  authority  to  pass  an  act  making  the  stealing  or  at- 
tempting to  steal  a  ride  on  railroad  trains  penal,  as  a  measure  conducive  to  the 
public  safety,  whether  or  not  the  ride  so  stolen  is  a  subject-matter  of  larceny.'''^ 
The  provisions  of  certain  statutes  imposing  a  penalty  for  this  oft'ense  have  been 
interpreted  by  the  courts.'^'^ 


71.  Power  to  prohibit  sale  of  passenger 
tickets  by  brokers — New  York  doctrine. 
— Order  26  App.  Div.  22S.  50  X.  Y.  S.  5(j. 
reversed.  Tyroler  v.  Warden  of  City 
Prison,  157  N.  Y.  116,  51  N.  E.  1006,  1018, 
43  L.  R.  A.  264,  68  Am.  St.  Rep.  76.3. 

Laws  1897,  c.  506,  §  1,  prohibiting  the 
sale  of  passenger  tickets  by  persons  not 
agents  of  the  carrier,  is  not  valid  as  a 
police  regulation  of  carriers  as  quasi  pub- 
lic corporations.  Order  26  App.  Div.  228, 
50  N.  Y.  S.  56,  reversed.  Tyroler  v.  War- 
den of  City  Prison,  157  N.  Y.  116,  51  N. 
E.  1006,  1018,  43  L.  R.  A.  264,  68  Am.  St. 
Rep.  763. 

Nor  is  such  act  valid  as  a  police  regu- 
lation of  the  manner  in  which  the  busi- 
ness of  ticket  brokerage  may  be  con- 
ducted. Order  26  App.  Div.  228,  50  N. 
Y.  S.  56,  reversed.  Tyroler  v.  Warden 
of  City  Prison,  157  N.  Y.  116,  51  N.  E. 
1006,  1018,  43  L.  R.  A.  264,  68  Am.  St. 
Rep.   763. 

Laws  1901,  c.  639,  prohibiting  private 
individuals  from  selling  railroad  tickets, 
and  forbidding  the  officers  of  a  common 
carrier  from  supplying  tickets  for  sale  to 
any  other  than  an  authorized  agent,  is 
not  a  valid  exercise  of  the  power  of  the 
legislature  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  a 
railroad  company's  business  because  it  is 
a  creation  of  the  legislature  and  a  com- 
mon carrier.  Order  64  App.  Div.  46,  71 
N.  Y.  S.  654,  affirmed.  Fleischman  v. 
Caldwell,   168   N.   Y.  671,   61    N.   E.   1132. 

Nor  is  such  statute  valid  as  a  police 
regulation  of  the  ticket-brokerage  busi- 
ness, since  it  does  not  tend  to  promote 
the  health,  comfort,  or  welfare  of  society. 
Order  64  Avp.  Div.  46.  71  N.  Y.  S.  654, 
affirmed.  Fleischman  v.  Caldwell,  168  N. 
Y.   671,   61    X.    E.   1132. 

72.  Texas  doctrine. — Jannin  v.  State,  42 
Tex.  Cr.  App.  631,  51  S.  W.  1126,  62  S. 
W.  419,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  821,  so  holding 
as  to  Laws  1893,  p.  97. 


73.  Acceptance  and  use  of  a  railroad 
pass. — A  contract  between  a  railroad 
company  and  a  physician,  by  which  he 
is  to  receive  for  professional  services 
rendered  by  him  for  the  railroad  $25  per 
month,  and  an  annual  pass  over  defend- 
ant's road,  where  the  physician  does  not 
i;pend  a  major  portion  of  his  time  in  the 
employment  of  the  company,  is  prohib- 
ited by  Cobbey's  St.  1907,  §§  10,664, 
10,665,  and  the  acceptance  and  use  of 
such  pass  by  the  physician  renders  him 
guilty  of  a  violation  of  these  sections. 
State  7'.  Martyn,  82  Neb.  225,  117  N.  W. 
719. 

74.  Use  of  a  nontransferable  pass. — 
Allardt  r.  People,  197  111.  501,  64  N.  E. 
533,   construing  Act  June   10,   1897. 

75.  Power  to  make  stealing  a  ride  on 
trains  penal. — Pressley  z'.  State,  118  Ga. 
315,    45    S.    E.    395. 

76.  Interpretation  of  statutes  penaliz- 
ing stealing  or  attempting  to  steal  a  ride. 
— Accused,  charged  with  having  stolen  a 
ride  on  a  railroad  train  in  violation  of  the 
Georgia  statute,  having  admitted  that  he 
concealed  himself  on  the  train  for  the 
purpose  of  avoiding  the  payment  of  fare 
and  stealing  a  ride,  his  conviction  was 
demanded.  Pressley  r.  State,  118  Ga. 
315,   45    S.    E.   395. 

If  one  conceals  himself  on  a  train  or 
in  a  car  for  tiie  purpose  of  avoiding  pay- 
ment of  his  fare,  he  is  guilty  of  attempt- 
ing to  steal  a  ride,  within  the  Georgia 
statute,  Van  Epps'  Code  Supp.,  §  6662, 
if  removed  before  the  journey  began,  or 
of  actually  stealing  a  ride  if  he  remained 
in  the  car  until  after  the  journey  com- 
menced. Mack  z\  State,  119  Ga.  353,  46 
S.  E.  437. 

But  if  one  should  conceal  himself  in 
a  car  for  some  purpose  other  than  that 
of  avoiding  the  payment  of  his  fare,  he 
would    not    be    guilty    of    stealing    a    ride, 


185 


CONTROL  AND  REGULATION. 


;§  297-298 


§  297.  Obstructing  Train  and  Endangering  Safety  of  Passengers.— 

An  iiulictincnt  for  obstrucliiig  a  railroad  train,  and  endangering  llie  safety  of 
the  passengers,  can  not  be  maintained  against  a  passenger  who,  from  whatever 
motive,  pulled  a  signal  rope  attached  to  a  bell  upon  the  engine,  and  thereby  caused 
the  train  to  be  stopped  and  the  safety  of  the  passengers  to  be  endangered.'" 

§  298.  Indictment,  Accusation,  or  Complaint. — Cases  passing  upon  the 
suttkiency  of  the  in(Hctnient,  accusation  or  complaint  in  prosecutions  for  of- 
fenses by  persons  dealing  with  carriers  or  using  their  conveyances,  will  be  found 
in  tlic  appended  note."^ 


within  the  meaning  of  such  statute. 
Mack  v.  State,   ll'J   Ga.   352,  46   S.   E.   437. 

Nor  would  one  be  guilty  of  attempting 
to  steal  a  ride  if  he  openly  entered  and 
remained  in  a  car  with  no  intent  to  pay 
his  fare.  Mack  r.  State,  119  Ga.  352,  4G 
S.    E.   437. 

Where  one  without  fare  or  ticket  is 
ordered  by  the  conductor  to  leave  the 
train,  but  conceals  himself  and  continues 
his  journey,  he  is  guilty  of  violating  tlie 
Georgia  statute.  Acts  1897,  p.  116.  Braz- 
zell  z:  State,  119  Ga.  5r)9,  46  S.   E.  837. 

77.  Obstructing  train  and  endangering 
safety  of  passengers. — Commonwealth  r. 
Killian,    109    Mass.    345,    12    Am.    Rep.    714. 

78.  Boarding  train  with  intent  to  ob- 
tain •  free  ride — Indictment  sufficient. — 
Under  the  Texas  statute,  Pen.  Code,  art. 
lOlOh,  declaring  that  any  person  board- 
ing a  passenger,  freight,  or  other  railway 
train  with  no  lawful  business  thereon, 
with  intent  to  oI)tain  a  free  ride,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the- person  in  charge 
thereof,  shall  be  guilty,  etc.,  an  indict- 
ment charging  that  defendant  unlawfully 
boarded  a  passenger  and  freight  train  on 
a  certain  railroad  was  not  objectionable 
for  failure  to  sufficiently  charge  that  "de- 


fendant boarded  a  railway  train." 
Daugherty  z'.  State,  41  Tex.  Cr.  App.  661, 
56    S.    \V.    620. 

Attempting  to  steal  a  ride — Accusation 
sufficient  to  withstand  general  demurrer. 
— An  accusati'tn  chargiii;^  M.  with  a  mis- 
demeanor, in  tliat  he  fraudulently  con- 
cealed himself  in  a  car  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  pay- 
ment of  fare  and  stealing  a  ride,  under 
the  Georgia  statute.  Van  Epps'  Code 
Supp.,  §  6662,  was  sufficient  to  withstand 
a  general  demurrer.  Mack  v.  State,  119 
Ga.   352,   46    S.    E.   437. 

Avoiding  payment  of  fare — Complaint 
insufficient. — A  violation  of  the  New  Jer- 
sey statute.  Revision,  p.  912,  §  18,  cl.  2, 
forbidding  any  person  who  has  paid  his 
fare  for  a  certain  distance  to  proceed  in 
any  railway  carriage  beyond  such  dis- 
tance without  paying  fare,  and  with  in- 
tent to  avoid  payment  thereof,  can  not 
be  proved  under  a  complaint  alleging 
that  the  defendant  traveled  in  a  railway 
carriage  witliout  having  previously  paid 
his  fare,  with  intent  to  avoid  payment 
thereof,  in  violation  of  clause  1.  Harris 
V.  New  Jersey  Cent.  R.  Co.,  58  N.  J.  L. 
282.   33   At).   799. 


CHAPTER   III. 
Rules  and  Regulations  of  Carriers. 
I.  Scope  of  Treatment,  §  299. 
II.  Carriers  of  Goods,  §§  300-306. 

A.  General  Statement,  §  300. 

B.  Particular  Rules  and  Regulations,  §  301. 

C.  Changing  or  Modifying,  §  302. 

D.  Operation  and  Effect  as  to  Carrier,  §  303. 

E.  Dut)'  of  Agents  to  Enforce,  §  304. 

F.  Waiver  of  Regulations,  §  305. 

G.  Proof  of  Regulations,  §  306. 

III.  Carriers  of  Passengers,  §§  307-332. 

A.  Right  to  Make  and  Enforce  Rules  and  Regulations,  §§  307-318. 

a.  In  General,  §§  307-311. 
(1)   General  Rule,  §  307. 

(,2)   Soliciting  Business  in  Cars,  §  308. 

(3)  Use  of  Station  Premises  by  Local  Carriers  and  Others,  §  309. 

(4)  Tickets  and  Fares,  §  310. 

(5)  Enforcement  of   Rules   and   Regulations,   §   311. 

b.  Must  Be  Reasonable,  §  312. 

c.  Must  Not  Be  Contrary  to  Law,  §  313. 

d.  Must  Not  Discriminate,  §  314. 

e.  Their  Reasonableness  as  Question  of  Law,  §  315. 

f.  Their  Reasonableness  as   Mixed  Question  of  Law  and   Fact,   §  316. 

g.  Their  Reasonableness   Question  for  Jury,  §  317. 
h.  Their  Sufficiency   Is  Question  for  Jury,   §   318. 

B.  Notice  of  Rules  and   Regulations,   §§  319-323. 

a.  Passenger's  Contract  Rights   Not  Affected  by  Rules  of  Which    He  Was   Not 

Chargeable  with   Notice,   §  319. 

b.  Duty  of  Passenger  to  Inform  Himself  of  Existence  of  Rules,  §  320. 

c.  Sufficiency  of  Publication  or  Notice,  §  321. 

d.  Bound  by  Rules  of  Which  He  Was  in  Ignorance,  §  322. 

e.  Rules  for  Conduct  of  Carrier's   Employees,   §  323. 

C.  Enforcement  of  Rules  and  Regulations,  §§  324-326. 
a.  Enforcement  Must  Be  Reasonable,  §  324. 

.b.  Ejection  of  Passengers,  §  325. 
c.  Enforcement  by  Punishing  Prior  Breach,  §  326. 

D.  Waiver  of  Rules  and   Regulations,   §§   327-328. 

a.  Habitual   Failure   to   Enforce,   §   327. 

b.  Passenger's   Duty   to   Conform   to   Rules  as   Affected   by   Lack  of   Fidelity   in 
Enforcing,  §  328. 

E.  Contributory  Negligence  of  Passenger  in  Not  Conforming  to  Rules  and   Reg- 

ulations, §  329. 

F.  Carrier  Bound  by  Its  Own  Rules,  §§  330-332. 

a.  In  General,  §  330. 

b.  Rules   Not   Required  by   Law,   §   331. 

c.  Rules  Requiring  More  of  Carrier  tlian  Law,  §  332. 

§  299.  Scope  of  Treatment. — This  chapter  is  intended  to  include  merely 
the  bare  right  of  carriers  to  make  and  enforce  rules  and  regulations  for  the 
conduct  of  its  business  and  for  the  protection  of  its  interests. '  The  rights  of  a 


187 


RULES  AND  RF.GULATIOXS  OF  CARRIERS. 


§§  299-300 


carrier  with   reference  to  particular  rules  and  regulations  will  be  taken  up  un- 
der the  ap])roi)riatc  chapters.' 

§§  300-306.  Carriers  of  Goods— §  300.  General  Statement. — A 
common  carrier  of  goods,  live  stock,  etc.,  has  power  to  make  and  enforce  rea- 
sonable rules  and  regulations  governing  the  conduct  of  its  own  business,-  tak- 
ing into  consideration  its  duty  to  the  public  and  the  convenience  of  the  pub- 
lic as  well  as  the  safety  and  cx])edition  of  its  business.-*  It  is  well  known  and 
understood  that  railroad  companies  act  only  through  their  agents ;  that  it  is  nec- 
essary for  them  to  adopt  rules  and  regulations  for  the  guidance  of  such  agents; 
and  it  is  generally  understood  that  persons  dealing  with  such  corporations  are 
to  be  governed  by  these  rules  and  regulations,  if  fair  and  reasonable.-*  But  a 
carrier  can  not  make  and  enforce  rules  and  regulations  which  are  violative  of 
the  law,  without  carrying  liability  to  the  persons  injured  by  their  enforcement.'^ 

Reasonableness  of  Rules. — The  most  vital  essential  of  all  rules  and  regu- 
lations made  b\-  carriers  lOr  the  conduct  of  their  business  is  that  they  operate 
reasonably  and  without  discrimination  as  to  shi])pers.*^  If  a  rule  is  necessary 
and  indisj^ensable,  it  is  reasonable.  It  might,  indeed,  be  reasonable  without  be- 
ing necessary.  But,  to  be  reasonable,  it  must  be  reasonable  as  respects  both  par- 
ties.' Rules  of  carriers,  it  has  been  said,  are  presumptively  reasonable  and 
just.'^  But  it  has  also  been  said  that  whether  or  not  such  rules  are  in  any  case 
reasonable,  is  a  (juestion  to  be  determined  according  to  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case.-' 

1.  Scope  of  treatment — Rights  as  to 
particular  rules. — As  to  rights  in  rcf>ard 
to  receivin.q  goods  for  shipment,  see 
post,  "Duty  to  Receive  and  Carry." 
chapter  4.  As  to  when  liability  com- 
mences and  as  to  delivery  to  carriers, 
see  post,  "When  Liability  Commences," 
chapter  5.  As  to  rights  in  regard  to 
bills  of  lading,  see  post,  "Bills  of  Lad- 
ing," chapter  6.  As  to  rights  in  regard 
to  transportation  and  delivery,  see  post, 
"Transportation  and  Delivery  by  Car- 
rier," chapter  10.  As  to  rights  in  regard 
to  charges  and  liens,  see  post,  "Charges 
and  Liens,"  chapter  15.  As  to  rules  and 
regulations  in  regard  to  live  stock,  see 
post,  "Rights,  Duties  and  Liabilities," 
chapter  19.  As  to  rules  and  regulations 
with  reference  to  passengers,  see  post, 
"Carriers  of  Passengers,"  part  IV.  As 
to  rules  and  regulations  made  and  en- 
forced by  connecting  carriers,  see  post, 
"Connecting  Carriers,"  part  V.  As  to 
rules  and  regulations  as  affected  by  the 
power  to  regulate  and  control  interstate 
commerce,  see  post,  "Interstate  and  In- 
ternational Commerce,"  part  VI.  As 
to  rules  and  regulations  by  carriers  by 
water,  see  post,  "Carriers  bj'  Witer," 
part   VII. 

2.  Rules  and  regulations. — Harp  7'. 
Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  01  C.  C.  A.  405. 
125  Fed.  445,  affirming  118  Fed.  169; 
Robinson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 
C.  C.  A.  281,  129  Fed.  75.3;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Colby,  69  Neb.  572,  96  N.  W. 
145;  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Moore.  49 
Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98;  Piatt  v.  LeCocq, 
85  C.  C.  A.  621,  158  Fed.  723,  15  L.  R. 
A.,   N.   S.,  558. 

3.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Rose  Co.,  124 
Ga.  581,  53  S.  E.  185,  5  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 


619;    Inman    &    Co.   v.    Seaboard,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,    159    Fed.    960. 

4.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Colby,  69 
Neb.    572.    96    N.    \V.    145. 

5.  Rules  violative  of  la-w. — Eddy  v. 
Rider,   79   Tex.   .-.;5.   15    S.   W.    113. 

6.  Reasonableness  —  Discrimination. — - 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  ;■.  Colby,  (I'.t  Neb. 
572,  96  N.  W.  145;  Houston  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Moore.  49   Tex.   31.   30   Am.    Rep.   98. 

A  requirement  of  a  railroad  company 
which  is  not  a  reasonable  one,  can  not 
be  enforced.  Johnson  v.  Three  Hundred 
and  Eighteen,  and  One-Half  Tons  of 
Coal,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14.010.  14  Blatchf. 
453,    44    Conn.    548. 

What  is  a  reasonable  provision  by  a 
carrier  for  the  transportation  of  coal 
depends  on  the  facts  of  each  case.  State 
T.  White  Oak  R.  Co.,  65  W.  Va.  15,  64 
S.   E.  630,  28  L.  R.  A.,   N.  S.,  1013. 

7.  Johnson  v.  Three  Hundred  and 
Eighteen  and  One-Half  Tons  of  Coal, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,010,  14  Blatchf.  45.-^,  44 
Conn.    548. 

8.  Presumption  as  to  reasonableness. 
—Piatt  V.  LcCocq.  85  C.  C.  A.  621.  158 
Fed.  723,  15  L.  R.  .\.,  N.  S..  558,  reversed 
in  150  Fed.  391. 

Provisions  which  a  carrier  had  de- 
termined, before  the  issuance  of  an  alter- 
native writ,  to  compel  it  to  make  reason- 
able provision  for  the  transportation  of 
coal,  were  proper,  will  be  presumed  such 
as  may  be  required  of  the  carrier,  at  least 
until  a  different  showing  is  made.  State 
V.  White  Oak  R.  Co..  65  W.  Va.  15,  64 
S.  E.  630,  28  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  1013. 

9.  Dependent  on  circumstances. — Texas, 
etc..  R.  Co.  :-.  Currie.  W.i  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
277.   76   S.    W.   810. 


§§  300-301 


CARRIERS. 


188 


Question  of  Law  or  Fact.— The  reasonableness  of  rules  and  regulations  of 
a  common  carrier  for  the  reception  and  classification  of  freight  is  a  question  of 
law  for  the  court. ^^^ 

§  301.  Particular  Rules  and  Regulations.— Stations  and  Facilities.— 
In  the  absence  of  statutory  provision,  a  carrier's  location  of  necessary  stations 
and  facilities  is  somewhat  discretionary  with  it.^^ 

Separation  of  Freight  and  Passengers.— A  carrier  may  make  and  enforce 
a  reo-ulatioi:  for  carrying  passengers  and  freight  on  separate  trains  if  such  regu- 
lation is  reasonable  and  sufficient  accommodations  furnished  for  each  class.^^ 

Time,  Place,  and  Manner  of  Receiving.— A  carrier  may  make  reasonable 
ndes  in  regard  to  time,!^  place,i-*  and  manner  ^''  of  receiving  such  goods  for 
shipment  as  it  professes  to  carry.  The  carrier  may  provide  for  receiving  one 
article  at  one  place  and  require  other  articles  to  be  delivered  somewhere  else, 
so  long  as  the  place  of  receiving  is  a  reasonable  one.^®  It  has  been  held  that  a 
railroad  has  no  right  to  make  and  enforce  a  rule  which  is  one  of  general  con- 
venience only,  and  not  made  necessary  by  the  state  of  the  traffic  at  that  place.i"^ 

Classification  and  Preparation.— A  common  carrier  may  make  reasonable 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  classification  and  suitable  preparation  of  articles 
for  shipment.is  in  the  absence  of  statutory  interposition  and  regulation,  a  car- 
rier may  establish  and  promulgate  reasonable  rules  and  regulations  governing 
the  manner  in  which  thev  shall  be  packed  and  prepared  for  shipment. i'^ 

Time,  Place  and  Manner  of  Delivering  Freight.— The  rule  as  to  the 
right  of  carriers  of  goods  to  make  reasonable  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  its 


10.  Question  of  law  or  fact. — Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Colby,  69  Neb.  572,  96  N. 
W.  145. 

"Their  reasonableness  is  a  question  of 
law  for  the  court  to  decide.  Rorer  on 
Railroads,  227;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Whittemore,  43  111.  420,  92  Am.  Dec.  138; 
Vedder  r.  Fellows,  20  N.  Y.  126;  Tracy 
f.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Bosw.  396. 
In  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Whittemore, 
supra,  the  court  said:  'The  circuit  court 
left  it  to  the  jury  to  say  whether  the  rule 
was  reasonable.  This  was  error.  It  was 
proper  to  admit  testimony  as  was  done, 
but,  either  with  or  without  this  testimony, 
it  was  for  the  court  to  say  whether  the 
regulation  was  reasonable,  and  therefore 
obligatory  upon  the  passengers.  The 
necessity  of  holding  this  to  be  a  question 
of  law,  and  therefore  within  the  province 
of  the  court  to  settle,  is  apparent  from 
the  consideration  that  it  is  only  by  so 
holding  that  fixed  and  permanent  regula- 
tions can  be  established.  If  this  ques- 
tion is  to  be  left  to  juries,  one  rule  would 
be  applied  by  them  to-day,  and  another 
to-morrow.' "  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Colby,  69  Neb.  572,  96   N.  W.  145. 

11.  Stations  and  facilities. — Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Baugh,  17.j  Ind.  419,  94  N. 
E.  571.  See  post,  "When  Liability  Com- 
mences," chapter  5. 

12.  Separation  of  freight  and  passen- 
gers.— Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Moore.  49 
Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98.  vSee  post,  "Re- 
lation of  Carrier  and  Passenger,"  chap- 
ter 21. 

13.  Time. — Harp  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   61   C.   C.  A.  405,  125   Fed.   445;    Chi- 


cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Colby,  69  Neb.  572, 
96  N.  W.  145.  See  post,  "When  Liability 
Commences,"  chapter  5. 

14.  Place. — Harp  z\  Choctaw,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  61  C.  C.  A.  405,  125  Fed.  445;  Rob- 
inson V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  C.  C. 
A.  281,   129   Fed.  753. 

15.  Manner. — Harp  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  61  C.  C.  A.  405,  125  Fed.  445;  Rob- 
inson T'.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  C.  C. 
A.  281,  129  Fed.  753;  Northwestern  Ware- 
house Co.  V.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  159 
Fed.  975.  See  post,  "Duty  to  Receive 
and   Carry,"   chapter  4. 

16.  Where  a  carrier  had  designated  a 
certain  siding  as  the  place  at  which  it 
would  receive  coal  for  transportation, 
and  such  siding  was  not  an  unreasonable 
place,  a  shipper  was  not  entitled  to  com- 
pel the  carrier  to  receive  coal  from  him 
at  another  siding,  where  merchandise 
other  than  coal  was  received,  merely  be- 
cause the  place  so  designated  was  not  so 
accessible  to  such  shipper.  Robinson  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  C.  C.  A.  281,  129 
Fed.  753. 

17.  Rule  of  convenience. — Johnson  v. 
Three  Hundred  and  Eighteen  and  One- 
Half  Tons  of  Coal,  Fed.  Cas.  N.  14,010,  14 
Blatchf.   153,   44   Conn.   548. 

18.  Classification  and  preparation. — 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Colby,  09  Neb. 
572,  96  N.  W.  145.  See  post,  "Duty  to 
Receive  and  Carry,"  chapter  4;  "When 
Liability   Commences,"   chapter   5. 

19.  Packing  and  preparation. — North- 
western Warehouse  Co.  v.  Oregon  R., 
etc.,   Co.,   159   Fed.   975. 


189 


RULES  AND  REGULATION'S  OF  CARRIERS. 


!§    301-304 


business,  applies  to  the  delivery  of  the  goods  by  the  carrier  to  the  shipper.^'^  A 
railway  company  has  the  right  to  require  persons  hauling  freight  from  its  depot 
to  receive  the  same  on  the  ]jlatform  from  its  servants  and  not  to  enter  the  ware- 
house for  the  inirpose  of  checking  off  the  freight ;  and  also  to  require  that  per- 
sons doing  business  with  the  company  shall  transact  the  same  over  the  counter, 
and  not  enter  behind  it.  Such  regulations  are  reasonable.-^  But  if  such  regu- 
lations are  unnecessary  and  juit  sliipi)crs  to  delay  and  expense  they  are  unreason- 
able and  not  enforceable. -- 

Running  of  Trains  and  Time.— Although  a  carrier  can  not  refuse  to  carry 
such  ])r()i)frty  as  is  .i^cncrally  carried,  it  must  have  the  right  to  carry  it  on  trains 
made  up  In'  itself  and  running  on  its  own  time.  It  can  not  be  required  to  make 
up  special  trains  on  demand  or  drive  such  trains  made  up  entirely  by  other  per- 
sons, or  of  their  cars.^a  a  carrier  has  the  right  to  say  what  time  its  trains  take 
to  make  the  trip  between  particular  stations,  but  such  rule  must  be  reasonable 
and  can  not  limit  the  carrier's  liability  for  delay  in  transportation. 2-* 

§  3  02.  Changing  or  Modifying. — A  carrier  of  goods  has  the  right  to 
change  or  modify  the  rules  and  regulations  it  has  promulgated  for  the  running 
of  its  business,  provided  it  gives  the  public  reasonable  notice  of  such  changes.^^ 
It  has  been  held  that  shippers  have  no  vested  right  to  continue  to  load  in  a 
particular  manner,  when  conditions  have  so  changed  as  to. render  it  an  incon- 
venience to  the  carrier.-^ 

§  303.  Operation  and  Effect  as  to  Carrier. — Railroad  companies  may 
also  make  reasonable  regulations  of  their  own  for  the  management  and  running 
of  their  trains,  or  they  may  follow  general  customs  in  such  management  and 
running  which,  when  established,  known,  and  acted  on  by  the  public,  may  im- 
pose upon  the  companies  duties  in  reference  to  others,  a  breach  of  which,  to 
their  injury,  might  render  such  companies  liable  to  damages. ^^ 

§  304.  Duty  of  Agents  to  Enforce. — It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier's  agent  to 
enforce  the  rules  and  regulations  prescribed  by  the  carrier  for  the  conduct  of 
its  business,  but  not  to  give  reason  why  such  regulations  were  made.-^     And  if 


20.  Delivery  of  goods. — Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  T.  Colby,  69  Neb.  572,  96  N.  W. 
145.  See  post,  "Transportation  and  De- 
livery by   Carrier,"   chapter  10. 

21.  Donovan  7'.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 
Tex.  r>in. 

22.  Unnecessary  delay  and  expense. — 
Donovan  f.  'I\'xas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (14  Tex. 
519. 

23.  Running  of  trains  and  time. — Coup 
V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill,  22 
N.  W.  215,  56  Am.  Rep.  374;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Colbv,  09  Neb.  572,  96  N. 
\V.    145. 

24.  Time  of  trip. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
7'.  Currie,  33  Tex.  Civ.  App.  277,  76  S.  W. 
810.  See  post,  "Delay  in  Transportation 
and  Delivery,"  chapter  11. 

25.  Notice  of  changes. — Harp  z'.  Choc- 
taw, etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  C.  C.  A.  405,  125  Fed. 
445;  Robinson  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
64  C.  C.  .-X.  281.  129  Fed.  753;  Northwest- 
ern Warehouse  Co.  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 
Co.,  159   Fed.  975. 

26.  No  vested  right. — A  railroad  com- 
p;iny  liaving  a  newly  constructed  line 
through  a  locality  underlaid  with  coal, 
by    permitting    owners    of    mines    to    load 


cars  with  coal  from  wagons  on  its  side 
track  at  two  small  stations  for  a  number 
of  months,  did  not  give  them  a  vested 
riglit  to  continue  such  manner  of  loading, 
nor  lose  its  common-law  right  to  change 
its  regulation,  and  refuse  longer  to  re- 
ceive coal  for  shipment  in  such  manner 
when  the  volume  of  its  business  became 
such  that  to  permit  the  use  of  its  station 
tracks  for  loading  cars  in  that  manner 
would  not  only  interfere  with  the  opera- 
tion of  its  trains,  and  cause  it  loss  and 
inconvenience,  but  would  also,  by  reason 
of  the  slowness  of  the  method,  result  in 
serious  loss  and  inconvenience  to  other 
shippers  and  the  public  by  greatly  reduc- 
ing the  quantity  of  coal  which  the  road 
could  handle  and  transport  below  what  it 
might  if  loaded  by  the  use  of  modern  ap- 
pliances, as  was  the  case  at  all  other 
shipping  points  on  its  line.  Judgment  118 
Fed.  169.  affirmed.  Harp  v.  Choctaw,  etc.. 
R.   Co.,   61   C.   C.  A.   405.   125   Fed.   445. 

27.  Operation  and  effect  as  to  carrier. 
— Texas,  etc.,  R.  C«^.  r.  Murphy,  46  Tex. 
356,  26   Am.   Rep.  •272. 

28.  Duty  of  agents  to  enforce. — Dono- 
van r.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.,  64  Tex.  519. 


§§  304-307 


CARRIERS. 


190 


an  agent  in  giving  ?ucli   reasons,  nse  actionable  langnage,  he  antl  not  the  car- 
rier is  Hable.-'-^' 

§  305.  Waiver  of  Regulations. — AUhough  a  carrier  may  make  reasonable 
regulations  for  the  conduct  of  its  business  it  may  waive  a  compliance  therewith, 
and  this  has  been  held  to  have  been  done  where  the  carrier  habitually  permitted 
the  violation  of  such  rules.-'"' 

§  306.  Proof  of  Regulations. — It  will  l)e  presumed  as  a  general  rule  that 
a  carrier  has  some  regulation  or  is  governed  uniformily  by  some  custom,  in  ref- 
erence to  a  particular  purpose.^^  But  the  facts  involved  in  such  regulations  and 
customs,  upon  which  duties  would  arise,  not  being  matters  known  to  the  court, 
have  to  be  proved  as  other  facts,  where  a  breach  of  such  duties  might  become 
the  sul)iect-matter  of  a  suit  for  damages.-^- 

§§  307-332.  Carriers  of  Passengers— §§  3  07-318.  Right  to  Make 
and  Enforce  Rules  and  Regulations — §§  307-311.  In  General — §  307. 
General  Rule. — A  carrier  of  passengers  has  the  right  to  prescribe  and  enforce 
all  necessar\-  and  proper  regulations  for  the  government  of  their  trains,  the  trans- 
portation of  passengers,  and  the  protection  of  their  own  rights  as  well  as  those 
of  the  passengers,  when  such  regulations  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  law  of 
the  land,  unreasonable,  or  opposed  to  the  rights  of  the  citizen.-'-^ 


29.  Liability  for  actionable  language. — 
Donovan  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Tex. 
519. 

30.  Waiver     of     reg^Jlations. — "It     may 

be  true,  where  a  railroad  company  habit- 
ually permits  passengers  to  travel  on  its 
freight  trains,  notwithstanding  it  may  by 
regulation  prohibit  it,  that  the  company 
will  incur  the  same  responsibility  to  such 
passengers  as  if  they  were  on  the  regular 
passenger  car."  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Moore,  49  Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98. 

31.  Proof  of  regulations. — Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Murphy,  46  Tex.  356,  26  Am. 
Rep.  272. 

32.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy,  46 
Tex.  356,  26  Am.  Rep.  272. 

33.  General  rule. — United  States. — Gray 
V.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  Fed.  683; 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Fraloff,  100  U.  S.  24,  25 
L.   Ed.   531. 

Alabama. — Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Yielding,  155  Ala.  359,  30  R.  R.  R.  285,  53 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  285,  46  So.  747; 
Birmingham  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  McDonough, 
153  Ala.  122,  26  R.  R.  R.  618,  49  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  618,  44  So.  960,  13  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.  445;  Evans  v.  Memphis,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  56  Ala.  246,  28  Am.  Rep.  771. 

Arkansas. — Landrigan  v.  State,  31  Ark. 
50,  25  Am.  Rep.  547;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Adcock,  52  Ark.  406,  12  S.  W.  874. 

District  of  Columbia. —  Watkins  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co..  10  Mackey  (21  D.  C),  1 
52  Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.,   N.   S.,  159. 

Georpja. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Motes, 
117  Ga.  923,  43  S.  E.  990,  7  R.  R.  R.  161,  30 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  161,  2  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  507;  Coyle  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  112 
Ga.  121,  37  S.  E.  163;  Fluker  v.  Georgia  R., 
etc.,  Co.,  81  Ga.  461,  8  S.  E.  529,  2  L.  R. 
A.  843,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  328;  Kates  v.  At- 


lanta Baggage,  etc.,  Co.,  107  Ga.  636,  34 
S.  E.  372,  46  L.  R.  A.  431;  Nunn  v.  Georgia 
Railroad,  71  Ga.  710,  51  Am.  Rep.  284; 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Strickland,  90  Ga. 
563,  16  S.  E.  352;  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  38  Ga.  409;  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Watson,  110  Ga.  681,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,    N.    S.,   209,    36    S.    E.    209. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flagg, 
43  111.  364,  92  Am.  Dec.  133;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Williams,  55  111.  185;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLallen,  84  111.  109;  To- 
ledo, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Williams,  77  111.  354. 

lozva. — State  v.   Chovin,  7    Iowa  204. 

Kansas. — Brown  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  Kan.  634,  16  Pac.  942. 

/\'r);/Mt7c3'.- -Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Miles,  100  Ky.  84,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  580,  37 
S.    W._  486. 

Louisiana. — Decuir  z'.  Benson,  27  h',i. 
Ann.   1. 

Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Carr,  71  Md.  135,  17  Atl.  1052;  Northern 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  O'Conner,  76  Md.  207,  24 
Atl.  449,  16  L.  R.  A.  449,  35  Am.  St.  Rep. 
422. 

Massachusetts. — Renaud  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  44  R.  R.  R.  632,  67 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  632,  97  N.  E. 
98;  Commonwealth  v.  Power  (Mass.), 
Hull  V.  Boston,  etc.,  Railroad,  210 
Mass.  159,  96  N.  E.  58,  44  R.  R.  R.  15, 
67  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  15,  36  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  406,  Ann.  Cas.  1912  C,  1147; 
Tompkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  201 
Mass.  114,  32  R.  R.  R.  487,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  487,  87  N.  E.  488,  20  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,   1063. 

Michigan. — Day  v.  Owen,  5  Mich.  520, 
72  Am.  Dec.  62;  Kalamazoo  Hack,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Sootsma,  84  Mich.  194,  47  N.  W. 
667,  10  L.  R.  A.  819,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  693*; 
Greenfield    v.    Detroit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    133 


191 


RULES  AND  REGULATIONS  OF  CARRIERS. 


§§  307-308 


Benefit  of  Passengers. — Whatever  rules  tend  to  promote  the  comfort,  or- 
der, and  safety  of  railroad  passengers,  the  company  is  authorized  to  make  and 
enforce. •■'■* 

Government  of  Carrier's  Employees. — A  railroad  company  has  a  right  to 
prescribe  reasoiiahle  ruk->  fur  (Ik-  .l^(i\  ernment  of  its  emi)loyees  in  the  conduct 
of  its  business  ujion  its  trains. •■"'' 

Need  Not  Be  Embraced  in  By-Laws. — A  railroad  company  has  authority 
to  make  and  enforce  reasonable  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  all  persons  using 
the  railroad  or  resortinj;  to  its  depots,  without  prescri!)ing  such  regulations  by 
by-laws.''*' 

Authority  of  Superintendent. — The  superintendent  of  a  railroad  has  au- 
thorit)-,  b\-  delei^aiion,  lo  make  and  enforce  reasonable  regulations  for  the  con- 
duct of  all  i)ersons  using  the  railroad  or  resorting  to  its  depots.-'*" 

§  308.  Soliciting  Business  in  Cars. — A  railroad  company,  for  its  own 
convenience  in  carrying  on  its  business  in  an  orderly  manner,  and  to  prevent 
its  passengers  from  being  annoyed,  may  make  and  enforce  a  reasonable  regu- 
lation prohibiting  persons  from  entering  its  cars  to  solicit  business  from  pas- 
sengers.-'*^ The  dominion  of  a  railroad  corporation  over  its  trains,  tracks  and 
"right  of  way"  is  no  less  complete  or  exclusive  than  that  which  every  owner  has 


Mich.  557,  8  R.  R.  R.  271,  31  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  271,  95  N.  "W.  546. 

Montana. — Doherty  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  43  Mont.  294,  41  R.  R.  R.  210,  04  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  210,  115  Pac.  401, 
36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1139. 

Nczu  Hampshire. — Johnson  v.  Concord 
R.  Corp,,  46  N.  H.  213,  88  Am.  Dec.  199. 

Kezv  York. — Avery  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  31,  24  N.  E.  20;  Peck 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  Y.  587; 
Rowe  V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  71 
App.   Div.   474,  75   N.  Y.   S.   893. 

Xortli  Carolina. — McRae  v.  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  C.  526,  43  Am.  Rep. 
745. 

Ohio. — Crawford  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  26  O.  St.  580;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Bartram,  11  O.  St.  457;  Shelton  v.  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  O.  Dec.  101,  1  W. 
L.  Bull.  190,  affirmed  in  29  O.  St.  214; 
Corry  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  O. 
Dec.  82;  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Mortal. 
18   O.    C.   C.   562,   8   O.    C.   D.   134. 

Oklahoma. — Decker  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Okla.  553,  41  Pac.  610;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Johnson,  25  Okla.  833,  108 
Pac.  378,  36  R.  R.  R.  165,  59  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  105. 

Pennsylvania. — Aluldowncy  v.  Pittsburg 
etc.,  Tract.  Co.,  8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  335; 
Reese  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  131  Pa. 
422,  19  Atl.  72,  6  L.  R.  A.  529,  17  Am. 
St.  Rep.  818;  Robb  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  14  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  282;  West  Chester, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Miles,  55  Pa.  209,  93  Am. 
Dec.  744. 

South  Carolina. — Black  f.  .\tlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  82  S.  C.  478,  32  R.  R.  R.  003,  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  003,  64  S.  E. 
418;  Funderburg  v.  Augusta,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
81  S.  C.  141,  30  R.  R.  R.  281,  53  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  281,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  868.  61   S.   E.   1075. 

Tcn)iessce. — Knoxville      Tract.      Co.      v. 


Wilkcrson,  117  Tenn.  482,  22  R.  R.  R. 
703,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  703, 
99  S.  W.  992,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
041,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  579;  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Turner,  100  Tenn.  213,  47  S.  W. 
223.  43  L.  R.  A.  140;  Summitt  z:  State, 
70  Tenn.  (8  Lea)  413,  41  Am.  Rep.  637; 
Trotlinger  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  79  Tenn.   (11  Lea)   533. 

Texas.— Eddy  v.  Rider,  79  Tex.  53,  15 
S.  W.  113;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moody, 
3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  22  S.  W.  1009; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  49  Tex. 
31.  30  Am.  Rep.  98;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Havden.  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  745,  26  S. 
W.  331;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pearl.  3 
Texas  App.    Civ.   Cas.,  §  4. 

I'lrgin-ia. — -Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wy- 
sor,   82   Va.   250. 

U'ashiiiijiton. — Kirk  v.  Seattle  Elect. 
Co..  58  Wash.  283.  37  R.  R.  R.  493.  60  Am. 

6  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  493,  108  Pac.  604, 
31  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  991;  Olson  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  49  Wash.  626,  29  R.  R. 
R.  705.  52  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
705.    96    Pac.    150,    18    L.    R.    A..    N.    S.,    209. 

Jl'esf  Virginia. — Boston  v.  Chesapeake, 
etc..   R.   Co..  30  W.  Va.   318. 

jrlsconsin. — Plott  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co..   03   Wis.    511,   23   N.   W.   412. 

34.  Benefit  of  passengers. — Chicago, 
etc..    R.    Co.    7'.    Williams,    55    Til.    185. 

35.  Government  of  carrier's  employ- 
ees.— Crawford  ?■.  Cincinnati,  etc..  R. 
Co..    20    O.    St.    580. 

36.  By-Laws. — Commonwealth  v.  Power 
(Mass.),   7   Mete.   590.   41   .\m.   Dec.   465. 

37.  Authority  of  superintendent. — 
Commonwealth  7\  Power  (Mass.),  7 
Mctc.    590.   41    .Xm.    Dec.    405. 

38.  Soliciting  business  in  cars. — Jencks 
V.  Coleman.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7258.  2  Sumn. 
221;    Commonwealth    v.    Power    (Mass.), 

7  Mete.    590,   41    .Am.    Dec.   405. 


§§  308-309  CARRIERS.  192 

over  his  own  property.  Hence,  the  corporation  may  exchide  whom  it  pleases, 
when  they  come  to  transact  their  own  private  business  with  passengers  or  other 
third  persons,  and  admit  whom  it  pleases,  when  they  come  to  transact  such  busi- 
ness. This  applies  to  selling  lunches  to,  or  soliciting  orders  from,  passengers 
for  the  sale  of  lunches. ^^ 

§  309.  Use  of  Station  Premises  by  Local  Carriers  and  Others.— In 
General. — A  railroad  company  may  either  exclude  hackmen  and  other  local  car- 
riers from  its  depot  premises  or  regulate,  in  a  reasonable  manner,  their  use  of 
such  premises.-*'^'  And  the  company  has  also  the  right  to  exclude  from  its  prem- 
ises all  persons  going  thereon  for  the  purpose  of  transacting  private  business, 
or  it  may  extend  the  privilege  of  so  doing  to  one  and  refuse  it  to  another  with- 
out violating  any  principle  of  law  which  governs  the  conduct  of  carriers  and 
regulates  their  duty  to  the  public.'^ 

Exclusion  of  Local  Carriers  from  Depot. — A  regulation  forbidding  hack- 
men  and  expressmen   from  coming  within  a  j^assenger  depot  is  reasonable.^2 

Soliciting  Patronage  for  Hotel  on  Depot  Platform. — Where  an  inn- 
keeper, or  his  agent  in  violation  of  a  regulation  of  the  railroad  company,  comes 
upon  its  depot  platform  for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  patronage  for  his  hotel, 
he  may  be  ejected.'*^ 

Peddlers  and  Loafers. — And  a  regulation  forbidding  peddlers  and  loafers 
from  coming  within  a  passenger  depot  is  reasonable  and  enforceable.'*'* 

Exclusion  from  Depot  for  Supposed  Violation  of  Regulations. — The 
superintendent  of  a  railroad  depot,  however,  has  no  right  to  order  a  person  to 
leave  the  depot,  and  not  come  there  any  more,  and  to  remove  him  therefrom  by 
force,  if  he  does  come,  merely  bcQause  such  person,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
superintendent,  but  without  proof  of  the  fact,  had  violated  regulations  estab- 
lished by  the  railroad  company.-*-^ 

Grant  of  Exclusive  Privileges  to  Local  Carriers.— If  a  railway  company 
in  good  faith  complies  with  its  duty  to  afford  proper  facilities  for  persons  en- 
tering its  stations  to  purchase  tickets  and  take  passage  and  to  check  their  bag- 
gage, and  also  like  facilities  for  leaving  the  station  and  securing  their  baggage, 
it  does  not  violate  any  public  duty  or  deprive  any  citizen  of  any  lawful  right 
by  granting  to  a  single  corporation  or  individual  the  exclusive  right  of  entering 
its  trains  to  solicit  the  transportation  of  passengers  and  baggage,  or  by  renting 
to  such  corporation  or  individual  a  portion  of  its  baggage  room  and  conceding 

39.  Soliciting      orders     ior     lunches. —  Pcnnsxlvan'ia. — Smith      v.      New      York, 
Fluker    v.    Georgia    R.,    etc.,    Co.,    81    Ga.  etc.,   R.    Co.,   149   Pa.   249,   24   Atl.   304. 
461,  8   S.   E.  529,  2  L.   R.  A.,  843,  12  Am.  Rhode    Island. — Griswold    v.    Webb,    16 
St.    Rep.    328.  R.    I.   649,   19  Atl.    143,   7   L.    R.   A.    302. 

40.  £ng/an(/.— Beadell  v.   Eastern  Coun-  Tcnnessee.—Summitt  v.   State,   76   Tenn. 
ties    R.    Co.    (Eng.),   2    C.    B.,    N.    S.,    509;  («   Lea)    413,   41   Am.   Rep.   637. 
Painter   v.    London,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (Eng.),  I  crmont.— Harris  v.   Stevens,  31  Vt.  79, 
2   C    B      N     S     702  ''■^   "^"i-    -Dec.   337. 

Indiana".— hncas'^v.     Herbert,     148     Ind.  41.    Fluker  z;    Georgia    R.,    etc      Co.,    81 

64,   47    N.    E.    146,    37    L.    R.    A.    376.  Ga.    461,    8    S.    E.    529,    2    L.    R.    A.    843     12 

Massachusetts.— 0\A    Colony    R.    Co.    v.  Am.  St.  Rep.  328;   Kates  v.  Atlanta   Bag- 

Tripp,   147   Mass.   35,  17   N.   E.   89,  9   Am.  gage,  etc.,   Co.,  107  Ga.  636,  34  S.  E.  372, 

St.   Rep.   661.  46    L.    R.    A.    431.                                 . 

,,.  ,  .            ^  ,             Ti               „o     TVT-  1  42.     Exclusion    of    local    earners    from 

Michigan. — Cole     v.    Rowen,    88      Alien.  a^^^.*.      c,  .,,,,, .v^    „,     Qf^f^      "c    T^.i.i      (a 

^ir,     -r.  \t    ^.\^    -foo    -lo   T      T3      A     0,0     T-   1  ucpot. — ^uniniitt    V.    btatc,     <  ()     ienn.     (^» 

219,  oO  N    W.   138,   13   L.   R.   A.   848;   Kal-  ^J^^^             ^^    ^,^^     ^         ,3^ 

A?^\^°^o.   !^  M^w'  S'  fn  ^''TT'Ja  43.     Soliciting    patronage    for    hotel    on 

Mich.  194,  47  N.  w    667,  10  L.   R.  A.  819,  ^            platform.-Landri.Jan    v.    State,    31 

22  Am.   St.  Rep.  693.  ,^^\    J^    ,.     .^^^^     j.^.^^     .^~ 

New    For/e.— Barney     v.     Oyster     Bay,  44,     Peddlers   and    loafers.— Summitt    v. 

etc.,   Co.,  67  N.  Y.   301,  23  Am.  Rep.   115.  gtatc,  76  Tcnn.   (8  Lea)  413,  41  Am.  Rep. 

Ohio. — State    v.    Union    Depot    Co.,    71  637. 

O.    St.    379,    16    R.    R.    R.    614,    39   Am.    &  45.    Exclusion  from  depot  for  supposed 

Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S.,    614,   73    N.    E.    633,  violation    of    regulations.— Hall    v.    Power 

68    L.    R.    A.    792.  (Mass.),  12  Mete.  482,  46  Am.  Dec.  698. 


193 


RULES    AND    REGULATIONS   OF    CARRIERS. 


§§    309-312 


to  it  or  him  the  privileges  necessarily  incident  to  the  occupancy  and  use  thereof, 
provided  that  so  doing  does  not  interfere  with  the  exercise  by  any  other  per- 
son of  any  right  which  he  may  lawfully  demand  of  the  company  as  a  common 
carrier.""'  This  is  especially  so  when  the  grant  is  made  in  pursuance  of  a  rea- 
sonable and  proper  regulation  which  in  effect  operates  beneficially  to  its  pa- 
trons.-*^ Thus,  a  union  dei)Ot  company  may  grant  to  a  transfer  company  the  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  using  the  grounds,  buildings  and  i^latforms  of  the  station 
for  the  purpose  of  soliciting  customers,  and  a  regulation  excluding  therefrom 
all  others  engaged  in  a  like  business,  excepting  only  for  the  purpose  of  delivering 
passengers  or  of  calling  for  jjcrsons  who  have  previously  engaged  them,  is  not 
unreasonable  or  invalid.'*'^ 

Can  Not  Deprive  Passenger  of  Choice  of  Vehicles.— Though  a  common 
carrier  owning  or  controlling  its  terminals  may  exclude  from  them  persons  so- 
liciting trade  or  hacking  or  expressing  without  its  license,  it  can  not  deprive  a 
passenger  of  the  privilege  of  being  carried  from  the  terminus  in  a  convenient 
and  usual  way,  nor  can  it  compel  a  passenger  to  take  certain  vehicles  or  none.'*'' 

§  310.  Tickets  and  Fares.— See  post,  "Fares,  Tickets,  Special  Contracts, 
Transfers,  etc.,"  chapter  22. 

§  311.  Enforcement  of  Rules  and  Regulations.— See  post,  "Enforcement 
of   Rules   and   Regulations,"   §§   324-326. 

§  312.  Must  Be  Reasonable. — To  be  binding  upon  a  passenger,  a  rule  or 
regulation  of  the  carrier  must  be  reasonable,  and  reasonably  necessary  to  the 
proper  conduct  of  the  carrier's  business.^''     And  it  may  be  stated  that  a  carrier 


46.  Grant  of  exclusive  privileges  to  lo- 
cal carriers. — Kates  v.  Atlanta  Baggage, 
etc.,  Co.,  107  Ga.  636,  34  S.  E.  372,  46 
L.    R.    A.    43L 

47.  Kates  v.  Atlanta  Baggage,  etc., 
Co.,  107  Ga.  030,  34  S.  E.  373,  46  L.  R. 
A.   431. 

48.  Snyder  v.  Union  Depot  Co.,  19 
O.    C.    C.   308,    10   O.    C.    D.    645. 

A  union  depot  company  organized  un- 
der the  Ohio  statute  in  question,  may 
grant  a  transfer  company  the  exclusive 
right  to  use  a  designated  portion  of  its 
depot  grounds  for  the  purpose  of  stand- 
ing thereon  its  hacks  and  other  vehicles, 
and  of  soliciting  thereon  the  patronage 
of  incoming  passengers;  and  a  rule  of 
such  depot  company  excluding  there- 
from all  others  engaged  in  a  like  busi- 
ness, except  for  the  purpose  of  deliver- 
ing passengers  or  of  receiving  passen- 
gers who  shall  have  previously  employed 
them,  is  a  reasonable  rule,  and  may 
be  enforced  so  long  as  such  trans- 
fer company  provides  and  furnishes  at 
such  depot  adequate  accommodations  in 
tlie  way  of  vehicles  to  meet  the  reason- 
able requirements  of  the  traveling  pub- 
lic, and  shall  make  no  greater  charge  for 
its  services  than  is  made  or  may  be  per- 
mitted to  be  made  by  others  for  like 
services.  State  v.  Union  Depot  Co.,  71 
O.  St.  379,  16  R.  R.  R.  614,  39  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  614,  73  N.  E.  633, 
OS  L.  R.  A.  702. 

49.  Can  not  deprive  passenger  of 
choice  of  vehicles. — Griswold  z'.  Webb, 
16  R.  I.  049,  19  Atl.  143.  7  L.  R.  A.  302. 

1    Car— 13 


50.  Must  be  reasonable. — England. — 
Alarriott  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Eng.), 
1   C.    B.,   N.   S,   499. 

United  States. — Railroad  Co.  v.  Fralof?, 
100  U.   S.   24,   25   L.    Ed.   531. 

California. — Barrett  v.  Market  St.  R. 
Co.,  81  Cal.  296,  22  Pac.  859,  6  L.  R.  A. 
336,    15    Am.    St.    Rep.    61. 

Florida. — Florida  So.  R.  Co.  v.  Hirst, 
30  Fla.  1,  11  So.  506,  16  L.  R.  A.  631,  32 
Am.  St.  Rep.  17;  South  Florida  R.  Co. 
V.  Rhoads,  25  Fla.  40,  5  So.  633,  3  L.  R. 
A.   733,   23   Am.   St.   Rep.   506. 

Georgia. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Strick- 
land, 90  Ga.  502,  10  S.  E.  352;  Southern 
R.  Co.  V.  Watson,  110  Ga.  681,  36  S.  E. 
209,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  209. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
liams,   55    111.    185. 

Iflii'a. — State  v.   Chovin,  7   Iowa  204. 

Maryland. — Northern  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
O'Conner,  70  Md.  207,  24  Atl.  449,  16  L. 
R.   A.   449,   35   Am.   St.   Rep.   422. 

A'ezu  Hampshire. — Johnson  v.  Concord 
R.  Corp.,  46  N.  H.  213,  88  Am.  Dec.  199. 

Nezi'  Jersex. — State  v.  Overton.  24  X. 
J.  L.  435,  6l"Am.  Dec.  671. 

Kczv  York.  —  Jenkins  v.  Brooklyn 
Heights  R.  Co.,  29  App.  Div.  8,  51  N. 
Y.  S.-216,  5  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  315. 

North  Carolina. — McRae  v.  Wilming- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  N.  C.  526,  43  Am. 
Rep.    745. 

Pennsvhania. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
7'.  Lvon,  123  Pa.  140,  16  Atl.  607,  2  L. 
R.  A.  489,  10  Am.  St.   Rep.  517. 

Soutli      Carolina. — Funderburg     v.     Au- 


§§  312-313  CARRIERS.  194 

is  entitled  to  make  only  such  rules  for  conducting  its  affairs  as  are  reasonable, 
not  conflictnig  with  any  legal  liability,  and  not  exemptnig  from  liability  for  neg- 
ligence or  improper  conduct.  If  the  rules  be  such  as  described,  they  are  binding 
on  persons  dealing  %yith  the  carrier  ^yhen  notitied  thereof.--^i  All  regulations  of 
a  railroad  company,  ho^yeyer,  \yill  be  deemed  reasonable  \yhich  are  suitable  to 
enable  the  company  to  perform  the  duties  it  undertakes,  and  to  secure  its  o\yn 
just  rights  in  such'  employment,  and  also  such  as  are  necessary  and  proper  to 
injure  ^the  ^^afety  and  jn-o'mote  the  comfort  of  passengers.-"'- 

Regulations  Must  Be  Reasonable  under  the  Existing  Circumstances.— 
Regulations  as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  passengers  shall  be  transported 
w-m  not  be  enforced  by  the  courts  except  where  they  are  reasonable,  and  whether 
or  not  they  are  in  any  case  reasonable  is  a  question  to  be  determined  according 
to  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case.^^'^      . 

Distinction  between  Right  to  Transportation  and  Right  to  Accommo- 
dation.—The  right  to  be  carried  by  a  common  carrier  of  passengers  is  a  right 
superior  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  carrier  and  can  not  be  affected  by 
them,  but  the  accommodation  of  passengers,  while  being  transported,  is  sub- 
ject to  such  rules  and  regulations  as  the  carrier  may  think  proper  to  make,  pro- 
yided   they  be   reasonable."'-* 

Sleeping  in  Waiting  Rooms.— In  the  absence  of  any  duty  devolving  upon 
a  railroad  company  to  provide  at  its  stations  a  place  wherein  its  patrons  may 
sleep  while  awaiting  the  arrival  or  departure  of  trains,  a  regulation  forbidding 
passengers  from  going  to  sleep  in  its  waiting  rooms,  or  lying  down  on  the  benches 
therein,  is  not,  in  a  legal  sense,  unreasonable. "••"^ 

Carrier's  Employees  Forbidden  to  Occupy  Front  Seat  of  Open  Car.— 
A  rule  of  a  street  railway  company  that  no  employee  of  the  company  wearing 
its  uniform  shall  occupy  the  front  seat  of  one  of  its  open  cars  while  it  is  in  op- 
eration is  reasonable,  in  that  it  promotes  the  safety  of  passengers  by  preventing 
persons  who,  by  reason  of  their  common  employment,  are  likely  to  converse  with 
motorman,  from  doing  so,  and  thus  divert  his  attention  from  his  duties.''^^^ 

Wearing  Uniform  of  Competitors  Prohibited.— But  a  rule,  adopted  by  a 
railroad  company,  which  prohibited  passengers  from  wearing  the  uniform  cap 
of  a  line  of  steamers  running  in  opposition  to  a  line  of  steamers  running  in 
connection  with  the  company's  railroad  was  not  reasonable,  and  therefore  not 
binding  on  the  public.^"^ 

§  313.  Must  Not  Be  Contrary  to  Law.— It  is  essential  to  the  validity  of 
a  rule  or  regulation  for  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  a  common  carrier  of  pas- 
sengers that  it  should  not  be  repugnant  either  to  a  statute  or  the  common-law. ^^ 

gusta     etc.,    R.    Co.,    81    S.    C.    141,    30    R.  54.    Distinction  between  right  to  trans- 

R    r'ssi,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  portation    and    right    to    accommodation. 

281,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  868,  61  S.  E.  1075.  —Day    v.    Owen,     5    Mich.    520,    72    Am. 

Tennessee.—Summkt  v.    State,  76   Tenn.  Dec.    62.                               ^            >^ 

(8    Lea)    413,   41    Am.    Rep.    637;    Trotlin-  55.    Central,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Motes,   117 

ger    V.    East    Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co..    79  Ga.   923,   43   S.   E.   990,   7   R.   R.   R.   161,   30 

Tenn.    (11   Lea),   533.  Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S.,    161,    62    L- 

Texas.  — Houston,      etc.,      R.      Co.      v.  R.   A.,    N.   S.,   507. 

Moore,  49   Tex.   31,   30  Am.    Rep.   98.  56.     Garners    employees    forbidden    to 

Virginia.— Korio\k,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Wy-  occupy  front  seat  of  open  car.— Rowe  v. 

sor,  82  Va.  250.  Brooklyn    Heights    R.    Co.,    71    App.    Div. 

IVest    Virginia. — Boston    v.    Chesapeake,  474,  75   N.  Y.   vS.  893. 

etc ,   R.   Co.,  36  W.   Va.   318.  57.     Wearing    uniform    of    competitors 

51.    Norfolk,   etc.',   R.   Co.  v.   Wysor,   82  prohibited.— South      Florida     R.      Co.     v. 

Va    250  Rhoads,     25     Fla.     40,     5    So.     633,     3     L. 

52."  State   r.   Chovin,   7    Iowa   204.  R.  A.  733,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  506. 

53.     Existing    circumstances.   —   Texas,  58.     Must    not    be    contrary    to    law.— 

etc.,   R.    Co.   V.    Curric,   33   Tex.    Civ.   App.  /•H.i,'/*/;!^.— Marriott     v.     London,     etc.,     R. 

277,'   76    S.    W.    810,    affirmed    in    97    Tex.  Co.    (Eng.),    1    C.    B.,    N.    S.,   499. 

648,   no   op.  United    States. — Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co. 


195 


RULIvS   AND    RIXULATIONS  OF   CARUlliKS. 


§  313 


Made  and  Enforced  in  Violation  of  Law. — A  railroad  company  may  make 
reasonable  rules  aiul  rej^ulaii(jnj>  lor  the  coutluct  of  its  business  as  a  earner,  but 
if  made  and  enlort^d  in  violation  of  law  it  will  be  liable  to  persons  injareo 
thereby.-'''' 

Forbidding  Sale  of  Ticket  to  Persons  Unable  to  Take  Care  of  Them- 
selves.— A  rule  of  a  railroad  company  forbidding  the  sale  of  tickets  to  persons 
physically  unable  to  take  care  of  themselves,  unless  accompanied  by  an  attendant, 
is  only  for  the  guidance  of  its  servants,  and  can  not  limit  its  responsibility  to 
the  public,  unless  the  rule  can  be  justified  by  the  principles  governing  the  du- 
ties of  carriers  of  passengers.*"^ 

Fares  as  Affected  by  Rule  Requiring  Purchase  of  Tickets. — The  right 
of  a  i)asseiiger  on  a  sulnirban  electric  railwa}'  to  be  carried  at  the  rate  of  fare 
prescribed  in  the  company's  franchise  can  not  be  made  dependent  upon  compli- 
ance with  a  rule  of  the  carrier  re(|uiring  the  purchase  of  tickets  at  regular  sta- 
tions.'"' 

Rights  to  Stop  Over— Rule  Opposed  to  Statute. — And  the  purchaser  of 
a  ticket  conferring  the  right  to  ride  between  two  stations  by  way  of  an  inter- 
mediate station  can  not  be  deprived  of  his  right  to  stop  over  at  the  intermediate 
station,  by  reason  of  a  rule  of  die  carrier  to  issue  only  alternative  tickets,  mak- 
ing the  intermediate  station  one  terminus  named  in  the  ticket,  and  the  passen- 
ger is  not  bound  to  take  notice  of  any  rule  or  regulation  of  the  railroad  company 
recjuiring  the  passenger  to  ride  from  the  intermediate  station  by  the  longer  ro'ite 
without  stop  over,  in  contravention  of  a  statute  of  the  state. *^- 

Wrongful  Ejection — Rule  Prescribing  Duties  of  Employees. — The  right 
of  a  passenger  ejected  from  a  train,  in  violation  of  his  rights,  to  recover  dam- 
ages therefor  can  not  be  affected  by  any  rule  of  the  carrier  prescribing  tiie 
duties  of  its  agents  or  conductors.*^^ 


V.  Thornton,  110  C.  C.  A.  502,  188  Fed. 
808,  43  R.  R.  R.  13,  06  Am.  &  Eng-.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  13;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Fraloff,  100 
U.   S.   24,  25   L.    Ed.   531. 

California. — Robinson  v.  Southern  Pac. 
Co.,  105  Cal.  526,  38  Pac.  94,  722,  28  L. 
R.  A.   773. 

Kansas.  —  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dickerson,  4   Kan.  App.   345,   45   Pac.   975. 

A'cH/MC^^'.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Al- 
len, 121  Ky.  138,  26  R.  R.  R.  49,  43  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  49,  11  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.    Cas.    1024,    89    S.    W.    150. 

Louisiana. — Decuir  v.  Benson,  27  La. 
Ann.  1.  • 

Miclii Stan.— Coy  v.  Detroit,  etc..  Rail- 
way, 125  Mich.  616,  85  X.  W.  6;  Day  v. 
Owen,  5  Mich.  520,  72  Am.  Dec.  62. 

Tennessee. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Turner,  100  Tenn.  213,  47  S.  W.  223,  43 
L.    R.   A.    140. 

Te.vas.— 'Eddy  v.  Rider,  79  Tex.  53,  15 
S.   W.   113. 

['iVgifiia.— Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wy- 
sor,   82    Va.    250. 

ll'est  ['i;i,'i»ia.— Boston  v.  Chesapeake, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,  30  W.   Va.   318. 

IVvoining. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lampman,  18  Wyo.  106,  34  R.  R.  R.  28, 
57  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  28,  104 
Pac  533.  25  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  217,  Ann. 
Cas.    1012    C,   788.  ,    .         .   ,     . 

59.  Made  and  enforced  in  violation  of 
law.— Eddy  v.  Rider,  79  Tex.  53,  15  S.  W. 
113. 


60.  Forbidding  sale  of  f'cket  to  per- 
sons unable  to  take  care  of  themselves. — 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  121  Ky. 
138,  26  R.  R.  R.  49,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  49,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.    1024,    89    S.    W.    150. 

61.  Fares  as  affected  by  rule  requiring 
purchase  of  ticket. — Coy  v.  Detroit,  etc., 
Railway.   125   Mich.   OKi,   85   X.   W.   0. 

62.  Right  to  stop  over — Rule  opposed 
to  statute.^Robinson  v.  Southern  Pac. 
Co.,  105  Cal.  526,  38  Pac.  94,  722,  28  L.  R. 
A.    773. 

63.  Wrongful  ejection — Rule  prescribing 
duties  of  employees. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Thornton,  110  C.  C.  A.  502.  188 
Fed.  868,  43  R.  R.  R.  13,  66  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.,   X.   S.,    13. 

Requiring  performance  of  acts  not  re- 
quired by  law — Evidence. — Where  the 
rules  of  a  railroad  company  for  the  con- 
duct of  trainmen  with  respect  to  pas- 
sengers do  not  require  more  than  the 
law  requires  of  the  carrier,  the  admis- 
sion in  evidence  of  the  rules  is  not  prej- 
udicial, but.  where  such  rules  require 
more  than  the  law  requires,  or  require 
the  performance  of  acts  which  the  law 
does  not  recognize  as  a  duty  imposed  on 
the  carrier,  they  are  inadmissible.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lampman,  IS  Wvo. 
106.  34  R.  R.  R.  28.  57  Am.  &  Ensr.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S..  28,  104  Pac.  533.  25  L.  R.  A., 
X.   S.,   217.  Ann.   Cas.   1912   C,  788. 


§§  314-31; 


CARRIERS. 


196 


§  314.  Must  Not  Discriminate. — Of  course,  a  common  carrier  is  bound  to 
treat  all  of  its  passengers  of  the  same  class  alike  so  long  as  they  conduct  them- 
selves properly,  and  has  no  right  to  discriminate  in  making  or  enforcing  regu- 
lations  for  their  government.*''* 

Made  for  Particular  Occasion. — The  rules  and  regulations  of  a  common 
carrier  must  have  for  their  object  the  accommodation  of  passengers  generally, 
and  they  must  be  of  a  permanent  nature,  and  not  made  for  a  particular  occa- 
sion or  emergency.*'^ 

§  315.  Their  Reasonableness  as  Question  of  Law. — It  is  generally  held 
that  the  reasonableness,  and  consecjuent  validity,  of  a  rule  or  regulation  of  a 
carrier  of  passengers  is  a  question  of  law  for  the  determination  of  the  court.**^ 

Facts  Not  Disputed. — Where  the  facts  are  not  disputed,  the  reasonableness 
of  a  regulation  of  a  carrier  affecting  the  transportation  of  passengers  is  one  of 
law  for  the  court,  not  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury/*' 

Exclusion  from  Certain  Trains. — The  reasonableness  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany's regulation  restricting  the  right  of  passengers  to  carriage  on  certain  trains 
is  for  the  court.'"'' 

Exclusion  of  Animals  from  Passenger  Cars. — The  reasonableness  of  a 
regulation  of  a  street  railway  forbidding  the  carrying  of  live  animals  into  its 
cars  is  a  question  for  the  trial  court,  and  it  is  error  to  submit  it  to  the  jury.^*^ 


64.  Must  not  discriminate. — Illinois. — 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  Whittemore,  43 
111.  420,  92  Am.  Dec.  138;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.    Co.   V.   Williams,   55    111.    185. 

Kansas. — Brown  v.  Kan'sas  City,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  38   Kan.   634,   16   Pac.   942. 

Michigan. — Day  v.  Owen,  5  Mich.  520, 
72  Am.  Dec.  62;  Kalamazoo  Hack,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Sootsma,  84  Mich.  194,  47  N.  W. 
667,  10  L.  R.  A.  819,  22  Am.   St.  Rep.  693. 

A^ew  York. — O'Gorman  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  App.  Div.  594,  89  N.  Y.  S. 
589;  Ray  v.  United  Tract.  Co.,  96  App. 
Div.   48,   89   N.   Y.   S.   49. 

65.  Made  for  particular  occasion. — Day 
V.    Owen,    5    Mich.    520,    72    Am.    Dec.    62. 

66.  Question  of  law. — Alabama. — Birm- 
ingham R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  McDonough,  153 
Ala.  122,  26  R.  R.  R.  618,  49  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  618,  44  So.  960,  13 
L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  445. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ad- 
cock,   52  Ark.  403.    12  S.  W.   874. 

Florida.—South  Florida  R.  Co.  v. 
Rhoads,  25  Fla.  40,  5  So.  633,  3  L.  R.  A., 
62  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  507,  733,  23  Am.  St. 
Rep.    506. 

Georgia. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Motes, 
117  Ga.  923,  7  R.  R.  R.  161,  30  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  161,  43  S.  E.  990; 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  110  Ga.  681, 
36  S.  E.  209,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,   209. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Lallen,  84  111.  109;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Whittemore,  43  111.  420.  92  Am.  Dec. 
138. 

lozva. — Gregory  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
100  Iowa  345,  69  N.  W.  532;  Hoffbauer  v. 
Delhi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa  342,  3  N. 
W.   121,   35   Am.   Rep.   278. 

Missouri. — Chilton  v.   St.   Louis,   etc.,   R. 


Co.,    114    Mo.    88,   21    S.   W.    457,    19    L.    R. 
A.    269. 

ilfoH/a»o.— Doherty  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  43  Mont.  294,  41  R.  R.  R.  210,  64 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  210,  115  Pac. 
401,   36   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,   1139. 

New  Jersex. — Daniel  v.  North  Jersey  St. 
R.   Co.,  64  N.  J.   L.  603,  46  Atl.  625. 

Nezv  For^.— Barker  v.  Central  Park,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  151  N.  Y.  237,  45  N.  E.  550,  35 
L.  R.  A.  489,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  626;  Avery 
V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  31, 
24  N.  E.  20;  Dowd  v.  Albany  Railway,  47 
App.  Div.  202,  62  N.  Y.  S.  179;  O'Gorman 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  App.  Div. 
594,   89    N.   Y.    S.    589. 

Pennsvlz'ania. — Mnldowney  v.  Pittsburg, 
etc..  Tract.  Co.,  8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  335;  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lyon,  123  Pa.  140, 
16  Atl.  607,  2  L.  R.  A.  489,  10  Am.  St. 
Rep.   517. 

South  Carolina. — Weber  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  65  S.  C.  356,  43  S.  E.  888,  6  R.  R.  R. 
932,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S-.,  932. 

Tennessee. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Fleming,  82  Tenn.  (14  Lea)  128;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Turner,  100  Tenn. 
213,  47  S.  W.  223,  43  L.   R.  A.  140. 

Virginia. — Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wy- 
sor,   82   Va.   250. 

67.  Facts  not  d'rputed.^Barker  v.  Cen- 
tral Park,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  N.  Y.  237,  45 
N.  E.  550,  35  L.  R.  A.  489,  56  Am.  St. 
Rep.  626;  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  110 
Ga.  681,  36  S.  E.  209,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,    N.    S.,    209. 

68.  Exclusion  from  certain  trains.— 
Doherty  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  43 
Mont.  294,  41  R.  R.  R.  210,  64  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  210,  115  Pac.  401,  36 
L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    1139. 

69.  Daniel  v.  North  Jersey  St.  R.  Co., 
64    N.   J.    L.    603,   46   Atl.    625. 


197  RULES    AND   REGULATIONS   OF    CARRIERS,  §§    315-319 

And  the  reasonableness  of  a  rule  of  a  railway  company  prohibiting  a  passenger 
from  having  a  dog  with  him  in  its  passenger  coach,  and  exacting  a  charge  for 
carrying  dogs  in  the  baggage  car,  is  a  question  of  law  for  the  court."" 

§  316.  Their  Reasonableness  as  Mixed  Question  of  Law  and  Fact. — 
In  some  cases,  however,  it  has  been  held  that  the  peculiar  circumstances  in- 
volved made  the  reasonableness  of  such  a  rule  a  mixed  question  of  law  and 
fact.'i 

Woman  Excluded  from  "Ladies'  Cars." — Where  a  woman  was  excluded 
from  the  "ladies'  car"  because  she  was  of  notoriously  bad  character,  the  de- 
fendant pleaded  a  reasonable  regulation  authorizing  the  exclusion,  and  that 
the  plaintili  came  within  it;  and  it  was  held  that  it  is  a  mixed  question  of  law 
and  fact  whether  such  a  regulation  is  reasonable  or  not,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
jury,  on  proper  instructions." - 

§  317.  Their  Reasonableness  Question  for  Jury. — When  the  reasonable- 
ness or  unreasonableness  of  a  rule  of  a  railroad  company  depends  upon  the  ex- 
istence of  particular  facts  and  circumstances,  it  is  a  question  for  the  jury,  under 
proper  instructions."^  Thus,  it  is  not  error  for  the  court  in  charging  the  jury, 
to  say  that  a  given  regulation  of  a  carrier  of  passengers  is  unreasonable,  when 
the  court  explains  to  the  jury  what  would  be  the  rules  of  law  by  which  the 
reasonableness  or  unreasonableness  of  such  a  regulation  is  to  be  tested,  and 
leaves  to  the  jury  the  determination  of  the  facts  of  the  particular  case.""* 

§  318.  Their  Sufficiency  Is  Question  for  Jury. — \\  hether  a  rule  or  reg- 
ulation of  a  carrier  of  passengers  is  sufficient  to  accomplish  its  purpose  is  a 
question  of  fact  to  be  determined  by  the  jury.'^^ 

§§  319-323.  Notice  of  Rules  and  Regulations— §  319.  Passenger's 
Contract  Rights  Not  Affected  by  Rules  of  Which  He  Was  Not  Charge- 
able with  Notice. — The  rules  and  regulations  which  a  railroad  company  may 
adopt  and  enforce  in  the  transaction  of  its  business  do  not  become  eli'ective  un- 
til the  public  or  the  party  to  be  affected  thereby  has  actual  knowledge  thereof, 
or  such  reasonable  notice  that  the  law  will,  under  the  particular  circumstances, 
infer  knowledge."" 

70.  Gregory  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  be  determined  on  demurrer.  Day  v. 
Iowa  345.  69  N.  W.  :i'62.  Owen.  5  Mich.  520,  72  Am.  Dec.  62. 

71.  Mixed  question  of  law  and  fact. —  73.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Lyon,  123 
Brown  v.  Mcmpliis.  etc..  R.  Co..  4  Fed.  Pa.  140,  16  Atl.  GOT,  2  L.  R.  A.  4S9,  10 
37;  Day  v.  Owen,  '>  Mich.  520,  72  Am.  Dec.  Am.  St.  Rep.  517. 

62;   Harris  v.   Stevens,  31   Vt.  79,  73  Am.  '        74.   Brown  v.   Memphis,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   7 

Dec.    337;    Bass    v.    Chicago,   etc..    R.    Co.,  Fed.  51. 

36    Wis.    4.'0,    17     \tii.    I^cp.    4i).-..  75.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    McLallen, 

72.  Woman  excluded  from  "ladies'  car.'  84    111.    109. 

— Brown     v.     Meniphis,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     4  76.   United  States. — Railroad  Co.  f.   Fra- 

Fed.    37.  loff,  100  U.  S.  24,  25  L.  Ed.  531. 

Negro    passengers   excluded    from    cab-  Alabama.  —  Armstrong    v.    Montgomery 

ins. —  In  an  action  against  a  common  car-  St.   R.   Co.,   123   Ala.   233,  26   So.   349. 

rier  of  passengers  for  refusing  plaintitY  a  California. — Wright    v.    California    Cent, 

cabin  passage,   the  notice  of  defense  was  R.  Co.,  78  Cal.  360.  20  Pac.  740. 

that,    by    the    regulations    and    established  Indiana. — Ft.  Wayne  Tract.  Co.  v.  Har- 

course    of    l)usiness    of   the    boat,    persons  dcndorf,  164  Ind.  403,  15  R.   R.  R.  738,  38 

of   plaintiff's    race    were    not    allowed    the  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  738,  72  N.  E. 

use  of  the  cabin  as  passengers,  which  reg-  593. 

ulation    and    course     of     business     were  Maryland. — Baltimore   City  Pass.  R.   Co. 

averred   to   be   reasonable.     There    was   a  v.  ^^'ilkinson.  30  Md.  224. 

demurrer    to    this    defense.      It    was    held  Massachusetts. — Maroney  f.  Old  Colony, 

that  the  demurrer  was  not  well  taken,  that  etc.,    R.    Co.,    106    Mass.    Ir3,   8   Am.    Rep. 

the  reasonableness  of  such  regulation  was  305;    Renaud    z'.    New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

a  mixed   question   of  law  and   fact,  to  be  (Mass.),  44  R.  R.  R.  632,  67  Am.  &  Eng. 

found  by  the  jury  on  the  trial,  under  the  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  632.  97  N.  E.  98. 

instructions    of   the    court,   and   could    not  Missouri. — McGee    z\    Missouri    Pac.    R. 


§§  319-320  CARRIERS.  198 

Required  to  Take  Direct  Route. — A  passenger  is  not  bound  by  a  rule  of 
the  railroad  company,  of  which  she  has  no  knowledge,  requiring  passengers  to 
travel  by  a  direct  route.'" 

Relation  of  Carrier  and  Passenger. — Sec  post,  "Relation  of  Carrier  and 
Passenger,"  chapter  21. 

Ejection  of  Passengers. — See  i)osi.  "Ejection  of  Passengers,"  chapter  25. 

Presumption  as  to  Knowledge  of  Rules.— The  law  does  not  presume  that 
one  about  to  become  a  passenger,  or  one  who  has  become  a  passenger,  on  a 
railroad  train  knows  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  railroad  company.'''  But 
it  has  been  held  that  if  a  notice  prohibiting  passengers  from  standing  on  the 
platform  be  proven  to  have  been  posted  in  large  metal  letters,  upon  the  doors 
of  the  passenger  cars  of  a  railroad  company,  a  passenger  will  be  presumed  to 
know  the  rules,  and  if  that  knowledge  be  denied,  the  burden  of  establishing  such 
want  of  knowledge  is  upon  the  party  denying  it."'' 

§  320.  Duty  of  Passenger  to  Inform  Himself  of  Existence  of  Rules. — 
It  is  the  legal  duty  of  a  passenger  to  use  the  care  and  diligence  which  a  rea- 
sonably prudent  man  would  use  under  the  same  circumstances  to  make  inquiries 
in  regard  to  and  inform  himself  of  the  existence  and  nature  of  the  carrier's  rules 
and  regulations  relating  to  the  carriage  and  conduct  of  passengers. ^'^ 

Conduct  of  Trains  and  Rights  of  Passengers. — A  passenger's  railroad 
ticket  is  evidence  of  the  payment  of  his  fare  and  his  right  to  be  carried  accord- 
ing to  its  temis,  but  it  does  not  express  the  whole  contract,  and  wdiat  it  does  not 
set  forth  may  be  ascertained  from  the  reasonable  rules  and  regulations  of  the 
railroad  company,  and  he  is  bound  to  inform  himself  of  such  regulations  re- 
specting the  conduct  of  trains  and  the  rights  of  passengers. ^i 

Purchase  of  Tickets,  and  Train  Schedules. — If  a  passenger  disregards 
the  regulations  of  the  railroad  company  as  to  the  purchase  of  tickets  or  the 
running  of  trains,  by  failure  upon  his  part  to  make  any  inquiries,  and  such  neg- 
lect is  not  induced  by  the  company's  agent  \vho  has  authority  in  the  matter,  the 
company  is  not  liable  for  the  consequences  of   such  neglect. ■'^'- 

Rights  Not  Increased  by  Ignorance  of  Rules. — One  who  neglects  to  in- 
form himself  as  to  the  rules  and   regulations  of   the  railroad  company  has  no 

Co.,  92  Mo.   208,  4   S.  W.  739,   1   Am.   St.  79.  Posted  upon  car  doors.— Macon,  etc., 

Rep.  706;   Burke  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,       R.    Co.   v.   Johnson,   3s    Ga.   409. 

51    Mo.   App.   491.  80.    Duty   of   passenger  to   inform   him- 

Pennsylvama.—L^V^   Shore,   etc.,  R.    Co.       self      of      existence     of     rules.— /vah-w.?.- 

V.   Greenwood,  79   Pa.  373.  Atchison,    etc.,   R.    Co.   i'.    Gants,   38    Kan. 

Tennessee.— \^ov:x-,v\\\^,    etc.,    R.  Co.    v.       «08,^  17  Pac.  54,  5  Am    St.  Rep.  780. 

Turner,   100   Tenn.   213,   47    S.   W.  223,   43           A ^"/«c/o'.— Louisville       etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 

L    R    A    140  Miles,   100  Ky.  84,   IS   Ky.   L.   Rep.  580,   37 

'ri;V«/a.— Norfolk,   etc..  R.    Co.  v.   Wy-  ^- ^\-'^^^-       ^,   ,  ,            ^     ,.                     o 

__      GO   \-„    2-()  Oklahoma. — Noble    v.    Atchison,    etc.,    R. 

'.".-'•                .                       ,       ,  Co.,  4  Okla.   534,   46  Pac.  483. 

Alighting  from  moving  cars.-In  Arm-  Pcnnsylvania.-h?.^^   Shore,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

a[°"?o/-o.   q"'%T^-7-    -i-  i^.w  ■'   1-1  "^'    Rosenzweig,   113  Pa.  519,  6  Atl.  545. 

Ala.  233    26  So.  349,  It  is  held  that  while  r.»«^..^r^.-Trotlinger   v.    East   Tennes- 

a  rule  of  a  street  railway  t.iat  passengers  ^^^^            j,    ^^     ^,)  r^^^^    (^,   L^^,  53. 

must  not  leave  its  cars  while  they  are  in  r^^ra^.— Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Moody,   3 

motion   IS  a  reasonable   rule,  a   passenger  ^^^    ^-^^    ^        ^^22    32  g    ^    -^^^qq.  j^^^g. 

can   not   be   charged   with    the   nonobserv-  ^^^  _   ^    ^^    ^,    Moore.  49  Tex.   31,  .30 

ance  01  such   rule  unless  he  knew  01  it.  a         j^,.,,    94^ 

77.  Required  to  take  direct  route. — II-  gl.  Conduct  of  trains  and  rights  of  pas- 
linois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Harper,  83  Miss.  sengers.— Southern  Kan.  R.  Co.  v.  Hins- 
560,  35  So.  764,  10  R.  R.  R.  612,  33  Am.  dale.  38  Kan.  507,  16  Pac.  937;  Lake  Shore, 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  812,  64  L.  R.  A.  283,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Rosenzweig,  113  Pa.  519, 
102   Am.    St.    Rep.    469.  G   Atl.   545. 

78.  Presumption  as  to  knowledge  of  82.  Purchase  of  tickets  and  train  sched- 
rules. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rosen-  ules. — Southern  Kan.  R.  Co.  v.  Hinsdale, 
zweig,  113   Pa.  519,  6  Atl.   545.                              3«    Kan.    507,    16    Pac.    937. 


199 


RULKS   AND   REGULATIONS    OF    CARRIERS, 


§§    320-321 


greater   rights   under   his   ticket   than    if   he   had   acquired   actual   knowledge  of 
theni.^"- 

§  321.  Sufficiency  of  Publication  or  Notice.— It  is  not  essential,  in  order 
to  hind  the  passenger,  tliat  he  should  he  directly  notified  of  the  existence  of  a 
reasonahle  rule  or  regulation  of  the  carrier.  It  is  sufficient  that  it  be  so  posted 
or  otherwise  published  that  a  reasonably  ])rudent  and  diligent  man,  under  the 
same  circumstances,  would  be  put  on  inquiry  and  inform  himself  in  regard  to 
the  existence  and  nature  of  the  regulation.'"' 

Posted  Regulations  for  Running  of  Trains. — A  railroad  company  has  the 
right  to  make  reasonahle  regulatitjus  for  running  its  trains;  and  if  a  purchaser 
of  a  ticket  has  notice  of,  or  the  company  had  given  such  publicity  to  them  in 
the  ticket  office,  and  by  posters  in  the  cars,  that  a  person  of  ordinary  intelli- 
gence, by  the  use  of  reasonable  care  and  caution,  would  or  might  have  obtaine<l 
all  requisite  information,  he  is  l)f)und  by  the  regulations.^" 

Riding  on  Front  Platform  with  Knowledge  of  Notice  on  Other  Cars. 
— \\  here  a  passenger  knew  that  on  certain  cars  of  a  street  railway  company 
there  was  a  notice  stating  that  passengers  choosing  to  ride  on  the  front  platfonn 
did  so  at  their  own  risk,  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  company,  in  order  to  de- 
feat an  action  by  the  passenger  for  injuries  received  while  alighting  from  the 


83.  Rights  not  increased  by  ignorance  of 
rules. — Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co.  ■:■.  Ruseii- 
zwcIlt.    11:1    I'a.    .)!'.),    f)    Atl.    ")4,5. 

84.  Sufficiency  of  publication  or  notice. 
— England. — Motteran  v.  Eastern  Counties 
R.  Co.  (Eng.),  7  C.  B.,  N.  S.,  58,  6  Jur. 
N.    S.,   583,   29   L.   J.    M.    59. 

Georgia. — Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son,  38    Ga.   409. 

Illinois. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kelsey,   180   111.   530,   54   N.   E.   608. 

Kansas. — Southern  Kan.  R.  Co.  v.  Hins- 
dale, 38   Kan.   507,   K)   Pac.   937. 

Maine—State  r.   Goold.   53  Me.  279. 

Marvland.—Ba.\t\morc  City  Pass.  R.  Co. 
V.    Wilkinson.    30    Md.    224. 

Massachusetts. — McDonough  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  191  Mass.  509,  20  R.  R.  R. 
641,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  641, 
78   N.    E.    141. 

Nezv  York. — Barker  v.  Central  Park,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  151  N.  Y.  237,  45  N.  E.  550,  35 
L.    R.   A.   -189,   56   Am.   St.    Rep.   626. 

Pennsylvania. — Drake  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  137"  Pa.  353,  20  Atl.  994,  21  .A.m.  St. 
Rep.   883. 

South  Carolina. — Funderburg  v.  Au- 
gusta, etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  S.  C.  141,  30  R. 
R.  R.  281,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
281.  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.   S.,  868,  61  S.   E.  1075. 

Tennessee. — Trotlinger  v.  East  Tenn., 
etc.,   R.  Co.,  79  Tenn.   (11   Lea)    533. 

Riding  on  platform — Posted  on  doors 
of  cars. —  If  a  notice  proIiiMting  passen- 
gers from  riding  on  tlie  platforms  of 
cars  be  proven  to  have  been  posted  in 
large  metal  letters  upon  the  doors  of  the 
passenger  car  of  a  railroad  company,  a 
passenger  will  be  presumed  to  know  of 
such  rule,  and  if  such  knowledge  be  de- 
nied, the  burden  of  showing  such  want 
of  knowledge  is  upon  the  party  denying 
it.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  38 
Ga.  409. 


Entry  and  exit  by  rear  platform  only 
— Use  of  such  cars  on  prior  occasions.^ 
The  fact  that  a  notice  of  a  regulation  re- 
quiring passengers  to  enter  and  leave  de- 
fendant's street  cars  by  the  rear  platform 
only,  was  put  up  inside  of  all  such  cars, 
and  legible  to  all  who  entered  them,  and 
the  fact  that  plaintiff  had  often  previously 
ridden  in  the  cars,  was  evidence  from 
which  it  might  be  inferred  that  he  had 
notice  of  the  existence  of  the  regulation. 
Baltimore  City  Pass.  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkin- 
son, 30  Md.  224. 

Use  of  station  platforms  for  boarding 
and  alighting — Platform  on  one  side  of 
track  only. — Wlien  a  passenger  knows 
that  on  one  side  of  the  track  no  platform 
or  place  for  alighting  from  trains  has  been 
provided,  and  that  there  is  a  safe  and 
convenient  platform,  upon  the  other  side 
for  the  use  of  passengers  in  entering  and 
leaving  trains,  such  knowledge  is  notice 
of  a  rule  of  the  companv  that  they  shall 
get  on  and  off  trains  at  said  platform. 
Drake  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  137  Pa.  352, 
20   Atl.    994.    21    Am.    St.    Rep.    8S3. 

Copy  of  carriers  by-laws  affixed  at  sta- 
tions.— In  Motteram  z\  Eastern  Counties 
R.  Co.  (Eng.),  7  C.  B.,  X.  S..  58,  6  Jur.,  N. 
S..  583.  29  L.  J.  M.  C.  59.  it  is  held  that 
proof  that  a  copy  of  the  b^'-laws  of  the 
company  was  affixed  at  the  stations  at 
which  the  passengers  against  which  it  was 
attempted  to  enforce  them  got  into  and 
left  the  train,  is  sufficient  proof  of  the 
publication  of  such  by-laws  under  §  110 
of  the  Railway  Clauses  Act  of  1845,  with- 
out showing  that  copies  were  affixed  at  all 
otlicr  stations. 

85.  Postal  regulations  for  running  of 
trains. — Trotlinger  v.  East  Tennessee, 
etc..   R.   Co..  79  Tenn.   (11  Lea)   533. 


§§  321-324  CARRIERS.  200 

front  platform  of  a  car.  to  prove  that  he  had  also  seen  such  notice  on  the  par- 
ticular car  on  which  he  was  riding.^^ 

Required  to  Ride  in  Caboose— Not  Posted  as  Required  by  Statute.— 
If  a  passenger  on  a  freight  train  is  injured  while  riding  on  a  freight  car  by  rea- 
son of  an  accident  to  the  train,  the  company  will  be  liable  if  the  rule  prohibiting 
passengers  from  riding  elsewhere  than  in  the  caboose  is  not  conspicuously  posted 
as  required  bv  law.^' 

Fares,  Tickets,  Special  Contracts,  Transfers,  etc.— bee  post,  "Fares, 
Tickets,    Special   Contracts.   Transfers,   etc.,"   chapter  22. 

§  322.  Bound  by  Rules  of  Which  He  Was  in  Ignorance.— A  rule  or  reg- 
ulation may  be  so  reasonable  and  so  essential  to  the  proper  conduct  of  the  car- 
rier's business  as  to  be  enforceable,  even  by  expulsion,  against  a  passenger  who 
acquired  his  contract  rights  and  boarded  the  train  or  street  car  without  being 
chargeable  with  notice  of  the  existence  of  the  regulation. ''S 

Rules  for  Freight  Trains. — A  person  who  enters  a  freight  train,  knowing 
it  to  be  such  and  intending  to  take  passage  thereon,  is  charged  with  notice  that 
the  railroad  company  is  authorized  under  the  law  to  make  reasonable  rules  and 
regulations  in  reference  to  the  carrying  of  passengers  thereon.^o 

§  323.  Rules  for  Conduct  of  Carrier's  Employees.— A  passenger  is  not 
presumed  to  know  the  private  or  secret  rules  given  by  a  railroad  to  its  con- 
ductors or  other  employees,  but  has  the  right  to  rely  upon  their  statements  as  to 
what  the  rules  are,  in  contracting  with  them.''*' 

§§  324-326.  Enforcement  of  Rules  and  Regulations— §  324.  En- 
forcement Must  Be  Reasonable. — Regulations  of  common  carriers  of  pas- 
sengers must  not  only  be  legal  and  reasonable,  but  the  carrier  must,  at  its  peril, 
enforce  them  against  passengers  in  a  reasonable  manner  and  without  undue 
and  unnecessary  severity.''^ 

Exclusion  from  "Ladies'  Car." — Thus,  if  there  be  no  sitting  room  in  the 
regular  passenger  cars  for  passengers  excluded  by  a  reasonable  regulation  from 
the  "ladies'  car,"  and  there  be  room  to  seat  them  in  such  car,  they  can  not  be 

86.  Riding  on  front  platform  with  Rep.  319;  Hufford  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc., 
knowledge  of  notice  on  other  cars.— Ale-  R.  Co.,  04  Mich.  631,  31  N.  W.  544,  8 
Donough    V.    Boston,     etc.,     R.     Co.,     191       Am.   St.    Rep.   859. 

Mass.    509,    20    R.    R.    R.    641,    43    Am.    &  91.  ///rt&a)»ff.— Birmingham    R.,   etc.,   Co. 

Eng.   R.   Cas.,   X.   S.,  641,  78   N.   E.   141.  V.  McDonough,  153  Ala.  122,  26  R.  R.  R. 

87.  Required  to  ride  in  caboose-Not  618,  49  Am.  &  Eng  R-  Cas.,  N  S.,  618,  44 
posted  as   required   by   statute.— Sherman  So.  900    13  L.  R.  A.,  N.  b.,  445. 

-       H-innil.'il       rti-         R       Pn        TO      Mn       fi?       S7  F/oridO.— LoUlSVlUc,         CtC,         K.        CO.       V. 

\'n.     Rrn    49'.  Berry,    58    Fla.    300,   50   So.    579,    33    R.    R. 

To    r>        a\         1         f      u-  T.  u  ■  R-    227,    56   Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S., 

88.  Bound  by  rules  of  which  he  was  m       g^., 

ignorance.-Faber    v     Chicago      etc       R.  /^^c^a.-McKinley    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  62   Mnin.  433,  64  X.  W.  918,  36  LR.        ^o.,  44   Iowa  314,   24  Am.    Rep.  748. 

'\-  If'  -^Sf'^^/^^^^T^'^S^'oin    «;    a'      °;J'  .l/flrv/a»rf.-Baltimore,     etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 

43  Mont.  294,  41  R.  R    R    210    64  Am.  &       <.         -^^  j^^    ^35^  ^^  ^^1    ^o^g.   Northern 

Eng^  R    Cas.,  X.  S     210    llo  Pac    401    30  ^^^^^_  ^    ^^    ^    O'Conner,  76  Md.  207,  24 

L.    R.   A     X.    S.     1139;    Ellis  v.   Houston,  ^^  j    ^^^    ^^  L.  R.  A.  449,  35  Am.  St.  Rep. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  172,  70  S.  ^^^ 

W.    114;    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Moody,    3  "prnn^y/^'awfa.-Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

Tex.    Civ.   App.    622,   22    S.   W.    1009.  pjjj^^^  -^g   p^    5^0^  18  Am.   Rep.  424.       ' 

89.  Rules  for  freight  trains.— Ellis  v.  Tennessee.— ho\x\%\\\\(i,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Turner,  100  Tenn.  213,  47  S.  W.  223,  43 
172,   70    S.  W.   114.  L.    R.    A.    140;    Nashville    St.    R.    Co.    v. 

90.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Murden,  86  Griffin,  104  Tenn.  81,  57  S.  W.  153,  49  L. 
Ga.  434.   12   S.   E.   630;   Ft.  Wayne  Tract.  R.  A.  451. 

Co.  V.  Hardendorf.  164  Tnd.  403.  15  R.  R.  West    yirginia.— Boston    v.    Chesapeake, 

R.  738,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  73;-,,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  36  W.  Va.  318. 

72  X.  E.  593;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r  Wisconsin.— Bass     v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Foster,   104    Ind.   293,   4    X.    E.   20,    54   Am.  Co.,  36  Wis.   450,   17   Am.   Rep.   495. 


201  RULES    AND    REGULATIONS   OF    CARRIERS.  §§    324-327 

left  standing  \vith(jiU  breach  of  the  contract  of  carriage.  In  such  a  case,  how- 
ever, tlie  object  of  sucli  regulation  requires  that  the  selection  of  the  persons  to 
be  aihiiilted  into  the  "ladies'  car"  shall  still  rest  in  the  discretion  of  the  proper 
officers  of  the  train.''- 

Backing  of  Cars  Prohibited.— So,  where  a  street  car  after  wrongfully  fail- 
ing to  stop  at  a  regular  street  crossing  to  take  on  j^assengers,  has  passed  beyond 
the  crossing  from  twenty  to  forty  feet,  a  rule  of  the  company  forbidding  the 
backing  of  cars  in  such  cases  is  unreasonable,  and  will  not  justify  them,  on  a 
rainy  night  when  the  road  is  very  muddy,  in  refusing  to  back  the  car  so  as  to 
reach  the  crossing  for  an  intending  passenger.'*-' 

Required  to  Enter  Cars  within  Transfer  Station.— It  is  an  unreasonable 
enforcement  of  a  reasonable  rc.^ulalion  re(|uiring  passengers  to  enter  street  cars 
within  a  transfer  station,  or  for  failure  to  do  so  to  pay  an  additional  fare,  for 
the  company's  agents  to  eject  one  who,  to  their  knowledge,  had  paid  regular 
fare,  because  he  had  entered  a  car,  in  which  there  was  abundant  room,  while  it 
was  standing  only  a  few  feet  beyond  the  station  line,  upon  his  refusal  to  pay 
an  additional  fare."-* 

Must  Show  Reason  for  Suspension  of  Rule.— A  passenger  has  no  right 
to  complain  of  ihc  enforcement  of  a  reasonable  rule  by  the  conductor  unlessjie 
has  stated  to  the  conductor  an  adequate  reason  for  its  suspension  in  his  case.^-'^ 

§  32  5.  Ejection  of  Passengers. — See  post,  ''Ejection  of  Passengers," 
chapter  25. 

Exclusion  from  Depot. — A  superintendent  of  a  railroad  depot  has  author- 
ity to  exclude  therefrom  persons  who  persist  in  violating  reasonable  regula- 
tions prescribed   for  their  conduct.'"' 

§  326.  Enforcement  by  Punishing  Prior  Breach.— It  has  been  held  that 
a  common  carrier  of  passengers  may  enforce  observance  of  its  regulations  by 
prevention,  but  not  bv  punishment  of  a  breach  already  committed."*" 

Ejection   for   Refusal    to    Pay    Fare— Rule    against   Re -Entering.— A 

railroad,  lujwever.  may  enforce  a  reasonable  rule  preventing  a  passenger  who 
has  willfully  refused  to  pay  his  fare,  and  thereby  provoked  expulsion,  from 
re-entering  the  train   from   which  he  was  ejected.^*^ 

§§  327-328.  Waiver  of  Rules  and  Regulations— §  327.  Habitual 
Failure  to  Enforce. — A  rule  or  regulation  for  the  conduct  of  the  business  of 
a  common  carrier  of  passengers  may  be  waived  and  rendered  invalid  by  such 
open  and  habitual  disregard  and  failure  to  enforce  it  as  to  justify  the  traveling 
public  in  the  belief  lliat  it  has  l)een  repealed,  expressly  or  impliedly.^^ 

Riding  on  Freight  Trains. — Thus,  where  a  railroad  company,  notwith- 
standing ils  rule  prohibiting  passengers  from  riding  on  freigb.t  trains,  habitually 

92.  Exclusion  from  "ladies'  car."— Bass  N.  Y.   St.   Rep.  865,   18   N.  Y.   S.  759.  af- 
V.    Chica£,Mx   etc..    R.    Co.,   'M)   Wis.   450,    17  firmed  in  138  N.  Y.  623,  33  N.  E.  1083. 
Am    Rep    495.  98.  Phillips  v.   Atlantic,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  90 

93.  Backing  of  cars  prohibited.— Tack-  S.  C.  1S7.  44  R.  R.  R.  566,  67  Am.  &  Eng. 
son  Elect.  R..  etc.,  Co.  z:  Lowry.  79  Aliss.  R.   Cas..   N.   S.,  566,  73  S.   E.  75. 

431,  30  So.  634.  99.  Uuited  States. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 

94.  Required  to  enter  cars  within  trans-  v.  Lowell.  151  U.  S.  209.  3S  L.  Ed.  131, 
fer  station.— Xasliville  St.   R.   Co.  r.   Grif-       14  S.  Ct.  281. 

fin    104  Tenn    si     -,7   S    \V.   153.  40   L.    R.  Florida. — Florida    So.    R.    Co.    r.    Hirst, 

A.'4.-,i.  30  Fla.   1,  11   So.   506,   16   L.   R.   A.  631.  32 

95.  Must  show  reason  for  suspension  of       Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

rule.— McMillan    f.    Federal,    etc.,    R.    Co.,  Indiana.— Lake    Shore,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

172  Pa.  523.  33  Atl.   560.  Foster,  104   Ind.  293,  4  N.   E.  20,  54  Am. 

96.  Exclusion    from    depot. — Common-       Rep.    319. 

wealth  7'.   Power   (Mass.),  7  Mete.  596,  41  }fassacliusctts.—Swcct]an<\  v.  Lynn,  etc., 

Am.  Dec.  4f,5.  R.  Co..  177  Mass.  574.  59  N.  E.  443,  51  L. 

97.  Enforcement     by     punishing     prior       R.   A.   783. 

breach.— Smith    7'.    Manhattan    R.    Co.,    45  .l/iV/ij^ijan.— Greenfield    v.     Detroit,     etc., 


§  ^^^-7 


CARRIERS. 


202 


permits  passengers  to  ride  on  freight  trains,  the  fact  tliat  a  passenger  was  on 
a  freight  train  when  injured  is  no  defense  in  an  action  against  the  company 
for  such  injurv.i  But  it  has  been  held  that  repeated  violations  of  a  rule  of  a 
railroad  company  forbidding  the  carrying  of  passengers  on  freight  trains,  and 
failure  to  publish  and  practically  enforce  such  rule,  are  mere  fact  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  jury  in  determining  whether  a  reasonably  prudent  person 
would  have  concluded  that  the  rule  had  fallen  into  disuse;  and,  therefore,  it 
was  error  to  charge  the  jury  that  any  particular  state  of  facts  would  authorize 
persons  to  believe  that  such  rule  had  been  abrogated,  or  had  been  permitted 
to   fall  into  disuse,  and  the  issue  should  have  been  left  to  the  jury.- 

Permit  for  Freight  Train. — A  railroad  company  may  waive  a  rule  that  a 
person  without  a  i)ermit  can  not  ride  as  a  passenger  on  a  freight  train,  by  a 
long-continued  disregard  of  such  rule.^  But  where  a  railroad  company  has  a 
rule  forbidding  the  issuance  of  permits  to  ride  on  freight  trains  by  conductors, 
and  a  passenger  is  ejected  from  a  freight  train  for  want  of  such  a  permit,  the 
company  is  not  liable  because  its  conductors  have  violated  such  rule,  unless  they 
have  so  frequently  violated  it  as  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  en- 
forced."* 

Fares,  Tickets,  Special  Contracts,  Transfers,  etc. — See  post,  "Fares, 
Tickets,   Special   Contracts,   Transfers,   etc.,"   chapter  22. 


R.  Co.,  133  Mich.  557,  8  R.  R.  R.  271,  31 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  271,  95  N. 
W.   546. 

Minnesota. — ^Jones  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    43    Minn.    279,    45    N.    W.    444. 

Missouri. — Burke  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  51  Mo.  App.   491. 

Pennsxlvania. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
•:.  Greenwood,  79  Pa.  373. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore, 
49  Tex.  31,  30  Am.  Rep.  98;  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Xorris  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  41  S. 
W.  708;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Huff 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  78  S.  W.  249;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Elliott,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
31,    54    S.   W.   410. 

1.  Riding  on  freight  trains. — Burke  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo.  App.  491; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  49  Tex. 
31,   30   Am.    Rep.   98. 

2.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lynch 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   55   S.   W.   517. 

3.  Permit  for  freight  train.^Greenfield 
V.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mich.  557,  8 
R.  R.  R.  271,  31  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,    271,    95    X.    W.    546. 

4.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  61  S.  W.  440;  Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  White  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
61   S.  W.  436. 

Riding  on  front  platform. — A  sign  on 
the  hood  of  a  street  railway  car  forbid- 
ding passengers  to  ride  on  the  front  plat- 
form does  not  affect  the  liability  of  the 
railway  company  to  one  riding  on  such 
front  platform,  who  has  acted  in  the  be- 
lief, justified  by  the  company's  conduct, 
that  the  rule  thus  indicated  was  not  in 
force.  Sweetland  -v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  177 
Mass.  574,  69  N.   E.  443,  51   L.  R.  A.  783. 

Riding  in  express  cars. — If  a  railroad 
company  whicii  has  a  rule  prohibiting 
passengers  from  riding  in  the  express  car. 


or  in  other  cars  than  the  passenger  cars, 
habitual!}'  permits  passengers  to  ride  in  the 
express  car,  it  will  incur  the  same  responsi- 
bility to  passengers  for  injuries  received  by 
them,  though  the  company's  negligence, 
when  riding  in  the  express  car,  as  if  they 
were  in  a  passenger  car.  Florida  So.  R. 
Co.  V.  Hirst,  30  Fla.  1,  11  So.  506,  16  L. 
R.    A.   631,   32   Am.    St.    Rep.    17. 

But  the  fact  that  a  street  railway  com- 
pany regularly  permitted  passengers  to 
ride  on  the  front  platform  of  its  cars  did 
not  show  a  waiver  on  its  part  of  a  rule 
providing  that,  if  passengers  chose  to  ride 
on  the  front  platform,  they  did  so  at 
their  own  risk.  McDonough  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  191  Mass.  509,  20  R.  R.  R. 
641,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  641, 
78   N.   E.   141. 

Conductor's  agreement  to  stop  train  at 
passenger's  station. — Where  the  time 
schedule  and  printed  rules  showed  that  a 
given  train  should  not  stop  at  a  certain 
station,  but  the  evidence  showed  that  it 
did  frequently  stop  there,  the  conductor's 
agreement  with  a  passenger  to  put  him 
off  there  was  binding  on  the  company. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  22  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  31,  54  S.  W.  410;  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Huff  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  78  S.  W. 
249. 

Passenger  forbidden  to  alight  on  north 
side  of  tracks. — But  the  fact  that  the  rail- 
road company  has  permitted  persons  re- 
siding north  of  its  railroad  track  to  cross 
its  right  of  way  and  track  on  foot,  at 
different  points  in  the  vicinity  of  its  sta- 
tion l)uilding,  in  going  between  different 
parts  of  the  town,  is  not  a  waiver  of  its 
regulations  with  respect  to  its  passenger, 
nor  a  permission  to  them  to  alight  on  the 
north  side,  contrary  to  such  regulations. 
Drake  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  137  Pa. 
352,  20  Atl.  994.  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  883. 


203 


RULlvS   AXU    RKGULATIONS   f)P   CARRIERS. 


§§  327-328 


Responsibility  for  Baggage   Prior    to    Purchase   of  Ticket.— See  post, 

"J'as-cn-ers"    J'jTccls,"'    clKq.lcT   2''. 

Concurrence  of  Carrier  Essential.— It  has  been  held,  however,  that  to 
constitute  a  waiver  of  a  rule  of  a  carrier  of  passengers  there  must  be  such  con- 
duct as  in  effect  establishes  the  concurrence  of  the  carrier  in  the  disregard  of 
the  rci,nilali(in  in  (luestion.' 

Can  Not  Be  Abrogated  by  Subordinate  Employees.— It  has  also  been 
held  that  a  carrier  of  passenger's  rules  for  the  control  of  its  trains  and  persons 
thereon,  for  the  security  of  its  passengers  and  employees,  and  for  the  j^rotec- 
tion  of  itself  from  imposition  and  wrong,  can  not  be  abrogated  by  subordinate 
em])l()\  ees.'' 

Right  to  Resume  Enforcement. — The  fact  that  a  rule  has  often  been  vio- 
lated does  not  deprive  the  carrier  of  the  right  to  resume  its  enforcement  when- 
ever it  may  deem  it  j^roper  to  do  so." 

§  328.  Passenger's  Duty  to  Conform  to  Rules  as  Affected  by  Lack 
of  Fidelity  in  Enforcing. — A  passenger's  obligation  to  conform  to  the  rea- 
sonable rules  and  re-ulations  of  the  carrier,  of  the  existence  of  which  he  has 
notice,  or  is  chargeable  with  knowledge,  does  not  depend  upon  the  fidelity  of 
the  carrier's  emplovees  in  enforcing  them.'^ 

Riding  in  Wrong  Car  by  Consent   of  Trainmen.— Where    a    passenger 


5.  Concurrence  of  carrier  essential. — ■ 
Florida  So.  R.  Co.  v.  Hirst,  30  Fla.  1,  11 
So.  50(>,  16  L.  R.  A.  631,  32  Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

6.  Can  not  be  abrogated  by  subordinate 
employees. — Transit  Co.  r.  W'liahlc,  105 
Tenn.  460,  465,  58  S.  VV.  861,  51  L.  R.  A. 
866;  JMemphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson.  85  Tenn. 
627,  4  S.  W.  5;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Turner,  100  Tenn.  213,  47  S.  W.  223,  43 
L.  R.  A.  140;  Trotlinger  v.  East  Tennes- 
see,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  79  Tenn.    (11   Lea)    533. 

7.  Right  to  resume  enforcement. — 
Hobbs  V.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co..  49  Ark.  537, 

5  S.    \V.    586. 

8.  Passenger's  duty  to  conform  to  rules 
as  affected  by  lack  of  fidelity  in  enforcing. 
—F/()r/(/a.— Florida  So.  R.  Co.  v.  Hirst,  30 
Fla.  1,  11  So.  506,  16  L.  R.  A.  631,  32  Am. 
St.   Rep.  17. 

Indiana.— Ohio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hatton, 
60    Ind.    12. 

/owa.— Weber  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  113  Iowa  188,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,    464,    84    N.    W.    1042. 

Maryland.— Baltimore  City  Pass.  R.  Co. 
r.  Wilkinson,  30  Md.   224. 

.l//c7(i\'a;i.— Greenfield  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  Mich.  557,  8  R.  R.  R.  271,  31  Am. 

6  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  271,  95  N.  W.  546. 
r^^.i-dj.— Ellis   V.   Houston,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

30  Te.x.  Civ.  App.  172,  70  S.  W.  114; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stell,  3  R.  R.  R. 
722,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  722. 

West  I'irginia. — Downey  v.  Chesapeake, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  W.  Va.  732. 

Authority  of  conductor. — Every  one  is 
l)Ound  to  know  tliat  a  railway  conductor 
has  no  general  power  to  run  his  train  ex- 
cept in  conformity  to  the  train  rules. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Pierce,  47 
Mich.    277,    11    N.    W.    157. 

Permit  to  ride  on  freight  train. ^.\  pas- 


senger who  knew  it  was  essential  under 
the  rules  of  the  railroad  company,  that,  in 
addition  to  his  ticket,  he  should  have  a 
permit  to  ride  on  a  freight  train,  and  that 
he  must  get  the  permit  before  he  got  on 
the  train,  and  that  the  ticket  agent  had 
no  authority  to  say  he  could  get  it  of  the 
conductor,  can  not,  because  of  such  rep- 
resentation of  the  agent,  recover  for  his 
ejection  by  the  conductor.  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Stell  (Tex.),  3  R.  R.  R.  722,  26 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  722. 

Where  the  railroad  company's  rules  re- 
quired that  a  person  intending  to  be- 
come a  passenger  on  a  freight  train  should 
sign  a  special  permit  to  be  obtained  from 
its  ticket  agent  or  conductor,  the  action 
of  such  agent  in  selling  plaintiff  a  ticket 
that  he  might  ride  on  a  freight  train,  with- 
out mentioning  the  permit,  did  not  create 
an  unconditional  contract  to  carry  plain- 
tiff without  a  permit  and  in  violation  of 
an  established  rule.  Ellis  v.  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  172,  70  S.  W. 
114. 

Agreement  of  conductor  to  stop  at  pas- 
senger's station. — Whore  a  passenger  has 
a  ticket  to  a  certain  station,  and  takes 
passage  upon  a  train  which,  under  the 
regulations  of  the  cafrier.  does  stop  at 
such  station,  the  fac\  that  the  conductor 
takes  up  his  ticket  and  agrees  to  stop  the 
train  at  such  station,  and  let  the  passen- 
ger off  there,  will  not  bind  the  carrier. 
Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Hatton,    i-.O    Tnd.    12. 

Agreement  with  carrier  conflicting  with 
train  rules — Conductor. — .A  conductor  can 
not  be  required  In-  a  passenger  to  deviate 
from  his  train  rules  on  the  latter's  state- 
ment of  an  alleged  agreement  with  the 
companv  conflicting  therewith.  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Pierce.  47  Mich.  277, 
11  X.  W.  157. 


^§  32S-330 


CARRIERS. 


204 


rides  in  a  car,  or  place  or  position  on  a  train  or  car,  with  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  a  regulation  of  the  carrier  prohibiting  passengers  from  riding 
there,  the  fact  that  he  is  there  by  permission  or  invitation  of  the  conductor  or 
other  trainmen  will  not  prevent  his  violation  of  such  rule  from  constituting 
contributory  negligence.'-* 

Riding  in  Dangerous  Place  by  Consent  of  Conductor. — If  a  passenger 
rides  where  he  has  no  right  to  ride  Ijv  the  rules  of  the  railroad  company,  and 
where  no  man  of  ordinary  prudence  would  attempt  to  ride,  the  mere  knowledge 
or  consent  of  the  conductor  or  trainmen  to  his  riding  there  will  not  entitle  him 
to  any  greater  rights  against  the  company  on  account  of  any  injury  received 
by  him  while  so  riding,  than  if  the  conductor  and  trainmen  had  been  wholly 
ignorant  that  he  was  so  riding.^" 

Authority  to  Receive  Other  Property  as  Personal  Baggage. — See  post, 
"Passenger's  Effects."  chai)ter  29. 

§  329.  Contributory  Negligence  of  Passenger  in  Not  Conforming  to 
Rules  and  Regulations. — See  post,  "Contributory  Negligence,"  chapter  24. 

§§  330-332.  Carrier   Bound   by  Its   Own  Rules— §  330.  In   General. 

— W  here  a  regulation  of  the  carrier  is  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  or  for 
the  safety  of  passengers,  a  violation  of  it  by  the  carrier  may  constitute  action- 
able negligence  for  which  a  passenger  may  recover  damages.^ ^ 


9.  Riding  in  wrong  car  by  consent  of 
trainmen. — Florida  So.  k.  Co.  v.  Hirst,  30 
Fla.  1,  11  So.  50G,  16  L.  R.  A.  631,  32  Am. 
St.  Rep.  17;  Greenfield  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  133  Mich.  557,  8  R.  R.  R.  271,  31  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  271,  95  N.  W.  546; 
Downey  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 
W.    \a.   7:52. 

Required  to  ride  in  passenger  cars. — It 
is  the  duty  of  the  conductor  of  a  train 
to  enforce  a  rule  of  the  company  requir- 
ing passengers  to  ride  in  the  passenger 
cars,  but  the  obligation  upon  passengers 
and  the  protection  to  the  company  of  a 
rule  of  this  kind  is  not  dependent  upon 
the  fidelity  of  the  conductor  or  other 
agent  charged  with  the  duty  of  its  en- 
forcement.     Florida   So.    R.    Co.   v.   Hirst, 

30  Fla.   1,   11   So.   506,   16   L.    R.   A.   631,   32 
Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

On  freight  train — Arrangement  with 
conductor. —  Plaintiff  was  not  a  passenger 
on  defendant's  freight  train,  if  he  rode 
thereon  by  an  arrangement  with  the  con- 
ductor contrary  to  a  rule  of  defendant 
known  to  both.  Greenfield  v.  Detroit, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mich.  557,  8  R.  R.  R.  271, 

31  Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S.,    271,    95 
N.  W.  546. 

In  express  car — Consent  of  conductor. 
— It  is  contriijutory  negligence  for  a  pas- 
senger to  ride  in  an  express  car  in  vio- 
lation of  a  known  rule  of  the  carrier,  even 
with  the  permission,  connivance  or  knowl- 
edge of  the  conductor  of  the  train,  or 
without  his  protestation  against  it,  when 
the  conductor  is  cognizant  of  the  rule 
and  of  its  infraction,  if  by  such  violation 
of  the  rule  the  passenger  brings  upon 
himself  injury  from  which  he  would  have 
escaped,  although  the  negligence  of  the 
carrier  produced  the  accident,  had  he  re- 
mained in  the  passenger  car  set  apart,  and 


affording  space,  for  his  accommodation. 
Florida  So.  R.  Co.  v.  Hirst,  30  Fla.  1,  11 
So.  506,  16  L.  R.  A.  631,  32  Am.  St. 
Rep.    17. 

10.  Riding  in  dangerous  place  by  con- 
sent of  conductor. — Downey  v.  Chesa- 
peake,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   28   W.   Va.   732. 

Riding  on  running  board — Authority  of 
conductor. — A  street  car  conductor  can 
not  waive  a  rule  prohibiting  persons  from 
riding  on  the  running  board.  Twiss  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  208  Mass.  108,  40 
R.  R.  R.  566,  63  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  556,  94  N.  E.  253,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
552. 

11.  In  General. — Frizzell  v.  Omaha  St. 
R.  Co.,  59  C.  C.  A.  382,  9  R.  R.  R.  714, 
32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  714,  124 
Fed.  176;  Jennings  v.  Great  Northern  R. 
Co.  (Eng.),  35  L.  J.  Q.  B.  15,  L.  R.  1  Q. 
B.  7,  1  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.,  15;  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Nuzum,  50  Ina.  141,  19  Am. 
Rep.  703;  Foley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co., 
198  Mass.  532,  31  R.  R.  R.  251,  54  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  251,  84  N.  E.  846; 
Sweetland  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  177  Mass. 
574,  .59   X.   K.  443,  51  L.  R.  A.  783. 

Method  of  operation  of  street  cars. — On 
the  trial  of  a  charge  of  negligence  in  the 
operation  of  a  street  car,  a  rule  of  the 
company  which  directs  the  method  of  the 
operation  in  respect  of  which  complaint 
is  made  is  competent  evidence.  Frizzell 
V.  Omaha  St.  R.  Co.,  59  C.  C.  A.  382, 
9  R.  R.  R.  714,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,   714,   124   Fed.    176. 

Excessive  speed  over  frog. — Where  it 
appeared  that  the  rules  of  a  street  rail- 
way company  required  its  cars  to  go  over 
a  certain  frog  at  a  rate  not  exceeding  four 
miles  an  hour,  evidence  that  one  of  its 
cars    about    to    pass    over    this    frog    was 


205 


RULES   AND    REGULATIONS  OF    CARRIERS. 


§§  330-332 


Right  to  Enforce  Rule  against  Passenger.— Where  a  by-law  of  a  rail- 
road company  impuscs  certain  duties  on  passenj^'crs,  and  lays  correlative  duties 
on  the  company,  tlie  company  must  have  strictly  complied  with  the  by-law  to 
entitle  it  to  enforce  it  against  a   passenger.^^ 

Violation  of  Rules  to  Accommodate  Single  Passenger.— Tlie  duty  of 
a  raih'oad  company  to  tlie  public  requires  tlial  u  sliuuld  run  its  trains  accord- 
ing to  its  rules  and  regulations,  without  infringing  upon  them  to  accommodate 
a   single  passenger. ^^ 

§  331.  Rules  Not  Required  by  Law.— And  a  regulation  of  the  carrier, 
made  for  the  protection  of  the  rights,  or  for  the  safety  of  passengers,  may  be 
binding  on  the  carrier,  though  not  required  by  law.^-* 

§  332.  Rules  Requiring  More  of  Carrier  than  Law— It  has  been  held 
that  a  rule  or  regulation  of  a  common  carrier  of  passengers  which  requires  more 
of  it  than  the  law  requires  is  not  binding  upon  it,  and  its  failure  to  conform  to 
it  does  not  constitute  actionable  negligence  for  which  a  passenger  may  recover 
damages. ^^'^  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  where  a  street  car  company,  ac- 
cording to  its  rules,  issues  transfers  from  and  to  certain  lines,  and  the  pas- 
senger presents  a  transfer  which  is  not  honored  by  the  conductor,  and  the  pas- 
senger is  ejected,  it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  the  ejection  that  a  statute 
does  not  require  the  issuance  of  a  transfer  between  the  particular  lines  in 
question.^*' 


running  at  the  rate  of  twelve  or  fifteen 
miles  an  hour  was  held  to  be  evidence  of 
negligence  on  the  part  of  the  company. 
Swcetland  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  177  Mass. 
574.   59   N.    H.   443.   51    L.    R.   A.   783. 

Motorman's  disobedience  of  rules.— 
Disobedience  by  a  motorman  of  rules  es- 
tablished by  the  company  is  want  of  due 
care  on  the  part  of  the  company.  Foley 
7'.  Boston,  etc..  St.  R.  Co..  198  Mass.  532, 
31  R.  R.  R.  251,  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
X.   S.,  231,  S4   N.   E.   84(i. 

Motorman's  opportunity  to  read  rules. 
— And  that  the  motorman  did  not  have 
time  to  read  the  rules  of  the  company, 
where  he  had  been  in  its  service  nearly 
two  weeks  after  having  been  instructed 
for  twelve  days,  is  no  excuse  for  his  not 
complying  with  rules  established  by  the 
carrier  for  the  protection  of  passengers. 
Foley  V.  Boston,  etc.,  St.  R.  Co.,  198  Mass. 
532,  31  R.  R.  R.  251,  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   N.    S.,   251,   84    N.    E.    846. 

12.  Right  to  enforce  rule  against  pas- 
senger.— Jennings  v.  Great  Northern  R. 
Co.  (Eng.),  35  L.  J.  Q.  B..  15  L.  R.,  1  Q. 
B.  7,  1   Ry.   &  C.  T.   Cas.   15. 

13.  Violation  of  rules  to  accommodate 


single  passenger. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co 
V.  Xuzum,  5(1  Jnd.  141,  19  Am.  Rep.  703. 

14.  Arnold  v.  Rhode  Island  Co.  (R.  I.). 
23  R.  R.  R.  414,  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,    414,    66    Atl.    60. 

15.  Fluker  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  81 
Ga.  461,  8  S.  E.  529,  2  L.  R.  A.  843,  12 
Am  St.  Rep.  328;  Summitt  v.  State,  76 
Tenn.  (8  Lea)  413,  41  Am.  Rep.  637;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lampm.an,  18  Wyo. 
106.  34  R.  R.  R.  28.  57  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas..  N.  S.,  28,  104  Pac.  533.  25  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S.,    217,    Ann.    Cas.    1912C,    788. 

Starting  trains — Rules  requiring  too 
high  degree  of  care. — The  failure  of  train- 
men to  comply  with  the  carrier's  rules 
regulating  the  starting  of  trains  at  sta- 
tions, which  rules  require  a  higher  degree 
of  care  for  the  safety  of  the  passeTigers 
than  the  law  requires,  is  not  negligence 
for  which  the  carrier  is  liable.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lampman,  18  Wyo. 
106,  34  R.  R.  R.  28,  57  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  28,  104  Pac.  533,  25  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S..   217,    Ann.    Cas.    1912C,    788. 

16.  Issuance  of  street  car  transfers  not 
required  by  law. — Arnold  v.  Rhode  Island 
Co  (R.  I.),  23  R.  R.  R.  414,  46  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  414,  66  Atl.  60. 


PART  II 
CARRIERS  OF  GOODS 


CHAPTER  W. 

Duty  to  Receive  and  Carry. 

I.  General   Statement   and   Explanation   of   Rule.   §   333. 
II.  Duty    to    Furnish    Sliipping   Facilities   and    Means    of   Transportation,    §§    334-341. 

A.  In  General.  §  334. 

B.  Notice   to   Carrier,   §§   335-338. 

a.  Time  of  Notice,  §  335. 

b.  Requisites  and  Sufficiency  of  Demand,  §  336. 

c.  To  Whom  Given,  §  337. 

d.  Specifying  Condition   and  Danger  of   Goods,   §  338. 

C.  Place  of  Furnishing  Cars,  §  339. 

D.  Goods  Ready  for  Shipment.  §  340. 

E.  Adequacy  of   Facilities,  §   341. 
III.   Discrimination,    §§    342-355. 

A.  Right   to   Discriminate   Generally,   §   342. 

B.  Discrimination  in  Facilities  and  Cars,  §§  343-348. 

a.  In   General,   §   343. 

b.  Dscrimination   in    Favor   of   One    of   Several   Connecting   Carriers,   §   344. 

c.  Preference   in   Delivery   and   Distribution   of  Cars,   §  345. 

d.  With   Respect  to  Use  of  Tracks,  §§  346-347. 

(1)  In   General,  §  346. 

(2)  With   Respect  to  Spur  Tracks,  Switches  and  Belt  Lines,  §  347. 

e.  Discrimination   in    Switch   and  Trackage   Charges.   §   348. 

C.  Preference   to   Shipper   in   Order   of   Forwarding  Goods.   §§   349-350. 

a.  In   General,   §   349. 

b.  Booking  Freight,  §  350. 

D.  Remedies  for  Discrimination,  §§  351-355. 

a.  Form  of  Action,  §§  351-353. 

(1)  Injunction   and    Mandamus.   §    351. 

(2)  Quo   Warranto,   §   352. 
("3)   Action   at    Law,   §   353. 

b.  Evidence,   §   354. 

c.  Damages,   355. 

IV.  Tender   and    Refusal,    §§    356-359. 

A.  In    General,    §    356. 

B.  Authority  to  Tender,  §  357. 

C.  Authority   to    Receive    Freight   and    Make   Contracts.   §   358. 

D.  Place  and   Time   of   OfTer  for  Transportation,   §   359. 
V.  Payment  or  Tender  of  Charges,  §  360. 

VI.  Time  and  Order  of  Shipment,  361. 
VII.  Character   of   Goods  Tendered   for   Shipment.   §   362. 
VIII.  Condition  and   Preparation  of  Goods  Tendered,   §   363. 
IX.  Private    Owned   Trains    or   Cars,    §    364. 

X.   Shipment  C.   O.   D.,   §  365. 
XL  Exceptional  Causes  Justifying  Failure  or  Refusal.  §§  366-374. 

A.  General  Statement,  §  366. 

B.  Absence   of   Requisite   Conveniences   or   Capacity.   §   367. 

C.  Unusual    Press   of    Business,   §§   368-371. 
a.   In  General,  §  368. 


207        ■  DUTY  TO  RECKIVE  AND  CARRY.  §  ^^^ 

b.  Discrimination   or   Granting   Privileges,  §   369. 

c.  Duty  to  Advise  Shipper  of  Delay,  §  370. 

d.  Carriers  "Eniljargo,"  §  371. 

D.  Causes  Beyond  Carrier's  Control,  §  372. 

E.  Failure  of  Shipper  to  Insure,  §  373. 

F.  Customs  and  Habits  of  Dealing,  §  374. 

XII.  Right  to  Discontinue   Service  to  Shipper,  §  375. 
XIII.  Destination  of  Goods  as  Affecting  Duty,  §  37G. 
XIV.  Duty  as  to  Express  Companies,  §  377. 
XV.   Enforcement  of  Duty,  §§  378-379. 

A.  By  Injunction,  §  378. 

B.  By   Mandamus,  §  379. 

XVI.  Action  for  Refusal,  §§  380-382. 

A.  Right  of  Action,  §  380. 

B.  Procedure,  §  381. 

C.  Damages,  §  382. 

XVII.   Penalties  for  Wrongful   Refusal.  §  383. 

§  333.  General  Statement  and  Explanation  of  Rule. — In  America,  ac- 
cording to  the  early  history  of  its  settlement,  the  condition  of  the  country  and 
the  habits  of  the  people,  when  carrying  goods  scarcely  existed  as  a  separate 
business,  it  seems  that  the  common  law,  requiring  a  carrier  to  transport  goods 
at  customary  rates,  or.  upon  refusing,  to  be  held  liable  for  a  breach  of  public 
duty,^  was  never  generally  adopted,  even  within  the  termini  of  the  carrier's  route. - 
It  may  be  that  the  faikire  to  recognize  generally  the  common-law  rule  upon  this 
point,  in  America,  induced  some  of  the  state  legislatures  to  provide  regulations 
for  running  cars,  and  making  railroad  companies  liable  in  case  of  their  refusal 
to  carry  passengers  or  property,  or  to  deliver  the  same  at  the  regular  appointed 
place.'*  The  conditions  which  existed  in  those  early  days  are  of  no  effect  at 
the  present  time  and  the  rule  must  necessarily  be  of  a  different  and  broader 
nature.  The  general  rule  wdiich  exists  today  may  well  be  deduced  from  the 
definition  of  a  "common  carrier."  Thus  it  may  be  well  said  that  the  term 
"common  carrier"  naturally  brings  to  mind    a    general    undertaking,  which  em- 

1.  Common-law  rule. — Where  goods  tie  qualification  to  the  business  of  a  peo- 
are  properly  tendered  to  a  common  car-  pie  whose  occupations  are  vague,  desult- 
rier  for  shipment,  the  common  law  re-  ory,  and  irregular.  In  England,  one  who 
quires  it  to  receive  them.  Alissouri,  etc.,  holds  himself  out  as  a  general  carrier  is 
R.  Co.  V.  Stoner,  5  Te.x.  Civ.  App.  50,  53,  bound  to  take  employment  at  the  current 
23  S.  W.  1020;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  price;  but  it  will  not  be  thought  that  he 
Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  29  S.  W.  565.  is    bound    to    do    so    here.      Nothing    was 

It  is  a  common-law  duty  of  a  common  more    common     formerly,     than     for     the 

carrier    to    receive    freight   whenever    ten-  wagoners  to  lie  by  in   Philadelphia  for  a 

dered.      Reid  v.   Southern    R.    Co.,   153   N.  rise    of   wages.      In    England,    the    obliga- 

C.  490,  69  S.  E.  618.  tion  to  carry  at  request  upon  the  carriers' 

2.  Common-law  rule  not  applied. — Pitts-  particular  route,  is  the  criterion  of  the 
buigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Miirtcn,  (U  Ind.  539,  profession;  but  it  is  certainly  not  so  with 
28  Am.    Rep.   ()S2.  us.     In   Pennsylvania,  we  had  no  carriers 

In    Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Morton,  exclusively  between  particular  places, _be- 

61  Ind.  539,  2S  Am.  Rep.  682,  it  is  said  in  fore  the  establishment  of  our  public  lines 

the   opinion:     "In   the  case   of   Gordon   v.  of    transportation;    and    according    to    the 

Hutchinson,    cited    below,    Chie^    Justice  English    principle   we   could   have   had   no 

Gibson,   of  Pennsylvania,  as  late  as    1841.  carriers,  for  it  was   not  pretended   that  a 

uses  the  following  sensible  remarks:    'But  wagoner  could   be   compelled   to   load   for 

rules  which  have  received  their  form  from  any  part  of  the  continent.'  " 

the   business    of  a   people    whose    occupa-  3.    Indiana. — Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

tions  are  definite,  regular,  and  fixed,  must  Morton,  61  Ind.  539,  28  .\m.  Rep.  682.  685; 

be  applied  with  much  caution  and  no  lit-  1  Indiana  R.  S.  1876,  p.  710,  §  29,  30. 


§  333 


CARRIERS. 


208 


braces  every  one  in  the  community.  To  make  it  particular,  as  an  undertaking 
with  a  single  individual,  it  is  only  necessary  that  he  should  apply,  with  such 
goods  as  the  common  carrier  has  undertaken  to  transport,  in  condition  to  be 
transported,  at  the  place  designated,  to  have  the  goods  carried  on  the  terms  pro- 
posed in  the  undertaking;  then  the  contract  becomes  identical  with  the  person 
thus  applving,  and  it  requires  no  other  special  contract  between  the  parties,  to 
subject  tlie  common  carrier  to  all  legal  liabilities  as  such,  to  the  person  apply- 
ing.-* And  it  follows  that  a  common  carrier  of  goods  is  bound  either  by  statute 
or  under  the  common  law  to  receive  and  carry  all  the  goods  offered  for  trans- 
portation in  his  line  of  business,  when  properly  prepared  for  shipment,  subject 
to  all  the  responsibilities  incident  to  his  employment."'  And  the  rule  may  be 
broadly  stated  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  existence  of  an  exceptional  cause, 
such  as  the  act  of  God,  the  public  enemy,  unavoidable  accident,  or  an  abnormal 
and   unanticipated   inrush   of   business   which    will   prevent   the   performance   of 


4.  Meaning  of  term  "common  carrier." 
—Doty  V.  Strong  (Wis.),  1  Pin.  313,  40 
Am.  Dec.  773. 

5.  Duty  to  receive  and  carry. — New 
Jersey  Steam  Xav.  Co.  v.  Merchants 
Bank  (U.  S.),  G  How.  344,  12  L.  Ed.  465; 
Railroad  Co.  v.  Manufacturing  Co.  (U. 
S.),  16  Wall.  318,  328,  21  L.  Ed.  297;  York 
Co.  V.  Central  Railroad  (U.  S.),  3  Wall. 
107,  112,  18  L.  Ed.  170;  Inman-  v.  South 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  128,  32  L.  Ed. 
612,  9  S.  Ct.  249;  Wabash  R.  Co.  v. 
Pearce,  192  U.  S.  179,  187,  48  L.  Ed.  397, 
24  S.  Ct.  231;  Myrick  v.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  107  U.  S.  102,  106,  27  L.  Ed. 
325,  1  S.  Ct.  425;  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blake,  94  U.  S.  180,  24  L.  Ed.  99;  Pro- 
peller Niagara  v.  Cordes  (U.  S.),  21  How. 
7,  22,  16  L.  Ed.  41;  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  674, 
28  L.  Ed.  291,  4  S.  Ct.  185. 

United  States. — Inman  &  Co.  v.  Sea- 
board, etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Fed.  960. 

Alabama. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice, 
169  Ala.  265,  52  So.  918,  29  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  1214. 

Georgia. — Shelnut  v.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  131  Ga.  404,  62  S.  E.  294,  18  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  494;  Wallace  v.  Matthews,  39  Ga. 
617,  99  Am.  Dec.  473;  Southern  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Rose  Co.,  124  Ga.  581,  53  S.  E.  185,  5  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  619. 

Idaho. — Mcintosh  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 
Co.,  17  Idaho  100,  105  Pac.  66. 

Illinois. — Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18 
111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574. 

Iowa. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Franken- 
berg,  54  111.  88,  5  Am.   Rep.   92. 

Kentucky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Queen  City  Coal  Co.,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  832. 

Ohio. — Waring  &  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893,  7  O.  Dec.  553; 
Samms  v.  Stewart,  20  O.  69,  70,  55  Am. 
Dec.  445;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bing- 
ham, 29  O.  St.  364,  affirmed  in  9  O.  St. 
397. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter, 
9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  29  S.  W.  565;  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Galton,  45  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  67,  100  S.  W.  166. 


He  is,  in  general,  bound  to  take  the 
goods  of  all  who  offer,  unless  his  com- 
plement for  the  trip  is  full,  or  the  goods 
be  of  such  a  kind  as  to  be  liable  to  extra- 
ordinary danger,  or  such  as  he  is  unac- 
customed to  convey.  Propeller  Niagara 
V.  Cordes  (U.  S.),  21  How.  7,  22,  16  L. 
Ed.  41. 

A  railroad  company  is  a  carrier  of 
goods  for  the  public,  and,  as  such,  is 
bound  to  carry  safely  whatever  goods  are 
intrusted  to  it  for  transportation,  within 
the  course  of  its  business,  to  the  end  of 
its  route,  and  there  deposit  them  in  a  suit- 
able place  for  their  owners  or  consign- 
ees. Myrick  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
107  U.  S.  102,  106,  27  L.  Ed.  325,  1  S.  Ct. 
425. 

The  Winona  and  St.  Peter  Railroad 
Company,  having  been  incorporated  as  a 
common  carrier,  with  all  the  rights  and 
subject  to  all  the  obligations  which  that 
term  implies,  was  bound  to  carry,  when 
called  upon  for  that  purpose,  and  charge 
only  a  reasonable  compensation  therefor. 
Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S. 
180,  24  L.   Ed.  99. 

A  railroad  company  is  bound  to  re- 
ceive and  carry  any  freight  properly  ten- 
dered to  it.  Memphis  News  Pub.  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  110  Tenn.  684,  75  S.  W. 
941,  63  L.   R.  A.  150. 

Under  Rev.  St.,  art.  4227,  providing  that 
in  case  of  refusal  by  a  common  carrier 
"to  take  and  transport  any  passenger  or 
property,  or  to  deliver  the  same,  or  ei- 
ther of  them,  at  the  regular  or  appointed 
time,  such  corporation  shall  pay  to  the 
party  aggrieved  all  damages  which  shall 
be  sustained  thereby,  with  costs  of  suit," 
a  carrier  is  liable  for  receiving  the  goods 
of  one  shipper  after  rejecting  those  of  a 
prior  applicant.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
421. 

Common  carrieis  are  liable  for  refus- 
ing to  transport  goods,  in  condition  to  be 
transported,  and  delivered  at  the  place 
designated  for  receiving  them.  Doty  v. 
Strong  (Wis.),  1  Pin.  313,  40  Am.  Dec. 
773. 


209 


DUTY   TO    RECEIVK   AND   CARRY, 


§    333 


its  common-law  duty  to  shiiJi^ers,  a  common  carrier  has  no  right  to  refuse  to 
receive  and  transport  property  offered  for  sliipment,  where  sucli  property  is  in 
good  condition  and  properly  prepared  for  shipment,  and  belongs  to  a  class  of 
property  subject  to  carriage  by  such  carrier.'' 

Duty  Not  Dependent  upon  Contract. — The  duty  of  common  carriers  with 
respect  to  the  transpurlatiun  of  property  is  a  duty  independent  of  contract, 
arising  by  implication  of  law  from  the  fact  that  property  is  received  in  the 
course  of  business  of  such  employment."  It  is  not  necessary  to  prove  any 
special  undertaking,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  refusing  to  carry  goods. ^ 
But  this  duty  may  arise  either  ujion  his  common-law  obligation  to  that  effect 
or  upon  some  express  contract  made  by  him  in  that  behalf.'-^  And  in  this  con- 
nection it  is  held  that  the  true  test  as  to  whether  a  party  is  a  common  carrier 
or  not  is  his  legal  duty  and  obligation  with  reference  to  transportation.  If  it 
is  optional  with  him  whether  he  will  carry  or  not,  he  is  a  private  carrier;  if 
he   must   carry    for  all,   he   is   a   common   carrier.^*^ 

Carriers  Public  Institutions. — As  a  general  rule,  the  law  makes  all  rail- 
ways public  highwa}s,  open  to  the  use  of  all  persons  for  the  transportation  of 
their  presons  or  property,  under  such  regulations  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law, 
and  it  is  apprehended  it  is  unlawful  to  make  any  discrimination  as  to  the  prop- 
erty offered  to  be  carried,  or  as  to  whether  it  belongs  to  a  private  person  or  to 
a  corporation.  If  it  is  such  property  as  is  capable  of  being  carried  with  the 
means  ordinarily  employed  by  such  carriers,  the  obligation  is  imperative,  and 
the  carrier  must  receive  the  property  and  carry  it  with  safety,  in  the  way  such 
property  is  usually  carried.^ ^  By  accepting  a  grant  of  corporate  power  from 
the  state,  a  common  carrier,  such  as  a  railroad,  binds  itself  to  do  and  perform 
certain  things  conducive  to  the  public  welfare.  These  things  consist  principally 
in  the  dutv  to  carry  and  transport  persons  and  property  from  one  point  on  its 
road  to  another  under  reasonable  rules  and  regulations. i-     A  railroad  company, 


6.  Brown  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  IS 
Mo.  App.  568;  Potts  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  17  Mo.  App.  394;  Hance  v.  Pacific 
Exp.  Co.,  48  Mo.  App.  179;  Knight  v. 
Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mo.  App.  311,  96 
S.  W.  716,  720.  See  post,  "Exceptional 
Causes." 

Where,  at  the  time  plaintiff  offered  an 
animal  to  a  carrier  for  transportation, 
conditions  \\  v.*re  such,  owing  to  the  delay 
of  a  train,  that  the  animal,  if  shipped, 
would  be  detained  a  whole  day  at  a  cer- 
tain point,  of  which  plaintiff  was  in- 
formed, conceding  that  the  cause  of  the 
delay  which  the  shipment  would  have  en- 
countered was  unavoidable,  the  carrier 
was  liable  for  refusing  to  transport  the 
animal  unless  it  should  be  accompanied 
by  a  caretaker,  or  the  shipper  should  sign 
a  release  for  all  damages  and  liabilities. 
Under  the  circumstances  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  carrier  to  receive  the  shipment,  and 
to  exercise  reasonable  care  to  supply  the 
animal's  wants  in  case  it  required  food 
and  water  during  detention.  Kniglit  v. 
Quincv.  etc..  R.  Co.,  120  Mo.  App.  311.  96 
S.  W.  716. 

7.  Duty  arises  independent  of  contract. 
— Johnson  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
90  Ga.  810.  17  S.  E.  121;  Delaware,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Trautwein,  52  N.  J.  L.  169,  19. 
Atl.  178,  7  L.  R.  A.  435,  41  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  187,  19  Am.  St.  Rep.  442;  Adams 
Exp.    Co.   V.    Nock    (Ky.),   2   Duv.   562.   87 

1  Car— 14 


Am.  Dec.  510;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Webb,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  431,  438,  49  S. 
W.   526. 

8.  Special  contract  unnecessary. — Doty 
V.  Strong  (Wis.),  1  Pin.  313,  40  Am.  Dec. 
773. 

9.  Either  by  law  or  contract. — Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  20  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   431,    43S,    19    S.   W.    526. 

10.  Who  are  common  carriers. — -Pied- 
mont Mfg.  Co.  V.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194.  19  S.  C.  353; 
Schloss  V.  Wood,  11  Colo.  287,  17  Pac. 
910;  Xugent  v.  Smith,  1  C.  P.  Div.  27; 
Pennewill  v.  Cullen  (Del),  5  Har.  238; 
Mershon  v.  Hobensack,  22  N.  J.  L.  372, 
affirmed  in  23  N.  J.  L.  580;  Herring  v. 
Utlev,  53  N.  Car.  270;  Spears  v.  Lake, 
etc., 'R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  67  Barb.  513;  Harlan 
V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  19  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
235;  Russell  v.  Livingston  (N.  Y.),  19 
Barb.  343;  Elkins  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
23  N.  H.  275;  Fuller  v.  Bradley,  25  Pa. 
120. 

11.  Carriers,  public  institutions. — Peo- 
ria, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
109  111.  135,  50  Am.  Rep.  605,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  506;  Powers  v.  Inferior 
Court,  23   Ga.  65. 

12.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i\  Bingham, 
29  O.   St.  364,  affirmed  in  9  O.  St.  397. 

"The  obligation  to  carry,  thus  assumed, 
can  not  be  disregarded  or  rejected  at 
pleasure.      It    is    an    indispensable    condi- 


§  333 


CARRIERS. 


210 


as  a  common  carrier,  can  not  refuse  to  receive  and  carry  freiglit  provided  it 
has  expressly  or  impliedly  offered  to  carry  such  freight  if  there  is  a  proper 
offer  to  pay  freight  charges,  and  no  reasonable  excuse  for  refusing  trans- 
portation. ^^     It  is  generally  held  to  be  the  duty  of  a  railroad,  subject  to  such 


tion  to  the  right  to  exercise  corporate 
functions.  The  dutj-  to  carry  is  correl- 
ative to  the  existence  of  the  corporate 
power  of  the  company,  and  ceases  only 
with  a  surrender  of  its  corporate  privi- 
leges. It  is,  therefore,  a  right  that  the 
public  have  to  enter  upon  the  premises  of 
the  companj-  at  points  designed  or  desig- 
nated for  receiving  passengers,  and  upon 
compliance  with  the  rules  governing  the 
transportation  of  persons  to  be  carried 
over  its  road  to  such  points  thereon  as 
they  may  desire.  The  right  of  the  pub- 
lic to  enter  is  coextensive  with  the  duty 
of  the  company  to  receive  and  carry." 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bingham,  29 
O.  St.  364.  affirmed  in  9  O.   St.  397. 

"Transportation  by  a  common  carrier 
is  necessarily  open  to  the  public  upon 
equal  and  reasonable  terms.  An  exclu- 
sive right  granted  to  one  is  inconsistent 
with  the  rights  of  all  others."  Memphis 
News  Pub.  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  110 
Tenn.  684.  75   S.  W.  941,  63  L.   R.   A.   150. 

Railroad  companies  can  not,  as  other 
carriers,  relieve  themselves  from  their 
obligation  to  carry  any  property  which 
they  are  adapted  to  transport.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Harris,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas..  §  1257. 

Doing  business  with  rival  company.— 
One  railroad  company  is  not  justified  in 
disconnecting  a  switch  leading  to  a  coal 
mine,  and  refusing  to  permit  the  owners 
of  the  coal  mine  to  ship  coal  over  its  road 
because  such  owners  also  ship  coal  from 
the  same  mine  over  the  road  of  another 
railroad  company  which  is  also  con- 
nected with  the  mine  by  a  switch.  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Suffern.  129  111.  274, 
38  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  508.  21   N.  E.  824. 

13.  Rule  applied  to  railroads. — United 
States. — Hannil)al,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z>.  Swift, 
12  Wall.  262.  20  L.  Ed.  423;  Jencks  v.  Cole- 
man, Fed.  Cas.  No.  7258,  2  Sumn.  221; 
New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  6  How.  344,  12  L.  Ed.  465; 
Pearson  v.  Duane,  4  Wall.  605,  18  L.  Ed. 
447;  Saltonstall  v.  Stockton,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12271,  Taney  11,  affirmed  in  13  Pet.  181, 
20  L.  Ed.  115;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  Myers  Fed.  Dec,  § 
1511;  Johnson  v.  Three  Hundred  and 
Eighteen  and  One-Half  Tons  of  Coal, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,010,  14  Blatchf.  45:;.  44 
Conn.  548. 

Alabama. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Prew- 
itt,  46  Ala.  63,  7  Am.  Rep.  586;  Selma, 
etc.,  R.  Cr.  v.  Butts,  43  Ala.  385,  94  Am. 
Dec.  694;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein, 
52  Ala.  606,  23  Am.  Rep.  578;  Southwest- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  48  Ala.  585. 

California. — Pfister  v.  Central  Pac.  R. 
Co.,   70   Cal.    169,   11    Pac.    686,   27   Am.    & 


Eng.  R.  Cas.  246,  59  Am.  Rep.  404;  Tar- 
ludi  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  34  Cal.  616; 
Wheeler  v.  San  Francisco,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
31*  Cal.    46,    89    Am.    Dec.    147. 

Connecticut. — Fuller  v.  Naugatuck  R. 
Co.,   21   Conn.   557. 

Dakota. — Waldron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    1    Dak.   351,   46   N.   W.   456. 

Georgia. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lo- 
gan, 77  Ga.  804,  2  S.  E.  465;  Falvey  v. 
Georgia  Railroad,  76  Ga.  597,  2  Am.  St. 
Rep.    58. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Suf- 
fern, 129  111.  274,  21  N.  E.  824,  affirming 
27  111.  App.  404;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bryan,  90  111.  126;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Gasaway,  71  111.  570;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Thompson,  19  111.  578;  Galena, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rae,  18  111.  488,  68  Am. 
Dec.  574;  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yar- 
wood,  15  111.  468;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  111.  135,  50  Am. 
Rep.  605,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  506; 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dorman,  72  111. 
504;  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pence,  68  111. 
524;  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Black,  11 
111.   App.   465. 

Indiana. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wol- 
cott,  141  Ind.  267,  39  N.  E.  451,  50  Am. 
St.  Rep.  320;  Fitzgerald  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  24  Ind.  447,  87  Am.  Dec.  341;  In- 
dianapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rinard,  46  Ind. 
293;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flanagan, 
113  Ind.  488,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  674,  32  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  532;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Godman,  104  Ind.  490,  4  N.  E. 
163;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61    Ind.    539,   28    Am.    Rep.    682. 

lozva. — Cobb,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  38  Iowa  601;  State  v.  Chovin,  7 
Iowa  204. 

Kentuckx.  —  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Queen  Ci'ty  Coal  Co.,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
832;  Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
cer, 96  Ky.  475,  29  S.  W.  301,  61  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  340,  16  Ky.  L.  Rep.  555; 
Winnegar  v.  Central  Pass.  R.  Co.,  85  Ky. 
547,  9   Ky.   L.   Rep.   156,  4  S.  W.   237. 

Maine. — Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Portland, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  63  Me.  269,  18  Am.  Rep.  208. 

Maryland. — Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lehman,  56  Md.  209,  40  Am.  Rep.  415,  6 
Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   194. 

Massachusetts. — Jordon  v.  Fall  River 
R.  Co.,  5  Cush.  (Mass.)  69,  51  Am.  Dec. 
44;  Thomas  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  10 
Mete.  472,  43  Am.  Dec.  444. 

Michigan. — American  Merchants'  Un- 
ion Exp.  Co.  V.  Phillips,  29  Mich.  515; 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  25 
Mich.  329,  12  Am.  Rep.  275;  Michigan, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McDonough,  21  Mich.  165. 

Mississippi.  —  Southern     Exp.     Co.     v. 


211 


DUTY   TO   RECEIVE   AND    CARRY 


§    333 


reasonable   rules   as   may  be  adopted    in    llie    transaction   of   its   business  as  a 
common  carrier,   to   receive   and   transport  goods  to  the  terminus  of   its   line/"* 


Moon,  39  Miss.  822;  Vicksburg,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  G8  Miss.  149, 
8    So.    332. 

Missouri. — Birney  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  470;  Ballentine  v.  North 
Missouri  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  491,  93  Am.  Dec. 
315;  White  z:  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19 
Mo.  App.   400. 

.Xczi'  Jlamf^sliirc. — Bennett  v.  Dutton,  10 
N.   H.  481. 

Nczv  Jcrscv. — Atwater  v.  Delaware,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  48  N.  J.  L.  55,  57  Am.  Rep.  543, 
2  Atl.  803;  Mershon  v.  Hobensack,  22 
N.  J.  L.  372,  affirmed  in  23  N.  J.  L.  580; 
Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N. 
J.  L.  531,  18  Am.  Rep.  754"  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ball,  53  N.  J.  L.  283,  21 
Atl.  1052;  Rogers  Locomotive,  etc., 
Works  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  379. 

Xezv  York. — Atlantic  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
McLoon,  48  Barb.  27;  Beekman  v.  Sara- 
toga, etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Paige  45,  22  Am.  Dec. 
679;  Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Burke, 
13  Wend.  611,  28  Am.  Dec.  488;  Carroll 
V.  Staten  Island  R.  Co.,  58  N.  Y.  126,  17 
Am.  Rep.  221;  Fish  v.  Clark,  2  Lans. 
176,  atifirmed  in  49  N.  Y.  122;  Grund  v. 
Pendcrgast,  58  Barb.  216;  Hastings  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Hun.  638,  6 
N.  Y.  S.  836.  25  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  249,  3 
Silvernail  422;  Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc., 
Transp.  Co.,  2  Daly  454;  People  v.  Bab- 
cock,  16  Hun  313;  People  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1,  28 
Hun  543,  3  Civ.  Proc.  R.  11,  2  McCarty 
Civ.  Proc.  345;  S.  C.  R.  Co.  22  Hun  533; 
Tierney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  N. 
Y.  305,  67  Barb.  538.  affirming  10  Hun  569. 
Xortli    Carolina. — Harrell    v.    Owens,    18 

N.    C.   273;  V.   Jackson,    1    Hayw.    14. 

0/n'o.— Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Bar- 
tram,  11  O.  St.  457;  Welsh  v.  Pittsburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  O.  St.  65,  75  Am.  Dec. 
490. 

Oregon. — Honeyman  v.,  Oregon,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  13  Ore.  352,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
380,  10  Pac.  628,  57  Am.  Rep.  20;  Thomp- 
son-Houston Elect.  Co.  V.  Simon,  20  Ore. 
60,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  86,  47  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  51. 

Pciinsvlz'ania.  —  Eagle  v.  White,  6 
Whart.  "505,    37    Am.    Dec.    434. 

South  Carolina. — Avinger  v.  South  Car- 
olina R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  265,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
716,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519,  7  S.  E. 
493:  Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  19  S.  C.  353,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   194. 

Tennessee. — East  Tennessee,  etc..  Rail- 
road z:  Nelson,  41  Tenn.  (1  Coldw.)  272. 
Texas.— GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume,  87 
Tex.  211,  27  S.  W.  110;  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  421;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nich- 
olson, 61  Tex.  491. 

J'erniont. — Jones  v.  Western  Yermont 
R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  399,  65  Am.  Dec.  206;  Kim- 


ball V.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Vt.  247, 
62  Am.  Dec.  567;  Noyes  &  Co.  v.  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Vt.  110;  Wilder  v. 
St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Vt.  636, 
30  Atl.  41. 

I'irginia. — Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Gal- 
liher,  89  Va.  639,  16  S.   E.  935. 

iriseo)isin. — Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  71  Wis.  372,  37  N.  W.  432,  5  Am. 
St.  Rep.  226;  Doty  v.  Strong,  1  Pin.  313, 
40  Am.  Dec.  773;  Lawrence  v.  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Wis.  427,  54  N.  W.  797; 
Leonard  v.  Whitcomb,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  520. 

England. — Austin  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B.  442;  Bretherton  v. 
Wood,  3  Brod.  &  B.  54,  7  E.  C.  L.  345; 
Crouch  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  11 
Exch.  742,  34  Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  573;  Crouch 
V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  C.  B.  255,  78 
E.  C.  L.  255.  23  L.  J.  C.  P.  73;  Dickson 
V.  Gt.  Northern  Ry.  Co.,  18  Q.  B.  Div. 
176;    Garton    v.    Bristol,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    1 

B.  &  S.  112,  101  E.  C.  L.  112,  7  Jur.,  N. 
S.,  1234,  9  W.  R.  734;  Jackson  v.  Rogers, 
2  Show.  327;  Johnson  v.  Midland  R.  Co., 
6  Railw.  Cas.  61.  1  Ry.  &  C.  Y.  Cas. 
16;  Lane  v.  Cotton,  2  Mod.  472;  Mor- 
ton    V.  Tibbett,     15    Q.     B.    428,      69      E. 

C.  L.  428;  Oxlade  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co., 
9  W.  R.  272,  3  L.  T.  671;  Oxlade  v.  North- 
eastern R.  Co.,  15  C.  B.,  N.  S..  680,  109 
E.  C.  L.  680;  Palmer  v.  Grand  Junction 
R.  Co.,  4  M.  &  W.  749;  Pegler  v.  Mon- 
mouthshire R.,  etc.,  Co..  6  H.  &  N.  644, 
39  L.  J.  Exch.  249;  Richards  v.  London, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  C.  B.  839,  62  E.  C.  L.  839, 
18  L.  J.  C.  P.  251;  Thomas  v.  North  Staf- 
fordshire R.  Co.,  3  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  1; 
Williams  v.  Great  W^estern  R.  Co.,  52  L. 
T.    250,   49   J.    P.   439. 

Canada. — Greene  v.  St.  John,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  22  New  Bruns.  252. 

A  railroad  is  a  common  carrier,  and, 
as  such,  is  bound  to  carry  for  all  persons 
all  goods  offered  for  transportation  by 
any  person  whatever.  Avinger  v.  South 
Carolina  R.  Co..  29  S.  Car.  265.  7  S.  E. 
493.  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  716,  35  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   519. 

A  railroad  must  carry  any  kind  of 
property  which  it  is  adapted  to  carry  and 
which  it  has  impliedly  or  expressly  of- 
fered to  carrv  for  the  public.  Herring 
V.  Utley.  .^3   N.  Car.  270. 

14.  Subject  to  reasonable  rules.^.Vr- 
braska. — Fremont,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Waters, 
50    Neb.    592.   70    N.    W.    225. 

A  railway  company  is  bound  to  accept 
goods  for  carriage  to  a  place  beyond  the 
confines  of  England  if  it  holds  itself  out 
as  a  carrier  to  such  place,  and  is  subject 
to  the  common-law  liability  of  a  carrier 
for  hire.  Crouch  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R. 
Co..  14  C.  B.  255.  7  Railw.  Cas.  717.  2 
C.  L.  R.  188.  IS  Jur.  14S.  23  L.  J.  C.  P.  73. 


§  333 


CARRIERS. 


212 


and  it  is  held  that  no  special  contract  is  necessary  as  common  carriers  are 
bound  to  receive  and  carry  for  any  person  who  tenders  freight  at  the  proper 
place  and  in  the  proper  condition,  the  law  implying  the  contract. ^^  So  it  is 
held  that  a  railroad  company  can  not  lawfully  carry  for  one  person  and  refuse, 
without  a  sufficient  excuse,  to  carry  for  another,  even  though  it  had  the  right 
to  refuse  to  carry  for  the  first.^"  A  contract  between  a  railroad  company  and 
certain  other  persons  giving  such  person  the  exclusive  right  to  ship  particular 
kinds  of  goods  over  the  railroad  has  been  held  void.^" 

Carrier  Not  a  Public  Institution. — A  carrier,  not  a  public  institution,  may 
select  the  character  of  the  goods  it  proposes  to  carry  or  discontinue  to  carry 
a  particular  class. ^'^ 

Effort  to  Stifle  Competition. — A  railroad  company  is  not  justified  in  re- 
fusing to  permit  the  owners  of  a  coal  mine  to  ship  coal  over  its  road  because 
such  owners  also  ship  coal  from  the  same  mine  over  the  road  of  another  rail- 
road company.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  railroad  company  to  carry  any  freight  that 
is  offered,  provided  its  legal  charges  for  such  carriage  are  paid.  It  can  not 
take  the  position  that  it  will  not  carry  coal  from  the  mine  upon  the  line  of  its 
road  unless  it  is  allowed  to  carry  all  the  coal  from  such  mine.  It  is  for  the 
interest  of  the  public  that  there  should  be  full  and  fare  competition  between 
the  different  railroad  companies  operating  their  lines  in  the  state.  Serious  in- 
jury will  result  to  the  business  interests  of  the  country  if  shippers  can  be  com- 
pelled by  arbitrary  measures  to  patronize  one  railroad  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others.  No  monopolies  would  be  more  odious  than  those  which  would  result 
from  the  adoption  of  such  a  policy. ^'^ 

Reason  for  Existence  of  Rule. — Railway  companies  have  delegated  to 
them,  as  part  of  their  franchises,  much  of  the  sovereign  power  of  the  state, 
in  consideration  of  their  providing  the  means  of  commerce  and  intercourse  by 
constructing  the  roads  which  are  the  avenues  of  that  commerce,  and  perform- 
ing the  additional  duty  of  common  carriers  when  authorized;  and  if  so  author- 
ized they  are  obliged  to  transport  all  merchandise  and  passengers  on  the  terms 
fixed  in  the  grant  through  which  they  obtained  their  franchises. 2*^     The  privi- 

15.  Special  contract  unnecessary.  —  20  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  867,  127  Am.  St.  Rep. 
Doty    V.    Strong    (Wis.),    1    Pin.    313,    40       2G5,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1044. 

Am.   Dec.   773.  19.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Suffern,  129 

Public  carriers  are  bound  to  carry  arti-  111.  274.  21  N.  E.  824. 

cles  within  their  scope  of  business,  with-  20.  Reason  for  existence  of  rule.— Rog- 

out  any  other  contract  than  such  as  the  ers    Locomotive,    etc.,   Works    v.    Erie    R. 

law    would    imply.      Adams    Exp.    Co.    v.  Co.,   20   N.   J.    Eq.   379. 

Nock  (Ky.),  2  Duv.  502,  87  Am.  Dec.  510.  Railroads,    as    public   highways,    created 

16.  Must  carry  for  all  alike. — Butchers',  for  public  use  and  subject  to  state  juris- 
etc,  Stock-Yards  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  diction,  are  handed  over  exclusively  to 
R.    Co.,   14   C.    C.   A.   290,   07    Fed.   35.  corporate    management    and    control,    be- 

17.  Exclusive  right  to  ship. — A  contract  cause  it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
between  a  railroad  company  operating  a  public  that  their  functions  should  l)e  per- 
railroad  in  New  Jersey,  under  acts  of  the  formed  for  the  state,  as  public  trusts  by 
legislature  of  that  state,  and  certain  indi-  corporate  bodies;  and  the  acceptance _  of 
viduals,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  give  the  such  trusts  on  the  part  of  the  corporation 
latter  the  exclusive  right  of  transporting  makes  it  the  agency  of  the  state,  whereby 
certain  kinds  of  freight  over  their  rail-  it  contracts  to  accept  the  duty  of  carrying 
road,  is  void  from  considerations  of  pub-  all  persons  and  property,  within  the  scope 
lie  policy,  and  will  not  be  enforced  by  the  of  its  charter,  as  a  public  trust.  The  ex- 
courts  of  New  Jersey,  notwithstanding  it  elusive  enjoyment  of  use  to  the  corpora- 
has  been  recognized  as  valid  by  the  courts  tion  imposes  the  corporate  duty  to  fur- 
of  another  state.  Union  Locomotive,  etc.,  nish  every  requisite  facility  for  carrying 
Co.  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  23;  Mes-  passengers  and  freight,  and  to  carry  both 
senger  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  in  such  manner  and  at  such  times  as  the 
L.  531,  18  Am.  Rep.  754.  See  post,  "Dis-  public  needs  may  require.  People  v.  New 
crimination,"   §§   342-355.  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (N.  Y.),  9  Am.   &  Eng. 

18.  Carrier,  not  public  institution.—  R.  Cas.  1,  28  Hun  543,  3  Civ.  Proc.  R.  11, 
Ocean,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Savannah   Locomotive,       2   McCarty   Civ.    Proc.   345. 

etc.,  Supply  Co.,  131  Ga.  831,  63  S.  E.  577,  "Although  a  railroad  company  is  a  pri- 


213 


DUTY   TO   RECEIVE   AND   CARRY. 


§    333 


lege  of  making  a  road  and  taking  tolls  thereon  is  a  franchise,  as  much  as  the 
estabhshment  of  a  ferry  or  a  public  wharf  and  taking  tolls  for  the  use  of  the 
same.  The  public  have  an  interest  in  tiie  use  of  the  railroad,  and  the  owners 
may  be  prosecuted  for  the  damage  sustained,  if  they  should  refuse  to  transport 
an  individual,  or  his  property,  without  any  reasonable  excuse,  upon  being  paid 
the  usual  rate  of  farc.-^ 

Receiver  of  Carrier. — The  receiver  of  a  railroad  company  who  controls  its 
oi)cration  is  no  less  a  common  carrier  because  the  property  of  the  road  is  in 
the  custody  of  the  court,  and  as  such  carrier  he  is  obliged  to  receive  and  trans- 
port cars  and  freight,  and  to  furnish  accommodations  to  connecting  lines,  to 
the  same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as  are  the  proper  officers  of  other 
railroad   c()m])aiiics.-- 

Freight  from  Connecting  Lines.— See  post,  "Connecting  Carriers,"'  part 
V;  "Interstate  and  International  Commerce,"  part  \'I. 

Limiting  Duty. — A  carrier  can  not  relieve  itself  from  its  duty  to  receive 
and  carry  by  unreasonable  regulations.-'^  Hence  it  is  held  that  a  common  car- 
rier has  no  right  to  refuse  to  receive  and  transport  goods  because  the  shipper 
will  not  assent  to  a  special  contract  of  shipment  which  limits  his  common-law 
responsibility.--*     Again  it  is  held  that  in  the  absence  of  any  statute,  the  court 


vate  corporation  in  one  sense  of  the  term, 
it  is  one  in  which  the  public  have  a  very 
great  interest,  and  the  paramount  object 
of  the  legislature  in  creating  such  a  cor- 
poration is  the  interest  of  the  public.  It 
is  upon  the  ground  that  such  companies 
are  incorporated  for  public  use  that  the 
power  given  to  them  to  take  private  prop- 
erty for  the  construction  of  their  roads 
against  the  will  of  the  owners  has  been 
sustained.  The  legislature  possesses  no 
constitutional  power  to  authorize  the 
seizure  of  private  property  for  private 
purposes,  even  on  giving  just  compensa- 
tion. The  power  of  the  legislature  to 
authorize  mvmicipal  officers  to  ta.x  the 
people  of  cities,  boroughs,  and  counties 
for  the  payment  of  sul)scriptions  to  rail- 
road corporations  has  been  sustained,  on 
the  ground  that  'a  railroad  is  a  public 
highway  for  the  public  benefit.'  Sharp- 
less  V.  Philadelphia,  21  Pa.  147,  59  Am. 
Dec.  759,  2  Am.  L.  Reg.,  O.  S.,  27.  The 
nature  of  this  peculiar  and  improved  class 
of  highways  makes  it  indispensable  to 
the  public  safety  that  the  transportation 
on  it  should  be  placed  under  the  strict 
regulation  of  one  controlling  head.  This 
necessity  has  led  to  the  usual  grant  of 
power  to  provide  cars,  locomotives,  and 
to  embark  in  the  business  of  transporta- 
tion of  freight  and  passengers.  When 
this  power  is  assumed,  the  company  be- 
comes a  common  carrier,  and  thus  exer- 
cises a  sort  of  public  office,  and  has  public 
duties  to  perform.  It  is  bound  to  receive 
and  carrj'  all  the  goods  oflfered  for  trans- 
portation, and  is  liable  to  an  action  in 
case  of  refusal  without  sufficient  cause. 
New  Jersey  Steam  Navigation  Company 
7'.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How.  382.  Even 
lateral  railroads,  established  by  law  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  the  proprietors  to 
convey  their  minerals  to  the  public  thor- 
oughfares, may  be  used  by  the  public  gen- 
erally on  payment  of  the  established  rates 


of  toll.  Act  of  May  5,  1832."  Lewis,  C. 
J.,  in  Sandford  v.  Catawissa,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
24   Pa.   37S.  r,4  Am.    Dec.   Ml.   669. 

21.  Privilege  of  taking  tolls.— Beekman 
V.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (X.  Y.),  3  Paige 
45,  22  .Am.   Dec.   679. 

22.  Receiver  of  road.— Beers  v.  Wabash, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  244,  35  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  646. 

23.  Rules  limiting  duty. — Johnson  v. 
Three  Hundred  and  Eighteen  and  One- 
Half  Tons  of  Coal,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,010, 
14  Blatchf.  453,  44  Conn.  54S;  Seasongood 
z:  Tennessee,  etc.,  Transp.  21  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1142,  54  S.  W.  193,  49  L.  R.  A.  270;  Alsop 
v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  104  N.  C.  278,  40 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1:  10  S.  E.  297,  6  L. 
R.  A.  271;  Carton  z:  Bristol,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
B.  &  S.  112,  101  E.  C.  L.  112,  7  Jur..  N.  S., 
234.  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  273;  Missouri  Pac.  Co. 
z:  Fagan,  72  Tex.  127,  9  S.  W.  749.  2  L.  R. 

A.  75,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  776;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  v.  Moon,  39  Miss.  822.  See 
ante,  "Rules  and  Regulations  of  Carriers," 
chapter  3. 

24.  Requiring  shipper  to  waive  rights. 
— Southern  Exp.  Co.  r.  Moon,  39  Miss. 
822;  Carton  z:  Bristol  &  E.  R.  Co.,  1  B. 
&  S.    112,   7   Jur.,   N.    S.,    1234,   30   L.   J.    Q. 

B.  273,  9  W.  R.  734.  See  Mcintosh  v. 
Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co..  17  Idaho  100,  105 
Pac.  66. 

A  shipper  can  not  be  required  to  waive 
any  of  his  right  as  a  condition  precedent 
to  the  carrier's  acceptance  of  the  freight 
for  transportation.  Missouri  Pac.  Co.  v. 
Fagan,  72  Tex.  127,  9  S.  W.  749,  2  L.  R. 
A.   75,   13   Am.   St.    Rep.   776. 

Carriers  can  not  refuse  to  receive  prop- 
erty for  transportation,  unless  the  con- 
signor will  agree  to  enter  into  a  special 
contract  therefor.  McMillan  z'.  Michigan, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  16  Mich.  79,  93  .\m.  Dec. 
20S:  HeflFron  z:  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 
Mich.  131;  King  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
16   Mich.    132. 


§    000 


CARRIERS. 


214 


can  not  hold  a  regulation  requiring  the  shipper  of  money  to  retain  it  over  nigh^ 
at  his  own  risk  to  be  reasonable,  where  it  is  made  the  duty  of  express  com- 
panies to  provide  safe  places  for  valuables  received. -"^  x\  regulation  of  a  rail- 
road company  that  owns  a  dock,  that  it  will  not  receive  coal  from  vessels  land- 
ing at  the  dock  unless  the  owners  will  employ  persons  in  moving  it,  designated 
by  the  company,  and  at  wages  fixed  by  it,  which  are  at  the  ordinary  price,  is 
unreasonable,  and  will  not  be  enforced.-"  And  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact 
that  competing  carriers  have  made  an  agreement  that  neither  will  accept  freight 
not  destined  to  certain  points  within  specified  limits,  will  not  excuse  one  of 
them  for  refusal  to  receive  freight  destined  for  points  within  the  other's  ter- 
ritory as  set  apart  in  such  contract.-'  But  such  rules  do  not  apply  where  the 
carrier  becomes  a  special  or  private  bailee  by  special  contract,  of  goods  he  is 
not   otherwise  compelled   to   transport. -- 

Common  Carrier  Becoming  Special  Bailee. — There  is  no  doubt  but  what 
a  common  carrier  may  become  a  private  carrier  or  a  bailee  for  hire,  when,  as 
a  matter  of  special  engagement,  he  undertakes  to  carry  something  which  it  is 
not  his  business  to  carry.  In  such  cases  the  relation  is  changed  from  that  of 
a  common  carrier  to  that  of  a  private  carrier,  and  the  carrier  is  not  liable  as  a 
common  carrier,  and  can  not  be  proceeded  against  as  such.-'^  A  vast  difference 
exists  in  the  powers  and  duties  of  public,  or  common  carriers,  and  private  car- 
riers. A  common  carrier  is  one  who  hold  himself  out  in  common,  that  is,  to  all 
people  alike,  that  he  is  engaged  in  the  business  of  transporting  persons,  or  cer- 
tain kinds  of  property,  and  is  prepared  and  ready  to  care  for  all  who  apply,  on 


25.  Alsop  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  104  N. 
Car.  278,  10  S.  E.  297,  6  L.  R.  A.  271,  41 
Alb.  L.  J.  167,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1. 
In  this  case  it  appeared  that  money  was 
tendered  to  the  agent  of  an  express  com- 
pany at  a  regular  station  for  shipment 
fifty-five  minutes  before  the  train  would 
pass,  going  in  the  direction  that_  the 
money  was  to  be  sent;  but  it  was  refused 
under  a  rule  of  the  company  that  money 
should  be  received  for  shipment  only  in 
the  morning  before  the  train  would  pass 
in  the  afternoon:  held,  that  the  rule  was 
in  violation  of  the  N.  Car.  Code,  §_  1964, 
requiring  all  transportation  companies  to 
receive  goods  of  the  kind  and  nature  usu- 
ally transported  by  them,  whenever  ten- 
dered. 

26.  Requiring  shipper  to  employ  certain 
persons  to  load. — Johnson  ?;.  Three  Hun- 
dred and  Eighteen  and  One-Half  Tons 
of  Coal,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,010,  14  Blatchf. 
4.53,  44  Conn.  .548. 

27.  Agreement  between  carriers. — Sea- 
songood  V.  Tennessee,  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 
21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1142,  54  S.  W.  193,  49  L. 
R.  A.  270. 

28.  Special  bailee. — See  post,  this  sec- 
tion catchline,  "Common  Carrier  Becom- 
ing Special  Bailee." 

29.  Common  carrier  as  special  bailee. — 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  170  Ind. 
94,  83  X.  E.  710,  712;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Wallace,  14  C.  C.  A.  257,  66  Fed.  506, 
30  L.  R.  A.  161;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v:  Mahoney,  148  Ind.  196,  200,  46  N.  E. 
917,  47  X.  E.  464,  40  L.  R.  A.  101,  62  Am. 
St.    Rep.    503.      See,   also,    Baltimore,   etc., 


R.  Co.  V.  Voight,  176  U.  S.  498,  44  L. 
Ed.    560,    20   S.    Ct.    385. 

"A  common  carrier  may,  however,  be- 
come a  private  carrier  or  bailee  for  hire, 
where,  as  a  matter  of  accommodation  or 
special  engagement,  he  undertakes  to 
carry  something  which  it  is  not  his  busi- 
ness to  carry  Railroad  Co.  v.  Lockwood 
(U.  S.),  17  Wall.  357,  21  L.  Ed.  627;  Coup 
V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill,  22 
N.  W.  215,  56  Am.  Rep.  374;  Robertson 
V.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass.  525,  31 
N.  E.  650,  32  Am.  St.  Rep.  482;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wallace,  14  C.  C.  A.  257,  66 
Fed.  506,  30  L.  R.  A.  161;"  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Keefer,  146  Ind.  21,  44  N.  E.  796, 
38  L.  R.  A.  93,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  348. 

Circus  property  and  performers. — A 
railroad  company  made  a  contract  to  haul 
a  train  consisting  of  cars  owned  by  the 
other  party,  and  which  contained  circus 
property  and  performers,  on  stated  days, 
1)etween  certain  points,  at  a  rate  less  than 
the  regular  rates  of  the  company.  It  was 
outside  the  scope  of  the  company's  regu- 
lar business  to  haul  such  trains:  held,  that 
the  coinpany  in  hauling  such  trains  acted 
as  a  private  carrier  merely,  and  the  valid- 
ity of  the  contract  was  not  affected  by 
the  fact  that  it  contained  a  stipulation 
against  liability  for  damage.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wallace,  14  C.  C.  A.  257, 
66   Fed.    506,   30   L.    R.   A.   161. 

As  it  is  optional  with  a  carrier  to  ac- 
cept or  refuse  powder  for  transportation, 
if  it  chooses  to  accept  it  it  can  do  so 
with  such  limitation  of  its  common-law 
liability  as  it  sees  fit.  California  Powder 
Works  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Cal. 
329,  45  Pac.  691,  36  L.   R.  A.  648. 


215 


DUTY  TO  RECEIVE  AND  CARRY. 


§§  333-33A 


the  same  terms.  From  its  very  nature  his  business  is  one  in  which  the  people 
generally,  or  the  public,  acquire  an  interest  to  the  extent,  at  least,  that  the  business 
be  conducted  honestly,  impartially,  and  efficiently. ■'*'^  Hence  the  law  intervenes 
as  to  the  public  carrier  and  enforces  certain  regulations  and  limitations  against 
him  in  the  interest  of  the  iHiblic  welfare.  Among  these  regulations  he  is  held  to 
receive  and  carrv  for  all  alike  such  goods  as  are  in  his  line  of  business.''' 

§§  334-341.  Duty  to  Furnish  Shipping  Facilities  and  Means  of 
Transportation-  §  334.  In  General.  A  roniuKjn  carrier  is  under  a  legal 
duty  to  sujjply  patrons  with  cars  to  promptly  move  such  freight  as  may  be  ex- 
pected, according  to  the  usual  volume  of  business  offered  for  shipment,  and  if 
timely  and  reasonable  demands  are  made  for  cars,  and  the  carrier  fails  to  fur- 
nish them,  without  lawful  excuse,  he  is  answerable  for  the  proximate  damage 
sustained  by  the  shipper.'*-  The  obligation  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  may  either 
be  imposed  by  law  or  arise  from  a  special  contract  between  the  parties.-'^  In- 
dependent of  statute,  a  railroad  is  under  a  legal  duty  to  furnish  freight  cars 
to  shi])pcrs  wlien   rc(|ucslc(l.'"      A  carrier  must  i)rovide  reasonable   facilities  for 


30.  Cleveland,  etc.,  ]\.  Co.  v.  Henry,  170 
Ind.    94,    83    X.    K.    710. 

31.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  170 
Ind.   94,   83    X.    F..   710. 

32.  Duty  to  furnish  facilities  in  general. 
— Cronan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),    130    S.    W.   437. 

The  court,  in  an  action  for  a  carrier's  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars  for  the  transportation  of 
perishable  freight,  must  consider  the  facts 
in  determining  whether  the  order  for  cars, 
the  offering  of  the  property  for  ship- 
ment, and  the  notice  given  are  reasonable. 
Dobbins  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 
N.  Y.   S.  637,   157   App.   Div.   80. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  its 
failure  to  furnish  cars  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  pcrishal)le  freight,  evidence  lield 
to  support  a  finding  that  the  demand  for 
cars  and  the  offering  of  the  property  for 
shipment  were  reasonable.  Dobbins  v. 
Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157  App.  Div.  SO, 
141   N.   Y.   S.   637. 

33.  Obligation  to  furnish  cars. — Chatta- 
nooga, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Thompson,  133  Ga. 
127,"  65  S.  E.  285;  Mulberry  Hill  Coal  Co. 
V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  161  111.  App.  272. 

Under  Sayles'  Rev.  Civ.  St.  arts.,  4226, 
4227,  requiring  carriers  to  furnish  suffi- 
cient transportation  for  all  property,  and 
making  them  liable  for  all  damages  caused 
by  their  refusal  to  transport  such  prop- 
erty, a  shipper  who  shows  that  he  was 
ready  to  pay  freight  charges  may  recover 
damages  caused  l>y  a  refusal  to  transport 
his  property.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Schmidt    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),  25   S.  W.  452. 

Illinois  Rev.  Stat.  C.  114,  §§  84,  85,  pro- 
viding for  treble  damages  for  the  failure 
of  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  cars  for 
the  transportation  of  such  property  as 
shall,  within  a  reasonable  time  previous 
thereto,  be  ready  or  be  offered  for  trans- 
portation, does  not  to  apply  to  a  failure 
to   furnish   cars   at   a   mine   for   coal   to  be 


dug  and  lioisted  after  the  cars  are  fur- 
nished. Illinois,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
19    111.    App.    141. 

Act  approved  March  31,  1874,  in  force 
July  1,  1874,  §  22  (Hurd's  Rev.  St.  1905, 
c.  114,  §  84)  requires  railroad  companies 
to  furnish,  start,  and  run  cars  for  the 
transportation  of  such  property  as  shall 
within  a  reasonable  time  previous  thereto 
be  ready  or  be  offered  for  transportation 
and  to  take,  receive,  transport,  and  dis- 
charge such  property,  etc.  Section  23  of 
the  Act  §  85,  c.  114,  Hurd's  Rev.  St.  1905) 
provides  that  on  the  refusal  of  a  railroad 
company  to  take,  receive,  transport,  and 
discharge  any  property  within  a  reason- 
able time,  the  company  shall  pay  to  the 
party  aggrieved  treble  the  amount  of 
damages  sustained  thereby,  etc.  Held, 
that  the  latter  section  is  a  penal  statute, 
and  hence,  under  the  rule  that  penal  stat- 
utes must  be  strictly  construed,  the  provi- 
sion of  the  former  section  that  the  com- 
pany shall  "furnish,  start  and  run  cars 
for  the  transportation  of"  property,  etc., 
having  been  omitted  from  the  latter,  the 
penalty  provided  is  not  recoverable 
against  a  company  which  fails  to  perform 
tliat  duty.  Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Peo- 
ple. 81  X.  E.  342,  227  111.  270.  reversing 
judgment.    1:2S    111.    App.    3S. 

34.  Independent  of  statute. — Darlington 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  116 
S.  W.  530.  216  Mo.  058;  Baker  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Kan.),  129  S.  W.  436. 

A  shipper  may  sue  a  carrier  for  failure 
to  furnish  cars,  as  for  a  breach  of  com- 
mon-law duty  without  any  contract  to 
furnish  them.  Baker  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Kan.),   129   S.   W.   436. 

The  common-law  duty  of  a  carrier  com- 
pelled it  to  furnish  cars  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  live  stock  on  reasonable  demand 
<->f  the  shipper.  Baker  r.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.   Co.   (Kan.).  129  S.  \V.  436. 


§  334 


CARRIERS. 


216 


the  transportation  of  property,-"''  snch  as  it  undertakes  to  carry,^*^  for  all  who 
may  applv  in  the  regular  course  of  business. 3"  The  general  rule  is  that  a  car- 
rier is  not  called  upon  to  jeopardize  its  own  business  and  its  duty  to  the  general 
public,  to  convenience  an  individual  shipper  by  furnishing  him  facilities.  So 
where  a  railroad  company,  by  reason  of  a  strike  of  the  miners  at  the  coal  mines 
from  which  it  has  been  accustomed  to  obtain  a  large  part  of  the  coal  which  it 
used  in  the  operation  of  its  road,  is  compelled  to  send  to  more  distant  fields 
for  a  supply,  thus  making  it  necessary  for  it  to  withdraw  its  coal  engines  and 
cars  from  that  line  of  its  road  and  use  them  in  freighting  coal  for  its  own  con- 
sumption, these  facts  constitute  a  sufficient  excuse  for  its  refusal  to  furnish 
the  owners  of  the  coal  mines  on  that  line  of  its  road  with  engines  and  cars  for 
the  transportation  of  their  coal.  The  carrier  in  such  cases  is  only  required  to 
furnish  cars  and  haul  them  in  its  regular  trains  according  to  its  capacity  with- 
out injury  to  its  other  business.-^^  Nor  is  it  called  upon  to  jeopardize  its  busi- 
ness by  holding  in  waiting  a  number  of  cars  without  knowing  whether  or  when 
they  will  be  used.^''  Under  the  common  law  as  well  as  under  various  statutes, 
including  the  interstate  commerce  act,  it  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  to  provide  all 
necessary  facilities  and  means  for  transporting  such  property  as  may  be  of- 
fered, at  least  to  the  extent  that  would  ordinarily  be  expected  to  seek  trans- 
portation by  the  particular  line.^"^  A  carrier  must  provide  cars  for  normal  con- 
ditions of  the  traffic  unless  it  has  reasons  to  anticipate  other  conditions,  and 
during  a  temporary  abnormal  condition  it  is  not  required  to  furnish  a  car  for 
every  one  sent  off  its  line  in  fulfillment  of  a  contract  previously  made  with 
shippers,  though  cars  wholly  beyond  the  control  of  a  carrier  are  the  same  as 
if  not  owned  by  it,  and  their  places  must  be  supplied  with  others.-^*^  In  the 
absence  of  an  agreement  to  provide  cars  at  a  particular  time,  a  carrier  is  only 
obligated  to  exercise  due  diligence  to  furnish  freight  cars  within  a  reasonable 
time.-*- 


35.  Reasonable  facilities. — St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  1'.  State,  84  Ark.  150,  104  S. 
W.  1106;  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18 
111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574;  Di  Giorgio, 
Importing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  104  Md.  693,  65  Atl.  425,  8  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  108. 

36.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynne 
Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ark.  373,  99  S.  W.  375. 

37.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynne 
Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ark.  373,  99  S.  W.  375. 

38.  Effect  coal  miner's  strike. — Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Queen  City  Coal  Co., 
13   Ky.   L.   Rep.   832. 

A  railroad  is  not  liable  for  failure  to 
furnish  cars  to  a  coal  company  for  ship- 
ment of  such  company's  coal,  the  rail- 
road having,  by  reason  of  a  strike  among 
the  employees  of  all  the  other  coal  com- 
panies in  that  district,  been  obliged  to 
take  its  coal  trains  onto  another  division 
of  its  road,  to  haul  coal  to  supply  its  en- 
gines. Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Queen 
City  Coal  Co.,  9d  Ky.  217,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
126,  35   S.  W.   626. 

39.  Holding  cars  in  waiting. — A  carrier 
is  not  required  to  hold  for  a  whole  week 
a  large  number  of  cars  for  a  single  ship- 
per without  knowing  on  what  day  of  the 
week  or  on  what  hour  of  tlie  day  a  single 
car  may  be  needed.  Di  Giorgio  Import- 
ing, etc.,  Co.  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  104 
Md.  693,  65  Atl.  425,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  108. 


40.  Duty   to   furnish   shipping   facilities. 

— H.  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  63  Tex. 
322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421;  San 
Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Timon,  45  Tex, 
Civ.  App.  47,  99  S.  W.  418;  Thayer  v. 
Burchard,  99  Mass.  508;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wynne  Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ark.  373, 
99  S.  W.  375;  State  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
C,  71  Neb.  593,  99  N.  W.  309. 

Under  the  common  law,  Ky.  St.,  §  783, 
and  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  §  1,  com- 
mon carrier  held  to  be  under  a  legal  duty, 
subject  to  certain  exceptions,  to  furnish 
to  shippers,  when  seasonably  requested, 
sufficient  cars  and  equipment  to  carry  all 
the  freight  offered.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  River,  etc.,  Coke  Co.,  150  S.  W.  641, 
150   Ky.    489,   44   L.   R.   A.,    N.    S.,   185. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier,  in- 
dependent of  statutory  obligation,  to  pro- 
vide reasonable  facilities  and  appliances 
to  transport,  when  requested,  such  goods 
as  it  held  itself  out  ready  to  carry;  the 
law  implies  an  agreement  to  furnish  nec- 
essary cars  on  a  particular  day  when  a 
request  has  been  in  due  time  made  by  the 
shippers  of  a  station  agent,  who  for  that 
purpose  has  the  authority  of  a  general 
agent.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Timon.  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47,  99  S.  W.  418. 

41.  Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffman 
Coal   Co.,  91   Ark.   180,   120  S.  W.  380. 

42.  Dallenbach  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.^ 
104    Til.    .^pp.    310. 


217 


DUTY  TO  RECEIVE  AND  CARRY, 


i§  335-336 


§§  335-338.  Notice  to  Carrier — §  335.  Time  of  Notice. — A  railroad 
company  is  nut  l)ouiiil  lo  kcei>  suilable  cars  constantly  on  hand  at  all  stations 
for  the  use  of  shippers,  but  is  entitled  to  reasonable  time  in  which  to  furnish 
them  after  requisition  is  made  by  the  shipper.-*''  A  shipper  desiring^  a  car  or 
cars  for  transportation  must,  as  a  general  rule,  give  the  carrier  reasonable 
notice  as  to  the  time  and  place  when  the  cars  will  be  needed,-**"  and  in  some 
cases  the  extent  of  notice  is  fixed  by  statute.'*'^  Where  the  statute  provides  for 
so  many  days  notice  as  a  safeguard  to  prevent  the  carrier  from  being  pressed 
for  time,  the  notice  may  be  waived.^'' 

§  336.  Requisites  and  Sufficiency  of  Demand. — Demand  in  Writing. 

— Althougli  a  carrier  has  a  rule  requiring  demands  for  cars  to  be  in  writing, 
if  the  carrier  does  insist  on  the  observance  of  the  rule  it  seems  that  it  will  be 
estopped  to  set  the  failure  up  to  defeat  a  recovery.-*"  In  some  instances  stat- 
utes exist  which  provide  for  the  making  of  a  written  demand  upon  a  carrier 
for  the  furnishing  of  cars  and  which  provide  a  penalty  for  the  failure  to  com- 
ply therewith,-*'*  and  where  a  shipper  seeks  to  avail  himself  of  the  remedy 
provided  for  by  such  statutes  he  must  comply  with  the  statute  and  make  his 
demand  in  writing.-*'*     But  such  a  statute  does  not  do  away  with  the  common- 


43.  Notice    to    carrier    for     facilities. — 

Huston   Bros.  v.  Wabash   R.   Co.,   G3   Mo. 
App.   (ill. 

When  a  shipper  requires  a  car  at  a  rail- 
road station  for  his  exclusive  use,  he 
must  give  notice  to  the  railroad  company, 
after  which  it  will  have  a  reasonable  time 
in  whicli  to  furnish  the  car.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.    Co.  V.    Bundy,  97    111.   App.   202. 

44.  Notice  as  to  time. — San  Antonio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
47,  99  S.  W.  418;  Di  Giorgio  Importing, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  104  Md. 
693,  65  Atl.  425,  8   L.   R.  A.,  N.   S.,  108. 

A  requisition  on  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars 
for  the  transportation  of  perishable  car- 
goes on  the  arrival  of  steamers  required 
the  carrier  to  furnish  8  cars  for  June  27th 
and  to  furnish  others  cars  on  further  no- 
tice on  the  arrival  of  other  vessels.  On 
July  1st  the  carrier  received  notice  to 
furnish  cars.  Twenty-one  cars  were  sup- 
plied during  that  day  and  ten  were  sup- 
plied next  morning.  The  twenty-one  cars 
furnished  were  too  late  for  the  fast  freight 
because  of  the  shipper's  failure  to  give 
notice  of  the  vessels  coming  in  when  he 
received  it.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was 
not  liable  for  loss  sustained  by  deteriora- 
tion of  the  goods  due  to  the  delay  in 
the  transportation,  there  being  no  suffi- 
cient notice  to  furnish  cars.  Di  Giorgio 
Importing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  104  Md.  093,  65  Atl.  425,  8  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  108. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars  for  perishable  goods 
imported,  it  appeared  that  the  carrier  was 
as  well  posted  about  the  movements  of  the 
ships  carrying  the  perishable  goods  as 
plaintiff  was;  that  a  telegram  of  the  ar- 
rival of  vessels  went  to  the  chamber  of 
commerce  of  the  port,  and  the  railroads 
made  it  their  business  to  know  every 
steamer  that  passed  certain  points  before 
entering  the  port.  Plaintiff  was  in  a  po- 
sition   to   inform    the   carrier   of   the   time 


when  vessels  were  reported  at  such  points 
and  of  the  expected  day  and  hour  of  their 
arrival.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was  under 
no  obligation  to  keep  some  one  on  watch 
at  the  chamber  of  commerce  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  when  vessels  would 
arrive  so  as  to  be  prepared  to  furnish  cars 
for  the  transportation  of  cargoes.  Di 
Giorgio  Importing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  104  Md.  693,  65  Atl.  425,  8 
L.   R.  A.,  N.   S.,  108. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  railroad  company 
engaged  in  the  business  of  transporting 
freight  as  a  common  carrier  to  receive 
cattle  for  transportation  upon  reasonable 
notice  of  the  time  and  place  where  such 
tender  will  be  made,  and  it  is  liable  for 
failure  to  provide  means  of  transportation 
after  such  notice.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Whitehill,  104  Md.  295,  64  Atl.  1033. 

45.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dimmit 
County,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186, 
23    S.    W.    754. 

46.  Waiver. — Six  days'  notice  allowed 
railways  by  statute  in  which  to  procure 
cars  is  a  safe-guard  given  them  to  pre- 
vent them  from  being  pressed  for  time  in 
obtaining  cars  for  transportation  of  prop- 
erty, and  being  a  privilege  granted  to 
them,  they  can  waive  it  at  anj^  time.  In- 
ternational, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dimmit  County, 
etc.,  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186,  188,  23 
S.  W.  754. 

47.  Demand  in  writing. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  T.  Wvnne  Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  SI 
Ark.    37,1,    99    S.    W.    375. 

48.  Statutes  providing  for  written  de- 
mand.— Minnesota  Reciprocal  Demurged 
Laws.  1907.  chap.  23,  Revised  Law.  Sup. 
1909,  §  2023 — 1  to  2023 — 13.  Georgia  acts 
of    1905.    p.    120. 

49.  Zetterberg  v.  Great  Northern  R. 
Co..  117  Minn.  495,  136  N.  W.  295;  Pope 
V.  Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  Co.,  112  Minn.  112, 
127  N.  W.  436;  see,  also,  Ferrell  &  Co. 
V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  114  Minn.  531, 
131    N.    W.    1135. 


§§  336-340 


CARRIERS. 


218 


law  rights  of  the  shipper  to  recover  datnages  for  the  carrier's  faikire  to  furnish 
cars  without  such  written  demand.-^"  The  right  to  invoke  the  common-law 
remedv  to  recover  damages  for  an  unreasonable  failure  of  a  carrier  to  furnish 
cars  without  a  written  demand  therefor,  in  the  absence  of  contractual  relations, 
is  a  valuable  one.  and  it  can  not  be  assumed  that  the  legislature  intended  to 
abrogate  such   rights  unless  an  intention  is  clearly  expressed. •'•^ 

Definiteness. — An  order  for  cars  which  is  too  indefinite  as  to  the  number 
of  cars.  etc..  it  does  not  constitute  a  basis  for  an  action  for  failure  to  furnish 
them.^- 

§  337.  To  Whom  Given. — The  notice  of  demand  for  shipping  facilities 
must  be  given  to  an  agent  of  the  carrier,  duly  authorized  to  furnish  the  rec[ui- 
site   facilities.''^ 

§  338.  Specifying-  Condition  and  Danger  of  Goods. — Where  the  ca- 
pacity of  a  carrier  is  not  overtaxed,  a  shipper  demanding  cars  need  not  in  order 
to  recover  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  give  notice  to  the  carrier  of  the  danger 
of  the  goods  becoming  injured  unless  shipped  without  delay."'* 

§  339.  Place  of  Furnishing  Cars, — As  long  as  a  spur  track  or  switch 
remains  a  part  of  the  carrier's  system,  it  must  be  operated  impartially  and 
without  discrimination  against  parties  demanding  a  service  similar  to  that  ren- 
dered  other   parties   under   special    contracts.'"' ^^ 

Delivery  at  Warehouse. — Where  the  usual  course  of  business  has  been 
for  a  railroad  to  furnish  cars  at  a  shipper's  warehouse,  the  shipper  may  de- 
mand cars  for  its  use,  giving  reasonable  notice  of  its  requirements,  and  may 
recover  in  case  of  a  wrongful  refusal  or  neglect  to  furnish  the  cars.-"''' 


§  340.  Goods   Ready  for   Shipment. 

i  356-359. 


-See   post,    "Tender   and    Refusal," 


50.  Zetterberg  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
117  Minn.  495,  136  X.  W.  295.  See  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Moore,  133  Ga.  806,  67 
S.    E.    85,    26    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    851. 

51.  Zetterberg  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
117  Minn.  495,  136  N.  W.  295,  wherein  it 
is  held  that  the  common-law  rights  of 
shippers  have  been  in  no  manner  de- 
creased by  the  Reciprocal  Pemurged  Law. 
Its  efifect  is  to  create  additional  statutory 
rights  when  its  divisions  have  been  com- 
plied with. 

52.  Definiteness  of  demand. — In  an  ac- 
tion for  damages  for  a  breach  of  public 
duty  in  failing  to  supply  cars  for  the  ship- 
ment of  lumber,  whereby  the  only  request 
for  cars  alleged  was  "a  standing  order 
for  five  cars  a  day,"  the  order  was  too 
indefinite.  Simmons-  v.  Seaboard,  etc., 
Railway,  133  Ga.  635,  66  S.  E.  783. 

53.  A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a 
railroad  for  failure  to  furnish  a  car  for  a 
shipment  alleged  that  plaintiff  placed  cer- 
tain goods  on  defendant's  side  track  for 
shipment,  making  a  verbal  demand  on  the 
agent  of  defendant  at  the  nearest  station, 
and  on  those  operating  a  local  freight 
train  on  the  division  in  question,  for  a 
suitable  car  for  the  shipment,  and  that 
plaintifif  also  wrote  the  train  master  two 
or  three  letters.  Held,  that  the  complaint 
was  demurrable,  in  that  it  failed  to  show 
a  demand  on  a  person  authorized  to  fur- 
nish cars.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moss, 
75  Ark.  64,  86  S.  W.  828. 


Where  the  petition  of  a  shipper  against 
a  carrier  for  delay  in  furnishing  cars  for 
a  shipment  from  P.  alleged  as  ground  for 
recovery  that  the  cars  were  ordered  of 
the  station  agent  at  P.,  and  it  appears  that 
the  only  order  was  made  of  a  station 
agent  at  another  station,  recovery  can  not 
be  had,  even  if,  though  the  station  agent 
of  another  station  had  no  implied  author- 
ity to  order  cars  for  P.,  the  order  given 
to  such  other  station  agent  would  have 
constituted  a  sufficient  t)asls  for  recov- 
ery under  a  complaint  leased  thereon,  in 
view  of  the  carrier  having  furnished  cars 
pursuant  to  such  order,  though  tardily. 
vSouthern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Cox,  47  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  84,  103  S.  W.  1122. 

54.  Condition  and  danger  of  goods. — 
Hoffman,  etc.,  Stave  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,   119  Mo.  App.  495,  94  S.  W.  597. 

55.  A  contract  between  a  railroad  com- 
pany and  a  lumber  company  for  a  con- 
struction of  a  switch  track  on  the  rail- 
road's right  of  way  construed,  and  held 
not  to  give  the  lumber  company  an  ex- 
clusive privilege  of  the  switch  track;  and 
the  carrier  may  not  refuse  to  furnish  cars 
on  such  track  to  another  shipper.  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Mather-McDowell  Lumber 
Co.    (Miss.),  60  So.  42. 

56.  Delivery  at  warehouse. — Richey, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Nortliern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  110 
Minn.    347,    125    N.  'W.    897. 


219 


DUTY   TO    KKCEIVE    AND    CARRY. 


§  341 


§  341.  Adequacy  of  Facilities. — The  duty  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  rea- 
sonably adcfiuale  faciHties  is  commensurate  with  the  powers  and  privileges 
conferred  upon  it  and  the  just  requirement  of  the  inil>hc ;  and,  in  determining 
its  ohHgation,  its  business  as  a  whole,  the  character  of  the  service  required,  tlie 
need  of  its  performance,  and  the  various  rights  of  the  ]>ublic  and  of  the  car- 
rier should  be  considered.'''  And  the  question  as  to  what  facilities  and  accom- 
modations should  be  furnished  by  a  common  carrier  in  order  to  comply  with 
its  public  duty  is  one  of   fact.''"' 

Facilities  for  Particular  Purposes. — it  seems  that  a  carrier  owes  to  the 
public  the  duly  id  furnish  cars  and  other  facilities  esj^ecially  adapted  to  the 
preservation  and  ])rotection  of  such  goods  as  it  holds  itself  out  of  the  public 
as  being  willing  and  ready  to  carry."'*'  This  would  seem  to  follow  from  the 
fact  that  it  is  more  economical  and  more  advantageous  to  all  parties  to  have  it 
transported  in  suitable  cars  or  cars  peculiarly  adapted  to  such  particular  pur- 
poses.^*' Thus,  a  carrier  holding  itself  out  as  a  carrier  of  live  stock  is  under 
legal  obligation,  arising  out  of  the  nature  of  its  employment,  to  provide  suit- 
able and  necessary  means  and  facilities  for  receiving  live  stock  offered  for  ship- 
ment over  its  road  and  connections."'^  Where  large  quantities  of  milk  are  pro- 
duced along  the  line  of  a  common  carrier,  and  it  is  more  advantageous  to  ])ro- 
ducers,  distributers,  and  consumers  to  have  it  transported  in  special  cars  fur- 
nished with  icing  facilities  than  in  ordinary  cars,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier 
to  furnish  such  cars.*'-  And  although  a  carrier  owns  no  refrigerator  cars  it 
may  be  held  liable  for  refusing  or  failing  to  furnish  them  to  shippers  for  the 
transportation  of  garden  truck  after  it  has  led  such  shippers  to  raise  the  truck 
in  expectati6n  of  being  furnished  with  such  proper  facilities. "^  So  it  has  been 
held  that  a  carrier  can  not  refuse  to  accept  fruit  for  transportation  because 
refrigerator  cars  are  necessary  therefor  although  such  cars  can  only  be  pro- 
vided and  furnished  to  it  by  another  carrier. *"••*  Nor  can  the  carrier  escape 
liability  on  the  ground  that  the  trucking  crop  was  unreasonably  large,  it  being 
no  larger  than  might  reasonably  have  been  expected  from  the  acreage  planted, 


57.  Railroad  Comm'rs  v.  Florida,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   58   Fla.   534,   50   So.   425. 

Pub.  St.  1901,  c.  KiO,  §  1,  provides  that 
every  railroad  company  shall  furnish  to 
all  persons  reasonable  and  equal  terms, 
facilities,  and  accommodations  for  the 
transportation  of  property.  Held,  that  it 
was  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier  of  milk 
to  provide  reasonable  facilities  for  its  re- 
ception and  delivery  and  care,  including 
care  during  transportation.  Baker  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  N.  H.  100,  65  Atl. 
386,   12  Am.   &   Eng.   Ann.   Cas.   1072. 

58.  Question  of  fact. — Baker  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  X.  H.  100,  65  Atl.  386,  12 
Am.    &    I'.ng.   Ann.   Cas.   1072. 

59.  Duty  to  furnish  proper  facilities. — 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Renfroe,  82  Ark. 
143,  100  S.  W.  889,  10  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  lO&O. 

A  common  carrier  owes  to  the  public 
the  duty  of  providing  suitable  cars  for 
the  service  and  expeditious  carriage  and 
preservation  of  such  freight  as  it  under- 
takes to  carry.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Cromwell,  98  Va.  227.  35  S.  E.  444,  49 
L.    R.   A.   462. 

60.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Renfroe, 
82  Ark.  143.  100  S.  W.  880,  10  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  1060;  Baker  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


74  N.  H.  100,  65  Atl.  386,  12  Am.   &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  1072. 

61.  Covington  Stock  Yards  Co.  v.  Keith, 
139  U.  S.  128,  133,  35  L.  Ed.  73,  11  S.  Ct. 
461. 

62.  Facilities  for  particular  purposes. — 
Baker  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  N.  H. 
100,  65  Atl.  386,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
1072. 

63.  Refrigerafor  cars.— Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Geraty,  91  C.  C.  A.  602,  166  Fed. 
10,   20  L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,   370. 

Where  plaintifT,  owning  a  farm  in  a 
truck  region,  was  induced  to  plant  cab- 
bages by  assurance  of  defendant  railroad 
that  refrigerator  cars  would  be  furnished 
to  transport  them  to  market,  which  it  re- 
fused to  do  on  reasonable  demand,  plain- 
tiff could  recover  for  unharvested  cab- 
bages which  spoiled  because  of  defend- 
ant's refusal  to  furnish  refrigerator  cars, 
plaintiff  after  such  refusal  not  being 
bound  thereafter  to  tender  the  cabbages 
for  shipment.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Geratv.  91  C.  C.  A.  602,  166  Fed.  10,  20 
L.  R.'A.,  N.  S..  370. 

64.  Mathis  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  65  S.  C. 
271,  43   S.   E.  684,  61   L.   R.  A.   824. 


§§  341-342 


CARRIERS. 


220 


notice  there  of  being  imputed  to  the  carrier.*^^  As  to  the  duty  of  a  carrier  to 
carry  perishable  goods  in  refrigerator  cars  and  to  furnish  suitable  and  safe 
facilities  for  all  kinds  of  freight  accepted  for  transportation,  see  post,  "Trans- 
portation and   DeUvery  by   Carrier,"   chapter   10. 

§§  342-355.  Discrimination— §  342.  Right  to  Discriminate  Gener- 
ally.— Independently  of  any  statute,  as  a  part  of  its  common-law  obligation,  a 
carrier  is  required  to  treat  its  patrons  impartially,  and  to  avoid  unjust  discrim- 
ination.*'*' such  discrimination  is  prohibited  by  the  soundest  consideration  of 
public  pohcy.^'"  A  common  carrier  owes  an  equal  duty  to  all  and  it  can  not 
be  discharged  if  he  is  allowed  to  make  unequal  preferences  and  thereby  pre- 
vent or  impair  the  enjoyment  of  the  common  right.*'^ 

Railway  Company. — In  its  character  as  a  common  carrier  and  relatively  to 
duties  and  obligations  arising  therefrom,  a  railway  company  can  not  grant  to 
any  person,  or  persons,  rights  or  privileges  which  it  refuses  to  others,  but  must 
treat  all  alike.*'^  Such  a  company  as  a  common  carrier  is  required  to  treat  the 
public  with  equality  and  fairness.'^*^ 


65.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Geraty,  91 
C.  C.  A.  602,  166  Fed.  10,  20  L.  R.  A., 
X.    S..    370. 

66.  Unjust  or  unreasonable  discrimina- 
tion.— United  States. — Menacho  v.  Ward, 
27   Fed.  529,  23   Blatchf.  502. 

Florida. — Johnson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  16  Fla.  623,  26  Am.  Rep.  731. 

Indiana. — Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clos- 
ser,  126  Ind.  348,  26  N.  E.  159,  22  Am.  St. 
Rep.   593,   597,   9   L.    R.   A.   75. 

/ozi'fl. — Cook  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 
Iowa  551,  46  N.  W.  1080,  9  L.  R.  A.  164, 
25   Am.   St.   Rep.   512. 

Kansas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New 
Era    Milling   Co.    (Kan.),    100   Pac.   273. 

Kentucky. — A  general  carrier  of  freight 
can  not  discriminate  between  shippers  or 
classes  of  freight.  Crescent  Coal  Co.  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135 
S.  W.  768,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  442. 

Maine. — New  England  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188,  2  Am. 
Rep.   31. 

Massachusetts. — Fitchburg  R.  Co.  v. 
Gage,    12    Gray   393. 

A  carrier  is  bound  to  treat  all  shippers 
without  discrimination.  Banner  Grain 
Co.  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  119  Minn. 
68,  41  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  678,  137  N.  W.  161. 

Missouri. — McGrew  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  132  S.  W.   1076. 

New  Jersey. — Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  36  N.  J.  L.  407,  13  Am.  Rep.  457; 
State  V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  N.  J. 
L.    55,   57   Am.    Rep.   543. 

Kezi'  York. — "The  carrier  can  not  unrea- 
sonably or  unjustly  discriminate  in  favpr 
of  one  or  against  another  where  the  cir- 
cumstances and  conditions  are  the  same." 
Lough  V.  Outerbridge,  143  N.  Y.  271,  38 
N.  E.  292,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  712,  25  L.  R. 
A.  674;  Root  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  114 
N.  Y.  300,  21  N.  E.  403,  4  L.  R.  A.  331, 
11  Am.  St.   Rep.  643. 

Pennsylvania. — Shipper  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.   Co.,  47   Pa.  338. 

67.  Agreements    by    common     carriers 


with  shippers  of  goods  which  interfere 
with  the  performance  of  their  duties  to 
the  public,  are  contrary  to  public  policy. 
Edgar  Lumber  Co.  v.  Cornie  Stave  Co., 
95    Ark.    449,    130    S.    W.    452. 

68.  Maine. — New  England  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188,  2  Am. 
Rep.  31. 

Xcw  Hampshire. — McDuffee  v.  Port- 
land, etc.,  Railroad,  52  N.  H.  430,  13  Am. 
Rep.  72,  2  Am.  Ry.  Rep.  241. 

Xcw  Jersey. — Messenger  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  531,  18  Am.  Rep. 
754,    758. 

Pennsylvania. — Audenried  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Pa.  370,  8  Am.  Rep. 
195;  Sandford  v.  Catawissa,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
24  Pa.  378,  64  Am.  Dec.  667. 

"Transportation  by  a  common  carrier 
is  necessarily  open  to  the  public  upon 
equal  and  reasonable  terms.  An  exclu- 
sive right  granted  to  one  is  inconsistent 
with  the  rights  of  all  others."  Auden- 
ried V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Pa. 
370,  8  Am.   Rep.  195. 

Chief  Justice  Appleton,  in  the  case  of 
the  New  England  Exp.  Co.  v.  Maine  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188,  2  Am.  Rep.  31,  also 
says:  "The  very  definition  of  a  common 
carrier  excludes  the  idea  of  the  right  to 
grant  monopolies,  or  to  give  special  and 
unequal  preferences."  Messenger  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  531,  18 
Am.    Rep.   754. 

69.  Kates  v.  Atlanta  Baggage,  etc.,  Co., 
107  Ga.  636,  34  S.  E.  372.  46  L.  R.  A.  431; 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holcombe  &  Co., 
76  Ga.  590;  Johnson  Coal  Min.  Co.  v. 
Hocking  Valley  R.  Co.,  1  N.  P.,  N.  S.,  385, 
14  O.  D.  N.  P.  209;  State  v.  Cincinnati, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  O.  St.  130,  23  N.  E.  928. 

Ohio  statute  merely  declaratory  of  com- 
mon law  and  confers  no  new  rights. — 
Johnson  Coal  Min.  R.  Co.  v.  Hocking 
Valley  R.  Co.,  1  N.  P.,  N.  S.,  385,  14  O. 
D.   N.  P.  209. 

70.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rust,  58 
Tex.   98. 

Railroad  corporations  occupy  a  peculiar 


221 


DUTV  TO  RECEIVE  AND  CARRY. 


§  342 


Equal  Terms  for  All  Shippers.— While  it  is  true  that  at  common  law,  and 
in  the  aliscncc  oi  chanc-r  or  >lalulory  rcj,Hilations  to  the  contrary,  a  common 
carrier  may  discriminate  as  to  rates,  so  that  no  unreasonahle  charge  is  made, 
yet  he  must  carry  for  all;  because  it  is  a  leading  principle  of  the  common  law, 
applicable  to  all  common  carriers,  that  they  are  bound  to  carry  for  all,  and  for 
a  reasonable  remuneration.''  The  tendency  and  undoubted  weight  of  authority 
is  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  thai  a  common  carrier  is  charged  with  a  quasi  public 
duty  to  transport  merchandise  on  etiual  terms  for  all  parties,  where  the  carry- 
ing for  some  shippers  at  a  lower  price  than  for  others  will  create  monopoly  by 
injuring  or  destroying  the  business  of  those  less  favored."-  Under  this  rule, 
a  carrier  can  not  discriminate  by  receiving  and  carrying  for  one  customer  and, 
under  substantially  the  same  circumstances,  refusing  to  carry   for  another."^ 


relation  to  tlic  pul)lic  as  invested  with  cer- 
tain franchises  for  the  public  benefit,  and 
they  are  l)Ound  to  use  them  with  fairness 
and  for  the  common  good.  Messenger  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L.  531,  18 
Am.   Rep.   754. 

In  the  grant  of  a  franchise  of  building 
and  using  a  public  railway,  there  is  an 
implied  condition  that  it  is  held  as  a  quasi 
public  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  public, 
and  the  company  possessed  of  the  grant 
must  exercise  a  perfect  impartiality  to  all 
who  seek  the  benefit  of  the  trust.  Mes- 
senger v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  37  N.  J.  L. 
531,    18    Am.    Rep.    754. 

Railway  companies  derive  their  charter 
rights  from  the  state  and  owe  an  equal 
duty  to  every  citizen,  and  they  can  not 
exercise  their  charter  rights  in  such  man- 
ner as  to  benefit  an  individual,  town  or 
community,  to  the  detriment  of  another. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  63  Tex. 
332,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421. 

A  railroad  company  sought  to  evade  the 
receiving  and  delivery  of  grain  in  bulk  to 
a  particular  elevator  to  which  it  was  con- 
signed, on  the  ground  that  it  had  the 
right  to  establish  its  own  usage  in  the  re- 
gard, and  it  never  lield  itself  out  as  a  car- 
rier of  grain  in  l)ulk,  except  upon  the  con- 
dition that  it  might  itself  choose  the  con- 
signee, which  had  become  the  custom  and 
usage  of  its  business,  and  it  could  not  be 
required  to  go  beyond  this  limit.  Held, 
that  the  company  could  make  no  such  in- 
juries or  arbitrary  discrimination  between 
individuals  in  its  dealings  with  the  public. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  56  111.  365, 
8  Am.  Rep.  (iOO. 

71.  Equal  terms  for  all  shippers. — Av- 
inger  z'.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C. 
265,  7  S.  E.  493,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  716,  35 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519. 

"In  Johnson  v.  Pensacola,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
16  Fla.  623,  26  Am.  Rep.  731.  the  follow- 
ing language  was  used  which  succinctly 
embodies  the  common-law  doctrine  on 
this  subject,  to  wit:  'That,  as  against 
a  common  or  public  carrier,  every  per- 
son has  the  same  rigiit;  that  in  all 
cases,  when  his  common  duty  controls,  he 
can  not  refuse  A.  and  accommodate  B.; 
that  all — the  entire  public — have  the 
right    to    the    carriage    for  a    reasonable 


price — at  a  reasonable  charge  for  the  serv- 
ices performed;  and  the  commonness  of 
the  duty  to  carry  for  all  does  not  involve 
a  commonness  or  equality  of  compensa- 
tion or  charge;  that  all  the  shipper  can 
ask  of  a  common  carrier  is  that,  for  serv- 
ices performed,  he  shall  charge  no  more 
than  a  reasonable  sum  to  him.'  This  prin- 
ciple was  recognized  and  enforced  in  our 
case  of  Ex  parte  Benson,  18  S.  C.  42,  43." 
Avinger  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S. 
C.  265,  7  S.  E.  493,  13  .-Km.  St.  Rep.  716,  35 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519. 

72.  Scofield  V.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
43  O.  St.  571,  3  N.  E.  907,  54  Am.  Rep. 
846;  Avinger  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29 
S.  C.  265,  7  S.  E.  493,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  716, 
35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519. 

As  to  discrimination  in  freight  rates, 
see  post,  "Discrimination  in  Rates  and 
Overcharge,"  chapter  16. 

73.  £»g/a;i£/.— Baxendale  v.  Bristol,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  11  C.  B.,  N.  S.,  787,  103  E.  C.  L. 
787;  Cooper  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  C. 

B.  N.  S.  738,  93  E.  C.  L.  738;  Crouch 
V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  11  Exch. 
742;  Crouch  v.  London  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 
23  L.  J.  C.  P.  73;  Davis  v.  TafT  Vale  R. 
Co.,  App.  542,  11  R.  189;  Carton  v.  Bris- 
tol &  E.  R.  Co..  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  273;  Pal- 
mer V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  6  C.  P. 
194.  40  L.  J.  C.  P.  133;  Johnson  v.  Mid- 
land R.  Co.,  4  Exch.  327;  Lees  v.  Lan- 
cashire, etc.,  R.  Co..  IS  Sol.  Jour.  629; 
Page  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co..  2  Ir.  Rep. 
(C.  L.)  288;  Palmer  v.  London,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  588,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  289; 
West  V.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  5  C. 
P.  622;  Southeastern  R.  Co.  v.  Railway 
Comm'rs,  41  L.  T.,  N.  S.,  760,  28  W.  B. 
464. 

United  States. — Butchers',  etc..  Stock 
Yards  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  14  C. 

C.  .•\.  290,  67  Fed.  35. 

Ca/i/or»;(7.— Wheeler  z:  San  Francisco, 
etc..  R.  Co..  31  Cal.  46.  S9  Am.  Dec.  147. 

Colorado.— Bay\cs  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co., 
13  Colo.  181,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  42. 
22  Pac.  341,  5  L.  R.  A.  480;  Kansas  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Bayles,  19  Colo.  348,  61  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  128,  35  Pac.  744. 

Georgia.— Kates  v.  Atlanta  Baggage, 
etc.,  Co.,  107  Ga.  636,  34  S.  E.  372,  46  L.  R. 


CARRIERS. 


222 


Special  Contractual  Obligations. — It  is  the  duty  of  a  common  carrier 
railroad  corporation  to  ha\  c  regard  for  the  rights  of  the  pnbHc  in  the  service 
it  engages  to  perform  under  the  franchises  the  state  permits  it  to  use  primarily 
for  the  benefit  of  the  pubhc.'-*  This  requirement  embraces  the  (Uity  to  render 
a   service  adequate   to  meet   all   the   just   requirements   of   the  public,   including 


A.  431;  Logan  &  Co.  i:  Central  Railroad. 
74  Ga.  684:  Atlanta,  etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  Hoi- 
combe   &   Co.,   76   Ga.   590. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People, 
67  111.  11,  16  Am.  Rep.  599;  Great  Western 
R.  Co.  v.  Burns,  60  III.  284,  13  Am.  R.  Rep. 
309. 

Indiana. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wol- 
cott,  141  Ind.  267,  39  X.  E.  451,  50  Am. 
St.  Rep.  320;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Closser,  126  Ind.  348,  26  N.  E.  159,  22  Am. 
St.  Rep.  593. 

Maine. — New  England  Exp.  Co.  v.  Maine 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  57  Me.  188,  2  Am.  Rep.  31. 

Massacliiisctts. — Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Shanly,  107  Mass.  568;  Vermont,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  14  Allen  462,  92 
Am.  Dec.  785. 

Xi-tc  Hampshire. — Bennett  v.  Button,  10 
X.  H.  481;  McDuffee  v.  Portland,  etc., 
Railroad,  52  X.  H.  430,  13  Am.  Rep.  72,  2 
Am.  R.  Rep.  241. 

Xeti'  Jersey. — Messenger  v.  Pennsylvania 
104,  affirmed  in  47  N.  Y.  525;  Mall'ory  v. 
R.  Co.,  37  X.  J.  L.  531,  18  Am.  Rep.  754; 
Xew  Jersey  R.,  etc..  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  27  X.  J.  L.  100. 

-Wtc  York. — Acheson  v.  New  York, 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  N.  Y.  652;  Lough  v. 
Outerbridge,  143  X.  Y.  271,  38  N.  E.  292, 
25  L.  R.  A.  674,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  712; 
Keeney  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  59  Barb. 
104,  affirmed  in  47  N.  Y.  525;  Mallory  v. 
Tioga  R.  Co.,  39  Barb.  488. 

Pennsylvania. — Cumberland  Valley  R. 
Co.'s  Appeal,  62  Pa.  218;  Sandford  v.  Cat- 
awissa,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Pa.  378,  64  Am. 
Dec.  667. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
63  Tex.   322,  22  Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   421. 

Wisconsin. — Doty  v.  Strong,  1  Pinn.  313, 
40  Am.   Dec.   773. 

A  carrier  can  not  enact  such  rules  dis- 
criminating against  shipments  as  to  tend 
to  create  monopolies  and  a  right  of  ac- 
tion accrues  for  damages  resulting  from 
the  enforcement  of  such  a  rule  of  a  car- 
rier of  goods,  requiring  shipments  from 
certain  points  to  be  unloaded  from  the 
cars  of  the  line  on  which  they  have  come, 
delivered  in  drays  and  again  loaded  on  its 
cars  before  it  will  accept  such  goods  for 
shipment  over  its  line.  Such  action  not 
only  gives  to  the  competing  carrier  a 
right  of  action  for  damages  to  its  right 
of  business  but  also  gives  a  right  of  ac- 
tion to  the  shipper  who  is  damaged 
by  the  wrongful  requirement  of  un- 
shipping, hauling,  and  reshipping  and  the 
consequent  waste,  delay  and  injury.  Lo- 
gan &  Co.  V.  Central  Railroad,  74  Ga.  684. 

It  was  the  duty  of  the  railroad  company 
to  forward  the  papers  tendered  it,  without 


discrimination  in  time  or  order  of  ship- 
ment; and  it  could  not  refuse  to  carry 
papers  of  the  rival  house  on  the  early 
morning  train,  on  the  ground  that  it  had 
other  trains  going  out  later  in  the  day. 
Memphis  News  Pub.  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  110  Tenn.  684,  75  S.  W.  941,  63  L.  R. 
A.  150. 

The  provision  in  the  constitution  of 
Colorado,  that  "all  individuals,  associa- 
tions, and  corporations  shall  have  equal 
rights  to  have  persons  and  property  trans- 
ported over  any  railroad  in  this  state,  and 
no  undue  or  unreasonable  discrimination 
shall  be  made  in  charges  or  facilities  for 
transportation  of  freight  or  passengers 
within  the  state,  and  no.  railroad  company, 
nor  any  lessee,  manager,  or  employee 
thereof,  shall  give  any  preference  to  in- 
dividuals, associations,  or  corporations  in 
furnishing  cars  or  motive  power,"  imposes 
no  greater  obligation  on  a  railroad  com- 
pany than  the  common  law  would  have 
imposed  upon  it.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  28  L. 
Ed.  291,  4  S.  Ct.  185,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  57. 

Under  Texas  Rev.  St.,  art.  4227,  provid- 
ing that  in  case  of  refusal  by  a  common 
carrier  "to  take  and  transport  any  passen- 
ger or  property,  or  to  deliver  the  same, 
or  either  of  them,  at  the  regular  or  ap- 
pointed time,  such  corporation  shall  pay 
to  the  party  aggreived  all  damages  which 
shall  be  sustained  thereby,  with  costs  of 
suit,"  a  carrier  is  liable  for  receiving  the 
goods  of  one  shipper  after  rejecting  those 
of  a  prior  applicant.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Smith.  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  421. 

Carriers  engaged  in  the  business  of  car- 
rying coal,  as  well  as  all  other  articles  or 
merchandise  and  freight  offered  to  it,  have 
no  right  to  make  any  discrimination  be- 
tween shippers,  and  are  obliged  to  carry 
for  all  persons  all  classes  and  character  of 
freight  offered  to  them.  Bassett  v.  Aber- 
deen Coal,  etc.,  Co.,  120  Ky.  728,  88  S.  W. 
318,  27  Ky.  L.  1  1122;  Crescent 
Co.  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73, 
135  S.  W.  768,  33  L.   R.  A.,  N.  S.,  442. 

Industrial  plants  situated  on  spur 
tracks. — A  railway  company  owes  the 
same  duty  to  carry  goods  to  an  industrial 
plant  connected  with  its  line  by  spur 
tracks  that  it  does  to  plants  situated  on 
the  main  line.  Crescent  Coal  Co.  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135  S. 
W.  768,  33   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,  442. 

74.  Taylor  v.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 
Fla.  635,  45  So.  574,  14  Atn.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  472,  16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  307. 


223 


DUTV   TO    RECKIVE  AXD   CARRY. 


§  342 


leasonable  dispatch,  cunveiiiencc,  regularly,  and  promptness  in  the  transportation 
of  passengers,  provision  and  maintenance  of  adequate  depot  facilities  suited  to 
the  business  and  convenience  of  the  communities  along  the  road,  and  the  per- 
formance of  the  duties  and  the  rendering  t)f  the  service  due  to  the  public,  with- 
out unjust  discrimination  of  any  character  as  to  persons,  localities,  or  condi- 
tions.'^' This  duty,  however,  does  not  relieve  the  corporation  from  its  contract 
obligations  to  individuals,  when  an  observance  of  the  obligations  does  not  ma- 
terially and  injuriously  affect  the  rights  of  the  public;  and  where  the  public, 
or  any  member  of  it,  is  so  effected,  the  rights  of  the  respective  parties  can  not 
be  arbitrarily  determined  by  the  corporation  for  itself.  If  the  private  rights 
under  the  contract  can  not  l)c  adjusted  by  agreement,  resort  should  be  had  to 
the  courts  by  proper  parties,  where  all  rights  will  be  adjudged.'*^  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  corporation  to  oljscrvc  the  obligations  of  its  contract  with  individuals 
that  are  made  in  good  faith,  and  that  do  not  necessarily  directly  and  materially 
affect  injuriously  substantial  rights  of  the  public,  until  the  corporation  is  re- 
lieved from  such  contract  by  due  course  of  law."'  A  railroad  company  is  al- 
lowed a  reasonable  discretion  in  the  performance  of  its  duties  and  in  the  ren- 
dering of  service  to  the  public;  l)Ul  such  discretion  should  be  exercised  in  good 
faith  and  for  the  public  welfare,  and  not  arbitrarily,  and  it  is  subject  to  con- 
trol and   regulation   by  governmental  authority .'^'^ 

Contracting  to  Carry  for  One  Person  Only. — The  fact  that  one  publish- 
ing company  solicits  the  inslilulion  of  certain  train  service  and  supports  it  by 
large  outlay  of  money  does  not  change  the  rule,  nor  make  the  train  a  special 
one,  chartered  .for  a  special  purpose.'^  Nor  can  such  contracting  parties  im- 
pose, as  a  condition  of  acceptance  and  delivery  of  goods  tendered,  on  another 
person  an  obligation  to  share  the  burden  of  establishing  the  service  voluntarily 
assumed  bv  the  contracting  house.''" 


75.  Taylor  z\  Florida,  etc..  R.  Co.,  54 
Fla.  633,  45  So.  574,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  472,  16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  307. 

76.  Taylor  v.  Florida,  etc..  R.  Co..  54 
Fla.  635,  45  So.  574,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  472.  16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  307.  See  post, 
"Bills  of  Lading,"  chapter  6;  "Shipping 
Receipts,"  chapter  7:  "Special  Contracts," 
chapter  8. 

77.  Taylor  f.  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 
Fla.  635.  45  So.  574,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  472,  16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  307. 

78.  Taylor  z:  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 
Fla.  635,  45  So.  574,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  472,  16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  307;  Ellis  r. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Fla.  650,  44  So. 
213,  13   L.  R.  A.,   N.  S.,  560. 

Whether  the  duty  a  common  carrier 
owes  to  the  public  is  materiallj'  and  in- 
juriously affected  by  the  contract  obli- 
gation of  the  corporation  to  individuals 
cannot  be  arbitrarily  determined  by  the 
corporation  for  itself.  Taylor  7:  Florida, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  Fla.  635,  45  So.  574,  14 
Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  472,  16  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  307. 

79.  Contract  to  carry  for  one  only. — 
Memphis  News  Pub.  Co.  f.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  110  Tenn.  684.  75  S.  \V.  041.  63  L.  R. 
A.   150. 

Special  train  for  transportation  of  news- 
papers.— .A.  railroad  company  contracted 
with  a  newspaper  publisher,  agreeing  to 
run  a  special  earlj'  morning  train  carry- 
ing only  the  newspapers  of  the  publisher. 


in  consideration  of  the  publishing  com- 
pany guarantying  to  it  a  certain  revenue 
from  the  operation  of  the  train.  This 
train  became  one  of  its  scheduled  trains, 
and  was  advertised  as  such.  It  was  con- 
ti  oiled  exclusively  by  the  company,  and 
all  the  revenue  derived  from  its  opera- 
tion in  the  carrying  of  passengers  and 
freight  was  its  property.  It  was  held, 
that  the  railroad  could  not,  relying  on  its 
contract,  refuse  to  carry  on  such  train 
newspapers  tendered  it  by  a  rival  pub- 
lisliing  house,  which  offered  to  comply 
with  all  the  conditions  as  to  guaranty, 
indemnity,  etc..  complied  with  by  the 
house  making  the  contract,  and  such  re- 
fusal constituted  an  illegal  discrimination 
between  persons  of  the  same  class.  Mem- 
phis News  Pub.  Co.  7'.  Southern  R.  Co., 
110  Tenn.  684,  75  S.  \V.  941,  63  L.  R.  A. 
150. 

80.  Contribution  as  condition. — Mem- 
phis News  I'ub.  Co.  z:  Southern  R.  Co., 
no  Tenn.  684,  75  S.  W.  941,  63  L.  R.  A. 
150. 

In  a  suit  by  a  publishing  house  against 
a  railroad  company  for  refusal  to  carry 
its  papers  on  an  early  morning  train, 
which  was  put  in  service  by  tlie  railroad 
under  a  contract  with  another  pulilishing 
house  which  stipulated  that  the  railroad 
company  should  not  forward  the  papers 
of  any  other  house  than  the  contractor, 
the  contracting  house  could  not.  when 
made  a  party  to   the   suit  by  its  rival,   file 


8S  342-345  carriers.  224 

No  length  of  time  or  habit  of  dealing  will  discharge  a  carrier's  duiy  to 
<;erve   the   public    without    discrimination. "^^ 

Unusual  Rush  of  Business  as  Guise  for  Discrimination.— See  post, 
"Unusual  Press  of  Business,"  §§  368-371. 

§§  343-348.  Discrimination  in  Facilities  and  Cars— §  343.  In  Gen- 
eral.  A   railroad   company   under  the   common   law   is   required   to   extend   to 

all   persons   without   discrimination   equal   facilities    for   receiving  and   shipping 
freight  of  all  kinds  of  the  same  class. ^^- 

§  344.  Discrimination  in  Favor  of  One  of  Several  Connecting  Car- 
riers.—Providing  Stations  and  Interchanging  Freight.— The  duty  of  a 
carrier  to  accept  goods  tendered  at  its  station  does  not  recjuire  it  to  accept  cars 
ottered  by  competing  roads  at  arbitrary  points  near  its  terminus  for  the  purpose 
of  using  its  terminal  station.  A  law  requiring  the  carrier  so  to  do  is  unconsti- 
tutional as  taking  property  without  due  process  of  law.^^ 

Requiring  Delivery  and  Receipt  of  Cars  between  Connecting  Car- 
riers.—A  provision  in  the  constitution  of  a  state  that  a  carrier  must  deliver 
its  cars  to  connecting  carriers  without  providing  adequate  protection  for  their 
return,  or  compensation  for  their  use,  amounts  to  a  taking  of  property  without 
due  process  of  law  wdthin  the  meaning  of  the  fourteenth  amendment,  and  so 
held  as  to  §§  213,  214,  of  the  constitution  of  Kentucky.^^  And  the  property  of 
a  railway  companv  is  taken  without  due  process  of  law  where  such  company 
is  compe'lled,  upon  payment  simply  for  the  service  of  carriage,  to  accept  cars 
ofi'ered  to  it  at  an  arbitrary  connecting  point  near  its  terminus,  by  a  competmg 
road,  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  and  using  the   former's  terminal   facilities.^^ 

§  345.  Preference  in  Delivery  and  Distribution  of  Cars.— Where  a  rail- 
road company  discriminates  against  a  shipper  who  has  no  other  means  of  shipment 
than  over  its  line,  and  refuses  to  furnish  him  with  cars  at  times  when  it  is  sup- 
plying them  freely  to  other  shippers  at  points  where  it  competes  with  other  lines, 

it  is  liable.^^  ,    ,.      .,        ,  . 

Live  Stock  and  Merchandise  over  Hay.— \\  here  a  railroad  distributed  its 
freight  cars  so  that  empty  cars  were  retained  on  the  division  where  they  had 
been  unloaded  until  they  could  be  loaded  with  outgoing  freight,  and  it  preferred 
shippers  of  live  stock  and  merchandise  over  the  shippers  of  hay  located  at  non- 
competitive points,  and  during  a  blockade  at  its  terminals  withheld  cars  for  the 

a  cross  bill,  and  thereby  work  out  any  Ky.,  §  213,  to  receive,  deliver,  and  trans- 
equities  that  it  might  have  against  it  on  port  freight  from  and  to  any  pomt  where 
account  of  expenses  incurred  through  the  there  is  a  physical  connection  between 
establishment  and  early  maintenance  of  its  track  and  those  of  any  other  railway 
the  train  service.  Memphis  News  Pub.  company  deprives  the  former  company  of 
Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  110  Tenn.  684,  75  its  property  without  due  process  of  law. 
S  W  941  63  L.  R.  A.  150.  Judgment  in  97  S.  W.  778,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
■  "^  '  ^  n  ^  n  .-,  T  ^„;c„;nA  ^^r  18,  reversed.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
P*r  ^'fi^'lJv  ~°'\ffs  wTs  'l  R  Central  Stock  Yards  Co.,  212  U.  S.  132, 
?■  XT-  ^'^  S"  '  '  '  53  L.  Ed.  441,  29  S.  Ct.  246. 
A.,    iN.    b.,   44-<.  Requiring   delivery   of   cars  to  connect- 

82.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wren,  78  O.  jj^  carrier.— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
St.  137,  84  X.  E.  78.5,  If.  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  Central  Stock  Yards  Co.,  212  U.  S.  132, 
914.  53  L.  Ed.  441,  29  S.  Ct.  246.     (Decided  with 

83.  Providing  for  interchanging  freight.  reference  to  §§  213,  214  of  the  Kentucky 
— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Central  Stock  constituti(jn.) 

Yards   Co.,  212   U.   S.    132,   53    L.   Ed.   441,  85.    Requiring    receipt    of    cars. — Louis- 

29  S.  Ct.  24  3.  ville,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.  Central  Stock  Yards 

84.  Requiring    delivery    and    receipt    of  Co.,  212  U.  S.  132,  53  L.  Ed.  441,  29  S.  Ct. 
cars     between     connecting     carrier. — Re-  246.      _   ^       ,           r       •  ,                  r^^  ■ 
quiring  a   railway  company  to   deliver  its  86.    Refusal    to    furnish    cars.— Chicago 
own    cars    to    another    railway    company  etc.,   R.   Co.  f    Wolcott,   1^1   i"d.   20<,  39 
when    performing    its    duty    under    Const.  N.  E.  451,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  320. 


225  DUTY    TO    KIXUIVE   AM>    CAKKV.  §§    343-348 

shipment  of  liav  to  other  points  until  the  conj^estion  was  relieved,  it  was  an  un- 
lawful  discrimination.^' 

As  between  Miners. — Where  a  railroad  divides  mines  along  its  line  into 
two  districts,  and  rales  them  according  to  their  producing  capacity,  and  during 
a  period  of  shortage  gives  to  one  coal  company  an  excess  of  cars,  it  will  be  lia- 
ble in  damages  to  a  coal  company  in  the  other  district  which  has  been  deprivea 
of  its   fair  share  of  cars.**''* 

§§  346-347.  With  Respect  to  Use  of  Tracks— §  346.  In  General.— 

A  carrier  by  railroad  in  the  discharge  of  its  duties  to  the  public  mu.^t  u-e  all 
the  tracks  set  ai)art  for  the  transportation  of  freight,  and  treat  without  favor 
or  discrimination  all  i)(.rs(in>  offering  freight  to  it  for  catriage."*" 

Use  by  Express  Companies. — A  railroad  conij^any  is  bound  to  jjermit  any 
express  company  to  operate  on  its  lines.''"' 

§  347.  With   Respect   to    Spur   Tracks,    Switches   and   Belt   Lines.— 

Where  a  carrier  received  and  delivered  freight  on  private  spur  tracks  pursuant 
to  contracts,  and  the  contracts  offered  to  all  of  its  customers  were  identical, 
there  was   no  discrimination   against   any  customer.-'^ 

Preference  in  Use  of  Belt  Lines  and  Spur  Tracks. — A  railroad  company 
may  establish  reasonable  depots  or  places  at  which  it  will  receive  and  deliver 
freight  and  can  not  be  required  to  receive  or  handle  it  at  other  places;  but  it 
must  use  for  the  public  convenience  all  the  tracks  set  apart  by  it  for  the  trans- 
portation of  freight,  and  treat  all  patrons  without  discrimination.'-^-  A  rail- 
way company  can  not  justify  discrimination  in  refusing  to  carry  coal  between 
a  mine  and  an  industrial  plant  on  a  belt  line  in  a  city  while  carrying  other  freight 
between  points  on  that  line  on  the  ground  that  it  obtains  an  additional  haul  from 
the  other  freight  before  or  after  the  haul  on  the  belt  line.''-= 

§  348.  Discrimination  in  Switch  and  Trackage  Charges. — Lessee  and 
Non-Lessee  Coal  Operators. — .V  coal  company,  which  constructs  a  railroad 
switch  to  its  mine  and  allows  the  hauling  over  it  of  coal  of  its  lessees,  does  not 
discriminate  against  others,  whom  it  charges  five  cents  a  ton  trackage,  by  charg- 
ing its  tenants  only  eight  cents  a  ton  royalt}- ;  such  charge  to  also  cover  trans- 
portation over  the  track. ''^ 

87.  Preference  in  delivery  and  distribu-  irom  a  mine  on  sucli  line  to  one  of  such 
tion  of  cars. — Dobnty  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  plants  is  unlawful  discrimination,  though 
Co.,  81!   Xeb.  518,  12ii  N.  \V.  165.  the   spur  tracks   involved   are  within  what 

88.  Puritan  Coal  Min.  Co.  v.  Pcnnsyl-  the  company  calls  its  switching  limits, 
vania  R.  Co.,  237   Pa.  420,  85  Atl.  42().  and    regardless    of    the    length,    location. 

89.  With  respect  to  use  of  tracks. — Lou-  and  proximity  of  the  spur  tracks  and  the 
isville,  etc..  R.  Cn.  r.  Hi.ydon.  149  Ky.  character  of  the  plants.  Crescent  Coal 
:\2\.  14S  S.  \\".  21").  Co.  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73, 

90.  Use  by  express  companies.— State  v.  135  S.  VV.  768,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  442. 
Missouri    Puc.    R.    Co.    (^Io. ).    144    S.    \V.  93,  Crescent  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
863.      See    post,    "Duties     as    to     Express  R.  Co.,   143   Ky.  73,   135   S.   W'.  768,  33   L. 
Companies."   §    377.  R.    A.,    N.    S.,   442. 

91.  Discrimination  with  respect  to  spur  94.  Lessee  and  non-lessee  coal  opera- 
track  switches  and  belt  lines. — Gulf  Com-  tors. — Straiglit  Creek  Coal  Min.  Co.  f. 
press  Co.  v.  .Vlahania,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Miss.),  Straight  Creek  Coal.  etc..  Co.  (Ky.),  122 
56   So.   666.  S.   W.    842. 

92.  Preference  in  use  of  belt  line  and  A  railroad  company,  which  has  a  mort- 
spur  tracks. — Crescent  Coal  Co.  :■.  L(Miis-  gage  on  the  switch  road  of  a  coal  com- 
villc,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135  S.  W.  pany  coming  into  its  road  at  P..  and  with- 
768,  33  L.  R.  A..  X.  S.,  442.  out    charge    puts    its    empty    cars    on    the 

A     railway     company     need     not     carry  switch   for  the   various   mineowners  along 

freight    between    points    within     ordinary  it.   and   when   they   are   loaded   hauls   them 

switching   limits    at    a   given    station:    but.  over  the  switchao  P.,  making  its  charges 

where   it   operates   a   belt   line   and   carries  from    P.,    only,    tlie    same   to   all    shippers, 

freight   between   industrial   plants   thereon  does  not  operate  the  switch  as  part  of  its 

for    compensation,    refusal    to    carry    coal  general    system,    so    as    to    be    subject    to 

1  Car — 15 


CARRIERS. 


226 


§§  349-350 

§§  349-350.  Preference  to  Shipper  in  Order  of  Forwarding  Goods— 
§  349.  In  General. — The  requirenieiu  of  the  common  law  that  a  common 
carrier  mu'^t  receive  goods  offered  for  transportation  in  the  order  of  their  ten- 
der can  not.  on  principle,  be  affected  either  by  the  place  where  the  shipment 
originates  or  bv  the  ultimate  destination  of  the  goods.o^  There  is,  therefore,  no 
reason  why  a  steamship  company  should  prefer  freight  tendered  in  a  car  from 
one  forwarding  ?igencv  and  deny  freight  similarly  tendered  by  another  forward- 
ing at^ency  or  sliipper.  If  a  steamship  company  desires  an  inland  earner  to 
issue  "through  bills  of  lading,  it  may  do  so  subject  to  its  obligations  to  receive 
and  carry  freight  in  order  of  its  tender.  The  mere  fact  that  a  particular  com- 
modity is  destined  to  a  foreign  port  can  not  justify  a  carrier  in  giving  a  prefer- 
ence to  it  over  the  same  or  another  commodity  because  the  latter  may  be  a 
domestic  shipment.'"'  .  . 

Cotton.— The  great  value  of  the  cotton  crop  and  the  importance  of  its 
prompt  transportation  gives  that  product  no  imperial  rights  over  other  products 
of  the  state,  and  hence  does  not  justify  a  carrier  in  refusing  to  ship  lumber  m 
order  that  it  may  be  enabled  to  ship  cotton.  It  is  not  perishable  in  its  nature, 
and  it  will  not  be  contended  that  its  fluctuation  in  price  is  so  violent  that  a  delay 
in  transportation  would  substantially  destroy  its  value.^" 

§  3  50.  Booking  Freight. — The  carrier's  common-law  obligation  of  indif- 
ferently serving  the  public  in  the  receipt  and  transportation  of  goods  does  not 
inhibit 'a  carrier  by  sea  from  making  "booking"  of  freight— that  is,  from  making 
specific  arrangements  for  the  transportation  of  goods  by  a  particular  vessel — 
in  advance  of  its  sailing  day,  provided  this  privilege  is  indift'erently  extended 
to  all  patrons,  or  if  the  grant  of  this  privilege  to  shippers  of  one  commodity 
does  not  interfere  with  the  carrier's  discharge  of  duty  to  the  shippers  of  othei 
commodities  with  respect  to  the  receipt  and  transportation  of  their  goods.  The 
same  rules  which  govern  a  carrier  by  sea  in  the  reception  of  goods  for  trans- 
portation apply  to  the  carrier's  engagements  to  transport  by  a  particular  vessel, 
or  within  a  specified  limit  of  time.^'* 


the  charge  of  discrimination  on  account 
of  the  trackage  charges  made  by  the  coal 
company  owning  the  switch.  Straight 
Creek  Coal  Min.  Co.  ?•.  Straight  Creek 
Coal,  etc.,  Co.  (Ky.),  122  S.  W.  842. 

95.  Preferences  to  shipper  in  order  of 
forwarding. — Ocean,  etc.,  Co.  i'.  Savan- 
nah Locomotive,  etc.,  Supply  Co..  131 
Ga.  831,  G3  S.  E.  577,  20  L.  R.  A..  N.  S., 
867,  127  Am.  St.  Rep.  26.5,  1.5  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  1044.  So  held  under  Texas  Re- 
vised Statutes  of  1895.  art.  4537,  Hill  7:  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  75 
S.  W.  874,  reversed  in  97  Tex.  506. 

96.  Ocean,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Savannah  Loco- 
motive, etc..  Supply  Co..  131  Ga.  831,  63 
S.  E.  577,  20  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  867.  127  Am. 
St.  Rep.  265,  273,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  1044. 

97.  Cotton. — Ocean,  etc.,  Co.  t'.  Savan- 
nah Locomotive,  etc..  Supply  Co.,  131  Ga. 
831,  63  S.  E.  577.  20  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  807, 
127  Am.  St.  Rep.  265,  15  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  C?s.   1044. 

98.  Booking  freight. — Ocean,  etc.,  Co. 
!■.  Savannah  Locomotive,  etc..  Supply  Co., 
131  Ga.  831,  63  S.  E.  577,  20  L.  R.  A..  X. 
S.,  867,  127  .\m.  St.  Rep.  265.  15  Am.  & 
Eng.   Ann.    Cas.   1044. 

The  system  of  "booking,"  is  the  prac- 
tice   of   the    steamship    company    to    make 


specific  engagements  with  shippers  for 
a  reservation  of  space  for  freight  to  be 
shipped  on  a  particular  vessel,  in  advance 
of  its  sailing  day.  If  the  steamship  com- 
pany indifferently  extended  this  privilege 
to  all  of  its  patrons  and  to  all  commodi- 
ties, it  would  not  violate  any  duty  which 
it  owed  the  public.  "The  basal  princi- 
ple of  the  requirement  of  the  common 
law  that  a  common  carrier  must  convey 
the  goods  of  all  persons  offering  to  pay 
his  hire,  unless  his  carriage  be  already 
full,  is  that  there  should  be  no  unjust 
preference  given  one  member  of  the  pub- 
lic over  another.  The  practice  of  mak- 
ing specific  engagements  in  advance  of 
the  shipment,  if  the  privilege  is  indiffer- 
ently extended  to  all,  is  but  another  form 
of  acceptance  of  goods  tendered  in  the 
order  of  their  application.  The  same  im- 
partially of  service  is  rendered  when  the 
public  notice  is  given  by  the  carrier  that 
he  will  'book'  the  freight  of  all  patrons, 
and  reserves  space  for  the  goods  engaged 
to  be  transported  as  if  he  had  received 
the  goods  of  the  shipper  in  the  order  of 
their  tender.  But  when  a  carrier  reserves 
space  in  his  carriage  for  a  favored  pa- 
tron, or  a  favored  commodity,  not  per- 
ishable in  its  nature,  and  refuses  to  re- 
serve space  for  another  patron  or  commod- 


227 


DUTV    TO    KIXKIVE   AND    CAKKV. 


§§  351-354 


§§  351-355.  Remedies  for  Discrimination— §§  351-353.  Form  of 
Action— §  3  51.  Injunction  and  Mandamus.  —  If.  upon  invcsiigaiion  by  the 
stale  coniinissioii  of  Ohio,  the  rale  or  rales  or  any  reguhilion,  practice  or  service 
comphiined  of.  shall  be  found  to  be  unreasonable  or  unjustly  discriminatory,  or  the 
service  siiall  be  found  to  be  inadequate,  the  commission  has  the  power  to  grant 
relief;  and  in  tliat  event,  if  its  orders  are  not  complied  with,  it  may  compel 
compliance  In  proceedings  in  mandamus,  injunction  or  by  other  proper  civil 
j)rocccdings.''''  The  railroad  commission  of  Ohio  is  not  invested  with  judicial 
powers,  either  in  the  makinj,'  of  rales  or  determination  of  the  distribution  of 
cars,  etc.,  such  as  will  preclude  courts  in  suits  by  ship])ers  to  restrain  enforce- 
ment of  such  orders,  from  hearing  de  novo  the  matters  in  controversy ;  nor 
can  such  rulings  effect  the  rights  of  siiippers,  but  they  may  resort  to  inherent 
equitv  powers  to  liaxc  their  rights  determined  and  i)rolected  by  the  courts.^ 

Consolidated  Railroad  Extending  into  Several  State?. — Where  a  de- 
fendant railroad  company  is  a  cori)oration  conscjlidaled  under  the  statutes  of 
several  states,  including  Ohio,  and  its  road  extends  into  several  states,  its  acts 
of  injurious  discrimination  committed  or  threatened  in  that  state  to  the  business 
of  shippers,  either  on  or  along  the  line  of  its  railroad,  may  be  enjoined  by  the 
courts  of  that  state. - 

Ad  Interim  Injunction. — W  here  there  is  evidence  authorizing  a  finding  that 
the  defendant  carrier  discriminated  against  the  plaintiff  in  the  receptioi.  and 
transportation  of  lumber  tendered  for  shipment,  the  court  does  not  abuse  this 
discretion  in  granting  an  ad  interim  injunction. •'■ 

§  3  52.  Quo  Warranto. — See  post,  'i^iscriminalion  in  Rates  and  Over- 
:harge,""  chapter   Id. 

§  353.  Action  at  Law. — See  post,  "Discrimination  in  Rates  and  Over- 
charge," chajitcr   16. 

§  3  54.  Evidence. — At  common  law  the  parly  complaining  was  required  to 
show    that    the    discrimination    was    unjust    and     unreasonable,-*    but    under    the 


ity,  he  fails,  to  afford  that  commonness 
of  service  which  the  law  annexes  as 
an  incident  to  his  l)usiness.  The  steam- 
ship company  may  discontinue  to  carry 
any  particular  commodity,  it  desires,  or 
it  may  voluntarily  cease  to  do  business 
as  a  common  carrier  and  engage  in  the 
lousiness  of  a  special  carrier;  but  so 
long  as  it  pursues  the  business  of  a  com- 
mon carrier,  it  is  bound  to  render  to 
the  public  the  service  which  the  law  ex- 
acts of  a  common  carrier."  Ocean,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Savannah  Locomotive,  etc..  Supply 
Co.,  131  Ga.  831,  (53  S.  E.  577,  20  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  867,  127  Am.  St.  Rep.  265,  15 
Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1044. 

99.  Injunction  and  mandamus. — Ohio 
Dairy  Co.  :■.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7 
N.   P.,   N.   S.,  451,  457,   10   O.   D.    N.    P.   97. 

"It  is  further  provided  by  the  stat- 
utes of  Ohio  (notably  by  §§  3373-1,  Rev. 
Stat.),  that  the  courts  may  grant  relief 
in  cases  wliere  railroad  companies  do  not 
secure  and  extend  to  all  shippers  the  same 
and  equal  opportunities  and  facilities  for 
receiving  and  sliipping  freiglu.  One  of 
the  most  recent  cases  of  this  kind,  con- 
sidered by  the  supreme  court  of  C)liio. 
is  that  of  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Wren. 
78  O.  St.  137,  84  N.  E.  785,  16  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S.,    914."      Ohio    Dairy    Co.    v.    Lake 


Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  X.  P..  X.  S.,  451.  4.57, 
19  O.  D.  N.  P.  97. 

1.  Black  Diamond  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Railroad  Comm.,  8  X.  P.,  X.  S..  5>S5,  19 
O.    D.    X.    P.   783. 

2.  Consolidated  railroad  extending  into 
several  states. — ScotU-Ul  ;■.  Lake  Sliore, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  43  O.  St.  571,  3  X.  E.  907, 
54  Am.   Rep.  846. 

Thus,  where  it  appeared  that  the  plain- 
tiff's l)usiness  was  such  as  to  make  them 
frequent  shippers,  and  that  a  continuous 
series  of  shipments  was  necessary  in  con- 
ducting tlieir  business,  and  that  a  remedy 
sought  by  actions  at  law  would  lead  to 
a  multiplicity  of  suits,  it  was  held  that 
the  court  would  intervene  by  injunction 
to  prevent  a  multiplicity  of  suits,  and  it 
is  not  a  prerequisite  that  the  plaintiffs 
should  have  first  established  their  rights 
by  an  action  at  law.  Scofield  z\  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  O.  St.  571,  3  N.  E. 
907,   54   Am.    Rep.   S46. 

3.  Ad  interim  injunction. — Ocean,  etc., 
Co.  x:  Savannah  Locomotive,  etc.,  Supply 
Co.,  131  Ga.  831,  63  S.  E.  577,  20  L.  R.  A., 
X.  S.,  867.  127  .\m.  St.  Rep.  26.').  15  Am. 
&    Eng.   .\nn.   C:is.   1044. 

4.  Presumption  and  burden  of  proof. — 
Railroad  Comm.  ■::  Weld,  96  Tex.  394.  404, 
73  S.  W.  529,  reversing  68  S.  W.  1117. 


§§  354-356  CARRIERS.  228 

statute  of  Texas,   the  Imnlen  of   proof   is   upon   the  carrier  to  establish   that   it 
was  reasonable  and  just."' 

§  355.  Damages.— Difference  in  Market  Value  at  Destination  and 
Point  of  Shipment. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  by  a  shipper  of 
hay,  grain,  and  straw  to  recover  for  alleged  discrimination  by  the  company's 
giving  to  other  shii)i)ers  unequal  preferences  in  the  distribution  and  delivery  of 
cars,  plaintiff  can  recover  as  damages  only  such  sum  as  will  compensate  him 
for  the  loss  or  injury,  except  that  in  such  action,  it  shall  not  under  Ohio  Rev.  St. 
1906,  §§  337'3-l,  be  less  than  $500.''  In  an  action  for  discrimination  against 
plaintilT  in  furnishing  cars,  where  there  is  no  allegation  of  special  damage,  the 
measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between  the  market  value  of  the  hay  and 
straw  that  would  have  been  transported  if  plaintiff  had  received  the  cars  at 
the  point  to  which  they  were  to  have  been  carried  wdien  they  would  have  reached 
their  destination,  and  their  value  at  the  same  time  and  place  from  which  they 
were  to  have  been  carried,  less  the  cost  of  transportation.' 

Discrimination  in  Furnishing'  Cars  for  Output  of  Coal  Mines. — In  an 
action  bv  a  coal  company  against  a  carrier  for  alleged  illegal  discrimination  in 
furnishing  transportation  facilities  for  shipment  of  coal,  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages is  what  would  have  been  a  reasonably  fair  profit  on  the  fairly  probable 
output  of  the  mine  discriminated  against,  less  what  was  actually  shipped  from 
such  mine. 8  That  the  coal  belonging  to  the  coal  company  was  left  in  the 
ground  and  might  be  available  for  future  shipment  is  immaterial  on  the  question 
of  damages,  in  the  absence  of  proof  by  defendant  that  the  coal  company  would 
realize  for  its  coal  if  shipped  in  the  future  as  much  as  it  would  have  realized 
if  shipped  during  the  period  of  alleged  illegal  discrimination.'* 

Damages  for  Delay  in  Settlement  of  Plaintiff's  Claim. — The  court, 
hearing  a  case  against  a  railroad  for  unlawful  discrimination,  may  include  in 
the  general  damages  additional  damages  for  delay  in  settlement  of  plaintiff's 
claim. ^" 

§§  356-359.  Tender  and  Refusal — §  3  56.  In  General. — A  common 
carrier  can  not  as  a  general  rule  be  rendered  liable  for  failing  to  receive  and 
carry  freights  or  live  stock  until  the  person  injured  proves  that  the  freight  or 
stock  was  actually  tendered  to  the  company  and  that  it  refused  to  carry, ^^  and 
the  tender  must  be  according  to  the  carrier's  usages  and  customs. i-  However, 
it  seems  that  the  carrier  may  waive  a  tender  of  the  freight  so  as  to  become 
liable.  Thus  where  a  carrier  agreed  to  receive  cattle  for  shipment,  it  waived 
any  informality  or  supposed  insufficiency  in  the  tender  of  the  cattle. ^'^      But  the 

5.  Railroad  Comm.  z:  Weld,  96  Tex.  Damages  can  not  ])e  recovered  from  a 
394,  404,  7.3  S.  W.  529,  reversing  68  S.  W.  common  carrier  on  account  of  the  non- 
1117,  shipment    of    certain    freight    because    of 

6.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z-.  Wren,  78  O.  the  failure  of  the  defendant  to  provide 
St.  137,  84  N.  E.  785,  16  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  facilities,  without  proof  that  the  freight 
914.  in     question     was     offered     for     shipment. 

7.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  Wren,  78  O.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z>.  Conatser,  61 
St.   137,  84   N.   E.   785.   16   L.    R.  A.,  N.   S.,  Ark.  560,  33  S.  W.  1057. 

914.  In    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.   r.    Morris,    68 

8.  Discrimination  in  furnishing  cars. —  Tex.  49,  3  S.  W.  457,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Hillsdale  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Cas.  50,  it  is  said  in  tlie  opinion:  "It  is 
R.  Co.,  229  Pa.  61,  78  Atl.  28.  urged,     *     *     *     that  the  points  to  which 

9.  Hillsdale  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsyl-  the  lumber  was  to  be  carried,  and  a  tender 
vania  R.  Co.,  229  Pa.  61,  78  Atl.  28.  of   the   freight  upon  it,   should  have  been 

10.  Damages  for  delay  in  settlement  of  averred.  In  an  ordinary  case,  it  might  be 
plaintiff's  claim. —  Puritan  Coal  Min.  Co.  that  these  allegations  are  proper  and  nec- 
V.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    2:i7    Pa.    420,    S5       essary." 

Atl.  426.  12.  According  to  usage. — Galena,  etc.,  R. 

11.  Tender  and  refusal.— Northwestern  Co.  r.  Rac,  18  111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574. 
Fuel  Co.  r.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  13.  Waiver.— Red  River,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Fed.  712;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White-  Eastin,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  579,  88  S.  W. 
hill,   104   Aid.   295,   64  Atl.   1033.  530. 


229 


DUTY    TO    KIvCKIVE    AND   CARRY. 


§  356 


refusal  of  a  carrier  to  transport  coal  for  a  certain  firm  does  not,  in  the  absence  of 
actual  tender  of  a  definite  amount  for  transportation,  amount  to  a  waiver  of  sucii 
tender,  so  as  to  subject  the  carrier  to  liability  f(jr  loss  of  business  caused  by  relying 
on  such  refusal.'"*  At  any  rate  all  that  can  be  done  by  the  owner  of  goods  or  live 
stock,  which  are  designed  for  transportation,  is  to  place  them  contiguons  to  the 
railway  track  at  some  usual  or  properly  designated  place,  or  in  the  railway's 
cattle  i^ens,  and  request  the  company  to  furnish  cars  and  receive  the  goods.^-"' 
The  mere  fact  that  a  commodity  or  live  stock  intended  to  be  shipped  is  not  on 
the  platform  (ir  in  the  pens  of  the  carrier  is  not  an  excuse  for  the  carrier's  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars,  when  such  things  are  under  the  control  of  the  shipper,  and 
ready  for  shipment  in  the  usual  way."'  It  is  the  duty  of  a  company  to  receive 
freights  of  all  persons  according  to  its  usage  and  custom,  and  where  wheat  is 
tendered  lor  shipment,  and  the  company  is  in  the  habit  of  receiving  such  freight 
by  running  its  cars  on  side  tracks  to  private  warehouses,  a  tender  accordingly, 
or  notice  and  readiness  to  deliver  the  wheat  in  that  manner,  is  sufficient,  and  the 
company  can  not  recjuire  that  the  grain  be  delivered  in  a  different  manner  or  at  a 
different  place.''  Where  a  shipper  demands  cars  at  its  warehouse  for  the  trans- 
portation of  goods,  the  fact,  particularly  when  communicated  to  the  carrier,  that 
the  goods  to  be  shipped  are  pre])ared  for  and  immediately  available  for  shipmenu 
is  a  sufficient  tender  to  the  carrier.'*  Under  a  statute  providing  that  every  rail- 
road corporation  shall  furnish  cars  for  the  transportation  of  such  property  ab 
shall  within  a  reasonable  time  ])rc\ious  thereto  be  ready  or  offered  for  transpor- 
tation at  the  several  stations  on  its  railroad,  if  the  merchandise  to  be  shipped  is 
substantially  ready  for  shipment  at  the  time  the  order  for  cars  is  placed,  the  stat- 
ute is  coni])lied  with,  and  a  failure  to  furnish  the  cars  confers  a  right  of  action 
upon  the  shipper.'''      It  follows  from  what  has  been  said  that  an  actual  refu.sal 


14.  Tender  of  deiinite  amount. — Wilder 
V.  St.  |ohnsl)ury,  etc..  R.  Co.,  6(3  Vt.  G:56, 
30   .\tl.   41. 

15.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Flanagan, 
113  Ind.  488,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  (J74,  32  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  532. 

WHiere.  after  cattle  are  placed  in  the 
stockyards  of  a  railroad  company,  for 
shipment,  the  company  declines  to  ship 
them,  the  shipper  is  relieved  from  the 
necessity  of  making  any  further  delivery 
or  ofTer  to  deliver  the  cattle.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Godman,  104  Ind.  490,  4 
N.   E.  163. 

"Within  the  ruling  in  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Godman,  104  Ind.  490,  4  N.  E. 
163,  the  refusal  of  the  company  upon  de- 
mand to  furnish  cars  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  goods,  such  as  those  described, 
which  are  alleged  to  have  been  placed 
at  a  station  upon  its  line  to  he  trans- 
ported, relieved  the  plaintiff's  from  mak- 
ing any  further  delivery,  or  offer  to  <le- 
liver."  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flana- 
gan, 113  Ind.  488,  3  .\m.  St.  Rep.  674,  32 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  532. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  breach 
of  its  common-law  duty  to  furnish  cars 
to  transport  freight  without  unreasonable 
delay,  the  petition  alleging  that  defend- 
ant was  a  common  carrier  for  hire,  had 
been  receiving  lumber  for  shipment  from 
plaintiff  in  the  past,  had  held  itself  out 
as  willing  to  receive  the  sliipment  in  ques- 
tion, and  promised  from  time  to  time  to 
furnish  cars,  and  that  plaintiff  placed  the 
lumber  at  a  certain  point  on   its  riglit  of 


way,  urged  the  carrier  repeatedly  to  fur- 
nish the  necessary  cars,  informing  it  of 
the  necessity  of  prompt  shipment  and  the 
damages  which  would  accrue  to  him  from 
delay,  and  that  it  negligently  failed  and 
refused  to  furnish  such  cars,  and  allowed 
the  lumber  to  remain  lying  on  the  right 
of  way  from  Noveml)er  20,  1906,  until 
the  suit  was  brought,  March  6,  1908, 
thereby  causing  it  to  be  injured  and  dam- 
age to  accrue  to  plaintiff,  was  sufficient 
as  against  a  general  demurrer.  Southern 
R.  Co.  v.  Moore.  133  Ga.  806.  67  S.  E.  85. 
26  L.   R.  A..   X.  S.,  851. 

16.  Goods  ready  for  shipment. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Leder  Bros..  87  Ark. 
298.    112    S.    W.    744. 

There  was  a  sufficient  tender  of  live 
stock  for  shipment  to  warrant  a  recovery 
for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  where  the  ship- 
per, acting  under  instructions  from  the 
railroad's  agent,  after  request  for  the  cars 
was  made,  kept  the  stock  ready  for  ship- 
ment within  a  short  distance  of  the  sta- 
tion: there  being  no  accommodation  for 
keeping  them  at  the  station.  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Ozier,  86  .\rk.  179,  110 
S.  W.  593,  17  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  836. 

17.  Duty  to  receive  according  to  usage 
or  custom. — Galena,  etc..  R.  Co.  :.  Rac. 
18    111.    4SS.   6S   Am.    Deo.   574. 

18.  Goods  ready  at  warehouse. — Richey. 
etc..  Co.  :■.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  llO 
Minn.    347.    125    X.    W.    897. 

19.  Goods  ready  at  time  of  offer. — Mul- 
berrv  Hill  Coal  Co.  :■.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,' 161    111.   .\pp.   272. 


§§  356-358  cARRii-RS.  230 

by  the  carrier  is  necessary.  So  it  has  been  held  that  a  com]ilaint  against  a  railroad 
company  for  discriminating  unjustly  against  a  shipper  by  directing  its  agents  to 
refuse  to  receive  or  transport  any  goods  offered  for  transportation  by  him,  except 
when  prepaid,  does  not  state  a  cause  of  action  if  it  fails  to  aver  that  the  agents 
of  the  companv  actually  have  refused  to  receive  or  transport  his  goods,  and  tha. 
he  has  actually  been  injured.-"  But  where  the  carrier  has  refused  to  furnish  the 
shipper  proper  facilities,  the  latter  is  not  bound  to  prepare  and  oft'er  the  freight 
as  a  condition  precedent  to  his  right  of  action  for  damages.-^ 

§  3  57.  Authority  to  Tender. — And  such  tender  of  the  goods  for  shipment 
must  be  made  by  a  person  h;i\  ing  authority  to  do  so.--  It  would  seem  that  iii 
an  action  brought  against  a  carrier  for  refusing  to  receive  and  carry  goods,  it 
v.Guld  constitute  a  valid  defense  that  the  plaintiff  had  stolen  them,  although,  at 
the  time  cf  offering,  the  carrier  may  not  have  known  they  had  been  stolen. ^^  As 
the  owner  can  redeem  goods  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier,  after  their  delivery  to 
him.  and  excuse  a  nondelivery  to  the  depositor,-^'  it  is  clear  that  the  carrier  would 
be  justified  in  refusing  to  receive  them  from  one  having  a  wrongful  possession, 
although,  at  the  time  of  such  refusal,  he  might  not  know  the  manner  in  which 
they  had  been  obtained.-'^ 

§  3  58.  Authority  to  Receive  Freight  and  Make  Contracts.— The  local 

agent  of  a  railroad  at  a  station  at  which  a  shii^jjer  desires  to  have  cars  furnished 
him  has  authority  to  receive  applications  therefor.-"^  Railroad  agents  are  placed 
at  stations  for  the  express  purpose  of  receiving  and  forwarding  freights  and 
making  contracts  with  reference  thereto,  and  where  an  agent  has  agreed  to  re- 
ceive and  ship  stock  at  a  particular  time  the  company  is  bound  thereby,  unless 
a  delay  in  shipping  was  due  to  some  unforeseen  event,  such  as  the  law  recog- 
nizees as  sufficient.-'  And  an  agreement  by  an  agent  of  a  railway  company  to 
furnish  cars  and  receive  and  ship  freight  at  a  future  day  is  not  such  an  admis- 
sion of  the  carrier's  common-law  obligation  to  receive  and  ship  the  freight  when 
oft'ered  as  will  estop  the  company  from  denying  such  duty  upon  the  freight  be- 
ing tendered  to  it  for  shipment,  as  by  showing  that  it  is  discharged  from  such 
dutv  because  its  road  is  under  government  military  control.-"" 

Special  Agreement  as  to  Delivery. — The  delivery  or  tender  of  freight  to 

20.  Actual  refusal  necessary.— Allen  z:  24.  "A  carrier  is  excused  for  nonde- 
Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  lOO  N.  Car.  397,  livery  of  goods  to  the  consignee,  when 
6   S     E    105    35    \m.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   532.  they    are    demanded,    or    taken    from    his 

21.  Refusal  to  furnish  facilities.— Un-  possession  by  some  person  having  a  su- 
der  Rev.  St.  1895,  art.  4494,  requiring  rail-  Pf'O'"  title  to  the  property.  Fitch  t/. 
road  companies  to  furnish  accommoda-  J^^^'^^i'^'y  (^^"^h.),  1  Doug.  1.  40  Am. 
tion  for  the  transportation  of  all  such  ^^^:,  ^^'  ^^-  ,  ..  .  ,  , 
property  as  shall  be  offered  for  transpor-  \\here  the  adverse  title  is  made  known 
tation,  etc.,  after  a  railroad  company  had  [f^  the  carrier  if  he  is  forbidden  to  de- 
refused  to  furnish  transportation  to  the  ''ver  the  goods  to  any  o  her  person  he 
shipper,  the  latter  was  not  bound  to  pre-  ^cts  a  his  peril;  and  if  the  adverse  title 
pare  and  offer  his  freight,  in  order  to  be-  '^  well  founded  and  he  resists  it,  he  is 
come  entitled  to  damages  for  the  refusal.  I'^ble  to  an  act.oi.  for  the  recovery  of 
Judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  40  S.  W.  431,  the  goods.  Pitch  zk  Newberry  (Alich.), 
reversed  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Camp-  1  P°"?.;  \'  ^^  ;V''-,  Ar  ,  ^  i  n  nc 
bell,  91  Tex.  55],  45  S.  W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A.  ^5.  fitch  f.  Newberry  (Mich.),  1  Doug. 
225  1,  40  Am.  Dec.  33.  38. 

„■     .      ,      .^       ,    ,  .  ,,.     ,         .,  26.    Local   agents. — Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

22.  Authority  of  shipper.— I- itch  z^  New-  .^,  ^jj^,^  ^^  Tex.  Civ.  App.  331,  98  S.  W. 
berry  (Mich.J,  1  Doug.  1,  40  Am.  Dec.  33.       ^g^,    judgment    reversed    Allen    v.    Texas, 

23.  See  Fitch  v.  Newberry  (Mich.),  1  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Tex.  525,  101  S.  W.  792, 
Doug.  1,  40  Am.  Dec.  33,  38.  n    i^.    R.   A..    N.    S.,   981,    15   Am.   &   Eng. 

A  common  carrier  need  not  receive  for  Ann.   Cas.  618. 

transportation     goods     from     any    person  27.     Storms — Cold     weather. — Pruitt    v. 

other  than  the  owner  or  his  duly  author-  Hannibal,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  r,2   Mo.  527. 

ized   agent.      Drake  v.    Nashville,    etc.,    R.  28.    Phelps  r.    Illinois   Cent.    R.    Co.,   94 

Co.,   125  Tenn.  627,   148   S.   W.  214.  111.   548. 


231  DUTY    TO    RKCKlVt:    AND   CAKRV.  §§    358-359 

a  carrier  for  shipment  may  be  made  in  accordance  with  such  arrangement  be- 
tween the  shii)])er  and  the  carrier's  agent  as  they  may  choose  to  make  in  regard 
to  the  mode  of  deHvery.  and  a  station  agent  has  authority  to  consent  to  such 
arrangement.-"-' 

Apparent  Authority  to  Act  as  Agent  of  Steamboat  Company — Refusal 
to  Receive  Freight. — W  he-re  une  whtjm  a  slcauiho.-it  carrier  had  i)tjrniiue<l  lo 
act  as  its  agent  in  receiving  freight,  for  such  a  length  of  time  as  to  justify  the 
behcf  that  he  was  an  authorized  agent,  wrongfully  refused  to  receive  freight 
offered,  the  carrier  can  not  escape  liability  on  the  ground  that  he  had  no  au- 
thority to  receive  freight  f(jr  shipment."-" 

§  359.  Place  and  Time  of  Offer  for  Transportation. — A  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  and  transport  goods  unless  they  are  offered  at 
a  regular  depot  or  other  usual  or  designated  place  for  receiving  freight. '^^  Thus, 
it  is  said  that  a  common  carrier  is  not  bound  to  depart  from  his  ordinary  and 
usual  mode  of  business  in  receiving  goods  to  carry. •^-  Where  common  carriers, 
doing  an  express  business,  only  hold  themselves  out  as  carriers  between  certain 
designated  points,  they  can  not  be  compelled  to  carry  from  intermediate  points; 
and  where  they  are  sued  for  property  delivered  to  an  agent  at  an  intermediate 
point,  it  is  competent  for  them  to  show  that  they  were  not  carriers  from  such 
point,  and  that  tlie  agent  was  not  authorized  to  receive  the  goods. ^-^  And  al- 
though a  carrier  hauls  coal  and  other  goods  for  hire  from  one  end  of  its  line  to  the 
other,  and  carries  goods  other  than  coal  from  an  intermediate  station,  it  is  not 
bound  to  carry  coal  from  that  station  unless  it  has  publicly  professed  to  do  so ;  ^* 
nor  can  a  carrier  be  compelled  to  receive  goods  beyond  its  own  terminus.'^-*^ 

Spur  Tracks  and  Switches. — A  railroad  company  owes  to  establishments 
connected  with  its  line  by  spur  track  the  same  duty  to  furnish  shipping  facilities 
as  it  does  to  persons  whose  shipments  are  situated  immediately  on  its  main  road.-'*^ 

Usage  and  Custom. — By  a  long  and  continuous  custom  of  receiving  tor 
transportation  cordwood  left  at  a  point  on  the  main  line  of  its  track,  not  a  reg- 
.ular  station,  or  at  a  side  or  spur  track,  a  railroad  company  may  bind  itself  to 
continue  the  custom  until  it  has  given  reasonable  notice  of  its  discontinuance; 
so  that,  where  such  a  custom  has  been  discontinued  without  reasonable  notice, 
a  carrier  will  be  liable  for  special  damages  to  a  shipper  who  has  cut  and  stacked 
wood  for  shipment  in  reliance  on  such  custom,  on  refusal  by  the  carrier  to  trans- 
port the  wood,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  such  recovery  that  the  shipper  shall  actually 
deliver  the  wood  at  the  point  on  the  track  wliere  the  carrier  had  been  accustomed 
to  receive  it,  when  he  has  offered  to  do  so  and  been  notified  by  the  carrier  that 
it  will  not  accept  the  shipment.-'*' 

29.  Special  agreement  as  to  delivery. —  by  means  of  a  switcli  track  and  course 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ozier,  S(j  .\rk.  of  dealing  is  a  station  or  stopping  place 
179  183  no  S.  W.  0^3,  17  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  witliin  the  meaning  of  this  act.  Mulberry 
836!  Hill  Coal  Co.  r.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  161 

30.  Authority  of  agent  to  refuse  or  re-  111.  .\pp.  272. 

ceive. — Scasongood      :■.     Tennessee,     etc..  32.     Usual     mode    and     manner. — Pitts- 

Transp.  Co.,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1142.  .")4  S.  W.  burgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :.  Morton.  01   Ind.  539, 

193,    49    L.    R.    A.   270.  2S  .\m.  Rep.  <>S2. 

31.  Place     and    offer     for     shipment. —  33.    Intermediate    points. — Thurman     :-. 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    z:    Flanagan.    113  Wells,   etc..    Co.    (X.    Y.),    IS    Barb.   500. 
Ind.  488,   3   Am.   St.    Rep.   674,   32   Am.   &  34.  Receiving  coal. — Johnson  r.  Midland 
Eng.    R.   Cas.    532.  R.    Co.    (Eng.).    6    Railw.    Cas.    61,    4    Ex. 

Under     Railroad     Act.     §     84,     requiring  367.  18  L.  J.   Ex.  366. 
every    railroad    corporation    in    the    state  34a.   Beyond  terminus. — Cobb.   etc..   Co. 
to   furnish    cars   for   the    transportation   of  r:   Illinois   Cent.    R.   Co..  38   Iowa   601. 
property  offered  for  transportation  at  the  35.    Spur    tracks    and    switches.— Louis- 
several     stations     and     at     such     stopping  ville.  etc..   R.  Co.   :.   Higdon,   149   Ky.  321, 
places  as  may  be  estal)lished  for  receiving  148  S.  W.  26. 

and    discharging    freights,    a    mine    wliicli  36.     Usage     and     custom.— Ethridge     v. 

has  become  a  part  of  and  appurtenant   to  Central,    etc..    R.    Co.,    13t)^  Ga.    677,    71    S. 

a    regular    station    of   a    railroad    company  E.   1063,  38   L.   R.  A..   X.  S..  93,  Ann.   Cas. 

by    reason    of   being   connected    therewith  1912  D.  128. 


§  359  CARRIERS.  232 

Private  Switch  or  Spur  Track. — A  common  carrier  can  not  be  required  to 
recei\e  freight  on  or  along  a  private  switch,  but  its  duty  in  that  regard  is  con- 
fined and  Hmited  to  its  own  depots  or  shipping  and  receiving  points.-*'  Where  a 
carrier  received  and  dehvered  freight  on  j^rivate  spur  tracks,  generally  under 
contracts  between  the  parties,  it  did  not  show  a  custom,  imposing  on  the  carrier 
a  duty  to  deliver  or  receive  freight  on  private  si)ur  tracks,  if  such  a  duty  could 
be  created  by  custom.^^ 

Regular  Station. — A  place  at  which  there  has  never  been  any  station  agent, 
where  no  tickets  are  kept  or  sold,  where  there  is  no  agent's  office,  and  where 
no  bills  of  lading  or  receipts  are  given,  but  where  the  conductors  sometimes 
stopped  trains  and  took  on  freight  and  passengers,  is  not  a  "regular  depot  or 
station"  within  the  meaning  of  the  provision  of  a  statute  which  imposes  a  pen- 
alty upon  any  company  refusing  to  receive  freight  at  any  "regular  depot,  sta- 
tion, wharf,"  etc.^^ 

Time  of  Tender. — Where  any  goods  or  live  stock  are  to  be  snipped,  the  car- 
rier is  not  liable  for  failure  or  refusal  to  receive  them  unless  they  are  offered 
for  shipment  at  the  proper  time,  and  ready  for  transportation.-"'  Goods  or  live 
stock  for  shipment  must  be  tendered  within  reasonable  hours  and  upon  reasona- 
ble notice."*^  A  carrier  is  not  negligent  in  failing  to  delay  its  regular  freigiii 
trains  in  order  to  handle  a  shipment  of  cattle.'*-  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that, 
where  the  stock  to  be  shipped  was  not  loaded  upon  the  arrival  of  the  train,  and 
was  not  even  in  the  yards  of  the  company,  but  in  a  private  yard,  and  had  not 
been  given  into  the  possession  of  any  authorized  agent  of  the  carrier,  the  car- 
rier was  not  liable  for  refusing  to  delay  the  train  until  the  stock  could  be  loaded, 
notwithstanding  the  same  train  took  cars  of  stock  at  other  stations  later,  al- 
though in  these  instances  the  locomotive  was  required  to  assist  in  loading  the 
cars,  while  in  plaintiff's  case  it  was  not.'*'' 

Time  of  Receiving. — A  common  carrier  must  receive  at  reasonable  times 
goods  of  the  kind  it  undertakes  to  transport,  but  there  is  no  duty  on  it  to  re- 
ceive moneys  or  goods,  and  to  assume  liability  for  their  safekeeping  and  in- 
surance an  unreasonable  length  of  time  before  the  transportation  can  begin.^^' 
The  reasonableness  of  the  time  within  which  a  carrier  must  receive  moneys  or 
goods  for  transportation  is  measured  primarily  by  its  relation  to  the  transporta- 
tion of  the  ])roperty,  to  the  business  of  the  carrier,  and  pro]:ier  consideration  of 

37.  Private  switch. — Bedford-Bowling  agent  of  tlie  company;  and  this  notwith- 
Green  Stone  Co.  r.  Oman,  134  Fed.  -441,  standing  the  train  took  cars  of  stock  at 
judgment  affirmed  in  i;54  Fed.  64,  67  C.  a  later  station,  where  the  locoinotive  was 
C.  A.  190.  required  to  assist  in  loading  them.     Fraz- 

A  carrier,  furnishing  sufficient  facilities  ier  f.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co..  48  Iowa  571. 
of  its  own  for  the  receipt  and  delivery  of  41.  Reasonable  hours  and  notice. — Mis- 
freight,  is  under  no  common-law  duty  to  souri,  etc.,  R,  Co.  ?'.  Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ. 
receive  or  deliver  freight  on  private  spur  App.  677,  690,  29  S.  W.  565. 
tracks.  Gulf  Compress  Co.  z\  Alabama,  Cattle  must  be  tendered  within  season- 
etc,  R.  Co.   (Miss.),  56  So.  666.  able  hours  and  reasonable  notice. — In  the 

38.  Custom — private  spurs. — Gulf  Com-  al)sence  of  a  contract  previously  entered 
press  Co.  r.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Miss.),  into,  the  carrier  is  bound  under  its  com- 
56   So.   666.  mon-law  duty  to  receive  for  shipment  cat- 

39.  Regular  station. — Kellogg  v.  Suffolk.  tie  or  other  property  when  tendered  with- 
etc,  R.  Co..  H)0  N.  C.  158,  5  S.  E.  379,  in  scasonal)le  hours  and  upon  reasonable 
35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  529.  construing  notice.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter, 
North  Carolina  Statute.  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  690,  29  S.  W.  565. 

40.  Frazier  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  42.  Delaying  regular  traffic. — San  An- 
lowa   571.                                                                        tonio,  etc.,   R.  Co.  7'.  Turner,  42  Tex.  Civ. 

Refusal  to  delay  train  until  cars  can  be  App.   5:i2.  94   S.   W.  214. 

loaded. — A    railroad   comi)any   licld    not   to  43.    Need    not    delay    train. —  Frazier    v. 

Ije  lial^le  for  refusing  to  delay  a  train  un-  Kansas,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   48   Iowa   571. 

til  four  car  loads  of  hogs  could  be  loaded,  44.  Time  of  receiving. — Piatt  z:  Lecocq, 

the  same  being  in  a  private  yard  until  the  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  158  Fed.  723,  15  L.  R.  A., 

arrival  of  the  train  on  time,  and  not  hav-  N.  S.,  558,  reversed,  (C.  C.  1906),  150  Fed. 

ing     been     delivered     to     any     authorized  391. 


233 


DUTY  TO  RKCKIVE  AND  CARRY 


§§  359-360 


the  business  of  its  customers.-*''  The  rules  and  practice  of  an  express  company 
to  refuse  to  receive  money  for  transi)ortation  from  a  Ijank  which  has  a  burglar- 
proof  vault  and  ade(iuate  facilities  in  the  city  where  the  packages  were  tendered 
to  kee])  lliem  safely  over  night  on  the  day  preceding  the  departure  of  the  train 
which  carried  express  matter  are  not  unreasonable  or  unlawful/''  But  under  a 
North  Carolina  statute  it  has  been  held  that  a  rule  of  an  express  company  for- 
bidding its  agents  to  receive  money  for  shipment  except  on  the  day  and  prior  to 
the  lime  when  trains  left  for  the  point  of  destination,  was  invalid.-*' 

Carrying-  on  Sunday.  —  It  has  been  said  that  a  railroad  company  is  not 
bound  to  carry  passengers  or  freight  on  Sunday,  even  when  a  statute  permits  it 
to  do  so  ;  and  if  it  contracts  to  do  so  and  afterwards  fails  to  carry  out  tne  con- 
tract, it  i--  not  an  infraction  of  the  company's  general  duty  as  a  common  carrier.-**^ 
While  on  the  other  hand  it  is  held  that  the  fact  that  stock  is  oitered  by  a  con- 
necting line  for  transportation  on  Sunday  does  not  excuse  the  carrier's  failure 
to  rcceixc  and  carry.-*-' 

§  360.  Payment  or  Tender  of  Charges. — A  carrier  may  require  a  i)re- 
paymcnt  of  his  charges  and  may  refuse  to  carry  goods  tendered  for  transporta- 
tion unless  such  charges  are  jiaid  in  advance.  \\'hile  the  law  compels  him,  from 
motives  of  public  i)olicy.  to  deal  with  all  persons,  and  leaves  him  no  choice  as 
to  his  customers,  it  does  not  bind  him  to  deal  on  credit,  and  he  may  demand  the 
price  of  his  lalior  before  it  is  performed. •'""  Of  course  the  carrier  can  waive 
such  prepayment  if  he  sees  fit.-'''  and  the  same  rules  apply  where  a  carrier  offers 


45.  Time  of  receiving  money. — Piatt  ■:■. 
LeCDcq.  8o  C.  C.  A.  (;21,  158  Fed.  723,  1.5 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  o58,  reversed  (C.  C.  l'.)06), 
loO  Fed.  391. 

46.  Piatt  V.  Lecocq,  85  C.  C.  A.  621,  158 
Fed.  723.  15  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  558,  reversed 
(C.  C.   1900),   150   Fed.  391. 

47.  North  Carolina  Code,  §  1964,  pro- 
vides that  agents  "of  railroads  and  other 
transportation  companies,  whose  duties  it 
is  to  receive  freights,  shall  receive  all  ar- 
ticles of  the  nature  and  kind  received  by 
such  company  for  transportation,  when- 
ever tendered  at  a  regular  depot,  *  *  * 
and  shall  forward  the  same  l)y  the  route 
selected  by  the  person  tendering  the 
freight  under  existing  laws."  Held,  that 
the  words  "whenever  tendered"  could  not 
lie  limited  furtlier  than  to  require  the 
tender  to  be  made  during  reasonal)le  busi- 
ness hours,  and  were  not  qualified  by  the 
words  "under  existing  laws,"  which  could 
l>e  construed  as  qualifying  the  word  "for- 
ward:" and  that  a  rule  of  an  express  com- 
pany forbidding  its  agents  to  receive 
money  for  shipment,  except  on  the  day 
and  prior  to  the  time  when  trains  went  to 
the  point  of  destination,  w^as  invalid.  Al- 
"sop  r.  Southern  ICxp.  Co..  104  N.  C.  27S. 
10  S.  E.  207.  (■)  L.  R.  A.  271. 

48.  Carrying  on  Sunday. — -Georgia  R.. 
etc..  Co.  r.  Maddox.  UC  C.a.  64.  42  S.  E. 
315. 

49.  Offer  on  Sunday. — Philadelphia,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  ;•.  Lehman,  56  Md.  209.  40  Am.  Rep. 
415,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.   194. 

50.  Payment  or  tender  of  charges. — .\1- 
len  r.  Capo  Fear,  etc..  R.  Co..  100  X.  C. 
397.  6  S.  E.  105.  35  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
532;    Wyld   z:    Pickford,   8    M.    &   W.   443; 


Batson  r.  Donovan,  4  B.  &  Aid.  28,  6  E. 
C.  L.  376;  Bastard  z\  Bastard,  2  Show. 
81;  Fitch  V.  Newberry  (Mich.).  1  Doug. 
1,  40  Am.  Dec.  33;  Galena,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Rae.  18  111.  488.  68  Am.  Dec.  574;  Barnes 
V.  Marshall,  18  Q.  B.  785,  83  E.  C.  L.  785; 
Randall  z:  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N. 
C.  612,  13  S.  E.  137.  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  754;  Waring  &  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893.  7  O.  Dec. 
553;  Samms  7\  Stewart,  20  O.  69,  55  Am. 
Dec.  445. 

The  carrier  may  refuse  to  accept  the 
goods  for  transportation  unless  reason- 
able regulations  requiring  the  prepayment 
of  a  specified  freight  are  complied  with. 
Lamar  z\  New  York.  etc..  Nav.  Co.,  16 
Ga.  558. 

Common  carriers  are  bound  to  receive 
and  transport  such  articles  as  may  be 
delivered  to  them  in  the  course  of  their 
business,  but  ma)-  demand  freight  in  ad- 
vance, and,  if  not  paid,  refuse  to  carry 
the  goods.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z-.  Frank- 
enberg.  54  111.  88,  5  .\m.  Rep.  92. 

A  carrier  is,  in  all  cases,  entitled  to  de- 
mand the  price  of  carriage  before  he  re- 
ceives the  goods,  and.  if  not  paid,  he  may 
refuse  to  take  charge  of  them.  Wright 
z:  Snell,  5  Barn.  &  .\ld.  353;  Oppenheim 
V.  Russell,  3  Bos.  &  Pul.  48.  See  post, 
"Charges  and   Liens,"  chapter  15. 

51.  Prepayment  waived. — It  is  the  duty 
of  cxi)rcss  CDUipanies  to  receive  all  goods 
offered  for  transportation,  upon  the  pay- 
ment or  tender  of  their  charges,  but  pre- 
payment will  be  considered  waived  if  not 
demanded.  .Msop  f.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1,  104  X.  C.  278. 
6  L.  R.  .\.  271.  10  S.  E.  297. 


360 


CARRIERS. 


234 


goods  for  shipment  to  a  connecting  carrier.''-  So  a  person  can  not  have  a  right 
of  action  against  a  carrier  for  refnsing  to  receive  and  carry  grain  unless  there 
has  been  a  tender  of  the  customary  freight  charges,  or  manifestation  of  readi- 
ness and  wilHngness  to  pay  according  to  the  course  and  usage  of  the  company, 
whether  it  is  required  to  be  paid  in  advance  or  not.^^  g^^t  prepayment  of  freight 
is  not  necessarv  to  sustain  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  refusal  to  carry  and 
delay  in  carrying  freight,  unless  required  by  the  company.'-*  Accordingly  it  is 
held  that  it  is"  not  necessary  to  aver  the  actual  tender  of  money  for  the  carriage ; 
and  avennent  that  the  person  desiring  to  make  the  shipment  was  ready  and 
willing  to  pav  is  sufficient.-^^  A  common  carrier  may  require  prepayment  of 
freight  charges  from  any  shipper  at  its  choice,  although  it  does  not  require  it 
from  others,'"'  or  he  may  demand  prepayment  from  any  station  and  to  any 
station."'"  So  a  general  regulation  by  a  carrier  that  it  would  require  prepay- 
ment on  all  freight  to  certain  flag  stations  is  not  only  reasonable,  but  is  a  mat- 
ter entirelv  within  its  powers."""  It  should  appear,  however,  that  the  shipper 
or  forwarding  carrier  had  notice  that  prepayment  was  required."'-*  So  it  has 
been  held  that  whether  a  railroad  company  can  excuse  a  refusal  to  accept  and 
carry  freight  on  the  ground  that  the  charges  w^ere  not  prepaid,  will  depend 
upon   its  custom  in  collecting  charges,  which  is  a  question   for  the  jury.'"^     It 


52.  Randall  z\  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
108  X.  C.  612,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  74, 
13    S.   E.   137. 

"If  the  East  Tennessee.  Virginia  & 
Georgia  Railroad  received  prepayment  of 
freight  for  shipment  over  both  lines,  and 
negligently  failed  to  prepay  the  defend- 
ant, as  required  by  its  regulations,  and 
the  plaintiff  has  suffered  damages  by  the 
consequent  detention,  he  must  look  to 
the  company  who  received  his  money,  and 
with  whom  he  contracted  for  the  ship- 
ment. Mt.  Pleasant  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cape 
Fear,  etc..  R.  Co..  106  N.  C.  207,  10  S.  E. 
1046."  Randall  r.  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co., 
108  X.  C.  612,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  74, 
13   S.    E.  137. 

53.  Tender  or  manifestation  of  willing- 
ness to  pay. — Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Rae 
l>s  111.  4-^--.  <•,^  Am.  Dec.  574. 

54.  Prepayment  not  necessary. — Galena, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  i:  Rae,  IS  111.  488,  68  Am. 
Dec.  574. 

55.  Actual  tender  not  necessary. — Pick- 
ford  z:  Grand  I  unction  R.  Co.,  8  M.  & 
W.  372,  9  D.  P.  C.  76(5,  2  Railw.  Cas.  592, 
5  jur.   731. 

56.  Right  to  discriminate. — Randall  r. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  X.  C.  612,  49 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  74,  13  S.  E.  137;  Al- 
len c'.  Cape  Fear,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  X.  C. 
397,  6  S.  E.  105,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
532.  The  supreme  court  of  Xorth  Caro- 
lina takes  the  position  that  a  carrier  may 
discriminate  among  shippers  in  this  re- 
gard, and  require  prepayment  of  some 
and  allow  credit  to  others.  In  the  Allen 
Case  it  is  said  that  this  right  to  demand 
prepayment  is  but  the  exercise  of  a  righf 
to  demand  of  every  one,  that,  upon  all 
freight  conveyed,  the  charges  must  be 
paid  in  advance;  and  we  do  not  perceive 
any  legal  wrong  done  to  one  to  whom 
credit  may  not  be  given  because  it  is  given 
to    others;    it    may    be    because    of    their 


punctuality  in  paying  bills  whenever  they 
are  presented.  The  statute  recognizes 
the  right,  for  it  compels  the  company  to 
furnish  transportation,  not  generally,  but 
"on  the  due  payment  of  the  freight  or 
fare  legally  authorized  therefor"  (Code, 
§  1963);  and  therefore  the  exaction  of  pre- 
payment of  freight  for  goods  consiarned 
to  the  plaintiflf  is  but  the  assertion  of  a. 
right  which  might  be,  if  the  fact  that  it 
be  not,  enforced  against  all  dealers. 

57.  "A  common  carrier  can  demand  pre- 
payment of  freight  from  any  one  and  to 
any  station.  Code,  §  1963;  Allen  v.  Cape 
Fear,  etc..  R.  Co.,  100  X.  C.  397,  35  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  532,  6  S.  E.  105."  Randall 
■z:  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.,  108  X.  C.  612. 
49   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.  74,   13   S.   E.  137. 

58.  Randall  f.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
108  X.  C.  612,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  74, 
13   S.   E.  137. 

59.  Notice  of  regulation. — Randall  v. 
Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.,  108  X.  C.  612,  49 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  74,  13  S.  E.  137;  Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Morris,  68  Tex.  49,  3 
S.  W.  457,  28  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  50. 

60.  Custom — question  for  jury. — Reed 
f.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Del.),  3 
Houst.    176. 

In  an  action  by  a  shipper  against  a  rail- 
way company  to  recover  damages  for 
overcharges  and  failure  to  furnish  cars, 
the  fact  that  the  freight  was  not  paid  or 
tendered  when  the  goods  were  offered 
for  shipment  was  no  bar  to  a  recovery 
where  the  custom  of  the  carrier  did  not 
require  it,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Wol- 
cott,  39  X.  E.  451,  141  Ind.  267,  50  Am. 
St.   Rep.  320. 

Where  a  common  carrier's  bill  of  lad- 
ing shows  that  the  owner  or  consignee 
was  required  to  pay  "freight  charges  be- 
fore delivery"  merely,  recovery  can  be 
had  for  failure  to  provide  a  shipper  with 
cars,    though    the    charges    were    not    ten- 


zzs 


DUTV  TO  KtCEIVF,  AND  CARKV. 


§§  360-361 


has  been  held  that  the  shipper  is  entitled  to  prove  that  the  goods  were  ample 
security  for  the  freight,  so  that  there  was  no  sufficient  reason  for  stopping  the 
goods   in   transit.'"' 

Operation  and  Construction  of  Statutes. — A  state  statute  requiring  rail- 
road corporations  to  transport  property  on  payment  of  the  freight,  does  not 
contemplate  a  prepayment,  and  hence  there  was  a  payment  when,  on  the  mak- 
ing out  of  the  bill  of  lading,  a  draft  was  given  the  railroad  for  the  freight,  and 
was  forwarded  with  the  bill  of  lading  and  paid  on  presentation.''-  Xor  can  a 
carrier,  under  a  statute  which  provides  that,  on  the  tender  of  the  legal  and  cus- 
tomary rates  of  freight  on  goods  offered  for  transportation,  any  common  car- 
rier refusing  to  transport  siiall  be  liable  in  damages  to  the  party  injured,  escape 
liabilitv  for  failure  to  transport  on  the  ground  that  plaintiff  did  not  tender  the 
freight  charges  at  the  time  the  freight  was  offered,  as  he  was  not  bound  to 
make  such  tender  until  after  the  carrier  had  loaded  the  goods  ready  for  trans- 
P'ortation/'-'* 

Switching  and  Placing  Cars. — While  it  is  the  diity  of  a  railroad  to  switch 
and  i)lacc  cars  coming  from  its  own  line,  or  tendered  to  it  with  proper  transfer 
switching  charges  by  any  connecting  line,  and  it  can  not  excuse  itself  from  the 
performance  of  its  duty  by  the  existence  of  disputes  as  to  the  correctness  ot 
charges  withheld  pending  adjustment,  yet  it  is  warranted  in  refusing  to  switch 
and  place  cars  at  the  warehouse  of  a  consignee,  who  has  not  only  arbitrarily 
refused  to  pay  demurrage  charges  accrued  in  the  past,  but  has  expressed  his 
intention  of  persisting  in  his  refusal  even  if  such  charges  be  justly  incurred 
in  the  future."^ 

§  361.  Time  and  Order  of  Shipment. — This  rule  requires  carriers  to  ac- 
cept and  transi)ort  jjroperty  in  the  order  in  which  it  is  off'ered,  and  they  can 
not  exercise  partiality  in  accepting  the  property  tendered  by  some  and  rejecting 
that  ottered  by  other  persons.  If  this  rule  is  violated  the  company  is  liable  for 
all  damages  resulting  therefrom.'"'*  If  a  carrier  store  freight  received  for 
transportation,  on  the  ground  that  it  has  not  facilities  to  forward  it,  and  in  the 


dered  by  him  at  the  time  the  goods  were 
offered  for  shipment.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wolcott.  141  Ind.  2(37,  39  N.  E.  451, 
50  Am.    St.    Rep.   320. 

61.  Goods  as  security. — Leach  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Hun  377.  35  N.  Y. 
S.  305,  69  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  749.  In  this  case 
the  defense  by  the  carrier  was  failure  to 
tender  freight  charges. 

62.  Effect  of  state  statute. — Dorrance  & 
Co.  f.  International,  etc..  R.  Co..  103  Tex. 
200,  125  S.  W.  5C1,  construing  Texas  Rev. 
Stat.,   1895,   art.   4494. 

Rev.  St.  •  1895,  art.  4404,  requires  rail- 
road corporations  to  take  and  transport 
property  on  the  due  payment  of  the  legal 
freight.  Article  449(3  provides  that  on 
refusal  so  to  transport  any  property,  or 
to  deliver  the  same  at  the  regular  ap- 
pointed time,  the  railroad  shall  pay  to 
the  party  aggrieved  all  damages  sustained 
thereby,  with  costs  of  suit,  etc.  Held, 
that  the  words  on  "the  refusal."  etc.,  "so 
to  take,"  etc..  refer  to  the  preceding  arti- 
cle and  mean  in  case  of  tlie  refusal  to  take 
under  the  conditions  prescribed  in  such 
article.  Dorrance  &  Co.  :•.  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Tex.  2on,   v2:>  S.  \V.  5fil. 

63.  Payment  at  time  of  offer  not  con- 
templated.— Te.xas.  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Havs. 
2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  390. 


64.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Searles,  85 
Miss.  520,  37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A.  715. 

65.  Order  of  shipment. — Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z\  Smith,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
421,  63  Tex.  322:  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Hill,  14  111.  App.  579. 

It  is  undue  prejudice  for  a  railway  com- 
pany to  receive  goods  at  its  station  of  one 
carrier  later  than  it  receives  them  of  an- 
other, although  the  first  carrier  brings  his 
goods  properly  classified,  weighed,  and 
prepared  for  loading.  Garton  f.  Bristol, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  C.  B..  X.  S.,  639.  5  Jur., 
X.  S.,  1313,  28  L.  J.  C.  P.  306,  1  B.  &  S. 
112,  7  Jur.,  X.  S.,  1234,  30  L.  Q.  B.  273. 
9   \V.    R.    734. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  railroad  company 
to  transport  freight  for  all  persons  in- 
differently, in  the  order  in  which  its  trans- 
portation is  applied  for.  State  z'.  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  O.  St.  130,  23  X.  E. 
928. 

A  railway  company  can  not  close  its 
office  and  refuse  to  receive  goods  for  car- 
riage, while  at  the  same  time  it  continues 
to  receive  similar  goods  from  a  particular 
individual.  Garton  z:  Bristol  &  E.  R.  Co., 
1  B.  &  S.  112.  7  Jur..  X.  S  ,  1234,  30  L.  J. 
Q.    B.    273.   9    \V.    R.    734. 


5§  361-362 


CARRIERS. 


236 


meantime  receive  and  forward  new  and  subsequent  freight,  it  is  liable  to  par- 
ties injured  thereby.  Xor  is  it  any  defence  that  the  goods  of  plaintiff  were 
shipped  before  other  freights  received  sooner.«''  But  it  is  not  the  duty  of  a 
railroad  companv.  as  a  common  carrier,  to  ship  freight  in  the  order  of  time 
in  which  it  was'  oft'ered  with  reference  to  its  entire  line,  but  only  with  refer- 
ence to  the  station  where  it  was  tendered.'^'  And  there  is  no  invariable  rule 
requiring  freight  to  be  carried  in  the  order  in  which  it  is  received,  without 
regard  to  its  character  and  condition,  or  its  liability  to  perish.*'*^  Thus  it  is  said 
that  hay  not  being  perishable  merchandise,  a  carrier  is  not  called  upon  to  put 
forth  unusual  efforts  to  remove  the  same  when  delivered  to  it  for  transpor- 
tation.'''^ 

Forwarding  Accumulated  Freight. — The  same  rule  of  preference  must  be 
observed    in    forwarding   accumulated    freight.'" 

Relief  Goods  for  Sufferers.— And  giving  preference  to  relief  goods  sent 
to  the  suft'erers  of  a  great  fire  is  not  such  a  discrimination  against  shippers  of 
other  freight  as  to  make  a  carrier  liable  as  for  negligence  for  not  forwarding 
freight  in  the  order  in  which  it  is  received.  All  general  rules  must  yield  to  a 
great    public    necessity.'^ 

§  362.  Character  of  Goods' Tendered  for  Shipment.— To  What  Things 
Applicable.— The  foregoing  rule  is  a  very  broad  one  and  has  a  general  ap- 
plication to  every  class  of  things  that  the  carrier  expressly  or  impliedly  holds 
itself  out  to  theV^blic  as  being  prepared  to  carry.' ^  But  the  general  duty  of 
a  carrier  to  receive  and  ship  goods,  etc..  for  all  alike  does  not  compel  a  car- 
rier to  accept  and  carry  all  goods  that  may  be  offered,  but  only  such  as  it  has 
undertaken  to  carrv.  either  expressly,  or  by  implication.' ''     A  common  carrier 


66.  Great  Western  R.  Co.  x\  Burns,  60 
111.  284.  12  Am.  R.  Rep.  309. 

67.  Refers  to  station  only. — Ballentine 
c'.  North  Missouri  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  491,  93 
Am.   Dec.   31.5. 

68.  Regard  to  character  of  freight. — 
Peet  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594, 

91  Am.  Dec  446. 

So  where  two  kinds  of  property  are  de- 
hvered  to  a  carrier  at  the  same  time  by 
different  owners,  one  of  which  is  perish- 
able and  the  other  not,  preference  is  to 
be  given  in  the  transportation  to  that 
which  is  perishable.  Marshall  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  45  Barb.  502, 
afifirmed  in  48  N.  Y.  600;  Tierney  z'.  New 
York,  etc..  R.  Co..  76  N.  Y.  305,  67  Barb. 
538,   affirming   10   Hun   r,iV.K 

69.  Hay  not  perishable. — Strough  r. 
New   York   Cent.   R.   Co.,  87   N.   Y.   S.  30, 

92  App.  Div.  584,  affirmed  in  73  N.  E.  1133, 
181   N.  Y.  533. 

70.  Forwarding  accumulated  freight. — 
Tierney  f.  New  York,  etc.,  K.  Co..  76  N. 
Y.  305,  67  Barb.  538,  affirming  10  Hun 
569. 

71.  Relief  goods  for  fire  sufferers. — 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Burrows,  33 
Mich.   6. 

72.  Mcintosh  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.. 
17  Idaho  100,  105  Pac.  66;  Shelnut  v.  Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Ga.  404,  62  S.  E. 
294,  18   L.  R.  A.,  N.   S.,  494. 

A  corporation  engaged  in  business  as 
a  common  carrier  is  bound  to  receive  all 
goods  offered  it  for  transportation  which 
it     is     able     and     accustomed     to     carry. 


Southern  Exp.  Co.  7'.  Rose  Co.,  53  S. 
E.  185,  124  Ga.  581,  5  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  619. 
73.  Excuse — Effect  of  general  duty. — 
Nitro-GIycerine  Case  (U.  S.),  15  Wall. 
524,  21  L.  Ed.  206;  Kuter  v.  Michigan 
Cent.  R.  Co.  (U.  S.),  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7955, 
1  Biss.  35;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7\  Wal- 
lace, 14  C.  C.  A.  257,  66  Fed.  506.  30  L. 
R.  A.  161;  Pfister  r.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co., 
70  Cal.  169,  11  Pac.  686,  27  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  246,  59  Am.  Rep.  404;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  7:  Thompson.  19  111.  578: 
Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  109  111.  135,  50  Am.  Rep.  605,  18  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  505;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
Adams  Exn.  Co.,  24  Inrl.  447.  87  Am.  Dec. 
341;  Lee  i'.  Burgess  (Ky.),  9  Bush,  652; 
Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Shanly,  107  Mass. 
568,  12  Am.  L.  Reg.,  N.  S.,  500;  Jordon  v. 
Fall  River  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  5  Cush.  69, 
51  Am.  Dec.  44;  Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co. 
f.  Perkins,  25  Mich.  329,  12  Am.  Rep. 
275,  5  Am.  R.  Rep.  249;  Vicksburg.  etc., 
Co.  V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  68  Miss. 
149,  8  So.  332;  Tierney  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305,  67  Barb.  538,  af- 
firming 10  Hun  569;  Allen  z\  Sewall  (N. 
Y.),  6  Wend.  327;  People  r.  Babcock 
(N.  Y.),  16  Hun  313;  Honeyman  v.  Ore- 
gon, etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ore.  352,  25  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  380,  10  Pac.  628.  57  Am. 
Rep.  20;  Dickson  v.  Northern  R.  Co.,  18 
Q.  B.  Div.  176;  Thomas  v.  North  Staf- 
fordshire R.  Co.,  3  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  1; 
Johnson  z:  Midland  R.  Co.  (Eng.),  4 
Ex.  367,  6  Railw.  Cas.  61,  1  Ry.  &  C.  T. 
Cas.   16;   Heme  v.  Garton,  2   El.  &  El.  66, 


237 


DUTV    TO    RECIilVK    AXO   CAKKV. 


§  362 


is  only  such  as  to  goods  of  the  kind  to  which  his  business  is  confined,  but  as 
to  them  he  must  hold  himself  out  to  the  iniblic  generally,  and  engage  in  it  as 
a  business,  and  not  as  a  casual  occupation."*  A  carrier  who  has  never  as- 
sumed or  offered  to  carry  goods  of  a  certain  class,  except  upon  special  terms 
exempting  him  from  all  the  important  duties  and  liabilities  of  a  carrier,  cai. 
not  l)e  classed  among  carriers  of  property  of  that  kinrl.  or  be  made  amendable 
in  the  character  of  a  common  carrier  as  to  such  property."''  Thus  it  is  held  that 
the  class  of  carriers  known  as  "transfer  companies,"  engaged  in  receiving  and 
transferring  the  baggage  of  passengers  to  and  from  ])ublic  conveyances,  by 
land  and  water,  are  under  no  obligation  to  accept  and  carry  ordinary  merchan- 
dise. A  parcel  delivery  express  company  need  not  receive  and  deliver  hay, 
lumber,  or  other  articles  too  bulky,  heavy,  or  otherwise  inconvenient  to  handle 
and  transfer  by  its  usual  facilities.  In  other  words,  the  duty  of  the  carrier 
is  confined,  as  is  sometimes  provided  by  statute,  to  accepting  and  carrying  prop- 
erty "of  a  kind  that  he  undertakes  or  is  accustomed  to  carry."  "''  The  goods 
otYered  for  transportation  must  be  of  the  kind  to  which  the  carrier's  business  is  < 
confined.  A  carrier  does  not  undertake  to  carry  all  kinds  of  goods,  but  only  such 
as  are  of  the  description  which  he  professes  to  carry,  and  he  is  not  liable  as 
such,  where,  by  si)ecial  agreement  or  as  a  matter  of  accommodation,  he  under- 
takes to  carrv  a  class  of  goods  which  it  is  not  his  business  to  carry." 

Limitation  by  Public  Notice.— A  carrier  may  relieve  himself  from  obli- 
gation to  transport  particular  kinds  of  goods  by  giving  public  notice,  but  this 
l)rivilege  does  not  extend  to  railroads.'^**  A  railroad  can  not  limit  its  business 
with  respect  to  any  i^-operty  which  it  is  adapted  to  transport,  and  which  the 
public  have  a  right  to  expect  it  to  transport,  since  it  is  a  common  carrier  for 
the  benefit  of  the  people  as  to  all  such  property  as,  according  to  modern  usage, 
railroads  are  accustomed  to  transport.'*^ 


28  L.    I.    M.    C.    1(>:    Irish    :■.    Chapman.    2 
Ga.  ;54!). 

Where  a  carrier  holds  itself  out  as 
only  engaged  in  the  carriage  of  specified 
articles,  it  is  under  no  obligation  to 
carry  other  things.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Higdon,  148  S.  W.  2G,  149   Ky.  321. 

A  charge  that  a  railway  company  must, 
as  a  common  carrier,  transport  goods 
over  a  branch  road  in  use  by  it,  whether 
owned  or  operated  under  a  contract  or 
lease,  is  erroneous,  in  that  such  lial)ility 
does  not  depend  on  the  mere  fact  of  use, 
but  on  the  object  and  purpose  of  the 
construction,  and  the  character  of  the 
use.     Avinger   z\   South    Carolina    R.    Co., 

29  S.  C.  200,  7  S.   E.  49.1,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
71  fi,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  519. 

74.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harris,  1 
Tex.  App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  1257. 

75.  class  or  character  of  goods. — Lake 
Siiore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Lerkins,  2.")  Mich. 
329,    12   .\m.    Rep.   2:."i,  r<   Am.   R.   Rep.  249. 

76.  Transfer  companies. — Pfister  r. 
Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Cal.  169,  11 
Pac.  ()8(),  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  246,  59 
Am.    Rep.    404. 

77.  The  86th  section  of  the  Railway 
Clauses  Consolidation  Act  (8  &  9  Vict. 
c.  20),  is  an  enabling  provision;  and  if  a 
company  act  as  carriers  they  are  not 
bound  to  carry  all  kinds  of  goods  from 
and  to  every  station  on  the  line,  but  only 
such  goods  to  and  from  such  places  as 
they    have    publicly   professed    to    do    and 


have  convenience  for.  Johnson  z-.  Mid- 
land R.  Co.,  4  Ex.  367,  6  Railw.  Cas.  61, 
1   Rv.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  16. 

Cal.  Civ.  Code,  §  2169,  does  not  com- 
pel carriers  to  accept  and  carry  all  goods 
that  may  be  offered,  but  only  such  as  it 
has  undertaken  and  is  accustomed  to 
carry.  Pfister  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70 
Cal.  169,  11  Pac.  686,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  246,  59  Am.  Rep.  404. 

Railway  and  Canal  Traffic  Act  of  1854. 
— .\  railway  company  is  under  the  same 
obligations  as  a  common  carrier  under- 
taking to  carry  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  Railway  and  Canal 
Traffic  Act,  1854;  therefore  questions  as 
to  how  far  a  sender  of  goods  may  require 
delivery  at  any  station  he  may  appoint, 
or  as  to  how  far  a  railway  company  is 
, liable  to  carry  goods  of  every  kind,  or  for 
'all  persons  alike,  are  to  be  determined  in 
each  case,  not  with  reference  to  what  a 
railway  company  may  choose  to  do.  or 
may  ordinarily  do,  but  with  reference  to 
what  may  be  within  its  powers,  and  at 
the  same  time  a  reasonable  requirement. 
Thomas  z:  North  Staflfordsliire  R.  Co.,  3 
Rv.  S:  C.  T.   Cas.  1. 

78.  Limitation  by  public  notice. — Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Harris,  1  Tex.  .\pp. 
Civ.  Cases,  §  1257. 

79.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Harris.  1 
Tex.   App.   Civ.   Cases,  §   1257. 

Railroad  companies  can  not,  as  other 
carriers,    relieve     themselves     from    their 


§  362 


CAKRIKRS. 


238 


Dangerous  Substances  or  Otherwise  Injurious  Articles. — While  tht 
ordinary  obligation  of  a  carrier  is  to  receive  all  goods  offeretl  for  shipment,  he 
may  refuse  to  accept  dangerous  articles,  and  if  there  is  reasonable  ground  to 
suspect  their  character,  he  may  demand  to  examine  them.  Without  such  rea- 
sonable ground  for  suspicion,  however,  he  can  not  force  the  consignor  to  dis- 
close their  nature.^"  It  has  been  held  that  a  carrier  may  refuse  to  haul  powder, 
nitroglycerine,  dynamite,  aqua  fortis.  oil  of  vitriol,  matches,  etc.^^  But  other 
courts  hold  that  common  carriers  are  under  legal  obligation  to  receive  and 
properly  carry  explosives.  The  mere  fact  of  such  carriage  does  not  render  the 
carrier  guilty  of  a  nuisance.'^-  A  railroad  must  carry  freight  of  this  character 
over  its  road,  and  such  dangers  as  necessarily  result  to  others  from  the  proper 
and  reasonable  performance  of  this  duty  must  be  bourne  by  them  as  an  un- 
avoidable incident  of  the  proper  transaction  of  legitimate  business.  But  a 
nuisance  may  result  from  the  negligent  exercise  of  a  right,  or  performance 
of  a  duty,  with  respect  to  one's  own  property  or  property  in  his  charge.  A 
nuisance  to  others  may  thus  arise  from  the  careless  discharge  by  a  common  car- 
rier of  its  duty  in  the  transportation  of  such  dangerous  articles  as  are  here  in 
question.  The  right  to  carry  them  does  not  include  the  right  to  subject  per- 
sons along  the  route  to  dangers  from  explosions  for  a  longer  time  or  in  a 
greater  degree  than  is  reasonably  necessary  to  the  proper  performance  of  the 
carrier's  duty.'^^  A  carrier  is  not  required  to  receive  goods  tendered  for  ship- 
ment which  are  injurious  to  the  public  health,  peace,  or  morals,  or  likely  to 
destroy  the  property  of  others.^"* 

Prohibited  Articles. — As  the  law  neither  recjuires  nor  permits  common 
carriers  to  do  illegal  acts,  they  are  not  bound  to  transport  and  deliver  com- 
modities,  if  thereby  they  incur  a  penalty. '^^     But  it  is  the  duty  of  a  common 


obligation  to  carry  any  property  which 
they  are  adapted  to  transport.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Harris,  1  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cases.    §    12.57. 

80.  Dangerous  substance. — Nitro-Glyc- 
erine  Case  (U.  S.),  15  Wall.  524,  21  L. 
Ed.  206:  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shanly, 
107  Mass.  568,  12  Am.  L.  Reg.,  N.  S., 
500;  Heme  v.  Garten,  2  El.  &  El.  66,  28 
L.  J.  M.  C.  16. 

81.  California  Powder  Works  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Cak  329,  45  Pac. 
691,  36  L.  R.  A.  648,  citing  Pfister  v. 
Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Cal.  169,  11  Pac. 
686,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  246,  59  Am. 
Rep.  404;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Lockwood  (U. 
S.;,  17  Wall.  357,  21  L.  Ed.  627;  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  25  Mich. 
329,  12  Am.  Rep.  275,  5  Am.  R.  Rep.  249; 
Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  etc..  R. 
Co.,   19   S.   C.  353. 

In  California  Powder  Works  v.  Atlan- ' 
tic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Cal.  329,  45  Pac.  691, 
36  L.  R.  A.  648,  the  court  said:  "It  was 
thus  optional  with  the  defendant  to  ac- 
cept the  powder  for  transportation  or 
not;  but,  if  it  chose  to  accept  it,  it  could 
accept  it  upon  such  terms  and  with  such 
limitation  of  its  common-law  liability  as 
it  saw  fit.  Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  i'.  Colum- 
bia,  etc..   R.   Co.,   19   S.   C.  353." 

82.  Contrary  ruling  as  to  explosives. — 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bcauchamp,  95 
Tex.  496,  68  S.  W.  502,  58  L.  R.  A.  71 G, 
93   Am.    St.    Rep.   864. 

83.  Articles  injurious  to  public  health. 
— Ft.    Worth,   etc.,    R.    Co.   i\    Beauchamp, 


95    Tex.    496,    500,    68    S.    W.    502.    58    L.    R. 
A.   716,   93  Am.   St.   Rep.   864. 

84.  Articles  injurious  to  public  health, 
etc. — Coweta  County  v.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  94,  60  S.   E.  1018. 

85.  Prohibited  articles. — State  v.  Goss, 
59   Vt.   266,   9   Atl.   829,   59   Am.   Rep.   706. 

A  railroad  is  not  bound,  as  a  common 
carrier,  to  receive  for  transportation  that 
which  the  law  prohibits  it  from  carrying. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gasaway,  71  111. 
570;  Milwaukee  Malt  Extract  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Iowa  98,  34  N.  W. 
761. 

A  railway  company  commits  no  broach 
of  duty  in  refusing  to  carry  cattle  with- 
out a  declaration  from  the  owner  or  per- 
son in  charge  under  the  Contagious  Dis- 
eases (Animals)  Act,  1878,  where  a 
local  authority  of  the  county  makes  a 
regulation  requiring  such  declaration  be- 
fore bringing  cattle  into  the  county.  Wil- 
liams V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  52  L.  T. 
250,   49   J.    P.   439. 

Under  Forest,  Fisji,  and  Game  Law, 
§  8,  as  amended  by  Laws  1906,  p.  1337, 
c.  478,  §  2,  prohibiting  the  shipment  of 
deer,  whether  wild  or  domesticated,  a 
common  carrier  may  refuse  to  ship  the 
meat  of  domesticated  deer,  which  belong 
to  plaintiff  and  are  not  kept  in  close  con- 
finement, though  the  deer  was  killed  to 
prevent  it  from  injuring  others  and  to 
preserve  the  herd.  Dieterich  v.  Fargo, 
52  Misc.  Rep.  200,  102  N.  Y.  S.  720. 


239 


Ul-'IY    TO    RFXi:iVF.    ANU    CARRY. 


§    362 


carrier  to  receive  and  transport  spirituous  and  malt  liquors  for  a  reasonable 
hire,  notwithstanding  the  existence  of  the  local  option  liquor  law,  according  to 
the  (lirection  of  the  owner  or  sender,  unless  the  transportation  has  been  pro- 
hibited by  the  lawmaking  power.^"  And  an  unconstitutional  law,  prohibiting 
railways  from  carrying  certain  cattle  into  or  through  the  state, ''''^  or  from  car- 
rying intoxicating  li([Uors  within  a  city  without  the  payment  of  a  license  fee," 
being  void,  will  afford  no  excuse  for  failure  (jr  refusing  to  carry  the  goods 
or  cattle. 

Quality  of  Goods. — A  railroad  com])any  can  not  refuse  to  accept  and  trans- 
port coal  tendered  by  a  shipper,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  of  inferior  quality  to 
other  coal  also  produced  on  its  line,  and  that  the  marketing  of  such  coal  will 
injuriously  affect  the  sale  and  consequently  the  shijnnent  of  the  superior 
quality. "^^ 

Breakable  Goods. — A  common  carrier  is  not  bound  to  carry  breakable 
goods,  such  as  glassware,  subject  to  all  the  common-law  liabilities  of  a  cofn- 
mon  carrier,  where  the  uniform  practice  of  defendant  company,  as  well  as 
others,  lias  lieen  to  earn    such  wares  only  under  a  limited  liability.^" 

Money,  Bank  Bills,  Etc. — Where  a  carrier  is  sought  to  be  held  liable  as 
a  common  carrier  for  refusing  to  receive  or  carry  money,  bankbills,  etc.,  it 
must  be  shown  that  he  is  such,  if  that  class  of  carrying  is  not  within  the  ordi- 
nary business  in  which  he  is  engaged. •'"'  This  matter  classifies  under  the  gen- 
eral rule  heretofore  mentioned  that  a  common  carrier  of  goods  is  not  under 
obligation  to  accept  any  and  carry  all  personal  proi)erty  that  may  be  ofTered,"^ 
but  onlv  such  as  he  undertakes  or  is  accustomed  to  carry.-'-     It  is  held  that  it 


86.  Effect  of  local  option  law. — South- 
ern Kxp.  Co.  7:  State,  \()7  Ga.  670,  33  S. 
E.  637,  46  L.  R.  A.  417,  73  Am.  St.  Rep. 
146;  Fears  z:  State,  102  Ga.  274,  29  S.  E. 
463. 

.\  railroad  company  will  be  enjoined 
from  rcfusinji'  to  carry  from  another  state 
into  South  Carolina  intoxicating  liquors 
in  original  packages,  consisting  of  bot- 
tles packed  in  wooden  cases,  when  ten- 
dered in  car-load  lots,  with  a  release  of 
lialiility  for  waste  or  breakage  not  re- 
sulting from  its  own  negligence.  Blu- 
thcnthal  ;•.   Southern   R.   Co.,   84   Fed.   920. 

86a.  Unconstitutional  statute. — Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hrickson,  91  111.  613,  33 
Am.  Rep.  70. 

87.  .\  common  carrier,  able  and  accus- 
tomed to  transport  intoxicating  liquors 
from  one  city  to  another,  can  not  law- 
fully refuse  so  to  do  because  of  the 
passage  by  one  of  the  cities  of  an  invalid 
ordinance  prohil)iting  the  transportation 
and  delivery  of  liquor  within  the  city 
witliout  the  payment  of  a  license  fee. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Rose  Co.,  124  Ga. 
.581.   5    L.    R.    A..    X.    S..   619,   53    S.    E.    185. 

88.  Quality  of  goods. — Olanta  Coal 
Min.  Co.  r.  Bcccli  Creek  R.  Co..  144  Fed. 
150,  affirmed  in  Beech  Creek  R.  Co.  z'. 
Olanta  Coal  Min.  Co..  85  C.  C.  A.  148,  158 
Fed.  ;!6.   16   L.   R.   A..  X.  S.,  677. 

89.  Breakable  Goods. — .\  mandamus 
will  not  issue  to  compel  an  e.xpress  com- 
pany to  carry  fragile  goods — as  glass- 
ware— subject  to  all  the  common-law  lia- 
bilities of  a  common  carrier.  People  v. 
BalK-ock   (X.  Y.\  16  Hun  313. 

90.  Money,     bank     bills,     etc. — Lee    z\ 


Burgess  (Ky.).  9  Bush  652;  Allen  v.  Se- 
wall  (N.  Y.),  6  Wend.  335;  Jordan  z:  Fall 
River  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  5  Cush.  69,  51  Am. 
Dec.  44;  Kuter  z-.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7955,  1  Biss.  35;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Thompson,  19  111.  578. 

So  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  car- 
rier is  prohibited  from  carrying  money, 
or  it  is  the  usage  of  trade  not  to  carry 
money,  if  a  person  acquainted  with  the 
prohibition  or  usage  delivers  money  to 
the  carrier,  it  will  not  be  responsible  for 
loss  of  money.  Chouteau  z'.  Steamship 
St.  Anthony,  11  Mo.  226. 

In  the  absence  of  evidence,  the  car- 
riage of  money  is  strictly  speaking  not 
in  the  line  of  the  duty  of  a  carrier  hold- 
ing himself  out  only  as  a  carrier  of 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hall  (Ky.).  124  S. 
W.   372. 

91.  Pfister  z:  Central  Pac.  R.  Co..  70 
Cal.  169.  11  Pac.  6S6,  27  .Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  246.-  59  Am.   Rep.  404. 

92.  The  plaintiff,  a  county  treasurer, 
was  a  passenger  on  a  train  on  defend- 
ant's road,  for  the  purpose  of  going  from 
San  Jose  to  Sacramento.  He  had  with 
him,  in  small  leather  satchels,  $91,952,  in 
gold  coin,  due  the  state  from  the  plain- 
tiff as  county  treasurer,  and  which  he 
was  taking  to  deliver  to  the  state  treas- 
urer. No  objection  was  made  by  the 
conductor  of  the  train,  who  had  knowl- 
edge of  the  contents  of  the  satchels,  un- 
til they  reached  Xiles,  a  way  station  on 
the  road.  Here  it  was  necessary  to 
change  cars,  and  the  conductor  from 
Xiles   refused   to  permit   the  plaintiff  and 


§   362  CARRIERS.  240 

is  not  the  business  of  a  railway  company  to  carry  money. ^'^  Nor  does  the 
charter  of  a  railroad  company,  granted  at  a  time  when  it  was  not  incumbeni 
on  common  carriers  to  carry  money,  requiring  it  to  transport  "all  merchandise 
and  property."  make  it  a  common  carrier  of  money ;  neither  does  transporting 
monev  for  an  express  company  under  a  special  contract  have  that  effect.''^'* 
Money  and  bank  bills  may  for  certain  purposes  be  regarded  as  goods,  but  ordi- 
narily, in  speaking  of  "goods,  wares,  and  merchandise."  neither  is  included,  and 
a  common  carrier  of  "goods,  wares,  and  merchandise"  will  not  necessarily  be 
presumed  to  be  a  common  carrier  of  money  and  bank  bills.""'  Where  there  is 
no  proof  that  a  railroad  company  has  at  any  time  carried  bank  bills  or  money 
of  any  kind,  or  held  themselves  out  to  the  public  as  carriers  of  such  property, 
and  no  express  contract  to  carry  money  has  been  proved,  such  contract  can  not 
be  implied  from  the  fact  that  the  company  held  itself  out  as  a  carrier  of  "goods, 
freight,  and  passengers;"  and  it  not  being  the  business  of  the  company  to  take 
bank  bills  as  freight,  before  it  can  be  liable  for  such  there  must  be  proof  that 
its  agent  was  authorized  to  receive  them ;  and  proof  that  the  agent  was  au- 
thorized to  receive  "goods  and  freight"  is  not  enough  to  show  an  implied  power 
to  receive  bank  bills  at  ordinary  freight  rates.'"'  But  when  it  is  within  the  char- 
ter powers  of  a  carrier  by  water  to  carry  such  articles  as  money,  etc.,  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  the  captain  of  a  vessel  employed  by  such  common  carrier  has 
authority  to  carry  bank  bills.'*'' 

Cars  Shipped  by  Builder. — It  has  been  held  that  a  railroad  chartered  with 
usual  powers  to  carry  persons  and  property,  and  provided  with  the  necessary 
facilities  for  doing  so,  is  bound  to  carry,  as  common  carriers,  cars  shipped  by 
a  builder  as  freight. "^^ 

Cars  of  Other  Carriers. — The  rule  is  applied  so  as  to  bind  a  railway  com- 
pany engaged  in  the  transportation  of  freights  for  hire  as  a  common  carrier, 
to  transport  or  haul  upon  its  road  the  cars  of  any  other  railroad  company  when 
requested  so  to  do,  and  hold  the  same  relation  as  a  common  carrier  to  such 
cars  that  it  does  to  ordinary  freight  received  by  it  for  transportation.  In-  case 
of  loss  it  will  be  held  to  the  same  measure  and  character  of  liability  to  the 
owner  of  the  cars  so  received  for  transportation  as  would  attach  in  respect  to 
anv  other  property.-''*     Of  course  the  rule  can  only  apply  where  the  gauge  of 

his    employees    to    enter    the     train     with  94.    Effect   of    charter    carrying    for    ex- 

their    treasure,    and    required    him    to    de-  press      companies. — Kuter      v.      Michigan 

liver   the   same   to   the    Wells,   Fargo   Ex-  Cent.     R.     Co.,     Fed.     Cas.    No.     7955,    1 

press    Co.,    to    whom    the    defenlant    had  Biss.    35. 

given   the   exclusive  privilege   of   carrying  95.  Money  not  wares  and  merchandise. 

money  on  its  trains.     The  plaintiff  at  first  — Lee  r.  Burgess  (Ky.),  !»  Bush  652. 

refused  to  do  this,  and  offered  to  go  into  96.      Proof     of     undertaking. — Chicago, 

the    baggage     car    and     pay    any     charges  etc.,   R.   Co.  f.  Thompson,   1!)   111.   5?S. 

which  might  be  exacted  for  the  transpor-  97.     Presumption     as     to     authority.^ 

tation   of  the   money.     This   offer  was   re-  Farmers',       etc..       Bank       r.       Cluimplain 

fused,   and,    to   avoid   being   left   at    Niles,  Transp.   Co.,   2?,   Vt.   186,  56   .'\m.   Dec.  68. 

the   plaintiff  delivered    the    money    to    the  98.  Cars  shipped  by  car  builder. — Greene 

express    company,    paying    for    the    trans-  7:   vSt.  John  &   M.   R.  Co.,  22   New   Burns, 

portation    $68.95.      In    an    action    against  252. 

the    company    for    refusing    to    carry    the  99.  Cars  of  connecting  carrier. — Peoria, 

treasure,  it  was  held,  tliat  the  duty  of  the  etc.,    R.    Co.   z'.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    18 

carrier  is  confined,  both   by  the  common  Am.  &   Eng.   R.   Cas.  506,   109   111.   135,  50 

law    and    the    Code    of    California,    to    ac-  Am.  Rep.  605;   Green  z'.  St.  John,  etc.,  R. 

cepting  and  carrying  property  "of  a  kind  Co.,  22  New  Bruns.  252;  Rogers  Locomo- 

that   he    undertakes    or    is   accustomed    to  tive,  etc..  Works  v.   Erie   R.  Co.,  20   N.  J. 

carry,"   and    there    could   be    no    recovery.  Eq.    379;    Atcliison,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Den- 

Pfister  V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Cal.  169,  ver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  U.  S.  667,  28  L.  Ed. 

11    Pac.   686,   59   Am.   Rep.   404,   27   Am.   &  291,  4  S.   Ct.   185,  16  Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas. 

Eng.   R.   Cas.  246.  57;    New  Jersey   R.,   etc.,   Co.  v.   Pennsyl- 

93.  Railway  companies. — Jordan  z'.   Fall  vania  R.  Co.,  27   N.  J.   L.   100. 

River  R.  Co.  (Mass.;,  5  Cush.  69,  51  Am.  In   Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 

Dec.  44.  R.    Co.,   109    111.    135,    18   Am.    &    Eng.    R. 


241  DUTY    TO    KlXKJVIv    AM)    CAUKV.  §    362 

the  road  is  snilaljlc,  and  tlie  cars  are  not  defective  or  out  of  repair,  or  of  such 
unusual  and  peculiar  construction  as  to  be  unreasonably  hazardous  or  dangerous 
to  work  with  or  handle.^  I5ut  there  must  exist  some  real  reason.  The.  mere 
fact  the  cars  may  be  tilled  with  a  different  coupling  ap|mratus  does  not  relieve 
the  carriii-  nf  this  duty.-  J  Iowe\er.  in  the  absence  of  a  special  contract  or 
special  circumstances  making  it  the  duty  of  a  connecting  carrier  to  continue 
transportation  in  the  same  cars  the  freight  is  delivered  in,  there  is  no  obligation 
upon  such  carrier  to  carry  the  freight  in  those  cars  when  its  own  cars  are  not 
in  use,  and  the  freight  would  not  be  injured  by  transfer  to  another  car.-' 

Grain  in  Bulk. — It  has  been  held  that  railroads  can  not  disregard  the  cus- 
tom of  con\c\iiig  grain  in  bulk  over  the  line  of  their  own  road  and  delivering 
it  at  elevators  thereon  to  which  it  may  be  consigned.  If  consigned  to  an  ele- 
vator or  warehouse  not  on  their  road,  and  beyond  their  terminus,  or  there  be 
no  elevator  on  the  road  on  whicli  the  grain  is  carried,  then  they  may  rightfully 
refuse  to  receive  it  in  bulk.' 

Coal. — If  a  railwav  comiiany  does  not  hold  itself  out  as  a  common  carrier 
of  coal,  it  is  not  obliged  to  carry  coal  from  station  to  station,  or  for  coal  mer- 
chants, and  may  restrict  its  coal  traffic  to  the  carriage  of  coal  for  colliery  own- 
ers, from  the  pit's  mouth  to  stations  where  such  colliery  owners  have  their 
depots.-"'     Rut  a  railroad  comjxmy  accustomed  as  a  common  carrier  to  hauling 

Cas.  506.  ,)()  Am.  Rep.  i\0'>,  the  court  said:  road  so  defectively  constructed  or  other- 
"The  question  presented  is  one  of  first  wise  unsafe  as  manifestly  to  imperil  the 
impression  in  this  court.  Nor  have  conn-  life  and  limb  of  its  employees.  Texas, 
sel  cited  any  case  where  the  exact  ques-  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  Carlton,  60  Tex.  307,  1.5 
tion  involved  has  been  considered  by  any  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  .3.iO. 
court  of  last  resort.  It  leaves  this  court  2.  Railroad  companies  are  obliged  to 
free  to  determine  the  law  on  principle,  as  receive  for  transportation  cars  of  the 
shall  be  thought  to  best  subserve  public  proper  gauge  which  are  offered  to  them 
interests  as  well  as  the  private  interests  by  other  companies,  notwithstanding  dif- 
of  corporations  concerned.  No  proof  is  ference  in  coupling  apparatus.  Not  only 
needed  to  sliow  the  extent  and  the  im-  do  the  necessities  of  commerce  and  their 
portance  of  the  interests  involved  in  tlic  own  interest  require  this,  but  it  is  re- 
decision.  It  is  a  matter  of  so  much  pub-  quired  by  statute:  and  it  would  be  a  flag- 
lie  concern,  that  judicial  notice  may  be  rant  breach  of  corporate  duty  to  refuse, 
taken  of  tlie  fact  that  cars  belonging  to  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Smithson,  45 
different  companies  are  interchangeably  Mich.  212,  7  N.  W.  791,  1  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
used   on   all   the  principal   railroads   in  the,  Cas.    101. 

United      States,      and      that     no     company  3.   Change  cars — Right  to   substitute   its 

could      do     any      considerable      freighting  own    cars. — Oregon    Short    Line,    etc.,    R. 

Inisiness    that    did    not     conform     to    this  Co.  r.   Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co..  51  Fed.  465, 

general    usage.      Without    such    usage,    it  'jI    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    145,   affirmed   in 

would   be   difficult,   if,   indeed,   it   would    be  61    Fed.    158.    9    C.    C.    A.    409.  _  See   post, 

possible,  to  transact  the  commercial  Inisi-  "Connecting    Carriers."    Part    V. 

ness   of   the    country.      Freights   for   ship-  Connecting    carrier     may     transfer    live 

ment  across   the   continent  could   not  well  stock  to  its  own  cars. — In  the  alisence  of 

be   stopped    at   the   terminus   of   each    car-  an    express    contract    or    special    circum- 

rier's    line,    and   reshippcd    in    cars    of   the  stances  making  it  the  duty  of  a  connect- 

connecting  carrier.     That  would  occasion  ing  carrier  to  continue  the  transportation 

more   delay   than   the   necessities   of   com-  of  cattle  in  the  same  cars  in  which  they 

merce  would  tolerate.     The  extent  of  the  are  delivered  to  him.  he  has  the  right  to 

usage    in     regard     to    the     exchange     and  unload    for    the    purpose     of     transferring 

transportation    of   cars     among    so     many  them    to    his    own    cars,    provided    this    is 

different   railroads  would   seem   to   require  done    without   unnecessary    delay.      McAl- 

such    exacting    rules    and     regulations    as  ister  r.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  74  Mo.  351, 

would    insure    the    strictest    accountability  7   .\m.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.  373. 

on  the  part  of  companies  that  may  trans-  4.    Grain    in    bulk. — Hempstead    z:    Chi- 

fer    or    liaul     cars    over    their     respective  cago,   etc.,   R.   Co..   55    111.   95.   8   Am.    Rep. 

roads."  fi;51.   640. 

1.    When     rule     unapplicable. — Chicago.  5.    Coal. — Oxlade    z:     Northeastern     R. 

etc.,    R.    Co.   :•.    Curtis,    51    Xel).   442,   71    N.  Co..    15    C.    B.,    N.    S..    680. 

W.   4:2.  The  fact  that  a  railway  company  posts 

But    a    railroad    company    is    not    bound  up    in   a   particular   station   a   list   of   tolls, 

to    receive    and    haul    the    car    of    another  including  those   for   coal,   is   not   sufficient 

1  Car— 16 


§  362 


CARRIERS. 


242 


coal  over  its  road  and  to  furnish  cars  for  that  purpose  can  not  refuse  to  re- 
ceive coal   for  transportation  without  rendering  itself  liable  for  resulting  dam- 


ages 


Live  Stock. — According  to  the  common-law  rule  railroad  companies  are  not 
carriers  of  live  stock,  and  can  only  make  themselves  carriers  of  that  species  of 
property  by  assuming  to  convey  it  as  carriers,  either  expressly  or  by  implica- 
tion." In  some  of  the  states,  notable  ^Michigan,*  carriers  of  live  stock  are  not 
regarded  as  common  carriers  unless  they  have  expressly  assumed  the  responsi- 
bilities of  common  carriers  by  special  contract."*  And  in  one  case  an  injunction 
was  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  question  was  unsettled.^*'  But  in  most  of 
the  states,  carriers  of  living  animals  are  held  to  be  common  carriers,  and  to  be 
insurers  to  the  same  extent  as  if  engaged  in  carrying  general  merchandise,  sub- 
ject to  explanation  as  to  loss  or  damage  caused  by  animals  to  themselves  and 
to  each  other.  There  is  no  doubt  that  there  is  some  controversy  in  the  judicial 
mind  whether,  in  the  conveyance  of  live  stock,  the  duties  and  liabilities  of  the 
common  law  "attach  to  the  carrier,  or  whether  the  carrier,  in  the  absence  of  a 


evidence  that  it  holds  itself  out  as  a 
common  carrier  of  coal  from  that  sta- 
tion. Oxlade  i'.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  15 
C.    B..    X.    S.,    680. 

Agreement  to  transport  coal  for  col- 
lieries exclusively. — A  railway  company, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  obstruction  of  its 
railway,  which  would  be  caused  by  an 
unlimited  coal  traffic,  ascertained  the 
probable  consumption  of  coal  in  the 
neighborhood  of  each  of  its  stations,  and 
made  arrangements  with  the  collieries 
for  the  requisite  supply;  it  appointed  de- 
pot agents  to  manage  the  sale  of  the 
coal,  who  from  time  to  time  ordered  the 
quantity  wanted.  All  the  depots  were  in 
hands  of  these  agents,  who  accounted  to 
the  collieries  for  the  proceeds  of  the  sale. 
No  coal  merchant  was  dealt  with  in  this 
way,  but  only  coal  ovv^ners,  and  each 
dealer  was  treated  alike  and  as  one  of 
the  public.  On  a  motion  by  a  coal  mer- 
chant to  enjoin  the  company  to  af¥ord 
him  the  same  facilities  for  receiving  and 
forwarding  his  coal  as  to  those  who  con- 
signed their  coal  to  the  company,  held, 
that  the  arrangements  of  the  company 
were  not  such  as  gave  or  caused  any  un- 
reasonable preference  or  disadvantage. 
Oxlade  v.  North  Eastern  R.  Co.,  1  C.  B., 
N.  S.,  454,  3  Jur.,  N.  S.,  637,  26  L.  J.  C. 
P.   129. 

6.  Custom  of  carrier. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Queen  City  Coal  Co.,  ]3  Ky. 
L.   Rep.   832. 

7.  Live  stock. — White  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  19  Mo.  App.  400;  Lawrence  v. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.. .  84  Wis.  427,  54 
N.  W.  797;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein, 
52  Ala.  606,  23  Am.  Rep.  578;  Wabash, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Black,  11  111.  App.  465;  Bal- 
lentine  v.  North  Missouri  R.  Co.,  40  Mo. 
491,  93  Am.  Dec.  315;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Dorman,  72  111.  504;  Newport 
News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mercer,  96  Ky.  47."), 
29  S.  W.  301,  16  Ky.  L.  Rep.  555,  61  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  340;  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.    Co.   V.     Lehman,   56   Md.    209,   40   Am. 


Rep.  415,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  194; 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  25 
Mich.  329,  12  Am.  Rep.  275,  5  Am.  R. 
Rep.   249. 

Railroad  companies  are  not,  by  the 
common  law,  common  carriers  of  live 
stock,  and  can  only  make  themselves 
common  carriers  of  that  species  of  prop- 
erty by  assuming  to  convey  it  as  com- 
mon carriers.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Perkins,  25  Mich.  329,  12  Am.  Rep.  275, 
5   Am.   R.   Rep.   249. 

8.  Michigan  rule. — Michigan,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McDonough,  21  Mich.  165;  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  25  Mich. 
329,   12  Am.   Rep.  275,   5  Am.   R.   Rep.  249. 

9.  Right  to  refuse  to  carry  live  stock. — 
One  who  has  never  assumed  or  offered 
to  carry  live  stock,  except  upon  special 
terms  exempting  him  from  all  the  im- 
portant duties  and  liabilities  of  a  common 
carrier,  can  not  be  made  amenable  in  the 
character  of  a  common  carrier  as  to  such 
property,  in  case  of  a  refusal  to  carry  live 
stock.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Per- 
kins, 25  Mich.  329,  12  Am.  Rep.  275,  5 
Am.  R.  Rep.  249.  See  opinion  in  Honey- 
man  V.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ore.  352, 
10  Pac.  628,  57  Am.  Rep.  20,  25  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.  Cas.  380. 

10.  The  complainants,  a  stock-yard 
company,  sought  an  injunction  to  com- 
pel a  railroad  company  to  receive  at 
their  yards  from  complainants  live  stock 
carried  over  the  road  and  consigned  for 
delivery  at  the  defendants'  yards.  The 
injunction  was  denied,  first,  l)ecause  the 
question  whether  defendants  were  sub- 
ject to  any  duty  to  the  complainants  to 
receive  such  freight  is  an  unsettled  ques- 
tion of  law;  second,  because  the  injunc- 
tion asked  for  was  mandatory,  and  such 
writs  are  not  ordinarily  granted  until 
final  hearing.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Central  Stock  Yard,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  82,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  71,  10  Atl. 
490,  affirmed  in  43  N.  J.  Eq.  605,  12  Atl. 
374,   13  Atl.   615. 


243 


DLTV    TO    RKCKIVE    AND    CAKKV. 


§§  362-363 


special  contract,  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  bailee  or  special  agent  for  the  trans- 
portation of  such  property,  bound  only  to  furnish  suitable  and  safe  carriage 
and  motive  power,  and  liable  only  for  defects  in  these. '"  It  is  the  duty  of  a 
carrier  who  is  engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying  live  stock  to  receive  and 
carry  such  as  are  duly  olTered  for  transportation.^-  It  has  been  held  that  a 
railway  company  that  transports  cattle  and  live  stock  for  hire,  for  such  per- 
sons as  choose  to  employ  them,  thereby  assume  and  take  upon  themselves  the 
relation  of  common  carriers,  and  with  the  relation  the  duties  and  obligations 
which  grow  out  of  it;  and  they  are  none  the  less  common  carriers  from  the 
fact  that  the  transi)ortation  of  cattle  is  not  their  principal  business  or  employ- 
ment.^='  lUit  evidence  that  a  company  had  carried,  and  still  offers  to  carry, 
live  stock  for  hire  for  all  who  desired  on  terms,  as  to  duties,  liabilities,  and 
relations,  not  recognized  by  the  law  of  carriers,  but  in  some  respects  variant, 
and  in  others  repugnant  thereto,  does  not  tend  to  prove  that  such  company  is 
a  carrier  of  live  stock. ■■■* 

Effect  of  Charter. — A  charter  only  binds  a  common  carrier  to  transport 
such  property  as  was  usually  transported  by  at  the  time  the  charter  was  granted ; 
and  where  cattle  were  not  trans])orted  by  rail  at  the  time  a  charter  was  granted, 
the  companv  is  not  bound  to  transport  them  as  a  common  carrier,  unless  it 
holds  itself  out  to  the  public  as  transporting  them,  or  enters  into  a  special  con- 
tract to  do  so.^''"' 

Dogs. — Under  the  common-law  nde  a  common  carrier,  unless  he  professes 
to  carry  dogs  for  people  in  general,  is  not  bound  to  carry  a  dog  for  any  par- 
ticular individual ;  and  if  a  carrier  says  he  will  not  carry  dogs,  except  on  cer- 
tain terms,  he  can  lawfully  refuse  to  carry  any  particular  dog  on  any  other 
terms.  ^''' 

Live  Pigeons. — It  has  been  questioned  whether  or  not  live  pigeons  would 
be  regarded  in  anv  case  as  common-law  freight  for  common  carriers.^' 

§  363.  Condition  and  Preparation  of  Goods  Tendered. — A  carrier  may 
refuse  to  receive  for  carriage  an  article  of  property  which  is  improperly  packed 
or  prepared   for  transportation. i''   or  not   packed  or  prepared  at   all.  as   in   the 


11.  See  the  opinion  in  Hoiicyman  f. 
Oregon,  etc..  R.  Co..  13  Ore.  3.52.  10  Pac. 
628,  ,57  Am.  Rep.  20.  25  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   380. 

A.  railway  company  is  required  by  stat- 
ute to  receive  and  forward  freight,  in- 
cluding live  stock  delivered  to  it  for 
transportation.  Ft.  Worth,  etc..  R.  Co. 
r.  Galton,  45  Te.x.  Civ.  Ap]).  (u.  100  S. 
W.    160. 

12.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Whitehill. 
104    Md.    295.   64   Atl.    1033. 

13.  Kimball  z:  Rutland,  etc..  R.  Co.,  26 
Vt.  247.  62  Am.  Dec.  567.  and  see  Welsh 
V.  Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.,  10  O.  St.  65. 
75   Am.    Dec.   490. 

14.  Carrying  on  special  terms. — Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Perkins.  25  Mich. 
329.   12   Am.    Rep.  275,  5   .\m.    R.   Rep.  249. 

15.  Effect  of  charter. — Michigan,  etc., 
R.  Co.  T'.  McDonougli,  21   Mich.  165. 

16.  Dogs. — Dickson  z\  Northern  R.  Co., 
18  O.  B.  Div.  176. 

A  common  carrier  who  does  not  as- 
sume to  act  as  sucli  in  the  carriage  of 
dogs,  but.  upon  the  request  of  a  party, 
consents  to  carry  a  dog  on  a  particular 
occasion,  cannot  be  sued  as  a  common 
carrier    for    the    subsequent    death    of    the 


dog  while  under  his  charge,  even  though 
money  may  have  passed  to  defendant's 
agents  for  the  carriage.  The  action  must 
be  upon  a  private  contract,  if  recovery  is 
sought.  Honeyman  r.  Oregon,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  13  Ore.  352.  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
380,  10   Pac.  628.  57  .\ni.   Rep.  20. 

17.  Live  Pigeons. — .\merican  Mer- 
chants' Union  Exp.  Co.  r.  Phillips.  29 
Mich.  515. 

18.  Goods  not  properly  packed  for 
transportation. — Union  Exp.  Co.  f.  Gra- 
ham, 26  O.  St.  595:  Fitzgerald  z:  .\dams 
Exp.  Co..  24  Ind.  447.  87  .\m.  Dec.  341; 
Boyd  V.  Moses  (U.  S.),  7  Wall.  316.  19  L. 
Fd.  192:  Hart  z:  Baxendale  (^^ng.K  16  T,. 
T.  N.  S.  390,  6  Exch.  769.  16  Jur.  126;  Co- 
weta County  z:  Central,  etc..  R.  Co..  4 
Ga.  App.  94.  60  S.  E.  1018. 

.\  carrier  may  well  refuse  to  receive 
property  for  transportation  unless  the 
same  is  properly  packed,  but  if  he  re- 
ceives it  the  duty  attaches  of  exercising 
due  care  for  I'ts  safe  carriage.  Union 
Exp.  Co.  z:  Graham.  26  O.  St.  595. 

Under  rule  twenty-six  of  the  railroad 
commission,  providing  that  no  carrier 
should  be  required  to  accept  for  carriage 
any  goods  unless  they  are  in  such  condi- 


§§  363-364 


CARRIKRS. 


244 


case  of  loose  hay/''  or  it  may  properly  prepare  it  for  shipment  itself.^"  And 
it  has  been  said  that  where  ordinary  observation  would  discover  their  unfitness, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  refuse  the  shipment  in  order  that  tlie  shipper 
may  put  it  into  a  fit  condition  for  transportation.-^  A  carrier  is  not  bound  to 
receive  goods  which  are  so  defectively  packed  that  their  concHtion  will  entail 
upon  it  extra  care  and  extra  risk.--  So  if  an  article  is  so  packed  as  to  injure 
the  rest  of  the  cargo  the  carrier  has  the  right  to  refuse  to  transport  it,^"  and 
it  has  been  held  that  a  common  carrier  is  not  bound  to  receive  money  for  ship- 
ment unless  it  is  properly  secured  and  addressed.-^  Although  a  common  car- 
rier is  accustomed  to  receive  jugs  of  liquor  in  an  unboxed  condition,  under  a 
special  arrangement  voluntarily  made  by  it  with  shippers,  it  may,  at  will,  with- 
draw from  the  arrangement  without  liability  to  shippers  who  have  been  avail- 
ing of  it.  though  they  incur  increased  expense  by  reason  of  the  change.-^ 

Live  Stock  Not  Properly  Loaded. — A  railroad  company  is  not  bound  to 
receive  cars  from  a  connecting  road  loaded  with  hogs  so  crowded  that  they  are 
in  danger  from  suffocation ;  and  if  it  does  it  makes  the  act  of  that  road  its  own, 
and  is  bound  for  the  damages  resulting  to  the  hogs  from  suffocation  or  im- 
proper loading.-*^ 

§  364.  Private  Owned  Trains  or  Cars. — So  far  as  expression  has  been 
given,  there  is  unanimity  among  the  courts  of  this  county  that  a  railroad  cor- 
poration, as  a  common  carrier,  is  under  no  legal  duty  to  haul  show  cars,  that 
is,  cars  owned  and  fitted  up  by  showmen  and  used  exclusively  by  them  to  house 
and  transport  their  employees  and  show  property  as  a  complete  outfit  from 
place  to  place  over  railroads.-"  The  rule  rests  upon  the  principle  that  such 
loaded  cars  or  vehicles  are  not  such  goods  as  railroads  hold  themselves  out  to 
carry,  and  in  respect  to  which  they  assume  a  public  duty  to  serve  all  alike  who 
apply  for  carriage,  and  such  cars  being  a  class  of  property  they  do  not  profess 
to  carry,  and  the  drawing  of  which  is  inconsistent  with  their  business,  they 
are  therefore  exempt   from  all   public   duty  to   haul   them.      Carriers   certainly 


tion  and  so  prepared  for  shipment  as  to 
render  the  transportation  reasonably 
safe,  and  under  the  common  law  a  tender 
of  a  car  load  of  such  commodities  as  un- 
der the  rules  of  the  commission  are  to  be 
loaded  by  the  shipper  is  not  a  good  ten- 
der, where  the  car  on  which  the  goods 
were  when  ofifered  for  transportation  was 
the  car  of  another  line  and  was  marked 
as  in  bad  order,  and,  though  ofifered  sev- 
eral times,  it  was  each  time  refused  by 
the  inspector  because  of  such  dangerous 
conditio'n.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook. 
G2  S.  E.  464,  4  Ga.  App.  698. 

19.  Loose  hay. — Under  Revisal  1905, 
§§  1066,  T099,  1112,  and  Acts  1907,  cc.  469. 
471,  and  the  rules  of  the  corporation  com- 
mission, a  carrier  whose  motive  power  is 
fire-driven  engines  may  refuse  to  receive 
for  transportation  loose  hay.  Tilley  v. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (X.  C),  77  S.  E.  994. 

20.  Carrier  may  pack. — Elgin,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Bates  Mach.  Co.,  98  111.  App.  311, 
afifirmed  in  66  N.  E.  326,  200  111.  636,  93 
Am.  St.  Rep.  218. 

21.  Duty  to  notify  shipper  of  improper 
condition. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i\  Rice, 
1(;()  Ala.  26.5,  52  So.  918,  29  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..   1214. 

22.  Goods    defectively    packed. — Pfistcr 


V.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  70  Cal.  169,  11  Pac. 
686,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  246.  59  Am. 
Rep.  404;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Lockwood  (U. 
S.),  17  Wall.  357,  21  L.  Ed.  627;  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Perkins,  25  Mich. 
329,   12  Am.   Rep.  275,   5  Am.   R.   Rep.  249. 

23.  In  Boyd  z\  Moses  (U.  S.),  7  Wall. 
316,  19  L.  Ed.  192,  it  was  held  that  a  car- 
rier may  refuse  to  receive  for  transpor- 
tation lard  so  packed  that  it  could  not  be 
carried  without  injury  to  the  rest  of  the 
cargo. 

24.  Money — Properly  secured  and  ad- 
dressed.—  Fitzgerald  ;•.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
24  I  lid.  447,  87  Am.  Dec.  341. 

25.  Unboxed  jugs  of  liquor. — Vicks- 
l)Urg,  etc..  Co.  V.  United  States  Exp.  Co., 
68   Miss.  149,  8   So.   332. 

26.  Live  stock  not  properly  loaded. — 
Paramore  i'.  Western  R.  Co..  53  Ga.  383. 

27.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry, 
170  Ind.  94.  83  N.  E.  710;  Coup  v.  Wa- 
bash, etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill,  22  N.  W. 
215,  56  Am.  Rep.  374;  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wallace,  14  C.  C.  A.  257,  66  Fed. 
506,  30  L.  R.  A.  161;  Robertson  v.  Old 
Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass.  525.  31  N.  E. 
650.  32  Am.  St.  Rep.  482;  Wilson  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Fed.  774.  affirmed 
in    133   Fed.   1022,  66   C.   C.  A.   486. 


245  DUTY    TO   RECrllVE   A  NT)   CARRY.  §§    364-367 

are  not  comijclled  to  haul  such  cars  over  their  lines  at  reduced  rates. -"^ 

§  36  5.  Shipment  C.  0.  D. — I'Voni  a  considerati(jn  of  the  authorities  it  is 
clear  that  ex].rc.s>  companies  and  other  common  carriers  are  under  no  obliga- 
tion or  (lutv  at  the  common  law  to  engage  in  the  C.  (J.  D.  carriage  of  goods.-'* 
hut  that  ihe  obligation  imposed  to  collect  the  purchase  price  of  the  article,  ship 
and  relurn  the  proceeds  to  the  consignor  is  an  ol)ligation  which  must  rest  in 
contract  and  not  in  an  obligation  imposed  upon  by  the  law.-'"'  And  this  com- 
mon-law liability  of  carriers  to  receive  and  carry  has  not  been  affected  in  any 
wa\-   1)\-    recent    rate   laus/'^ 

Effect  of  Usage  and  Custom.  — W  bile  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  express 
companies  have  for  many  years  done  C.  O.  D.  business  yet  if  the  law  is  as  laid 
down  in  the  rule  previously  set  out  it  is  evident  that  such  practice  can  not 
create  a  legal  duty  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  unless  it  consents  to  the  engage- 
ment;  not  being  a  common-law  duty,  but  an  obligation  resting  on  an  implied 
contract  the  carrier  may  at  any  time  terminate  such  practice  and  refuse  to  be 
bound  by  an  implied  agreemei'u  without  its  consent.'*-  Such  usages  and  cus- 
toms can'  not  be  relied  upon  to  create  a  legal  liability  where  one  does  not  other- 
wise exist  although  they  may  be  inquired  into  for  the  purpose  of  interpreting 
an  implied  contract  and  the  extent  of   its  obligation. •'■' 

Effect  of  State  Statutes.— A  state  statute  imposing  a  tax  upon  persons 
carrying  liquor  C.  O.  I).,  is  sufficient  to  warrant  an  express  company  in  re- 
fusing to  carry  liquor  in  that  manner,  since  it  can  either  pay  the  license  tax 
or  refuse  to  carry  the  liquor.-'-*  The  express  company  is  not  required  in  such 
a  case  to  treat  the  act  as  unconstitutional.'''' 

§§  366-374.  Exceptional  Causes  Justifying  Failure  or  Refusal- 
§  366.  General  Statement. — There  are  certain  exceptional  causes,  such  as 
the  act  of  Cod.  the  ])ul)lic  enemy,  unavoidable  accident,  or  an  abnormal  and 
unanticipated  inrush  of  business  which  will  prevent  the  performance  of  a  car- 
rier's common-law  duty  to  shippers,  to  receive  and  transport  property  oft'ered 
for  shipment,  although"  such  property  is  in  good  condition  and  properly  pre- 
pared for  shipment,  and  belongs  to  a  class  of  proj^erty  subject  to  carriage  by  such 
carrier. 

§  367.  Absence    of   Requisite    Conveniences     or    Capacity.— Although 

the  owner,  or  his  agent,  offers  goods  for  carriage  and  tenders  payment  for  the 

'   28.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Henry,  170  distinguished      in      Danciger      z:      Wells, 

Ind    ")4    83   N    E    710  Fargo    &    Co.,    15-4    Fed.    379,    wherein    it 

A  carrier  is  under  no  common-law  ob-  was   said   '-the   precise   question,   however 

ligation     to     furnish     motive     power    and  involved    m    that    case,    was    the    right    of 

servants     to     move     a     circus     company's  complamant    to   ^require    the    defendant   to 

train    over    the    carrier's    road    at    reduced  ^^l[y  '"^  goods.                                     or., 

rates.     Sager  r.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  uw;  SlDancgerr.     W  ells,    Fargo    &     Co.. 

Fpfi   ■'!(■  ■^'^■^  Fed.  ;?,;». 

■"■:'■                     ^     ^     T^       u-           .  32.  Effect   of  usage   and   custom.— Dan- 

29.  Duty  as  to  C.  O.  D.  shipment.--  ^.  ^.  ^^-^j,^  p^^„.^  ^^^  Co..  1.^4  Fed.  379. 
Danciger  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  lo4  Fed.  33  o^nciger  z:  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.. 
3~-^-  154   Fed.  379. 

30.  Danciger  z:  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  This  is  clearlv  held  in  State  z:  .\tchi- 
154  Fed.  379;  citing  Cox  z:  Columbus.  son,  etc.,  R.  Co..  176  Mo.  687,  75  S.  W. 
etc..  R.  Co.,  91  Ala.  392,  8  So.  824;  Adams  77(5,  63  L.  R.  A.  761;  Ulmer  z:  Farns- 
Exp.  Co.  z:  Commonwealth,  92  S.  W.  935,  worth,  SO  Me.  500.  15  .Atl.  65;  National 
29  Ky.  L.  Rep.  230,  5  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  630;  Bank  z:  Burkhardt.  100  U.  S.  686,  692,  25 
United  States  Exp.  Co.  z:  Keefer,  59  Ind.  l  Ed.  766:  Tilley  z:  County  of  Cook.  103 
263;  AIcNichol  z:  Pacific  Exp.  Co..  12  Mo.  u.   S.   loo.  26   L.   Ed.   374. 

App.  401:   Fowler  Comm.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  34.  State    statute. — Craddock    &    Co.    v. 

etc.,    R.    Co.,   98    Mo.   App.   210,   71    S.   W.  Wells-Fargo  Co.'s  Exp.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 

1077.  125   S.   W.  59. 

In     conflict    with     the    rule    herein     an-  35.  Need  treat  law  as  unconstitutional, 

nounced    is    the    case    of    Crescent    Liquor  — Craddock    i^    Co.    r.    Wolls-Fargo    Co.'s 

Co.  z:  Piatt,  148  Fed.  894,  but  this  case  is  Exp.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.).   12,-)  .s.  \\  .  59. 


§§  367-368 


CARRIERS. 


246 


freight  in  advance,  still  the  carrier  is  not  bound  to  receive  them,  unless  he  has 
the  requisite  convenience  to  carry  them.-^*^  Thus,  it  is  said  that  even  if  a  car- 
rier has  held  itself  out  as  a  carrier  of  coal  from  a  particular  station,  no  action 
for  refusing  to  carry  it  will  lie,  unless  it  is  shown  that  the  company  has  con- 
veniences at  the  station  for  receiving  and  carrying  the  coal.^'  Nor  is  he  liable 
where  a  vehicle,  vessel  or  other  means  used  for  that  purpose  does  not  have  the 
capacity  to  transport  safely  the  property  tendered. ^^  But  a  carrier  will  not  be 
excused  for  refusal  to  carry  goods  merely  because  no  boats  passed  on  the  line 
of  transportation  in  which  it  was  engaged.  If  the  fact  had  been  that  boats 
could  not  possibly  pass  at  the  time  of  the  tender  of  the  goods  for  carriage,  from 
causes  beyond  the  control  of  defendants,  they  would  then  be  excused  for  re- 
fusing to  carry. ^'^' 

§§  368-371.  Unusual  Press  of  Business— §  368.  In  General.— A  rail- 
road company  which  has  the  rolling  stock  and  equipments  to  carry  without 
delay  the  freights  usually  offered,  is  not  bound  to  receive  goods  which  it  is  not 
at  the  time  able  to  carry  by  reason  of  some  accidental  or  extraordinary  increase 
in  the  public  demand  for  transportation,  which  occurs  without  the  fault  of  the 
company.  In  such  case  the  company  may  rightfully  decline  to  receive  freights 
oft'ered  which  it  can  not  carry  without  delay ;  but  if  it  does  receive  them  it  can 
only  relieve  itself  from  responsibility  for  delay  resulting  from  a  previous  ac- 
cumulation of  freights  by  acquainting  the  shipper  wnth  the  facts  when  he  offers 
his  goods  and  aft'ording  him  the  option  of  acquiescing  in  the  delay  or  seeking 
some  other  line  of  transportation.'*"     Although  it  is  the  duty  of  a  railroad  com- 


36.  Absence  of  requisite  conveniences. 
— Fitch  r.  Newberry  (Mich.),  1  Doug.  1. 
40  Am.  Dec.  33;  see  Fish  v.  Chapman,  2 
Ga.  .349.  4f)  Am.  Dec.  393. 

37.  Refusing  to  carry  coal. — Johnson  v. 
Midland  R.  Co..  0  Railw.  Cas.  61,  4  Ex. 
367.   18   L.  J.    Ex.  366. 

38.  Vehicle  of  insufficient. — Houston, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421. 

39.  Where  boats  do  not  pass. — Doty  v. 
Strong  (Wis.),  1  Pin.  313,  40  Am.  Dec. 
773. 

40.  Unusual  press  of  business. — United 
States. — Bussey  r.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(U.  S.),  4  McCrary  40,5,  13  Fed.  330;  Hel- 
liwell  z\  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  10  Biss. 
170,  7  Fed.  68;  Thomas  v.  Wabash,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  63  Fed.  200,  affirmed  in  19  C. 
C.  A.  88,  71  Fed.  481;  Marine  Ins.  Co. 
V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  643,  43 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  79. 

Alabama. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Touart.  97  Ala.  .514,  11  So.  756,  55  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  600. 

Delaware. — Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst.  233. 

Illinois. — Cobb,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  88  111.  394;  Galena,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Rae,  18  111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574. 

Indiana. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Racer,  5  Ind.  App.  209,  31  N.  E.  853. 

Massachusetts. — Thayer  v.  Burchard,  99 
Mass.  508. 

Michigan. — Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Burrows.  33  Mich.  6. 

Mississippi. — Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458,  1  Am.  R.  Rep. 
295. 


Missouri.  — •  Faulkner  v.  South.  Pac. 
Railroad,  51  Mo.  311,  3  Am.  R.  Rep.  293; 
Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Mo. 
296,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  .521;  Ballon- 
tine  V.  North  Missouri  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  491, 
93  Am.  Dec.  31.5. 

A'czv  York. — Wilbert  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  19  Barb.  36,  affirmed  in  12 
N.  Y.  245;  Blackstock  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48,  75  Am.  Dec.  372; 
Bouker  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  89  Hun 
202,  35  N.  Y.  S.  23. 

Tennessee. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  Rail- 
road V.   Nelson.  41   Tenn.   (1  Coldw.)   272. 

Texas. — Cross  v.  McFaden,  1  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  461,  20  S.  W.  846;  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  T'.  Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  421. 

An  unusual  pressure  of  business  may  in 
some  instances  justify  the  refusal  by  the 
carrier  to  receive  freight.  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Anderson,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
8,  21   S.  W.  691. 

If,  by  unprecedented  and  unexpected 
press  of  business,  the  company  has  al- 
ready received  more  property  than  it  can 
then  transport,  and  the  warehouses  at  the 
point  are  full  and  the  company  has  no 
present  means  of  taking  care  of  the  prop- 
erty ofifered,  then  it  would  be  unreason- 
able to  hold  that  under  such  conditions 
the  company  must  accept  the  property 
when  offered,  or  else  incur  the  liability 
prescribed  I)y  the  statute.  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  421. 

By  arts.  2226,  2227,  Texas  Rev.  Stat., 
a  duty  is  imposed  on  railway  companies 
to     furnish     sufficient      transportation     to 


247 


DUTY    TO    RICCKIVl-:   ANU    CAkkV. 


§  368 


pany  to  exercise  reasonable  (lilij,'ence  to  provide  sufficient  facilities  and  means 
of  transportation  for  all  freij^ht,  which  it  should  reasonably  expect  will  be  of- 
fered,-* ^  both  interstate  and  intrastate/-  takinj,'  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
at  certain  seasons  more  cars  are  needed/"  yet  it  is  not  bound  to  provide  in 
advance  for  extraordinary  occasions,  nor  for  an  unusual  influx  of  business 
which  is  not  reasonably  to  be  expected. ^^  And  it  has  been  held  that  the  charter 
of  a  railroad  company  requiring  it  to  ship  property  in  the  order  it  is  received 
at  the  depots,  way  stations,  and  places  desired  by  the  owners  thereof,  is  not 
\iolated  by  failing  to  carry  live  stock  loaded  at  a  way  station,  but  which,  owing 
to  the  amount  of  business,  could  not  have  been  carried  on  the  first  train  passing 
without  an  extra  engine,  which  must  have  been  sent  out  from  a  distance  and  at 
ni'dit."*''  I'm  a  railroad  conipaii}-  ran  not  excuse  the  breach  of  a  contract  to 
receive  and   transport  cattle  upon    a    certain    day    by    the  fact  that   it  was   so 


carry  all  property  offered,  tliouj^h  when 
the  carrier,  from  an  unexpected  and  un- 
precedented press  of  business,  is  unaiile 
to  do  so,  this  in  general,  will  furnish  a 
legal  excuse  for  refusing  to  accept 
freight.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
63  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421. 

41.  Duty  to  provide  facilities. — Daw- 
son f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7'.)  Mo.  296, 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  521;  Dobbins  7: 
Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141  N.  Y.  S.  637, 
157  App.  Div.  80;  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  At- 
lanta, etc..  Supply  Co.,  135  Ga.  35,  68  S. 
E.  807. 

A  common  carrier  is  under  a  legal  duty 
to  supply  patrons  with  cars  to  promptly 
move  such  freight  as  may  be  expected, 
according  to  the  usual  volume  of  busi- 
ness offered  for  shipment,  and  if  timely 
demands  are  made  for  cars,  and  the  car- 
rier fails  to  furnish  tliem,  without  lawful 
excuse,  he  is  answerable  for  the  proxi- 
mate damage  sustained  by  the  shipper. 
Cronan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),   130    S.    \V.   437. 

42.  Interstate  and  intrastate. — Oliver 
&  Son  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Ark. 
466,  117   S.   W.   238. 

43.  McComb  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 
Neb.  593,  99  N.  W.  309. 

Railroad  company  engaged  in  coal  car- 
rying trade  held  required  to  have  a  suffi- 
cient supply  of  cars  to  meet  the  normal 
demands  of  that  trade  during  the  fall  and 
winter  months  when  the  normal  demand 
is  lieaviest.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  River, 
etc..  Coke  Co.,  150  Ky.  489,  150  S.  W.  641, 
44  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  185. 

44.  Extent  of  duty  to  provide  facilities. 
— Arkansas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Sneed,  85  Ark.  293.  107  S.  W.  1182;  Ol- 
iver &  Son  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 
'Ark.   466,   117   S.    W.   238. 

Georgia. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta, 
etc..  Supply  Co..  135  Ga.  35.  68  S.  E.  807. 

IlUiiois. — Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18 
111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574;  Mulberry,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  111.  Cent.  R.  Co.,  161  111.  App. 
272. 

Indiana. — Pittsburgh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Morton,  61  Ind.  539,  28  Am.  Rep.  682. 

Kentucky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Coal  Co., '99  Ky.  217,  35  S.  W.  626. 


Missouri. — Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  79  Mo.  296,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
521. 

A  carrier  is  not  required  to  keep  a  car 
equipment  sufficiently  extensive  for  maxi- 
mum freight  output  at  any  time  of  the 
year,  but  only  to  meet  a  demand  so  ad- 
justed as  to  utilize  the  equipment  with 
regularity  throughout  the  year.  Montana, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Morley,   198  Fed.  991. 

Where  there  is  an  unprecedented  press 
of  business,  such  as  the  carrier  could  not 
by  ordinary  prudence  foresee,  it  i's  ex- 
cused for  not  having  provided  therefor. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynne  Hoop, 
etc.,  Co.,  81  Ark.  373,  99  S.  W.  375. 

The  statute  requiring  carriers  to  fur- 
nish, without  discrimination  or  delay,  suf- 
ficiciU  facilities  for  the  carriage  of  freight 
does  not  make  the  duty  an  absolute  one, 
and  does  not  require  the  carrier  to  pro- 
vide in  advance  for  an  unprecedented  and 
unexpected  rush  of  business.  Cumbie  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (.^rk.).  151  S.  W. 
240. 

In  an  action  under  the  railroad  demur- 
rage law  for  failure  to  furnish  cars,  an  an- 
swer setting  forth  that  defendant  had  a 
large  amount  of  equipment  unused  during 
all  the  period  of  ordinary  business,  that 
in  tlic  fall  there  is  an  unusually  heavy  traf- 
fic, that  at  the  time  application  by  plain- 
tiff for  cars  the  demand  for  cars  was  ex- 
ceptional, that  defendant  had  apportioned 
its  equipment  equitably  so  that  everj'  por- 
tion of  its  line,  had  a  just  share  thereof, 
and  that  plaintiff  was  furnished  with  cars 
at  the  earliest  dates  at  which  defendant 
could  furnish  them,  consistent  with  its 
duty  to  serve  all  applicants  equally,  states 
a  good  defense.  Martin  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  110  Minn.  118,  124  N.  W.  825. 

An  extraordinary  increase  of  business, 
which  could  not  have  been  anticipated  by 
using  judgment  and  diligence,  and  which 
prevents  a  railroad  from  furnishing  cars, 
is  a  defense  to  an  action  for  failure  to 
furnish  the  cars.  Shoptaugh  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.).  126  S.  W.  752. 

45.  Necessity  extra  engine  service. — 
Michigan,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  McDonough.  21 
Mich.  165. 


§§  368-369 


CARRIERS. 


248 


crowded  with  business  upon  that  day  and  during  the  time  of  the  subsequent 
delay  that  it  had  no  empty  cars  in  which  to  receive  the  cattle.-"'  And  if  a  car- 
rier contracts  to  deliver  cars  to  another  at  another  place,  and  does  not  so  de- 
liver them  by  reason  of  a  shortage  in  the  cars  at  the  time,  the  fact  of  such 
shortage  will  not  relieve  him  from  performance  of  the  contract,  whether  known 
to  the  other  party  or  not.-*' 

§  369.  Discrimination  or  Granting  Privileges.— A  carrier  will  not  be 
allowed  to  discriminate  in  favor  of  an  individual  shipper,  where  the  demand 
exceed  its  capacity  and  the  anticipated  calls  upon  it.^^  A  carrier  will  not  be 
allowed  to  take  advantage  of  such  a  condition,  so  as  to  extend  advantages  to 
one  customer  to  the  injury  of  another.  It  must,  under  such  circumstances,  as 
at  all  other  times  in  dealing  with  the  public,  act  upon  the  rule  of  equality.  To 
permit  the  company  to  take  advantage  of  a  press  of  business  to  deal  out  favors 
to  certain  customers  to  the  detriment  of  others,  might  result  in  perpetuating 
that  condition  upon  the  line.  For  instance,  suppose  the  property  offered  for 
transportation  by  other  customers  was  more  than  could  be  transported  promptly 
by  the  particular  line,  that  would  not  authorize  the  company  to  refuse  to  take 
and  transport,  in  the  order  tendered,  the  property  of  others,  as  soon  as  this 
could  be  reasonably  done.-*'*  And  in  case  of  an  unusual  rush  of  business  _a 
shipper  is  only  entitled  to  an  equitable  share  of  the  cars  for  shipper's  uses  in 
transportation/^"  During  a  temporary  scarcity  of  cars  a  railroad  company  is 
entitled  to  consider,  in  apportioning  them  among  grain  dealers,  their  relative 
volume  of  business;  and,  though  there  may  be  a  difference  in  the  number  fur- 
nished to  different  grain  dealers  at  the  same  station,  still,  if  no  discrimination 
is  shown,  no  shipper  has  a  right  to  complain,  though  he  may  not  obtain  all  the 
cars  he  deems  necessarv.''^ 


46.  Contract  to  transport  on  certain 
day. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  McCorquodale, 
71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80,  3.5  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  653. 

Where  a  contract  is  made  by  a  carrier 
to  furnish  cars  to  transport  cattle  on  a 
certain  day,  the  failure  to  furnish  them 
renders  the  carrier  liable  for  consequent 
damage  to  the  cattle.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Scott  &  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W. 
1065. 

In  a  suit  against  a  railroad  for  breacli 
of  a  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  a  given 
time  for  the  shipment  of  cattle,  an  an- 
swer setting  up  as  an  excuse  "an  unex- 
pected and  unprecedented  rush  of  busi- 
ness" was  clearly  insufficient.  Southern 
Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Samples  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  109  S.  W.  417. 

47.  Excuse  for  breach  of  contract. — 
Williams  r.  Armour  Car  Lines  (Del.),  79 
Atl.  919. 

48.  Discrimination  or  granting  of  privi- 
leges.—Judgment  (1904)  87  N.  Y.  S.  30, 
92  App.  Div.  584,  affirmed.  Strough  v. 
Xew  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  181  N.  Y.  533, 
73  N.  E.  1133. 

49.  Does  not  permit  privileges  to  others. 
—Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Smith,  63  Tex. 
322,  327,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421;  State 
v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Neb.  593,  99  N. 
W.  309. 

A  carrier  must   exercise   reasonable   dH- 


igence  to  furnish  cars  adequate  for  the 
transportation  of  freight,  and  not  discrimi- 
nate in  favor  of  one  shipper  when  the  de- 
mand exceeds  the  capacity  of  the  carrier 
and  the  anticipated  and  ordinary  calls  on 
it.  Dobbins  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  141 
N.  Y.  S.  637,  157  App.  Div.  80. 

Where  a  shipper  honestly  attempted  to 
procure  cars  for  transportation  of  perish- 
able freight,  and  the  carrier  refused  rea- 
sonable demands  for  cars,  and  cars  were 
furnished  competing  shippers,  the  shipper 
could  recover  for  the  refusal  to  furnish 
cars,  and  the  fact  that  he  had  held  the 
goods  for  speculative  purposes  was  imma- 
terial. Dobbins  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
141    X.   Y.    S.  637,   157   App.   Div.  80. 

50.  Right  of  shippers  to  cars. — A  sliip- 
per  maintained  mandamus  against  a  rail- 
road company  requiring  it  to  furnish  50 
cars  at  the  rate  of  at  least  5  cars  a  day  for 
his  use.  There  was  a  general  shortage  of 
cars  and  locomotives,  but  the  railroad 
exercised  diligence  to  provide  adequate 
equipment  for  its  business.  Held,  that  the 
shipper  was  only  entitled  to  a  just  divi- 
sion of  the  empty  cars  that  should  have 
been  apportioned  to  the  station  where  the 
shipper  was  in  business.  Dobney  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Neb.  518,  120  N.  W. 
165. 

51,  Apportioning  cars. — State  f.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Xcb.  593,  99  X.  W. 
309. 


249  DVTV    TO    Ri:CKlVK    AND    CAKRV.  §§    2i70-i72 

§  370.  Duty  to  Advise  Shipper  of  Delay. — It  is  the  (Uity  of  the  carrier, 
when  applied  1(j  for  Lar>.  lo  adxise  the  shipper  of  the  situation  and  circum- 
stances which  are  Hkely  to  occasion  any  unreasonable  delay."'-  An  extraordi- 
nary increase  of  business,  which  could  not  have  been  anticipated  by  dilij,'ence, 
and'  which  prevents  a  railroad  fnmi  furnishing  cars,  is  a  good  defense  to  an 
action  for  its  failure  to  furnish  the  cars ;  and,,  where  a  carrier  is  reasonably 
equii)i)cd  for  ordinary  conditions  of  business,  the  fact  of  an  unusual  and  un- 
expected pressure  of  business  will  excuse  the  delay,  provided  the  shipper  is 
notihed  of  the  fact  at  the  time  of  the  shipment ;  but  such  fact  is  no  excuse  when 
the  carrier,  with  full  knowledge  of  it,  accepts  goods  for  transportation  without 
informing  the  shipper  of  the  true  situation."-'  A  carrier,  on  having  reason  to 
anticipate  inability  to  furnish  cars  after  receijit  of  notice  therefor,  must  advise 
the  shipper  in  order  to  excuse  itself  from  liability  for  failure  to  furnish  cars.-'-* 

§  371.  Carriers  "Embargo." — A  carrier  "embargo"  is  a  notice,  issued 
by  a  common  carrier,  refusing  to  receive  or  carry  certain  kinds  of  freight  on 
its  line,  or  between  certain  points,  and  may  be  for  a  limited  and  definite  period, 
or  for  an  unlimited  or  indefinite  period.  It  is  the  result  of  a  congestion  of 
business  that  makes  it  impossible  for  a  road  to  carry  all  the  freight  that  is  of- 
fered it."'"' 

§  372.  Causes  Beyond  Carrier's  Control. — There  are  certain  causes 
which  are  beyond  a  carrier's  control  and  which  may  excuse  him  from  the  ful- 
fillment of  his  common-law  obligations  to  the  public.  Thus  a  carrier  may  be 
excused  bv  the  act  of  God,  the  act  of  the  public  enemy,  unavoidable  accident, 
etc.-'"''  While,  under  ordinary  conditions,  a  railroad  is  bound  to  accept  freight 
tendered  it,  an  impending  flood  of  such  a  character  as  to  fall  properly  within 
the  legal  definition  of  an  act  of  God.  and  which  threatens  with  inundation  the 
carrier's  tracks,  is  a  sufficient  excuse  to  justify  it  in  refusing  the  goods  for 
shipment.^'" 

Interference  by  Public  Works. — That  a  city  had  dug  a  small  ditch  un- 
der the  tracks  of  a  railroad  com])any  will  not  excuse  a  delay  of  six  days  in  fur- 
nishing a  car  for  a  shipment  of  goods. •'•^ 

Military  Control. — Where  a  road  is  under  the  military  control  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  is  not  permitted  to  receive  freights  from  individuals,  except  upon 

52.    Duty  to  advise  shipper  of  delay. —  unreasonalile     and     unexpected     press     of 

Cronan    r.    St.    Louis,   etc..     I'l.     Co.     (Mo.  business,   it   was   no   defense   to   an   action 

App.).   130   S.   W.   -A,"]?.  for  failure  to  furnish  the  cars  to  show  an 

In   an   action  acjainst  a  common   carrier  unusual  and  unexpected  press  of  business. 

for  failure  to  furnish  cars  to  ship  timber,  Cronan    7'.    St.    Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.    (Mo. 

where  the  evidence  showed  that  defendant  App.).  130  .'^.  W.  437. 

at   no   time   notified   plaintiff   it   could   not  54.   Inability  to  furnish  cars.— Di  Giorgio 

furnish    cars    because    of     an     unexpected  Importing-,    etc..    Co.    r.    Pennsylvania    R. 

rush    of  business,   but   encouraged   him    in  Qq     io4   Md.  fiOS.  f».)  Atl.   42,5.  8  L.   R.  A.. 

getting    out    his    timber    and    promised    to  x.   S.,   lOS. 

furnish  cars  to  ship  it.  a  declaration  of  law  cc      r-,r;-,^,-c     "«.^Uo,-rr^  »     r-i  ^ ^1., 

^,    ^  -c  ^\  11  J  ^1  55.     earners       embargo.  — Lhesapeake, 

that  if  there  was  a  sudden  and  unexpected  ^.^      -p     r^    -.    nt'n.    -,       ».      n^     ii<    i.- 

,    /■       ,      ^,    ,       •  •  f  1  •   1  etc..    K.    Lo.   V.   (J  (jara.   etc..   Co.,   144    Kv. 


561.  139  S.  W.  803. 


increase  in  defendant's  business,  or  if  high 

water    delaved    defendant    in    handling    its  u           j            •     . 

business,  it'  was  not  lial)le  whether  it  no-  „  56.    Causes    beyond    earner  s    control.— 

tified  plaintiff  of  this  condition  or  not  was  Brown    v.    \\  abash,    etc.,    R.    Co..    is    Mo. 

more  liberal  to  defendant  than  was  justi-  App.   568:    Potts  r.    U  abash,   etc..   R.    Co.. 

fied.      Cronan    v.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.  ^   ^^o.   App.   394;   Hance  r.    Pacific    Exp. 

(Mo.  App.).  1.30  S.  W.  4.37.  Co..   48    Mo.   App     179:    Knight  v.   Quincy. 

53.    Dillender  7-.   St.   Louis,  etc..   R.   Co.  etc..   R.  Co..   120  Mo.   App.  311.  96  S.  \\ . 

(Mo.  App."),  130  S.  W.  107.  "^l^'-      ^      J.  .         ^ 

Where  the  agents  of  a  common  carrier  57.    Conditions  beyond  earners  control. 

told  plaintiff  to  get  his  timber  out  of  the  —Gray  r.   ^\abash    R.   Co..   IT.)   Mo.   .\pp. 

forest,   and   that   cars   would   be   furnished  l"^"^-  ^^   ^-   ^^  ■  ^''^"^• 

to  take  it  to  market,  and  he  was  not  noti-  58.    Interference  by  public  works. — ^^Par- 

fied  at  any  time  that  the  carrier  would  be  ish   &  Co.   t'.  Yazoo,  etc..   R.   Co.   (Miss.), 

unable   to   furnish   cars   on   account   of  an  60  So.  322. 


§  372 


CARRIERS. 


250 


an  order  of  a  proper  armv  officer,  it  is  not  liable  for  refusing  to  receive  freights 
from  individuals.  In  such  a  case  the  fact  that  goods  had  been  sold  to  the  gov- 
ernment does  not  authorize  it  to  receive  them  for  shipment  without  an  order 
from  such  armv  officer.-^'-'  But  an  order  of  the  military  power  of  the  govern- 
ment that  a  railroad  company  should  transport  government  freights  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  all  private  property,  if  necessary,  will  not  release  the  company  from 
its  obligation  to  receive  and  transport  private  property,  where  it  appears  that 
the  government  did  not  actually  assume  control  of  the  road  and  where  the  com- 
pany still  held  itself  out  as  a  common  carrier,  and  there  was  no  evidence  of 
a  necessitv  to  exclude  private  property ;  and  especially  is  this  so  where  the  par- 
ties offering  freight  are  government  contractors  and  the  freights  tendered  are 
military  supplies.'^" 

Strikes  and  Boycotts.— The  fact  that,  in  consequence  of  a  railroad's  re- 
ducing the  wages  of  its  employees,  the  latter  struck,  and  prevented  the  com- 
pany *f rom  operating  its  cars,  does  not  render  the  latter  liable  for  damages  for 
failure  to  receive  goods  for  transportation.*^"^  As  a  general  rule  railroad  cor- 
porations can  not  refuse  or  neglect  to  perform  their  jniblic  duties  pending  a 
controversy  with  their  employees  over  the  cost  and  expense  of  doing  them, 
where  it  does  not  appear  that  the  employees  committed  any  unlawful  act,   or 


59.  Military  control. — Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  r.  Phelps.  4  111.  App.  238.  affirmed  in 
0-i  111.  548;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clellan.  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ashmead.  58  111.  487;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  etc.,  Co.,  64 
111.  128. 

Where  a  person  desirous  of  shipping  a 
large  quantity  of  corn  over  a  railroad  to 
Cairo  stored  the  same  in  a  warehouse  on 
promise  of  the  railroad  company  to  trans- 
port it  as  soon  as  cars  could  be  procured 
for  the  purpose,  but  the  company  never 
received  or  receipted  for  the  same,  and 
was  unable  to  forward  the  same  for  want 
of  cars  and  for  the  reason  that  the  road 
was  controlled  by  the  military  authorities 
of  the  United  States,  who  refused  to  give 
permits  to  ship  the  same,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  which  the  grain  was  injured  by 
exposure,  etc.—  held,  that  under  the  cir- 
cumstances the  company  was  not  liable 
to  the  owner  of  the  grain  for  the  delay  in 
furnishing  transportation,  there  being  no 
contract  to  transport  the  same,  and  the 
same  never  having  come  to  its  possession 
for  transportation.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Hornberger,  77  111.  457. 

A  railroad  company  under  military 
control  of  the  government,  transporting 
troops  and  munitions  to  suppress  the  late 
rebeUion,  so  as  not  to  be  in  a  free  exer- 
cise of  its  franchise,  was  not  liable  as  a 
common  carrier  for  refusing  to  receive 
freights  for  transportation.  Phelps  v.  Ill- 
inois  Cent.   R.   Co.,   94   111.   548. 

60.  Government  not  actually  assuming 
control. — Cobb,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  38  Iowa  601.  In  this  case  it  is  said  in 
the  opinion:  "If  defendant  held  itself  out  to 
the  world  as  a  common  carrier,  and  had  per- 
mission to  carry  other  property  than  that  be- 
longing to  government,  the  mere  fact  that 
government  demanded  its  services  and  at 


any  time  may  have  excluded  all  property 
from  transportation  except  its  own, 
would  afford  no  excuse  for  the  defendant 
refusing  to  take  the  grain  of  plaintiff  of- 
fered or  delivered  to  it.  And  this  for  the 
simple  reason,  that  it  would  be  liable  for 
not  doing  that  which,  as  a  carrier,  it  of- 
fered to  the  world  to  do  and  had  the 
power  and  capacity  to  perform.  It  is  not 
at  all  difficult  to  understand  that  defend- 
ant may  have  been  subject  to  military 
control,  and  the  military  officers  of  the 
government  may  have  used  the  railroad 
to  the  extent  of  their  requiremeftts,  and 
have  had  the  authority  at  any  time  to 
have  appropriated  it  entirely  to  public 
use,  yet  all  the  time  defendant  may  have 
transacted  the  business  of  a  public  car- 
rier, and  held  itself  out  to  the  world  as 
such,  and  at  the  same  time  had  the  ability 
to  carry  all  property  offered  to  it,  and 
the  permission  of  the  military  authorities 
so  to  do.  In  that  case  it  can  not  be  ear- 
nestly insisted  that  it  would  not  be  held 
liable  for  omission  or  neglect  of  the  du- 
ties  it   assumed." 

61.  Strikes  and  boycotts. — Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188,  32 
Am.  Rep.  63. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for  dam- 
ages for  failure  to  receive  goods  for 
transportation,  the  company  answered 
that  they  were  prevented  from  operating 
their  cars  by  persons  in  rebellion  against 
the  government.  Plaintiff  replied  that  the 
disturl)ance  was  caused  only  by  defend- 
ant's employees,  who  had  refused  to  work 
in  consequence  of  reduction  in  wages. 
Held,  that  the  reply  meant  that  the  em- 
ployees committed  the  acts  after  they 
had  refused  to  work,  and  hence  after  they 
ceased  to  be  employees.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188,  32  Am. 
Rep.  63. 


251  DUTY    TO    RFXElVIi   A.NU    CARRY.  §§    Zll-ZlS 

that  there  was  an  illegal  conibinalion  compelling  them  to  stop  working.''-  Xor- 
has  a  railroad,  doing  business  as  a  common  carrier,  the  right  to  refuse  to  re- 
ceive from  a  connecting  railroad,  cars  of  such  connecting  line,  either  loaded  or 
empty,  or  freight  of  any  kind  which  is  ordinarily  transported  between  railroad 
companies  according  to  the  proper  and  usual  course  of  business;  and  it  is  no 
e.xcuse  for  the  action  of  a  railroad  company  in  so  refusing  cars  or  freight  prop- 
erly offered  tliat  the  receiving  cjf  them  might  or  probably  would  involve  the  com- 
pany in  a  strike  and  boycott  of  employees,  which  exists  on  and  against  the  road 
from  whiiMi  it  so  refuses  to  receive  the  cars  or  freight.''-' 

Unavoidable  Accident. — Where  a  carrier  receiving  an  order  for  a  live  poul- 
try car,  and,  having  nunc,  immediately  ordered  a  car  and  secured  it  four  days 
later,  but  by  reason  of  an  accident  the  car  had  U)  be  repaired,  but  for  which  it 
would  have  arrived  at  the  point  desired  in  time,  the  carrier  used  reasonable 
diligence."^ 

Notifying-  Shipper, — Where  the  agent  of  a  carrier,  who  has  agreed  to 
furnish  a  car  fur  a  shi])per,  attempts  to  notify  the  shipper  that  there  will  be  a 
delay  of  several  days  in  the  arrival  of  the  car,  and  is  unable  to  find  him.  but 
requests  a  third  person  to  notify  the  shipper  of  the  fact,  which  he  does  on  the 
same  day  that  the  agent  receives  notice  that  there  will  be  delay  in  the  furnishing 
of  the  car,  the  carrier  exercises  reasonable  diligence  in  notifying  the  shipper.^^ 

§  373.  Failure  of  Shipper  to  Insure. — The  failure  of  the  shipper  to  in- 
sure for  the  carrier's  bencht  is  not  a  good  ground  for  refusal  to  receive  and 
carry.'''' 

§  374.  Customs  and  Habits  of  Dealing-. — Xo  length  of  time  or  manner 
of  treatment  or  habit  of  dealing  will  discharge  a  common  carrier  when  requested 
from  the  obligation  to  furnish  to  the  public  the  service  it  is  engaged  in  perform- 
ing.'-" 

§  3 7. "5.  Right  to  Discontinue  Service  to  Shipper. — A  carrier  can  not  re- 
nounce as  against  some  disfavored  shipper  the  public  duty  which  it  assumed 
when  it  engaged  in  the  kind  of  transportation  business  which  it  offers  to  con- 
duct. Being  a  common  carrier  for  all,  a  carrier  holding  itself  out  for  that  pur- 
pose must  switch  all  cars  tendered.  It  is  equally  elementary  that  a  carrier  may 
be  compelled  by  mandamus  to  perform  duties  of  this  kind  to  an  aggrieved  ship- 
per.^'S  It  seems  that  a  carrier  may  discontinue  all  further  service  to  a  shipper 
on  account  of  past  infractions  of  reasonable  rules  adopted  to  secure  better  serv- 
ice to  the  public.  However,  a  shipper  ought  not  to  be  compelled  to  pay  an  un- 
just charge  for  car  service  with  no  redress,  but  to  submit  a  claim  for  the  re- 
turn of  his  money  to  the  manager  of  the  association  promulgating  the  rule  or 
order.''"     The  weight  of  authority  seems  to  be  that  the  carrier  has  a  lien   for 

62.  Controversy  with  employees. — Peo-  Co.,  l.-)4  L'.  S.  Jl,  101,  3s  L.  Ed.  903,  14 
pie  V.  Xew   York,  etc.,  R.   Co.    (N.  Y.).  9       S.  Ct.  lOii::. 

Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1,  28  Hun  543,  3  Civ.  67.     Customs    and    habits    of    deahng.— 

Proc.  R.  11,  2  McCarty  Civ.  Proc.  345,  re-  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Higdon.  149  Ky. 

versing  2   Civ.   Proc.  82.  321,   148   S.  W.   26;   Crescent   Coal   Co.  v. 

63.  "Beers  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  ^-o^Vf^il^f  -  ^^^c.  R.  Co  143  Ky.  73.  135 
Am.    &   Eng.    R.   Cas.   04(5.   34   Fed.   244.  S.  W.  7(  8,  33  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  442. 

_,_,.,,,             -J      ^      iir          1  A    railway    company    operating    a    belt 

64.  Unavoidable  accident  -Wenzel  t^  ,.^^^  ^^_^  _^^^  ^^^^-^^^^  ^^^  transport  coal  be- 
Great  Xortlurn  k.  C.,  1..2  A\  is.  418,  140  ^^^.^^^^^  ^  ^^^j,^^,  ^^^^j  industrial  plants  on 
N-  ^^  •  ''^^-  such  line  because  it  has  never  hauled  coal 

65.  Notifying  shipper.  —  Wenzel  v.  before.  Crescent  Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
Great  Norilurn  R.  Co.,  152  Wis.  418,  140  ^tc  R  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135  S.  W.  768, 
N.  W.  81.  33  L.   R.  A..  N.   S..  442. 

66.  Failure  of  shipper  to  insure  as  ex-  68.  Larabee  Flour  Mills  Co.  f.  Mis- 
cuse  for  failure  to  receive  and  carry.^  souri  Pac.  R.  Co..  74  Kan.  SOS.  88  Pac.  72. 
Inman  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  129  U.  69.  Larabee  Flour  Mills  Co.  v.  Mis- 
S.  128.  32  L.  Ed.  612.  9  S.  Ct.  249.  See,  souri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  74  Kan.  808,  88  Pac. 
also,     Constable     v.     National     Steamship  72.   76. 


§§  Z7~:^-?>76 


CARRIERS. 


252 


compensation  for  the  use  of  cars  beyond  reasonable  free  time.  If  the  Hen  be 
waived  the  courts  are  open.  But  the  car  service  association  holds  no  franchise 
to  compel  the  payment  of  such  claims,  and  then  to  decide  for  itself  whether  or 
not  it  will  refund.  And,  in  any  event,  a  carrier  can  not  justly  withold  its  serv- 
ices when  it  is  ec|uallv  at  fault  in  the  matter  of  which  it  complains.'" 

Back  Charges  Unpaid. — A  common  carrier  of  freight  can  not  refuse  to  re- 
ceive freight  l)ecause  back  charges  for  other  shipments  have  not  been  paid."^ 

§  376.  Destination  of  Goods  as  Affecting  Duty.— Destination  Not 
Regular  Station. — The  fact  that  the  place  of  destination  is  not  a  regular  sta- 
tion at  which  is  kept  an  agent  is  no  valid  excuse  for  not  receiving  the  goods. 
When  goods  are  shipped  to  a  place  where  there  is  a  side  track,  but  no  depot 
platform  or  agent  of  the  carrier,  and  this  is  known  to. the  parties,  it  has  been 
held  that,  leaving  the  car  of  goods  upon  the  side  track  is  a  good  delivery,  and 
relieves  the  company  from  further  responsibility.'-  But  where  goods  are  by 
mistake  directed  to  a  point  which  has  no  existence  in  fact,  the  carrier  is  not 
bound  to  undertake  their  transportation.'-^ 

Rule  Operates  between  Termini  of  Route. — The  implied  obligation  of  a 
common  carrier,  arising  from  his  relation  to  the  public,  is  limited  by  the  termini 
of  his  own  route." ^  Merely  connecting  with  other  routes,  which  he  does  not 
own,  operate  or  control,  will  not  make  him  a  common  carrier  over  such  con- 
necting routes."-^  By  the  common  law,  a  person  who  holds  himself  out  as  a 
common  carrier  is  not  obligated  thereby  to  carry  goods  at  the  current  freights, 
unless  he  has  a  particular  route  between  certain  fixed  termini ;  '''  nor  is  such 
carrier  bound  by  his  general  public  obligation  to  provide  other  means  of  trans- 
portation— as  the  coaches  of  other  lines,  or  the  cars  of  other  roads — than  such 
as  he  owns,  uses  or  holds  out  to  the  public  on  his  own  route  for  that  purpose.'^''' 
The  statutes  nowhere  lay  this  duty  upon  railroad  companies  beyond  the  termini 
of  their  respective  lines  or  routes,'^  and  the  provision  in  the  charter  of  a  railroad 


70.  Larabee  Flour  Mills  Co.  v.  Missouri 
Pac.   R.   Co.,  74   Kan.   808,   88   Pac.   72,   76. 

A  common  carrier  holding  itselt  out  to 
the  public  as  ready  to  do  switching  has 
no  right  to  discontinue  switching  cars  for 
a  shipper  on  the  ground  of  his  refusal  to 
pay  bills  for  car  service  when  a  detention 
for  which  the  charges  were  assessed  was 
occasioned  as  much  by  the  fault  of  the 
carrier  as  by  the  fault  of  the  shipper. 
Laral)ee  Flour  Mills  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.    Co..    74    Kan.    808,    88    Pac.    72. 

71.  Back  charges  unpaid.  —  Eastern 
Kentucky  R.  Co.  v.  Holbrook,  4  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  730. 

72.  Reid  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  149  N.  C. 
423,  63  S.  E.  112. 

That  a  depot  is  or  is  not  maintained  at 
the  point  of  destination,  in  no  way  af- 
fects the  right  of  shippers  to  have  their 
goods  received  when  tendered.  Normile 
V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  30  Wash.  21,  77 
Pac.  1087,  67  L.  R.  A.  271;  Alexander  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  C.  93,  56  S. 
E.  697;  Reid  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  149  N. 
C.  423.  63   S.   E.   112. 

73.  Mistake  as  to  direction. — O'Rourke 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44   Iowa  526. 

74.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61  Ind.  539,  28  Am.  Rep.  682;  Hempstead 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  111.  95,  8  Am. 
Rep.   631. 

A   carrier  may   refuse  to   take   goods   if 


he  does  not  carry  to  the  place  to  which 
the  owner  wishes  to  send  them.  Inman 
V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  39,  47,  37  S.  W.  37,  affirmed  in  93 
Tex.  643,  no  op.  See  ante,  "Under  Texas 
Statutes,"  II,  B. 

75.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61    Ind.    539,    28    Am.    Rep.    682. 

76.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61   Ind.   539,  28  Am.   Rep.  682. 

77.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61    Ind.    539,    28    Am.    Rep.    682. 

A  railroad  connected  at  its  termination 
with  other  companies,  under  an  arrange- 
ment by  which,  when  furnished  on  its 
own  line  with  cars  belonging  to  the  other 
companies,  it  shipped  goods  through  to 
points  beyond  its  own  route  without  a 
transfer,  but  its  own  cars  did  not  pass 
beyond  its  own  route.  Held  that,  in  the 
absence  of  a  special  contract,  the  rail- 
road was  not  bound  to  furnish  means  of 
transportation  to  points  l)eyond  its  own 
route,  and  was  not  liable  for  a  failure  to 
do  so.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Alorton, 
61    Ind.    539,   28  Am.    Rep.   682. 

78.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61    Ind.    539,    28    Am.    Rep.    682. 

The  following  authorities  will  support 
these  views:  Gordon  v.  Hutchinson 
(Pa.),  1  Watts  &  S.  285,  37  Am.  Dec. 
464;  Ballentine  v.  North  Missouri  R.  Co., 
40  Mo.  491,  93  Am.  Dec.  315;  Galena,  etc., 


253 


DITS'    TO    klXKIVK    AND    CARRY 


§§  376-377 


comi^any  requiring  il  to  jjerniil  (jlhcr  companies  to  form  running  connections  with 
it  does  not  affect  the  rule."''  lUit  a  common  carrier  which  holds  itself  out  as 
transi)orting  goods  offered  it  for  shipment,  to  the  points  to  which  the  shipper 
desires  to  ship  them,  it  is  liable  to  him  for  not  receiving  and  shipping  them, 
though  those  points  are  beyond  its  own  line.**"  Where  a  carrier  held  itself  out  as 
a  thrcjugh  carrier  to  the  seaboard,  it  could  not  relieve  itself  from  failure  to  fur- 
nish facilities  to  carry  goods  to  the  seaboard  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  its 
terminus  was  an  inland  town,  and  the  fact  that  its  uniform  bill  of  lading  ex- 
pressly limited  its  liability  to  its  own  line,  where  there  was  nothing  on  the  bill 
of  lading  to  indicate  the  terminus  of  the  linc.^^  The  duty  on  the  part  of  a  rail- 
road common  carrier  to  receive  goods  for  transportation  beyond  its  terminus 
may  be  created  b}'  contract  or  a  course  of  business,  which  would  warrant  those 
dealing  with  it  in  jjresuming  that  their  goods  would  be  received  beyond  such 
terminus.'^-  • 

§  377.  Duty  as  to  Express  Companies.— Railroad  companies  are  not  re- 
quired, bv  usage  or  common  law.  to  transport  the  traffic  of  independent  express 
companies  over  their  lines,  in  the  manner  in  which  the  traffic  is  usually  carried 
and  handled ;  and  they  need  not,  in  the  absence  of  a  statute  requiring  it,  fur- 
nish to  such  express  companies  equal  facilities  for  doing  an  express  business 
upon  their  passenger  trains. ''•'  The  reason  is  obvious  why  special  contracts  in 
reference  to  this  business  are  necessary.  The  transportation  required  is  of  a 
kind  which  must,  if  possible,  be  had,  for  the  most  part,  on  passenger  trains.  It 
requires,  not  onl\-  speed,  but  reasonable  certainty  as  to  the  quantity  that  will 
be  carried  at  any  one  time.  As  the  things  carried  are  to  be  kept  in  the  per- 
sonal custody  of  the  messenger  or  other  employee  of  the  express  company,  it  is 
important  that  a  certain  amount  of  car  space  should  be  specially  set  apart  for 
the  business,  and  that  this  should,  as  far  as  practicable,  be  ])ut  in  the  exclusive 


R.  Co.  :•.  Rae,  18  111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec. 
574;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z>.  Cobb,  etc., 
Co.,  64  111.  128;  Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  19  Barb.  36,  affirmed  in 
12  N.  Y.  245;  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Duncan,  28  Ind.  441;  Ang.  on  Carriers,  §§ 
25-26;  Oxlade  v.  N.  E.  R.  W.  Co.,  15  C. 
B.,  N.  S.,  680;  Hales  v.  The  London  & 
N.  W.  R.  W.  Co.,  4  Best  &  S.  66;  Peet 
V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594,  91 
Am.  Dec.  446:  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Morton,  61  Ind.  539,  28  Am.  Rep.  682'. 

79.  Oregon  Short  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Fed.  465,  51 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  145,  affirmed  in  61 
Fed.    158,   9    C.    C.    A.    409. 

80.  Effect  of  offer  to  public. — Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wolcott,  141  Ind.  267,  39 
N.    E.   451,   5QrAm.    St.    Rep.   320. 

"In  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
61  Ind.  539,  28  Am.  Rep.  682,  the  court 
says:  "Doubtless,  a  common  carrier  may 
so  hold  himself  out  to  the  pul)lic  as  to 
make  himself  liable  for  not  receiving  and 
conveying  goods  beyond  his  own  line.'  " 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Wolcott,  141  Ind. 
267,  39  N.  E.  451,  455,  50  Am.  St.  Rep. 
320. 

81.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Wood. 
45  Ind.  App.  1,  84  N.  E.  1009.  88  N.  E. 
709. 

82.  Duty  of  carrier  to  receive. — Cobli. 
etc.,  Co.  T'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 
CiOl. 


A  carrier  is  not  ordinarily  bound  be- 
yond its  own  line,  but  it  maj'  by  con- 
tract become  bound  for  delivery  at  the 
final  destination  of  the  shipment,  al- 
though it  extends  beyond  its  line.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  677,  690,  29  S.  W.  565.  See  post, 
"Connecting    Carriers,"    part    5. 

8o.  Dutieri  as  to  express  companies.^ 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Keefer.  146  Ind. 
21,  44  X.  E.  796,  38  L.  R.  A.  93,  58  Am. 
St.  Rep.  348;  Sargent  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  115  Mass.  416;  Express  Cases,  117 
U.  S.  1,  29  L.  Ed.  791,  6  S.  Ct.  542.  628. 
1190.  In  the  case  last  cited,  the  rail- 
road companies  had  undertaken  to 
perform  for  the  public  the  express  busi- 
ness before  that  time  done  over  the  same 
line  by  express  companies.  The  express 
companies  applied  for  space  in  the  ex- 
press cars  for  their  goods  and  messen- 
gers, and  the  railroad  companies  refused 
to  furnish  the  space  or  carry  their  mes- 
sengers, and  these  suits  were  brought  to 
compel  the  railroad  to  furnish  the  de- 
sired express  facilities.  The  court  held 
that  it  was  not  the  duty  of  railroads  to 
carry  the  goods  and  messengers  of  ex- 
press companies,  and  that  a  railroad  in 
such  service  was  not  performing  a  duty 
it  owed  to  the  pulilic,  as  a  common  car- 
rier; that  such  right  could  only  be  ac- 
quired by  an  express  company  by  con- 
tract with   the  railroad  company. 


CARRIERS. 


254 


possession  of  the  expressman  in  charge.  As  the  business  to  be  done  is  "ex- 
press." it  impHes  access  to  the  train  for  the  loading  at  the  latest,  and  for  un- 
loading at  the  earliest,  convenient  moment.  All  this  is  entirely  inconsistent  with 
the  idea  of  an  express  business  on  passenger  trains  free  to  all  express  car- 
riers.^'^^ 

§§  378-379.  Enforcement  of  Duty— §  378.  By  Injunction.— The  writ 
of  injunction  should  only  be  granted  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity.''"'  Where 
ihere  is  a  continuing  breach  of  the  duty  to  receive  and  carry  freight,  the  party 
injured  can  have  an  injunction  issued  compelling  its  performance.^*'  The  in- 
jury to  the  complainant,  too.  is  of  that  nature,  that  while  there  may  be  a  remedy 
at  law.  as  bv  recovery  of  damages  for  injury,  yet  it  is  such  that  can  not  be  ade- 
quately relieved  by  suits  for  damages.  It  is  continually  recurring,  and  will  re- 
quire continued  and  repeated  suits,  and  continued  litigation,  and  the  expenses 
of  each  suit  would  make  the  recovery  of  the  excess  paid  an  inadequate  remedy,^'^ 
for  in  such  a  case  continued  suits  for  damages  could  not  be  considered  an  ade- 
quate remedy  at  law.'*^  A  court  of  equity  will  not  assume  to  dictate  the  policy 
or  business  management  of  a  common  carrier  aside  from  its  clear  duty  under  its 
charter  or  the  statutes.  That  function  belongs  exclusively  to  the  company  it- 
self, and  will  not  be  interfered  with  because  changes  ought  to  be  made  as  ap- 
parently reasonable,  necessary  or  otherwise.  But  where  the  common  carrier  it- 
self adopts  as  a  part  of  its  business  policy  any  advantageous  facility  for  hand- 
ling freight,  it  must  not  discriminate  in  its  use  by  the  public,  but  must  afford 
the*' facility  equally  to  all.  and  to  this  extent  equity  will  interfere  by  injunction  to 


84.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keefer, 
14(5  Ind.  21.  44  X.  E.  796,  3S  L.  R.  A.  93, 
5S    Am.    St.    Rep.    34S. 

85.  Cases  of  extreme  necessity. — Com- 
plainant railroad  company,  having  no 
connection  by  rail  with  defendant's 
stockyards,  secured  the  services  of  a 
connecting  road  in  transferring  stock 
shipped  over  its  road.  The  price  of  such 
service  being  raised,  complainant  began 
transferring  by  means  of  floats,  but  de- 
fendants refused  to  receive  stock  so 
transferred,  or  permit  the  floats  to  land 
at  their  wharves.  On  application  for  a 
preliminary  mandatory  injunction  to  de- 
fendants to  receive  its  freight,  held,  that 
the  facts  showed  no  such  pressing  ne- 
cessity as  to  require  such  writ.  Dela- 
ware, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Central  Stock  Yard, 
etc.,  Co.,  43  X.  J.  Hq.  GO;-),  12  Atl.  374,  13 
Atl.  615. 

86.  Enforcement  by  injunction. — Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Wolcott,  141  Ind. 
2(;7,  39  X.  E.  4.j1,  .JO  Am.  St.  Rep.  320; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dwyer,  75  Tex.  572, 
12  S.  W.  1001.  7  L.  R.  A.  478,  16  Am.  St. 
Rep.  926;  Rogers  Locomotive,  etc., 
Works  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  379; 
Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 
53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  2J3,  54  Fed.  746, 
19  L.  R.  A.  395;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Burlington,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   34    Fed.    481. 

Combination  to  give  express  company 
monopoly. —  Plaintiffs  filed  a  bill  showing 
that  they  manufacture  locomotive  en- 
gines, and  charged  a  combination  be- 
tween a  railroad  company  over  whose 
road    the    engines    must    be    shipped    and 


certain  directors,  to  organize  an  express 
company  to  do  all  the  business  of  ship- 
ping over  the  road,  with  reduced  liabili- 
ties, whereby  the  cost  of  shipping  loco- 
motives would  be  increased  from  about 
$31  to  $350  each:  held,  that  plaintiffs  had 
no  adequate  remedy  at  law,  and  that  an 
injunction  would  issue  to  restrain  the 
parties  from  doing  anything  to  prevent 
carrying  such  engines  as  ordinary  freight. 
Rogers  Locomotive,  etc..  Works  v.  Erie 
R.    Co.,   20   X.  J.    Eq.   379. 

87.  Rogers  Locomotive,  etc..  Works  v. 
Erie   R.    Co.,   20   X.   J.    Eq.    379,    386. 

Apprehension  of  interruption  to  traffic 
not  sufficient  ground. — An  injunction  to 
a  company  to  work  traffic  will  only  be 
issued  where  there  is  a  well-founded 
ground  of  complaint  in  respect  of  past 
working,  and  the  question  of  proper  fa- 
cilities for  the  receipt,  etc.,  of  traffic  at  a 
junction  does  not  arise  until  the  junction 
exists.  Doublin  Whiskey  Distillery  Co. 
V.  Midland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ry.  &  C.  T. 
Cas.   32. 

88.  In  a  case  of  discrimination,  where 
the  nature  of  the  complaining  company's 
business  consists  in  mining  coal  which  ne- 
cessitates long  continued  and  indetermi- 
nable series  of  shipments,  a  remedy  by 
damages  in  an  action  at  law  would  lead 
to  such  a  multiplicity  of  suits  and  involve 
such  uncertainty  in  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages that  the  remedy  of  damages  would 
be  inadequate  and  resort  may  be  had  to 
a  court  of  equity.  Johnson  Coal  Min.  Co. 
V.  Hocking  Valley  R.  Co.,  1  X.  P.,  X.  S., 
385,    14    O.    D.    X.    P.    209. 


255 


DUTY  TO  RECEIVE  AND  CARRY. 


§§  378-379 


prevent  such  favored  use  thereof  and  compel  its  equal  service  to  all.^'^  This 
doctrine  is  founded  not  so  much  ui)on  the  purely  private  rights  of  the  individual 
as  upon  the  general  rights  and  hcnehts  of  the  puhlic  at  large  whose  interest  it 
is  to  keep  free  and  open  the  channels  of  trade  and  to  i)revent  the  building  up  of 
favored   private  enterprises  liy  a  cjuasi  public  corporation."" 

§  379.  By  Mandamus. — Right  of  State. — Even  though  the  state  has  suf- 
fered no  injury  and  llic-  pri\ai(.-  pcr^fjn  injured  has  a  sufficient  remedy  at  law,  a 
inandanuis  may  issue  at  the  instance  of  the  state  to  compel  a  railroad  company 
to  receive  and  carry  freight.'"  The  people  have  a  right  to  compel  the  per- 
formance of  the  duty  to  receive  and  transport  freight  through  the  courts,  by 
mandamus  ;  and  tlicir  .attorney  general  is  the  proper  officer  to  set  the  process 
in  niotiiMi.  The  fact  that  injured  individuals  may  have  private  remedies  for 
damages  sustained  docs  not  preclude  the  state  from  its  remedy  by  mandamus, 
where  there  is  a  general  or  partial  susi)ension  of  the  duty  of  receiving  or  trans- 
porting freight  atTecting  large  numbers  of  people."-  The  remedy  by  mandatnus 
iias  been  invoked  in  many  cases  to  compel  the  performance  of  the  express  and 
implied  obligation  of  carriers  arising  from  their  charters,''''   which  are  no  more 


89.  Prevention  of  discrimination. — John- 
son Coal  Min.  Co.  v.  l-iockiufj  Valley  R. 
Co.,  1  N.  P.,  N.  S.,  385,  14  O.  D.  N.  P. 
209;  Youghiogheny,  etc.,  Coal  Co.  v.  Erie 
R.   Co.,    1   O.   C.   C,  N.   S.,   333,  24   O.    C. 

D.    289.    14    O.    C.    C.    289. 

90.  Doctrine  founded  upon  rights  of 
public. — Johnsiin  Coal  Miii.  Co.  z\  Hock- 
ing \  alley  R.  Co.,  1  X.  1'..  X.  S.,  385,  14 
O.    D.    N.    P.   209. 

91.  Enforcement  by  mandamus. — State 
v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.',  29  Conn.  538; 
Cantrell    r.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (111.). 

12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  227;  Com- 
monwealth r.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  103  Mass. 
254;  State  v.  Spokane  St.  R.  Co.  (Wash.), 
11  .^m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  02;  State 
V.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Neb.  357; 
Rex  V.  Barker  (Eng.),  3  Burr.  1267;  Lo- 
raine  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  205  Pa. 
132,   54   Atl.   580,  61    L.    R.   A.   502. 

Where  the  injur}'  resulted  from  the 
nonperformance  of  a  railroad  company's 
duty  as  a  common  carrier  lo  receive  and 
transport  freight  the  connecting  carrier 
or  shipper  sustaining  injury  may  obtain 
relief  in  mandamus  proceedings  against 
the  carrier  in  fault.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  54  Fed.  730,  53  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  307,  19  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
387;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burlington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Fed.  481;  Rogers  Loco- 
motive, etc..  Works  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  20  N. 
J.  Eq.  379.  See  also,  Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 
r.   Hall.  91    U.   S.   343.  23   L.    Ed.   428. 

92.  Right  of  the  people. — People  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (X.  Y.),  9  .'Vm.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  1,  28  Hun  543,  3  Civ.  Proc.  R. 
11,  2  McCarty  Civ.  Proc.  345,  reversing 
2  Civ.   Proc.  82. 

93.  In  the  case  of  People  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  1,  28  Hun  543,  3  Civ.  Proc.  R.  11, 
2  McCarty  Civ.  Proc.  345,  the  court  said: 
"The  writ  of  mandamus  has  been  awarded 
to  compel  a  company  to  operate  its  road 
as  one  continuous  line  (Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.    Hall.    91    U.    S.    343.    23    L.    Ed.    428); 


to  compel  the  running  of  passenger  trains 
to  the  terminus  of  the  road  (State  v. 
Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Conn.  538);  to 
compel  the  company  to  make  fences  and 
cattle  guards  (People  v.  Rochester,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  14  Hun.  373,  76  N.  Y.  S.  294);  to 
compel  it  to  build  a  bridge  (People  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  X.  Y.  569);  to 
compel  it  to  construct  its  road  across  streams 
so  as  not  to  interfere  with  navigation 
(State  V.  Northeastern  R.  Co.  (S.  C),  9 
Rich.  L.  247,  67  Am.  Dec.  551);  to  compel 
it  to  run  daily  trains  (Re  New  Brunswick, 
etc.,  R.,  1  P.  &  B.  667);  to  compel  the 
delivery  of  grain  at  a  particular  elevator 
(Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  56  111. 
365,  8  Am.  Rep.  690);  to  compel  the  com- 
pletion of  its  road  (Farmers'  Loan  & 
Trust  Co.  V.  Henning,  17  Am.  L.  Reg., 
X.  S.,  266) ;  to  compel  the  grading  of  its 
track  so  as  to  make  crossings  convenient 
and  useful  (People  z:  Duchess,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  58  N.  Y.  152;  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z'.  People,  12  Hun  195,  modified  in  74 
N.  Y.  302;  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  37  Ind.  489);  to  compel  the  re- 
establishment  of  an  abandoned  station 
(State  v.  New  Haven,  etc.,  Co..  37  Conn. 
153) ;  to  compel  the  replacement  of 
a  track  taken  up  in  violation  of  it* 
charter  (Re.x  z:  Severn,  etc..  R.  Co., 
2  Barn.  &  .-Md.  646) ;  to  prevent  the 
abandonment  of  a  road  once  completed 
(Talcott  z:  Pine  Grove.  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
13735,  1  Flip.  120,  atfirmed  in  19  Wall.  666, 
22  L.  Ed.  227) ;  and  to  compel  a  com- 
panv  to  exercise  its  franchise  (People  v. 
.Mbany.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  261,  82  Am. 
Dec.  295). 

Under  Code  1906,  §  2364,  requiring  a 
carrier  to  make  reasonable  provision  for 
the  transportation  of  coal  and  coke,  a 
carrier  may  be  compelled  by  mandamus 
to  construct  a  side  track  and  switch  where 
neccssarv.  State  v.  White  Oak  R.  Co.,  65 
W.  \a.  'l5,  64  S.  E.  630,  28  L.  R.  A..  N. 
S.,    1013. 


§  379 


CARRIERS. 


256 


obligations  to  the  people  than  the  duty  to  carry  freight  and  passengers.  That 
duty  is,  indeed,  the  ultima  ratio  of  their  existence— the  great  and  sole  public 
good  for  the  attainment  and  accomplishment  of  which  all  the  other  powers  and 
duties  are  given  or  imposed.  It  is  strangely  illogical  to  assert  that  the  state, 
through  the  courts,  may  compel  the  performance  of  every  step  necessary  to  bring 
a  corporation  into  a  condition  of  readiness  to  do  the  very  thing  for^  which  it  is 
created,  but  it  is  then  powerless  to  complete  the  doing  of  the  thing  itself. '•■* 

Right  of  Shipper.— The  question  arises  whether  a  writ  of  mandamus  to 
comptd  the  performance  of  a  public  duty  may  be  issued  at  the  instance  of  a 
private  relator.  Clearly  in  England  it  may.  The  rule  in  that  country  is  that, 
in  general,  all  those  wlio  are  legally  capable  of  bringing  an  action  are  also  capa- 
ble^of  applying  to  the  court  for  the  writ  of  mandamus.  This  is  true  in  all  cases, 
it  is  believed,  where  the  defendant  owes  a  duty,  in  the  performance  of  which 
the  prosecutor  has  a  peculiar  interest;  and  it  is  equally  true  in  case  of  appli- 
cations to  compel  the  performance  of  duties  to  the  public  by  corporations. '^•'^ 
And  in  this  country  it  is  held  that  a  private  person,  who  suffers  damage  and  in- 
convenience special  or  peculiar  to  himself,  from  the  failure  of  the  company  to 
operate  its  road  as  required  by  law  may  institute  mandamus  proceedings  without 
the  sanction  of  the  attorney  general.^''  When  a  corporation  undertakes  to  oper- 
ate a  railroad  franchise,  it  assumes  all  the  duties  and  obligations  which  spring 
by  law  from  the  character  of  its  business,  and  from  the  customs  incidental  to  it. 
It  tenders  a  continuing  oft'er  to  the  general  public  that  it  will  perform  these  du- 
ties, for  the  benefit  of  each  and  every  one  of  them,  when  demanded  at  its  hands. 
When  anv  member  of  the  public  makes  a  demand  upon  it  under  such  general 
oft'er,  there  immediately  results  a  civil  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  company 
in  favor  of  the  party  making  the  demand,  enforceable  in  the  name  of  such  party, 
through  the  usual  remedies  by  which  contracts  are  enforced.  The  party  seek- 
ing the  enforcement  of  the  obligation  by  mandamus  can  not  be  driven  by  the 
corporation  to  an  action  for  damages,  nor  can  it,  by  the  payment  of  money,  leave 
unperformed  its  specific  afiirmative  legal  duty.''"  It  is  not  enough  that  a  party 
have  a  plain  and  adequate  remedy  in  order  to  deprive  him  of  the  right  to  the 
writ  of  mandamus.  The  remedy  must  also  be  one  "in  the  ordinary  course  of 
the  law."  ^^     And  it  has  been  said  that :     "A  proceeding  before  the  board  of 


94,  People  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  1,  28  Hun. 
543,  3  Civ.  Proc.  R.  11,  2  McCarty  Civ. 
Proc.    345. 

95.  In  Rex  v.  R.  Co.,  2  Barn.  &  Aid., 
646,  a  private  individual,  without  any  al- 
legation of  special  injury  to  himself,  ob- 
tained a  rule  upon  the  company  to  show 
cause  why  a  mandamus  should  not  issue 
commanding  them  to  lay  down  again  and 
maintain  part  of  a  railway  which  they 
had  taken  up.  Under  an  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, the  railway  was  a  pul)lic  highway; 
and  all  persons  were  at  lil)crty  to  pass 
and  repass  thereon,  with  wagons  and 
other  carriages,  upon  payment  of  tlie 
rates.  What  the  prosecutor  complained 
of  was  the  loss  by  the  public,  and  par- 
ticularly by  the  owners  of  certain  collier- 
ies (of  which  he  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  one),  of  the  benefit  of  using  the 
railway  taken  up.  The  writ  was  awarded. 
It  was  not  even  claimed  that  the  inter- 
vention of  the  attorney  general  was 
needed.  Other  cases  to  the  same  effect 
are  numerous.  Clarke  v.  Canal  Co.,  6  Ad. 
&  Ell.,  N.  S..  898,  1  Chit.  700 

96.    In    United    States.— Hall    v.    Union 


Pac.  R.  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5950,  3  Dill. 
515,  affirmed  in  91  U.  S.  343,  33  L.  Ed. 
428;  construing  the  act  of  March  3,  187, 
17   U.   vS.   Stat,   at   Law   509. 

This  is  true  in  all  cases,  it  is  believed, 
where  the  defendant  owes  a  duty  in  the 
performance  of  which  the  prosecutor  has 
a  peculiar  interest.  Tapping  on  manda- 
mus, p.  28.  The  right  is  distinctly  recog- 
nized in  this  state  in  Hamilton  v.  Pitts- 
burgh, 34  Pa.  49r),  and  in  many  cases  fol- 
lowing it.  Loraine  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  205  Pa.  132,  54  Atl.  580,  61  L.  R.  A. 
502. 

In  mandamus  by  a  coal  miner  to  com- 
pel a  railroad  company  to  furnish  cars, 
winch  it  refused  to  do  unless  he  would 
sell  his  coal  to  a  company  controlled  by 
the  president  of  the  railroad  company, 
it  is  immaterial  tliat  other  shippers  were 
refused  cars  for  the  same  reason.  Lo- 
raine V.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co..  54  Atl. 
580,   205    Pa.    132,   61    L.    R.    A.    502. 

97.  Cumberland  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mor- 
gan's, etc.,  R.  Co.  (La.),  13  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.,   N.   S.,   71. 

98.  Larabee  Flour  Mills  Co.  v.  Missouri 
Pac.   R.   Co.,  74    Kan.   808,  88   Pac.   72. 


2':>7  DiTv  TO  Ki:ci:rvr;  and  cakrv.  §§  379-380 

railroad  coinniissi(jner.s  is  sufficiently  out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  the  law  to 
disting-uish  it.  lis  characteristic  feature  is  that  it  takes  a  mandamus  suit  in 
this  court  to  c(Hii]ilctc  the  remedy.  Otherwise  it  might  not  he  adequate.  Hence 
there  is  no  reason  why,  in  a  case  involving  a  right  not  of  statutory  creation  and 
not  depending  upon  any  statute  for  its  enforcement,  the  comi)lainant  may  not 
ajjply  directly  to  this  court  for  the  desired  relief."  '■••' 

Discrimination. — \Vhere  a  com]jlainant  seeks  to  ffjrce  a  railroad  company 
to  afford  it  facilities  to  those  given  a  favored  rival,  the  court  may  issue  a  man- 
damus to  compel  it  to  serve  l)oth  alike.' 

Strikes. — Where  a  railroad  com])any  refuses  to  carry  freight  and  jjassengers 
on  the  ground  that  its  emi)loyees  refused  to  work  except  for  increased  wages,  a 
mandamus  may  issue,  at  the  suit  of  the  commonwealth,  represented  by  the  at- 
torney general,  to  compel  it  to  do  so,  where  there  is  no  violence  or  force  used 
by  such  employees  to  prevent  the  operation  of  trains ;  and  it  is  no  defense  to  such 
proceedings  that  the  state  has  suffered  no  injury,  and  that  private  shippers  or 
passengers  have  an  adcc|uatc  remedy  at  law  in  suits  for  damages. - 

Failure  to  Offer  for  Transportation. — The  writ  of  mandamus  does  not  lie, 
when  the  relator  who  seeks  to  transport  his  coal  over  a  lateral  railroad  has  not 
opened  or  mined  his  coal  or  offered  it  in  cars  for  transi)ortations.-"' 

Question  of  Unlawful  Transportation.— Where  a  product  is  dominated 
"beer,"  with  nothing  to  show  that  it  is  not  intoxicating,  and  the  carrier  has  a 
right  to  assume  that  it  is  intoxicating,  and  therefore  prohibited,  there  exists  a  dis- 
cretion in  regard  to  the  evidence  whereby  the  carrier  may  be  satisfied  that  the 
product  if  lawful,  and  mandamus  will  not  lie  to  compel  its  transportation.-* 

§§  380-382.  Action  for  Refusal— §  380.  Right  of  Action.— A  com- 
mon carrier  being  bound  to  receive  goods  tendered  to  him  in  his  line  of  busi- 
ness for  shipment  is  liable  to  a  suit  for  damages  for  refusing  to  take  goods  so 
tendered,''  wdthout  good  cause,"  or  for  enforcing  rules  and  regulations  discrim- 
inating against  the  complaining  shipper."  And  the  fact  that,  after  the  damages 
sued  for  had  accrued,  the  shipper  and  the  carrier  entered  into  a  contract  for 
the  shipment  of  the  freight,  does  not  affect  the  ship])cr's  right  to  recover  the 
damages  sustained.** 

For  Whom  Right  Exists.— The  refusal  of  a  common  carrier  to  take  goods 
for  a  ])arlicular  consignee   is  in  violation   of  an   obligation   to  the   shipper,  and 

99.  Laral)ce  Fldiir  Mills  Co.  v.  Missouri  6.    Liability   to   suit   for  refusal. — For   a 

Pac.   R.Co.,  74   Kan.  808,  88  Pac.  72.  refusal,   except   upon  a  good  cause  to  un- 

1.  Discrimination.  —  Cumlierland  Tel.,  dcrtake  the  service,  a  right  of  action  ex- 
etc,  Co.  V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (La.),  18  ists  against  the  carrier.  Waring  &  Co.  v. 
Am.    &   Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S.,   .399.  Baltimore,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   3  Wklv.    L    Bull. 

2.  Strikes.— People  v.  New  York,  etc.,  893,  7  O.  Dec.  5.J3:  Canal  Boat  Mont- 
R.    Co.    (X.   Y.),    9    Am.    &    Hng.    R.    Cas.       gomery  v.  Kent,  20  O.  54. 

1,  28  Hun  .US,  3  Civ.   Proo.   R.   11.  2   Mc-  7.     Discrimination.— Logan     &     Co.     v. 

Carty   Civ.    Proc.   34.").  Ctntral    Railroad.    74    Ga.   684. 

3.  Failure  to  offer  for  transportation.  -  The  Georgia  statutes  do  not  contain 
Commonwcaltli  r.  Corey  (Pa.),  2  Pittsb.  any  express  provisions  perhaps  imposing 
444.  penalties   on   carriers   for   unjust   discrimi- 

4.  Question  of  unlawful  transportation.  nation  exercised  to  the  detriment  of  the 
— Milwaukee  Malt  I'.xtract  C\).  r.  Chi-  business  of  another  but  the  scope  and  in- 
cago.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Lnva  98,  34  X.  W.  tent  of  Ga.  Civil  Code.  §§  2188,  2214,  2268, 
761.  2269,    2307,    are    broad    enough    to    afford 

5.  Action  for  refusal. — Inman  &  Co.  v.  a  remedy.  Kates  v.  Atlanta  Baggage, 
Seaboard,  etc..  R.  Co..  159  Fed.  960;  Wal-  etc.,  Co.,  107  Ga.  636.  34  S.  E.  372,  46  L. 
lace  V.  Matthews.  ,39  Ga.  617,  99  .-\ni.  Dec.  R.    A.    431. 

473;  Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Ohio    Revised    Statutes. — Johnson    Coal 

Dec.  393;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Queen  Min.   Qo.  v.    Hocking  \'allev   R.   Co..   1    X. 

City  Coal   Co.,  13  Ky.   L.   Rep.  832;  John-  P..    X.    S..   3S5.    14    O.    D.    X.    P.   209. 
son   Coal   Min.   Co.  v.  Hocking  \'alley   R.  8.    Subsequent   contract    of    shipment. — 

Co.,   1    X.    P.,   N.   S.,  385,   14   6.   D.   X.   P.  St.   Louis,  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  Taylor,  87   Ark. 

^09.  331,    112    S.   W.    745. 

1   Car— 17 


§§  380-381  CARRIERS.  258 

not  to  the  consignee.  An  action  of  damages  in  favor  of  the  consignee  will  not 
lie  in  such  a  case.^ 

Effect  of  Statutory  Penalty.— A  statute  fixing  a  penalty  per  day  per  car  to 
be  paid  by  the  carrier  for  failure  to  supply  cars  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
statute,  does  not  abrogate  the  common-law  action  for  damages  to  a  shipper  by 
reason  of  a  breach  of" the  carrier's  common-law  duty  to  furnish  cars  for  trans- 
portation of  freight  within  a  reasonable  time.'"^ 

Delayage  Charges.— The  fixing  of  delayage  charges  by  a  state  railroad 
commission  for  failure  of  carrier  to  furnish  cars  does  not  deprive  the  shipper 
of  his  right  to  damages  under  the  common  law.'^ 

§  381.  Procedure. — Jurisdiction.— A  suit  to  compel  an  interstate  carrier 
to  receive  and  transport  proi)erty  tendered  for  shipment  is  one  to  enforce  per- 
formance of  a  dutv  imposed  by  general  law,  and  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
courts,  and  the  complainant  is  not  required  to  resort  in  the  first  instance  to  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission. ^i'' 

Form  and  Action. — A  cause  of  action  for  refusal  of  a  common  carrier  to 
furnish  means  of  transportation,  being  founded  on  the  public  duty  of  the  car- 
rier, and  not  on  special  contract,  arises  ex  delicto,  and  not  ex  contractu. ^^ 
Damages  from  breach  of  a  carrier's  express  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  a  speci- 
fied time  are  recoverable  in  an  action  on  the  contract;  but,  in  the  absence  of  an 
express  contract,  the  proposing  shipper  has  no  action  save  for  a  breach  of  the 
carrier'!^  general  common-law  duty  to  furnish  cars  within  a  reasonable  time.^-' 

Pleading.— In  civil  actions  it  is  a  rule  that  where  a  subject  comprehends  a 
multiplicity  of  matters  and  a  great  variety  of  facts,  in  order  to  avoid  prolixity, 
the  law  allows  general  pleading.^^ 

Statement  of  Cause  of  Action.— The  general  rule  seems  to  be  that  the 
petition  must  contain  a  jjlain  and  concise  statement  of  the  facts  constituting  a 
cause  of  act  ion.''' 

Necessary  Allegations. — In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  receive 
and  carry  freight,  or  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  for  the  transportation  of  freight, 
the  complaint  must  set  out  the  duty  of  the  carrier  in  that  respect,  either  as  a 

9.  For  whom  right  exists.— Laf aye  v.  furnish  the  cars  as  requested,  stated  a 
Harris    13   La     A.nn    55;{  cause  of  action  in  tort  and  not  in  contract, 

10.  Effect  of  statutory  penalty  .-South-  f."d  a  recovery  must  be  predicated  on  the 
ern  R  Co.  v.  Moore,  133  Ga.  80C..  67  S.  habihty  of  the  carrier  as  a  common  car- 
E.  85,  26  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  851.  See  ante,  "^r  to  furnish  cars.  Di  Giorgio  Import- 
"Re^quisites   and    Sufficiency   of   Demand,"  -.-  etc.,  ^Co^ ..  f--y>v.i.  R^Co.,   1()^. 

,,   't-.  1  u  \'  *        T?  14.   General  pleading. — State  v.   McCor- 

11.  Delayage   charges--^  azoo     etc      R.  ^  ^  f  ^    ^^    ^ 

Co.  r.    I-isher   Bros.   (Miss.),  o9  So.  8m.  ^^olcott,    141    Ind.    267,    39    N.    E.    451,    50 

11a.     Jurisdiction. — Louisville,     etc.,     K.  .^^j^     g^    j^^p    ^20. 

Co.  V.  Cook  Brewing  Co.,  90  C.  C.  A.  322,  ^    jg_    Under    Rev.'  St.    1899,    §    592    (Ann. 

172   Fed.    117.  5t    19Q6^  p.  612),  requiring  the  petition  to 

12.  Form  of  action. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  contain  a  plain  and  concise  statement  of 
R.  Co.  V.  Morton,  61  Ind.  539,  28  Am.  the  facts  constituting  a  cause  of  action. 
Rep.  682.  a   petition,   alleging   that   during   the    four 

13.  Breach  of  express  contract.— Cen-  months  from  July  to  October,  inclusive, 
tral,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sigma  Lumljer  Co.,  plaintiff  offered  for  shipment  120,000  feet 
170 'Ala. '627,  54  So.  205.  of   oak    logs    of    the    value    of   $1,920    and 

A    declaration,    in    an    action    against    a  60,000  feet  of  cypress  logs  of  the  value  of 

carrier   for   failure   to   furnish   cars,   which  $840    from    a    certain    station,    and    asked 

alleged   that  plaintiff  made   requisition   on  for  cars,  but  that  defendant  railroad  failed 

the   carrier   for   cars   for   transportation   of  to   furnish  them,  and  that  in  consequence 

the    goods,   and   that   the    carrier    received  the    logs   l)ecame    damaged,   etc.,    stated   a 

and    accepted    the    requisition,    and    which  case   for   not   furnishing  cars   to   haul   any 

charged    that    the    loss    claimed    to    have  of    the    logs    during    the    months    named, 

been    sustained    by    plaintiff    was    due    to  Shoptaugh  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Mo. 

the  negligence  of  the  carrier  in  failing  to  App.),    126    S.    W.    752. 


259 


DUTY    TO    RECmVlv    ANU    CAKRV. 


§  381 


public  duty  or  as  the  result  of  a  contract,"'  and  every  fact  necessary  to  show 
a  breach  of  that  pubhc  duty  or  of  the  special  contract  between  the  parties,  such 
as  a  timely  and  sufficient  tender  of  the  goods  for  shipnient,''  (jr  a  request  in  due 
time  of  a  duly  authorized  agent,  for  necessary  cars,"*  and  a  readiness  and  will- 
ingness to  pay  the  re(|uisite  freight  charges. i'*  l>ut  where  the  refusal  by  the 
carrier  is  not  because  of  the  non-pa Nuient  of  freight  charges,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  allege  a  tender  thereof.-"     And  where  a  railroad  fails  to  furnish  cars,  plain- 


16.  Pleading  in  general. —  In  an  action 
for  faihirc  to  fnrnish  cars,  tlic  allc^^tion 
in  tlic  complaint  that  sliippers  at  certain 
points  at  which  defendant  must  compete 
with  other  carriers  were  furnished  cars 
for  shipping  to  points  to  which  plaintiff 
wished  to  ship,  and  that  the  number  of 
cars  so  furnished  was  excessively  out  of 
proportion  to  the  numlicr  furnished  plain- 
tiff, is  sufficient  to  ciiarj^e  defendant  with 
the  duty  of  furnishing  plaintiff  with  his 
proportion  of  cars  to  points  on  its  own 
lines,  or  to  points  on  connecting  lines, 
to  which  defendant  held  itself  out  as  a 
through  carrier.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Wood,  45  Ind.  App.  1,  84  N.  E.  1009, 
88    N.    E.   709. 

In  an  action  for  failure  to  furnish  cars, 
a  complaint  alleging  that  defendant  is 
a  common  carrier  operating  lines  of  rail- 
road, and  that  it  held  itself  out  to  plain- 
tiff as  a  through  carrier  to  certain  points 
beyond  its  lines  l)y  traffic  arrangements 
with  connecting  carriers,  is  not  objection- 
al)le  in  that  it  fails  to  allege  any  duty 
which  defendant  owed  to  plaintifT.  Re- 
hearing 84  N.  E.  1009,  denied.  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  Wood,  45  Ind.  App.  1, 
S8   N.   E.  709. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  shipping  facilities,  the  ab- 
sence of  an  allegation  in  the  complaint 
that  the  defendant  issued  bills  of  lading 
obligating  itself  to  carry  goods  to  points 
beyond  its  own  lines  was  not  necessary 
on  the  issue  as  to  its  holding  itself  out 
as  a  through  carrier  to  such  points, 
though  such  fact  might  be  material  to 
support  the  averment  that  it  held  itself 
out  as  a  through  carrier.  Pittsburgh,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Wood,  45  Ind.  App.  1,  SS  X.  E. 
709. 

17.  Tender. — A  complaint  in  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company  for  its  fail- 
ure to  furnish  a  car  in  which  to  ship 
plaintiff's  timber,  which  does  not  allege 
that  the  timlier  was  tendered  to  or  re- 
ceived for  shipment  by  an  agent  author- 
ized to  ship  the  same,  or  that  the  plain- 
tiff applied  for  a  car  to  an  agent  author- 
ized to  furnish  cars,  is  demurrable,  though 
it  alleges  that  the  plaintiff  placed  the 
timber  for  shipment  near  the  company's 
tracks  at  a  certain  station,  and  that  he  ap- 
plied to  a  freight  conductor  and  to  the 
company's  agents  at  other  station  for  a 
car.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lee,  <)9 
Ark.    584,   65    S.    W.    99. 

A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier for  failure  to  furnish  cars  to  a  ship- 


per, which  alleges  that  the  shipper  had 
placed  saw  logs  along  a  carrier's  tracks 
for  shipment  and  had  made  repeated  de- 
mands for  cars,  and  that  by  the  carrier's 
failure  to  furnish  cars  the  logs  deterio- 
rated, states  a  cause  of  action;  the  allega- 
tions l)eing  sufficient  to  show  a  tender  for 
shipment  and  demand  for  cars.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynne  Hoop,  etc., 
Co..   81    .\xV.   373,  99   S.   W.  375. 

18.  Demand  for  cars. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.    Co.    V.    Lee,    ny    Ark.    584,    05    S.    W.    99. 

A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a  rail- 
way company  for  failure  to  furnish  cars 
which  alleges  that  property  was  tendered 
for  shipment  and  that  cars  were  demanded 
in  a  certain  month  is  sufficiently  definite 
as  to  the  time  when  the  demands  were 
made,  where  the  stations  were  small,  so 
that  the  company  might  ascertain  whether 
such  was  the  fact.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Rolfe.   7(i  Ark.   220,  88   S.   W.   870. 

The  allegation  in  the  complaint,  in  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to 
furnish  cars  to  a  shipper,  that  the  ship- 
per had  made  demand  of  the  carrier  for 
cars,  was  sufficient  to  admit  proof  as  to 
the  agent  on  whom  demand  was  made, 
and  that  he  had  authority  to  furnish  cars. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wynne  Hoop, 
etc.,    Co.,    81    Ark.    373,   99    S.    W.    375. 

19.  As  to  payment  of  charges. — Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hays,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cases,  §  390.  See  ante,  "Payment  or  Ten- 
der  of    Charges,"   §    360. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  shipping  facilities  for  the 
carriage  of  grain,  the  complaint  alleged 
that  the  goods  were  tendered,  and  that 
plaintiffs  were  "willing,  ready,  and  able 
to  pay"  the  charges  thereon.  Held,  that 
the  complaint  was  not  insufficient  for  fail- 
ing to  allege  payment  of  the  freight  on 
the  goods  tendered,  where  there  was  no 
basis  for  computing  the  amount  of  the 
charges,  as  the  quantity  of  grain  to  be 
shipped  depended  entirely  on  the  num- 
ber and  capacity  of  cars  furnished  by 
the  carrier.  Pittsl)urgh.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wood,  45  Ind.  .^pp.  1,  84  X.  E.  1009.  S8 
X.    E.    709. 

20.  Allegation  of  tender  of  charges  un- 
necessary.— The  reason  for  the  refusal  of 
transi)ortation  is  alleged  to  l)e  that  the 
Gulf,  Colorado  and  Santa  Fe  Company 
desired  that  the  lumber  should  accumu- 
late until  they  completed  a  junction  be- 
tween their  road  and  the  other  defendant, 
so  that  it  would  earn  the  profit  on  the 
transportation  beyond  the  proposed  point 


§  381 


CARRIIvRS. 


260 


tiff  need  not  designate  in  his  petition  the  character  of  cars  required,  defendant 
heing  uresumetl  to  know  what  kintl  were  needed.-' 

Place  of  Delivery  by  Carrier — Value. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
a  general  refusal  to  transport  the  complainant's  goods  it  is  not  necessary  to 
allege  to  what  place  it  was  tendered  for  transportation,  or  its  market  value  at 
such  place,  had  it  heen  transported  hy  the  railroad,  the  action  being,  not  for 
failure  to  carry  one  specific  lot,  but  a  general  refusal  to  carry.--  Where  a  car- 
rier failed  to  furnish  cars  to  transport  plaintift"s  logs,  allegations  of  the  value 
of  the  two  species  of  logs  and  a  depreciation  in  value  during  the  period  they  lay 
at  the  station  for  lack  of  cars  are  sufficient  to  enable  defendant  to  prepare  its 
defense  so  far  as  the  measure  of  damages  is  concerned,  and  it  is  not  entitled  to 
require  plaintiff'  to  allege  the  market  prices  either  at  such  station  or  at  the  in- 
tended destination.-^^ 

Excuses  for  Failure. — If  any  reason  exists  excusing  a  carrier  from  receiv- 
ing freight  for  shipment  or  for  refusing  to  furnish  cars  to  a  shipper,  they  are 
matters  for  defense  to  be  pleaded  by  the  defendant  and  not  the  plaintiff.--* 

Basis  for  Damages. — The  petition  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure 
or  refusal  to  receive  and  carry  freight  or  furnish  cars  for  transportation  of 
property,  must  allege  a  basis  for  damages  resultant  from  the  negligence  or  will- 
ful act  of  the  carrier.-"'  In  an  action  for  a  continuous  failure  to  furnish  trans- 
portation for  freight,  it  is  sufficient  in  alleging  a  basis  for  damages  to  charge 
what  could  have  been  realized  from  sales  if  transportation  had  been  furnished 
and  the  loss  which  resulted  from  being  compelled  to  keep  it  at  a  point  where  it 
could  not  be  sold,  with  a  specific  statement  of  the  expenses  incident  to  its 
detention.-" 


of  connection.  This  shows  that  the  re- 
fusal to  carry  was  not  on  account  of  the 
nonpayment  of  freights,  and,  therefore,  a 
tender  was  not  necessary  to  be  alleged. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  68  Tex. 
49,    58,    3    S.    W.    457. 

21.  Designating  kind  of  cars. — vShop- 
taugh  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.), 
126    S.    W.    752. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  shipping  facilities,  a  com- 
plaint alleging  that  defendant  was  a  com- 
mon carrier  of  grain,  and  that  plaintiffs 
tendered  grain  for  shipment  and  de- 
manded "suitable  cars"  therefor,  was  not 
open  to  the  objection  that  it  did  not  al- 
lege the  class  of  cars  demanded.  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wood,  45  Ind.  App. 
1,    84    X.    K.    1009,    88    X.    E.    709. 

22.  General  failure  to  transport. — Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Morris,  ()8  Tex.  49, 
3   S.   W.   457. 

In  such  suit  allegations  of  tender  and 
refusal  of  freight  to  the  points  to  which 
it  was  desired  to  ship  the  lumber  are  not 
necessary.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris,  68   Tex.   49,   58,   3   S.   W.   457. 

Plaintififs,  under  the  circumstances, 
could  make  no  contracts  to  deliver  be- 
cause they  could  not  get  the  necessary 
transportation,  and  hence  could  not  have 
averred  the  points  to  which  it  was  to  have 
been  carrier.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris,   68   Tex.    49,    58,    3    S.    W.    457. 

23.  Allegation  of  value — Market  price.— 
Shoptaugh  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),   126   S.   W.   752. 


24.  Pleading  matter  of  defense. — In  an 

action  against  a  common  carrier  to  re- 
cover damages  for  its  failure  to  provide 
a  shipper  with  transportation  on  demand 
by  him,  that  defendant  was  unable  to 
furnish  plaintiff  with  cars  except  by  un- 
due interference  with  its  business,  or  with 
the  rights  of  other  shippers,  is  a  matter 
of  defense.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wol- 
cott,  141  Ind.  267,  39  N.  E.  451,  50  Am. 
St.    Rep.   320. 

25.  Basis  for  damages. — A  complaint  in 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to 
furnish  cars  to  a  shipper  on  demand, 
which  alleges  that  the  shipper  placed  logs 
along  the  carrier's  tracks  for  shipmeiit 
'and  demanded  cars  on  which  to  ship 
them,  and  that  the  carrier  neglected  to 
furnish  a  suf^cient  number  of  cars,  and 
that  by  reason  thereof  the  logs  deterio- 
rated in  value  from  exposure  to  the 
weather  in  a  specified  sum,  and  that  by 
the  carrier's  negligent  refusal  to  furnish 
cars  the  shipper  was  damaged,  sufficiently 
charges  that  the  negligence  of  the  car- 
rier in  failing  to  furnish  cars  was  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  shipper's  injury, 
as  against  the  objection  that  the  injury 
was  due  to  the  exposure  of  the  logs  to 
the  weather.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wynne  Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ark.  373,  99 
S.    W.    375. 

26.  Allegations  in  action  for  failure  to 
furnish  transportation. — Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Morris,  68  Tex.  49,  3  S.  W.  457. 


261 


IJI'TV    TO    KKCKINI-:    AM)    CARRY 


§  381 


Answer. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  after 
demand,  an  answer  failing  to  allege  facts  showing  that  the  carrier  had  performed 
its  (lutv  of  providing  a  suf^cient  numher  of  cars  to  meet  the  ordinary  needs  of 
its  business,  which  it  could  reasonably  anticipate,  or  that  the  scarcity  of  cars 
and  existing  demands  for  them  were  the  result  of  circuiustances  beyond  its 
power  reasonabl}'  to  coiilrol  and  jjrovidc  against  is  demurrable.-' 

Variance. — There  is  no  \ariaiue  when  the  allegation  upon  which  the  vari- 
ance is  predicated  is  immaterial.  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that  the  date  alleged  in 
the  petition  was  immaterial.-'^ 

Evidence. — As  railroad  companies  are  not  required  at  all  times  and  under 
all  conditions  to  lia\e  sufficient  cars  to  take  care  of  all  demands,  evidence  to 
show  unusual  demands  at  certain  times,  an  e(|uitable  distribution  of  cars  at  such 
times,  and  that  the  failure  to  su])ply  was  justified  under  the  conditions  existing 
at  the  time,  should  be  admitted.-''  And  in  such  a  case  the  plaintiff  is  properly 
allowed  to  prove  by  other  shippers  that  in  the  seasons  preceding  the  one  in 
question  there  was  a  car  slKjrtage  on  defendant's  road,  in  the  district  from  which 
plaintiff  was  shi]:)]')ing.-''" 

Question  of  Law  and  Fact. —  In  accordance  with  the  general  rule,  the  (jues- 
tion  as  to  whetlicr  a  carrier  has  breached  his  ])ublic  duty  or  his  contract  by  fail- 
ing to  receive  goods  for  shipment  by  failure  to  furnish  cars,  or  by  negligently 
failing  to  move  them  after  receiving  them  is  one  for  the  jury,  where  there  is 
evidence  on  the  question  upon  which  the  minds  of  reasonable  men  might  dift'er.-'* 
The  rule  that  whether  a  carrier  negligently  failed  to  supply  cars  when  demanded 
is  for  th.e  jury  applies  onh-  where  a  s])ecific  and  definite  notice  of  the  time  when 
the  cars  are  required  is  shown.'-     The  question  as  to  whether  a  carrier  unreason- 


27.  Answer  —  Demurrer.  — Judj^ment, 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  42  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  331,  98  S.  W.  450,  reversed.  Allen 
V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  Tex.  525,  101 
S.  W.  792,  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  618, 
11   L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  981. 

28.  There  is  no  variance  between  the  al- 
legation of  a  petition  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  that 
plaintiff  had  on  hand  at  a  station  for  ship- 
ment in  the  month  of  July  a  stated 
quantity  of  logs,  that  he  demanded  cars 
to  load  them,  and  that  the  carrier  failed 
to  furnish  cars,  and  the  proof  that  the 
logs  remained  at  the  station  until  No- 
vember, while  plaintiff  was  vainly  re- 
questing cars;  the  date  alleged  in  the  pe- 
tition being  immaterial.  Hoffman,  etc.. 
Stave  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 
Mo.   App.   495,   94    S.   W.    597. 

29.  Evidence — Admissibility. — Mulberry 
Hill  Coal  C.I.  :■.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  161 
111.    App.    27:2. 

30.  Conditions  preceding  seasons  as  evi- 
dence.-— Cronan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mo.    App.),    130   S.    W.    437. 

31.  Porter  v.  Raleigh,  etc..  R.  Co..  132 
N.   C.   71,  43   S.    E.    547. 

In  an  action  to  rccuvcr  damages  result- 
ing from  defendant's  refusal  to  accept 
plaintiff's  grain  for  shipment,  it  was  con- 
tended, in  defense,  that  the  negligence  of 
plaintiff  in  refusing  to  receive  and  store 
previous  shipments  of  grain  at  the  point 
of  destination  prevented  the  carrier  from 
receiving  the  later  shipment.  Held,  that 
the   question   of  plaintiff's   negligence   was 


for  the  jury.  Cobb,  etc.,  Co.  Z'.  Illinois 
Cent.    R.    Co..    38    Iowa    601. 

Whether  defendant,  a  carrier,  with 
knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  interfered  with 
plaintiff's  shipment  of  a  monument  over 
its  line  by  refusing  its  regular  service 
which  would  have  been  adequate  to  de- 
liver the  monumeiU  by  the  date  provided 
for  in  plaintiff's  contract  with  the  pur- 
chasers, and  shipped  it  by  special  service 
at  a  much  greater  expense,  which  had  to 
be  paid  from  the  fund  provided  for  the 
purchase  of  the  monument,  and  hence  ulti- 
mately by  plaintiff,  held  to  be  a  question 
for  the  jury.  Harrison  Granite  Co.  v. 
Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.,  154  Mich.  48,  117 
X.   W.    549. 

Failure  to  furnish  cars. — In  an  action 
against  a  common  carrier  for  failure  to 
furnish  cars  to  sliip  timber,  where  the 
uncontradicted  evidence  showed  that  de- 
fendant agreed  to  furnish  at  least  one  car 
a  day  and  several  times  told  plaintiff  that 
cars  would  be  furnished,  and  tliat  when 
he  inquired  as  to  the  situation  and  noti- 
fied defendant  that  he  was  keeping  a  large 
crew  of  men  on  hand  at  a  large  expense 
to  have  theni  ready  to  load  cars,  defend- 
ant notified  him  that  the  cars  would  be 
furnished,  the  court  was  justified  in  re- 
fusing to  declare  as  a  matter  of  law.  that 
there  was  no  evidence  of  an  agreement 
to  furnish  cars.  Cronan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Mo.   App.).   130   S.   W.   437. 

32.  Negligence  in  furnishing  cars. — Di- 
Gioruio  Importing,  etc..  Co.  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania   R.    Co..    104    Md.    693,    65    .-Ktl.    425,    8 

L.  R.  A..  X.  S..  los. 


§§  381-382 


CARRIIvRS. 


262 


ablv  neglected  to  provide  a  sufficient  number  of  cars  to  forward  freight  is  for 
the'  iury.--^  and  as  a  general  thing  the  validity  and  sufficiency  of  excuses  made 
by  a  carrier  for  failure  to  receive  goods  is  for  the  jury.-^  The  shipper  can  not 
-omphin  of  the  submission  to  the  jury  as  a  question  of  fact,  whether  or  not, 
on  account  of  an  accumulation  of  freight  or  press  of  business,  all  the  cars  be- 
longing to  carrier  suitable  for  the  shipper's  purpose  were  in  use,  making  it  im- 
possible to  furnish  a  car  on  the  day  in  question,  and  whether  or  not^  the  earner 
wa*^  prevented  bv  anv  unavoidable  delay  caused  by  the  use  of  cars.^^ 

Instructions.— In'  suits  against  carriers  for  failure  or  refusal  to  receive 
goods  for  shipment,  the  instructions  are  to  be  limited  by  the  issues  raised  by 
the  pleaiHngs  as  in  other  cases.-^'"'  ,  •  i    i     i 

Nonsuit.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  value  of  lumber  which  had 
been  ordered  bv  a  customer  from  plaintiff,  but  which  became  a  total  loss  because 
of  the  carrier's  failure  to  accept  it  for  transportation,  a  nonsuit  was  properly 
granted,  where  the  execution  of  the  written  order  for  the  lumber  was  not 
l-'roven.-'" 

§  382.  Damages.— Duty  of  Owner  to  Avert  or  Mitigate  Loss.— When 
a  railroad  wrongfullv  refuses  to  take  and  transport  property  when  offered,  the 
owner  must  care  for  and  ])reserve  his  property  pending  the  delay .•'•^  _ 

Enhancing  Damages.— A  shipper  has  no  right  to  enhance  his  damages 
caused  by  a  carrier's  failure  to  receive  his  goods  or  to  furnish  facilities  for 
shipping.^''  On  breach  of  a  contract  to  carry  by  vessel  an  ordinary  article  of 
merchandise,  the  shipper  will  not  be  justified  in  procuring  shipment  by  rail,  if 
the  railroad  prices  would  render  it  unprofitable,  since  a  person  has  no  right  to 
put  others  to  an  expense  of  such  a  nature  as  he  would  not  as  a  reasonable  man 
incur  on  his  own  account.-^"  In  case  of  an  article  of  specific  utility  for  preserva- 
tion, where  the  circumstances  are  such  as  to  justify  employing  any  transporta- 
tion' which  is  accessible,  and  to  render  the  difference  in  cost  in  transportation  a 
proper  measure  of  damages,  the  shipper,  on  failure  of  the  carrier  to  furnish 
transportation  as  agreed,  is  bound  to  seek  other  means  of  carriage  immediately 
at  hand,  and  is  not  permitted  to  await  his  leisure  and  speculate  on  future  chances 


33.  Question  for  jury. — Judgment,  87 
N.  Y.  S.  30,  U2  App.  Div.  584,  affirmed. 
Strough  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  181 
N.   Y.    533,   73    N.    E.    1133. 

34.  Excuses  for  failure. — In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish 
plaintiff  with  cars,  evidence  held  suffi- 
cient to  make  it  a  question  for  the  jury 
whether  there  was  such  a  sudden  and  un- 
usual increase  of  business  and  demand 
for  cars  over  defendant's  road  as  to  re- 
lease it  from  its  liability  for  failure  to 
furnish  the  cars.  Dillender  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co.   (Mo.  App.),  130  S.  W.  107. 

35.  Question     for     jury. — Hastings     v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Hun  638,  6  N. 
Y.   S.  836,  25  N.  Y.  St.   Rep.  249,  3  Silvei 
nail   422. 

36.  Instructions. — Where*  a  shipper 
leased  his  action  against  carrier  upon  its 
failure  to  furnish  cars  on  a  given  date  al- 
leged to  be  a  reasonal)le  time  after  de- 
mand, a  charge  authorizing  a  recovery 
on  failure  to  furnish  cars  in  a  reasonable 
time  generally  was  erroneous  as  submit- 
ting an  issue  not  pleaded.  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Word  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  124 
S.    W.    478. 

37.  Nonsuit  for  failure   of  proof. — Kent 


V.    Wadley.    etc..    R.    Co.,    13C.    Ga.    857,    72 
S.    E.    413. 

38.  Duty  of  owner  to  mitigate. — Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  (13  Tex.  322,  328, 
22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Neel,  56  Ark.  279,  19  S.  W. 
963. 

Where  plaintiff  negligently  left  cotton 
with  a  railroad  company  after  its  refusal 
to  take  it,  he  can  not  recover  for  dam- 
ages to  it.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
63  Tex.  322,  328,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
431. 

39.  Enhancing  damages. — In  an  action 
against  a  railroad  for  failure  to  furnish 
cars  to  transport  plaintiff's  logs,  where 
plaintiff  did  not  know  from  the  first  that 
he  could  not  ship,  that  aftei  discovering 
such  fact  he  continued  to  haul  logs  to 
the  station  was  not  a  defense,  but  cause 
only  for  denying  redress  to  the  extent  he 
increased  his  damage  by  accumulating 
logs  after  he  knew  that  cars  would  not 
he  available.  Shoptaugh  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.   (Mo.  App.),  126  S.  W.  752. 

40.  Extra  expenses  needlessly  made. — 
Ward's  Cent.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elkins.  34  Mich. 
439,    22    Am.    Rep.    544. 


263 


DUTY   TO    KKCKIVI-:    AND    CAKRV. 


§  382 


Ly  making  piecemeal  shipments. ^ '  The  mere  fact  that  a  shipper  loads  the 
fresher  logs  first  on  cars  furnished  will  not  bar  a  recovery,  unless  the  shipper 
has  reason  to  believe  that  the  carrier  will  not  furnish  a  sufficient  number  of 
cars  to  remove  all  the  logs  before  damage  thereto  will  occur.-*- 

Elements  and  Measure  of  Damag-es. — A  shipper  is  entitled  to  recover 
only  sucli  damages  as  were  tiie  natural  and  proximate  consequences  of  the 
failure  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars.-*-'  The  elements  of  damages  occasioned  a 
shipper  by  a  common  carrier's  refusal  or  failure  to  receive  his  goods  would  be 
the  loss  occasioned  1)V  the  refusal  or  failure,"  and  the  reasonable  expense  of 
keeping  the  goods  during  the  delay .^■''  And  the  carrier,  where  freight  is  ten- 
dered to  it  by  delivery  at  the  depot  and  wrongfully  refused,  is  liable  for  the  ex- 
pense incurred  in  carr\ing  it  a  second  time  to  the  depot,  from  which  the  owner 
had  received  it.^''  \\  here  a  railroad  company  has  wrongfully  failed  to  furnish 
the  owners  of  a  coal  mine  on  its  road  with  cars  for  the  transportation  of  their 
coal,  the  expenses  of  the  coal  owners  wliile  they  were  expecting  cars  to  be  fur- 
nished, and  anv  reasonable  profits  tlie\  coulil  have  earned  during  the  time  the 
miners  were  in  their  employment,  may  be  considered  in  estimating  damages.-*^ 
A  person  -sustaining  loss  by  a  carrier's  refusal  to  transport  freight  on  stipulated 
rates  niav  recover  loss  sustained  on  contracts  made  on  the  faith  of  such  rates.'*'* 
But  the  failure  of  a  common  carrier  to  provide  facilities  for  the  shipment  of  a 
commoditv.  whereby  plaintiff  is  prevented  from  selling  a  stock  of  such  com- 
modity to  others  for  shi]Miient.  does  not  constitute  a  legal  ground  for  the  re- 
coverv  of  (lamafres.-*''     Xor  cim  a  dealer  reco\er  damages  for  a  carrier's  refusal 


41.  Article  of  specific  utility  for  pres- 
ervation.— Ward's  Cent.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  I'.lk- 
ins.    :i4    Mich.    4.39,   22   Am.    Rep.    544. 

42.  Order  of  loading  logs. — St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wynne  Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  81 
Ark.  ;}73.  99  S.  W.  :'.:."). 

43.  Proximate  consequences.  —  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Queen  City  Coal  Co., 
13   Ky.   L.   Rep.   832. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars  for  the  transportation 
of  logs,  the  evidence  showed  that  after 
the  logs  had  l)een  cut  for  ihree  months 
they  would  deteriorate;  that  the  shipper 
placed  logs  along  the  carrier's  tracks  for 
shipment  and  demanded  cars;  that  the 
carrier  failed  to  furnish  cars;  that  the  only 
value  of  the  logs  consisted  in  their  use 
for  hoops,  and  to  l)e  valuable  the  same  had 
to  I)e  manufactured  before  decay;  and 
that,  if  shipped  proirji*'  ■  '''-  ;;-  —  ■■  --o  -1  1 
have  been  manufactured  before  deteriora- 
tion. Held,  tliat  any  delay  in  the  ship- 
ment which  prevented  the  manufacture  of 
the  logs  into  hoops  before  decay  began 
directly  contributed  to  and  was  the  proxi- 
mate cause  of  any  deterioration  in  the 
value  of  the  logs.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Wynne  Hoop,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Ark.  373,  99 
S.   W.    37.-.. 

44.  Loss  and  expense. — Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  (13  Tex.  322,  22  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  421;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Queen  City  Coal  Co..  13  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
832. 

Where  one  failed  to  deli\er  cars  at  a 
certain  place  as  contracted  for,  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  would  be  such  a  sum  as 
would  compensate  the  other  party  for  the 


damage  sustained  l)y  him  from  such  fail- 
ure. Williams  v.  Armour  Car  Lines 
(Del.),  79  Atl.  919. 

A  common  carrier  is  lia1)le  to  a  ship- 
per, for  the  failure  to  furnish  cars,  for 
such  actual  damages  as  were  sustained 
liy  reason  of  any  failure  or  default  on  its 
part  to  deliver  the  cars  as  requested.  Ya- 
zoo, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fisher  Bros.  (Miss.), 
59    So.    877. 

Heating  and  spoiling  of  grain. — Where 
a  carrier  refused  to  receive  and  transport 
grain  properly  stored  for  transportation, 
the  shipper  may  show  that  because  of 
such  refusal  his  grain  became  heated  and 
spoiled,  although  this  resulted  from  some- 
thing inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  grain 
itself.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morton, 
(Jl   I  ml.  5:!9,  28  Am.   Rep.  ()S2. 

45.  Expense  during  delay. — Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  G3  Tex.  322,  22  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Queen  City  Coal  Co.,  13  Kv.  L. 
Rep.  832;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Xeel, 
56    Ark.    279,    19    S.    W.    963. 

46.  Expense  of  redelivering  it  to  car- 
rier.—  Inman  r.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  C<>.,  14 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    39.    37    S.    W.    37. 

47.  Failure  to  furnish  cars  for  shipment 
of  coal. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Queen 
Ciiy  Coal  Co.,  13   Ky.  L.   Rep.  832. 

48.  Loss  sustained  on  contracts. — 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Higdon.  149  Ky. 
321.    14S    S.    W.    2f.. 

49.  Failure  to  sell  others. — Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Conatser,  61  Ark.  560,  33 
S.  W.  1057;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
O   een   Citv  Coal  Co.,  13  Kv.  L.   Rep.  832. 


§  382 


CAKRIKKS. 


264 


to  transport  coal  arising  from  his  contract  to  buy  the  coal  to  be  carried,  where 
the  amount  of  coal  to  be  delivered  was  optional  with  the  seller,  and  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  dealer  made  any  contracts  for  resale  on  the  faith  of  it  thai 
caused  him  loss ;  but  as  to  another  agreement  binding  the  seller  to  deliver  a 
specified  amount  the  dealer  can  recover  the  enhanced  cost  of  delivering  coal 
under  contracts  for  resale  made  on  the  strength  of  such  agreement."'" 

Measure  of  Damages. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  refusal  to  receive 
and  transport  goods,  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  recover  the  difference  between  the 
value  of  the  property  where  it  was  tendered  to  the  comi^any  and  its  value  at 
the  place  to  which  it  was  to  be  taken,  less  expense  of  transportation  if  the  con- 
tract required  the  shipper  to  pay  the  same/"*^  The  carrier  is  liable  for  the  amount 
lost  bv  a  decline  in  the  market  pending  delay,  which  is  to  be  estimated  by  ascer- 
taining its  price  there,  when  it  should  ha\c  arrived,  had  it  been  taken  when 
oft'ered,  and  its  price  at  the  time  when  it  did  arrive."^- 

Refusal  to  Furnish  Cars. — Where  a  railroad  company  fails  to  furnish  the 
owners  of  a  coal  mine  on  its  road  with  cars  for  the  transportation  of  their 
coal,  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  dift'erence  between  the  value  of  the  coal  at 
the  mines  and  on  the  market. •''•''  But  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  for  failure 
to  provide  cars  for  the  shipment  of  plaintiff's  corn,  the  latter  can  not  recover 
both  the  profits  he  might  have  made  if  the  corn  had  been  shipped  and  the  ex- 
penses incurred  in  preparing  it  for  transportation. ^^  And  where  a  seller  looses 
the  benefit  of  the  sale  by  the  refusal  of  a  railroad  company  to  furnish  him  with 
cars   his   measure   of   damages   is  the  profits   lost   by   his   inability   to   fulfill  his 


50.  Contemplated  sales — Enhanced  cost 
of  delivery. — Crescent  Coal  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc..  R.  Co.,  143  Ky.  73,  135  S.  W. 
768,    33    L.    R.    A..    X.    S.,    442. 

51.  Measure  of  damages. — People  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  22  Hun 
533;  Inman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  39,  37  S.  W.  37;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Queen  City  Coal  Co.,  13 
K}'.    L.    Rep.   832. 

Where  a  carrier  failed  to  furnish  cars 
for  the  shipment  of  hay  and  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  shipper  required  him  to  sell 
the  hay  at  the  local  price,  he  could  re- 
cover the  difference  between  the  local 
price  and  what  he  could  have  obtained  in 
the  desired  market.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Leder  Bros.,  87  Ark.  298,  112  S. 
W.    744. 

The  measure  of  damages  for  failure  of 
a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  to  a  shipper,  re- 
sulting in  damage  of  the  goods,  is  the 
difference  in  their  value  at  the  place  of 
shipment  when  offered  for  transportation 
and  their  value  at  the  same  place  when 
shipping  facilities  were  furnished.  Richey, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  110 
Minn.    347,    125    N.    W.    897. 

The  measure  of  damages  for  the  re- 
fusal of  a  carrier  to  accept  and  transport 
freight  tendered  to  it  by  one  who  had 
sold  it  under  contract,  is  the  difference 
between  the  contract  price  and  the  value 
of  the  grain  at  the  point  of  shipment,  less 
the  cost  of  shipment,  if  the  contract  re- 
quired the  shipper  to  pa>  the  same,  if  the 
contract  price  was  less  than  the  market 
value  at  destination,  whether  the  carrier 
knew   of   the    contract    or    not.      Missouri, 


etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Witherspoon,  18  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    615,    45    S.    W.    424. 

The  measure  of  damages  for  a  carrier's 
refusal  to  accept  goods  for  sliipment  as 
routed  by  the  shipper,  where  the  property 
is  wanted  only  because  of  its  salability, 
is  the  difference  between  the  market 
value  at  the  destination  to  which  it  was 
to  have  been  carrier  at  the  time  when  it 
should  have  arrived  there,  and  its  value 
at  the  same  time  at  the  place  from  which 
it  was  to  have  l)een  carried,  less  the 
freight.  Inman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
14  Tex.   Civ.  App.   39,   37   S    W.   37. 

Where  the  action  was  brought  on  ac- 
count of  any  one  specific  failure  to  trans- 
port any  one  lot  of  lumber,  the  difference 
between  the  price  of  the  lumber  at  the 
point  of  departure  and  the  price  at  its 
place  of  destination,  less  the  freight,  is 
the  proper  measure.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Morris,   68  Tex.  49,  60,  3   S.  W.   457. 

52.  Decline  in  market. — Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  63  Tex.  322,  329,  22  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  421. 

53.  Failure  to  furnish  coal  cars. — Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Queen  City  Coal  Co., 
13    Ky.    L.   Rep.    832. 

Instructions  that  measure  of  damages 
for  railroad  company's  failure  to  furnish 
mineowner  cars  was  difference  between 
the  cost  of  mining  and  selling  price  held 
erroneous  because  it  sliould  have  taken 
into  account  the  value  of  the  coal  left  in 
the  ground.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  River, 
etc..  Coke  Co.,  150  Ky.  489,  150  S.  W.  641, 
44    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    185. 

54.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodge,  10  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    543,    30    S.    W.    829. 


265 


DUTY    TO    KKCEIVli   AN1>    CAKRV 


§§  382-383 


agreement,  proxide*!  lie  uouhl  otherwise  ha\e  performed  the  same.'"''  And  it 
is  immaterial  whether  the  carrier  has  knowledge  of  the  contract  of  sale.^*' 

Exemplary  Damages.— Where  a  railway  company  refuses  to  carry  goods 
out  of  ill-will,  or  in  willful  disregard  of  the  rights  of  the  person  ofTering  them, 
exemplary  daniiiges  may  he  given. •'"''  But  the  fact  that  a  carrier  is  unable  to 
furnish  cars  because  of  unprecedented  amount  of  business  is  no  ground  for 
punitive  damages.''^ 

Excessive  or  Inadequate  Damages. — In  actions  against  a  carrier  for  dam- 
ages resulting  from  a  failure  or  refusal  to  receive  or  carry  freight  properly 
tendered  or  furnish  cars  upon  proper  demand,  the  courts  follow  the  general 
rule  and  will  not  disturb  the  verdict  of  the  jury  because  of  the  amount  found 
unless  it  is  clearly  and  plainly  excessive  or  inaflequate. •''''•' 

§  383.  Penalties  for  Wrongful  Refusal. — As  to  statutory  penalties  for 
the  wron<,'tul  refusal  or  failure  to  receive  and  carry  goods  properly  and  sufifi- 
ciently  offered  for  transportation,  see  ante,  "Penalties  for  \'iolations  of  Reg- 
ulations."  §§    181-275. 


55.  Loss  of  sale  or  fulfillment  of  con- 
tract.— Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell, 
91   Tex.   5.j1.  45   S.   W.   2,   43   L.    R.   A.  225. 

56.  Knowledge  of  contract  of  sale. — 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Canipl)cll,  91  Tex. 
551,   45   S.  W.   2,   4,'!   L.    R.   A.   225. 

57.  Exemplary  damages. — .Avinger  v. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  365,  7  S. 
E.  493,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  716,  35  Am.  & 
Eng.    R.    Cas.    519. 

58.  Press  of  business. — Mauldin  v.  Sea- 
board, etc..  Railway,  73  S.  C.  9,  52  S.  E. 
677,    6    L.    R.   A.,    N.    S.,    547. 


59.  Excessive  or  inadequate  damages. — 
In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure 
to  furnish  cars  for  the  transportation  of 
timber,  the  evidence  showed  that  the 
shipper  placed  near  the  track  312,000  feet 
of  elm  logs  for  transportation.  The  logs 
at  the  place  of  siiipment  undamaged  were 
worth  $10  per  1,000  feet.  On  account  of 
delay  in  the  shipment,  due  to  the  failure 
of  the  carrier  to  furnish  cars  on  demand, 
the  logs  were  damaged  to  the  extent  of 
80  per  cent,  of  their  value.  Held,  that  a 
verdict  for  $2,496  was  not  excessive.  St. 
Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wj^nne  Hoop,  etc., 
Co.,    81    Ark.    373,    99    S.    W.    375. 


CHAPTER   V. 
When  Liarilitv  Commences. 
I.  In  General,  §  3S4. 
II.   Necessity  for  and   Effect  of  Delivery  and  Acceptance,  §  385. 

III.  What   Constitutes     Delivery  and  Acceptance,   §§   386-407. 

A.  In   General,  §  386. 

B.  Ordinarj'  Course  of  Business  as  Common  Carrier,  §  387. 

C.  Place  and  Time  of  Delivery,  §  388. 

D.  Notice  of  Deposit  and  Acceptance,  §§  389-392. 

a.  In  General,  §  389. 

b.  Actual  and  Constructive   Notice  and  Acceptance.   §§   390-392. 

(1)  In  General,  §  390. 

(2)  Constructive    Notice   and   Acceptance — Custom    or   Agreement,   §    391. 

(3)  Goods  Loaded  on  Cars.  §  392. 

E.  Authority  of  Agent  to  Receive   Goods,  §§  393-398. 

a.  In  General,  §  393. 

b.  Officers  and  Agents  in  General,  §  394. 

c.  Authority  of  Third   Persons — Special  Agents,   §§  395-397. 

(1)  In  General,  §  395. 

(2)  Delivery  to  Lighterman  to      Be   Carried  to  Ship,  §  396. 

(3)  Delivery  of  Cotton   to   Compress   Company,  §   397. 

d.  Proof  of  Authority,  §  398. 

F.  Complete   Delivery  for  Immediate   Shipment,  §§  399-406. 

a.  In  General,  §  399. 

b.  Exclusive   Possession   and   Control,  §   400. 

c.  Delivery   for  Immediate   Shipment   or   Storage,   §§   401-406. 

(1)  In  General,  §  401. 

(2)  Something  to  Be   Done   Prior  to  Transportation,  §§   402-406. 

(a)  In  General.  §  402. 

(b)  Absence  of  Directions  as  to  Shipment,  §  403. 

(c)  Payment  of  Charges,  §  404. 

'd)   Deposit  Subject  to  Shipper's  Order,  §  403. 
(e)    Necessity  for  Loading  on  Cars,  §  406. 

G.  Necessity  for  and  Effect  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  407. 

IV.  Evidence  of  Delivery,  §§  408-411. 

A.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  408. 

B.  Admissibility  of  Evidence  to   Show   Delivery,  §  409. 

C.  Sufficiency  of  Evidence  of  Delivery,  §§  410-411. 

a.  In  General,  §  410. 

b.  Bill  of  Lading  or  Receipt  as   Evidence,  §  411. 

V.  Question   of  Law  or  Fact,  §  412. 

§  384.  In  General. — Although  common  carriers  are  insurers  of  property 
entrusted  to  them  for  shipment,  this  insurance  is  not  primary  or  special  in  its 
nature,  but  only  incidental  to  the  contract  of  carriage  and  neither  begins  earlier 
nor  continues  longer  than  is  necessary  to  secure  faithful  and  efficient  execution 
of  the  contract  of  carriage.' 

§  38  5.  Necessity  for  and  Effect    of    Delivery  and  Acceptance, — The 

general  rule  is  tliat  the  receipt  of  t!ie  goods  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  con- 

1.    When   liability   commences — In   general. — Hutchinson    v.    United    States    Exp. 
Co..  63  W.   \a.   128,  59   S.    E.   949. 


267 


WIIKX    LIAIIILITV    COMMKNCES. 


§  38: 


tract  to  carry  and  deliver,  and  if  no  goods  are  actually  received  there  can  be 
no  valid  contract  to  carry  or  deliver.-  A  contract  with  a  common  carrier  for 
the  transportation  of  property  being  one  of  bailment,  it  is  necessary,  in  order 
to  charge  him  for  its  loss,  that  it  be  delivered  to  and  accepted  by  him  for  that 
purpose,''  either  actuallv  or  constructively.^  The  general  rule  is  that  a  common 
carrier's  liability,  as  such,  begins  as  goods  are  delivered  to  and  accepted  by  it 
for  immediate  transportation."' 


2.  Receipt  of  goods  foundation  of  con- 
tract.—  i'ollard  V.  \"\uum,  105  U.  S.  7,  2G 
L.  lid.  998;  Missouri  t'ac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Fadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14 
S.  Ct.  990;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed.  1077,  7 
S.  Ct.  1132.  See  The  Lady  Franklin  (U. 
S.),  8  Wall.   325,   19   L.    Ed.  453. 

"The  liability  of  a  carrier  begins  wiien 
the  goods  are  delivered  to  him  or  ins 
proper  servant  and  authorized  to  rece'Tve 
them  for  carriage."  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  McFadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944, 
14    S.    Ct.    990. 

The  lial)ility  of  a  common  carrier  at- 
taches l)y  virtue  either  of  full  delivery  of 
the  merchandise  to  be  transported  or  by 
acceptance  of  sucli  merchandise  by  the 
carrier.  Corning  &  Co.  v.  Peoria,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  144  111.  App.  407;  Sturdevant  v.  Tut- 
tle,  22  O.  St.  Ill;  Dean  v.  King,  22  O.  St. 
118;  Colburn  v.  Oberlin  Bldg.,  etc.,  Ass'n, 
35    O.    St.    258. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
for  failure  to  rarry  goods,  the  plaintiff 
must  aver  a  delivery.  It  is  not  sufficient 
to  aver  that  the  carrier  executed  a  bill 
of  lading  acknowledging  the  receipt  of 
the  goods.  Page  &  Co.  z.  Sandusky, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  R44.  2  O.  Dec. 
Reprint  716;  Spofford  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  11  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  97:  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  r.  AIc\eigh,  (Jl   \a.   (20  Gratt.)   264. 

3.  Contract  one  of  bailment. — Stewart 
V.   Gracy,  93  Tenn.  314.  320,  27   S.   W.   6(14. 

Depot  agent  acting  as  agent  in  pur- 
chasing cotton,  for  shipment  under  direc- 
tions— Railroad  seized  by  confederate 
government  Failure  to  ship. — Where  it 
appeared  lluU  plaintiff  had  employed  C, 
who  was  a  depot  agent  for  defendant  car- 
rier, to  purchase  cotton  for  him  and  to 
hold  and  ship  it  under  his  directions,  it 
was  held  that  C.  in  so  dealing  in  cotton 
for  plaintiff,  acted  solely  as  plaintiff's 
agent,  and  that  where  it  also  appeared 
tiiat  plaintiff  had  instructed  C.  not  to  ship 
until  he  had  purchased  a  certain  number 
of  bales,  and  before  C.  had  acquired  the 
requisite  number,  the  railroad  was  taken 
by  the  Confederate  Government,  but  C. — 
thereafter  acquired  the  requisite  number 
of  bales,  defendant  was  not  liable  as  a 
common  carrier  for  failure  to  ship  the  cot- 
ton, and  the  fact  that  the  railroad  was 
seized  by  the  Confederate  Government, 
was  at  least  some  evidence  that  defend- 
ant never  received  the  cotton  at  all.  cither 
as  bailee  or  common  carrier.  Sumner  v. 
Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  X.  C.  2S9. 


4.  Actual  or  constructive  delivery.  -To 
make  a  railroad  company  liatde  as  a 
common  carrier  or  warehouseman  for 
baggage  lost,  it  must  have  been  delivered 
to  and  accepted  by  the  carrier,  either 
actually  or  constructively.  Williams  T'. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  155  N.  C.  260,  42  R.  R. 
R.  105.  65  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S.. 
105,  71  S.  E.  :;4f.. 

5.  Acceptance  for  immediate  transpor- 
tation.— United  States. — Xorth  Pennsylva- 
nia R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Bank,  123  U.  S. 
727.  31  L.  Ed.  287.  8  S.  Ct.  266;  Pratt  V. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  95  U.  S.  43.  44.  24 
L.  Ed.  336;  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Swift  (U.  S.),  12  Wall.  262,  20  L.  Ed. 
423;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden, 
154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14  S.  Ct.  990. 

Alabama. — Southwestern  R.  Co.  v. 
Webb,   48   Ala.   585. 

Arkansas. — The  lial)ility  of  a  drayage 
company  as  a  common  carrier  began 
when  it  accepted  and  received  goods 
situated  in  a  car  on  a  house  track  com- 
monly used  for  unloading  goods,  when 
it  took  possession  of  the  car  and  be- 
gan actual  removal  of  the  goods, 
Arkadelphia  Mill.  Co.  v.  Smoker  Mer- 
chandise Co..  100  Ark.  37.  42  R.  R.  R. 
619,  65  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  G19, 
139   S.  W.  680. 

Connecticut. — Merriam  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co..  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344, 
Trowbridge  v.  Chapin,  23  Conn.  595. 

Dcla-Mirc. — Truax  i:  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst.  233. 

Georgia. — Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  82  Ga.  386.  9  S.   E.  1076. 

Illinois. — Michigan,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Alevres.  21  111.  627;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
z'.    Smyser.   38    111.   354.   87   Am.    Dec.    301. 

Iowa. — Green  r.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co., 
41  Iowa  410;  Lennon  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  127  Iowa  431,  16  R.  R.  R.  45,  39  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  45,  103  X.  W. 
343. 

Maine. — McQuesten  r.  Sanford.  40  Me. 
117. 

Massaclnisetts. — Pitlock  f.  Wells,  etc., 
Co..  109  Mass.  452. 

.U/r/i/VaH.— Wright  v.  Caldwell.  3  Mich. 
51:  Michigan,  etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  McDonough, 
21    Mich.   165,   4  Am.   Rep.  466. 

.Mississif^fi. — Anderson  v.  Mobile,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Miss.),  19  R.  R.  R.  382,  42  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S..  382.  38  So.  661; 
Tate  V.  Yazoo,  etc..  R.  Co..  78  Miss.  482. 
29  So.  392.  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S., 
461.  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  649. 

.Vt-ti-  York. — Ball  z-.  Xew  Jersey  Steam- 


CARRIER: 


268 


§§  385-386 

Waiver  of  Delivery — Breach  of  Contract. — When  a  railway  company  an- 
nounces through  its  agent  that  it  will  not  make  a  shipment  at  a  time  previously 
contracted  for,  a  tender  of  the  articles  to  he  shipped  at  the  time  previously 
agreed  on  is  thereby  waived  and  rendered  unnecessary  to  fix  the  liahility  of 
the  companv  for  resulting  damages."  And  a  parol  contract  hy  which  a  railroad 
company  agrees  to  receive  cattle  on  its  cars  for  transportation  on  a  certain  day 
and  which  is  violated  by  not  having  the  cars  as  agreed  on,  may  he  made  the 
basis  of  recoverv  against  the  company  for  all  damages  caused  thereby;  and  it 
can  not  be  claimed  that  its  liability  did  not  attach  until  the  signing  of  a  bill  of 
lading  for  the  cattle,  which  were  delivered  on  a  subsequent  day,  and  after  such 
violation  of  the  contract  by  the  carrier.  The  liability  of  the  company  was  for  a 
breach  of  contract,  which  made  delivery  impossible.' 

Action  for  Refusal  to  Furnish  Cars. — Where  goods  are  placed  at  a  station 
upon  the  line  of  a  railroad  to  be  transported,  the  refusal  of  the  carrier  to  fur- 
nish cars  for  the  carriage  of  the  property  relieves  the  owner  from  the  necessity 
of  making  any  further  delivery  or  offer  to  deliver  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
a  right  of  action  against  the  carrier  on  account  of  such  refusal.'^ 

Liability  as  for  Money  Had  and  Received. — Where  a  person  left  a  sealed 
package  containing  treasury  notes  at  the  office  of  an  express  company  to  be 
carried  to  a  point  to  which  the  company  was  not  a  common  carrier  although  the 
package  was  not  carried  to  and  after  demand  made  could  not  be  found,  the 
company  was  not  liable  as  for  money  had  and  received.'' 

§§  386-407.  What  Constitutes  Delivery  and  Acceptance — §  386.  In 
General. — Delivery  t(j.  and  accei)tance  by,  the  carrier  is  com])lete  whenever  the 


boat  Co.  (X.  Y.),  1  Daly  491;  Grosvenor 
V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34,  5 
Abb.  Prac,  N.  S.,  345;  Packard  v.  Getman 
(X.  Y.),  6  Cow.  757,  16  Am.  Dec.  475; 
Salinger  v.  Simmons  (N.  Y.),  57  Barb. 
513.  8  Abb.  Prac,  X.  S.,  409,  2  Lans.  325; 
Blanchard  v.  Isaacs  (X.  Y.),  3  Barb.  388. 
Xortli  Carolina. — Wells  V.  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  51  X.  C.  47,  72  Am.  Dec.  556; 
Williams  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  155  X.  C. 
260,  42  R.  R.  R.  105,  65  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   X.    S.,   105,   71    S.    E.   346. 

Pennsylvania. — Spofford  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  11  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  97. 

South  Carolina.  —  Park  z:  Southern 
Railway,  78  S.  C.  302,  25  R.  R.  R.  573, 
48  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  573,  58  S. 
E.  931. 

Tennessee. — Stewart  v.  Gracy,  93  Tenn. 
314,  27  S.  W.  664;  Watson  v.  Memphis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.)  255. 
•  Texas.— Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley 
(Tex.  Cr.  App.),  1  S.  W.  446;  Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodde,  42  Tex.  467; 
Yoakum  v.  Dryden  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26 
S.  W.  312;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y. 
Dimmit  County  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  186,  23  S.  W.  754,  distinguishing 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Xicholson,  61  Tex. 
491,  495,  and  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCor- 
quodale,  71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80,  and  fol- 
lowing East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  64 
Tex.  615,  and  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick, 
80  Tex.  270,  15  S.  W.  568,  18  S.  W.  948; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheat,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  165. 


There  is  an  apparent  conflict  between 
the  authorities  above  cited  and  the  cases 
of  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Xicholson,  61 
Tex.  491,  495,  and  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McCorquodale,  71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80; 
but  in  those  two  cases  the  railway  had 
contracted  to  receive  and  ship  the  cat- 
tle at  certain  dates,  but  refused  to  re- 
ceive them  when  presented  for  shipment, 
and  it  was  held  that  the  railways  were 
responsible  as  mere  individuals  for  breach 
of  their  contract.  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Dimmit  County  Pasture  Co.,  5 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  186.  188,  23  S.  W.  754. 

Virginia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Veigh, 61  Va.   (20  Gratt.)   264. 

West  Firgin-ia. — Dudley  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.    Co.,   58  W.   Va.   604,  52  S.    E.   718. 

Canada. — Kerr  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
24  U.   C.  C.  P.  209. 

6.  Waiver — Breach  of  contract. — Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Xicholson,  61  Tex.  491. 
See  ante,  "Duty  to  Receive  and  Carry," 
chapter  4. 

7.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  X'^icholson,  61 
Tex.   491. 

8.  Refusal  to  furnish  cars. — Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Flannagan,  113  Ind.  488,  32 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  53,  14  X.  E.  370,  3 
Am.  St.  Rep.  674.  See  post,  "Duty  to 
Receive   and    Carry,"    F'art    II,    cliap.    I. 

9.  Liability  as  for  money  had  and  re- 
ceived.— Pitlock  V.  Wells,  etc.,  Co.,  109 
Mass.  452.  See  post,  "Destination  of 
Goods   as   Affecting   Duty,"   §   376. 


260 


WIIKX    IJAHILITV    COMMENCES. 


§§  386-388 


I)roi)erty  conies  into  his  possession  with  his  assent. i*'  In  order  to  constitute  a 
sufficient  delivery,  there  must  be,  as  a  general  rule,  an  actual  change  of  posses- 
sion from  shipper  to  carrier."  It  is  essential  that  they  be  placed  in  a  position 
to  be  cared  for,  and  under  the  control  of  the  carrier  or  his  agent,  with  his 
knowledge  and  consent. '- 

Place,  Time  and  Agent  to  Receive. — Generally  speaking  it  is  essential  to 
the  esl;ihli>linK-nt  of  haliilily  as  a  common  carrier  for  the  loss  of  goods  to  show 
delivery  to  the  carrier  at  a  customary  place,  during  the  usual  business  hours, 
and  to  an  authorized  agent  of  the  carrier. '■• 

§  38  7.  Ordinary  Course  of  Business  as  Common  Carrier. — The  deliv- 
ery must  be  to  him  or  his  agent  in  the  capacity  of  a  common  carrier,  and  not 
to  the  agent  to  carrv  for  his  own  profit,"  or  without  compensation  and  contrary 
to  the  regulations  of  the  carrier  known  at  the  time.^'' 

§  388.  Place  and  Time  of  Delivery. — As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be  said 
that  a  railroad  company  is  not  bound  to  receive  freight  except  at  stations;  but 
it  may,  as  a  result  of  a  custom,  or  as  a  consequence  of  an  express  contract,  be- 
come obligated  to  receive  freight  at  a  point  on  its  line  of  railway  where  there 
is  no  station,  dejwt,  i)lattorm.  cars,  or  agent. i''     Goods  which  are  ready,  at  a 


10.  What  constitutes  dehvery  in  gen- 
eral.— I'ratt  Z'.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  9.J 
U.   S.  r.i.  24  L.   Ed.  33(). 

When  an  express  company  accepts  in 
capacity  of  carrier.-  -When  ;-;<>o(l.s  are  de- 
livered to  parties  to  l)e  forwarded  and 
transported,  and  these  parties  are  express- 
men, and  receive  compensation  for  for- 
warding and  transporting  the  goods  are 
in  their  custody  as  carriers.  Thus,  the 
owner  of  certain  goods  about  to  arrive 
at  the  depot  of  a  railroad  station  in  Char- 
lotte. North  Carolina,  wished  them  to  be 
carried  from  thence  to  Richmond,  Vir- 
ginia, and  an  express  company,  by  their 
agent  at  Charlotte,  undertook  to  remove 
and  deposit  the  goods  in  their  warehouse 
as  soon  as  possible  on  the  arrival  of  the 
goods  at  the  depot  in  Charlotte,  and  to 
carry  them  from  Charlotte  to  Richmond 
within  a  reasonable  time  for  the  reward 
paid.  The  goods  arrived  at  the  depot, 
and  the  express  company  had  notice  of 
their  arrival.  It  was  held,  that  it  was  a 
delivery  to  the  express  company  as  a  com- 
mon carrier.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  z\  Mc- 
Veigh,  r,l    Va.    (20   Gratt.)   2G4. 

11.  Change  of  possession. — Canal-Boat 
Alontgoniery  z\  Kent.  20  O.  .")4. 

In  custody  of  owner's  warehouseman 
after  carrier's  receipt  of  warehouse  cou- 
pon and  order  for  delivery  of  goods. — 
Tlie  deliver}'  of  goods  to  a  common  car- 
rier is  not  complete  and.  therefore,  its 
lial)ility  for  their  accidental  loss  does  not: 
attach,  where  the  goods  are  destroyed 
in  the  custody  of  the  owner's  warehouse- 
man, after  the  carrier  had  contracted  to 
ship  the  goods  and  had  received  the  own- 
er's warehouse  coupon  and  an  order  for 
the  delivery  of  the  goods,  but  had  not  pre- 
sented the  same  or  issued  a  receipt  or  bill 
of  lading  for  the  goods.  Stewart  z\  Gracy. 
9\i  Tenn.  :U4,  27  S.  \V.  (WU. 

12.  Under    carrier's    contract. — Grosve- 


nor   z:   Xew   York   Cent.   R.   Co..  .'^!t   X.   Y. 
34,    5    .-N.ljb.    Prac.    X.    S..    34.-). 

13.  Place,  time,  and  agent  to  receive. — 
Spofford  c'.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  11  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  97;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  New- 
by.  3(i  Ga.  63."),  91  Am.  Dec.  783.  See  post, 
"Place  and  Time  of  Delivery,"   §  388. 

Where  a  railroad  company  had  a  box 
car  placed  at  the  platform  of  depot,  to- 
gether with  a  wooden  skid  to  use  in  load- 
ing the  car,  and  the  shipper  without  re- 
questing aid  from  the  companj',  attempted 
to  drive  a  horse  in  the  car,  and  in  doing 
so  the  horse  was  injured,  it  was  held 
that  the  horse  at  the  time  of  the  injury, 
had  not  been  received  in  the  custody  of 
the  carrier.  Southern  R.  Co.  z\  Bivings, 
3   Ga.   App.   552,   fiO   S.    E.   287. 

14.  Parcel  delivered  to  wagoner  to 
carry  for  his  own  profit. — If  a  parcel  be 
given  to  a  wagoner  for  him  to  carry 
for  his  own  gain,  and  not  for  tlie  profit 
of  his  master,  a  common  carrier,  the  latter 
is  not  lial)le  in  case  the  parcel  is  lost. 
Butler  z:   Basing.   12   Eng.   C.   L.   2S7. 

15.  Coat  delivered  to  stage  driver  by  one 
not  a  passenger — No  charge  and  refusal 
to  put  on  way-bill. — Where  a  coat  was  de- 
livered to  tlie  driver  of  a  stage  coach,  by 
one.  not  a  passenger,  to  be  delivered  to 
another,  in  a  different  place,  but  notliing 
was  paid  for  its  transportation,  and  the 
driver  refused  to  put  it  on  the  way-bill, 
saying  he  had  no  right  to  do  so.  and  there 
was  no  proof  that  the  coat  ever  came 
into  the  possession  of  the  proprietor  of 
the  stage,  or  any  of  his  agents,  it  was 
held  that  there  was  no  delivery  of  the 
coat  to  such  proprietor,  and  that  he  was 
not  liable,  as  a  common  carrier,  for  its 
loss.  Blanchard  r.  Isaacs  (,X.  Y.).  3 
Barb.   388. 

16.  Place  other  than  station. — Georgia, 
etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Marchman.  121  Ga.  235,  48 
S.  E.  961. 


§  388 


CARRIERS. 


270 


place  where  the  carrier  may  receive  them,  may  be  tendered  for  transportation 
to  an  agent  authorized  to  receive  or  reject  them,  without  regard  to  the  place 
where  the  tender  is  made.^' 

Customary  Place  of  Delivery. — Where  goods  designed  for  immediate  ship- 
ment are  placed  in  a  condition  to  be  carried,  in  the  usual  place  of  loading,  in 
accordance  with  the  custom  of  delivery  between  the  parties,  with  the  carrier's 
knowledge  of  the  fact  and  purpose,  or  at  the  place  of  loading  designated  by 
the  parties,  there  is  both  a  delivery  to  and  an  acceptance  by  the  carrier,  i''  And 
in  order  to  render  a  constructive  delivery  of  goods  to  the  carrier  binding  upon 
it.  they  must  be  left  at  a  place  where  an  established  custom  has  made  it  the  duty 
of  the'  carrier  to  take  possession  of  them  for  transportation. i'-'  It  has  been  said 
that  in  the  absence  of  a  custom  to  the  contrary  the  deposit  of  freight  on  the 
carrier's  line  may  constitute  a  delivery  to  the  carrier  if  immediate  transi)ortation 
of  the  freight  is  expected.-"  Thus  where  under  the  system  contemplated  by 
both  the  shipper  and  carrier  it  is  expected  that  before  delivery  is  consummated 
the.  shipper  will  either  place  the  freight  on  the  cars  himself  or  have  it  done  by 
the  carrier  at  his  expense  after  special  request,  delivery  on  the  cars  terminates 
the  shipper's  possession  and  is  the  inception  of  the  possession  by  the  carrier.-^ 

As  Dependent  on  Carrier's  Consent. — The  responsibility  of  a  common 
carrier  commences  with  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  itself  or  agent  at  the  place 
where  it  agrees  to  receive  them,  and  if  the  agent  agrees  to  receive  them  at  the 
depot  where  they  are  at  the  time,  its  liability  as  a  common  carrier  begins.--  In 
determining  whether  freight  has  been  delivered  to  the  carrier,  it  matters  not 
whether  it  was  placed  in  the  depot  of  the  carrier,  or  on  its  platform  or  in  its 
car,  so  long  as  it  is  so  deposited   with   its  consent.     Xor  is  it  material  in  this 


17.  Cobb,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  38   Iowa  601. 

18.  Customary  place  of  delivery. — South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  r.  Xcwby,  o6  Ga.  63.5,  91 
Am.   Dec.  7S3. 

Usual  place  with  carrier's  knowledge. — 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i:  American  To- 
bacco Co.,  126  Ky.  582,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1013,  104  S.  W.  377,  25  R.  R.  R.  586,  48 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  586. 

Custom  to  deposit  cotton  on  platform 
for  next  train — Failure  to  take  on. — Where 
a  railroad  company  erects  a  platform  for 
shipping  cotton,  and  its  course  of  busi- 
ness is  such  that  induces  parties  to  store 
cotton  on  it  under  a  promise  t'l  ship  by 
the  next  freight  train,  and  it  passes  jnd 
neglects  to  take  on  the  cotton,  and  the 
cotton  is  destroyed  by  fire  from  a  pass- 
ing train,  after  the  train  which  ought  to 
have  taken  it  on  has  passed,  the  company 
is  liable,  as  a  common  carrier,  for  t!ie  loss 
of  the  cotton.  Meyer  v.  Vicksburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  639,  6  So.  218. 

19.  lozva. — Lennon  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  127  Iowa  431,  16  R.  R.  R.  45,  39  Am. 
&   Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  45,   103   N.   VV.  343. 

Maine.— WitzUr  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290, 
35  Am.   Rep.   327. 

Neti'  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad,  24  X.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 
222. 

Pennsylvania. — Spofford  v.  Pennsylva- 
nia R.   Co.,   11   Pa.   Super.   Ct.   97. 

Texas. — Martin  v.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Tex.   Civ.  App.  556,  22   S.  W.   1007; 


St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Martin    (Tex. 
Civ.  App.).  35   S.  W.  28. 

Delivery  to  vessel — Customary  place. — 
There  can  be  no  constructive  delivery  of 
goods  so  as  to  bind  the  owners  of  a  ves- 
sel for  their  carriage  except  at  such  a 
place  as  where  by  constant  practice  and 
usage  they  have  received  property  left 
for  transportation.  Witzler  v.  Collins, 
70   Me.  290,   35   Am.   Rep.   327. 

20.  Wilson  V.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
Ga.   386,  9   S.   E.   1076. 

21.  Wilson  V.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
Ga.  386,  9  S.  E.  1076,  distinguishing  Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hines,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Ga. 
203;    Fleming  v.   Hammond,   19   Ga.   145. 

22.  Carrier's  consent. — Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am.  Dec. 
783. 

Delivery  to  stage  company — Accepted 
by  agent  at  postoffice. — Where  a  package 
was  delivered  to  the  agent  of  a  stage 
coach  company,  at  the  postofifice  where 
the  stage  was  standing,  and  not  at  an  of- 
fice of  the  company,  to  be  carried  from 
Boston  to  Hartford,  and  was  by  the 
agent,  when  he  received  it,  entered  on  the 
way-bill,  he  having  previously  directed 
the  person  who  had  the  care  of  the  pack- 
age to  bring  it  to  the  postoffice,  and  it 
was  lost  reaching  Hartford,  it  was  held 
that  the  owners  of  the  coach  was  liable 
to  the  owner  of  the  package  for  its  value, 
the  delivery  at  the  postoffice  being  with 
the  assent  of  their  agent.  Phillips  f. 
Earle   (Mass.),   8   Pick.   182. 


271 


WIIKN    IJAKILITY    COMMKXCES. 


§§  388-389 


connection  whether  the  hands  who  (lei)osit  tlie  freight  are  in  the  employ  of  the 
shipper  or  the  carrier.-'  r     •  , 

Carrier's  Direction— Place  Agreed  on.— If  the  carrier  (hrects  the  freight 
to  l)c  deposited  .H  a  iiariicular  point  agreeing  to  receive  it  there,  a  deposit  of 
the  freight  at  that  i>oim  constitnles  a  good  dehvery  to  the  carrier.-^  Thus  if 
a  railroad  company ,  in  the  unrestrained  exercise  of  its  franchises,  consents  to 
the  delivery  of  the  freight  in  its  cars  or  warehouse  for  immediate  shipment, 
upon   such   delivery   the   liahility  of   the  comi>any,   as  common   carrier,   at   once 

attaches.'-'" 

Limits  Established  by  Express  Company.— Where  an  express  company 
cslal)li-hes  limits  in  a  city,  hcxond  which  it  will  not  call  for  or  deliver  packages, 
it  is  not  liable  for  refusing  to  call  for  or  deliver  packages  at  the  store  of  one 
who,  knowing  of  the  limits,  moved  his  store  outside  thereof,  though  the  limits 
established  in  another  direction  were  further  from  the  comjjany's  office  than 
such  store.-'' 

Time  of  Delivery. — W  hether  a  shipper  com])lies  with  a  custom  of  carriers 
reciuiring  shippers  desiring  a  car  to  be  forwarded  on  a  certain  date  to  deliver 
the  shipment  before  a  certain  hour  is  immaterial,  if  the  conditions  are  waived 
and  the  shipment  is  in  fact  accepted  by  the  carrier  for  transportation  and  de- 
livery to  the  consignee.-^ 

§§  389-392.  Notice  of  Deposit* and  Acceptance— §  389.  In  General. 
The  mere  deposit  of  goods  on  the  carrier's  line,-'*  even  though  made  at  a  cus- 
tomary^ place  for  its  acceptance  for  transportation  can  not  constitute  delivery 
to  the  carrier  unless  it  is  given  actual  or  constructive  notice  of  such  deposit,-'^ 


23.  Carriers  consent. —  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  z:  Smyscr.  :is  111.  :i.-,4.  87  Am.  Dec. 
301. 

24.  Carriers  direction  place  agree  on. — 
Fleniiii.sj;  r.    Hammond,   lU  Ga.   14."). 

25.  Express  contract  for  deliver  in  cars 
or  warehouse. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z'. 
Ashmcad.  .ns  111.  487. 

26.  Limits  established  by  express  com- 
pany.—  lUillard  r.  .\nurican  Exp.  Co..  107 
Mich.   (■)!•."),  6,")   X.   W.  .")51. 

27.  Time  of  delivery. — Central,  etc..  R. 
Co.  f.  Butler,  etc.,  Granite  Co.,  8  Ga.  App. 
1,  68   S.   E.  775. 

28.  Mere  deposit. — Central  R..  etc.,  Co. 
z:   Hines.  etc..  Co.,   19   Ga.  203. 

Placing  cotton  on  the  wagon  or  car 
of  a  carrier,  or  near  his  boat  or  ware- 
house, without  notice  to  him,  is  not  a  . 
delivery,  unless  made  so  by  custom,  or 
by  some  regulation  of  the  carrier.  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hodde.  42.  Tex.  467; 
Yoakum  7-.  Dryden  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.).  26 
S.  \V.  :ii2. 

Ginned  cotton  placed  on  platform  built 
by  railroad — Station  agent  requested  by 
gin  manager  to  send  car — Failure  of  con- 
ductor to  follow  instructions — Fire. — 
Where  plaintiff's  cotton,  after  being  gin- 
ned, was  placed  on  a  platform  which  had 
been  built  by  a  railroad  for  cotton  for 
shipment,  and,  according  to  custom,  the 
manager  of  the  gin  requested  the  rail- 
road's agent  at  the  nearest  station  to  have 
a  car  sent  for  the  cotton,  but  a  train  con- 
ductor failed  to  follow  his  instructions, 
so  that  no  car  was  sent,  and  the  cotton, 
while    on    such    platform,    was    destroyed 


by  fire,  there  existed  no  relation  of  car- 
rier and  shipper  between  plaintiff  and 
the  railroad  company.  Anderson  z'.  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  (Miss.),  19  R.  R.  R.  382. 
42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S..  382.  38  So. 
(')(')  1. 

Deposited  in  wheeled  truck  close  to  de- 
pot platform — Absence  of  station  officials. 
— But  where  a  railroad  provided  a  regu- 
lar and  safe  place  at  its  depot  for  receiv- 
ing baggage,  and  there  was  a  safe  road 
leading  thereto,  delivery  of  baggage  to 
the  railroad  in  such  sense  as  to  make  it 
responsible  for  injury  thereto  could  not  be 
accomplished  by  unloading  the  baggage 
from  a  dray,  in  the  absence  of  the  sta- 
tion officials,  unto  a  wheeled  truck  close 
to  the  edge  of  the  platform  near  the  track. 
Lennon  z:  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co..  127  Iowa 
431.  16  R.  R.  R.  45,  39  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas..  N.  S..  45,  103  N.  W.  343. 

29.  Notice  necessary.  —  Alabama.  — 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  :■.  Webb.  48  Ala.  585; 
Montgomery,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Kolb.  73  Ala. 
396.  49  .-Km.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   512. 

Arlcaiisas. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
Murphy.  60   .\rk.   333,  30   S.   W.  419. 

Connecticut. — Merriam  r.  Hartford,  etc.. 
R.  Co..  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344. 

///moiV.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  Smy- 
ser,  38  111.  354.  87  Am.  Dec.  301. 

loziv. — Lennon  z'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.. 
127  Iowa  431,  16  R.  R.  R.  45,  39  .\m.  & 
En-    R.  Cas..   N.  S..  45,  103  X.  W.  343. 

Miclii:.:au.  —  Wright  z:  Caldwell,  3 
Mich.    51. 

Xczi.-     Tor/:.— Packard    z\     Getman     (X. 


§  389 


CARRIERS. 


272 


and  the  goods  accepted  for  shipment  by  one  having  anthority."'"  So  a  earner 
is  not  liable  for  freight  deposited  near  its  track  on  a  platform ;  '-^^  or  in  a  build- 
ing which  does  not  belong  to  the  carrier  and  is  not  used  for  that  purpose,  when 
not  accepted  for  shipment;  '•-  or  for  goods  deposited  alongside  the  roadway 
at  a  mere  switch  at  which  diere  is  no  station,  agent,  etc.,  although  goods  are 
shipped  from  that  point  by  request.^-^  Xor  will  a  mere  deposit  in  a  carrier's 
warehouse  by  the  shipper's'  agent,  without  authority  and  in  an  unusual  manner 
when  no  one  is  in  charge  to  receive  it.  bind  the  carrier.^^-*  I'.ut  where  goods 
are  deposited  at  the  customary  place  or  place  of  agreement,  and  the  agent's  at- 
tention directed  thereto,  the  notice  is  sufficient. "^-^ 

Roadside  Deposit  of  Freight.— Roadside  deposits  of  freight,  made  to  save 
the  trouble  of  hauling  to  a  regular  depot,  are.  as  a  general  rule,  at  the  risk  of 


Y.),  6  Cow.  7.57,  16  Am.  Dec.  475;  Salin- 
ger V.  Simmons  (N.  Y.),  57  Barb.  513, 
8  Abb.  Prac,  N.  S.,  409.  2  Lans.  325; 
Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  39 
N.  Y.  34.  5  Abb.  Prac,  N.  S.,  345. 

North  Carolina. — Wells  v.  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  51  N.  C.  47,  72  Am.  Dec.  556. 

Pennsylvania. — Spofford  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  11  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  97. 

Texas.— Vi.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley 
(Tex.  Cr.  App.),  1  S.  W.  446;  Houston, 
etc  R.  Co.  c'.  Hodde,  42  Tex.  467;  Yoakum 
V.  Dryden  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W. 
312. 

Wisconsin.  —  Glass  v.  Goldsmith,  22 
Wis.   488. 

Canada. — Kerr  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
24   U.   C.    C.    C.    P.  209. 

30.  Acceptance. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Mc\"ei.Lzh.  fU   Wi.   (20  Gratt.)  264. 

31.  Cotton  deposited  near  track  near 
depot  on  platform  of  third  party— Fire.— 
A  railroad  company  is  not  liable,  as  a 
common  carrier,  for  cotton  merely  placed 
by  its  owner  near  its  track  near  a  depot, 
on  a  platform  which  did  not  belong  to 
the  company,  where  it  was  burned  by  a 
spark  from  a  passing  locomotive.  Brown 
V.  Atlanta,  etc..   R.   Co..  19   S.  C.   39. 

32.  Station  agent  also  agent  of  owner 
of  guano  for  purpose  of  its  distribution 
among  customers — Stored  in  building  of 
another  company  on  railroads  right  of 
way — Order  to  ship  and  requisition  for 
car. —  In  Hornc-Andrews  Conim.  Co.  7'. 
Georgia  R.  Co.,  136  Ga.  116,  40  R.  R.  R. 
754.  63  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  754, 
70  S.  E.  879,  it  is  held  that  where  the  agent 
of  a  railroad  company  at  a  wayside  sta- 
tion was  also  the  agent  of  the  owner  of 
guano  for  the  purpose  of  its  distribution 
among  customers,  and  as  such  was  in 
possession  of  the  property,  which  he  had 
stored  in  a  building  on  the  railroad's  right 
of  way,  but  owned  by  another  company, 
and  which  was  separate  from  the  railroad 
warehouse,  the  direction  of  the  owner  to 
such  agent  to  ship  the  guano  to  it,  and 
the  making  of  a  requisition  by  him  on  the 
proper  official  of  the  railroad  company 
for  a  car,  did  not  alone  constitute  a  de- 
livery to  the  carrier  for  transportation, 
so  as  to  render  it   liable   for   the   destruc- 


tion by  fire  of  the  guano  before  the  ar- 
rival of  the  car.  and  this  is  true,  although 
the  agent  testified  that,  had  the  car  ar- 
rived, it  would  have  been  placed  in  front 
of  the  house  where  the  guano  was,  for 
the  purpose  of  being  loaded,  and  that  the 
witness  would  have  had  it  loaded  at  the 
expense  of  the  owner. 
•33.  Deposit  of  goods  alongside  railroad 
at  mere  switch. — A  mere  switch,  at  which 
there  is  neitlier  agent,  station,  nor  plat- 
form, but  where  shipments  are  made  by 
loading  upon  cars  placed  on  the  switch 
by  request,  is  not  a  depot,  at  which  a  de- 
posit of  goods  alongside  is  such  a  deliv- 
ery to  the  railroad  as  will  make  it  liable 
as  a  common  carrier.  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.   Co.  7'.   Lilly   (Miss.'),  8   So.  644. 

34.  Deposit  in  railroad  warehouse 
through  door  opened  by  shipper's  agent 
— No  one  in  charge. — A  delivery  to  a 
railroad  warehouse  aljout  dark  and  after 
it  was  closed  and  locked  for  the  night, 
by  plaintiff's  agent  by  opening  the  up- 
per door  and  thereby  putting  the  goods 
in,  there  being  no  one  in  charge,  does  not 
show  such  delivery  as  will  charge  the 
railroad  company  either  as  a  common 
carrier  or  warehouseman,  without  affirma- 
tive proof  of  some  act  of  negligence  on 
its  part  with  respect  to  the  custody  of 
the  property.  Spofford  7'.  Pennsylvania 
R.   Co.,   ri    Pa.   Super.   Ct.   97. 

35.  Sacks  of  wool,  properly  directed, 
deposited  in  station  building  and  pointed 
out  to  agents. — Evidence  that  wool  was 
delivered  at  the  station  of  a  common  car- 
rier, in  sacks  marked  with  the  name  and 
address  of  the  owners  whose  place  of 
business  was  in  Boston,  and  with  the  ini- 
tial of  the  agent  who  had  purchased  it; 
that  the  weights  and  numbers  were  upon 
all  the  sacks;  that  previous  shipments  had 
been  made  by  the  same  agent  at  the  same 
place  to  the  same  principal,  during  the 
same  season,  and  that  when  the  agent 
delivered  the  wool  he  piled  it  in  one  part 
of  the  building,  pointed  it  out  to  the  de- 
fendant's agents,  and  said,  "That  pile  of 
wool  is  for  Boston,"  is  evidence  of  a  de- 
livery to  the  carrier  for  shipment  to  his 
principal  at  Boston.  Nichols  c'.  Smith, 
115  Mass.  332. 


27Z 


WHEN    LIAlilLITV   COMMKXCI-: 


§§  389-390 


the  owners,  until  tlie  goods  arc  loaded  on  a  freight  car.--''  And  an  action  can 
not  be  maintained  against  a  railroad  company,  as  a  common  carrier,  for  the  loss 
or  destruction  of  goods  deposited  on  the  road  side,  at  a  place  where  there  was 
no  regular  station,  and  \M)  agent,  although  a  conductor  of  a  freight  train  had 
])r()niiscd  to  stop  and  take  them.-'' 

Merely  Depositing  Goods  in  Place  Convenient  for  Carrier. — Merely 
])lacing  g(jods  in  such  a  ])lacc  or  positicjn  that  the  common  carrier  can  easily 
take  possession  of  them,  i)ut  without  calling  its  attention  to  them,  is  not,  under 
ordinary  circumstances,  a  delivery  to  the  carrier  either  actual  or  constructive.-''® 

Mere  Permission  to  Place  Cattle  in  Yards — Escape. — A  mere  permis- 
sion hy  the  agent  of  a  raih'oad  t-oiiipan)-  lo  an  owner  of  cattle  to  place  the  cattle 
in  the  company's  yards,  where  no  bill  of  lading  is  given,  does  not  render  the 
company  liable  for  the  escape  of  the  cattle,  before  they  were  accepted  for 
shipment.-''^ 

§§  390-392.  Actual  and  Constructive  Notice  and  Acceptance — §  390, 
In  General. — The  acceptance  may  be  either  actual  or  constructive."*"  L'nless 
there  be  a  delivery  according  to  an  established  custom  of  the  carrier's  business, 
or  a  special  contract  or  agreement,'**  there  must  be  actual  notice  and  acceptance."* ^ 
While  it  is  the  undoubted  general  rule  that  the  delivery,  to  bind  the  carrier, 
must  be  made  either  to  him  or  to  some  one  with  authority  from  him,  or  who 
may  be  rightfully  presumed  to  have  such  authority,  it  is  not  to  be  understood 
that  it  is  not  subject  to  such  conventional  arrangements  between  the  parties  as 
they  may  choose  to  make  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  delivery,  or  that  it  may  not 
be  varied  by  usage,  or  by  a  particular  course  of  dealing  between  them.  They 
may  make   such   stipulations   upon   the  su4)ject  as  they  see   fit,  and   when   such 


36.  Roadside  deposit. — Wells  v.  Wil- 
niini4ton,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  .">  1  X.  C.  47,  72  Am. 
Dec.  .")")(■). 

37.  Promise  of  conductor. — Wells  ;■. 
Wilmintitdii,  etc..  \\.  Co.,  .")1  X.  C.  47,  72 
Am.    Dec.    .").")C). 

38.  Deposit  convenient  for  railroad. — 
O'Bannon  v.  Southern  K.xp.  Co.,  •">!  Ala. 
4S1. 

Placing  cotton  on  vehicle  of  carrier, 
or  near  its  boat  or  warehouse — Rule,  cus- 
tom, or  notice. — The  placing  of  cotton  on 
the  wa.^on  or  car  of  a  common  carrier, 
or  near  its  l)oat  or  warehouse,  is  not  a 
delivery,  unless  some  regulation  of  the 
carrier  or  custom  existing  between  the 
carrier  and  the  public  makes  it  otherwise, 
or  notice  is  given  to  the  carrier,  or  its 
agent  or  other  authorized  employees. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodde,  42  Tex. 
4()7. 

39.  Permission  to  place  cattle  in  yards. 
—Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Riley  (Tex, 
Cr.  App.),  1  S.  W.  44().  See  Brown  v. 
Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Xav.  Co.  (Ore.),  128 
Pac.  ,38. 

40.  Actual  or  constructive  acceptance. — 
Southern  h'.xp.  Co.  v.  Mc\'eii;h.  ('>l  \'a. 
(20  Oratt.)    2C.4. 

Constructive  delivery.  —  Alabama.  — 
O'Bannon  :.  Souihern  E.xp.  Co.,  .51  Ala. 
481;  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kolh.  7 A 
Ala.  H9(),  49  .Vm.  Rep.  .54.  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  .512. 

Connecticut. — Merriam  x\  Hartford,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    20    Conn.    ;5,54,    .52    .\m.    Dec.    ;:44. 


District  of  Columbia. — Bowie  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  MacArthur  (8  D. 
C.)  94. 

Illinois. — Giand  Tower  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co. 
r.  Ullman.  89  111.  244;  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  7'.  Ashmead,  58  111.  487,  11  Am.  R. 
Rep.  59;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z\  Smyser, 
38  111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301. 

Indiana. — Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Keith,  8   Ind.   App.   57,   35    N.    E.   296. 

/oTi'fl.— Aiken  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
68  Iowa  363.  27  X.  W.  281.  25  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  377;  Frazier  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  48  Iowa   571. 

Louisiana. — Meyer  7".  Vicksburg,  etc., 
R.  Co..  41   La.  Ann.  639.  6  So.  218. 

Maine. — Witzler  v.  Collins.  70  Me.  290, 
35  Am.   Rep.   327. 

.VrTi'  Hampshire. — Moses  z\  Boston, 
etc..    Railroad,   24   X.    H.   71,   55   Am.   Dec. 

South  Carolina. — Cone  v.  Southern  Rail- 
way, 85  S.  C.  524,  36  R.  R.  R.  179,  59  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.   Cas..   N.   S..   179.   67   S.   E.   779. 

Texas. — Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mar- 
tin, 12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  464.  35  S.  W.  21. 

J'irginia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
\eigh,  61  Va.   (20   Gratt.)   264. 

41.  See  post,  "Constructive  X'otice  and 
Acceptance — Custom  or  Agreement,"  § 
391. 

42.  Actual  notice  and  acceptance. — Rail 
r.  Xew  Jersev  Steamboat  Co.  (X.  Y.), 
1   Dalv  4'.Il. 


1    Car— 18 


CARRIERS. 


274 


§§  390-391 

stipulations  are  made,  they,  and  not  the  general  law.  are  to  govern.43 

§  391.  Constructive  Notice  and  Acceptance— Custom  or  Agreement. 

It  is  not  alwavs  essential  that  the  shipper  should  give  the  carrier  actual  notice 

that  goods  have'  been  deposited  for  transportation  by  the  carrier  at  a  certam 
customary  place  for  receiving  freight :  the  special  circumstances  being  sometimes 
sufficient 'to  constitute  a  valid  constructive  notice  to  the  carrier.-*-^  Such  an  ac- 
ceptance for  transportation  may  be  constructive,  and  may  be  implied  from  a 
proper  delivery  or  tender  of  the  goods  to  the  carrier.^s  An  implied  agreement 
on  the  part  of  a  common  carrier  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  an  hisurer  of 
goods  deposited  at  a  certain  place,  without  actual  notice  to  the  carrier  of  the 
deposit,  may  be  established  by  proof  of  the  custom  of  the  carrier  to  receive 
for  transportation  goods  so  deposited.-"^  Proof  of  a  constant  and  habitual  prac- 
tice and  usage  of  the  carrier  to  receive  goods  when  they  are  deposited  for  him 

rr.i-a.f.— Martin  z:  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5.56,  22  S.  W.  1007; 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  12 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  46-t,  35  S.  W.  21. 

Wisconsin.  — ■  Gleason  v.  Goodrich 
Transp.  Co..  32  Wis.  85.  14  Am.  Rep.  716. 
45.  Implied  from  proper  delivery. — Ala- 
bama.— Alontgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kolb, 
73  Ala.  396,  49  Am.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.   512. 

Connecticut. — Merriam  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344. 

I liinois.— Grand  Tower  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co. 
c'.  Ullman,  89  111.  244. 

Indiana. — Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Keith,   8    Ind.   App.    57,    35    N.    E.    296. 

Lduisiana. — Meyer  v.  Vicksburg,  etc., 
R.  Co..  41  La.  Ann.  639,  6  So.  218. 

.l/tvinc— Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290, 
35  Am.   Rep.  327. 

Massachusetts. — Nichols  v.  Smith,  115 
Mass.  332. 

Xew  .Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Railroad,   24   N.    H.   71,   55   Am.    Dec.   222. 
Tcro.?.— East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall, 
64  Tex.   615. 

46.  Custom  and  usage.  —  Alabama. — 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kolk,  73  A, a. 
396,  49  Am.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  512. 

Connecticut. — Merriam  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344. 

loti'a. — Green  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   38   Iowa   100. 

Kentucky.— Fhtshurg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
American  "Tobacco  Co.,  126  Ky.  582,  31 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1013,  104  S.  W.  377,  25  R.  R. 
R.  586,  48  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  3., 
586. 

Louisiana. — Meyer  v.  Vicksburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  41   La.  Ann.  639,  6  So.  218. 

A>w  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 
222. 

"r^jra.?.— Martin  v.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  556,  22  S.  W.  1007; 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martm,  12  Tex. 
Civ.   App.  464,  35  S.  W.  21. 

IVisconsin.  —  Gleason  v.  Goodrich 
Transp.  Co.,  32  Wis.  85,  14  Am.  Rep.  716. 


43.   Gulf,   etc.,    R.    Co.   r.    Pool,   10   Tex. 
Civ.   App.   682.    31    S.    W.   688. 

The  general  rule  is  that  there  must  be 
an  actual  delivery  to  the  carrier,  in  or- 
der to  create  its  common-law  liability  for 
carriage;  but  this  does  not  mean,  in  all 
instances,  an  actual  delivery.  It  may 
mean  such  a  delivery  as  the  parties  among 
themselves  may  agree  upon  as  sufficient, 
in  placing  the  property  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  carrier,  or  the  custom  and 
habit  of  dealing  in  shipments  of  a  partic- 
ular character  may  establish  the  liability 
of  the  carrier,  when  in  fact  there  has  been 
no  actual  delivery.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Union  Ins.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  39  S. 
W.   975,  976. 

44.  Constructive  notice. — Alabama.  — 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :•.  Kolb,  73  Ala. 
396,  49  Axn.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  512. 

Hence  a  railroad  company  is  not  liable 
for  freight  stolen  or  lost  after  a  mere  de- 
posit of  it  on  a  platform  at  the  company's 
station  house,  unless  it  is  shown  that  the 
company  or  its  agents  had  notice  of  svc'i 
deposit  and  accepted  the  freight,  for 
transportation  as  a  common  carrier. 
Southwestern  R.  Co.  v.  Webb,  48  Ala. 
585. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Fire  Ass'n,  55  Ark.  163,  18  S.  W.  43. 

Connecticut. — Merriam  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52  Am.  Dec.  344. 

District  of  Columbia. — Bowie  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  MacArthur  (8  D. 
C.)   94. 

Indiana. — Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Keith,  8  Ind.  App.  57,  35  N.  E.  296. 

Iowa. — Green     v.    Milwaukee,     etc, 
Co.,  38  Iowa  100. 

Louisiana. — Meyer     v.    Vicksburg, 
R.  Co..  41   La.  Ann.  639,  6  So.  218. 

Ma/»^.— Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290, 
35  Am.    Rep.   327. 

Xezv  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 
222. 

North  Carolina. — Williams  v.  Southern 
R  Co.,  155  X.  C.  260,  42  R.  R.  R.  105,  65 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  10.5,  71  S.  E. 
346. 


R. 


etc.. 


WHEX    LIAIUI.ITV    COMMENCES. 


§  391 


in  a  particular  place,  without  special  notice  of  such  deposit,  is  sufficient  to  show 
a  public  offer  bv  the  carrier  to  receive  goods  in  that  mode,  and  to  constitute  an 
agreement  between  the  i)arties  by  which  the  goods  when  so  deposited  shall  be 
considered  as  delivered  to  him.-*"  Such  a  practice  and  usage  are  tantamount 
to  an  open  declaration,  a  public  advertisement  by  the  carrier,  that  such  delivery 
should,  of  itself,  be  deemed  an  acceptance  by  him;  and  to  permit  him  to  set  up. 
against  those  who  had  been  thereby  induced  to  omit  it,  the  want  of  the  formal- 
ity of  an  express  notice,  which  had  been  thus  waived,  would  be  sanctioning  in- 
justice and  fraud.-* ^  Such  a  customary  delivery  is  sufficient  although  no  notice 
is  given  or  receipt  taken,  and  the  custom  itself  contrary  to  the  established  reg- 
ulations of  the  carrier.^''  lint  where  it  is  not  shown  that  the  goods  are  by  virtue 
of  the  custom  or  course  of  dealing,  to  be  thereafter  regarded  as  in  the  actual 
I)Ossession  of  tlie  carrier,  there  is  no  sufficient  delivery. ■'"'" 

Special  Agreement. — If  it  is  agreed  that  the  deposit  may  be  at  a  particular 
place  without  express  notice  to  the  carrier,  such  deposit  amounts  to  notice,  and 
is  a  delivery. ^'^     And  it  is  the  same  where  the  goods  are  deposited  at  a  desig- 


47.  Constant  practice. — Voakuni  T'.  Dry- 
den  (Tex.  Civ.  .^pp.).  2()  S.  W.  312;  Gulf, 
etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Pool,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  682, 
."^l  S.  W.  fi8S;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Hodde,  42  Tex.  4Cu. 

Custom  to  deposit  cotton  on  depot 
platform  before  issue  of  bill  of  lading. — 
I'laiiititf,  liaving'  a  verlial  aiireement  with 
a  railroad  company  for  the  shipment  of 
cotton,  delivered  it  for  shipment  by  plac- 
ing it  upon  its  depot  platform,  within  the 
knowledge  of  the  company's  agent,  as 
was  the  custom  of  delivery  at  such  de- 
pot; and,  before  a  bill  of  lading  was  given, 
the  cotton  was  destroyed  by  a  fire,  caused 
by  matches  being  ignited  on  the  platform 
by  small  boys  allowed  to  play  there.  It 
was  held  that  the  company  was  liable 
as  common  carriers  for  the  loss.  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  12  Tex.  Civ. 
.\pp.  464,  35  S.  W.  21. 

48.  As  where,-  for  instance,  the  delivery 
was  upon  a  private  wharf  or  dock,  used 
exclusively  by  the  carrier,  and  upon  which 
it  had  been  its  custom  and  constant  usage 
to  receive  goods  left  there  for  transporta- 
tion l)y  it,  such  a  deposit,  in  the  usual 
and  accustomed  manner,  would  be  con- 
structive notice,  and  would  lie  regarded 
as  a  sufficient  delivery,  though  the  goods 
were  not  left  in  charge  of  any  of  its  serv- 
ants. Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  2'.  Pool,  10  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  682,  31   S.  W.  688. 

A  railway  company  is  bound  by  a  cus- 
tom acquiesced  in  by  it  under  which  tim- 
ber is  piled  up  on  its  right  of  way  for 
shipment.  If  it  is  destroyed  by  fire  orig- 
inating from  one  of  the  company's  trains, 
and  without  the  contributory  negligence 
of  the  owner  of  the  timber,  the  railway 
company  is  liable  in  damages.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  McLean,  74  Tex.  646,  12  S.  W. 
843. 

49.  Cotton  deposited  in  street  alongside 
of  depot  platform — Custom  adopted  by 
depot  agent — No  receipt. — A  deposit  of 
cotton  in  a  street  alongside  of  the  plat- 
form of  a  railroad  depot,  or  in  the  rail- 
road   cotton-yard,    for    shipment,    in    pur- 


suance of  a  custom  or  usage  adopted  or 
sanctioned  l)y  the  depot  agent  may 
amount  to  a  delivery  to  the  railroad  com- 
pany, although  no  receipt  is  given  by  the 
agent  to  the  shipper,  and  such  usage  or 
custom  is  contrary  to  the  established  reg- 
ulations of  the  company  known  to  the 
shipper,  and  no  notice  thereof  is  traced 
to  the  superintendent  or  managing  agent 
of  the  company.  Montgomery,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z:  Kolb,  73  .\la.  306.  49  .-Km.  Rep.  .J4, 
18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  .-)12. 

50.  Extent  of  custom — Control  of  goods. 
— In  an  action  for  cotton  alleged  to  have 
been  delivered  to  the  defendant  as  a  com- 
mon carrier  and  destroyed  by  fire,  evi- 
dence tending  to  show  that  the  course  of 
dealing  and  custom  was  to  place  goods 
to  be  shipped  on  the  platform  where  the 
cotton  was  destroyed,  and  that  it  was 
the  expectation  and  intention  of  the 
owner  and  also  of  the  railway  company 
that  they  were  placed  there  for  shipment, 
and  would  ultimately  be  shipped  when 
instructions  were  given  or  when  the  party 
was  ready  for  shipment,  but  not  showing 
that  such  goods  were,  by  virtue  of  the 
custom  or  course  of  dealing,  to  be  there- 
after regarded  as  in  the  actual  possession 
of  the  railwaj',  was  insufficient  to  author- 
ize submission  to  the  jury  of  the  question 
of  delivery  by  reason  of  such  custom. 
Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Beard,  34  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  188,  78  S.  W.  253. 

51.  Delivery  according  to  contract. — 
Pratt  r.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  95  U.  S.  43, 
24  L.  Hd.  336;  Yoakum  ;■.  Drvden  (Tex. 
Civ.  .-Kpp.).  26  S.  \V.  312;  Gulf,  etc..  R. 
Co.  :■.  Pool.  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  682,  683. 
31   S.   W.  688. 

When  goods  designed  for  immediate 
shipment  are  placed  in  a  condition  to  be 
carried,  at  the  place  of  loading  designated 
by  the  parties,  there  is  both  a  delivery 
to  and  an  acceptance  by  the  carrier.  Pitts- 
burg, etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  American  Tobacco 
Co.,  126  Ky.  582,  3t  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1013. 
104  S.  W.  377.  25  R.  R.  R.  586,  48  .\m. 
&  Eng.   R.  Cas.,  X.   S.,  586. 


CARRIKRS. 


276 


§§  391-392 

nated  place  in  accordance  with  a  conventional  arrangement  in  respect  to  de- 
livery ^^  ^nd  it  has  heen  held  that  the  delivery  of  inanniiate  property  at  the 
u.nai  place  for  receiving  freight  for  shipment,  nnder  a  prior  agreement  for  its 
carria-e  is  snfficient.-'^^^  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  carrier  should  have  actua 
notice  of  the  delivery  of  cattle  in  the  pens  if  there  was  a  prior  agreement  that 
the  shipper  should  deliver  the  cattle  hy  putting  them  in  the  pens  at  the  time  they 
were  put  there.''-* 

S  392  Goods  Loaded  on  Cars.— In  the  case  of  a  chartered  car,  as  in  other 
cases  of  carriage  of  freight,  the  responsihility  of  the  carrier  hegms  with  the 
delivery  to  it  of  the  goods.^^  ^^■here  the  carrier  is  notified  of  the  fact  that  a 
car  placed  by  it  on  a  side  track  to  receive  goods  for  transportation  is  loaded 
and  ready  for  shipment,  its  liability  as  a  carrier  will  begin,^'^  especially  where 
it  ha^  adopted  a  custom  of  so  receiving  them.-  But  the  mere  loading  goods 
on  a  car  standing  on  a  side  track  does  not  constitute  a  delivery  to  the  railroad 
company,  where  the  station  agent,  on  being  notified  thereof,  declines  to  ship  the 
<roods  and  there  is  no  custom  or  regulation  of  the  railroad  company  making 
such  loading  a  delivery.^s  Nor  is  the  loading  of  a  car  set  out  for  such  use  at 
a  sidino-  where  the  company  has  no  station  house  or  agent,  such  a  delivery  to 
the  carrier  as  will  impose  liability  on  it  for  the  loss  of  the  cotton  by  fire  at  the 
sidino-  several  hours  before  the  arrival  of  the  train,  which  in  the  regular  course 
of  bitsiness  would  have  transported  it  to  its  destination.-'''     W  hen  a  loaded  car 

Car  left  on  side  track  loaded— Carrier 
notified — Custom  to  remove  before  issue 
of  bill  of  lading. — Where  the  custom  of  a 
railroad  company  was,  when  requested, 
to  place  an  empty  car  upon  its  side  track 
at  a  flag  station  to  be  loaded  with  cot- 
ton, and,  when  loaded,  to  remove  the  car, 
and  subsequently  issue  a  receipt  _and_  hill 
of  lading,  the  railway  company  is  liable 
for  the  loss  of  cotton  so  loaded,  if  notice 
has  been  given  by  the  shipper  of  its  desti- 
nation, and  that  it  was  ready  for  removal, 
and  nothing  remained  to  be  done  by  him 
before  shipment,  although  no  receipt  or 
bill  of  lading  had  been  given  for  the  prop- 
erty, and  the  name  of  the  consignees  had 
not  been  furnished  to  the  carrier.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Murphy,  60  Ark. 
333,  30  S.  W.  419. 

57.  Effect  of  custom. — Where  a  railway 
company,  engaged  in  switching  cars  over 
its  switch  tracks  to  and  from  the  trans- 
fer tracks  of  other  lines  of  road,  for  fixed 
system  of  charges,  had  adopted  the  cus- 
tom of  receiving  loaded  cars  on  its  switch- 
ing tracks,  and  undertaking  to  deliver 
them  to  the  transfer  tracks  at  other  points, 
there  was  a  sufficient  delivery  to  it  of 
certain  cars  where  the  shipper  had  loaded 
and  sealed  the  cars  and  notified  the  car- 
rier's agent  of  the  fact,  and  directed  him 
to  move  the  cars  out,  which  the  agent 
agreed  to  do.  Kansas,  •  etc.,  R.  Co.  _v. 
Rosebrook-Josey  Grain  Co.,  52  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   I.'-jG,    114   S.   W.   436. 

58.  Loading  car  on  side  track — Refusal 
of  station  agent  to  ship — Custom. —  Yoa- 
kum v.  Dryden  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  26  S.  W. 
312;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodde,  42 
Tex.  467. 

59.  Car,  left  on  siding  at  request,  loaded 
with  cotton. — The  ])laintiffs  operated  a 
cotton    gin    at    a    town    where    defendant 


52.  Constitutional  arrangement. — Stew- 
art ■;•.  Gracy,  93  Tenn.  314,  320,  27  S.  W. 
664. 

53.  Delivery  of  inanimate  property  on 
the  platform  of  a  railroad-  company,  which 
is  the  usual  place  for  receiving  freight  for 
shipment,  and  under  an  agreement  pre- 
viously made  for  the  carriage  of  the  same, 
is  a  sufticient  delivery  to  charge  the  rad- 
road  company  with  responsibility  as  a 
commcm  carrier.  Bowie  z'.  Baltimore, 
etc.,    R.    Co..    1    MacArthur    (8   D.   C.)    94. 

54.  Putting  cattle  in  pens.— Ft.  Worth, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Waggoner  Nat.  Bank,  36 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  293,  81  S.  W.  1050,  afiirnied 
in  OS  Tex.  616,  no  op. 

55.  Where  car  is  chartered.— Central 
R..  etc.,   Co.  z\  Anderson,  58   Ga.   393. 

56.  Goods  loaded  on  car. — Yoakum  v. 
Dryden  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  26  S.  W.  312; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hodde,  42  Tex. 
467. 

Cars  left  on  side  track  to  be  loaded  by 
shipper — Conductor's  promise  to  remove 
next  morning. — Defendant  railroad  com- 
pany, according  to  its  custom  and  at 
plaintiff's  request,  left  two  cars  on  its  side 
tracks,  agreeing  to  remove  them  next  day, 
if  loaded.  The  cars  were  loaded  and 
closed,  and  notice  thereof  given  to  a  con- 
ductor of  defendant's  freight  train  on  the 
evening  of  the  day  they  were  loaded,  and 
he  promised  to  move  them  the  next  morn- 
ing, but  before  doing  so,  the  cars  and 
contents  were  destroyed  by  fire.  It  was 
held  that  there  had  been  a  complete  de- 
livery of  the  freight  contained  in  the  cars 
to  defendant,  rendering  it  liable  for  the 
loss,  though  no  bill  of  lading  had  been 
executed.  Pine  Bluff,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Kenzie,  75  Ark.  100,  16  R.  R.  R.  50,  39 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  50,  86  S.  W. 
834. 


277 


WIIK.N    I,IAi;iLITV    C(JMM1-:NCIvS. 


j§  3')2-3'J5 


is  on  a  switch  provided  for  the  shipper's  convenience,  who  has  not  presented 
a  bill  of  lading  to  be  signed,  though  ample  time  has  elapsed,  there  is  no  suffi- 
cient delivery  and  acceptance.""  T.ut -where  a  railroad  company  constructs  side 
tracks  running,  to  various  warehouses,  for  the  purpose  of  running  out  cars  to 
such  warehouses,  to  be  loaded  by  ihc  sliipi.cr.  the  freight  is  delivered  to  the 
carrier  by  the  shii)per  the  monu'iil  it  is  loaded  on  such  cars,  although  no  bill  of 
lading  has  been  signed.''' 

Special  Contract. — .\  shipper  and  carrier  may  contract,  in  relation  to  the 
use  of  a  side  track,  that  delivery  of  cars  loaded  by  the  shipper  on  such  side 
track  to  the  carrier  shall  be  understood  to  have  taken  place  whenever  the  car- 
rier removes  the  car  from  the  track  and  places  it  in  its  freight  train  for  ship- 
ment, though  sitch  agreement  would  not  affect  the  shipper's  right  to  insist  upon 
the  carrier's  ])romptly  accepting  goods  tendered  to  it  for  trans])ortation,  or  limit 
the  carrier's  lial)ility  for  its  own  negligence.''- 

§§  393-398.  Authority  of  Agent  to  Receive  Goods— §  393.  In  Gen- 
eral.— The  delivery  of  freight  to  the  carrier  for  immediate  transportation  may 
be  made  through  an  agent  of  the  carrier  having  real  or  apparent  authority  to 
accept  it   for  shipment;  and  such  acceptance  will   render  the  carrier  liable.''-' 


railroad  company  had  no  station  or  agent. 
Cotton  was  shipped  by  plaintififs  notify- 
ing the  conductor  of  a  local  freight  train 
to  leave  a  car  on  the  siding.  They 
loaded  the  car  and  flagged  tlie  train  on 
which  they  desired  to  send  it,  the  con- 
ductor of  which  then  gave  them  a  bill 
of  lading.  Pursuant  to  such  plan  they 
loaded  a  car  with  cotton  in  the  evening 
after  the  only  local  frciglit  train  for  the 
day  had  passed,  and  there  would  be  no 
other  until  the  evening  of  the  next  day. 
During  the  night  the  cotton  was  de- 
stroyed by  fire.  It  was  held  that  this 
did  not  constitute  a  delivery  to  and  ac- 
ceptance l)y  the  railroad  company,  so  as 
to  make  them  liable  for  the  value  of  the 
cotton.  Tate  v.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 
Miss.  842.  29  So.  392,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   N.   S.,  -ifil,  84  Am.   St.   Rep.   049. 

60.  Loaded  car  on  siding — Failure  of 
shipper  to  make  out  bill  of  lading. — But 
whore  though  a  car  was  loaded  and 
standing  at  the  shipper's  wareliouse  on 
a  siding  constructed  for  its  convenience, 
the  shipper  had  not  made  out  a  bill  of 
lading  and  presented  it  to  the  carrier's 
agent  to  be  signed,  though  ample  time 
had  elapsed  after  the  car  was  loaded  for 
the  shipper  to  do  so.  there  was  no  con- 
structive delivery  of  the  car  to  the  car- 
rier, so  as  to  make  it  liable  for  the  goods 
on  its  destruction  by  fire.  American 
Lead  Pencil  Co.  z'.  Nashville,  etc..  Rail- 
way, 124  Tenn.  57,  40  R.  R.  R.  202.  G:} 
.^m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  202.  i:54  S. 
W.   613. 

61.  Side  track  to  warehouses  con- 
structed by  carrier  for  its  convenience. — 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z:  Smyser,  lis  111.  354, 
ST  Am.  Doc.  301. 

62.  Special  contract. — Bainbridgc  Gro- 
cery Co.  V.  .\tlantic  Coast  Line  R.  Co.. 
8  Ga.  App.  677,  70  S.  E.  154. 


63.  Delivery  to  agent. — United  States. 
— Strouss  r.  \Vabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
209. 

Alabama. — Hosea  v.  McCrory,  12  Ala. 
349;  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Kolb, 
73  Ala.  396,  49  Am.  Rep.  54,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  512. 

Dakota. — Waldron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    1    Dak.    351,    46    N.    W.    456. 

Dckni'are. — Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Del.),  3   Houst.  233. 

Indiana. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Foster,  104  Ind.  293.  4  N.  E.  20,  54  Am. 
Rep.  319. 

lozva. — Cobb.  etc..  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.   Co.,   38   Iowa  601. 

Kentucky. — Seasongood  v.  Tennessee, 
etc..  Transp.  Co.,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1142.  54 
S.   W.   193.  49   L.   R.   A.  270. 

Louisiana. — Fisher  v.  Geddes,  15  La. 
Ann.    14. 

Maine. — Lord  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co., 
105  Me.  255,  33  R.  R.  R.  130.  56  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  130,  74  Atl.  117. 

Massachusetts. — Jordan  v.  Fall  River 
R.  Co.  (Mass.).  5  Cush.  69,  51  .\m.  Dec. 
44;    Nichols  v.  Smith,   115   Mass.  332. 

Michiiian. — Wolf    z:    Grand    Rapids,    etc., 
Railway.  149  Mich.  75.  27  R.  R.  R.  79.  50 
Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.. 
\V.  732. 

Missouri. — Chouteau 
Anthonv,     II     Mo.    226; 
Railroad.    41    Mo.    503.    97    .\m.    Dec.    288; 
I'ruitt    z\    Hannibal,    etc..    R.    Co.,   62    Mo. 


N.    S..    79.    112    N. 

t'.     Steamboat    St. 
Minter   f.    Pacific 


Xezi-  Ifanifysliire. — Mayall  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  Railroad.  19  N.  H.  122,  49  Am.  Dec. 
149;  Bean  ;•.  Sturtevant.  8  N.  H.  146.  28 
.\m.   Dec.   389. 

Nezi'  York. — Ball  z'.  New  Jersev  Steam- 
boat Co.  (N.  Y.),  1  Daly  Prac.  491; 
Blanchard  z:  Isaacs  (N.  Y.).  3  Barb.  388; 
Grosvenor  z:  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co..  39 
N.   Y.   34.   5   Abb.   Prac.   N.   S.,   345;    Rog- 


§  394 


CARRIERS. 


278 


§  394.  Officers  and  Agents  in  General. — A  common  carrier  cor])oration 
is  prima  facie  liable  for  all  contracts  for  carrying  made  by  its  general  agents, 
within  the  corporation's  powers,  and  in  an  action  for  loss  the  onus  rests  upon 
it  to  show  that  a  private  contract  was  made  with  such  agent,  or  that  the  credit 
was  given  to  him  exclusively;  and  it  is  not  incumbent  upon  the  shipper  to  posi- 
tively prove  the  corporation's  consent  when  its  charter  extends  to  the  carrying 
of  such  commodities.''"* 

Station  agents  are  to  be  presumed  to  have  authority  to  accept  freight  for 
transportation,  and  any  limitations  on  their  power  to  do  so  the  public  can  not  take 
notice  of,  unless  they  are  conveyed  to  the  public  in  such  a  manner-  as  to  au- 
thorize the  inference  that  shippers  are  apprised  of  them.*^""  A  depot  agent,  who 
receives  and  forwards  freight,  in  the  absence  of  special  instructions  made  known 
to  the  public,  can  bind  the  railroad  company  to  receive  and  forward  freight.''" 

Person  in  Apparent  Charge — Custom. — A  delivery  of  freight  for  carriage, 
to  a  person  in  apparent  authority  and  apparently  having  power  to  receive  and 
receipt  for  it,  is  a  good  delivery.  Thus,  where  one  is  placed  in  the  situation 
of  master  of  a  boat,  a  shipper  may  deliver  freight  to  him  for  transportation.^' 
And  the  same  rules  apply  in  the  case  of  delivery  to  the  captain  of  a  steamboat 
in  the  business  of  carrying  freight.*5^     Where  a  shipper  left  goods  at  a  carrier's 


ers  z:  Long  Island  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  38 
How.  Prac.  289;  Rogers  v.  Wheeler.  52 
N.  Y.  262;  Witbeck  v.  Schuyler  ( N.  Y.). 
44   Barb.  469.  31   How.  Prac.  97. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Williams  v.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  155  N.  C.  260,  42  R.  R.  R.  105,  65 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  105.  71  S.  E. 
346;  Harrell  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
106   N.   C.   258,   11    S.    E.   286. 

South  Carolina. — Battle  v.  Columbia, 
etc.,  Railroad,  70  S.  Car.  329,  14  R.  R.  R. 
425,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  425, 
49  S.  E.  489;  McClure  v.  Richardson  (S. 
C).   Rice   215,   33   Am.   Dec.   105. 

Tennessee. — Watson  v.  Memphis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.),  255,  19  Am. 
R.   Rep.  256. 

Te.vas. — International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Folliard,  66  Tex.  603,  1  S.  W.  624;  Pa- 
cific Exp.  Co.  V.  Black,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
363,  27  S.  W.  830;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Morrison's  Faust  Co.,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
144.  48   S.   W.   1103. 

J'ermont. — Landon  v.  Proctor,  39  Vt. 
78;  Ouimit  v.  Henshaw,  35  Vt.  605,  84 
Am.  Dec.  646;  Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v. 
Champlain  Transp.  Co.,  23  Vt.  186,  56 
Am.    Dec.   68. 

West  Virginia. — Quarrier  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  W.  Va.  424. 

JVisconsin.  —  Gleason  v.  Goodrich 
Transp.  Co.,  32  Wis.  85,  14  Am.  Rep.  716. 

£Hg/a«(/.— Burrill  v.  North,  61  Eng.  C. 
L.   679. 

Where  a  carrier  places  one  in  a  depot, 
and  holds  him  out  to  the  public  as  quali- 
fied to  receive  shipments,  a  delivery  to 
and  an  acceptance  by  him  is  a  delivery 
to  the  carrier.  Milne  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    (Mo.   .\pp.),   135   S.   W.   85. 

64.  Officers  and  agents  in  general. — 
Farmers'.  etc.,  Bank  v.  Champlain 
Transp.   Co..   2:!   Vt.   186,   56   Am.   Dec.   68. 

65.  Station  agents. — Pruitt  v.  Hannibal, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  527. 


66.  Depot  agent — Special   instruction. — 

Watson  J'.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn. 
(9   Heisk.)   255,  19  Am.   R.  Rep.  256. 

67.  Master  of  boat — Occasionally 
carrying  cotton  for  neighbors. — Defend- 
ant was  the  owner  of  a  boat,  in  which  he 
was  accustomed  to  carry  his  own  cot- 
ton to  Charleston,  and  occasionally, 
when  he  had  not  a  load  of  his  own,  to 
take  for  his  neighbors,  they  paying  freight 
for  the  same.  H.  was  the  master  of  the 
lioat,  and  the  general  habit  was  for  those 
who  wished  to  send  their  cotton  by  de- 
fendant's boat,  to  apply  to  defendant 
himself.  On  this  occasion,  the  master  of 
the  boat  had  been  told  to  take  the  cot- 
ton of  certain  other  parties,  which  he 
had  done,  when  plaintiflf  applied  to  H., 
in  the  absence  of  defendant,  to  take  on 
board  ten  bales  of  his  cotton,  asking  him 
if  it  was  necessary  to  apply  to  the  de- 
fendant himself,  to  which  H.  replied,  he 
thought  not  and  received  the  cotton.  It 
was  held  that  defendant  was  bound  by 
such  act  of  H.,  as  being  within  the  gen- 
eral scope  of  the  authority  conferred 
upon  him  by  placing  him  in  the  situation 
of  master  of  the  boat,  and  that  the  de- 
fendant was  consequently  chargeable  as 
a  common  carrier,  for  any  loss  of,  or 
damage  to,  plaintiff's  cotton.  McClure 
f.  Richardson  (S.  C),  Rice  215,  33  Am. 
Dec.  105. 

68.  Captain  of  steamboat — Trunk — 
Proper  agent  at  place. — The  defendants 
being  the  owners  of  a  steamboat,  and 
their  regular  business  being  the  trans- 
portation of  goods  and  merchandise 
thereon,  the  plaintiff  delivered  to  B.,  the 
captain  of  such  steamboat,  wliile  in 
charge  thereof,  a  trunk  containing  cloth- 
ing, for  transportation  from  A.  to  N.  Y. 
It  was  held  that  plaintiff  had  the  right 
to  conclude  that  B.  was  the  proper  per- 
son for  him  to  treat  witli,  in  the  absence 


279 


WHEN    I.IAIilLITV    COMMENCES. 


§  394 


freight  depot  delivering  it  to  a  freiglit  handler  in  apparent  charge  who  then 
performed  and  who  was  accustomed  to  performing  the  duties  of  the  receiving 
clerk  with  reference  to  freight  delivered,  there  was  a  sufficient  delivery."''  But 
where  there  is  delivery,  on  hoard  a  vessel,  to  one  apparently  no  more  than  a 
common  lahorer,  without  making  proper  inquiry,  the  rlelivery  is  insufficient.'^'' 
And  the  same  rule  applies  to  the  delivery  and  receipt  of  goods  to  deck  hands 
on  a  hoat,  unless  such  persons  are  authorized  to  receive  freight  generally  or 
unless  there  exists  a  special  contract  or  usage.''  .And  the  mere  fact  that  the 
reception  of  the  freight  hy  the  deck  hands  is  such  that  the  officers,  whose  duty 
it  is  to  receive  goods  for  transportation,  must,  if  they  e.xercise  reasonably  at- 
tention and  care  and  diligence,  know  that  the  freight  is  on  board,  and  receive 
it,  can  make  no  ditterencc.'- 

Authority  Arising  from  Frequent  Exercise  of  Power. — The  frequent 
exercise  of  a  ])ower,  of  which  his  ])rincipal  naay  have  been  presumed  to  have 
notice,  may  be  regarded  by  persons  dealing  with  the  i)rincipal  as  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  the  authority  of  such  agent,  and  this  applies  to  employees  of  a  rail- 
road company  receiving  i)ackages  for  an  express  company.'-*  If  in  an  action 
against  a  common  carrier  for  the  loss  of  a  parcel,  the  defendant  pleaded  that 
it  was  not  delivered  to  him  to  be  carried,  it  is  sufficient  for  the  plaintifY  to  show 
that  it  was  delivered  to  a  person  and  at  a  house  where  parcels  were  in  the  habit 
of  being  left  for  such  carrier;  and  it  is  immaterial  whether  such  person  was 
paid  any  money  or  not.'"* 

Delivery  on  Wharf  to  Mate  of  Vessel. — W  here  goods  are  to  be  carried 
coast-wise,  and  the  usage  of  tl;e  wharf  is  to  dclixer  them  on  the  wharf  to  the 


of  any  information  to  the  contrary;  and 
that  the  defendants  were  liable  as  com- 
mon carriers  for  the  loss  of  the  trunk 
and  contents,  although  it  was  proved  that 
they  kept  an  agent  at  \..  whose  ])usiness 
it  was  to  make  contracts  for  the  carriage 
of  freight.  Witljeck  r.  Schuyler  (X.  V.), 
44  Barl).  4m,  ;n    How.   Prac.  97. 

69.  Freight  handler — Failure  to  carry. 
— In  Lord  :■.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  105 
Me.  255,  33  R.  R.  R.  130.  5r)  Am.  &  Kng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  130,  74  Atl.  117,  it  appeared 
that  a  shipper  left  goods  for  transporta- 
tion at  the  freight  depot  of  defendant 
common  carrier,  delivering  the  same  to 
a  freight  handler  who  was  apparently  in 
charge  and  who  was  accustomed  to  re- 
ceive freight  during  the  absence  of  the 
receiving  clerk,  and  the  goods  were  prop- 
erly packed  and  taggeil  with  the  name  of 
the  consignee  and  the  place  of  destina- 
tion, and  the  shipper  was  not  requcste<l 
to  prepay  the  freight,  and  he  left  the  de- 
pot supposing  nothing  further  would  be 
required  preliminary  to  the  transporta- 
tion of  the  goods,  and  they  were  not 
shipped.  It  was  held  that  such  circum- 
stances sufficiently  showed  that  the  com- 
mon carrier  accepted  the  goods  for  trans- 
portation when  received  by  the  freight 
handler,  and  that  there  was  a  breach  of 
duty  on  the  part  of  the  common  carrier 
because  of  failure  to  transport  the  goods, 
and  that  therefore  it  was  liable  in  dam- 
ages  to   the    shipjicr. 

70.  Goods  deposited  by  shipper's  porter 
at  place  on  steamboat  indicated  by 
common  laborer — Authority — Failure  of 
porter   to  inquire. — Bui   where,    in   an   ac- 


'.ion  against  the  owner  of  a  steamboat, 
as  a  common  carrier,  it  was  proved  that 
it  was  the  duty  of  the  clerk  of  such 
steamboat  to  receive  freight  for  trans- 
portation, and  property,  having  been 
taken  on  board  such  boat  when  lying  at 
the  wharf  by  a  porter,  was  left  at  a  place 
pointed  out  by  a  person  on  board,  whose 
appearance  and  employment  indicated 
that  he  was  a  common  laborer,  and  no 
inquiry  was  made  by  such  porter,  either 
as  to  the  authority  of  such  person  to  re- 
ceive property  for  carriage,  or  whether 
there  was  or  was  not  any  other  person 
on  board  who  had  such  authority,  it  was 
held  that  there  was  not  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  delivery  to  render  the  owner  of 
the  boat  liable  for  the  loss  of  such  prop- 
erty. Trowbridge  :•.  Chapin,  23  Conn. 
595. 

71.  Delivered  to  steamboat  deck  hands 
— Authority — Burden  of  proof. —  Ford  v. 
Mitclicll,  :n   Ind.  54. 

72.  Care  and  precaution  of  deck  hand 
immaterial. — Ford   ." .   Mitchell.   21    Ind.  54. 

73.  Frequent  exercise  of  authority — 
Delivery  to  express  company  through 
railroad  employee. — Seasongoud  :.  Ten- 
nessee, etc..  Transp.  Co.,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1142,  54  S.  W.  193,  49  L.  R.  A.  270:  Pa- 
cific Exp.  Co.  i'.  Black,  8  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 
363,  27  S.  W.  830.  citing  Hull  f.  East 
Line,  etc.,  R.  Co..  66  Tex.  619,  2  S.  W. 
831;  Prince  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(■>4  Tex  144;  Friedlander  &  Co.  v.  Cor- 
nell. 45  Tex.   585. 

74.  Delivery  of  parcel  at  house. — Bur- 
rill  r.  North,  61   Eng.  C.  L.  679. 


§§  394-396  CARRIERS.  280 

mate  of  the  ship  bv  which  thev  are  to  be  carried,  if  they  are  deHvered  to  the 
mate,  the  wharfinger's  responsibihty  is  at  an  end,  and  he  is  not  hable,  though 
the  goods  are  lost  from  the  wharf  before  they  are  shipped.'"' 

Delivery  of  Cash  Letter  to  Steamboat  Clerk.— The  dehvery  of  a  cash 
letter  to  the  clerk  of  a  steamboat  is  a  delivery  to  the  master  of  the  vessel;  and 
it  is  not  necessary  to  show  special  authority  in  the  clerk  to  receive  such  letters, 
when  a  general  iisage  of  boats  in  the  trade  is  to  receive  them.'^« 

Delivery  to  Clerk  of  Express  Agent,  Outside  of  His  Office.— But  it  has 
been  held  that  a  deliverv  of  a  package  of  money  to  a  clerk  of  an  express  agent 
outside  of  his  office  is  not  a  delivery  to  the  company,  although  the  former  agents 
of  the  companv  were  accustomed  to  receive  such  packages  from  the  plamtiff 
outside  of  their  offices,  and  such  clerk  was  accustomed  to  receive  such  packages 
in  the  office  of  the  agent  and  receipt  for  them  there." 

Authority  to  Receive  Particular  Kinds  of  Property.— Where  by  usage 
there  is  a  person  appointed  to  receive  and  take  charge  of  a  particular  kmd  of 
property,  the  delivery  must  be  to  him  and  not  to  one  engaged  in  the  discharge 
of  other  duties."^ 

Delivery  to  a  stranger  apparently  in  charge  of  an  express  wagon,  though 
the  name  of  the  carrier  be  on  his  cap  shield,  may  be  of  such  a  nature  as  not 
to  bind   the  carrier.''' 

Wagon  Sent  upon  Carrier's  Private  Business.— A  common  earner  by 
wagon  may  send  his  wagon  and  team  upon  his  own  business,  under  the  care  of 
a  person  who  never  has  contracted  for  him,  and  is  not  authorized  to  contract 
for  him,  without  being  liable  for  goods  entrusted  to  such  driver.^^ 

§§  395-397.  Authority  of  Third  Persons— Special  Agents— §  395. 
In  General. — If  the  propertv  is  deposited  with  a  third  person,  wdio  is^  author- 
ized by  the  carrier  to  execute  a  bill  of  lading  in  the  name  of  the  carrier,  then 
such  mode  of  delivery  is  as  complete  as  if  the  property  had  been  actually  de- 
posited w^ith  the  carrier.^  1 

§  396.  Delivery  to  Lighterman  to  Be  Carried  to  Ship.— In  ports  where" 
it  is  necessary  for  a  vessel  drawing  much  water  to  lie  outside  of  the  bar  and 
h.ave  her  cargo  brought  to  her  by  lighters,  and  the  usage  is  for  the  lighterman 

75     Delivery    on    wharf   to    mate.— Cob-  appeared,  signed  a  receipt  and  took  away 

ban"r     Downe    (  Eng.    K.    B.).    .5    Esp.    N  the    goods.      It    did     not    appear     that    he 

p    ^Q  '  came  from  or  returned  to  the  wagon,  nor 

■   „      ■nw  r  r   ^.,^v,    f^    r^l^rt      Mncpa  was    it    shown    who    owned    the    wagon. 

76.  Dehvery  o  cash  to  clerk.-Hosea  ^^^  .^mpany  repudiated  the  whole  trans- 
V.  McLr<,r3.   i..  .via.  o4j.  action,  including  the  name   of  the  alleged 

77.  Delivery  to  clerk  outside  office.—  ^^^^^^  ^^  signed  in  the  book.  It  was  held 
Cronkitc   z:   Wells,  .32    N.   Y.   247.  ^-^^^  there  was   no   delivery   to   the   carrier 

78.  To    receive     particular    property.—       made  out. 

Ball    V.    New    Jersey    Steamboat    Co.    (N.  go.     Driver     sent     upon     carrier's     own 

Y.),  1   Daly  491.  business — Authority     of      driver. — Jenkins 

79  Delivery  to  stranger.— In  Abrams  v.  z:  Picket,  17  Tenii.  (!)  Yerg.)  480. 
Piatt,  2:5  Misc.  r,37,  .52  X.  Y.  S.  153,  an  ac-  81.  Delivery  to  third  person.— Stewart 
tion  where  the  issue  was  whether  the  z:  Gracy,  '.I3  Tcnn.  314.  27  S.  W.  (>()4. 
plaintiff  had  delivered  certain  goods  to  Delivery  to  servant  or  agent  accustomed 
the  defendant,  an  express  company,  it  to  accept  freight— Private  mstruction.— 
appeared  that  he  was  a  regular  customer,  A  delivery  to  a  servant  or  duly  authorized 
furnished  with  a  placard  which  he  ex-  agent  of  a  common  earner,  who  is  in  the 
nosed  when  he  wished  an  express  wagon  hal)it  of  receiving  packages,  for  trans- 
to  call  and  also  with  book  of  blank  re-  portation  is  a  sufficient  delivery  to  the 
ceipts  After  the  plaintiff  had  exhibited  carrier;  and  the  acts  of  the  agent  m  this 
his  placard  on  a  certain  day.  a  stranger,  connection,  within  the  usual  scope  of  his 
who  had  the  name  of  the  company  in-  employment  will  bind  the  earner,  regard- 
scribed  on  a  shield  on  his  cap,  came  in  less  of  any  private  instructions,  unless  he 
the  store,  while  there  was,  on  the  other  party  delivenng  the  package  knew  of  the 
side  of  the  street,  "a  sort  of  yellow  instructions.  Minter  t^.  Pacific  Railroad, 
wagon"    on    which    the    company's    name  41   Mo.  503,  97  Am.  Dec.  288. 


281 


\Vlli:\    I.IAi;iLITV    CO.MMEN'CKS. 


§§  396-397 


to  be  engaged  and  paid  !)>  the  captain  of  the  vessel,  to  give  his  receipt  to  the 
factor  for  the  cotton,  and  lu  take  a  receipt  from  the  captain  when  he  dehvers 
it  on  board  of  the  vessel,  dehvery  of  goods  to  the  ligliterman  is  a  deHvery  to 
the  master,  and  the  transportation  Ijy  the  lighter  to  the  vessel  the  commence- 
ment of  the  voyage,  in  execntiiiii  of  the  cfjiUract  by  which  the  master  engages 
to  carry. '*- 

§  397.  Delivery  of  Cotton  to  Compress  Company. — When  cotton  is  de- 
livered to  a  compress  company  for  compression,  before  shipment,  such  delivery 
may  or  may  not  constitute  a  delivery  to  the  carrier.  Where  the  compress  com- 
pany acts  as  agent  for  the  carrier,  delivery  to  the  former  is  a  delivery  to  the 
latter,'^''  but  where  the  conijiress  com])any  acts  as  agent  of  the  shipper,  delivery 
to  it  is  not  a  delivery  to  take  carrier.'^'* 


82.  Delivery  to  lighterman  to  be  car- 
ried to  ship.  —  Bulkley  v.  Naumkeag 
Stoain  Cotton  Co.  (L\  S.),  24  How.  38(5, 
10   L.    Ed.   599. 

Where  a  litihlcrnum,  thus  cnii)loyc(l, 
was  conveying-  bales  of  cotton  to  a  vessel 
lyins  outside  of  the  bar,  but  l)efore  they 
were  put  on  board,  an  explosion  of  the 
boiler  threw  the  I)ales  into  the  water,  by 
which  the  cotton  was  damaged;  the  ves- 
sel was  held  responsible  for  the  lost  upon 
being  lil)elled  in  a  court  of  admiralty,  the 
master  having  included  these  l)ales  in  the 
bills  of  lading  which  he  signed.  Bulk- 
ley  V.  Naumkeag  Steam  Cotton  Co.  (U. 
S.),    24    How.    386,    K)    L.    Ed.    599_. 

83.  Where  compress  company  is  agent 
of  carrier. — Artliur  v.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co., 
304  U.  S.  505,  51  L.  Ed.  590,  27  S.  Ct.  338, 
23  R.  R.  R.  583,  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,   583. 

Where  all  cotton  received  by  a  carrier 
for  transportation  is  delivered  to  a  com- 
press company,  which  compresses  it  for 
the  railroad,  at  the  expense  of  the  latter, 
and  it  gives  its  bills  of  lading:  on  the  faith 
of  the  receipts  of  the  compress  company, 
a  delivery  to  the  compress  company  is  a 
delivery  to  the  carrier,  and  the  compress 
company  is  its  agent  for  whose  negli- 
gence the  carrier  is  liable.  Arthur  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  204  U.  S.  505,  51  L. 
Ed.  590,  27  S.  Ct.  338,  23  R.  R.  R.  583, 
46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  583. 

Where  a  rule  of  a  state  railroad  com- 
mission requires  a  carrier  to  sign  a  bill 
of  lading  for  cotton  when  receipts  of  a 
compress  company  are  presented  to  it,  the 
rule  applies  to  a  case  when  the  cotton  is 
tendered  to  the  company  although  at  the 
time  it  is  upon  the  compress  company's 
platform,  and  if  the  carrier  does  not  re- 
gard the  presentation  of  these  receipts  as 
in  fact  a  tender,  or  a  valid  tender,  it  may 
refuse  to  sign  the  Inll  of  lading,  and  where 
it  issues  a  bill  of  lading  it  acknowledges 
the  tender.  Arthur  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
204  U.  S.  505,  520,  51  L.  Ed.  590,  27  S. 
Ct.  338,  23  R.  R.  R.  583,  46  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.,   N.   S.,  583. 

Plaintiflf  delivered  cotton  to  a  compress 
company,  which  was  defendant's  agent 
for  shipment  when  compressed,  and  after 


the  cotton  had  been  checked  by  the  com- 
press company,  plaintiff  presented  the 
i)ills  of  lading  to  defendant's  agent,  but 
he  refused  to  sign  them  because  the  in- 
surance carried  by  the  compress  company 
to  cover  cotton  on  its  platform  for  ship- 
ment, pursuant  to  an  agreement  between 
it  and  the  railroad  company,  was  not  suf- 
ficient to  cover  the  cotton  then  on  hand, 
and  plaintifif's  cotton  was  destroyed  lie- 
fore  the  bills  of  lading  were  signed.  Held, 
that  there  was  a  delivery  of  the  cotton 
to  defendant  for  transportation  before 
the  fire.  Texas  Mid.  Railroad  v.  Edwards 
&  Co.,  56  Tex.  Civ.  App.  643,  121  S.  W. 
570. 

84.  Compress  acting  as  shipper's  agent. 
— Missiiuri  I'ac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFaddcn.  1."j4 
U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14  S.  Ct.  9y.j; 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122  U. 
S.   79,  30   L.    Ed.    1077,   7   S.   Ct.    1132. 

Where  a  carrier  issued  a  bill  of  lading 
for  cotton  which  was  in  the  hands  of  a 
compress  company,  who  were  the  agents 
of  the  shipper,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
compressed  before  shipment,  and  the  cot- 
ton was  destroyed  by  fire  while  in  the 
possession  of  the  compress  company,  it 
was  held  that  the  carrier  was  not  liable 
to  the  assignee  of  the  bill  of  lading  al- 
though such  assignee  did  not  have  notice 
of  a  custom  or  course  of  dealing  between 
the  carrier  and  the  shipper  bj-"  which  it 
was  understood  by  both  parties  that  the 
cotton  was  not  to  be  delivered  at  the 
time  the  bill  of  lading  was  issued  but 
was  to  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  com- 
press company  as  the  agent  of  the  shipper 
to  be  compressed.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  McFadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed. 
944,  14  S.  Ct.  990. 

A  bought  cotton  and  delivered  it  to  a 
compress  company,  where  it  was  weighed, 
classed  and  graded  by  A  and  marks  put 
upon  each  liale  indicating  the  grade  or 
quality  and  the  lot  to  wiiich  it  belonged. 
The  railroad  compan}'  issued  bills  of  lad- 
ing for  the  cotton,  sometimes  before  it 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  compress  com- 
pany at  all.  Compressing  was  to  be  done 
at  the  expense  of  the  railroad  company. 
It  was  held  that  the  railroad  company's 
liability    as    common    carrier     commenced 


§  397 


CARRIERS. 


282 


Custom  or  Special  Contract. — Custom  or  special  contract  may  render  a 
railroad  company  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  goods  which  have  never  been 
in  its  possession.  Thus,  where  cotton  is  in  the  possession,  and  under  the  con- 
trol of  a  compress  company,  but  for  which  the  carrier  has  issued  bills  of  lading 
in  exchange  for  the  compress  company's  receipts,  the  carrier  is  liable.'^''  A  rail- 
road company's  liability,  as  a  common  carrier,  for  cotton  begins  upon  its  de- 
livery to  a  warehouseman  for  compression  for  shipmlent,  where  by  contract,  ex- 
press or  implied,  the  carrier  has  authorized  the  warehouseman  to  receive  cotton 
for  it,  at  the  warehouse,  and  give  receipts  therefor  to  owners,  and  to  issue  it 
for  the  railroad's  benefit,  and  to  hold  and  compress  it  for  shipment  by  the  rail- 
road company,  the  latter  issuing  bills  of  lading  to  owners  before  taking 
actual  custody  of  the  cotton ;  upon  presentation  of  the  warehouseman's  re- 
ceipts.'*'^ And  in  such  cases  a  custom  of  dealing  between  the  parties,  whereby 
the  property  is  treated  as  under  the  control  of  the  railroad  company  from  the 
time  it  issues  such  bills  of  lading,  will  be  sufficient  to  establish  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility.*' But  the  carrier  in  such  cases  is  not  liable  for  the  loss,  to  an  assignee 
of  the  bill  of  lading  without  notice  of  the  agreement  and  course  of  dealing  be- 


only  when  the  specific  cotton  was  de- 
livered for  the  purpose  of  transportation 
into  its  exclusive  possession  and  control, 
and  only  when  specific  lots  were  marked 
and  designated  to  correspond  to  the  bills 
of  lading  previously  issued  by  the  carrier. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Knight.  122  U. 
S.   79.  30  L.   Ed.   1077.  7   S.   Ct.   1132. 

85.  Custom  or  special  contract. — Ar- 
thur V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  204  U.  S.  505, 
51  L.  Ed.  590,  23  R.  R.  R.  583,  46  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  583,  27  S.  Ct.  338; 
Marine  Ins.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41  Fed.  643,  43  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  79; 
Deming  v.  Merchants'  Cotton  Press,  etc., 
Co.,  90  Tenn.  306,  17  S.  W.  89,  13  L.  R.  A. 
518;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Ins. 
Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  975;  Amory 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Tex.  419, 
37  S.  W.  856,  59  Am.  St.  Rep.  65;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Douglas  &  Sons,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  28,  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  98. 

Custom  to  exchange  bills  of  lading  for 
warehouse  receipts  of  compress  company 
—  Excessive  accumulation  of  cotton  in 
street — Liability. — In  Marine  Ins.  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  643,  43  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  79,  it  is  held  that  a  rail- 
road company  contracting  to  remove  cot- 
ton received  by  a  compressing  company, 
from  its  warehouse  where  it  was  re- 
ceived, to  its  compressing  mill,  is  liable 
for  damage  occasioned  by  a  nuisance  re- 
sulting from  the  accumulation  of  the  cot- 
ton in  a  public  street  owing  to  its  fail- 
ure to  remove  the  same,  especially  when 
it  had  been  accustomed  to  take  up  the 
warehouse  receipts  of  that  company  and 
issue  bills  of  lading  for  cotton  covered 
thereby,  reserving  the  right  to  have  it 
compressed,  as  in  the  former  case  it  would 
assist  continuance  of  the  nuisance,  and  in 
the  latter  would,  as  a  common  carrier, 
permit  the  accumulation  of  dangerous 
material,  which  it  was  bound  to  trans- 
port promptly. 


Compression  at  railroad's  convenience 
and  cost — Fire  while  awaiting  compression 
— Negligence  of  employees  of  compress 
company. — In  Arthur  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  204  U.  S.  505,  51  L.  Ed.  590,  23  R.  R. 
R.  583,  46  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  583, 
27  S.  Ct.  338,  it  is  held  that  a  carrier 
which  issues  bills  of  lading  to  a  shipper 
in  return  for  receipts  given  by  a  com- 
press company  for  cotton  in  the  latter's 
custody  is  liable  for  loss  by  fire  due  to 
the  negligence  of  the  servants  of  the 
compress  company  in  caring  for  the  cot- 
ton while  awaiting  the  compression  and 
loading,  which  the  railroad  company  had 
ordered  done  for  its  own  convenience 
and  at  its  own  cost,  where  such  company, 
if  it  did  not  regard  the  presentation  of 
the  receipt  as  a  tender  of  the  cotton,  or 
if  it  were  not  a  valid  tender,  could,  not- 
withstanding the  rules  of  the  Texas  state 
railroad  commission  as  well  as  its  own 
rules,  have  refused  to  sign  the  bills  of 
lading. 

Cotton  on  platform  of  compress  com- 
pany— Fire — Bill  of  lading — Limiting  lia- 
bility.— In  Amory  Mfg.  Co.  z'.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  89  Tex.  419,  37  S.  W.  856,  59  Am. 
St.  Rep."  65,  it  appeared  that  cotton  on 
the  platform  of  a  compress  company  near 
defendant's  railroad  track  was  destroyed 
by  fire;  that  while  it  was  on  the  plat- 
form the  railroad  company  executed  a 
]n\[  of  lading  binding  itself  to  transport 
the  cotton  to  M.,  N.  H.,  and  exempting 
itself  from  liability  for  its  loss  or  dam- 
age while  "in  transit  *  *  *,  at  depot  or 
place  of  trans-shipment."  It  was  held 
that  the  railroad  was  liable,  as  a  common 
carrier,  for  the  loss  of  the  cotton. 

86.  Contract. — Deming  v.  Merchants' 
Cotton  Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306,  17 
S.  W.  89,  13  L.  R.  A.  518. 

87.  Custom  establishing  liability. — Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Union  Ins.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   39   S.   W.   975. 


283  WlinX    LIARILITV    COMMKNCKS.  §§    397-400 

tween  the  shipper  and  the  carrier.'*''  Xor  rloes  the  mere  fact  that  the  cost  of 
compression  is  included  in  the  charge  for  transportation  and  paid  by  the  car- 
rier, render  the  carrier  liable  prior  to  the  actual  delivery  of  the  cotton."*"  And 
a  railroad  comi)any  does  not  become  liable  for  an  injury  to  cotton  caused  by 
the  negligence  of  a  compress  company,  exercising  an  independent  employment 
ill  the  handling  of  the  cotton,  by  reiison  merely  of  the  fact  that  the  railroad 
companv  has  taken  up  the  compress  comjjany's  receipts  for  cotton  received  for 
compression  and  issued  bills  of  lading  therefor  to  the  owners  of  the  cotton,  and 
has  agreed  to  ])av  the  comj)ress  conipaiiN's  charges  for  com])ression.'^"' 

A  contract  with  a  compress  company  to  transport  all  cotton  brought 
to  its  warehouse  does  not  rendc-r  llie  carrier  responsible  for  lobS  to  owners 
of  part  of  such  cotton,  for  which  it  has  given  no  bills  of  lading,  if  it  has  in  fact 
assumed  no  custody  or  control  of  any  of  the  cotton,  or  of  the  place  where  it 
was  kept  before  it  was  put  upon  the  cars,  although  it  has,  as  a  matter  of  con- 
venience, given  to  the  owners  of  other  parts  of  such  cotton  bills  of  lading  in 
exchange  for  the  warehouse  receipts  of  the  conijiress  comi)any,  and  although  it 
is  prohibited  by  statute,  under  a  ])enalty,  from  issuing  l)ills  of  lading  except  for 
goods  actually  received  into  its  ]iossession."i 

Effect  as  Change  of  Possession. — It  is  held  that  the  possession  of  cotton 
by  a  compress  company  is  not  so  changed,  by  the  issuance  by  a  railroad  com- 
pany to  the  owners  of  the  cotton  of  bills  of  lading,  as  to  render  void  an  insur- 
ance policy  in   favor  of  the  compress  company. •*- 

§  398.  Proof  of  Authority. — Where  goods  are  delivered  for  transportation 
to  an  agent  of  the  carrier,  who  is  clothed  with  api)arent  authority  to  accept  them 
for  such  purpose,  at  a  station  or  other  regular  place  for  the  reception  of  freight 
for  carriage,  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  agent's  authority  to  bind  the 
carrier;  but  if  the  delivery  to  the  agent  is  not  made  at  or  near  a  regular  or 
customary  place  for  the  acceptance  of  freight,  the  shipper  has  the  burden  of 
proving  that  such  agent  had  authority  to  bind  the  carrier  by  such  acceptance.^^ 

§§  399-406.  Complete  Delivery  for  Immediate  Shipment — §  399.  In 
General. — Such  delivery  to  the  carrier  must  be  shown  as  to  charge  the  latter 
with  the  duties  and  liabilities  of  a  carrier  with  respect  to  such  goods.''"* 

§  400.  Exclusive  Possession  and  Control. — In  General. — Delivery  of 
goods  to  a  common   carrier   for  transportation,   whether  actual   or  constructive, 

88.  Liability  to  assignee  of  bill  of  lad-  1  Pick.  50,  11  Am.  Dec.  133;  Missouri 
ing. — Missouri  I'ac.  R.  Co.  z-.  McFadden,  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  I'.d.  '.144.  14  S.  Ct.  35  Mo.  84;  Seasongood  v.  Tennessee,  etc., 
990.  Transp.    Co.,    21    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1142,    54    S. 

89.  Including  cost  of  compression  In  W.  193,  49  L.  R.  A.  270;  Abrams  z:  Piatt, 
charge  for  transportation. — I'.dwards  &  23  Misc.  637,  52  N.  Y.  S.  153.  See  ante, 
Co.  v.  Texas  Mid.  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  "Officers  and  Aeents  in  General."  §  394. 
\pp.)    81  S.  W.  800.  Delivered    at    distance    from    railroad — 

9o!  Martin  v.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  55  Authority    of    agent-Burden   of  proof.— 

Ark     510     19    S.    W.    314,   5r,   Am.    &    Hng.  Where    goods    are    claimed    to    have    been 

R    Cas    11'^  delivered    to    an    agent    or    defendant    car- 

'  —  „  ~'        r  ^        .,  rier,    at    a    distance    from    its    line    of   rail- 

91.  Effect    of    contract    with    compress  ^^^^_  ^^  ^^  ^^^^.^^  ^^  ^,^^  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^j^^,^^^ 

company.— St.  Louis    etc     k.Lu^z.  Com-  transported    on    its    line,   the   authority   of 

mcrcial   Union   Ins    Co.,   139  L.   S.  223,  3o  ^,^^     ^^^^^^^     ^,^^j^     purporting    to     act     as 

L.    I'.d.    l.}4.   11   S.   Lt.   o.)4.  agent,     to    bind     the    companv,     nmst    be 

92.  Possession  of  cotton  not  so  charged  shown.      Missouri    Coal,    etc'    R.    Co.    v. 
by  issuance  of  bills  of  lading  as  to  void  Hannilial.  etc..  R.  Co.,  35  Mo.  S4. 
insurance    policy. — California    Ins.    Co.    v.  94.     Complete    delivery    for    immediate 
L'nit>n    Compress    Co.,    133    U.    S.    387,    32  shipment. —  Dean   z\    King,    22   O.    St.    118; 
L.   Ed.  730,   10  S.  Ct.  3C.5.  Page   &   Co.  v.   Sandusky,   etc.,    R.    Co.,  4 

93.  Proof  —  Presumptions.  —  Cunard  West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec.  Reprint  716, 
Steamship  Co.  z:  Kelley,  53  C.  C.  A.  310,  718;  Despatch  Line  f.  Glenny  &  Co.,  41 
115  Fed.  678;  Dwight  v.  Brewster  (Mass.),       O.    St.    166. 


;§ -400-401 


CARRIERS. 


284 


being  a  bailment,  involves  exclusive  possession  in  tbe  carrier,  and  this  involves 
a  surrender  of  custody  and  control  for  .the  time  being  by  the  consignor.'*^  And 
unless  such  exclusive  possession  and  control  of  the  goods  have  been  surrendered 
to  the  carrier,  there  has  been  no  such  delivery  to  it  as  to  render  it  responsible 
as  a  common  carrier.'"'  The  delivery  must  be  such  as  to  place  the  goods  in 
the  custody  and  under  the  control  of  the  carrier,  and  not  merely  in  his  vehicle, 
or  other  conveyance ;  so  that  if  they  are  really  in  charge  of  the  owner's  servants, 
although  they  may  be  in  the  carrier's  wagon  or  vessel,  the  carrier  is  not  answer- 
able.''" A  railroad  company  is  not  responsible  as  a  common  carrier  for  stock 
placed  in  its  stock  yards  for  subsequent  shipment,  but  subject  to  the  right  of  the 
shipper  to  remove  the  stock  from  such  pens  for  feed  and  water,  before  the  ship- 
ment is  actuallv  made.''^  But  a  ferryman  is  liable  for  loss  of  or  damage  to  a 
carriage  and  horses,  which  is  placed  upon  the  drop  of  his  boat,  though  they  are 
driven  bv  the  owner's  driver.'**^ 

§§  401-406.  Delivery  for  Immediate  Shipment  or  Storage — §  401. 
In  General. — The  delivery  to  and  acceptance  by  the  carrier  must  be  for  trans- 
portation and  not  for  storage.^     In  order  to  render  the  carrier  liable  as  an  in- 

R.  754,  63  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  745, 
70  S.  E.  879;  Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    82    Ga.    386,    9    S.    E.    1076. 

loiva. — Frazier  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
48  Iowa  571. 

Mississippi. — Anderson  v.  Mobile,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Miss.),  19  R.  R.  R.  382,  42  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  382,  38  So.  661; 
Tate  V.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Miss.  842, 
29  So.  392,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  461,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  649. 

Nebraska. — Burrowes  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  85  Neb.  497,  35  R.  R.  R.  373,  58 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  373,  123  N.  W. 
1028;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  ^Co.  v.  Powers,  73 
Neb.  816,  18  R.  R.  R.  286,  41  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.,  N.   S.,  286,   103  N.  W.  678. 

New  York. — Grosvenor  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  39  N.  Y.  34,  5  Abb.  Prac, 
N.   S.,   345. 

North  Carolina. — Sumner  v.  Charlotte, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  N.  C.  289. 

South  Carolina. — Brown  r.  Atlanta,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  19  S.   C.  39. 

Tcnnesscc.^Stewurt  v.  Gracy,  93  Tenn. 
314,  27  S.  W.  664. 

97.  Goods  in  hands  of  consignor's  serv- 
ants.— Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  McVeigh,  61 
Va.   (20  Gratt.)   264. 

98.  Right  of  shipper  to  remove  for  feed 
and  water. — Cliicat^o,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Pow- 
ers 73  Neb.  H16,  18  R.  R.  R.  286,  41  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  286,  103  N.  W.  678. 

99.  Vehicle  driven  by  owner's  driver. — 
Cohen   v.    Hume    (S.    C),    1    McCord    439. 

1.  Delivery  must  be  for  transportation. 
—Butler  V.  Basing,  12  Eng.  C.  L.  287; 
Western  R.  Co.  v.  Bunch  (Eng.),  13  App. 
Cas  31,  57  L.  J.  Q.  B.  361;  Edwards  V. 
Sherratt  (Eng.),  1  East  604;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pool,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  682,  31 
S.  W.  688.  See  post,  "Carriers  as  Ware- 
houseman,"   chapter    13. 

Whether  carriers  or  forwarders — Effect 
of  instrument. — Wliere  parties,  who  were 
doing  Inisiness  as  forwarders  and  also  as 
carriers,  agreed  orally  to  transport  mer- 
chandise,   to    be    delivered    to    them    from 


95.  Exclusive  possession. — Wilson  f. 
Atlanta,  etc..  R.  Co..  82  Ga.  386,  9  S.  E. 
1076.  See  post,  "Title,  Custody  and  Con- 
trol of  Goods,"  chapter  9. 

So  when  freight  is  deposited  along  the 
carrier's  line  for  the  convenience  of  the 
owner  in  delivering  it  to  the  carrier  at 
some  future  time  and  the  latter  does  not 
assume  possession  and  custody  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  owner,  it  can  not  be 
deemed  to  have  accepted  the  goods  for 
shipment  and  its  responsibility  will  not 
begin  until  something  further  is  done. 
In  such  a  case  there  must  be  a  complete 
surrender  by  the  owner  to  the  carrier 
for  the  purpose  of  shipment  and  he  can 
not  hold  the  carrier  liable  if  he  con- 
tinues to  exercise  acts  inconsistent  with 
such  possession  and  custody.  Wilson  v. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Ga.  386,  9  S. 
E.   1076. 

And  a  carrier  receiving  lumber  for 
shipment  to  Europe  was  held  liable  on 
its  bill  of  lading  for  lumber  lost  after 
placing  it  on  the  pier  of  the  railway  com- 
pany and  under  its  exclusive  control. 
Lewis  V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  47  W. 
Va.  656,  35  S.  E.  908,  81  Am.  St.  Rep.  816. 

96.  United  States. — Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  McFadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed. 
944,  14  S.  Ct.  990;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed.  1077,  7 
S    Ct    1132. 

The  law  will  not  divide  the  duty  or  the 
obligation  between  the  carrier  and  the 
owner  of  the  goods;  it  must  rest  entirely 
upon  the  one  or  the  other;  and,  until  it 
has  become  imposed  upon  the  carrier  by  a 
delivery  and  acceptance,  he  can  not  be 
held  responsible  for  them.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  McFadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L. 
Ed.  944,  14  S.   Ct.  990. 

Delaware.— Reed  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst.  176;  Truax  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst. 
233. 

Georgia. — Horne-Andrews  Comm.  Co. 
V.  Georgia  R.   Co.,  136  Ga.  116,  40  R.   R. 


285 


\\lli;.\    I.IAIillJTV   COMMKXCKS. 


§  401 


surer  for  the  safety  of  j^oods  tendered  it   for  transportation  tliey  must  be  de- 
livered to,  and  acce])ted  l)y  it   for  immediate  sliii)ment.-     If  the  dejjosit  of  the 


tiino  to  time,  and  sul^scciucnlly,  on  rc- 
ccivinjr  a  portion  thereof  to  be  trans- 
ported pursuant  to  the  contract,  they  ex- 
ecuted an  instrument  stating  tliat  the 
same  was  received  to  he  forwarded,  it 
was  held  that  they  were  responsible  as 
carriers,  and  not  as  forwarders.  Blos- 
som V.  Griffin,  13  N.  Y.  5(39,  07  Am. 
Dec.   75. 

2.  Must  be  for  immediate  shipment. — 
I'nitcd  .S'/(//.\s-. --llaniiihal,  rtc,  1\.  Co.  v. 
vSwift  (L'.  S.),  12  Wall.  2ti2,  20  L.  Kd.  423, 
1  Am.  R.  Rep.  434;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  71),  30  L.  Ed.  1077, 
7  S.  Ct.  1132;  Pratt  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  95  U.   S.  43,  24   L.   Ed.  336. 

Alabama. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sig- 
ma Lumber  Co.,  170  Ala.  627,  40  R.  R. 
R.  197,  63  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  197, 
54  So.  205;  Mt.  Vernon  Co.  v.  Alabama, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ala.  296,  8  So.  687;  O'Ban- 
non  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  51  Ala.  481; 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavander,  170 
Ala.  601,  39  R.  R.  R.  338,  62  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  338,  54  So.  54. 

Arkansas. — Garner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  79  Ark.  353,  20  R.  R.  R.  527,  48  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  527,  96  S.  W.  187, 
116  Am.  St.  Rep.  83;  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hunter,  42  Ark.  200,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  527;  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harnett,  69  Ark.  150,  61  S.  W.  919;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  56  Ark.  279,  19 
S.  W.  963;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bur- 
row &  Co..  89  Ark.  178,  33  R.  R.  R.  754, 
56  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  754.  116  S. 
W.  198;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy, 
60  Ark.  333.  30  S.  W.  419. 

Connecticut. — Hickox  v.  Naugatuck  R. 
Co.,  31  Conn.  281,  83  Am.  Dec.  143;  Trow- 
l)ridge  v.  Chapin,  23  Conn.  595;  Merriam 
V.  Hartford,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Conn.  354,  52 
Am.   Dec.  344. 

Dakota. — Waldron  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   1  Dak.  351,  46  N.   W.  456. 

Delaware. — Reed  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst.  176;  Truax  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst. 
233. 

Georgia. — Dixon  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
110  Ga.  173,  35  S.  E.  369,  17  .\ni.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  380;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Newby,  36  Ga.   G35,  91  Am.   Dec.  783. 

///H(o/.y.— Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
son, 99  111.  App.  367;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Ashmead,  58  111.  487,  11  Am.  R.  Rep. 
59;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Smyser,  38 
111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Montgomery,  39  111.  335;  Grand 
Tower  Mfg.,  etc..  Co.  v.  Ullman,  89  111. 
244. 

Indiana. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Foster,  104  Ind.  293,  4  N.  E.  20,  54  Am. 
Rep.  319;  Van  Gilder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   44    Iowa   548. 


Kansas. — Missonri  Pac.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Riggs,  10   Kan.  App.  578,  62  Pac.  712. 

Kentuckw — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stiles,  133"  Ky.  786,  32  R.  R.  R.  231,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  231,  119  S.  W. 
786;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  American 
Tobacco  Co.,  126  Ky.  582,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1013,  25  R.  R.  R.  586,  48  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.   S..  586,  104  S.  W.  377. 

Louisiana. — Williams  v.  Peytavin  (La.), 
4  Mart.,  O.  S.,  304. 

.U(/i»f.— Wilson  V.  Grand  Trunk  Rail- 
way, 57  Me.     138,  2  Am.  Rep.  26. 

.Massacliusetts.  —  Barron  v.  Eldredge, 
100  Mass.  455,  1  Am.  Rep.  126;  Fitchl)urg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hanna  (Mass.),  6  Gray  539, 
66  Am.  Dec.  427;  Gass  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  99  Mass.  220,  96  Am.  Dec.  742; 
Merritt  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mass.),  11  Allen  80;  Murray  v.  Inter- 
national Steamship  Co..  170  Mass.  166,  48 
X.  E.  1093,  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  290;  Watts  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  Corp.,  106  Mass.  466;  Pit- 
lock  V.  Wells,   etc.,   Co.,   109  Mass.   452. 

Michigan. — Meloche  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  116  Mich.  69,  74  N.  W.  301,  10 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  82;  Michigan, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McDonough,  21  Mich.  165, 
4  Am.  Rep.  466;  Michigan,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Shurtz,  7  Mich.  515;  Stapleton  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  133  Mich.  187,  94  X.  W. 
739,  9  R.  R.  R.  332,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  X.  S.,  332. 

Mississif^f^i. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  f. 
Tronstine,  64  Miss.  834,  2  So.  255,  31 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  99. 

Missouri. — Goodbar  v.  Wabash  R.  Co., 
53  Mo.  App.  434;  McCrary  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  518,  74  S.  W. 
2;  Tate  v.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co..  78  Miss. 
842,  29  So.  392,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.   S..  461,   84   Am.   St.    Rep.   649. 

Xebraska. — Burrowes  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  85  Xeb.  497,  35  R.  R.  R.  373,  58 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  373.  123  N. 
W.  1028;  S.  C.  87  Xeb.  142,  37  R.  R.  R. 
450.  60  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S..  450, 
126  X.  W.  1084;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Powers,  73  Xeb.  816.  18  R.  R.  R.  286.  41 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  286.  163  N.  W. 
678;  Nelson  z-.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  78 
Xeb.  57.  23  R.  R.  R.  613,  46  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  613,  110  X.  W.  741. 

Xezv  Jersey. — New  Brunswick  Steam- 
boat, etc.,  Co.  V.  Tiers,  24  X.  J.  L.  697, 
64   Am.   Dec.   394. 

Xezi'  York. — Blanchard  z:  Isaacs  (X. 
Y.),  3  Barb.  388;  Ball  z:  Xew  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.  (N.  Y.).  1  Daly  491;  Blos- 
som z:  Griffin.  13  N.  Y.  569.  67  Am.  Dec. 
:.-.;  Spade  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.  (X.  Y.). 
16  Barl).  383;  London,  etc..  Fire  Ins.  Co. 
z:  Rome,  etc..  R.  Co.,  144  X.  Y.  200,  39  X. 
E.  79,  43  .\m.  St.  Rep.  752;  O'Xeill  v.  Xew 
York,  etc..  R.  Co..  60  X.  Y.  138.  10  Am. 
R.   Rep.   121:  Wade  z:  Wheeler.  47  X.   Y. 


§  401 


CARRIERS. 


286 


goods  is  a  mere  accessory  to  the  carriage,  that  is,  if  they  are  deposited  for 
the  purpose  of  being  carried  without  further  orders,  the  responsibihty  of  the 
carrier  begins  from  the  time  they  are  received,=^  so  while  goods  have  been  re- 
ceived by  a  carrier  for  transportation,  and  not  for  storage,  it  is  responsible  for 
them  as  a  common  carrier  while  they  are  in  its  possession  before  the  transporta- 
tion begins,  if  there  remains  nothing  more  for  the  shipper  to  do,  and  he  has 
rehnquished  all  control  over  the  goods  to  the  carrier.-*     Where  live  stock  is  de- 


658:  Witbeck  z\  Holland,  4,-)  X.  Y.  13. 
affirming  55  Barb.  443.  38  How.  Prac.  273; 
Shelton  z:  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp. 
Co..  59  N.  Y.  258,  48  How.  Prac.  257; 
Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  39 
N.   Y.  34,   5  Abb.   Prac,  N.  S.,  345. 

North  Carolina. — Berry  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  122  N.  C.  1002,  30  S.  E.  14;  Basnight 
z:  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  592,  W 
S.  E.  323;  Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  78  N.  C.  289;  Williams  v.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  155  N.  C.  260.  42  R.  R.  R.  105, 
65  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  105,  71  S. 
E.    346. 

Ohio. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
rett,  36   O.    St.   448. 

Peiiiisvhaiiia. — Clarke  v.  Needles,  25 
Pa.  St.  338. 

South  Carolina. — Cone  v.  Southern 
Railway,  85  S.  C.  524,  36  R.  R.  R.  179,  59 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  179,  67  S.  E. 
779. 

Tennessee. — American  Lead  Pencil  Co. 
V.  Nashville,  etc.,  Railway,  124  1  enn.  57, 
40  R.  R.  R.  202,  63  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.  S..  202,  134  S.  W.  613;  Southern  R.  Co. 
v.  Bickley.  etc..  Co.,  119  Tenn.  528. 
29  R.  R.  R.  275,  52  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  275,  107  S.  W.  680;  Watson  v.  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  R.  Co..  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.) 
255,   19  Am.   R.   Rep.   256. 

Texas. — East  Line,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hall. 
64  Tex.  615;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Comp- 
ton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  38  S.  W.  220;  Gulf. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  270,  15 
S.  W.  568,  18  S.  W.  948;  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dimmit  County  Pasture 
Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186,  23  S.  W.  754; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beard,  34  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  188,  78  S.  W.  253;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
37  S.  W.  255;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pool, 
10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  682,  31  S.  W.  688. 

Virginia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Veigh,  61    Va.    (20    Gratt.)    264. 

Washington. — Roy  v.  Griffin,  26  Wash. 
106,  66  Pac.   120. 

Wisconsin. — Goldberg  v.  Ahnapee,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  105  Wis.  1,  80  N.  W.  920,  47  L. 
R.  A.  221,  17  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
65,  76  Am.  St.  Rep.  899;  Schmidt  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Wis.  504,  63  X.  W. 
1057;  White  v.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  4() 
Wis.  493,  1  N.  W.  75,  21  .\m.  R.  Rep. 
398. 

England. — Western  R.  Co.  v.  Bunch 
(Eng.),  13  App.  Cas.  31,  57  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
361;  Lovell  v.  London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  L. 


J.    Q.    B.     476.   34   L.   T.    127.   24   W.   R.   394, 
6  R.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  ixix,  3  R.  &  C.  T.  xx. 

3.  Absolute  deposit  with  carrier. — 
Pratt  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  95  U.  S. 
43.   24    L.    Ed.   336. 

Where  goods  are  delivered  to  a  com- 
mon carrier  for  transportation,  and  are 
placed  in  its  depot  or  warehouse  await- 
ing transportation,  with  nothing  further 
to  be  done  by  the  shipper,  and  they  are 
burned  before  being  shipped,  the  carrier 
so  receiving  them  is  liable  as  a  common 
carrier,  and  not  merely  as  a  warehouse- 
man. Grand  Tower  '  Mfg..  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Ullman,    S9    111.    244. 

Deposit  mere  accessory  to  carriage. — 
If  a  common  carrier  receives  goods  into 
its  own  warehouse  for  the  accommoda- 
tion of  itself  and  the  shipper  so  that  the 
deposit  there  is  a  mere  accessory  to  the 
carriage,  and  for  the  purpose  of  facili- 
tating it,  its  liability  as  a  common  carrier 
begins  with  the  receipt  of  the  goods. 
Clarke  v.   Needles,   25    Pa.   St.   338. 

Both  carrier  and  warehouseman.^ 
Where  a  party,  who  is  both  a  carrier  and 
a  warehouseman,  receives  goods  into  his 
w-arehouse  to  be  transported  by  him,  his 
responsibility  as  a  common  carrier  com- 
mences when  they  are  received.  Blossom 
V.    Griffin,   13   N.   Y.   569.   67   Am.   Dec.   75. 

Liability  of  a  railway  as  a  common  car- 
rier attaches  whenever  the  shipper  has 
done  all  that  is  required  of  him  to  pre- 
pare his  property  for  shipment,  and  has 
delivered  the  same  to  the  railway  com- 
pany and  it  has  been  accepted.  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dimmit  County 
Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186,  23  S. 
W.  754,  distinguishing  1  exas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491,  495  and  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorquodale,  71  Tex.  41, 
9  S.  W.  80,  and  following  East  Line,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hall,  64  Tex.  615,  and  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  270,  15  S.  W. 
568,  18  S.  W.  948;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pool,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  682,  31  S.  W.  688; 
Martin  v.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  556,  22  S.  W.  1007;  Ft.  Worth, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Martin,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
464,  35  S.  W.  21,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  660, 
no  op.;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty.  82 
Tex.   608,    IS    S.   W.    716. 

4.  Carrier's  possession  prior  to  trans- 
portation.—  United  States. — Bulkley  v. 
Xaunikt-ag  Steam  Cotton  Co.,  24  How. 
386.  16  L.  Ed.  599;  The  Oregon,  1  Deady, 
179    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,553. 

Illinois. — Grand  Tower  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co. 
V.    Ullman,    89    111.    244;    Illinois    Cent.    R. 


287 


WIIKN    IJAI'.ILITV    COMMENCES. 


§    -^1 


livered  to  a  railroad  company  its  liability  as  an  insurer  commences  as  soon  as 
the  animals  have  been  properly  received  into  its  stock  pens  for  immediate  trans- 
l)ortation.''  And  if  there  is  a  delivery  and  acceptance  for  immediate  or  early 
transportation,  the  carrier  is  liable,''  although  it  may  not  be  able  to  transport 
them  promptly,  and  there  may  be  a  long  storage  of  them  jjrior  to  shipment  J 
15ut  where  freight  is  delivered  to  a  carrier  by  a  shipper,  knowing  that  the  car- 
rier's power  to  transport  it  is  subject  to  the  permission  of  the  military  authority, 
such  delivery  can  only  be  for  storage  until  such  permission  can  be  obtained.^ 


Co.  V.  Aslmuad,  ."s  111.  4sT.  11  Am.  R. 
Rep.  59. 

Kcutuckw — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
125  Ky.  056,  25  R.  R.  R.  (■)52,  48  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.,  N.  S.,  052,   102  S.   W.  2:i2. 

Louisiana. — Greenwood  z'.  Cooper,  10 
La.    Ann.    796. 

Massaclntsetts. — Jordan  v.  Fall  River 
R.  Co.  (Mass.),  5  Cush.  69,  51  Am.  Dec. 
44;  Murray  Z'.  International  Steamship 
Co.,  170  Mass.  166,  48  N.  E.  1()9;{,  64  Am. 
St.  Rep.  290;  Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hanna  (Mass.),  6  'Gray  5:59,  06  Am.  Dec. 
427;  Merritt  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mass.),    11    Allen    80. 

Michigan. — Meloche  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  116  Mich.  69,  74  N.  W.  ;U)1,  10  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  82. 

Missouri. — Mason  r.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,   25    Mo.    App.   473. 

Nczi'  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  Railroad,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 
222. 

Xczi'  York. — Blossom  v.  Griffin,  13  X. 
Y.  569,  67  Am.  Dec.  75;  London,  etc..  Fire 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y. 
200,  39  N.  E.  79,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  752; 
Rogers   v.   Wheeler,   52   N.   Y.   262. 

0/n'o.— Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
rett,  36    O.    St.    448. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beard, 
34  Tex.    Civ.   App.    188,   78   S.    W.   253. 

Wisconsin. — White  v.  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co.,  46  Wis.  493,  1  X.  W.  75,  21  Am.  R. 
Rep.    398. 

5.  In  case  of  live  stock. — Arkansas. — A 
railroad  company's  lialiility  as  a  common 
carrier  for  damage  to  stock  begins  when 
it  receives  the  animal  for  transportation. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Mitchell  (Ark  ), 
43  R.  R.  R.  673,  66  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
X.    S.,    673. 

Indiana. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  God- 
man,  104  Ind.  490,  4  N.  E.  163. 

Indian  Tcrritorv. — Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Byrne.  3  Ind."  T.  740.  49  S.  W.  41.  13 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S..  17. 

Kentuclcv. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Stiles.  133  Ky.  780,  32  R.  R.  R.  231,  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  231,  119  S.  W. 
786. 

Missouri. — Lackland  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  101  Mo.  App.  420,  11  R.  R.  R.  414,  34 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S..  414.  74  S.  W. 
505;  Mason  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co..  25 
Mo.  App.  473:  Pruitt  v.  Hannibal,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  62   Mo.   527. 

Xebraska. — Xelson    z\    Chicago,    etc..    R. 


Co.,  78  Xeb.  57,  23  R.  R.  R.  613,  46  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,   X.  S.,  013.  110  X.  W.  741. 

Texas. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jack- 
son (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  37  S.  W.  255;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  270,  15  S. 
W.  568,  18  S.  W.  948. 

Virginia. — Xorfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Har- 
man,  91  \'a.  601,  22  S.  E.  490,  44  L.  R.  A. 
289.  50  Am.  St.   Rep.  855. 

England. — MofTatt  z'.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,   15   L.  T.  fi3(). 

6.  Delivery  for  early  transportation. — 
When  tlie  delivery  of  freight  is  made  at 
the  warehouse,  or  other  place  of  liusiness 
of  the  carrier,  for  early  transportation,  it 
becomes,  the  moment  the  delivery  is 
made,  a  common  carrier  as  to  such  freight, 
and  its  responsibility,  as  such,  at  once  at- 
taches. In  such  cases  the  deposit  is  a 
mere  accessory  to  the  carriage,  and  does 
not  postpone  its  liability  as  a  common 
carrier  to  the  time  when  the  goods  shall 
be  actuallj^  put  in  motion  towards  their 
place  of  destination;  and  this  principle  is 
applicable  to  the  shipment  of  live  stock. 
Mason  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  25  Mo. 
App.  473. 

Promise  to  ship  next  morning. — Where 
goods  properly  marked  are  placed  inside 
of  defendant's  freight  depot  for  immedi- 
ate shipment,  and  defendant's  agents 
agree  to  ship  them  on  the  following 
morning,  defendant  is  liable  as  a  common 
carrier.  Meloche  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
116  Mich.  69.  74  X.  W.  301,  10  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  S2. 

Letter  as  direction  for  immediate  ship- 
ment— Request  to  mark  prepaid  not  con- 
dition precedent  to  shipment. — A  shipper 
wrote  to  the  freight  agent  of  a  railroad 
company,  "Will  you  please  *  *  *  have 
these  three  pieces  marked  according  to 
the  address  already  tacked  on  and  for- 
ward immediately  to  Xewport,  R.  I.  Will 
you  mark  them  prepaid?  I  will  be  at  the 
depot  tomorrow  and  get  the  bill  of  lading 
and  pay  the  freight."  It  was  held  that 
this  letter  was  direction  for  immediate 
shipment  and  did  not  make  the  marking 
of  the  pieces  as  prepaid  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  the  shipment.  Berrv  f.  South- 
ern R.  Co..  122  X.  C.  1002.  30  S'.  E.  14. 

7.  Lack  of  cars — Long  storage — Duty 
to  load  cars  when  furnished. — London, 
etc..  Fire  Ins.  Co.  z\  Rome,  etc..  R.  Co., 
144  X.  Y.  200.  ;;9  X.  I-"..  79.  43  Am.  St.  Rep. 
752. 

8.  Power  to  transport  corn  subject  to 
permission    of    military    authorities — Com 


CARRIERS. 


288 


§§  401-402 

Accepted  for  Immediate  or  Remote  Shipment  and  Placed  on  Carrier's 

Platform.— Where  gootls  are  accepted  for  shii)inent,  whether  intended  to  be 
inmiediate  or  remote,  the  placing  of  the  goods  upon  its  platform  renders  the  car- 
rier responsible  for  any  damages  thereto  from  fire  onginatmg  wjthm  its  right 
of  way.''  Thus  where'  a  car  on  the  carrier's  side  track  is  loaded,  sealed,  and 
the  bill  of  ladin>;  issued,  the  carrier's  liability  attaches  at  once.^" 

No  Direction  or  Intention  to  Ship  Immediately.— If  goods  are  deluered 
to  a  railroad  company  and  receiyed  by  it  for  shipment,  they  may  be  transmitted 
without  the  issuance  of  a  bill  of  lading,  and  may  be  regarded  as  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  railroad,  as  a  common  carrier,  from  the  time  they  are  receiyed,  though 
there  was  no  instruction  or  intention  that  the  carrier  should  immediately  make 
the   shipment.^ ^ 

§§  402-406.  Something  to  Be  Done  Prior  to  Transportation— §  402. 
In  General.— The  liability  of  a  railroad  company,  as  a  common  carrier,  for 
goods  destroyed  while  in  its  possession  depends  on  whether  or  not  it  has  ac- 
cepted them  'for  transixjrtation,  and  not  whether  all  has  been  done  that  ought 
to  precede  such  acceptance,  and  if  it  takes  control  of  goods  and  puts  its  agents 
to  preparing  them  for  shipment,  it  has  accepted  them.i^  Hewever,  it  is  gen- 
erally said  that  as  long  as  there  remains  something  to  be  done  by  the  shipper 
befo're  the  entire  control  of  the  freight  is  surrendered  to  the  carrier,  the  latter's 
liability  as  a  common  carrier  does  not  begin. ^"^     Thus,  it  is  held  that  although 


delivered  into  cars  and  warehouse  of  car- 
rier— No  shipper's  receipt. — Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Ashmead,  58  111.  487,  11  Am.  R. 
Rep.  59. 

9.  Goods  on  carrier's  platform. — Grif- 
fin r.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  S9  S.  C.  547, 
72  vS.   E.  463. 

No  trains  scheduled  until  next  day- 
Shipper's  knowledge. — A  carrier  received 
frei.^ht  for  transportation,  though  it  had 
no  trains  scheduled  to  carry  it  until  the 
following  day.  The  shipper  knew  the 
facts,  and  understood  that  the  goods 
would  be  stored  in  the  depot  until  the  fol- 
lowing day.  It  was  held  that  the  carrier 
while  so  holding  the  goods  at  the  depot 
was  liable  as  a  carrier,  and  not  as  a  ware- 
houseman. Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  125 
Ky.  G56^  25  R.  R.  R.  652,  48  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.,   N.   S.,  652,   102   S.  W.   232. 

10.  Loaded  car  on  carrier's  side  track 
near  grain  elevator — Bill  of  lading  sent  to 
elevator  company's  office. — A  railroad 
company  maintained  a  side  track  adjacent 
to  a  wheat  elevator.  A  car  was  loaded 
for  shipment,  and  a  bill  of  lading  was  is- 
sued and  sent  to  the  elevator  company's 
office.  The  bill  of  lading  provided  that 
the  carrier  should  be  liable  for  any  loss  or 
damage.  It  was  held  that  car  was  received 
for  shipment,  and  having  burned  on  the 
side  track  before  it  was  removed,  the 
railroad  was  liable  as  a  common  carrier. 
Cincinnati  Grain  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  146  Ky.  237,  43  R.  R.  R.  682,  66  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  682,  142  S.  W.  374. 

11.  No  direction  or  intention  to  ship  im- 
mediately.— Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Beard,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  188,  78  S.  W. 
253. 

12.  Something  to  be  done  prior  to  trans- 


portation.— East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall, 
04    Tex.    015. 

13.  Something  to  be  done  by  shipper. — 
United  States. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed.  1077,  7  S. 
Ct.    1132. 

Alabama. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cav- 
ender,  170  Ala.  601,  39  R.  R.  R.  338,  62 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  338,  54  So.  54. 

Arkansas. — Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hunter,  42  Ark.  200,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  527;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Murphy, 
60  Ark.  333,  30  S.  W.  419;  Kansas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  69  Ark.  150,  61  S.  W. 
919. 

Dclazvare. — Reed  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Del.),   3   Houst.    176. 

District  of  Columbia. — Bowie  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  MacArthur  (8  D. 
C),   94. 

Georgia. — Dixon  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
110  Ga.  173,  35  S.  E.  369,  17  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  380;  Wilson  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Ga.  386,  9  S.  E.  1076. 

Illinois. — Grand  Tower  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Ullman,  89  111.  244;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Montgomery,  39  111.  335;  Toledo,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gilvin,  81  111.  511;  -Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Smyscr,  38  111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec. 
301. 

loii'a. — Van  Gilder  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Iowa  548. 

Kansas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Riggs, 
10  Kan.  App.  578,  62  Pac.  712. 

Massachusetts. — Judson  v.  Western  R. 
Corp.  (Mass.),  4  Allen  520,  81  Am.  Dec. 
718;  Watts  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Corp.,  106 
Mass.   466. 

Michigan. — Stapleton  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 

Co.,  133  Mich.  187,  9  R.  R.  R.  332,  32  Am. 

&  Eng.  R.   Cas.,  N.  S.,  332,  94  N.  W.  739. 

Nebraska. — Burrowes    v.    Chicago,    etc., 


289 


WIII-.X    LIAUILITV   COMMENCES. 


402 


the  sliipper  has  delivered  the  goods  to  the  carrier,  if  after  such  dehvery  any- 
thing required  either  by  law  or  contract  remains  to  be  done  by  the  shipper,  the 
rights  and  liability  of  tlic  carrier  are  those  only  of  a  warehouseman.'^  Where 
a  part  only  of  the  freight  is  loaded,  the  balance  to  be  loaded  another  day,  after 
the  shipper  finishes  using  it,  the  carrier  is  not  liable.^"'  And  a  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  grain  which  is  to  be  hauled  by  the  shipper  and  loaded  on  board  a  ves- 
sel, although  the  weighing  has  been  tallied  by  the  carrier's  agent.'*' 


R.  Co.,  85  Xel).  497,  3">  R.  R.  R.  '.il'.i,  58 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  373,  123  X.  W. 
1028. 

iVrw  Hauipsltirc. — Barter  &  Co.  v. 
Wheeler,  49  N.  H.  9,  6  Am.  Rep.  434; 
Elkins  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  N.  H. 
375;  Moses  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  24 
N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  222. 

Nezi'  York. — Spade  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.  (N.  Y.),  IG  Barb.  383;  London,  etc.. 
Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144 
N.  Y.  200,  39  N.  E.  79,  43  Am.  St.  Rep. 
752;  O'Neill  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
60  N.  Y.  138,  10  Am.  R.  Rep.  121. 

North  Carolina. — Basnight  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  N.  C.  592,  IG  S.  E.  323; 
Sumner  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  N. 
C.  289;  Berry  z:  Southern  R.  Co.,  122  N. 
C.    1002,   30   S.    E.    14. 

0/no.— Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Bar- 
ret, 3G  O.  St.  448. 

Totiicsscc. — American  Lead  Pencil  Co. 
V.  Nashville,  etc.,  Railway,  124  Tenn.  57, 
40  R.  R.  R.  202,  G3  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,    202,    134    S.    W.    G13. 

T('.ra.y.— Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Beard, 

34  Tex.   Civ.  App.   188,  78   S.  W.  253. 
Wisconsin. — Schmidt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 

Co.,    90    Wis.    504,    63    N.    W.    1057. 

So  long  as  anything  further  is  to  be 
done  or  orders  to  be  given  by  the  owner 
to  enable  the  company  to  perform  its 
dut3%  it  would  be  a  bailee  of  a  different 
character  than  as  carrier,  and  the  ques- 
tion of  ordinary  care  on  the  part  of  the 
company  miglit  become  a  prime  factor  in 
the  determination  of  the  suit.  In  the  lat- 
ter case  the  depository  or  warehouseman 
would  only  be  liable  for  negligence  or 
want  of  ordinary  care  of  the  property, 
and  the  burden  would  be  on  the  plaintiff 
as  to  negligence.  In  the  other  case,  the 
onus  probandi  as  to  due  care  would  be 
upon  the  defendant  whenever  the  damage 
is  proved.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dimmit  County  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    186,    23    S.    W.    754. 

14.  Liable  only  as  warehouseman. — 
Dixon  T'.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Cci.,  J 10  Ga.  173, 

35  S.  E.  369,  17  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  380.  See  post,  "Carrier  as  Warehouse- 
man," chapter  13.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Sizer  &  Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  126,  60  S.  E. 
1026;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pool,  10  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  682,  31  S.  W.  688;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McCarty,  82  Tex.  G08,  18  S.  W.  716. 

In  Dixon  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 
Ga.  173,  35  S.  E.  369,  17  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   N.  S.,  380,  it  is  said:   "Wlicre  goods 

1   Car— 19 


to  be  shipped  are  situated  upon  a  spur 
track  of  a  railway  company,  and  the 
owner  has  no  track  scales,  thus  rendering 
it  necessary  to  move  the  loaded  car  to 
the  company's  depot  for  the  purpose  of 
weighing  the  same,  so  as  to  ascertain  the 
proper  amount  of  freight  charges,  the  de- 
livery of  such  cars  will  i)e  treated  as  hav- 
ing l)een  made  to  such  comptiny  at  such 
depot."  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Sizer  & 
Co..  4  Ga.  .^pp.  l^f),  (H)  S.    I-"..   in:jt-,. 

Can  load  in  carrier's  warehouse  ready 
for  shipment — Agent  notified  Promise  to 
furnish  car  next  morning  for  shipper  to 
load. — Plaintitif,  who  had  goods  stored  in 
defendant's  warehouse,  notified  its  agent 
that  he  had  a  car  load  ready  to  be  shipped, 
and  asked  him  if  he  could  get  a  car  and 
load  them.  The  agent  said  that  it  was 
impossible  to  get  a  car  that  day,  but  that 
he  would  load  them  the  ne.xt  morning. 
PlaintifY  said,  ".Ml  right,  I  will  be  there 
to  load  them."  He  took  no  receipt  at  the 
time  because  he  was  in  the  habit  of  being 
present  at  shipments  and  taking  receipts 
then.  That  night  the  warehouse  and 
contents  were  destroyed  by  fire  without 
fault  of  the  defendant.  It  was  held  that  the 
duty  of  transportation  had  not  arisen  prior 
to  the  fire  so  as  to  justify  the  direction 
of  a  verdict  for  defendant.  Schmidt  z\ 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Wis.  504,  03  X. 
W.    l().-.7. 

15.  Part  of  show  outfit  loaded  into  car 
on  Sunday — Part  retained  for  use — Agree- 
ment to  finish  loading  on  Monday — Car 
burned. — The  plaintiff,  who  was  the  pro- 
prietor of  a  tent  show,  loaded  a  part  of 
his  outfit  on  Sunday  afternoon  into  a  car 
furnished  him  by  the  railroad  company, 
and  retained  the  remainder  for  his  use 
during  the  following  night,  under  an 
agreement  with  the  agent  that  the  plain- 
tiff would  finish  loading  the  car  on  the 
following  Monday  morning,  when  it  was 
to  be  hauled  to  a  station  some  12  miles 
distant.  The  car  containing  the  goods 
was  destroyed  by  fire,  without  negligence 
on  the  part  of  the  defendant  carrier,  be- 
fore the  time  came  for  loading  the  re- 
mainder of  plaintiff's  outfit.  It  was  held 
that  defendant  was  not  liable  as  a  com- 
mon carrier  for  the  loss  occasioned 
thereby.  Burrowes  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  85  Neb.  497,  35  R.  R.  R.  373,  58  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  37.^,  12.T  N.  W.  102S. 

16.  Grain  weighed  into  cars  and  hauled 
to  edge  of  dock  by  warehouseman — Tal- 
lied by  mate.— The  fact  that  a  warehouse- 


§§  402-404 


CARRIERS. 


290 


Cotton  at  Compress. — W'liere  cotton,  at  the  carrier's  compress  house,  is 
under  the  shipper's  control  until  hales  are  selected  for  shipment  to  correspond 
with  the  bills  of  lading,  the  carrier  is  liable  only  from  the  time  the  bales  are 
selected  and  set  apart.'' 

§  403.  Absence  of  Directions  as  to  Shipment. — Where  a  carrier  re- 
ceives goods  without  tlircctions  as  to  destination  it  is  liable  only  as  a  ware- 
houseman.^^ 

§  404.  Payment  of  Charges. — Where  a  common  carrier  receives  goods 
which  can  nut  be  transported  until  charges  for  transportation  are  paid  the  re- 


man weighed  grain  into  cars  in  the  ware- 
house, which  cars  were  then  to  be  taken 
by  the  warehouseman's  horses  and  men 
to  the  edge  of  the  dock  thence  to  be  dis- 
charged into  the  vessel;  and  that  "each 
car  was  tallied  by  the  mate  or  other  au- 
thorized officer  of  the  vessel,  in  the  ware- 
houses," did  not  constitute  delivery,  there 
of  the  grain  to  the  ship  master.  Glass  v. 
Goldsmith,   22   Wis.   4.SS. 

17.  Cotton  under  shipper's  control  while 
at  carrier's  compress  house — Bales  se- 
lected for  shipment  by  shipper,  to  corre- 
spond with  bills  of  lading. — Jn  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knight,  132  U.  S.  79,  30  L. 
Ed.  1077,  7  S.  Ct.  1132,  it  appeared  that 
plaintiff  shipped  by  rail  a  large  quantity 
of  cotton  at  different  times,  and  at  differ- 
ent points  south  of  Texarkana,  Ark.,  to 
be  made  up  into  bales  there  at  a  com- 
press house,  and  to  be  thence  forwarded 
to  various  destinations  North  and  East. 
The  work  at  the  compress  house  was  to 
be  done  by  the  defendant  carrier,  but  un- 
der directions  of  the  shipper,  who  had 
control  of  the  cotton  there  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  who  superintended  the  weigh- 
ing, the  closing,  and  the  marking  of  it, 
and  who  selected  for  shipment  the  par- 
ticular bales  to  fill  the  respective  orders 
at  the  points  of  destination.  Bills  of  lad- 
ing for  it  were  issued  from  time  to  time 
by  the  agents  of  the  railroad  company, 
sometimes  in  advance  of  the  separation 
by  plaintiff  of  particular  bales  from  the 
mass  to  correspond  with  them.  Plaintiff 
was  in  the  habit  of  drawing  against  ship- 
ment with  bills  of  lading  attached,  and 
his  drafts  were  discounted  at  local  banks. 
When  shipments  were  heavy,  drafts  would 
often  mature  before  the  arrival  of  the 
cotton.  .525  bales,  marked  on  the  margin 
as  of  a  quality,  were  so  selected,  and 
shipped  to  K.  at  Providence,  K.  I.  The 
bill  of  lading  described  them  as  "contents 
unknown,"  "marked  and  numbered  as  per 
margin."  The  contents  of  the  bales  •  on 
arrival  were  found  not  to  correspond  with 
the  margin.  The  consignee  had  honored 
the  draft  before  the  arrival  of  the  cotton. 
He  refused  to  receive  the  cotton,  and  sold 
it  on  account  of  the  railroad  company, 
after  notice  to  it.  and  sued  in  assumpsit, 
on  the  bill  of  lading,  to  recover  from  the 
company,      as      a     common     carrier,      the 


amount  of  the  loss.  It  was  held  that  de- 
fendant's liability  as  a  common  carrier 
began  only  when  specified  lots  were 
marked  and  designated  and  set  apart  to 
correspond  with  a  bill  of  lading  then  or 
previously  issued.  See  ante,  "Delivery  of 
Cotton   to   Compress   Company,"   §   397. 

18.  Absence  of  direction  as  to  shipment. 
— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavender,  170 
Ala.  GOl,  39  R.  R.  R.  338,  62  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  338,  54  So.  54.  See  post, 
"Carrier  as  Warehouseman,"  chapter  13. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pool,  10  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    fiS2,   31    S.   W.    688. 

Awaiting  directions  as  to  destination — 
Failure  to  transport. — Where  goods  were 
sent  to  a  railroad  depot  and  deposited  on 
the  stoop  of  the  freig\ic  house,  no  one 
being  there  to  receive  them,  and  the  cart' 
man  subsequently  informed  the  freight 
agent  that  the  owner  of  the  goods  would 
call  and  order  where  they  should  go,  but 
there  was  no  proof  that  any  such  direc- 
tion ever  was  given  by  the  owner,  it  was 
held  that  the  company  could  not  be  held 
liable  for  not  transporting  the  goods. 
Spade  V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
16    Barb.    383. 

Car  loaded — Failure  to  notify  agent — ■ 
Moved  to  another  track — Awaiting  or- 
ders.— In  an  action  for  damages  for  neg- 
ligence in  allowing  the  burning  of  some 
timber  on  a  car  intended  for  shipment, 
it  appeared  that  plaintiff  loaded  the  car 
while  on  defendant's  track,  but  did  not 
notify  agent  that  it  was  ready  for  ship- 
ment, nor  of  the  name  of  the  consignee. 
The  car  was  moved  by  defendant's  agent 
to  another  track  (constructed  for  ship- 
per's convenience)  very  close  to  a  dry- 
kiln,  from  which  it  took  fire.  The  court 
found  by  consent  that  the  tiinber  had 
l)een  left  with  defendant,  awaiting  orders 
for  shipment,  and,  as  a  conclusion  of  law, 
that  defendant  was  not  an  insurer,  but  a 
simple  warehouseman  witli  respect  to 
plaintiff's  timber.  It  was  held  that  de- 
fendant was  not  liable  as  a  common  car- 
rier. Basnight  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Ill   N.   C.  592,   16  S.   E.  323. 

Freight  on  platform  awaiting  instruc- 
tions as  to  shipment. — Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Beard,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  188,  78  S. 
W.    253. 


291 


WIIIv.V    r.IABIIJTV    COMMK.VCIvS. 


§§  404-407 


sponsibility  of  the  carrier  is  not  that  of  an  insurer,  but  that  of  a  warehouseman, 
who  is  liclrl  to  onl\'  ordinary  care  for  their  safety.^'' 

§  405.  Deposit  Subject  to  Shipper's  Order.— When  goods  are  deposited 
subject  to  the  further  order  of  the  owner,  this  does  not  constitute  a  dehvery  so 
as  to  render  the  carrier  responsible  from  that  time.-"  So  where  the  shipper  re- 
quests a  delay  while  he  sees  the  vendee  of  goods  on  the  car,  the  carrier  is  not 

liable  other   than   ;i^   a    warehouseman.-' 

§  406.  Necessity  for  Loading  on  Cars.— In  order  for  a  railroad  com- 
pany's liability  as  a  common  carrier  of  freight  to  begin,  it  is  not  necessary  that 
the  goods  be  loaded  on  the  cars  which  are  intended  for  their  transportation  to 
the  consignee.--  And  the  mere  fact  that  it  is  the  shipper's  contract  duty  to  load 
the  freight  on  the  cars  does  not  prevent  the  railroad  company's  liability  as  an 
insurer  from  commencing  before  the  goods  or  live  stock  are  on  the  car's.--'  If 
such  a  regulation  by  a  carrier  is  of  any  binding  force,  it  at  most  always  re- 
quires shipi)ers  of  the  specified  kinds  of  freight  to  furnish  the  necessary  help 
to  load  the  freight,  and  does  not  change  the  company's  relation  to  property  de- 
livered to  and  accepted  l)y  it  for  the  sole  pur])ose  of  being  carried  o\er  its  road.-"* 

§   407,  Necessity  for  and  Effect  of  Bill  of  Lading-. — A  carrier  bv  occu- 


19.  Payment  of  charges. — St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  CaveiukT,  170  Ala.  GOl,  3'J 
R.  R.  R.  33S,  62  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  338,  54  So.  54.  Sec  post,  "Carrier  as 
Warehouseman,"    chapter    I'A. 

20.  Deposit  with  carrier  subject  to  fur- 
ther orders. — Pratt  r.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  95  U.  S.  43,  24  L.  Ed.  336;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Cavender,  170  Ala.  601,  54 
So.  54,  39  R.  R.  R.  338,  62  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  338;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McCarty,  82  Tex.  608,  18  S.  W.  716;  In- 
ternational, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dimmit  County 
Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  18G,  23  S. 
W.  754;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pool,  10  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  6s;>.  ;5i  S.  W.  r>ss. 

In  warehouse  awaiting  orders. — A  rail- 
road comjniny  is  not  lialjle  as  common 
carrier  for  property  deposited  in  its  ware- 
house, to  await  orders  from  the  owner 
for  its  transportation.  Michigan,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Shurtz,  7  Midi.  51.j. 

If  the  same  company  is  both  a  common 
carrier  and  a  warehouseman,  and  goods 
are  delivered  to  it  to  be  transported  when 
it  has  orders  from  the  owner,  its  liability 
in  the  mean  time  is  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man, and  not  that  of  a  common  carrier. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomery,  39 
111.   ;i3.-,. 

21.  Request  for  opportunity  to  see  ven- 
dee of  hay  on  cars. — Where  a  shipper  de- 
livered to  a  railroad  company,  for  trans- 
portation, a  quantity  of  ha3^  which  was 
placed  on  platform  cars,  and,  the  next 
day,  when  the  company  was  about  to  send 
it  forward,  he  requested  that  it  should  not 
be  taken  away  l)cfore  he  could  first  see 
the  party  to  whom  it  was  sold,  which  re- 
quest was  complied  with,  and  the  next 
day  the  hay  was  ignited  by  sparks  from 
a  passing  locomotive,  and  a  portion  of 
it  burned,  it  was  held  that  from  the  mo- 
ment   the    shipper    requested    the    hay    to 


be  detained,  the  liability  of  the  railroad 
was  that  of  a  warehouseman  only.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montgomerv,  39 
111.    335. 

22.  Necessity  for  loading  on  cars. — 
I'nitcd  Slates. — Bulkley  v.  Xaumkeag 
Steam  Cotton  Co.  (U.  S.),  24  How.  386, 
16  L.  Ed.  599;  The  Oregon  (U.  S.),  1 
Deady    179,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,553. 

Louisiana. — Greenwood  v.  Cooper,  10 
La.  Ann.  796. 

Massachusetts. — Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hanna  (Mass.),  6  Gray  539,  66  Am.  Dec. 
427;  Merritt  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mass.),  11  Allen  80. 

Xcw  York. — London,  etc..  Fire  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.  200,  39 
X.    E.  79,  43  Am.  St.   Rep.  752. 

England. — Grant  v.  Norwav.  2  Eng.  L. 
&    Eq.    337.    70    E.    C.    L.    t)65' 

23.  Shipper's  duty  to  load. — United 
States. — Bulkley  v.  Xaumkeag  Steam  Cot- 
ton Co.  (U.  S.),  24  How.  386,  16  L.  Ed. 
599;  The  Bark  Edwin  (U.  S.).  1  Spraguc 
477:  The  Oregon  (U.  S.),  Deady  179,  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   10,553. 

Illinois. — Pennsylvania  Co.  f.  Kenwood 
Bridge    Co.,    170    111.    645.    49    X.    E.    215. 

Louisia>ia. — Greenwood  v.  Cooper,  10 
La.   Ann.   796. 

Massachusetts. — Fitchburg,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
7'.  Hanna  (Mass.),  6  Gray  539,  66  Am. 
Dec.  427;  Merritt  v.  Old  Colony,  etc..  R. 
Co.    (Mass.),   11   Allen   80. 

Xc'ii'  York. — London,  etc..  Fire  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  N.  Y.  200,  39 
N.    \'..   79,   43   Am.    St.    Rep.   752. 

24.  Effect  of  regulations. — London,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Rome,  etc..  R.  Co.,  68  Hun  598, 
23  N.  Y.  S.  231,  52  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  581, 
affirmed  in  144  N.  Y.  200.  39  N.  E.  79,  43 
Am.  St.  Rep.  752.  See  ante,  "Rules  and 
Regulations    of    Carriers,"    chapter    3. 


4o; 


CARRIERS. 


292 


pation  is  not  relieved  from  all  accountability  because  he  has  not  signed  a  bill  of 
lading.-''  Although  a  bill  of  lading  has  not  been  issued  the  carrier's  liability 
as  a  'common  carrier  of  freight  begins  when  he  receives  goods  for  shipment.^'^ 
\\'henever  a  shipper  delivers  property  to  a  common  carrier  who  receives  it  into 
his  exclusive  possession  for  transportation,  there  arises  at  once  by  implication 
of  law.  a  contract  of  carriage  between  the  parties,  without  regard  to  the  issu- 
ance of  a  bill  of  lading  2"  or  the  failure  of  the  carrier  to  count,  tally,  book,  or 


25.  Bill  of  lading.— Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Xicholson,  01  Tex.  491,  495.  See  post, 
•■Bills    of   Ladins,"    chapter   6. 

26.  Liability  begins  on  receipt  of  goods. 
—United  States.— Brower  v.  Water  Witch, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1971,  19  How.  Prac.  241; 
Snow  V.  Carruth,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13.144,  l 
Spr.  324;  Citizens'  Bank  v.  Nantucket 
Steamboat  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,730,  2 
Storj-  Hi. 

.llabaiiia. — Alabama  Mid.  R.  Co.  r. 
Darby,  119  Ala.  531,  24  So.  713;  Mont- 
gomery, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kolb,  73  Ala.  396, 

49  Am.   Rep.   54,   18  Am.    &  Eng.   R.   Cas. 
512. 

Arkansas.— Ga.rner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  K. 
Co.,  79  Ark.  353,  20  R.  R.  R.  527,  48  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  527,  96  S.  W.  187, 
116  Am.  St.  Rep.  83;  Pine  Bluff,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McKenzie,  75  Ark.  100,  16  R.  R. 
R.  50,  39  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  50, 
86  S.  W.  834;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Burrow  &  Co.,  89  Ark.  178,  33  R.  R.  R. 
754,  56  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  754, 
116  S.  W.  198;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Murphy,  60  Ark.  333,  30  S.  W^  419;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Neel,  56  Ark.  279, 
19    S.    W.    963. 

////;iou.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Smyser, 
38  111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301;  Toledo,  etc., 
R  Co  V.  Gilvin,  81  111.  511;  Cleveland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilson,  99  111.  App.  367. 

lozca.— Aiken  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
68  Iowa  363,  27  N.  W.  281,  25  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.   377.  xi      r^ 

Maine. — Lord  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co., 
105  Me.  255,  33  R.  R.  R.  130,  56  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  -N.  S.,  130,  74  Atl.   117. 

Michigan.— Me\oche  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co,  116  Mich.  69,  74  N.  W.  301.  10  Am. 
&   Eng.    R.    Cas.,   N.   S.,   82. 

Missouri.— handes    v.    Pacific    Railroad, 

50  Mo.  346. 

New  York.— Coy\e  v.  Western  R.  Corp., 
47  Barb.  152;  Salinger  v.  Simmons,  57 
Barb.  513,  8  Abb.  Prac,  N.  S.,  409,  2  Lans. 
325;  Lakeman  v.  Grinnell,  18  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  625;  Packard  v.  Getman,  6  Cow.  757, 
16  Am.  Dec.  475;  Rubens  v.  Ludgate  Hill 
Steamship  Co.,  65  Hun  625,  20  N.  Y.  S. 
481;  Cragin  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  51 
N.  Y.  63;  Shelton  v.  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  527; 
Grosvenor  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  39 
N.  Y.  34,   5  Abb.   Prac,   N.   S.,  345. 

North  Carolina.— Berry  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  122  N.   C.   1003,  30  S.   E.  14. 

r^;ro.y.— East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall, 


64  Tex.  615;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dimmit  County  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  180,  23  S.  W.  754;  Ft.  Worth,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  A'lartin,  13  Tex.  Civ.  App.  464, 
35  S.  W.  21;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Compton 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  320;  Martin 
V.  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
556,  22  S.  W.  1007;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Beard,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  188,  78  S.  W. 
253;  New  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weiss  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  47  S.  W.  674;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Graves  (Tex.),  2  Wilson,  Civ. 
Cas.   Ct.  App.,  §  676. 

Washington. — Roy  v.  Griffin,  36  Wash. 
106,    66    Pac.    130. 

Engh^nd. — Parker  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  7  M.  &  G.  353,  7  Scott  In.  R.  835,  8 
Jur.  194,  13  L.  J.  C.  P.  105,  3  Railw.  Cas. 
503,  1  Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  15. 

Plaintiff  delivered  a  w^agon  to  defendant 
road  for  shipment  after  5  o'clock  p.  m. 
The  shipping  clerk  had  left,  but"  the 
wagon  was  received,  and  plaintiff  was  in- 
formed that  the  bill  of  lading  would  be 
made  out  the  next  day.  Held,  that  the  re- 
lation of  carrier  was  assumed  by  defend- 
ant, though  the  bill  of  lading  was  not  yet 
issued.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Compton 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  38   S.  W.  230. 

Where  it  is  the  custom  of  a  railroad 
company  when  requested,  to  place  an 
empty  car  upon  its  sidetrack  at  a  flag  sta- 
tion to  be  loaded  with  cotton,  and  when 
loaded,  to  remove  the  car,  and  subse- 
quently issue  a  receipt  and  bill  of  lading, 
the  railway  company  is  liable  for  the  loss 
of  cotton  so  loaded,  if  notice  has  been 
given  by  the  shipper  of  its  destination, 
and  that  it  is  ready  for  removal,  and 
nothing  remains  to  be  done  by  him  before 
sliipment,  although  no  receipt  or  bill  of 
lading  has  been  given  for  the  cotton,  and 
the  name  of  the  consignee  has  not  been 
furnished  to  the  carrier.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Murphy,  60  Ark.  333,  30  S.  W. 
419. 

27.  Wellborn  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  6  Ga. 
App.    151,    64    S.    E.    491. 

Where  the  evidence  authorizes  a  find- 
ing that  certain  goods  were  delivered  to 
the  agent  of  a  railroad  company,  who 
received  them  and  was  made  acquainted 
with  their  destination,  a  contract  of  car- 
riage may  be  implied,  although  no  bill 
of  jading  or  receipt  for  the  goods  be  is- 
sued and  delivered  to  the  shipper.  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Johnson,  2  Ga.  App.  36,  58 
S.     E.    333. 


293 


Win:\    IJArill.lTV   COMMKNCF.S. 


407 


receipt  for  it.-"*  l""<»r  unless  a  bill  of  lading  is  deniandcd  by  tbe  shipper  none 
need  be  issued  by  the  carrier;  if  he  accepts  the  goods  and  puts  them  upon  their 
voyage  on  a  verbal  contract,  he  is  liable  as  a  common  carrier.-*-^  A  carrier  may 
enier  into  a  contract  without  a  bill  of  lading,  a  part  of  which  is  to  be  performed 
before  the  goods  are  in  a  course  of  actual  transportation  by  him.  and  in  so  far 
as  such   contract  would  be  binding  ujxjn  other  persons  it   will  be  binding  ujjon 

him  also.''" 

Promise  of  Bill  of  Lading.— W  hen  the  goods  were  recened  for  shipment 
and  a  bill  of  lading  was  promised  to  be  delivered  the  next  day,  the  relation  of 
comninii   carrier   was   assumed.'"'' 

Liability  for  Belay— No  Receipt  or  Contract.— That  no  receipt  was  given 
and  no  written  contract  of  shipment  made  with  an  express  company,  does  not 
prevent  a  shipper  from  recovering  damages  for  delay  in  delivery  in  such  ship- 
ment where  the  carrier  accepted  the  package  for  shi])ment.''- 

Eflfect  of  Bill  of  Lading  as .  Initiating  Liability.— The  mere  issuance  of 
a  bill  (if  ladin-  fnr  L,^(i<ids  does  not  constitute  a  cfjnstructive  acceptance  of  them 
by  the  carrier  for  transi)orlatioii.-'''     The  unautliorized  issuance  by  an  agent  of  a 


28.  Failure  to  count,  tally,  book,  or  re- 
ceipt for. — The  plainlilf  delivered  a  quan- 
tity of  beer  barrels  at  one  of  defendant's 
freight  houses  at  A.  for  transportation  to 
B.,  directed  to  a  person  in  that  city. 
Plaintiff  had  been  in  the  habit  on  former 
occasions  of  sending  receipts  for  barrels, 
for  defendant  to  sign,  which  was  not  done 
on  this  occasion.  It  was  the  duty  and 
practice  of  defendant's  receiving  and  ship- 
ping clerk,  on  l)eing  notified  of  the  deliv- 
ery of  goods  for  transportation,  to  cor- 
rect, tally  and  check  them,  and  hand  his 
account  to  the  bookkeeper,  to  be  entered 
into  a  book,  from  which  goods  were 
shipped.  No  goods  were  shipped  unless 
receipted.  The  barrels  in  question  were 
not  tallied,  counted,  booked  or  receipted, 
nor  did  plaintiff  ask  to  have  them  counted 
tallied,  etc.,  but  the  barrels  were  delivered 
to  the  carrier  at  the  usual  place  for  trans- 
acting such  business  and  received  by  per- 
sons in  the  employ  of  defendant,  and  de- 
fendant's agent  was  present  when  a  por- 
tion of  the  property  was  delivered,  and 
directed  where  it  should  be  put.  The 
barrels  were  accidently  destroyed  by  fire 
on  the  same  evening  they  were  delivered, 
and  while  in  defendant's  possession,  in 
its  freight  house.  It  was  held  that  de- 
fendant was  liable,  as  a  common  carrier, 
for  the  value  of  the  barrels.  Coyle  v. 
Western   R.   Corp.    (N.  Y.),  47   Barli.    152. 

29.  'Verbal  contract  sufficient. — ICast 
Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  (14  Tex.  615; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Compton  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  38  S.  W.  220;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491;  Martin  v.  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  .550, 
22  S.  W.  1007;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Douglas  &  Sons,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  28.  IG  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  98;  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ■c-.  Martin,  12  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  464.  :J5  S.  W.  21,  affirmed  in 
9."}  Tex.  060,  no  op.;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Wheat.  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  165; 
Missouri,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Beard.   ;U   Tex. 


Civ.  App.  188,  78  S.  W.  253;  Pacific  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Black,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  37 
S.  W.  830;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dimmit  County  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  186,  23  S.  W.  754;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
V.  Graves,  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  676; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamm,  2  Tex.  App. 
Civ.   Cas.,  §  491. 

If  goods  are  delivered  to  a  carrier  and 
received  l)y  it  for  shipment,  they  may 
be  transmitted  without  the  issuance  of  a 
bill  of  lading,  and  may  l)e  regarded  as  in 
the  possession  of  the  carrier  from  the 
time  received,  though  there  was  no  in- 
struction nor  intention  that  the  carrier 
should  immediately  make  the  shipment. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Beard,  34  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  188,  78  S.  W.  253,  citing  East 
Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  64  Tex.  615; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Trawick.  80  Tex.  270, 
15    S.   W.    568,    18    S.   W.    948. 

30.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  z'.  Nicholson,  01 
Tex.   491. 

31.  Promise  to  issue  bill  of  lading 
next  day. —  In  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Comp- 
ton (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  220,  it  ap- 
peared that  plaintiff  delivered  a  wagon  to 
defendant  railroad  for  shipment  after  5 
o'clock  p.  m.  The  shipping  clerk  had  left, 
but  the  wagon  was  received  for  immediate 
transportation  by  its  depot  employees, 
and  plaintiff  was  informed  that  the  bill 
of  lading  would  be  made  out  the  next 
day.  It  was  held  that  the  relation  of 
common  carrier  was  assumed  by  defend- 
ant. 

32.  Liability  for  delay — No  receipt  or 
contract. —  I'acific  b'.xp.  Co.  f.  Black.  S 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  ;io:!.  x'7  S.  W.  s;50. 

33.  Effect  of  issuance  of  bill  of  Lading. 
— I'liitcd  States. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  f. 
McFadden.  154  U.  S.  155.  38  L.  Ed.  944. 
14  S.  Ct.  990;  Robinson,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mem- 
phis, etc..  R.  Co..  9  Fed.  129:  S.  C.  16 
Fed.  57:  Pollard  v.  \inton.  105  U.  S.  7.  26 
L.  Ed.  99S:  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 


§  407 


CARRIERS. 


294 


steamship  company  of  bills  of  lading  to  a  purchaser. of  goods  then  in  a  public 
warehouse,  subject  to  the  orders  of  the  seller,  who  is  bound  by  the  terms  of 
the  sale  to  deliver  the  same  on  board,  does  not  bind  the  company,  so  as  to  make 
it  responsible  for  the  goods  while  in  the  warehouse  and  before  their  actual  de- 
livery into  its  custody;  and  an  acceptance  of  the  goods  on  board  the  ship  is  a 
ratification  of  the  contract  of  carriage  made  by  the  bills  of  lading  only  from  the 
time  of  such  delivery.-'^  And  the  giving  a  l)ill  of  lading  for  goods  in  the  pos- 
session of  another  railroad  in  another  state,  in  the  course  of  transportation,  is 
not  a  delivery  of  the  goods  named  therein  though  the  shipper  surrendered  the 
bill  of  lading  of  the  latter  carrier  at  the  time.''"' 

Authority  of  Officer. — The  mere  employment  of  an  officer  or  agent  for 
such  boat  does  not  clothe  him  with  apparent  authority  to  issue  bills  of  lading 
for  goods  not  on  board,  or  not  delivered  to  one  authorized  to  receive  freight  on 
account  of  the  boat.^** 

Effect  of  Statute  as  to  Commencement  of  Liability — Change  of  Rule. 
— A  statutorv  provision  that  the  transportation  of  goods  by  a  common  carrier 
shall  be  considered  as  commenced  from  the  time  the  bill  of  lading  is  signed  does 
not  preclude  the  liability  from  commencing  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the 
goods,  so  as  to  make  the  carrier  liable  for  loss  when  no  bill  is  issued.-^' 


mercial  Union  Ins.  Co..  139  U.  S.  223,  35 
L.    Ed.    1.54.    11    S.    Ct.   .554. 

Arkansas. — Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  55  Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314,  56  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.   112. 

Illinois. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional Live  Stock  Bank,  178  111.  506,  53 
N.    E.   326. 

Louisiana. — Hunt  v.  Mississippi  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  29  La.  Ann.  446;  Fearn,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Richardson,   12  La.  Ann.   752. 

Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wilkens,  44  Md.  11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26. 

Minnesota. — National  Bank  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342, 
9  L.  R.  A.  263,  20  Am.   St.  Rep.  566. 

North  Carolina. — Williams  v.  Wilming- 
ton, etc.,   R.   Co..  93   N.  Car.  42. 

England. — Berkley  v.  Whitling,  7  Ad.  & 
El.  29;  Grand  v.  Norway,  70  C.  B.  665,  3 
Eng.    L.    &    Eq.    337. 

34.  Bill  of  lading  for  goods  in  public 
warehouse — Subject  to  vendors  order. — 
Cunard  Steamship  Co.  v.  Kelly,  53  C.  C. 
A.  310.  113   Fed.   678. 

35.  Bill  of  lading  issued  for  flour  in  pos- 
session of  another  railroad  in  another 
state — Bills  of  lading  exchanged. — Where 
a  railroad  conipany  in  Missouri  issues  a 
bill  of  lading  reciting  it  has  received  a 
car  load  of  flour  in  apparent  good  condi- 
tion for  transportation  to  New  Orleans, 
and  at  the  time  the  flour  is  in  Kansas,  in 
the  possession  of  another  railroad  com- 
pany transporting  it  to  Missouri,  such 
bill  of  lading  is  void,  under  the  statute  in 
question;  and  the  delivery  of  such  bill  of 
lading  is  not  a  delivery  of  the  commodity 
named  therein,  though  at  the  timeof  its 
issue  the  receiver  of  the  bill  surrendered 
the  Kansas  railroad  bill  of  lading  therefor. 
TEtna  Nat.  Bank  v.  Water  Power  Co.,  58 
Mo.   -A pp.   532. 

36.  Authority  of  officer. — The  above 
principle    is    set    forth    in    the    following 


cases  wliich  hold  that  in  an  action  by  the 
shipper  against  the  owners  of  a  steam- 
boat engaged  in  the  business  of  common 
carriers,  to  recover  for  the  nondelivery  of 
goods  as  per  bill  of  lading,  the  defendants 
are  liable  only  for  so  much  of  the  goods 
as  was  actually  received  on  the  boat  or 
delivered  to  some  one  authorized  to  re- 
ceive freight  on  her  account.  Dean  v. 
King,  22  O.  St.  118,  followed  in  Colburn 
V.  Oberlin  Bldg.,  etc.,  Ass'n,  35  O.  St.  258, 
following  and  approving  Sturdevant  v. 
Tuttle,   22   O.   St.   111. 

37.  Art.  283,  Rev.  Stats.,  has  not  changed 
common-law  rule. — Article  283  of  the  Re- 
vised Statutes  of  Texas,  providing  that 
the  trip  or  voyage  shall  l)e  considered  as 
having  commenced  from  the  time  of  the 
signing  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  the  lia- 
bility of  the  common  carrier  shall  attach 
as  at  common  law  from  after  such  sign- 
ing, has  not  changed  the  coinmon-law  rule. 
East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  64  Tex. 
615;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dim- 
mit County  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
186,  23  S.  W.  754;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Trawick,  80  Tex.  270,  15  S.  W.  568,  18 
S.  W.  948;  S.  C,  68  Tex.  314,  4  S.  W.  567, 
2  Am.   St.  Rep.  494. 

There  is  an  apparent  conflict  between 
the  authorities  above  quoted  and  the  cases 
of  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson,  61  Tex. 
491,  495,  and  the  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Corquodale,  71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80,  but 
in  those  two  cases  the  railway  had  con- 
tracted to  receive  and  ship  the  cattle  at 
certain  dates,  but  refused  to  receive  them 
when  presented  for  shipment,  and  it  was 
held  that  the  railways  were  lesponsible  as 
mere  individuals  for  breach  of  their  con- 
tract. But  where  there  is  an  actual  de- 
livery to  and  acceptance  by  the  railway 
company,  its  liability  as  a  common  car- 
rier as  under  the  common  law  begins  at 
that   time.      International,    etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 


295  WnivN   I.IAIillJTV   COMMKNCES.  §§   408-411 

§§  408-411.  Evidence  of  Delivery— §  408.  Presumptions  and  Bur- 
den of  Proof. — Where  it  is  established  that  goods  have  been  delivered  to  a 
common  carrier,  the  presumption  is  that  they  were  delivered  for  carriage,  and 
not  for  storage,-''*  and  the  burden  is  upon  the  carrier  to  show  that  it  received  the 
goods  as  a  warehouseman,  and  not  as  a  carrier.''"' 

§  409.  Admissibility  of  Evidence  to  Show  Delivery. — The  testimony  of 
a  witnc>>  whcj  has  no  indcpcndcni  knowledge  oi  the  weight  of  grain  shipped, 
except  what  was  contained  in  the  certificates  of  weight,  is  inadmissible  in  such 
an  action  to  i)rove  the  (|uainity  of  grain  shipped. •♦" 

A  certificate  of  v^^eight  not  shown  to  be  an  exact  copy  of  the  book  of  orig- 
inal entries,  or  that  it  was  given  in  the  regular  course  of  business,  by  one  au- 
thorized to  do  so,  is  inadmissible  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  grain 
in  transit,  to  prove  the  delivery  of  the  grain  to  and  reception  thereof  by  the 
carrier.-*^ 

§§   410-411.   Sufficiency  of  Evidence  of  Delivery— §   410.  In  General. 

— In  establishing  the  l)eginning  of  a  common  carrier's  liability,  the  general  rules 
as  to  weight  and  sufficiency,  which  api)ly  in  civil  cases  generally,  are  applica- 
ble. So  it  has  been  held  in  an  action  against  an  express  company  for  failure  to 
deliver  a  package,  that  evidence  that  the  package  was  delivered  at  a  railroad 
depot  to  a  person  in  charge  thereof,  and  that  the  employees  of  the  railroad  com- 
panv  were  in  the  custom  of  so  receiving  packages  for  the  express  company,  was 
sufficient  to  sustain  an  allegation  that  the  package  was  received  at  the  office  of 
defendant,  at  its  place  of  business.-*-  And  where  cotton  placed  on  a  platform 
within  a  short  distance  of  a  depot  building  at  which  defendant's  agent  trans- 
acted business  is  destroyed  by  fire,  the  jury  are  warranted  in  finding  that  such 
agent  knew  of  the  i)resence  'of  such  cotton  and  was  guilty  of  negligence,  es- 
pecially where  defendant  does  not  place  him  on  the  stand.-*'' 

§   411.  Bill  of  Lading  or  Receipt  as  Evidence.— In  General.— The  bill 

of  lading  and  waybill  made  out  by  the  authorized  agent  of  a  common  carrier 
are  competent  evidence  tending  to  prove  that  the  articles  therein  described  were 
delivered  to  such  carrier  for  shipment.-*"*  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
loss  of  freight,  the  fact  that  the  carrier  issued  a  bill  of  lading  or  a  receipt,  for 
the  goods,  while  not  conclusive,  is  prima  facie  i)roof  that  they  were  delivered  to 
the  carrier,  and  accepted  by  it  for  transportation. ■*■'  lUU  a  bill  of  lading  or  re- 
ceipt acknowledging  the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  goods   for  shipment  is  not 

Dimmit  County   Pasture  Co..  5  Tex.   Civ.  40.  Admissibility.— Emison  v.  Ohio,  etc., 

App.  ISfi,  23   S.  W.  7.54.  R.    Co..    ^2    O.    C.    D.    727. 

When  liability  as  warehousemen  ceases.  41.    Certificate    of    weight. — Emison    v. 

—Under  Rev.  St.,  art.  2S;).  declarinji:  when  Ohio,   etc.,    R.    Co..   12   O.   C.   D.   727. 
the  liability  of  warehousemen  ceases  and  42.      Sufficiency      of      evidence. — Pacific 

that   of  common   carriers   attaches,   liabil-  Exp.   Co.  r.   Black,  S   Tex.   Civ.  App.   3t)3, 

ity  as  a  common  carrier  does   not  attach  07   S.  W.   830. 

until  a  bill  of  lading  is  given,  or  until  the  43     p^     Worth,    etc.,    R.    Co.   f.    Martin, 

goods  have  been  delivered  to,  and  received  ^2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  41)4.  3.j  S.  W.  21. 
by,    the    carrier.      Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  ..      r  1   j-  r^,  ■  *       r>    n^ 

Wheat.  2  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  10.5.     See.  ^^    Bill  of  lading.-Ch.cago    etc     R.  Co. 

also.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.   Douglas   &  ^'    Johnston.  ,,>s  Neb.  23(.,  ,8  \.  W     499. 
Sons    2  Tex    App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  28,  10  Am.  45.  Prima  facie  evidence.— f  mtcd  :itatcs. 

&  Etig.  R.  Cas.  98.     See  post!  "Carrier  as  The  Titania,  O.")  C.  C.  A.  215.  131  Fed.  229; 

Warehouseman,"  chapter   13.  The  Willie   D.  Sandhoval,  92  Fed.  280.^ 

38.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof.  Illinois. — Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Na- 
— Berry  r.  Southern  1\.  Co.,  122  X.  C.  tional  Live  Stock  Bank.  17S  111.  506,  53 
1002.  :!()   S.    \\.   14.  ^'-    E-  320;   Northern   Transp.   Co.  r.   Mc- 

39.  Burden  of  proof.— Berry  v.  Southern  Clary.  00   111.  233. 

R.  Co.,  122  X.  C.   1002,  30  S.   E.   14.     See  A'<-»/ia-A-y.— Pittsburg,    etc..    R.     Co.     v. 

post,  "Carrier  as  Warehouseman,"  chap-  American  Tobacco  Co..  120  Ky.  582,  31 
ter    13.  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1013,  25  R.  R.  R.  586.  48  Am. 


;§  411-412 


CARRIERS. 


296 


conclusive  and  such  delivery  and  acceptance  may  be  denied.-*'^  Yet  a  common 
carrier  having  given  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  can  not  relieve  himself  from  his 
liabilitv  on  the  ground  that  the  goods  were  never  received  by  him.  except  by  the 
clearest  proof  of  that  fact.-*"  It  has  been  held  that  where  a  railroad  company 
issues  a  transferable  bill  of  lading  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  goods,  it  is  es- 
topped to  deny  the  receipt  of  the  goods  when  the  bill  of  lading  is  in  the  hands 
of  innocent  third  parties:  and  where  the  general  agent  of  a  corporation  issues 
such  a  bill,  the  coni])any  is  also  so  osto]iped.^'^ 

Receipt  Given  to  Transfer  Company. — A  receipt  given  by  a  railroad  com- 
pany to  a  transfer  company,  to  whom  the  consignor  had  delivered  the  goods, 
is  sufficient  to  show  a  delivery  by  the  latter  to  the  railroad  company.-*^ 

Effect  of  Statutes  Prohibiting  Issuance  of  Bill  of  Lading  before  De- 
livery to  Carrier. — The  fact  that  the  carrier  is  forbidden  by  statute  to  issue  a 
bill  of  lading  for  goods  before  they  are  delivered  to  it  does  not  affect  the  value 
of  bills  of  lading  as  evidence  of  delivery  to  the  carrier.'" 

§  412.  Question  of  Law  or  Fact. — Delivery  of  freight  to  a  common  car- 
rier, where  an  action  is  brought  to  recover  for  loss  of  articles  alleged  to  have 
been  delivered,  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  determination  of  the  jury.'"^^ 


&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  586,  104  S.  W. 
377. 

Louisiana. — Flower  v.  Downs,  12  Rob. 
101. 

Mississippi. — Southern  T^^,^  r^,  v.  Craft, 
49   Miss.   480,    19   Am.    Rep.   4. 

Missouri. — Smith  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  74  Mo.  App.  48. 

Nebraska. — :Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  John- 
ston,   58    Xeb.    236,    78    X.    W.    499. 

Kezi'  York.- — -Fasy  v.  International  Xav. 
Co.,    177    X.    Y.    591,    70    X.    E.    1098. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnston,  58  Xeb.  236,  78  X.  W.  499. 

Upon  a  written  receipt  by  which  the 
defendants,  carriers  by  water,  acknowl- 
edged having  received  from  the  plaintiffs 
three  hogsheads  of  tobacco,  which  they 
were  to  freight  to  Xew  Orleans,  and,  if 
they  bore  inspection,  pay  the  price  they 
may  sell  for,  the  defendants  are  liable  for 
the  value  of  one  of  the  hogsheads  lost 
in  the  warehouse,  and  never  put  on  board 
of  their  boat.  Jones  v.  Walker,  13  Tenn. 
(5   Yerg.j    427. 

46.  Not  conclusive. — Where  the  agent  of 
a  boat  carelessly  issues  a  bill  of  lading 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  freight  not 
on  board  or  not  delivered  to  a  person  au- 


thorized to  receive  it,  the  owners  of  the 
boat  are  not  estopped,  by  reason  of  such 
carelessness,  from  denying  the  receipt 
thereof,  although  the  shipper  may  have 
been  misled  thereby.  Dean  v.  King,  23  O. 
St.  118,  followed  in  Colburn  z/.  Oberlin 
Bldg.,  etc.,  Ass'n,  35  O.  St.  258,  follow- 
ing and  approving  Sturdevant  v.  Tuttle, 
22   O.   St.   111. 

47.  Evidence  to  overcome  bill  of  lading. 
— Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodds  & 
Co.,   13  O.   Dec.   407,   1   Cin.   R.   47. 

48.  Transferable  bill  of  lading. — Smith 
f.   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.,   74   Mo.   App.   48. 

49.  Receipt  given  to  transfer  company. 
— ^Xew  York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weiss  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),    47    S.    W.    674. 

50.  Effect  of  statute  prohibiting  issu- 
ance prior  to  delivery. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z'.  Commercial  Union  Ins.  Co.,  139  U. 
S.  223,  35  L.  Ed.  154,  11  S.  Ct.  554;  Jemi- 
son  V.  Birmingham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Ala. 
378,  28  So.  51;  Martin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  55  Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314,  56  Am. 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.    112. 

51.  Question  of  fact. — Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hodde,  42  Tex.  467,  471;  Southern 
R.  Co.  V.  Johnson,  2  Ga.  App.  36,  58  S. 
E.   333. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Bills  of  Lading. 

I.   iJifiiiitioii  and    Xature   Generally,   §  41:1. 

II.  Koriu   and   Contents,   §§  414-4^4. 
.\.   In   General,  §   414. 

B.  Writing-,   §   415. 

C.  Signature,   §  416. 

D.  Name  of  Consignee,  §  417. 

E.  Statement  of  Value  of  Goods,  §  418. 

F.  Notations  and   Marginal  Memoranda,  §  41U. 

G.  The  Law,  §  420. 

H.   Published  Tariffs,  §  421. 

I.   Expense  Account  of   Carrier,  §  422. 

J.  Recitals  of  Fact.  §  42;{. 

K.   Special   Conditions  and   Limitations,  §   424. 

III.  Issuance  and  Acceptance,  §§  425-450. 

A.  Necessity  for   Issuance,  §  425. 

B.  Authority  to  Issue,  §§  426-442. 

a.  Agents  and  Employees,  §§  420-428. 

(1)  Agents  and   Employees  Who   May  Issue,  §§  426-427. 

(a)  Master  of  Vessel  and  Other   Employees,  §  426. 

(b)  Agents  and  Employees  of  Railroads,  §  427. 

(2)  Proof  or  Estoppel  to  Deny  Authority  of  Agent,  §  428. 

b.  Receipt  of  Goods  as  Prerequisite  to  Issuance,  §§  429-442. 

(1)  Necessity.  §§  429-438. 

(a)  In  General.  §  429. 

(b)  Authority  of  Agents  or  Employees,  §  430. 

(c)  As  against  Bona  Fide  Consignee  or  Transferee.  §§  431-437. 
aa.  Doctrine  Prevailing  in  Most  Jurisdictions.  §  431. 

bb.  Doctrine  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Certain  Other  States,  §  432. 

cc.  Conflict  of  Laws,  §  433. 

dd.  Effect  of  Custom  or  Course  of  Business,  §  434. 

ee.  Negligence  of  Carrier,  §  435. 

ff.  Fraudulent   Bills  of  Lading,  §  436. 

gg.  Effect  of  State  Statutes,  §  437. 

(d)  Due  Bill  Promising  to  Issue  a  Bill  of  Lading,  §  438. 

(2)  Subsequent- Delivery  to  Carrier  as  Validating  Bill,  §§  439-442. 
(a)    In  General,  §  439. 

(.b)   Where  Statute  Prohibits  Issuance  before  Receipt  of  Goods,  §  440. 

(3)  Presumption  as  to  Receipt  of  Goods,  §  441. 

(4)  Proof  of  Nonreceipt  of  Goods,  §  442. 

C.  Duty  to  Issue,  §  443. 

D.  Issuance  in  Duplicate.  §  444. 

E.  Acceptance  and  Assent  to  Provisions.  §§  445-4,50. 

a.  In  General,  §  445. 

b.  Assent  to  and  Acceptance  by  Consignor,  §§  446-450. 

(1)  Effect  of  Acceptance,  §  446. 

(2)  Presumption   of  .\ssent   from  Acceptance,  §§  447-450. 

(a)  In  General.  §  447. 

(b)  Rebuttal   of    Presumption,   §§   448-450. 
aa.   Failure   oi   Shipper   to   Sign   Bill.   §   448. 

bb.   Failure  to  Read  or   E.xamine   Bill,  §§  449-450. 


CARRIERS.  298 

(aa)   In  General.  §  449. 

(bb)   Bill  Received  after  Goods  Shipped.  §  450. 

IV.  Validity,   §§   451-454. 

A.  Fraud  or  Mistake,  §  451. 

B.  Forgery,  §  452. 

C.  No   Goods   Delivered  to   Carrier.   §   453. 

D.  Partial   Invalidity.  §   454. 

V.  Construction,  Operation  and   Effect,  §§  455-513. 

A.  General  Rules   of  Construction.   §  455. 

B.  Construction  of  Words  and  Phrases,  §  456. 

C.  Notice  of  Contents,  §  457. 

D.  Blanks  and  Unintelligible  Characters.  §  458. 

E.  Conditions  on   Back   of   Bill,   §   459. 

F.  Usage  and  Custom,  §  460. 

G.  Conflict  of  Laws,  §  461. 
H.  Foreign  Laws,  §  462. 

I.  Fraudulent  Bills  of  Lading,  §  463. 

J.  Partial  Invalidity,  §  464. 

K.  When  Bill  of  Lading  Part  of  Contract,  §  465. 

L.  Dual  Character  as  Contract  and  as  Receipt.  §§  466-479. 

a.  In  General,  §  466. 

b.  As   Contract   Generally,   §   467. 

c.  As  a  Receipt  in  General,  §  468. 

d.  Parol  Evidence  to  Vary  or  Contradict  Bill,  §§  469-479. 

(1)  As  a  Contract,   §§   469-470. 

(a)  Between  the  Parties,  §  469. 

(b)  Between  Consignor  and  Consignee,  §  470. 

(2)  Merger  of  Oral  Negotiations  and  Prior  Verbal  Agreements,  §  471. 

(3)  To  Explain  Ambiguities  and  Technical  Terms,   §  472. 

(4)  Parol  Evidence  to  Alter  or  Contradict  Receipt  Clauses  of  Bill,  §§  473-476. 

(a)  In   General,  §  473. 

(b)  Recital  of   Fact  of  Receipt  and   Quantity   of   Goods,  §  474. 

(c)  Recital  as  to  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods,  §  475. 

(d)  Recital  as  to  Ownership  of  Goods,  §  476. 

(5)  Recitals  as  to  Rate  and  Receipt  of  Freight,  §  477. 

(6)  Destination  or  Place   of  Delivery,  §  478. 

(7)  Terminus  of   Road,   §  479. 

M.  As  Contract  of  Carriage,  §§  480-481. 

a.  As   Imposing  Liability   of  Common   Carrier,   §   480. 

b.  As  Contract  to  Carry  Specified  Thing,  §  481. 

N.  As    Evidence    of   Fact    and    Time    of    Receipt    and    Acceptance     of     Shipment, 
§§  482-483. 

a.  As  Evidence  of  Fact  of  Receipt  and  Acceptance  of  Shipment,  §  482. 

b.  Time  of  Receipt  of  Shipment,  §  483. 
O.  Destination  or  Place  of  Delivery,  §  484. 

P.  Person  to  Whom  Delivery  Authorized,  §§  485-487. 

a.  In  General,  §  485. 

b.  Open  and  Closed  Shipments,  §  486. 

c.  Direction  to  Notify  a  Named  Person,  §  487. 

Q.  As  Warranty  or  Evidence  of  Quantity,  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods,  §§  488- 
494. 
a.  Effect  as  Warranty  of  Quantity,  etc.,  §§  488-491. 

(1)  In   General,  §  488. 

(2)  Recital  That  Contents  Unknown.  §  489. 

(3)  Recital  That  Goods  in  "Good  Order,"  etc.,  §  490. 

(4)  Recital   That   "Contents   Unknown    and    in   Apparent   Good    Order,"   §    491. 


299  BILLS    OF    LADING. 

b.  As  Evidence  of  Quantity,  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods,  §§  4'j2-4'j4. 

(1 )  As  Evidence  of  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods,  §  492. 

(2)  As   Evidence  of  Quantity  or  Wei|,4it  of  Goods,  §§  49:5-404. 

(a)  In  General,  §  4!):{. 

(b)  Bill  Made   I-'xclusive   ICvidencc  of  Quantity   l)y  Agreement.  §  494. 
R.   Effect  of   UnderstatiiiK  Quantity.   §  4y.j. 

S.   As    F.vidciUL-   or    Wanaiity   i>\    'litk-   or   Ownership,   §S   49(5-498. 
a.   In   General.  §   4'.)t;. 
I).   As   Warranty  of  Title  of  .^liipper.  §  497. 

c.  Shipment   Fraudulently   I'rocured  by  .Person   Not  Owner  of  Goods,  §  498. 
T.   ICfFcct  as  Vesting   Property  in   Consignee,   §§  499-510. 

a.   \\  Ikii    Property   Vests   in   Consignee,   §§   499-;>o:{. 
(1  )    In   General,  §  499. 

(2)  Stoppage  in  Transitu,  §  oOO. 

(3)  Consignment   to   Enemy   or   Neutral,   §   jOI. 

(4)  Consignee  Making  Advances  on  Faith  of  Bill,  §  502. 
(."))    Removal  of  Goods  by  Unauthorized  Person,  §  503. 

\).   WIkii    Properly   Does   Not  Vest  in   Consignee,  §§  504-510. 

(1)  In    General,   §    504. 

(2)  Bill  Not  Delivered  to  Consignee,  §  505. 

(3)  Consignment  to   Be   Sold  on   Commission.   §   506. 

(4)  Goods  Billed  to  Shipper's  Order,  §§  507-508. 

(a)  In  General,  §  507. 

(b)  Bill  with  Draft  Attached  to  Be  Delivered  to  Purchaser  of  Goods.  §  508. 

(5)  Bill  to  Another  than  Purchaser,  §  509. 

(6)  Bill  to  A.  for  Use  of  B.,  §  510. 
U.  Stipulations  as  to  Value,  §  511. 

•  V.  Freight   and   Demurrage.   §   512. 
W.  As  Evidence  of  Carrier's  Liability  as  Warehouseman,  §  513. 
VI.  Transfer,  §§  514-589. 

A.  Negotiability,  §§  514-518. 

a.  General   Rule,  §   514. 

b.  Distinguished  from   Commercial   Paper,  §  515. 

c.  Effect  of  Statutes  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Negotiable,   §  516. 

d.  Bills  Marked  "Not  Negotial)le,"  §  517. 

e.  W'hen  Carrier  Incurs  Liability  of  Warehousemen,  §  518. 

B.  Transferability   or  Assignability,  §   519. 

C.  Mode  of  Transfer,  §§  520-536. 
a.  In   General,  §  520. 

1).    Delivery   of   Bill,   §§  521-531. 
(  1  )    In  General,  §  521. 

(2)  Intention   to   Pass  Title,  §   522. 

(3)  Necessity   for   Acceptance    of   Possession,   §   523. 

(4)  Possession   of   Bill   of   Lading  as   Evidence   of  Title  in    Holder.   §§   524-525. 

(a)  In  General,  §  524. 

(b)  Rebuttal  of  Presumption,  §  525. 

(5)  Exception  in  Favor  of  Stoppage  in  Transitu,  §  526. 

(6)  Right   of   Disposal   Retained  by  Consignor,   §§   527-528. 
aa.  In  General,  §   527. 

bb.   Consignor   Indebted   to   Consignee,   §   528. 

(7)  Necessity   for   Indorsement   to   Enable   Holder  to   Sue.   §   529. 

(8)  Necessity  for  Shipper's  Order.  §  530. 

(9)  Bill   of   Lading  Signed   in    lilank,   §   531. 

c.  Transfer  by    Indorsement  and    nelivery.  §§  532-534. 
(1)    In  General.  §  .■.:12. 
(,2)    Necessity   and    Sufticiency   of   Indorsement   or   Assignment.   §   533. 


CARRIERS.  300 

(3)   Necessity  for  Delivery  of  Bill.  §  534. 

d.  Sale  or  Payment  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached,  §  535. 

e.  Attachment  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  536. 

D.  Persons  Who   Make   Transfer.   §§   537-539. 

a.  In  General,  §  537. 

b.  Consignee,  §   538. 

c.  Consignor  or  Agent,  §  539. 

E.  Consideration,   §  540. 

F.  Effect  of  Transfer,  §§  541-576. 

a.  In  General,  §  541. 

b.  As  Transfer  of  Contract  between  Consignor  and  Consignee,  §  542. 

c.  Operation  as  Constructive   Delivery  of  Goods,  §   543. 

d.  Rights  and  Title  of  Holder  Generally,  §§  544-576. 

(1)  In   General,  §  544. 

(2)  No  Goods  Delivered  to  Carrier,  §§  545-546. 

(a)  In  General,  §  545. 

(b)  Title  to  Goods  Not  Shipped  or  Included  in  Bill,  §  546. 

(3)  Goods  Shipped  Without  Authority  of  Owner,   §   547. 

(4)  Assignment  Made  After  Arrival  of  Goods,  §  548. 

(5)  Bona  Fide  Holders,  §§  549-552. 

(a)  General  Rule,  §  549. 

(b)  Effect  of  Statutes  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Negotiable,  §  550. 

(c)  Estoppel   of    Carrier   to    Deny    Conditions    and    Representations    in    Bill, 

§  551. 

(d)  Duplicate  or  Triplicate  Bill,  §  552. 

(6)  Holder  with   Knowledge   of  Defects   in   Transferrer's   Title,   §   553. 

(7)  Holder  of  Lost  or  Stolen  Bill  of  Lading,  §  554. 

(8)  Holder  of  Forged  Bill  of  Lading,  §  555. 

(9)  Rights   and   Liabilities   as   to   Carriers,   §§    556-565. 

(a)  As  to  Delivery  of  Goods,  §§  556-562. 
aa.  Duty  to  Deliver  to  Transferee,  §  556. 

bb.   Production  and   Cancellation  of  Bill  of   Lading,  §  557. 

cc.  Payment  of  Freight  and  Charges  as  Condition   Precedent,  §  558. 

dd.   Demand  of  Delivery,  §  559. 

ee.   Liability  for  Misdelivery  or  Delay,  §  560. 

ff.  Waiver  or  Rights  to  Indorsement  of  Bill,  §  561. 

gg.  Duplicate  and  Triplicate  Bills,  §  562. 

(b)  Effect  of  Custom  of  Carrier,  §  563. 

(c)  Explanation  of  Alteration  in  Bill,  §  564. 

(d)  Liability  for  Freight  and  Demurrage,  §  565. 

(10)  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Consignor,  §§  566-568. 

(a)  In  General,  §  566. 

(b)  As  Defeating  Stoppage  in  Transitu,  §  567. 

(c)  Liability  for  Price  of  Goods,  §  568. 

(11)  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Consignee,  §§  569-571. 

(a)  In  General,  §  569. 

(b)  Claim  for  Advances  to  Consignor,  §  570. 

(c)  Liability  to  Consignee  on  Contract  of  Consignor,  §  571. 

(12)  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Third  Persons,  §§  572-576. 

(a)  Claims  of  Third   Person  against  Transferrers,  §  572. 

(b)  Against  Vendor  of  Consignor,  §  573. 

(c)  Against  Subsequent  Purchaser  of  Goods,  §  574. 

(d)  Subsequent  Liens,  §§  575-576. 
aa.  In  General,  §  575. 

bb.  Subsequent  Attachments,  §  576. 

G.  Pledge,  Mortgage  or  Collateral  Security,  §  577. 


301 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  413 


H.    I'urchase   or   Discount   of   Draft  with    Bill   of   Lading  Attached,   §§   578-587. 

a.  Recording  Papers,  §  57H. 

b.  Rights  and  Title  of  Purchaser,  §§  57y-5H4. 

(1)  As  to  Consignor  and  Consignee,  §§  579-582. 

(a)  In  General,  §  579. 

(b)  Notice  That  Payment  to  Drawer   Unauthorized,  §  580. 

(c)  Drawer  Indebted  to  Drawee  or  Consignee,  §  581. 

(d)  Right  to  Sue  for  Purchase  Price  or  for  Conversion  of  Goods,  §  582. 

(2)  Rights  against  Carrier,  §  583. 

(:{)    Rights  against  Third  Persons,  §  584. 

c.  Liability  of  Purchaser  for  Shortage  or   Inferiority  of  Shipment,   §  585. 

d.  Effect  of  Consignee's  Accepting  and  Paying  Draft,  §  58G. 

e.  Charging  Unpaid  Draft  to  Drawer's  Account,  §  587. 

I.  Deposit  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached  for  Collection,  §  588. 
J.  Duplicate  and  Triplicate  Bills,  §  589. 
VII.   Effect  As  Binding  Intermediate  and  Terminal  Carrier,  §  590. 
VIII.  Modification  or  Rescission,  §  591. 

IX.  Surrender,  Discharge  or  Release,  §  592. 
X.  Actions,  §§  59;{-()02. 

A.  Rights  of  .Kction  and  Defenses,  §  593. 

B.  Parties,  §§   594-595. 

a.  Plaintiffs,  §  594. 

b.  Defendants,  §  595. 

C.  Pleading,  §§  596-597. 

a.  Bill,  Petition,  or  Complaint,  §  596. 

b.  Answer,  §  597. 

D.  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading  or  Proof  of  Contents,  §  598. 

E.  Proof  of  Execution  of  Bill,  §  599. 

F.  Province  of  Court,   §   600. 

G.  Instructions,  §  601. 

H.   Directing  Verdict,  §  602. 

§  413.  Definition  and  Nature  Generally. — A  "bill  of  lading"  is  a  com- 
mercial instniniciu.  and  is  a  wriiicn  acknowledgment  signed  by  tbe  master  of  a 
vessel  or  by  a  common  carrier  that  he  has  received  the  goods  therein  described 
from  the  shipper,  to  be  transposed  on  the  terms  therein  expressed  to  the  de- 
scribed place  of  destination,  and  there  to  be  delivered  to  the  consignee  or  parties 
therein  designated.'  It  is  a  very  ancient  but  not  exclusively  a  sea  document, 
and  has  long  Ijccn  used  l)y  carrying  companies  in  transportation  on  lakes  and 
rivers  by  steamboats,  as  well  as  sailing  vessels,  on  canals,-  and  for  transporta- 
tion bv  land.-'     In  all  such  cases  it  has  been  denominated  and  treated  as  a  coin- 


1.  Bill  of  lading  defined.— The  Dela- 
ware (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  :)79,  (100.  20  L.  Ed. 
779;  Pollard  r.  \inton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26 
L.   Ed.   998. 

Micliigau. — McMillan  z'.  Michigan,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec.  208. 

North  Dakota. — Yegen  v.  Northern  Pac. 
R.   Co.,   19   N.   Dak.   70,   121   N.  W.   205. 

Bill  as  "liquidation  of  account." — A  bill 
of  lading  for  goods  sent  to  a  purchaser, 
and  not  objected  to  by  him,  amounts  to 
a  liquidation  of  an  account  within  the 
statute  of  Illinois,  giving  interest  on  set- 
tlement of  accounts  from  the  da^^  of  "liq- 
uidating accounts  l)etween  the  parties  and 
ascertaining  the   balance,"   tlierc   being  no 


other  transaction  between  the  parties. 
Cooper  z:  Coates  (U.  S.).  21  Wall.  105, 
22   L.   Ed.  481. 

2.  Not  exclusively  a  sea  document. — 
Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Wilkcns,  44  Md. 
11,  22  .\m.  Rep.  26. 

"Strictly  speaking,  the  term  "bill  of  lad- 
ing' is  one  to  be  applied  only  to  the  writ- 
ten evidence  of  a  contract  for  the  carriage 
and  delivery  of  goods  sent  by  sea,  though 
it  is  now  in  common  use  in  connection 
with  the  affreightment  of  goods  by  water 
other  than  the  sea,  or  carriage  by  rail." 
Sellers  f.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Ga. 
386,  51   S.  E.  398. 

3.  It  may  be  that  the  name  "i>ill  of  lad- 
ing"   is    not    strictly    appropriate    to   a    re- 


§§  413-418 


CARRIERS. 


302 


mercial  instruments.-* 

Clean  Bill  of  Lading. — A  "clean"  bill  of  lading,  that  is  to  say,  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing which  is  silent  as  to  the  place  of  stowage,  imports  a  contract  that  the  goods 
are  to  be  stowed  under  deck.-"^ 

Blind  Billing. — The  act  of  shipping  without  stating  the  charges  is  called 
"blind  billing."  *' 

§§  414-424.  Form  and  Contents — §  414.  In  General. — Any  instru- 
ment embodying  the  features  specitied  in  the  definition  abo\e  is  a  bill  of  lading, 
so  far  as  its  legal  effect  is  concerned,  regardless  of  its  form  or  the  name  by 
which  it  may  be  designated.'' 

Account  for  Freight  or  Freight  Bill. — An  account  for  freight  or  a  mere 
"freight  bill"  does  not.  ho\\e\er.  constitute  a  l)ill  of  lading.'' 

Due  Bill  Issued  in  Lieu  of  Incoming  Bill  of  Lading. — A  "due  bill"  issued 
by  a  carrier  in  lieu  of  a  bill  of  lading  for  cotton,  representing  the  excess  of  cot- 
ton called  for  by  an  incoming  bill  of  lading  on  the  issuance  of  an  outgoing  bill 
for  a  smaller  number  of  bales,  could  not  be  regarded  as  a  bill  of  lading.'^ 

§    415.  Writing. — A  bill  of  lading,  although  written  with  a  pencil,  is  valid. ^'^ 

§  416.  Signature. — A  bill  of  lading  must  be  signed  by  the  master  of  the 
\essel  or  other  agent  of  the  carrier.^^ 

Signature  of  Shipper. — L'nder  the  laws  of  Georgia  it  is  required  that  the 
shipper  sign  the  bill  of  lading  in  order  to  make  the  special  terms  of  the  con- 
tract of  carriage  effective. *- 

§  417.  Name  of  Consignee. — See  post,  "Person  to  Whom  Delivery  Au- 
thorized," §§  485-487. 

§  418.  Statement  of  Value  of  Goods. — Failure  to  file  in  a  blank  left  in 
a  bill  of  lading  for  the  ^•alue  of  the  shipment  does  not  invalidate  the  bill  of 
ladincf.^-^ 


ceipt  given  by  a  common  carrier  as  the 
evidence  of  a  bailment  for  transportation 
upon  land,  but  the  receipts  of  railroad 
companies  are  by  usage  so  denominated, 
and  in  respect  to  assignability  and  the 
effect  of  assignment,  the  rule  is  the  same 
touching  them  as  touching  bills  of  lading 
proper.     Bass  z'.  Glover,  63  Ga.  745. 

4.  Commercial  instrument. — Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Wilkens,  44  Aid.  11,  22  Am. 
Rep.  20. 

5.  Clean  bill  of  lading. — The  Delaware 
(U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579,  20  L.  Ed.  779;  Niag- 
ara Z'.  Cordes  (U.  S.),  21  How.  7,  16  L. 
Ed.  41. 

6.  Blind  billing. — Standard  Oil  Co.  z'. 
United  States,  17'.)  Eerl.  814,  lo:;  C.  C.  A. 
172. 

7.  No  particular  form  required. — Coosa 
River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Barclay,  30  Ala. 
120. 

8.  Account  for  freight  or  freight  bill. — 
Coosa  River  Steamboat  Co.  Z'.  Barclay, 
30  Ala.  120. 

9.  Due-bill.— St.  Louis,,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Citizens'  Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154, 
30  R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S..   290.    128   Am.    St.    Rep.    17. 

10.  Writing. — Main  v.  Jarrett,  83  Ark. 
426,  104   S.    W.   163,  119  Am.   St.   Rep.    144. 


11.  Signature  of  master  of  vessel.— The 
Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579,  20  L.  Ed. 
779;  Covell  v.  Hill,  6  N.  Y.  374;  Gage  v. 
Jaqueth  (N.  Y.),  1  Lans.  207;  Babcock 
Z'.    Orbison,   25   Ind.   75. 

12.  Signature  of  shipper. — Rhodes,  etc., 
Co.  z'.  Continental  Furniture  Co.,  2  Ga. 
App.   116,   58   S.    E.   293. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  the  assent  of 
a  shipper  to  the  terms  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing may  be  established  without  his  signa- 
ture thereto,  so  as  to  make  the  contract 
Ijinding  as  between  him  and  the  carrier. 
Piedmont  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  19   S.   C.  353. 

13.  Failure  of  shipper  to  state  value  in 
bill  of  lading. — The  failure  of  a  shipper 
who  fills  up  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  of 
the  value  of  more  than  fifty  dollars,  to 
fill  in  the  blank  left  for  the  value  of  the 
shipment,  does  not  constitute  a  fraudu- 
ulent  representation  or  concealment  of 
tiie  value  of  the  goods  on  his  part,  nor  a 
refusal  to  give  their  value  when  requested, 
altliough  he  knew  that  the  carrier  be- 
stowed a  higher  degree  of  care  on  pack- 
ages of  the  value  of  fifty  dollars  or  more 
than  on  packages  of  less  value.  His  mere 
knowledge  of  that  fact  could  not  change 
the   degree   of   care   imposed   by   law   upon 


303 


I'.II.LS    OF    LADING. 


§§  419-425 


§  419.  Notations  and  Marginal  Memoranda. — Where  there  is  a  nota- 
tion or  nienioranduni  on  the  iiiars^in  of  the  hih  at  its  execution,  touching  the 
manner  of  carrying,  it  may  he  regarded  as  i)art  of  the  contract. ^"*  if  the  shipper 
assented  to  such  notation  ;  ^•'  hut  a  marginal  note  placed  on  a  hill  of  lading  hy 
the  shii)|)er  is  no  ])art  of  the  hill.''' 

§  42  0.  The  Law.  —  W  hat  the  law  inserts  is  as  much  a  part  of  a  hill  of  lad- 
ing as  what  is  e\])ressly  written  therein.^' 

The  provisions  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law  forhidding  railroads 
to  recover  a  greater  or  less  compensation  for  the  transi)ortation  of  property 
than  is  s])ecified  in  the  puhlishcd  schedule  of  rates  is  a  part  of  every  hill  of  lad- 
ing  for  the   shipment   of   interstate    freight. '^ 

§   421,   Published  Tariffs. — Where  a  hill  of  lading  hy  a  railway  company 

states  that  it  is  "■snhject  to  the  i)ul)lished  tariff'  of  said  company  and  its  con- 
nections," and  said  tariit  is  well  known  to  the  shipi)er,  rates  in  the  tariff,  when 
ai)plicahle,  will  form  part  of  the  freight  contract.'-' 

§  422.  Expense  Account  of  Carrier. — An  expense  account,  furnisherl  hy 
the  carrier,  and  showing  the  amount  of  freight,  constitutes  no  part  of  the  hill 
of  lading,  and  can  not  l)e  used  in  aid  of  it  unless  referred  to  therein.-" 

§  423.  Recitals  of  Fact. — See  post,  "Dual  Character  as  Contract  and  as 
Receipt,"  §§  466-479. 

§  424.  Special  Conditions  and  Limitations. — See  post,  "Special  Con- 
tracts," chaj)ter  S;    "Limitation  of   Liahility,"  chapter  14. 

§§  425-450.  Issuance  and  Acceptance — §  425.  Necessity  for  Issu- 
ance.— Shippers  should  in  all  cases  require  a  l)ill  of  lading,  whether  the  con- 
tract of  affreightment  is  hy  charter  party,  or  without  any  such  customary  writ- 
ten instrument.-'  lUit  a  hill  of  lading  is  not  essential  to  charge  the  carrier  with 
the  duty  of  safely  transporting  the  property  delivered  for  carriage,  although  the 
doing  of  the  several  acts  entitling  the  shipper  to  a  hill  of  lading  is  necessary  to 
charge  the  carrier  with  the  safety  of  the  articles  intrusted  to  him.-- 


the  carrier,  nor  imposed  upon  the  shipper 
any  higher  duty  than  if  he  were  ignorant 
of  such  fact.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  z\  Green, 
112  Va.  527.  72   S.    E.   102. 

14.  Marginal  notes. — Lawrence  z'.  Mc- 
Grci^or  (().).  \Vri,u;ht  193. 

15.  Assent  of  shipper. — .\  notation,  on 
a  l)ill  of  lading  issued  for  a  car  load  of 
fruit,  tliat  the  vents  on  the  car  are  to  be 
closed,  is  not  a  direction  from  the  shipper 
to  the  carrier  to  close  the  vents,  without 
proof  that  the  shipper  assented  to  such 
notation.  Yesbik  v.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
75  S.  E.  207.  1 1   Ga.  App.  2US. 

16.  Marginal  note  placed  on  bill  by 
shipper. — A  marginal  note  put  by  the 
(luartirmaster's  department  on  bills  of 
lading  of  vessels  chartered  by  them,  "that 
if  on  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  at  the  port, 
of  destination  the  consignee  should  order 
her  to  another  place  to  discharge,  such 
order  in  all  cases  to  lie  in  writing  on  the 
bill  of  lading,"  does  nn[  make  a  part  of 
the  contract  entered  into  lij-  the  vessel; 
and  if  her  port  of  destination  lie  plainly 
expressed  in  the  body  of  the  bill,  the  con- 
signee can  not,  in  virtue  of  the  marginal 
memorandum,  order  her  to  go  forward  to 


another    port.      United    States    z'.    Kimbal 
(U.  S.),   13  Wall.  636,  20  L.  Ed.  503. 

17.  The  law.— Ryan  r.  M.  K.  &  T.  R. 
Co..  65  Tex.  13,  57  Am.  Rep.  589,  23 
Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.  703. 

18.  Intestate  commerce  law. — Southern 
R.  Co.  r.  Harrison,  11!)  Ala.  539,  24  So. 
5.V2,   43   L.    R.   A.   3S.-).   72   .-Vm.   St.   Rep.  936. 

19.  Published  tariffs. — Atchison,  etc..  R. 
Co.  r.  Roberts.  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  370.  22 
S.   W.    1S3. 

20.  Expense  account  of  carrier. — Texas. 
etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  Wo.h!  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  23 
S.    W  .    714. 

21.  Necessity  for  bills  of  lading. — The 
Delaware  (,U.  S.),  14  Wall.  :.7<).  20  L.  Ed. 
779. 

22.  Montgomery,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Kolb, 
73  .-Ma.  396;  .Mabama  Mid.  R.  Co.  r. 
Darby,  119  .^la.  531,  24  So.  713:  Southern 
R.  Co.  z:  Johnson.  2  Ga.  App.  36.  58  S. 
E.  333;  Johnson  v.  Stoddard,  100  Mass. 
306:  Meloche  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 
Mich.  69,  74  N.  W.  301:  Tate  z: 
Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  Miss.  842.  29  So. 
392.  84   Am.    St.    Rep.   649.   651. 

"Delivery  of  a  bill  of  lading  is  not  nec- 
essary   to    fi.x    liability    upon    the    defend- 


;§  426-428 


CARRIERS. 


304 


§8  426-442.  Authority  to  Issue— §§  426-428.  Agents  and  Employ- 
ees—§§  426-427.  Agents  and  Employees  Who  May  Issue— §  426.  Mas- 
ter of  Vessel  and  Other  Employees.— Master  of  Vessel.— If  the  signer  of 
a  bill  of  lading  is  not  the  master  of  the  vessel,  the  vessel  is  not  bound,  because 
the  bill  is  signed  by  one  not  in  privity  with  the  owner.  The  taker  assumes  the 
risk,  not  only  of  the  genuineness  of  tlie  signature,  but  of  the  fact  that  the  signer 
was'  the  master  of  the  vessel.--'  Evidence  of  authority  to  sign  for  the  master 
is,  however,  admissible  notwithstanding  the  rule.^-* 

Second  Clerk  of  Steamer.— The  second  clerk  of  a  steamer  may  execute  on 
behalf  of  the  boat  a  bill  of  lading  in  the  ordinary  way  and  his  receipt  for  mer- 
chandise delivered  on  board  will  l)e  binding.-'' 

§  427.  Agents  and  Employees  of  Railroads.— RaUroad  Freight  Agent. 

A    railroad    freight   agent   has   authority   to   receive   goods   and   issue   bills   of 

lading  therefor.-''  . 

General  Freight  Agent  of  Railroad  Company  and  Assistants.— A  bill  ot 
lading  signed  by  the  general  freight  agent  of  a  railroad  company  is  in  effect 
issued  by  the  company  itself,  and  is  valid  in  the  hands  of  innocent  third  parties, 
although  the  goods  were  not  in  fact  received,^'  and  the  signature  of  an  assist- 
ant general  officer  is  as  efifective  as  that  of  the  officer  himself. -'^ 

§  428.  Proof  or  Estoppel  to  Deny  Authority  of  Agent.— Express  au- 
thority of  the  agent  of  a  carrier  to  issue  a  bill  of  lading  or  give  a  receipt  for 
goods  need  not  be  proved,  wdien  he  acted  as  such  in  the  proper  place  for  re- 
ceiving goods  for  the  carrier,  and  w^as  in  possession  of  the  carrier's  stamp  to 
be  used  on  such  receipts,  and  the  carrier  took  possession  of  the  goods  and 
caused  them  to  be  shipped,  presumably  with  knowledge  of  the  receipt,  which  it 


ant.  Wells  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
.51  X.  C.  47,  72  Am.  Dec.  556."  Berry  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  122  N.  C.  1002,  30  So.  14. 

A  carrier  may  enter  into  a  con- 
tract without  a  bill  of  lading,  a  part  of 
which  is  to  be  performed  before  the  goods 
are  in  course  of  actual  transportation  by 
him,  and  in  so  far  as  such  contract  would 
be  binding  upon  other  persons  it  will  be 
binding  upon  him  also.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491. 

A  parol  contract  by  which  a  railway 
company  agrees  to  receive  cattle  on  its 
cars  for  transportation  on  a  day  certain, 
and  which  is  violated  by  not  having  the 
cars  as  agreed  on,  may  be  made  the  basis 
of  recovery  against  the  company  for  all 
damages  caused  thereby.  It  can  not  claim 
that'  its  liability  did  not  attach  until  the 
signing  of  a  bill  of  lading  for  the  cat- 
tle, which  were  delivered  at  a  subsequent 
day,  and  after  the  contract  had  been  vio- 
lated. The  liability  of  the  company  for 
damages  was  for  a  breach  of  contract, 
which  made  delivery  of  the  cattle  at  the 
time  specified  impossible.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hamm,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  491. 

Arts.  281,  282,  283,  Rev.  Stat,  of  Texas, 
do  not  provide  that  a  railroad  is  not  lia- 
ble as  a  common  carrier  of  cattle  upon 
a  parol  agreement  to  furnish  cars,  and 
that  its  liability  does  not  attach  until  the 
signing  of  the  bill  of  lading.  These  sec- 
tions   merely    provide    that    the    carriers' 


common-law  liability  as  such  shall  com- 
mence from  the  time  the  bill  of  lading  is 
signed;  and  that  previous  thereto  they 
shall  be  liable  only  as  warehousemen  for 
goods  placed  in  their  depots  or  ware- 
houses to  be  thereafter  transported.  They 
do  not  in  terms  or  in  effect  exernpt  the 
carrier  from  such  liabilities  as  he  is  sub- 
ject to  in  common  with  all  persons,  no 
matter  what  occupation  they  may  pursue. 
Texas,  etc.,  II.  Co.  v.  Nicholson,  61  Tex. 
491. 

23.  Who  may  issue. — Pollard  v.  Vinton, 
105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed.  998;  The  Schooner 
Freeman  (U.  S.),  18  How.  182,  15  L.  Ed. 
341;  The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579, 
20  L.   Ed.  779. 

24.  Putnam  v.  Tillotson  (Mass.),  13 
Mete.   517. 

25.  Second  clerk  of  steamer. — Kirkman 
T.  Bowman   (La.),  s  Rob.  24f). 

26.  Railroad  freight  agent.— St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Citizens'  Bank,  87  Ark.  26, 
112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  290,  128  Am.  St. 
Rep.  17.  See  post,  "Proof  of  and  Estop- 
pel to  Deny  Authority  of  .\gent,"   §   428. 

27.  General  freight  agent — Railroad 
company  and  assistants. — Smith  v.  Mis- 
souri I'ac.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  App.  48;  Sealy 
V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Kan.  479,  114 
Pac.  1077,  41   L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  500. 

28.  Sealy  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
Kan.  479,  114  Pac.  1077,  41  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  500.  » 


305 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§§  428-429 


must  be  presumed  the  carrier  had  before  tliey  were  so  shipped.  Xo  other  proof 
of  agency  is  necessary  than  that  the  agent's  acts  justify  the  party  dealing  with 
him  in  beheving  that  he  had  authority.-"-*  In  such  case  tlie  carrier  is  estopped 
to  deny  the  authority  oi  its  agent.-'" 

Proof  of  Authority  as  Requisite  to  Admission  of  Bill  in  Evidence. — See 
post,  "\'r()()\   of   Ivxccution  of   I '.ill,"  §  ?'>*). 

§§  429-442.  Receipt  of  Goods  as  Prerequisite  to  Issuance— §§  429- 
438.  Necessity — §  429.  In  General. —  If  a  bill  of  lading  is  issued  by  a  car 
rier  before  the  goods  arc  tendcrc<l  it  is  void,  and  does  not  become  effective  until 
the  goods  are  offered  to  the  carrier  in  such  condition  as  it  should  receive  them.-'* 
The  receipt  of  the  goods  is  the  foundation  of  the  contract  to  carry  and  deliver 
expressed  in  a  bill  of  lading.  If  no  goods  are  actually  received  by  the  carrier 
there  can  be  no  valid  contract  to  carry  or  deliver/^-  and  the  bill  imposes  no 
liabilitv  on  the  carrier  as  an  insurer  until  the  goods  are  actually  received  by  it.-'*^ 
\\  bile  the  authorities  may  dift'er  u\)on  the  point  of  what  constitutes  delivery  to 
a  carrier,  the  rule  is  nowhere  (|uestioned  that  when  delivery  has  not  been  made 
to  the  carrier,  l)ut,  on  the  contrary,  the  evidence  shows  that  the  goods  remained 


29.  Proof  or  estoppel  to  deny  authority 
of  agent. — Hansen  z'.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
'.)  Am.  vSt.  Rep.  791,  73  Wis.  346,  41  N.  W. 
529,  so  holding  as  to  a  bill  of  lading  for 
a  through  shipment  over  connecting 
lines. 

30.  Agent  left  in  charge  of  station  after 
resignation  accepted. — Though  tiie  agent 
of  a  carrier  at  a  certain  station  resigned, 
and  his  resignation  was  accepted,  yet,  no 
one  else  having  been  appointed  tor  a 
year,  and  the  company  having  in  the  in- 
terim left  the  station  keys  with  him,  and 
he  having  personally  seen  to  billing 
freight,  though  he  did  not  sign  the  bills 
of  lading,  and  no  notice  of  his  discharge 
having  been  given  the  public,  but  he  hav- 
ing been  permitted  to  act  substantially 
as  he  had  done  before,  the  carrier  was 
estopped  by  its  acquiescence  to  question 
his  authority  as  agent  as  between  it  and 
shippers  who  dealt  with  him.  Louisville, 
etc.,    R.    Co.    :•.    Mink.    103    S.    W.    294,    12(i 

Ky.  ;;:;:.  :!i   Ky.  L.  Rep.  833. 

31.  Necessity. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Cook.  4  Ga.  App.  698,  62  S.  E.  464;  Adams 
v.  Brig  Pilgrim,  10  West.  L.  J.  141,  1  O. 
Dec.  477.  See  post,  "Subsequent  De- 
livery to  Carrier  as  \'alidating  Bill," 
§§  439-442. 

Compared  to  bill  of  exchange. — Com- 
mon carrier  is  no  more  bound  by  bill  of 
lading  given  by  his  agent  for  goods  not 
received  by  him,  than  by  a  bill  of  ex- 
change signed  with  his  name  by  one  not 
autliorized  to  sign  it.  Hunt  7'.  Mississippi 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  29  La.  Ann.  446. 

32.  I'liitcd  States, — Pollard  v.  \'inton.  105 
U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed.  998;  Robinson  z:  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57;  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Knight.  122  U.  S.  79,'  30 
L.  Ed.  1077,  7  S.  Ct.  1132;  The  Willie  D. 
Sandhoval.  92  Fed.  286;  The  Schooner 
Freeman  (U.  S.),  18  How.  182.  15  L.  Ed. 
341.  The  Harter  Act  has  not  altered  the 
rule.     The  Isola  Di  Procida.  124  Fed.  942. 


Arkaiisiis. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cit- 
izens' Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30 
R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  290,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

Under  the  express  provisions  of  Kirby's 
E)ig.,  §§  524,  532,  a  carrier  can  not  issue 
any  receipt  for  goods  not  actually  received 
into  the  possession  of  the  carrier  or  ware- 
houseman. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Cit- 
izens' Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154, 
30  R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
X.   S.,  290.  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

Connecticut. — Relyea  v.  New  Haven 
Rolling  Mill  Co.,  42  Conn.  579,  75  Fed. 
420. 

Indiana. — Stone     v.     Wabash,     etc.,     R.. 
Co.,  9   111.  App.  4S;   Union   R.,  etc.,   Co.  v. 
Yeager,  34  Ind.   1. 

Louisiana. — Fearn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richard- 
son, 12  La.  Ann.  752;  Fellows  v.  Powell, 
16  La.  Ann.  316,  79  Am.  Dec.  581;  Hunt 
f.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.,  29  La.  Ann. 
446;  Kirkman  r.  Bowman  (La.).  8  Rob. 
246. 

Marxland. — Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Wilkiiis,   44   Md.   11,   22   Am.    Rep.   26. 

Massachusetts.  —  Sears  v.  Wingate 
(Mass.),   3  Allen   103. 

Minnesota. — Natfonal  Bank  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  X.  W.  342. 
560,  9  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  263.  20  Am.  St. 
Rep.   566. 

Xew  York. — Miller  i'.  Hannibal,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  90   N.  Y.  430,  43  .\m.   Rep.   179. 

North  Carolina. — Black  v.  Wilmington, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  92  X.  C.  42,  53  Am.  Rep.  450. 

Canada.— Erh  z:  Great  Western  Ry. 
Co.,   5   Can.   Sup.   Ct.   Rep.   179. 

England.— Grant  z:  Xorway.  2d  Eng. 
L.    &    E.    337.    10    C.    B.    tEng.)    665. 

33.  Liability  as  insurer  of  goods. — Pitts- 
Iiurg.  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  American  Tobacco 
Co.,^  126  Kv.  582,  2:^  R.  R.  R.  586.  48  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.'Cas..  X.  S..  586.  104  S.  W.  377. 


1   Car— 20 


§§  429-430 


CARRIERS. 


306 


in  the  possession  of  the  shipper  or  his  agent  after  the  signing  and  passing  of  the 
bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  as  carrier  under  the  bill.-'-*  In  such  case 
no  action  is  maintainable  either  on  the  ground  of  contract  or  tort.'"'* 

§  430.  Authority  of  Agents  or  Employees. — It  is  within  the  scope  of 
authority  of  the  freight  agents  of  a  carrier  to  receive  goods  and  issue  bills  of 
lading  therefor,-^'"'  but  such  an  agent  is  without  authority  to  issue  a  bill  of  lading 
for  goods  not  delivered  into  the  carrier's  actual  or  constructive  possession,"''' 
and  it  is  not  within  the  apparent  scope  of  his  authority  to  issue  such  bill  when 
the  goods  have  not  been  received.-'*'*  This  doctrine  is  applicable  to  transporta- 
tion contracts  made  in  that  form  by  railway  companies  and  other  carriers  by 
land,  as  well  as  carriers  by  sea.^^ 

Particular  Officers  and  Agents  of  Carrier  by  'Water. — The  master  of  a 
vessel.^"    its   shipping   agent,-"    the   second   clerk   of   a   vessel,'*-   or   an   officer   or 


34.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden, 
154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14  S.  Ct.  990. 

35.  Friedlander  f.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
130  U.  S.  416.  425,  32  L.  Ed.  991,  9  S.  Ct. 
570. 

36.  Authority  of  agents  or  employees. 
— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Bank, 
87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  128  Am.  St. 
Rep.  17,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
290.  30  R.  R.  R.  290.  See  ante,  "Authority 
of  Agents  or  Emploj-ees,"  §  430. 

37.  Authority  of  agent. —  United  States. 
— American  Sugar-Retining  Co.  z'.  Mad- 
dock,  36  C.  C.  A.  42.  93  Fed.  980;  Cunard. 
etc..  Co.  z:  Kelley,  53  C.  C.  A.  310,  115 
Fed.  678;  Pollard  z:  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7, 
12,  26  L.  Ed.  998;  Robinson  z\  Memphis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed. 
1077.  7  S.  Ct.  1132;  The  Schooner  Free- 
man (U.  S.),  18  How.  182,  15  L.  Ed.  341; 
The  Isola  Di  Procida,  124  Fed.  942;  The 
Willie  D.  Sandhoval,  92  Fed.  286. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Citizens'  Bank,  87  Ark..  26,  30  R.  R.  R. 
290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  290, 
112   S.   \V.  154,   128  Am.   St.   Rep.  17. 

Louisiana. — Fearn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richard- 
son. 12  La.  Ann.  752;  Fellows  z\  Powell, 
16  La.  .\nn.  316,  79  Am.  Dec.  581;  Hunt 
V.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.,  29  La.  Ann. 
446;  Kirkman  Z'.  Bowman  (La.),  8  Rob. 
246. 

J/ai«c.— Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290, 
35  Am.   Rep.  327. 

Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc,  R.  Co.  v. 
"Wilkens,  44  Md.   11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26. 

Massaclitisetts.  — -  Kelley  v.  Bowker 
(Mass.).  11  Gray  428.  71  Am.  Dec.  725; 
Sears  z\  Wingate  (Mass.),  3  Allen  103; 
Shepherd  z\   Xaylor    (Mass.).   5   Gray  59L 

Minnesota. — National  Bank  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342, 
560,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  263,  20  Am.  St. 
Rep.  566. 

North  Carolina. — Black  v.  Wilmington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  X.  C.  42,  53  Am.  Rep. 
450. 

0///0.— Dean  v.  King,  22  O.  St.  118; 
Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Dodds  &  Co., 
1  C.  S.  C.  47,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint  407. 


U'ashuigton. — Roy  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  42  Wash.  572,  85  Pac.  53,  7  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  728,  6  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  302. 

England. — Coleman  r.  Riches,  16  C.  B. 
104;  Grant  v.  Norway,  10  C.  B.  (Eng.) 
665.  2d  Eng.  L.  &  E.  337;  Hubbersty  v. 
Ward,  8  Exch.  330;  Lickbarrow  :\  .Ma- 
son, 2  T.   R.   (Eng.)    77. 

Canada. — Erb  z'.  Great  W^estern  Ry. 
Co..  5  Can.  Sup.  Ct.   Rep.   179. 

38.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  17, 
112  S.  \V.  154,  30  R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am.  & 
Eng.    R.    Cas..    N.    S..   290. 

Apparent  authority  of  officer  of  cargo 
steamboat. — The  mere  employment  of  an 
officer  or  agent  for  a  cargo  steamboat 
does  not  clothe  him  with  apparent  author- 
ity to  issue  bills  of  lading  for  goods  not 
on  board,  or  not  delivered  to  one  author- 
ized to  receive  freight  on  account  of  the 
boat.     Dean  v.  King.  22  O.  St.  118. 

39.  Application  of  rule  to  carriers  by 
land. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Knight, 
122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed.  1077,  7  S.  Ct.  1132; 
The  Schooner  Freeman  (U.  S.),  18  How. 
182,  15  L.  Ed.  341:  Pollard  z:  Vinton.  105 
U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed.  998;  Friedlander  z/.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  416,  32  L.  Ed.  991, 
9  S.  Ct.  570;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z\  Mc- 
Fadden, 154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944.  14 
S.  Ct.  990;  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  ?■.  Com- 
mercial Union  Ins.  Co..  139  U.  S.  223,  35 
L.    Ed.  154,   11    S.  Ct.  554. 

40.  Master  of  vessel. — Friedlander  z'. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  416,  424, 
32  L.  Ed.  991,  9  S.  Ct.  570;  The  Schooner 
Freeman  (U.  S.),  18  How.  182.  15  T,  Fd. 
341;  The  Lady  Franklin  (U.  S.),  8  Wall. 
325,  19  L.   Ed.  455;   Pollard  v.  Vinton,  105 

41.  Shipping  agents — Rivers  of  interior. 

— Shipping  agents  of  a  vessel  at  points 
on  the  rivers  of  the  interior  where  cargo 
is  received  and  delivered,  can  not,  by  giv- 
ing a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  not  received 
for  shipment  bind  the  vessel  or  its  owner. 
Pollard  z:  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed. 
998. 

42.  Second  clerk  of  vessel. —  Kirkman  z'. 
Bowman   (La.),  8   Rob.  246. 


307 


lULLS     OF     LAUIXG. 


§  430 


agent  for  a  cargo  steamboat,-*-'  has  no  autlKjriiy  to  sign  a  hill  of  lading  for  goods 
not  actnally  jnit  on  hoard  the  vessel. 

A  railroad  freight  agent  has  no  authority  to  issue  a  hill  of  lading  or  re- 
cei])l   for  goods  not  actua]l\    received. "♦■* 

Agreement  That  Shipper  Shall  Retain  Custody  Till  Future  Day.— The 
carrier's  ]iahilil\-  ;is  siuli  will  nol  attach  on  i.s^uing  the  hill  in  a  case  where  not 
only  is  tliere  a  failure  to  (klivcr,  hut  there  is  also  an  understanding  between  the 
parties  that  delivery  shall  not  he  made  till  a  future  day.  and  that  the  goods, 
until  then,  shall  reniain  in  the  custody  of  the  shii)|)er.*'' 

Issuance  by  Agent  for  Several  Vessels  in  Name  of  Another  than  That 
in  Which  Goods  Loaded. — W  here  an  agent  of  se\eral  \oscU  i^'-ues  a  hill  of 
latling  in  the  name  of  one  vessel  for  goods  which  are  in  fact  loaded  upon  another, 
the  first  \essel  is  not  liable  on  the  bill  of  lading  in  case  of  loss."*'' 

Application  of  Doctrine  of  Estoppel. — \\'here  the  agent  of  a  boat  carelessly 
issues  a  bill  of  lading  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  freight  not  on  board  or  not 
delivered  to  a  person  authorized  to  receive  it,  the  owners  of  the  boat  are  not  es- 
topped, by  reason  of  such  carelessness,  from  denying  the  receipt  thereof,  although 
the  shipper  may  have  been  misled  thereby. ■*" 

Burden  of  Proof  of  Authority  of  Agent. — The  authority  of  the  agent  of  a 
carrier  to  issue  a  bill  oi  lading  or  to  make  a  si)ecial  contract  so  as  to  bind  it  for 
goods  not  delivered  nuist  be  shown  by  the  person  asserting  it.'*'' 


U.  S.  7,  2 J  L.  Rd.  99S;  St.  Louis,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed.  1077, 
7  S.  Ct.  1132:  The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14 
Wall.  579,  20  L.  Ed.  779;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  r.  McFadden,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L. 
Ed.  944.  14  S.  Ct.  990;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  t'.  Commercial  Union  Ins.  Co.,  139 
U.  S.  223,  35  L.  Ed.  154,  11   S.  Ct.  554. 

Before  the  power  to  make  and  deliver 
a  I)ill  of  lading  could  arise,  some  person 
must  have  shipped  goods  on  the  vessel. 
Only  then  could  there  be  a  shipper,  and 
only  then  could  there  be  goods  shipped. 
The  goods  need  not  have  been  actually 
placed  on  the  deck  of  the  vessel.  If  they 
came  witliin_  the  control  and  custody  of 
the  officers  of  the  boat  for  the  purpose  of 
shipment,  the  contract  of  carriage  has 
commenced,  and  the  evidence  of  it  in  the 
form  of  a  l)ill  of  lading  would  l)e  ])inding. 
But  without  such  a  delivery  there  is  no 
contract  of  carrying  and  the  agent  of  the 
carrier  has  no  authority  to  make  one.  Pol- 
lard :■.  Vinton.  105  U.  S.  7.  2(5  L.  Ed.  998; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Wilkens.  44  Md. 
11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26;  .\doue  i:  Seeligson 
&  Co.,  54  Tex.  593. 

43.  Officer  of  cargo  steamboat. — Dean 
V.   King.  22   ( ).   St.    1  IS. 

44.  Railroad  freight  agent. — It  is  l)e- 
yond  the  scope  of  a  railroad  freight 
agent's  authority,  to  issue  a  bill  of  lading 
or  receipt  for  goods  not  actually  received. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co  :■.  Citizens'  Rank, 
87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R.  R. 
290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  290, 
12S   .'\iii.    St.    \\v]i.    IT. 

45.  Agreement  that  shipper  shall  retain 
custody  till  future  day, — Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  :■.  .Mel- addon.  l.Vl  L'.  S.  155.  38  L.  Ed. 
944,    14   S.   Ct.   990. 

.\   carrier  is   not  lialde   on  a   bill  of  lad- 


ing for  propcrt)^  which  at  the  time  of  the 
signing  o{  the  l)ill  remains  in  the  hands 
of  the  shipper  for  the  purpose  of  being 
compressed  for  the  shipper's  account,  and 
was  destroyed  by  fire  before  the  delivery 
to  the  carrier  had  been  consummated. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden,  154 
U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14  S.  Ct.  990; 
Arthur  r.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.,  204  U.  S. 
505,  51    L.   Ed.  590,  27   S.  Ct.  338. 

46.  Issuance  of  bill  by  agent  of  several 
vessels  in  name  of  vessel  on  which  no 
goods  loaded. — The  Lady  Franklin  ( U. 
S.).  S  Wall.  325,  19  L.   Ed.  455. 

A  bill  of  lading  given  by  a  person  who 
was  agent  of  several  vessels  all  alike  en- 
gaged in  transporting  goods  brought  to 
certain  waters  liy  a  railwaj'  line.  l)ut  hav- 
ing separate  owners,  and  not  connected 
by  any  joint  undertaking  to  be  respon- 
sible for  one  anotlier's  breaches  of  con- 
tract— the  bill,  through  mistake  of  the 
agent,  acknowledging  that  certain  gootis 
had  been  shipped  on  the  vessel  .-K..  when, 
in  fact,  tliey  had  l^een  previously  shipped 
on  the  vessel  B.,  and  a  bill  of  lading  given 
accordingly — will  not  make  the  vessel  .\. 
responsible,  the  goods  having  been  lost 
by  the  vessel  B.,  and  the  suit  being  one 
by  shippers  of  the  merchandise  against 
the  owner  of  the  vessel.  .\..  and  tlie  case 
being  thus  unembarrassed  by  any  ques- 
tion of  a  bona  fide  purchase  on  the 
strength  of  the  bill  of  lading.  The  Lady 
Franklin  (U.  S.),  8  Walk  325.  19  L.  Ed. 
455. 

47.  l)e;in   :■.    King.  "22   O.   St.    11 S. 

48.  Burden  of  proof  of  authority. — Kirk- 
man  :■.  Bowman  iLa.).  s  Rdl).  246.  so 
holdiuLi  as  to  proof  of  autiiority  of  sec- 
ond  clerk   on   vessel. 


§  431 


CAKRIIvRS. 


308 


§§  431-437.  As  against  Bona  Fide  Consignee  or  Transferee— §  431. 
Doctrine  Prevailing  in  Most  Jurisdictions.— A  bill  of  lading  issued  by  a  sta- 
tion or  shipping  agent  of  a  railroad  company  or  other  common  carrier,  without 
receiving  the  goods  named  in  it  for  transportation,  imposes  no  liability  upon  the 
carrier.  *  Even  as  against  a  bona  fide  consignee  or  indorsee  for  value,  the  carrier 
is  not  estopped  bv  the  statements  of  the  bill  of  lading  issued  by  his  agent  from 
showing  that  the  goods  therein  described  were  not  in  fact  received  for  transpor- 
tation, unless  by  its  usual  mode  of  doing  business  it  has  given  to  its  agents  au- 
thority to  issue  bills  of  lading  for  goods  not  received.  This  doctrine  is  supported 
by  an  unbroken  line  of  authorities  in  England"*''  and  Canada;-^"  and  is  the  set- 
lied  doctrine  of  the  federal  courts  ;^^i  and  of  the  courts  of  most  of  the  states 
among   which   are   Alabama,^^   Arkansas, ^-^    Illinois. •"'■*    Louisiana,^^    Maryland,-^" 


49.  English  cases. — Brown  r.  Powell 
Coal  Co..  L.  R.  10  C.  P.  562;  Coleman 
7'.  Riches.  16  C.  B.  104;  Cox,  Patterson, 
&  Co.  V.  Bruce  &  Co.,  18  C.  B.  Div.  147; 
Grant  r.  Norway,  10  C.  B.  (Eng.)  665,  2d 
Eng.  L.  &  E.  337:  Hubbertsty  t'.  Ward, 
8  Exch.  330;  Jessel  v.  Bath,  L.  R.  2,  Exch. 
267;  Lickbarrow  r.  Mason,  2  T.  R.  (Eng.) 
77;  McLean  r.  Fleming,  L.  R.  2,  H.  L. 
Sc.  128;  Meyer  v.  Dresser,  16  C.  B.,  N.  S., 
646;  Uessel  z:  Bath,  2  Exch.  267. 

In  Grant  :■.  Norway,  10  C.  B.  (Eng.) 
665,  2d  Eng.  L.  &  E.  337,  the  question 
was  first  distinctly  presented  for  adjudi- 
cation in  England,  whether  the  master 
of  a  vessel  signing  a  bill  of  lading  for 
goods  which  have  never  been  shipped  is 
to  be  considered  the  agent  of  the  owner 
in  that  behalf,  so  as  to  make  the  latter 
responsible  to  an  indorsee  of  the  bill  for 
value,  and  after  full  consideration  the 
court  of  common  pleas  held  that  he  was 
not. 

"And  this  has  not  been  at  all  changed 
by  the  Bills  of  Lading  Act:  18  &  19 
Vict.,  c.  Ill,  §  3."  National  Bank  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W. 
342,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  263,  20  Am.  St. 
Rep.    566. 

American  cases. — The  English  rule  is 
stated  in  Henderson  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  116  La.  1047,  41  So.  252,  114  Am. 
St.  Rep.  582;  National  Bank  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.-  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  9 
L.   R.  A.,   N.  S.,  263,  20  Am.   St.   Rep.   566. 

50.  Erb  V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5 
Can.    Sup.    Ct.    Rep.    179. 

51.  Eriedlander  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
130  U.  S.  416,  9  S.  Ct.  570,  32  L.  Ed.  991; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden,  154 
U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944.  14  S.  Ct.  990; 
Pollard  V.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed. 
998;  Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
16  Fed.  57;  The  Schooner  Freeman  (U. 
S.),  18  How.  182,  15  L.  Ed.  341;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  30  L. 
Ed.  10i7,  7  S.  Ct.  1132;  The  Lady  Frank- 
lin (U.  S.),  8  Wall.  325,  19  L.  Ed.  455; 
The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579,  20 
L.  Ed.  779;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
mercial Union  Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  S.  223,  35 
L.  Ed.  154,  11  S.  Ct.  554. 

Deficiency  of  goods — Mistake. — The 
rule   that   the   master   of   a   vessel    has    no 


authority  by  virtue  of  his  position,  either 
actual  or  apparent,  to  sign  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing for  cargo  not  actually  received  on 
board,  applies  when  there  is  only  a  de- 
ficiency in  part  through  mistake,  and  the 
shipowner  can  not  be  held  liable  even  by 
an  innocent  indorsee  of  the  bill  of  lading 
for  value,  for  such  shortage,  if  the  quan- 
tity actually  received  is  delivered.  x\mer- 
ican  Sugar-Refining  Co.  t'.  Maddock,  36 
C.  C.  A.  42,  93  Fed.  980. 

52.  Haas  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  144  Ala.  562, 
113  Am.  St.  Rep.  61,  39  So.  129,  1  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  242;  Jasper  Trust  Co.  r.  Kan- 
sas City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ala.  416,  14  So. 
546,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  4  Am.  &  Eng. 
Enc.  Law  549,  6  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc.  426; 
Peck  z'.   Dinsmore    (Ala.),  4   Port.  212. 

53.  Martin  r.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 
Ark.  510,  19  S.  W.  314;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  128  Am.  St.  Rep. 
17,  22,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R. 
R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
290. 

54.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  National 
Live  Stock  Bank,  178  111.  506,  13  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,   N.  S.,  1,   53   N.  -E.  326. 

Where  the  goods  were  not  actually  re- 
ceived by  the  carrier  it  is  not  estopped 
from  explaining  or  contradicting  a  bill  of 
lading  or  shipping  receipt  issued  by  its 
agent,  even  though  the  party  named 
therein  as  the  consignee  has  in  good  faith 
advanced  money,  relying  upon  the  ship- 
ping receipt  or  bill  of  lading.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  National  Live  Stock  Bank, 
178  111.  506,  53  N.  E.  326,  13  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  1. 

In  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  National 
Live  Stock  Bank,  178  111.  506,  53  N.  E. 
326,  13  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  1. 
"Appellee  insists  that  a  carrier  of  goods 
is  estopped  from  contradicting  the  bill  of 

55.  Hunt  V.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co., 
29  La.  Ann.  446;  Fellows  v.  Powell,  16 
La.  Ann.  316,  79  Am.  Dec.  581;  Hender- 
son V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  La. 
1047,  41  So.  252,  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  582; 
Fearn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richardson,  12  La.  Ann. 
752. 

56.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Wilkens, 
44   Md.   11.  22  Am.    Rep.   26. 


309 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  431 


Massachusetts,^'^    Minnesota,''**    Missouri, •'•"^   North    Carolina,"^'   C)hio,"^    Texas,*^^ 
W'ashington,^^"  and  otlier  states. 

Basis  and  Reasoning-  of  Doctrine. — The  rL-asonin<.(  hy  which  the  doctrine 
which  ])re\ails  in  J'*nj,dan(l  and  in  the  federal  courts  and  the  courts  of  most  of  the 
states  is  usually  sujjpcjrted  is  that  a  hill  of  lading  is  not  nej^otiahle  in  the  sense 
in  which  a  hill  of  exchant^e  or  promissory  note,  is  negotiahle,  where  the  purchaser 
need  not  look  heyond  the  instrument  itself;  that  so  far  as  it  is  a  receipt  for  the 
goods  it  is  suscejitihle  of  explanation  or  contradiction,  the  same  as  any  other 
receipt;  that  the  whole  question  is  one  of  the  law  of  agency;  that  it  is  not  within 
the  scope  of  the  authority  of  the  shipj)ing  agent  of  a  carrier  to  issue  hills  of  lading 
where  no  property  is  in  fact  received  for  transportation ;  that  the  extent  of  his 
authority,  either  real  or  ajjparent,  is  to  issue  hills  of  lading  for  freight  actually 
received  ;  and  his  real  and  apparent  authority — i.  e.,  the  ])ower  in  which  his  prin- 
cipal has  clothed  him  in  the  character  in  which  he  is  held  out  to  the  world — is  the 
same,  viz.  to  give  bills  of  lading  for  goods  received  for  transportation  ;  and  that 
this  limitation  u]X)n  his  authority  is  known  to  the  commercial  world,  anrl  there- 


lading  or  shipping  receipt  issued  by  an 
agent,  against  a  party  named  therein,  who 
has  in  good  faith  advanced  money  rely- 
ing upon  it;  and  cites,  as  sustaining  this 
proposition,  Nortliern  Transp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clary,  OC  111.  233,  and  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Larned,  103  111.  293.  In  the  Mc- 
Clary  case  it  was  not  controverted  that 
100  barrels  of  flour  were  delivered  by  a 
consignor  to  the  Chicago  &  Nortliwestern 
Railway  Company  to  be  shipped  to  Chi- 
cago, and  thence  by  water  on  propellers 
of  the  Northern  Transportation  Com- 
pany, to  Ogdensburg,  X.  V.  and  thence 
by  rail  to  Barton's  Landing.  \'t.,  con- 
signed to  McCIary.  The  agent  of  the 
Transportation  company  receipted  the 
Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railway  Com- 
pany for  the  same,  and  by  mistake  the 
flour  was  not  delivered  at  the  proper 
warehouse,  and  became  lost  to  the  con- 
signee. Here  was  an  actual  receipt  of 
goods  for  shipment,  which  were  lost  by 
neglect.  The  carriage  had  commenced. 
It  was  said  in  that  case  (page  236) :  'More- 
over, this  is  really  a  contest  l)etween  two 
carriers,  which  the  appellee  should  not 
be  required  to  settle.  His  right  of  re- 
covery from  one  or  the  other  is  conceded. 
Having  establislied  a  clear  prima  facie 
lial)ility  against  the  appellant,  it  seems 
but  just  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  en- 
]oy  tlie  recovery  he  lias  obtained  without 
being  harassed  further  to  determine  a 
question  of  liability  as  between  the  com- 
panies themselves.  In  the  Larned  case, 
certain  cotton  left  at  defendant's  depot 
by  an  agent  of  Larned,  without  orders 
for  shipment,  was  shipped,  and  wrongly 
delivered.  The  defendant  issued  a  bill 
of  lading,  which  was  attached  to  a  draft 
which  was  paid  by  Larned.  The  latter 
sued  and  recovered.  Neither  of  these 
cases  has  any  of  the  features  of  tliis  case, 
as  there  was  a  clear  liability  in  those 
cases  for  affreightments  actually  received 
by  the  carrier  and  lost  to  the  consign- 
ees.' " 


57.  Sears  z'.  VVingate  (Mass.),  3  .\llen 
lo.'i. 

In  Sears  r.  Wingate  (Mass.).  3  .Allen 
103,  it  is  held  that  a  bill  of  lading  is  con- 
clusive evidence  against  the  master  of 
a  vessel  in  favor  of  a  consignee,  not  a 
party  to  the  contract,  who  has  advanced 
money  upon  faith  of  its  statements,  as 
to  the  amount  and  condition  of  the  prop- 
erty of  which  it  acknowledges  the  receipt, 
so  far  as  from  tlie  whole  instrument  and 
the  usage  of  trade  the  facts  may  be  re- 
garded as  absolute  statements  from  the 
master's  own  knowledge,  but  it  is  not 
conclusive  against  the  owners,  as  to  the 
property  not  actually  shipped,  because  it 
is  not  within  the  scope  of  the  master's 
authority  by  virtue  of  his  position,  either 
actual  or  apparent,  to  sign  but  such  as  is 
put  on   board. 

58.  National  Bank  ?■.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  4-t  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  560,  9 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  263,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  566; 
Swedish-American  Nat.  Bank  f.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  R.  R.  R.  783.  42  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  783,  96  Minn.  436, 
10.-,  X.  W.  69.  overruling  McCord  z:  West- 
ern Lnion  Tel.  Co..  39  Minn.  181.  12  Am. 
St.  Rep.  636,  39  N.  \V.  315.  1  L.  R.  A. 
143;  Ratzer  z:  Burlington,  etc..  R.  Co., 
58  .\m.  St.  Rep.  530,  64  Minn.  245,  66  N. 
\V.  988. 

59.  Louisiana  Nat.  Bank  :\  Laveille.  52 
Mo.    380. 

60.  Black  z:  Wilmington,  etc..  R.  Co., 
92  X.  C.  42,  53  Am.  Rep.  450. 

6L  Dean  v.  King.  22  O.  St.  118;  Little 
Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Dodds  &  Co.,  1  C. 
S.   C.   47,    13    O.   Dec.    Reprint   407. 

62.  Bills  of  lading  are  not  commercial 
or  negotialile  paper  in  the  hands  of  an 
innocent  party,  which  precUuIes  or  estops 
the  carrier  from  denying  that  the  freight 
was  received  as  therein  admitted.  Adoue 
z:   Seeligson   &   Co..  54  Tex.   593. 

63.  Roy  z:  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  42 
Wash.  572.  85  Pac.  53,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  728,  6  L.   R.  A.,   N.  S.,  302. 


§§  431-432 


CARRIERS. 


310 


fore  any  person  i)urchasing  a  bill  of  lading  issued  by  the  agent  of  a  carrier  acts 
at  his  own  risk  as  respects  the  existence  of  the  fact  (the  receipt  of  the  goods) 
upon  which  alone  the  agent  has  authority  to  issue  the  bill,  the  rule  being  that  if 
the  authority  of  an  agent  is  known  to  be  o])en  for  exercise  only  in  a  certain  event, 
or  upon  the'  happening  of  a  certain  contingency,  or  the  performance  of  a  certain 
condition,  the  occurrence  of  the  event,  or  the  happening  of  the  contingency,  or 
the  performance  of  the  condition  must  be  ascertained  by  him  who  would  avail 
himself  of  the  results  ensuing  from  the  exercise  of  the  authority.*'-*  This  pre- 
sumption is  i)redicated  upon  the  assumption  that  the  authority  of  the  agent  is 
limited  to  issuing  bills  of  lading  for  freight  received  before  or  concurrent  with 
the  issuing  of  the  bills,  which  would  be  the  presumption  in  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary.  Xo  doubt  a  carrier  might  adopt  a  different  mode  of 
doing  business  by  giving  his  agents  authority  to  issue  bills  of  lading  for  goods 
not  received,  so  as  to  render  him  liable  in  such  cases  to  third  parties."'"'' 

Bills  Stating-  That  "Weight  Unknown"  or  "Subject  to  Correction." — 
See  post,  ■"Ett'ect  or  Warranty  of  Ouantity.  etc.,"  §§  488-491.  See  also,  post, 
"Effect  of  State  Statutes."  §  437. 

§   432.  Doctrine  in  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Certain  Other  States. 

The   courts   of   \ew    \'ork  '■''   hold   that   a   railroad   company   is   liable   upon   a 


64.  Reason  of  doctrine. — National  Bank 
V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  4G 
N.  W.  342,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  263,  20  Am. 
St.    Rep.   566. 

Since  the  master  of  the  ship  has  no 
authority  to  sign  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods 
not  actually  put  on  board,  the  consignee 
and  every  other  party  taking,  or  dealing 
with,  or  making  advances  on  the  faith  of 
such  an  instrument  which  is  untruthful 
in  this  particular,  does  so  with  notice  of 
this  limitation  of  the  power  of  the  master, 
and  acts  at  his  own  risks  both  as  re- 
spects the  fact  of  shipment  and  the 
quantity  of  cargo  purported  by  a  bill  of 
lading  to  be  shipped.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wilkens,  44  Md.  11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26. 

65.  National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  9  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,   263,   20   Am.    St.    Rep.    566. 

66.  Armour  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  65 
N.  Y.  Ill,  22  Am.  Rep.  603;  Bank  z\  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  195,  12  N. 
E.  433,  60  Am.  Rep.  440,  32  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  497;  Byrne  v.  Weeks  (N.  Y.),  4 
Abb.  Dec.  657;  Dickerson  v.  Seelye  (N. 
Y.),  12  Barb.  99;  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  188;  Van 
Santen  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.  (N.  Y.),  17 
Hun  140,  affirmed  in  81  N.  Y.  171. 

In  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 
N.  Y.  195,  12  N.  E.  433,  60  Am.  Rep.  440, 
32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  497,  it  is  held 
that  a  railroad  company  is  liable  upon  a 
bill  of  lading  issued  in  its  name  by  an 
agent  having  authority  to  issue  bills  on 
receipt  of  property  for  transportation  to 
one  who,  upon  transfer  by  the  shipper, 
upon  the  faith  of  the  bill,  has,  in  good 
faitli.  discounted  a  draft  drawn  upon  the 
consignee,  although  no  goods  were  de- 
livered  to   the   railroad   or  its  agent. 

Bills  of  lading  issued  by  local  freight 
agent — Conspiracy  between  agent  and  al- 


leged shipper. — In  Bank  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  195,  12  N.  E.  433, 
60  Am.  Rep.  440,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
497,  it  appeared  that  one  of  defendant's 
local  freight  agents,  having  authority  to 
give  bills  of  lading,  specifying  the  terms 
of  shipment,  but  having  no  right  to  issue 
such  a  bill  except  upon  actual  receipt  of 
the  property  for  transportation,  issued 
bills  of  lading  purporting  to  be  for  sixty- 
five  barrels  of  beans  to  W.,  describing 
them  as  received  to  be  forwarded  to  C, 
as  consignee,  but  adding,  with  references 
to  the  packages  "contents  unknown." 
W.  drew  a  draft  on  the  consignee  which 
plaintifif  discounted  on  the  faith  of  and 
on  transfer  of  the  bills  of  lading.  No 
barrels  of  beans  were  in  fact  shipped  by 
W.  or  delivered  to  defendant,  but  the 
bills  were  issued  in  pursuance  of  a  con- 
spiracy between  the  agent  and  W.  to  de- 
fraud. Payment  of  the  draft  was  refused 
l)y  the  railroad.  It  was  held  that  the 
latter  was  liable,  and  that  the  recital  in 
the  bills  that  the  contents  of  the  pack- 
ages were  unknown  was  no  defense. 

A  recital  in  the  bills  that  the  "contents 
of  the  package  were  unknown"  is  no  de- 
fense where  nothing  is  shipped  and  the 
l)ill  is  wholly  false.  Bank  f.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60-  Am.  Rep.  440,  443,  106 
N.  Y.  195,  12  N.  E.  433,  32  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.   497. 

Bills  issued  upon  forged  warehouse  re- 
ceipt.— In  Armour  t'.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  65  N.  Y.  Ill,  22  Am.  Rep.  603,  it  ap- 
peared that  defendant's  agent,  having 
authority  to  issue  bills  of  lading",  upon 
delivery  to  him  by  M.  of  a  forged  ware- 
house receipt,  issued  to  M.  two  bills  of 
lading,  each  stating  the  receipt  of  a 
quantity  of  lard  consigned  to  plaintiffs 
at  New  York,  and  to  be  transported  and 
delivered    to    them.      Such    agent    was    in- 


311 


IIILI.S     OF     LADING. 


§  432 


bill  of  lading,  issued  in  its  name  by  an  agent  having  authority  to  issue  such 
bills  on  receipt  of  property  for  transportation,  to  a  bona  fide  consignee  or 
transferee,  who  lias  parted  with  value  upon  tlie  faith  of  the  bill  by  discounting 
or  paying  a  draft  drawn  up(jn  the  consignee,  although  no  goods  were  de- 
livered to  the  railroad  or  its  agent.  The  same  doctrine  prevails  in  Pennsyl- 
vania''^ and  South  Carolina''^  and  has  been  adopted  by  the  courts  of  several 
otlier    states    among    whicli    are    Connecticut,'"'    Georgia,'"    Kansas, "'    and    Xe- 


fornicd  \>y  M.  at  tlie  time  of  tlic  delivery 
of  the  l)ills  of  lading,  that  he  intended  to 
use  tlieni  at  a  bank.  M.  drew  sif^ht  drafts 
on  plaintiffs,  to  which  he  attached  the 
hills  of  lading,  these  were  delivered  to  a 
hank  and  forwarded  to  New  York,  and 
the  drafts  were  paid  by  plaintiffs,  upon 
the  faith  and  credit  of  the  bills  of  lading. 
It  was  held  that  defendant  carrier  was 
bound  by  the  acts  of  its  agents  within  his 
apparent  authority  and  was  estopped 
from   denying  the   receipt   of   the   lard. 

67.  Brooke  v.   New   York,   etc.,    R.   Co., 
108    Pa.   029,   1   Atl.  206,   56  .•Xm.   Rep.   235; 
Franklin    Trust    Co.   i'.    Philadelphia,    etc., 
R.    Co..   222    Pa.   96,   70   .\tl.   949,   22    L.    R. ' 
A.,    N.   S.,   828. 

Bill  issued  by  railroad  shipping  clerk. 
— In  Brooke,  i'.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  C(j., 
108  Pa.  529,  1  Atl.  206,  56  Am.  Rep.  235, 
it  appeared  that  a  shipping  clerk  at  one 
of  defendant's  railroad  stations  issued  a 
bill  of  lading  in  the  name  of  the  railroad 
for  certain  goods  that  it  had  never  re- 
ceived; and  that  the  bill  of  lading  came 
into  the  possession  of  an  innocent  third 
person,  who  made  advances  of  money 
upon  it.  In  an  action  against  the 
railroad  to  recover  such  advances  l)y 
such  third  person,  it  was  held  that  the 
railroad  was  estopped  by  the  act  of  its 
agent  from  denying  the  receipt  of  the 
goods,  although  such  clerk  had  no  au- 
thority to  give  bills  of  lading  without 
receiving  the  goods,  and  the  railroad  had 
never  done  anything  to  lead  anyone  to 
suppose   that   he   had   such   authority. 

Liability  of  connecting  carriers. — 
Where  connecting  railroads,  forming  a 
through  line,  enter  into  an  arrangement 
hy  which  they  employ  an  agent  to  so- 
licit freight,  and  the  agent  issues  a  bill 
of  lading  before  the  initial  carrier  re- 
ceives the  goods,  and  with  knowledge 
that  tile  bill  of  lading  is  to  accompany  a 
draft  on  the  consignee,  and  the  con- 
signee pays  the  draft,  but  the  goods  are 
never  received  either  l)y  the  consignee 
or  any  of  the  railroads,  the  consignee 
•can  recover  tlie  amount  of  the  draft  from 
the  terminal  carrier,  since,  apart  from 
the  question  of  partnership,  there  is  a 
joint  liability  on  the  part  of  all  the  com- 
panies on  whose  lielialf  the  l)ill  of  lading 
was  issued.  Dulaney  7\  Philadelphia, 
<?tc..    R.   Co..   228    Pa.    180.   77    .\tl.    507. 

68.  Thomas  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.,  85 
S.  C.  537.  64  S.  E.  220.  34  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.. 
1177.   21    Am.    &    Eng.    .\nn.    Cas.    223.    32 


R.  R.  R.  250.  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N. 
S.,  250. 

A  carrier  issuing  a  l)ill  of  lading  for  a 
specified  quantity  of  freight  is  estopped 
to  deny  the  receipt  of  such  freight  as 
against  a  consignee  in  good  faith  relying 
on  the  statement  of  the  bill  of  lading, 
paying  a  draft  drawn  on  him  by  the 
shipper  for  the  quantity  of  freight  desig- 
nated in  the  liill  of  lading.  Smith  v. 
Southern  Railway,  89  S.  C.  415.  71  S.  E. 
989.    36    L.    R.    .\..    N.    S.,   230. 

Number  of  packages  delivered  for  car- 
riage.—  The  recitals  in  a  Itill  of  lading, 
issued  l)y  a  carrier  on  the  actual  receipt 
of  goods,  tliat  a  specified  number  of 
packages  were  delivered  for  carriage  are 
conclusive  on  the  carrier,  as  between  it 
and  the  consignee  or  transferee  of  the 
l)ill  of  lading,  who  has  incurred  loss  or 
liability  in  reliance  on  the  correctness  of 
such  recitals.  Thomas  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co..  85  S.  C.  537,  32  R.  R.  R.  250.  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S..  250.  64  S.  E. 
220.   34   L.   R.  A..    N.   S..   1177. 

69.  Relyea  v.  New  Haven  Rolling  Mill 
Co.,   42   Conn.    579.   75    Fed.   420. 

Consignee  deceived  by  receipt  clause — 
Master  of  vessel  chargeable  with  notice. 
— As  Ijctwccn  the  shipper  and  tlie  ship 
owner  the  receipt  in  a  bill  of  lading  is 
open  to  explanation,  but  it  is  otherwise 
where  the  consignee  is  deceived  by  it.  and 
the  master  of  the  vessel  knew,  or  had 
the  means  of  knowing,  that  its  statements 
were  incorrect.  So  held  in  Relyea  f.  New 
Haven  Rolling  Mill  Co..  42  Conn.  579,  75 
Fed.   420. 

70.  American  Nat.  Bank  r.  Georgia  R. 
Co..  96  Ga.  665.  51  Am.  St.  Rep.  155.  23 
S.  E.  898;  Thomas  r.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
85  S.  C.  537.  64  S.  E.  220.  34  L.  R.  .\..  N. 
S..  1177.  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  223, 
32  R.  R.  R.  250.  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S..    250.       ■ 

Bill  intended  to  be  negotiated. — The 
recitals  in  a  bill  of  ladin.g  as  to  the  de- 
livery of  .goods  and  their  quality,  quantit)', 
and  condition  are  binding  on  the  carrier, 
when  the  bill  was  intended  to  be  negoti- 
ated and  is  held  by  bona  fied  transferee 
for  value.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
Pferdmenges.  etc.,  Co.,  S  Ga.  App.  81,  68 
S.   E.  617. 

71.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  .Adams.  4 
Kan.  App.  305.  45  Pac.  920;  Wichita  Sav. 
Bank  i:  .Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20  Kan. 
519.  20  .Am.  R.  Rep.  299;  Missouri,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  v.  Sealy.  78  Kan.  758.  99  Pac.  230. 
See,    also,    Henderson    r.    Louisville,    etc., 


432 


CARRIERS. 


312 


braska.'-  In  these  states  the  carrier  is  held  to  be  estopped  to  deny  the  de- 
livery of  the  goods  to  the  prejudice  of  third  persons,  who  have  in  good  faith 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  business  acted  upon  the  representations  of  the  agent,'^ 


R.   Co..  116  La.   1047,  41   So.  253,   114  Am. 
St.    Rep.    5S2. 

Bill  of  lading  issued  on  promise  of 
shipper  to  complete  consignment — Fraud. 
— In  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  4 
Kan.  App.  305,  45  Pac.  920,  the  petition 
alleged  that  defendant  railroad  was  a  car- 
rier of  goods  and  owned  a  railway  in  M. 
count}-,  Kansas,  passing  through  the  city 
of  C. ;  that  on  a  certain  day  it  received 
of  G.  &  W.,  at  its  station  at  C,  in  M. 
county,  one  car  of  poultry,  20,000  pounds, 
of  the  value  of  $1,000,  consigned  to  A. 
B.  &  Co.  N.  O.;  and  that  the  duly  au- 
thorized agent  of  said  railroad  company 
issued  a  bill  of  lading  therefor;  that  G. 
&  W.  took  said  bill  of  lading  to  a  bank 
at  C.  and  drew  a  draft  for  $500  on  the 
consignees,  and  attached  said  bill  of  lad- 
ing thereto;  that  said  draft,  with  the  bill 
of  lading  attached,  in  due  course  of  busi- 
ness was  presented  to  the  consignees  at 
their  place  of  business  in  N.  O.,  who  on 
the  faith  of  the  bill  of  lading  advanced 
the  money  and  paid  said  draft;  and  that 
the  railway  company  neglected  to  ship 
said  car  of  poultry  to  the  consignees  at 
N.  O.  The  answer  of  the  railway  did  not 
deny  issuing  the  bill  of  lading,  but  al- 
leged that  its  agent  at  its  station  at  C. 
did  not  have  authority  to  issue  bills  of 
lading  except  for  property  actually  re- 
ceived; and  that  G.  &  W.  did  not  deliver 
all  of  the  poultry  named  in  the  bill  of 
lading,  but  agreed  to  complete  the  load 
at  the  stations  along  the  line  of  said  rail- 
way; that  they  only  placed  five  crates  of 
poultry  in  the  car  at  C..  and  were  to  com- 
plete the  20,000  pounds  at  its  stations  at 
A.,  O.,  H.,  and  G.;  that  when  the  car 
containing  part  of  the  poultry  arrived  at 
the  station  of  A.,  G.  &  W.  did  not  furnish 
the  poultry  to  complete  the  load,  and  the 
car  was  stopped  there,  and  the  said  G. 
&  W.  absconded,  and  the  poultry  then  in 
the  car  had  to  be  sold  to  prevent  great 
loss;  and  that  said  poultry  was  sold  at 
A.,  for  all  it  was  worth  in  its  then  con- 
dition; and  it  offers  to  pay  to  the  con- 
signees the  amount  for  which  the  poultry 
was  sold,  or  confers  judgment  for  the 
same  with  all  costs  of  suit.  It  was  held 
that  plaintiffs  below  were  entitled  to 
judgment    on    the    pleadings. 

Two  bills  of  lading  issued  for  same 
consignment  Fraud— Both  Ijills  transfer- 
red for  value. — In  Wichita  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Kan.  519,  20 
Am.  R.  Rep.  299,  it  appeared  that  the 
agent  of  a  railroad  company,  v/ho  had 
authority  to  receive  grain  for  shipment 
over  its  road,  and  issue  in  the  name  of 
the  corpo'-ation  a  single  bill  of  lading  for 
each  consignment  received,  received  23,000 
pounds  of  wheat  as  a  single  consignment 


for  transportation  to  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and, 
at  the  instance  of  the  shipper,  issued  in 
the  name  of  the  railroad  two  original 
bills  of  lading  of  the  same  terms,  tenor, 
and  effect,  for  such  single  consignment, 
and  the  shipper  negotiated  one  of  such 
l>ills  to  W.,  and  immediately  there- 
after negotiated  and  transferred  by  in- 
dorsement in  writing  the  other  of  said 
bills  to  a  bank,  and  the  bank,  knowing 
the  custom  of  the  railroad  to  issue  only 
one  bill  of  lading  for  each  shipment,  and 
relying  wholly  on  the  bill  for  its  security, 
accepted  the  same,  advanced  money 
thereon  in  good  faith,  and  in  the  regular 
course  of  its  business,  and  having  no- 
knowledge  of  the  issuance  of  the  two 
bills  of  lading;  and  W.,  as  the  holder  of 
the  bill  assigned  to  him,  received  all  of 
the  wheat  so  consigned  and  forwarded  to 
St.  Louis.  It  was  held  that  the  shipper 
being  insolvent,  and  having  absconded, 
the  railroad  was  estopped  by  its  state- 
ment promise  in  the  bill  of  lading  to  deny 
that  he  had  received  the  grain  mentioned 
therein,  and  was  liable  to  the  indorsee 
and  assignee  for  its  advances  made  by 
the  bank  in  good  faith  on  the  bill  of 
lading. 

72.  Sioux  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  10  Neb.  556,  7  N.  W.  311,  35  Am. 
Rep.  488. 

Bill  of  lading  compared  to  bill  of  ex- 
change.—In  MciNeil  V.  Hill,  Fed.  Cas.  No, 
8914,  Woolw.  96,  it  is  said  in  the  opinion: 
"As  civilization  has  advanced,  and  com- 
merce extended,  new  and  artificial  modes 
of  doing  business  have  superseded  the  ex- 
changes l)y  barter,  and  otherwise,  which 
prevail  while  society  is  in  its  earlier  and 
simpler  stages.  The  invention  of  the  bill 
of  exchange  is  a  familiar  illustration  of 
this  fact.  A  more  modern,  but  still  not 
recent  invention,  of  like  character,  for  the 
transfer,  without  the  somewhat  and  otten 
impossible  operations  of  actual  delivery 
of  articles  of  personal  property,  is  the 
indorsement,  or  assignment,  of  bills  of 
lading  and  warehouse  receipts.  Instru- 
ments of  this  kind  are  sui  generis.  From 
long  use  and  trade,  they  have  come  to 
have  among  commercial  men  a  well-un- 
derstood meaning,  and  the  indorsement 
or  assignment  of  tliem  as  absolutely 
transfers  the  general  property  of  the  goods 
and  chattels  therein  named,  as  would  a 
bill  of  sale,  *  *  *.  If  the  warehouseman 
gives  to  the  party  who  holds  such  re- 
ceipt a  false  credit,  he  will  not  be  suf- 
fered to  contradict  his  statement  which  he 
has  made  in  the  receipt,  so  as  to^^ injure 
a  party  who  has  been  misled  by  it." 

73.  A  bill  of  lading  containing  a  state- 
ment as  to  the  quantity  of  goods,  issued 
with    the    understanding   that    the     goods 


313  BILLS  OF   LAiJixG.  §§  432-434 

and  it  is  immaterial   wlietlicr  the  bill  of  ladiii.t,'  was  ncj^otiaMe  or  not."'* 

The  reasoning  of  the  cases  which  apply  the  doctrine  which  prevails 
in  New  York  and  a  lew  other  states  is,  in  snbstance,  that  the  c|uesti<jn  does 
not  at  all  depend  ujjon  the  negotiability  of  bills  of  ladinj.^,  but  upon  the  principle 
of  estoppel  in  ])ais:  that  where  a  principal  has  clothed  an  agent  with  [Xtwer 
to  do  an  act  in  case  of  the  existence  of  some  extrinsic  fact,  necessarily  and 
peculiarly  within  the  knowledj^e  (jf  the  agent,  and  of  the  existence  of  which  the 
act  of  executing  the  power  is  itself  a  representation,  the  principal  is  estopped 
from  denying  the  existence  of  the  fact,  to  the  prejudice  of  a  third  person  who 
has  dealt  with  the  agent  or  acted  on  his  rejiresentation  in  good  faith,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  business.'-'' 

Where  Title  to  Property  Is  Not  Made  Throttgh  Bill  of  Lading.— Hut 
the  [jrinci[jle  that  a  Ijona  tide  enchn-sec  of  a  l)ill  of  lading,  ad\ancing  his  money 
on  it,  may  rely  on  the  quantity  acknowledged  therein,  and  may  compel  the  car- 
rier to  account  for  that  quantity,  whether  it  was  all  put  on  board  the  vessel  or 
not,  does  not  a]iply  to  a  case  where  the  owner  of  the  property  did  not  purchase 
it  while  it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier,  and  did  not  make  title  to  it  through 
the  bill  of  lading,  but  his  ])m-chase  was  made  ])rior  to  the  shipment  aufl  the 
goods  were  shi])])ed  1>\'  his  agent    tor  liini.''' 

Language  Guarding  against  Estoppel. — To  guard  against  estoi)pel  to 
deny  receipt  of  the  amount  of  goods  stated  in  the  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  may 
insert  "shi]:)per's  load  and  count."  or  some  like  clause,  and  will  not  then  be  lia- 
ble to  an  assignee  for  value  if  the  carrier  delivers  all  the  goods  received."" 
Where  a  carrier  received  a  certain  part  of  the  goods  specified  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, but  not  the  goods,  the  value  of  which  is  the  basis  of  the  action,  and  the 
bill  of  lading  gives  notice  to  the  jiurchaser  thereof  that  the  carrier  did  not  vouch 
for  the  quantity  of  goods,  the  carrier  is  not  estopped  from  setting  up  that  the 
missing  goods  were  never  received."^  ^ 

§  433.  Conflict  of  Laws. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  moneys 
advanced  on  bills  of  lading  issued  by  an  agent  of  the  carrier  without  actual 
receipt  of  the  goods,  an  answer,  alleging  that  the  bills  were  delivered  in  another 
state,  where,  by  statute  and  decisions  of  the  supreme  court,  they  were  void, 
states  a  good  defense."'^ 

§  434.  Effect  of  Custom  or  Course  of  Business. — Where  by  the  usual 
and  custoniiiry  mode  of  doing  its  business  a  carrier  has  given  to  its  agents  au- 
thoritv  to  ifsue  bills  of  lading  for  goods  not  received,  it  is  liable  to  a  bona  fide 

may  he  transferred  liy  transfer  of  the  lull  "Considerations    of   this   character   form 

of  lading,  justifies  a  transferee  in  relying  the   basis   of  an   equitable   estoppel,  with- 

on  the  statement  there  made,  and  estops  out    reference    to    negotiability    or    direct- 

the    carrier    from    showing    that    he    has  ness    of    representation."      Bank    :•.    New 

not  received   the   quantity  recited.     Nash-  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  lOfi  X.  Y.  19.5.  fiO  Am. 

ville,   etc..    Railway   t'.    Flournoy,    139    Ga.  Rep.    440,    442,    12    N.    E.    433,    32    Am.    & 

582.    77    S.    E.    797;   Henderson    r.    Louis-  Eng.    R.    Cas.    497;    Thomas    ::    Atlantic, 

ville.  etc..  R.  Co..  116  La.  1047.  41  So.  252.  etc..  R.  Co.,  85  S.  C.  537,  64  S.   E.  220.  34 

114  Am.  St.  Rep.  582.     See,  also,  National  L.    R.    .\.,    N.    S..    1177,    21    Am.    &     Eng. 

Bank   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   44    Minn.  .\nn.   Cas.   223.   32    R.    R.    R.   2.50.   .5.5    Am. 

224,  46   N.   W.  342.  9    L.    R.   A.,   N.   S.,  263,  &    Eng.    R.    Cas..    X.    S..    :.\5n. 

20  Am.  St.   Rep.   566.  76.  Title  not  made  through  bill  of  lad- 

74.  Dulaney    f.    Philadeli^Iiia,     etc.,     R.        Jng. Meyer  :i   Peck,  28   N.   Y.   590. 

Co.,  228  Pa.  180    77  At!.. 507.  77.    Language    guarding    against    estop- 

75.  Reason  of  ru.le. — National  Bank  r.  ^,  v.,  i,,.;n.  ...  p.,;iT.  •.,•  -  T.-i^„rn,^x- 
^,  .  11  /-^  ,  ,  -hf  ^^ .  .,.  pel. —  .\a>liville.  etc..  l\ail\\a\  ..  rlourno\. 
CliK-aud,    etc..     R.    Co..    44    Mmn.    224,    46  ^       p  ,    „_   ^     P    „„_      - 

X.   W.  342.  9   L.   R.   A.,   X.  S..  263.  20  Am.  ^■*''        :/,"'.,','    ^-          'l'., 

St.  Rep.  566.  overruling  McCord  7:  West-  78.    Nashville,    etc      Railway    r.    Flour- 

ern   Union   Tel.   Co.,   39   Minn.    181.   39    N.  "oy-  l-^^  Ga.  582.  77  S.  E.  797. 

W.  315,  1   L.   R.  A.  143,   12  Am.  St.   Rep.  79.     Conflict     of     laws. — Missouri,     etc., 

636.   in   which   the   above   principle   was   in  R.  Co.  :•.  Sealy.  7S   Kan.  758.  99   Pac.  230. 

effect    adopted    and    ajiplied. 


§§  434-436 


CARRIERS. 


314 


consignee  or  indorsee  of  such  l)ill  of  lading  as  if  in  fact  the  goods  were  re- 
ceived  for  transportation. '^" 

Custom  to  Use  Bills  of  Lading  as  Collateral  Security  for  Drafts.— 
Neither  a  general  nor  local  custom  to  use  bills  of  lading  as  collateral  security 
for  drafts  drawn  against  the  goods  purported  to  have  been  delivered  to  carrier 
for  transportation  can  have  the  effect  of  rendering  the  carrier  responsible  on 
bill^^  of  lading  issued  bv  its  agent  for  goods  never  delivered  to  the  carrier,'^' 

Custom  of  Issuing  Bills  of  Lading  for  Cotton  Delivered  to  Compress 
Company. — If  a  railroad  company,  for  its  own  convenience  and  the  con- 
venience of  its  customers,  is  in  the  habit  of  issuing  bills  of  lading  for  cotton 
delivered  to  a  compress  company,  to  be  compressed  before  actual  delivery  to 
the  carrier,  with  no  intention  on' the  part  of  the  shipper  or  of  the  carrier  that 
the  liability  of  the  carrier  shall  attach  before  delivery  on  the  cars,  and  the  cot- 
ton is  destroyed  bv  fire  while  in  the  hands  of  the  compress  company,  the  rail- 
road companv  is  not  liable  for  the  value  of  the  cotton  so  destroyed  even  to  an 
assignee  of  the  bill  of  lading  without  notice  of  the  agreement  and  course  of 
dealing  between  the  shipper  and  the  carrier.''^ 

§  43  5.  Negligence  of  Carrier. — Where  bills  of  lading  issued  by  a  car- 
rier's agent  for  goods  never  received  by  it  come  into  the  hands  of  innocent 
purchasers  bv  reason  of  the  carrier's  own  negligence,  it  is  liable  thereon. ^"^ 

§  436.  Fraudulent  Bills   of  Lading.— Collusive,   Fraudulent  Bill— The 

rule  is  the  same  whether  the  bill  of  lading  was  issued  fraudulently  and  col- 
lusivelv  or  merelv  l)v  mistake.'^-* 


80.  Agent  authorized  by  course  of  busi- 
ness to  issue  bills  for  goods  not  received. 
— Swedish-Ameriran  Xat.  Bank  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Minn.  436,  105  N. 
W.  69,  19  R.  R.  R.  783,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R  Cas.,  N.  S.,  783;  National  Bank  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  44  Minn.  224,  46  N. 
W.  342,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  263,  20  Am. 
St.   Rep.   .566. 

81.  Custom  to  use  bills  of  lading  as 
collateral  security  for  drafts. — Robinson 
-r.   Memijln>,   etc..   R.   Co.,   Hi   Fed.   :>! . 

82.  Custom  of  issuing  bills  of  lading  for 
cotton  delivered  to  compress  company. 
— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden,  l.J4 
U.    S.    1.-,.-,,   38   L.   Ed.  944.   14   S.   Ct.  990. 

83.  Person  acting  as  freight  agent  and 
member  of  firm — Bills  of  lading  trans- 
ferred by  firm  as  collateral — Negligence 
of  carrier. — It  appeared  that  a  firm  of 
merchants  in  A.,  were  also  engaged  in 
the  milling  business  in  M.,  on  the  line  of 
defendant's  railway;  that  for  their  con- 
venience defendant  estal)lished  a  station 
at  M.  and  appointed  a  member  of  the 
firm  its  agent  there.  It  was  shown  that 
the  business  of  the  station  was  practi- 
cally transacted  in  the  firm's  office  at  A., 
and  freight  charges  were  settled  from 
time  to  time  with  defendant's  officials. 
Goods  shipped  by  the  firm  at  A.,  con- 
signed to  themselves  at  M.,  were  deliv- 
ered without  presentation  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  it  appeared  doubtful  whether 
in  the  case  of  such  shipments,  there  was 
any  actual  delivery  of  any  bill -of  lading 
from  hand  to  hand.     Some  of  these  bills 


of  lading,  after  the  goods  were  delivered 
to  the  consignees,  were  transferred  by 
the  firm,  as  collateral,  to  persons  who 
had  no  knowledge  of  any  irregularity.  It 
was  held  that  defendant  was  liable  on 
these  bills  of  lading  in  the  hands  of  in- 
nocent purchasers,  since  it  was  by  rea- 
son of  its  own  negligence  that  they  came 
into  their  hands.  Walters  v.  Western, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    56    Fed.    369. 

84.  Collusive,  fraudulent  or  forged  bills. 
— National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  560.  9  L.  R. 
A.,    N.   S.,   263,   20   Am.    St.    Rep.    566. 

Bill  of  lading  with  drafts  attached  is- 
sued by  one  who  was  both  freight  agent 
and  member  of  firm. — In  Erb  v.  Great 
Western  Ry.  Co..  5  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 
179,  it  appeared  that  C,  freight  agent  of 
defendant  railroad,  and  a  partner  of  the 
firm  of  B..  &  Co.,  caused  printed  receipts 
in  the  form  commonly  used  by  the  rail- 
road company  to  be  signed,  by  his  name 
as  such  company's  agent,  in  favor  of 
B.  &  Co.,  for  flour  which  had  never  l)een 
delivered  to  the  railway  company.  The 
receipts  acknowledged  that  defendant 
had  received  from  B.  &  Co.  the  flour  ad- 
dressed to  plaintiffs,  and  were  attached 
to  drafts  drawn  by  B.  &  Co.,  and  ac- 
cepted by  plaintiffs.  C.  received  the 
proceeds  of  the  drafts  and  absconded.  It 
was  held  that  the  act  of  C.  in  issuing 
such  receipts  was  not  done  within  the 
scope  of  his  authority  as  the  company's 
agent,  and  the  latter  was  not  therefore 
liable. 


315  HILLS   OF   LAiJixc.  §§  436-437 

Bill  Fraudulently  Signed  by  Agent — Advances  Made  by  Commission 
Merchant. — A  railro.Kl  loinpany  i>  iint  liaMe  iov  a(Kaincs  nia<lc  \}\  a  com- 
mission merchant  upon  the  faith  of  a  bill  of  lading  fraudulently  signed  by  one 
of  its  station  agents,  the  goods  therein  sj^ecihed  nexcr  ha\ing  jjeen  shii)|)ed  or 
received  at  the  depot    f(jr  transporlaliun."''' 

Forgery — Shipper  Allowed  to  Fill  Out  Bill  and  Leave  Blank  for  Quan- 
tity.— Tlu-  fact  ihal  the  >liiiip(.T  was  allcjwcd  to  till  the  hill  oi  lading  in  Ins  own 
handwriting,  and  lea\e  a  blank  which  afforded  opportunity  for  increasing  the 
statement  of  the  number  of  bales  shi])])ed.  will  not  render  the  common  carrier 
liable  for  loss  occasioned  by  the  forgery  of  the  shi])per  in  raising  the  biU  of 
lading.''" 

§  437.  Effect  of  State  Statutes. — A  statute  making  the  acknowledgment 
of  receipt  of  property  for  transportation,  contained  in  a  bill  of  lading,  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  fact  so  stated,  in  favor  of  bona  tide  holders  for  value, 
does  not  prescribe  a  rule  of  evidence,  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  constitutional 
power  of  the  courts  to  investigate  facts,  and  deprive  the  carrier  of  its  property 
without  due  process  at  law,'^^  and  is  not  an  unlawful  regulation  of  interstate  com- 
merce.'^'^ 

Effect  of  Statute  Prohibiting  Issuance  of  Bill  of  Lading  Before  Re- 
ceipt of  Goods. — Arkansas  Statute. — Under  Arkansas  act  approved  March 
15,  18tS7,  ])rohibiting  carriers  from  issuing  bills  of  lading  except  for  goods 
actually  received  into  their  possession,  a  railroad  company  which  has  issued 
bills  of  lading  to  the  owners  of  cotton  in  the  hands  of  a  compress  company  is 
not  estopped  as  to  third  persons  from  denying  that  the  cotton  was  in  its  pos- 
session or  control.'''' 

Effect  of  Statute  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Negotiable. — Statutes  making 
bills  of  lading  negotiable  apply  to  genuine  bills  of  lading,  and  not  to  those  is- 
sued  where  no  ]:iro])erty  has  been  shipped  or  received  by  the  carrier. ^"^ 

Alabama  Statutes.  —  Under  the  statutes  of  Alabama  a  bill  of  lading,  reg- 
ular on  its  face  and  issued  by  a  carrier  or  its  authorized  agent,  is  a  certificate 
that  the  person  to  whom  it  is  issued  is  the  shipper  of  the  property  or  the  goods 
therein  (lescribed.  that  they  really  exist,  and  are  subject  to  the  order  and  di- 
rectit)!!  of  the  shijiper,  unless  the  bill  of  lading  furnishes  notice  that  such  is 
not  the  fact.  The  statute  is  authority  for  any  one  to  deal  with  the  person  to 
whom  such  bill  of  lading  is  issued,  on  the  basis  and  ])ostulate  that  the  propertv 

85.  Bill  fraudulently  signed  by  agent —  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  582.  following  Hunt  v. 
Advances  made  by  commission  mer-  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  La.  Ann.  446. 
chant.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Wil-  This  rule  of  law  has  not  been  abro- 
kciis,   4  1    M(l.    II,  22   .\m.   Rep.  26.  .Cfated     or    modified    by    article     No.     150, 

86.  Directing    verdict    where     evidence  Louisiana    laws,    of    the    year    1SG8,    niak- 
of      forgery      uncontradicted. — See      post,  inij  hills  of  lading  negotiable  b\-  indorse- 
"Directin:4    \  erdict."    5;    •'i()2.  ment.   and    making   answerable,    both    civ- 
Shipper     allowed    to     fill     out    bill     and  ill}-   and   criminall}-,   any   person   issuing  a 

leave    blank    for    quantity. — Lcliman,    etc.,  1)111    of   lading   unless    the    property    speci- 

C(i.   2\    Central    R..   etc.,    Co.,    12    I'ed.   .")95.  tied    therein    has    been    actually    shipped. 

87.  Effect  of  state  statutes— Due  proc-  Henderson  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  116 
ess  of  law.— Yazoo,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Bent,  La.    1047,    41    So.    252,    114    Am.    St.    Rep. 

94     Miss,    f.81,    47     So.    805,    22    L.    R.    A.,        •'^«f- 

XT     c      ^oi  In    Roy    z\    rsorthern    Rac.    R.    Co..    42 

■"■'„"■.           ,   .    ,       ,  ,  Wash.    572,    85    Pac.    53,    7    Am.    &    Eng. 

88.  Regulation  of  mterstate  commerce.  ^^^^^  ^^^  .,8.  6  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  302,  it 
-Franklin  Trust  Co^  v  1  h.ladelphia  j  ,^^,  j  ^  ^,^^  ^^^  ^^  ^  common  carrier's 
etc.  R.  Co  222  Pa.  9b.  .0  Atl.  949,  ^2  ^^^^^^  .^^  ^^j^.j^^^  ^  j^j,j  ^^  ,^jj^^„  ^-^^  ^^^^^ 
L.    R.    A.,    A.    b.,   828.  which    he    knew    had    not    been    delivered 

89.  Martin  r.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  55  ^q  the  carrier,  does  not  bind  the  carrier. 
Ark.   510,   19   S.  W.   ;>14.  even    as    to    an     innocent    transferee     or 

90.  Effect  of  statute  making  bills  of  pledgee  for  value,  even  under  a  certain 
lading  negotiable. — Henderson  v.  Louis-  statute  making  bills  of  lading  negotiable 
villc,  etc..  R.  Co.,  116  La.  1047,  41  So.  252,  by  indorsement   for. certain   purposes. 


437 


CARRIERS. 


316 


or  goods  in  fact  exist,  are  in  possession  of  the  carrier,  and  subject  to  the  con- 
ditions expressed  in  the  bill  of  lading.  Any  one  to  whom  such  bill  of  lading 
is  indorsed  and  transferred  by  the  person  to  whom  it  was  issued,  and  who  parts 
with  value  and  becomes  the  innocent  holder  of  it  without  notice,  may  hold  the 
carrier  responsible  for  the  truth  of  the  recitals,  and  for  damages  to  the  extent 
he  may  have  advanced  on  the  faith  of  its  genuineness  and  truth  as  a  bill  of 
lading.'  As  between  the  railroad  company  and  any  one  who  shows  himself  a 
bona  fide  transferee  and  purchaser  of  the  bill  of  lading,  the  corporation  is  es- 
topped from  denying  that  it  received  and  holds  the  goods  specified  in  the  re- 
ceipt.''^  A  contract  indemnifying  the  carrier  against  shortage  or  loss  resulting 
from  the  issuance  of  bills  of  lading  in  advance  of  the  receipt  of  the  goods  is 
void.'^*- 

Mississippi  Statute. — Under  the  [Mississippi  statute  a  bill  of  lading  is  con- 
clusive evidence  in  the  hands  of  a  bona  fide  holder  against  the  person  or  cor- 
poration issuing  it  that  the  property  mentioned  therein  was  actually  received 
for  shipment ;  '-'^  though  above  the  column  for  the  insertion  of  the  weights  the 
words  "Weights  subject  to  correction"  were  inserted.^-*  An  immaterial  de- 
scription of  a  shipment  which  weighed  less  than  the  weight  stated  will  not  pre- 
vent the  carrier  from  showing  that  the  shipment  tendered  was  the  identical 
property  received,  but  it  is  liable  for  the  shortage  in  weight.''-'^     The  Mississippi 


91.  Alabama  statutes. — Jasper  Trust 
Co.  V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ala. 
416,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  14  So.  546,  4 
Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.  Law  549,  6  Cyc.  Law 
&    Proc.    426. 

92.  Code,  §§  4219,  4223,  prohibit  a  com- 
mon carrier  from  issuing  bills  of  lading 
in  advance  of  the  actual  receipt  of  the 
goods,  under  penalty  of  liability  in  dam- 
ages to  any  person  injured  thereby. 
Plaintiff  railroad  company  declared  on 
an  agreement  with  defendant  warehouse- 
men whereby,  in  consideration  of  plain- 
tiff's issuing  bills  of  lading  on  defendants' 
warehouse  receipts  without  requiring  the 
actual  delivery  of  the  goods,  defendants 
would  make  good  any  shortage  in  the 
goods,  or  indemnify  plaintiff  for  any  lia- 
bility so  incurred.  Held,  the  contract 
was  void,  as  illegal,  notwithstanding  de- 
fendants' part  of  it  was  not  violative  of 
the  statute.  Jcmison  v.  Birmingham,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    125    Ala.    378,    28    So.    .U. 

93.  Mississippi  statutes. — Hozzard  v.  Il- 
linois, etc..  R.   Co.,  67   Minn.  32. 

Under  the  Mississippi  statute  (Code  of 
Mississippi  (1906;,  §  4851),  where  a  trans- 
portation company  has  issued  a  bill  of 
lading  for  so  many  bales  of  cotton,  weigh- 
ing so  many  pounds,  and  describes  it  as 
being  marked  with  certain  letters  of  the 
alphabet,  and  the  company  tenders  to  a 
bona  fide  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  the 
specified  number  of  bales,  which  in  fact 
weigh  less  than  the  weight  stated,  and 
are  marked  with  different  letters,  and  the 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  accepts  the 
cotton,  but  stipulates  that  he  does  not 
accept  it  in  satisfaction  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  sues  the  carrier,  and  it  ap- 
pears that  the  marks  on  the  cotton  were 
immaterial  in  fixing  its  value,  held,  that 
the  carrier  may  show  that  the  cotton 
tendered  by  it  was  the  identical  cotton  re- 


ceived by  it,  despite  the  discrepancy  in 
marks;  but  it  is  liable  for  the  shortage  in 
weight.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Doughty, 
10  Ga.  App.  317,  73  S.   E.   541. 

94.  Stamping  bills,  "weight  subject  to 
correction." — The  effect  of  such  a  statute 
can  not  be  avoided  by  placing  upon  such 
bills  statements  that  the  weights  are  sub- 
ject to  correction.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bent,  94  Miss.  681,  47  So.  805,  22  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S..   821. 

Under  Code  1906,  §  4851,  providing  that 
every  bill  of  lading  acknowledging  the 
receipt  of  property  for  transportation 
shall  be  conclusive  evidence  in  the  hands 
of  a  bona  fide  holder,  as  against  the  car- 
rier, that  the  property  had  been  so  re- 
ceived, a  bill  of  lading  by  a  carrier  which 
describes  a  shipment  of  cotton  as  con- 
taining a  designated  number  of  pounds 
is  conclusive  on  the  carrier,  though  above 
the  column  for  the  insertion  of  the 
weights  the  words  "Weights  subject  to 
correction"  were  inserted.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Bent,  94  Miss.  681,  47  So.  805,  22 
L.    R.   A.,    N.   S.,   821. 

95.  Under  Code  Miss.  1906,  §  4851,  pro- 
viding that  every  bill  of  lading,  acknowl- 
edging receipt  of  property  for  transpor- 
tation, shall  be  conclusive  evidence  in  the 
hands  of  a  bona  fide  holder  for  value,  as 
against  the  corporation  is.suing  it,  that 
the  property  has  been  received,  where  a 
transportation  company  has  issued  a  bill 
of  lading  for  so  many  bales  of  cotton, 
weighing  so  many  pounds,  and  described 
it  as  being  marked  with  certain  letters, 
but  tenders  to  a  l)ona  fide  holder  of  the 
bill  of  lading  the  specified  number  of 
bales,  weighing  less  than  the  weight 
stated,  and  marked  with  different  letters, 
the  mark  being  immaterial  in  fixing  the 
value  of  the  cotton,  the  carrier  may  show 
that  the  cotton  tendered  was  the  identical 


317 


151 LLS    OF    LADING. 


§§  437-439 


statute  was  abrogated  as  to  interstate  shipments  In'  the  Carinack  amendment 
to  the   Interstate  Commerce  Act.'"' 

Missouri  Statute. — Under  the  Missouri  statute  a  railnjad  is  bound  by  a 
Ijill  of  lachng  which  has  passed  into  the  hands  of  an  innocent  purchaser,  al- 
though no  goods  were  in  fact  received  by  it.-''  The  rule  is  not  altered  by  the 
fact  that  the  statute  makes  it  a  criminal  offense  for  any  agent  of  a  railroad 
com])any  to  issue  a  bill  of  lading  unless  the  goods  have  actually  been  received. '•'^ 

Texas  Statutes. — The  statutes  of  Texas  have  not  changed  the  general  rules 
as  to  llic  in\ali(lity  in  the  hands  of  a  bona  fide  jjurchaser  of  a  bill  of  lading 
for  goods  ne\er  delivered   t<j  carrier.""^ 

§  438.  Due  Bill  Promising  to  Issue  a  Bill  of  Lading.— Bill  of  Lading 
Surrendered  for  Unauthorized  Due  Bill.  —  W  here  a  liill  of  la-liiig  for  g(j(j(ls 
delivered  l^y  a  carrier  to  a  warehouseman  was  surrendered  for  a  due  bill,  is- 
sued by  the  carrier's  agent  without  authority  and  the  carrier  was  induced  to 
ship  out  the  goods  on  other  orders  obtained  through  fraud,  the  liability  of  the 
carrier  rests  on  the  due  bill  alone  and  not  on  the  bill  of  lading.^  The  due  bill 
represented  nothing  tangil)le:  it  is  a  promise  to  issue  a  bill  of  lading,  and  such 
a  promise  is  beyond  the  scope  of  authority  of  the  agent  making  it.  It  is  a  mere 
symbol  for  another  symbol ;  it  can  not  be  binding  upon  the  railroad  as  a  re- 
ceipt, for  no  goods  were  received;  it  is  not  a  bill  of  lading,  and  the  statute  re- 
lating to  them  can  not  api')ly.     It  is  a  promise  to  give  a  bill  of  lading.- 

§§  439-442.  Subsequent  Delivery  to  Carrier  as  Validating  Bill— §  439. 
In  General. — A  delivery  of  goods  corresponding  in  substance  with  a  bill  of 
lading  given  previously  and  received  to  meet  the  bill  of  lading,  makes  the  bill 
operative  from  the  time  of  such  delivery.-'     At  that  instant  it  becomes  evidence 


cotton  received  by  it,  l)ut  it  is  lialjle  for 
the  shortage  in  weight.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Doughty,  10  Ga.  App.  317,  73  S. 
E.   541. 

96.  Interstate  shipments. — St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Woodruff  Mills  (Miss.),  62 
So.    171. 

97.  Missouri  statute. — Scaly  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Kan.  479,  114  Pac.  1077, 
41  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  500. 

98.  Sealy  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  500.  84  Kan.  479.  114 
Pac.    1077. 

99.  Texas  statutes. — In  Friedlander  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1:50  L'.  S.  41  n,  ,t3  L. 
Ed.   991.   9   S.   Ct.   570. 

1.  Bill  of  lading  surrendered  for  unau- 
thorized due  bill. — Where  a  hill  of  lading 
for  cotton,  assigned  to  plaintitT  bank,  was 
surrendered  for  compress  receipts  to  a 
compress  company  to  which  the  railroad 
company  had  delivered  the  cotton  at  des- 
tination, and  the  railroad  companj'  there- 
after issued  a  duebill  for  the  balance  of 
the  cotton  called  for  by  the  compress  re- 
ceipt, on  issuing  an  outgoing  bill  for  a 
portion  thereof,  which  duebill  merely 
called  for  the  return  of  \2  bales,  whicla 
the  railroad  companj-  never  received,  such 
duebill  was  a  mere  promise  to  issue  a 
bill  of  lading  which  was  beyond  tlic  scope 
of  the  authority  of  the  agent  making  it; 
and  hence  the  carrier  was  not  liable 
thereon.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Citi- 
zens' Bank,  87  .■Krk.  20.  112  S.  W.  154,  30 
R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,   290,   128   Am.    St.    Rep.    17. 


2.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
Bank.  87  .^rk.  2(J.  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R. 
R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  290, 
128   Am.   St.   Rep.   17. 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  for  cotton  de- 
livered by  a  carrier  to  a  compress  com- 
panj'  had  been  surrendered  for  compress 
receipts,  and  such  receipts  for  a  duebill 
issued  by  the  carrier's  agent  without  au- 
thority, and  the  carrier  was  induced  to 
ship  out  the  cotton  on  other  orders 
through  error  or  fraud,  it  was  not  es- 
topped to  deny  that  it  ever  received  the 
cotton  pursuant  to  the  duebill.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Citizens'  Bank,  87  Ark. 
26,  112  S.  W.  154.  30  R.  R.  R.  290.  53  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S..  290,  128  .\m.  St. 
Rep.    17. 

3.  Halliday  v.  Hamilton  (U.  S.),  11 
Wall.  560,  20  L.  Ed.  214;  The  Idaho,  93 
U.  S.  575,  23  L.  Ed.  978;  Robinson  f. 
Memphis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57;  Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Cook.  4  Ga.  App.  698, 
62   S.    E.   464. 

The  bill  of  lading  does  not  become  ef- 
fective until  the  goods  are  offered  to  the 
carrier  in  such  a  condition  as  that  it 
should  receive  them.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Cook.  4  Ga.  App.  698.  62  S.  E.  464; 
Union,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Yeager.  34  Ind.  1; 
Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290.  35  Am. 
Rep.  327;  Rowlev  v.  Bigelow  (Mass.),  12 
Pick.   307.   23   .\m.   Dec.   60'>.  607. 

In  Rowley  v.  Bigelow  (Mass.).  12  Pick. 
307.  23  Am.  Dec.  606,  it  is  held  that  if  a 
bill  of  lading  is  signed  before  the  goods 
are  shipped  or  even  purchased,  and  after- 


§s  439_442  CARRIERS.  318 

of  the  ownership  of  the  goods.-*  and  will  operate  on  the  goods  embraced  in  it  as 
between  the  shipper  and  carrier  bv  way  of  relation  and  estoppel  and  the  rights 
and  obligations  of  all  concerned  are  the  same  as  if  the  goods  had  been  actually 
shinped  before  the  bill  of  lading  had  been  signed;  wdiether  it  was  signed  through 
inadvertence  or  otherwise,  before  the  goods  were  actually  shipped,  as  if  they 
were  received  on  the  wharf  or  sent  to  the  warehouse  of  the  carrier,  or  were 
delivered  into  the  custody  of  the  master  or  other  agent  of  the  owner  of  charterer 
of  the  vessel  and  were  afterwards  placed  on  board.'' 

§  440.  Where   Statute   Prohibits  Issuance  before  Receipt   of  Goods. 

A  state  statute  prohibiting  the  issuance  of  a  bill  of  lading  in  the  absence  of 

goods  received  for  shipment,  does  not  forbid  curing  an  illegal  bill  by  subse- 
quently supplving  the  goods,  the  receipt  of  which  is  acknowledged  by  the  bill 
of  lading.'* 

§  441.  Presumption  as  to  Receipt  of  Goods.— A  bill  of  lading  is  merely 
evidence  of  delivery  and  acceptance  of  freight,  and  its  issuance  is  not  con- 
clusive evidence  of  such  deliverv  or  acceptance  nor  its  nonissuance  conclusive 
that  there  has  been  no  delivery  or  acceptance.'  The  fact  that  statute  prohibits 
all  warehousemen  and  carriers,  under  a  penalty,  from  issuing  receipts  or  bills 
of  lading,  except  for  goods  which  have  been  actually  received  into  their  pos- 
session, does  not  raise  a  conclusive  presumption  that  a  railroad  issuing  a  bill 
of  lading  was  in  possession  of  the  goods  when  it  issued  bills  of  lading.'^ 

§  442.  Proof  of  Nonreceipt  of  Goods.— Necessity  for  Clear  Proof  of 
Nonreceipt.— A  common  carrier  having  given  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  can 
not,  however,  relieve  himself  from  liability  on  the  ground  that  the  goods  were 
never  received  by  him,  except  l)y  the  clearest  proof  of  that  fact.'' 

Testimony  of  Master.— The  master  of  a  vessel,  not  interested  directly 
as  owner  or  part  owner  thereof,  is  competent  as  a  witness  to  prove,  on  the 
trial  of  such  cause,  the  nonshipment  of  the  goods  described  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing; also,  to  prove 'the  bill  of  lading  to  be  false  and  fraudulent  by  the  insertion 
of  other  goods  in  it  after  he  had  signed  it,  which  were  never  shipped  or  deliv- 
ered on  tlie  vessel.'" 

Admission  in  Agreed  Statement.— Recitals  in  bill  of  lading  as  to  the 
weight  of  cotton  delivered  to^  a  carrier,  although  prima  facie  correct,  are  over- 
come by  an  admission  in  an  agreed  statement  of  facts  that  the  identical  cotton 
received  bv  the  carrier  was  delivered  to  the  consignee.^i 

wards,  at  any  time  before  the  vessel  sails  of  bills  of  lading  before  receipt  of  goods, 

on   the   voyage    described,   goods   are    put  — Tin-   Idaho.  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L.  Ed.  97«. 

on  board  as  and  for  the  gooas  embraced  7.   Presumption  as  to  receipt  of  goods, 

in  the  bill   of  lading,  as  against  the  ship-  — Dunnington    &    Co.    v.    Louisville,    etc., 

per    and    master,    the    bill    of    lading    will  R.   Co.    (Ky.),   155   S.   W.   75(L 

operate  on  such  goods  by  way  of  relation  g.   Presumption   as  to   receipt   of   goods 

and  estoppel,  and  the  consignee,  who  re-  before    issuance    of    bill     of     lading. — St. 

ceives   it   and   accepts   drafts   on   the    faith  Louis,   etc..   R.    Co.   v.    Connnercial   Union 

of  the  consignment,  has  as  valid  and  ef-  Ins.  Co.,  139  U.  vS.  223,  35   L.  Ed.  154,  11 

fectual  a  title   to   the   goods   as   could  be  S.    Ct.    554. 

obtained    by    an    actual    delivery    of    the  g     Necessity  for  clear  proof   of  nonre- 

goods  themselves.  ceipt.— Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dodds 

4.  The    Idaho,   93   U.   S.   575,    23   L.    Ed.  &   Co     1   C    S     C.   47,   13   O.   Dec.   Reprint 
978;   The    Eddy    (U.    S.),   5   Wall.   481,    18  ^q.      ' 

L.  Ed.  486;  Halliday  v.  Hamilton  (U.  S.),  '       t,„,.;^„„„  „r    ^^^fpr  Adams    7- 

11   Wall.   560.   20   L.   Ed.   214.  ^  10-  pTf^t'"'""^  W.  ?    T       T  141      1    O 

5.  The  Delaware   (U.  S.),  14  Wall.   579,  B'-.g    Pilgrmi,    10  W  e.t.    L.    J.  141,    1    O. 
20  L.  Ed.  779;  The  Eddy  (U.  S.).  5  Wall.  ^^''C.  ^>'-           _  . 

481    18  L    Ed.  4H6:   Halliday  v.  Hamilton  11.    Admission    in    agreed    statement.— 

(U.    S.).   11    Wall.    500,   :30    L.    Ed.   214.  St.   Louis,  etc.,  R^  Co.  v.  Woodrutt   Mills 

6.  Effect  of  statute  prohibiting  issuance       (Miss.),  62   So.   171. 


319 


lilLLS    OF    LADING. 


;§  443-446 


§  443.  Duty  to  Issue. — A  carrier  is  compelled  to  issue  to  the  shiijper  a 
bill  i)f  ladiiitj;   for  j^nod:-   iiUrusted  to  it  for  shipment. ''- 

§  444.  Issuance  in  Duplicate.  —  Hills  of  lading  are  usually  issued  in  dupli- 
cate, one  bill  being  delixercd  to  the  shipper  and  the  other  being  retained  by 
the  carrier.'-'  In  such  case,  the  contract  between  a  ship  and  the  shipper  is  that 
which  is  contained  in  the  bills  of  lading  delivered  to  the  shipper.  The  bill  re- 
tained by  the  shi])  or  "ship's  bill,"  as  it  is  sometimes  callecl,  is  designed  only 
for  its  own  information  and  convenience;  not  for  evidence,  as  between  the  par- 
ties, of  wliat  their  agreement  was.  If  it  differs  from  the  others,  they  must  be 
considered  as  the  true  and  only  evidence  of  the  contract.'^  The  right  of  the 
shipper  to  demand  a  duplicate  freight  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  is  secured  by 
statute  in   X'irginia.'"' 

§§  445-450.  Acceptance  and  Assent  to  Provisions  §  445.  In  Gen- 
eral.—  r.oth  parties  to  a  bill  of  lading  impliedly  assent  to  its  provisions.''" 

§§  44G-450.  Assent  to  and  Acceptance  by  Consignor — §  446.  Effect 
of  Acceptance. — 'i'he  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  lading  b}-  the  shipper,  with  kncnvl- 
edge  of  its  contents,  makes  of  that  instrument  a  binding  contract,  and  defines 
the  rights  and  liabilities  of  the  parties  to  it;'"  so  far  as  the  conditions  named 
are  reasonable  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  not  against  public  jjolicy,"^  as  for  in- 
stance a  condition  giving  the  carrier  the  benefit  of  insurance  on  the  freight.''-^ 

Change  of  Route. — Where  a  shipper  accepts  a  bill  of  lading  upon  which 
the    routing   specified    by    him    had    been    erased   and    another   substituted,    with 


12.  Duty  to  issue. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Howard  Supply  Co.,  125  Ga.  478,  54  S. 
E.  5:50;  Williamson  &  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    138    S.    W.    807. 

Where  there  is  no  agent. — After  there 
has  been  a  full  and  complete  constructive 
delivery  of  freight  to  a  common  carrier, 
according  to  the  requirements  exacted  by 
it  of  shippers  under  a  local  custom  pre- 
vailing at  a  station  where  it  has  no  agent, 
the  shipper  making  such  delivery  is  en- 
titled to  a  receipt  for  the  freight,  notwith- 
standing the  carrier  has  previously,  by 
mistake,  issued  a  receipt  therefore  to  a 
person  not  entitled  to  be  recognized  as 
consignor.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  How- 
ard Supply  Co.,  125  Ga.   478,  54  S.   E.  530. 

13.  Issuance  in  duplicate. — The  Dela- 
ware  (L'.   S.),  14  Wall.  57'.).  20  L.  Ed.  779. 

14.  Issuance  in  duplicate. — The  Thames 
(U.  S.),  14  Wall.  98,  20  L.  Ed.  804;  The 
Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579,  596,  20 
L.    Ed.   779. 

"More  than  one  is  required  l)y  the  ship- 
per, as  he  usually  sends  one  by  mail  to 
the  consignee  or  vendee,  and  if  four  are 
signed  he  sends  one  to  his  agent  or  factor, 
and  he  should  always  retain  one  for  his 
own  use.  Such  an  instrument  acknowl- 
edges the  bailment  of  the  goods,  and  is 
evidence  of  a  contract  for  the  safe  cus- 
tody, due  transport,  and  right  delivery 
of  the  same,  upon  the  terms,  as  to  freight, 
therein  described,  the  extent  of  the  obli- 
gation being  specified  in  the  instrument." 
The  Delaware  (U.  S.).  14  Wall.  579,  59(5, 
20    L.    Ed.    779. 


15.  Virginia  statutory  requirement. — 
Va.  Acts,  1891-92,  p.  9U5,  Pol.  Supl.  Code. 
§   1297a,  ch.  7. 

16.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Langdon,  118 
Md.    2G8,   84   Atl.   473. 

17.  Effect. — See  post,  "Limitation  of 
Lial)ility,"  'chapter   14. 

The  mere  acceptance  by  the  carrier  of 
a  bill  of  lading  signed  by  a  shipper  is 
sutiticient  to  bind  both  as  to  a  special 
contract  plainly  written  therein.  Lefebure 
V.  American  Exp.  Co.  (Iowa),  139  X.  W. 
1117;  \an  Etten  v.  Newton,  134  N.  Y.  143, 
31  N.  E.  334,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  630;  Ger- 
mania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Memphis,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  72  N.  Y.  90,  28  Am.  Rep.  113;  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pontius,  19  O.  St. 
221,   2   Am.    Rep.   391. 

18.  Reasonableness  and  consistency 
with  public  policy. —  Davis  z\  Central,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  66  \'t.  290,  29  Atl.  313.  44  Am.  St. 
Rep.   852. 

A  shipper's  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing is  presumptivel)'  an  assent  to  its 
terms,  as  far  as  they  are  reasonable,  and 
not  inconsistent  with  public  policy. 
Leavens  t'.  American  I'.xp.  Co.  (\  t.),  85 
Atl.    557. 

19.  Condition  giving  carrier  benefit  of 
insurance. — .1  shipper,  electing  to  accept 
a  reduced  rate  l)y  filling  out  the  shipping 
order  and  accepting  the  bill  of  lading,  is 
bound  by  the  terms  of  the  order  making 
it  a  part  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  giving 
the  carrier  the  benefit  of  insurance  on  the 
freight.  Burke  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  134  App. 
Div.    413,    119    X.    Y.    S.    309. 


446-447 


CARRIERS. 


320 


knowledge  of  the  change,  he  is  bound  by  the  l)ill  as  changed.-" 

Proof  of  Breach  of  Contract.— The  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  lading  does 
not  preclude  the  shipper  from  showing  that  the  cars  were  not  properly  iced, 
as  required  by  such  bill.-^ 

88  447-450.  Presumption  of  Assent  from  Acceptance— §  447.  In 
General  — \\'here  the  shipper  of  goods  accepts  a  bill  of  lading  or  receipt  from 
the  carrier  he  is  conclusively  presumed,  in  the  absence  of  imposition,  accident, 
or  mistake  to  have  assented  to  all  the  terms  and  conditions  contained  m  it, 
and  he  can  not  afterwards  be  heard  to  say  that  he  did  not  read  the  instrument 
and  did  not  know  its  contents;  aliter  where  the  facts  show  fraud,  imposition 
or  mistake  This  doctrine  prevails  in  the  federal  courts,22  and  m  the  courts  of 
Alabama.23  Arkansas,^^  Georgia.^-"  Illinois,^"  lowa,^-^  Kentucky,^'^  Alaryland,^^ 
:\Iassachu setts  •■'0    Alichigan.^^i    Minnesota.-"-  Missouri,'"^^  New  Hanxpshire,:'^  New 


20.  Change  of  route. — Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  Thompson.  55  Tex.  Civ.  App.  12. 
118    S.    W.    618. 

21.  Proof  of  breach  of  contract. — John- 
son V.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Am.  St. 
Rep.  464,   133   Mich.   596,  95   N.  W.   724. 

22.  Presumption  of  assent  from  accept- 
ance.— Leitcli  V.  Union  R.  Transp.  Co., 
Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  8,224;  Wertheimer  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  1  Fed.  232,  17 
Blatchf.  421.  See  ante,  "Failure  to  Read 
or    Examine    Bill,"    §§    449-450. 

23.  Jones  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 
Ala.  376,  8  So.  61,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
321;  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Harwell,  91  Ala. 
340,  8  So.  649,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  358. 

24.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weakly,  50 
Ark.  397,  8  S.  W.  134,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  104, 
35    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    635.' 

25.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hasselkus, 
91  Ga.  382,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  37,  55  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.  586,  17   S.   E.  838. 

When  the  shipper  accepts  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing without  objecting  before  the  goods 
have  been  shipped  and  permits  the  car- 
rier to  act  upon  it  by  proceeding  with 
the  shipment,  it  is  to  l)e  presumed  that 
he  has  accepted  it  as  containing  the  con- 
tract and  has  assented  to  its  terms.  Cen- 
tral R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382, 
17  S.  E.  838.  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  37,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  586;  Bedell  v.  Richmond. 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ga.  22,  20  S.  E.  262;  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Shomo,  90  Ga.  496, 
16  S.  E.  220;  McElveen  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  109  Ga.  249,  34  S.  E.  281,  77  Am. 
St.  Rep.  371;  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ohio  Valley,  etc..  Co.,  107  Ga.  512,  33  S. 
E.   821. 

26.  Coles  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41  111.  App.  607;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Furthmann.  47  111.  App. 
561,  afifirfned  in  149  111.  66.  36  N.  E.  624, 
41  Am.  St.  Rep.  265;  St.  Louis,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Elgin  Condensed  Milk  Co..  175  111. 
557.  51   X.   E.   911,  67   Am.   St.   Rep.  238. 

27.  Mulligan  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co..  36 
Iowa  181,  14  Am.  Rep.  514.  2  Am.  R.  Rep. 


322;    Robinson    Bros.    v.    Merchants'    Dis- 
patch  Transp.    Co.,   45   Iowa  470. 

28.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brownlee 
(Ky.),    14    Bush    590. 

Bill  delivered  shippers  agent  who  had 
no  knowledge  of  condition. — In  Adams 
Exp.  Co.  c'.  Xock  (Ky.),  2  Duv.  562,  87  Am. 
Dec.  510,  it  was  held,  where  the  oral  tes- 
timony recited  in  the  agreed  case,  and 
admitted,  if  competent,  showed  that  the 
bill  of  lading  was  neither  read  by  the 
shipper's  agent  nor  its  peculiar  conditions 
understood  by  him  or  even  suggested  to 
him,  and  that  he  never  signed  the  in- 
dorsement accepting  the  peculiar  condi- 
tions; that  such  conditions  were  never 
ol)ligatory  on  his  principal,  that  testi- 
mony as  to  the  verbal  contract  was  there- 
fore   competent. 

29.  Where  a  bill  of  lading  delivered  by 
a  carrier  to  a  shipper  is  accepted  by  hini, 
he  is  presumed,  though  he  did  notsign  it, 
to  have  read  and  acquiesced  in  its  pro- 
visions which  therefore  constitute  a  con- 
tract of  carriage,  in  the  absence  of  fraud, 
imposition,  or  mistake.  De  Wolff  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  106  Md.  472,  67  Atl. 
1099. 

30.  Grace  V.  Adams,  100  Mass.  505,  97 
Am.  Dec.  117,  1  Am.  Rep.  131;  Hoadley 
V.    Xorthern   Transp.    Co.,    115    Mass.    304, 

15  Am.   Rep.   106. 

31.  McMillan  v.   Michigan,  etc.,   R.   Co., 

16  Mich.   79,  93  Am.   Dec.  208. 

32.  Christendon  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
15  Minn.  270,  2  Am.  Rep.  122;  Hutchin- 
son V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Minn.  524, 
35    X.   W.    433.' 

33.  Craycroft  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
18  Mo.  App.  487;  O'Bryan  v.  Kinney,  74 
Mo.  125;  Patterson  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  56  Mo.  App.  657;  St.  Louis.  etc.R. 
Co.  V.  Cleary,  77  Mo.  634.  46  Am.  Rep. 
\?,\  McFadden  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721.  92  Mo.  343,  4  S.  W. 
689. 

34.  Durgin  v.  American  Exp.  Co..  66  N. 
H.  277.  20  Atl.  328,  9  L.  R.  A.  453,  45  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  325. 


321 


KILLS    OF    LADIXn. 


§  447 


York,''-^'  North  Carolina.'"'  Ohio,-'"  Pennsylvania, •'"'  South  Carolina,-'*''  Tennes- 
see,"*"  Texas.-*'    X'ernionl.-*-  and  other  stales. 

"Read  This  Bill,"  Printed  in  Italics  on  Its  Face. — Where  the  attention 
of  the  shiijpcr  is  called  to  the  condiiicjus  printed  on  the  face  of  the  bill  of  lading 
by  the  direction,  "Read  this  contract."  printed  in  italics;  this  presumption  ap- 
plies with  peculiar  force  and  he  will  not  he  ])erniitted  to  show  that  he  was  igno- 
rant of  the  contents  of  the  bill.^-^ 

Receipt  Calling  Attention  to  Conditions  on  Its  Back. — The  acceptance 
b}  a  sliiitpcr  ol  a  mere  receipt  l(ir  Ireij^lil  eallin;,'  allention  to  conditions  on  the 
back  of  ii.  will  n(jt  be  con.sirued  to  o[)erate  as  an  acquiescence  in  such  pro- 
visions-*' 


35.  Bclger  v.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  KiC, 
10  Am.  Rep.  575;  Bishop  v.  Hinpire 
Transp.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  48  How.  Prac.  Ill); 
Bostwick  V.  Bahimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  55  Barb.  137;  Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  90,  28 
Am.  Rep.  113;  Hill  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  73  N.  Y.  351,  29  Am.  Rep.  163;  Kirk- 
land  V.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  171,  20  Am. 
Rep.  475;  McMaiion  v.  Macy,  51  N.  Y. 
155;  Soumet  v.  National  I{xp.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
(-.6  Barb.  284;  Knapp  v.  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.,  119  N.  Y.  S.  117,  134  App.  Div.  712. 

A  shipper's  acceptance  or  a  bill  of  lading 
binds  him  whether  he  reads  it  or  not. 
Boyle  V.  Bush  Terminal  R.  Co.,  136  N. 
Y.    S.    355,    151    App.    Div.    551. 

36.  Whitehead  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  87  N.  C.  255,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
168. 

A  through  bill  of  lading,  advantageous 
to  both,  received  by  the  plaintiff  without 
objection,  stipulating  that  the  cotton  was 
to  be  shipped  "at  compan3''s  conven- 
ience," is  evidence  of  plaintiff's  assent  to 
the  restriction  of  defendant's  common- 
law  liability,  equivalent  to  an  express 
agreement,  and  affects  plaintiff  with  legal 
notice  of  its  terms.  Whitehead  v.  Wilm- 
ington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  168,  87  X.   C.  255. 

37.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pontius, 
19  O.  St.  221,  2  Am.  Rep.  391. 

38.  Newberger  v.  Howard  &  Co.'s  Exp., 
6  Phil.  174;  Wcrtheimer  v.  Pennsj'lvania 
R.    Co..   \\.    N.    C.    (Pa.),   .272. 

39.  Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  39  S.  C.  55.  17  S.  E.  512,  55  Am.  & 
Eng.    R.    Cas.    346. 

40.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brumley,  73  Tenn.  (5  Lea)  401,  6  .^m.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  356;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392,  6  Am. 
St.  Rep.  847,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  579, 
6   S.   W.   881. 

41.  Ryan  v.  M.  K.  &  T.  R.  Co..  65  Tex. 
13,  57  Am.  Rep.  589,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  703;  St.  Louis,  etc..  Railway  v.  Gil- 
breath    (Tex.   Civ.   App.).   144   S.   W.   1051. 

The  shipper's  assent  to  conditions  in- 
serted in  the  body  of  a  bill  of  lading  is 
conclusively  presumed  when  he  has  had 
an  opportunity  to  know  its  contents,  has 
received   it  at   the   time   of  shipment,  and 

1   Car— 21 


the  carrier  has  used  no  unfair  means  to 
deceive.  Ryan  v.  M.  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  65 
Tex.  13,  57  Am.  Rep.  589,  23  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.,   703. 

42.  "Where  the  bill  of  lading  is  received 
by  the  consignor  without  objection,  and 
nothing  is  shown  to  the  contrary,  the 
law  presumes  he  accepts  it  and  becomes 
bound  by  its  terms,  as  the  contract  for 
the  carriage  of  the  goods  receipted  for, 
and,  if  limitations  are  imposed  upon  the 
common-law  liability  of  the  carrier,  that 
he  consents  to  them  and  is  bound  by 
them,  so  far  as  they  are.  in  the  eye  of  the 
law,  reasonable."  Davis  v.  Central,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  66  \t.  290,  29  Atl.  313,  44  Am.  St. 
Rep.   852. 

Where  a  shipper  of  live  stock  pays  the 
carrier  the  freight  charges  and  receives  a 
writing,  without  reading  it.  which  he  sup- 
poses contains  merely  a  receipt,  but 
which  contains  a  contract  exempting  the 
carrier  from  liability  for  a  failure  to  carry 
promptly,  the  shipper  maj'  show  by  pa- 
role a  contract  to  deliver  with  dispatch. 
King  V.   Woodbridge,   34   Vt.   565. 

43.  "Read  this  bill"  printed  in  italics  on 
its  face. — Mulli.Lian  r.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co..  ;^()  Iowa  181.  14  Am.  Rep.  514,  2 
Am.    R.    Rep.    322. 

Where  a  shipper  accepts  from  a  car- 
rier a  h\\\  of  lading  containing  a  stipula- 
tion to  the  effect  that  the  company  should 
be  exempted  from  injury  to  the  goods 
occurring  beyond  the  terminus  of  their 
own  line,  assent  will  be  presumed  upon 
tlie  part  of  the  shipper  in  the  absence  of 
fraud  or  mistake,  and  he  will  not  be  per- 
mitted to  show  that  he  was  ignorant  of 
the  contents  of  the  bill.  Mulligan  f.  Il- 
linois Cent.  R.  Co.,  36  Iowa  isi.  14  Am. 
Rep.  514,  2  Am.  R.  Rep.  322.  In  this  case 
it  appeared  that  the  conditions  of  the 
bill  of  lading  were  printed  upon  its  face, 
and  the  attention  of  the  shipper  was 
called  thereto  by  the  direction,  "Read 
this  contract."   printed   in   italics. 

44.  Receipt  calling  attention  to  condi- 
tions on  back. — ^Iorchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Furthmann,  47  111.  App.  561, 
affirmed  in  149  111.  66.  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  265. 
36  X.  E.  624.  See  post.  "Conditions  on 
Back  of  Bill."   §   459. 


§§  447-44S 


CARRIERS. 


122 


Shipper's  Testimony  Showing  Acceptance  of  Bill. — Where  a  railroad 
company's  custom  was  to  carry  horses  at  the  owner's  risk,  and  at  reduced  rates 
for  that  reason,  and  the  letters  "O.  R."  signifying  "Owner's  Risk,"  were  upon 
the  receipt  given  to  plaintiff  for  his  horses,  and  retained  and  put  in  evidence 
by  him:  and  he  testified  that  "he  did  not  see"  those  letters,  hut  not  that  he  did 
not  understand  their  meaning,  the  restricted  liability  of  the  company  clearly 
appeared   from   plaintift"s  evidence.-*'' 

Possession  of  Bill  by  Shipper  Prima  Facie  Evidence  of  Consent.— 
Proof  that  a  shipper  took  a  receipt  from  a  carrier  containing  provisions  re- 
stricting the  carrier's  liability  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  his  assent  to  such  lim- 
itations ;  ^"^  hence,  is  not  necessary  for  the  carrier  to  prove  the  shipper's  knowl- 
edge of  and  assent  to  the  condition  contained  therein.-*'  And  it  is  error  for 
the  court  to  charge  that  the  burden  is  upon  a  carrier  to  prove  the  shipper's  knowl- 
edge of  and  assent  to  the  stipulations  of  the  bill  of  lading  which  he  has  accepted 
without  objection  :  but  such  error  is  not  material  where  the  stipulation  to  which 
the  charge  applied  was  void.-** 

Burden  of  Showing  Assent  to  Change  Terms.— Tn  Ohio  where  a  verbal 
contract  of  shipment  is  made  by  which  freight  is  to  be  carried  to  its  destination, 
but  the  bill  of  lading  then  made  is  merely  to  carry  to  the  next  carrier,  the  ship- 
per not  noticing  this,  the  verbal  contract  is  competent  evidence,  and  the  burden 
is  on  the  carrier  to  show  assent  by  the  shipper  to  a  change  in  its  terms.^^ 

Assent  to  Conditions  Lim.iting  Carriers  Common  Law  Liability.— See 
ante.  "Limitation  of  New  Liability,"  chapter  14. 

§§  448-450.  Rebuttal  of  Presumption— §  448.  Failure  of  Shipper  to 
Sign  Bill. — In  the  absence  of  fraud  or  mistake,  a  bill  of  lading  accepted  by 
the  shipper  without  objection  and  acted  upon  has,  though  signed  only  by  the 
carrier,  the  same  effect  as  to  being  varied  by  parol  as  if  it  had  been  signed  by 
the  shipper  also  and  must  be  looked  to  as  the  final  repository  and  sole  evidence 
of  the  contract  of  carriage.^*^ 


45.  Shippers  testimony  showing  accept- 
ance of  bill. — Morrison  v.  Phillips,  etc., 
Constr.  Co.,  44. Wis.  405,  119  Am.  R.  Rep. 
.312.'  2S    .Am.    Rep.    599. 

46.  Possession  of  bill  by  shipper  prima 
facie  evidence  of  consent. — Strohn  v.  De- 
troit, etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Wis.  554,  94  Am. 
Dec.  564. 

Possession  by  a  shipper  of  a  carrier's 
bill  of  lading  for  the  property,  contain- 
ing special  terms,  is  at  least  prima  facie 
evidence  of  his  assent  to  them,  and  in 
most  cases  may  be  conclusive.  Morrison 
V.  Phillips,  etc.,  Constr.  Co.,  44  Wis.  405, 
119   Am.   R.   Rep.  .312,   28  Am.   Rep.   599. 

47.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Bloch.  86  Tenn.  392,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  847, 
6  S.  W.  881,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  579. 

48.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Bloch,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  "R.  Cas.  579,  86 
Tenn.  392,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  847,  6  S.  W. 
881. 

49.  Burden  of  showing  assent  to  change 
terms.— P.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  Co.  v.  Blake- 
more.  1  O.  C.  C.  42,  1  O.  C.  D.  26. 

50.  Failure  of  shipper  to  sign  bill. — Cen- 
tral R..  etc.,  Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382, 
17  S.  E.  838,  44  Am.  'St.  Rep.  37,  55  Am. 
&   Eng.  R.   Cas.   586. 

Ohio. — Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pon- 
tius, 19  O.  St.  221,  2  Am.  Rep.  391; 
Gaines  v.  Union,  etc.,  Ins.  Co..  28  O.  St. 
418;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  LaTourette, 


:3  O.  C.  C.  279.  1  O.  C.  D.  486,  approved 
and  followed  in  Stevens  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  O.  C.  C.  41,  11  O.  C.  D. 
168. 

Texas. — Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v. 
Fuller,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  23  S.  W.  412. 

The  receipt  given  by  the  express  com- 
pany purports  to  state  the  terms  upon 
which  the  shipment  was  made,  and  though 
signed  only  by  the  carrier,  when  accepted 
l)y  the  shipper  he  became  a  party  to  it, 
bound  by  its  terms.  It  contains  all  the 
necessary  elements  of  a  shipping  con- 
tract, and  under  well-established  princi- 
ples it  must  be  treated  as  the  final  agree- 
ment of  the  parties,  into  which  all  parol 
negotiations  and  understandings  were 
merged,  and  by  its  terms  the  duties  and 
liabilities  of  the  parties  thereto  must  be 
determined.  "Resort  can  not  be  had  to 
prior  or  contemporaneous  parol  negotia- 
tions or  a.greements  to  vary  its  terms." 
.\nd  this  rule  applies  not  only  to  its  ex- 
press provisions,  but  to  the  legal  import 
of  the  contract — the  further  provisions 
which  the  law  makes  for  the  parties,  such 
as  the  right  of  the  carrier  to  _  route  the 
shipment  when  the  contract  in  its  express 
terms  is  silent  upon  that  point.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Fuller,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  213,  222.  23  S.  W.  412  (see  93  Tex. 
742.  no  OD.) ;  Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335, 
82   Am.    Dec.    617. 


\2i 


l!ILLS    OF    LADING. 


449 


§§   449-450.  Failure  to  Read  or  Examine  Bill-^§   449.  In  General.— 

WIktc.  in  ihc  absence  o\  fraiul  or  niistake.  {^ij(j(U  are  (leli\erecl  to  a  carrier  for 
transportation,  and  a  bill  of  lading  containing  special  stipulations  is  issued 
therefor  before  the  goods  arc  ship]>ed,  the  shipjjcr  is  bound  to  examine  it  and 
ascertain  its  contents,  and  if  he  accepts  it  without  objection  he  is  bound  by  its 
terms  and  can  not  invalidate  it  by  showing  that  he  signed  it  without  reading 
it.  lie  can  not  set  up  ignorance  of  its  contents  and  resort  can  not  be  had  to 
prior  parol  agreements  to  vary  them."''  This  doctrine  i)revails  in  the  courts 
of  the  L'nited  States."'-  and  in  those  of  the  states  of  Alabama,'-'  Arkansas,'"* 
Georgia,''"'  Illinois,'"''  Iowa,"''  Kentucky, •"•'*  .Maryland,"'*'  Massachusetts.''"  Mich- 
igan,"' Minnesota,*'-  Missouri,'*-'  Xew  llami^shire,'"*  New  York,"-"'  North  Car- 
olina,'"''' Ohio,'''  I'ennsylvania,''-'*  South  Carolina.''-'  Tennessee,^"  Texas," ^  Wis- 
consin,'- \'ermont.'-'  and  others. 


51.  Failure   to   read   or   examine   bill. — 

See   post,   "In    General."   §    44'.t. 

52.  Lcitch  V.  Union  R.  Traiisp.  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,224;  Wertheimer  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  1   Fed.  232,  17   Blatchf.  421. 

53.  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Harwell,  45  Am. 
&  Fng-.  R.  Cas.  358,  91  AJa.  340,  8  So. 
G49;  Jones  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 
Ala.  37G,  8  So.  61,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
3:>l. 

54.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weakly,  50 
Ark.  397,  8  S.  W.  134,  7  Am.  St.  Rep. 
104,  35  Am.  &  Rng.  R.  Cas.  635;  Mcllroy  v. 
Buckner,  35  Ark.  555. 

In  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Weakly,  50 
Ark.  397,  8  S.  W.  134,  35  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  635,  7  Am.  St.  Rep.  104,  it  was 
said  in  the  opinion:  "It  has  generally 
been  held  by  the  courts  in  this  country' 
and  in  England  that  such  contracts  are 
binding  on  the  shipper,  although  he  did 
not  read  or  hear  them  read  before  sign- 
ing, provided  the  carrier  resorted  to  no 
unfair  means,  and  practiced  no  fraud  or 
imposition,  and  the  sliipper  had  the  op- 
portunity to  know  the  contents." 

55.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hassclkus, 
17  S.  E.  838,  91  Ga.  382,  44  Am.  St.  Rep. 
37.  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  5S6. 

Resort  can  not  be  had  to  a  prior  parol 
agreement  to  add  or  to  vary,  in  behalf 
of  the  shipper,  the  terms  of  a  special  con- 
tract contained  in  a  bill  of  lading  accepted 
and  signed  by  him  before  the  goods  were 
shipped,  it  not  appearing  that  his  sign- 
ing was  the  result  of  fraud  or  mistake. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shomo,  90  Ga. 
496.   16   S.    E.  220. 

Where  consignor  delivers  goods  to  a 
railroad  company  and  at  that  time  re- 
ceives a  bill  of  lading  which  he  accepts 
and  uses  by  appending  to  a  draft  drawn 
on  the  consignee,  the  bill  of  lading,  and 
not  prior  stipulations  whether  in  conver- 
sation or  by  letter,  is  the  final  contract  of 
transportation,  and  evidence  of  conver- 
sations and  stipulations  occurring  before 
the  bill  was  delivered  will  l)e  excluded. 
Bedell  v.  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.,  94  Ga. 
22.   20  S.    E.   262. 

56.  Coles  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
111.    App.    607. 


57.  Mulligan  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  36 
Iowa  IHl,  14  Am.  Rc-p.  514,  2  Am.  R. 
Rep.  322;  Lefebure  v.  American  Exp.  Co. 
(Iowa),    139    N.    W.    1117. 

58.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Nock  (Ky.).  2 
Duv.   562,   S7   Am.   Dec.   510. 

59.  De  Wolff  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co..  106 
Md.   472,    67   Atl.    1099. 

60.  Squire  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
08  Mass.  239,  93  Am.  Dec.  163;  Rice  v. 
Dwight  Mfg.  Co.  (Mass.),  2  Cush.  80; 
Grace  v.  Adams,  100  Mass.  505.  97  Am. 
Dec.   117.  1  Am.  Rep.  131. 

61.  McMillan  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
16   Mich.  79,  93  Am.   Dec.   208. 

62.  Hutchinson  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
?,~  Minn.  524.  35  N.  W.  433;  Christendon 
V.  American  Exp.  Co.,  15  Minn.  270,  2 
Am.   Rep.   122. 

63.  Patterson  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 
Mo.    App.    657. 

64.  Durgin  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  66  N. 
H.  277.  20  Atl.  328.  9  L.  R.  A.  453,  45  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.   Cas.   325. 

65.  Bostwick  v.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  55  Barb.  137;  Long  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  76;  Hallenbeck  v. 
DeWitt  (N.  Y.),  2  Johns.  404;  Harris  v. 
Story   (N.  Y.),  2   E.  D.   Smith  363. 

66.  Whitehead  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  87  N.  C.  255,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
168. 

67.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tontius, 
19   O.    St.   221.   2   Am.   Rep.    391. 

68.  In  re  Greenfield's  Estate.  14  Pa.  489. 

69.  Johnstone  v.  Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co., 
:!9  S.  "C.  55,  17  S.  E.  512,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.   346. 

70.  East  Tennessee,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Brumley,  73  Tenn.  (5  Lea)  401.  6  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.  356. 

71.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scrivener.  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  328. 

72.  Morrison  v.  Phillips,  etc..  Constr. 
Co.,  44  Wis.  405,  119  Am.  R.  Rep.  312,  28 
.^m.  Rep.  599:  Fuller  v.  Madison  Mut.  Ins. 
Co.,   36  Wis.   599. 

73.  Davis  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co..  66  Yt. 
290,  29  .\\\.  313.  44  Am.  St.   Rep.  852. 


§§  449-450  CARRIERS.  ■  324 

Inability  to  Read.— An  express  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading,  limiting  the 
carrier's  liability  to  loss  or  injury  suttered  on  his  own  road,  is  binding  on  the 
consignor  notwithstanding  his  ignorance  and  inability  to  read,  when  it  is  not 
shown  that  the  carrier  was  informed  of  such  ignorance  or  was  asked  to  read 
and  explain  the  bill  of  lading."^ 

Stipulations  Printed  in  Fine  Type. — It  has  been  held  that  the  presumjnion 
of  the  shii)per"s  assent  to  the  limitations  of  the  carrier's  liability  arising  from 
acceptance  of  the  bill  of  lading  was  rebutted  by  the  fact  that  they  were  printed 
in  such  fine  type  as  to  be  almost  illegible;"'  but  it  has  been  held  in  Texas  that 
the  mere  fact  that  such  limitations  were  in  fine  type  did  not  render  them  void.'« 

Bill  of  Lading-  Delivered  in  Dimly  Lighted  Car. — Proof  that  a  carrier 
gave  a  bill  of  lading  to  a  shipi)er  at  night,  in  a  dimly  lighted  and  rapidly  run- 
ning car,  which  attemi)ts  to  limit  the  carrier's  liability,  is  not  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  a  contract,  where  the  provision  is  obscurely  printed  and  there  is 
nothing  to  show  that  the  shipper  assented  to  it.' ' 

Agent  Hurried  and  Lantern  Only  Light.— Where  an  agent  of  a  carrier 
handed  plaintitt  a  bill  of  lading  to  sign  and  told  him  he  was  in  a  hurry  and  it 
was  dark  and  there  was  only  a  lantern  to  see  by,  and  plaintifi^  signed  it  without 
reading  it,  the  only  reason  given  for  not  doing  so  being  that  the  agent  wanted 
to  get  home,  he  was  bound  by  any  special  reasonable  contract  plainly  printed 
therein,  and  can  not  say  that  it  was  not  fairly  entered  into.''' 

Clause  Rendered  Unintelligible  by  Stamps. — In  an  action  against  a  com- 
mon carrier  for  the  value  of  goods  lost  in  his  custody,  evidence  that  often,  but 
not  invariably,  he  had  given  to  the  plaintiffs  receipts  containing  a  printed  clause 
in  favor  of  the  carrier,  and  that  in  this  instance,  after  receiving  the  goods,  he 
gave  to  a  servant  of  the  plaintiff  a  receipt  therefor,  containing  such  a  printed 
clause ;  but  that  over  part  of  this  clause  in  this  receipt  a  stamp  was  so  pasted 
as  to  render  it  unintelligible,  and  that  until  after  the  loss- neither  the  plaintiff 
nor  anv  of  his  agents  or  servants  had  actual  knowledge  of  such  a  clause  in  this 
or  any' of  the  other  receipts,  is  not  sufficient  to  warrant  a  finding  that  the  plain- 
tiff assented  to  the  stipulation.''^ 

§  450.  Bill  Received  after  Goods  Shipped. — Where  the  goods  were 
shipped  under  a  previous  verbal  agreement,  without  special  exemptions  in  favor 
of  the  carrier,  and,  after  the  goods  were  in  transit,  a  bill  of  lading  containing 
such  exemptions  was  handed  to  the  shipper,  who  received  it  without  examina- 
tion or  objection,  the  shipper's  acceptance  of  such  bill  of  lading  did  not  give 
rise  to  a  presumption  of  his  assent  to  the  stipulations  embraced  in  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  does  not  conclude  him  from  showing  the  agreement  under  which 
shipment  was  made.     This  is  the  law  in  Alabama,'^"  Illinois, ^^  Kansas,^-  Massa- 

74.  Inability  to  read. — Jones  v.  Cincin-  79.  Clause  limiting  liability  rendered 
nati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  unintelligible  by  stamps^ — Perry  v. 
321,    89    Ala.    .370,    8    So.    61.  Tlionipson,    OS    Mass.    249. 

75.  Stipulations  printed  in  fine  type.—  gO.  Bill  of  lading  received  without  ex- 
Brown  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  11  amination  after  goods  shipped  under 
Cush.  97;  Blossom  v.  Dodd,  43  N.  Y.  2(54,  verbal  agreement.— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
3  Am.  Rep.  701;  Verner  v.  Sweitzer,  32  ^,.  Meyer,  78  Ala.  597,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Pa.    208.  Cas.    44. 

,J^:,^r"  'p^^-  L\?-A^-  ^^r^  ^^p-           81.    Baker    v.  Michigan    Southern,    etc., 

r        "0^""'       ^^'  ^-    Co-.    42    111.  73;    Merchants'    Dispatch 

77.  *  Bill  of  lading  delivered  in  dimly  TJ,^"^?:  ^O-  ^  Ini^rtlYnann,  47  111  App. 
v  L.,.  J  r)i  T-v  1  1  ^o  M  V  ''Ol,  amrmed  in  149  111.  66,  36  N.  E.  624. 
lighted  car. — Blossom   v.   Dodd,   43   N.  Y.  ,     '.         c^     id  o^c 

„,,,     „    »         Tj         r-Ai                       c                •    t  41    Am.    bt.    Rep.    265. 

264,   .',   Am.   Rep.   701,   a   case   of  a   receipt  _,     „            _ 

by  an   express   company   lor   l)aggage.  82-   Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co    v.   Beeson,   30 

78.  Agent  hurried  and  lantern  only  light.  Kan.  298,  2  Pac.  496,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  K. 
— Lefebure  v.  American  Exp.  Co.  (Iowa),  *-as.    52. 

139   N.   W.   1117. 


Z2h 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  450 


chusetts,**^  Minnesota,^-*  Xew  York,**-"'  Ohio.'"'  Texas, ^"  Wisconsin,^**  and  other 
states;  and  also  in  Canada.''''  To  take  the  case  out  of  the  general  rule  it  must 
appear  that  before  the  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  the  goods  had  been  shipped, 
so  that  the  shi])])er  could  not  have  reclaimed  them  if  he  had  objected  to  tlie 
terms  of  the  bill  of   lading.'"' 

The  rule  that  prior  negotiations  are  merged  in  a  subsequently  written 
contract  docs  not  apply  to  such  a  case  as  this.  Jf  the  shipper  had  expressly 
assented  to  the  terms  of  the  bill  of  lading  subsequently  delivered  to  him,  such 
assent  would  operate  as  a  change  of  the  terms  of  the  contract  originally  made, 
and  under  which  he  had  parted  with  his  pro])erty.  liut  after  the  verbal  agree- 
ment had  been  consummated,  and  rights  had  accrued  under  it,  the  mere  receipt 
of  the  bill  of  lading,  inad\  ertciilly  omitting  to  examine  the  printed  conditions, 
is  not  sufficient  to  conclude  hini  from  showing  what  the  actual  agreement 
was   under   which    the   goods   had   been    shipped.'" 

Bill  of  Lading  Incomplete  When  Goods  Delivered  Subsequently  For- 
warded to  Shipper. — Assent  by  the  shi])i)er  to  a  i)rovision  in  a  bill  of  lading 
will  not  be  presumed  where  the  bill,  being  incomplete  at  the  time  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  goods  to  the  carrier,  was  not  delivered  to  the  consignor  at  that 
time,  but  was  subset (uenily  corrected  and  forwarded  by  mail  to  him  at  the  place 
of  destination. "'- 

Bill  Received  without  Examination  after  Goods  Shipped  under  Ver- 
bal Agreement  and  Forwarded  to  Consignee. — W  here  goods  were  shipped 
under  a  \er])al  agreement,  wilhout  special  exem])tions  in  favor  of  the  carrier, 
and,    after    ihev    were    in    transit,    a    bill    of    lading   c(jntaining   such    exemptions 


83.  By  the  law  of  Massachusetts,  in  or- 
der to  limit  the  carrier's  common-law  lia- 
l)ility  by  a  clause  in  the  bill  of  lading,  the 
l)ill  of  lading  must  be  taken  by  the  con- 
signor, without  dissent,  at  the  time  of  the 
delivery  of  the  property  for  transportation. 
When  given  a  few  daj^s  after  the  delivery 
of  the  goods,  and  while  they  are  in  tran- 
sit, such  a  clause,  not  assented  to  by  the 
consignee,  will  not  be  binding  on  the 
latter.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Boyd, 
yi    111.   2(1S. 

84.  Southard  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   00   Minn.   383,   (J3   N.   W.   442. 

85.  Bostwick  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
45  N.  Y.  712;  Guillaume  v.  General  Trans- 
atlantic Co.,  100  X.  V.  491,  3  N.  E.  489; 
Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  R.  Co  (N.  Y.),  4 
Daly  483;  Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship 
Co.,  lOG  N.  Y.  20G,  12  N.  E.  583,  30  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  105;  Kirkland  v.  Din.s- 
more,   G2  N.  Y.  171,  20  Am.  Rep.  475. 

86.  Gaines  v.  Union,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  28 
O.   St.   418,    14   Am.    R.    Rep.    158. 

87.  Where  goods  are  shipped  under  a 
verbal  contract,  delivery  afterwards  to 
shipper  of  bill  of  lading,  his  attention  not 
being  called  to  its  terms  or  conditions, 
does  not  conclude  him  from  showing 
the  agreement  under  which  shipment 
was  made.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant, 
II  Tex.  Civ.  App.  674,  681,  26  S.  W.  286, 
affirmed   in   93  Tex.  699,   no   op. 

88.  Strohn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 
Wis.   554,   94   Am.    Dec.    564. 

89.  Northwestern  Transp.  Co.  ■:■.  Mc- 
Kcnzie.  25   Can.   Sup.   Ct.  38. 

90.  Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Memphis, 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  90,  28  Am.  Rep.  113, 
affirming  7  Hun  233;  Hill  v.  Syracuse, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  X.  Y.  3:,1.  29  Am.  Rep.  163. 

91.  Rule  as  to  merger  of  prior  nego- 
tiations in  subsequent  written  contract 
inapplicable. — Gennania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Alenipliis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  X.  Y.  90,  28  Am. 
Rep.  113;  Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship 
Co.,  106  N.  Y.  206,  12  X.  E.  583.  30  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  105;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Furthmann.  47  111.  App. 
561,  affirmed  in  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  2(i5,  149 
111.    66,    36    N.    E.    624. 

In  Swift  V.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship  Co., 
106  N.  Y.  206,  12  N.  E.  583,  30  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  105,  "the  parties  made  a 
special  contract  as  to  the  transportation 
of  the  oil.  Two  months  after  its  deliv- 
ery at  Panama  the  common  agent  of  the 
defendants  here  executed  bills  of  lading, 
which  were  sent  to  plaintiffs,  but  were  not 
received  until  after  the  oil  had  left  As- 
pinwall.  The  contract,  as  set  forth  in  the 
Ijills,  w^as  diflferent  from  that  actually 
made.  Held,  that  defendants  could  not 
alter  or  abrogate  the  contract  actually 
made  by  issuing  bills  of  lading,  and.  in 
the  al)sence  of  proof  establishing  that 
plaintiff  consented  to  accept  the  bills  in 
place  of  the  prior  contract,  the  latter  nnist 
control."  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Furthmann.  47  111.  App.  561.  af- 
firmed in  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  2C)5.  149  111.  06, 
36    X.    v..    624. 

92 .  Bill  of  lading  incomplete  when 
goods  delivered  subsequently  forwarded 
to  shipper. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t', 
Meyer.  78  Ala.  597.  27  Am.  &  I'.ng.  R. 
Cas.   44. 


§§  450-455  CARRIERS.  326 

were  handed  to  the  shij^per.  who.  without  examination  or  objection,  forwarded 
it  to  the  consignee,  who  made  use  of  the  same  to  receive  and  sell  the  goods  not 
lost,  and  accounted  to  the  shipper  for  the  proceeds,  such  acts  of  the  consignor 
and'  consignee  did  not  render  the  conditions  contained  in  the  bill  binding  on 
the  consignor,  it  appearing  that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  such  conditions  and 
never,  in  fact,  assented  to  tliem.'^'' 

§§  451-454.  Validity — §  451.  Fraud  or  Mistake.— A  shipper  can  not 
allege  frautl  or  mistake  in  bills  of  lading  prepared  l)y  himself.''-* 

§   452,  Forgery.— Alteration,  Goods  Not  Received  by  Agent  of  Carrier. 

— See  ante,  "Fraudulent   liills  of   Lading,""   §   436. 

Liability  of  Bank  Collecting  Draft  with  Forged  Bill  of  Lading  At- 
tached.—See  post,  "Deposit  of  Draft  with  T.ill  of  Lading  Attached  for  Col- 
lection."" §  588. 

Liability  of  Purchaser  of  Draft  with  Forged  Bill  of  Lading  Attached 
to  Drawee,— See  post,  "Liability  of  Purchaser  for  Shortage  or  Inferiority  of 
Shipnient,"   §  585. 

§  453.  No  Goods  Delivered  to  Carrier.— See  ante,  "Receipt  of  Goods  as 
Prerequisite  to  Issuance,"  §§  429-442. 

§   454.  Partial  Invalidity, — See  post,  "Partial  Invalidity,"   §  464. 

§§  455-513.  Construction,  Operation  and  Effect— §  455.  General 
Rules  of  Construction. — A  bill  of  lading  is  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  con- 
struction as  other  contracts. '-^'"^ 

Subject  Matter  and  Surrounding  Circumstances.— It  is  the  right  and 
duty  of  the  court,  in  order  to  decide  upon  the  meaning  of  a  bill  of  lading,  to 
look  not  only  to  the  language  employed,  but  to  the  subject  matter  and  sur- 
rounding circumstances.'"*^' 

Construed  against  Carrier. — In  construing  a  bill  of  lading  given  by  the 
carrier  for  the  safe  transportation  and  delivery  of  goods  shipped  by  a  con- 
signor the  contract  will  be  construed  most  strongly  against  the  carrier,  and 
favorablv  to  the  consignor,  in  case  of  doubt  in  any  matter  of  construction. 
Since  its  owai  officers  or  agents  prepared  the  instrument,  it  is  both  reasonable 
and  just  that  its  own  words  should  be  construed  most  strongly  against  itself ;  '^^ 
as,  for  instance,  the  stipulation  as  to  the  route  of  the  shipment. '•'•'^ 

93.  Bill  received  without  examination,  cific,  ISO  U.  S.  49,  -15  L.  Ed.  419,  21  S. 
after  goods  shipped  under  verbal  agree-  Ct.  278;  London  Assur.  v.  Companhia  De 
ment  and  forwarded  to  consignor. — •  Moagens  Do  Barreiro,  167  U.  S.  149,  43 
Gaines  v.   Union,   etc.,   Ins.   Co.,  28   O.   St.  L.   Ed.   113,   17   S.   Ct.   785. 

418,  14  Am.   R.   Rep.  158;   Baltimore,  etc.,  97.     Construed     against      carrier. — First 

R.  Co.  V.  Campbell,  36  O.  St.  647,  38  Am.  Nat.    Bank   :■.    Hartford    Fire    Ins.    Co.,   95 

Rep.   617.  U.   S.   673,   24   L.    Ed.   563;   London   Assur. 

94.  Fraud  or  mistake. — Bessling  &  Co.  i<_  Companhia  De  Moagens,  Do  Barreiro, 
V.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  167  U.  S.  149,  42  L.  Ed.  113,  17  S.  Ct.  785; 
470,  80  S.  W.  639,  affirmed  in  98  Tex.  610,  Queen  of  the  Pacific,  180  U.  S.  49,  45  L. 
no   op.  Ed.  419,  21  S.  Ct.  278;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7;. 

95.  Rules  of  construction.— Whitnack  v.  Reiss,  183  U.  S.  621,  626,  46  L.  Ed.  358, 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Neb.  464,  118  N.  22  S.  Ct.  253;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
W.  67,  19  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  1011,  130  Am.  Thomas,  89  Ala.  294,  7  So.  762,  18  Am. 
St.  Rep.  692;  Grieve  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  St.  Rep.  119;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Co.,   104   Iowa  659,  74   X.  W.   192.  Southern    Flour,    etc.,    Co.,    136    Ga.    538, 

96.  Subject  matter  and  surrounding  cir-  71  S.  E.  884;  Lehigh  Valley  Transp. 
cumstances.— Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jurey,  Co.  v.  Post  Sugar  Co.,  128  111.  .A.pp.  600, 
111  U  S  584,  592,  28  L.  Ed.  527,  4  S.  judgment  affirmed  in  81  N.  E.  819,  238 
Ct.    566;    Barreda    v.    Silsbee    (U.    S.),    21  111.   121. 

How  146,  16  L.  Ed.  86;  Nash  v.  Towne  98.  Where  a  carrier  accepts  a  shipment 
(U.  S.),  5  Wall.  689,  18  L.  Ed.  527;  Chesa-  of  freight  to  a  place  on  its  own  line  of 
peake,  etc..  Canal  Co.  v.  Hill  (U.  S.),  15  railroad,  and  stipulates  in  its  bill  of  lad- 
Wall.  94,  21  L.   Ed.  64;   Queen  of  the   Pa-  ing    tliat    "the    company    agrees    to    carry 


327  iJii.Ls  OF   LADING.  §§  455-458 

Obvious  Prevails  over  Hidden  Meaning". — Xo  rule  of  construction  binds 
the  cimri  lo  liiid  ^oiiic  liiildcu  or  (jlisciire  meaning  for  a  particular  clause  in  a 
l)ill  of  lading,  because  the  simple  and  plain  one  which  is  seen  upon  its  face 
]n-ovi(lcs  for  contingencies  which  may  also  be  provided  for  in  another  clause 
of  the  same  Ijill.'"' 

§  456.  Construction  of  Words  and  Phrases.— "At  the  Owner's  Risk." 
— Tile  term,  "at  llic  o\\irt\  ri>k,"'  in  a  bill  of  lading,  wliicli  i>  declared  lo  be  a 
special  contract,  taken  in  connection  with  other  stipulations  therein,  limits  the 
carrier  to  such  loss  or  damages  only  as  might  result  from  ordinary  neglect, 
which  is  defmed  to  mean  that  want  of  care  and  diligence  which  prudent  men 
usually  bestow  on  their  own  concerns.' 

"0."  K."  stamped  on  the  face  of  a  bill  of  lading  means  that  the  goods  were 
recei\e(l   ap])arently   in   good    condition. - 

The  word  "release"  stamped  on  the  face  of  a  bill  of  lading  means  exemp- 
tion  from  the  common  law  liability  as  an  insurer.^ 

Notation   "Inspection  Allowed." — See  post,  "Usage  and  Custom."   §  460. 

"More  or  Less." — v^ee  i)ost,  "ISetween  the  Parties,"  §  469. 

"Open"  and  "Closed"  Shipments. — See  post,  "'Open'  and  'Closed"  Ship- 
ments,"  §  486. 

"Contents    Unknown." — See    post,    "Recital    That    Contents    Unknown," 

"Good  Order,"   "Good  Condition,"   "Apparent  Good  Order."— See  post, 

"Recital  That  Goods  in  'Good  Urdcr,'  etc.,"  ^  4''l);  ••Recital  That  'Contents  Un- 
known and  in  Apparent  Good  Order,'"  §  491. 

"Shipper's  Load  and  Count,"  "Weight  Unknown,"  etc. — See  post,  "In 
General,"  §  4V3. 

"Quantity  Guaranteed." — See  post,  "Bill  Made  Hxclusive  Evidence  of 
OuaiUity  by   Agreement."   §  494. 

§  4  57.  Notice  of  Contents. — Both  parties  to  a  bill  of  lading  signed  by 
them   arc  chargeable   with   notice  of   its  contents.'* 

§  458.  Blanks  and  Unintelligible  Characters.— Blanks.— The  blanks  in 
a  bill  of  lading  are  not  to  be  considered  in  construing  the  instrument.'' 

Unintelligible  Characters. — Unintelligible  characters  i)laced  on  a  bill  of 
lading  wliich  convev  no  meaning  to  a  person  of  ordinary  intelligence  and  which 
are   not  ex])lainetl  to  tk.e  shipi)er,  do  not  bind   him.*' 

said     property     to    destination    if     on     its  R.  Co.  r'.  Rathbone.  1   W.  Va.  87.  88  Am. 

road,"    and    enters    on    the    bill    of    lading,  Dec.   6()4. 

after    the     designation     of     the    property.  2.    Morganton  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Ohio   River, 

"Care   W.   A.,   which   cliaracters  when   en-  etc.,   R.   Co.,  121    N.  C.  514,  28  S.   E.   474, 

dorsed    on    the    bill    of    lading    are    proved  61  Am.  St.  Rep.  079. 

to  mean  "in  care  of  the   Western  and  At-  3.    Morganton    Mfg.    Co.   r.   Ohio   River, 

lantic     Railroad    Company."    such    bill     of  etc.,   R.   Co..   121    X.   C.   .-.14.  28   S.   E.  474, 

lading  will  l)e  construed  to  mean  that  the  61   Am.   St.   Rep.   t)7'.). 

receiving    carrier    ol)ligates     to     transport  4.  Notice  of  contents. — Norfolk,  etc..  R. 

the   shijiment   over  its   own   road   to   desti-  Co.  7\   Lanudon,  S4   Atl.   473.   118   Md.  ""S. 

nation  and  there  to  deliver  it  to  the  West-  See   ante,   "Assent  to  and  Acceptance   by 

ern    and    .Atlantic    Railroad    Company    for  Consignor."   §§   446-450. 

the   benefit    of   the   consignee,    and    not   to  5.   Blanks. — Grayson   County    Xat.    Bank 

mean  a  delivery  of  the  shipment  at  a  junc-  7'.     Nashville,     etc..     Railway     (Tex.     Civ. 

tion  point  outside  of  the  place  of  destina-  App.).  79   S.   W.   1094. 

tion  to  the   Western   &   .\tlantic    Railroad  6.     Unintelligible     characters.— Norfolk. 

Company    to    be    transported    to    destina-  etc.,    K.    Co.    : .    Harnian,    liU    \'a.    501,    52 

tion    by    the    latter    companv.      Louisville,  S.    R.  ;{6S. 

etc..    R.   Co.  r.   Southern    Flour,   etc.,    Co.,  The  character  "Rel.  \'al.  Lts.   (or  Ltd.) 

i;!(i  C.a.  r>:!8,  71   S.   E.  SSl.  5    Cwt"   appearing   on   a   bill    of   lading  of 

99.  Obvious  prevails  over  hidden  mean-  goods  and   live   stock  will  not  be   held   to 

ing. —  Texas,   etc..    R.   Co.   :■.    Rciss.   1S;5    U.  mean    that    the    shipper    and    the    carrier 

S.   6~M.   iVM),   41)    L.    Ed.   ;!5S.   22    S.   Ct.   253.  have   agreed    that   the   property    should    be 

1.  At  the  owner's  risk. — Baltimore,  etc..  considered  as  worth   only   five  dollars  for 


§§  459-460 


CARRIERS. 


328 


§  4  59.  Conditions  on  Back  of  Bill. — Conditions  printed  upon  the  back 
of  a  bill  of  lading  are  not  binding  upon  the  shipper,  unless  his  assent  thereto 
is  established.'^ 

§  460.  Usage  and  Custom. —  In  bills  of  lading;  where  the  terms  used 
have,  bv  usage,  acquired  a  particular  signification,  the  parties  will  be  presumed 
to  have'  used  them  in  that  sense."*  Such  evidence  of  usage  or  custom  is  never 
considered  of  the  character  of  parol  evidence  to  contradict  a  written  instru- 
ment but  is  received  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  sense  and  understand- 
ing of  parties  by  their  contracts,  which  are  made  with  reference  to  such  usage 
or  custom ;  for  the  custom  then  becomes  a  part  of  the  contract,  and  may  not 
improperly  be  considered  the  law  of  the  contract:  and  it  rests  upon  the  same 
principles  as  the  doctrine  of  the  lex  loci."  Usage  and  custom  of  railroads  can 
not  make  a  contract,  can  not  prevent  the  effects  of  a  settled  rule  of  law,  nor 
be  invoked  by  a  party  and  introduced  into  a  contract  evidenced  by  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing as  an  element  of  it.  when  such  usage  or  custom  is  contrary  to  law.i"  Nor 
is  usage  admissible  to  control  the  legal  effect  of  a  state  of  facts  which  the  law 
declares  creates  a  contract  between  the  parties.  A  case  might  arise  in  which 
evidence  of  custom  may  be  admissible  to  ascertain  in  whom  rests  the  title  of 
property  shipped,  and  which  is  claimed  under  a  bill  of  lading. '^ 

To  Vary  or  Contradict  Express  Terms  of  Bill  of  Lading.— Evidence  of 
usage  or  custom  is  not  admissible  to  control,  vary  or  contradict  the  positive 
stipulations.!-  or  an  express  contract  ^^  contained  in  a  bill  of  lading;  or  to  sub- 
stitute for  the  express  terms  or  provisions  of  the  instrument  an  implied  agree- 
ment or  usage  ^^  that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  bound  to  keep,  transport,  and  de- 
liver the  goods  in  good  order  and  condition ;  !'•  or  to  prove  a  custom  of  stop- 
ping shipments  of  cotton,  at  a  point  short  of  the  destination  named  in  the  bill 
of  lading.!^  ! 


every  hundred  pounds  of  weight,  where 
there  is  no  evidence  as  to  what  the  char- 
acters stood  for  and  that  construction 
is  glaringly  inconsistent  with  another 
clause  of  the  bill  of  lading  in  which  a  dif- 
ferent and  higher  valuation  is  placed  upon 
the  stock.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Har- 
man.   104   Va.  oOl,   .52   S.   E.   368. 

7.  Conditions  on  back  of  bill. — Painkin- 
sky  z:  Illinrjis  Cent.  R.  Co.,  165  111.  App. 
536;    Merchants'    Dispatch    Transo.    Co.   v. 

Furthmann,  47  111.  App.  561,  affirmed  in 
149  111.  66,  36  N.  E.  624,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
265. 

8.  Evidence  of  usage  in  general. — Hos- 
tetter  z:  Park,  i:;7  U.  S.  :U).  34  L.  Ed.  .568, 
11    S.    Ct.    1:    Robinson    z\    United    States 

(U.  S.),  13  Wall.  363,  20  L.  Ed.  653;  The 
Delaware  (U.  S.).  14  Wall.  579,  20  L.  Ed. 
779;  Wayne  v.  Steamboat  General  Pike, 
16  O.  421.  and  see  Jordan,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
James.  5  O.  88. 

9.  Babcock  z:  May,  4  O.  334. 

Although  the  bill  of  lading  is  the  con- 
tract of  the  parties,  its  execution  may 
be  affected  by  a  common  usage  of  the 
trade — such  usage  being  supposed  to  have 
been  contemplated  by  the  parties.  Law- 
rence V.  McGregor   (O.).  Wright  193. 

10.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  Railway  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79 
S.  W.  1094;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCown 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  25  S.  W.  435;  Dwyer 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Tex.  707,  7  S.  W. 


504;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Pagan.  72 
Tex.  127,  9  S.  W.  749,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  776, 
2   L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  75. 

11.  Mercantile  Banking  Co.  v.  Landa 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33  S.  W.  681.  See,  also, 
Moore  z\  Kennedy,  81  Tex.  144,  16  S.  W. 
740. 

12.  The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579, 
20  L.  Ed.  779;  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ohio   Valley,   etc.,   Co.,    107   Ga.   512,   33   S. 

E.  821;  Wayne  v.  Steamboat  General  Pike, 
16  O.  421;  Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.), 
Wright  193. 

13.  Mercantile  Banking  Co.  v.  Landa 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33  S.  W'.  681;  see  also 
Moore  v.  Kennedy,  81  Tex.  144,  16  S.  W. 
740. 

14.  Lawrence  r.  McGregor  (O.),  Wright 
193. 

15.  Usage  can  not  control  express  pro- 
visions.—The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall. 
579,   20   L.    Ed.   779. 

16.  Parol  testimony  is  not  admissible  on 
the  trial  of  a  case  brought  to  recover 
damages  growing  out  of  an  alleged  breach 
of  contract  for  failure  to  deliver  cotton 
at  the  point  of  destination  named  in  the 
bill  of  lading  to  prove  a  custom  of  stop- 
ping cotton  short  of  the  point  of  destina- 
tion   for    purposes    at    variance    with    the 

plain,  unambiguous  terms  of  the  contract 
of  carriage.  Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants', etc..  Bank,  137  Ga.  391,  73  S.  E. 
637. 


329  BILLS    OF    LAblXG.  §§  460-461 

Usage  as  to  Stowage. — In  the  case  of  a  bill  of  lading  or  a  charter  party, 
evidence  of  usa^jc  in  a  particnlar  trade  is  admissible  to  show  that  certain  goods 
in   that    trade  nia\'  be  >li)\\ed   on   deck.'' 

Custom  as  to  Right  of  Inspection  and  Rejection. — Where  a  contract  for 
the  sale  of  perishable  prodnce  stipnlated  that  the  j^rices  were  f.  o.  b.  cars  and 
the  bill  of  lading  contained  the  notation  "inspection  allowed,"  evidence  to  show 
a  custom  that  the  buyer  could  inspect  the  goods  on  arrival,  and,  if  not  in  good 
condition,  reject  them,  which  custom  was  known  to  the  agent  of  the  seller  who 
made  the  sale,  is  admissible,  in  an  action  by  the  seller  for  the  price,  to  show 
that  the  same  was  a  part  of  the  contract  of  sale,  and  to  exjjlain  the  significance 
of  the  quoted  words  in  the  bill  of  lading.  Such  custom  gave  the  buyer  the  right 
of  inspection  before  delivery,  and  to  refuse  acceptance  on  the  goods  being  dam- 
aged.'"* The  purpose  of  the  evidence  as  to  the  custom  referred  to  was  not  to 
create  a  warranty  when  none  was  created  by  the  contract.  Xo  warranty  was 
needed  to  protect  the  buyer.  The  right  of  inspection  and  rejection  gave  him 
all  the  protection  he  needed.  Such  a  custom  was  not  in  violation  of  the  terms 
of  the  contract  and  of  established  rules  of  law.  The  custom  being  known  to 
the  agent  of  seller,  and  being  in  fact  of  such  a  general  character  that  the  buyer, 
in  dealing  with  j^roduce  dealers  at  the  point  of  destination,  would  be  required 
to  take  notice  of  it,  became  a  part  of  the  contract,  which  is  shown  to  have  been 
made  with  reference  to  it.''*  Evidence  of  the  custom  referred  to  was  further 
admissi])le  to  ex])lain  the  full  significance  of  the  notation  on  the  bill  of  lading, 
"Inspection  allowed."  These  words  can  have  no  other  signification  than  ex- 
plained by  the  custom  referred  to,  that  they  referred  to  the  right  of  inspection, 
and  rejection  if  found  in  bad  condition.  They  necessarily  mean  a  right  of  in- 
spection before  delivery.  After  delivery  consignee  had  no  need  of  permission 
to  insi)ect,  and  inspection  before  delivery  would  have  been  an  idle  ceremony 
unless  some  right  was  to  accrue  to  him  upon  such  inspection  if  the  goods  were 
not  in  good  condition.  The  only  reasonable  interpretation  to  be  given  this  lan- 
guage in  the  bill  of  lading  taken  by  the  shipper,  and  inserted  of  course,  with 
liis  direction,  is  in  accordance  with  the  custom  proven  by  consignee.-" 

§  461.  Conflict  of  Laws, — The  laws  of  the  state  where  the  bill  of  lading 
was  delivered  will  control  as  to  the  nature,  interpretation,  and  elTect  of  the  con- 
tract for  carriage;-'  and  it  has  such  qualities  as  are  imposed  upon  it  by  the 
laws  of  that  state. -- 

Laws  Governing  Indorsements. — Although  a  foreign  bill  of  lading  pro- 
vided that  questions  arising  between  the  owners  and  shipowners  should  be  de- 
termined by  the  English  law,  the  question  of  the  effect  of  indorsements,  where 
no  question  for  or  against  the  carrier  is  raised,  is  to  be  determined  by  the  law 
of  tlie  place  where  the  indorsements  are  made.--^ 

17.  Usage  as  to  stowage. — Tlio  Dcla-  21.  Conflict  of  laws. — Frank  Simpson 
ware   ( U.  S.).  14  Wall.  :)7'.i.  20  L.   Ivl.  779.       Fruit    Co.   r.    Southern    Pac.    Co..    157    111. 

18.  Custom  as  to  right  of  inspection  and      App.  158. 

rejection. — Fort    Produce    Co.    r.    Dissen.  The    law    of   the    place    where   a    bill    of 

45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  403,  101  S.  W.  477.  lading  was  made  controls,  where  the  right 

19.  Fort  Produce  Co.  ?■.  Dissen,  45  Tex.  of  the  carrier  to  limit  its  common-law 
Civ.   App.  403,   101   S.  W.  477.  lial)ility    is    not    involved.      Missouri,    etc.. 

It  would  not  have  violated  any  rule  if  R.  Co.  f.  Scaly.  7S  Kan.  75S.  ;i!)  Pac.  2:'.o. 
the   parties   had   contracted    for   inspection  As    to    right    of    bona    fide     purchaser 

and    rejection,    and    under    the    undisputed  where    goods    not    received    by    carrier. — 

evidence    as    to    the    custom .  referred    to.  See    ante,    "As    against    Bona     Fide    Con- 

which  became  a  part  of  the  contract,  this  signee   or  Transferee,"   §§   431-437. 
is  wliat  was   done.      Fort    Produce    Co.   7'.  22.  National  Bank  r.  Baltimore,  etc..  R. 

Dissen,   45  Tex.   Civ.   App.   403,   101   S.   W.  Co..  9i)   Md.   «()!,   59   Atl.   134.   105   Am.   St. 

477.  Rep.  321. 

20.  Inspection  allowed. — Fort  Produce  23.  Laws  governing  indorsements. — 
Co.  r.  Dissen,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  403.  101  Baker  Co.  :\  Brown.  214  Mass.  UtG,  100 
S.  W.  477.  X.   E.  1025. 


§§  462-46; 


CARRIERS. 


330 


§  462.  Foreign  Laws. — In  the  absence  of  evidence  as  to  the  law  relating 
to  bills  of  lading  of  another  state  in  which  a  bill  of  lading  was  issued,  the  court 
will  presume  that  the  common  law  prevails  in  that  state.--* 


§  463.  Fraudulent  Bills  of  Lading.— Consignor  Not  Owner  of  Goods. 
-See  post,  "Shipment  Fraudulently  Procured  by  Person  Not  Owner  of  Goods," 

-See  ante,  "Receipt  of  Goods  as  Pre- 


§  498. 
No    Goods    Received    by    Carrier. 

requisite  to  Issuance."  §§  429-442. 

§  464.  Partial  Invalidity. — While  a  bill  of  lading  is  to  be  construed  as 
a  whole,  invalid  conditions  will  not  necessarily  render  the  contract  void;  it  may 
be  enforced  so  far  as  it  is  valid. -^  Where  it  was  clearly  the  intention  of  the 
parties  that  there  should  be  a  written  contract,  and  one  was  deliberately  made 
and  entered  into,  the  fact  that  the  contract  contains  many  provisions  which  can 
not  be  given  effect  and  which  it  is  apparent  were  never  intended  to  be  given 
eft'ect;  is  not  a  sufificient  reason  for  holding  the  contract  invalid,  or  to  justify 
setting  aside  and  disregarding  the  provisions  which  are  applicable  to  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  contract. -"^ 

§  465.  When  Bill  of  Lading  Part  of  Contract. — \\here  a  shipping  or- 
der.-' a  shipping  ticket,-"^  the  letters  -'•  between  a  shipper  and  a  carrier,  or  a 
receipt  ^"  for  freight,  directs  the  goods  to  be  shipped  ''^^  or  declares  that  the 
shipment  shall  be^^  subject  to  the  conditions  of  the  bill  of  lading,  the  bill  of 
lading  is  a  part  of  the  contract  of  carriage.     But  it  must  appear  that  a  bill  of 


24.  Foreign  laws, — National  Bank  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  99  Md.  661,  59 
Atl.    134,    lO.J   Am.    St.    Rep.   321. 

25.  Invalid  conditions. — W'hitnack  r*. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  82  Neb.  464.  118  N. 
W.  67,  130  Am.  St.  Rep.  692,  19  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  1011;  Grieve  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co..   104   Iowa   659,   74    N.   W.   192. 

26.  W'hitnack  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
130  Am.  St.  Rep.  692,  82  Neb.  464,  118  N. 
W.  67.  19  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  1011. 

27.  Shipping  order  and  bill  of  lading  as 
contract  of  carriage. — Where  a  shipper 
delivered  to  a  carrier  his  shipping  order 
as  per  conditions  of  the  carrier's  bill  of 
lading,  and  the  carrier  delivered  to  the 
shipper  a  bill  of  lading,  the  shipping  or- 
der and   the   bill   of  lading  constituted  the 

contract  of  transportation.  Illinois  Match 
Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.   Co..  95  N.   E.  492. 

250    111.    396,   reversing   judgment,    153    111. 

App.  568. 

28.  Shipping  ticket  and  bill  of  lading. 
— Where  a  shipper  sends  with  his  sliip- 
ment  a  shipping  ticket  directing  that  the 
goods  be  shipped  "as  per  condition  of 
company's  bill  of  lading,"  and  the  carrier 
receipts  for  the  goods  on  these  terms, 
and  there  is  a  standard  form  of  bill  of 
lading,  an  express  contract  of  shipments 
is  created,  and  the  terms  in  that  bill  of 
lading  become  a  part  of  the  contract. 
Southern  R.  Co.  ?•.  Frank  &  Co.,  63  S.  E. 
656.  5   Ga.  .\pp.  574. 

29.  Letters  and  bill  of  lading  as  con- 
tract.— Where  the  letters  between  a  car- 
rier   and    a    shipper    set    forth    merely    the 


rates  at  which  the  goods  would  be  car- 
ried and  the  time  within  which  a  claim 
for  damages  would  be  settled,  it  will  be 
presumed  that  the  usage  and  custom  of 
issuing  bills  of  lading  was  within  the 
contemplation  of  the  parties,  and  such 
bills  of  lading,  when  issued,  will  be  re- 
garded as  parts  of  the  contract.  Mer- 
chants', etc.,  Transp.  Co.  z'.  Eichberg,  109 
Md.  211.  71  Atl.  993,  130  Am.  St.  Rep. 
524. 

"A  similar  view  was  held  by  the  court 
of  appeals  of  New  York  in  the  case  of 
Donovan  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  155  N.  Y. 
112,  49  N.  E.  678,  where  the  court  said: 
'This  instrument  [the  bill  of  lading]  must 
be  read  with  the  letter  referred  to  under 
which  the  plaintiffs  entered  into  the  gen- 
eral arrangement,  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  full  extent  of  tlieir  duties  and  obliga- 
tions as  carrier.' "  Merchants',  etc., 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Eichberg,  109  Md.  211,  71 
Atl.   993,   130   Am.   St.    Rep.   524. 

30.  Carrier's  receipt  for  freight  and  bill 
of  lading. — A  receipt  by  a  carrier  for 
freight,  vviiich  declares  that  the  shipment 
shall  be  subject  to  the  conditions  of  the 
bill  of  lading,  makes  the  bill  of  lading  a 
part  of  the  contract  of  carriage.  Sim- 
mons Hardware  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   140  Mo.   App.  130,  120   S.   W.  663. 

31.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Frank  &  Co.,  5 
Ga.  App.  574,  63   S.   E.  656. 

32.  Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  140  Mo.  App.  130,  120  S.  W. 
663. 


331 


lilLLS    OF     LADING. 


§§  465-467 


ladinj^  was  made  out  or  that  a  standard  ffjrm  was  in  use  which  the  parties  liad 
.'.'greed  on  as  part  of  the  contract. ■"'•'• 

§§  466-479.  Dual  Character  as  Contract  and  as  Receipt— §  466.  In 
General. — A  hill  of  hidin,<^  is  an  instrument  of  a  twofohl  character.  It  is  at 
once  a  receiut  and  a  contract.  In  the  former  character  it  is  an  acknowledgment 
of  the  receipt  of  property  hy  the  carrier.  In  the  latter  it  is  a  contract  to  carry 
them  safely  from  the  place  of  shijjment  and  deliver  to  a  person  named  or  his 
order  at  the  point  of  destination.  It  has  heen  so  held  hy  the  federal  courts,-'^ 
and  the  courts  of  Alahama.-'-"'  Arkansas,""'  Illinois,-*'  Maine,-'''  Maryland,-''^  Ne- 
braska,-*" New  York,"  Ohio,-*-  v^outh  CaroHna.'*-'  Texas,-*-*  and  other  states. 

§  467.  As  Contract  Generally. — The  hill  of  lading  establishes  a  con- 
tractual relation  helwccn  the  c:'.rrier  and  shi])ijer.^-''     W  hen  issued  by  a  common 


33.  .\nierican  Storage,  etc.,  Co.  v.  W'a- 
hasli    R.   Co.    (Mo.   App.),   123    S.   W.   964. 

An  instrument  reciting  receipt  by  de- 
fendant carrier  from  plaintiff  of  the  "fol- 
lowing articles"  to  he  delivered  to  plain- 
tiff at  destination,  after  which  is  a  de- 
scription of  the  articles,  followed  by  the 
words  "received  sul)ject  to  conditions  of 
*  *  *  (defendant's)  bill  of  lading,"  it- 
self constitutes  the  contract,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  evidence  by  either  party  of  any- 
thing else  in  the  way  of  a  bill  of  lading 
having  been  made  out,  or  any  form  in 
use  having  been  agreed  on  as  part  of  the 
contract.  American  Storage,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Wabash  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.).  V2?,  S.  W. 
964. 

34.  Dual  character  of  bill  of  lading. — 
Pollard  r.  Vinton.  105  U.  S.  7,  S,  2()  L. 
Ed.   998;   The   Delaware    (U.   S.),   14   Wall. 

579,    601,    20    L.    Ed.    779;    St.    Louis,    etc., 

R.   Co.  V.   Knight,   122  U.   S.   79,   87,  30  L. 

Ed.  1077,  7  S.  Ct.  1133;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Co.  V.  McFadden.  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed. 

944,  14  S.  Ct.  990.  See  The  Lady  Frank- 
lin (U.  S.),  8  Wall.  325,  19  L.  Ed.  455; 
The  Schooner  Freeman  (L^.  S.),  18  How. 
182.    15    L.    Ed.    341. 

35.  Wayland  v.  Mosely.  5  .\la.  430.  39 
Am.    Dec.    335;    Alaliama,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Norris.    167   Ala.   311,   52   So.   891. 

36.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
Bank.  87  .\rk.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R. 
R.  290.  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.. 
290,    128   Am.   St.    Rep.   17. 

37.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  :■. 
Furtiimann,  47  111.  App.  561,  affirmed  in 
149  111.  66.  36  N.  E.  624.  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
265. 

A  "bill  of  lading"  is  a  written  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  receipt  of  goods  and  an 
agreement,  on  consideration,  to  transport 
and  deliver  them  at  a  specified  place  to 
a  person  named  on  his  order.  Illinois 
Match  Co.  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  250 
111.  396,  95  N.  E.  492,  reversing  judgment 
153    111.   .-Kpp.   568. 

38.  O'Brien  r.  Gilchrist.  34  Me.  554,  56 
.\m.    Dec.   676,   67S. 

39.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Wilkens, 
44  Md.  11,  22  Am.   Rep.  26. 

40.  Wiiitnack  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
82    Neb.    464,    118    X.    W.    67,    19    L.    R.    A.. 


X.     S.,     1011,      130      Am.      St.      Rep.      692. 

41.  Wolfe  V.  Meyers  (X.  Y.),  3  Sandf.  7; 
Miller  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  X.  Y. 
430,   43   Am.    Rep.    179. 

"A  bill  of  lading  has  a  twofold  char- 
acter: 1.  That  of  a  receipt;  and  2.  That 
of  a  contract."  Van  Etten  %■.  Xewton. 
134  X.  Y.  143,  30  Am.   St.  Rep.  6.30. 

42.  Wood  V.  Perry  (O.),  Wright  240; 
Page  &  Co.  V.  Sandusky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
West.   L.   M.  644,  2  O.  Dec.   Reprint  716. 

A  bill  of  lading  is  a  contract  including 
a  receipt.  Page  &  Co.  v.  Sandusky,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec. 
Reprint   716. 

"The  bill  of  lading  is  a  contract  includ- 
ing a  receipt.  It  is  a  contract  admitting 
the  reception  of  certain  goods,  with  an 
agreement  to  carry  them  to  the  port  of 
discharge."  Babcock  :•.  May,  4  O.  334. 
And  see  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank  v.  C.  X.  O. 
&  T.  P.  R.  Co.,  29  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  15,  11 
O.   Dec.   Reprint  703. 

43.  Thomas  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 
S.  C.  537,  64  S.  E.  220,  34  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S., 
1177,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  223,  32 
R.  R.  R.  250,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X. 
S..    250. 

44.  .\.  bill  of  lading  is  a  receipt  (for  the 
shipment)  as  well  as  a  contract  of  car- 
riage in  writing.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Hall,  64  Tex.  615,  620;  Dwyer  v.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Tex.  707,  710,  7  S.  W.  504; 

Cohen  Bros.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    381,    383,     98    S.    W.     437; 

House  V.  Holland,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  502, 
94    S.    W.    153. 

Bills  of  lading  are  practically-  no  more 
than  receipts  for  the  goods,  and  are  con- 
tracts only  in  name.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Rosebrook-Iosey  Grain  Co.,  52  Tex. 
Civ.    .App.    156.'  114    S.    W.    436. 

45.  As  a  contract. — Pace  Mule  Co.  v. 
Seaboard,  etc..  R.  Co.  (X.  C).  76  S.  E. 
513;  Herring  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  (.X. 
C),   76    S.    E.    527. 

A  bill  of  lading  given  under  art.  2S0 
of  Tex.  Rev.  Civil  St.,  is  a  contract  en- 
tered into  between  the  parties  at  the 
time    the     goods    are     delivered,     and     is 

cquallv  binding  upon  both  parties.  Schloss 
:•.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  Tex.  601,  22 
S.  W.    n)14. 


§§  467-469 


CARRIERS. 


2>Z2 


carrier,  and  signed  and  accepted  by  the  shipper,  it  constitutes  the  contract  for 
the  shipment  of  merchandise  therein  described,'**^  by  which  for  a  specified  sum 
the  carrier  undertakes  to  carry  safely  and  deliver  the  goods  received  to  the 
person  named  in  the  bill  or  his  order. ^'  It  is  a  sj^ecial  contract,  imposing  the 
duty  of  transportation  and  delivery  according  to  its  terms  as  understood  by  the 
contracting  parties  at  the  time  of  entering  into  the  same.^'^ 

§  468.  As  a  Receipt  in  General. — The  bill  of  lading,  to  the  extent  that 
it  acknowknlges  the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  the  goods  by  the  carrier,  is  a 
receipt.  In  other  respects,  it  is  a  contract.-*''  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  courts 
of  the  United  States  •"*"  and  of  the  states  of  Alabama, "^i  Arkansas,-"'-  Illinois,^'"^ 
Iowa,''-*  Louisiana, "'•'^  New  York,'''-    Texas,'"'"   and  others. 

§§  469-479.  Parol  Evidence  to  Vary  or  Contradict  Bill— §§  469-470. 
As  a  Contract — §  469.  Between  the  Parties. — In  so  far  as  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing is  a  contract  of  carriage  expressing  the  terms  and  conditions  upon  which 
the  shipment  is  to  be  transported,  it  can  not  be  explained,  varied,  added  to, 
altered  or  contradicted  by  parol  evidence.  The  bill  of  lading  embodies  the  con- 
tract between  the  shipper  and  the  carrier,  and,  when  delivered  by  the  carrier 
and  received  by  the  shipper,  its  terms,  stipulations,  and  conditions  are  as  bind- 
ing on  the  parties  thereto  as  are  the  terms,  stipulations,  and  conditions  of  any 
other  written  contract.  A  bill  of  lading  is,  therefore,  to  be  taken  as  the  sole 
evidence  of  the  final  agreement  of  the  parties,  by  which  their  duties  and  lia- 
bilities must  be  regulated,  and  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  mistake,  when  its 
terms  are  free  from  ambiguity,  parol  evidence  is  inadmissible  to  vary  its  terms 
or  legal  import. •'^'^  Where  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  business  which 
is  the  subject  of  such  contract  to  control  the  meaning  of  its  terms,  the  instru- 
ment must  be  interpreted  and  its  meaning  gathered  from  the  instrument  itself, 
without  resort  to  any  parol  testimony.'"^ '^  This  is  the  settled  doctrine  in  the 
federal    courts  ^'^    and    in    the    courts    of    the    states    of    Alabama,*''^    Arkan- 


46.  W'hitnack  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
82  Xeb.  464,  118  N.  W.  67,  19  L.  R.  A., 
N.   S.,   1011,   130  Am.   St.   Rep.   092. 

47.  A  bill  of  lading  is  a  contract  to 
safely  carry  and  deliver.  Cobl)  v.  Brown, 
113  C.  C.  A.  586,  193  Fed.  958;  Williams 
V.    Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (Ala.),    58    So. 

315. 

A  bill  of  lading  in  the  first  instance 
represents  the  contract  between  the 
shipper  and  the  carrier,  by  which,  for  a 
specified  sum,  the  carrier  undertakes  to 
deliver  the  goods  received  to  the  right- 
ful owner.  Gass  v.  Astoria  Veneer  Mills, 
134  App.  Div.   184,   118   X.   Y.   S.  982. 

48.  It  is  a  special  contract. — Wayne  v. 
Steami)oat   General   Pike,   l(i   O.  421. 

49.  A  bill  of  lading  is  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  receipt  of  the  property  by  the 
carrier.  Cobb  v.  Brown,  113  C.  C.  A.  586, 
193  Fed.  958;  Williams  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Ala.),  58  So.  315. 

50.  Cobb  V.  Brown,  113  C.  C.  A.  586,  193 
Fed.    958. 

51.  Williams  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Ala.),  58  So.  315. 

52.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R. 
R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  290, 
128    Am.    St.    Rep.    17. 

53.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Furthmann,   47    111.   App.   561,   afiirmed   in 


149   111.   66,  36   N.   E.   624,  41   Am.   St.   Rep. 
265. 

54.  Chapin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Iowa  582,  44  N.  W.  820. 

55.  Hunt  V.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co., 
29  La.  Ann.  440;  Sonia  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v. 
Steamer  Red  River,  106  La.  42,  30  So. 
303,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  293. 

56.  Van  Etten  v.  Newton,  134  X.  Y. 
143,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  630. 

57.  Cohen  Bros.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  lex.  Civ.  App.  381,  383,  98  S.  W. 
437;  House  v.  Holland,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
502,   94   S.   W.    153. 

58.  Between  parties. — Tallassee  Falls 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Western  Railway,  117  Ala. 
520,  23  So.  139,  07  Am.  St.  Rep.  179;  Lou- 
isville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fulgham,  91  Ala. 
555,  8  So.   803. 

59.  Wayne  v.  vSteamlioat  General  Pike, 
16  O.  421. 

60.  The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579. 
20  L.  Ed.  779;  O'Rourke  v.  Two  Hundred 
and  Twenty-One  Tons  of  Coal,  1  Fed.  619; 
The  Lady  Franklin  (U.  S.),  s  Wall.  325, 
19  L.  Ed.  455;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jurey,  111  U.  S.  584,  591,  28  L.  Ed.  527, 
4  S.  Ct.  566;  Clark  v.  Barnwell  (U.  S.), 
12  How.  272.  13  L.  Ed.  985;  Niagara 
V.  Cordes  (U.  S.),  21  How.  7,  23,  16  L. 
Ed.   41. 

61.  Wayland   v.    Mosely,   5    Ala.   430,   39 


333 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  467 


sas/'-  Connecticut,"''  Georgia,''-*  Indiana,'*"'  Iowa,''"  Kansas,'*"  Louisiana,^^ 
Massachusetts.''''  .Minnesota,""  Missouri," ^  Nebraska," 2  Xew  York,"^  Ohio,'^ 
Pennsvlvania,'"'  Rhode  Island."''  'rcxas.'"  \erniont.'''  Wisconsin. "'-^  and  others; 
and  in   I'.ngland.""' 

Obligations  Implied  from  Nature  of  Contract. — Not  only  is  parol  evi- 
dence inadmissible  to  vary  the  ex];ress  terms  of  the  contract  contained  in  a  bill 
of  lading,  but  it  is  inadmissible  to  vary  the  obligations  as  to  which  the  contract 
is  silent,  but   whi^-h   arc  im])licd   from   its  nature. ^^ 

Proof   That   Bill   Contract    of   Parties. — Before   the   rule   excluding   parol 


Am.  Dec.  :$;!;);  Cox  v.  Peterson,  30  Ala. 
608,  68  Am.  Dec.  145;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Fulgham,  91  Ala.  555,  8  So.  803; 
vSteele  v.  Tovvnsend,  37  Ala.  247,  79  Am. 
Dec.  49;  Tallassee  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wes- 
tern Railway.  117  Ala.  520,  23  So.  139, 
<)7   Am.   St.   Rep.  179. 

62.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R. 
R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  290, 
128   Am.   St.    Rep.   17. 

63.  Barber  v.  Brace,  3  Conn.  9,  8  Am. 
Dec.   149. 

64.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Shomo, 
90  Ga.  49(),  16  S.  E.  220;  CeiUrai,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Cook,  4  Ga.  App.  698.  701,  62  S.  E. 
464;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cohn  &  Co., 
6  Ga.  App.  572,  573,  65  S.  E.  355;  McEl- 
veen  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  109  Ga.  249.  34 
S.    E.    281.   77   Am.    St.    Rep.    371. 

65.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rcmmy, 
13  Ind.  518;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wilson,  119  Ind.  352,  21  N.  E.  341,  40 
Am.   &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  85. 

66.  Wilde  v.  Merchants'  Despatch 
Transp.   Co..   47   Iowa  272. 

67.  Hopkins  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
16  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  126. 

68.  Hunt  V.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co., 
29  La.  Ann.  446;  Sonia  Cotton  Oil  Co.  v. 
Steamer  Red  River.  106  La.  42,  30  So. 
303,    87    Am.    St.    Rep.    293. 

69.  Blanchard  v.  Page  (Mass.),  8  Gray 
281. 

70.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Home 
Ins.  Co..  55  Minn.  236,  56  N.  W.  815,  22 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  390;  Norton  v.  Baxter. 
41   Minn.   146,   16  Am.   St.   Rep.   679. 

71.  O'Bryan  v.  Kinney.  74  Mo.  125;  St. 
Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cleary.  77  Mo.  634, 
46  .'Km.  Rep.  13;  Turner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  632;  Milne  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co.,  155  Mo.  App.  465,  135 
S.  W.  85. 

72.  Whitnack  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
82  Neb.  464,  118  N.  W.  67,  19  L.  R.  A., 
N.   S.,   1011,   130  Am.   St.   Rep.   692. 

73.  Niles  v.  Culver  (N.  Y.).  8  Barb.  205; 
Fitzliugh  7'.  Wiman.  9  N.  Y.  559,  Seld.  Notes 
250;  Creery  v.  Holly  (N.  Y.),  14  Wend. 
26;  White  V.  Van  Kirk  (N.  Y.).  25  Barb. 
16;  Long  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  50 
N.  Y.  76;  Collender  z'.  Dinsmore,  55  N. 
Y.  200,  14  Am.  Rep.  224;  Germania  Fire 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Memphis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  N. 
Y.  90,  28  Am.  Rep.  113;  Hill  v.  Syracuse, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  73  N.  Y.  351,  29  Am.  Rep. 
163;    Hinckley   v.    New    York    Cent.,    etc.. 


R.  Co.,  56  N.  Y.  429;  Van  Etten  v.  New- 
ton, 134  N.  Y.  143,  31  N.  E.  334,  30  Am. 
St.   Rep.  630. 

74.  Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.),  Wright 
193;  Wayne  v.  Steamboat  General  Pike, 
16  O.  421;  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Pontius,    19   O.    St.    251,    2   Am.    Rep.    391. 

A  bill  of  lading  being  a  special  con- 
tract is  not,  as  a  general  rule,  to  be 
varied  or  altered  by  parol  evidence. 
Wayne  v.  Steaml>oat  General  Pike.  16 
O.  421;  Jordan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  James.  5  O. 
88;  Babcock  v.  May,  4  O.  334;  Cleveland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  La  Tourette,  2  O.  C.  C. 
279,  1  O.   C.   D.  486. 

75.  Shaw  V.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  (Pa.), 
8  Wkly.  Notes  Cas.  221;  Hostetter  z: 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Pa.),  14  Atl.  609, 
8  Sad.  499. 

76.  Gardner  v.  Chace,  2  R.  I.  112. 

77.  Cohen  Bros.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  381,  98  S.  W.  437; 
House  V.  Holland,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  502, 
94  S.  W.  153.  Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex. 
335.   82   Am.    Dec.   617. 

Except  in  the  recital  of  the  receipt  ot 
the  goods,  and  of  their  quantity  and 
condition,  l)ills  of  lading  are  strictly 
written  contracts,  within  the  rule  pro- 
liiljiting  parol  evidence  to  contradict  or 
vary  such  contracts.  Galveston,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z'.  Silegman  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  23  S. 
W.   298. 

78.  King  V.  Woodbridge,  34  Vt.  565; 
Davis  V.  Central,  etc..  R.  Co.,  66  \'t.  290, 
29    Atl.    313.    44   Am.    St.    Rep.    852. 

79.  Hansen  v.  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co..  73 
Wis.  346.  41  N.  W.  529.  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  791. 

80.  Goodrich  v.  Norris.  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5545.  1  Al)l).  Adm.  196;  Brablev  v.  Duni- 
pace,  1  H.  &  C.  521;  Butler  z:  The  Steam- 
boat Arrow,  6  McLean  470,  Newb. 
Adm.    59. 

81.  Obligation  implied  from  nature 
contract. — Wills.  I'^ar^o  &  Co.'s  Exp.  -'. 
Fuller.  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213.  23  S.  W. 
412.  affirmed. in  93  Tex.  741.  no  op.;  Ar- 
nold V.  Jones.  26  Tex.  335,  82  .\m.  Dec. 
617. 

.^s  a  bill  of  lading  for  shipment  of 
cattle  raises  an  implied  obligation  to 
furnish  suitable  cars,  and  to  transport  the 
cattle  within  a  reasonable  time,  parol  evi- 
dence is  inadmissible  to  show  a  parol 
agreement  prior  to  the  bill  of  lading  to 
furnish  "bedded"  cars  and  to  make  close 
connection  with  another  line  of  carriers, 
though  it  could  be  shown  that  bedded  cars 


§§  467-471  CARRIERS.  334 

evidence  can  be  applied,  the  written  bill  of  lading  must  be  shown  to  be  the  con- 
tract of  the  parties.'^-  .  r    ,      ,  -n      r 

Effect  of  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading.— The  production  of  the  bill  ot 
lading  is  an  admission  that  the  contract  was  in  writing,  and  upon  failure  to 
prove  the  written  contract,  evidence  of  a  parole  contract  is  inadmissible.*^"- 

A  clean  bill  of  lading  imports  that  the  goods  are  stowed  under  deck,  and 
parol  evidence  that  the  vendor  agreed  that  the  goods  should  be  stowed  on  deck 

can  not  be  received.^'  ,    ,  -,1      -   i    i- 

Through  Bill  of  Lading.— If  a  receipt  constitutes  a  through  bill  ot  lading 
of  the  go'ods  parol  evidence  can  not  be  given  to  explain  or  vary  it ;  what  is 
established  bv  contract  can  not  be  changed  or  affected  by  custom.'^-^ 

Words  "More  or  Less."— The  words  "more  or  less"  in  a  bill  of  lading  for 
the  shipping  of  a  number  of  pieces  of  lumber,  amounting  to  a  specified  number 
of  tons  "more  or  less."  can  not  be  shown  by  parol  to  have  been  intended  to 
refer  al'^o   to   the   number  of   pieces   shipped.^*' 

Additional  Provisions  of  Waybill  for  Guidance  of  Carrier's  Employees. 
—Proof  that  a  waybill  issued  by  the  carrier  for  the  guidance  of  its  employees 
stipulated  delivery  at  a  certain  packing  house  was  inadmissible  to  add  that  pro- 
vision to  the  written  contract  between  the  carrier  and  shipper/^"^ 

§  470.  Between  Consignor  and  Consignee.— As  between  the  consignor 
and  the  consignee,  the  bill  of  lading  can  not  be  regarded  as  a  contract  in  writ- 
ing, but  merely  as  an  admission  or  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  consignor  as 
to%is  purpose,' at  the  time,  in  making  the  shipment,  and  such  admission  is  sub- 
iect  to  be  rebutted  by  other  circumstances  connected  with  the  transaction. '^s 

Amount  Shipped.— Bills  of  lading  for  goods  shipped  to  purchaser  are  prima 
facie  but  not  conclusive  evidence  of  the  amount  of  goods  shipped;  and  the 
purchaser  can  show  that  the  seller  had  not  in  fact  shipped  the  quantity  pur- 
chased.^^ 

§  471.  Merger  of  Oral  Negotiations  and  Prior  Verbal  Agreements.— 
A  bill  of  lading  as  a  contract,  in  which  the  carrier  agrees  to  transport  and  de-. 
liver  the  goods  to  the  consignee  upon  the  terms  and  conditions  specified  in  the 
instrument,  is  a  merger  of  all  oral  negotiations  '"'  and  representations  »i  leading 

were    the    only    suitable    cars    to   be    used.  779;   Niagara  v.   Cordes    (U.   S.),   21    How. 

and    that    transportation    with    reasonable  7,  in  L.   Ed.  41. 

dispatch  would  have  made  the  close  con-  85.  Through   bill   of  lading.— Hansen  v. 

nection.     Galveston,  etc..  R.   Co.  v.  Sileg-  Flint,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Wis.  :uo.  41  N.  W. 

man  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  23  S.  W.  298.  529.    9    Am.    St.    Rep.    791. 

82.  Writing  must  be  contract  of  parties.  86.   The   words   more   or   less.— O  Brien 

Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    7;.    Tnrpv,    ill    U.  v.   Gilchrist,  .U   Me.   ."54.   :.(i   .Xm.    Dec.   GTG. 

S.  584.  2S  L.  Ed.  527,  4  S.  Ct.  566.  87.  Additional  provisions  of  waybill  for 

Where  the  shipper  insists  that  the  con-  guidance      of      carrier's      employees.— -In- 

tract  between  him  and  the  railroad  com-  ternational,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Griffith    (Tex. 

pany  is  by  parol,  and  denies  that  the  bill  Civ.    App.),    103    S.    W.    225,    affirmed    in 

of  lading  is  the  contract,  and  alleges  that  102  Tex.  585,  no  op. 

it   had   never   been    delivered   to   him,   but  88.    Between    consignor    and    consignee, 

only  to  a  person  who  was  not  authorized  —Emery's    Sons   v.    Irving   Nat.    Bank,    25 

to    make    a    contract    for    him,    evidence  O.   St.   360,   18   Am.   Rep.  299. 

of    the    parol    contract    is    perfectly    com-  89.    Amount    shipped.— Rcid    Phosphate 

petent,    and    it    is    a    question    to    be    de-  Co.  v.   J'"armers'   I-ertihzer  Co.   (S.   C),  77 

cided    by    the    jury    whether    the    under-  S.    E.    sr,:;.                                        _     _ 

standing  as   detailed  by   the  witnesses   or  90.     Merger    of    oral     negotiations    and 

the    bill    of    lading    expresses    the    agree-  prior     verbal     agreements.— Whitnack    v. 

ment  of  the  parties.     Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Neb.  464,  US  N. 

V.    Jurey,    111    U.    S.    584,    28    L.    Ed.    527,  W.   67,    19   L.  R.   A.,   N.    S.,   1011,    130   Am. 

4   S    Ct    566  St.  Rep.  692;  McFadden  v.  Missouri  Pac. 

83.  Effect 'of  production  of  bill  of  lad-  R.   Co.,  92   Mo.   343,  4   S.   W.   689,   1  Am. 
ing.— Peck    z:    Dinsmore    (Ala.),    4    Port.  St.    Rep.    721;    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
212  Elgin    Condensed    Milk    Co.,    175    111.    557, 
"  84.   A   clean  bill   of   lading.— The    Dela-  51   N.   E.  911,  67  Am.   St.   Rep.  238. 
ware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579.  605,  20  L.  Ed.  91.    In   an    action   by    the   consignee    for 


335 


HILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  471 


up  to  its  making,  and  all  other  prior  and  contemporaneous  agreements  '•'-  of  the 
parties ;  and  being  in  writing  its  terms  or  legal  effect  when  free  from  am- 
biguity '■*•'  can  not,  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  mistake,  be  explained  or  contra- 
dicted bv  parol  testimony  and  thereby  changed  in  its  legal  elTect ;  '•'^  but  where 
the  acceptance  of  the  bill  by  the  shij^jjer  is  the  result  of  fraud  or  mistake  the 
verbal  contract  of  shiiniicnt  is  not  merged  therein  and  it  may  be  contradicted  by 
parol  evidence  showing  the  agreement  between  the  parties.'''" 

Instances  of  Inadmissibility  of  Evidence  of  Prior  Verbal  Contract. — 
The  rule  which  forbids  the  introduction  of  parol  proof  to  vary  the  terms  of 
a  written  instrument  excludes  evidence  of  a  i)rior  or  contemporaneous  parol 
agreement  that  the  goods  were  received  under  other  terms  and  conditions,  that 
they  were  to  be  shipped  by  another  route  than  that  designated,'"'  that  the  goods 
were  to  be  deli\ered  to  a  connecting  railroad  or  steamer,-''  that  the  carrier 
should   not  be  responsible   for  any   risk  or  loss   which   might  befall  the  boat  or 


the  loss  of  goods  sliipped  under  a  hill  of 
lading,  it  was  held  that  the  carrier  could 
not  give  in  evidence  representations, 
made  hy  the  consignor  hcfore  the  e.xecu- 
tion  of  tile  hill,  as  to  the  depth  of  the 
water  at  the  place  of  landing,  where  there 
was  no  evidence  that  the  representations 
were  fraudulently  made.  Shaw  v.  Gard- 
ner   (Mass.),    12    Gray    488. 

92.  United  States. — Southern  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Dickson,  94  U.  S.  549,  24  L.  Ed.  285; 
The    Caledonia,   43    Fed.   681. 

Arkansas. — All  previous  contracts  for 
the  transportation  of  property  are  merged 
in  the  contract  evidenced  hy  the  hill  of 
lading,  signed  hy  both  parties.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jones,  93  Ark.  537,  125  S. 
W.    1025. 

Georgia. — Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ohio 
Valley,  etc.,  Co.,  107  Ga.  512,  33  S.  E. 
821. 

Indiana. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
son, 119  Ind.  352,  21  N.  E.  341,  40  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  85;  Snow  v.  Indiana,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  109  Ind.  422.  9  N.  E.  702. 

Minnesota. — Norton  v.  Baxter,  41  Alinn. 
146,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  679. 

Xezi'  York. — Germania  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Memphis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  N.  Y.  90,  28  Am. 
Rep.  113;  Hill  v.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73 
N.  Y.  351,  29  Am.  Rep.  163;  Long  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co..  50  N.  Y.  76;  Niles  v. 
Culver  (N.  Y.),  8  Barb.  205. 

Texas. — Parol  evidence  tending  to  show 
a  prior  agreement  or  an  understanding  be- 
tween carrier  and  shipper  in  executing  a 
bill  of  lading  and  which  is  intended  to  con- 
tradict or  vary  the  terms  or  legal  import 
of  the  written  instrument  is  inadmissible. 
Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335,  82  .\m.  Dec. 
617;  Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  470,  472,  80  S.  W. 
639,  affirmed  in  98  Tex.  610.  no  op.;  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Fuller,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
.-Kpp.  213,  23  S.  W.  412  (see  93  Tex.  742, 
no  op.);  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Sileg- 
man  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  298;  Cross 
V.  Graves.  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  100,  16 
S.  W.  102;  International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Griffith  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  103  S.  W.  225, 
affirmed   in    102   Tex.    585.   no   op. 


93.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ohio  Valley, 
etc.,   Co.,   107  Ga.  512,  33  S.    E.  821. 

94.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson,  119 
Ind.  352.  21  N.  E.  341,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   85. 

If  no  mistake  or  fraud  is  charged  in  the 
execution  of  the  contract  it  will  be  con- 
clusively presumed  tiiat  all  oral  negotia- 
tions and  representations,  not  only  as  to 
the  terms  and  conditions  on  which  the 
goods  are  received,  but  also  as  to  the  route 
by  which  they  are  to  be  forwarded  are 
merged  in  the  bill  of  lading  which  will  be 
received  as  the  sole  evidence  of  the  agree- 
ment between  the  parties.  McElveen  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  109  Ga.  249,  34  S.  E.  281, 
77  Am.  St.  Rep.  371;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.    Shomo,  90  Ga.   496.   16   S.    E.   220. 

95.  Conclusiveness  as  to  rate. — Where 
plaintiff  claims  that  he  entered  into  a 
verbal  agreement  with  a  railroad  company 
for  the  shipment  of  cattle  at  a  fixed  rate, 
parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  what 
that  agreement  was,  though  plaintiff 
signed  a  bill  of  lading  showing  a  differ- 
ent rate;  both  parties  testifj'ing  that 
plaintiff  received  the  bill  of  lading  just 
as  the  train  with  the  cattle,  which  he  was 
to  accompany,  was  leaving,  and  that  he 
signed  it  on  the  assurance  of  defendant 
that  it  was  all  right.  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  House,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  263,  23  S. 
W.    332. 

96.  McElveen  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  109 
Ga.  249,  34  S.  E.  281,  77  Am.  St.  Rep.  371; 
Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Shomo.  90  Ga. 
496,    16    S.    E.    220. 

97.  When  under  the  terms  of  a  contract 
for  carriage  the  carrier  obligates  itself 
to  carry  the  shipment  to  one  of  the 
termini  of  its  road  and  there  deliver  it 
to  a  connecting  line  of  railroad  or 
steamer  for  transportation  to  the  des- 
tination of  the  goods,  evidence  of  a  parol 
representation  that  the  freight  would  be 
delivered  to  a  connecting  railroad  and 
not  to  a  steamer,  is  inadmissible  to  vary 
the  terms  of  the  written  agreement.  Mc- 
Elveen V.  Southern  R.  Co..  109  Ga.  249, 
34   S.   E.   2S1.  77  Am.    St.   Rep.   371. 


§§  471-473 


CARRIICRS. 


536 


shipment  in  descending  a  river  "^  and  tlial  the  goods  shall  l)e  delivered  within 
a  definite  and  specific  time.'"' 

Sufficiency  of  Evidence  to  Establish  Prior  Verbal  Contract. — While  hy 
reason  of  frand  or  mistake  it  is  permissihle  for  a  shipper  to  otfer  evidence  of  a 
verbal  contract  of  shipment  not  merged  in  the  hill  of  lading  delivered  to  him, 
such  contract  must  he  clearly  proxcd.' 

Contract  Distinct  from  Bill  of  Lading. — A  prior  verbal  contract  between 
a  shipper  and  carrier  entirely  distinct  from  the  subsequent  bill  of  lading,  which 
limits  the  carrier's  liability,  is  not  merged  therein. ^ 

§  472.  To  Explain  Ambiguities  and  Technical  Terms. — Abbreviations 
and  technical  terms  in  bills  of  lading  create  such  amhiguity  that  they  may  be 
explained  by  parol  testimony.  The  theory  upon  which  parol  testimony  is  allowed 
in  such  case  is  that  symbols  of  trade  having  a  definite  meaning  may  be  inter- 
preted, and  the  interpretation  becomes  a  part  of  the  writing.  If  the  testimony 
introduced  as  to  the  meaning  of  such  trade  symbols  is  conflicting,  then  it  is  for 
the  jurv  to  determine  their  proper  signification.'' 

Figures. — Where  figures  contained  in  the  bill  of  lading  are  ambiguous,  parol 
evidence  is  properly  admitted  to  prove  their  meaning.-* 

§§  473-476.  Parol  Evidence  to  Alter  or  Contradict  Receipt  Clauses  of 
Bill — §  473.  In  General. — In  so  far  as  a  bill  of  lading  constitutes  a  receipt — 
that  is,  the  part  wherein  is  set  out  the  receipt  of  the  goods,  the  quantity,  quality 
and  condition — it  may,  like  other  receipts,  be  explained,  altered,  varied,  or  con- 
tradicted by  parol  evidence.  As  a  receipt  it  is  prima  facie,  and  not  conclusive, 
evidence  of  the  facts  recited,  and  between  the  parties  it  is  impeachable  for  mis- 
take, error  or  false  statements  therein. '"^     This  is  settled  rule  in  federal  courts  " 


98.  Exclusion  of  liability  for  unavoidable 
losses. — The  defendants,  being  sued  as 
common  carriers,  offered  to  prove  by  a 
witness  that  he  was  present  when  the 
bill  of  lading  was  executed  by  the  defend- 
ants and  that  it  was  the  express  contract 
and  understanding  between  them  and  the 
plaintifif  that  they  were  not  to  be  respon- 
sible for  any  risk  or  loss  that  might  un- 
avoidably l)efall  the  boat  or  freight  in 
descending  the  river.  Held,  that  the  evi- 
dence was  properly  excluded  as  tending 
to  contradict  or  vary  the  bill  of  lading. 
Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335,  82  Am.  Dec. 
617. 

99.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hasselkus, 
91  Ga.  382,  17  S.  E.  838,  44  Am.  St.  Rep. 
37,  55   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   586. 

1.  Sufficiency  of  evidence  to  establish 
verbal  contract. — Evidence  showing  that 
S.,  some  time  prior  to  shipment,  inquired 
of  an  agent  of  a  railroad  company,  own- 
ing a  line  from  Cincinnati  to  Dayton,  the 
freight  rate  from  C.  to  a  point  beyond 
his  line,  and  was  informed,  and  later 
loaded  two  cars  of  the  company,  notified 
the  agent  and  sent  blank  bills  of  lading, 
with  shipping  directions,  which  l)ills  of 
lading  were  returned  by  the  agent  duly 
signed,  does  not  estaljlish  a  verbal  con- 
tract, with  common-law  liability,  and  the 
trial  court  very  properly  overruled  a  mo- 
tion for  a  new  trial  on  the  ground  that 
the  verdict  was  against  the  weight  of  the 
evidence.  Shaffer  &  Co.  v.  C.  H.  &  D. 
R.   Co.,   14   O.   C.   C.  488,  8   O.   C.   D.   66. 


2.  Contract  distinct  from  bill  of  lading. 

— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elgin  Con- 
densed Milk  Co.,  175  111.  557,  51  N.  E. 
911,   67   Am.   St.   Rep.   238. 

3.  Symbols  of  trade — Technical  terms. 
— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern 
Flour,  etc.,  Co.,  136  Ga.  538,  71  S.  E.  884. 

"Care  W.  A."  has  been  construed  to 
mean  in  care  of  the  Western  and  Atlantic 
Railroad  Company.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Southern  Flour,  etc.,  Co.,  136  Ga. 
538,   71    S.    E.    884. 

4.  Figures. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Georgia  Fruit,  etc.,  Exch.,  91  Ga.  389,  17 
S.    E.    904. 

5.  Parol  evidence  to  alter  or  contradict 
receipt  clauses. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Citizens'  Bank,  87  Ark.  26,  112  N.  W. 
154,  30  R.  R.  R.  290,  53  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   N.   S.,  290,   128   Am.   St.   Rep.   17. 

As    a    receipt,    a     bill    of   lading    is,    like 

other   receipts,   only   prima   facie    evidence 

of    what    is    expressed    in    it,    and    may    be 

explained   by   aliunde   evidence.      Wood   v. 

Perry   (O.),  Wright  240. 

6.  The  Delaware  (U.  S.^  14  Wall.  579, 
601,  20  L.  Ed.  779;  Clark  v.  Barnwell  (U. 
S.),  12  How.  272,  13  L.  Ed.  985;  The 
Lady  Franklin  (U.  S.),  8  Wall.  325,  19 
L.  Ed.  455;  The  J.  W.  Brown  (U.  S.),  1 
Diss.  76;  The  Wellington  (U.  S.),  1  Biss. 
279;  The  Joseph  Grant  (U.  S.),  1  Biss. 
193;  Maryland  Ins.  Co.  v.  Ruden  (U.  S.), 
6  Cranch  338,  3  L.  Ed.  242;  Nelson  v. 
Woodruff  (U.  S.),  1  Black  156,  17  L.  Ed. 
97;    Higgins   v.   United    States    Mail,    etc., 


2,?>7                                                                   lilLLS    OF     LADING.  §§    473-474 

and  in  the  states  of  Alabama,'  Arkansas,''  California.-'  Connecticut,^"  Georgia, ^^ 
Illinois,'-  Iowa.''  Louisiana,"  Maine.'''  Maryland,"'  Massachusetts,^"  Mich- 
igan,'*^ Minnesota, 1''  Missouri,-"  New  York,-^  North  Carolina.--  CJhio.^-^  Penn- 
sylvania.-' Texas, -•"•  X'erniont,-"  West  X'irginia.-"  Wisconsin,-^  and  others ;  and 
in  England.'--' 

§   474.  Recital  of  Fact  of  Receipt  and  Quantity  of  Goods. — A  bill  of 

lading  issued  In  a  conmKin  carrier,  as  between  ibe  (original  jiarlies  to  the  con- 
tract, is,  so  far  as  it  acknowledges  the  receipt  by  the  common  carrier  of  a  cer- 
tain (|uantity  of  goods  for  shipment,  only  prima  facie  and  not  conclusive  evidence 

Co.,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    04C)9.   :5    Blatchf.   2S2;  2\)  X.  W.  '/.V.i;  McMillan  v.  Michigan,  etc., 

The   Ship   Howard    (U.   S.),   1«    How.   2:n,  R.  Co..   Ifj   Mich.  79,  9.1  Am.   Dec.  208. 

15  L.   lul.  :3(;3;  The  Guidinsjr  vStar.  (12  l'\'d.  19. -National    Bank   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

407;     Sutton    v.     Kettcll.     Fed.     Cas.     No.  Co.,  44   Minn.  224,  46   N.   W.   :i42,   9   L.   R. 

13G47.    1    Spr.    309.  A..    N.   S.,  263.  20   Am.    St.    Rep.  .566;    Nor- 

7.  VVayland  v.  Mosely.  5  .\la.  430.  39  to„  ,,  Baxter,  41  Minn.  146,  16  .\m.  St. 
Am.    Dec.    335;    Cox   v.    Peterson.   30    Ala.  Rgp    (579 

608     68    Am.    Dec     145^      Compare    Peck  ^^    Missouri   v.   Webb.   9    Mo.   193;    Mc- 

f.   Dnismore    (Ala.)    4  Port.  212.  p^^^l^,^   ^,     Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co..   92    Mo. 

8.  A    bill    of     ladmg.    as     a    receip  .     is  3^3    ^  5    ^^j             ^  _^^    g^    j^        .^^ 
prima    facie    and    not    conclusive    evidence  ^,                   '     ,            vr    -.r              ,,-,  • 
of    the    facts    recited,    and.    between    the  21.  Meyer  r.  Peck    28  N    Y    590;  VVhite 
original    parties,    is    impeachable    for    mis-  '-    ^  »"    J^"'^    (N.    Y  ).   2-,    Barb     16;    Fitz- 
take.    error,    or    false    statements    therein.  li"gh  v.  W  iman,  9  N.  Y.  559,  Seld.  Notes 
St.    Louis,   etc.,    R.   Co.   r.   Citizens'    Bank.  250;    \  an    Etten    v.    Newton     134    N.    \. 
87    Ark.    26,    30    R.    R.    R.    290,    53    Am.    &  1-13,    31    N.    E.    334,    30   Am.    St     Rep.    630; 
Eng.    R.    Cas.,    N.    S..   290,    112    S.    \V.    154,  Wolfe  v.   Meyers    (N.   Y.),  3   Sandf.   7. 
128   Am.   St.   Rep.   17.  22.    Black   1'.    Wilmington,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

9.  Pereira  r.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  66  92  N.  C.  42,  53  Am.  Rep.  450;  Peele  7: 
Cal.  92.  4  Pac.  988.  Atlantic,    etc..    R.    Co.,    149    N.    C.    390,    63 

10.  Rclvca   V.   New    Haven    Rolling    Mill  S.    E.   66. 

Co..   42   Conn.   579,   75    Fed.   420.  23.    Wood    c'.    Perry    (Q.).    Wright    240; 

11.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  Cohn  &  May  f.  Babcock.  4  O.  334;  Page  &  Co.  f. 
Co.,  6  Ga.  App.  572,  573.  65  S.  E.  355;  Sandusky,  etc..  R.  Co.,  4  West.  L.  Month. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Cook,  4  Ga.  App.  644,  2  O.  Dec.  Reprint  716;  Dean  z:  King, 
698,  62  S.  E.  464;  McElveen  v.  Southern  22  O.  St.  118.  followed  in  35  O.  St.  258, 
R.   Co.,  109   Ga.  249.  77  Am.   St.   Rep.   371.  (following  22  O.   St.   111). 

34    S.    E.   281.  24.    Cafiero    r.    Welsh,     Fed.    Cas.     No. 

12.  Bissel  7'.  Price,  16  111.  4()S:  Mcr-  2286,  8  Phila.  130;  Baltimore,  etc..  Steam- 
chants'    Dispatch     Transp.    Co.    ?■.     Furth-  boat    Co.    v.    Brown,    54    Pa.    77;    Franklin 

mann,  47  111.  App.  561.  affirmed  in  149  111.  Trust    Co.    x:    Philadelphia,    etc..     R.     Co.. 

66,  36  N.   E.  624,  41  Am.  St.   Rep.  265.  222    Pa.    96.    70    Atl.    949,    22    L.    R.    A.,    N. 

13.  Wisconsin    z\    Young    (Iowa).    3    G.  S..  828. 

Greene  268;  Chapin  7'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  A  bill  of  lading,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  re- 
Co..  79  Iowa  582,  44  N.  W.  820.  ceipt.    is    not     conclusive,    but    is     open    to 

14.  Kirkman  7'.  Bowman  (La.),  8  Rob.  explanation  between  the  original  parties, 
246;  Hunt  :\  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co..  29  and,  wlicre  marked  "not  negotiable,"  the 
La.  Ann.  446;  Sonia  Cotton  Oil  Co.  z:  same  rule  applies  to  third  parties. 
Steamer  Red  River,  106  La.  42,  30  So.  Franklin  Trust  Co.  z\  Philadelphia,  etc.. 
303.  87   Am.   St.    Rep.  293.  R.    Co.,   222    Pa.   96.   70    Atl.   949,    22    L.    R. 

15.  O'Brien   z:   GiJchrist.   34   Me.   554.   56  A..   N.   S..  828. 

Am.   Dec.  676:  Tarliox  z\   Eastern   Steam-  25.    Cohen    Bros.    z\    Missouri,    etc.,    R. 

boat    Co..    .-)0    Me.    339:    Witzler   z\    Collins,  Co..   44   Tex.   Civ.   App.   381.   383.  98   S.    W. 

70   Me.   290.   35   Am.   Rep.    327.  437;    House  z\   Holland,  42  Tex.   Civ.  App. 

16.  Atwcll  z:  Miller,  11  Md.  :i48,  69  502,  94  S.  W.  153;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
Am.    Dec.   206.  z:    Silcgman    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    23    S.    W. 

17.  Shepherd      :•.      Navlor      (Mass.).      5  298. 

Gray    591;    Sears    :■.    Wingate    (Mass.),    3  26.  Davis  z:  Central,  etc..  R.  Co..  66  Vt. 

Allen    103;    Blanchard    .•.    Page    (Mass.).   8  290.  29  Atl.  313.  44  .-Km.  St.  Rep.  852. 

Gray    281;    Richards    f.    Doe.     100     Mass.  27.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Rathbone, 

524;   Hastings  z:  Pepper   (Mass.).   11    Pick.  1   W.  \'a.  87.  88  Am.   Dec.  664. 

41;    Grace    z:     Adams.    100    Mass.     505.     1  28.  Glass  z\  Goldsmith,  22  Wis.  4SS. 

Am.  Rep.  131,  97  .\m.  Dec.  117;   Chandler  29.    Bates   v.    Todd.    1    M.    &    Rob.    106; 

f.   Sprague    (Mass.),   5    Mete.   306.   38   Am.  Goodrich      t'.    Norris.      .Abb.    Adm.      196; 

Dec.   404;    Graves  z:    Lake    Shore,   etc..    R.  Berkley  z:  Watling.  7  Ad.  &  El.  29,  34  E. 

Co.,   137   Mass.   33,   50  Am.   Rep.   282.  C.    L.    22;    Fowler   z:    Sterling.    3    L.    Can. 

18.  Giblions   ::    Rol)inson.   63    Mich.    146.  Jur.    103. 

1   Car— 22 


§  474 


CARRIER? 


33S 


of  such  fact,  and  mav  be  rebutted.  It  operates  as  a  receipt  only,  and  is  open  to 
explanation  and  subject  to  correction  by  proof  that  such  merchandise  was  not 
in  fact  received.  The  bill  of  lading  as  a  receipt  establishes  prima  facie  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  quantity  of  goods  named  by  the  carrier,  having  in  that  regard  the 
same  effect  as  parol  testimony  as  to  that  fact,  which  may  be  overthrown  by 
proper  evidence  contradicting  the  fact,  and  this  may  be  done  under  the  general 
denials'*  This  is  the  established  doctrine  in  the  federal  courts ;  ^i  in  the  courts 
of  Georgia,=5-  lowa,=^s  Kentucky,-'  Louisiana. =^''  :\Iaine,=^<'  Maryland,^^'  Massa- 
chusetts.^^ Michigan,3i^  ^linnesota,4f*  AUssouri,-*!  New  York,^^  North  Carolina,-'^ 
Ohio,-*^   Texas,-*'^   Wisconsin,^""'   and  others;    anil  in  the  English  ^'  and  Canadian 

courts. 

Goods  Not  Delivered  to  Carrier. — An  ordinary  bill  of  lading  is  not  conclu- 
sive, as  to  the  shipment  of  the  goods.  Ordinarily,  in  so  far  as  it  acknowledges 
receipt  of  the  goods,  it  is  considered  merely  as  a  receipt,  and  extrinsic  evidence 
may  be  introduced  to  show  that  the  carrier  did  not  in  fact  receive  the  goods 
tlierein  described,  or  that  no  goods  were  in  fact  delivered  to  it  for  transportation, 
and  that,  therefore,  its  liability  as  a  carrier  never  existed."*^^  This  doctrine  pre- 
vails  in   the   federal   courts"'^'   and   in   Georgia,''^   Iowa,-'^i    Louisiana,-^-   Maine,53 


30.  Cohen  Bros.  r.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  381,  98  S.  W.  437. 
See  post,  "As  Warranty  or  Evidence  of 
Quantit}',  Qualit}-  or  Condition  of  Goods," 
§§    488-494. 

31.  Recital  of  fact  of  receipt  and  quan- 
tity of  goods. — Planters'  Fertilizer  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Elder,  42  C.  C.  A.  130,  101  Fed. 
1001;  Brouty  v.  Five  Thousand  Tw^o 
Hundred  and  Fifty-Six  Bundles  of  Elm 
Staves,  21  Fed.  590;  Crenshawe  v.  Pearce, 
37  Fed.  432;  Sutton  v.  Kettell,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    13647,    1    Spr.    309. 

32.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  62  S. 
E.  464,  4  Ga.  App.  698. 

33.  Chapin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Iowa  582,  44  X.  W.  820. 

34.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  American 
Tobacco  Co.,  126  Ky.  582,  104  S.  W.  377, 
25  R.  R.  R.  586,  48  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.   S.,  586. 

35.  Fearn,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Richardson,  12 
La.  Ann.  752;  Hunt  v.  Mississippi  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  29   La.   Ann.  446. 

36.  Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me.  290,  35 
Am.  Rep.  327;  O'Brien  v.  Gilchrist,  34 
Me.  554,  65  Am.  Dec.  676. 

37.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens, 
44    Md.    11,   22   Am.    Rep.    26. 

38.  Shepherd  v.  Xaylor  (Mass.),  5  Gray 
591. 

39.  Gibbons  v.  Robinson,  63  Mich.  146, 
29   X.  W.   533. 

40.  Xational  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  9  L.  R. 
A.,  N.   S.,  263,  20  Am.   St.  Rep.  566. 

41.  A  bill  of  lading  is  only  prima  facie 
proof  that  the  carrier  received  the  goods, 
being  a  mere  receipt  which  may  be  re- 
butted, not  being  like  the  contractual 
clauses  contained  therein.  Milne  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mo.-  App.  465,  l.M 
S.  W.  85. 

42.  Abbe  v.  Eaton,  51  X.  Y.  410;  Dick- 
erson    v.    Seelye    (X.    Y.),    12    Barb.    99; 


Meyer  v.  Peck,  28  N.  Y.  590;  Van  Santen 
T'.  Standard  Oil  Co.  (N.  Y.),  17  Hun  140, 
affirmed  in  81  N.  Y.  171;  White  v.  Van 
Kirk  (X.  Y.),  25  Barb.  16;  Rhodes  v. 
Xewhall,  126  N.  Y.  574,  27  X.  E.  947,  22 
Am.  St.  Rep.  859;  Ellis  v.  Willard,  9  N. 
Y.  529. 

43.  Black  r.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
92  X.  C.  42,  53  Am.  Rep.  450;  Peele  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  X.  C.  390,  63  S. 
E.  66. 

44.  Dean  v.  King,  22  O.  St.   118. 

45.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Ins. 
Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  975;  Cohen 
Bros.  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  381,  98  S.  W.  437. 

46.  Glass  V.  Goldsmith,  22  Wis.  488. 

47.  Bates  7-.  Todd,  1  M.  &  Rolx  106. 

48.  Goods  not  delivered  to  carrier. — See 
ante,  "Receipt  of  Goods  as  Prerequisite  to 
Issuance,"  §§  429-442. 

49.  Brouty  v.  Five  Thousand  Two  Hun- 
dred and  Fifty-Six  Bundles  of  Elm  Staves, 
21  Fed.  590;  Cunard,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelley, 
53  C.  C.  A.  310,  115  Fed.  678;  Sutton  v. 
Kettell,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13647,  1  Spr.  309; 
The  Lady  Franklin  (U.  S.).  8  Wall.  325, 
19  L.  Ed.  455;  The  Tusker,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
14274,  1  Spr.  70;  The  Willie  D.  Sandhoval, 
92    Fed.    286. 

50.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  4  Ga. 
App.  698,  701,  62  S.  E.  464;  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Cohn  &  Co.,  6  Ga.  App.  572,  573, 
65   S.    E.   355. 

51.  Chapin  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Iowa  582,  44  X.  W.  820;  Garden  Grove 
Bank  v.  Humeston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa 
526,  25  N.  W.  761,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
695;  Wisconsin  7'.  Young  (Iowa),  3  G. 
Green   268. 

52.  Hunt  V.  Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.,  29' 
La.   Ann.  446. 

53.  O'Brien  z:  Gilchrist,  34  Me.  554,  5.6 
Am.  Dec.  676;  Witzler  v.  Collins,  70  Me, 
290,  35  Am.  Rep.  327. 


339 


BILLS    OF     LADIXn. 


§§  -+74-475 


Maryland,^-*  Massachusetts.-"'"'  Missouri,''"  Xew  ^'ork.•"  Ohio,-"''^  Texas,"'''  Wis- 
consin.*'" and  other  states;    and  in  I'ji<,dand '•'  and  Canada. "- 

Less  Goods  Received  than  Receipted  for. — In  a  suit  on  a  bill  of  lading, 
in  the  usual  f(jrni,  {or  the  n()n(lcli\ery  of  the  goods  therein  described,  the  de- 
fendant carrier  may  shdw  hy  ])ar()l  evidence  that  the  quantity  of  goods  received 
was  less  than  that  acknowledi^a-il  in  the  Ijill,  thereby  contradicting  the  reccijit 
clause  of  the  Ijill.'""- 

Greater  Amount  Received  than  Receipted  for. — The  receipt  clause  of  a 
bill  of  lading-  may  be  contradicted  b\-  parol  evidence  showing  that  a  greater 
amount  of  goods  was  received  than  that  stated  in   the  bill.''' 

§  475.  Recital  as  to  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods. — A  bill  of  lading 
may  be  contradicted  and  explained  b)-  paml  in  its  recital  that  the  goods  were  in 
good  order  and  well  conditioned,  by  showing  that  their  internal  stale  and  con- 
dition was  bad  or  not  such  as  is  represented  in  the  instrument.''-'' 


54.  P.altimorc,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens, 
44  M(l.  11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26;  Lazard  v.  Mer- 
cliants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  78  Md.  1,  26 
.\tl.  S'.IT. 

55.  Hall  7:  Mayo  (Mass.),  7  Allen  454; 
Ryder  v.  Hall  (Alass.),  7  Allen  456;  Shep- 
herd V.   Naylor  (Mass.),  5  Gray  591. 

56.  Missouri  v.  Webb.  9  Mo.  193. 

57.  Al)be  V.  Eaton,  51  N.  Y.  410;  Graves 
V.  Harwood  (N.  Y.),  9  Barb.  477;  Meyer  v. 
Peck,  28  N.  Y.  590,  affirmed  in  Xi  Barb. 
5.32;  Rhodes  v.  Nevvhall,  126  N.  Y.  574,  27 
X.  E.  947,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  859. 

58.  Dean  r.  King-,  22  O.  St.  118; 
Wood  r.  Perry  (O.).  Wright  240;  Adams 
7-.  Brig  Pilgrim,  10  West.  L.  J.  141,  1  O. 
Dec.  477. 

59.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Union  Ins. 
Co.    (Tex.   Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  975. 

60.  Glass  V.  Goldsmith,  22  Wis.  488. 

61.  Bates  v.  Todd,  1  M.  &  Rob.  106. 

62.  Horseman  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
31  U.  C.  Q.  B.  535;  Erl)  7'.  Great  Western 
R.  Co..  5  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  Rep.  179. 

63.  Umtcd  States. — American  Sugar-Re- 
fining Co.  V.  Maddock.  36  C.  C.  A.  42.  93 
Fed.  980;  Planters'  Fertilizer  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Elder.  42  C.  C.  A.  130,  101  Fed.  1001;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79, 
:;()  L.  Ed.  1077.  7  S.  Ct.  ll?2;  The  Isola 
Di  Procida,  124  Fed.  942;  The  Querini 
Stamphalia,  19  Fed.  123;  The  Tusker,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  142,  74,  1  Spr.  70. 

.l/«/»r.— O'Brien  z:  Gilchrist,  34  Me.  554, 
56  Am.   Dec.   676. 

Massdcluisetts. — Hall  r.  Mayo  (Mass.). 
7  Allen  454;  Kelley  r.  Bowkcr  (Mass.),  11 
Gray  428,  71  Am.  Dec.  725;  Ryder  v.  Hall 
(Mass.),  7  Allen  456. 

Xc7i'  I'or/c— Graves  v.  Harwood  (N.  Y.), 
9  Barb.  477;  Meyer  r.  Peck  (N.  Y.).  33 
Barb.  532.  affirmed  in  28  N.  Y.  590;  Van 
Santen  v.  Standard  Oil  Co.,  17  Hun  140, 
affirmed  in  81   N.  Y.  171. 

Ohio.— Dean  v.  King.  22  O.  St.  118. 

In  an  action  by  the  shipper  against  the 
owners  of  a  steamboat  engaged  in  the 
l)usincss  of  common  carriers,  to  recovc 
for  the  nondelivery  of  goods  as  per  bill  of 
lading,  the  defendants  are  liable  only  for 


so  r.iich  of  the  goods  as  was  actually  re- 
ceived on  the  boat  and  in  such  action  pa- 
rol evidence  is  admissil)lc  to  contradict 
the  terms  of  the  bill  of  lading,  in  so  far 
as  it  purports  to  be  a  receipt  for  freight 
delivered  to  the  boat.  Dean  v.  King.  22 
O.  St.  118,  followed  in  35  O.  St.  258  (fol- 
lowing and  approving  22  O.  St.  111). 

Texas. — Cohen  Bros.  v.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  44  Te.x.  Civ.  App.  381,  98  S.  W. 
437. 

Thus,  under  its  general  denial,  it  can 
show  that  it  had  not  in  fact  received  fifty- 
five  cases  of  shoes,  as  called  for  in  the  bill 
of  lading,  hut  only  forty-nine  cases, 
which  was  the  numi)er  delivered  by  it  to 
plaintifT.  PlaintifT's  cause  of  action  was 
based  upon  the  fact  that  the  fifty-five  cases 
had  been  delivered  for  shipment.  De- 
fendant had  a  right  to  show,  notwith- 
standing the  bill  of  lading,  which  was 
only,  in  this  respect,  a  receipt  for  the 
goods,  that  only  forty-nine  cases  had  been 
so  delivered.  This  necessarily  involved 
the  fact  that  the  bill  of  lading,  as  a  re- 
ceipt for  so  many  cases,  had  been  exe- 
cuted bv  mistake.  Cohen  Bros.  v.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  381. 
382,  98   S.   W.   437. 

Canada. — Horseman  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  31  U.  C.  Q.  B.  535. 

64.  Greater  amount  received  than  re- 
ceipted for.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cohn 
&   Co.,   6   Ga.   App.   572,  573,   65    S.   E.   355. 

65.  United  States. — The  Delaware  (U. 
S.),  14  Wall.  579,  601,  20  L.  Ed.  779; 
Clark  z:  Barnwell  (U.  S.),  12  How.  272,  13 
L.  Ed.  985.  See  post,  "As  Warranty  or 
Evidence  of  Quantity.  Quality  or  Condi- 
tion   of    Goods,"    §§    488-494. 

.Alabama. — Waj'land  v.  Moselv.  5  Ala. 
430,    39   Am.    Dec.    335. 

Maine. — O'Brien  v.  Gilchrist.  34  Me. 
554,   56  Am.    Dec.   676. 

Minnesota. — The  bill  as  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  character,  and  condition  of 
the  articles  delivered  ai  d  received,  may 
be  explained,  varied,  or  contradicted  by 
parol  evidence  like  other  receipts.  Nor- 
ton z'.  Baxter,  41  Minn.  146.  1(5  Am.  St. 
Rep.  679. 


§§  476-481  CARRIERS.  340 

§  476.  Recital  as  to  Ownership  of  Goods. — An  erroneous  statement  in 
a  bill  of  lading  as  to  the  ownership  of  the  goods  may  be  explained  or  contra- 
dicted by  parol.*'^' 

§  477.  Recitals  as  to  Rate  and  Receipt  of  Freight. — The  consideration 
clause  in  bills  of  lading,  ordinarily,  has  only  the  force  and  effect  of  a  receipt, 
and  is  open  to  explanation  and  contradiction  by  parol  evidence.'"'  A  stipulation 
in  a  bill  of  lading  for  a  reduced  or  special  rate  of  freight  is  not  conclusive,  but 
only  prima  facie,  evidence,  open  to  explanation  and  contradiction.  Where  the 
billfalselv  recites  that  a  reduced  rate  of  freight  is  given,  in  consideration  of 
which  the  shipper  agrees  to  accept  a  limited  valuation  for  the  property  trans- 
ported, in  case  of  its  loss  through  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  recital  is  not 
conclusive  on  the  shipper  liut  open  to  contradiction  and  exi)lanation."'^ 

§  478.  Destination  or  Place  of  Delivery. — Place  of  Delivery. — If  by 
mistake  the  terms  of  a  bill  of  lading  bind  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods  at  an 
inconvenient  and  expensive  place,  the  carrying  i)art  of  the  contract  may  be  ex- 
plained by  parol  evidence.'''* 

§  479.  Terminus  of  Road. — Instance  where  parol  evidence  was  properly 
admitted  to  show  that  San  Antonio  was  the  carrier's  terminus  instead  of  Junc- 
tion City  Kansas,  misrecited  as  such  in  the  shipping  contract,  where  other  pro- 
visions of  the  contract  showed  such  recital  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  main  pro- 
visions of  the  contract."" 

§§  480-481.  As  Contract  of  Carriage— §  480.  As  Imposing  Liability 
of  Common  Carrier. — Where  the  defendants,  whose  general  business  was  that 
of  common  carriers,  gave  to  the  plaintiffs  a  bill  of  lading,  setting  forth  that  they 
had  shipped,  in  good  order  and  condition,  certain  iron,  to  be  delivered  to  the 
plaintiffs  or  their  assigns  in  like  order  and  condition,  the  dangers  of  the  seas  only 
excepted;  it  was  held  that  if  not  otherwise  liable  as  common  carriers,  they  con- 
tracted such  liability  by  the  bill  of  lading,  which  bound  them  to  deliver  the  iron 
in  good  order  and  condition  as  they  had  received  it,  the  dangers  of  the  sea  only 
excepted."^ 

§  481.  As  Contract  to  Carry  Specified  Thing. — A  bill  of  lading  is  a  con- 
tract to  carr\-  and  deli\x'r  the  specific  thing  named  therein.'^- 

66.  Recital  as  to  ownership. — Maryland  Oil  Co.  v.  Steamer  Red  River,  106  La. 
Ins.   Co.  V.   Ruden    (U.   S.),   6   Cranch   338,       42,  30  So.  303,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  293. 

3  L.  Ed.  242.     See  post,  "As  Evidence  or  Evidence  of  custom. — See  ante,  "Usage 

Warranty  of  Title  or  Ownership."  §§  49(5-  and   Custom,"  §   4G0. 

498.  70.    Terminus   of   road. — Swank   v.    San 

67.  Recitals  as  to  rate  and  receipt  of  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
freight.— I-ontaine   v.    P.oatmcn"s    Sav.    Inst.,  G75.   681,  23   S.  W.  249. 

.57  Mo.  .552;  Hollocher  v.  Hollocher,  (■)2  71.  As  imposing  liability  of  common 
Mo.  267;  Edwards  v.  Smith,  63  Mo.  119;  carrier. — Stephens,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v. 
McFadden  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Tuckcrman,  etc.,  Co.,  33  N.  J.  L.  543. 
Mo.  343,  4  S.  W.  689,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721.  72.  A  contract  to  carry  a  specific  thing. 
Parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  — Where  a  common  carrier  receives  corn 
that  a  lower  rate  of  freight  named  in  jn  bulk  for  shipment  in  a  certain  desig- 
a  bill  of  lading  is  the  regular  rate  charged  nated  car,  and  by  its  proper  agents  re- 
all  persons  under  the  same  circumstances,  ceipts  so-called  "dray  tickets"  therefor, 
as  this  does  not  tend  to  vary  or  con-  and  issues  a  bill  of  lading  thereon  at 
tradict  the  written  contract,  but  merely  fixed  price  for  shipment  to  a  certain 
to  explain  an  ambiguity.  Cross  v.  point,  it  is  a  contract  to  carry  that  spe- 
Graves,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  100,  16  cific  car  of  corn,  and  it  is  a  breach  of 
S.  W.  102.  the   contract   for   the   carrier  thereafter  to 

68.  McFadden  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  unload  and  refuse  to  ship  it,  and  substi- 
92  Mo.  343,  4  S.  W.  689,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  tute  therefor  another  carload  of  corn, 
721.  See  ante,  "Stipulations  as  to  \'alue."  though  it  may  presumal)ly  l)e  of  the  same 
§  511.  grade    and    quality — no    fact    appearing   in 

69.  Place    of    delivery. — Sonia     Cotton       proof     showing     assent     of     the     shipper 


341 


lill.I.S     OF     LAIMXG. 


§§  482-4^ 


§§  482-483.  As  Evidence  of  Fact  and  Time  of  Receipt  and  Accept- 
ance of  Shipment  §  482.  As  Evidence  of  Fact  of  Receipt  and  Accept- 
ance of  Shipment. — A  hill  of  Jailing  fair  on  its  face  is  prima  facie  evidence 
that   the-  tarricT  rc'cc'i\  (.(l  '  •■  ai^i   acccjilcd  the  shipment.''* 

Bill  Referring  to  Standard  Form  of  Bill  of  Lading. ^A  bill  of  lading  is 
in  form  only  a  receipt  for  freij^lit,  issued  to  the  consignor,  containing  the  con- 
tract of  shi[jment.  so  that,  in  an  action  for  failure  to  deliver  part  of  the  shi])- 
ment,  a  pa])er,  which  had  heen  recognized  as  valid  by  the  carrier's  agent  at  desti- 
nation, all  the  goods  which  had  arrived  being  turned  over  on  its  presentation,  and 
which  was  of  the  same  effect  as  a  regular  printed  bill  of  lading,  it.  in  ad<lition 
to  Ijeing  a  receipt,  containing  the  specification,  "as  ])er  conditions  company's  bill 
of  lading,"  thus  supplying  the  essential  that  a  mere  receipt  might  lack,  was  proj)- 
crly  admitted  against  the  carrier."-'" 

Best  Evidence  Rule. — The  fact  of  the  delivery  of  freight  to  a  common  car- 
rier for  carriage  ma\'  be  proven  by  oral  testimony,  notwithstanding  the  existence 
of  a  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  given  by  the  carrier  for  such  freight.  Such  re- 
ceipt or  liill  of  lading  does  not  fall  within  the  best  evidence  rule  as  prooi  of 
such   fact   of   deli\"cry.''''' 

Burden  of  Proof  of  Falsity  of  Bill. — A  receii)t  by  a  carrier  for  freigh.t, 
though  not  conclusi\e.  creates  a  presumption  that  it  received  the  freight  directed 
therein,  and  the  l)urden  is  on  it  to  show  the  contrary.'^" 

§  483.  Time  of  Receipt  of  Shipment. — In  the  aljsence  of  convincing 
testimony  establishing  a  mistake,  the  recital  of  a  bill  of  lading  showing  that  the 
carrier  received  a  car  for  shipment  on  a  specified  day  must  control."'^ 

§  484.  Destination  or  Place  of  Delivery. — The  contract  in  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing particularly  covers  the  obligation  of  carrying  the  goods  to  destination  and 
of  delivering  them  to  the  consignee.     From  that  ]:)oint  of  view,  the  carrier  was 


thereto.  The  shipper  or  consignee  is  not 
bound  to  accept  such  substituted  corn, 
nor,  if  it  arrive  at  its  destination  in  a 
damaged  condition,  to  brii.g  his  action 
therefor  as  to  such  substituted  corn,  hut 
has  a  right  of  action  against  the  carrier 
for  the  breach  of  the  contract  of  ship- 
ment of  the  corn  named  in  his  bill  of  lad- 
ing. Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parrott, 
11  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  296,  9  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
252,  distinguishing  Dean  z\  King,  22  O. 
St.   118. 

73.  As  evidence  of  fact  of  receipt  and 
acceptance  of  shipment.  -Milne  x'.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1.").")  Mo.  App.  4().").  i:i.") 
S.  W.  85;  Scigfried  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Mo.),  12()  S.  W.  79S;  Cohen  Bros. 
V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
381,  98  S.  W.  437.  See  ante,  "Recital  of 
Fact  of  Receipt  and  Quantity  of  Goods," 
§  -174. 

A  hill  of  lading  issued  l)y  a  railroad 
company,  returned  to  it  on  its  demand 
when  the  shipper  requested  the  goods  to 
be  stopped  in  transit,  was  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  company  received  the 
goods  for  shipment.  Seigfried  7'.  Clii- 
cago,   etc.,   R.   Co.    (Mo.),   12«   S.   \V.   7'.ts. 

The  ])ill  of  lading  and  w:iy-l)ill  made 
by  the  authorized  agent  of  a  common 
carrier  are  competent  evidence  tending 
to  prove  that  the  goods  described  therein 


were  delivered  to  the  carr-er  for  ship- 
ment. Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Johnston, 
58    Neb.    236,    78    N.    E.    499. 

74.  A  bill  of  lading  fair  on  its  face  calling 
for  the  transportation  of  a  car  of  lum- 
ber is  prima  facie  proof  of  the  carrier's 
receipt  and  acceptance  of  the  lumber. 
Milne  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  155  Mo. 
App.    465,    135    S.    W.    85. 

75.  McMeekin  v.  Southern  Raihvav,  82 
S.    C.   468.    64    S.    E.   413. 

76.  Best  evidence  rule. — Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Dexter.  50  Fla.  180,  39  So.  634. 
1'.)  R.  R.  R.  787,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
X.    S.,   787,    111   Am.    St.    Rep.    116. 

77.  Burden  of  proof  falsity  of  bill. — 
Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  :•.  Colin  &  Co..  6 
Ga.  App.  572,  573,  65  S.  H.  355;  Mussel- 
lam  7\  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126  Ky. 
500,    ;n    Ky.    b.    Rep.    908,    104    S.    W.    337. 

78.  Time  of  receipt  of  car. — Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Nelson,  30  Kv.  L.  Rep. 
114,   97   S.   W.   757. 

A  carrier  issuing  a  bill  of  lading  ac- 
knowledging the  receipt  of  a  car  on  a 
designated  date,  which  is  the  date  of  the 
hill,  is  concluded  by  the  bill,  and  is  es- 
topped from  claiming  that  it  had  not  re- 
ceived the  car,  in  the  absence  of  evidence 
that  the  bill  was  misdated.  Sandford  t-. 
Seahoard.  etc..  Railwav,  61  S.  E.  74.  79 
S.   C.   519. 


§§  484-486  CARRIERS.  342 

bound  to  carry  the  merchandise  to  the  stipulated  destination,  and  there  deUver 
it  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  bill  of  lading.'*^ 

Destination  Blank.— If  the  point  of  destination  in  a  bill  of  ladmg  is  left 
blank,  but  is  clearly  shown  by  indorsement  in  the  end  of  the  bill  of  lading  that 
the  place  to  which'  it  was  to  be  shipped  is  beyond  the  carrier's  own  line,  it  is 
prima  facie  an  agreement  to  carr>-  to  such  point  in  the  absence  of  a  stipulation 
that  it  was  only  to  carry  to  the  end  of  its  own  line.^" 

As  Contract  between  Consignor  and  Consignee.— Ihlls  of  lading,  and 
drafts  attached,  sent  by  a  consignor  to  the  consignee  through  a  bank,  on  pay- 
ment of  which  drafts  the  consignee  received  the  bills  of  lading,  and,  on  pres- 
entation thereof  to  the  carrier,  received  the  consignments  in  H.  county  pursuant 
to  the  terms  thereof,  constitute  a  written  contract  between  the  consignor  and 
consignee  to  deliver  the  consignments  in  IT.  county.'^ ^ 

§§  485-487.  Person  to  Whom  Delivery  Authorized— §  48  5.  In  Gen- 
eral.—Goods  are  deemed  lo  be  consigned  to  the  person  named  as  consignee  in 
the  bill  of  lading,  although  blanks  in  the  body  of  the  bill  for  the  name  of  the 
place  of  destination  and  consignee  w^ere  not  filed.''-  Ordinarily,  the  name  of  a 
consignee  is  inserted;  and  then  such  consignee,  or  his  indorsee,  may  receive  the 
goods  and  acquire  a  special  property  in  them.  Sometimes  the  shipper,  or  con- 
signor, is  himself  named  as  consignee,  and  then  the  engagement  of  the  carrier 
is  to  deliver  then  to  him  or  his  assigns.  Sometimes  no  person  is  named,  the 
name  of  the  consignee  being  left  blank,  wdiich  is  understood  to  import  an  en- 
gagement to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  person  to  wdiom  the  shipper  or  consignee 
shall  order  the  delivery,  or  to  the  assignee  of  such  person. ^^ 

§  486.  Open  and  Closed  Shipments.— L'pon  an  open  shipment  the  con- 
signee can  obtain  possession  of  the  property  without  first  making  payment,  while 
npon  a  "closed"  one  he  can  not  obtain  possession  of  the  shipment  without  first 
making  payment. '^^ 

79     Place   of  delivery   or  destination.—  83.    Chandler     z\     Sprague     (Mass.),    5 

Sonia    Cotton    Oil    Co.    v.    Steamer    Red  Mete.   306,   38   Am.   Dec.  404. 

River,  106  La.  42,  30  So.  303,  87  Am.   St.  84.  Open  and  closed  shipments. — Smith 

Rep.   293.  V.  Landa,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  446,  101  S.  W. 

80.     Destination    blank. — Marshall,    etc.,  470. 

R.    Co.   V.    Kansas    City,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    176  Defendant   shipped    a   car   load   of   corn 

Mo.  480,  75   S.  W.  638.  to   R.   on  the  order  of  plaintiff,  the  ship- 

81     As  contract  between  consignor  and  ment    being    an    "open"    one,    so    that    R. 

consignee.— Callender,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Short,  was  able  to  obtam  possession  of  the  corn 

78  S    W    366,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  364.  without      payment.        Defendants       clerk 

82:   Person  -   whom  ^oods   consigned^       Zltk^^J^^^:,:^^^r1^.X 

-A    bill    of    If^^  "7   JX^.oods    to    be       indicating    a    '-closed"    shipment,    and    at- 
from    the    consij^nor    of    the    goods  ,to      e        ^^^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^  ^^^^^  ^^,^.^j^  ^^^^  p^j^ 

delivered      to    his    or    th^'r    assigns       am  i^i^tiff.      Thereafter   plaintiff   learned 

stipulated    that    each    package    of    freight  >    I                    ^^^^    ^^^^^^    delivered    on    an 

should  be  marked   with   the   name   of   the  .,          „    shipment    without    payment,    and 

consignee    and    f  ^tni^t-"'    -<=^;P^^J:.P-  endeavored^to    obtlin    paynient    from    R. 

ments   in   carload   lots    to    one    co.is.gnce.  ^^  ^.^  ^^  ^    ,^^^^^^^  insolvent. 

n  the  margin  was  wntten      S^  W^  O^^f^  Thereupon  plaintiff  sought  to  recover  the 

mdicat.ng    the    ""'^'^^•^/[.  ^he^  ^ar     fol  P  the  corn  from  defendant  on  the 

lowed   by   the    name   and   l^^jti^"    "^^   ^he  ^^^^    ^^^^    shipment    should    have 

consignee   and   the   nanie   of  the   connect  K         ^  ^^^^^^^^^„  ^^^^  ^..^^ding  to  custom, 

ing   carrier.     The   blanks   m   the   body   ot  defendant     claimed    that    the     order 

the  bill  for  the  name  of  the  place  of  dest  -  ^>^\t      'e  e                        .j,;         „t.     Held,  that 

nation     and     consignee     were     not     filed.  !,, '  ,  "-^    Jl^    „L    entitled   to    recover    on 

Held,   that  the   goods   were,  consigned   to  f -"/,f ^  ^^^  ",°^  .^f^l';^,  /because  of  the 

the    person    named    as    consignee,      ^ash-  ^J  {"^^'^^^^    ,^ill    „f    f^^aing   sent    to   him 

viUe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grayson  County  \at.  ""'^   ^J^J^^^^       ^Sn^jth   v.    Landa,   45    Tex. 

fo^ur'j'  ^?  ?ivir  aSlaro\^rW^'  lloT^anl       "S^'t^^^^^   -1    S.  W.   470. 

o?e    uUng  decisfo";!  of  same  court  in  same  Evidence.-In    such    case   there  was   no 

else    ill    79    S.    W.    1094.  prejudice    to    pla.ntiff    in    permitting    de- 


343 


I'.IIJ.S     OF     LADING. 


§§  487-489 


§  487.  Direction  to  Notify  a  Named  Person. — A  direction  in  a  bill  of 
lading  to  "notify"  a  named  person  shows  that  he  is  not  intended  as  the  con- 
signee.''•"' 

Direction  to  Notify  Shipper  of  Arrival. — The  direction  in  a  hill  of  ladinj» 
to  notify  the  shijoper  of  the  arrival  of  goods  at  their  destination  does  not  change, 
modify,  or  (jualify  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  shijjper's 
order  as  provided  hy  tlie  hill  of  lading. '''' 

§§  488-494.  As  Warranty  or  Evidence  of  Quantity,  Quality  or  Con- 
dition of  Goods — §§  488-491.  Effect  as  Warranty  of  Quantity,  etc. — 
§  488.  In  General. —  Persons  are  not  entitled  to  assume  that  the  master  of 
vessel  has  authority,  though  his  owners  really  gave  him  no  such  authority,  to 
estimate  and  determine  and  state  on  the  bill  of  lading,  so  as  to  bind  his  owners, 
the  particular  mercantile  quality  of  the  goods  before  they  are  put  on  board,  as, 
for  instance,  that  they  are  goods  containing  such  and  such  a  percentage  of  good 
or  bad  material,  or  of  such  and  such  a  season's  growth.  To  ascertain  such  mat- 
ters is-  obviously  quite  outside  the  scope  of  the  functions  and  capacities  of  a 
ship's  cai)tain  and  of  the  contract  of  carriage  with  which  he  has  to  do.*'" 

§  489.  Recital  That  Contents  Unknown. — Where  a  bill  of  lading  con- 
tains iio  warranly  that  the  gcKxIs  (Iescrilje<l  shall  answer  any  particular  quality, 
but  on  the  contrary  expressly  specifies' that  the  contents  of  the  package  is  un- 
known, it  does  not  operate  as  guaranty  as  to  quantity  or  quality  of  the  ar- 
ticles ;  ^^  although  a  statute  makes  the  carrier  liable  for  the  loss  resulting  from 
the  issuance  of  a  bill  of  lading  when  no  property  has  been  received."'-^  The 
words  "contents  unknown"  being  annexed  to  a  bill  of  lading,  imply  that  the 
carrier  only  meant  to  acknowledge  the  shipment  in  good  order  of  the  cases,  as 
to  their  external  condition.'"*  excluding  any  implication  as  to  quantity  or  quality 


fendaiit  to  testify  that  he  had  frequently 
made  shipments  to  plaintiff's  father-in- 
law,  who  vvas  wealthy,  and  that  all  the 
shipments  were  "open."  Smith  v.  Landa, 
45  Tex.  Civ.   App.  446,  101   S.  W.  470. 

A  clerk  in  the  employ  of  defendant 
having  testified  that  the  railway  agent 
agreed  to  so  make  the  shipment  that  the 
consignee  could  not  obtain  possession 
thereof  without  first  making  payment  and 
the  agent  having  denied  such  agreement, 
it  was  proper  to  permit  defendant  to 
testify  as  to  what  shipping  instructions  he 
had  given  his  office  force.  Smith  v. 
Landa,  4.5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  446,  101  S.  W. 
470. 

It  was  proper  to  refuse  to  permit  de- 
fendant's clerk  who  attended  to  the  ship- 
ment to  testify  that  he  would  not  have 
made  the  shipment  on  plaintifTs  credit; 
it  not  appearing  that  he  had  authority  to 
determine  the  character  of  shipments. 
Smith  V.  Landa,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  446,  101 
S.   W.   470. 

85.  .'Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dahlberg 
Brokerage  Co..  170  Ala.  617,  54  So.  168; 
Pisapia  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  116 
X.   Y.   S.   26.   62   Misc.   Rep.   607. 

86.  Direction  to  notify  shipper  of  ar- 
rival of  goods  at  destination. — -Midland 
Xat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  I'ac.  R.  Co..  i:]2 
Mo.  492,  33  S.  W.  521,  53  Am.  St.  Rep. 
505. 

87.  Warranty     of     quality. — St.      Louis, 


etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    Knight.    122    U.    S.    79.    30 
L.   F.d.   1077,  7  S.  Ct.   ii;;2. 

88.  Statement  that  contents  of  packages 
are  unknown.— St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight.  122  U.  S.  79,  89.  30  L.  Ed.  1077, 
7  S.  Ct.  1132;  Clark  v.  Barnwell  (U.  S.), 
12  How.  272,  13  L.  Ed.  985;  Bank  v.  New 
York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  60  Am.  Rep.  440,  443, 
106  N.  Y.  195.  12  N.  E.  433,  32  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.    Cas.   497. 

89.  Statute  imposing  liability  for  loss 
where  no  goods  received. — Where  a  car- 
rier's agent,  on  receiving  s  shipment  of 
cotton,  did  not  weigh  it,  but  issued  a  bill 
of  lading  on  a  certificate  of  a  compress 
company,  which  delivered  the  cotton  in  a 
sealed  car.  and  the  ImU  stated,  "contents 
and  condition  of  contents  of  packages  un- 
known." though  the  cotton  weighed  less 
than  the  weight  given  in  the  bill,  whereb}'^ 
the  consignee,  who  purchased  from  thi 
consignor,  was  deceived,  to  his  injury,  the 
carrier  was  not  liable  to  the  consignee, 
either  under  general  principles  or  under 
Code  1896,  §  4223,  making  a  carrier  liable 
for  loss  resulting  from  the  issuance  of 
a  bill  of  lading  when  no  property  has 
been  received.  Alabama,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Commonwealth  Cotton  Mfg.  Co..  42  So. 
406.    146   Ala.    :5SS. 

90.  "Contents  unknown"  applies  only  to 
external  condition. — Clark  v.  Barnwell 
(L'.   S.).    12   How.   272.   13   L.   Ed.   985. 

Wliere  the  l)ill  of  lading  contains  a 
clau.-;e   that   the  contents  of  the  packages 


CARRIERS. 


344 


§§  489-490 

of  the  article,  or  condition  of  it  at  the  time  received,  or  whether  properly  packed 
or  not  in  the  cases. ''^ 

§  490.  Recital  That  Goods  in  "Good  Order,"  etc.— A  hih  of  lading  in 
which  the  carrier  acknowledges  that  the  goods  have  heen  received  by  hnn  ni 
"good  condition,"  '•-  in  "good  order,"  '-'^^  or  in  "apparent  good  order,"  '•^•*  is  prima 
facie  evidence  of  that  fact  and  renders  him  prima  facie  liable  for  the  damages 
if  they  are  lost  or  injured ;  but  do  not  preclude  him  from  showing  that  the  loss 
proceeded  from  some  cause  which  was  not  apparent  at  the  time  he  received  the 
troods:  for  it  is  well  settled,  that  statements  contained  in  bills  of  lading  to  the 
effect  that  the  goods  mentioned  therein  were  received  in  "good  order,"  or  "good 
condition."  are  in  the  nature  of  mere  admissions — mere  written  declarations — 
not  conclusive  or  nonexplainable  as  against  the  party  making  them,  much  less 
as  against  one  who  did  not.''-' 

Carrier  Receiving  Goods  Knowing  Them  to  Be  in  Bad  Condition.— 
Where  a  carrier  receives  goods,  knowing  that  some  are  not  in  good  condition, 
and  issues  a  bill  of  lading  reciting  that  they  are  in  good  order,  the  carrier  can 
not  assert  the  contrary,  where  the  bill  of  lading  is  in  the  hands  of  an  innocent 
purchaser  for  value.'"' 

Statement  That  Goods  Were  Not  in  Bad  Order.— Where  a  carriers  re- 
ceipt states  that  the  goods,  when  received,  were  not  in  bad  order,  but  they  are 
damaged  when  delivered  to  consignee,  the  presumption  is  that  the  damage  oc- 
curred while  they  were  under  the  carrier's  control.'*'  In  such  case  there  is  no 
requirement  that  the  owner  should  prove  by  evidence  aliunde  that  the  goods 
were  not  damaged  when  the  carrier  received  them.'*^ 

Evidence. — Where  it  was  an  issue  whether  certain  cotton,  receipted  for  by 
a  shipper  as  in  good  order,  was  injured  by  water  before  being  received  on  the 


receipted  for  are  unknown,  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  master  as  to  the  condi- 
tion of  the  goods  when  received  on  board 
extends  only  to  the  external  condition  of 
the  cases.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  85,  30  L.  Ed.  1077, 
7   S.   Ct.   1132. 

91.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122 
U.   S.  79,  8.5.  30  L.   Ed.   1077,   7   S.   Ct.    1132. 

92.  Recital  that  goods  in  "good  condi- 
tion" in  "good  order,"  etc. — Bath  v.  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  234, 
237,  78  S.  W.  993;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Ivy,  79  Tex.  444,  15  S.  W.  692;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  Co.  V.  Fennell,  79  Tex.  448,  15 
S.   W.   693. 

Where  defendant,  a  connecting  carrier, 
receipted  for  certain  furniture  to  a  steam- 
ship company  as  received  in  good  condi- 
tion, such  receipt,  while  subject  to  ex- 
planation, was  evidence  that  the  goods 
were  received  by  defendant  from  the 
steamship  in  good  condition.  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Shands  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),   93   S.   W.    110.3. 

93.  Recital  that  goods  were  received  in 
good  order. — Xelson  v.  Woodruff  (U.  S.). 
1  Black  156,  17  L.  Ed.  97;  Austin  v.  Talk, 
20  Tex.   164. 

94.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jamieson, 
20   Okla.    654,    95    Pac.    417. 

As  a  general  rule,  the  recital  in  a  Ijill  of 
lading  that  the  goods  were  received  in 
apparent  good  order,  makes  a  prima  facie 
case  against   the    carrier   when   the   goods 


are  delivered  by  it  in  an  injured  condition. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Holder  &  Co.,  10  Tex. 
Civ.   App.   223,   225,   30   S.   W.   383. 

If  the  goods  are  open  to  inspection 
when  received  by  the  carrier,  then  the 
production  of  his  receipt  reciting  that 
they  were  in  apparent  good  order,  throws 
the  l)urden  upon  him  to  rebut  it.  But 
should  the  goods  be  incased  in  boxes, 
and  such  are  delivered  without  there  be- 
ing any  external  evidence  of  injury,  and 
are  in  apparent  good  order,  the  plaintiff 
must  show  the  good  condition  when  de- 
livered to  the  initial  carrier.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Holder  &  Co.,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
233,    225,    30    S.    W.    383. 

95.  A  bill  of  lading  issued  by  a  carrier 
reciting  that  goods  were  received  in  ap- 
parent good  order  is  not  conclusive,  but 
it  may  be  shown  that  they  were  not  in 
good  order.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jamieson,   20   Okla.    654,   95    Pac.   417. 

Texas. — Bath  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  234,  237,  78  S.  W.  993; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ivy,  79  Tex.  444, 
15  S.  W.  692;  Missouri  Pac.  Co.  v.  Fen- 
nell,   79   Tex.   448,    15    S.   W.    693. 

96.  Carrier  receiving  goods  knowing 
them  to  be  in  bad  condition. — Xew  York 
Millinery,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hamburg,  etc.,  Ges- 
cllscliaft,    171    Fed.    577. 

97.  Statement  that  goods  were  not  in 
bad  order. —  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
lilanlon,    etc..    Co.,    (i:'.    Tex.    109. 

98.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Blanton, 
etc.,   Co.,  63  Tex.  109,  112. 


343 


BILLS    OF     LADING. 


§§  490-492 


ship  or  afterwards,  it  was  competent  for  the  mate  of  the  ship  to  testify  that  he 
rememhered  some  cotton  heing  wet  when  loaded,  though  he  could  not  state 
positively  it  was  the  cotton  in  question,  and  to  state  further  that  as  a  general 
rule  cotton  was  receii)ted  for  as  being  in  good  condition  if  it  was  apparently 
so,  although  he  had  testified  that  he  did  not  know  why  the  cotton  was  receipted 
for  in  gofKJ  condition.'"' 

Curing-  Error  in  Admission  of  Bill  as  Evidence  against  Connecting 
Carrier. —  In  an  action  for  injuries  to  cotton  shipped,  ihc  giving  of  a  rcquoted 
instruction  that  bills  of  lading  issued  by  the  initial  carrier  for  a  part  of  the 
shipment,  stating  that  the  cotton  was  in  good  order,  were  not  evidence  in  the 
case  that  the  cotton  was  in  good  order,  cures  any  error,  as  against  a  connecting 
carrier.  l)y  the  admission  of  such  l)ills  containing  such  stipulation  in  the  evi- 
dence.^ 

§  491.  Recital  That  "Contents  Unknown  and  in  Apparent  Good 
Order."  —  A  recital  in  a  hill  of  lading  that  the  contents  of  certain  boxes  are 
unknown,  and  "in  apparent  good  order,"  does  not  make  a  prima  facie  case,  as 
against  the  carrier,  that  the  goods  were  in  good  order  when  received,  and  were 
injured  during  transportation,  where  they  were  not  exposed  to  view,  and  the 
boxes  were  delivered  in  apparently  the  same  condition  as  when  received ;  -  nor 
l^rexent  proof  of  their  actual  condition  when  delivered.^'  The  words  "in  ap- 
parent good  order"  in  a  bill  of  lading  refer  only  to  the  external  apparent  con- 
dition of  the  goods,  and  such  words  create  no  contract  with  reference  to  the 
condition  of  the  contents  of  the  jiackages.  liales.  boxes,  etc' 

§§  492-494.  As  Evidence  of  Quantity,  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods 
— §  492,  As  Evidence  of  Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods. — .\  bill  of  lad- 
ing raises  the  presumption  that  goods  were  delivered  to  the  carrier  for  ship- 
ment in  good  order.^  So  far  as  regards  the  condition  of  the  goods  shipped, 
It  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  high  nature,  but  not  conclusive.'^  The  master  of 
a  vessel  or  the  freight  agent  of  a  railroad  or  other  carrier  is  not  authorized  to 
open  packages  to  ascertain  their  condition.  The  principle  of  public  policy  and 
the  convenience  of  transportation  forbid  that  bo.xes,  bales,  etc.,  should  be  opened 
and   inspected  before  being  receipted    for    by    carriers.     They,  therefore,  may 


99.  Evidence  —  Admissibility. — Bath  v. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Tex.  Civ.  .App. 
234.   7S    S.    W.    993. 

1.  Curing  error  in  admission  of  bill  as 
evidence  against  connecting  carrier. — • 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Batli,  40  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  270.  90  S.  \V.  00.  affirmed  in  101 
Tex.  641,  no  op. 

2.  Recital  that  "contents  unknown  and 
in  apparent  good  order." — (lulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Holder  c^  Co.,  10  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 
223,  30   S.   W.    3S3. 

Barrels  purporting  to  contain  eggs  filled 
with  sawdust  Construction  of  bill  of  lad- 
ing.— .\  carrier  received  from  a  person 
representing  liimself  to  be  a  member  of 
the  firm  of"^E.  W.  P.  &  Co.,  thirty  barrels 
for  transportation  over  its  road,  delivered 
to  him  a  l)ill  of  lading  certifying  that  it 
had  received  of  said  tirm,  "consigned  to 
their  orders,  the  following  described  pack- 
a.ges  in  apparent  good  order  conteiUs  and 
value  unknown."  This  part  was  printed, 
following  it  and  before  the  signature  of 
defendant's  agent  was  written  "articles, 
30  l)bls.  eggs."  The  person  receiving  the 
bill   indorsed   it   in   blank   in    the   name   of 


E.  W.  P.  &  Co.  and  annexed  it  to  a  draft 
drawn  upon  plaintiff,  who  tipon  faith 
thereof,  accepted  and  paid  the  draft.  The 
barrels  were  filled  with  sawdust  and  con- 
tained no  eggs.  It  was  held  that  the  de- 
scription of  the  articles  was  not  a  repre- 
sentation that  the  barrels  contained  eggs, 
but.  taking  the  whole  bill  together,  it  im- 
ported that  defendant  had  received  thirty 
packages  descril>ed  as  containing  or  pur- 
porting to  contain  eggs,  but  the  actual 
contents  of  which  was  unknown  to  the 
defendant.  Miller  v.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    90    N.    Y.    430.   43    Am.    Rep.    179. 

3.  Mears  z\  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co..  75 
Conn.  171.  56  L.  R.  A.  8S4,  52  Atl.  610, 
96   Am.    St.    Rep.    192. 

4.  "Apparent  good  order"  refers  to  ex- 
ternal conditions.  ('lulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  :■. 
Holder  &  Co.,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  22::.  224. 
30    S.    \V.    3S3. 

5.  As  evidence  of  quality  or  condition 
of  goods. — Sunirell  :•.  .Atlantic,  etc..  R. 
Co.,    l.")2    X.    C.    269,    67    S.    E.    5So. 

6.  Barrett  v.  Rogers,  7  Mass.  297,  5  Am. 
Dec.  45:  O'Brien  r.  Gilchrist.  34  Me.  554. 
56    Am.    Dec.    676. 


§§  492-493  cARRii'RS. 


346 


show  that  thcv  are  damaged  before  coming  into  their  possession." 

Burden  of  Proof. — The  burden  is  upon  the  carrier  to  show  that  the  con- 
dition stated  is  incorrect. '^ 

8§   493-494.  As  Evidence  of  Quantity  or  Weight  of   Goods— §    493. 

In^General.— The  weights  stated  in  the  bill  of  lading  are  prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  amount  received,  in  favor  of  the  consignee,  against  the  initial  or  con- 
necting carrier  collecting  charges  on  such  statement,  though  such  weights  were 
reported  by  the  consignor  to  the  carrier,  and  adopted  without  verification,  and 
though  the'  bill  of  lading  contains  the  words,  "Weights  subject  to  correction. *j^ 

Acknowledgment  Qualified  by  Expression  "Shipper's  Load  and  Count." 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  acknowledges  receipt  of  a  stated  number  of  anicles, 

qualified  by  the  expression  "shipper's  load  and  count,'"  it  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  receipt  of  th^  total  number  of  articles  stated,  but  the  carrier  may 
overcome  the  prima  facie  case  thus  made  by  showing  that  it  in  fact  received 
a  lesser  number.^" 

Weight  "Subject  to  Correction"  or  "Weight  Unknown."— Where  bdl 
of  lading  specified  the  quantity  of  cargo,  but  contained  the  statements,  "'weight 
and  quantity  unknown,"  or  "weight  unknown,"  the  burden  rests  upon  the  car- 
rier to  account  for  any  discrepancy  between  the  quantity  delivered  and  that 
specified.  This  burden  is  met  by  proof  that  the  full  quantity  loaded  was  de- 
livered, and  this  may  be  shown  as  against  a  consignee  who  has  paid  drafts 
drawn  by  the  shippers  for  the  full  quantity  specified,  where  the  bills  of  lading 
were  attached  to  the  drafts.^ ^ 

Goods  Loaded  by  Carrier's  Agent. — The  carrier  may  show  as  a  matter  of 
fact  that  the  goods  described  in  a  bill  of  lading  were  not  received  by  it,  though 
its  agent  received  the  goods  which  were  shipped  and  loaded  the  car.^^ 

Surrender  of  Warehouse  Receipt  after  Execution  of  Bill  of  Lading.— 
The  fact  that  the  shipper  surrendered  to  the  warehouseman,  after  the  execution 
of  the  bill  of  lading,  his  warehouse  receipt  for  the  full  amount  named  in  such 
bill,  will  not  deprive  the  carrier  of  the  right  to  dispute  the  correctness  oi  the 
bill  of  lading  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  goods  delivered  to  it  for  transportation. ^^ 

Competency  of  Evidence. — Although  it  is  competent  to  show  what  goods 

7.    Gody  V.  Lyon   (Ky.),  7  B.  Mon.  113;  shipped    to    its    destination.      The    shipper 

O'Brien   v.    Gilchrist,   34   Me.    534,   56   Am.  procured    from    defendant   a   blank   bill   of 

Dec    GTG  lading  which  he  filled  up  by  inserting  the 

8.' Burden    of   proof.-Atlantic,    etc.,    R.  Y^r'"''l  as  given  by  the  weighmaster.  and 

Co.   V.    Cohn    &    Co.,    6    Ga.    App.    572.    Go  defendants  agent   signed  it      The   shipper 

o     -p     or'  then  forwarded  the  bill  of  lading  to  plain- 

„, ".  ',        ,    ,  .  T>  HT-  tiff  at  the  point  of  destination  and   drew 

9.  Weight  of  shipment.-Brown  z;    Mis-       ^,p^,^  ^j^^^^  f^^  ^^^  p^.^^^  ^f  ^^^  ^^^^^  ^^. 

soun,  etc.,   R.    Co..   83   Kan.   o74,   112   lac.  wording   to   the    weight   as    so   stated,   but 

1"^^-  ,  upon  opening  the  car  a  shortage  of  14,336 

10.  Acknowledgment  qualified  by  ex-  pounds  was  found  in  the  corn  and  for 
pression  "shipper's  load  and  count." — At-  ti;,js  ^hey  brought  suit  against  the  railroad 
lantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cohn  &  Co.,  G  Ga.  company.  The  bill  of  lading  contained 
App.   572.   G5   S.   E.   35.").  a    column    at    the    top    of    which    was    the 

11.  Weights  "subject  to  correction"  or  word  "Weight,"  under  \yhich  were  the 
"weight  unknown." — Planters'  Fertilizer  words  "subject  to  correction."  In  this 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Elder,  42  C.  C.  A.  130,  101  column  the  weight  of  the  corn  was  set 
Fed.  1001.  See  ante,  "As  Agent  Bona  down.  The  bill  also  contained  the  words 
Fide  Consignee  or  Transferee,"  §§  431-437.  "contents    and    value    unknown."      It    was 

Receipt  clause  "subject  to  correction"  held  that  plaintiff,  the  consignee,  had  a 
Weighed  by  weighmaster  of  board  of  right  to  recover  on  account  of  the  short- 
trade  and  cars  sealed — Carrier  liable  tor  age  against  the  carrier, 
shortage.— In  Tibbits  &  Son  v.  Rock  Is-  12.  Goods  loaded  by  carrier's  agent.— 
land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  111.  App.  567,  it  appeared  Peele  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  G3  S.  E. 
that  the  shipper  delivered  to  defendant  rail-  66,  140  X.  C.  :!'.)0. 

road  a  quantity  of  corn  for  shipment.     It  13.  Surrender  of  warehouse  receipt  after 

was  weighed  by  the   weighmaster   of   the  execution    of     bill    of     lading. — Glass    v. 

Board    of    Trade,     properly     sealed,     and  Goldsmith,  22  Wis.  488. 


347  niixs   OF   ladixg.  §§  493-494 

were  in  the  box  when  it  stalled,  and  when  it  was  dehvered,  and  for  that  pnr- 
pose  to  show  the  weight  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  its  transportation,  and  any 
admission  which  may  have  been  made  by  the  consignee  in  reference  thereto,  it 
is  not  error,  npon  objection,  to  refuse  to  allow  a  witness  to  testify  that  "plaintitlf 
knowingly  only  paid  the  freight  rate  on  two  hundred  and  twenty-tive  pounds  ot 
freight"  from  the  |)oint  of  shipment  to  the  point  of  delivery. '■• 

§  494.  Bill  Made  Exclusive  Evidence  of  Quantity  by  Agreement.— An 
express  agreement  between  the  parlies  may  make  the  bill  of  lading  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  (|uantily  of  goods  delivered  to  the  carrier  and  to  be  delivered  to 
the  consignee.''' 

Agreement  Must  Be  Clearly  Expressed. — The  language  of  such  an  agree- 
ment must  not  lie  ill  ihc  lca>i  amliiguous,  and  it  must  clearly  show  it  is  intended 
by  both  parties  to  be  an  exi)ress  agrcemcnl  and  a  dei)arture  from  the  usual  re- 
ceipt clause  of  a  bill  of  lading.^" 

"Quantity  Guaranteed" — Evidence  of  Custom. — W  hen  a  bill  of  lading  ac- 
knowledging the  rcccii)l  of  a  spccitieil  ([uanliiy  of  freight  contains  the  words, 
"(luantity  guaranteed;"  the  consignee  may,  in  an  action  to  recover  for  a  short- 
age, prove  that  the  words,  "quantity  guaranteed,"  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  business,  meant  that  the  bill  of  lading  was  conclusive  evidence  of  the  amount 
to  be  delivered;  and  that,  if  it  fell  short,  the  carrier  was  to  pay  for  the  shortage. 
I'y  the  bill  of  lading  itself  the  carrier  guaranteed  to  deliver  the  quantity  speci- 
fied, and  he  was  rcs])onsil)k'  llicrefor.'' 

Stipulation  for  Deduction  of  Deficiency  in  Quantity  for  Freight.— A 
stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading,  that  "any  damage  or  deficiency  in  quantity  the 
consignee  will  deduct  from  balance  of  freight  due  the  captain"  is  not  a  guaranty 
that  the  captain  has  received  the  whole  quantity  of  goods  specified,  the  words 
"deficiency  in  quantity"  relating  to  the  property  shipped. ^^  A  bill  of  lading  con- 
tained this  ])rovision,  "all  damages  caused  by  boat  or  carrier,  a  deficiency  of 
cargo  from  (juantity,  as  herein  specified,  to  be  paid  by  the  carrier  and  deducted 
from  the  freight,  and  any  excess  on  the  cargo  to  be  paid  for  to  the  carrier  by 
the  consignees."  It  w^as  held  that  this  was  not  a  guaranty  of  the  quantity  speci- 
fied, or  an  agreement  that  the  bill  of  lading  should  furnish  the  only  evidence  of 
the  quantity ;  and  that  no  damages  could  have  been  sustained  in  case  the  carrier 
delivered  all  he  received.^" 

Where  the  freight  was  weighed  into  the  vessel  under  the  supervision 
and  control  of  the  carrier  and  the  bill  of  lading  contained  this  clause:  "All 
the  deficiency  in  cargo  to  be  paid  by  the  carrier  and  deducted  from  the  freight 
and  any  excess  in  cargo  to  be  paid  for  to  the  carrier  by  the  consignee,"  the  car- 
rier was  estopped  in  an  action  to  recover  freight  charges  from  questioning  the 
correctness  of  their  acknowledgment  and  was  bound  to  account  for  the  precise 
quantitv  admitted  bv  the  bills  of  lading  to  have  been  received.-'^ 

14.  Competency     of     evidence. — Louis-  19.   Alihf   ;•.    r.at(Mi.   ,11    X.   Y.   410. 
villc.    etc..    K.    Co.    7'.    Yudclson,    135    Ga.           20.  Acknowledgment  of  receipt  of  speci- 
7,11,  TO   S.    v..   ."iTf").                                                     fied    quantity    on    board     Weighed    under 

15.  A  bill  of  lading  made  exclusive  evi-  supervision  of  carrier  Action  for  freight 
dence  of  quantity  by  agreement.- -Sawyer  charges. —  In  Ivluuks  :■.  Xcwliall.  12i'>  X. 
7'.  Cleveland  Iron  Min.  Co.,  If.  C.  C.  A.  V.  -.74,  27  N.  E.  047,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  859. 
101,   C)!)   Fed.   211.  it  appeared  that  plaintiffs,  as  carriers,  exe- 

16.  Agreement  must  be  clearly  ex-  cuted  and  delivered  to  the  consignor  bills 
pressed.-  l^issel  v.  Campliell,  54  N.  Y.  353;  of  ladinpf  acknowledging  the  receipt  on 
Al)be  V.  Eaton,  51  N.  Y.  410;  Meyer  v.  board  their  vessel  of  a  specified  quantity 
Peck,  28  N.  Y.  590,  aflfirmed  in  33  Barb.  of  wheat  to  be  transported  to  B.  and 
532.  there    delivered    to    defendant,    the    agent 

17.  Quantity  guaranteed — Custom. — Bis-  of  the  consignor,  subject  to  charges.  The 
scl  7'.   Caniplull.  .■  t    X.  >'.  :i"i".  wheat  was  weighed  into  the  vessel  under 

18.  Stipulation  for  deduction  of  deficien-  the  supervision  and  control  of  the  car- 
cies  from  freight.— Meyer  7'.  Peck,  28  X.  riers.  .^nd  the  bills  each  contained  this 
V.   .-,9(1.                                '  clause:  "all  the  deficiency  in  cargo  to  be 


§§  404-407 


CARRIERS. 


348 


Deficiency  in  Cargo  to  Be  Paid  for  by  Carrier. — A  provision  in  a  bill  of 
lading  that  all  the  deticiency  in  cargo  shall  be  paid  by  the  carrier  and  dedncted 
from  the  freight,  makes  the  carrier  an  insurer  that  the  amount  called  for  had 
been  delivered  to  it.  and  would  be  redelivered  at  the  end  of  the  route. -^ 

§  495.  Effect  of  Understating  Quantity.— The  fact  that  a  larger  quantity 
of  goods  than  ihal  receipted  for  in  the  bill  of  lading  was  delivered  to  the 
carrier  does  not  give  the  latter  the  right  to  convert  the  excess,--  although  the 
consignor  fraudulently  misstated  the  weight  of  the  goods,  and  the  consignee 
knew"  that  the  bill  of' lading  stated  the  weight  at  less  than  it  was,  and  did  not 
notifv   the  carrier  thereof. -•"■ 

§§  496-498.  As  Evidence  or  Warranty  of  Title  or  Ownership— §  496. 
In  General. — A  bill  of  lading  is  a  symbol  of  the  ownership  of  the  goods  cov- 
ered by  it:  a  representative  of  the  goods.  It  is  regarded  as  so  much  merchan- 
dise. The  merchandise  is  very  often  sold  or  pledged  by  the  transfer  of  the  bill 
of  lading  which  covers  it.--*  A  bill  of  lading  is  property  and  evidence  against  a 
carrier  of  valuable  rights.-'^  It  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  title  in  the  consignor 
or  consignee,  but  its  recitals  are  not  conclusive.-" 

Presumption  That  Consignee  Owner. — Where  a  bill  of  lading  declared 
that  the  consignee  therein  was  the  owner  of  the  goods  described  therein,  the 
presumption  was  that  the  consignee  was  the  owner.-' 

§  497.  As  Warranty  of  Title  of  Shipper. — A  carrier,  in  issuing  a  bill  of 
lading  for  propert}-  delivered  to  it  for  transportation,  does  not  warrant  the 
title  of  the  shipper.-''*  Hence,  it  is  always  a  good  defense  to  a  carrier,  even 
against  an  innocent  indorsee  of  the  bill  of  lading,  that  the  property  was  taken 
from  its  possession  by  one  having  a  paramount  title. -'^ 

Burden  of  Establishing  Superior  Title. — The  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to 
clearly   establish   the  superiority   of   the  title  to  which   it  has  yielded,  where  it 


paid  by  the  carrier  and  deducted  from  the 
freight,  and  any  excess  in  the  cargo  to 
be  paid  for  to  the  carrier  by  the  con- 
signee." Plaintiffs  delivered  827  bushels 
less  than  the  quantity  specified  in  the  bills 
of  lading.  In  an  action  to  recover  the 
stipulated  freight,  plaintiffs  gave  evidence 
tending  to  show  that  they  delivered  all 
of  the  wheat  that  they  received.  It  was  held 
that  the  value  of  the  deficiency  was  prop- 
erly deducted;  that  plaintiffs  were  es- 
topped from  questioning  the  correctness 
of  their  acknowledgment  and  were  bound 
to  account  for  the  precise  quantity  ad- 
mitted by  the  bills  of  lading  to  have  been 
received.  In  this  case,  however,  it  is  said 
in  the  opinion:  "The  consignee  in  this 
case  is  l>ut  the  agent  of  the  consignor  and 
is  authorized  to  pay  only  such  freight  as 
is  provided  for  by  the  bill  of  lading.  He 
can  hold  the  property  only  for  such 
advances  as  the  bill  of  lading  directs  him 
to  make,  and  there  is  no  principle  upon 
which  he  can  be  made  liable  for  any 
greater  amount  than  that  called  for  by 
the   letter   of  his   authority   to   pay." 

21.  Deficiency  in  cargo  to  be  paid  for 
by  carrier. — Vega  Steamship  Co.  v.  Con- 
solidated Elevator  Co.,  7.5  Minn.  308,  77 
X.  W.  973,  43  L.  R.  A.  843.  74  Am.  vSt. 
Rep.   484. 

22.  Effect   of  understating   quantity   re- 


ceived.— Wiggin  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
120  Mass.  201;  Peebles  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    112    Mass.    498. 

23.  Wiggin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120 
Mass.    301. 

24.  As  Evidence  or  warranty  of  title  of 
ownership. — Yegen  i'.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  19  N.  Dak  70,  121  N.  W.  205.  See 
post,    "Effect    of    Transfer,"    §§    .541-576. 

25.  As  evidence  of  title  and  rights. — 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Brown,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    435,    23    S.   W.    618. 

26.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spires,  1  Ga. 
App.  22,  57  S.  E.  973.  See  ante,  "Recital 
as   to   Ownership   of   Goods,"   §   476. 

Erroneous  statement  as  to  ownership  of 
goods. — A  bill  of  lading,  stating  the  prop- 
erty to  Ijelong  to  A.  and  B.,  is  not  con- 
clusive evidence,  and  does  not  estop  A. 
from  showing  the  property  to  belong  to 
another.  Maryland  Ins.  Co.  z'.  Rudcn  (U. 
S.).   6   Cranch    338.   3,    L.    Ed.   242. 

27.  Presumption  that  consignee  owner. 
— Sandford  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  Railway,  79 
S.    C.    519,   61    S.    E.   74. 

28.  Effect  as  warranty  of  title  of  ship- 
per.— National  Bank  v.  Cliicago,  ftc,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  9  L.  R. 
A..    N.    S.,   263,   20   Am.    St.    Rep.    566. 

29.  National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  9  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    263,    20    Am.    St.    Rep.    566. 


349  I! ILLS    OF    LADING.  §§   497-500 

has  delivered  tlie  property  to  a  third  person  claiming  that  the  bill  of  lading 
was  fraudulently  obtained,  or  issued  by  mistake.-'" 

§  498.  Shipment  Fraudulently  Procured  by  Person  Not  Owner  of 
Goods. — The  fact  that  a  person  falsely  ])retends  to  be  the  owner  of  property 
and  prcjcures  it  to  l)e  shi])ped  in  his  name,  a  bill  of  lading  being  issued  therefor, 
gi\cs  him  iim  ri.-lu  [n  (kiiiand  llic  pro])erty.  .\  bill  of  lading  obtained  by  such 
fraudulenl  representations  is  void,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  on  learning 
the  facts  to  hold  the  proi)erty  subject  to  the  instructions  of  the  actual  owner.''^ 

§§  499-510.  Effect  as  Vesting  Property  in  Consignee— §§  499-503. 
When  Property  Vests  in  Consignee — §  499.  In  General. — T'ne  prima  facie 
elTect  (jf  a  bill  of  lading,  as  regards  the  consignee,  is  to  \  est  the  ownership  of  the 
goods  consigned  by  it  in  him,''-  and  the  transportation  is  at  his  risk.-^'-  but  the 
proof  may  show  that  the  consignor  is  still  the  owner. •'•^  If  the  bill  of  lading 
shows  that  the  shipment  is  made  for  the  benefit  of  the  consignee,  it  is  almost 
decisive  of  the  consignor's  intention  to  part  with  the  ownership  of  the  property.-'"'" 

Right  to  Receive  Goods. — .V  consignee's  possession  of  a  bill  of  lading  gives 
him  no  title  to  the  pro])erty  therein  described  beyond  the  right  to  receive  it 
from  the  carrier  and  hold  it  subject  to  an  accounting  with  the  consignor  or  the 
true  owner.-"' 

Right  of  Carrier  to  Treat  Consignee  as  Owner. — The  consignee  named 
in  the  bill  of  lading  is,  for  all  purposes,  considered  as  the  owner  of  the  goods, 
and  the  carrier  is  entitled  to  treat  him  as  the  owner  until  the  contrary  appears. 
The  shipment  in  itself,  until  it  is  shown  that  the  consignee  is  not  the  owner, 
vests  him  with  the  title  of  owner.-''' 

§   500.   Stoppage  in  Transitu. — Where  the  consignor  buys  goods  impliedly 

for  cash,  but  does  not  in  fad  pay  for  them,  and  ships  them  to  the  consignee,  the 
bill  of  lading  being  in  the  usual  form,  the  person  from  whom  the  consignor 
bought  the  goods,  can  not,  upon  learning  of  the  consignor's  failure  in  business, 

30.  Burden  of  establishing  superior  title.  X.  Y.  S.  982,  134  App.  Div.  184;  Cobb  v. 
— Allaiuic.  etc.,  K.  Co.  f.  Spirts,  1  Ga.  Beall.  1  Tex.  342,  349.  See,  also,  Prender- 
App.   22,  2:!.   .")T    S.    1-".  ut:!,  gast  v.  Williamson,  G  Tex.  Civ.  App.  723, 

31.  Shipment  fraudulently  procured  by  26  S.  W.  421;  Campbell  v.  Alford,  57  Tex. 
person    other    than     o-wner    of    goods.^       159. 

Where    after    one,    who    has    a    common-  33.   Shipment  pursuant  oral  contract  of 

law  lien  on  an  engine  for  repairs,  has  put  sale. — Where  there  is  an  oral  contract  for 

it   on   a   carrier's   platform,    to   be   shipped  the    sale   of   wheat,   and   the   wheat   is    de- 

to  the  owner  C.  O.  D.,  tlic  owner's  agent  livered   to  a  common  carrier  and  the   bill 

ol)tains    a    bill    of   lading   l)y    fraudulently  of  lading  for  it  is  delivered  to  the  buyer, 

representing    himself    to    be    the    shipper,  the  title  rests  in  him,  and  the  transporta- 

the   l)ill   of   lading   is   void,   and    does    not  tion    is    at    his    risk.      Orthwein's    Sons   v. 

deprive  the  real  shipper,  or  his  agent,  the  Wichita  Mill,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

carrier,    of    right    t.o    demand    payment    of  600,  75  S.  W.  304.  affirmed  in  97  Tex.  643, 

the   lien   as  a  condition   to   delivery.     Pa-  no  op.;   Missouri    Pac.   R.   Co.  v.   Heiden- 

cific   Aviation   Co.   r.   Wells    I'argo    &   Co.  heimer,  82  Tex.  19:).  17  S.  W.  60S,  27  Am. 

(Ore.).    12S    Pac.    4;5S.  St.    Rep.    861. 

32.  Effect   as  vesting   property   in   con-  34    Qj.^i„  ^,    Marx,   65   Tex.   649. 
signee-Groye   f     Brien    (U.    S.).   «    How  "^^                        ^33  ^j^             ^^  ^ 

-^"^^^  ^,\J^i  ^'^Vnt^'Tri    %A     -.The  W.    858,    54    Am.    St.    Rep.    672:    Emery's 

(U.   S.).    17   How.   100,    15   L.    bd.    a8      1  ne  <-■  t      .         xt   ^     d      1      .->-    /^     c*     orn 

yKj.  ^  /.   i.    xxv^vv.         •  ,,.,  j'    p,  Sons  v.   Irvmg  Nat.   Bank,  2o  O.   St.   360, 

Fricndschaft  ( U.  S.),  3  Wheat.  14,  4  L.  h,d.  ,         p         ■ 

322;  The  Sally  Magee  (U.  vS.),  3  Wall.  451,  1^   Ani^Kep.   ......  _,        ^.         ^. 

18   L    Ed    197:   Halliday  z'.   Hamilton    (U.  36.   Right  to   receive  goods.— First   Nat. 

S.),   11   Wall.   560,  20  L.    Ed.  214;   Scharff  Bank    v.    Ege,    U)9    X.    \.    120.    ic    \.    1-.. 

V.   Meyer.   133    Mo.   428,   34   S.   W.   858,   54  ;n7.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  4:;i. 
Am.   St.    Rep.   672.  37.   Right   of  carrier  to  treat  consignee 

The  consignee  named  in  tlie  bill  of  lad-  as     o-wner. — Sonia      Cotton      Oil      Co.     z: 

ing    is    presumptively    the    owner    of    the  Steamer  Red  River,  106  La.  42.  30  So.  303. 

goods.     Gass  v.  Astoria  X'eneer  Mills,   lis  S7  Am.   St.  Rep.  293. 


f§  500-502 


CARRIERS. 


350 


stops  the  goods  in  transit,  and  if  he  does  he  is  Hable  in  damages  to  the  con- 


signee.-' 


In   time   of   war,   a  bill   of" 
'  is  evidence  of  the  owner- 


§   501.  Consignment  to  Enemy  or  Neutral. 

lading  consigning  goods  to  an  enemy,-'-'  or  a  neutra 

ship,  going  to  show  a  justilication  for  condemnation  in  one  case,  and  exemption 

from  liability  in  the  other. 


§  502.  Consignee  Making  Advances  on  Faith  of  Bill. — \\  here  an  owner 
of  goods  delivers  them  to  a  carrier,  who  issues  a  bill  of  lading  to  a  consignee, 
who  advances  money  on  the  faith  of  bills,  the  latter  becomes  owner  for  his 
own  sake  to  reimburse  himself,  and  after  reimbursement,  in  trust  for  the  former 
owner.-*^ 

Consignee  Bank  Advancing  Money  for  Purchase  of  Goods, — A  bank 
which  advances  money  or  credit  for  the  purchase  of  goods  for  import,  taking 
the  bills  of  lading  in  its  own  name,  becomes  the  legal  owner  of  the  goods,  but 


38.  Seizure  of  goods  in  transit  by  per- 
son selling  to  consignor. —Halliday  i'. 
Hamilton  (U.  S.),  11  Wall.  560,  20  h.  Hd. 
214.  See  post,  "Stoppage  in  Transitu." 
§  500;  "As  Defecting  Stoppage  in  Tran- 
situ,"   §    567. 

A.  in  St.  Louis  having  a  standing  agree- 
ment -with  B.   &  Co.,  in  New  Orleans,  to 
ship    produce    to    them,    drawing    against 
the   shipments — the    balance   of  any   draft 
on    one    shipment    not    discharged    by    its 
proceeds,  to  be  paid  from  the  proceeds  of 
any  other  shipment — bought  of   C,   resid- 
ing at  Cairo,  on  the  Mississippi,  a  hundred 
miles  and  more  below  St.  Louis,  a  specific 
number  of  sacks  of  corn,  then  lying  at  a 
landing    on     the     river     somewhat     above 
Cairo,  though  much  below  St.  Louis,  aiid 
received  an  order  for  its  delivery.     He  did 
not  pay  for  it,  though  tlie  transaction  was 
impliedly  one  for  cash.     A.   delivered  his 
order   to   the   agents    of   a    steamer   at    St. 
Louis,   then-  about   to  go   down   the   river 
to   New   Orleans.     These   gave   to    him    a 
regular  bill  of  lading,  agreeing  to   deliver 
the   specified  number  of  sacks   of  corn  to 
B.  &  Co.  in  New  Orleans.     On  the  same 
day   A.   drew   his  bill   of  exchange   on    B. 
&    Co.,   in    New   Orleans   telling   them    to 
charge    the    draft   to    the    account    of   this 
specific    shipment;    and    attaching    to    his 
bill   of   exchange,   the   bill   of   lading   thus 
received,    sold    the    draft    in    the    market. 
Being  forwarded,  it  was  paid  at  maturity 
by   B.   &  Co.,  in   New   Orleans;   they  hav- 
ing had  no  notice  of  any  difficulty.     They 
were  at  the  time  in  advance  to  A.  on  ac- 
count  of   other   shipments.     The    steamer 
set    ofif    on    her   voyage,    and    stopping    at 
the  place  where  the  sacks   of  corn   were, 
took  them  on  board.     Proceeding  further 
on    her   voyage    she    same    to    Cairo,    C.'s 
residence.     C.  having  learned  that  A.  had 
failed,  had  not  paid  for  the  corn  and  was 
insolvent,    issued    an    attachment,    and    on 
the  arrival  of  the  steamer  seized  the  corn 
and  took  it  off  the  boat.     On  suit  brought 
by  B.  &  Co.,  for  damages,  held  that  after 
the  boat  took  the  corn  on  board  a  trans- 


fer of  the  property  to  B.  &  Co.  was  ef- 
fected, and  that  C.  had  made  himself  lia- 
ble for  his  act  of  seizure  and  asportation. 
Halliday  v.  Hamilton  (U.  S.),  11  Wall. 
5()0,   20   L.    Ed.   214. 

39.  Consignment  to  enemy  in  time  of 
war.— The  Sally  Magee  (U.  S.),  3  Wall. 
451,   18    L.   Ed.   197. 

Ownership  presumptively  in  an  enemy 
from  a  bill  of  lading  to  him  as  consignee 
is  not  disapproved  by  a  test  affidavit  in 
prize,  stating  generally  that  the  goods 
consigned  had  been  purchased  for  their 
consignee  contrary  to  his  instructions,  and 
that  he  had  rejected  them;  and  that  this 
appeared  "from  the  correspondence  of  the 
parties,"  which  the  affiant  (an  asserted 
agent  of  the  alleged  true  owner)  swore 
that  he  "believed  to  be  true,"  but  which 
neither  he  nor  any  one  produced,  or  ac- 
counted for  the  absence  of;  and  where, 
though  two  years  had  passed  between  the 
date  of  the  claim  and  that  of  the  decree, 
the  consignors  and  asserted  owners,  who 
lived  at  Rio  Janeiro,  had  not  manifested 
any  interest  in  the  result  of  the  prize 
proceedings,  which  were  at  New  York, 
nor,  so  far  as  appeared,  had  been  even  ap- 
plied to  in  the  matter.  The  Sally  Magee 
(U.    S.),    3   Wall.   451,    18   L.    Ed.    197. 

40.  Consignment  to  neutral  in  time  of 
war.— The  Friendschaft  (U.  S.),  3  Wheat. 
14.    4    L.    Ed.    322. 

Bill  of  lading  consigning  the  goods  to 
a  neutral,  but  unaccompanied  by  an  _  in- 
voice or  letter  of  advice,  is  not  sufficierit 
evidence  to  entitle  the  claimant  to  resti- 
tution; but  is  sufficient  to  lay  a  founda- 
tion for  .introduction  of  further  proof. 
The  Friendschaft  (U.  S.),  3  Wheat.  14,  4 
L.    Ed.    322. 

41.  Consignee  making  advances  on  faith 
of  bill. — Armour  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  (55  N.  Y.  Ill,  22  Am.  Rep.  603;  Bank 
V.  Jones,  4  N.  Y.  497,  55  Am.  Dec.  290; 
Haille  v.  Smith,  Bos.  &  Pull.  563;  Allen 
V.  Williams  (Mass.),  12  Pick.  297;  First 
Nat.   Bank  v.  Shaw,  61  N.   Y.  283. 


351 


r.IIJ.S     01"     LADING. 


§§  502-505 


its  title  is  not  an  absolute  but  only  a  security  title,^^  ^vhich  is  not  divested  by  de- 
livery of  the  goods  to  the  buyer  on  a  trust  receipt  so  as  to  enable  him  to  create 
a  valid  lien  thereon."*-' 

§  503.  Removal  of  Goods  by  Unauthorized  Person. — The  subsequent  re- 
moval oi  the  snoods  fnmi  the  vl^scI  by  ;i  person  other  than  the  true  owner,  either 
with  or  without  the  consent  of  her  officers,  can  not  (hvest  that  ownership.-*^ 

§§  504-510.  When  Property  Does  Not  Vest  in  Consignee— §  504. 
In  General. — The  prima  facie  elTect  ol  a  bill  of  lading  as  vesting  the  property 
shii)ped  in  the  consignee  may  be  controlled  by  special  clauses  in  the  bill  of  lading, 
or  by  evidence  aliunde*"' 

§  505.  Bill  Not  Delivered  to  Consignee. — See  post,  " Necessity  for  De- 
livery of  I'.ill,"  §  534;  "Consignor  or  Agent,"  s;  ?.V>. 

Inserting  in  the  bill  of  lading  the  name  of  a  consignee  gives  him  no 
property  in  the  goods  until  a  delivery  of  the  bill  to  him  by  some  one  author- 
ized ;  "'  but   the   fact  that  the  seller  on  shipping  the  goods  to  the  buyer  retains 


42.  Consignee  advancing  money  for  pur- 
chase of  goods. — Charavay  t'.  York  Silk 
Mfg.   Co.,   170   Fed.   819. 

43.  A  bank  which  furnislicd  the  credit 
to  pay  for  imported  goods,  taking  bills  of 
lading  in  its  own  name,  is  the  legal  owner 
of  the  goods,  and  its  title  was  not  di- 
vested by  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the 
importer  on  a  trust  receipt,  so  as  to  en- 
able the  importer  to  create  a  valid  lien 
thereon.  Century  Throwing  Co.  v.  Mul- 
ler,  lie,  C.  C.  A.  (n4,  197  Fed.  252. 

44.  Effect  of  subsequent  removal. —  Tlic 
Idalio.  u:;   I'.  S.  57.5,  2:5   L.   Fd.  978. 

45.  Special  clauses  or  extrinsic  evidence 
defeating  consignee's  title. — Lawrence  v. 
Minturn  (U.  S.).  17  How.  100.  15  L.  Ed. 
58;  Grove  v.  Brien  (U.  S.),  8  How.  429,  12 
L.   Ed.   1142. 

When  there  is  a  dealing  between  mer- 
chants, for  successive  cargoes  of  merchan- 
dise upon  time,  for  which  notes  of  hand 
were  to  be  given,  payable  from  the  date 
of  the  ascertainment  of  the  quantity  of 
each  cargo,  and  an  arrangement  is  after- 
wards made  for  the  substitution  of  an  in- 
terest account  for  the  notes  which  were 
to  be  given;  and,  in  that  arrangement,  the 
seller  stipulates  that  the  allowance  of  the 
interest  account  should  depend  upon  the 
continuance  of  the  original  time  of  credit, 
and  that  the  buyer's  balance  on  account 
should  always  be  under  a  certain  sum; 
and  the  buyer  exceeds  that  amount  and 
refuses  to  make  a  remittance  or  pay- 
ment, upon  the  call  of  the  seller,  to  bring 
the  account  within  that  sum.  the  seller 
may  arrest  the  further  delivery  of  any 
cargo  or  cargoes,  though  the  same  was 
in  the  course  of  being  delivered  to  the 
buyer  upon  the  seller's  indorsement  of 
the  invoices  and  bills  of  lading  of  such 
cargoes.  Masters  f.  Barrcda  (U.  S.),  is 
How.    489,    15    L.    Ed.    4r)6. 

"In  Emery's  Sons  z'.  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25  O.  St.  360,  IS  Am.  Rep.  299,  it  is  said: 
'If  the  bill  of  lading  shows  that  the  con- 
signment was  made  for  the  benefit  of  the 


consignor  or  his  order,  it  is  very  strong 
proof  of  his  intention  to  reserve  the  jus 
disponendi.' "  ScharfT  v.  Meyer,  54  Am. 
St.    Rep.    072,    i:^:5    Mo.    428,    34    S.    W.    858. 

46.  Bill  not  delivered  to  consignee. — Al- 
len V.  Williams  (Mass.),  12  Pick.  297; 
Butifington  r.  Curtis,  15  Mass.  528,  8  Am. 
Dec.  115;  Skilling  z:  Bollman,  73  Mo.  665, 
:J9  Am.   Rep.  537. 

Defendant  contracted  with  C.  for  a  car 
of  lumber  to  be  shipped  to  A.  Being 
•inable  to  fill  the  order,  C.  ordered  the 
lumber  of  P.,  who  loaded  a  car,  took  a 
hill  of  lading  in  his  own  name,  with  A. 
named  tlicrcin  as  consignee,  at  the  same 
time  sending  to  C.  an  invoice  or  bill  for 
the  lumber:  C,  however,  never  having 
possession  of  the  bill  of  lading.  P.  then 
arranged  with  plaintiff,  a  bank,  to  take 
the  bill  of  lading,  forward  the  car,  and 
guarantee  the  amount  of  the  bill.  Plain- 
tiff having  agreed  to  do  this  had  C.  in- 
dorse the  invoice  as  assigned  to  it  and 
took  a  delivery  thereof.  Thereupon  plain- 
tiff, having  learned  that  defendant  or- 
dered the  lumber,  sent  it  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing and  the  invoice  by  letter  stating  the 
inclosure  of  the  bill  of  lading  and  invoice 
of  shipment  made  by  P.  for  C.  on  an  or- 
der, as  C.  said,  from  defendant;  tliat  C. 
asked  it  to  forward  them  to  defendant; 
that  P.  left  the  bill  of  lading  with  plain- 
tiff for  collection  from  C,  but  it  thought 
best  to  see  C,  and  get  his  instructions, 
which  were  to  forward  it  to  defendant, 
and  to  pay  P.  out  of  defendant's  remit- 
tance for  the  price  of  the  lumber.  De- 
fendant wrote  that  plaintitT  would  have 
to  look  to  C.  for  the  pay,  as  it  had  paid 
him;  but  it  retained  the  bill  of  lading, 
and  thereafter  on  delivery  of  the  lumber 
to  A.,  the  consignee,  received  the  pro- 
ceeds. Held,  in  an  action  on  the  bill  of 
lading,  plaintiff  having  paid  P.,  that  the 
title  to  the  lumber  never  passed  from  P. 
to  C,  he  having  refused  to  deliver  the 
bill  of  lading  to  C.  till  his  bill  was  paid 
or  secured,  notice  of  which  defendant  had 


§§  505-507 


CARRIERS. 


352 


•possession  of  the  bill  of  lading  can  not  attect  the  title,  which  has  already  passed 
by  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  carrier.  If.  under  such  circumstances,  the 
consignor  wishes  to  prevent  the  title  from  vesting  in  the  consignee,  he  must,  by 
bill  oi  lading,  make  the  goods  deliverable  to  his  own  order.-*' 

§  506.  Consignment  to  Be  Sold  on  Commission.— A  consignor  of  goods 
to  be  sold  on  conmiission  does  not  part  with  liis  title  by  the  consignment,  but 
retains  it  until  the  goods  are  sold.-^^ 

§§   507-508.  Goods  BiUed  to  Shipper's  Order— §   507.  In  General.— 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  is  taken,  deliverable  to  the  shipper's  own  order,  the  ni- 
ference  that  it  was  not  intended  that  the  property  in  the  goods  should  pass, 
except  by  subsequent  order  of  the  person  holding  the  bill,  is  almost  conclusive, 
but  it  has  been  said  that  this  presumption  may  be  rebutted  by  proof.-*-^  This  is 
the  rule  in  the  federal  courts,"'"'  in  Alabama,^i  Arkansas,^'-  California,''^^  lowa,^-* 
Kentucky,-"^'-  Massachusetts,^^  ^lissouri,^'  New  York,  "'^  Rhode  Island,"'-'  Wis- 
consin.*'"'" and  other  states;  and  in  England.''^ 

Where  there  are  circumstances  pointing  both  ways,  some  indicatmg 
an  intent  to  pass  the  ownership  immediately,  notwithstanding  the  bill  of  lading, 
in  other  words,  where  there  is  anything  to  rebut  the  effect  of  the  bill,  it  becomes 
a  question   for  the  jury,  whether  the  property  has  passed. '"- 

52.  Berger  z:  State,  50  Ark.  20,  6  S. 
W.    15. 

53.  Reynolds  v.  Scott,  (15  Cal.  xx,  4 
Pac.    346. 

54.  Bill  of  lading  on  shipment  to  con- 
signor's own  order  held  to  retain  title  in 
the  seller.  Reed  v.  Racine  Boat  Co. 
(Iowa).    137    N.    W.    458. 

55.  Where  one  ships  goods  consigned 
to  liimself,  the  presumption  is  that  he  re- 
mains the  owner  of  the  goods  and  the 
liill  of  lading  while  the  goods  are  in  the 
carrier's  possession.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   V.   Steele,    140   Ky.   383,   131    S.   W.    22. 

56.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank  z:  Bangs,  102 
Mass.   291. 

57.  Bergeman  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    104    Mo.    77,    15    S.    W.    992. 

58.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank  v.  Logan, 
74   N.   Y.    568. 

59.  Hobart  &  Co.  v.  Littlefield  Bros.,  13 
R.   I.  341. 

60.  Doyle  v.  Roth  Mfg.  Co.,  7(5  Wis.  48, 
44   N.   W.    1100. 

61.  Wait  V.  Baker,  2  Exch.  1;  Wilms- 
hurst  V.  Bowker,  2  M.  &  G.  792,  40  E.  C. 
L.  629;  Ellershaw  v.  Magniac.  6  Exch. 
570;  Van  Casteel  v.  Booker,  2  Exch.  691; 
Jenkyns  v.  Brown.  14  Q.  B.  496,  68  E.  C. 
L.  495;  19  L.  J.,  Q.  B.  286;  Shepherd  v. 
Harrison,  L.  R..  4  Q.  B.  196,  L.  R..  5  H. 
L.  116;  Gaborron  v.  Kreeft,  L.  R.,  10 
Exch.  274,  Moak's  Rep.  562;  Ogg  v. 
Shuter,  1  C.  P.  Div.  47,  15  Moak's  Rep. 
231;  Ex  parte  Banner,  2  Ch.  Div.  278,  16 
Moak's  Rep.  704;  Hare  v.  Browne,  4  H. 
&  N.  822.  29  L.  J.  Exch.  6;  Joyce  v. 
Swann,  17  C.  B.,  N.  S.,  84,  12  E.  C.  L. 
83;  Moakes  v.  Nicholson,  19  C.  B.,  N.  S., 
290.  115   E.   C.   L.  290. 

62.  Circumstances  pointing  both  ways. 
— Dows  V.  National  Exch.  Bank,  91  U.  S. 
618,    634,    23    L.    Ed.    214. 


when  plaintiff  sent  it  the  l)ill  of  lading, 
by  letter  indicating  intention  to  make  de- 
livery of  the  lumber  conditioned  on  pay- 
ment of  its  price,  and  the  invoice  not 
being  a  bill  of  sale,  or  evidence  of  a  sale, 
so  that  defendant's  payment  to  C.  was 
no  defense.  Security  State  Bank  v. 
O'Connell  Lumber  Co.,  64  Wash.  506,  117 
Pac.    271. 

47.  Scharff  v.  Meyer,  133  Mo.  428,  34 
S.  W.  858.  54  Am.  St.  Rep.  672.  See  post. 
"Goods  Billed  to  Shipper's  Order."  §§ 
507-508. 

48.  Consignment  to  be  sold  on  commis- 
sion.— Commercial  Nat.  Bank  v.  Heilliron- 
ner,  108  N.  Y.  439,  15  N.  E.  701. 

49.  Bill  of  lading  to  shipper's  order. — 
Dows  f.  National  Exch.  Bank.  91  U.  S. 
618,  633,  23  L.  Ed.  214.  See  post,  "Trans- 
ferability or  Assignability,"   §   519. 

50.  Dows  V.  National  Exch.  Bank,  91  U. 
S.  618,  633,  23  L.  Ed.  214;  The  St.  Jose 
Indiana  (U.  S.),  1  Wheat.  208,  4  L.  Ed. 
73;  The  John  K.  Shaw,  32  Eed.  491. 

Taking  a  bill  of  lading  deliverable  to 
the  shipper's  own  order,  is  inconsistent 
with  an  intention  to  pass  the  ownership 
of  the  cargo  to  the  person  on  whose  ac- 
count it  may  have  been  purchased,  even 
when  the  shipment  has  been  made  in  the 
vessel  of  the  drawee  of  the  draft  against 
the  cargo.  Dows  v.  National  Exch.  Bank, 
91  U.   S.  618,  631,  23   L.    Ed.   214. 

A  shipment  on  the  purchaser's  own  ves- 
sel is  ordinarily  held  to  pass  the  prop- 
erty to  the  purchaser;  but  not  so  if  the 
bill  of  lading  exhibits  a  contrary  intent,  if 
thereby  the  shipper  reserves  to  himself 
or  to  his  assigns  the  dominion  over  the 
goods  shipped.  Dows  v.  National  Exch. 
Bank,  91    U.   S.  618.  635,  23  L.   Ed.  214. 

51.   McCormick  v.   Joseph,   77   Ala.   236. 


333  lULLS    OF    LADIXG.  §§   507-509 

Bill  of  Lading  and  Draft  Attached  Drawn  to  Shippers'  Order. — W  here 
a  bill  of  lading  and  draft  attached  were  drawn  to  the  order  of  the  seller,  and 
the  bill  of  lading  could  not  be  surrendered  until  the  draft  was  paid,  and  the 
draft  was  not  paid,  the  purchaser  could  not  acquire  title,  under  the  nde  that  a 
consignor  who  takes  a  bill  of  lading  in  his  own  name  or  to  his  order  retains 
title  in  himself  until  the  bill  is  indorsed.''-' 

Goods  Billed  to  Buyer  Subject  to  Seller's  Order. — W  here  a  seller  takes 
a  bill  uf  lading,  stipulaling  lUr  (k-li\er\  al  ibe  point  oi  destination  to  himself, 
his  order  or  assigns,  it  is  evidence  that,  notwithstanding  an  appropriation  of  the 
goods  which  might  be  sufficient  to  transfer  title  to  the  buyer,  the  goods  are 
retained  within  the  seller's  control,  and  the  mere  fact  that  the  buyer  is  named 
as  consignee  does  not  pass  title  to  him."^  By  such  a  bill  the  seller  does  not 
reserve  merely  a  lien,  but  the  absolute  right  of  disposal  of  the  goods ;  ''^  and 
his  assignee  acquires  the  same  rights  so  that  the  carrier  is  bound  to  deliver  to 
his  order.*'"  The  consignee  in  such  cases  became  the  mere  agent  or  factor 
of  the  consignor  or  his  assignee ;  ""  and  must  therefore  deliver  to  his  order 
even  though  the  consignor  be  indebted  to  him   ( the  consignee  )    for  advances. *^^ 

§  508.  Bill  with  Draft  Attached  to  Be  Delivered  to  Purchaser  of 
Goods. — A  shipment  of  goods  billed  by  the  consignor  to  himself,  to  be  delivered, 
with  the  bill  of  lading,  to  another  on  his  payment  of  draft  attached  to  it  for 
the  price,  retains  the  title,  prima  facie,  in  the  shipper  till  such  payment,  but  sub- 
ject to  evidence  of  the  real  intent  of  the  parties  as  to  when  title  is  to  pass.*^^ 
Where  a  bill  of  lading  taken  to  the  order  of  the  seller  is  indorsed  by  him,  and 
attached  to  a  draft  upon  the  purchaser  for  the  jirice,  and  the  draft  is  delivered 
to  a  bank  for  collection,  or  is  discounted  by  the  bank  in  reliance  on  the  security 
of  the  bill  of  lading,  title  does  not  pass  to  the  purchaser  until,  by  payment  of 
the  draft,  he  has  obtained  possession  of  the  bill.''' 

§  509.  Bill  to  Another  than  Purchaser. — When  a  bill  of  lading  is  taken 
deliverable  to  the  order  of  some  person  designated  by  the  shipper,  other  than 
the  one  on  whose  account  they  have  been  shipped," ^  the  inference  that  it  was  not 
intended  that  the  property  in  the  goods  should  pass,  except  by  subsequent  order 
of  the  person  hokling  the  bill,  is  almost  conclusive,  though  it  has  been  said  that 
it  may  be  rebutted. "- 

63.  Bill  of  lading  and  draft  attached  Pcmisylzviiia. — Sclniniacher  v.  Eby,  24 
drawn   to   shipper's   order. — Citizens,   etc.,       Pa.  .521. 

Bank  V.   Southern    R.   Co.,   153   N.   C.   346,  67.  Alichitjan  Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Phillips,  GO 

69  S.    1-.,  2<n.  jU     -1,)0 

64.  ^  Goods    billed    to    buyer    subject    to  68.  Marine  Bank  z:  Wright,  48  N.  Y.  1. 
sellers  order. — Grayson  County  Aat.  Bank  „,,     -d-h       -..u    j     c^     ^^  '  u   j    ...      u      j 
V.     Nashville,     etc..     Railway     (Tex.     Civ.  ,.  ^^-   ,^^J   ^^^^   t'^^^   attached   to   be   de- 
App.),    79    S.   W.    1094.  r''^?^  ^r    P"'"^^^'^'     1  1°°^?;-^^^-^=^^ 

65.  Dows  V.  National  Exch.  Bank,  91  Sr"^.  R  Co  r.Dorsey,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
U.   S.   618,   23   L.    Ed.   214;   Ogg  v.   Shuter,       ^'li-u      ^^^   a-'  ""     '  .v        f  ^     f*      c 

1  C.  P.  Div.  47,  Moak's  Rep    231;  Gobar^  ^  ^'"  .^V^^"^'^^  f  f  "-?^  s^l    ^'^^^—%^^ 

ron    V.    Kruft,    L.    R.,    10    Exch.    274,    14  ^^°''"''^  ^'^  S"     v^■'■R  '  i     foo  r""'' S' 

Moak's   Rep.   562.  '-'o  ^''T 'ci.'         '                       '                         ' 

66.  United  Statcs.—St.   Paul    Roller   Mill  '^^X'  n"              n        .     xw    t3      i         x-     i 
Co.   V.    Great    Western    Despatch    Co..    27  70.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  -c.  Nash- 

Fed.   434.     See   post,   "Right   of   Disposal  ^'",^v 'Ind.      q  '■''^'    ^.    ••''p       i'   '^PP-^h' 

Retained    by    Consignor."    §§    527-528  S.  W.  1094^    See  post      Purchase  or  D.s- 

Massachusctts.-¥\T,i  Nat    Bank  v.  Dear-  ^°""t   of   Draft    with    Bill    of   Lading  At- 

born,    115    Mass.    219,    15    Am.    Rep.    93;  \^'^'i^^-.    §§5-S-..8.:     Effect  of_  Consignee  s 

First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Crocker,  111  Mass.  163.  Accepting  and   I  ay.ng  Dratt.     $j   os... 

Xczv  }'o;-yt.— Bank  v.  Jones,  4  N.  Y.  497,  71.  Bill  of  lading  to  some  one  else  than 

55    Am.    Dec.    290.      See.    also,    First    Nat.  consignee.— Dows  v.  National  Exch.  Bank, 

Bank  V.    Kelly,   57   N.   Y.   34.  5>1   1^'-   ?•   618,  23   L.   Ed.   214. 

Ohio. — Emery's     Sons    v.    Irving      Nat.  72.  Dows  v.  National  Exch.  Bank.  91  U. 

Bank,  25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299.  S.  618,  23  L.   Ed.  214. 

1   Car— 23 


§§  510-512  CARRIERS.  354 

§  510.  Bill  to  A.  for  Use  of  B.— If  the  bill  of  lading  is  special  to  deliver 
the  goods  to  A  for  the  use  of  1'.,  the  property  vests  in  B,  and  the  action  mnst 
be  brought  in  his  name  in  case  of  loss  or  damage. "•• 

§  511.  Stipulations  as  to  Value.— A  stipulation  in  the  receipt  or  a  bill  of 
lading  given  by  the  carrier  at  the  time  of  the  shipment,  as  to  the  value  of  the 
goods  shipped,"^  is  not  binding  upon  the  owner  unless  expressly  agreed  to  by 
him;  and  in  the  event  of  a  breach  of  the  contract  of  carriage  by  the  carrier, 
he  is  entitled  to  recover  full  damages  as  shown  by  the  evidence,  regardless  of 
such  statement  as  to  the  value  of  the  goods."-* 

§  512.  Freight  and  Demurrage.— Freight.— A  bill  of  lading  is  a  written 
simple  contract  between  a  shipper  of  goods  and  ship  owner;  the  latter  to  carry 
the  goods,  and  the  former  to  pay  the  stipulated  compensation  when  the  service 
is  performed.  The  shipper  or  consignor,  whether  the  owner  of  the  goods  shipped 
or  not,  is  the  party  with  whom  the  owner  or  master  enters  into  the  contract  of 
attreig'htment.  It  is  he  that  makes  the  bailment  of  the  goods  to  be  carried,  and, 
as  the  bailor,  he  is  liable  for  the  compensation  to  be  paid  therefor."  The  fact 
that  the  consignee  takes  part  in  the  negotiation  as  to  the  rate  of  freight  to  be 
paid  does  not  constitute  him  the  shi]iper.''' 

Stipulation  for  Payment  of  Freight.— It  is  usual  for  the  consignee  to 
pay  the  freight  to  the  ship  owner.  Ordinarily,  the  bill  of  lading  provides  that 
he' shall  do  it.  If  he  be  the  purchaser  as  well  as  the  consignee,  although  treated, 
for  commercial  reasons,  as  the  agent  of  the  consignor  in  making  payment,  in 
practical  efifect  the  payment  is  on  his  account,  and  must  necessarily  be  added  to 
the  price  paid  the  consignor  for  the  goods,  in  order  to  determine  the  total  costs 
to  himself.  He  is  therefore  directly  interested  in  fixing  the  rate  of  freight,  and 
it  is  not  unusual  for  him  to  take  part  in  the  negotiations  for  it.  But  that  act 
does  not  constitute  him  the  shipiier."" 

Liability  of  Bank  Collecting  Draft  with  Bill  Attached  for  Failure  of 
Consignee  to  Pay  Freight.— See  post,  •"Deposit  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading 
Attached  for  Collection."  §  588. 

Demurrage. — Where  no  provision  is  made  in  a  bill  of  lading  for  the  pay- 
ment of  demurrage  by  the  consignee,  it  may  be  recovered  from  the  consignor 
where  he  detains  the  vessel  for  loading  for  an  unreasonable  time.'''^ 

Stipulations  for  Demurrage. — When  a  bill  of  lading  contains  a  stipulation 
for  demurrage,  the  acceptance  of  the  goods  is  evidence  of  an  agreement  on  the 

73.  Bill  of  lading  to  deliver  to  A  for  Gihnor  l)efore  they  came  into  the  posses- 
use  of  B.— Grove  v.  Brien  (U.  S.j.  8  How.  sion  of  Fowle  &  Sons.  Grove  v.  Brien 
429,    12    L.    Ed.    1142.  (U.  S.),  8  How.  439,  12  L.   Ed.  1142. 

Where  a  manufacturer  upon   the  upper  74.     Stipulation    as   to    value. — Southern 

waters   of  the   Potomac   shipped   five  hun-  gxp.   Co.  v.   Briggs,  1   Ga.   App.  294,  57   S. 

dred   kegs   of  nails   to  Alexandria,   taking  £     1066.      See    post,    "Limitation    of    Lia- 

from   the   master  of  the  canal  boat  a   re-  bility,"  chap.   14. 

ceipt    saying   that    the    nails    were    "to   l)e  75.    Wooster    z:    Tarr    (Mass.),    8    Allen 

delivered  to  Fowle  &  Sons  in  Alexandria,  270,  85  Am.  Dec.  707;   Blanchard  v.   Page 

for    the    use    of    Robert    Gihnor    of    Balti-  (Mass.),    8    Gray    281;    Davis    v.    Central, 

more,"  and  on  the  same  day  sent  a  letter  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6G  Vt.  290,  29  Atl.  313,  44  Am. 

to  the  consignees,  advising  them  that  the  ^s^.    Rep.    852. 

goods  were  consigned  for  the  use  of  Gil-  ^g_  y^j^  Etten  v.  Newton,  134  N.  Y.  143, 

mor,  such  delivery  and  bill  of  ladmg  op-  .,^    y-     p     .j.,^    oq   Am.    St.    Pep.   630. 

erated  as  a  transfer   of  the  legal  title   to  '    _    oHnniatinn  for   navment   of  freieht. 

Gilmor,    who    was   in    fact   the    consignor.  77.   Stipulation   tor   payment   ot   i^ig"^- 

Therefore,  the  kegs  of  nails  in  the  hands  --\a"  /t  en    z.    Newton    ^34    N.    Y.    143, 

of  Fowle   &  Sons  were  not  subject  to  an  •'!    ^-    C.   3..4,   ..0  Am.   St^  Kep.   b30. 

attachment  by  the  creditors  of  the  manu-  78.  Demurrage.— \  an   Etten  v    Newton, 

facturer;  nor  had  Fowle  &  Sons  any  valid  134    X.   Y.    14:;.   31    N     E._334,    30   Am.    bt. 

lien   upon   them   for  previous   advances   to  Rep.  ^630.     See  ante.     Freight  and  Demur- 

him.     The  title  to  the  nails  had  passed  to  rage,"   §   512. 


355 


BILLS     OF     LADIXC. 


§§  312-515 


part  of  the  consignee  to  pay  both  freight  and  demurrage;  ^'•*  but  in  the  absence 
of  such  a  stiiHilation.  it  is  generally  held  that  the  consignee  is  not  bound  to 
respond  in  damages  in  the  nature  of  deniurrage,  because,  not  being  a  party  to 
the  contract  in  the  bill  of  lading,  the  contract  implied  from  its  subsequent'  ac- 
ceptance by  him  can  not  extend  beyond  the  conditions  upon  which  its  delivery 
is  made  dependent.  A  delay  at  the  place  of  delivery,  occasioned  by  the  fault  of 
the  consignee,  furnishes  an  exception  to  the  rule.*^" 

§   513.  As  Evidence  of  Carrier's  Liability  as  Warehouseman.— When 

a  carrier's  respoiisihiliiy  as  such  ceases,  he  becomes  liable  for  the  goorls  as 
warehousemen,  until  tliey  are  properly  delivered;  and  the  bill  of  lading  is 
evidence  of  that  obligation.''' 

§§  514-589.  Transfer— §§  514-518.  Negotiability.— See  post,  'Trans- 
ferability or  Assigna])ility,"  §  51''. 

§  514.  General  Rule.  —  I'.ills  of  lading  are  spoken  of  sometimes  as  nego- 
tiable, and  \  cry  fre(|uenlly  and  more  accurately  as  quasi-negotiable  instru- 
ments.''- That  they  are,  even  at  the  common  law,  invested  with  the  attributes 
of  negotiability,  in  a  general  sense  of  that  term,  has  been  frequently  admitted. *"' 
A  well-established  custom  has  grown  u[)  in  commercial  circles  by  which  such 
bills  of  lading  are  treated  as  the  symbols  of  title  to  the  property  in  transit,  are 
taken  as  security  for  money  advanced,  and  indorsed  and  delivered  as  a  trans- 
fer of  the  property.  The  effect  of  this  custom  injlependent  of  statute  is  to 
make  bills  of  lading  to  some  extent  and  for  some  purposes  negotiable  and  to 
give  superior  rights  to  innocent  transferees  for  value  in  the  usual  course  of 
business.**' 

§   515.  Distinguished   from    Commercial    Paper.*— Though    transferable 

by  indorsement,  bills  ot"  lading  are  not  ncg(itia])lc  in  a  comniercial  sense,  as 
bills  of  exchange  or  ])romissory  notes;    but  arc  only  quasi  negotial)le.^''     When 


79.  Stipulations  for  demurrage. — Jesson 
7'.  Soly,  4  Taunt,  y.!;  Werner  z\  Smith,  lo 
Com.  B.  285.  Van  Etten  v.  Newton,  1.34 
N.   Y.   143,  .31   N.    E.   334.   30  Am.   St.   Rep. 

r.:io. 

80.  Stipulation  for  demurrage. — Gage  7' 
Morse  (Mass.),  12  Allen  410,  90  Am.  Dec. 
155;  Young  v.  Moeller,  5  El.  &  B.  755; 
Ford  V.  Cotesworth,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  127; 
Crawford  v.  Mellor,  1  Fed.  638;  Van  Et- 
ten V.  Newton.  134  N.  Y.  143.  31  N.  E. 
334,   30   Am.    Si.    Rep.   (530. 

81.  Evidence  of  liability  as  warehouse- 
men.— Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  German 
Nat.  Bank,  77  Ark.  482,  92  S.  W.  522,  113 
Am.  St.  Rep.  160;  North  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  123  U. 
S.  727,  8  S.  Ct.  266,  31  L.  Ed.  287;  The 
Thames  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  98,  20  L.  Ed. 
804;  Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  3S  \'t.  402, 
91  Am.   Dec.   350. 

82.  Negotiability.  —  Alabama. — \'oss  & 
Co.    V.    ]\ol)LM-tson,    etc.,    Co.,    46    Ala.    483. 

Indiana. — Pattison  v.  Culton,  33  Ind. 
240,   5   Am.   Rep.   199. 

Massachusetts.  —  Rowley  v.  Bigelow 
(Mass.),  12  Pick.  307.  23  Am.  Dec!  606; 
Stanton  v.  Eager   (Mass.),  16  Pic.  467. 

Olilo. — For  certain  purposes,  bills  of  lad- 
ing are  invested  with  some  of  the  attri- 
butes of  negotiability,  and  hence  are 
termed    in    the    books    quasi    negotiable. 


Page  &  Co.  V.  Sandusky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
West.  L.  M.  644.  2  O.  Dec.  Reprint  716; 
Adams  v.  Brig  Pilgrim.  10  West.  L.  J. 
141,    1    O.    Dec.   477. 

South  Carolina. — First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mc- 
Swain,   75   S.   E.   1106,  93  S.   C.  30. 

Tc.vas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer,  82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am. 
St.   Rep.   861. 

Wisconsin.— UAq  v.  Milwaukee  Dock 
Co.,   29   Wis.   482,   9  Am.   Rep.   603. 

83.  Pollard  v.  Reardon,  13  C.  C.  A.  171, 
6.")  b^ed.  S4S;  Tison  v.  Howard,  57  Ga.  410. 

'Tn  a  qualified  and  restricted  sense,  a 
l)ill  of  lading  has  the  attribute  of  nego- 
tiability." Davenport  Nat.  Bank  v.  lio- 
meyer.   100  Am.   Dec.  363,  45  Mo.   145. 

84.  Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
r.4  Minn.  245,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  530,  66  N. 
W.   9SS. 

85.  Not  negotiable  in  commercial  sense. 
—United  States.— \^i\on^\  Bank  r.  Mer- 
chants' Nat.  Bank,  91  U.  S.  92,  23  L.  Ed. 
208;  The  Carlos  F.  Roses,  177  U.  S.  655, 
44  L.  Ed.  929,  20  S.  Ct.  803;  Pollard  v. 
\inton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed.  998;  Shaw 
V.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  557,  25  L.  Ed. 
892;  Lehman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Central  R.,  etc., 
Co..  12  Fed.  595. 

Alabama. — Haas  v.  Citizens'  Bank.  144 
Ala.  562.  39  So.  129,  113  Am.  St.  Rep.  61, 
1    L.   R.  A..   N.   S.,  242. 

Arkansas. — Arkansas,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Ger- 


il5 


CARRIERS. 


356 


it  is  said  that  a  bill  of  lading  is  negotiable,  it  is  only  meant  that  its  true  owner 
may  transfer  it  by  indorsement  or  assignment,  so  as  to  vest  the  legal  title  in 
the  assignee  ;^^  and  not  that  they  are  attended  with  all  the  incidents  of  such 
paper  in  favor  of  a  bona  fide  purchaser.**'^  Bills  of  exchange  and  promissory 
notes  are  representatives  of  money,  circulating  in  the  commercial  world  as  such 
and  it  is  essential,  to  enable  them  to  perform  their  peculiar  functions,  that  he 
wdio  purchases  them  should  not  be  bound  to  look  beyond  the  instrument,  and 
that  his  right  to  enforce  them  should  not  be  defeated  by  anything  short  of  bad 
faith  on  his  part.  But  bills  of  lading  answer  a  different  purpose  and  perform 
dift'erent  functions.  They  are  regarded  as  so  much  cotton,  grain,  iron  or  other 
articles  of  merchandise,  in  that  they  are  symbols  of  ownership  of  the  goods 
they  cover.^**     Where  the  common  law  prevails  and  no  statutes  have  been  passed 


man  Xat.  Bank,  77  Ark.  482,  92  S.  W.  522, 
113  Am.  St.  Rep.  160. 

Georgia. — Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe, 
101    Ga.   320,   28   S.    E.    8(37. 

A  bill  of  lading  in  one  sense  is  a  ne- 
gotiable instrument  but  it  is  simply  a 
symbol  or  representative  of  the  goods  for 
which  it  is  issued.  Allen,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  129  Ga.  748,  59 
S.    E.   813. 

Illinois. — Stone  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
9  111.  App.  48. 

lozva. — Garden  Grove  Bank  v.  Humes- 
ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa  526,  25  N.  W. 
761,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  695;  Weyand 
V.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  573,  39 
N.  W.  899,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  1  L.  R. 
A.    650. 

Kentucky. — Douglas  v.  People's  Bank,  86 
Ky.  176,  5  S.  W.  420,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  243, 
9  Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    510. 

Marvhnd. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z>. 
Wilkens,  44  Md.  11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26. 

Massachusetts.  —  Blanchard  v.  Page 
(Mass.),   8   Gray  281. 

Misssouri.—M\d\and  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  132  Mo.  492,  33  S.  W. 
521,   53   Am.    St.    Rep.    505. 

Nebraska. — Green  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  42  Neb.  379;  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnston,  45  Neb.  57,  63  N.  W.  144,  50 
Am.   St.    Rep.   540. 

New  York. — Batavia  Bank  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  497, 
106  N.  Y.  195,  8  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  209,  12 
N.   E.   433. 

Pennsvhania. — Franklin  Trust  Co.  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  222  Pa.  96,  70 
Atl.   949,   22   L.    R.   A.,   N.    S.,   828. 

South  Carolina. — National  Bank  v.  At- 
lanta,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   25   S.   C.   216. 

Texas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer.  82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am. 
St.  Rep.  861;  Prendergast  v.  Williamson, 
6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  725,  731,  26  S.  W.  421; 
Campbell  v.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159;  Adoue 
V.  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex.  593,  595;  Os- 
born  V.  Koenigheim,  57  Tex.  91;  National 
Bank  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  41  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  535,  93  S.  W.  209,  210,  affirmed  in 
101   Tex.    650,    no    op. 

Bills  of  lading  are  not  commercial  oi 
negotiable   paper   in   the    hands   of   an   in- 


nocent party.     Adoue  v.  Seeligson  &  Co., 
54  Tex.  593,  604. 

86.  Douglas  v.  People's  Bank,  86  Ky. 
176,  5  S.  W.  420,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  243,  9 
Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
510.  See  Pollard  v.  Vinton,  105  U.  S. 
7,  26  L.  Ed.  998.  See,  also,  Jasper  Trust 
Co.  V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ala. 
416,  14  So.  546,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  4  Am. 

6  Eng.    Enc.    Law    549,    6    Cyc.    Law    & 
Proc.  426. 

"Assignment  of  bills  of  lading  are  not 
governed  by  the  commercial  law.  The 
transferee  simply  acquires  the  title  of  the 
transferrer  to  the  goods  described  in 
tliem.  Commercial  Bank  v.  Hurt,  99  Ala. 
130,  12  So.  568,  19  L.  R.  A.  701,  42  Am. 
St.  Rep.  38;  Jasper  Trust  Co.  v.  Kansas 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ala.  416,  14  So.  546, 
42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc. 
Law  549,  6  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc.  426."  Cos- 
mos Cotton  Co.  V.  First  Nat.  Bank,  171 
Ala.  392,  54  So.  621,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1173,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B,  42. 

87.  Tison  v.  Howard,  57  Ga.  410;  Haas 
V.   Kansas   City,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   81   Ga.   792, 

7  S.  E.  629;  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe, 
101   Ga.   320,  28   S.   E.  867. 

88.  United  States. — Distinguished  from 
commercial  paper. — Friedlander  v.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  416,  423,  32  L.  Ed. 
991,  9  S.  Ct.  570;  Shaw  v.  Railroad  Co., 
101  U.  S.  557,  25  L.  Ed.  892;  Pollard  v. 
Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed.  998;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  McFadden,  154  U. 
S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14  S.  Ct.  990;  The 
Carlos  F.  Roses,  177  U.  S.  655,  44  L.  Ed. 
929,   20  S.   Ct.   803. 

In  the  hands  of  the  holder  a  l)ill  of  lad- 
ing is  evidence  of  ownership,  special  or 
general,  of  the  property  mentioned  in  it, 
and  of  the  right  to  receive  said  prop- 
erty at  the  place  of  delivery.  Notwith- 
standing it  is  designed  to  pass  from  hand 
to  hand,  with  or  without  indorsement, 
and  it  is  efficacious  for  its  ordinary  pur- 
poses in  the  hands  of  the  holder,  it  is 
not  a  negotiable  instrument  or  obligation 
in  the  sense  that  a  bill  of  exchange  or  a 
promissory  note  is.  Its  transfer  does  not 
preclude,  as  in  those  cases,  all  inquiry 
into  the  transaction  in  which  it  originated, 
because  it  has  come  into  hands  of  per- 
sons who  have  innocently  paid  value  for 


357 


15ILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  515 


to  better  their  standing,  bills  of  lading  do  not  enjoy  the  full  dignity  of  negotiable 
paper  proper;  that  is,  the  mere  i)Ossession  of  them  in  a  state  apparently  regular, 
and  under  circumstances  apjjarently  innocent,  does  not  always  enable  the  holder 
to  negotiate  them  with  full  i)rotection  to  a  bona  fide  purchaser.  If  the  goods  are 
stolen,  or  procured  from  the  owner  by  fraud,  or  entrusted  to  an  agent  for  mere 
custody  and  safekeeping,  they  occupy  much  the  same,  or  perhaps  exactly  the  same, 
position  that  the  property  itself  would  occupy  if  it  were  thus  dealt  with  instead 
of  the  bills   which   represent   it.'*'* 


it.  The  doctrine  of  l)oiia  fide  purchasers 
only  applies  to  it  in  a  limited  sense.  Pol- 
lard V.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7,  8,  26  L.  Ed. 
098;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFadden, 
154  U.  S.   155.  38   L.   Ed.  944,  14  S.  Ct.  990. 

That  a  bill  of  lading  does  not  partake 
of  the  character  of  negotialile  paper,  so 
as  to  transfer  to  the  assignees  tliereof 
the  rights  of  the  holder  of  such  paper,  is 
well  settled.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Fadden. 154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  944,  14 
S.  Ct.  990. 

It  is  true  that  while  not  negotial)le  as 
commercial  paper  is,  bills  of  lading  are 
commonly  used  as  security  for  loans  and 
advances;  but  it  is  only  as  evidence  of 
ownership,  special  or  general,  of  the  prop- 
erty mentioned  in  them,  and  of  the  right 
to  receive  such  property  at  the  place  of 
delivery.  Friedlander  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  130  U.  S.  41().  424.  32  L.  Ed.  991,  9 
S.  Ct.  570. 

Georgia. — The  rule  that  possession  car- 
ries evidence  of  title  so  as  to  protect  bona 
fide  purchasers  in  the  usual  course  of 
trade  is,  in  the  absence  of  a  statute  to 
the  contrary,  limited  to  negotiable  paper, 
such  as  bills  of  exchange  and  promissory 
notes,  and  to  money,  bank  bills,  or  other 
recognized  currency,  and  does  not  apply 
to  bills  of  lading,  which  answer  a  differ- 
ent purpose  and  perform  different  func- 
tions. They  are  not  the  representatives 
of  money,  are  not  used  for  transmission 
of  money,  nor  for  the  payment  of  debts. 
nor  for  purchases.  They  are  regarded 
as  so  much  cotton,  grain,  iron  or  other 
articles  of  merchan-tlise,  in  that  they  are 
symbols  of  ownership  of  the  property 
mentioned  in  them,  and  a  transfer  of  the 
symbol  does  not  operate  more  than  a 
transfer  of  what  it  represents.  Raleigh, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Lowe.  101  Ga.  320,  28  S.  E. 
867. 

Ohio. — A  bill  of  lading  is  unlike  a  bill 
of  exchange  or  promissory  nt)te.  in  this 
— the  latter  are  choses  in  action,  credits 
being  property,  and  having  a  value  in  and 
of  themselves,  and  can  be  sold  and  deliv- 
ered as  property;  while  the  bill  of  lading 
is  not  a  chose  in  action  or  property,  but 
the  mere  symbol  of  the  property  desig- 
nated in  it.  which  propcrtv  can  be  brought 
and  sold  and  delivered,  just  as  if  bodily 
present.  l)y  the  transfer  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing by  the  owner  of  the  property.  Its 
office  is  to  effect  the  delivery  of  the  pos- 
session of  property  bought  or  taken  in 
pledge,  which  is  not  present,  but  in  transit 
to  some  place  of  consignment.     Pomeroy. 


etc.,  Co.  r.   Will,   2   .-\m.   L.    Rec.   1,   5   O. 
Dec.  Reprint  34. 

Bills  of  exchange  and  promissory  notes 
are  credits — valuable  property  in  and  of 
themselves.  Not  so  the  bill  of  lading; 
it  merely  represents  the  particular  prop- 
erty which  is  described  in  it.  The  value 
is  in  that.  The  bill  is  its  symbol,  the 
transfer  of  which  transfers  the  property. 
Its  transfer  is  a  legal  mode  of  delivering 
the  property  itself  to  the  transferee. 
Pomeroy.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Will,  2  Am.  L.  Rec. 
1.  5  O.  Dec.  Reprint  34. 

Texas. — A  bill  of  lading,  even  when,  in 
terms,  running  to  order  or  assigns,  is  not 
negotial)lc,  like  a  bill  of  exchange,  but 
a  syml^ol  or  representative  of  the  goods 
themselves;  and  the  rights  arising  out  of 
the  transfer  of  a  l)ill  of  lading  correspond, 
not  to  those  arising  out  of  the  indorse- 
ment of  a  negotiable  promise  to  pay 
money,  but  to  those  arising  out  of  a  de- 
livery of  property  itself  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances. Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank 
r.  Nashville,  etc..  Railway  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  79  S.  W.  1094;  Adoue  r.  Seeligson 
&  Co.,  54  Tex.  593,  594;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  17  S. 
W.  608,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  861. 

"While  the  transfer  of  bills  of  lading 
may  pass  the  title  to  the  goods,  unless 
the  common  law  has  been  modified  by 
statute,  these  instruments  are  not  nego- 
tiable, in  the  sense  in  which  that  term 
is  applied  to  bills  and  notes  and  other 
negotiable  instruments  of  a  like  charac- 
ter. Although  it  has  sometimes  been  said 
that  a  bill  of  lading  is  negotiable,  noth- 
ing more  is  meant  by  this  than  that  the 
transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  passes  to 
the  transferee  the  title  of  the  transferer 
to  the  goods  described  therein.  Nego- 
tiability may  be  predicated  of  bills  of  ex- 
change and  promissory  notes,  because 
they  are  the  representatives  of  money, 
which  is  itself  negotiable,  to  the  extent 
that  it  can  not  be  reclaimed  from  any- 
one who  receives  it  in  good  faith  for  value. 
On  the  other  hand,  bills  of  lading  do  not 
stand  as  representatives  of  money,  but 
of  the  goods  therein  described,  and  as 
chattels  are  not  negotiable,  that  quality 
can  not  be  given  to  the  symbol;  no  greater 
effect  can  be  given  to  the  transfer  of  the 
symbol  than  to  that  of  the  thing  which 
it  represents."  Landa  t-.  Lattin.  19  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  246.  249.  46  S.  W.  48. 

89.  Tison  i:  Howard.  57  Ga.  410.  See 
post.  "Holder  of  Lost  or  Stolen  Bill  of 
Lading,"  §  554. 


§§  515-516  CARRIERS.  358 

Use  of  Words  of  Negotiability.— Bills  of  lading  can  not  be  made,  by  any 
form  of  words,  negotiable  ni  the  sense  that  commercial  paper  payable  to  bearer, 
or  order  or  assigns,  is  negotiable.'"' 

False  Bill  of  Lading. — A  false  bill  of  lading  is  not  a  negotiable  instrument, 
whether  it  is  imlursetl  or  not.'-'^ 

§   516.  Effect   of    Statutes   Making   Bills   of   Lading   Negotiable.— Al- 
though a  statute  makes  bills  of  lading  negotiable  by  indorsement  and  delivery, 
it  do^es  not  follow  that  all  the  consequences  incident  to  the  indorsement  of  bills 
and  notes  before  maturity  ensue  or  are  intended  to  result  from  such  negotiation. 
Such  statutes  only  prescribe  the  manner  of  negotiation,  i.  e.,  by  endorsement  and 
delivery,  and  are' not  intended  to  change  totally  their  character,  put  them  in  all 
lespects'on  the  footing  of  instruments  which  are  the  representatives  of  money, 
and  charge  the  negotiation  of  them  with  all  the  consequences  which  usually  at- 
tend or   follow  the  negotiation  of  bills  or  notes.     Some  of  these  consequences 
would  be  verv  strange,  if  not  impossible.     Such  as  the  liability  of  indorsers,  the 
duty  of  demand  ad  diem,  notice  of  non-dehvery  by  the  carrier,  etc.,  or  the  loss 
of  the  owner's  property  by  the  fraudulent  assignment  of  a  thief.     If  these  were 
intended,  surely  the  statute  w^ould  have  said  something  more  than  merely  make 
them  negotiable  by  indorsement.     No  statute  is  to  be  construed  as  altering  the 
common  law  farther  than  its  words  import.     It  is  not  to  be  construed  as  mak- 
ing any  inno\ation  upon  the  common  law  which  it  does  not  fairly  express.     Es- 
peaally  is  so  great  an  innovation  as  would  be  placing  bills  of  lading  on  the  same 
footing  in  all  respects  with  bills  of  exchange  not  to  be  inferred  from  words  that 
can  be  fully  satisfied  wathout  it.     The  law  has  most  carefully  protected  the  owm- 
ership  of  personal  property,  other  than  money,  against  misappropriation  by  others 
than  the  ow^ner,  even  when  it  is  out  of  his  possession.     This  protection  would 
be   largely   withdrawn   if   the  misappropriation   of   its   symbol   or   representative 
could  avail  to  defeat  the  ownership,  even  when  the  person  who  claims  under  a 
misappropriation  had  reason  to  believe  that  the  person  from  whom  he  took  the 
property  had  no  right  to  it.^'-     The  theory  is  that  "negotiable,"  as  used  in  the 
statute,' means  capable  of  being  transferred  by  indorsement  and  delivery,  soas 
to  give  the  indorsee  a  right  to  sue  in  his  own  name.=^-'     This  is  the  construction 

90.    Not  negotiable  in  the  sense  of  nego-  91.    False  bill   of   lading.— Jasper   Trust 

tiabie   paper. — "If    such    words    of   ncgoti-  Co.   v.   Kansas   City,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  99  Ala. 

ability    be    contained    in    them,    they    only  416,  14  So.  546,  42  Am.  St.   Rep.  75    4  Am. 

indicate    the    intention    of   the    shipper    as  &  Eng.  Enc.  Law  549,  6  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc. 

to  the  person  for  whose  use  the  consign-  420.                                                 ,.,.,,        r 

ment  is  made.    If  the  goods  be  delivered,  92.    Effect    of    statute    makmg    bills    of 

by  the  terms  of  the  bill,  to  the  consignee  lading  negotiable.— Shaw  r.  Railroad  Co., 

or  his  order,  there   can  be   no   doubt   that  101    U.   S.  557,  25  L.   Ed.  892;  Allen  v.   St. 

the  person  to  whom  the  bill  may  be  trans-  Louis   Nat.   Bank,   120  U.    S.  20,   36,   30   L. 

ferred  by  the  consignor  would  be  charged  Ed.  573,  7  S.  Ct.  460.     See  Goodman  v.  Si- 

with  notice  of  the  rights  of  the  consignee,  monds    (U.    S.),    20    How.    343     15    L.    Ed. 

and    on  the  other  hand,  if  the  bill  be  made  934;    Murray  v.    Lardner    (U.   S.),   2   Wall, 

to  the  use  of  the  consignor,  or  his  order,  110,    17    L.    Ed.    857;   Jasper   Trust    Co.   z: 

or    his    assigns,    the    consignee    would    be  Kansas    City,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    99    Ala.    416, 

charged  with  notice  of  the  rights  of  those  14   So.   546,  42  Am.   St.    Rep.   75,  •*   Am.   & 

to   whom   the   bill   may   have   been   trans-  Eng.   Enc.  Law  o49,  6  Cyc.   Law  &  Proc. 

ferred.     But,   in  either  case,  the   question  426;    Saltmarsh    v.    Tuthdl,    13    Ala.    390; 

is    open   to    the   inquiry    as    to   what    such  Matthews    v.    Poythress,    4  .Ga.    287;    Na- 

rights    may    be,    and    can    be    determined  tional    Bank   v.    Chicago,   etc.     R.    Co.,   44 

only   by  inquiry   into  the   real   nature   and  Minn.   224,   46   N.   W.   342,   9   L.   R.   A.,   JS. 

character    of    the    transaction."      Emery's  S.,  263,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  566. 

Sons  z:   Irving  Nat.   Bank,  25   O.  St.  360,  93.    Sealy   v.    Missouri,    etc.     R     Co.,    84 

18   Am.    Rep.    299.    followed    in    26    O.    St.  Kan.   479,   114    Pac.    1077.   41    L.   R.   A.,   M 

641   (reversing  in  part  1  C.  S.  C.  R.  76,  13  S.,  500. 
O.  Dec.  Reprint  425). 


359 


lULLS    OF     LADING. 


§  316 


placed  upon  the  statute  of  .\lal)aina,'*^  lowa.-'^  Minnesota,'"'  and  upon  the  stat- 
ute of  Missouri  by  the  sui)reme  court  of  the  United  States."" 

Arkansas  Statute. — Kirhy's  Dig.,  §  530,  providing  that  bills  of  lading  for 
goods  actually  deposited  shall  be  transferable  by  indorsement,  and  that  the 
transferee  shall  be  deemed  the  owner  of  the  goods,  makes  a  bill  of  lading  rep- 
rescntalixe,  so  far  as  the  dcli\'crv  is  concerned,  of  the  commoditx'  itself. •''' 

Louisiana,  Maryland  and  Missouri  Statutes  Doctrine  of  State  Courts. 
— The  state  courts  have  held  that  the  statutes  of  Louisiana,""  Maryland,'  and 
of  Missouri-  make  bills  of  lading  "negotiable"  in  the  strictest  meaning  of  the 
terms;  that  is,  it  gives  them  the  (juality  of  investing  an  innocent  purchaser  with 
greater  ri;.,dUs  than  those  possessed  by  the  original  holder. •"■ 

Necessity  for  Written  Indorsement. — A  transfer  without  written  indorse- 
ment and  delivery  does  not  operate  under  the  statute.  In  such  case  no  better 
title  passes  bv  a  transfer  of  the  symbols  without  such  indorsement  than  by  a 
deliver\-  of  tlic  g(i(»(l>  which  they  represent.' 

Bills  of  Lading  Stamped  Not  Negotiable. — See  post.  "iJills  Marked  'Xot 
Negotiable."  "  §  517. 


94.  [aspcr  Trust  Co.  f.  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  <)!»  Ala.  416.  14  So.  546.  42 
Am.  St.  Rep.  75.  4  .\m.  &  Eng.  Enc.  Law 
549,  6  Cyc.   Law  &   Proc.  426. 

95.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mt.  Pleasant  Mill. 
Co..  10.3  Iowa  518,  72  N.  W.  689;  Scaly  r. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Kan.  479.  114 
Pac.   1077,  41  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  500. 

96.  Minnesota  Gen.  St.  1878.  ch.  124,  § 
17.  docs  not  put  bills  of  lading  on  the 
same  footing  as  bills  of  exchange.  Na- 
tional Bank  i\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 
Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  9  L.  R.  A.,  X. 
S.,  263,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  566.  And  see 
Scaly  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Kan. 
479.  114  Pac.  1077.  41  L.  R.  A..  X.  S.. 
500. 

97.  By  the  Missouri  act  of  1869,  all 
warehouse  receipts  and  bills  of  lading, 
except  those  which  have  the  words  "not 
negotial)le"  plainly  written  or  stamped 
on  their  face,  are  negotiable  by  written 
indorsement  thereon  and  delivery  in  the 
same  manner  as  bills  of  exchange  and  prom- 
issory notes.  This  provision,  "while  it 
doubtless  gives  the  indorsee  the  right  to  sue 
thereon  in  his  own  name,  does  not,  for  the 
reasons  fully  stated  by  Mr.  Justice  Strong  in 
delivering  "the  judgment  of  the  court  in 
Shaw  T'.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  5.->7.  25 
L.  Ed.  892,  attach  to  such  an  indorse- 
ment of  the  symbol  of  property  the  same 
effect  which  the  common  law  gives  to 
the  indorsement  of  a  bill  of  exchange  or 
promissory  note  for  the  payment  of  a 
sum  of  money;  nor  confer  upon  persons 
making,  upon  a  bill  of  lading  indorsed 
in  blank  by  the  owner,  an  advance  of 
money  to  a  subsequent  indorser  whom 
they  have  reason  to  believe  not  to  be  the 
owner,  the  right  to  hold  the  goods  against 
the  true  owner."  Allen  ?•.  St.  Louis  Xat. 
Bank.  120  U.  S.  20.  :!t;.  30  L.  Ed.  573.  7 
S.    Ct.    460. 

98.  Arkansas  statute. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Citizens'  Bank.  87  Ark.  26,  112 
S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R.  R.  290.  53  .\m.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  290,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 


99.  Lalande  v.  His  Creditors.  42  La. 
Ann.  705,  7  So.  895.  But  see  Sealy  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  Kan.  479,  114 
Pac.  1077,  41  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  500. 

Under  Louisiana  act. — Bills  of  lading, 
under  Acts  is(;s.  p.  194.  Xo.  150,  are  to 
be  taken  in  the  same  manner  and  to  the 
same  extent  as  bills  of  exchange  and 
promissory  notes,  and  are  negotiable  in 
full.  Hardie  &  Co.  v.  Vicksburg.  etc.,  R. 
Co..  118  La.  253,  42  So.  793,  overruling 
Lalande  v.  His  Creditors,  42  La.  Ann.  705, 
7  So.  895,  and  Hart  v.  R.  R.,  29  La.  Ann. 
448,  and  following  Degado  f.  Wilbur.  25 
La.  Ann.   83. 

1.  Tiedeman  v.  Knox,  53  Md.  612;  Har- 
die &  Co.  v.  Vicksburg.  etc.,  R.  Co..  118 
La.   253.   42   So.   793. 

2.  Sealy  v.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co..  84  Kan. 
479,  114  Pac.  1077,  41  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S., 
500. 

3.  Sealy  v.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.,  8-1 
Kan.  479,  114  Pac.  1077,  41  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
500. 

The  state  courts  proceed  on  the  ground 
that  the  interpretation  placed  on  such 
statute  by  the  United  States  supreme 
court  leaves  this  portion  of  the  Missouri 
statute  without  force.  In  Missouri,  bills 
of  lading  were  already  negotiable  in  the 
sense  that  they  were  transferable  by  in- 
dorsement and  delivery  (\alle  v.  Cerre, 
36  Mo.  575,  88  .\m.  Dec.  161;  Davenport 
Xat.  Bank  r.  Homeyer.  100  Am.  Dec.  363. 
45  Mo.  145;  Midland  Nat.  Bank  f.  Mis- 
souri, etc..  R.  Co..  62  Mo.  App.  531.  1 
Mo.  App.  Rep'r  417).  and  the  assignee 
could  sue  in  his  own  name.  Walker  v. 
Mauro.  18  Mo.  564;  Merchants'  Bank  v. 
Union  R..  etc.,  Co..  69  X.  Y.  373;  Sealy 
r.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co..  S4  Kan.  479.  114 
Pac.  1077.  4  1    1..   R.  A.,   X.   S..   .Mm. 

4.  Transfer  not  made  in  accordance 
with  statute. — .\llen  :.  St.  Louis  Nat. 
Bank.  120  U.  S.  20,  3S.  30  L.  Ed.  573,  7  S. 
Ct.    460. 


8S  517-519  CARRIERS.  360 

8  517  Bills  Marked  "Not  Negotiable."— The  restricted  negotiability 
with  which  the  common  law  invests  bills  of  lading  may  be  limited  and  still  fur- 
ther qualified  by  the  insertion  of  appropriate  terms  wholly  destroy mg  all  ne- 
gotiability. Such  a  result  may  be  accomplished  by  simply  stampmg  or  pnntmg 
across  the  face  of  the  instrument  the  words  "not  negotiable."  ^ 

Under  Statute  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Negotiable.— A  bill  of  lading  on 
which  is  stamped  the  words,  "Xot  negotiable  unless  delivery  is  to  be  made  to 
the  consignee  or  order,"  is  governed  by  common-law  principles,  and  is  exempt 
from  the  "provision  of  a  statute,  providing  that  bills  of  lading  shall  be  negotiable 
provided  that,  where  they  have  the  words  "not  negotiable"  plainly  written  or 
stamped  on  the  face  thereof,  they  shall  be  exempt  from  the  provisions  of  the 
act  The  sole  effect  of  these  words  were  to  exempt  such  bills  of  lading  from 
the  provisions  of  statute  in  relation  thereto.     They  are  to  be  treated,  then,  as 

at  common  law.*^  .  •  i  i      u 

In  View  of  New  York  Penal  Statute.— A  bill  of  lading  is  negotiable,  be- 
in^  such  by  its  written  terms,  though  the  word  "nonnegotiable"  is  prnited  on 
its"  face,  evidently  in  view  of  the  penal  statute,  under  which  the  carrier  must 
reo-ard  every  bill  of  lading  as  negotiable  unless  such  word  is  printed  on  its  face."^ 
Notice  of  Rights  of  "^Consignor.- The  words  "not  negotiable"  stamped  on 
the  face  of  a  bill  of  lading  do  not  simply  limit  the  responsibility  of  the  carrier, 
but  give  notice  to  purchasers  of  the  possible  rights  of  the  consignor,  and  are 
sufficient  to  put  a  purchaser  on  inquiry  as  to  the  facts  of  the  right  of  stoppage 
in  transitu  by  the  consignor.^ 

§  518.  When  Carrier  Incurs  Liability  of  Warehousemen.— Where  a 
carrier  deposits  the  goods  carried  in  a  warehouse  for  safe-keeping,  it  incurs 
the  liability  of  a  warehouseman,  and  from  that  point  of  view  the  bill  of  lading 
is  negotiable.-' 

§  519.  Transferability  or  Assignability.— In  General.— See  ante,  "Ne- 
gotiability," §§  514-518.  The  bill  of  lading  issued  by  a  carrier  to  the  owner 
or  shipper  is  the  symbol  of  ownership  of  the  goods  shipped,  and,  though  not 
negotiable  is  assignable,  or  transferable,!'^  ^y  the  custom  of  merchants,  so  as  to 

5.   Bills   marked   "not  negotiable."— Na-  09  Md.  (561,  59  Atl.  134.  105  Am    St.  Rep. 

tional  Bank  z:  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  321;  Barnum  Grain  Co.  v.  Great  Northern 

Md     661,    59    Atl.    134,    105    Am.    St.    Rep.  R.    Co.,    102    Minn.    147,    112    N.    W.    1030, 

321;    Franklin   Trust   Co.   v.    Philadelphia,  rehearing   denied   id.    1049,   so   holding   as 

etc,    R.    Co.,    222    Pa.    96,    70    Atl.    949,    22  to  Linn.   Gen.   Stat.  1894,  §  7649;   Dymock 

L    R.  A.,  N.'  S.,  828.  ■''•    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    54    Mo.    App. 

'"In    Bank  v'.'  New    York,    etc.,    R.    Co.,  400.  .  ..        „     , 

106  N.  Y.  195,  12  N.  E.  433,  60  Am.  Rep.  7.  In  view  of  New  York  penal  statute, 

440,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  497,  speaking  — Pisapia   r.    Hartford,    etc.,    Transp.    Co., 

of    the    liability    of    the    common    carrier  62  Misc.  Rep.  607.  116  N.  Y.  S.  26. 
upon  a  bill  of  lading  the  court  says  (page  8.  Notice  of  rights  of  consignor.— Gass 

201  of  106  X.  Y.):     'If  he  desires  to  limit  v.    Astoria    Veneer    Mills     134    App     Div. 

his  responsibility     *     *     *     to  the   named  184,    118    N.    Y.    S.   982.      See   as   defeating 

consignee  alone,  he   must   stamp  his   bills  stoppage  in  transitu,  see  post,  "Stoppage 

as  "non-negotiable;"   and,  where   he   does  in  Transitu,"  §  500. 

not  do  that,  he  must  be  understood  to  in-  9.  When  earner  incurs  liability  of  ware- 
tend  a  possible  transfer  of  the  bills,  and  housemen.— Hardie    &    Co.    z^.    \  icksburg, 
to   effect  the   action   of   such   transferees.'  etc.,    R.   Co.,   118   La.  253,  42  So.   793. 
This  would  seem  to  be  an  intimation  that  10.    Transferability     or    assignability.— 
the  New  York  courts  would  not  hold  the  Georgia.— Tison    v.    Howard,    57    Ga.    410; 
carrier  estopped   from   showing  the   truth  Haas  z:  Kansas  City    etc.,  R.  Co.,  81   Ga. 
with    the    regard    to    nondelivery    of    the  792.  7   S.   E.  629;   Raleigh    etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 
goods  when  a  bill  of  lading  stamped  'Not  Lowe,  101  Ga.  320,  28  S.  E.  867. 
negotiable'  was  found  in  the  hands  of  the  /owa.— Garden    Grove    Bank  v.   Humes- 
third  party."     Franklin  Trust  Co.  v.  Phil-  ton,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  67   Iowa  526,  25    N.   W. 
adelphia.  etc.,  R.   Co.,  222   Pa.  96.  70   Atl.  761,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  695. 
949    ?2  L    R    A     N    S     828  Kentucky. — Douglas    v.    People  s    Bank, 
6.  National  Bank  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  86  Ky.   176,  10   Ky.   L.   Rep.   243,   5   S.  W. 


361 


RILLS    OF     LADING. 


§§  519-521 


vest  in  the  assignee  the  title  of  the  goods  which  the  assignor  had  in  theni,'^  in  a 
transaction   intended   to  have  that  effect.^- 

Nonnegotiable  Bill  of  Lading. — The  nonnegotiabiHty  of  the  bill  of  lading 
does  not  prevent  it  from  being  assignable.  Like  any  other  negotiable  instru- 
ment, or  chose  in  action,  it  may  be  transferred  by  assignment,  and  when  thus 
dealt  with  the  assignee  takes  a  valid  title  to  it  subject,  of  course,  to  the  equities 
existing  between  tlie  original  i)arties  to  it,  of  which,  if  there  are  any,  he  is  held 
to  have  had  notice.''' 

The  words  "not  negotiable"  stamped  on  the  face  of  the  bills  of  lading 
in  no  wise  destroyed  their  assignability;^'*  aliter  wliere  the  bill  of  lading  states 
that  it  is  "not  negotiable  or  assignable."  ^'' 

§§  520-536.  Mode  of  Transfer— §  52  0.  In  General.— At  common  law 
a  bill  of  lading  is  a  symbol  of  the  property,  and  the  interest  of  the  consignor  in 
the  property  passes  either  by  an  indorsement  or  a  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing.^" 

§§  521-531.  Delivery  of  Bill— §  521.  In  General.— Generally  the  de- 
livery of  a  bill  of  lading  by  the  person  who,  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
bill,  is  entitled  to  the  goods,  without  written  indorsement,  if  made  with  the  in- 
tention of   passing  title  to  the  goods,   is   sufficient  therefor.^"      For  many  pur- 


420,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  32  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.   510. 

Massachusetts. — Saltus  v.  Everett  (N. 
Y.).  32  .A.m.  Dec.   541,  20  Wend.  267. 

Missouri. — Gratiot  St.  Warehouse  Co. 
V.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.,  124  Mo.  App. 
545.   102   S.   W.   11. 

Xebrasha. — Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  42  Neb.  379,  60  N.  W.  583,  61  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  218;  Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 
z:  Johnston,  45  Neb.  57,  63  N.  W.  144, 
50  Am.   St.   Rep.  540. 

Xezi'  York. — Furman  v.  Union,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    106   N.   Y.   579,   13   N.    E.   587. 

Texas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heid- 
enheimer,  82  Tex.  195.  17  S.  W.  60S,  27 
Am.  St.  Rep.  861;  Nashville,  etc..  R.  Co. 
v.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).  91  S.  W.  1106,  judgment  reversed 
in  93  S.  W.  431,  100  Tex.  17. 

11.  Saltus  z:  Everett  ( N.  Y.),  32  Am. 
Dec.  541.  20  Wend.  267. 

12.  Tison  z:  Howard.  57  Ga.  410;  Ma- 
rine Nat.  Bank  v.  Barringer,  46  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  510.  See  post,  "Intention  to 
Pass  Title."  §  522. 

13.  Steele  z\  Sellman.  79  Md.  1,  28  Atl. 
811;  National  Bank  z\  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  105  .\m.  St.  Rep.  321.  99  Md.  661,  59 
Atl.  134. 

14.  Dymock  z'.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co., 
54  Mo.  .App.  400;  National  Bank  z\  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  .Am.  St.  Rep.  321. 
99   Md.  661,  59  Atl.   134. 

The  words  "not  negotiable,"  stamped  on 
the  face  of  a  bill  of  lading,  do  not  pro- 
hibit transfer  of  the  bill  and  of  the  con- 
tract represented  thereby  by  indorsement 
and  delivery,  as.  under  Code  Civ.  Proc, 
§  449.  any  contract  is  transferable  and 
enforceable  by  suit  in  the  name  of  the 
assignee,  but  the  transferrer  of  such  a  bill 
has  only  his  common-law  rights,  and  can 
not  avail  himself  of  Factors'   .Act   (Laws 


1830,  p.  203,  c.  179),  §  3,  providing  that 
an  agent  intrusted  with  the  possession 
of  a  bill  of  lading  shall  be  deemed  the 
true  owner  thereof  so  far  as  to  give  va- 
lidity to  any  contract  for  the  sale  of  goods 
thereunder.  Gass  -■.  .Astoria  Veneer  Mills, 
118  N.  Y.  S.  982.  134  .\pp.  Div.  184. 

15.  Ballinger's  .\nn.  Codes  &  St..  §§  3590, 
3598-3601  (Pierce's  Code.  §§  6780.  8920, 
6781,  6782),  define  a  "bill  of  lading,"  make 
bills  of  lading  negotiable,  and  provide 
that  a  bill  of  lading  does  not  alter  the 
rights  or  obligations  of  the  carrier,  unless 
it  is  plainly  inconsistent  therewith.  A 
bill  of  lading  acknowledged  the  receipt 
of  property  described  from  a  person 
named,  and  gave  the  name  of  the  con- 
signee and  destination,  and  stated  that 
it  was  not  negotiable  or  assignable.  Held, 
that  the  bill  of  lading  was  in  effect  a  re- 
ceipt for  the  goods  and  a  contract  be- 
tween the  shipper  and  the  carrier  that  it 
should  be  neither  negotiated  nor  assigned, 
and  a  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  with- 
out indorsement,  together  with  the  in- 
voice properly  assigned,  passed  no  title 
or  right  to  the  goods.  Bonds-Foster 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  53 
Wash.  302.  101   Pac.  877. 

16.  Mode  of  transfer  in  general. — Bonds- 
Foster  Lumber  Co.  z:  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co..  53   Wash.   302,   101    Pac.  877. 

17.  Transfer  by  delivery  of  bill. — I'liifed 
States.— In   re    Levin.    17:?    Fed.   119. 

Colorado. — Florence,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Jen- 
sen. 48   Colo.  28.   108   Pac.  974. 

Gcors.ia. — Commercial  Bank  v.  Armsby 
Co..  120  Ga.  74.  47  S.  E.  5S9,  65  L.  R.  .\.. 
N.  S.,  443:  Orr  v.  Planters'  Phosphate, 
etc..   Co..  8   Ga.   .\pp.   59.   68   S.   E.  779. 

IlUnois. — Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  7'.  Phil- 
lips. 60  111.  190. 

Louisiana. — Croswell    f.    \'a.    Bibber,    18 


§§  521-526  CARRIERS.  362 

poses  it  stands  as  representative  of  the  shipment  itself,  and  title  to  the  goods 
may  be  transferred  by  the  owner  by  means  of  a  transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading 
as  long  as  the  goods  are  in  the  possession  of  the  carrier. ^'^ 

§  522.  Intention  to  Pass  Title. — The  delivery  of  an  unindorsed  bill  of 
lading  constitutes  a  good  symbolical  delivery  of  the  goods  represented  by  the 
bill  oi  lading  onlv  when  such  was  the  intent  and  purpose  of  the  parties. i'' 

§  523.  Necessity  for  Acceptance  of  Possession. — Delivery,  in  order  to 
be  effectual,  should  be  followed  by  an  acceptance  of  possession  ;  and  methods 
of  delivery  and  acceptance  differ,  according  to  the  subject  matter  and  the  local 
situation  of  the  thing.  But  constructive  deliver}-  and  acceptance  are  now  much 
favored  in  such  transactions.  The  transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  of  a  ship  at 
sea,  or  the  delivery  of  a  warehouse  key,  have  long  been  esteemed  sufficient  for 
legallv  transferring  possession  of  the  thing  so  symbolized.  And  so,  in  modern 
times',  the  delivery  in  pledge  of  bills  of  lading  of  goods  on  transit,  whether  in- 
land or  by  water,  usually  suffices  to  make  the  pledgee's  title  good  against  the 
world.-" 

Laches  of  Transferee. — Xo  laches  can  be  imputed  to  the  transferee  of  a 
bill  of  lading  who,  either  himself  or  his  agent  being  on  the  lookout,  either  took 
possession  of  the  property  as  soon  as  it  arrived  at  its  destination,  or  was  pre- 
vented from  obtaining  possession  by  the  interference  of  an  attaching  creditor 
of  the  consignor.-^ 

§§  524-52  5.  Possession  of  Bill  of  Lading  as  Evidence  of  Title  in 
Holder — §  524.  In  General. — Mere  possession  of  a  bill  of  lading  is  evidence 
of  title  in  the  holder,  either  general  or  special,  to  the  goods  embraced  therein, 
and  that  the  bill  is  not  made  nor  indorsed  to  such  holder  is  not  material. -- 

§  52  5.  Rebuttal  of  Presumption. — Presumption  as  to  ownership  of  per- 
sonal propertv  arising  from  possession  of  a  bill  of  lading  may  be  explained  or 
rebutted  by  other  evidence  showing  where  the  real  ownership  lies.--^ 

§  52  6.  Exception  in  Favor  of  Stoppage  in  Transitu. — There  is  an  ex- 
ception in  some  instances  in  favor  of  the  consignor's  right  of  stoppage  in  tran- 
situ.-^ 

La.    Ann.    637;    Phillips    v.    Bank,    2    La.  19.  Intention  to  pass  title. — In  re  Levin, 

Ann.  19.  17.3    Fed.    Ill);    Tison    v.    Howard,    57    Ga. 

Massachusetts. — First  Xat.  Bank  v.  410;  Florence,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jensen,  48 
Crocker,  111  Mass.  163;  Merchants'  Nat.  Colo.  28,  108  Pac.  974;  Marine  Nat.  Bank 
Bank  v.  Bangs,  102  Mass.  291;  Allen  f.  v.  Barrin.yer,  46  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  510. 
Williams  (Mass.),  12  Pick.  297;  First  20.  Necessity  for  acceptance  of  posses- 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Dearborn,  115  Mass.  219,  sion. — Campbell  v.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159, 
15  Am.  Rep.  92.  162. 

MmoM;-/.— ScharfiF  v.  Meyer,  54  Am.  St.  21.   Winslow  v.   Norton,  29   Me.  419,  50 

Rep.   672,   133    Mo.   428,   34   S.   W.   858.  Am.   Dec.   601. 

0/m'o.— By  the  rules  of  commercial  law,  22.   As   evidence   of  title  in   holder. — In 

bills    of    lading    are    regarded    as    symbols  re   E.   Reboulin    Fils   &   Co.,   165   Fed.   245. 

of  the  property  therein  described,  and  the  Possession     of   Ijills    of    lading    by    the 

mere    delivery    of    such    bill    by    one    who  sliipper  is  regarded  as  prima  facie  evidence 

has   an   interest   in   or  a   right   to   control  of  the  ownership  of  property  shipped,  and 

the    property    is    equivalent   to   a    delivery  their    delivery    upon    advances    made    a? 

of   the   property   itself.      Emery's   Sons   v.  symbolical     delivery     of     such     property. 

Irving   Nat.   Bank,   25   O.   St.   360,   18   Am.  Prcndergast    v.    Williamson,    6    Tex.    Civ. 

Rep.    299;    Pomeroy,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Will,    2  App.  725,  26  S.  W.  421;   Campbell  v.  Al- 

Am.   L.   Rec.   1,   5   O.   Dec.   Reprint   34.  ford,   57  Tex.   159. 

Oregon. — The    chattels    represented    by  23.  Rebuttal  of  presumption  from  pos- 

a  bill  of  lading  are  transferred  by  the  de-  session  of  bill. — Lovell  v.  Newman  &  Son, 

livery  of  such  bill,  if  nothing  else  is  shown.  192    VcA.    753,    113    C.    C.   A.    39,   affirming 

Ladd.     etc..     Bank    v.     Commercial     State  188   Fed.   534;   Hentz  &  Co.  v.  Lovell,   192 

Bank   (Ore.),  130  Pac.  975.  Fed.  762,  113  C.  C.  A.  48,  reversing  Lovell 

18.    Orr    V.    Planters'    Phosphate,    etc.,  v.  Hentz  &  Co..  181  Fed.  555. 

Co.,   8   Ga.   App.    59,   68    S.   E.   779.  24.    Orr    v.     Planters'     Phosphate,     etc.. 


363 


IJILLS    ol"     LADING. 


§§  527-529 


§§   527-528.  Right    of    Disposal    Retained    by    Consignor. — See    post. 

"Consij^nor  <ir   Ageiil,"   sj   ?.V>. 

§  527.  In  General. — When  goods  are  consigned,  and  the  right  of  dispo- 
sition is  retained  in  the  consignors  by  the  bill  of  lading,  then  the  delivery  of 
the  bill  without  indorsement  for  value  transfers  the  ijro])erty  in  the  goods  in- 
cluded in  the  bill.  Such  is  the  legal  effect  of  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  con- 
signed to  a  factor  for  sale  on  account  of  the  consignor,  as  in  such  case  there  is 
no  sale  of  the  property  before  the  transfer  of  the  bill.-'' 

§  528.  Consignor  Indebted  to  Consignee. — The  delivery  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing for  \alue  though  indorsed,  carries  with  it  the  property  in  the  goods  cov- 
ered thereb}',  as  against  the  consignor's  factor,  though  a  consignee  is  named 
therein  ;  and  this  is  so,  although  the  consignor  was  indebted  to  his  factor  for 
advances  maf'.e  on  account  of  prior  shipments.-"'  The  same  rule  applies  in  case 
of  sale,  if  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  projjerty  is  retained  in  the  consignor  by 
the  bill  of  lading.-"  This  is  so  without  regard  to  the  presence  or  absence  of 
words  of  negotial)ilit\    on  its  face.-** 

§  52  9.  Necessity  for  Indorsement  to  Enable  Holder  to  Sue. — A  writ- 
ten indorsement  may  be  necessary  to  transfer  the  contract  so  as  to  enable  the 
transferee  to  sue  on  it  in  his  own  name;  but  the  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading 
without   indorsement,   for  \alue.  transfers  the  property  in  the  goods. -*^ 


Co.,  8  Ga.  .\pp.  .VJ,  G8  S.  E.  779;  National 
Bank  z:  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co..  99  Md. 
661,  105  Am.  St.  Rep.  321,  59  Atl.  134. 
See  post.  "As  Defeating  Stoppage  in 
Transitu."  §  567.  See,  also,  ante,  "Stop- 
page  in  Transitu,"  §   500. 

25.  Scharflf  r.  Meyer.  54  Am.  St.  Rep. 
672,  133  Mo.  428,  34  S.  W.  S5S;  Davenport 
Nat.  Bank  i:  Homeyer,  45  Mo.  145.  100 
Am.  Dec.  363;  \alle  v.  Cerre.  36  Mo.  575, 
88  Am.  Dec.  161;  Holmes,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ger- 
man Security  Bank.  87  Pa.  525;  Bank  z'. 
Jones.  4  N.  Y.  497,  55  Am.  Dec.  290;  Ma- 
rine Bank  v.  Wright,  48  N.  Y.  1;  Allen  v. 
Williams  (Mass.),  12  Pick.  297;  Jordan  v. 
Pennsylvania  Co.,  :^1  ,-\Ih.  L.  J.  250;  Em- 
ery's Sons  Z'.  Irving  Nat.  Bank,  25  O. 
St.  360.  18  Am.  Rep.  299;  Philips  z:  Bank, 
2  La.  Ann.  19.  See.  also,  ante,  "Goods 
Billed     to     Shipiier's     Onk-r."     §>!     •'■•iT-.-jOS. 

26.  Factor  to  whom  consignor  indebted 
for  advances  on  prior  shipments. — Bank 
i:  Jones.  4  N.  Y.  497,  55  .\m.  Dec.  290: 
Davenport  Nat.  Bank  z:  Homeyer.  45  Mo. 
145,  100  Am.  Dec.  363.  See  post,  "Claim 
tor   Advances   to   Consignor,"   §   570. 

27.  Sale. — Weyand  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  75  Iowa  573,  39  N.  W.  899,  1  L.  R. 
A.  650,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504;  Scharflf  z: 
Meyer,  54  Am.  St.  Rep.  672,  133  Mo.  428, 
34    S.    W.    858. 

28.  Emery's  Sons  z\  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25  O.  St.  360,  18  .\m.  Rep.  299,  reversing 
in  part,  1  C.  S.  C.  K.  76.  13  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print 42."). 

29.  Necessity  for  written  instrument  to 
enable  transferee  to  sue. —  Buftington  :. 
Curtis.  15  Mass.  528.  S  .\m.  Doc.  115:  Dav- 
enport   Nat.    Bank  z\    Homeyer.    100   Am. 


Dec.  363.  45  Mo.  145.  And  see,  also.  In 
re   E.   Reboulin   Fils   &   Co..   105   Fed.   245. 

"In  passing  upon  the  transferability  of 
bills  of  lading  by  delivery  in  Allen  f. 
Williams  (Mass.).  12  Pick.  297,  Shaw  C. 
J.,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court, 
said:  "Even  a  sale  or  pledge  of  the  prop- 
erty without  a  formal  l)ill  of  lading,  b}' 
the  shipper,  would  operate  as  a  good  as- 
signment of  the  propert3\  and  the  deliv- 
ery of  an  informal  or  unindorsed  bill  of 
lading,  or  other  documentary  evidence  of 
the  shipper's  property,  would  be  a  good 
sj-mbolical  delivery,  so  as  to  vest  the 
property  in  the  plaintiffs.  That  case  was 
followed  with  approval  in  First  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Dearborn.  115  Mass.  219,  15  Am. 
Rep.  92.  In  each  of  those  cases  the  con- 
signor had  simply  taken  the  carrier's  re- 
ceipt for  the  goods,  and  it  was  held  that 
the  transfer  of  the  receipts  by  delivery 
without  indorsement  was  a  symbolical 
delivery  of  the  goods  covered  by  the  re- 
ceipts, and  transferred  to  the  transferee 
all  interest  the  consignors  had  in  the 
goods  at  the  time  of  the  transfers  of  the 
receipts.'  "  Scharflf  z:  Meyer.  54  Am.  St. 
Rep.   672.    133   Mo.   428,  34    S.    W.   858. 

"In  Allen  z\  Williams  (Mass.).  12  Pick. 
297.  it  was  held  that  where  the  bill  of 
lading  was  filled  up  with  the  name  of  a 
particular  consignee  or  bearer,  the  mere 
delivery  of  the  bill  by  the  shipper  for 
value  passed  the  property,  as  against  the 
named  consignee.  .And  the  court  says 
tliat  whether  the  transferee  acquired,  by 
delivery  of  the  l>ill  of  lading,  an  absolute 
property  in  the  goods,  or  a  lien  only,  was 
immaterial."  Davenport  Nat.  Bank  z\ 
Homever.   100  Am.   Dec.   363,  45   Mo.   145. 


§§  529-532   •  CARRIERS.  364 

In  Missouri  such  indorsement  was  not  necessary  to  enable  the  transferee 
to  sue  in  his  own  name.''" 

§  530.  Necessity  for  Shipper's  Order. — A  carrier  of  property,  which, 
by  the  terms  of  the  bills  of  huling.  is  deliverable  to  the  shipper's  order,  is  lia- 
ble for  its  value  to  the  true  owner  if  he  delivers  the  property  to  the  consignees, 
or  any  one  else,  without  such  order.^^  Where  the  bill  of  lading  reciuired  the 
delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  consignor,  and  did  not  provide  for  delivery  to 
bearer  or  order,  the  forwarding  of  the  bill  of  lading  to  the  purchaser  of  the 
goods  with  directions  to  pay  a  draft  for  the  purchase  price  and  obtain  an  order 
for  the  goods  from  a  local  bank,  did  not  invest  him  with  any  right  to  the 
goods  as  against  the  consignor.^^-  The  fact  that  the  vendee  presented  the  un- 
indorsed bill  of  lading  was  not  sufficient  to  overcome  the  presumption  that  the 
terms  of  the  bill  raised,  that  the  consignor  was  the  owner  of  the  goods.  That 
such  is  the  presumption  is  well  established.-"'^ 

Estoppel  of  Pledgee. — \\'here  the  pledgor  of  such  bills  of  lading  has  been 
permitted  by  the  pledgee  to  present  them  to  the  carrier  as  his  own,  and  so  ob- 
tain the  property,  the  pledgee  is  estopped  to  gainsay  what  he  has  thus  sanc- 
tioned.-""* 

Where  Bill  of  Lading  Authorizes  Delivery  of  Goods  upon  Written  Or- 
der.— If  a  bill  of  hiding  expressly  authorizes  the  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods 
upon  the  written  order  of  the  consignee  without  the  bill  of  lading,  such  or- 
der, when  given,  has  the  same  effect  as  the  transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading.^^ 

§  531.  Bill  of  Lading  Signed  in  Blank. — A  bill  of  lading,  originally 
signed  in  blank,  and  subsequently  filled  up  by  the  authority  of  the  shipper,  so 
as  to  make  the  goods  deliverable  to  a  transferee,  has  the  same  effect  to  vest 
the  property  in  him  as  if  his  name  had  been  so  intered  by  the  direction  of 
the  shipper,  when  it  was  filled  up  and  signed  by  the  agent  of  the  carrier.^''^ 

§§  532-534.  Transfer  by  Indorsement  and  Delivery — §  532.  In 
General. — At  common  law  the  title  to  goods  while  in  possession  of  the  car- 
rier as  bailee  may  be  transferred  by  indorsement  and  delivery  of  the  bill  of 
lading  to  a  third  person  whose  title  to  the  goods  is  no  better  than  that  of  the 
person  by  whom  the  transfer  is  made.-"" 

30.  Sealy  v.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.,  84  \V.  899,  1  L.  R.  A.  650;  Cougar  v.  Galena, 
Kan.  479,  114  Pac.  1077,  41  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Wis.  477;  Krudler  v.  El- 
500,  citing  Walker  v.  Mauro,  18  Mo.  564.  lison,  47  N.  Y.  30,  7  Am.  Rep.  402;  Law- 
See  ante,  "Effect  of  Statutes  Making  Bills  rence  v.  Minturn  (U.  S.),  17  How.  100, 
of  Lading  Negotiable,"  §  516,  under  catch-  15  L.  Ed.  58;  Alderman  v.  Eastern  R. 
line.  "Louisiana,  Maryland,  and  Missouri  Co.,  115  Mass.  233.  See,  also,  Tuttle  v. 
Statutes   Doctrine  of   State   Courts."  Becker,    47    Iowa    486. 

31.  Necessity  for  shippers  order. — Dou-  34.  Estoppel  of  pledgee. — Douglas  v. 
glas  V.  People's  Bank.  !)  Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  People's  Bank,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  86 
86  Ky.  176,  5  S.  W.  420,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  Ky.  176,  5  S.  W.  420,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  243, 
243,   32   Am.   &   Eng.   R.    Cas.   510.  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.   510. 

32.  Weyand  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35.  Bill  of  lading  authorizes  delivery  of 
9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  75  Iowa  573,  39  N.  goods  upon  written  order.— Sewanl  &  Co. 
W.  899,  1  L.  R.  A.  650,  distinguishing  v.  Miller,  100  Va.  309,  55  S.  E.  681. 
Dows  V.  Greene,  24  N.  Y.  638;  Allen  z'.  36.  Bill  of  lading  signed  in  blank.— 
Williams  (Mass.),  12  Pick.  297,  and  other  Chandler  v.  Sprague  (Mass.),  38  Am.  Dec. 
cases     on    the     ground    that    they    go     no  404,  5  Mete.  306. 

further  than  to  hold  that  the  delivery  of  37.  Transfer  by  indorsement  and  deliv- 

an   unindorsed   bill   of  lading  would   be   a  ery. — United     States.— Dows    v.     National 

good    symbolical    delivery    of    the    goods  Exch.   Bank.  91    U.   S.  618,  23   L.   Ed.  214; 

it  represented,  where  such  was  the  intent  Conard    v.    Atlantic    Ins.    Co.    (U.    S.),    1 

and   purpose    of   the   parties.     Weyand   v.  Pet.  386,  7  L.  Ed.  189.     See  post.  "Rights 

Atchinson,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    9    Am.    St.    Rep.  and    Title    of    Holder    Generally,"    §§    544- 

504,   509,  75   Iowa  573,  39  N.  W.  899,   1   L.  576. 

R.  A.  6.50.  Law   V.    Hatcher    (Ind.),   4    Blackf.    364, 

33.  Weyand  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  goes  no  further  than  to  afifirm  the  propo- 
9   Am.    St.    Rep.   504.   75    Iowa   573,   39    N.  sition  that  the  title  to  goods  conveyed  by 


365 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  333 


§  533.  Necessity  and  Suflaciency  of  Indorsement  or  Assignment. — 
The  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  without  formal  indorsement  'or  assignment, 
in  deference  to  the  mutual  intent  of  the  parties,  and  the  loose  usages  of  busi- 
ness, is  a  sufficient  constructive  delivery.-^^  While  a  bill  of  lading  may  be  as- 
signed in  writing,  such  an  assignment  is  not  indispensable,  for  the  carrier  is  the 
only  party  who  can  insist  upon  this  formality;  and  if  the  carrier  recognizes 
the  one  to  whom  the  bill  of  lading  has  been  delivered,  as  owner  or  as  justly  en- 
titled to  possession  of  the  goods  which  the  bill  of  lading  represents,  it  does  so 
at  its  own  risk;  and  though  the  consignee  might  complain,  a  holder  of  the  bill 
of  lading  who  had  used  it  as  a  means  of  securing  possession  of  the  shipment 
would  certainly  be  estopped  from  saying  that  there  was  no  assignment.'^'-* 

As  Creating  Equitable  Lien  in  Favor  of  Transferee. — A  bill  of  lading 
if  delivered  without  indorsement  to  a  third  i)arty  creates  an  equitable  lien  in 
his    fax'or   who   has   recei\Cil   it    for   \rihie.   wliich   rouris   will   proterl.'" 

Statutes  Providing  for  Indorsements  Do  Not  Abrogate  Common  Law. 
— Since  by  the  common  law  bills  of  lading  are  transferable  by  delivery,  and 
statutes  in  derogation  thereof  are  strictly  construed,  the  statutes  of  a  state  which 
provide  that  indorsement  and  delivery  of  bills  of  lading  shall  pass  title  should 
not  be  construed  to  mean  that  such  bills  may  not  be  transferred  by  delivery  for 
a  valuable  consideration.-^'^ 

Constitutionality  of  Statute. — State  statutes  regulating  the  transfer  of  bills 
ot  lading  by  written  indorsement,  and  forbidding  the  delivery  of  the  property 
except  on  surrender  of  such  bill  of  lading,  and  imposing  a  penalty  for  violation 
ot  its  proceedings,  is  not  unconstitutional  as  imposing  a  burden  of  interstate 
commerce,  but  valid  in  the  absence  of  national  legislation  inconsistent  therewith.^' 

Where  Demand  for  Delivery  Basis  of  Action  against  Carrier.— Where 


a  bill  of  lading  would  pass  from  the  con- 
signor to  a  purchaser  by  an  indorsement 
and  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  to  the 
vendee.  This  is  but  the  common  doctrine 
affirmed  by  all  the  cases.  Davenport  Nat. 
Bank  z:  Homeyer,  100  Am.  Dec.  363,  45 
Mo.  145. 

Ill{)iois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  South- 
ern   Bank,   41    111.    App.   287. 

Massachusetts.  —  Chandler  v.  Sprague 
(Mass.),  38  Am.  Dec.  404,  40G,  5  Mete. 
306. 

Missouri. — Skilling  v.  Boilman,  G  Mo. 
App.  76,  affirmed  in  73  Mo.  665.  39  Am. 
Rep.  537;  Kirkpatrick  7:  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.  Co..  86  Mo.  341;  Valle  v.  Cerre,  36  Mo. 
575,  88  Am.  Dec.  161;  Davenport  Nat. 
Bank  z:  Homeyer,  45  Mo.  145,  100  Am. 
Dec.  363;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Mc- 
Liney,  32  Mo.  -\pp.  166;  Dickson  z:  Mer- 
chant's Elevator  Co..  44  Mo.  App.  498; 
ScharfT  v.  Meyer.  133  Mo.  428,  34  S.  W. 
858,  54  Am.   St.   Rep.  672. 

Neiv  York. — Gass  v.  Astoria  Veneer 
Mills,  134  App.  Div.  184,  118  N.  Y.  S. 
982. 

Texas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heid- 
enheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  199,  17  S.  \V.  608, 
27  Am.  St.   Rep.  861. 

The  English  bill  of  lading  act  of  1855 
(IS  &  19  \"ict,  c.  Ill),  has  been  construed 
in  the  following  cases:  The  Figlia  Mag- 
giore  L.  R.  2  .\dm.  &  Eccl.  106;  The  Ship 
Freedom  f.  Simmonds,  L.  R.  3  P.  C.  594; 
The  Felix.  L.  R.  2  Adm.  &  Eccl.  273; 
Lewis  r.   M'Kce,   L.   R.  2   Exch.   37;  The 


Mepoter.  L.  R.  1  Adm.  &  Eccl.  375;  Dra- 
cachi  r.  .A.nglo-Egyption  Nav.  Co.,  L.  R. 
3  C.  P.  190;  The  Helene,  B.  &  L.  415; 
Short  v.  Simpson,  L.  R.  1  C.  P.  248; 
Smurthwaite  v.  Wilkins,  11  C.  B.,  N.  S., 
103,  E.  C.  L.  842;  Sewell  z:  Burdick,  L.  R. 
10  App.  74;  Tessel  z:  Bath,  L.  R.  2  Exch. 
267. 

38.  Necessity  and  sufficiency  of  indorse- 
ments or  assignments. — Campbell  z-.  Al- 
ford,  57  Tex.  l.V,);  Adoue  f.  Seeligson  & 
Co.,  54  Tex.  593,  595;  Osborn  f.  Koenig- 
heim,  57  Tex.  91;  National  Bank  z:  Citi- 
zens' Nat.  Bank,  41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  535, 
93  S.  W.  209,  affirmed  in  101  Tex.  650, 
no  op. 

The  general  rule  is  that  delivery,  with- 
out indorsement  of  a  bill  of  lading,  by 
one  entitled  tliereunder  to  the  goods,  will 
transfer  his  title.  McMeekin  v.  Southern 
Railway,   82    S.   C.   468,   64   S.    E.   413. 

39.  Orr  v.  Planters'  Phosphate,  etc..  Co., 
S  Ga.   .\pp.   59,  65,  68  S.   E.  779. 

40.  As  creating  equitable  lien  in  favor 
of  transferee. — Little  Miami,  etc..  R.  Co. 
:.  D.ul.ls  &  Co..  1  C.  S.  C.  47.  13  O.  Dec. 
Reprint   407. 

41.  Statutes  providing  for  indorsement 
do  not  abrogate  common  law. — ScharfT  v. 
Meyer,  \X\  .\lo.  428,  :;4  S.  W.  S5S.  54  Am. 
St.    Rep.   r)T2. 

42.  Constitutionality  of  statute. — Arkan- 
sas, etc.,  R.  Co.  c'.  German  Nat.  Bank,  113 
Am.   St.   Rep.   160,   77   Ark.   482,   92   S.   W. 


§§  533-537  CARRIERS.  366 

a  so-called  demand  for  delivery  was  made  by  the  transferee  of  an  "order  no- 
tify" bill  of  lading  of  a  railroad  company  (which  thereby  agreed  to  transport 
a  certain  shipment  from  and  to  named  points  within  the  state),  before  it  was 
indorsed  bv  the  one  having  the  legal  title  thereto,  such  demand  can  not  be  the 
basis  for  the  ascertainment  of  the  damages  for  a  breach  of  the  contract  of 
carriage."*"' 

Endorsement  "Deliver  to  A."  Sufficient  for  Bill  of  Lading. — Where  a 
bill  of  lading  issued  in  the  usual  form  by  a  railroad  company,  consigning  the 
shipment  to  the  shipper's  order,  with  directions  to  notify  another,  has  on  its 
back  an  endorsement  "Deliver  to  A."  signed  by  the  consignee,  such  endorse- 
ment is  a  valid  and  sufficient  assignment  of  the  bill  of  lading  to  A.-*-* 

§  534.  Necessity  for  Delivery  of  Bill. — An  indorsement  of  the  bill  of 
lading  without  a  delivery  of  it  docs  not  transfer  the  title  to  the  goods.-*^ 

§  53  5.  Sale  or  Payment  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached— Sale 
of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached. — Where  the  owner,  upon  shipment 
of  the  goods  to  his  own  order  at  the  station  of  the  proposed  purchaser,  makes 
a  draft  in  favor  of  a  third  person  on  the  proposed  purchaser  for  the  price  of 
the  goods  and  indorses  the  bill  of  lading  and  delivers  that,  with  the  draft  at- 
tached, to  the  third  person,  for  a  sufficient  consideration,  intending  thereby  to 
sell  the  goods,  the  delivery  of  such  draft  and  bill  of  lading  so  indorsed  will 
convev  to  that  person  the  title  to  the  goods.-**'' 

Payment  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached. — Where  a  buyer  from 
a  consignee  paid  the  latter's  draft  with  a  bill  of  lading  attached,  the  bill  of 
lading  thereafter  belonged  to  the  purchaser,  though  he  did  not  receive  it  until 
subsequently."*" 

§  536.  Attachment  of  Bill  of  Lading. — An  attachment  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing, while  goods  are  in  the  possession  of  the  carrier,  operates  to  carry  the  title 
thereto.'*'^ 

§§   537-539.  Persons    Who    Make    Transfer— §   537.  In    General.— A 

bill  of  lading  can  be  transferred  so  as  to  vest  title  in  the  transferee  only  by 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  issued  or  by  his  authority.  If  transferred  by  stran- 
ger having  no  authority  therefor  no  title  or  right  to  the  property  is  passed  and, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  bona  fide  transferee  for  damages  for  the  loss  he 
sufifered  thereby.'*"'  If  a  stranger  obtains  unauthorized  possession  of  it,  and 
perverts  it  to  unauthorized  uses,  no  one  who  trusts  such  stranger,  and  parts 
with  value  on  the  strength  thereof,  can  claim  damages  of  the  carrier  for  the 
injuries  he  may  thereby  have  suffered.  It  would  be  his  own  fault  and  folly  if 
he  dealt  with  one  having  no  authority  in  the  premises.-^"  A  purchaser  of  a  bill 
of  lading  is  put  on  incjuiry  as  to  the  existence  of  the  parties  to  whom  it  was 

43.  Where  demand  for  delivery  basis  47.  Sale  or  payment  of  draft  with  bill 
of  action  against  carrier. — Albany,  etc.,  of  lading  attached. — Johnson  &  Co.  ?'. 
R.  Co.  V.  Merchants',  etc..  Bank,  137  Ga.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  (Vt.),  79  Atl. 
391,   73    S.    E.   637.  109.5. 

44.  Endorsement  "Deliver  to  A"  suffi-  48.  Attachment  of  bill  of  lading.— Ay- 
cient  for  bill  of  lading.— Allen,  etc.,  Cr).  res,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dorsey  Produce  Co,  r,3 
V.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.   Bank,  129  Ga.  748,  Am.  St.  Rep.  376.  101  Iowa  141,  70  N.  W. 

59   S.  E.  813.  .  Ill-      .^  ^  ,  r  T 

._    ^T  •...     r       J  T  r  u-11      T>    f  49.    Person    who    makes    transfer. — J  as- 

45    Necessity  for  delivery  of  biU.-Buf-  ^^^,^^  ^^,   ^,    j^-.^„^^^  ^.       ^^^^  ^    ^ 

fingtonr.  Curtis,  1.)  Mass.  o28,  8  Am.  Dec.        \^^    ^^^^     g^_    ^  .       ,3,,    ^,^     ^^g     ^^ 

iin'A^^''nP°'i?'^/:   A^^"i/^-    ^^'^^y^y-        So.   546,   4   Am.   &   Eng.    Enc.   Law   549,   6 
100  Am.   Dec.  363,  4.,  Mo.  145.     See  post,        ^yc.  Law  &  Proc.  426. 
Consignor   or   Agent,      §   o.'.9.  '^^     j^^p^^    ^^^^^    ^^     ^,     ^^^^^^    ^-^^^^ 

46.  Sale  of  draft  with  bill  attached  to  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  80,  99 
third  person.— American  Nat.  Bank  7'.  Lee,  Ala.  416,  14  So.  546,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc. 
124  Ga.  863,  53  S.  E.  268.  Law  549,  G  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc.  426. 


367 


HILLS    OF    LADING 


§§  537-55'J 


issued,  and   his   failure  to  so  inquire  and  to  obtain  their  indorsement   is  a  bar 
to  any   chiini    for  damages  against  the  carrier  issuing  it.''^ 

§  538.  Consignee. —  In  strict  law,  the  proper  person  to  pass  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing by  indorsement  is  the  consignee,  not  the  consignor.^-  By  the  well-settled 
principles  of  commercial  law,  the  consignee  is  the  authorized  agent  of  the 
owner,  whoever  he  may  be,  to  recei\e  the  goods,  and  he  may  transfer  the  bill 
of   lading  by   indorsement. ■"'•'• 

§  539.  Consignor  or  Agent. — A  consignor  can  only  transfer  title  by  de- 
livery of  the  bill  of  lading  while  title  to  the  property  is  in  himself.''-*  Strictly 
speaking,  no  person  but  tlie  consignee  can.  by  an  indorsement  on  the  bill  of 
lading,  pass  the  legal  title  to  the  goods;  but  if  the  shipi)er  be  the  owner,  and 
the  shipment  be  on  his  own  account  and  risk,  although  he  may  not  pass  the 
title,  by  virtue  of  a  mere  indorsement  of  the  bill  of  lading,  unless  he  be  the 
consignee,  or  the  goods  be  deliverable  to  his  order;  yet,  by  an  assignment  on 
the  bill  of  lading,  or  by  a  separate  instrument,  he  can  pass  the  legal  title  to  the 
same ;  and  it  will  be  good  against  all  persons,  except  purchasers  for  a  valua- 
ble consideration,  without  notice,  by  indorsement  on  the  bill  of  lading  itself. 
Such  an  assignment  by  the  owner,  passes  the  legal  title  against  his  agents  or 
factors,  and   creditf)rs.  in   favor  of  the  assignee. •'•' 

Where  Shipper  Reserves  Jus  Disponendi. — By  the  rules  of  commercial 
law,  a  bill  of  lading  is  regarded  as  the  symbol  of  the  property  therein  described; 
•and  a  consignor  who  has  reserved  the  jus  disponendi  may  effectuate  a  sale  or 
pledge  of  the  property  consigned,  by  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  to  the  pur- 
chaser or  pledgee,  as  completely  as  if  the  property  were  in  fact,  delivered.  If 
such  transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  be  made  after  the  property  has  pass  into 
the  actual  possession  of  the  consignee,  the  transferee  of  the  bill  takes  it  sub- 
ject to  anv  right  or  lien  which  the  consignee  may  have  acquired  by  reason  of 
his  ]:)Ossession.  I'ut  if  the  bill  of  lading  be  transferred  by  way  of  sale  or  pledge 
to  a  third  person,  before  the  ])roperty  comes  into  the  possession  of  the  con- 
signee, the  consignee  takes  the  property  subject  to  any  right  which  the  trans- 
feree of  the  bill  may  have  acquired  by  the  symbolic  delivery  of  the  property 
to  him.'""'     If  the  right  to  control  the  property  be  reserved  by  the  shipper,  the 


51.  lasper  Trust  Co.  v.  Kansas  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  76.  99 
Ala.  416,  14  So.  546,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc. 
Law  549,  6  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc.  426. 

52.  Consignee. — Tison  z:  Howard,  57 
Ga.  410.  Sec,  also.  Bass  v.  Glover,  6:i 
Ga.  745. 

53.  Conard  r.  Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  (U.  S.). 
1   Pet.  386.  387,  7   L.   Ed.   1S9. 

Ohio. — Page  &  Co.  v.  Sandusky,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print 716;  Jordan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  James,  5  O. 
88;  Little  Miami,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Dodds  & 
Co.,  1  C.  S.  C.  47,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
407. 

.\  consignee  upon  a  hill  of  lading  to 
himself,  or  assigns,  ol)tains  a  property 
in  tlie  consignment  by  the  hill  of  lading, 
and  may  sell  and  transfer  a  title,  while 
the  goods  are  in  transit,  liefore  they  ever 
come  to  his  actual  possession,  by  indorse- 
ing  tlie  bill  of  lading,  notwithstanding 
they  have  not  been  paid  for.  The  mo- 
ment goods  are  delivered  liy  A.  to  a  car- 
rier, to  be  forwarded  to  B.  the  prop- 
erty vests  in  B.  Jordan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  James, 
5    O.    88;    Little    Miami,    etc..    R.    Co.    ■:•. 


Dodds  &  Co.,  1  C.  S.  C.  R.  47,  13  O.  Dec. 
Reprint  407. 

54.  Maine  Bank  of  Buffalo  v.  Barringer, 
46    Pa.   Sup.    Ct.    510. 

55.  Conard  v.  Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  (U.  S.), 
1    Pet.   386.   387,  7   L.   Ed.   189. 

Tlie  deliver}'  of  a  bill  of  lading  by  the 
consignor  operates  as  a  transfer  of  the 
property  or  some  interest  therein  onl)' 
where  there  is  a  stipulation  in  the  bill 
itself  whereby  an  ownership  is  retained 
by  the  consignor.  Bonds-Foster  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  101  Pac. 
877.    53    Wash.    :!():?. 

56.  Where  shipper  reserves  jus  dispon- 
endi.— See  ante,  "Right  of  Disposal  Re- 
tained l)y  Consignor,"  §§  527-528.  ScharfT 
z:  Meyer.  54  Am.  St.  Rep.  672,  133  Mo. 
428.  34  S.  W.  858;  Emery's  Sons  z:  Irving 
Nat.  Bank.  25  O.  St.  360.  IS  Am.  Rep. 
299. 

Ohio. — Emery's  Sons  f.  Irving  Nat. 
Bank.  25  O.  St.  360.  18  Am.  Rep.  299.  fol- 
lowed in  26  O.  St.  641.  reversing  in  part 
1  C.  S.  C.  R.  76.  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint  425; 
Pomeroy.  etc..  Co.  z:  Will.  2  Am.  L.  Rec. 
1.  5  O.  Dec.  Reprint  34. 

"As    between    the    consignor    and    con- 


§  539 


CARRIERS. 


368 


carrier  must  be  regarded  as  his  agent;  if  not,  then  as  the  agent  of  the  con- 
signee.^" 

Question  of  Reservation  of  Jus  Disponendi  One  of  Intention.— if  the 
consignment  be  made  by  a  vendor  to  a  vendee,  the  question  wliether  the  con- 
signor reserved  the  jus  disponendi  is  one  of  intention,  to  be  gathered  from  all 
the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  transaction.^^  On  such  question  of  inten- 
tion, the  terms  of  the  bill  of  lading  are  to  be  taken  as  admissions  of  the  con- 
signor, and  are  entitled  to  great  weight,  but  are  not  conclusive. ^»  Nor  is  the 
fact  tiiat  the  consignee  had  contracted  with  the  carrier  for  special  rates  of 
freight  conclusive  that  the  goods  were  delivered  by  the  consignor  to  such  car- 
rier as  the  a^ent  of  the  consignee.'^'^ 

Bill  of  Lading  Never  Delivered  to  Consignee.— If  a  bill  of  lading  in  fa- 
vor of  the  consignee,  although  such  consignee  be  the  agent  or  factor  of  the 
consignor,  may  be  transferred  by  the  consignor  by  delivery  for  a  valuable  con- 
sideration, in  the  absence  of  statutory  inhibition,  such  bill  in  favor  of  a  con- 
signee who  is  a  purchaser,  when  retained  by  the  consignor,  may  be  transferred 
in  the  same  way.  If  extraneous  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  the  real  in- 
tent of  the  consignor  as  to  the  retention  of  the  title  of  the  goods  covered  by 
the  bill  in  the  one  case,  it  must  be  in  the  other.*^! 

Bill  Sent  to  Agent  for  Delivery  to  Consignee  or  Payment  of  Purchase 
Price. — The  consignor  frequently  sends  to  a  consignee  a  bill  not  indorsed,  and 
then  sends  to  his  own  agent  in  or  within  reach  of  the  same  port  an  indorsed 
bill — it  may  be  indorsed  in  blank,  or  to  the  agent,  or  to  the  party  ordering  the 
goods — and  the  consignor  sends  to  his  agent  with  the  bill  orders  to  deliver  the 
bill  to  the  party  ordering  the  goods,  or  to  receive  the  goods  and  deliver  them 
to  him,  provided  payment  be  made  or  secured,  or  such  other  terms  as  the  con- 
signor prescribes  are  complied  with.     This  course  secures  to  the  consignor,  be- 


signee.  the  bill  of  lading  can  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  contract  in  writing,  but  merely 
as  an  admission  or  declaration  on  the  part 
of  the  consignor  as  to  his  purpose,  at 
the  time,  in  making  the  shipment,  and 
such  admission  is  subject  to  be  rebutted 
by  other  circumstances  connected  with 
the  transaction.  By  the  rules  of  commer- 
cial law,  bills  of  lading  are  regarded  as 
symbols  of  the  property  therein  described, 
and  the  delivery  of  such  bill  by  one  hav- 
ing an  interest  in  or  a  right  to  control  the 
property  is  equivalent  to  a  delivery  of 
the  property  itself.  A  consignor  who  has 
reserved  the  jus  disponendi  may  effectu- 
ate a  sale  or  pledge  of  the  property  con- 
signed, by  delivery  of  the  bill  of  sale  to 
the  purchaser  or  pledgee,  as  completely 
as  if  the  property  were,  in  fact,  deliv- 
ered." Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299,  fol- 
lowed in  26  O.  St.  641,  reversing  in  part 
1  C.  S.  C.  R.  76,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint  425; 
Hobart  &  Co.  v.  Littlefield  Bros.,  13  R. 
I.   341. 

57.  Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299;  followed 
in  26  O.  St.  641  (reversing  in  part  1  C. 
S.    C.    R.   76,    13    O.    Dec.    Reprint   425).  _ 

58.  Question  of  reservation  of  jus  dis- 
ponendi one  of  intention. — Emery's  Sons 
V.  Irving  Bank,  25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep. 
299,  followed  in  26  O.  St.  641  (reversing 
in  part  1  C.  S.  C.  R.  76,  13  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print   425). 


59.  Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299,  followed 
in  26  O.  St.  641  (reversing  in  part  1  C.  S. 
C.   R.   76,  13   O.  Dec.  Reprint  425). 

60.  Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299,  followed 
in  26  O.  St.  641  (reversing  in  part  1  C.  S. 
C.  R.  76,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint  425). 

61.  Bill  of  lading  never  transferred  to 
consignee. — Scharff  v.  Meyer,  54  Am.  St. 
Rep.  672,  682,  133  Mo.  428,  34  S.  W.  858. 
See  ante,  "Bill  Not  Delivered  to  Con- 
signee,"  §   505. 

If  the  owner  of  merchandise  deliver  it 
to  a  common  carrier  to  be  carried  and 
delivered  to  a  named  consignee,  and  take 
from  the  carrier  a  bill  of  lading,  consign- 
ing such  merchandise  absolutely  to  such 
consignee,  omitting  all  words  of  negotia- 
bility, as  "or  bearer,"  etc.,  but  does  not 
deliver  or  send  any  bill  of  lading  to  the 
consignee,  but  retains  the  same  himself, 
the  carrier  is  his  agent  alone,  and  he  may 
pledge  or  transfer  the  goods,  by  pledging 
or  transferring  the  bill  of  lading,  at  any 
time  before  such  goods  come  into  the 
possession  of  the  consignee,  no  matter 
what  contract  in  relation  to  the  goods 
may  exist,  or  what  the  general  state  of 
accounts  may  be  between  the  consignor 
and  the  consignee.  Pomeroy,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Will,  2  Am.  L.  Rec.  1.  5  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print 34. 


369 


BILLS    OF     LADIN'G. 


§§  539-541 


yoiid  all  question,  the  right  and  power  of  retaining  the  goods  until  the  price 
for  them  he  paid  or  secured  to  him.''- 

§  540.  Consideration. — A  hill  (jf  lading  is  a  negotiahle  instrument,  un- 
der Louisiana  Acts  1S68,  p.  193,  No.  150,  and  may  he  transferred  for  an  antece- 
dent or  ])re-existing  deht,  or  for  any  consideration  sufficient  to  support  a  simple 
contract,  under  Acts   1904,  ]).   152,  Xo.  64.  §  24.*'-'' 

§§   541-576.  Effect    of    Transfer— §    541.    In    General.— The    transfer 

of  a  hill  of  lading  does  not  create  any  contract  relation  hetueen  the  transferee 
and  the  huyer,  nor  affect  the  rights  of  the  huyer  and  the  seller  as  between  them- 
selves."-* The  assignment  of  a  hill  of  lading  operates  as  a  transfer  of  the  title 
of  the  goods  therein  described.  A  transfer  of  the  ownership  of  the  property 
covered  by  a  bill  of  lading  as  well  as  of  the  right  of  possession  is  made  as  ef- 
fectually by  the  transfer  of  the  bill  as  it  could  be  by  a  physical  delivery  of  the 
])ropcrt}'.''"' 

Efifect  of  Indorsement  and  Delivery. — The  indorsement  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing to  a  shipper's  order  vests  the  title  to  tlie  goods  in  the  transferee  as  pur- 
chaser or  pledgee,  as  the  case  may  be.''''  A  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  by  in- 
dorsement, accompanied  by  a  delivery  of  it,  passes  to  the  transferee  the  title 
of   the   transferrer   to  the   pro])erty   described   therein   and   nothing  more.*^"      A 


62.  Bill  sent  to  agent  for  delivery  to 
consignee  on  payment  of  purchase  price. 
— Weyand  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 
Am.  St.  Rep.  .504,  .509,  75  Iowa  573,  39  N. 
W.   899,    1    L.    R.    A.    ()50. 

63.  Consideration.  ^  Scheuermann  v. 
Monarch  Fruit  Co.,  123  La.  55,  48  So.  647. 
Sec  post,  "l^ledge.  Mortgage  or  Collateral 
Security,"   §   577. 

64.  Hawkins  z:  Alfalfa  Products  Co.,  152 
Ky.  152,  153  S.  W.  201,  44  L.  R.  A..  X. 
S.,    600. 

65.  United  States. — Means  z'.  Bank,  146 
U.  S.  620,  627.  36  L.  Ed.  1107,  13  S.  Ct. 
186;  Conard  v.  Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  (U.  S.), 
1  Pet.  386,  7  L.  Ed.  189;  Dows  v.  National 
Exch.  Bank.  91  U.  S.  618.  23  L.  Ed.  214; 
Allen  V.  St.  Louis  Nat.  Bank,  120  U.  S. 
20,  36,  30  L.   Ed.   573.  7   S.   Ct.  460. 

AlahaiiKi. — -"The  transferee  simply  ac- 
quires the  title  of  the  transferrer  to  the 
goods  described  in  them.  Commercial 
Bank  v.  Hurt,  99  Ala.  130.  42  Am.  St. 
Rep.  38,  12  So.  568,  19  L.  R.  A.  701;  Jas- 
per Trust  Co.  7'.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
99  Ala.  416.  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75,  14  So. 
546,  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.  Law  549.  6  Cyc. 
Law  &  Proc.  426;  Haas  v.  Citizens'  Bank, 
113  Am.  St.  Rep.  61,  144  Ala.  562,  39  So. 
129.  1  L.   R.  A.,  N.   S.,  242. 

lozva. — Garden  Grove  Bank  v.  Humes- 
ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa  526,  25  N.  W. 
761,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  695;  Ayres, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Dorsey  Produce  Co.,  63  Am. 
St.  Rep.  376,  101    Iowa   141.  70  N.  W.  111. 

Maine. — Winslow  v.  Norton.  29  Me.  419, 
50   .\n\.    Dec.    601. 

}fassachusetts. — R  o  w  1  e  y  z'.  Bigelow 
(Alass.).  12  Pick.  307,  23  '.\m.  Dec.  606; 
Chandler  z\  Sprague  (Mass.).  38  Am.  Dec. 
404,   5   Mete.   306. 

Missouri. — "Bills    of   lading,   by    the    law 

1    Car— 24 


merchant,  are  representatives  of  the  prop- 
erty for  which  they  have  been  given,  and 
the  indorsement  and  delivery  of  a  bill  of 
lading  transfers  the  property  from  the  ven- 
dor to  the  vendee;  is  a  complete  legal 
delivery  of  the  goods;  divests  the  vendor's 
lien."  Skilling  v.  Bollman,  39  Am.  Rep. 
537,  538,  73  Mo.  665.  See,  "As  Defeating 
Stoppage   in  Transitu,"  §  567 

By  the  Missouri  act  of  1869,  any  person 
to  whom  a  warehouse  receipt  or  bill  of 
lading  may  be  transferred  shall  be  deemed 
and  held  to  be  the  owner  of  the  goods 
so  far  as  to  give  validity  to  any  pledge, 
lien  or  transfer  given,  made  or  created 
thereby,  as  on  the  faith  thereof.  Allen 
V.  St.  Louis  Nat.  Bank,  120  U.  S.  20,  36. 
30   L.    Ed.   573.  7   S.   Ct.  460. 

Xebraska. — Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  42  Neb.  379,  60  N.  W.  583.  61  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  218;  Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 
v.  Johnston.  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  540,  546,  45 
Neb.    57,    63    N.    W.    144. 

Xczi.'  York. — Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Logan.  74  N.  Y.  568;  Bank  v.  Jones.  4  N. 
Y.  497,  55  Am.  Dec.  290. 

Penns\lvama. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Stern.  119  Pa.  24.  12  Atl.  756,  35  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  551.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  626; 
Decan  v.  Shipper,  35  Pa.  239.  78  Am.  Dec. 
334. 

'A'.vaj.— Chandler  v.  Fulton.  10  Tex.  2. 
10.  60  Am.  Dec.  188;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  \V. 
60S.  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  861. 

66.  Scheuermann  v.  Monarch  Fruit  Co., 
123    La.   55,   48   So.    647. 

67.  United  5" /a/<'.y.— McNeil  v.  Hill,  1  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    8914.    Woolw.    96. 

Georgia. — Askew  &  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
Co..  1  Ga.  App.  79.  81,  58  S.  E.  242. 

Ohio. — Little     Miami,      etc.,    R.     Co.     v. 


§§  541-543 


CARRIER? 


370 


title  thus  acquired  is  as  efifectual  iu  law  as  it  would  be  if  based  upon  an  ex- 
press and  completed  contract  of  sale,«^^  for  the  indorsement  and  delivery  of  a 
bill  of  lading  are  merely  evidence  of  a  sale.«» 

§   542.  As  Transfer  of  Contract  between  Consignor  and  Consignee. 

The  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  is  not  a  transfer  of  the  contract  between  the 

original  parties  to  it.  but  merely  a  transfer  of  the  goods  represented  by  it ; '" 
therefore,  the  assignee  of  such  an  instrument  can  not  maintain  an  action 
founded  upon  it  as  a  contract  in  his  own  name.'^ 

Shipment  in  Pursuance  of  Contract  of  Sale. — Where,  in  a  written  con- 
tract between  two  parties,  one  buys  from  the  other  at  a  stipulated  price  goods 
to  be  shipped,  and  the  carrier  issues  to  the  seller  a  bill  of  lading  therefor  con- 
signing the  shipment  to  his  order,  which  the  latter  transfers  to  a  third  person, 
such  transfer  alone  does  not  entitle  such  third  person  to  sue  the  buyer. on  the 
contract   for  the  purchase  price."- 

Under  a  statute  authorizing  the  real  party  in  interest  to  sue  in  his 
own  name  on  any  contract  which  has  been  transferred  to  him,  the  com- 
mon-law rule  that  the  assignment  of  a  bill  of  lading  does  not  transfer  rights 
upon  the  contract,  and  that  an  action  founded  on  the  express  contract  con- 
tained in  the  instrument  must  be  brought  by  the  original  party  to  the  contract, 
does  not  apply.'" 

§  543.  Operation  as  Constructive  Delivery  of  Goods. — Bills  of  lading 
when  transferred  operate  as  a  delivery  of  the  property  itself  investing  the 
transferee  with  a  constructive  possession  which  serves  all  the  purposes  of  ac- 
tual possession  and  so  continues  until  there  is  a  valid  and  complete  delivery  of 
the  property,  under  and  in  pursuance  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  to  the  persons 
entitled  to   receive  the   same."^ 


Dodds  &  Co.,  1  C.  S.  C.  47,  13  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print  407. 

Texas. — Landa  v.  Lattin,  19  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  246,  250,  46  S.  W.  48;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  19.5,  199, 
17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  861;  Mer- 
cantile Banking  Co.  v.  Landa  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),   33   S.   W.   681. 

68.  Mercantile  Banking  Co.  v.  Landa 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33  S.  \V.  681. 

69.  Indorsement  and  delivery  merely 
evidence  of  sale. — Page  &  Co.  v.  San- 
dusk}-,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  ii44,  2 
O.    Dec.    Reprint   716. 

70.  As  transfer  between  consignor  and 
consignee. — Orr  v.  Planters'  Phospliate, 
etc.,    Co.,   8   Ga.   App.   59,   68   S.    E.   779. 

71.  Bahimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkens, 
44  Md.  11,  22  Am.  Rep.  26;  Blanchard  v. 
Page  (Mass.),  8  Grav  281;  Adams  v.  Brig 
Pilgrim,  10  West  L.  J.  141,  1  O.  Dec.  477; 
Second  Nat.  Bank  v.  Walbridge,  19  O. 
St.    419,    2   Am.    Rep.    408. 

72.  Shipment  in  pursuance  of  sale. — Al- 
len, etc.,  Co.  V.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank, 
129   Ga.   748,   59   S.    E.   m1:5. 

73.  Statute  authorizing  assignee  to  sue. 
—Merchants'  Bank  z\  L'nion  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
69    N.    Y.    373. 

74.  Operation  as  constructive  delivery 
of  goods. — United  States.— The  Thames 
(U.    S.j,   14   Wall.   98,   20  L.   Ed.   804. 

Arkansas. — Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ger- 
man Nat.  Bank,  113  .\m.  St.  Rep.  160,  77 
Ark.    482,    92    S.   W.    522. 


Colorado. — Florence,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jen- 
sen, 48   Colo.   28,   108   Pac.   974. 

Georgia. — Branan  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    108    Ga.    70,    33    S.    E.    836. 

The  assignment  of  a  bill  of  lading  con- 
stitutes a  symbolical  delivery  of  the  goods 
themselves.  Branan  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  108  Ga.  70,  33  S.   E.  836. 

Massachusetts. — Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154. 

Massachusetts  sales  act. — A  negotiable 
bill  of  lading  represents  the  property,  and 
tlie  receipt  of  it  by  one  is  equivalent  to 
an  actual  delivery  of  the  property,  and 
this  rule  is  recognized  by  the  sales  act 
(St.  1908,  c.  237),  making  a  negotiable  bill 
of  lading  a  document  of  title,  which  on 
indorsement  passes  the  property  as  a  di- 
rect delivery  thereof.  Brown  v.  Floer- 
sheim  Mercantile  Co.,  92  N.  E.  494,  206 
Mass.  373. 

Michigan. — Walker  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  49  Mich.  446.   13  N.  W.  812. 

Missouri. — A  bill  of  lading  is  assignable, 
such  an  assignment  constituting  in  the 
law  a  complete  legal  delivery  of  the  goods 
thereby  evidenced  to  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  carrier,  as  effectually  as  an  actual  sale 
and  delivery  thereof.  Gratiot  St.  Ware- 
house Co.  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  S. 
W.   11,   124   Mo.  App.   545. 

Xebra ska. —Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
ston, 45  Neb.  57,  63  N.  W.  144,  50  Am. 
St.    Rep.    540;    Gates   v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 


371 


nil.LS     (Jl"     LADING. 


§  344 


§§  544-576.  Rights  and  Title  of  Holder  Generally— §  544.  In  Gen- 
eral—  General  Doctrine.  —  In  the  absence  of  any  siatnie  changing  ihe  com- 
mon law  a  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading,  where  such  is  the  intention  of  the  par- 
ties, passes  to  the  transferee  all  the  title  to  the  goods  described  in  it  that  the 
transferror  had  at  the  time  of  assignment  no  other  or  better  title."-"'  A  bill  of  lad- 
ing not  being  commercial  jiaper,  the  transferee  merely  acquires  the  title  of  the 
transferror  to  the  goods  described/''  unless  the  true  owner  is  estopped  from  as- 
serting his  titles  as  against  the  transferee.""     A  bill  of  lading  as  a  mere  docu- 


Co.,  42  Neb.  379,  (iO  X.  \V.  J.s:{,  til  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.   218. 

Ohio. — Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat. 
Bank,  18  Am.  Rep.  299,  303,  25  O.  St.  3(iO. 

Peiinsvhania. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Stern,  119  Ta.  24,  12  Atl.  75G,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.    r)2r,,   35   Am.   &    Eng.    R.    Cas.   551. 

Tennessee. — Third  Xat.  Bank  v.  Hays, 
119  Tenn.  729.  108  S.  W.  lOGO,  14  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1049. 

Te.vas. — The  assignment  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing, indorsed  thereon,  accompanied  by  de- 
livery of  the  instrument,  passes  to  the 
assignee  title  to  the  goods,  though  actu- 
ally in  transit,  as  complete  as  if  they  had 
passed  through  the  buyer's  hands  and 
been  delivered  l)odily  to  the  assignee. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  82 
Tex.  195.  17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 
801;  Adoue  z:  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex. 
593. 

In  commercial  transactions  l)ills  of  lad- 
ing, to  a  very  large  extent,  are  regarded 
as  the  representatives  of  the  goods  cov- 
ered by  them,  and  where  they  are  in- 
dorseci  and  delivered  with  the  intention 
of  passing  the  title  to  them,  it  is  a  sym- 
bolic or  constructive  delivery  of  the  goods 
themselves.  Campbell  v.  Alford,  57  Tex. 
159,    IGl. 

The  assignment  of  a  bill  of  lading  by 
the  consignee,  by  way  of  sale  or  mort- 
gage will  pass  the  property,  though  no 
actual  delivery  of  the  goods  be  made  (pro- 
vided they  were  then  at  sea).  Chandler 
r.   Fulton.   10  Tex.   2,   I'.O  Am.   Dec.    ISS. 

75.  Effect  of  transfer  of  bill  of  lading. — 
United  States. — The  Carlos  F.  Roses,  177 
U.  S.  65,  44  L.  Ed.  929,  20  S.  Ct.  803; 
Pollard  V.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed. 
998:  Shaw  r.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  557, 
25  L.  Ed.  892;  Friedlander  v.  Texas,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  416.  32  L.  Ed.  991,  9  S. 
Ct.  570;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFad- 
den,  154  U.  S.  155.  38  L.  Ed.  944.  14  S. 
Ct.  990;  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  31 
L.   Ed.   287,  8  S.   Ct.  266. 

Alabama. — Jasper  Trust  Co.  v.  Kansas 
City,  etc..  R.  Co.,  99  .\la.  416,  14  So.  546, 
42  Am.  St.  Rep.  75.  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc. 
Law  549,  6  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc.  p.  42(). 

Georgia. — Raleigh,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe, 
101  Ga.  320,  28  S.  E.  867;  Haas  v.  Kansas 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81   Ga.  792,  7  S.   E.  629. 

Except  where  the  rules  of  the  common 
law  and  mercantile  usage  have  been  modi- 
fied  by   statute,   the   transfer   of  a   bill   of 


lading  by  indorsement  and  delivery  passes 
lo  the  indorsee  only  such  rights  to,  or 
property  in,  the  goods  covered  by  the 
bill  as  the  transferrer  himself  has  and  as 
it  is  the  intention  of  the  parties  shall  be 
conveyed.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe, 
101    Ga.   320,  28   S.    E.   867. 

Maryland. — National  Bank  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  .Am.  St.  Rep.  321,  59  Atl. 
134,    99    Md.    661. 

\'e't<.'  York. — Saltus  v.  Everett  (X.  Y.), 
20  Wend.   267,   32  Am.   Dec.   541. 

Missouri. — Webster  v.  Bear,  141  Mo. 
App.   531,   125  S.   W.  815. 

In  the  absence  of  any  statute,  the 
transferee  of  a  negotiable  bill  of  lading 
acquires  no  better  title  to  the  goods  rep- 
resented thereby  than  his  transferror  had, 
unless  the  true  owner  is  estopped  from 
asserting  his  right  as  against  the  trans- 
feree, for  the  negotiability  of  a  bill  of 
lading  means  assignability  so  far  as  the 
written  contract  of  carriage  is  concerned, 
and,  so  far  as  the  goods  described  in  the 
I)ill  are  concerned,  a  conveyance  of  such 
title  thereto  as  the  transferror  had.  Gass 
V.  Astoria  Veneer  Mills,  118  X.  Y.  S, 
982,    134    App.    Div.    184. 

Ohio. — Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Xat. 
Bank.  25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299, 
followed  in  26  O.  St.  641  (reversing  in 
part  1  C.  S.  C.  R.  76,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
4:j5). 

Pennsylvania. — A  bill  of  lading  takes 
the  place  of  the  property  described 
therein,  and  an  assignment  of  it  gives  to 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  transferred  such 
title  as  the  assignor  had,  and  this  only 
when  it  is  the  intention  of  the  parties 
that  such  change  of  title  shall  take  ef- 
fect. Marine  Nat.  Bank  of  Buffalo  v. 
Baringer,  46   Pa.   Super.   Ct.  510. 

South  Carolina. — Assignment  of  a  bill 
of  lading  by  the  owner  thereof  carries 
the  title  to  the  goods  covered  by  it. 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  McSwain,  93  S.  C. 
30,   75    S.    E.    1106. 

Te.vas. — Landa  r.  Lattin.  19  Tex.  Civ, 
App.  246,  46  S.  W.  48;  Nashville,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Grayson  County  Xat.  Bank  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  91  S.  W.  1106.  judgment  re- 
versed  in   93   S.  W.  431,   100  Tex.   17. 

J'.ngland.  —  Lickbarrow  v.  Mason,  6 
East.   21. 

76.  First  Nat.  Bank  z:  Wilkesbarre 
Lace  Mfg.  Co..  162  Ala.  309,  50  So.   153. 

77.  Gass  V.  Astoria  \'eneer  Mills,  134 
App.   Div.   184,   lis    X.   Y.   S.  9S2. 


544 


CAURIKRS. 


372 


nient  is  valueless,  of  consequence  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  evidence  of  title 
to  something  in  somebody.  Its  transfer  is  the  transfer  of  the  title  to  the 
thing  described  in  it,  and  whatever  equities  exist  between  the  parties  to  it  with 
respect  to  the  title  of  the  property  which  it  purports  to  represent,  will  follow 
that  property  into  the  hands  of  the  assignee  of  the  bill  of  lading,  unless  some 
other  legal  or  equitable  principle  intervenes  to  preclude  the  assertion  of  a  prior 
right  as  against  a  bona  fide  assignee  for  value ;  but  the  assignee  of  a  non-nego- 
tiable bill  of  lading  is  not  subject  to  the  equities  of  third  persons  whose  claims 
do  not  appear  upon  and  are  in  no  way  connected  with  the  bill."*^ 

Title  Same  as  That  Acquired  by  Transfer  of  Goods  Themselves. — The 
delivery  or  negotiation  of  the  bill  produces  no  greater  effect  than  would  the 
delivery  of  the  goods  it  represents,  and  the  right  conferred  by  the  indorsement 
will  be  limited  to  that  which  might  have  been  exercised  by  the  indorsee  had 
the  goods  themselves  been  transferred  instead  of  the  bill.'^'^  The  transfer  of  a 
bill  of  lading,  then,  by  the  person  in  possession  of  the  instrument,  can  give  no 
higher  title  than  would  the  transfer  of  the  property  itself  by  the  same  per- 
son.'*" and  the  presumption  as  to  ownership  arising  from  the  bill  may  be  ex- 
plained or  rebutted  by  evidence  showing  where  the  real  ownership  lies. 

Goods  Billed  to  Shipper's  Order. — Seller's  negotiation  of  bill  of  lading 
for  shi])mcnt  consigned  to  its  owner's  order  vests  the  legal  title  to  the  ship- 
ment in  a  transferee. '*i  But  the  indorsee  or  assignee  must  trace  his  title  back 
to  its  true  owner.     He  has  no  greater  right  than  the  true  owner.^'*- 

Statement  Showing  Title  of  Consignor  Attached  to  Bill.— AX'here  a 
shipper  attached  to  the  bill  of  lading  a  statement  showing  his  real  interest  in 
the  goods,  he  is  not  estopped  by  negligence  from  asserting  his  title  against  the 
transferee  of  the  party  in  possession  thereof.^^ 

Certified  Order  for  Delivery. — \Vhere  the  consignee  of  grain  surrendered 
the  bills  of  lading  to  the  local  freight  agent,  and  took  certified  orders  therefor, 
and  obtained  advances  from  a  bank  on  the  security  of  drafts  accompanied  by 
the  certified  orders,  the  title  to  the  grain  was  transferred  to  the  bank,^^  and 
such  certified  order  was  notice  to  the  carrier  of  the  bank's  rights.''-^ 


78.  National  Bank  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  105  Am.  St.  Rep.  321,  59  Atl. 
134.   99  Md.   061. 

79.  Title  same  as  acquired  by  transfer 
of  goods.  —  Massachusetts.  —  Rowley  v. 
Bifjelow  (Mass.),  12  Pick.  307,  23  Am. 
Dec.  G06;  Mechanics'  Bank  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y.  599,  11  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  570;  Brower  v.  Peabody,  13  N.  Y. 
121;   Dows  V.   Perrin,   16  N.  Y.  325. 

The  assignee  of  a  bill  of  lading  can 
not  acquire  a  better  title  to  the  prop- 
erty thus  symbolically  delivered,  than 
his  assignor  had  at  the  time  of  assign- 
ment. Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat.  Bank, 
25   O.   St.   360,    18   Am.    Rep.    299. 

The  right  conferred  by  the  indorse- 
ment of  a  bill  of  lading  is  limited  to  that 
which  might  have  been  exercised  by  the 
indorsee,  had  the  goods  themselves  been 
transferred.  Franklin  Trust  Co.  v.  Phil- 
adelphia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  222  Pa.  96,  70  Atl. 
949.   22    L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,   828. 

80.  Seward  &  Co.  v.  Miller,  106  Va. 
309,   55    S.    E.   681. 

81.  Reed  v.  Racine  Boat  Co.  (Iowa), 
137   N.  W.  458. 

82.  Douglas  v.  People's  Bank,  9  Am. 
St.   Rep.   276,   86  Ky.   176,   5   S.  W.   420,   10 


Ky.   L.   Rep.  243,   32  Am.   &   Eng.    R.   Cas. 
510. 

83.  Statement  showing  consignor's  in- 
terest attached  to  bill. — I'laintiff  sold  to 
F.  347  cases  of  eggs,  and,  at  direction 
of  F.,  shipped  them  consigned  to  defend- 
ant. In  the  same  car  plaintiff  shipped 
52  other-  cases  of  eggs;  and  attached  to 
the  bill  of  lading,  accompanying  the  draft 
for  the  347  cases  drawn  on  F.,  a  state- 
ment showing  this  fact,  and  that  the 
52  cases  were  consigned  to  defendant 
for  sale  on  plaintiff's  account.  Held,  that 
this  was  such  precaution  to  notify  the 
consignee  of  the  facts  that  plaintiff  was 
not  estopped  to  assert  title  to  the  52 
cases  against  F.'s  transferee  of  the  bill 
of  lading.  Webster  v.  Bear,  141  Mo. 
App.    531.    125    S.   W.   815. 

84.  Certified  orders  for  delivery.— Na- 
tional Newark  Banking  Co.  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L.  774,  58  Atl.  311, 
60  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  595,  103  Am.  St.  Rep. 
825. 

85.  National  Newark  Banking  Co.  v. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L.  774, 
58  Atl.  311,  66  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  595,  103 
Am.   St.   Rep.  825. 


Z7Z 


i:iLLS    (Jl'     LADIXG. 


§§  545-550 


§§   545-546.  No    Goods    Delivered   to    Carrier— §   545.  In   General.— 

If  tlic  <((j(j(ls  were  not  (lcli\  c-rcd  U)  llic  agciil  of  ilic  carrier  wlien  he  (ieli\ered 
the  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  is  not  liable.***^ 

§  546.  Title  to  Goods  Not  Shipped  or  Included  in  Bill.— The  trans- 
feree of  the  bill  of  lading  gels  only  the  title  to  the  thing  shipped  or  included 
in  the  bill  of  lading,  does  not  get  a  title  to  what  shoidd  have  been  shipped,  or 
to  something  which  the  vendor  agreed  to  ship,  and  which  is  not  embraced  in 
the  bill  of  lading.*^" 

§  547.  Goods  Shipped  without  Authority  of  Owner. — If  a  person  with- 
out authority  from  the  owner  of  goods  ships  tiiem  and  takes  a  bill  of  lading  in 
his  own  name,  he  can  not,  by  assigning  that  bill  of  lading  to  another,  divest 
the  owner's  title  to  the  property;  even  in  favor  of  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for 
value,    without   notice.'^'^ 

§  548.  Assignment  Made  after  Arrival  of  Goods. — The  assignment  of 
a  bill  of  lading  to  bona  tide  holder  for  a  valuable  consideration  will  vest  the 
legal  interest  of  the  consignee  in  the  assignee,  although  the  assignment  be  made 
after  the  arrival  of  tlie  goods.'"*'^ 

§§  549-552.  Bona  Fide  Holders— §  549.  General  Rule.— The  doc- 
trine of  bona  hde  purchasers  only  applies  to  the  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading 
in  a  limited  sense.  '"^  By  indorsement  of  the  bill  of  lading  to  a  bona  fide  pur- 
chaser, for  a  valuable  consideration,  without  notice  of  any  adverse  interests, 
the  latter  becomes,  as  against  all  the  world,  the  owner  of  the  goods;  so  far  as 
equities  between  the  original  parties  thereto  are  concerned ;  ■•!  but  inquiry  into 
the  transaction  in  which  the  bill  originated  is  not  precluded  because  it'  came 
into  the  hands  of  persons  who  may  have  innocentlv  paid  \alue  for  it.-'- 

§   550.  Effect  of  Statutes  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Negotiable.— As  a 

general   rule,   where   I)ills   of   lading  are  made   negotiable   by   statute,   the  holder 


86.  No  goods  delivered  to  carrier. — ■ 
Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64 
Minn.  245,  66  N.  W.  988,  58  Am.  St. 
Rep.  530;  National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  20 
Am.  St.  Rep.  566,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  263. 
See  ante,  "As  against  Bona  Fide  Con- 
signee   or    Transferee,"    §§    431-437. 

87.  Title  to  goods  not  shipped  or  in- 
cluded in  bill. — Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v. 
First  Nat.  Bank,  171  Ala.  392,  54  So. 
621,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  Ann.  Cas. 
1913    B,    42. 

88.  Saltus  V.  Everett  (N.  Y.),  20  Wend. 
267.   32    Am.    St.    Rep.    .')41. 

89.  Assignment  made  after  arrival  of 
goods. — Chandler  v.  Belden,  18  John.  157, 
9  Am.   Dec.   193. 

90.  General  rule. — Pollard  v.  Vinton, 
105   U.   S.   7,   26   L.    Ed.   998. 

91.  United  States. — Conard  v.  Atlantic 
Ins.  Co.  (U.  S.),  1  Pet.  386,  7  L.  Ed.  189; 
Means  v.  Bank,  146  U.  S.  620,  36  L.  Ed. 
1107,  13  S.  Ct.  186;  Dows  r.  National 
Exch.   Bank.  91   U.   S.  618,  23   L.   Ed.   214. 

Maine. — Winslow  v.  Norton,  29  Me. 
419.   50  Am.   Dec.   601. 

iVcTC  Jersey. — "A  general  indorsement 
and  delivery  of  a  bill  of  lading  vests  in 
the  indorsee  the  title  to  the  bill  and  the 
property  thereby  represented,  so  as  to 
enable  him  to  transfer  to  a  bona  fide  pur- 


chaser, for  value,  a  good  title,  whatever 
secret  arrangement  may  have  existed  be- 
tween the  original  parties."  Farmers', 
etc.,  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hazeltine,  78  N.  V. 
104,    34   Am.    Rep.    518,    521. 

Ohio. — Page  &  Co.  v.  Sanduskv.  etc., 
R.  Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print  716. 

Pennsylvania. — "A  bill  of  lading,  'regu- 
larly, fairly,  and  for  value  indorsed  to 
another,  will  pass  the  title'  to  the  goods 
to  the  indorsee:  Schumacher  v.  Eb)',  24 
Pa.  521."  Decan  v.  Shipper,  78  Am.  Dec. 
334,    35    Pa.    239. 

92.  The  Carlos  F.  Roses.  177  U.  S. 
655,  44  L.  Ed.  929.  20  S.  Ct.  803;  Pol- 
lard V.  Vinton,  105  U.  S.  7,  26  L.  Ed. 
998;  Shaw  v.  Railroad  Co..  101  U.  S. 
557,  25  L.  Ed.  892;  Friedlander  v.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  130  U.  S.  416.  32  L.  Ed.  991. 
9  S.  Ct.  570;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
McFadden,  154  U.  S.  155.  38  L.  Ed.  944, 
14  S.  Ct.  990;  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co. 
f.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727, 
31  L.  Ed.  287,  8  S.   Ct.  266. 

While  a  bill  of  lading  is  in  a  sense  a 
negotialde  instrument,  it  is  not  such  as 
to  preclude  in  the  hands  of  a  bona  fide 
purchaser  all  inquiries  respecting  its  is- 
sue. Bramley  v.  Ulster,  etc.,  R.  Co..  126 
N.  Y.   S.   854,   142  App.   Div.   176. 


§§  550-553  CARRIERS.  374 

of  a  bill  of  lading,  in  the  absence  of  either  title  to  the  goods  or  authority  to 
transfer  them  in  himself,  can  not,  by  a  transfer  of  the  instrument  pass  the 
right  of  property  in  the  goods,  even  to  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for  value ;  he  can 
convey  no  greater  rights  than  he  himself  has."-^  But  the  voluntary  act  of  the 
owner  of  property  in  giving  to  another  a  bill  of  lading  directing  the  carrier 
to  deliver  the  goods  therein  described  to  the  person  named  in  the  bill  or  order 
is  sufficient  to  estop  him  from  asserting  any  claim  to  the  goods  as  against  a 
person,  dealing  in  good  faith  with  the  person  named  therein.^-* 

§  551.  Estoppel  of  Carrier  to  Deny  Conditions  and  Representations 
in  Bill. — Where  an  agent  has  authority  to  issue  bills  of  lading  and  issues  one 
with  certain  conditions  contained  therein,  which  is  negotiated  to  an  innocent 
third  person,  the  company,  as  between  itself  and  such  third  person,  is  estopped 
to   denv  the   conditions   contained   in   the   bill.''' 

Right  to  Rely  on  Representations  in  Bill. — A  very  large  proportion  of 
the  business  of  the  country  is  foundetl  upon  transfers  of  bills  of  lading;  and 
if  the  transferee  were  required  at  his  perW  to  ascertain  from  the  carrier 
whether  the  representations  made  in  the  bill  of  lading  are  true  or  not,  it  would 
practicallv  put  an  end  to  this  class  of  transactions.''^ 

Recital  of  Receipt  of  Goods,  Quality,  or  Quantity.— See  ante,  "As  against 
Lona  Fide  Consignee  or  Transferee,"  §§  431-4.V. 

§  552.  Duplicate  or  Triplicate  Bill. — See  post,  "Duplicate  or  Triplicate 
Bill."  §  589. 

§   553.  Holder  with  Knowledge   of  Defects  in  Transferrer's  Title.— 

The  indorsement  of  a  bill  of  lading,  by  a  fraudulent  holder,  to  a  purchaser  for 
value  who  has  notice  of  the  fraud,  will  not  vest  title  to  or  encumber  the  prop- 
erty described  in  the  bill.'''  The  purchaser  of  a  bill  of  lading  with  reason  to 
believe  that  his  vendor  was  not  the  owner  of  the  bill,  or  that  it  was  held  to 
secure  the  payment  of  an  outstanding  draft,  is  not  a  bona  fide  purchaser,  and 
he  is  not  entitled  to  hold  the  merchandise  covered  by  the  bill  against  its  true 
owner. '^^ 

93.  Effect  of  statutes  making  bills  of  ply  to  make  it  transferable  by  indorse- 
lading  negotiable.—Sce  ante,  "Effect  of  ment  and  delivery,  and  the  voluntary  act 
Statutes  Making  Bills  of  Lading  Xego-  of  the  owner  of  property  in  giving  to 
tiable,"  §  516.  another    a    bill    of    lading    which    unquali- 

Ala'bama.— jasper   Trust    Co.    v.    Kansas  fiedly    directs    the    carrier    to    deliver    the 

City.  etc..  R.  Co.,  99  Ala.  416.  14  So.  .546,  goods    to    the    person    named    therein    or 

42  Am.  St.   Rep.  75,  4  Am.   &  Eng.   Enc.  to    his    order    is    sufficient    to    estop    such 

Law  549.   6   Cyc.   Law   &   Proc.   p.   426.  owner    from    making    any    claim    to    the 

Texas.— handa   v.    Lattin.    19    Tex.    Civ.  goods  as  against  a  person  dealing  in  good 

App.   246,   46   S.   W.   48.     See    Blaidsell  7'.  faith    with     the    person    named     therein. 

Citizens'    Nat.    Bank,    96    Tex.    626.    75    S.  Gass  v.   Astoria  Veneer   Mills,   118   N.  Y. 

\V.   292.  62  L.   R.  A.   968.  97  Am.   St.   Rep.  S.    982,    134    App.    Div.    184. 

944.  95.    Estoppel  of  carrier  to  deny  condi- 

94.  Factors'  Act  (Laws  1830,  p.  203.  tions  and  representations  in  bill. — Amer- 
c.  179),  §  3,  providing  that  every  agent  ican  Xat.  Bank  v.  Georgia  R.  Co.,  96  Ga. 
intrusted   wMth   the   possession   of  any  bill  ggs,  23  S.   E.  898,  51  Am.  St.   Rep.  155. 

of  lading  shall  be  deemed  the  true  owner  gg     Rjg^t  to  rely  on  representations  in 

thereof  so  far  as  to  give  validity  to  any  bill.— American   Nat.   Bank  v.   Georgia   R. 

contract  made  by  the  agent  for  the   sale  q^^  g^,   q^    ggg^  23  S.   E.  698,  51   Am.  St. 

of    the    goods,    and    Pen.    Code.    §§    628-  j^^p     jg^.    Askew    &   Co.   v.    Southern    R. 

634a,  providing  that  the  agent  of  any  car-  q^  ^  ^  q^    ^pp_  ^g^  gg  g    £_  242. 

rier    who    delivers    to    ^"f  ^^J  ,  ^"7. "h.'s'  97.    Holder  with   knowledge   of  defects 

chandise    for   which    a   bil    of   l^bng   has  transferrer's    title.-Decan    v.    Shipper. 

been    issued    is    punishable    by    imprison-  ^ 

ment  unless  the  receipt  is  surrendered  at  ''■'    ta.   2o9,    .8   Am.    Uec.   334. 

the    time    of    delivery    or    unless    the    re-  98.     Shaw   v.    Railroad    Co.,    101    U.    b. 

ceipt    bears    on    its    face    the    words    "not  557.  25  L.  Ed.  892. 

negotiable,"    give    to    a    bill    of    lading    a  A    bank    discounted    a    draft    on    B     on 

higher   quality  of  negotiability   than   sim-  delivery,    as    collateral,    by    Bs    agent,    ot 


375 


HILLS    OF    LADING. 


;§  553-554 


Indorsements   on  a  draft    attached  to   a  bill    of  lading    may  put    the 

drawee  on  iiuiice  that  llie  hank  pre-eiiiin}^  il  is  a  liolilcr  fur  collection  only  and 
not   a    purchaser.''-' 

Bill  Showing  Transferror  to  Be  Agent.— A  purchaser  of  a  bill  of  lading 
from  one  who  appears,  on  the  face  of  the  bill,  to  be  an  agent  is  not  a  bona 
fide  i)urch.aser  for  value,  without  notice;  that  fact  is  sufficient  to  put  him 
upon  his  inquiry  as  to  the  state  of  the  title.' 

Fraud  or  Collusion  between  Consignee  and  Assignee. — Collusion  or 
fraud  ])et\\eeii  the  consij^nee  and  his  a>>i^Miee  will  enahle  ilie  consignor  to  as- 
sert his   right  to   reclaim   the  goods. - 

Assignee  Having  Notice  of  Consignee's  Insolvency.— If  the  assignee  be 
aware  that  the  consignee  is  unahle  to  pay,  then  the  assiginnent  will  be  deemed 
fraudulent    as   a<,^-linst    tlie    rii^hts   of   the   consi^rnor.-' 

Proof  of  Notice  of  Title  of  Factor's  Principal. — That  a  bank  which 
bought  a  draft  with  bill  of  lading  attached,  drawn  by  a  factor  or  a  consignor, 
took  with  notice  of  the  princi])ars  title  must  be  satisfactorily  proved,  for  a  pur- 
chaser from  a  factor  is  not  i)ut  on  inquiry  as  to  the  title  of  the  particular  goods.'* 

§  554.  Holder  of  Lost  or  Stolen  Bill  of  Lading.— The  rule  that  a  bona 
fide  purchaser  of  a  lost  or  stolen  bill  or  note  indorsed  in  blank  or  payable  to 
bearer  is  not  bound  to  look  beyond  the  instrument,  has  no  aj^plication  to  the 
case  of  a  lost  or  stolen  bill  of  lading.-'"'  Merchandise  is  very  often  sold  or  pledged 
by  a  transfer  of  the  bills  which  cover  it;  but  as  no  sale  of  goods  lost  or  stolen, 
though  to  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for  value,  can  divest  the  ownership  of  the  per- 
son who  lost  them  or  from  whom  they  were  stolen,  so  the  sale  of  the  symbol  or 
mere  representative  of  the  goods  can  have  no  such  efTect,  although  it  some- 
times happens  that  the  true  owner,  by  negligence,  has  so  put  it  into  the  power 
of  another  to  occupy  his  position  ostensibly,  as  to  estop  him  from  asserting  his 


a  bill  of  lading-  of  wheat  shipped  to  B. 
On  acceptance  of  the  draft,  the  bank 
delivered  the  bill  of  lading  to  B,  after 
indorsing  thereon  that  the  wheat  was 
pledged  to  it  for  payment  of  the  draft, 
was  placed  in  B's  custody  "in  trust  for 
that  purpose,"  and  not  to  be  diverted  to 
any  other  use.  B  sold  and  delivered  the 
wheat,  but  did  not  pay  the  draft.  The 
purchasers  knew  of  the  bill  of  lading  and 
tile  indorsement  before  his  purchase. 
Held,  that  he  was  liable  in  an  action  for 
conversion  of  the  wheat.  Farmers',  etc., 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Hazeltine,  78  N.  Y.  104,  34 
Am.    Rep.   5 is. 

99.  Indorsements  on  draft  to  which 
bill  attached. — Gregory  v.  Sturgis  Xat. 
Bank   (Tex.   Civ.  App.),  71   S.  W.  G6. 

Where  a  draft  attached  to  a  bill  of 
lading  was  indorsed,  "Pay  to  the  order 
of  American  National  Bank,"  and  by  the 
latter  indorsed,  "Pay  any  bank  or  banker 
or  order  American  National  Bank,"  and 
was  presented  by  defendant  bank  to  the 
drawee,  such  indorsements  were  sufti- 
cient  to  put  the  drawee  on  inquiry  that 
defendant  was  a  holder  for  collection 
onl}'.  and  was  not  a  purchaser  of  the 
draft  payable  to  bearer.  Gregory  v.  Stur- 
gis Nat.  Bank  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  71  ?. 
W.   fiC. 

1.  Bill  she-wing  transferror  to  be  agent. 
— Decan  r.  Shipper.  35  Pa.  239,  7S  Am. 
Dec.    334. 


2.  Fraud  or  collusion  between  con- 
signee and  assignee. — Chandler  z:  Ful- 
ton.  10  Tex.   2.  (■)()  Am.  Dec.   188. 

3.  Assignee  having  notice  of  consign- 
ee's insolvency. — Cliandler  z:  Fulton,  10 
Tex.   2,   (iO   Am.    Dec.    188. 

4.  Proof  of  notice  of  title  of  factor's 
principal. — A  principal  consigned  goods 
to  a  factor.  A  company  of  which  the 
factor  was  president  procured  possession 
of  the  goods  and  reconsigned  them  to  a 
third  person.  A  bank  bought  the  drafts 
drawn  on  the  third  person  for  the  price 
of  the  goods,  on  the  faith  of  the  bill  of 
lading.  Evidence  examined,  and  held  not 
to  show  that  the  bank  bought  the  drafts 
with  bills  of  lading  attached  with  knowl- 
edge that  the  company  did  not  own  the 
goods  and  was  insolvent  and  was  going 
to  appropriate  the  proceeds,  instead  of 
turning  it  over  to  the  principal,  and  the 
latter  could  not  follow  the  goods  or  the 
proceeds  thereof  into  the  hands  of  the 
bank.  Smith  z\  Jefferson  Bank,  97  8. 
W.    247,    120    Mo.    App.    ,527. 

5.  Holder  of  stolen  bill. — Shaw  z:  Rail- 
road Co..  101  U.  S.  557.  25  L.  Ed.  892; 
The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575.  23  L.  Ed.  978. 
See,  also,  Goodman  z:  Simonds  (U.  S.), 
20  How.  343,  15  L.  Ed.  934;  Murray  v. 
Lardner  (U.  S.).  2  Wall.  110,  17  L.  Ed. 
857:  Matthews  z:  Poythress.  4  Ga.  287. 
See.  also.  Tison  z\  Howard.  57  Ga.  410. 


§§  554-556  CARRIERS.  376 

right  as  against  a  purchaser,  who  has  been  misled  to  his  hurt  by  reason  of  such 
negHcrence'!«  The  function  of  a  bill  of  lading  is  entirely  different  from  that 
of  a%ill  or  note.  It  is  not  a  representative  of  money,  used  for  transmission 
of  money,  or  for  the  pavment  of  debts  or  for  purchases.  It  does  not  pass  from 
hand  to  hand  as  bank  notes  or  coin.  It  is  a  contract  for  the  performance  of  a 
certain  duty.  True,  it  is  a  symbol  of  ownership  of  the  goods  covered  by  it— 
a  representative  of  these  goods.  But  if  the  goods  themselves  be  lost  or  stolen, 
no  sale  of  them  by  the  finder  or  thief,  though  to  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for 
value,  will  divest  the  ownership  of  the  person  who  lost  them,  or  from  whom 
they  were  stolen."' 

§  555.  Holder  of  Forged  Bill  of  Lading.— Liability  of  Purchaser  of 
Draft  with  Forged  Bill  Attached  to  Drawee.— See  post.  'Lialjility  of  I'ur- 
cha-cr   for   Shortage  or   Inferiorilv  of   Shipment,"   §   585. 

Liability  of  Bank  Collecting  Draft  with  Forged  Bill  of  Lading  At- 
tached.—See  post.  ■•Uepusit  of  Draft  willi  I'-ill  of  La(lin,<,^  Attached  for  Col- 
lection," §  588. 

Rights  against  Agent  Negotiating  Forged  BiUs  of  Lading.— W  here 
fon;ed  negotiable  ocean  bills  of  lading  were  negotiated  by  a  third  party,  who 
acted  merely  as  an  intermediary  for  the  owner,  the  bills  being  negotiated  on 
the  blank  indorsement  of  the  owner,  the  third  party  is  not  liable  to  the  pur- 
chasers, even  though  he  received  the  consideration  of  the  bills  of  lading  in  pay- 
ment of  a  debt  due  him  from  the  owners,  and  though  he  had  received  assets 
from  the  owner  to  protect  him.  from  claims  upon  these  bills  of  lading.^ 

§§  556-565.  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Carriers— §  556-562.  As 
to  Delivery  of  Goods— §  556.  Duty  to  Deliver  to  Transferee.— When  a 
bill  of  lading  is  transferred,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  to  the  as- 
signee or  transferee  the  property  of  which  the  bill  of  lading  is  the  repre- 
sentative.'' The  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  makes  the  transferee  the  consignee 
of  the  goods  for  all  lawful  purposes.^'* 

Notice  of  Owner's  Rights.— A  carrier  must  deliver  goods  to  the  true 
owner,  claiming  under  the  consignee,  when  it  has  notice  of  such  owner's  rights 
and  the  bill  of  lading  has  been  surrendered. ^^     Notice  of  the  rights  of  a  per- 

6.  Friecllander  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10.  Brown  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91 
130  U.   S.  410,  32  L.   Ed.  991,  9  S.   Ct.  570;        S.    C.    377,   74   S.    E.    754.      _ 

Shaw  V.   Railroad   Co.,   101   U.   S.   557,   25  11.  Notice  of  owners  rights.— National 

L    Ed    892  Newark    Banking    Co.    v.    Delawaxe,    etc., 

The"  taking   possession    of   property    by  R.    Co.,   70   N.   J.    L.   774,   58   Atl.    311     66 

one  not  its  owner,  or  authorized  by  him,  L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    595,    103    Am.    bt.    Rep. 

shipping     it,     obtaining     bills     of      lading  825. 

from  the  carriers,  indorsing  them  away,  Certain  cars  of  gram  were  contracted 
or  even  selling  the  property  and  obtain-  to  be  sold  by  the  consignee  prior  to  their 
ing  a  full  price  for  it,  can  have  no  effect  arrival  to  different  purchasers,  and  he 
upon  the  rights  of  the  owner,  even  in  surrendered  the  bills  of  lading  to  the 
the  case  of  a  bona  fide  purchaser.  The  local  freight  agent  at  the  place  of  de- 
Idaho  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L.  Ed.  978;  Ra-  livery,  and  presented  orders  directing  the 
leigh  'etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  101  Ga.  320,  delivery  of  the  cars  to  the  several  pur- 
28   S    E    867  chasers,    "or    ourselves    or    order,    on    pre- 

7.  Shaw  V.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  557,  senlation  of  this  order."  Upon  these 
25  L  Ed  892;  Weyand  z;.  Atchinson,  etc.,  orders  the  local  freight  agent  stamped 
R  Co  75  Iowa  573.  39  N.  W.  899,  9  the  words:  "Car  to  be  delivered  on  this 
Am.   St.   Rep.   504.   1   L.   R.  A.  650.  order,  same  as   B.   of  L.     B.  of  L.   taken 

8.  Rights  against  agent  negotiating  up  at"  the  place  of  delivery.  ihe  con- 
forged  bills  of  lading.— Moritz  v.  Adoue  signee  retained  the  orders  thus  certified 
(Tex    Civ     \pp  )     TiS   S    W    1140.  drew   on   the  purchasers   for  the   price   ol 

9     Duty   to   deliver   to   transferee.— Ar-  the     grain,     and     obtained     aavances      on 

kansas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  German  Nat.   Bank.  plaintiff    bank    for    the    drafts,    accompa- 

77    Ark    4^2     92    S     W     522,    113    Am.    St.  nied    by    the    certified   order.      Held,   that 

Rep     160-    Allen     etc.,    Co.    v.    Farmers,'  the  contracts  between  the  purchasers  and 

etc     Nat  'Bank,  129  Ga.  748,  .59  S.  E.  813.  the    consignee    were    executory    contracts, 


Z77 


HILLS    OF    LADING. 


§§  556-557 


son  claiming  title  under  consignee  to  have  goods  delivered  to  him.  when  given 
to  the  agent  of  a  carrier  charged  with  the  duty  of  delivering  the  freight,  is 
notice  tn  ihc  carrier. '- 

Nonnegotiable  Bill  of  Lading. — A  nonnegotiable  bill  of  lading  does  not 
control  th.e  possession  of  the  j^roperty,  and  a  transferee  thereof  obtains  only 
the  title  of  the  transferror,  though  by  proper  notice,  where  there  are  no  inter- 
vening rights,  the  transferee  may  require  the  carrier  to  hold  possession  for  him 
according  to  the  bill ;  and  hence  a  shijjper  under  a  nonnegotiable  bill  of  lading 
for  sale  on  commission  retains  title  until  the  pro])erty  is  soUl,  and  he  mav  order 
that  the  same  shall  be  reshipped,  or  dcli\ered  to  a  bu}cr  procured  bv  himself.^-'* 

§  557.  Production  and  Cancellation  of  Bill  of  Lading. — A  delivery  of 
goods  b\'  a  coniiiiun  carrier  to  the  consignee  is  made  al  the  jteril  of  the  carrier, 
unless,  when  made,  the  consignee  surrenders  the  bill  of  lading  either  made  or 
indorsed  to  himself. ^-^  If  the  goods,  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  of  lading,  are 
deliverable  to  the  order  of  the  shipper,  the  carrier  should  not  deliver  e.xcept 
upon  production  of  the  bill  of  lading  properly  indorsed  by  the  shipper;  for  this 
is  notice  to  the  carrier  that  the  shi])per  intends  to  retain  in  his  power  the  ulti- 
mate (lisi)osition  of  the  goods.'"'  \\hether  or  not  the  carrier  can  compel  a  sur- 
render of  the  bill  of  lading  when  it  delivers  the  goods,  if  the  holder  of  the  bill 
of  lading  insists  on  retaining  it  as  a  muniment  of  title,  or  for  any  other  pur- 
pose, and  has  a  legal  right  to  do  so,  he  can,  at  least,  be  required  to  produce  it 
for  cancellation,  so  that  it  will  cease  to  be  on  its  face  a  live  bill  of  lading.^'' 

Eflfect  of  Local  Custom. — A  local  custom  to  deliver  goods  to  the  holder  of 
an  unindorsed  bill  of  lading,  unknown  to  the  consignor  when  the  goods  were 
shiiiped.  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  the  value  of  the  goods  so  delivered.^" 

Redelivery  of  Goods  to  Shipper. — After  the  carrier  has  received  the  goods 
and  issued  a  bill  of  lading  for  them  to  the  shipper,  and  before  the  transit  has 
commenced,  it  is  not  liable  for  refusing  to  redeliver  them  to  him  without  a 
surrender  of  the  bill.^^ 


and  not  a  present  bargain  and  sale.  Na- 
tional Newark  Banking  Co.  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L.  774,  58  Atl.  311, 
66  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  595.  103  .\m.  St.  Rep. 
825. 

12.  National  Newark  Banking  Co.  v. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  N.  J.  L.  774,  58 
Atl.  311,  66  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  595,  103  Am. 
St.  Rep.  825;  Decan  v.  Shipper,  35  Pa. 
239,  78  Am.  Dec.  334;  Landa  v.  Lat- 
tin,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  246,  249,  46  S.  W. 
48.  See,  also,  Blaidsell  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
Nat.  Bank,  96  Te.x.  626.  75  S.  W.  292,  62 
L.  R.  A.  968,  97  Am.  St.  Rep.  944;  Seward 
&  Co.  V.  Miller.   10(5  \'a.  309.  55  S.   E.  681. 

13.  Nonnegotiable  bill. — The  above 
rnle  is  recognized  l^y  the  Massachusetts 
rules  Act  St.  190S,  C.  237.  Brown  v. 
Floershcin  Mercantile  Co..  206  Mass.  373. 
92    N.    !•:.    494. 

14.  Production  and  cancellation  of  bill 
of  lading. — Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
ston. 45  Neb.  57.  63  N.  W.  144,  50  Am. 
St.  Rep.  540;  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  132  Mo.  492,  33  S. 
W.  521.  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  505.  See  post, 
"Liability  for  Misdelivery,"  §  560. 

15.  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
mercial Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  31  L. 
Ed.  287,  8  S.  Ct.  266;  The  Thames  (U. 
S.),  14  Wall.  98,  20  L.  Ed.  804;  Arkansas, 
etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    German    Nat.    Bank,    113 


Am.  St.  Rep.  160,  164,  77  .Ark.  4h2,  92 
S.  W.  522:  Weyand  v.  Atchinson.  etc., 
R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  573,  39  N.  W.  899,  9  Am. 
St.    Rep.    504.    1    L.    R.    .\.    650. 

Bill  of  lading  shipper's  order  care  of 
third  person.— If  a  railway  company 
agrees  to  carry  goods,  and  issues  bills  of 
lading  therefor  to  the  shipper's  order  in 
care  of  a  third  person,  at  the  place  of 
destination,  its  duty  as  carrier  is  not  dis- 
charged merely  by  delivering  the  goods 
to  such  third  person  without  the  pro- 
duction of  such  bills  of  lading  properly 
indorsed,  and  if  after  delivery  to  such 
third  person  he  delivers  the  goods  to  one 
not  entitled  to  receive  them,  the  rail- 
road conipany  is  liable  to  the  indorsee 
of  the  bills  of  lading  for  the  value  of 
the  goods,  (p.  169.)  Arkansas,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  German  Nat.  Bank.  113  .\m.  St. 
Rep.   160,   77  Ark.   482,   92   S.   \V.   522. 

16.  Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc..  R.  Co., 
58  \m.  St.  Rep.  530.  533,  64  Minn.  245, 
66    N.    \\'.    9SS. 

17.  Effect  of  local  custom. — Weyand 
V.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  573, 
39  N.  W.  899,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  1  L. 
R.    \.    650. 

18.  Redelivery  of  goods  to  shipF>er. — 
Trindall  v.  Taylor.  4  Ell.  &  B.  219:  Rat- 
zer V.  Burlington,  etc..  R.  Co.,  64  Minn. 
245,   66   N.   W.   988,   58   Am.   St.   Rep.   530. 


§§  558-560  CARRIERS.  378 

§   5  58.  Payment  of  Freight  and  Charges  as   Condition  Precedent. — 

A  carrier  mav  refuse  to  deliver  a  consignment  of  freight  to  the  transferee  of 
a  bill  of  lading  until  its  charges  and  the  back  charges  of  the  initial  carrier  are 
paid.^^  The  burden  is  upon  the  transferee  of  a  bill  of  lading  to  prove  that 
the  freight  charges  had  been  pre]:)aid. 

Connecting"  Carrier — Bill  Stamped  Prepaid. — W  here  a  person  claimed  a 
shipment  as  purchaser  of  the  bill  of  lading  issued  by  the  initial  carrier,  he  was 
not  entitled  to  recover  it  in  replevin  from  the  connecting  carrier  in  the  absence 
of  anv  showing  except  the  bill  of  lading  which  did  not  recite  the  class  of  freight 
shipped,  the  amount  of  charges  prepaid,  or  the  amount  of  charges  prepaid  on 
account,  but  merely  in  a  space  headed  "If  charges  are  to  be  prepaid,  write  or 
stamp  here  'To  be  prepaid.'"  contained  the  word  '"Prepaid;"  such  instrument 
not  being  prima  facie  proof  that  the  freight  had  been  fully  paid.-'^ 

Effect  of  Refusal  to  Pay  on  Right  of  Stoppage  in  Transitu  Under 
Nonnegotiable  Bill. — See  post,  "As  Defeating  Stoi)ijage  in  Transitu,''  §  567. 

§  559.  Demand  of  Delivery. — Where  a  so-called  demand  for  a  shipment 
of  freight  was  made  by  the  transferee  of  an  "order  notify"  bill  of  lading  of 
a  railroad  company  (which  thereby  agreed  to  transport  certain  cotton  from 
and  to  named  points  within  the  state),  before  it  was  indorsed  by  the  one  hav- 
ing the  legal  title  thereto,  such  demand  can  not  be  the  basis  for  the  ascertain- 
ment of  the  damages  for  a  breach  of  the  contract  of  carriage.-^ 

§   560.  Liability  for  Misdelivery  or  Delay. — In  General. — It  is  hardly 

necessary  to  cite  authorities  to  the  general  proposition  that,  when  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing is  outstanding,  the  carrier  delivers  the  goods  at  its  peril,  without  a  pro- 
duction of  the  bill  of  lading;  and,  if  it  so  delivers  them  to  some  other  than  the 
bona  fide  holder  for  value  of  the  bill  of  lading,  it  is  liable  to  him  for  conver- 
sion of  the  goods. 22  The  following  authorities  show  the  universality  of  the 
rule  as  applied  to  transportation  both  on  land  and  by  water :  ^3  The  carrier 
in  such  case  has  been  held  liable  to  the  indorsee  or  pledgee  of  the  bill  for  de- 
livering the  goods  in  transit  at  an  intermediate  point  before  the  negotiation 
of  the  bill,-'*  to  the  shipper,-^   or  consignee ;  -•'   for  delaying  the  transportation 

19.  Payment  of  freight  as  condition  mentrout  z'.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Mo. 
precedent. — Bramlev  v.  Ulster,  etc.,  R.  App.  158;  Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Co..   142  App.   Div. 'iTG,   126   X.   Y.    S.   854.        42    Neb.    379,    60    N.    W.    583,    Gl    Am.    & 

20.  Connecting  carrier,  bill  marked  pre-  Eng.  R.  Cas.  218;  Garden  Grove  Bank 
paid. — Bramley  v.  Ulster,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  v.  Humeston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa  526, 
N.  Y.  S.  854,  142  App.  Div.  176.  25  N.  W.  761,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  695; 

21.  Demand  of  delivery.— Albany,  etc.,  Tindall  v.  Taylor,  4  El.  &  B.  219.  See, 
R.  Co.  V.  Merchants',  etc.,  Bank,  73  S.  also,  as  bearing  on  the  question:  Halsey 
E.   637,   137   Ga.   391.  z'.    Warden,    25    Kan.    128;    Meyerstein    v. 

22.  Liability  for  misdelivery.— Ratzer  Barber,  L.  R.  2  Com.  P.  38;  Lee  v. 
V.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Minn.  245,  Bowen,  5  Biss.  154,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,183; 
66  N.  W.  988,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  530.  See  Heiskell  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  89 
?.nte,  "Production  and  Cancellation  of  Pa.  155,  33  Am.  Rep.  745;  Bass  v.  Glover. 
Bill  of  Lading,"   §  557.  03  Ga.  745;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Dearborn, 

23.  See  The  Thames  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  115  Mass.  219,  15  Am.  Rep.  92;  Dows  v. 
98,  20  L.  Ed.  804;  North  v.  Merchants',  National  Exch.  Bank,  91  U.  S.  618,  23 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  146  Mass.  315,  15  N.  L.  Ed.  214;  Conard  v.  Atlantic  Ins.  Co.  (U. 
E.  779;  Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  S.),  1  Pet.  386,  7  L.  Ed.  189;  Weyand 
133  Mass.  154;  Furman  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  573, 
Co.,  106  N.  Y.  579,  13  N.  E.  587;  City  39  N.  W.  899,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  1  L. 
Bank  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  N.  Y.  136;  R.  A.  650. 

Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  119  Pa.  24,  24.     Union    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Johnston, 

12    Atl.    756,    4   Am.    St.    Rep.    620,    35    Am.  45    Neb.    57,    63    N.    W.    144,    50    Am.    St. 

&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  551;  Boatman's  Sav.  Bank  Rep.   540. 

V.    Western,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    81    Ga.    221,    7  25.    Delivery  to  shipper.— Wells,  Fargo 

S.  E.  125;  National  Bank  v.  Atlanta,  etc., 

R.  Co.,  25   S.   C.  216;   Midland  Nat.  Bank  26.     Delivery    to    consignee.— Ratzer    v. 

V.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    132    Mo.    492,  Burlington,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   04   Minn.  245,   58 

33    S.   W.    521,    53    Am.    St.    Rep.    505;    Ar-  Am.   St.   Rep.   530,  66  N.  W.   988. 


379 


l;lUI.S    OF    LADING. 


;§  560-563 


at  the  rcfiuest  of  the  shijiper  for  a  few  days  after  it  had  issued  the  bill,  thereby 
causing  damage  to  the  goods ;  -^  and  for  delivery  to  a  third  person  where  such 
delivery  was  induced  by  fraud,-^  and  the  cafrier  not  notified  of  the  transfer 
of  the  bill  till  sometime  afterwards  when  the  consignor  had  become  insolvent.-^ 

§  561.  Waiver  or  Right  to  Indorsement  of  Bill. — Even  if  delivery  to 
plaintiff,  without  indorsement,  of  a  bill  of  lading  by  the  one  entitled  by  its 
terms  to  the  goods  did  not  give  a  right  of  action  thereon  against  the  carrier, 
it  would  be  some  evidence  of  waiver  of  the  requirement,  that,  without  the  in- 
dorsement, the  carrier's  agent  recognized  plaintiff's  right  to  the  gooch,  and 
that  the  carrier  issued  to  him  a  voucher  for  the  value  of  the  lost  part  of  the 
goods  shipped.'^" 

§  562  Duplicate  and  Triplicate  BiUs. — See  post.  "Duplicate  and  Trijili- 
cate   I'.i'ls,""  ij  5S''. 

§  563.  Effect  of  Custom  of  Carrier. — A  custom  practiced  and  main- 
tained Ijy  a  carrier  can  not  jjrevail  against  the  express  language  of  his  bill  of 
lading,  to  aff'ect  the  rights  of  the  holder  by  indorsement  thereof,  or  in  anywise 


&  Co.  V.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Fed. 
51,    12    Sawy.    519. 

Where  a  shipper  consigns  goods  to 
himself  and  receives  a  hill  of  lading  from 
the  carrier,  who  delivers  them  with  a 
proper  way  bill  to  a  connecting  carrier, 
who,  delivers  them  to  the  shipper  at  arj 
intermediate  point  in  transit  without  re- 
quiring the  cancellation  of  the  bill  of 
lading.  The  connecting  carrier  is  lia- 
ble to  an  innocent  pledgee  of  the  bill  for 
failure  to  deliver  the  goods  at  their  orig- 
inal destination,  and  is  estopped  from 
sliowing  such  intermediate  delivery  to 
the  original  shipper.  Ratzer  v.  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  5.30, 
CA    Minn.    245,    66    N.    W.    988. 

"It  is  a  case  for  the  application  of  the 
doctrine  of  equitable  estoppel,  that, 
where  one  of  two  innocent  persons  must 
suffer  by  reason  of  the  fraud  of  a  third 
party,  he  by  whose  negligent  act  or 
omission  such  third  party  was  enabled 
to  commit  the  fraud  ought  to  bear  the 
loss."  Ratzer  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
58  Am.  St.  Rep.  530,  64  Minn.  245,  66  N. 
W.   988. 

27.  Delaying  transportation  at  request 
of  shipper. — .XrnuMitrout  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc..   R.   Cn.,   1    Mo.   Apix   l."iS. 

28.  Delivery  to  third  person. — Defend- 
ant carrier  transported  certain  cotton  un- 
der bills  of  lading  consigned  to  the 
shippers'  order,  with  directions  to  notify 
a  cotton  company.  On  arrival  of  the 
cotton  at  destination,  the  carrier  deliv- 
ered it  to  a  compress  company,  as  a 
warehouseman,  and  the  bills  of  lading, 
with  drafts  attached  thereto,  were  deliv- 
ered to  plaintiff  l)ank,  which  paid  the 
drafts  and  charged  tlie  amount  to  the 
cotton  company,  Iiolding  the  l)ills  of  lad- 
ing as  collateral.  PlaintifT  thereafter  in- 
trusted the  cotton  company  with  the  bills 
of  lading  whenever  it  desired  to  replace 
them  with  the  compress  receipts  or  other 


bills  of  lading  for  outgoing  cotton,  and 
in  some  instances,  where  compress  re- 
ceipts were  not  returned  for  all  the  cot- 
ton called  for  in  the  bill  of  lading,  the 
bill  would  l)e  indorsed  by  the  compress 
company  and  returned  to  stand  for  the 
bales  not  called  for  by  the  corresponding 
warehouse  receipts.  In  some  manner, 
through  the  fraud  of  the  cotton  com- 
pany, defendant  carrier  was  induced  to 
ship  out  cotton  represented  by  these 
remnants  of  the  bills  of  lading,  without 
any  credit  being  given  on  the  bills,  and 
without  any  satisfaction  of  the  bank's 
claim  thereon.  Held,  that  the  bank  was 
entitled  to  recover  from  the  carrier  for 
such  cotton  as  it  held  bills  of  lading  not 
exchanged  for  warehouse  receipts.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  87 
Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154,  30  R.  R.  R.  290, 
53  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  290,  123 
Am.  St.  Rep.  17. 

29.  Carrier  not  notified  of  transfer  till 
after  insolvency  of  consignor. — Where  a 
bill  of  lading  authorized  delivery  only  on 
surrender  of  the  bill  properly  indorsed, 
and  the  consignor,  after  transferring  the 
bill  to  a  bank,  wrongfullj'  induced  the 
carrier  to  deliver  to  persons  not  named 
in  the  bill  without  a  surrender  thereof,  a 
right  of  action  immediately  accrued 
against  the  carrier  to  the  holder  of  the 
bill  for  misdelivery,  which  could  be  en- 
forced at  any  time  within  the  period  of 
limitations,  and  hence  it  was  no  defense 
that  the  carrier  was  not  notified  of  the 
transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  within  a 
reasonable  time  during  which  the  con- 
signor was  solvent,  and  that,  because  of 
such  want  of  notice,  and  the  consignor's 
insolvencj\  the  carrier  could  not  recoup 
its  loss.  Sheldon  ?•.  New  York,  etc..  R. 
Co.,    113   N.   Y.   S.   r.Tf,.  61    Mi?o.    Rep.   274. 

30.  Waiver  of  right  to  indorsement  of 
bill.— McMeekin  r.  Southern  Railwav.  82 
S.    C.    468,    64    S.    E.    413. 


CARRIERS. 


380 


§§  563-567 

limit  the  liability  of  the  carrier  thereon,  unless  such  custom  has  been  exer- 
cised, and  the  indorsee  has  purchased  or  received  the  contract  with  knowledge 
of  that  fact.=^i 

§  564.  Explanation  of  Alteration  in  Bill.— The  burden  of  explaining 
alterations  in  bills  of  lading  on  the  faiih  of  w  lien  one  has  advanced  money  is 
on  him.  and  not  on  the  railroad  company,  where  the  agent  whose  name  is  signed 
to  them  testifies  that  the  alterations  were  made  after  they  left  his  hands.32 

§  565.  Liability  for  Freight  and  Demurrage.— See  ante,  "Freight  and 
Demurrage,"  §  512:  "Pavment  of  Freight  and  Charges  as  Condition  Precedent," 
§  558. 

§§  566-568.  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Consignor— §566.  In  Gen- 
eral.  If  an  assignee  takes  an  assignment  bona  fide  without  notice  of  any  such 

circumstances  as  would  render  the  bill  of  lading  not  fairly  and  honestly  assign- 
able he  acquires  a  good  title  against  the  consignor,^^  especially  where  the  per- 
son'transferring  the  bill  obtained  it  as  a  result  of  the  fault  or  neglect  of  the 
consignor.""* 

§  567.  As  Defeating  Stoppage  in  Transitu.— The  general  rule  is  that 
the  vendor  of  goods  on  credit  may  exercise  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu 
on  the  insolvency  of  the  vendee  at  any  time  before  there  is  an  actual  or  con- 
structive delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  vendee.-^  An  exception  to  this  rule  is 
when,  during  the  transit,  the  vendee  transfers  the  bill  of  lading  to  a  bona  fide 
purchaser  for  value.  By  such  transfer  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu  is 
terminated,'!*^  although  the  bill  of  lading  is  nonnegotiable,'''   and  is  also  a  dupli- 


31.  Effect  of  custom  of  carrier. — Alid- 
land  Xat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
132  Mo.  492,  33  S.  W.  521,  53  Am.  St. 
Rep.    505. 

32.  Franklin  Trust  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  222  Pa.  96,  70  Atl.  949,  22 
L.    R.   A.,    N.   S.,   828. 

33.  Rights  against  consignor. — Chan- 
dler V.  Fulton,  10  Tex.  2,  GO  Am.  Dec. 
188. 

34.  Where  plaintiff  transferred  to  an- 
other the  bills  of  lading  for  goods 
shipped  defendant,  defendant  having  or- 
dered the  goods  from  such  other,  and 
having  no  knowledge  of  plaintiff's  un- 
derstanding with  him  by  which  the  bills 
were  turned  over  to  him,  he  could  pay 
such  other  for  the  goods.  Greenville 
Lumber  Co.  v.  National  Pressed  Brick 
Co.,    133    Mo.    App.    217,    113    S.    W.    236. 

35.  As  defeating  stoppage  in  transitu. 
—Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koontz,  15 
O.    C.    C.    288,    9    O.    C.    D.    102. 

36.  Alabama. — Loeb  v.  Peters,  63  Ala. 
243,  35  Am.  Rep.  17. 

Georgia. — Orr  v.  Planters'  Phosphate, 
etc.,    Co.,    8    Ga.   App.   59,   68   S.    E.   779. 

Maryland.— ThQ  indorsement  and  deliv- 
ery of  a  bill  of  lading  by  the  seller  to 
the  buyer  transfers  the  property  from 
the  vendor  to  the  vendee;  is  a  complete 
legal  delivery  of  the  goods,  devests  the 
vendor's  lien.  But  though  the  vendor's 
lien  is  thus  devested  by  reason  of  the 
complete  delivery  of  the  indicia  of  prop- 
erty, he  may,  if  the  goods  have  not  yet 
reached  the  actual  possession  of  the 
buyer,  and  if  no  third  person  has  ac- 
quired  rights   by   obtaining   a   transfer   of 


the  bill  of  lading  from  the  buyer,  inter- 
cept the  goods  in  the  event  of  the  buy- 
er's insolvency  before  payment,  by  the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  stoppage  in  tran- 
situ. National  Bank  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  99  Md.  661,  59  Atl.  134,  105  Am. 
St.   Rep.   321. 

Missouri. — Skilling  v.  BoUman,  73  Mo. 
665,   39   Am.   Rep.   537. 

0/?fa.  — Wheeling,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Koontz,  15  O.  C.  C.  288,  9  O.  C.  D.  102; 
Page  &  Co.  V.  Sandusky,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec.  Reprint  716. 
And  see,  also,  Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving 
Xat.  Bank,  25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep. 
299. 

Tc.vas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hei- 
denheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  199,  17  S.  W.  608, 
27   Am.   St.   Rep.   861. 

The  assignment  of  a  bill  of  lading, 
bona  fide,  for  a  valuable  consideration  to 
an  assignee  without  notice  of  the  insol- 
vency of  the  consignee,  defeats  the  right 
of  stoppage  in  transitu.  Chandler  v.  Ful- 
ton, 10  Tex.  2,  60  Am.  Dec.  188;  Loeb  v. 
Peters,  63  Ala.  243,  35  Am.  Rep.  17. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  goods 
received,  l)Ut  returned  by  order  of  the 
consignor,  it  appeared  that  the  bill  of 
lading  was  sent  to  T.  Bros.  &  Co.,  con- 
signees, and  by  them  transferred  to  plain- 
tiff for  value.  Held  that,  though  T. 
Bros.  &  Co.  were  insolvent,  their  trans- 
fer to  plaintiff  defeated  the  consignor's 
right  of  stoppage  in  transitu.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195, 
17    S.    W.    608,    27   Am.    St.    Rep.    861. 

37,  National  Bank  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  105  Am.   St.   Rep.  321,  99  Md.  661. 


381 


RILLS    OF    LADIXC. 


§  567 


Indorsee  Charged  with  Notice  of  the  Facts. — W  hile  ilie  right  of  stop- 
page in  transitu  may  be  defeated  by  the  indorsement  and  deHvery  of  an  un- 
conditional bill  of  lading  to  a  bona  fide  indorsee  for  a  valuable  consideration 
witliout  notice,  yet.  where  the  indorsee  has  notice  of  the  facts  or  of  a  fact  suffi- 
cient to  put  him  on  in(|uiry  which  will  disclose  the  facts,  the  right  may  be  exer- 
cised as  against  him.  'I'hc  words  "not  negotiable"  stamped  on  the  face  of  a  bill 
of  lading  are  sufficient  to  i)ut  a  jnirchaser  on  inquiry  as  to  the  facts  of  tiie 
right  of  stop|)age  in  transitu  by  the  consignor.-"' 

Knowledg'e  of  Purchaser's  Insolvency. — The  right  of  stoppage  in  transit 
is  not  lost  wliere  the  ])urcliascr  has  indorsed  the  bill  of  lading  to  a  subpurchaser 
with  knowledge  of  the  original  i)urchaser's  insolvency,  such  knowledge  bears 
on  tlie  question  f)f  good    faith.'" 

The  fact  that  the  assignee  knew  that  the  goods  were  not  paid  for,  is 
not  sufficient  to  defeat  his  rights  as  against  the  rigiit  of  the  consignor  to  re- 
claim the  goods.  In  order  to  defeat  such  right  of  the  assignee,  he  must  have 
had  notice  of  such  circumstances  as  would  render  the  assignment  of  the  bill 
of  lading  defeasible."*^ 

Transfer  by  Way  of  Mortgage  or  Pledge. — Where  the  transfer  of  a 
bill  of  lading  is  by  way  of  mortgage  or  pledge,  or  as  collateral  security  for  a 
loan  the  right  to  stop  the  goods  in  transit  is  not  absolutely  defeated;  for  if  the 
mortgage  is  bona  fide  the  seller  may  still  resume  his  interest  in  them  subject 
to  the  rights  of  the  mortgagee  and  will  have  the  right  to  the  residue  after  satis- 
fying the  mortgage,'*-  but  can  not  exert  that  right  until  he  has  discharged  the 
debt  secured  by  the  transfer,  as  his  right  is  subject  to  that  of  the  mortgagee  or 
pledgee."*-' 

Consideration  a  Pre-Existing  Debt. — The  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading,  as 
a  collateral  tfj  ])re\ions  obligalions.  without  anything  advanced,  given  up,  or  lost 
on  the  part  of  the  transferee,  does  not  constitute  such  an  assignment  as  will 
preclude  the  vendor  from  exercising  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu.-*-*  Hence 
an  assignee  in  trust  for  creditors  of  the  insolvent  vendee  is  not  a  purchaser  for 


.59    Atl.    134.      See.    also,    Loeb    v.    Peters, 
(;.3  Ala.   243,   35   Am.   Rep.   17. 

Bill  must  contain  negotiable  words. — 
It  seems  the  quasi  ficsotial;ility  wliich 
protects  the  indorsee  in  his  title  to  the 
proods,  and  ajjainst  stoppage  in  transitu, 
only  exists  where  the  bill  contains  nego- 
tial)le  words,  such  as  "order."  "assigns," 
etc.  Page  &  Co.  v.  Sandusky,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
Tit". 

38.  Duplicate  bill. — IK  shipper  is  pre- 
cluded from  exercising  his  right  of  "stop- 
page in  transitu."  by  the  transfer  for 
value  by  the  consignee  of  a  duplicate  bill 
of  lading.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hei- 
denheimer.  S2  Tex.  195,  200.  17  S.  W. 
f)OS,  27  .\m.  St.  Rep.  Sfil;  Landa  v.  Lattin, 
19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  246,  250.  46  S.  W.  48. 

39.  Xczv  York. — Gass  v.  Astoria  Veneer 
Mills,  134  App.  Div.  184.  118  N.  Y.  S.  982. 

40.  Loeb  V.  Peters.  63  Ala.  243,  35  Am. 
Rep.  17.  And  see  Chandler  v.  Fulton,  10 
Tex.   2,   60   Am.    Dec.    188. 

41.  The  fact  that  the  assignee  knew 
that  the  goods  were  not  paid  for. — Clian- 
dlcr  c'.  I'ulton.  10  Tex.  2.  60  Am.  Dec. 
188. 


42.  Pledge  or  mortgage. — Chandler  v. 
Fulton,   10  Tex.  2,  60  Am.  Dec.   188. 

43.  Chandler  v.  Fulton,  10  Tex.  2,  60 
Am.  Dec.  188;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  199,  17  S. 
W.    60S,    27_  Am.    St.    Rep.    861. 

44.  Consideration  a  pre-existing  debt. 
— Loeb  '•.  Peters.  63  Ala.  243,  35  Am. 
Rep.    17. 

'■Eminent  jurists  and  judicial  tribunals 
hold  that  one  who  for  prior  indebted- 
ness receives  a  bill  of  lading  of  goods, 
either  as  collateral  security  or  in  pay- 
ment of  such  indelitedness.  has  no  such 
title  as  will  avail  even  against  the  vend- 
or's right  of  stoppage  in  transitu;  in 
other  words,  that  such  an  one,  in  such  a 
controversy,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
bona  fide  purchaser  for  value.  Loeb  v. 
Peters.  63  Ala.  243.  35  Am.  Rep.  17:  Har- 
ris 7'.  Pratt,  17  N.  Y.  249;  Lesassier  v. 
Southwestern,  2  Woods  35;  O'Brien  v. 
Xorris.  etc.,  Co.,  16  Md.  122.  77  Am.  Dec. 
2S4;  Xaylor  v.  Dennie  (Mass.").  S  Pick. 
198.  19  Am.  Dec.  319.  .A.nd  Goodman  v. 
Simonds,  19  Mo.  106,  and  Logan  v.  Smith. 
62  Mo.  455,  recognize  the  principle  an- 
nounced in  the  foregoing  cases."  Skill- 
ing  V.  Bollman.  73  ^lo.  665.  39  Am.  Rep. 
537. 


§§  567-570  cARRiKRS.  382 

value,  and  consequently  takes  subject  to  the  exercise  of  any  right  of  stoppage 
in  transitu  which  mav  exist  against  the  assignor.-*'" 

Refusal  of  Transferee  to  Pay  Freight.— W  here  the  transferee  of  a  bill 
of  lading  containing  the  words  -not  negotiable"  refuses  to  pay  the  freight  the 
failure  to  defeat  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu  is  due  to  his  breach  of  the 
contract  of  carriage  and  he  can  not  invoke  the  aid  of  equity  to  cancel  the  note 
given  bv  him  for  the  goods.-"'  . 

Unreasonable  Delay  of  Transferee  in  Obtaining  Possession.— Irans- 
feree  of  unconditional  bill  of  lading  by  indorscnienl  and  delivery  for  value,  con- 
taining words  "not  negotiable."  has  no  action  against  carrier  for  conversion, 
where"  he  unreasonablv  delavs  obtaining  possession  until  consignee  has  become 
insolvent,    and    consignor    has    exercised    his    right  of  stoppage    in    transitu."*^ 

§  568.  Liability  for  Price  of  Goods.— \\  here  a  principal  consigned  goods 
to  a  factor  with  power  to  sell  or  reconsign,  and  a  company  reconsigned  the 
goods  to  a  third  person,  and  a  bank,  in  good  faith,  bought  a  draft  drawn  by 
the  company  against  the  new^  consignee,  secured  by  a  bill  of  lading,  and  took 
possession  of  the  goods  and  retained  the  proceeds,  if  the  company  was  empow- 
ered to  reconsign  the  goods  and  draw  against  them,  the  bank  was  not  liable  to 
the  principal.'*'^ 

§§  569-571.  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Consignee— §  569.  In  Gen- 
eral.— See  ante,  "In  General.""  §  544. 

§  570.  Claim  for  Advances  to  Consignor.— Consignee  has  no  lien  on 
properlv  consigned  to  him  for  moneys  due  on  prior  transactions  between  him 
and  the' consignor,  as  against  a  transferee  of  the  bill  of  lading  who  has  advanced 
moneys  thereon  in  good  faith.-*'*  Thus  a  consignee  who  accepts  drafts  upon 
the  faith  of  the  consignment  acquires  the  right  to  sell  the  property,  and  apply 
its  proceeds  towards  the  payment  of  the  drafts ;  but  if  these  prove  insufficient, 
he  has  no  lien  for  the  amount  of  the  deficiency  on  subsequent  consignments,  as 
against  persons  who  have  advanced  moneys  upon  them,  and  taken  transfers  of 
the  Ijills  of  lading  as  security."'^' 

Priority  of  Pledgee  against  Person  Advancing  Money  to  Shipper.— 
That  bills  of  lading  taken  by  shipper  were  in  name  of  consignee  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  put  a  bank  taking  them  as  security  on  notice  of  claims  of  person  ad- 
vancing money  to  shipper.  As  the  bills  of  lading  were  never  delivered  to  the 
latter  or  his  agent  or  to  the  consignee,  they  never  secured  title  to  the  property 
by  a  perfected  i^urchase,  and  the  latter  never  secured  a  perfected  lien;  for  they 

45     Assignee     for     creditors. — Loeb     v.  for    the    goods.      Gass   v.    Astoria    Veneer 

Peters,  63  Ala.  243,  35  Am.  Rep.  17;  Har-  Mills,    118    N.    Y.    vS.    982,    134    App.    Div. 

ris     V.    Pratt,     17    N.     Y.    249,    see,     also,  184.     See  ante,  "Payment  of  Freight  and 

O'Brien  v.  Norris,  etc.,  Co.,  16  Md.  122,  77  Charges  as  Condition  Precedent,"  55  5,58. 

Am.  Dec.  284;  Naylor  v.  Dennie   (Mass.),  47.     Unreasonable    delay    of    transferee 

8   Pick.   198,   19  Am.   Dec.  319;   Nichols  v.  in   obtaining   possession. — Gass    v.    South- 

Lifcware,    2    Bing.    83.  crn    I'ac.    Co.,   137    N.   Y.    S.   261,   152  App. 

46.    Refusal  of  indorsee  of  bill  stamped  j^)iv.  412. 

"not   negotiable"   to   pay   freight.— Where  ^g     Liability  to   consignor  for  price   of 

one    had    m    his    possession    the    indorsed  goods.— vSmith  v.  Jefferson  Bank,   120  Mo. 

bill    of   lading    stamped    thereon    with    the  .           -^-j.     97    5     W    247 

r'lr:r'thl^?o',:stner'!o^  dSir  .T;      '    «;  consignee  has  noUen  on  proper.y 


383  BILLS    OF    LADING.  §§   570-574 

had  neither  actual  or  symbolical  possession  of  the  property,  or  any  instrument 
of  writing  whatever  showing  a  valid  lien.-'^i  The  fact  that  bills  of  lading  named 
the  same  i)ersons  both  as  consignors  and  consignees  was  not  sufficient  to  put 
one  taking  them  as  security  on  inquiry  as  to  a  lien  claimed  by  persons  who 
furnishc'(l   nioncN-    for  the   purchase  of   the  goods. •'•- 

Bank  Making  Advances  on  Bill  of  Lading. — A  bank  which  makes  ad- 
vances on  a  bill  of  lading  has  a  lien  to  the  extent  of  the  advances,  on  the  proi> 
erty  in  the  hands  of  the  consignee,  and  can  recover  from  him  the  proceeds  of 
the  property  consigned,  even  though  the  consignor  be  indebted  to  the  consignee 
on  general  account ;  and  the  consignee  can  not  approjjriate  the  property  or  its 
proceeds  to  his  own  use  in  payment  of  a  prior  rlebt.''-' 

Purchaser  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached. — See  post,  '"Drawer 
Indebted   to    Drawee   or   Consignee."    v^    5X1. 

§  571.  Liability  to  Consignee  on  Contract  of  Consignor. — One  who 
gets  a  bill  of  lading  as  assignee  does  not  assume  to  carry  out  the  contract  of 
the  assignor  with  the  consignee  or  drawee  of  the  draft  to  which  it  is  attached ; 
or  to  warrant  the  obligations  of  the  shipper  as  to  the  quality  or  quantity.  The 
foregoing  rule  ai)plies  to  unconditional  transfers  or  assignments  of  bills  of 
lading;  juid  to  shipments  made  with  bill  of  lading  attached  to  a  draft  for  the 
purcliasc  monew''' 

Liability  of  Purchaser  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached  on  War- 
ranty, of  Character,  Quality  or  Quantity  of  Shipment. — See  post,  "Lia- 
bility of    rurchaser   for  Shorta.^c  or   Inferiority  ot'   Shii)nient,"  §  585. 

§§  572-576.  Rights  and  Liabilities  as  to  Third  Persons— §  572. 
Claims  of  Third  Persons  against  Transferrers. — Where  a  transfer  of  a 
bill  of  lading  is  made  to  a  transferee  without  notice  of  a  third  person's  claim 
against  the  transferrer,  its  title  to  goods  is  not  affected  by  such  claims.''^ 

§  573.  Against  Vendor  of  Consignor.— See  post,  "Rights  against  Third 
Persons,"   §   584. 

§  574.  Against  Subsequent  Purchaser  of  Goods. — The  indorsement  of 
a  bill  of  lading  by  the  consignee  to  a  bona  lide  purchaser  will  vest  a  better  ti- 

51.  Priority  against  person  advancing  "Drawer  Indebted  to  Drawee  or  Con- 
money    to    shipper. — Campbell    v.    Alford,  signee,"  §  58L 

57    Tex.    loi);    Frendergast   v.   Williamson,  A    bank    paid    the    purchase    money    for 

':■>   Tex.   Civ.    App.   725,   731.   ?J\   S.   W.    421.  cattle  at  the  request  of  A.,  and  the  cattle 

Against  person  subsequently  advanc-  were  delivered  to  the  bank  by  the  seller, 
ing  money  to  shipper. — A  delivery,  with-  The  cattle  were  shipped  to  another  point 
out  indorsement,  of  a  bill  of  lading  of  for  sale,  the  bill  of  lading  being  issued  in 
goods  in  transit,  to  the  consignee,  who  A's  name,  who  drew  a  draft  upon  the 
had  made  advances,  was  a  sufficient  de-  consignees  which,  with  the  bill  of  lading 
livery  of  the  goods  to  constitute  a  pledge,  attached,  was  indorsed  and  delivered  to 
and  a  person  afterwards  advancing  the  bank.  The  consignees  refused  pay- 
money  on  the  goods  to  the  shipper  ob-  "lent  of  the  draft,  sold  the  cattle,  and 
tained  no  right  superior  to  those  of  the  applied  the  proceeds  to  an  old  debt  owing 
consignee,  although,  at  the  time  of  mak-  to  them  by  .\.  It  was  held  that  the  trans- 
ing  the  advances,  the  goods  were  in  the  *ei'  of  the  bdl  of  lading  to  the  bank  was 
hands  of  a  warehouseman  who  did  not  ^  transfer  of  the  property  in  the  cattle 
know  of  the  consignee's  rights.  Camp-  ^'-^d  that  the  consignees  were  liable  to  the 
bell  V.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159.  bank   for   the   proceeds.      Means   v.   Bank, 


52.   Frendergast   v.    Williamson.    (>    Tex. 


146  V.    S.    620.    .36    L.    Ed.    1107.    13    S.    Ct. 
186. 


Civ.  App.  725,  26  S.  W.  421.  '     '•      ,.   ..,.^       ^                 .                               ^        ^ 

_r     ...            ,                        ,  .,,       r  5*-  Liability    to    consignee    on    contract 

53.  Bank    making    advances    on    bill    of  of     consignor.— Cosmos     Cotton     Co.     :•. 

lading.— Means    v.    Bank,    146    U.    S.    620,  \:\y^[   Xat.   Bank,  .32   L.  R.  A.,   N.  S..  1173, 

627     ;u;    L.    Ed.    1107.    i;;    S.    Ct.    U'.6:    Con-  ^-^     Ala.     392,     54     So.     621.     Ann.     Cas. 

ard   V.   Atlantic    Ins.    Co.    (U.    S.),    1    Pet.  loir^B.  42. 

386,  7  L.   Ed.  189;   Gibson  v.  Stevens   (U.  "55.  ClaTms     of     third     persons     against 

S.),  8  How.  384,  12  L.  Ed.  1123.     See  post.  transferrer.— Freeman    :•.    Bank,    3    Te.xas 

App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  33S. 


J§  574-576 


CARRIERS. 


384 


tie  in  the  indorsee  than  a  snbsequent  sale  of  the  goods  by  the  consignor  in  the 
vendee  ''''" 

Delivery  for  Pre-Existing  Debt. — The  indorsement  of  a  bill  of  lading  and 
the  delivery  of  the  goods  in  consideration  of  a  pre-existing  debt  is  valid  as 
against  a  subsequent  innocent  purchaser  of  the  goods,  whether  such  transfer 
was  in  payment  or  as  collateral   security/"*" 

§§  575-576.  Subsequent  Liens — §  575.  In  General. — A  delivery  of  a 
bill  of  lading  is  a  symbolic  delivery  of  the  property  which  it  represents,  and 
a  holder  of  a  bill  of  lading  has  constructive  possession  of  the  property,  and 
may  hold  it  against  all  persons  acquiring  liens  subsequent  to  the  transfer 
thereof."^ 

§  576.  Subsequent  Attachments. — Where  goods  which  have  been  trans- 
ferred by  the  delivery  of  a  bill  of  lading  representing  them  are  thereafter  at- 
tached by  a  creditor  of  the  transferror,  the  attaching  creditor  acquires  no 
greater  right  in  the  attached  property  than  the  attachment  debtor  had  at  the 
time  of  attachment."''^  If  the  indorsement  was  executed,  after  the  levy  of 
the  writ,  then  the  property  was  subject  to  the  attachment,  and  the  lien  should 
be  foreclosed.^''^ 

Bank  Discounting  or  Purchasing  Draft. — A  bank  receiving  sight  draft 
and  bill  of  lading  and  crediting  the  shipper  therefor  has  a  right  to  the  ship- 
ment prior  to  the  rights  of  a  subsequent  attachment  creditor,  whether  it  was  a 
purchaser  or  merely  a  pledgee  of  the  draft  and  bill  of  lading.*"'^  In  such  case 
neither  the  goods  nor  the  proceeds  of  the  draft  are  subject  to  attachment  as 
the  property  of  the  shipper."-  Where  a  draft  with  bill  of  lading  attached  was 
indorsed  by  the  shipper  and  deposited  with  intervener  bank  for  credit,  the 
bank  became  the  owner  of  the  draft  and  the  shipment  under  the  bill,  as  against 
the  shipper's  attaching  creditors,  in  the  absence  of  jiroof  that  it  took  the  draft 


56.  Against  subsequent  purchasers  of 
the  goods. — Pas^e  &  Co.  v.  Sandusky, 
etc.,  R..  Co.,  4  West.  L.  M.  644,  2  O.  Dec. 
Reprint  716. 

When  triplicate  bills  of  lading  have 
been  executed  by  the  carrier  to  the  order 
of  the  shipper,  and  one  of  the  delivered 
bills  of  lading  was  indorsed  for  value 
before  the  shipper  sold  and  delivered  the 
goods  covered  by  it  to  another,  the  in- 
dorsee of  the  bill  can  recover  against  the 
vendee  of  the  goods  the  value  of  the 
goods,  his  bill  of  lading  being  prior  to 
the  vender's  purchase  and  receipt  of  the 
goods  from  the  shipper.  Skilling  v.  Boll- 
man,  73  Mo.  665,  39  Am.  Rep.  537;  Mid- 
land Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
132  Mo.  492,  33  S.  W.  521,  53  Am.  St.  Rep. 
505.  See  post,  "Duplicate  and  Triplicate 
Bills,"  §  .-)r,2. 

57  Delivery  for  pre-existing  debt. — 
Skilling  V.  Boilman,  73  Mo.  665,  39  Am. 
Rep.  537. 

58.  Priority  as  to  subsequent  liens. — 
Third  Xat.  Bank  i\  Hays,  119  Tenn.  729, 
108  S.  VV.  1060,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
1049.  See  ante,  "Operation  as  Construc- 
tive Delivery  of  Goods,"  §  543. 

59.  Priority  against  subsequent  attach- 
ment.— .^.doue  V.  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex. 
593;  Mercantile  Banking  Co.  v.  Landa 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33   S.  W.  681. 


In  Walker  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49 
Mich.  446,  13  N.  W.  812.  a  creditor  of  the 
consignee  attempted  to  get  possession  of 
the  property  by  garnishment  proceedings 
against  the  carrier.  The  supreme  court 
of  Michigan  discharged  the  carrier  from 
liability  on  the  garnishment  proceedings, 
and  held:  "Common  carriers  must  rec- 
ognize transfers  of  bill  of  lading  and  con- 
signments of  goods,  and,  unless  pro- 
tected by  proper  vouchers,  can  not  al- 
ways assume  to  deal  with  consignments 
as  actually  and  beneficially  belonging  to 
the  consignee."  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnston,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  540,  45  Neb. 
57,  63   N.  W.  144. 

60.  Mercantile  Banking  Co.  v.  Landa 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33  S.  W.  681. 

61.  Ladd,  etc..  Bank  v.  Commercial 
State   Bank   (Ore.),   130   Pac.   975. 

62.  Where  automobiles  were  shipped 
under  a  bill  of  lading,  with  a  draft  on  the 
purchaser  attached,  and  the  draft  was 
discounted  by  intervener  bank  for  the 
benefit  of  the  shipper,  intervener  became 
a  purchaser  of  the  draft  for  value  and 
the  owner  of  the  machines,  so  that  nei- 
ther they  nor  the  proceeds  of  the  draft 
were  subject  to  attachment  as  the  prop- 
erty of  the  shipper.  .-Xmerican  Thresher- 
man  V.  De  Tamlile  Motors  Co.  (Wis.), 
141    N.    W.    210. 


385 


HILLS    OF    LADlXli 


76 


for  collection  only."'^  A  bank  which  purchases*'-*  or  discounts^-^  a  draft  with 
bill  of  lading  attached  or  takes  it  to  secure  advancements,  or  money  due  the 
bank,*"'    acquires   a   special   property    in    the   goods,   it   is   vested   with   the   rights 


63.  Cox,  etc.,  Grocery  Co.  f.  National 
Bank  (Ark.),  156  S.  W.  187. 

64.  Where  a  customer  of  a  milling 
company  orders  flour,  which  is  consigned 
by  tlie  company  to  itself,  with  a  mem- 
orandum on  tile  bill  of  lading  to  notify 
tlie  customer,  and  the  milling  company 
draws  a  draft  for  the  price  of  the  flour 
on  the  customer,  payable  to  a  bank,  and 
the  bill  of  lading,  indorsed  in  blank,  is 
attached,  and  the  company  deposits  the 
draft  with  the  bill  of  lading  attached  with 
the  bank,  and  the  amount  of  the  deposit 
is  credited  to  the  account  of  the  depos- 
itor and  drawn  against,  the  bank  is  the 
purchaser,  and  the  owner  of  the  draft 
and  bill  of  lading,  and  its  title  is  superior 
to  a  s.nbsequcnt  attachment  lien  against 
the  milling  company.  National  Bank  z\ 
Everett,  1.36  Ga.  372,  71  S.  E.  660. 

A  consignee  consigned  car  loads  of 
goods  to  his  own  order,  with  instructions 
to  notify  proposed  buyers,  and  drew 
sight  drafts  against  the  goods  in  favor  of 
a  bank,  and  attached  thereto  the  bills  of 
lading.  The  cashier  of  the  bank  and  the 
consignor  testified  that  the  bank  bought 
the  drafts  outright  and  gave  credit  there- 
for to  tile  consignor,  who  checked 
against  the  credit.  The  consignor  was 
active  in  attempting  to  prevent  the  diver- 
sion of  the  goods  from  the  claim  of  tlie 
liank  to  the  claims  of  subsequent  attacli- 
ing  creditors  of  the  consignor.  Held, 
that  the  bank  had  a  special  property  in 
the  goods,  and  was  entitled  to  recover 
the  amount  of  the  drafts  as  against  the 
attaching  creditors.  Third  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Hays,  108  S.  W.  1060,  119  Tenn.  729,  14 
Am.   &  Eng.   Ann.   Cas.   1049. 

65.  Bank  discounting  draft. — Bank  dis- 
counting draft  to  wiiich  i)ill  of  lading 
was  attached,  and  depositing  net  pro- 
ceeds to  drawer's  credit  in  extinguish- 
ment of  a  debt  due  it,  held  to  be  a  pur- 
chase for  value,  and  to  have  acquired 
title  to  the  property  represented  by  the 
bill  of  lading.  Latham  v.  Spragins  (N. 
C),  78  S.  E.  282. 

Where  a  bank  takes  by  indorsement  a 
bill  of  lading  and  pays  the  draft  of  the 
shipper  for  value  of  the  goods,  no  at- 
tachable interest  remains  in  the  shipper. 
Buckeye  Nat.  Bank  :■.  Huff  (Va.),  7.5  S. 
E.  769. 

The  consignee  of  fruit,  who  was  the 
shipper's  agent,  sold  the  same  while  in 
transit  and  drew  a  draft  for  the  price, 
which  he  attached  to  an  order  on  the  car- 
rier for  delivery  as  authorized  by  the  bill 
of  lading.  The  draft  was  discounted  by  a 
bank,  and  after  the  fruit  was  rejected  by 
the  purchaser,  the  consignee's  agent  re- 
sold it  to  another,  who  agreed  to  pay  the 

1    Car— 25 


draft;  but,  before  he  did  so,  the  fruit  was 
attached  as  the  property  of  the  con- 
signee. Held,  that  the  bank,  on  discount- 
ing the  drafts,  became  the  owner  of  the 
fruit  until  payment,  and  was  vested  with 
the  rights  of  a  mortgagee  in  possession 
as  against  the  attaching  creditors.  Se- 
ward &  Co.  z:  Miller,  55  S.  E.  681,  106 
Va.  309. 

A  consignee  of  certain  fruit,  after  sell- 
ing the  same,  drew  a  draft,  attached  to 
an  order  on  the  carrier  for  delivery 
thereof,  which  draft  was  discounted  by  a 
bank.  The  purchaser  having  refused  the 
fruit  on  arrival,  the  consignee's  agent 
sold  the  fruit  to  another,  who  agreed  to 
pay  the  draft,  but  did  not  do  so  until  an 
attachment  was  levied  on  the  fruit  as  the 
property  of  the  consignee.  Held  that, 
though  the  consignee's  agent  had  no  au- 
thority to  sell  the  fruit  after  discounting 
the  draft,  the  acceptance  by  the  bank  of 
payment  of  the  draft  from  the  second 
purchaser  transferred  to  him  all  the 
bank's  rights  to  the  property.  Seward  & 
Co.  7\  Miller,  55  S.  E.  681,  106  Va.  309. 

The  goods  were  not  the  property  of 
the  consignee  at  the  time  the  attachment 
was  levied.  They  belonged  either  to  the 
bank  or  to  the  second  purchaser.  If  pay- 
ment of  the  draft  was  an  essential  pre- 
requisite, to  invest  the  second  purchaser 
with  title,  then  they  were  the  property 
of  the  bank;  and  if  the  agent  of  the  con- 
signee had  no  right  to  make  sale  to  the 
second  purchaser,  yet  when  the  bank  ac- 
cepted payment  of  the  draft  from  him. 
all  its  rights  passed  to  him,  and  the  at- 
tacliing  creditor  had  no  greater  right 
against  him  than  it  had  against  the  bank. 
Seward  &  Co.  f.  Miller,  106  Va.  309,  55 
S.   E.  681. 

66.  If  a  live  stock  shipper  had  turned 
bills  of  lading  with  draft  attached  over  to 
a  bank  which  advanced  the  money  to  buy 
the  stock  shipped,  in  order  to  transfer  to 
the  bank  title  to  the  stock  or  to  the  pro- 
ceeds, or  to  secure  the  bank  for  its  ad- 
vancements, or  in  the  nature  of  an  order 
on  the  consignee  for  the  fund,  which, 
when  received,  was  to  be  credited  on  the 
the  bank's  claim,  then,  upon  the  delivery 
of  the  bills  of  lading,  the  bank  obtained 
the  right  to  receive  the  payment,  and 
the  proceeds  were  no  longer  garnishable 
upon  the  demand  of  a  third  person. 
What  Cheer  Sav.  Bank  7-.  Mowery,  149 
Iowa  114,  128  N.  W.  7,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.. 
646. 

That  a  bank  promised  the  money  or 
paid  checks  given  by  a  live  stock  shipper 
for  stock  bought,  or  that  he  promised  to 
pay  out  of  the  proceeds,  did  not  give  the 
bank  any   lien   or  rights  in   the   stock;   but 


§  576 


CARRIERS. 


386 


of  a  mortgagee  in  possession  and  is  entitled  to  recover  the  amount  of  the  drafts 
as  against  attaching  creditors.  As  atfecting  a  creditor's  right  to  garnish  the 
proceeds  of  a  shipment,  delivery  of  the  shipment  to  the  carrier  and  receipt  by 
the  shipper  of  a  bill  of  lading  did  not  transfer  to  the  consignees  title  to  the 
shipment,  nor  make  them  the  shipper's  debtors,  where  the  bill  of  lading  was 
not  delivered  or  tendered  to  them,  but  was  delivered  to  a  bank  for  delivery  to 
the   consignees   on   payment   of   the   price.^''^ 

Delivery  of  Property  Where  Bill  of  Lading  Pledged.— An  actual  man- 
ual delivery  of  the  goods  is  not  necessary  to  pass  possession,  nor  is 
it  necessary  that  the  delivery  should  be  made  to  the  pledgee  in  person  in  or- 
der to  defeat  a  subsequent  attachment.^^^  Wliere  property  in  transitu  is  pledged 
by  the  delivery  of  bills  of  lading  therefor,  such  delivery  is  a  constructive  de- 
livery of  the  p'roperty  by  which  a  lien  in  the  way  of  pledge  is  created,  which  is 
superior  to  an  attachment  lien  upon  the  property.<5»  The  transfer  of  the  bill  of 
lading  to  the  pledgee  is  as  effectual  a  transfer  of  goods  as  their  manual  de- 
livery could  be.  '"'  The  special  requisite  of  delivery  is,  no  matter  in  whose 
hands  the  propertv  was  a  deposit,  that  it  be  no  longer  subject,  in  fact  or  in 
law,  to  the  dominion,  possession  or  control  of  the  pledgor,  but  to  that  of  the 
pledgee.'^ 

Marshaling  Securities.— If  goods  after  having  been  transferred  to  a  cred- 
itor by  the  deliverv  of  a  bill  of  lading  representing  them  are  attached  by  an- 
other creditor  of  the  transferrer,  the  former,  though  he  has  other  securities, 
can  not  be  compelled  to  exhaust  them  before  resorting  to  the  goods.  This  is 
not  a  case  of  two  persons  having  a  lien  on  the  same  property,  one  of  whom 
has  another  security,  also,  for,  by  reason  of  the  transfer  before  the  levy  of  the 


if  the  bank  furnished  the  money  on  an 
agreement  that  the  proceeds  of  the  stock 
were  to  be  set  aside  or  applied^  to  pay- 
ment, or  as  security  of  the  bank's  claim, 
or  if  the  legal  effect  of  the  manner  of 
shipment  and  the  delivery  to  the  bank  of 
the  bill  of  lading  with  draft  attached 
vested  it  as  against  the  shipper  with  the 
right  to  receive  the  proceeds,  another 
creditor  could  not  garnish  the  proceeds. 
What  Cheer  Sav.  Bank  v.  Mowery,  128 
N.  \V.  7,  149  Iowa  114,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
646. 

If  a  bank  took  a  bill  of  lading  with 
draft  attached  covering  a  shipment  as  se- 
curity, or  under  an  agreement  express  or 
implied  that  it  should  collect  the  money 
due  or  to  become  due  from  the  consignee 
and  apply  it  to  the  bank's  claim  against 
the  shipper,  no  garnishment  of  the  con- 
signee could  defeat  the  l)ank's  right  thus 
created;  the  bank's  right  not  depending 
on  its  having  taken  the  draft  and  bill  of 
lading  in  payment  of  its  claims.  What 
Cheer  Sav.  Bank  v.  Mowery,  128  N.  W.  7, 
149  Iowa  114,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  646. 

67.  What  Cheer  Sav.  Bank  v.  Mowery, 
128  N.  W.  7,  149  Iowa  114.  33  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..   (;4r,. 

68.  Delivery  of  property. — Adoue  v. 
Seeligson  &  Co.,  'A  Tex.  593.  See  post, 
"Pledge,  Mortgage  or  Collateral  Secu- 
rity," §   577. 

69.  Campbell  v.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159, 
162. 

A   cotton   factor   in   Galveston   procured 


an  advance  of  money  from  a  banker  on 
"cotton  in  press,"  for  which  he  gave  his 
order  on  the  press  to  deliver  the  cotton 
to  a  vessel  then  in  port  loading  for  Liv- 
erpool. The  order  was  notified  to  the 
press,  and  the  master  of  the  vessel  made 
and  delivered  to  the  cotton  factor,  as  the 
shipper,  a  bill  of  lading  for  the  cotton, 
which  the  factor  indorsed  and  delivered 
to  the  banker,  with  his  exchange  on  Liv- 
erpool, in  favor  of  the  banker,  attached. 
Afterwards  a  third  party,  who  was  a 
creditor  of  the  cotton  factor,  sued  out  an 
attachment  against  him  and  levied  it  on 
the  cotton,  which  was  still  in  press.  In 
a  contest  between  the  banker,  as  claim- 
ant of  the  cotton,  and  the  attaching  cred- 
itor, held,  the  execution  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing for  the  cotton  by  the  master  of  the 
vessel  in  favor  of  the  cotton  factor,  and 
the  transfer  and  delivery  thereof  by  the 
factor  to  the  banker,  constituted  con- 
structive delivery  of  the  cotton.  Adoue 
V.  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex.  593. 

The  execution  of  the  delivery  order  by 
the  factor  to  the  vessel  for  the  cotton  in 
press,  and  the  recognition  and  accept- 
ance thereof  by  the  press,  l)efore  the  levy 
of  attacliment,  constitutes  a  delivery  of 
the  cotton,  so  as  to  except  it  from  at- 
tachment l)y  the  creditor.  Adoue  v.  Seel- 
igson  &  Co.,   54  Tex.   593. 

70.  Adoue  v.  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex. 
593. 

71.  Adoue  V.  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex. 
593. 


387 


lilLLS    OF    LADING. 


§§  576-577 


attachnK-nt,   the   profjcrty   never  l)ecanie   subject   to   the   attachment   lienJ^ 

Effect  of  Custom. — K\i(lence  of  custom  can  not  be  given  to  overcome  the 
transferee's  shcjwing  of  title,  and  give  priority  to  the  attachment  Hen."^ 

§  577.  Pledg'e,  Mortgage  or  Collateral  Security. — It  is  well  settled  that 
the  owner  of  the  hill  of  lading  ina\  pk-dge  the  >anie  as  collateral  security  for 
a  debt.'-* 

Who  Are  Pledgees,  etc. — .\  bank  advancing  money  to  the  consignee  to 
pay  for  the  goods  and  taking  the  bills  of  lading  representing  the  same  as  col- 
lateral  security   fctr  the  l(i>s.  aii|uires  a  lien  on  such  goods. "'^ 

Security  for  Pre-Existing  Debt. — The  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  as 
mere  collateral  security  for  a  pre-existing  debt  does  not  make  the  transferee 
a  purchaser  for  \aluc.''" 

Rights  of  Pledgee,  etc. — When  a  bill  of  lading  is  transferred  and  deliv- 
ered as  collateral  security,  the  rights  of  the  pledgee  under  it  are  the  same  as 
those  of  an  actual  purchaser,  so  far  as  the  exercise  of  those  rights  are  nec- 
essary to  protect  the  hoUlcr.'' 


72.  Marshaling  securities. — Scharff  z\ 
Meyer.  . j  t  Am.  St.  Rep.  1172,  i:53  Mo.  428, 
■.U   S.    W.   S58. 

73.  Where  claimant  alleges  title  to  a 
carload  of  grain,  attached  as  the  prop- 
erty of  the  shipper  and  consignee,  by 
indorsement  and  transfer  of  the  bill  of 
lading  prior  to  the  attachment,  plaintif? 
whg  joins  issue,  in  efifect  asserting  that 
the  indorsement  was  subsequent  to  the 
levy,  can  not  give  evidence  of  custom  to 
overcome  claimant's  showing  of  title  by 
such  indorsement  and  transfer;  any  evi- 
dence of  custom  given  by  claimant  hav- 
ing simply  amounted  to  a  statement  of 
what  his  legal  rights  were  by  reason  of 
the  indorsement  and  transfer.  Mercan- 
tile Banking  Co.  z\  Landa  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  ;;;{  S.  W.  GSi. 

74.  Pledge  mortgage  or  collateral  se- 
curity.— Douglas  V.  People's  Bank,  86  Ky. 
ITG,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  243,  5  S.  W.  420,  9 
Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
510. 

A  bill  of  lading,  like  any  negotiable 
credit,  may  be  pledged  by  indorsement 
and  delivery  to  secure  any  lawful  obli-  ' 
gation,  under  Civ.  Code,  arts.  3136,  3158. 
Scheuermann  v.  Monarch  Fruit  Co.,  48 
So.  647,  123   La.   5.5. 

The  merchandise  represented  by  a  bill 
of  lading  is  very  often  pledged  by  the 
transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  which  car- 
ries it.  Yegen  t'.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
19  N.  Dak.  70,  121  N.  W.  205. 

75.  The  sellers  of  cotton  took  bills  of 
lading  in  their  own  names  and  sent  drafts 
for  the  price  to  a  correspondent  for  col- 
lection, and  the  purchaser  paid  the  drafts 
l)y  cliecks  on  a  bank,  which  had  agreed 
to  pay  the  checks  and  take  bills  of  lad- 
ing as  security,  and  the  purchaser,  on  so 
paying  the  drafts,  received  the  bills  of 
lading,  and  delivered  them  to  the  bank 
under  the  agreement.  Held,  that  the 
purchaser  of  the  cotton  did  not  become 
the  absolute  owner  thereof  on  paying  tlie 


drafts  of  the  seller  by  taking  and  receiv- 
ing the  accompanying  bills  of  lading,  and 
that  by  delivery  of  the  bills  of  lading  to 
the  bank  it  acquired  a  lien  on  the  cotton. 
Judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W. 
1033,  modified.  First  Nat.  Bank  r.  San 
Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  S.  W.  410,  97  Tex. 
201. 

76.  Security  for  pre-existing  debt. — 
Loeb  7:  I'eters,  35  .\ni.  Rep.  17.  63  Ala. 
243. 

A  mortgage  or  pledge  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing for  a  pre-existing  debt  is  valid 
against  subsequent  purchasers  of  the 
goods.  Skilling  r.  Bollman,  73  Mo.  665, 
39  Am.   Rep.  537,  540. 

77.  Rights  of  pledgee. — Means  z\  Bank, 
146  U.  S.  620.  36  L.  Ed.  1107,  13  S.  Ct. 
186. 

Campbell  r.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159,  162; 
Adoue  V.  Seeligson  &  Co.,  54  Tex.  593; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer.  82 
Tex.  195,  17  S.  \V.  608,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 
861. 

One  who  makes  a  temporary  advance 
to  the  consignee,  taking  the  bill  of  lading 
as  his  security,  has  the  same  rights  as  the 
buyer  of  the  goods.  Alissouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
f.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195.  17  S.  W. 
608,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  861. 

In  absence  of  notice  of  fraud. — Where 
the  facts  are  not  such  as  to  put  upon  no- 
tice the  Iiolder  of  a  bill  to  whom  it  had 
been  negotiated  for  value  as  security  for 
a  draft  drawn  by  the  consignor  on  a  third 
person,  that  a  promissory  note  negoti- 
ated for  value  by  the  consignor  to  the 
same  holder  had  been  given  after  deliv- 
ery of  the  goods,  and  to  cover  the  pur- 
chase price,  and  where  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  any  participation  by  the  holder 
of  the  bill  in  the  fraud  of  the  consignor, 
the  payment  of  the  note  by  the  maker 
does  not  release  the  carrier  from  liability 
on  the  bill.  Boatman's  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  221,  7  S.  E. 
125. 


§  S77 


CARRIERS. 


388 


Title  to  Goods  and  Right  of  Possession. — The  pledge  of  a  bill  of  lading 
does  not  invest  the  pledgee  with  title  to  the  property;  the  title  remains  in 
the  pledgor :  but  the  pledgee  acquires  a  lien  upon  the  property  for  the  secu- 
rity of  his  debt;  and  this  lien,  as  long  as  he  retains  the  possession  of  the  prop- 
erty, either  actual  or  symbolical,  is  a  legal  lien,  which  is  paramount  to,  and 
will  therefore  prevail  against,  any  prior  equities  existing  on  behalf  of  third 
parties,  of  which  the  pledgee  had  no  notice,  or  of  which  he  was  not  required 
by  law  to  take  notice.'^-'*  The  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading,  although  the  trans- 
action is  not  intended  to  give  the  permanent  ownership,  but  to  furnish  secu- 
rity for  advances  of  money,  or  discount  of  commercial  paper  made  upon  the 
faith  of  it,  confers  upon  the  person  to  wdiom  it  is  transferred  the  title  to  the 
goods   and   the   right   of   possession   till  the   debt   is   paid.'^ 

Intention  of  Parties. — A  pledgee  to  whom  a  bill  of  lading  is  given  as  se- 
curity gels  the  legal  title  to  the  goods  and  the  right  of  possession  only  if  such 
is  the  intention  of  the  parties,  and  that  intention  is  open  to  explanation.^*^ 


78.  Title  to  goods  and  right  of  posses- 
sion.— Petitt  &  Cu.  T.  First  Nat.  Bank 
XKy.),  4  Bush  334;  Douglas  v.  People's 
Bank,  86  Ky.  176,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  243,  5  S. 
\V.  420,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  276,  32  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  510. 

79.  Where  advances  are  made  upon 
goods  in  transit,  and  the  bill  of  lading  or 
invoice  is  assigned,  the  title  to  the  goods 
passes  and  vests  in  the  assignee.  Manu- 
facturers' Commercial  Co.  v.  Rochester 
R.  Co.,  126  N.  Y.  S.  1051,  142  App.  Div. 
249. 

Where  a  bank  furnislied  money  for  the 
purchase  of  cotton,  and  received  from 
the  railroad  company  by  which  the  cot- 
ton was  shipped  the  bills  of  lading  to 
hold  as  security  for  the  money  expended 
for  the  cotton,  the  bank  was  entitled  to 
hold  the  cotton  until  its  debt  was  paid. 
National  Bank  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  93 
S.  W.  209,  41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  535;  Camp- 
bell V.  Alford,  57  Tex.  159. 

A  bank  furnished  money  to  a  buyer  of 
cotton  and  received  the  bills  of  lading  for 
the  cotton  to  hold  as  security.  The  rail- 
road company  deposited  the  cotton  with 
a  compress  company,  which  issued  re- 
ceipts stating  on  their  face  that  they 
were  nonnegotiable.  These  receipts 
were  exchanged  by  the  railroad  company 
for  the  bills  of  lading.  Held,  that, 
though  the  receipts  were  nonnegotiable, 
they  nevertheless  gave  the  bank  a  right 
to  the  possession  of  the  cotton.  Na- 
tional Bank  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  41 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  535,  93  S.  W.  209,  affirmed 
in  101  Tex.  650,  no  op. 

A  bank  furnished  money  to  a  buyer  of 
cotton,  and  received  the  bills  of  lading 
for  the  cotton  to  hold  as  security.  The 
railroad  company  deposited  the  cotton 
with  a  compress  company,  which  issued 
receipts  stating  on  their  face  that  they 
were  nonnegotiable.  These  receipts  were 
exchanged  by  the  railroad  company  for 
the  bills  of  lading.  The  bank  sold  the 
cotton,  accepting  the  buyer's  note,  but 
retaining  the  compress  company's  re- 
ceipts    as     security.       Held,     that,     even 


though  the  note  were  good,  the  accept- 
ance of  it  did  not  deprive  the  bank  of  the 
right  to  the  possession  of  the  cotton. 
National  Bank  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  41 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  535,  93  S.  W.  209,  af- 
firmed in  101  Tex.  650,  no  op. 

The  railroad  delivered  the  cotton  to 
the  Cleburne  Compress  Company,  which 
executed  and  delivered  to  the  railroad 
its  receipts  for  same.  These  receipts 
were  exchanged  to  appellee  for  the  JdHIs 
of  lading  held  by  it.  The  status  of  the 
property  was  not  changed  by  this  ex- 
change, except  the  compress  became  the 
bailee  of  the  cotton,  instead  of  the  rail- 
road. National  Bank  i'.  Citizens'  Nat. 
Bank,  41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  535,  93  S.  W.  209, 
affirmed  in  101  Tex.  650,  no  op. 

B.  having  received  advances  from  C.  & 
C,  of  Galveston,  on  the  faith  of  his 
agreement  to  ship  them  certain  goods, 
delivered  the  goods  to  a  carrier  to  be 
transported  to  Liberty,  the  carrier  exe- 
cuting duplicate  bills  of  lading  specifying 
that  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered  to 
the  care  of  W.  at  Liberty,  to  be  for- 
warded to  C.  &  C.  After  delivering  with- 
out indorsement  one  of  these  bills  of  lad- 
ing to  C.  &  C,  B.  procured  from  A.  & 
Co.  advances  on  the  same  goods  they 
having  inquired  of  W.,  and  being  in- 
formed by  him  that  he  held  the  goods 
subject  to  the  order  of  B.  W.  had  never 
seen  or  had  notice  of  the  bill  of  lading. 
Held,  tliat  the  rights  of  the  pledgees  at- 
tached when  the  goods  were  delivered  to 
the  carrier  under  a  bill  of  lading  declar- 
ing that  the  goods  were  to  be  forwarded 
to  them;  that  thereafter  the  rights  of  the 
pledgees  were  superior  to  those  of  the 
original  owner,  or  any  acquired  through 
him,  and  this,  too,  although  the  ware- 
houseman, and  forwarding  agent  at  Lib- 
erty, having  no  notice  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, held  the  goods  subject  to  the  order 
of  the  shipper.  Campbell  v.  Alford,  57 
Tex.  159. 

80.  The  Carlos  F.  Roses,  177  U.  S.  665, 
44  L.  Ed.  929,  20  S.  Ct.  803;  Pollard  v. 
Vinton,   105  U.   S.  7,  26  L.  Ed.  998;   Shaw 


389 


lilLLS    OF    LAUI.NG. 


§  '^yi 


Delivery  of  Bill  of  Lading  Equivalent  to  Actual  Possession  of  Goods. 

— As  it  is  indispensahlc  to  llie  xalidily  (jf  a  i)lc(l,i,a-  thai  the  actual  possession  of 
the  property  pledged  should  i^ass  to  the  pledgee,  the  possession  of  property 
which  is  sought  to  be  jiledged  while  it  is  in  transit  may  be  effected  by  trans- 
ferring the  bill  of  lading.  Such  transfer  of  the  bill  of  lading  is  regarded  as 
equivalent  to  investing  the  pledgee  with  the  actual  possession  of  the  property. ^^ 
The  indorsement  and  delivery  of  a  bill  of  lading  operates  the  same  as  the 
delivery  of  the  goods,  and  the  pledgee  to  whom  the  same  is  delivered  can  hold 
the  property  to  secure  his  debt,  against  the  consignee  or  any  other  person.''- 

Action  for  Wrongful  Conversion  of  Goods. — The  transfer  and  delivery 
of  an  Inland  bill  of  lading  of  goods,  by  the  consignee  to  a  person  who  advances 
money  upon  them,  is  not  in  form  or  effect  a  mortgage,  but  vests  in  such  per- 
son a  property  in  the  goods,  which  entitles  him  to  maintain  an  action  against 
one  who  wrongfully  converts  them;  as,  for  instance,  the  carrier,  if  he  delivers 
the  goods  to  the  consignee,  without  requiring  the  ])roduction  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, but  reiving  u])on   his  assertitju   that  he  holds   it.^'- 

Priority  against  Assignment  of  Purchase  Money. — Where  bills  of  lad- 
ing for  property  loaded  and  shipped  under  a  contract  of  sale  designated  the 
seller  as  the  consignor  and  the  buyer  the  consignee,  and  an  assignee  made  an 
advance  on  the  faith  of  an  assignment  thereof  while  the  property  was  in  the 
possession  of  the  carrier,  he  acquired  a  property  interest  in  it,  without  an 
indorsement  of  tlie  bills  which  was  prior  in  right  to  an  assignment  by  the 
consignor  of  the  proceeds  thereof  to  be  paid  by  the  buyer.''-*  And  such 
assignee  did  not  lose  his  priority  over  the  former  assignment  of  the  purchase 
price  by  allowing  the  shipment  to  be  delivered  to  the  buyer,  who  on  receiving 
them  and  acknowledging  that  the  bills  of  lading  had  been  assigned  to  cover 
advances  made  on  the  faitli  thereof,  was  bound  to  account  to  the  assignee  of 


V.  Railroad  Co.,  101  U.  S.  .'iST,  25  L.  Ed. 
892;  Friedlandor  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
130  U.  S.  416,  423,  32  L.  Ed.  991,  9  S. 
Ct.  570;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  McFad- 
den,  154  U.  S.  155,  38  L.  Ed.  941,  14  S. 
Ct.  990;  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  : . 
Commercial    Nat.    Bank,    123    U.    S.    727, 

31  L.   Ed.  287,  8  S.  Ct.  266. 

The  passage  of  title  to  goods  in  transit 
by  an  assignment  of  the  invoices  or  liills 
of  lading  to  secure  advances  is  controlled 
largely  by  the  intention  of  the  par- 
ties. Manufacturers'  Commercial  Co.  v. 
Rochester  R.  Co.,  126  N.  Y.  S.  1051,  142 
App.    Div.    249. 

Intention  of  parties.  —  Manufacturers' 
Commercial  Co.  v.  Rochester  R.  Co.,  126 
N.    Y.    S.    lO.'.l,    142    .\pp.    Div.   24'». 

81.  Delivery  of  bill  of  lading  equivalent 
to  actual  possession  of  goods. — Douglas 
V.  People's  Hank,  SC,  Ky.  17C),  5  S.  \V.  420, 
10   Ky.   L.    Rep.   24;!,   9   .\m.    St.   Rep.   276, 

32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  510.  See  ante, 
"Subsequent    Liens."   §§   575-576. 

A  bill  of  lading  represents  the  prop- 
erty, and  any  bona  fide  title,  for  valua- 
ble consideration,  obtained  through  a 
pledge  of  the  l)ill  of  lading,  is  as  valid 
and  effectual  a  title  to  the  goods  as 
could  be  obtained  liy  an  actual  delivery 
of  the  goods  themselves.  Grayson 
County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nashville,  etc.. 
Railway  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  79  S.  W.  1094. 
1096;  Adoue  v.   Seeligson   &  Co.,   54   Tex. 


593,  594;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer.  82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  W.  608,  27 
Am.   St.   Rep.   861. 

82.  Campbell  v.  Alford.  57  Tex.  159.  162. 

83.  Action  for  wrongful  conversion  of 
goods. —  Forbes  :■.  Bostim,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
133  Mass.  154. 

84.  Priority  against  assignment  of  pur- 
chase money. — Manufacturers'  Commercial 
Co.  V.  Rochester  R.  Co.,  117  N.  Y.  S. 
989,  affirmed  123  N.  Y.  S.  1128,  137  .App. 
Div.  882. 

A  lumber  company,  which  had  a  con- 
tract to  deliver  a  large  number  of  ties 
to  a  railroad  companj-,  assigned  to  plain- 
tiff, its  creditor,  30.000,  ties,  but.  no  ties 
having  been  collected  at  the  time,  no 
title  to  specific  ties  passed.  When  ship- 
ments were  later  made,  the  bills  of  lad- 
ing were  indorsed  by  the  lumber  com- 
pany to  plaintiflf  to  apply  on  the  debt, 
and  payment  was  made  thereon  to  the 
plaintiflf  l>y  the  railroad  company.  Held, 
that  the  rights  of  another  creditor  of  the 
lumber  company,  who  made  advances  on 
the  security  of  pledges  of  bills  of  lading 
of  specific  ties,  to  money  in  the  hands 
of  the  company,  held  by  it  for  payment 
for  the  ties  represented  by  the  pledged 
bills  of  lading,  were  superior  to  the  claim 
of  plaintiflf.  Manufacturers'  Commercial 
Co.  V.  Rochester  R.  Co..  126  N.  Y.  S. 
1051,    142    App.    Div.    249. 


§§  577-579  CARRIERS.  390 

the  bills   for  the  purchase  price.'^-'^ 

Priority    against    Person    Advancing    Money    to    Shipper.— See    ante, 

"Claim   for   Advances   to   Consit;nor."    §    ?70. 

Estoppel  of  Consignor  to  Assert  Title.— Where  a  merchant  ships  goods 
to  his  broker,  without  conveying  title  to  him  but  purely  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
tribution to  others,  and  sends  to  the  broker  a  bill  of  lading,  indorsed  in  blank, 
for  goods  the  possession  of  which,  by  the  general  custom  of  trade,  is  re- 
garded as  evidence  of  the  right  to  dispose  of  the  property  for  which  it  is  is- 
sued, he  can  not.  in  an  action  of  trover,  recover  the  goods  from  a  bank  which 
has  'in  good  faith  and  without  notice  of  the  owner's  title,  taken  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing'as  security  for  a  loan  of  money  to  the  broker  on  his  individual  account, 
an*d  converted^  the  propertv  upon   default  in  the  payment  of   its   debt.-^*' 

Substitution  of  New  'Security.— The  surrender  of  bills  of  lading,  held 
a*^  collateral  securitv  for  a  loan,  is  a  good  consideration  for  the  substitution 
therefor  of  new  bill's  of  lading  antedating  the  loan.  As  against  the  carrier  the 
holder  is  still  a  holder  for  value.'*'  ,^ 

Priority   against   Attachment.— See    ante,    "Subsequent    Attachments,      § 

Stoppage    in   Transitu.— See   ante,   "As   Defecting   Stoppage   in   Transitu," 

Release  or  Discharge  of  Lien.— A  sale  of  cotton  by  the  pledgor  of  the 
bills  of  lading,  pursuant  to  the  uniform  custom  with  the  pledgee,  releases  the 
carrier  issuing  the  bills  from  liability  to  the  pledgee,'^^  and  the  bank's_  lien  on 
the  cotton  is  terminated  by  the  deliv'ery  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  to  it.^^ 

§§  578-587.  Purchase  or  Discount  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  At- 
tached—§  578.  Recording  Papers.— A  bank  wdiich  discounts  a  draft  with 
a  bill  of  lading  attached,  if  not  the  absolute  owner  of  the  goods,  stands  in  the 
position  of  a  mortgagee  in  possession,  and  is  not  required,  in  order  to  protect 
its   lien,  to  have  the  papers  recorded."" 

§§  579-584.  Rights  and  Title  of  Purchaser— §§  579-582.  As  to 
Consignor  and  Consignee— §  579.  In  General.— A  party  discounting  a 
draft  and  receiving  therewith,  deliverable  to  his  order,  a  bill  of  lading  of  the 
goods  against  which  the  draft  was  drawn,  acquires  a  special  property  in  them 
and  has  a  complete  right  to  hold  them  as  security  for  the  acceptance  and  pay- 
ment of  the  draft.-'i     He  becomes  the  owner  of  the  shipment  and  neither  the 

85.  Manufacturers'  Commercial  Co.  v.  and  on  receiving  payment,  to  deposit  the 
Rochester  R.  Co.,  117  N.  Y.  S.  989,  af-  amount  in  the  bank.  Held,  that  the 
firmed  123  N.  Y.  S.  1128,  137  App.  Div.  bank's  lien  on  cotton  which  was  sold 
882.  was    terminated    by    the    delivery    of    the 

86.  Estoppel  of  consignor  to  assert  ti-  proceeds  of  the  sale  to  it.  Judgment 
tie.— Commercial  Bank  v.  Armsby  Co.,  (Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  1033,  modified. 
120  Ga  74,  47  S.  E.  589,  G5  L.  R.  A.,  N.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R. 
S      443  Co..    77    vS.    W.    410,    97    Tex.    201. 

87.  Substitution  of  new  security.— Mid-  90.  Bank  discounting  draft  with  bill  of 
land  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  lading  attached.— Seward  &  Co.  v.  Mil- 
132    Mo.    492,    33    S.    W.    521,    53    Am.    St.  ler,  lOG  Va.   309,  55   S.   E.   681. 

Rep.  505.  Where    a    bank    discounted    a    draft    at- 

88.  Release  or  discharge  of  lien.— First  tached  to  an  order  on  a  carrier  for  the 
Nat  Bank  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  delivery  of  freight,  it  was  not  necessary 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  1033,  affirmed  that  it  should  have  the  papers  recorded, 
in  part  and  reversed  in  part  in  97  Tex.  as  provided  by  Code,  §  2465,  in  order  to 
201.  preserve   its   lien.      Seward    &   Co.   v.    Mil- 

89.  A  bank  agreed  with   cotton   dealers       ler,   55   S.   E.   681,  106  Va.   309.  _ 

to    advance    money    to    them    to    pay    for  91.   Transfer  of  bill  of  lading  with  bill 

cotton  purchased,  taking  the  bills  of  lad-  of  exchange  attached.— Dows  v.   National 

ing   as    security,    and    the    uniform    course  Excli.    Bank,   91   U.   S.  018,   23   L.   Ed.   214. 

of    business    had    been    for    such    dealers  Georgia.— Faxson    Bros.    v.    Warfield,    6 

to   sell  the  cotton,   and,   after   sales    were  Ga.  App.  315,  65  S.  E.  34.  _ 

made,  to  receive  the  bills  from  the  bank,  Under    the    express    provisions    of    Civ. 


391 


I5ILLS   OF    LADING. 


§  579 


original  consignor  nor  the  consignee  or  drawee  has  any  right  to  control  it,*'- 
nor  can  they  or  any  one  else  effect  the  transferee's  title."'^  The  special  prop- 
erty in  the  goods  which  therehy  passes  to  such  transferee  is  suhject  to  be  de- 
vested by  the  acceptance  and  ])ayincnt  of  the  draft.  If  the  consignee  refuses 
to  accept  and  pay  such  draft,  the  liile  to  tlie  property  included  in  the  bill  of 
lading  becomes  absolute  in  the.  indorsee  as  against  the  consignor  and  his  cred- 
itors.'••»  The  indorsement  and  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lading  and  drafts  to 
which  it  is  attached,  operates  as  a  sympolical  delivery  of  the  goods  in  tran- 
situ covered  by  such  bill  and  transfers  the  title  thereto  to  the  indorsee  as  ef- 
fectually as  if  the  goods  them.selves  had  been  delivered  to  him. '■J''  By  reason  of 
the  consideration  moving  from  him  as  such  purchaser,  he  acquires  a  position 
superior  to  that  of  the  drawee,  and  has  the  right  to  insist  on  the  drawee's 
recognizing  this  position  before  delivering  the  bill  of  lading  to  him."''  But  he 
has  no  more  rights  than  the  shipper  and  if  the  shipjier  could  not  require  ac- 
ceptance of  a  time  draft  without  surrendering  the  bill  of  lading,  neither  can 
the   holder.'-'"'" 


Code  lUK).  §  41:34,  when  a  1-ill  of  hiding 
is  attached  to  a  draft  drawn  on  a  third 
person,  it  will  be  treated  as  security  for 
the  draft,  and  neither  title  to  the  goods 
nor  right  to  the  bill  of  lading  will  pass 
to  the  drawee  until,  as  required  therein, 
he  accepts,  or  accepts  and  secures,  or 
pays  the  draft,  as  the  case  may  be. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Strozier.  10  Ga.  App. 
157,  73   S.   E.   42. 

North  Carolina. — The  holder  of  a  draft, 
who  takes  an  attached  bill  of  lading  by 
assignment,  as  security  for  the  amount 
advanced  on  the  draft,  becomes  the 
owner  of  the  goods,  as  against  the  ac- 
ceptor, to  an  extent  sufficient  to  secure 
and  protect  his  claim.  Mason  v.  Nelson 
Cotton  Co.,  62  S.  E.  625,  148  N.  C.  492, 
18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1221,  128  Am.  St.  Rep. 
035. 

Tennessee— Th'ivd  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hays, 
119  Tenn.  729,  108  S.  \V.  1060,  14  Am. 
&    Eng.    Ann.    Cas.    1049. 

West  I'irginia. — Neill  z:  Rogers  Bros. 
Produce   Co..  41   W.   Va.   37,  23   S.   E.  702. 

Rights  of  attaching  creditor. — See  ante, 
"Sul)sequent   Liens,"   §§   ■")7.")-.')76. 

92.  Paxson  Bros.  v.  Warfield,  6  Ga. 
App.  315,  65   S.   E.   34. 

Goods  billed  to  shipper's  order — Con- 
signee to  be  notified.  Where  a  carrier 
gives  a  bill  of  lading  specifying  that  the 
goods  are  to  be  delivered  to  the  order 
of  the  consignor  at  a  given  destination, 
though  some  other  person  is  to  l)e  noti- 
fied as  consignee,  and  the  original  con- 
signor attaches  the  bill  of  lading  to  the 
draft  and  sells  the  draft  and  bill  of  lad- 
ing to  a  third  person,  that  person  be- 
comes the  owner  of  the  shipment,  and 
neither  the  original  consignor  nor  the 
consignee  has  any  right  to  control  it. 
Paxson  Bros.  z\  Warfield,  65  S.  E.  34,  6 
Ga.   App.  315. 

93.  On  transfer  of  a  h\\\  of  lading  witli 
draft  attached,  covering  a  shipment  in- 
tended for  a  buyer  from  the  consignor's 
vendee,  nothing  said  or  done  b}'  the  ven- 


dee, nor  Ijy  the  buj-er  or  anybody  else 
could  afifcct  the  transferee's  title.  First 
Nat.  Bank  v.  McSwain,  75  S.  E.  1106,  93  S. 
C.   30. 

94.  American  Nat.  Bank  v.  Henderson, 
123  Ala.  612,  26  So.  498,  82  Am.  St.  Rep. 
147;  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  171  Ala.  392,  54  So.  621,  32  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S..  1173,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  B,  42; 
Loeb  r.  Peters,  63  Ala.  243,  35  Am.  Rep. 
17;  Chandler  v.  Sprague  (Mass.),  38  Am. 
Dec.  404.  5  Mete.  300.  See  ante,  '"Bill 
with  Draft  Attached  to  Be  Delivered  to 
Purchaser  of  Goods."  §   508. 

The  title  to  j^roperty  is  passed  to  the 
bank  upon  a  transaction  as  follows:  A 
bill  of  lading  describing  the  property, 
with  a  draft  attached,  is  delivered  to  the 
bank,  and  the  bank  credits  the  amount 
of  the  draft  to  the  drawer,  and,  when  the 
draft  is  not  paid,  does  not  charge  the 
amount  thereof  1)ack  to  such  drawer,  but 
assumes,  itself,  the  collection  of  the  draft. 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Walsh,  etc.,  Co..  131 
111.  .A.pp.  508;  Third  Nat.  Bank  z:  Hays, 
119  Tenn.  729,  108  S.  W.  1060,  14  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1049. 

95.  Amercian  Nat.  Bank  v.  Henderson, 
82  Am.  St.  Rep.  147,  123  Ala.  612,  26  So. 
498. 

The  indorsement  'and  delivery  bj-  a 
shipper  of  a  bill  of  lading  to  a  shipment 
of  flour,  with  sight  draft  attached,  to  a 
bank,  who  credited  the  shipper's  account 
with  the  amount  of  the  draft,  operated 
as  a  symbolical  delivery  of  the  flour,  and 
vested  the  title  in  the  bank.  Walsh,  etc., 
Co.  V.  First  Nat.  Bank,  81  N.  E.  1067, 
228  111.  446;  Third  Nat.  Bank  z\  Hays. 
119  Tenn.  729,  108  S.  W.  1060,  14  Am.  & 
Eng.    .\nn.    Cas.    1049. 

96.  Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton  Co..  123 
Am.  St.  Rep.  035,  148  N.  C.  492.  02  S.  E. 
625,   18  L.   R.  A..   N.   S..   1221. 

96a.  Duty  to  surrender  goods  on  ac- 
ceptance of  time  draft. — National  Bank  f. 
Merchants'  Nat.  Bank,  91  U.  S.  92,  23 
L.   Ed.  208. 


;S  57'9-581 


CARRIF.RS. 


392 


Draft  with  Flat  Bill  of  Lading  Attached.— The  discounting  of  a  draft  at- 
tached to  a  Hat  bill  of  lading  does  not  give  the  discounting  bank  an  equitable 
lien  upon  the  shipment,  where  no  act  on  the  part  of  the  consignor  creating  such 
a  lien  is  shown,  and  where  the  consignee  had  no  notice  that  the  bank  had  dis- 
continued   the    draft.'-'" 

Nothing  in  Bill  to  Show  That  Drawer  of  Draft  Owner  of  Shipment. 

Where  there  is  nothing  in  the  l)ill  of  lading  to  show  that  the  consignor  was 

the  owner  of  the  shipment  at  the  time  the  draft  was  discounted,  a  lien  can 
not  be  asserted  as  an  inference  from  the  fact  of  the  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing at  the  time  the  draft  is  assigned  to  the  bank.''"* 

§  580.  Notice  That  Payment  to  Drawer  Unauthorized.— A  draft  at- 
tached to  a  bill  of  lading  for  property  purchased  by  the  drawee,  payable  to 
the  holder  is  prima  facie  notice  to  the  drawee  that  the  price  is  claimed  by 
payee  and  payment  to  the  seller  and  drawer  is  unauthorized.'^''^ 

§  581.  Drawer  Indebted  to  Drawee  or  Consignee.— When  a  vendor  of 
goods  ships  them,  taking  from  the  carrier  a  bill  of  lading,  and  drawing  a  draft 
payable  to  his  own  order  upon  the  vendee,  and  attaching  the  bill  of  lading  and 
indorsing  such  draft  to  a  third  person  for  value,  the  title  to  the  goods  vests 
in  the  indorsee,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  advanced  and  the  con- 
signee can  not  retain  the  price  of  the  goods  on  account  of  a  debt  due  him  from 
tlie  consignor.!  Thus,  where  a  bank,  for  a  valuable  consideration,  takes  an 
assignment  of  a  bill  of  lading  with  draft  attached,  the  consignee  of  the  goods, 
takes  them  subject  to  the  rights  of  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  for  the 
amount  of  the  draft,  and  he  can  not  retain  the  price  of  the  goods  on  account 
of  a  debt  due  him  from  the  consignor,^  nor  can  the  bank's  right  be  defeated 
by  the  shipper's  subsequently  giving  the  bank  a  draft  for  the  amount  due 
him   from  the  consignee  and  paying  the  difference,'^  but  the  bank  can  not  use 


97.  Maine  Xat.  Bank  v.  Barringer,  4() 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  510. 

98.  Maine  Xat.  Bank  v.  Barringer,  46 
Pa.   Super.   Ct.  510. 

99.  Notice  that  payment  to  drawee  un- 
authorized.— Burrton  State  Bank  v.  Pease- 
moore  Mill.  Co.,  Itia  Mo.  App.  135,  145 
S.   W.   508. 

1.  North  Carolina. — Mason  v.  Nelson 
Cotton  Co.,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  148  N. 
C.  492,  62  S.  E.  625,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1221;  Latham  v.  Spragins  (N.  C),  78  S. 
E.  282;  Finch  v.  Gregg.  126  N.  C.  17'. 
35  S.  E.  251,  49  L.  R.  A.  679,  cited 
in  Willard  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Tierney.  133  N 
C.  630.  45  S.  E.  1026,  in  the  support  of 
this  principle. 

The  law  is  thus  stated  in  Daniels  on 
Negotiable  Instruments,  §  1734  (a) : 
"When  the  vendor  of  goods  consigns 
them  to  the  purchaser,  taking  a  bill  of 
lading  from  the  carrier  and  intending  to 
resume  the  right  of  control  over  them, 
at  the  same  time  drawing  upon  the  pur- 
chaser for  the  price  and  delivering  the 
bill  of  exchange,  with  the  bill  of  lading 
attached,  to  an  indorsee  for  a  valuable 
consideration,  the  consignee,  upon  re- 
ceipt of  the  goods,  takes  them  '  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  holder  of  the 
bill  of  lading  to  demand  payment  of  the 
bill  of  exchange,  and  can  not  retain  the 
price  of  the  goods  on  account  of  a  debt 


due  to  him  from  the  consignor."  Emery's 
Sons  V.  Irving  Nat.  Bank,  25  O.  St.  360, 
18  Am.  Rep.  299;  Dows  v.  National  Exch. 
Bank,  91  U.  S.  618,  23  L.  Ed.  214.  This  court, 
in  Finch  v.  Gregg,  126  N.  C.  176,  35  S.  E. 
251,  49  L  R.  A.  679,  recognized  this  al- 
most elementary  principle,  carrying  it  to 
its  fullest  extent.  To  the  extent  in- 
dicated in  this  citation  from  Willard 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Tierney,  133  N.  C.  630,  45  S. 
E.  1026,  the  principal  contained  in  Finch 
V.  Gregg  is  sound.  Mason  v.  Nelson 
Cotton  Co.,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  148 
N.  C.  492,  62  S.  E.  625,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  1221;  Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat. 
Bank,   18  Am.  Rep.  299,  25  O.  St.  360. 

2.  Willard  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Tierney,  133  N. 
C.  630,  45  S.  E.  1026;  Mason  v.  Nelson, 
Cotton  Co.,  148  N.  C.  492.  62  S.  E.  635, 
128  Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  18  L.  R.  A.^  N.  S., 
1321. 

3.  On  the  indorsement  of  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing to  a  bank  by  a  shipper  of  corn,  it 
paid  a  draft  drawn  on  the  consignee  for 
the  price  without  any  notice  of  claim  by 
the  drawee  against  the  drawer  on  ac- 
count of  a  previous  transaction.  The 
draft  being  returned  unpaid  it  was  pre- 
sented to  the  shipper,  who  satisfied  the 
same  by  giving  the  bank  another  draft 
on  the  consignee,  for  a  less  amount,  pay- 
ing the  difference  between  the  two  drafts 
in    money.      Held,    that    the    bank's    right 


393 


BILLS   OF    LADINX. 


§§  581-585 


its  legal  title  to  enable  the  consignor  to  defeat  the  collection  by  the  purchaser 
of   a   debt   due    from   the   consignor.'* 

§  582.  Right  to  Sue  for  Purchase  Price  or  for  Conversion  of  Goods. 
^Right  to  Sue  for  Purchase  Price. — On  deposit  of  a  draft,  to  which  a 
bill  of  lading  was  attached,  in  the  seller's  bank  for  credit,  the  bank  became  the 
owner,  and  was  entitled  to  sue  the  buyer  for  the  price.'' 

Right  of  Action  against  Consignee  for  Converting  Shipment. — A  pur- 
chaser of  a  draft  with  bill  oi  lading  attached  may  >uc  the  consignee  for  con- 
verting  the   shi[)nient.'' 

§  583.  Rights  against  Carrier. — Purchaser  Not  a  Holder  in  Due 
Course. —  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  f(jr  injur)  to  a  shipment,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  the  assertion  of  any  equities  against  the  consignor,  it  is  no  defense 
to  show  that  the  plaintitY  and  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading,  drawn  to  the  order 
of  the  consignor  and  attached  to  a  draft  on  the  purchaser,  is  not  a  holder  in 
due  course,  if  he  took  it  for  value,  or  that  it  was  given  as  collateral  security.'^ 

§  584.  Rights  against  Third  Persons. — Vendor  of  Property  Shipped 
by  Vendee. — Where  a  vendor  put  it  into  the  power  of  his  vendee  to  deal  with 
the  property  as  his  own,  and  thereby  enabled  him  to  mislead  a  bank,  which 
in  good  faith  discounted  his  draft  and  accepted  a  bill  of  lading  of  the  goods 
sold  as  collateral  security,  any  loss  arising  out  of  the  transaction  must  fall 
upon   the   vendor. "^ 

Against  Purchaser  of  Goods  Consigned  to  Shipper's  Order — Right  to 
Sell  to  Third  Person. — A  purchaser  of  drafts,  drawn  by  a  shipper,  payable 
to  itself,  and  bills  of  lading,  consigning  to  itself  goods  against  which  the  drafts 
were  drawn,  and  which  goods  the  shipper  had  agreed  to  sell  to  a  third  person, 
acquires  the  title  of  the  shipper  with  the  power  of  jus  disponendi  of  the  ship- 
per, and  it  may  divert  and  sell  the  goods,  and  the  third  person  may  not  com- 
plain  thereof.'' 

Attaching   Creditor, — See   ante,   "Subsequent   Attachments,"   §   576. 

§  58  5.  Liability  of  Purchaser  for  Shortage  or  Inferiority  of  Ship- 
ment.— Where   a    consignor   of   goods    draws   a    draft    or   l)ill    of   exchange    on 


with  respect  to  the  corn  was  acquired  by 
tlie  transfer  to  it  of  the  bill  of  lading, 
which  was  made  without  notice  to  it 
of  the  consignee's  claim  against  the  ship- 
per, and  hence  its  right  to  the  corn  could 
not  be  defeated  in  whole  or  in  part  by 
the  consignee's  claim  against  the  shipper, 
nor  did  the  subsequent  change  of  drafts 
between  the  hank  and  shijipcr  in  any 
way  interrupt  or  impair  its  rights.  Free- 
man V.  Bank,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
338. 

4.  A  transfer  by  a  consignor  to  a  bank 
of  a  bill  of  lading  of  goods  consigned  to 
a  purchaser  of  the  consignor  and  a  draft 
on  the  purchaser,  followed  by  payments 
by  the  bank  of  the  draft  of  the  consignor 
by  crediting  the  amount  thereof  to  the 
depositor,  placed  the  legal  right  to  pos- 
session of  the  propert}'  in  the  bank  sub- 
ject to  the  duty  to  deliver  to  the  pur- 
chaser on  his  payment  of  the  draft,  but 
the  bank  could  not  use  the  legal  title 
to  enable  the  consignor  to  defeat  the  col- 
lection by  the  purchaser  of  a  debt  due 
him  from  the  consignor.  Wilson  Grain 
Co.  V.  Central  Xat.  Bank  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
139   S.   \V.   996. 


5.  Right  to  sue  for  purchase  price. — 
Burrton  State  Bank  v.  Peasemoore  Mill. 
Co.,  163  Mo.  App.  135,  14.5  S.  \V.  508. 

6.  Right  of  action  against  consignee  for 
conversion. — Where  a  produce  company 
purchased  apples  for  another  for  ship- 
ment, and,  by  the  latter's  authorit}-,  de- 
livered the  bill  of  lading  to  plaintiff  with- 
out indorsement  as  security  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  purchase  price  draft  which 
plaintiff  discounted,  title  to  the  apples 
passed  to  plaintiff,  so  that  it  could  sue 
the  one  for  whom  they  were  ordered 
for  converting  them  by  ordering  their 
delivery  to  his  customers.  Canandaigua 
Xat.  Bank  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  118  N.^  Y. 
S.   66S,   64   Misc.    Rep.   827. 

7.  Purchaser  not  a  holder  in  due  course. 
— Citizens',  etc..  Bank  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
69   S.    E.   261,    153    X.    C.    346. 

8.  Vendor  of  property  shipped  by  ven- 
dee.— Xational  Bank  z\  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  59  Atl.  134,  99  Md.  661,  105  Am. 
St.   Rep.  :I21. 

9.  Against  purchaser  of  goods  con- 
signed to  shipper's  order  right  to  sell  to 
third  person. —  First  Xat.  Bank  ;.  Felker, 
185   Fed.   67S. 


§  585 


CARRIERS. 


394 


the  purchaser  for  the  purchase  price  and  indorses  the  draft  or  bill  of  exchange 
and  assigns  the  bill  of  lading  to  a  third  person  for  value,  the  indorsee  is  not 
liable  on  the  original  contract  of  sale,  though  the  purchaser  was  compelled 
to  pay  the  draft  or  bill  of  exchange  before  he  could  inspect  or  get  possession 
of  the  goods. 1*^  The  transaction  does  not  constitute  a  sale  of  the  shipment  to 
the  purchaser  of  the  draft  with  bill  of  lading  attached^i  and  he  is  not  deemed 
to  guarantee  the  character,  quality,  or  quantity^^  of  the  goods  shipped,  and  is 
not  liable  for  any  breach  of  a  warranty  made  by  his  assignor  of  the  goods 
lepresented  by  the  bill  of  lading:  ^•''  nor  for  a  failure  of  title  in  the  drawer  of 
the  draft  to  the  property  shipped. ^-^  Hence,  one  who  has  accepted  and  paid 
a  draft  attached  to  a  bill  of  lading  for  property  purchased  by  and  to  be  de- 
livered to  him,  by  a  bank  which  purchased  the  draft  in  due  course  of  business, 
can  not,  upon  failure  of  the  consideration,  recover  back  from  the  bank  the 
amount  so  paid.^^  The  bank  does  not  become  a  warrantor  of  the  quantity 
or  qualitv  of  the  goods  described  in  the  bill^*^  and  is  not  liable  for  shortage^'^ 


10.  Liability  of  purchaser  on  warranty 
of  character  or  quality  or  quantity  of 
shipment. — Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton  Co., 
12S  Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  148  N.  C.  493,  02 
S.  E.  625,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1221,  over- 
ruling Finch  V.  Gregg,  126  N.  C.  176, 
35  S.  E.  251,  49  L.  R.  A.  679;  Lewis, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Small  &  Co.,  117  Tenn.  153, 
96  S.  W.   1051,  6  L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  887. 

11.  The  indorsement  of  a  draft  for  the 
price  of  cotton  sold,  with  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing attached,  by  the  seller,  who  was  the 
payee,  to  plaintiff  bank  for  discount,  did 
not  vest  the  legal  title  to  the  cotton  for 
the  sale  of  which  the  draft  was  drawn 
in  the  bank,  nor  constitute  the  l)ank 
seller  of  the  cotton.  Bank  v.  Jones  Cot- 
ton Co.,  156  Ala.  525,  46  So.  971. 

12.  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  171  Ala. 
392,  54  So.  621,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  B,  42; 
Central  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Oklahoma  State 
Bank,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  954,  83  Kan. 
504,  112  Pac.  114. 

13.  A  buyer  of  a  draft  for  the  price  of 
goods  sold  under  a  warranty  with  bill 
of  lading  attached,  who  receives  payment 
from  the  buyer  of  the  goods,  is  not  liable 
for  a  breach  of  warranty,  where  he  bought 
the  draft  for  full  value,  in  the  regular 
course  of  mercantile  dealing,  and  had  no 
interest  in  the  goods,  and  took  no  part 
in  the  bargain,  and  had  no  notice  of  its 
terms.  Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton  Co., 
62  S.  E.  625,  148  N.  C.  492,  18  L.  R.  A., 
N.   S.,  1221,   128   Am.   St.   Rep.   635. 

"Payment  by  the  drawee  to  the  payee 
of  a  negotiable  draft  with  bill  of  lading 
attached  can  not  be  recovered  back  by 
the  drawee  on  the  ground  that  the  payee 
has  received  money  which  it  can  not 
equitably  retain  because  of  a  breach  of 
warranty  made  by  the  drawer  to  the 
drawee  on  the  sale  of  the  goods  for 
which  the  bill  of  lading  was  given,  since 
any  equities  arising  therefrom  do  not  af- 
fect the  payee  when  he  has  secured  an 
acceptance  or  payment."  Tolerton,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Anglo-California  Bank,  50  L.  R. 
A.  777,   112   Iowa  706,  84  N.   W.  930;   Ma- 


son V.  Nelson  Cotton  Co.,  128  Am.  St. 
Rep.  635,  148  N.  C.  492,  62  S.  E.  625,  18 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1221. 

14.  Failure  of  title  in  drawer  of  draft. 
— .\  consignor  of  grain,  which  was  de- 
livered to  a  railway  company  for  ship- 
ment, drew  a  draft  on  the  consignees, 
and  attached  thereto  bills  of  lading  issued 
to  him  by  the  carrier.  The  draft  was  in- 
dorsed and  delivered  by  the  payees,  to- 
gether with  the  bills  of  lading,  to  a  bank, 
which  paid  to  them  the  amount  of  it. 
The  drawees  accepted  and  paid  the  draft. 
Held,  that  neither  the  bank  nor  the  pay- 
ees were  liable  to  the  consignees  of  the 
grain  (the  drawees)  for  a  failure  to  title 
in  the  drawer  of  the  draft  to  the  property 
shipped.  Hall  v.  Keller,  67  Pac.  518,  64 
Kan.  211,  62  L.  R.  A.  758,  91  Am.  St. 
Rep.  209. 

15.  Lewis,  etc.,  Co.  7'.  Small  &  Co.,  6 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  887,  117  Tenn.  153,  96  S. 
W.    1051. 

16.  A  seller  under  a  warranty  drew  a 
draft  on  the  buyer  for  the  price,  and  with 
the  bill  of  lading  indorsed  it  to  a  bank 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  business,  and 
the  bank  gave  the  seller  credit  on  its 
l:)Ooks  for  the  amount  of  the  draft,  less 
the  usual  discount.  The  bank  had  no  no- 
tice of  any  noncompliance  with  the  con- 
tract on  the  part  of  the  seller.  Held, 
that  the  bank  was  an  innocent  purchaser 
for  value,  and  it  did  not  become  a  war- 
rantor of  the  quality  and  quantity  of  the 
goods  described  in  the  bill  of  lading. 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mineral  Wells,  etc., 
R.   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),  133   S.   W.   1099. 

17.  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  171  .\la. 
392,  54  So.  621,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  B,  42. 

A  seller  of  cotton,  pursuant  to  instruc- 
tions from  the  buyer,  shipped  it  to  the 
buyer  under  a  bill  of  lading,  in  which  he 
was  named  as  shipper  and  a  bank  as  con- 
signee, the  bill  stating  that  the  buyer 
should  be  notified,  and  the  seller  drew  a 
draft  on  the  buyer,  payable  to  the  bank, 
and  the  bill  of  lading  was  attached  to  the 
draft,  which   was  deposited  by  the  seller. 


395 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  585 


or  inferiority  or  deterioration  of  (|uality  of  the  shipment ;  ^^  althougli  the  bank 
when  notified  of  the  seller's  failure  to  comply  with  the  contract  of  sale  had 
in  its  possession  bonds  of  the  latter  more  than  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  de- 
mands of  the  buyer. ^'•*  The  only  representations  which  can  be  attributed  to 
the  bank  are  that  the  pa])ers  are  in  the  same  condition  when  presented  as 
when  received  from  the  drawer,-"  nor  can  the  drawee  and  acceptor  when  sued 
on  the  draft  plead  failure  or  want  of  consideration  as  a  defense.-^  In  an  ac- 
tion by  the  buyer  to  recover  the  jjroceeds  of  a  draft  attached  to  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing against  the  collecting  bank,  evidence  of  a  breach  of  warranty  in  the  goods 
for  the  price  of  which  the  draft  was  made  is  inadmissible  in  the  absence  of 
proof  that  the  plaintiff  was  not  a  bona  fide  purchaser  or  was  acting  as  agent  for 
the  drawer  of  the  draft.--  A  few  cases  have  held  to  the  contrary  but  the  prin- 
cipal ones  ha\e  been  overruled.-''     1'he  general  doctrine  ])revails  in  the  courts 


The  buyer  paid  the  draft,  and  subse- 
quently it  was  ascertained  that  there  was 
a  deficiency  of  several  pounds.  Held, 
tliat  the  l)ank  was  not  liable  to  tlie  I)uyer. 
First  Nat.  Bank  z\  \Vilkcsl)arre  Lace 
Mfg.   Co.,   162  Ala.   309,  50  vSo.   l.Jll. 

.A.  bank  purchasing  from  tlie  shipper 
his  draft  on  the  consignee  for  the  price 
of  cotton  shipped  under  contract  of  sale, 
secured  by  the  assignment  of  the  bill  of 
lading  therefor,  to  the  shipper's  order,  at- 
tached to  it,  does  not,  it  being  accepted 
and  paid,  assume  the  obligations  of  the 
drawer  to  the  drawee,  nor  become  liable 
to  the  latter  in  case  the  property,  com- 
ing to  his  hands  after  his  payment  of  the 
draft,  is  short  in  weight  of  the  amount 
called  for  in  the  bills  and  for  the  price 
of  which  the  draft  was  drawn.  Blaisdell 
Co.  V.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  96  Tex.  626,  75 
S.  W.  292,  62  L.  R.  A.  968,  97  Am.  St. 
Rep.  944.  disapproving  Landa  v.  Lattin, 
19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  246,  46  S.  W.  48.  And 
see  Blaisdell  &  Co.  v.  White  &  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  76  S.  W.  70,  71,  affirmed  in 
97  Tex.  626,  no  op. 

18.  A  payee  bank  which  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  business  cashed  a  draft  with 
blank  indorsed  bill  of  lading  attached  or 
placed  the  proceeds  thereof  to  tlie  credit 
of  the  consignors-drawers,  and  which  for- 
warded the  same  for  collection,  did  not 
become  liable  to  the  drawee-consignee 
upon  payment  of  the  draft  for  a  breach 
of  the  contract  of  sale  arising  from  a 
shortage  in  weight  or  deterioration  in 
quality  of  the  cotton  covered  by  the  bill 
of  lading.  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First 
Nat.  Bank,  171  Ala.  392,  54  So.  621,  32  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  B,  42. 

Where  the  sellers  of  hay  drew  sight 
drafts  on  the  buyers,  payable  to  them- 
selves, and  attached  each  of  the  drafts 
to  a  bill  of  lading,  and  transferred  them 
to  a  bank,  this  did  not  constitute  a  sale 
of  the  hay  to  the  bank,  so  as  to  render 
it  liable  for  breach  of  the  original  con- 
tract of  sale  in  that  the  hay  was  of  an 
inferior  quality.  Lewis,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Small 
&  Co.,  117  Tenn.  153,  96  S.  W.  1051,  6 
L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,  887. 

19.  The  bank  forwarded  the  draft  and 
bill    of    lading   to   its    correspondent     for 


collection,  with  instructions  not  to  sur- 
render the  bill  of  lading  until  the  draft 
was  paid.  The  correspondent  collected 
the  draft  in  full,  and  remitted  to  the  bank 
a  part  thereof.  .After  the  payment  to  the 
correspondent  and  before  the  transmis- 
sion thereof  to  the  bank,  the  latter  was 
notified  of  the  failure  of  the  seller  to 
comply  with  the  contract  of  sale,  and  at 
that  time  the  bank  had  in  its  possession 
funds  belonging  to  the  seller  more  than 
sufficient  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the 
buyer  for  the  loss  it  had  sustained.  The 
bank  obtained  judgment  against  its  cor- 
respondent for  the  amount  it  retained. 
Held,  that  the  bank  was  not  liable  to  the 
])uyer  for  the  loss  sustained,  and  the 
seller  could  not  claim  the  amount  due  to 
the  bank  from  its  correspondent;  there 
l)eing  nothing  to  impeach  the  good  faith 
of  the  transaction  as  between  the  bank 
«ind  the  seller.  First  Nat.  Bank  z\  Min- 
eral Wells,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
133   S.   W.   1099. 

20.  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173.  171  Ala. 
392,    54   So.    621,   Ann.    Cas.    1913    B,    42. 

The  bank  held  the  draft  as  a  bona  fide 
owner,  and  the  bill  of  lading  as  a  se- 
curity for  said  draft,  which  the  drawee 
knew  from  inspection  of  the  papers 
when  presented.  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v. 
First  Nat.  Bank,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173, 
171  Ala.  392.  54  So.  621,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  B, 
42.  See,  also.  Young  z:  Lehman,  etc., 
Co.,  63  Ala.  519:  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Wilkesbarre  Lace  Mfg.  Co..  162  .\la.  319, 
50   So.   153. 

21.  Where  a  bank  discounted  a  draft 
with  a  bill  of  lading  attached  before  ma- 
turit\',  in  the  ordinary'  course  of  business, 
the  drawee  and  acceptor  could  not,  when 
sued  on  the  draft,  plead  failure  or  want 
of  consideration.  Bank  z\  Jones  Cotton 
Co.,   156  .\la.   525,  46   So.   971. 

22.  Felker  z:  First  Nat.  Bank.  196  Fed. 
200.  affirming  185   Fed.  678. 

23.  The  case  of  Finch  z:  Gregg,  126 
N.  C.  176.  35  S.  E.  251,  49  L.  R.  A.  679, 
overruled  by  Mason  z\  Nelson  Cotton 
Co..  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  635.  148  N.  C.  492, 
62  S.  E.  625,  18  L.  R.  -A.,  y.  S..  1221,  and 
the    two    or    three    others    of    like    import 


§  385 


CARRIER? 


396 


of  England--*  and  the  United  States-''  and  in  the  courts  of  the  following  states: 
Alabamar«  Iowa,-"  Kansas^s  Kentucky,-'''  ^lassachusetts,-"  North  Carolina,3i 
Tennessee.^2  and  Texas.^^  The  contrary  doctrine  seems  to  prevail  in  Missis- 
profess  to  find  support  in  Dows  c'.  Na- 
tional Exch.  Bank,  91  U.  S.  618,  23  L.  Ed. 
214,  and  Columbian  Nat.  Bank  v.  White, 
65  Mo.  App.  677.  but  neithey  of  these 
decisions  is  authority  for  their  position. 
Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton  Co.,  128  Am.  St. 
Rep.  635,  148  N.  C.  492,  62  S.  E.  625,  18 
L.   R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1221. 

The  court  of  Finch  v.  Gregg,  126  N. 
C.  176,  35  S.  E.  251,  49  L.  R.  A.  679,  ex- 
cited much  comment  at  the  time  it  was 
announced,  was  the  subject  of  adverse 
criticism  in  a  note  by  the  editor  of  L.  R. 
A.,  in  volume  49,  page  679,  and  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  it  was  made  to  rest 
was  condemned  in  a  note  of  the  case  of 
Hall  T.  Keller.  91  Am.  St.  Rep.  209.  64 
Kan.  211,  67  Pac.  518,  62  L.  R.  A.  758. 
Another  comment  of  like  purport  will 
be  found  in  a  note  to  an  Alabama  case 
of  Haas  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  144  Ala.  562, 
113  Am.  St.  Rep.  61,  39  So.  129,  1  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  242. 

24.  Robertson  v.  Reynolds.  2  Q.  B.  196, 
1  Gale  &  D.  526.  3  Perry  &  D.  611,  9  L. 
J.  Q.  B.,  N.  S.,  249. 

25.  HoflFman  v.  National  City  Bank  (U. 
S.),  12  Wall.  181,  20  L.  Ed.  366;  Goetz  v. 
Bank,  119  U.  S.  551,  30  L.  Ed.  515.  7  S. 
Ct.  318;  Felker  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,  196 
Fed.   200. 

26.  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  171  Ala. 
392,  54  So.  621,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  B,  42,  dis- 
tinguishing and  overruling  it  so  far  as  it 
sustains  a  contrary  doctrine.  Haas  v. 
Citizens'  Bank,  144  Ala.  562,  39  So.  129,  1 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  242,  113  Am.  St.  Rep.  61; 
Eufaula  Grocery  Co.  v.  Missouri  Nat. 
Bank,  118  Ala.  408,  24  So.  389;  Bank  v. 
Jones  Cotton  Co.,  156  Ala.  525,  46  So.  971. 

The  case  of  Haas  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  144 
Ala.  562,  1  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  242,  113  Am. 
St.  Rep.  61,  39  So.  "129,  reaffirmed  in  157 
Ala.  607,  46  So.  1036,  whether  sound  or 
not,  can  be  differentiated  from  all  the 
cases  cited  for  and  against  this  doctrine. 
In  the  Haas  case,  the  complaint  averred 
not  only  that  the  bank  acquired  the  draft 
and  bill  of  lading,  but  purchased  the  ac- 
count also,  and  on  page  571,  of  144  Ala. 
the  court,  speaking  through  Tyson,  J., 
stresses  the  point  that  the  bank  pur- 
chased the  account  and  does  not  fasten 
its  liability  upon  the  draft  and  bill  of 
lading  alone.  In  response  to  the  conten- 
tion by  the  bank,  that  it  held  the  draft 
as  bona  fide  purchaser,  and  was  not 
therefore  liable,  the  court  says:  "To  so 
hold  would  be  to  give  effect  to  only  a 
part  of  the  transaction — to  ignore  its 
ownership  of  the  goods  and  the  account 
transferred  to  it  by  Klyce."  The  pur- 
chase of  the  account  or  invoice  was  an 
important  factor  in  the  mind  of  the 
court,    in    reaching   the    conclusion    in    the 


Haas  case,  and  one  not  affirming  in  the 
other  cases  which  affirm  or  deny  this 
doctrine.  See  Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v. 
First  Nat.  Bank.  171  Ala.  392,  54  So.  621, 
32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  Ann.  Cas. 
1913B,  42. 

27.  Tolerton,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Anglo-Cali- 
fornia Bank.  112  Iowa  706,  50  L.  R.  A. 
777,   84   N.   W.   930. 

28.  Hall  V.  Keller,  64  Kan.  211,  62  L. 
R.  A.  758,  91  Am.  St.  Rep.  209,  67  Pac. 
518;  Central  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Oklahoma 
State  Bank.  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  954,  83 
Kan.   504,   112    Pac.   114. 

29.  Bank  discounting  a  seller's  draft, 
with  bill  of  lading  attached,  as  collateral 
security,  does  not  assume  any  contract- 
ual liability  toward  the  buyer,  so  that,  on 
the  seller's  breach  of  contract,  the  buyer 
could  not  reclaim  from  the  collecting 
bank  the  money  he  had  paid  on  the. 
draft.  Hawkins  v.  Alfalfa  Products  Co., 
153  S.  W.  201,  152  Ky.  152,  44  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S.,   600. 

30.  Arpin  v.  Owens,  140  Mass.  144,  3 
N.  E.  25. 

31.  Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton  Co.,  128 
Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  148  N.  C.  492,  62  S.  E. 
625,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1221,  overruling 
Finch  V.  Gregg,  126  N.  C.  176,  35  S.  E. 
251,  49  L.  R.  A.  679,  and  diction  in  Sloan 
V.  Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.,  126  N.  C.  487, 
36   S.   E.  21. 

In  Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton  Co.,  128 
Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  148  N.  C.  492,  62  S. 
E.  625,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1221,  the  court 
said:  "That  the  case  of  Finch  v.  Gregg, 
126  N.  C.  176,  35  S.  E.  251,  49  L.  R.  A. 
679,  should  be  overruled  and  the  princi- 
ple upon  which  it  rests  disapproved. 
1.  As  contrary  to  the  general  current  of 
authority  on  a  subject  where  uniform- 
ity of  decision  is  so  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired. 2.  Because  it  puts  an  undesir- 
able and  injurious  clog  upon  commercial 
intercourse  between  different  sections  of 
the  country.  3.  Because  it  may,  and  fre- 
quently does,  work  grevious  wrong  to 
parties  litigant,  in  subjecting  them  to  the 
burdens  and  obligations  of  contracts 
which  they  never  made,  and  holding 
them  responsible  for  fraud  and  wrongs 
which  they  did  not  commit  and  of  which 
they   had   no   knowledge   or   notice." 

32.  Lewis,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Small  &  Co.,  6 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  887,  117  Tenn.  153,  96  S. 
W.    1051- 

33.  Blaisdell  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank, 
96  Tex.  626,  75  S.  W.  292,  97  Am.  St. 
Rep.  944,  62  L.  R.  A.  968,  973,  overruling 
Landa  v.  Lattin,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  246,  46 
S.  W.  48;  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Mineral  Wells, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  133  S.  W. 
1099;  Blaisdell  &  Co.  v.  White  &  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.).  76  S.  W.  70,  71,  affirmed  in  97 
Tex.  626,  no  op. 


397 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  585 


sippi.'*"* 

Effect  of  Indorsement  of  Nonliability  on  Some  and  Omission  from 
Other  Drafts. — The  indorsement  of  drafts  with  bih  of  lachnj^  attached,  pur- 
chased Ijy  a  bank  in  due  course;  "not  responsible  for  the  quantity,  quality  or 
delivery  of  the  goods  covered  by  the  bill  of  lading."  is  mere  surplusage  and 
does  not  render  it  hable  on  other  drafts,  etc.,  received  in  the  same  transaction 
from    which    such    indorsement    is    omitted.-'*'' 

Fraudulent  or  Forged  Bill  of  Lading. — The  indorsee  of  a  draft  witli  bill 
of  la(Hng  attached  does  not  become  a  i)arty  of  the  sale,  so  as  to  be  responsible 
to  the  consignee  if,  after  he  has  paid  the  draft,  the  bill  of  lading  proves  to  be 
frauchdent'""  or  forged''"  so  that  there  is  a   failure  of  consideration. 

Guaranty  of  Payment  Describing  Goods. — The  fact  that  the  draft  was 
bought  in  rehance  upon  a  written  guaranty  uf  its  payment,  in  which  the  bill  of 
lading  was  described  as  covering  goods  of  a  designated  quality,  does  not  af- 
fect the  rule.-"^^ 

Intervention  in  Garnishment  Proceedings. — W  here  the  seller  of  goods 
shijjs  tliem  and  makes  a  draft  ujwn  the  purchaser  with  the  bill  of  lading  attached 
and  indorses  to  a  bona  fide  purchaser  for  value  and  the  drawee,  after  paying 
the  draft  to  a  collecting  agent,  seeks  to  hold  the  proceeds  by  garnishment,  as 
the  proi)erty  of  the  drawer,  the  owner  waives  no  rights  by  intervening  and 
asserting  his  title.-"^^ 


34.  The  supreme  court  of  Mississippi 
in  Russel  v.  Smith  Grain  Co.,  80  Miss. 
688,  32  So.  287,  adopts  the  reasoning  of 
the  court  in  Landa  v.  Lattin,  19  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  246,  46  S.  W.  48.  See,  also, 
Cosmos  Cotton  Co.  v.  First  Nat.  Bank, 
32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1173,  171  Ala.  392,  54 
So.  621,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B,  42;  Mason  7'. 
Nelson  Cotton  Co..  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  63.'5, 
148  N.  C.  492,  62  S.  E.  625,  18  L.  R.  .\., 
N.   S.,   1221. 

35.  Where  drafts  of  a  seller  of  hay- 
were  attached  to  l)ills  of  lading  and 
transferred  to  a  national  hank,  the  fact 
that  the  bank  indorsed  all  l)ut  three  of 
them  with  a  statement  that  it  was  not 
responsible  for  the  quantity,  quality,  or 
delivery  of  the  goods  covered  by  the  l)ills 
of  lading,  does  not  render  it  liable  for 
deficiency  in  quality  of  the  goods  cov- 
ered by  the  three  bills  of  lading,  the  in- 
dorsement being  mere  surplusage.  Lewis, 
etc..  Co.  r.  Small  &  Co.,  96  S.  \V.  1051. 
117  Tcnn.   l.K?.  f)  L.  R.  .\..  N.  S.,  887. 

36.  Fraudulent  bill. — Blaisdell  Co.  f. 
Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  96  Tex.  626,  75  S. 
W.  292,  97  Am.  St.  Rep.  944,  62  L.  R.  A. 
968. 

37.  Forged  bill  of  lading. — Varney  v. 
Monroe  Nat.  Bank,  Hi  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
337,   119   La.   943,  44   So.   753. 

"In  Hoffman  v.  National  City  Bank 
(U.  S.),  12  Wall.  181,  20  L.  Ed.  366.  it 
was  held:  'A  consignor  who  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  drawing  bills  of  exchange 
on  his  consignee  witli  l)ills  of  lading  at- 
tached to  the  drafts  drawn  (it  being  part 
of  tlie  agreement  between  the  parties 
that  such  bills  should  always  attend  the 
drafts),  drew  bills  on  him  with  forged 
bills  of  lading  attached  to  the  drafts,  ami 
had  the  drafts  with  the  forged  bills  of 
lading  so  attached   discounted  in   the   or- 


dinary course  of  business  by  a  bank  ig- 
norant of  the  fraud.  The  consignee,  not 
knowing  of  the  forgery  of  the  bills  of 
lading,  paid  the  drafts.  Held,  that  there 
was  no  recourse  by  the  consignee  against 
the  bank.' "  Mason  v.  Nelson  Cotton 
Co.,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  635,  148  N.  C.  492, 
62   S.   E.  625.   18   L.   R.  A.,   N.  S.,  1221. 

38.  Guaranty  of  payment  of  describing 
goods. — Central  Mercantile  Co.  z'.  Okla- 
homa State  Bank,  33  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  954. 
83    Kan.   504,   112   Pac.   114. 

Where  the  seller  of  goods  ships  them 
and  makes  a  draft  upon  the  buyer  with 
bill  of  lading  attached,  one  who  buys  the 
draft  and  receives  payment  thereof  from 
the  drawee  is  not  liable  for  return  of  any 
portion  of  the  proceeds  because  of  a  de- 
fect in  the  quality  of  the  goods,  though 
the  draft  was  bought  in  reliance  upon  a 
written  guaranty  of  its  payment,  in  which 
the  bill  of  lading  was  described  as  cov- 
ering goods  of  a  designated  quality. 
Central  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Oklahoma 
State  Bank,  112  Pac.  114,  83  Kan.  504,  33 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  954. 

39.  Intervention  in  garnishment  proceed- 
ings.— Central  Mercantile  Co.  I'.  Okla- 
homa State  Bank,  33  L.  R.  -\.,  N.  S.,  954, 
83   Kan.   504,   112   Pac.   114. 

Gen.  St.  1909,  §  5834  (Code  Civ.  Proc, 
§  241),  provides  that,  where  the  answer 
of  a  garnishee  discloses  that  any  other 
person  than  defendant  claims  the  indebt- 
edness or  property  in  his  hands,  the  court 
may  order  the  claimant  to  be  made  a  de- 
fendant and  notice  to  be  served  upon 
him.  Held,  that  where  goods  sold  were 
shipped  on  a  bill  of  lading  with  draft  at- 
tached and  the  draft  was  paid,  and  be- 
fore the  money  was  remitted  by  the  col- 
lecting bank  the  buyer  sued  the  seller  for 
defects   in   quality   of  the   goods,  and   the 


§§  586-588  CARRIERS.  398 

§   586.  Effect  of  Consignee's  Accepting  and  Paying  Draft. — Where  a 

bank  discounts  a  seller's  draft  with  bill  of  lading  attached,  the  buyer's  accept- 
ance of  such  draft  creates  a  new  and  independent  contract  between  himself 
and  the  transferee,  and  the  payment  of  the  draft  releases  the  transferee  from 
all  liability  to  the  buyer.-*  ^'  \\'hen  the  consignor  draws  upon  the  consignee  for 
the  purchase  money,  and  the  draft,  the  bill  of  lading  attached,  is  indorsed  or 
transferred  to  some  one  who  discounts  the  bill  of  exchange,  the  acceptance  and 
payment  by  the  consignee  of  the  draft,  accompanied  with  the  bill  of  lading 
as 'shipping  receipt,  vest  the  title  to  the  goods  in  him.-^^  It  is  well  settled  that 
where  a  party  consigns  goods  to  another  and  thereupon  draws  upon  the  con- 
signee for  funds,  accompanying  the  draft  with  the  delivery  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing or  shipping  receipt,  as  collateral  security  for  its  payment,  the  acceptance 
and  payment  by  the  consignee  of  the  draft,  accompanied  with  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing or  "shii)ping'  receipt,  vests  in  him  a  special  property  in  the  goods.  The  bill 
of  lading  in  such  case  is  a  symbol  of  the  goods,  and  the  delivery  thereof,  with 
the  intention  to  transfer  the  property  in  the  goods,  is  a  symbolical  delivery  of 
the  goods.'*- 

§  587.  Charging  IJnpaid  Draft  to  Drawer's  Account. — Where  a  bank, 
which  discounted  a  draft  to  which  was  attached  a  bill  of  lading  upon  its  re- 
turn unpaid,  charged  it  to  the  drawer's  account,  if  he  had  a  sufficient  balance 
to  pay  the  draft,  it  was  thereby  satisfied,  and  its  claim  on  the  property  rep- 
resented by  the  bill  of  lading  extinguished.-*^  The  bank,  by  charging  the  un- 
paid draft  to  drawer's  account,  did  not  lose  its  title  thereto  and  to  the  attached 
bill  of  lading,  if  he  had  nothing  to  his  credit  with  which  to  pay  it;  and  hence 
proof  of  such  fact,  although  evidence  of  payment  by  the  drawer,  was  not 
conclusive."*-* 

§  588.  Deposit  of  Draft  with  Bill  of  Lading  Attached  for  Collection. 

— A  seller's  deposit  of  a  bill  of  lading  with  a  draft  against  the  buyer  attached 
in  bank  for  collection  makes  the  bank  and  its  correspondent  his  agent  with 
full  power  of  disposition  over  the  goods  according  to  the  terms  and  tenure 
of  the  draft  and  bill  of  lading.-*'' 

Right  of  Drawer  to  Control  Collection  and  Disposition  of  Bill. — A 
seller  of  machinery  drawing  a  draft  upon  the  purchaser,  with  the  bill  of  lading 
attached,  and  indorsing  the  draft  to  a  bank  for  collection,  has  the  right  to 
control  the  collection  and  the  disposition  of  the  bill  of  lading."*^ 

Title  of  Bank  to  Goods. — Where  a  bank  received  for  collection  a  draft 
with  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  in  transit  attached,  but  did  not  discount  the 
draft  or  in  any  way  purchase  it.  it  was  not  the  owner  of  the  goods  in  transit,^'^ 

drawee  of  the  draft,  after  paying  it  to  a  42.  Orr  v.  Planters'  Phosphate,  etc.,  Co., 

collecting  bank,   sought  to  hold   the  pro-  8   Ga.   App.   59,   63,   68   S.    E.   779,   quoting 

ceeds  by  garnishment  as  the  property  of  Hall  on  Bailments,  p.  127. 

the  seller,  the  payee  bank  by  intervening  43.    Charging   unpaid   draft   to    drawer's 

and    asserting    its    title    to    the    proceeds,  account. — Latham  v.  Spragins  (N.  C),  78 

without   waiting   to   be   served   with    sum-  $.   E.  282. 

mons,  waived  none  of  its  rights.     Central  \^    Latham   v.   Spragins    (N.   C),   78   S. 

Mercantile  Co.  v.   Oklahoma   State   Bank,  -g    os*? 

112    Pac.    114,    83    Kan.    504,    33    L.    R.    A.,  '    "  "1^  •.      r    .      r.       -^u   u-n      t  i   a- 

j^T    g     g.54  45.  Deposit  of  draft  with  bill  of  lading 

■40."  Hawkins    v.    Alfalfa    Products    Co.,  attached  for  collection.-Veitch  v.  Atkins 

152   Ky.   152,   153   S.   W.  201,   44   L.   R.  A.,  Grocery,    etc.,    Co.,    5    Ala.    App.    444,    59 

N.    S.,   600.  So.  746. 

41.    Effect   of    consignee    accepting    and  .46.    Right   of   drawer  to   control   collec- 

paying     of    draft.-American    Nat.     Bank  ^^°'',^"^^^''P°^/f'T  °^,^!,"-7:^^^°"?,  ^„\^- 

V.    Henderson,    82    Am.    St.    Rep.    147,    123  Bank  z:  Bank.  99  Ark.  386,  138  S.  W.  472. 

Ala.  612,  26  So.  498.     See  ante,  "Bill  with  47.    Title    of     bank    to     goods.— Second 

Draft  Attached   to   Be   Delivered  to   Pur-  Nat.    Bank   v.    Bank,   99   Ark    386,    138    S. 

chaser  of  Goods,"  §  508.  W.   472. 


399 


BILLS    OF    LADING. 


§  588 


but  a  bank  which  is  the  payee  of  a  negotiable  draft,  and  consignee  of  a  bill 
of  lading  attached,  may  prove  its  ownership  by  showing  its  possession  of 
and    exhil)itin_i,''   these   <locnincnts.'^ 

Fictitious  or  Forg'ed  Bill  of  Lading. — A  Ijank  which  in  good  faith  receives 
a  draft  for  collection,  collects  the  same  from  the  drawee,  and  pays  the  pro- 
ceeds to  the  drawer,  is  not  liable  to  the  i)ayor  in  damages  because  the  latter 
made  payment  in  reliance  uixni  a  forged  bill  of  lading  which  the  drawer  had 
attached  to  and  forwarded  with  the  draft  ;^''  but  money  paid  by  the  drawee 
upon  a  draft  tlrawn  against  "indorsed  bills  of  lading"  which  are  in  fact  ficti- 
tious, and  accepted  "against"  such  bills  in  ignorance  of  the  fraud,  may  l^e  re- 
covered back  from  the  payee.-''"  In  such  case  the  acceptance  and  payment  of 
the  draft  is  conditional  on  the  genuineness  of  the  bill  of  lading  and  the  payor 
is  entitled  to  recover  the  amount  from  the  payee,  as  having  been  paid  by  mis- 
take.'^^^ 

Liability  for  Failure  of  Consignor  to  Pay  Freight. — A  bank  holding  a 
draft  attached  to  a  bill  of  lading,  for  the  price  of  a  shipment,  which 
holds  the  draft  for  collection  only,  and  not  as  a  purchaser,  is  not  liable  to  the 
drawee  after  receiving  payment  for  a  deficiency  in  quantity  of  the  shipment, 
and  for  the  drawer's  failure  to  pay  the  freight  as  agreed,  and  as  shown  by  the 
invoice   attached   to   the   draft   and   l)ill   of   lading.-''- 

Liability  of  Bank  for  Surrender  of  Bill  of  Lading  without  Payment 
of  Draft. — \\  here  a  shipper  consigned  a  shi])ment  to  shipper's  orders,  attach- 
ing drafts  for  the  jjrice  to  the  bills  of  lading  and  making  payment  a  prereq- 
uisite to  the  surrender  of  the  bill  and  the  bank  holding  the  draft  for  collec- 
tion surrendered  the  bill  of  lading  to  the  buyer  prior  to  judgment  it  is  liable 
to  the  owner  for  conversion  of  the  goods  to  the  amount  of  the  draft,  less  the 
freight  charges. ^^  It  is  no  defense  that  the  owner  of  the  bill  of  lading  was 
indebted  to  the  purchasers  of  the  goods  for  breach  of  warranty  by  the  ship- 
per.'''"*    The  shipment  having  been  converted  by  the  railway  company  through 


48.  Proof  of  ownership. — Tolcrton,  etc., 
Co.  z:  Anglo-Calif(iriiia  Bank,  50  L.  R.  A. 
777,   112    Iowa   TOd.   S4    X.    W.   ICiO. 

49.  Fictitious  or  forged  bill  of  lading. — 
Nebraska,  etc.,  Grain  Co.  c'.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  251,  252,  78  Neb. 
33-t,    110    N.   W.    1019. 

50.  Guaranty  Trust  Co.  v.  Grotarian, 
57  L.  R.  A.  689,  114  Fed.  433,  52  C.  C. 
A.  235. 

51.  Dealers  in  Alabama  contracted  to 
sell  one  hundred  bales  of  cotton  to  plain- 
tiffs in  Liverpool,  and  made  a  draft  on 
plaintiffs'  bank  and  authorized  agent  in 
Liverpool,  payalde  to  their  order,  "value 
received,  and  charfje  the  same  to  R.  S. 
M.  L  one  hundred  bales  of  cotton;"  what 
purported  to  be  a  bill  of  lading  for  such 
cotton  being  attached.  The  draft  and  ac- 
companying papers  were  indorsed  to  de- 
fendant liank,  and  were  by  it  presented 
to  and  accepted  generally,  and  paid  by 
plaintiffs'  bank,  acting  in  the  belief,  as 
did  defendant,  tliat  the  bill  of  lading  was 
genuine.  It  was  in  fact  a  forgery,  and 
no  cotton  was  shipped.  Neitlicr  plain- 
tiffs nor  their  bank  relied  on  the  credit  of 
the  drawers,  but  on  the  bill  of  lading. 
Held,  tiiat  the  acceptance  and  payment  of 
the  draft  was  conditional  on  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  bill  of  lading,  and  that  plain- 
tiffs were  entitled  to  recover  the  amount 
from    defendant    as    having  been    paid    bj- 


mistake.     Hannay  v.  Guaranty  Trust  Co., 
187  Fed.  GSG. 

52.  Liability  for  failure  of  consignor  to 
pay  freight. — Grcgorv  z:  Sturgis  Nat. 
Rank  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  71  S.  \V.  M.  See 
ante,  "bVeight  ami   I  )fniurragc,"   §   r)l2. 

53.  Liability  of  bank  for  surrender  of 
bill  of  lading  without  payment  of  draft. 
— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  North  Texas  Grain 
Co..  32  Te.x.  Civ.  .App.  93,  74  S.  W.  507.  so 
holding  where  a  buyer  of  a  shipment  of 
oats  after  examining  them  thus  placed 
under  his  control,  refused  to  take  them, 
and  it  appeared  that  he  would  have  paid 
the  draft  but  for  the  unauthorized  sur- 
render of  the  bill  of  lading  bj-  the  bank. 

54.  Where  a  purchaser  of  drafts  drawn 
by  a  shipper  payable  to  itself,  and  bills  of 
lading  consigning  to  itself  goods  against 
which  the  drafts  were  drawn,  and  which 
goods  tiie  sliipper  had  agreed  to  sell  to 
a  third  person,  forwarded  the  drafts  and 
bills  of  lading  to  a  banker  for  collection 
with  instructions  to  deliver  documents 
only  on  payment,  and  the  banker  delivered 
the  goods  to  the  third  person  prior  to 
payment,  and  the  purchaser  sued  the 
banker  for  conversion  for  the  tortious  de- 
livery, the  hanker  could  not  defend  on  the 
ground  that  the  purchaser  was  indebted  to 
the  tliird  person  for  damages  for  breach  of 
warranty  by  the  shipper  because  there 
was    no   warranty    by    the    purchaser,    be- 


§§  5S8-5S9 


CARRIERS. 


400 


an  illegal  sale  for  the  freight  charges,  shipper  could  not,  since  he  had  elected 
to  hold  the  hank  liable  for  negligence  in  failing  to  collect  the  draft,  hold  the 
railway  company  liable  for  conversion,  but  such  right  existed  on  the  part  of 
the   bank'."^ 

Measure  of  Damages. — A  bank  receiving  from  the  shipper  a  draft  on  the 
consignee  for  the  purchase  price,  with  the  bill  of  lading  attached,  without  sur- 
rendering the  draft,  took  from  the  consignee,  who  was  insolvent,  a  draft  for 
the  price  on  third  parties,  and  delivered  the  bill  of  lading  to  him.  The  third 
parties  having  refused  payment,  the  bank  was  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the 
loss  caused  by  its  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading  but  the  measure  of  damages 
was  not  the  amount  of  the  draft,  but  the  value  of  the  shipment  at  its  destina- 
tion, less   freight  charges.^^ 

§  589.  Duplicate  and  Triplicate  Bills— Bills  Marked  "Original  and 
Duplicate" — Duplicate  in  Hands  of  Consignee. — A  duplicate  bill  of  lad- 
ing in  the  hands  of  a  consignee  possesses  all  the  validity  of  the  original;  itis 
as  to  him  an  original,  not  a  copy;  the  word  "duplicate"  stamped  on  the  in- 
strument indicates  to  him  no  more  than  that  the  bill  of  lading  had  been  ex- 
ecuted in  duplicate;  and  by  its  transfer  for  value  the  shipper  is  precluded  from 
exercising  the  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu.-'^'  Where  a  bill  of  lading  is  is- 
sued in  duplicate,  one  marked  "Original"  and  one  "Duplicate,"  the  duplicate  is, 
in  eftect,  an  original;  and  the  holder  of  the  duplicate  may  recover  the  goods 
from  the  carrier,  though  the  consignor  had  retained  the  original,  and  had  or- 
dered the  goods   returned   to  him/'^'^ 

Delivery  to  Shipper  or  Consignee  after  Indorsement  of  Original  Bill 
for  Value. — ^^■here  a  carrier  issues  original  bills  of  lading  declaring  that  the 
consignment  is  in  its  possession  to  be  delivered  only  on  their  presentation,  and 
not  conditioned  to  be  void  in  case  of  delivery  on  duplicate  bills  issued  by  it,  the 


cause  the  goods  were  tortiously  converted 
before  a  sale;  a  warranty  arising  only  out 
of  contract.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Felker, 
185  Fed.  678. 

55.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  North  Texas 
Grain  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  93,  74  S.  W. 
567. 

56.  Measure  of  damages. — People's  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Brogden,  98  Tex.  360,  83  S.  W. 
1098,  citing  Thomas  v.  Morse,  80  Tex. 
289,  290,  16  S.  W.  48;  and  Brightman  v. 
Reeves,  21  Tex.  70,  77,  afifirming  People's 
Nat.  Bank  v.  Brogden  CTex.  Civ.  App.). 
84   S.  W.   601,  002. 

57.  Duplicate  in  hands  of  consignee. — 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  82 
Tex.  195,  200,  17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am.  St. 
Rep.  861. 

58.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer, 82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am. 
St.  Rep.  861.  See,  also,  Landa  v.  Lattin, 
19  Tex.  Civ.  App.  246,  250,  46  S.  W.  48. 

When  the  bill  inclosed  to  the  consignee 
was  by  them  transferred  it  was  not  the 
less  to  be  regarded  by  the  transferrer  as 
an  original  because  it  was  stamped  "du- 
plicate." It  is  to  be  presumed  that  he 
understood  the  word  "duplicate"  accord- 
ing to  its  legal  signification,  and  he  is  to 
be  considered  as  being  afifected  with  such 
notice,  and  no  other,  as  the  word  so  in- 
terpieted  would  give  him.  In  law  the 
word   "duplicate"   does   not   mean   a  mere 


copy.  It  differs  from  a  copy  in  that  a  du- 
plicate has  all  the  validity  of  an  original. 
Instruments  are  executed  in  duplicate 
that  the  parties  may  each  retain  an  origi- 
nal. Black's  Law  Die,  word  "Duplicate/' 
p.  401;  see  also  Burrill.  And  so  Mr. 
Greenleaf,  volume  1,  §  558,  lays  it  down 
that  "if  the  instrument  was  executed  in 
duplicate  or  triplicate,  or  more  parts,  the 
loss  of  all  the  parts  must  be  proved  to  let 
in  secondary  evidence  of  its  contents," 
thus  indicating  that  all  the  parts  are  upon 
the  same  plane — each  is  to  be  regarded  as 
an  original.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  200,  17  S.  W. 
608,   27   Am.   St.   Rep.   861. 

If  at  that  time  the  goods  had  reached 
the  point  of  destination,  and  the  con- 
signees or  any  assignee  from  them  had 
presented  the  duplicate  and  demanded  de- 
livery of  the  carrier,  he  could  not  have 
declined  because  they  produced  a  bill  of 
lading  stamped  "duplicate."  The  carrier 
could  not  have  exacted  the  production  of 
the  original  on  the  ground  that  it_  had 
been  retained  by  the  consignor  with  a 
view  to  the  exercise  of  its  right  of  "stop- 
page in  transitu,"  in  the  event  of  the  in- 
solvency, though  unsuspected,  of  the  con- 
signees, or  of  their  failure  to  pay  the  re- 
mainder of  the  purchase  money,  though 
not  due  within  sixty  days.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  200, 
17  S.  W.  608,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  861. 


401  BILLS    OF    LADING.  §    589 

carrier  will  be  liable  on  its  original  Ijills  to  one  holding  them  as  indorsee  for 
a  valnaJjle  consideration,  though  it  previously  delivered  the  consignment  to  the 
shipj^er  on  his  presenting  one  of  the  duplicate  bills.'''*  Numerous  cases  may  be 
found  where  the  doctrine  is  announced  in  a  general  way  that,  when  the  goods 
are  shii)ped  under  bills  of  lading  drawn  in  parts,  to  be  delivered  to  the  consignee 
or  his  order,  or  assigns,  the  carrier  is  justified  in  delivering  to  the  consignee,  on 
production  of  part  of  the  bill  of  lading,  although  there  has  been  a  prior  indorse- 
ment for  value  to  the  holder  of  another  part,  provided  the  delivery  be  bona  fide, 
and  without  notice  or  knowledge  of  such  i)rior  indorsement;''"  but  it  is  not  true 
that,  by  the  rules  of  the  common  law,  where  bills  of  lading  are  presented  by 
the  person  therein  named  as  the  j^arty  to  whom  the  goods  are  to  be  delivered, 
the  delivery  to  such  person  is  valid,  although  the  party  presenting  the  bills  is 
the  holder  of  only  the  duplicate  or  triplicate  set  of  bills,  and' the  original  had 
been  surrendered  to  a  bona  fide  pledgee  or  purchaser  for  value/'^  Much  of  the 
conflict  of  the  courts  on  this  subject  has  been  due  to  an  attempt  to  applv  the 
rule  announced  in  a  particular  case  to  the  general  doctrine  governing  bills  of 
lading.  The  peculiar  ])hraseology  of  the  instrument  to  be  construed  must  always 
be  kc]it  in  mind.*'- 

Nonnegotiable  Bill. — Where  a  bill  of  lading  bears  the  caveat  and  contract 
on  each  of  the  sets  issued — "The  one  being  accomplished,  the  other  to  stand  void" 
— furnishes  an  ample  beware  to  the  money  loaner,  and  at  the  same  time  a  full 
protection  by  contract  to  the  carrier.  Under  such  circumstances,  the  carrier,  in 
delivering  the  goods,  on  production  and  surrender  of  either  one  of  the  sets  of 
three  bills  of  lading  issued,  performed  his  contract.  Such  restriction  and  lim- 
itation on  the  otherwise  negotiable  and  assignable  character  of  such  instrument 
are  prohibited,  in  many  of  the  states,  by  statute.''^ 

Priorities  Among  Transferees. — The  first  transferee  of  a  bill  of  lading, 
though  it  be  only  one  of  a  set  of  three  bills,  acquires  the  property;  and  subse- 
([uent   transfers   of  the   other  bills  are   subordinate  to  the   first   transfer. '^■* 

Duplicate  or  Triplicate  Bill  under  Uniform  Bills  of  Lading  Act.— Under 
Uniform  liills  of  Lading  Act,  an  owner  of  goods,  who  had  made  out  in  trip- 
licate and  indorsed  one  of  them  "Deliver  to  M.,"  and  signed  and  gave  it  to  M., 
thereby  rendered  it  negotiable;  and  a  bona  fide  assignee  of  M.,  for  value,  took 
title  to  the  goods,  regardless  of  the  purpose  of  the  indorsement  to  M.  or  M.'s 
fraud.^'"'  Where  defendant,  an  owner  of  goods,  has  bills  of  lading  made  in  trip- 
licate, and  indorses  one  to  a  party  who  assigns  it  to  an  innocent  party,  who  in 

59.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  Priorities  among  transferees  of  trip- 
R.  Co..  132  Mo.  492.  33  S.  W.  521,  53  Am.  licate  or  duplicate  bills.— Where  there 
St.  Rep.  505.  are   several  bills  of  lading,  each   is  a  con- 

60.  Midland  Xat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  tract  in  itself  as  to  the  holder,  but  there 
R.  Co.,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  505,  511.  132  Mo.  is  one  contract  as  to  the  masters  and  own- 
492.  33  S.  W.  521;  Gljn  Miller,  etc..  Co.  v.  ers.  Therefore,  if  the  several  numbers 
East  &  West  Indian  Dock  Co..  L.  R.  7  of  the  set  of  bills  of  lading  be  indorsed 
App.  Cas.  511.  to  different  persons,  and  there  be  compe- 

61.  Midland  Xat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  tition  for  the  goods,  the  rule  is  that  if  the 
R.  Co.,  132  Mo.  492,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  505,  equities  be  equal  the  property  passes  by 
33  S.  W.  521,  distinguishing  Skilling  v.  ^^^  bill  first  indorsed.  "The  usual  course 
Bollman,  73   Mo.   005.   39   Am.   Rep.   537  'S  to  issue  l)ills  in  triplicate  originals,  one 

62.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  ^°,.''^  retained  by  the  carrier,  one  to  be 
R.  Co..  132  Mo.  492.  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  505.  delivered  to  the  shipper,  and  one  to  the 
33  S.  W    521  consignee;   and   the  person   who   hrst   gets 

eo      TS.T      ~        ^-  ui      1--11      Tifji       1    >-  *^"^  ^^  th^  three  gets  the  property  which 

63      Nonnegotiable    bill  -Midland    Nat.       it    represents."      Missouri    Pac     R.    Co.    v. 

7.^o"  .o^ 'a  ^^'^^^o"!;}    i  '''^-    R-    C°'„13~    ^^°-  Heidenheimer.  82  Tex.   195.   199.   17   S.  W. 

492,   53   Am.   St.   Rep.   505,  33   S.  W.  521.  c.OS.  27  Am.   St.  Rep.  S.H. 

64.    Priorities  among  transferees.— First  65.    Duplicate    or    triplicate    bill    under 

Nat.  Bank  "■.   Hge.  109  X.  Y.  120.  K)  X.   E.  bills    of    lading   act.— Roland,    etc..    Co.    v. 

317,  4  Am.  St.   Rep.  431.  Brown.  214  Mass.  190.  100  X.   E.  1025. 

1   Car— 26 


§§  589-592 


CARRIERS. 


402 


turn  assigns  it  to  plaintitt,  the  mere  fact  that  defendant  obtains  the  goods  from 
the  carrier  \vith  a  second  bill  before  the  plaintiff  receives  the  indorsed  bill  does 
not  render  the  latter  a  spent  bill,  so  as  to  relieve  defendant  from  a  conversion.*^^ 
Right  of  Transferee  of  Triplicate  Bill  against  Subsequent  Purchaser 
of  Goods. — See  ante,  "Against  Subsequent  Purchaser  of  Goods,"  §  574. 

§  590.  Effect  as  Binding  Intermediate  and  Terminal  Carrier. — A  final 
carrier,  having  accepted  a  shipment  for  transportation  from  an  initial  carrier, 
under  a  bill  of  lading  issued  by  the  initial  carrier,  is  bound  by  such  bill  in  so  far 
as  the  same  is  a  contract  for  carriage,^"  but  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  mere  receipt  for 
the  goods  a  final  carrier,  on  receiving  the  goods  for  transportation  from  the  in- 
itial carrier,  is  not  bound  by  the  admissions  contained  therein.*^ ^  The  recitals  of 
a  bill  of  lading  are  not  binding  upon  a  carrier  not  a  party  to  the  bill  of  lading.^''^* 

Under  Texas  Rev.  St.  1895,  arts.  331a,  331b,  connecting  carriers,  hav- 
ing recognized  and  acted  on  a  bill  of  lading  providing  for  through  shipment  of 
cotton,  were  all  bound  by  its  terms. ■^^* 

§  591.  Modification  or  Rescission. — A  bill  of  lading  issued  by  a  carrier 
may  be  changed  or  modified  by  a  subsequent  parol  agreement  between  the  ship- 
per and  the  carrier.'^ 

§  592.  Surrender,  Discharge  or  Release. — A  bill  of  lading  does  not  cease 
to  be  a  security  when  the  shipment  has  reached  its  destination,  and  the  goods 
which  it  represents  have  been  landed  or  warehoused,''^  nor  is  it  functus  officio 


66.  Roland,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Brown,  214 
Mass.  196,  100  N.  E.  1025. 

67.  Effect  as  binding  intermediate  and 
terminal  carriers. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kelly  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  74  S.  W.  343;  In- 
ternational, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Diamond  Rol- 
ler Mills,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App.  590,  82  S.  W. 
660. 

A  bill  of  lading  may  be  used  against 
the  carrier  that  is  not  connected  with  its 
execution  in  some  respect  as  a  contract 
between  the  consignee  and  the  carrier 
that  issued  the  bill,  as  an  evidence  of 
right  in  the  consignee  to  demand  the 
shipment  from  the  last  carrier.  The  bill 
of  lading  is  evidence  of  right  in  the  con- 
signee, and  upon  tender  of  that  bill  to  a 
carrier  who  is  not  a  party  to  it,  but  who 
has  possession  of  the  property,  the  ship- 
per or  consignee,  as  the  case  may  be,  who 
has  possession  of  the  bill  and  is  the 
owner  of  the  property,  can  demand  pos- 
session of  the  same  by  virtue  of  the  own- 
ership displayed  by  the  bill  of  lading. 
Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nashville, 
etc.,  Railway,  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79  S.  W. 
1094;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dia- 
mond Roller  Mills,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App.  590, 
82  S.  W.  660. 

68.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  74   S.  W.   343. 

As  said  in  the  case  of  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Kelly  (Tex.  Civ.  App.)  74  S.  W. 
343.  "As  a  receipt  of  the  stoves  from  the 
shipper  it  was  tlie  act  and  admission  of 
the  carrier  that  so  receipted,  and  prima 
facie  evidence  against  it._  It  seems  to  us 
an  indefensible  proposition  that  another 
or  connecting  carrier  is  affected  by   such 


an  admission.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Benjamin,  63  111.  283;  Evans  V.  Atlanta, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Ga.  498."  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Diamond  Roller  Mills,  36 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  590,  82  S.  W.  660. 

The  bill  of  lading  being  the  act  of  de- 
fendant railroads  as  partners,  its  recitals 
as  to  the  condition  of  the  goods  when  re- 
ceived were  binding  upon  them.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins,  45  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  321,  100  S.  W.  162. 

69.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins,  45 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  321,  100  S.  W.  162;  Inter- 
national, etc.,  Co.  V.  Diamond  Roller 
Mills,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App.  590,  82  S.  W.  660. 

70.  Under  Texas  Rev.  St.  1805,  arts. 
331a,  331b. — Elder,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  154  S.  W. 
975. 

71.  Modification  or  rescission.^Lin- 
coln  Tent,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  125  N.  W.  603,  86  Neb.  338,  27  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    1130. 

Where  plaintiff  delivered  goods  to  de- 
fendant to  be  transported  over  its  line  to 
M.,  and  there  delivered  to  another  car- 
rier and  by  it  taken  to  A.,  and  received  a 
bill  of  lading  naming  himself  as  con- 
signee, it  was  competent  for  them  to 
agree  to  a  change  of  the  contract, 
whereby  defendant  should  stop  them  at 
M.  and  from  there  take  them  to  D.,  es- 
pecially as  defendant  was  to  receive  ad- 
ditional compensation  for  the  carriage  to 
D.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Steele,  131 
S.  W.  22,   140   Ky.   383. 

72.  Surrender,  discharge  or  release. — 
Heiskell  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  89 
Pa.   155,   33  Am.   Rep.   745. 


403  HILLS  OF  LAi.iNG.  §§  592-593 

because  it  passes  into  the  hands  of  a  pledgee,"'*  for  there  can  be  no  complete 
delivery  of  goods  under  a  bill  of  lading  until  they  come  into  the  hands  of  some 
])ers(»n  who  has  a  ri^ht  to  rccciw  the  same."'* 

Surrender  or  Taking  Up  Bills  of  Lading — Authority  of  Compress  Com- 
pany.— Where  a  carrier,  having  shipped  cotton  under  order  bills,  delivered  the 
same  to  a  compress  company  at  destination  as  a  warehouseman,  the  compress 
company  became  the  agent  of  the  carrier  to  take  up  the  carrier's  bills  of  lading, 
and  issue  warehouse  receipts  therefor."' 

Bill  of  Lading  Surrendered  for  Unauthorized  Due  Bill. — See  ante,  "Due 
Bill  I'romising  to  Issue  a  I'.ill  of  Lading,"  §  438. 

§§  593-602.  Actions-^§  593.  Rights  of  Action  and  Defenses.— Action 
against  Carrier.  — Right  of  Indorsee. — The  indorxemeut  of  a  bill  of  lading 
does  not  vest  in  the  indorsee  the  right  of  action  at  law  on  the  contract;  and 
hence,  in  action  against  a  carrier  for  not  carrying  goods,  he  has  the  same  defense 
against  the  indorsee  as  against  the  consignee."" 

Delay  in  Delivery. — The  bill  of  lading  not  having  been  indorsed 
to  plaintiff  by  the  party  in  whose  favor  it  was  issued,  the  former  could  not  main- 
tain an  action  against  the  company  upon  it.  The  assignor  having  received  the 
bill  of  lading  with  the  knowledge  that  the  shipment  was  not  at  the  time  on  the  line 
of  road  of  defendant,  but  on  the  line  of  a  connecting  road,  he  could  not  have 
recovered  damages  for  delay  in  its  delivery,  if  the  connecting  road  was  prevented 
from  forwarding  it  by  an  armed  mob."' 

Failure  to  Deliver  Goods. — The  transferee  or  indorsee  of  a  bill  of  lading 
may  maintain  an  action  ex  contractu  against  the  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  to 
him  all  or  any  portion  of  the  goods  specified  in  the  bill  of  lading:  and  this  is 
true  wh.ether  the  loss  of  the  goods  or  the  shortage  occurred  before  or  after  he 
acquired  title  to  the  bill  of  lading,"'^  and  even  though  he  may  be  but  an  agent  or 
trustee  of  the  goorls  for  others."'-' 

Action  for  Taking  and  Withholding  Bills.^l'.ill  of  lading  is  propertv  and 
evidence  against  a  railroad  company  of  valuable  rights  and  taking  and  withhold- 
ing it  from  plaintifif  for  six  months  warranted  an  action  for  damages.'"' 

Actions  against  Consignee.— The  Georgia  Civil  Code.  §  2936,  provides  that 
a  bill  of  lading  may  be  delivered  in  pledge;  but  there  is  no  provision  that  the 
transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  by  the  vendor  of  goods  sold  and  shipped  will  give  the 
right  to  the  transferee  to  sue  for  the  purchase  price  of  the  goods.'*^ 

73.  Where  the  sellers  of  cotton  took  5.3  Am.  &  Kng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  290.  128 
bills    of    ladiny-    in    their    own    name,    and       Am.   St.    Rep.    17. 

sent  them,  with  drafts  for  the  price,  to  a  76.    Right  of  indorsee. — Pape   &   Co.  v. 

correspondent  for  collection,  and  the  pur-  Sandusky,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    4    West.    L.    M. 

chaser    paid    the    drafts    by    checks    on    a  (544,   2  O.   Dec.   Reprint   716. 

bank  which  had  agreed  to  pay  the  checks  77.    Delay  in  delivery.— Haas  r.   Kansas 

and   take    the   bills   of  lading   as   security.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co  ,  si   Ga    792    7  S    E    629 

and     the     purchaser,     on     so     paying     the  -o     t^  •■,         j.     j  ,-                 j       \    ,'         » 

drafts,    received    the    bills    of    lading,    and  r         failure  to  deliver  goods.-Askew  & 

delivered    them    to    the    bank    under    the  ^^p'^^;'"^'^^^''"   ^^-   ^^*-   ^   ^'''-  '^^^^   '''•  "'^ 

agreement,  the  bills  did  not  l^ecome  func-  ^' ma'  %'i'      •     1                e        t  ■,,.■,    ,• 

tus   officio  in   the  hands  of  the  bank,   but  79.     The    mdorsee    of    a    bill    ot    lading 

still    represented   the   cotton,   on   which    it  '"^>'    '!^^'  the  vessel  on  which   the  goods 

had   a   lien   for   the   advances.      First    Nat.  ^'^   shipped,    for   failure   to   deliver   them. 

Bank  V.   San   Antonio,   etc..   R.   Co.    (Tex.  *'i°"f '^  ^^  "f  >'  ^^  ^"f  ^"  ^"^"t  or  trustee 

Civ.  App.).  72  S.  W.  10.3.3.  modified  in  77  ^^  }^}^   goods    for   others :    as    ex   gr     the 

S.  W.  410,  97  Tex.  201.     See  ante.  "Pledge.  'f '^i^^.^^o^  ^,^1-     S'ol^"'"'   ^^-  ^■^' 

Mortgage    or   Collateral    Security."    §    577.  ^^   ^^  ^"-   ^^'   ^^   L.    Ed.   S04. 

74.  Dows  V.  National  Exch.  Bank.  91  80.  Actions  for  taking  and  withholding 
U.  S.  618,  23  L.  Ed.  214:  Heiskell  v.  Far-  hills.  Cxult.  etc..  R.  Co.  :•.  Brown.  4  Tex. 
mers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  S9  Pa.  155.  33  Am.  '-'^'-  -^PP-  ^•>"'-  -•>  ?■  ^^     ''1^- 

Rep.  745.  81.     Actions    against    consignee. — .Mien, 

75.  Authority  to  take  up  bill  of  lading. —  etc..  Co.  i'.  Farmers',  etc..  Nat.  Bank.  129 
St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Citizens'    Bank,        Ga.  748.  59  S.  E.  813. 

87  Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154.  30  R.  R.  R.  290,  Where    a    carrier    issued    to    a    seller    of 


§§  593-596  CARRIERS.  404 

Recovery  of  Goods  from  Person  Not  Having  Better  Title. — The  posses- 
sion of  goods  acquired  under  a  bill  of  lading  is  sufficient  to  maintain  an  action 
against  one  who  does  not  show  a  better  title. ^-  And  a  bank  to  which  a  draft 
with  bill  of  lading  attached  was  sent  can  maintain  replevin  against  a  person  re- 
ceiving the  goods  without  authority. ^^ 

Recovery  of  Value  of  Goods. — A  person  who  acquired  possession  of  good-s 
under  a  bill  of  lading,  though  he  had  only  a  special  property  in  them  to  secure 
advances  made  upon  them,  can  recover  the  whole  value  of  them  from  a  pur- 
chaser for  cash,  and  hold  the  surplus  beyond  his  own  interest  for  the  general 
owner.'^^ 

§§  594-595.  Parties— §  594.  Plaintiffs.— The  holder  of  an  unindorsed 
bill  of  lading  can  not  sue  upon  it  in  his  own  name.'^"' 

Bank  Receiving  Draft  with  Bill  Attached  for  Collection. — See  ante, 
"Right  of  Action,"  §  380. 

§  595.  Defendants. — The  shipper  may  sue  either  the  master  or  the  owner 
upon  a  bill  of  lading  signed  by  the  master.^'' 

§§  596-597.  Pleading— §  596.  Bill,  Petition  or  Complaint.— Allega- 
tion That  Bill  of  Lading  Purchased  by  Indorsee  of  Draft  with  Bill  At- 
tached.— An  allegation,  in  an  action  by  a  consignee  to  recover  from  a  bank 
mone\-  paid  on  drafts  purchased  by  the  bank  from  the  consignor,  with  bills  of 
lading  attached,  that  the  drafts  and  bills  of  lading  were  indorsed  in  blank  by 
the  consignor  and  transferred  to  and  purchased  by  the  bank,  shows  the  trans- 
action to  have  been  a  mere  purchase  of  the  drafts,  with  the  bills  of  lading  as 
security,  and  not  a  purchase  of  the  bills  of  lading  so  as  to  in  any  way  make 
the  bank  liable  for  the  performance  of  the  consignor's  contract.-^" 

Allegation  That  Bank  Assumed  Relation  of  Seller. — An  allegation  that 
the  bank,  by  purchasing  the  draft,  with  assignment  of  the  bill  of  lading  of  the 
property  for  the  price  of  which  it  was  drawn,  attached  to  and  securing  it,  became 
the  owner  of  the  property  and  assumed  the  relation  of  seller  thereof  to  the  per- 
son on  whom  the  draft  was  drawn,  is  a  mere  conclusion  of  the  pleader,  not  to 
be  taken  as  an  averment  that  the  transaction  was  other  than  an  ordinary  pur- 
chase of  a  draft  secured  by  bill  of  lading  attached,  and  does  not  enlarge  the 
legal  efifect  of  the  facts  so  as  to  charge  that  the  bank  purchased,  not  only  the 
draft,  but  the  bill  of  lading,^-^  such  complaint  is  demurrable. ''^'■^' 

corn  under  written  contract  a  bill  of  lad-  chased  by  indorsee. — Blaisdell  Co.  v.  Cit- 
ing consigning-  the  shipment  to  the  sell-  izens'  Nat.  Bank,  75  S.  W.  292,  96  Tex. 
er's  order,  which  the  latter  transferred  626,  62  L.  R.  A.  968,  97  Am.  St.  Rep.  944. 
to  a  bank,  such  transfer  alone  did  not  en-  88.  Allegation  that  bank  assumed  rela- 
.title  the  bank  to  sue  the  buyer  on  the  tion  of  seller. — Blaisdell  Co.  v.  Citizens' 
contract  for  the  price.  Allen,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nat.  Bank,  96  Tex.  626,  75  S.  W.  292,  62 
Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  59  S.  E.  813,  L.  R.  A.  968,  97  Am.  St.  Rep.  944. 
129  Ga.  748.  89.    Plaintiff  alleged  a  purchase  by  him 

82.  Recovery  of  goods  from  person  not  of  cotton  to  be  shipped  with  a  draft  ac- 
having  better  title. — Adams  v.  O'Conner,  companying  a  bill  of  lading;  that  after 
100  Mass.  515,  1  Am.  Rep.  137.  the    shipment    defendant    bank    purchased 

83.  Heiskell  v.  Farmers',  etc.,  Nat.  the  draft,  and  became  the  actual  owner  of 
Bank,  89   Pa.   155,  33  Am.   Rep.   745.  the  l)ill  of  lading  and  of  the  cotton  which 

84.  Recovery  of  value  of  goods. — Ad-  it  represented,  and  thereby  undertook  to 
ams  V.  O'Conner,  100  Mass.  515,  1  Am.  carry  out  the  contract  of  sale  between 
Rep.   137.  plaintiff  and  consignor;  that  plaintiff  was 

85.  Stone  v.  Swift  (Mass.),  4  Pick.  389;  compelled  to  pay  the  draft  before  the 
Davenport  Nat.  Bank  v.  Homeyer,  100  arrival  of  the  cotton;  and  that  when  the 
Am.   Dec.   3*;3,  45   Mo.   145.  cotton  arrived  it  was  found  short  weight. 

86.  Defendants. — Harvy  v.  Pike,  7  Am.  Held,  that  the  complaint  was  demurra- 
Dec.   698,   N.   C.  Term   Rep.   82.  ble.      Blaisdell    &    Co.    v.    White    &    Co. 

87.  Allegation  that  bill  of  lading   pur-  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  76  S.  W.  70. 


403 


BILLS   OF    LADIN'G. 


§§  596-598 


Actions  to  Recover  Money  Paid  on  Draft  with  Forged  Bill  of  Lading 
Attached. — 'Ihe  allc;^;aion>  in  an  action  against  a  collecting  agc-nt  to  recover 
money  paid  on  a  draft  witii  a  forged  bill  of  lading  attached,  must  receive  a 
reasonable  construction. '•*'* 

§   597.  Answer.— See  ante.  "Conflict  of  Laws,"  §  43.S. 

§  598.  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading  or  Proof  of  Contents. — A  bill  of 
lading  is  the  best  evidence  of  its  contents,  and  seconrlary  e\idence  will  not  be 
admissible,    unless    its   absence    is   accounted    for.''^ 

Evidence  of  Contract  of  Shipment. — The  bill  of  lading  is  the  best  evidence 
of  the  contract  for  the  shipment  and  delivery  of  goods  and  it  is  error  to  permit 
parol  evidence  thereof. "- 

Action  Founded  on  Bill  of  Lading. — Where  an  action  against  a  common 
carrier  is  founded  on  a  bill  of  lading,  then  the  bill  of  lading  must  be  produced 
in  evidence,  or  its  nonproduction  must  be  accounted  for,  and  its  substance 
proved  as  alleged."""  When  a  petition  alleged  that  a  shipment  was  made  on 
through  bills  of  lading,  and  at  agreed  and  through  rates,  for  the  "whole  route," 
it  was  founded  on  special  contract  evidenced  by  bill  of  lading,  and  not  on  com- 
mon-law liability  of  the  carrier,  and  the  plaintiff  was  not  entitled  to  recover 
without  introducing  the  .same  in  evidence,  or  accounting  for  its  nonproduction, 
and  then  establishing  its   substance  as  alleged."* 

Where  Issue  as  to  Ownership. — Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
injuries  to  a  shipment,  there  is  an  issue  as  to  ownership,  it  is  error  to  permit 
plaintiff  to  testify  to  the  contents  of  the  bill  of  lading,  in  order  to  show  that 


90.  riainliffs'  petition  alleged  that  Y. 
was  indebted  to  a  cotton  seed  meal  com- 
pany, and  in  payment  of  that  debt  de- 
livered to  them  forged  negotiable  ocean 
bills  of  lading  representing  cotton  seed 
meal  in  transit;  that  the  cotton  seed  meal 
company  indorsed  these  bills  of  lading 
to  defendants,  who  in  turn  negotiated 
them;  plaintiffs  becoming  the  ultimate 
holders.  The  bill  further  charged  that 
plaintiffs  had  sold  cotton  seed  meal  for 
the  company,  and  that  these  sales  had 
been  rescinded  for  delay  in  delivery,  and 
that,  by  means  of  a  bonus,  the  cotton 
seed  meal  company  induced  plaintiffs  to 
buy  these  negotiable  ocean  bills  of  lad- 
ing; that  plaintiffs  paid  the  consideration 
to  persons  named  by  defendants;  that 
the  negotiations  were  really  carried  on 
for  the  benefit  of  defendants,  the  cotton 
seed  meal  company  being  largely  in- 
debted to  them,  and  their  only  hope  for 
payment  being  the  sale  of  these  bills  of 
lading;  and  that  this  sale  was  made  with 
full  knowledge  of  the  dishonor  of  the 
bills  of  lading  by  the  persons  on  whom 
they  were  drawn.  Held,  that  the  partic- 
ular allegations  showed  that  defendants 
were  not  the  owners  of  these  bills  of  lad- 
ing, and,  as  they  were  not  parties  to  the 
transactions  between  plaintiffs  and  the 
cotton  seed  meal  company,  the  allega- 
tions that  their  only  hope  of  payment  was 
in  the  sale  of  these  negotiable  bills  of 
lading  can  not  be  taken  as  true  on  de- 
murrer, but  the  petition  must  be  con- 
strued   to   mean    that    they    were    not    the 


owners,  but  were  only  interested  in  the 
sale,  of  the  bills  of  lading,  as  they  would 
receive  the  proceeds;  furthermore  that 
this  sale  was  made  with  full  knowledge 
of  the  dishonor  of  the  bills  of  lading  can 
not  mean  that  defendants  knew  of  the 
forgeries,  but  only  that  they  were  re- 
fused by  the  persons  to  whom  the  meal 
had  been  shipped,  and  hence  showed  no 
liability  of  defendants,  so  that  a  demur- 
rer to  the  bill  was  properly  sustained. 
Moritz  V.  Adoue  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  138 
S.  W.   1140. 

91.  Proof  of  contents  of  bill  of  lading. 
— Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  z\  Fowler  (Tex. 
Civ.     App.).     102     S.    W.     732. 

92.  Evidence  of  contract  of  shipment 
— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cates,  15  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  135,  38  S.  W.  648.  See  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cocreham,  10  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  166,  30  S.  W.  lllS;  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Carterj  9  Tex.  Civ.  .-Xpp. 
677,    29    S.    W.    565. 

93.  Action  for  damages  to  goods. — G., 
H.  &  S.  A.  R.  Co.  z:  Van  Winkle  &  Co., 
3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  443;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Logan,  3  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas..  §  186. 

Action  for  damages  to  live  stock. — 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheat,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  165;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Nicholson,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§   168. 

94.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wheat,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  165. 


§§  598-601  CARRIERS.  406 

he  was  the  owner;  the  hill   not  having  been  prodnced,  and  no  notice  given  to 
detentlant  to  iiroduce  it.''-"^ 

Action  Based  on  Common-Law  Liability  of  Carrier. — In  an  action 
against  a  common  carrier  founded  on  the  common-huv  habihty  of  such  carrier, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  produce  in  evidence  a  bill  of  lading  of  the  property  alleged 
to  have  been  lost  or  injured,  as.  if  there  was  a  special  contract  restricting  the 
common-law  liability  of  the  carrier,  it  devolved  on  the  carrier  to  allege  and 
prove  it.'"' 

§  599.  Proof  of  Execution  of  Bill.— Where  Carrier  Admits  Receipt 
of  Goods. — In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  a  portion  of  a  ship- 
ment of  goods  alleged  to  have  been  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation,  error,  if 
anv.  in.  admitting  in  evidence  a  bill  of  lading  covering  the  shipment,  over  ob- 
jection for  lack  of  proof  of  execution,  becomes  immaterial,  where  the  carrier 
admits  that  it  received  the  goods  sued  for.  and  sets  up  tlelivery/'" 

Though  Bill  of  Lading  Produced  by  Terminal  Carrier. — \\  here  a  box  of 
goods  was  shipped  from  Xew  York  City  to  a  town  in  Georgia,  and  was  there 
delivered  by  the  last  of  the  connecting  line  of  carriers  to  the  consignee,  if  such 
final  carrier  making  the  delivery  received  and  held  the  through  bill  of  lading 
issued  by  the  initial  carrier,  on  the  trial  of  an  action  for  damages  brought  by 
tlie  consignee  against  the  final  carrier,  on  the  ground  that  the  box  had  been 
broken  open  and  some  of  its  contents  lost  and  other  articles  damaged,  the  bill 
of  lading,  produced  by  the  defendant  under  notice,  was  admissible  in  evidence 
on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  without  proof  of  execution. ^^ 

Proof  of  Signature. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver 
freight,  where  the  evidence  sufficiently  proves  the  bill  of  lading,  it  is  not  error 
to  admit  it  in  evidence  over  the  objection  that  there  was  no  proof  of  its  execu- 
tion, of  the  signature  thereto,  or  of  the  agency  of  the  person  purporting  to  have 
signed  it.^''^ 

Proof  of  Agency  of  Signer  Where  Bill  of  Lading  Not  Basis  of  Plead- 
ing.— A  bill  of  lading  is  a  private  instrument  which,  if  it  does  not  constitute 
in  whole  or  in  part  the  basis  of  the  pleading,  is  not  admissible  in  evidence,  if 
the  same  purports  to  be  signed  by  a  clerk  or  a  servant,  without  proving  the 
agencv  of  such  clerk  or  servant.^ 

§  600.  Province  of  Court. — It  is  in  the  province  of  the  court  to  interpret 
a  bill  of  lading.- 

§  601.  Instructions. — The  rule  that  instructions  should  be  construed  to- 
gether and  will  be  held  unobjectionable  if  when  so  taken  they  are  clearly  not 
misleading,  applies  to  suits  against  a  carrier  based  upon  bills  of  lading.^ 

95.  Where  issue  as  to  ownership. —  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson,  8G  Ga.  203,  12  S. 
Texas  Cent.  R.   Co.  v.  Fowler   (Tex.   Civ.       E.  357.  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  44G. 

App.),    102    S.    W.   732.  1-    Bill  of  lading  not  basis  of  pleading. 

96.  Action  based  on  common-law  lia-  —Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Bertram, 
bUity    of    carrier.— Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.       1  Jexas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1152. 

V.   Nicholson,   2  Texas   App.   Civ.    Cas.,'  §  .    2.    Province  of  court.-It   is   the   prov- 

-j^gg  nice  of  the  court  to  interpret  the  written 

Action   for   injury   to    live   stock.— Mis-  contract     of    affreightment    between     the 

50uri   Pac.    R.    Co.  v.   Nicholson,   2   Texas  P^^ties     ^^^^r^^h  l^'^-'r     o.^°- Z' a      *  cV 

App.   Civ.   Cas..  §  1G8.  ^'■d.    77    Ga.    412,    1    S.    E.    261,    4   Am.    St. 

97     Where    carrier    admits    receipt    of  g/   instruction.— In    the    suit    the    court 

goods^—Georgia,    etc      R.    Co.   t^.    Florida,  j^stj-ucted     that     if,     when    plaintif!     dis- 

ctc.,^  Tobacco   Co.,   10   Ga.   App.   38,   72   b.  covered    that    the    corn    was    delivered    to 

E-   511-  R.,     R.    was    solvent,     and    by    the     exer- 

98.  Though  bill  of  lading  produced  by  cise  of  ordinary  prudence  plaintiflf  could 
terminal  carrier. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  have  collected  the  price  from  R.  bV- 
V.   Yudelson,   135   Ga.  731,  70  S.   E.  576.  fore     insolvency,     but     did     not     exercise 

99.  Proof     of     signature. — Richmond,       such    care,    he    could    not   recover   against 


407  ];1LLS    OF    LADING.  §    602 

§  602.  Directing  Verdict. — Where  a  so-called  demanrl  for  a  shipment  of 
frei<(hl  was  made  1)\-  ilic  liaiisferee  of  an  "order  notify"  hill  of  lading  of  a 
railroad  compan\'  which  therehy  agreed  to  transport  certain  cotton  from  and 
to  named  points  within  the  state,  hefore  it  was  indorsed  hy  the  one  having 
the  legal  title  thereto,  the  direction  of  a  verdict  by  the  trial  judge  in  favor  of 
the  plaintiff  on  the  basis  of  a  suit  brought  by  the  transferee  to  recover  dam- 
ages ami  ink  rest  from  date  of  demand  for  failure  to  deliver  cotton  by  virtue 
of  the  terms  of  the  contract  contained  in  the  l)ill  of  lading  before  its  indorse- 
ment is  revisible  error.'' 

Evidence  of  Forgery  Uncontradicted. — In  action  against  carrier  to  re- 
cover for  ncgligeiur  in  issiiiii-  bills  of  lading  for  goods  not  actually  delivered, 
uncontradicted  evidence  that  the  bills  of  lading  as  delivered  did  not  include 
goods  not  received,  but  were  fraudulentl}'  altered,  requirerl  verdict  for  de- 
fendant."' 

defendant    on    an    estoppel.      Meld,    that  l)elieve(l    that    the    shipment    was    ordered 

the     instruction     was     not     objectionable  "open,"    yet    plaintiff    was    misled    by    de- 

on     the     theory     that     it     was     confused  fendant's    act    in    transmitting   a    "closed" 

and  misleading,  and  calculated   to   induce  bill  of  lading,  they  should  fmd  for  plain- 

the    jury    to    believe    that,    if    they    found  tiff    on    that    issue.      Smith    v.    Landa,    45 

against    plaintiff   on    the    issue    of   the    es-  Tex.    Civ.    App.    44G,    lOl    S.    W.    470,    af- 

toppel,     they    would     find     for     defendant  firmed,    no   op. 

also    on    all    the    other   issues,    the   charge  4.    Albany,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Merchants', 

preceding    the    portion    in    question    hav-  etc.,    l'>ank,   73   S.    V..   (VM,   137    Ga.   3'Jl. 

ing   stated   that,   if   the   jury   believed   the  5.    Evidence  of  forgery  uncontradicted. 

shipment    was    ordered    "closed"    accord-  — Franklin     Trust    Co.     v.     Philadelphia, 

ing  to  custom,  they  should  lind  for  plain-  etc.,  R.  Co.,  237  Pa.  519,  85  Atl.  855. 
tiff    on    that    issue,    and    that,    if    the    jury 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Shipping  Receipts. 

T.  Issuance,  Form  and  Requisites,  §  603. 
II.  Construction  and  Operation,  §§  604-G17. 

A.  As  Contract  of  Parties.  §§  604-607. 

a.  In  General,  §  604. 

b.  Effect  of  Acceptance,  §  605. 

c.  Receipt  Filled  Out  by  Shipper.  §  606. 

d.  Conditions  on  Back,  §  607. 

B.  As  Contract  of  Bailment  or  Mere  Receipt  for  Goods,  §  608. 

C.  As  to  Initial  or  Connecting  Carrier,  §  609. 

D.  As  Agreement  to  Carry  to  Destination,  §  610. 

E.  As  to  Rate  of  Freight,  §  611. 

F.  Effect  of  Recitals  as  to  Receipt,  and  Quantity  of  Goods,  §  612. 

G.  Effect  of  Admission  That  Goods  in  "Good  Order,"  §  613. 
H.  Reference  to  Bill  of  Lading  to  Be  Thereafter  Issued,  §  614. 
I.  Effect  Where  Bill  of  Lading  Subsequently  Issued,  §  615. 

J.  Receipt  Accepted  after  Shipment  Received,  §  616. 

K.  Parol  Evidence  to  Alter,  Explain  or  Contradict,  §  617. 

§  603.  Issuance,  Form  and  Requisites. — Proof  of  Execution. — Proof 
that  a  receipt  of  goods  alleged  to  have  been  delivered  to  an  express  company 
was  signed  by  a  clerk  of  the  cei-'pany  employed  to  receive  and  deliver  property 
at  its  office ;  that  the  clerk  had  acted  in  that  capacity  for  several  years ;  that  the 
witness  knew  the  clerk  and  had  seen  a  large  number  of  receipts  signed  by  him 
for  property  delivered ;  and  that  he  believed  the  signature  to  be  the  clerk's  sig- 
nature— sufficiently  showed  the  execution  of  the  receipt  so  as  to  bind  the  com- 
pany.^ 

Receipt  in  Form  of  Steamboat  Bill  of  Lading. — See  post,  "As  Contract 
of  Bailment  or  Mere  Receipt  for  Goods,"   §  608. 

Acceptance. — See  post,  "Effect  of  Acceptance/'  §  605. 

Conditions  on  Back. — See  post,  "Conditions  on  Back,"  §  607. 

§§  604-617.  Construction  and  Operation— §§  604-607.  As  Con- 
tract of  Parties — §  604.  In  General. — In  the  absence  of  fraud  or  imposi- 
tion, a  receipt  delivered  by  a  common  carrier  to  a  person  shipping  goods  must 
be  held  to  be  the  contract  between  the  parties. - 

Receipt  Made  Out  by  Shipper  and  Presented  to  Carrier. — Where  a 
shipper  and  owner  of  goods,  at  the  time  of  delivering  the  same  to  an  express 
company  for  transportation,  also  delivers  to  the  express  company  for  its  signa- 
ture a  blank  receipt,  filled  up  by  him  at  his  office,  containing  the  names  of  both 
parties,  and  a  series  of  conditions  and  clauses  regulating  the  manner  of  trans- 
portation and  the  liability  of  the  express  company  in  certain  cases  and  contin- 
gencies, and  such  receipt,  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  merchandise,  is  pre- 
sented by  the  shipper  to  the  express  company  for  its  signature,  and  is  signed 
by  the  latter  and  returned  to  the  shipper,  it  constitutes  a  special  contract,  bind- 
ing upon  both  j)arties.^' 

Express  Receipts. — .\  receipt  given  by  an  express  company  to  the  consignor 

1.  Proof  of  execution. — Armstrong  v.  3.  Receipt  made  out  by  shipper  and 
Fargo    (X.   Yj,   s    Hun    17,5.  presented  to  carrier. — Falkenan  v.  Fargo, 

2.  As  contract  of  parties. — Huntington  44  How.  Prac.  325,  3.5  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
V.  Dinsmore  (N.  Y.),  4  Hun  66,  6  Thomp.  332,    affirmed    in    55    X.    Y.    642. 

&   C.   195. 


409  sriiPi'ixG  RECEIPTS.  §§  604-608 

of  goods  is  the  contract  by  which  the  obligations  of  the  i)arties  must  be  deter- 
mined.'* 

§  605.  Effect  of  Acceptance. — A  consignor,  by  accepting  a  receipt  wliich 
provided  for  delivery  without  re(|uiring  the  production  of  a  receipt  or  bill  of 
lading,  accepted  such  provision  as  part  of  the  contract.'' 

Express  Receipt.— The  acceptance  of  receipt  by  the  consignor  from  an  ex- 
press company  for  tlie  carriage  of  a  package  imjjlies  an  accession  to  its  terms, 
thereby  creating  a  contract  e(iually  as  binding  as  though  signed  by  both  parties.*^ 

Express  Receipt  Accepted  without  Reading. — In  the  absence  of  artifice 
or  concealment,"  the  accei)lance,  without  objection,  by  a  shipper,  of  an  express 
company's  receipt  for  goods  delivered,  though  it  be  unread  at  the  time,  consti- 
tutes a  contract  between  the  i)arties,  and  binds  them  as  to  the  conditions  con- 
tained in  it.^ 

§  606.  Receipt  Filled  Out  by  Shipper. — A  shipper  of  goods  who  fills  out 
a  blank  receipt  contained  in  a  book  prexiously  furnished  by  an  express  company 
for  his  use,  and  obtains  the  signature  of  the  company's  agent  thereto  upon  de- 
livering to  him  a  package  for  transportation,  will  be  presumed  to  know  the  con- 
tents of  the  receipt,  and  if  he  receives  such  receipt  without  objection,  his  assent 
to  its  conditions  will,  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  be  conclusively  presumed.^ 

§  607.  Conditions  on  Back. — Conditions  printed  on  the  back  of  a  receipt 
for  goods,  given  by  a  carrier  which  directed  the  attention  of  the  shipper  to  such 
conditions,  are  not  binding  on  the  shipper.^" 

§  608.  As  Contract  of  Bailment  or  Mere  Receipt  for  Goods. — An  in- 
strument delivered  by  a  carrier's  agent  to  the  shipper,  reciting  the  delivery  of 
certain  packages  "marked  and  signed  as  stated  to  be  shipped  as  per  directions 
below,  subject  to  the  conditions  and  exceptions  of  the  company's  bill  of  lading," 
signed  by  the  shipper  and  by  the  carrier's  agent,  was  a  mere  receipt  for  the 
goods  for  the  purpose  of  shipping  them  to  the  point  named  in  the  memoran- 
dum following  the  shipper's  signature,  and  was  not  a  contract  by  the  car- 
rier to  ship  the  goods.' ^  \\'here  plaintiff  contracted  to  sell  goods  to  defend- 
ant to  be  shipped  to  D.,  via  C,  and  delivered  the  goods  to  the  carrier  who 
signed  a  dray  ticket,  or  receipt,  ])resented  by  the  shipper,  describing  the  goods, 
and  stating"  they  were  for  defendant,  at  D.,  to  which  the  carrier  added  the  words 
"To  AI.,"  the  receipt  was  not  evidence  of  a  contract  to  carry  to  D.,  but  only 
to  keep  the  goods  safely  and  redeliver  on  account  for  their  value. '- 

Contract  of  Bailment  to  Be  Ascertained  from  Both  Receipt  and 
Verbal  Agreement. — W  here  one  of  the  terms  indorsed  on  a  shipper's  receipt 
was  that  packages  should  be  marked  with  the  consignee's  name,  and  the  con- 

4.  Express  receipts.  —  Collcnder  v.  Pac.  665,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  107,  12  L.  R. 
Dinsmore.    55    N.    Y.    200.    14    Am.    Rep.       A..    N.    S..    709. 

224,    reversing    64    Barb.    457.  10.     Conditions     on     back. — A     carrier 

5.  Effect  of  acceptance. — Singer  v.  S^^e  a  shipper  a  receipt  for  goods  which 
Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  191  referred  to  a  bill  of  lading  to  be  given 
Mass.  449,  77  X.  K.  191,  114  Am.  St.  thereafter,  and  directed  attention  to  cer- 
Rep.   6:55.                                     '  tain      conditions     printed     on     the     back. 

6.  Express  receipt.— Adams  Exp.  Co.  Held,  that  the  conditions  were  a  mere 
V.  Carnahan.  94  Am.  St.  Rep.  279,  29  Ind.  notice,  not  bindmg  on  the  shipper,  since 
App    606    (),3  X    E    245    64  X'^    E    647  ^he   receipt    did   not   constitute   a   contract 

7."    Express  "receipt'   accepted     without       °^        shipment.        Merchants'        Dispatch 

reading.-Knapp   v.   Wells.    Fargo   &    Co.,       1'^'''^^.    ^^.  ''     f  "'^nV^r' ..    v    r  "Vo?' 

119    X     Y.    S.    117,    134    App.    Dfv.    712.  f;''/*^T.'  p'"     o   -      '       '             '     ^         ' 

^  41    Am.    St.    Rep.   2t>;i. 

8.  Soumet  v.  National  Exp.  Co.  (N.  n.  As  contract  of  bailment  or  mere 
\.),    66    Barb.    2^\.  receipt    for    goods.— Pittsburgh,     etc..     R. 

9.  Receipt  filled  out  by  shipper. — Pa-  Co.  v.  Bryant,  36  Ind.  App.  340,  75  X.  E. 
citic    Exp.    Co.   v.    Foley,    46    Kan.   457,   26  829. 

12.    Fleming  v.   Mills,   5   Mich.   420. 


§§  608-612  CARRIERS.  410 

si^nor  purposely  omitted  the  name  from  the  boxes,  and  was  promised  by  the 
shipper's  Philadelphia  agent  that  the  IndianapoHs  agent  should  be  ordered  not 
to  deliver  the  goods  till  directed,  but  the  latter  delivered  them  before,  and  the 
con-^ignee  failed  without  paving,  in  a  suit  for  negligence ;  the  contract  of  bail- 
ment^must  be  ascertained  by  the  jury  from  both  the  receipt  and  the  verbal  ar- 
rangement. ^•"  ^     ,.  ,.,       .         , 

Receipt  in  Form  of  Steamboat  Bill  of  Lading.— 1  he  tact  that  a  receipt 
criven  bv  a  railroad  company  for  freight  received  and  transported  over  its  road 
fs  in  form  like  a  steamboat  bill  of  lading,  does  not  aiTect  the  liability  of  the  com- 
pany, if  the  receipt  given  was  intended  only  as  a  receipt.^-* 

§  609.  As  to  Initial  or  Connecting  Carrier.— Where  a  defendant  railroad 
company  gave  a  receipt  for  certain  goods  in  controversy,  reciting:  "Received 
of  National  ^lotor  \^ehicle  Company,  by  t'he  Panhandle  Railroad  Company,  4 
crates  batteries,  consigned,  etc.,"  in  the  absence  of  any  explanation  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  "by  the  Panhandle  Railroad  Company,"  such  receipt  will  not 
be  construed  to  mean  that  such  railroad  was  the  initial  carrier,  and  was  not  a 
branch  ^^  or  subordinate  line  of  defendant's  system. 

Receipt  a  Through  Contract,  Custom.— Through  contract  is  created  by  the 
shipping  receipt  in  the  following  form,  and  parol  evidence  is  inadmissible  to 
show  a  custom  limiting  its  effect  as  such:  "Milwaukee,— 188-.  — Shipped  the 
following  articles,  in  good  order,  to  be  delivered  in  like  good  order,^  as  ad- 
dressed without  unnecessary  delay.  Consigned  to  H.,  Onekama,  Mich.;"  on  the 
face  of  which  the  carrier's  agent  stamped  and  wrote :  "P".  &  P.  M.  R.  R.  Co. 
Rec'd  Nov.  2,   1887.     —By  agent.  P.,  Milwaukee."  i'^' 

§  610.  As  Agreement  to  Carry  to  Destination.— A  shipping  receipt  for 
goods  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transportation  to  a  specified  destination  implies 
an  agreement  by  the  carrier  to  carry  the  goods  to  their  destination.^' 

§  611.  As  to  Rate  of  Freight.— A  dray  ticket  given  by  the  carrier,  ac- 
knowledging the  receipt  of  the  goods,  and  containing  a  statement  as  to  the  rate 
of  freight,  is  not  conclusive  as  to  such  rate.^^ 

§  612.  Effect  of  Recitals  as  to  Receipt,  and  Quantity  of  Goods.— A 

receipt  given  by  the  carrier  to  a  transfer  company,  to  whom  consignor  had  de- 
livered the  goods,  is  sufficient  to  show  a  delivery  by  the  consignor  to  the  car- 
rier.^'^ 

Recitals  as  to  Quantity  of  Goods.— The  recitals  in  a  shipping  receipt  as 
to  the  quantity  of  the  goods  received  does  not  estop  the  carrier  from  showing 
the  quantity  actually  received.^*^^' 

13.  Contract  of  bailment  to  be  ascer-  signed  by  defendant's  agent.  The  re- 
tained from  both  receipt  and  verbal  ceipt  was  in  the  usual  form  issued  by  de- 
agreement.— Union  R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Riegel,  fendant.  Held,  to  imply  an  agreement 
T/!    I'a.    72.  by  defendant  to   carry  the  goods   to   their 

14.  Receipt  in  form  of  steamboat  bill  destination.  Landes  v.  Pacific  Railroad, 
of    lading.— Flash,    etc.,    Co.    v.    New    Or-       50    Mo.    34G. 

leans,   etc.,  R.   Co.,  2?,   La.   Ann.   .35.3.  18.     As    to    rate    of    freight— Wood    v. 

15.  As  to  initial  or  connecting  carrier.       h'lcetwood,    22    Mo.    5(10. 

— Hoye    V.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.,    100    N.  19.    Effect  of  recitals  as  to  receipt  and 

Y.  S.   190,   114  App.   Div.  821,   affirmed  in  quantity   of    goods   received.— New    York, 

191  N.  Y.  101,  8.3   X.   H.   580.  etc.,    vSteamship    Co.    v.    Weiss    (Tex.    Civ. 

16.  Receipt  a  through-contract-custom.  App.),    47    S.    W.    674. 

— Hansen    v.    Flint,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    73   Wis.  20.     A    drayman    was    to    deliver   cotton 

346,  41  X.  W.  529,  9  Am.  vSt.  Rep.  791.  on   l)oard   a    steamboat.      He   took   freight 

17.  As  agreement  to  carry  to  destina-  receipts,  which  were  afterwards  taken 
tion. — A  shipper  delivered  goods  to  one  up  and  a  Inll  of  lading  issued.  53  bales 
railroad,  to  be  carried  to  a  point  on  an-  were  properly  delivered,  and,  by  mistake, 
other  road.  In  an  action  against  the  20  Ijales  were  delivered  aboard  another 
latter  for  loss  of  part  of  the  goods,  a  steamer  and  a  freight  receipt  taken  in 
receipt    for    the     goods    was     introduced  her    name.      The    other    steamer    took    up 


411  SIIIPPIXG   RECF.IPTS.  §§   612-616 

As  Evidence  of  Contents  of  Package. — A  receipt  given  by  an  agent  of  an 
express  company  for  a  scaled  package,  stating  that  it  is  "said  to  contain"  a 
certain  sum  of  money,  is  not  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  amount  actually  in- 
closed in  the  package.-' 

§  613.  Effect  of  Admission  That  Goods  in  "Good  Order." — A  receipt 
given  by  a  carrier  stating  that  goods  received  by  it  for  shipment  were  in  good 
order  is  not,  as  against  the  carrier,  conchisive  on  that  ciuestion.--  A  shipping 
reccii)t  for  boxed  goods,  reciting  that  they  are  received  "in  apparent  good  or- 
der except  as  noted  [contents  and  condition  of  contents  of  packages  unknown]," 
raises  no  presumption  that  the  goods  are  received  in  good  condition,--'^  And 
does  not  prevent  a  carrier  from  proving  what  their  actual  conditions  was  when 
delivered.-^ 

§  614.  Reference  to  Bill  of  Lading  to  Be  Thereafter  Issued. — Where 
on  delivery  of  goods  to  a  carrier,  its  agent  delivered  a  receipt  describing  the 
goods  "to  he  ship])ed  as  i)er  directions  below,  subject  to  the  conditions  and 
exceptions  of  the  c()ni])any"s  bill  of  lading,"  but  no  bill  of  lading  was  ever  exe- 
cuted or  delivered,  the  carrier's  uniform  bill  of  lading  was  not  thereby  made  a 
part  of  the  receipt  or  contract  of  shipment. -•"' 

§  615.  Effect  Where  Bill  of  Lading  Subsequently  Issued. — Where  a 
temporary  receipt  is  issued  by  a  carrier  in  contemplation  of  the  substitution  of 
a  bill  of  lading,  the  ])ill  of  lading  when  issued  is  the  first  and  only  contract  be- 
tween the  parties.-"  While  a  receipt  delivered  to  the  truckman  of  a  shipper  by 
the  carrier,  upon  receipt  of  goods  containing  conditions  touching  the  convey- 
ance thereof,  if  the  only  written  evidence  of  the  contract  of  shipment,  is  bind- 
ing on  the  consignee,  yet  such  receipt  can  not  be  considered  as  expressing  the 
contract  of  the  parties,  where  it  was  surrendered  and  a  bill  of  lading  issued  in 
its  stead,-"  and  is  inadmissible  in  an  action  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  the  goods. -^ 
The  fact  that  the  receipt  and  bill  of  lading  contained  substantially  the  same  lim- 
itations of  liability  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  does  not  tend  to  show  that  the  re- 
ceipt remained  the  contract  between  the  parties.-" 

§  616.  Receipt  Accepted  after  Shipment  Received. — Where  there  is 
a  verbal  agreement  of  carriage,  mider  which  the  shi])per  acce])ts  and  loads  the 

all  the  receipts,  and  issued  a  bill  of  lad-  24.     Mears   v.   New   York,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

ing    for    73   bales,   and   afterwards    the   20  96    Am.    St.    Rep.    192,    75    Conn.    171,  52 

bales  were  lost.     Held,   not  to   estop   the  Atl.    Gio.    5(1   L.    R.   A.    884. 

first-named    boat    to    show    that    only    53           25.     Reference   to   bill    of   lading    to  be 

bales    were    actually    received.      Dean    v.  thereafter    issued. — Pittsburgh,      etc.,  R. 

King,  22  O.   St.   118".  Co.  v.  Bryant,  3()   Ind.  App.  340,  75  N.  E. 

21.  As   evidence   of   contents    of    pack-  ^^!'.t. 

age. — Fitzgcrakl    7'.    .Vdains    lixp.    Co.,    24  26.     Effect   where   bill   of  lading   subse- 

Ind.   447,   s7   Am.   Die.   ;i41.  quently      issued. — Washburn-Crosby      Co. 

22.  Effect  of  admission  that  goods  in  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  180  Mass.  252,  62 
"good    order." — Illinois    Cent.     R.    Co.    v.  X.    H.    590. 

Cowlcs,    ;!:.'    111.    IKi.  27.     Merchants'    Dispatch    Transp.    Co. 

Effect    of    admission    that    goods    were  v.    Furthmann,   47    111.    App.    501.   atlirmed 

received  in  good  order. — In  a  suit  against  in    149    111.   GO,   36    N.    E.   624,   41    Am.    St. 

a    commcin    carrier,    tlic    libelant    makes    a  Rep.   205. 

prima    facie    case    by    producing    the    re-  28.     Receipts    for    goods    delivered    for 

ceipt    of    the    carrier,    "Received    in    good  carriage    which    were    taken    up    when    a 

order;"    but    these    words    do    not    consti-  ImII    of    lading    was    made    are    inadmissi- 

tute   an   agreement;   they  are   a  mere   ad-  lile    in    an    action    for    loss    of   the    goods, 

mission,    and    may    be    explained    or    con-  they   having  been   superseded   by   the   bill 

iradicted    by    the    carrier.      Seller    v.    Pa-  of    lading.      Blanchard    v.    Page    (Mass.), 

cihc.    Fed.    Cas.    No.    12,044,    Deady    17,    1  S   Gray  281. 

Ore.   409.  29.     MerciiaiUs'    Dispatch    Transp.    Co. 

23.  Alcars  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  :■.  Furthmann.  47  111.  App.  501.  attirme<l 
52  Atl.  610,  75  Conn.  171,  56  L.  R.  A.  in  149  111.  66,  36  N.  E.  624,  41  Am.  St. 
884,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  192.  Rep.   265. 


§§  616-617 


CARRIERS. 


412 


car,  it  can  not  be  varied  or  modified  by  a  receipt  which  the  carrier's  agent  there- 
after dehvers  to  the  shipper,  folded  up,  and  which  the  shipper,  without  knowl- 
edge of  its  contents,  puts  in  his  pocket. 2^' 

§  617.  Parol  Evidence  to  Alter,  Explain  or  Contradict. — A  carrier's  re- 
ceipt is  not,  as  against  the  shipper,  conclusive  evidence  of  the  contract,^^  but 
merely  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  delivery  of  goods ;  and  evidence  is  admissible 
to  prove  by  parol  such  facts  as  will  show  that  the  written  instrument  never  had 
any  legal  existence  or  binding  force,  and  that  it  was  given  under  such  circum- 
stances that  it  failed  to  contain  the  agreement  of  the  parties  ^-  but  not  to 
change  the  legal  import  and  effect  of  the  writing.  Thus,  a  carrier's  receipt  for 
merchandise  "in  store,"  to  be  forwarded  to  a  city  at  so  much  per  barrel,  is  a 
contract  to  varv  which  no  parol  evidence  is  admissible.-^^ 

Goods  Sent  "C.  0.  D." — Where  the  consignor  retains  the  carrier's  receipt 
for  goods  as  the  only  contract  of  carriage,  it  can  not  be  shown  by  parol  that  the 
goods  were  sent  C.  O.  D.,^^  or  where  the  receipt  contains  the  letters  "C.  O.  D." 
that  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered  without  payment  pursuant  to  an  understand- 
ing between  the  shipper  and  the  consignee.^'"' 

Parol  Evidence  to  Explain  Ambiguity. — Ambiguous  words  or  phrases  in 
a  shipping  receipt  may  be  explained  ''''  and  the  meaning  of  abbreviations  proved 
by  parol  ;=^^  as,  for  instance,  the  letters,  '"C.  O.  D.,"  ^'^  or  the  words  "Care  R. 
R.  Agt.  Callaham."39 


30.  Receipt  accepted  after  shipment 
received. — Stoner  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
109    Iowa   551,   80   N.    W.    5(39. 

It  is  competent  to  put  in  evidence  the 
fact  that  goods  were  shipped  under  a 
parol  agreement,  and  that  the  receipt  of 
the  company  (the  carriers)  embodying 
different  terms  was  not  delivered  to  the 
shipper  till  several  days  after  the  goods 
had  been  shipped  under  the  oral  agree- 
ment, to  rebut  the  presumption  arising 
against  the  shipper  from  his  having  the 
receipt.  Strohn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
21  Wis.  554,  94  Am.  Dec.  564.  See  ante, 
"As  Contracts  of  Bailment  or  Mere  Re- 
ceipt   for    Goods,"    §    608. 

31.  Parol  evidence  to  alter,  explain  or 
contradict. — Pereira  v.  Central  Pac.  R. 
Co.,   06    Cal.   92,   4   Pac.   988. 

32.  Purcell  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  34 
Ga.    315. 

33.  Niles  v.  Culver  (N.  Y.),  8  Barb. 
205. 

34.  Goods  sent  "c.  o.  d." — Smith  v. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.,  104  Ala.  387,  16 
So.   62. 

35.  In  an  action  against  an  express 
company  to  recover  the  value  of  a  pack- 
age which  had  been  received  by  the  com- 
pany for  transportation,  and  for  which 
a  receipt  had  been  given  by  the  com- 
pany in  which  the  letters  "C.  O.  D."  were 
used,  it  is  not  competent  for  the  express 
company  to  prove  by  parol  former  ship- 
ments of  goods  by  the  same  consignor 
to  the  same  consignee,  where  receipts 
using  the  same  letters  were  given  and  the 
goods  delivered  without  payment  being 
first  required,  pursuant  to  an  understand- 


ing to  that  effect  between  the  consignee 
and  consignor,  as  such  proof  would 
change  the  legal  import  and  effect  of 
the  written  contract.  American  Exp. 
Co.   V.    Lesem.   39    111.    313. 

36.  Parol  evidence  to  explain  ambig- 
uity.— Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins, 
77  Ga.  376,  3  S.  E.  416,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  87. 

37.  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Lesem,  39 
111.    312. 

38.  In  an  action  against  an  express 
company  to  recover  the  value  of  a  pack- 
age which  had  been  received  by  the 
company  for  transportation,  for  which 
a  receipt  had  been  given  in  which  the 
letters  "O.  C.  D."  were  used,  parol  evi- 
dence is  admissible  to  prove  the  mean- 
ing of  those  letters.  American  Exp.  Co. 
V.    Lesem,   39   111.   312. 

Parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  ex- 
plain the  letters  "C.  O.  D.,"  followed  by 
an  amount,  in  dollars,  in  an  action  for 
goods  delivered  to  an  express  company 
C.  O.  D.  Collender  v.  Dinsmore,  55  N. 
Y.    200,    14    Am.    Rep.    224. 

39.  A  railroad  company,  on  receiving 
for  transportation  certain  articles  ad- 
dressed to  a  point  beyond  its  line,  gave 
the  following  receipt:  "*  *  *  Re- 
ceived from  J.  *  *  *  the  following 
articles  for  shipment  to  W.,  Cedar  Keys, 
Fla.:  1  bdl.  bedding.  [Name,]  Care  R. 
R.  Agt.,  Callahan.  [Signed]  D.,  Agt." 
In  an  action  to  recover  for  the  loss  of 
the  goods,  held,  that  the  words,  "Care 
R.  R.  Agt.,  Callahan."  are  ambiguous,  and 
that  they  may  be  explained  by  parol  evi- 
dence. Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins, 
77  Ga.  376,  3  S.  E.  416,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  87. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Sl'lXIAL   COXTRACTS. 

I.  Contracts  for  Transportation  of  Goods,  §§  G18-711. 
A.  Power  to  Contract,  §§  618-621. 

a.  Power  to  Contract  as  Private  Carrier,  §  618. 

b.  Power  to  Contract  Jointly  or  Severally,  §  619. 

c.  Power  to  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Terminus,  §  620. 

d.  Contracts  with  Connecting  Carrier,  §  621. 
R.  Authority  to   Make  Contract,  §§  622-637. 

a.  Agents  of  Road,  §§  622-6:i4. 

(1)  Ii>  General,  §  622. 

(2)  Local  or  Station  Agent,  §§  623-631. 

(a)  Business  at  His  Own  Station,  §§  623-624. 
aa.  In  General,  §  623. 

bb.   Presumption  as  to  and  Proof  of  Want  of  Authority,  §  624. 

(b)  As  to  Station  Other  than  His  Own,  §  625. 

(c)  Shipments  to  His  Station  from  Another,  §  626. 

(d)  Respecting  Trains  in  Which  Shipment  to  Be  Made,  §  627. 

(e)  Point  Where  Railroad  Has  No  Office  or  Agent,  §  628. 

(f)  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Carrier's  Own  Line,  §  629. 

(g)  Not  to  Deliver  without  Surrender  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  630. 
(h)   Notice  of  Special  Damages,  §  631. 

(3)  Traveling  Freight  Agent,  632. 

(4)  Live  Stock  Agent,  §  633. 

(5)  Express  Drivers,  §  634. 

b.  Receiver  of  Road,  §  635. 

c.  Power  of  Consignor  to  Bind  Consignee,  §  636. 

d.  Agent  of  Owner  or  Shipper,  §  637. 

C.  Form,  Requisites,  and  Validity,  §§  638-656. 

a.  In  General,  §  638. 

b.  Consideration,  §  639. 

c.  Offer  and  Acceptance— What  Constitutes  Contract,  §  640. 

d.  Mutuality  and  Meeting  of  Minds,  §  641. 

e.  Writing— Validity  of  Verbal  Contract.  §§  642-643. 

(1)  In  General,  §  642. 

(2)  Authority  of  Agent,  §  643. 

f.  Failure  or  Inability  of  Shipper  to  Read  Contract,  §  644. 

g.  Signing,  §  645. 
h.   Fraud,  §  646. 

i.  Mistake,  §§  647-648. 

(1)  As  to  Rate,  §  647. 

(2)  Misclassification  of  Goods.  §  648. 
j.  Discrimination  and  Overcharge,  §  649. 

k.  Necessity  for  Actual  Receipt  of  Goods.  §  650. 
1.  EfTect  of  Partial  Invalidity,  §  651. 

m.  Conformity    to    Rates,    Rules   and    Classification    of    State    Corporation    Com- 
mission, §  652. 
n.  Evidence  as  to  Contract,  §  653-656. 

(1)  Parol  Evidence,  §  653. 

(2)  Bill  of  Lading  or  Receipt,  §§  654-655. 

(a)  In  General,  §  654. 

(b)  Whole   Document  in   Evidence.  §  655. 

(3)  Freight  .\ccount  or  Bill.  §  ("1:^6. 


CARRIERS.  414 

D.   Construction,  Operation  and  Effect,  §§  057-689. 

a.  In  General.  §  657. 

b.  Rules  of  Construction,  §  658-663. 

(1)  In  General.  §  658. 

(2)  Practical  Construction  Given  by  Parties,  §  659. 

(3)  Separable  or  Entire  Contract,  §  660. 

(4)  Alternative  Conditions,  §  661. 

(5)  Contracts   Partly  Written  and   Partly   Printed,  §  662. 

(6)  Clerical  Errors,  §  663. 

c.  Laws  Governing,  §  664. 

d.  Course  of  Dealing,  Usage  and  Custom,  §  665. 

e.  Persons  Bound,  §  666. 

f.  Persons   Entitled  to  Benefit,  §  667. 

g.  When  Liability  Accrues,  §  668. 

h.  Duties  and  Obligations  of  Carrier  and   Shipper,  §  669-687. 

(1)  Obligation  as  Fixed  by  Law.  §  669. 

(2)  Special  Contract  as  Superseding  Common-Law  Liability,  §  670. 

(3)  Eflfect  of  Acceptance  of  Rate  Offered,  §  671. 

(4)  Obligation  of  Carrier  to  Receive,  Transport  and   Deliver,   §  672-675. 

(a)  In  General,  §  672. 

(b)  Continuing  Offer  to  Carry,  §  673. 

(c)  Goods  to  Be  Carried  beyond  Terminus  of  Carrier's  Line,    §  674. 

(d)  Transportation  "at  Owner's   Risk,"   §   675. 

(5)  Obligation  of  Shipper  to  Furnish  Freight.  §  676. 
(5)   Point  Where  Goods  to  Be  Received,  §  677. 

(7)  Destination,  §  678. 

(8)  Property  Concerning  Which   Parties  Negotiating,  §  679. 

(9)  Quantity  to  Be  Shipped  or  Carried,  §  680. 

(10)  Option   as   to   Mode   of   Shipment,   §   681.   • 

(11)  Route,  §  682. 

(12)  Stop-Over  Privilege,  §  683. 

(13)  Loading  and  Unloading,  §  684. 

(14)  Time  of  Delivery  to  Carrier,  §  685. 

(15)  Time  to  Be  Consumed  in  Transportation,  §  686. 

(16)  Agreements  for  Liquidated  Damages,  §  687. 
i.  Liability  as  Bailee,  §  688. 

j.  Liability  as  Warehouseman,  §  689. 

E.  Transfer  or  Assignment,  §  690. 

F.  Performance  or  Breach,  §§  691-710. 

a.  What  Constitutes  a   Breach,  §§   691-692. 

(1)  When   Special   Effort  to  Perform  Required.  §  691. 

(2)  Shipment  of  Bonded  Goods  on  Unbonded  Vessel,  §  692. 

b.  Demand  of  Performance,  §  693. 

c.  Tender  of  Property,  §  694. 

d.  Excuses  for  Breach  or  Nonperformance,  §§  695-709. 

(1)  Act  of  God,  §  695. 

(2)  "Perils  of  River,"   Navigation  and   Fire.  §  696. 

(3)  Mobs  and  Strikes,  §  697. 

(4)  Military  Occupation,   §   698. 

(5)  Nonpayment  of  Freight,  §  699. 

(6)  Merchandise   Not   Branded  as  Required  l)y   Statute,  §  700. 

(7)  Nondelivery   by   Shipper,   §   701. 

(8)  Change  of  Legal   Rate,  §   702. 

(9)  Particular  Stipulations  or  Contracts,  §§  703-709. 

(a)  Time  Contracts,  §  703. 

(b)  Contracts  to  Carry  by  Particular  Train  or  Vessel,  §  704. 


415  SPECIAL    CONTRACTS. 

(c)  Contract  to  Carry   Perishables,  §  705. 

(d)  Stipulation  as  to  Destination  at  Which  Carrier  Has  No  Agency,  §  706. 

(e)  Contract  to  Carry  Beyond  Terminus,  §  707. 

(f)  Contract  for  Future  Transportation.  §  708. 

(g)  Contract   to  Carry   Specific   Quantity   or   Number,   §   709. 
e.  Waiver  of  Breach,  §  710. 

G.  Modification  or  Rescission,  §  711. 
II.  Contracts  for  Cars  or  Other  Means  of  Transportation,  §§  712-755. 

A.  Requisites  and  Validity,  §§  712-730. 

a.  Capacity  to   Contract,  §§   712-714. 

(1)  In  General,  §  712. 

(2)  Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  of  Another  Road,  §  713. 

(3)  Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  on  Line  of  Connecting  Road,  §  714. 

b.  Authority  of  Agent,  §§  715-723. 

(1)  Necessity,  §  715. 

(2)  Authority  of  Station  Agent,  §§  716-720. 
(a)    In  General,  §  716. 

(h)    Proof  of   .Authority,  §  717. 

(c)  Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished,  §  718. 

(d)  Station  or  Place  Where  Cars  to  Be  Furnished,  §  719. 

(e)  Verbal  Contract,  §  720. 

(3)  Traveling  Agent,   §   721. 

(4)  General  Freight  Agent,  §  722. 

(5)  Conductor,    §   723. 

c.  Certainty  and   ncthiiteiicss,  §  724. 

d.  Consideration,   §  725. 

e.  Date  of  Contract,  §  726. 

f.  Mutuality,   §   727. 

g.  Offer  and  Acceptance,   §  728. 
h.  Writing,  §   729. 

i.   Effect  of  Partial   Invalidity,  §  730. 

B.  Construction  and  Operation,  §§  731-736. 

a.  In   General,  §   731. 

b.  Persons    Bound   and   Persons    Entitled   to   Benefit.   §   732. 

c.  Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished.  §  733. 

d.  Contract  witli   Owner  of  Private   Railroad,   §   734. 

e.  Contract  for  Track  Facilities,  §  735. 

f.  Agreement  to  Haul   Defective  Car,  §  736. 

C.  Performance  or  Breach,  §§  737-755. 

a.  What  Constitutes  a  Breach,  §§  737-740. 

(1)  Refusal  to  Permit  Use  of  Cars,  §  737. 

(2)  Failure  to  Tender  Cars   in  Time,  §  738. 

(3)  Furnishing  Defective   Cars,   §  739. 

(4)  Requisition  Essential  Where  Contract  to  Furnish  as  Ordered.  §  740. 

b.  Liability  of  Carrier  for  Breach,  §§  741-753. 

(1)  In  General.  §  741. 

(2)  Effect  of  Statute  Allowing  Recovery  of   Penalty,  §  742. 

(3)  Tender  of  Property  for  Transportation,  §  743. 

(4)  Road  Not  Owning  Cars.  §  744. 

(5)  Road   Not  Equipped  with  Cars  of  Character  to   Be    Furnished,  §  745. 

(6)  Failure  to   Furnish   Refrigerator  Cars,  §  746. 

(7)  Effort  to  Procure  Foreign  Cars.  §  747. 

(8)  Excuses   for   Breach   or   Nonperformance.  §§  748-753. 
(a)   In  General.  §  748. 

(b')  Act  of  God,  §  749. 

(.c)   Unavoidable   Accident   or   Casualties.   §   750. 


CARRIERS. 

(d)  Storms,    §    751. 

(e)  Wrecks,  §  752. 

(f)  Unprecedented  Traffic,  §  753. 

c.  Liability   of   Shipper   for   Breach.   §   754. 

d.  Waiver  of  Cause  of  Action  Against  Carrier.  §  755. 

III.  Merger,  §§  756-760. 

A.  General  Rule,  §  756. 

B.  Contract  Executed  after  Carriage  Begun,  §§  757-758. 

a.  In   General,   §   757. 

b.  Ratification  or  Adoption  by  Negotiation  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  758. 

C.  Written  Contract  Executed  after  Breach  of  Parol  Contract.  §  759. 

D.  Receipt  for  Freight  Accepted  after  Shipment  Received,  §  7G0. 

IV.  Modification  and  Rescission,  §  761. 

V.  Actions  against   Carrier  for   Breach   of   Contract,   §§   762-786. 

A.  Nature  and  Form  of  Remedy,  §  762. 

B.  Limitation,  in  Contract,  of  Time  for  Bringing  Action,  §  763. 

C.  Demand,   §  764. 

D.  Persons  Who  May  Sue,  §§  765-767. 

a.  Shipper,  §  765. 

b.  Forwarding  Agent,  §  766. 

c.  Consignee,  §  767. 

E.  Pleading,  §§  768-773. 

a.  Complaint,   Declaration  or   Petition,   §§   768-772. 

(1)  Where   Contract   Distributive  as  to   Time,   §   768. 

(2)  Necessary   Allegations,   §   769. 

(3)  Sufficiency  of  Allegation,  §  770. 

(4)  Theories  of  Case,  §  771. 

(5)  Aider  by  Subsequent  Pleadings  and  Verdict,  §  772. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer,  §  773. 

F.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance,  §  774. 

G.  Questions  for  Jury,  §  775. 
H.   Evidence,  §§   776-784. 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  776. 

b.  Admissibility,  §§   777-782. 

(1)  Relevancy   and   Competency,    §   777. 

(2)  Parol    Evidence,   §    778. 

(3)  Best  and  Secondary  Evidence,  §  779. 

(4)  Custom,  §  780. 

(5)  Necessity  for  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §  781. 

(6)  Evidence  as  to  Net  Profits,  §  782. 

c.  Reception  of  Evidence,  §  783. 

d.  Sufficiency  of   Evidence,   §   784. 
I.  Instructions,   §   785. 

J.  Verdict,  §  786. 
VI.  Damages,   §§   787-798. 

A.  Liability,  §§  787-788. 

a.  In   General,  §  787. 

b.  Breach  of  Contract  Other  than  That  Sued  on,  §  788. 

B.  Duty  of  Shipper  to  Mitigate   Damages,   §  789. 

C.  Elements  of  Damage,  §§  790-793. 

a.  Loss  of  Profits,  §  790. 

b.  Expense  of  Renotifying  and  Reshipping,  §  791. 

c.  Increased  Freight  and  Extra  Charges,  §  792. 

d.  Breach  of  Particular  Contracts,  §  793. 

D.  Measure  of  Damages,  §§  794-795. 

a.  Breach  by  Carrier,  §  794. 

b.  Breach  by  Shipper,  §  795. 


416 


417 


SI'KCIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§§  618-620 


E.  Special  Damages,  §  796. 

F.  Proof  of  Damages,  §  797. 

G.  Release  of  Damages,  §  798. 

VII.  Interference  by  One  Carrier  witii   Contract  of  Anotlier,  §  799. 
VIII.  Contracts  to  Furnish  Freight,  §  800. 
IX.  Contracts  for  Drayage  or  Hauling,  §  801. 
X.  Contracts    Enlarging   Carrier's    Liability,    §   802. 

§§  618-711.  Contracts  for  Transportation  of  Goods— §§  618-621. 
Power  to  Contract— §   618.   Power  to  Contract  as  Private  Carrier.— A 

common  carrier  may  l)cc(jir.c  a  prixalc  carrier,  and  by  sijecial  agreemeiii  under- 
take for  hire  to  carry  that  which  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  carry.' 

§  619.  Power  to  Contract  Jointly  or  Severally. — There  is  no  statute  to 
prevent  two  or  more  persons  from  jointly,  or  jointly  and  severally,  contracting 
to  transport  goods  from  one  place  to  another.- 

§  62  0.  Power  to  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Terminus. — The  doctrine 
is  now  tirmly  established,  and  has  been  long  acquiesced  in  and  acted  upon,  that 
a  railroad  company  may,  by  contract,  bind  itself  to  transport  property  beyond 
its  own  line,-'  through  another  state,  over  other  railroads,-*  and  to  assume  the  re- 
sponsibility of  a  common  carrier  over  the  entire  route,-"'  unless  restrained  by  its 
charter.'^  A  railroad  company  has  this  power  and  right,  independently  of  stat- 
ute."    Such  contract  is  binding."^  when  made  with  the  proi)cr  representatives  of 


1.  Power  to  contract  as  private  car- 
rier.— Judgment  (App.  1907)  SO  X.  E.  636, 
reversed.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Henry,  170  Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  710.  See 
post.  "Limitation  of  Liability-,"  chap- 
ter 14. 

2.  Power  to  contract  jointly  or  sev- 
erally.— Hirsch  v.  Xew  England  Xav.  Co.. 
9;{  X.  E.  524.  200  X.  Y.  263,  reversing 
judgment,  113  N.  Y.  S.  395,  129  App. 
Div.   178. 

3.  Power  to  contract  to  carry  beyond 
terminus. — Kentucky. — Loui.sville.  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.   Foster,   13   Ky.   L.   Rep.   637. 

Maine. — Perkins  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    47    Me.    573,    74   Am.    Dec.    507. 

New  Jersey. — Saunders  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,   78   N.   J.   L.   441,   74   Atl.   670. 

Pennsylvania. — ^A  carrier  may  contract 
to  carry  goods  beyond  its  line,  and  is 
responsible  for  the  carriage  of  the  goods 
contracted  for.  Baltimore,  etc..  Steam- 
boat  Co.  V.   Brown,  54   Pa.   77. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t.  Hill, 
63    Tex.    381. 

4.  United  States. — Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.  z:  Mineral  Springs  Mfg.  Co.  (U.  S.). 
16  Wall.   318.   21    L.    Ed.   297. 

A  railroad  company  has  power  as  a 
carrier  to  receive  goods  which  are  to  be 
transported  beyond  the  end  of  the  com- 
panj-'s  own  route.  Camblos  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  2.331,  4 
Brewst.    563,    9    Phila.    411. 

Kentueky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Foster.   13   Ky.   L.   Rep.   637. 

.Maine. — Perkins  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  47   Me.   573.   74   Am.    Dec.   507. 

1  Car— 27 


.Massachusetts. — Hill  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bos- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Corp.,  104  Mass.  122,  6  Am. 
Rep.  202;  Feital  v.  Middlesex  R.  Co.,  109 
Mass.   398,   12  Am.    Rep.   720. 

.Minnesota. — Stewart  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.,    17    Minn.    372,    Gil.    348. 

.Missouri. — Moore  &  Son  v.  Henry,  18 
Mo.  App.  35:  Loomis  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    17    Mo.    App.    340. 

North  Carolina. — Phillips  v.  North  Car- 
olina R.  Co.,  78  N.   C.  294. 

.\'ezu  York'. — Bissell  v.  Michigan,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  22  X.  Y.  258;  Burtis  v.  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  Y.  269;  Buffett  v.  Troy, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  N.  Y.  168:  Root  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co..  45  X.  Y.  524;  Ogdens- 
burg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  49  How.  Prac. 
S4;  Schroeder  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
12  X.  Y.   Super.   Ct.  55. 

J'crmont. — Xoyes  &  Co.  f.  Rutland, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  27  Vt.  110;  Morse  z:  Brain- 
erd,   41   Vt.   550. 

5.  Phillips  v.  Xorth  Carolina  R.  Co., 
78    X.    C.    294. 

6.  Stewart  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  17 
Minn.  372,  Gil.  348;  Phillips  v.  Xorth 
Carolina   R.   Co.,   78   X.   C.   294. 

7.  A  special  contract  bj-  a  railroad 
company  for  the  delivery  in  a  limited 
time  of  freight  received  by  it,  to  be  trans- 
ported to  a  point  on  a  connecting  line. 
is  valid,  independently  of  statute,  and 
the  company  is  liable  for  a  failure  to 
comply  therewith.  Burtis  x'.  Buffalo, 
etc..    R.   Co..  24   X.    Y.   269. 

8.  Burtis  r.  Buffalo,  etc..  R.  Co.,  24 
X.  Y.  269:  Xoves  &  Co.  i:  Rutland,  etc., 
R.   Co..   27   Vt.   110. 


§§  620-623  CARRIERS.  418 

the  company.^  Although  such  power  is  not  expressly  granted  by  the  act  of  in- 
corporation, it  may  be  conferred  by  implication,  as  necessary  to  the  proper  and 
protitable  exercise'  of  the  powers  specially  enumerated  in  the  charter.^" 

§  621.  Contracts  with  Connecting  Carrier. — Unless  restrained  by  its 
charter,  a  raih-oad  corporation  may  make  contracts  with  connecting  carriers  for 
through  transportation  over  their  routes,  such  contracts  being  made  with  a 
bona  fide  purpose  to  regulate  traffic  in  a  reasonable  and  just  manner. ^^ 

§§  622-637.  Authority  to  Make  Contract— §§  622-634.  Agents  of 
Road — §  622.  In  General. — The  railroad  companies  must,  in  the  very  nature 
of  things,  have  agents,  and  those  agents  must  have  the  authority  to  do  those 
things  necessary  to  accomplish  the  designs  of  the  agency. i-  Hence  contracts 
made  by  shipping  agents  of  carriers  within  the  reasonable  scope  of  their  em- 
ployment or  business  are  binding  on  the  carrier. ^^  Aliter,  as  to  contracts  not 
within  the  apparent  scope  of  their  authority. ^^  Unless  some  special  reasons 
known  to  the  shipper  restrict  the  general  powers  of  the  agent,  the  public  have  a 
right  to  assume  that  the  agents  of  carriers,  whether  corporations  or  not,  and 
whether  such  agents  be  local  or  general,  have  the  right  to  bind  such  carriers  by 
contracts  with  their  employers  in  the  particular  line  of  business  in  which  they 
are  employed  or  are  represented  or  held  out  as  being  employed,  and  within  the 
scope  of  the  business  of  their  principals.^-'*  A  carrier  is  bound  by  a  contract  in 
its  name,  by  another  as  agent,  who  has  been  accustomed  to  make  similar  con- 
tracts as  agent  for  such  carrier,  with  its  knowledge  and  approbation,  and  which 
have  been  ratified  or  recognized  by  it.^^ 

Delivery  by  Mistake  to  Unauthorized  Agent. — Though  a  parcel  was  given 
to  an  employee  of  a  telegraph  company  for  delivery  under  the  mistaken  belief 
that  he  v.-as  a  messenger,  the  mere  carrying  away  of  such  parcel  by  the  em- 
ployee for  delivery  was  not  a  conversion  thereof ;  it  not  having  been  taken  with 
intent  to  assert  any  property  right  therein  on  the  part  of  the  bailee.^^ 

§§  623-631.  Local  or  Station  Agent— §§  623-624.  Business  at  His 
Own    Station — §    623.    In    General. — A  railroad,  which  places  an  agent  in 

9.  Proper  parties. — Moore  &  Son  v.  Where  a  shipper  enters  the  offices  of 
Henry,    18    AIo.    App.    35.                                      a  carrier,  he  may  assume  that  the  person 

10.  Perkins  v.  Por-tland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  therein  dealing-  with  him  has  a  right  to 
47   Me.   573,  74  Am.   Dec.   507.  h\nd   the   carrier,   and,   if  he   has   not,   the 

Act    1847,'   c.    270,    assumes,   by    irresist-  carrier    must     prove     want     of   authority, 

ible    implication,    that    railroad   companies  Pecos,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Cox    (Tex.    Civ. 

may  make   valid   contracts   for  the   trans-  App.),  150  S.  W.  265. 

portation   of  goods   to  points  beyond  the  16.    Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson,  61 

termini  of  their  own  line.     Burtis  v.  Buf-  Tex.   491. 

falo,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   24   X.   Y.   209.  17.     Delivery    by   mistake   to   unauthor- 

11.  Contracts  with  connecting  carrier.  ized  agent— Plaintiff  had  been  in  the 
— Stewart  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  17  habit  of  delivering  gowns  to  a  certain 
Minn.   372,   Gil.   348.  messenger,    employed    in    the    parcel    de- 

12. '  Agents  '   of  "  road.— San     Antonio,  'i^ery  department  of  defendant  telegraph 

etc.,  R.   Co.  V.  Timon,  45  Tex.   Civ.  App.  company,  and  when  he  called  for  a  pack- 

47    50    99  S    W    418  '^^^    pursuant    to    plamtirt  s    request    she 

''.',■'                 _,              ,,.  believed    that    he    was    still    a    messenger, 

13.  Lmcoln  Tent,  etc.  Co  z'  Mis-  though  he  had  meanwhile  been  promoted 
soun  Pac.  R.  Oo.,  86  Neb.  338,  12o  .\.  ^^  ^  clerical  position,  and  could  not,  in 
VV.   603.  jj^g  performance  of  his  duty,  actually   de- 

14.  An  agent  of  an  express  company  ]jyer  packages;  l)ut  he  accepted  plaintiff's 
did  not  have  authority  to  agree  for  tlie  package  and  turned  it  over  to  a  messen- 
company  to  pay  the  undertaker's  charges  jrgr  for  delivery.  Held,  that  the  clerk 
on  a  corpse  and  ship  it.  Gathright  v.  did  not  become  plaintiff's  agent  for  the 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  (Tex.),  145  S.  W.  1185,  delivery  of  the  package,  but  remained 
affirming  judgment,  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  defendant's  servant,  so  as  to  make  it  lia- 
Gathright  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  130  S.  W.  ble  for  his  negligence  in  misdirecting  it. 
1035.  Murray  v.    Postal   Tek    Cable    Co.,    96    N. 

15.  McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  E.  316,  210  Mass.  188,  Ann.  Cas.  1912C, 
Tex.  33,  37,  15   S.  \V.  164.  1183. 


419 


SPECIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§§  623-625 


charge  of  its  business  at  a  station  and  empowers  him  to  contract  for  the  ship- 
ment of  freight,  holds  him  out  to  the  iniblic  as  having  authority  to  contract  with 
reference  to  all  the  necessary  and  ordinary  details  of  the  business,  and  within 
the  range  of  such  business  he  is  a  general  agent. ^'^  The  authority  of  a  local 
agent  does  not  extend  to  the  i^erformance  of  any  act  for  which  he  has  not  ex- 
press authority,  unless  it  is  a  thing  necessary  ffjr  him  to  do  in  the  execution  of 
the  powers  expressly  given.''' 

§  624.  Presumption  as  to  and  Proof  of  Want  of  Authority. — A  local 
station  agent  in  charge  of  a  railway  company's  business  at  a  station  is  presumed 
to  have  authority  to  represent  the  company  in  all  matters  connected  with  the 
transaction  of  its  business  at  that  i)articular  station.-"  Such  agents  are  pre- 
sumed to  have  authority  to  make  contracts  for  the  transportation  of  freight,  and 
in  the  absence  of  any  adequate  notice  to  the  public  of  any  limitations  upon  their 
authority  in  that  respect  the  corporation  will  be  bound  thereby,  both  as  to  rates 
and  as  to  expedition  of  transportation  and  delivery.-'  A  shipper  contracting 
with  a  railroad  station  agent  for  the  transportation  of  freight  is  under  no  legal 
obligation  to  make  inquiries  concerning  the  station  agent's  instructions  or  pow- 
ers,--    for  the  burden  of  proof  of  want  of  authority  is  on  the  railroad.-'' 

§  625.  As  to  Station  Other  than  His  Own. — .\  local  station  agent's  au- 
thority extends  only  to  the  control  of  the  carrier's  business  at  his  own  station. -■♦ 
Such  agent  has  no  implied  authority  to  make  any  contract  which  will  bind  the 
comjiany  with  reference  to  freight  to  be  received  at  a  different  station  than  his 
own;-''  when  he  attempts  to  do  so,  his  act,  until  ratified,  will  not  bind  the  com- 
pany. This  is  in  harmony  with  the  well-settled  rule  that  a  principal  is  not 
bound  by  a  contract  made  by  an  agent  that  is  not  within  the  actual  or  apparent 
scope  of  the  agent's  authority.-''  The  existence  of  express  authority  to  make 
such   contract   is   susceptible  of   proof.-" 


18.  Business  at  his  own  station. — Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  99  Tex.  343.  89 
S.  W.  968,  reversing  judgment  (Civ. 
App.),  86  S.  W.  47;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brown.  99  Tex.  349,  89  S.  W.  971;  re- 
versing judgment  (Civ.  App.).  86  S.  W. 
343. 

19.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  99 
Tex.  343,  89  S.  W.  968.  969,  reversing  S6 
S.  W.  47;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Dinwiddie, 
21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  344.  51  S.  W.  353;  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Belcher,  88  Tex.  549, 
32    S.    W.    518. 

20.  Presumption  as  to  and  proof  of 
want  of  authority. — Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Hodge.  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  543,  30  S.  W. 
829;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Short  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  51  S.  W.  261.  affirmed  in  93  Tex. 
685.  no  op.;  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Needham, 
37    Tex.    Civ.    App.    129.    83    S.    W.    22. 

21.  Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  14 
S.   W.    583. 

22.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
liams   (Tex.    Civ.    App.).    57    S.    W.    SS3. 

23.  Burden  of  proof  of  want  of  author- 
ity.— Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Hume  Bros.,  6 
Te.x.    Civ.    App.    653,    24    S.    W.    915. 

Where  a  contract  of  shipment  is  en- 
tered into  between  a  shipper  and  a  sta- 
tion agent,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the 
former  to  prove  that  the  latter  has  the 
authority    to    make    the    contract.      Gulf, 


etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Short  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
51  S.  W.  261,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  685, 
no    op. 

In  an  action  1)}-  a  shipper  for  failure 
to  furnish  transportation  at  a  time 
agreed  on.  the  court  properly  refused  to 
instruct  the  jury  that  the  burden  was  on 
plaintiff  to  prove  that  the  station  master 
had  authority  to  make  the  contract.  Gulf, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Wright.  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
402,  21  S.  W.  80.  citing  Easton  r.  Dud- 
ley, 78  Tex.  236.  14  S.  W.  583;  McCartv 
v.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co..  79  Tex.  33.  15  S.  W. 
164;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  82 
Tex.    608,    18    S.   W.   716. 

24.  As  to  station  other  than  his  own. 
— Hunter  f.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  167 
Mo.    .App.    624.    150    S.    W.    733. 

25.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson.  99  Tex. 
343.  89  S.  W.  968,  reversing  86  S.  W.  47; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dinwiddie.  21  Tex. 
Civ.  .\pp.  344.  51  S.  W.  353;  Missouri, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Belcher.  88  Tex.  549.  32 
S.    W.    518. 

26.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  Hodge,  10  Tex. 
Civ.    .App.    543,    548,    30    S.    W.    829. 

27.  Evidence  held  to  require  submis- 
sion to  the  jury  of  the  authority  of  a 
carrier's  agent  to  contract  for  shipment 
from  another  station  than  that  at  which 
he  was  employed.  McManus  f.  Chicago, 
etc.,    R.    Co.    (Iowa),    136    N.    W.    769. 


§§  626-631  CARRIERS.  420 

§  62  6.  Shipments  to  His  Station  from  Another. — Prima  facie  the  per- 
son in  charge  of  a  station  at  one  phice  (station  agent)  has  no  power  to  act  for 
the  raihvay  company  in  reference  to  the  making  of  a  contract  of  shipment  to 
his  station'  from  another  station  on  the  railroad.  Nor  would  it  he  the  duty  of 
the  station  agent  receiving  notice  relating  to  a  shipping  contract  made  elsewhere, 
to  transmit  such  notice  to  agent  at  the  station  at  which  the  shipment  was  made. 
His  failing  to  do  so  would  involve  the  road  in  no  liability. -"^ 

§  627.  Respecting  Trains  in  Which  Shipment  to  Be  Made.— A  local 
freight  agent  of  a  railroad  had  no  authority  to  bind  the  railroad  by  an  agree- 
ment that  freight  shall  be  shipped  in  a  solid  train  without  mixing  any  other 
freight  with  it  or  that  the  train  shall  be  drawn  by  a  single  engine,-'^  but  he  has 
authority  to  contract  for  shipment  by  a  certain  train.'"' 

§  628.  Point  Where  Railroad  Has  No  Office  or  Agent. — In  an  action 
for  a  breach  of  contract  of  carriage  from  a  point  outside  defendant's  line,  where 
it  appeared  without  dispute  that  defendant  had  no  ofhce,  agent,  or  servant  at 
the  point  of  shipment,  the  delivery  of  the  goods  at  the  depot  at  such  point  to  a 
man  whose  cap  bore  defendant's  name  was  insufficient  to  establish  the  agency 
of  such  person."^ 

§  629.  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Carrier's  Own  Line. — See  post,  "Con- 
necting Carriers,"  Part  A". 

To  Deliver  at  Place  Other  than  His  Station.^ — Where  a  contract  for  the 
carriage  of  goods  was  to  deliver  the  goods  at  a  place  on  the  company's  road 
other  than  a  regular  station,  the  burden  was  on  the  shipper  to  show  that  the 
contract  was  made  with  an  agent  having  authority  to  make  it.^- 

§  63  0.  Not  to  Deliver  without  Surrender  of  Bill  of  Lading. — A  car- 
rier's local  agent,  on  receiving  a  shipment,  could  bind  the  carrier  by  an  agree- 
ment not  to  deliver  without  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading  which  the  shipper 
attached  to  a  draft  upon  the  consignee. ^^ 

§  631.  Notice  of  Special  Damages. — \Miere  a  carrier  had  35  or  40  em- 
ployees in  a  freight  office,  only  3  of  whom  were  authorized  to  make  shipping 
contracts,  notice  of  special   damages  likely  to  result  from  delay  in  a  shipment 

28.  Shipments  to  his  station  from  an-  or  agent. — Rosenfield  v.  Central  Vermont 
other.— Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  R.  Co.,  97  N.  Y.  vS.  905,  111  App.  Div. 
88   Tex.    549,    32    S.    W.    518,    citing   Kauff-       371. 

man   v.    Robey,    60   Tex.    308,    310;    Labbe  32.    To  deliver  at  point  other  than  his 

V.  Corbett,  69  Tex.  503,  507,  6  S.  W.  808;  station. — Newport    News,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

Irvine   v.    Grady,   85   Tex.    120,   125,    19    S.  Reed,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1020;   Illinois  Cent. 

W.    1028;    Taylor   v.    Taylor,    88    Tex.    47,  R.     Co.    v.    Swanson,     93     Miss.     485,    46 

29   S.   W.    1057.  So.    83. 

The  local  agent  of  an  express  company  Plaintiff  shipped  some  goods  over  de- 
had  no  authority  to  make  a  contract  for  fendant's  line,  and  persuaded  the  local 
a  shipment  from  another  city  having  an  agent  to  write  on  the  bill  of  lading  that 
office  to  his  own  city.  Gathright  v.  Pa-  the  car  was  to  be  switched  to  a  certain 
cific  Exp.  Co.  (Tex.),  145  S.  W.  1185,  street  at  destination;  the  agent  stating 
affirming    VM)    S.    W.    10;}5.  that  the  company  had  no  switching  facil- 

29.  Respecting  trains  in  which  ship-  ities  at  that  street  and  protesting  against 
ment  to  be  made.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  so  billing  the  shipment.  Held,  that  the 
Jackson,  99  Tex.  343,  89  S.  W.  968,  re-  agent  had  no  authority  to  agree  to_  bill 
versing  86   S.  W.  47.  the    goods    to    that    point,    and    plaintiff 

30.  A  shipper  may  rely  upon  the  au-  could  not,  under  the  circumstances,  re- 
thority  of  a  station  agent  to  make  a  spe-  cover  for  the  company's  failure  to  dc- 
cial  contract  for  the  shipment  of  fruit  liver  the  goods  as  required  by  the  bill  of 
trees  by  a  certain  train,  and  need  not  lading.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Swan- 
affirmatively    prove    such    authority.      Pa-  son.   92   Miss.   485,   46   So.   83. 

cific   Exp.    Co.   V.   Xeedham,   37   Tex.    Civ.  33.     Not    to    deliver    without    surrender 

App.    129.   83    S.   W.    22.  of  bill  of  lading. — Sturges  v.  Detroit,  etc., 

31.  Point  where  railroad   has  no   office       R.  Co.,  160  Mich.  231,  131  N.  W.  706. 


421  SPF.CIAL    CONTRACTS.  §§   631-637 

given  to  the  person  who  caused  the  bill  of  lading;  to  be  executed,  aiKJ  who  was 
put  forward  to  transact  the  business  for  the  carrier,  was  notice  to  it.-5-» 

§  632.  Traveling  Freight  Agent.— The  traveling  freight  agent  of  a  rail- 
road company  nia\  liind  lii^  i<<iiip;iny  by  an  agreement  with  a  shipper  to  place 
freight  on  a  siding  of  anoilur  line  at  a  particular  rate,  where  the  agent  had 
for  several  years  been  (luoling  rates  to  the  shipi)er  and  arranging  for  the  latter's 
shipments,  the  agreement  in  question  was  the  inducement  which  procured  the 
shipment  and  the  agent's  authority  had  never  before  been  f|uestioned  by  the  com- 
l)any.-''' 

§  633.  Live  Stock  Agent.— If  a  carrier's  live  stock  agent  did  not  have 
autlujritv  to  make  a  contract  with  a  shipper  to  ship  by  a  certain  train  on  a  con- 
necting "line,  the  carrier  ratified  the  contract  by  billing  the  car  and  forwarding 
it  to  its  junction  for  shipment  on  the  connecting  line.-"' 

§  634.  Express  Drivers.— An  express  driver  is  the  general  agent  of  the 
companv  to  c(«llect  goods  for  carriage  and  has  all  necessary  implied  powers 
within  the  scope  of  his  authority  for  that  purpose,  so  that  the  company  is  bound 
by  his  statement  that  a  ixircel  which  the  consignor's  agent  offered  to_  remark 
was  all  right  without  re-addressing  it.  There  is  no  legal  rule  that  carriers  will 
take  only  parcels  legibly  addressed,  or  that  parcels  without  address  at  all  may 
not  be  given  to,  and  taken  by,  the  carrier's  driver. •'■" 

§  63  5.  Receiver  of  Road. — A  contract  by  a  receiver  of  a  railway  to  fur- 
nish certain  trans] )ortation  to  a  shipper,  is  of  force  only  during  the  receiver- 
ship, and  does  not  bind  the  company  succeeding  to  the  control  of  the  proi)erty.-''* 

§  636.  Power  of  Consignor  to  Bind  Consignee. — In  a  suit  by  a  consignee 
against  a  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  to  goods  in  transit,  the  carrier  may  ordi- 
narily show  that  the  consignor  made  a  special  contract  of  shipment,  and  that 
the  consignee  received  the  shi])ment  subject  to  such  contract  and  to  the  risks 
assumed  by  the  consignor."'' 

§  637.  Agent  of  Owner  or  Shipper. — Where  the  owner  leaves  goods  with 
an  agent  to  be  shipped,  he  will  Ije  bound  by  the  agent's  contract  with  the  car- 
rier, though  the  carrier  knew  who  the  owner  was.-*"  Where  diamonds  in  an  un- 
marked package  are  delivered  by  a  servant  of  the  sender  to  an  express  com- 
pany, with  a  note  directing  them  to  be  sent  C.  O.  D.,  and  a  receipt  not  for  a  C. 
O.  D.  package  is  given  to  the  servant,  who  fails  to  show  it  to  the  sender,  the  com- 
pany is  not  liable  for  failure  to  collect  on  delivery,  as  the  sender  is  charged  with 
notice  of  the  contents  of  the  receipt.-*^ 

34.  Notice  of  special  damages.— Chi-  40.  Agent  of  owner  or  shipper.— Jcn- 
caRO  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  T'lantcrs',  etc..  Oil  iiin.^s  ?■.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  .52  Hun 
Co..    88    .'\rk.    77.    ll.-i    S.    W.    :i52.                            227,    5    X.    Y.    S.    140.    23    N.    Y.'    St.    Rep. 

35.  Traveling  freight  agent.-Xew  l-^-  affirmed  in  127  N.  Y.  438.  28  N.  E- 
York  Cent.  &  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Deer  Creek  391;  .  ^^.u:„„ 
Lumber   Co..  49   Pa.    Super.    Ct.   453.                     Plamtiffs  purchased  mea     ot   a  packmg 

Tr-  1  r-^i.-        company,  requcstmp:  it  to  snip  it  to  a  cer- 

36.  Live  stock  agent.-Kirby  t'.  Chi-  ^^-^^  ^^-^^^  ^,^^,  ^„^,,^  ^^  defendant  rail- 
cago.   etc.,   R.    Co..  242    111.   418,   90   W.    li..       ^^^^^  company  solicited  the  shipment,  and 

2-"'2-  Ti,     ,        furnished   the   asjent   of   the   packinsj  com- 

37.  Express  drivers.-ALr^vnus  v.  I  latt.  .  ^^.j^,,  j,^^  ,^,^^„^  f^^^^  p,-  contract. 
115   N.  Y.   S.   824,   G2   Misc.   Rep.   499.                  ^^.j^j-^,^    ^^.^^    j-^jj^j    ^^^^    ^„d    sj^^^d    by    de- 

38.  Receiver  of  road.— Houston,  etc..  fondant's  a.s:ent.  and  plaintiffs  paid  the 
R.  Co.  i:  Campbell.  91  Tex.  551.  45  S.  freiirht.  Held,  that  the  contract  was 
W.  2,  43  L.  R.  A.  325.  reversinpT  40  S.  bindintr  between  defendant  and  plaintiffs, 
W.   431.  althoutrh    not    sitrned   by   the    latter   or   by 

39.  Power  of  consignor  to  bind  con-  the  packinu  company  as  their  asjent. 
signee.— Perkins  Co.  v.  .\merican  ICxp.  Kckles  7\  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co..  87  S. 
Co.,    199    Alass.    561.    85    N.    E.    S95.      See  W.    99.    112    Mo.    App.    240. 

post      "limitation     of     Liability,"     chap-  41.     Smith    z:    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    104 

ter   14  Ala.    387.    Irt    So.   62. 


§§  638-639 


CAKRIKR; 


422 


§§   638-656.  Form,    Requisites,    and    Validity— §   638.  In    General.— 

A  contract  by  a  carrier  which  disables  it  to  perform  its  duty  to  the  pubhc  will 
not  be  enforced.-*-  But  a  contract  whereby  a  salt  company  agrees  to  ship  66  per 
cent  of  its  output  over  a  certain  railroad,  which  in  return  agrees  to  ship  at  as 
low  a  rate  as  may  be  offered  by  any  other  road,  is  not  void  as  against  public 
policy.-*^ 

Form. — Xo  particular  form  or  solemnity  of  execution  is  required  for  a  con- 
tract  of  a  common   carrier  to  transport  goods.'*'* 

Receipt  and  Release. — A  shipi)ing  receipt  and  a  release  signed  l)y  the 
shipper,  exempting  the  carrier  from  loss  or  injury  to  the  goods,  though  sepa- 
rate and  independent  papers,  contain  the  contract  of  the  parties  and  neither 
alone  can  be  treated  as  the  shipping  contract."*" 

Instructions  to  Captain  of  Lighter. — Where  a  shipper  notified  a  carrier 
that  he  desired  to  ship  some  lumber,  and  the  carrier  sent  its  own  lighter  to 
transport  it  to  the  depot;  and  the  shipper  informed  the  carrier  that  instructions 
as  to  shipment  would  be  given  to  the  captain  of  the  lighter,  to  which  arrange- 
ment, which  was  the  usual  one  between  the  parties,  the  carrier  assented,  the  in- 
structions to  the  captain  formed  a  part  of  the  contract  of  affreightment.-*^ 

Specification  of  Number  of  Cars  to  Be  Shipped. — A  contract  binding  a 
carrier  to  transport  as  many  car  loads  of  grain  as  the  shipper  may  desire  to  be 
transported  is  valid,  at  all  events,  as  to  grain  already  transported  under  it.'*'^ 

§  639.  Consideration. — Delivery  and  Acceptance  of  Goods. — A  de- 
livery of  goods  to,  and  their  acceptance  by,  a  carrier,  is  sufficient  consideration 
for  his  undertaking  to  safely  carry  the  same.'*'^ 

Mere  Promise  to  For-ward  Freight  Already  en  Route. — The  mere  prom- 
ise of  a  common  carrier,  without  additional  consideration,  to  forward  freight 
already  on  the  route  by  an  earlier  train  than  usual,  is  not  evidence  from  which 
the  jury  may  infer  a  special  contract  to  do  so.-*^ 

Sufficiency  of  Statement  of  Consideration. — An  instrument  in  the  fol- 
lowing form:     "Lead  from  15.  to  St.  L.  at  liy^  per  100.     All  lead  shipped  by 


42.  Validity  in  general. —  Chouteau  v. 
Union    R.,   etc..    Co..   22    Mo.   App.    286. 

43.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  387.  80  S. 
W.    567. 

44.  Form, — Alobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ju- 
rey,  111  U.  S.  584,  591,  28  L.  Ed.  527,  4 
S.    Ct.    566. 

45.  Plaintiff  made  a  shipment  on  a 
road  connecting  with  defendant's,  and 
took  a  receipt  from  the  agent,  on  which 
were  the  words,  "Valuation  limited  to 
$5.00  per  100  pounds  in  case  of  total  loss." 
On  the  back  was  printed  a  statement  that 
the  valuation  as  agreed  upon  should 
cover  loss  or  damage  from  any  cause 
whatever;  also  a  printed  statement  that 
the  owner  of  the  goods,  in  accepting  the 
receipt,  agrees  to  be  bound  by  all  its  stip- 
ulations. Plaintiff  then  delivered  to  the 
company  a  paper  stating  that  he  had  vol- 
untarily shipped  at  a  lower  rate  than  the 
general  tariff,  on  condition  that  he  re- 
lease the  company  from  all  liability  for 
loss  or  damage,  and  containing  a  formal 
release  to  the  company  and  all  other  rail- 
road or  transportation  companies  to 
whom  the  goods  should  be  delivered  for 
transportation.  This  release  was  at- 
tached  to   the   manifest,   went   along  with 


the  goods,  and  was  received  by  defend- 
ant. The  shipping  receipt  was  not  under 
seal,  or  witnessed,  and  was  returned  by 
plaintiff.  The  goods  were  received  by 
defendant  at  a  freight  rate  agreed  on  be- 
tween the  roads.  Held,  that  the  shipping 
receipt  and  release  were  separate  and  in- 
dependent papers,  prepared  and  signed 
at  the  instance  of  the  company  receiving 
the  goods,  and  that  defendant  could  not, 
in  its  own  interest,  elect  which  of  the 
two  should  be  treated  as  the  shipping 
contract.  Woodburn  v.  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  40  Fed.  731. 

46.  Instructions  to  captain  of  lighter. — 
Uptegrove  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  IG  Misc. 
Rep.  14,  37  N.  Y.  S.  659,  73  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.    278. 

47.  Specification  of  number  of  cars  to 
be  shipped. — Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Closser,  126  Ind.  348,  26  N.  E.  159,  22 
Am.  St.  Rep.  593,  9  L.  R.  A.  754. 

48.  Delivery  and  acceptance  of  goods. 
— McCaulcv  V.  Davidson,  10  Minn.  418, 
Gil.   33.-,. 

49.  Mere  promise  to  forward  freight 
already  in  route. — Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Reeves  (U.  S.),  10  Wall.  176,  19  L.  Ed. 
909. 


423  SPECIAL   CONTRACTS.  §§  639-640 

C.  &  R.  to  be  forwarded  by  M.  R.  F.  S.  &  G.  R.  R.,  at  above  rates  from  Janu- 
ary 1,  1873  to  January  1.  1874.  and  above  rates  guarantied  for  same  time," 
states  a    valid   conlrart    upon   a   NuffK-ient  consideration.^" 

Stating  Quantity  to  Be  Shipped, — An  otter  of  a  carrier  to  ship  not  ex- 
cee(Hng  a  certain  amount  at  a  certain  rate  i)er  ton,  and  the  acceptance  by  the 
shipper  of  the  oiler  without  stating  the  quantity  he  agrees  to  ship,  do  not  create 
a  contract  binding  on  the  carrier,  as  he  receives  no  consideration  for  giving  the 
shipper  an  ojition  to  ship  any  qnruitit}-  he  jjleases.-''^ 

Contract  to  Transport  at  Rate  Fixed  by  Railroad  Commission  Act.— 
A  carrier's  contract  to  iranspori  freight  at  certain  rates  is  not  void,  as  being  an 
agreement  to  do  what  it  was  legally  required  to  do  by  the  railroad  commission 
act.  and  hence  without  consideration. ''-' 

Railroad  Inducing  Purchase  by  Promise  of  Rate. — There  is  a  contract 
of  carriage,  on  a  sufficient  consideration,  where  defendant  railroad  company,  to 
induce  plaintiff'  to  buy  ice,  promised  him  to  transport  it  from  where  it  was  to 
a  certain  point  for  a  certain  amount  per  ton,  and  on  the  faith  of  that  promise 
he  bought  it.-'" 

§  640.  Offer     and     Acceptance — What     Constitutes     Contract. — The 

mere  promise  bv  a  carrier  to  ship  certain  freight  at  a  certain  rate  does  not  con- 
stitute a  contract  on  which  an  action  can  be  based,  unless  the  shipper  accepts 
the  offer  bv  agreeing  to  ship  the  goods  at  such  rate.^"* 

Letter  Containing  Offer  Shown  to  Third  Person. — A  letter  from  the 
superintendent  of  a  railroad  addressed  to  a  certain  person,  off'ering  to  receive 
freight  and  transport  it  over  his  road  and  over  the  road  of  connecting  lines,  is 
not  a  contract  to  carry  between  the  company  and  a  third  person  to  whom  the 
letter  was  shown,  and  who  on  the  strength  of  it  sent  freight  over  the  road.-"'^ 

Statements  of  Solicitor  of  Freight  Shipment. — Statements  by  the  com- 
mercial agent  of  a  common  carrier,  duly  aruhorized  to  solicit  shipments  of 
freight,  that  the  time  consumed  in  the  trans])ortation  of  certain  live  stock  will 
be  four  days,  and  that  there  will  be  no  delays,  do  not  constitute  an  express  con- 
tract on  the  part  of  the  carrier  to  ship  and  deliver  within  that  time.^*' 

Reply  an  Objection  to  Rate  Offered. — A  reply  by  a  shipper  to  the  effect 
that  unless  a  lower  rate  was  allowed  he  could  not  do  much  shipping  is  not  an 
acceptance.-"' 

Interlineation  Made  by  Carrier  on  Bill  of  Lading  Tendered  by  Ship- 
per.— Where  a  shipper  tenders  to  a  carrier  an  unsigned  bill  of  lading  which  the 
latter  alters  and  returns  to  shipper  and  thereafter  forwards  the  goods,  the  un- 
signed bill  was  a  mere  proposition  to  ship  on  certain  conditions  which  was  not 
accepted  by  the  carrier ;  and  the  consignor  having  failed  to  dissent  to  the  counter 
proposition  made  by  the  carrier,  is  bound  by  the  altered  bill  of  lading. -'^^ 

50.  Sufficiency  of  statement  of  consid-  56.  Statements  of  solicitor  of  freight 
eration. — RigQiiis  r.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  shipment. — International,  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 
Co..   r:!    Mo.\^)OS.  Wentworth.  ST  Tex.  Til.  28  S.  W.  277. 

51.  Stating  quantity  to  be  shipped. —  57.  Plaintiff  wrote  defendant,  a  carrier. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  Dane,  4:;  X.  Y.  that  lie  was  aliout  to  lease  a  quarry,  and 
240.  wanted    a    quotation     of   rates     for     ship- 

52.  Contract  to  transport  at  fixed  rate  nients  to  be  made  during  the  two  years 
by  railroad  commission  act. — Thomp.son  following.  On  defendant's  answer,  giv- 
f.  San  Antonio,  etc..  R.  Co.,  11  Te.x.  Civ.  ing  a  rate,  providing  the  shipments  were 
App.   14.T.  32  S.  W.  427.  reasonably   distributed   during  the   season, 

53.  Railroad  inducing  purchase  by  idaintiff  replied  that,  unless  he  got  a 
promise  of  rate. — Bigolow  ;■.  Cliicago.  lower  rate,  he  would  not  be  able  to  do 
etc.,   R.  Co..  104  Wis.    n)'.i,  so  X.  W.  o.").  niucli   shipping.     Held,   not  to  amount   to 

54.  Offer  and  acceptance  what  consti-  a  contract.  Stcffen  z\  Mississippi,  etc., 
tutes  contract.— SoiuluTu    R.    Co.    :•.    Wil-  R.  Co.,  r^C  S.  W.  112:>.  1.-(>  Mn.  ■.V22. 

cox.  •)'.!  \a.  :>'.t4.  :!'.)  S.  v..  144.  58.  Interlineation    made    by    carrier    on 

55.  Letter  containing  offer  shown  to  bill  of  lading  tendered  by  shipper. — In  an 
third  person. — Kast  Tennessee,  etc..  R.  action  by  the  consignee  against  the  ini- 
Co.  :.  Montgomerv.  44  Ga.  278.  tial   carrier,    for   goods    forwarded   to    De- 


§§  640-642 


CONTRACTS 


424 


Shipment  from  Point  Other  than  That  Named. — The  shipment  of  the 
goods   from  another  point   than  that  named  in  the  offer  is  not  an  acceptance.'''"* 

Arrangement  with  Peach  Growers  Association. — An  arrangement  be- 
tween a  railroad  company  and  a  ct>mmittee  of  a  peach-growers'  convention  to 
run  a  special  train  during  a  peach  season  so  as  to  connect  by  a  certain  hour  with 
another  road  does  not  constitute  a  special  contract  with  any  peach  grower  to 
transport  peaches  by  such  train,  nor  to  render  the  company  liable  for  any  peaches 
not  accepted  for  transportation  by  snch  train.''" 

Contract  to  Carry  Over  Connecting  Lines. — A  contract  whereby  the  lia- 
bility of  a  railroad  company  is  sought  to  be  extended  beyond  the  carriage  over 
its  own  line  and  safe  delivery  to  the  next  connecting  carrier  will  not  be  inferred 
from  loose  and  doubtful  expressions,  but  must  be  established  by  clear  and  sat- 
isfactory evidence.  Taking  a  through  fare  on  the  receipt  of  cattle  for  trans- 
portation over  the  line  of  the  initial  carrier  and  a  connecting  line  or  lines  does 
not  establish  such  liability. '^'^ 

§  641.  Mutuality  and  Meeting  of  Minds. — To  constitute  a  contract  of 
carriage,  the  minds  of  the  jjarties  must  meet  as  to  the  terms  and  considerations 
of  the  contract. *'- 

§§  642-643.  Writing— Validity  of  Verbal  Contract— §  642.  In  Gen- 
eral.— Neither  a  bill  of  lading  nor  any  other  writing  is  necessary  to  constitute 
a  contract  of  shipment,  an  oral  contract,  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  imposition, 
when  satisfactorily  proved,  being  as  obligatory  on  both  carrier  and  shipper  as 
a  written  one.*'"     The  delivery  to,  and  the  receipt  by,  a  common  carrier,  of  a 


troit  and  there  destroj'ed  by  fire  while  in 
the  possession  of  the  connecting  carrier, 
it  appeared  that  plaintiff  bought  the 
goods  from  the  consignor  at  Cincinnati, 
who  sent  them  to  the  shipper's  depot 
with  a  bill  of  lading  ready  for  the  car- 
rier's signature.  The  bill  recited  that  the 
goods  "are  to  be  delivered  at  Detroit." 
The  carrier  interlined  the  bill  with  red 
ink,  so  that  it  read,  "to  be  delivered  at 
Toledo  for  Detroit,"  signed  it,  returned  it 
to  the  consignor,  and  forwarded  the 
goods  to  Detroit.  The  consignor  made 
no  objection  to  the  alteration  of  the  bill 
of  lading.  Held,  that  the  unsigned  bill 
was  a  mere  proposition  to  ship  on  cer- 
tain conditions  which  was  not  accepted 
by  the  carrier;  and  the  consignor,  having 
failed  to  dissent  to  the  counter-proposi- 
tion made  by  the  carrier,  was  bound  by 
the  altered  bill  of  lading.  Muller  z'.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  O.  Dec.  903,  2 
Cin.  R.  280. 

59.  Shipment  from  point  other  than 
that  named. — .\  freight  agent  of  the  de- 
fendant's railroad,  in  answer  to  inquiries 
from  plaintiff,  gave  him  certain  rates 
from  a  certain  point  on  the  road  to  New 
Orleans.  Ten  days  afterwards,  plaintiff 
shipped  goods  at  a  different  point  for 
New  Orleans,  and  obtained  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing from  one  who  had  no  authority  to 
bind  defendant.  Held,  that  there  was  no 
contract  with  defendant.  Robinson  v.  St. 
L' uis,  etc..   R.  Co.,   Tj  Mo.    ilJ4. 

60.  Arrangement  with  peach  growers 
association. — Reed  v.  Philadclpliia,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Del.),  3  Houst.  176. 


61.  Contract  to  carry  over  connecting 
lines. — Myrick  z'.  Alichigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
107  U.  S.  102,  27  L.  Ed.  :;2.i.  1  S.  Ct.  425; 
Roy  z'.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  m  W. 
Va.  616,  618,  57  S.  E.  39,  31  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  1. 

62.  Mutuality  and  meeting  of  minds. — 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Timon,  45 
Tex.   Civ.  App.   47,  .52,   99   S.   W.   418. 

63.  Writing. — Judgment,  Patrick  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  S.  W.  330,  5  Ind. 
T.  742.  modified  in  75  C.  C.  A.  434,  144 
Fed.  632:  Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Jurey, 
111  U.  S.  584,  28  L.  Ed.  527,  4  S.  Ct.  566; 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ^lorris,  167  Ala.  311, 
52  So.  891;  McNeill  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  161  Ala.  319,  49  So.  797;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  7'.  Graves,  2  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  676;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nich- 
olson, 2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  168. 

A  carrier  may  legally  enter  into  a  parol 
contract  of  shipment.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  29  S. 
W.  565;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Nicholson, 
61  Tex.  491;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47,  99  S.  W. 
418;  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Wright,  30 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  234,  70  S.  W.  335;  Gulf, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Irvine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  73 
S.  W.  540;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Williams  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  57  S.  W.  883; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Withers,  16  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  506,  40  S.  W.  1073,  affirmed  in 
93  Tex.  691,  no  op. 

When  a  carrier  legally  enters  into  a 
parol  contract  of  shipment,  it  will  be 
binding  upon   the  parties  as  the   contract 


425 


SI'IXIAL    COXTR.\CTS. 


§§  642-643 


package  plainly  marked  with  the  name  and  address  of  the  person  to  whom  the 
same  is  to  be  forwarded,  is  equivalent  to  an  express  written  or  verbal  direction 
to  the  carrier  to  transport  the  package  as  the  same  is  directed/'-*  although  a 
statute  re(juires  a  common  carrier  to  give  receipts  for  merchandise  delivered  to 
him.""'  A  statutory  provision  that  the  transportation  of  goods  by  a  common 
carrier  shall  be  considered  as  commenced  from  the  time  the  bill  of  lading  is 
signed  does  not  preclude  the  liability  from  commencing  before,  viz,  from  the 
time  of  the  delivery  of  the  goods,  so  as  to  make  the  carrier  liable  for  loss  when 
no  bill  is  issued."" 

§  643.  Authority  of  Agent. — In  General. — X'erbal  contract  by  a  railroad 
station  aj.jcnt  for  the  iransixirtalion  of  freight,  binds  the  railroad  company  unless 
the  shipper  knows  that  the  agent  has  no  such  authority.''' 

Stipulations  Limiting  Agent's  Authority. — A  written  contract  for  the 
shipment  of  cattle,  limiting  the  authority  of  the  carrier's  agent  to  make  a  verbal 
contract,  does  not  merge  a  previous  verbal  contract  made  by  the  agent  with  the 


rc^vilatinii'  the  shiiJiiKMit,  unless  volun- 
tarily and  mutually  changed  or  aban- 
doned. Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter, 
0   Tex.   Civ.   .\pp.   ()7T,   20   S.    \V.   565. 

Contract  of  affreightment. — Roberts  v. 
Riley,  1.")  La.  Ann.  10:5,  77  Am.  Dec.  183. 

64.  Mere  reception  of  goods. — No  l)ill 
of  lading  is  necessary  to  create  the  liabil- 
ity of  a  common  carrier;  the  mere  re- 
ception of  the  goods  for  the  purpose  of 
transportation  is  sufficient.  Shelton  v. 
Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.,  36  N. 
Y.   Super.   Ct.   527. 

Express  company  failing  to  give  re- 
ceipt.— It  is  not  essential  to  the  liability 
of  an  express  company  that  they  should 
have  given  a  receipt  for  the  property  de- 
livered to  them.  Gulliver  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  38   111.  503. 

Cars  loaded  at  shipper's  warehouse. — 
Where  a  railroad  has  side  tracks  running 
to  a  shipper's  wareliouse,  on  which  they 
run  cars  to  such  warehouse  to  l)e  loaded 
by  the  shipper,  the  freight  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  delivered  to  and  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  railroad  from  the  time  it  is 
loaded  on  the  car,  though  no  bill  of  lad- 
ing has  been  issued.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Smyser,  38  111.  354,  87  Am.  Dec.  301. 

65.  Failure  of  a  common  carrier  to  give 
receipts  for  merchandise  delivered  to 
him,  as  required  liy  Code,  §  2139,  does 
not  affect  his  liability  relative  to  such 
goods.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kolb,   73   Ala.   396,   49   Am.   Rep.   54. 

66.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  64 
Tex.  615.  See,  also,  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wheat,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  165; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamm,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  491. 

Rev.  St..  arts.  281-283.  making  a  car- 
rier's liability  begin  when  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing is  signed,  do  not  apply  in  case  of  a 
parol  contract  by  a  railroad  company  to 
receive  cattle  for  transportation  on  a  cer- 
tain day,  and  the  company  is  liable  for 
breach,  though  no  bill  of  lading  is  signed. 
Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.  z\   Xicholson,  61   Tex. 


4'.»1;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hamm,  2 
Texas  .\pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  491. 

67.  Authority  of  agent. — Gulf.  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Hume  Bros.,  s7  Tex.  211,  27  S.  VV. 
110,  reversing  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  24  S. 
W.  915;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
liams (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  57  S.  W.  883; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Withers.  16  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  506,  40  S.  W.  1073.  affirmed  in 
93  Tex.  691,  no  op. 

Since  an  oral  contract  by  a  railroad 
station  agent  for  transportation  is  bind- 
ing unless  the  shipper  has  knowledge 
that  the  agent  has  no  authority  to  make 
such  contract,  it  is  not  error  in  an  action 
against  a  railroad  on  such  a  contract  to 
refuse  to  charge  on  defendant's  plea  set- 
ting up  the  agent's  want  of  authority  to 
enter  into  an  oral  contract.  San  Anto- 
nio, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Williams  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  57  S.  W.  883. 

This  can  be  so  only  upon  the  theory  that 
such  agents  have  ostensible  authority  to 
make  such  contracts.  The  question  in 
such  case  would  be  wliether  or  not  the 
shipper  knew  of  the  lack  of  authorit}'.  or 
was  ciiargeable  with  such  knowledge. 
Courts  probal)ly  might  take  notice  of  the 
fact  that  such  agents  represent  the  rail- 
way company  in  their  localitj'  in  receiv- 
ing and  contracting  for  the  shipment  of 
freight.  The  public  can  not  take  notice 
of  the  limitations  on  their  powers  unless 
they  are  conveyed  to  the  public  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  authorize  the  inference 
that  shippers  are  apprised  of  them. 
Hence  from  the  very  nature  of  their  of- 
fice there  is  apparent  authoritj-  for  the 
making  of  freight  contracts.  San  Anto- 
nio, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Williams  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  57  S.  W.  883. 

Question  for  jury. — Whether  the 
agents  iiail  authoritj-  to  make  a  verbal 
contract  of  carriage  and  whether  the 
shipper  knew  of  lack  of  authority  on  his 
part  to  make  such  contract,  is  a  question 
for  the  jury.  San  .\ntonio.  etc..  R.  Co.  z'. 
Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47.  99  S.  W. 
418. 


§§  643-647  CARRIERS.  426 

shipper,  in  which  the  agent  agreed  to  furnish  cars  readx-  to  receive  the  cattle  on 
a  certain  day."* 

Shipper  Knowing  That  Written  Contract  Required. — The  mere  fact  that 
a  shipper  knew,  when  the  verhal  contract  for  a  shipment  was  entered  into,  that 
he  would  be  required  to  execute  a  written  contract,  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute 
a  waiver  of  the  rights  that  accrued  under  the  verbal  contract.^^  The  shippers 
knowledge  of  what  was  in  former  contracts  is  not  notice  to  him  of  what  will 
be  in  the  next  contract  he  must  sign,  especially  where  there  had  been  instances 
when  he  had  not  been  required  to  sign  such  written  contracts.''"'^ 

Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Contract. — An  authorized  agent  of  a  rail- 
road company  who  receives  freight  for  shipment  without  objection  under  a 
parol  agreement  made  by  an  unauthorized  agent,  binds  the  company  Ijy  his 
authority,  notwithstanding  the  want  of  authority  by  the  agent  who  made  the 
contract."^ 

§  644.  Failure  or  Inability  of  Shipper  to  Read  Contract. — In  the  ab- 
sence of  fraud  or  mutual  mistake,  a  shipper  who  is  sui  juris  will  not  be  heard 
to  say  that  he  did  not  read  and  understand  his  duly  executed  contract  of  ship- 
ment^"^-  but  he  is  conclusively  presumed,  in  the  absence  of  fraud  and  imposi- 
tion, to  have  assented  thereto,  and  is  bound  thereby.  It  is  not  fraud  for  a 
carrier's  agent  to  fail  to  read  to  a  shipper,  who  can  not  read,  certain  portions 
of  the  receipt  in  fine  print,  where  the  clause  omitted  is  expressive  only  of  the 
carrier's   liability  under  the  law."^ 

§  645.  Signing. — See  ante,  "Agent  of  Owner  or  Shipper,"  §  637.  Neither 
the  signature  of  the  agent  of  the  carrier  nor  of  the  shipper  is  essential  to  the 
validity  of  a  contract  of  carriage  and  an  unsigned  bill  of  lading  issued  to  shipper 
is  evidence  of  the  contract."'* 

§   64  6.  Fraud. — See  "Effect  of  Overcharge,"  chapter  16. 

§  647-648.  Mistake— §  647.  As  to  Rate.— Where  an  agent  of  a  rail- 
road company  telegraphed  the  general  agent  for  a  shipping  rate,  as  requested 
by  plaintitts,  and  there  w^as  a  mistake  in  the  reply  telegram,  which  was  evident 
on  its  face  or  known  to  the  shippers,  they  could  not  seize  upon  such  mistake 
to  take  an  unfair  advantage  of  it,'-"*  but  where  the  shipper  accepted  the  quoted 

68.  Stipulations  limiting  agent's  au-  Co.,  74  Mo.  App.  406;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
thority. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Combes  t'.  Scrivener,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   SO   S.  \V.  1045.  328;    International,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Watt, 

69.  Shipper  knowing   that   written   con-  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  781. 

tract     required.— Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     r.  73.  Hadd    v.    United    States,    etc.,    Exp. 

Batte   (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   107   S.   W.   632.  Co.,  52  Vt.  335,  36  Am.  Rep.  757. 

70.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Timon,  74.  Plaintifif,  through  an  agent,  deliv- 
45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47,  99  S.  W.  418,  dis-  ered  certain  goods  to  defendant  railroad 
tinguishing  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gallag-  company  for  shipment,  and  asked  for  a 
her  (Tex.Civ.  App.),  70  S.  W.  97.  bill    of   lading,   which   was    given,   but   the 

71.  Ratification  of  unauthorized  con-  station  agent  neglected  to  sign  it.  The 
tract.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  99  goods  having  been  lost,  plaintiff  brought 
Tex.  343.  89  S.  W.  968,  reversing  80  S.  suit  for  their  value,  setting  up  the  writ- 
W.  47.  ing   as    the    contract    of   shipment.      Held, 

72.  Failure  or  inability  to  read  con-  that  the  paper,  while  not  constituting  a 
tract. — See  ante,  "Bills  of  Lading,"  chap-  written  contract,  was  evidence  of  the 
ter  6.  contract    actually    made,    and,    in    tlie    ab- 

U.  S.  C.  C.  A. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  sence  of  any  evidence  to  the  contrary,  es- 

Harper  Bros.,  201   Fed.  671,  121  C.   C.  A.  tablished     the     terms     of     such    contract. 

570;    Kellerman    v.    Kansas,    etc.,    R.    Co.,  Judgment,    Patrick    v.    Missouri,    etc.,    R. 

136   Mo.   177,   34   S.    W.   41,   37   S.   W.   828;  Co.,  88   S.  W.  330,  5  Ind.  T.  742,  modified 

McFadden    v.    Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.,    92  in  144  Fed.  632,  75  C.  C.  A.  434. 
Mo.  343,  4  S.  W.  689,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721.  75.  Mistake.— Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

See,    also,    Wyrick    v.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.  Gortatowsky,  123  Ga.  366,  51  S.  E.  469. 


427 


SPi:CIAL     CO.VTKACTS. 


§§  647-651 


rate  in  good   faitli,  and  the  mistake  was  not  evident,  it  created  a  binding  con- 
tractJ*^ 

§  648.  Misclassification  of  Goods. — A  carrier,  classifying  goods  received 
for  shipment  with  knowledj^e  ui  iheir  character,  and  collecting  the  freight 
under  such  classification,  can  not  a\oid  the  contract,  or  its  liability  for  failure 
to  shij)  according  to  the  contract,  on  the  ground  that  the  goods  did  not  belong 
to  the  class  named. '^ 

§   649.  Discrimination  and  Overcharge. — See  ante.  "Overcharge  and  Dis- 

crinn'nation,"   s^vj    1S2-1'''). 

Discriminatory  Contracts. — C)ne  who  promised  a  railroad  com])any,  in 
consideration  of  its  laying  its  rails  to  his  manufactory,  and  furnishing  him 
money  to  aid  in  bringing  the  raw  material  thereto,  to  give  the  company  the 
transportation  of  the  manufactured  product  to  market  at  reasonable  rates,  can 
not  avoid  the  contract  on  the  ground  that  it  dej)rived  him  of  rights  guaranteed 
by  Pennsylvania  Const,  art.  17,  §  3,  declaring  that  all  individuals  shall  have 
e([iial   riglits  to  transportation,  without  discrimination.''^ 

Effect  of  Overcharge. — The  fact  that  the  -railroad  company  collected  an 
excessive  freight  rate  at  the  destination  of  the  stock  shipped  does  not  show 
fraud  in  the  execution  of  the  shipi)ing  contract,  and  such  contract  is  not  in- 
\alid  because   of   such   overcharge. '** 

§   6  50.  Necessity   for    Actual   Receipt    of    Goods. — See   ante,   "Bills   of 

Lading,"   c]ia])ter  (). 

§  651.  Effect  of  Partial  Invalidity. — \'alid  conditions  in  a  shipping  con- 
tract, which  can  be  separated  from  those  which  are  understood  by  both  parties 
to  be  invalid,  can  be  enforced,^"  but  where  the  purpose  of  the  contract  is  illegal, 
as  where  it  is  to  create  an  illegal  monopoly  of  an  industry  by  the  shipper  in 
the  territory  served  by  the  carrier,  the  stipulations,  imiocent  on  their  face,  will 
not  be  enforced.'^^ 

Unauthorized  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Carrier's  Own  Line. — The  fact 
that  a  station  agent  exceeds  his  authority  in  making  a  through  contract  for 
trans])ortation.  does  not  invalidate  such  contract  for  such  part  of  it  as  lies 
within  his  authoritv.*^- 


76.  W  here  a  shipper  applied  to  a  rail- 
road agent  for  a  rate  for  the  transporta- 
tion of  certain  men  and  horses,  and  the 
agent  was  a  commercial  agent  only,  with- 
out authority  to  make  a  special   rate,  ami 

"he  telegrai)iied  to  the  general  agent  for 
one.  and  the  reply,  as  delivered  to  the 
agent,  stated  an  amount  lower  than  the 
general  agent  had  written,  and  upon  re- 
ceipt of  it  the  agent  quoted  a  rate,  as 
stated  in  the  telegram,  and  the  shippers 
accepted  it  in  good  faith,  and  the  mis- 
take was  not  evident,  it  created  a  binding 
contract.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Gorta- 
towsky,  51    S.    K.   4C.9,   123   Ga.   366. 

77.  Misclassification  of  good  s. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Cash  Grain  Co.,  161 
Ala.  332,  .■)n  So.  SI. 

78.  Discriminatory  contracts.  —  Bald 
Eagle,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r .  Xittany,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  171  Pa.  284.  33  Atl.  239,  20  L.  R.  A. 
423,  50  Am.   St.  Rep.  807. 

79.  Effect  of  overcharge. — .\tchison. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Crittenden.  4  Kan.  .App. 
512,  44  Pac.  1000.  See,  also,  post,  "Dis- 
crimination and   Overcharge."  chap.   16. 


80.  Effect  of  partial  invalidity. — Grieve 
:■.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  C(x.  104  Iowa  65!).  74 
X.  W.   1!)2. 

81.  \\  here  a  railroad  company  enters 
Into  a  contract  with  a  coal  company  for 
the  carriage  of  the  hitter's  coal,  one 
clause  of  which  is  void  as  making  an  il- 
legal discrimination  against  smaller  ship- 
pers, and  the  obvious  intent  of  the  con- 
tract, read  a^s  a  whole,  is  to  secure  to  the 
coal  companj'  an  illegal  monopoly  of  the 
coal  industry  served  by  the  railroad,  the 
contract  will  not  be  disintegrated  by  the 
court  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing 
against  the  railroad  company  other  stipu- 
lations contained  in  it,  which,  though  in- 
nocent on  their  face,  were  entered  into 
with  the  intent  of  securing  an  illegal  mo- 
nopol}'  to  the  coal  company,  and  would, 
if  enforced,  effect  that  purpose.  Burling- 
ton, etc..  R.  Co.  I'.  Nortiiwestern  Fuel 
Co..  31   Fed.  652. 

82.  Unauthorized  contract  to  carry  be- 
yond carrier's  own  line. — Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co. 
r.  Hodge,  in  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  543.  30  S.  W. 
829. 


§§  652-658  CARRIERS.  428 

§  6  52.  Conformity  to  Rates,  Rules  and  Classification  of  State  Cor- 
poration Commission. — All  contracts  or  bills  of  lading  made  by  carriers 
•as  to  intrastate  shipments,  which  are  inconsistent  with  the  rates,  charges,  classi- 
fications, rules,  and  regulations  adopted  by  the  Corporation  Commission,  are 
void.^^  Onlv  such  contracts  relating  to  intrastate  shipments  as  are  made  pur- 
suant to  rules  and  regulations  adopted  bv  the  Corporation  Commission  are 
valid.^"-* 

§§  653-656.  Evidence  as  to  Contract— §  653.  Parol  Evidence.— Since 

it  is  not  necessary  that  a  contract  of  affreightment  should  be  in  writing,  parol 
evidence  of  anv  special  agreement  is.  therefore,  admissible,  where  the  contract 
is  oral."""' 

Shipping  Receipt  Not  Embodying  Contract. — Where  a  shipping  receipt 
given  the  shipper  does  not  embody  the  contract  of  shipment,  such  receipt  and 
parol  evidence  is  admissible  to  prove  a  contract  to  transport  the  goods.'*'^ 

§§  654-655.  Bill  of  Lading  or  Receipt— §  654.  In  General.— The  bill 
of  lading  does  not  create  the  contract  between  the  shipi)er  and  the  common 
carrier.  It  has  been  adopted  as  a  convenient  mode  of  establishing  the  contract, 
but  it  is  not  an  exclusive  species  of  evidence.^" 

§  6  55.  Whole  Document  in  Evidence. — When  a  receipt  is  introduced  as 
evidence  of  the  contract  of  aftVeightment,  the  whole  document  is  in  proof ;  and 
one  part  can  not  be  separated  from  the  other  in  its  judicial  interpretation.'^'^ 

§  656.  Freight  Account  or  Bill. — An  account  for  freight,  usually  called 
a  freight  bill,  though  receipted,  is  not  admissible  to  prove  the  contract  of  af- 
freightment or  shipiuent,  it  not  being  a  bill  of  lading.'^'* 

§§  657-689.  Construction,  Operation  and  Effect— §  657.  In  Gen- 
eral.—  In  the  al)sence  of  fraud  or  im])osition.  the  rights  of  a  carrier  and  ship- 
per are  to  be  controlled  by  whatever  written  contract  was  entered  into  at  the 
time  the   property   was   received    for  transjjortation.'"' 

§§  6  58-663.  Rules  of  Construction — §  658.  In  General. — Strictly 
Construed  against  Carrier. — If  there  is  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  con- 

83.  Conformity  to  rates,  rules  and  clas-  88.  Whole  of  document  in  evidence. — 
sification  of  state  corporation  commis-  Butler  r.  The  Arrow,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,237, 
sion.— St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Bilby,       n  McLean  470,  Newb.  Adm.  59. 

35   Okla.   589,   130   Pac.   1089.  89.  In   an   action   by_  the    shipper   to   r_e- 

84.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bilby,  35  cover  damages  for  injuries  to  certain 
Okla.  589.  130  Pac.  1089.  goods  which  defendant,  as  a  common  car- 

85.  Parol  evidence. — Roberts  v.  Riley,  rier,  undertook  to  transport  down  the 
15  La.  Ann.  103.  77  .\m.  Dec.  183;  Gulli-  Coosa  river  from  Rome  to  Greenport, 
ver  V.  Adams   Exp.   Co.,   38   111.   503.  and     part    of    which     were     loaded     on    a 

86.  Shipping  receipt  not  embodying  lighter  attached  to  the  side  of  the 
contract. — In  an  action  by  a  shipper  steamer,  and  which  was  sunk  by  striking 
against  a  railroad  company  for  neglect  to  a  snag,  plaintiff  offered  to  read  a  re- 
transport  goods,  it  appeared  that  a  ver-  ceipted  freight  bill,  the  items  appearing 
bal  contract  was  made  with  the  carrier  under  the  headline,  "Freight  per  steanier 
to  transport  the  goods,  and  a  receipt  was  Georgia  to  Greensport;"  the  contention 
given  therefor,  merely  stating  the  receipt  -  being  that  defendant  violated  the  con- 
of  the  goods  marked  with  the  consignee's  tract  by  using  the  lighter.  Held,  that  the 
address.  Held,  that  the  receipt  and  parol  freight  bill  was  not  admissible  to  prove 
contract  were  admissible  to  prove  a  con-  the  contract,  it  not  being  a  bill  of  lading, 
tract  to  transport  the  goods,  such  receipt  Coosa  River  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Barclay,  30 
not  being  a  contract  embodying  the  pre-  Ala.  120. 

vious     oral      engagement.       McCotter  v.  90.  Construction,    operation    and    effect. 

Hooker,  8  N.  Y.  497.  Seld.   Notes  1.50.  —Addrmis    r.    Weir,    lOS    N.    Y.    S.    146,    56 

87.  Bill     of     lading,     receipt. — Dunn  f.       Misc.  Rep.  487. 
Branner,  13  La.  Ann.  452. 


429  SPECIAL  CONTRACTS.  §§  658-663 

struction  of  a  contract  of  carriage,  it  is  to  be  construed  strictly  and  most  strongly 
against   the   carrier." * 

Words  Interpreted  in  Ordinary  Sense. — It  is  the  (hity  of  the  court  to 
interpret  writings  free  fruui  ambiguity,  and  to  determine  what  is  meant  by 
words  used  therein,  in  an  ordinary  rather  than  a  pecuhar  technical  or  trade 
sense;  and  where,  in  a  freight  contract,  the  worrl  "lumber"  was  used,  and  there 
was  no  evidence  that  it  was  used  in  any  other  than  its  common  meaning,  whether 
it    iiH-hidcd    tics    was    for    ibe   court. "- 

Hidden  or  Obscure  Meaning.— .\  hi(l<lcn  or  obscure  meaning  will  not  be 
sought  for  a  particular  clause  of  a  bill  of  lading,  or  shipping  contract  because 
its  obvious  meaning  provides  for  contingencies  which  are  also  provided  for  by 
other  clauses  of  the  same  bill.'''- 

Construed  in  Favor  of  Validity.  — See  i>ost,  "Laws  (Governing,"  §  664. 

§  659.  Practical  Construction  Given  by  Parties.— Where  the  terms 
"compressed  cotton,  any  quantity,  and  uncompressed  cotton,  any  quantity"  are 
used  in  a  tariff  sheet,  without  further  amplifying  words,  the  construction  placed 
on  said  ternxs  by  the  railroad  company,  through  its  agent,  as  to  baled  cotton 
delivered  to  the  railroad  and  thereafter  compressed  and  then  shipped  through, 
when  there  are  no  other  i)romulgate(l  rates  between  the  designated  points  con- 
cerning cotton  shipments,  is  competent  in  determining  the  meaning  of  the  con- 
tract.'*-* 

§  660.  Separable  or  Entire  Contract. — .\  contract  of  carriage,  made  in 
Iowa,  to  take  stock  from  Iowa  to  Indiana,  though  regarded  as  to  be  partly 
performed  in  Iowa  and  partly  in  Illinois,  is  entire  and  indivisible.'*^  When  a 
carrier  agreed  to  carry  plaintiff's  goods  from  a  point  in  the  state  to  a  location 
in  Canada  for  a  certain  freightage,  and  to  advance  the  customs  duties,  and  col- 
lect both  the  freight  and  duties  at  the  destination,  the  contract  was  indivisible, 
and  the  agreement  to  advance  the  duties  was  not  a  separate  and  foreign  con- 
tract.'-'" 

§  661.  Alternative  Conditions. — See  post,  "Agreements  for  Liquidated 
Damages,"  §  687. 

§   662.  Contracts  Partly  Written  and  Partly  Printed. — Where  a  contract 

for  the  carriage  of  freight  is  ])anly  written  and  i)artly  printed,  the  written  por- 
tions will  control,  and  only  so  much  of  the  printed  matter  in  the  blank  form 
used  as  is  consistent  with  the  written  portions  is  of  any  effect.^" 

§  663.  Clerical  Errors. — .\n  apparent  clerical  error  in  writing  a  shipping 
contract  or  copying  it  into  the  record,  by  which  the  shipper  is  made  to  agree 
to  jiav  any  loss  or  damage,  to  his  own  property,  etc.,  will  be  disregarded  and 

91.  Strictly  construed  against  carrier.—  94;  Practical      construction      given      by 

See  post.  "Limitati-.n  ..f  I.ial.ilitv."  cliap-  parties.— Cliicago.  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Dodson 
^^^  j^  ■  (Okla.).   04    Pac.   r,7P>. 

^  .  ■        .  ,  •      •  ^       ^       ■  95.  Separable    or    entire    contract. — Illi- 

Stipulat.ons    in    sliippmg    contracts,    in-       ^^j^  ^,.,,^    j>    ^.,^    ..    j,^.^.,,^.    ,-_^  j„    ^3^  -^ 

serted  entirely  for  the  benefit  of  the  car-  j^.    g    ^^^      ^3   ^    ^     ^    ^lo.   66  Am.    St. 

rier,  will  receive  strict  construction.      Ya-  j^        ^.^ 

zoo.  etc..  R    Co.  .'^  Bent.  94  Miss^  681    47  96.  Waldron    f.    Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.. 

So.  805.  22  L.   R.  A.,   N.  S..  821;   Standard  ^.,  ^y,^^,^    .,-.5    ^^^  p,^^,    ^,^^ 

Milling  Co.  r.   White    Line   Cent.  Transit  "g^    Contracts  partly  written  and  partly 

Co..   122   Mo.   2.-,^.   21.   ^^.    W.    ,01.  printed.— Hal^cock  :•.   Lake   Shore,  etc..   R. 

92.  Words      interpreted      in      ordinary  (j,,     4;)  x.  V.  401. 

sense.— Greason  r.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co..  Bill    of    lading. — The    contract    of    af- 

112   Mo.  App.  116,  86  S.  \V.  722.  freightnient.  evidenced  by  a  bill  of  lading 

93.  Hidden  or  obscure  meaning. — Tudg-  partly  written  and  partly  printed,  is  to  be 
ment  00  Fed.  1006.  :iO  C.  C.  .\.  670,  affirmed.  gathered  from  the  whole  instrument. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reiss,  22  S.  Ct.  253.  Robinson  Bros.  :■.  Merchants'  Despatch 
183  U.  S.  621,  46  L.  Ed.  358.  Transp.  Co.,  45  Iowa  470. 


§§  663-664 


CARRIERS 


430 


the  agreement  treated  as  one  on  part  of  the  company  to  pay  the  loss  if  any  as 
therein  Hmited."'* 

§  664.  Laws  Governing. — A  contract  for  transportation  made  by  a  rail- 
road company  is  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  existing 
when  the  contract  is  made.'-^^ 

Conflict  of  Laws.— A  contract  for  the  transportation  of  goods  is  governed 
as  to  its  nature,  construction,  validity  and  effect,  by  the  laws  of  the  state  or 
country  where  it  is  made/  notwithstanding  the  initial  carrier  is  a  corporation 
of  another  state.-  When  there  are  no  circumstances  attending  the  transaction, 
except  the  mere  execution,  delivery  and  acceptance  of  a  bill  of  lading,  the 
safest  rule  to  arrive  at  the  intention  of  the  parties  is  that  which  upholds, 
rather  than  that  which  defeats,  the  contract,  and  the  laws  of  the  state  under 
which  the  contract  is  valid  should  be  applied/' 

Contract  to  ^e  Partly  Performed  in  State  Other  than  Locus  Con- 
tractus.—The  general  rule  is  that  a  contract  for  the  carriage  of  freight  from 
one  point  in  one  state  to  a  point  in  another  will,  in  the  absence  of  proof  of  a 
contrary  intention,  be  governed  by  the  law  of  the  place  where  the  contract  was 
entered'  into.-*  but  such  contract  is  not  necessarily  governed  in  matters  of  con- 
struction and  eft'ect  bv  the  laws  of  the  locus  contractus  especially  as  to  require- 


98.  Clerical  errors. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  Ro£?ers,  49  Tex.  Civ.  App.  304,  108 
S.  W.  1027. 

99.  Laws  governing. — State  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,   R.   Co..   .51    Fla.   .578,   646,  40   So.   875. 

1.  Conflict  of  laws. — United  States. — 
The  Brantford  City,  29  Fed.  373. 

Connecticut. — Hale  v.  New  Jersey 
Steam  Nav.  Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  Am. 
Dec.  398. 

Illinois. — Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Boyd,  91  111.  268;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Furthmann,  149  111.  66, 
36  N.  E.  624,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  265;  Gins- 
burg  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  160  111.  App. 
566;  Waxelbaum  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  168 
111.  App.  66;  Gamble-Robinson  Commis- 
sioner Co.  z:  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  169 
111.  App.  319:  Clingan  z'.  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  163  111.  App.  568. 

Where  goods  are  delivered  to  a  carrier 
in  another  state,  the  contract  to  be  per- 
formed there,  the  laws  of  that  state  will 
govern  as  to  the  construction  of  the  con- 
tract, and  will  determine  the  extent  of 
the  carrier's  undertaking.  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  74  111.  197. 

lozua. — McDaniel  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  24  Iowa  412. 

Missouri. — Hartman  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  39  Mo.  App.  88;  Lord,  etc.,  Co.  2: 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Mo.  App.  175,  134 
S.  W.  111. 

New  York. — First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Shaw, 
61  N.  Y.  283;  Robertson  v.  National 
Steamship  Co.,  1  App.  Div.  61,  37  N.  Y. 
S.  69,  72  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  223. 

South  Dakota. — Meuer  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  5  S.  Dak.  568,  59  N.  W.  945,  25  L. 
R.  A.  81,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  898. 

Texas. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  2 
Tex.  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §  191. 

2.  A  bill  of  lading,  made  by  certain 
steamship     companies     to     a     shipper     in 


Georgia  for  carriage  of  cotton  from  Sa- 
vannah to  Bremen,  via  Baltimore,  must 
be  deemed  executed  in  Georgia,  notwith- 
standing the  initial  company  is  a  corpo- 
ration under  the  laws  of  Maryland.  La- 
zard  r.  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  78 
Md.   1.  26  Atl.  897. 

3.  Ryan  &  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
65  Tex.  13,  57  Am.  Rep.   589. 

4.  Contract  to  be  partly  performed  in 
state  other  than  locus  contractus. — Coii- 
necticut. — A  steamboat  was  in  the  busi- 
ness of  transporting  goods  from  New 
York  to  Providence.  The  plaintiflf  owned 
carriages,  which  he  wished  to  have  trans- 
ported to  Boston.  The  carriers  received 
them  in  New  York,  to  convey  them  to 
Providence  or  Boston,  and  they  were 
lost  in  the  Sound,  near  Huntington,  L.  I. 
Held,  that  the  contract  of  the  parties  w?s 
to  be  governed  by  the  laws  of  New  York. 
Hale  V.  New  Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  15 
Conn.  539,  39  Am.   Dec.  398. 

Georgia. — If  goods  are  shipped  by  con- 
necting carriers  from  New  York  to  Geor- 
gia, and  suit  is  brought  in  Georgia  for 
damages  from  delay  in  delivery  by  the 
final  carrier  after  arrival,  whether  the  de- 
livery and  taking  of  the  sliipping  receipt 
constituted  a  contract  by  the  shipper  with 
the  initial  carrier  will  be  determined  by 
the  laws  of  New  York,  if  they  be  shown. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hanaw,  134  Ga.  445, 
67   S.   E.   944. 

If  goods  are  shipped  in  one  state  on  a 
through  contract  and  delivered  in  an- 
other by  a  common  carrier  (omitting  any 
question  of  public  policy),  ordinarily,  in 
the  absence  of  anything  to  show  a  con- 
trary intent,  the  validity,  form,  and  efifect 
of  the  contract  will  be  determined  by  the 
laws  of  the  state  where  it  was  made  and 
partly  to  be  performed,  under  Pol.  Code, 
§  8,  providing  that  the  validity,  form,  and 


431 


SPECIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§    664 


ments  which  are  to  be  wholly  performed  in  the  latter  state."'  Thus,  the  courts 
of  Alabama  ''  and  (Jhio "  have  held  that  where  a  shipper  contracted  in  one 
state  with  a  carrier  to  ship  goods  and  deliver  them  at  a  point  in  another  state, 
the  contract,  so  far  as  delivery  was  involved,  was  to  be  wholly  performed  in 
the  latter,  and  the  carrier's  liability  for  failure  to  deliver  depended  upon  the 
law  of  that  state,  and  the  court  o'i  New  Hampshire  has  held :  When  a  con- 
tract is  made  by  a  common  carrier  in  one  state  to  transport  goods  from  that 
state  into  another,  and  the  goods  are  lost,  the  rights  of  the  parties  are  governed 
by  the  law  of  the  state  in  which  the  loss  happens.^ 

Shipment  to  Be  Held  at  Destination  for  Instructions. — In  a  suit  for 
(laniaj;es  to  a  car  luad  of  potatt)cs  shipped  under  a  contract  to  ship  on  defen<l- 
ant's  road  from  a  point  in  Wisconsin  to  a  point  in  Illinois  and  there  hold  for 
instructions,  and  a  subsecjuent  order  given  defendant  at  its  Chicago  station  to 
ship  to  ^lississippi,  the  suit  will  be  on  the  Illinois  contract,  and  defendant's 
liabilities  will  be  determined  by  the  law  of  Illinois.'* 

Interstate  Commerce. — \Vhere  a  contract  for  through  transportation  of 
flour  from  Pond  Creek,  Okl.,  to  New  York,  was  made  in  Oklahoma,  it  was 
subject  to  tlie  Oklahoma  law  to  the  extent  that  such  law  was  not  an  invasion 
of  the  exclusive  rights  of  the  L'nited  States  to  regulate  commerce  between  the 
states. ^*^  A  state  statute  declaring  that  a  consignor,  by  accepting  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing or  written  contract  for  carriage,  with  a  knowledge  of  its  terms,  assents  to 


effect  of  contracts  are  determined  by  the 
laws  of  the  place  where  executed. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  f.  Hanaw.  134  Ga.  44.5, 
67  S.  E.  944. 

Illinois. — Where  a  contract  for  the 
transportation  of  potatoes  was  made  and 
partly  to  be  performed  in  Iowa,  its  valid- 
ity and  interpretation  of  the  obligation 
must  he  governed  liy  the  laws  of  that 
state,  though  the  shipment  might  l)e  car- 
ried into  or  through  Illinois.  Coats  f. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  87  N.  E.  929,  239  111. 
154. 

Iowa. — A  contract  of  affreightment 
made  by  a  consignor  for  the  consignee, 
residing  in  another  state,  is  binding  upon 
the  latter,  if  it  is  valid  under  the  laws  of 
the  state  where  made.  Rol^inson  Bros.  v. 
Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  45 
Iowa  470. 

Missouri. — Townsend,  etc..  Dry  Goods 
Co.  t'.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  113  S.  W. 
1161,  133  Mo.  App.  683. 

North  Dakota. — Hanson  z:  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  18  N.  Dak.  324,  121  X. 
W.  78. 

Xew  York. — Robertson  v.  National 
Steamship  Co.,  37  N.  Y.  S.  69,  1  App.  Div. 
61,  72  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  223. 

South  Dakota. — A  contract,  made  in 
Wisconsin,  between  a  railroad  company 
and  a  shipper,  for  transporting  live  stock 
and  emigrant  movables  from  a  point  in 
that  state  to  a  point  in  South  Dakota,  is 
to  be  interpreted  by  the  law  of  the  for- 
mer state.  Meuer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
5  S.  Dak.  568,  59  X.  W.  945,  25  L.  R.  -A.  81, 
49  .\m.  St.  Rep.  898. 

Tc.vas. — .\  contract  made  with  a  rail- 
road company  in  one  state  to  carry  prop- 
erty into  another,  if  valid  by  the  laws  of 
the  former,  would  be  valid   in  the  latter. 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Davis,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  191. 

A  condition  contained  in  a  contract 
made  in  Arkansas,  for  the  shipment  of 
sheep  to  be  transported  from  that  state 
to  Texas,  that  "the  business  of  the  car- 
rier shall  not  be  delayed  by  the  detention 
of  trains  to  unload  and  reload  the  sheep 
for  any  cause  wliatcver,"  is  valid,  the 
condition  being  valid  in  Arkansas. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  191. 

A  shipment  from  a  point  witliin  to  a 
point  beyond  the  state  is  not  governed 
i)y  the  local  laws.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
Xelson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  139  S.  W.  Si. 

Contract  for  carriage  from  France 
through  London  to  New  York. — A  bill 
of  lading,  made  in  l-'rance,  providing  for 
the  transportation  of  goods  from  Havre. 
France,  to  London,  and  from  London  to 
New  York,  is  not  governed  by  the  law  of 
England,  as  it  was  made,  and  to  be  p'T- 
formed  mainly  outside  of  England.  Rob- 
ertson z:  X'^ational  Steamship  Co.,  1  App. 
Div.  61,  37  N.  Y.  S.  69,  72  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
223. 

5.  Carter  &  Co.  r.  Southern  R.  Co.,  59 
S.  E.  209,  3  Ga.  App.  34;  Atlanta,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z'.  Broome,  60  S.  E.  355,  3  Ga.  App. 
641. 

6.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  z\  Gibbs.  155  Ala. 
303,  46  So.  465,  18  L.   R.  A..  N.  S..  874. 

7.  Tacobson  &  Co.  z'.  ."Kdams  Exp.  Co.. 
1  0."C.  C.  381,  1  O.  C.  D.  212. 

8.  Gray  v.  Jackson  &  Co.,  51  X.  H.  9. 
12  Am.  Rep.  1. 

9.  Shipment  to  be  held  at  destination 
for  instructions. — MahatTov  z\  Wisconsin 
Cent.    R.    Co..    147    III.   .\pp!   43. 

10.  Interstate  commerce. — Erie  R.  Co. 
z'.  Pond  Creek  Mill.  etc..  Co..  89  C.  C.  .•\. 
568.  162  Fed.  878. 


§§  664-666  CARRIERS.  432 

the  rate  of  hire,  the  time,  place,  and  manner  of  dehvery  therein  stated ;  but 
that  his  assent  to  any  other  modification  of  the  carrier's  obhgations  contained 
therein  can  only  be  manifested  by  his  signature  to  the  contract,  should  not  be 
construed  as  merely  affecting  the  vehicle  through  which  a  transportation  con- 
tract can  be  proved,  but  was  a  valid  exercise  of  legislative  power  aft'ecting 
interstate  commerce  originating  in  Oklahoma,  to  which  transportation  contracts 
made  in  that  state  were  subject.^ ^ 

Effect  of  Hepburn  Act.— The  Hepburn  act  (Act  June  29,  1906,  c.  3591, 
§  7,  34  Stat.  595  [l\  S.  Comp.  St.  Supp.  1907,  p.  909]  ),  relating  to  the  liability 
of  common  carriers  of  property  in  interstate  commerce  for  loss  or  damage  to 
such  property,  but  which  contains  tlie  proviso  "that  nothing  in  this  section  shall 
deprive  any  holder  of  such  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  of  any  remedy  or  right  of 
action  which  he  has  under  existing  law,"  leaves  a  shipper  free  to  resort  to  the 
laws  of  a  state  applicable  to  his  contract.^ - 

§  665.  Course  of  Dealing,  Usage  and  Custom. — Where,  at  the  time  of 
the  shipment  of  goods  by  an  agent  to  his  principal,  no  particular  agreement 
is  made  between  the  agent  and  the  carrier,  the  fact  that  they  have  an  habitual 
course  of  dealing  with  respect  to  contracts  of  transportation  is  a  material  and 
important  element  in  determining  the  construction  to  be  put  upon  their  acts.^'* 
But  the  shipping  of  goods  under  a  special  contract  in  any  number  of  instances 
will  not  bind  the  parties  sending  them  to  similar  terms  in  the  future  without 
agreement.^'* 

Effect  of  Usage. — Where  a  shipping  contract,  permitting  the  shipper  to  ac- 
company his  stock,  and  return,  without  extra  charge,  does  not  specify  the  route 
by  which  he  shall  return,  a  general  usage  of  the  carrier  to  allow  a  return  by 
either  of  two  routes  will,  if  known  to  the  shipper  when  the  contract  is  made. 
be  presumed  a  part  thereof. ^•'^ 

§  666.  Persons  Bound.— Contract  by  Consignor. — The  consignor  is  the 
agent  of  the  consignee  in  the  shipment  of  the  goods;  and  whatever  contract 
he  makes  with  the  carrier  is  binding  on  the  consignee, ^"^  and  he  will  be  con- 
clusivelv  presumed  to  know  its  stipulations,  in  the  absence  of  fraud  or  mis- 
take.^' ' 

Estoppel  of  Consignee  to  Question  Authority  of  Consignor  to  Con- 
tract.— \\'here  a  consignee  sues  to  recover  for  a  neglect  of  duty  under  a  special 
contract  of  affreightment  made  in  his  behalf  by  the  consignor,  the  consignee 
is  not  at  liberty  to  challenge  the  authority  of  the  consignor  to  make  the  ship- 
ment under  such   a  contract. ^^ 

Contract  with  Purchasers — BiU  of  Lading  Given  to  Seller. — Where  a 
carrier  contracts  with  a  purchaser  of  goods  to  transport  them  for  him,  the  de- 
livery of  a  bill  of  lading  to  the  seller  which  modified  the  carrier's  liability 
under  the  original  contract  does  not  bind  the  purchaser,  in  the  absence  of  a 
course  of  business,  between  the  parties,  or  of  a  custom  sanctioning  such  an  inter- 

11.  Erie  R.  Co.  t'.  Pond  Creek  Mill,  15.  Effect  of  usage.— Milroy  z'.  Chicago, 
etc.,  Co.,  89  C.  C.  A.  568,  163  Fed.  878.  etc.,    R.   Co.,   98    Iowa   188,   67    N.   W.   276. 

12.  Effect  of  Hepburn  act. — Latta  z'.  16.  Contract  by  consignor. — Frohlicli  z'. 
Chicag-o.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  !»7  C.  C.  A.  198,  172  Pennsylvania  Co..  i:58  Mich.  116,  110  Am. 
Fed.   8.-j0.  St.  Rep.  :{10,  101  N.  W.  223,  4  Am.  &  Eng. 

13.  Course   of    dealing,  usage    and   cus-  Ann.  Cas.  1140. 

torn. — Shelton     v.      Merchants'      Dispatch  17.    Robinson   Bros.  z'.   Merchants'   Des- 

Transp.  Co.,  .59   N.  Y.  258,  48  How.   Prac.  patch  Trans]).  Co.,  45  Iowa  470. 

257.  18.    Estoppel    of   consignee   to    question 

14.  McMillan  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  authority  of  consignor  to  contract. — Bell 
16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec.  208;  Heffron  v.  Bros.  r.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Ga. 
Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  131;  King  510,   54   S.    E.   532. 

V.    Michigan,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    16    Mich.    132. 


433 


SrKCTAL    CONTRACTS. 


§§  666-672 


])retation  of  the  orii[^inal  contract.'" 

Clerical  Errors. — See  ante.  '•Clerical   Errors,"  §  663. 

§  667.  Persons  Entitled  to  Benefit. — Though  a  person  who  had  con- 
tracted with  a  city  to  furnish  it  with  coal  for  use  in  running  a  system  of  water- 
works Ijeconies  the  head  of  the  water  commission  of  such  city,  he  can  not,  be- 
cause of  his  official  position  as  such,  avail  himself  of  the  terms  of  a  transpor- 
tation contract  between  the  cit\-  and  a  railway  company  whereby  the  former 
had  secured  reduced  freight  charges  upon  goods  or  supplies  hauled  for  its 
benefit.-" 

§  668.  When  Liability  Accrues. — The  lialiility  of  a  carrier  as  such  com- 
mences at  the  time  of  ileli\ery  and  acceptance  of  property  for  shipment.-' 

§§  669-687.  Duties  and  Obligations  of  Carrier  and  Shipper— §  669. 
Obligation  as  Fixed  by  Law. — The  obligation  of  a  common  carrier  is  fixed 
by  law,  and  is  as  nuicli  a  ])art  of  the  contract  of  shii)ment  as  though  written 
therein.--  A  bill  of  lading  which  recites  the  reccijit  of  the  goods  in  good  order 
and  binds  the  carrier  to  deli\er  them  in  good  order  and  condition  as  received, 
imposes  the   liability  of   a   common   carrier  on   the  carrier.--' 

§  670.  Special   Contract    as    Superseding   Common-Law   Liability. — 

See  post,  "Limitations  of  Lialjility."  chapter  14.  W  here  a  sijecial  contract  is  proven 
between  a  shipper  and  a  carrier,  the  former  can  not  rely  on  the  common-law 
liability  of  the  carrier. -■♦ 

§  671.  Effect  of  Acceptance  of  Rate  Offered. — Where  a  shipper  asked 
for  "the  lowest  rates  on  potatoes  in  car-load  lots."  and  accepted  the  rates  there- 
upon offered  by  the  carrier,  all  other  terms  and  conditions  are  left  open  for 
future  arrangement.-'" 

§§  672-675.  Obligation  of  Carrier  to  Receive,  Transport  and  De- 
liver— §  672.  In  General. — Implied  Promise  to  Carry  Safely  and  De- 
liver.— Where  the  carrier  recei\ed  merchandise,  and  undertook  its  delivery, 
there  is  an  implied  promise  safely  to  carry  and  deliver  the  same  without  delay 


19.  Contract  with  purchaser  of  goods 
— Effect  of  bill  of  lading  given  to  seller. 
— A  carrier  contracted  with  the  purchaser 
to  transport  certain  iron,  as  evidenced  l)y 
a  letter  from  the  purcliaser  to  the  carrier, 
accompanied  by  an  order  to  the  seller  to 
deliver  the  iron.  The  carrier  loaded  the 
iron  on  a  canal  iioat,  and  delivered  to  tiie 
seller  a  bill  of  lading-  for  the  purchaser, 
which  modified  the  carrier's  Hal)ility  un- 
der the  original  contract.  On  the  same 
day,  by  the  sinking  of  the  boat,  the  iron 
was  lost.  Held,  that  the  carrier  could  not 
defend  under  the  bill  of  lading  against  a 
recovery  of  the  value  of  the  iron  by  the 
purchaser,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  of 
a  course  of  business  between  the  parties, 
or  of  a  custom  sanctioning  such  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  original  contract.  Park 
V.    Preston.    lOS    X.    Y.   4;i4.    t.l    X.    E.    705. 

20.  Persons  entitled  to  benefit. — Dixon 
r.  Central,  etc..  R.  Co..  1 H)  Ga.  171].  .'ij  S. 
E.  3G9. 

21.  When  liability  accrues. — Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  :.  roII..ck,  ir,  Wyo.  321.  93 
Pac.  847. 

1    Car— 28 


22.  Obligation  as  fixed  by  law, — Evans- 
ville.  etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  Kcvekordes.  .S5  Ind. 
App.    70(1,    (J9    X.    K.    1022,    1?,    X.    E.    1135. 

23.  Contracts  for  transportation  of 
goods — Construction  and  operation. — The 
defendants,  whose  general  liusiness  was 
that  of  common  carriers,  gave  to  the 
plaintiffs  a  bill  of  lading,  setting  forth  that 
thcv  had  shipped,  in  good  order  and  con- 
dition, certain  iron,  to  be  delivered  to  the 
])laintiffs  or  tlieir  assigns  in  like  order  and 
condition,  the  dangers  of  the  seas  only 
excepted.  Held,  that  if  not  otherwise  lia- 
ble as  common  carriers,  they  contracted 
such  liability  by  the  bill  of  lading,  which 
bound  them  to  deliver  the  iron  in  good 
order  and  condition  as  they  had  received 
it,  the  dangers  of  the  sea  only  excepted. 
Stephens,  etc..  Transp.  Co.  ?■.  Tuckerman, 
etc.,   C<i..  -.v.)  X.    T.   L.   .-.4:i. 

24.  Special  contracts  as  superseding 
common  law  liability. — Micliigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.   ::    Hale.   C    Midi.   243. 

25.  Effect  of  acceptance  of  rate  offered. 
— Jennings  .- .  Ciraiui  Tnipk  R.  Co.,  .")  X. 
V.'  S.  140.  .■)2  Hun  227.  23  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  15. 


§§  672-678  ■  CARRIERS.  434' 

to  the  consignee.-'^ 

§  673.  Continuing  Offer  to  Carry. — A  contract  by  a  carrier  to  transport 
goods  between  certain  points  at  a  certain  rate  of  freight  for  a  certain  period 
of  time  is  a  contini-.ing  otter  to  carry  snch  goods  as  plaintiff  shall  fnrnish,  at 
the  specified  price  dnring  the  period  named,  and  ])laintift'  may  recover  damages 
for  failure  of  the  carrier  to  transport  goods  afterwards  offered.-" 

§  674.  Goods  to  Be  Carried  beyond  Terminus  of  Carrier's  Line. — 
Where  a  package  was  delivered  to  an  express  company,  to  be  carried  to  the 
town  of  B.,  and  the  company  was  not  a  common  carrier  to  B.,  the  company 
was  liable  only  as  an  involuntary  or  gratuitous  bailee.-^ 

§  675.  Transportation  "at  Owner's  Risk." — The  term,  "at  the  owner's 
risk."'  in  a  bill  of  lading,  or  transportation  contract  which  is  declared  to  be  a 
special  contract,  taken  in  connection  with  other  stipulations  therein,  limits  the 
carrier  to  such  loss  or  damages  only  as  might  result  from  ordinary  neglect, 
which  is  defined  to  mean  that  want  of  care  and  diligence  which  prudent  men 
usuallv  bestow  on  their  own  concerns.-'' 

§  676.  Obligation  of  Shipper  to  Furnish  Freight. — W  here  a  carrier  con- 
tracted to  transport  certain  merchandise  for  defendant,  the  contract  providing 
in  detail  for  the  amount  of  the  carrier's  compensation,  the  amount  of  merchan- 
dise to  be  transported,  and  the  deductions  to  be  made  from  the  compensation 
for  merchandise  lost  in  transit,  the  agreement  of  the  carrier  to  transport  the 
merchandise  and  of  defendant  to  pay  therefor  imported  an  implied  covenant 
by  defendant  to  allow  the  carrier  to  transport  merchandise  and  to  furnish  him 
with  the  agreed  quantity  for  that  purpose.-"''^ 

§  677.  Point  "Where  Goods  to  Be  Received. — Though  a  railroad  com- 
pany is  not  bound  to  receive  freight  except  at  stations,  it  may,  as  a  result  of 
custom  or  an  express  contract,  become  obligated  to  receive  freight  at  a  point 
where  there  is  no  station,  platform,  cars,  or  agent. "^ 

"Point"  Meaning  Station. — Under  a  contract  providing  that^  a  carrier 
would  return  the  outfit  of  a  railroad  contractor  to  point  of  shipment  from  any 
point  on  the  carrier's  line,  the  word  "point"  would  be  construed  to  mean  a 
station  or  point  where  the  carrier  was  doing  its  regular  lousiness  as  a  common 
carrier."- 

§  678.  Destination. — The  contract  is  a  single,  indivisible  contract  of  trans- 
portation to  tlie  point  of  destination  and  not  effected  by  the  place  of  transfer 
to  the  succeeding  carrier.  Where  a  railroad  company  obligated  itself  to  carry 
to  a  named  point  beyond  the  terminus  of  its  own  line,  such  point  is  the  desti- 
nation of  the  shipment^"  and  an  agreement,  on  the  part  of  a  carrier,  to  trans- 

26.  Implied  promise  to  carry  safely  and  32.  "Point"  meaning  station. — Santa  Fe, 
deliver. —  Indiana,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  I{nii3ire  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Grant  Bros.  Constr.  Co., 
Rubber  Mtir.  Co.,   lis   111.  App.  n:>2.  13  Ariz.   180,   108   Pac.   467. 

27.  Continuing  offer  to  carry. — Harvey  33.  Plaintiff  delivered  a  shipment  of 
V.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  421,  oranges  to  the  defendant  to  be  trans- 
26  Am.   Rep.  673.  ported  to  C,  a  place  beyond  the  terminus 

28.  Goods  to  be  carried  beyond  terminus  of  defendant's  road.  The  bill  of  lading 
of  carrier's  line. — Pitlock  z\  Wells  Fargo  provided  that  the  goods  were  to  be  trans- 
&  Co.,   10!)    Mass.   4."52.  ported  over  defendant's  road  to  the  com- 

29.  Transportation  "at  owner's  risk." —  pany's  freight  station,  "as  designated  be- 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Rathl)onc,  1  W.  low,"  and  the  .only  place  mentioned  in 
Va.  87,  88  Am.  Dec.  664.  the   bill   was   C,   though   this  was   in   con- 

30.  Obligation  of  shipper  to  furnish  ntction  with  a  guaranty  of  the  freight 
freight. — White  v.  Toncray,  46  \'a.  (5  rate.  The  contract  also  limited  the  lia- 
Gratt.)    179.  bility    of   the    defendant    to    its    own    road. 

31.  Point  where  goods  to  be  received.  Held,  that  the  defendant  contracted  to 
— Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Marchman.  121  transport  the  goods  to  C,  and  was  liable 
Ga.  23.5,  48  S.  E.  061.  for  delivering  them   to   the  wrong  parties 


435 


SPECIAL    CONTILVCTS. 


§§  678-680 


port  a  shipment  of  goods  to  their  destination,  if  on  its  road,  or  otherwise  to  a 
place  on  its  road  where  the  same  is  to  be  delivered  to  "any  connecting  carrier," 
left  no  discretion  as  to  the  place  of  delixery.  where  sucii  jjlace  was  specified  in 
the  shipi)ing  receipt,  and  no  other  instructions  were  given:  and  it  was  its  duty 
to  ohc}-  the  instrucli(jns,  and  tfaiisniit  such  instructions  to  the  connecting  car- 
rier.''* 

§  679.  Property  Concerning  Which  Parties  Negotiating. — In  deter- 
mining what  property  is  embraced  in  a  shipping  contract  the  court  will  not  con- 
fine the  language  to  a  specific  quanlil\ ,  but  will  construe  it  to  mean  the  property 
concerning  which  the  parties  were  negotiating.''"' 

§  68  0.  Quantity  to  Be  Shipped  or  Carried. — If  the  contract  of  carriage 
be  to  lake  a  specified  ([uanlily  or  less,  but  ncji  more  in  any  event,  the  taking  of 
more  is  breach  of  contract,  and  forfeits  the  right  to  take  the  specified  number 
or  less ;  but  if,  in  every  event,  the  carrier  is  to  take  the  specified  quantity  or 
less,  he  may  take  more  without  a  forfeiture  of  the  right  to  take  the  specified 
quantity.''" 

Right  to  Elect  Quantity  to  Be  Transported. — Where  a  carrier  covenanted 
with  a  manufacturer  of  salt  to  transport  from  1,200  to  5,000  barrels  of  salt, 
annually,  for  three  years,  from  the  manufacturer's  salt  works  to  certain  speci- 
fied places,  for  a  stipulated  reward  per  barrel,  transported,  the  manufacturer, 
and  not  the  carrier,  had  the  right  to  elect  what  quantity  of  salt,  not  less  than 
1,200.  nor  more  than  5,000,  barrels,  should  be  transported  by  the  carrier  an- 
nuallv.'''''  If  the  carrier  willfully  failed  to  transport  the  salt  received  by  him  in 
the  first  or  second  year,  he  was  bound  to  transport  it  in  the  second  or  third 
year,  and  could  not  withhold  it  and  at  the  same  time  call  on  defendant  to  sup- 
plv  what  he  already  had  in  his  own  hands.  The  carrier  was  entitled  to  transport 
within  the  year  all  the  salt  that  defendant  delivered  in  that  year,  and  if  he  did 
so  his  right  in  regard  to  the  quantity  to  be  transported  the  next  year  was  not 
therebv  affected.^'* 


at  such  station.  German  Fruit  Co.  z'. 
California,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Cal.  42(),  6.5 
Pac.   948. 

A  bill  of  lading  accompanying  cars  of 
grain  shipped  from  Chicago  fixed  the  des- 
tination of  the  shipment  as  Bridgeport, 
but  directed  that  the  cars  be  held  at  West 
Albany  for  further  orders.  When  the  cars 
reached  West  All)any  the  shipper  directed 
them  to  be  sent  to  Waterl)urj\  instead 
of  Bridgeport.  No  new  hill  of  hiding  was 
issued.  Init  the  original  was  merely  in- 
dorsed, "Consignment  changed."  etc.;  giv- 
ing the  new  destination.  Held,  that  the 
whole  transit  of  the  grain  from  Chicago 
to  Waterbury  was  under  a  single  and  in- 
divisible contract  of  transportation,  and 
West  Albany  was  but  the  place  of  trans- 
fer, and  not  the  place  of  shipment.  Soper 
r.  Tyler.   ,JS   Atl.   699,  77   Conn.   104. 

34.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.  ?•.  Potts  & 
Co..  71    N.  H.  6S,-).  33  Ind.  .\pp.  .564. 

35.  "Your  timber." — Where  a  letter 
written  by  a  carrier  in  referring  to  tim- 
ber to  he  hauled  under  a  contract  between 
it  and  a  logging  company  referred  to  it 
as  "your  timber,"  and  at  the  time  the  con- 
tract was  negotiated  the  logging  com- 
pany not  only  made  known  its  then  hold- 
ings and  its  outstanding  contracts  of -pur- 
chase,   but    also    its    purpose    to  acquire 


other  timber  properties  and  continue  the 
logging  business  at  a  certain  point  as 
long  as  profitable  or  until  the  tributary 
timber  was  exhausted,  held,  that  in  de- 
termining what  timber  was  embraced  in 
the  contract  the  term  "your  timber"  meant 
the  timber  concerning  which  the  parties 
w^ere  negotiating,  and  not  the  specific 
quantity  then  owned  by  the  logging  com- 
pany. Sultan  R..  etc..  Co.  :•.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  i>S  Wash.  604,  109  Pac.  320, 
hearing   in   banc   denied    109    Pac.    1020. 

36.  Quantity  to  be  shipped  or  carried. 
— CooiHT  ;■.  Berry,  21  Ga.  .")26.  r>s  Am. 
Dec.    4C.S. 

37.  Right  to  elect  quantity  to  be  trans- 
ported.— White  z:  Toncray,  36  \a.  (9 
Lci-h)    347. 

38.  White  r.  Toncrav,  46  Va.  ( .">  Gratt.) 
179. 

Plaintiff  was  bound  to  transport  within 
the  year  all  the  salt  he  received,  and 
if  he  failed  to  do  so  he  was  still  eiui- 
tled  to  transport  at  least  1.200  barrels  of 
salt  the  next  year,  if  the  contract  had 
not  then  expired,  but  having  it  already 
in  his  hands  he  had  no  right  to  call  on 
defendant  for  the  delivery  to  him  of  1.200 
barrels  more,  and  the  transportation  of 
salt  which  plaintiff  already  had  in  his 
hands  in  the  next  vear  would  be  a  com- 


§§  680-685  CARRIERS.  436 

Amount  to  Be  Delivered  Per  Month. — Where  a  contract  of  carriage  is 
for  all  the  shipper's  freight  to  a  named  point  during  the  summer  and  fall,  to  be 
delivered  in  quantities  of  at  least  25  per  cent  of  the  whole  freight  in  each  and 
everv  month  from  the  tirst  of  July,  the  shippers  are  bound  to  deliver  to  the 
carrier  all  their  freight  intended  for  such  point  during  that  "summer  and  fall"' 
in  such  proportions  as  to  equal  25  per  cent  of  the  whole  during  each  month 
from  July  and  October,  both   inclusive. •'"■^ 

§  681.  Option  as  to  Mode  of  Shipment. — Where  a  carrier  has  an  op- 
tion as  to  the  mode  of  shipmeiu.  it  must  exercise  it  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
consignee,  and  it  is  a  breach  of  the  contract  to  exercise  it  to  his  disadvantage, 
unless  it  is  done  in  good  faith  and  under  circumstances  which  seem  to  require 
ic.^"' 

§  682.  Route. — Where,  at  the  time  of  making  a  written  contract  for  the 
shipping  of  stock  from  Utah  to  Chicago,  another  written  contract  was  made  for 
the  trans]:)ortation  of  the  shipper's  servant  to  care  for  the  stock,  under  which 
a  passenger  ticket  issued,  which  read  to  Omaha,  though  the  contract  for  the 
transportation  of  the  stock  did  ngt  namse  any  particular  route  Ijy  which  it  was 
to  be  shipped,  the  contract  was  to  ship  through  Omaha.-* ^ 

§  683.  Stop-Over  Privilege. — Where  a  complaint  avers  that  a  consignee 
•was  the  owner  of  property  at  the  time  of  shipment,  a  stop-over  privilege  con- 
tained in  the  bill  of  lading  will  be  presumed  to  have  been  for  his  benefit. •*- 

§  684.  Loading-  and  Unloading. — A  contract  of  a  railroad  by  which  it 
contracted  at  its  own  expense  to  load  oil  and  transport  it  over  its  road  to  a 
specified  point,  "and  thence  by  barges  to  the  warehouse"  of  the  company,  and 
to  provide  suitable  covered  cars,  etc.,  "and  cause  the  same  to  be  unloaded  and 
returned  without  delay,"  the  oil  company  to  pay  "on  the  delivery  of  the  oil;" 
requires  the  company  to  unload  the  oil  from  the  l)arges  at  the  warehouse.-*-^ 

Agreement  to  Furnish  Facilities  and  Laborers. — A  contract  for  the 
transportation  of  cattle  at  reduced  rates  providing  that  the  owner  shall  load 
and  unload  at  his  own  risk,  the  carrier  furnishing  laborers  to  assist  under  di- 
rection of  the  owner,  who  was  to  examine  for  himself  all  the  means  used  does 
not  require  the  carrier  to  furnish  the  facilities  for  unloading  at  a  station  en 
route  where  they  were  delayed  on  account  of  a  storm. ^"* 

§   68  5.  Time  of  Delivery  to  Carrier. — Where  a  contract  of  shipment  does 

pliance  with  his  contract  for  that  year,  intended  to  be  transported  to  N.  T.  dur- 
and,  defendant  permitting  him  to  do  it,  ing  that  "summer  and  fall,"  in  such  pro- 
would  be  equivalent  to  an  annual  deliv-  portions  as  to  equal  25  per  cent  of  the 
ery  by  him  of  the  same  quantity  for  that  whole  amount  during  each  month  from 
year.  White  t'.  Toncray,  46  Va.  (5  Gratt.)  July  to  Octo1)er,  both  inclusive.  Per- 
179.  kins  v.  Ophir  Silver  Min.  Co.,  35  Cal.  11. 
39.  The  O.  corporation  agreed  with  P.  40.  Option  as  to  mode  of  shipment.— 
to  consign  to  him,  at  S.,  all  their  freight  Stewart  v.  Comer,  100  Ga.  754,  (13  Am.  St. 
intended  to  be  transported  to  N.  T.,  "dur-  Rep.  353,  28  S.  E.  461;  Blitz  v.  Union 
ing  this  summer  and  fall,  amounting,  it  Steamboat  Co.,  51  Mich.  558,  17  N.  W.  55. 
is  now  supposed,  to  about  1,000  tons,  and  41.  Route. — Sharp  v.  Clark,  13  Utah 
will  deliver  it  to  him   from   time   to   time,  .-,10     45    p^c.    566. 

in    such    quantities    that    at    least    25    per  ^^        Stop-over      privilege  —  Tebbs      v. 

cent    of    the    whole    freight    shall    be    de-  Cleveland,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  20   Ind.  App.   192, 

livered    to    hnn    durmg    each    and    every  .^^  ^-     p    ^^^,^ 

month    from   the    first   day   of   July   next."  '     ^^  '     '_    '    '.                 ,           ,       ,.,           ^^ 

P.  agreed  to  receive  at  S.,  and  transport  ^43        Loading      and      unloaditig^-New 

to    N.    T.,    at    a    price    specified,    all    the  York,    etc      R-    Co.    z-.    Standard    Oil    Co., 

freight    they    should    consign    to    him    at  20   Hun   39,   affirmed   in   87   N.   Y.   486. 

S.  before   October   31st.     Held,   that   they  44.    Penn  v.   Buffalo,    etc.,     R.    Co.,    49 

were   bound   to   consign    to   him   at   S.   all  N.    Y.    204,    10    Am.    Rep.    355,    reversing 

their    freight,    regardless    of    its    quantity,  3   Lans.   443. 


437  SPECIAL   CONTRACTS.  §§  685-694 

not  spccif\-  the  time  the  j^uods  are  to  be  delivered  to  the  carrier  for  shipment, 
the  shipi)er  has  a  reasonable  time."*'' 

§  686.  Time  to  Be  Consumed  in  Transportation. — Where  agents  for  a 
railroad  stated  to  the  owner  of  perishable  goijds  that  the  company  had  a  sched- 
ule for  one  of  its  trains  between  Savannah  and  New  York  of  43  hours,  and 
expected  to  maintain  it.  and  such  owner,  acting  on  the  beUef  induced  by  such 
statement,  made  shipments  of  such  goods  from  Savannah  to  Xew  York,  a 
special  contract  to  trans])ort   the  shipments   in  43   hours   was  not  shown. ^" 

§  687.  Agreements  for  Liquidated  Damages. — An  agreement  of  a  car- 
rier to  transport  goo(ls  from  W-w  \ nrk  lo  Missouri  in  a  certain  number  of 
days,  or  to  deduct  for  each  day's  delay  a  certain  amount  from  the  freight 
money,  is  not  alternative  agreements,  but  the  amount  to  be  deducted  is  in  the 
nature  of   liquidated   damages.'*'^ 

§   688.  Liability    as    Bailee. — See    ante,  "Goods    to    He    Carried    beyond 

'rerminns  of  Carrier's  T.ine."  §  674. 

§  68  9.  Liability  as  Warehouseman. — See  post,  "Carrier  as  Warehouse- 
man," chapter  13. 

§  690.  Transfer  or  Assignment. — .V  contract  between  a  shipper  and  a 
carrier  for  the  transjjortation  of  certain  freight  at  a  specified  rate  is  a  personal 
contract,  and  can  not  be  transferred  so  as  to  make  it  include  freight  shipped 
by  any  person  other  than  the  one  with  whom  the  contract  was  made.'*'' 

§§  691-710.  Performance  or  Breach— §§  691-692.  What  Consti- 
tutes a  Breach — §     691.  When  Special  Effort  to  Perform  Required. — 

A  contract  to  carry  goods  made  b_\-  a  canal  boatman  shortly  l)efore  the  period 
when  the  canal  might  be  expected  to  freeze  re(|uires  him  to  make  a  special  ef- 
fort to  perform  the  contract. ^•' 

§   692.   Shipment    of    Bonded   Goods   on    Unbonded    Vessel. — Carriers 

who  receive  bonded  goods,  knowing  the\-  are  to  be  slii]i])e(l  in  bond,  and,  taking 
them  out  of  bond,  slii])  them  u])on  an  unbonded  vessel,  are  liable  as  for  con- 
version.■'•*' 

§  693.  Demand  of  Performance. — There  is  a  breach  of  defendant  rail- 
road company's  contract  to  transport  plaintiff's  ice  from  where  it  was,  on  an- 
other road,  where  it  notified  him  that  it  could  not  furnish  cars  and  take  it  from 
such  place,  so  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  further  demands,  which  both  par- 
ties  know   can   not   be   complied   with.-''^ 

§  694.  Tender  of  Property. — When  a  railway  comiiany  announces  through 
its  agent  that  it  will  not  make  a  shipment  at  a  time  previously  contracted  for, 
a  tender  of  the  articles  to  be  shipped  at  the  time  j^reviously  agreed  on  is  thereby 
waived  and  rendered  unnecessary  to  fix  the  liability  of  the  company  for  result- 
ing damages.''-  and  the  refusal  of  i)rior  shi])nient  and   information  that  an  or- 

45.  Time  of  delivery  to  carrier. — South-  49.  When  special  effort  to  perform  re- 
crn  R.  Co.  t'.  Wilco.x,  99  V'a.  394,  .39  S.  quired.  ^  Spanii  7:  Erie  Boatman's 
E.   144.                                                                          Transp.   Co.,   11   Misc.  Rep.  (>S0,  33  N.  Y. 

46.  Time  to   be  consumed  in  transpor-       S.   .')(>(■..  (57   N.  Y.   St.   Rep.   354. 

tation. — .Atlantic,    etc..    K.    Co.    t'.    Wells,  50.    Shipment  of  bonded  goods   on  un- 

i;;o  Ga.  55.  fiO  S.   E.  170.  bonded  vessel.  — .Mcllicr   :.   St.    Louis,   etc., 

47.  Agreements  for  liquidated  damages.       Traii.si).   Ci\.   it   Mo.   .\pp.  2'^l. 

— Harnionv   t'.    Bingham,    12    X.   ^'.   99.   t">2  51.     Demand   of   performance. — Bigelow 

.A.m.    Dec.    142,    arfirniin-    S    X.    Y.    Super.  r.    Chica^d.    etc..    I'l.    Co.,    104   Wis.   109,    SO 

Ct.    (1    Duer)    209.  X.   \Y.   9.-,. 

48.  Transfer  or  assignment. — Wabash  52.  Tender  of  property. — Texas,  etc., 
R.    Co.   v.   Wright.   75    111.   App.   243.  R.    Co.   r.    Xicholson.   (U   Tex.   491. 


§§  694-699  CARRIERS.  438 

der  to  refuse  is  still  operative  renders  further  tender  unnecessary,"'^  and  so 
also  where  a  carrier  receives  part  of  a  shipment  and  declines  taking  any  more 
it  is  not  necessary  to  tender  the  residue.^-* 

§§   695-709.  Excuses  for  Breach  or  Nonperformance — §  695.  Act  of 

God, — If  a  common  carrier  makes  a  contract  for  tlie  future  transportation  of 
goods,  and  at  the  time  appointed  fails  to  have  his  boat  at  the  place,  he  is  no 
more  exonerated  by  the  act  of  God  from  liability  for  failure  to  comply  with 
an  express  stipulation  of  his  contract  than  any  other  person  would  be  for  a 
failure  from  the  same  cause  to  com])ly  with  any  other  kind  of  contract,  the 
rule  in  relation  to  this  excuse  being  that,  where  the  law  imposes  the  duty,  the 
law  will  acknowledge  the  act  of  God  as  an  excuse  for  its  nonperformance;  but 
where  one  by  his  own  contract  expressly  and  absolutely  undertakes  to  do  any 
act.  he  can  not  be  discharged  from  the  performance  by  the  act  of  God,  because 
it  was  his  own  folly  not  to  have  made  the  proper  exception. ^^ 

§  696.  "Perils  of  River,"  Navigation  and  Fire. — Nonperformance  of  a 
contract  to  transport  goods,  "the  usual  dangers  of  river  navigation  and  fire 
excepted."  will  not  be  excused  by  unprecedented  low  water  in  a  river,  prevent- 
ing navigation.''" 

§  697.  Mobs  and  Strikes.— Mob  Preventing  Connecting  Carrier  from 
Doing  Business. — See  ante.  "Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Terminus,"   §  620. 

§  698.  Military  Occupation. — \\'here  a  railroad  company  agreed  to  ship 
goods  after  a  certain  time,  and  before  that  time  its  line  was  seized  by  the  Con- 
federate government  and  held  until  after  such  time  expired,  it  was  a  valid  ex- 
cuse for  not  shipping  the  goods. ^"^  Even  where  a  railroad  company  is  not  in 
the  free  exercise  of  its  franchises,  and  receives  property  for  transportation,  and 
gives  the  ordinary  shipping  receipt,  without  limiting  its  liability  or  undertaking, 
it  is  still  liable  as  a  common  carrier,  notwithstanding  military  or  other  control. ^^ 

§  699.  Nonpayment  of  Freight. — Although  goods  have  been  taken  into 
the  possession  of  a  common  carrier,  if  the  freight  is  not  paid  as  stipulated,  he 
may  refuse  to  carr}'  them,  the  contract  not  being  yet  consummated.*^'^  Where 
a   carrier,    in   an   action   against   it   for   failure   to   carry   goods   delivered   to   it, 

53.  A  railroad  company  passed  an  or-  distant  port  for  sale,  the  hay  to  be  de- 
der  that  after  that  date  no  shipment  of  livered  at  the  ship's  side,  and,  after  re- 
salt  or  other  merchandise  from  B..  in  ceiving  twenty-four  tons  on  board,  de- 
competition  with  S.,  would  be  received  clined  taking  any  more,  because  the  ship 
for  local  stations  on  its  line,  or  for  pass-  was  full,  it  was  held  that  it  was  not  nec- 
ing  over  another  road  operated  under  essary  for  the  plaintiff,  after  this  refusal, 
lease,  or  for  points  beyond,  unless  to  tender  the  residue  of  the  hay  at  the 
charges  were  prepaid  and  shipments  de-  ship's  side,  in  order  to  entitle  himself  to 
livered  at  the  company's  warehouse  by  damages.  Nourse  v.  Snow  (Me.),  6 
drays    as    local    business,    and    that    local  Greenl.    208. 

rates  from  that  point  would  be  assessed.  55.    Act    of    God.— Collier    v.    vSwniney, 

A    firm,   who   shipped    salt   from    B.    by   a  Ifi  Mo.  484;  Myres  v.  Diamond  Joe  Line, 

road  connecting  with   the  first-mentioned  58   Mo.   App.   199. 

road,    tendered    to    it    one    or    more    car  57.     "Perils    of    river,"    navigation    and 

loads,  and  it  was   refused;   and,   when   47  fire. — Cowley    v.    Davidson,    13    Minn.    92, 

cars    loaded   with    salt   arrived,   the    agent  Gil.   86. 

of    the    road    bringing    them    inquired    of  gg      Military     occupation.— Sumner     v. 

the  agent  of  the  other  road  whether  the  charlotte,  etc..   R.   Co.,   78   N.   C.  289. 

order    above    stated    was    still    operative,  •     r^     ^    n     r^            Tv/r„r>i^ii-.« 

and  was  informed  that  it  was.     Held,  that  .59     I  Imois    Cent.   R.   Co.  z-    McClellan 

there  was  no  necessity  for  further  tender  -^   I"-   58,  54  Am.   Rep.  83     Illinois   Cent^ 

before  bringing  suit  for  the  refusal.     Cen-  R-    Co    i;.    Ashmead     58    111.    487;    Illinois 

tral,    R.    etc.,    Co.    v.    Logan,    77    Ga.    804,  Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Cobb,    etc.,    Co.,    64    111. 


2    S.    E.    465. 


128. 


54.    Where  the  defendant  contracted  to  60.      Nonpayment    of    freight.— Stewart 

carry  fifty  tons  of  the  plaintiff's  hay  to  a       v.   Bremer,   03    I'a.   208. 


439  si'ixiAL  CONTRACTS.  §§  699-705 

claims  that  its  refusal  was  because  the  freight  had  not  been  paid,  plaintiff  may 
show  the  value  of  the  goods,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  defendant  had 
ample   security,  and   that   there   was   no   reason   for  stopping  them   in   transit/'^ 

§   700.  Merchandise    Not    Branded    as    Required   by    Statute. — Under 

a  contr.-ul  lOr  iran>p()rtalion  of  ha\-.  a  carrier  i>  not  liable  for  refusing  to  carry 
hay  upon  which,  as  required  by  Rev.  .^t.  1S41.  c.  (A,  the  name  of  the  "i)er- 
son   ])ressing   it"    is   not   brruidcd.''- 

§  701.  Nondelivery  by  Shipper. — See  post.  '•Contract  to  Carry  Specific 
Quantity  or  Xunibcr."'  v^  /l)*'. 

§  702.  Change  of  Legal  Rate. — A  railroad  company  is  not  relieved  of 
its  contract  obligation  to  give  a  shipper  a  certain  rate,  though  the  law  is  changed 
after  the  contract  is  made  so  as  to  make  it  unlawful  for  the  company  to  charge 
other  shippers  a  higher  rate  for  shorter  distances  in  the  same  direction,  as  it 
is  not  the  giving  of  the  lower  rate,  but  the  charging  of  the  higher  rate,  which 
is  declared   unlawful.'"'" 

§§  703-709.  Particular  Stipulations  or  Contracts— §  703.  Time 
Contracts. — If  a  carrier  agrees  to  forward  goods  to  their  destination,  and  de- 
liver them  within  a  given  time,  he  is  held  to  a  strict  performance;  and  no  ob- 
struction  or  even   impossibility   will   be  a   defense  against  a   nonperformance.*^* 

§  704.  Contracts  to  Carry  by  Particular  Train  or  Vessel. — If  the  car- 
rier expressly  promised  to  receive  and  remove  property  by  its  next  train,  it 
would  be  its  dut\'  to  do  so.''"' 

Misrepresentation  as  to  Size  and  Weight  of  Machine. — Representations 
made  by  a  shipper  as  to  the  size  and  weight  or  a  machine  to  be  transported,  al- 
though not  correct,  are  no  defense  to  a  suit  against  the  carrier  for  its  failure 
to  carry  such  machine  on  a  particular  vessel,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of 
a  bill  of  lading  which  was  issued  afterwards,  and  after  the  carrier's  agents 
had  seen  the  machine,  and  had  opportunity  to  obtain  full  information  as  to  its 
dimensions   and  weight.*'*"' 

Goods  Afterwards  Forwarded  by  Another  Vessel. — It  is  no  defense  to 
a  suit  for  damages  for  the  breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  goods  by  a  particu- 
lar vessel  that  the  carrier  afterwards  forwarded  the  goods  by  another  vessel 
without  additional  cost  or  risk  to  the  shipper.*"^' 

§  705.  Contract  to  Carry  Perishables.— Failure  of  Refrigerator  Com- 
pany to   Furnish   Cars. — A  common  carrier  is  not  exempt   from  liability  for 

61.  Leach  7\  Xcw  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  avoidable  accident  or  even  impossibility 
89  Hun  377,  3")  X.  V.  S.  30."),  (I'.i  X.  Y.  preventing  compliance  will  be  no  defense 
St.  Rep.  749.  unless  it  is  so  stipulated  in   the   contract. 

62.  Merchandise  not  branded  as  re-  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t:  Sigma  Lumber 
quired  by  statutes.— Pickard  v.  Bayley,  46  Co.,  170  Ala.  627,  54  So.  205,  Ann.  Cas. 
^^[^,    200.  1912   D,   965;   Shelby  v.   Missouri   Pac.   R. 

63.  Change     of    legal     rate. — Xewport       Co.,  77  Mo.  App.  205. 

News,  etc.,   Co.  ■?•.   McDonald   Brick   Co.'s  65.    Contracts     to    carry     by     particular 

Assignee,    109    Ky.    40S,    22    Ky.    L.    Rep.  train   or   vessel. — Central,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v. 

934,  59  S.  W.   332.  Sigma    Lumber    Co..    170   Ala.    627,    54    So. 

64.  Time    contracts. — L'pon    tender    of  205,  Ann  Cas.  1912  D.  9i".,y 

goods    to    a    carrier    for    shipment,    it    is  gg      Misrepresentation    as    to     size    and 

bound    to   make   all   reasonable   efforts    to  weight    of    machine.— The    Protection,    42 

furnish    facilities   for   their   transportation:  ^^     ^^      .^     ^^r,     ^^y^    p^^     g^g 

l,ut,  where   it   enlarges   its  liability  by   an  '      "   '^          •   ^^^^^^^^^^     forwarded     by 

unconditional    express    promise    to    move  °'-     ^"""'',      ^,,   ^   Tr  ^,  ..^tJ.-^n    a-^   C    C 

the    goods    at    a    certain    time,    such    con-  another  vessel -lho_  1  rot.etion.  4,   L.  L. 

tract  must  be  strictly  performed,  and  un-       -^-    "^^  ■'»    •^'■'~    ^  *^*^-    ''    '• 


§§  705-711  CARRIERS.  440 

failure  to  ship  melons  by  the  fact  that  the  refrigerator  company  whose  cars  it 
was  intending  to  use  failed  to  furnish  them.^'^ 

§  7C6.  Stipulation  as  to  Destination  at  Which  Carrier  Has  No 
Agency. — Where  a  carrier  contracts  generally  to  carry  goods,  but  provides 
that,  if  it  has  not  an  agency  at  the  point  of  destination,  it  shall  carry  to  its 
nearest  agency,  and  there  notify  the  consignee,  or  deliver  the  property  to  some 
other  carrier,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  bring  the  case  within  the  contract  to  prove 
that  it  had  no  office  at  the  point  of  destination.*'''  A  contract  between  a  railway 
and  a  construction  company  for  the  hauling  of  a  camp  and  grading  outfit  re- 
quired by  the  company  in  grading  a  railway  extension  requires  the  hauling  of 
such  outfit  to  and  from  points  as  near  as  possible  to  the  work  without  regard 
to  regular  stations.'" 

§  707.  Contract  to  Carry  beyond  Terminus. — Mobs  Preventing  Con- 
necting Line  from  Doing  Business. — Xonperformance  of  a  carrier's  con- 
tract to  transport  live  stock  to  an  extra  terminal  point  is  not  excused  by  the 
fact  that  the  connecting  line  over  which  the  shipment  was  to  be  carried  was 
prevented  by  a  mob  from  doing  business." ^ 

Default  of  Connecting  Line.— A  common  carrier  which  has  contracted  to 
transport  merchandise  to  a  certain  point  is  not  relieved  from  liability  for  in- 
juries thereto  by  the  fact  that  it  has  intrusted  the  performance  of  part  of  the 
contract  to  a   connecting  carrier." - 

§  708.  Contract  for  Future  Transportation. — Nonperformance  of  a  con- 
tract by  a  carrier  for  the  future  transportation  of  goods  is  not  excused  by  the 
fact  that  the  shipper  knew  that  the  fulfillment  of  the  contract  would  be  extremely 
difficult.''^ 

Act  of  God  as  Defense. — See  ante,  "Act  of  God,"  §  695. 

§  709.  Contract  to  Carry  Specific  Quantity  or  Number. — Where  the 
contract  was  for  the  transportation  of  a  specific  number  of  articles,  it  is  no  de- 
fense, in  a  suit  for  the  breach  of  the  contract,  which  the  defendant  did  not  offer 
to  fulfill,  that  the  plaintiff  did  not  have  so  large  a  number  ready  for  transporta- 
tion."^ 

§  710.  Waiver  of  Breach. — Acceptance  after  Breach. ^Acceptance  of 
goods  which  a  carrier  has  contracted  to  deliver  at  a  certain  time  and  which  it 
has  failed  to  deliver  until  a  later  date  is  no  waiver  of  the  consignee's  right  of 
action  for  the  dela\-.'" 

§  711.  Modification  or  Rescission. — Where  a  definite  shipping  contract 
has  been  made  between  a  consignee  and  the  carrier,  it  can  not  be  varied  by  any 
subsequent  agreement  between  the  carrier  and  consignor,  imless  by  authority 
from  the  consignee."*'     A  consignee  may  sue  the  carrier  for  breacli  of  rhity  im- 

68.  Failure  of  refrigerator  company  to  72.  Default  of  connecting  line. — Gulf, 
furnish  cars. —  Matliis  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
^,-,    S.    C.    271,    43    S.    E.    684.    61    L.    R.    A.        App.),    28    vS.    W.    237. 

824.  73.  Contract  for  future  transportation. — 

69.  Stipulation  as  to  destination  at  Myers  v.  Diamond  Joe  Line,  .58  Mo.  App. 
which   carrier  has   no   agency. — Juds^ment       pji) 

(Sup.  1908)   69  All.  206.  reversed     Saund-         ^  ^^    Contract   to   carry   specific   quantity 
ers  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,   <8  \.  J.  L.  441,   ^4       ^^  number.— Taylor  v.  The  Robert  Camp- 

70.  Santa  Fe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ( irant   Bros.  ^                         r         .          i        m      r   n 
Constr    Co     33   S    Ct    474    2^8  U    S    177  ^^-     Acceptance  after  breach.— Norfolk, 
reversing  judgment  108  Pac'  467, 'iS 'Ariz!  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'    Sliippers'  Compress   Co.,  85 
-^^(^  Va.   272,   2   S.    J',.    l.!9. 

71.  Mobs  preventing  connecting  line  76.  Modification  or  rescission. — Perkins 
from  doing  business.— White  v.  Missouri  Co.  v.  American  Exp.  Co..  199  Mass.  561, 
Pac.  R.   Co..  19  Mo.  App.  400.  8.5  X.   E.  89.5. 


441 


Sl'i:CI.\L     CONTRACTS. 


§§  711-717 


posed  by  law,  and,  if  such  duty  has  been  varied  by  contract  between  the  carrier 
and  consignor,  the  consignee  may  still  sue ;  his  rights  being  limited  by  the  terms 
of  the  special  contract."" 

§§  712-755.  Contracts  for  Cars  or  Other  Means  of  Transportation — 
§§  712-730.  Requisites  and  Validity  §§  712-714.  Capacity  to  Con- 
tract—  §  712.  In  General. — \o  law  proliibits  a  railway  conijjany  from  con- 
tracting- {(I  furnisli  cars  at  an  agreed  time  and  place  on  the  line  of  the  road  to 
be  used  for  shipment."'^ 

§  713.  Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  of  Another  Road. — A  railway's  corn- 
tract  1(1  furnisli  a  ^Iiipiicr  car<  l)(.'lMnL;in,i^  to  aiintlicr  line  i^  nut  ultra  vires."*^ 

§  714.  Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  on  Line  of  Connecting  Road. — It  is 
competent  for  a  railroad  company  to  bind  itself  by  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  a 

place  not  on  its  own  bnc  but  on  that  of  a  connecting  carrier. ''" 

§§  715-723.  Authority  of  Agent— §  715.  Necessity.— Where  a  con- 
tract to  furnish  cars  to  a  shipper  was  made  with  an  agent  having  no  authority  to 
make  it.  and  he  did  not  report  it  to  the  carrier,  and  the  carrier  did  not  learn  of 
it,  it  was  not  binding  on  the  carrier."^ 

§§  716-720.  Authority  of  Station  Agent— §  716.  In  General.— A  rail- 
way station  master  is  ])y  virtue  of  his  position  ordinarily  the  agent  of  the  car- 
rier for  the  making  of  contracts  to  furnish  cars  at  his  station  upon  the  road,^- 
on  a  named  day,^-"*  notwithstanding  such  a  power  may  not  have  been  expressly 
conferred  on  him.^-* 

§  717.  Proof  of  Authority. — Whether  or  not  an  agent  of  a  railroad  com- 
panv  had  authoritv  to  make  a  contract  to  furnish  cars  for  the  shipment  of  cat- 
tle is  a  matter  of  proof. '^•''  The  local  agent  of  a  railroad  company  has  authoritv 
presumptively,  to  make  contract  for  cars,^*^  and  unless  the  shipper  has  notice  of 
limitations  of  the  agent's  authority  to  make  such  contracts  he  may  rely  upon  such 
presumptive  authority;^"  and  in  order  for  the  railway  to  relieve  itself  from  lia- 


77.  Perkins  Co.  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
199    Mass.    .'561.    85    N.    E.    895. 

78.  Capacity  to  contract. — Cross  7'.  ^^c- 
Faden,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  4t)l.  20  S.  W.  846; 
Easton  r.  Dudley,  7s  Tex.  23r,,  14  S.  W. 
583. 

79.  Contract  to  furnish  cars  of  another 
road. — Nichols  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Utah  s:!.  91  Am.  St.  Rep.  778,  66  Pac. 
768. 

80.  On  line  of  connecting  carrier. — Mis- 
souri, etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Kyser,  87  S.  \V.  389, 
38  Tex.  Civ.  App.  355. 

81.  Necessity. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dinwiddie,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  344,  51  S. 
W.  3,-)  3. 

82.  Authority  of  station  agent. — Eas- 
ton V.  Dudley.  78  Tex.  236.  14  S.  W.  583; 
McCarty  r.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co..  79  Tex.  33, 
15  S.  W.  164;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume 
Bros..  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  24  S.  W.  915, 
affirmed,  on  this  point,  by  the  supreme 
court  in  87  Tex.  211;  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  r. 
Hodge.  10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  543,  30  S.  W. 
829. 

83.  McCartv  r.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Tex.    33,    15    S.    W.    164. 


84.  Express    authority    unnecessary. — A 

contract  made  liy  a  station  agent  that 
the  company  will  furnish  cars  at  a  named 
place  and  day  for  transportation  of 
freight,  binds  the  company,  notwithstand- 
ing such  a  power  may  not  have  been  ex- 
pressly conferred  on  him.  McCartv  v. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex.  33.  15  S.'  W. 
164:  Easton  z:  Dudlev.  78  Tex.  236.  14 
S.  W.  .-.s;;. 

85.  Proof  of  authority. — Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  Hamm,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas..  § 
491. 

86.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  44  S.  W.  8.  follow- 
ing Easton  z\  Dudlev.  78  Tex.  236,  14  S. 
W.   583. 

87.  Where  it  is  understood  that  the 
shipper  knew  of  no  limitation  upon  the 
authority  of  the  station  agent,  it  was 
proper  for  the  court  to  instruct  the  jury 
that  the  agent  had  the  power  to  contract 
for  the  railway  tor  supplv  of  cars.  etc.. 
for  a  shipper.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Hume 
Bros..  6  Tex.  Civ.  .App.  653.  24  S.  W.  915. 
reversed  in  87  Tex.  211. 


j§  717-718 


CARRIERS. 


442 


bility,  it  devolves  upon  it  to  show  want  of  authority  in  the  agent,  and  that  the 
shipper  knew  it.*^^ 

Sufficiency. — Where  a  shipper  called  up  the  station  agent  by  telephone,  but 
was  told  that  the  station  agent  was  not  there ;  and  the  shipper  gave  his  order  for 
cars  to  the  one  who  answered,  who  stated  that  it  would  be  all  right;  but  it  ap- 
peared that  the  latter  had  no  authority,  and  that  the  shipper  had  no  reason  to 
think  that  he  had.  there  was  no  contract  to  furnish  cars.^"-^ 

§  718.  Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished.— A  local  agent  having  the 
power  to  contract  for  a  shipment  has  also  power  to  agree  with  the  shipper  upon 
a  time  at  which  the  cars  necessary  for  that  shipment  shall  be  furnished.-^"  The 
authoritv  to  contract  for  the  shipment  implies  the  power  to  make  the  agreement 
to  furnish  cars  at  a  given  time.  It  is  necessary  to  enable  the  agent  properly  to 
perform  his  duties.^^ 

Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  in  Unreasonably  Short  Time— Notice  to  Ship- 
per of  Limitation  of  Authority.— In  the  aljsence  of  testimony  showing  a  hm- 
itation  upon  his  authority,  a  local  station  agent  of  a  railway  company  has  author- 
ity to  bind  the  railway  company  by  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  a  particular 
tirae.»2  The  printing  of  the  rule,  upon  the  subject  of  the  agent's  authority  to 
contract  for  cars  at  a  specified  time,  in  the  contracts  can  not  be  notice  to  a  ship- 
per of  his  want  of  authority,  for  the  reason  that  such  contracts  in  the  natural 
course  of  things  would  not  be  known  to  the  shipper  until  after  the  contract  for 
cars  had  been  made.  There  is  no  error  in  excluding  the  evidence  offered  to 
show  that  the  agent  had  no  authority  to  make  the  contract.''--  To  hold  that  the 
denial,  in  the  printed  forms  of  shipping  contracts,  to  the  agent  of  authority  to 
contract  for  cars  at  a  specified  time,  deprives  him  of  such  authority,  is  to  hold 
that  the  powers  necessary  to  carry  out  his  agency  have  been  utterly  destroyed 
by  such  stipulation.^-*     If  the  local  agent  of  a  railway  company  makes  a  con- 


88.  Burden  of  proof. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Hume  Bros.,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  656, 
24    S.    W.    915.    reversed    in    87    Tex.    211. 

89.  Sufficiency.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Fromme    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   86   S.  W.   651. 

90.  Time  when  and  place  where  cars 
to  be  furnished. — German  i^.  Lake  Erie, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  144  111.  App.  532;  Easton  v. 
Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  14  S.  W.  583;  Mc- 
Carty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex.  33,  15 
S.  W.  164;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume 
Bros.,  87  Tex.  211,  27  S.  W.  110,  revers- 
ing 6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  24  S.  W.  915; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson,  99  Tex.  343, 
89  S.  W.  968,  reversing  86  S.  W.  47; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Irvine  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  73  S.  W.  540;  San  Antonio,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47, 
99  S.  W.  418;  Austin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Slator, 
7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  344,  26  S.  W.  233; 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  44  S.  W.  810;  Cross  v.  Graves, 
4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  100,  16  S.  W. 
102. 

91.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson,  99  Tex. 
343,  89  S.  W.  968,  reversing  86  S.  W.  47; 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Timon,  45 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  47,  99  S.  W.  418;  McCarty 
T.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex.  33,  15  S.  W. 
164;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume  Bros., 
87  Tex.  211,  27  S.  W.  110,  reversing  6 
Tex.   Civ.   App.   653,   24   S.  W.   915. 

In  the  case  of  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jack- 


son, 99  Tex.  343,  89  S.  W.  968,  reversing 
86  S.  W.  47,  the  court  says  in  reference 
to  McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex. 
33,  15  S.  W.  164,  and  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hume  Bros.,  87  Tex.  211,  27  S.  W.  110, 
reversing  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  24  S.  W. 
915:  "These  cases  rest  upon  the  well- 
recognized  rule  of  law  that,  by  conferring 
upon  an  agent  express  power  to  do  cer- 
tain acts,  the  authority  is  implied  to  do 
whatever  may  be  necessary  to  execute 
the  express  power."  San  Antonio,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47, 
99    S.   W.   418. 

"If  the  agent  can  contract  to  receive 
the  freight,  he  can  contract  as  to  the  time 
when  he  will  receive  it  and  as  to  every 
other  undertaking  necessary  to  that  end." 
Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  14  S.  W. 
583;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Timon, 
45    Tex.    Civ.    App.    47,    99    S.    W.    418. 

92.  Notice  to  shipper  of  limitation  of 
authority. — Austin,  etc^,  R.  Co.  v.  Slator, 
7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  344,  347,  26  S.  W.  233; 
Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  14  S.  W. 
58.3 

93.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hume  Bros.,  87 
Tex.  211,  27  S.  W.  110,  reversing  6  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    653,    24    S.    W.    915. 

94.  Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  14 
S.  W.  583;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Timon,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47,  99  S.  W. 
418. 


443 


SI'KCIAL     CONTRACTS. 


;§  718-720 


tract  for  cars,  and  receives  notice  as  to  when  the  cars  were  desired,  and  agrees 
to  furnish  them  on  that  date,  the  railroad  company  would  he  Hahle  for  a  failure 
to  do  so,  even  though  reasonahle  lime  was  not  given  to  liave  them  on  hand.'*-^ 

§  719.  Station  or  Place  Where  Cars  to  Be  Furnished. — A  station  agent 
has  apparent,  if  nut  implied,  autliorit}-  lo  Ijiud  the  carrier  Uj  furnish  a  car  at  a 
specified  place.'-^*^ 

Station  Other  than  Agent's  Own. — The  station  agent  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany may  bind  it  by  a  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  his  station  for  the  shipment 
of  freight,  but  not  at  other  stations,'^"  such  agent  has  no  implied  authority  to 
order  cars  for  another  station ;  '-^^  in  an  action  on  such  contract  the  railroad  may 
show  the  agent's  want  of  authority,'-''-'  and  is  not  liable  for  damages  for  breach  of 
such  contract  unless  the  agent  is  shown  to  have  been  authorized  to  so  contract 
or  the  com])any  had  notice  of  and  ratified  such  contract.^ 

Admissibility  of  Evidence. — H\idence  of  contracts  of  witness  with  the 
agent  of  the  railway  company,  by  which  cars  had  been  furnished  at  I.,  was  ad- 
missible to  show  that  such  agent's  contract  with  plaintiff  to  furnish  cars  at  I., 
was  within  the  scope  of  his  authority.- 

§  720.  Verbal  Contract. — A  station  agent  of  a  railroad  company  can  bind 
it  by  verbal  contract  to  furnish  cars  at  a  given  time  for  the  shipment  of  freight, 
unless  the  shipper  knows  that  the  agent  has  no  such  authority.-*  Upon  issue  as 
to  the  authority  of  a  station  agent  to  contract  verbally  to  furnish  cars  at  a  given 
time  for  the  shipment  of  freight,  the  fact  that  the  rule  denying  such  authority 
was  printed  upon  the  contract  of  shipment,  is  properly  excluded  for  the  rea- 
son that  the  shipper  would  not  naturally  know  of  such  contract  until  after  the 


95.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  44  vS.  W.  8,  following 
Easton  v.  Dudley,  78  Tex.  236,  14  S.  \V. 
583. 

96.  Station  or  place  where  cars  to  be 
furnished. — Grimes  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   142  111.  App.  532. 

97.  Station  other  than  agent's  own. — 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodge,  10  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    543,    30    S.    W.    829. 

Action  for  damages  from  breach  of 
a  contract  made  by  station  agent  for 
150  cars,  for  use  in  shipping  corn  from 
Belton  to  Laredo.  The  contract  by 
plaintiffs  with  the  Laredo  house,  the 
purchasers  of  the  corn,  required  plain- 
tiffs to  load  the  corn  upon  the  cars  at 
place  of  shipment,  and  did  not  require 
the  delivery  by  plaintiffs  at  Laredo.  It 
was  therefore  not  necessary  that  the  sta- 
tion agent  have  authority  to  make  freight 
contracts  from  Belton  to  Laredo.  .  Hav- 
ing authority  to  contract  for  supply  of 
cars  for  the  shipper,  the  railway  company 
was  bound  by  his  contrart  ir.  furnish  the 
cars  as  the  contract  declared  on.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodge,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
"  543,  30  S.  W.  829. 

98.  Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Cox,  47 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  84,  103  S.  W.  1122;  Mis- 
souri, etc.;  R.  Co.  V.  Belcher,  88  Tex. 
549,  32  S.  W.  518;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Jackson,  99  Tex.  343,  SO  S.  W.  968,  re- 
versing 86  S.  W.  47:  Gulf,  etc.;  R.  Co.  v. 
Hodge,   10  Tex.   Civ.   .\pp.   ,';43,   30   S.   W. 


829;    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co.    i:    Dinwiddie,    21 
Tex.    Civ.   App.   344,   51   S.   \V.   353. 

99.  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
breach  of  a  contract  made  bj-  a  station 
agent  in  one  county  to  furnish  cars  in 
another  county,  the  railroad  could  show 
a  want  of  authoritj^  in  the  station  agent 
to  contract  for  the  furnishing  of  cars  in 
other  counties.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ray  Bros.,  84  S.  W.  691,  37  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  622,  citing  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hodge, 
10  Tex.  Civ.  App.  543.  30  S.  W.  S29;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dinwiddie.  21  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  344,  51  S.  W.  353. 

1.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dinwiddie,  21 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  344.  51  S.  W.  353;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodge,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
543,  30  S.  W.  829;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Belcher,  88  Tex.  549,  32  S.  W.  518;  S. 
C,    89    Tex.    428.    35    S.    W.    6. 

2.  Admissibility  of  evidence. — Pecos 
River  R.  Co.  v.  Latham,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
78.  88   S.  W.   392. 

3.  Writing-parol  contracts. — Easton  z: 
Dudley,  7S  Tex.  236,  14  S.  W.  583;  Mc- 
Carty  v.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.,  79  Tex.  33, 
37,  15  S.  W.  164;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Hume  Bros.,  87  Tex.  211,  27  S. 
W.  110,  reversing  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653, 
24  S.  W.  915;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  True,  23  Tex.  Civ.  App.  523,  57  S.  W. 
977.  affirmed  in  94  Tex.  705.  no  op.;  Texas, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Gallagher  (Tex.  Civ.  App.). 
70  S.  W.  97:  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Irvine 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  73  S.  W.  540. 


§§  720-72h  CARRIERS.  444 

contract  for  cars  was  made.-*  Tlie  fact  that  a  shipper  knew  that  he  would  he 
required  to  sign  a  written  contract  hefore  his  property  was  shipped,  would  not; 
as  a  matter  of  law.  destroy  the  oral  contract  for  the  cars  at  a  certain  time,  even 
though  he  mav  have  known  that  the  written  contract  would  probal)ly  contain 
a  negation  to  the  agent  of  the  power  or  authority  to  agree  to  furnish  cars  at 
any  specified  time.-^ 

§  721.  Traveling  Agent. — Whether  a  carrier's  traveling  freight  agent  has 
authority  to  contract  to  furnish  cars,  is  a  c[uestion  for  the  jury;^  as  is  also  the 
question  whether  a  carrier  ratified  the  contract  of  its  traveling  freight  agent  to 
furnish  cars  for  a  through  transportation  over  its  own  and  a  connecting  line, 
if  he  acted  without  authority/  Where  a  railroad's  traveling  agent  contracted 
to  furnish  cars  at  a  point  on  another  line  for  a  through  shipment  to  a  destina- 
tion on  his  own  line,  and  the  rule  of  the  initial  carrier  was  that  responsibility 
for  through  transportation  must  be  assumed,  if  at  all,  by  its  connecting  carrier, 
the  transaction  must  be  assumed  to  have  been  conducted  in  accordance  with 
that  custom,  the  duty  to  furnish  the  cars  under  the  contract  resting  upon  defend- 
ant, and  hence  it  could  ratify  the  agent's  act/*^  The  road  not  being  legally  bound 
to  furnish  cars  on  another  line,  unless  it  had  agreed  to  do  so.  and  the  rule  of 
the  other  line  requiring  defendant  to  do  so  to  insure  the  passing  of  the  shipment 
to  destination  over  defendant's  line,  the  fact  that  it  furnished  cars  to  be  so  used 
at  the  instance  of  its  agent  would  justify  an  inference  that  it  acted  upon  the 
agent's  agreement.''  Evidence  that  similar  agreements  of  a  traveling  freight 
agent,  to  furnish  cars  at  points  on  other  lines  for  through  shipments  to  points 
on  his  line,  were  acted  upon  by  the  carrier  tends  to  show  that  the  making  of 
such  agreements  was  within  the  agent's  authority.^'* 

§  722.  General  Freight  Agent. — See  post,  "Offer  and  Acceptance," 
§  728. 

§  723.  Conductor. — A  carrier  is  bound  by  the  promise  of  a  freight  train 
conductor  to  furnish  cars  for  a  shipment,  where  he  has  been  intrusted  generally 
with  such  power  and  accustomed  to  exercise  it.^^ 

§  724.  Certainty  and  Definiteness. — An  agreement  by  the  general  man- 
ager of  a  carrier  to  furnish  fruit  cars  within  24  hours  after  ordered  was  definite 
and  binding  as  to  the  cars  actually  ordered. i- 

§  72  5.  Consideration. — A  request  by  a  shipper  that  a  carrier  furnish  cars 
for  a  shipment  carries  with  it  an  understanding  on  their  part  to  use  the  cars,  and 
furnishes  a  sufficient  consideration  for  the  carrier's  promise'  to  furnish  them.^-^ 

Agreement  to  Furnish  Cars  in  the  Future. — Where  a  shipper  asks  for 
cars  to  be  furnished  on  a  day  mentioned  in  the  future  for  transportation  of  live 
stock,  and  the  carrier  agrees  to  furnish  same,  such  agreement  rests  upon  a  valid 
consideration,   and   is  binding  on   the   carrier  as   well   as   the   shipper,   notwith- 

4.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume  Bros.,  87  11.  Conductor. — Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tex.  211,  27   S.  W.  110.  Durrcnce.  (i   Ga.  App.   (il.').  G5   S.    E.   583. 

5.  San'  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Timon,  12.  Certainty  and  definiteness. — Chatta- 
45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  47,  99   S.  W.  418.  noo^a   .Southern    R.    Co.   v.   Thompson,   65 

6.  Traveling   agent.— St.   Louis,   etc.,   R.  S.   E.  285,  1.3.3  Ga.  127. 

Co.  V.  Boshear,  102  Tex.  76,  113  S.  W.  6.  13.    Consideration.— The    contract    of    a 

7.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boshear,  102  carrier  to  furnish  a  person  with  a  certain 
Tex    76    113  S    W    6  number  of  cars,  at  a  certam  price  per  car, 

„  ■       't       •     '        '  W    -^  -a     u          -.A.".       i^or    shipment    of    freight,    is    not    without 

8.  St  Louis  etc^.  R.  Co.  v.  Boshear,  102  c„„,i^i^ration,  where  it  imposes  on  such 
lex.   /6,  113   b.   W.   I).  person  the  obligation  to  load  the  cars  and 

9.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boshear,  102  h^xc  weekly  inspection  and  shipments. 
Tex.  76,  113  S.  W.  6.  Baxley  v.  Tallassec,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Ala. 

10.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boshear,  183,  29  So.  451:  Pope  v.  Wisconsin  Cent. 
102  Tex.  76,   113  S.  W.  0.  R.  Co.,  112  Minn.  112,  127  X.  W.  436. 


445 


SPncIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§§  /25-728 


standing   the   shipper  may  not   ha\e   owned   or  had   any   stock   at   the  time  the 
agreement    was   enlereil    into.'' 

§   726.  Date  of  Contract. — 'I'he  time  of  making  of  a  contract  for  cars  is 

inmiatcrial.'' 

§  72  7.  Mutuality. — The  contract  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  a  person  with  a 
certain  nunihcr  of  cars,  at  a  certain  price  per  car,  for  shipment  of  freight,  is 
not  unilateral,  where  it  imposes  on  such  person  the  obligation  to  load  the  cars 
and  have  weekly  inspection  and   shipments.'" 

§  72  8.  Offer  and  Acceptance. — A  contract  by  a  carrier's  agent  to  furnish 
cars  must  be  an  uncondiiimial  undertaking  in  order  to  impose  on  the  carrier  an 
absolute  liability  to  furnish  the  cars.''  A  promise  by  the  agent  to  haul  a  car 
or  cars  at  a  specified  time  "if  possible,"  on  that  date  '«  or  "to  do  the  best  he 
could,"  '■'  and  a  statement  by  the  agent  "that  he  thought  he  could  get  the  car,"  -" 
are  not  unconditional  contracts  to  furnish  cars  and  do  not  render  the  railroad 
liable  for  a  failure  to  do  so. 

Acceptance  of  General  Freight  Agent.— Even  if  the  superintendent  of 
transporiaiiun  of  a  railroad  !iad  jxAvcr  tu  decline  to  furnish  cars  where  the  gen- 
eral freight  agent  had  made  a  special  contract  for  the  furnishing  of  a  train  to 
move  freight,  there  is  a  complete  contract  where  plaintiff  sent  to  the  superin- 
tendent a  request  for  a  train,  and  the  superintendent  sent  it  to  the  general 
freight  agent,  who  wrote  plaintiff  referring  to  his  letter  to  the  superintendent, 
and  saying  that  they  had  considered  his  application  to  be  permitted  to  load  a 
train  and  were  prepared  to  permit  it.-' 


14.  Agreement  to  furnish  cars  in  the  fu- 
ture.—  I'ittsliuryh.  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Racer.  ."> 
Ind.  App.  :v»()y."::i   X.   E.  853. 

15.  Date  of  contract. — Plaintiff,  in  his 
petition  in  an  action  for  breach  of  con- 
tract, alleged  the  making  of  a  contract 
with  defendant  on  or  about  June  10th  to 
furnish  him  by  June  14th  cars  to  be  de- 
livered June  17th.  Held,  that  the  time 
of  the  making  of  the  contract  was  not 
material,  and  it  was  error  lo  exclude  evi- 
dence of  a  contract  made  on  June  14th. 
Morehouse  v.  Texas  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  2G7,  17  S.  W.  1086. 

16.  Mutuality. — Baxley  v.  Tallassee,  etc., 
R.  Co..   12S  Ala.   1S3.  2\)  So.  451. 

17.  Unconditional  undertaking. — Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnett,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
76,    88    S.    W.    448. 

18.  Where  plaintiff,  a  fruit  grower,  noti- 
fied a  railroad  that  it  required  a  refrig- 
erator car  that  day.  and  one  on  the  fol- 
lowing day.  and  was  immediately  noti- 
fied that  the  car  would  be  furnished  that 
day  if  possible,  and  thereafter,  during  the 
same  day,  that  defendant  would  be  unable 
to  furnish  a  car  that  day,  but  would  fur- 
nish all  cars  needed  by  noon  the  follow- 
ing day,  there  was  no  contract  to  furnish 
a  car  on  day  named,  but  only  to  furnish 
one  on  the  following  day.  for  breach  of 
which  latter  contract  only  the  railway 
companv  was  lialile.  F.lbcrta  Peach  Co. 
V.  Georgia,  etc..  R.  Co..  M  S.  E.  779.  13.-? 
Ga.   68"). 

Evidence  that  a  railroad's  agent,  when 
applied    to    on    October    30th    to    furnish 


cars,  accepted  the  order,  and  said  that  he 
would  have  the  cars  ready  by  the  1st  of 
Xovember,  if  possible,  but  did  not  prom- 
ise definitely  to  do  so,  was  insufficient  to 
establish  a  contract  to  furnish  the  cars 
on  the  1st  of  November.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Arnett.  SS  S.  W.  448,  40  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  76. 

19.  Offer  and  acceptance. — This  did  not 
tend  to  show  an  unconditional  undertak- 
ing to  furnish  the  car  as  requested,  but 
was  entirely  consistent  with  the  agent's 
promise  merely  to  "do  the  best  he  could" 
to  so  furnish  it,  and  evidenced  an  effort 
on  his  part  to  comply  with  his  undertak- 
ing. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Cannington 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  110  S.  \V.  965;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Arnett,  40  Tex.  Civ.  .App. 
76.    88    S.    W.    448. 

20.  A  railroad  depot  agent  verballj' 
agreed  with  a  shipper,  who  desired  a 
poultry  car  on  a  stated  day.  "that  he 
thought  he  could  get  the  car,  and  would 
do  tile  best  he  could  towards  getting  it, 
but  did  not  make  any  absolute  promise  to 
get  the  car."  The  car  was  not  furnished 
at  the  date  asked  for  by  the  shipper. 
Held,  that  the  contract  imposed  on  the 
carrier  no  liability  to  furnish  the  car,  ab- 
solutely, and.  as  the  shipper's  action  was 
based  "on  contract,  there  could  be  no  re- 
covery. St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Can- 
nington   (Tex.   Civ.   App.\   110  S.  W.  96."). 

21.  Acceptance  of  general  freight  agent. 
— Outland  f.  Seaboard,  etc..  R.  Co..  134 
X.   C.   3.-i0.  46  S.   E.  735. 

Plaintiff   wrote    defendant    that    he    was 


§§  729-734 


CARRIKRS. 


446 


§  729.  Writing. — A  contract  between  a  carrier  and  a  shipper  for  cars  for 
a  shipment  need  not  be  in  writing  to  be  vaHd,--  even  nnder  a  Reciprocal  De- 
murrage Law.-"^ 

§  730.  Effect  of  Partial  Invalidity. — A  station  agent  having  aj^iparent 
authorirv  to  biiul  the  railway  in  contracting  for  cars  at  his  station,  would  not 
invalidate  a  contract  made  by  him  for  cars,  by  exceeding  his  authority  in  con- 
tracting for  shipment  bv  a  named  route.  Testimony  to  the  agent's  authority 
to  bind  the  road  as  to  the  route  would  be  immaterial.-^ 

§§  731-736.  Construction  and  Operation— §  731.  In  General.— Con- 
tracts to  furnish  cars  when  entered  into  arc  to  be  governed  by  the  ordinary  and 
general  rules  of  construction  that  relate  to  contracts  and  the  breaches  thereof. ^^ 

§  732.  Persons  Bound  and  Persons  Entitled  to  Benefit. — A  shipper's 
order  for  a  specified  number  of  cars  for  a  specified  day,  wlien  accepted,  is  a 
contract  binding  the  carrier  to  furnish  the  cars,  and  the  shipper  to  furnish  the 
goods,  but  does  not  render  the  carrier  liable  to  parties  who  did  not  authorize  the 
order. -'^ 

§  733.  Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished. — When  a  request  to  furnish 
necessary  cars  for  a  shipper  on  a  certain  day  has  been  made  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany's station  agent  in  due  time,  the  company  is  under  an  implied  agreement 
to  furnish  the  cars  on  that  day.-^ 

§  734.  Contract  v/ith  Owner  of  Private  Railroad. — A  shipping  contract 
between  a  railroad  company  and  a  private  ])erson  owning  a  road  intended  and 
used  solely  for  the  latter's  private  business  is  not  a  contract  between  connecting 
carriers,  but  one  between  the  railroad  company  as  a  carrier  and  the  private  per- 
son as  a  shipper,  and  the  carrier  to  furnish  cars  on  reasonable  notice  to  the 
shipper  in  necessary  numbers  for  the  conducting  of  the  latter's  business. ^^ 


cutting  and  expected  to  cut  fifty  car  loads 
of  props  at  a  certain  point,  which  he  could 
not  load  at  any  siding,  and  asked  for  a 
train  to  load  them  on  the  main  line.  De- 
fendant wrote  that  it  had  considered  his 
application  to  load  a  train  on  the  main 
line  and  was  prepared  to  permit  it,  and 
concluded,  "Please  let  me  know  when  you 
desire  a  train,  and  we  will  take  up  with 
the  superintendent  the  question  when  it 
can  be  furinshed."  Held,  that  there  was 
an  unconditional  and  complete  contract 
to  furnish  cars  for  transportation  of  the 
props;  the  day  when  the  superintendent 
should  send  them  being  a  mere  matter  of 
detail  and  in  law  to  be  done  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  after  plaintiff  should  make 
known  his  readiness  therefor.  Outland  v. 
Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  S.  E.  735,  134 
X.    C.    3.50. 

22.  Writing. — See  ante,  "Verbal  Con- 
tract,  §   720. 

23.  Under  Minnesota  reciprocal  demur- 
rage law. — Laws  I'.iOT,  c.  23  (Rev.  Laws 
Supp.  1909,  §§  2023—1  to  2023—13),  known 
as  the  "Reciprocal  Demurrage  Law,"  has 
no  application  to  voluntary  contracts  be- 
tween carriers  and  shippers,  and  there- 
fore an  agreement  of  a  carrier  to  furnish 
cars  at  a  specified  time  need  not  be  in 
writing,  as  required  by  such  act.  Pope  v. 
Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  Co.,  112  Minn.  112, 
127  X.  W.  436. 


24.  Effect  of  partial  invalidity. — Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodge,  10  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
543,    30   S.   W.    829. 

25.  Construction  and  operation. — Cross 
V.  McFaden,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  461,  20  S. 
W.  846;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson, 
61  Tex.  491;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  McCor- 
quodale,   71    Tex.   41,  9   S.   W.   80. 

26.  Persons  bound  and  persons  entitled 
to  benefit. — Cumhie  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    (Ark.),   151   S.   W.  240. 

27.  Time  when  cars  to  be  furnished. — 
Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mercer,  96 
Ky.  475.  16  Ky.  L.  Rep.  555,  29  S.  W.  301. 

28.  Contract  with  owner  of  private  rail- 
road.— By  a  contract  between  a  railroad 
company  and  a  lumber  company  the  lat- 
ter agreed  to  build  a  road  from  a  con- 
nection with  the  railroad  to  its  mill, 
twelve  miles  distant,  the  connection  and 
the  maintenance  of  a  station  there  to  be 
at  the  joint  expense  of  the  parties.  It 
also  agreed  to  build  a  side  track  "for  the 
placing  of  cars"  under  the  supervision 
of  the  railroad  company's  engineer,  which 
should  be  sufficient  to  enable  the  railroad 
company  with  its  engines  to  transfer  cars 
"to  and  from  its  railroad  and  the  switch 
and  upon  the  railroad"  of  the  lumber 
company,  which  also  bound  itself  under 
penalties  to  ship  all  of  its  products,  ex- 
cept such  as  should  be  sent  by  water,  over 
the  road  of  the  railroad  company.     Held, 


447  SPRCIAL   CONTRACTS.  §§  735-739 

§  735,  Contract  for  Track  Facilities. — A  transportalion  company,  having 
a  railroad  wiiich  tapped  a  coal  rej^ion,  and  having  agreed  with  the  coal  company 
to  build  a  side  track  to  the  hitter's  mines,  and  to  furnish  the  latter  the  same 
transportation  facilities  and  make  the  same  charges  as  the  transportation  com- 
pany charged  between  two  points  on  its  main  road,  the  distance  being  about  the 
same,  and  the  coal  company  having  agreed  to  furnish  for  transportation  all  the 
coal  it  should  mine,  up  to  a  certain  amount,  was  bound  to  furnish  the  coal  com- 
pany with  the  same  facilities  on  the  side  track  as  it  furnished  on  the  main  track 
between  the  points  named,  and  was  not  limited  to  the  proportion  of  its  facilities 
that  the  whole  product  of  the  coal  company's  mines  bore  to  the  product  of  all 
the  other  mines  in  the  region.-'-' 

§  736.  Agreement  to  Haul  Defective  Car. — W  here  a  railroad  agreed  to 
haul  a  car,  one  of  the  drawbars  of  which  was  broken  by  attaching  the  good  end 
of  it  to  a  locomotive  or  train,  it  waived  any  objection  that  the  car  was  not  in 
proper  condition   for  transportation. 3" 

§§  737-755.  Performance  or  Breach— §  737-740.  What  Constitutes 
a  Breach — §  737.  Refusal  to  Permit  Use  of  Cars. — The  refusal  to  permit 
shii)i)cr  to  use  cars  furnished  him  at  an  agreed  time  and  place  and  resulting  in 
damage  is  a  breach  of  the  contract  and  gives  cause  of  action."*^ 

§  738.  Failure  to  Tender  Cars  in  Time. — "Whether  or  not  the  cars 
contracted  for  were  furnished  within  a  reasonable  time  is  a  question  of 
fact  for  the  jury  lo  be  determined  from  all  the  evidence,  and  not  a  fact  to  be 
proved  by  the  opinion  of  any  witness.^-  As  a  matter  of  law,  a  railroad  com- 
pany wdiich  contracts  to  furnish  cars  for  transporting  timber  does  not,  by  ten- 
dering them  7"?  or  80  days  after  the  contract  is  made,  perform  its  contract  in 
a  reasonable  time.'''' 

Hour  of  Day  at  "Which  Cars  Furnished. — W  here  the  railroad  company 
was  n',)t  re([uirc(l  1)\-  cnlcr  for  cars  for  a  particular  day  to  furnish  them  at  any 
particular  day,  the  delivery  at  any  hour  of  the  day  is  sufiticient.^-^" 

§  739.  Furnishing  Defective  Cars. — A  railroad  is  liable  as  for  breach  of 
contract  for  furnishing  defective  cars  where  the  defects  would  have  been  dis- 
covered on  proper  inspection.^^ 

that  sucli  contract  was  between  the  rail-  34.  Cars  not  required  by  order  to  be 
road  company,  as  a  carrier  and  the  luni-  furnished  at  particular  hour. — In  an  ac- 
ber  company,  as  a  shipper,  and  by  im-  tion  against  a  railroad  company  for  fail- 
plication  bound  tbe  former  on  reasonalile  ing-  to  furnish  coal  cars  ordered  for  a 
notice  to  fnrnisli  cars  on  the  side  track  in  particular  day,  the  evidence  showed  that 
necessary  numbers  for  the  use  of  the  lum-  the  cars  were  delivered  at  4  o'clock  in  the 
ber  company  in  conducting  its  business.  afternoon,  and  that  the  miners  quit  work 
Taenzer  &  Co.  v.  Cbicaao.  etc.,  R.  Co..  at, that  hour,  so  that  the  cars  could  not 
irn    Fed.   ;M0,   <).")    C.    C.   .A.   4:?r).  l)e  loaded  that  day.     Held  that,  where  the 

29.  Contract  for  track  facilities. — Hazel-  railroad  company  was  not  required  by  the 
ton  Coal  Co.  v.  Buck  Mountain  Coal  Co.,  order  to  furnish  the  cars  at  any  particular 
57    Pa.   .'iOl.  hour,  the  delivery  at  anj'  hour  of  the  day 

30.  Agreement  to  haul  defective  car. —  was  sufficient.  ilcGrcw  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
TudunuMit.    lo:.    111.   .\pp.   DC.   aflirnuMl.      Ill-  R.   Co..   10'.)   Mo.  .->S2.   19  S.  W.  5;?. 

inois  Crnt.   i\.  Co.  r.   15\ nic,  •Jti.".   111.  l»,  <',s  35.    Liability    for     furnishing     defective 

X.   K.   T:2(».  cars. —  In   an  action   l)y  a  quarry  company 

31.  The  refusal  to  permit  shipper  to  use.  against  a  railroad  company  for  breach  of 

Cross    V.    AIcFaden.    1    Te.x.    Civ.    App.  contract   to   furnish   strong-  and   inspected 

4(51,   20   S.   \V.   S4'>.  cars    for   the   transportation    of   stone,   the 

32.  Failure  to  tender  cars  in  time. —  complaint  alleged  that  a  car  was  deliv- 
Pecos.  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Kvans-Snider-Buel  ered  which  was  defective,  and  had  not 
Co.,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  00.  93  S.  W.  1024,  been  inspected:  that  the  defects  were  hid- 
atfirmed  in  100  Tex.  190,  97  S.  W.  466.  den  and  unknown  to  the  quarry  company, 

33.  Outland  z\  Seaboard,  etc..  R.  Co.,  but  would  have  been  discovered  on 
134  N.  C.  350.  46  S.  E.  735.  proper    inspection    by    the    railroad    com- 


§§  740-744 


CARRIERS. 


448 


§  740.  Requisition  Essential  Where  Contract  to  Furnish  as  Ordered. 

— Under  a  contract  binding  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  as  ordered  to  ship  peaches. 
the  shipper  can  not  recover  for  faihire  to  furnish  cars  sufficient  to  transport 
ungathered  peaches,  for  whicli  no  requisition  was  made.^'"' 

§§  741-753.  Liability  of  Carrier  for  Breach— §    741.  In  General.— 

A\  here  a  raih'oad  company  contracted  to  furnish  cars  to  a  shipper  at  a  specified 
time,  but  neglected  to  do  so  or  to  give  reasonable  notice  of  its  inability  so  to 
do,  it  was  liable  for  damages  occasioned  by  failure  to  furnish  the  cars  at  the 
agreed  time,-''  as  an  individual,  and  not  as  a  common  carrier. -'^ 

§  742.  Effect  of  Statute  Allowing  Recovery  of  Penalty. — A  shipper, 
if  he  desires  only  to  reco\er  lor  breach  of  contract  to  furnish  cars,  although  he 
may  be  entitled  to  recover  the  statutory  penalty  for  carrier's  failure  to  furnish 
cars,  need  only  show  a  valid  contract,  breach  and  extent  of  injury.^''  The  lia- 
bility of  a  railroad  company  for  breach  of  a  parol  agreement  to  furnish  cars  at 
a  time  specified  is  not  abrogated  by  a  statute  prescribing  a  penalty  for  a  failure 
to  suj)plv  cars  on  written  application,  and  an  action  for  breach  of  such  contract 
is  not  an  action  for  the  i)enalty  and  is  maintainable.'^" 

§  743.  Tender  of  Property  for  Transportation. — A  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  failure  to  furnish  cars  and  transport  goods,  unless  they  are  offered  at  a 
regular  depot  or  other  usual  place  for  receiving  freight ;  but  refusal,  on  demand, 
to  furnish  cars  for  goods  placed  at  a  station  on  its  line,  relieves  the  owner  from 
making  any  further  delivery  or  oft'er  to  deliver.-'^ 

§  744.  Road  Not  Owning  Cars. — A  carrier  is  not  relieved  from  liability 
for  breach  of  its  contract  to  furnish  cars,  though  at  the  date  of  and  during  the 


pan}-;  and  that  by  reason  thereof,  and 
without  fault  of  the  quarry  company,  the 
car  broke  lose,  ran  down  a  grade,  and 
killed  a  quarryman.  Held,  that  the  facts 
stated  were  sufficient  to  show  an  inex- 
cusable breach  of  duty  by  the  railroad 
company.  Hoosier  Stone  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Ind.  575,  31  N.  E. 
3(i5. 

36.  Requisition  essential  where  contract 
to  furnish  as  ordered. — Cumliie  i\  St. 
Louis,  etc..   R.   Co.    (Ark.),   151  S.   W.  240. 

37.  Liability  of  carrier  for  breach. — • 
Nichols  V.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Utah 
83,   6(>   Pac.  768,   91   Am.   St.   Rep.  778. 

A  carrier  is  liable  for  damages  result- 
ing from  a  breach  of  a  contract  to  fur- 
nish cars  at  specified  time  and  place. 
Cross  V.  McFaden,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  4()1, 
20  S.  W.  846;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nichol- 
son, 61  Tex.  491;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Corquodale,  71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80;  Pecos 
River  R.  Co.  v.  Latham,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
78,  88  S.  W.  392,  affirmed  in  101  Tex.  652, 
no    op. 

The  Texas  statute  in  no  way  limits  the 
liability  for  damages  for  breach  of  a  con- 
tract, in  which  case  it  is  only  necessary 
to  show  a  valid  contract  and  the  extent 
of  injury  from  its  ])reach.  McCarty  v. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex.  33,  15  S.  W. 
164. 

38.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dimmit 
Countv  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186, 
23    S.  'W.    754. 


39.  Effect  of  statute  allowing  recovery 
of  penalty. — McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
79   Tex.   33,   15   S.  W.   164. 

Where  a  carrier  agreed  to  furnisli  a 
shipper  stable  cars,  which  were  not  shown 
to  be  the  only  suitable  kind  and  proper 
for  the  freight  to  be  shipped,  although 
that  did  not  render  it  liable  to  the  statu- 
tory penalty  for  a  failure  to  do  so,  it  is 
liable  to  damages  for  breach  of  the  con- 
tract. Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrow,  33 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  611,  77  S.  W.  643,  affirmed 
in  101  Tex.  663,  no  op.;  Austin,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Slator,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  344,  26  S. 
W.    233. 

40.  Receivers,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Graves,  4 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  149,  16  S.  W.  102. 

Though  Act  20th  Leg.  Sess.  imposes  a 
penalty  on  railroad  companies  for  failure 
to  furnish  freight  cars  after  demand  there- 
for in  writing,  an  action  will  lie  for  the 
breach  of  an  oral  contract  to  furnish  cars. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Harmonson,  4 
Tex.  App.   Civ.   Cas.   133,  16  S.  W.   539.  _ 

41.  A  railroad  company  is  not  responsi- 
ble in  an  action  for  an  alleged  infring- 
ment  of  a  contract  to  carry  coal  for  the 
i)laintiff,  unless  it  is  proved  that  the  plain- 
tiff actually  tendered  the  coal  to  the  com- 
pany for  transportation,  and  the  company 
then  refused  to  carry  it.  Northwestern 
Fuel  Co.  V.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Fed.  712;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flan- 
nagan,  113  Ind.  488,  14  N.  E.  370,  3  Am. 
St.'   Rep.   674. 


449  SI'IXIAL    CONTRACTS.  §§  744-750 

time  cfucred  hy  the  cnnlract   il  diil  not  lia\x-  or  (nvn  anv  cars.-*- 

§  74  5.  Road  Not  Equipped  with  Cars  of  Character  to  Be  Furnished. — 
In  General. — W  here  a  carrier  agreed  to  furnish  a  certain  kind  of  cars  it  could 
not  a\(ji(l  the  consequences  of  a  Ijreach  of  the  duty  to  do  so  by  showing  that  its 
road  was  not  equipped  with  cars  of  that  character.-*^ 

Preference  as  to  Character  of  Cars. — Where  a  railroad  company  con- 
tracted to  furnisli  a  shi])per  a  certain  numl)er  ot  cars  at  a  specified  time,  but  it 
was  understood  that  such  order  was  merely  an  expression  of  preference,  and 
that  the  shipper  would  accept  any  variety  of  cars  he  could  get.  if  the  kind  or- 
dered were  not  obtainable,  the  com])any  was  not  absolved  from  the  duty  to 
furnish  cars  at  the  re(|uire(!  time  by  inabihty  to  obtain  the  ])recise  kind  ordered. •*"* 

§  746.  Failure  to  Furnish  Refrigerator  Cars. — A  railroad  company 
which  does  not  own  refrigerator  cars,  ]:>ut  has  an  arrangement  with  the  owners 
of  such  cars  whereby  it  can  furnish  the  same  to  its  shippers,  is  liable  for  in- 
juries to  shippers  caused  by  delay  in  furnishing  cars  when  promised. ^^  In  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  iced  cars  as  agreed,  it  can  not 
show  as  a  defense  thai  il  held  itself  (ml  as  willing  to  haul  iced  cars  to  be  fur- 
nished by  another  company  under  a  contract  with  the  shi])per.'''  Where  a  rail- 
way company  had  cotitracted  to  ship  freight  in  iced  cars,  the  liability  of  the 
raih-oad  company  for  failure  so  to  do  does  not  depend  upon  whether  the  com- 
pany who  was  to  furnish  the  cars  was  a  common  carrier.-*"  Where  a  carrier 
fails  to  furnish  refrigerator  cews  as  agreed,  the  plaintiff  has  only  to  show  that 
defendant  is  such  a  carrier,  and  refused  to  carry  the  perishable  freight  which 
was  the  cause  of  the  damage  to  the  shipper;  and  the  carrier  is  liable,  whether 
the  freight  was  more  than  enough  to  fill  the  cars  agreed  to  be  furnished,  or  not, 
jind  it  is  not  necessary  for  him  to  show  that  the  carrier  agreed  to  furnish  the 
cars   properly   iced."^"^ 

§  747.  EfTort  to  Procure  Foreign  Cars. — A  railroad  company  is  not  re- 
lieved of  liability  for  breach  of  iis  contract  to  furnish  cars  to  transport  freight 
by  the  fact  that  it  used  reasonable  ettort  to  procure  foreign  cars.-*^ 

§§  748-753.  Excuses  for  Breach  or  Nonperformance— §  748.  In 
General.  —  .Mailers  not  excusing  ihc  performance- of  a  special  contract  to  fur- 
nish cars.  l)ut  only  tending  to  excuse  performance  of  the  general  dutv  imposed 
by  law,  are  no  defense  to  a  breach  of  the  special  contract.-""' 

§  749.  Act  of  God. — The  act  of  God  will  not  excuse  a  carrier  from  lia- 
bility under  an  express  contract  to  furnish  cars.^^ 

§   750.  Unavoidable   Accident   or   Casualties. — A   railroad   company  un- 

condilionall}-  contracting  tu   furnish  cars  at  a  certain  time  can  not  excuse  itself 
from  liability  by  showing  unavoidable  accident  or  delay. •'"'- 

42.  Road  not  owning  cars.— Baxley  v.  47,  Mathis  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  65  S.  C. 
Tallasscc,  etc..  R.  Co..  i;:s  Ala.  1S,3,  29  So.        271,   43   S.    E.   684,  61   L.   R.  A.   824. 

451.  48.    Mathis    v.    Southern    R.    Co.,    65    S. 

43.  Road    not    equipped    with    cars    of  C.   271.  43   S.   E.  684.  01   L.   R.  A.  824. 
character  to  be  furnished. — International,  49.    Effort    to    procure    foreign    cars. — 
etc.,    R.    Co.    V.    True,    23    Tex.    Civ.    App.  Outland  z\   Seahoard,   etc.,   R.   Co..   134   X. 
523,  57   S.  W.   977.  C.    :;.")0.    4i'.    S.    I-'..    73.-). 

44.  Preference  as  to  character  of  cars.  50.  Excuse  for  breach  or  nonperform- 
— Nicliols  r.  ()re.L;(in,  etc..  \\.  Cn.,  ::4  ance. — Chattaiioot^a  Southern  R.  Co.  z: 
Utah  S3,  (•)(•)   I'ac.  7i)S,  iil  Am.  St.   Rep.  77S.  Tlioinpson.   133   Ga.   127.  65   S.   E.  285. 

45.  Failure  to  furnish  refrigerator  cars.  51.  Act  of  God. — Miller  r.  Chicago,  etc.. 
— International,    etc.,     R.     Co.    f.     Youn.ir  R.   Co..   i'>:.'    Mo.    App.   2.->:.\ 

(Tex.    Civ.    App.).    28    S.    W.    819;    Texas.  52.   Unavoidable   accident   or  casualties, 

etc..   R.    Co.   V.   Nicholson.   61   Tex.   491.  — Cunihie  z:  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Ark.). 

46.  Mathis  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  65  S.  C.  151  S.  W.  240;  Harrison  z:  Missouri  Pac. 
271,   43   S.    E.  684.  61    L.   R.  A.   824.  R.   Co.,  74   Mo.   364.  41   Am.   Rep.   318. 

1    Car— 29 


CARRIERS. 


450 


§§  731-756 

8  751.  Storms.— Where  a  carrier  agreed  to  furnish  cars  at  a  day  certain, 
it  is  no  defense,  on  faihire  so  to  do,  that  it  was  prevented  by  a  severe  stomi-^^ 

§  7  52.  Wrecks.— The  wreck  of  a  railroad  train,  whereby  the  free  move- 
ment of  cars  is  prevented,  is  a  sufficient  excuse  for  the  company's  failure  to 
furnish  cars  to  a  shipper  at  a  certain  time  and  place  as  agreed.^'-* 

§  753.  Unprecedented  Traffic— Where  a  carrier  contracted  to  furnish  a 
«;pecified  number  of  cars  at  specified  times  and  places,  the  carrier's  inability  to 
furnish  the  cars  contracted  for  owing  to  unusually  heavy  traffic  at  the  time  the 
cars  were  demanded  constitutes  no  defense  to  an  action  for  damages  for  such 
failure. -^^ 

§  754.  Liability  of  Shipper  for  Breach.— A  railroad  company  can  re- 
cover damages  against  a  shipper  who  fails  to  furnish  the  goods  to  be  shipped 
at  the  time  and  place  agreed  on,  the  company  having  been  ready  with  their 
cars  to  receive  them.  The  responsibilities  for  breach  of  contract  can  not  rest 
upon  one  of  the  parties  whilst  the  other  is  to  reap  its  benefits  only.^« 

§  755.  "Waiver  of  Cause  of  Action  against  Carrier.— In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  caused  by  its  delay  in  transporting  cattle,  there 
is'' no  error  in  the  court's  failure  to  instruct  the  jury  that  the  plaintiffs,  by  mak- 
ing the  written  contract  of  transportation,  waived  all  damages  for  breach  of  the 
parol  contract  to  furnish  the  cars  at  a  stated  time,  where  there  was  no  consid- 
eration for  the  waiver.^'" 

§§  756-760.  Merger — §  756.  General  Rule. — Where  a  shipper  of  prop- 
erty takes  from  the  carrier  a  bill  of  lading  or  other  voucher,  expressing  the 
terms  and  conditions  on  which  the  property  is  to  be  transported,  the  writing, 
in  the  absence  of  proof  of  fraud  or  mistake,  must  be  taken  as  the  sole  evidence 
of  the  final  agreement  of  the  parties,  and  by  it  their  duties  and  liabilities  must 
be  regulated.-'^'^     All  prior  verbal  negotiations  between  the  parties  to  a  shipping 


53.  Storms. — Aliller  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   ti2   Mo.   App.   252. 

54.  Wrecks. — Newport  News,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Mercer,  96  Ky.  47.5,  16  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
555,    29    S.    W.    301. 

55.  Unprecedented  traffic. — Oregon 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Dumas,  104  C.  C.  A.  641,  181 
Fed.    781. 

A  carrier  who  contracts  to  furnish  all 
the  cars  necessary  to  transport  the  peach 
crop  at  a  certain  station,  on  failure  to 
do  so,  can  not  defend  because  of  heavy 
and  unprecedented  traffic.  Cumbie  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.   (Ark.),  151  S.  W.  240. 

Texas.— GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume 
Bros.,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  24  S.  W. 
915,  following  Cross  v.  McFaden,  1 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  461,  20  S.  W.  846;  Gulf. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Hume  Bros.,  S7  Tex.  211, 
27    S.    W.    110. 

Unexpected  increase  of  business. — In- 
al)ility  of  a  railroad  to  furnish  cars  con- 
tracted for,  owing  to  an  unexpected  in- 
crease in  its  volume  of  business,  is  no  de- 
fense for  breach  of  such  contract.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodge,  10  Tex.  Civ.  Ap'-. 
543,  30  S.  W.  829;  Southern  Kansas  R. 
Co.  V.  Morris  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W. 
433.  affirmed  in  100  Tex.  611;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hume  Bros.,  87  Tex.  211,  27 
S.  W.   110. 


56.  Liability    of    shipper    for    breach. — 

Texas,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Nicholson,   61  Tex. 
491. 

57.  Waiver  of  cause  of  action  against 
carrier.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  82 
Tex.  608,  18  S.  W.  716. 

After  the  cattle  were  loaded  in  the  cars, 
plaintiff  signed  a  written  contract  of  ship- 
ment, releasing  defendant  from  all  liabil- 
ity for  delay  in  receiving  or  shipping  the 
cattle,  and  making  it  a  condition  prece- 
dent to  plaintiff's  right  to  recover  for  any 
injury  to  the  cattle  at  any  station  where 
they  might  be  loaded  or  unloaded  that  he 
should  give  the  station  master  of  the  last- 
named  station  a  written  notice  of  his 
claim.  Held,  that  the  court  erred  in  re- 
fusing to  instruct  that  plaintiff,  by  his 
contract,  had  waived  all  claims  for  dam- 
ages previously  accrued,  since,  under  Rev. 
St.,  art.  1265,  subd.  10,  the  want  of  con- 
sideration for  such  contract  could  be  set 
up  only  by  a  proper  plea  supported  by 
affidavit,  which  was  not  done  in  this  case. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wright,  1  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  402,  21  S.  W.  80. 

58.  General  rule.— The  bill  of  lading 
that  the  shipper  receives  from  the  car- 
rier, and  uses  by  attaching  thereto  a 
draft  on  the  consignee  in  payment  of  the 
goods  shipped,  is   the   final  contract  as  to 


451 


SPECIAL    COXTRACTS. 


§§  7?G-7?7 


contract  are  merged  in  tlie  written  contract,  and  the  shipper  can  not  admit  the 
execution  of  the  contract  and  avail  himself  of  the  fact  that  he  did  not  read  it 
or  know  its  contents,  where  no  mistake,  fraud,  imposition  or  deceit  is  charged 
to  Jiave  occurred.''''  In  such  case  the  written  shipping  contract  governs  the 
shipment  as  a  matter  of  law.''"  ilul  an  aiiioii  may  be  maintained  against  a  rail- 
way comi)any  on  a  verlial  cfjutracl  of  shipment,  under  certain  circumstances, 
although  a  written  contract  may  have  been  subsequently  entered  into."' 

§§  757-758.  Contract  Executed  after  Carriage  Begun— §  757.  In 
General. — The  mere  receijjt  of  a  written  contract'"-  or  bill  of  lading  does  not 
alter  or  affect  a  i)ri()r  contract,  under  which  goods  have  been  actually  shipped 
and  arc  in  course  of  transit,  without  an  actual  consent  to  the  change.''-'     Where 


the  transportation  of  the  goods.  Bedell 
V.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ga.  22,  20 
S.  E.  262;  Long  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,    50   N.    Y.    7G. 

59.  McFadden  v.  Missouri,  Pac.  R.  Co.; 
f)2  Mo.  343,  4  S.  W.  689.  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 
721;  Turner  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Mo.    App.    632. 

Instances. — Prior  to  the  reception  of 
goods,  and  before  any  hill  of  lading  was 
issued,  a  carrier  agreed  to  ship  the  goods 
"in  cold  service."  The  bill  of  lading  did 
not  mention  such  agreement.  Held,  that 
it  could  be  shown  by  parol  evidence,  in 
an  action  by  the  shipper  against  the  car- 
rier to  recover  the  value  of  the  goods. 
Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v.  Furth-  . 
mann,  47  111.  App.  561,  affirmed  in  149  111. 
66,   36    N.    E.   624.   41    Am.    St.    Rep.    265. 

A  shipper,  who  had  orally  agreed  with 
a  railroad  company  to  ship  liis  cattle  upon 
certain  terms  and  conditions,  delivered 
the  cattle  to  the  railroad  company,  and 
then,  before  the  train  had  started,  ac- 
cepted and  signed  a  written  contract  of 
shipment  containing  provisions  materially 
different  from  those  of  the  oral  contract. 
Held,  that  the  oral  contract  was  thereby 
annulled.  Leonard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   54   Mo.   App.   293. 

Bill  of  lading  at  variance  with  prior 
agreement.  -W'lierc  a  bill  of  lading  is 
given  l)y  the  shipowner  and  accepted  by 
the  shipper  without  objection,  a  prior 
agreement  for  the  carriage  is  not  a  final 
and  definite  statement  of  all  the  terms  of 
the  agreement  between  the  parties,  and  the 
bill  of  lading  is  the  real  contract  by 
which  the  mutual  obligations  of  the  par- 
ties are  to  be  governed.  The  Caledonai, 
43    Fed.    681. 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  is  made  out  by 
the  carrier,  and  delivered  to  and  accepted 
by  the  shipper,  all  previous  parol  agree- 
ments are  merged  in  it.  Bostwick  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  55  Barb. 
137. 

If  there  is  nothing  on  the  face  of  a  bill 
of  lading  requiring  the  master  of  the  ves- 
sel to  take  one  route  rather  than  another, 
such  an  obligation  can  not  be  estalilislied  by 
proof  of  any  preliminary  conversation. 
White  V.  \'an   Kirk   (N.  Y.).  25   Barb.   10. 

60.  Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   McCord    (Tex. 


Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  1032;  Southern  Pac. 
Co.  V.  Anderson,  26  Tc.\.  Civ.  App.  518, 
63  S.  W.  1023,  affirmed  in  95  Tex.  086,  no 
op.;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter, 
9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  29  S.  W.  565;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Avery,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
235,  46  S.  W.  897,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  673, 
no  op.;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  82 
Tex.  608,  18  S.  W.  716;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Stanley,  89  1  ex.  42,  33  S.  W.  109,  af- 
firming 29  S.  W.  806;  San  Antonio,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Wright,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  136, 
137,  49  S.  W.  147;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Botts,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  609.  55  S.  W. 
514;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Funk,  42  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  490,  92  S.  W.  1032;  San  Antonio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Barnett,  27  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
498.  66  S.  W.  474;  Ft.  Worth,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Wright,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  234,  70  S.  W. 
335;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hume  Bros..  87 
Tex.  211,  27  S.  W.  110,  reversing  6  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  653,  24  S.  W.  915;  San  Antonio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Williams  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
57  S.  W.  883;  McNeill  v.  Galveston,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  32; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  677.  29  S.  W.  565;  Missouri,  etc..  R. 
Co.  7'.  Withers,  16  Tex.  Civ.  App.  506.  40 
S.  W.  1073,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  691,  no 
op.;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayes,  44 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  31,  97  S.  W.  318;  Atchi- 
son, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Grant.  6  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  674,  26  S.  W.  286,  affirmed  in  93 
Tex.   699,   no   op. 

61.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  McCord  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.).   81   S.   W.   1032. 

62.  Where  a  shipper  loads  his  cattle 
under  a  parol  contract,  it  governs  a  writ- 
ten contract  given  to  him  just  as  the  train 
was  starting,  and  which  he  fails  to  read 
before  signing.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 
Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  29  S.  W. 
565. 

63.  Decree,  112  Fed.  829.  reversed. 
Farmers'  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  7'.  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co..  57  C.  C.  A.  533,  120  Fed.  873.  af- 
firmed Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  American 
Trading  Co..  25  S.  Ct.  84.  195  U.  S.  439, 
49  L.  Ed.  269.  See  ante,  "Bills  of  Lad- 
ing."   chapter    6. 

Illinois. — Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Lannum.  71 
111.   App.   84. 

Kansas. — A  shipper  who  neglects  to  ex- 
amine  a   bill   of  lading  handed   him   after 


§  7-^7 


CARRIERS. 


452 


a  verbal  contract  was  made,  the  goods  received,  and  the  journey  begun,  and 
then  a  written  contract  was  presented  to  the  shipper,  which  he  signed  with  a 
knowledge  of  its  contents  or  where  he  had  sufficient  time  to  have  read  its  con- 
tents, and  which  he  was  not  induced  to  sign  by  any  false  representations  of 
the  carrier's  agent,  or  which  he  signed  under  circumstances  such  that  he  should 
have  read  the  same;  the  verbal  contract  is  merged  into  the  written  contract; 
but  where  the  written  contract  was  obtained  by  fraud  or  misrepresentation,  the 
verbal  contract  would  not  be  merged  into  it ;  "■*  this  rule  could  have  no  applica- 
tion where  the  bill  of  lading  was  not  relied  on  by  the  carrier.*^'' 

Allegation  and  Proof  of  Want  of  Consideration,  Duress,  etc. — The 
plaintiti'  in  attacking  the  validity  of  the  written  contract  must  allege  and  prove 
the  want  of  consideration  for  its  execution,  or  circumstances  of  duress  attend- 
ing the  same;^'*'  this  allegation   it  seems  must  be  under  oath.''''' 


ihe  shipment  had  been  made  on  a  parol 
agreement  is  not  bound  by  such  bill's 
terms  as  to  a  material  matter  which  had 
been  otherwise  stipulated  in  the  parol 
agreement.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Bee- 
son.  30  Kan.  298,  2  Pac.  496. 

-Vrri'  }'or;V. — Where  goods  are  shipped 
tinder  a  verbal  agreement  for  their  trans- 
portation, such  agreement  is  not  merged 
in  a  bill  of  lading,  which  is  partly  writ- 
ten and  partly  printed,  delivered  to  the 
shipper  after  he  has  parted  with  the  con- 
trol of  his  goods,  notwithstanding  such 
bill  of  lading,  by  its  terms,  limits  the  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier,  and  expresses  on  its 
face  that,  by  accepting  it.  the  shipper 
agrees  to  its  conditions.  The  mere  re- 
ceipt of  the  bill,  after  the  verbal  agree- 
ment had  been  acted  upon,  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  conclude  him  from  showing  what 
the  actual  agreement  was  under  which 
the  goods  had  been  shipped.  Schiff  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  52  How. 
Prac.    91. 

A  failure  to  object  to  limitations  con- 
tained in  a  bill  of  lading  issued  in  New 
York,  and  delivered  several  days  after  the 
goods  had  been  shipped,  can  not,  under 
the  decisions  of  New  York,  be  held  to  be 
a  waiver  of  an  oral  contract,  relating  to 
the  manner  of  shipment  of  such  goods, 
also  made  in  New  York  between  the  par- 
ties, whereby  different  terms  were  agreed 
upon.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co. 
V.  Furthmann,  47  111.  App.  561,  affirmed 
in  149  111.  66,  36  N.  H.  624,  41  Am.  St.  Rep. 
265. 

North  Carolina. — Where  defendant  orally 
agreed  to  furnish  cars  to  plaintiffs  on 
a  certain  day,  and  failed  to  do  so,  the 
fact  that  plaintiffs  shipped  their  cattle 
after  the  day  on  which  defendant  agreed 
to  furnish  the  cars,  and  took  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing therefor,  does  not  merge  the  oral 
contract  to  furnish  the  cars  on  a  certain 
day  in  the  subsequent  written  contract 
of  shipment,  and  relieve  defendant  from 
liability  for  such  failure.  McAbsher  v. 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  N.  C.  344,  12 
S.   E.  892. 

68.  Bill  of  lading  subsequently  handed 
to  shipper's  clerk. — A  contract  of  slii])- 
ment    made    witli    a    common    carrier    can 


not  be  modified  by  a  bill  of  lading  subse- 
quently handed  to  the  shipper's  clerk. 
Rudell  V.  Ogdensburg  Transit  Co.,  76  N. 
W.   380,   117   Mich.   568,  44  L.   R.  A.  415. 

Wlien  goods  are  shipped  under  a  parol 
contract  covering  future  shipments,  bills 
of  lading  given  by  the  carrier  are  only 
evidence  of  the  dates  and  amounts  of 
shipments  made  under  the  pre-existing 
contract.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elgin 
Condensed  Milk  Co.,  74  111.  App.  619,  af- 
firmed St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elgin  Con- 
densed Milk  Co.,  51  N.  E.  911,  175  111.  557, 
67  Am.   St.  Rep.  338. 

64.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  6 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  674,  26  S.  W.  286,  affirmed 
in  93  Tex.  699,  no  op.;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
?'.  Wright,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  402,  21  S. 
W.  80. 

65.  Bill  of  lading  not  relied  on  by  car- 
rier.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
loss  resulting  from  defendant's  delay  in 
delivering  perishable  goods  which  it  un- 
dertook to  carry  for  plaintiff,  where  no 
bill  of  lading  was  delivered  to  plaintiff, 
and  he  sued  on  a  verbal  contract  made  by 
him  with  defendant's  agent  to  deliver 
the  goods  within  four  days  from  the  date 
of  their  shipment,  and  defendant  in  its 
answer  does  not  rely  on  the  bill  of  lading 
sulisequently  delivered  to  plaintiff,  the 
rule  that  oral  testimony  can  not,  in  the 
absence  of  any  allegation  of  fraud  or  mis- 
take, be  introduced  to  change  or  vary  the 
terms  of  a  written  contract,  does  not  ap- 
ply. The  issue  is,  was  there  a  verbal  con- 
tract between  plaintiff  and  the  agent? 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bradford,  15 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  60. 

66.  Allegation  and  proof  of  want  of 
consideration  duress,  etc. — See  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Avery,  19  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
235,  46  S.  W.  897,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  673, 
no  op.;  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Under- 
wood. 39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  404,  87  S.  W.  713. 

In  the  absence  of  a  pleading  putting 
in   issue  its  validity,  the  written  contract 

67.  Allegation    under     oath. — But     see 

McNeill  V.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  32;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
f.  Jackson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  47, 
reversed  in  99  Tex.  343. 


453 


Sl'i;CIAL     CONTRACTS. 


§§  757-759 


Merger  a  Question  for  Jury. — Whether  the  written  or  verbal  contract 
sh(jul(l  control  is  a  (juesiitjii  for  the  jury;  and  it  is  for  the  jury  to  find  whether 
or  not  the  necessary  time  was  given  to  inspect  the  written  contract,  anrl  whether 
the   contents   were   misrepresented    to   the   shipper."'^ 

§  7  58.  Ratification  or  Adoption  by  Negotiation  of  Bill  of  Lading.— 
'J'he  fact  that  a  shipi)er,  after  receiving  a  bill  of  lading,  negotiates  the  same,_  is 
not  a  ratification  or  adoption  of  its  terms,  as  between  him  and  the  carrier,  which 
will  operate  to  annul  a  prior  valid  contract  under  which  the  goods  were  shipped, 

and  under  which  rights  have  vested  and  obligations  have  accrued. •■•'•' 

§  759.  Written  Contract  Executed  after  Breach  of  Parol  Contract. — 
Where  a  written  contract  for  llic  shipment  of  freight  was  entered  into  after  the 
breach  of  an  oral  contract  in  relation  to  the  same  matter,  the  written  contract 
did  not  merge  the  oral  contract,  and  would  not  bar  a  recovery  for  breach  of  it,'" 


imports  a  consideration.  l'"l.  W'orili,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Underwood,  :}'.)  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
404,  87  S.  W.  71.3. 

In  the  absence  of  any  evidence  of  want 
of  any  additional  consideration,  fraud, 
compulsion,  duress  or  want  of  time  to 
read  the  written  contracts,  they  must  be 
taken  as  merging  all  previous  understand- 
ings between  the  parties.  San  Antonio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Barnett,  27  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
498,  06  S.  W.  474;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Carter,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  29  S.  W. 
56.5;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayes,  44 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  31,  97  S.  W.  318. 

Contract  to  furnish  cars. — Ft.  Worth, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  I'lidcrwood,  39  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  404.  S7   S.   W.   71.-.. 

Weight  of  evidence — Instances. — Sec 
v^an  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  ?.~ 
Tex.    Civ.    App.   498,   66   S.   W.   474. 

There  is  ample  proof  to  sustain  an  al- 
legation in  plaintiff's  pleading,  that  he 
was  overreached  and  caused  to  sign  a 
contract  with  whose  contents  he  was  not 
acquainted,  and  with  which  he  was  not 
permitted  to  acquaint  himself  by  defend- 
ant; where  the  evidence  shows  that  the 
written  contract  was  not  presented  to  the 
plaintiff  until  he  was  en  route,  and  that 
he  was  then  told  that  it  was  merely  a 
paper  that  secured  him  transportation; 
and  was  not  .given  time  in  which  to  read 
it,  and  that  relying  upon  the  statements 
made  to  him,  and  impelled  by  the  fact 
that  he  was  told  that  he  must  sign  to  get 
transportation,  he  signed  the  contract. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant.  6  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  674,  26  S.  W.  286,  affirmed  in 
93  Tex.   CiOn,   no  op. 

68.  Merger  a  question  for  jury.  Atciii- 
son,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Grant,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
674,  26  S.  W.  286,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  699. 
no  op. 

Defendant  carrier  has  the  ri.ght  to  set 
up  in  its  answer  that,  instond  (-if  shipments 
lieing  made  under  a  verlial  contract,  as 
alleged  by  plaintiff,  it  was  under  a  writ- 
ten contract,  but  it  is  error  to  hold,  with- 
out submitting  any  issue  thereon,  that  the 
verbal  contract  was  merged  into  the 
written,  and   that   a   provision   in   the   lat- 


ter refiuiring  certain  notices  to  be  given, 
was  Ijinding.  Withers  v.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  900. 

69.  Ratification  or  adoption  by  negoti- 
ation of  bill  of  lading.  —Decree  (C.  C. 
190:i),  112  I'ed.  h2\i,  reversed.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
130  Fed.  873.  57  C.  C.  A.  533,  affirmed  in 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  American  Trad- 
ing Co.,  25  S.  Ct.  84,  195  U.  S.  439,  49  L. 
Ed.  269. 

A  special  agreement  in  behalf  of  rail- 
way receivers  to  forward  a  thorough 
shipment  by  the  steamer  of  a  connecting 
carrier  sailing  on  a  designated  day  is  not 
modified  by  the  mere  receipt,  without  ob- 
jection, and  the  sul)sequent  hypotheca- 
tion, of  the  bill  of  lading  containing,  as 
a  part  of  numerous  conditions  printed  in 
small  type,  the  statements  that  the  car- 
rier is  not  to  be  liable  for  any  loss  not 
occurring  on  its  own  road,  and  that  the 
contract  as  executed  is  accomplished,  and 
all  liability  thereunder  terminates,  upon 
tlic  delivery  of  the  property  lo  the  ves- 
sel, where  the  bill  was  not  examined  or 
read,  and  was  accepted  after  the  goods 
had  passed  from  the  control  of  the  ship- 
per, by  a  clerk  who  had  no  knowledge  of 
these  conditions,  and  no  authority  to  con- 
sent to  a  modification  of  the  contract  al- 
ready made.  Decree.  Farmers'  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  120  Fed. 
873,  57  C.  C.  A.  533,  affirmed  in  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  American  Trading  Co..  25 
S.   Ct.   84,   195  U.   S.   439,  49   L.    Ed.   269. 

70.  Written  contract  executed  after 
breach  of  parol  contract. — Harrison  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  364.  41  Am. 
Rep.  31S. 

Where  animals  are  shipped  under  a 
parol  contract,  and  injured  In'  reason  of 
a  defective  car.  the  shipper's  right  to  re- 
cover damages  is  not  affected  by  a  writ- 
ten contract  of  carriage,  afterwards  made, 
in  the  abse"ce  of  an  express  provision 
relating  thereto.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co. 
r.  Cravcraft.  12  Ind.  App.  203.  39  N.  E. 
523. 

A  contract  to  furnish  a  certain  number 
of  live-stock  cars  at  a  certain  date  is  not 


§§  759-761  CARRIERS.  454 

unless  there  was  a  consideration  inuring  to  the  shipper  as  compensation  for  the 
damages  resulting  from  the  breach  when  the  contract  was  signed."  ^ 

§  760.  Receipt  for  Freight  Accepted  after  Shipment  Received.— See 

ante,  "Shipping  Receipts,"  chapter  /. 

§  761.  Modification  and  Rescission. — Where  a  shipper  telephoned  the 
carrier  for  an  all-rail  rate,  and  received  a  90-cent  rate  and  the  next  day  shipped 
the  goods,  and  sent  with  them  to  the  depot  an  ordinary  dray  ticket,  the  sending 
of  this  ticket,  without  any  designation  that  the  freight  was  to  go  by  an  all-rail 
route,  was  a  contract  that  it  should  go  in  the  ordinary  way,  and  a  revocation 
of  the  telephone  contract,  and  a  charge  to  that  effect  was  proper.'^- 

Shipping  Instructions  Superseded  by  Bill  of  Lading.— A  shipper's  writ- 
ten instruction  to  a  station  agent  as  to  the  selection  of  a  connecting  carrier  is 
sivjierseded  bv  subse(iuent  l)ills  of  lading  containing  no  provision  on  the  subject. ^•'^ 

Contract  of  Carriage  and  Insurance  by  Subsequent  Bill  of  Lading  De- 
livered to  Consignor. — Where  plaintiff'  made  a  contract  at  Mobile  for  the 
transportation  and  insurance  of  certain  goods  from  New  York  to  Mobile,  a 
bill  of  lading  afterwards  given  to  his  consignor  when  the  goods  were  shipped, 
limiting  the  carrier's  liability  to  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place  of  shipment, 
did  not  supersede  the  oral  contract,  and  the  measure  of  damages  was  the  value 
of  the  goods  at  the  place  of  delivery."-* 

Shipping  Report. — The  shipping  report  signed  by  plaintiff'  and  the  agent  of 
the  connecting  line  at  the  connecting  point  could  not  change  or  affect  the  written 
contracts  between  plaintiff"  and  defendant." •"• 

Bill  of  Lading  Issued  by  Connecting  Carrier. — Where  a  railroad  com- 
panv  agreed,  in  consideration  of  a  consignor's  routeing  freight  by  its  line,  to 
furnish  through  refrigerator  cars  for  transportation  of  perishable  products,  the 
agreement  is  not  superseded  by  a  bill  of  lading  given  by  a  connecting  carrier  at 
the  original  point  of  shipment,  whereby  liability  was  lessened,  the  contracts  being 
independent  of  each  other."'' 

Express  Modification  of  Provisions  as  to  Duty  to  Feed  and  "Water 
Stock. — The  provisions  of  a  bill  of  lading  of  live  stock  that  the  shipper  is  to 
feed  and  water  them  is  waived  by  the  carrier  when  he  writes  across  the  face  of 

merged    in    a    bill    of    lading   issued    after  Texas. — Pecos   River  R.  Co.  v.   Latham, 

breach    of   the    contract,   when    the    cattle  40   Tex.    Civ.   App.   78,   88    S.   W.   392,   af- 

were  actually  laden  and  shipped,  so  as  to  firmed  in  101  Tex.  652,  no  op. 

deprive  the   shipper   of  his   right  to   dam-  71.    Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   House,  40  Tex. 

ages    for    such    breach.      Pittsburgh,    etc..  Civ.  App.   10.5,  88  S.  W.   1110. 

R.   Co.  V.   Racer,   10  Ind.   App.   503,  37   N.  72.     Modification   and    rescission.— Hos- 

E.  280.  tetter  t'.    Baltimore,  etc.,  R.   Co.   (Pa.),  11 

Where  plaintifif  contracted  with  the  vice  Atl.  609. 

president    and    agent    of    two    connecting  73.    Shipping  instructions  superseded  by 

lines  to  ship   oil  by  such  lines,  and   noti-  bill  of  lading. — Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Houston, 

fied  him  of  the  danger  of  leakage  in  case  etc.,   R.   Co.,  35  Tex.   Civ.  App.   470,   80   S. 

of  delay  on  the  route,  and  the  latter  agreed  W.  639. 

that   there   should   be   no    delay,   and    that  74.    Contract  of  carriage  and  insurance 

the  companies  had  competent  coopers  to  by  subsequent  bill  of  ladmg  delivered  to 

take  care  of  the  oil,  and  would  be  respon-  consignor.— Judgment    (Sup.    1897),   45    N. 

sible    for    the    leakage;    and    subsequently,  Y.    vS.    286,    17    App.    Div.    408,    reversed, 

on  receipt  of  the  oil,  the  common  agent  of  Lowenstein  v.  Lombard,  etc.,  Co.,  164  N. 

the    companies    at    the    shipping   point    is-  Y.  324,  58  N.  E.  44. 

sued  through  bills  of  lading,  limiting  the  75.    Shipping  report.— San  Antonio,  etc., 

companies'    liability    for    loss    by    leakage;  R.   Co.  v.   Barnett,  27   Tex.   Civ.   App.  498, 

and,  by  reason  of  delay  in  shipment,  leak-  66   S.  W.   474. 

age    occurred— held,    that    the    jury    were  76.   Bill  of  lading  issued  by  connecting 

justified   in   finding  that  the  contract  was  carrier.- Judgment,  St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.  Co. 

contained  in  the  prior  agreement,  and  not  v.  Elgin  Condensed  Milk  Co.,  74   Til.  App. 

in  the  bills  of  lading  varying  that  agree-  619,  affirmed  in   St.   Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v. 

ment.     Swift  v.  Pacific  Mail,  etc.,  Co.,  106  Elgin  Condensed   Milk  Co.,  51   N.   E.  911, 

N    Y.  206,  12  N.  E.  583.  175  111.  557,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  238. 


455  SPECIAL   coxTRACTs.  §§  761-763 

the  bill  of  lading:  "To  be  fed  and  watered  at  the  expense  of  the  shippers.  No 
one  in  charge."  Besides,  when  the  carrier  knows  that  no  one  accompanies  the 
stock,  it  is  his  duty  to  look  after  and  care  for  them  as  if  there  were  no  contract 
with  the  shijjpcr."' 

Contract  to  Carry  to  Terminus  Only— Markings  on  Bill  of  Lading.— 
A  specific  agreement  by  the  receiving  carrier  to  transport  the  freiglil  only  to  the 
terminus  of  its  line,  and  there  deliver  to  a  connecting  carrier,  can  not  be  con- 
trolled by  markings  on  the  bill  of  lading,  giving  the  name  of  the  consignee  and 
the   ultimate   destination   of   the    freight.'^ 

Through  Contracts  by  Bill  of  Lading. — Where  a  verbal  contract  of  ship- 
ment is  made  by  which  freight  i^  to  be  carried  to  its  destination,  but  the  bill  of 
lading  then  made  is  merely  to  carry  to  the  next  carrier,  which  the  shipper  does 
not  notice,  the  verbal  contract  is  competent  evidence  in  an  action  to  recover  un- 
der  the  common-law   liabilitv    for   failure   to   deliver.'-' 

Subsequent  Change  of  Rates.— A  shipjjer  applied  to  the  local  freight  agent 
of  a  railroad  compan\ ,  to  gel  the  rates  of  freight  upon  a  proposed  shipment  of 
a  certain  amount  of  grain  to  a  given  point.  The  agent,  acting  by  authority,  gave 
hiiu  the  rate,  and  he  agreed  to  ship  at  that  rate.  He  then  went  to  the  master  pf 
trains  of  the  company,  and  made  an  arrangement  with  him  for  the  requisite 
niunber  of  cars  per  week,  for  the  purpose  of  making  such  shipment.  Held,  that 
this  amounted  to  a  special  contract,  on  the  part  of  the  company,  to  make  the 
shipment  at  the  rates  named  by  the  freight  agent,  and  to  furnish  the  cars  in 
the  manner  agreed  upon  by  the  shipper  and  master  of  trains;  and  it  could  not 
be  affected  by  a  subse(|uent  change  of  their  rates  of  freight.^" 

False  Representations  as  to  Arrival  as  Grounds  for  Rescission.— 
Where  contracts  for  furnishing  freight  are  entered  into  in  reliance  upon  untrue 
representations  as  to  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  at  port  of  shipment,  which  repre- 
sentations amount  to  a  warrant}-  on  the  part  of  the  shipper  and  her  agents,  they 
can  not  be  enforced  against  the  shippers,  though  the  contracts  contained  no  can- 
celing clause. ^^ 

Evidence  of  Rescission. — Where  a  shipper  contracted  with  the  agent  of  a 
railroad  company  for  the  transportation  of  goods  on  a  particular  day  and  train, 
but  the  company  failed  to  perform  such  agreement,  the  fact  that  the  shipper 
was  subsequently  informed  by  another  person  that  the  goods  could  not  be  sent 
by  that  train  if  the  car  should  be  full  was  not  evidence  of  a  subsequent  rescis- 
sion of  such  contract,  it  appearing  that  such  person  was  not  a  freight  agent  of 
the  company.^- 

§§  762-786.  Actions  against  Carrier  for  Breach  of  Contract— §  762. 
Nature  and  Form  of  Remedy. — Where  a  railroad  comjiany  was  induced  to 
break  its  contract  with  a  shipper  by  threats  and  representations  of  a  thinl  per- 
son, the  shipper's  remedy  is  an  action  against  the  railroad  company  for  a  breach 
of  contract. ''-'• 

§  763.  Limitation,  in  Contract,  of  Time  for  Bringing  Action.— Under 
a  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that  no  action  for  breach  thereof  shall  be  sus- 
tainable, unless  brought  within  40  days  after  the  right  of  action  has  accrued,  a 

77.  Express   modification   of   provisions  80.     Sub'=equent   change   of   rates. — Tol- 
as to  duty  to  feed  and  water  stock.  —Xor-  edo.  etc..   R.  Co.  f.   Roliorts.  71    111.  .")4n. 
folk,    etc.,    R.    Co.   7-.    Sutherland,    lo.")    \a.  81.    False    representations  as   to  arrival 
54."),   ")4  S.    F..  4<').").  as  grounds  for  rescission. — Gray  v.  Moore, 

78.  Contract  to  carry  to  terminus  only  .;7   I-ed.  Ut-ii. 

by     marking      on    bill    of     lading.— Miller  82.     Evidence    of    rescission. — Curtis    z: 

Grain,  etc.,   Co.  7-.   Union    I'ac.   R.   Co..   i:!s  Cliicaij-o.   etc..   R.   Co.,   is   Wis.   312. 

Mo.  <).-JS.  40  .^.  W.  S',)4.  83.    Nature  and  form  of  remedy. — Glen- 

79.  Through  contracts  by  bill  of  lading.  coe  Laiul.  etc.,  Co.  f.  Hudson  Bros. 
—P.  C.  &  St.  L.  R.  Co.  V.  Blakemore.  l  Comm.  Co..  138  Mo.  439.  40  S.  W.  93.  36 
O    C.  C.  42,  1  O.  C.  D.  26.  L.  R.  A.  804.  60  Am.  St.  Rep.  560. 


§§    763-769  CARRIERS 


456 


delay  for  a  longer  period  will  not  bar  an  action  for  breach  of  a  prior  verbal 
contract  to  furnish  cars  for  the  shipment  of  stock  at  a  certain  place,  on  a  cer- 
tain day.^-* 

§  764.  Demand. — Xo  demand  is  necessary  before  commencing  an  action  of 
contract  against  a  carrier  for  neglecting  to  carry  and  deliver  the  goods  accord- 
ing to  his  contract,  if  the  property  be  lost  or  destroyed.^'' 

§§  765-767.  Persons  Who  May  Sue— §  765.  Shipper.— One  with 
whom  a  railroad  company  makes  a  contract  for  the  shipment  of  goods  may, 
prima  facie,  recover  for  its  breach,  without  showing  title  to  the  property.^'' 
A  bill  of  lading  given  by  a  common  carrier  to  a  shipper  is  sufficient  evidence 
of  such  shipper's  ownership  to  entitle  him  to  sue  for  failure  to  transport  the 
goods.''' 

Consignee  Agent  of  Shipper. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure 
to  transport  goods  according  to  a  contract,  if  the  consignee  of  the  goods  be 
merely  the  agent  of  the  shippers  the  latter  are  the  proper  parties  to  institute  the 
suit,  and  are  entitled  to  recover  the  damages  sustained.'"' 

§  766.  Forwarding  Agent. — A  mere  forwarding  agent  who  ships  under  a 
contract  made  by  his  principal  with  the  carrier  has  not  a  sufficient  interest  to 
entitle  him  to  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  breach  of  the  con- 
tract.s9 

§  767.  Consignee. — A  consignee,  having  title  to  the  property  carried,  may 
sue  in  ^^ontract  upon  the  carrier's  implied  agreement  to  deliver;  but  such  im- 
plied agreement  will  be  also  subject  to  the  terms  of  any  express  contract  made 
by  the  carrier  with   the  consignor.'*" 

§§  768-773.  Pleading— §§  768-772.  Complaint,  Declaration  or  Pe- 
tition— §  768.  "Where  Contract  Distributive  as  to  Time. — Where  plain- 
tiff, a  carrier,  contracted  to  transport  for  defendant,  a  manufacturer,  from  his 
works  from  1,200  to  5,000  barrels  of  salt,  annually,  for  three  years,  the  con- 
tract providing  in  detail  for  plaintifif's  compensation  and  the  deductions  to  be 
made  therefrom  for  salt  lost  in  transit,  in  asserting  a  breach  of  contract  by 
defendant,  whether  by  refusing  to  pay  for  transportation  or  by  refusing  to 
permit  it,  plaintiff  must  confine  himself  to  a  single  year,  or  declare  distributively 
for  single  years. '*^ 

§  769.  Necessary   Allegations. — Terms   of   Contract   and   Breach. — A 

petition   in  an   action  on  a   shi])ping  contract   is  defective   where  it  does  not  set 
forth  the  terms   of  the  contract  and  allege   a  breach   thereof.-'-     A   petition   is 

84.    Limitation,  in  contract,  of  time  for  to  his  home  for  l)urial.     PlaintifF  obtained 

bringing    action. — McCarly    r.    GuU',    etc.,  a    coffin     from     the     city,    and    purchased 

K.    Co.,    79    Tex.    33,    15    S.    W.    164.      See  a    box,    in    which     he     placed     the     coffin, 

ante,    "Limitation     in    Contract     of     Time  and    forwarded    the    body    on    defendant's 

for   Bringing  Action,"  §   763;  post,  "Limi-  vessel   under  a  contract  made  by   the   sis- 

tation  of  Liability,"  Chap.  14.  ter    of    deceased    with    defendant.      Held, 

85        Demand.  —  Alden        v.        Pearson  that  plaintiff  did  not  have  a  sufficient  in- 

(Mass.),  3  Gray  342.     See  Bowlin  v.  Nye  terest    in    the    contract    to    entitle    him    to 

(Mass.),    10   Cush.   416.  maintain   an   action   against   defendant   for 

86.  Shipper. — Davis  v.  Jacksonville  failing  to  transport  the  body.  Driscoll 
Southeastern   Line,   126   Mo.   6a,_  28   S.   W.  z:    Xichols    (Mass.),   .5    Ciray   488. 

9f^5                                                        "  90.     Consignee. — Perkins    Co.    v.    Amer- 

87.  Parks  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  lean  Exp.  Co.,  199  Mass.  561.  85  N.  E. 
Civ.    App.),    30    S.    W.    708.  895. 

88.  Consignee  agent  of  shipper.— Har-  91.  Where  contract  distributive  as  to 
rison  z:  Stewart,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,145,  Ta-  time.  —  White  v.  Toncray,  46  Va.  (5 
ney"485.  Gratt.)    179.                                        ,               , 

89.  Forwarding  agent.— Plaintiff,  at  the  92.  Terms  of  contract  and  breach.— 
request  of  A.,  promised  that  after  A.'s  Garrison  v.  Bal)bage  Transp.  Co.,  94  Mo. 
death    plaintiff   would    transport    his    body  130,   6   S.   W.   701. 


457  •  SI'KCIAL    OJ-NTKACTS.  §    769 

fatallv  defective  wliieli  jilead-^  rit  nio-t  a  Ijreacli  <>t  an  impleaded  contract. ^'^ 

Allegations  That  Defendant  a  Common  Carrier.— In  an  action  against  a 
railroad  company  on  a  special  contract  "to  ship,  transport,  and  carry"  plaintiff's 
goods  lo  X.,  a  point  heyond  defendant's  line,  it  is  not  necessary  to  allege  that 
(lefendanl   is  a  common  carrier."-* 

Name  of  Carrier's  Agent. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  breach  of  con- 
tract (jf  shij)ineiit.  it  is  sufficient  to  allege  that  the  shipping  contract  was  made 
with  defendant  corporation  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  state  the  name  of  the  agent 
making  it."'' 

Ability  to  Transport  or  Furnish  Means  of  Transportation.— In  a  com- 
I)laint  against  a  railroad  conij^au)-  lor  a  Ijreach  of  a  contract  iu  furnish  at  a  cer- 
tain time  and  place  the  necessary  cars,  and  to  transport  a  certain  number  of 
hogs,  it  is  not  necessary  to  allege  that  the  defendant,  at  the  time  complained  of, 
hail  the  ability  to  transport,  or  to  furnish  the  means  to  transport,  such  hogs.*-"' 

Delivery  of  Goods  to  Carrier. — In  an  action  against  a  comjnon  carrier  for 
l)reach  of  contract,  in  failin-  to  carry  goods,  the  plaintiff  must  allege  a  delivery; 
and  it  is  not  sufficient  to  allege  that  th?  carrier  executed  a  bill  of  lading  "ac- 
knowled.ging  the  recei])t"  of  the  goods."" 

Description  of  Shipment. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  breach  of  a 
special  contract  for  the  shiinnent  of  fruit  trees,  where  the  petition  did  not  claim 
as  damages,  the  market  value  of  the  trees,  but  the  amount  for  which  the  trees 
had  been  sold,  of  which  it  was  alleged  defendant  was  fully  apprised  when  the 
contract  was  made,  it  was  not  necessary  for  plaintiff",  in  his  complaint  or  by  a 
bill  of  particulars,  to  give  any  description  of  the  contents  of  the  shipment ;  his 
measure  of  damages  being  the  amount  for  which  the  trees  had  been  sold."*" 

Special  Damages. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for  failure  to  furnish 
cars  for  the  shi])ment  of  cattle  according  to  contract,  there  can  be  no  recovery 
for  horse  hire  made  necessary  by  the  delay,  where  such  item  is  not  pleaded.^^ 

Items  Constituting  Amount  of  Damages. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  breach  of  a  special  contract  of  shipment,  where  defendant  was  informed  of 
the  accrual  of  items  of  expense  for  renotifying  and  delivering  the  goods  to  the 
purchasers,  in  the  event  it  failed  to  deliver  them  safely  and  at  the  time  agreed 
upon,  it  was  not  nccessany  for  plaintiff  to  itemize  in  his  petition  the  diff'erent 
matters  constituting  the  amount  of   such   damage.'' 

Rate  Fixed  by  Railroad  Commission. — The  petition  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  breach  of  a  freight  contract,  made  while  the  railroad  commission 
was  in  force,  need  not  allege  that  the  rate  fixed  by  the  contract  was  that  es- 
tablished by  the  commission,  as  any  violation  of  the  commission  act  is  a  matter 
of  defense. - 

93.  Currcll  z:  ITaiinil)al.  etc..  R.  Co.,  97  Co.  v.  Arnett,  40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  7>\  88 
Mo.    App.    93,    71    S.    \V.    111.  S.  W.  448. 

94.  Allegations  that  defendant  a  com-  An  item  of  damacjes  was  loss  of  price 
men  carrier. — Dunl^ar  7\  Port  Royal,  etc.,  on  4,000  bushels  of  corn  from  the  breach 
R.  Co.,  ;iC.  S.  C.  110,  1.")  .'=;.  i'.  :!.')7,  3t  Am.  of  contract  to  furnish  cars.  There  was 
St.  Rep.  S()0.  no   averment    of   injury    to   corn    accumu- 

95.  Name  of  carrier's  agent.— Missouri,  lated,  throu,s;h  exposure,  etc.  Held,  er- 
etc,  R.  Co.  V.  Withers,  Ki  Tex.  Civ.  App.  ror  to  admit  testmiony  to  the  injury  not 

rAy\  40  S.  W.   107.3.  il''^-'-^?,-.    ^'"'^-  «^1^--  ^^\  S:""-  .V      ?^^^' 

.  ,  ...                                   ^              r        ■  u  Tox.    Civ.    -App.    •)4r'..    .30    S.    W  .    s29. 

96.  Ability  to  transport  or  furnish  j  j^^^^  constituting  amount  of  dam- 
means  of  transportation  -  I  ittshursh.  ages.-Pacitic  Kxp.  Co.  r.  Xeedham,  S3 
etc.,    R.    Co.    r.    Hays.    49    Ind.    20,.  ^    ^^    ^^    3.  ^^^    ^^j^.     ^p^    j^g      c;^^   c;t. 

97.  Delivery  of  goods  to  carrier.— Page  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Stonecvpher,  2.5 
&  Co.  7'.  Sandusky,  etc..  R.  Co.,  2  O.  Dec.  Tex.  Civ.  App.  .5fi9,  63  S.  W.  946;  Mis- 
Reprint    7ir,,    4   \y.    L.    M.    044.  souri    Pac.    R.    Co.    7:    Edwards,    7S    Tex. 

98.  Description    of    shipment. — ^Pacific       307,    14    S.    W.    i>07. 

Exp.   Co.  V.   Xoodhani,  :i7   Tex.   Civ.  App.  2.     Rate   fixed   by   railroad   commission. 

129,   83    S.   W    22.  — Thompson  f.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.   Co., 

99.  Special    damages.— Texas,    etc.,    R.       11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  145,  32  S.  W.  437. 


§§  769-770  CARRIERS.  458 

Illegality  of  Contract  Relied  on.— \Miere  the  petition  in  an  action  against 
a  railroad  for  breach  of  a  freight  contract  showed  no  violation  of  law  in  the 
contract  made,  it  was  a  matter  of  defense  to  show  wherein  it  was  illegal.-- 

Written    Contract   Relied   on   as   Defense   for   Violation   of   Carrier's 

Duty. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  comjiany  to  recover  damages  for  an 
alleged  violation  of  duty  as  a  common  carrier,  plaintiff  is  not  required  to  plead 
or  prove  the  written  contract  under  which  his  shipment  was  made,  which,  if 
relied  on  by  defendant,  is  a  matter  of  defense.-* 

§  770.  Sufficiency  of  Allegation.— In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
panv  on  a  special  contract  ""to  ship,  transport,  and  carry"  plaintift"s  goods  to 
X..'a  point  beyond  defendant's  line,  it  is  sufficient  to  set  out  such  contract,  and 
a  breach  thereof  bv  defendant. •'' 

That  Defendant  Railway  a  Common  Carrier.— That  a  railway  company 
sued  on  a  contract  of  carriage  is  a  common  carrier  is  sufficiently  averred  by  an 
allegation  in  the  declaration  that  defendant  is  a  corporation  created  by  the  law 
of  the  state,  and  engaged  in  operating,  a  railroad,  and  conveying  corn  and  grain 
in  cars  furnished  bv  the  companv  upon  its  own  and  other  roads.'' 

Allegation  of  Acceptance  of'  Offer.— An  allegation  in  the  declaration  in  an 
action  by  a  shipper  against  a  carrier  lor  breach  of  a  contract  of  shipment,  which 
alleges  an  offer  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  and  an  acceptance  by  the  shipper,  is 
an  allegation  of  an  acceptance  before  the  oft'er  was  withdrawn.'^  and  is  sufficiently 
made  bv  use  of  the  word  agreed.'^ 

Demand  That  Cars  Be  Furnished. — An  allegation  in  the  complaint  in  an 
action  against  a  railway  company  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  that  plaintiff  had 
demanded  of  the  company,  through  its  agent  at  a  designated  station,  that  cars 
be  furnished  there,  and  that  he  had  demanded  of  its  agent  at  another  designated 
station,  who  acted  as  agent  for  another  station,  that  cars  be  furnished  at  the 
latter  station,  sufficiently  shows  demands  of  proper  authority,  and  sufficiently 
apprises  the  companv  of  the  agents  on  whom  the  demands  were  made.-^ 

Time  When  Cars  to  Be  Furnished. — A  complaint  which  alleges  an  agree- 
ment whereby  defendant  was  to  equip  a  sidetrack  to  be  laid  to  plaintiff's  or- 
chard, and  to  furnish  sufficient  refrigerator  cars  to  handle  plaintiff's  apple  crop 
estimated  at  about  50  cars,  at  the  rate  of  about  six  or  eight  cars  per  week,  as 
required  by  plaintiff,  in  consideration  of  which  plaintiff'  agreed  to  ship  all  his 
apple  crop  over  defendant's  railroad  and  also  alleges  that  defendant  failed  and 
refused  on  demand  to  furnish  cars  in  accordance  with  the  contract,  and  that, 
by  reason  thereof,  plaintiff  was  damaged,  etc.,  sets  forth  a  contract  mutual  in 

3.  Illegality  of  contract  relied  on.—  staves  from  a  designated  place,  that 
Thompson  r.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  plaintiff  was  notified  by  defendant  to  have 
11   Tex.   Civ.   App.   14.5,   148,  .32  S.   W.  427.  the   staves  prepared   for  loading,  and  that 

4.  Written  contract  relied  on  as  de-  defendant  wrongfully  refused  to  accept 
fense  for  violation  of  carrier's  duty.—  and  transport  the  staves  when  tendered, 
Empire  State  Cattle  Co.  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  to  plaintiff's  damage,  was  not  demurra- 
R.  Co.,  129  Fed.  480;  Southern  Pac.  Co.  ble  for  failing  to  allege  that  plamtiff 
V    Arnett,  .50  C.  C.  A.  17,  111  Fed.  849.  promised   and   agreed    to    ship    the   staves 

5.  Sufficiency  of  allegation.-Dunbar  v.  ^"d  pay  the  freight  thereon;  the  word 
Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co  :ir,  S.  C.  110,  15  agreed  bemg  defined  as  brought  mto 
c  -r>  o-~  ',^  A,,,  ct  p,.,^  aac  harmony,  united  in  opinion,  settled  by 
S.   E.  o.<,   .,1   Am^  St.   R.  ).   8r,0.  consent,"  and  the  allegation  that  plaintiff 

6.  That  defendant  railway  a  common  ^^.^^  notified  by  defendant  to  have  the 
earner.— Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts,  ^^^^.^^  prepared  for  loading  showing  at 
71    111.    540.  I^^g^  ^}^^^  plaintiff  was  to  accept  the  con- 

7.  Allegation  of  acceptance  of  offer. —  ^j-j^j^^  l^y  acting,  and  not  by  written  ac- 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox.  'J9  \'a.  :594,  ceptance  (citing  1  Words  and  Phrases, 
.39    S.    K.    144.  279).      Mott   V.   Jackson,    172   Ala.   448,    55 

8.  "Agreed." — A     complaint,     alleging       So.   528. 

that  defendant,  a  common   carrier,  prom-  9.     Demand    that    cars    be    furnished. — 

ised    and    agreed   with    plaintiff    for   a    re-       Choctaw,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Rolfc.    76    Ark. 
ward     to     receive     and     transport     some       220,   88   S.   W.   870. 


459  si'KciAL   CONTRACTS.  §§  770-772 

its  terms,  and  is  not  uncertain  for  failure  to  specify  the  time  when  the  cars 
were  to  be  furnished,  it  being  presumed  that  the  parties  made  their  contract  in 
view  of  the  usual  custom  relative  to  the  transaction  with  knowledge  of  the  time 
when,  in  the  onlinary  course,  the  crop  would  be  moved.'" 

Tender  of  Shipment. — A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a  railway  company 
for  failure  to  funusli  cars  which  alleges  that  plaintiff  placed  for  shipment  at 
stations  named  certain  (|uantities  of  lumber,  and  that  he  offered  the  same  for 
shipment.  sutTicicntlv  shows  tliat  tlic  tender  was  to  the  respective  station  agents. ^^ 

Fact  of  Delivery  of  Goods  to  Carrier. — See  ante.  "Xecessary  Allega- 
tions." §  7')'^. 

Allegation  of  Delivery  of  Goods  within  Reasonable  Time. — An  allega- 
tion in  the  declaration  that  the  goods  were  delivered  according  to  the  agreement 
is  to  be  construed  as  alleging,'  a  delivery  within  a  reasonable  time.'- 

Readiness  to  Pay  Freight. — A  declaration  in  an  action  to  recover  for  dam- 
ages for  defendant's  breach  of  contract  to  furnish  cars  to  carry  plaintiff's  live 
stock,  plaintiff  declared  on  the  special  contract,  alleging  that  "for  a  certain  rea- 
sonable hire  or  reward,  to  be  thereupon  ])aid  by  the  plaintiff  to  the  defendant 
in  that  behalf,"  defendant  agreed  to  furnish  the  cars,  sufficiently  alleged  plain- 
tiff's readiness  to  pay  the  freight  at  the  time  the  car  was  demanded.'-' 

Breach  of  Contract  to  Stop  at  Any  Intermediate  Point. — In  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company  for  breach  of  a  condition  in  a  bill  of  lading  to  the 
eft'ect  that  the  car  containing  bananas  might  be  stopped  at  any  intermediate  point, 
the  complaint  having  alleged  that  there  was  a  good  market  for  the  bananas  at 
both  of  the  places  named,  that  they  had  a  market  value  which  was  stated,  and 
that  they  were  shipped  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  markets  at  such  place,  but 
that  by  being  carried  further,  they  became  unfit  for  use.  was  sufficient.'-* 

§  771.  Theories  of  Case. — A  complaint  for  breach  of  a  contract  to  carry 
lumber  by  boat  during  the  boating  season,  alleging  that  plaintiff  was  thereby 
compelled  to  pay  to  others  excessive  freights  to  a  certain  amount,  as  one  theory 
of  the  measure  of  damages,  and  alleging  that  by  reason  of  defendant's  promises 
that  the  lumber  would  all  be  conveyed,  in  due  time,  plaintiff"  kept  a  large  amount 
of  lumber  on  its  docks,  ready  for  shipment,  which  it  was  compelled  to  carry 
over  the  winter,  and  sell  in  the  spring  at  a  reduced  price,  and  was  compelled  to 
pay  taxes,  interest,  and  insurance  during  the  winter,  as  another  theory  of  the 
measure  of  damages,  does  not  present  inconsistent  theories,  but  the  jury  may 
be  required  to  find  on  both.''' 

§  772.  Aider  by  Subsequent  Pleadings  and  Verdict. — The  subsequent 
pleadings  may  supi)ly  defects  in  the  petition."' 

10.  Time  when  cars  to  be  furnished.  16.  Aider  by  subsequent  pleadings— 
— Oretjon  R..  etc..  Co.  v.  Dumas.  104  C.  The  answer,  after  a  tieiieral  denial,  al- 
C.  A.  V.41,  isi  Fed.  781.                                          leged   a   contract  whereby   it   was   to   fur- 

11.  Tender  of  shipment. — Choctaw,  nish  cars  on  a  certain  day.  in  time  for 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rolfe.  TO  Ark.  220.  88  S.  plaintiff's  cattle  to  reach  the  Chicago 
\V.    870.  market    of   a    certain    other    day.    and    al- 

12.  Allegation  of  delivery  of  goods  ^^'S^ed  .that  the  cars  were  in  readiness  for 
within  reasonable  time.-Southern  R.  Co.  Pl^'ntift  s  use  m  due  time,  but  that  p  am- 
f    Wilc.x    '..',.  \  a.   :!l.4.  liU   S.   E.   144.  M*^    refused    to    take    them.      The    replica- 

^      .,^      ,.                           r     •   L^      IT'  .  t'on  admitted   the   contract  as   pleaded   m 

13.  Readiness  to  pay  f reight.-\\  ater-  ^,^^  answer.  Held,  that  the  subsequent 
man  r.   \  crmont   Cent.   R.   Co.,  2.,  \  t.   ,0<.  p,^.^ji„„s    jj^j    ^q^    supply    the    defects    of 

14.  Breach  of  contract  to  stop  at  any  t}^^  petition  so  as  to  justify  a  trial  on 
intermediate  point. — Tebbs  v.  Cleveland.  ^1,^  theory  of  an  unpleaded  contract 
etc.,  R.  Co..  20  Ind.  App,  192,  50  X.  E.  whereby  defendant  agreed  to  have  the 
480.  cars  ready  at  1  a.  m..  and   not   for  failure 

15.  Theories  of  case. — Shores  Lumber  to  furnish  cars  in  time  for  the  Chicago 
Co.  V.  Starke,  loo  Wis.  498.  76  X.  \V.  StiO.  market.     Currell  v.  Hannibal,  etc..  R.  Co., 

71    S.   W.   113.   97   Mo.   App.   93. 


§§  771-17A  CARRIERS.  460 

Aider  by  Verdict. — \\"here  in  an  action  for  not  transporting  certain  goods, 
the  plaintitt  declared  that  he  loaded  the  goods  on  board  the  defendant's  vessel, 
to  be  transported  by  the  defendant  for  a  specified  freight,  to  be  paid  by  the 
consignee,  and  that  the  defendant,  in  consideration  thereof,  promised  to  trans- 
port and  deliver  the  goods  to  the  consignee,  the  declaration  will,  after  verdict, 
be  held  good,  though  it  did  not  aver  that  the  goods  were  the  plaintitf's,  nor  that 
a  reasonable  time  for  transporting  them  had  elapsed. i' 

Want  of  Allegation  of  Readiness  to  Pay  Freight.— \\  here  the  contract 
sued  on  was  fairlv  susceptible  of  the  inter})retation  that  plaintitT  was  to  pay  a 
reasonable  freight'  at  the  end  of  the  carriage,  a  declaration  alleging  that,  "for 
a  certain  reasonable  hire  or  reward  to  be  thereupon  paid  by  the  plaintiff  to  the 
defendant  in  that  behalf,"  defendants  agreed  to  let  plaintiff  have  a  car,  etc., 
was  sufficient,  on  a  motion  in  arrest,  after  verdict,  for  the  want  of  an  allegation 
of  readiness  to  pay  the  freight  to  the  defendant  at  the  time  of  demanding  the 
car.^^ 

§   773.  Plea   or  Answer.— Plea   Denying  Agency   of   Persons   Making 

Contract.— Where  the  agency  of  the  person  making  a  shipping  contract  which 
included  personal  transportation  is  not  denied  by  verified  plea,  the  contract  is 
binding  on  the  carrier.^'^ 

Answer. — On  a  complaint  for  breach  of  a  contract  to  furnish  and  set  in  cars 
on  a  warehouseman's  siding,  an  answer  that  the  warehouseman  had  allowed  the 
cars  to  be  placed  so  far  out  that  collisions  with  cars  on  the  main  track  resulted, 
and  there  was  danger  of  others,  was  properly  stricken;  it  not  being  sufficient 
as  a  defense  in  bar,  and  not  having  been  pleaded  as  a  set-off  or  counterclaim. ^•> 

Illegality  of  Contract.— See  ante,  "Necessary  Allegations,"  §  769. 

Demurrer. — Since  it  is  a  matter  of  proof  whether  or  not  an  agent  of  a  rail- 
road company  had  authority  to  make  a  contract  to  furnish  cars,  it  is  error  to 
sustain  a  demurrer  to  an  answer,  in  an  action  against  such  company  for  in- 
jury to  the  shipment,  alleging  want  of  such  authority.-^ 

§  774.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance. — In  an  action  for  breach  of  contract 
by  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars  for  shipment  of  timber,  the  damages  sought  being 
the  profits  which  but  for  such  breach  plaintiff  would  have  made  on  his  contract 
to  furnish  the  timber  to  \\'.,  the  question  whether  plaintifif  had  to  turn  over  his 
contract  with  W.  to  certain  persons  to  pay  them  what  he  owed  them  is  not 
within  the  issues,  there  being  interposed  only  the  plea  of  general  issue  and  spe- 
cial pleas  that  the  contract  sued  on  was  indefinite  and  unilateral. -- 

Evidence  That  Contract  in  Violation  of  Interstate  Commerce  Laws.— 
When  an  interstate  railroad  is  sued  for  the  breach  of  a  contract  tp  carry  goods 
at  a  reduced  rate,  evidence  that  the  contract  is  illegal  as  a  violation  of  the  in- 
terstate commerce  law   is   admissible  under  the  general   issue.-'' 

Bill  of  Lading  Evidencing  Contract  "to  Forward,"  Action  on  Contract 
"to  Carry." — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  on  a  special  contract 
"to  ship,  transport,  and  carry"  plaintiff's  goods  to  N.,  a  point  beyond  defend- 
ant's line,  plaintiff  could  not  offer  in  evidence  the  bill  of  lading,  showing  defend- 
ant's contract  to  be  "to  forward"  the  goods  to  N.,  and  that  defendant  "assumes 
no  liability  beyond   its  own  rails,"   and  "will   not  be   responsible   for  delays  or 

17.  Aider  by  verdict.^Stimpson  v.  Gil-  20.  Answer.— Amsden  v.  Dubuque,  etc., 
Christ    (Me.),    1    Greenl.    202.  R.    Co.,    l.'i    Iowa   1.32. 

18.  Want  of  allegation  of  readiness  to  21.  Demurrer. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
pay  freight.— Waterman  v.  Vermont  Cent.  Hanini,  2  Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §  491. 

R.    Co..    2.5    Vt.    707.  22.    Issues,  proof  and  variance. — Baxley 

19.  Plea  denying  agency  of  persons  v.  Tallassec,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12s  Ala.  183,  29 
making    contract.- -International,    etc.,    R.       So.   4.51. 

Co.    V.    Camubell,    1    Tex.    Civ.    App.    509,  23.    Evidence  that  contract  m  violation 

512    20    S     W    845  of    interstate    commerce    laws. — Southern 

R.  Co.  V.  Wilcox,  99  \  a.  394,  39  S.   E.  144. 


4f,\  SrKCIAL    CONTRACTS.  §    774 

damages  from  mia\  oidalile  causes," — a  contract  to  forward  not  l)eing  a  contract 
to  carr\-  or  trans])<irl.-' 

Validity  of  Written  Contract  Executed  after  the  Oral  Contract.— In 
an  action  1)\  a  shi])ijer  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnish  cars  within  the 
time  specified  in  an  oral  contract,  it  is  error  to  ignore  the  written  contract, 
pleaded  by  defendant,  executed  after  the  oral  contract,  and  releasing  defendant 
from  lialnlitv  for  breach  of  the  oral  contract— its  validity  not  having  been  as- 
sailed in  pla'inlifi"s  jV.eadings— as.  in  the  absence  of  a  pleading  putting  in  issue 
the  vahdity  of  the  written  contract,  it,  besides  reciting  a  consideration,  imports 

one.-'' 

Title  of  Consignee.  — W  here  in  an  action  ])y  a  consignee  against  the  car- 
rier and  consignor  to  recover  for  damages  to  perishable  freight,  the  consignee's 
title  being  in  issue  the  claim  being  that  the  property  belonged  to  the  consignor, 
the  consignee  having  in  a  sn])])lemental  petition,  and  by  way  of  estoppel,  alleged 
that  he  had  i)resented  a  claim  to  the  comijany.  which  it  had  refused  to  pay,  say- 
ing that,  if  the  goods  were  damaged,  it  was  the  fault  of  the  carrier,  from  which 
the  consignee  must  collect  his  claim,  whereby  tlie  consignee  was  induced  to  sue 
the  carrier,  the  facts  so  alleged  were  admissildc  under  the  consignee's  general 
allegation   of  ownership.-"'' 

Instruction  to  Stop  at  Intermediate  Point.— \\  here  the  contract  for  the 
shipment  of  stock  from  L'tah  to  Chicago  required  that  the  shipment  be  made 
through  Omaha,  but  the  stock  was  shipped  by  another  route,  whereby  the  ship- 
per, lost  an  op])orlunilv  to  dispose  of  it  at  Omaha,  it  was  proper,  in  an  action 
for  the  breach,  for  i)laintiff  to  testify  that  he  told  the  shipping  agent  he  wanted 
the  stock  stopped  at  (  )niaha,  as  he  expected  it  would  be  sold  there;  such  testi- 
mony not  varying  the  terms  of  the  contract.-" 

Parol  Evidence  Where  Bill  of  Lading  Delivered  after  Contract  Not 
Relied  on. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  resulting  from  defendaiu's 
delav  in  delivering  perishable  goods  which  it  undertook  to  carry  for  plaintilt, 
where  no  bill  of  lading  w^as  delivered  to  plaintiff,  and  he  sued  on  a  verbal  con- 
tract made  by  him  with  defendant's  agent  to  deliver  the  goods  within  four  days 
from  the  date  of  ilicir  shipment,  and  defendant  in  its  answer  does  not  rely  on 
the  bill  of  lading  subsequently  delivered  to  plaintiff,  the  rule  that  oral  testimony 
can  not,  in  the  absence  of  any  allegation  of  fraud  or  mistake,  be  introduced  to 
change  or  varv  the  terms  of  a  written  contract,  does  not  apply. -^ 

Contract  by  Receiver  or  Agent  of  Receiver. — In  an  action  against  a  rail- 
road receiver  for  damages  on  a  shipping  contract  to  which  the  company  was 
subsequently  made  a  j^iarty,  there  is  no  variance  between  the  contract  stied  on 
wdiich  was  alleged  to  have  been  executed  by  receiver  and  the  contract  in  evi- 
dence which  was  signed  by  the  agent  of  receiver  without  showing  on  its  face 
that  it  w-as  made  with  the  receiver,  where  the  road  was  in  the  receiver's  hands, 
when  the  contract   was  made.-'' 

Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  on  Specific  Day— Evidence  Showing  Negli- 
gent Delay.— W  here  a  petition  alleged  the  breach  by  a  railroad  of  a  contract 
to  furnish  cars  on  a  specific  date,  it  was  error  to  submit  to  the  jury  the  issue. 

24.  Bill    of   lading    evidencing    contract  27.    Instruction  to  stop  at  intermediate 
"to     forward,"     action     on     contract     "to  point.     Sliarp    :.    Clark.    1P>    Utah    .".m.    4:. 
carry."— Dunbar    v.    Port    Royal,    etc.,    R.  I'ac.    .".r.f..                                                 ^  ,    j- 
Co.,  3C>  S.  C.  110,  15  S.  H.  357,  31  Am.  St.  28.    Parol  evidence  where  bill  of  lading 
Rep.  8(i0.  delivered   after   contract   not   relied    on. — 

25.  Validity  of  written  contract  exe-  ClusaiHako.  etc.,  R.  Co.  :.  Bradford.  15 
cuted  after  the  oral  contract.— Ft.  Worth,  Ky.  L.  Rep.  f,0.  Sec  ante,  -Mer-er."  ^5; 
etc..    R.    Co.    f.    Underwooil,    30    Tex.    Civ.  75r).   700. 

App.  404,  S7   S.  W.   713.  29.     Contract   by   receiver   or   agent   of 

26.  Title  of  consignee.— Texas  Cent.  R.  receiver.— Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Wilson 
Co.  7:  Dorscv,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  377,  70  (Tex.  Civ.  App.V  21  ?.  W.  373.  afhrmed 
S.   W.    575.  in   85   Tex.    507. 


§§  774-776  CARRIERS.  462 

raised  onlv  by  the  evidence,  of  a  negligent  delay  in  furnishing  cars.-"^*^ 

Variance  immaterial. — The  variance  is  immaterial  where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  on  a  bill  of  lading,  the  complaint  alleged  the  bill  of  lading  in 
the  form  prescribed  by  the  Code  and  the  bill  introduced  in  evidence  contained 
special  limitations  of  the  carrier's  common-law  liability;-'^  where  a  petition  to 
recover  damages  for  a  violation  of  a  contract  of  affreightment  to  car r\-  safely 
alleged  that  the  shipment  was  from  Kansas  City  to  Indianapolis,  when  in  fact 
the  contract  was  from  Kansas  City  to  St.  Louis,  the  evidence  showing  that  the 
alleged  injuries  occurred  between  Kansas  City  and  St.  Louis;  3-  where,  in  an 
action  for  breach  of  a  carrier's  contract  to  furnish  cars,  plaintiff  alleged  that 
defendant's  agent  who  acted  for  them  in  negotiating  the  contract,  to  wit.  W.  and 
S.,  were  duly  authorized  to  make  such  contract,  proof  that  plaintiff"  negotiated 
the  contract  with  S.  through  letters  and  telegrams,  and  consummated  a  verbal 
contract  with  ]\I.-'^ 

"Variance  Material. — Where  an  action  is  brought  for  an  alleged  breach  of 
a  carrier's  implied  contract,  and  the  goods  are  shown  to  have  been  shipped,  un- 
der a  special  written  contract,  the  plaintiff'  can  not  recover.-^-* 

Variance  as  to  Point  of  Destination. — In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for 
breach  of  contract  of  shipment,  allegation  in  the  petition  that  the  contract  pro- 
vided for  the  shipment  to  a  certain  point,  and  the  contract  introduced  showed 
shipment  to  a  different  point,  the  variance  was   fatal.''-'' 

§  775.  Questions  for  Jury. — The  question  as  to  whether  certain  goods 
were  shipped  upon  a  bill  of  lading  or  under  a  prior  parol  contract  covering  fu- 
ture shipments  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury.'^'^ 

"Whether  Parties  Made  Alleged  Contract. — In  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier for  failure  to  deliver  cars,  whether  the  parties  made  an  alleged  contract  to 
furnish  them,  as  testified  to  by  plaintiff",  was  a  question  of  fact,  so  that  it  was 
not  error  to  deny  defendant's  motion  for  an  instructed  verdict.^" 

"Whether  Goods  Delivered  within  Reasonable  Time. — Where  a  contract 
for  the  shipment  of  goods  at  a  reduced  rate  requires  delivery  to  the  shipper 
within  a  reasonable  time,  and  there  is  considerable  delay  on  the  part  of  the  ship- 
per, but  it  is  partially  caused  by  the  carrier  making  overcharges,  and  by  an  in- 
crease in  the  rate,  it  is  not  error,  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  a  breach 
of  the  contract,  to  submit  the  issue  whether  the  goods  w^ere  delivered  to  the  car- 
rier within  a  reasonable  time.^"" 

Authority  of  Agent  to  Make  Verbal  Contract. — See  ante,  "Authority  of 
Agent,"  §§  715-723. 

Merger  of  Oral  in  "Written  Contract  a  Question  for  the  Jury. — See  ante, 
"Contract  Executed  after  Carriage  Begun,"  §§  7h7-7'b%. 

§§  776-784.  Evidence — §  776.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof. 
— Burden  of  Proof  of  Making  of  Contract. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad 

30.  Evidence  showing  negligent   delay.  35.    Variance  as  to  point  of  destination. 

—Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Arnett,    40   Tex.  —Texas,   etc:,   R.    Co.  v.   Hamm,   2   Texas 

Civ.    App.    li\,    88    S.    W.    448.  App.    Civ.    Cas.,    §    491. 

31.  Variance  immaterial. — Louisville,  36.  Questions  for  jury. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Landers,  13.5  Ala.  504,  33  R.  Co.  z'.  Elgin  Condensed  Milk  Co.,  74 
So.  482;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cody,  111.  App.  (UO,  affirmed  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
137  Ala.  597,  34  So.  1003.  Co.   v.    Elgin    Condensed   Alilk   Co.,   51    N. 

32.  Cash  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  81  Mo.  E.  911,  17.";  111.  557,  fi7  Am.  St.  Rep.  238. 
App.   109.  37.    Whether  parties  made  alleged  con- 

33.  Pecos  River  R.  Co.  v.  Latham,  40  tract. — Pope  v.  Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  Co., 
Tex.   Civ.  App.  78,  88  S.  W.  392,  affirmed  112   Minn.   112,  127   N.  W.  43G. 

in  101  Tex.  fi52.  no  op.  38.     Whether     goods     delivered    writhin 

34.  Variance  material. — Stewart  v.  reasonable  time. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
Cleveland,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  21    Ind.   App.   218,  cox.  99  \  a.  394,  39  S.  E.  144. 

52  N.  E.  89. 


463  SPECIAL    CONTRACTS.  §§    776-777 

for  its  failure  to  furnish  cars  within  a  reasonable  time  for  the  shipment  of  cat- 
tle, the  burden  is  on  plaintiff  to  pro\e  the  makin<(  of  a  contract  for  the  cars.-'"-* 

That  Rate  Established  by  Railroad  Commission. — There  is  no  presump- 
tion that  the  railroad  commission  of  a  state  has  established  freight  rates  over 
a  particular  road.-*" 

That  Rate  Filed  in  Compliance  with  Interstate  Commerce  Act. — In  a 
suit  against  a  railroad  for  breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  freight  at  a  certain 
rate,  the  burden  is  not  on  plaintiff  to  show  that  the  contract  rate  had  been  filed 
with  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  approved  by  the  State  Railroad 
Commission,  as  required  by  Interstate  Commerce  Act  Vth.  4,  1887,  c.  104,  24 
Stat.  380,  §  6  [L'.  S.  Comp.  St.  1901,  p.  3156],  and  Code  1892,  §  A292*^ 

§§  777-782.  Admissibility— §  777.  Relevancy  and  Competency.— In 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  furnihh  cars,  evidence  tliat  cars  were 
ordered  at  a  station  from  the  agent  there,  who  stated  that  cars  could  be  had 
through,  the  agent  at  another  place,  was  admissible,  as  showing  that  the  carrier 
had  contracted  to  furnish  cars.'*- 

Contract  between  Vendor  and  Vendee  as  to  Purchase  and  Shipment. 
— in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  committed  to  him 
for  transportation,  evidence  as  to  the  plaintiff's  purchase  of  the  goods,  and  his 
contract  with  his  vendor  as  to  their  shipment,  is  admissible  as  part  of  the  res 
gestae  to  show  plaintiff's  interest  in  the  gooch;,  to  identify  them,  and  to  show 
that  he  authorized  their  delivery  to  the  carrier,  but  not  to  show  that  the  goods 
were  actually  delivered  to  the  carrier.-*-^  But  in  \'irginia  it  has  been  held :  Evi- 
dence of  contracts  by  a  shipper  for  the  sale  of  goods  to  be  shipped  over  a  cer- 
tain railroad,  the  railroad  not  being  a  party  thereto,  is  inadmissible  *in  action  by 
the  shipper  against  the  railroad  for  the  breach  of  a  contract  to  carr}'  the  goods 
at  a  certain  rate,  though  such  contracts  of  sale  are  based  on  the  reduced  freight 
late.-*^ 

Evidence  as  to  Ability  to  Furnish  Cars. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad 
company  for  damages  f(jr  failure  t(j  ship  cattle  as  agreed,  where  it  was  claimed 
in  defense  that  the  company  was  crowded  with  business,  and  could  not  furnish 
cars  sooner,  evidence  that  empty  cars  stood  at  the  shipping  point  during  the 
time  of  delay,  and  that  the  cattle  were  finally  shipped  in  a  part  of  the  same 
cars,  is  admissible."*'' 

Knowledge  of  Officers  That  Carrier  Unable  to  Furnish  Cars. — Letters 
of  the  officials  of  the  carrier  were  competent  to  show  that  the  officers  knew  that 
the  carrier  did  not  have  sufficient  cars  to  meet  the  ordinary  demands  of  ship- 
pers.*'' 

Seizure  of  Railroad  by  Confederate  States. — Where,  in  an  action  against 

39.  Burden  of  proof  of  making  of  con-  Mills  v.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co..  84  Miss.  339, 
tract.— Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Ray    Bros.,       37   So.   134,  66  L.  R.  A.  453. 

37   Tex.    Civ.    .\pp.   622,    S4    S.    \V.    691.  42.     Relevancy   and    competency.— Gulf, 

40.  Presumption  that  railroad  commis-  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  House.  40  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
sion   established   rate.-  ;^o   hold    where    in       10.5.  SS   S.   \V.    1110. 

an    action     against    a    carrier    to     recover  43.        Contract     between     vendor     and 

damages  resulting  fro'^i  a  failure  to  carry  vendee    as    to    purchase    and    shipment.— 

out   a,  contract   for   the   transportation    of  Xew     England     Mfg.     Co.    v.     Starin,     60 

produce  at  an  agreed  rate,  defendant  ex-  Conn    ']{\^  22    \tl    ')")3 

cepted  to  the  petition  as  showing  a  con-  44. '  Sou'tirern   R.   Co.'  v.  Wilcox.  <)<i   \a. 

tract    for    transportation    at    a    nxed    rate  „„,     "io    S     F     144 

made    while    the    state    railway    commis-  '      '       .S'.,   "         '                ...              r       •  . 

sion    was    in    existence,    without    alleging  45.     Evidence    as    to    ability    to    furnish 

that  such  rate  was  authorized  by  the  com-  ^^'"!;— ^'"''-  ^^"f^V-   ^;  ^^'-  '■   McCrquodale. 

mission.     Thompson  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  '^    lex.  41,  9   S.    \\  .  SO. 

R.    Co.,   11    Tex.    Civ.   .App.    115.   32   S.   W.  46.     Knowledge   of   officers   that   carrier 

427.  unable    to    furnish    cars. — Midland    X'alley 

41.  That  rate  filed  in  compliance  with  R.  Co.  :.  HotYman  Coal  Co.,  91  Ark.  180, 
interstate    commerce    act. — Laurel    Cotton  120    S.    W.    380. 


;§    777 -7^^  CARRIERS. 


464 


a  railroad  companv  to  recover  damages  for  failure  to  ship  certain  cotton,  it  was 
shown  that  plaintiff  had  employed  the  defendant's  station  agent  to  purchase  cot- 
ton for  him,  and  to  hold  and  ship  it  under  his  directions,  and  the  agent  had  been 
instructed  by  plaintiff  not  to  ship  until  he  had  purchased  a  certain  number  of 
bales,  evidence  of  the  seizure  of  the  railroad  company  by  the  Confederate  gov- 
ernment before  the  required  number  of  bales  had  been  jirocured  should  be  con- 
sidered as  tending  to  prove  that  the  defendant  never  received  the  cotton  at  all.^' 

Commission  Merchant's  Quotation.— In  an  action  for  failure  to  furnish 
cars  to  transport  stock  as  agreed,  accounts  of  sales  and  prices  current  sent  by  a 
commission  merchant  to  his  principal  are  not  evidence  of  the  value  or  weight 
of  stock  in  the  market.*^ 

Effect  of  Date  of  Contract.— See  ante,  "Date  of  Contract,"  §  72f). 

§  778.  Parol  Evidence.— Parol  Evidence  as  to  Records  of  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission. — In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  on  an  interstate  com- 
merce contract,  oral  testimony  as  to  the  schedule  rates  of  the  interstate  com- 
merce commission  was  proper,  as  the  records  of  such  commission  could  not  be 
reached  bv  process  of  the  court.^-' 

Parol  Evidence  Where  Contract  in  Writing. — See  ante,  "Alerger,"  §§ 
756-760.     See.  also,  ante,  "Issues,  Proof  and  X'ariance,"  §  774. 

§  779.  Best  and  Secondary  Evidence.— Where  the  defendant  carrier 
was  alleged  to  be  in  possession  of  the  contracts  of  shipment,  and  after  notifi- 
cation to  produce  them,  defendant  introduced  secondary  evidence  of  them,  the 
court  did  not  err  in  refusing  to  strike  out  such  evidence  upon  defendant's  sub- 
sequently oft'ering  the  written  contracts  in  evidence. ■'*" 

§  780.  Custom. — In  a  suit  for  damages  for  breach  of  contract  to  furnish 
cars,  evidence,  of  custom  in  the  matter  of  furnishing  cars  was  properly  excluded 
as  irrelevant  and  immaterial.'' ^ 

§  781.  Necessity  for  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading.— As  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing received  by  the  shipper  from  the  carrier  is  the  contract  between  the  parties, 
the  shipper  can  not  recover  for  an  alleged  breach  of  the  contract  of  transpor- 
tation by  the  carrier  without  producing  in  evidence  the  bill  of  lading,^-  or  ac- 
count for  its  nonproduction  and  prove  its  contents  in  substance  as  alleged.^^ 
If  an  action  to  recover  for  injury  to  live  stock  is  founded  on  the  carrier's  com- 
mon-lav; liability,  and  not  on  the  bill  of  lading,  it  is  not  necessary  for  plaintiff 
to  produce  the  bill  of  lading  in  evidence."*^ 

§  782,  Evidence  as  to  Net  Profits. — Evidence  of  the  eft'ect  of  the  failure 
to  furnish  cars  to  a  mine  as  to  expense  of  maintenance  and  as  to  the  cost  of 
mining  was  admissible  in  determining  the  net  profits  recoverable. -^-^ 

§  783.  Reception  of  Evidence. — Reference  to  Memorandum  of  Con- 
tract.— In  a  suit  by  a  contractor  against  a  railroad  comi)any   to   recover  dam- 

47.  Seizure  of  railroad  by  confederate  (50,  93  S.  W.  1024,  affirmed  in  lOO  Tex. 
states.— Sumner  v.   Charlotte,  etc.,   R.  Co.,       190,   97   S.   W.   4G('. 

78    X.   C.   289.  52.    Necessity  for  production  of  bill   of 

48.  Commission  merchant's  quotation.  lading.— Bedell  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
— Hoskins    v.    Missouri     Pac.     R.     Co.,     19        (jj.   q^    22,  20   S.    K.   2(i2. 

Mo.   App.   31.5.  ,       r  •  53.     Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wheat,    2 

49.  Parol  evidence  as  to  records  of  in-  .^^^^^  ^  ^j^  ^^^^  ^  1,;..  Missouri 
terstate  commerce  commission.— Gulf,  p^^  j^  <^^  .^,  ^licholson.  2  Texas  App. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dimmitt,  17  lex.  Civ.  App.  ^^j^  ^^^^  g  ^^j^.  g^^^ji  ^  Richmond,  etc., 
25o.   42    S.   W.    .583.  p.     Cq     94   q^    22,  20  S.   E.   262. 

50.  Best  and  secondary  evidence.^  .  o  r^  v  i  ^i.^„ 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Leatherwood,  29  Tex.  ^  54.  Missouri  Pac.  R-  Ca  ...  Xicholsou, 
Civ.    App.   507,   69   S.   W.   119.   affirmed   in  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  lo8. 

97   Tex.    634,    no   op.  55.     Evidence    as    to    net    profits. — Mid- 

51.  Custom.— Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  land  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffman  Coal  Co., 
Evans--Snider-Buel  Co.,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.       91  Ark.   180,   120  S.  W.  380. 


465 


SPI=:CIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§§  783-784 


ages  for  the  failure  of  defendant  to  furnish  the  number  of  cars  agreed  to  be 
furnished  per  day  to  be  loaded  with  gravel,  where  plaintiff  testified  that  at  the 
time  the  contract,  which  w^as  verbal,  was  agreed  on,  he  made  a  memorandum  of 
its  contents,  and  that  no  reference  was  made  in  said  memorandum  to  fiat  cars 
and-  where  plaintifi"  also  proved  the  alleged  contract  by  the  uncontradicted  testi- 
mony of  twcj  witnesses,  defeiulant  was  not  injured  by  the  reference  to  the  mem- 
orandum.'"'' 

§  784.  Sufficiency  of  Evidence. — In  General. — The  evidence  must  tend 
to  show  such  an  agreement  as  is  sued  ujjou  or  it  is  insufficient  to  make  even  a 
prima  facie  case.-'"'" 

Date  of  Contract. — It  is  sufficient  to  i)rove  that  the  dam^ige  occurred  by 
reason  of  the  failure  of  the  railroad  company  to  furnish  the  cars,  without  ref- 
erence particularly  to  the  date  of  the  entering  into  said  contract."''^ 

Contract  to  Carry  at  Reduced  Rate. — Testimony  of  a  shipper  that  he  was 
toKl  by  a  ])erson  who  was  in  the  office  of  a  carrier,  but  not  the  regular  agent, 
that  certain  goods  to  be  shipped  a  few  days  later  would  be  carried  at  a  certain 
rate  less  than  the  tariff'  rates,  is  not  proof  of  a  contract  to  carry  at  such  reduced 
rate.^^  In  an  action  for  breach  of  a  contract  of  carriage,  in  which  defendant 
pleaded  tliat  the  contract  was  invalid  because  the  freight  rate  named  therein 
was  unreasonable,  while  it  would  be  some  evidence  of  the  justness  of  the  charge, 
conclusive  perhaps  in  the  absence  of  any  other  showing,  to  show  that  the  rate 
exacted  was  the  published  rate  and  the  rate  charged  every  one  for  a  similar 
service,  it  is  not  evidence  when  the  purpose  is  to  set  aside  a  rate  created  by  con- 
tract.*'"' In  such  action  where  the  record  failed  to  show  that  the  rate  was  dis- 
criminatory or  extortionate,  or  that  it  was  unduly  oppressive  on  the  carrier, 
other  than  to  show  that  a  published  rate  considerably  higher  than  the  contract  rate 
was  established,  it  was  insufficient  to  justify  the  court  in  setting  aside  the  con- 
tract rate.'"'^ 


56.  Reference  to  memorandum  of  con- 
tract.—  Robinson  c'.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co..    10:i    Mich.    (ior.    (il    X.    W.    1014. 

57.  Evidence  as  to  contract. — In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  railroad  company  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars  to  plaintiff,  the  latter 
testified  that  he  ordered  three  cars  from 
defendant  to  ship  cattle  in,  that  the  or- 
der was  made  at  11  o'clock,  and  the  cars 
were  to  he  ready  on  the  evening  of  that 
day.  Defendant's  agent  testified:  That 
in  tlie  morning  plaintiff  came  to  him,  and 
faid:  "I  am  going  for  those  steers  to- 
day. When  can  you  have  a  train  for 
me?"  That  witness  replied  that  No.  94, 
a  loaded  train,  was  due  at  1:12.  That 
plaintiff  then  said:  "That  will  fix  me. 
I  want  my  cattle  to  get  in  that  train." 
That  at  11  o'clock  plaintiff's  cattle  came 
in,  and  he  spoke  to  witness  about  the 
train,  and  asked  him  what  time  he  would 
have  a  train.  Held,  that  the  evidence  did 
not  tend  to  show  an  agreement  to  fur- 
nish three  cars  to  plaintiff.  Gann  t'.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  05   Mo.  App.  <i70. 

Evidence  in  action  for  failure  to 
promptly  ship  the  corpse  held  to  show 
that  defendant's  agent  did  not  contract 
to  pay  the  undertaker's  bill.  Gathright  v. 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  (Tex.).  145  S.  W.'  11S5, 
affirming    judgment.    Pacific    Exp.    Co.    v. 

1  Car— 30 


Gathright    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    130    S.    W. 

103."i. 

Evidence  sufficient  in  action  for  breach 
of  a  contract  to  furnish  refrigerator  cars. 
— Ferrell  &  Co.  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co. 
(Minn.),    138    N.    W.    284. 

58.  Date  of  contract. — Morehouse  v. 
Texas  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas..  §  2(57,  17  S.  W.  1086:  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Evans.  78  Tex.  369,  14  S.  W. 
798:  Brown  v.  Sullivan,  71  Tex.  470,  10 
S.    W.    288. 

59.  Contract  to  carry  at  reduced  rate. 
— Wells.  Fargo  Exp.  Co.  f.  Williams 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    71    S.   W.   314. 

Inadequacy  of  rate. — In  an  action  for 
breach  of  a  contract  of  carriage,  the  car- 
rier must  establish  its  claim  of  invalidity 
of  the  contract  on  the  ground  of  unrea- 
sonableness of  the  freight  rate  charged 
bj'  direct  evidence  of  the  fact.  Sultan  R., 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  58 
Wash.  604,  109  Pac.  320.  hearing  in  banc 
denied    109    Pac.    1020. 

60.  Sultan  R.,  etc..  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  58  Wash.  604,  109  Pac.  320. 
hearing  in  banc   denied   109   Pac.   1020. 

61.  Sultan  R..  etc.,  Co.  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co..  58  Wash.  604.  109  Pac.  320, 
hearing  in   bank   denied   109   Fac.    1020. 


§§  7S4-785 


CARRIER; 


466 


Proof  of  Ownership. — Where  the  evidence  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  title 
of  a  vendee  against  the  seller  it  is  also  sufficient  to  establish  the  title  of  the 
plaintitl  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  company  for  breach  of  a  transportation 
contract  ;*5-  but  the  plaintiff  in  such  action  is  not  entitled  to  recover  where  the 
evidence' of  ownership  is  insufficient  to  preclude  the  maintenance  of  a  subsequent 
action  bv  either  the  consignor  or  consignee."^ 

Authority  of  Station  Agent.— See  ante.  "Authority  of  Agent,"  §§  715-723. 

§  78  5.  Instructions. — Instructions  in  actions  for  breach  of  special  con- 
tracts for  transportation  of  freight  must  be  tendered  to  the  court  by  the  party- 
desiring  them,^'-*  must  fairly  submit  the  issue  between  the  parties  '^^  as  based 
upon  the  evidence ''''  and  pleadings."'"  but  must  not  assume  f  acts/-'^  be  mislead- 


62.  Proof  of  ownership. — In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  negligence  causing 
the  loss  of  certain  property  in  transit, 
plaintiff's  ownership  of  the  property  was 
denied,  and  it  was  shown  that  plaintiff 
purchased  the  property  under  a  contract 
which  had  been  construed  by  the  parties 
thereto  as  passing  title  to  plaintiff.  Held, 
that  the  evidence,  being  sufficient  to  es- 
tablish plaintiff's  title  as  against  the  seller, 
was  also  sufficient  to  establish  title  as 
against  defendant.  Union  Feed  Co.  v. 
Pacific  Clipper  Line,  71  Pac.  552,  31 
Wash.    28. 

63.  Lashinsky  v.  Russian  Co.,  91  N. 
Y.   S.   175. 

64.  Necessity  for  tender — Authority  of 
agent  of  carrier  to  contract. — In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  railroad  company  for  fail- 
ure to  furnish  cars,  if  the  defendant 
wishes  to  raise  an  issue  as  to  the  author- 
ity of  its  agent  to  make  the  contract,  it 
should  tender  an  instruction  on  that 
point.  McCarty  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79 
Tex.   33,   15   S.  W.   164. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  failure  to  furnish  cars  for  the 
shipment  of  live  stock,  the  court  in- 
structed that  if  the  jury  believed  that 
plaintiffs  contracted  with  defendant's 
agent  to  furnish  the  cars  at  a  certain  time 
and  place,  and  that  the  agent  had  author- 
ity to  make  such  contract,  and  that  de- 
fendant failed  to  receive  and  ship  the  cat- 
tle as  agreed,  to  plaintiffs'  damage,  they 
must  find  for  plaintiffs.  Held  not  error; 
that,  if  defendant  wished  to  raise  an  is- 
sue as  to  the  agent's  authority  to  make 
such  a  contract,  it  should  have  tendered 
an  instruction  on  that  subject.  McCarty 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Tex.  33,  15  S.  W. 
164. 

65.  Plaintiffs  declared  upon  a  verbal 
contract  to  furnish  cars.  Defendant  con- 
tended that  the  shipment  was  under  a 
certain  written  contract  or  bill  of  lading. 
The  court,  besides  instructing  that  if  the 
jury  believed  from  the  evidence  that  de- 
fendant's agent  maxle  such  a  contract^  and 
had  authority  to  do  so.  and  that  defend- 
ant failed  to  furnish  the  cars  to  plain- 
tiffs' damage  they  should  find  a  verdict 
in  their  favor,  gave  correct  instructions 
as  to  the  measure  of  damages.     Held,  that 


the  court  fairly  submitted  the  issue  un- 
der the  verbal  contract.  McCarty  v.  Gulf, 
etc.,   R.    Co.,   79   Tex.   33,   15   S.   W.   164. 

66.  Based  upon  evidence. — Where  the 
record  fails  to  disclose  any  evidence  that 
defendant's  agent  agreed  to  furnish  cars 
at  a  particular  day  named,  it  is  error  to 
charge  that,  if  the  jury  believe  from  the 
evidence  that  the  agent  failed  to  furnish 
the  cars  as  agreed,  plaintiff  is  entitled  to 
recover  damages  suffered  by  reason  of 
such  failure.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Avery 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.).  33   S.  W.  704. 

Acquiescence  of  carrier  in  agent's  vio- 
lation of  orders. — Evidence  that  one  or 
more  of  the  agents  of  a  railroad  company 
departed  from  their  orders  in  shipping 
fruit  for  one  season  by  taking  no  bill 
of  lading,  without  evidence  that  the  com- 
pany had  notice  of  such  omission,  does 
not  authorize  a  charge,  in  an  action  on  a 
contract  of  affreightment,  that,  notwith- 
standing the  agent  may  have  violated  his 
instructions,  yet,  if  the  railway  company 
had  knowledge  of  such  contract,  and  ac- 
quiesced in  it,  then  it  would  be  liable. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Felton.  36  S.  E. 
93,   110    Ga.    597. 

Authority  of  drivers  of  express  wagons. 
• — In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany for  the  breach  of  a  special  contract 
of  shipment,  it  was  error  for  the  court 
to  assume  in  its  charge  that  drivers  of 
delivery  wagons  for  the  express  com- 
pany had  authority  to  make  the  contract 
in  question,  where  there  was  no  evidence 

67.  A  charge  presenting  an  issue  or 
ground  of  recovery  not  presented  by  the 
pleading  should  be  refused.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Ray  Bros.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
622,    84   S.   W.   691. 

68.  In  an  action  for  breach  of  contract 
by  a  carrier's  agent  to  furnish  cars,  where 
the  evidence  was  conflicting  as  to  what 
the  agent  told  plaintiff,  a  requested 
charge  that  the  agent's  statement  that  he 
would  try  to  have  the  cars  furnished 
would  not  be  an  agreement  to  do  so,  and 
the  verdict  should  be  for  defendant,  was 
properly  refused,  as  assuming  that  the 
statement  was  as  stated.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Boshear,  102  Tex.  76,  113  S. 
W.   6. 


467 


SPECIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§  785 


ing,*'-'  or  confusing,'"  conllicting,' '  or  on  the  weight  of  the  evidence,'-  or  with- 
draw from  the  jury  facts  material  in  determining  whether  the  carrier  excused 
its  failure  to  furnish  cars."-' 


ill  the-  record  tending  to  show  that  they 
had  such  authority.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Xcedham,  83  S.  W.  22,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
129. 

Liability  for  injury  to  live  animals.— 
In  an  action  \)y  an  express  company  to 
recover  compensation  for  carrying  live 
pigeons,  where  neither  the  pleadings  nor 
the  evidence  indicated  in  what  character 
plaintiffs  transmitted  the  birds,  the  re- 
fusal of  requests  based  on  an  assumption 
that  common  carriers  are  not  liable  for 
an  injury  to  live  animals  in  the  course 
of  transportation  was  proper.  American, 
etc.,   l'"\p.   Co.  V.   IMiillips,  2'J   Mich.  .">15. 

Damages  for  failure  to  furnish  train 
on  main  line. — Under  the  contract  (the 
evidence),  consisting  of  plaintiff's  letter, 
stating  that  he  expected  to  cut  fifty  car 
loads  of  props  and  asking  defendant  "to 
grant  me  train  to  load  my  props  on  the 
main  line,"  and  defendant's  letter,  agree- 
ing to  furnish  "a  train,"  there  is  no  error 
in  an  instruction  to  allow  plaintiff  such 
damages  as  he  sustained  by  defendant's 
failure  to  furnish  "trains"  of  cars  suffi- 
cient to  transport  fifty  car  loads  of  props; 
no  train  having  been  furnished.  Outland 
V.  Seal)oard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  S.  E.  735,  134 
X.    C.    3.50. 

69.  Misleading  instructions — Duty  of 
dispatcher  to  control  cars. — In  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company  for  failure  to 
provide  cars  to  a  shipper  as  agreed,  it 
appeared  that  on  the  day  before  the  cars 
were  required  the  necessary  number  were 
standing  at  the  desired  place,  but  that 
they  were  removed,  and  none  furnished 
in  their  stead.  Held,  that  it  was  mislead- 
ing to  charge,  without  explanation,  that 
"it  was  the  duty  of  the  train  dispatcher 
to  control  defendant's  cars,  and  to  as- 
sign them  in  the  order  in  which  they 
were  called  for  l^y  the  shipper,"  the  com- 
pany having  a  right,  under  such  circum- 
stances, to  remove  them  elsewhere  if  it 
make  arrangements  to  furnish  cars  in 
their  stead  at  the  proper  time.  Newport 
News,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Mercer,  96  Ky.  475, 
29  S.  W.  301,  16  Ky.  L.  Rep.  5.-..-.. 

Agreement  to  ship  by  a  passenger  train. 
—  In  an  action  for  delay  in  transporting 
a  circus,  where  plaintiff  alleged  and  pro- 
duced evidence  to  establish  that  carrier's 
agent  agreed  to  place  the  circus  car  in 
a  passenger  train,  and  after  failing  to  do 
so,  agreed  to  put  it  in  the  first  freight 
train,  which  he  also  failed  to  do,  it  was 
error  to  submit  a  charge  on  plaintiff's 
constructive  or  actual  notice  of  agent's 
want  of  authority  to  contract  for  the 
passenger  train,  without  also  charging  as 
to  the  freight  train  agreement.  Such 
charge  was  misleading  and  prejudicial,  as 
ignoring     the    subsequent    agreement     to 


send  the  car  by  the  freight  train.  Parks 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  30 
S.   W.  708. 

70.  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
failure  to  furnish  cars,  the  petition  al- 
leged the  making  of  a  contract  with  de- 
fendant's agent  in  one  county  to  furnish 
cars  at  a  point  in  another  county.  There 
was  evidence  of  an  application  for  cars 
as  alleged,  but  no  direct  evidence  of  the 
agent's  authority  to  make  such  a  contract. 
The  agent  testified  that  no  request  had 
been  made  of  him,  but  that  his  books 
showed  that  the  request  was  made  of 
his  clerk,  and  recited  that  the  message 
had  been  sent  to  the  _agent  in  the  other 
county.  The  court,  in  its  general  charge, 
submitted  the  issue  of  contract  vel  non, 
as  alleged,  and  in  its  special  charge  stated 
that  the  local  agent  had  no  authority  to 
bind  defendant  to  furnish  cars  in  the 
other  county,  but  had  the  right  to  place 
an  order  with  the  local  agent  in  the  other 
county,  for  cars  to  be  furnished  there, 
and  that,  if  he  did  place  the  order,  de- 
fendant would  be  bound  thereb}'.  Held, 
that  the  general  charge,  together  with  the 
special  charge,  was  confusing.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ray  Bros.,  84  S.  W.  691, 
37    Tex.    Civ.    App.    622. 

71.  Conflicting  instructions. — An  in- 
struction that  a  railroad  company^  is  not 
required  to  furnish  cars  at  any  particular 
hour  of  the  day.  and  that  a  "delivery  at 
any  hour  of  the  day  is  a  delivery  on  such 
day,  does  not  conflict  with  an  instruction 
that  the  railroad  has  the  right  to  furnish 
and  supply  cars  the  day  before  the  day 
specified,  so  as  to  have  them  ready  for 
the  day  for  which  demanded.  McGrew 
V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  109  Mo.  5S2,  19 
S.    W.    53. 

72.  Instruction  on  weight  of  evidence. 
— Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  -•.  Rav  Bros.,  37 
Tex.    Civ.   /\pp.   622,  84   S.  W.  691. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  the  car- 
rier for  damages  to  a  shipment  of  freight, 
alleged  by  the  shipper  to  have  been  made 
under  an  oral  contract  and  by  the  car- 
rier to  liave  been  made  under  a  subse- 
quent written  contract,  plaintiff  showed 
facts  as  to  the  written  contract  which  de- 
feated it  as  a  contract,  a  charge  that  the 
oral  contract  was  not  in  force  was  prop- 
erly refused  as  being  on  the  weight  of 
the  evidence.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mil- 
ler  (Tex.   Civ.  App.).  88   S.   \V.  499. 

73.  Where  the  evidence  showed  that 
there  was  a  market  on  the  carrier's  line 
for  only  a  small  percentage  of  coal  mined, 
and  that  the  greater  percentage  of  coal 
shipments  went  off  the  line,  and  that  dur- 
ing the  shipping  season  there  was  an  un- 
precedented demand  for  cars  for  ship- 
ment    of    coal     and    other     commodities, 


§§  785-789 


CARRIERS. 


468 


Error  Cured  by  Other  Instructions. — An  instruction  that  if  the  jury  be- 
Heved  the  evidence  they  should  tind  that  defendant  agreed  to  furnish  plaintiff 
with  cars  "as  alleged  in  the  complaint"  (which  was  at  such  time  as  plaintiff 
might  need  them)  is  harmless,  though  the  contract  merely  required  them  to  be 
furnished  within  a  reasonable  time,  they  also  being  instructed  that  they  were  to 
allow  such  damages  as  plaintiff'  sustained  by  reason  of  cars  not  being  furnished 
in  a  reasonable  time,  and  there  having,  as  matter  of  law,  been  an  unreasonable 
delay  in  furnishing  them."-* 

§   786.  Verdict.— See  post,  "Damages."  §§  787-798. 

§§   787-798.  Damages— §§  787-78  8.  Liability— §  787.  In  General.— 

See  ante.  "Liability  of  Shipper  for  Breach,"  §  754. 

§  788.  Breach  of  Contract  Other  than  That  Sued  on. — In  an  action 
for  breach  of  a  contract  to  furnish  on  a  certain  day  a  car  for  for  the  shipment 
of  cattle,  damages  can  not  be  recovered  for  negligent  shipment  under  a  con- 
tract thereafter  entered  into.'^ 

§  789.  Duty  of  Shipper  to  Mitigate  Damages. — A  shipper  is  ordinarily 
required  to  mitigate  or  lessen  the  damages  arising  from  a  carrier's  breach  of  a 
contract  to  furnish  means  of  transportation  by  exercising  ordinary  care  to  pre- 
serve or  dispose  of  his  freight,"^*^  but  he  is  not  required  in  any  attempt  to  lessen 
the  damages  resulting  from  a  carrier's  refusal  to  supply  cars  as  contracted  for, 
to  employ,  or  attempt  to  employ,  another  carrier  to  do  that  which  the  defendant 
carrier  had  obligated  itself  to  do,  and  the  failure  to  do  which  constitutes  the 
breach  sued  upon.'^''' 


which  demand  could  not  reasonably  have 
been  anticipated  by  the  carrier,  an  in- 
struction that  the  fact  that  the  connect- 
ing lines  failed  to  return  promptly  the 
cars  of  the  carrier  was  no  excuse  for  its 
failure  to  furnish  with  reasonable  prompt- 
ness sufficient  cars  for  the  transportation 
of  the  operator's  coal  was  erroneous  as 
withdrawing  from  the  jury  the  fact  that 
cars  were  ofif  the  line  of  the  carrier,  and 
that  the  return  thereof  could  not  be  se- 
cured, in  determining  whether  or  not  the 
carrier  excused  its  failure  to  furnish  cars. 
Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffman  Coal 
Co.,   91   Ark.    180,   120   S.   W.   :i80. 

74.  Error  cured  by  other  instructions. 
— Outlaiid  T.  vSeaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  134 
N.  C.  :;:,o,  w  S.  E.  735. 

75.  Breach  of  contract  other  than  that 
sued  on. — Waters  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  110  X.  C.  338,  14  vS.  E.  803,  16  L.  R. 
A.   834. 

76.  Though  plaintifY,  induced  to  buy  ice 
by  defendant  railroad  company's  agree- 
ment to  transport  it  from  where  it  was, 
a  few  miles  from  its  road,  on  another 
company's  tracks,  to  S.,  at  $2  per  ton, 
bought  it  at  To  cents  a  ton,  yet,  having 
made  an  absolute  sale  of  it  for  $2  a  ton 
to  a  third  person,  which  plaintiff  would 
have  received  but  for  defendant's  breach 
of  its  contract,  he  is  entitled  to  $2  per 
ton  damages,  less  any  expenses  of  ship- 
ping, and  less  any  sum  he  could  have  ob- 
tained for  it  on  sale  to  another;  but  he 
can    not    recover    this    full    amount    where 


defendant  would  transport  the  ice  if  de- 
livered on  its  tracks,  and  plaintiff  could 
get  it  there  for  less  than  $2  per  ton,  but 
made  no  effort  to  do  so,  and,  being  una- 
ble to  sell  it,  let  it  melt.  Bigelow  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80  N.  W.  95,  104 
Wis.    109. 

77.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodg^e,  10  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    543,    30    vS.    W.    829. 

Duty  to  procure  transportation  over 
other  line. — In  an  action  for  the  l)reach 
of  a  contract  to  transport  goods,  the  rule 
of  damages  which  would  obtain  if  the 
plaintiff  could  not  procure  the  goods  to 
i^e  sent  at  all  does  not  prevail  when  he 
can  send  by  another  convej'ance.  In  the 
latter  case  he  must  send  the  goods  by 
such  other  conveyance,  and  he  will  be 
entitled  to  recover  the  difference  between 
the  price  at  which  the  defendants  under- 
took to  convey  the  goods  and  the  price 
which  he  was  compelled  to  pay  for  their 
transportation.  Grund  v.  Pendergast  (N. 
Y.),    58    Barb.    216. 

Where  one  makes  a  contract  for  the 
transportation  of  goods,  and  delivers 
them,  ready  for  transportation,  he  has  a 
right  to  rely  on  the  fulfillment  of  the 
contract  until  it  is  repudiated,  or  he  is 
notified  that  the  carrier  can  not  or  will 
not  transport  the  goods  within  a  reason- 
al)le  time,  and  he  is  not  oI)liged  to  pro- 
cure their  immediate  transportation  over 
another  line.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Flannagan,  113  Ind.  488,  14  N.  E.  370, 
3  Am.  St.  Rep.  674. 


469 


SI'FXIAI,     CONTRACTS. 


§§  790-791 


§§  790-793.  Elements  of  Damage— §  790.  Loss  of  Profits.— Specu- 
lative i)rotits  which  niiglit  have  been  lost  as  a  result  of  a  carrier's  breach  of  a 
contract  for  transportation  are  not  an  element  of  damages ; "''  but  net  profits  of 
operating  a  coal  mine  lost  by  reason  of  the  carrier's  failure  to  furnish  cars 
under  a  coiUracl  binding  the  mine  ojicrator  not  to  shij)  by  another  line  may  be 
recovered.'" 

Profits  on  Collateral  Contract. — \\  liere  plaintiff  made  an  agreement  for 
a  shipi)iug  rate  with  drfcndani  carrier,  and,  on  defendant's  refusal  to  give  the 
rate,  canceled  collateral  contracts  made  on  the  faith  of  such  agreement,  he  could 
not  recover  loss  of  prospective  profits  on  such  contracts,  since  he  should  have 
performed  them,  making  his  shipments  at  regular  rates,  and  holding  rlefendant 
for  the  excess  over  the  rate  agreed.''"  Where  ])laintitf,  at  the  time  of  making 
an  agreement  for  shipping  rates  with  defendant  com])any,  stated  he  intended  to 
make  certain  contracts,  but  did  not  state  the  terms  thereof,  loss  of  profits  on 
such  collateral  contracts,  occasioned  by  defendant's  failure  to  keep  its  agree- 
ment as  to  rates,  could  not  have  been  within  the  probable  contemplation  of  plain- 
tiff and  defendant  when  their  agreement  was  made,  and  plaintiff  could  not  re- 
cover  for  such   loss.''' 

Subsequent  Contract  of  Which  Carrier  Had  No  Knowledge.— Where 
a  railroad  company  contrack'd  with  a  coal  cnm])any  to  furnish  cars  at  a  point, 
and  failed  to  do  so,  the  company,  in  an  action  for  breach  of  the  contract,  can 
not  recover  for  profits  that  would  have  accrued  on  a  subsequent  contract  made 
l)v  it  to  deliver  a  certain  num1)er  of  tons  of  coal  per  day  to  a  buyer,  if  the  rail- 
ro.id  company  had  no  knowledge  when  it  agreed  to  deliver  the  cars  that  the 
coal  conipanv  contemplated   such  a  contract. ''- 

§   791.  Expense   of  Renotifying  and  Reshipping. — In  an  action  against 

a  carriiT  for  the  lireach  of  a  sjjccial  contract  of  shiijuient,  plaintiff  can  recover 


78.  In  an  action  by  the  owner  of  a 
brick  yard  against  a  railroad  company  for 
breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  a  defi- 
nite quantity  of  liricks  per  week,  the  fu- 
ture profits,  which  the  plaintiff  expected 
to  make,  can  not  be  considered  in  esti- 
mating the  damages.  Harrison  v.  New 
Orleans,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   28   La.   Ann.   777. 

Where  a  drayman  breaches  a  contract 
to  haul  from  one  part  of  a  city  to  an- 
other all  the  cotton  intended  for  a  cer- 
tain press  at  a  fixed  price  per  bale,  he  is 
not  liable  for  loss  of  profits  which  the 
press  might  have  made  by  compressing 
cotton  its  owners  failed  to  get  from  his 
not  complying  with  his  contract.  Read- 
ing  V.    Donovan,    6    La.    Ann.    491. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  speci- 
fied goods  for  a  given  time  to  a  place  des- 
ignated, the  fact  that  a  ground  of  the 
contract,  known  to  the  carrier,  was  the 
owner's  contracts  with  third  parties  for 
sales  of  the  goods  to  them,  does  not  en- 
title him  to  recover  of  the  carrier  the 
profits  which  he  would  have  made  but 
for  the  breach  of  the  contract  of  carriage. 
Harvey  v.  Connecticut,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124 
Mass.    421,    26    Am.    Rep.    (>73. 

Where  a  railroad  company  undertook 
to  transport  a  steam  boiler  for  the  plain- 
tiff, which  he  intended  to  use  in  the  busi- 
ness of  sawing  lumber  for  the  market, 
and    the    company    failed    to   comply    with 


their  agreement,  held,  that  the  specula- 
tive profits  which  might  be  supposed  to 
arise,  but  which  were  defeated  because 
of  the  breach  of  contract  which  dela3-ed 
the  business,  could  not  be  looked  to  as 
an  element  of  damages.  V'icksburg,  etc., 
R.    Co.  V.   Ragsdale,   46   Miss.   458. 

79.  Net  profits  of  operating  mine. — A 
carrier  contracted  to  furnish  cars  to  the 
operator  of  a  coal  mine  opened  at  the 
instigation  of  the  carrier  and  ])Ound  the 
operator  not  to  contract  with  another 
line  for  the  shipment  of  its  coal.  The 
carrier  knew  that  fixed  charges  had  to 
be  met  at  the  mine,  whether  it  was  run 
or  was  idle,  and  knew  that  the  onh-  prac- 
tical way  to  mine  was  to  load  the  coal 
into  railroad  cars,  and  that  it  was  not 
practical  to  store  coal.  The  carrier  failed 
to  furnish  cars.  Held,  that  the  operator 
might  recover  as  damages  the  net  profits 
of  operating  the  mine.  Midland  \'alley 
R.  Co.  V.  Hoffman  Coal  Co.,  91  Ark.  180. 
120   S.   W.   380. 

80.  Profits  on  collateral  contract. — 
Stctfen  z\  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  156 
Mo.   322.   56   S.   W.    1125. 

81.  Steffen  v.  Mississippi,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
!.-)(•.  Mo.  :V2:3.  .■)i-)  S.  W.  112.V 

82.  Subsequent  contract  of  which  car- 
rier had  no  knowledge. — Clyde  Coal  Co. 
r.  Pittsl)ur-.  ou-..  K.  Co..  226  Pa.  391, 
7.-)   Atl.   596,   26   L.   R.  A..  N.   S..   1191. 


§§  791-794  CARRIERS.  470 

items  of  expense  incurred  in  renotifying  and  delivering  to  purchasers  the  goods 
which  .they  had  purchased,  where  defendant  had  heen  fully  informed  as  to  the 
accrual  of  this  element  of  damage  in  the  event  it  failed  to  deliver  the  goods 
safely  at  the  time  agreed  upon.^'* 

§  792.  Increased  Freight  and  Extra  Charges. — Where  a  drayman 
breaches  a  contract  to  haul  from  one  part  of  a  city  to  another  all  the  cotton  in- 
tended for  a  certain  press  at  a  fixed  price  per  bale,  he  is  liable  for  the  increased 
price  required  to  have  the  cotton  hauled. s-* 

Breach  of  Charter  Party. — In  an  action  for  breach  of  a  charter  party, 
whereby  defendant  was  compelled  to  pay  for  the  transportation  of  two  cargoes 
by  other  vessels,  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between  the  freight 
as  fixed  in  the  charter  party  and  the  freight  actually  paid  for  the  transportation 
of  the  carLioes  which  the  chartered  vessel  failed  to  carry.^^ 

Goods  Carried  Part  of  Distance. — A\here,  by  a  contract,  a  common  car- 
rier undertook  to  deliver  merchandise  at  a  particular  point,  for  a  certain  price, 
and  it  appeared  that  the  goods  were  only  carried  part  of  the  distance,  and  the 
shipper  was  obliged  to  pay,  in  addition  to  the  full  freight  paid  the  carrier,  a 
freight  to  other  carriers  for  transporting  the  goods  the  remainder  of  the  dis- 
tance covered  by  the  original  contract,  the  extra  charge  then  incurred  was  ap- 
parently a  damage  incurred  by  the  failure  of  the  first  carrier  to  comply  with  his 
contract,  and,  as  such,  fell  within  Louisiana  Civ.  Code,  art.  3204,  giving  the 
shipper  a  privilege  on  the  vessel  in  which  the  goods  were  shipped,  and  a  right 
to  the  writ  of  sequestration.'^" 

§  793.  Breach  of  Particular  Contracts. — Contract  to  Carry  Definite 
Quantity  Per  Week. — In  an  action  by  the  owner  of  a  brick  yard  against  a 
railroad  company  for  breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  a  definite  quantity  of 
bricks  per  week,  neither  the  interest  on  the  money  invested  in  buildings,  etc., 
nor  the  depreciation  in  the  value  of  his  property  since  the  breach  of  the  con- 
tract, could  be  considered  in  estimating  the  damages.'^' 

Contract  to  Furnish  Cars  for  Props  Cut  and  to  Be  Cut. — A  railroad 
company  which  contracts  to  furnish,  for  a  certain  amount  to  be  paid  as  freight, 
cars  to  transport  a  certain  amount  of  props  cut  and  to  be  cut,  having  broken 
the  contract,  is  liable  for  damages  as  respects  the  props  cut  at  the  time  of  the 
contract,  as  well  as  those  thereafter  cut,  including  those  cut  after  it  gave  notice 
that  it  could  not  furnish  cars.^^ 

§§  794-795.  Measure   of    Damages — §  794.  Breach    by   Carrier. — A 

carrier  refuLing  to  comply  with  a  contract  to  transport  goods  is  liable  for  the 
dift'erence  between  the  market  value  at  the  destination  when  they  would  have 
arrived  if  he  had  complied,  and  their  value  at  the  same  time  at  the  place  from 
which  they  were  to  have  been  carried. '^^ 

83.  Expense  of  renotifying  and  reship-  89.  Georgia. — Chattanooga  Southern  R. 
ping. —  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Xeedham,  37  Co.  v.  Thompson,  133  Ga.  127,  65  S.  E. 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    129,    S3    S.    \V.    22.  2S5. 

84.  Increased  freight  and  extra  charges.  Nciv  York. — The  proper  measure  of 
— Rcarling  v.  Donovan,  0  La.  Ann.  491.  damages   for  the  breach  of  a   contract   to 

85.  Breach  of  charter  party. — Lumber-  transport  goods  from  A  to  B  is  the  dif- 
man's  Min.  Co.  v.  Gilchrist,  5  C.  C.  A.  ference  between  the  value  of  the  goods 
239,  55  Fed.  677,  6  U.  S.  App.  599,  affirm-  at  A  and  their  increased  value  at  B. 
ing   (C.   C.)    50   Fed.   118.  Bracket  v.  McNair  (N.  Y.),  14  Johns.  170, 

86.  Goods    carried    part    of    distance. —      7  Am.  Dec.  447. 

White  f.  The  Kate  Dale,  16  La.  Ann.  172.  Pennsylvania. — On    a    breach    of    a    con- 

87.  Contract  to  carry  definite  quantity  tract  to  carry  wheat  from  Pittsburg  to 
per  week. — Harrison  v.  New  Orleans,  Philadelphia,  the  measure  of  damages  is 
etc.,   R.   Co.,   28   La.   Ann.   777.  the    difference    between    the   value    of   the 

88.  Contract  to  furnish  cars  for  propa  \\heat  at  Pittsburg,  and  the  freight  added, 
cut  and  to  be  cut. — Outland  v.  Seaboard,  and  the  market  price  in  Philadelphia,  if 
etc.,   R.   Co.,  134   X.   C.  350,  46  S.   E.  735.  the    wheat    had    arrived    pursuant    to    the 


471 


SPECIAL    CONTRACTS. 


§  794 


Deterioration  Caused  by  Delay  to  Furnish  Cars. — In  a  suit  to  recover 
damages  for  failure  to  furnisli  cars  for  the  sliipnient  of  fruit,  where  the  dam- 
ages claimed  are  as  compensation  for  the  deteriorated  condition  of  the  fruit, 
caused  by  the  delay  in  furnishing  cars,  the  difference  in  the  market  value  of 
the  fruit  at  the  point  of  shipment  at  the  time  the  cars  should  have  been  fur- 
nished, and  at  the  time  they  were  actually  furnished,  may  be  considered  by  the 
jurv   ill   oliniatiiif^-  damages."" 

Refusal  to  Transport  at  Agreed  Rate. — The  measure  of  damages  for  a 
breach  of  a  contract  for  the  transportation  of  goods  is  the  difference  between 
their  market  price  or  value  at  the  destination  to  which  they  were  to  have  been 
carried  at  the  time  they  would  have  arrived  there,  if  the  carrier  had  performed 
his  contract,  and  their  value  at  the  same  time  at  the  place  from  which  they  were 
to  have  been  carried,  less  the  agreed  freight  and  other  necessary  charges  of 
transportation.'*^  Quaere,  as  to  the  rule,  when  the  ])lace  of  destination  is  be- 
yond the  terminus  of  defendant's  route. •'- 

Contract  to  Deliver  by  Certain  Time  at  Specified  Rate. — In  an  action 
upon  a  contract  for  the  transporlalion  of  certain  L;o()ds  at  a  specific  rate  by  a 
certain  time,  where  they  were  never  taken  possession  of  by  the  carrier,  the 
measure  of  damages  for  the  breach  is  the  difference  in  the  value  of  the  goods 
at  the  time  and  place  wdiere  they  were  to  be  delivered  and  the  value  of  the  same 
quantity  of  goods  at  the  same  time  at  the  place  from  which  they  were  to  be 
transported,  with  the  cost  of  transportation  at  the  specified  rate  added,  with  in- 
terest on  such  dift'erence  from  the  time  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered  at  the 


contract.  O'Conner  r.  Forster  (Pa.),  10 
Watts   418. 

Texas. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sto- 
vall,   3   Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §   251. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for  fail- 
ure to  provide  cars  for  the  shipment  of 
plaintiff's  corn,  the  latter  can  not  recover 
l)Oth  the  profits  he  might  have  made  if 
the  corn  had  l)een  shipped  and  the  ex- 
penses incurred  in  preparing  it  for  trans- 
portation. Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Hodge, 
10   Tex.    Civ.    App.    543,    30    S.    W.    829. 

90.  Deterioration  caused  by  delay  to 
furnish  cars. — Cliattanooga  Southern  R. 
Co.  T.  Thompson.  133  Ga.  127,  G5  S.  E. 
285. 

91,  Refusal  to  transport  at  agreed  rate. 
— Harvey  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.    No.   6,180,  2   Hask.   124. 

Indiana. — Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cas- 
ter,   13    Ind.    1()4. 

Iowa. — In  an  action,  upon  a  breach  of 
contract  for  the  transportation  of  grain 
from  C.  to  L.  at  a  stipulated  price,  the 
defendant  having  refused  to  receive  the 
grain,  the  measure  of  damages  was  held 
to  be  the  difference  between  the  market 
price  of  the  grain  at  C.  and  its  market 
price  at  L.  (which  was  greater)  at  the 
time  it  should  have  been  delivered,  less 
the  agreed  price  of  carriage;  the  defend- 
ant having  failed  to  show  that  the  grain 
would  not  have  reached  without  delay 
or  in  safety  the  port  of  delivery,  if  he 
had  received  it  according  to  his  contract, 
or  that  his  violation  was  not  willful,  or 
that  the  plaintiff  could,  in  the  exercise  of 
ordinary  care,  have  obtained  another  con- 


vejance.  Bridgman  z\  The  Emily,  13 
Iowa   509. 

Maine.  —  Where  the  defendant  con- 
tracted to  carry  fifty  tons  of  the  plain- 
tiff's hay  to  a  distant  port  for  sale,  the 
hay  to  be  delivered  at  the  ship's  side,  and, 
after  receiving  twenty-four  tons  on  board, 
declined  taking  any  more,  because  the 
ship  was  full,  the  rule  of  damages  was 
the  difference  between  what  the  plaintiff 
in  fact  received,  or  with  due  diligence 
and  i)rudence  might  have  obtained,  for 
the  hay  left  in  his  hands,  and  the  price 
at  the  port  of  destination,  deducting 
freight  and  expenses.  Xourse  v.  Snow 
(Me.),  G  Greenh  208. 

Massachusetts. — Harvey  r.  Connecticut, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  421,  26  Am.  Rep. 
G73. 

Michigan. — The  measure  of  damages  for 
the  breach  of  a  contract  to  transport  from 
one  market  to  another  aa  ordinary  ar- 
ticle of  merchandise,  always  to  be  found 
in  the  market,  is  the  excess  in  value  at  tlie 
place  of  destination  at  the  time  when,  by 
the  contract,  the  merchandise  should  have 
arrived  tliere,  beyond  its  value  at  the 
place  of  shipment,  with  the  agreed  freight 
added,  and  such  expenses  as,  under  the 
contract,  the  shipper  would  have  incurred 
in  loading  and  unloading,  etc..  had  the 
contract  been  performed.  Ward's,  etc., 
Pac.  Lake  Co.  r.  Elkins,  34  Mich.  430.  22 
.Km.    Rep.    544. 

Missouri. — Birney  f.  Wabash,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  470. 

92.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Caster.  13 
Ind.    164. 


§  794 


CARRIERS. 


472 


point  to  which  they  were  to  be  carried.-'^ 

Contract  of  Sale  Lost  by  Reason  of  Failure  of  Railroad.— A  carrier, 
for  breach  of  contract  to  furnish  cars  to  plaintiff,  made  with  knowledge  that 
he  had  a  contract  to  deliver  the  property  offered  for  shipment  to  others  on 
board  the  cars  at  a  certain  price,  is  liable  for  the  profit  which  he  would  have 
made  but  for  such  breach ;  «■*  as,  for  instance,  contracts  for  the  delivery  of  cat- 
tle,^^  grain,'"'  lumber.''"  timber'-'^  or  wood.'"-' 


93.  Contract  to  deliver  by  certain  time 
at  specified  rate.— Cowley  r.  Davidson,  13 
Minn.   y~\    Gil.    SG. 

94.  Contract  of  sale  lost  by  reason  of 
failure  of  railroad.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hoa-e    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    39    S.    W.    986. 

95.  Where  defendant  had  notice  of 
plaintiff's  contract  to  deliver  cattle  at 
their  destination  on  a  certain  day,  and 
failed  to  furnish  cars  for  the  transporta- 
tion thereof  as  agreed,  and  the  cattle  de- 
preciated in  value  by  reason  of  the  delay, 
the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference 
between  the  contract  price  at  their  des- 
tination and  their  market  value  in  their 
damaged  condition  at  the  point  of  ship- 
ment, less  the  freight.  International,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Startz  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  33  S. 
W.    575. 

But,  if  defendant  was  not  notihed  ot 
said  contract,  the  damages  would  be  the 
difference  in  their  market  value  at  their 
destination,  and  their  value  in  their  dam- 
aged condition  at  the  point  of  shipment. 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Startz  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),   33   S.   W.   575. 

Where  sale  of  cattle  lost  for  season. 
—The  measure  of  damages  for  breach  of 
a  contract  for  furnishing  cars  for  the 
shipment  of  cattle,  which  compelled 
plaintiff  to  cancel  a  contract  for  _  their 
sale,  whereby  he  lost  the  opportunity  of 
putting  them  on  the  market  for  that  sea- 
son, is  the  difference  between  the  rea- 
sonable value  of  the  cattle,  when  under 
herd  at  the  contemplated  time  and  place 
of  shipment,  and  the  amount  stipulated 
in  the  contract  of  sale.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Martin  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  28  S.  W. 
576. 

96-  The  measure  of  damages  on  fail- 
ure of  a  carrier  to  transport  grain  as 
agreed  is  the  difference  between  the  price 
at  which  plaintiff  was  required  to  sell  the 
grain  and  the  price  agreed  to  be  paid 
by  the  consignees,  where  such  price  is 
less  than  the  market  value  of  the  grain 
at  its  intended  destination.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Witherspoon,  45  S.  W.  424, 
18  Tex.   Civ.   App.   615. 

Where  defendant  agreed  to  transport 
plaintiff's  grain  to  L.  at  a  fixed  rate,  in 
consequence  of  which  plaintiff  contracted 
to  sell  the  grain  to  dealers  in  L.  at  a  spec- 
ified price,  the  measure  of  plaintiff's  dam- 
ages, on  the  refusal  of  defendant  to  trans- 
port the  grain  as  agreed,  is  the  difference 
between  the  market  value  of  the  grain  at 
L.  at  the  time  it  should  have  been  carried 


and  its  value  at  the  place  of  shipment, 
less  the  cost  of  carriage.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Witherspoon  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
38  S.  W.  833;  Inman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App.  39,  37  S.  W.  37, 
affirmed  in  93  Tex.  643,  no  op. 

97.  Plaintiff  sued  for  a  breach  of  con- 
tract to  carry  his  lumber  by  boat  during 
the  boating  season  to  C.  When  it  be- 
came evident  to  him  that  defendant  would 
not  carry  all  the  lumber  during  the  sea- 
son, plaintiff  was  unable  to  secure  other 
boats.  There  was  no  market  for  the 
lumber  at  the  place  of  shipment,  and 
plaintiff  was  compelled  to  hold  it  until 
spring,  when  he  shipped  it  to  C,  and  sold 
it  for  less  than  the  price  at  C.  the  former 
season.  Held,  that  the  proper  measure 
of  damages  was  the  difference  in  the  mar- 
ket price  in  C.  during  the  time  the  lumber 
ouglit  to  have  been  carried  under  the 
contract,  and  the  price  when  it  could  be 
carried  and  sold  the  following  season, 
plus  the  cost  of  insurance  daring  the  win- 
ter, and  interest  on  the  proceeds  of  the 
lumber  which  ought  to  have  been  car- 
ried, from  the  close  of  navigation  until 
vv^hen  it  could  be  sold  the  following  sea- 
son. Shores  Lumber  Co.  v.  Starke,  76 
N.   W.   366,   100  Wis.   498. 

98.  Sale  of  timber. — Where  defendant 
carrier,  at  tlie  time  it  contracted  to  fur- 
nish plaintiff  cars  for  shipment  of  tim- 
ber, had  notice  of  the  existence  of  the 
contract  of  W.  to  purchase  the  timber 
from  plaintiff,  or  knew  that  such  con- 
tract was  in  contemplation,  and  before 
default  in  supplying  the  cars  had  notice 
that  it  had  been  made  and  that  the  timber 
was  to  be  delivered  to  W.  in  performance 
of  plaintiff's  contract  with  W.,  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  for  failure  to  furnish  the 
cars  is  the  profit  which,  but  for  such  fail- 
ure, plaintiff  would  have  made  out  of  his 
contract  with  W.  Baxley  v.  Tallassee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  So.  451,  128  Ala.  183. 

99.  Where  a  railroad  company,  with 
knowledge  that  an  applicant  for  cars  had 
contracted  to  sell  and  deliver  wood,  failed, 
without  reasonable  excuse,  to  furnish  him 
cars  for  its  shipment,  by  reason  of  which 
the  contract  was  annulled  by  the  pur- 
chaser, it  is  liable  to  the  applicant  for  the 
profits  he  would  have  made  on  the  con- 
tract as  actual  damages.  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Campbell  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40 
S.  W.  431,  reversed  45  S.  W.  2,  91  Tex. 
551,    43    L.    R.    A.    225. 


473  SPFXIAL    CONTRACTS.  §§   794-796 

Reshipment  to  Another  Point  Necessitated. — In  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier who  failed  to  haul  freigiit.  necessitating  the  reshipment  of  the  goods  by  an- 
other carrier,  and  to  another  jjoint,  the  measure  of  plaintiff's  damages  is  the 
difference  between  what  he  obtained  and  what  he  would  have  received  at  the 
original  destination,  together  with  the  additional  expense  of  transportation,  and 
interest  thereon.' 

Where  Carrier  Transports  Goods  Part  of  Distance. — Where  a  carrier, 
by  failure  to  e.xercise  due  diligence,  is  able  to  tran.xporl  the  goods  only  a  part  of 
the  way,  the  shipper's  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between  the  con- 
tract price  of  transportation  and  the  increased  cost  necessary  to  secure  the  de- 
livery of  the  property  at  its  destination,  without  any  pro  rata  allowance  to  the 
carrier   for  the  ])arti,il  carriage. - 

Rate  to  Manufacturing  Company  to  Secure  Location  of  Plant. — W  here 
the  shipper,  a  manufacturing  company,  instead  of  suing  from  time  to  time  for 
the  difference  between  the  contract  rate  and  the  freight  charged  on  material 
actually  shipped,  seeks  to  recover  for  the  entire  injury  in  one  action,  the  measure 
of  damages  is  the  diminution  in  value  of  the  manufacturing  plant  by  reason  of 
the  carrier's  refusal  to  maintain  the  contract  rate;  and  this  is  true  though  the 
shipper  has  liecome   insohent.'' 

Excessive  Damages. — In  an  action  against  a  railway  company  for  breach 
of  a  verbal  contract  to  furnish  cars  for  the  shipment  of  certain  cattle  within  a 
given  time,  where,  according  to  the  market  price  at  the  place  of  destination,  the 
cattle  would  have  sold  for  $968  more  than  they  did  if  they  had  been  shipped 
as  agreed,  and  j^laintiffs  incurred  further  e.xpense,  amounting  to  $95,  in  car- 
ing for  the  cattle  while  waiting  for  shipment,  a  verdict  for  $700  is  not  excess- 
ive."* 

§  795.  Breach  by  Shipper. — It  seems  that,  where  plaintiff',  owner  of  a 
canal  boat,  contracts  to  carry  potatoes,  to  be  put  on  board  at  a  certain  time,  but 
which  are  not  put  on  board  till  some  days  after,  thereby  causing  delav  and  ex- 
pense to  the  plaintiff',  the  measure  of  the  plaintift"s  damages  is  not  the  diff'erence 
between  the  ordinary  rate  of  transportation  of  similar  property  and  the  rate 
agreed  to  be  paid  to  plaintiff',  if  the  diff'erence  were  to  be  in  his  favor,  together 
with  the  value  of  the  use  of 'the  boat  for  the  time  occupied  by  the  defendants 
in  loading  the  boat  beyond  the  time  fixed  by  the  contract,  but  plaintiff'  is  en- 
titled to  recover  all  the  damages  which,  by  default  of  defendants,  he  naturally 
and  necessarily  sustains.'' 

Voyage  to  Enhance  Damages.— \\hcre  a  contract  of  aff'reightment  has 
been  broken,  and  the  master  of  the  vessel  knows  that  he  can  obtain  no  freight 
at  the  port  of  lading,  he  can  not  make  a  voyage  thither  to  enhance  damages." 
In  an  action  to  recover  for  the  breach  of  a  contract  to  furnish  a  given  amount 
of  freight  for  a  particular  tri])  of  a  steamer,  at  a  stipulated  price,  the  defendant 
may  show,  in  mitigation  of  damages,  that  other  freight  was,  or  might  have  been. 
I>rocured;  but  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  him,  and,  in  the  absence  of  such  proof, 
the  measure  of  damages  is  the  contract  price  of  the  freight.' 

§  796.  Special  Damages. — A  shipper  can  not  recover  special  damages 
arising  from  a  railroad  compan}-'s   failure  to  furnish  cars  as  agreed  unless  the 

1.  Reshipment  to  another  point  neces-  signee,  109  Ky.  408,  .59  S.  W.  332,  22  Ky. 
sitated.      Laurent  r.   \';iu,ulin,  .'.O  \t.  «.)().  L.   Rep.   934. 

2.  Where  carrier  transports  goods  *•  Excessive  damages.— Gulf.  etc..  R. 
part  of  distance.— Spann  r.  I'.ric  Boatman's  Co.  z:  McCarty,  S2  Tex.  t)OS,  18  S.  W.  716. 
Traiisp.  Co..  11  Misc.  Rep.  (kSO,  33  X.  V.  5.  Breach  by  shipper.— Starbird  z:  Bar- 
S.    -A)V,.  ()7   X.   V.   St.    Rep.  3,54.  ''^^'i'^'  '^^   ^'^  V.  2,;(). 

3.  Rate  of  manufacturing  company  to  ,  ^-  Voyage  to  enhance  damages.-Brad- 
secure  location  of  plant.-Xovport    Xew.-^.       "'l  \/7,"*^"-   %^^  ";  "^/Uv-    ^    o  td-       oin 

etc.,    Co.    r.    McDonald    lirick     Co.'s     As-       .,   'r?^'i^'Z^:  ''■  ^'"'^''^   ^^^ '"•>•  ^  P'""  '^^- 

3    Chand.   231. 


§§  796-800  CARRIERS.  474 

facts  leading  to  the  special  damages  are  made  known  to  the  company. ■"*  Where 
a  shipper  desirous  of  shipping  logs  showed  them  to  the  general  manager  of  a 
railroad  company,  and  explained  the  method  and  expense  of  loading  them,  and 
the  manager  agreed  to  furnish  cars,  the  shipper  had  a  right  to  keep  his  teams 
necessary  for  loading  on  expense  while  waiting  for  the  company's  performance 
of  the  agreement,  and  on  its  failure  to  furnish  cars  he  was  entitled  to  recover 
the  expense  as  special  damages.^ 

Waggoner. — ^\'here  a  waggoner  on  being  employed  to  carry  a  load  of  cotton 
made  the  necessary  preparations  for  the  journey,  but  while  loading  his  wagon 
was  discharged  by  the  other  j^arty,  he  was  entitled  to  recover  the  price  of  carry- 
ing the  cotton. ^"^ 

§  797.  Proof  of  Damages. — Sufficiency. — Since,  for  a  railway  company's 
failure  to  carry  grain  according  to  contract,  plaintitt  can  recover  only  compensa- 
tory damages,  which  he  must  prove,  a  verdict  founded  only  on  his  testimony  as 
to  what  profit  he  would  have  made  on  the  grain,  if  transported  according  to 
contract,  must  be  set  aside.^^ 

§  798.  Release  of  Damages. — Damages  for  breach  of  a  contract  to  fur- 
nish cars  for  a  shipment  are  not  released  by  a  provision  in  a  subsequent  contract 
releasing  such  damages  for  the  expressed  consideration  of  a  reduced  freight 
rate,  where  it  appears  that  no  reduction  was  given. i- 

§  799.  Interference  by  One  Carrier  with  Contract  of  Another. — Where 
C,  by  fraudulent  representations  to  the  person  having  charge  of  certain  goods, 
obtained  possession  of  them  for  transportation,  knowing  that  B.,  another  car- 
rier, had  contracted  with  the  owner  for  their  transportation  and  the  owner  re- 
fused to  receive  the  goods  from  C,  whereupon  B.  paid  to  C.  the  stipulated 
freight,  received  the  goods,  and  delivered  them  to  the  owner,  B.  could  receive 
the  damages  from  C.  if  the  goods,  when  received  by  B.  and  delivered  to  the 
owner,  were  so  damaged  that  the  owaier  had  the  right  to  recoup  for  damages 
against  B.'s  claim  for  freight. ^^ 

§  800.  Contracts  to  Furnish  Freight. — A  contract  with  a  proposed  rail- 
road, securing  to  it  a  percentage  of  all  the  tonnage  moved  by  rail,  incident  to 
the  operation  of  salt-works,  and  referring  in  a  clause  to  tonnage  into  and  out 
of  that  point,  contemplates  both  the  incoming  and  outcoming  tonnage  to  the 
operation   of   the   works. ^-^ 

8.  Special  damages. — -Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  road  to  the  town  wherin  defendant's  salt 
Co.   V.    Rolfe,   76   Ark.   220,   88   S.   W.   870.       works    were    located,    to    give    defendant 

9.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rolfe,  76  Ark.  the  benefit  of  competition  in  rates;  de- 
220,  88   S.  W.   870.  fendant    agreeing    to    furnish    plaintiff    for 

10.  Waggoner. — Davis  v.  Crawford  (S.  transportation  "for  the  full  term  of  20 
C).   2    Mill    Const.   401,   12   Am.   Dec.   682.  years,     66    per     cent     of   all     the     tonnage 

11.  Sufficiency. — Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  moved  by  rail  incident  to  the  operation 
Roberts.   71   111.   540.  of    its    said    works."      The    contract    was 

12.  Release  of  damages. — Missouri,  etc.,  silent  as  to  the  times  when  and  the 
R.  Co.  V.  Darlington  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40  quantities  in  which  the  tonnage  was  to 
S.  W.  550;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCarty,  be  delivered,  but  provided  for  the  pay- 
82  Tex.  608,  18  S.  W.  716;  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  ment  of  liquidated  damages  for  each  year 
R.  Co.  V.  Greathouse,  82  Tex.  104,  17  S.  in  which  defendant  should  fail  to  tender 
W.  834;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  to  plaintiff  66  per  cent  of  its  tonnage. 
9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  677,  680,  29  S.  W.  565;  It  was  shown  that  plaintiff's  road  was  only 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.  V.  Holliday,  65  Tex.  512.  nine  miles   in   length,  and  passed   through 

13.  Interference  by  one  carrier  with  an  unsettled  territory,  in  which  the  traffic 
contract  of  another. — Barnett  v.  Central  originating,  besides  that  derived  from  de- 
Line   of   Boats,   51    Ga.   439.  fendant's    business,    was    not    sufficient    to 

14.  Contracts  to  furnish  freight. — Lone  justify  the  building  of  the  road,  and  that 
Star   Salt   Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,   R.   Co.   (Tex.  without  such  business  it  would  be  operated 
Civ.   App.),  86   S.   W.  355.  at  a  heavy  loss.     It  also  appeared  that  de- 
Plaintiff  railroad  agreed  to  construct  a  fendant's    business    required    the    constant 


473 


SPECIAL  CONTRACTS. 


§§  801-802 


§  8  01.  Contracts  for  Drayage  or  Hauling. — An  aj^'reement  between  a 
railway  and  a  drayman  that  the  latter  should  haul  to  the  dejiot  of  the  former, 
for  a  named  price  agreed  to  be  paid  by  it,  all  freight  that  local  shippers  might 
desire  to  have  transported  over  its  railroad  did  not  bind  the  railroad  to  furnish 
such  hauling  to  the  drayman,  unless  the  shippers  selected  that  road.  Where 
they  shipped  by  another  to  an  adjoining  town  and  there  transferred  to  the  con- 
tracting road,  the  drayman  could  not  recover  for  loss  of  the  i)rofits  of  hauling 
in  the  hitter's  depot. ^•''  A  railway  company  is  liable  for  breach  of  such  contract, 
and  can  not  escape  liability  for  depriving  the  drayman  of  the  right  to  perform 
the  service  at  the  price  agreed  upon  by  having  it  delivered  to  another  road  at 
the  initial  point  and  hauled  by  that  road  to  another  point  on  its  line  before  re- 
ceiving it,  where  the  person  controlling  the  routing  of  the  shipment  designated 
defendant's  and  not  the  oilier  road  as  the  route.^"  Such  contract  did  not  bind 
the  shipper  to  deliver  his  goods  to  the  defendant  road.'"  The  dravman  suing 
for  damages  from  being  denied  the  right  to  perform  his  contract  for  lucrative 
service,  assumes  the  burden  of  showing  that  he  was  able  and  willing  to  perform 
his  ])art,  had  the  carrier  permitted,'''  and  a  consignor  was  entitled  to  testify 
that  the  consignee  was  entitled  to  route  a  shipment  jjy  rail.'^ 

§  802.  Contracts  Enlarging  Carrier's  Liability. — Clear  and  Precise 
Language. — To  make  a  contract  which  enlarges  a  carrier's  liability  so  as  to 
waive  the  limited  protection  which  the  law  afifords  him  when  entered  into,  it 
"must  be  done  by  clear  and  precise  language ;  for  the  law  will  not  imply  from 
any  doubtful  language  such  an  intention,  but  will  rather  presume,  when  the 
meaning  of  the  contract  is  douljtful,  that  it  was  not  his  intention  to  waive  a 
protection  so  reasonable  and  so  important  to  him.  Express  language  will  be 
required  to  impose  upon  a  party  the  responsibility  of  an  insurer  beyond  his  legal 
obligation,  or  to  prevent  the  operation  of  the  customary  rule  in  cases  where 
the  act  of  God  or  inevitable  accident  excuses  the  nonperformance  of  a  con- 
tract." -°  Statements  by  the  commercial  agent  of  a  common  carrier  dulv  au- 
thorized to  solicit  shipments  of  freight  in  response  to  a  statement  bv  the  shipper 
that  he  "wanted  a  quick  run,"  that  "it  would  take  four  days"  to  get  the  freight 
to  the  Wednesday  morning  market,  and  that  he  would  give  the  shipper  a  quick 
run  and  as  he  had  ten  cars  he  could  run  them  as  special ;  does  not  constitute  an 
express  contract  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  to  ship  and  deliver  within  four  davs.-^ 


transportation  of  its  product  and  its  sup- 
plies, and  that  the  prompt  filling  of  some 
of  its  orders  could  be  better  accomplished 
by  shipment  over  a  road  other  than  plain- 
tiff's. Held,  that  the  contract  did  not 
obligate  defendant  to  deliver  to  plain- 
tiff for  transportation  by  regular  and  con- 
tinuous delivery  66  per  cent  of  its  ton- 
nage as  it  accrued.  Lone  Star  Salt  Co. 
V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  S.  W.  863,  99 
Tex.  434,  3  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  828. 

15.  Contracts  for  drayage  or  hauling. — 
Gulf,  etc.,  1\.  Co.  v.  Dennison,  22  Te.\.  Civ. 
App.  '.'9,   ,"3S  S.   W.  834. 

16.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennison,  25 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  127.  60  S.  W.  281,  distin- 
guishing Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dennison,  22 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  89,  5S  S.  W.  834. 

17.  Defendant  railroad  company  con- 
tracted with  plaintifT  to  pay  the  latter 
for  all  freight  carried  to  its  depot  for 
persons  living  in  a  certain  city  who  wished 
to  ship  freight  on  defendant's  line.  Plain- 
tifT commenced  to  deliver  a  large  quantitj' 
of   freight    at    defendant's    depot,    l)ut    was 


stopped  by  the  latter,  and  paid  for  what 
he  had  delivered:  the  shipper  having  made 
arrangements  to  deliver  the  freight  to 
another  road,  at  another  station,  to  be 
delivered  to  defendant  at  a  connecting 
point.  Held  that  it  was  error  to  instruct 
that  the  defendant  had  agreed  by  such 
contract  to  pay  the  plaintifT  for  hauling 
such  freight,  since  the  contract  did  not 
iMud  the  shipper  to  delive*-  the  goods  to 
defendant  company.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Deiuiison,  58  S.  W.  834,  22  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  89. 

18.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dennison,  22 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  89,  58  S.  \V.  834. 

19.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Dennison,  23 
Tex.   Civ.   .\pp.   127,  fiO  S.  W.  281. 

20.  Clear  and  precise  language. — Inter- 
national, etc.,  R.  Co.  :•.  Wontworth,  8 
Tex.  Civ.  .Vpp.  5,  14,  27  S.  W.  680,  af- 
firmed  in   87  Tex.   311. 

21.  International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Went- 
worth.  87  Tex.  311,  28  S.  W.  277,  affirm- 
ing 27  ?.  W.  680,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Title,  Custody  and  Control  of  Goods. 

I.  Title  and  Rights  of  Consignor  in  General,  §  803. 
II.  Title  and  Rights  of  Consignee  in   General,  §  804. 

III.  Title  and  Rights  of  Carrier  in  General.  §  805. 

IV.  Change   of  Destination,   §  80C). 

V.  Seizure  under  Legal  Process,  §  807. 
VI.  Actions  by  and  against  Carriers,  §§  808-811. 

A.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Maintain  Action,  §  808. 

B.  Right  to  Maintain  Action  against  Carrier,  §§  809-811. 

a.  In  General,  §  809. 

b.  Right  of  Consignor,  §  810. 

c.  Right  of  Consignee,  §  811. 

§  8  03.  Title  and  Rights  of  Consignor  in  General. — Where  goods  are 
left  with  a  common  carrier  to  be  delivered  to  the  consignee  without  any  quaH- 
fication  or  restriction,  the  consignor  parts  with  the  goods  and  all  control  over 
them.i  and  can  not,  by  a  subsequent  direction  to  the  carrier,  prevent  their  de- 
livery to  the  consignee,-  unless  such  facts  are  shown  as  will  justify  the  stop- 
page' of  the  goods  in  transitu.^  A  seller  of  goods  for  cash  on  delivery,  who 
delivers  v.ithout  payment,  can  not  recover  possession  from  the  carrier  after  tlie 
carrier  in  the  usual  course  of  business,  and  without  notice,  has  given  a  negotia- 
ble bill  of  lading  therefor  to  the  fraudulent  buyer.-*  The  possession  of  one  who 
delivers  goods  to  a  carrier  for  transportation  to  himself  as  consignee  gives  him 
a  prima  facie  right  to  recover  in  conversion  where  the  goods  are  attached  in 
a  suit  against  another.-^ 

When  Carrier  Consignor's  Agent. — If  the  right  to  control  the  goods  be 
resen-ed  by  the  shipper,  the  carrier  must  be  regarded  as  his  agent. ''^  The  ques- 
tion whether  the  consignor  reserved  the  jus  disponendi  is  one  of  intention,  to 
be  gathered  from  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  transaction."     Where  a 


1.     Title     and     right     of     consignor. — 

Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wireman,  88 
Pa.  264.  See  post,  "Title  and  Rights  of 
Consignee  in  General,"  §  804;  "Change  of 
Destination,"   §   806. 

Where  goods  are  shipped  to  a  con- 
signee over  a  railroad,  the  shipper  has 
no  right  to  require  a  delivery  at  an  in- 
termediate point,  although  he  ofTers_  to 
pay  the  freight  to  the  point  of  destina- 
tion. Pinnix  v.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 
X.  C.  34. 

Right  to  demand  redelivery. — Plaintif? 
collected  money  for  persons  supposed  to 
be  in  the  service  of  the  United  States, 
and  delivered  it  to  defendant  express  com- 
pany, directed  to  such  persons,  but  the 
company  was  unable  to  find  the  con- 
signees. Held,  that  since  the  fact  that 
discharges  had  been  issued  in  the  names 
of  the  consignees  was  evidence  that  the 
money  was  not  consigned  to  fictitious 
persons,  but  to  persons  entitled  to  it, 
plaintiff  was  not,  as  against  defendant, 
entitled  to  have  the  money  redelivered 
to  him.  Thompson  v.  Fargo  (N.  Y.),  4 
Thomp.  &  C.  66.5,  2  Hun  379. 


Under  a  shipment  consigned  to  the 
seller,  "notify"  the  purchaser,  title  does 
not  pass  to  the  purchaser,  in  the  absence 
of  an^'thing  to  the  contrary.  Asheboro 
Wheelbarrow,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,   149  N.   C.  261,  62  S.   E.   1091. 

2.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wireman, 
88    Pa.    264. 

3.  Stoppage  in  transitu. — As  to  con- 
signor's riglit  of  stoppage  in  transitu, 
see  post,  "Stoppage  in  Transitu,"  Chap- 
ter  17. 

4.  Delivery  of  bill  of  lading  to  buyer. 
— Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Marshall  (N. 
Y.),  4  Abb.  Dec.  .57.5,  6  Abb.  Prac,  N.  S., 
280,  affirming  37  Barb.  509. 

5.  Consignor  also  consignee. — Rosen- 
cranz  z'.  Swofiford  Bros.  Dry  Goods  Co., 
175  Mo.  518,  75  S.  W.  445,  97  Am.  St. 
Rep.    609. 

6.  Right  to  control  goods  reserved  by 
shipper. — Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat. 
Bank,  25  O.  St.  360,  18  Am.  Rep.  299. 

7.  Evidence  as  to  intention. — Emery's 
Sons  V.  Irving  Nat.  Bank,  25  O.  St.  360, 
18  Am.  Rep.  299,  followed  in  Miller  v. 
Sullivan    &    Co.,   26    O.    St.    639,    reversing 


477 


TITLE,    Cl'STOUV    AND    CONTROL    OF    GOODS. 


j§  803-804 


wholesale  dealer  ships  goods  to  a  retailer  under  an  agreement  that  the  title 
should  remain  in  the  former,  and  that  the  latter  should  be  responsible  for  them 
while  they  were  in  his  possession,  and  the  retailer  ships  back  the  part  of  goods 
unsold  by  the  same  carrier,  the  retailer  is  responsible  to  the  wholesale  dealer 
for  the  value  of  the  goods  lost  during  transit,  as  the  carrier  is  his  agent.* 

Rescission  of  Contract  of  Carriage.— Where  a  seller  has  authority  "to 
ship  I)y  1i(i;lI,""  he  may  rescind  a  coiiiract  of  carriage  with  a  boat  owner,  and  re- 
ship  the  goods  in  another  boat,  after  they  have  been  placed  in  the  former  boat 
and  a  bill  of  lading  has  been  sent  to  said  buyer;  and  the  rescission  releases 
such  owner  from  all  liability  to  the  buyer  for  injury  to  the  goods  after  they 
were  taken  from  his  boat.'' 

Delivery  Conditional  on  Payment  of  Draft. — The  shipper  of  goods,  after 
delivery  to  the  carrier  and  receii)t  of  ])ill  of  lading,  may  make  the  delivery  to 
the  consignee  conditional  on  the  latter's  payment  of  a  draft,  provided  the  bill 
of  lading-  has  not  l)ecn  forwarded  to  the  consignee,  or  some  f»ne  for  his  use.^" 

After  a  consignor  has  elected  to  treat  property  as  converted  on  ac- 
count of  the  carrier's  wrongful  refusal  to  deliver  according  to  his  order,  and  has 
notified  the  carrier  of  such  election,  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  defend  suits  re- 
lating to  the  property  or  to  aid  the  carrier  in  disposing  of  it.^^ 

§  804.  Title  and  Rights  of  Consignee  in  General.— Delivery  to  Car- 
rier as  Vesting  Title  in  Consignee. — Where  goods  are  in  the  possession  of 
the  carrier  to  be  delivered  to  the  consignee  it  is  presumed  that  the  title  to  the 
goods  is  in  the  consignee,'-     subject  only  to  the  carrier's  lien  for  freight. ^^  ^nd 


in  part  1   C.  S.  C.   R.  76,  13   O.   Dec.   Re- 
print 425. 

On  such  question  of  intention,  the 
terms  of  the  bill  of  lading  are  to  be  taken 
as  admissions  of  the  consignor,  and  are 
entitled  to  great  weight,  but  are  not  con- 
clusive. Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving  Nat. 
Bank,    25    O.    St.    360,    18    Am.    Rep.    299. 

8.  Castelli  z'.  Jereissati.  80  N.  J.  L.  295, 
78   Atl.    227. 

9.  Rescission  of  contract  of  carriage.— 
Tootle  V.  Rusk.  5  O.  Dec.  Reprint  107,  2 
Am.   L.   Rec.  553. 

10.  Delivery  conditional  on  payment  of 
draft. — Louisville,  cic,  R.  Co.  f.  Hart- 
well,  99  Ky.  4;j(),  IS  Ky.  L.  Rep.  745,  36 
S.    W.    183,    38    S.    \V.    1041. 

11.  Where  property  converted. — .\tchi- 
son,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schriver,  72  Kan. 
550,   84    Pac.    119.   4    L.    R.   A.,    N.   S.,    1056. 

12.  Title  of  consignee. — United  States. 
—Blum  z'.  The  Caddo,  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
1573.  1  Woods  64;  Lawrence  v.  Minturn 
(U.    S.),    17    How.   100,    107,    15    L.    Ed.    5S. 

Alabama. — Jones  :•.  Sims  (Ala.),  6 
Port.    138. 

Arkansas. — Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Freed,    38    Ark.    614. 

California.— Wehh  v.  Winter,  1  Cal. 
417. 

Georgia. — Rhodes,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Conti- 
nental Furniture  Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  116,  58 
S.    E.    293. 

Illinois. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v. 
National  Live  Stock  Bank,  178  111.  506, 
53  N.  E.  326;  Nonotuck  Silk  Go.  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  256  111.  66,  99  N.  E. 
893,  affirming  judgment  166  111.  519;  S. 
C..  256  111.  76.  99  N.  E.  897,  affirming 
judgment   lt>6   111.   .A-pp.   525. 


Indiana. — Butler  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  18  Ind.  App.  656,  46  N.  E.  92;  Madi- 
son, etc.,  R.  Go.  V.  Whitesel,  11  Ind.  55; 
Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Poor,  103  Ind.  553, 
3  N.  E.  253;  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Go.  7-. 
Moline  Plow  Co.,  13  Ind.  App.  225,  41  N. 
E.  480;  Tebbs  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
20  Ind.  App.  192,  50  N.   E.  486. 

lozi'o. — Bank  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  127 
Iowa   1,   102   N.   W.   107. 

Kentuckv. — Hoeing  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
7  Ky.  L."  Rep.  664;  Louisville,  etc..  R. 
Go.  V.  Fort  Wayne  Elect.  Co.,  108  Ky. 
113,    55    S.    W.    918,    21    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1544. 

Louisiana. — Schindler  v.  Smith,  etc.,  Co., 
18  La.  Ann.  476;  The  Red  River,  106  La. 
42,  30  So.  303,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  293. 

Minnesota. — Benjamin  v.  Levy,  39  Minn. 
11,  38  N.  W.  702;  McCauley  v.  Davidson 
(Gil.  150),  13  Minn.  162;  Amnion  v.  Illi- 
nois Gent.  R.  Co..  120  Minn.  438,  139  N. 
W.    819. 

Mississipti. — Butler  v.  Smith.  35  Miss. 
457. 

Xeic  I'yrA'.— Thompson  v.  Fargo,  2 
Hun  397,  4  Thomp.  &  C.  665  affirmed 
in  63  N.  Y.  479;  White  v.  Schweitzer,  132 
N.  Y.  S.  644,  147  App.  Div.  544,  reargu- 
ment  denied  133  N.  Y.  S.  1149;  Price  f. 
Powell,  3  N.  Y.  322;  Wertheimer  r.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.,  112  N.  Y.  S.  1062;  Krulder 
:•.    Ellison.   47   N.   Y.   36.   7   .\m.    Rep.   402; 

13.  Lien  for  charges. — Memphis,  etc., 
R.  Go.  V.  Freed.  38  Ark.  614;  Howe  i: 
C.  H.  &  D.  R.  Co.,  18  O.  C.  C.  333,  10  O. 
G.  D.  182.  See  post,  "Charges  and  Liens," 
chapter  15. 


§  804 


CARRIERS. 


478 


the  consignor's  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu. ^^  Hut  until  the.  contract  of  ship- 
ment takes  eltect,  the  consignee  has  no  title  thereto.^''  In  the  ahsence  of  notice 
to  the  carrier  of  the  existence  of  a  different  relation,  the  consignee  must  be 
treated  as  the  owner  of  the  goods,  with  authority  to  control  them  in  transit.^'' 
But  where  a  party  ships  goods,  consigned  to  himself,  his  agent,  or  the  order  of 
eitlier,^"  or  where  there  is  no  agreement   further  than  that  the  goods  shall  be 


Dressner  r.  Manhattan  Delivery  Co.,  92 
N.  Y.  S.  SOO. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Parker  Buggy  Corp. 
f.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  N.  C.  119,  67 
X.  E.  251;  Gaskins  z:  Southern  R.  Co., 
151    X.    C.    18,    65    S.    E.    51S. 

0/r/o.— State  v.  Alullin,  78  O.  St.  358, 
So  X.  E.  556,  affirming  10  O.  C.  C,  X.  S., 
417.  20-30  O.  C.  D.  251;  Howe  v.  C.  H.  & 
D.  R.  Co.,  18  O.  C.  C.  333,  10  O.  C.  D. 
182:  S.  C,  18  O.  C.  C.  606,  10  O.  C.  D.  220. 

South  Dakota. — Hess  v.  South  Dakota 
Cent.   R.   Co.    (S.   D.),   139   N.   W.   3154. 

Toutcsscc. — Ochs  V.  Price,  53  Tenn. 
(6  Heisk.)  483;  Brooks  v.  Friend  Paper 
Co.,   94   Tenn.   701,   31    S.   W.    160. 

Texas. — Xashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray- 
son County  Xat.  Bank,  100  Tex.  17,  21, 
93  S.  W.  431,  reversing  91  S.  W.  1106; 
Greif  &  Bro.  v.  Seligman  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  82  S.  W.  533;  East  Line,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hall,  64  Tex.  615,  620;  Cobb  v. 
Beall,  1  Tex.  342,  347;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Rotter  Bros.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  104  S. 
W.  402;  Orthwein's  Sons  v.  Wichita 
Mill,  etc.,  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  600, 
75  S.  W.  364,  affirmed  in  97  Tex.  643,  no 
op.;  Fort  Produce  Co.  v.  Dissen,  45  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  403,  101  S.   W.   477. 

J'irginia. — Vaughan  Mach.  Co.  v.  Stan- 
ton Tanning  Co.,  106  \'a.  445,  56  S.  E. 
140. 

iriscoiisin.—Congar  z\  Galena,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    17    Wis.    477. 

Service  of  garnishment  process  on  the 
consignee  by  a  creditor  of  the  shipper 
before  the  goods  arrive  is  good  as  against 
another  garnishment  made  after  the 
goods  arrived.  Schindier  v.  Smith,  etc., 
Co..    l>s    La.   Ann.   476. 

Assignment  of  goods  in  transit. — A 
bona  fide  assignment  of  goods  at  sea,  and 
their  proceeds,  is  sufficient  to  pass  the 
legal  title  to  the  goods  and  proceeds, 
without  an  indorsement  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, so  that  replevin  will  lie  for  the  pro- 
ceeds. D'Wolf  V.  Harris,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4.221,    4    Mason    515. 

Instances. — Where  a  lease  for  oil  pro- 
vides for  delivery  to  the  lessor  of  a  frac- 
tion of  the  oil  in  the  pipe  line  of  a  car- 
rier, there  need  be  no  actual  physical 
separation  of  the  lessor's  share  from  the 
whole  of  the  oil  to  vest  title  in  him. 
Smith  V.  Linden  Oil  Co.,  69  W.  Va.  57, 
71   S.    E.    167. 

Where  there  was  an  order  by  letter, 
for  the  purchase  of  two  thousand  bushels 
of  "red  wheat,  new  crop,  at  65  cents  de- 
livered   Galveston,    f.    o.    b.    —    shipment 

within   two   days.      Delivery   at  "   and 

the  the  seller  wrote  in   reply,    "We  book 


sale  to  you  of  2,000  bushels  65  cents 
Galveston,"  the  reference  to  Galveston 
was  one  of  price  only,  and  not  as  the 
place  of  delivery,  and  upon  delivery  to 
the  carrier  the  title  passed  to  the  pur- 
chaser. Orthwein's  Sons  v.  Wichita  Mill, 
etc.,  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  600,  75  S.  W. 
364,   affirmed   in   97   Tex.   643,   no   op. 

A.  purchased  cattle,  and  consigned  them, 
without  qualification,  to  his  principal  in 
X'ew  York,  paying  for  them  with  "scale 
tickets,"  in  the  nature  of  checks,  which 
were  accepted  by  a  bank,  to  be  subse- 
quently collected  by  draft  on  the  con- 
signee. After  the  cattle  were  en  route, 
the  bank  procured  by  the  carrier  two 
shipping  receipts,  one  covering  the  "scale 
tickets"  then  accepted,  and  the  other 
those  not  yet  presented.  The  receipts 
recited  that  the  carrier  had  received  of 
the  bank  certain  cattle  to  be  forwarded 
to  it  at  New  York,  but  the  cattle  were 
delivered  as  originally  consigned.  Held, 
that  delivery  to  the  carrier  put  the  title 
in  the  consignee,  and  the  bank,  which 
never  shipped  the  cattle,  and  knew  they 
were  shipped  to  consignee,  did  not  ac- 
quire title  to  them  by  the  receipts.  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  National  Live  Stock 
Bank,  53  N.  E.  326,  178  111.  506. 

14.  Stoppage  in  transitu. — Memphis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Freed,  38  Ark.  614;  Krul- 
der  V.  Ellison,  47  N.  Y.  36,  7  Am.  Rep. 
402;  Howe  v.  C.  H.  &  D.  R.  Co.,  18  O.  C. 
C.  333,  10  O.  C.  D.  182;  Howe  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  O.  C.  C.  606,  10  O.  C.  D. 
220;  Brooks  v.  Friend  Paper  Co.,  94 
Tenn.  701,  31  S.  W.  160;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Rotter  Bros.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  104 
S.  W.  402;  Greif  &  Bro.  v.  Seligman  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  82  S.  W.  533.  See  post, 
"Stoppage  in  Transitu,"  chai)ter   17. 

15.  Until  contract  of  shipment  takes 
effect. — Finn  v.  Western  R.  Corp.,  112 
Mass.    524,    17    Am.    Rep.    128. 

16.  Tebbs  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Ind.  App.  192,  50  N.  E.  486.  See  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  V.  Fant  Fish  Co.,  13  Ga. 
App.    447,    78    S.    Iv    197. 

17.  Goods  consigned  to  shipper  or 
agent. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Lau,  57 
Xeb.  559,  78  N.  W.  291.  See  Whaley  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  S.  C.  189,  65  S. 
E.   1022. 

Shipment  "notify"  the  purchaser. — Un- 
der a  shipment  of  iron  consigned  to  the 
seller,  "notify"  the  purchaser,  title  does 
not  pass  to  the  purchaser,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  anything  to  the  contrary.  Ashe- 
boro  Wheelbarrow,  etc.,  Co.  v.  South- 
ern   R.    Co..    149   N.    C.   261,   62   S.    E.    1091. 

Possession    by   a   l)ank    of   a    draft   with 


479 


TITLE,  CUSTODY  AND  CONTROL  OF  GOODS. 


§  8(H 


shipped  to  a  given  point,  and  the  consignor  is  shown  to  be  the  owner  before 
shipment,'''  there  is  nothing  to  show  a  change  of  ownership.  And  if  it  appears 
from  a  contract  of  sale  that  the  title  is  to  remain  in  the  consignor  until  the 
destination  is  reached,  delivery  to  the  carrier  does  not  devest  the  title  of  the 
consignor.'-'  It  is  held  that  where  a  seller  of  goods  delivers  them  to  a  carrier 
and  forwards  Ijill  of  lading  with  draft  attached  for  collection,  the  title  vests  in 
the  buyer  without  payment  of  price  or  actual  delivery.-"  The  general  rule  that 
a  delivery  bv  the  seller  to  the  carrier  is  a  delivery  to  the  consignee,-'  and  that 
the  goods  arc  thereafter  at  his  risk,  may  be  changed  by  a  contract  that  the 
rights  of  the  parties  shall  be  otherwise.--  The  presumption  that  the  consignee 
is  owner  of  the  goods  may  be  explained  or  rebutted  by  evidence  showing  where 
the  real  ownership  lies,--^  and  where  the  consignee's  right  in  the  goods  is  con- 
troverted  the  (juestion   of   ownership  is   for  the   jury.-^ 

By  the  acceptance  of  a  draft  for  goods,  accomi)anied  by  a  bi"l  of  lading, 


bill  of  ladiii.Li  attaclicd  as  transferrec 
thereof,  the  l)ill  of  lading  containing  the 
recital,  "Order  Notify  F."  a  buyer  from 
tlie  consignor's  vendee  of  the  corn  shipped 
is  only  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  con- 
signing seller's  intention  to  retain  title 
until  payment  of  the  draft.  First  Xat. 
Bank   v.    McSwain,    75    S.    E.    1106,    93    S. 

c.  ;{(). 

Question  for  jury. — The  presumption 
tliat  a  person  shipping  goods,  consigned 
l)y  l)ill  of  lading  to  himself  or  order,  re- 
tained the  title,  if  litigated,  is  one  of 
fact  for  the  jury.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
z\    Lau,    Ts    .\.    W.    .I'.n.   :>7    Xeh.    .■)59. 

18.  Agreement  to  ship  goods  to  given 
point. — Fast  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Hall.  <')4 
Tex.  ()15. 

19.  Blakiston  z\  Davies,  Turner  &  Co., 
42   Ra.   Super.   Ct.   390. 

Where  the  consignor  and  consignee 
enter  into  a  contract.  l)y  which  the  con- 
signee agrees  to  pay  a  specified  price  for 
all  the  wheat  that  the  consignor  would 
deliver  to  him  at  a  certain  point  by  a 
specified  time,  the  wheat  purchased  by 
the  consignor  to  fill  tlie  contract  belongs 
to  the  consignor  until  it  reaches  its  des- 
tination. East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.    Nelson,     11     Teiin.    (I    Coldw.)    272. 

20.  Bill  of  lading  attached  to  draft. — 
Robinson  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Te.x.), 
146  S.  W.  537,  reversing  judgment  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Robinson  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  131  S.  W.  444.  But  see  Cudahy 
Packing  Co.  z:  Dorsey.  26  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 
484,  63  S.  W.  548,  holding  that  where  a 
carrier  has  instructions  not  to  deliver 
property  until  payment  of  draft,  the  title 
does    not   pass    upon    delivery. 

21.  Straus  &  Bro.  v.  Wessel  &  Co.. 
30  O.  St.  211;  Emery's  Sons  v.  Irving 
Nat.  Bank,  25  O.  St.  360,  18  \m.  Rep. 
299;  Fort  Produce  Co.  v.  Dissen,  45  Tex. 
Civ.   .\pp.   403.    101    S.   W.   477. 

S.,  residing  in  Indiana,  received  from 
W.,  a  commission  merchant  of  Cincin- 
nati, $6,000,  advanced  on  account  of  pork. 
to  be  thereafter  cut  and  shipped  l)y  S. 
for  sale  on  commission.     In  pursuance  of 


the  contract,  S.  shipped  by  rail  a  car 
load  of  the  pork,  consigned  to  W.  at 
Cincinnati,  to  whom  he  also  sent  an  in- 
voice of  the  shipment  with  a  letter  of 
advice  stating:  "We  deliver  this  load  on 
our  own  indebtedness."  The  value  of 
the  shipment  was  less  than  the  amount 
of  such  indebtedness.  The  bill  of  lading 
was  taken  by  S.  in  his  own  name,  and 
was  not  forwarded  to  the  consignee.  It 
was  held  that  under  these  circumstances 
the  delivery  of  the  pork  by  S.  to  the  car- 
rier was  equivalent  to  a  delivery  to 
the  consignee.  Straus  &  Bro.  f.  Wes- 
sel &  Co.,  30  O.  St.  211,  affirming  Wessel 
&  Co.  V.  Weber,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint  844. 

22.  Contract  changing  rule. — Fort  Pro- 
duce Co.  z:  Dissen.  45  1  ex.  Civ.  App. 
403,    101    S.    W.    477. 

23.  Rebuttal  of  presumption.  —  United 
States.— The  Carlos  F.  Roses,  20  Ct.  803, 
177    U.    S.    655,   44    L.    Ed.    929. 

Alabama. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Proctor, 
3  Ala.  App.  413.  57  So.  513;  Jones  v. 
Sims   (.\la.),  6   Port.   138. 

Indiana. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Poor,  3 
N.  E.  253,  103  Ind.  553;  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Moline  Plow  Co.,  13  Ind.  App. 
225.   41    N.    E.   480. 

Minnesota. — Amnion  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.    Co.,    120    Minn.    438,    139    X.    W.    S'9. 

Kezv  York. — Dressner  v.  Manhattan  De- 
livery Co.,  92  N.  Y.  S.  800;  Wertlieimer 
V.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co..  112  N.  Y.  S.  1062; 
Price  z:   Powell.   3   N.   Y.   322. 

Texas.— Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Caruthers  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  157  S.  W. 
238. 

jri.ycoH.nH. — Cougar  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R. 
Co..    17    Wis.    477. 

Presumption  of  ownership  in  the  con- 
signee of  goods  may  be  rebutted  by  proof 
of  a  completed  sale  before  shipment  to 
the  person  directed  in  the  bill  of  lading 
to  be  notified,  which  completed  sale  niay 
exist  without  delivery  or  payment  of  the 
price.  Amnion  z'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.. 
139    N.    W.    S19.    120    Minn.    438. 

24.  Question  for  jury. — Cobl)  r.  Beall, 
1   Tex.   342,   347. 


§§  804-805 


CARRIERS. 


480 


the  consignee's  title  becomes  absolute,  subject  only  to  the  consignor's  right  of 
stoppage  in  transitu.--^ 

A  direction  to  notify  a  third  person  contained  in  the  bill  of  lading,  does 
not  make  him  consignee,  or  give  rise  to  a  presumj)tion  that  he  is  the  owner. -^ 

Bill  of  Lading  as  Vesting  Title  in  Consignee. — The  effect  of  a  bill  of 
lading  as  vesting  title   in  the  consignee   is  treated  elsewhere.-' 

Right  to  Maintain  Action. -"^ — The  consignee  named  in  a  bill  of  lading,  upon 
payment  of  freight,  may  maintain  an  action  against  any  person  who  assumes  a 
control  over  them  in  violation  of  his  right.--'  Where  a  carrier  has  sold  goods, 
transported  by  him,  consignee  may  follow  up  the  goods,  and  recover  them,  or 
recover  the  price  thereof,  from  one  who  has  purchased  of  the  carrier  and  sold 
them.^" 

Right  of  Inspection. — Where  the  right  of  the  shipper  and  carrier  are  not 
regulated  1)\-  agreement,  the  right  of  the  consignee  to  inspect  exists.-"^^ 

Right  to  Repudiate  Part  of  Transaction. — A  carrier  owes  the  consignee 
no  duty  as  a  common  carrier,  except  subject  to  the  valid  terms  of  the  contract 
of  shipment,  and  if  he  repudiates  part  of  the  transaction,  he  must  repudiate  it 
all.  in  which  case  he  can  not  assert  the  carrier  ever  became  as  to  him  a  common 
carrier  or  a  bailee  for  hire.^^ 

§  805.  Title  and  Rights  of  Carrier  in  General. — A  carrier  has  a  special 
title  to  goods  received  for  transportation,  which  gives  it  a  legal  right  to  the 
custody  thereof,  before  delivery  to  the  consignee,  as  against  one  having  no 
right.-'^^  But  it  must  yield  possession,  or  recognize  the  right  of  a  third  person 
having  the  true  title  to  the  goods,  or  such  person  may  enforce  his  right  l)y  suit.^^ 


25.  Acceptance  of  draft. — Dows  v.  Cobb 
(X.   Y.I.   12    Barl).   :;i(i. 

26.  Direction  "notify"  third  person. — 
Ammon  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  120  Minn. 
438,   1.39   X.  W.  819. 

27.  Bill  of  lading  as  vesting  title  con- 
signee.— Set  ante.  "Bins  of  Lading." 
chapter  •;. 

28.  Right  to  maintain  action  against 
carrier  for  loss,  damage,  nondelivery,  etc., 
see  post.  "Right  of  Consignee,"  §  811. 

29.  Webb    v.    Winter,    1    Cal.    417. 

A  consignee  can  maintain  replevin 
against  a  warehouseman  who  wrong- 
fully retains  them,  though  the  consignee 
is  not  the  general  owner  of  the  goods. 
Butler  V.  Smith,  35  Miss.  457. 

30.  Crumbacker  v.  Tucker,  9  Ark.  3(15; 
Bailey  v.  Shaw,  24  X.  H.  297,  55  Am. 
Dec.    241. 

31.  Right  of  inspection. — Earnest  r. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  134  X.  Y.  S.  323, 
149    .A-pp.    Div.    330. 

32.  Repudiation  of  part  of  transaction. 
— Bates  V.  Weir,  121  App.  Div.  275,  105 
X.    Y.    S.    785. 

33.  Title  of  carrier. — State  v.  Intoxicat- 
ing Liquors,   83   Me.  158,  21   Atl.   840. 

34.  Right  of  true  owner. — Georgia.^^ 
Georgia  K.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Haas,  56  S.  E. 
313,  127  Ga.  187,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
677. 

Kansas. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jor- 
don  Stock  Food  Co.,  72  Pac.  533,  07  Kan. 
86. 

New  York. — Blossom  v.  Champion  (N. 
Y.),  37  Barb.  554;  Bassett  v.  Spofford,  45 


X.  Y.  387,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  101.  affirming 
2   Daly   432. 

Pennsylvania. — Jacoby  v.  Laussatt  (Pa.), 
6   Serg.    &  R.  300. 

West  J'irginia. — Smith  v.  Linden  Oil 
Co.,    (V.t    W.    Va.    57,    71    S.    E.    167. 

Instances. — Plaintiffs  sold  turpentine,  to 
be  paid  for  on  delivery,  and  the  purchaser 
sold  the  same  to  a  third  person.  Plain- 
tiffs, by  order  of  the  original  purchaser, 
caused  the  property  to  be  shipped  on  de- 
fendant's vessel,  taking  receipts  therefor. 
The  second  purchaser,  without  paying  for 
the  property,  procured  from  the  agent  of 
the  vessel  a  bill  of  lading,  and  indorsed 
the  same  to  one  making  advances  on  the 
property.  In  an  action  against  the  mas- 
ter of  the  vessel  to  recover  possession 
of  the  property,  held,  that  the  vendors 
did  not  lose  their  title  by  failure  to  no- 
tify the  master  of  the  fact  that  the  price 
had  not  been  paid.  Blossom  v.  Cham- 
pion   (N.  Y.),  37   Barb.   554. 

Where  a  supercargo,  fraudulently  con- 
signed goods  to  a  carrier  to  secure  a 
debt  due  from  the  shipper,  it  was  held  that 
the  carrier  was  not  entitled  to  the  goods 
as  against  the  shipper's  assignees  for 
creditors.  Jacoby  v.  Laussatt  (Pa.),  6 
Serg.  &  R.  300. 

Where  a  vendor  refused  to  deliver 
goods  to  vendee  in  pursuance  of  a  con- 
tract but  delivered  them  to  a  carrier  con- 
signed to  another,  it  was  held,  that  the 
vendee  could  not,  as  against  the  carrier, 
recover  possession  of  the  goods.  Lester 
V.   McDowell,  18   Pa.  91. 

Where    an    oil    lease    provided    that    the 


481 


TITLE,   CUSTOUV  AND  CONTROL  OF  GOODS. 


§  805 


A  carrier  can  not  jjledge,-''-'*  or  sell,'"'  goods  delivered  to  it  for  transportation, 
so  as  to  divert  the  title  of  the  consignee.  Where  the  title  to  goods  has  right- 
fully passed  to  the  consignee  by  reason  of  a  good  delivery  the  carrier  can  not 
recover  against  him  on  the  strength  of  a  judgment  recovered  by  the  consignor 
against  the  carrier  in  another  state  as  for  a  misdelivery.-'" 

Right  to  Insure  Goods: — A  carrier  has-  such  an  interest  in  goods  intrusted 
to  it  for  transportation  that  it  may  insure  not  only  its  liability,  but  the  whole 
value  of  the  goods.  And  in  such  case  it  may  collect  the  whole  value,  and,  after 
reimbursing  itself  for  the  si)ecial  loss  it  has  sustained,  will  hold  the  surplus  in 
trust    for  ihc  owners."^ 

Safe  Custody  and  Preservation. — Since  a  carrier  is  a  bailee  for  hire,  it 
may  resort  to  any  means  to  protect  the  jjroperty  that  the  owner  could  use.-^'^ 
The  duty  and  liability  of  the  carrier  as  to  safe  custody  and  preservation  of 
property   is  treated  elsewhere.^" 

To  enforce  the  payment  of  its  charges  a  carrier  has  the  right  by  the 
common   law    to   retain    ])osscssion   ui   the  goods   transi)orted.^"* 

Delay  to  Determine  Ownership.— Where  pro])erty  is  in  the  hands  of  a 
common  carrier,  and  piK^scssion  thereof  is  demanded  by  a  stranger  to  the  bill 
of  lading  prior  to  actual  shipment  and  under  a  claim  of  ownership,  the  car- 
rier, having  reasonable  doubt  as  to  which  party  is  entitled  to  possession  and 
acting  in  good  faith,  may  have  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to  investigate  the 
claims  of  the  respective  parties,  and  for  this  ])urpose  may  delay  immediate 
shijMnent."*- 

Rig-ht  to  Dispute  Consignor's  Title. — It  is  held  that  the  carrier  can  not 
dis])ute  the   title  of   the  consignor   in   an  action  brought  bv  him.-*"'     This  is  es- 


lessee  should  pa}-  the  landowner  a  royaltj- 
of  a  fraction  of  the  oil  produced  under  the 
lease,  such  royalty  oil  to  be  delivered 
into  the  pipe  line  of  a  common  carrier  of 
oil,  such  common  carrier,  having  notice 
of  the  assignment  by  the  landowner  to 
another  of  a  given  fraction  of  such  roy- 
alty, must  account  to  such  assignee  for 
his  undivided  fraction  of  such  oil.  Smith 
T.    Linden    Oil    Co.,    (ill    W.    \'a.    ."iT,    71    S. 

E.  k;:. 

35.  Power  to  pledge  goods. — Kitchcll  f. 
\'anadar  (Ind.).  1  Blackf.  35(),  12  Am. 
Dec.    249. 

Carriers  by  water  purchased  a  boat  on 
their  way  to  ascend  a  certain  river  to- 
wards the  place  of  destination,  and  de- 
posited with  the  seller  a  part  of  the  prop- 
erty carried,  as  security  for  the  price  of 
the  boat;  informing  him  tliat  they  were 
carriers.  Held,  that  this  disposal  of  the 
property  was  unauthorized,  and  that  the 
right  to  the  possession  of  it  continued  in 
the  original  owner.  Kitchell  x'.  \'anadar 
(Ind.),   1    Blackf.   3.5fi,   12   Am.   Dec.   249. 

36.  Power  to  sell  goods. — Cruml)acker 
7:  Tucker,  9  Ark.  liG.J;  Bailey  z:  Shaw,  24 
N.  H.  297,  ,-).•)  Am.  Dec.  241. 

37.  Philadelphia,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wire- 
man,  Ss   Pa.  2(>4. 

38.  Right  to  insure  goods. — Lancaster 
Mills  !■.  Merchants'  Colton-l'ress  Co..  89 
Tenn.   1.   14   S.  W.   317. 

A  carrier  may  contract  valid  insurance, 
which  will  protect  it  from  a  loss  of  goods, 
occasioned  by  the  negligence  of  its  own 
servants.      Phoenix    Ins.    Co.   z\    Erie,   etc., 

1   Car— 31 


Transp.   Co..   117   U.   S.  312.  29   L.   Ed.  873, 
(')    S.    Ct.    7.-jO,    117t). 

39.  Power  to  protect  property. — Pitts- 
burg, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago,  242  111.  178, 

89  N.    E.    1022.    affirming    144    111.    App. 
293. 

40.  Safe  custody  and  preservation. — See 
post.  "Loss  of  or  Injurv  to  Goods,"  chap- 
ter 12. 

41.  Enforcement  of  charges. — Ames  v. 
Palmer,  42  IVIe.  197,  fifj  Am.  Dec.  271. 
See  post.  "Detention  for  Del)t  or 
Charges,"   §   841. 

This  right  does  not  deprive  the  general 
owner  of  the  right  to  immediate  posses- 
sion, as  against  a  wrongdoer.  It  consti- 
tutes no  bar  to  the  possession  of  the 
property,  unless  set  up  by  the  authority 
of  the  party  holding  such  lien.  Ames  t: 
Palmer.  42   Me.   197,  (iti  Am.  Dec.  271. 

42.  Delay  to  determine  ownership. — 
Alerz  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  SO  Minn.  33, 

90  X.   W.   7.     ^ 

What  is  a  reasonable  time  for  investi- 
gation by  a  carrier  to  determine  the  own- 
ership of  goods  claimed  by  two  parties 
is  ordinarily  a  question  for  the  jury.  Merz 
z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  90  X.  W.  7,  86 
Minn    33. 

43.  Right  to  dispute  consignor's  title. — 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Frame,  6  Colo.  3S2: 
Wallace  z:  Matthews,  39  Ga.  (il7.  99  Am. 
Dec.  473;  Lockhart  z:  Western,  etc..  R. 
Co..  73  Ga.  472.  54  .\m.  Rep.  883;  Carter 
V.  Southern  R.  Co..  Ill  Ga.  38.  36  S.  E. 
308.   50   L.   R.   A.  354. 

Georgia     Civil    Code,    §    22S6,     provides 


§§  805-806 


CARRIKRS. 


482 


pecially  true  where  the  party  dehveriiig  the  property  to  the  carrier  is  bound  by 
contracts  or  otherwise  to  make  the  shipment,  or  has  become  responsible  to  the 
carrier  for  its  charges."*^  But  it  is  held  that  this  rule  does  not  apply  to  cases 
where  the  plaintiff  himself  shows  that  he  has  no  interest  or  title  to  the  prop- 
erty in  question.^*^  And  the  carrier  may  dispute  the  consignor's  title  where  the 
title  of  the  real  owner  is  sought  to  be  enforced  against  it.-*" 

Liability  as  Trespasser, — A  carrier  who  receives  goods  to  carry  from  one 
not  authorized  to  deliver  them  to  him  is  a  trespasser  and  may  be  sued  in  trover 
for  the  goods,  as  any  other  illegal  taker  may  be.^"  But  where  a  shipper  loads 
property  on  railroad  cars,  the  railroad  company,  if  not  a  party  to  the.  taking, 
is  not  a  trespasser,  though  subsequently  notified  by  the  owners  of  the  property 
not  to  ship  it."*** 

§  806.  Change  of  Destination. — Where  under  tlie  circumstances  a  de- 
livery to  the  carrier  is  not  a  delivery  to  the  consignee,  the  consignor  has  the 
right  to  direct  a  change  in  destination,  and  the  carrier  is  bound  to  obey  such 
direction,^^  even  where  the  consignee  has  accepted  bills  on  the  strength  of  the 
consignment;^*'  and  the  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  consignee.'' ^  But  it  is  held 
that  where  the  bill  of  lading  has  been  forwarded  to  the  consignee  the  consignor 
can  not  alter  the  destination. ='^-  The  consignor  can  not  exercise  the  right  to 
change  the  destination  without  paying  a   reasonable  charge  therefor."-' 

The  true  owner  of  the  property  in  the  possession  of  a  common  carrier  may 
have  the  same  diverted  at  a  station  on  the  route  between  the  shipping  point  and 
the  place  of  destination  while  it  is  in  transit,  but  may  be  required  to  produce 


that  "The  carrier  can  not  dispute  tlie  ti- 
tle of  the  person  delivering  the  goods  to 
him  by  setting  up  adverse  title  in  himself, 
or  a  title  in  third  persons,  which  is  not 
being  enforced  against  him."  Shellnut 
V.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131  Ga.  404,  G2 
S.  E.  294,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  494. 

A  carrier  sued  by  the  consignor  of 
goods  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation 
can  not  say  that  the  real  title  was  in  an- 
other, unless  it  shows  that  the  goods  were 
taken  by  the  latter  without  injury  to  the 
consignor.  Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Comas,  33  111.  185. 

44.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Schwartz,  11 
III.  App.  482. 

45.  Lockhart  v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
73    Ga.   472,   .54   Am.    Rep.    883. 

46.  Carter  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  Ill  Ga. 
38,  36  S.  E.  308,  50  L.  R.  A.  354;  Lockhart 
V.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  73  Ga.  472,  54 
Am.  Rep.  883. 

47.  Liability  as  trespasser. — Southern 
Exp.   Co.  7'.    f^almer,   48   Ga.   85. 

48.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Walley, 
147   Ala.   697,  41   So.    134. 

49.  Right  of  consignor  to  change  des- 
tination.— Lewis  V.  Salena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40 
111.  2H1;  Strahorn  v.  L^nion  Stock  Yard, 
etc.,  Co.,  43  111.  424,  92  Am.  Dec.  142; 
Howell  V.  Morlan,  78  111.  162;  Hartwell  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
778.  See  Carr  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  92 
N.  Y.   S.  799. 

A  debtor  who  ships  cotton  to  his  lac- 
tor   and   creditor   for   sale   ami   applicaHfjn 


to  the  debt,  and  sends  the  bill  of  lading, 
may  change  the  shipment  to  another  per- 
son without  making  the  carrier  liable  to 
the  first  consignee.  ChafTe  v.  Mississippi, 
etc.,   R.    Co.,   .59   Miss.   182. 

Goods  in  hands  of  connecting  carrier. 
— A  consignor  of  goods,  after  they  have 
passed  from  the  hands  of  the  railroad 
company  with  which  the  contract  of  af- 
freightment was  made,  into  the  hands  of 
another  company,  has  the  same  right  to 
change  their  destination  while  in  transitu, 
l)y  taking  a  new  bill  of  lading,  as  if  the 
first  company  had  a  continuous  line  to  the 
destination.  Sutherland  v.  Second  Nat. 
Bank,  78  Ky.  250,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
.'jCiS. 

That  a  person  to  be  notified  of  the  ar- 
rival of  goods  consigned  to  shipper's  or- 
der takes  them  from  the  carrier's  posses- 
sion without  its  knowledge  and  detains 
them  in  its  own  warehouse  is  no  justifi- 
cation for  the  carrier's  failure  to  comply 
with  the  order  from  the  shipper  direct- 
ing a  diversion  of  the  consignment.  At- 
chison, etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  Schriver,  84  Pac. 
119.  72   Kan.  550,  4  L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,   1056. 

50.  Lewis  7'.  Salena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  111. 
2H1. 

51.  ChafTe  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 
Miss.  182.  See  Pool  v.  Colum1)ia,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  23  S.  C.  286. 

52.  Hartwell  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  778. 

53.  Payment  of  reasonable  charges. — 
Carr  ?■.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  92  N.  Y.  S. 
799. 


483 


TITLE,   CUSTODY   AND   COXTKOL   OF   GOODS. 


§§  806-808 


the  hill  of  l;uliii<,^  or  furnish  other  evidence  of  ownersliii)  to  entitle  him  to  this 
rij^Hit.-^'' 

Buyer  Directed  to  Be  Notified.— Where  goods  are  shipped  under  a  bill 
of  lading  calling  for  delivery  to  the  shipper,  with  directions  to  notify  the  buyer, 
the  latter  has  no  authority  to  change  the  destination  without  proflucing  the  bill 
of  lading. ■''■''' 

Agent.  —  W  here  a  ])urchasing  agent  consigns  goods  to  his  principal,  he  can 
not  afterwards,  while  they  are  in  transit,  change  their  destinaticjii,  nor  confer 
a  right  to  make  such  change  on  another.'"'" 

§  807.  Seizure  under  Legal  Process.— The  duties  and  liabilities  of  the  car- 
rier where  goods  are  seized  under  legal  process,  what  goods  are  subject  to  legal 
process,  the  rights  of  persons  whose  goods  are  wrongfully  seized,  and  the  rights 
of  the  officer  making  the  levy,  will  be  found  in  another  part  of  this  work.'" 

§§  808-811.  Actions  by  and  against  Carriers— §  808.  Right  of  Car- 
rier to  Maintain  Action. — A  carrier  has  a  right  of  action  in  its  own  name.'''* 
and  which  it  may  assign, "•'•'  for  damage  done  to  property  intrusted  to  it  to  be 
carried ;  and  it  may  sue  in  admiralty  as  well  as  at  common  law.''"  A  carrier 
may  sue  to  recover  property  wrongfully  taken  *or  withheld  from  it,"^  and  may 


54.  True  owner. —  Ryan  r.  Great  Xortli- 
ern  R.  Co.,  1)5  N.  W.  758,  90  Minn.  12. 
See  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Caruthers 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  l.J7  S.  W.  2;?8. 

55.  Buyer  directed  to  be  notified. — Per- 
kett  T'.  Manistee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mich.),  141 
N.    W.   (507. 

56.  Agent.— Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i: 
National  Live  Stock  Bank,  53  N.  E.  326, 
178   111.   506. 

57.  Seizure  under  legal  process. — See 
post,  "Goods  Seized  under  Letjal  Proc- 
ess,"   §§    S70-S74. 

58.  Right  of  carrier  to  maintain  action. 
— I'mtcd  States. — The  Beaconstield,  158  U. 
S.  303.  15  S.  Ct.  860,  39  L.  Ed.  993;  The 
Commander-in-Chief  (U.  S.),  1  Wall.  43, 
17  L.  Ed.  609;  Hovey  r.  The  Sarah  E. 
Brown,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,744. 

Alabama. — The  Farmer,  26  .\la.  189,  72 
Am.   Dec.  718. 

Missouri. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kan- 
sas City,  etc.,  R.  Co..  78  Mo.  .-Kpp.  245. 

Xcii.'  York. — Merrick  v.  Brainard  (X. 
Y.),  38  Barb.  574. 

Though  the  owner  may  have  a  right  of 
action,  a  carrier  may  also  recover  the  full 
\  alue  from  one  who  destroys  the  prop- 
erty. Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Chicago, 
242  111.  178,  89  N.  E.  1022.  aflirming  144 
111.  App.  :.•!):!. 

59.  Right  of  action  assignable. — Mer- 
rick V.  Brainard  (N.  Y.),  38  Barb.  574. 

60.  The  Beaconsfield.  158  U.  S.  303,  15 
S.  Ct.  860,  39  L.  Ed.  993;  The  Propeller 
Commerce  ( U.  S.),  1  Black  574,  17  L.  Ed. 
107;  Hovey  r.  The  Sarali  E.  Brown.  I'ed. 
Cas.   No.   6744. 

61.  Property  wrongfully  taken  or  with- 
held.—United  States  :■.  \'erniiiye,  I'\>d. 
Cas.  No.  If), 618.  10  Biatchf.  2S0,  aftirmed 
in   88    U.    S.    138,   22    L.    l'"d.    f.OK. 

Proof  of  delivery  of  goods  to  carrier 
and  its  agreement  to  pay  therefor,  in  con- 
seciuence    ol    nontleliver\',    is    evidence    of 


sufticient  property  in  the  carrier  to  sup- 
port trover  for  the  goods.  Maine  Stage 
Co.  :•.  Longley,  14  Me.  444. 

Delivery  to  wrong  person. — .\  carrier, 
who  by  mistake  delivers  a  consignment 
of  goods  to  the  wrong  person,  may,  after 
demand  for  their  return,  or  payment  of 
tiieir  value,  and  a  refusal,  bring  tort  for 
the  conversion  of  the  goods.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.  v.  Lounsberry  (N.  Y.).  25 
Barb.  597;  Johnson  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
S2  Miss.  452,  34  So.  357;  Cheshire  Rail- 
road <■■.    Foster,  51   N.  H.  490. 

Illustrations. — Treasury  notes  of  the 
United  States  stolen  from  an  express 
company  and  sold  for  value  after  due  in 
tile  regular  course  of  business  may  be  re- 
covered by  the  express  company  which 
has  succeeded  to  the  rights  of  tlie  origi- 
nal owner.  Vermilye  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co. 
(U.  S.),  21  Wall.  138,  22  L.  Ed.  609. 

Defendant  ordered  a  car  of  corn 
through  a  broker,  who  ordered  it  from 
H.,  who  shipped  the  corn  consigning  it 
to  Iiimself.  When  the  car  had  been 
placed  on  the  switch  at  its  destination, 
the  broker  opened  the  car  and  delivered 
the  corn  to  defendant,  who  paid  the 
broker  for  it.  Thereafter  the  railroad 
paid  H.  for  the  corn,  the  broker  refusing 
to  do  so,  and  the  railroad  then  sued  de- 
fendant for  conversion.  Held,  that  plain- 
tiff was  entitled  to  maintain  the  action. 
Fordyce  :•.  Dempsev,  82  S.  W.  493,  72 
Ark.  471. 

Refusal  of  connecting  carrier  to  sign 
bill  of  lading. — Where  cotton  was  deliv- 
ered to  a  railroad  companj-  under  a  bill  of 
lading  stating  tiiat  it  was  to  be  delivered 
"to  the  ship  T.,"  and  it  was  placed  on 
lioard  immediatelj-  on  its  arrival,  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  the  port,  the  railroad 
company,  by  virtue  of  its  right  to  pos- 
session as  bailee,  could  maintain  a  libel 
against   the   vessel   to   recover  the   goods. 


j§  808-809 


CARRIERS. 


484 


maintain  an  action  against  another  carrier  to  whom  it  has  entrusted  goods  in 
its  charge  for  failure  to  dehver  them  according  to  contract.'"'-  But  where  the 
carrier  has  devested  itself  of  further  responsibility  or  interest  in  the  goods  by 
delivering  them  to  a  warehouseman  it  can  not  maintain  an  action  against  him 
for  converting  them.'^^'  A  carrier,  who  has  delivered  goods  to  the  consignee, 
without  requiring  the  performance  of  a  proper  condition  precedent  to  delivery., 
can  not  recover  possession  of  the  goods  without  paying  to  the  consignee  the 
amount  of  the  freight  paid  by  him.''-* 

Where  Goods  Attached. — A  carrier  can  not  replevy  goods  taken  by  a  con- 
stable on  a  writ  of  attachment,  regular  on  its  face,  against  the  consignee,  where 
the  constalilc  pays  the  carrier's  charges.''"' 

Bona  Fide  Purchaser. — A  carrier  who  has  negligently  delivered  goods  to 
a  vendee  of  the  shipper,  without  collecting  the  purchase  money  or  requiring  the 
production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  can  not  recover  them  of  a  bona  fide  purchaser 
from  such  vendee.''"  But  it  has  been  held  that  where  a  carrier  delivered  a  ship- 
ment on  a  forged  order,  which  was  sold  to  one  ignorant  of  the  fraud,  the  rule 
of  caveat  emptor  applied,  and  the  carrier  could  recover  from  such  purchaser.^'' 

§§  809-811.  Right  to  Maintain  Action  against  Carrier— §  809.  In 
General. — To  sustain  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  or  damage  to  goods, 
plaintitt  must  be  the  owner,  or  have  some  special  interest  in  them ;  '■'^  and  the 


upon  the  master's  refusal  to  siyn  the  liill 
of  lading  except  with  certain  additional 
qualifications.  Chamberlain  :•.  Torgorm, 
48   Fed.  584. 

62.  Deford  z:   Seinour,   1   Ind.    532. 

63.  Effect  of  delivery  to  warehouseman. 
— Hamilton  v.  Xickerson  (Mass.),  11  Al- 
len 308,  wherein,  it  appeared  that  a  com- 
mon carrier  by  water  carried  goods  to 
their  destination,  and,  being  unable  to  find 
the  consignee,  delivered  them  to  a  ware- 
houseman, receiving  from  him  the  whole 
amount  of  his  charges,  and  left  him  in 
possession  of  them  for  four  years,  with- 
out further  act  of  the  carrier's  part,  or 
any  evidence  of  a  special  contract  other 
than  that  which  would  be  naturally  in- 
ferred from  these  facts.  It  was  held  that 
it  was  sufticient  evidence  that  the  carrier 
has  devested  itself  of  further  responsibil- 
ity for  or  interest  in  the  goods. 

64.  Walker  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill 
Ala.    233.    20    So.    358. 

65.  Where  goods  attached. — Livingston 
r.  Miller.  4fs  Hun  232,  IG  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  71. 

66.  Bona  fide  purchaser. — Norfolk 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes,  104  N.  C.  25, 
10  S.  E.  83,  5  L.  R.  A.  611. 

67.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor.  18  Tex. 
Civ.   App.    571,    45    S.    \V.    7  49. 

68.  Right  to  maintain  action  against  car- 
rier.— Georgia. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son.  2   Ga.   App.   36,   58   S.   E.   333. 

Illinois. — Edgerton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  240  111.  311,  88  N.  E.  808;  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  National  Live  Stock  Bank, 
178    111.   506,    53   N.    E.   326. 

Massachusetts. — Garvan  v.  New  York, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  210  Mass.  275,  96  N.  E.  717; 
Sanford  v.  Housatonic  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  11 
Cush.  155. 

Minnesota. — Grinnell-Collins    Co.    v.    Il- 


linois Cent.  R.   Co..  109  Minn.  513,  124  N. 
\V.   377,   26   L.    R.   A..    N.    S.,   437. 

Xew  York. — Thompson  v.  Fargo,  49  N. 
Y.  188,  44  How.  Prac.  17'o,  10  Am.  Rep. 
342,  reversing  58  Barb.  575;  Green  v. 
Clark    (N.   Y.),   5    Denio   497. 

Tc.vas. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wolston 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),   23    S.   W.   233. 

JViscoiisin. — Congar  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    17  Wis.   477.  _ 

Instances  of  right  to  sue. — One  who 
has  I;ought  property  agreeing  to  pay 
therefor  when  sales  are  made  by  the  con- 
signees, to  whom  he  has  it  shipped,  who 
are  to  pay  the  freight  at  the  point  of  des- 
tination, remitting  to  him  the  proceeds 
less  the  freight,  is  the  general  owner,  and 
entitled  to  sue  the  carrier  for  failure  to 
deliver.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allgood, 
20    So.    986,    113    Ala.    163. 

A  complaint  alleging  that  defendant  car- 
rier, received  certain  property  of  plaintiff, 
to  be  delivered  to  a  consignee  named,  but 
that,  on  the  latter's  refusal  to  receive  the 
goods,  defendant  sold  them,  without  first 
notifying  the  owner,  plaintiff  therein,  is 
sufficent  on  demurrer  to  show  general 
ownership  in  plaintiff,  so  as  to  entitle  him 
to  sue.  Martin  v.  McLaughlin.  5  Colo. 
387. 

The  delivery  of  shipping  receipts  to  the 
purchaser  of  goods,  with  drafts  attached, 
drawn  by  the  sellers,  is  a  delivery  of  the 
goods  to  the  purchaser,  so  as  to  entitle 
him  to  sue  the  carrier  for  failure  to  de- 
liver. Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller,  32 
111.    App.    259. 

Where  goods  were  delivered  to  plaintiff 
by  a  manufacturer  with  the  right  to  re- 
turn them  if  a  proposed  customer  did  not 
buy,  and  on  the  goods  being  lost  while  in 
the  hands  of  the  carrier,  the  manufacturer 


485 


iriLi:,   CUSTODY   AND  CONTROL   OF   GOODS. 


§  809 


ownershii)  must  exist  at  the  time  of  the  injury.''"  One  having  a  benehcial  in- 
terest may  maintain  tlie  action.'"  The  owner  of  goods,  though  he  be  not  the 
shipper,  may  recover  from  a  carrier  for  injury  neghgently  done  to  them,'i  or 
for  their  non-dehvery.' -  I'.ut  where  an  owner  ships  goods  under  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing accepted  by  him, designating  consignees  as  shippers  and  owners,  he  can  not 
predicate  a  right  of  action  thereon  for  tlie  railroad's  alleged  wrongful  delivery.'-' 

An  action  on  the  express  contract  in  a  bill  of  lading  should,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  be  instituted  by  the  tshipper.  with  wlium  the  master  contracted,  or  by 
the  owner  of  the  goods,  where  the  shipper  acted  as  hi.s  agent."^ 

Where  there  is  common  ownership  in  the  goods  shipped,  each  owner  may 
maintain  a  se])aralc  anion  for  the  damages  sustained  by  him."''  -\nd  one  part- 
ner may  maintain  suit  against  a  carrier  for  damages  for  injury  caused  partner- 
ship ])roperlv.'''' 

Undisclosed  Principal. — It  is  held  that  though  an  agent  contracts  in  his 
own  name,  without  di.sclosing  that  of  his  principal,  for  the  transportation  of 
goods,  the  owner  may  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  failure  to  com- 
ply with  his  contract."      I  hit   it   is  also  held  that  a  carrier  dealing  with  one  as 


billed  the  goods  to  plaintiff,  trcatiiiR  the 
transaction  as  a  sale,  such  act  transferred 
the  title  to  plaintiff  so  as  to  entitle  him 
to  recover  against  the  carrier.  Easter  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  Exp.  Co.,  132  N.  Y.  S.  402, 
74   Misc.    Rep.   399. 

69.  Law  V.  Hatcher  (Ind.),  4  Blackf. 
3<)4.  But  see  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Humpli- 
ries.  4   Te.x.   Civ.   .-Xpp.   333.   23   S.   W.   5.-)t5. 

Defendant  contracted  to  carry  certain 
merchandise  for  A.,  to  whom  the  bill  of 
lading  was  made;  but  before  the  goods  ar- 
rived they  were,  by  a  verbal  contract, 
sold  by  A.  to  plaintiffs,  but  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing was  not  indorsed.  When  the  goods 
arrived.  .\.  directed  that  they  be  delivered 
to  plaintiffs,  who  found  th.e  goods  dam- 
aged. Held,  that  since  the  sale  was  not 
complete  until  the  goods  were  delivered, 
and  until  after  tlic  damage  occurred.  A., 
and  not  plaintiffs,  should  !)ring  the  action 
against  the  carrier  for  the  damage.  Law 
V.   Hatclicr    (Ind.).   4    Rlackf.   364. 

70.  Beneficial  interest. — Lloyd  v.  Haugh, 
etc..  Transfer  Co.,  223  Pa.  148.  72  M\. 
516,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  188;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Caperton.  44  Ala.  ini,  4  .\m.  Rep. 
118. 

71.  Where  owner  not  shipper. — Harvey 
V.  Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co..  ('>  Mo.  .\pp. 
585.  See  Boughman  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co..  14  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2r.8;  Schlosser  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co..  20  N.  Dak.  406, 
127   N.  W.  502. 

The  owner  of  goods  may  sue  the  carrier 
in  his  own  name  to  recover  for  an  injury 
thereto  by  a  carrier,  although  they  were 
billed  in  the  name  of  the  owner's  agent, 
where  the  contract  of  shipment  was  made 
for  the  benefit  of  the  owner  and  that  fact 
was  known  to  the  carrier.  Norfolk,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Crull.  112  \a.  l.'Jl,  70  S.   E.  .V21. 

72.  D'.^njou  V.  Deagle  (Md.),  3  Har.  & 
J.  206. 

73.  St.  Louis,  etc..  Railwav  v.  Gilbroatli 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.).   144   S.   \V.   1051. 


74.  Action  on  express  contract. — Dows 

V.  Cobl)   (N.  ^■.).    \:l    liarb.  :;i<). 

75.  Common  ownership. — Baughman  v. 
Louisvillr,  etc..  R.  Co.,  14  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
268;  Newport  News,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nixon, 
16  Ky.  L.  Rep.  319,  holding  that  plaintiff 
can  recover  no  more  than  he  is  entitled 
to  whether  the  ownership  be  put  in  issue 
or  not. 

Undisclosed  joint  owner. — The  joint 
owners  of  personal  property  intrusted  to 
a  common  carrier  may  maintain  an  action 
against  him  for  its  loss,  notwithstanding 
the  receipt  given  for  the  property  by  the 
carrier,  at  the  time  he  received  it.  was  an 
acknowledgment  that  he  had  received  it 
from  two  of  the  plaintiffs,  the  joint  own- 
ership of  the  other  plaintiff  being  un- 
known to  him.  Day.  etc..  Co.  v.  Ridley, 
16  \'t.  48,  42  Am.  Dec.  489. 

76.  Partner. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith,  84  Tex.  348,  19  S.  W.  509;  South- 
ern Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  100  Tex. 
611.  612.  102  S.  \V.  396.  afi'irming  99  S. 
\V.    433. 

77.  Undisclosed  principal. — Ames  v. 
First  Div..  etc.,  R.  Co..  12  Minn.  412  (Gil. 
295);  .Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Texas 
Grate  Co.,  81  Ga.  602,  9  S.  E.  600;  New 
Jersey  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v.  Merchants' 
Bank  (U.  S.\  6  How.  344.  12  L.  Ed.  4(55. 

Instances. — Where  an  express  company 
contracts  with  a  transportation  company 
to  carry  its  freight,  one  who  ships  goods 
with  the  express  company  can  maintain 
an  action  in  his  own  name  against  the 
transportation  company  for  the  loss  of 
property  while  it  is  being  carried  by  such 
companv.  New  Jersev  Steam  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Merchants'  Bank  (T.  S.).  6  How.  344.  12 
L.  Ed.  465. 

A  third  person  rolled  up  the  plaintiff's 
coat  in  a  bundle  with  his  own  coat,  and 
placed  his  own  name  and  address  upon 
the  bundle,  and  delivered  it  to  the  car- 
rier, for  transportation.     It  was  held  that 


§  809 


CARRIERS. 


486 


shipper,  and  making  its  contract  with  him,  assumes  no  responsibility  to  answer 
to  the  real,  but  undisclosed,  owner  in  case  of  loss  of  the  property  delivered  to 
it,"^  and  may  refuse  to  deliver  the  goods  to  him  without  the  production  of  the 
bill  of  lading."'' 

Shipper  Both  Consignor  and  Consignee. — Shippers  who  are  in  control 
of  merchantlise  shipped,  and  are  both  consignors  and  consignees,  should  be  as- 
sumed, in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  to  have  sufficient  title  to  en- 
able them  to  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier.""'  And  though  the  shipper 
does  not  own  all  the  goods  he  may  sue  for  loss  or  injury  thereto. '''  Where 
goods  are  consigned  to  the  seller,  with  directions  to  notify  the  j)urchaser,  the 
purchaser  can  not  sue  the  carrier  for  damage  sustained  because  of  delay,**-  or 
for  loss  occurring  before  he  received  the  bill  of  lading."^'  Hut  it  is  also  held 
that  where  one  ships  goods  to  himself  as  consignee,  the  purchaser  not  to  obtain 
the  bill  of  lading  until  payment  of  the  draft  attached,  delivery  to  the  carrier 
vests  title  in  the  purchaser  entitling  him  to  sue  the  carrier  for  delay  in  trans- 
portation.^^ 

A  bailee,  who  is  the  consignor  of  goods,  has  sufficient  interest  to  maintain 
an  action  against  the  carrier  for  loss  or  damage  to  goods. •'^^'  or  for  delivery 
without  requiring  the  performance  of  a  proper  condition  precedent  to  delivery. '*" 

A  factor  has  such  special  property  in  goods  that  he  may  sue  the  carrier  for 
their   loss.^" 

Transferee  of  Bill  of  Lading. — As  a  general  rule,  the  indorsee  or  transferee 
of  a  bill  of  lading,  as  the  real  party  in  interest,  may  bring  an  action  in  his  own 
name  against  the  carrier.'^'*     But  in  some  jurisdictions  it  is  held  that  an  assign- 


the  plaintiff  might  maintain  an  action 
against  the  carrier  to  recover  damages 
for  the  loss  of  his  coat.  Elkins  v.  Bos- 
ton, etc..  Railroad,  19  N.  H.  337,  51  Am. 
Dec.  184. 

78.  Hill  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  78  N.  J. 
L.    333.    74    Atl.    674. 

79.  The  owner  of  certain  goods  deliv- 
ered them,  through  his  agents,  to  a  com- 
mon carrier  for  transportation,  and  the 
agents  took  a  bill  of  lading  therefor  in 
their  own  names.  When  the  goods  ar- 
rived at  destination,  the  agents  through 
whom  the  shipment  had  been  made  re- 
fused to  deliver  the  bill  of  lading  to  the 
owner  of  the  goods;  but  he  demanded, 
nevertheless,  that  the  carrier  make  deliv- 
ery to  him.  The  carrier  refused  to  deliver 
to  him,  unless  he  would  produce  the  bill 
of  lading.  Held,  that  the  carrier's  refusal 
to  deliver,  under  the  circumstances  stated, 
did  not  constitute  a  conversion,  and  that 
the  owner  of  the  goods  could  not  main- 
tain bail  trover  against  the  carrier  for 
them.  Kaufman  v.  Seaboard,  etc..  Rail- 
way.  10   Ga.   .App.   248,   73   S.   E.   592. 

80.  Shipper  both  consignor  and  con- 
signee.— Swift  V.  Pacific  Mail  Steamship 
Co.,  106  N.  Y.  206,  12  N.  E.  583.  See 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robinson  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  444,  reversed  in  146 
S.  W.   537. 

81.  Shipper  part  owner, — Walter  v.  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.,  142  Ala.  474,  39  So. 
87;  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frame,  6  Colo. 
382. 

82.  Asheboro  Wheelbarrow,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  149  X.  C.  261,  62  S.  E. 
1091. 


83.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allen,  31 
Okla.  248,  120  Pac.  1090,  39  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,    309. 

84.  Robinson  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.),  146  S.  W.  537,  reversing  131  S.  W. 
444. 

85.  Bailee. — Georgia. — Southern  R.  Co. 
V.  Johnson,  2  Ga.  App.  36,  58  S.  E.  333. 

Illinois. — Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Comas,   33   111.   185. 

Massachusetts. — Garvan  v.  New  York, 
etc..  R.  Co..  210  Mass.  275,  96  N.  E.  717. 

Maine.  —  Moran  v.  Portland  Steam 
Packet   Co.,   35   Me.   55. 

86.  Murray  v.  Warner,  55  N.  H.  546,  20 
Am.    Rep.   227. 

87.  Factor. — Edgerton  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  240  111.  311,  88  N.  E.  808;  H.  & 
T.  C.  R.  Co.  z:  Stewart  &  Co.,  1  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1246. 

On  to  whom  goods  were  shipped  for 
sale  on  commission  who  sold  the  goods 
and  consigned  them  to  a  buyer  had  such 
an  interest  therein  as  authorized  him  to 
sue  the  carrier  for  loss  of  a  part  of  the 
goods  removed  from  the  car  before  the 
sale.  Edgerton  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  240  111.  311,  88  N.  E.  808,  affirming 
146    111.   Api).    199. 

88.  Transferee  of  bill  of  lading. — United 
States.— The  Thames  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,859, 
7  Blatchf.  226,  affirmed  in  (U.  S.),  14  Wall. 
98,  20  L.  Ed.  804;  Robinson,  etc.,  Co.  z: 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Fed.  129 

California. — Dodge  v.  Meyer,  61  Cal.  405. 

Massachusetts. — Newcomb  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.    Corp.,   115    Mass.   230. 

Missouri. — Gratiot  St.  Warehouse  Co.  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   124   AIo.  App.  545, 


487  TITKK,    CL'STODV   AND  CONTROL  OF  GOODS.  §    809 

nient  of  a  bill  of  lading  transfers  no  more  than  the  property  in  the  goods  which 
it  represents,  and  does  not  transfer  the  contract  between  the  original  parties  to 
it ;  and  therefore  its  assignee  can  not  maintain  an  action  founded  upon  it  in  his 
own   name.'^'* 

Shipper  Surrendering  Bill  of  Lading  in  Exchange  for  Transportation. 
— Under  the  Carmack  Amendment  to  the  interstate  Commerce  Act  which 
])rovides  that  any  common  carrier,  receiving  i)roperty  for  transportation  from 
a  point  in  one  state  to  a  point  in  another  state,  shall  issue  a  receipt  or  bill  of 
lading  and  shall  be  liable  to  the  "lawful  holder"'  thereof  for  any  loss  or  injury 
to  such  property  caused  by  it  or  by  any  carrier  to  which  such  i^roperty  may  be 
delivered  or  over  whose  line  such  i)roperty  may  ])ass,  the  term  "lawful  holder" 
comprehends  the  owner  of  the  property  transported  or  the  one  beneficially  en- 
titled to  recover  for  the  loss  or  injury,  and  manual  i)ossession  of  the  bill  of 
lading  is  not  a  prerequisite  to  the  right  to  sue,  so  that  a  shipper  accompanying 
the  shipment  is  not  deprived  of  his  right  to  sue  because  he  surrenders  his  bills 
of  lading  at  the  destination  in  exchange  for  free  transportation  on  the  return.^*^ 

Forwarding  Merchant.  —  A  forwarding  merchant,  who  delivers  goods  to  a 
carrier,  under  a  coiitracl  with  llicir  owner  to  forward  them,  has  not  such  an 
interest  in  them  that  he  can  maintain  trover  against  the  carrier  for  their  non- 
delivery.'" Ijut  it  has  been  held  that  forwarding  merchants  who  have  paid  the 
freight  on  goods  which  they  delivered  to  the  carrier  for  transportation  could 
maintain  assumpsit  on  the  contract  for  damage  to  the  goods,  and  recover  the 
entire  amount  of  the  loss  for  the  benefit  of  themselves  and  the  owners  of  the 
goods,  especiallv  where  the  latter  were  parties  to  the  record  and  precluded  from 
further  claim. •'- 

An  insurer  who  pays  a  loss  caused  by  a  carrier's  negligence  is  subrogated 
to  the  assurcd"s  rights  against  such  carrier:  and  suit  can  be  maintained  in  the 
name  of  the  assured  for  the  use  of  the  insurer  to  recover  of  the  carrier  the 
amount  jiaid  ujinn  such  loss.'*-' 

Assignee  of  Claim. — An  assignee  of  a  claim  for  damages  for  delay  in  de- 
livery is  vested  with  the  right  of  the  shii)])er.''-*  and  may  recover  in  his  own 
name  from  the  carrier  for  injuries  in  transit.'*''  It  is  held  that  if  plaintiff  in 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  conversion  of  goods  was  owner  of  the  claim 
at  the  time  of  the  suit,  it  is  immaterial  that  he  was  not  the  owner  of  the  goods 
at  conversion.-"' 

Borrower. — One  who  has  no  property,  general  or  special,  in  an  article 
shij^jped,  but  is  a  mere  borrower  from  the  owner  and  consignee,  can  not  sue  a 
carrier  for  its  loss,  but  the  action  should  be  brought  in  the  name  of  the  owner.**" 

102  S.  W.  11;  Kirkpatrick  z:  Kansas  City.  92.   Steanil)oat    Co.   r.    Afkins    &   Co.,   22 

etc.,   R.    Co.,   86   Mo.   :{41.  Pa.  r)22. 

Nezv   Fo;-A'.— Merchants'   Bank  z:   Union  93.     Insurer.— Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 

R.,  etc.,  Co.,  69  N.  Y.  373.  Manclicstcr   Mills,  88  Tenn.  653,  14  S.  W. 

South  Carolina. — Moore  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  •^^^-  .  c      ^   ■       r        a ^ 

ID    -1        1     or    c    n    1Q    A-   Q    P    11  94.    Assignee    of    claim    for    damages. — 

Railroad,    85    b.    C    19,   ot    b.    it,,    ll.  ^  ,-.  n     r-  n  t-       •   i  »    e 

"   '  ,,  '       .  n     r-  Texas  Cent.   R.  Co.  v.  Hannay-lTorichs  & 

89.  Haas  v.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co..  ^.^  ^^^  ^^^  ,5(^3  ^^2  S.  \V.  1163.  modifv- 
81  Ga.  792,  795,  7  S.  E  629;  Knight  r.  S  .  ;„„  j,,dgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  130  S.  W. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   1  ti    III.   no,  M)   in.   li.  250 

543,  affirming  40   111.    App.   471;   .-Xdanis  7-.  "^  ^^    Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Davis.  93  Tex. 

The   rilgnni,   1    O.    Dec.   477.    10   West.    L.  3-3^   -^  §_  ^^    381_  5.  g    y^    jgo,  reversing 

J-  14^-  54    S.   W.   381.     See    Gulf.   etc..    R.    Co.   v. 

90.  Shipper  surrendering  bill  of  lading  Wolston  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  23  S.  \V.  233; 
in  exchange  for  transportation. — .\ct  June  i-'^st  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Hall.  64  Tex. 
29,  i;h)(),  c.  3591.  §  7,  pars.  11,  12,  34  Stat.  ,;i-,;  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Klepper  (Tex. 
595   [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  Supp.  1911,  p.   1307);  Civ.   App.),  24   S.  W.   567. 

Pecos,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Meyer    (Tex.    Civ.  gg.    Cult,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Humphries,   4 

App.),    155    S.    W.    309.  Tex.    Civ.    App.    333,   23    S.   W.    556.^ 

91.  For-warding  merchant. — Green  v.  97.  Borrower. — Lockhart  v.  Western, 
Clark.    1;-'    X.    Y.   ;m:'..  etc..   R.  Co..  73  Ga.  472.  54  Am.  Rep.  883. 


j§  809-810 


CARRIER? 


488 


Person  Directed  to  Be  Notified. — A  mere  direction  in  a  bill  of  lading  to 
notify  a  person  of  the  arrival  of  goods  does  not  entitle  him  to  recover  for 
their   loss.""' 

Person  Paying  Freight  and  Responsible  for  Goods. — One  required  by 
a  carrier  to  pay  freight  on  goods,  and  who  was  responsible  for  the  goods,  is 
properly  considered  as  consignee  for  value  or  as  one  who  had  incurred  liability 
as  consignee,  authorizing  him  to  sue   for  any  shortage.'*" 

§  810.  Right  of  Consignor. — A  consignor's  right  to  sue  a  carrier  for  loss 
of  goods  depends  on  whether  the  title  remains  in  him  after  delivery  for  trans- 
portation.^ If  the  title  has  passed  to  the  consignee,  he  can  not  maintain  the 
action.-  Where  he  has  no  interest  in  the  goods,  he  can  not  sue  in  an  action 
ex  delicto  for  breach  of  duty  by  the  carrier;^  and  although  he  is  named  in  the 
contract  of  shipment  as  the  person  from  whom  they  were  received,  he  is  not 
entitled  to  maintain  such  action  for  their  loss.-*  And  where  a  shipper  of  goods 
consigned  to  himself  sold  the  goods  in  transit,  he  can  not,  because  of  the  car- 
rier's failure  to  deliver,  maintain  an  action  for  breach  of  the  contract  of  car- 
riage."' When  the  risk  of  transportation  is  upon  the  consignor,  he  will  be  con- 
sidered the  owner  for  the  purpose  of  suing  the  carrier  for  loss  or  injury.*'  When 
the  consignee  is  not  mentioned,  and  the  goods  are  shipped  to  a  given  point,  the 
consignor  may  sue  for  their  loss."  The  right  of  stoppage  in  transitu  in  case  of 
the  insolvency  of  the  vendee  is  not  a  sufficient  interest  in  the  goods  to  enable 
the  consignor  to  maintain  a  suit  in  tort  for  loss  or  damage  to  the  goods. '^ 

Where  Consignor  Owner. — The  consignor  may  maintain  an  action  against 
the  carrier,  when  he,  and  not  the  consignee,   is  the  owner  of  the  goods.-'     So 


98.  Person  directed  to  be  notified. — Dal- 

bey  &  Co.  i'.  Mexican  Cent.  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  105  S.  W.  1154.  See  Asheboro 
Wheelbarrow,  etc.,  Co.  z'.  Southern  R.  Co., 
149  N.  C.  261,  62  S.  E.  1091;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Allen.  31  Okla.  248,  120  Pac. 
1090,   .39    L.    R.   A.,    X.    S..    .309. 

99.  Person-  paying  freight — Thomas  z'. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  S.  C.  537,  G4  S. 
E.  220,  67  S.  E.  908,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  223,  34  L.  R.  A.,   N.   S.,   1177. 

1.  Right  of  consignor. — Fein  v.  Weir, 
114  X.  Y.  S.  426,  129  App.  Div.  299,  judg- 
ment affirmed  92  X.  E.   1084. 

The  shipper's  present  ownership  of  his 
claim  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  freight 
is  an  essential  element  of  the  cause  of 
action.  Xorthern  Alabama  R.  Co.  v. 
Feldman.   56   So.   16,   1   Ala.   App.   334. 

2.  Krulder  v.  Ellison,  47  X.  Y.  30,  7 
Am.  Rep.  402;  Blum  v.  Ihe  Caddo,  Fed. 
Cas.    Xo.   1,573,   1   Woods  64. 

Where  the  seller  delivers  an  article  to 
the  carrier  for  transportation  by  the 
usual  route  on  an  open  bill  of  lading, 
title  passes  to  the  vendee  or  assignee,  so 
that  the  seller  could  not  sue  for  their 
injury  en  route  unless  he  specifically  re- 
tained title  by  requiring  the  goods  to  be 
delivered  to  his  order,  etc.  Gaskins  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  151  X.  C.  18,  65  S.  E. 
518. 

3.  Central  American  Steamship  Co.  z'. 
MoI)ile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  128  S. 
W.  822;  Bennett  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mo.  .^pp.),  131  S.  W.  770;  Carter  z'. 
Graves,  17  Tenn.   (9  Yerg.),  446. 

4.  Green  v.  Clark  (X.  Y.),  5  Denirt 
497. 


5.  Sale    of    goods    in    transit. — Sweeney 

V.  Frank  Waterliousc  &  Co.,  81  Pac.  1005, 
39  Wash.  .JOT. 

6.  Consignor  having  risk  of  transporta- 
tion.— Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whitesel, 
11  Ind.  55;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rob- 
inson (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  444. 
See  Matheson  v.  Southern  Railway,  79  S. 
C.   155,  60  S.   E.  437. 

7.  Where  consignee  not  mentioned. — 
East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  iriall,  64  Tex. 
615. 

8.  Right  of  stoppage  in  transitu. — Xor- 
thern Pac.  R.  Co.  z'.  Lewis,  89  111.  App. 
30. 

9.  Where  consignor  owner. — Alabama. — 
Southern  R.  Co.  z'.  Proctor,  3  Ala.  App. 
413,  57  So.  513. 

Marxland. — Moore  z\  Sheridine,  2  Har. 
&  McH.  453. 

Massachusetts. — Sanford  v.  Housatonic 
R.   Co.,   11   Cush.   155. 

Minnesota. — Jarrett  v.  Great  Xorthern 
R.    Co.,    74    Minn.    477,    77    X.    W.    304. 

Missouri. — Landes  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  50 
Mo.  346. 

Xczi-  York.— Price  v.  Powell,  3  X.  Y. 
322;  Levy  z'.  Weir,  77  X.  Y.  S.  917,  38 
Misc.  Rep.  361. 

Tennessee. — W.  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly, 
38  Tenn.  (1  Head)  158;  Turney  v.  Wilson, 
15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  340,  27  Am.  Dec.  515; 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson, 
41  Tenn.   (1  Coldw.)   272. 

Wcrmont. — Blumenthal  v.  Brainard,  38 
Vt.  402,  91   Am.   Dec.   350. 

Instances. — M.  &  Son  contracted  to 
purchase  a  vehicle  from  plaintiffs  for 
$300,    payal)le    $35    cash    with    the    order. 


489 


TITLK,   CUSTODY   AND   COXTKOL   OF  GOODS. 


810 


an  action  for  failure  to  deliver  j^roniptly  apples  consigned  for  sale  on  commis- 
sion is  properly  brought  in  the  name  of  the  consignor,  the  consignment  not 
operating  to  devest  his  title. ^"  Where  the  consignee  is  a  mere  agent  of  the 
consignor,  a  right  of  action  against  the  carrier  is  in  the  consignor  alone.^^ 
Where  a  purchaser  reships  proi)erty  to  the  vendor,  and  afterwards,  it  being  lost, 
jiays  him  therefor,  the  right  of  action  against  the  carrier  for  its  loss  is  in  such 
purchaser.'-  A  shipper  of  goods  under  a  "notify"  bill  of  lading  with  a  draft 
attached,  who  receives  them  back  from  his  bank,  which  had  discounted  the 
draft,  on  payment  being  refused,  reacquires  title  to  the  property  so  as  to  confer 
capacitv  U>  maintain  trover  for  conversion  against  the  carrier.'-' 

Where  Consignor  Agent. — It  has  been  held  that  where  an  agent  consigns 
a  package  of  money  to  his  ])rincii)al  he  could  sue  the  carrier  for  its  loss.'-*  But 
where  the  agent,  pursuant  to  instructions  of  his  i)rincipal,  consigns  moneys  of 
the  principal  to  him,  he  can  not  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  there- 
for.'"'    Where  the  consignee  emjiloyed  the  consignor  to  purchase  goods  for  him, 


$;{()  cash  on  arrival,  and  the  l)alanco  in 
moTithly  notes,  with  interest,  secured  by 
a  deed  of  trust  thereon  for  the  unpaid 
portion  of  the  price,  .\fter  payment  of 
the  lirst  casli  instalhnent  plaintiffs  shipped 
to  their  own  order  the  vehicle  and  a 
harness  purchased  as  part  of  the  same 
contract,  and  sent  the  bill  of  lading  to 
a  banker,  with  instructions  to  deliver  the 
same  to  the  l)uyer  on  his  making  the 
other  cash  payment  and  executing  the 
notes  and  mortgage.  The  vehicle  was 
injured  in  a  wreck,  whereupon  plaintiff 
and  the  l)uyer  rescinded  the  contract; 
pUiintifT  returning  the  cash  paid.  .A-fter 
tliis  tlie  carrier  repaired  the  vehicle  and 
shipped  it  to  the  buyer,  who  tendered 
compliance  with  the  original  contract, 
which  plaintiffs  refused.  Held,  that  plain- 
tiffs were  the  owners  of  the  property  at 
the  time  it  was  injured,  and  were  there- 
fore entitled  to  recover  against  the  car- 
rier as  for  a  conversion.  Norris  v.  St. 
Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  S.  W.  159,  124 
Mo.    App.    16. 

Where  the  consignor  and  consignee  en- 
ter into  a  contract,  by  which  the  con- 
signee agrees  to  give  the  consignor  a 
specified  price  for  all  the  wheat  that  the 
consignor  w^ould  deliver  to  the  consignee 
at  a  certain  point  by  a  specified  time,  and 
the  wheat  is  purchased  by  the  consignor 
to  fill  said  contract,  the  wheat  belongs 
to  the  consignor  until  it  reaches  its  desti- 
nation, and  an  action  to  recover  for  loss 
or  injury  would  be  properly  brought  in 
his  name.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.    Nelson,    -41    Tcnn.    (1    C<ildw.)    272. 

Owner  of  part  of  goods. — An  owner  of 
crates  of  pears  intrusted  as  a  commission- 
man  with  other  crates  to  ship  and  sell, 
such  crates  together  making  up  a  car, 
may  sue  a  carrier  for  any  damage  thereto. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Partridge,  50  So. 
g:u.  58  Fla.  15:{. 

Under  the  Kansas  statute  giving  the 
consignee  of  grain  the  right  to  recover 
from  a  railway  company  for  loss  thereof, 
the  owner  and  consignor  of  grain  can 
not    recover    from    a    railway    for    loss    or 


shortage.     Wel)er  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  C"., 
77    Pac.    5;;:!,    (■,'.)     Kan.    mi. 

Pleadings  must  show  that  consignor  is 
owner. —  Pennsylvania  Co.  z'.  Por.r,  ltt:5 
Ind.  .353,  3  X.  E.  25;};  Adams  E.xp.  Co.  f. 
Bleich,  5  Ky.  L.  Rep.  122;  Hoeing  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co..  7  Ky.  L.  Rep.  664; 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Metcalf.  50  Neb. 
452,   69   N.   W.   961. 

10.  Consignment  on  commission. — 
Soutlicrn  R.  Co.  z'.  Deakins,  li)7  Tenn. 
522,   (14   S.   W.   477. 

11.  Consignee  mere  agent. — Zimmern's 
Coal  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  6  Ala. 
App.    475,   60   So.    598. 

A  contract  of  sale  calling  for  delivery 
to  a  carrer  for  delivery  to  the  buyer  does 
not  give  the  buyer  such  interest  in  a 
shipment  consigned  by  the  seller  to  its 
agent  as  will  authorize  an  action  under 
Ala.  Code  1907,  §  2490,  by  the  agent  for 
the  buyer's  use  against  the  carrier  for 
loss  of  a  part  of  the  shipment.  Zimm- 
ern's Coal  Co.  t'.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
60  So.  098,  6  .Ala.   .\pp.  475. 

12.  Ralph  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 
Wis.   177,  14  .\n^.   Rep.   725. 

13.  Perkett  r.  Manistee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mich.).    141    N.    W.    607. 

14.  Where  consignor  agent. — Southern 
Exp.  Co.  z:  Capon,  in.  44  Ala.  101,  4  Am. 
Rep.   lis. 

15.  Thompson  z:  Fargo.  63  N.  V.  479, 
affirming  2    Hun   :!79,  4  Thomp.   &   C.   CC^ry. 

That  the  moneys  were  fruits  of  a  fraud 
perpetrated  liy  the  principal  through  tlie 
instrumentality  of  the  agent,  although 
the  latter  was  innocent  of  the  fraud,  gives 
him  no  title  to  the  moneys  which  will 
authorize  him  to  maintain  the  action. 
1  hompson  z\  Fargo.  63  N.  Y.  479.  affirm- 
ing 2  Hun  379,  4  Thomp.  &  C.  665. 

Where  consignee  not  found. — Where 
lihiiiuitt'  ctdlected  certain  money  for  a 
third  person  and  delivered  it  to  an  e.x- 
press  company,  to  be  delivered  to  such 
third  person,  as  directed  by  him,  but  after 
a  diligent  search  sucli  person  could  not 
be  found,  and  the  package  was  retained 
by     defendant     carrier,     plaintiff    had     no 


§  810 


CARRIERS. 


490 


the  consignor  can  not  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  loss  or  damage 
thereto. i*^  And  if  the  consignee  takes  the  risk  and  expense  of  transportation 
of  goods  consigned  to  him  l)y  his  agent,  the  agent  can  not  maintain  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  nondeliverv  of  the  goods.''' 

Where  Consignor  Makes  Contract  of  Shipment.— Whether  he  is  the 
owner  or  not.  the  consignor  may  sue  the  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  to  goods 
where  he  makes  the  contract  of 'shipment.'''     If  he  has  in  fact  no  interest,  his 


such  title  to  the  property  that  an  action 
could  be  maintained  by  him  to  recover 
it.  Thompson  r.  Far.ajo,  49  N.  Y.  188,  44 
How.  Prac.  176,  10  Am.  Rep.  :U2.  revers- 
ing 58   Barb.  57o. 

16.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son, 41  Tenn.   (1  Coldw.)   272. 

17.  Potter  V.  Lansing  (N.  Y.),  1  Johns. 
215,  3  Am.  Dec.  310. 

18.  Where  consignor  makes  contract  of 
shipment. — Licorghi. —  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Maddox,  7  Ga.  App.  650,  67  S.  E.  838;  Car- 
ter z:  Southern  R.  Co.,  Ill  Ga.  38,  36  S.  E. 
308,  50  L.  R.  A.  354;  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  2  Ga.  App.  36,  58  S-   E.  333. 

lU'uiois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Sch- 
wartz, 13  111.  App.  490;  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Emrich,  24  111.  App.  245;  Northern  Line 
Packet  Co.  z:  Shearer,  61   111.  263. 

Massachusetts.  —  Blanchard  v.  Page 
(Mass.),  8  Gray  281;  Finn  v.  Western  R. 
Corp.,  112  Mass.  524,  17  Am.  Rep.  128. 

Mississippi. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Craft, 
49   Miss.  480,   19  Am.   Rep.  4. 

Missouri. — Atchison  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  80  Mo.  213;  Ross  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  119  Mo.  App.  290,  95  S.  W.  977; 
Gratiot  St.  Warehouse  Co.  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mo.  App.  545,  102  S.  W. 
11,  cited  in  Bromschwig  Tailors'  Trim- 
ming Co.  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),  147  S.  W.  175;  Bennett  v.  Chicago. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.).  131  S.  W.  770. 

New  York. — Dows  v.  Cobb,  12  Barb. 
310. 

Tennessee. — Carter  v.  Graves,  17  Tenn. 
(9  Yerg.)  446. 

Texas. — Hefifron  v.  Pollard,  73  Tex.  96, 
11  S.  W.  165,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  764;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  z;.  Smith,  84  Tex.  348,  19 
S.  W.  509;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanley, 
89  Tex.  42,  33  S.  W.  109,  affirming  29  S. 
W.  806;  Southern  Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Mor- 
ris, 100  Tex.  611,  102  S.  W.  396;  Texas. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Klepper  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
24  S.  W.  567;  Central  American  Steam- 
ship Co.  V.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),  128  S.  W.  822;  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Robinson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S. 
W.  444;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Patterson  & 
Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  144  S.  W.  698;  H. 
&  T.  C.  R.  Co.  V.  Stewart  &  Co.,  1  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1246. 

Wisconsin. — Hooper  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  27  Wis.  81,  9  .\m.   Rep.  439. 

When  consignor  part  owner. — Cantwell 
V.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  58  Ark.  487,  25  S.  W. 
503;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnctt 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  782;   Southern 


Kansas  R.  Co.  v.  Morris,  100  Tex.  611, 
102  S.  W.  396,  affirming  99  S.  W.  433.  See 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frame,  6  Colo. 
382. 

One  who  is  agent  of  the  real  owner 
of  goods  and  having  charge  of  them  en- 
ters into  a  contract  with  a  carrier  for 
the  shipment  of  the  goods  without  dis- 
closing his  agency  may  sue  for  a  breach 
of  the  contract.  Carter  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  Ill  Ga.  38,  36  S.  E.  308,  50  L.  R.  A. 
354,  distinguishing  Lockhart  v.  Western, 
et^..  R.  Cor,  73  Ga!  472,  54  Am.  Rep.  883. 

Consignor  shipping  at  consignee's  risk. 
— A  consignor,  who  has  made  contracts 
of  shipment,  has  a  right  of  action  against 
the  carrier  for  the  loss  of  the  goods,  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  by  reason  of 
delivery  of  bills  of  lading  and  sending  in- 
voices stating  that  shipments  were  made 
at  consignees'  risk,  the  title  to  the  prop- 
erty passes  to  the  consignees.  American 
Roofing  Co.  V.  Memphis,  etc..  Packet  Co., 
5   N.   P'^  146,  8  O.   Dec.  490. 

Forwarding  merchants  paid  freight 
from  New  York  to  Philadelphia  on  goods 
which  were  in  transit  from  New  York  to 
Cincinnati,  and  they  delivered  the  goods 
to  the  defendants,  to  be  conveyed  to 
Baltimore  and  there  delivered  to  The 
Cumberland  Railroad  Company  for  car- 
riage to  Cumberland,  and  there  to  be  de- 
livered to  the  agents  of  the  plaintiffs  for 
carriage  in  the  line  of  their  destination. 
Held,  that  they  could  maintain  assumpsit 
on  the  contract  against  the  defendants 
for  damages  to  the  goods  whilst  under 
their  charge,  and  recover  the  entire 
amount  of  the  loss  for  the  benefit  of 
themselves  and  the  owners  of  the  goods, 
especially  as  tlie  latter  were  parties  to 
the  record  and  precluded  from  further 
claim.  Steaml)oat  Co.  v.  Atkins  &  Co.,  22 
Pa.  522. 

A  statute  requiring  suit  by  the  real 
party  in  interest  does  not  preclude  the 
consignor  from  suing  on  the  contract  of 
shipment  for  injuries  to  the  goods,  though 
the  title  has  vested  in  the  consignee. 
Hooper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 
81,   9   Am.    Rep.    439. 

Instances. — Under  the  rule  a  seller  of 
goods  consigned  to  the  buyer  and  lost 
in  transit  by  a  carrier,  who  had  receipted 
the  seller  for  them  and  recited  in  the  re- 
ceipt that  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered 
without  unnecessary  delay  to  the  buyer, 
could  sue  the  carrier  for  their  value, 
though  the  buyer  had  paid  for  the  goods 
and   had   paid   the   freight.     Atlantic,   etc., 


491 


TITLK,    Cl'STODV   AND  CONTROL   OF   GOODS. 


§  810 


recovery  is  for  the  benefit  of  tlie  consij^nee  or  actual  party  in  interest.'-'  The 
contract  need  not  be  in  writinj^,  l)ut  may  be  implied  from  delivery  and  acceptance 
of  the  t(0()ds   for  xliipnuMit.-" 

Contract  to  Deliver  at  Certain  Place. — When  goods  are  shipped  under 
a  contract  b\-  which  the  consi^nior  is  lo  (k'li\er  them  to  the  consignee  at  a  cer- 
tain place,  the  consignor  may  maintain  suit  against  the  carrier  for  their  loss 
or  injurv,-'   or  for  delay   in   transportation. -- 

Refusal  of  Consignee  to  Receive  Goods.  —  W  here  the  consignor  delivers 
the  goods  U)  the  carrier  in  jjursuance  of  a  contract  of  sale  to  the  consignee  but 
the  consignee  refuses  to  receive  them,  the  consignor  may  sue  the  carrier  for  a 


R.  Co.  V.  Mciiiliard,  etc.,  Co.,  OC)  S.  \i.  897, 
IXi  Ga.  (iH4. 

Where  one  who  had  agreed  to  furnish 
third  persons  coal  on  hoard  cars,  payment 
on  receipt  at  destination,  contracted  with 
the  carrier  to  transport  the  coal,  and  the 
carrier  converted  the  same  to  its  own  use, 
he  could  sue  tlie  carrier  therefor,  though 
it  l)e  conceded  that  he  had  no  property 
in  the  coal.  Rehearing,  97  Pac.  471,  78 
Kan.  505,  denied.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Stone,  78  Kan.  510,  104  Pac.  1067 

In  an  action  of  contract  for  neglecting 
to  carry  and  deliver  goods  of  the  plaintiff 
according  to  the  terms  of  a  bill  of  lading 
made  part  of  the  declaration,  if  the  an- 
swer does  not  deny  the  plaintiff's  owner- 
ship of  the  goods,  but  expressly  admits 
the  shipment  of  the  goods  by  the  plaintiff, 
and  the  defendant's  promise  to  him  to 
carry  and  deliver  them,  the  defendant  can 
not  dispute  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to 
maintain  tlie  action,  on  the  ground  that 
the  bill  of  lading  stipulates  for  their  de- 
livery to  another  person,  nor  on  tlie 
ground  that  the  defendant  had  received 
no  notice  of  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to 
control  the  bill  of  lading,  .\lden  ?'.  I'ear- 
son   (Mass.),  3  Gray  342. 

19.  Georgia. —  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Mad- 
dox,   ()7   S.    E.  838,  7   Ga.   App.   650. 

Illitiois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Sch- 
wartz, 13  111.  .\pp.  490;  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Emrich.  24   111.  App.  245. 

Massachusetts. — Finn  f.  Western  R. 
Corp..    112    Mass.   524,    17    .\m.    Rep.    12S. 

Ohio. — American  Roofing  Co.  v.  Mem- 
phis, etc.,  Packet  Co.,  5  X.  P.  146,  8  O. 
Dec.  490. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Robin- 
son   (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    131   S.   W.   444. 

20.  Southern  R.  Co.  z\  Johnson.  2  Ga. 
App.  36,  5s  S.  v..  :va:\. 

21.  Contract  to  deliver  at  certain 
place. — Ahibama. — Gulf  Compress  Co.  v. 
Jones  Cotton  Co.,  172  Ala.  645.  55  So.  206; 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Jones  Cotton  Co.,  167 
Ala.  575,  52  So.  899. 

Indiana.  —  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wiiitesel,    11    Ind.   55. 

South  Carolina. — Matheson  v.  Southern 
Railway,  79  S.  C.  155,  60  S.  E.  437,  hold- 
ing that  consignor  alone  may  sue. 

Texas. — Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   v.    Scott. 


4  Tex.  Civ.  .App.  76,  26  S.  W.  239;  Texas 
Steamship  Co.  i\  Dupree  Comm.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  .Xpp.),  131   S.  W.  621. 

Instances. — Plaintiff,  cotton  company, 
delivered  cotton  to  a  compress  company 
and  subsequently  delivered  the  warehouse 
receipts  of  that  company  to  a  railway 
company  and  received  in  exchange  bills 
of  lading.  The  cotton  companj-  shipped 
the  cotton  over  the  railway  line  to 
a  purchaser  under  a  contract  requir- 
ing that  the  cotton  should  be  deliv- 
ered in  good  condition  to  the  purchaser's 
mills  "landed,"  and  drafts  for  the  pur- 
chase price  with  Inlls  of  lading  attached 
were  drawn  on  the  purchaser  and  hon- 
ored before  the  cotton  was  delivered  at  its 
destination.  Held,  that  "landed"  meant 
that  the  cotton  company  was  responsible 
for  the  entire  shipment  of  cotton  and  for 
damages  to  it  until  delivered  at  the  point 
of  destination,  and  therefore  the  right  of 
lecovery  for  damages  to  the  cotton  re- 
sulting from  exposure  to  the  weather 
while  in  the  possession  of  the  compress 
company  was  in  the  cotton  company,  al- 
though it  had  not  been  called  on  to  repay 
any  of  the  purchase  price.  Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Jones  Cotton  Co.,  167  Ala.  575.  52 
So.   899. 

Where  a  seller  in  Texas,  who  con- 
tracted with  a  buyer  in  New  York  to  de- 
liver to  him  there  a  specified  quantity  of 
goods,  delivered  the  goods  to  a  carrier 
and  received  a  bill  of  lading  making  the 
shipment  suliject  to  the  seller's  order,  and 
the  seller  indorsed  the  bill  of  lading  and 
drew  a  draft  on  the  buyer,  and  attached 
the  bill  of  lading  thereto,  and  sent  it  to 
X'ew  York  for  collection,  with  directions 
to  deliver  the  bill  of  lading  on  payment  of 
the  draft,  the  title  to  the  goods  vested  in 
the  buyer  when  he  paid  the  draft,  and  the 
seller,  who  had  not  guaranteed  the  weights 
of  the  shipment,  could  not.  after  payment 
of  the  draft,  sue  the  carrier  for  a  short- 
age thereafter  occurring;  but,  where  the 
title  had  not  passed  to  the  Iniyer  at  the 
time  the  shortage  occurred,  the  seller 
could  sue  therefor.  Texas  Steamship  Co. 
V.  Dupree  Comm.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  .-Kpp.), 
131    S.   W.   621. 

22.  .Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Consolidated 
Cattle   Co.,  52  Pac.  71,  59   Kan.   111. 


§§  810-811 


CARRIKRS. 


492 


breach  of  ckitv.-''  P.ut  when  title  has  passed  to  the  consignee,  the  consignor 
can  not  sue.-^  Where  a  third  person  wrongfully  orders  goods  in  the  name 
of  the  consignee,  who  refuses  to  receive  them,  they  remain  tlie  property  of  the 
consignor,   and   he  mav   sue   for  a   misdelivery. -•'' 

Conditional  Sale.— Where  goods  are  shi])ped  for  sale  subject  to  the  ap- 
proval oi  the  consignee,  the  consignor  has  a  right  of  action  against  the  carrier 
for  failure  to  deHv'er  them.-"  One  who  receives  goods,  to  be  returned  if  not 
suitable,  and  returns  them,  can  not  recover  from  the  carrier  for  their  loss  en 
route,  since  he  did  not  own  the  goods.-" 

One  who  ships  goods  c.  o.  d.  is  the  proper  person  to  recover  against  the 
carrier  for  their  loss,  for  the  title  has  not  passed  to  the  buyer.-'^ 

§  811.  Right  of  Consignee. — The  presumption  that  on  delivery  of  goods 
to  a  carrier  the  title  thereto  passes  to  the  consignee  -'•'  is  sufficient  to  sustain  an 
action  either  in  tort-'"'  or  for  breach  of  contract.-' ^     So  the  consignee  is  entitled 


23.  Refusal  of  consignee  to  receive 
goods. — i,\\>rgii:. — Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Commercial  Guano  Co..  30  S.  E.  555,  103 
Ga.   590. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boggs, 
134    111.   App.   348. 

Missouri. — Hance  v.  Wabash,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  62  Mo.  App.  60;  Bergner  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  499. 

Xew  York. — Withers  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.,  48  Barb.  455,  affirmed  in 
51  N.  Y.  626. 

Virginia. — Spence  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  92  Va.  102,  22  S.  E.  815,  29  L.  R.  A. 
578. 

Illustrations. — Plaintiff  consigned  goods 
to  fulfill  a  contract  to  sell  sound  goods  to 
the  consignee;  through  the  carrier's  neg- 
ligence they  were  damaged,  and  the  con- 
signee refused  to  accept  them.  It  was 
held,  that  the  consignor  was  entitled  to 
recover  of  the  carrier.  Withers  v.  New 
Jersey  Steamboat  Co.  (N.  Y.),  48  Bar!). 
455,    affirmed    in    51    N.    Y.    626. 

Plaintiffs  shipped  goods  by  a  railroad, 
guarantying  freight.  The  bill  of  lading 
was  accompanied  by  a  draft,  to  be  accepted 
by  consignees  before  delivery  of  the 
goods.  The  goods  having  been  damaged 
by  delay,  the  consignees  refused  to  receive 
the  same,  and  the  railroad  company  no- 
tified plaintiffs,  requesting  them  to  direct 
the  disposition  of  the  goods,  which  plain- 
tiffs refused  to  do,  on  the  ground  that 
the  goods  belonged  to  the  consignees,  and 
were  shipped  at  their  risk.  Held,  that 
plaintiffs  could  maintain  a  suit  against  the 
railroad  company  for  damages  caused  by 
the  delay.  Spence  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
92  \'a.  102,  22  S.  E.  815.  29  L.  R.  A.  578. 
24.  McLaughlin  v.  Martin.  55  Pac.  195. 
12  Colo.  App.  268. 

L.  shipped  goods  to  S.,  who  refused  to 
receive  them  because  damaged.  Pending 
a  suit  by  L.  against  S.  to  recover  the 
price  of  the  goods,  L.  brought  suit  "for 
the  benefit  of  whom  it  may  concern" 
against  the  carrier,  for  damages  to  the 
goods  in  transit.  Held,  that  L.  showed  no 
interest    in    the    goods    entitling    him    to 


maintain  the  action  for  damages.  Leber- 
man  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  Co.,  28  La. 
Ann.   412. 

25.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v  Fort  Wayne 
Elect.  Co.,  108  Ky.  113.  21  L.  Rep.  1544, 
55  S.  W.   918. 

26.  Conditional  Sale. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Kauffman  &  Co.,  37  So.  659,  141 
Ala.  671;  Levy  v.  Weir,  77  N.  Y.  S.  917, 
38   Misc.    Rep.   361. 

27.  Gurwitz  v.  Weir.  Ill  N.  Y.  S.  557, 
127  App.  Div.  352.  See  Nathan  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  135  Mo.  App.  46,  115  S. 
W.    496. 

28.  Shipment  c.  o.  d. — Adams  Exp.  Co. 
V.  McDonough,  6  O.  C.  C.  539,  3  O.  C.  D. 
574. 

Where  the  goods  are  shipped,  marked 
"C.  O.  D.,"  the  contract  of  the  common 
carrier  is  not  only  to  safely  carry  and 
deliver  the  goods  to  the  consignee,  but 
also  to  "collect  on  delivery,"  and  return 
to  the  consignor  the  charges  on  the 
goods;  and  the  consignor  may  sue  on  such 
contract,  where  neither  the  goods  nor 
the  charges  thereon  are  returned  to  him. 
United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Keefcr.  59  Ind. 
263. 

29.  Consignee  presumed  owner. — See 
ante.  "Title  and  Rights  of  Consignee  in 
General."    §    804. 

30.  Right  of  consignee  to  maintain  ac- 
tion.— Bank  v.  American  Exp.  Co..  127 
Iowa  1,  102  N.  W.  107. 

Recovery  of  goods. — The  consignee  as 
the  presumptive  owner  of  the  goods  can 
sustain  an  action  and  sequestration  against 
the  master  of  the  carrier  for  the  recovery 
of  the  goods.  The  Red  River,  106  La. 
42.   30   So.    303,   87   Am.    St.    Rep.    293. 

Same — After  sale  to  another. — Merchan- 
dise taken  from  cars  of  a  carrier  may  be 
recovered  in  a  tort  action  by  the  con- 
signee, though  taken  after  sale  to  another. 
Edgerton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  146  111. 
App.  199,  judgment  affirmed,  88  N.  E. 
808. 

31.  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Poor.  103  Ind. 
553.  3  N.  E.  253;  Bank  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  127  Iowa  1,  102  N.  W.  107. 


493 


TITLi:,   CUSTODY   AND   C<J\TK()L   OF  GOODS. 


§  811 


to  bring  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  breach  of  its  duty,-"-  as  for  loss  or 
damage  to  the  goods,-'-"  misdelivery, •'■*  delay  in  delivery ,•'•'•  or  failure  to  de- 
liver.'"' .And  it  is  held  that  he  may  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier,  al- 
though another  ])crson   was  the  owner.-'' 

When  the  consignee  is  the  owner  of  the  goods,  or  when,  by  the  delivery 
of  the  g<jods  to  tile  carrier,  the  properly  vests  in  the  consignee,  he  has  the  legal 
rigiit   of   action, •■•■''   notwithstanding   the    freight    is   to   be   paid   b)-   the  consignor, 


32.  White  z:  ScliwritziT,  \:::i  .\.  \.  .S. 
(J44,  147  App.  Div.  544,  rcarHUiiiciU  denied 
133  N.  Y.  S.  114<,»;  I'.ast  'reiiiiessee,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Xolson,  41   Temi.  (1  Coldw.)  272. 

33.  Loss  or  damage  to  goods. — United 
.S7(/^\v.— Hall  r.  .Nasiivillc,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Fed.    Cas.    No.   5,i)4(). 

Alabama. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Arm- 
stead.    .')()    Ala.    :{.")(). 

Indiana.- — United  States  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Keefer,   .j9    Ind.   2():J. 

Kentucky. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tingle, 
10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  3J8;  Smith  r.  Lewis  (Ky.), 
:i  B.  Mon.  229. 

Missouri. — Bromschwig  Tailors'  Trim- 
ming Co.  f.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),   147  S.  W.  175. 

Nezu  Vorh.— Price  v.  Powell,  3  N.  Y. 
322. 

Texas. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner, 
43  Tex.  Civ.  App.  G08,  97  S.  W.  509.  See 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Humplirics,  4  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    33J,    23    S.   W.    55(i. 

riraiiiia. — \"aughan  Mach.  Co.  v.  Stan- 
ton fanning  Co..  106  Va.  445,  5G  S.  E.  140. 

IVcst  rirgiiiia.  —  Williamsport.  etc., 
Luml)er  Co.  z\  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71 
W.   \'a.   741.  77   S.    F..   33:!. 

That  the  seller  of  goods  has  agreed  to 
indemnify  the  buyer  for  the  expenses  of 
a  suit  against  the  carrier  for  their  loss  is 
not  sufficient  to  overcome  positive  evi- 
dence of  title  in  the  buyer,  so  as  to  show 
that  he  was  not  entitled  to  sue.  Deaver- 
Jeter  Co.  v.  Southern  Railway,  74  S.  E. 
1071,   91    S.    C.   503. 

34.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Fort 
Wayne  Elect  Co..  108  Ky.  113,  55  S.  W. 
9 IS,  21    Ky.   L.   Rep.   1544. 

35.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  S_outhern 
Exp.  Co.,  144  N.  C.  639,  57  S.  E.  458.  12 
Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  924:  Williamsport, 
etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  71  W.  Va.  741,  77  S.  E.  333;  Parker 
Buggy  Corp.  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152 
N.  C.  119,  67  S.  E.  251. 

36.  Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Whitesel,  11 
Ind.  5.");  Arbuckle  7'.  Thompson,  37  Pa. 
170. 

Action  for  benefit  of  another. — .\n  ac- 
tion against  a  common  carrier,  for  fail- 
ure to  deliver  goods  intrusted  to  it,  is 
properly  brought  in  the  name  of  the  con- 
signees alone,  notwithstanding  thev  are 
prosecuting  the  suit  for  the  benefit  of 
another  whom  they  hold  liable  for  the 
value  of  the  goods.  Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co. 
z\  Williams.  54  Ala.  168. 

37.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  f.  Armstead,  50 
.Ala.  :550. 


One  designated  in  a  bill  of  lading  as 
the  consignee  of  goods  may  maintain  an 
action  therefor  against  the  carrier,  though 
the  consignor  continues  to  be  the  real 
owner.  Griffith  z\  Inglcdew  (Pa.),  6 
Serg.   &   R.  429,  9  .\m.   Dec.  444. 

38.  Where  consignee  is  owner. — Burriss 
v.  Mi.^Mniri  I'ac.  R.  Co.,  lo,",  Mo.  .\pp.  659, 
78  S.  W.  1042;  Green  z:  Clark  (X.  Y.),  13 
Barb.  57;  Robinson  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Tex.),  146  S.  W.  537,  reversing  131 
S.  W.  444;  Tradewell  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  150  Wis.  259,  136  N.  \W.  794;  Hawkins 
z:  Alfalfa  Products  Co.,  153  S.  W.  201,  152 
Ky.    152,   44    L.    R.    A..    X.   S.,   600. 

Consignee  part  owner. — Action  against 
a  cuninioii  carrier  for  the  loss  of  goods 
is  properly  brought  in  the  name  of  the 
sole  consignee,  though  he  does  not  own 
the  entire  interest  in  the  goods.  Adams- 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Tingle,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  358. 
See  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Armstead,  50 
Ala.    350. 

Instances. — If  merchandise  has  been  ac- 
tually bought  and  the  purchaser  become 
liable  to  pay  therefor,  such  purchaser, 
when  the  seller  consigns  such  merchan- 
dise to  him,  may  recover  of  the  carrier 
for  the  loss  thereof,  notwithstanding  the 
seller  has  not  pressed  the  purchaser  for 
payment.  Plaff  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  159 
111.  App.  493,  judgment  affirmed  95  N.  E. 
1089. 

Lender  a  contract  that  a  purchaser  could 
return  an  article  if  defective,  his  delivery 
to  a  carrier  will  be  presumed  to  be  de- 
livery to  the  vendor,  entitling  the  latter 
to  recover  from  the  carrier  for  its  loss. 
Hess  V.  South  Dakota  Cent.  R.  Co.  (S. 
Dak.),   139   N.  W.   334. 

Where  goods  are  sold  f.  o.  b.  cars  of  a 
carrier  at  a  designated  point,  and  are  de- 
livered to  the  carrier  at  such  point  and 
are  accepted  by  it  without  any  limitation 
on  his  conunon-law  liability  and  are  in- 
jured in  transit,  the  right  of  action  there- 
for is  in  the  consignee.  \'.iughan  Mach. 
Co.  V.  Stanton  Tanning  Co..  106  Va.  445, 
56  S.   E.   140. 

A  company  ordered  goods  from  plain- 
tiff on  five  days'  sight  draft  attached  to 
bill  of  lading.  Plaintiff,  by  mistake, 
shipped  the  goods  two  months  before  the 
time  specified  in  the  order,  and  the  com- 
pany refused  to  receive  them  except  on 
twenty  days'  draft.  Plaintiff  sent  the  bill 
of  lading  and  twenty  days'  draft  to  a 
bank,  and  the  company  refused  to  accept 
the  draft,  unless  inunediate  delivery  was 
made   of  the  bill  of  lading  to  prevent  de- 


§  811 


CARRIKRS. 


494 


and  not  bv  the  consignee,-"^^  or  that  the  carrier  has  made  settlement  with  the 
consignor.-"'  Where  the  transaction  between  a  consignor  and  consignee  amounts 
to  a  sale  of  goods  in  existence  by  which  the  title  is  transferred,  action  against 
the  carrier  for  loss  of  the  goods."* ^  or  injury  thereto  or  delay  in  shipment,^ ^ 
must  be  brought  by  the  consignee.  The  vendor,  in  such  case,  in  making  the  con- 
tract of  shipment  acts  as  the  agent  of  the  vendee."*-'  although  the  vendee  may  be 
a  stranger  to  the  carrier  i^"*  and  the  carrier  is  agent  of  the  vendee,  and  liable 
to  him  for  its  safe  delivery.-*"' 

Where  Consignee  Has  Made  Advances. ^ — A  consignee,  who  has  made  ad- 
vances on  goods,  may  maintain  an  action  in  his  own  name  against  the  carrier 
for  injury  to  the  goods."*"  And  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  he  had  l)een 
paid  his  advances  did  not  destroy  his  right  of  action.^'  Where  goods  are  shipped 
for  a  purchaser,  a  bill  of  lading  forwarded  to  him.  and  a  draft  drawn  on  him 
for  the  price,  which  is  i)aid.  the  title  to  the  goods  will  be  vested  in  him.  entitling 
him  to  sue  the  carrier  for  delay  in  transportation,  though  it  was  provided  that 
the  goods  must  first  pass  inspection."*'^  But  the  acceptance  and  payment  of  drafts 
drawn  on  general  account,  without  reference  to  any  particular  lot  forwarded, 
will  not  pass  the  title."*" 

Where  Consignee  to  Sell  on  Commission. — It  is  held  that  a  consignment 
of  goods  to  a  commission  merchant  to  be  sold  on  commission  does  not  operate  to 
devest  the  title  of  the  consignor  and  that  the  consignee  can  not  bring  action 
against  the  carrier  for  delay  in  delivery.-'"  And  where  property  is  so  consigned 
without  any  previous  contract  or  advances  to  a  shipper,  the  consignee  can  not 


murrage  charges,  and  plaintiff  telegraphed 
the  bank  to  deliver  the  bill.  The  object 
in  delivering  the  bill  was  to  enable  the 
company  to  unload  the  goods  to  prevent 
demurrage  charges.  Held,  that  this  act 
manifested  an  intention  of  extending 
credit  to  the  company  and  to  pass  the 
title  to  the  goods  to  them.  Hoffman  v. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  X.  W.  .55, 
12.5    Mich.    201. 

39.  Green  v.  Clark  (X.  Y.),  13  Barb.  57. 

40.  Sleepy  Eye  Milling  Co.  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  Minn.  199,  137  X.  W.  813. 

41.  United  States.— BXnm  v.  The  Caddo, 
Fed.  Cas.   No.  1,573,  1    Woods  «4. 

Alabama. — South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
72  Ala.  451. 

Kentucky. —S,m\\\\  v.  Lewis  (Ky.),  3  B. 
Mon.   229. 

Indiana. — Madison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White- 
sel,  11  Ind.  55. 

AVzc'  York. — Frankfurt  v.  Weir,  83  N. 
Y.   S.  112,  40  Misc.   Rep.  08-3. 

42.  Parker  Buggy  Corp.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    152    N.    C.    119,    67    S.    E.    251. 

43.  Smith  v.  Lewis  (Ky.),  3  B.  Mon.  229; 
Blum  V.  The  Caddo.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,573, 
1  Woods  64,  followed  in  Meigs  v.  Hagan, 
86    Fed.    926. 

It  is  an  inference  of  law  and  not  a 
presumption  of  fact  that  the  contract  for 
the  safe  carriage  is  between  the  carrier 
and  consignee.  Green  v.  Clark  (X.  Y.), 
13   Barb.   57. 

44.  Blum  V.  The  Caddo,  Fed.  Cas.  X^o. 
1.573,   1   Woods   64. 

45.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spalding,  7 


Ky.     L.     Rep.     211,    holding    that     carrier 
liable   only   to  vendee. 

Defendants  wrote  for  quotation  of  its 
lowest  "delivered  prices"  on  lumber,  and 
plaintiff  quoted  prices  at  points  of  deliv- 
ery. Defendants  afterwards  wrote  that, 
as  the  lumber  would  be  shipped  direct  to 
a  coal  company,  "the  freight  would  be 
paid  by  that  company."  Thereafter  de- 
fendants placed  the  order  with  plaintiff  at 
the  delivered  prices  quoted.  Held,  that 
the  contract  did  not  make  the  carrier  the 
agent  of  the  seller,  and,  if  the  lumber  was 
damaged  in  transit,  the  carrier  was  an- 
swerable to  the  purchaser.  Werner  Saw- 
mill Co.  V.  Ferree.  50  Atl.  924,  201  Pa.  405. 

46.  Where  consignee  has  made  ad- 
vances.— Burritt  7'.  Rench,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
2,201,  4  McLean  325;  Adams  v.  Bissell  (N. 
Y.),  28  Barb.  382. 

The  consignee  of  goods  which  were  de- 
stroyed while  in  transit  may  maintain  an 
action  against  the  carrier  for  the  recovery 
of  damages  for  such  destruction,  it  ap- 
pearing that  such  consignee  paid  the  draft 
drawn  against  the  sliipment,  and  received 
the  bill  of  lading  therefor,  and  subse- 
quently purchased  the  goods  from  the 
owner.  Kirkpatrick  v.  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  86  Mo.   341. 

47.  The   Geiser,   19   Fed.   877. 

48.  Cobb  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  88  111. 
394.  affirming  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Cobb,  etc..  Co.,  64   111.   128. 

49.  Cobb  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  88  111. 
394. 

50.  Where  consignee  to  sell  on  commis- 
sion.— Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Deakins,  107 
Tcnn.   522,   64   S.   W.   477. 


495 


TITLE,   CUSTODV  AND  CONTROL  OF  GOOI>S. 


811 


recover  for  (lamaj,a's  lo  the  property  in  transit. ■"■'  lUit  where  the  consignee  agrees 
to  pay  the  freight  and  sell  on  a  specified  commission,  he  has  such  a  special  prop- 
erty as  to  entitle  him  to  sue  the  carrier  for  a  detention ;  and  may  recover  his  own 
damages  and  those  of  the  owner.-^'-  Where  property  has  been  consigned  by  the 
owner  to  an  agent  who  has  a  si)ecial  interest  therein,  and  the  goods  are  negli- 
gently delayed  in  transit,  and  converted  by  the  carrier  so  that  sales  thereof  pre- 
viouslv  made  bv  the  consignee  are  canceled,  such  consignee  may  maintain  an 
action  in  his  own  name  against  the  carrier  for  the  recovery  of  damages  on  ac- 
count of  lost  commissions  and  for  the  \aluc  of  the  property  converted.'-' 

Where  the  consignor  makes  the  contract  of  shipment,  the  consignee, 
being  the  real  party  in  interest,  may  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier  for 
injur\'  to  tile  goods."''   or  delay  in  shi])mcnt."'"' 

Where  Money  Sent  in  Payment  of  Debt. — W'liere  a  creditor  does  not  di- 
rect how  money  in  payment  of  a  debt  shall  be  sent,  and  the  debtor  sends  it  by 
express,  and  it  is  lost  in  transitu,  the  debtor,  rather  than  the  creditor,  has  an 
action  against  the  express  company."'"  Itut  where,  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement 
between  a  debtor  and  creditor,  the  debtor  delivers  the  money  to  an  express  com- 
pany addressed  to  the  creditor,  and  gives  no  other  instructions  as  to  the  owner- 
ship or  right  of  possession,  and  imposes  no  condition  as  to  delivery,  upon  re- 
fusal of  tlie  comi)any  to  flclivcr  the  money  to  the  creditor  he  is  entitled  to  sue 
for  and  recover  the  same."' 

Consignee  Having  No  Title  or  Interest. — .A  consignee,  having  no  special 
or  general  property  in  goods  consii^ned  to  him,  and  incurring  no  risk  from  their 
transportation,  can  not  maintain  against  the  carrier  an  action  ex  delicto  for  loss 
or  damage  to  the  goods  in  transit. ^^  And  it  has  also  been  held  that  he  can  not 
maintain  an  action  for  a  breach  of  the  carrier's  contract,  such  right  of  action 
belonging  to  the  owner  of  the  goods. •''^  And  wdiere  the  consignee  disclaims  an 
interest  in  the  goods  and  does  not  accept  the  consignment,  it  will  be  presumed 
that  the  legal  title  revested  in  the  consignor,  so  that  an  action  for  loss  of  the 
goods  can  not  be  maintained  in  the  name  of  the  consignee  for  the  benefit  of  a 
third  person  who  claims  that  the  goods  were  ship])ed  to  the  consignee  as  factor 


51.  Grinnell-Collins  Co.  r.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co..  109  Minn.  51.-?,  124  X.  W.  377,  26 
L.   R.   A..   N.   S.,  437. 

52.  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Warrior 
Mower    Co.,   76   Me.    251. 

53.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru-Van 
Zandt  Imp.  Co..  85  Pac.  408,  87  Pac.  80. 
73  Kan.  295.  6  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  1058,  117 
Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
roo. 

54.  Where  consignor  makes  contract  of 
shipment. — Burriss  i\  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,    10.-.    Mo.  App.  659,  78   S.  W.   1042. 

55.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkins- 
ville  Canning  Co.  (Ky.  App.),  1L6  S.  W. 
758. 

In  Georgia  it  is  held  that  a  consignee  of 
freiglit  can  not  maintain  an  action  on  a 
hill  of  lading  for  loss  caused  hy  delay, 
where  the  consignor  made  the  contract  of 
carriage,  unless  the  hill  of  lading  has  heen 
assigned  or  indorsed  to  him  hy  the  con- 
signor. Haas  r.  Kansas  Ci'y,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
81    Ga.   792,   7    S.    V..   629. 

56.  Where  money  sent  in  payment  of 
debt. —  Bi-rnstinc  7\  I'.xpross  Co.,  40  O.  St. 
451. 

57.  Pratt  v.  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  13 
Idaho  373,  90  Pac.  341,  10  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..  499. 


58.  Consignee     having     no     interest. — 

Georgia. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Miko.  136 
Ga.  272,  71  S.  E.  241.  36  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  68. 

Minncsotn — Grinnell-Collins  Co.  v.  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co..  109  Minn  513,  124  N. 
W.   377,   26   L.    R.   A..   X.    S..   437. 

Nezv  ForA'.^Ogden  v.  Coddington  (X. 
Y.),  2  E.  D.  Smith  317. 

Xortli  Carolina. — See  Ashehoro  Wheel- 
harrow,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co..  149 
X.   C.   261,  62   S.   E.   1091. 

Texas. — Cudahy  Packing  Co.  v.  Dorsey, 
26  Tex.   Civ.  App.  4S4.  63  S.  W.   548. 

A  shipper  delivered  goods  to  a  carrier, 
for  delivery  to  a  person  named  as  con- 
signee in  a  nonnegotiable  shipping  receipt. 
The  shipper  drew  on  the  consignee  for 
the  price,  and  attached  the  draft  to  the 
receipt.  Suhsequcntly  the  carrier,  at  the 
shipper's  request,  delivered  the  goods  to 
a  third  person.  Thereafter  the  consignee 
accepted  the  draft  and  paid  it.  Held,  that 
the  consignee  had  not  acquired  any  title 
to  the  goods,  and  could  not  sue  the  car- 
rier for  conversion.  Green  r.  Baltimore, 
etc..   R.   Co.,  92   N.   E.   622.  206   Mass.   331. 

59.  Ogden  ?■.  Coddington  (X.  Y.).  2  E. 
D.  Smith  317. 


§  811 


CARRIERS.  496 


for  such  third  person.*''*^  But  it  has  been  held  that,  notwithstanding  the  con- 
signor retains  title,  the  consignee  may  sue  the  carrier  for  losses  caused  by  delay 
in  their  transmission,  though  he  refuses  to  accept  them  l)ecause  not  sooner  de- 
livered.*'^ 

Rescission  of  Contract  of  Sale.— \Miere,  after  failure  to  deliver  freight, 
consignee  demanded  back  and  received  from  vendor  the  price,  there  was  a  re- 
scission of  the  sale  preckuHng  a  recovery  by  consignee  from  the  carrier  for  the 
faiUire  to  dcli\er."- 

Consignee  Agent  of  Consignor. — A  consignee  has  no  cause  of  action 
against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deh\er  goods  consigned  for  sale  by  him  as  agent 
of  the  consignor:  the  title  being  in  the  consignor.''- 

60.  Ezcll  z:  English  (Ala.),  6  Port.  311.  62.      Rescission    of    contract    of    sale.— 

61.  Clute  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  Matheson  z\  vSouthern  Railway,  79  S.  C. 
Kan.    333.    Ill    Pac.    431.    30    L.    R.    A.,    N.        155.   GO  S.    E.  437. 

^      1071  63.  Whalej^  v.   Atlantic,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   84 

S.  C.  189,  Go  S.  E.  1022. 


CliAlTER  X. 
Tkaxsi'oktatiox  and  DELiviikv  BV  Cakrikr. 

I.   Duties  as   to  Transportation   in   Gt-ncral,  §  812. 

II.  Route  and   Deviation  Therefrom,  §§  813-834. 

A.  Selection  by  Shipper,  §§  813-82G. 

a.  Right  to  Select,  §  813. 

b.  Requisites,  Construction  and  Proof  of  Agreement,  §§  814-.S15. 

(1)  Requisites  and  Construction,  §  814. 

(2)  Evidence,  §  815. 

c.  Deviation  by  Carrier,  §§  81G-821. 

(1)  In  General,  §  81(1. 

(2)  Losses  for  Which   Carrier  Is  Liable,  §§  817-819. 

(a)  In  General,  §  817. 

(b)  Loss  Caused  by  Inevitable  Casualties,  §  818. 

(c)  Transportation  by  Connecting  Carriers,  §  819. 

(3)  Necessity   for  and   Justification   of   Deviation   or    Forwarding  by   Another 

Carrier,   §  820. 

(4)  Damages,  §  821. 

d.  Refusal  to  Route  Cars  as  Directed  by  Shipper,  §  822. 

e.  Shipment  over  Route  Contrary  to  Express  Direction  of  Shipper,  §  823. 

f.  Forwarding   by    Different   Boat   or   Conveyance   than    That    Stipulated,    §    824. 

g.  Carrier  Fraudulently  Inducing  Shipment  over  Longer  Route.  §  825. 
h.  Diversion  by  Order  of  Shipper  or  Consignee,  §  826. 

B.  Selection  by  Carrier,  §§  827-834. 

a.  Right  to  Select  in  General,  §  827. 

b.  Regard  for  Rights  of  Shipper.  §  828. 

c.  Degree  of  Care  Rec|uirc(l.  §  S2'.). 

d.  Duty  to  Select  Safe  and  Direct  Route,  §  830. 

e.  Duty   to   Pursue   I'sual    and    Customary    Route   and    Deviation   Therefrom,    §§ 
•   831-834. 

(1)  In  General,  §  831. 

(2)  Deviation,   §§   832-834. 

(a)  What  Constitutes,  §  832. 

(b)  Necessity  and  Justification,  §  833. 

(c)  Losses  for  Which  Carrier  Is  Liable  and  Nature  uf  Liability,  §  834. 

III.  Duty  and  Necessity  of  Delivery,  §§  835-841. 
.•\.   Duty  to  Deliver.  §  835. 

B.  Liability  for  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Deliver,  §  83G-841. 

a.  In  General,  §  830. 

b.  E.xcuse  for  Nondelivery  in  General,  §  837. 

c.  Right  to  Require  Receipt  before  Delivery.  §  838. 

d.  Requiring  Proof  of  Right  to  Goods,  §  839. 

e.  Requiring  Production  and  Surrender  of  Bill  of  Lading.  §  S40. 

f.  Detention  for  Debt  or  Charges,  §  841. 

IV.  Mode   and   Sufficiency   of  Delivery  in   General,   §§   S42-S40. 

A.  In  General.  §  842. 

B.  What  Constitutes  Delivery,  §  843. 

C.  Carrier  liy  Water,  §  844. 

D.  Duties  in  Making  Delivery,  §  845. 

E.  Efifect  of  Custom  or  Usage,  §  846. 
V.  Time  of  Delivery,  §  847. 

VI.  Necessity  for  Personal  Delivery,  §  848. 
VII.   Place  of  Delivery.  §§  849-853. 

1    Car— 32 


CARRIERS.  498 


A.  In  General  §  849. 

B.  Usual  Place  at  Destination,  §  830. 

C.  Specified  Place,  §  851. 

D.  Intermediate  Point,  §  852. 

E.  Shipments  in  Carload  Lots,  §  853. 

VIII.  To  Whom  Delivery   Alay   Be   Made.   §§   854-857. 

A.  Consignee  or  Agent,  §  854. 

B.  Consignor  or  Agent,  §  855. 

C.  Actual  Owner,  §  856. 

D.  Holder  of  Bill  of  Lading.  §  857. 

IX.  Misdelivery,  §  858-866. 

A.  Liability  in  General,  §  858. 

B.  Fraudulent  Consignee,  §  859. 

C.  Delivery  without  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading,  §§  860-865. 

a.  In  General,  §  860. 

b.  Liability  to  Bona  Fide  Holder,  §  861. 

c.  Laches  of  Holder  of  Bill,  §  862. 

d.  Bill  Attached  to  Draft,  §  863. 

e.  Duplicate  Bills,  §  864. 

f.   Direction  in  Bill  to  Notify  Third  Person,  §  865. 

D.  Defenses,  §  866. 

X.  Duty  of  Consignee  to  Remove  Goods,  §  867. 
XL  Failure  or  Refusal  of  Consignee  to   Receive  Goods,  §  868. 
XII.  Goods  Shipped  C.  O.  D.,  §  869. 
XIII.   Go'ods  Seized  under  Legal   Process,   §  870-874. 

A.  Liability  of  Carrier.  §  870. 

B.  Duties  of  Carrier,  §  871. 

C.  Seizure  under  Police  Regulations,  §  872. 

D.  Garnishment  of  Carrier,  §  873. 

E.  Rights  of  Attaching  Officer,  §  874. 

XI\'.  Actions  for  Failure  to  Deliver  or  Misdelivery,  §§  875-903. 

A.  Conditions  Precedent,  §  875. 

B.  Form  of  Action,  §  876. 

C.  Joinder  of  Actions,  §  877. 

D.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue,  §  878. 

E.  Parties,  §  879. 

F.  Pleading,  §§  880-882. 

a.  Declaration,  Complaint  or  Petition,  §§  880-881. 

(1)  In  General,  §  880. 

(2)  Necessary  Allegations,  §  881. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer,  §  882. 

G.  Issue,   Proof,   and  Variance,  §  883. 
H.   Evidence,  §§  884-887. 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §  884. 

b.  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill  (jf  Lading,  §  885. 

c.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §  886. 

d.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence,  §  887. 
I.   Damages,  §§  888-900. 

a.  Nominal  Damages,  §  888. 

b.  Exemplary  Damages,  §  889. 

c.  Compensatory  Damages,  §§  890-900. 

(1)   Failure  or  Refusal  to  Deliver,  §  890-893. 

(a)  Actual  Loss  Proximately  Resulting,  §  890. 

(b)  Measure  and  Elements  in  General,  §  891. 

(c)  Goods  Having  no  Market  Value,  §  892. 

(d)  Computation  of  Damages,  §  893. 


499 


TRANSPOKTATIOX    AND    DKLIVKRV    I'.V    CAKKJKR. 


§  812 


(2)  Misdelivery,  §  894. 

(3)  Delaying  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods,  §  895. 

(4)  Delaying  Notic(i  of  Refusal  of  Goods,  §  H'.Mi. 

(5)  Mitigation  of  Damages,  §  897. 

(6)  Evidence,  §  898-899. 
(a)   In  General,  §  898. 

(h)    Evidence  as  to  Value,  §  899. 

(7)  Inadequacy  of  Damages,  §  900. 
J.  Trial  and  Judgment,  §§  901-90:{. 

a.  Questions  for  Jury,  §  901. 

I).   Instructions,  §  W2. 

c.   Verdict  uiid  Judgment,  §  903. 

§   812.  Duties  as  to   Transportation  in  General.— Duties  in   General. 

— A  ooiUract  by  a  carrier  to  lraiisi)()rl  frcii^lu  inii)oses  on  it  the  oljligalioii  to 
trans])ort  the  freight  safely  '  and  within  a  reasonal)le  time  to  the  point  of  desti- 
nation,- and  in  the  order  in  which  it  is  offered.-'  Tiie  carrier,  being  an  insurer, 
may  not  escape  habihty  for  nonperformance  of  the  contract,  except  by  showing 
that  a  faihire  to  trans])()rt  arose  from  an  act  of  God  or  the  pnblic  enemy,  or 
public  authority,  or  of  the  shipper,  or  from  the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  proi)erty 
itself,"*  or  from  a  sudden  press  of  business  which  could  not  have  been  reason- 
ably anticipated."'  And,  while  accidents  and  obstructions  will  excuse  delay,  they 
do  not  put  an  end  to  the  contract,  which  must  be  completed  as  soon  as  the  im- 
pediment  to   the   traiis])ortation   of   the   ])roperty   is   removed,   or  can   reasonably 


1.  Duty  to  transport  goods  safely. — See 

post,  "Eoss  of  or  Injury  to  Goods,"  chap- 
ter  12. 

2.  Duty  to  transport  freight  promptly. 
— United  States. — Bank  z\  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
93  U.  S.  174,  23  L.  Ed.  S72;  The  Delaware, 
14  Wall.  .579.  .59(),  20  L.  Ed.  779;  The  Com- 
mander-in-Chief (U.  S.),  1  Wall.  43.  17 
L.  Ed.  009;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirhv, 
225  U.  S.  155,  50  L.  Ed.  1033,  32  S.  Ct. 
648,  Ann.  Cas.  1914a,   501. 

Arkansas. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King 
(Ark.),    148    S.    W.    1035. 

North  Carolina. — See  Watson  v.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  S.  E.  55,  145  N.  C.  230. 

Ohio. — Wyler,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
etc..  Railway  (Ohio),  6  N.  P.,  N.  S.,  589, 
18  O.  D.  N.  P.  722. 

Texas. — Bergin  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  150  S.  W.  1184. 

I'irginia. — !\[urphv,  etc..  Co.  v.  Station, 
17  Va.  (3  Munf.),  239. 

West  ]'irs,inia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.!  IS  W.  Va.  301.  41  Am.  Rep. 
690;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morchead. 
5  W.  Va.  293. 

A  year  is  an  unreasonable  time  for  ;i 
carrier  to  take  to  cduvcv  a  package  from 
Boston  to  Milwaukee,  and  upon  the  ex- 
piration of  that  time  the  owner  may  well 
maintain  an  action  for  nondelivery.  Nndvl 
V.  Wells,  11  Wis.  407. 

3.  Order  of  forwarding. — ITnuston.  ct-.. 
R.   Co.  V.   Smitli.  <■,:;   Tex.  3::-J. 

4.  Excuses  for  failure  to  perform  con- 
tract.—Wells  V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
59  Ore.  1(15.  114  Pac.  92.  116  Pac.  1070,  34 
L.   R.  A.,   N.   S..  818. 


Prevented  by  human  agency. — For  fail- 
ure to  carry  and  deliver,  a  common  car- 
rier can  not  excuse  itself  by  showing  that 
through  human  agency,  other  than  of  a 
lHd)lic  enemy,  not  untler  its  control,  this 
was  prevented,  without  fault  on  its  part. 
(nilf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  70  Tex.  337.  13 
S.  W.   191,  s   L.   R.  A..   X.   S..  323. 

Direction  on  freight  becoming  illegi- 
ble.— Where  several  pieces  of  machinery 
were  sliipped  to  the  defendant's  agent  to 
he  forwarded  to  plaintiff,  and  tTiey  were 
described  in  the  l)ill  of  lading  as  "three 
pipes  in  one  bundle,  and  two  single  pipes," 
and  they  were  delivered  bj-  the  shipper's 
agent  to  the  defendant's  agent,  who  had 
a  copy  of  the  bill,  and.  by  some  means, 
the  direction  on  one  of  the  single  pipes 
become  illegible,  and  it  was  not  for- 
warded, it  was  held  that  these  facts  were 
sut'licient  to  subject  the  defendant  for 
negligence  as  a  bailee.  Foard  i\  .Atlantic 
^cN.'  Car.   R.   Co.    (N.   Car.\   S   Jones   235. 

Wrongful  refusal  to  forward  without 
prepayment.  —  A  forwarding  company. 
eoiUracting  without  prepayment  to  for- 
ward goods  to  a  distant  place,  breaches 
its  contract  where  its  agent  at  an  iiUer- 
mediate  point  refuses  to  forward  the 
goods  without  the  charges  being  fully 
naid,  regardless  of  whether  the  company 
is  a  mere  forwarder  and  not  a  common 
carrier.  Lee  v.  Fidelity  Storage  &  Trans- 
fer   Co..    98    P.    658,    51    Wash.    208. 

5.  Mauldin  v.  Sealioard  Air  Line  Rail- 
way, 73  S.  C.  9.  52  S.  E.  077;  compare 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Touart.  97  Ala. 
514.  11  So.  756. 


812 


CARRIERS. 


500 


be  overcome.^  If  the  place  of  destination  can  not  be  reached  so  as  to  make  de- 
livery, the  carrier  should  not  only  take  care  of  the  goods,  but  also  notify  the 
consignor  or  owner  within  a  reasonable  time,  of  its  inability  to  make  the  de- 
livery.' And  the  carrier  should  also  notify  the  consignor  where  goods,  not 
shipped  bv  him  in  accordance  with  the  direction  of  the  buyer,  are  deposited  at 
the  end  o'f  the  carrier's  road,  and  it  refuses  to  deliver  them  to  the  connecting 
line  on  the  ground  that  the  liabilities  of  the  latter  are  greater  than  the  exemp- 
tion contained  in  the  original  contract.^ 

Duty  to  Follow  Instructions. — Carriers  of  goods  are  required  to  follow  the 
instructions  given  by  the  owner  of  property  concerning  its  transportation  when- 
ever practicable.'-' 

Goods  Defectively  Marked.— Where  goods  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  trans-, 
portation  are  without  proper  directions  as  to  destination,  the  carrier  is  not  lia- 
ble for  neglecting  to  transport  them.i"  In  such  case  the  carrier  should  hold 
the  goods  until  the  true  destination  can  be  determined  by  inquiry.!^  And  an 
agreement  by  its  agent  to  have  goods  forwarded  to  their  proper  destination 
from  a  point  on  a  connecting  line  to  which  they  were  carried  through  the  mis- 
take of  the  shipper,  in  addressing  them,  makes  such  carrier  merely  a  gratuitous 
bailee  of  the  goods.^-  But  a  carrier  is  liable  for  failure  to  duly  forward  goods 
marked  with  only  an  initial  though  the  bill  of  lading  provides  that  the  carrier 
should  not  be  liable  for  wrong  carriage  or  wrong  delivery  of  goods  marked 
with  initials. ^^ 

Duty  to  Carry  in  Identical  Conveyance  Specified  in  Contract. — If  the 
carrier  is  ready  and  willing,  and  offers  to  transport  the  freight,  it  will  not,  it 
would  seem,  be  liable  in  damages  for  not  offering  to  do  it  in  the  identical  boat 
specified  in  the  contract.  The  object  of  the  shipper  is  to  procure  the  transporta- 
tion of  his  property,  and  it  can  not  be  essential  to  him  whether  it  be  done  in  one 
boat  or  another.^-*  But  it  has  been  held  that  where  an  express  company  has 
agreed  to  forward  goods  by  a  particular  vessel,  and  that  vessel  does  not  go, 
it  has  no  right  to  forward  the  goods  by  any  other  u5ual  and  proper  mode  of  con- 


6.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  O'Donnell, 
49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..  117.  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  .J79. 

7.  Where  destination  can  not  be  reached 
— Notice  to  consignor. — Green,  etc.,  Nav. 
Co  r.  Marshall,  48  Ind.  596;  Baltimore, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293. 

8.  Rawson  v.  Holland  (N.  Y.),  47  How. 
Prac.  292,  .5  Daly  15.5.  affirmed  in  59  N.  Y. 
611. 

9.  Duty  to  follow  instructions. — Ex- 
press Co.  V.  Kountze  Bros.  (U.  S.),  8  Wall. 
342.  19  L.  Ed.  457;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Irvine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  73  S.  W.  540; 
Gillett  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  68  S.  W.  61;  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Dorsey,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  377,  70  S.  W. 
575. 

Where  a  carrier  was  instructed  to  carry 
goods  in  bond,  and  they  were  taken  out 
(A  bond  without  authority,  in  consequence 
of  which  they  were  of  less  value  at  the 
point  of  destination  than  they  would  have 
been  had  they  been  brought  there  in  bond, 
the  taking  them  out  of  bond  was  an  in- 
terference with  the  shipper's  rights,  ren- 
dering the  carrier  liable  for  actual  dam- 
ages. Smith  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
30  So.  265,  106  La.  11.  54  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
923,  87  Am.  St.  Rep.  285. 


10.  Goods  defectively  marked. — Finn  v. 
Western   R.   Corp.,   103  Mass.  383. 

No  directions  as  to  destination. — On 
the  trial  of  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
neglecting  to  forward  a  lot  of  shingles  de- 
livered with  no  directions  whither  to  for- 
ward, except  a  stencil  mark,  "J.  S.  C,"  on 
each  bunch,  and,  on  one  bunch  in  seven, 
"J.  S.  Clark,"  in  pencil,  where  the  defend- 
ant's station  agent  denied  actual  notice, 
mere  proof  that  within  three  years  six 
or  eight  lots  had  been  received  at  the  same 
station,  while  he  was  in  charge,  similarly 
stencil  marked,  accompanied  with  the  bills  of 
lading,  was  insufficient  to  justify  a  finding 
that  he  "ought  clearly  to  have  known" 
that  they  were  sent  to  J.  S.  Clark.  Finn 
V.  Western  R.  Corp.,  102  Mass.  283. 

11.  Gerhard  Mennen  Chemical  Co.  r. 
Merchants'  Exp.  Co.,  76  X.  J.  L.  207,  68 
Atl.   906. 

12.  Treleven  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
89   Wis.    598,    62    N.    W.    536. 

13.  Goods  marked  only  with  initials. 
— McGowan  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
95   \.    C.   417. 

14.  Duty  to  carry  in  identical  convey- 
ance specified  in  contract. — Canal  Boat 
MontLiomery   v.    Kent,    20    O.    54. 


501 


TKAXSPOKTATKtX    AND    DIXIVKRV    BY    CAKKIHR. 


§  812 


veyance;  and,  when  it  does  so  forward  go(jds,  it  is  liable  lo  the  owner  in  case 
of  their  loss.'"' 

Duty  to  Trace  Goods. — It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  v>  trace  goods  when  the 
owner  >o  (k-man<lsJ''' 

Duty  as  to  Perishable  Goods. — W  here  it  becomes  impossible  to  deliver 
gjoods  accordini^-  U)  direclion^,  or  to  return  them  before  they  would  inevitably 
perish,  the  carrier  should  sell  them.''  Hut,  a  carrier  can  not  justify  the  sale  of 
perishable  freight  which  is  obstructed  in  the  course  of  its  shij)ment  by  a  strike, 
without  notice  to  the  shipper  and  instructions  from  him,  when  it  ajjpears  that 
such  notice  could  have  been  given  and  instructions  obtained  without  inconveni- 
ence to  the  carrier  or  causing  any  delay  that  would  have  endangered  the  safety 
of  the  goods. '^ 

Duty  to  Verify  Counting  of  Goods. — A  shipi)er  of  goods,  loading  the  car, 
may  comi)el  the  agent  of  the  carrier  to  verify  the  loa<ling  and  counting  by  the 
shii)i)er.''' 

Entry  in  Custom  House. — W  here  the  governmental  power  prevents  the 
carriage  of  goods  to  their  destination  until  duties  are  paid,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
carrier  to  take  all  practicable  means  to  notify  the  consignees,  and,  failing  in 
that,  to  notify  the  shippers,  of  the  situation.  Meanwdiile  the  carrier  is  at  lib- 
erty to  turn  the  goods  over  to  the  customs  officers,  or  to  store  them  in  a  suitable 
and  reasonablv  safe  place.-"  Where  the  goods  are  entered  for  "immediate  con- 
sumption." the  carrier  is  required  to  pay  the  custom  charges. -' 

Effect  of  Usage. — The  duties  of  a  carrier  may  arise  out  of  usage  as  well 
as  from  statutor\-  enactments,  and  wdien  once  established  the  obligation  of  the 
carrier  to  i^erform  them  is  as  binding  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.-- 

Special  Contract. — A  carrier  in  accepting  shipments  accepts  them  subje  t 
to  the  liabilities  imposed  by  law%  and  the  only  w^ay  in  wdiich  it  can  vary  or  limit 
the  lia1)ility  is  by  special  contract. -'■  \Micre  the  carrier  contracts  to  carry  within 
a  particular  time,  or  to  make  a  jiarticular  connection,  or  to  carry  by  a  particular 


15.  Goodrich  7'.  Thompson,  44  X.  Y. 
324,  affirming  27    X.  Y.   Super.   Ct.   75. 

16.  Duty  to  trace  goods. — Cleveland, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Freiberg,  11  O.  C.  C.  X. 
S.,  241,  20-30  O.  C.  D.  669,  affirmed  in 
83  O.  St.  482.  See  Herf,  etc.,  Chemical 
Co.  V.  Lackawana  Line,  70  Mo.  App.  274. 

In  Georgia  it  is  so  provided  by  stat- 
ute. Civil  Code,  §§  2317.  2318;  Code 
1910.  §§  2771,  2772;  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Murphey,  116  Ga.  863.  43  S.  E.  265,  60 
L.  R.  A.  817;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Elder,  116  Ga.  942,  43  S.  E.  379;  Davis  v.' 
Seaboard,  etc..  Railway.  136  Ga.  278.  71 
S.  E.  428.  See  post.  "Connecting  Car- 
riers," Part  V. 

17.  Duty  as  to  perishable  goods. — 
Dudley  r.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  58  \V. 
Va.  604,  52  S.  E.  718.  3  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.. 
1135,    112    Am.    St.    Rep.    1027. 

18.  Railroad  7'.  Odil.  96  Tenn.  61,  33  S. 
\V.   611. 

19.  Duty  to  verify  counting  of  goods. 
— Peele  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  X. 
C.   390,   63   S.    E.   66. 

20.  Entry  in  custom  house.— Pennsyl- 
vania Co.  T.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  107 
111.    App,    386. 

21.  Mitchelson  v.  Minneapolis,  etc..  R. 
Co..    67    Minn.    406.    69    X.    W.    1106. 


Plaintiff  instructed  his  agents  in  Que- 
bec to  ship  certain  merchandise  to  St. 
Paul.  Under  their  direction,  their  clerk 
made  out  triplicate  invoices,  a  declara- 
tion to  be  presented  to  the  United  States 
consul,  and  a  consular  certificate:  the 
tv.o  latter  stating  that  the  goods  were 
to  be  entered  at  the  port  of  Sault  St. 
Marie.  The  invoice,  also  in  triplicate, 
stated  that  they  were  to  be  consigned  for 
entry  at  that  port  to  F.,  defendant's  agent. 
The  l)ill  of  lading  specified  that  goods 
going  to  or  coming  from  the  United 
States  were  subject  to  customs  charges. 
The  invoice,  declaration,  consular  certifi- 
cate, and  bill  came  into  the  agent's  hands 
when  the  goods  reached  Sault  St.  Marie. 
Hold,  that  defendant's  agent  was  war- 
ranted in  entering  the  goods  for  "imme- 
diate consumption."  and  in  paj'ing  the 
duty  fixed  l)y  tlie  custom  house  officials, 
and  that  it  was  not  his  duty  to  enter 
them  for  "transportation"  to  St.  Paul. 
Mitchelson  f.  Minneapolis,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
69    X.    \V.    1106,    67    Minn.    406. 

22.  Effect  of  usage. — Railroad  Comm'rs 
V.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co..  59  Fla.  612.  52 
So.    4. 

23.  Special  contract. — Russell  7:  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co..  37  Mont.  1,  94  Pac.  488. 


§§  812-815  CAKRii'Rs.  502 

train,  it  is  liable  for  the  consequence  of  a  failure  to  transi)ort  according  to  its 
terms. -"^ 

§§  813-834.  Route  and  Deviation  Therefrom— §§  813-826.  Selection 
by  Shipper— §  813.  Right  to  Select.— The  shipper  usually  has  the  right  to 
select  the  route  over  which  his  goods  are  to  be  shipped.-'' 

§§  814-815.  Requisites,  Construction  and  Proof  of  Agreement— 
§  814.  Requisites  and  Construction. — The  provisions  of  a  contract  of  ship- 
ment, whcihcr  xcrhal  or  written,  determine  the  route  and  connections  to  be  ob- 
served.-'' 

Authority  of  Agent  to  Bind  Carrier.— The  agent  of  a  railway  has  author- 
ity to  bind  the  company  as  to  the  routing  of  a  through  shipment  in  the  absence 
of  knowledge  by  the  shipper  of  limitation  on  his  powers ;  but  where  he  notified 
a  shipper  demanding  an  all-rail  shipment  that  the  company  would  not  regard 
such  billing  by  him  but  would  send  it  partly  by  water,  this  was  notice  to  the 
shi]-)per  of  his'  lack  of  authority  to  contract  for  an  all-rail  shipment.-' 

Written  Instructions  by  Shipper— Assent  of  Agent.— A  written  instruc- 
tion by  a  shipper  to  a  station  agent  as  to  his  selection  of  a  connecting  carrier, 
to  which  the  agent  assented,  at  the  same  time  telling  the  shipper,  that  "the  office 
at  the  terminal  generally  took  their  own  route,  and  w^ould  not  pay  any  attention 
to  him."  did  not  amount  to  a  written  contract  beween  the  shipper  and  the  com- 
panv,  the  assent  thereto  being  insufficient;  but  amounted  only  to  an  instruction 
or  direction  of  the  shipper.-''  A  shipper's  written  instruction  to  a  station  agent 
as  to  the  selection  of  a  connecting  carrier  is  superseded  by  subsequent  bills  of 
lading  containing  no  provision  on  the   subject.-'-^ 

Receipt  for  Goods  Designating  Route.— A  receipt  given  for  goods  "for 
Baltimore,  via  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  canal."  is  a  contract  to  carry  the  goods 
through  that  canal  to  Baltimore.3<^ 

§  815.  Evidence. — Evidence  as  to  the  customary  running  time  of  cattle 
trains  between  tw^o  points  over  defendant's  line  is  admissible  on  the  issue  of 
deviation  from  the  route  selected  by  the  shippers,  but  evidence  as  to  the  rate 
of  speed  of  one  freight  train  at  a  certain  time,  is  inadmissible.-'' ^ 

Parol  Evidence. — Where  shipping  contract  is  silent  as  to  the  route,  parol 
evidence  as  to  the  route  agreed  upon  is  inadmissible.-^ - 

Experience  of  Shipper  as  to  Best  Route.— On  the  question  whether  the 
shipper  made  the  contract  with  the  carrier  to  ship  the  goods  by  a  certain  route, 
his  testimony  wdierein  he  stated  what  experience  he  had  in  shipping  such  goods, 
and  that  the  route  indicated  was  a  better  way  of  shipping  them,  was  admissible.^-^ 

Right  of  Consignee  to  Designate  Route. — On  the  issue  as  to  who  had  the 

24.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirby,  22.J  28.  Written  instructions  by  shipper,  as- 
U.  S.  155,  164,  56  L.  Ed.  1033,  32  S.  Ct.  sent  of  agent.— Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Hous- 
648,  Ann.  Cas.  1914A,  501.  See  post,  ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  470,  80 
"Limitation    of   Liability,"    Chapter    14.  S.  W.  639,  affirmed  in  98  Tex.  610,  no  op. 

25.  Right  to  select.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  29.  Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
V.  Irvine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  73  S.  W.  540;  Co.,  80  S.  W.  639,  35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  470. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co's  Exp.  v.  Fuller,  4  gQ  Receipt  for  goods  designating 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  23  S.  W.  412  (see  93  route.-Hand  v.  Baynes  (Pa.),  4  Whart. 
Tex.   242.  no  op.);   Texas,   etc     R    Co    r.  ^^^    33  ^^^    ^^^    54 

Eastin,   100  Tex.   556,   102  S.  W.   105;   In-  '       ^   ,,       ,        t?     r^    „     Tr,,;,.^    CTpv 

ternational,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wentworth,  31.     Gulf,    etc.     R^    Co.    t;.    Irvme    (Tex. 

8  Tex.    Civ.   App.   5,   12,   27    S.   W.   680.   af-  Civ.    App.),    73    S.    W.    540 

firmed  in  87  Tex.  311.  32.    Parol    evidence.— Wells,     Fargo     & 

26.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Fuller,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213, 
55   Tex.    Civ.    App.    12,    118    S.   W.    618.  322,  23  S.  W.  412  (see  93  Tex.  742,  no  op.). 

27.  Authority  of  agent  to  bind  carrier.  33.  Experience  of  shipper  as  to  best 
— Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  route. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  z'.  .Skellie,  86 
35   Tex.    Civ.    App.   470,    80    vS.   W.   639,   af-  Ga.   686,    13   vS.    E.    1017. 

firmed  in  98  Tex.  610,   no  op. 


503 


TRANSPOKTATIOX    AND    DKLIVKKV    liY    CARRIF.R. 


§§  815-819 


right  to  designate  the  route  of  a  shipment  hy  rail,  the  consignor  may  testify  that 
the  consignee  had  such   right.''^ 

§§  816-821.  Deviation  by  Carrier— §  816.  In  General.— When  the 
shipper,  1)V  the  assent  of  tlie  carrier,  designates  the  route,  that  route  must  be 
pursued,  and  a  deviation  therefrtjm  is  at  the  risk  of  the  carrier,--''  except  as  to 
perishable  goods,  where  conformity  would  cause  injury  to  the  shipment.'^'' 

§§  817-819.  Losses  for  Which  Carrier  Is  Liable— §  817.  In  General. 
— If  a  carrier  deviates  from  the  route  fixed  by  his  contract,  he  becomes  re- 
sponsible for  all  loss  ■''  which  may  occur  in  transit  •''^  either  on  his  own  or  con- 
necting lines  ^•'  and  can  ncjt  a\ai]  himself  of  any  excepti(jns  in  his  behalf  in  the 
contract."'" 

§  818.  Loss  Caused  by  Inevitable  Casualties. — Unless  justified  hy  ur- 
gent circumstances,  a  deviation  by  the  carrier  will  render  it  responsible  for 
losses  resulting,  even  from  inevitable  casualties.-'^ 

§  819.  Transportation  by  Connecting  Carriers. — Substitution  of  Other 
Connecting  Carrier. — A  common  carrier  who  unjustifiably  substitutes  another 
connecting  carrier  fur  the  one  named  in  the  bill  of  lading,  becomes  an  insurer 
for  the  substituted  carrier,  and  liable  for  loss  of  the  goods  while  in  the  latter's 
possession,  even  by  inevitable  casualties.-*-  When  goods  are  delivered  to  the 
first  of  a  connecting  line  of  railroads,  to  be  shipi)ed  by  a  specified  route,  a  de- 
livery to  another  railroad,  which  forms  a  part  of  a  ditTerent  route,  is  a  conver- 
sion, which  renders  the  first  road  liable  for  the  value  of  the  goods.  If  they  be 
delayed  by  such  delivery,  or  damage  result,  the  first  road  may  be  held  responsi- 
ble therefor.-*^ 


34.  Right    of    consignee    to    designate 

route. — Gulf,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Deiini.son,   2.') 
Tex.   Civ.   App.    127,   GO   S.   W.   281. 

35.  Express  Co.  v.  Kountze  Bros.  (U. 
S.\  S  Wall.   .-542,   10   L.   Ed.  457. 

Deviation  by  carrier. — Lord,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  134  S. 
W.  Ill;  Railroad  r.  Odil,  96  Tenn.  61, 
64,  33  S.  W.  611;  Post  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
103  Tenn.  184,  214,  '^2  S.  W.  301,  55  L. 
R.    A.   481. 

36.  Lord,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   (Mo.   App.),  134  S.  W.  111. 

37.  Losses  and  injuries  for  which  car- 
rier is  liable. — Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
Eastin,  100  Tex.  556.  102  S.  W.  105;  G. 
H.  &  H.  R.  Co.  r.  Allison,  59  Tex.  193. 

Where  by  assent  of  the  carrier  a  ship- 
per selects  the  route  over  which  his 
goods  are  to  be  shipped,  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  all  damages  resulting  from  de- 
viation therefrom.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Irvine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  73  S.  W.  540; 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Fuller,  4 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  222,  23  S.  W.  4l:J 
(see  93  Tex.  742,  no  op.). 

A  common  carrier  contracting  to  for- 
ward goods  "by  sail  on  the  lake,"  all  lake 
dangers  being  in  that  case  taken  by  the 
owners,  is  liaiile  as  insurer  for  their  loss 
if  sent  by  steam.  Merrick  v.  Webster. 
3   Mich.   268. 

38.  Railroad  7'.  Odil.  96  Tenn.  61.  64. 
33   S.  W.   611. 

The  master  of  a  vessel  laden  witli  lime, 
deviated,     unnecessarily,    from    the     usual 


course,  and  during  the  deviation  was 
overtaken  by  a  tempest  which  wetted  the 
lime,  and  the  vessel  taking  fire,  all  was 
lost.  The  court  held  the  carrier  liable, 
Ijccause  the  loss  had  actually  happened 
while  his  wrongful  "act"  (the  deviation 
in  the  course  of  the  voyage),  was  in  op 
eration  and  force,  and  llic  loss  was  at- 
tributed to  the  wrongful  act.  Lamont  & 
Co.  V.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9 
Heisk.)    58,    64. 

39.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Eastin.  100 
Tex.  556,  102  S.  W.  105.  See  post. 
"Transportation  bv  Connecting  Carriers." 
§  819. 

40.  Deviation  as  depriving  of  exemp- 
tions of  contract. — Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Hushes.  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  135.  139.  98 
S.  W.  410;  G.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Allison. 
59  Tex.  193;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eastin, 
100  Tex.  556,  102  S.  W.  105;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Louisiana,  etc..  Lumber 
Co..  50  Tex.  Civ.  App.  179.  109  ?.  W.  1143. 

41.  Loss  caused  by  inevitable  casual- 
ties.— Fatman  &  Co.  z:  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  2  Disn.  248.  13  O.  Dec.  152;  RaU- 
road  V.  Odil.  96  Tenn.  61,  64,  33  S.  W. 
fill. 

42.  Fatman  &  Co.  z:  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co..  2  Disn.  248,  13  O.  Dec.  152:  Rail- 
road 7'.   Odil.   96   Tenn.   61.   33   S.   W.   611. 

43.  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Cole.  68  Ga.  623. 
Instances. — .\     carrier     received     goods 

to  be  carried  to  a  point  beyond  its  own 
line,  with  directions  to  deliver  them  to 
certain   connecting  carriers,   with   the   last 


§  819 


CARRIERS. 


504 


Loss  by  Negligence  of  Connecting  Carrier. — A  contracting  carrier  is  lia- 
ble for  injuries  to  a  shipment  diverted  from  the  route  contemplated  by  the  car- 
rier's contract,  arising  from  the  negligence  of  the  carrier  to  which  it  entrusted 
it.  The  initial  carrier  could  not  shift  its  responsibility  by  placing  the  shipment  in 
the  hands  of  another  carrier  not  contemplated  by  the  contract,  even  if  it  was 
compelled  to  do   so  by  necessity."*"* 

Diversion  from  All  Rail  to  Water  Route.— A  railroad  company  may  stip- 
ulate to  carry  freight  by  rail  from  one  point  to  another  over  its  own  line  and 
those  of  connecting  roads  and  such  stipulation  imposes  upon  it  the  duty  to  so 
transport  the  shipment.  \M'ien  it  or  any  subseciuent  road  acting  as  its  partner 
or  agent  divested  the  shipment  from  the  stipulated  all-rail  route  and  shipped 
by  water,  this  was  a  breach  of  the  contract  and  subjected  the  initial  carrier  to 
dangers  for  any  injury  to  the  shipment  resisting  therefrom. ■*•"*  A  printed  con- 
dition that  each  connecting  company  shall  alone  be  held  answerable  for  loss  or 
damage  to  the  property  sustained  "during  such  transportation"  does  not  affect 
this  Hability.  The  damage  was  not  sustained  "during  such  transportation  as 
was  contracted  for,"  but  during  transportation  of  an  entirely  diii'erent  character, 
and  as  a  consequence  of  a  breach  of  the  contract.^*' 

Clause  "if  Receipted  for  in  Good  Order"  at  Intermediate  Point.' — A 
statement  that  the  initial  carrier  shall  not  be  lialile  for  any  damages  or  defi- 
ciency in  packages,  if  receipted  for  "in  good  order"  by  a  connecting  carrier  at 
some  intermediate  point,  does  not  release  the  initial  carrier  where  the  shipment 
is  diverted  from  the  route  stipulated  in  the  bill  of  lading  and  damaged  while  in 
transit.^'     The  clause  "if  receipted  for  in  good  order,"  etc.,  is  not  to  be  taken  as 


of  which  the  shipper  had  made  an  agree- 
ment for  stopping  the  car  at  intermedi- 
ate points  on  its  hne  for  delivery  of  portions 
of  the  goods.  It,  however,  wrongfully 
sent  the  goods  by  different  connect- 
ing carriers,  whose  lines  reached  but  one 
of  the  intermediate  points.  On  arrival 
of  the  goods  there,  the  shipper  disclosed 
his  contract  to  have  them  distributed  at 
the  three  points,  and  demanded  compli- 
ance therewith.  The  carrier  refused  com- 
pliance until  payment  of  freight  for  the 
whole  route,  when  it  delivered  the  goods 
destined  to  that  point,  and  undertook, 
at  its  own  cost,  to  carry  to  each  of  the 
other  points  the  portion  of  the  goods  to 
be  delivered  there,  and  in  doing  so  the 
goods  were  injured.  Held,  that  the  ini- 
tial carrier,  though  it  did  not  know  of 
the  shipper's  agreement  with  the  last 
connecting  carrier,  to  which  it  was  di- 
rected to  deliver  th'e  goods,  was  liable 
for  the  damage.  Brown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania Co.,  63  Minn.  546,  65  N.  W.  961. 
Where  a  carrier  gives  a  through  bill  of 
lading  to  a  point  beyond  its  own  line, 
it  can  not  deliver  the  goods  at  an  inter- 
mediate point  to  another  line  which 
comes  no  nearer  to  the  destination,  but 
it  must  carry  them  to  the  terminus  of  its 
own  line  and  there  deliver  them  to  a 
connecting  carrier.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Caldwell.  ^\)  Ark.  218,  116  S.  W.  2in._ 

44.  Loss  by  negligence  of  connecting 
carrier. — Missouri,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v.  Leibold 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  55  S.  W.  368;  G.  H. 
&   H.    R.    Co.   V.   Allison,   59   Tex.    193. 

45.  In   Harshman  v.  Little   Miami,  etc., 


Railways  (O.),  Dayton  173,  175,  the  de- 
fendants stipulated  in  the  bill  of  lading  to 
transport  tobacco  to  New  York  by  way  ot 
the  B.  &  O.  R.  Co.,  and  all  the'  way  by 
railroads.  It  was  diverted  from  an  all- 
rail  route  at  Baltimore  and  shipped  by 
sea.  It  was  held  that  the  defendant  was 
liable  for  damages  for  any  injury  to  the 
tobacco   resulting  from   such   shipment. 

46.  Harshman  v.  Little  Miami,  etc., 
Railways   (O.),  Dayton   173,  175. 

47.  Where  a  contract  is  made  with  a 
railroad  company  to  carry  freight  by  rail- 
road from  one  point  to  another  (as  from 
Cincinnati  to  Philadelphia),  at  a  speci- 
f.ed  price  for  the  whole  distance,  with 
a  stipulation  that  the  company  shall  not 
l)e  lialile  for  any  damage  or  deficiency 
in  packages,  if  receipted  for  "in  good  or- 
der" by  another  company,  at  some  in- 
termediate point  on  the  route;  and  after- 
wards the  goods  are  receipted  for  "in 
good  order,"  and  carried  a  part  of  the 
distance  by  water,  on  vessels,  and  the 
goods  are  proved  to  have  been  damaged 
while  in  transit,  the  first-named  company 
is  liable  for  such  damages.  The  contract 
is  an  entirety;  the  company  are  carriers 
for  the  whole  distance,  and  are  liable  ac- 
cording to  the  legal  obligations  imposed 
on  them  as  carriers:  they  are  to  carry 
the  goods  without  loss  or  damage,  save 
those  arising  from  inevitable  accident  or 
public  enemies;  and  l)y  changing  the 
route  they  assume  the  risk  of  safe  trans- 
portation. Fatman  &  Co.  7'.  Cincinnati, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  2  Disn.  248,  13  O.  Dec.   152. 


505  TRAXSP(JRTATION    AXIJ    DELlVIvRV    liV    CAKRIKK.  §§    819-820 

al)soliUcl\-  releasing  the  carrier,  in  an\-  event,  from  responsibility  in  case  of  loss 
of  goods,  but  only  from  responsibility  for  losses  occurring  without  any  fault  of 
the  carrier,  or  agents  employed  by  him.'*** 

Failure  to  Communicate  Shipping  Directions  to  Connecting  Lines. — 
Failure  of  a  railroad  c(jmpan\  tu  cijmuuuiicate  to  its  connecting  line  the  direc- 
tion that  the  goods  are  shipped  in  care  of  a  certain  railroad,  resulting  in  their 
diversion  to  another  route  than  that  directed,  while  making  it  liable  for  injury 
resulting,  docs  not,  in  tounection  with  such  consequent  diversion,  amount  to  a 
con\cr^ioii.  and  ipso  farto  make  it  liable  for  the  \rilue  of  the  goods. •*'•* 

Effort  of  Shipper  to  Hold  Substituted  Carrier. — The  shipper  does  not 
waive  his  right  to  recover  from  the  original  carrier  which  substituted  another 
connecting  carrier  for  that  named  in  the  l)ill  by  m;iking  an  effort,  at  its  instance, 
to  hold  the  substituted  carrier.''" 

Right  of  Initial  to  Recover  from  Connecting  Carrier. — Where  an  initial 
carrier  shipped  over  certain  connecting  lines  contrary  to  the  express  directions 
of  the  shipper,  thereby  becoming  an  insurer,  it  was  entitled  to  recover  against 
a  connecting  carrier  for  negligence  of  the  latter  for  which  it  was  adjudged  lia- 
ble, and  to  be  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  shipper."'^ 

§  82  0.  Necessity  for  and  Justification  of  Deviation  or  Forwarding  by 
Another  Carrier. — W  hen,  in  case  of  an  unforeseen  necessity,  the  safety  of  the 
shipment  demands  it,  a  deviation  from  the  route  agreed  upon  \vith  the  shipper 
may  be  made,  and  will  be  justifiable.  But,  where  the  goods  can  be  properly 
cared  for  and  held  until  the  shipper  can  be  communicated  with,  the  carrier  will 
not  be  justified  in  selecting  another  route,  without  notice  to  him  and  instructions 
from  him.^'-  \\'hether  or  not  a  carrier  should  ship  over  other  lines  depends  on 
the  character  of  the  freight,  probable  duration  of  interruption,  expense  of  such 
diversion  and  use  of  such  care  as  an  ordinarily  prudent  person  would  use  under 
like  circumstances.^^ 

Ordinary  or  Temporary  Obstructions. — Any  ordinary  or  temporary  ob- 
struction of  the  prescribed  roiUc  will  not  justify  a  deviation  therefrom.  The 
carrier  upon  discovery  of  such  obstruction  should  not  take  a  route  different 
from  the  one  agreed  upon,  but  should  await  its  removal  or  notify  the  shipper 
of  the  impracticability  of  proceeding;  a  temporary  obstruction  only  suspends  but 
does  not  dissolve  the  contract.''"* 

Floods. — The  de\iation  b\-  a  carrier  from  the  stiimlated  route,  to  save  delay, 
Ijecause  it  was  impassable  by  floods,  does  not  render  such  carrier  an  insurer,  and 
liable  for  delay  caused  by  such  deviation ;  •''•"'  but  where  horses  were  shipped 
with  defendant  under  a  special  contract  for  speedy  and  safe  shipment  in  a  par- 
ticular manner,   and  defendant,   owing  to   its  line  being  obstructed  by  a   flood, 

48.  Fatnum  &  Co.  v.  Cinciiftiati.  etc.,  54.  Hand  v.  Baynes  (Pa.),  4  Wliart. 
R.   Co.,  2   Disii.   24S.   1.3   O.   Dec.   l.-)2.  204.    .S.3    Am.    Dec.    54. 

49.  Failure  to  communicate  shipping  An  alteration  of  the  voyage  requiring 
directions  to  connecting  lines. —  Mootli  :'.  a  vessel  to  proceed  by  sea  instead  of 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  through  a  canal,  is  a  deviation  rendering 
37  S.  \V.  1C)S.  the    carrier    liable    for    the    loss    of    prop- 

50.  Effort  of  shipper  to  hold  substi-  ^'.rty.  although  the  canal  was  tempora- 
tuted  carrier.— Railroad  r.  Odil,  iXJ  Tenn.  '■'Iv  obstructed.  Hand  v.  Baynes  (Pa.), 
ci    :;:?   S    W    fill  ^  Whart.  204,  33  Am.  Dec.  54. 

L,       n-   u...      r    •    -i.-  1    *  .>-.    t^ Floods. — International,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 

51.  Right    of    mitial    to    recover    from       ,,.  „,„.^,...  .    o    ^^„,.     ru.      Xr^T.     -     ■>-    c 

■  °  ■  rr^  ^        T>    r'  W  entwortn,    8     lex.     Liv.    App.    o.    2.     ;>. 

connectmg  earner. —  1  exas,  etc..  K.  Co.  f.       ,..     .^„  ^^ 

Eastin,    100   Tex.    55G,    102    S.    \V.    105.  Because  a  carrier  had   notice   that   part 

52.  Necessity  for  and  justification  of  ^(  the  stipulated  route  was  dangerous, 
deviation.— Railroad  r.  Odd.  W  Tenn.  fit,  jj  ^u^i  ^^^^  assume  all  risks  from  unfore- 
('■4.   ;::>   S.  W  .   (Ul.  j^^^j^,,  floods  thereon.    International,  etc..  R. 

53.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Jones  Co.  r.  Wentworth,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5.  27 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   29   S.   W.   695.  S.  W.  680. 


§§  820-822  CARRIERS.  506 

delivered  the  horses  to  another  express  compaii}-,  who  hauled  the  cars  on  a  slow 
freight  train,  whereby  the  horses  were  injured,  defendant  is  not  exonerated  from 
liability  on  the  ground  that  the  second  carrier  was  the  agent  of  plaintiff  and  not 
of  defendant.^*^ 

Storms. — Forwarding  perishable  freight  by  rail  is  justifiable  when  a  storm 
prevents  a  boat  from  proceeding  upon  its  voyage."'' 

Strikes. — A  common  carrier  can  not  justify  a  deviation  in  route,  upon  re- 
fusal of  a  connecting  carrier  to  receive  freight  on  account  of  a  strike,  without 
notice  to  the  shipper  and  instructions  from  him,  where  it  ap])ears  that  the  goods 
could  have  been  held  and  properly  cared  for,  without  endangering  their  safety, 
until  such  notice  had  been  given  and  instructions  received. ^'•'^ 

§  821.  Damages. — ^Measure  of  Damages. — The  rule  that  a  carrier  is  re- 
quired to  follow  the  shipper's  instructions  in  routing,  and  that,  on  failure  to  do 
so,  it  becomes  an  insurer,  in  no  way  conflicts  with  the  general  rule  for  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  for  breach  of  contract  of  carriage,  which  limits  recovery  to 
such  damages  as  might  reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  been  within  the  contem- 
plation of  the  parties  at  the  time  the  contract  was  made  as  the  probable  result 
of  its  breach. ^'^ 

Consignee  Failing  to  Receive  Prompt  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods. — 
Where  a  carrier  transports  goods  by  a  different  route  than  that  over  which  they 
were  shipped,  and,  in  consequence,  the  consignee  fails  to  receive  prompt  notice 
of  their  arrival,  he  can  recover  from  the  company  the  difference  between  the 
market  value  of  the  goods  at  the  time  of  their  arrival  and  at  the  time  he  re- 
ceived the  notice.*^" 

Liability  as  for  a  Conversion. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  in  conversion  for 
goods  because  it  transports  them  to  their  destination  by  a  route  other  than  that 
over  which  they  were  shipped.^'^ 

Consignee  Refusing  to  Receive  Goods. — Where  the  consignee  of  goods 
transported  by  a  route  dift'erent  from  that  over  which  they  were  shipped  re- 
fuses to  take  them,  because  he  did  not  receive  prompt  notice  of  their  arrival,  and 
they  are  sold  by  the  terminal  carrier,  he  can  not  recover  their  value  from  the 
forwarding  carrier.*"'- 

Carrier  without  Notice  of  Consignee's  Right  to  Refuse  Shipment.— 
Where  a  carrier  was  without  notice  of  the  provision  of  the  contract  of  sale  be- 
tween consignor  and  consignee  which  authorized  consignee  to  refuse  to  accept 
the  shipment  unless  routed  over  a  certain  railroad,  it  was  not  liable,  on  failure 
by  it  to  follow  the  routing  instructions  of  consignor,  resulting  in  refusal  by  con- 
signee to  accept  shipment,  for  damages  so  sustained  by  consignor.*'-'^ 

§  822.  Refusal  to  Route  Cars  as  Directed  by  Shipper. — After  a  car- 
rier has  refused  to  route  cars  as  desired,  if  the  shipper  permits  the  carrier  to 
take  the  cars  for  shipment,  he  acquiesces  in  the  routing  actually  given  by  the 
carrier.*^^ 

56.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  92  61.  Liability  as  for  a  conversion. — 
Tenn.    326,   21    S.   W.   666.                                        vSouthern    Pac.    Co.    v.    Booth    (Tex.    Civ. 

57.  Storm.— Railroad  v.  Odil,  96  Tenn.       App.),  :!!)  S._W.  585.  _ 

61    64    .33  S.  \V.  611.  ^2-      Consignee      refusing      to      receive 

CO      Oi  •/        -D    M         1  r^  ri     r.,-   n^               goods. — Southern      Pac.      Co.      v.      Booth 

58.  Strike. — Railroad  v.   Odil,  96  Tenn.       7^^         ^..       .        ^     on   c    \\j    -o- 
61     ''-^   S    W    611  ^^^'^-    ^'^'-    App.).   39    S.    \V.    oSo. 

•  '"'  63.    Carrier  without  notice   of  consign- 

59.  Measure  of  damages.— St.  Louis,  ge's  right  to  refuse  shipment.— St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Louisiana,  etc.,  Lumber  Co.,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Louisiana,  etc.,  Lumber 
50  Tex.    Civ.  App.   179,   109   S.  W.   1143.  Co.,    50    Tex.    Civ.    App.    179,    109    S.    W. 

60.  Consignee  failing  to  receive  prompt  1143. 

notice     of     arrival     of     goods. — Southern  64.    Acquiescence  in  routing. — Missouri, 

Pac.    Co.    !■.    Booth    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    39       etc..    R.    Co.    7'.    Thompson,    55    Tex.    Civ. 
S.    \V.    585.  App.    12,    118    S.    \V.    618. 


507  TRANSPORTATION    AND    DELIVKKV    I'.V    CARRIICR.  §§    822-824 

Refusal  to  Route  Shipment  over  Connecting  Carrier  Designated  by- 
Shipper. — A  carrier  refusing  to  route  a  shipment  over  connecting  carriers  des- 
ignated by  the  shipper,  and  reciuiring  him  to  ship  over  other  connecting  car- 
riers, is  an  insurer  of  the  goods  (hiring  transportation  by  the  connecting  car- 
riers selected  1)V  it.''"' 

Refusing  Short  or  through  Route. — Where  a  shipper  requested  a  railroad 
to  ship  cattle  over  a  certain  route,  and  such  road,  without  any  excuse,  refused 
so  to  do,  it  became  liable  for  all  loses  accruing  to  ship]jer  by  reason  of  the  ship- 
ment of  the  cattle  over  a  longer  route.''*'  unless  protected  by  a  written  contract 
signed  bv  the  ship])er.''' 

Carrier  Having  No  Traffic  Arrangement  with  Requested  Connecting 
Line. — Where  a  carrier  had  no  authority  from  connecting  carriers  to  contract 
for  through  shipments  except  by  a  certain  route,  a  shipper  contracting  for 
through  shipment  could  not  recover  damages  to  the  shipment  occasioned  by  their 
having  gone  that  way  instead  of  another,  as  requestecl ;  he  knowing  the  limita- 
tion of  the  carrier's  "authority."'^  Where  a  shipper  of  live  stock  was  informed 
before  the  stock  was  loaded  that  there  could  be  no  through  billing  to  the  point 
of  destination  other  than  by  a  particular  route,  he  could  not  select  a  different 
route  and  exact  a  through  billing,  when  the  carrier  was  not  prepared  to  give 
it,  and  the  shipper  had  been  informed  of  that  fact.*'''* 

§  823.  Shipment  over  Route  Contrary  to  Express  Direction  of  Ship- 
per.—  If  a  carrier  becomes  liable  for  all  losses  by  a  mere  deviation  from  the 
route  contracted  for,  for  a  stronger  reason  he  should  be  held  liable  for  all  losses 
when  shipped  over  a  route  contrary  to  the  express  instructions  of  the  shipper.'" 

§  824.  Forwarding  by  Different  Boat  or  Conveyance  than  That  Stip- 
ulated.— If  a  common  carrier  forwards  goods  by  different  boats  or  conveyances 
than  those  coiUem])lated  by  his  agreement,  he  becomes  an  insurer  of  the  goods, 
and  can  not  avail  himself  of  any  exemption  in  his  behalf  in  the  contract." ^ 

65.  Refusal  to  route  shipment  as  des-  ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Everett,  99  Tex.  269, 
ignated  by  shipper. —  I'ecos  l^tivcr  R.  Co.  89  S.  W.  761,  reversing  86  S.  W.  17,  cited 
z'.  Harrin-ton,  '.)',»  S.  W.  1050,  4S  Tex.  Civ.  in  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott,  99  Tex. 
App.    ,']4().  326,    331,    89    S.    W.    763,   765,    reversing   86 

66.  Refusing    short    or    through    route.  S.  W.  18. 

—Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eastin,   102  vS.  W.  69.    Houston,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Buchanan, 

105,    100  Tex.   556.  94    S.    W.    199.    42   Tex.    Civ.    App.    620. 

67.  Carrier  wrongfully  refusing  through  Where  a  carrier  routes  cattle  ship- 
short  routing.  \\  Iumc  a  bliippcr  of  live  nients  over  certain  connecting  lines  after 
stock  requested  a  through  transportation  it  had  refused  the  shipper's  request  for 
over  the  lines  of  the  initial  and  connect-  routing  over  another  and  shorter  route, 
ing  carrier  liy  a  shorter  route,  and  it  it  is  not  lialile  for  damages  for  the  adop- 
was  wrongfully  denied  him  by  the  ini-  tion  of  such  longer  route,  where  it  had 
tial  carrier,  when  it.  under  its  traffic  ar-  no  traffic  arrangements  with  the  connect- 
rangements  with  the  other  road,  had  the  ing  lines  forming  the  shorter  route,  and 
power  or  authority  to  grant  it,  the  initial  where  it  had  ofifered  to  ship  by  the  local 
carrier  will  be  liable  for  damages  result-  rates  by  such  route.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
ing  from  the  longer  haul,  unless  pro-  Co.  v.  Buchanan,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  620, 
tected    by    a    written    contract    signed    by  625,    94    .S.    \\'.    199. 

the    shipper.      Houston,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  70.     Shipment    over    route    contrary    to 

Buchanan,    43    Tex.    Civ.    App.    620,    625,  express  direction  of  shipper. — Texas,  etc., 

94    S.    W.    199.  R.   Co.  f.    luistin,   100  Tex.   556,   102  S.  W. 

A   carrier  which   makes  a   through  ship-  10,5. 
mcnt    under   a    special    contract    for   a    re-  Wiiere    a    railroad    agent    shipped    over 

duced  rate  of  freiglU  is  not  lialde  for  an  a    certain    route    contrary    to    the    express 

injury  to  the   shipment   on   a  certain   con-  directions   of   the   shippers,   he   was   guilty 

nccting    line,    though    it    did    not    choose  of  misfeasance,  anil  lialjle   for  loss  occur- 

the  through  route  which  the  shipper  pre-  ring  I)y   reason   of  the   shipment   over  the 

ferred.      Galveston,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Short  route    selected    bv    him.      Texas,    etc..    R. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  25  S.  W.  142.  Co.    v.    Eastin,    100    Tex.    556,    102    S.    W. 

68.  Carrier     having     no     arrangement  105. 

with    requested     connecting    line. — Hous-  71.     Forwarding    by     different   l)oat     or 


§§  825-820 


carrif:rs. 


508 


§  82  5.  Carrier  Fraudulently  Inducing  Shipment  over  Longer  Route. 

— Where  a  shipper  of  Hve  stock  was  led  into  the  execution  of  a  contract  for 
shipment  which  fixed  the  route,  hy  means  of  false  information  by  the  agent  of 
the  carrier,  the  shipper  was  entitled  to  recover  for  damages  resulting  by  reason 
of  that  route  being  longer  than  another  route  which  he  had  demanded." - 

§  826.  Diversion  by  Order  of  Shipper  or  Consignee. — See  ante,  "Change 
of  Destination."'  §  8U<). 

§§  827-834.  Selection  by  Carrier— §  827.  Right  to  Select  in  Gen- 
eral.— In  contracts  of  shipment  which  are  silent  in  their  express  terms  as  to 
the  matter  of  route,  the  carrier  has  the  right,  subject  to  certain  restrictions,  to 
choose  the  route." "^  In  such  case,  the  right  of  the  carrier  to  choose  the  route  is, 
by  force  of  law,  impressed  upon  and  becomes  a  part  of  the  contract  as  effectu- 
ally as  if  expressed  therein.'^-* 

Right  of  Initial  Carrier. — In  the  absence  of  a  selection  of  a  route  by  a  ship- 
per, the  initial  carrier  may  choose  the  same."-^  Thus  where  a  bill  of  lading  issued 
by  the  initial  carrier  for  goods  to  be  transported  over  several  connecting  lines, 
and  which  may  be  forwarded  over  dift"erent  lines  to  the  place  of  destination, 
contains  no  directions  on  the  subject,  the  right  to  designate  the  route  rests  with 
the  initial  carrier.'''^ 

§  828.  Regard  for  Rights  of  Shipper. — The  selection  of  the  route  by  the 
carriers  must  be  made  with   regard   for  the  rights  of  the  shipper.'" 

§  829.  Degree  of  Care  Required. — The  carrier  is  liable  for  all  damages 
resulting  from  its  negligence  in  selecting  the  route.'''^  The  rule  seems  to  be,  that 
the  carrier,  in  the  exercise  of  this  right,  must  use  such  care  in  relation  to  the 


conveyances   than  that  stipulated. — G.    H. 
&    H.    R.    Co.   z:    Allison.    59    Tex.    193. 

Shipment  by  boat  other  than  that  di- 
rected by  shipper. — Where  a  consignment 
of  tow  hy  way  of  rail  line  and  steamboat 
connections  was  refused  by  the  steam- 
boat because  the  carriage  of  such  goods 
was  prohibited,  it  was  a  breach  of  the 
railroad  company's  duty  to  forward  the 
goods  hy  a  towboat,  in  violation  of  the 
shipper's  instructions  to  the  freight  agent 
that,  unless  it  could  be  forwarded  by  the 
steamboat  line,  he  did  not  wish  to  send 
it.  Johnson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
33    X.    Y.    f)10,    88   Am.    Dec.    41G. 

72.  Carrier  fraudulently  inducing  ship- 
ment over  longer  route. — Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Buchanan,  94  S.  W.  199,  42  Tex. 
Civ.    A  pp.    020. 

73.  Right  to  select. — Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McKenzie,  139  Ga.  410,  77  S.  E. 
647,  45  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  18;  Edwards  v. 
American  Exp.  Co.,  109  Me.  444,  84  Atl. 
987,  42  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  705;  Hoffman  v. 
Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Pa.  vSuper.  Ct. 
47;  Chartrand  v.  Southern  Railway,  85 
S.  C.  479,  67  S.  E.  741;  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.'s  Exp.  V.  Fuller,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213. 
222,  23  S.  W.  412  (see  93  Tex.  742.  no 
op.);  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.).    73    S.    W.    540. 

Bills  of  lading  specifying  no  particu- 
lar route  for  a  certain  shipment  of  cot- 
ton, give  the  carrier  the  right  to  choose 
the    route.      Bessling    &    Co.    v.    Houston, 


etc.,   R.    Co.,    35   Tex.   Civ.   App.   470,   80   S. 
W.   ():i9,  affirmed   in   98  Tex.   (ilO,   no  op. 

A  bill  of  lading  given  by  an  express 
company,  undertaking  to  forward  to  point 
nearest  destination  reached  by  the  com- 
pany, which  was  the  point  of  destination, 
subject  to  condition  that  the  company 
should  not  be  liable  except  as  forwarders 
only  within  their  own  line  of  cominuni- 
cation,  does  not  fix  the  route  of  ship- 
ment over  the  company's  line,  but  leaves 
the  company  free  to  choose  the  route. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Fuller,  4 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    213,   23    S.    W.    412. 

74.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler, 4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  222,  23  S.  W. 
412    (see    93   Tex.   742,   no   op.). 

75.  Right  of  initial  carrier. — Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Irvine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  73  S. 
W.    540. 

76.  Bessling  &  Co.  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   80  S.  W^   639,  35  Tex.   Civ.   App.   470. 

77.  Regard  for  rights  of  shipper. — Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McKenzie,  77  S. 
E.  647,  139  Ga.  410,  45  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
18;  Edwards  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  109 
Me.  444,  84  Atl.  987,  42  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
705;  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Fuller, 
4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  23  S.  W.  412  (see 
93  Tex.  742,  no  op.);  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
f.   Irvine    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),  73   S.  W.   540. 

78.  Liability  for  negligence  In  select- 
ing route. — Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v. 
T'uller.  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213.  223,  23  S. 
W.  412,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  742,  no  op. 


■09 


TRAXSPORTATIOX    AND    UKLU  I'KV    i;V    CAkKlKR. 


§§  829-831 


shipment  as  an  ordinarily  prudent  i^erson  would  use  under  similar  circumstances.'^ 
The  character  of  the  goods  shipped,  whether  perishable  or  not.  the  apparent  ob- 
ject to  be  subserved  by  the  shipment,  and  all  the  surrounding  circumstances 
throwing  light  upon  the  shipment,  must  be  considered  by  the  carrier  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  right  of  routing,  and  if  it  fails  to  use  that  degree  of  care  which  an 
ordinarily  prudent  person  would  use  under  like  conditions,  it  is  held  responsible 
for  damages  proximately  resulting  from  its  negligence  in  the  selection  of  the 
route.'^" 

§  830.  Duty  to  Select  Safe  and  Direct  Route. — The  carrier  must,  at  its 
peril,  select  a  reasonably  safe  and  direct  route.'' ^  As  a  general  rule  when  goods 
are  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transportation  to  a  designated  point,  it  is  his  duty 
to  transport  them  by  the  safest  and  most  direct  route."-  It  can  not  arbitrarily 
select  a  known  unsafe  route,  except  at  the  risk  of  incurring  liability  for  negli- 
gence."^''  Xeither  can  it  arbitrarily  choos.  a  long,  inexpeditious  route,  without 
assuming  the  risk  of  delay  incident  to  the  choice.**-*  The  action  of  the  carrier 
in  not  selecting  the  most  ex])editious  route  is  a  question  of  negligence  vel  non, 
and  should  be  submitted  to  the  jury  as  such.""'' 

Choice  between  Route  Partly  by  Water  and  All-Rail  Route. — W  here 
there  was  no  contract  by  the  carrier  fur  all -rail  transportation  and  the  bill  of 
lading  was  silent  as  to  the  route,  the  selection  of  a  route  partly  by  water,  whereon 
the  goods  were  lost  by  act  of  God.  did  not  make  the  carrier  liable.*"' 

Selection  of  Obstructed  Route. — The  carrier  can  not  select  a  route  so  oIj- 
structed  tliat  (lcli\er\-  can  ncjt  l)c  made  over  it,  where  another  practicable  route 
is  open,  though  by  the  bill  of  lading  it  is  entitled  to  select  the  route. ^' 

§§  831-834.  Duty  to  Pursue  Usual  and  Customary  Route  and  Devia- 
tion Therefrom — §  831.  In  General. — A  carrier  whicli  undertakes  to  carry 
goods  between  two  given  places  is  bound  to  jnirsue  the  usual  and  customary 
route. •'*•''  The  principle  is  equallv  a]iplicable  to  carriers  by  water  and  to  carriers 
by  land,  whether  thev  act  in  a  ])ul)lic  capacity  or  under  special  undertakings.^^ 


79.  Wells.  Farqo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler. 4  Tex.   Civ.  App.  213,  23   S.  W.  412. 

80.  Wells,  Far{?o  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler. 4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  223,  23  S.  W. 
412    (see  93   Tex.   742,   no   op.). 

81.  Duty  to  select  a  safe  and  direct 
route. — Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler.   4    Tex.    Civ.    .\pp.    213.    23    S.    W.    412. 

82.  Safest  and  most  direct  route. — 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eastin.  100  Tex. 
.550.    102    S.    W.    105. 

83.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler. 4  Tex.   Civ.  App.  213.  23  S.  W.  412. 

84.  W^ells.  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler.   4    Tex.    Civ.    App.    213.    23    S.    W.    412. 

If  the  carrier  selects  a  longer  and 
less  expeditious  route  than  the  one  de- 
sired by  the  sliipper.  it  will  he  held  re- 
sponsil)le  for  all  damages  resulting  from 
its  action.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp. 
V.  Fuller.  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  23  S. 
W.  412;  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Irvine  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),    73    S.    W.    540. 

Express  companies. — If  an  express 
company  witli  the  facilities  furnished 
such  companies  for  transportation  under 
the  laws  of  the  state  of  Texas,  in  exer- 
cising its  right  of  routing  when  the  ship- 
per has  failed  to  do  so.  chooses  a  long 
or  inexpeditious  railway  route,  when 
there    is    a    direct    and    speedy    line    which 


it  ma\-  use,  and  when  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  shipment  indicate  that 
delay  will  he  damaging,  it  should  he  held 
lialile  for  any  damage  proximately  re- 
sulting from  the  additional  time  con- 
sumed in  the  journey.  Wells.  Fargo  & 
Co.'s  Exp.  V.  Fuller.  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
213.    223.    23    S.    W.    412. 

85.  Wells.  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Ful- 
ler. 4   Tex.   Civ.   .A.pp.  213,  23   S.  W.  412. 

86.  Choice  between  route  partly  by 
water — And  all  rail  route.  —  P>o.s<ling  & 
Co.  V.  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.,  35  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  470.  SO  S.  W.  r.39.  affirmed  in  98 
Tex.    010.    no    op. 

87.  Selection  of  obstructed  route.— 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  :•.  Hcux.  40  S.  W. 
327,    15    Tex.    Civ.    App.    502. 

88.  Powers  v.  Davenport  (Ind.).  7 
Blackf.  497.  43  Am.  Dec.  100.  See  post, 
"Losses  for  Which  Carrier  Is  L-'ahle." 
S§    S17-S19. 

Addition  of  words  "water  permitting" 
docs  not  change  the  character  of  tiie  con- 
tract, as  there  implied  under  the  general 
exception,  "the  account  of  God."  Ben- 
nett V.  Bvram  &  Co..  38  Miss.  17.  75  Am. 
Dec.    90.  ' 

89.  Powers  r.  Davenport  (Ind.),  7 
Blackf.   497,   43   Am.   Dec.   100. 


§§  831-853 


CARRIERS. 


510 


If  a  carrier  would  secure  the  right  to  deviate  from  the  usual  course  of  the  trade, 
he  should  stipulate  for  it  iu  the  hill  of  ladiug."" 

§§  832-834.  Deviation— §  832.  What  Constitutes.— A  deviation  is  a 
voluntary  departure,  without  necessity  or  reasonahle  cause,  from  the  regular  and 
usual  course  of  transportation.''^  Whether  there  has  heen  a  deviation  or  not  is, 
upon  conceded  facts,  a  question  of  law  for  the  court. '^- 

§  833.  Necessity  and  Justification. — Deviation  Usual  or   Customary. 

— A  deviation  which  is  a  customary  incident  of  the  voyage,  and  according  to 
the  known  usage  of  trade,  does  not  defeat  the  exceptions  in  a  bill  of  lading  so 
as  to  subject  the  carrier  to  the  res])onsibility  of  an  insurer. '^'•'  Where  the  usual 
route  of  a  vessel  was  through  Long  Island  Sound,  but  the  master,  because  of 
the  obstruction  of  the  sound  by  ice,  went  to  the  south  of  the  island,  this  was 
held  to  be  a  deviation,  and  not  justified  by  a  usage  of  vessels  to  make  a  similar 
deviation  under  a  like  circumstance.^'* 

Personal  Motive  of  Carrier. — The  personal  motive  of  a  private  person  un- 
dertaking, as  a  common  carrier,  to  carry  goods  between  two  points — desire  to  go 
to  his  own  house — is  not  a  legal  excuse  for  unnecessary  deviation  from  the  usual 
and  customarv  route,  and  he  is  liable  for  all  loss  sustained  in  consequence 
thereof. '■'•' 

Deviation  Caused  by  Unprecedented  Floods. — \\  here  a  carrier's  deviation 
from  regular  and  usual  course  is  caused  by  unprecedented  floods,  which  render 
it  absolutely  necessary  to  change  the  route  to  prevent  or  reduce  loss,  the  carrier 
is  not  held  liable  as  an  insurer.-"^  But  that  the  roadbed  of  a  railroad  company 
was  damaged  by  an  unprecedented  flood,  necessitating  the  forwarding  of  a  ship- 
ment received  as  a  connecting  carrier  by  a  more  circuitous  route,  does  not  relieve 
the  carrier   from  liability  for  the  damages  caused  thereby,  where,  by  the  exer- 


90.  Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.), 
Wright    19.3. 

91.  Deviation  defined. — Hostetter  v. 
Park,  137  U.  S.  30.  34  L.  Ed.  568,  11  S. 
Ct.    1. 

92.  Crosby  z:  Fitch,  12  Conn.  410.  31 
Am.   Dec.   74.'j. 

93.  Usual  or  customary  deviation. — 
Constable  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  51,  38  L.  Ed.  903,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  Hos- 
tetter v.  Park,  137  U.  S.  30,  34  L.  Ed. 
568,  11  S.  Ct.  1;  Marande  v.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  184  U.  S.  173,  46  L.  Ed.  487,  22 
S.  Ct.  340  (holding  evidence  insufficieiU 
to    show    deviation). 

In  marine  insurance,  it  is  no  deviation 
for  a  vessel  to  touch  and  stay  at  a  port 
out  of  its  course,  if  such  departure  is 
within  the  usage  of  the  trade.  The  same 
doctrine  is  applicable  in  the  case  of  a 
bill  of  lading,  even  though  the  usage  be 
not  known  to  the  particular  shipper,  if 
it  be  established  as  a  general  usage. 
Hostetter  v.  Park.  137  U.  vS.  30,  34  L. 
Ed.  568,  11   S.   Ct.   1. 

In  Hostetter  v.  Park,  137  U.  S.  30,  34 
L.  Ed.  568,  11  S.  Ct.  1,  it  was  held  to  bene 
deviation,  in  the  Pittsburg  and  New  Or- 
leans barge  trade,  to  land  and  tie  up  a 
tow  of  barges,  and  detach  from  the  tow 
such  barge  or  barges  as  were  designated 
to  take  on  cargo  en  route,  and  to  tow  the 
same  to  the  several  points  where  the 
cargo    might    be    stored,    it    having    been 


shown  that  such  delays  were  within  the 
general  and  established  usage  of  the 
trade.  Constable  z'.  National,  etc.,  Co., 
154  U.  S.  51,  38  L.  Ed.  903,  14  S.  Ct. 
1062. 

Usage  as  to  place  of  discharging  cargo. 
— It  is  no  deviation  to  land  goods  at  a 
place  where  the  usage  of  the  trade  per- 
mits them  to  be  landed.  Gracie  v.  Marine 
Ins.  Co.  (U.  S.),  8  Cranch  75,  3  L.  Ed. 
492;  Constable  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  154 
U.   S.   51,   38   L.   Ed.   903,   14   S.    Ct.    106.2. 

Where  the  regular  pier  of  a  steamship 
company  is  so  blockaded  that  its  ships 
can  not  obtain  access  to  it  to  discharge 
its  cargo,  it  is  a  matter  of  ordinary  pru- 
dence to  select  a  neighboring  pier  for 
that  purpose,  and  the  berthing  of  the  ship 
at  such  a  pier  is  not  a  deviation  so  as  to 
render  the  company  an  insurer  of  the 
cargo  discharged  there,  without  notice  to 
the  consignee,  until  its  actual  delivery. 
Constable  v.  National,  etc.,  Co.,  154  U. 
S.   51,   38   L.    Ed.   903,   14   S.   Ct.   1062. 

94.  Crosby  v.  Fitch.  12  Conn.  410,  31 
.A.m.    Dec.    745. 

95.  Personal  motive  of  carrier. — Pow- 
ers V.  Davenport  (Ind.),  7  Blackf.  497,  43 
Am.  Dec.  100. 

96.  Deviation  caused  by  unprecedented 
floods. — IiUernational,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wentworth,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5,  27  S.  W. 
680,    affirmed    in    87    Tex.    311. 


511 


TRANSPORTATION    AND    DKLIVKKV    l',V    CAKRlKk. 


§§  833-835 


cise  of  reasonal)lc  care,  it  could  have  guarded  against  the  efifect  of  the  tloods.'-^' 

§  834.  Losses  for  Which  Carrier  Is  Liable  and  Nature  of  Liability.— 

If  a  carrier  deviates,  without  necessity,  from  the  usual  and  common  course  of 
trade  or  the  regular  and  usual  route  •''•  and  the  goods  are  lost  or  injurerl  during 
such  deviation  or  as  a  conse(|uence  thereof,  he  is  responsiljle  therefor,  and  is 
not  excused  e\cn  if  the  loss  or  injury  result  from  act  of  God,'-''-'  inevitable  acci- 
dent, or  act  of  the  puljlic  enemies.'  Such  excuse  is  only  available  to  him  while 
in  the  i)ursuit  of  his  voyage  in  tiie  usual  way.- 

If  the  loss  occurred  from  the  carelessness  or  wantonness  of  the  navi- 
gators of  another  vessel  l)r<)Ught  into  collisi(jn  with  the  vessel,  that  does  not 
excuse  the  carrier;  he  is  answerable  to  the  shi[)])cr,  and  the  owners  of  the  ves- 
sel occasioning  the  accident  refund  (ner  to  him.'' 

Liable  as  for  a  Conversion. — If  a  common  carrier  deviates  from  the  regular 
route  and  the  goods  are  lost,  it  is  liable  as  for  a  conversion.-* 

§§  835-841.  Duty  and  Necessity  of  Delivery— §  835.  Duty  to  De- 
liver.— The  (lutv  of  a  carrier  is  not  merely  to  carry  safely  the  goods  intrusted 
to  it,  but  also  to  deliver  theni."'  or  do  what  is  equivalent  thereto."     The  conditions 


97.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bland 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),   ;34    S.   W.   675. 

98.  Indiana. —  Powers  v.  Davenport 
(Ind.),   7    Blackf.   497,   4:3   Am.   Dec.   100. 

Mississippi. — Bennett  v.  Byram  &  Co., 
38    Miss.    17,   75   Am.    Dec.   90. 

OJiio. — Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.), 
Wright    193. 

Pcnnsxlvania. — Hoffman  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,    R."  Co.,    39    Pa.    Super.    Ct.    47. 

South  Carolina. — Chartrand  v.  Southern 
Railway,   85   S.    C.   479,   G7    S.    E.   741. 

Tcnrj.— Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  z-. 
Fuller,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  213,  23  S.  W. 
413;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Went- 
worth.  S  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5,  27  S.  W.  G80, 
aflirnied    in    87    Tex.    311. 

Instances. — A  carrier,  who,  owing  to 
an  interruption  on  his  own  line,  forwards 
matter  via  another  line,  consigned  to 
himself,  receives  it  at  its  aestination,  de- 
livers it  to  the  original  consignee,  and 
collects  the  freight,  is  responsible  to  the 
original  consignor  for  damages  thereto 
en  route.  Levy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
35    La.    Ann.    G15. 

Carrier  stopping  short  of  point  of  re- 
shipment. — A  common  carrier,  which  un- 
dertakes to  deliver  goods  at  a  certain 
place,  with  the  privilege  of  reshipping  at 
an  intermediate  point,  but  stops  short  of 
that  point,  and  goods  there  lost  in  a 
storm,  is  liable  therefore,  although  he 
would  not  have  been  liable  had  he  dis- 
charged his  duty  by  taking  them  to  the 
point  agreed  upon.  Cassilay  v.  Young  & 
Co.  (Ky.),  4  B.  Mon.  265,  39  Am.  Dec. 
SOi"). 

99.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Went- 
worth.  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5.  27  S.  W.  6S0, 
affirmed   in   87  Tex.   311. 

1.    Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.),  Wright 


193. 

2. 
193. 

3. 
193. 


Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.),  Wright 
Lawrence  v.  McGregor   (O.),  Wright 


4.  Liable  as  for  a  conversion. —  Lhillips 
V.  Brigliam,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Ga.  617,  71  Am. 
Dec.   2:57. 

5.  Duty  to  deliver. — United  States. — 
North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Commer- 
cial Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  '.27,  31  L.  Ed. 
287,  8  S.  Ct.  266;  Brittan  v  Barnaby,  21 
How.  527,  16  L.  Ed.  177;  The  Comman- 
der-in-Chief (U.  S.),  1  Wall.  43,  17  L. 
Ed.  609;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kirby, 
225  U.  S.  155,  56  L.  Ed.  1033,  32  S.  Ct. 
1)48,   Ann.    Cas.    1914A,   501. 

Arkansas. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co  v.  King 
(Ark.),    148    S.    W.    1035. 

Illinois. — American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Bald- 
win,   26    111.    504,    79    Am.    Dec.    389. 

A/oiuc— Backer  v.   Flagg,  26  Me.   181. 

Nezv  Hampshire. — Smith  v.  Mashen, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    27    N.    H.    86. 

Xew  York. — De  Mott  v.  Laraway  (X. 
Y.),   14   Wend.   225. 

Ohio. — Waring  &  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893,  7  O.  Dec. 
Reprint  553;  Oskamp  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,  61  O.  St.  341,  56  N.  E.  13;  Steamboat 
John  Owen  z:  Johnson,  2  O.  St.  143;  Git- 
tings  V.  Baker,  2  O.  St.  21. 

Pcnnsvhania. — Graff  v.  Bloomer,  9  Pa. 
114.  See  Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ohleman, 
92    Pa.    323. 

Tcvas.— Morgan  v.  Dibble,  29  Tex.  107, 

6.  Connecticut. — Graves  v.  Hartford, 
etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  38  Conn.  143,  9  Am. 
Rep.    369. 

///ni(u'.f.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  War- 
ren,   16    111.    502,    63    Am.    Dec.    317. 

Louisiana. — Sleade  v.  Payne,  14  La. 
Ann.    453. 

.\czi'  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  32  N.  H.  523,  64  Am.  Dec.  381. 

.V.-7C'  I'orA'.— Price  v.  Powell,  3  N.  Y. 
;522:  Zinn  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.. 
49  N.  Y.  442,  10  Am.  Rep.  402:  Sherman 
r.   Hudson,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  N.  Y.  254. 

IJ'iscousin. — Sultana  v.  Chapman,  5  Wis. 
454. 


§§  835-836 


CARRIERS. 


512 


which  would  release  a  carrier  from  this  duty  must  be  the  same  as  would  re- 
lease it  from  the  safe  carriage  of  the  goods;"  and  it  is  not  relieved  from  the 
duty  by  usage.^ 

§§  836-841.  Liability  for  Failure  or  Refusal  to  Deliver— §  836.  In 
General. — Liability  in  General. — Where  a  carrier  fails  to  account  for  or  de- 
liver property  intrusted  to  it  for  shipment  without  a  valid  excuse,  it  is  liable  in 
an  action  to  recover  the  damages  sustained.'^  The  acceptance  of  a  part  of  goods 
by  the  consignee,  at  a  place  dift'erent  from  that  specified  in  the  contract,  though 
admissible  in  the  mitigation  of  damages,  does  not  discharge  the  carrier  from 
liability   for  the  residue.^" 

Liability  for  Breach  of  Contract. — Failure  of  a  carrier  to  deliver  goods 


lir,  94  Am.  Dec.  3G4:  Houston,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Adams.  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep. 
116;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Haynes.  72 
Tex.  175,  10  S.  W.  398.  See  Fielder  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Tex.  176,  179, 
46    S.    W.    633,    affirming   42   S.    W.    362. 

Vervwnt. — Pickett  v.   Downer,  4   \'t.  21. 

Virginia. — Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Staton, 
17   Va.    (3   Munf.)    239. 

West  J'irginia. — AIcGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696;   Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\   Morehead, 

5  \V.  \'a.  293. 

Duty  to  make  personal  delivery. — See 
post,  "Necessity  for  Personal  Delivery," 
§    848. 

In  the  absence  of  a  special  contract  or 
custom,  tlie  duty  of  a  common  carrier  of 
troods  is  not  completed  on  the  mere  ar- 
rival of  the  goods  at  destination,  but  in- 
cludes the  duty  of  delivery  to  the  con- 
signee. Burr  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co..  58  Atl. 
609.   71    X.   J.    L.    263. 

Delivery  subject  to  conditions. — The 
contract  of  the  carrier  as  to  deliver}'  is 
none  the  less  binding  because  the  deliv- 
er}' is  subject  to  a  condition.  Steamboat 
John   Owen  v.  Johnson,  2   O.    St.   143. 

7.  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
mercial Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  733,  31 
L.    Ed.    287,    8    S.    Ct.    266. 

8.  Effect  of  usage. — Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Adams.  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep. 
116. 

9.  Liability  for  failure  or  refusal  to  de- 
liver.— Georgia. — Atlanta  Baggage,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Mizo,  61  S.  E.  844,  4  Ga.  App.  407. 

Iowa. — Dant  &  Co.  v.  Northwestern 
Union  Packet  Co.,  34  Iowa  588. 

Kentucky. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  McDon- 
ald   (Ky.),   1    Bush    32. 
.  South    Carolina. — Catlctt    v.    Charleston, 
etc..  Railway,  62  S.  E.  315,  81  S.  C.  327. 

Texas. — Houston,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Harry 

6  Bros..    63   Tex.    256. 

West  I'irginia. — Dresser  v.  West  Vir- 
ginia Transp.    Co.,   8  W.   Va.   553. 

Failure  to  deliver  draft. — The  liability 
of  a  common  carrier  who  has  undertaken 
to  carry  and  deliver  a  draft,  and  has 
failed  to  do  so,  arises  immediately  upon 
such  failure,  and  is  not  secondary  to  the 
liability     of     the     drawer     of     the     draft. 


Jones  V.  Wells,  Fargo   &  Co.,  28  Cal.  259. 

Under  the  Arkansas  statute  a  carrier, 
failing  to  deliver  goods  to  the  legal 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  on  his  sur- 
render thereof,  is  liable  to  him  for  the 
damages  sustained.  Kirby's  Dig.,  §§  530, 
531.  Arkansas  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Ger- 
man Nat.  Bank,  92  S.  W.  522,  77  Ark.  482, 
113  Am.  St.  Rep.  160. 

Part  of  goods  deliverable. — ^Where 
plaintiff's  goods,  while  in  the  possession 
of  defendant,  a  carrier,  for  transporta- 
tion, were  stolen,  but  part  of  them  were 
found  by  the  police  and  deposited  with 
the  property  clerk,  defendant  was  not 
thereby  relieved  of  his  obligation  to  de- 
liver such  part;  he  having  an  adequate 
right  to  recover  them.  Heyman  v.  Stry- 
ker,  121  N.  Y.  S.  592,  67  Misc.  Rep.  88. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  an 
express  company  for  refusal  to  deliver  a 
coop  of  chickens  on  a  certain  date,  a 
verdict  for  defendant  was  unwarranted; 
it  appearing  that  its  driver,  on  being  re- 
quested by  plaintiff's  wife  to  carry  the 
coop  through  a  side  gate,  only  10  feet 
awaj',  instead  of  through  the  front  gate, 
indignantly  threw  the  coop  back  into  the 
wagon,  without  looking  to  see  where  the 
side  gate  was,  saying  that  he  would  not 
carry  it  anywhere,  and  that  defendant's 
agent,  on  being  informed  of  the  driver's 
conduct,  ratified  the  same.  Gary  v. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  40   S.   W.  845. 

A  common  carrier  who  undertook  to 
transport  freight  by  steamer  to  a  desig- 
nated point,  but  terminated  his  voyage  at 
an  intermediate  port,  and  reshipped  such 
freight  on  the  steamer  of  another  carrier, 
was  liable  to  the  owner  for  its  loss, 
where  the  second  carrier  could  not  find 
the  consignee  at  the  place  where  the 
freight  was  to  be  delivered,  and,  because 
there  was  no  safe  place  of  storage  there, 
returned  it  to  the  port  where  the  reship- 
ment  was  made,  and  there  stored  it  in  a 
proper  warehouse,  which,  with  the 
freiglit,  was  soon  after  accidentally  de- 
stroyed by  fire.  Green,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Marshall.  48  Ind.  596. 

10.  Cox.  etc.,  Co.  f.  Peterson,  30  Ala. 
608,  68  Am.  Dec.  145. 


;i3 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DIvLIVKKV    15V    CARRIF.K. 


836 


on  demancr  without  lawful  excuse,  is  a  breach  of  the  carrier's  original  contract, 
for  which   suit  may  he  brought  on  that  contract." 

Liability  as  for  Conversion. — The  wrongful  failure  or  refusal  of  the  car- 
rier U)  deliver  goods  after  iliey  have  arrived  at  their  destination,  on  demand, 
constitutes  a  conversion  fur  which  the  carrier  is  liable.'-  And  the  rightful 
owner  may  recover  for  such  conversion,  if  entitled  to  possession  at  the  time  of 
his  demand,  though  he  was  a  stranger  to  the  contract  of  bailment.^'*  But  if  the 
refusal  to  deliver  is  qualified,  and  the  qualification  is  reasonable  and  made  in 
good  faith,  there  is  no  conversion.'^  A  carrier  is  liable  for  conversion  when  it 
fails  or  refuses  to  deliver  gotxls,  without  lawful  excuse,  in  accordance  with  the 


11.  Breach  of  contract. — Wilson  z'.  Cal- 
ifornia Cent.  R.  Co..  'J4  Cal.  KU),  29  Pac. 
801.  17   L.   R.  A.  685. 

12.  Liability  as  for  conversion. — Geor- 
ff/a.— Bird  v.  Georj^ia  Railroad,  72  Ga. 
f)")"};  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  lienson,  80 
Ga.  20;i,  12  S.  E.  3.)7.  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  440; 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Fant  Fish  Co.,  12 
Ga.  App.  447,  78  S.  E.  197. 

Kcntttckv. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lawson,  88  Ky.  496.  11  S.  W.  511;  Jei- 
fersonville  R.  Co.  v.  White  (Ky.),  6  Bush 
251. 

Missouri.  —  Locfflcr  v.  Keokuk,  etc.. 
Packet  Co..  7  Mo.  .Vpp.  185. 

Nebraska.  —  Shellenberg  v.  Fremont, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  45  Nel).  487,  6:5  N.  W.  s:,;), 
50  Am.  St.  Rep.  501. 

Nczv  York.  —  Clement  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Hun  043,  9  N.  Y.  S.  001. 
30  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  713;  Judah  v.  Kemp,  2 
Johns.  Cas.  411;  McEntee  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  34,  0  Am. 
Rep.  28. 

Oklalwma.— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dunham.  30  Okla.  724,  129  Pac.  802. 

Texas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heid- 
enhcimer,  82  Tex.  195,  17  S.  \V.  008; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Humphries,  4  Tex. 
Civ.   .\pp.   333.  330,  23   S.   W.   550. 

Refusal  to  deliver  to  consignee  holding 
original  bill  on  tender  of  charges  entered 
thereon  constitutes  a  conversion.  South- 
ern Fxp.  Co.  7'.  Fant  Im'sIi  Co.,  12  Ga. 
.\pp.    14  7,    78    S.    E.    197. 

Imposition  of  unreasonable  condition. 
— The  refusal  to  deliver  the  goods  ex- 
cept upon  an  unreasonable  condition  is 
equivalent  to  an  absolute  refusal  to  de- 
liver. LoefHer  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  Packet 
Co.,  7   Mo.   .\pp.    185. 

Refusal  to  trace  goods. — If  no  notice  is 
given  of  the  arrival  of  goods  as  required 
by  custom,  and  by  reason  of  such  failure 
the  owner  and  consignee,  acting  on  the 
belief  that  the  goods  are  lost,  asks  the 
carrier  to  trace  them,  which  he  refuses 
to  do,  such  request  and  refusal  are  equiv- 
alent to  demand  for  the  goods  and  re- 
fusal to  deliver,  and  the  carrier  is  liable. 
Herf,  etc..  Chemical  Co.  ,-.  Lackawana 
Line,  70  Mo.  App.  274. 

Effect  of  act  of  God. — Where  goods 
shipped    do    not    reacli    the    point    of    des- 

1    Car— 33 


tination,  the  carrier  is  guilty  of  conver- 
sion and  liable  for  their  value,  except 
where  an  act  of  God  intervenes.  Wil- 
liamson &  Co.  T'.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),   i:i8   S.   W.  s()7. 

Conversion  by  receivers  under  order  of 
court. — The  receipt  of  the  goods  for 
traiispfjrtation  and  the  subsequent  al- 
leged conversion  being  shown  to  have 
l)een  committed  by  receivers  who  oper- 
ated a  steamship  line  under  orders  of  the 
court  which  appointed  them,  and  the  evi- 
dence in  no  way  connecting  defendant 
company  with  either  the  receipt,  the 
transportation,  or  the  conversion,  a  ver- 
dict finding  damages  against  the  latter 
for  such  conversion  should  have  been  set 
aside.  Ocean  Steamship  Co.  f.  Wilder, 
33  S.  E.  179,  107  Ga.  220. 

The  captain's  unwillingness  to  carry 
the  goods  to  the  place  designated  l)y  the 
consignee  at  the  landing,  even  if  sus- 
tained by  the  contract  between  him  and 
the  consignee,  did  not  afford  good 
ground  for  not  landing  the  goods  and 
tendering  them  to  the  consignee,  to  be 
delivered  on  payment  of  the  freight. 
The  Red  River.  30  So.  303.  100  La.  42, 
87  Am.  St.  Rep.  293. 

Though  there  was  error  in  the  con- 
tract of  shipment,  by  which  the  master 
liound  himself  to  place  the  goods  on  the 
levee,  he  had  no  right  to  retain  the 
good^  on  board  and  leave  the  place  of 
the  goods'  destination.  The  Red  River, 
30  So.  303,  106  La.  42,  87  Am.  St.  Rep. 
293. 

Agent  individually  liable. — A  railroad 
agent,  under  ortlers  from  the  superin- 
tendent to  deliver  no  goods  consigned 
to  persons  who  had  abandoned  the  coun- 
try and  gone  into  the  federal  lines,  re- 
fused to  deliver  goods  to  the  order  of 
such  a  consignee.  It  was  held,  a  conver- 
sion for  which  the  agent  was  individually 
liable.  Elmore  v.  Brooks,  53  Tenn.  (6 
Heisk.)   45. 

13.  Shellenberg  :•.  Fremont,  etc..  R. 
Co..  45  Neb.  487,  63  N.  W.  859,  50  Am. 
St.    Rep.   501. 

14.  Qualified  refusal  to  deliver. — LoefF- 
Ter  r.  Keokuk,  etc..  Packet  Co.,  7  Mo. 
App.  185;  McEntee  v.  New  Jersey  Steam- 
boat Co.,  45   N.  Y.  34,  6  Am.   Rep.  28. 


§  836 


CARRIIJRS. 


514 


shipper's  orders, ^^  or  sells  them.i'^  or  stores  them  at  destination  as  its  own,^" 
or  transports  them  to  another  place  to  prevent  their  coming  to  the  possession 
of  the  consignee. ^'^  Refusal  to  deliver  goods  to  one  not  entitled  to  receive  theni,^-* 
or  placing  them  in  a  private  warehouse,  at  the  expense  of  the  owner,  without 
giving  him  notice  of  arrival,-'*  or  retaining  them  on  board  where  there  is  no  safe 
place  for  storage,-^  or  transferring  them  from  a  sealed  car  into  another  for  the 
carrier's  convenience,--  does  not  amount  to  a  conversion.  The  mere  showing 
of  a  breach  of  contract  of  transportation,  as  a  bare  omission  to  deliver  goods, 
may  not  prove  conversion. -'"^  And  a  failure  to  deliver  goods,  if  they  have  been 
lost  when  demand  is  made,  will  not  constitute  a  conversion,  though  the  loss  was 
caused  by  negligence,-'*  or  it  was  negligence  to  fail  to  deliver  before  such  loss.^^ 
Where  a  carrier  omits  for  an  unreasonable  time  to  deliver  property,  and  then 
offers  to  deliver  it,  the  owner  can  not  refuse  to  receive  it,  and  proceed  against 
the  carrier  for  its  conversion,  though  the  latter  is  liable  for  damages  for  the 
delay.2^* 


15.  Refusal  to  deliver  in  accordance 
with  instructions. — Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Schriver,  84  Pac.  119,  72  Kan.  550,  4  L. 
R.  A..  N.  S.,  1056. 

Effect  of  claim  of  third  person. — 
\\'here  a  carrier  has  received  a  car  load 
of  goods  for  transportation  according  to 
shipper's  order,  the  claim  of  a  third  per- 
son to  them  will  not  justify  the  carrier 
in  withholding  the  delivery  according  to 
such  order.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Schriver,  84  Pac.  119,  72  Kan.  550,  4  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1056. 

16.  Sale  of  goods. — Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Langdon,  84  Atl.  473,   118  Md.  268. 

A  vessel  having  on  board  a  cargo  of 
flour  for  transportation  capsized  at  her 
wharf  before  sailing,  and  the  cargo  was 
much  damaged.  The  carriers  mignt  eas- 
ily have  communicated  with  the  owners 
of  the  cargo,  and  sought  instructions  as 
to  the  disposal  of  it;  but  they  neglected 
to  do  so,  and  sold  the  cargo  upon  their 
own  authority,  at  auction,  after  which 
the  vessel  sailed,  and  in  due  time  arrived 
at  the  port  of  delivery.  Held,  that  the 
sale  of  the  flour,  under  these  circum- 
stances, was  an  unlawful  conversion  by 
the  carrier.  The  Joshua  Barker,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,547,  Abb.  Adm.  215. 

17.  Storing  goods  as  it's  own. — If  a 
carrier,  employed  to  convey  cotton  to 
market,  and  instructed  to  sell  at  a  cer- 
tain price,  or  store  it,  without  any  stipu- 
lation as  to  payment  of  freight,  stores 
the  cotton  as  his  own  without  demanding 
charges  from  the  consignee  or  warehouse- 
man, it  is  a  conversion.  Blair  v.  Jeffries 
(S.  C),  Dud.  59. 

18.  Diversion  of  goods. — Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  O'Donnf^H,  4!)  O.  St.  489. 
32  N.  E.  476,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34 
Am.  St.  Rep.  579. 

19.  Refusal  to  deliver  to  one  not  enti- 
tled.— Where  one  owning  6,000  tons  of 
iron  ore  which  was  stored  on  a  railroafl» 
dock  gave  an  order  to  the  railroad  com- 
pany to  deliver  3,500  tons  to  a  furnace 
company,  and  the  furnace  company  did 
not    take     possession    nor     separate    the 


3,500  tons  from  the  other  ore,  and  the 
owner,  having  learned  that  the  furnace 
company  was  financially  embarrassed, 
gave  orders  to  the  railroad  company  to 
deliver  to  other  persons,  which  orders 
were  honored,  the  furnace  company 
never  acquired  title  to  the  ore,  and  could 
not  maintain  an  action  of  trover  and  con- 
version against  the  railroad  company. 
vStaake  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  80  Atl. 
1102,  231   Pa.  466. 

20.  Placing  goods  in  warehouse. — 
Rome  R.  Co.  c'.  Sullivan,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Ga. 
277. 

21.  Retaining  goods  on  boat. — The 
Hattie  Palmer,  68  Fed.  380,  15  C.  C.  A. 
479. 

22.  Goods  were  sent  by  a  sealed  car  to 
he  delivered  unljroken  at  the  place  of 
destination.  The  railroad  company  on 
the  way  opened  the  car  and  transferred 
the  goods  to  another.  The  owner  re- 
fused to  receive  them  and  brought  tro- 
ver. Held,  that  if  the  goods  are  removed 
for  the  convenience  of  the  carrier,  and 
are  afterwards  delivered  without  loss  of 
quantity  and  without  injury,  the  carrier 
would  not  be  liable  in  trover.  Tucker  v. 
Housatonic  R.   Co.,  39  Conn.  447. 

23.  Bare  Omission  to  Deliver. — Taug- 
her  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  N.  Dak. 
Ill,  129  N.  W.  747.  See  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Barnett,  190  Fed.  118,  111  C.  C.  A. 
158. 

A  failure  by  a  carrier  to  tender  goods 
at  the  place  of  destination  is  not  per  se  a 
conversion.  Way  v.  Dennie,  174  Mass. 
43,    54    N.    E.    347. 

24.  Goods  lost  before  demand. — Mag- 
nin  V.  Dinsmore,  70  N.  Y.  410,  26  Am. 
Rep.  608;  Taughcr-^'.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  21  N.  Dak.  Ill,  129  N.  W.  747.  See 
Goldbowitz  V.  Metropolitan  Exp.  Co.,  91 
N.  Y.  S.  318. 

25.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Sinclair,  130 
Oa.   372,   60   S.    E.   840. 

26.  Unreasonable  delay. — United  States. 
— See  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barnett,  190 
Fed.   118,  111   C.   C.  A.  158. 

Iowa. — Clark     v.     American     Exp.     Co., 


515 


TKANSrOKTATIOX   AND   DIvLIVKRV    i;Y    CAKRIF,R. 


§  836 


Goods  Lost  after  Failure  to  Deliver  on  Demand. — W  here  the  carrier,  on 
demand  oi  the  consi^niec,  refnses  to  deliver  the  goods  without  a  sufficient  excuse, 
it  is  liable  for  their  suhseciuent  loss.-'  And  where  a  consignee  is  erroneously 
informed  by  an  agent  of  the  carrier  that  the  goods  have  not  arrived,  whereby 
he  fails  to  get  them,  and  they  are  lost  or  destroyed,  the  failure  to  deliver  is  such 
negligence  as  will  render  the  carrier  liable.-'*     lUit  where  the  consignee  is  subse- 


106   N.    VV.   642.   130    Iowa   254. 

Nezi'  Jersey. — Higgins  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  83  N.  J.  L.  398.  85  Atl.  450. 

New  ForA'.— Scovill  v.  Griffith,  12  N. 
Y.  509. 

Toniessce.—UMnois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  94  S.  W.  600,  116  Tenn.  624. 

r^.raj.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Everett,  37 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  167,  83  S.  W.  257;  Bauni- 
back  r.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co..  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
650,  23  S.  W.  693;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Tyler  Coffin  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  81 
S.  \V.  826;  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  7'.  Han- 
son. 41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  174.  91  S.  W.  321. 

West  I'irgiitia. — Ryland  v.  Chesapeake, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  S.   E.  923,  55   W.  Va.   181. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
conversion  of  certain  goods,  in  which  no 
demand  on  the  carrier  for  the  goods  and 
refusal  on  its  part  were  shown,  and  in 
which  it  appeared  that  defendant  still 
had  the  goods  in  its  possession,  a  tender 
of  them  was  a  defense  to  the  action.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Tyler  Coffin  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  826. 

Where  the  agent  of  the  carrier, 
through  inadvertence,  erroneously  states 
that  goods  have  not  arrived,  but  later  the 
owner  refuses  to  receive  them,  the  fail- 
ure to  deliver  is  not  a  conversion.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Campbell,  54  Tenn. 
(7   Heisk.)   253. 

September  11th  the  carrier's  agent  no- 
tified the  consignee  that  a  box  of  goods 
had  arrived  for  him.  The  consignee  on 
the  next  day  gave  a  drayman  an  order  to 
get  the  goods.  The  drayman  called  on 
the  agent,  and  paid  the  freight,  and,  with 
a  receipt  therefor,  demanded  the  goods 
of  an  employee  of  the  carrier,  who,  the 
drayman  testified,  told  him  the  goods 
were  short,  and  that  he  would  take  stens 
to  find  them.  The  evidence  tended  to 
show  that  thereafter  the  consignee  de- 
manded the  goods,  and  that  the  carrier 
having  the  consignee's  receipt  for  the 
goods  exhibited  it  to  him;  that  about 
three  months  thereafter  the  goods  were 
found  in  the  carrier's  depot,  where  they 
had  been  all  the  time,  and  were  tendered 
to  the  consignee,  who  refused  to  receive 
them.  In  an  action  by  the  consignee 
against  the  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver 
the  goods,  the  court  instructed  the  jury 
that,  if  they  found  for  plaintiff  at  all,  they 
must  find  the  value  of  the  goods.  Held 
error,  as  the  court  could  not,  as  a  matter 
of  law,  say  there  had  been  a  conversion. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lawson,  9  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  681. 

27.  Goods   lost   after    failure    to    deliver 


on    demand. —  Louisville,    etc..     R.    Co.    v. 
McCuirr,  79   .\la.   395. 

Act  of  God. — A  carrier  is  liable  fur 
goods  lost  by  the  act  of  God  after  its  re- 
fusal to  deliver  to  the  consignee  on  pres- 
entation of  the  bill  of  lading,  though  the 
goods  were  marked  by  number  only,  and 
the  delivery  was  refused  because  the 
waybill  giving  the  name  of  the  consignee 
had  not  been  received  when  the  demand 
was  made,  and  the  contract  exempted  the 
carrier  from  liability  for  wrong  carriage 
*or  delivery  of  goods  marked  by  initials 
or  numbers.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Benson,  86  Ga.  203,  12  S.  E.  357,  22  .\m. 
St.   Rep.  446. 

28.  United  States.— Centrdi]  Trust  Co. 
r.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Fed. 
764. 

Indiana. — Jeffersonville  R.  Co.  v.  Cot- 
ton. 29  Ind.  498,  95  .\m.  Dec.  6'>6. 

Kansas. — Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Moyer, 
40  Kan.  184.  19  Pac.  639,  10  Am.  St.  Rep. 
183. 

Massachusetts.  —  Stevens  v.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad   (Mass.),  1  Gray  277. 

Xebraska. — Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Arms,  15  Neb.  69.  17  N.  W.  351. 

Tennessee. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Kelly,  91  Tenn.  699.  20  S.  W.  312. 
17  L.  R.  A.  691;  S.  C,  91  Tenn.  708,  20  S. 
W.   314. 

Wisconsin. — Meyer  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  24  Wis.  566.   1  .\m.  Rep.  207. 

Illustrations. — .\  bill  of  lading  for 
hams  provided  that  the  railroad  company 
carrying  them  should  not  be  liable  for 
the  hams  while  at  a  station  awaif'ng  de- 
livery, and  that  they  should  be  delivered 
during  business  hours.  The  hams 
reached  the  station  of  their  destination 
on  Thursday.  The  consignee  inquired 
for  them  Thursday  and  Friday,  and  was 
told  that  they  had  not  arrived.  He  was 
notified  of  their  arrival  at  5.30  Saturday 
p.  m..  and  removed  them  Monday  a.  m. 
They  were  found  to  have  been  damaged 
bv  lieat.  Held,  that  the  company  was  li- 
able. McKinney  z:  Jewett,  90  N.  Y.  267. 
affirming  24  Hun  19. 

Where  goods  were  plainly  marked.  "J. 
Weil  &  Bros."  but  the  station  agent  en- 
tered them  on  the  waybill  as  for  "T.  Weil 
&  Co.,"  and  when  the  messengers  of  J. 
Weil  &  Bros,  called  for  the  goods,  they 
were  told  that  there  was  nothing  for 
them,  and  the  mistake  was  not  discov- 
ered until  the  goods  were  destroyed  by 
fire,  it  was  held  that  the  carrier  was  li- 
able. Meyer  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24 
Wis.   566,   1    .\m.   Rep.  207. 


§§  836-837 


CARRIERS. 


516 


quently  notified  that  the  goods  have  arrived,  in  ample  time  to  remove  them  be- 
fore the  loss,  he  can  not  recover  their  value  on  the  ground  of  conversion.-^ 

Right  of  Consignee  Who  Has  Refused  Goods.— Though  the  consignee  has 
refused,  under  a  mistake,  to  receive  goods  from  a  carrier,  he  may  maintain  an 
action  for  a  refusal  to  deliver  them  upon  his  suhseciuent  demand,  when  they 
are  still  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier,  and  no  other  rights  have  intervened.=^"_ 

Effect  of  Settlement  with  Consignee.— In  case  of  unqualified  consignment 
of  propertv,  the  carrier  has  the  right  to  assume  that  the  consignee  is  the  own§r, 
and  to  settle  a  claim,  for  damages  for  the  nondelivery  of  property  with  him.^^^ 

§  837.  Excuse  for  Nondelivery  in  General. — What  Excuses.— A  car- 
rier may  show  as  an  excuse  for  nondelivery  that  the  goods  were  seized  under 
valid  legal  process.-"^-  or  were  delivered  to  the  true  owner,-'-'  or  that  the  shipper 
wrongfully  obtained  the  goods  from  the  true  o\vner,-'-t  or  that  the  goods  were 
the  carrier's  own  property,^^"'  or  that  consignor  had  properly  exercised  his  right 
of  stoppage  in  transitu,-"^"  or  that  the  delivery  was  prohibited  by  law,^"  or  the 
proper  authorities,^'^  or  that  the  contract  of  carriage  was  illegal,-''^  or  that  de- 
livery was  prevented  bv  the  act  of  God^"  or  the  public  enemy.^i 

What  Does  Not  Excuse.— Nondelivery  by  a  carrier  of  goods  shipped  is  not 
excused  by  obstructions  and  difficulties  that  should  have  been  foreseen,42  qj. 
by  the  fact  that  the  goods  were  stolen,-*  =*  or  were  partially  injured  by  the  act  of 


29.  Williams  r.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal 
Co..  .53  Hun  635.  6  N.  Y.  S.  36,  25  N.  Y. 
St.  Rep.  518,  3   Silvernail   19. 

30.  Right  of  consignee  who  has  re- 
fused goods. — Bacharacli  z\  Chester 
Freight   Line,   133   Pa.  414,   19   Atl.  409. 

31.  Effect  of  settlement  with  consignee. 
— Scammon  r.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  84 
Cal.  311,  24  Pac.  284. 

32.  Seizure  under  legal  process. — As  to 
seizure  under  legal  process  as  excusing 
delivery,  see  post,  "Goods  Seized  under 
Legal    Process,"    §§   870-874. 

33.  Delivery  to  true  owner. — The 
Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L.  Ed.  978.  See 
post,   "Actual   Owner,"   §   856. 

Whether  the  shipper  obtained  posses- 
sion by  fraud,  or  whether  he  honestly 
supposed  he  had  a  right  to  the  property 
is  immaterial.  The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575, 
23   L.   Ed.  978. 

Liability  to  holder  of  bill  of  lading. — 
That  goods  were  taken  from  the  carrier 
by  one  from  whom  the  consignor  ob- 
tained them  without  paying  the  price  is 
a  good  defense  to  an  action  by  an  in- 
dorsee of  a  bill  of  lading  to  recover  of 
the  carrier  for  nondelivery,  as  the  seller's 
title  was  paramount  to  that  of  the  con- 
signor. National  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342,  20  Am. 
St.   Rep.   566,  9   L.   R.  A.,   N.    S.,   263. 

34.  Bates  v.  Stanton,  8  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  79. 

35.  Valentine  v.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  79 
N.  E.  849,  187  N.  Y.  121,  reversing  92  N. 
Y.    S.    045.    102   App.    Div.   419. 

36.  Stoppage  in  transitu.  —  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195, 
17  S.  W.  608.  See  post,  "Stoppage  in 
Transitu,"  chapter  17. 

37.  Delivery  prohibited  by  law. —  Pat- 
ron V.  Silva,   1   La.  275. 


Where  other  goods  illegal. — If  ship- 
per's goods  may  legally  enter  the  port, 
the  fact  that  they  are  on  board  other 
goods  which,  if  landed,  would  expose  the 
ship  to  seizure,  does  not  excuse  the  car- 
rier's failure  to  deliver.  Fernandez  v. 
Silva,   1   La.  269. 

38.  A  carrier  was  excused  for  refusing 
to  deliver  a  shipment  of  bananas  to  the 
consignee,  where,  upon  its  arrival,  the 
carrier  was  notified  by  the  chief  of  po- 
lice not  to  deliver,  and  that  the  consignee 
would  not  be  allowed  to  unload  and  dis- 
tribute it,  if  delivered;  the  chief  of  police 
acting  under  instructions  from  a  sanitary 
commission  created  by  an  ordinance  es- 
tablishing a  quarantine  against  all  ba- 
nanas from  New  Orleans,  though  the  par- 
ticular shipment  was  made  from  Mobile. 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tirelli,  93  Miss. 
797,  48  So.  962,  17  Am.  &  Eng.  Cas.  879, 
21   L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  731. 

39.  Contract  of  carriage  illegal.— A 
shipper  of  coin  and  bullion  from  Mexico 
to  Texas,  during  the  Civil  War,  in  vio- 
lation of  the  proclamation  of  the  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  can  not  re- 
cover of  the  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver 
it.     Cantu  ?•.  Bennett,  39  Tex.  303. 

40.  Act  of  God. — Williamson  &  Co.  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  138 
S.  W.  807;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clellan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83.  See 
post,  "Loss  of  or  Injury  to  Goods," 
chapter  12. 

41.  Act  of  pubic  enemy. — Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  McClellan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep. 
83.  See  post,  "Loss  of  or  Injury  to 
Goods,"   chapter   12. 

42.  What  does  not  excuse. — Berje  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  La.  Ann.  468. 

43.  Where  goods  stolen. — Perkins  v. 
Chautauqua   Tract.    Co.,    137    N.   Y.    S.   80, 


517 


TRAXSl'ORTATIOX    AND   DKIJVKKV    15V    CARRIER. 


§  837 


God,^*^  or  because  they  were  piled  beneath  other  goods,'*-''  or  because  the  carrier 
failed  to  have  a  waybill  for  theni.^''  It  does  not  avail  a  carrier  which  has  con- 
verted goods  of  a  consignee  that  the  consignee  had  not  paid  for  them,-*"  or  that 
the  conversion  was  thrcjugh  an  honest  mistake, ''■■*  or  that  the  shipper  may  have 
been  negligent  in  marking  the  goods,-*"  or  that  the  consignee  knew  that  the  bill 
of  lading  fraudulent!}-  stated  the  weight  of  the  goods  at  less  than  it  was.  and 
did  not  notify  the  carrier  thereof. •''"  And  it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for  con- 
version against  the  carrier  that  by  mistake  it  delivered  the  goods  to  a  third  per- 
son, and  that  it  offered  to  deliver  to  the  consignee  other  goods  of  equal  value,-"'' 
or  that  the  consignee  refused  to  accept  a  tender  of  the  goods  made  after  the  ex- 
piration of  the  time  during  which  he  agreed  to  extend  the  period  of  delivery. •'"'- 
A  carrier  can  not  set  up  title  in  another  as  a  reason  for  refusing  to  deliver  the 
goods  to  the  shipper  or  consignee.-'''^'  A  carrier  is  not  excused  for  nondelivery  of 
money  consigned  to  a  bank  because  the  bank  was  closed  when  he  arrived,  and, 
on  failing  to  tind  the  cashier  after  going  to  his  house  twice,  he  brought  the  money 
back  to  the  consignor,  who  refused  to  receive  it.-'-*  The  master  of  a  vessel,  who 
delivers  most  of  the  goods  mentioned  in  the  bill  of  lading  to  plaintitY,  who  claims 
as  the  transferee  of  the  bill,  can  not  object,  when  sued  for  the  rest,  that  the  bill 
has  not  been  assigned  to  him.-"-"'  A  carrier  can  not  refuse  to  deliver  to  consignees, 
who  have  purchased  and  shipped  goods  for  their  principal,  though  he  has  failed 
and  assigned  the  goods  for  the  benefit  of  his  creditors."" 


7(j  Misc.  Rep.  307.  See  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  O'Donnell.  49  O.  St.  489.  'A2  N. 
E.  476,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579,  21  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S..  117. 

44.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harn,  44 
Te.x.   623. 

45.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  Z'.  McGuire, 
79  Ala.  ;i9.-). 

46.  Bovvdon  z:  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
So.   294,    148   Ala.   29. 

47.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Rotter  Bros. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  104  S.  W.  402. 

48.  Frazier  f.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
104  Mo.  App.  355,  78  S.  W.  679.  See  Cle- 
ment z:  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Hun 
643.  9  N.  Y.  S.  601,  30  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  713. 

49.  Downing  v.  Outerbridge,  79  Fed. 
931,  25   C.  C.  A.  244. 

50.  Wiggin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120 
Mass.  201. 

51.  Clement  v.  New  York.  etc..  R.  Co., 
.■■)()  Hun  643,  9  N.  Y.  S.  601,  30  X.  Y.  St. 
Rep.    713. 

52.  Hamilton  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
103    Iowa   32.-),   72    X.    W.    .-)3C). 

53.  Estoppel  to  set  up  title  in  another. 
— Rosenficld  v.  Express  Co.,  Ked.  Cas. 
No.  12,or)0.  1  Woods  131.  Perkins  z: 
Chautauqua  Tract.  Co.,  137  N.  Y.  S.  80, 
76  Misc.    Rep.  307. 

Illustrations. — Where  one.  without  title 
ti)  goods,  delivers  them  to  a  carrier,  on 
whom  he  afterwards  gives  plaintiff  an  or- 
der for  them,  and  the  carrier  accepts  the 
order,  and  receives  the  charges  for 
freight,  in  an  action  of  detinue  against 
the  carrier  for  refusal  to  deliver  the 
goods  the  carrier  is  estopped  to  show 
that  the  goods  belonged  to  a  third  per- 
son. Young  z:  East  Alabama  R.  Co.,  80 
Ala.  100. 

The     fact     that    a     third    person     claims 


goods  shipped  to  the  shipper's  order,  and 
represents  to  the  carrier  that  he  expects 
to  be  able  to  arrive  at  an  understanding 
with  the  shipper  within  a  few  days,  will 
not  justify  the  carrier  in  withholding  de- 
livery according  to  the  shipper's  order. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schriver,  84  Pac. 
119,  72  Kan.  550,  4  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S..  1056. 
A  vendee  of  goods  delivered  them  to  a 
carrier  for  shiptnent.  The  vendor 
claimed  that  the  wrong  goods  had  been 
delivered,  and  induced  the  carrier  to 
change  the  shipment  for  his  account,  so 
that  the  goods  were  never  delivered  to 
the  vendee.  In  an  action  by  the  vendee 
against  the  carrier,  the  latter  offered  to 
prove  that  the  vendor  had  been  indebted 
to  the  vendee,  and  had  sold  the  goods  on 
account,  and  that  subsequently  to  the 
shipment  the  account  had  been  settled, 
the  goods  in  question  deducted,  and  the 
balance  paid.  Held  inadmissible,  as  the 
carrier  could  not  thus  dispute  the  title 
of  the  vendee  to  the  goods.  Patterson 
:.   Moore,  34   Pa.  69. 

54.  Merwin   z:   Butler,   17   Conn.    138. 

55.  Tracy  z:  Storer,  5   La.  366. 

56.  Jordan,  etc..  Co.  z:  James.  5  O.  88. 
wlierein  the  facts  were:  Commission 
merchants  agreed  in  Boston  with  P.  to 
purcliase  and  ship  for  him  and  on  his 
notes  goods  to  themselves  in  Cincinnati, 
to  be  sold  on  commission.  They  made 
the  purchase,  shipped  the  goods  to  New 
Orleans  charged  with  the  freight,  an-i 
paid  the  insurance.  .At  Xew  Orleans  the 
goods  were  reshipped  to  them  at  Cin- 
cinnati, and  tliey  were  charged  with  the 
freight  from  Boston.  On  the  way  the 
freighters  received  the  goods  from  them 
to  a  new  destination  and  issued  a  new 
bill  of  lading. 


§§  838-839 


carrie:rs. 


518 


§  838.  Right  to  Require  Receipt  before  Delivery.— The  carrier  may  de- 
mand a  recciin  for  the  goods  from  the  consignee  before  deUvering  them  to  him.^" 
And  the  carrier  is  not  bonnd  to  take  receipts  for  them,  part  by  part,  as  they  are 
taken  away,  bnt  may  require  a  receipt  for  the  whole  before  delivering  any.^*^ 
The  reasonableness  of  a  regulation  of  a  carrier  as  to  receipts  for  goods  is  a  ques- 
tion of  law,  whenever,  upon  the  particular  facts  found,  the  court  can  pronounce 
upon  its  legal  efifect  by  the  application  of  any  rules  of  law.^^ 

§  839.  Requiring-  Proof  of  Right  to  Goods. — As  carriers  are  bound  to 
deliver  property  to  the  persons  entitled,  at  their  peril,«o  they  will  be  protected  in 
refusing  to  deliver  until  they  have  had  an  opportunity  to  determine  whether  the 
person  demanding  the  property  is  entitled  to  receive  it.^i  But  the  rule  of  a  car- 
rier that  consignees  must  be  identified,  has  no  application  to  a  consignee  of  goods 
not  delivered  nt  their  destination,  and  ordered  back  to  their  place  of  shipment, 
so  as  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  its  refusal  to  deliver  to  him  without 


57.  Right  to  require  receipt  before  de- 
livery.—Dwycr  r.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co..  69 
Tex.  707,  709,  7  S.  W.  i>Oi\  Skinner  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Tex.  707,  709. 
7  S.  W.  504;  Skinner  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  12  Iowa  191,  holding 
that  a  consignee  can  not  maintain  replevin 
against  the  carrier  on  its  refusal  to  sur- 
render the  goods  without  a  receipt,  recit- 
ing that  the  goods  were  in  good  order, 
where  it  did  not  refuse  to  give  him_  a 
chance  to  examine  them  before  executing 
such  receipt. 

58.  Unreasonable  regulation  as  to  re- 
ceipt.— Defendant,  a  railroad  company,  in 
the  regular  course  of  its  business  of  carrying 
wheat  for  plaintiff,  weighed  the  same 
into  a  delivery  bin  at  its  elevator,  where 
it  was  consigned,  from  which  it  could  be 
spouted  into  wagons  or  sacks  at  the  con- 
signee's pleasure;  but  by  a  regulation  the 
consignee  was  required,  before  taking  the 
same  from  the  bin,  or  before  he  could 
ascertain,  except  from  the  statements  of 
the  defendant,  whether  the  same  was 
correct,  to  receipt  for  the  wheat  as 
weighed  into  such  delivery  bin.  Held, 
that  such  regulation  was,  as  matter  of 
law,  unreasonable  and  void.  Christian  t'. 
First  Division,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  21, 
Gil.  12. 

59.  Question  of  law. — Christian  v. 
First  Division,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Minn.  21, 
Gil.   12. 

60.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ■<^  Pumph- 
rey,  .59  Md.  .'590.  See  post,  "Misdelivery," 
§§  858-866. 

61.  Requiring  proof  of  right  to  goods. 
— Georgia. — Bass   v.    Glover,   63    Ga.   745. 

Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pumphrey,  59  Md.  .390. 

New  York. — McEntee  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  .34,  6  Am. 
Rep.  28. 

Texas. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fowler,  12 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  683,  34  S.  W.  661. 

A  carrier  is  not  bound  to  accept  the 
statement  of  a  consignee  that  he  is  the 
owner,  as  true.     But  it  is  the   consignee's 


duty  to  furnish  the  evidence  of  his  right 
to  receive  the  shipment.  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Fowler,  12  Tex.  Civ.  .App.  683,  34 
S.  W.  661,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  661,  684, 
no  op. 

The  carrier  has  a  right  to  require  the 
most  unquestionable  proof  of  the  identity 
of  the  person  seeking  to  have  a  delivery 
made  to  him.  Moore  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  48  S.  E.  887,  103  Va.  189;  Sellers 
V.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Ga.  386,  51 
S.  E.  398. 

A  carrier  is  not  bound  to  forward  goods 
to  a  person  who  claims  to  be  the  con- 
signee, if  they  are  not  accompanied  with 
any  instructions  or  bill  of  lading,  and  the 
claimant  produces  no  authority  from  the 
consignor  for  their  delivery,  although  they 
are  marked  with  the  initials  of  the  claim- 
ant's name.  Finn  v.  Western  R.  Corp., 
102  Mass.  283. 

Where  parcels  are  defectively  addressed, 
a  refusal  to  deliver  them  to  a  person  not 
identifying  himself  as  the  consigjiee  or 
producing  any  evidence  of  title  to  the 
property,  coupled  with  an  offer  to  deliver 
if  such  title  or  authority  to  receive  them 
is  shown,  is  justified  by  the  duty  of  car- 
riers to  secure  delivery  to  the  proper  per- 
son. McEntee  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.  34,  6  Am.  Rep.  28. 

In  conversion  it  appeared  that  defend- 
ant carrier  received  a  horse  consigned  to 
"T.  &  W.,"  and  transported  it  to  the  point 
of  destination;  that  plaintiff  claimed  the 
shipment  was  to  himself,  and  demanded 
possession  of  the  horse;  that  defendant 
refused  to  deliver  it  till  it  had  some  evi- 
dence of  plaintiff's  right  to  receive  the 
horse,  and  used  all  reasonable  efforts  to 
ascertain  who  was  the  proper  consignee; 
that  plaintiff  never  furnished  any  evi- 
dence; and  that,  when  it  was  finally  de- 
termined to  whom  the  horse  should  be 
delivered,  he  refused  to  accept  the  liorse, 
and  pay  the  charges,  whereupon  defend- 
ant sold  it  at  public  auction.  Held,  that 
there  was  no  conversion  by  defendant. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Fowler,  12  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   683,  34   S.   W.   661. 


519 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DELIVERY    I5Y    CARRIER. 


§§    839-&40 


his  being  idcnlilied.''-  The  (lucstion  whether  llie  carrier  acted  in  good  faith,  in 
delaying  deHvery  to  ascertain  the  identity  of  the  consignee  is  for  the  jury .«=* 

§  840.  Requiring  Production  and   Surrender   of  Bill  of  Lading.— As. 

in  general,  a  l)ill  of  huluv^  is  a>higiialjle  by  the  c(jiisignee  and  sometimes  by  the 
consignor,  so  as  io  render  the  carrier  Hable  to  make  dehvery  to  the  assignee,"'"* 
where  a  bill  of  lading  covering  a  shipment  has  been  issued,  the  carrier  may  de- 
mand its  production  as  a  condition  precedent  to  making  delivery .«^  And  a  ship- 
per of  goods,  who  infonns  a  connecting  carrier  that  he  holds  bills  of  lading  for 
the  goods,  is  esto])ped  from  disi)Uting  the  fact.""  Where  a  shipment  is  consigned 
to  a  certain  city,  to  be  delivered  at  some  port  of  that  city  in  order  to  be  loaded  on 
vessels,  the  carrier  has  no  right,  in  the  absence  of  any  contract  on  the  subject, 
to  require  the  surrender  of  the  bills  of  lading  at  the  city  mentioned  before  the 
shipment  is  carried  to  a  port."'  In  Texas  it  is  held  that  a  railroad  company 
has  no  right  to  demand  surrender  of  bills  of  lading  as  a  condition  of  deliver)' 
of  the  goods  which  they  represent  to  a  consignee  who  tenders  charges  and  pro- 
duces the  bill  of  lading  for  inspection,  but  refuses  to  surrender  the  same;*'^ 
and  it  is  immaterial  that  there  is  a  general  custom  among  railroads  of  requiring 
the  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading."" 


62.  Thomas  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  .'50  Mo. 
A  pp.   ST). 

63.  Question  for  jury. — Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Pumphrey,  59  Md.  390. 

64.  Bass  7'.  Glover,  OH  Ga.  74.");  Dwyer 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  09  Tex.  707,  709,  7 
S.   W.   504. 

65.  Right  to  require  production  of  bill. 
—  Bass  ::  Glover,  0:i  Ga.  74.^,;  Sellers  r. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co..  12.3  Ga.  ;5,S6,  51  S. 
E.  398;  Kaufman  z\  Seaboard,  etc..  Rail- 
way, 10  Ga.  App.  248,  249,  73  S.  E.  592; 
Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  09  Tex.  707, 
7  S.  W.  504;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  91  S.  W.  1100,  judgment  reversed, 
in  100  Tex.  17,  93  S.  W.  431,  where  it  is 
held  that  the  carrier  would  clearly  have  this 
right  provided  it  had  any  good  reason  to 
doubt  the  consignee's  right  to  receive  the 
goods.  See  .\rkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Ger- 
man Nat.  Bank,  77  Ark.  482,  92  S.  W.  522. 
113  Am.  St.  Rep.  100;  Finn  z\  Western 
R.  Corp.,  102  Mass.  283;  Shepard  z:  Hein- 
ken,  32  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  525. 

A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  failure  to 
deliver  to  an  unidentified  consignee,  where 
he  fails  to  produce  the  bill  of  lading,  though 
he  may  offer  security.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
7'.  Freeman.  4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  240, 
10  S.   \V.   109. 

.\  shipper  of  goods  telegraphed  to  the 
connecting  carrier  that  he  held  the  bills 
of  lading,  and  that  no  delivery  should  be 
made  until  bills  of  lading  were  surren- 
dered. The  carrier  thereupon  refused  to 
deliver  the  goods.  Subsequently  the  ship- 
per wrote  a  letter,  addressed  to  the  con- 
necting carrier,  recalling  the  order  in  the 
telegram,  and  directing  a  delivery  without 
the  bills  of  lading.  The  consignee  pre- 
sented the  letter  to  the  carrier  at  its  of- 
fice at  the  place  of  destination.  Init  the 
carrier  refused  to  deliver  because  the  bills 
of  lading  were  imt  pro(lucefl.  but  deliv- 
ered   them    on    iinxluction    of    tiie    freiglit 


receipts.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was  jus- 
tified in  refusing  to  deliver,  and  therefore 
not  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the  damage 
to  the  goods  caused  by  the  delay  in  the 
delivery.  Schlichting  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  90   X.   W.   959.   121    Iowa   502. 

A  consignee  of  goods  can  not  obtain 
possession  of  them  from  a  carrier,  who 
received  them  from  another  carrier,  by 
means  of  a  possessory  warrant,  without 
producing  the  bill  of  lading,  or  account- 
ing   for    it.      Bass   7'.    Glover,    03    Ga.    745. 

66.  Schlichting  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
90  N.  W.  959,  121  Iowa  502. 

67.  George  &  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  40  So.  486,  88  Miss.  306. 

68.  Dwyer  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Tex. 
707,  7  S.  W.  504,  followed  in  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McCown  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  25  S. 
W.  435;  First  Nat.  Bank  z:  San  Antonio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Tex.  201,  214,  77  S.  W.  410. 

Where  bills  of  lading  were  pledged  to 
secure  advances  made  to  the  purchaser 
of  the  goods,  and  on  the  bankruptcy  of 
the  purchaser  a  part  of  the  property  cov- 
ered by  the  bills  of  lading  was  in  posses- 
sion of  a  carrier,  its  refusal  to  deliver  the 
property  to  tiie  pled'jec  of  the  bills  of  lad- 
ing, except  on  surrender  thereof,  was  a 
conversion  of  the  propertv.  Judgment 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  72  S.  W.  1033.  modified. 
First  Nat.  Bank  7-.  San  Antonio,  etc..  R. 
Co.,   77   S.  \V.   410,   97   Tex.   201. 

Reason  of  rule. — The  bill  of  lading  may 
lu'  of  use  to  tlie  consignor  or  owner  of 
the  goods  after  a  delivery  has  been  made. 
It  must  be  conceded  that  the  bill  of  lading 
was  at  one  time  the  property  of  the 
owner  of  the  goods,  and  it  is  not  perceived 
how  the  delivery  of  them  could  destroy 
his  right  in  this  property  without  his 
consent.  Dwyer  z:  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69 
Tex.    707.   709,    7    S.    W.    504. 

69.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co  7'.  McCown  (.Tex. 
Civ.  App.\  25  S.  \V.  435. 


§  841 


CARRIERS. 


520 


§  841.  Detention  for  Debt  or  Charges. — Detention  for  Debt. — A  car- 
rier, having  received  goods  for  transportation,  can  not  detain  them  for  a  debt 
due  to  itself,  not  connected  with  the  carriage.'"  And  wliere  the  goods  are  with- 
held under  a  claim  for  a  sum  other  than  that  due  for  freight,  the  consignee  may 
maintain  trover  against  the  carrier."'  In  such  an  action  the  carrier  can  not 
plead  in  defense  a  subsequent  tender  of  delivery  on  payment  of  freight  charges 
after  the  price  of  the  articles  com])rising  the   freight  had  materially  declined. "- 

Detention  for  Charges. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the  detention  of  goods 
until  the  charges  for  freight  are  paid."'^  And  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  retain- 
ing th.e  goods  in  order  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  charges,"'*  or  whether  there  are 


y 


70.  Detention  for  debt. — Pharr  v.  Col- 
lins. 33  La.  .\nn.  939.  48  Am.  Rep.  2.51. 

71.  Adams  r.  Clark  (Mass.).  9  Cush.  215, 
.57  Am.  Dec.  41;  Blair  v.  Jeffries  (S.  C). 
Dud.  59. 

When  goods  are  sent,  not  according  to 
the  contract  witli  the  owner,  but  !)y  some 
other  route,  there  is  no  lien  for  freight 
money;  and,  if  the  goods  are  withheld  un- 
der a  claim  of  lien,  an  action  of  trover  will 
lie  for  their  value.  Marsh  v.  Union  Pac. 
R.    Co.,   9    Fed.    873,   3    McCrary   236. 

It  can  not  be  assumed,  where  on  the 
day  after  the  arrival  of  live  s^tock,  the  car- 
rier refused  to  deliver  it  on  the  tender  of 
a  certain  amount,  that  the  refusal  was 
merel}'  because  the  amount  tendered  was 
not  equal  to  the  amount  claimed  for 
freight,  and  not  because  it  did  not  include 
the  day's  charges  for  feed,  which  the  car- 
rier, with  the  consignee's  consent,  had 
caused  to  be  given  to  the  animals.  Scott 
Bros.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  App. 
345. 

72.  Blair  v.  Jeffries   (S.  C),  Dud.  59. 

73.  Detention  for  charges.  —  United 
States.— The  Eddy  (U.  S.),  5  Wall.  481, 
18  L.   Ed.  486. 

Georgia. — Dixon  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
110  Ga.  173,  35  S.  E.  369. 

Maine. — Ames  v.  Palmer,  42  Ale.  197, 
66  Am.  Dec.  271. 

South  Carolina. — Blair  v.  Jeffries  (S. 
C),  Dud.  59. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rines 
&  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  618,  84  S.  W. 
1092;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Klepper,  29 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  590,  69  S.  W.  426;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Browne,  27  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
437,  66  S.  W.  341;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t: 
North  Texas  Grain  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
93,  74  S.  W.  567;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Weissman,  2  Tex.  Civ.  App.  86,  21  S.  W. 
426. 

Connecting  carrier. — .\  rcshipper  in 
good  faith  at  a  reasonable  rate,  under  a 
contract  with  one  holding  a  possession 
apparently  fair  under  a  bill  of  lading  au- 
thorizing a  reshipment,  must  be  paid  his 
freight  before  the  owner  can  claim  his 
property,  notwithstanding  the  first  car- 
rier's bad  faith.  Walker  v.  Cassaway,  4 
La.  Ann.   19,  50  Am.   Dec.   551. 

Charges  accruing  from  misdirection. — 
Where  lumber  intended  for  plaintiff  at 
Baird,     Texas,  was     shipped  to     "Beard." 


Texas,  through  mistake  of  plaintiff's  agent 
at  the  initial  point  in  signing  a  shipping 
bill  ordering  it  consigned  to  plaintiff  at 
such  latter  point,  and  from  there  it  was 
sent  to  plaintiff  at  Baird,  which  was  on 
defendant  company's  line,  defendant  was 
entitled  to  hold  the  lumber  for  payment 
of  the  increased  freight  charges  covermg 
the  entire  route  over  which  the  lu.iiber 
was  so  transported,  and  was  not  liable 
in  damages  for  refusal  to  deliver  to  plain- 
tiff upon  his  tender  of  what  would  have 
been  the  proper  amount  of  freight  charges 
but  for  such  mistake.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
?'.  Klepper,  29  Tex.  Civ.  App.  590,  69  S. 
W.  426. 

An  offer  by  consignees  "to  give  secu- 
rity to  pay  freight,  if  legally  liable,"  is 
not  such  a  tender  of  security  as  comes 
within  the  rule  that  the  consignee  is  en- 
titled to  delivery  upon  the  payment  of, 
or  security  for.  the  freight.  Fox  v.  Holt, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5.012.  36  Conn.  558,  4  Ben, 
278. 

Where  property  is  shipped  by  a  factor, 
who,  under  Cal.  Code,  §  2369,  lias  os- 
tensible authority  to  deal  therewith  as 
his  own,  "in  transactions  with  third  per- 
sons not  having  notice  of  the  actual  own- 
ership," the  actual  owner's  recovery,  in 
an  action  of  claim  and  delivery  against 
the  master  of  a  vessel,  will  be  subject  to 
the  terms  of  the  shipment.  And  the 
master  of  the  vessel  has  a  lien  upon  the 
property  in  his  possession  for  proper 
charges  and  freights.  Green  7\  Campbell, 
52    Cal.    586. 

Under  Louisiana  Civ.  Code,  art.  3213, 
the  captain  of  a  vessel  may  keep  the 
goods,  unless  the  shipper  or  consignee 
shall  give  him  security  for  tlie  payment 
of  the  freight.  But  he  can  not  demand 
payment  before  giving  the  consignee  an 
opportunity  to  inspect  the  condition  of 
the  shipment,  and  he  is  bound,  upon  the 
consignee's  tendering  the  freight  money, 
to  place  the  whole  lot  of  goods  com- 
prising the  shipment  on  the  levee,  sepa- 
rate from  other  goods,  subject  to  the  in- 
spection of  the  consignee.  Lanata  f.  The 
Henry   Grinnell,   13   La.   Ann.   24. 

74.  Plaintiff  shipped  certain  goods,  which, 
on  being  refused  l)y  the  consignee,  plaintiff 
directed  to  be  returned  to  him.  The 
goods  were  returned  under  an  "astray  way- 
bill," not  accompanied  by  any  bill  indicat- 


521 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DKLUT.RV    1!Y    CARRIKR. 


§  841 


in  fact  any  charges  due.'"'  Uui  ilic  right  to  detain  goods  for  charges  does  not 
exist  where  the  parties  have,  l^y  their  agreement,  reguhited  the  time  and  manner 
of  paying  the  freight.'''  The  person  entitled  to  the  goods  may  maintain  an  ac- 
tion for  conversion  against  a  carrier  detaining  goods  for  freight,  where,  by 
agreement,  the  goods  are  to  be  delivered  before  jjayment,"  or  v.here  the  car- 
rier demands  a  greater  amount  than  the  price  agreed  upon,'**  or  an  excessive 
rate,"'*  or  wliere  the  goods  have  been  received  from  a  wrongful  holder,**'^  or 
where  the  damage  sustained  to  the  goods  is  greater  than  the  freight  due,"'  or 


iiif^  hack  charges,  whereupon  defendant's 
agent  refused  to  deliver  the  goods  until 
he  ol)tained  information  as  to  the  aniount 
of  such  hack  charges,  and,  on  ohtaining 
such  information,  the  agent  notified  plain- 
tiff thereof,  and  tendered  the  goods  to 
plaintit^  on  payment  of  the  charges,  which 
plaintiff  refused.  Held,  that  the  agent's 
refusal  to  deliver  in  the  first  instance  did 
nt)t  constitute  a  conversion,  and  hence 
the  carrier  was  only  responsii)le  for  loss 
accruing  l)ecause  of  the  delay  in  delivery 
after  the  goods  were  returned.  Norfolk, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  i:  Potter,  6G  S.  E.  34,  110  Va. 
427. 

75.  A  carrier  receiving  goods  at  the  end 
of  another's  line  is  not  responsil)le  for 
the  latter's  omission  to  inform  him 
whether  the  freight  has  been  paid,  and 
may  retain  the  goods  a  reasonal)le  time 
to  ascertain  the  facts.  Union  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Shoop.    85    Pa.    325. 

Where  a  station  agent  had  reasonable 
doubts  as  to  whether  a  charge  for  the  de- 
tention of  a  car  containing  plaintiff's 
goods  was  lawful,  and  as  to  whether  the 
railroad  company  would  insist  on  pay- 
ment, his  refusal  to  deliver  the  goods  to 
the  owner  before  obtaining  instructions 
did  not  constitute  a  conversion.  Hett  v. 
Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  44  Atl.  910,  69  N. 
H.    139. 

76.  Chandler  z:  Belden  (N.  Y.),  18 
Johns.    157,    9    Am.    Dec.    193. 

77.  Goods  to  be  delivered  before  pay- 
ment.—Chandler  z\  Belden  (X.  Y.),  IS 
Johns.  157,  9  Am.  Dec.  193.  See  Lee  i: 
Fidelity  Storage,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Pac.  658, 
51   Wash.   208. 

78.  Northern  Transp.  Co.  v.  Sellick.  52 
111.  249;  Isham  r.  Grcenliam,  12  O.  Dec. 
is;i.     1     Handy    '■->'>7. 

When  carrier  unauthorized  to  make 
special  rate. — IMaintit'f,  under  a  contract 
with  a  railroad  company  for  special  rates 
on  stock,  on  their  arrival  at  their  desti- 
nation on  another  railroad  tendered  the 
•  amount  fixed  by  contract,  and  demanded 
delivery,  which  was  refused,  unless  a 
larger  sum  called  for  by  the  waybill  was 
paid.  In  an  action  against  the  latter  rail- 
road, there  was  no  evidence  that  the  con- 
tracting company  was  authorized  to  make 
the  special  rate  for  defendant.  Held,  that 
a  nonsuit  was  properly  granted.  Lewis 
V.    Richmond,    etc..    R.    Co.,    25    S.    C.    249. 

Connecting  carrier. —  Plaintiff  shijiped  a 
horse,  to  Ik-  carried  under  a  through  con- 
tract   over    connecting    railroads;    but    the 


freight  charges,  as  fixed  by  the  carrier, 
were  not  sufficient  to  pay  the  charges  of 
both  carriers,  but  were  sufficient  to  pay 
the  charges  of  the  last  carrier.  Held 
that,  on  the  tender  of  the  agreed  freight 
at  the  point  of  destination,  the  last  car- 
rier was  bound  to  deliver  the  horse. 
Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Marsh,  57  Ind. 
505. 

Where  goods  shipped  by  a  railroad 
company  under  a  special  contract  as  to 
charges  are  received  by  a  connecting 
line  witliout  notice  of  the  contract,  with 
a  waybill  showing  charges  in  excess  of 
the  contract  price,  and  the  connecting 
line,  without  paying  such  charges,  carries 
the  goods  to  their  destination,  and  refuses 
to  deliver  them  to  the  consignee  on  ten- 
der of  the  contract  price  (which  is  in 
excess  of  the  amount  due  the  connecting 
line),  the  latter  is  liable  for  damages  sus- 
tained by  the  consignee  for  failure  to  de- 
liver the  goods  after  it  has  had  a  reason- 
able opportunity  to  ascertain  the  exist- 
ence of  the  special  contract.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Brookhaven  Mach.  Co., 
71   Miss.   663,   16   So.   252. 

The  Arkansas  Act  of  Feb.  27,  1885, 
providing  that  all  carriers  shall  surrender 
freight  on  payment  of  the  charges  spec- 
ified in  the  bill  of  lading,  does  not  apply 
to  a  connecting  carrier  which  has  neither 
made,  authorized,  nor  adopted  the  bill 
of  lading.  Loewenberg  v.  Arkansas,  etc., 
R.    Co.,  >)()   Ark.    439,    19    S.   W.    1051. 

79.  Excessive  rate. — Where  a  terminal 
carrier  of  an  interstate  shipment,  through 
a  mistake  as  to  the  rate,  refused  to  de- 
liver the  goods  until  an  excessive  rate 
was  paid,  the  refusal  amounted  to  a  con- 
version. Pecos,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Porter 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  I5r.  S.  W.  2<',7. 

Improper  classification  of  goods. — A 
railroad  company  can  not  refuse  to  de- 
liver japanned  iron  rings,  designed  for  a 
neck  yoke  for  horses,  because  the  con- 
signee refuses  to  pay  freight  on  them  as 
saddlery  hardware,  they  being  properly 
classified  as  common  hardware.  Chicago, 
etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Oustin.  35  Xeb.  SC).  52  X. 
W.    844. 

80.  Goods  shipped  by  wrongful  holder. 
— Liefert  r.  C.alvcston.  etc..  R.  Co.  iTex. 
Civ.  .\pp.).  57  S.  W.  S'.i9;  Savannah,  etc., 
R.  Co.  2'.  Talbot.  123  C.a.  37S.  51  S.  E.  401. 

81.  Damage  exceeding  charges. — Kan- 
sas.— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Peru-\'an 
Zandt  Imp.  Co..  73  Kan.  295.  85  Pac.  408, 
87    Pac.    so.    6    L.    R.    A..    X.    S..    1058,    117 


§§  841-843 


CARRIERS. 


522 


where  goods  of  several  owners  are  shipped  by  one  bill  of  lading,  and  one  of  the 
owners  offers  the  freight  due  for  his  goods,  though  the  freight  on  the  other  goods 
is  not  paid.^-  A  void  injunction  annulling  an  established  interstate  railroad  rate 
and  directing  a  lower  rate  will  not  authorize  a  consignee,  on  refusal  of  tender 
of  the  lower  rate  fixed  by  the  injunction,  to  recover  the  goods  shipped  in  re- 
plevin.'*^ 

§§  842-846.  Mode  and  Sufficiency  of  Delivery  in  General— §  842. 
In  General. — A  carrier  must  deliver  the  goods  entrusted  to  it  in  a  proper  man- 
ner,^^  and  in  such  condition  that  they  may  be  identified  by  the  consignee. ^^  Any 
manner  of  delivery,  good  as  against  the  consignee,  is,  in  the  absence  of  notice 
that  he  is  not  the  owner  of  the  goods,  good  as  against  the  consignor,^*^  as  where, 
by  direction  of  the  consignee,  the  delivery  of  money  was  at  an  unusual  place,  in 
consequence  of  whicli  the  property  was  stolen  after  delivery.''" 

Waiver  of  Objections. — ^^■here  a  carrier  tenders  freight  at  an  unreasonable 
time  or  improper  place  or  in  an  improper  manner,  the  consignee,  by  accepting 
the  goods,  waives  all  objections  which  he  might  have  urged  against  the  acceptance 
under  ordinary  circumstances.'^*^  And  the  consignee  discharges  the  carrier  from 
responsibility  for  an  erroneous  delivery  by  subsequently  acquiescing  therein.^^ 

§  843.  What  Constitutes  Delivery. — In  General. — There  is  no  delivery 
of  the  goods  so  as  to  discharge  the  carrier  from  liability,  as  such,  where  it  still 
has  control  of  the  goods  and  no  one  else  may  move  them  without  its  con- 
sent.^*^  or  where  they  are  inaccessible  to  the  consignee,-^i  or  where  something  re- 


Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.   790. 

South  Carolina. — Ewart  v.  Kerr  (S. 
C),  Rice  203:  Miami  Powder  Co.  v.  Port 
Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  16  S.  E. 
339,    21    L.    R.    A.    123. 

Vermont. — Dyer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,   4:2   \'t.   441,   1   Am.    Rep.   350. 

In  Georgia  it  is  held  that  a  consignee, 
can  not  maintain  an  action  ex  contractu 
against  a  carrier  for  the  value  of  goods 
not  delivered,  and  which  the  carrier  ten- 
dered at  destination  in  a  damaged  con- 
dition, but  refused  to  deliver  without 
payment  of  the  usual  freight  charges, 
notwithstanding  the  damage  to  the  goods 
amount  to  more  than  the  freight  charges, 
and  the  shipper  demanded  that  the  dam- 
ages to  the  shipment  be  offset  against  the 
freight  bill.  Wilensky  v.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  10  Ga.  App.  8,  72  S.  W.  516;  S.  C,  72 
S.  E.  418,  136  Ga.  889,  Ann.  Cas.  1912  D, 
271. 

82.  Hale  v.  Barrett,  26  111.  195,  79  Am. 
Dec.    367. 

83.  Void  injunction. — Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Foster  Lumber  Co.,  31  Okla.  661, 
122    Pac.    139. 

84.  Mode  of  delivery. — Trice  v.  Miller, 
3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  440;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Clark,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  ^ 
512. 

85.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Crow 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  117  S.  W:  170. 

86.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335,  af- 
firming 24  Barb.  533;  O'Dougherty  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  1  Thomp.  & 
C.   447. 


87.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335,  af- 
firming   24    Barb.    533. 

88.  Waiver  of  objections. — Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Clark,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§    512. 

89.  O'Dougherty  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(N.   Y.),   1   Thomp.   &   C.   447. 

90.  No  delivery  where  carrier  in  control 
of  goods. — Huntting  Elevator  Co.  v.  Bos- 
worth,  179  U.  S.  415,  45  L.  Ed.  256,  21  S. 
Ct.  183;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bosworth, 
179  U.  S.  442,  45  L.  Ed.  267,  21  S.  Ct. 
941;  Rau  v.  Bosworth,  179  U.  S.  443,  45 
L.  Ed.  268,  21  S.  Ct.  194;  Bosworth  v. 
Carr,  etc.,  Co.,  179  U.  S.  444,  45  L.  Ed. 
268,   21    S.    Ct.    194. 

The  line  of  a  railroad  company  termi- 
nated at  East  St.  Louis  and  it  had  no 
track  extending  into  the  city  of  St.  Louis, 
Missouri.  It  did  not  own  any  terminal 
or  facilities  for  handling  of  freight  busi- 
ness at  either  point,  its  business  being 
handled  by  a  terminal  company  under  an 
agreement  by  which  that  company  leased 
to  the  railroad  company  terminal  facili- 
ties and  storage  room  for  cars,  the  con- 
tract providing  that  cars  damaged  in 
making  and  breaking  up  of  trains  should 
be  at  the  risk  of  the  railroad  company, 
and  that  cars  rendered  in  bad  order  when 
the  terminal  company  should  use  them 
in  making  a  further  conveyance,  were  to 
be  repaired  by  the  terminal  company. 
The  evidence  showed  that  cars  in  the 
yards  of  the  terminal  company  were  not 

91.  Where  goods  inaccessible. — Hung- 
erford  v.  Winnebago,  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 
33  Wis.   303. 


523 


TKANSl'ORTATKJX    AND  DELIVERY    BV    CARRIER. 


§  843 


mains  to  be  done  to  complete  delivery  and  acceptance;''-  an  actual  acceptance 
being  necessary  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability."'*     P>ut  the  carrier's  liability 


to  be  moved  except  under  orders  of  the 
railroad  company  and  that  orders  from 
tiic  consi>j;nce  were  not  recognized  l)y  the 
terminal  company.  Cars  containing  freight 
for  St.  Louis  were  delivered  by  the  rail- 
road company  at  the  yards  of  the  terminal 
company,  and  while  there  awaiting  fur- 
ther directions  as  to  the  shipment,  were 
destroyed  by  fire.  It  was  held  that  the 
railroad  company  was  liable,  as  there  had 
beeit  no  delivery.  Huntting  IClevator  Co. 
V.  Bosworth,  179  U.  S.  415,  4,'->  L.  Ed.  256, 
21  S.  Ct.  18.3;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bosworth.  179  U.  S.  442,  45  L.  Ed.  267, 
21  S.  Ct.  941;  Rau  v.  Bosworth,  179  U.  S. 
443.  45  L.  Ed.  268,  21  S.  Ct.  194;  Bos- 
worth V.  Carr,  etc.,  Co..  179  U.  S.  444,  45 
L.    l-:d.    :-'ii^.   :-M    S.    Ct.    v.)\. 

92.  Where  something  remains  to  be 
done. — The  deposit  of  goods  upon  a  float 
preparatory  to  their  actual  delivery  to 
the  consignee  does  not  constitute  a  de- 
livery thereof,  so  as  to  terminate  the 
carrier's  liability.  Miller  v.  Steam  Nav. 
Co..  10  N.  Y.  431,  Seld.  Notes  64,  affirm- 
ing 13  Barb.  361;  Goold  v.  Chapin,  20  N. 
Y.   259,   75   Am.   Dec.   398. 

Freight  was  left  on  Saturday,  at  dusk, 
at  the  request  of  the  consignee,  upon  a 
side  track  of  the  railroad;  the  consignee 
promising  to  remove  it  on  Monday  morn- 
ing. The  consignee,  on  opening  the  car 
on  Monday  morning  with  his  own  key, 
found  one  case  opened  and  the  contents 
removed.  Held,  that  the  common  car- 
rier was  liable  for  the  contents.  Eagle  v. 
White  (Pa.),  6  Whart.  505,  37  Am.  Dec. 
434. 

Plaintiff  shipped  an  engine,  together 
with  certain  tools  and  a  cable  used  in 
connection  therewith,  consigned  to  him- 
self at  a  flag  station  on  defendant's  road 
where  defendant  maintained  a  warehouse 
and  a  side  track,  but  no  station  or  agent. 
The  consignment  was  shipped  on  an  open 
flat  car,  and  on  its  arrival  plaintiff,  in  pass- 
ing through  the  town,  discovered  the  car 
set  out  on  the  side  track,  and  notified  his 
l)ookkeeper  to  confer  with  defendant's 
agent  at  an  adjoining  station  and  ascer- 
tain if  the  tools  belonged  to  plaintiff,  and, 
if  so  to  unload  the  same.  Plaintiff's  book- 
keeper was  unable  to  ol)tain  this  informa- 
tion until  it  was  too  late  to  unload  the 
material  the  next  day,  and  during  the 
night  the  tools  and  calile  were  lost  or 
stolen  from  the  car.  Held,  that  the  mere 
setting  out  of  the  flat  car  on  the  siding, 
without  more,  did  not  constitute  a  de- 
livery. Normile  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
77  Pac.  lOSr.  36  Wash.  21.  167  L.  R.  A. 
271. 

93.  Acts  not  constituting  acceptance. — 
In  an  action  against  an  express  company 
for  the  value  of  a  trunk  which  had  been 
misdelivered,   plaintiff   testified   that   when 


the  trunk  reached  its  destination  the  com- 
pany's agent  agreed  that  plaintiff  might 
take  some  things  out  of  the  trunk,  and 
leave  it  in  the  office  for  a  day  or  so,  upon 
paying  the  charges  and  signing  a  receipt, 
and  that,  upon  calling  for  the  trunk,  he 
was  informed  that  it  had  been  delivered 
to  other  parties  upon  the  supposition  that 
he  had  sent  for  it.  The  agent  testified 
that  he  had  no  authority  to  make  such 
an  arrangement,  but  did  not  say  that  he 
so  notified  plaintiff.  Held,  that  there 
had  not  been  a  complete  delivery  of  the 
trunk  to  plaintiff.  Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58 
Hun  347,  11  N.  Y.  S.  871,  34  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.    166. 

Merchandise  was  consigned  to  plain- 
tiff at  a  station  where  he  had  previously 
l)een  agent.  When  the  train  arrived,  the 
conductor  opened  the  car.  and  told  plain- 
tiff that  he  had  some  freight  for  him.  The 
plaintiff  replied  that  he  could  not  take 
it — that  he  was  no  longer  agent — where- 
upon it  was  taken  to  the  next  station, 
where  it  perished.  Held,  that  the  com- 
pany was  liable  for  its  value,  as  there 
was  not  a  delivery  to  the  consignee,  he 
only  refusing  to  receive  as  agent  for  the 
company.  Edwards  v.  Cheraw.  etc.,  R. 
Co..    32    S.    C.    117,    10    S.    E.    822. 

An  express  company's  agent  left  word 
at  the  store  of  F.,  the  person  entitled  to 
receive  a  package,  that  the  package 
was  at  the  office,  and  F.'s  clerk  said  that 
F.  was  absent,  and  that  he  would  come 
over  and  see  about  it.  He  afterwards 
went  over,  and  said  that  "F.  was  away, 
and  had  the  key  of  the  safe,  and  that  the 
defendants  would  have  to  keep  it."  But 
the  package  was  not  offered  to  him.  nor 
was  it  entered  on  the  delivery  book  ac- 
cording to  the  custom  of  the  company. 
Held,  that  the  packages  had  not  been  de- 
livered, and  that  the  company  was  liable. 
Baldwin  v.  American  Exp.  Co..  23  111. 
197.    74    .\m.    Dec.    190. 

.•\.  purchased  a  quantity  of  flour  to  be 
manufactured  by  a  certain  mill  and  a 
parol  agreement  was  made  by  A.  and  B. 
for  the  sale  of  the  flour  by  the  former  to 
the  latter  for  cash  on  delivery.  After- 
wards a  freight  company  gave  B.  an  in- 
strument styled  a  W\\\  of  lading,  dated 
before  the  flour  had  been  manufactured. 
l)y  which  said  company  acknowledged  the 
receipt  by  it  for  the  flour  from  B.  and 
agreed  to  transport  it  to  C.  at  Boston. 
Mass.  Afterwards  the  servants  of  the 
transfer  company  took  the  flour  from 
said  mill,  and  put  it  in  the  custody  of  a 
railroad  company  for  which  freight  com- 
pany acted  as  agent,  said  transfer  com- 
pany giving  the  superintendent  of  said 
mill  dray  tickets  for  the  flour,  and  re- 
ceiving from  said  railroad  company  a 
l)ill  of"  lading  for  the  flour  to  be  delivered 
to  C.  at  Boston.     Hearing  of  the  embar- 


§  843 


CARRIKRS. 


524 


is  terminated  where  the  consignee  has  actually  accepted  the  goods,"-*  as  where 
they  are  pointed  out  to  him  and  he  removes  a  portion,'^^  or  has  paid  the  freight,"*^ 
or  the  carrier  retains  the  goods  at  his  request.''"  And  it  is  held  that  an  actual 
delivery  is  not  necessary  to  devest  the  liahility  of  the  carrier,  but  such  liability 
ceases  'when  the  goods  are  ready  tor  delivery,  and  a  reasonable  opportunity  to 
remove  them  has  been  afforded.'"'  Where  an  initial  carrier  wrongfully  sent 
goods  by  a  connecting  carrier,  whose  lines  reached  but  one  of  the  three  places 
of  destination,  and  on  arrival  of  the  goods  at  that  point,  the  shipper  disclosed 
his  contract  to  have  them  distributed  at  three  points,  but  compliance  therewith 
was  refused  until  the  freight  for  the  entire  route  was  paid  the  shipper  did  not 
accept  a  deliverv  of   the  entire  shipment,  by  paying  the   freight  and  accepting 


rassment  of  B.,  who  a  few  days  after- 
wards became  insolvent,  A.  inquired  of 
the  superintendent  of  the  mill  al)out  the 
flour,  received  from  him  said  dray  tickets, 
and  the  day  after  the  delivery  of  the 
flour  to  the  railroad  company  went  with 
said  tickets  and  a  bill  for  the  flour  to  B. 
and  requested  payment,  which  not  lieing 
made  A.  told  B.  that  he  would  keep  the 
tickets  and  make  other  disposition  of  the 
flour.  Held,  that  A's  acceptance  of  the 
dray  tickets  did  not  operate  as  a  delivery, 
and  he  was  still  the  owner  of  the  flour 
and  entitled  to  its  possession.  Union  R., 
etc.,   Co.   f.   Yeager,   34    Ind.    1. 

94.  Acceptance  by  agent. — In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  to  recover  the  value  of  a 
car  load  of  lumber  consigned  to  plain- 
tiff at  a  station  where  defendant  had  no 
agent,  it  appeared  that  the  car  was  placed 
on  a  side  track  at  such  station  in  the 
presence  of  plaintiff's  agent,  and  that  he, 
or  some  of  his  employees,  jumped  on  the 
car,  pulled  out  a  piece  of  the  lumber,  and 
said,  "This  is  the  lumber  we  have  been 
waiting  for."  Held,  that  a  judgment  for 
defendant  should  not  be  disturbed.  Ar- 
mistead  Lumber  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Miss.),  11  So.  472. 

Agents  of  both  carrier  and  owner. — 
The  plaintiff  shipped  tul)s  of  butter  liy  tlie 
defendant's  boat,  and  directed  the  captain 
to  sell  them  on  arrival.  On  arrival,  the 
captain  hauled  the  boat  to  the  pier,  and 
gave  her  in  charge  to  another  agent  of 
the  carrier.  The  next  day  the  butter  was 
placed  on  deck.  The  captain  sold  part, 
and  the  rest  was  stolen.  Held  that,  from 
the  time  the  butter  was  placed  on  deck, 
it  was  to  be  deemed  delivered  to  the  cap- 
tain as  the  shipper's  consignee.  Labar 
V.  Taber   (N.  Y.),  3.5  Barb.   305. 

Plaintiff  shipped  hay  on  board  a  vessel 
of  which  defendant  was  master,  and  con- 
signed the  hay  to  defendant  for  sale.  It 
did  not  appear  that  defendant  had  a 
warehouse  or  other  building  at  the  point 
of  destination  for  the  storage  of  goods, 
and  there  was  no  custom  as  to  storing 
hay  in  such  cases.  By  special  agreement 
the  hay  was  carried  on  deck,  and,  the 
next  morning  after  arriving,  defendant 
began  his  efforts  to  sell,  leaving  the  hay 
on   the   boat.      Held,   that   plaintiff   waived 


his  riglit  to  liave  tlie  hay  landed  and 
stored,  and  that  defendant's  lialMlity  as 
carrier  terminated  on  arrival  at  the  des- 
tination, and  his  character  as  consignee 
to  sell  began.  Stone  v.  Waitt,  31  Me.  409, 
52    Am.    Dec.    021. 

95.  Goods  pointed  out  and  portion  re- 
moved.— Where  the  agent  of  a  railroad 
company,  on  the  arrival  of  perishable 
goods  upon  their  warehouse  platform  at 
10  o'clock  a.  m.  on  Saturday,  immediately 
pointed  them  out  to  the  agent  of  the 
consignees,  who,  on  being  informed  that 
there  was  no  room  for  them  in  the  ware- 
house, took  a  portion  of  them  away,  and 
not  until  the  next  Monday  returned  for 
the  remainder,  when  they  could  not  be 
found,  held  to  be  an  actual  delivery,  and 
within  a  reasonable  time.  Cull)reth  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst. 
392. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the  value  of  cotton  which  was 
Inirned  in  a  car,  it  appeared  that  the  cot- 
ton had  Ijeen  transported  to  the  place  of 
delivery  in  safety;  that  the  car  was  placed 
on  a  side  track,  at  the  request  of  plaintiff, 
and  for  its  convenience;  that  the  waybill 
had  been  delivered  to  defendant,  as  a  re- 
ceipt and  that  plaintiff  had  removed  a 
portion  of  the  cotton.  The  origin  of  the 
fire  was  unknown.  Held,  that  the  evi- 
dence showed  a  delivery  of  the  cotton. 
Whitney  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  S.  C.  365,  17  S.  E.  147,  37  Am.  St. 
Rep.  767. 

96.  Paying  freight. — New  Albany,  etc., 
R.    Co.   V.    Campbell,   12   Ind.   55. 

97.  Goods  held  by  request. — Young  v. 
Smith    (KyJ,  3   Dana  91,  2S   Am.   Dec.  57. 

98.  Constructive  delivery. — Wood  v. 
Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis.  541;  Mel- 
bourne V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Ala. 
443,  6  So.  762.  See  post,  "Carrier  as 
Warehouseman,"    Chapter   13. 

Where  a  drayage  company  which  was 
a  common  carrier  was  the  agent  of  the 
consignee  to  receive  a  shipment  of  one 
car  load  of  goods,  which  the  evidence 
showed  to  have  been  removed  in  about 
a  day  or  a  day  and  a  half,  and  the  railroad 
company  notified  the  drayage  company  more 
than  that  time  before  the  goods  were 
destroyed  by    fire,    the    car    having    been 


525 


TKAXSl'ORTATIOX    AND   DKLIVI-.K V    HY   CARRIIvR. 


§  843 


the  portion  of  the  goods  destined  for  that  point.''*'  Where  the  carrier  has  made 
delivery,  its  HabiHty  is  terminated,  though  the  consignee  or  liis  agent  return  the 
goods.' 

Receipt  for  Goods. — Tlic  dehvery  of  goods  is  complete  when  the  consignee 
or  his  agent  gives  a  receipt  for  them,-'  though  a  part  is  left  on  the  premises  of 
the  carrier.'*  J'ut  if  the  agent  of  the  carrier  abstracts  a  parcel  while  in  the  act 
of  delivering  it,  il  is  no  delivery,  even  though  a  receipt  is  signed,  and  the  form 
of  delivery  gone  through,  b\-  the  agent's  laying  the  j)ro])crty  for  a  moment  out  of 
his  hands.-* 

Transfer  to  Warehouse. — The  transfer  of  goods,  consigned  in  the  usual 
general  terms,  b}-  a  \  endur  on  credit,  by  a  carrier  by  railway,  to  a  warehouse  at 
the  station  designated  for  their  discharge,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  vendee's  place 
of  business,  there  to  await  the  payment  by  him  of  the  charges  thereon,  does 
not  ipso  facto  constitute  a  (leli\ery  thereof.'' 

Delivery  by  One  Carrier  to  Another. — An  e.xi)ressman  agreeing  to  carry 
baggage   to  a   railroad   slalinn    is   relic\cd    from   liability   by   depositing-  the  bag- 


placed  on  a  house  track  for  unloading, 
there  was  a  completed  delivery  by  the 
railroad  company  to  the  drayage  com- 
pany. Arkadelpliia  Milling  Co.  v.  Smoker 
Merchandise  Co.,  100  .'\rk.  37,  139  S.  W. 
G80. 

99.  Brown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
Co.,   r)3    Minn.    .")4<i.    (•).■>    X.    W.    (Mil. 

1.  Redelivery  by  consignee's  agent  to 
consignor. — Where  a  railroad  company 
receives  and  issues  hills  of  lading  for  un- 
comp  essed  cotton,  and,  under  due  au- 
thority, sends  it  to  a  compress  leased 
and  operated  by  the  assignee  of  the  bills, 
and  his  servants,  not  being  informed  that 
he  had  l)ecome  the  owner  by  assignment, 
redeliver  it  to  the  original  consignor,  be- 
lieving him  the  owner,  the  company  is 
not  liable  to  the  assignee  for  failure  to 
deliver  the  cotton.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Mch'adden.   S'.i   Tex.    i:{S.   ?,?,   S.   W.    S53. 

Return  to  warehouse  when  carrier 
properly  delivered  goods. — Where  prop- 
erty consigned  to  a  jKiint  beyond  the 
terminus  of  defendant's  route  was  safely 
transported  to  the  termination  of  his  line, 
and  there  delivered  to  a  warehouseman, 
who  acted  as  agent  of  the  carriers  and 
others  in  receiving  and  delivering  freight, 
and  who,  in  accordance  with  the  custom, 
turned  it  over,  to  a  teamster,  who  deliv- 
ered it  to  the  consignee,  it  was  a  delivery 
which  terminated  defendant's  liability  as 
carrier,  though  the  goods  were  afterwards 
returned  to  the  warehouse  by  the  con- 
signee. Salinger  v.  Simmons  (N.  Y.),  57 
Barb.  513,  8  Abb.  Pac,  N.  S.  409,  2  Lans. 
32.5, 

2.  Giving  receipt. — Kenny  Co.  v.  At- 
lanta, etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  Ga.  365,  50  S.  E. 
132;  State  v.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  106 
Me.  138,  76  Atl.  265,  29  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
745,   20   Am.    i*t    F.ng.   Ann.   Cas.   668. 

The  word  "receipt,"  as  in  common  use, 
means  no  more  than  a  bare  acknowledg- 
ment of  having  received  something,  and, 
in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  show  the 
contents    of    a    receipt    given    by    a    con- 


signee to  a  railroad  company,  it  was  er- 
ror to  permit  the  jury  to  assume  that  the 
writing  contained  any  special  clause  en- 
larging such  acknowledgment.  Erie  R. 
Co.  V.  Wanaque  Luml)er  Co.,  75  X.  J. 
L.    S~>s,    69    .\tl.     16S. 

Receipt  before  delivery. — In  an  action 
to  recover  money  given  to  an  express 
company  to  deliver  to  H.  at  L.,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  rules  of  such  company 
required  a  receipt  for  money  packages 
before  the  same  were  delivered;  that  on 
the  morning  the  money  in  question  was 
to  reach  L.  the  train  was  late,  and  H. 
knew  he  would  not  have  time  after  the 
train  arrived  to  receipt  for  the  money  and 
take  passage  on  the  train,  as  he  desired; 
that,  therefore,  by  promising  to  "relieve" 
the  express  agent  from  liability,  he  per- 
suaded him  to  let  him  (H.)  receipt  for 
the  mone}^  in  advance;  that  after  the 
train  arrived  the  agent  carried  the  pack- 
age to  the  platform  of  the  car  on  which 
H.  stood,  and  piched  it  towards  him,  saj^- 
ing,  "Here  is  your  money;"  that  the  pack- 
age lodged  on  the  platform  step,  and  it 
was  claimed  that  H.  never  actually  re- 
ceived it.  Held,  that  the  arrangement  be- 
tween the  agent  and  H.  terminated  the 
liability  of  the  carrier.  Carroll  v.  South- 
ern   Exp.    Co.,   37    S.    C.    452,    16    S.    E.    12S. 

3.  State  V.  Intoxicating  Liquors,  106 
Me.  138,  76  Atl.  265,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  668. 

4.  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Haggard,  37 
111.  465,  87  .\m.   Dec.  257. 

5.  Transfer  to  warehouse. — Calahan  v. 
Babcock,  21  O.  St.  2S1,  8  An:.  Rep.  63. 

When  goods  have  arrived  at  their  des- 
tination, and  notice  has  been  given  to 
the  consignee,  who  does  not  indicate  an 
intention  to  receive  them,  and  the  goods 
remain  in  the  custody  of  the  carrier  with- 
out any  agreement  to  hold  them  as  agent 
or  warehouseman  for  the  consignee,  there 
is  no  deliver)'  to  the  consignee.  Wheel- 
ing, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Koontz,  61  O.  St.  551, 
56  N.  E.  471,  76  Am.  St.  Rep.  435. 


§  843 


CARRIERS. 


526 


gage  there  at  the  place  provided  for  it.*^'  unless  he  was  ordered  to  deliver  it  oth- 
erwise.'^ 

Delivery  to  Independent  Warehouseman. — Where  a  carrier  is  accustomed 
to  deliver  goods  transported  1)}-  it  to  a  warehouseman,  who  is  independent  of 
the  carrier,  and  by  whom  the  consignees  are  notified  of  the  arrival  of  such 
goods,  and  the  consignees  are  aware  of  the  custom,  and  have  long  acquiesced 
in  it,  the  liability  of  the  carrier  ends  with  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  ware- 
houseman, and  no  recovery  can  be  had  against  the  carrier  for  their  subsequent 
destruction  by  fire.^ 

Partial  Delivery. — Where  a  carrier  fails  to  deliver  a  part  of  a  shipment  of 
freight,  and  the  part  not  delivered  is  necessary  to  make  the  whole  shipment  ef- 
fective, it  is  a  failure  to  deliver  the  whole.»  But  a  shipper  is  not  justified  in 
refusing  to  receive  goods  carried  for  him  by  rail  because  one  of  a  number  of 
boxes  is  missing. ^^ 


6.  Delivery  by  one  carrier  to  another. — 
Henshaw  v.  Rowland,  54  N.  Y.  242. 

Where  an  expressman  who  agrees  to 
carrj-  a  trunk  to  a  depot,  to  be  taken 
there  at  once,  delivers  it  at  the  place  set 
apart  for  such  baggage,  and  calls  the  at- 
tention of  the  baggage  agent  thereto,  and 
tells  him  to  whom  it  belongs  and  on 
what  train  it  was  going,  he  is  not  liable 
for  the  loss  of  the  trunk.  Anniston  Trans- 
fer Co.  V.  Gurley,  107  Ala.  600,  18  So. 
209,    34    L.    R.    A.    137. 

Where  a  hackman  ordeied  to  take  a 
box  "to  the  early  train"  took  it  to  such 
train,  and,  finding  no  one  there  authorized 
to  receive  it,  carried  it  into  the  depot — a 
safe  building,  locked  at  night — and,  with 
the  baggage  master's  knowledge,  placed 
it  on  the  platform  where  trunks  for  the 
train  were  usually  put,  and  the  box  was 
lost,  he  was  not,  in  law,  negligent,  such 
delivery  being  a  sufficient  compliance  with 
the  order.     Manheim  v.  Carr,  62  Me.  473. 

7.  Manheim  v.   Carr,  62  Me.  473. 
Defendants,  who  engaged  to  carry  and 

deliver  a  trunk  to  a  certain  depot,  under 
a  contract  to  deliver  it  in  a  safe  place,  or 
keep  it  until  a  delivery  could  be  made 
"to  the  boat,  deposited  it,  with  other  bag- 
gage, on  the  pier,  from  which  several 
boats  started.  Held,  that  the  defendants 
were  liable  for  the  loss  of  the  trunk  after 
it  was  deposited  at  the  pier.  Sunderland 
V.  Westcott,  32  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  260,  40 
How.  Prac.  468. 

8.  Delivery  to  independent  warehouse- 
men.—Black  V.  Ashley,  80  Mich.  90,  44 
N.    W.    1120. 

Grain  arrived  over  defendant's  road, 
consigned  to  plaintiffs,  November  25th 
and  26th,  and  was  inspected  on  those  days, 
and  weighed  by  the  state  weighmaster, 
and  stored  by  defendant  on  November 
26th  in  a  public  warehouse  fit  for  such 
purposes,  for  and  on  behalf  of  plaintiffs, 
subject  to  a  general  instruction  given  by 
the  railway  companies  to  all  the  elevator 
companies  not  to  issue  any  warehouse 
receipts  until  the  paid  freight  bills  were 
presented.  On  the  afternoon  of  Novem- 
ber   27th  ■  (Saturday),    between    4    and    5 


o'clock,  the  elevator  company  gave  plain- 
tiffs written  notice  that  the  wheat  had 
been  placed  to  their  credit,  accompanied 
with  a  report  of  the  weight  and  grade. 
The  defendant  did  not  present  its  freight 
bill  to  plaintiffs  until  November  29th 
(Monday).  The  wheat  was  accidentally 
destroyed  by  fire  in  the  elevator  on  the 
night  of  November  27th  without  any  fault 
of  either  party.  Both  parties  knew  of  and 
acquiesced  in  the  general  custom  of  rail- 
roads at  that  point,  which  was,  in  the 
absence  of  special  instructions  to  deliver 
the  grain  to  one  of  the  public  elevators 
for  the  consignee,  immedia!.ely  upon  in- 
spection. Held,  that  defendant's  liability 
as  carrier  had  terminated  before  the  de- 
struction of  the  property;  and  that  the 
instruction  contained  in  the  notice  that 
warehouse  receipts  would  not  be  issued 
to  consignees  until  the  paid  freight  bills 
were  presented,  in  no  way  affected  the 
situation  of  the  property  with  reference 
to  tlie  duty  of  the  carrier.  Arthur  v.  St. 
Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn.  95,  35  N.  W. 
718. 

9.  Partial  delivery. — McKerall  v.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  338,  56  S.  E. 
965. 

The  shipper  is  not  bound  to  take  any 
and  every  remnant  of  goods,  in  whatever 
condition  they  may  be  identified  and  of- 
fered to  him,  short  of  total  destruction. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warren,  16  111. 
502,  63  Am.  Dec.  317. 

A  party  delivered  1,716  pounds  of  rags, 
put  up  securely  in  bags,  to  a  common 
carrier,  to  be  transported  to  Chicago;  on 
demand  the  carrier  offered  some  500 
pounds  of  rags  lying  loosely  about.  Held, 
that  an  offer  to  deliver  the  rags  in  such 
a  condition,  it  not  appearing  that  they 
were  tlie  same  rags,  was  not  a  delivery 
pro  tato,  and  that  the  carrier  was  liable 
for  the  value  of  the  whole.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Warren,  16  111.  50'3,  63  Am.  Dec. 
317. 

10.  Duty  of  consignee  to  accept  partial 
delivery. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Booton, 
4  Tex.   Civ.  App.  103,  15  S.  W.  502. 


527 


TRANSPORTATION    AND   DELIVERY    1«Y   CARRlKR. 


§  844 


§  844.  Carrier  by  Water.— In  the  absence  of  a  special  contract,  goods  will 
be  regarded  as  delivered  when  deposited  upon  the  proper  wharf  at  their  place 
of  destination,  at  a  proper  time,  and  notice  given  to  the  consignee,  after  which 
he  has  had  a  reasonable  lime  and  opportunity  to  remove  them.^i  But  in  order 
to  relieve  the  carrier  from  responsibility,  there  must  be  a  delivery  on  the  wharf 
to  some  person  authorized  to  receive  the  goods,  or  some  act  must  be  done  which 
is  equivalent  to  a  delivery.'-'  A  mere  deposit  of  the  goods  at  the  ship's  own 
wharf  is  not  sufficient,  without  an  acceptance  by  the  consignee,  where  the  goods 
are  not  separated  and  set  apart  from  the  residue  of  the  cargo,  and  reasonable 
time  and  opijortunity  given  for  their  removal. '•"'     And  the  discharge  of  a  cargo 


11.  Carrier  by  water. — United  Slalcs. — 
Salmon  Falls  Mf-.  Co.  z'.  The  Tangier, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  r2,2M,  1  Cliff.  39(5;  The 
Grafton,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  S.GoG,  01c.  43; 
v^almon  Falls  Mfj?.  Co.  v.  The  Tangier, 
]-c(\.  Cas.  No.  12,2(57,  3  Ware  110;  The 
Middlesex,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,533;  Kennedy 
V.  Dodge,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,701,  1  Ben. 
311;  The  vSantec,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,328, 
2  Ben.  519;  The  Tybee,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14.304,  1  Woods  358;  Warner  v.  The 
Illinois,   Fed.    Cas.   No.   17,184a. 

Louisiana. — Segura  v.  Reed,  3  La.  Ann. 
()95.  See  Northern  v.  Williams,  etc.,  Co., 
G  La.  Ann.  578. 

Nczu  York. — McAndrew  v.  Whitlock, 
52  N.  Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep.  G57,  affirming  33 
N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  623;  Goodwin  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  154,  10  Am. 
Rep.  457,  reversing  58   Barb.   195. 

''As  the  steamboat  or  ship  can  not  leave 
the  water,  a  usage  has  ripened  into  law, 
that  a  delivery  upon  the  wharf  at  a  public 
port,  with  notice  to  the  consignee,  will 
e.xcuse  the  carrier  by  water.  When  there 
is  a  contract  for  any  particular  mode  of 
delivery,  that  will,  of  course,  govern." 
Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  39  Tenn.  (2  Head)  488, 
75  Am.  Dec.  744. 

Where  the  master  of  a  vessel  delivered 
the  goods  at  the  place  chosen  by  the  con- 
signees, at  which  they  agree  to  receive 
them,  and  did  receive  a  large  portion  of 
them  after  full  and  fair  notice,  and  the 
master  deposited  them  for  the  consignees 
in  proper  order  and  condition  at  midday, 
on  a  week  day,  in  good  weather,  it  was 
a  good  delivery  according  to  the  general 
usages  of  the  commercial  and  maritime 
law.  Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23 
How.  28.  16  L.  Ed.  412. 

Bulky  articles  landed  on  a  wharf  are, 
after  notice  to  consignee,  payment  of 
freight,  and  a  reasonable  time  for  their 
removal,  absolutely  at  his  risk;  and  the 
carrier  is  not  liable,  even  as  warehouse- 
man, for  resulting  damage.  Goodwin  v. 
Baltimore,  "etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  154,  10 
Am.  Rep.  457,  reversing  58  Barb.  195. 

The  ship  is  not  liable  for  damage  by 
rain  to  cargo  delivered  on  wharf,  at  re- 
quest of  cors'gnee,  whose  clerk  assumed 
charge  thereof,  but  failed  to  employ  suf- 
ficient dravs  to  remove  then,  before  night. 
Ellswarth'z'.  Wild  Hunter,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,411.   2  Wood.-   315. 


Reasonable  time  is  such  as  gives  the 
consignee-  linu-  enough,  under  all  proper 
and  ordinary  circumstances,  and  by  pro- 
ceeding in  the  ordinary  mode  of  those 
engaged  in  the  same  business,  to  provide 
for  the  care  and  removal  of  the  goods. 
McAndrew  v.  Whitlock.  52  N.  Y.  40,  11 
Am.  Rep.  657,  affirming  32  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.   623. 

12.  Sleade   v.    Payne,    14    La.    Ann.    453. 

Goods  were  shipper  to  a  certain  land- 
ing, but  no  consignee  was  named,  and  no 
l)ill  of  lading  issued.  When  the  boat 
arrived,  the  goods  were  put  on  the  bank 
l:)y  the  clerk  of  the  boat,  who  requested 
a  warehouseman  to  place  them  in  a  shed, 
which  he  refused  to  do.  Held,  that  there 
was  not  such  a  delivery  as  released  the 
carrier  from  liability  to  consignees  who 
did  not  receive  the  goods.  Bartlett  v.  The 
Philadelphia,  32  Mo.  2:.G. 

13.  Delivery  on  wharf  alone. — Redmond 
z.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steamboat  Co..  46  N. 
Y.  578.  7  Am.  Rep.  390.  reversing  56  Barb. 
320.  Warner  v.  The  Illinois  (Pa.).  17 
Phila.  549.  See  Howland  v.  The  Henry 
Hood.   Fed.   Cas.   No.   6.795. 

Illustrations. — The  carrier  is  liable 
where  the  consignee  made  repeated  calls 
during  the  day,  and  the  goods  were  not 
placed  on  the  wharf  until  an  advanced 
hour  in  the  day,  and  lost  through  inatten- 
tion of  the  carrier's  servants.  Segura  f. 
Reed,  3   La.  Ann.  695. 

Where  goods,  on  arriving  at  destina- 
tion, were^  by  the  defendant's  direction, 
put  on  the  wharf,  it  was  held  that  this  was 
nnt  a  delivery  to  the  consignee,  although  the 
goods  were  taken  away  (without  the  di- 
rection of  the  consignee")  by  a  carter 
usually  employed  to  transport  his_  goods, 
and  the  greater  part  actually  received  by 
the  consignee;  and  the  defendant  was  lia- 
ble for  tiie  goods  not  actually  delivered. 
Ostrander  7'.  Brown  (X.  Y.).  15  Johns. 
39,   8   Am.   Dec.   211. 

Where  a  vessel  discharged  goods  m  a 
rainstorm  which  made  it  impossible  for 
the  consignee  to  take  them  away,  though 
he  knew  of  their  arrival,  and  the  carrier 
did  not  check  the  goods  off  to  the  con- 
signee in  accordance  with  its  custom, 
there  was  not  such  a  delivery  to  the  con- 
s'Ernee  as  relieved  the  carrier  from  liabil- 
ity for  the  loss  of  the  goods  while  they 
were  on  the  wharf.  Morgan  z:  Dibble, 
29  Tex.  107,  94  Am.  Dec.  264. 


§§  844-845 


CARRIERS. 


528 


at  a  remote,  unusual,  or  inaccessible  spot,  or  upon  an  uncovered  pier,  so  that  it 
is  exposed  to  the  weather  or  to  any  unusual  hazard,  may  render  the  carrier  lia- 
ble for  resulting  injury,  notwithstanding  a  stipulation  against  the  consequences 
of  negligence  in  its  bill  of  lading.^"*  On  failure  of  the  shipper  to  make  provi- 
sion for  receiving  the  cargo,  the  carrier  is  at  liberty  to  treat  the  contract  as 
broken,  and  land  the  cargo  at  the  usual  place,  if  there  is  one,  or  procure  a  suita- 
ble place  at  the  shipper's  expense,  or  he  may  wait  for  the  shipper  to  appear, 
and  rely  on  obtaining  compensation  for  the  delay  in  an  action  for  breach  of  the 
implied  contract  to  receive  in  a  reasonable  timc.^-'^ 

§  845.  Duties  in  Making  Delivery. — Notice  to  Consignee — Necessity 
for. — As  to  necessity  ft)r  notice  to  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  goods,  see  else- 
where.^" 

Sufficiency  of  Notice. — The  laws  of  the  state  where  the  delivery  of  an 
interstate  shipment  is  made  govern  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  notice.^'  The  no- 
tice must  be  reasonable ;  ^^  it  must  inform  the  consignee  with  reasonable  cer- 
tainty that  the  carrier  is  ready  to  deliver,  and  of  the  place  of  delivery;  and 
must  be  given  in  business  hours. !'•*  Notice  by  mail  is  held  sufficient,-*^  but  it 
must  be  addressed  properly.-^  Newspaper  notice  is  not  good  unless  knowledge 
of  it  be  brought  home  to  the  consignee.--  And  it  is  held  insufficient  as  to  goods 
from  abroad.-^     Notice  may  be  given  by  posting  on  a  bulletin  board  at  the  cus- 


14.  Discharge  at  remote  or  inaccessible 
place. — Constable  v.  National,  etc.,  Co., 
154   U.   S.  51,  38  L.   Ed.  903,  14  S.   Ct.   1062. 

15.  Wordin  v.  Bemis,  32  Conn.  268,  85 
Am.  Dec.  255. 

16.  Necessity  for  notice  to  consignee. — 
See  post,  "Carrier  as  Warehouseman," 
Chapter    13. 

17.  Sufficiency  of  notice — What  law 
governs. — Greek-American  Produce  Co. 
f.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  4  Ala.  App.  377, 
58   So.   994. 

18.  Notice  must  be  reasonable. — Craw- 
ford V.  Clark,  15  111.  561;  Atlantic  Nav. 
Co.  V.   Johnson,   27   N.   Y.   Super.   Ct.   475. 

19.  T.  &  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Schneider,  1  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  118. 

20.  Notice  by  mail. — Alabaiua. — South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Adams  Mach.  Co.,  165  Ala. 
436,   51   So.   779. 

Compliance  with  Code  1896,  §  4224, 
which  provides  that  a  carrier,  if  the  des- 
tination of  freight  is  a  city  or  town  having 
2,000  or  more  inhabitants  and  a  daily 
mail,  is  not  relieved  from  responsibility 
as  a  carrier  unless  within  twenty-four 
hours  after  its  arrival  notice  is  given  the 
consignee  personally  or  through  the  mail, 
is  not  shown  where  one  alleged  notice 
was  mailed  "within  a  day  or  two"  after 
arrival  of  the  goods,  and  another  notice 
was  mailed  eighteen  days  after  and  only 
two  days  before  the  goods  were  burned. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  Mach.  Co.,  165 
Ala.  436,  51  So.  779. 

Kexu  York. — Friedman  v.  Metropolitan, 
etc.,  Co.,  90  N.  Y.  S.  401,  45  Misc.  Rep. 
383. 

North  Carolina. — Rule  1,  Corp.  Com. 
Poythress  v.  Durham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  S. 
E.  515,  148  N.  C.  391,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
427. 


U  asliin'j,ton. — Normile  v.  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  77  Pac.  1087,  36  Wash.  21,  67  L. 
R.  A.   271. 

21.  Where  goods  were  directed  to  the 
consignee,  whose  name,  and  the  number 
of  his  place  of  business,  were  placed  upon 
the  box,  notice  of  their  arrival,  mailed 
to  him,  without  giving  his  number,  which 
in  consequence  thereof  was  returned,  is 
insufficient.  Union  Steamboat  Co.  v. 
Knapp,  73  111.  506. 

Mailing  the  notice  to  the  place  of  de- 
livery where  the  consignee  was  known 
not  to  be  doing  business,  and  where  the 
notice  would  not  be  received,  is  insuffi- 
cient. National  Bank  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
135  Mo.  App.  74,  115  S.  W.  517. 

An  address  upon  a  box  intrusted  to  a 
carrier  read  "Wm.  Wood  &  Co.,  New 
York,"  while  the  shipping  ticket  read  "VV. 
Wood."  There  were  forty  persons  in 
the  New  York  directory,  who  bore  the 
name  of  "W.  Wood."  Held,  that  the 
carrier  did  not  fulfill  its  duty  by  mailing 
a  notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  box  at  desti- 
nation to  a  "W.  Wood"  selected  by 
chance  from  the  names  in  the  directory. 
Wood  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  N.  Y. 
S.   184,  48  Misc.   Rep.   643. 

22.  Newspaper  notice. — .Snow  v.  The 
Inca,  h'ed.  Cas.  No.  13,145a;  Kohn  v. 
Packard,   :j   La.   224,   23   Am.   Dec.  453. 

The  publication  of  the  cargo  list  of  a 
steamer  was  not  such  a  notice  to  the  con- 
signee as  to  discharge  the  shipowner  from 
liability  under  a  bill  of  lading,  the  goods 
having  been  unloaded  and  sold  for  stor- 
age. Caruana  v.  British,  etc..  Steam 
Packet  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2484,  6  Ben.  517. 

23.  Goods  from  abroad. — Atlantic  Nav. 
Co.  V.  Johnson,  27  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  475. 


529 


TkANSl'(JKTATIOX    AND   DELIVERY    I5V   CAKKIKR. 


§  845 


toni  house  at  a  port  where  it  is  usual  so  to  post  such  notices. 2^  Where  a  pack- 
age is  jointly  addressed  to  two  persons,  notice  to  one  of  them  is  notice  to  both. 2' 
Actual  notice  to  the  consignee's  agent  is  sufficient ;  -'•  but  notice  to  a  drayman 
merclv  authorized  to  haul  a  consignee's  goods  from  the  depot,-"  or  to  a  person 
at  the  consignee's  place  of  business  who  represents  that  lie  is  the  consignee, 2« 
is  held  insufficient.  Where  a  consignee  has  actual  notice  of  the  arrival  of 
freight,  and  does  not  demand  it  in  a  reasonable  time  thereafter,  the  manner  of 
notice  is  immaterial.-''  It  is  held  a  question  for  the  jury  whether  notice  is 
sufficient.''" 

Safe-Keeping  of  Goods. — I'ntil  the  goods  are  called  for  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  carrier  to  take  i)roper  care  of  them,  as  by  depositing  them  in  a  safe  place.'** 
And  wl'.ere  circumstances  prevent  the  removal  of  freight  in  such  time  as  is 
usually  rc(iuired  l)y  the  consignee,  it  is  the  carrier's  duty  to  keep  it  under  the 
responsibility  of  a  warehouseman.-''-  But  if  the  owner  of  goods  is  present  at 
their  arrival,  and  is  then  notified  that  the  carrier  will  not  store  such  goods, 
and  still  leaves  them,  the  railroad  company  may  ])Ut  them  off  its  premises; 
though  if  the  carrier  afterwards  place  the  goods  in  its  shed  it  waives  the 
refusal  and  becomes  liable  as  a  dejiository.^'^  Where  a  consignee  can  not  be 
located,  the  carrier,  if  informed  that  the  ownership  of  the  property  is  in  the 
consignor,  is  bound  to  hold  it  a  reasonable  length  of  time,  subject  to  the  con- 
signor's order.-'^ 

Unloading  Goods. — It  is  ordinarily  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  unload  the 
freight  and  de])osit  it  in  a  suitable  place  at  which  the  consignee  may  receive  it;^-"' 


24.  Posting  notice. — Coiistal)le  v.  Na- 
tional, etc.,  Co.,  l,-)4  U.  S.  .jI.  14  S.  Ct. 
l()(i'2.    :{S    L.    Ed.    903. 

25.  Notice  to  joint  consignee. — Wells  v. 
Anu'rican   i'.x]).   Co.,  44  Wis.  :54:.'. 

26.  Notice  to  agent. — Backhaus  "'.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  Iv.  Co.,  92  Wis.  393,  ()(>  N.  W. 
400. 

27.  Notice  to  drayman. — Berry  v.  West 
Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  S.  E.  143,  44  W. 
Va.  .■538,  ()7  Am.  St.  Rep.  781. 

28.  Cavallaro  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 
Cal.  348,  42  Pac.  918,  52  Am.  Rep.  94. 

29.  Southern  R.  Co.  V.  Adams  Mach. 
Co.,    If).-)    .W'd.    430,    .^1    So.    779. 

30.  It  is  a  question  for  the  jury  wholher 
notice  given  to  a  consignee  hy  a  drayman. 
at  5  o'clock  p.  m.  of  a  Saturdaj-.  of  the 
arrival  of  goods,  which  burned  the  follow- 
ing day  in  the  carrier's  warehouse,  was 
not  sut^icient,  where  the  consignee  kept 
his  place  of  business  open  that  night  till 
9  o'clock,  or  later,  and  there  was  evidence 
that  the  drayman  offered  to  haul  the 
goods  then.  Frank  v.  Grand  Tower,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  181 

31  Safe  keeping  of  goods. — Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Moreliead,  .■)  W.  Va.  293; 
American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hockett,  30  Tnd. 
250,  95  Am.  Dec.  691.     See  post,   II,  XT. 

1  he  carrier  of  goods  deposited  them 
outside  its  depot,  where  they  were  injured 
by  the  weather  before  they  could  be 
taken  Ijy  the  consignee.  Held,  that  the 
carrier  was  liable,  as  it  was  its  duty  to 
warehouse  the  goods  until  called  for  by 
the  consignee.  McHenry  r.  Philadelpliia. 
etc..   R.  Co.    (Del.).  4    Har.  44S. 

A  carrier  without  compensation  held 
liable  on   the  ground   of  gross   negligence, 


because  he  deposited  the  goods  in  a  place 
which  was  peculiarly  unsafe  at  the  time, 
by  reason  of  an  anticipated  raid  of  hos- 
tile troops  .-Xdams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Cressap 
(Ky.).  (■)   Bush  572. 

A  usuage  for  the  shipper  to  notify  the 
consignee,  and  for  the  consignee  to  call 
at  a  railroad  station  and  take  the  goods 
without  notice  from  the  carriers,  will  not 
excuse  the  railroad  company  for  want  of 
proper  care  of  the  goods  until  they  are 
called  for.  Browning  v.  Long  Island  R. 
Co.    (N.   Y.),   2   Daly   117. 

32.  Harris  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  9 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  392. 

33.  Smith  v.  Nashua,  etc..  R.  Co.,  27 
X.  H.  Sf),  59  Am.  Dec.  364. 

34.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Born  Steel 
Range  Co..   120  Ga.  527,  55  S.   E.  173. 

35.  Duty  to  unload. — Beaumont  v.  Phila- 
delphia, etc..  R.  Co..  38  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
224.  See  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bensley, 
69    111.   630. 

Portion  of  goods  unloaded. — Where, 
after  notice  to  tlie  consignee  (^f  tiie  ar- 
rival of  goods  and  the  removal  of  a  portion 
of  those  unloaded,  the  remainder  of  the 
goods  wliich  have  l)een  unloaded  are  de- 
stroyed by  tire  on  the  wharf,  the  fact 
that  the  carrier  has  not  unloaded  a  por- 
tion of  the  consignment  does  not  make 
it  liable  for  the  destroyed  goods.  Wyn- 
antskill  Knitting  Co.  v.  Murray,  90  Hun 
554.  36   X.   Y.   S.  26,  71   N.   Y.   St.   Rep.   33. 

Where  not  duty  to  unload. — When  a 
car  loaded  witii  fruit  in  tniskets  is.  at  the 
consignee's  request,  taken  for  unloading 
to  a  platform  so  placed  and  constructed 
tliat  the  fruit  will  be  liable  to  damage  from 
the  weather,  and   also  liable  to  be  stolen 


1    Car— 34 


§  845 


CARRIERS. 


>30 


but  it  is  held  that  in  the  case  of  bulky  freight  shipped  by  cars  the  carrier  is  not 
required  to  remove  it  from  the  car,  but  discharges  its  obligation  by  delivering 
the  car  in  a  safe  and  convenient  position  for  unloading  at  the  place  designated, 
by  the  contract,  or,  in  the  absence  of  such  designation,  on  its  side  track  in  the 
usual  and  customary  place  for  unloading  by  consignees. ^^^^  And  when  the  con- 
signee knows  that  the  railroad  company  has  no  depot  or  agent  at  the  place  of 
destination,  leaving  the  car  containing  the  goods  on  a  side  track  at  such  place 
is  a  good  delivery,  and  relieves  the  carrier  of  further  responsibility,  and  no 
liability  as  warehouseman  will  be  assumed.-"'  Where  the  consignee  undertakes 
to  unload  the  goods,  using  the  carrier's  machinery  for  that  purpose,  the  carrier 
is  not  answerable  for  any  loss  or  injury  that  may  happen  in  the  course  of 
unloading.^^ 

Opportunity  to  Inspect  and  Remove   Goods. — After  goods  have  arrived 
the  carrier  must  give  the  consignee  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  inspect  ^^  and 


if  taken  from  the  car,  it  is  not  the  dutj' 
of  the  defendant  to  unload  the  car. 
Davies  z:  Alichigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  131  111. 
App.  r.49. 

Under  Arkansas  Act  March  24,  1887, 
which  provides  that  a  common  carrier  of 
freight  shall  load,  transport,  and  unload 
freight  for  the  one  charge  for  transpor- 
tation, defendant  could  be  excused  from 
unloading  brick  on  the  ground  only  tha; 
plaintiff  voluntarily  bound  himself  by 
agreement,  express  or  implied,  to  unload 
it.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bruce,  55 
Ark.  65,  17  S.  W.  363. 

Illustrations. — A  car  load  of  bricks  was 
consigned  to  plaintiff  at  "Cloverfield  Sta." 
There  was  no  station  agent  or  side  track 
there,  and  no  one  was  upon  the  ground 
to  receive  the  bricks.  After  waiting  a 
few  minutes,  during  which  the  locomotive 
whistle  was  repeatedly  sounded,  the  car 
was  carried  to  a  station  a  mile  beyond, 
and  left  upon  a  side  track.  Held  that, 
since  the  loaded  car  could  not  be  left 
upon  the  track,  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
company  to  unload  and  leave  the  bricks 
upon  the  ground,  and,  the  freight  having 
been  prepaid,  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  re- 
cover their  value.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Gilmer,   89  Ala.   534,  7    So.   654. 

A  railroad  contracted  at  its  own  ex- 
pense to  load  oil  and  transport  it  over 
its  road  to  a  specified  point,  "and  thence 
by  barges  to  the  warehouse"  of  the  com- 
pany, and  "cause  the  same  to  be  unloaded 
and  returned  without  delay;"  tlie  oil  com- 
pany to  pay  "on  the  delivery  of  the  oil." 
Held,  that  the  contract  required  the  rail- 
road company  to  unload  the  oil  from  the 
barges  at  the  warehouse,  and  no  freight 
could  be  recovered  for  oil  not  unloaded. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Standard 
Oil  Co.,  87  N.  Y.  486,  affirming  20  Hun  39. 
36.  Car  load  freight. — Beaumont  v. 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  224.  McCabe  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
154  Til.  App.  380.  See  Yount  v.  Wabash 
R.  Co.,  119  S.  W.  1,  136  Mo.  App.  697. 

Alabama  Code  1907,  §  5604.  requires 
cars  shipped  for  "track  delivery"  to  be 
placed    on    tracks     maintained     by     rail- 


road companies  at  accessible  places  for 
unloading  cars,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
livering freight  in  car  load  lots.  Greek- 
American  Produce  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.    Co.,   4   Ala.   App.   377,    58   So.    994. 

37.  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  66  Ala. 
167,  41  Am.  Rep.  749;  Reid  v.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  63  S.  E.  113,  149  N.  C.  423.  See 
Bachant  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  187 
Mass.  392,  73  N.  E.  642,  105  Am.  St.  Rep. 
408. 

38.  Where  consignee  unloads. — If  A., 
for  whom  goods  are  transported  by  a 
railroad  company,  authorizes  B.  to  receive 
the  delivery  and  transportation  thereof 
to  A.  and  B.  instead  of  receiving  the 
goods  at  the  usual  place  of  delivery,  re- 
quests the  agent  of  the  company  to  per- 
mit the  car  which  contains  the  goods  to 
be  hauled  to  a  near  depot  of  another  rail- 
road company,  and  such  agent  assents 
thereto,  and  assists  B.  in  hauling  the  car 
to  such  depot,  and  B.  there  requests  and 
obtains  leave  of  that  company  to  use  its 
machinery  to  remove  the  goods  from  the 
car,  then  the  company  that  transported 
the  goods  is  not  answerable  for  the  want 
of  care  or  skill  in  the  persons  employed 
in  so  removing  the  goods  from  the  car, 
nor  for  the  want  of  strength  in  the  mach- 
inery used  in  the  removal  of  them,  and 
can  not  be  charged  with  any  loss  that 
may  happen  in  the  course  of  such  de- 
livery to  A.  Lewis  V.  Western  R.  Corp. 
(Mass.),    11    Mete.    509. 

39.  Opportunity  to  inspect  goods. — 
United  Slates.— Th&  Mary  Washington, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,229,  1  Abb.  U.  S.  1,  Chase 
125;  Dibble  v.  Morgan,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3, 
881,  1  Woods  406;  Bradstreet  v.  Heran, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,792,  1  Abb.  Adm.  209. 
affirmed  in  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1792a,  2  Blatchf. 
llf. 

Kansas. — Leavenworth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Maris,  16  Kan.  333;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Wichita  Wholesale  Grocery  Co.,  55 
Kan.   525,   40   Pac.   899. 

Nezv  Foir/^.— Clark  v.  Masters,  14  N.  Y. 
Super.    Ct.    177. 

If  the  consignee  can  not  examine  the 
goods     without     unlading,    tlic    carrier    is 


531 


TRAXSl'OKTATIOX    AND   DIXIVKKV    liV    CAKKlKK. 


§§  845-84(5 


remove  1116111,-*^'  in  the  usual  hours  of  business.^'  lint  an  actual  inspection  of  the 
goods  and  their  removal  by  the  consignee  is  not  necessary  to  a  delivery  by  a  car- 

ri(.r.'- 

Duty  to  Inform  Consignee  of  Charges.— A  statute  pnnidmg  that  carriers 

shall  inform  anv  consignee  of  the  correct  amount  due  for  freight  according  to 
classification  and  rales  established  and  tiled  is  not  limited  to  a  shipment  where 
rates  have  been  established  and  filed;  but  the  carrier  must  inform  the  con- 
signee of  the  charges  in  any  case.-*'' 

§  846.  Effect  of  Custom  or  Usage.— The  prima  facie  obligation  of  a 
carrier  with  resjKct  to  (klivcry  may  be  affected  by  a  well-established  and  gen- 
erally well-known  custom  and  usage.-*^  Delivery  according  to  the  well-known 
custom  and  usage  of  the  i)ort  will  discharge  the  carrier  of  its  responsibility.-*' 


hound  U)  unlade  the  cargo  at  his  own 
expense,  and  place  it  in  such  a  position 
that  the  consignee  may  exercise  these 
rights,  before  he  can  claim  his  whole 
freight.  Clark  v.  Masters,  14  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.    177. 

40.  Opportunity  to  remove  goods. — 
United  States.— Dihhlc  v.  Morgan,  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   3,881,   1   Woods  406. 

Kansas. — Leavenworth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Maris,  Ki  Kan.  333;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Wichita  Wholesale  Grocery  Co..  55 
Kan.  525,  40  Pac.  sun. 

Kentucky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jones,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  494. 

Louisiana. — Maignan  v.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  La.  Ann.  333;  Sleade  v. 
Payne,  14  La.  Ann.  453;  Segura  v.  Reed, 
3  La.  Ann.  695. 

Nezv  York.— Frice  v.  Powell,  3  N.  Y. 
323;  Goodwin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
50  N.  Y.  154,  10  Am.  Rep.  457,  reversing 
58  Barb.  195;  McAndrcw  v.  Whitlock, 
52  N.  Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep.  657,  aflirming 
32  N.  Y.  Super.   Ct.  623. 

Nezv  Jersey. — Burr  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
71   N.  J.   L.   263,   58   Atl.   609. 

Wisconsin. — Backhaus  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co..  92  Wis.  393,  66  N.  W.  400;  Parker 
V.    Milwaukee,    etc..    R.    Co..    30    Wis.    689. 

Where  a  consignee  requires  several  days 
to  remove  a  large  quantity  of  I)ulky  mer- 
chandise, the  carrier  is  liable  as  such  for 
quantities  as  are  lost  or  stolen  from  its 
warcliouse  before  such  time  expires, 
though  lie  pointed  out  to  the  consignee 
all  the  merchandise  before  he  began  to 
remove  it.  Maignan  z'.  New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.   Co..  24   La.   Ann.  333. 

If  goods  are  received  on  a  holiday,  and 
it  has  been  the  usage  of  the  consignee 
not  to  receive  goods  on  those  days,  he 
is  entitled  to  a  reasonalile  time  after 
that  day  to  remove  them,  Iiefore  the  car- 
rier's liability  will  cease.  Russell  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co.,  50  N. 
Y.   121. 

41.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Wichita 
WHiolesale  Grocery  Co..  55  Kan.  525,  40 
Pac.  899;  Leavenworth,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Maris,   16   Kan.   333. 

42.  Dibble  v.  Morgan.  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,881,    1    Woods    406. 


43.  Duty  to  inform  consignee  of  charges. 
— Harrill  Bros.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  144 
N.  C.  532,  57  S.  E.  383.  Revisal  1905,  § 
2633. 

44.  Effect  of  custom  or  usage. — I'nited 
States. — Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.), 
23   How.   28,   38,    16    L.    Ed.   412. 

Alabama. — Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Kidd, 
29  Ala.  221;  Melbourne  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  88  Ala.  433,  6  So.  762;  Mobile,  etc., 
R.   Co.  V.  Williams,  54  Ala.   168. 

Georgia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Everett, 
37  Ga.  688;  Mosher  &  Co.  v.  Southern 
Exp.   Co.,   38    Ga.    37. 

Illinois. — Cahn  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
71   111.   96. 

lozva. — Angle  &  Co.  v.  Mississippi,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  9  Iowa  487. 

Kentucky. — Briant  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  47. 

Nezi;  Hampshire. — Stimson  v.  Jackson, 
58     N.    H.     138. 

Pennsvkania. — McMasters  r.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  69  Pa.  374,  8  Am.  Rep. 
264. 

Ufalu—Sharp  v.  Clark.  13  Utah  510,  4,% 
Pac.   566. 

Considered  part  of  contract. — Long- 
established,  uniform,  and  well-known 
usage  as  to  the  mode  of  delivery  will  be 
considered  as  a  part  of  the  contract  of 
the  carrier.  The  Richmond.  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    11,796,    1    Bi.ss.   49. 

When  no  consignee  is  named,  but  merely 
the  place  of  destination,  what  constitutes 
a  delivery  depends  on  the  usages  of  the 
trade.  Galloway  v.  Hughes  (S.  C),  1 
Bailey   553. 

Must  be  established  by  proof. — Where 
a  carrier  relie.-;  on  local  usage  as  con- 
trolling the  question  of  sufficiency  of  de- 
livery, such  local  usage  must  be  affir- 
matively established  by  proof,  and  evi- 
dence of  a  single  case  in  which  such 
a  usage  has  been  acted  upon  is  insuffi- 
cient. '  Rowland  r.  Miln  (N.  Y.),  2  Hilt. 
150. 

45.  Delivery  according  to  usage  of  port. 
— Constable  f.  Xational.  etc..  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  51.  38  L.  Ed.  903,  14  S.  Ct.  1062; 
Richardson  v.  Gooddard  (U.  S.),  23  How. 
28,  16  L.  Ed.  412;  Field  v.  The  Lovett 
Peacock,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    4,768;    Irzo    v. 


§  846 


CARRIERS. 


532 


But  such  custom  or  usage  should  be  known  to  the  shipper,'*'^  or  of  such  character 
that  he  is  chargeable  with  notice  of  it."*^  Also,  it  must  not  be  unreasonable,'*'* 
or  contrary  to  the  contract  of  shipment.^"^ 


]'erkins,  10  Fed.  779.  The  Alill  Bay  (D. 
C).  13  Fed.  ISl;  Atlantic  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  27  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  475.  See 
Richmond  z-.  Union  Stcanil)oat  Co.,  87 
N.    Y.   340. 

46.  Custom  must  be  known. — Ccniral 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Anderson,  58  Ga.  393; 
Packard  v.  Earle,  113  Mass.  280;  Steam- 
boat Albatross  v.  Wayne,  16  O.  513,  af- 
firming 4  West.   L.  J.   527,   1   O.  Dec.  219. 

But  see  Turner  v.  Huff,  46  Ark.  222, 
55  Am.  Dec.  580,  holding  that  a  carrier 
by  water  can  not  be  held  for  loss  of  goods 
delivered  at  the  proper  landing  place,  al- 
though there  is  no  warehouse  there,  and 
he  gives  no  notice  to  the  consignee,  if 
such  is  the  uniform  usage,  although  neither 
shipper    nor    consignee    knows    the    usage. 

Where  there  are  no  directions  for  trans- 
portation, save  such  as  may  be  inferred 
from  marks  on  the  goods,  the  carrier  is 
only  bound  to  transport  and  deliver  them 
at  their  destination  according  to  the  es- 
tablished usage  of  the  business  in  whicli 
he  is  engaged,  whether  the  consignor 
knew  of  the  usage  or  not.  Hemstead  v. 
New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  28  Barb. 
485. 

47.  To  effect  the  prima  facie  obligation 
of  a  carrier  with  respect  to  delivery,  the 
custom  and  usage  must  be  so  uniformly 
acquiesced  in,  by  length  of  time,  that  the 
jury  will  feel  themselves  constrained  to 
say  that  it  entered  into  the  minds  of  the 
parties,  and  made  a  part  of  the  contract. 
Cahn  z:  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  71  111.  96. 

A  shipper  who  has  been  in  the  habit 
of  shipping  over  a  certain  railroad  is 
chargeable  with  notice  of  a  general  and 
long-established  custom  of  the  road  to  de- 
liver freight  to  connecting  lines  as  con- 
signors. Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mur- 
ray,  72    111.    128. 

48.  Custom  must  be  reasonable. — Reed 
V.  Richardson.  98  Mass.  21(),  93  Am.  Dec. 
155.  See  The  Mill  Boy,  13  Fed.  181,  4 
McCrary  383. 

Instances  of  reasonable  customs. — The 
custom  of  a  port  to  stop  discharging 
cargoes  of  brimstone  when  there  is  a  high 
wind  is  not  unreasonable.  Bertellote  v. 
Part  of  Cargo  of  Brimstone,  5  Hughes 
201,  3  Fed.  661. 

A  custom  of  a  railroad  company  to 
deposit  freight  on  the  platform  of  small 
way  stations  without  storing  it,  and  with- 
out notice  to  the  consignee,  is  a  reason- 
able one,  and  will  operate  to  discharge 
the  company  from  its  common-law  li- 
ability for  loss  occasioned  by  its  failure  to 
store  it.  McMasters  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  69  Pa.  374,  8  Am.  Rep.  264. 

Plaintiff  sold  to  B.  certain  goods,  to  be 
paid  for  in  cash  on  delivery,  and  B.  sold 


them  lo  W.  Plaintiffs,  by  order  of  B., 
caused  the  property  to  be  shipped  on 
board  a  vessel  of  which  defendant  C. 
was  master,  taking  a  receipt  therefor, 
which  they  continued  to  hold.  W.,  with- 
out having  paid  for  the  property,  and 
without  any  actual  possession  or  in- 
dicia of  ownership,  procured  from  the 
owner  of  the  vessel  a  bill  of  lading  as 
owner  and  shipper  of  the  goods,  and  in- 
dorsed it  to  persons  advancing  money  on 
it.  Held,  in  an  action  of  claim  and  de- 
livery for  the  goods,  that  proof  of  a  cus- 
tom to  deliver  the  bill  of  lading  only  to 
holders  of  the  shipping  receipt  was  ad- 
missible; such  custom  being  reasonable, 
and  tending  to  protect  the  shipper  and 
shipowner.  Blossom  v.  Champion  (N. 
Y.),  37   Barb.  554. 

A  usage  of  expressmen,  whenever  pack- 
ages arrive  at  their  places  of  business 
specially  addressed  to  consignee  at  estab- 
lishments where  many  persons  sojourn  or 
are  employed,  to  deliver  them  in  the  of- 
fices or  counting-rooms  of  such  estab- 
lishments, to  the  clerks  there  in  charge, 
for  the  consignees,  and  take  the  receipts 
of  the  clerks  therefor,  without  giving  no- 
tice to  the  .  consignees  personally,  held 
to  be  a  reasonable  usage,  in  respect  to 
ordinary  packages — as  a  box  of  clothing 
of  the  value  of  $50.  Sullivan  v.  Thomp- 
son,   99    Mass.    359. 

49.  Custom  must  not  violate  contracts. — 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  119  Pa.  24, 
13  Atl.  756,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  G26;  CoUender 
v.  Dinsmore,  55  N.  Y.  200,  14  Am.  Rep. 
334,  reversing  64   Barb.  457. 

Illustration. — In  an  action  against  an 
express  company  for  goods  which  it  con- 
tracted to  deliver  to  a  certain  consignee, 
"C.  O.  D.  $375,  from  T.'s  Express,"  evi- 
dence of  a  custom  showing  that  the  con- 
tract means  that  T.'s  Express  was  re- 
quired to  collect  of  the  consignee,  is  in- 
admissible, as  the  contract  clearly  makes 
it  incumbent  on  defendant  to  collect  from 
T.'s  Express.  Collender  v.  Dinsmore,  55 
N.  Y.  300,  14  Am.  Rep.  234,  reversing  64 
Barb.   457. 

Proof  of  a  custom  l)etween  the  carrier 
and  a  third  person  to  make  and  receive 
delivery  of  goods  formerly  shipped  with- 
out production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  which 
was  not  brought  home  to  the  shipper,  or 
acquiesced  in  l)y  him,  will  not  exonerate 
the  carrier  from  liability  when  instructed 
to  deliver  only  on  production  of  bill  of 
lading.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  119 
Pa.  24.  12  Atl.  756.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  626. 
See  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  132  Mo.  492,  33  S.  W.  521,  53 
Am.  St.  Rep.  505,  affirming  62  Mo.  App. 
531. 


533 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  Di;i.I\i:kV    I'.Y   CARRIKR. 


§  847 


§  847.  Time  of  Delivery. — Reasonable  Time. — Where  the  contract  of 
shi])ineiit  dtjcs  not  s])ecif\  an\  particular  time  for  delivery,  it  must  be  made 
within  a  reasonable  time.''"  I  f  a  common  carrier  by  water  be  prevented  from 
delivering  goods  on  account  of  the  freezing  up  of  the  river,  his  obligation  to 
deliver  them  in  a  reasonable  time  after  the  resumption  of  navigation  will  still 
continue.''''  W  hat  is  such  reasonable  time  can  not  be  defined  by  atiy  general 
rule,  but  must  (lei)end  up(jn  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.  Thus  the 
mode  of  conveyance,  the  distance,  the  nature  of  the  goods,  the  season  of  the 
year,  the  character  of  the  weather,  and  the  ordinary  facilities  of'  transportation 
are  matters  i)roperly  to  be  considered.'-  .Anrl  whether  goods  are  delivered  within 
a  reasonable  time  is  a  question  for  the  jur)-.'"' 

Within  Reasonable  Hours.— The  carrier  must  tender  the  goods  at  a  rea- 
sonable lime."''  and  within  reasonable  hours,''"'  which  is  generally  held  to  be 
within  Imsincss  hours."'''     .\nd  if  the  goods  are  tendered  after  the  hours  of  busi- 


50.  Reasonable  time. — I'liitcd  States. — 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Kirby,  225  U.  S. 
155,  5()  L.  Ed.  1033,  32  S.  Ct.  048,  Ann. 
Cas.    1914A,    510. 

Gcoviiia. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Geor- 
gia Fruit,  etc.,  Exch.,  91  Ga.  389,  17  S. 
E.  904;  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Skellie,  Sft 
Ga.  686,  12  S.  E.  1017;  Rome  R.  Co.  v. 
Sullivan,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Ga.  228;  Central 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382.  17 
S.   E.   838,  44  Am.   St.   Rep.   37. 

Missouri. — See  Bartlett  v.  The  Phila- 
delphia,   32    Mo.    256. 

Ohio. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  21  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579; 
Wyler,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  Rail- 
way, 6  N.  P.,  N.  S.,  589,  18  O.  D.  X.  P. 
72?. 

Tennessee. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   V.   Nelson,   41   Tenn.    (1   Coldw.),   272. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tram- 
mel!, 28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  312,  68  S.  W.  716; 
Morgan  v.  Dibble.  29  Tex.  107,  94  Am. 
Dec.  264;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  512;  Trice  v.  Mil- 
ler, 3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  440;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Haynes,  72  Tex.  175, 
10  S.  W.  398;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Baugh 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   42   S.   W.   245. 

Virginia. — Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Staton, 
17  Va.   (3  Munf.)   239. 

PVest  Virginia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morehead, 
5  W.   Va.  293. 

"When  goods  are  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier for  transportation,  the  contract  which 
the  law  implies  is,  whether  there  be  any 
writing  or  not,  that  the  carrier,  for  a 
reasonable  compensation,  will  within  rea- 
sonable time  deliver  the  goods  at  the 
place  of  destination  to  the  consignees." 
Waring  &  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893,  7  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
553. 

Where  an  owner  of  goods  delivers  them 
to  a  railroad  company  to  be  shipped  to 
a  designated  point,  and  a  bill  of  lading 
is    issued    to    the    owner,    in    whicli    lie    is 


named  as  both  shipper  and  consignee,  and 
which  contains  the  words,  "notify"  a  third 
person,  the  company  will  not  be  relieved 
of  liability  to  the  owner  for  loss  occa- 
sioned by  a  failure  to  comply  with  its  ob- 
ligation, to  deliver  the  goods  at  the  point 
of  destination  within  a  reasonable  time, 
by  showing  that  such  failure  was  due  to 
the  instructions  not  to  deliver  given  by 
the  person  whom  it  was  directed  in  the 
l)ill  of  lading  to  notify  of  the  arrival  of 
the  goods  at  their  destination  who  at  the 
time  of  such  instructions  was  not  in  pos- 
session of  the  bill  of  lading  nor  entitled 
to  its  possession.  Florida  Cent.,  etc..  R. 
Co.  f.  Berry.  116  Ga.  19,  42  S.  K.  371. 
That  a  shipper  insisted  upon  the  pay- 
ment of  drafts  drawn  on  a  third  person, 
who  was  to  l)e  notified  of  the  arrival  of 
the  goods,  after  notice  that,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  directions  of  such  third 
person,  the  goods  had  been  transported 
to  a  point  other  than  the  original  place 
of  destination,  does  not  relieve  the  com- 
])any  from  liability  to  the  shipper  for 
failure  to  transport  the  property  within 
a  reasonable  time.  Florida  Cent.,  etc., 
R.   Co.  r.  Berrv,  116  Ga.   19,  42  S.   E.  371. 

51.  Lowe   ?■.    Moss.   13    111.    477. 

52.  What  is  reasonable  time. — McGraw 
t.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  \'a.  361, 
41  Am.  Rep.  696.  See  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  T'.   Flonrno}-.  75  Ga.  745. 

53.  Question  for  jury. — Columbus,  etc., 
R.   Co.  T'.   Flournoy,   7.")   Ga.   745. 

54.  Tender  at  reasonable  time. — Mar- 
.-hall  r.  -Xniorican  Kxp.  Co.,  7  Wis.  1. 
See  Bartlett  z:  The  Philadelphia,  32  Mo. 
256. 

55.  Within  reasonable  hours. — Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Traninicll,  ~S  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
312,  315,  68  S.  W.  7H".,  affirmed  in  95 
Tex.  680,  no  op.:  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Haynes.  72  Tex.   175.  10  S.  W.  39S. 

56.  Within  business  hours. — Morgan  v. 
Dil)blo,  29  Tex.  107.  119.  04  Am.  Dec.  264; 
T.  &  P.  R.  Co.  r.  Schneider,  1  Tex.  App. 
Civ.   Cas.,   §   118. 

It  is  the  duty  of  an  express  company 
to  deliver  packages  as  soon  ps  '^r-'-tV-ble 
after    arrival,    within    the    usual    hours    of 


§§  847-848 


CARRIERS. 


534 


ness,  or  when  the  consignee  is  unable  to  receive  them,  such  tender  will  not  dis- 
charge the  carrier."^'  But  an  offer  to  deliver  a  package  to  a  bank  need  not  be 
made  during  banking  hours.''''  unless  such  is  the  special  engagement,  or  the  es- 
tablished usage  of  the  place  of  destination.'^'-^ 

Delivery  on  Holiday. — Where  it  is  a  general  and  uniform  custom  at  a  place 
to  which  freight  is  consigned  not  to  make  delivery  on  a  certain  holiday,  negli- 
gence can  not  be  predicated  on  the  failure  of  a  carrier  to  make  delivery  on  that 
day.  And  one  who  ships  goods  to  an  agent  at  such  place  is  bound  by  the  custom, 
though  he  had  no  actual  knowledge  thereof.'"'^'  r)Ut  the  carrier  may  discharge  a 
cargo  on  a  holiday,  where  there  is  no  law  or  custom  forbidding  a  delivery  on 
such  holiday. ^^ 

Delivery  during  Rain. — It  has  been  held  that  for  a  carrier  which  has  con- 
tracted to  deliver  the  goods  on  the  platform  at  a  station  where  it  has  no  building 
or  agent,  without  further  responsibility  therefor,  to  deliver  them  during  a  rain, 
is  not  negligence.^- 

§  848.  Necessity  for  Personal  Delivery. — Carriers  undertaking  to  de- 
liver in  person  must  make  actual  delivery  to  the  proper  person  at  his  residence 
or  place  of  business.^^ 

Carriers  by  wagons  are  required  to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  consignee  at 
his  house  or  place  of  business,  and  their  liabifity  as  carrier  continues  until 
such  delivery.'''-^' 

Express  Companies. — An  express  company  is  bound  to  make  personal  de- 


transacting  general  business  in  such 
place.  Marshall  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
7   Wis.    1. 

57.  Hill  V.  Humphreys  (Pa.),  5  Watts 
&  vS.   12.3,   39  Am.   Dec.   117. 

58.  Banking  hours. — Young  v.  Smith 
(Ky.),  3  Dana  91,  28  Am.  Dec.  57;  Mar- 
shall V.  American   Exp.   Co.,  7  Wis.  1. 

In  an  action  by  a  bank  against  an  ex- 
press company  to  recover  for  a  package 
alleged  to  have  been  lost  through  the 
negligence  of  the  company,  it  appeared 
that  it  had  been  the  custom  of  the  com- 
pany to  deliver  packages  to  the  bank  after 
banking  hours.  Held,  that  a  tender  of 
a  package  to  the  bank  V/i  hours  after 
banking  hours  is  equivalent  to  a  delivery. 
Marshall  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  7  Wis.  1. 

59.  Young  V.  Smith  (Ky.),  3  Dana  91, 
28  Am.  Dec.  .57. 

60.  Delivery  on  holiday. — Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.  V.  Naive,  112  Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W. 
124,   64    L.    R.   A.   443. 

61.  Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23 
How.  28,  10  L.  Ed.  412. 

A  ship  was  ready  to  discharge,  and,  the 
consignees  being  notified,  she  began  to 
discharge  on  Monday.  The  consignees 
took  the  freight  away  up  lo  Wednesday 
night,  leaving  then  a  few  bales  on  the 
wharf.  Thursday  was  the  annual  "Fast 
Day"  appointed  by  the  governor.  Dur- 
ing the  forenoon  of  that  day  more  cargo 
was  unloaded,  and  on  the  afternoon  all 
that  was  on  the  wharf  was  burnt.  Held, 
that  there  was  a  good  delivery  to  dis- 
charge the  carrier  from  all  liability. 
Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23  How. 
28,   16  L.   Ed.  412. 


62.  Delivery  during  rain. — Allam  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  1S3  Pa.  174,  38  Atl. 
709,   39   L.    R.   A.,   N.    S.,   535. 

63.  Necessity  for  personal  delivery. — 
Baldwin  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  23  111.  197, 
74  Am.   Dec.   190. 

In  early  cases  it  was  held  that,  as  a 
general  rule,  a  common  carrier  must  de- 
liver the  goods,  to  the  owner  or  consignee 
personally  at  the  place  where  the  trans- 
portation ends,  and  from  this  duty  he  can 
only  be  discharged  by  a  special  contract, 
or  proof  of  an  opposite  usage.  Schroeder 
V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  55.  See  Fisk  v.  Newton  (N.  Y.),  1 
Denio  45.  43  Am.  Dec.  649;  Bartlett  v. 
The  Philadelphia,  32  Mo.  256. 

A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that  the 
goods  should  be  forwarded  to  "Louisville 
depot  only"  is  sufficient  to  relieve  the 
common  carrier  from  making  a  personal 
delivery  to  the  consignee  at  his  residence 
or  place  of  business.  Merchants'  Des- 
patch, etc.,  Co.  V.  Merriam,  111  Ind.  5,  11 
N.    E.   954. 

That  a  consignee  had  guaranteed  the 
rent  of  a  building,  and  was  thus  compelled 
to  pay  it,  docs  not  justify  the  carrier  in 
delivering  the  goods  there.  Mahon  v. 
Blake,  125  Mass.  477. 

64.  Carriers  by  wagons. — Morris,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Ayres,  29  N.  J.  L.  393,  80  Am. 
Dec.  215;  Banscmer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
25  Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec.  367.  See  Gibson 
V.  Culver  (N.  Y.),  17  Wend.  305,  31  Am. 
Dec.  297;  Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.), 
23    How.   28,   39,   16   L.    Ed.    412. 


535 


TRANSPORTATION'    AND   UKLISKKV    IJY   CARRIER. 


§  848 


livery  either  lo  the  residence  or  i)lace  of  Inisiness  of  the  consignee.'^^  And  it 
must  use  reasonable  diligence  and  make  reasonable  inquiry  to  find  the  consignee. '^"^ 
The  rule  as  to  the  place  and  mode  of  delivery  of  express  packages  may  be  mod- 
ified by  special  agreement  under  which  delivery  may  be  made  at  the  express 
office,  and  the  duty  of  the  carrier  is  then  measured  by  the  usage  or  the  terms 
of  the  special  agreement."'  Where  it  is  the  custom  for  consignees  to  call  for 
packages  at  the  company's  office,  on  being  notified  of  their  arrival,  it  is  not  bound 
to  make  i)ersonal  delivery."**     An  exj^ress  company  may  fix  reasonable  delivery 


65.  Express  companies.  —  Illinois. — 
American  Merchants'  L'nion  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Wolf,    T'J    111.    430. 

Indiana. — Railroad  Comm.  v.  Adams 
Exp.  Co.,  171  Ind.  138,  85  N.  E.  337,  11) 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  93,  rehearing  denied  t^'> 
N.    E.   966. 

Pennsylvania. — .\merican  Union  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Robinson,  72  Pa.  274.  See  Union 
Exp.   Co.  V.   Ohleman,  92   Pa.   323. 

Nezv  Jersey. — See  Burr  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  71   N.  J.   L.  263,  58  Atl.  609. 

West  Virginia. — Hutchinson  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E. 
94!),    14    L.    R.    .-\..    X.    S.,    393. 

Reciprocal  duties. — An  express  carrier's 
duty  to  deliver  to  the  consignee  in  per- 
son, and  the  consignee's  duty  to  receive, 
are  reciprocal.  The  consignee  cannot,  by 
design,  or  to  promote  his  convenience, 
deprive  the  carrier  of  the  right  to  termi- 
nate by  delivery  the  liability  as  insurer 
within  a  reasonable  time.  Where  the  con- 
signee has  notice  of  the  arrival,  and  the 
carrier  is  ready  to  deliver  but  is  prevented 
by  the  consignee's  absence,  the  liability 
as  carrier  ends,  and  thenceforward  the 
liability  is  for  reasonable  care.  Adams 
Exp.  Co.  7'.  Darnell,  31  Ind.  20,  99  Am. 
Dec.  5S2. 

A  usage  of  expressmen,  whenever  pack- 
ages arrive  at  their  places  of  business 
specially  addressed  to  consignees  at  es- 
tablishments where  many  persons  so- 
journ or  are  employed,  to  deliver  them  in 
the  offices  or  counting  rooms  of  such  estab- 
lishments, to  the  clerks  there  in  charge, 
for  the  consignees,  and  take  the  receipts 
of  the  clerks  therefor,  without  giving  no- 
tice to  the  consignees  personally,  held  to 
be  a  reasonable  usage,  in  respect  to  ordi- 
nary packages,  as  a  box  of  clothing  of 
the  value  of  $50.  Sullivan  v.  Thompson, 
99  Mass.  259. 

A  stipulation,  in  the  receipt  for  an  ex- 
press package  addrosscd  to  a  consignee 
at  a  particular  place  in  a  certain  city,  that 
it  "is  to  be  forwarded  to  our  agency  near- 
est or  most  convenient  to  destination 
only,"  held  not  to  discharge  the  express- 
man from  all  liability  other  than  for  the 
safe  delivery  of  the  packap,e  at  his  own 
place  of  business  in  that  city,  and  its  safe- 
keeping there  upon  arrival.  If  he  has 
agents  there  who  habitually  deliver  such 
packages  according  to  the  special  address 
of  each,  he  is  bound  to  deliver  the  pack- 


age as  it  is  specially  addressed,  according 
to  the  reasonable  usages  of  his  business. 
Sullivan   v.   'rhoin])snn.   <)<»   Mass.   259. 

Where  an  express  company  deposited 
goods  on  the  station  platform  at  the  place 
of  destination,  without  delivering  them  to 
the  consignee,  or  placing  them  in  the  cus- 
tody of  any  person,  held,  that  this  was 
gross  negligence,  and  rendered  the  com- 
pany liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  their 
loss,  although  the  company's  agent,  to 
whom  they  were  tendered  by  the  con- 
signor's messenger  for  shipment,  at  first 
declined  to  receive  them  because  the  com- 
pany had  no  agent  at  the  place  of  desti- 
nation, and  was  not  allowed  to  use  the 
depot  of  the  railroad  company,  and  al- 
though the  shipping  agent,  iii  signing  the 
receipt,  added  the  words  "owner's  risk," 
but  without  the  knowledge  or  consent  of 
consignor,  and  although  the  consignee, 
when  he  ordered  the  goods  to  be  for- 
warded by  the  express  company,  knew 
that  the  company  had  no  agent  at  the 
place  of  destination,  and  he  had  lately 
received  goods  forwarded  by  it  under  re- 
ceipts containing  the  same  added  words. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Armstead,  50  Ala. 
350. 

66.  Witbeck  v.  Holland,  55  Barb.  443,  38 
How.  Prac.  273,  affirmed  in  45  N.  Y.  13, 
6  Am.   Rep.  23. 

An  express  company  is  liable  for  failure 
to  deliver  a  package  to  the  consignee, 
where  its  inquiries  as  to  him  were  con- 
fined to  a  few  persons  in  the  vicinity  of  its 
place  of  business,  and  it  obtained  infor- 
mation as  to  a  person  so  named,  who  was 
the  father  of  the  consignee,  but  made  no 
inquiry  of  him.  Witbeck  c.  Holland,  45 
N.  Y.  13,  6  Am.  Rep.  23. 

An  express  company  is  liable  for  a 
package  that  was  stolen  after  having  been 
held  by  the  company  for  some  time  be- 
cause it  did  not  know  of  the  consignee's 
residence,  where  it  knew  of  two  families 
in  the  city  by  the  same  surname  as  the 
consignee,  and  by  inquiring  of  either  could 
have  learned  of  the  residence.  Witbeck 
v.  Holland,  55  Barb.  443,  38  How.  Prac. 
273. 

67.  Special  agreement. — Hutchinson  v. 
United  States  Exp.  Co..  63  W.  Va.  128,  59 
S.   E.  949,  14  L.  R.    \..   X.  S..  30.-^. 

68.  Custom  for  consignees  to  call  for 
packages. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Holland, 
1()<.)   .\la.  362,   19   So.  66. 


§  848 


CARRIERS. 


536 


limits  in  towns  and  cities ;  ^''  anel  where  it  has  estabhshed  such  hmits,  it  is  not 
liable  for  refusing  to  deliver  packages  at  the  store  of  one  who,  knowing  of  the 
limits,  moved  his  store  outside  thereof,  though  the  limits  established  in  another 
direction  were  further  from  the  company's  office  than  such  store."^*^' 

Railroad  Companies. — The  general  rule  that  the  undertaking  of  a  carrier 
to  transport  gt)ods  to  a  particular  destination  includes  the  obligation  of  safe  de- 
livery to  the  consignee  or  his  agent  does  not  apply  to  railroad  companies.  A 
universal  custom  relieves  them  from  the  duty  of  personal  delivery  to  the  con- 
signee."^ And  the  same  principal  is  applicable  to  a  corporation  of  freighters 
owning  a  line  of  freight  cars."-  If  a  railway  company,  receiving  goods  for  trans- 
portation over  its  road,  exacts  the  payment  of  cartage  in  advance  of  shipping, 
this  will  constitute  an  express  contract  to  deliver  at  the  consignee's  place  of  busi- 
ness, and  its  liability  for  damages  will  not  cease  until  this  is  done."^ 

Carriers  by  "Water. — Where  the  contract  is  to  carry  1)y  water  the  carrier  is 
not  required  to  make  personal  delivery  to  the  consignee ;  it  is  enough  that  the 
master  discharge  the  goods  upon  the  wharf,  giving  due  and  reasonable  notice 
to  the  consignee  of  the   fact.""*     The  rule  that  the  carrier  is  not  bound  to  de- 


69.  Reasonable    limits    for     delivery. — 

Railroad  Conim.  z'.  Adam.s  Exp.  Co.,  171 
Ind.  138,  85  N.  E.  966,  19  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
93,   denying  rehearing  85   N.   E.   337. 

70.  Bullard  V.  American  Exp.  Co.,  107 
Mich.   695,   65   N.  W.   551. 

71.  Railroad  companies. — United  States. 
— Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Interstate 
Commerce  Comm.,  188  Fed.  229;  South- 
ern Pac.  Co.  V.  Interstate  Commerce 
Comm.,   188    Fed.   341. 

Alabama. — South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
66  Ala.   167,  41  Am.   Rep.   749. 

Illinois. — Vincent  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R, 
Co.,  49  111.  33;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Hallock,  64  III.  284;  Illi- 
nois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Friend,  64  111.  303. 

Indiana. — Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  25   Ind.   434,  87  Am.   Dec.   367. 

Michigan. — ^Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ward,  2   Mich.   538. 

Missouri. — Buddy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  206. 

Where  a  part  of  goods  were  destroyed, 
and  the  remainder  arrived  uninjured,  ttie 
carrier,  in  order  to  avoid  liability  for  the 
entire  amount  of  the  goods  shipped,  is 
not  bound  to  make,  nor  offer  to  make,  a 
personal  delivery  of  the  property  to  the 
consignee.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bivens,  13  Ind.  263. 

72.  Freighters. — Merchant's  Dispatch 
Transp.    Co.   v.    Hallock,    64    111.    284. 

Where  it  is  the  usage  of  a  merchants' 
dispatch  transportation  company,  upon 
the  consignee's  request,  to  deliver  goods 
shipped  upon  their  arrival  to  teamsters 
not  in  the  company's  e"mploy,  who  deliver 
them  to  the  consignee  at  the  latter's  ex- 
pense, collecting  their  charges  from  him, 
in  the  absence  of  such  a  request  the  com- 
pany's liability  as  a  carrier  is  terminated 
by  storing  the  goods  in  its  warehouse  pro- 
vided for  that  purpose,  if  such  warehouse 
is  safe  and  suitable.  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.   Co.  v.   Hallock,  64  111.  284. 


73.  Charge  for  cartage. — Cahn  v.  Michi- 
gan   Cent.    R.    Co.,   71    111.   96. 

If  a  railroad  company  accepts  goods  for 
transportation  from  B.  to  W.,  and  charges 
in  addition  to  the  usual  freight  for  trans- 
portation between  these  points  a  further 
compensation  for  streetage  to  the  foot  of 
Sixth  street,  and  fails  to  deliver  the  goods 
to  the  consignee  or  his  agent,  or  at  the 
foot  of  Sixth  street,  the  consignor  is  en- 
titled to  recover,  although  the  jury  may 
find  that  the  terminus  of  the  road  is 
within  the  depot  in  W.,  and  that  the  goods 
were  safely  delivered  at  that  point.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Green,  25  Md.  72. 

74.  Carrier  by  water. — United  States. — ■ 
The  Eddy  (U.  S.),  5  Wall.  481,  18  L.  Ed. 
486;  Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23 
How.  28,  16  L.  Ed.  412;  The  Grafton,  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   5,656,   Olc.   43. 

Indiana. — Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   25    Ind.   434,   87   Am.   Dec.   367. 

Louisiana. — Kohn  v.  Packard,  3  La.  224, 
23  Am.  Dec.  453. 

Massachusetts. — Chickering  v.  Fowler 
(Mass.),  4  Pick.  371. 

Ne?v  York. — McAndrew  v.  Whitlock,  52 
N.  Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep.  657,  affirming  33 
N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  633;  Redmond  v.  Liver- 
pool, etc..  Steamship  Co.  (N.  Y.),  56  Barb. 
320. 

Pcnnsxhania. — Cope  v.  Cordova  (Pa.), 
1   Rawle  203. 

Contra. — The  responsibility  of  a  car- 
rier upon  the  Ohio  river  does  not  cease 
upon  the  delivery  of  goods  on  the  wharf, 
and  notice  given  to  the  consignee,  but  it 
is  his  duty  to  attend  to  the  actual  delivery. 
Hemphill  v.  Chenie  (Pa.),  6  Watts  & 
S.  62. 

A  promise  by  a  shipmaster  to  deliver 
goods  to  a  consignee  does  not  l)ind  him 
tfj  deliver  tliem  personally,  or  at  any  par- 
ticular wharf.  Chickering  v.  Fowler 
(Mass.),  4   Pick.  371. 

Unless  a  carrier  by  water  has  under- 
taken to  do  something  more,  wlicn  it  de- 


537 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DIXIVKRV    BV    CARRIER. 


§§  848-849 


liver  to  the  consignee  al  his  place  of  business  may  be  controlled  by  well-estab- 
lished custom."^ 

§§  849-853.  Place  of  Delivery— §  849.  In  General.— A  carrier  must 
deliver  goods  at  a  safe  place;'''  acccNsiblc  to  the  conhiguee."  And  where  de- 
livery is  to  be  made  from  the  car  il  must  be  placed  where  it  can  be  conveniently 
unloaded  '^  A  carrier  by  water  is  not  obliged  to  deliver  freight  at  a  pier  nearest 
to  the  address  of  the  consignee  as  given  in  the  bill  of  lading.""  As  a  general 
rule  placing  cars  on  side  tracks  does  not  complete  the  carrier's  contract  of  car- 
riage,^" unless  such  is  the  agreement  of  the  i)arties.'^' 

Destination  Not  on  Carrier's  Route. — W  hen  a  common  carrier  undertakes 
to  transport  goods,  consigned  lo  a  person  residing  beyond  his  route,  at  a  point 
to  which  there  is  no  connecting  carrier,  lii^  liability  is  terminated  by  flelivery 
of  the  goods  to  a  warehouseman  at  the  point  upon  his  route  nearest  to  the  resi- 
dence of  the  consignee,  and  notifying  the  latter.82  In  such  case,  where  the  evi- 
dence is  conflicting,  what  is  the  proper  place  of  delivery  is  a  question  for  the 

jurv.**^ 

Regulations  Respecting  Delivery. — A  carrier  may  require  the  consignee  to 
receive  freight  on  the  platform  of  its  depot. «-^  And  it  may  have  yards  for  its 
convenience^n  handling,  storing,  and  distributing  freight,  and  will  not  be  obliged 
as  a  common  carrier  to  transjiort  freight  from  one  point  in  the  yards  to  another 
for  the  convenience  of  shi])pers.^-'' 


livers  the  goods  into  tlie  custody  of  the 
wharfinger,  upon  the  wharf,  the  transit  is 
ended,  and  its  responsibility  as  carriers 
ceases.  Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Champ- 
lain  Transp.  Co.,  23  Vt.  180,  5G  Am. 
Dec.  68. 

Deposit  on  bank  of  river. — In  the  ab- 
sence of  any  special  contract,  it  is  neg- 
ligence in  a  common  carrier  of  goods  to 
deliver  them  by  merely  placing  them 
upon  the  l)ank  of  a  river,  in  the  absence 
of  tlie  consignee,  and  not  under  the  care 
of  the  agents  of  the  carrier,  he  having 
agents  at  the  point  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
ceiving and  delivering  goqds.  Dresbach 
V.  California  Pac.  R.  Co.,  .57  Cal.  402. 

75.  Effect  of  custom. — Briant  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.   Co.,  y  Ky.  L.  Rep.  47. 

76.  Safe  place. — A  railroad  company  is 
responsililc  for  the  loss  of  a  heavy  arti- 
cle, incurred  in  the  act  of  delivery  to  the 
consignee  at  an  unusual  and  unfit  place. 
So  held  where  the  road  employees  had 
rolled  from  a  car  a  hogshead  of  molasses 
upon  a  "new  platform,"  and  in  their  at- 
tempt to  help  the  consignee's  driver  to 
raise  it  thence,  into  his  wagon,  it  burst. 
Benbow  v.  North  Carolina  R.  Co.,  61  N. 
C.  421,  98  Am.   Dec.  76. 

77.  Position  of  accessibility. — Russell 
Grain  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  S9  S.  W. 
908,  114  Mo.  App.  488;  Brooks  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  68  S.  K.  243,  152  N. 
C.  66,5. 

A  sale  of  goods  after  arrival  at  destina- 
tion, but  before  delivery,  did  not  relieve 
tlio  carrier  from  the  d'lty  to  the  buyer, 
derived  from  the  consignee,  to  place  the 
goods  in  a  position  of  accessibility  for 
deliverv.  Russell  Grain  Co.  v.  Wabash 
R.    Co.^  89    S.    W.    908,    IM    Mo.    App.    488. 


78.  Bachant  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Railroad, 
187  Mass.  392,  73  N.  E.  642,  105  Am.  St. 
Rep.  408. 

79.  Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Hawley 
(X.  Y.),  1  Daly  337. 

80.  Placing  cars  on  side  track. — Klass 
Comm.  Co.  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  84  Mo. 
App.  164;  Loeb  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),  85  S.  W.  118.  See  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Haynes,  72  Tex.  175,  10  S.  W. 
398. 

81.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Barclay,  56  So. 
26,  1  Ala.  App.  348. 

When  a  consignee  of  goods  is  fully  ad- 
vised at  the  time  of  shipment  that  the 
railroad  company  has  no  depot  or  agent 
at  the  place  of  destination,  the  exigencies 
of  its  business  not  requiring  such,  the  lia- 
bility of  the  company  as  common  car- 
rier terminates  with  the  safe  delivery  of 
the  car  containing  the  goods  on  a  side 
track  at  such  place,  and  no  liability  as 
warehouseman  will  be  assumed.  South, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Wood.  66  Ala.  167,  41  .\m. 
Rep.   749. 

82.  Destination  not  on  carrier's  route. 
- — Salinger  v.  Simmons  (X.  Y.'),  8  .Abb. 
Prac,  X.  S..  409.  57  Rarb.  513,  2  Lans.  325. 

83.  Question  for  jury. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  7'.  Bcrnlicim,  113  Ala.  489,  21  So. 
405. 

84.  Delivery  on  platform. — Donovan  v. 
Texas,  etc..   R.  Co.,  64  Tex.  -519. 

85.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Higdon, 
14S   S.  W.  26,   149  Ky.   321. 

But  a  carrier  by  railroad  can  not  arbi- 
trarily and  without  any  relation  to  the 
use  to  which  it  is  put  designate  a  part_  of 
its  track  or  system  as  yards  or  switching 
limits,  and  assert  that  it  owes  no  duty 
as  a  carrier  in  that  district  except  such  as 
it   chooses   to   assume,   nor   can   it   classify 


§  849 


CARRIERS. 


538 


Contradiction  between  Bill  of  Lading  and  Marks  on  Goods. — In  case  of 
a  shipment  of  goods,  the  point  of  deHvery  called  for  by  the  bill  of  lading  must 
control,  though  differing  from  the  marks  on  the  box  of  goods  shipped,  and  must 
be  taken  to  be  the  contract  between  the  parties/"^*'  A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of 
lading  to  deliver  goods  at  a  particular  point  is  not  changed  by  the  carrier's  agent 
marking  the  goods  with  a  dift'erent  address,  so  as  to  make  the  carrier  liable  for 
failing  to  deliver  at  the  latter  place. ^" 

Usage  or  custom  may  control  as  to  the  place  of  tlelivery.'^'*  But  such  usage 
or  custom  nmst  not  be  unreasonable  or  illegal,""'*  and  must  have  been  known  by 
the   consignee. ^^' 


or  divide  its  trackage  into  parts,  and  say 
that  on  one  part  it  is  a  carrier  and  on 
another  it  is  not.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hig-don,  148  S.  W.  26,  149  Ky.  321. 

86.  Contradiction  between  bill  of  lad- 
ing and  marks  on  goods. — Moore  &  Son 
■I'.   Jrienry,   IS   Alo.  App.   35. 

A  bill  of  lading  acknowledged  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  goods  from  the  consignors, 
in  New  York,  addressed  to  M.,  at  B.,  111., 
but  contained  a  cause  that  they  were  to 
be  forwarded  "to  Chicago  depot  only." 
The  consignors  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
so  shipping.  The  goods  arrived  at  Chi- 
cago, were  stored  in  a  warehouse,  and 
were  destroyed  by  the  great  fire  of  Oc- 
tober 9,  1871.  Held,  that  the  presumption 
of  an  agreement  to  deliver  the  goods  at 
B.,  raised  by  the  acceptance  of  the  goods 
so  marked,  was  overcome  by  the  express 
contract  in  the  bill  of  lading,  and  M. 
could  not  recover  from  the  carrier  for 
the  loss.  Merchants'  Dispatch,  etc.,  Co. 
V.   Moore,  88  111.  136,  30  Am.  Rep.  541. 

Expression  in  bill  of  lading  not  con- 
trolling.— The  expression  in  the  bill  of 
lading,  "to  be  forwarded  to  East  St.  Louis 
station,  on  its  line,"  is  not  such  an  express 
contract  to  forward  to  East  St.  Louis  as 
overcomes  the  implied  agreement,  from 
the  "marks  and  destination,"  to  carry  to 
St.  Louis,  a  point  beyond.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Jaggerman,  115  111.  407,  4  N. 
E.    641. 

87.  King  V.  De  Land,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10 
O.  Dec.  8,  18  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  39. 

88.  Usage  or  custom. — United  States. — 
The  Grafton,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,656.  Olc. 
43,  affirmed  in  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,655,  1 
Blatchf.  173. 

Alabama. — Stone    v.     Rice,     58    Ala.     95. 

Illinois. — Cahn  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
71  111.  96. 

Indiana. — Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nash, 
43  Ind.  423. 

Michigan. — Gates  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  122  N.  W.  1078,  158  Mich.  477. 

New  Hampshire. — Stimson  v.  Jackson, 
58  N.  H.  138. 

New  York. — Atlantic  Nav.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 27   N.  Y.   Super.   Ct.   475. 

North  Carolina. — Homeslv  v.  Elias,  06 
N.    C.  330. 

South  Carolina. — See  Galloway  v. 
Hughes,   1   Bailey  553. 

A  custom  of  a  railway  company  to  de- 


liver goods  at  the  consignee's  place  of 
business  is  not  established  by  the  fact 
that  the  company  delivered  goods  ar- 
riving at  its  depot  to  a  carter,  to  be  by 
him  delivered,  only  when  the  consignee 
did  not  furnish  his  own  teams  or  give 
directions  to  the  contrary;  the  company 
not  being  interested  in  the  cartage  of 
the  goods.  Cahn  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,   71   111.   96. 

Where  it  has  been  the  custom  of  a 
railroad  company  to  deliver  cars  loaded 
with  lumber  for  the  plaintiff,  at  or  near 
his  place  of  business,  it  will  be  presinned 
that  a  contract  of  shipment  was  made 
with  reference  to  such  custom,  and  the 
company  is  bound  to  deliver  the  cars 
at  the  usual  place.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Nash,  43  Ind.  423.  See  Gates  v.  Detroit, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  122  N.  W.  1078,  158  Mich. 
477. 

A  usage  to  deliver  goods  consigned  to 
a  particular  person,  though  in  different 
parcels,  at  one  place,  will  relieve  the  car- 
rier from  his  responsibility  as  insurer, 
where  he  offers  to  make  such  delivery, 
but  the  consignee  claims  the  right  to  re- 
quire a  delivery  at  different  places.  The 
Richmond,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,796,  1  Biss.  49. 

89.  Usage  must  be  reasonable  and  le- 
gal.—Rccd  V.  Richardson,  9S  Mass.  216, 
93   Am.    Dec.    155. 

Illustrations. — A  custom  can  not  be  up- 
held as  reasonable  which  would  justify 
a  steamboat  carrier  in  putting  off  goods 
consigned  to  such  a  landing  at  the  usual 
place  on  the  river  bank,  without  any 
protection,  when  the  landing  had  been 
broken  up  by  an  inundation  and  the  wash- 
ing away  of  the  building,  and  the  persons 
in  charge  had  removed.  Stone  v.  Rice, 
58   Ala.   95. 

A  usage  of  a  port,  that,  in  order  to 
constitute  a  delivery  of  water-borne  goods 
by  the  carrier,  a  receipt  therefor  must  be 
given  by  the  consignee  or  his  agent,  and 
that  until  then  the  liability  of  the  carrier 
continues,  is  unreasonable  and  illegal. 
Reed  v.  Richardson,  98  Mass.  216,  93  Am. 
Dec.   155. 

90.  Colorado. — Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
De  Witt,  1  Colo.  App.  419,  29  Pac.  524. 

Massachusetts. — Packard  v.  Earle,  113 
Mass.  280. 

0/!w.— Albatross   v.   Wayne,    16   O.    513. 

Contra.— See  Turrjer  v.  Huff,  46  Ark. 
222,  55  Am.  Dec.  580. 


539 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DELIVERY   15Y   CARRIKR. 


§  850 


§  8  50.  Usual  Place  at  Destination.— The  place  of  destination  is  the  proper 
place  for  a  carrier  to  deliver  a  shipment  of  goods  ;"i  and  the  consignee  is  under 
no  obligation  to  receive  them  elsewhere.'-'-  L'nless  the  specific  place  is  named  ni 
the  contract  of  shipment,  property  is  to  be  delivered  at  the  usual  place  for  mak- 
ing such  delivery  at  the  point  of  destination.'*"*  In  the  absence  of  a  custom  au- 
thorizing the  agent  of  a  railrtjad  company,  at  the  recpiest  of  the  consignee,  after 
the  car  lias  reached  its  destination,  to  undertake  to  deliver  it  at  another  place, 
such  an  undertaking  is  nothing  more  than  a  i)ersonal  accommodation  on  the 
part  of  the  agent,  and  can  not  render  his  principal  liable.'-''  The  unqualified  re- 
fusal of  a  consignee  to  receive  goods  tendered  him  by  the  carrier  is  a  waiver  of 


91.    Destination  named  in  bill  of  lading. 

— Arkansas. — St.   Louis,  (.■tc.  R.  Co.  v.  Kil- 
berry,  83  Ark.  h7,   102  S.  \V.  894. 

Georgia.— Home   R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  etc., 
Co..    14    Ga.   277. 
•     Illinois.— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose, 
20    111.   App.    670:    Coats   v.    Chicago,   etc., 
R.   Co.,   134   111.   App.   217. 

0/,/o._Waring  &  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893,  7  O.  Dec. 
Reprint  553;  Oskamp  7'.  vSouthern  Kxp. 
Co.,  61  O.  St.  341,  56  N.  E.  13;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Oskamp,  etc.,  Co.,  14  O.  C. 
C.  176,  7  O.  C.  D.  417. 

Texas.— GnU,  C.  &  S.  F.  Ry.  Co.  v. 
Clark,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  512;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Baugh  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
42  S.  W.   245. 

Where  "privilege  of  reshipping"  is  re- 
served in  the  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier 
continues  liable  until  the  goods  are  safely 
delivered  at  the  port  of  destination.  The 
privilege  of  reshipment  is  to  allow  him  to 
carry  the  goods  in  another's  vessel,  if 
he  will,  but  does  not  discharge  or  affect 
his  liability  for  the  safe  delivery  of  the 
goods.  Little  V.  Semplc.  8  Mo.  99.  40 
Am.  Dec.  123. 

Where  a  package  was  misaddressed,  a 
delivery  to  the  consignee  at  a  place  other 
than  that  to  which  the  package  was_  di- 
rected would  have  been  at  the  carrier's 
peril.  Mott  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  123 
N.  Y.  S.  49. 

Change  of  destination  by  consignee. — 
Where  a  consignee,  having  his  place  of 
business  at  East  St.  Louis,  was  in  the 
habit  of  receiving  goods  in  car-load  lots 
billed  to  St.  T<ouip,  and  had  directed  a 
carrier,  whose  line  terminated  at  East  St. 
Louis,  to  hold  at  East  St.  Louis  all  such 
goods  carried  by  it,  and  consigned  to 
him  at  St.  Louis,  held,  that  the  carrier 
was  justified  in  still  delivering  such  goods 
to  a  connecting  carrier,  and  forwarding 
them  to  St.  Louis,  in  spite  of  such  noti- 
fication. Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jagger- 
man,  115  Til.  407.  4  N.  E.  641 

92.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  2  Texas 
.^pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  512;  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  .Aidams,  49  Tex.  748,  759,  30  Am. 
Rep.  116.  See  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Frank 
Co.    (Tex.L   48    S.   W.   210. 

93.  Usual  place. — .-Irh-ansas. — Missouri. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pullen,  90  Ark.  182,  118  S. 
W.    702. 


Illitwis.—Cr'dwiord  v.   Clark,   15   111.  561. 

.Missouri. — Russell  Grain  Co.  v.  Wabash 
R.    Co.,   89    S.   W.   908,    114    Mo.    App.    488. 

AVw  Jersey. — Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Wanaquc 
Lumber  Co.,  75  N.  J,   L.  878,  69  Atl.   163. 

Xew  York. — Atlantic  Nav.  Co.  v.  John- 
son.  27    N.    Y.    Super.    Ct.    475. 

Where  a  local  custom  bound  a  railroad 
company  to  deliver  cars  loaded  with  lum- 
ber for  plaintiff  at  or  near  his  place  of 
Inisiness,  and  the  local  agent  agreed  to 
run  such  cars  to  the  usual  place,  and  the 
luml>er  was  thereafter  destroyed,  the 
company  is  liable.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Nash,  43  Ind.  423. 

Depot  or  warehouse. — Carriers  by  rail- 
road and  canal  usually  deliver  at  ware- 
houses belonging  to  themselves  or  oth- 
ers. Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23 
How.   28,   39,    16   L.    Ed.   412. 

A  carrier's  contract  of  carriage  contin- 
ues until  delivery  at  its  depot  or  ware- 
house where  goods  are  customarily  un- 
loaded and  delivered.  Klass  Comm.  Co. 
V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  84  Mo.  App.  164;  Loeb 
V.  Wabash  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  85  S.  W. 
118. 

Where  usual  place  unsafe. — A  steam- 
boat carrier,  having  goods  consigned  to 
a  consignee  at  a  landing  where  there  had 
been  a  warehouse  keeper  who  usually  re- 
ceived and  took  care  of  goods  landed 
there,  can  not  avoid  liability  by  proving 
a  delivery  of  goods  at  the  usual  place  on 
the  river  bank,  without  any  protection  or 
guard,  when  the  landing  had  in  the  mean- 
time been  broken  up  by  an  inundation, 
and  the  washing  away  of  the  buildings 
and  the  removal  of  the  person  which 
constituted  it  a  landing.  Stone  r.  Rice, 
58  Ala.  95. 

Where  the  usual  wharf  for  discharging 
is  blocked  so  tliat  a  vessel  can  not  obtain 
access  to  it,  tlie  discharge  of  her  cargo, 
for  the  mutual  advantage  of  ship  and 
consignees,  at  a  neighboring  wharf, 
which  is  a  fit  and  proper  place  therefor, 
is  not  a  deviation  such  as  to  render  the 
companv  an  insurer  of  cargo  there  dis- 
charged without  notice  to  the  consignee, 
until  its  actual  delivery  to  him.  Consta- 
ble  7'.    National,    etc.,    Co.,    154-  U.    S.    51, 

14   S.   Ct.   1062,  38  L.   Ed.   903. 

94.     Melbourne    7'.    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

Co..  88  Ala.  443,  6  So.  762. 


§§  850-852 


CARRIERS. 


540 


the  right  to  insist  on  a  tlehvery  at  the  usual  place  of  delivery. ^^ 

§  8  51.  Specified  Place. — A  carrier  must  deliver  a  shipment  at  a  specified 
place  where  it  so  agrees ;  ^^  and  delivery  at  such  place  will,  in  any  case,  be  suffi- 
cient.^" Under  a  carrier's  demurrage  rule,  so  providing,  where  delivery  of  car- 
load freight  can  not  be  made  on  a  particular  track  selected,  the  carrier  is  en- 
titled to  make  delivery  at  the  nearest  available  point. ''^ 

§  8  52.  Intermediate  Point. — The  one  who  has  the  right  to  receive  the 
goods  shipped  to  a  certain  destination  may  withdraw  them  at  any  point  on  the 
route,  on  payment  of  the  freight  to  the  destination  in  case  it  has  not  been  pre- 
paid,^^  where  he  can  do  so  without  unreasonable  interference  with  the  business 
of  the  carrier;^  and  if  he  receives  the  goods  before  they  have  arrived  at  the 
place  of  deliverv.  the  carrier  is  relieved   from   further  res])onsibility.-     Rut  an 


95.  Effect  of  refusal   to  receive   goods. 

— Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montmollcn.  145 
Ala.  468,  39  So.   820.   117  Am.   St.   Rep.   58. 

96.  Delivery  at  specified  place. — Massa- 
chusetts.— Chickering  z'.  Fowler  (Mass.), 
4   Pick.   371. 

Micliigati. — -Moore  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  3  Mich.  23. 

Texas. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  342. 

IVisconsin. — Sultana  v.  Chapman,  5  Wis. 
454. 

Because  of  the  lov7  stage  of  water,  the 
boat  could  ascend  the  river,  does  not  ex- 
cuse the  defendant's  failure  to  deliver  the 
goods  at  the  specified  place.  Cox,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Peterson,  30  Ala.  008,  68  Am.  Dec. 
145. 

Where  goods  are  marked  vi^ith  the 
name  and  place  of  residence  of  the  owner, 
and  are  described  in  the  bill  of  lading  as 
so  marked,  and  nothing  further  appears 
to  indicate  their  destination,  the  residence 
of  the  owner  will  be  held  to  be  their  ul- 
timate place  of  destination.  Brown  &  Co. 
V.   Mott   &   Co.,   22   O.    St.   149. 

Effect  of  custom. — -Evidence  of  a  cus- 
tom among  the  steamboat  men  to  ascend 
the  river  as  high  as  the  stage  of  the  wa- 
ter in  it  permitted,  and  then  to  land  their 
cargo  and  deposit  the  goods  in  ware- 
houses, is  not  admissible  for  the  defend- 
ants, in  an  action  against  the  owners  of 
a  steamboat  carrier  for  failing  to  deliver 
goods  at  the  place  specified  in  their  bill 
of  lading.  Cox,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Peterson,  30 
Ala.   608,   68  Am.   Dec.   145. 

But  the  delivery  of  the  cotton  by  de- 
fendant at  its  wharf  at  West  Wego, 
which  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river 
from  New  Orleans,  was  a  compliance 
with  the  bill  of  lading  requiring  its  de- 
livery at  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  al- 
though West  Wego  was  not  at  that  time 
within  the  boundaries  of  the  port  of  New 
Orleans,  as  defined  in  the  statute,  it  be- 
ing, in  a  well-understood  commercial  and 
business  sense,  the  part  of  that  port 
where  steamship  companies  rightfully  ex- 
pected to  receive  cotton  from  Texas  for 
transportation  to  European  ports.  Reiss 
V.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Fed.  533.  39  C. 
C.  A.  149;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reiss,  99 


Fed.  1006,  39  C.  C.  A.  680.  Affirmed 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reiss,  22  S.  Ct.  253, 
183   U.   S.   621,   40  L.   Ed.   358. 

Illustrations. — Wliere  a  railroad  com- 
pany contracts  to  deliver  a  car  of  lumber 
to  the  consignee  in  a  specified  part  of  the 
city,  a  tender  of  the  lumber  to  the  con- 
signee at  its  station  in  the  city  is  not  a 
compliance  with  its  undertaking.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Driskell  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
128   S.   W.   460. 

The  liability  of  a  carrier  who  con- 
tracted to  deliver  goods  in  Pittsburg  was 
not  changed  to  that  of  a  warehouseman 
by  his  depositing  the  goods  at  his  ware- 
house in  Allegheny  City,  just  across  the 
river,  and  but  a  few  hundred  yards  from 
his  warehouse  in  Pittsburg.  Graff  v. 
Bloomer,  9   Pa.   114. 

Under  a  bill  of  lading  reciting  the  ship- 
ping of  goods  on  a  particular  ship,  to 
be  landed  at  a  certain  place,  the  goods 
must  be  landed  there  from  the  ship,  if 
it  can  be  done  with  safety  to  her.  Shaw 
V.    Gardner    (Mass.),    12    Gray    488. 

The  consignee  of  a  part  of  a  cargo  of 
grain,  coming  from  the  lakes  to  Buffalo, 
has  the  right  to  select  the  elevator  into 
which  it  shall  be  discharged.  Richmond 
v.  Union  Steamboat  Co.,  8  Abb.  N.  C.  60, 
affirmed    in    87    N.    Y.    240. 

A  bill  of  lading  whereby  the  ship  con- 
tracts to  deliver  a  cargo  of  coal  at  a 
designated  port  to  the  consignee,  "or  his 
assigns,"  is  not  an  express  undertaking 
to  deliver  at  the  particular  coal  wharf 
owned  by  the  consignee.  Smith  v.  Lee, 
06   Fed.   344,  13   C.  C.  A.  500. 

97.  Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23 
How.  28.  10  L.  Ed.  412. 

98.  Wooley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Wis.),  130   N.  W.   616. 

99.  Delivery  at  immediate  point.  — 
Sharp  V.   Clark,   13  Utah   r.lO    l.-i   Pac.   506. 

1.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  19 
O.   St.   438. 

2.  Geoi'gia. — Bruhl  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,    103    Ga.    583,   30   S.    E.   209. 

Maine.—Stone  v.  Waitt,  31  Me.  409,  52 
Am.  Dec.  621. 

Mississippi. — Bennett  v.  Byram  &  Co., 
38   Miss.   17.   75   Am.   Dec.   90. 

New  York. — Parsons  v.  Hardy   (N.  Y.), 


541 


Tk.WSI'OKTATION    AM)   DI'.I.I  \i;r  V    \:y    CAKKIKK. 


§§  852-853 


offur  to  receive  the  goods  on  cerlain  conditions,  which  is  refused,  will  not  operate 
to  relieve  the  carrier  from  his  contract  to  deliver  them  at  the  point  to  which 
they  are  consigned.-"' 

§  8  53.  Shipments  in  Carload  Lots. — A  carrier  is  bound,  in  the  absence  of 
a  contrary  custom  or  toutract,  lu  deliver  shipments  received  in  carload  lots  at 
the  consignee's  place  of  business,  when  located  on  its  industrial  tracks ;  •*"  but  it 
is  not  bound,  at  its  own  charge,  to  make  delivery  beyond  its  own  or  leased 
tracks."' 

Delivery  of  Grain — Statutory  Provisions.  —  L'nder  the  Illinois  statutes  re- 
lating to  warehousemen,  railroad  companies  can  not  deliver  grain  received  for 
transportation  to  any  other  warehouse  than  that  to  which  it  was  consigned,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  owner  or  the  consignee.''  In  order  for  the  statutes  to 
ajjply,  the  grain  must  be  in  bulk  and  consigned  to  a  particular  warehouse  at  the 
lime  of  sliipment;"  and  such  warehouse  must  be  connected  by  some  track  with 
the  line  of  the  railroad  conipan\    and  be.  in   fact,  a  ])ortion  thereof.''     Where  a 


14  Wend.  315,  28  Am.  Dec.  521;  Sweet  v. 
Barney,   23    N.   Y.   335. 

Ohio. — Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sar- 
gent,  19   O.   St.   438. 

Pciuisvlt'iinia. — Arbuckle  v.  Thompson, 
37    Pa.    170. 

The  expense  of  transportation,  after 
the  j^oods  liave  been  unciindiiionally  re- 
ceived by  the  consignee  at  an  intermedi- 
ate port,  is  to  be  l)orne  by  the  consignee. 
Reed  v.   Dick    (Fa.),   8   Watts   479. 

3.  Arl)uckle    z\    Thompson,    37    Pa.    170. 

4.  Shipments  in  car  load  lots. — Banner 
Grain  Co.  z'.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  137 
N.  W.  IGl,  119  Minn.  68,  41  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  678;  \'incent  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
49    111.    33. 

5.  Banner  Grain  Co.  v.  Great  Northern 
R.  Co.,  137  N.  W.  161,  119  Minn.  68,  41 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  678;  Brooks  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  68  S.  E.  243,  152  N.  C. 
665. 

6.  Grain — Illinois  statute. — Act  Feb.  16, 
1867.  §  22;  Rev.  St.,  c.  114,  §  82;  Vincent 
V.   Chicago,   etc..    R.   Co..   49    111.   33. 

It  is  no  sufficient  excuse  for  the  com- 
pany to  refuse  to  deliver  it  that  it  can 
not  do  so  without  large  additional  ex- 
pense, caused  by  the  loss  of  the  use  of 
motive  power,  labor,  and  service,  and  loss 
of  use  of  cars  while  the  same  are  being 
delivered  and  unloaded  at  such  elevators 
and  brought  back,  for  it  is  precisely  that 
for  whicli  the  company  is  paid  its  freight. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  People,  .")6  111.  3()5, 
8  Am.    Rep.   690. 

A  contract  by  a  railroad  company-  with 
certain  elevators  that  it  will  deliver  grain 
to  them  exclusively  is  not  a  valid  excuse 
to  the  company  for  refusing  to  deliver 
grain  to  other  elevators  upon  the  line  of 
its  way,  the  owners  of  which  are  not  par- 
ties to  the  contract,  and  to  which  grain 
has  been  consigned.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  People,  56  111.  365,  8  Am.  Rep.  690. 

A  railroad  company'  can  not  evade  the 
dutj'  of  receiving  and  delivering  grain  in 
bulk  to  a  particular  elevator  on  its  line  of 
road,   to   which    it    was   consigned,   on    tlie 


ground  that  it  had  the  right  to  establish 
its  own  usage  in  that  regard,  and,  never 
having  held  itself  out  as  a  carrier  of  grain 
in  Inilk,  except  on  condition  that  it  might 
choose  the  consignee,  this  had  become 
the  usage,  beyond  which  it  could  not  be 
compelled  to  go.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
People,   56   111.   365.   8   Am.   Rep.   690. 

7,  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stanbro,  87 
111.    195. 

8.  People  T'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 
111.   95,   8   Am.    Rep.    631. 

The  provisions  of  Const.,  art.  13,  §  5, 
that  all  railroad  companies  shall  deliver 
grain  to  any  elevator  that  can  be  reached 
by  any  track  which  "can  be  used"  by 
such  companies,  does  not  refer  to  mere 
physical  possibility.  A  company  can  not 
be  compelled  to  run  cars  over  a  track  for 
the  use  of  which  it  has  no  license  or  con- 
tract. Hoyt  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 
111.  tH)l,  affirming  1    111.  App.  374. 

Where  a  carrier  contracted  to  use  an- 
other's side  track  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
livering grain  to  plaintitif's  elevator,  sit- 
uated on  such  side  track,  it  was  held, 
tliat  plaintiff's  elevator  was  to  be  consid- 
ered on  the  line  of  defendant's  road,  for 
the  purpose  of  delivering  grain  as  a  com- 
mon carrier.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Na- 
tional Elevator,  etc.,  Co.,  153  111.  70.  38 
N.  E.  915,  affirming  50  111.  App.  339,  and 
distin.guishin.g  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stanbro,    S7    111.    195. 

Illustrations. — A  railroad  company  en- 
tered the  city  from  different  points  upon 
separate  tracks,  these  separate  tracks  or 
lines  of  road  being  called  "divisions."  The 
elevator  was  situateii  upon  a  track  used 
by  the  company  in  connection  with  the 
business  of  one  of  those  divisions  exclu- 
sively, init  could  be  reached  from  the 
other  division,  though  by  a  very  in- 
direct route,  and  subjected  the  company 
to  great  loss  of  time  and  pecuniary  dam- 
age, in  the  delay  that  would  be  caused 
to  their  regular  trains  and  business  in 
their  other  division.  Held,  that  the  roads 
constituting      these      different      divisions. 


§§  853-854 


CARRIERS. 


542 


railroad  has  provided  a  warehouse  on  its  own  track  which  is  ample  in  capacity 
and  apparatus  to  receive,  contain,  and  unload  all  grain  ordinarily  transported 
in  bulk  over  its  road,  a  delivery  of  grain  in  bulk  to  such  warehouse  is  sufficient,'^ 
if  not  consigned  to  any  other  warehouse  on  the  line  of  its  road.^^  A  contract 
by  which  a  railroad  company  agrees  to  deliver  to  an  elevator  all  cars  of  grain 
consigned  to  said  elevator  brought  to  a  certain  ])oint  over  its  road,  binds  the 
company  to  deliver  the  grain  to  the  elevator,  though  it  was  not  consigned 
thereto  until  after  it  reached  such  place. ^^ 

§§  854-857.  To  Whom  Delivery  May  Be  Made— §  854.  Consignee  or 
Agent. — The    duty  of    a    carrier  is    discharged  by    delivery    to    the    consignee,^ - 


though  belonging  to  the  same  corpora- 
tion, and  having  a  common  name,  were, 
tor  the  purposes  of  transportation,  sub- 
stantiallj-  different  roads,  constructed  un- 
der different  charters,  and  the  track  upon 
which  the  elevator  in  question  was  sit- 
uated, having  been  laid  for  "the  conven- 
ience especially  of  one  of  those  divisions, 
and  onlj'  approachable  from  the  other 
under  the  difficulties  mentioned,  could  not 
be  regarded  as  upon  the  line  of  the  lat- 
ter division,  so  as  to  make  it  obligatory 
upon  the  company  to  deliver  thereat 
freight  coming  over  that  division.  Chi- 
cago &  N.  W.  Ry.  Co.  V.  People,  56  111. 
365,   8   Am.   Rep.   690. 

9.  It  appeared  that  the  track  upon' 
which  the  elevator  was  situated  was 
owned  and  used  by  defendant  carrier  and 
another  company  in  common,  and  was 
a  direct  continuation  of  the  line  of  one 
of  the  defendant's  divisions,  and  of  con- 
venient and  easy  access  from  that  di- 
vision, and  was  used  by  the  defendant  not 
only  to  deliver  grain  to  other  elevators 
thereon,  some  of  which  were  more  diffi- 
cult of  access  than  that  of  the  relator, 
but  also  to  deliver  lumber  and  other 
freight  coming  over  such  division;  thus 
making  it  not  only  legally,  but  actually, 
by  positive  occupation,  a  part  of  the  road. 
Held  that,  in  reference  to  grain  coming 
over  that  division,  the  track  upon  which 
the  plaintiff's  elevator  was  situated  was 
to  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  defend- 
ant's line  of  road,  and  it  was  its  duty  to 
deliver  such  grain  to  that  elevator,  if 
consigned  thereto.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    People,   56   111.   365,   8   Am.    Rep.   690. 

10.  People  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55 
ni.   95,   8  Am.   Rep.   631. 

11.  National  Elevator,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  111.  App.  339,  af- 
firmed 153  111.  70,  38  N.   E.  915. 

12.  Delivery  to  consignee.  —  United 
States. — North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727.  31 
L.  Ed.  287,  8  S.  Ct.  266;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Dickson,  94  U.  S.  549,  24  L.  Ed. 
285;  Brittan  v.  Barnaby  (U.  S.),  21  How. 
527,  16  L.  Ed.  177;  Conard  v.  Atlantic 
Ins.  Co.   (U.   S.),  1  Pet.  386,  7  L.   Ed.   189. 

Arkansas. — Equitable  Powder  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Ark.),  150  S. 
W.    1028. 


Ccor^ia. — McCaffrey  v.  Georgia  South- 
ern Railroad,  69  Ga.  622;  Bass  v.  Glover, 
63  Ga.  745;  Brulil  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
103  Ga.  583,  30  S.  E.  269;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Fant  Fish  Co.,  12  Ga.  App.  447, 
78   S.    E.   197. 

A'czij  York. — Gass  7'.  Astoria  Veneer 
Mills,  134  App.  Div.  184,  118  N.  Y.  S. 
982;  Marshall  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  45  Barb.  502,  affirmed  in  48  N. 
Y.   660. 

Ohio. — Oskamp  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
01  O.  St.  341,  56  N.  E.  13,  reversing  on 
other  grounds,  14  O.  C.  C.  76,  7  O.  C. 
D.  417;  Steamboat  John  Owen  v.  John- 
son,  2   O.   St.    143. 

Tennessee. — Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  39  Tenn. 
(2  Head)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744;  Butler 
V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Tenn. 
(8  Lea)  32. 

Texas. — Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray- 
son County  Nat.  Bank,  100  Tex.  17,  93 
S.   W.   431,   reversing   91   S.   W.   1106. 

JVashiugton.  — •  Bonds-P'oster  Lumber 
Co.  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  53  Wash. 
302,    101    Pac.    877. 

Consignee  prima  facie  owner. — A  car- 
rier may  presume,  in  the  absence  of  some 
notice  to  the  contrary,  that  the  consignee 
is  the  owner  of  the  goods.  Sweet  v.  Bar- 
ney, 23  N.  Y.  335,  affirming  24  Barb.  533; 
Sturges  z'.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  166  Mich. 
231,    131    N.    W.    706. 

Minnesota  Gen.  St.,  c.  39,  §  15,  provides 
that  a  conditional  sale  shall  be  absolutely 
void  as  against  the  creditors  of  the  ven- 
dee and  subsequent  purchasers  and  mort- 
gagees in  good  faith,  unless  the  note  or 
contract,  or  copies  thereof,  shall  be  filed 
as  provided.  Held,  where  plaintiff  deliv- 
ered a  piano  to  a  common  carrier  for 
shipment,  and  transferred  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing to  the  consignee,  who  recovered  from 
the  carrier  the  full  value  of  the  piano, 
which  was  destroyed  I)y  fire  before  deliv- 
ery, the  fact  that  a  copy  of  the  sale, 
which  was  conditional,  was  filed  as  re- 
quired by  statute,  was  not  notice  to  the 
carrier,  and  the  latter  had  a  right  to  rely 
on  the  presumption  that  the  title  was  in 
the  consignee.  Dyer  v.  Great  Northern 
R.  Co.,  51  Minn.  345,  53  N.  W.  714,  38 
Am.    St.    Rep.    506. 

Delivery  to  joint  consignee. — Where  a 
purchaser  of  wagons  from  one  who  bor- 
rows money  from  another  to  enable  him 


543 


TKAXSl'ORTATIOX    AND  DELIVKRV    BY   CARRIF.R. 


§  854 


or 


by    his    direction, i''    or    to    his    agent    authorized    by    him    to    receive  the 


to  fill  Uic  order,  altliousli  requested  by 
both  the  seller  and  lender  to  send  the 
money  to  the  latter,  sends  it  by  express, 
in  a  package  addressed  jointly  to  the 
seller  and  lender,  as  though  they  were  a 
lirni,  the  express  company,  delivering  the 
package  to  the  seller,  is  not  liable  to  the 
lender  for  his  interest  therein,  merely  for 
the  fact  that  the  agent  to  whom  the  pur- 
chaser delivered  the  package  knew  that 
the  lender  had  shipped  the  wagons  to  the 
purchaser  by  railway,  and  had  sent  a  bill 
tliereof  for  collection,  which  had  l^een  re- 
turned to  the  lender  uiip;iid.  Wells  v. 
Anurican     I'.xp.    Co.,    44    Wis.    342. 

Warehouseman  as  consignee. — Where 
a  bill  of  lading  contains  a  stipulation  that 
the  goods  shall  be  delivered  "into  a  ware- 
house or  to  assigns"  at  a  certain  land- 
ing, the  warehouseman  at  the  landing  is 
the  consignee;  and,  if  he  consents  that 
the  goods  be  landed  at  a  point  less  than 
ten  feet  above  the  surface  of  the  water, 
the  consignor  can  not  recover  for  dam- 
ages to  the  goods  by  a  flood  on  the 
ground  that  defendant  violated  Code,  §§ 
896,  897,  making  carriers  liable  in  double 
the  value  of  the  goods  damaged  by  flood, 
if  they  are  landed  at  a  point  less  than  ten 
feet  perpendicular  above  the  sutface  of 
the  water.  Winston  v.  Cox,  etc.,  Co.,  38 
Ala.   2(is. 

Illustrations. — Where  bills  of  lading 
for  beans  shipped  l)y  plaintiff  referred  to 
commission  merchants  wlio  had  bought 
the  beans  from  plaintiff  as  the  shippers, 
and  there  was  no  evidence  of  notice  to 
the  carriers  that  plaintiff  had  any  inter- 
est in  the  beans,  a  delivery  by  the  ulti- 
mate carrier  to  the  proper  persons  named 
in  the  bills  was  not  a  conversion,  though 
made  on  forged  bills  of  lading.  Nelson 
Grain  Co.  v.  Ann  Arbor  R.  Co.  (Mich.), 
140    N.    W.   48(1. 

Plaintiff's  assignors  shipped  by  a  com- 
mon carrier  certain  goods  addressed  to 
another  person,  but  took  a  bill  of  lading 
which  showed  that  the  goods  were  con- 
.signed  to  the  order  of  the  consignors. 
On  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  another  cony 
mon  carrier,  in  the  usual  course  of  busi- 
ness, and  at  the  addressee's  request,  ob- 
tained and  delivered  them  to  him  without 
notice  that  he  was  not  the  real  owner. 
Held,  that  there  had  been  no  conversion 
by  the  second  carrier.  Nanson  v.  Jacob, 
93  Mo.  331,  ()  S.  W.  246,  3  Am.  St.  Rep. 
531. 

13.  Delivery  by  direction  of  consignee. 
— United  Stcitcs. — North  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.  V.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank.  123  U.  S. 
727,  31  L.  Ed.  287,  8  vS.  Ct.  266;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Dickson,  94  U.  S.  549,  24  L. 
Ed.    285. 

Georgia. — McCaffrey  v.  Georgia  South- 
ern   Railroad.    69    Ga.    622. 

Nezi'  Yarh.—Gass  z:  Astoria  Veneer 
Mills,  134  App.  Div.  184.  118  N.  Y.  S.  982. 


Oliio. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Oskamp, 
etc.,  Co.,  14  O.   C.   C.   176,  7  O.   C.   D.  417. 

Tennessee. — Butler  v.  East  Tennessee, 
etc.,  R.  C<..,  76  Tenn.   (8  Lea)  32. 

Illustrations.  —  An  express  company 
received  a  package  of  money  addressed 
to  a  certain  bank  at  its  street  and  number, 
but,  at  the  direction  of  the  bank,  deliv- 
ered the  package,  in  another  part  of  the 
city,  to  the  bank's  agent,  from  whom  the 
money  was  afterwards  stolen.  Held,  that 
the  owner  could  not  recover  of  the  ex- 
press company  for  nondelivery.  Sweet  v. 
Barney,  23  N.  Y.  335,  affirming  24  Barb. 
533. 

The  consignee  paid  the  express  charges 
on  goods  sent  C.  O.  D.,  but  refused  to 
receive  the  goods,  and  directed  the  com- 
pany to  return  them  to  the  consignor. 
The  consignor  brought  suit  against  the 
consignee,  and  recovered  a  judgment  for 
the  value  of  the  goods;  but  in  the  mean- 
time, after  a  verdict  was  rendered  in 
favor  of  the  consignor,  and  before  judg- 
ment was  rendered  thereon,  the  express 
company,  by  direction  of  the  consignor's 
attorney,  returned  the  goods  to  the  con- 
signor. The  consignee  never  counter- 
manded his  directions  to  the  company  to 
reship  to  the  consignor.  When  final 
judgment  was  rendered,  the  consignee 
brought  an  action  of  trover  against  the 
company  to  recover  the  value  of  the 
goods,  without  offering  to  pay  the  money 
due  on  the  goods.  Held,  that  the  con- 
signee had  no  right  of  action  against  the 
company.  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Green- 
halgh,  SO  111.  68. 

Written  authority  from  consignee. — A 
delivery  on  written  autlnirity  from  the 
consignee  releases  the  carrier  from  liabil- 
ity, even  though  the  consignee  states  that 
he  has  no  claim  on  the  goods.  Dobbin 
V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  522, 
23   N.  W.   204. 

But  such  authority  should  not  be  so 
uncertain  as  to  give  just  grounds  for 
doubting  the  scope  of  the  authorization. 
Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Windham.  1  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  267,  268.  21   S.  W.  402. 

An  order  for  consignee  to  railroad 
agent  w-ho  was  also  the  express  company 
agent  as  follows:  "Railroad  Agent:  Dear 
Sir — Please  deliver  to  the  bearer  any 
freight  I  may  have  in  your  possession  and 
oblige;"  is  not  a  sufficient  demand  on  the 
express  company  to  make  it  the  agent's 
duty  to  deliver  express.  Wells  Fargo  & 
Co.  V.  Windham.  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  267,  21 
S.   W.  402. 

Plaintiff  shipped  by  defendant's  steam- 
ship company  a  quantity  of  butter  con- 
signed to  plaintiff's  order,  the  packages 
being  unmarked.  A  third  person  pre- 
sented to  defendant's  delivery  clerk,  at 
the  place  of  receipt,  a  letter  written  by 
plaintiff  to  him  containing  this  clause, 
'The   rolls   sent  you   today  you   will   find 


854 


CARRIKRS. 


544 


shipment. ^^       When     dehvery     has     been     made     to     an     agent,     the     carrier, 
if  sued   for  misdelivery,  must  prove  that  the  recipient  had  authority  from  the 


a  very  good  qualit}%"  and  upon  this  the 
clerk  delivered  butter  to  such  person. 
Held,  that  the  letter  was  not  a  sufficient 
authority  to  justify  a  delivery  of  the  but- 
ter. \'iner  v.  New  York,  etc..  Steamship 
Co.,   50  N.  Y.  23. 

A  written  order,  dated  at  a  place  where 
an  express  company  had  no  office,  ad- 
dressed to  an  agent  of  the  company  at 
its  office,  where  consignments  to  the 
writer  were  to  be  transferred  to  a  rail- 
load  company,  and  directing  that  agent 
to  "deliver  anj'  and  all  express  matter 
(moneys  included)  addressed  to  [the 
writer]  to  the  conductor  of"  that  railroad, 
"until  further  notice,"  and  concluding 
with  the  words,  "This  my  standing  or- 
der," until  revoked  authorized  deliveries 
of  such  matter  to  be  made  not  only  to 
the  person  who  happened  to  be  con- 
ductor at  the  time  the  order  was  signed,  but 
to  any  other  person  occupying  that  posi- 
tion and  acting  in  that  capacity.  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  V.  Williams,  27  S.  E.  743, 
99   Ga.  482. 

14.  Delivery  to  agent  of  consignee. — 
Arkansas. — E  q  u  i  t  a  h  1  e  Powder  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Ark.),  15u 
S.  W.  1028. 

Georgia. — Bruhl  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
103  Ga.  583,  30  S.  E.  269;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Williams,  99  Ga.  482,  27  S.  E.  743; 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  103 
Ga.  583,  30  S.  E.  269;  Southern  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Everett,  37  Ga.  688;  Brunswick,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Rothchild  &  Co.,  46  S.  E.  830, 
119  Ga.  604;  Kenny  Co.  v.  Atlanta,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   122   Ga.   365,   50  S.    E.   132. 

Illinois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Simp- 
son,  17   111.  App.  325. 

Xezu  York. — Sweet  v.  Barney,  23  N.  Y. 
335,   affirming   24   Barb.    533. 

Tennessee. — Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  39  Tenn. 
(2  Head)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744;  Butler  v. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Tenn. 
(8  Lea)   32. 

Texas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Craw- 
ford (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  35  S.  W.  748;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lewine  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
20    S.   W.   835. 

Although  the  goods  were  not  ordered 
by  the  consignee  to  whom  the  shipper 
really  intended  to  send  them,  but  by  an- 
other person,  bearing,  or  pretending  to 
bear,  the  same  name,  to  whom  the  goods 
were  finally  delivered  after  passing 
through  the  hands  of  the  real  consignee's 
agent  a  delivery  to  the  authorized  agent 
of  the  consignee  completes  the  contract 
of  carriage.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
liams,   27    S.    E.    743,    99    Ga.    482. 

Delivery  to  stringer  accompanied  by 
consignee's  drayman.  —  I'laintiff  s  con- 
signed certain  hogs  to  P.,  paying  charges, 
and  shipping  them  by  defendant's  road. 
Reaching    their    destination,     they     were 


taken  from  defendant's  cars  by  a  stranger, 
assisted  by  consignees'  drayman.  An  ex- 
pense bill  was  given  the  stranger  at  his 
request,  on  his  representation  that  he 
was  acting  for  the  consignees.  The  hogs 
were  delivered  by  the  stranger  to  the 
consignees  as  his  property,  and  they  paid 
him  for  them.  Held,  that  the  railroad 
company  was  not  guilty  of  negligence, 
and  that  plaintiff's  remedy  was  against 
the  consignees.  Ryder  v.  Burlington,  etc., 
R.    Co..    51    Iowa   460,    1    N.    W.    747. 

Delivery  by  direction  of  agent. — Where 
a  railway  company  receives  freight  con- 
signed to  the  agent  of  the  owner,  a  de- 
livery to  a  third  person  on  the  direction 
of  the  agent  is  a  delivery  to  the  consignee, 
and  the  railway  company  is  not  liable  to 
the  owner,  though  the  person  to  whom 
delivery  is  made  fails  to  pay  for  the 
goods.  Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 
Neb.    379,    60    N.    W.    583. 

Goods  delivered  to  the  defendant  by 
plaintiff,  for  shipment,  were,  before  their 
delivery  to  the  consignee,  directed  to  be 
delivered  to  S.,  the  agent  of  the  plaintiff. 
Afterwards,  on  an  order  from  S.,  direct- 
ing that  the  goods  be  delivered  to  the 
consignee,  and  an  order  from  the  latter, 
directing  that  they  be  delivered  to  cer- 
tain named  persons,  the  goods  were  sur- 
rendered to  such  persons.  On  learning  of 
sucli  delivery,  plaintiff  made  no  objec- 
tion, but  began  suit  against  the  consignee 
for  the  value  of  the  goods.  Held,  that 
defendant  was  not  liable  for  such  de- 
livery. Brasher  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 
Colo.    384,   21    Pac.   44. 

A  package  sent  to  a  bank  directed  to 
the  cashier  thereof,  is  properly  delivered 
to  the  assistant  receiving  teller  while  he 
was  at  the  receiving  teller's  desk.  Hotch- 
kiss  V.  Artisans'  Bank,  42  Barb.  517,  af- 
firmed in  41  N.  Y.  564,  2  Abb.  Dec.  403. 

Money  sent  by  express  to  a  bank  was 
delivered  to  a  person  in  its  employ,  who 
called  for  it,  and  gave  a  receipt.  Such 
person  had  been  in  the  habit  of  receiving 
packages  for  the  l^anks  in  the  same  way, 
and  this  mode  of  delivery  was  adopted 
at  the  request  of  the  bank  officers,  and 
for  their  accommodation.  Held,  that  this 
was  a  good  delivery.  Sweet  v.  Barney,  24 
Barb.    ->:',:>,,  affirmed   in   23   N.   Y.   335. 

Delivery  to  president  of  college  as  de- 
livery to  student. — In  an  action  against  an 
express  company  for  the  loss  of  a  dia- 
mond pin  consigned  to  a  student  at  a  col- 
lege, it  was  held  that  if  it  was  the  custom 
of  the  president  of  the  college  to  receive 
from  the  defendant  parcels  directed  to  the 
students  therein  under  his  charge,  and  re- 
ceipt therefor,  or  if  it  was  in  accordance 
with  the  rules  of  the  college  that  he 
should  do  so,  then  he  might  properly  be 
considered  as  the  authorized  agent  of  the 


545 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DELIVERY   BY   CARRIER. 


§  854 


consignee  to  receive  the  goods,  or  liad  been  held  out  by  him  as  authorized. ^^ 
VVliere  the  carrier  knows  that  the  consignee  is  not  entitled  to  receive  the  goods, 
delivery  to  hiin,^«  or  on  his  order,'"   will  render  the  carrier  liable. 


students  for  that  purpose,  and  the  jury 
mi^ht  presume  a  )j;ood  delivery  to  the 
student  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  wlien 
delivered  to  the  president  thereof.  South- 
ern   l''xp.    Co.   V.    Kverctt,    37    C)a.    OHS. 

A  package  addressed  to  "Hon.  J.  G. 
Carlisle,  Secretary  United  States  Treas. 
Dept.,  Washington,  D.  C,"  but  with  no 
direction  tn  dclivi-r  ii  personally  to  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury,  or  to  any  par- 
ticular department,  was  properly  deliv- 
ered at  the  treasury  department,  at  the 
usual  place  for  such  packages,  within  the 
time  agreed  upon.  Aldrich,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  .American  Exp.  Co.,  75  N.  W.  94,  117 
Mich.  32. 

Acquiescence  in  former  deliveries. — 
W'liere  former  deliveries  to  a  certain  per- 
son had  been  acquiesced  in,  the  carrier 
had  the  right  to  regard  such  person  as 
an  agent,  and  the  delivery  to  him  may 
constitute  a  good  defense  to  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  conversion.  On- 
tario Bank  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co., 
59    N.   Y.    510,   affirming   5    Daly   117. 

Effect  of  custom. — If  it  is  the  custom 
for  the  carrier  to  forward  goods  by  boat 
from  their  destination  on  its  line,  and  the 
consignee  knew  this  when  he  ordered 
goods  siiipped,  and  the  owner  of  a  boat 
has  previously  received  goods  for  him 
from  the  carrier  and  delivered  them,  the 
carrier  is  authorized  to  deliver  the  goods 
to  such  owner  for  transportation  by  boat 
to  the  consignee.  Chesapeake  &  O.  Ry. 
Co.   V.    Lavin'    (Ky.),    124   S.   W.   274. 

Delivery  to  drayman. — A  carrier,  who 
delivers  the  goods  to  a  drayman  not  au- 
thorized by  the  consignee  to  receive  them, 
is  liable  for  their  loss.  Dean  v.  Vaccaro, 
39  Tenn.  (2  Head)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744; 
Shenk  v.  Philadelphia  Steam  Propeller 
Co.,  60   Pa.   109,   100  Am.  Dec.  541. 

An  officer  of  the  customhouse  on  board 
a  ship  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duty 
to  care  for  the  lawful  unloading  of  the 
cargo,  is  not,  as  such,  authorized  to  re- 
ceive the  goods;  and  a  discharge,  with 
his  knowledge  and  assent,  is  not  such  a 
delivery  as  relieves  the  carrier  from  lia- 
bility. McAndrew  v.  Whitlock,  53  N.  Y. 
40,    11    IKm.    Rep.    657. 

But  when  the  duties  on  dutial)le 
goods  are  not  paid  upon  their  arriving 
at  the  port  of  New  York,  under  the  laws 
of  con.gress  and  th'e  treasury  regulations 
of  that  port,  the  custom-house  officers  are 
the  only  persons  authorized  to  receive 
such  goods  on  the  wharf;  and  when  they 
do  so  receive  them,  day  or  night,  the  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier  terminates.  Red- 
mond V.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steamship  Co., 
(N.   Y.).   56   Barb.   320. 

Illustrations  of  persons  not  authorized. 

1  Car— 35 


— Where  a  carrier  delivered  certain  mer- 
chandise directed  to  M.  at  a  certain  casino 
to  a  barkeeper  at  the  casino,  who  was  not 
M.'s  agent,  or  authorized  by  her  to  re- 
ceive the  package,  there  was  no  delivery 
to  the  consignee,  and  the  carrier  was 
therefore  liable.  Charles  Schlesinger  & 
Sons  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N.  Y. 
S.  372. 

If  goods  are  sent  by  a  common  carrier 
to  l)e  delivered  to  A,  the  carrier  is  not 
Jnstitied  in  delivering  them  at  the  store 
of  B,  although  A.  has  guaranteed  the  rent 
of  the  store,  and  has  been  compelled  to 
pay  it.     Mahon  v.  Blake,  125  Mass.  477. 

An  express  company  tendered  a  pack- 
age to  the  consignee  at  her  place  of  busi- 
ness, and  she  refused  to  accept  it  or  pay 
the  charges,  on  the  ground  that  she  never 
authorized  its  purchase.  Afterwards  the 
consignee's  daughter  called  at  the  express 
office,  and  ordered  the  package  sent  to 
her  mother's  place  of  business,  but  her  au- 
thority was  not  shown.  The  package  was 
taken  back  to  the  consignee's  place  of 
business,  and  delivered  to  one  W.,  who 
was  in  the  place  of  business,  but  no  ques- 
tions were  asked  as  to  his  authority,  and 
he  receipted  for  the  same  in  his  own 
name.  No  authority  in  W.  to  accept  the 
package  for  the  consignee,  or  circum- 
stances from  which  it  might  be  inferred, 
was  showm.  Held,  that  the  express  com- 
pany was  liable  to  the  consignor  for  its 
loss.  Nebenzahl  v.  Fargo,  3  N.  Y.  S. 
929,   15   Daly   130,   23   N.  Y.   St.   Rep.   231. 

15.  American  Merchants'  Union  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Milk,  73  111.  324. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company 
for  delivering  a  lot  of  sewing  machines 
to  the  wrong  person,  it  appeared  that 
plaintifT  was  general  agent  for  sale  of  the 
machines  at  vSt.  Paul,  and  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  shipping  machines  to  a  subagent 
at  Minneapolis.  The  latter  having  re- 
quested plaintiff  to  ship  him  a  certain 
number  of  machines,  plaintiff  caused  that 
number  of  machines  to  be  shipped, 
consigned  to  himself  at  Minneapolis. 
Defendant  delivered  them  to  the  sub- 
agent.  Held,  that  the  fact  that  the 
niachines  w^ere  consigned  to  plaintiff  was 
not  conclusive  that  they  were  not  sent 
pursuant  to  the  request  of  the  subagent, 
and  that  the  jury  might,  from  such  cir- 
cumstances, find  authority  in  the  subagent 
to  receive  the  machines.  Wilcox  r.  Chi- 
cago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  24  ;Minn.   269. 

16.  Notices  that  consignee  not  entitled. 
— Nanson  v.  Jacob.  93  Mo.  331.  6  S.  W. 
246,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  531;  Lester  v.  Dela- 

17.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  r.  Dickson,  94 
U.    S.   549,  24   L.   Ed.   285. 


§§  854-855 


CARRIF.RS. 


546 


The  addressing  of  a  package  to  a  consignee  in  the  care  of  a  third 
person,  as  between  the  consignor,  the  consignee,  and  the  carrier,  and  as  to  the 
liabiUty  of  the  latter,  and  in  the  absence  of  known  limitations  upon  the  scope 
of  the'  authority  given,  confers  upon  such  third  person  the  right  to  receive  the 
goods,  and  ordinarily  constitutes  him  the  proper  person  to  whom  to  make  de- 
liverv/'^  A\'here  such  third  person  declines  the  package,  the  consignee  is  en- 
titled to  receive  it.^^ 

Where  the  bill  of  lading  fails  to  show  who  the  consignee  is,  delivery 
without  ascertaining  from  the  shipper  to  whom  the  same  is  to  be  made  makes 
the  carrier  liable  in  conversion.-" 

Conflict  between  Bill  of  Lading  and  Marks  on  Goods. — W  here  there  is  a 
conflict  between  the  bill  of  lading  and  the  marks  on  goods,  in  determining  to 
whom  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  deliver,  the  marks  on  the  goods  do  not 
control  the  bill  of  lading.-^ 

§  8  55.  Consignor  or  Agent. — When  the  carrier  delivers  the  goods  to  the 
agent  selected  by  the  consignor  to  receive  them,  the  carrier's  responsibility 
ceases.--  And  the  fact  that  the  agent  is  also  the  agent  of  the  carrier  does  not 
affect  the  question.--^     But  a  carrier  who,  without  authority  from  the  consignor 

the  bill  of  lading  or  other  express  au- 
thority, was  not  an  authorized  agent  to 
receive  the  goods  of  such  consignor. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Weil,  57  Pac.  853, 

8  Kan.  App.   8.39. 
Delivery     by     direction     of     broker. — 

Where  a  carrier  delivers  the  goods  as 
directed  by  the  consignor's  broker,  who 
was  not  his  duly  authorized  agent  to  di- 
rect such  delivery,  the  carrier  is  liable. 
The  Ijroker,  under  his  general  powers  as 
such,  has  no  authority  either  to  receive 
the  goods  or  to  direct  to  whom  they 
should  be  delivered,  nor  could  such  au- 
thority be  conferred  upon  him.  so  as  to 
bind  the  consignor,  by  any  local  custom 
or  usage,  the  latter  having  no  knowledge 
thereoif.  American  Sugar  Refin.  Co.  v. 
McGhee,   96    Ga.    27,   21    S.    E.    383. 

23.  Georgia. — Fitzsimmons  v.  Southern 
Exp.   Co.,  40   Ga.   330,   2   Am.   Rep.   577. 

Maine.—St&  Stone  v.  Waitt,  31  Me.  409, 
52  Am.   Dec.   621. 

Ohio. — Roberts  v.  Union  Line  Exp. 
Co.,  2  O.  Dec.  577  (after  such  agent  re- 
ceives the  goods,  the  carrier  is  not  even 
a  naked  bailee.) 

Tt'.t-a.?.— Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogg 
(Tex.)    2  Posey  544,   549. 

Contra. — Where  a  package  delivered  to 
common  carriers  for  transportation  is 
addressed  to  the  care  of  the  agent  and 
principal  representative  of  the  carrier  at 
the  point  where  the  carriage  is  to  termi- 
iiate,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  direction  to 
have  the  package  stopped  at  the  place  on 
the  route  where  the  agent  is  in  charge  of 
the  business,  and  does  not  import  that 
upon  receiving  it  the  carrier's  responsi- 
bility ceases,  and  the  agent  becomes  a 
consignee.  Russell  v.  Livingston,  16  N. 
Y.  515,  reversing  19  Barb.  346;  compare 
P>ristoe  7'.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 

9  Barb.  158,  and  Labar  v.  Taber  (N.  Y.), 
35   Barb.   305. 


ware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Hun  342,  36  N.  Y. 
S.  907,  72  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  334;  Nashville, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank, 
100  Tex.  17,  93  S.  W.  431,  reversing  91 
S.  W.  1106.  See  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Fant  Fish  Co.,  12  Ga.  App.  447,  78  S.  E. 
197. 

Where  the  consignor  is  known  to  the 
carrier  to  be  the  owner,  the  carrier  must 
be  understood  to  contract  with  him  only 
tor  his  interest,  upon  such  terms  as  he 
dictates  in  regard  to  the  delivery,  and  the 
consignees  are  to  be  regarded  simply  as 
agents  selected  by  him  to  receive  the 
goods  at  a  place  indicated.  Where  he  is 
an  agent  merely,  the  rule  is  different. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Dickson,  94  U.  S. 
549,  24   L.   Ed.  285. 

18.  Care  of  third  person. — Common- 
wealth V.  People's  Express  Co.,  201  Mass. 
564,  88  N.  E.  420.  See  Russell  v.  Living- 
ston, 16  N.  Y.  515,  reversing  19  Barb.  346. 

19.  United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hammer, 
51   N.  E.  953,  21   Ind.  App.  186. 

20.  Where  consignee  unknown. — Gass 
V.  Astoria  \'enecr  Mills,  118  N.  Y.  S.  982, 
134  App.  Div.  184. 

21.  Conflict  between  bill  and  marks. — 
Rome  1^.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Ga. 
22''. 

22.  Agent  of  consignor. — Roberts  v. 
Union  Line  Exp.  Co.,  2  O.  Dec.  577; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hogg  (Tex.),  2 
Po'^ey    544.    549. 

Knowledge  of  agency. — In  a  suit  by  a 
consignor  against  a  carrier  for  the  value 
of  goods  delivered  by  the  carrier  to  a 
third  party,  it  was  held  that  evidence  to 
show  such  third  party  an  agent  of  the 
consignor  was  admissible,  though  the 
facts  were  unknown  to  defendant  when 
the  eoods  Avere  delivered.  Angle  &  Co. 
V.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Iowa  487. 

The  husband  of  the  consignor,  who  had 
separated  from  her,  and  who  did  not  have 


547 


TRANSPORTAIION    .\M>   l)i:iJVKl<V    IIV    CAKKIKK. 


§§  855-857 


or  consignee,  delivers  goods  lu  the  consignor's  general  agent  at  the  place  of  de- 
livery, is  liable  to  the  consignee,-"*  even  though  the  consignee  did  not  reside 
there,  and  did  not  exi:)cct  to  be  there  to  receive  them.--''  And  where  a  consignee 
has  made  advances  for  the  goods,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  a  conversion  thereof, 
where  he  delivers  them  to  another  at  the  consignor's  request,  though  the  con- 
signor sent  no  bill  of  lading  to  the  consignee.-"  A  carrier  is  guilty  of  no  con- 
version, though  it  receives  property  from  one  not  rightfully  entitled  to  jjosses- 
sion,  and,  acting  as  a  mere  conduit,  delivers  it  in  ])ursuance  of  his  directions, 
if  this  is  done  before  notice  of  the  rights  of  the  real  owner.-" 

§  856.  Actual  Owner.-  \>  the  actual  owner  may  recover  the  property  from 
the  carrier,-^  il  is  excused  for  failure  to  deliver  to  the  consignee  by  delivering 
the  property  to  the  actual  owner,-''  or  his  duly  authorized  agent.'*" 

§  8  57.  Holder  of  Bill  of  Lading. — W  Iktc  by  the  indorsement  of  a  bill 
of  lading,  the  indorsee  obtains  the  right  to  the  delivery  of  the  goods  named 
therein,  a  delivery  to  the  holder  of  a  bill  of  lading  properly  indorsed  relieves 
the  carrier  from  further  liability,-'^  even  though  such  holder  obtained  possession 
of  the  bill  wrongfully."'-     lUit  it  is  held  that  if  the  carrier  delivers  the  goods  on 


24.  General  agent. — Ela  v.  American, 
etc..  Exp.  Co.,  2<)  Wis.  (HI,  9  Am.  Rep. 
619. 

25.  Wilson  Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Mo.  203. 

26.  Where  consignee  made  advances. — 
Bailey  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  49  \. 
Y.    70. 

27.  Shellnut  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  131 
Ga.  404,  400.  02  S.  E.  294,  18  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  494;  Nanson  v.  Jacob,  93  Mo.  331, 
6  S.  W.  246,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  531. 

28.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot,  123 
Ga.  378,  51  S.  E.  401. 

A  package  of  money,  really  Iielonging 
to  A  alone,  was  sent  by  express,  directed 
to  the  firm  of  A  &  B;  and  on  its  arrival 
A  demanded  it  of  the  express  company, 
stating  that  it  was  his.  There  was  no  as- 
signment by  B  to  .\  of  his  appnrent  interest, 
nor  any  written  order  by  him  to  deliver 
to  A,  nor  any  offer  of  a  receipt  or  acquit- 
tance from  both.  The  company  refused 
to  deliver  to  A,  claiming  that  the  money 
had  been  garnisheed.  Held  that,  apart 
from  the  question  of  garnishment,  A  was 
entitled  to  recover  the  money.  Wells 
V.  American  E.xp.  Co.,  55  Wis.  23,  11  N. 
W.  537.  12   X.  W.  441,  42  Am.   Rep.  695. 

29.  Delivery  to  actual  owner. — United 
States.— The  Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L. 
Ed.  978;  Roscnfield  v.  Express  Co.,  Eed. 
Cas.   No.    12,060,   1  Woods   131. 

loiva. — Brunswick  &  Co.  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  46  Iowa  677. 

Minnesota. — National  Bank  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  44  Minn.  224,  46  N.  W.  342. 
560,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  263,  20  Am.  St.  Rep. 
566. 

New  York. — Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co..   36  N.  Y.  403,  affirming  3.5  Barb.   188. 

Pcnnsvlvania. — King  v.  Richards,  6 
Whart.  418,  37  .\m.  Dec.  420. 

West  Jlr^inia. — Smith  r.  Linden  Oil 
Co.,  69  W.  Va.  57.  62,  71  S.  E.  167. 

Where  lumber  was  loaded  by  the  seller, 
passing     title    thereto     to    the     buyer     to 


whom  it  was  billed,  but  ihe  seller  un- 
loaded it  and  reloaded  the  car,  billing  it 
to  his  own  order,  the  carrier  properly  de- 
livered it  to  the  buyer,  and  was  not  lia- 
ble to  the  seller  in  damages  for  nonde- 
livery. McCollom  r.  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.    Co..    i:!!)    X.    W.    1129.    1.-.2   Wis.    435. 

30.  Agent  of  cwner. — Adams  z:  Blank- 
enstein.  2  Cal.  413,  56  Am.  Dec.  350; 
Southern   Exp.  Co.  z:  Everett,  37   Ga.  688. 

31.  Holder  of  bill  of  lading. — United 
States. — North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  31 
L.  Ed.  287.  8  S.  Ct.  266;  The  Thames 
(U.   S.),   14  Wall.   98,  20  L.   Ed.   804. 

Nebraska. — L^nion  Pac.  R.  Co.  z'.  John- 
ston, 45  Neb.  57.  63  N.  W.  144,  50  Am. 
St.  Rep.  540;  Gates  z:  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  42   Neb.   379,   60   N.   W.   583. 

Pennsvlzania. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  r. 
Stern,  119  Pa.  24,  12  Atl.  756,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.  626. 

South  Carolina. — National  Bank  z\  At- 
lanta R.  Co..  25  S.  C.  216. 

32.  Wrongful  possession  of  bill.  .\ 
railroad  company  issued  bills  of  lading 
for  grain  shipped  to  the  order  of  the 
shipper,  per  advice  of  M.,  B.  &  Co.  The 
bills  were  duly  indorsed,  and  by  M..  B. 
•."t  Co.  delivered  to  a  bank  as  collateral. 
The  bank  was  in  the  habit  of  allowing  M., 
B.  &  Co.  to  withdraw  such  bills  from  time 
to  time,  and  they  got  possession  of  these 
bills,  and  obtained  the  grain  from  the 
railroad  on  presentation  thereof.  Fail- 
ing to  pay  their  note  when  due,  the  bank 
stied  them,  and  sought  to  recover  from 
the  railroad  company  the  value  of  the 
grain,  on  the  ground  that  the  property 
nassed  to  it  by  delivery  of  the  bills  of 
ladincr.  Held.' that  the  bank,  by  allow- 
intr  M.,  B.  &  Co.  to  get  possession  of  the 
bills  and  present  them,  properly  indorsed, 
to  the  railroad  company,  was  estopped  to 
denv  the  leealitv  of  the  delivery.  Doucr- 
las  'v.  People's  Bank.  86  Ky.  176.  5  S.  W. 
420. 


§  857 


CARRIERS. 


548 


a  stolen  bill  of  lading,  it  will  not  be  protected  from  liability,  though  the  bill  be 
indorsed  in  blank  and  the  delivery  be  made  in  perfect  good  faith,^-^  unless  the 
bill  was  stolen  by  reason  of  the  negligence  or  carelessness  of  the  owner  or  his 
agent.'-^'  Where  a  bill  of  lading  deliverable  to  order  is  attached  to,  and  for- 
warded with,  a  time  draft  sent  to  an  agent  for  collection,  without  special  in- 
structions, an  acceptance  of  the  draft  by  the  drawee  entitles  him  to  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  a  deliven-  of  the  goods  to  him  discharges  the  carrier  from  liability.^^ 
HoTder  of  Unindorsed  Bill  of  Lading.— Possession  of  a  bill  of  lading  by 
one  other  than  the  consignee,  wiihoui  indorsement,  does  not  justify  the  delivery 
of  the  consignment  to  such  person.^'^  And  where  the  bill  directs  delivery  to 
the  vendor's  order,  or  his  assigns,  the  carrier  is  notified  that  he  must  not  deliver 
to  the  consignee  without  the  bill  properly  indorsed  by  the  consignor,  and  if  he 
delivers  otherwise  he  will  l)e  liable.-^^ 


33.  Delivery  on-  stolen  bill. — Raleigh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lowe,  28  S.  E.  867,  101  Ga. 
320. 

A  carrier,  without  the  production  of 
the  bill  of  lading,  delivered  goods  to  a 
person  for  whom  it  had  reason  to  believe 
that  they  were  ultimately  intended,  tak- 
ing his  check  to  indemnify  itself  against 
loss  because  of  such  unauthorized  deliv- 
ery. The  bill  of  lading  was  subsequently 
stolen  from  a  bank,  which,  as  the  own- 
er's agent,  was  its  lawful  custodian,  but 
which  had  no  knowledge  of  the  above 
facts.  Held,  that  the  bank  was  under  no 
duty  to  the  carrier  of  so  guarding  the 
possession  of  the  bill  as  to  protect  said 
carrier  from  loss  occasioned  by  surren- 
dering the  indemnifying  check,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  production  of  the  bill  of 
lading  by  an  unauthorized  person,  and  it 
made  no  difference  that  said  unauthorized 
person  was  the  party  who  was  to  be  no- 
tified of  the  consignment,  and  whose 
name  appeared  upon  the  bill  of  lading  in 
this  connection.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lowe,  28  S.  E.  867,  101  Ga.  320. 

34.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lowe,  101 
Ga.   320,   38   S.    E.   867. 

In  such  case  the  familiar  principle  would 
be  applicable  that  where  one  of  two  in- 
nocent parties  must  suffer  by  the  fraud 
of  another,  the  loss  should  fall  upon  him 
who  enabled  such  third  person  to  com- 
mit the  fraud.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lowe,   101   Ga.   320,  28   S.   E.   867. 

35.  Commercial  Bank  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  100  111.  401,  43  N.  E.  7.56,  affirm- 
ing  .58    111.    App.    438. 

36.  Holder   of   unindorsed   bill. — Louis 
ville,   etc.,    R.   Co.  v.   Barkhouse,   100   Ala. 
543,  13  So.  534. 

Where  a  consignee  named  in  a  bill  of 
lading  was  arrested  and  tnrown  into  jail, 
and  the  bill  of  lading  was  taken  from  his 
person  by  the  jailer,  and  the  bill  of 
lading  was  never  assigned  or  indorsed  by 
the  consignee,  a  delivery  of  the  goods  by 
the  carrier  to  a  person  who  by  some 
means  obtained  possession  of  the  bill  of 
lading  from  the  jailer  did  not  discharge 
it  from  liability,  though  it  acted  in  good 
faith      in      surrendering      the      property. 


Florence,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jensen,  48   Colo. 
28,    108    Pac.    974. 

A  carrier  is  liable  for  goods  consigned 
to  the  shipper,  and  delivered,  without  or- 
ders, to  a  person  who  ordered  the  goods, 
and  to  whom  the  shipper  Iiaa  sent  an 
unindorsed  bill  of  lading,  drawing  on  him 
through  a  bank  for  the  price,  and  ac- 
companying the  draft  with  another  bill 
of  lading,  and  an  order  for  the  goods  to 
be  delivered  on  payment  of  the  draft, 
though  the  company  was  ignorant  of  the 
sending  of  the  other  bill  of  lading  and 
draft,  as  well  as  of  the  fact  that  the  goods 
were  not  paid  for.  Weyand  v.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa  573.  39  N.  W.  899, 
1  L.  R.  A.  650,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  revers- 
ing 33  N.  W.  133. 

Where  a  director  of  a  corporation  to 
which  goods  have  been  consigned  got 
possession  of  the  unindorsed  bill  of  lad- 
ing and  induced  the  carrier  to  deliver  the 
goods  to  him  without  authority,  which  he 
converted  to  his  own  use,  the  carrier  was 
liable  for  misdelivery.  Cane  Belt  R.  Co. 
V.  Peden  Iron  &  Steel  Co.,  45  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  630,   101   S.  W.   528. 

A  custom  on  the  part  of  a  carrier  or  of 
carriers  generally  at  a  particular  place  to 
deliver  goods  to  one  other  than  the  con- 
signee, who  merely  holds  the  bill  of  lad-. 
ing  without  any  indorsement,  does  not 
justify  such  delivery.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Barkhouse,  100  Ala.  543,  13  So.  534; 
Weyand  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Iowa 
573,  39  N.  W.  899.  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  504,  1 
L.  R.  A.  650  (shipper  having  no  knowl- 
edge of  custom). 

A  carrier  which  makes  delivery  to  a 
person  other  than  the  shipper  or  con- 
signee of  goods  shipped  on  his  presenting 
an  unindorsed  receipt  therefor,  provid- 
ing for  delivery  to  a  certain  person,  which 
he  has  surreptitiously  obtained,  is  liable 
therefor,  notwithstanding  its  custom,  un- 
known to  the  shipper,  to  deliver  goods  to 
persons  presenting  such  a  receipt  with- 
out inquiry  as  to  who  they  are  or  what 
is  their  authority.  Adrian  Knitting  Co. 
V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  108  N.  W.  706,  145 
Mich.  323. 

37.  Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  German 
Nat.  Bank,  92  S.  W.  522,  77  Ark.  482,  113 


549 


TRANSPORTATION   AND  DKLIVIvRV  P,V   CARRIER. 


§  858 


§§    858-866.    Misdelivery— §    8  58.    Liability    in     General.— A   carrier 

must,  in  all  events,  dcliNer  the  j^oods  which  it  carries  to  the  person  entitled  to 
receive  them,  and  it  is  liable  if  it  delivers  to  the  wrong  person, ^'^  or  in  violation 


.•\.m.  St.  Rep.  H)0;  Grayson  County  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  Railway  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),  79   S.   W.   1094. 

A  bill  of  ladinpf,  promisinjjf  to  deliver 
goods  to  "A  or  his  assij^ns,"  was  sent  i)y 
A  to  B  unindorsed,  and  in  a  letter  con- 
tainiuf^  no  words  of  transfer.  Held,  that 
B  could  maintain  no  action  aj^ainst  C,  the 
owner  of  the  ves.sel,  either  as  surviving 
owner  or  as  assignee  of  the  goods,  and 
that  C,  having  delivered  part  of  the  goods 
to  B  was  not  thereljy  estopped  to  deny 
his  claim  to  the  residue.  Stone  v.  Swift 
(Mass.),  4  Pick.  389,  Ifi  Am.  Dec.  349. 

38.  Delivery  to  wrong  person. — United 
States. — The  lluiUrrss  (L'.  S.j,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,914,  2  Ware  (Dav.  82),  89.  See 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Atlanta  Nat.  Bank, 
112  Fed.  8G1,  50  C.  C.  A.  5.58,  5G  L.  R.  A. 
546. 

Arkansas. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pfei- 
fer,  90  Ark.  524,  119  S.  W.  642,  22  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1107;  Equitable  Powder 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 
Ark.  497,  138  S.  W.  964. 

Illinois. — Brown  7'.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  155  111.  App.  187. 

Indiana. — American  I{xp.  Co.  v.  Stack, 
29  Ind.  27. 

Massachusetts. — Hall  r.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Corp.  (Mass.),  14  .-Mien  439,  92  Am.  Dec. 
783;  Murraj'  v.  F'ostal  Telegraph  Cable 
Co.,  96  N.  E.  316,  210  Mass.  188,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912,   C,   1299. 

Missouri. — Wilson  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.. 
43  Mo.  App.  659;  American  Storage,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  123  S. 
W.   964. 

.Wxt'  York. — Security  Trust  Co.  v. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.,  178  N.  Y. 
620,  70  N.  E.  1109,  affirming  80  N.  Y.  S. 
830,  81  .A.pp.  Div.  426. 

Ohio. — Oskamp  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
61    O.   St.  341,  56   N.   E.   13. 

rcvfl:?.— Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Clark.  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  512;  Trice  v. 
Miller,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  440; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heidenheimer,  82 
Tex.  195,  17  S.  W.  608;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Fowler,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  683.  34  S. 
W.  661,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  661,  684,  no 
op.;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  .^dams,  49 
Tex.  748,  30  .\m.  Rep.  116;  Roberts  v. 
Yarboro.  41  Tex.  449;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Humphries,  4  Tex.  Civ.  .'Xpp.  333.  23 
S.  W.  556;  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  47  Tex.  Civ.  App.  283,  112  S.  W. 
589;  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  7'.  Windham.  1 
Tex.   Civ.  .\pp.  267,  260,  21    S.  W.  402. 

All  classes  of  common  carriers  arc  re- 
sponsible, and  equally  responsible,  for  a 
loss  of  the  goods  by  delivery  to  the 
wrong  person.  Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  :■. 
Adams,   49   Tex.    748,   30   .Am.    Rep.    116. 


Misdelivery  by  connecting  carrier. — 
.^ee    prjst,    "Connecting    Carriers,"    part    \'. 

Care  required  in  identification  of  con- 
signee.^Defendant,  an  express  company, 
refused  to  deliver  a  package  to  one  claim- 
ing that  he  was  consignee  until  he  was 
identified,  whereupon  he  brought  L.,  at 
whose  hotel  he  was  stopping,  and  who 
was  also  unknown  to  the  defendant.  L. 
then  procured  a  person  known  to  the 
company,  who  identified  L.,  but  stated 
that  he  did  not  know  the  consignee.  L. 
then  represented  that  the  person  claiming 
to  be  the  consignee  was  the  person  to 
whom  the  package  was  addressed,  where- 
upon it  was  delivered  to  him,  without  in- 
quiry as  to  the  length  or  nature  of  L.'s 
acquaintance  with  him.  Held,  that  the 
company  was  liable  to  the  real  consignee 
for  the  value  of  the  package.  American 
Exp.    Co.   v.    Stack,   29    Ind.   27. 

Intention  of  consignor. — W^here  goods 
were  consigned  to  L.  S.,  Springfield,  111., 
whether  the  consignor  meant  L.  S.,  of 
Boston,  Mass.,  or  L.  S.,  of  Springfield 
111.,  was  not  material.  Singer  v.  Mer- 
chants', etc.,  Transp.  Co..  77  N.  E.  882. 
191    Mass.   449,   114  .Am.   St.   Rep.   635. 

Delivery  to  one  of  similar  name. — 
Plaintiff  shipped  by  defendant's  road 
goods  consigned  to  A.  B.,  in  Washington. 
Defendant  could  find  no  one  of  that 
initial,  but  found  one  L.  B.,  and  learning 
from  plaintifif's  agent  that  he  had  sold 
some  goods  to  L.  B.,  delivered  the  goods 
to  him.  Held,  that  defendant  was  liable 
lor  the  goods.  W^ernwag  f.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  117   Pa.  46,   ll  Atl.  868. 

Agreements  to  hold  goods. — W'here  the 
agent  of  an  express  company  agrees  with 
the  consi.gnee  of  goods,  before  he  has 
paid  the  charges  thereon,  that  he  may  take 
part  of  the  goods,  and  leave  the  balance 
to  be  called  for  at  a  future  day,  the  agent 
acts  within  the  apparent  scope  of  his  au- 
thority, and,  in  the  al)sence  of  notice  to 
the  consignee  of  want  of  actual  authority, 
binds  the  company  so  as  to  make  it  lia- 
l)le  in  case  the  goods  are  afterwards  neg- 
ligently delivered  to  the  wrong  person. 
Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  61  Hun  418,  16  N.  Y. 
S.  220,  41  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  9,  following  58 
Hun   347,   11   N.   Y.   S.  871. 

A  special  a.greement  that  goods  might 
remain  in  the  depot  without  storage 
charges  until  called  for.  if  not  taken  away 
promptly  within  twenty-four  hours  on 
reaching  their  destination,  is  not  valid 
Mnless  supported  by  a  consideration,  but 
it  may  bind  the  carrier  so  far  as  to  pro- 
hibit the  deliver}-  of  the  goods  for  storage 
to  a  third  person,  who  was  a  warehouse- 
man,   without    direct    authority    so    to    do 


§  858 


OVRRI^S. 


550 


of  tlie  shipper's  instruclions.-''^     A  common  carrier  is  bound  to  deliver  the  goods 


from  the  shipper.  Angle  i'.  Mississippi, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  IS   Iowa  555. 

Illustrations. — Where  a  carrier,  on  ar- 
rival of  goods  at  destination,  placed  them 
in  the  wai^ehouse  of  a  third  person,  who 
i)y  mistake  delivered  them  to  a  person 
not  authorized  to  receive  them,  the  car- 
rier is  liable  to  the  owner.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z'.  Kidd,  35  Ala.  209. 

A  railroad  company  delivered  certain 
articles  of  freight  within  twenty-four 
hours  after  their  arrival  at  their  place  of 
destination  to  warehousemen,  who  were 
supposed  by  the  company  to  be  agents  of 
the  consignee,  but  who  w^ere  not  so  in 
fact.  The  goods  were  destroyed  by  fire 
five  or  six  daj^s  afterwards,  while  in  the 
hands  of  the  warehousemen.  A  published 
rule  of  the  company  provided  that  "all 
articles  of  freight,  on  arriving  at  the  place 
of  destination,  must  be  taken  away  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  being  unloaded 
from  the  cars;  goods  remaining  uncalled 
for  at  the  end  of  that  time  will  be  placed 
in  store,  and  storage  charged."  Held, 
that  the  companj'  was  liable  for  the  loss 
of  the  goods,  as  it  was  bound  at  its  peril 
lo  know  that  the  persons  to  whom  it  de- 
livered them  had  authority  to  receive 
them.  Angle  v.  Mississippi,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
18    Iowa    555. 

A  shipper  billed  certain  goods  to  his 
local  agent,  and  not  to  the  purchaser,  and 
the  agent,  without  transferring  the  bill  of 
lading,  made  a  further  contract  with  de- 
fendant for  the  carriage  of  the  goods  to 
the  place  where  they  were  to  be  delivered 
to  the  purchaser;  the  agent  directing  that 
such  goods  should  be  delivered  only  to 
his  order.  Held  that,  the  evidence  being 
sufficient  to  support  a  finding  that  the 
shipper  had  not  parted  with  the  right 
to  the  possession  of  the  goods,  a  delivery 
of  them  to  the  purchaser  was  at  the  risk 
of  the  defendant.  Wolfe  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
Ry.  Co.,  97  Mo.  473,  11  S.  W.  49,  10  Am. 
St.    Rep.   331,   3    L.   R.   A.    539. 

In  an  action  for  damages  against  a 
steamboat  company,  it  appeared  that 
plaintiff  put  on  board  one  of  defendants' 
boats  certain  iron,  to  be  conveyed  to  one 
A  at  B;  that  there  was  an  understanding 
between  defendants'  agent  and  A  (of 
which  plaintiff  was  ignorant)  that  all 
freight  transported  for  him  should  be 
landed  at  a  place  on  the  river  bank  near 
his  house,  and  that  the  iron  was  landed 
there;  that,  shortly  after,  A  refused  to 
pay  the  freight  bill,  and  notified  defend- 
ants' agent  that  he  should  not  take  the 
iron  away;  that  afterwards  one  C  with- 
out authority  from  A,  was  permitted  to 
pay  the  freight  bill,  and  took  the  iron 
away,  and  that  plaintiff  never  received 
any  information  as  to  the  disposition  of 
it.  Held,  that  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  re- 
cover.    Howard  v.   Old   Dominion   Steam- 


ship   Co.,   83   N.    C.    158,   35   Am.    Rep.    571. 

A.,  in  France,  having  arranged,  by 
correspondence  with  the  agent  of  the  de- 
fendant carrier  in  Havre,  for  the  carriage 
of  a  bag  of  gold  to  the  United  States,  sent 
the  bag  addressed  to  a  certain  name, 
street,  and  number,  "New  York,  Utica, 
America."  The  bill  of  lading  provided 
for  the  delivery  of  the  bag  to  that  name, 
at  that  street  and  number,  "New  York 
[City],"  and  was  sent  by  mail  to  A.  too 
late  for  a  reply  to  be  received  at  Havre 
from  him  before  the  vessel  sailed.  A. 
took  no  steps  to  advise  defendant  of  the 
error.  The  gold  was  delivered  in  New 
York  City  to  a  person  who  falsely  rep- 
resented himself  to  be  the  person  for 
whom  it  was  intended,  a  bill  of  lading 
having  been  sent  by  defendant  to  a  per- 
son other  than  the  consignee.  Held,  in 
an  action  by  the  consignee,  that  there 
was  no  negligence  on  A.'s  part,  and  that 
a  finding  that  defendant  was  negligent 
was  justified  by  the  evidence.  Guillaume 
7.  General  Transp.  Co.,  100  N.  Y.  491,  3 
N.    E.   489. 

Bills  of  lading  for  cotton  recited  that 
it  was  received  for  delivery  to  the  order 
of  plaintiff.  The  shipper  was  a  buyer  of 
cotton,  who  paid  therefor  by  drafts  on 
plaintiff,  secured  by  the  bills  of  lading. 
The  cotton  was  delivered  to  another,  who 
guaranteed  to  hold  the  carrier  harmless, 
and,  without  paying  plaintiff,  applied  the 
cotton  to  a  claim  against  the  third  person. 
The  delivery  was  not  made  in  accordance 
with  custom,  but  in  reliance  on  the  guar- 
snty.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was  liable  to 
plaintiff  for  the  loss  of  the  cotton.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  First  Nat.  Bank,  112  S.  W. 
589,   47   Tex.   Civ.   App.   283. 

Through  the  mistake  of  a  forwarding 
agent,  goods  belonging  to  Russel  Adams, 
and  marked  "R.  Adams,  Brenham,  Tex." 
were  shipped  to  Bremond,  Tex.,  and  on 
request  of  a  letter  signed  "R.  Adams," 
were  forwarded  to  Burton,  Tex.,  and  de- 
livered to  Robert  Adams,  who  showed  no 
receipt  or  bill  of  lading,  and  who  re- 
ceipted for  them  as  "R.  Adams."  It  was 
held  that  the  carrier  was  liable  for  the 
goods.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
49    Tex.    748,    30    Am.    Rep.    116. 

A  statement  by  a  teamster,  known  by 
a  railroad  company  to  be  employed  by  a 
mill  owner  to  deliver  flour  for  transpor- 
tation, that  "this  flour  is  for  Mr.  T.,"  does 
not  authorize  the  company  to  deliver  the 
Hour  received  from  tlie  teamster  under 
sucli  remark,  without  further  instructions 
from  the  owner,  whatever  may  be  the  lo- 
cal custom  of  receipting.  Sawyer  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  Wis.  403,  99  Am, 
Dec.  49. 

39.  Delivery  in  violation  of  instructions. 
— vSonthern  h",xp.  Co.  7\  h'.verett,  37  Ga. 
688;  Mosher  &  Co.  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 


551 


TRANSPOkTATKJX    AND  DKLIVEKY   liY    CARRIKR. 


§  858 


at  their  rlestination,  and   it   is  liable  if   it  delivers  them  at  the   wrong  station.'**^ 

Liability  as  for  Conversion. — Where  a  carrier  delivers  goods  to  the  wrong 

person,    it    is    liable  fur    Lon\  ersion."      It    has   been   held  that    where    a   carrier 


38  Ga.  37;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Carter, 
62  111.  App.  OIH.  See  Ginnochio — Jones 
Fruit  Co.  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
App.),  134  S.  W.  1()2M.  See  post,  "Deliv- 
ery without  Production  of  Bill  of  Lad- 
ing,"  §§   8()0-8(J5. 

A  consignor  of  freight  directed  the  car- 
rier to  forward  a  portion  of  it  to  places 
designated  by  a  third  party.  Instead  of 
doing  this,  the  carrier  delivered  it  to  such 
third  person,  who  wrongfully  converted 
it,  and  disappeared.  Held,  that  the  car- 
rier was  liable.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Carter,  i\2   111.   App.  cis. 

Delivery  after  order  to  stop  in  transitu. 
— A  wrongful  delivery  of  goods  after  an 
order  given  by  the  consignor,  founded  on 
the  inability  of  the  consignee  to  pay,  to 
stop  in  transitu,  renders  the  carrier  lia- 
ble; and  the  subsequent  receipt  by  the 
consignor  of  the  consignee's  note  packed 
in  blank  with  the  goods,  and  an  attempt 
on  his  part  to  collect  it,  does  not  relieve 
the  carrier's  lial)ility  unless  the  note  be 
paid.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wentworth, 
1  Cin.  S.  C.  R.  142,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
464.  See  post,  "Stoppage  in  Transitu," 
chapter   17. 

An  inspection  of  property  shipped  in 
sealed  cars,  permitted  by  the  carrier  with- 
out authority  at  the  point  of  destination, 
in  consequence  of  which  the  consignor, 
who  was  also  the  consignee,  was  prevented 
from  completing  a  contemplated  sale 
thereof,  is  not  a  wrongful  delivery  by  the 
carrier  so  as  to  make  it  liable  for  the 
value  of  the  property.  Dudley  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  S.  E.  718.  58  \V.  \'a.  604, 
112  Am.  St.  Rep.  1027,  3  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S., 
1135.  . 

40.  Delivery  at  wrong  place. — Rome  R. 
Co.  V.  Sullivan,  etc..  Co..  14  Ga.  277; 
Frisby  v.  Sheridan  (La.),  3  Mart..  N.  S.. 
243. 

The  act  of  an  agent  of  carrier  in  billing 
a  shipment  to  a  place  other  tlian  that 
stated  in  the  contract  of  sliipment,  held 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  shipper's  los- 
ing the  benefit  of  the  market.  Gulf,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Harris  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  72  S. 
W.  71. 

41.  Liability  as  for  conversion. — United 
States. — Blowers    &   Co.   v.    Canadian    Pac. 
R.   Co.,   155   Fed.   935;   Southern    E.\p.    Co.- 
V.   Dickson,  94  U.  S.  549.  24   L.   Ed.  285. 

California. — Newhall  v.  Central  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  51   Cal.   345,  21   Am.   Rep.  713. 

Georgia. — Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sloat,  93  Ga.  803,  20  S.  E.  219;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  2:  Sinclair,  130  Ga.  372,  60  S.  E. 
849;  Rome  R.  Co.  r.  Sullivan,  etc..  Co.. 
14  Ga.  277;  Hol)1>s  t-.  Chicago  Packing, 
etc..  Co.,  98  Ga.  576,  25  S.  E.  584,  58  Am. 
St.-  Rep.  320;  Bruhl  v.  Coleman.  113  Ga. 
1102.      39     S.    E.      481;      Merchants',     etc.. 


Transp.  Co.  v.  Moore  &  Co.,  124  Ga.  482, 
52  S.  E.  802;  Atlantic,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Good- 
win, 1  Ga.  App,  351.  57  S.   E.  1070. 

Illinois. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Rose, 
20    111.   App.   670. 

Massachusetts. — Claflin  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Mass.),  7  Allen  341;  Forbes  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  .\m. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  76;  Wright,  etc.,  Wire- 
Cloth  Co.  V.  Warren,  177  Mass.  283,  58  N. 

E.  1082. 

.l/arv/rt'id.— Seal)oard,  etc..  Railway  v. 
Phillip's,   108   Md.  285,  70  .^tl.  232. 

Michigan. — Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich. 
344,  29  N.  W.  855,  6  Am.  St.   Rep.  301. 

A'ctv  York. — Security  Trust  Co.  V. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.,  178  N.  Y.  620, 
70  N.  E.  1109,  affirming  80  N.  Y.  S.  830, 
81  App.  Div.  426;  Packard  v.  Getman 
(N.  Y.),  4  Wend.  613,  21  Am.  Dec.  166. 

Ohio. — Oskamp  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
61  O.  St.  341,  56  N,   E,  13. 

South  Carolina. — Trowell  v.  Youmans 
(S.  C),  5  Strob.  67. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seley. 
31  Tex.  Civ.  App.  158.  72  S.  W.  89;  Hous- 
ton, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Adams,  49  Tex.  748. 
759,  30  .A.m.  Rep.  116;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195,  202,  17 
S.  W.  608. 

Vermont. — Winslow,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ver- 
mont, etc..  R.  Co.,  42  Vt.  700,  1  .\m.  Rep. 
36.5. 

West  J'irginia. — Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  v. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  423, 
61    S.    E.    364. 

Illustrations. — If  dutiable  goods  which 
are  sent  into  the  L^nited  States  from  Can- 
ada, are  marked  to  the  care  of  another 
person  than  the  consignee,  in  order  that 
such  person  may  pay  the  duties,  under 
an  arrangement  by  which  such  goods 
come  in  bond,  this  gives  to  the  agent  no 
authority  to  change  their  destination:  and 
a  carrier  who,  knowing  the  limited  au- 
thority thus  conferred  upon  the  agent, 
upon  his  order  delivers  them  to  persons 
not  entitled  to  receive  them,  is  liable  for 
a  conversion.  Claflin  z:  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   (Mass.).  7  .'\llen  341. 

Plaintiff  shipped  a  car  of  zinc  dross  to 
its  own  order,  care  of  defendants,  who 
operated  a  line  of  steamships,  and  sent 
the  bill  of  lading  to  C.  with  draft  at- 
tached. The  draft  was  not  paid,  and  it 
and  the  bill  of  lading  were  returned  to 
plaintiff.  The  car  was  placed  on  defend- 
ants' wharf,  and  the  freight  bill  delivered 
to  them  showed  plaintitT  to  be  the  con- 
signee,   and    was    indorsed,    "Notify    C." 

F.  had  accepted  freight  rates  on  a  ship- 
ment of  zinc  dross  oluained  from  defend- 
ants, and  requested  defendants  to  deliver 
the  permit  for  loading  to  C.  Several  bar- 
rels of  dross  were  hauled  to  the  wharf  by 


§  858 


CAKRIERS. 


552 


by  mistake  delivered  goods  consigned  to  plaintitif  to  another,  but  recovered  them 
within  a  day.  and  tendered  them  to  plaintiff  within  three  days,  there  was  no 
conversion.'* - 

Effect     of    Fraud,     Imposition    or    Mistake. — Neither    fraud.^-'     imposi- 


C.'s  teamster  and  loaded  on  defendants' 
steamer  under  the  permit.  The  barrels 
bore  the  same  mark  as  those  in  the  car, 
and  defendants  also  permitted  the  con- 
tents of  the  car  to  be  loaded,  and  all  the 
dross  was  carried  abroad.  Held,  that 
there  was  nothing  in  the  transaction  with 
F.  which  could  relieve  defendants  from 
liability  for  conversion  of  the  dross. 
Wright,  etc.,  Wire-Cloth  Co.  v.  Warren, 
58    N.    E.    1082,   177    Mass.   283. 

Plaintiff  agreed  to  sell  and  deliver  to 
W.  a  car  load  of  corn,  to  be  paid  for  in 
cash  before  delivery.  W.  having  paid 
part  of  the  price  only,  plaintiff  shipped 
the  corn  on  one  of  the  cars  of  defendant, 
a  common  carrier,  for  account  of  himself, 
not  stating  the  name  of  any  consignee. 
Defendant  delivered  the  corn  to  W.  at 
his  request,  but  without  the  consent  of 
plaintiff,  and  without  payment  of  the  bal- 
c  nee  of  the  price.  Held,  that  this  was  a 
conversion  of  the  corn  by  defendant. 
Jellett  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Minn. 
3G5,   15  N.  W.  237. 

A  carrier  delivered  goods  to  the  con- 
signee four  days  after  notice  by  the  real 
owner,  to  the  carrier's  agent  where  the 
goods  were,  not  to  do  so  except  on  his 
written  order.  In  reply  to  such  notice, 
and  three  days  afterwards,  the  agent  ad- 
vised the  owner  that  he  could  not  hold 
the  goods  if  demanded  on  bill  of  lading, 
and  to  send  his  orders  through  the  ship- 
ping office.  On  the  next  day  the  owner 
wrote  such  agent  that  he  wanted  the  goods 
reshipped  to  him,  and  he  would  advance 
freight.  Held,  that  the  owner  was  guilty 
of  no  laches  that  would  prevent  him  re- 
covering from  the  carrier  for  the  con- 
version of  the  goods,  there  appearing  to 
be  no  delay  by  such  owner  affecting  the 
ground  on  which  the  carrier  acted.  Les- 
ter V.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Hun  342, 
36  N.  Y.  S.  907,  72  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  334. 

Where  a  carrier  negligently  delivers 
goods  to  one  other  than  the  consignee, 
and  afterwards  contracts  with  the  person 
to  whom  they  are  delivered  to  sell  the 
goods,  and  hold  the  proceeds  for  its  ac- 
count, it  is  guilty  of  conversion.  Erie 
Dispatch  v.  Johnson,  87  Tenn.  490,  11 
S.  W.  441. 

A  carrier  is  guilty  of  a  conversion  of 
the  goods  when  he  forwards  them  from 
their  point  of  destination  elsewhere  on  the 
order  of  any  one  but  the  party  to  whom 
they  should  have  been  delivered.  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Adams,  49  Tex.  748, 
759,  30  Am.   Rep.   116. 

42.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wortham  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   154    S.   W.    1071. 

43.  Delivery      through     fraud. — I'nitcd 


States.— The  Sahtee,  Fed.  Cas.*No.  12,328, 
2  Ben.  519.  affirmed  in  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,330,    7    Blatchf.    186. 

Arkansas. — Equitable  Powder  Mfg.  Co. 
f.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  99  Ark.  497,  138 
S.   W.    964. 

Georgia. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Speirs, 
1  Ga.  App.  22,  57  S.  E.  973. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep.  116;  Trice  v. 
Miller,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  440. 

rirginia. — Moore  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   103   \'a.   189,   48   S.   E.   887. 

li'est  Virginia. — Dudley  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  604,  52  S.  E.  871,  3 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1135,  112  Am.  St.  Rep. 
1027. 

Illustrations. — Where  one  had  given  a 
general  order  to  an  express  company 
that  all  matter  addressed  to  him  should 
be  delivered  by  it  to  the  conductor  of  a 
named  railroad,  and  a  packj.ge  of  goods 
which  had  been  received  by  the  conductor 
from  the  express  company  under  such 
order  was  tendered  by  an  agent  of  the 
railroad  company  to  the  person  who  had 
given  the  order,  and  he  declined  to  re- 
ceive it  because  it  was  not  intended  for 
him  and  was  not  his  property,  and  the 
agent  of  the  railroad  company  thereupon 
delivered  the  goods  to  an  impostor,  who 
pretended  to  be  the  rightful  consignee, 
and  loss  to  the  consignor  was  thus  oc- 
casioned, both  the  person  giving  the  order 
and  the  railroad  company  became  liable 
to  the  consignor  for  the  value  of  the 
goods,  though  the  impostor  exhibited  to 
the  agent  of  the  railroad  company,  be- 
fore the  goods  were  delivered,  some  evi- 
dence tending  to  show  that  the  goods 
were  really  intended  for  him.  Bruhl  v. 
Coleman.  39  S.  E.  481,  113  Ga.  1102. 

Delivery  to  person  presenting  notice 
sent  to  consignee. — Defendant,  a  carrier, 
sent  to  plaintiffs,  the  consignees  of  certain 
goods,  a  notice  that  the  goods  had  ar- 
rived at  destination,  such  notice  bearing 
a  request  to  return  it  when  calling  to 
pay  charges,  and  a  statement  that  all 
orders  for  the  delivery  of  goods  must 
give  the  number  of  the  car  and  date  of 
freight  bill.  Plaintiffs  handed  this  notice 
to  their  truckman,  who  lost  it,  and  some 
third  person  presented  it  to  defendant, 
and  received  the  goods.  Held,  that  such 
notice  furnished  no  such  evidence  of  title 
as  to  justify  defendant  in  delivering  the 
goods,  upon  its  production,  without  as- 
certaining that  the  delivery  was  being 
made  to  the  consignee,  and  it  was  im- 
material that  plaintiff's  truckman  had 
Ijeen  accustomed  to  take  them  from  the 
carrier    on    the    production    of   similar   no- 


553 


TKANSI'OKTATIOX    AND   DELIVERY    BY    CARRIER. 


§  858-859 


tion,*-*  nor  mistake^'''  will  excuse  the  carrier  for  delivering  goods  to 
the  wrong  person.  The  carrier  is  liable,  without  regard  to  the  ciuestion  of  due 
care  or  negligence.''' 

§  859.  Fraudulent  Consignee.— When  the  carrier  delivers  goods  to  the 
person  to  whom  llic  goods  were  sent,  although  by  false  and  fraudulent  devices 
that  ])erson  impersonates  another,  to  whom  the  consignor  believed  he  was  send- 
ing the  goods,  the  carrier  is  not  liable."''^ 


tices.  Siiishfiincr  v.  .\'c\v  York  Cent.,  etc., 
R.   Co..  4(1   X.   Y.  S.  887,  21   Misc.   Rep.  4.'5. 

Forged  order. — A  carrier  is  liable  for 
misdelivery  on  a  forged  order.  Trowel! 
v.  Youmaiis  (S.  C),  5  Strob.  07;  American 
Mercliants'  Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Milk,  73  111. 
224;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  49 
Tex.    74S.    lU)    .\m.    Rep.    llC. 

Forged  bills  of  lading. — .\  carrier,  de- 
Hverin.L;  freif^ht  to  the  liokler  of  forged 
bills  of  lading,  is  liable  to  the  holder  of 
the  genuine  bills.  New  York  Cent.,  etc., 
R.   Co.   V.    I5ank,   193    Fed.   456. 

44.  Imposition. — California. — Adams  v. 
Blankenstein,  2  Cal.  413,  56  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Georgia. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spires, 
1  Ga.  App.  22,  57  S.  E.  973. 

Virginia. — Moore  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  103  Va.  189,  48  S.   E.  887. 

West  Virginia. — Dudley  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  604,  52  S.  E.  718,  3 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1135,  112  Am.  St.  Rep. 
1027. 

Impersonation  of  consignee. — A  com- 
mon carrier,  wlio  negligently  delivers 
goods  to  one  impersonating  the  true  con- 
signee, is  liable  therefor.  Pacific  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Critzer  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  42  S.  W. 
1017. 

45.  Delivery  by  mistake. — United  States. 
—The  Santee,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  12,328,  2 
Ben.  519,  aftirmed  in  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,330, 
7   Blatchf.   18(). 

Arkansas. — Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Glidewell,  39  Ark.  487;  Equitable  Powder 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99 
Ark.  497,  138  S.  W.  964. 

California. — Adams  v.  Blankenstein,  2 
Cal.  413.  56  Am.  Dec.  350. 

Georgia. — Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  etc., 
Co.,  14  Ga.  277;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Spires,  57  S.  E.  973,  1  Ga.  App.  22;  Sel- 
lers V.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  Ga.  386, 
51    S.    E.    398. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ames, 
40   111.   249. 

.\'eiv  For/^.— Packard  v.  Getman  (N.  Y.), 
4  Wend.  613,  21  Am.  Dec.  166;  Scheu  v. 
Eric  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  10  Hun  498;  Bush 
V.  Romer  (N.  Y.),  2  Thomp.  &  C.  597. 

Soutli  Carolina. — Trowell  v.  Youmans 
(S.   C),  5  Strob.   67. 

Texas.— GuU,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fowler,  12 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  683,  34  S.  W.  661,  affirmed 
in  93  Tex.  661,  684,  no  op.;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  r.  Heidenheimer,  82  Tex.  195.  17 
S.  W.  608;  Roberts  r.  Yarboro.  41  Tex. 
449;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  Humphries,  4 
Tex.   Civ.  .App.  333,  23  S.  W.   556;   Hous- 


ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Adams,  49  Tex.  748, 
30  Am.   Rep.   116. 

Virginia. — Moore  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  103  Va.  189,  48  S.   E.  887. 

IVest  Virginia. — Dudley  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  604,  52  S.  E.  718,  3 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1135,  112  Am.  St.  Rep. 
1027. 

A  carrier  is  chargeable  with  a  conversion 
at  the  instance  of  the  consignee  or  his 
assigns,  if  he  delivers  the  goods  to  any 
other  person,  though  the  carrier  acts  in 
entire  good  faith,  and  the  wrong  de- 
livery is  the  result  of  an  innocent  mis- 
take on  the  part  of  another  carrier  from 
whom  he  received  the  goods.  Merch- 
ants', etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Moore  &  Co., 
52  S.   E.   802,   124   Ga.  482. 

Where  a  carrier  by  mistake  issues  a 
receipt  for  freight  to  the  wrong  person, 
it  can  excuse  delivery  to  him  only  by 
showing  he  was  in  fact  the  true  owner 
of  the  freight  and  asserted  his  claim 
thereto  before  delivery  could  be  made  to 
the  consignee  for  whom  the  shipment 
was  intended.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Howard  Supply  Co.,  54  S.  E.  530,  125 
Ga.  478. 

46.  Indiana. — Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Wright,    58    N.    E.    559,    25    Ind.    .\pp.    525. 

Massaehusetts. — Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    76. 

Ohio. — Oskamp  z:  Southern  Exp.  Co. 
61    O.   St.   341,   56   N.    E.    13. 

Te.ras. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Adams. 
49    Tex.    74S,    :in    .\iii.    Rep.    116. 

47.  Fraudulent  consignee. — United  States- 
— Fulton,  etc..  Cotton  Mills  v.  Hudson 
Nav.  Co.,  164  Fed.  1022,  affirming  157 
Fed.   987. 

.Massaehusetts. — Samuel  7-.  Chenev.  135 
Ma.<;"s.   278.  46  Am.    Rep.   467. 

.\  ezc  York. — Price  7'.  Oswego,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    (N.   Y.),   58   Barb.   599. 

Ohio. — Oskamp  7".  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
11  O.  C.  C.  543.  5  O.  C.  D.  145;  Oskamp 
7'.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  61  O.  St.  341,  56 
N.   E.  13. 

Pennsyhania. — Seibert  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,   R.   Co..   1j   fa.   Super.   Ct.   435. 

Te.ras. — Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hertzberg, 
17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  100,  42  S.  W.  795. 

Illustrations. — Where  a  person,  fraudu- 
lently a.ssuniing  the  name  of  a  reputable 
merchant,  orders  goods  by  letter,  the 
carrier,  to  whom  the  seller  intrusts  the 
goods  for  delivery  to  such  person,  is  not 
liable  to  the  seller  for  delivering  the  goods 


§  859 


CARRIERS. 


554 


Goods  Consigned  to  Fictitious  Firm. — Where  a  carrier,  without  requiring 
evidence  of  identit}'.  dehvers  lu  a  stranger  goods  which  have  heen  fraudulently- 
ordered  by  the  latter  in  the  name  of  a  fictitious  firm,  and  which  have  been 
shipped  in  compliance  with  the  order,  directed  to  the  fictitious  firm,  it  is  liable 
to  the  consignor  for  their  value.'*'' 

Goods  Shipped  on  Fictitious  Order. — Where,  by  means  of  a  fictitious  order, 
a  consignor  is  induced  to  send  property  to  a  person  whom  he  knows  to  be  re- 
sponsible, the  carrier  is  liable  for  loss  from  a  delivery  of  the  goods  to  another 
person,  claiming  to  be  the  ])roper  consignee,  though  the  delivery  is  induced  by 
false  representations  to  the  carrier's  agent.-*"*'*     A  delivery  to  one  who  by  falsely 


to  him.  Samuel  v.  Cheney,  1155  Mass.  278, 
46  Am.  Rep.  467;  Edmunds  v.  Merchants' 
Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  135  Mass.  383; 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Luce,  11  O. 
C.   C.   543,   5   O.    C.   D.   145. 

G.,  representing  himself  as  Y.,  of  Provi- 
dence, bought  goods  of  plaintiff.  The 
goods  were  marked  to  Y.,  and  delivered 
to  defendant  railway  company,  who  car- 
ried them  to  Providence.  G.,  who  was 
known  to  defendants  by  his  real  name, 
applied  for  theni  as  the  property  of  Y.; 
and  defendants  delivered  to  him  on  his 
receipt,  but  without  his  producing  a  bill 
of  lading,  which  the  defendants  had  given 
to  plaintiff,  promising  to  deliver  the  goods 
to  Y.  or  order.  There  was  no  Y.  in 
Providence.  Held,  that  the  defendants 
were  not  liable  to  plaintiff  for  delivering 
the  goods  to  G.  Dunbar  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.   Corp.,  110  Mass.  26,  14  Am.   Rep.  576. 

48.  Goods  consigned  to  fictitious  firm. 
— Price  V.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y. 
213,    10   Am.    Rep.   475. 

49.  Goods  shipped  on  fictitious  order. — • 
Florida. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  i'.  Van  Me- 
ter,  17   Fla.   783,   35   Am.    Rep.   107. 

Illinois. — Shearer  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  43 
111.  App.  641,  affirmed  in  160  111.  215,  43 
N.  E.  816,  37  L.  R.  A.  177,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.   324. 

Indiana.  —  American  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Fletcher,   25    Ind.   492. 

Ohio. — Oskamp  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
61  O.  St.  341,  56  N.  E.  13,  reversing  14 
O.   C.   C.   176. 

Tennessee. — Sword  v.  Young,  89  Tenn. 
(5    Pickle)    126,   14    S.   W.    481,   604. 

Vermont. — Winslow,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ver- 
mont, etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Vt.  700,  1  Am.  Rep. 
365. 

Where,  after  notice  from  the  consignee 
that  he  had  not  ordered  the  goods,  tlic 
carrier  delivers  them  to  one  who  had 
wrongfully  ordered  them  in  the  name  of 
the  consignee,  it  is  liable  to  the  consignor 
for  their  value.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Fort  Wayne  Elect.  Co.,  108  Ky.  113, 
55  S.  W.  918,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1544;  Pacific 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Hertzberg,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
100,   42    S.   W.    7!)5. 

It  is  no  defense  in  an  action  against 
an  express  company  for  delivering  a 
package  of  money  to  a  person  other  than 
the  consignee  that  the  consignor  might 
have  discovered  by  the  exercise  of  due 
care    that    the    order    and    check    for    the 


money  were  forgeries.  Judgment,  80  N. 
Y.  S.  830,  81  App.  Div.  426,  affirmed.  Se- 
curity Trust  Co.  V.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s 
Exp.,   70    N.    E.    1109,    178    N.   Y.    620. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  a 
railroad  company  to  recover  damages 
from  them,  as  carriers,  for  nondelivery 
of  goods,  it  appeared  that  the  goods  were 
ordered  from  the  plaintiffs,  by  C,  writing 
under  the  false  name  of  R.,  and  intend- 
ing to  swindle  liie  plaintiffs.  The  plain- 
tiffs addressed  the  goods  to  R.,  and  for- 
warded them  by  defendants'  road.  C. 
awaited  their  arrival,  and  claimed  them 
under  the  name  of  R.,  which  name  he  as- 
sumed for  the  purpose  of  getting  them; 
and  the  defendants  deliverea  tliem  with- 
out requiring  identification,  or  taking  any 
other  precaution  to  make  sure  that  the 
person  receiving  them  was  R.  Held,  that 
they  were  liable  for  a  misdelivery.  Win- 
slow,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
42   Vt.   700,   1   Am.    Rep.    365. 

Goods  ordered  over  a  fictitious  name, 
with  the  intent  not  to  pay  for  them,  were 
delivered  by  the  carrier  to  the  person 
giving  the  order,  upon  his  presenting  an 
unindorsed  bill  of  lading  made  out  in  the 
assumed  name,  and  without  requiring 
liim  to  identify  himself  as  the  consignee 
or  the  consignee's  agent.  Held,  that  the 
carrier  was  liable  to  the  consignor  for 
the  price  of  the  goods.  Sword  v.  Young, 
89  Tenn.  (5  Pickle)  126,  14  S.  W.  481; 
S.   C,    14   S.   W.   604. 

Same — Consignments  of  money. — A. 
forged  a  telegram  in  the  name  of  B.,  re- 
questing a  national  bank  at  Charleston, 
III,  to  forward  $500  to  B.,  at  Gaines- 
ville, Fla.  LTpon  the  receipt  of  this  tele- 
gram, B.'s  agent  gave  his  note  for  the 
money,  which  B.  subsequently  paid,  and 
the  bank  forwarded  the  money  by  ex- 
press; the  package  being  addressed  to 
B.,  at  the  Arlington  House,  Gainesville. 
The  agent  of  the  express  company  at 
Gainesville  delivered  the  package  to  a 
stranger  without  any  further  identifica- 
tion than  that  an  hotel  keeper,  known  to 
said  agent  as  a  reliable  person,  accom- 
panied the  stranger,  and  treated  him  as 
B.  Held,  that  the  company  was  liable  to 
B.  for  the  loss  of  the  money.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Van  Meter,  17  Fla.  783,  35 
Am.    Rep.    107. 

An  impostor,  under  the  name  of  J.  C. 
S.     (one    with    wliom     plaintiff    had     had 


TKAXSl'OkTATlOX    .\M>   IMlLlVKKV    I'.V    CAKKIKK. 


§§  859-860 


representing  himself  to  be  an  agent  of  another,  obtained  the  assent  of  the  con- 
signor to  a  sale  of  goods  which  were  consigned  to  his  assumed  principal,  is  not 
excused,  even  though  he  may  have  heen  recognized  Ijy  the  consignor  in  making 
the  sale."'" 

Two  Persons  with  Same  Name. — It  has  been  held  that  where  there  were 
two  men  of  tlu-  same  name,  and  one  refused  a  tender  of  the  goods,  saying  he 
had  not  ordered  them,  a  delivery  to  the  other  who  i)roduced  tlie  bill  of  lading, 
did  not  charge  the  carrier  with  negligence,  though  the  person  receiving  the  goods 
was  a  comparative  stranger.'"'' 

§§  860-865.  Delivery  without  Production  of  Bill  of  Lading-  §  860. 
In  General.  —  A  carrier  delivers  goods  at  its  peril  to  one  wiliiout  the  bill  of 
lading:''-  and  it  is  liable  if  il  makes  wrongful  delivery  without  requiring  the 
production    and    surrender   of    llie    bill,"''    e\en    if    delixery   l)e   made   to   the   con- 


dealings),  tclcgraplied  to  plaintiff  tu  ox- 
press  to  him  $4,000,  in  response  to  which 
plaintiff  expressed  the  money,  at  the 
same  time  telegraphing  for  particulars  as 
to  tile  use  the  money  was  to  be  put  to, 
wliich  telegram  the  impostor  answered. 
The  impostor  had  been  staying  in  the 
town  to  which  the  money  was  expressed, 
and  from  which  the  telegram  was  sent, 
for  several  days,  under  the  name  of  J. 
C.  S.;  and  the  express  company,  on  re- 
ceipt of  the  money,  delivered  it  to  the 
impostor,  after  using  reasonable  diligence 
to  ascertain  his  identity.  There  was  no 
evidence  as  to  his  true  name.  Held,  that 
the  express  company  was  liable  to  plain- 
tiff as  for  a  misdelivery  of  the  money. 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  V.  Shearer,  IGO  111.  215, 
43  N.  E.  816,  37  L.  R.  A.  177,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.   324,   affirming  43   111.   App.   641. 

Suit  against  an  express  company  for 
failure  to  deliver  a  package  of  money 
consigned  by  the  plaintiff  to  one  A.  The 
receipt  given  for  the  package  stipulated 
that  it  was  to  be  delivered  to  .\.  in  per- 
son. Answer,  that  the  agent  of  the  com- 
pany at  the  place  to  which  said  package 
was  addressed  was  also  the  telegraph  op- 
erator at  that  place;  that  a  person  pre- 
tending to  be  A.  came  to  said  agent,  and 
sent  a  telegram  through  him  to  the  plain- 
tiffs, requesting  that  the  money  sued  for 
should  be  sent;  that  in  answer  to  said 
telegram  the  monej'  was  sent  l)y  tlie 
plaintiffs,  addressed  to  -A..;  and  tliat  the 
same  person  who  had  sent  said  telegram 
called  for  and  demanded  said  package, 
representing  himself  to  be  the  person  to 
whom  the  same  was  addressed,  and  the 
money  was  thereupon  delivered  to  him 
by  the  defendant's  agent.  Held,  that  the 
answer  did  not  show  such  a  degree  of 
care  and  caution  as  would  relieve  the  de- 
fendant from  liability,  even  if  charged  as 
a  forwarder  only,  .'\merican  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Fletcher,    2.-)    Ind.    492. 

50.  Brunswick  &  Co.  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  46  Iowa  677;  Edmunds  v.  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  135  Mass. 
283. 

51.  Two  persons  of  same  name. — Rush 


V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  02. 
Sec  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hertzberg,  17 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    100,    42    S.    W.    795. 

A  carrier's  agent,  who  delivered  goods 
to  one  whose  name  was  the  same  as  that 
of  the  consignee,  was  not  chargeable  with 
knowledge  that  the  consignor  had  been 
sending  goods  through  the  same  com- 
pany for  five  years,  six  or  seven  times  a 
year,  addressed  in  the  same  way.  Singer 
z.  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co..  77  N.  E. 
882,   191    Mass.   449,    114   .\m.   St.    Rep.   635. 

52.  Delivery  without  bill  of  lading. — 
Alabama. — Alobile,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bay 
Shore  Luml)er  Co.,  165  Ala.  610,  51  So. 
956;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dahlberg 
Brokerage  Co.,  170  Ala.  617,  54  So.  168. 

Georgia.  —  Boatmen's  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  221,  7  S.  E. 
135. 

Illinois. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Na- 
tional  Live   Stock  Bank,   59   111.   App.   451. 

Ohio. — Bank  v.  Baltimore,  etc..  Rail- 
way. 15  O.  D.  N.  P.  32,  2  N.  P.,  N.  S., 
403. 

53.  Farris  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143 
111.  App.  208;  Merchants'  Despatch,  etc., 
Co.  r.  Merriam,  111   Ind.   5.   11   N.   E.  954. 

Under  commercial  usage  a  carrier 
should  deliver  articles  sliii)ped  only  on 
production  of  bill  of  lading,  though  it 
names  the  consignee.  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  c.s  Pac.  wr,.  '2^ 
Wash.    4:i9. 

Where  goods  have  been  transferred 
from  one  carrier  to  another,  the  last  car- 
rier is  bound  to  deliver  the  goods  to  the 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  issued  by  the 
first  carrier.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank 
7'.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
79   S.   W.    1094. 

But  in  Nanson  7:  Jacob,  93  Mo.  331,  6 
S.  W.  246,  3  .\m.  St.  Rep.  531,  it  was  held 
that  there  had  been  no  conversion  by  the 
second  carrier  where  plaintiff's  assignors 
shipped  by  a  common  carrier  certain 
goods  addressed  to  another  person,  but 
took  a  bill  of  lading,  which  showed  that 
the  goods  were  consigned  to  the  order 
of  the  consignors,  and  on  the  arrival  of 
the  goods,  the  second  carrier,  in  the  usual 


§  860 


CARRIERS. 


556 


signee.'"*  As  a  general  rule  where  it  is  stipulated  that  the  goods  shall  be  de- 
livered only  on  the  production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  a  delivery,  even  to  the 
consignee,  renders  the  carrier  liable  if  the  bill  be  not  presented."-''  In  some 
states  by  statute  carriers  are  required  not  to  deliver  goods  except  upon  the  sur- 


course  of  business,  and  at  the  addressee's 
request,  obtained  and  delivered  them  to 
him,  without  notice  that  he  was  not  the 
real  owner. 

Custom. — If  a  usage  exists  for  railroad 
corporations  in  a  certain  cit}^  to  deliver 
to  a  consignee  goods  consigned  to  him 
by  a  bill  of  lading  not  containing  the 
words  "or  order,"  without  requiring  the 
production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  such  a 
delivery  is  good  as  against  a  person  to 
whom  the  consignee  has  previously  de- 
livered the  bill  of  lading  as  security  for 
an  advance  made  by  him  to  the  con- 
signee. Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
133   Mass.   154,  9  Am.   &  Eng.   R.   Cas.  76. 

Receipt  held  not  bill  of  lading.— A 
shipping  receipt,  whereby  the  carrier 
agreed  to  transport  goods,  and  in  which 
a  third  person  was  named  as  consignee, 
and  the  number  of  the  car  containing  the 
goods  was  stated,  was  not  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing to  bearer,  and  was  not  an  instrument 
symbolical  of  the  goods,  without  produc- 
tion of  which  a  delivery  could  not  be 
made  to  any  one.  Green  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N.  E.  622,  206  Mass.   331. 

54.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnston,  45 
Neb.  57,  63  N.  W.  144,  50  Am.  St.  Rep. 
540;  Gates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42 
Neb.  379,  60  N.  W.  583. 

55.  Stipulation  requiring  production  of 
bill. — Marxland. — Seaboard,  etc.,  Railway 
V.  Phillips',  108  Md.  285,  70  Atl.  232;  Ches- 
apeake Steamship  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Nat. 
Bank,  102  Md.  589,  63  Atl.  113;  Mer- 
chants' Nat.  Bank  v.  Baltimore,  etc.. 
Steamboat   Co.,   63   Atl.   108,   102   Md.   573. 

New  York. — Foggan  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Hun  623,  16  N.  Y.  S.  25. 

Texas. — Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray- 
son County  Nat.  Bank,  93  S.  W.  431,  100 
Tex.  17,  reversing  91  S.  W.  1106;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  United  States  Fidel- 
ity, etc.,  Co.,  125  Tenn.  658,  148  S.  W.  671. 

Holder  of  invoice, — When  goods  are 
consigned  to  the  order  of  the  shipper, 
and  the  manifest  and  invoice  show  that 
they  were  to  be  delivered  only  on  produc- 
tion of  the  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  is 
liable,  to  the  extent  of  their  value,  for 
delivering  them  to  the  holder  of  the  in- 
voice without  compliance  with  these 
terms.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Stern,  119 
Pa.  24,   12  Atl.   756,  4  Am.   St.   Rep.   626. 

In  Texas  it  is  held  that  in  the  absence 
of  such  a  stipulation  in  the  bill  the  car- 
rier may  deliver  to  the  consignee  without 
requiring  its  production.  Nashville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Grayson  v.  County  Nat.  Bank, 
100  Tex.  17,  93  S.  W.  431,  reversing  91 
S.  W.   1106. 

Illustrations. — Where  a  railway  com- 
pany,   after    issuing    a    bill    of    lading    on 


which  is  stamped,  '"Not  negotiable  unless 
delivery  is  to  be  made  to  the  consignee 
or  order,"  delivers  the  goods  to  the  con- 
signee named  therein  without  requiring 
the  bill  of  lading  to  be  produced,  it  does 
so  at  its  peril.  Barnum  Grain  Co.  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  102  Minn.  147, 
112  N.  W.  1030. 

A  bill  of  lading  containing  a  provision 
that  the  goods  are  to  be  delivered  on 
"presentation  of  duplicate  thereof"  estab- 
lishes the  fact  that  the  consignor  is  the 
owner  of  the  goods,  and,  if  the  carrier 
delivers  the  goods  to  the  consignee  with- 
out the  presentation  of  any  bill  of  lading, 
the  carrier  becomes  liable  to  the  con- 
signor. Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ir- 
vin,    46    Ind.    180. 

On  the  face  of  the  bill  of  lading,  under 
the  word  "Consignee,"  was  written  "Or- 
der of  C.  E.  Drake."  On  the  back  was 
printed  the  word  "Conditions,"  and  under 
it  "Not  negotiable,"  and  under  this  a  num- 
ber of  conditions,  one  of  which  provided 
ihat  "if  the  word  'Order'  is  written  hereon, 
immediately  before  or  after  the  name  of 
the  party  to  whose  order  the  property  is 
consigned,"  the  surrender  of  the  bill  of 
lading  shall  be  required  before  the  deliv- 
ery of  the  property,  and  that  in  any  other 
case  the  property  may  be  delivered  with- 
out requiring  such  surrender.  Held,  that 
the  l)ill  of  ladit.g  on  it.=  fact  was  trans- 
ferable, and  the  carrier,  having  delivered 
the  goods  without  requiring  its  produc- 
tion, was  liable  to  third  persons  who  had 
acquired  rights  in  the  property.  First 
Nat.  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85 
Hun  160,  32  N.  Y.  S.  604,  66  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.    112. 

Where  a  carrier  permitted  goods  con- 
signed to  shipper's  orders  to  be  taken 
away  by  a  purchaser  after  arrival  at  des- 
tination without  complying  with  carrier's 
instructions  in  producing  a  bill  of  lading, 
it  is  liable  for  their  value  regardless  of 
whether  its  possession  was  that  of  a  car- 
rier or  warehouseman.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hall,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  23  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  211,  56  S.  W.  140,  affirmed  in  93 
Tex.   694,   no   op. 

Production  of  bill  not  required.— 
Where  a  Ijill  of  lading  provided  that,  if 
the  shipper  did  not  elect  to  sign  and  ac- 
cept the  conditions  printed  thereon,  the 
property  would  be  transported  at  the 
carrier's  liability,  limited  only  as  pro- 
vided by  common  law  and  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  the  several  states, 
and  the  shipper  signed  no  acceptance  of 
the  conditions,  a  further  provision  of  the 
bill  of  lading  that  its  surrender,  properly 
indorsed,  should  be  required  before  the 
delivery    of    the    property    at    destination, 


557 


TRAXSPORTATIOX   AND  DELIVERY  BV   CARRIKR. 


§  860 


render  of  the  bills  of  lading.-"'''  Where  a  shipment  is  delivered  to  the  proper 
person  the  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  consignor  though  delivery  was  made  with- 
out the  i)roduction  of  the  bill  of  lading;-''"  as,  for  instance,  where  the  bill  is 
wrongfully  withheld.-''**  Where  goods  are  consigned  by  a  person  to  his  own 
order  and  are  delivered  to  such  consignor  or  upon  his  order,  this  delivery  frees 
the  carrier  from  further  liability  to  the  consignor,  even  though  the  bill  of  lading 
was  not  surrendered  in  accordance  with  a  stii)ulation  therein  contained. ^^  A 
carrier,  which  issues  a  bill  of  lading  naming  an  intended  buyer  as  the  shipper 
and  consignee,  in  the  absence  of  any  outstanding  order  of  the  apparent  shipper, 
may,  as  between  itself  and  him,  waive  a  stipulation  that  the  bill  of  lading  was 
to  be  surrendered  before  delivery,  without  subjecting  itself  to  liability  to  the 
owner."'*  .And  a  bill  of  lading,  providing  that,  unless  the  word  "order"  was 
written  thereon  immediately  before  or  after  the  .name  of  the  party  to  whose 
order  the  freight  was  consigned,  the  carrier  might  deliver  without  the  produc- 


liad  no  application  to  tiie  sliipment. 
George  &  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
40  So.   48f),  88   Miss.   306. 

Goods  were  shipped  under  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing which  stipulated  for  their  delivery  to 
the  order  of  the  consignor,  and  that  its 
surrender  should  be  required  before  the 
delivery  of  the  goods  at  destination.  The 
bill  was  indorsed  to  a  partnersliip  for  col- 
lection, and  delivery  was  directed  to  the 
firm's  order.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was 
authorized  to  deliver  upon  a  written  or- 
der signed  by  one  of  the  partners,  with- 
out requiring  the  bill  to  be  presented, 
though  the  partner  may  have  privately 
intended  the  signing  of  the  order  to  be 
I'.is  individual  act  only,  provided  the  car- 
rier's agent  had  no  information  of  such 
partner's  intention.  Chicago  Packing, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  S. 
H.   fiOS,   \m   Ga.   140,  40   L.   R.   A.  367. 

56.  Statutes  requiring  surrender  of  bills 
of  lading.— Nebraska  Meal  Mills  r.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  Ark.  169,  41  S.  W. 
810,  38  L.  R.  A.  358,  62  Am.  St.  Rep. 
183.  See  Laws  1858  C.  326  &  1859  C. 
353;  Colgate  v.  Pennsylvania  Co..  102  N. 
Y.  120,  6  N.  E.  114,  affirming  31  Hun  297. 

Under  Pen.  Code,  §  633,  making  it  an 
offense  for  a  carrier  to  deliver  merchan- 
dise for  which  a  bill  of  lading  has  been 
issued  unless  it  bears  on  its  face  the 
words  "Not  negotiable,"  or  unless  it  is 
surrendered  at  the  time  of  the  delivery, 
delivery  of  goods  without  surrender  of  the 
bill  of  lading  is  unlawful  where  the  words 
"Not  negotiable"  do  not  appear  on  its 
face,  though  such  words  are  printed  on 
the  back.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  85  Hun  160,  32  N. 
Y.  S.  004,  r.o  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  112. 

Delivery  to  consignee  after  transfer  by 
him  of  bill  of  lading. — Under  Laws  1858, 
c.  326,  and  1859,  c.  353,  forbidding  a  de- 
livery by  a  common  carrier  except  on  the 
production  and  cancellation  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  the  common  carrier  is  liable  for 
conversion  upon  delivery  of  the  goods  to 
consignee  after  he  has  transferred  the  bill 
of  lading  to  third  parties,  unless  the  bill 
of    lading    is    stamped    "Not    negotiable." 


Colgate    V.    Pennsylvania    Co.,    102    X.    Y. 
120,   6   N.    H.   114,   affirming  ;jl    Hun   297. 

57.  Effect  of  delivery  to  proper  person. 
^-A  provision  in  a  bill  of  lading  requir- 
ing a  surrender  as  a  condition  of  deliv- 
ery is  for  the  benefit  of  tht  carrier,  and 
hence,  where  delivery  is  made  to  the 
proper  person,  it  is  immaterial  that  sur- 
render of  the  bill  was  not  required.  Nel- 
son Grain  Co.  v.  Ann  Arbor  R.  Co. 
(Mich.),    140    N.    W.    486. 

Where  one  ships  goods  consigned  to 
the  order  of  himself,  with  direction  to 
notify  B.,  who  was  the  purchaser  and  ul- 
timate consignee,  and  sends  the  bill  of 
lading,  requiring  delivery  of  the  goods 
on  production  of  the  bill  of  lading  prop- 
erly indorsed,  together  with  a  draft  on 
P>.,  to  a  bank,  the  bill  of  lading  to  be  de- 
livered to  B.  on  payment  of  the  draft,  the 
carrier  is  not  liable  for  delivering  the 
goods  to  B.,  who  paid  the  draft  to  the 
bank,  though  the  bill  of  lading  was  not 
produced,  and  though  part  of  the  draft 
was  not  paid  till  after  delivery  of  part  of 
the  goods;  and  it  is  immaterial  that  the 
bank  subsequently  became  insolvent,  and 
failed  to  remit  proceeds  of  the  draft. 
Witt  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41 
S.   W.    10C)4.   99   Tenn.   442. 

58.  "If  the  bill  of  lading  is  wrongfully 
withheld,  and  the  goods  go  to  the  per- 
son who  is  legally  or  equitably  entitled 
to  them,  as  between  him  and  the  shipper, 
though  without  the  use  of  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, the  shipper  sustains  no  actual  dam- 
age, where  there  is  no  other  outstanding 
interest  in  the  goods;  and  his  claim  for  a 
merely  technical  irregularity  in  delivering 
them  without  the  bill  of  lading,  is  dam- 
num absque  injuria."  Herbst  v.  The 
Asiatic    Prince,    97    Fed.    343.    345. 

59.  Goods  shipped  to  consignor's  or- 
der.— Chicago  Packing,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Sa- 
vannah, etc.,  R.  Co..  103  Ga.  140.  29  S. 
E.   698,  40   L.   R.   A.   367. 

60.  Waiver  of  stipulation  requiring  sur- 
render of  bill. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  -•. 
Gilbreath  (Tex.  Civ.  App.L  144  S.  W. 
1051. 


;§  860-861 


CARRIERS. 


558 


tion  or  surrender  of  the  bill,  protects  the  carrier  in  deHvering  to  a  third  person, 
where  tlie  bill  does  not  contain  the  word  "order."  ^^  Where  no  bills  of  lading 
are  issued,  the  carrier  is  justified  in  delivering  the  goods  to  the  consignee  with- 
out the  production  of  receipts  or  other  evidence  of  ownership  issued  to  the  con- 
signor.*^- 

§  861.  Liability  to  Bona  Fide  Holder. — Where  the  carrier  delivers  goods 
without  the  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading  it  assumes  the  risk  of  its  previous 
transfer  tb  an  innocent  party.*'^  And  it  is  liable  to  a  bona  fide  holder  of  the 
bill  where,  without  production  of  such  bill,  it  delivers  the  goods  to  one  not  en- 
titled thereto."^  l>ut  the  carrier  is  not  liable  where  the  transfer  of  the  bill  is 
subsequent  to  delivery,  as  the  transfer  of  a  bill  of  lading  only  carries  with  it 
whatever  title  the  transferror  had  at  the  time  of  the  transfer.*'-'' 


61.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mayer 
Bros.  Co.,  T9  Kan.  (597,  100  Pac.  623; 
Weisman  z:  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 
R.    1.    12S.   47    Atl.    31S. 

62.  Where  no  bills  issued. — Schlichting 
r.  Chicas?o,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121  Iowa  502,  96 
X.   W.   9.-)n. 

63.  Liability  to  bona  fide  holder. — ■ 
Midland  Xat.  Bank  z\  Missouri,"  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    1    Mo.    App.   417,    (32    Mo.    App.    531. 

64.  United  States. — The  Thames.  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,858,  7  Blatchf.  22G,  affirmed 
in   14  Wall.   98,  20  L.   Ed.   804. 

Georgia.  —  Boatmen's  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co..  81  Ga.  221,  7  S.  E. 
125. 

Nczv  Ilaiiif^shire. — First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Northern  Railroad,  58  N.  H.  203. 

Nezu  York. — Colgate  v.  Pennsylvania 
Co.  (N.  Y.),  31  Hun  297,  affirmed  in  102 
N.  Y.  120,  6  N.  E.  114. 

Te.vas. — Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gray- 
son County  Nat.  Bank  (Tex.  Civ.  App.). 
91  S.  W.  1106,  judgment  reversed  in  part, 
100  Tex.   17,  93   S.  W.  431. 

Where,  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  the  goods  are  consigned  to  the 
order  of  the  consignor,  and  the  bill  is 
indorsed  in  blank,  and  negotiated  for 
value  as  security  for  a  draft  drawn  by 
the  consignor  on  a  third  person,  the 
carrier  has  no  right  to  deliver  the  goods 
lo  such  third  person  without  production 
of  the  bill  of  lading,  or  authority  from 
the  holder  thereof.  Boatmen's  Sav.  Bank 
v.  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81  Ga.  221,  7  S. 
E.  125.  See  Chicago  Packing,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Ga.  140, 
29  S.   E.  698,  40  L.   R.  A.  3G7. 

Where  a  carrier  allows  live  stock 
shipped  over  its  road  to  go  into  the  pos- 
session of  a  person,  other  than  the  con- 
signee, without  the  order  of  the  cofi- 
signee,  it  becomes  responsible  for  their 
value  to  a  bank,  which  holds  the  orders 
of  the  consignee  indorsed  on  the  receipts 
for  the  shipments.  North  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  123  U. 
S.  727,  737,  31  L.  Ed.  287,  8  S.  Ct.  266. 

Memorandum  on  bill  "for  A." — Where 
a  vessel  issues  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods, 
making  them  deliverable  to  order,  the 
fact  that  upon  the  vessel's  bill  of  lading 
there  is  a  memorandum  "for  A,"  does  not 


justify  a  delivery  to  A.,  where  the  ship- 
per's bill  of  lading  is  not  produced,  as 
against  an  indorsee  of  the  shipper's  bill 
of  lading,  who  cashed  a  draft  on  the  con- 
signee upon  the  faith  thereof.  The 
Thames,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,859,  7  Blatchf. 
226,  affirmed  in  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  98,  20 
L.    Ed.    S04. 

Indorsement  "notify"  third  person. — • 
Where  a  person  ships  goods  which  he 
intends  to  deliver  under  a  previous  con- 
tract, but  takes  a  bill  of  lading  to  his 
own  order,  the  delivery  to  the  carrier  will 
not  be  held  to  be  a  delivery  to  the  per- 
son to  whom  the  goods  are  contracted, 
for  in  such  case  the  shipper  reserves  to 
himself  power  to  dispose  of  the  property; 
and  a  bank  taking  the  bill  of  lading  to 
secure  advances  made  without  knowledge 
of  such  contract  is  a  bona  fide  purchaser, 
notwithstanding  an  indorsement  on  the 
l>ill  to  notify  certain  third  persons.  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Bank,  41 
111.    App.    287. 

Effect  of  custom. — The  rights  of  a  bona 
fide  holder  for  value  and  without  notice  of  a 
bill  of  lading  stipulating  for  the  delivery  of 
the  goods  to  the  shipper's  order  at  a  desig- 
'nated  point  with  direction;  to  notify  a 
third  person  are  not  affected  by  a  prior 
agreement  or  custom  of  the  consignor, 
the  third  person  and  the  carrier  giving 
such  third  person  the  right  to  change  the 
destination  of  the  goods  without  the  pro- 
duction of  the  bill  of  lading.  Western, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Ohio,  etc.,  Trust  Co.,  107 
Ga.   512,  33   S.   E.   821. 

65.  Subsequent  transfer  of  bill. — Ala- 
bama Nat.  Bank  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
42  Mo.  App.  284.  See  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gilbreath  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  144 
S.  W.   1051. 

A  delivered  property  to  a  common  car- 
rier, to  be  delivered  to  B.  Bills  of  lad- 
ing were  issued,  and  transferred  to  C, 
for  money  advanced  to  B.  Before  the 
carrier  had  notice  of  the  transfer,  it  de- 
livered the  property,  under  B's  direction, 
to  third  parties,  in  part  before  a"d  in  part 
after  the  transfer  of  the  bills.  Held,  that 
for  that  part  delivered  before  the  trans- 
fer the  carrier  was  not  liable.  Colgate  v. 
Pennsylvania  Co.  (N.  Y.),  31  Hun  297, 
affirmed  in   102  N.  Y.   120.   6   N.   E.   114. 


559 


TRAXSPORTATIOX    AND   DlXIVKkV    HV    CARRIER. 


§§  862-863 


§  862.  Laches  of  Holder  of  Bill. — Laches  on  tlie  part  of  the  owner  of  a 
bill  of  ladinj,'  can  not  be  assnmed  merely  from  delay  in  presenting  it  to  the  car- 
rier.*''^ And  wliere  a  carrier  issues  a  bill  of  lading  for  goods  as  deliverable  to 
order,  the  laches  of  the  holder  in  not  presenting  the  order  does  not  excuse  the 
carrier  for  the  delivery  of  the  g(jods  to  a  person  not  authorized  to  receive  them, 
and  without  ])roduction  of  the  bill.''" 

§  863.  Bill  Attached  to  Draft. —  If  the  seller  takes  a  bill  of  lading  to  his 
own  order  and  attaches  thereto  a  draft  for  the  purchase  money,  he  retains  the 
title  till  the  draft  is  paid,  accepted,  or  secured ;  and  in  such  case  the  carrier  be- 
comes the  agent  of  the  seller  and  is  authorized  to  deliver  the  goods  only  on  sur- 
render of  the  bill  of  lading;'"''^  and  a  delivery  to  the  buyer  without  payment  of 
the  draft  or  production  of  the  bill  of  lading  is,  unless  the  seller  consents,  a  con- 
version."" l>ut  where  a  bill  of  lading  unconditionally  directs  delivery  to  the 
consignee,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  consignor  by  making  such  delivery 
without  requiring  the  production  of  the  bill  of  lading  though  he  attached  thereto 
a  sight  draft  on  the  consignee,  and  sent  it  to  a  bank  for  collection,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  notice  to  the  carrier  of  such  draft.''^  Where  a  third  party  has  cashed 
drafts  attached  to  a  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  is  liable  to  him  for  a  misdelivery."' 


66.  Laches  of  holder  of  bill. — First 
Nat.  Bank  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  85  Hun  100,  \V2  N.  Y.  S.  604,  60  N. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  112. 

Where  holder  of  bill  negligent. — A 
hank  holding  a  draft,  with  bill  of  lading 
attaclied,  for  collection,  permitted  the 
drawee  to  take  it  up  by  a  new  draft,  re- 
taining the  bill  of  lading  as  security,  and 
to  reship  the  goods.  This  was  in  accord- 
ance with  a  long  course  of  dealing  be- 
tween them.  The  goods  were  delivered, 
by  the  drawee's  orders,  to  a  third  party. 
The  railway  company  had  no  notice  at 
any  time  of  the  bill  of  lading,  it  having 
been  issued  by  a  transportation  company. 
Held,  that  the  railroad  company  was  not 
liable  to  the  bank  on  such  bill  of  lading. 
National  Bank  7'.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co..    103    Pa.    407.    30    Atl.    228. 

67.  The  Tiiames.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,859, 
7  Blatchf.  220,  affirming  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,858,  3  Ben.  279,  affirmed  in  14  Wall. 
98,    20    L.    Ed.    804. 

68.  Bill  of  lading  attached  to  draft. — 
Arkansas. — Midland  X'allev  R.  Co.  z\  Fay, 
etc.,   Co.,   89   Ark.    342.   116   S.   W.   1171. 

Georgia. — Southern  R.  Co.  7'.  Strozier, 
10    Ga."  A  pp.    157.    73    S.    E.    42. 

MississiYpi. — Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Organ  Power  Co.,  92  Miss.  781.  40  So. 
254. 

Tennessee. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
ITnited  States  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co..  125 
Tenn.    658.    148    S.    W.    671. 

Under  a  shipment  addressed  to  the 
consignor  with  direction  to  notify  his 
vendee,  a  bill  of  lading  marked.  "B.  T^. 
attached  to  draft,"  sufficiently  notified  the 
carrier  not  to  deliver  the  shipment  with- 
out surrender  of  the  bill,  though  the 
blank  form  I'sed  was  what  is  known  as 
the  "straight."  and  not  the  "order."  form. 
Sturges  V.  Detroit,  etc..  R.  Co.,  166  Mich. 
231,    131    N.   W.    706. 


A  consignee  forwarded  goods  by  a  car- 
rier, consigned  to  himself,  "to  be  for- 
warded to  Louisville  depot  only,"  and 
sent  the  bill  of  lading,  with  a  draft  at- 
tached, to  a  banker  for  collection.  The 
drawee  of  the  draft  never  paid  it,  but 
wrote  out  an  order  in  favor  of  his  brother 
upon  the  carrier,  signed  by  himself  as 
"agent,"  and  obtained  the  goods.  Held, 
that  as  there  was  evidence  that  the  bill 
of  lading  was  not  produced,  and  the 
goods  were  delivered  to  the  drawee's 
brother  upon  the  letter  alone,  and  with- 
out inquiry  as  to  his  identity  or  right  to 
the  goods,  the  carrier  was  liable  for  the 
loss.  Merchants'  Despatch,  etc..  Co.  v. 
Merriam,   111   Ind.   5,   11   N.   E.  954. 

69.  Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Fay.  etc.. 
Co.,   89  Ark.   342,   116   S.  W.   1171. 

70.  Nebraska  Meal  Mills  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  64  Ark.  109,  41  S.  W.  810,  38 
L.    R.    A.    358,   02   .'\m.   St.    Rep.    183. 

71.  Where  third  party  has  cashed 
drafts. — United  States. — See  North  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank, 
123  U.   S.  727,  31  L.   Ed.  287,  8  S.   Ct.  26fi. 

Illinois. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Earned.  103  111.  293. 

Soittli  Carolina. — National  Bank  v.  At- 
lantic,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  25  S.   C.  216. 

One  of  the  common  uses  of  bills  of 
lading  is  to  enal)le  sellers  of  goods  to 
obtain  advances  upon  their  shipments  by 
drawing  on  the  purchasers  for  the  price 
of  tlie  goods,  attaching  the  bill  of  lading 
to  the  draft,  and  having  the  draft  dis- 
counted by  some  bank,  which  holds  the 
bill  of  lading  and  relies  upon  its  terms 
as  security  for  the  paj-ment  of  the  draft. 
The  carrier  must  have  knowledge  that 
the  bill  of  lading  may  be  so  used  and 
thus  get  into  the  hands  of  a  bona  fide 
}iolrlpr.  ^pfi  is  hound  to  see  that  the 
goods    are    not    delivered    until    the    draft 


§§  864-86; 


CARRIERS. 


560 


§  864.  Duplicate  Bills. — Where  a  railroad  company  issues  original  ship- 
per's order  hills  of  lading,  declaring  that  the  consignment  is  in  its  possession,  to 
be  delivered  only  on  their  presentation,  not  conditioned  to  be  void  in  case  of  de- 
livery on  duplicate  bills  issued  for  protection,  the  company  will  be  liable  on  its 
original  bills  to  one  holding  them  as  assignee  for  a  valuable  consideration, 
though  it  has  already  delivered  the  freight  to  the  shipper  on  his  presenting  one 
of  the  duplicate  bills."-  Where  the  owner  of  goods  received  a  bill  of  lading 
containing  a  provision  that  they  should  be  delivered  to  the  consignee  upon  a 
presentation  of  a  duplicate  of  such  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the 
loss  occasioned  by  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  consignee  who  did  not  pro- 
duce such  duplicate." 3 

§  865.  Direction  in  Bill  to  Notify  Third  Person.— A  direction  contained 
in  a  bill  of  lading,  to  notify  a  certain  person  of  the  arrival  of  the  shipment  at 
the  place  of  destination,  is  no  authority  to  the  carrier  to  make  delivery  of  such 
shipment  to  the  person  to  be  so  notified,  without  the  production  of  the  bill  of 


is  paid  and  the  bill  of  lading  produced. 
Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  Trust 
Co.,    107    Ga.   512,   33   S.    E.   821. 

Illustrations. — Defendant  railroad  coni- 
panj-  received,  in  Arkansas,  cotton  from 
plaintiff's  agent,  to  be  shipped  to  Rhode 
Island.  By  mistake  the  cotton  was  sent 
to  Maine.  The  company  then  gave  the 
agent  a  through  bill  of  lading,  and  agreed 
to  have  the  cotton  sent  from  Maine  to 
P.,  in  Connecticut.  The  agent  drew 
against  the  bill  of  lading,  and  the  draft 
was  paid  by  plaintiff.  In  the  meantime 
the  cotton  had  been  delivered  by  the  rail- 
road company  in  Maine,  into  whose  hands 
it  had  come,  to  one  A.,  who  refused  to 
give  it  up.  Held,  that  defendant  was  lia- 
ble. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Larned,  103 
111.  293. 

Where  a  second  carrier  receives  goods 
from  the  first  carrier,  to  transport  to  their 
destination,  knowing  upon  whose  account 
they  are  carried,  although  without  knowl- 
edge that  the  consignor  has  drawn  upon 
the  purchaser  and  attached  the  draft  to 
the  bill  of  lading,  it  is  liable  to  the  holder 
of  the  bill  of  lading  if  it  delivers  the 
goods  to  one  who,  before  the  arrival  of 
the  goods,  has  purchased  them  from  the 
consignee.  Alderman  v.  Eastern  R.  Co., 
115   Mass.  233. 

A  consigned  a  car  of  cof-n  to  his  own 
order,  with  directions  to  the  railroad  com- 
pany to  notify  B.  A  then  drew  on  B  for 
the  price,  and  sent  on  the  draft,  with  the 
bill  of  lading  indorsed  in  blank  attached, 
for  collection.  B  was  absent  from  home 
when  the  draft  was  presented,  and  at  the 
request  of  B's  clerk,  C,  who  had  business 
dealings  with  B,  paid  the  draft,  and  kept 
the  bill  of  lading  as  security.  The  corn 
was  then  delivered  to  B,  and  put  into  his 
storehouse;  and  some  days  afterwards  C 
learned  of  the  fact,  but  said  nothing  to  the 
company  about  the  misdelivery,  and  B, 
with  C's  knowledge,  used  up  the  corn  in 
his  business.  C  then  sued  the  company. 
Held,  that  as  he  had  done  nothing  to  in- 
duce the  misdelivery,  and  being  unJer  no 


legal  duty  to  notify  the  company  of  the 
same,  he  was  not  estopped  from  main- 
taining the  action.  Joslyn  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  51  Vt.  92. 

Effect  of  agreement  unknown  to  plain- 
tiff.— By  an  agreement  between  the  draw- 
ers of  drafts  attached  to  a  bill  of  lading 
and  the  shipper,  that  the  goods  should 
be  delivered  to  the  drawee  without  the 
production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  the  car- 
rier delivered  the  cotton  to  the  drawee. 
Held,  that  this  arrangement,  being  un- 
known to  plaintiff,  was  a  fraud  on  him, 
and  did  not  excuse  the  carrier  for  the  im- 
proper delivery.  National  Bank  v.  At- 
lanta,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   25    S.    C.   21G. 

72.  Delivery  to  holder  of  duplicates.— 
Midland  Nat.  Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  132  Mo.  492,  33  S.  W.  521,  53  Am.  St. 
Rep.  505,  affirmnig  02  Mo.  App.  531. 

Custom  and  usage  at  the  place  of  de- 
livery of  never  delivering  a  consignment 
without  surrender  of  the  original  bills, 
and  of  loaning  money  on  such  original 
bills,  is  not  a  factor  in  determining  the 
liability  of  a  railroad  on  such  bills  to  a 
bona  fide  holder  thereof,  by  written  as- 
signment, as  security  for  a  loan,  where 
the  road  has  delivered  the  consignment 
to  the  shipper  on  presentation  of  the  du- 
plicate bill  alone.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co..  132  Mo.  492,  33  S. 
W.   521,    53   Am.   St.    Rep.   505. 

The  custom  in  the  place  of  delivery, 
that  the  consignee  should  take  possession 
of  the  consignment  within  six  days  after 
notice  of  its  arrival,  does  not  excuse  the 
carrier  from  liability  on  the  original  bill 
of  lading,  conditioned  for  delivery  of  the 
consicnment.  on  its  presentation,  where 
it  delivers  the  consignment  to  one  pre- 
senting the  duplicate  bill.  Midland  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  132  Mo. 
492,  33  S.  W.  521,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  505, 
affirming    judgment    02    Mo.    App.    531. 

73.  Directing  delivery  upon  presentation 
of  duplicate. — McEwen  v.  Jeffersonville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Ind.  368,  5  Am.  Rep.  216. 


561 


TRANSPORTATION    ASl)  DELIVERY   BY    CARRIER. 


865-866 


lading  ])ropcrly  indorsed.''*  And  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  is  not  reqnired 
to  notify  the  carrier  not  to  deli\er  to  the  person  who  was  to  be  notified,  nor  to 
inquire  whether  the  goods  would  be  so  delivered.'"' 

§  866.  Defenses. —  It  is  no  defense  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  de- 
li\erv  of  i^tjods  U)  the  wrong  person  that  such  person  acknowledges  his  liabil- 
ity liierefor.'*'  (;r  that  such  a  person  had  a  lien  on  the  goods  for  freight  paid, 
where  it  appears  that  he  at  the  time  owed  i)laintiff  a  large  sum,'"  or  that  the 
consignee  negligently  failed  Id  rail  for  the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time,'^  or 


74.  Direction  to  notify  third  person. — 
United  Shttcs. — Xortli  Pennsylvania  R.  Co. 
V.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank,  12:5  U.  S.  727, 
31    L.    Ed.   287,   8   S.   Ct.   266. 

Georgia. — See  Florida  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Berry,    116   Ga.    19,   42    S.    E.   :571. 

Illinois. — Sec  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Southern    Bank,    41    111.    App.    287. 

Mussachusctts. — See  Wright,  etc.,  Wire- 
Cloth  Co.  V.  Warren.  177  Mass.  283,  58  N. 
E.   1082. 

Mississippi. — AUihaina.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Organ  Powder  Co.,  92  Miss.  781,  46  So. 
254. 

Xcbraska. — Union  Stock  Yard  Co.  v. 
Westcott,  47   Neb.   300,  66   N.  W.   419. 

New  York. — Lyons  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (App.  Tenn.).  119  N.  Y.  S.  703.  af- 
firmed in  120  N.  Y.  S.  1132,  136  App.  Div. 
903;  Furman  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  106 
N.    Y.   579,   13    N.    E.    587. 

South  Carolina. — General  Elect.  Co.  v. 
Southern  Railway.  72  S.  C.  251,  51  S.  E. 
69.').   IK)  Am.  St.   Rep.  600. 

Illustrations. — PlainlifT's  assignors  de- 
livered freight  to  a  carrier  in  Norfolk,  Va., 
for  shipment  to  Denver,  Colo.,  receiving 
a  receipt  therefore  describing  the  goods 
as  "marked  'Y,'  order  notify  Zucca  Bros.," 
Denver,  Colo.  The  goods  were  delivered 
by  an  intermediate  carrier  to  defendant 
company  with  a  "transfer  sheet,"  "Con- 
signee, 'Y,'  order  Hup.  Zucca  Bros.,  Den- 
ver, Colo.,"  and  were  delivered  l)y  defend- 
ant to  Zucca  Bros,  without  demanding  the 
production  of  the  bill  of  ladmg.  The  bill 
of  lading  had  been  attached  to  a  draft 
drawn  on  Zucca  Bros,  for  the  price  of 
the  goods,  which  was  dishonored  and  the 
bill  of  lading  returned,  and  indorsed  to 
plaintiff,  who  demanded  the  goods  of  de- 
fendant. Held,  that  defendant  had  sulili- 
cient  notice  to  put  him  on  inquiries,  and 
a  delivery  of  the  goods  to  Zucca  Bros, 
without  demanding  the  bill  of  lading  was 
negligence,  and  rendered  defendant  liable 
for  their  value.  Furman  v.  Union  Pac. 
R.   Co..   106   N.  Y.  579.   13   N.    E.   587. 

A  bill  of  lading  declared  that,  if  the 
word  "Order,"  was  written  thereon  im- 
mediately before  or  after  the  name  of  the 
party  to  whose  order  the  property  was 
consigned,  the  surrender  of  the  bill 
of  lading,  properlj-  indorsed,  should  lie  re- 
([uired  before  delivery  of  the  property. 
.\n  organ  l^lower  was  shipped  bj-  plaintiflf 
under    a    bill    of    lading,    reciting:      "Con- 


signed to  Organ  Power  Company,  P.  R. 
M.  Co.  Notify  Paton-Rubush  Music 
Company.  Via  Merchants  Dispatch." 
The  freight  bill  contained  the  following: 
"Consignee  Organ  Power  Company,  O  N 
Patton-Rubush  M.  House."  Held  that,  as 
the  court  would  take  judicial  notice  that 
the  letters  "O  N"  signified  "order  notify," 
the  carrier  was  chargeable  as  for  a  mis- 
delivery in  delivering  the  blower  to  the 
person  to  be  notified  without  surrender 
of  the  bill  of  lading  and  payment  of  the 
draft  thereto  attached.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  Organ  Power  Co.,  92  Miss.  781,  46 
So.  :>54. 

Effect  of  custom. — Where  cattle  are 
shipped  to  the  order  of  the  consignor,  the 
fact  that  the  railroad  company  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  delivering  cattle,  trans- 
ported by  it,  to  a  person  to  whom  the  re- 
ceipts required  notice  to  be  given  with- 
out requiring  the  production  of  any  bill 
of  lading  or  receipt  of  the  carrier  given 
to  the  shipper,  or  any  authority  of  the 
shipper,  in  no  respect  relieves  the  com- 
pany from  liability,  where  it  is  not  shown 
that  the  shipper  or  the  bank  which  took 
the  draft  against  the  shipment,  had  anj- 
knowledge  of  the  practice.  North  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank, 
123  U.  S.  727.  31   L.   Ed.  287,   8  S.   Ct.  266. 

75.  National  Bank  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  25  S.   C.  216. 

76.  Defenses. — .\tlantic  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  27   N.  Y.   Super.  Ct.  475. 

77.  Lester  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  92  Hun  342,  36  N.  Y.  S.  907,  72  N. 
Y.    St.    Rep.    334. 

78.  Negligent  failure  to  call  for  goods. 
—  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Herndon,  81 
111.    14;i. 

The  failure  of  a  consignee  to  observe 
a  custom,  requiring  him  to  take  posses- 
sion of  a  consignment  of  goods  within  a 
certain  time  after  its  arrival  at  its  desti- 
nation does  not  justify  or  excuse  the  mis- 
delivery of  the  goods  by  the  carrier,  nor 
relieve  against  the  express  language  of 
the  bill  of  lading  to  deliver  only  to  the 
shipper's  order.  Midland  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Missouri.  Pac.  R.  Co..  132  Mo.  492.  33  S. 
W.    521.    53    .Am.    St.    Rep.    505. 

Consignee  unknown. — The  liability  of 
a  carrier,  for  wrongful  delivery  to  a 
stranger,  is  not  discharged  because  the 
consignee,  whose  initials  only  were  marked 


1   Car— 36 


§  866 


CARRIERS. 


562 


that  the  delivery  was  made  according  to  custom  and  usage,""  or  was  occasioned 
by  fraud,  mistake  or  imposition,""'  or  that  the  goods  were  subsequently  destroyed 
by  an  unprecedented  storm.'''  or  that  the  consignee  refused  to  accept  a  tender 
thereof  made  more  than  three  weeks  after  the  expiration  of  the  time  extended 
for  delivery,  and  suit  had  been  brought/^-  or  that  one  shipping  goods  to  his 
order  failed  to  endeavor  to  recover  possession  thereof  from  the  one  wrongfully 
obtaining  them.^^  And  a  carrier  is  not  relieved  from  liability  for  misdelivery 
by  stipulations  in  the  bill  of  lading  that  the  consignee  shall  remove  the  goods 
immediately,'^-*  or  requiring  claims  for  loss  or  damage  to  be  made  in  a  certain 
time  and  manner. ^"^^  Xhe  fact  that  a  carrier,  wrongfully  delivering  goods,  re- 
claimed and  tendered  them  to  the  ship])er  might  be  shown  in  mitigation  of  dam- 
ages, does  not  relieve  the  carrier,  on  the  shipper's  damages  exceeding  the  value 
of  the  goods. ^"^ 

Mistake  in  Directions. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  misdelivery  made 
througli  a  mistake,  in  the  direction  of  a  parcel,  such  mistake  not  being  known 
to  the  carrier,  which  delivers  according  to  the  direction  and  the  known  course 
of  business  at  destination.*^'  But  it  has  been  held  that  if  a  carrier  delivers  goods 
to  the  wrong  person,  he  is  responsible,  although  the  address  of  the  consignee 
was  erroneously  given.^**^ 

Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Delivery. — A  carrier's  unauthorized  delivery 
of  goods  mav  be  ratiticd  ;  ''•'  and  the  right  of  action  for  wrongful  delivery  may 


on  the  goods,  was  unknown,  and  did  not 
claim  the  goods  at  the  end  of  the  transit. 
Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Glidewell,  39 
Ark.    487. 

79.  Effect  of  custom  of  usage. — Mobile, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bay  Shore  Lumber  Co.,  165 
Ala.  GIO,  51  So.  956. 

80.  Fraud,  mistake  or  imposition. — See 
ante,   "Liabilit}-   in    General,"    §   858. 

81.  Subsequent  loss  by  unprecedented 
storm. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seley,  31 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    158,    72    S.    W.    89. 

82.  Hamilton  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
13   Iowa   325,   73   N.   W.   536. 

83.  Midland  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Fay,  etc., 
Co.,  89  Ark.  342,  116  S.  W.   1171. 

84.  Stipulation  as  to  removal. — An 
ocean  carrier  which  deposited  a  shipment 
of  goods  in  a  closed  wharf  after  unload- 
ing them,  and  notified  the  consignee  of 
their  arrival,  after  which  the  delivery 
clerk  at  the  gate  of  the  wharf  delivered 
the  goods  to  the  wrong  person,  is  not 
exempted  from  liability  by  a  stipulation 
in  the  bill  of  lading  that  the  consignee 
shall  remove  the  goods  immediately,  oth- 
erwise they  will  be  deposited  at  his  ex- 
pense and  risk  of  fire,  loss,  or  injury  in 
the  warehouse  provided  for  that  purpose 
on  the  steamship  wharf.  Collins  v.  Burns, 
63  N.  Y.  1. 

85.  Stipulation  as  to  claims  for  dam- 
ages.— Where  a  carrier  is  guilty  of  a  con- 
version by  reason  of  a  wrong  delivery,  he 
can  not  take  advantage  of  a  stipulation 
in  the  bill  of  lading  that  claims  for  loss 
or  damage  must  he  made  in  writing  at 
the  point  of  delivery  after  the  arrival  of 
the  property,  and,  if  delayed  more  than 
30  days  after  delivery  or  after  due  time 
for  delivery,  the  carrier  shall  not  be  lia- 
ble. Merchants,  etc..  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Moore    &   Co.,    52    S.    E.    802,    124    Ga.    482. 


86.  Alidland  X'alley  R.  Co.  v.  Fay,  etc., 
Co.,    89   Ark.    342,    116    S.    W.    1171. 

87.  Mistake  in  directions. — Stimson  v. 
Jackson,  58  N.  H.  138.  Sec  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hodapp,  83  Pa.  22;  Cougar 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Wis.  157,  1 
Am.    Rep.   164. 

Where  a  box  marked  "Leopold  Ho- 
telfa"  had  come  through  on  defendant's 
line  from  New  York,  and  had  lain  in  de- 
fendant's warehouse  two  months,  during 
which  time  no  inquiry  was  made  for  it, 
and  defendant's  officers  had  inquired  for 
the  consignee  without  finding  him,  and 
the  box  was  then  delivered  to  Leopold's 
Hotel,  the  proprietor  of  which  was  ac- 
customed to  receive  consignments  for 
emigrants,  it  was  error,  in  an  action  for 
the  loss,  to  instruct  that  delivery  to  the 
wrong  person  was  a  want  of  ordinary 
care.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hodapp, 
83    Pa.   22. 

88.  McCulloch  V.  McDonald,  91  Ind. 
£40.  See  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2 
Texas    App.    Civ.    Cas.,    §    631. 

89.  Ratification  of  unauthorized  deliv- 
ery.— Converse  v.  Boston,  etc  ,  Railroad. 
.'■)8  N.   H.   521. 

Illustrations. — A  consignee  ratifies  an 
unauthorized  delivery  by  paying  _  freight 
charges  and  filing  a  mechanic's  lien  and 
making  claim  in  bankruptcy  against  the 
persons  to  whom  delivery  had  been  made. 
Burritt  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 
X.   Y.   S.   557,  76   Misc.   Rep.   520. 

Plaintifif  sold  merchandise  to  A.  on  con- 
dition that  it  was  to  be  forwarded  by  car- 
rier to  C,  who  sliould  deliver  it  to  A.  on 
his  executing  a  note  indorsed  by  C.  and 
others.  C,  without  notice  of  the  arrange- 
ment, and  on  representation  made  by  A., 
verbally  authorized  A.  to  receive  the 
package    from    tlic   carrier,   after  which   A. 


563 


TRANSPORTATION    AND   DIvLIVlIRY    l!V    CAKKlKR. 


§    866 


be  waived  by  any  action  which  ratifies  the  delivery,  and  thereby  deprives  the 
carrier  of  the  right  to  recover  over  against  the  person  to  whom  the  dehvery 
was  made.'-"^  lUit  a  suit  by  consignor  at  instance  and  for  benefit  of  carrier  and 
judgment  for  vakie  of  the  goods  wrongfully  converted  by  consignee  after  ar- 
rival at  destination,  does  not  affect  consignor's  right  of  recovery  against  car- 
rier for  its  misdelivery.'" 

The  acceptance  of  goods  by  the  consignee,  at  a  place  short  of  their  desti- 
nation, after  the  lime  ajjpointed  for  their  delivery,  will  not  free  the  carrier  from 
the  responsibility  for  damages  incurred  by  a  breach  of  his  contract  of  affreight- 
ment."- But  it  is  held  that,  where  a  consignee  directs  the  forwarding  of  goods 
from  a  wrong  destination,  to  another  place  where  he  receives  them,  such  ac- 
ceptance oi)crates  as  a  waiver  of  the  carrier's  liability  for  the  erroneous  de- 
livery.'•••'     .\n(l  after  such  acceptance  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  the 


.■ient  to  plaimitf  a  note  with  forged  in- 
dorsemeiUs,  on  which  plaintiff  afterwards 
sued  A.,  allesins  the  consideration  to  be 
i^oods  sold  and  delivered.  Held,  that 
plaintiff  could  not  afterwards  recover  of 
the  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  the  goods 
to  C.  Piatt  V.  Wells  (N.  Y.),  2(j  How. 
I'rac.  442. 

Delivery  without  production  of  bill  of 
lading. — 'rhou.uli  uoods  may  Iiave  l)een 
sliipped  upon  a  i)ill  of  lading  the  produc- 
tion of  which  was,  by  its  terms,  essential 
to  a  lawful  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the 
person  for  whom  they  were  intended,  the 
purpose  being  that  this  person  should  pay 
for  the  goods  before  obtaining  posses- 
sion of  them,  yet  where  the  consignor, 
after  receiving  information  that  the  goods 
had  in  fact  been  delivered  without  the 
production  of  the  bill  of  lading,  and 
knowing  that  payment  had  not  been 
made,,  drew  a  draft  payable  thirty  days 
after  its  date,  upon  the  other  party,  took 
an  acceptance  thereof,  and  undertook  its 
collection  through  a  bank,  this,  though 
the  collection  was  not  in  fact  made,  was 
such  an  aliandonment  of  the  original  pur- 
pose of  requiring  payment  on  delivery, 
and  such  a  ratification  of  the  delivery,  if 
actually  made,  as  would  relieve  the  car- 
rier from  liability  for  having  made  deliv- 
ery without  requiring  the  surrender  of 
the  bill  of  lading.  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Kinchen,  103  Ga.  18(5,  29   S.  E.  81fi. 

Where  consignors  deliver  goods  to  a 
common  carrier  with  directions  to  notify 
a  third  person  and  deliver  to  him  on  his 
presentation  of  the  bill  of  lading  and  pay- 
ment of  the  draft,  and  the  carrier  delivers 
the  goods  before  payment  of  the  draft 
and  without  presentation  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  but  afterwards  the  consignors  treat 
directly  with  such  party,  accepting  a  part 
of  the  purchase  money  in  cash,  and  tak- 
ing a  check  for  the  balance,  which  was 
not  paid,  the  consignors  by  treating  di- 
rectly with  the  party  receiving  the  goods 
waived  any  right  they  might  have  against 
the  carrier.  Callawav  7'.  Southern  R.  Co., 
.55   S.    K.   3:-\    12(1    C.a.    102. 

Where  delivery  not  ratified. — Plaintiffs 
consigned  to  themselves,  and  retained,  the 


bill  of  lading  for  goods  of  which  they  had 
made  an  executory  contract  of  sale;  the 
goods  to  be  delivered  to  the  buyer  only 
on  compliance  with  certain  conditions 
precedent.  When  the  goods  reached  the 
destination,  defendant  carrier  improperly 
delivered  them  to  the  buyer.  Held,  that 
plaintiffs  did  not  ratify  such  delivery  by 
corresponding  with  the  buyer  in  refer- 
ence to  the  subject  of  payment,  where 
they  never  assented  to  the  delivery,  and 
shortly  afterwards  called  defendant's  at- 
tention to  the  matter,  and  insisted  all  the 
time  on  the  liability  of  defendant.  Mc- 
Swegan  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  7  App. 
Div.  .301,  40  N.  Y.  S.  51,  reversing  16 
Misc.    Rep.   157,  37   N.   Y.   S.   943. 

A  shipper  can  not  be  held  bound  by, 
or  be  supposed  to  have  consented  to.  the 
improper  shipment  or  delivery  of  his 
goods  by  the  carrier,  merely  by  following 
them  to  the  point  to  which  they  have  been 
improperly  forwarded,  or  by  demanding 
them  from  the  party  to  whom  they  were 
wrongfully  delivered.  Houston,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  .-Xdams,  49  Tex.  748,  30  Am.  Rep. 
11  (i. 

90.  Blowers  &  Co.  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 
Co..   155   Fed.   935. 

91.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  etc.. 
Mach.  Co..  23  Tex.  Civ.  App.  211,  56  S.  W. 
140.  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  694,  no  op. 

92.  Acceptance  of  goods.— .\tkisson  v. 
Steanil)oat   Castle   Garden.   28   Mo.   124. 

In  an  action  to  recover  the  value  of 
bricks,  as  upon  failure  of  the  carrier  to 
deliver  them  according  to  the  contract  of 
shipment,  it  appeared  that  the  bricks  were 
left  I)y  the  company  at  a  station  beyond 
the  place  of  destination  designated  in 
the  contract  of  shipment.  Held,  tliat 
the  fact  that  certain  tenants  of  the  con- 
signee and  owner  asked  at  the  station 
if  plaintiff's  bricks  had  come,  and  un- 
loaded them  and  placed  them  on  the 
ground,  is  not  sufficient,  in  the  absence 
of  other  proof  of  authority,  to  show  that 
they  received  them  as  plaintiff's  agents. 
Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Gilmer,  89  Ala. 
.")34.  7   So.   654. 

93.  Hayman  v.  Canadian,  etc..  R.  Co., 
86   N.  Y.  S.   728.  43   Misc.   Rep.   74. 


§§  866-867 


CARRIKRS. 


564 


goods,^-*  or  for  the  acts  or  omissions  of  persons  employed  to  remove  them.^-''* 

If  the  owner  receives  payment  from  the  person  to  whom  the  carrier  has 
erroneously  delivered  goods,  he  hecomes  estopped  to  make  any  claim  therefor 
as  against  the  carrier;'"'  but  a  receipt  of  payment  for  a  portion  of  the  goods 
dos  not  constitute  a  waiver  of  his  claim  against  the  carrier  for  the  balance,  if 
he  does  not  intend  such  waiver. •''  And  it  is  held  that  the  receipt  by  the  owner 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  goods  wrongfully  delivered,  is  no  bar  to  the  re- 
covery of  damages  of  the  carrier  for  the  wrongful  delivery."'^ 

Subsequent  Payment  of  Draft. — A  carrier  who  delivers  goods  to  the  pur- 
chaser without  requiring  surrender  of  bill  of  lading,  and  payment  of  draft 
thereto  attached,  as  directed  by  the  consignee,  does  not  render  himself  liable  to 
the  consignor  as  for  conversion  of  the  goods,  where  the  purchaser  subsequently, 
but  promptly,  paid  the  draft  to  the  bank  that  held  it  for  collection,  although  the 
bank  failed  to  remit  proceeds,  and  subsequently  became  insolvent/''* 

§  867.  Duty  of  Consignee  to  Remove  Goods. — Where  the  goods  have  ar- 
rived at  destination  and  the  carrier  has  properly  performed  its  duty,  as  by  giv- 
ing notice  of  arrival  when  it  is  required,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  person  entitled 
to  receive  the  goods  to  remo\e  tliem  within  a  reasonable  time,^   or  at  the  end 


94.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Sarg:ent, 
19   O.    St.   438. 

95.  Jewell  v.  Grand  Trunk  Railway,  55 
X.  H.  84. 

96.  Receipt  of  payment  for  goods.— 
Brown  v.  \  andalia  R.  Co.,  16.3  111.  App. 
473. 

97.  Lester  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92 
Hun  342,  36  N.  Y.  S.  907.  72  N-  Y.  St.  Rep. 
334. 

98.  Arrington  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  51  N.  C.  68,  72  Am.  Dec.  559;  Clarke- 
Lawrence  Co.  V.  Chesapeake,  etc..  R.  Co., 
63  \V.  \'a.  423,  61  S.   E.  364. 

99.  Subsequent  payment  of  draft. — Witt 
V.  East  Tennessee,  etc..  R.  Co.,  99  Tenn. 
442,    41    S.    E.    1064. 

1.  Duty  of  consignee  to  remove  goods. 
—Illinois. — Jackson  &  Son  v.  Xew  York 
Cent.,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   167   111.   App.   461. 

Kentucky. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tingle, 
7  Ky.  L.  Rep.  441;  Harris  7'  Louisville, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,  9  Ky.   L.   Rep.   392. 

Massachusetts. — Bickford  v.  Metropoli- 
tan Steamship  Co.,  109  Mass.  151. 

Nezi'  York. — Goodwin  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  50  N.  Y.  154,  10  Am.  Rep.  457; 
Clendaniel  v.  Tuckerman  (N.  Y.).  17  Barl:). 
184. 

South  Carolina. — Layton  &  Sons  v. 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  S.  C.  323,  72 
S.   E.  988. 

West  Virginia. — Hurley  &  Son  v.  Nor- 
folk, etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  W.  Va.  471,  69  S. 
E.%904;  Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  393;  Berry  v.  West  Virginia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E.  143, 
67  Am.  St.  Rep.  781,  holding  that  distance 
from  depot  and  means  of  removal  imma- 
terial. 

A  consignee  can  not,  after  he  has  no- 
tice of  the  arrival  for  him  of  property, 
defer  taking  it  away,  while  he  attends  to 
his  other  affairs,  thus  prolonging  the  du- 
ration of  the   carrier's  liabilitv  as   insurer. 


It  is  his  duty  at  once,  and  with  diligence, 
to  act  upon  the  notice,  and  to  seek  de- 
livery, and  to  continue  until  delivery  is 
complete.  The  time  he  gives  to  his  other 
business  after  receiving  the  notice  can- 
not be  allowed  to  him  in  estimating  what 
is  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to  take  de- 
livery. Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
29   N.  Y.   Super.   Ct.    119. 

A  rule  requiring  removal  within  forty- 
eight  hours  after  notice  of  arrival  of 
freight  is  not  unreasonable.  Gulf  City 
Constr.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  121 
Ala.    621.    25    So.    579. 

Reasonable  time  to  produce  bill  of  lad- 
ing.— Wliere  title  and  control  of  the 
goods  does  not  pass  to  the  consignee 
until  he  acquires  a  bill  of  lading,  he  is 
entitled  to  a  reasonable  time  after  arrival 
to  obtain  and  produce  such  bill  of  lading. 
Layton  &  Sons  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
72    S.    E.    9SS,   90    S.    C.    323. 

Reasonable  diligence  used. — Where  the 
consignees  of  a  cargo  of  malt  unloaded 
part  of  it  the  day  after  receiving  notice  of 
its  arrival,  but  did  not  continue  the  work 
until  the  seventh  day  after  breaking  bulk, 
a  finding  that  they  used  reasonable  dili- 
gence is  supported  by  evidence  that  one 
Sundaj'  and  one  holiday  had  intervened, 
and  that  on  one  or  two  of  the  other  days 
it  had  been  raining.  Scheu  v.  Benedict, 
116  N.  Y.  510,  22  N.  E.  1073,  15  Am.  St. 
Rep.    426. 

Where  the  custody  has  been  transferred 
to  the  consignee,  as  where  l)ulky  articles 
are  landed  from  a  vessel  upon  a  public 
wdiarf,  with  notice  to  the  owner  and  con- 
signee, who  pays  the  freight  and  takes 
steps  to  remove  them,  if  hz  unnecessarily 
delays  the  removal,  he  does  so  at  his  own 
risk.  Goodwin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
50  X.  Y.  154.  10  Am.  Rep.  457.  reversing 
58    Barb.    19:.. 

In  the  absence  of  notice  of  arrival  con- 
signees    of    perishable      freight     are      not 


565 


TRANSrOKTATION    AND   UKLIVKRV    IJY    CARKIMK. 


§§  867-868 


of  an  agreed  delay;-'  and  if  he  fails  to  do  so  the  carrier  relieves  itself  from 
all  liability  by  depositing  them  with  a  resjjonsible  warehouseman.-*  As  to  what 
constitutes  such  reasonable  time,  see  elsewhere.-* 

§  868.  Failure  or  Refusal  of  Consignee  to  Receive  Goods.— The  car- 
rier's resijonsibilily,  as  such,  ceases  where  the  coii>i.i4nee  in\h  or  refuses  to  re- 
ceive the  goods,  and  afterwards  its  liability  is  that  of  a  warehouseman.'^'     Where 


houiul  to  make  iiuiuirj'  at  tlic  office  of  the 
carrier  therefor,  tliou^h  tliey  have  reason 
to  l)elieve  that  the  shipment  is  overdue. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Xaive,  79  S.  W. 
124.   112  Tenn.  239,  04   L.   R.  .V.  443. 

Illustrations.— i\  consignment  of  freight 
reached  ils  destination  in  due  time.  The 
consignee  liail  notice  of  its  arrival  No- 
vemljer  sth.  about  9  o'clock  a.  m.,  and 
that  day  removed  about  two-thirds  of  it, 
and,  under  ordinary  conditions,  could 
have  removed  all  of  it,  but  was  hindered 
in  the  use  of  his  dray  by  an  unusual 
crowd  of  people  obstructing  the  streets; 
and  the  portion  left  in  the  depot  was 
burned  that  night.  Xo  negligence  was 
charged  on  the  carrier  as  to  fire,  and  the 
action  against  it  by  the  consignee  as- 
sumed its  liability  as  a  common  carrier, 
and  not  as  the  warehouseman.  Held,  that 
a  peremptory  instruction  to  find  for  de- 
fendant was  proper.  Harris  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,  9   Ky.   L.   Rep.  392. 

The  plaintiff,  having  arrived  with  a 
cargo  of  coal  at  the  place  of  destination, 
offered  to  deliver  it,  but  the  owner  was 
not  ready  to  receive  it;  and  it  was  left 
on  board  the  plaintiff's  vessel,  which,  after 
waiting  several  days  for  an  opportunity 
to  discharge  her  cargo,  was  carried  away 
by  a  freshet,  and  her  cargo  lost  overboard, 
so  that  it  could  not  be  delivered  to  the 
owner.  Held,  that  the  plaintiff's  contract 
as  a  carrier  had  l)een  performed,  and 
that  he  was  entitled  to  recover  the  stipu- 
lated freight,  he  I)eing  liable  only  for  the 
want  of  ordinary  care  after  the  offer  to 
deliver.  Clendaniel  v.  Tuckerman  (X. 
Y.),  17   Barb.  184. 

2.  Rickford  v.  Metropolitan  Steamsliip 
Co.,  109  Mass.  ir)l. 

Contract  by  employee  without  author- 
ity.— A  railway  company  delivered  to  the 
owner  goods  which  were  in  its  warehouse, 
taking  his  receipt  therefor.  By  an  ar- 
rangement between  the  owner  and  the 
baggageman,  a  part  of  the  goods  were 
left  in  the  warehouse,  and  subsequently 
lost.  Held,  that  the  company  is  not  lia- 
ble for  the  goods  lost,  where  the  baggage- 
man had  no  authority  to  make  any  con- 
tract for  the  company;  his  permitting 
part  of  the  goods  to  remain  in  the  ware- 
house being  his  private  arrangement,  to 
which  the  company  was  not  a  party.  Mul- 
ligan V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Dak. 
315,  29   N.  W.  659. 

3.  Bickford  v.  Metropolitan  v^teamship 
Co.,   109   Mass.   151. 


4.  What  constitutes  reasonable  time. — 
See  post,  "Carriers  a^5  Warehouseman," 
chapter   13. 

5.  Failure  or  refusal  to  receive  goods. 
— (/tv^r^'i'i;.— .American  Sugar  Rehn.  Co.  v. 
McGhee,  9(5  Ga.  27,  21   S.   E.   3H3. 

Illinois. — American  Merchants'  Union 
E.xp.  Co.  V.  Wolf,  79  111.  430  (after  notice 
to  consignor). 

.Vrt*.'  Yurk. — .■\dler  v.  Weir.  90  X.  Y.  S. 
730,  49  Misc.  Rep.  134;  Lendsberg  v.  Dins- 
mark  (X.  Y.),  4  Daly  490;  Williams  v. 
Holland  (X.  Y.),  22  How.  Prac.  137;  Man- 
hattan Rubber  Shoe  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  41  N.  Y.  S.  83,  9  .-Xpp.  Div.  172,  75 
X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  544. 

Tennessee. — Kremer  v.  Southern  E.xp. 
Co..  40  Tenn.  (0  Coldw.)  356,  (carrier 
liable   only  for  gross   negligence). 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jen- 
kins, 35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  429.  80  S.  W.  428; 
House  V.  Soder,  36  Tex.  629,  reaffirmed  in 
Gerhard  v.  Neese,  30  Tex.  635. 

IVisconsin. — Marshall  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,   7  Wis.   1. 

A  shipper  of  goods  consigned  to  him- 
self can  not.  1)y  failure  to  receive  tiieni  on 
their  arrival,  continue  to  hold  the  carrier 
liable  as  such:  and  it  is  immaterial  that 
he  forwards  the  bill  of  lading  to  an  agent 
of  the  initial  carrier  at  the  point  of  desti- 
nation, the  goods  being  in  the  warehouse 
of  a  connecting  line,  and  directs  him  to 
deliver  them  from  time  to  time  as  sub- 
sequentlv  ordered.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Carter,  40  N.  E.  374,  105  111.  570,  36  L. 
R.  A.  527. 

The  refusal  of  the  owner  of  goods  con- 
signed to  himself  to  receive  same  at  des- 
tination constitutes  an  abandonment,  and 
the  owner  is  estopped  from  afterwards 
assertintr  that  the  carrier  had  converted 
them.  Reedv  7'.  Pacev.  00  Pao.  50.  22 
Wash.  94. 

Insufficient  excuse  for  refusing  to  re- 
ceive goods. — In  an  action  brought  by  a 
hank  against  an  express  company  to  re- 
cover for  the  value  of  a  package  alleged 
to  have  been  lost  through  the  negligence 
of  the  company,  it  appeared  that  the  com- 
pany tendered  a  delivery  of  the  package 
at  the  bank  an  hour  and  a  half  after  the 
usual  banking  hours,  that  it  was  the  cus- 
tom of  the  company  to  deliver  packages 
after  banking  hours,  that  the  teller  and 
clerk  were  present  at  the  time,  and  that 
ordinarily  delivery  of  packages  was  made 
to  such  "teller.  Held,  that  it  was  not  a 
sufficient  excuse  on  the  part  of  the  bank 
for   refusing  to  receive   the    package   that 


§  868 


CARRIERS. 


566 


the  consignee  is  absent  from  the  place  of  destination,*^  or  where  the  carrier  is 
unable  to  hnd  an  unknown  consignee  after  reasonable  inquiries,'  the  carrier  may 
discharge  itself  from  further  liability  by  placing  the  goods  in  store  with  some 
responsible  third  person  at  the  place  of  delivery,  for  and  on  account  of  the 
owner.  If  the  carrier  converts  the  goods  to  its  own  use  or  wrongfully  disposes 
of  them,  it  is  liable  for  their  value.'* 

Duties  of  Carrier  in  General. — If  a  consignee  fails  or  refuses  to  receive  the 
goods  consigned  to  him,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  take  such  steps  in  relation 
to  the  goods  as  will  advance  the  owner's  interest  and  purposes  consistently  with 
a  reasonable  security  to  itself  for  its  freight  and  charges.  What  it  ought 
to  do  in  a  given  case  will  depend  upon  circumstances.  If,  acting  as  agent  for 
the  owner,  it  pursues  such  course  as  men  of  ordinary  i)rudence  would  follow, 
it  will  be  protected  by  the  law.  whatever  may  be  the  result.''  The  carrier  should 
take  proper  care  of  the  goods, ^'^  and  should  store  them  in  a  safe  place.^^  It  is 
held  that  it  is  the  dutv  of  the  carrier  to  notify  the  consignor  of  the  consignee's 


it  was  tendered  after  banking  hours,  and 
tiiat  the  vaults  had  been  locked  by  the 
cashier,  who  had  taken  the  keys  away 
with  him.  Marshall  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,   7   Wis.   1. 

6.  Where  consignee  absent. — Salinger 
V.  Simmons  (N.  Y.),  8  Abb.  Prac,  N.  S., 
409,   57    Barb.    513.   2    Lans.    325. 

7.  Inability  to  find  unknown  consignee. 
— Where  the  consignee  of  certain  kegs  of 
butter,  sent  from  Albany  to  New  York 
by  a  freight  barge,  was  a  clerk,  having  no 
place  of  business  of  his  own,  whose  name 
was  not  in  the  city  directory  and  who  was 
not  known  to  the  carrier,  and  after  rea- 
.sonable  inquiries  by  the  carrier's  agent 
could  not  be  found,  it  was  held  that  the 
carrier  discharged  himself  from  further 
responsibility  by  depositing  the  property 
with  a  storehouse  keeper,  then  in  good 
credit,  for  the  owner,  and  taking  his  re- 
ceipt for  the  same,  according  to  the  usual 
course  of  business  in  that  trade,  though 
the  butter  was  subsequently  sold  by  the 
storehouse  keeper,  and  the  proceeds  lost 
to  the  owner  by  his  failure.  Fisk  v.  New- 
ton (N.  Y.),  1  Denio  45,  43  Am.  Dec.  649. 

8.  Where  carrier  converts  goods. — 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pfeifer,  90  Ark. 
524,  119  S.  W.  G42,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1107; 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saulsberry, 
103  S.  W.  254,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  624. 

In  an  action  for  damages  against  a 
steamboat  company,  it  appeared  that 
plaintiff  put  on  board  one  of  defendant's 
boats  certain  iron,  to  be  conveyed  to  one 
A.  at  B.;  that  there  was  an  understand- 
ing between  defendant's  agent  and  A.  (of 
which  plaintiff  was  ignorant)  that  all 
freight  transported  for  him  should  be 
landed  at  a  place  on  the  river  bank  near 
his  house,  and  that  the  iron  was  landed 
there;  that,  shortly  after,  A.  refused  to 
pay  the  freight  ))ill,  and  notified  defend- 
ant's agent  that  he  should  not  take  the 
iron  away;  that  afterwards  one  C,  with- 
out authority  from  A.,  was  permitted  to 
pay  the  freight  bill,  and  took  the  iron 
away;  and  that  plaintif?  never  received 
any  information   as   to   the   disposition   of 


it.  Held,  that  plaintiff  was  entitled  to 
recover.  Howard  v.  Old  Dominion 
Steamship  Co.,  83  N.  C.  158,  35  Am.  Rep. 
571. 

9.  Duties  of  carrier  in  general. — The 
Keystone,    28    Mo.   243,   75   A.m.    Dec.    123. 

10.  Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
in.  407,  71  Am.  Dec.  286;  Chickering  v. 
Fow^ler  (Mass.),  4  Pick.  371;  Redmond  v. 
Liverpool,  etc.,  Steamboat  Co.,  46  N.  Y. 
578,  7  Am.  Rep.  390,  reversing  56  Barb. 
320. 

The  failure  of  the  legal  holder  of  the 
ImU  of  lading  to  appear  for  the  purpose 
of  receiving  the  goods  when  they  reached 
their  destination  did  not  relieve  the  car- 
rier of  liability,  but  it  was  required  to 
store  the  same  with  the  company  desig- 
nated, with  directions  to  deliver  to  the 
person  entitled  thereto  on  the  production 
of  the  bill  of  lading,  properly  indorsed. 
Arkansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  German  Nat. 
Bank,  92  S.  W.  522,  77  Ark.  482,  113  Am. 
St.    Rep.    160. 

11.  Storage  in  safe  place. — The  Eddy 
(U.  S.),  5  Wall.  481,  18  L.  Ed.  486;  Rich- 
ardson V.  Goddard  (U.  S.),  23  How.  28, 
16  L.  Ed.  412;  Brittan  v.  Barnaby  (U. 
S.),  21  How.  527,  16  L.  Ed.  177;  The 
Thames  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  98,  20  L.  Ed. 
804;  North  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Com- 
mercial Nat.  Bank,  123  U.  S.  727,  31  L. 
Ed.  287,   8   S.   Ct.   266. 

On  refusal  of  the  consignee  to  accept 
goods,  it  devolves  on  the  master  of  the 
carrier  to  have  them  placed,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  consignee,  in  a  place  where 
they  will  not  be  exposed  to  loss.  The 
Red  River,  30  So.  303,  106  La.  42,  87  Am. 
St.   Rep.   293. 

That  the  goods  are  foreign  merchan- 
tiise,  subject  to  duty,  and  are  entered  in 
bond  by  the  consignee,  he  obtaining  a 
permit  to  remove  them  to  a  designated 
warehouse,  and  that  their  removal  is  un- 
der the  supervision  of  the  customs  of- 
ficer, does  not  affect  the  carrier's  liabil- 
ity. Redmond  v.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Steam- 
boat Co.,  46  N.  Y.  578,  7  Am.  Rep.  390, 
reversing  56  Barb.  320. 


567 


TRANSPORTATION'   AND  DlvLIVKRV   BY   CARRIER. 


§    868 


refusal  to  receive  the  goods;  '-  even  if  the  goods  are  perishable  where  it  is  prac- 
ticable to  give  notice.^-'  But  the  carrier  need  not  give  such  notice  where  it  was 
given  by  the  consignee.'^  Tlie  carrier  must  hold  the  goods  subject  to  the  order 
of  the  consignor,'"'  and  return  them  to  him  upon  his  demand,  subject  to  reason- 
able regulations  as  to  the  payment  of  charges,  etc. ;  "'  but  it  necfl  not  return  the 
goods  unless  the  consignor  so  demands.^" 


12.  Notice  to  consignor. —  United  States. 
—See  The  Hddy  (U.  S.),  5  Wall.  481,  18 
L.    Ed.  486. 

Georgia. — American  Sugar  Refin.  Co. 
7'.  McGhee,  96  Ga.  27,  21  S.  E.  383;  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McKenzie,  139  Ga. 
410,  77   S.   E.  647,  45   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,   18. 

Illinois. — American  Merchants'  Union 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Wolf,  79  111.  430;  Michigan 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Harville,  136  111.  App. 
243. 

KcntuckM. — Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dreyfuss-Weil  Co.,  150  S.  W.  321,  150 
Ky.  333. 

jVcw  York. — Carrizzo  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y.  S.  173,  66  Misc.  Rep. 
243,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  579.  See  Manhattan 
Rubber  Shoe  Co.,  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41  N.  Y.  S.  83,  9  App.  Div.  172,  75  N.  Y. 
St.  Rep.  544. 

In  Williams  v.  Holland  (N.  Y.),  22 
How.  Prac.  137,  it  was  held  that  the  fail- 
ure to  notify  the  owner  of  the  consignee's 
refusal  does  not  render  the  carrier  lial)le. 
unless  it  is  at  least  shown  that  tlie  car- 
rier knew  who  was  the  owner. 

Tc.vas. — The  carrier  is  not  required  to 
notify  the  shipper  until  it  is  notified,  or 
by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  diligence 
could  have  known  of  the  consignee's  re- 
fusal. Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins, 
80   S.    W.   428,   35   Tex.    Civ.   App.   429. 

Contra. — If  the  consignee  refuses  to 
receive  goods  shipped,  the  carrier  is  not 
liable  to  the  consignor  for  failure  to 
notify  him.  Krcmer  v.  Southern  Kxp. 
Co.,  4C)  Tenn.   ((i  Coldw.)   356. 

Plaintiff  shipped  goods  consigned  to 
himself,  with  directions  to  notify  a  third 
person  at  the  point  of  destination,  on 
which  party  plaintiff  had  drawn  for  them, 
attaching  the  bill  of  lading  to  the  draft. 
The  drawee  wrote  plaintiff  that  he  was  not 
able  to  pay  the  draft  on  presentation, 
whereupon  plaintiff  made  a  second  draft, 
on  ten  days'  time.  The  railroad  com- 
pany, in  the  meantime,  had  stored  the 
goods  with  a  warehouseman,  taking  a 
warehouse  receipt  therefor  in  its  own 
name.  Held,  that  the  company's  liability 
as  common  carrier  ceased  upon  its  de- 
livery at  the  warehouse,  although  it  had 
failed  to  notify  plaintiff  of  the  drawee's 
failure  to  receive.  Gregg  v.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co..  147  111.  550.  35  N.  E.  343,  37  Am. 
St.    Rep.   2;5S,   aftirming  47   111.   App.   590. 

Delay  in  giving  notice. — Where  the  con- 
signee of  cotton  refused  to  accept  the 
same  on  the  ground  that  it  was  of  infe- 
rior grade,  the  carrier  was  liable  for  de- 
lay,  in   notifying  the   shipper  of  such   re- 


fusal in  case  the  cotton  was  of  inferior 
grade,  only  for  the  decline  in  the  market 
price  for  the  time  intervening  between 
the  date  on  which  by  the  exercise  of  or- 
dinary care  it  could  have  learned  of  the 
consignee's  refusal  and  notified  the  ship- 
per and  the  date  on  which  the  cotton  was 
actually  sold  after  notice  was  given. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  80  S. 
W.   42S,   :>,:,   Tex.    Civ.    App.   429. 

13.  Perishable  goods. — .\labama,  etc., 
R.  Co.  7'.  McKenzie,  77  S.  E.  647,  139  Ga. 
410.  4.-)   L.   R.   .X..   X.   S.,   lis. 

14.  Where  notice  given  by  consignee. — 
Manlialtan  Rubber  Shoe  Co.  ?'.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  N.  Y.  S.  83,  9  App.  Div. 
172,  75   N.   Y.   St.   Rep.   544. 

15.  American  Sugar  Refin.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Ghee, 96  Ga.  27,  21  S.  E.  3^3. 

16.  Return  of  goods  to  consignor. — 
Freiberg  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  O. 
C.  C,  N.  S.,  241,  20-30  O.  C.  D.  669,  af- 
firmed   in    S3    O.    St.    4S2. 

Liability  to  consignee. — Where  a  buyer, 
to  whom  goods  are  consigned,  wrong- 
fully refuses  to  receive  them  on  their  ar- 
rival within  a  reasonable  time,  the  car- 
rier is  not  guilty  of  conversion  in  com- 
plying with  the  seller's  orders  to  ship  the 
goods  back  to  him;  and  the  consignee  is 
estopped  to  sue  the  carrier.  Stafsky  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  39  So.  132,  143  Ala.  272. 

17.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Heilprin 
&  Co.,  95  111.  App.  402;  Adams  Exp.  Co. 
V.    McConnell.  27   Kan.   238. 

Plaintiff  delivered  defendant  goods  for 
carriage,  but  the  consignee  refused  to  ac- 
cept them,  and  plaintiff  was  notified  by 
defendant  of  such  refusal.  Plaintiff 
claimed  that  he  instructed  defendant  by 
postal  to  return  the  goods.  Defendant 
denied  receipt  of  the  postal,  but  on  re- 
ceiving a  subsequent  communication  from 
plaintiflF,  which  it  did  not  understand, 
sent  a  representative  for  an  explanation, 
and,  receiving  instructions  for  a  return  of 
tlie  goods,  at  once  communicated  with 
its  agent,  and  the  goods  were  immediately 
shipped  and  tendered  to  plaintiff  the  first 
business  daj'  after  their  arrival.  Plain- 
tiff, a  week  before,  had  demanded  their 
return  by  a  letter  claiming  that  they 
would  be  useless  if  not  returned  within 
three  days.  Held,  that  the  facts  did  not 
justify  a  finding  of  a  conversion  by  de- 
fendant. Rubin  z\  Wells  Fargo  Exp.  Co., 
85  N.  Y.  S.  IIOS. 

Refusal  of  consignor  to  order  return. 
— Where  a  suit  of  clothes  is  manufac- 
tured to  order,  to  be  inspected  by  the 
purchaser  before  acceptance,  and  the  car- 


§  868 


CARRIERS. 


568 


Return  of  Goods  by  Consignee  after  Delivery. — Where,  after  delivery  to 
the  consignee,  he  refnses  to  receive  the  goods  and  returns  them,  the  carrier  is 
not  hahle  for  their  loss.^"* 

Excuses  for  Failure  to  Receive. — Tlie  consignee  is  not  justified  hecause  of 
mere  delay  in  the  transportation  of  goods,  to  refuse  to  receive  theni;i''  hut  if 
they  have  become  useless  to  the  consignee,  by  reason  of  delay,  he  is  not  bound 
to  receive  them,  and  may  recover  their  value. -^'  The  consignee  may  not,  as  a 
general  rule,  reject  the  goods  because  they  have  been  damaged  in  the  course  of 
shipment;-^  but,  when  the  entire  value  of  the  goods  has  been  destroyed  and 
the  injurv  amounts  practically  to  a  total  loss,  the  consignee  is  justified  in  refus- 
ing them  and  may  sue  for  the  entire  amount.--  And  he  may  refuse  the  goods 
where  upon  their  arrival  the  packages  or  casks  are,  by  the  fault  of  the  carrier, 
in  a  damaged  condition,  so  that  they  can  not  be  handled  without  loss  and  fur- 
ther damage,  and  the  carrier  refuses  to  repair  them.-"^ 

Sale  of  Rejected  or  Unclaimed  Freight. — Where  a  statute  regulating  the 
sale  of  rejected  freight  l)v  a  carrier  supersedes  the  common  law  in  resi)ect  .to 
the  manner  of  selling  such  freight,  a  sale  in  violation  of  the  statute  is  illegal.-^ 


rier  tenders  the  goods,  and  the  consignee 
refuses  to  accept  them,  but  states  that  he 
will  shortly  call  for  them,  and  the  car- 
rier stores  them  for  several  weeks,  when 
the  consignee  absolutely  rejects  them, 
and  the  consignor  refuses  to  order  their 
return,  on  being  informed  of  the  rejec- 
tion, on  the  ground  that  they  are  no 
longer  of  any  use  to  him,  the  consignor 
can  not  recover  of  the  carriage.  Levy 
f.  Weir,  77  \.  Y.  S.  917,  38  Misc.  Rep.  3()1. 

18.  Return  of  goods  by  consignee  after 
delivery. — A  carrier,  who  received  mer- 
chandise addressed  to  the  consignee  at 
\V.,  carried  the  goods  to  C,  the  terminus 
of  its  line,  and  delivered  to  a  warehouse- 
man, from  whom  the  goods  were  taken 
by  a  teamster  and  hauled  to  C,  and,  in 
the  absence  of  the  consignee,  left  on  his 
premises.  The  consignee  afterwards  re- 
fused to  receive  the  goods,  whereupon 
the  teamster  returned  them  to  the  ware- 
house at  C,  where  they  were  afterwards 
lost.  In  an  action  to  recover  the  value, 
held,  that  the  carrier  was  not  liable.  Sal- 
inger V.  Simmons  (N.  Y.),  57  Barb.  513, 
2   Lans.   325,  8  Abb.   Prac,  N.   S.,  409. 

19.  Delay  in  delivery. — Kentucky. — 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Saulsberry,  103 
S.  W.  254,  31   Ky.   L.   Rep.  624. 

New  Jersey. — Higgins  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  83  N.  J.   L.  398,  85  Atl.  450. 

Oklahoma. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dreyfus,   37  Okla.   492,  132   Pac.  491. 

Texas.— Q\Al,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Everett,  37 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  167,  83  S.  W.  257;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Somerville  Mercantile 
Agency  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  104  S.  W.  1072. 

Delay  in  the  delivery  of  goods  by  a 
common  carrier  will  not  authorize  the 
consignee  to  reject  them  upon  their  ar- 
rival, and  recover  their  full  value  from 
the  carrier.  His  remedy  is  to  sue  for  the 
damage  he  has  sustained  by  reason  of 
the  delay.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hanaw, 
134    Ga.    445,    67    S.    E.    944. 

20.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetzc,  2  Texas 


App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  631.  See  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Dreyfus.  37  Okla.  492,  132  Pac. 
491. 

21.  Damage  to  goods  in  shipment. — 
Wilkins  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160  N. 
C.  54.  75  S.  E.  1090.  See  post  "Loss  of 
or  Damage  to  Goods,"  Chapter  12. 

22.  Wilkins  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  160 
N.    C.    54,   75    S.    E.    1090. 

23.  Breed  v.    Mitchell,   48   Ga.   533. 

24.  Statute  regulating  sale  of  rejected 
freight. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arkan- 
sas, etc..  Grain  Co.,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
125,  95  S.  W.  656;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V. 
North  Texas  Grain  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
93,   74    S.    W.    567. 

Kentucky  Statute  1903,  §  785,  author- 
izes sale  of  nonperishable  freight  un- 
claimed for  one  year  on  giving  specified 
notice.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sauls- 
berry,  31   Ky.  L.  Rep.  624,  103  S.  W.  254. 

Under  the  Texas  statute,  such  sale  must 
lie  made  only  after  tlie  expiration  of  six 
months,  on  notice  to  the  consignor  and 
such  notice  of  sale  as  will  reasonably  as- 
sure a  sale  at  the  reasonable  market  value. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Groce  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  106  S.  W.  720. 

A  sale  is  unauthorized,  where  the  sale 
is  for  much  less  than  the  market  value 
and  is  made  without  notice  of  sale,  and 
immediate  sale  is  unnecessary  to  protect 
the  carrier  in  its  freight  charges,  and  it 
is  liable  for  the  fair  market  value  at  the 
time  of  sale.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Groce   (Tex.   Civ.  App.),   106  S.  W.  720. 

Such  statute  is  applicable  to  a  ship- 
ment from  a  point  without  to  a  point 
within  the  state.  St.  T^ouis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Arkansas,  etc.,  Grain  Co.,  42  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   125,  95   S.  W.  656. 

Where,  after  rejection  of  certain  corn 
l)y  the  consignee,  the  carrier  sold  it  with- 
out complying  with  a  state  statute  reg- 
ulating such  sales,  and  there  was  no  evi- 
dence that  the  corn  was  perishable  other 
than  that  it  was  moldy  and  in  a  damaged 


569 


TRAXSPOKTATIOX    ANlJ   lJl".I.l\i:i<V    liV    CARKIKK. 


§§  868-869 


Perishable  Goods.  —  W  here  <,'oods  are  of  a  perishable  nature,  and,  in  the 
absence  of  the  consignee,  or  his  refusal  to  receive  them,  it  becomes  a  matter 
of  necessity  to  sell,  the  carrier  may  rightfully  sell  them ; -•'''  and  it  should  make 
an  ordinarily  diligent  effort  to  sell  at  the  best  price  obtainable.-"  In  some  states 
there  are  statutory  provisions  regulating  the  sale  of  such  goods. -^  And  when 
a  carrier  sells  goods  not  in  accordance  with  the  statute,  it  is  liable  for  con- 
version.-* 

§   869.  Goods  Shipped  C.  0.  D.— Necessity  for  Undertaking  to  Collect. 

—  In  order  lo  charge  a  carrier  with  the  duly  >>\  collecling  from  the  consignee 
the  price  or  other  charge  against  goods  transported,  there  must  be  some  under- 
taking by  the  carrier  to  collect,  either  directly  proved,  or  inferable  from  usage.-"-' 


condilioii,  it  was  no  defense  to  the  car- 
rier's lial)ility  tliat  the  statute  was  inap- 
plicable to  perishable  freight.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Arkansas,  etc..  Grain  Co., 
42  Tex.  Civ.  App.    1 ;-'-),  <t.5  S.  W.  (;-)(■). 

25.  Sale  of  perishable  goods. — Illinois. — 
Hasler  Co.  v.  Crilliiig  Florida  Orchard 
Co.,   133    111.   App.   ()35. 

Toniesscc. — Rankin  v.  Menipliis,  etc., 
Packet  Co..  56  Teiin.  (9  Heisk.)  564,  24 
Am.   Rep.  3:39. 

Tc.r(7j.— Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cox  & 
Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  144  S.  W.  1196. 

H'cst  rir^inia. — Dudley  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co..  58  W.  Va.  604,  52  S.  E.  718,  3  L. 
R.   A..  N.   S..   1135.   112  Am.   v^t.   Rep.   1027. 

Where  a  carrier  without  authority 
opens  a  sealed  car  and  the  property 
tluTcin  is  perishal)le,  and  the  owner,  on 
being  notified  of  the  danger  of  loss,  rely- 
ing on  the  unauthorized  inspection  by  the 
carrier  as  constituting  a  conversion,  gives 
notice  of  his  abandonment  of  the  prop- 
erty, the  carrier  may  sell  the  same  on  ac- 
count of  the  owner,  deduct  his  charges 
from  the  proceeds,  and  will  l)e  lialde  for 
the  balance  only.  Dudley  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  S.  E.  718,  58  W.  Va.  604, 
112  .Am.  St.  Rep.  1027,  3  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1135. 

26.  Best  price  obtainable. — Hull  &  Co. 
T.  Missouri    Pac.   K.  Co.,  60  Mo.  App.  593. 

27.  Under  Kentucky  St.  1903,  §  785, 
authorizing  a  carrier  to  sell  perishable 
freight  as  soon  as  it  deems  a  sale  nec- 
essary, on  giving  specified  notice,  a  car- 
rier having  in  its  possession  as  unclaimed 
freight  corn  delivered  to  it  for  transpor- 
tation must,  as  soon  as  it  is  deemed  nec- 
essary to  sell  the  same,  sell  it  as  perish- 
able freight,  and  give  notice  thereof,  and 
may,  if  necessary  to  sell  it  at  some  other 
place  for  want  of  market,  transport  the 
same  to  such  place,  but  the  sale  must  be 
made  in  the  state,  and  the  carrier  taking 
the  freight  to  another  state  and  there 
selling  it  converts  it.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Saulsberry,  103  S.  W.  254,  31 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  624. 

Nezv  York.— haws  1899,  p.  1294,  c.  582, 
amending  §  46  of  the  railroad  law  (Laws 
1S90.  p.  1097,  c.  565),  provides  that  un- 
claimed live  stock  and  perishable  freight 
or  baggage   may   be   sold   by   any   railroad 


without  notice,  as  soon  as  it  can  be,  upon 
the  best  terms  that  can  be  obtained,  etc., 
Ten  boxes  of  fish  packed  in  ice  were  con- 
signed to  plaintiff  April  7th,  reaching 
their  destination  April  8th.  He  failed  to 
call  for  them  for  fifty-four  hours,  though 
two  notices  were  sent  hint,  and  he  had 
ample  opportunity  to  do  so.  Held,  that 
defendant  was  warranted  in  selling  the 
fish.  ■  Leech  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  83 
X.  Y.  S.  166,  40  Misc.   Rep.  654. 

Oklahoma. — Comp.  Laws  1909,  §  455.  au- 
thorizes public  or  private  sale  without 
advertising.  Ginnochio-Jones  Fruit  Co. 
V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  134 
S.   W.    1028. 

A  car  load  of  potatoes  on  the  tracks  at 
Tulsa  in  the  latter  part  of  November  was 
"perishable  property"  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  statute.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Dreyfus,   37    Okla.   492,   132   Pac.   491. 

Texas.— Rtv.  St.  1805  acts  328,  331,  au- 
thorizes sale  at  public  auction  after  five 
day's  notice.  Carter  v.  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  93  S.  W. 
681. 

28.  Sale  in  violation  of  statute. — Car- 
ter V.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),    93    S.    \y.    681. 

Demand  by  consignee  before  sale. — 
The  consignee  of  a  car  load  of  onions 
having  refused  to  accept  the  same  be- 
cause of  its  damaged  condition,  the  car- 
rier, after  a  delay  of  eight  days,  shippea 
the  property  to  another  place  to  be  sold 
for  freight  charges.  .A.fter  such  ship- 
ment, but  before  sale,  the  consignee  de- 
manded the  property,  offering  to  pay  the 
cliargcs,  which  the  carrier  refused.  Held 
a  conversion  of  the  property,  the  sale  not 
being  such  as  is  provided  for  by  Rev.  St. 
1895,  arts.  328,  329.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Rines  &  Co..  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  618,  84 
S.    W.    1092. 

29.  Necessity  for  undertaking  to  col- 
lect.—Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t.  Merrill,  48 
ill.  425.  See  -Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ten 
Winkel.  44    Colo.   59,  96   Pac.   818. 

The  agent  of  an  express  company  who 
instructed  a  sender  of  a  package  to  ad- 
dress the  package  as  he  wanted  it  ad- 
dressed, and  who  showed  him  where  he 
would  find  envelopes  for  C.  O.  D.  pack- 
ages,  had    the    right   to   presume   that    the 


§  869 


CARRIERS. 


570 


Liability  for  Collection  of  Price. — Where  the  carrier  undertakes  to  de- 
liver goods  to  the  consignee  suhject  to  the  payment  of  a  certain  sum  of  money, 
the  carrier  is  not  authorized  to  deHver  the  goods  without  collecting  such 
money ;  ^"  and  if  it  delivers  the  goods  without  collecting  the  sum  due,  it  be- 
comes  liable   therefor,^*^   unless   the  consignor  ratifies   such   delivery.'^-     A   con- 


sender  would  exercise  care  to  properly 
mark  the  envelope  selected.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.  z:  Ten.  Winkel,  44  Colo.  59,  96  Pac. 
SIS. 

What  amounts  to  contract  to  collect. — 
Where  a  shipper  sent  a  package,  by  her 
servant,  to  an  express  companj-,  with  in- 
structions to  be  carried  C.  O.  D.,  but  the 
company  gave  a  receipt  which  was  not  in 
the  form  of  a  receipt  for  package  sent  C. 
O.  D.,  and  the  shipper  knew  it  was  not, 
the  receipt  operates  as  a  refusal  to  send 
the  package  C.  O.  D.;  and,  if  the  shipper 
accepts  and  retains  the  receipt,  it  is  con- 
clusive, and  she  can  not  recover  of  the 
company  for  a  delivery  without  collec- 
tion. Smith  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  104 
Ala.    387,    16    So.    62. 

A  bill  of  lading  recited  that  the  gpods 
were  "to  be  delivered  witholit  delay,  etc., 
at  the  port  of,  etc.,  to,  etc.,  or  assigns,  he 
or  they  paying  freight  for  said  goods  at 
the  rate  of,  etc.,  charges  payable  when 
collected  by  boat;  charges  to  be  collected" 
a  certain  sum,  being  the  value  of  the 
goods.  Held,  that  the  plain  and  reason- 
able intent  of  the  language  was  that  the 
charges  were  to  be  collected  by  the  car- 
rier.     Meyer   v.    Lemcke,   31    Ind.   208. 

A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that 
goods  are  to  be  delivered  "subject  to 
the  payment  of  $1,665  to  the  clerk  of 
John  Owen  (the  steamboat)  for  E.  S. 
J." — the  goods  shipped  having  been  sold 
by  the  shipper  to  the  consignee,  and  the 
$1,665  being  part  of  the  purchase  money 
— is  a  binding  condition,  for  the  breach 
of  which  the  vessel  may  be  seized  under 
the  statute  relating  to  watercrafts  as  com- 
mon carriers.  Steamboat  John  Owen  v. 
Johnson.  2  0._  St.  143. 

Giving  receipt  c.  o.  d. — Where  the  car- 
rier gives  a  receipt  for  a  package  re- 
ceived by  it  for  transportation,  the  use 
of  the  letters  "C.  O.  D."  which  are  the 
initials  of  the  words  "collect  on  delivery," 
implies  an  undertaking  on  its  part  to  col- 
lect of  the  consignee  on  delivery  the 
amount  due  from  him,  and  marked  on  the 
package,  and  to  return  such  amount  to 
the  consignor.  American  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Lesem,  39  111.  312.  See  United  States 
Exp.   Co.  V.   Kcefer,   59   Ind.  263. 

Marking  package  c.  o.  d. — ^A  consignor 
can  not  charge  a  common  carrier  with 
any  duty  of  collecting  from  the  con- 
signee the  price  or  other  charge  against 
goods  transmitted  by  the  carrier  by  sim- 
ply marking  the  package  "C.  O.  D." 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill,  48  111. 
425. 

"Please    collect,"    written    on    a    bill    ac- 


conipan3ing  parcels,  is  a  request  only; 
and  where  a  request  to  collect  is  made  on 
delivering  a  parcel  to  a  carrier,  he  is  un- 
der no  obligation  or  agreement  to  do  so. 
Tooker  v.   Gormer   (N.   Y.),   2  Hilt.  71. 

30.  Liable  for  collection. — Steamboat 
John   Owen   r.  Johnson,  2  O.   St.   143. 

31.  .Ilabaina. — See  Smith  v.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  104  Ala.  387,  16  So.  62. 

Illinois. — American  Merchants'  Union 
Exp.   Co.  V.   Wolf,  79   111.  430. 

Indiana. — Meyer  v.  Lemcke,  31  Ind. 
208. 

Minnesota. — See  Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   30   Minn.   265,   15    N.   W.   237. 

New  Hampshire. — Murray  v.  Warner,  55 
N.   H.   546,  20  Am.   Rep.   227. 

New  York. — Tooker  v.  Gormer  (N.  Y.), 
3   Hilt.    71. 

That  the  sum  to  be  collected  was  larger 
than  that  due,  makes  no  difference  in  the 
liability  of  the  carrier,  for  delivering  the 
goods  without  collection.  Steamboat 
John   Owen  v.  Johnson,  2  O.   St.   143. 

Liability  of  connecting  carrier. — An 
initial  carrier,  forwarding  goods  shipped 
C.  O.  D.  by  a  connecting  carrier,  may  re- 
cover of  the  connecting  carrier  for  their 
delivery  to  the  consignee  without  pay- 
ment, which  was  imposed  as  a  condition 
of  delivery.  Murray  v.  Warner,  55  N.  H. 
546,  20  Am.   Rep.  227. 

A  carrier  undertaking  to  deliver  a 
corpse  in  a  casket  for  an  undertaker  giv- 
ing the  carrier  his  bill  C.  O.  D.  for  his 
services  and  the  price  of  the  casket,  is  not 
liable  for  permitting  the  consignee  to 
take   the   corpse   from   the   casket   without 

32.  Ratification  of  delivery  without  col- 
lection.— Though  goods  were  not  to  be 
delivered  until  the  price  be  paid,  yet 
where  the  consignor,  after  notice  that  the 
goods  had  been  delivered  without  such 
payment,  drew  a  draft  upon  the  consignee, 
took  an  acceptance  thereof,  and  under- 
took its  collection  through  a  bank,  he 
thereby  abandoned  the  original  purpose 
of  requiring  payment  on  delivery,  and 
ratified  the  delivery,  and  whether  the 
draft  was  collected  is  immaterial.  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Kinchen,  29  S.  E.  816,  103 
Ga.    186. 

Where  a  proposed  Iniyer  of  goods  re- 
jected the  consignor-consignee's  draft 
with  bill  of  lading  attached,  that  after  the 
carrier  delivered  the  goods  to  the  buyer 
the  draft  was  again  presented  is  not  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  consignor's  rati- 
fication of  the  delivery.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Dahlberg  Brokerage  Co.,  170  Ala. 
617,   54    So.    168. 


571 


TKANSl'OkTATlU.N    AM)   OKLIVKRV    liV    CAKRIKK. 


§  869 


signee's  check  for  goods  sent  C.  (J.  D.  is  not  payment,  and  the  carrier  is  hable 
if  the  clieck  is  not  paid.''-'  lUit  tlie  carrier  is  not  liable  if  the  consignor  receives 
the  check   wilhovU  olijcclion.'--* 

Examination  of  Goods  by  Consignee.— it  is  held  that  the  carrier  may  re- 
fuse to  permit  llic  consignee  to  examine  goods  sent  C.  (J.  D.  until  he  has  paid 
the  charges  and  accepted  delivery.''^  But  it  is  also  held  that  the  consignee  has 
the  right  to  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  examine  the  goods.-'"  Where  the  carrier 
permits  the  consignee  to  examine  the  goods,  such  examination  is  not  a  delivery, 
so  as  to  render  it  liable  to  the  consignor  for  the  money  directed  to  be  collected.=*^ 


paying  the  Ijill,  as  il  would  be  against 
public  policy  to  require  a  return  ol  the 
corpse  for  nonpayment.  American  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Epply.  1  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  ?'.»,  r,  U. 
Dec.  337. 

Acceptance  of  portion  of  goods. — Where 
a  carrier  is  employed  to  carry  a  parcel  of 
clothes,  with  mstructions  to  brmg  back 
the  goods  if  they  are  not  paid  for,  and 
the  person  to  whom  they  are  sent  retains 
a  portion  of  the  goods,  and  returns  the 
others,  sending  a  check  for  those  retained, 
the  sender  can  not  refuse  to  receive  the 
goods  returned,  and  the  check,  and  sue 
the  carrier  for  the  value  of  the  whole 
parcel,  or  for  damages,  where  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  check  was  not  for  the  full 
value  of  the  goods  retained.  Feiber  v. 
Manhattan  Dist.  Tel.  Co.,  3  N.  Y.  S.  116, 
22  Abb.  N.  C.  121,  15  Daly  62,  20  N.  Y. 
St.    Rep.   980. 

Goods  received  before  draft  for  collec- 
tion.— A  marked  goods  with  B's  name, 
and  sent  them  by  railroad  to  B,  taking 
therefor  a  railroad  receipt,  in  which,  un- 
der the  heading  "Marks  and  Consignees," 
were  written  "B  order  A."  A  indorsed  the 
receipt  in  blank,  drew  a  draft  on  B  for 
the  price,  attached  the  draft  to  the  re- 
ceipt, and  forwarded  both  by  an  express 
company  for  collection.  The  railroad 
company  delivered  the  goods  to  C,  an- 
other common  carrier,  to  transport  to 
their  destination,  with  a  freight  bill  con- 
taining the  words,  "Order  A:  Notify  B," 
and  the  express  company  gave  the  receipt, 
with  the  draft  attached,  to  C  for  collec- 
tion. Held,  that  C,  by  delivering  the 
goods  to  B  without  the  authority  of  A, 
and  before  the  payment  of  the  draft  by 
B,  was  liable  to  A  for  the  conversion  of 
the  goods,  and  that  the  fact  that  the  re- 
ceipt and  the  draft  were  not  received  by 
C  until  after  he  received  the  goods  was 
immaterial.  Libby  r.  Ingalls,  124  Mass. 
jo:;. 

Contract  for  delivery  of  similar  goods. 
— A  carrier  can  not  justify  delivery  of 
freight  to  a  buyer  who  had  rejected  the 
consignor-consignee's  draft  w^ith  bill  of 
lading  attached,  on  the  ground  that  the 
buyer  had  a  contract  with  the  consign- 
or's principal  for  delivery  of  similar 
goods.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dah- 
Iberg  Brokerage  Co..  170  Ala.  617,  .'J4  So. 
168. 
33.    Receiving  consignee's  check. — Rath- 


bun   T.    Citizens'    Steamboat    Co.    (N.   Y.), 
1    City  Ct.   R.   107. 

34.  Rathbun  v.  Citizens'  Steamboat  Co., 
TO  X.  "i".  liTc,,  :'.:>  Am.  Rep.  :i:il. 

35.  Examination  of  goods  by  con- 
signee.— Wiltse  V.   Barnes,  4G  Iowa  210. 

36.  Lyons  v.  Hill,  46  N.  H.  49;  American 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Epply,  1  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  79,  5 
O.    Dec.   337. 

37.  Aaron  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  27  Wkly. 
L.  Bull.  183,  11  O.  Dec.  500;  American 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Epply,  1  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  79, 
5  O.   Dec.   337. 

A  carrier  received  goods,  with  direc- 
tions to  collect  the  price  on  delivery  to 
the  consignee.  The  latter  paid  the  price 
lo  the  carrier  on  condition  that  it  should 
be  returned  to  him  if  the  goods  on  ex- 
amination proved  unsatisfactory.  They 
did  prove  so,  and  the  money  was  repaid; 
the  carrier  taking  back  the  goods  to  the 
consignor,  who  refused  to  receive  them, 
and  demanded  the  price.  Held,  that  the 
consignor  could  not  recover  the  price. 
Lyons  v.  Hill,  46  N.  H.  49. 

A  consignee  of  a  suit  of  clothes   C.  O. 
D.  paid  the  price  to  the  carrier  under  an 
agreement  that  he  might  have  it  returned 
to   him   if   the    fit  of  the   clothes   was   un- 
satisfactory.     He    thereafter    brought    the 
clothes  to  the  consignor,  telling  him  how 
he   had   left    the   money   with    the   carrier, 
and   stating   that   the   clothes    did    not    fit. 
The    consignor    altered    the    clothes,    with 
the    agreement    that    he    should    have    the 
money  from  the  carrier  if  he  made  them 
tit    satisfactorily,    and    then    sent    them    a 
second    time    to    the    consignee.      The    fit 
w^as  not  satisfactory,  and  he  returned  the 
clothes    to    the    carrier,    who    returned    to 
him    the    money.      Held,    that    the    carrier 
was  not  liable  to  the  consignor,  as  he  had 
ratified    the   act    of   the    carrier   in    receiv- 
ing  the   money   conditionally.      Brooks  v. 
American   Exp.   Co.   (N.   Y.),   14   Hun  364. 
Fraud   on   consignee. — Where    the    con- 
signee,   upon    examination    of    the    goods, 
discovers  that  they  are  worthless,  and  the 
whole    afTair   a   fraud   on   the    part   of   the 
consignor,   he    may    return    them    and    re- 
ceive back  the  money  paid  from   the  car- 
rier at  any  time  before  it  is  actually  paid 
over   to   tiie   consignor;    the    fraud    of   the 
consignor    relieving    the    carrier    from    li- 
abilitv    as    to    hini.     Herrick    z:    Gallagher 
(N.   Y.),   60   Barb.   566. 


§  869 


CARRIERS. 


572 


Liability  to  Consignee. — A  carrier  need  not  deliver  goods  sent  C.  O.  D.  to 
the  consignee  until  he  has  paid  the  charges. •^''*  Where  the  consignee  refuses  to  re- 
ceive the  goods,  the  carrier  is  relieved  from  liability  by  delivering  to  the  true 
owner. ^^  If  the  consignee  paying  a  draft  accompanying  a  bill  of  lading  which 
by  mistake  called  for  more  goods  than  the  carrier  delivered,  would  have  known 
of  the  mistake  before  paying  the  draft,  had  he  exercised  ordinary  care,  his  fail- 
ure to  do  so  amounts  to  actual  knowledge."*"  Where  goods  are  sent  C.  ().  D.  at 
consignor's  risk,  and  the  carrier's  agent  knows  that  they  show  signs  of  wet  dam- 
age, it  is  his  duty  to  disclose  such  fact  to  the  consignee  before  demanding  and 
receiving  payment  therefor.^^^  The  fact  that  the  carrier  remits  the  purchase 
price  to  the  consignor  before  receiving  notice  from  the  consignee  that  the  goods 
were  worthless  does  not  receive  it  from  liability,  if  the  notice  was  within  a  rea- 
sonable time."*-  Before  the  consignee  sues  the  carrier  to  recover  the  price  paid 
he  must  otTer  to  return  the  goods  to  it.^^ 

Liability  as  'Warehouseman — Notice  to  Consignor. — A  carrier  is  liable 
onlv  as  warehouseman  for  goods  to  be  delivered  C.  O.  D.,  where  the  consignee 
requests  a  few  days  time  in  which  to  pay  the  charges  after  receiving  notice  of 
their  arrival ;  and  it  need  not  notify  the  consignor  of  the  delay.'*"^'  It  is  also  held 
that  notice  of  nonacceptance  of  the  goods  is  unnecessary.^^  But  it  has  been  held 
that  when    the  carrier    fails  to    give    such  notice    it    remains  liable    as    carrier.^*^ 


38.  Liability  to  consignee. — Lane  v. 
Chadwick.  14ti  Mass.  <iS,  15  N.  E.  121; 
Pacific  Aviation  Co.  v.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co., 
04  Ore.   530,   128   Pac.  438. 

39.  Delivery  to  true  owner. — The  con- 
signee paid  the  express  charges  on  goods 
sent  C.  O.  D.,  but  refused  to  receive 
the  goods,  and  directed  the  company  to 
return  them  to  the  consignor.  The  con- 
signor brought  suit  against  the  consignee, 
and  recovered  a  judgment  for  the  value 
of  the  goods;  but,  in  the  meantime,  after 
a  verdict  was  rendered  in  favor  of  the 
consignor,  and  before  judgment  was  ren- 
dered thereon,  the  express  company,  by 
direction  of  the  consignor's  attorney,  re- 
turned the  goods  to  the  consignor.  The 
consignee  never  countermanded  his  direc- 
tions to  the  company  to  reship  to  the  con- 
signor. When  final  judgment  was  ren- 
dered, the  consignee  brought  an  action 
of  trover  against  the  company  to  recover 
the  value  of  the  goods,  without  offering 
to  pay  the  money  due  on  the  goods. 
Held,  that  the  consignee  could  not  re- 
cover. American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Greenhalgh, 
80   111.  68. 

On  consignee's  refusal  to  pay  the 
charges  and  accept  delivery,  the  carrier 
may  return  the  goods  to  the  consignor, 
if  the  consignor  has  specially  instructed 
them  so  to  do,  or  if  the  company  took 
charge  of  the  goods  subject  to  a  general 
regulation,  known  to  the  consignor,  pre- 
scribing this  course.  Wiltse  v.  Barnes, 
46   Iowa   210. 

40.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levine 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  93  S.  W.  1095,  holding 
that  whether  he  exercised  such  care  is 
a   question    for   tlie   jury. 

41.  Where  goods  damaged. — Hardy  v. 
American  Exp.  Co.,  182  Mass.  328,  65  N. 
E.  21b,  59  L.  R.  A.  731. 


42.  Hardy  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  182 
Mass.    338.   65    N.    E.    375,   59    L.    R.    A.   731. 

Reasonableness  of  time  question  for 
jury. — Where  the  books  were  delivered 
on  December  1st,  opened  by  the  con- 
signor December  12th  or  13th,  and  on 
December  19th,  after  the  express  com- 
pany had  remitted  the  purchase  price  to 
the  consignor,  notice  was  sent  the  ex- 
press company  by  the  consignee  that  *^he 
books  were  so  damaged  as  to  be  worth- 
less, the  reasonableness  of  the  time  within 
which  notice  was  sent  was  for  the  jury 
and  the  jury  would  be  warranted  in  find- 
ing that  notice  to  the  express  company 
within  a  reasonable  time  was  reasonaI)ly 
to  the  expected.  Hardy  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  182  Mass.  328,  65  N.  E.  375,  59  L.  R. 
A.  731. 

43.  Hardy  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  65 
N.    E.   375,   182   Mass.   328,   59   L.   R.   A.   731. 

A  consignment  of  fifty  sets  of  Balzac's 
works,  damaged  so  as  to  be  worth  only 
$5  or  $0,  is  not  so  worthless  as  to  excuse 
its  return  to  the  express  company  which 
delivered  them,  when  demand  is  made 
on  it  for  the  price  paid.  Hardy  v.  Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co.,  65  N.  E.  375,  182  Mass. 
328,    59    L.    R.    A.    731. 

44.  Liability  as  warehouseman — Notice 
to  consignor. — Hasse  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  94  Mich.  133,  53  N.  W.  918,  34  Am. 
St.  Rep.  328;  Grossman  v.  Fargo  (N.  Y.), 
6  Hun  310;  Weed  v.  Barney,  45  N.  Y. 
344,  6  Am.   Rep.  96. 

45.  Kremer  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  46 
Tenn.    (6    Coldw.),    356. 

46.  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wettstein, 
28  111.  App.  96  (failure  to  notify  for  a 
week).  And  see  Tooker  v.  Gormer  (N. 
Y.),  2  Hilt.  71;  American  Merchants* 
Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wolf,  79  111.  430. 


573 


TKAXSrORTATlOX    ANU   UKLIVIlKN     \;\     CAKKIKK. 


§§  8rj9-870 


W  here  the  consignee  can  not  be  found  and  the  express  coniijany  immediately 
notifies  the  consignor  thereof,  it  is  only  liable  as  a  warehouseman  though  the 
goods  are  destroyed  before  the  consignor  receives  the  notice. •♦' 

§§  870-874.  Goods  Seized  under  Legal  Process— §  870.  Liability  of 
Carrier. — Excuses  Nondelivery. — A  earner  i-  excused  from  liability  fur 
failure  to  deliver  goods,  when,  without  any  act.  fault,  or  connivance  on  the  part 
of  the  carrier,  they  are  seized  \)y  virtue  of  a  valid  legal  process,  and  taken  out 
of  its  jjossession.-*^  I'.ut  if  goods  attached  are  not  taken  from  the  carrier's  cus- 
tody, and  the  attachment  is  afterwards  dissolved,  the  levy  furnishes  no  defense 


47.  Hasse  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  94 
Midi.  ^■^■^,  y.\  X.  W.  OIH,  34  Am.  St.  Rep. 
lias. 

48.  Excuses  nondelivery. — I'nitcd  Stales. 
—The  M.  M.  Chase,  37  Fed.  708;  The 
Idaho,  93  U.  S.  575,  23  L.  Ed.  978;  Wells 
V.  Maine  Steamship  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,40t,  4  Cliff.  228;  Lemont  V.  New  York, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  28  Fed.  920;  Rosentield 
V.  Express  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,060;  l 
Woods  131;  Stiles  v.  Davis  (U.  S.),  1 
Black  101,  17  L.  Ed.  33;  Robinson  v. 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57. 

California. — Hayden  v.  Davis,  9  Cal. 
573. 

Georgia. — Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
cox, etc..  Co..  48  Ga.  432,  11  Am.  R.  Rep.  375; 
Wallace  v.  Matthews,  39  Ga.  617,  99  Am. 
Dec.  473;  Western,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ohio, 
etc.,  Trust  Co.,  107  Ga.  512,  33  S.  E.  821. 
See  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Heymann,  118 
Ga.  616,  45  S.  E.  491,  reversed  in  Hey- 
man  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  203  U.  S.  270, 
51  L.  Ed.  178.  27  S.  Ct.  104.  7  Am.  & 
.Eng.  Ann.   Cas.   1130. 

Indiana. — Ohio.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Yohe,  51 
Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep.  727;  Indiana,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Doremeyer.  20  Ind.  App.  605, 
50  N.  E.  497.  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  264. 

Maine. — Bennett  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
83  Me.  236,  22  Atl.  159,  23  Am.  St.  Rep. 
774,  13  L.  R.  A.  33,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    56. 

Massachusetts. — Adams  v.  Scott.  104 
Mass.  164;  French  v.  Star  Union  Transp. 
Co.,  134  Mass.  288;  Clifford  v.  Brocton 
Transp.  Co..  214  Mass.  466.  101  N.  E.  1092. 

Michiiian. — Pingree  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  66' Mich.  143,  33  N.  W.  298,  11  Am. 
St.  Rep.  479;  Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich. 
344,  29  N.  W.  855,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  301. 

Minnesota. — Cooley  v.  Minnesota  Trans- 
fer R.  Co.,  53  Minn.  327.  55  N.  W.  141,  55 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  616.  39  Am.  St.  Rep. 
609. 

Missouri.— h?i\u\2i  v.  Hoick,  129  Mo.  663. 
31  S.  W.  900.  50  \m.  St.  Rep.  459;  Letts- 
Spencer  Grocery  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co..   138   Mo.   App.   352.   122   S.   W.    10. 

Kciv  Hampshire. — Hett  v.  Boston,  etc.. 
Railroad,  69   N.   H.   139.  44   Atl.  910. 

.\'ew  Mexico. — Mac\'eagh  f.  .\tchison. 
etc.,  R.  Co..  3  N.  Mcx.  327.  5  Pac.  457. 
18   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.  651. 

-Wxc    York. — Barnard    ?■.    llolibe.    .")4    X. 


\'.  516;  Bates  v.  Stanton.  8  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  79;  Edson  v.  Weston  (N.  Y.),  7  Cow. 
278;  Rogers  v.  Weir,  34  N.  Y.  463;  Mier- 
son  V.  Hope.  32  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  561; 
Livingston  v.  Miller  (N.  Y.),  48  Hun  232, 
16  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  71;  Bliven  v.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  35  Barb.  188,  af- 
firmed in  36  N.  Y.  403;  \'an  Winkle  v. 
United  States  Mail,  etc.,  Ct.  (X.  Y.),  37 
Barb.    122. 

Ohio. — Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell.  49  O.  St.  489.  32  N.  E.  476.  21  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579. 

Oregon. — Jewett  v.  Olsen,  18  Ore.  419, 
23  Pac.  262,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  745,  42  Am. 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.   435. 

Pennsvlvania. — Holmes  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co..  2  Pa.  Ct.  Rep.  345. 

South  Carolina. — Faust  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co..  8  S.  C.  118. 

Te.ras.—Gu\i,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Belton  Oil 
Co..   45   Tex.    Civ.    App.    44.   99    S.   W.   430. 

I'ermont. — Burton  v.  Wilkinson,  18  \'t. 
186,    46    Am.    Dec.    145. 

England.— TyUr  v.  London  &  S.  W.  R. 
Co.,  1  C.  &  E.  285;  Wilson  v.  Anderson, 
1  B.  &  Ad.  450,  20  E.  C.  L.  426;  Sheridan 
V.  New  Quay  Co.,  4  C.  B.,  N.  S..  618.  93  E. 
C.  L.  618;  Verrall  v.  Robinson,  5  Tyr. 
lOC.O.    4    D.    P.    C.    242. 

Contra — In  West  Virginia,  it  is  held 
that  it  is  no  defense  to  the  claim  of  a 
consignee  that  the  goods  have  been  at- 
lachcd  or  seized  by  virtue  of  ajiy  juridical 
process.  The  contract  of  the  carrier  is 
that  he  will  delive.  the  goods  in  good  or- 
der and  condition  to  the  shipper  or  to 
his  assigns.  He  thus  guarantees  to  pro- 
tect the  possession  of  the  shipper  and  his 
assigns.  Xeill  v.  Rogers  Bros.  Produce 
Co..   41    W.    Va.    37.   23    S.    E.    702. 

Under  Act  Pennsylvania  June  13,  1874 
(Purd.  Dig.  I  Ed.  iss.".]  146.  pi.  8),  car- 
riers are  not  responsil>le  to  the  owner 
of  goods,  nor  to  the  holder  of  the  bill  of 
lading  or  other  receipt  for  the  same, 
when  the  goods,  are  taken  from  them 
by  legal  process.  Lemont  v.  Xew  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  28  Fed.  92n;  Automatic  Mer- 
chandising Co.  V.  Delaware,  etc..  Co.,  233 
Pa.   .".SI.  's2   .\tl.    9:>0. 

Where  goods  are  taken  under  a  search 
warrant,  and  by  the  court  delivered  to  a 
tliird  person,  who  claims  that  the  goods 
were   stolon    from    him.   the   carrier   is   not 


§  870 


CARRIERS. 


574 


to  the  carrier  for  failing  to  transport  and  deliver  them.^'' 

Validity  of  Process. — A  seizure  under  legal  process  of  goods  in  the  custody 
of  the  carrier  will  not  protect  it  from  liability  for  their  nondelivery  unless  the 
process  was  valid  and  regular.-""'  And  it  is  held  that  the  carrier  must  exercise 
due  diligence  to  ascertain  whether  the  process  is  in  fact  legal. '"'^  P>ut  it  is  held 
that  the  consignor  is  not  entitled  to  maintain  replevin  for  goods  though  they  were 


liable  to  the  consignee.  Bliven  z'.  Hud- 
son River  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  35  Barb.  188, 
affirmed  in  36  N.  Y.  403. 

That  the  process  was  obtained  by 
fraud,  is  immaterial  if  the  carrier  is  in 
no  way  privy  thereto.  Bliven  v.  Hudson 
River  R.   Co.    (N.   Y.),  35   Barb.  188. 

Right  to  yield  possession  to  one  hav- 
ing paramount  title. — In  Van  Winkle  v. 
United  v^tatcs  Mail,  etc.,  Co.  (N.  Y.),  37 
Barb.  122,  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
non-delivery  of  goods,  it  was  held  that 
defendant  could  introduce  evidence  to 
show  that  the  goods  did  not  belong  to 
the  shipper,  but  to  a  firm,  and  were  taken 
from  defendant  at  their  destination  un- 
der an  attachment  against  the    firm. 

49.  Faust  V.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  8 
S.  C.  118. 

50.  Seizure  must  be  under  valid  proc- 
ess.— United  States. — The  M.  M.  Chase, 
37  Fed.  708;  Wells  v.  Maine  Steamship 
Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,401,  4  ClifT.  228. 

Georgia. — Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
cox,  etc.,   Co.,   48   Ga.   432. 

///mo;.y.— Great  Western  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Comas,   33   111.   185. 

Indiana. — Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yohe. 
51    Ind.   181,   19   Am.   Rep.   727. 

Maine. — Bennett  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
83  Me.  236,  22  Atl.  159,  23  Am.  St.  Rep. 
774,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  56,  13  L.  R. 
A.  33. 

Massachusetts. — Edwards  v.  White  Line 
Transit  Co.,  104  Mass.  159,  6  Am.  Rep. 
213;  Kiff  V.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  117 
Mass.    591,    19    Am.    Rep.    429. 

Michigan.  —  Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63 
Mich.  344,  29  N.  W.  855.  6  Am.  St.  Rep. 
301. 

Missouri. — McAlister  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  74  Mo.  351,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
373,  holding  that  the  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  surrendering  property  on  a  writ  is- 
sued under  an  unconstitutional  statute, 
the  writ  being  valid   on   its   face. 

Xew  York. — Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403;  Livingston  v.  Miller,  48 
Hun  232,  16  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  71;  Van  Win- 
kle V.  United  States  Mail,  etc.,  Co.  (N. 
Y.),   37   Barb.   122. 

0/n'o.  — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
O'Donnell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476, 
21  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  117,  34  .\m.  St.  Rep. 
579. 

.South  Carolina. — Faust  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.,  8  S.  C.  118;  Kohn  v.  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  S.  C.  ],  16  S.  E. 
376,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  675,  24  L.  R. 
A.  100. 

Tennessee.' — Xashvillc,    etc.,    R.     Co.    v. 


Estes,    78    Tenn.    (10    Lea)    749,    3    Am.    & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.   210. 

Process  must  be  valid  on  its  face. — 
Merz  z!.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8G  Minn. 
33,  90  N.  W.  7.  See  Livingston  v.  Miller, 
48   Hun   232,   16  N.  Y.   St.    Rep.   71. 

The  Pennsylvania  statute,  Act  June  13, 
1874  (P.  L.  2S5),  exempting  a  carrier 
from  liability  for  goods  taken  on  legal 
process,  does  not  protect  a  carrier  from 
lial)ility  for  goods  taken  by  writ  of  at- 
tachment void  on  its  face.  Automatic 
Merchandising  Co.  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Co., 
82  Atl.  939,  233  Pa.  581;  S.  C,  46  Pa. 
Super.   Ct.   648. 

Negligence  in  complying  with  mere  tel- 
egram from  sheriff. — Where  a  common 
carrier  surrenders  mules  in  transportation 
to  a  person  who  exhil)its  only  a  tele- 
gram from  a  sheriff  directing  him  to 
seize  the  mules  under  a  writ  of  attach- 
ment, alleged  to  be  in  the  sheriff's  hands, 
the  carrier  will  be  liable  to  the  shipper 
in  damages,  for  negligence,  whether  there 
be  a  contract  in  limitation  of  such  a  lia- 
bility or  not.  And  the  liability  will  not 
be  released  by  the  subsequent  appearance 
of  the  sheriff  and  his  actual  levy  of  the 
attachment  on  the  mules.  Nickey  z'.  St. 
Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   35   Mo.   App.   79. 

The  bare  statement  that  the  goods 
were  seized  by  legal  process  and  that 
fact  communicated  to  the  shipper,  with- 
out more,  is  not  sufficient  to  relieve  the 
carrier  from  its  legal  liability.  It  should 
be  shown  what  was  the  nature  or  char- 
acter of  the  process  and  at  wliose  instance  or 
against  whom  the  process  was  sued  out,  and 
the  burden  is  also  on  the  carrier  to  show  that 
the  process  was  legal  and  that  it  was  is- 
sued against  the  proper  parties.  Mosher 
&  Co.  7'.   Southern  Exp.   Co.,  38   Ga.  37. 

Illegal  seizirre. — Under  Mass.  Gen.  St. 
ch.  8  ,  §  28,  as  re-enacted  in  1889,  ch.  415, 
§§  30,  65,  prohibiting  the  sale  of  intoxicat- 
ing liquors  directly  or  indirectly,  except  as 
authorized  in  that  chapter,  an  attachment 
of  liquors  while  in  the  hands  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  is  illegal.  Kiff  v.  Old  Col- 
ony, etc.,  R.  Co.,  117  Mass.  591,  19  Am. 
Rep.  429. 

51.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r-.  Knight,  11 
Ga.    App.   489,   75    S.    E.    823. 

Delivery  by  a  carrier  on  demand  of  an 
ofificer  levying  an  attachment,  where  the 
attachment  was  on  a  printed  form  upon 
which  appeared  a  form  for  bond  not 
filled  out,  without  inquiry  as  to  whether 
a  l)ond  had  been  given,  does  not  protect 
the  carrier  from  liability  to  the  owner  of 
the  goods.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knight,   75    S.    E.   823,   11    Ga.   App.   489. 


575 


TKAXSI'ORTATION   AND  DKI.IVKRY    HY   CARRIKR. 


§  870 


taken  unikT  a  void  writ  if  he  had  kiiowled^a-  of  the  jiroceedings.-'''- 

Attachment  against  Person  Other  than  Owner. — It  is  held  a  defense  to 
an  action  against  a  common  carrier  for  breach  of  its  contract  to  deliver  goods, 
that  they  were  taken  from  him  by  an  officer  under  an  attachment  against  a  per- 
son who  was  not  their  owner ;  •'■■'  but  there  is  a  contrary  holding.-"'^ 

Goods  Wrongfully  Detained.— Where  the  seizure  of  goods  under  process 
of  law  is  l)rou,L;ht  about  in  consequence  of  the  unauthorized  and  wrongful  act 
of  the  carrier  in  detainin-  iheni  while  in  transit,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  a  fail- 
ure to  deliver."'"' 

Where  goods  are  exempt  from  attachment  it  is  no  defense  that  the 
goods  were  taken  from  tlie  carrier  by  an  (jfticer  and  attached  against  its  will 
and  without  fraud  or  collusion  on  its  part,  or  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  the 
goods. •"'' 

Where  Property  Diverted. — Where  a  carrier  accepts  property  for  a  cer- 
tain point  and  diverts  it  to  a  different  i)oint,  where  it  is  attached,  and  the  shipper 
loses  his  property,  the  carrier  is  liable  as  for  conversion. ■'••'•" 

When  Goods  Are  Attachable. — Goods  in  tbe  custody  of  the  carrier  within 


52.  Florence,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Radetsky, 
52   Colo.   -IT',).   i:32    Pac.  791. 

53.  Attachment  against  person  other 
than  owner. — liuliaiia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Doremcyer,  20  Ind.  App.  605,  50  N.  E. 
497,  (57  Am.  St.  Rep.  264.  See  Furman 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa  395,  17 
N.  W.  598,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  280; 
Hett  V.  Boston,  etc.,  Railroad,  69  N.  H. 
139,  44   Atl.   910. 

Merchants  failed  and  made  an  assign- 
ment for  the  l)enefit  of  creditors.  The 
assignee  sold  goods  assigned  to  plaintiffs, 
who  delivered  them  to  a  dispatch  com- 
pany to  he  sent  by  rail  to  a  distant  place, 
and  while  en  route  they  were  attached 
l)y  the  creditors  of  the  insolvent  mer- 
cliants,  and  the  agent  of  the  dispatch 
company  was  summoned  as  garnishee. 
Some  days  later  plaintiffs  demanded  the 
goods  of  the  garnishee,  and,  being  re- 
fused, brought  suit  for  a  conversion. 
Held,  that  the  action  could  not  be  main- 
tained. At  the  time  of  the  demand  the 
goods  were  in  legal  effect  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  sheriff.  If  the  goods  were 
wrongfully  attached,  the  remedy  was 
against  the  parties  attaching.  Stiles  v. 
Davis   (U.  S.),  1   Black  101,  17   L.   Ed.  33. 

54.  Edwards  v.  White  Line  Transit 
Co.,  104  Mass.  159,  6  Am.  Rep.  213.  And 
see  Bingliam  v.  Lamping,  26  Pa.  340,  67 
Am.   Dec.   418. 

In  Dickson  v.  Chaffee.  34  La.  Ann. 
1133,  it  was  held  that  where  plaiiUiff  con- 
signs goods  receiving  the  l)ill  of  lading 
therefor,  and  the  sheriff  seizes  them  un- 
der a  writ  commauding  the  seizure  of  the 
property  of  another,  and  consigns  them 
to  defendant,  who,  pursuant  to  direc- 
tions, sells  them,  and  pays  over  to  the 
slicriff  the  proceeds,  he  is  not  liable  to 
plaintiff,  where  he  had  no  other  notice  of 
his  adverse  claim  than  that  the  goods  had 
been  originally  shipped  in  plaintitT's 
name  and  that  lie  lioUl  the  bill  of  lading 
therefor. 


55.  Goods  wrongfully  detained. — West- 
ern, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ohio,  etc.,  Trust  Co., 
107    Ga.    512,    33    S.    E.    821. 

Holding  goods  to  allow  creditors  to 
attach. — Where  a  carrier  receives  goods 
consigned  to  one  who  has  made  advances 
thereon,  it  is  liable  to  the  consignee 
where,  through  connivance  with  the  ship- 
per, it  holds  the  goods  until  thej'  can  be 
attached  by  the  shipper's  creditors.  Rob- 
inson V.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Fed.  57. 

A  carrier  who  receives  goods  under  an 
engagement  to  forward  them  to  the  con- 
signee can  not  hold  them  to  answer  an- 
attachment  at  the  suit  of  a  creditor  of 
the  shipper,  previously  served  upon  him; 
nor  is  he  liable  in  respect  to  them  upon 
the  attachment.  Bingham  v.  Lamping, 
26   Pa.   340,   67   Am.   Dec.   41S. 

56.  Goods  exempt  from  attachment. — 
Kiff  V.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R.  Co..  117  Mass. 
591,    19   Am.   Rep.   429. 

56a.  Where  property  diverted. — Lincoln 
Grain  Co.  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  91  Neb. 
203,    135    X.    W.    443. 

Where  a  carrier,  in  pursuance  of  an 
agreement  or  custom  whereby  a  certain 
third  person  was  to  have  the  right  to 
change  the  destination  of  the  goods 
shipped  without  producing  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, under  the  instructions  of  such  third 
person  to  whom  notice  was  to  be  given 
of  the  delivery  of  the  goods,  and  without 
authority  from  the  holder  of  the  bill  of 
lading  who  had  no  notice  of  the  agree- 
ment or  custom,  stops  the  goods  at  an 
intermediate  point,  and  there  stores  them 
in  its  warehouse,  where  they  are  levied 
on  as  the  property  of  the  consignor,  un- 
der an  attachment  sued  out  against  him 
liy  such  third  person,  such  seizure  will 
not  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for 
its  failure  to  deliver  the  goods  on  de- 
mand of  the  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading. 
Western,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc..  Trust 
Co.,    33   S.    E.    821,    107    Ga.    512. 


§  870 


CARRIERS. 


576 


the  state  and  county  where  the  writ  is  issued  at  the  time  of  the  issuing  of  the 
writ  are  subject  to  attachment. '*■'  But  freight  in  the  custody  of  the  carrier 
is  not  attachable  unless  it  is  susceptible  of  manual  seizure.-'^^  As  a  general  rule 
property  can  not  be  attached  unless  it  belongs  to  the  person  against  whom  the 
attachment   is   issued. •"''^ 

Goods  Subject  to  Execution.- — The  piling  of  property  on  the  carrier's 
wharf  does  not  give  it  such  possession  as  to  prevent  its  being  seized  on  execu- 
tion against  the  owner.*^*' 

Liability  for  Removing  Attached  Property. — Where  a  creditor  has  at- 
tached property  of  his  debtor,  and  tiled  a  copy  of  the  writ,  as  recjuired  by 
statute,  a  railroad  company,  which,  with  notice  of  attachment,  removes  and 
ships  the  property  on  the  order  of  the  debtor,  is  liable  to  the  attaching  creditor 
in  tro\er.^''^ 

Liability  to  Mortgagee  of  Goods. — Where  goods  have  been  delivered  to  a 
carrier  for  transportation,  a  demand  thereof  under  a  mortgage  with  condition 
broken,  given  by  the  consignor,  is  not  such  legal  process  as  will  render  the 
carrier  liable  for  conversion  on  its  refusal  to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  mort- 
gagee.'-' 

Liability  for  Refusal  to  Permit  Levy. — To  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for 
refusing  to  permit  the  levy  of  an  attachment  on  property  in  his  hands,  it  is  a 
good  defense  that  the  property  did  not  belong  to  the  defendant  in  attachment, 
and  was  not  subject  to  levy.''-"5  And  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  that  the  agent 
of  the  carrier  obstructed  an  officer  in  levying  an  attachment,  and  removed  the 


57.  When  goods  are  attachable. — 
Viiifed  States.— The  M.  M.  Chase.  37  Fed. 
70S. 

Georgia. — Western  R.  Co.  r.  Thornton, 
60  Ga.  300;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
cox, etc.,   Co.,  48  Ga.  432. 

Io7i.'a. — Furman  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
62  Iowa  395,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  280, 
17  X.  W.  598. 

/Co«,ya,f.— Wheat  v.  Platte,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4   Kan.    370. 

Xezv  York. — Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403;  Van  Winkle  v.  United 
States  Mail,  etc.,  Co.  (N.  Y.),  37  Barb. 
122. 

Vermont. — Burton  v.  Wilkinson,  18  Vt. 
186,    46    Am.    Dec.    145. 

58.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  48 
111.  402;  Sutherland  v.  Second  Nat.  Bank, 
78  Ky.  250,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  368; 
Bates  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Wis. 
296,  19  N.  W.  72,  50  Am.  Rep.  369,  14 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  700. 

Goods,  which  are  not  in  the  county, 
are  not  susceptible  of  manual  seizure, 
and  therefore  not  attachable.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  V.  Pennock,  51  Pa.  244. 

59.  Goods  can  not  be  attached  for 
vendor's  debts. — Where  a  carrier  receives 
freight  from  a  vendor  consigned  to  the 
vendee,  the  vendor  has  no  further  author- 
ity over  it  except  the  right  of  stoppage 
in  transitu,  and  it  can  not  be  attached  for 
his  debt.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Spaulding  (Ky.),  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
418. 

Property  belonging  to  the  carrier,  is 
not  subject  to  attachment  in  its  hands  as 
the    property    of    the    consignee.      Hamil- 


ton V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Iowa  325, 
73    X.    W.    536. 

Goods  not  attachable  in  suit  against 
consignee. — Persons  in  New  Orleans  or- 
dered goods  manufactured  in  New  York 
and  shipped  to  them,  to  be  paid  for  on 
delivery.  The  goods  were  accordingly 
manufactured  and  placed  in  the  hands  of 
a  carrier,  directed  to  the  parties  ordering 
them  at  New  Orleans.  Held,  that  the 
title  did  not  pass  to  the  consignees  until 
the  delivery  of  the  goods  at  place  of  con- 
signment, and  that  therefore  they  were 
not  attachable  in  a  suit  against  the  con- 
signees while  they  were  still  in  New 
York.  Bates  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (X.  Y.).  4  Abl).  Prac.  7"^  13  How. 
Prac.    516. 

60.  Goods  subject  to  execution. — Coos 
Bay,  etc..  Xav.  Co.  v.  Siglin,  34  Ore.  80, 
53    Pac.    504. 

61.  Removing  attached  property.— 
Johnson  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  44  X. 
H.    626. 

62.  Demand  by  mortgagee. — Kohn  v. 
Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.,  37  S.  C.  1,  16  S. 
E.  376,  24  L.  R.  A.  100,  55  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   675. 

63.  Refusal  to  permit  levy. — Simpson 
V.  Dufour,  126  Ind.  322,  26  X.  E.  69,  22 
Am.  St.  Rep.  590. 

Since  goods  in  transit  are  presumed  to 
belong  to  the  consignee,  a  carrier  who, 
after  service  of  notice  of  garnishment  in 
an  action  against  the  shipper,  forwards 
the  goods,  is  not  liable  to  the  attaching 
creditor  in  an  action  to  recover  their 
value.  Bingham  v.  Lamping,  26  Pa.  340, 
67    Am.    Dec.    418. 


577 


TRANSPORTATKJX    AND  UKLIVKKV    HV   CARRIER. 


§§    870-871 


goods  out  of  tlic  state  by   running  out  the  train,  does  not   furnish  a  cause  of 
action  against  the  carrier,  at  the  instance  of  the  j^laintifif  in  attachment.*'"' 

§  871.  Duties  of  Carrier. — Notice  of  Seizure  to  Owner  of  Goods. — 
Where  goods,  while  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier,  are  seized  hy  \  irtue  of  legal 
process,  and  taken  out  of  its  possession,  it  should  gi\e  imniediate  notice  of  the 
seizure  to  the  persons  interested.''-"'  It  is  held  that  if  the  owner  has  timely 
knowledge  of  the  seizure  the  carrier  need  not  give  him  formal  notice.*'''  And 
where  he  has  been  notified  by  the  carrier  of  an  attempt  to  levy  an  attachment 
on    the   goods,    knowledge   of   the   danger   makes    further   notice   unnecessar)'.*'^ 

Duty  to  Resist  Judicial  Process. — The  carrier  is  not  required  to  resist 
forcibly  judicial  proceedings  in  the  courts  of  the  state  into  or  through  which 
the  ijoods  are  carried.*"^     And  the  carrier  is  not  bound  to  resist  officers  of  the 


64.  Liability  to  attaching  creditor. — 
Western  R.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  60  Ga.  .iVi, 
27    .-Xm.    Rep.    411. 

65.  Notice  of  seizure. — United  States. — 
Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  16 
Fed.  57;  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  MuUins, 
212  U.  S.  311,  53  L.  Ed.  525,  29  S.  Ct.  381, 
15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  536;  The  M. 
M.  Chase,  37  Fed.  708;  Lemont  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Fed.  920;  Wells  v. 
Maine  Steamship  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,401,    4    Cliff.    228. 

hidiana. — Ohio,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  ,Yohe,  51 
Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep.  727. 

loiva. — Furman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
57   Iowa  42,  10  N.  W.  272. 

Miiuiesota. — Merz  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   86   Minn.   33,  90   N.   W.   7. 

A't'TC  York. — Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,   36   N.   Y.  403. 

North  Dakota. — Taugher  v.  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co..  21  N.  Dak.  Ill,  129  N.  W.  747. 

O/i/o.— Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  21  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579. 

Oregon. — Jewett  v.  Olsen,  18  Ore.  419, 
23  Pac.  262,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  745,  42  Am. 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.    435. 

That  a  shipper  of  goods  replevied  them 
while  in  the  carrier's  liands  does  not  ex- 
onerate the  carrier  from  liability  to  the 
consignee,  who  was  not  notified  of  the 
replevin  action.  Spiegel  v.  Pacific  Mail 
Steamship  Co..  56  N.  Y.  S.  171,  26  Misc. 
Rep.   411. 

Where  no  reply  is  made  to  the  notice 
given  to  the  consignor  and  consignee  of 
goods  seized  under  legal  process,  llie  car- 
rier has  a  right  to  presume  that  they  have 
abandoned  the  property,  as  subject  to  the 
legal  process  under  which  it  was  seized. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  etc., 
Co..   48    Ga.   432. 

Where  goods  are  levied  on  at  destina- 
tion by  attachment  against  the  consignee, 
it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  defend, 
or  to  give  notice  to  the  consignor,  on  the 
failure  of  the  consignee  to  claim  the  prop- 


erty or  to  defend  the  action,  he  being 
presumably  the  owner,  and  not  the  con- 
signor. Frank  Bros.  &  Co.  r.  Central  R. 
Co.,   '.»    I 'a.    Super.    Ct.    1 :.".). 

Notice  to  consignor's  husband. — A 
common  carrier  is  not  lial)le  for  house- 
hold goods  seized  while  in  its  hands  un- 
der an  attachment  against  the  consignor's 
husband,  where  it  has  notified  the  latter 
of  the  attachment  on  his  presenting  the 
bill  of  lading  to  its  agent  in  time  for  him 
to  assert  the  consignor's  title  to  the 
goods  before  they  are  sold  under  the  at- 
tachment, as  it  was  entitled  to  rely  on  the 
presumption  that  he  was  the  consignor's 
duly-authorized  agent  in  regard  to  the 
control  of  the  goods,  and  it  is  immaterial 
l)y  what  means  he  obtained  the  bill  of 
lading.  Furman  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
57  Iowa  42,  10  N.  W.  272;  S.  C,  81  Iowa 
r>lO,    46    N.    W.    1049. 

If  the  carrier  fails  to  give  notice  it 
assumes  the  burden  of  establishing  the 
legality  of  the  proceedings  on  which  the 
attachment  was  made,  and  it  is  not  pro- 
tected because  the  writ  is  regular  on  its 
face  if  it  is  void  in  law.  Taugher  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  N.  Dak.  Ill,  129 
N.   W.   747. 

66.  Robinson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
l!)  Fed.  57;  MacVeagh  v.  .\tchison,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  N.  Mex.  327,  5  Pac.  457,  18  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  651. 

67.  MacVeagh  f.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
.'i  X.  Mex.  327.  5  Pac.  457.  18  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.    (;.")1. 

68.  Duty  to  resist  judicial  process. — 
American  Exp.  Co.  v.  MuUins,  212  U.  S. 
:;il,  53  L.  Ed.  525,  29  S.  Ct.  381,  15  Am. 
&    Eng.   Ann.    Cas.   5;{r>. 

If  the  carrier,  through  connivance  or 
fraud,  permits  a  judgment  to  be  rendered 
against  it.  such  judgment  can  not  be  in- 
\  oked  by  it  as  a  bar  to  an  action  brought 
bv  the  owner  of  the  goods.  American 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Mullins.  212  U.  S.  311,  314. 
53  L.  Ed.  525,'  29  S.  Ct.  381,  15  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  536;  Harris  i:  Balk.  193 
U.   S.  215,  49  L.  Ed.  1023,  25   S.   Ct.  625. 


1    Car— 37 


CARRIERS. 


578 


§§  871-872 

law,<5^     or   remove  the  goods  J"   in   order   to   prevent  their   seizure   nnder  legal 
process. 

§  872.  Seizure  under  Police  Regulations.— As  a  general  rule,  a  carrier 
is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods,  if,  without  its  fault,  they  are  seized  under 
the  authority  of  the  police  regulations  of  the  state.' ^  but  an  illegal  seizure  is 
no  defence  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  the  value  of  the  goods."- 

Notice   of   Seizure.— As  a  general  rule  the  carrier  must  give  proper  notice 


69.  Not  bound  to  resist  officer.— Savan- 
nah, etc.,  R.  Co.  T.  Wilcox,  etc.,  Co.,  48 
Ga.  432,  11  Am.  R.  Rep.  375;  Pingree  v.  De- 
troit, etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  Mich.  143,  33  N. 
W.    29S.    11    Am.    St.    Rep.    479. 

70.  Not  bound  to  remove  goods. — Mac- 
Veagh  V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Mex. 
327,  5  Pac.  457,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
651. 

71.  Seizure  under  police  regulations.^ 
United  States.— WeW^  v.  Maine  Steamship 
Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,401,  4  Cliff.  228. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cans,    69   Ark.   252,   62   S.   W.    738. 

Georgia.—Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Sottile 
Bros.,  134  Ga.  40,  67  S.  E.  414,  28  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    139. 

0/,jo.— Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  21  L.  R. 
A.,    X.    S.,    117,    34    Am.    St.    Rep.    579. 

Seizure  of  liquors.— Where  liquors 
marked  for  shipment  through  a  state, 
while  in  the  custody  of  the  carrier  in  that 
state,  were  seized  and  destroyed,  in  con- 
formity with  the  state  statute,  as  being 
kept,  deposited,  and  intended  for  sale  in 
violation  thereof,  and  the  carrier  gave 
regular  notice  to  their  owner,  it  is  re- 
lieved from  all  obligation  to  deliver  such 
liquors.  Wells  v.  Maine  Steamship  Co., 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,401,  4  Cliff.  228. 

The  carrier  is  not  liable  to  the  con- 
signor for  nondelivery  to  the  consignee, 
even  though  the  statute  be  unconstitu- 
tional; it  never  having  been  judicially  de- 
clared so.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Sottile 
Bros.,  134  Ga.  40,  67  S.  E.  414,  28  L.  R. 
A.,   N.   S.,   139. 

But  where  goods  were  shipped  to  be 
safely  transported  and  delivered,  "un- 
avoidable accidents  excepted,"  a  loss  oc- 
curring through  a  lieutenant  in  the  United 
States  army  with  a  detachment  of  sol- 
diers stopping  the  train  and  taking  the 
goods  (intoxicating  liquors),  under  the 
claim  that  the  carrier  had  been  unlawfully 
selling  such  goods  to  the  Indians,  is  not 
within  the  exception,  neither  could  such 
destruction  be  said  to  be  by  the  public 
enemy.  It  was  held  that  no  technical  vis 
major  was  proved,  and  that  the  carrier 
was  lia])le.  Seligman  v.  Armijo,  1  N.  Mex. 
459. 

Under  Arkansas  Statute,  Act  Feb.  13, 
1899,  §§  1,  3,  seizure  and  destruction  of 
liquor  shipped  from  a  point  within  the 
state  to  a  prohibited  district  is  a  defense 
to   an   action   against   the   carrier   for   the 


conversion    thereof.      St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 
Co.  V.   Cans,  62   S.  W.   738,   69  Ark.  252. 

Seizure  of  game. — Where  game  birds, 
though  lawfully  taken  and  shipped  in 
Arkansas,  were  not  packed  in  the  manner 
prescribed  by  Lacey  Act,  §  5  (Act  Cong. 
May  25,  1900,  c.  553,  31  Stat.  188  [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  1901,  p.  3182]),  and  were  seized 
and  confiscated  by  the  game  warden  in 
Missouri  before  arriving  at  their  destina- 
tion in  Illinois,  the  shipment  not  being 
interstate  commerce  in 'the  full  sense,  the 
carrier  was  not  liable  to  the  shipper  for 
the  value  of  the  game  so  seized.  Eager 
z:  Jonesboro,  etc.,  Exp.  Co.  (Ark.),  147 
S.    W^    60. 

Failure  to  deliver  firearms  believed  to 
be  intended  for  mob. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  O'Donnell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E. 
476,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St. 
Rep.    579. 

Forfeiture  for  nonpayment  of  custom 
duties. — To  a  declaration  against  a  car- 
rier for  nondelivery  of  goods,  defendants 
pleaded  that  the  goods  had,  prior  to  the 
delivery  to  the  carrier,  been  forfeited  to 
the  crown  for  nonpayment  of  customs 
d.ue.  Held,  not  a  valid  defense.  White  v. 
Canadian    Pac.    R.    Co.,   6    Man.    169. 

Carrier  not  chargeable  with  knowledge 
of  unconstitutionality  of  statute. — A  ear- 
lier will  not  be  held  liable  in  damages 
for  permitting  the  goods  of  his  bailor  tp 
be  taken  out  of  his  custody  upon  a  writ 
issued  under  a  penal  statute  which  is 
subsequently  decided  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional. He  is  not  bound  to  know  that  it 
is  unconstitutional.  McAlister  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  373, 
74  Mo.  351. 

72.  Illegal  seizure  of  game. — Bennett  v. 
American  Exp.  Co.,  83  Me.  236,  22  Atl. 
159,  13  L.  R.  A.  33,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  774, 
49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  56;  Merriman  v. 
Great  Northern  Exp.  Co.,  63  Minn.  543, 
65    N.   W.    1080. 

Deception  of  shipper. — The  mere  fact 
that  at  the  time  the  shipper  delivered 
game  to  a  carrier,  he  knew  that  its  agent 
had  been  directed  not  to  receive  game, 
does  not  render  the  shipper  guilty  of 
such  deception  as  will  exonerate  the  car- 
rier from  liability  for  its  loss  by  illegal  seiz- 
ure by  a  game  warden,  if  there  was  no  spe- 
cial contract  limiting  the  carrier's  liabil- 
ity. Bennett  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  83 
Me.  236,  22  Atl.  159,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  774, 
13  L.  R.  A.  33,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  56. 


579 


TRANSPORTATION   AND  DELIVERY   BY   CARKIKR. 


§§  872-875 


of  the  seizure  to  the  owner  of  the  goods."-' 

§   873.  Garnishment    of    Carrier. — Goods    Awaiting   Transportation. — 

Goods  held  by  a  carrier  for  transportation  are  liable  to  ^garnishment  before  they 
are  in  transit.'''^ 

Goods  in  Transit. — A  carrier  can  not  be  held  as  garnishee  for  property  in 
actual  transit   at   llw  time  of  si-rsice  of  process.""'' 

Termination  of  Transportation. — A  carrier,  after  the  termination  of  the 
transportation  of  the  j)roi)erty.  and  while  holding  it  only  as  warehouseman,  is 
liable  to  garnishment   in   respect  to  such  property.'" 

§  874.  Rights  of  Attaching  Officer. — if  an  officer  attaching  goods  sub- 
ject to  the  lien  of  a  common  carrier  for  freight  pays  the  freight,  that  he  may 
get  the  goods  into  his  possession,  the  officer,  in  respect  to  the  lien,  stands  in 
the  place,  and  has  the  rights,  of  the  common  carrier.'" 

§§  875-903.  Actions  for  Failure  to  Deliver  or  Misdelivery— §  875. 
Conditions  Precedent. — Necessity  for  Demand. — IJefore  an  action  can  be 
maintained  again^t  the  carrier  for  failing  to  deliver  the  goods  to  the  consignee, 
a  demand  must  be  made  for  them,  unless  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  carrier  to 
deliver  them.'"    And  an  action  will  not  lie  for  omitting  seasonably  to  deliver  the 


73.  Notice  of  seizure. — United  Stales. — 
See  Wells  v.  Maine  Steamship  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,401,  4   Cliff.  228. 

Georgia. — See  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Sottile  Bros.,  134  Ga.  40,  67  S.  E.  414,  28 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  139. 

.Massachusetts. — Kiff  z'.  Old  Colony,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  117  Mass.  591,  19  Am.  Rep.  429. 

Michigan. — Gibbons  v.  Farwell,  63  Mich. 
344,  29  N.  W.  855,  6  Am.  St.  Rep.  301. 

New  York. — Bliven  v.  Hudson  River  R. 
Co.,  36  N.  Y.  403. 

OJiio. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  21  L.  R. 
A.,  K.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579. 

When  notice  unnecessary. — Where  game 
unlawfully  killed,  is  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier for  shipment  by  one  not  entitled  to 
its  possession,  the  carrier,  on  delivering 
the  game  to  the  state  on  demand,  is  not 
bound  to  give  notice  to  the  consignor. 
Thomas  v.  Northern  Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  7.") 
N.  W.  1120,  73  ^[inn.  IS.!. 

74.  Goods  awaiting  transportation. — 
Illinois. — See  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb, 
48  111.  402. 

Massachusetts. — Adams  v.  Scott,  104 
Mass.  164. 

Missouri.— Landa  v.  Hoick,  129  Mo.  663, 
31  S.  W.  900,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  459. 

Wisconsin. — See  Bates  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  60  Wis.  296,  19  N.  W.  72,  50  Am. 
Rep.   369,   14  Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas.   700. 

Goods  stored  on  board  of  a  steamer  for 
shipment  to  a  foreign  port  arc  not  sub- 
ject to  garnishment  where  unreasonable 
expense  and  delay  would  be  incurred  in 
unloading  them.  Van  Camp  Hardware, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Plimpton,  174  Mass.  208,  54 
N.  E.  538,  75  Am.  St.  Rep.  296. 

Lack  of  knowledge  as  to  ownership. — 
A  common  carrier  can  not  be  charged  as 
a  garnishee  for  goods  consigned  to  de- 
fendant, when  he  does  not  know  whether 


ihcy  belong  to  the  defendant  or  not. 
Walker  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co..  49  Mich. 
446,  K!  X.  W.  si:>.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
251. 

75.  Goods  in  transit. — Bates  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Wis.  296,  19  X.  W.  72,  50 
Am.  Rep.  369,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  700. 

A  railroad  company  is  not  liable  to  be 
garnished  in  respect  of  property  which  is 
already  in  transit  and  beyond  the  limits 
of  the  county.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Cobb.  48  111.  402,  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co. 
r.    Chicago,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    1    111.   App.   399. 

Property  in  the  hands  of  a  common 
carrier  in  transit  to  a  place  outside  of  the 
state  is  not  subject  to  garnishment,  though 
it  is  within  the  state  at  the  time  of  the 
service  of  the  garnishee  summons.  Steve- 
not  V.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  61  Minn.  104,  63 
X.    W.   256,    28    L.    R.    A.    600. 

Public  policy,  and  the  proper  discharge 
of  the  duties  of  conmion  carriers,  require 
that  they  can  not  be  held  liable  upon  a 
garnishee  summons  for  personal  chattels 
in  their  possession  in  actual  transit  at  the 
time  the  summons  is  served.  Bates  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  700,  60  Wis.  296,  19  N.  W.  72.  50 
Am.  Rep.  369. 

76.  Termination  of  transportation. — 
Cooley  f.  Minnesota  Transfer  R.  Co.,  53 
Minn.  327,  55  X.  W.  141,  39  Am.  St.  Rep. 
r>09.  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  616. 

77.  Rights  of  attaching  officer. — Thomp- 
son :■.  Rose.  If.  Conn.  71.  41  .\ni.  Dec.  121; 
Rucker  f.  Donovan,  13  Kan.  2.")1,  19  .A.m. 
Rep.    S4. 

78.  Necessity  for  demand. — Jarrett  ''. 
Great  Xorthern  R.  Co..  74  Minn.  477,  77 
X.   W.   304. 

Plaintiff  shipped  goods  by  express,  and 
the  company  carried  the  goods  to  the 
consignee,  who  refused  to  receive  theni. 
whereupon   the   company   placed   them    in 


§  87; 


CARRIIvRS. 


580 


poods.  without  a  previous  demand."'^  A  demand  is  unnecessary  where  it  would 
be  useless.''^'  or  where  the  carrier  has  converted  the  goods, ^^  or  wrongfully  re- 
fused to  deliver  them,*-  or  made  delivery  to  the  wrong  party,''^'  or  failed  to  de- 
liver according  to  the  consignment/^-* 

Tender  of  Charges. — The  rule  that,  to  entitle  the  consignee  to  the  posses- 
sion of  the  goods,  he  must  pay  or  tender  the  legal  charges  for  their  carriage, 
has  no  application  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  the  conversion  of  the 
"oods."^"  And  a  tender  is  unnecessary  where  it  would  be  useless,-^*'  or  where 
the  carrier  makes  a  peremptory  refusal  to  deliver  the  goods,'^'   or  refuses  to  de- 


their  "on  hand  department."  and  notified 
the  consignee  that  they  were  at  the  own- 
er's risk,  hut  failed  to  notify  the  con- 
sig-nor.  Six  months  thereafter  the  con- 
signor, on  inquiry,  was  informed  that  the 
goods  were  so  held.  Without  making 
any  demand  he  sued  for  failure  to  de- 
liver the  goods.  At  the  trial  the  express 
company  tended  the  goods.  Held,  that 
a  verdict  for  the  full  value  of  the  goods 
must  he  set  aside.  Block  v.  United  States 
l^.xp.  Co..  75  X.  J.  L.  4.55.  68  Atl.  173. 

Even  though  the  carrier  has  made  a 
wrong  delivery  of  the  goods,  a  demand  is 
necessary  to  render  it  liable  for  conver- 
sion. Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sullivan,  etc.,  Co., 
14   Ga.   277. 

Unless  there  is  proof  of  a  contrary 
dealing  with  the  property  by  the  carrier, 
there  must  l)c  a  demand  for  the  property 
and  a  refusal  by  the  carrier  in  order  to 
show  conversion.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Britton.   :59   So.   585.   145  Ala.   654. 

Order  equivalent  to  demand.— An  order 
from  the  shipper  of  goods  consigned  to 
shipper's  order,  duly  accepted  by  the  car- 
rier and  noted  on  the  bill  of  ladmg  by 
its  agent,  directing  a  diversion  of  the 
goods  from  one  destination  to  another,  is 
equivalent  to  a  demand  for  delivery. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schriver,  84  Pac. 
119.  72  Kan.  550,  4  L.  R.  A,  N.  S.,  10.56. 
Insufficient  demand.— Where  goods 
were  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transporta- 
tion under  a  contract  to  deliver  them 
within  a  specified  time,  a  demand  made 
for  the  goods  on  the  day  agreed  on  for 
delivery  before  the  goods  had  arrived  was 
insufficient  to  charge  the  carrier  with  con- 
version thereof.  Clark  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  106  N.  W.  643,   130  Iowa  254. 

Where  a  consignor,  having  heard  noth- 
ing from  the  goods  shipped,  asked  the 
carrier  wdiat  had  became  of  the  goods, 
and  was  told  that  he  did  not  know,  there 
was  no  demand,  so  as  to  render  the  car- 
rier guilty  of  conversion.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Tyler  Coffin  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),   81   S.  W.   826. 

Young  trees  were  consigned  by  express 
to  a  person  at  a  certain  station  in  care  of  the 
railroad  agent,  who  was  agent  also  of  the 
express  company.  The  freight  and  ex- 
press received  at  the  station  were  kept 
in  the  same  room.  After  the  trees  had 
been  there  several  weeks,  the  consignee 
sent  an  order,  addressed  to  the  "R.  R. 
Agent,"  directing  the  latter  to  deliver  to 
bearer   "any   freight"    there   might   be   for 


the  consignee.  The  agent  reported  that 
there  was  nothing  for  him.  Held,  that 
the  demand  was  not  sufficient  to  charge 
the  express  company  with  liability  for 
tlie  agent's  failure  to  deliver.  Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Windham,  1  Tex.  Civ. 
.\pp.  267,  21  S.  W.  402. 

79.  Robinson  v.  Austin  (Mass.),  2  Gray 
564;  Ryland  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
46  S.  E.  923,  55  W.  Va.  181. 

80.  When  demand  unnecessary. — Where 
a  railroad  company  contracted  to  carry 
goods  to  a  point  beyond  the  terminus 
of  their  line,  it  is  no  objection  to  a  re- 
covery by  the  owner  for  their  nonde- 
livery that  no  demand  was  made  by  him 
at  said  point,  if  it  appears  that  the  goods 
never  reached  the  point  in  question,  and 
that  the  defendants  had  no  ofifice  there, 
nor  any  agent  upon  whom  the  demand 
could  be  made.  Schroeder  v.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  55. 

81.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Heiden- 
heimer,   82   Tex.    195,   17   S.   W.    608. 

82.  Peebles  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 
Mass.  498;  Wiggin  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
120  Mass.   201. 

83.  Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  v.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  423,  61  S.  E. 
364;  compare.  Cole  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  21  Mo.  App.  443. 

Where  a  carrier  delivers  goods  to  the 
person  to  whom  they  are  consigned,  after 
notice  by  the  real  owner  not  to  do  so  ex- 
cept on  his  written  order,  no  further  de- 
mand is  necessary  to  entitle  such  owner 
to  maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier 
for  their  conversion.  Lester  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Hun  342,  36  N.  Y.  S.  907, 
72   N.  Y.   St.   Rep.  334. 

84.  Erskine  v.  Steamboat  Thames,  6 
Mo.  371;  Ludwig  v.  Meyre  (Pa.),  5  Watts 
&    S.    435. 

85.  Tender  of  charges. — Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  O'Donnell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N. 
E.  476,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St. 
Re.x  579. 

If  a  carrier  by  railroad  refuses  to  deliver 
goods  carried,  for  other  reasons  than  the 
nonpayment  of  freight,  an  action  will  lie 
against  him  for  conversion  of  the  goods, 
without  payment  of  freight.  Peebles  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mass.  498;  Wig- 
gin  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mass.  201. 

86.  Fernandez  v.  Silva,  1  La.  269. 

87.  Chandler  v.  Fulton,  10  Tex.  2,  60 
Am.  Dec.  188.  See  Peebles  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  112  Mass.  498. 


581 


TKANSl'ORTATION    AND   DKLI VKKV    liV    CAKKII'.R. 


§§  875-876 


liver  unless  the  consignee  pay  illegal  charges,*^**  or  a  sum  other  than  the  charges 
for  freight,'^'-*  or  where  the  goods  are  damaged  to  a  greater  extent  than  the 
hill  for  freight/'*"  or  where  the  carrier  has  only  partially  perfomied  its  under- 
taking." ^  The  owner  of  projjerty  shijjped  to  his  agent  may  sue  for  nondelivery, 
though  he  harl  not  paid  or  offered  to  pay  the  freight,  and  the  carrier  had  not 
looked  to  him  f(jr  payment  thereof. "- 

§  876.  Form  of  Action. — Assumpsit,"-  or  case,'^  may  he  hrought  against 
the  carrier  for  not  delivering  goods. 

Detinue  may  he  maintained  for  wrongful  refusal  to  deliver.''-"' 

Replevin. — I  pon  the  refu.sal  of  a  carrier  to  deliver  freight  to  the  consignee 
upon  a  valid  tender  by  him  of  its  regular  charges,  he  may  maintain  an  action  of 
replevin  therefor.""  i>ut  it  has  been  held  that  where- goods  came  into  the  hands 
of  the  carrier  law  full}-,  replevin  could  not  be  maintained  for  the  mere  detention 
of   the  goods.'-'' 

Trover  will  lie  against  a  carrier  for  a  misdelivery,-'''  ur  an  approjjrialion  of 
the  property  to  its  own  use,  or  for  any  act  antagonistic  to  and  inconsistent  with 
plaintitif's  claim  or  right;  ""but  not  for  goods  lost  by  accident  or  stolen,  or  for 
nondelivery,  unless  there  be  a  refusal  to  deliver  while  the  carrier  is  in  posses- 


88.  Long  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Ala. 
512;  Johnston  v.  Davis,  GO  Mich.  50,  20  N. 
W.  830.  See  Looniis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   17   Mo.  App.  340. 

Where,  on  a  dispute  as  to  the  amount 
due  I'or  ilic  carriaL;(.-  dI'  l;oo(1s;  tlic  carrier 
withheld  them  until  the  amount  claimed 
l)y  iiim  to  be  due  should  be  paid,  a  tender 
was  not  necessary  before  bringing  suit 
for  their  conversion,  where  there  was  no 
refusal  by  the  owner  to  pay  what  he 
deemed  a  proper  amount.  Gates  v.  Be- 
kins,  87  Pac.  505,  44  Wash.  423. 

89.  Blair  v.  Jeffries  (S.  C),  Dud.  59; 
Adams  v.  Clark  (Mass.),  9  Cush.  215,  57 
Am.   Dec.   41. 

90.  Ewart  v.  Kerr  (S.  C),  Rice  203; 
Miami  Powder  Co.  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  16  S.  E.  339,  21  L.  R.  A. 
123;  Dyer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  42  \"t. 
441,  1  Am.  Rep.  350. 

91.  Breed  v.  Mitchell,  48  Ga.  533;  John- 
ston V.  Davis,  60  Mich.  56,  26  N.  W.  830. 

Where  goods  arrive  at  their  point  of 
destination,  and  the  packages  or  casks 
arc,  by  the  fault  of  the  carrier,  in  a  dam- 
aged condition,  so  that  they  can  not  be 
handled  without  loss  and  further  damage, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  repair  the 
casks,  if  possible,  before  the  owner  can 
be  compelled  to  receive  them;  and,  if  he 
refuses  to  do  this,  the  owner  may  refuse 
to  receive  the  goods,  and  may  recover  the 
value;  and  this,  without  otTering  to  pay 
the  freights.  Breed  r.  Mitchell.  4S  Ga. 
533. 

92.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Allgood, 
113  Ala.  163,  20  So.  986. 

93.  Assumpsit.  —  Bullard  v.  Young 
(Ala.),  3  Stew.  4(5 ;  Bates  v.  Bigby,  123  Ga. 
727,  51  S.   E.  717. 

See  Dresser  v.  West  \irginia  Transp. 
Co.,  8  W.  Va.  553,  where  oil  belonging  to 


plaintiff  was  delivered  to  defendant  car- 
rier, by  a  petroleum  company,  to  be  trans- 
ported from  the  tanks  at  their  wells  to 
the  point  of  destination.  After  it  was  so 
transported  plaintiff  demanded  the  oil,  and 
defendant  refused  to  deliver  it  because  it 
was  claimed  by  the  petroleum  company. 
It  did  not  appear  that  defendant  sold  or 
disposed  of  the  oil  or  any  part  of  it.  Held, 
that  plaintiff  could  not  recover  on  the 
common  counts  for  goods  sold  and  de- 
livered to  defendant  by  plaintiff  or  for 
money  received  by  defendant  for  plain- 
tiff's use. 

94.  Case.— Bullard  v.  Young  (Ala.),  3 
Stew.  4(i ;  Johnson  7'.  Strader,  3  Mo.  355; 
Packard  z'.  Getman  (X.  Y.),  6  Cow.  757,  10 
Am.  Dec.  475;  S.  C,  4  Wend.  613.  21  .'\m. 
Dec.  166. 

95.  Detinue. — Long  z\  Mol)ile.  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    51    Ala.    512. 

96.  Replevin. — Indiana. — Evansvillle.  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  ^Llrsh,  57  Ind.  505. 

Michigan. — Johnston  v.  Davis,  60  Mich. 
56.  26  N.  W.   830. 

I'crntont. — Dyer  z\  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
42  Vt.  441,  1   .\m.   Rep.   350. 

97.  Woodward  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
46   X.   H.   524. 

98.  Trover. — I'nitcd  States. — Blowers  & 
Co.  V.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  155  Fed.  935. 

.Alabama. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lamp- 
ley,  76  Ala.  357,  52  Am.   Rep.  334. 

Illinois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  Parks, 
54  111.  294. 

-Vi'Tc  York. — Packard  f.  Getman  (X.  Y.), 
4  Wend.  613,  21  Am.  Dec.   166. 

South  Carolina. — Trowell  z:  Youmans 
(S.   C),   5   Strob.  67. 

99.  Central  R..  etc..  Co.  z:  Lampley, 
76  Ala.  357.  52  Am.  Rep.  334.  See  St, 
Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dunham.  36  Okla. 
-;24,   129   Pac.  862. 


§§  876-880 


CAKRIKRS. 


582 


sion.i  nor  for  an  act  or  omission  whicli  amounts  to  negligence  merely  and  not 
to  an  actual  wrongs  as  trover  can  not  be  sustained  without  proof  of  conversion.^ 
And  a  carrier  who  receives  goods  to  carry  from  one  not  authorized  to  deliver 
them  to  him  may  be  sued  in  trover.-* 

Delivery  after  Notice  to  Stop  in  Transitu.— An  action  against  a  common 
carrier  for  its  negligence  in  delivering  goods  after  notice  from  the  shipper  to 
stop  them  in  transitu,  which  it  agreed  to  do,  is  founded  upon  the  tort  of  de- 
fendant, not  upon  the  shipping  contract,  which  ended  upon  the  receipt  of  such 
notice  by  tlie  carrier.-^ 

§  877.  Joinder  of  Actions. — One  entitled  to  maintain  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  may  join  therewith  a  claim  for  a  statutory 
penalty  for  unreasonable  delay  in  delivery.^ 

§  878.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue.— In  some  states,  by  statute,  a  carrier 
may  be  sued  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  either  in  the  county  where  the  contract 
for  transportation  was  executed  or  in  the  county  where  the  delivery  was  to  be 
made.' 

§  879.  Parties. — As  to  who  may  maintain  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
failure  to  deliver  or  misdelivery,  see  elsewhere.'' 

§§  880-882.  Pleading— §§  880-881.  Declaration,  Complaint  or  Pe- 
tition—§  880.  In  General.— Statutory  Form.— In  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier to  recover  for  its  failure  to  deliver  goods,  a  complaint  in  the  form  prescribed 
bv  the  statute  is  sufficient.'^ 

'  Repugnancy. — Where  a  declaration  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  is  defective 
for  repugnancy,  a  demurrer  thereto  will  be  sustained.^" 


1.  Alabama. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Lampley,  7G  Ala.  357,  52  Am.  Rep.  334. 
See  Long  v.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  Ala. 
512. 

Georgia. — Bird  v.  Georgia  Railroad,  72 
Ga.  655. 

Massachusetts. — See  Adams  v.  Clark 
(Mass.),  9  Cush.  215,  57  Am.  Dec.  -41. 

Missotiri. — Johnson  v.  Strader,  3  Mo. 
355. 

Xe-iV  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Norris,  4  N. 
H.  304. 

New  Forit.— Packard  v.  Getman,  4 
Wend.  613,  21  Am.  Dec.  166;  Magnin  v. 
Dinsmore,  70  N.  Y.  410,  26  Am.  Rep.  608. 

A  undertook  to  carry  certain  flour  for 
B  to  a  certain  place,  and,  having  deposited 
it  by  the  way,  a  part  of  the  flour  was 
Laken  by  mistake  by  C.  B  refusing  to  re- 
ceive the  residue,  C  received  it,  and  paid 
for  the  whole.  This  was  a  conversion  by 
A  sufficient  to  support  trover  by  B.  Bul- 
lard  V.  Young   (Ala.),   3  Stew.  46. 

2.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lampley,  76 
Ala.   357,   52   Am.    Rep.   334. 

3.  Buliard  v.  Young  (Ala.),  3  Stew.  46; 
Johnson  v.  Strader,  3  Mo.  355;  Packard  v. 
Getman  (N.  Y.),  6  Cow.  757,  16  Am.  Dec. 
475;  S.  C,  4  Wend.  613,  21  Am.  Dec.  166. 

4.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  48 
Ga.  85. 

5.  Delivery  after  notice  to  stop  in  tran- 
situ.—Rosenthal  V.  Weir,  170  X.  Y.  148,  63 
X.   E.  65,  57  L.   R.  A.  527. 

6.  Joinder  of  action. — Robertson  v.  At- 


lantic, etc.,   R.   Co,  148  N.   C.  323,   62  S.   E. 
413;    Rcvisal    1905,    §    2632. 

7.  Jurisdiction  and  venue. — See  post, 
'"Loss   of  an  Injury  to  Goods,"    Chapter   12. 

Georgia  statute. — Burns  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  S.  E.  582,  6  Ga.  App.  614; 
Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merchants',  etc.. 
Bank,  73  S.  E.  637,  137  Ga.  391;  Ga.  Civ. 
Code  1910,  §  2798;  Ga.  Civ.  Code  1895,  § 
2334. 

If  one  delivers  a  commodity  to  a  car- 
rier for  shipment  from  one  county  to  an- 
other, and  the  commodity  is  never 
shipped,  and  the  evidence  authorizes  the 
inference  that  the  carrier  or  its  agents 
made  way  with  the  commodity  at  the 
point  where  it  was  delivered  to  the  car- 
rier, trover  and  conversion  may  be  main- 
tained against  the  carrier  in  the  county 
where  the  delivery  to  the  carrier  and  the 
conversion  took  place.  Southern  R.  Co. 
V.  Morrison,  8  Ga.  App.  647,  70  S.  E.  91. 

Express  companies. — Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  B.  R.  Elect.  Co.,  55  S.  E.  254,  126 
Ga.  472.     Civ.  Code,  1895,  §  2004. 

8.  Parties. — See  ante,  "Right  to  Main- 
tain   Action    against    Carrier,"    §§    809-811. 

9.  Statutory  form. — Southern  Exp.  Co. 
v.  Crook,  44  Ala.  468,  4  Am.   Rep.  140. 

10.  Repugnancy. — A  declaration  in  as- 
sumpsit against  a  common  carrier,  aver- 
ring a  verbal  agreement  that  goods  and 
chattels  were  to  be  delivered  according 
to  the  direction  of  the  plaintiff,  and  not 
to    the    consignee,    but    further    expressly 


583 


TRANSPORTATION    AND  DlvI.IVKRY   BY   CARRIER. 


§§    880-881 


A  prayer,  in  action  aj^ainst  a  carrier  for  conversion  of  goods,  is  defective 
where  it  iLjnorcs  evidence  that  may  he  considered  in  mitigation  of  damages. ^^ 

Construction  of  Petition.— Where  a  petition  can  he  construed  either  as  a 
s-uit  in  contract  or  as  an  action  for  hreach  of  (hity  arising  out  of  the  contract, 
the  hitter  construction  will  he  adopted. '- 

§  881.  Necessary  Allegations.— Plaintiff's  Interest.— A  complaint  in  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  should  show  plaintiff's 
ownershij)  in  the  goods  or  interest  in  the  contract  of  transportation. '•' 

That  Defendant  Common  Carrier. — The  complaint  must  allege  that  de- 
fcndaiU  is  a  coninion  carrier,  or  it  will  not  he  held  responsihle  in  that  char- 
acter." 

Reasonable  Time  for  Delivery. — The  complaint  must  show  either  that 
after  the  carrier  received  the  goods  to  be  transported  a  reasonable  time  has 
elapsed  for  lransi)ortation,  or  that  the  goods  have  been  transported  before  the 
demand  was  made.^"' 

As  to  Charges. — If  charges  were  to  be  paid  for  transportation,  it  must  be 
alleged,  or  the  agreement  will  be  presumed  to  be  without  consideration. ^^  The 
complaint  must  shov.'  either  that  the  defendant's  reasonable  freights  and  charges 
have  been  paid  or  ten<!ered,  or  that  a  reason  exists  for  not  having  done  so.^' 

Failure  to  Perform  Duty. — In  order  to  make  a  good  complaint,  the  aver- 
ments should  be  such  as  to  show  a  duty  or  obligation  resting  upon  the  carrier, 
and  a  violation  of  that  dutv,  or  a  failure  to  perform  the  obligation.'^     Where 


statint>-  that  sucli  vcrluil  asrccMuent  was 
subject  to  the  terms  and  conditions  of  a 
written  receipt  which  provided  that  the 
goods  and  chattels  were  to  be  delivered 
to  such  consignee,  is  demurrable  for  re- 
pugnancy. Thomas  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.  (Del.),  50  Atl.  385,  3  Pen.  81. 

11.  Seal)oard,  etc.,  Railway  v.  Pliillips, 
108  Md.  385,  70  Atl.  333,  holding  that  a 
prayer,  that  if  the  jury  found  for  plain- 
tiff to  allow  the  value  of  the  goods  shipped 
at  the  time  of  conversion  with  interest  in 
the  jury's  discretion,  was  defective  in  that 
it  ignored  evidence  tending  to  show  that 
the  carrier,  in  response  to  plaintiff's  de- 
mand for  a  return  of  the  goods,  had  them 
retransported  and  tendered  them  to  plain- 
tiff in  sul)stantially  the  same  condition  In 
which  it  had  received  them,  and  had 
thereafter  held  them  subject  to  plaintiff's 
order. 

12.  Construction  of  petition. — Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  T'.  Goodwin,  1  Ga.  App.  351, 
57  S.  E.  1070;  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago Portrait  Co.,  133  Ga.  11,  49  S.  E. 
727,  IOC)  Am.  St.  Rep.  87. 

13.  Plaintiffs  interest.— Galveston,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  z:  Borden  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  29  S. 
W.  1100. 

In  an  action  by  A  against  a  railroad 
company  for  damages  for  the  nondelivery 
to  B  of  goods  consigned  to  him  by  A,  the 
complaint  must  allege  either  that  A  was, 
and  continued  to  be.  or  that  the  con- 
signee, B,  was  not.  the  owner  of  the 
goods,  and  that  the  company  had  notice 
or  knowledge  of  .K's  continued  owner- 
ship, and  of  B's  want  of  title,  notwith- 
standing the  consignment  thereof.  Penn- 
sylvania  Co.  f.    HoUlcrman,  ()9   Ind.  18. 

Insufificient     complaint.  — In     an    action 


against  a  common  carrier  for  a  failure  to 
deliver  freight,  a  count  in  the  declaration 
employing  no  other  averment  of  owner- 
ship in  the  plaintiff  than  the  word  "claims" 
is  not  sufficient  on  demurrer.  Montgom- 
ery, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Edmonds,  41  Ala.  667. 
Sufficient  complaint. — If  a  complaint 
against  a  common  carrier,  for  failure  to 
carry  and  deliver  property,  shows  that 
the  property  was  bought  of  the  consignor 
by  the  plaintiff,  that  the  consignor  de- 
livered it  to  the  carrier,  and  that  the  car- 
rier executed  a  l)ill  of  lading  to  the  plain- 
tiff, but  failed  to  deliver  the  goods,  it  is 
sufficient.  Ohio,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Yone,  51 
Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep.  727. 

14.  That  defendant  common  carrier.— 
Bristoe  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  9   Barb.   \r>^. 

15.  Reasonable  time  for  delivery. — Jef- 
fersonvilk-,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Gent,  35  Ind.  39. 

16.  Allegation  as  to  charges. — Bristoe 
V.  Rensselaer,  etc..  R.  Co.  (X.  Y.,),  9  Barb. 
158. 

17.  Payment  or  tender  of  charges. — 
Jeffersonville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Gent,  35 
Ind.  39. 

18.  Lake  Erie,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Condon, 
10   Ind.  App.  536.  38  N.   E.  71. 

The  complaint,  in  an  action  against  a 
conuiion  carrier  tor  failure  to  deliver 
freight  at  its  destination,  is  demurrable 
where,  by  the  contract  of  shipment  set 
out,  the  defendant  only  agreed  to  deliver 
the  freight  to  a  connecting  carrier.  Lake 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Condon,  10  Ind.  App. 
536,  38  N.  E.  71. 

A  complaint  with  alleges  that  plain- 
tiff's decedent  entered  into  a  written  con- 
tract with  defendant  to  ship  his  house- 
hold goods,  cattle,  etc..  over  It  lines,  that 


§§  881-882 


CARRIERS. 


584 


the  petition  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  property  does  not 
mention  a  contract  to  notify  the  consignee  of  the  receipt  of  the  property  at  its 
destination,  or  allege  a  breach  of  such  condition,  plaintiff  can  not  recover  on 
the  ground  of  such  breach.^'-'  In  an  action  by  the  consignor  a  complaint  which 
alleges  merely  that  defendant  failed  to  deliver  the  goods  within  a  reasonable 
time  to  the  consignee  at  the  destination  is  demurrable;  it  should  allege  that  the 
goods  were  not  elsewhere  delivered  to  and  accc]5ted  by  the  consignee.-" 

Demand  and  Refusal  in  Action  for  Conversion. — A  petition,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  lor  conversion,  which,  with  proper  allegations  of  the  plaintift"s 
ownership  of  the  property  and  of  its  value,  avers  that  the  defendant  converted 
it  to  his  own  use,  states  a  cause  of  action.  It  is  not  necessary  to  allege  a  demand 
of  the  property  bv  the  plaintiff'  and  a  refusal  to  deliver  it  to  him  by  the  defend- 
ant.2i 

Immaterial  Averments. — In  a  complaint  upon  a  bill  of  ladmg  given  to  the 
consignor,  which  contains  a  clause  providing  that  the  goods  shall  be  delivered  on 
"presentation  of  duplicate  hereof,"  it  is  unnecessary  to  aver  the  reasons  that  in- 
fluenced, and  purposes  that  controlled,  the  shippers  or  the  carrier  in  inserting  the 
clause,  and  such  averments  do  not  add  anything  to  the  legal  eff'ect  of  the  bill  of 
lading.-- 

§  882.  Plea  or  Answer. — A  plea  seeking  to  avoid  liability  for  failure  to 
deliver  goods  because  of  a  special  contract  must  clearly  bring  the  defendant 
within  the  provision    of    the    contract.-^     As  in  other  civil  actions  a  plea  -■*   or 


defendant  furnished  decedent  a  car  on  a 
side  track  and  directed  him  to  load  his 
goods  therein,  and  that,  after  they  were 
loaded,  defendant,  without  notice  to  de- 
cedent, pulled  the  car  onto  its  main  track, 
where  it  was  negligently  struck  by  a 
freight  train  and  the  property  therein 
damaged,  and  setting  out  a  contract  in 
the  usual  form  of  a  bill  of  lading,  suffi- 
ciently shows  a  contract  for  carriage,  a 
compliance  with  the  contract  by  decedent, 
that  the  goods  were  received  for  trans- 
portation, and  the  carrier's  failure  to  carry 
and  deliver.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brown   (Ind.),  97. N.  E.  145. 

Under  the  Georgia  Code,  which  abol- 
ishes forms  of  action,  and  simply  requires 
a  plaintiff  to  set  forth  the  facts  which 
constitute  his  cause  of  action,  a  petition 
in  an  action  by  the  owner  of  bills  of  lad- 
ing to  recover  the  value  of  the  goods  rep- 
resented thereby  is  sufficient  to  sustain  a 
recovery  where  it  alleges  facts  which 
raised  a  duty  on  the  part  of  defendant, 
into  whose  possession  the  goods  came  by 
virtue  of  such  bills  of  lading,  to  properly 
deliver  them,  and  shows  a  breach  of  sucli 
duty  by  their  delivery  to  another,  1)y 
which  they  were  lost  to  plaintiff;  and  it 
is  not  material  whether  defendant's  lia- 
bility arises  upon  the  contracts  or  ex 
delicto.  Southern  R.  Co.  z^.  Atlanta  Nat. 
Bank,  112  Fed.  861,  50  C.  C.  A.  558,  36  L. 
R.  A.   546. 

19.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Darby,  28  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  229,  67  S.  W.  129. 

20.  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Holdcrman,  69 
Ind.  18. 

21.  Demand  and  refusal. — Baltimore, 
etc.,    R.    Co.   V.   O'Donnell,   49   O.    St.   489, 


33  N.  E.  4^6,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am. 
St.    Rep.    579. 

22.  Immaterial  averments. — Jefferson- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Irvin,  46  Ind.  180. 

23.  Plea  or  answer. — Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Price,  159  Ala.  213,   18  So.  814. 

A  carrier  defended  an  action  for  failure 
to  deliver  one  case  of  goods  included  in  a 
shipment  by  setting  up  in  a  special  plea 
lhe  terms  of  a  special  contract  under 
which  the  shipment  was  made,  avoiding 
liability  unless  claim  for  the  loss  or  dam- 
ages was  made  promptly  after  arrival,  and 
if  delayed  more  than  thirty  days  after  the 
delivery  of  the  property,  or  after  a  due 
time  for  delivery,  no  liability  would  be 
imposed  on  the  carrier.  The  shipment, 
minus  the  case,  was  delivered  February 
27th.  and  claim  was  made  May  16th. 
Held,  tliat  the  plea  was  defective,  since, 
the  action  being  for  a  failure  to  deliver, 
the  plea  should  have  alle.gcd  that  no  claim 
was  made  within  thirty  days  after  due 
time  for  delivery.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
7.   Price,  159  Ala.  213,  48  So.  814. 

24.  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  misdelivery  of  goods,  where  the 
complaint  alleges  that  they  were  deliver- 
able to  the  order  of  plaintiffs,  who  de- 
livered the  l)ills  of  ladin.g  to  defendant 
witli  the  agreement  that  tlie  goods  were 
to  be  delivered  to  another  on  his  pay- 
ment for  the  same,  but  does  not  allege 
that  such  agreement  was  part  of  the  origi- 
nal contract  with  defendant,  or  that  the 
goods  were  marked  to  indicate  that  the 
price  was  to  be  collected,  a  plea  that  the 
agreement  was  with  defendant's  agent, 
who  was  acting  l)eyond  his  authority,  and 
as  plaintiffs',  and  not  defendant's,  agent,  is 
good,    since    in    sucli    case    his    failure    to 


585 


TRAXSPOKIATION    AXD  DKIJVF.RY    liV    CARRII:R. 


§§  882-883 


answer  -■'  which  states  facts  which  would  defeat  the  plaintiff's  action  is  suffi- 
cient, lint  an  answer  to  a  coni])laint  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  by  boat  ac- 
cording to  a  contract  which  excepted  the  dangers  of  canal  navigation,  averring 
an  inability  to  deliver  on  account  of  the  dangers  of  the  canal,  but  without  stat- 
ing what  such  dangers  were,  is  not  sufficient  on  special  demurrer.-'' 

Admission  of  Nondelivery. — Where  a  common  carrier  sued  for  nondelivery 
pleads  ouK  ihat  il  ikmt  received  the  goods,  this  is  an  admission  of  the  non- 
deli\ery.-' 

Answer  Curing  Petition. — If  a  petition  in  an  action  of  trover  against  a 
carrier  is  defective  in  not  positively  averring  a  conversion,  such  defect  is  cured 
by  the  answer,  which  denies  that  the  defendant  had  "converted  said  goods. "^'* 

§  883.  Issue,  Proof  and  Variance. — Issues. — Where  plaintiff  alleges 
that  defendant  received  goods  for  carriage,  but  neither  delivered  them  to  the 
consignee  nor  returned  them  to  plaintiff,  a  general  denial  puts  in  issue  both 
the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  defendant  and  their  nondelivery  by  it.-'' 

Proof. — Under  the  general  issue  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to 
deliver  goods  any  fact  or  circumstance  is  admissible  which  legitimately  tends  to 
rebut  plaintiff's  ])roof  upon  a  point  which  he  must  sustain  in  order  to  recover. •'" 
Under  the  general  issue  the  defendant  may  show  an  attempted  delivery,^*  or 
that  the  identical  goods  claimed  by  plaintiff  were  shipped  by  another  person,  who 
took  a  bill  of  lading  therefor,''-  or  that  when  the  consignee  demanded  the  goods 
he  had  no  bill  of  lading  and  refused  to  pay  the  invoice  price  of  the  goods  or  show 
his    ownership. •■'•■•      Where,    defendant    ])leads    specially    an    offer   to    deliver    the 


collect  before  delivery  could  not  bind  de- 
fendant. Cox  V.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
91  Ala.  'MKl.  s  So.  S24. 

Demurrable  plea. — .\  plea  by  a  carrier, 
sued  for  the  nondelivery  of  ^oods,  which 
alleges  that  before  it  ascertained  that  the 
same  was  intended  for  plaintifT,  the  plain- 
tiff had  left  the  United  States,  preventing 
the  carrier  from  delivering  the  goods  to 
him,  and  the  carrier  did  not  receive  in- 
structions from  him  to  deliver  the  gooas 
to  any  other  person,  was  demurrable  be- 
cause it  contained  no  matter  of  avoidance 
of  the  fulfillment  of  the  carrier's  contract, 
and  failed  to  show  an  attempt  by  notice 
through  the  mails  or  otherwise  to  effect  a 
delivery.  Broadwood  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co..   4l'  So.   iCi'.i.    MS   Ala.    IT. 

Special  plea  setting  up  fraud  of  ship- 
per and  mistake  of  agent. —  In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  by  a  shipper  for  its  fail- 
ure to  deliver  more  than  49  cases  of 
shoes,  when  55  cases  were  mentioned  in 
the  bill  of  lading,  defendant  answered  by 
a  special  plea  admitting  the  issuance  of 
a  bill  for  55  cases,  and  that  the  car  con- 
tained only  49  cases  on  its  arrival  at  des- 
tination, but  it  was  alleged  that  not  more 
than  49  cases  were  delivered  to  the  car- 
rier, and  that  the  reason  the  bill  \vas  is- 
sued for  55  cases  was  tliat  plaintiff  at- 
tempted to  defraud  defendant  by  falsely 
and  fraudulently  representing  to  its  agent 
at  the  point  of  shipment  that  he  had 
hauled  55  cases  to  the  station  and  placed 
that  many  in  the  car.  and  induced  the 
agent  to  sign  the  bill  of  lading  in  ques- 
tion. Held,  that  the  special  plea  fairly 
set  up  a  defense  of  mistake  on  the  part 
of    defendant's    agent.       Cohen     Bros.    v. 


Missouri,   K.    &  T.    Ry.   Co.   of   Texas,   44 
Tex.    Civ.   App.   381,   98   S.   W.   437. 

25.  Skinner  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12 
Iowa  191. 

In  replevin  by  a  consignee  to  recover 
goods  withheld  by  a  carrier,  the  petition 
stated  that  plaintiff  believed  the  goods 
had  l)een  damaged,  and  would  not  sign  a 
receipt  acknowledging  that  they  were  re- 
ceived in  good  order  till  he  had  an  op- 
portunity to  examine  them,  and,  because 
of  his  refusal  to  sign  a  receipt  in  good 
order,  the  carrier  had  refused  to  deliver 
them.  Held,  that  an  answer  denying  that 
plaintiff  claimed  that  the  goods  were  dam- 
aged at  the  time  he  applied  for  them,  and 
alleging  that  the  goods  were  tendered  on 
con(iition  that  consignee  sign  a  receipt 
usually  given  on  delivery  of  goods,  was 
sufticient.  Skinner  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
13    Iowa    191. 

26.  Woodworth  r.  McBride  (X.  Y.).  3 
Wend.   227. 

27.  Admission  of  nondelivery. — Hot 
Springs  R.   Co.  z\   Huduins.  42   .\rk.  4S5. 

28.  Answer  curing  petition. — Uouisville, 
etc..  R.  Co.  ■:■.  Lawson,  8S  Kv.  49G,  11  5. 
W.  511. 

29.  Issues. — Brooks  r.  Delaware,  etc., 
K.  Co..  ss  \.  V.  S.  '.tf.l. 

30.  Proof  under  general  issue. — Wells, 
Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Hanson,  41  Tex.  Civ.  ,\pp. 
174,^91  S.  W.  321. 

31.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montmollen, 
:{9  So.  820,  145  Ala.  468,  117  Am.  St. 
Rep.   58. 

32.  Evart  v.  The  Lowndes,  5  La.  Ann. 
42(i. 

33.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  McCool, 
1C.7  Ala.  644,  52  So.  656. 


§§  883-884  CARRIERS.  586 

goods,  on  payment  of  freight,  plaintitif,  under  a  general  denial,  may  prove 
that  the  otter  was  accompanied  by  a  demand  for  the  bill  of  lading.^'*  Evidence 
of  damages  sustained  by  plaintilt,  by  reason  of  the  existence  of  special  cir- 
cumstances, is  inadmissible,  unless  the  complaint  alleges  that  the  carrier  had 
konwledge  of  such  circumstances,  or  that  the  refusal  to  deliver  was  wanton 
and  willful. ■''•"' 

Failure  of  Proof. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  wrongful  delivery, 
where  there  is  no  proof  that  the  carrier  delivered  the  goods  without  the  pres- 
entation of  the  bill  of  lading,  as  was  alleged,  a  verdict  for  the  plaintiff  will 
not  be  sustained. ^"^  Where  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  conversion,  it 
appeared  that  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover  for  a  portion  of  the  goods,  the 
fact  that  the  goods  were  of  different  weights  and  classification,  and  that  it  was 
not  shown  what  the  Vv-eight  and  classification  of  the  recoverable  portion  was, 
did  not  constitute  a  failure  of  proof  as  to  value,  since  the  value  might  be  re- 
garded as  a  fractional  part  of  the  entire  value,  the  burden  being  on  the  carrier 
to  show  that  goods  recoverable  were  less  than  the  average  value,  if  such  was 
the  case.-''" 

Variance. — The  plaintiff'  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  misdelivery  or 
nondelivery  can  not  recover  where  there  is  a  fatal  variance  between  the  al- 
legations and  the  proofs,  as  where  there  is  a  variance  between  the  nature  and 
elements  of  the  cause  of  action,  or  substantial  departure  from  the  issues  as 
to  some  material  matter.  So,  there  can  be  no  recovery  where  the  complaint 
alleges  facts  constituting  a  common-law  liability,  and  the  evidence  shows  a 
special  contract,-"^  or  in  an  action  for  nondelivery,  upon  proof  that  the  article 
was  delivered,  so  damaged  as  to  be  worthless.^^  Where  plaintiff  sues  merely 
for  negligent  failure  to  deliver  under  a  contract  of  carriage,  he  can  not  re- 
cover as  for  an  unlawful  taking."*"  And  if  a  shipper  sues  for  conversion  and 
fails  to  establish  the  offense,  his  action  must  fail  unless  his  complaint  states 
facts  necessary  to  a  recovery  on  the  contract  or  some  other  proper  form  of 
recovery."*  1  But  there  is  no  material  variance  between  allegation  that  plain- 
tiff drew  a  draft  on  a  proposed  purchaser  of  the  goods  with  bill  of  lading 
attached  and  proof  that  the  draft  was  drawn  in  the  name  of  plaintiff's  prin- 
cipal."*- And  proof  that  the  carrier  received  and  was  paid  for  transporting 
property,  and  that  it  w'as  not  delivered  on  a  proper  demand,  supports  an  alle- 
gation that  the  carrier  received  the  property,  agreed  to  deliver  it,  and  neglected 
to  do  so."*-^ 

§§   884-887.  Evidence— §  884.  Presumptions   and  Burden  of  Proof. 

— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods,  proof  of  the  de- 
livery of  the  goods  to  the  carrier  for  transportation,  and  of  their  nondelivery, 
shows  a  prima  facie  right  in  ])laintiff  to  recover."*^ 

34.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Booton,  4  Texas  R.  Co.  v.  Dahlberg  Brokerage  Co.,  170 
App.   Civ.   Cas.,   §  230,  15  S.  W.  909.  Ala.  617,  54  So.  168. 

35.  Special  damages. — Silver  v.  Kent,  43.  Lane  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112 
60  Miss.   124.  Mass.   455. 

36.  Failure  of  proof. — Sout'iern  R.  Co.  44.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof. 
V.   Kinchen,   10.3   Ga.   186,  29   S.   E.  816.  — Cohen  v.  Southern   Exp.    Co.,  53  Ga.  128. 

37.  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  San  Antonio,  See  post,  "Loss  of  or  Injury  to  Goods," 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    97    Tex.    201,    77    S.    W.    410,  Chapter    12. 

modifying  judgment  72  S.  W.  1033.  "A    carrier     of    parcels     for     hire     who 

38.  Material  variance. — Hall  v.  Pennsyl-  agrees  to  deliver  a  telescope  bag  at  a 
vania  Co.,  90  Ind.  459;  Bartlett  v.  Pitts-  railroad  passenger  station  in  time  for  the 
burgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  Ind.  281.  owner  to  take  a  particular  train  and  gives 

39.  Midd  V.  Wells,   11  Wis.  407.  a  claim  check  therefor  is   required  to  af- 

40.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Palmer,  48  fix  a  duplicate  check  to  the  baggage  and 
Ga.  85.  to  deliver  the  same  at  the  baggage  room 

41.  Taugher  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  or  other  usual  place  of  deposit  of  bag- 
N.  Dak.  Ill,  129  N.  W.  747.  gage  at  the  depot;  and  in  an  action  to  re- 

42.  Immaterial  variance. — Atlantic,  etc.,       cover    for    nondelivery,    proof   by   plaintiff 


587 


TRANSPORTATKJX    AXO  DIlMNKKY   UV   CARRlKR. 


§  884 


Delivery  to  Carrier. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver 
goods,  llic  plainlili'  must  show  that  the  goods  were  in  the  carrier's  possession 
for  transportation ;  •»•"'  but  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  that  goods  re- 
ceipted for  were  not  in  fact  received.^"  Where  it  rebuts  the  prima  facie  liability 
arising  from  tlie  issuaiuc  of  a  bill  of  lading,"*'  the  plaintiff  has  the  burden  of 
jiroN  ini^  tliai  ilie  .i^oods  wore  actually  delivered  to  the  carrier.-*** 

Nondelivery  by  Carrier.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to 
deliver  goods  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation  the  plaintiff  has  the  burden  of 
proving  the  nondelivery, •*'•'  although  slight  proof  thereof  is  sufficient  to  cast 
on  the  carrier  the  burden  of  showing  delivery.^^  A  carrier  admitting  the  re- 
ceipt of  goods  has  the  burden  of  proving  delivery  therer>f  by  a  preponderance 
of  the  evidence."'' 

Excuse  for  Nondelivery. — The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  carrier  to  show 
an  excuse  for  iKMidclivery  of  property  which  it  is  proved  to  have  received  for 
transporlation.''-     And  where  no  explanation  is  given  for  its  failure  to  deliver. 


'lIkiI  he  iiKiuircd  at  the  haggagc  room  of 
the  persons  in  charge  thereof,  and  at  a 
proper  time  for  his  baggage,  and  was  un- 
able to  get  it,  makes  a  prima  facie  case 
which  entitles  him  to  recover,  unless  met 
with  evidence  of  equal  weight;  but  the 
l)urdcn  of  proof  docs  not  shift  from  the 
plaintiff  to  the  defendant."  Ziegler  7'. 
Freeman,  12  O.  C.  C,  N.  S.,  122,  21-31 
O.   C.   D.   342. 

45.  Delivery  to  carrier. — Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Allison,  115  Ga.  (535,  42  S.  E.  15; 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Hanson,  41  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  174,  91  S.  W.  321.  See  Cohen  r. 
Rome    R.   Co.,  45   (ia.   293. 

The  plaintiff  need  not  show  that  a  bill 
of  lading  was  issued,  if  the  delivery  of  the 
goods  for  sliipment  is  shown.  Alabama 
Mid.  R.  Co.  z:  Darby.  24  So.  713.  119  Ala. 
531. 

Necessity  for  showing  contract  of 
transportation. — In  an  action  against  an 
express  company  for  the  conversion  of 
plaintiff's  property,  where  the  fact  of  de- 
fendant's possession  and  conversion  were 
properly  alleged  and  proved,  it  was  not 
necessary  for  plaintiff  to  show  the  con- 
tract under  which  the  property  had  been 
received  by  defendant  for  transportation. 
Girardeau  v.  Southern  I{xp.  Co.,  26  S.  F,. 
711.    48    S.    C.    421. 

Where  the  owner  carries  away  a  por- 
tion of  the  goods  left  at  a  freight  depot, 
without  orders  where  they  should  be  car- 
ried, he  must  show  wdiat  was  retained 
by  the  carrier.  Spade  v.  Hudson  River 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  16  Barb.  383. 

46.  The  Willie  D.  Sandhoval.  92  Fed. 
286.  See  Smith  v.  Austro-American  Steam- 
ship Co.,  125    La.  763,   51  So.   S41. 

47.  Rebuttal  of  presumption  arising 
from  bill  of  lading. — ^Where  a  shipper  of 
gciods  loaded  the  car  and  made  out  the  bill 
of  lading,  and  sent  it  to  the  carrier's  agent, 
who  signed  it,  relying  on  the  shipper  load- 
ing the  car  and  counting  the  articles  with- 
out verifying  the  sanle,  the  prima  facie 
liability    of    the    carrier    arising    from    the 


issuance  of  the  Ijill  of  lading  is  rebutted. 
Peele  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co..  149  X.  C. 
390,  63   S.    E.   66. 

48.  Peele  z:  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149 
X.    C.    390,    63    S.    E.    66. 

45.  Burden  of  proving  nondelivery. — 
r, lite  J  St, ites.— The  Falcon,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,617,    3    Blatchf.    64. 

.iriuvisas.— Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Morrison    (Ark.),    146    S.   W.    853. 

Illincis. —  sVoodbury  v.  I-rink,  14  ilT. 
279. 

Louisiana. — Sehneideau  &  Co.  z:  Penn- 
ington,  21    La.   Ann.   299. 

Mississippi. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Provine,   61   Aliss.   288. 

Xt-zi'  J'o»7.'.— Roberts  r.  Chittenden,  88 
X".  Y.  33;  compare  Schroeder  z'.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  55. 

Nondelivery  to  only  one  consignee 
shown. — Wliere  the  liill  of  lading  specifies 
that  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered  to  L. 
or  Z.,  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for 
nondelivery,  it  is  not  enough  for  the  ship- 
per to  show  nondelivery  to  L.,  but  he 
must  also  give  some  evidence  of  nonde- 
livery to  Z.  So  held  in  The  Falcon,  Fed. 
Cas.   Xo.   4,617,   3    Rlatchf.   64. 

Plea  as  admission  of  nondelivery  to  con- 
signee.— When  in  an  action  against  a  rail- 
road, as  a  common  carrier,  for  nondelivery 
of  goods  to  a  consignee,  it  pleads,  only, 
that  it  never  received  the  goods,  this  is 
an  admission  of  the  nondelivery  to  the 
consignee,  and  proof  of  nondelivery  to 
the  consignee  is  not  necessary  to  entitle 
the  plaintiff  to  a  judgment.  Hot  Springs 
R.  Co.  z:  Hudgins,  42  Ark.  485.  18  Am.  & 
Eng.    R.    Cas.    643. 

50.  The  Falcon,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,617,  3 
Hlatchf.  64;  Woodbury  v.  Frink,  14  111. 
279;  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Provine,  61 
Miss.  2SS.  See  Smith  f.  Austro-American 
Steamship    Co.,    51    So.    841,    125    La.    763. 

51.  Dunie  z:  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  161 
X.  C.  520.  77  S.  E.  7.-.r,. 

52.  Excuse  for  nondelivery. — Georgia.— 
Purcell  z:   Southern   Exp.   Co..  34  Ga.   315. 

Louisiana. — Chapman    z'.    Xew    Orleans, 


§  884 


CARRIERS. 


588 


it  will  be  presumed  that  the  goods  are  still  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier  and 
withheld   from   the  owner."''' 

Misdelivery. — \\'here  the  carrier  delivers  the  goods  to  a  person  not  named 
ni  the  bill  of  lading  as  the  consignee,''"*  or  delivers  without  the  production  of 
the  bill  of  lading,''"'  or  without  the  consignor's  order,-''*'  it  has  the  burden  of 
proving  that  they  were  delivered  to  the  proper  person.  Where  the  carrier 
proves  facts  sufficient  to  raise  a  presumption  of  delivery  to  the  true  con- 
singee.^'  the  plaintitt  must  meet  this  presumption  by  a  preponderance  of  tes- 
timony."''^ \\'here  the  carrier  delivers  the  goods  at  a  place  other  than  that 
agreed  upon,  it  has  the  burden  of  showing  that  the  delivery  was  made  for  the 
account  of  the  shipper.''''  Where  a  wrongful  delivery  amounting  to  a  con- 
version by  the  carrier  is  shown,  it  is  incumbent  on  the  carrier,  if  it  desires 
to  show  a  return  in  mitigation  of  damages,  to  prove  both  the  identity  and  un- 
impaired condition  of  the  goods."" 

Notice. — A  vessel  has  the  burden  of  showing  that  notice  was  given  to  the 
consignee  of  the  place  where  the  vessel  was  to  discharge.'"'^  Where  a  consignee 
refuses  to  accept  perishable  goods,  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  its  in- 
ability to  notify  the  shipi^er  before  selling  the  goods  to  prevent  loss.*'^ 

Authority  of  Agent. — Where  a  contract  for  carraige  is  to  deliver  the  goods 
at  a  place  other  than  a  regular  station,  the  burden  is  on  the  shipper  to  show 
that  the  contract  was  made  with  an  agent  having  authority  to  make  it.*'^ 

Fraud  is  not  to  be  presumed  in  the  case  of  common  carriers,  where  there  is 
no  evidence  to  show  an  illegal  or  fraudulent  conversion  of  property  intrusted 
to   them   for  trriusportation,  but  not   delivered.''^ 

It  is  presumed  that  proper  instructions  were  given,  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  where  jjy  delivery  to  a  connecting  carrier,  defendant 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  La.  Ann.  224,  99  Am.  Dec. 
722. 

Missouri. — Hanmiett  v.  Wabash  R.  Co., 
128  Mo.  App.  1,   106  S.  W.   1106,   1107. 

N'ev.'  Hampshire. — Shelden  v.  Robinson, 
7   N.   H.   157,  26   Am.   Dec.    726. 

Where  a  carrier  converts  property, 
claiming  it  as  its  own,  plaintiff  proves  his 
cause  of  action  by  showing  delivery  for 
transportation,  the  burden  being  then 
cast  on  the  carrier  to  show  that  it  re- 
ceived the  goods  in  good  faith  under  mis- 
take of  fact  as  to  plaintiff's  ownership, 
and  that  it  is  the  true  owner.  Valentine 
V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  79  N.  E.  849,  187 
N.  Y.  121,  reversing  92  N.  Y.  S.  645,  102 
App.  Div.  419. 

53.  Adams  Exp.  Co..  v.  Holmes  (Pa.), 
9  Atl.    166,   6    Sad.   167. 

54.  Misdelivery. — Florence,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Jensen,  48  Colo.  28,  108  Pac.  974; 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spires,  57  S.  E. 
973,   1   Ga.  App.   22. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  on  a  con- 
tract to  carry  and  deliver  goods,  where 
plaintiff  proved  that  both  the  consignor 
and  consignee  were  its  agents,  and  showed 
that  defendant  delivered  the  goods  to  a 
stranger,  and  defendant's  answer  alleged 
that  it  delivered  the  goods  to  the  right- 
ful owner  thereof,  the  burden  is  on  de- 
fendant to  show  such  ownership.  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Molinc  Plow  Co.,  13 
Ind.  App.  225,  41    X.    E.  480. 

Where  it  is  claimed  that  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing   was    procured    by    fraud,    the    carrier 


must  show  that  fact  before  it  can  dis- 
regard its  directions.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Spires,  57  S.  E.  973,  1  Ga.  App.  22. 

55.  National  Bank  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    25.  S.    C.    216. 

56.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dvihlbero 
Brokerage    Co.,    170   Ala.    617,    54   So.    168. 

57.  Proof  that  a  person  professing  to 
be  the  consignee  of  a  money  package  was 
identified  by  a  trustworthy  person  as  the 
proper  consignee  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  person  charged  with  the  delivery, 
about  the  time  such  consignee  was  ex- 
pected to  call  for  such  a  package,  and 
told  the  person  delivering  to  write  his 
name  in  the  receipt  book,  is  sufficient  to 
raise  a  presumption  of  a  proper  delivery 
to  the  true  consignee.  Ten  Eyck  v.  Har- 
ris, 47   111.   268. 

58.  Ten  Eyck  v.  Harris,  47  111.  268. 

59.  Gilkinson  v.  The  Scotland,  14  La. 
Ann.  417.  See  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Potts  &  Co.,  71  N.  E.  685,  33  Ind.  .A.pp. 
b54. 

60.  Seaboard,  etc..  Railway  v.  Phillips, 
108   Md.   285,   70  Atl.   232. 

61.  Notice.— The  Prince  Albert,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,426,  5   Ben.  386. 

62.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McKenzie, 
139  Ga.  410,  77  S.  E.  647,  45  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,    18. 

63.  Authority  of  agent. — Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Swanson,  92  Miss.  485,  46  So.  83. 

64.  Fraud. — Brehme  v.  Dinsmore,  25 
Md.  328. 


589 


TKAXSI'ORTATiOX    AND   UKUIVKKV    I',V   CARRlKR. 


§§  884-886 


carrier's   liability   terminated    provided    it   gave   proper   instructions   to   the   con- 
necting carrier."'"' 

§  88  5.  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill  of  Lading. — In  an  action  against 
ship  owners  lor  a  .sum  acku(j\viedged  to  he  due  for  nondelivery  of  goods,  the 
production  of  the  bill  o\   lading  is  not  essential.''*' 

§  886.  Admissibility  of  Evidence. — As  a  general  rule,  in  an  action 
against  llic  carrier  any  fact  (jr  circumstance  which  is  relevant  to  the  issues  as 
made  b\'  the  pleadings  is  admissible.*'"  So  evidence  of  the  carrier's  mode  of 
dealing''"^    and    of    the    ])laintilT"s    ac(|uiescence    therein/'-'    that    the   i)laintiff   had 


65.  Hempstead  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.   (N.  Y.).  28  Barb.  48,'). 

66.  Necessity  of  producing  bill  of  lad- 
ing.~.\\\vill  7'.  .Xixoii  (L'.  S.),  4  Wall. 
572,   18    L.    l'".(l.  ;!().-.. 

67.  Admissibility  of  evidence — Illustra- 
tions.— Where  an  issue  was  whether  a  rail- 
road company  had  delivered  to  a  con- 
signee all  the  goods  it  had  received  from 
the  consignor,  evidence  that  the  car  was 
sealed  at  the  loading  point  and  remained 
sealed  until  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the 
consignee  is  admissible.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Simonson,  68  Pac.  653,  64  Kan. 
802.  57  L.  R.  A.  765,  91  Am.  St.   Rep.  248. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
to  recover  the  value  of  goods  not  deliv- 
ered, the  evidence  of  a  witness,  who  gives 
the  particular  facts  of  his  knowledge,  and 
states  tiiat  the  goods  were  carefully 
packed,  and  that  he  saw  them  taken  away 
by  the  drayman,  and  saw  the  bills  of  lad- 
ing after  they  were  signed,  is  proper  for 
the  consideration  of  the  jury.  Scholes  v. 
.\ckerland,   15   111.  474. 

In  an  action  by  a  consignor  to  recover 
from  a  railroad  company  the  amount  of 
a  sight  draft  attached  to  a  bill  of  lading, 
drawn  on  the  consignee  of  certain  lumber 
to  be  delivered  on  payment  of  the  draft, 
and  which  plaintiff  alleged  defendant  had 
delivered  witliout  such  payment,  defend- 
ant could  sliow  that  the  luml)cr  was  so  in- 
ferior to  the  lumber  contracted  for  that 
the  payments  already  made  covered  the 
value  of  the  entire  amount  shipped,  and 
that  there  was  therefore  no  balance  due 
plaintiff.  Stearns  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co., 
Ill   N.  W.  709,  148  Mich.  271. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  an  express 
company  for  failing  to  deliver  plaintiff's 
trunk,  it  was  shown  that  a  trunk  answer- 
ing the  description  of  plaintiff's  and  con- 
taining the  same  list  of  articles  and  a 
l)Ook  with  plaintiff's  name  was  found  in 
a  railway  baggage  room  at  another  sta- 
tion, the  burden  being  on  plaintiff  to  prove 
a  delivery  of  the  trunk  to  the  express 
compan3%  it  was  error  to  refuse  to  per- 
mit the  latter  to  ask  plaintiff  on  cross- 
examination  whether  he  had  not  brought 
a  ticket  to  tlio  station  where  the  trunk 
was  found  and  checked  the  trunk  on  such 
ticket,  instead  of  delivering  it  to  defend- 
?nt.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  x'.  Hanson,  41 
Tex.  Civ.  .Xpp.   174.  91   S.  W.  321. 


Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  conversion  of  corn  by  a  sale  after 
rejection  l)y  the  consignee,  the  issue  was 
sharply  drawn  as  to  whether  the  corn  was 
No.  2  mixed  corn  when  loaded  at  the 
point  of  shipment,  evidence  that  the  corn 
was  part  of  another  carload,  the  balance 
of  whicli  witness  sold  as  No.  2  corn  to 
dealers  at  the  point  of  shipment,  and  that 
no  complaint  had  ever  been  made  by  any 
of  the  purchasers  of  the  same  was  not 
irrelevant.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ar- 
kansas, etc.,  Grain  Co.,  95  S.  W.  656,  42 
Tex.   Civ.  App.   125. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  con- 
version of  freight,  based  on  a  refusal  to 
deliver  without  payment  of  excessive 
charges,  evidence  that  the  carrier  claimed 
a  specified  sum  to  be  the  true  rate  per 
hundred  pounds  on  the  shipment  was  ad- 
missible to  show  what  rate  had  been  de- 
manded. Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),    156   S.   W.    207. 

Evidence  of  custom. — Where  a  railroad 
company  gives  a  receipt  for  freight  to  be 
delivered  to  its  agent  at  the  terminus  of 
the  road,  and  the  agent  there  deposits  it 
in  a  warehouse  not  belonging  to  the  com- 
pany, evidence  of  its  custom  to  deposit 
freight  in  that  warehouse  is  admissible  in 
behalf  of  the  company  in  an  action  against 
it  for  the  loss  of  the  shipment.  Alabama 
&  T.  R.  R.   Co.  f.  Kidd.  29  Ala.  221. 

68.  Mode  of  dealing. — ^Ridgway  Grain 
Co.  f.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  228  Pa.  641, 
77  Atl.  1007,  31  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1178; 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Williams,  54  Ala. 
168,  holding  that  where  the  carrier  pro- 
dues  in  evidence  the  receipt  of  the  con- 
signee for  the  goods,  it  may  be  shown 
that  its  course  of  dealing  was  to  demand 
and  receive  paj'ment  of  freight  and  a  re- 
ceipt  for  the   goods  before   tiieir   delivery. 

In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany to  recover  the  value  of  a  package 
which  it  failed  to  deliver,  it  was  not  error 
to  admit  testimony  as  to  the  refusal  of 
the  company  to  deliver  a  like  package  to 
one  other  than  the  consignee  at  a  differ- 
ent time  and  a  different  office,  where  the 
court  limited  it  to  the  proof  of  the  course 
of  dealing  between  the  parties.  Adams 
F.xp.  Co.  r.   Gordon.  27  O.  C.  C.  243. 

69.  Acquiescence  of  plaintiff. — Ridgway 
Grain  Co.  z\  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co..  77  Atl. 
1007,  228  Pa.  641,  3i   L.  R.  A.,   N.  S..  1178. 


§  886 


CARRIERS. 


590 


never  received  the  goods." ^^  that  he  had  never  been  paid  for  then^i  or  what 
freight  charges  he  had  paid/^  jg  admissible  when  relevant  to  any  fact  to  be 
ascertained  by  the  jury.  An  objection  is  properly  sustained  to  a  question  to  a 
witness  calling  for  a  comparison  that  could  be  made  as  well  by  the  jury.'-^ 

In  an  action  for  conversion  of  goods  evidence  tending  to  show  that  de- 
fendant carrier  is  in  possession  of  the  property  sued  for  and  exercising  owner- 
ship over  it  is  admissible."-*  In  such  an  action  the  plaintiff  may  prove  that  he 
has  paid  for  the  goods." ^  Evidence  of  what  the  carrier  did  after  it  had  con- 
verted the  goods  is  immaterial."*^  And  an  oft'er  of  an  attorney  for  defendant 
carrier  to  settle,  made  after  suit  brought,  is  inadmissible  where  no  tender  of 
payment  of  anv  damages  was  made.'"  In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany for  conversion  by  the  sale  of  property  in  its  possession  belonging  to  plain- 
tiff',' testimony  as  to  the  rules  of  the  company  regarding  sales  of  unclaimed 
property  was' properly  excluded  where  the  sale  in  question  was  not  made  under 
the  statute  regulating  the  sale  of  unclaimed  property  by   express  companies."'^ 

Res  Inter  Alios. — Evidence  which  relates  to  the  transaction  forming  the 
basis   of  the  action   and   tends   to   throw  light   upon   its   true  character  may  be 


70.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  deliver  freight,  evidence  that  the 
consignees  had  never  received  the  freight 
was  admissible,  as  tending  to  show  that 
it  had  never  been  delivered  at  the  station, 
as  the  contract  of  shipment  provided. 
Alabama  Mid.  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  32 
So.   672,   134  Ala.  232. 

71.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Allison,  42  S.  E. 
15.    115    Ga.    635. 

72.  In  an  action  for  failure  to  deliver 
a  case  of  goods  included  in  a  shipment 
which  was  delivered,  evidence  of  what 
freight  charges  consignor  had  paid  on  the 
case  is  admissible.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Price,  159  Ala.  213,  48   So.   814. 

73.  A  bank  delivered  money  to  an  ex- 
press company  for  shipment.  When  the 
package  arrived  at  its  destination,  the 
consignee,  on  opening  it,  found  nothing 
therein  but  waste  paper.  In  an  action  by 
the  consignee  against  the  carrier  for  non- 
delivery, the  carrier's  contention  was  that 
the  money  was  never  delivered  to  it.  To 
support  this  contention  it  was  shown  that 
pieces  of  paper  found  in  the  package 
when  it  was  delivered  to  plaintiff  dis- 
closed certain  stains.  The  color  of  the 
panels  of  the  counter  in  the  bank  was 
then  shown.  The  stains  on  the  paper 
were  tobacco  stains.  Held,  that  an  ob- 
jection to  a  question  as  to  whether  the 
color  of  the  bank  panels  was  similar  to 
the  color  of  the  stains  on  the  paper  was 
properly  sustained.  Bank  v.  American 
Exp.   Co.,   102   N.  W.   107,   127   Iowa   1. 

74.  Action  for  conversion. — Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Britton,  149  Ala.  552,  43  So. 
108. 

Illustrations. — Evidence  is  adinissible 
to  show  that  the  carrier's  claim  agent 
showed  witness  that  plaintiff's  goods 
were  in  the  box  addressed  to  plaintiff, 
which  the  agent  said  belonged  to  plaintiff 
and  offered  to  sell  to  witness.  Lou'isville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Britton,  149  Ala.  552,  43  So. 
108. 

A   consignor   sent  by   an   association    of 


railroad  companies,  of  which  the  defena- 
ant  was  one,  a  car  load  of  oats,  weighing 
23,667  pounds,  to  be  forwarded  to  a  sta- 
tion beyond  the  line  of  the  defendant's 
road,  and  received  from  the  transit  com- 
pany a  bill  of  lading,  which  he  sent  to 
the  consignee,  in  which  the  oats  were 
stated  to  weigh  20,000  pounds.  The  con- 
signee paid  the  consignor  for  the  full 
contents  of  th«  car.  In  an  action  by  the 
consignee  against  the  defendant  for  the 
conversion  of  that  portion  of  the  grain 
removed,  the  freight  agent  of  the  defend- 
ant testified  that  he  removed  on  behalf 
of  the  defendant  the  excess  of  oats  above 
20,000  pounds  at  the  end  of  the  defend- 
ant's road.  Held,  that  the  testimony  was 
competent  on  the  question  of  conversion. 
Wiggin  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  120  Mass. 
201. 

75.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
the  conversion  of  a  part  of  a  car  load  of 
grain  in  bulk,  the  consignee,  on  the  ques- 
tion of  title,  may  prove  that  he  has  paid 
for  the  entire  car  load.  Peebles  v.  Bos- 
ton,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   112   Mass.   498. 

76.  Where  grain  shipped  is  converted 
by  a  carrier  in  delivering  it  to  the  con- 
signee without  presentation  of  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  thereafter  is  redelivered  to 
the  carrier  and  by  it  stored  in  a  ware- 
house, evidence,  in  an  action  for  conver- 
sion, that  it  was  customary  for  the  car- 
rier to  store  grain  in  a  warehouse  while 
awaiting  demand  of  the  bill  of  lading  is 
immaterial;  and  evidence  that  after  the 
conversion  plaintiff  was  notified  from 
time  to  time,  and  knew  that  the  grain  was 
in  a  certain  place  at  his  final  disposal,  is 
also  immaterial.  Marshall,  etc..  Grain  Co. 
V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  S.  W.  638, 
176  Mo.  480,  98  Am.  St.  Rep.   508. 

77.  Offer  to  settle.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cleburne  Ice,  etc.,  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
79  S.  W.  836. 

78.  Girardeau  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  26 
S.  E.  711,  48  S.  C.  421. 


591  TRANSPORTATJfiX    AM)  DIXIVKRV   15V   CARRIER.  §    886 

regarded  as  res  gestrc  and  is  adiiiissiljle,  though  in  a  certain  sense  it  is  res  inter 
aHos.'-' 

Waybills  as  Self- Serving  Declarations. — Waybills  relating  to  goods  are 
not  admissihlc  in  lichalf  of  the  defendant  carrier  as  they  merely  amount  to 
declarations  of  the  defendant  in  its  own   favor. '^'^ 

Documentary  Evidence. — A  sales  bill  reciting  a  purchase  by  plaintiff  of 
the  goods  from  a  vendor  is  admissible  in  evidence,  though  it  is  not  shown  by 
whom  it  was  made  out,  where  the  eviflence  tends  to  show  that  it  was  received 
by  ])laintiff,  and  that  he  had  paid  it.^^  But  a  bill  of  lading  is  not  admissible 
on  behalf  of  the  endorsee  where  there  is  no  proof  of  the  endorsement. ^- 

Parol  Evidence. — Words  or  forms  of  expression,  in  a  carrier's  receipt  for 
goods,  which  are  not  of  universal  use,  but  are  purely  local  or  technical,  may 
be  explained  by  parol  evidence.^-''  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  non- 
delivery of  goods  consigned  beyond  the  terminus  of  its  route  unaccompanied 
by  any  directions  as  to  their  transportation  and  delivery,  parol  evidence  in  its 
behalf  is  admissible  to  show  the  route  and  termini,  and  the  usage. of  the  carrier, 
and  the  knowledge  of  the  consignor  of  these  matters,  as  entering  into  the  con- 
tract, though  the  defendant  is  prima  facie  liable  for  the  carriage  and  delivery 
of  the  goods  according  to  the  marks. ''^■*  A\'here  in  such  an  action  the  plaintiff's 
employee  had  proved  the  receipt  for  the  goods,  and  stated,  without  objection, 
the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  given  to  him,  the  carrier  may  introduce 
evidence  as  to  the  circumstances  under  which  it  gave  the  receipt,*^  But  where 
a  bill  of  lading  expressly  stipulates  for  delivery  to  the  consignor  or  his  assigns, 
evidence  that,  according  to  the  rules  and  customs  of  all  railroads,  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing, written  as  it  was,  would  be  considered  to  authorize  delivery  by  the  carrier 
to  the  consignee  without  production  or  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading,  is  in- 
admissible.^'' 

Character  of  Employees. — In  an  action  against  an  express  company  for  a 
failure  to  deliver  money  consigned  to  it,  evidence  of  the  good  moral  character  of 
its  employees  is  inadmissible.**" 

Evidence  of  Prior  Losses. — In  an  action  by  the  consignee  against  an  express 
coni])an\-  for  its  failure  to  deliver  money,  evidence  that  several  months  before 
the  transaction  in  question  the  consignor  had  been  losing  money  through  the  theft 
of  some  of  its  em])loyees  is  incompetent.^^ 

Evidence  that  an  employee  must  ultimately  make  good  the  loss  under 

79.  Res  inter  alios.— Seaboard,  etc..  Rail-  83.  Parol  evidence. — Collender  v.  Dins- 
way  V.  Phillips,  108  Md.  285.  70  Alt.  232,  more,  5.5  X.  Y.  200,  14  Am.  Rep.  224.  re- 
which  was  an  action  for  conversion  of  versin.tj  04  Barb.  457.  wherein  plaintiff 
goods  shipped,  holding  that  a  series  of  shipped  with  defendant  merchandise 
letters  and  telegrams  which  passed  be-  marked  with  the  name  and  address  of 
tween  defendant  carrier  and  another,  who  the  consignee,  and  the  additional  direc- 
jointly  issued  the  bill  of  lading;  touching  tion,  "C.  O.  D.  $375,  from  Turner's  Ex- 
the  handling  and  movement  of  the  goods  press,  Boston,  Mass."  In  an  action 
while  in  the  possession  of  one  or  the  against  defendant  for  neglecting  to  col- 
other  of  the  carriers,   was  admissible.  lect   of   Turner's    Express,   held,   that    evi- 

80.  Self-serving  declarations. — Southern  dence  was  admissible  to  show  the  com- 
R.  Co.  7'.  Allison.   11.">  C.A.  (las,  42  S.  E.  15.  mon    meaning    of    the    letters    "C.    O.    D." 

81.  Documentary  evidence. — Louisville,       liut    not    of   the    remaining   words. 

etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Britton,  39  So.  585,  145  Ala.  84.  Angle  &  Co.  v.   Mississippi,  etc.,  R. 

654.  Co.,  9  Iowa  487. 

82.  Proof  of  indorsement.— Capehart  v.  85.    Scovill  v.  Griffith,  12  N.  Y.  509. 
Granite  Mills,  '.»7  Ala.  353,  12  So.  44,  hold-  86.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Nash- 
ing   that    where    it    appeared    that    on    the  ville,    etc..    Railway    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),   79 
l)ack  of  the  bill  of  lading  was  written  the  S.  W.   1094. 

name  of  the  firm  to  whom  it  was  issued,  87.     Character    of    employees.— Bank    z\ 

"per  P.  C,  Atty.,"  who  was  a  member  of  American    Exp.    Co.,    102    N.    \V.    107,    127 

the  firm,  and  there  was  no  evidence  that  Towa  1. 

P.   C,  or  any  other  member  of  the   firm,  88.    Evidence  of  prior  losses. — Bank  ?•. 

made      the     indorsement,     there     was      no  American    Exp.    Co.,    102    N.    W.    107,    127 

proof  of  indorsement.  Iowa  1. 


§§  886-887  CARRIERS.  592 

a  bond  given  by  him  on  entering  his  employment  is  inadmissible,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  misdelivery  of  goods,  as  affecting  the  carrier's  liability, 
though  such  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  the  interest  of  the  employee  as  a 
witness.^"' 

Evidence  as  to  what  transportation  lines  carried  the  goods  and  the 
efforts  plaintiff  made  to  find  them,  is  not  prejudicial  to  defendant,  in  an 
action  against  a  transportation  company  for  failure  to  deliver  cotton  at  the  place 
designated  in  the  bill  of  lading,  where  there  is  no  claim  that  the  cotton  was 
delivered  to  any  one  at  that  place.'"' 

§  887.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence.— Degree  of  Proof.— Where 

a  carrier  is  sought  to  be  charged  with  liability  for  delivering  goods  to  a  wrong 
person,  no  greater  degree  of  proof  is  required  of  the  authority  of  such  person  to 
receive  them  than  in  the  case  of  any  other  issue  in  a  civil  action.^i 

Proof  of  Conversion. — Proof  of  nondelivery  of  goods  by  a  carrier  without 
proof  of  wrongful  disposition  or  withholding,  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  a  con- 
version.»2  Evidence  that  goods  were  delivered  to  defendant,  and  that  he  re- 
fused to  deliver  them  to  plaintiff,  and  failed  to  account  for  them,  is  sufficient  to 
show  con  version. ^-"^  And  the  general  and  unqualified  refusal  of  a  carrier  to 
deliver  goods  is  evidence  of  a  conversion. ^^ 

Evidence  of  Notice. — The  making  and  depositing  in  a  post  office  of  a  notice 
by  a  carrier  to  the  consignee  of  goods  is  not  sufficiently  shown  by  evidence  that 
it  was  the  regular  course  of  business  to  make  and  deposit  such  notices,  where  it 
appears  that  the  persons  w^hose  duty  it  was  to  make  and  deposit  them  had  no 
recollection  thereof,  and  there  was  no  memorandum  in  any  book  or  paper  in  the 
office  of  the  carrier  from  which  tlie  making  of  such  notice  could  be  verified.^^ 

Evidence  of  Title  and  Right  to  Goods. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
the  conversion  of  plaintiff's  goods,  a  sales  bill  reciting  purchase  by  plaintiff  of  the 
goods  from  a  shoe  company,  in  connection  with  evidence  that  it  was  paid,  showed 
title  in  plaintiff  and  his  right  to  immediate  possession  of  the  goods,  in  the  absence 
of  contrarv  evidence.^''' 

Evidence  That  Goods  Shipped  in  Good  Order.— In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  to  recover  the  value  of  goods  not  delivered,  the  evidence  of  a  witness,  who 
gives  the  particular  facts  of  his  knowledge,  and  states  that  the  goods  were  care- 
fully packed,  and  that  he  saw  them  taken  away  Ijy  the  drayman,  and  saw  the 
bills  of  lading  after  they  were  signed,  may  be  held  as  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  fact  that  they  were  shipped  and  in  good  order. s" 

Particular  instances  of  evidence  held  sufficient  or  insufficient  are  set  out  in 
the  notes. ''^ 

89.  Hamilton  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98.  Evidence  held  sufficient.— Tn  an  i.c- 
72  X.  W.  oSG,  103  Iowa  325.                                     tion   against   a   carrier   for   nondelivery   of 

90.  Capehart  v.  Granite  Mills,  97  Ala.  money,  evidence  of  the  delivery  of  the 
3.53,  12  So.  44.  money  to   the   carrier,   and   that   when   the 

91.  Degree  of  proof.— Wilcox  v.  Chi-  packajje  supposed  to  contain  it  was  de- 
cag-o,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  24  Minn.  269.  livered     to    the     consignee     it     contained 

92.'    Proof  of  conversion.— Rosenfeld  v.  nothing  but  waste  paper,  was  sufficient  to 

C'^ntral  Vermont  R.   Co..  97  N.  Y.  S.  905,  support   a   verdict    for    plaintiff.      Bank   v. 

Ill  App.  Div.  371.  .'\merican    Exp.    Co.,    102    N.    W.    107,    127 

93.     Suesskind-Schatz    Co.    v.    Loria,    99  Iowa  1. 
N.  Y.   S.  427.  In    an    action    by    consignor    against    a 

94. '  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Britton,  railroad    company    for    delivery    of    goods 

149    Ala.  552,  43   So.  108.  to    the    consignee    without    requiring    sur- 

95.  Evidence  of  notice.— Stephens  jn  v.  render  of  bill  of  lading,  evidence  that 
United   States   Exp.   Co..  21  Wis.  405.  there   was   no   course    of  dealing  between 

96.  Evidence  of  title  and  right  to  goods.  the  parties  waiving  a  provision  of  the 
--Loiiisvilie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Britton,  39  bill  of  lading  requiring  its  surrender  be- 
So.' 585,  145  Ala.  654.  fore   the    delivery   of   the    goods,   and   that 

97.  EvidfPce  that  goods  shipped  in  plaintiff  did  not  with  knowledge  of  such 
good  order.- -Scholes  v.  Ackerland,  15  delivery  in  many  instances  ratify  such 
111    474  course   of  dealing  between   the   consignee 


593 


TRAN'SPORT.\TK>N'    AND  DELIVHRV   HV   CARRIF.R. 


§    888 


§§  888-900.  Damages™§  888.  Nominal  Damages.— When  goods  have 
been  delivered  by  a  carrier  to  a  person  not  entitled  to  them,  and  the  latter  de- 
livers the  goods  to  the  shipper  or  consignee,  or  pays  him  their  vahie.  in  a  suit 


of  the  goods  and  the  agent  of  the  rail- 
road company,  held  to  sustain  a  verdict 
for  the  plaintiff.  Salberg  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.   Co..  2:i7   Penn.  495,   85  Atl.   7G7. 

Evidence  that  a  witness,  on  learning 
that  goods  shipped  to  him  over  defend- 
ant's railway  had  reached  their  destina- 
tion, went  with  his  wagons  to  haul  the 
same,  and  found  them  in  a  car  on  a 
switch  about  two  miles  distant,  and  that 
he  had  Ijeen  informed  tiiat  the  car  re- 
mained at  the  point  of  destination  a  day 
and  a  night,  is  sufficient  to  support  a  find- 
ing that  the  goods  remained  at  the  point 
of  destination  onlj'  twenty-four  hours, 
and  were  thereafter  removed  by  the  rail- 
road company  to  the  place  where  they 
were  delivered  to  a  third  party.  St. 
Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  etc.,  Mach. 
Co.,  56  S.  W.  140.  23  Tex.   Civ.  App.   211. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  nondelivery  of  plaintiff's  trunk,  plain- 
tiff testified  without  objection  that  B.  de- 
livered the  trunk  to  the  carrier  for  trans- 
portation, such  evidence  justified  a  find- 
ing of  the  delivery  of  the  trunk  to  the 
carrier.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Hanson, 
41   Tex.   Civ.   App.    174,  91   S.  W.   321. 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  required  the  car- 
rier to  notify  a  person  named,  and  the 
carrier's  counsel  admitted  that  it  was  the 
carrier's  duty  to  give  notice  of  the  ar- 
rival of  the  goods,  a  finding  that  it  was 
the  carrier's  duty  to  give  notice  to  the 
person  named  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods 
was  justified.  Uber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   151    Wis.   431.   138    X.   W.   57. 

Evidence  held  insufficient. — In  an  ac- 
tion for  tlie  value  of  certain  furniture  de- 
livered to  defendant  for  carriage,  it  ap- 
peared that  plaintiff's  husband  delivered 
the  goods  and  took  the  receipt,  which  he 
gave  to  plaintiff.  When  the  goods 
reached  their  destination  they  were  de- 
livered to  a  carman,  who  produced  the 
receipt,  it  having  been  given  him  by  plain- 
tiff's husband.  The  goods  were  taken  to 
a  salesroom,  and  exposed  for  sale,  where 
plaintiff  saw  them,  and  made  no  objection. 
The  goods  were  sold,  and  plaintiff's  hus- 
band got  the  money.  He  had  sold  other 
goods  through  the  same  salesman  by 
plaintiff's  authority,  and  on  one  occasion, 
in  his  presence,  she  asked  for  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sale.  Plaintiff  testified  that 
she  did  not  give  the  receipt  to  her  hus- 
band, and  that  she  thought  the  salesroom 
was  a  railway  storehouse.  Held  not  suf- 
ficient evidence  to  sustain  a  verdict  for 
plaintiff.  Reynolds  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  50  Hun  006,  3  N.  Y.  S.  331,  21  N.  Y. 
St.  Rep.  319. 

Plaintiff,  a  consignee,  in  his  action 
against  a  common  carrier  for  refusing  to 

1   Car— 38 


deliver  goods,  alleged  and  proved  his 
cause  of  action,  but,  on  his  examination, 
admitted  that  the  carrier  had  been  or- 
dered by  the  consignor  not  to  deliver  the 
goods.  Held,  that  a  nonsuit  was  prop- 
erly ordered.  Pool  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  23   S.   C.  286. 

Insufficient  evidence  of  delivery. — To 
prove  delivery  of  a  lost  trunk,  the  de- 
fendants adduced  the  deposition  of  the 
clerk  of  a  steamer,  running  from  Mont- 
gomery to  Xew  Orleans,  where  the  trunk 
was  directed,  who  stated  that  it  was  de- 
livered, and  a  receipt  taken,  which  was 
subsequently  lost.  The  address  of  the 
trunk  received  was  different  from  that  al- 
leged to  have  been  delivered,  and,  in  reply 
to  numerous  inquiries,  the  defendants 
said,  "We  have  written  all  along  the 
line,  and  will  get  it  to  you  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible." Held,  that  delivery  was  not 
proved.  Stadhecker  v.  Combs  &  Co. 
(S.    C).   9    Rich.    Law   193. 

Evidence  not  sustaining  defence. — In  an 
action  l)y  a  shipper  against  a  carrier  for 
the  conversion  of  a  car  load  of  lumber 
by  delivering  it  to  a  wrong  person,  the 
defense  that  defendant  was  justified  in 
making  the  delivery,  because  the  invoice 
delivered  by  plaintiff  to  the  person  re- 
ceiving the  lumber  described  the  car  con- 
taining it  in  connection  with  another  car 
rightfully  delivered  to  such  person,  is 
not  sustained,  where  the  evidence  shows 
that  the  invoice  described  the  lumber  in 
the  car  actually  sold  to  such  person,  and 
did  not  describe  the  lumber  in  suit.  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bay  Shoe  Lumber  Co., 
165  Ala.  610,  51  So.  956. 

In  an  action  by  the  shipper  against  a 
railroad  company  for  the  loss  of  freight, 
it  appeared  that  tlie  goods  were  delivered 
to  defendant  at  Parkersburg,  W.  Va., 
April  18,  1861,  consigned  to  a  person  at 
Culpepper  Court  House,  Va.;  that  the 
goods  were  carried  as  far  as  Baltimore, 
and  there  sold  at  auction  by  the  carrier 
in  1864,  for  a  grossly  inadequate  price. 
The  carrier  sought  to  justify  by  showing 
that  the  war  between  the  confederate  and 
federal  governments  had  begun  prior  to 
the  date  of  the  alleged  shipment;  that 
troops  were  marching  through  Baltimore 
to  Washington  previous  to  that  time; 
that  Ft.  Sumter  had  been  fired  upon  on 
April  12  or  13,  1861;  and  that  the  presi- 
dent of  the  L'nited  States  had  issued  his 
call  for  75,000  men  on  April  15,  1861. 
Held,  that  the  evidence  only  showed  that 
the  war  was  existing,  but  did  not  show 
that  defendant  was  prevented  thereby 
from  delivering  the  freight.  Baltimore, 
etc..   R.   Co.  r.   Morehead.   5   \V.   \a.  293. 


CARRIERS. 


594 


§§  888-890 

against  the  carrier   for  the  nondelivery  of  the  goods  the  shipper  or  consignee 
can  only  recover  nominal  damages.''-' 

§  889.  Exemplary  Damages. — In  a  proper  case  exemi^lary  damages  are 
recoverable  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  refnsal  to  deliver.^ 

§§  890-900.  Compensatory  Damages— §§  890-893.  Failure  or  Re- 
fusal to  Deliver— §  890.  Actual  Loss  Proximately  Resulting.— In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  carrier  for  breach  of  its  duty  to  deliver  goods,  the  plaintifif  may  re- 
cover compensation  for  the  actual  loss  sustained  as  the  direct  and  proximate 
result  of  the  carrier's  wrong.-     Damages  which  are  not  the  natural  and  prox- 

Marxlaiid. — Baltimore,     etc.,     R.     Co.    v. 
Pumphrey.   59    Md.   390. 

Mississif^pi. — Strieker     v.     Leathers,      68 
Miss.  803,  9  So.   821,   13   L.   R.   A.   600. 

South   Carolina. — Teague  v.   Southern   R. 
Co.,  45  S.   C.  27,  22  S.   E.   779. 

Texas.— See  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Corquoedale,  71  Tex.  41,  46,  9  S.  W.  80. 
Illustrations. — A.  purchased  goods  of  B. 
in  New  York,  of  which  he  received  a  bill 
of  sale  and  in  payment  for  which  he  gave 
his  note  at  six  months.  The  goods  were 
shipped  by  B.,  to  be  delivered  to  the  or- 
der of  the  shipper  at  San  Francisco.  On 
arrival  at  San  Francisco,  the  defendant, 
who  was  master  of  the  vessel,  delivered 
the  goods  to  A.,  who  paid  the  freight. 
The  agent  of  B.,  to  whose  order  the 
goods  were  ordered  to  be  delivered,  sub- 
sequently tendered  the  freight  to  the  mas- 
ter and  demanded  the  goods.  In  an  ac- 
tion for  the  value  of  the  goods,  it  was 
held  that  B.  held  a  lien  on  the  goods  for 
the  purchase  price,  for  which  the  defend- 
ant was  liable,  but  not  for  their  value  in 
San  Francisco.  Persse  v.  Cole,  1  Cal.  369. 
In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
for  failing  to  deliver  to  the  plaintiff  a 
canvas  bag  containing  ninety  double 
eagles  of  the  coinage  of  the  United  States, 
which  the  carrier  received  from  the  plain- 
tiff's agent  in  Mexico,  in  1862,  it  was  held 
that  the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover 
in  treasury  notes  the  value  of  the  coin, 
together  with  the  premium  on  gold  at  the 
time  when  it  should  have  been  delivered, 
with  interest  on  the  amount  from  the  date 
of  the  demand.  Cushing  v.  Wells,  etc., 
Co.,  98  Mass.  550. 

Plaintiff's  intestate  delivered  to  defend- 
ants' agent  a  certain  sum  of  money  for 
the  purpose  of  paying  a  semiannual  pre- 
mium on  his  policy  of  life  insurance  which 
l)y  the  terms  would  lapse  if  the  premiums 
were  not  paid  within  eight  days.  The 
c.gent  knew  of  this,  but  failed  to  deliver 
the  money.  Held,  that  defendants  would 
be  liable  for  the  net  value  of  the  policy 
on  the  day  it  lapsed.  Grindle  v.  Eastern 
Exp.  Co.,  67  Me.  317,  24  Am.   Rep.  31. 

The  defendant  contracted  with  the 
plaintiff  to  carry  a  quantity  of  pease  from 
Canada  to  New  York  by  water,  but,  by 
his  own  negligence  and  unnecessary  de- 
lay, was  unal)le  to  carry  them  further 
than  Burlington  during  the  same  season, 
on    account    of    tlie    freezing    of    the    lake. 


99.  Nominal  damages. — Rosenfield  v. 
Express  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  12,060,  1 
Woods     131. 

1.  Exemplary  damages. — Defendants 
received  goods  on  their  steamboat  at  St. 
Louis  to  deliver  at  plaintiffs'  landing.  On 
going  down  the  river,  defendants  mad? 
no  attempt  to  stop  at  the  landing,  but 
left  the  goods  at  a  point  a  few  miles  be- 
low, and  on  the  return  stopped  at  the 
landing  with  the  goods,  which  they  re- 
fused to  deliver  unless  plaintiffs  would 
pay  the  freight  charges  and  also  the  cost 
of  storage  at  the  place  where  the  goods 
were  left.  Held  to  be  such  a  willful  re- 
fusal to  deliver  as  to  entitle  plaintiffs  to 
exemplar}'  damages.  Silver  v.  Kent,  60 
Miss.  124. 

A  steamboat  company  received  goods 
for  shipment  as  a  common  carrier  for 
hire,  to  be  delivered  at  a  private  landing. 
The  company  afterwards  refused  to  de- 
liver the  goods  at  the  private  landing,  but 
delivered  the  same  at  another  place. 
Held,  that  the  consignor  was  entitled  to 
recover  punitive  damages  for  willful  fail- 
ure to  deliver.  Strieker  v.  Leathers,  68 
Miss.    803,    9    So.    821,    13    L.    R.    A.    600. 

Where  the  driver  of  an  express  com- 
pany's wagon  refused  to  deliver  an  ex- 
press package,  with  malicious  disregard 
of  the  rights  of  the  consignee,  and  the 
express  company  ratified  his  act,  the  con- 
signee was  entitled  to  exemplary  dam- 
ares.  Gary  v  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exj). 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  40  S.  W.  845. 

A  petition  alleging  that  defendant  s 
agent  wrongfully,  willfully,  and  wantonly 
took  possession  of  and  withheld  a  l)ill  of 
lading  on  which  lumber  was  shipped  to 
plaintiff,  and  that  the  agent's  acts  were 
authorized  and  ratified  by  defendoi't, 
states  a  tort  for  which  actual  and  exem- 
plary damages  may  be  recovered.  Alder- 
son  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App), 
23  S.  W.  617,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  678, 
no  op. 

Mere  brusqueness  on  the  part  of  the 
agent,  not  amounting  to  insult,  is  not 
a  ground  for  punitive  damages  in  an  .ra- 
tion against  a  carrier  for  damages  for  re- 
fusing to  deliver  goods.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Brookhaven  Mach.  Co.,  71  Miss. 
663,   16    So.    252. 

2.  Actual  loss  proximately  resulting  — 
Kentttc!c\.—Lou\s\-i\\c.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Law- 
son,   9    Ky.    L.    Rep.   681. 


595 


TRv\NSI'ORTATION    AND   I^KLIVKRV    i'.V    CAKKIKK. 


§§    890-891 


imatc   result   of   the   carrier's   breiich   of    duty   are   not   recoverable.'^      Damages 
which  are  too  remote  are  not  recoverable."* 

Action  ex  Delicto  or  ex  Contractu. — The  same  rule  applies  to  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods,  whether  it  is  ex  delicto  or  ex 
contractu  in  form,  and  the  measure  of  damages  is  as  much  a  question  of  law, 
under  the  control  of  the  court,  as  if  the  right  rested  on  contract  only.-"' 

§   891.  Measure   and  Elements  in   General. — In  General. — If  a  carrier 

fails  to  deli\er  g(jods  or  c(jn\erts  thcni   it   i>  liable   for  the   value  of  the  goods 
at  llicir  destination  and  at  the  time  when  they  slKnild  have  been  delivered,"  with 


The  plaintiff  then,  upon  the  defendant 
refusinj^  either  to  forward  the  pease  by 
lailroad  to  Xew  York,  or  to  deliver  them 
to  the  plaintiff,  except  upon  tlie  payment 
of  the  freight,  ol)tained  possession  of 
ihem  by  writ  of  replevin,  and  sent  them 
to  Boston  for  a  market,  which  was  a  ju- 
dicious disposition  of  tliem.  Held,  that 
the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover  the 
difference  between  the  net  amount  real- 
ized from  the  sale  of  the  pease  in  Boston 
and  the  net  amount  they  would  have  sold 
for  in  Xew  York,  at  the  time  when  they 
sliould  liave  arrived  there,  had  the  de- 
fendant properly  discharged  his  contract. 
Laurent   r.    \'aughn,   30   Vt.   90. 

3.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Pickens  (Tex. 
Civ.  .A pp.  I.  .-jS  S.  W.  156. 

Illustrations. — The  suffering  of  plain- 
tiffs' families,  from  cold  and  inconven- 
ience, by  the  failure  of  defendant  to  de- 
liver them  a  bill  of  lading  of  clothing  and 
household  goods  shipped,  is  not  the  nat- 
ural and  proximate  result  of  a  breach  of 
the  shipping  contract,  where  defendant 
was  not  informed  by  plaintiffs  of  their 
necessitous  condition,  and  the  consequent 
sufferings  from  cold  that  might  ensue 
from  their  inability  to  l)uy  other  clothing 
and  goods  .  if  those  shipped  were  not 
promjitly  delivered.  vSt.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.   May   (Tex.   Civ.  App.),  44  S.  W.  408. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  failure  to  deliver  cotton  at  the  desti- 
nation named  in  the  liill  of  lading,  the 
consignor  claimed  damages  suffered  tjy 
reason  of  the  consignee's  refusal  to  ac- 
cept after  having  procured  samples, 
which  he  would  not  have  done  if  the  coi- 
ton  had  been  delivered  at  the  proper  place, 
plaintiff  could  not  recover,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  proof  that  the  carrier  was  in- 
strumental in  permitting  the  consignee 
to  procure  the  samples,  or  that  it  had  any 
knowledge  of  the  contract  between  plain- 
tiff and  the  consignee,  since  sucii  dam- 
ages were  special,  and  not  the  pro.ximate 
result  of  the  carrier's  breach  of  coiUract. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pickens  (Tex.  Civ. 
.■\pp.),  58  S.  W.  l.-> 

4.  Remote  damages. — .■\lderson  v.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  .Xpp.),  23  S.  W. 
617,  affirmed  in  iCi  Tex.  678,  no  op.;  Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago  Portrait  Co., 
49  S.  E.  737.  122  Ga.  11,  106  Am.  St. 
Rep.  87. 


Illustrations. — There  can  be  no  recov- 
ery of  damages  under  an  allegation  that, 
l)y  reason  of  defendant's  failure  to  de- 
liver lumber,  plaintiff  was  unable  to  build 
a  house  for  which  she  would  have  re- 
ceived certain  rent,  this  being  too  remote. 
Alderson  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  23  S.  W.  617,  affirmed  in  93  Tex. 
678,   no   op. 

5.  Action  ex  delicto  or  ex  contractu. — 
Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Ck.  z.  I'uniphrey,  59 
Md.  3«.)(). 

6.  Value  at  destination. — United  States. 
—The   Gold   Hunter,   ¥ed.   Cas.   No.  5,513, 

I  Blatchf.  &  H.  300. 

Alabama. — Capehart  v.  Granite  Mills,  97 
Ala.  353,  13  So.  44;  Echols  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ala.  366,  7  So.  655. 

Georgia. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  How- 
ard Supply  Co.,  125  Ga.  478,  54  S.  E.  530; 
Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sloan,  39  Ga.  636;  Cooper 
z.  Young,  22  Ga.  269,  68  Am.  Dec.  502; 
Taylor  &  Co.  v.  Collier,  26  Ga.  122; 
Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin.  1  Ga. 
App.  351,  356,  57  S.  E.  1070:  .\lbany.  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Merchants,  etc..  Bank,  137  Ga. 
391,    73    S.    E.    637. 

Illinois. — Northern  Transp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clary,  66   111.   333. 

Kentucky. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Webb,  8  Ky.  L.  Rep.  44:  see  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lawson-,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  681. 

Louisiana. — St.  Marc  r.  La  Chapella 
(La.),  1  Mart..  O.  S.,  36;  Ames  v.  Reed 
(La.),  2  Mart.,  N.  S.,  236;  Burke  v.  Clarke, 

II  La.  206. 

Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 
Pumphrey,   59    Md.   390. 

Massachusetts.  —  Massachusetts  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co..  143  Mass. 
31S,  9  N.  E.  669;  Spring  z:  Haskell 
(Mass.),  4  Allen  112;  Forbes  v.  Boston, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  76;  Peebles  z:  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
112  Mass.  498;  Gushing  z:  Wells,  etc..  Co., 
98  Mass.  550. 

.Minnesota. — Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   30  Minn.   265,    15   N.   W.   237. 

Missouri. — Loeffler  v.  Keokuk,  etc.. 
Packet  Co.,  7  Mo.  App.  185;  Atkisson  v. 
Steamboat  Castle  Garden,  28  Mo.   124. 

.\ez.'  York'.—Sherman  z:  Wells  (N.  Y.). 
28   Barb.  403. 

Ohio. — Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  O'Don- 


§  S91 


CARRIERS. 


596 


interest  thereon   from  that  time/    at  the  same  time  deducting  the  unjiaid  cost 
of  transportation.^     It  has  been  held  that  in  case  of  conversion  tliere  is  no  de- 


nell,  49  O.   St.  4S9,  32  N.   E.  476,  21   L.   R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  117.  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579. 

Ponisyk'auia. — Ludwig  v.  Meyre  (Pa.),  5 
Watts   &  S.  435. 

Tennessee. — Dean  r.  \'accaro,  39  Tenn. 
(2  Head)  4SS.  75  Am.  Dec.  744;  Erie  Dis- 
patch V.  Johnson,  87  Tenn.  490,  11  S.  W. 
441. 

Texas.- — Carter  z\  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  93  S.  W.  681;  H.  & 
T.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  Stewart  &  Co.,  1  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1246;  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  Rines  &  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  618, 
84  S.  W.  1092.  See  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co. 
r.  Cox  &  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  144  S.  W.  ■ 
1196.  See  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cleburne 
Ice,  etc.,  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79  S.  W. 
836.  See  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Curry,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  453. 

IVcst  I'ir^iiiia. — Clarke-Lawrence  Co. 
V.  Chesapeake,  etc..  R.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  423, 
61  S.  E.  364. 

JViscoiisiii.—Nudd  v.  Wells,  11  Wis.  407. 

The  measure  of  damages  for  failure  of 
defendant  express  company,  with  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  to  deliver  a  bicycle 
which  plaintiff  had  purchased  and  shipped 
for  use  during  her  vacation,  she  being  un- 
able to  use  it  at  other  times,  is  the  value 
of  the  l)icycle,  and  not  the  cost  of  hiring 
another  during  her  vacation,  though  at 
the  close  of  her  vacation  defendant  of- 
fered to  deliver  it,  and  she  refused  to  re- 
ceive it,  no  bicycle  being  obtainable  at 
the  place  where  her  vacation  was  spent. 
Judgment,  43  N.  Y.  S.  1123,  19  Misc.  Rep. 
530,  3  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  400,  affirmed. 
Mitchell  V.  Weir,  45  N.  Y.  S.  1085,  19  App. 
Div.   183. 

7.  Interest  as  element  of  damage. — 
United  Stafcs.— The  Gold  Hunter,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5513,  1  Blatchf.  &  H.  300. 

Alabama. — Capehart  v.  Granite  Mills, 
97  Ala.  353,  12  So.  44;  Echols  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ala.  366,  7  So.  655. 

Illinois. — Northern  Transp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clary,  66  111.  233. 

fozi'a. — Dant  &  Co.  v.  Northwestern  Un- 
ion Packet  Co.,  34  Iowa  588. 

Kentuckx. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Webb,  8  Ky.  L.  Rep.  44. 

Massachusetts.  —  Spring  v.  Haskell 
(Mass.)  4  Allen  112;  Gushing  v.  Wells, 
etc.,  Co.,  98  Mass.  550;  Forbes  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  Mass.  154,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   76. 

Minnesota. — Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   30   Minn.   265,   15    N.  W.   237. 

New  For^.— Sherman  v.  Wells  (N.  Y.), 
28  Barb.  403;  McCormick  v.  Pennsylvania 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  303. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rines 
&  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  618,  84  S.  W. 
1092;  Carter  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   93    S.   W.    681. 

Wisconsin.— l::inAA  v.  Wells,  11  Wis.  407. 


Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  tobacco  de- 
livered to  it  for  transportation,  it  ap- 
peared that  at  the  time  the  tobacco  was 
landed  at  the  point  of  destination  the  ship- 
per was  entitled  to  receive  it  in  good  con- 
dition, and  that  it  came  in  a  damaged 
condition.  The  carrier  retained  it  for  the 
estimation  of  damages,  and,  instead  of 
paying  the  damages  assessed  and  deliver- 
ing the  tobacco  to  the  shipper,  it  shipped 
it  to  another  point.  Held,  that  the  ship- 
per was  entitled  to  recover  interest  on 
the  value  of  the  tobacco  from  the  date  of 
its  arrival  at  the  point  of  destination. 
Dant  &  Co.  v.  Northwestern  Union 
Packet  Co.,  34  Iowa  588.' 

Interest  in  discretion  of  jury. — In  as- 
sumpsit against  a  carrier  for  not  deliver- 
ing goods  intrusted  to  him  to  carry,  in- 
terest on  the  value  of  the  property  is  not 
allowable  as  matter  of  law,  but  the  jury, 
in  their  discretion,  may  allow  or  with- 
hold interest.  Richmond  v.  Bronson 
(N.  Y.),  5  Denio  55. 

Rate. — Where,  after  the  conversion  of 
property,  the  legal  rate  of  interest  is  re- 
duced, the  owner  is  entitled  to  the  legal 
rate  from  the  conversion  to  the  time  the 
rate  is  changed,  and  to  the  reduced  rate 
from  them  to  the  date  of  the  trial.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Humphries,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    S.-^S,   23    S.   W.   556. 

8.  Deduction  of  unpaid  charges. — Ala- 
bama.— Capehart  v.  Granite  Mills.  97  Ala. 
353,  12  So.  44;  Echols  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  90  Ala.   366,   7   So.   655. 

Georgia. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  How- 
ard Supply  Co.,  125  Ga.  478,  54  S.  E.  530; 
Cooper  V.  Young,  22  Ga.  269,  68  Am.  Dec. 
503;  Taylor  &  Co.  v.  Collier,  26  Ga.  122; 
Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merchants,  etc., 
Bank,  137  Ga.  391,  73  S.  E.  637. 

Illinois. — Northern  Transp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clary,  66  111.  233. 

Massachusetts. — Peebles  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  498. 

Missouri. — Atkisson  v.  Steamboat  Cas- 
tle Garden,  28  Mo.  134. 

Tennessee. — Dean  v.  Vaccaro,  39  Tenn. 
(2  Head)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744;  Erie  Dis- 
patch V.  Johnson,  87  Tenn.  490,  11  S.  W. 
441. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rines 
&  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  618,  84  S.  W. 
1092;  Carter  v.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  93  S.  W.  681. 

Where  freight  paid  or  to  be  paid  by 
another. — In  an  action  against  a  common 
carrier  for  the  conversion  of  goods  de- 
livered to  a  person  unauthorized  to  re- 
ceive them,  who  pays  the  freight  upon 
them,  the  measure  of  damages  is  the 
market  value  of  the  goods,  less  the 
freight,  with  interest  from  the  date  of  the 


597  TRANSPORTATION    AND  DKIJVI-KV    l!V    CAKKlKK.  §§    891-892 

duction  for  freight."  I'nless  a  carrier  has  contracted  to  carry  the  goods  to 
their  destination  tro  fulfill  a  contract  at  a  greater  price,  or  knew  of  such  con- 
tract, he  can  not  he  charged  with  more  than  the  market  value  of  the  goods,  less 
freight  charges  at  their  destination,  by  reiison  of  his  failure  to  deliver  to  the 
person  aiUlujrized  to  receive  them  under  the  bill  of  lading.^'' 

Goods  Shipped  under  Contract  of  Sale. — Where  the  carrier  negligently 
delays  the  dc]i\'cry  of  goods,  whereby  a  sale  is  cancelled,  and  converts  them,  in 
an  action  by  the  c(jnsignee  for  the  loss  of  commissions  and  the  value  of  the  prop- 
erty, the  measure  of  damages  is  the  price  for  which  the  sale  was  made.'^ 

Where  goods  are  taken  by  legal  process,  as  being  the  goods  of  a  party 
not  the  sliipijcr,  ii  i>  held  that  the  damages  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  are 
properly  measured  by  llie  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place  where  they  were 
taken.'-  It  is  also  held  that  where  a  shipment  is  diverted  to  another  state  by 
the  carrier  and  there  attached  for  a  debt  not  due,  and  sold,  the  measure  of 
damages  is  the  value  of  the  property  at  the  point  of  shipment  to  the  shi]Ji)er.' '• 

Expenses. — As  an  element  of  damages  for  improi)erly  withholding  freight, 
l)laintitY  should  be  allowed  exj^enses  incurred  in  sending  for  it.'^  fiut  it  has 
been  held  that  the  expense  of  plaintiff's  agent  while  waiting  the  delivery  of 
the  freight,  on  a  statement  of  the  agent  of  the  carrier  that  the  same  had  not 
arrived,  when  it  was  in  fact  in  his  possession,  is  too  remote  to  be  allowed  in  an 
action  for  conversion. '•'• 

Profits. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  profits  by  the  necessary  sus- 
pension of  ])laintift"s  manufactory  in  consequence  of  its  failure  to  deliver  coal 
shipped  according  to  contract.'"  If  goods  intrusted  to  a  common  carrier  for 
shipment  have  been  sold  in  advance  of  delivery,  and  in  view  of  unusual  condi- 
tions at  prices  yielding  a  profit  and  such  expected  profit  is  lost,  it  is  not  recov- 
erable as  part  of  the  damages,  unless  the  carrier,  had  notice  of  the  contracts  or 
the  special  purpose  for  which  the  goods  had  been  purchased  and  shi])ijed.'" 

Retail  Price. — The  retail  price,  where  a  quantity  of  merchandise  is  sued  for, 
can  not  properly  measure  the  value.  The  retail  price  would  be  unjust,  for  the 
merchant  in  fixing  that  price  takes  into  consideration  not  only  the  first  cost  of 
the  goods,  but  store  rent,  clerk  hire,  insurance,  and  a  probable  amount  of  bad 
debts,  and  adds  to  all  these  a  percentage  of  profit. ^'^ 

§  892.  Goods  Having-  No  Market  Value. — Where  a  carrier  fails  to  deliver, 
according  to  contract  goods  which  are  worn  and  have  no  market  value,  such  as 
personal  apparel,  the  measure  of  damages  is  what  they  are  worth  in  their  worn 

conversion.     Forbes  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Zandt   Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  •>  L.   R.  A., 

133   Mass.   154.  N.   S.,   1058,  117  Am.  St.   Rep.  468,  85   Pac. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier,  408,  87  Pac.  80. 

l)rought   by  the   assignee   of  an   insolvent  12.    Goods  taken  under  legal  process. — 

(lel)tor    to    recover    for    a    wrongful    deliv-  \'an    Winkle    r.    L'nitcd    States    Mail,    etc., 

try   of  goods   to   the   consignee,   after   in-  Co.  (X.  Y.),  37  Barl).  122. 

solvency,     and     without     calling     for     the  13.    Lincoln   Grain   Co.  f.   Chicago,  etc., 

proper   vouchers    from    him,    the    measure  R.  Co.,  91  Neb.  203,  135  X.  W.  443. 

of    damages    is    the    market    value    of    the  14.     Expenses. — Gulf,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

goods,  less  the  freight   cliarges,  although  Loonie,    S4    Tex.   259,   263,    19   S.    W.    385. 

i)y  the  contract  between  the  consignee  and  15.    Central,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago  Por- 

his  assignee  the  freight  was  to  be  paid  by  irait  Co..  122  Ga.  11,  49  S.  E.  727,  106  Am. 

the  former,  and  the  carrier  had  notice  of  c;t-    j^^p    87 

the    assignment,    and    its    terms.      Massa-  jg      Profits.-Cooper  z:   Young,   22    Ga. 

chusetts    Loan,   etc.,    Co.   v.    Fitchburg   R.  ^  .^    ,.„   ^        -r.        ^^.^ 

Co.,  143  Mass.  318.  9  N.  E.  669.  -"''l  ^'^  'r-^^' ,       t                          r^                   nu 

9.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goodwin,  1  17.  Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  v  Ches- 
Ga.  App.   351,  57   S.   E.   1070.  apeake,  etc..   R.   Co.,  G3  \\  .  \  a.  423,  61   ?. 

10.  Grayson  County  Nat.  Bank  v.  Xash-       ^'"  •'^''•^• 

ville.    etc..    Railway    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    79  18.    Retail  price.— Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 

S.  W.  1094.  T'ayne.    15    Tex.    Civ.    App.    58,    38    S.    W. 

11.  Goods  shipped  under  contract  of  366;  Heidenheimer  &  Co.  v.  Schlett,  63 
sale. — Missouri  Pac.   Ry.  Co.  z\   Peru-Van  Tex.  394. 


§§  892-895  '  CARRIERS.  598 

condition  as  compared  willi  their  value  if  they  were  new,  exchiding  circum- 
stances of  inconvenience  resulting  from  heing  deprived  of  their  use.^"  _  The 
measure  of  damages  for  the  conversion  hy  a  carrier  of  household  and  kitchen 
furniture  is  actual  value,  and  it  is  not  necessary,  to  prove  value,  to  first  prove 
market  value.-" 

§  893.  Computation  of  Damages.— Damages  for  nondelivery  of  goods 
intrusted  to  a  carrier  should  be  computed  in  the  currency  of  the  country  where 
the  goods  were  to  be  delivered,  without  taking  into  account  any  depreciation  or 
appreciation  there  may  be  in  the  currency  of  that  country. -^ 

§  894.  Misdelivery. — The  rule  as  to  the  measure  of  damages  for  loss  of 
goods  applies  to  losses  occasioned  by  misdelivery.--  The  measure  of  damages, 
where  the  plaintitt  receives  the  goods  for  sale  and  disposal  at  the  place  where 
thev  were  misdelivered,  is  their  value  at  that  point  when  so  received,  less  the 
price  they  actuallv  brought,  with  due  care  in  the  sale,  plus  the  cost  and  carriage, 
if  the  same  had  not  been  paid.-'"-  Where  an  article  is  shipped  to  a  factor,  at  a 
certain  market,  who  had  been  instructed  not  to  sell  until  ordered,  and_  the  car- 
rier delivered  it  to  a  factor  at  a  different  market,  who  had  no  instructions  con- 
cerning it,  and  it  was  by  him  immediately  sold,  upon  its  appearing  that  the 
article^in  question  rose  in  price,  from  that  day  until  the  suit  was  brought,  the 
]ilaintiff  is  entitled  to  recover  the  highest  price  attained  by  the  article  within 
that  period,  where  the  suit  is  brought  within  a  reasonable  time.-^ 

Delivery  without  Payment  of  Draft.— The  measure  of  damages  for  wrong- 
ful delivery  of  the  goods  by  the  carrier  to  the  consignee  without  requiring  pay- 
ment of  a  draft,  according  to  the  directions  of  the  consignor,  can  not  exceed  the 
value  of  the  goods.-'' 

Delivery  at  Wrong  Place. — In  an  action  against  a  earner  for  failure  to 
fleliver  goods  at  the  proper  place,-"  or  grain  shipped  in  bulk  at  a  particular 
elevator,^'  the  plaintiff  may  recover  the  expenses  of  removing  the  property  to 
the  proper  place  or  elevator. 

§  8  95.  Delaying  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods. — In  an  action  for  damages 
for  delay  in  giving  notice  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  goods,  whereby  they 
had  depreciated,  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between  the  value  of 
the  goods,  at  the  time  of  notice  to  the  consignee,  and  the  value  at  the  time  the 
goods  arrived.-^ 

19  Goods  having  no  market  value.—  signed  to  himself  to  defendant  to  be  car- 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  8  Ky.  L.  ried  by  it  to  M.,  and  there  dehvered  to 
j^gp    44  another    carrier,    and    by    it    taken    to    A., 

20.  Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter  (Tex.  defendant  agreed  with  plaintiff  that  it 
Civ    App.),   156   S.   W.   267.  would  endeavor  to  stop  the  goods  at   M., 

21.  Computation  of  damages.— Rice  v.  and  from  there  take  them  to  D.,  and  by 
Ontario  Steamboat  Co.  (N.  Y.),  56  Barb.  reason  of  its  negligent  failure  to  use  rea- 
.384.  See  The  Patrick  Henrv,  Fed.  Cas.  sonable  effort  to  do  so  they  were  not 
No    10.805.  1   Ben.  292.               '  stopped,    but    taken    to    A.,    defendant    is 

22.  Misdelivery.— See  post,  "Loss  of  or  liable  for  the  cost  of  taking  them  back 
Injury  to  Goods,"  Chapter  12.  to    D.      Cincinnati,   etc..    R.    Co.   v.   Steele, 

23.  Little    Rock,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Miller       140  Ky.  .-583,  131  S.  W.  22. 

Coal  Co.,  66  Ark.  645,  51  S.  W.  1054.     See  27.    Delivery   at   wrong   elevator.— Rich- 

Clarke-Lawrence   Co.  v.   Chesapeake,  etc.,  mond  ?-.   Union   Steamboat  Co     87    N.    Y. 

R   Co.',  63  W.  Va.  423,  61  S.  E.  364.  240;    Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Stanbro,  87 

24.  Arrington  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  TU.  195,  holding  that  if  the  action  is  un- 
Co.     51    N.    C.    68,    72    Am.    Dec.    559.  der   the    Illinois   statute    (Rev.   St.,   c.   114, 

25.  Delivery  without  payment  of  draft.  §  82)  requiring  delivery  at  a  particular 
—Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hartwell,  99  warehouse,  the  depreciation  in  the  price 
Ky    436    36   S.   W.    183,   38    S.   W.    1041,    18  of  tlie   grain   may  be   considered. 

Ky.    L.    Rep.    745.  28.  Delaying  notice  of  arrival  of  goods. 

26.  Delivery  at  wrong  place. — Where,  — New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tyson,  46 
after    plaintiff    had    delivered    goods    con-       Miss.  729. 


599  TRANSI'ORTATIOX    AND   UKLIVKKV    I'.V    CAKKlKR.  §§    896-899 

§  896.  Delaying  Notice  of  Refusal  of  Goods. — Where  the  consignee  of 

]jro|)ertv  refused  lo  ;urc|)t  it  on  the  j^nnind  that  it  was  of  inferior  grade,  the 
carrier  was  liahle  for  dehiy,  in  notifying  tlie  shii^pcr  of  snch  refusal  in  case  the 
property  was  of  inferior  grade,  only  for  the  decline  in  the  market  price  for  the 
time  intervening  between  the  date  on  which,  by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care, 
it  could  have  learned  of  the  consignee's  refusal  and  notified  the  shipper,  and 
the  date  on  which  the  i)roi)erty  was  actually  sold  after  notice  was  given.-" 

§  897.  Mitigation  of  Damages. — Where  goods  which  have  been  wrong- 
fully dchvered  are  reclaimed  by  the  carrier  and  tendered  or  delivered  to  the 
consignee,  or  the  proceeds  thereof  paid  to  liini,  such  tender,  delivery  or  payment 
will  mitigate  the  damages.-'"  Ikit  a  rejected  compromise  proposition  made  to 
the  consignee  of  goods  by  a  person  to  whom  tiiey  have  been  wrongfully  delivered 
by  the  carrier  for  the  purchase  thereof  and  payment  of  a  profit  on  the  same 
does  not  work  a  mitigation  of  the  damages.^'*  Where  two  of  three  cars  were 
wrongfullv  delivered  to  one,  who  subsequently  became  bankrupt,  and  plaintiff 
was  allowed  a  part  of  the  total  value  of  all  the  cars  in  his  claim  against  the 
bankrupt's  estate,  in  a  subsequent  action  against  the  carrier  for  the  value  of 
the  two  cars  wrongfully  delivered,  the  full  amount  recovered  from  the  bank- 
rupt's estate  will  not  be  allowed  as  a  credit  against  ])laintiff's  claim,  but  only  the 
pro  rata  i)ayment  on  the  two  cars  wrongfully  delivered. ^- 

§§  898-899.  Evidence— §  898.  In  General. — In  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier to  recover  tor  the  carrying  of  good>  lieyond  their  destination,  plaintiff 
should  be  allowed,  where  the  breacii  of  the  contract  is  admitted,  to  give  evidence 
of  any  general  or  direct  damages  which  he  may  have  suffered. •^•'  In  trover  for 
conversion  of  a  car  of  coal,  the  plaintiff'  is  entided  to  show,  on  the  issue  of 
exemplary  damages,  that  defendant  had  seized  and  api)ropriated  other  cars  of 
coal  than  the  one  involved  in  the  suit.-'"* 

§   8  99.  Evidence    as    to    Value.— Value    at    Place    of    Shipment. — Evi- 
dence of  the  value  of  goods  at  the  point  of  shipment  is  relevant  to  the  inquiry 
as  to  value  at  the  point  of    delivery ;  ='"'    and  the  carrier  can  not  complain  that  the ' 
proof  of  value  is  confined  to  the  place  of  shipment,  as  the  presumption  is  that 
the  value  there  is  less  than  at  the  point  of  destination. •^'' 

29.  Delaying  notice  of  refusal  of  goods.  33.  Admissibility  of  evidence  as  to  dam- 
— Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  SO  S.  ages. — Teague  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  45  S. 
W.  42S.  :ir.  Tex.   Civ.   App.  429.  C.  27.  22  S.   E.  779. 

30.  Mitigation  of  damage  s.— Clarke-  34.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cleburne  Ice, 
Lawrence  Co.  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  etc..  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  79  S.  W.  83b. 
G3  W.  Va.  423,  (51  S.  E.  304.  35.  Evidence  of  value  at  point  of  ship- 

Plaintiflf   agreed    to    sell   and    deliver    to  ment. —  I'.cluils   :.    Louisville,   etc..    R.    Co.. 

W.   a  car  load   of  corn,   to  be   paid   for   in  90  Ala.  3t)(),  7  So.  Goo. 

cash  before  delivery.    W.  having  paid  part  Where  corn  was  to  be  carried  between 

of    the    price    only,    plaintiff    shipped    the  two  stations  about  eighty  miles  apart,  the 

corn   on   one  of  the   cars   of  defendant,  a  value  of  the  corn  at  the  place     and  time 

common   carrier,   for   account   of  self,   not  of    delivery    to    the    carrier    is    competent 

stating  the   name  of  any  consignee.     De-  evidence  of  its  value  at  the  place  of  des- 

fendant   delivered   the   corn   to   W.   at   his  tination.     South,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  72 

request,    but    without    the    consent    of    the  Ala.   451. 

plaintiff,  and  without  payment  of  the  bal-  Where  the  plaintifTs  fail  to  give  precise 

ance   of  the   price.     Held,   that   defendant  evidence  of  the  market  value  of  the  goods 

was  entitled  to  allege  and  prove,   in  mit-  at    the    place    of    delivery,    the    defendant 

igation    of    damages,    that,    subsequent    to  may   give    evidence    of   their   value    at    the 

such     conversion^    plaintiff     luul     received  place    where    they    were    shipped,    and    of 

from  W.  the  full  amount  of  the  purchase  the    expenses    of     transportation    to     the 

price  of  the  corn.     Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  place  of  delivery,  as  a  proximate  method 

R.   Co.,  30   Minn.  2Go,   15   N.   W.  237.  of   ascertaining   the   damages.      Richmond 

31.  Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  v.  Chesapeake,  v.    Bronson    (N.    Y.),    5    Denio    55. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  ()3  W.  Va.  423,  61  S.  E.  364.  36.  Rome   R.  Co.  v.  Sloan,  39   Ga.  636: 

32.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hiram  Echols  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  90  Ala. 
Blow  &  Co.  (Ky.  App.),  124  S.  W.  391.  366,  7  So.  655. 


§§  899-901  CARRIERS.  600 

No  Market  Value  at  Destination. — Where  there  is  evidence  that  the  goods 
have  no  market  vaUie  at  the  place  of  delivery,  it  is  proper  to  admit  evidence  of 
the  amount  paid  for  them  in  other  cities,  where  it  is  also  shown  that  the  prices 
paid  are  those  charged  by  dealers  in  such  goods,  and  that  the  goods  are  reason- 
ablv  worth  the  same  amount  at  the  place  of  delivery.^" 

Amount  Received  at  Sale. — Where  carriers  sold  a  car  load  of  potatoes 
without  giving  the  buyers  an  opportunity  to  inspect  them,  the  amount  received 
at  the  sale  ilocs  not  show  the  market  value  of  the  potatoes. 2*^ 

Contract  Price. — In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier  for  the  value  of  a 
lot  of  fruit  trees  delivered  to  it  for  transportation,  but  which  it  failed  to  deliver 
at  the  point  of  destination,  the  price  at  which  plaintiff  had  contracted  to  sell 
the  trees  at  such  point  affords  some  evidence  of  their  value  at  that  point. ^® 

Value  at  Time  of  Seizure  under  Legal  Process. — Where  delivery  by  a 
carrier  to  an  officer  under  a  valid  writ  of  attachment  constitutes  conversion, 
proof  of  the  value  of  the  property  delivered,  as  of  the  date  delivered  to  the  offi- 
cer, is  competent  proof  of  value  to  support  a  recovery.'**^ 

Testimony  that  the  goods  were  worth  "about"  a  stated  amount  is  not 
the  equivalent  or  positive  proof  that  the  amount  named  was  their  exact  value 
or  that  they  were  worth  not  less  than  that  sum.^^ 

Opinion  of  Expert. — The  jury  are  not  absolutely  bound  by  the  opinion  of 
an  expert  witness  touching  the  market  value  of  the  goods  at  the  point  of  des- 
tination.■*- 

§  900.  Inadequacy  of  Damages. — The  rule  applicable  to  all  cases  is  that 
where  the  amount  of  damages  allowed  by  the  jury  is  not  plainly  inadecjuate, 
their  verdict  in  this  particular  will  not  be  disturbed.'*^ 

§§   901-903.  Trial  and  Judgment— §  901.  Questions  for  Jury.— In  an 

action  against  a  carrier  for  a  wrongful  delivery  or  failure  to  deliver,  questions 
of  law  should  not  be  submitted  to  the  jury.^"*     Where  the  evidence  is  conflict- 

37.  No  market  at  destination. — New  shipped  by  a  seller  to  himself  did  not  ar- 
York,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Weiss  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  rive  until  nearly  three  months  after  the 
47   S.  W.  (374.  date  of  the  waybill,  though  the  seller  had 

38.  Amount  received  at  sale. — Carter  v.  been  informed  that  the  goods  would  ar- 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  rive  in  three  or  four  days,  it  was  not 
App.),   93   S.   W.   681.  proper  to  leave  it  to  the  jury  to  find  that 

39.  Contract  price. — Clements  v.  Bur-  the  goods  had  arrived  in  due  course, 
lington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Iowa  442,  38  N.  v^eaboard,  etc..  Railway  v.  Phillips,  108 
W.    144.  Md.  385,  70  Atl.  232. 

40.  Value  at  time  of  seizure  under  legal  The  consignor  of  a  car  of  eggs  notified 
process. — Taugher  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  a  railroad  station  agent  tliat  it  desired 
Co.,  21  N.  Dak.  Ill,  129  N.  W.  747.                    to   ship   them   in   one   of   defendant's   cars. 

41.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Howard  The  railroad  station  agent  thereupon  pro- 
Supply  Co.,  54  S.  E.  530,  125  Ga.  478.  cured    a    car    of    the    defendant,    in    which 

42.  Opinion  of  expert.-Atlantic,  etc.,  l'^^  eggs  were  shipped  to  Chicago  over 
R.  Co.  V.  Howard  Supply  Co.,  125  Ga.  the  agent  s  road,  to  be  there  forwarded 
,-Q    - .    c    T,-    -QA             II  J           >  ^Q  l^j^g  state  of  New  York;  the  agent  noti- 

4<»,    04    J5.    it,.    o3U.  r    •  J    r        1       i>  i  r       ^     /-ii  • 

.„      t      ,                    r     J                    T  lymg    defendant  s    general    agent    at    Chi- 

43.  Inadequacy  of  damages.— In  an  ^ago  of  the  shipment.  Defendant's  Chi- 
action  by  the  consignor  agamst  a  car-  ^^^^  ^gent  issued  a  receipt  to  the  Con- 
ner for  conversion  of  goods,  after  re-  signoj.  showing  the  proper  destination  of 
fusal  of  the  consignee  to  take  them  by  the  eggs,  but  through  a  mistake  of  an 
selling  them  to  a  third  person,  where  employee  of  the  railroad  in  instructing  a 
there  was  evidence  that  the  goods  were  connecting  railroad  the  eggs  were  sent 
worth  from  $10  to  $12,  a  verdict  for  $6  ^^  ^  wrong  destination.  Held,  that  the 
will  not  be  disturbed.  Baker  v.^  Chicago,  question  of  a  defendant's  liability  for  the 
etc.,   R.    Co..   98    Iowa   438,   67   N.   W.   376.  railroad  company's  error  was  one   of  law, 

44.  Question  of  law  for  court. — Na-  and  was  improperly  submitted  to  the  jury. 
tional  Bank  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Richer  v.  Fargo,  78  N.  Y.  S.  1007,  77  App. 
S.    C.  '216;    Richer  v.    Fargo,   78   N.   Y.    S.       Div.  550. 

1007,   77   App.   Div.   550.  In  an  action  by  a  bank,  who  had  cashed 

Illustrations. —  Where  goods  ordered  re-       time    drafts    attached    to    a   bill    of   lading 


601 


TRANSPORTATinX    AM)  DELIVKRY   BY   CARRIF.R. 


§  901 


ing,  or  there  is  doubt  as  to  the  inference  to  be  drawn  therefrom,  the  question 
is  for  the  jury.'*-^  The  following  are  held  r|uestions  for  the  jury:  What  is  a 
due  and  reasonable  effort  and  dilij^ence  on  the  i)art  of  the  carrier  to  find  an  un- 


of  cotton,  against  a  railroad  company  for 
wrongful  delivery  of  the  cotton  to  the 
drawee,  L.  M.  Co.,  it  was  proper  for  the 
court  to  refuse  to  charge  "that  if  the 
jury  find  that  L.  M.  Co.  was  entitled  by 
its  contract  to  the  cotton,  upon  its  ac- 
ceptance of  the  drafts,  then  tiie  plaintiff 
can  not  recover,  even  though  it  still  holds 
the  bill  of  lading,"  as  such  cliarge  would 
submit  to  the  jury  a  question  of  law. 
National  Bank  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25 
S.    C.    21G. 

45.  Conflicting  evidence — Illustrations. — 
There  was  evidence  tliat  goods  shipped 
to  New  York  over  defendant  railroad  ar- 
rived there  within  two  weeks,  and  were 
properly  stored  there  for  three  years, 
ready  for  delivery,  and  that  the  consignee 
did  not  appear  to  receive  them;  that  the 
connecting  carrier  unsuccessfully  tried  to 
find  the  consignee;  and  tliat  finally  the 
property  was  sold  for  charges.  There 
was,  on  the  other  hand,  evidence  that  the 
goods  did  not  reach  New  York  within 
six  weeks,  that  defendant's  agent  was  un- 
able to  trace  them  five  months  after  their 
shipment,  and  that  repeated  inquiries  were 
made  for  the  goods  at  the  connecting  car- 
rier's depots  in  New  York  within  two 
months  after  the  shipment.  Defendant 
had  agreed  to  deliver  the  goods  in  New 
York.  Held,  that  the  question  of  non- 
delivery was  for  the  jury.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Eichofer,  100  Ala.  224,  14  So.  56. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  con- 
version of  goods  shipped,  the  defendant 
having  denied  that  the  goods  were  worth 
the  amount  claimed  by  the  plaintiff,  and 
the  evidence  on  this  point  being  in  con- 
flict, the  court  erred  in  instructing  the 
jury  that,  in  the  event  they  found  for 
plaintiff,  they  should  find  for  the  full 
amount  claimed.  Georgia  Railroad  v. 
Richards,  9  Ga.  App.  639,  72  S.  E.  48. 

Where  the  demand  read,  "We  feel 
justified  in  putting  in  a  claim  for  the 
entire  shipment,  and  hold  the  goods  sub- 
ject to  your  inspection."  and  where  a  later 
letter  contained  complaints  that  the  con- 
signees had  lost  the  use  of  their  money 
for  the  intervening  period,  it  was  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury  wliether  a  fiat  denial  of 
liability  by  the  express  company  did  not 
excuse  a  more  definite  tender  of  the  al- 
most worthless  books.  Hardy  v.  Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co.,  182  Mass.  328,  65  N.  E.  375, 
59   L.   R.  A.  731. 

In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany for  the  value  of  a  trunk  which  had 
been  misdelivered,  plaintiff  testified  that, 
when  the  trunk  reached  its  destination, 
the  company's  agent  agreed  that  plain- 
tiff might  take  some  things  out  of  the 
trunk,  and  leave  it  in  the  office  for  a  day 
or  so,  upon  paying  the  charges  and  sign- 


ing a  receipt,  and  that,  upon  calling  for 
the  trunk,  he  was  informed  that  it  hau 
been  delivered  to  other  parties  upon  the 
supposition  that  he  had  sent  for  it.  The 
agent  testified  that  he  had  no  authority 
to  make  such  an  arrangement,  but  did  not 
say  that  he  so  notified  plaintiff.  Held, 
that  there  had  not  been  a  complete  de- 
livery of  the  trunk  to  plaintiff,  and  that 
the  q&estion  of  defendant's  liability  as  a 
warehouseman  should  have  been  submit- 
ted to  the  jury,  for,  if  the  arrangement 
was  made  before  payment  of  the  charges 
and  signing  of  the  receipt,  with  a  view 
to  giving  plaintiff  reasonable  opportunity 
of  sending  for  his  goods,  it  was  a  matter 
within  the  apparent  scope  of  the  agent's 
authority,  and  would  bind  the  company 
in  the  absence  of  any  notice  to  plaintiff 
of  any  restriction  on  the  agent's  authority. 
Oderkirk  v.  Fargo,  58  Hun  347,  11  N.  Y. 
S.  871,  34  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  166. 

Where  plaintiff  delivered  to  an  initial 
carrier  nineteen  cases  of  rugs,  one  con- 
signed to  a  point  on  the  line  of  the 
initial  carrier  and  eighteen  to  a  point 
on  the  line  of  the  terminal  carrier,  and 
only  seventeen  were  delivered  at  such 
point,  and  two  employees  of  the  initial 
carrier  testified  that  seventeen  cases  only 
were  delivered  at  the  point  on  the  termi- 
nal line,  and  that  the  word  "eighteen"  in 
the  bill  of  lading  was  a  mistake,  the 
question  is  for  the  jury.  Siyufy  v.  Penn- 
sylvania  Co..   83   Atl.   279,   234    Pa.   466. 

Whether  reasonable  care  exercised. — 
Where  defendant  carrier  agreed  to  carry 
plaintiff'3  trunk  to  a  station,  and,  in  his 
absence  left  it  on  the  platform,  in  the 
usual  place  for  such  deliveries,  and  it 
was  stolen  therefrom,  but  the  evidence 
whether  plaintiff  was  to  be  there  to  re- 
ceive it  was  conriicting,  the  question 
•  whether  defendant  exercised  reasonable 
care  in  protecting  it  was  for  the  jury. 
Ft.  Worth  Transfer  Co.  v.  Isaacs  (Tex 
Civ.   App.),  40  S.   W.   39. 

Whether  plaintiff  paid  freight.^Louis- 
ville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Britton,  149  Ala.  552, 
43   So.   108. 

Whether  delivery  made  to  authorized 
person. — Equitable  Powder  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Ark.  497,  138 
S.    W.    964. 

Existence  of  special  contract. — In  an 
action  for  conversion  of  goods  by  failure 
to  forward,  \vhere  evidence  is  conflicting 
the  question  of  the  existenc(*of  a  contract 
imposing  a  liability  on  defendant  to  for- 
ward the  goods  directly  to  plaintiff  with- 
out respect  to  the  acts  of  the  forwarding 
agent,  is  for  the  jury.  Lee  v.  Fidelity 
Storage,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Pac.  658,  51  Wash. 
208. 


§§  901-902 


CARRIERS. 


602 


known  consignee ;  •**^  whether  a  tender  to  the  consignee  was  reasonable  in  re- 
spect to  time,  place,  and  manner ;  ■*'  whether  a  carrier  exercised  reasonal)le  care 
in  giving  notice  of  the  arrival  of  perishable  freight  ;-*'^  whether  a  particular  con- 
tract was  one  of  affreightment,  as  with  a  common  carrier,  or  a  hiring  by  the 
job;^^  whether,  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement,  a  reasonable  time  for  delivery 
had  elapsed;^"  the  reasonableness  of  a  condition  of  the  contract  of  carriage 
exempting  the  carrier  from  liability,  unless  claim  was  made  in  writing  within 
30  davs ;  ''^  the  reasonableness  of  a  qualified  refusal  to  deliver  goods  without 
the  bill  of  lading  therefor ;  •''-  and  the  question,  as  to  the  time  and  place  when 
the  duty  of  the  carrier  ends.^^ 

Proper  Place  of  Delivery. — Where  a  shipment  is  billed  to  a  point  which  is 
not  on  a  railroad,  but  near  it,  what  is  the  proper  place  of  delivery  by  the  car- 
rier is  a  question  for  the  jury,  where  the  evidence  is  conflicting.-"*'* 

Reasonable  Time  for  Removal  of  Goods. — Where  the  facts  are  undis- 
puted it  is  a  question  for  the  court  to  determine  what  is  a  reasonable  time  for 
the  removal  of  goods  after  arrival :  ^'^'  but  where  the  facts  are  in  dispute,  or  the 
inference  to  be  drawn  therefrom  is  in  doubt,  it  is  a  question  for  the  jury.^*^ 

Whether  Partial  Delivery  Intended  as  Delivery  of  the  Whole. — In  an 
action  against  common  carriers  for  the  \alue  of  goods  delivered  to  them  for 
transportation,  where  there  has  been  a  partial  delivery,  and  suljsequently  the 
remainder  of  the  goods  are  lost,  it  is  for  the  jury  to  determine  whether  the  tak- 
ing of  a  part  of  the  goods  by  the  consignee  was  intended  and  understood  by 
the  parties  as  a  delivery  of  the  whole  or  only  of  the  part  taken. •■*" 

§  902.  Instructions. — In  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  breach  of  its 
duty,  such  as  failure  to  deliver,  it  is  error  to  give  instructions  on  issues  not 
raised  bv  the  ])leadings  ^'^  and  the  evidence.^"'-'     And  it  is  error  to  give  a  charge 


46.  Question  for  jury. — Zinn  v.  New 
Jersey  Steamboat  Co..  49  N.  Y.  442,  10 
Am.  Rep.  402.  See  Walsh  zk  Adams  Exp. 
Co..    15    Pa.    Super.    Ct.    292. 

47.  Reasonableness  of  tender  of  goods. 
—Hill  r.  Humphreys  (Pa.),  5  Watts  &  S. 
123.  39  Am.  Dec.   117. 

48.  Uber  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151 
Wis.  431,  138  N.  W.   57. 

49.  Fuller  v.  Bradley,  25  Pa.  120. 

50.  In  the  absence  of  any  agreement, 
the  court  can  not  say  as  a  matter  of  law 
that  from  February  27th  to  May  16th  a 
due  time  for  delivery  had  elapsed,  or  that 
because  part  of  the  freight  had  been  de- 
livered on  February  27th,  a  reasonable 
time  had  elapsed  for  the  part  not  deliv- 
ered. Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Price,  1  jO 
Ala.  213,   48   So.  814. 

51.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Gordon,  27  O. 
C.    C.    243. 

52.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Britton, 
39   So.   585,   145  Ala.   654. 

53.  Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Champlain 
Transp.   Co..   23   Vt.   186,   56  Am.   Dec.   68. 

54.  Proper  place  of  delivery. — Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bernhcim,  21  So.  405, 
113  Ala.   489. 

55.  Reasor^ble  time  for  removal  of 
goods.  —  .\rkadclphia  Milling  Co.  v. 
Smoker  Merchandise  Co.,  100  Ark.  37, 
139    S.    W.    680. 

56.  Arkadelphia  Milling  Co.  v.  Smoker 
Merchandise  Co.,  100  Ark.  37,  139  S.  W. 
680;  Burr  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  71  N.  J. 
L.    263,    58   Atl.    609. 


57.  Sessions  v.  Western  R.  Corp. 
(Mass.),   16   Gray   132. 

58.  Instructions. — In  an  action  against 
an  express  company  to  recover  the  value 
of  a  package  which  it  failed  to  deliver, 
an  instruction  that  the  failure  to  demand 
the  original  receipt  would  be  a  waiver  by 
the  company  of  a  certain  condition  of  the 
contract  was  erroneous,  where  no  such 
waiver  was  pleaded.  Adaius  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Gordon,    27    O.    C.    C.    243. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  damages  for  negligence  in  failing  to 
promptly  notify  the  shipper  of  the  con- 
signee's refusal  to  accept  the  goods,  there 
was  neither  allegation  nor  proof  that  the 
carrier  failed  to  transport  the  goods 
within  a  reasonable  time  or  give  the  con- 
signee notice  of  arrival,  an  instruction 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to 
carry  out  the  contract  and  ship  the  goods 
to  the  destination  in  a  reasonable  time, 
and  to  give  notice  to  the  consignee  as 
agreed  on,  was  error.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Jenkins,  80  S.  W.  438,  35  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   429. 

59.  Where  the  only  evidence  of  a  de- 
mand and  refusal  for  goods  alleged  to 
have  been  converted  by  a  carrier  was  evi- 
dence of  plaintiff's  attorney  that  he  de- 
manded pay  for  the  goods,  the  court 
erred  in  charging  on  the  issue  of  willful 
conversion.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hum- 
phries, 4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  333,  23  S.  W.  556. 

Where  goods  were  refused  by  the  con- 
signee,   and   were    afterwards    received   by 


603 


TRANSPORTATION'    AND   DELIVKRV    15V    CARRlKR. 


§§  902-903 


which  changes  tlie  issue  made  by  the  plaintiff  in  his  declaration.'^'  If  a  charge 
partly  abstract  is  not  prejudicial  to  the  party  complaining,  it  is  not  ground 
for  reversal."^  It  is  error  to  refuse  a  special  charge  ui)on  an  issue  raised  by  the 
evidence.''-  A  charge  which  is  in  accord  with  the  law  and  fully  and  fairly  pre- 
sents to  the  jury  the  issues  they  were  called  on  to  determine  is  not  erroneous, 
notwithstanding  some  slight  verbal  inaccuracy  of  exjjression."-*  Where  an  in- 
struction on  the  measure  of  damages  is  more  favorable  to  the  ])laintiff  than  the 
one  prescribed  by  law.  he  has  no  cause  to  be  dissatisfied  therewith.''-* 

§  903.  Verdict  and  Judgment. — Where  it  is  immaterial  whether  the  de- 
fendant carrier's  liability  (lepeiids  upon  its  duties  as  a  carrier  or  a  warehouse- 
man, the  objection  that  the  trial  court  based  its  judgment  on  its  liability  as  a 
carrier  is  unimportant.''"'  Where  an  action  is  brought  for  damages  resulting 
from  a  carrier's  failure  to  deliver  goods,  judgment  should  not  be  rendered  for 
the  ])Osscssion  of  the  goods  and  for  damages,  as  in  an  action  of  replevin.*""' 

Special  Verdict. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  comjjany  for  the  value  of 
goods  sold  by  it  after  the  consignee's  refusal  to  receive  them,  a  special  verdict 
that  the  goods  were  not  of  the  quality  ordered  by  the  consignee  is  insufficient 
to  sujjport  a  judgment   for  plaintiff"  for  the  proceeds  of  the  sale.'*' 

Statutory  Interest  Penalty. — Where  a  verdict  against  defendant  railroad 
company  for  damages  resulting  from  failure  to  deliver  a  shipment  contained 
no  mention  of  a  statutory  interest  penalty,  and  plaintiff's  petition   was  insuffi- 


the  consignors  and  sold,  an  instruction  that, 
if  the  carrier  delivered  the  goods  to  the 
consignee  without  his  surrender  of  the 
hill  of  lading  or  other  order  from  the 
consignors  to  deliver  the  consignors  were 
entitled  to  recover,  held  error.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jenkins,  80  S.  W.  428,  35 
Tex.    Civ.    .\pp.   429. 

Instruction  not  prejudicial. — The  agent 
of  a  forwarding  company,  which  was  un- 
der contract  to  forward  goods  without 
prepayment  of  the  charges,  refused  to  de- 
liver them  without  the  charges  being  paid. 
Held,  in  an  action  against  the  forwarding 
company  for  conversion,  that  an  instruc- 
tion that  if  there  was  a  conversion  de- 
fendant would  be  liable  for  the  reason- 
able value  of  the  goods  at  the  time  of 
conversion  was  not  prejudicial  error,  in 
that  there  was  no  evidence  of  the  value 
at  that  time,  where  plaintiff  testified  as  to 
the  value,  since  that  was  the  best  evidence 
obtainable  by  plaintiff.  Lee  v.  Fidelity 
Storage  &  Transfer  Co.,  98  P.  658,  51 
W^ash.    208. 

60.  In  Central  R..  etc.,  Co.  v.  Avant,  So 
Ga.  195,  5  S.  E.  78.  suit  was  brought 
against  a  railroad  company  for  failing 
to  deliver  to  the  consignee  two  car  loads 
of  watermelons,  according  to  the  con- 
tract of  affreightment,  and  the  evidence 
showed  that  they  were  in  fact  delivered 
at  the  point  of  destination  within  a  rea- 
sonable time,  but  the  consignee  refused 
to  receive  them  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  damaged  by  not  being  properly 
loaded,  and  that  they  had  become  bruised 
and  a  part  of  them  were  rotten,  it  was 
error  to  charge  that  if  the  defendant  did 
not  put  the  melons  in  good  safe  cars,  and 
they  had  to  be  transferred  from  tlie  cars 
in  which  they  were  loaded,  whereby  dam- 


age  accrued,   the   jury   would   find   for   the 
plaintiff  the  amount   of  such   damage. 

61.  Instruction  partly  abstract. — In  an 
action  ior  n<in(lcliver\-  of  goods,  an  in- 
struction that  defendant,  in  the  absence 
of  a  contract  to  the  contrary,  is  bound  to 
carry  and  deliver  the  goods  in  a  reason- 
able time,  regardless  of  any  unexpected 
or  extraordinary  pressure  of  business,  is 
abstractly  correct,  and  is  not  ground  for 
reversal,  though  the  record  on  appeal 
fails  to  show  any  evidence  as  to  a  pres- 
sure of  business.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Touart,   97   Ala.   514.   11    So.   756. 

62.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cleburne  Ice, 
etc..    Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.).   79    S.   W.    836. 

63.  Slight  verbal  inaccuracy. — That  in 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  refusal  to 
deliver  freight  without  identification  of 
the  person  claiming  it.  the  judge,  in  re- 
ferring to  the  paper  which  the  agent 
called  on  plaintiff  to  produce  as  evidence 
of  his  right  to  demand  delivery,  alluded 
to  it  as  "the  waybill  or  bill  of  lading," 
was  not  erroneous,  as  conveying  to  the 
jury  the  idea  that  it  was  incumbent  on 
plaintiff  to  produce  the  waybill,  which 
should  have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  car- 
rier. Sellers  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
51    S.    E.    398.    123    Ga.    386. 

64.  Instruction  favorable  to  party  com- 
plaining. Wilson  ;■.  .Xtlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  ^2  <'.a.  :!^i''.  9  S.  K.  1070. 

65.  Judgment. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Hall,  etc.,  Mach.  Co..  56  S.  W.  140.  23 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    211. 

66.  Brookstone  v.  Wescott  Exp.  Co.. 
<■)!    X.   V.   S.   72,   29   Misc.    Rep.   634. 

67.  Special  verdict. — Finley  v.  Lewis 
(Tex.),    ;!9    S.    W.    974. 


§   903  CARRIERS.  604 

cient  to  support  a  judgment  therefor,  it  was  error  for  the  court  to  allow  such 
penalty  in  entering  judgment  on  the  verdict. "^^ 

Unwarranted  Verdicts. — Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  con- 
version, the  evidence  showed  only  a  probable  delivery  to  one  not  authorized  to 
receive  the  property  and  the  question  of  delivery  and  authority  was  not  sub- 
mitted to  the  jury,  a  verdict  against  the  defendant  is  unwarranted.*''^  In  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  nondelivery  of  nursery  trees,  a  verdict  for  plaintiff 
for  a  certain  sum  will  not  be  sustained  where  there  was  an  utter  failure  of 
proof  of  any  certain  value.'''*^ 

68.  Statutory  interest  penalty. — Gulf,  R.  Co.  v.  Humphries,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.   Gregory   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),       333.  337,   23  S.  W.  556. 

59  S.  \V.  310.  70.    Adams    Exp.    Co.    v.   Jones,    53    111. 

69.  Unwarranted     verdicts. — Gulf,    etc.,       463. 


CHAPTER    XI. 
Dix.w  IX  Transportation  or  Delivery. 

I.   In  General,  §  904. 
II.  Diligence  Required  of  Carrier,  §  90."). 

III.  What  Constitutes  Reasonable   Diligence,  §  906. 

IV.  Perishable  Goods,  §  907. 

V.   Excuses  for  Delay,  §§  908-922. 

A.  In  General,  §  908. 

B.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  God.  Public  Enemy,  etc.,  §  909. 

C.  Delay  Caused  by  Seizure  under  Judicial  Process,  §  &10. 

D.  Delay  Caused  by  Unusual   Rusli  of  Business,  §§  911-914. 

a.  In  General,  §  911. 

b.  Duty  to  Provide  Proper  Eacilitics,  §  912. 

c.  Where  Carrier  Could  Have  Avoided  Delay,  §  913. 

d.  Notice  to  Shipper,  §  914. 

E.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  Consignor  or  Consignee,  §  915. 

F.  Delay  Caused  by  Rule  of  Carrier,  §  916. 

G.  Delay  Caused  by  Misdirection  of  Goods,  §  917. 
H.  Delay  Caused  by  Strikes  and  Riots,  §  918. 

I.  Where  Goods  Are  Perishable,  §  919. 
J.   Delay  under  Time  Contract,  §§  920-921. 

a.  In  General,  §  920. 

b.  Power  of  Agent  to  Make  Contract,  §  921. 

K.  Duty  of  Carrier  after  Excusing  Cause  Removed,  §  922. 
VI.  Duty  of  Consignor  and  Consignee  to  Avert  or  Mitigate  Injury,  §  923. 
VII.  Duty  of  Consignee  to  Accept  Goods,  §  924. 
VIII.  Delay  Caused  by  Connecting  Carrier,  §  925. 
IX.  Damages,  §§  926-954. 

A.  In  General,  §  926. 

B.  Arising  Proximately  from  Delay,  §  927. 

C.  Arising  at  Time  of  Delivery,  §  928.  « 

D.  Nominal  Damages,  §  929.  v 

E.  Stipulated  Damages,  §  930. 

F.  Special  Damages,  §§  931-939. 

a.  In  General,  §  931. 

b.  Within  Contemplation  of  Parties,  §  932. 

c.  Notice  of  Special  Circumstances,  §  933-938. 

(1)  Necessity  of  Notice.  §  933. 

(2)  Sufficiency  of  Notice,  §  934. 

(3)  Time  Notice  Given,  §  935. 

(4)  Notice  to  Agent,  §  936. 

(5)  Implied  Notice,    §  937. 

(6)  Evidence  to  Prove  Notice,  §  938. 

d.  Where  Cause  of  Delay  Known  to  Shipper,  §  939. 

G.  Exemplary  Damages,  §  940. 

H.  Measure  and   Elements  of  Damages.  §§  941-947. 

a.  In  General,  §  941. 

b.  Decrease  in  Market  Value,  §  942. 

c.  Loss  of  Profits,  §  943. 

d.  Expenses  Occasioned  by  Delay,  §  944. 

e.  Interest  on  Value  of  Goods,  §  945. 

f.  Mental  and  Physical  Suffering,  §  946. 

g.  Lial)ility  as  for  Conversion,  §  947. 


§    904  CARRIERS.  606 

I.  Mitigation  of  Damages,  §  948. 

J.  Goods  Intended  for  Use  of  Consignee.  §§  '.)49-951. 

a.  In  General,  §  949. 

b.  Measure  and   Elements  of  Damages,  §  950. 

c.  Particular  Goods,  §  951. 

K.  Goods  Intended  for  Sale,  §  952. 

L.  Goods  Intended  to  Be  Repaired.  §  953. 

M.  Time   of  Reporting   Claim   for   Damages,   §   954. 

X.  Actions  for  Delay,  §§  955-974. 

A.  Nature  of  Action,  §  955. 

B.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue,  §  956. 

C.  Joinder  of  Causes  of  Action,  §  957. 

D.  Parties.  §  958. 

E.  Limitation  of  Actions,  §  959. 

F.  Prerequisites  to  Bringing  Action,  §  960. 

G.  Pleading.  §§  961-964. 

a.  Plaintiff's  Pleadings,  §§  961-963. 
(.1)    In  General.  §  961. 

(2)  Particular  Allegations,  §  962. 

(3)  Amendments,  §  963. 

b.  Defendant's  Pleading,  §  964. 

H.   Issues,  Proof  and  Variance,  §  965. 

I.   Dismissal  and  Nonsuit,  §  966. 

J.  Burden  of  Proof  and  Presumptions,  §  967. 

K.   Evidence,  §  968-969. 

a.  Admissibility  of  Evidence,  §  968. 

b.  \\'eight  and   Sufficiency  of  Evidence,  §  969. 
L.   Instructions,  §§   970-972. 

a.  Province  of  Court  and  Jury,  §  970. 

b.  Necessity  and   Propriety  of  Instructions,  §  971. 

c.  Form,  Requisites  and  Sufficiency,  §  972. 
M.   Verdict,  §  973. 

X.  Judgment,  §  974. 

XI.  Demurrage,  and  Liability   of  Consignee   or   Owner  for   Delay,   §§   975-985. 

A.  In  General,  §  975. 

B.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Charge.  §  976. 

C.  Rules  and   Regulations   of  Carrier,  §§  977-979. 

a.  In  General,  §  977. 

b.  By   Whom   Promulgated,  §  978. 

c.  Notice,  §  979. 

D.  Time  and  Amount  of  Charge,  §  980. 

E.  Arrival  and  Continuance  at  Destination  and  Nature  Thereof,  §  981. 

F.  Persons  Liable  for  Demurrage,  §  982. 

G.  Lien  for  Demurrage,  §  983. 

H.   Remedies  and   Defenses,  §§  984-985. 

a.  Of  Carrier,  §  984. 

b.  Of  Consignee,  §  985. 

§  904.  In  General. — It  is  the  duty  of  a  comnion  carrier  to  whom  goods 
are  delivered  for  transportation  to  forward  them  promptly,  and  without  un- 
reasonahle  delay,  to  their  destination.^  In  the  absence  of  an  express  contract 
stipulating  the  time  within  which  the  carrier  is  to  transi)ort  and  deli\er  goods, 

1.     Delay   in   transportation   in    general.       .Am.   &   Eng.  Ann.   Cas.  450,  69   L.   R.  A. 

— Biblj   Broom   Corn   Co.  r.  .'\tchison,  etc.,       N.    S.,    509    110   Am.    St.    Rep.    361. 
R.    Co.,    94    Minn.    269,    102    N.    W.    709,    3 


607 


DKLAY    IN    TRANSPORTATION    OR    DKLIVKRY. 


§904 


the  law   ini])lies  a  jironiise  to  do  no  within  a   reasonable  time.^ 

Implied  Contract. —  If  a  bill  of  lading  is  given  at  the  time  the  goods  are 
delivered  to  the  carrier,  the  1)ill  of  lading  comprises  not  only  a  receipt  for  the 
goods,  hut  a  contract  to  ftiHill  the  obligation  which  the  law  imposes  on  the  car- 
rier, and  although  the  words  be  not  put  in  the  bill  of  lading  that  the  carrier 
will  deliver  within  a  reasonable  time,  that  is  the  legal  interpretation  of  the  con- 
tract which  the  carrier  enters  into  when  the  bill  of  lading  is  given,  where  there 
is  nothing  put  in  the  bill  to  exclude  that  interpretation.''  This  implied  agreement 
is  as  much  a  part  of  the  bill  of  lading  as  if  exi)ressed  in  it  in  so  many  words."* 
If  no  time  is  exi)ressed,  the  contract  is  not  on  that  account  to  be  regarded  as 
incomplete,  so  as  to  admit  proof  of  a  distinct  and  separate  agreement  as  to 
time.  In  such  a  case  the  parties  are  presumed  to  have  intended  that  the  car- 
rier's obligation  as  to  the  time  of  ])erformance,  shall  not  extend  beyonrl  that 
imposed  ui)on  it  by  law  in  all  undertakings  for  the  transportation  and  delivery 
of  goods  which  requires  that  there  shall  not  be  an  unreasonable  delay."'     Though 


2.  Vnitcd  States. — Northern  I'ac.  R.  Co. 
V.  American  Trading  Co.,  195  U.  S.  439, 
49    L.    Ed.   209,   2")    S.    Ct.   84. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
State,  84  Ark.  150,  104  S.  W.  1106;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  82  Ark.  353, 
101  S.  W.  TOO,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
125. 

Georgia. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Geor- 
gia Fruit,  etc.,  Exch.,  91  Ga.  389,  17  S.  E. 
904;  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Skellie,  86  Ga. 
686,  12  S.  E.  1017;  Rome  R.  Co.  v.  Sulli- 
van, etc.,  Co.,  25  Ga.  228;  Central  R.,  etc, 
Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382,  17  S.  E. 
838,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  37;  Johnson  v.  East 
Tennessee,  etc..  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  810,  17  S. 
E.   121. 

Illinois. — Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18 
111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574;  Ohio,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z:  Dunbar,  20  111.  623,  71  Am.  Dec. 
291. 

Indiana. —  I'ittshurgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kno.x,    177    Ind.    344,    98    N.    E.    295. 

Kcntuckw — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Saulsbury!  120  Ky.  179,  103  S.  W.  254. 
12   L.   R.  A.,    N.   S..  431. 

Louisiana. — Ratlibone  V.  Xcal,  4  La. 
Ann.    503,    50   Am.    Dec.    579. 

Missouri. — Dawson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  79  Mo.  296. 

Nebraska. — JefFeries  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  88   Neb.  268,   129*  N.  W.   273. 

Nezi'  York. — Parsons  r.  Hardy  (N.  Y.), 
14  Wend.  215,  28  .\m.  Dec.  521,  and  note. 

Ohio. — Waring  &  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893,  7  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print   553. 

Oklahoma. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Farmers'  Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okla.  270,  125 
Pac.    894. 

Pennsvh'ania. — Joynes  z'.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  235  Pa.  232.  83  .A.tl.  1016,  Ann. 
Cas.  1913D,  964;  Hoffman  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  47. 

South  Carolina. — Nettles  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.  (S.  C),  7  Rich.  L.  190,  02 
Am.    Dec.    409. 

'fe.x-as. — International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tisdale,  74  Tex.  8,  17.  11   S.  W.   900,   4   L. 


R.  A.,  N.  S.,  545;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Silegman  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  23  vS.  W. 
298;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Server, 
3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  441;  San  An- 
tonio, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Josey  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  71  S.  W.  600;  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Langbehn  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  150  S.  W. 
1188. 

ll'isconsin.— Feet  z'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    20    Wis.    594,    91    Am.    Dec.    446. 

If  no  time  is  agreed  upon  in  the  con- 
tract of  shipment,  the  carrier  is  bound 
to  complete  the  contract  within  a  reason- 
able time,  and  if  it  fail  to  do  so  within 
that  time,  without  legal  excuse,  it  is  lia- 
ble therefor.  Place  v.  Union  Exp.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  2  Hilt.  19. 

In  the  absence  of  a  special  contract  on 
the  part  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  within 
a  specified  time,  mere  delay  in  transpor- 
tation does  not  create  a  liability,  the  de- 
lay must  be  unreasonable.  Shoot  v. 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  111.  .A.pp.  532; 
Bacon  v.  Cleveland  R.  Co.,  155  111. 
Ai)p.   40. 

Absolute  duty. — ^"In  the  absence  of  spe- 
cial contract,  there  is  no  absolute  duty 
resting  upon  a  railroad  carrier  to  deliver 
tlie  goods  intrusted  to  it  within  what, 
under  ordinary  circumstances,  would  be 
a  reasonable  time."  Greismcr  z\  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  102  N.  Y.  503,  7  N. 
E.    828.   55   Am.    Rep.   837. 

3.  Implied  contract. — Waring  &  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull. 
893,   7   O.    Dec.    Reprint   553. 

4.  Central  R.,  etc..  Co.  v.  Hasselkus,  91 
Ga.  382,   17   S.   E.  838,  44  .\m.   St.    Rep.   37. 

5.  Parol  evidence  not  admissible.^ 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga. 
382,    17    S.    E.   838,   44  Am.    St.    Rep.   37. 

Parol  evidence  is  not  admissible  to 
negative  this  presumption  by  showing 
that  a  det'inite  and  specific  time  was 
agreed  upon  either  expressly  or  by  im- 
plication. Central  R.,  etc..  Co.  f.  Has- 
selkus, 91  Ga.  382,  17  S.  E.  838,  44  .\m. 
St.    Rep.   37. 


§§  904-905 


CARRIERS. 


608 


a  bill  of  lading  is  silent  as  lo  the  goods  being  delivered  within  a  reasonable  time, 
yet  that  obligation  is  part  of  the  written  contract,  and  an  action  for  failure  to 
deliver  in  a  reasonable  time  is  not  barred  in  six  years,  but  in  fifteen  years.*5 

§  905.  Diligence  Required  of  Carrier. — It  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to 
exercise  reasonable  and  ordinary  diligence  to  transport  and  deliver  the  goods 
to  their  destination,"  exercising  the  care  necessary  to  comply  with  its  contract 
of  shipment;  keeping  in  view  the  character  of  the  goods,  their  likelihood  of 
deterioration  and  loss  in  value  by  reason  of  delay. *^  The  carrier  is  not  bound 
to  use  extraordinary  diligence.^  Alere  delay  docs  not  create  a  liability  on  the 
part  of  the  carrier  to  respond  in  damages;  the  delay  must  be  unreasonable.^*^ 

Carrier  Not  Insurer. — For  delay  in  receiving  and  carrying  the  goods,  the 
carrier  is  not  an  insurer,  and  is  bound  only  by  the  general  rule  of  liability  for 
a  breach  of  his  contract,  or  of  his  public  duty  as  a  carrier.' ^  The  principle  upon 
which  the  extraordinary  responsibility  of  common  carriers  is  founded  does  not 
require  that  that  responsibility  should  be  extended  to  the  time  occupied  in  the 


6.  Waring  &  Co.  v.  Bahimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Wkly.  L.  Bull.  893,  7  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print  553. 

7.  Diligence  required  of  carrier. — Flor- 
ida.— Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway  v. 
Rentz,  60  Fla.  429,  54  So.   13. 

Georgia. — Johnson  v.  East  Tennessee, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  90  Ga.  810,  17  S.  E.  121. 

Illinois. — Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunbar, 
20  111.  623,  71  Am.  Dec.  291;  Bacon  z\ 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  185  111.  App.  40. 
Xew  York. — Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  7  N.  E.  828, 
55  Am.  Rep.  837,  citing  Wilbert  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  245;  Black- 
stock  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 
48,    75    Am.    Dec.    372. 

North  Carolina. — Bonar  v.  Merchants' 
Co.,  46  N.  C.  211. 

South  Carolina. — Harby  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  75  S.  C.  321,  55  S.   E.  760. 

Texas. — Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Foster 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S.  W.  44;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kapp,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
203,  83  S.  W.  233;  Gerhard  v.  Neese,  SG 
Tex.  635;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i: 
Tisdale,  74  Tex.  8,  11  S.  W.  900,  4  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  545;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Server,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  441; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gillett  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.;,  99  S.  W.  712;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Thompson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  103 
S.  W.  684;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Turner,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  532,  94  S.  W. 
214;  Alissouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kyser,  43 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  322,   95   S.  W.  747. 

West  Virginia.  —  Delaney  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  70  W.  Va.  502,  74  S. 
E.  512. 

Wisconsin. — Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec.  446. 

While,  as  a  rule,  only  an  act  of  God 
or  of  the  public  enemy  will  relieve  a  car- 
rier of  goods  from  liability  for  their  safe 
delivery,  it  need  only  exercise  due  dili- 
gence as  to  the  time  of  delivery.  Judg- 
ment (Sup.  1908)  110  N.  Y.  S.  1125,  re- 
versed Cormack  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  90   N.   E.   56,   196   N.   Y.   442,   17   Am. 


&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  949,  24  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1209. 

Where  a  common  carrier  receives 
goods  for  transportation  and  is  sued  for 
delay  in  delivering  them,  it  is  error  to 
charge  that  the  carrier  is  bound  to  ex- 
traordinary diligence  as  to  the  time  of 
transportation.  Ordinary  and  reasonable 
diligence  is  the  rule.  Johnson  v.  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  810,  17  S. 
E.  121. 

The  words  "promptly  and  without  de- 
lay," used  to  define  a  carrier's  duty  with 
reference  to  the  transportation 'of  goods, 
mean  "with  reasonable  promptness,  and 
without  unreasonable  delay."  Burlin- 
game  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  171  Fed.  902. 

8.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Young 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  72   S.   W.   68. 

9.  Extraordinary  diligence. — Johnson 
r.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga. 
810,   17   S.    E.    131. 

10.  Delay  must  be  unreasonable. — Ba- 
con V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  111. 
App.  40;  Shoot  V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
145   111.  App.  532. 

11.  Carrier  not  insurer.  —  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188,  32 
Am.  Rep.  63;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi, 
76  Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  323,  18  Am.   St.  Rep.  45. 

The  rule  that  a  carrier  is  an  insurer  of 
safe  delivery  does  not  apply  to  liability 
for  delay  of  transportation;  reasonable 
care  only  being  required  to  avoid  delay. 
Delaney  v.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  70  W. 
Va.   502,   74   S.    E.   512. 

A  common  carrier  is  not  an  insurer 
as  to  time,  but  is  bound  to  transfer 
freight  to  its  destination  within  a  reason- 
able time.  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
:j3    O.    St.    511,   31   Am.    Rep.   561. 

The  rule  that  a  carrier  is  an  insurer  is 
inapplicable  to  an  action  for  damages  to 
a  shipment  of  corn  by  delay;  the  corn 
having  been  transported  and  delivered  to 
the  consignee.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Thompson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  103  S.  W. 
684. 


609  IMvU.W     IX    TKAXSI'ORTATIOX    OR    DKLIVKKV.  §    905 

transporlalion.  The  danger  of  robbery  or  embezzlement  Ijy  collusion  or  fraud, 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  has  no  application  here.^-  The  reasons  upon  which 
the  extraordinary  responsibility  of  the  carrier  for  the  safety  of  the  goods  is 
founded  do  not  retjuire  that  the  same  responsibility  should  be  extended  to  the 
time  occupied  in  their  transportation.  The  danger  of  loss  by  robbery  or  em- 
bezzlement or  theft  by  collusion  and  fraud  on  the  carrier's  part,  has  no  appli- 
cation where  the  mere  time  of  the  carriage  is  concerned.  The  carrier's  first  duty 
is  to  carry  the  goods  safely,  and  the  second  to  deliver  them;  and  it  would  be 
very  hard  to  oblige  the  carrier,  in  case  of  any  obstruction,  to  risk  the  safety  of 
the  goods  in  order  to  prevent  delay.  The  carrier's  duty  is  to  deliver  the  goods 
within  a  reasonable  time,  which  is  a  term  implied  by  the  law  in  the  contract  to 
deliver,  the  duty  to  deliver  within  a  reasonable  time  being  merely  a  term  en- 
grafted bv  legal  implication  ui)on  the  promise  or  duty  to  rleliver  generally.*^ 

Where  Carrier  Exercises  Reasonable  Diligence. — A  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  delay  in  the  IransiJortalion  of  goods,  if  ordinary  care  and  diligence  is  used 
in  the  transportation  and  delivery  thereof  to  the  consignee. ^^  It  is  not  bound 
to  use  any  extraordinary  exertions  nor  to  incur  heavy  expense,  in  order  to 
hasten  the  delivery  of  goods. i''  Where  a  carrier  fails  or  refuses  to  accept 
freight  tendered  it  for  transportation  because  of  its  inability  to  transport  it, 
occasioned  by  extraordinary  circumstances  or  an  emergency  that  could  not  have 
been  reasonably  forseen  and  for  which  the  carrier  is  not  responsible,  such  fail- 
ure or  refusal  gives  the  shipper  no  right  to  recover  for  delay  in  transportation 
of  the  freight  tendered,  where  the  carrier  does  all  that  could  have  been  rea- 
sonablv  required  of  it  to  meet  the  demands  made  upon  it  for  transportation.^*' 

Where  Goods  Shipped  with  as  Much  Dispatch  as  Possible. — Where,  in 
an  action  against  a  carrier  of  goods  for  damages  caused  by  delay,  it  appears 
from  the  evidence  produced  by  the  plaintiffs,  the  witness  being  a  person  who 
had  actual  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  the  car  alleged  to  have  been  unreason- 
ably delayed  in  its  passage  was  sent  forward  and  delivered  with  as  much  dis- 
patch as  possible  under  the  actual  circumstances  which  existed  at  the  time,  there 
is  no  error  in  granting  a  nonsuit.''" 

With  All  Possible  Dispatch. — A  carrier  is  not  bound  to  great  haste  or  ex- 
pedition.^^^  In  expediting  the  shipment  the  law  does  not  require  that  it  should 
be  transported  in  as  speedy  a  way  as  possible.'^  Xo  rule  of  law  makes  it  the 
imperative  duty  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  immediate  transportation  after  receiving 
freight  for  shipment.-" 

Where  Shipment  for  Illegal  Purpose. — If  an  owner  of  cotton,  during  the 
civil  war,  forwarded  it  by  a  common  carrier  to  the  Rio  Grande,  for  the  illegal 

12.  Parsons  v.  Hardy  (N.  Y.),  14  charge  that  the  carrier  is  bound  to  ex- 
Wend.    215,   38   Am.   Dec.   521.  traordinary    diligence    as    to    the    time    of 

13.  Hutchinson  on  Carriers,  §§  330-  transportation.  Ordinary  and  reasonable 
335;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  76  Tex.  diligence  is  the  rule.  Johnson  v.  East 
337.  13  S.  W.  191,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  810,  17 
323.   18  Am.   vSt.   Rep.   45.  S.    E.    121. 

14.  Where  carrier  exercises  reasona-  6.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway  f.  Rcntz, 
ble    diligence.— St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  00    Fla.   439.   .-)4    So.    i:!. 

Thompson    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    103    S.    W.  17.  Where  goods  shipped  with  as  much 

684.  dispatch  as  possible. — Smitii  v.  Cleveland, 

It   is   sufficient,   if   the   carrier   exert   due  etc..   R.   Co..  92   Ga.   .')39.   IS   S.   E.  977. 

care  and  diligence  to  guard  against  delay,  18.    With     all    possible    dispatch.— Ger- 

if  the  goods  are  finally  delivered  in  safety.  hard  v.  Xeese,  3()  Tox.  (>35:  Chicago,  etc.. 

Parsons  v.   Hardy  (N.  Y.),  14  Wend.  315,  R.    Co.   r.   Gillett    (Tex.    Civ.   App.).  99   S. 

2S  Am.   Dec.   521.  W.    712. 

15.  International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Server,  19.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  \  oung 
3   Texas   App.    Civ.   Cas.,   §   441.  (Tex.   Civ.   App.).   72   S.   W.   68. 

Where      a      common      carrier     receives  20.       Immediate      transportation. — Liu- 

goods   for   transportation  and  is   sued   for       cago.   etc.,   R.   Co.  f.   Kapp.  37   Tex.   Civ. 
delay    in    delivering    them,    it    is    error    to       .\pp.  203,  83  S.  W.  233. 

1    Car- 39 


§    905  CARRIERS.  610 

purpose  of  evading  the  blockade  and  revenue  laws  of  the  I'nited  States,  and  of 
exporting  the  cotton  to  Mexico,  and  attempted  to  hurry  the  carrier  along  so  as 
to  escape  the  United  States  authorities  and  effect  his  purpose,  the  carrier  was 
under  no  obligation  to  make  dispatch  in  aid  of  the  owner's  reports.-^ 

Where  Carrier  Has  Notice  of  Necessity  for  Haste.— Notice  to  a  carrier 
of  special  circumstances  which  would  result  in  si)ecial  damages  to  a  shipper 
from  delay  in  transportation  of  machinery  imposes  on  the  carrier  the  duty  to 
use  dili<^ence  commensurate  with  the  requirements  of  the  case,  which  duty  the 
carrier  "performs    when     he    uses    reasonable    diligence    to    forward   the   goods 

prominlv.--  •  i         r       ^• 

Where  Goods  Not  Shipped  in  Turn.— A  shipper  has  no  right  of  action 
against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  shipment  if  the  freight  is  shipped  in  a  reasonable 
time  whether  in  its  turn  or  not.--'  .      ,       ,  r 

Where  Proper  Means  and  Facilities  Furnished.— It  is  the  duty  of  a  car- 
rier to  provide  suhicient  and  suitable  means  for  the  carriage  of  goods  and  to 
make  deliverv  of  them  with  all  convenient  dispatch.^-'  A  carrier  is  bound  to 
do  all  that  is'  reasonable  and  use  all  reasonable  means  by  increasing  the  number 
of  its  tracks  and  warehouses  to  accommodate  its   increased  business.-' 

Where  Shipper  Designates  Time.— Although  a  permit  issued  by  a  steam- 
shii)  companv  designated  a  certain  dav  as  the  date  on  which  certain  goods  were 
to  be  delivered  on  the  wharf  for  shipment,  a  railroad  company  transporting  the 
croods  to  the  wharf  had  no  right  to  disregard  the  express  directions  of  the  ship- 
per that  the  goods  should  be  delivered  on  the  wharf  m  the  forenoon  of  such 
dav  and  to  rely  on  the  statement  of  such  permit;  and  where  the  railroad  com- 
panv delivered  die  goods  in  the  afternoon,  and  they  were  refused  by  the  steam- 
ship company  on  account  of  lack  of  room  on  the  vessel,  the  railroad  company 
was  liable  to  the  shipper  for  resulting  damages.-*^  Under  a  statute  requiring 
carriers  to  transport  freight  promptly  on  receiving  notice  that  prompt  shipment 
is  required  requires  notice  to  be  given  within  such  time  before  shipment  that 
the  carrier's  agent,  notwithstanding  his  other  duties,  with  reasonable  diligence, 
mav  remember  the  notice;  it  not  being  necessary  to  give  notice  of  the  exact 
time  of  shipment.-'  L'nder  a  statute  requiring  carriers  to  transport  freight 
promptly  on  receiving  notice  that  prompt  shipment  is  ref|uired.  the  notice  must 
be  given  the  shipping  agent.-^  .   -^^  ^        n-  t^ 

Where  No  Previous  Information  as  to  Causes  of  Delay  Given.— if 
the  shipper  has  not  all  the  information  he  desires  as  to  the  circumstances  or 
causes  which  will  expedite  or  delav  the  delivery  of  goods,  it  would  be  more 
reasonable  that  he  should  make  inquiry  than  to  impose  on  the  company  or  its 
accents  the  duty  of  giving  unasked  a  statement  of  such  circumstances.-'' 
"where  Goods  Held  for  Freight.— Even  if  a  railroad  company  may  with- 
hold from  the  owner  goods  shipped  over  its  road,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing whether  the  bill  of  lading  correctly    states    the    amount  due,  or  whether  a 

21.  Where  shipment  for  illegal  purpose.       Pa.   2.32,   83   Atl.    lOlG,   Ann.    Cas.    1913   D, 
—  (krlTard    r.    Xeese,    3(1    Tex.    035.  904.  j     •         ..         ^- 

.22.   Where  carrier  has  notice  of  neces         ^,:^'^-^,^^:^JrTf^t..rcZ 
sity    for   haste.-Chicago,    etc      R.    Co.    <,;.       ^^.,    ^^,     ^.     ^    ^^^.^   ^.^    ^^.^^     ^^_^^    2,.^ 
rianters_    Gin,    etc.,    Co.,    88    Ark.    m.    n.>  ^^    ^.^^   ^^^.^^   ^j^^^  ^^   carrier.-Act 

^-  ^^-  "■'■^-  ,.        J    .      ^  March   26,   1904   (24   St.  at   Large,  p.   B71), 

23.  Where   goods   not  shipped   in   turn.       ^   ^.   j^jjjg  ^    Southern   Railway,  82   S.   C. 
— Wilson   V.   Atlanta,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   82    Ga.       ^^^ '  64   S    E.   23S. 

386.   9   S.    E.   107G.      See   post,   "Perishable       "  gg.    -p^^"  .^^^qj^  '  notice    given.— Mills    v. 
Goorls."    §   907.  _  _  _  Southern    Railway,   .S2   S.    C.    242,    (14    S.    E. 

24.  Where   proper   means   and   facilities       |>:;s. 

furnished.— Railroad  Co.  v.  0'I3onnell,  49  29.   Where   no   previous   information    as 

O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  to    causes    of    delay    given. — Peet    v.    Chi- 

.579.   21    L.    R.   A.,   N.    S.,   117.  cago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    20    Wis.    594,    91    Am. 

25.  Joynes   V.    Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   235  Dec.    446. 


611 


DKLAV     IX     TRAXSi'ftinATKi.V     ok     M-XIV1:RV. 


§§  <;05-906 


waybill   in   its  ])o.ssession  sets   forth   the  true  aiiKjunt,  yet  it  can  hold  the  goods 
only  for  a  reasonable  time.'"' 

§  906.  What  Constitutes  Reasonable  Diligence. — Whether  goods  shipped 
are  delixered  by  the  carrier  within  a  reasonable  time  depends  on  the  facts  of 
each  case,-'^  inclnding  tlie  time  ordinarily  re(|uired  for  carriage  between  the  two 
points,  the  preparations  made  by  the  carrier,  whether  ample  or  not,  the  effort 
at  dispatch,  the  information  given  to  the  shipper  of  pecnliar  reasons  for  speedy 
transit  and  delivery,  the  character  of  the   freight,  and  kindred  circumstances. ^- 

Cause  of  Delay. — A  claim  for  loss  of  profits  by  being  compelled  to  sto]j  an 
electric  i)lant  I)ccause  a  shaft  used  therein  was  broken  en  route  and  returned 
to  the  repair  shop  by  the  express  company  to  be  repaired  before  it  was  for- 
warded to  the  plant  was  based  upon  the  owner's  being  deprived  of  the  use  of 
the  shaft,  and  whether  the  delay  was  caused  by  injur\-  to  the  shaft  or  by  other 
reasons  is  immaterial.'"' 

Delivery  in  Usual  Course  of  Business.— .\  delivery  in  the  usual  course  of 
business  is  within  a  reasonable  time.'"  Where  an  unusual  contingency  has 
arisen  which  unexpectedly  largely  increases  the  business  and  thereby  prevents 
the  handling  of  freight  with  the  usual  ])romi)tness  and  dispatch,  the  criterion 
of  reasonable  diligence  is  not  the  usual  average  rate  of  speed  in  ordinary  times, 
but  the  average  running  time  under  the  extraordinary  ancl  unusual  circumstances 
existing  at  the  time.''-'' 

Delivery  in  Compliance  with  Custom.— ( )ne  who  shijjs  goods  to  an  agent 
at  a  place  where  a  custom  not  to  deliver  on  a  holiday  i)re\ails  is  bound  bv  such 
custom,  though  he  has  no  actual  knowledge  thereof.-^'' 

Delay  during  Sundays  and  Holidays.— W  here  it  is  a  general  and  uniform 


30.  Where    goods    held   for   freight. — 

Beaslev  :■.  BaUimoro,  etc.,  R.  Co..  27  App. 
D.    C.    595. 

31.  What  constitutes  reasonable  dili- 
gence.— United  States. — Alissouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.   Hall,   14  C.   C.  A.   153,   66   Fed.   868. 

New  Jersey. — Higgins  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  83  N.  J.   L.  398,  85  Atl.  450. 

Nezu  York. — Coffin  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  64  Barb.  379,  affirmed  in 
56    N.    Y.   632. 

South  Carolina. — Nettles  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.  (S.  C),  7  Rich.  L.  190,  02 
Am.   Dec.   409. 

IViscousin. — Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec.  446,  447. 

32.  Columlius,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Flournoy, 
75    Ga.    745. 

33.  Cause  of  delay. — Stone  z\  Adams 
Exp.    Co.    (K}-.),    122    S.    W.    200. 

34.  Delivery  in  usual  course  of  business. 
— In  the  absence  of  special  contract,  a 
railroad  company,  as  a  common  carrier, 
is  bound  to  deliver  goods  at  their  desti- 
nation, or  at  the  end  of  its  route  to  the 
next  carrier,  according  to  the  usual  course 
of  business,  witli  all  convenient  dispatch. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Nelson, 
41  Tenn.  (1  Coldw.)  272. 

In  an  action  against  the  carrier  to  re- 
cover for  alleged  reasonaiile  delay  in  tiie 
transportation  of  freight  where  the  only 
evidence  on  the  suliject  of  reasonable  time 
is  that  the  goods  were  carried  and  reached 
their  destination  witliin  the  usual  time  oc- 


cupied, according  to  the  usual  course  of 
inisiness  in  accomplishing  the  transporta- 
tion between  the  point  of  sliipment  and 
the  point  of  delivery,  and  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  any  special  undertaking  for 
completing  the  transportation  within  a 
definite  or  fixed  time,  a  verdict  for  the 
defendant  is  not  improper.  Lowe  v.  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ga.  85,  15  S. 
I-'..    (192. 

35.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  z\  Burrows, 
33  Alich.  (■). 

36.  Delivery  in  compliance  with  custom. 
— Though  it  is  error  to  exclude  evidence 
for  defendant  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier for  injury  to  a  consignment  of 
dressed  poultry,  resulting  from  failure  to 
care  for  and  preserve  it,  and  from  delay 
in  delivery,  that  the  delay  in  delivery  was 
caused  by  the  intervention  of  the  4th  of 
July,  which  was  observed  l)y  carriers  and 
among  Inisiness  men  of  all  classes  by  sus- 
pending business,  and  that  the  custom  oi 
suspending  business  on  that  day  was  an 
estal)lished  one — general,  certain,  and  uni- 
form— it  is  not  cause  for  reversal,  under 
Shannon's  Code,  §  6351.  providing  that 
there  siiall  be  no  reversal  in  the  supreme 
court  except  for  errors  which  aflfect  the 
merits  of  the  judgment  complained  of, 
where  the  uncontroverted  evidence 
showed  that  the  carrier  was  negligent 
in  failing  to  care  for  and  reserve  the 
lioultry.  Pennsvlvania  R.  Co.  :•.  Xaive, 
112  Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R.  A., 
X.   S.,   443. 


§  906 


CARRIKRS. 


012 


custom  at  a  place  to  which  freight  is  consigned  not  to  make  delivery  on  a  holi- 
day, negligence  can  not  he  predicated  on  the  failure  of  a  carrier  to  make  de- 
liver}- on  that  day.-'"  Under  a  statute  which  re(|uires  transportation  of  freight 
within  a  reasonable  time,  and  declares  that  in  reckoning  what  is  a  reasonable 
time  a  delay  of  two  days  at  the  initial  point  and  forty-eight  hours  at  one  inter- 
mediate point  for  each  one  hundred  miles  of  transportation  shall  not  be  charged 
against  the  carrier  as  unreasonable,  in  determining  whether  a  shipment  was  un- 
reasonablv  delayed,  the  court  is  not  authorized  to  exclude  intervening  Sundays, 
because  another  statute  prohibits  the  running  of  freight  trains  on  Sundays  be- 
tween sunrise  and  sunset. ^'^  This  is  a  remedial  statute  in  response  to  a  public 
demand  that  quasi  public  corporations  shall  transport  freight  in  a  reasonable 
time.  There  is  no  indication  that  Sundays  shall  be  excluded  from  the  reason- 
able time  prescribed  in  which  railroads  shall  transport  freight,  since  Sundays 
are  counted  in  the  time  in  which  clerks,  sheriffs,  lawyers,  road  overseers,  and 
all  others  are  respectively  required  to  perform  certain  acts  under  a  penalty  if 
they  fail  to  do  so  within  the  time  prescribed."  ^^  Though  it  is  error  to  exclude 
evidence  for  defendant  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  injury  to  a  consign- 
ment of  dressed  poultry,  resulting  from  failure  to  care  for  and  preserve  it,  and 
from  delay  in  delivery,  that  the  delay  in  delivery  was  caused  by  the  interven- 
tion of  a  holiday,  which  was  observed  by  carriers  and  among  business  men  of 
all  classes  by  suspending  business,  and  that  the  custom  of  suspending  business 
on  that  day  was  an  established  one — general,  certain,  and  uniform — it  is  not 
cause  for  reversal,  under  a  code  provision  that  there  shall  be  no  reversal  in 
the  supreme  court  except  for  errors  which  affect  the  merits  of  the  judgment 
complained  of,  where  the  uncontroverted  evidence  showed  that  the  carrier  was 
negligent  in  failing  to  care  for  and  preserve  the  poultry.^*^ 

Delay  at  Transfer  Points. — By  statute  in  some  states  a  carrier  is  allowed 
certain  time  at  intermediate  points  for  a  change  of  cars  and  for  unloading  and 


37.  Delay  during  Sundays  and  holi- 
days.— Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Naive,  112 
Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..   443. 

38.  Revisal  1905,  §  2632;  Davis  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  N.  C.  207,  59  S. 
E.    53. 

Revisal  1905,  §  2632,  requiring  car- 
riers to  transport  goods  within  a  rea- 
sonable time,  and  imposing  a  penalty 
for  delay,  provides  that  in  reckoning 
reasonable  time  a  delay  of  two  days  at 
the  initial  point  and  forty  eight  hours 
at  one  intermediate  point  for  each  one 
hundred  miles  of  distance  or  fraction 
thereof  over  which  freight  is  to  be 
transported  shall  not  be  charged  against 
the  carrier.  Held,  that  a  carrier  was 
not  entitled  to  a  deduction  of  interven- 
ing Sundays,  because  §  2613  prohibits 
the  running  of  freight  trains  on  Sun- 
day between  sunrise  and  sunset.  Wat- 
son V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59  S.  E. 
55.    145    N.   C.   236. 

Where  one  of  the  two  days  next  after 
the  delivery  of  freight  to  a  carrier  for 
transportation  was  Sunday,  such  day 
was  properly  deducted  in  ascertaining 
whether  the  freight  was  transported 
within  a  reasonable  time,  as  required  by 
Revisal  1905,  §  2632,  not  as  Sunday,  but 
as  one  of  the  two  initial  days  of  nonac- 
tion which  the  carrier  was  entitled  to 
.before    it    was     required    to     begin     the 


transportation.       Davis    v.    Atlantic,    etc., 
R.    Co.,    145    N.    C.    207,    59    S.    E.    53. 

"In  Keeter  i'.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  86  N.  C.  346,  Ashe,  J.,  says  that  the 
defendant  set  up  the  defense  that  Sun- 
day should  not  be  counted  because  the 
statute  (chapters  97  and  203,  pp.  182, 
359,  Laws  1879)  forbade  freight  trains 
to  run  on  that  day,  and  holds  that  Sun- 
day is  to  be  counted,  not  e.xcluded,  in 
making  up  the  time  which  the  railroad 
is  allowed  for  transportation.  Said 
chapters  97  and  203,  pp.  182,  359,  Laws 
1879,  referred  to  by  Judge  Ashe,  are 
now  Revisal  1905,  §  3844,  again  brought 
forward  as  a  defense  by  defendant.  The 
same  ruling  that  Sunday  (unless  the 
last  day)  is  to  be  counted  was  made  in 
Branch  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77 
N.  C.  347."  Davis  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   145    N.    C.   207,   59    S.    E.   53. 

39.  "In  the  cognate  matter  of  demur- 
rage, as  Judge  Ruffin  notes  in  Branch  v. 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  77  N.  C.  347, 
Sundays  are  counted  in  the  time  pre- 
scribed. To  same  effect:  Pressed  Steel 
Car  Co.  V.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  57  C.  C.  A. 
635,  121  Fed.  609;  The  Oluf,  19  Fed.  459; 
Baldwin  v.  Sullivan  Timber  Co.,  142  N. 
Y.  279,  36  N.  E.  1060."  Davis  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,   145   N.   C.  207,  59   S.   E.  53. 

40.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Naive,  112 
Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,   443. 


613 


l)i:i,.\V     I.\     TKAXSl'OkTATKJN     OK    UKLIVKKV. 


§  '^06 


reloading,  if  necessary ."♦^  A  station  on  the  defendant's  railroad  which  is  the 
terminus  of  two  other  railroads  is  not  an  interniediate  point  with  reference  to 
freight  not  transferred  to  the  other  lines,  but  shipjjed  through  on  the  defend- 
ant's line  to  points  beyond.^-  Under  the  demurrage  and  delayage  rule  of  a  rail- 
road commission,  fixing  a  charge  against  carriers  for  each  day's  detention  of 
a  car  in  transit,  without  allowance  for  free  time,  and  allowing  a  day's  free  tirne 
at  transfer  points,  a  carrier  is  not  deprived  of  such  allowance  by  a  delay  in 
transit,  but  tinu-  not  used  at  one  point  can  not  be  userj  at  another.-*^ 

Failure  to  Deliver  at  Night. — A  regulation  of  an  express  company,  de- 
clining delivery  of  freight,  including  dead  bodies,  from  night  trains  at  a  small 
station  where  no  night  office  is  maintained,  and  providing  for  carriage  to  the 
next  station  and  return  the  next  morning  to  the  destination,  is  a  reasonable 
rule."*^  The  question  of  the  legality  of  the  regulation  is  similar  to  that  of  the 
legality  of  such  a  regulation  of  a  telegrajih  company.-* •''  It  is  competent  for 
such  companies  to  estal)lish  reasonable  hours  within  which  their  business  may 
be  transacted ;  and  they  may  fix  those  hours  with  reference  to  the  quantity  of 
business  done.  They  may  not  be  required  to  employ  both  a  day  and  night  mes- 
senger, if  it  be  apparent  that  the  business  of  the  company  will  not  justify  such 
employment.^'' 

Computing  Time, — L'nder  a  statute  providing  that  the  time  within  which 
an  act  is  to  l)c  done  shall  be  computed  by  excluding  the  first  day  and  including 


41.  Delay  at  transfer  points. —  The 
forty-eight  hours'  aHowaiice  to  a  carrier 
for  delay  at  intermediate  points  by  Re- 
visal  1905,  §  2632,  is  for  change  of  cars 
if  necessary,  and  for  unloading  and  re- 
loading. Watson  V.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
59  S.  E.  55,  145  N.  C.  23G. 

"In  Meredith  v.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
137  N.  C.  478,  50  S.  E.  1,  this  court  held 
that  the  'forty-eight  hours  at  interme- 
diate points  was,  as  the  statute  says,  only 
'prima  facie  reasonable  delay,'  and  not 
to  be  allowed  unless  it  was  a  necessary 
delay.  The  statute  allows  the  carrier 
'the  ordinary  time  for  transporting  such 
articles  of  freight  between  the  receipting 
and  shipping  stations,'  and,  in  addition 
to  that,  'a  delay  of  two  days  at  the  ini- 
tial point'  (instead  of  the  day  of  receipt, 
under  Revisal  1905,  §  887),  and  'forty- 
eight  hours  at  one  intermediate  point  for 
each  one  hundred  miles  of  distance  or 
fractions  thereof  *  *  *  shall  be  held 
prima  facie  reasonable.'  This  is  the  plain 
language  of  the  body  authorized  to  make 
laws,  and  this  court  has  no  desire  or 
power  to  read  or  construe  it  except  as  it 
is  written.  If  the  time  allowed  is  too 
liberal,  or  too  restricted,  it  is  for  the  leg- 
islature to  change  it."  Davis  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,   R.  Co.,  145   N.   C.  207,  59   S.   E.  53,  55. 

42.  It  was  so  held  under  North  Caro- 
lina Revisal  1905,  §  2632,  providing  what 
shall  be  a  reasonable  time  for  the  trans- 
portation of  freight,  and  authorizing  a 
delay  of  forty-eight  hours  at  one  interme- 
diate point  for  each  one  hundred  miles. 
Davis  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  145  N.  C. 
207,   59   S.    E.    53. 

43.  Rule  (Miss.\  10  of  Railroad  Com- 
mission, adopted  June  8,  1904:  Keystone 
Lumber  Yard  f.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97 
Miss.  433,  53   So.  8. 


44.  Failure  to  deliver  at  night. — Adams 
Exp.  Co.  c'.  Hibbard.  145  Ky.  818,  141 
S.  W.  397,  38  L.   R.  A.,  N.  S.,  818. 

45.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hibbard.  145 
Ky.  818,  141  S.  W.  397,  38  L.  R.  A..  X. 
S.,   818. 

46.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Hard- 
ing, 103  Ind.  505,  3  N.  E.  172;  Adams 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Hibbard,  145  Ky.  818,  141  S. 
W.  397,  38  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  818;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Wingate,  6  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  394,  25  S.  W.  439;  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.  V.  McCoy  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  31 
S.   W.   210. 

"In  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  r.  Stein- 
bergen,  107  Ky.  469,  54  S.  W.  829,  21  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1289,  we  said:  'The  office  hours 
of  the  company,  where  the  message  was 
to  be  delivered  to  the  sendee,  were  from 
7  o'clock  a.  m.  to  the  same  hour  in  the 
evening,  and  the  message  in  question, 
having  been  received  during  the  night  of 
the  19th,  need  not  have  been  delivered 
until  within  a  reasonable  time  after 
7  o'clock  on  tlie  morning  of  the  20th.' 
And  in  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Crider, 
107  Ky.  600,  54  S.  W.  963,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1336,  we  again  said:  'It  seems  to  be 
well  settled  that  telegraph  companies 
may  make  reasonable  rules  and  regula- 
tions for  the  conduct  of  their  business, 
and  may,  where  the  volume  of  the  busi- 
ness does  not  require  it,  or  justify  the 
expense,  close  their  office  for  night  de- 
livery. Ordinarily,  whether  such  a  rule 
or  regulation  is  a  reasonable  one,  is  a 
question  for  the  court  and  not  for  the 
jury.  And  certainlj"^  such  is  the  law 
when,  as  in  this  case,  there  is  no  con- 
trariety of  testimonv  on  the  subject.'  " 
Adams  Exp.  Co.  r.  Hibbard,  145  Ky.  818, 
141   S.   W.   397,   38   L.   R.   A..    N.    S..  818. 


CARRIKRS. 


614 


§§  906-907 

the  last,  unless  the  last  dav  shall  be  Sunday,  when  it  shall  also  be  excluded, 
what  constitutes  a  reasonable  time  for  the  transportation  of  freight,  must  be 
determined  by  including  the  last  day,  unless  it  is  Sunday."*'  In  determmuig 
what  is  a  reasonable  time  for  transportation  and  delivery  of  freight  under  or- 
dinary conditions,  under  a  contract  fixing  no  time,  extraordinary  conditions, 
not  known  to  the  shipper  at  the  time  of  shipment,  can  not  enlarge  the  time.-*^ 

Question  for  Jury. — See  elsewhere.-*'' 

Particular  Instances  of  Delay.— A  delay  of  twenty-four  hours,'^"  two,^^ 
three. ■'•-  iwclvc."''  fifteen  •'-*  or  seventy'-'^  days  has  been  held  an  unreasonable 
delay.     One  month  '"■  has  been  held  unreasonable. 

§  907.  Perishable  Goods.— A  carrier  of  perishable  goods  must  exercise 
care  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  goods  are  perishable,  and.  though  it  is  not  lia- 
ble for  losses  caused  by  the  inherent  nature  of  the  goods,  it  is  liable  for  dam- 
ages from  unreasonable  delay  in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  goods.^'  A  earner 
of  perishable  freight,  guilty  of  negligent  delay  in  the  transportation  thereof, 
resulting  in  a  loss  of  ice  necessary  to  retain  the  proper  temperature  to  preserve 
the  freight,  is  liable  for  the  damages  attributable  to  an  insufficient  quantity  of 
ice.-^-^  But' the  carrier  owes  only  the  duty  of  exercising  reasonable  care  to  pro- 
tect it  from  injury,  in  the  absence    of    any    special  contract  as  to  the  time  of 

deliverv.''-'  .  ,    ,  ,  •  i  •     u 

What  Is  Perishable  Property.— Corn  is  not  perishable  property  withm  the 
meaning  of  a  stipulation  in  the  contract  of  shipment  releasing  the  carrier  from 
liability''  from  loss  on  perishable  property,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  for  injury 
to  the  corn  bv  heating  during  a  delay  in  shipment.*^*^ 

Natural  Tendency  to  Decay.— Unreasonable  delay  by  a  carrier  in  forward- 
incr  perishable  goods,  for  a  space  of  time  within  which,  by  the  operation  of 
naUiral  laws  de^'cay  will  be  produced,  renders  the  carrier  liable  for  the  damage 


47.  Computing  time. — Revisal  (N.  C), 
1905.  §  887:  Davis  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  14.5   N.   C.  207,  59   S.   E.  53. 

48.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Langbehn 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),   150   S.   W.   1188. 

49.  Question  for  jury. — See  post, 
"Province   of   Court  and  Jury,"   §  970. 

50.  Particular  instances  of  delay. — 
Ormsby  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Mc- 
Crary    48,   4    Fed.    70(5. 

It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  receiving 
freight  to  be  transported  to  carry  it  with- 
out unnecessary  delay  and  a  delay  of 
twenty-four  hours  at  a  station  on  the 
way  will  be  deemed  unnecessary,  unless 
explained  by  something  which  the  law 
recognizes  as  sufificient.  Jefferies  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  Neb.  268,  129  N.  \V. 
273. 

51.  Two  days.— Peck  t'.  \\  eeks,  34 
Conn.    145. 

52.  Three  days. — Wood  z:  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  68  Iowa  491,  27  N.  W.  473,  5(i 
Am.  Rep.  861;  Hewitt  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  63  Iowa  611,  19  N.  W.  790;  Mc- 
Graw  v.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.,  18  W. 
Va.   :'.61.   41    Am.    Rep.   696. 

53.  A  delay  of  twelve  days  in  deliver- 
ing goods  from  Adrian  to  Chicago  is  un- 
reasonable and  the  carrier  is  liable  for 
damages.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Day, 
20   111.   375.   71   Am.   Dec.   278. 

54.  Fifteen  days. — Michigan,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.   Dav.  20  111.  375,  71  Am.  Dec.  278. 


55.  Seventy  days. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  Rail- 
way ■::   Heath,  41  Ark.  476. 

56.  A  delay  of  a  month  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  freight  a  distance  of  thirty- 
three  miles  is  unreasonable,  and  the  car- 
rier is  liable  for  the  damages  sustained. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Saulsberry, 
126  Ky.  179,  103  S.  W.  254,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
624,    12   L.    R.  A.,   N.   S.,   431. 

"Where  in  case  for  the  nondelivery  of 
a  parcel  in  a  reasonable  time  it  appeared 
that  the  parcel  in  question  had  been  de- 
livered to  the  defendant  in  London  on 
the  eighth  of  August,  addressed  to  the 
plaintiff  at  Birmingham,  where  it  should 
have  arrived  on  the  tenth,  but  did  not 
arrive  until  the  third  or  fourth  of  Sep- 
tember, it  was  held  upon  this  evidence 
that  the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover: 
Raphal  z:  Pickford,  6  Scott  N.  R.  478." 
Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Day,  20  111.  375, 
71   Am.   Dec.   278. 

57.  Perishable  goods. — Trakas  v.  Char- 
leston, etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  S.  C.  206,  69  S. 
E.  209.  See  post,  "Arising  Proximately 
from    Delay,"   §   927. 

58.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  White 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  103  S.  W.  673,  affirmed 
in    102   Tex.   591,   no   op. 

59.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  z:  Clark,  85 
Atl.   613,   118   Md.   514. 

60.  What  is  perishable  property. — Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  z:  McClellan,  54  111.  58, 
5   Am.    Rep.    83. 


615 


DKLAV     I\    TRAXSl'OKTATION    OK    DKLIVF.kV. 


§  '-^07 


to  tlie  goods.'''  The  carrier  is  lialjle  for  injury  to  corn  by  heating  where  the 
transportation  is  delayed  Ijeyond  a  reasonable  time."-  The  carrier  is  liable  for 
injury  to  fruit  by  decay.'-'  Where  a  carrier's  agent  consented,  when  requested, 
to  i)lace  a  car  of  ])erishable  fruit  in  ])Osition  for  unloading  and  failed  to  do  so 
and  the   fruil   .lecayed,  the  carrier  is   liable   for  his  negligent   failure.''* 

Preference  to  Be  Given  Perishable  Goods. — it  is  held  in  Wisconsin  that, 
if  a  carrier  recei\e  lor  tr,iiis])ortation  goods  ])erishable  and  those  not  perishable 
at  the  same  time,  and  there  is  a  press  of  freight  so  that  the  carrier  can  not 
transport  and  deliver  all  the  goods  before  the  perishable  will  perish,  but  can 
deliver  the  i)erishable  in  time  to  save  them  if  the  delivery  of  the  others  is  de- 
layed, it  is  the  dutv  of  the  carrier  to  give  i)reference  to  the  jjerishable.  There 
is'no  invariable  rule  thai  freight  of  all  kin(ls  shall  be  transported  and  delivered 
in  the  order  in  which  it  is  received.' ''  This  is  followed  in  Xew  York  and. 
Mississippi,''''  but  is  not  followed  in  Massachusetts,  where  the  court  said: 
"Nothing  is  re(|uired  of  him  in  respect  to  such  risks  but  the  use  of  due  care. 
If  the  owner  of  goods,  which  are  liable  to  injury  by  freezing,  chooses  to  send 
them  at  a  season  of  the  year  when  they  are  exposed  to  such  a  risk,  he  takes 
the  risk  himself.  The  conductor  was  bound  to  assume  that  it  was  important 
to  each  owner  of  freight  that  his  property  should  be  carried  with  all  reasonable 
care  and  speed,  as  the  company  had  undertaken  to  do  and  had  directed  him  to 
do,  and  he  could  not  know  that  the  speedy  delivery  of  the  contents  of  the  other 
cars  was  not  more  im]-)ortant  than  that  of  the  apples." '''  But  the  Wisconsin 
court  said:  "If  the  carrier  received  for  trans])ortation  goods  perishabje  and 
those  not  so  at  the  same  time,  and  there  was  a  press  of  freight,  so  that  he  could 
not  transport  and  deliver  all  before  the  perishable  goods  would  perish,  but 
could  deliver  the  perishable  in  time  to  save  them  if  the  delivery  of  the  others 
was  delayed,  can  there  be  any  doubt  what  his  duty  would  be?  Can  there  be 
any  doubt  that  a  preference  in  such  a  case  would  be  reasonable,  and  if  reason- 
able, that  the  perishable  goods,  if  they  did  not  have  the  preference,  would  not 
be  delivered  in  a  reasonable  time,  and  the  carrier  would  be  liable?"  *^^  If  the 
custom  of  giving  such  preference  has  been  long  established  and  is  well  known, 
the  parties  are  supposed  silently  to  adopt  the  custom  as  part  of  the  contract, 
unless  it  conflicts  with  its  express  terms.'"'^ 


61.  Natural  tendency  to  decay. — In  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Coolidge,  7.'.  Ark. 
112,  83  S.  W.  :^33.  108  Am.  St.  Rep.  21. 
67  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  355.  3  Am.  &  Ens;. 
Ann.  Cas.  582,  the  carrier  was  held  liable 
for  damage  to  potatoes  from  hot  weather 
during-   delayed    transportation. 

Where  there  is  no  agreement  in  the 
contract  of  shipment  as  to  time  for  trans- 
portation of  pcrishal)le  goods,  and  the 
carrier  neglected  to  transport  the  goods 
within  a  reasonable  time,  without  legal 
excuse  and  the  property  afterwards  and 
before  deliver}^  is  injured  from  its  nat- 
ural tendency  to  decay,  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  the  loss  of  the  goods.  Place 
z:   Union   Exp.   Co.   (N.  Y.),  2   Hilt.   IS). 

62.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  McClellan, 
54    111.   58,   5   Am.   Rep.   83. 

"  63.  "The  Georgia  court  announced  this 
rule  in  regard  to  perishable  goods:  'Un- 
rcasonalilc  delay  in  forwarding  fruit 
would  he  negligence  because  prolonging 
the  time  witliin  which,  by  tlie  operation 
of  natural  laws,  decay  will  be  produced, 
and  therefore  such  negligence  would 
contribute  to  causing  the  damage:'  For- 
rester T'.  Georgia  R..  etc..  Co..  92  Ga.  699. 
19   S.   E.   Sll."     St.    Louis,  etc..   R.   Co.  t'. 


Coolidge,  73  Ark.  112,  83  S.  W.  333,  108 
Am.  St.  Rep.  21,  67  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  555, 
3  .\m.   &   Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  582. 

64.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  'z:  Payne  (Tex. 
Civ.   A])p.).   15(1   S.   W.    1 121). 

65.  Preference  to  be  given  perishable 
goods. — Peet  r'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
W  is,    .-)94.    91    Am.    Dec.    446.    449. 

66.  Vazoo.  etc.,  R.  Co.  7:  Blum  Co.,  88 
Miss.  ISO.  40  So.  748.  10  L.  R.  A..  N.  S., 
432;  Tierney  z'.  New  York.  etc..  R.  Co., 
76  N.  Y.  305;  Marshall  i:  Xew  York 
Cent.   R.  Co..  48   N.  Y.  660. 

67.  Svvetland  v.  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
102    Mass.   276. 

68.  I'cet  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  20 
Wis.   .")'.)4.  91    .\m.   Dec.  446. 

69.  Custom  of  giving  preference. — 
"CooiH-r  :-.  Kane  t  X.  \.).  l".t  Wend.  :;<i'i. 
;i2  .\m.  Dec.  512;  Kirkman  r.  Shawcross 
(N.  C).  6  Term  Rep.  14;  Judd  z:  Evans 
(N.  C).  6  Term  Rep.  398.  We  doubt, 
however,  whether  the  proof  showed  that 
this  custom  had  been  so  long  established 
as  to  make  it  part  of  the  contract.  But 
we  think  the  practice  reasonable,  and  noi 
in  violation  of  any  rule  of  law."  Peet 
z:  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594,  91 
Am.   Dec.   446. 


§  907 


CARRIER; 


616 


Shipment  by  Next  Train.— \\hen  perishable  goods  are  placed  in  cars  pro- 
vided for  them  lor  transportation  by  the  carrier  in  time  for  the  next  regular 
train,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  transport  the  goods  by  such  train,  in  preference 
to  other  freight,  if  he  has  knowledge  of  the  circumstances,  and  is  liable  for 
injurv  resulting  from  delav  in  not  shi])ping  the  goods  by  that  train.'*' 

Shipment  on  Sundays  and  Holidays.— L'nder  a  statute  providmg  that 
trains  laden  exclusively  with  vegetables  and  fruit  may  run  on  Sunday,  and  such 
freight  trains  as  mav'be  in  transit  which  can  reach  their  destination  by  six 
o'clock  in  the  foreno'on  may  run  on  Sunday,  a  carrier  of  perishable  fruit  may 
not  excuse  a  delay  in  the  transportation  on  Sunday  in  the  absence  of  testimony 
explaining  why  a  train  did  not  go  to  the  point  of  destination  on  Saturday  even- 
ing, and  why  such  train  or  another  train  could  not  reach  the  destination  before 
six  o'clock  Sunday  morning  J '^ 

Shipment  Over  Connecting  Carrier.— Where  a  railroad  company  accepts 
perishable  goods  to  be  transported  for  its  own  line  and  over  connecting  roads, 
it  is  bound  to  forward  the  goods  promptly.'-  Where  a  carrier  undertakes  to 
deliver  perishable  goods  to  a  connecting  carrier  by  a  fixed  time,  and  negligently 
delays  delivering  them,  and  they  freeze  while  in  the  possession  of  the  connectiiig 
carrier,  the  initial  carrier  is  liable  therefor.'=^     But  the  contrary  has  been  held.'-* 


70.  Shipment  by  next  train.— The 
court  charged  that  it  was  the  duty  of  de- 
fendant to  transport  the  cabbages  by  the 
first  train,  unless  a  reasonable  and  proper 
excuse  for  the  delay  was  shown,  unless 
there  was  such  a  pressure  of  property  of 
a  similar  kind  which  arrived  before  as 
to  make  it  impossible;  that  if  there  was 
a  pressure  of  freight  this  car  should 
have  been  forwarded  before  forwarding 
ordinary  nonperishable  property.  Held, 
no  error.  Tierney  z'.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  76  N.  Y.  305,  affirming  10  Hun  569, 
67   Barb.   538. 

Plaintiff  on  January  6,  1873,  loaded 
upon  one  of  the  defendant's  cars,  at  Al- 
bany, cabbages  for  transportation  to 
New  York,  and  paid  the  freight.  On  the 
car  was  placed  a  placard,  signed  by  de- 
fendant's general  freight  agent:  "Per- 
ishable property;  this  car  must  run  to 
New  York  by  first  train."  A  way  bill 
delivered  to  plaintifif  showed  shipment 
from  Albany  January  7.  The  car  arrived 
at  East  Albany  at  10:40  p.  m.  of  that  day; 
at.  10:50  a  freight  train  started  thence  for 
New  York;  this  car  remained  until  3:20 
p.  m.  of  January  9,  when  it  proceeded  to 
New  York.  On  arrival  tlie  cabbages 
were  found  to  be  frozen.  The  usual  time 
for  a  freight  train  from  Albany  to  New 
York  is  from  ten  to  eleven  hours.  If 
the  cabbages  had  been  delivered  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  business,  they  would 
not  have  been  frozen.  Defendant  gave 
evidence  that  the  car,  on  arrival  at  East 
Albany,  was  switched  on  to  a  side  track 
and  blocked  up  by  cars  subsequently  ar- 
riving, so  that  it  could  not  be  moved  un- 
til they  were  sent  forward.  It  did  not 
appear  that  any  sudden  emergency  inter- 
fered with  the  ordinary  use  of  the  road, 
or  that  the  amount  of  freight  was  un- 
usual or  exceeded  the  capacity  of  de- 
fendant to  remove  it,  or  that  the  freight 


sent  forward  after  the  car  arrived  were 
made  up  of  freight  received  before.  Held, 
that  a  verdict  for  plaintiff  was  warranted. 
Tierney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 
N.  Y.  305,  affirming  10  Hun  569,  67  Barb. 
538. 

71.  Shipment  on  Sundays  and  holidays. 
—Under  Civ.  Code  1902,  §  2122,  as 
amended  by  Act  Feb.  21,  1903  (24  Stat. 
83).  Trakas  v.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
87   S.    C.   206.   69    S.    E.   209. 

72.  Shipment  over  connecting  carrier. 
— Blodgett  V.  Abbot,  72  Wis.  516,  40  N. 
W.   491,  7  Am.   St.   Rep.  873. 

A  railroad  company  chargeable  with 
unreasonable  delay  in  holding  a  car  con- 
taining vegetables  is  liable  for  the  nat- 
ural consequences  thereof,  even  beyond 
its  own  line.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Thompson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  66  S. 
W.  792. 

73.  "In  a  Massachusetts  case  where  a 
carrier  contracted  to  deliver  apples  to  a 
connecting  carrier  by  a  fixed  time,  and 
negligently  delayed  delivering  them,  and 
they  froze  in  the  possession  of  the  con- 
necting carrier,  the  court  said:  'If  the 
freezing  had  occurred  on  defendant's 
line,  it  can  not  be  doubted  that  the  law 
would  regard  the  delay  as  the  proximate 
cause  of  the  damage;  it  is  none  the  less 
so  because  it  happened  on  a  connecting 
line.  The  damage  was  not  caused  by 
any  extraordinary  event  subsequently 
occurring,  but  was  caused  by  the  event 
which  was,  according  to  common  ex- 
perience,  naturally  and   reasonably   to   be 

74.  The  freezing  of  apples  while  being 
transported  by  a  subsequent  carrier  is 
not  so  direct  and  natural  a  result  of  un- 
reasonaI)]e  delay  by  the  first  carrier,  as 
to  make  such  first  carrier  liable  therefor 
by  reason  of  such  delay.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Burrows,  33  Mich.  6. 


617 


DICLAV     IX     TRAXSPOKTATKiX     OR     DKIJVKKV. 


j§  007-908 


A  railroad  comi)any  acceptinj,^  perishable  freight  for  trans])oriation  over  iis  o\vn 
and  connectinj^  roads  must  forward  the  same  promptly,  to  the  extent  of  its  abil- 
ity, until  it  has  delivered  or  offered  to  deliver  it  to  the  connecting  carrier,  and 
is  not  excused  from  the  performance  of  such  duty  by  the  mere  fact  that  its 
agent  supposed  there  would  be  a  delay  in  the  forwarding  of  such  freight  by 
the  connecting  carrier."^ 

Particular  Goods. — The  carrier  has  been  held  liable  for  injuiy  to  pota- 
toes,''' corn,"  and  fruit '"^  caused  by  delay.  Where  a  carrier  accepts  potatoes 
to  be  shii)ped  during  a  season  of  the  year  when  the  weather  is  naturally  se- 
verclv  .cold,  although  it  is  not  cold  at  the  time  the  freight  is  received,  where 
during  a  delay  of  two  or  three  days  the  potatoes  freeze,  the  carrier  is  liable.'*-* 
Hay  not  being  perishable  merchandise,  a  carrier  is.  not  called  upon  to  put  forth 
uiuisual  efforts  to  remove  the  same  when  delivered  to  it   for  transportation.**" 

§§  908-922.  Excuses  for  Delay.— §  908.  In  General.— Where  goods 
are  actually  transported  and  delivered,  but  the  time  of  delivery  is  delayed,  such 
delav,  if  resulting  from  causes  beyond  the  control  of  the  carrier,  may  be  ex- 
cused; if  under  such  circumstances  the  carrier  exercises  due  care,  he  is  not 
liable.*'^  A  carrier  may  be  excused  for  delay  in  receiving  the  goods,  or  in 
transporting  them  after  they  have  been  received,  whenever  the  delay  is  neces- 
sarily caused  by  unforeseen  disaster  which  human  i)rudence  can  not  provide 
against,  or  by  accident  not  caused  by  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  or  by  thieves 
and  robbers,  or  an  uncontrollable  mob.^-  All  that  can  be  required  of  a  car- 
rier is  that  he  shall  exercise  due  care  and  diligence  to  guard  against  delay,  and 
that  if  it  occur  without  his  fault  or  negligence,  he  shall  omit  no  reasonable 
efforts  to  secure  the  safety  of  the  goods. ^^ 


expected,  a  change  of  temperature:'  Fox 
z:  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co..  148  Mass.  220,  19 
N.  E.  222,  1  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  702.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  a  contract  fixing  the  time  for  deliv- 
ery to  the  connecting  carrier,  the  law  fixes 
a  reasonable  time,  and  what  is  a  reason- 
able time  must  be  determined  from  the 
length  of  tlic  journey,  the  usual  time,  the 
weather,  the  nature  of  goods  transported, 
etc.:  Hutcliinson  on  Carriers,  §  32!). 
Under  these  authorities,  which  are  con- 
sonant to  reason  and  justice,  the  evi- 
dence is  sufiicient  to  hold  the  initial  car- 
rier was  guilty  of  a  negligent  act — the 
delay  in  transportation  of  this  class  of 
goods  in  the  season  when  weather  con- 
ditions naturally  produce  delay — whicli 
caused,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  condition 
in  which  tliey  reached  the  consignee.  It 
is  evident  that  the  last  carrier  was 
equally  or  more  negligent  than  the  ini- 
tial carrier,  but  that  does  not  change  the 
rule,  and  merely  renders  each  or  both 
liable  when  the  act  of  either  is  an  effi- 
cient and  pro.ximate  cause  of  the  injury." 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Coolidge.  73 
Ark.  112,  83  S.  W.  333,  3  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  582.  108  Am.  St.  Rep.  21,  67 
L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  555. 

75.  Blodgett  v.  Abbot.  72  Wis.  Slii.  40 
N.   W.   491.  7   Am.   St.   Rep.  873. 

76.  Potatoes. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Coolidge,  73  Ark.  112,  83  S.  \V.  333. 
108  Am.  St.  Rep.  21,  67  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
555,  3  .\m.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  582;  Mc- 
Graw  z:  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.,  18  \V. 
Va.  361.  41   Am.  Rep.  696. 


77.  Corn.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clellen,  54   111.  58,  5  Am.   Rep.  83. 

78.  Fruit. — Forrester  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc., 
Co..  92  Ga.  699,  19  S.  E.  811:  Place  z: 
Union  Exp.  Co.  ( N.  Y.).  2  Hilt.  19;  Tra- 
kas  z:  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  87  S.  C. 
206,   69    S.    E.   209. 

A  carrier,  on  receiving  fruit  for  trans- 
portation, is  bound  to  forward  it  to  its 
destination  immediately.  Frey  f.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc..  R.  Co..  100  N.  Y.  S.  225, 
114  App.  Div.  747. 

An  express  company  is  liable  for  dam- 
ages to  fruit  injured  by  delay  in  its 
transportation.  .-Vdams  Exp.  Co.  z\  Wil- 
liams  (Ark.),   14  S.  W.  40. 

79.  McGraw  z\  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
18   W.   Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  696. 

80.  Judgment  87  N.  Y.  S.  30.  92  .\pp. 
Div.  584.  affirmed.  Strough  z'.  New  York, 
etc..  R.  Co..  isi   X.  Y.  :uV.i.  73  X.  E.  1133. 

81.  Excuses  for  delay. — Gulf,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z:  Levi,  76  Tex.  337.  13  S.  W.  191,  8 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45: 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hynes,  3 
Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  20,  21  S.  W.  622;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Langbehn  (Te.x.  Civ. 
App.),   150  S.  W.  1188. 

82.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hollowell. 
f.5  Ind.  188,  32  .Am.  Rep.  63;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191, 
8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  326.  18  .\m.  St. 
Rep.  45. 

83.  Hutch,  on  Carr.,  §  330.  See,  also. 
§§  331-35,  292.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Levi. 
76  Tex.  337,  341,  13  S.  W.  191.  S  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  323,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45. 


§  908 


CARRIERS. 


618 


In  Absence  of  Express  Contract. — Inde])en(lent  of  special  contract  a  com- 
mon carritT  is  not  lial)lc  for  a  delay  in  delivery  of  freight  where  such  delay  re- 
sulted from  causes  beyond  the  carrier's  control,  and  the  carrier  exercised  due 
care  for  the  protection  and  preservation  of  the  property."'"*  Where  the  breach 
of  a  carrier's  undertaking  is  alleged  to  be  a  failure  to  exercise  due  care  and 
diligence  in  making  delivery,  resulting"  in  delay  in  delivery,  the  carrier  can  al- 
lege as  a  defense  any  facts  which  the  law  recognizes  as  an  excuse  for  delay, 
though  no  exemption  froni  liability  on  such  groiuid  is  in  the  contract  of  ship- 
ment.''•' 

Stipulation  for  Exemption  from  Particular  Cause. — The  stipulation  in  a 
contract  to  ship  perishable  goods  within  a  prescril)ed  time  exempting  the  car- 
rier from  liability  from  unavoidable  or  extraordinary  casualty,  and  natural  tend- 
ency of  the  goods  to  decay,  does  not  exempt  the  carrier  from  liability  where 
the  goods  are  delayed  by  a  connecting  carrier  because  of  an  excessive  amount 
of   freight   to  be   handled.^'' 

In  Addition  to  Act  of  God  or  Public  Enemy. — The  absence  of  negligence 
excuses  a  carrier  for  delay  in  transporting  goods,  and  it  is  error  to  instruct  the 
jury  that  only  an  act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy  can  supply  such  excuse.^"  If 
the  delay  is  induced  by  causes  beyond  the  carrier's  control,  it  is  excused,  re- 
gardless of  the  agency  producing  such  failure  or  delay.  It  is  immaterial  whether 
such  delay  be  attributed  to  the  act  of  God  or  not.*^^  If  by  accident  or  misfor- 
tune, not  amoimting  to  an  inevitable  casualty  or  the  act  of  God,  the  transpor- 
tation of  the  goods  is  retarded,  the  carrier  will  not  be  responsible  for  such  de- 
lay, if  he  has  used  due  care  and  reasonable  diligence,  and  the  goods  are  finally 
safely  delivered. •^•* 

Due  Diligence  in  Care  for  Property. — To  render  delay  excusable  the  car- 
rier must  have  exercised  due  care  to  protect  the  property  against  injury  pend- 
ing the  delay.**" 

Carrier  on  Same  Footing  as  Other  Bailees. — In  this  respect,  a  common 
carrier  stands  upon  the  same  ground  with  other  Ijailees,  and  may  excuse  delay 
in  delivery  of  the  goods  by  accident  or  misfortune,  although  not  inevitable  or 
produced  by  the  act  of  God.^^ 


84.  In  absence  of  express  contract. — 
International,"  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hynes.  3 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  20,  21  S.  W.  622;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gatewood,  79  Tex.  89,  95, 
14  S.  W.  913,  10  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  419; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13 
S.  \V.  191,  8  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  323,  18  Am. 
St.   Rep.  4.5. 

85.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stark  Grain 
Co..  103  Tex.  542,  131  S.  W.  410,  modif}'- 
ing  judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  .App.),  120  S.  W. 
1146. 

86.  Stipulation  for  exemption  from  par- 
ticular cause. — Place  r.  Union  Exp.  Co. 
(X.   V.j,  2   Hilt.  19. 

A  stipulation  exei'npting  the  carrier 
from  liability  for  delay  by  reason  of  the 
dangers  of  the  sea,  does  not  exempt  tlie 
carrier  from  delay  by  an  act  of  the  pub- 
lic enemy.  The  carrier  could  not  recover 
for  freight  where  it  had  undertaken  to 
ship  goods,  exempting  itself  from  natural 
loss  by  -waste  and  the  dangers  of  the 
sea  only,  and  the  goods  -were  captured 
by  a  ship  of  the  Confederate  States.  Tir- 
rell  V.   Gage   (Mass.j,   4  Allen   245. 

87.  In  addition  to  act  of  God  or  public 
enemy. — Bacon  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
15.5    111.    .\pp.    40. 

The   carrier   may   excuse   delay  by   acci- 


dent or  misfortune,  although  not  inev- 
itable, or  produced  by  an  act  of  God. 
Parsons  v.  Hardy  (N.  Y.),  14  Wend.  215, 
28   Am.   Dec.   521.  ' 

88.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hynes, 
3   Tex.   Civ.   App.   20,   21    S.    W.   622. 

89.  Story  on  Bailments,  §  545  a.  Par- 
sons V.  Hardy  ( N.  Y.),  14  Wend.  215,  28 
Am.  Dec.  521;  Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  12  N.  Y.  245;  Peet  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec. 
446,    448. 

A  common  carrier  who  has  been  guilty 
of  no  negligence,  is  not  liable  for  delay 
in  the  transportation  of  goods  occasioned 
by  an  accident  not  inevitable,  if  the 
goods  are  finally  safely  delivered.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson,  53  Tenn.  (6 
Heisk.)    271. 

90.  Due  diligence  in  care  for  property. 
— International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r'.  Hynes,  3 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  20,  21  S.  W.  622;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S. 
W.  191,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  18  Am. 
St.   Rep.   45. 

91.  Carrier  on  same  footing  as  other 
bailees. — Hutchinson  on  Carriers,  §  330. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13 
S.  W.  191,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45,  8  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  323. 


619  I)i:lav   in   tkaxspoktation    '■(.■    i.i mvkrv.  §§  908-909 

Railroad  on  Same  Footing  as  Other  Carriers. — A  railroad  carrier  stands 
upon  the  Munc  fijolin,<4  a>  oilier  carrier-,  and  may  excuse  delay  in  the  delivery 
of  goods  by  accident  or  niisfi)riune  not  inevitable  or  jiroduced  by  the  act  of 
God."- 

Carrier  Must  Notice  Signs  of  Danger. — The  carrier  is  bound  to  take 
notice  of  the  signs  of  approaching  danger,  and  if  of  a  character  to  awaken  ap- 
prehension at  a  time  when  the  facilities  and  means  of  escape  are  within  his 
control,  he  is  bound  to  employ  such  means.  It  was  error,  therefore,  to  charge 
the  jury  that,  in  calculating  the  extent  of  the  danger  and  means  requisite  to 
meet  it.  the  carrier  could  act  upon  the  experience,  history,  and  tradition  of  the 
past.'-'-'  lUit  mere  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  a  snow  storm  a  thousand  miles 
away,  on  a  connecting  line,  is  not  such  definite  knowledge  of  the  existence  of 
an  obstruction  as  will  i)revent  the  carrier  from  excusing  itself  for  a  delay  caused 
by  the  snow.'" 

§  909.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  God,  Public  Enemy,  etc. — A  carrier  is 
not  liable  in  transijorlation  of  goods  for  dcla}  caused  by  an  act  of  God.'*'* 
Where  delay  in  delivery  of  freight  was  caused  by  atmospheric  conditions,  ren- 
dering the  telegraphic  wires  unavailable,  so  that  the  employees  in  charge  of 
the  train  could  not  receive  orders,  it  was  beyond  the  carrier's  control,  and  ex- 
cusable.'"' 

Known  to  Carrier. — .\  carrier,  receiving  property  for  transportation  with 
knowledge  of  an  obstruction  on  its  road,  and  without  informing  the  shipper. 
can  not  offer  the  obstruction  as  an  excuse  for  not  making  a  prompt  delivery 
of  the  freight,  though  the  obstruction  is  the  act  of  God;  and  it  is  bound  tc. 
take  notice  of  the  signs  of  approaching  danger,  such  as  storms,  liable  to  create 
obstructions,  if  any  are  known  to  it.''' 

The  freezing  of  a  river  which  renders  it  impossible  for  a  carrier  by  water 
to  trans])ort  goods,  is  an  act  of  God,  which  excuses  delay. '••'^ 

92.  Railroad  on  same  footing  as  other  the  consequences  of  which  a  common 
carriers. — Geismer  ::  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  carrier  is  not  liahle.'  Herring  z:  Chesa- 
R.  Co..  102  N.  Y.  563.  7  N.  E.  828,  55  peake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Va.  778.  45  S. 
Am.    Rop.   s:?7.  H.   322.     Cases  are   cited   to   the  contrary. 

93.  Carrier  must  notice  signs  of  danger.  among  which  are  the  following: 
— Lament  &  Co.  :.  Xasluillc,  etc.,  R.  Michaels  z'.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co..  30 
Co.,   56  Tenn.    (9   Heisk.)    58.  N.    Y.    564,    86    Am.    Dec.    415;    Read    z: 

94.  Palmer  z:  .\tchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Spaulding,  30  N.  Y.  630,  86  Am.  Dec.  426; 
Cal.    187,   35    Pac.    630.  W'oli  f.   .\merican   Exp.   Co.,   43   Mo.   421, 

95.  Delay  caused  by  act  of  God,  pub-  97  .\m.  Dec.  406  (see.  however.  Amer- 
lic  enemy,  etc. — Williams  Co.  v.  Pensa-  ican  Brewing  Ass'n  v.  Talbot.  141  Mo. 
cola.  etc..  Co.,  57  Fla.  237.  48  So.  630;  674,  42  S.  \V.  679.  64  Am.  St.  Rep.  538); 
American  Exp.  Co.  z:  Smith,  33  O.  St.  Wald  z:  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  111. 
511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561.  And  see  Starhuck  545,  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  356, 
r.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Wkly.  L.  53  .\m.  St.  Rep.  332  (merely  adopts  the 
Bull.    110.    7    O.    Dec.    Reprint   97.  New      York      rule):      Cassilay    f.      Young 

A  railroad  company  is  not  liable  for  (Ky.),  4  B.  Mon.  26.5,  39  Am.  Dec.  505 
damages  arising  from  delay  in  the  ship-  (no  discussion  of  principles);  Alabama, 
ment  of  goods,  owing  to  the  loss  of  a  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Quarles,  145  Ala.  436,  40  So. 
car  on  account  of  extraordinary  weather  120,  5  L.  R.  .\.,  N.  S.,  867,  117  .\m.  St.  Rep. 
conditions.  Unionville  Produce  Co.  v.  54,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  308:  (car- 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  153  S.  \V.  63,  168  rier's  delay — destruction  by  cyclone): 
Mo.    App.    168.  Bil)b    Broom    Corn    Co.   z'.   Atchison,   etc.. 

As  to  injury  to  or  destruction  of  goods  R.  Co.,  94  Minn.  269,  102  \.  W.  709.  69  L. 

ty  act  of  God,  see  post,  "Loss  of  or   In-  R.  A..  N.  S.,  509,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  361.  3 

jury  to   Goods,"   XI.  Am.     &     Eng.     Ann.     Cas.     450;    Green- 

96.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hynes,  Wheeler  Shoe  Co.  :■.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
3  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  20,  21   S.   W.  622.  Co..    130   Iowa    123.   106    X.   W.   498.    5    L. 

97.  Known  to  carrier. — Xelson  z:  R.  .-\...  X.  S.,  882,  8  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Great  Xorthern  R.  Co..  9  R.  R.  R.  311,  32  Cas.  45;  Wabash  R.  Co.  z:  Sharpe.  76 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  311;  S.  C,  Xeb.  424,  107  N.  \V.  758,  124  Am.  St. 
72  Pac.  642,  28  Mont.  297.  Rep.   823.     The   last    three   are    1903    flood 

98.  Parsons  z\  Hardy  (X.  Y.),  14  Wend.  cases."  Rodgers  z\  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
215,   28   Am.    Dec.    521.  75    Kan.    222.    88    Pac.    885,    10    L.    R.    A., 

"  'Severe  weather  is  an  act  of  God.  for        X.  S..  658,  12  .\m.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  441. 


§§  909-910  cARRiKRS.  620 

An  extraordinary  and  unprecedented  flood  is  an  act  of  God,  and  injury 
caused  to  the  shipper  by  it  solely  is  not  a  ground  of  action  against  a  carrier  for 
damages  from  delay  in  the  shipment  of  goods,  and  where  the  carrier  is  free  from 
negligence.^^  A  carrier,  which  undertakes  to  carry  goods  over  its  own  route,  is 
not  responsible  for  unavoidable  delays,  such  as  might  be  occasioned  by  the 
destruction  of  a  railroad  bridge  by  a  flood,  and  if  such  delays  occur  while  the 
goods  are  in  transit  it  is  thereupon  the  duty  of  the  carrier  to  exercise  ^ound  dis- 
cretion and  reasonable  diligence  in  forwarding  the  goods  to  their  destination. 
The  carrier  is  not  bound  to  divert  the  goods  from  its  own  to  another  route  over 
which  it  has  control,  unless  in  the  exercise  of  such  discretion  and  diligence  it 
appears  that  the  change  of  route  would  have  prevented  the  loss  attendant  upon 
delav.^  But  admitting  that  an  express  company  is  responsible  for  the  fault  or 
negligence  of  a  railroad,  over  which  it  carries,  the  fact  that  a  bridge  of  the  rail- 
road was  carried  away  by  a  freshet  of  unusual  violence  is  not  such  default  or 
negligence  in  the  railroad  company  as  will  make  the  express  company  responsi- 
ble for  the  loss  of  perishable  property  by  a  delay  thus  made  inevitable. - 

Whirlwind. — Where,  after  a  carrier  had  received  a  wagon  for  shipment,  an 
unprecedented  whirlwind  blew  it  from  the  platform,  the  carrier  was  not  liable 
for  the  consequent  delay  in  shipment.^ 

A  heavy  dew  can  not  be  a  sufficient  cause  for  delay  in  transporting  cattle  by 
railroad,  so  as  to  relieve  the  railroad  company  from  liability  for  delay.^ 

§  910.  Delay  Caused  by  Seizure  under  Judicial  Process. — Garnish- 
ment.— A  statute  providing  that,  when  a  carrier  summoned  as  garnishee  in  an 
actio!i  has  goods  in  its  possession  shipped  by  or  consigned  to  defendant,  it  shall 
not  be  liable  for  its  failure  to  transport  the  goods  until  it  is  discharged,  exon- 
erates the  carrier  garnished  in  an  action  against  the  shipper  or  consignee  from 
liability  for  delay  caused  by  the  garnishment,  but  a  carrier  merely  alleging  that 
a  third  person  was  in  possession  of  the  goods  at  the  time  he  was  garnished  and 
omitting  to  allege  any  fact  showing  that  the  possession  of  the  third  person  was 
the  possession  of  the  carrier  is  not  within  the  statute. -"^  A  common  carrier  after 
acceptance  of  freight  for  shipment  from  a  place  within  a  state  to  a  place  with- 
out, after  the  goods  have  been  received,  placed  in  a  car  for  transportation,  and 
a  bill  of  lading  issued  to  the  shipper,  the  service  of  a  garnishee  simimons  upon 
the  carrier  does  not  excuse  it  from  liability  for  an  unreasonable  delay  in  for- 
warding the  goods  to  their  destination.'"' 

Quarantine. — A  carrier  was  excused  for  refusing  to  deliver  a  shipment  of 
bananas  to  the  consignee,  where,  upon  its  arrival,  the  carrier  was  notified  by 
the  chief  of  police  that  the  shipment  must  not  be  delivered,  and  that  the  con- 
signee would  not  be  allowed  to  unload  and  distribute  it,  if  delivery  were  made; 
the  chief  of  police  acting  under  instructions  from  a  sanitary  commission  created 
by  an  ordinance  establishing  a  quarantine  against  all  bananas  from  New  Orleans, 
though  the  jjarlicular  shipment  was  made   from   Mobile.' 

Refusal  of  Clearance  by  Collector  of  Port. — The  wrongful  refusal  of 
a  collector  of  a    port  to  allow    a    vessel  to    clear,  because    of    the    presence    of 

99.  Xorris  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  (Ind.    Terr.    App.),    17    Am.    &    Eng.    R. 

Fla.   182,  1   So.   475.  11  Am.   St.   Rep.   355;  Cas.,  N.  S.,  273. 

Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  5.    Delay    caused   by    seizure   under    ju- 

N.  Y.  563,  7  N.  E.  828,  55  Am.  Rep.  837.  dicial   process. — Haasc    &    Sons    iM.sh    Co. 

1.   American    Exp.   Co.   v.    Smith,   33    O.  "''■   Merchants',   etc.,  Transp.   Co.,   143   Mo. 

St.   511,  31  Am.   Rep.   561.  App.   42,   122    S.   W.   302. 

o      \™     •          t:"          /-.             c     -^t      oo    /^  6.    Baldwin    z:    Great    Northern    R.    Co., 

9.    .1^    .Ta         p''^-    S."^-   ''•    ^"'"    '    '^    °-        «1     Minn.    247,    83    N.    W.    986,    51    L.    R. 
St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561.  ,^     ^,    ^     ^.^^    ^3  ^,^^    ^^    ^^^    3^^ 

3.  Whirlwind.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  7.  Quarantine.— Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
Compton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  220,  ^.  Tirelli,  93  Miss.  797,  48  So.  902,  17  Am. 
221.  &    Eng.   Ann.    Cas.    879,   21    L.    R.  A.,    N. 

4.  Missouri,     etc.,    R.    Co.    v.     Truskett  S.,   731. 


621 


OKLAV     IN     TR.\XS1'(JKTAT1().\     ()i<    [)ElJ\i:ii\ 


§§  <no-9ii 


coiilrabaiul  on  board,  is  no  excuse  for  delay, ^  although  the  bill  of  lading  pro- 
vides that  the  carrier  shall  not  be  liable  for  loss  or  delay  due  to  a  "restraint  of 
princes,  rulers,  or  pco])lc."  '■' 

§§  911-914.  Delay  Caused  by  Unusual  Rush  of  Business— §  911. 
In  General.  —  A  raih. .ad  company  is  bound  to  have  all  reasonable  and  neces- 
sary facilities  and  appliances  for  conducting  and  carrying  on  in  a  prompt,  skill- 
ful and  careful  manner  the  business  in  which  it  is  engaged,  and  for  transporting 
without  um-casonal)lc  delay  the  usual  and  ordinary  (|uanlity  of  freight  offere<l 
it  for  trans])()rtaii()n,  or  which  might  reasonably  and  ordinarily  be  expected;'" 
but  it  is  not  Ijound  to  be  prci)ared  for  unusual  and  extraordinary  contingencies, 
which  no  onHnary  prudence  or  foresight  can  reasonably  foresee  or  anticipate.'* 
It  must  furnish  such  facilities  for  transportation  as  will  meet  the  ordinary  de- 
mands of  the  public,  but  is  not  bound  to  anticipate  or  provide  in  advance  for  an 
unusual  influx  of  freight.'-  Where  a  carrier  fails  or  refuses  to  accept  freight 
tendered  to  it  for  transportation  because  of  its  inability  to  transport  it,  which 
inal)ility  has  been  occasioned  by  extraordinary  circumstances  or  an  euiergency 
that  could  not  have  been  reasonably  foreseen  and  for  which  the  carrier  is  not 
responsible,  such  failure  or  refusal  of  freight  for  transportation  may  not  give  a 
shipper  the  right  to  recover  damages  for  delays  in  the  transportation  of  the 
freight  tendered,  where  the  carrier  does  all  that  could  have  been  reasonably 
recjuired  of  it  to  meet  the  demands  made  upon  it  for  transportation.'^  But  it 
has  been  held  that  a  rush  of  business  is  no  defense  for  failure  to  transport 
freight  with  reasonable  care,  diligence  and  dispatch.'-* 


8.  Refusal  of  clearance  by  collector  of 
port. — Nortlicrii  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  American 
Trading  Co.,  19.-)  U.  S.  439,  49  L.  Ed.  2G9, 
25    S.    Ct.    84. 

Where  a  railroad  contracts  to  forward 
lead  by  a  connecting  line,  within  a  cer- 
tain time,  by  a  contract  lawful  when 
made,  and  not  since  rendered  unlawful, 
the  mere  fact  that  the  deputy  collector 
wrongfully  refuses  clearance  to  the  ves- 
sel employed  by  the  initial  carrier  upon 
the  ground  that  the  lead  is  contraband, 
does  not  excuse  the  carrier  from  liabil- 
ity for  failure  to  fulfill  its  contract. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  American  Trad- 
ing Co.,  195  U.  S.  439,  49  L.  Ed.  269,  25 
S.    Ct.    84. 

9.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  7-.  American 
Trading  Co.,  195  U.  S.  439,  49  L.  Ed.  2()9, 
25    S.    Ct.    84. 

10.  Delay  caused  by  unusual  rush  of 
business. — Micliigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Bur- 
rows. 33  Micli.  6. 

11.  i'liitcd  i"/o/c.y.— Helliwell  v.  Grand 
Trunk  Railway,  7  Fed.  68.  10  Biss.  170. 

Illinois.' — Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae, 
18    111.   488,   68   Am.    Dec.   574. 

Kentucky. — Newport  News,  etc.,  R. 
t  Co.  Z-.  Reed,  10  Ky.   L.   Rep.   1020. 

Massachusetts. — Thayer  v.  Burchard,  99 
Mass.   508. 

Mississif^f^i. — Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Blum, 
89  Miss.  242.  42  So.  282,  11  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  272;  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
7'.  Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458;  Yazoo,  etc., 
R.  Co.  7'.  Blum  Co..  88  Miss.  180,  40  So. 
748,    10    L.    R.   .v.,    N.    S.,    432. 

Missouri. — Ballentine  v.  North  Mis- 
souri R.  Co..  40  Mo.  491.  93  .\m.  Dec. 
315;    h'aulkner   7'.   Soutli    Pac.   Railroad,   51 


Mo.  311;  Baker  7'.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(AIo.  App.),  129  S.  VV.  436;  Dawson  7'. 
Chicago,,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  79  Mo.  296. 

New  York. — Wilbert  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  19  Barb.  36;  Bouker  v. 
Long  Island  R.  Co..  89  Hun  202,  35  N. 
Y.    S.   23,   69   N.   Y.   St.    Rep.   219. 

Tennessee. —  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Nelson.  41  Tenn.  (1  Coldw.)  272. 

In  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  7'.  Burrows, 
33  Mich.  6,  the  railroad  was  excused  be- 
cause of  the  unusual  rush  of  business 
caused   by   the   Chicago   fire. 

12.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  Blum,  89 
Miss.  242,  42  So.  282.  11  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.   Cas.   272. 

13.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway  7'. 
Rentz.  60  Fla.  429.  54  So.  13. 

14.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  McCorquodale. 
71  Tex.  41.  9  S.  W.  80;  Cross  7'.  McFaden. 
1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  461,  20  S.  W.  846;  In- 
ternational, etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Anderson.  3 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  8.  21  S.  W.  691;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Lewis  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  23  S.  W.  323;  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co. 
7'.  Hume,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653.  24  S.  \V. 
915,  reversed  in  87  Tex.  211:  Texas,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  7'.  Felker.  40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  604, 
90    S.    W.    530. 

The  volume  of  business  offered  to  or 
accepted  by  a  common  carrier  can  not 
avail  to  relieve  it  from  the  performance 
of  a  contract  already  entered  into.  An 
excess  of  business  might,  under  some 
circumstances,  justify  a  refusal  to  accept 
goods  for  shipment,  but  it  could  not  ex- 
cuse a  nonperformance  of  contract  ob- 
ligations. International,  etc..  R.  Co.  r. 
Anderson,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  8,  21  S.  W. 
691. 


§§  911-912  cARRiKRS.  622 

Where  Carrier  Used  Due  Diligence. — Where  a  carrier's  failure  to  trans- 
port cotton  wiili  reasonable  dispatch  was  caused  by  an  excessive  crop,  it  is  not 
liable  for  the  delav.  where  it  took  extraordinary  steps  to  handle  the  cotton,  and 
the  shipper  knew  at  the  time  it  offered  the  cotton  for  shipment  that,  on  account 
of  the  heavy  traffic  and  large  demand  for  cars,  it  could  not  be  transported  with 
the  usual  rapidity.^"' 

§  912.  Duty  to  Provide  Proper  Facilities.— It  is  the  duty  of  a  common 
carrier  to  provide  sufficient  facilities  and  means  of  transportation  for  all  freight 
which  it  should  reasonably  expect  will  be  offered,  but  it  is  not  bound  to  provide 
in  advance  for  extraordinary  occasions,  nor  for  an  unusual  influx  of  business 
which  is  not  reasonablv  to  be  ex]^ected.  When  an  emergency  arises  and  more 
business  is  suddenly  and  unexpectedly  cast  upon  a  carrier  than  he  is  able  to 
accommodate,  unless  the  carrier  decline  to  receive  the  excess  offered,  some  ship- 
pers must  necessarily  be  delayed ;  yet  if  the  carrier  do  receive  the  goods  without 
notice  to  the  shippers  of  the  circumstances  likely  to  occasion  delay,  or  fail  to 
obtain  his  assent,  express  or  implied,  to  the  delay,  he  will  be  bound  to  transport 
the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time,  notwithstanding  such  emergency. i''  If  a 
delay  happen  in  the  transi)ortation  in  consequence  of  an  unusual  press  of  busi- 
ness', the  company,  having  a  reasonable  equipment  for  all  ordinary  purposes, 
and  the  goods  be'ing  carried  with  as  much  expedition  as  is  practicable  under 
the  circumstances,  is  not  liable  for  damages  because  of  the  delay,  but  would  be 
for  any  injury  to  the  goods  during  the  delay.^'  Just  what  the  measure  of  the 
carrier's  duty' in  this  connection  is  in  a  particular  case  depended  upon  the  situa- 
tion and  circumstances  of  the  parties.  It  may  be  that  circumstances  here  re- 
lieved carrier  of  the  duty  of  notifying  shippers,  or  this  particular  shipper,  of 
the  congestion  at  the  produce  yard.  But  here  again  such  circumstances  are  not 
to  be  presumed,  but  showai,  and,  if  a  question  of  fact  arises  in  connection  there- 
with, a  reference  to  the  jury  would  be  unavoidable.^'' 

Car  Shortage.— A  shipment  having  been  accepted  for  transportation  without 
notice  to  the  shipper  that  there  was  a  shortage  of  cars  and  an  unprecedented 
amount  of  business,  the  carrier  should  be  held  liable  for  damages  for  unrea- 
sonable delay.  1"  And  where  a  carrier  accepted  an  automobile  for  shipment,  it 
is  liable  for  an  unreasonable  delay  in  the  shipment,  and  its  temporary  inability 
to  secure  a  car  large  enough  to  hold  the  automobile  will  not  exonerate  it.-" 

15.  Where  carrier  used  due  diligence.  ment.— East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
—Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Blum,    89    Miss.        Nelson,   41   Tenn.    (1   Coldw.)    272. 

242    42  So.  282,  11   .\m.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  18.  Joynes  v.   Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   235 

272  Pa.    232,    83    Atl.    1016,    Ann.    Cas.    1913D, 

16.  Duty  to  provide  proper  facilities. —       964. 

Bussey  r.   Memphis,   etc..   R.   Co.,   13   Fed.  19.     Car     shortage.— Missouri,    etc.,    R. 

330,  4   McCrary  405;   Dawson  v.   Chicago,  Co.    v.    Early-Clement     Gram    Co.     (Tex. 

etc'    R.  Co.,  79  Mo.  296;  Joynes  v.  Penn-  Civ.  App.),  124   S.   W.   1015. 

sylvania  R.  Co.,  235   Pa.  232,  83  Atl.  1016,  A    carrier   may    not   escape    liability    for 

Ann.  Cas.  1913D,  964.  delay    in    furnishing    cars    on    the    ground 

A  railroad  company   is  bound   to  do  all  of  a  car  famine   resulting  from  an  exten- 

that  is  reasonable,  and  to  use  all  reason-  sion   of   the   carrier's   mileage   and   a   nat- 

able   means   by   increasing   the   number   of  ural    increase    in    business.      Baker    v.    St. 

its    tracks   and   warehouses   to    accommo-  Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    (Mo.    App.),    129    S. 

date   its   increased   business,   and   whether  W.   436.                                                       •       r  -i 

it  has  done  this  in  a  given  case  is  a  ques-  A   carrier   is   not   excused   from   its   fail- 

tion    for    the   jury.      Where    delay    occurs  ure    to    move    promptly    cotton    delivered 

in    the    transportation    of    goods    in    con-  to   it    for   transportation    by   proving   that 

sequence    of   a   lack    of   cars    or   other   fa-  eighty  per  cent  or  more  of  its  equipment 

cilities,   the   company   is  liable  for  the  de-  was   ofif   its   line,   engaged   in   the   carriage 

lay  unless  it  can  show  good  cause  there-  of    shipments    offered    along    the    line    for 

for.     Joynes  v.   Pennsylvania    R.   Co.,   235  other   points   in    other    states.      St.    Louis, 

Pa     232,    83    Atl.    1016,    Ann.    Cas.    1913D,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Phcrnix,   etc.,   Oil   Co.,   115 

964,  citing  Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co.  v.   Cobb,  S.   VV.  393,  88  Ark.  594. 

etc.,  Co..  64  111.  128.  20.  Grigsby  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 

17.   Where     carrier   has    proper    equip-  Civ.  App.),   137  S.  W.  709. 


623  lil-.I.AN-     IX     TK.WSl'KKTATIOX     OK     DKI.IVKRV.  §    912 

During"  Part  of  Year.  —  The  rollinj,^  stock  of  a  railroad  corporation,  though 
sufficient  for  its  orehnary  business  during  nine  months  of  the  year,  was  insuffi- 
cient {()  tarry  j^ronijitly  all  the  freight  of  a  particular  kind,  requiring  i)eculiar 
cars,  in  three  months  of  a  year  in  which  it  had  made  a  s])ecial  contract  with  a 
person  to  transport  his  freight  of  that  kind  without  specifying  any  (|uantity  to 
be  transported  or  limiting  any  time  for  the  perf(jrmance  of  the  service.  During 
intervals  in  those  months  between  days  when  he  deli\ered  freight  to  the  corpo- 
ration under  the  coiUract  and  the  days  when  it  was  loa<led  on  the  cars  by  his 
storekeeper,  inl(j  wlnjse  yard  the  corporation  sent  cars  to  be  loaded  at  the  store- 
keeper's discretion,  he  incurred  ex]jenses  for  storage  and  insurance  on  that 
Ireigiit.  The  cars  sent  to  the  storekeeper  were  more  than  sufficient  Xo  have 
carried  all  that  freight  alone  so  ])rom|)tly  as  to  have  avoided  such  expenses;  but 
tlie  storekeeper  loaded  thcin  with  it  only  proportionally  with  similar  freight 
of  his  other  customers  likewise  awaiting  transportation  but  with  whom  the 
corporation  has  no  special  contract.  The  fact  that  in  those  three  months  every 
year  there  was  a  great  accumulation  of  such  freight  for  transportation  over  the 
road  was  insufficient  to  render  the  cor])oration  liable  for  those  expenses  on  the 
ground  of  negligence   in   its  e(|ui]inient.-^ 

At  Time  Contract  of  Shipment  Made. — Ikit  if,  at  the  time  the  contract 
of  shi])nienl  was  made,  there  was  already  an  accumulation  of  business  on  the 
carrier's  lines,  which  incapacitated  it,  or  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  in- 
capacitate it,  for  transporting  and  delivering  the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time, 
and  this  was  then  known  to  the  carrier,  or  might  have  been  known  by  j^roper 
etfort  on  its  ])art,  or  if  there  were  then  reasonable  grounds  for  a  belief  on  the 
part  of  the  carrier  that  such  was  the  state  of  the  case  at  the  time,  then  the  car- 
rier would  be  liable  for  the  delay,  although  it  was  occasioned  by  such  accumula- 
tion of  business.  In  such  case  it  is  the  carrier's  duty  to  inform  the  shipper  of 
the  condition  of  its  lines,  so  that  he  may  exercise  his  right  to  select  some  other 
line  for  the  transportation  of  his  property;  and  if  the  carrier  fails  to  do  this, 
and  takes  the  property  in  fhe  face  of  threatened  inability  to  transport  it  with 
requisite  dispatch,  it  must  answer  for  the  consecjuences  of  the  delay.  A  car- 
rier has  no  right  to  take  a  ship])er's  ])roperty  for  transj^ortation,  concealing  from 
him  at  the  time  existing  circumstances  within  its  knowledge,  or  within  its  fair 
and  reasonable  means  of  knowledge,  and  not  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
shipper,  that  may  incapacitate,  or  may  be  fairly  ex]:)ected  to  incai:)acitate  it  for 
the  full  ])erformance  of  its  diU\-  in  transporting  the  property,  and  then  claim 
exemption  from  liability.--  lUu  ii',  at  the  time  of  making  the  contract  of  ship- 
ment, the  carrier  had  no  doubt,  and  if  the  condition  of  business  on  its  lines 
gave  it  no  ground  for  doubting,  that  suitable  means  would  be  at  its  command 
within  the  usual  and  ordinary  time  for  conveying  the  goods,  and  if  all  rea- 
sonable efforts  were  seasonably  employed  to  obtain  such  means,  and  the  delay 
was  solely  occasioned  by  an  extraordinary  and  unusual  influx  of  freight  upon 
its  lines  for  foreign  export,  arising  subsecpiently  to  the  making  of  the  con- 
tract, so  that  it  was  thereby  rendered  impossible  for  the  carrier,  with  proper 
diligence  on  its  part,  to  procure  vessels  to  carry  the  flour  within  a  reasonable 
time,  tile  carrier  \\(tul<l  not  be  resi>onsible  for  the  delay.-'' 

Shipment  over  Connecting-  Carrier. — Through  bills  of  lading  impose  on 
tl'io  railroad  com])any.  as  carrier,  the  obligation  to  provide  means  of  trans- 
portation for  the  goods  shipped  to  their  ultimate  destination  without  delay,  and 
it  is  no  excuse  for  the  nonperformance  of  this  duty  that  it  could  not  procure 
transportation  by  boat  by  reason  of  a  previous  accumulation  of  freight,  of 
which  it  was  advised  when  it  receivecf  the  goods  for  transportation.--* 

21.  During  part  of  year. —  I'hayer  f.  23.  Ik'lliwcll  :■.  Grand  Trunk  Railway, 
Burcliard,    Hit    Mass.    .-lOS.                                                7    l'\'(l.   t'.s,    lo    Rjss.    170. 

22.  At  time  contract  of  shipment  24.  Shipment  over  connecting  carrier, 
made. — tlclliwcll  :.  Ciraml  Trunk  Rail-  — Busscv  r.  Mi^nipliis,  etc..  R.  Co..  13 
way,  7   Fed.  68,   10   Biss.   170.                                 Fed.  330.  4  McCrary  40.'). 


§§  912-914  CARRIERS.  624 

Defective  Road  Bed. — Results  attributed  to  a  defective  roadbed  and  equip- 
ment do  not  excuse  nonperformance  of  a  carrier's  duty  to  safely  deliver  a  ship- 
ment at  its  destination  within  a  reasonable  time.-'' 

Burning  of  Tunnel. — A  railroad  company  is  excused  for  delay  in  the  de- 
livery of  goods  caused  by  the  burning  of  a  tunnel  on  its  line  between  the  place 
of  shipment  and  that  to  which  the  goods  were  consigned.-*' 

§  913.  Where  Carrier  Could  Have  Avoided  Delay. — Delay  in  transporting 
freight  can  not  be  excused  by  the  fact  that  crews  were  taken  from  freight  trains 
to  handle  an  extraordinary  amount  of  passenger  traffic  of  which  the  carrier  had 
previous  warning  and  could  have  provided  for.-"  A  railroad  company  receiving 
goods  to  be  carried  by  its  own  and  connecting  lines  is  not  excused  for  a  failure 
to  transport  to  the  end  of  its  own  line  and  deliver,  or  oft'er  to  deliver,  to  the  next 
carrier,  merely  by  the  fact,  which  its  agents  knew,  that  there  was  a  block  of 
freight  at  a  certain  bridge,  and  the  further  fact  that  there  was  no  room  for 
the  goods  in  the  defendant  company's  depot  at  an  intermediate  point ;  especially 
where  it  is  not  clear  that  the  general  block  of  freight  for  the  east  at  the  bridge 
would  have  prevented  the  transportation  of  plaintiffs"  goods. ^^  The  fact  that 
the  accumulation  of  cars  and  freight  at  the  place  of  delivery  was  such  that  the 
companv  could  not  reach  that  point  within  a  reasonable  time  would  not  exon- 
erate the  carrier,  it  being  within  the  power  of  the  company  to  have  removed  the 
obstruction.  The  interest  or  mere  convenience  of  the  carrier  should  not  be 
allowed  to  stand  in  the  way  of  his  duty,  in  that  respect.  And,  moreover,  the 
carrier  should  provide  in  his  contract  for  such  a  contingency,  if  he  would  limit 
his  liability.-'^ 

§  914.  Notice  to  Shipper. — To  relieve  a  carrier  from  liability  for  delay  in  de- 
livery due  to  a  congestion  of  traffic,  the  shipper  must  be  notified  of  such  con- 
dition before  the  shipment  is  received,  in  the  absence  of  an  express  agreement  of 
exemption. 2'J  A  carrier  failing  to  notify  the  shipper  of  probable  delay  in  the  ship- 
ment by  reason  of  its  having  unexpectedly  received  more  business  than  it  can  ac- 
commodate is  bound  to  transport  the  goods  within  reasonable  time  notwithstand- 
ing the  emergency .'^1  Though  a  carrier,  which  has  provided  facilities  for  handling 
•he  traffic  which  may  ordinarily  be  expected,  need  not  provide  in  advance  for  an 
extraordinary  amount  of  traffic,  and  may  refuse  to  accept  freight, _  yet.  if  it 
accepts  freight  without  notifying  the  shipper  of  the  congested  condition  of  the 
traffic,  it  can  not  excuse  delay  in  delivery  because  of  such  condition,  so  that, 
even  if  a  carrier  could  take  its  freight  crews  for  the  purpose  of  handling  an 
extraordinary  passenger  traffic,  it  was  bound  to  notify  shippers  of  freight  of 
the  crippled  condition  of  its  freight  traffic  by  the  diversion  of  freight  crews,  in 
order  to  excuse  delay  in  transportation  from  such  cause.-"^- 

Where  Shipper  Has  Notice. — Where  a  carrier's  failure  to  transport  cotton 
with    reasonable    dispatch    was   caused   by   an   excessive   crop,   it   was   not   liable 

25.  Defective  road  bed. — Tliompson  r.  31.  Joynes  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  2.35 
Quincy,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  Mo.  App.  404,  Pa.  232,  83  Atl.  1016,  Ann.  Cas.  1913D, 
117   S.  W.   1193.  964;    Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Kolp    (Tex. 

26.  Burning  of  tunnel.— Railroad  Co.  r.  Civ.  App.),  88  S.  W.  417;  International, 
O'Donnell.  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  34  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Anderson,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
Am.   St.   Rep.  .579,  21    L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117.  8,   11,  21   S.   W.   691;    Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v. 

27.  Where  carrier  could  have  avoided  .McCorquodale,  71  Tex.  41,  48,  9  S.  W. 
delay.— Daoust  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Felker,  40  Tex. 
149    Iowa   650,   128   N.    W.   1106.  Civ.    App.     604,    90    S.     W.    530;     Interna- 

28.  McLaren  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  tional,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis  (Tex.  Civ. 
Wis    138  App.),   23    S.    W.    323;    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

29.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  McClellan,  v.  Hume,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App.  653,  24  S.  W. 
54   111.   58,   5   Am.   Rep.   83.  915,   reversed   in  87  Tex.   211. 

30.  Notice  to  shipper. — Missouri,  etc.,  32.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Stark  Grain 
R.   Co.  V.   Stark   Grain   Co.,  103  Tex.   542,  Co.,  103  Tex.  542,   131   S.  W.  410. 

131   S.  W.  410. 


625  DELAY    IN    TR^ANSPORTATIOX    OR    UICLIVERV.  §§    914-915 

for  the  delay,  where  it  took  extraordinary  steps  to  handle  the  cotton,  and  the 
shipper  knew  at  the  time  it  offered  the  cotton  for  shipment  that,  on  account  of 
the  heavy  traffic  and  large  demand  for  cars,  it  could  not  be  transported  with  the 
usual  rapidity.''^ 

Goods  Delayed  by  Connecting-  Carrier. — Where,  while  goods  received  by 
the  first  carrier  are  in  transit,  the  coimccling  line  notifies  it  that  it  can  not  receive 
the  goods  and  transport  them  to  their  destination  because  of  a  block  in  freight, 
this  will  not  relieve  the  first  carrier  from  liability  for  damages  caused  by  the 
delay,  where  it  fails  to  notify  the  shipper  and  give  him  an  opportunity  to  dis- 
pose of  the  i)roi)erty  or  take  measures  for  its  preservation.^'* 

Sufficiency  of  Notice. — Notice  possessed  by  the  public  generally  is  not 
sufficient  notice  to  a  ])articular  shii)j)er.^^  In  an  action  for  delay  in  transporting 
wheat  allegations  that  the  delay  was  due  to  a  congestion  of  traffic  which  was 
generally  known,  and  that  all  contracts  made  with  the  carrier  for  shipment  of 
grain  on  the  lines  where  such  conditions  existed  were  made  with  reference  to 
such  conditions,  and  with  full  notice  thereof  by  the  shippers  of  their  existence, 
does  not  show  notice  to  a  shipper  whose  grain  was  delayed.^'' 

Notice  after  Acceptance. — Where  goods  shipped  by  a  carrier  are  delayed 
by  unusual  and  unprecedented  Hoods,  a  mere  failure  to  notify  the  consignor  or 
consignee,  is  not  of  itself  an  act  of  negligence  rendering  the  carrier  liable  for 
the  consequences  of  such  delay.  Where  there  is  no  evidence  that  had  such 
notice  been  given,  the  damages  would  have  been  avoided  or  lessened.-^' 

§  915.  Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  Consignor  or  Consignee. — The  fact 
that  a  shipper  was  negligent  in  delaying  the  ordering  of  goods  before  he  de- 
livered them  to  a  carrier  for  transportation,  and  had  already  sustained  damages 
because  of  his  delay,  will  not  prevent  him  from  recovering  the  damages,  arising 
from  the  negligence  of  the  carrier  in  delaying  such  transportation,  which  can 
be  shown  with  reasonable  certainty  to  have  resulted  therefrom.-'^^ 

Refusal  to  Pay  Freight. — A  shipper  can  not  recover  from  a  carrier  dam- 
ages for  delay  in  (leli\cry  of  goods  caused  by  his  refusal  to  pay  the  freight 
charges.^^  But  a  carrier  can  not  justify  a  delay  in  delivery  from  a  failure  to 
place  a  solid  car  shii)ment  where  it  could  be  unloaded  after  its  arrival  on  the 

33.  Where  shipper  has  notice. — Yazoo,  or  consignee. — A  railroad  company  can 
etc.,  R.  Co.  !■.  Bkini,  S'J  Miss.  242,  42  So.  not  escape  recovery  of  damages  through 
282,  11  Am.   &  Eng.  Ann.   Cas.  272.  its   negligent   delay   in   transporting  cattle 

A   carrier's  delay   in   the   transportation  feed  for  plaintiff  by  showing  that  he  had 

of   cotton     was     caused     by    an    unprece-  unreasonably  delayed  ordering  such  feed, 

dented    cotton    crop,    for    the    transporta-  Belcher  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Tex. 

tion    of   which    it   could   not   provide    nee-  593,    598,    50    S.    W.    559,    reversing   47    S. 

essary    cars.      It    took    unusual    pains    to  W.  384. 

handle   the   cotton   as   promptly  as  possi-  In  such  case  a  charge  which  informed 

ble.      The    shipper     knew      the      situation  the    jury,    in    effect,    that    if    the    plaintiff 

when    the    cotton    was    offered    for   trans-  failed  to  use  ordinary  care  to  prevent  the 

portation.      Held,     that    the     carrier    was  injury    which    miglit    arise    from    the    de- 

not  liable  for  delay.     Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  fendant's    negligence,    he    could    not    re- 

V.  McKay   (Miss.),  44  So.  780.  cover  from  the  railroad  company  for  anj' 

34.  Goods  delayed  by  connecting  car-  damages  sustained  by  him  through  its 
tier.— In  re  Potitieiis  of  Petersen,  21  Fed.  negligence,  is  error.  Such  a  charge  ap- 
885  plies     strictly     the    rule    of     contributory 

35.  Sufficiency  of  notice.-Missouri.  "egHgence  to  acts  which  occurred  after 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Stark  Grain  Co..  103  Tex.  ^^'^  '"^"7  '"".'^  been  mflicted.  whereas  the 
542    131   S    W    410  '"'■        stated    is    applicable    onl\-    to    those 

'         .     ■       .■         '  r.    ^  o       1    ^      •  '^^^^    which    concur    in    producing    the    in- 

36.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Stark  Grain  jury.  Beleher  r.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co., 
Co..   103   Tex.   542,   131   S.   \\.   410.  ()o   Tex.   .-,93.   597.  50   S.   W.   559,   reversing 

37.  Notice   after   acceptance. — Norris   v.  47   S.    W.   ;;S4,    1020. 

Savannah,  etc.   R.   Co..  23   Vh\.  1S2,  1   So.  39.    Refusal    to    pay     freight. — Missouri 

475,   11    Am.   St.    Rep.  3.").-).  Pac.    R.    Co.    z:    \V'eissmsn.    2    Tex.    Civ. 

38.  Delay   caused   by   act   of   consignor       App.  86,  87,  21  S.  W.  426. 

1  Car— 40 


§    915  CARRIERS.  626 

ground  that  the  consignee  did  not  tender  the   freight,  unless  notice  was  given 
of  the  arrival  of  the  car  and  a  demand  made  for  the  freight.-*"' 

Refusal  to  Accept. — In  an  action  to  recover  for  loss  occasioned  hv  delay 
in  the  transportation  of  merchandise,  it  is  no  defense  that  the  consignor  did  not 
appoint  an  agent  to  receive  the  goods  at  their  destination,  and  inform  defend- 
ants of  the  appointment,  if  the  contract  and  usage  of  trade  did  not  require  it, 
and  the  delay  was  not  due  to  the  plaintiff's  failure  to  appoint  a  receiving 
agent. ^^ 
"Failure  to  Unload  Cars. — Where  a  railway  company  refused  to  furnish  cars 
for  the  transportation  of  grain  to  Cairo  during  the  war,  on  account  of  the  large 
accumulation  of  cars  on  its  track  at  that  point  waiting  to  be  unloaded,  and  finally 
furnished  cars  upon  the  promise  of  the  shipper  to  unload  the  same,  which  was 
not  done  either  by  him  or  the  consignee,  but  refused,  it  was  held,  in  a  suit 
against  the  company  to  recover  damages  for  delay  in  transporting  the  grain, 
ihe  iur\-  were  justified  in  finrling  for  the  det'endant/-- 

Failure  of  Consignee  to  Present  Bill  of  Lading, — A  carrier  delaying  the 
delivery  of  freight  may  not  excuse  the  delay  on  the  ground  that  the  bills  of 
lading  were  not  presented,  where  it  did  not  decline  to  deliver  because  thereof.^^ 

Where  Bill  of  Lading  Indorsed  to  Purchaser. — Though  a  consignor  of 
goods  shipped  to  his  own  order  may  divert  tliem  from  their  original  destination, 
and  generally  this  is  not  changed  because  they  are  shipped  with  directions  to 
notify  the  proposed  vendee,  as  between  the  ])arties  that  the  right  does  not  exist 
when  the  carrier  has  given  a  bill  of  lading  for  the  goods,  and  it  has  been  in- 
dorsed and  forwarded  with  draft  attached  to  the  proposed  vendee,  and  he  has 
paid  it  and  taken  over  the  bill  of  lading,  without  notice,  and  because  the  goods 
would  have  reached  their  original  destination  in  the  ordinary  course  of  ship- 
ment, and  in  the  latter  circumstances  the  proposed  vendee  may  recover  against 
the  carrier  or  shipper  damages  suffered  through  a  delay  caused  by  diverting  a 
shipment  and   replacing  it."*^ 

Burning  of  Tunnel. — In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier  for  the  con- 
version of  goods  delivered  to  it  for  transportation,  where  defendant's  justifi- 
cation for  its  failure  to  deliver  the  goods  in  due  course  of  transit  was  that  a 
tunnel  on  its  line  had  been  set  on  fire  by  plaintiff's  associates,  and  with  his 
knowledge,  the  court  properly  charged  that,  if  the  tunnel  was  rendered  im- 
passable, defendant  was  excused  from  making  delivery  until  the  obstruction 
ceased,  or  other  means  of  effecting  the  delivery  could  reasonably  be  procured, 
and  then  further  delay  in  making  the  delivery,  on  account  of  the  tunnel,  was 
not  excused,  unless  the  obstruction  was  caused  in  whole  or  in  part  by  plain- 
tiff.^^ 

Delay  Caused  by  Act  of  Third  Person. — Where  an  owner  of  goods  de- 
livers them  to  a  railroad  company  to  be  shipped  to  a  designated  point,  and  a 
bill  of  lading  is  issued  to  the  owner,  in  which  he  is  named  as  both  shipper  and 
consignee,  and  which  contains  the  words,  "notify"  a  third  person,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  railroad  company,  unless  otherwise  instructed  by  the  owner,  or  by  some 
holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  properly  indorsed,  to  transport  the  goods,  within  a 
reasonable  time,  to  the  point  of  destination  mentioned  in  the  bill  of  lading.  The 
company  will  not  be  relieved  of  liability  to  the  owner  for  loss  occasioned  by  a 
failure  to  comply  with  this  obligation,  by  showing  that  the  failure  to  deliver  the 

40.  Gcorf^ia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Elliott,  .3  44.  Where  bill  of  lading  indorsed  to 
Ga.   .App.   ~~.3.  60  S.   E.  363.  purchaser. — Davidson      Development     Co. 

41.  Refusal  to  accept. — Salter  f.  Kirk-  r.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  X.  C.  .J()3,  61  S. 
l)ride.   4   X.  J.    L.   22:5.  E.  381. 

42.  Failure  to  unload  cars. — CoIjI).  etc.,  45.  Burning  of  tunnel. — Baltimore,  etc., 
Co.  z\   Illinois   Cent.   R.   Co..  88   111.   394.  R.    Co.    v.    O'Donnell,    49    O.    St.    489.    32 

43.  Failure  of  consignee  to  present  bill  X.  E.  476,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am. 
of  lading. — Hall    Grain    Co.   v.    Louisville,  St.   Rep.  579. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mo.  App.  308,  128  S.  W.  42. 


627 


df:i.a^-   in   tka.\si'(ji<t.\tio\   i)\<   I)[:li\'Kkv 


§§  'J13-918 


goods  at  the  ])oint  of  destination  within  a  reasonable  time  was  due  to  instruc- 
tions not  to  (leHver,  given  by  the  person  whom  it  was  (hrected  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing to  notify  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods  it  their  destination,  who  at  the  time 
of  such  instructions  was  not  in  possession  of  the  bill  of  lading  nor  entitled  to 
its  possession.  Such  i:)erson  could  not  acquire  any  title  to  the  goods  or  right  to 
control  the  shipment  until  he  came  into  possession  of  the  bill  of  lading  jjrop- 
erlv   indorsed  by  the  consignor."*'' 

§   916.  Delay  Caused  by  Rule  of  Carrier. — A  carrier  is  not  excused  for 

dela\-  by  a  rule,  to  which  llie  c()n>ignce  had  not  consented  anrl  of  which  the 
consignor  was  ignorant,  giving  other  cars  a  preference."'" 

§  917.  Delay  Caused  by  Misdirection  of  Goods.— Where  a  carrier  re- 
ceives a  siiipment  of  goods  iiui  [jroperly  marked,  it  is  liable  for  delay  in  de- 
livery caused  thereby.-''' 

§  918.  Delay  Caused  by  Strikes  and  Riots. — X(jt  only  storms  aufl  floods 
and  other  naiural  causes  may  excuse  delay.  i)ut  the  conduct  of  men  may  also  do 
so.  An  incendiary  may  burn  down  a  bridge,  a  mob  may  tear  up  the  tracks  or 
disable  the  rolling  stock  or  interpose  irresistible  force  or  overpowering  intimida- 
tion, and  the  only  duty  resting  upon  the  carrier,  not  otherwise  in  fault,  is  to  use 
reasonable  efforts  and  due  diligence  to  overcome  the  obstacles  thus  interposed, 
and  to  forward  the  goods  to  their  destination. ^^ 

Strikes  of  Employees. — For  the  delay  resulting  from  the  refusal  of  the 
emi)loyees  of  a  carrier  to  do  duty,  the  carrier  is  undoubtedly  responsible.^'^ 
\\'here  the  alleged  excuse  arises  wholly  out  of  the  misconduct  of  the  carrier's 
employees  who  wrongfully  refuse  to  perform  their  duty,  and  thus  deprive  the 


46.  Delay  caused  by  act  of  third  per- 
son.—  I'lnrida  Cent.  R.  Co.  z'.  Berry.  110 
Ga.   1!).  42   S.   E.  371. 

The  tact  tliat  a  sliipper  who  had 
shipped  goods  to  himself  as  consignee 
with  direction  to  notify  a  third  person, 
insisted  upon  the  payment  of  drafts 
drawn  on  such  third  person  after  notice 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  directions  of 
such  third  persons,  the  goods  had  been 
transported  to  a  point  other  than  the 
original  place  of  destination,  does  not  re- 
lieve the  comoany  from  liability  to  t'^e 
shipper  for  failure  to  transport  the  prop- 
erty within  a  reasonable  time.  Florida 
Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Bcrrv.  1  lO  Ga.  19.  42  S. 
E.  .'ni. 

47.  Delay  caused  by  rule  of  carrier. — 
A  carrier  had  an  arrangement  witii  an 
elevator  companj'  by  which  it  turned 
into  the  elevator  for  storing  and  drying 
any  grain  that  arrived  in  its  yards.  It 
was  the  rule  of  the  railroad  to  turn  into  the 
elevator  such  cars  in  the  order  of  their 
arrival  in  the  yards.  The  elevator  was 
not  a  party  to  prescribing  this  rule,  nor 
had  it  agreed  to  be  bound  by  it.  .A.  ship- 
per wlio  delivered  corn  to  the  carrier  for 
delivery  at  the  elevator  for  drying  had 
no  knowledge  of  this  rule.  The  carrier 
was  negligent  in  delaying  the  tr.nnspor- 
tation  of  the  corn,  and  in  delivering  the 
same  after  arrival  to  the  elevator,  so  that 
the  corn  spoiled.  Held,  that  the  carrier 
was  liable  for  the  injuries  sustained,  be- 
cause it  was  bound  to  deliver  the  corn 
in  a  reasonable  time,  and  where  the  con- 


signee called  for  i!ie  same  within  a  rea- 
sonable time,  notifying  the  carrier  that 
the  corn  was  shipped  to  be  dried,  and 
required  immediate  handling,  the  refusal 
to  deliver  because  there  were  other  car 
loads  of  grain  that  had  precedence  un- 
der its  rule  did  not  relieve  it  from  lia- 
bility. Hall  Grain  Co.  t:  Louisville,  etc., 
R.   Co..   14S   Mo.  App.  ,30S.   128  S.  W.  42. 

48.  Delay  caused  by  misdirection  of 
goods.— Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  :•.  Maetze.  2 
Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,   §   631. 

49.  Delay  caused  by  strikes  and  riots. 
— Greismer  r.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  102 
N.   Y.   503.   7    X.   E.   S2S.   .-..-.   Am.   Rep.   837. 

50.  Strikes  of  employees.  —  United 
States. — Sherman  f.  rcnnsvlvania  R.  Co., 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    12.769. 

Georgia. — Central  R 
gia  Fruit,  etc.,  Exch. 
E.   904. 

Illinois. — Pittsburgh.      .      __. 

Hazen.  84  111.  30,  2,5  .Am.   Rep.  422 

Indiana. — Pittsburgh,     etc.,     R.     Co. 
Hollowell.  0.-)   Ind.  188.  32  .\m.  Rep.  63 

Missouri. — Read    f.    St.     Louis,    etc.. 
Co..   60   Mo.    199. 

-Vt'Tc  )'ork. — Blackstock  z:  Xew  York, 
etc..  R.  Co..  20  X.  Y.  48.  75  Am.  Dec.  372. 

The  defendant,  as  a  common  carrier, 
is  liable  for  any  interruption  to  the 
transit,  caused  by  the  refusal  of  its  serv- 
ants to  perform  their  duty,  which  occa- 
sioned loss  to  the  plaintiffs.  Sherman  z: 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
12.709. 


etc..    Co.  f.   Geor- 
91    Ga.    3S9.    17    S. 

etc.,     R.     Co.     r. 


R. 


§  918 


CARRIERS. 


628 


carrier,  for  the  time,  of  the  ability  to  send  forward  the  goods ;  the  question  is, 
whether  the  carrier's  case  can  be  separated  from  that  of  the  employees,  so  that 
it  can  be  held  that  though  the  latter  are  culpable,  their  employer,  the  carrier, 
is  without  fault  and  consequently  not  responsible  to  the  shipper.  This  in- 
volves a  consideration  of  the  legal  effect  of  the  relations  which  exist  between 
these  several  parties.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  privity  between  the  shipper 
and  the  emplovees.  The  latter  owe  no  duty  to  the  former  which  the  law  can 
recognize.  If  they  had  committed  a  positive  tort  or  trespass  upon  the  property, 
the  owner  might  pass  by  the  employers  and  hold  them  responsible,  but  for  a 
nonfeasance  or  simple  neglect  of  duty,  they  are  only  answefable  to  their  em- 
ployees.    The  maxim  in  such  cases  is  respondeat  superior.^^ 

Where  Employees  Have  Quit  Work. — But  the  carrier  is  not  liable  where 
the  delay  is  caused  by  its  late  employees  who  have  quit  work  and  ceased  to 
be  employees. ^'- 

Where  Other  Servants  Employed. — Where  employees  suddenly  refuse  to 
work,  and  are  discharged,  and  delay  results  from  the  failure  of  the  carrier  to 
supply  promptly  their  places,  such 'delay  is  attributable  to  the  misconduct  of 
the  employees  in  refusing  to  do  their  duty,  and  this  misconduct  in  such  cases 
is  justly  considered  the  proximate  cause  of  the  delay  ;^3  but  when  the  places 
of  the  recusant  employees  are  promptly  supplied  by  other  competent  men,  and 
the  "strikers"  then  prevent  the  new  employees  from  doing  duty  by  lawless  and 
irresistible  violence,   the   delay   resulting  solely   from   this   cause   is   not   attribu- 


51.  Story  on  Agency,  §  309.  Blackstock 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48, 
75  Am.  Dec.  372,  373;  Denny  z:  Manhat- 
tan Co.  (N.  Y.),  2  Denio  115;  S.  C.  (N. 
Y.),  5  Denio  639. 

"Those  who  intrust  their  goods  to  car- 
riers have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the 
character  or  disposition  of  their  subordi- 
nate agents  or  servants;  they  have  no 
agency  in  their  selection,  and  no  control 
over  their  actions."  Blackstock  z\  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48,  75  Am. 
Dec.   372,   374. 

52.  Where  employees  have  quit  work. — 
Georgia. — Haas  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 
Ga.   792,   7   S.    E.   629. 

Kentuckx. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bell,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  393. 

Xezi'  York. — Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  7  N.  E.  828, 
55  Am.  Rep.  837. 

Texas. — International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tisdale,  74  Tex.  8,  11  S.  W.  900,  4  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  545;  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  45,  15 
S.  W.  121;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Levi, 
4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  9,  14  S.  W. 
1062. 

"For  delay  resulting  solely  from  the 
lawless  violence  of  men  not  in  the  em- 
ployment of  the  company,  the  coinpany  is 
not  responsible,  even  though  the  men 
whose  violence  caused  the  delay  had,  but 
a  short  time  before,  been  employed  by 
the  company."  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hazen,  84   111.   36,   25  Am.   Rep.   422. 

The  case  of  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bennett,  89  Ind.  457,  6  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  391,  decided  by  the  supreme  court  of 
Indiana,  affirms  the  rule  asserted  in  Pitts^ 
burgh,  etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   HoUowell,   65   Ina. 


188,  32  Am.  Rep.  63,  though  the  case  was 
one  under  contract.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191,  8  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  323,  326,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45. 

Where  delay  in  transportation  of  the 
goods  is  caused  by  the  riotous  acts  of 
employees  of  the  carrier  who  had  struck 
and  ceased  to  work,  thereby  terminating 
the  relation  of  master  and  servant,  the 
carrier  is  excused  for  delay  causea 
thereby.  Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  7  N.  E.  828,  55  Am. 
Rep.  837. 

53.  Failure  to  employ  other  servants. — 
Redf.  on  Carriers,  §  28;  Edw.  on  Bail- 
ments, §  609.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hazen,  84  111.  36,  25  Am.  Rep.  422;  Con- 
ger V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  13  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  375;  Parsons  v.  Hard  (N.  Y.), 
14  Wend.  215,  28  Am.  Dec.  521;  Black- 
stock  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y. 
48,  75  Am.  Dec.  372;  Condict  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  500. 

"In  the  case  of  Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  7  N.  E.  828,  55 
Am.  Rep.  837,  the  same  ruling  was  made, 
and  the  case  distinguished  from  Weed  v. 
Panama  R.  Co.,  17  N.  Y.  362,  72  Am. 
Dec.  474,  and  Blackstock  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  N.  Y.  48,  75  Am.  Dec.  372." 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13 
S.  W.  191.  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  18  Am. 
St.    Rep.   45. 

"It  is  a  well-settled  principle  of  law 
that  a  delay  caused  by  a  'strike,'  or  a 
mob,  composed  solely  of  the  employees 
of  a  railroad  company,  *  *  *  will  not  ex- 
cuse the  company  from  receiving  and 
carrying  freight  according  to  its  contract 
or  public  duty."  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188,  32  Am.  Rep.  63. 


629 


DlvLAY    IN    TIt.\NSI'OKTATION    OR    DIXIVKRV 


§  '^18 


table  to  the  misconduct  of  the  employees,  but  arises   from  the  misconduct  of 
persons  for  whose  acts  the  carrier  is  in  no  manner  responsible.-'"'^ 

Delay  Caused  by  Other  Employees. — Whether  a  common  carrier  would 
or  would  nui  be  excused  for  any  delay  in  delivering  goods  resulting  entirely 
from  a  strike  by  some  of  its  employees,  in  which  there  was  neither  violence 
or  lawlessness,  yet  where  it  affirmatively  appears  that  the  delay  was  caused  in 
part  by  the  disobedience  and  failure  in  the  performance  of  their  duties  of  other 
employees  who  did  not  engage  in  the  strike,  but  were  retained  in  the  com- 
pany's service,  and  the  carrier  not  having  shown  that  the  injury  resulted  from 
the  delay  caused  solely  by  the  striking  emjjloyees,  it  is  liable  for  failing  to  de- 
liver in  what  would  usually  be  a  reasonable  time  a  carload  of  fruit  which  be- 
came worthless  from  inherent  (|ualilies  because  alone  of  detention  en  route 
beyond  such  reasonable  time.'-'' 

Where  There  Is  Violence  or  Intimidation. — Where  a  railroad  company 
receives  freight  for  shipment  and  its  emi)loyees  strike  or  cease  to  work  for 
the  company  it  is  still  bound  to  forward  the  freight  within  a  reasonable  time; 
but  if  the  strike  is  accompanied  with  violence  and  intimidation,  so  as  to  render 
it  unsafe  to  forward  the  freight,  the  company  is  thereby  relieved  from  liability 
for  delay,  especially  when  the  resistance  made  by  the  strikers  is  of  such  a 
character  as  could  not  be  overcome  by  the  company,  or  controlled  by  the  civil 
authorities  when  called  upon  by  it.^«  Where  goods  are  actually  transported 
and  delivered  by  a  carrier,  it  is  not  liable  for  loss  resulting  from  mere  delay 
caused  by  strikes  of  its  employees  accompanied  by  intimidation  and   violence'^'^ 


54.  A  carrier  can  not  be  relieved  of  lia- 
bility for  damages  caused  by  a  delay  Tn 
delivery  owing  to  a  strike  where  the  de- 
lay in  forwarding  the  freight  is  not 
caused  by  lawless  violence  on  the  part  of 
its  former  servants  or  their  sympathizers 
in  preventing  servants  from  carrying  on 
the  company's  l)usincss,  but  arises 
through  the  carrier's  inability  to  promptly 
secure  new  servants  to  take  the  place  of 
the  strikers.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Geor- 
gia Fruit,  etc..  Exch.,  91  Ga.  389,  17  S.  E. 
904. 

Where  other  servants  employed. — Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Bennett,  89  Ind.  457, 
6  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  391. 

Illinois. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ha- 

zen,   84   111.   36,   25   Am.   Rep.   422;    I.,   etc., 

R.   Co.  z'.  Juntzen   (111.),  10  Bradwell  295. 

Indiana. — I'rttsburgh,    etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

HoUowell,  (15  Ind.  188,  32  Am.  Rep.  63. 

Nczv  York. — Greismer  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563,  7  N.  E.  828,  55 
Am.   Rep.  837. 

Texas.— Gu\i,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  76 
Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
32*3,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45;  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Server,  3  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  441. 

Where  delay  is  caused  merely  by  the 
refusal  of  a  carrier's  employees  to  per- 
form their  duties  as  such,  the  carrier  is 
liable  therefor,  but  if  the  employees  sud- 
denly refused  to  work  and  are  discharged 
from  or  abandoned  their  employment, 
and  their  places  are  promptly  supplied  by 
other  competent  men  who  are  prevented 
from  doing  duty  by  strikers'  use  of  law- 
less and  irresistible  violence,  the  carrier 
is    not    responsible    for    the    delay    caused 


solely  by  such  violence,  provided  it  has 
used  reasonable  efforts  and  diligence  to 
suppress  the  interference.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
9,  14  S.  W.   1062. 

55.  Delay  caused  by  other  employees. 
— Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  z'.  Georgia  Fruit, 
etc.,    Fxch.,   91    Ga.    3S9,    17    S.    E.    904. 

56.  Where  there  is  violence  or  intimi- 
dation.— Haas  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  81 
Ga.  792,   7   S.    E.  629. 

57.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tis- 
dale,  74  Tex.  8,  18,  11  S.  W.  900,  4  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  .t45;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Levi, 
4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  9,  14  S.  W.  1062; 
Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  4  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  45,  15  S.  W.  121;  Inter- 
national, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hynes,  3  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  20,  21,  21  S.  W.  622;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191, 
8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  45; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gatewood,  79  Tex. 
89,  95,  14  S.  W.  913,  10  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
419. 

The  carrier  is  not  liable  for  loss  result- 
ing from  delay  in  delivering  freight, 
caused  by  a  strike  of  its  employees,  ac- 
companied by  intimidation  and  violence 
which  could  not  be  prevented  or  sup- 
pressed by  either  the  company  or  the  civil 
authorities.  Haas  v.  Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.» 
SI  Ga.  792,  7  S.  E.  629,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  572. 

Notification  to  defendant  from  the  su- 
perintendent of  terminals  at  the  destina- 
tion of  the  shipment  not  to  undertake  to 
deliver  to  the  terminals  because  of  a 
strike  of  its  employees,  was  admissible  on 
the  issue  whether  the  defendant  was  neg- 
ligent  in    detaining   the   shipment.      Sterl- 


ss  918-920  CARRIERS.  630 

which  could  not  be  prevented  or  suppressed  by  the  carrier  or  the  civil  author- 
ities the  delay  being  necessarilv  caused  by  unforeseen  disaster  which  human 
prudence  could  not  provide  against  or  by  accident  not  caused  by  the  negligence 
of   the  carrier  or  bv  thieves  or  robbers  or  an  uncontrollable  mob/'-^ 

Failure  to  Exercise  Reasonable  Diligence.— A  carrier  is  liable  for  m- 
iurv  bv  delay  in  transit  where  the  delay  is  caused  by  interference  of  strikers 
in  the 'movement  of  trains  only  when  it  fails  to  exercise  reasonable  diligence 
to   expedite    the   shipment.      Reasonable    diligence,    under   the    circumstances,    is 

what  the  law  requires. '•"  •     ,•  , ,      r        ,  , 

Failure  to  Suppress  Strike.— A  railroad  company  is  liable  for  delay  in 
transporting  freight  caused  by  a  strike,  where  it  delayed  more  than  a  month 
in  calling  on  the  civil  authorities  to  suppress  the  strike."*' 

Where  Strike  Is  Caused  by  Carrier.— "Though  the  delay  occasioned  by 
a  mob  or  -trikc  might  be  a  sufficient  defense,  it  would  seem  that  it  ought  to  be 
made  to  appear  that  the  mob  or  strike  existed  without  the  fault  of  the  defend- 
ant and  the  facts  should  be  stated  so  that  the  court  may  determine  from  *em 
whether  the  mob  or  strike  was  such  as  occasioned  an  unavoidable  delay."  '>^ 

§  919.  Where  Goods  Are  Perishable.— As  to  lial)ility  where  preference 
given   to  perisliable  goods,   see  elsewhere."- 

§§  920-921.  Delay  under  Time  Contract— §  920.  In  General.— When 
a  partv  bv  his  own  contract  creates  a  duty  or  charge  upon  himself,  he  is  bound 
to  make  it  good.''-"  Therefore,  where  a  carrier  enters  into  an  express  contract 
to  carry  and  deliver  goods  within  a  specified  time,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  ful- 
fill his  contract,  and  is  liable  for  delay  regardless  of  the  cause  thereof."^      Xo 

ill"-  V    St    Louis    etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Tex.  Civ.  overruling  12  S.  W.  677;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 

Add     451     86    s'   W.    655,    affirmed    in    101  Co.  v.  Levi,  4  Texas   App.   Civ.   Cas.,   §   9, 

Tex.'  661,' no  op.                                                  .  ^^  J.  W.  1062                                t       "     ^«    T.v 

In  an  action  against  a  common  earner  58.     Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Levi     <6    lex. 

for  the   conversion   of  goods   delivered   to  337.   13   S.  W.   191,   8   L.   R.  A.,  N.   S.,  323, 

it    for    transportation,     defendant    alleged  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  4a.        _ 

that    when     the   goods    were     received    a  59.    Failure  to  exercise  reasonable  dUi- 

"strike  "    amounting    to    an    insurrection,  gence.— Sterling  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co 

existed  at   the   place   to  which   they   were  38  Tex.   Civ.   App.  451,  86  S.  W.   655,  at- 

consigned,  and  that  the  goods,  which  con-  firmed  in   101  Tex.  661,  no  op. 

sisted    entirely   of    firearms    and    ammuni-  60.     Failure    to    suppress    strike.— Inter- 

tion     were    purchased    and    consigned    to  national,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Server,    3    1  exas 

plaintifif  to  be  used  in  aid  of  the  insurrec-  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  i?  441. 

tion.  knowledge  of  which  having  come  to  61.    Where  strike  is  caused  by  camer.- 

defendant's    officers,    they    deemed    it    im-  Railroad  z'.  Bell,  l.i  Ky.  L.  Rep.  o9o. 

proper    to    deliver   the    goods    to   plaintiff,  62.     Where    goods   are  ^  penshable.-See 

and  after  consulting  the   governor   of   the  ante,     Perishal)le   Goods      M- 

state    and  under  his  advice,  caused  them  63.     Time   contract.— Deming   v.    Grand 

?o  b;   shipped   out  of    the   state    and    re-  Trunk   R.   Co.,  48   N.   H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep. 

tained   for  several  months.     Held,   that  a  26<                                        ,  t^       i    i?    r^     .^ 

rhar-e  that    if  the  jury  found  the  facts  to  64.    Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk   R.   Co.,  48 

be  af alleged  by  defen'dant,  the  latter  was  N.   H.  455,  2  Am    Rep.  267.   Hamiony  z;. 

ustified    in    witliholding    the    goods    from  Bingham,   12   N.   Y.   99,   62  Am^  Dec.   142; 

plaintiff,   otherwise   not,  was   as   favorable  Baldwin  z'    New  York    etc     Co.    (N.  Y.O, 

as    defendant   could   ask.      Baltimore,   etc.,  3   Bosw.  545;   Price  v.   Hartshorn,  44   N     Y. 

R    Co    "    O'Donnell,  49  O.   St.  489,  32  N.  94,  102,  4  Am.  Rep.  645;  Ward  v.  New  York 

F    4^fi   Vl   I      R    A     \    S  ,  117,  34  Am.  St.  Cent.  R.   Co.,  47  N.  Y.  29,  33,  7  Am.  Rep. 

E.  4r6.     1    U   K.  A.,  A ^^._     ^^^^^^    ^^^_^    ^      ^^     ^,     Nelson,    38 

TJnder' Texas  Statute.-Under   Rev.   St..  Tex.   Civ.  App.  605,  86  S.  W.  616;  Texas, 

irt     277     which    declares    that    the    duties  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Felker,  40  Tex.   Civ.  App. 

and    liabilities    of   carriers    in    Texas    shall  604,  90  SW.  530. 

be   the   same   as   at   comijion    law,    except  In   Collier  r-    Swinney,   16   Mo.   f^-J^l 

where  otherwise  provided,  a  common  car-  carrier  was  held  not  exempt  from  habihty 

Her  is   not  liable   for   depreciation   in   the  to  deliver  the  goods  within  the  time  stip- 

value   of   goods,   resulting   solely   from   in-  ulatcd  in  an  al)solute  contract,  because  of 

evitable      delay    in     their     transportation,  high   water    on   the    river    by    which    the 

^msed  by  a  mob  of  rioters.     Gulf,  etc.,  R.  goods  were  to  be  transported, 

rn    ;    T  evi    76  Tex    337,  13  S.  W.  191,  18  If  a  carrier   has   agreed  to   carry   goods 

Am     St     Rep    45    8   L     R.   A.,    N.   S.,   323,  to     their     destination      and     deliver     them 


631 


1)KLA\'     I.N      TkANSroRTATIOX    OR    DKLIVKRY. 


§    920 


temporary  obslruclion  ur  even  absolute  impossibility  will  Ijc  a  defense  to  an 
action  for  failure  to  comply  with  the  engagement/'^  because  he  might  have  pro- 
vided a,!4ainsl  it  !)y  his  contract.'''*' 

What  Constitutes  Contract. — To  make  a  time  contract,  there  must  be 
mutuality  of  obligation  and  express  stipulaticjn.'''  It  has  been  held,  that  the 
making  arrangements  to  run  sj^ecial  fruit  trains  from  fruit  growing  districts 
to  market,  and  holding  out  public  notice  thereof,  and  of  the  time  to  be  made 
by  trains  as  to  their  arrival  at  market,  is  not  regarded  in  law  as  creating  a 
special  contract  between  railroad  corptjrations  so  holding  out  inducements  and 
the  shippers  absolutely  within  the  advertised  time.''**  A  stipulation  in  a  bill 
of  lading  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  goods  were  to  be  transporte^d  does 
not  constitute  a  contract  to  deliver  the  goods  within  a  particular  time,  and  the 
carrier  is  not  liable  for  delay  where  it  undertook  to  carry  the  goods  by  water 
instead  of  1)\'  rail,  and  tlu-  trans])ortation  was  delayed  by  obstructions  by  ice.'''** 
StifRciency  of  Contract. — Mere  statements  by  the  carrier's  agent  that  the 
ordinary  time  of  carriage  is  from  ten  to  fifteen  days  are  not  sufficient  to  show 
a  special  i)arol  contract,  nor  to  overcome  the  effect  of  bills  of  lading  or  receipts 
as  evidence  of  the  real  contract.'"     Statements  by  the  commercial   agent  of  a 


witliin  a  prcscrilii'd  time,  it  will  Ik.-  held 
to  a  strict  performance  of  the  contract. 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Gatewood,  79  Tex.  89, 
14  S.  W.  913,   10  L.   R.  A.,  N.   S..  419. 

65.  New  Hampshire. — Deming  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep. 
2(J7. 

Tc.nis. — International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Wentworth,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5.  27  S.  W. 
680;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Gatewood,  79 
Tex.  89,  95,  14  S.  W.  913.  10  L.  R.  A.,  X. 
S.,   419. 

66.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Went- 
worth, 8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5,  27  S.  W.  680, 
affirmed  in  87  Tex.  311. 

67.  What  constitutes  contract. — Inter- 
national, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Wentworth,  8  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  5,  11,  27  S.  W.  680.  affirmed  in 
87  Tex.  311. 

In  Pickford  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co., 
12  M.  &  W.  (Eng.  Exch.),  766,  it  appeared 
that  defendant  common  carrier  published 
a  printed  notice,  which  was  posted  oyer 
the  door  of  their  station  for  the  reception 
of  goods  in  Liverpool,  that  all  goods  re- 
ceived after  4  o'clock  p.  m.  would  l)e  for- 
warded on  the  next  working  day.  Long 
after  the  publication  of  this  notice,  cer- 
tain goods  were  l^rought  to  the  station 
about  half-past  five  p.  m.,  to  be  for- 
warded to  Birmingham  by  railway.  The 
person  who  brought  them,  a  servant  of 
the  owner,  saw  the  carrier's  weigher,  and 
asked  if  there  was  time  for  the  goods  to 
proceed  that  evening,  and  he  said  there 
was,  and  the  goods  were  placed  by  the 
defendant's  porters  on  the  trucks  on 
which  goods  are  carried  upon  such  rail- 
road. The  same  servant  had  on  former 
occasions  taken  goods  of  the  same  kind 
to  such  station  at  later  hour,  where  they 
were  never  refused  for  being  too  late, 
and  had  been  forwarded  the  same  even- 
ing. It  was  held  tliat  upon  these  facts, 
there  was  evidence  to  go  to  tlie  jury  of 
a  special  contract  by  the   defendant   rail- 


road  to  forward   the   goods   on   the   same 
evening   on    which    they   were    received. 

68.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Went- 
worth. 8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5,  27  S.  W.  680, 
affirmed  in  87  Tex.  311. 

69.  The  bills  of  lading  contained  the 
following  conditions:  "2.  This  merchan- 
dise may  be  carried  in  box  cars,  covered 
skeleton  cars,  or  on  open  platform  cars; 
if  destined  beyond  Philadelphia,  it  may 
l)c  transported  l)y  water,  in  vessels,  boats, 
l)argcs  or  lighters,  and  if  so  destined  to 
any  point  beyond,  the  same  rmiy  be  in- 
trusted or  delivered  in  the  cars  of  tiiis 
company,  or  otherwise,  to  any  other  rail- 
road or  transportation  company  or 
agent."  It  full}-  appeared  that  the  estab- 
lislied  route  of  the  defendants  below  was 
l)y  railroad  to  Philadelphia,  and  from 
thence  by  water  to  Boston.  Is  it  true, 
the  transportation  company  were  not  al)- 
solutely  bound  to  this  route  beyond  Phil- 
adelphia. They  had  the  option  to  send 
the  goods  forward,  either  by  water,  in 
vessels,  boats,  barges  or  lighters,  or  by 
any  railroad  or  transportation  compan}', 
or  agent.  There  was  certainly  nothing  in 
this  option  to  render  it  incumbent  upon 
the  carriers  to  send  the  goods  by  railroad 
whenever  there  was  any  obstruction  of 
the  communication  by  water.  There  was 
nothing  in  it  which  gave  the  plaintiff  any 
right  to  suppose  that  the  goods  would  be 
delivered  in  Boston  without  any  unnec- 
essary delay,  and  that  if  they  could  not 
be  immediately  sent  on  by  water,  they 
would  lie  sent  by  rail.  Obstructions  by 
ice  in  the  river  are,  in  their  nature, 
merely  temporary,  and  of  very  uncertain 
duration.  Empire  Transp.  Co.  f.  Wal- 
lace.  ('■•S,    Pa.   302.   8   Am.   Rep.    178. 

70.  Sufficiency  of  contract. — Strohn  v. 
Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Wis.  126.  99  Am. 
Dec.   114. 

A  mere  statement  of  a  station  agent, 
to  one  about  to  deliver  goods  for  sliip- 
mont     over    a    railroad,     that    the     goods 


§  920  CARRIERS.  ■  632 

common  carrier,  duly  authorized  to  solicit  shipments  of  freight,  that  the  time 
consumed  in  the  transportation  of  certain  live  stock  will  be  four  days,  and 
that  there  will  be  no  delays,  do  not  constitute  an  express  contract  on  the  part 
of  the  carrier  to  ship  and  deliver  in  that  time/^  Where  the  agents  of  a  rail- 
road company  stated  to  an  owner  of  perishable  goods  that  the  company  had  a 
schedule  for  one  of  its  trains  between  certain  points  of  a  certain  number  of 
hours,  and  expected  to  maintain  the  schedule,  and  that  everything  possible 
would  be  done  to  maintain  it,  and  such  owner,  acting  on  the  belief  induced 
by  such  statements  that  such  train  would  reach  destination  in  that  time,  made 
shipments  of  such  goods,  a  special  contract  to  transport  the  shipments  in  that 
time  was  not  made  by  the  carrier.' - 

Consideration  for  Contract. — A  promise,  without  consideration,  made  by 
a  carrier's  agent  to  use  his  best  efforts  to  deliver  goods  arriving  at  night,  at  a 
stated  time,  will  not  support  an  action  for  damages  for  failure  to  so  deliver 
goods  shipped  several  years  afterwards  from  a  station  in  another  state,  with- 
out any  contract  by  the  agent  at  that  point  to  deliver  other  than  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  business. '■"• 

Carrier  Insurer.— W  hen  a  railroad  company,  by  its  agent,  agrees  to  deliver 
goods  within  a  prescribed  time,  it  does  not  become  an  absolute  insurer  of 
the  goods,  and  need  not  deliver  at  all  events  or  pay  for  the  property.  The 
parties  are  presumed  to  contract  with  reference  to  the  responsibility  which  the 
common  law  imposes  upon  the  carrier  in  ordinary  cases,  the  carrier  assuming 
the  risk  in  respect  to  time.  If  the  goods  were  destroyed  by  an  act  of  God  or 
the  public  enemy  before  the  time  for  delivering  them  expired,  this  would  ex- 
cuse the  carrier  on  the  special  contract.'''* 

Where  Penalty  Stipulated.— A  carrier,  where  perishable  goods  are  injured 
by  delay  beyond  the  time  stipulated  by  the  fault  of  a  connecting  carrier,  is  li- 
able for  damages  therefor  notwithstanding  there  is  a  special  stipulation  for  a 
penalty  in  case  of  delay  beyond  a  prescribed  time.'"'  The  carrier  is  liable  both 
for  the  penalty  and  for  damage  to  the  goods   from  the  delay."*^ 

Shipment  over  Connecting  Carrier. — A  carrier  contracting  to  deliver  a 
shipment  of  freight  at  a  place  designated  within  a  certain  time  is  liable  to  the 
shipper  for  damages  on  its  own  or  connecting  lines.'^" 

Effect  of  Acceptance  of  Goods. — Where  there  has  been  a  delay  in  the 
transportation  of  goods  causing  a  breach  of  the  carrier's  contract  to  deliver  at 
a  specified  time,  by  reason  of  which  loss  ensues  to  the  consignee,  such  consign- 
ee's right  of  action  for  the  delay  is  not  waived  by  a  mere  acceptance  of  the 
goods  upon  arrival  at  a  later  date  than  that  specified  in  the  contract.'^^  Where 
a  carrier  agrees  to  deliver  certain  freight  at  a  point  in  due  time  for  its  trans- 
portation to  its  final  destination  by  a  certain  steamer  and  fails  to  comply  with 
■  the   agreement   and   the   freight,   after   arriving  too   late   for  transhipment,   was 

should  arrive  at  the  proposed  destination  New    York    to   Milwaukee,    within    twelve 

at    a    certain    time,    is    not    a    contract    to  days,  but  owing  to  a  crowd  of  fruit  on  a 

carry   them  within   such    time.      Sauter  v.  connecting    road     there    was    a     delay    of 

.A.tchison,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    78    Kan.    331,    97  twenty  days,  and  the   goods   decayed,   the 

Pac.  434.  carrier   was    held    liable    for   the    loss,    al- 

71.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wells,  130  though  the  contract  stipulated  that  the 
Ga.  55,  60  S.  E.  170;  International,  etc.,  carrier  should  pay  five  cents  per  hundred 
R.  Co.  V.  Wentworth,  87  Tex.  311,  28  S.  weight  for  every  day  beyond  the  twelve 
W.  277.  days.     Place  v.  Union   Exp.  Co.    (N.  Y.), 

72.  Atlantic,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Wells,   130  2   Hilt.   19. 

Ga.  55,  60  S.  E.  170.  76.  Place  v.  Union   Exp.   Co.   (N.  Y.),  2 

73.  Consideration   for    contract. — Lipp-  Hilt.  19;  Nudd  v.  Wells,  11   Wis.  407. 
mann  v.    Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,   Ill   N.   Y.  77.    Shipment    over    connecting    carrier. 
S.  522,  127  App.  Div.  187.  —Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Miller   (Tex.  Civ. 

74.  Carrier  insurer.— Strohn  v.   Detroit,       App.),  88  vS.  W.  499. 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Wis.  126,  99  Am.  Dec.  114.  78.     Effect   of    acceptance   of    goods. — 

75.  Where  penalty  stipulated.— Where  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shippers'  Com- 
a    carrier   agreed    to   transport    fruit   from        press  Co.,  83  Va.  272,  2  S.  E.  139. 


633  DELAY    IX    TRANSPORTATION    OR    DFXIVERY.  §§    920-921 

shipped  to  another  point  with  the  consent  of  the  shipper  and  there  sold  at  a 
loss,  the  latter  shipment  and  sale  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  carrier  and  it  is  the 
carrier's  duty  to  make  good  the  loss."" 

Act  of  God  as  Excuse. — Under  an  express  contract  for  transportation  and 
delivery  by  a  certain  time,  the  carrier  is  bound  by  his  contract  and  is  not  ex- 
cused for  liability  thereon  by  an  inevitable  accident. '^'^ 

Liability  for  Loss. — The  carrier  assumes  responsibility  as  to  time ;  but  the 
rule  of  lial)ility  fur  injury  or  loss  is  at  common  law.**^ 

When  Action  Accrues. — Where  there  is  a  promise  to  transport  to  and  de- 
liver goods,  within  a  reasonable  time,  an  action  does  not  accrue  to  the  plaintiff, 
instantly  on  the  promise  being  made,  but  only  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
time;  and  negligence  comi^laincd  of  must  occur  at  a  time  subsequent  to  the 
promise. ^- 

§  921.  Pov^er  of  Agent  to  Make  Contract. — Authority  to  Vary  General 
Notice. — A  station  agent  who  receives  and  forwards  freight  has  power  to  bind 
the  carrier  that  the  goods  shall  be  forwarded  to  a  point  beyond  the  carrier's 
terminus  within  a  particular  time,  notwithstanding  a  general  notice  published 
that  tlie  carrier  would  not  be  liable  beyond  its  own  road.**^ 

Authority  of  Agent  from  Holding  Out. — Where  a  person  is  the  only  repre- 
sentative of  a  railroad  company  at  a  station  and  was  placed  there  for  the  pur- 
pose of  transporting  its  business,  he  is  authorized  to  contract  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  goods,  and  to  bind  the  company  on  a  contract  to  deliver  within  a  cer- 
tain time,  if  reasonable.  By  placing  him  in  charge  of  its  business  at  the  station, 
and  empowering  him  to  contract  for  the  shipment  of  the  goods,  the  railroad 
company  held  him  out  as  possessing  aathority  to  contract  with  reference  to  all 
necessary  and  ordinary  details  of  the  business.^-* 

Statement  Made  by  Agent. — In  an  action  against  a  connecting  carrier  for 
daiuage  to  i)erishal)lc  goods  caused  by  delay,  the  statement  of  the  carrier's 
agent  to  whom  the  goods  were  delivered  as  to  the  time  required  for  the  freight 
to  reach  its  destination,  is  admissible  when  such  statement  may  have  been  the 
inducement  of  the  contract.^^  Statements  of  the  conductor  of  a  railroad  train 
as  to  the  time  for  transportation  and  delivery  of  goods,  made  while  engaged 
in  the  business  of  the  railroad  and  while  in  control  of  the  train,  are  admissible 
against  a  railroad  in  an  action  for  damages  from  delay.^*'  The  railroad  is  not 
absolutely  bound  by  such  statements  but  the  statements  are  admissible  in  evi- 
dence on  the  general   ])riiici])les  of  agency.^" 

Authority  as  to  Perishable  Goods. — It  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  the 
shipper  tliat  a  definite  time  should  be  fixed  for  the  shipment  of  perishable  goods ; 
and  unless  the  power  of  the  agent  is  limited  by  some  rule  or  instruction  of  the 
company,  the  authority  conferred  upon  him  to  contract  for  the  transportation 
of  the  property  carries  with  it  the  power  to  make  such  agreement  with  refer- 
ence to  the  time  when  it  should  be  received  and  shipped  as  the  necessities  of  the 
case  demand. ^^ 

79.  Skcllie  r.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  fis  Iowa  491.  27  X. 
Ga.   56,   6   S.    E.   811.  .W.   473,   56   Am.    Rep.   861. 

80.  Act  of  God  as  excuse. — Harmony  v.  gS.  Statement  made  by  agent. — Blod- 
Binsham,   1:2   X.   V.  99,  &2  Am.   Dec.  142.  gg^t  v.  Alihot,  72  Wis.  516,  40   X.  W.  491. 

81.  Liability     for    loss. — International,       7   ^m.  St.  Rep.  873. 

etc..    R.    Co.    r.    Wcntworth,    8    Tex.    Civ.  gg^  p^.;^^  ,,    ^^^^^^^    j  (^^^    &  P.  60;  Bar- 

App.  5,  27  b.  W.  (.SO.  athrmed  m  8.    Tex.        j^^^  ,,    ^^^^^  (Mass.).  19  Pick.  220;  Sisson 

3.J1-       „,^  .  TD     ,  e        "••    Cleveland,    etc.,    R.    Co..    14   Mich.   489, 

82.  When   action    accrues.-Barkcr      &       ,,^  ^^        ^        252. 
Co.    .-.    Glasccnv    (O.),     I  app.    lOS.  /-,        1       .       .        t?     r-        1  . 

83.  Power  of  agent  to  make  contract—  87    bisson  ::  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 


.)~'. 


Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  ^^''~^^'-    -»^^.    ^^    Am.    Dec. 

455,  2  Am.   Rep.  267.  88.  Authority  as  to  perishable  goods. — 

84.     Authority    of    agent    from    holding  Wood  :•.    Ciiicago,   etc..    R.    Co.,  68    Iowa 

out.— 2    Rc«ll"icld    on    Rys..    141.      Wood    z:  491,  27   X.  W.  473,  56  Am.  Rep.  861. 


§§  921-922  CARRIERS.  634 

Authority  of  Ag-ent  at  Another  Station. — A  railroad  company  is  not  liable 
under  a  contract  for  delivery  of  cars  at  a  certain  time,  made  by  an  agent  at  a 
different  station  from  that  to  which  the  cars  were  to  be  delivered,  although 
the  agent  at  the  latter  station  referred  the  shipper  to  the  former  station  agent, 
where  the  former  had  no  express  authority."*" 

Authority  of  Agent  of  Another  Carrier. — A  statement  of  the  agent  of  a 
connecting  carrier  as  to  the  time  the  freight  would  arrive  has  the  force  of  a 
contract,   where  the  time  is  usual  and   reasonable.'"' 

Authority  of  Agent  as  to  Shipment  over  Connecting  Carrier. — A  sta- 
tion agent  who  receives  and  forwards  freight  has  power  to  bind  the  carrier 
that  the  goods  shall  be  forwarded  to  a  point  beyond  the  terminus  of  that  road 
before  a  particular  hour,  notwithstanding  a  general  notice  published  that  the 
carrier  would  not  be  lialjle  beyond  its  own  road.''^ 

Shipper's  Knowledge  of  Want  of  Authority. — Where  a  shipper  is 
chargeable  with  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  carrier's  agent  has  no  authority 
to  contract  for  the  deliyery  of  the  goods  at  their  destination  at  a  certain  date, 
and  the  bill  of  lading  contains  no  evidence  of  such  an  undertaking,  no  recov- 
erv  can  be  had  for  failure  to  deliver  by  the  date  named. '■'- 

§  922.  Duty  of  Carrier  after  Excusing  Cause  Removed. — While  ac- 
cidents and  obstructions  will  e.xcuse  delay,  they  do  not  put  an  end  to  the  con- 
tract. As  soon  as  the  impediment  to  the  transportation  of  the  property  is 
removed  or  can  reasonably  be  overcome,  the  carrier  must  complete  the  con- 
tract without   further  (lela_\-."" 

What  Constitutes  Due  Diligence. — X'erdict  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  damage  to  a  carload  of  perishable  fruit  from  a  delay  of  two  days,  the 
train  being  sidetracked  because  of  unprecedented  rains,  which  overflowed  and 
washed  out  the  track,  is  properly  directed  for  defendant,  though  plaintiff  ex- 
presses the  opinion  that  defendant  had  not  sufficient  cause  for  the  delay,  and 
though  a  light  work  train  went  over  the  road  through  the  water  a  day  earlier 
than  the  freight  train  was  moved ;  the  train  dispatcher,  who  was  not  cross- 
examined,  testifying  that  no  train  could  go  between  the  place  where  the  train 
was  sidetracked  and  the  destination  of  the  car,  before  the  day  it  was  moved, 

89.  Authority  of  agent  at  another  sta-  Netv  York. — Spann  v.  Erie  Boatman's 
tion. — \rjorhees  v.  Cliicago.  etc..  R.  Co..  Transp.  Co.,  11  Misc.  Rep.  680,  33  N.  Y. 
71  Iowa  T:5.5,  30  N.  \V.  29,  60  Am.  Rep.  S.  566,  67  N.  y.  St.  Rep.  3.i4;  Bowman  v. 
823.  Teall  (N.  Y.j,  23  Wend.  306,  35  Am.  Dec. 

90.  Authority  of  agent  of  another  car-  562;  Parsons  z'.  Hardy  (N.  ¥.),  14  Wend, 
rier.— Wood  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  215,  28  Am.  Dec.  521;  Greismer  v.  Lake 
Iowa  491,  27  X.  W.  473,  56  Am.  Rep.  861;  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  563.  7  N.  E. 
Biodgett  V.  Abbot,  72  Wis.  516,  40  N.  W.  828,  55  Am.  Rep.  837. 

491,    7   Am.    St.    Rep.    873;    Strohn   z:    De-  0/no.— Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 

troit,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    23    Wis.    126,    99    Am.  nell,   49   O.   St.  489,  32   N.   E.   476,   34   Am. 

Dec.    114.  St.   Rep.   579,  21   L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,   117. 

91.  Authority  of  agent  as  to  shipment  ^^^er  the  removal  of  the  obstacle  to 
over  connecting  carrier.-Story  on  transportation,  the  carrier  is  hound  to 
Agency,  §  443,  127.  Wilson  z:  York,  etc.,  ^1?''^'^  .^^  w"^'?'., /oo' a"'  ^^  -""o .^ 
Railway.  18  Eng.  Law  and  Eq.  557  ^\,^-^?  ^^  -^^"d-  2^^'  "^  ^"^-  °^^-  f^' 
Backman  z:  Charlestown,  42  x\.  H.  125;  ,  ^he  freezing  up  of  a  river  may  have 
Burnside  z:  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  47  N.  been  a  sufficient  excuse  for  the  delay  m 
H.  554,  93  Am.  Dec.  474;  Deming  v.  ^'^,  delivery  of  the  goods  at  L  anri  the 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  defendant   may   have   been  justified   under 

tlie   circumstances   in   storing  them   at   H., 
but   his   obligation   to   deliver   them   at  L., 


Rep 

92.  Shipper's  knowledge  of  want  of  au-        within\"'VeTsonabl7  time  ^"after  "the'  ^' 


thority.— Parks  z.Guh',  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Tex.  sumption    of    navigation,    still    continued, 

Civ.  App.),  30  b.  VV .  708.  unless  the  plaintifif  had  agreed   to  receive 

93.  After     excusing     cause     removed. —  them    at    H.,    or    in    some    other    way    re- 

lUinois. — Lowe    v.    Moss,    1:2    111.    477,    479.  leased    the    defendant    from    his    original 

Mississippi. — Bennett    v.    Byram    &    Co.,  undertaking.      Lowe   z:    Moss,   12    111.   477, 

38  Miss.  17,  75  Am.  Dec.  90.  479. 


635 


DI:LAV     IX     TRAXSI'OKTATIOX     (iR     I  »!■  1. 1\  KKV 


§§  922-023 


and  that  a  locomotive  was  sent  for  and  brouj^ht  over  the  train  as  soon  as  it 
could  be  done,  and  that  this  was  the  first  train  run  over  this  section  after  it 
was  rc])airc-d.'" 

Where  Goods  Accepted  by  Consignee. — The  carrier  is  relieved  from  all 
further  responsibility  after  the  removal  of  the  obstacle  to  transportation  by 
the  acceptance  of  the  goods  by  the  consignee,  and  can  collect  pro  rata  freight.'-*^ 
Interference  of  the  owner  by  giving  directions  as  to  the  care  of  property,  the 
transportation  of  which  is  interrupted  by  the  closing  of  a  river,  is  not  in  itself 
an  acceptance  of  the  jjroperty ;  it  is  merely  evidence  of  acceptance,  to  be  sub- 
mitted ti)  a  jury  with  the  other  circumstances  of  the  case/'*' 

Acceptance  of  Part. — It  may  Ije  that  the  common  carrier,  in  such  a  case, 
would  be  entitled  to  the  full  price  for  the  trans])ortation  of  all  the  goods,  not- 
withstanding the  withdrawal  of  a  part  by  the  owner  before  they  reached  the 
end  of  the  voyage,  but  it  is  clear  that  his  liability  for  the  goods  remaining  with 
him  would  continue  the  same  as  if  none  had  been  taken  away.''" 

The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  carrier  to  show  that  it  exercised  due 
care  to  transport  tlie  car  within  a  reasonable  time  after  the  track  was  in  proper 
condition,  the  question  as  to  what  is  a  reasonable  time  being  one  of  fact  for 
the  jury.'"''^ 

§  923.  Duty  of  Consignor  and  Consignee  to  Avert  or  Mitigate  In- 
jury.— A  siiipper  iia\iiig  deli\ered  goods  to  a  carrier  for  lran>p<jrtation,  has  a 
right  to  rely  upon  the  fulfillment  of  the  contract  in  pursuance  of  which  he  acted 
uiitil  it  is  repudiated,  or  until  he  is  notified  that  the  carrier  can  not,  or  does  not 
intend  to,  trans])ort  the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time."'^  However,  a  shipper 
injured  by  the  delay  of  a  carrier  to  make  shipment  and  delivery  of  goods  must 
not  remain  supine  and  inactive,  but  must  make  reasonable  exertions  to  avert 
the  loss  and  prevent  the  damage  to  his  property,  and  if  he  fail  to  do  this,  and 
the  injury  results  by  reason  of  his  negligence,  he  can  not  recover.^  But  the  fact 
that  a  consignee,  after  discovering  the  carrier's  negligence  in  failing  to  trans- 
port the  goods   in  a   reasonable  time,   failed  to  use  ordinary  care  to  avoid  the 


94.  What    constitutes    due    diligence.^ 

Burnham     z\    Alabama,     etc.,    R.    Co..     81 
Miss.  4<i.  :!:»  So.  'J  12. 

95.  Where  goods  accepted  by  con- 
signee.—  i'arsons  ;■.  Hardj'  (,X.  V.).  14 
\\  end.  215.  28  Am.  Dec.  521. 

96.  Bowman  v.  Teal!  (N.  Y.),  23  Wend. 
306.  35  .\m.  Dec.  562. 

97.  Acceptance  of  part. — "The  fact  that 
the  plaintiff  took  from  the  place  where 
they  were  stored,  part  of  the  goods 
which  would  justify  hauling  by  land,  re- 
leased the  defendant  from  all  future  lia- 
bility in  reference  to  the  goods  thus 
taken  awaj'.  but  it  would  not  of  itself  re- 
lieve him  from  his  obligation  to  deliver 
the  balance  of  the  goods  according  to  his 
original  contract.  It  would  be  a  great 
hardship  if  a  merchant  who  had  a  stock 
of  goods  detained  upon  one  of  our  rivers, 
by  ice  or  low  water,  within  a  few  miles  of 
his  place  of  doing  business,  could  not  be 
permitted,  at  his  own  expense,  to  send 
for  such  articles  as  could  be  conveniently 
transported  by  land,  without  discharging 
the  common  carrier  from  all  responsil)il- 
ity,  in  reference  to  the  goods  left  with 
him."     Lowe  z'.   Moss.   12    111.  477,  479. 

98.  Burnliam  t'.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
81   Miss.   46,  :i2   S(\   '.112. 

99.  Duty  of  consignor  and  consignee  to 


avert  or  mitigate  injury. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Sumner,  106  Ind.  55.  5  N.  E. 
404,  55  Am.  Rep.  719;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Flannagan.  113  Ind.  488.  14  N.  E. 
370.  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  674,  680. 

1.  International,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Ritchie 
(Tex,  Civ.  App.),  26  S.  W.  840.  841; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i'.  Smith.  63  Tex. 
322.  323. 

Where  an  express  company  has  de- 
layed in  delivering  samples  of  cotton,  it 
was  the  owner's  duty  to  use  due  care  in 
mitigating  injury  done  him  by  the  ex- 
press company',  and  the  company  would 
be  relieved  of  lial)ility  to  the  extent  of 
the  price  received  for  cotton.  Wells 
Fargo  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Samuels,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  15.  17,  31  S.  W.  305. 

"  'It  is  the  duty  of  the  shipper  to  ex- 
ercise reasonable  diligence  and  care  to 
minimize  the  injury  to  his  shipment 
caused  by  delay.'  4  Elliott  on  Railroads, 
1730.  And  he  'must  not  remain  supine 
and  inactive,  but  should  make  reasonable 
exertions  to  help  himself,  and  tlieretn' 
reduce  his  losses  and  diminish  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  party  in  default  to 
him.'  Vicksburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Rags- 
dale.  46  Miss.  458."  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co. 
z\  Planters'  Gin.  etc..  Co..  S8  .-Krk.  77.  113 
S.    W.    352. 


§§  923-924 


CARRIERS. 


636 


injury  caused  bv  such  negligence,  will  not  preclude  him  from  recovering  the 
damages  actually  caused  to  him  by  such  negligence,  which  he  could  not,  by  or- 
dinary diligence,  have  prevented.- 

§  924.  Duty  of  Consignee  to  Accept  Goods.— The  failure  to  deliver 
the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time  by  the  carrier  is  only  a  breach  of  the  con- 
tract*'of  carriage,  and  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the  damages  incurred  by  reason 
of  the  delav;  but  the  consignee  can  not  refuse  to  accept  the  goods  on  account 
of  the  unreasonable  delay  in  the  carriage,  and  sue  for  a  conversion.^  But  the 
reiusjl  of  the  consignee  to  accept  the  goods  does  not  discharge  the  earner  from 
all  liability  for  the  goods.  The  carrier  still  owes  a  duty  to  the  consignee  for  the 
care  of  the  goods.  It  should  store  the  goods  in  its  depot,  or  in  some  w^irehouse 
where  they  would  be  reasonably  safe  and  free  from  injury.  It  has  no  right 
to  abandon  the  goods  or  to  convert  them  to  its  own  use.^ 

Effect  of  Acceptance.— Where  there  has  been  a  delay  in  the  transportation 
of  goods  causing  a  breach  of  the  carrier's  contract  to  deliver  at  a  specified  time, 
by  reason  of  wdiich  loss  ensues  to  the  consignee,  such  consignee's  right  of  action 


2.  In  a  suit  against  a  railway  for  dam- 
age through  delay  in  transportation  of 
goods,  a  charge  is  not  correct  to  the  ef- 
fect that  if  plaintiff's  injury  resulted  from 
his  own  failure  to  use  ordinary  care  to 
avoid  injury  from  defendant's  negligence, 
there  can  be  no  recovery.  Belcher  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Tex.  593,  597,  50 
S.  W.   559.  reversing  47   S.  W..  384. 

3.  Duty  of  consignee  to  accept  goods. 
— Arkansas. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pfeifer,  90  Ark.  524,  119  S.  W.  642,  22  L. 
R.  A.,  X.  S.,  1107;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Aludford.  44  Ark.  439. 

///moi.y.— Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  He- 
ilprin   &  Co.,  95   111.  App.  402. 

Kentucky. — Chesapeake,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 

Saulsberry,   126   Ky.    179,   31   Ky.   L.    Rep. 

624,  103  S.  "W.  254,  12  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  431. 

New     Hampshire. — Hackett    v.     Boston, 

etc.,  Railroad,  35  N.  H.  390. 

New  York. — Briggs  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R  Co.  (N.  Y.),  28  Barb.  515;  Baumann  7'. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N.  Y.  S.  632, 
35  Misc.  Rep.  223;  Scovill  v.  Griffith,  12 
N.  Y.  509. 

South  Carolina.— l<iett\es  v.  South  Car- 
olina R.  Co.,  7  Rich.  L.  190,  62  Am.  Dec. 
409. 

Where  flour  was  shipped  on  F^ebruary 
12,  1906,  and  thereafter  remained  in  the 
possession  of  a  railroad  company  until 
July  1st,  when  it  was  found  and  tendered 
to  plaintiff,  plaintiff  was  bound  to  re- 
ceive the  flour  when  tendered  notwith- 
standing the  delay;  the  carrier's  liability 
being  to  render  compensation  for  dam- 
ages growing  out  of  the  delay,  and  not 
for  loss  of  the  flour.  Moody  v.  Southern 
Railway,  60  S.  E.  711,  79  S.  C.  297. 

"In  the  case  of  Baumbach  v.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  650,  23  S.  W. 
693,  the  plaintiff  had  a  car  load  of  lumber 
on  one  of  defendant's  cars,  which,  by 
agreement,  was  to  be  delivered  at  a  point 
about  one  mile  distant,  where  plaintiff 
was  building  a  house.  The  lumber  was 
not    delivered    until    about    one    and    one- 


half  months  later,  and  the  plaintiff,  hav- 
ing, in  the  meanwhile,  purchased  other 
lumber,  refused  to  receive  same,  and  sued 
for  the  value  of  the  lumber.  In  that  case 
it  was  held  that  the  plaintiff  should  have 
accepted  the  lumber,  and  held  the  defend- 
ant liable  for  all  actual  damages  which 
he  had  sustained."  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Pfeifer,  90  Ark.  524,  119  S.  W.  642,  22 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1107. 

Under  statute  imposing  liability  on 
carrier. — Though  a  carrier  delays  deliv- 
ery of  freight  for  four  months,  the  con- 
signee must  accept  it  when  tendered  and 
rely  on  his  right  to  recover  for  negligent 
delay,  notwithstanding  Act  Feb.  23,  1903 
(24  St.  at  Large,  p.  81),  making  a  car- 
rier liable  for  loss  of  or  damage  to  goods 
and  a  penalty  for  failure  to  adjust  the 
claim  therefor  within  a  time  limited. 
Bullock  V.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  S. 
E.  234,  82  S.  C.  375. 

4.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Pfeifer,  90 
Ark.  524,  119  S.  W.  642,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1107. 

Where  a  shipper  refuses  to  receive  the 
goods  transported  because  of  delay  in 
the  transportation,  and  the  refusal  of  the 
carrier  to  make  any  concession  on  ac- 
count thereof,  the  carrier  has  no  right  to 
convert  the  freight  to  its  own  use  or  to 
dispose  of  it  contrary  to  law.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Saulsberry,  126  Ky. 
179,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  624,  103  S.  W.  254, 
12  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  431. 

"In  the  case  of  Bacharach  v.  Chester 
Freight  Line,  133  Pa.  414,  19  Atl.  409,  it 
was  held  that,  although  the  consignee  re- 
fused to  accept  the  goods,  yet,  upon  a  re- 
newal demand  by  the  consignee,  if  the 
carrier  failed  or  refused  to  deliver  the 
goods,  the  consignee  could  sue  for  the 
conversion  of  the  goods.  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Glidewell,  39  Ark.  487. 
490."  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Pfeifer,  90 
Ark.  524,  119  S.  W.  642,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  1107. 


637 


DIvLAY    IN    TRAXSl'ORTATIOX    OK    DKLU'KRV. 


§§  924-927 


for  the  delay  is  not  waived  by  a  mere  acceptance  of  the  floods  upon  arrival  at  a 
later  date  than  that  specified  in  the  contract."' 

The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  carrier  to  prove  the  nej^ligence  by  which  the 
consij.,Miee  enhanced  the  amount  of  the  damage  or  failed  t<j  prevent  the  injury, 
as  well  as  the  extent  to  which  such  damages  were  enhanced,  or  to  which  they 
might  have  been  lessened  by  the  use  of  ordinary  care  on  the  part  of  the  con- 
signee.*' 

Question  for  Jury. — Whether  or  not  the  consignee  exercised  proper  care  to 
avoid  injury  is  a  question  for  the  jury."^ 

§  92  5.  Delay  Caused  by  Connecting  Carrier. — See  elsewhere.^ 

§§  926-954.  Damages— §  92  6.  In  General. — A  carrier  is  liable  for 
damages  resulting  from  delay  in  the  trans])ortation  and  delivery  of  goods  if  he 
fails  to  transport  and  deliver  them  within  a  reasonable  time." 

As  for  Breach  of  Contract. — Damages  arising  from  merely  negligent  delay 
in  transportation  of  freight  by  a  common  carrier  are  generally  and  correctly 
treated  as  arising  ex  contractu.  The  rule  for  their  admeasurement  is  well  es- 
tablished in  our  jurisprudence,  and  can  not  be  modified,  and  the  damage  recover- 
able largely  increased,  by  the  simple  expedient  of  changing  the  form  of  the  action. 
Especially  must  this  be  true  in  a  jurisdiction  that  pays  but  little  attention  to  the 
forms  of  pleadings,  but  looks  to  the  substance  of  the  cause. ^'^  A  carrier's  fail- 
ure to  carry  and  deliver  within  a  reasonable  time  is  a  breach  of  contract  and  not 
a  conversion  so  that  the  owner  can  not  refuse  to  receive  them  and  recover  their 
value.  ^^ 

§  927.  Arising  Proximately  from  Delay. — That  the  measure  of  damages 
for  delay  in  the  delivery  of  goods  by  a  carrier  is  the  dift'erence  between  their 
value  when  actually  delivered  and  what  they  would  have  been  worth  upon  sea- 
sonable delivery,  is  the  usual,  but  not  the  universal,  rule.  In  addition  to  this 
difference  in  market  value,  the  carrier  will  be  liable  also  for  such  other  and  in- 
cidental damages  as  naturally  and  ])roximately  flow  from  the  delay, ^-  and  for 
such  as  reasonably  might  have  been  expected  to  be  within  the  contemplation 
of  the  parties  when  the  contract  of  carriage  was  entered  into  as  the  probable 
result  of  a  breach  of  it.^^     The  carrier  is  liable  for  such  damages  as  are  the 


5.  Effect  of  acceptance. — Norfolk,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  r.  Shippers'  Compress  Co.,  83  Va. 
272.  2   S.   E.   1:59. 

6.  Judgment  (Civ.  App.  1898),  47  S.  W. 
384,  1020,  reversed.  Belcher  v.  Missouri, 
etc.,   R.  Co.,  oO  S.  W.  .'i.oO,  92  Tex.  593. 

7.  Question  for  jury. — Belclier  z\  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co..  92  Tex.  593.  597,  50  S. 
W.  559,  reversino;  47  S.  W.  384. 

8.  Delay  caused  by  connecting  carrier. 
— See  post.  "Connecting  Carriers,"   Part  \'. 

9.  Damages. — International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  f.  Server.  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
441;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Silegman 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  23  S.  W.  298;  San  An- 
tonio, etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Josey  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  71  S.  W.  60G. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
nondelivery  of  goods,  defendant  proved 
that,  after  the  lapse  of  some  months,  the 
goods  were  found  at  the  sliipping  point, 
and  tliere  offered  to  phiintiff,  who  refused 
to  take  them.  It  was  shown  that  some  of 
the  goods  were  damaged.  Phiintitf 
proved  the  value  of  the  goods  when 
shipped.     Held,  tliat  plaintiff  was  entitled 


to    some    damages.      Anderson    z'.    Louis- 
ville,  etc..   R.   Co.    (Miss.),    15   So.  795. 

10.  As  for  breach  of  contract. — Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co.  z:  Tennings,  86  Miss.  329,  38 
So.  374,   109   Am!  St.   Rep.  708. 

11.  Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  1 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  813. 

12.  Arising  proximately  from  delay. — 
3  Hutcliinson,  Carr.  nd  Ed..  §  lilt')!'..  Clute 
z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Kan.),  Ill  Pac. 
431,  30  L.   R.  A.,  N.   S..  1071. 

13.  England.  —  Hadley  v.  Baxendale 
(Eng.),  9  Ex.  341;  Hale  on  Carriers.  408: 
Sedgvv.  Meas.  Dam.  ((Uh  Ed.)  79:  Sedg^v. 
Meas.  Dam.  (6th  Ed.)  note  81.  Field  on 
Dam.,  §  375;  Gee  z\  Lancashire,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   (Eng.).  6  Hurl.  &  N.  211. 

United  States. — The  Caledonia,  157  U. 
S.   124,   39   L.    Ed.   644.   15   S.   Ct.   537. 

Arkansas. — Murrell  z'.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.. 
54  .\rk.  22,  14  S.  W.  1098.  26  Am.  St. 
Rep.  17. 

Florida.— Brock  z:  Gale,  14  Fla.  523,  14 
Am.   Rep.  356. 

Gcors,ia.  —  Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Pritchard,   77   Ga.  412,   1    S.   E.  261.  4   .\m. 


§  927 


CARRIKRJ 


638 


natural  result  of  the  delay,  and  for  such  as  reasonably  might  have  been  expected 
to  be  within  the  contemplation  of  the  parties  when  the  contract  of  carriage  was 
entered  into  as  a  probable  result  of  a  l)reach  of  it.^^  While  the  carrier  is  pnma 
facie  only  liable  for  the  natural  and  ordinary  consequences  of  the  breach  of 
contract  by  delav :  but  where,  at  the  time  of  entering  into  the  contract,  both 
parties  knew  and  contemplated  that  if  such  breach  is  committed  some  injury  will 
occur  in  addition  to  the  natural  and  ordinary  consequences  of  the  breach,  the 
carrier  will  be  liable  to  give  compensation  or  damages  on  the  occurrence  of  the 
injury. i-"'  It  is  not  necessary  always  that  those  facts  should  be  mentioned  in  the 
negotiations,  or  in  express  terms  made  a  part  of  the  contract.  l:)ut  when  they  are 
known  to  the  carrier  under  such  circumstances,  or  they  are  of  such  a  character 
that  the  parties  mav  be  fairly  supposed  to  have  them  in  contemplation  in  making 
the  contract,  such  special  facts  become  relevant  in  determining  the  cfuestion  of 
damages.^*' 

Certainty  as  to  Cause  of  Damage. — The  damages  must  be  certam  both  m 
their  nature  and  respect  to  the  cause  from  which  they  proceed.^' 

Injury  to  Perishable  Goods  from  Loss  of  Ice.— A  carrier  of  perishable 
freight,  guilty  of  negligent  delay  in  the  transportation  thereof,  resulting  in  a. 
loss  of  ice  necessary  to  retain  the  proper  temperature  to  preserve  the  freight,  is 
liable  for  the  damages  attributable  to  an  insufficient  quantity  of  ice.^'^ 

Interest  on  Debt  to  Be  Satisfied  by  Goods.— The  fact  that  a  consignee  of 


St.  Rep.  92;  Cooper  z:  Young,  22  Ga.  269. 
68  Am.  Dec.  502. 

Kansas. — Johnson  z'.  Mathews,  5  Kan. 
118. 

Massaclnisctts. — Fox  v.  Boston,  etc..  R. 
Co..  148  Mass.  220.  19  N.  E.  222.  1  L.  R. 
A..  N.  S..  702;  Swift  River  Co.  z'.  Fitch- 
burg  R.  Co..  169  A'lass.  326,  47  N.  E.  1015. 
61  Am.  St.  Rep.  288;  Harvey  r.  Connecti- 
cut, etc..  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  421.  26  Am. 
Rep.  673;  Derry  v.  Flitner.  118  Mass.  131; 
Cutting  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  (Mass.). 
13  Allen  381;  Goddard  z\  Barnard 
(Mass.),  16  Gray  205;  Waite  z:  Gilbert 
(Mass.),  10  Cush.  177;  Ingledew  z'. 
Northern  Railroad  (Mass.).  7  Gray  8G; 
Scott  V.  Boston  Steamship  Co..  106  Mass. 
468. 

Michigan. — Sisson  v.  Cleveland,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  14 'Mich.  489.  90  Am.  Dec.  252. 

New  Jersey. — Higgins  v.  United  States 
Exp.   Co..  83  "N.   J.   L.   398.  85  Atl.   450. 

Netc  For^.— Scovill  v.  Griffith,  12  N. 
Y.  50;  Ward  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  47  N.  Y.  29,  7  Am.  Rep.  405;  Griffin 
V.  Colver,  16  N.  Y.  489,  69  Am.  Dec.  718 
North  Carolina. — Harper  Furniture  Co. 
V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S. 
E.  145.  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  Am. 
St.  Rep.  588. 

Ohio. — Devereaux  v.  Buckley,  34  O.  St. 
16,  32  Am.   Rep.  342. 

r^;ra.y.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorqu- 
odale,  71  Tex.  41,  9  S.  W.  80;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pickens  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58  S. 
W.  156,  157;  Haberzettle  v.  Trinity,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  527,  103  S.  W. 
219;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tisdale, 
74  Tex.  8,  11  S.  W.  900,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.. 
545;  Jones  v.  George.  61  Tex.  345,  48  Am. 
Rep.  280;  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  z:  Darnell 
Bros.,  62  Tex.  639.     See  example:     Wells 


Fargo   &   Co.   z\   Battle.   5   Tex.   Civ.   .\pp. 
532, "24  S.  \\\  353. 

When  a  common  carrier  is  guilty  of 
unreasonable  delay  in  the  performance 
of  his  contract,  he  becomes  liable  for  all 
the  actual  and  legitimate  damages  result- 
ing from  such  unnecessary  delay.  But  he 
is  not  liable  for  hypothetical  or  chimer- 
ical damages.  Gerhard  t'.  Neese,  36  Tex. 
635. 

For  an  inordinate  and  unnecessary  de- 
lay in  the  carriage  of  goods,  the  con- 
signor is  entitled  to  recover  the  loss  di- 
rectly and  proximately  resulting  from  the 
delay.  Higgins  z'.  United  States  Exp. 
Co..  83   N.  J.  L.  398.  85  Atl.  450. 

Consequential  damages  are  only  recov- 
eral)le  from  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  de- 
livery of  goods  wiien  they  are  the  natural 
and  probable  sonsequences  of  the  car- 
rier's default.  Davidson  Development 
Co.  z'.  Southern  R.  Co..  147  N.  C.  503,  61 
S.  E.  381. 

14.  Within  contemplation  of  parties. — 
Haberzettle  z\  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46 
Tex.   Civ.  App.   527,   103  S.  W.  219. 

15.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  30  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  Am_.  St.  Rep.  588, 
citing  Hydraulic  Engineering  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Haffie.  4'Q.  B.  Div.  670. 

16.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Soutlicrn 
Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  30  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  Am.  St.   Rep.  588. 

17.  Certainty  as  to  cause  of  damage. — 
1  Sutherland  on  Damages,  71.  Savannah, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Pritchard,  77  Ga.  412,  1  S. 
E.  261,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  92. 

18.  Injury  to  perishable  goods  from 
loss  of  ice. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 
White  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  103  S.  W.  673, 
affirmed  in  102  Tex.  591,  no  op. 


539  ])i:i,AV    IN    TRAXSPOKTATIOX    OR    UIXIVKKV.  §    927 

goods  was  paviiij,'  interest  on  a  debt  which  he  depended  on  the  goods  to  satisfy 
is  not  an  element  of  damages  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  a  delay  in  de- 
livering- tlu-ni,''' 

Where  Goods  Intended  for  Feed  for  Cattle.— W  here  a  earner  delays  the 
shipment  of  goods  intended  to  be  fed  to  cattle,  of  which  the  carrier  ha<l  notice, 
and  injury  resulting  to  the  cattle  by  reason  of  the  delay  and  the  inability  of  the 
shipper  to  get  other  feed,  the  carrier  is  liable  to  the  shipper  for  the  resulting 
injurv  to  the  cattle.-" 

Loss  of  Profits  by  Delay  in  Shipment  of  Machinery.— A  claim  for  loss 
of  profits  by  being  compelled  to  stop  an  electric  plant  because  a  shaft  used 
therein  was  broken  en  route  and  returned  to  the  rei^air  shop  by  the  exj^ress  com- 
pany to  be  rei)aired  before  it  was  forwarded  to  the  jjlant  was  based  upon  the 
owner's  being  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  shaft,  and  whether  the  delay  was  caused 
by  injury  to  the  shaft  or  by  other  reasons  was  immaterial.-' 

'  Arising-  from  Act  of  Shipper. — Where  a  funeral  was  voluntarily  postjjoned 
])y  the  plaintiff,  the  carrier  causing  delay  in  the  arrival  of  the  corpse  is  not  liable 
for  the  expense  of  re-embalming  the  body,  necessitated  by  postponement  of  the 
funeral,  the  cori)se  having  arrived  one  hour  before  the  time  set  for  the  funeral. -- 

Arising  from  Condition  of  Goods  When  Accepted. — Plaintififs  brought  suit 
to  recover  the  value  of  corn  shipped  by  them  over  defendant's  road,  and  alleged 
to  have  been  rendered  worthless  by  delay  in  transportation.  Plaintiffs  had  con- 
trol of  the  loading  of  the  car  in  which  the  corn  was  shipped,  and  they  loaded 
the  corn  in  the  car  themselves,  while  it  was  wet,  and  in  a  condition  to  be  dam- 
aged by  being  bulked  in  the  car.  Held,  that  defendant  was  not  responsible  for 
damages  occasioned  thereby,  notwithstanding  the  fact  of  a  delay  in  the  trans- 
portation thereof. -■• 

Arising-  from  Failure  of  Shipper  to  Accept. — Where  a  car  load  of  potatoes 
is  damaged  by  delay  in  transportation,  and  is  further  damaged  by  the  consignee's 
delay  in  unloading  the  car,  the  consignee  can  not  recover  for  the  cost  of  labor 
and  sacks  for  resacking  the  potatoes,  made  necessary  l)y  the  condition  of  the  po- 
tatoes when  the  consignee  unloaded  the  car,  but  is  only  entitled  to  the  cost  of 
the  labor  and  sacks  made  necessary  by  the  condition  of  the  potatoes  at  the  time 
he  might  have  taken  possession  of  them.-^ 

Right  to  Inspect. — Where  the  contract  between  a  buyer  and  seller  that  the 
buyer  should  have  the  right  to  inspect  the  goods  before  acceptance  was  com- 
municated to  the  carrier,  and  it  refused  to  allow  inspection,  which  resulted  in  a 
refusal  to  accept,  and  plaintiff  allowed  the  consignee  to  handle  the  goods  on  con- 
signment, thereby  realizing  a  sum  less  than  the  contract  price,  the  carrier  was 
liable  for  the  dilTerence  lietween  the  sum  received  and  the  contract  price. -■'• 

Acceptance  on  Sunday. — A  carrier  having  refused  the  consignee  the  right 
to  inspect  the  goods  until  too  late  to  inspect  and  unload  them  on  Saturday,  the 
carrier  is  liable  for  damages  to  the  time  the  goods  were  taken  in  charge  by  the 
consignee  on  Monday  morning;  the  consignee  not  being  bound  to  unload  on 
Sunday  to  lessen  the  damage.-" 

19.  Interest  on  debt  to  be  satisfied  by  23.  Arising  from  condition  of  goods 
goods. — Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Jackson,  when  accepted. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(1:2  Tex.  209.  r.   Smith.  2   Texas  App.   Civ.  Cas..  §  138. 

20.  Where  goods  intended  for  feed  for  24.  Arising  from  failure  of  shipper  to 
cattle. —  I'.nurland  ;.  Clioctaw.  etc..  K.  accept. — C.ult.  etc..  1\.  Co.  z\  Cliinski.  ."ir: 
Co..  !»'.)  '1\'X.  407.  !Ht  S.  \V.  4S,{,  :!   L.    R.   .\.,  Tex.   (."iv.   .Apji.  21.   114  S.   W.  S.')!. 

N.  S..  nil.  122  .\m.  St.  Rep.  647.  25.  Right  to  inspect. — Missouri,  etc..  R. 

21.  Loss  of  profits  by  delay  in  ship-  Co.  .- .  Hopkins.  .")2  I'ex.  Civ.  App.  16(5.  113 
ment     of     machinery. — Stone     :•.     Adams        S.  W.  iiiiC. 

Exp.  Co.   (Ky.),   122  S.  W.  200.  26.  Acceptance    on    Sunday. — Missouri, 

22.  Arising  from  act  of  shipper. — .\la-  etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Hopkins.  j2  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
bama  City.  etc..  R.  Co.  i:  Brady,  160  Ala.        166.  113  S.  W.  306. 

61.5.  49  So.  351. 


§§  928-931  CARRIERS.  640 

§  928.  Arising  at  Time  of  Delivery. — Where  a  car  load  of  potatoes  is 
damaged  bv  delay  in  transportation,  and  after  its  arrival  the  consignee  neglected 
to  remove  "the  potatoes  for  several  days,  which  resulted  in  further  damages  to 
the  potatoes,  the  carrier  will  only  be  liable  for  the  damages  which  had  accrued 
at  the  time  of  delivery  of  the  car  upon  its  arrival.-" 

§  92  9.  Nominal  Damages. — For  unreasonable  delay  in  the  transportation 
of  goods  the  shipper  is  entitled  to  recover  only  nominal  damages,  when  no  ac- 
tual damages  are  proved.-^  The  delay  of  an  express  company  in  delivering 
goods,  when  not  attached  with  any  actual  damage  to  the  shipper,  renders  the 
companv  liable  only  for  nominal  damages.  The  rule  that  a  new  trial  will  be 
granted' to  enable  a  recovery  of  such  damages  does  not  necessarily  obtain  where 
the  cause  of  action  is  such  a  breach  of  contract  or  in  the  nature  of  a  breach  of 
contract.-^ 

§  930.  Stipulated  Damages. — The  parties  may  determine  the  measure  of 
damages  by  contract.  In  such  case  the  decrease  in  the  market  value  does  not 
constitute  the  measure  of  damages. 2*^ 

Necessity  for  Consideration. — A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that,  in 
case  of  loss  of  the  goods  shipped,  the  measure  of  damages  shall  be  their  value 
at  the  point  of  shipment,  instead  of  at  their  destination,  is  void,  in  the  absence 
of  consideration  therefor.-"^ 

Stipulation  for  Valuation  of  Goods  at  Time  of  Shipment. — Where  bills 
of  lading  provide  that  the  amount  of  any  damage  for  which  the  carrier  should 
become  liable  should  be  computed  at  the  value  of  the  goods  shipped  at  the  time 
and  place  of  shipment,  it  is  error,  in  an  action  by  the  shipper  for  delay  in  de-- 
livering  the  goods,  to  charge  that  the  damages  should  be  estimated  according  to 
the  price  of  the  goods  at  the  place  of  delivery .^^  B^^^t  ^  provision  in  a  bill  of 
lading  that,  in  case  of  loss  of  the  property,  its  value  or  cost  at  place  of  shipment 
shall  govern  the  settlement  does  not  cover  the  owner's  damages  from  delay  in 
transportation.^" 

§§  931-939.  Special  Damages — §  931.  In  General. — The  law.  as  it  is 
to  be  found  in  the  reported  cases,  has  fluctuated ;  but  the  principle  is  now  settled 

27.  Arising  at  time  of  delivery. — Gulf,  A  contract  fixing  the  liability  for  loss 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Chinski,  53  Tex.  Civ.  App.  at  tlie  value  at  place  of  shipment  is  held 
21,  114  S.  W.  851.                                                     to  be  reasonable  and  valid.     Matheson  z\ 

28.  Nominal  damages. — Aultman  Engine,  Southern  Railway,  79  S.  C.  155,  60  S.  E. 
etc  Co  V  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  143  Iowa  437,  438,  citing  Live  Stock  Co.  v.  Kansas, 
561,  121  X.  W.  22';  Clark  v.  American  Exp.  etc,,  R.  Co.,  100  Mo.  App.  074,  75  S.  W. 
Co..  130  Iowa  254,  106  X.  W.  642.  782;  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Phillipson  (Tex. 

Where,  in  an  action  for  damages  for  de-  Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  958. 
lay  in  shipping  freight,  defendant's  breach  33.  Morrow  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
of  the  contract  of  shipment  by  undue  de-  (Mo.  App.),  123  S.  W.  1034. 
lay  was  not  denied,  plaintiff  was  at  least  But  the  measure  of  damages  for  a  car- 
entitled  to  nominal  damages,  so  that  a  rier's  negligent  delay  in  transporting  prop- 
motion  for  nonsuit  was  properly  denied.  erty  is  the  difference  between  the  market 
Story  Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  151  value  of  the  property  at  the  point  of  des- 
X.   C.  23,  65  S.  E.  460.  tination,    in    the     condition    in     which    it 

29.'  Eiswald    v.    Southern    Exp.    Co.,    60  would  have  been  received  had  it  been  de- 

Qa    49r,  livered  in  a  reasonable  time,  and  its  market 

30.  Stipulated  damages.— Devereaux  v.  value  at  that  point  in  the  condition  which 
Buckley,   34   O.    St.   10,    32   Am.   Rep.   342.  it  was   in  at  the  time   of  its   arrival,   not- 

31.  Necessity  for  consideration. — St.  withstanding  the  stipulation  in  the  bill  of 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Coolidge,  73  Ark.  112,  lading  that  in  the  event  of  loss  of  prop- 
83  S.  W.  333,  108  Am.  St.  Rep.  21,  67  L.  erty  the  value  of  the  same  at  the  point  of 
R.  A.,  X.  S.,  555,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  shipment  should  govern,  the  stipulation 
582.  referring   to   property   lost    in    transit   and 

32.  Stipulation  for  valuation  of  goods  not  to  property  damaged.  Hardin  Grain 
at  time  of  shipment.— Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Co.  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  90  S.  W.  681, 
Cofer,  149  Ala.  505,  43  So.  102.  120  Mo.  App.  203. 


641 


DKLAY    IN    TRANSPORTATION    OR    DELIVERY. 


§  931 


that  whenever  either  the  object  of  the  sender  is  specially  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  carrier,  or  circumstances  are  known  to  the  carrier  from  which  the  object 
ought  in  reason  to  be  inferred,  so  that  the  object  may  be  taken  to  have  been 
within  the  contemplation  of  both  parties,  damages  may  be  recovered  for  the 
natural  consequences  of  the  failure  of  that  object.^*  For  delay  of  a  carrier  in 
delivering  freight,  there  may  be  recovered  not  only  such  damages  as  normally 
result  therefrom,  but  such  as  result  from  special  circumstances  known  to  the 
carrier  at  the  time  of  the  contract. ^^^  More  than  nominal  damages  can  be  re- 
covered for  breach  of  a  contract  of  shipment  by  unreasonable  delay  when  the 
special  purpose  or  use  of  the  article  shipped  is  expressly  made  a  part  of  the 
contract  or  of  the  negotiations,  or  where  it  is  of  such  a  character  that  the  par- 
ties may  fairly  be  suj)posed  to  have  contcmi)lated  such  special  purpose  or  pres- 
ent use  when  making  the  contract.-" 

Where  Statute  Prevents  Restricting  Liability. — Special  damages  may  be 
allowed  against  a  railroad  in  a  state  whose  laws  deprived  the  carrier  of  the  priv- 
ilege of  declining  to  receive  the  shipment,  of  limiting  its  liability,  or  of  charging 
extra  compensation  for  the  extra  liability.-*' 

Damages  Not  Certain  in  Amount. — Where  notice  of  the  special  conse- 
quences of  delay  in  delivery  is  given,  and  forms  the  basis  of  the  contract  of 
carriage,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  special  damages  for  delay,  though  their  amount 
can  not  be  estimated  at  tiie  timc.'''^ 

Goods  Shipped  to  Fill  Penalty  Contract. — For  negligent  delay  in  deliv- 
ery of  goods,  the  carrier,  who  has  been  requested  to  ship  promptly  and  notified 
that  the  goods  were  designed  to  fill  a  penalty  contract,  is  liable  for  such  special 
damages  as  the  shipper  may  reasonably  incur  by  reason  of  his   failure,  occa- 


34.  Special  damages. — Harper  Furniture 
Co.  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87, 
62  S.  E.  145,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128 
Am.   St.   Rep.   588. 

35.  United  5/a/(?5.— Central  Trust  Co.  v. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  683. 

Arkansas. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Plant- 
ers' Gin,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ark.  77,  113  S.  W. 
352. 

lozi'a. — Elzy  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  141 
Iowa  407,  119  N.  W.  705;  Cowan  v. 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  122  Iowa  379, 
98  N.  W.  281,  101  Am.  St.  Rep.  268,  64 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  545. 

/vra;i.ja.y.— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru- 
VanZandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac. 
408,  87  Pac.  80,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1058, 
117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.   790. 

Kentucky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mink,  126"  Ky.  337,  103  S.  W.  294.  31  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  833;  Stone  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co. 
(Ky.),  122  S.  W.  200. 

Massachusetts. — Weston  v.  Boston,  etc.. 
Railroad,  190  Mass.  298,  76  N.  E.  1050,  112 
Am.  St.  Rep.  330,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  569, 
5  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  825. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Rocky  Mt.  Mills  v.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  'll9  N.  C.  693,  25 
S.  E.  854,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  682. 

The  defendant,  at  the  time  of  shipping, 
having  had  notice  of  the  existing  facts 
out  of  which  special  damages  would 
naturally    accrue     to    the     plaintiffs    by   a 

1  Car— 41 


negligent  delay  in  the  delivery,  ought  to 
he  held  liable  for  such  special  damages 
which  naturally  and  proximately  resulted 
from  such  delay.  The  rule  seems  to  be 
well  established  concerning  the  liability  of 
tlie  defendant  under  such  circumstances. 
Alorrow  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  (Mo. 
A  pp.),  123  S.  W.  1034. 

36.  Story  Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  151  N.  C.  23,  65  S.   E.  460. 

37.  Where  statute  prevents  restricting 
liability. — The  carrier  is  so  held  liable  be- 
cause: (1)  By  the  very  nature  of  its  busi- 
ness it  invites  the  passage  over  its  line, 
at  the  rates  fixed  by  the  commission,  of 
the  usual  commerce  of  the  country,  some 
of  which  it  must  know  will  be  tendered  to 
it  with  notice  of  such  special  conditions, 
and  such  invitation  and  tender  constitute 
a  contract  with  reference  to  such  condi- 
tions; (2)  it  must  be  assumed  that  the 
rates  fixed  by  the  commission  include 
extra  compensation  for  this  class  of  risks 
as  one  of  thg  ordinary  and  fixed  charges 
of  operation,  and  that  therefore  the  ship- 
pers generally  have  paid  for  this  measure 
of  indemnity:  and  (3)  the  carrier  has  the 
opportunity  to  make  immediate  prepara- 
tion to  guard  against  the  breach.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Belcher,  89  Tex.  428, 
430,  35   S.  W.  6. 

38.  Damages  not  certain  in  amount. — 
Gledhill  Wall  Paper  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  119  N.  Y.  S.  623. 


§§  931-933 


CARRIERS. 


642 


sioned  by  such  delay  of  the  carrier,  to  perform  his  contract  witliiii  the  stipulated 
time.2^ 

§  932.  Within  Contemplation  of  Parties. — The  consignee  in  an  action 
a^'-ainst  a  carrier  for  delav  in  dehvering  goods  can  not  recover  special  damages 
not  within  the  contemplation  of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the 
contract  of  shipment.-*"  Where  the  special  circumstances  under  which  a  contract 
of  shipment  was  made  were  not  communicated  to  the  carrier,  the  measure  of 
damages  for  the  breach  of  the  contract  is  the  amount  of  injury  which  would 
generally  arise  from  such  breach.-*  ^  Where  the  special  circumstances  are  known 
or  have'been  communicated  to  the  carrier  who  breaks  his  contract  by  delay,  and 
where  the  damages  complained  of  How  naturally  from  the  breach  of  contract 
under  the  special  circumstances,  such  special  damages  may  be  supposed  to  have 
been  contemplated  by  the  parties  and  are  recoverable. •*- 

§§  933-938.  Notice  of  Special  Circumstances— §  933.  Necessity 
of  Notice.- — If  a  shipper  would  charge  the  carrier  with  any  special  damages, 
he  must  have  communicated  all  the  facts  not  ordina'rily  attending  the  carriage, 
or  the  peculiar  character  and  value  of  the  property.^  ^  Special  damages  can  not 
be  recovered  for  delay  of  a  carrier  in  shipping  goods,  unless  notice  of  the  cir- 
cumstances by  reason  of  which  special  damages  would  result  from  delay  was 
given  the  carrier  at  the  time  of  shipment.-*^'     Unless  a  carrier  has  been  notified 


39.  Goods  shipped  to  fill  penalty  con- 
tract.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z'.  Southern 
Seating,  etc..  Co..  104  Tenn.  568,  58  S.  W. 
303,  50  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  720,  78  Am.  St. 
Rep.   9.33. 

40.  Special  damages. — Ligon  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1. 

41.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell  Bros., 
62  Tex.   639,   641. 

42.  Hadley  v.  Baxendale  (Eng.),  9  Exch. 
341;  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  30 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  Am.  St.  Rep. 
588;  Story  Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  151  N.  C.  23,  65  S.  E.  460. 

43.  Notice  of  special  circumstances. — 
Willian-is  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  .56  Fla. 
735,    48    So.    209,    24    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    134. 

44.  Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mudford,  48  Ark.  502,  3  S.  W.  814;  Mur- 
rell  V.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  54  Ark.  22,  24,  14 
S.  W.  1098,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  17;  Hooks 
Smelting  Co.  v.  Planters'  Compress  Co., 
72  Ark.  275,  79  S.  W.  1052;  Crutcher  v. 
Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Ark.  358,  85  S. 
W.  770;  Pine  Bluff  Iron  Works  v.  Bol- 
ing  &  Bro.,  75  Ark.  469,  88  S.  W.  306; 
Long  V.  Abeles  &  Co.,  77  Ark.  150,  91 
S.  W.  29;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  New- 
house  Mill,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Ark.  452,  119  S. 
W.  646;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Planters' 
Gin,   etc.,   Co.,   88   Ark.  77,   113   S.   W.   352. 

Georgia. — Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pritc- 
hard,  77  Ga.  412,  1  S.  E.  261,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.  92. 

Kentucky. — Stone  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co. 
(Ky.),  122  S.  W.  200;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Nelson,  97  S.  W.  757,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
114;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkinsville 
Canning  Co.,   132  Ky.  578,  116  S.  W.  758. 

Massachusetts. — Swift  River  Co.  v.  Fitch- 
burg  R.  Co.,  169  Mass.  326,  47  X.  E.  1015, 
61  Am.  St.  Rep.  288. 


Michigan. — McKinnon  v.  McEwan,  48 
Mich.  106,  11  N.  W.  828,  42  Am.  Rep.  458. 

Missouri. — Morrow  v.  Missoui^i  Pac.  R. 
Co.   (Mo.  App.),  123  S.  W.  1034. 

North  Carolina. — Harper  Furniture  Co. 
V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S. 
E.  145.  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  Am. 
St.  Rep.  588;  Asheboro,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  149  N.  C.  261,  62  S.  E. 
1091;  Lewark  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 
N.  C.  383,  40  S.  E.  882;  Sharpe  v.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  130  N.  C.  613,  41  S.  E.  799;  Neal 
V.  Pender-Heyman  Hardware  Co.,  122  N. 
C.  104,  29  S.  E.  96,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.697; 
Rocky  Mt.  Mills  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  119  N.  C.  693,  25  S.  E.  854,  56  Am. 
St.  Rep.  682;  Foard  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  53  N.  C.  235,  78  Am.  Dec.  277;  Story 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  151  N. 
C.    23.    65    S.    E.    460. 

Okhihoma. —  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Farmers'  Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okla.  270,  125 
Pac.  894. 

South  Carolina. — Traywick  v.  Southern 
Railway,  71  S.  C.  82,  50  S.  E.  549, 
110  Am.  St.  Rep.  563;  Mills  v.  South- 
ern Railway,  90  S.  C.  366,  73  S.  E.  772; 
Moore  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  S.  C. 
19,  67  S.  E.  11;  Green  Co.  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  S.  C.  498,  65  S.  E.  639; 
Wesner,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
Railroad,  71  S.  C.  211,  50  S.  E.  789;  Guess 
V.  Southern  Railway,  73  S.  C.  264,  53  S. 
E.  421;  Milhous  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
75  S.  C.  351,  55  S.  E.  764;  McKerall  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  338,  56  S. 
E.  965;  Strange  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
77  S.  C.  182,  57  S.  E.  724;  Matheson  v. 
Southern  Railway,  79  S.  C.  155,  60  S. 
E.  437;  Kolb  v.  Southern  Railway,  81  S. 
C.    536,   62   S.    E.   872. 

Tennessee. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Southern     Seating,    etc.,     Co.,    104    Tenn, 


643 


DKI.AV    IN"    TKANSI'OKTATIOX    (;R    DKl.IVKKV. 


§  933 


of  the  urgent  necessity  for  prijuiiH  carriaj^e,  he  will  he  liahle.  in  case  of  his  neg- 
ligent delay,  only  for  the  usual  and  ordinary  damages ;  ■*•'  that  is,  the  difference 
between  the  market  price  at  destination  at  time  of  delivery  and  when  they  should 
have  been  delivered,  if  the  goods  were  intended  for  sale  on  the  market,"*"  or 
the  rental  value  of  the  goods  if  not  intended  for  market."*"  Failure  of  an  ex- 
press company  to  deliver,  within  a  reasonable  time,  the  order  book  of  a  nursery- 
man, containing  the  names  of  his  customers,  does  n(jt  render  the  company  liable 
for  losses  resulting  thrcjugh  his  inability  to  till  their  orders,  unless  the  com- 
pany had  notice  that  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  have  the  book  to  enable  him 
to  deliver  the  trees.  15ut  if  the  company  had  notice  at  the  point  of  destina- 
tion and  negligently  failed  to  make  j^romj^t  delivery  of  the  book,  it  is  liable  for 
special  damages.^"'  Where  a  carrier  fails  to  deliver  orange  boxes  within  a  rea- 
sonable time,  the  contract  not  fixing  any  time  for  delivery,  the  freezing  of  the 
oranges  on  the  trees  was  not  such  a  direct,  natural,  and  proximate  result  of 
such  failure  to  deliver  as  to  render  the  carrier  liable,  where  the  carrier  was  not 
informed  that  the  oranges  would  be  left  on  the  trees  until  the  boxes  were  de- 
livered nor  was  the  carrier  liable  for  loss  due  to  the  idleness  of  the  men  em- 
ployed to  pick  and  ship  the  oranges,  where  the  carrier  was  not  informed  that 
the  men  had  been  so  hircrl."*" 

Notice  on  Return  Shipment. — Where  mill  machinery  was  shipped  to  be 
repaired,  and  then  by  a  separate  contract  shipj^ed  back,  to  give  the  carrier  no- 
tice of  special  circumstances  from  which  damage  would  arise  from  delay  in 
transportation,  so  as  to  make  it  liable  therefor,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  agent 
with  whom  the  first  contract  was  made  knew  thereof,  there  having  been  no 
delay  in  the  first  shipment,  but  the  agent  with  whom  the  second  contract  was 
made  must  have  been   infomied  of   such   circumstances.^*' 

Notice  of  Particular  Facts. — Where  a  carrier  was  without  knowledge  that 
if  a  shipment  of  goods  should  be  delayed  the  owner  w'ould  be  unable  to  store 
the  same  on  arrival,  it  is  not  liable  for  the  dift'erence  in  price  between  that 
which  the  owner  might  have  obtained  by  sales  in  the  usual  course  of  his  busi- 
ness, if  the  goods  had  arrived  in  due  time,  and  that  realized  by  a  forced  sale 
due  to  a  lack  of  storage  cai)acity  when  the  goods  arrixed.-'"^ 


568,  58  S.  \V.  303,  50  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  729, 
78   Am.   St.   Rep.   933. 

Texas.— GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  4 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  366,  22  S.  W.  760,  23  S. 
W.  320:  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Pettit,  3 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  588,  22  S.  W.  761;  Pacific 
Exp.  Co.  v.  Jones,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  367, 
113  S.  \V.  952;  Bourland  v.  Choctaw,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  99  Tex.  407.  90  S.  W.  483,  3  L.  R. 
A.,  N.   S.,  1111,   122  Am.   St.   Rep.  647. 

In  order  to  impose  on  the  carrier  who 
makes  unreasonable  and  negligent  delay 
to  transport  and  deliver  a  shipment  a 
further  liability  than  for  damages  arising 
naturally  and  directly,  that  is,  in  the  or- 
dinary course  of  things,  from  a  l)reach 
of  contract,  such  unusual  or  extraordi- 
nary damages  must  have  been  brought 
within  the  contemplation  of  the  parties 
as  the  probable  result  of  a  breach  at  the 
time  of  contracting.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Webb,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  431.  49  S.  \V. 
526. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  fail- 
ure to  deliver  goods  shipped,  special  dam- 
ages can  not  l^e  recovered  unless  the 
facts  rendering  the  carrier  liable  for  sucli 
damages  were  within  knowledge  of  the 
carrier   at   the    time    of   entering   into    the 


contract  of  shipment.  Ligon  z\  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  C<x.  :;  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1. 
The  same  general  principle  is  applied 
in  telegraph  cases.  Mood  z:  Wtstcrn 
Union  Tol.  Co..  40  S.  C.  524.  19  S.  E.  67; 
Rogers  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co..  72  S. 
C.  290,  51  S.  E.  773;  Smith  z:  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co..  72  S.  C.  116.  51  S.  E.  537; 
Poteet  V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co..  74  S. 
C.   491.   55   S.    E.    113. 

45.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell  Bros.,  62 
Tex.   639. 

46.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Webb.  49  S. 
W.  526,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  431;  Pacific 
Exp.  Co.  z:  Darnell  Bros.,  62  Tex.  639; 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Watson,  1 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  813. 

47.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Jessee, 
2  Texas  .-Kpp.  Civ.  Cas..  §  403. 

48.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  z:  Battle,  5 
Tex.    Civ.    .\pp.   532,   24   S.   W.   353. 

49.  Williams  z:  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48 
So.  209.  56  Kla.  735.  24  L.  R.  .\..  N.  S.,  134. 

50.  Notice  on  return  shipment. — Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Mink.  l::(i  Kv.  337, 
103    S.    W.    294,    31    Ky.    I,.    Rep.    833.' 

51.  Notice  of  particular  facts. — Rutland 
7'.  Southern  Railwav,  SI  S.  C.  448,  62  S. 
E.    865. 


R  934  CARRIERS.  644 

§   934.   Sufficiency  of  Notice.— Generally,  notice  given  at  the  time  of  ship- 
ment of  any  special  circumstances  which  would  show  that  the  damages  to  be 
anticipated  from  a  delay  would  be  enhanced  has  been  held  sufficient.^^     a  car- 
rier is  liable  for  special  damages,  although  at  the  time  of  the  shipment  it  had 
no  knowledge  or  information  of  the  circumstances  from  which  such  damages 
were  liable  to   arise,   if,  after  the  goods   reached   their   destination,   notice   was 
given  the  carrier  of  such  circumstances  and  the  carrier,  after  such  notice,  de- 
layed in  making  deliver}^  of  the  goods.^^     The  carrier  has  sufficient  notice  of 
the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case  where,  at  the  time  of  shipment,  notice 
was  given  the  carrier  that  the  goods  were  intended  for  feeding  cattle,  and  when 
application  was  made  to  the  carrier's  agent  for  delivery  of  the  goods,  the  agent 
was  informed  that  the  shipper  would  suffer  great  loss  if  the  delivery  were  not 
made  promptlv,  as  the  shipper  was  feeding  cattle  on  full  feed.'^^     fhat  a  car- 
rier was  notified  that  gin  machinery  delayed  in  transportation  was  badly  needed 
was  insufficient  to  charge  the  carrier  with  notice  that  the  consignee  conducted 
a  public  ginnery  and  had  a  special  need  for  the  machinery.^s     Notice  to_  a  car- 
rier by  the  shipper  that  all  consignments  of  cans  should  be  rushed  during  the 
packing  season  is  not  sufficient  to  apprise  the  carrier  that  a  consignee  would  be 
compelled  to  close  down  its  cannery,  and  that  its  tomatoes  would  be  spoiled  if 
the  shipment  were  delayed,  so  as  to  permit  a  recovery  for  such  special  dam- 
ages from  the  delay.^*^     Where  an  agent  of  the  defendant,  an  express  company, 
asked  the  plaintiff  why  he  did  not  ship  a  shaft  for  a  steam  shovel  by  freight, 
and  was  informed  that  the  steam  shovel  was  broken  down,  and  that  unless  the 
shipment  was  hurried  the  entire  plant  and  crew  would  be  idle,  and  was  told 
of  what  the  outfit  consisted,  the  defendant  was  sufficiently  notified  of  the  ne- 
cessity for  haste  to  render  it  liable  for  special  damages.^^     That  electric  lights 
in  the  office  of  an  express  company  at  a  place  from  which  electric  machinery 
was  expressed  for  repairs,  and  to  which  it  was  returned  under  separate  con- 
tract, were  not  burning  while  the  machinery  was  away  for  repairs,  did  not  give 
notice  to  the  express  company  of  the  purpose   for  which  the  machinery  was 
used,  so  as  to  make  it  liable  for  special  damages  by  loss  of  profits;    its  agent 
making  the  return   contract   of   carriage   not  knowing  those   facts.^s     Where   a 
shipper  of  household  goods  notifies  the  agent  that  she  needs  the  goods  immedi- 
ately, there  is  not  a  sufficient  notice  of  special  damages  to  authorize  a  recovery 
for  a  cold  contracted  by  the  shipper,  caused  by  the  lack  of  the  household  goods 
shipped.59     \  carrier,  informed  by  a  shipper  that  tents  were  intended  !o  be  used 
during  severe  weather  as  a  stable  for  the  protection  of  his  horses,  has  sufficient 
notice  to  render  it  liable  for  the  expenses  and  damages  which  might  result  by 

52.  Sufficiency  of  notice. — Missouri,  etc.,  ant's  agent,  at  a  time  when  the  probable 
R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  431,  consequences  thereof  were  fully  dis- 
49   S.  W.  .j26.  closed.     There  would,  in  our  opinion,  be 

53.  Though,  at  the  time  of  the  ship-  manifest  injustice  in  requiring  the  plain- 
ment  of  the  order  book  of  a  nurseryman,  tifif,  rather  than  the  defendant,  to  bear 
the  express  company  may  have  had  no  the  loss  arising  from  this  fault  of  the 
notice  of  the  importance  of  its  early  de-  agent."  Bourland  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R. 
livery,  yet  if  it  received  such  notice  at  Co.,  99  Tex.  407,  90  S.  W.  483,  3  L.  R.  A., 
the  point  of  destination,  and  negligently  N.  S.,  1111,  122  Am.  St.  Rep.  647. 
failed  to  deliver  it  within  a  reasonable  55.  Kolb  v.  Southern  Radway,  81  S.  C. 
time    thereafter,    it    is    liable    for    special  536,   62   S.    E.   872. 

damages  resulting  from  inability  to  fill  59.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkins- 
orders.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Battle,  ville  Canning  Co.,  132  Ky.  578,  116  S.  W. 
5  Tex.   Civ.   App.   532,  24  S.   W.   353.  758. 

54.  "The  plaintiff's  loss  did  not  arise  ^^  gj  ^  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  141  Iowa 
from    delay    m    transportation,    nor    from  ^^^     ^^^  ■'■^     -^     ^^5 

any    cause    for    the    prevention    of    which  J„     o^  \  a  -a  n        /'xr,.  ^ 

notice    at    the    time    of    the    contract    was  ^%^w%nn  ^^' 

important,    but    from    the    failure    to    per-  122    b.    W.    200. 

form  the  simple  duty  to  deliver  the  prop-  59.  Alabama,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    McKenna 

erty,    due   to   the    faithfulness    of   defend-  (Miss.),   61   So.   823. 


645 


DELAY  IN  TRANSPORTATION  OR  DELIVERY. 


§§  934-935 


reason  of  its  failure  to  deliver  thcni  within  a  reasonable  time.'^'^ 

By  Whom  Notice  Given.— I'nder  a  statute  which  requires  carriers  to  trans- 
port freight  prouipilv  (ju  receiving  notice  requiring  prompt  shipment,  but  pre- 
scribes no  particular 'method  of  giving  notice,  it  may  be  given  by  the  consignee 
or  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading  through  another;  direct  notice  not  being  essen- 

tial.«i 

Notice  of  General  Use  of  Goods.— Proof  that  the  earner  had  knowledge 
of  the  general  use  to  which  the  article  was  to  be  put  will  not  be  sufficient  to 
charge  him  with  liability  for  loss  of  the  use  or  the  profits  which  would  thereby 
have  been  made.  The  special  circumstances  of  the  case  requiring  care  or  ex- 
pedition must  have  been  brought  to  his  attention  in  such  a  way  that  his  accept- 
ance of  the  article  under  the  circumstances  could  fairly  be  said  to  amount  to 
an  assumption  of  risk  which  naturally  and  proximately  would  follow  from 
his  default.'"'- 

§  935.  Time  Notice  Given. — As  to  the  time  notice  should  be  given,  it  is 
stated  in  the  leading  English  case*'=*  and  in  many  cases  following  it,  that  the 
rule  for  the  recovery  of  damages  of  a  special  or  exceptional  kind  for  the  breach 
of  a  contract  for  the  delivery  of  property,  includes,  as  essential  to  liability  there- 
for, notice,  at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  contract,  to  the  party  bound  to 
deliver,  or  the  peculiar  conditions  under  which  such  damages  are  likely  to  re- 
sult from  the  breach.*^-^"  Its  operation  has  generally  been  wise  and  just,  and  it 
is  only  when  it  is  made  the  exclusive  rule  in  cases  in  which  the  reasons  under- 
lying it  do  not  make  it  applicable  that  it  fails  to  meet  the  demands  of  substan- 
tial justice.  The  truth  that  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  exclusive  rule  for 
the  measure  of  damages  in  all  cases  of  breach  of  contract  for  the  delivery  of 
property  has  been  expressed  many  times  by  eminent  jurists.'-^     In  most  of  the 


60.  Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maxwell  (lex. 
Civ.  App.),  156  S.  W.  548. 

61.  By  whom  notice  given. — Mills  v. 
Southern  Railway,  sl'  S.  C.  242.  G4  S.  E. 
238. 

62.  Notice  of  general  use  of  goods. — 
Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.   Co..  63  W.  Va.  423.  61   S.   E.  364. 

63.  Time  notice  given. — Hadley  v.  Bax- 
endale   (Kng.).  9   I'.x.  :541,  3  C.   L.   R.  517. 

64.  :S  Hutchinson  on  Carriers,  §  1367; 
4   Elliott  on   Railroads,  §   1731. 

Arkansas.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King, 
104  .'Krk.  215,  148  S.  W.  1035;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Phelps.  46  Ark.  485;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Mudford,  48  Ark.  502.  3 
S.  W.  814;  Choctaw,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wal- 
ker, 71  Ark.  571,  76  S.  W.  1058;  Crutcher 
V.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Ark.  358,  85 
S.   W.   770. 

Kc)ituck'\. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mink,  12G"  Ky.  337,  103  S.  W.  294,  31  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  833;  Patterson  ;■.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co..  123  Kv.  783.  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  78,  97 
S.  W.  426;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson, 
97  S.  W.  757,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  114;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkinsville  Canning  Co., 
132   Ky.   578.   116   S.  W.   758,   760. 

Mississiptyi. — Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458. 

South  Caro/ina.— Shieder  v.  Southern 
Railway,  83  S.  C.  455,  65  S.  E.  631;  Mc- 
Meekin  v.  Southern  Railway,  82  S.  C.  468, 
64  S.  E.  413;  McKerall  r.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R     Co.,   76   S.   C.   338,   56   S.   E.   965;    Kolb 


z:   Southern   Railway,   81    S.   C.  536.  62   S. 
E.    872. 

r^-va^.— Hassler  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  142  S.  W.  629:  Haber- 
zettle  V.  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  527,  103  S.  W.  219;  Pacific  Exp.  Co. 
7.  Jones,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  367,  113  S. 
W.  952;  Ligon  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
3  Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §  1. 

Jl'cst  rirgiiiia. — ^Delaney  z:  United  States 
Exp.    Co..   70  W.   Va.    502,   74   S.    E.   512. 

In  order  to  charge  a  carrier  with  such 
special  damages  for  delay  in  transporta-- 
tion  as  the  rental  value  of  machinery  in- 
tended for  immediate  use,  special  notice 
of  the  intention  must  be  given  at  the 
time  of  shipment,  and  not  afterwards. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  366,  22  S.  W.  760.  23  S.  W.  320; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pettit,  3  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    588,    589,    22    S.    W.    761. 

In  the  case  of  Strange  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  77  S.  C.  182,  57  S.  E.  724.  the  court 
expressly  ruled  that  it  was  error  to  re- 
ceive testimony  as  to  notice  of  plaintiff's 
business  as  a  traveling  salesman  after  the 
loss  of  his  sample  trunks.  Kolb  v.  South- 
ern   Railway,   81    S.    C.    536,   62   S.    E.   872. 

65.  Bourland  r.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
99  Tex.  407,  90  S.  W.  483.  122  Am.  St. 
Rep.   647,   649.   3   L.    R.    A..   \.    S..    1111. 

"Thus,  in  Newport  Dock  Company  v. 
Wilson,  L.  R.  1  Ex.  177,  Chief  Baron  Pol- 
lock said  of  it:  'It  is  quite  true  that  the 
case    is    not    applicable    to    and    does    not 


§  935 


CARRIERS. 


646 


decisions  the  question  as  to  the  exact  time  when  the  notice  should  have  been 
triven  has  not  received  much  attention,  there  being  no  difficulty  arising  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  given  after  the  contract  was  made,  but  before  the  damage 
resulted.  But  in  some  cases  it  has  been  attempted  to  establish  the  right  to  dam- 
ages beyond  those  which  would  ordinarily  arise  from  the  breach  of  the  con- 
tract in 'the  particular  case  by  showing  notice  of  the  special  circumstances  after 
the  making  of  the  contract  and  before  the  breach;  although  there  was  an  inti- 
mation by^'one  of  the  judges  in  one  case,*'"'  that  such  notice  ought  to  be_  held  to 
be  effectual  for  the  purpose,  the  decisions  have  been  to  the  contrary  in  cases 
of  this  character  which  have  come  to  our  attention,  where  it  became  necessary 
to  pass  upon  the  point.''' 

Reason  for  Rule.— The  usual  reasons  stated  for  the  adoption  of  the  rule 
that  such  notice  should  be  given  at  the  time  the  contract  is  entered  into  is  that 
the  carrier  mav  have  an  opportunity  of  demanding  additional  compensation  if 
it  so  desires  or  of  refusing  to  make  the  contract,  or  to  protect  itself  by  special 
precautions  to  avoid  loss  m  event  it  does  make  the  contract.^'^  But  under  the 
law  as  it  now  is  in  some  states,  this  rule  can  not  rest  upon  the  ground  either 
that  the  carrier  might  have  the  opportunity  to  demand  a  greater  rate  for  the 
transportation,  or  to  refuse  to  enter  into  the  contract  for  the  shipment,  because 
the  carrier  is  not  now  at  liberty  under  the  law  to  require  the  one  or  to  refuse 
the  other;  and  yet  under  the  law  the  carrier  is  liable  for  special  damages  for  a 
breach  of  its  contract  to  transport  the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time,  if  notice 
of  the  special  circumstances  is  given  to  it  at  or  before  the  time  the  shipment 
is  made.''*' 

Notice  Given  Subsequent  to  Shipment.— Where  a  carrier  when  it  con- 
tracts to  transport  goods  has  no  notice  of  circumstances  from  which  it  may  be 
reasonably  expected  that  special  damages  will  result  from  delay,  such  damages 
can  not  be  recovered,  though  notice  is  given  subsequently  and  after  the  ex- 
piration of  a  reasonable  time  for  delivering  the  goods  J"  A  carrier's  liability 
for  delav  in  the  transportation  of  machinery  shipped  for  a  specific  purpose 
which  was  not  disclosed  to  the  carrier  would  not  be  affected  by  subsequent  no- 
tice bv  the  shipper,  as  to  the  purpose  of  the  shipment. '^     Notice  of  special  cir- 


decidc  every  case.  No  rule,  no  formula, 
could  do  that.  No  precise,  positive  rule 
can  embrace  all  cases.' "  Bourland  v. 
Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Tex.  407,  90  S. 
W.  483,  122  Am.  St.  Rep.  647,  649,  3  L. 
R.    A.,    N.    S.,    nil. 

66.  Gee  v.  Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Eng.),    6    Hurl    &   N.    217. 

67.  1  Sedgwick  on  Damages,  §  158.  Jor- 
dan V.  Patterson,  67  Conn.  473,  35  Atl. 
521;  Bourland  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
99  Tex.  407,  90  S.  W.  483,  3  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  nil,  122  Am.  St.  Rep.  647;  Ligon  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  3  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,    §    1. 

68.  Reason  for  timely  notice. — It  is  so 
held  upon  the  principle  that  the  carrier, 
by  reason  of  the  additional  risk  and  the 
increased  liability,  may  enter  into  suita- 
ble stipulations  looking  to  its  protection. 
Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Battle,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  532,  534,  24  S.  W.  353;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  366, 
22   S.   W.   760,  23   S.  W.   320. 

The  carrier  would  have  the  right  ac- 
cording to  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bel- 
cher, 89  Tex.  428,  35  S.  W.  6,  to  charge 
more,  or  insert  other  provisions  in  its 
contract    concerning    such    si)ecial    condi- 


tions, in  order  to  cover  the  risk  of  hav- 
ing to  pay  such  special  damages.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  May  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),   44    S.    W.   408. 

69.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Planters'  Gin, 
etc.,  Co.,  88  Ark.  77,  113  S.  W.  352;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  King,  104  Ark.  215, 
148    S.    W.    1035. 

70.  Notice  given  subsequent  to  ship- 
ment.—  Towles  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
83    S.    C.    501,    65    S.    E.    638. 

After  failure  of  car  to  arrive. — Notice 
given  to  a  carrier  after  a  car  did  not  ar- 
rive in  time,  adds  nothing  to  the  liability 
of  the  carrier.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  V. 
Hopkinsville  Canning  Co.,  132  Ky.  578, 
116   S.   W.   758. 

Damages  accruing  after  notice. — Spe- 
cial damages  iox  a  carrier's  delay  in 
transportation  can  not  be  recovered 
wliere  the  carrier  had  no  notice  at  the 
time  of  contract  of  the  special  facts;  not 
even  those  accruing  from  delay  occur- 
ring after  it  is  given  such  notice.  Hassler 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  142 
S.   W.   629. 

71.  Given  subsequent  to  shipment. — 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gill)crt.  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   366,   371,   22  S.  W.   760,  23   S.  W.   320. 


647 


DELAY    IN    TKANSI'(M<TATION    OR   DKI.IVKKV 


§  935 


cumslanccs  after  the  shipping"  coiUracl  has  been  made,  and  after  the  goods  have 
been  shipped,  will  not  op'erate  to  fix  a  liability  for  special  damages  not  taken 
into  consideration  at  the  time  the  contract  was  made."-  Where,  after  freight 
was  shipped,  the  shipper  notified  the  carrier  that  it  was  intended  for  a  partic- 
ular purpose  and  was  required  in  a  limited  time,  it  is  not  such  notice  as  would 
render  the  carrier  liable  for  special  damages  for  failure  to  deliver  promptly  J* 
Notice  U)  the  agent  of  a  carrier,  at  the  i)lace  of  delivery,  after  cotton  seed  meal 
and  hulls  liad  failed  to  arrive  on  time,  of  the  use  to  which  the  consignee  in- 
tended to  i)ut  the  shipment,  was  not  sufficient  to  render  the  carrier  liable  for 
special  damages  accruing  by  reason  of  its  failure  to  make  prompt  delivery  there- 
after."^" Though  notice  of  special  damages  from  delay  in  delivery  of  freight 
is  not  sufficient  as  to  such  shi])ment.  being  given  after  the  goods  were  lost,  it 
is  sufficient  notice  to  it  of  ilie  need  of  haste  as  to  a  second  shipment,  made  a 
few  days  later  to  sujjply  the  goods  lost."''  Where  notice  of  special  damages  is 
not  given  till  after  discovery  that  certain  of  the  goods  have  been  lost,  there  can 
be  no  recovery  of  such  damages,  in  absence  of  evidence  of  negligence  of  the 
carrier  in  attempting  to  trace  the  lost   freight."'' 


72.  Hutchinson  on  Carriers,  vol.  r{,  pp. 
1()21-1()2(;. 

Alabama. — Pilcher  v.  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    1.5.5   .\la.    31().   4r)   So.  765. 

Kcntiickx. — Franklin  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Ky.),   116   S.   W.   76.'). 

Massachusetts.  —  Swift  River  Co.  z'. 
Fitchhurg-  R.  Co.,  169  Mass.  326,  47  N.  E. 
]01.-,,  61   Am.  St.  Rep.  288. 

Oklalioiiia.—St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Farmers'  Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okla.  370,  125 
Pac.   894. 

Ti'intcssec. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Southern  Seating,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Tenn. 
568,  58  S.  W.  303,  50  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  729, 
78  Am.  St.  Rep.  933. 

Texas. — Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bel- 
cher, 89  Tex.  428.  35  S.  W.  6;  Gulf.  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Loonie,  82  Tex.  323,  IS  S.  W. 
221.   27   Am.   St.   Rep.   891. 

Jl'iscoiisiu. — Bradley  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co..   94   Wis.   44.   68   N.   W.   410. 

Subsequent  knowledge  of  facts  ren- 
dering Npecial  danuigcs  prol)al)le.  would 
ni)t,  in  al)sencc  of  fraud  or  gross  negli- 
gence on  part  of  railroad,  render  it  re- 
sponsible beyond  general  measure  in  or- 
dinary cases  of  delay  in  delivery  of  goods 
by  carrier.  Ligon  z\  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co..   3  Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §   1. 

Where  a  carrier  was  not  notified,  un- 
til after  the  contract  of  shipment  had 
been  entered  into  that  the  goods  were 
desired  for  a  special  purpose,  which  ne- 
cessitated their  prompt  delivery,  the  car- 
rier was  not  liable  for  special  damage 
caused  by  the  failure  to  deliver  promptly. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mill  Elevator, 
etc.,   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   87   S.   W.   753. 

Notice  to  the  carrier,  after  the  date  of 
the  contract,  that  special  damage  would 
arise  from  a  delay  in  the  shipment,  in 
time  for  him  to  have  prevented  the  de- 
lay, does  not  render  him  lialile  for  such 
damages.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bel- 
cher. 89  Tex.  428,  35  S.  W.  6;  Belcher  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  92  Tex.   593,   50  S. 


W.  559,  reversing  47  S.  W.  384,  1020; 
Bourland  v.  Choctaw,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Tex. 
407,  90  S.  W.  483,  3  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1111, 
122  Am.  St.  Rep.  647;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  366,  370,  22 
S.  W.  760,  23  S.  W.  320;  Pacific  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Redman  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  60  S. 
W.  677. 

It  can  not  be  assumed  by  the  courts 
that  the  parties,  in  making  such  a  con- 
tract, contemplated  that  defendant  would 
be  liable  for  such  damages  on  subsequent 
notice,  or  that  the  railroad  commission 
in  fixing  rates  made  any  allowance  for 
such  a  risk:  for  no  such  liability  has  ever 
been  fixed  upon  the  carrier  by  any  ad- 
judicated case  so  far  as  the  court  have 
been  able  to  ascertain.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Belcher.  89  Tex.  428.  35  S.  W.  6. 

Plaintifl  sued  for  damages  for  pain  and 
retarded  recovery  for  failure  of  an  ex- 
press company  to  promptly  deliver  medi- 
cine purchased  l)y  her.  The  medicine  was 
ordered  by  plaintiff's  relative,  for  whom 
she  had  worked,  which  fact  was  known 
to  defendant's  agent  at  the  shipping  point. 
The  package  was  directed  to  such  relative, 
and.  though  defendant's  agent  was  in- 
formed that  it  contained  medicine,  he  wa5 
not  informed  that  it  was  for  plaintiff. 
Held,  that  though  defendants,  subsequent 
lo  the  date  of  shipment,  were  notified  of 
plaintiflf's  interest  therein  and  the  prob- 
able consequence  of  their  failure  to  de- 
liver, they  were  not  responsible  for  spe- 
cial damages  to  plaintiti  for  their  failure 
to  thereafter  promptly  deliver  the  medi- 
cine. Pacific  Exp.  Co.  V.  Redman  (Tex. 
Civ.   .\pp.),   60   S.   W.   677. 

73.  McKerall  r.  .\tlantic.  etc..  R.  Co., 
76    S.    C.    338.   56   S.    E.   965. 

74.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson.  97 
S.  W.  757.  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  114. 

75.  McMeekin  i:  Southern  Railway.  82 
S.   C.   468.   64    S.    E.   413. 

76.  McMeekin  :■.  Southern  Railway, 
82   S.   C.  468,  64   S.   E.  413. 


§§  935-936 


CARRIERS. 


648 


Delay  in  Delivery. — Where  notice  is  given  of  circumstances  which  will  oc- 
casion special  damages  after  the  contract  to  carry  has  been  performed  and  after 
the  goods  have  arrived  for  deliver)',  the  carrier  is  liable  for  such  special  dam- 
ages where  it  negligently  fails  to  make  such  deliver)'.'^"  Where  a  carrier  of 
freight  received  no  notice  of  special  circumstances  requiring  prompt  delivery 
at  or  before  the  time  of  the  shipment,  but  it  transported  the  freight  promptly 
to  the  point  of  destination,  and  its  agent  there  negligently  and  willfully  failed 
to  make  a  delivery  for  more  than  a  month  alter  the  arrival  of  the  freight, 
though  the  consignee  notified  him  of  the  necessity  of  a  prompt  delivery  and  of 
the  special  circumstances  which  would  cause  special  damages  for  a  delay,  the 
consignee  could  recover  special  damages  sustained  by  the  delay  in  delivery.'^ 

§  936.  Notice  to  Agent. — Notice  to  a  carrier's  agent  receiving  a  package 
for  shipment,  that  it  contained  medicine  for  a  sick  person,  is  notice  to  the  car- 
rier of  the  importance  of  its  prompt  delivery."^  But  notice  to  a  station  agent 
of  special  damages  that  may  result  from  delayed  shipment  of  car  from  a  dis- 
tant station  is  not  notice  to  the  company.^*^  Nor  is  notice  to  an  agent  at  a  sta- 
tion to  which  the  goods  were  to  be  shipped  by  a  connecting  carrier  sufficient, 
in  the  absence  of  proof  that  the  goods  ever  reached  the  station. ^^  Where  mill 
machinery  was  shipped  to  be  repaired,  and  then  by  a  separate  contract  shipped 
back,  to  give  the  carrier  notice  of  special  circumstances  from  which  damage 
would  arise  from  delay  in  transportation,  so  as  to  make  it  liable  therefor,  it  is 
not  enough  that  the  agent  with  whom  the  first  contract  was  made  knew  thereof, 
there  having  been  no  delay  in  the  first  shipment,  but  the  agent  with  whom  the 
second  contract  was  made  must  have  been  informed  of  such  circumstances. ^2 
And  notice  of  special  conditions  rendering  immediate  shipment  necessary  to  a 
train  master  is  not  notice  to  the  railway  company  upon  a  matter  under  control 
of  the  station  agent,  it  not  appearing  that  the  train  master  had  any  control  over 
the  station  agent  in  the  matter  of  making  contracts  for  shipment,  or  that  it  was 


77.  Delay  in  delivery. — Southern  R.  Co. 
V.    Lewis.   165   Ala.   451,   51   So.   863. 

78.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  King,  104 
Ark.   215,   148   S.   W.   1035. 

The  plaintiff  was  fattening  for  market 
a  number  of  beef  cattle,  and,  anticipating 
that  his  supply  of  feed  would  soon  be  ex- 
hausted, he  purchased  and  delivered  to 
the  defendant  two  car  loads  of  cottonseed 
cake  for  transportation.  No  notice  was 
given  to  the  defendant,  at  that  time,  of 
the  purpose  for  which  the  cake  was 
needed,  and  of  the  damage  to  result  from 
delay  in  making  delivery.  The  cars  were 
promptly  carried  to  their  destination.  An 
agent  of  the  plaintiff  applied  to  the  de- 
fendant's station  agent  for  the  cake  and 
stated  that  the  plaintiff  would  suffer  a 
great  loss  if  the  cake  were  not  delivered, 
as  he  was  feeding  the  cattle  on  full  feed. 
The  cake  was  not  delivered.  By  some 
mistake  the  cars  were  sent  out  on  an- 
other railroad,  and  the  cake  was  not  de- 
livered for  more  than  three  weeks,  not- 
withstanding plaintiff  from  day  to  day, 
repeated  the  notice  given  and  the  de- 
mand for  delivery.  The  plaintiff's  supply 
of  food  for  the  cattle  was  exhausted  about 
the  time  the  cake  should  have  been  de- 
livered, and  he  could  not  otherwise  ob- 
tain sustenance  for  the  cattle,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  they  were  greatly  de- 
preciated in  value.  It  was  held  that  the 
plaintiff   could    recover   for   the   injury    to 


the  cattle  by  reason  of  the  failure  to  de- 
liver the  cake.  Bourland  v.  Choctaw,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  99  Tex.  407,  90  S.  W.  483,  3  L. 
R.  A.,  X.   S.,  1111,   122  Am.   St.   Rep.  647. 

79.  Notice  to  agent. — Pacific  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Black,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  366,  27  S. 
W.  830. 

80.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  88 
Tex.    549,    551,    32    S.    W.    518. 

81.  Where  special  sawmill  machinery 
was  ordered  from  Marshall,  Tex.,  through 
an  intervening  concern  to  be  manufac- 
tured and  shipped  from  Huntsville,  notice 
given  to  the  carrier's  agent  at  Marshall 
of  special  damages  resulting  from  delay 
in  transportation  was  insufficient  to 
charge  the  carrier  therewith,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  proof  that  the  machinery 
ever  reached  Marshall  or  was  under  the 
control  of  such  agent.  Pacific  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Jones,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  367,  113  S. 
W.   952. 

One  station  agent  is  not  required  to 
transmit  to  another  notice  received  by 
former  as  to  special  damage  likely  to  re- 
sult from  delay  in  shipping  a  car  from  the 
latter's  station;  therefore,  such  notice  to 
the  former  is  not  notice  to  the  latter  or  to 
the  company.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Belcher,   88   Tex.   549,   551,  32   S.   W.    518. 

82.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mink,  126 
Ky.  337,  103  S.  W.  294,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
833. 


649  DKLAY   IN    TRANSPORTATION    OR    DELIVERY.  §§    936-937 

his  duty  to  communicate  to  such  agent  information  with  reference  thereto.^^ 
Local  agents  of  a  carrier  receiving  a  shipment  need  not  be  given  notice  of  the 
special  purpose  for  wliich  the  shipment  is  to  be  used,  in  order  to  charge  the 
carrier  for  damages  resulting  from  a  delay  in  transportation,  where  superior 
traffic  officers  have  sucli  notice.^' 

Notice  to  Driver  of  Express  Wagon.— Where  the  plaintiff  delivered  a 
camping  outfit  to  an  express  conii)any  for  transportation,  notice  to  the  driver 
of  the  express  wagon  that  plaintiff  required  the  things  urgently  was  not  suffi- 
cient notice  to  the  carrier  that  special  damages  would  accrue  from  delay  in 
transportation  so  as  to  entitle  the  plaintiff  to  recover  the  expense  of  hotel  ac- 
commodations for  the  camping  party  during  the  delay.'^ 

§  937.  Implied  Notice. — It  is  not  necessary  that  the  carrier  be  expressly 
informed  of  the  special  facts,  if  they  are  known  to  it,  or  are  of  such  a  char- 
acter that  the  parties  may  be  fairly  supposed  to  have  contemplated  them  in 
making  the  contract. ^^'  The  shipper  was  a  firm  engaged  in  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  furniture;  of  this  the  title  of  the  firm,  consignee  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, taken  in  connection  with  the  character  of  the  implement  ordered  and 
shipped,  would  give  reasonable  notice.  In  this  day  and  time  certainly  it  is  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge  that  an  engine  shaft  is  the  part  by  which  the 
power  of  the  engine  is  applied  to  the  operating  machinery,  that  it  is  essential 
and  necessary  for  the  purpose,  and  without  it  the  engine  itself  and  the  rna- 
chinery  dependent  upon  it  are  for  the  time  out  of  action.  The  style  and  title 
of  the  firm,  taken  in  connection  with  the  nature  and  description  of  the  imple- 
ment ordered,  together  with  the  unusual  mode  by  which  the  shipment  was  pro- 
vided for,  and  the  nature  of  the  carrier's  business,  by  which  it  undertook  for 
a  greater  wage  to  give  additional  assurance,  both  of  safety  and  dispatch,  all 
give  notice  that  damages  beyond  the  ordinar}^  amount  might  be  reasonably  ex- 
pected in  case  there  was  delay,  in  breach  of  the  carrier's  contract.^" 

Notice  from  Mode  of  Shipment. — A  carrier  may  be  charged  with  suffi- 
cient notice  of  the  necessity  for  haste  to  entitle  the  shipper  to  recover  special 
damages  where  the  goods  were  shipped  by  an  unusual  and  expensive  mode  of 
transportation.  It  would  assuredly  occur  to  any  and  every  one  that  a  shaft 
consisting  of  a  piece  of  metal  weighing  not  less  than  six  hundred  and  fifty 
pounds,  which  under  ordinary  circumstances  could  and  would  be  shipped  with 
perfect  safety  and  at  a  much  lower  charge  by  railway,  would  not  have  been 
shipped  in  this  unusual  way  and  at  a  much  higher  price  unless  the  call  was 
urgent  and  some  unusual  result  would  follow  by  reason  of  delay. ^-^ 

83.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  89  87.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern 
Tex  428,  35  S.  W.  6;  S.  C,  88  Tex.  549,  Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  fi2  S.  E.  145.  128 
32  S.  W.  518:  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Am.  St.  Rep.  588,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  483. 
Faulkner,  88  Tex.  649,  32  S.  W.  883,  re-  88.  Notice  from  mode  of  shipment.— 
ver.sing-  31   S.  W.  543.  riaintiff.  a  furniture  company,  ordered  an 

84.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson  (Tex.  engine  shaft,  weighing  some  650  pounds, 
Civ.  App.),  139  S.  \V.  81.  to  be   shipped  to   it  by  express   from   an- 

85.  Notice  to  driver  of  express  wagon.  other  state,  through  defendant  and  other 
Harris  t'.   l-'argo,   113  X.  Y.  S.  .")7r.  express  companies;  but  tlie  shaft  was  not 

86.  Implied  notice. — Harper  Furniture  deHvered  on  time,  and  plaintiff  was  com- 
Co.  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  pelled  to  close  its  mills  because  of  delay 
62  S.  E.  145,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  in  delivery  and  sued  to  recover  damages 
Am.   St.   Rep  588.  from  the  closing  of  its  mills  by  the  delay. 

"Notice,  in  general,  does  not  require  Held,  that  the  fact  that  plaintiff  was  en- 
positive  information,  but  from  facts,  and  gaged  in  manufacturing  furniture,  which 
circumstances.  if  sufficiently  brought  was  shown  by  the  bill  of  lading,  taken  in 
home  to  a  party,  such  as  to  put  a  per-  connection  with  the  nature  of  the  shaft 
son  of  ordinary  caution  in  the  same  sit-  ordered,  and  the  unusual  mode  of  ship- 
uation  on  any  inquiry  reasonably  lead-  ment  for  such  a  heavy  article,  and  the 
ing  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  a  court  nature  of  defendant's  business,  by  which 
may  justlv  infer  actual  knowledge."  Mor-  they  undertook  for  a  higher  wage  to 
row  V.  M'issouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  carry  with  additional  safety  and  dispatch, 
123  S.  W.   1034,   1038.  was    sufficient    to    give    defendant    notice 


§   937  CARRIERS.  650 

Notice  from  Nature  of  Goods. — There  may  be  shipments  of  goods  of  such 
character  that  the  carrier  would  be  Hable  for  the  value  of  the  rent  or  use  of  the 
property  during  the  time  of  a  delay,  although  it  was  not  informed  of  any  special 
object  or  purpose  in  the  shipment.-^»  The  carrier  may  be  charged  with  notice 
from  the  nature  of  the  goods  shipped  where  the  consignees  were  a  firm  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  furniture,  knowledge  of  which  the  carrier  is 
charged  with  from  the  name  and  title  of  the  shipper.  The  name  of  the  consignee, 
in  tlie  bill  of  lading,  in  connection  with  the  character  of  the  shipment  shipped,  an 
engine  shaft,  would  be  sufficient  to  charge  the  carrier  with  notice  of  the  special 
circumstances  of  the  case.'-"'  Where  gin  stands  and  machinery  for  a  cotton  gin 
are  shipped  over  a  common  carrier  to  a  gin  company  whose  plant  is  located  and 
being  built  on  the  carrier's  right  of  way,  the  carrier  is  charged  with  notice  of 
the  purpose  and  use  of  such  machinery,  and  the  period  of  the  year  in  which  it 
is  used,  and,  in  case  of  unreasonable  and  diligent  delay  in  shipment,  will  be 
held  liable  for  the  damages  which  are  the  direct  result  of  such  delay,  although 
no  express  mention  of  the  purpose  of  such  machinery  and  the  period  in  which 
it  is  desired  for  use  is  made  in  the  shipping  contract."^  Rut  for  delay  in  cases 
of  an  ordinary  shipment  of  goods  to  a  merchant  of  the  kind  in  which  he  deals, 
where  there  is  no  fact  shown  which  would  put  the  carrier  on  contemplation  or 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  goods  are  designed  for  a  special  purpose  and 
for  a  definite  use,  other  than  is  inferred  from  the  character  of  the  shipment, 
the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  in  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  time 
they  should  have  arrived  and  the  time  they  did  arrive."-  The  carrier  is  not  put 
on  notice  that  goods  were  intended  for  a  special  purpose,  and  is  not  liable  for 
damages  resulting  to  the  consignee  from  being  compelled  to  shut  down  an  ice 
plant,  from  delay  in  the  receipt  of  oil  shipped  over  the  carrier,  where  the  only 
notice  to  the  carrier  was  the  fact  that  the  oil  was  shipped  to  the  "Home  Ice 
Factory,"  and  was  to  be  used  for  fuel."^  Cotton  seed  meal  and  hulls  are  not 
of  such  character  as  to  put  a  carrier  on  notice  that  their  prompt  delivery  was 
necessarv  to  avoid  loss  on  cattle  being  fed  by  a  shipper."-*     Where  a  shaft  used 

that  damages  beyond  the  ordinary  amount  such    results   might   follow    delayed   deliv- 

might   reasonably  be  expected  in  case   of  ery    of    the    oil,    that    the    shipment    was 

delay    in    transportation,    so   as    to    render  made  to  the  "Home   Ice   Factory,"  and   it 

defendant   liable   for   any  special   damages  was  fuel  not  putting  the  carrier  on  notice, 

resulting  from  such  delay.     Harper  Furni-  Haberzettle  v.  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  S. 

ture    Co.  V.   Southern    Exp.    Co.,   63   S.    E.  W.  219,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  527. 

145,   148   N.   C.   87,   128  Am.   St.   Rep.   588,  94.  Cotton  seed  meal. — Illinois  Cent.  R. 

30  L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  483.  Co.   7'.    Nelson,   97    S.   W.   757,   760,   30   Ky. 

89.  Notice  from  nature  of  goods. — II-  L.  Rep.  114,  citing  Newport  News,  etc., 
linois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nelson,  97  S.  W.  R.  Co.  v.  Mercer,  96  Ky.  475,  29  S.  W. 
757,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  114;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  301;  Wells  v.  National  Life  Ass'n,  99 
V.  Pettit,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  588,  590,  2::  Fed.  222,  39  C.  C.  A.  476,  53  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.  W.   761.  S.,  33;  Duntley  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 

90.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern  N.  H.  263,  20  Atl.  327,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  128  449,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  610;  Illinois 
Am.   St.   Rep.  588,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483.  Cent.       R.      Co.      v.       Southern      Seating, 

91.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Farmers'  etc.,  Co.,  104  Tenn.  568,  58  S.  W. 
Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okla.  270,  125  Pac.  894.  303,  50  L.      R.   A.,      N.   S.,      729,  78  .   Am. 

92.  It  is  error  in  such  case  to  allow  St.  Rep.  933;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
rents  for  delayed  machinery.  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N. 
R.  Co.  V.  Pettit,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  588,  589,  E.  476,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St. 
22   S.  W.   761.  Rep.  579;  Wood  on  Railway  Law,  p.  1607. 

93.  For  a  delay  in  delivering  fuel  oil,  a  "In  Louisville,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  v.  Bot- 
carrier  was  not  liable  for  damages  result-  torff,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1324,  77  S.  W.  920, 
ing  to  plaintiff  through  being  compelled  25  Ky.  Law  Rep.  1324,  the  question  here 
to  shut  down  an  ice  plant,  for  expenses  raised  was  not  presented,  and  on  the 
paid  employees  while  the  plant  was  idle,  tacts  it  is  not  in  conflict  with  the  views 
for  loss  of  profits,  and  for  loss  sustained  herein  expressed.  In  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
by  not  having  ice  to  save  meat,  etc.,  in  Co.  v.  Mossbarger,  91  S.  W.  1121,  28  Ky. 
cold  storage,  where  the  carrier  did  not  L.  Rep.  1217,  it  appears  that  notice  was 
know   when   the    contract   was    made    that  given  to  the  railroad  company  before  any 


651  DKI.AV   IX   TKAXSI'OKTATIOX   OR  DKLIVHKV.  §§    937-940 

in  an  electric  plant  fell  (nit  of  a  car  in  transit  and  was  brtjken,  after  which  the 
express  company  had  it  repaired  and  forwarded  to  the  owner,  damages  claimed 
for  loss  of  jjrohts  in  being  prevented  from  rimning  the  plant  while  the  shaft 
was  being  repaired  were  special  damages,  and  hence  could  not  be  recovered 
unless  the  carrier  had  notice  of  the  use  for  which  the  shaft  was  intended,  either 
actually  (jr  by  ])lain  inference  from  the  nature -of  the  thing  transported."''  Such 
notice  can  not  be  inferred  fairly,  from  the  character  of  the  property,  or  from 
the  fact  that  the  old  engine  boilers  were  sent  over  the  defendant's  road  to  the 
same  person  who  had  furnished  the  new  ones  soon  after  those  harl  been 
ship])ed.'"'' 

§  938.  Evidence  to  Prove  Notice. ^ — In  an  acticjn  to  rec<j\er  damages  for 
pain  and  retarded  recovery  liy  reason  of  failure  of  a  carrier  to  promptly  de- 
liver medicine,  ordered  by  a  relative  of  the  plaintiff,  for  whom  he  had  worked, 
which  facts  were  known  to  the  carrier's  agent  at  the  shipping  point;  but  the 
l)ackage  was  directed  to  the  relative,  and,  though  the  carrier's  agent  was  in- 
formed that  it  was  for  the  plaintiff,  the  evidence  is  insufficient  to  show  notice 
to  the  carrier  of  the  plaintiff's  connection  with  and  interest  in  the  shipment, 
so  as  to  warrant  a  finding  of  special  damages  in  his  favor.''" 

§  939.  Where  Cause  of  Delay  Known  to  Shipper. — A  shipper  claiming 
special  damages  for  delay  in  a  shipment  of  goods  intended  to  be  followed  and 
sold  by  him  at  destination  can  not  recover  expenses  incurred  with  knowledge 
that  the  goods  had  been  misdirected.-'* 

§  940.  Exemplary  Damages. — In  case  of  failure  to  carry  and  deliver 
freight  in  reasonable  time,  where  such  failure  arose  from  the  mere  negligence 
of  tile  carrier,  but  that  wanton  and  gross  neglect  of  their  duties  by  common 
carriers,  and  reckless  disregard  of  the  rights  of  shippers,  and  willful  refusal 
to  deliver,  if  alleged  in  the  declaration  and  sustained  by  the  proof,  would  au- 
thorize a  verdict  not  only  for  compensatory,  but  also  for  exemplary  damages.^" 

The  mistake  of  a  carrier's  clerk  in  billing  goods  to  the  wrong  destina- 
tion, which  the  carrier  immediately  corrected  on  notice  by  sending  out  a  tracer, 
and  the  refusal  of  the  connecting  carrier  to  deliver  the  goods  without  payment 
of  charges  for  the  extra  haul  resulting  from  the  mistake,  do  not  make  a  case 
of  willfulness,  op]:)ression.  or  wanton  disregard  of  the  ship]:)er's  rights  by  the 
original  carrier,  authorizing  punitive   damages   for  the   delay. ^ 

of   the    feed    was    shipped    of   the    purpose  98.    Where    cause    of    delay    known    to 

for  which   it   was  desired."      Illinois   Cent.  shipper. — iManklin    v.    Louisville,    etc.,    R. 

R.   Co.  7'.    Xelson,   30   Ky.    L.    Rep.   114,   97  Co.   (.Ky. ).  IK".  S.  W.  Tti.".. 

S.    \\'.    T.'iT.  99.      Exemplary      damages.  —  American 

95.  Shaft  used  in  electric  plant.— "There  Exp.  Co.  z:  Jennings,  SG  Miss.  329,  38  So. 
was    nothing    in    the    appearance    of    the  374,   109  Am.   St.   Rep.   708,  citing  Hadley 
shaft  to  indicate  the  special  use  that  was  ^..   Baxendale    (Eng.),  9   Ex.  341. 
to  be   made   of  it.     The   shaft,    itself,   did  ..^,^5^   ii,„itation   of  the   general   rule   is 
not    therefore    give    the    required    notice.  eminently    correct,    but    neither    the   aver- 
Nor  did  the  fact  that  electric  lights  were  ,^^^,^^g    ^^    plaintiff's    declaration    nor    the 
used  in  the  Adams  Express  Company  ot-  ^^^^^  -^^  evidence  bring  his  case  within  it." 
fice   at    Pikeville.   and   that   they   were   not  American    Exp.   Co.   v.  Jennings.   8t3   Miss. 
l)urning    <lunng    the    time    the    shaft    was  ^.-.^    ^^  ^^    3.^^  ^^g  ^^^    g^    j^-^      -^^ 
l)eing   repaired,  bring  home   to  the   appel-  •.•        j 
lee   notice    of   the    use    that   was    intended  To   entitle   a   shipper    to   punitive    dam- 
to  be  ma.le  of  the  shaft."    Stone  v.  Adams  ages    for    delay    in    transportation,    gross 
Exn    Co    (Kv)     1"'  S    W    '^00    "01  negligence,    or    willful    or    wanton    disre- 

96'.  Old  engine  bo~ilers.— Swift  River  Co.  sard  of  its  duty,  on  the  part  of  the  car- 

r.   Eitchhurg  R.  Co.,  I(i9  Mass.  326.  47  X.  '•'^'"-  "V'^t  be  shown      American   Exp.  Co. 

E.  1015,  fit  Am.  St.   Rep.  288.  ^'-    Burke    (Miss.),    61    So.    312. 

97.    Evidence    to    prove    notice. — Pacific  1.   Vazoo,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Cliristmas,   89 

Exp.    Co.    7'.     Rechiian     (Tex.    Civ.    .\pp.).  Miss.    686,   42   So.    169. 
60   S.   \V.   677. 


§§  940-941  CARRIERS.  652 

Goods  Held  for  Prepayment  of  Freight.— Where  delay  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  goods  appears  to  have  been  occasioned  by  inclination  of  the  carrier 
to  enforce  its  regulations  for  prepayment  of  freight,  which,  though  reasonable, 
had  not  been  brought  to  the  shipper's  attention,  and  the  actual  injury  to  the 
goods  resulted  without  its  knowledge,  and  there  was  nothing  warranting  a  find- 
ing of  wrongful  intent,   exemplary   damages   were  not   recoverable.^ 

Where  Agent  Fails  to  Locate  Car. — Proof  that  the  agent  of  a  carrier  at 
the  destination  of  a  shipment  did  not  locate  the  car  in  which  the  same  was  is 
proof  of  simple  negligence  only,  and  does  not  authorize  exemplary  damages  for 
delay  in  the  delivery  of  the  shipment. ^ 

§§  941-947.  Measure  and  Elements  of  Damages— §  941.  In  General. 

— The  damages  recoverable  from  a  carrier  for  delay  in  delivering  goods  re- 
ceived for  transportation  are  such  as  are  the  natural  and  proximate  results  of 
its  acts  and  such  as  reasonably  might  have  been  expected  to  be  within  the  con- 
templation of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  entering  into  the  contract,  and  where 
the  carrier  has  notice  that  delay  in  the  delivery  will  result  in  an  unusual  loss 
there  may  be  a  recovery  therefor.-*  In  the  leading  case  on  this  subject^  it  is 
said  that  where  two  parties  have  made  a  contract,  which  one  of  them  has 
broken,  the  damages  which  the  other  party  ought  to  receive  in  respect  of  such 
breach  of  contract  should  be  such  as  may  fairly  and  reasonably  be  considered 
either  arising  naturally,  from  such  breach  of  contract  itself,  or  such  as  may 
reasonably  be  supposed  to  have  been  in  the  contemplation  of  both  parties  at 
the  time  they  made  the  contract,  as  the  probable  result  of  the  breach  of  it. 
Now,  if  the  special  circumstances  under  which  the  contract  was  actually  made 
were' communicated  by  the  plaintiffs  to  the  defendants,  and  thus  knownto  both 
parties,  the  damages  resulting  from  the  breach  of  such  a  contract,  which  they 
would  reasonably  contemplate,  would  be  the  amount  of  injury  which  would 
ordinarily  follow  from  a  breach  of  contract  under  these  special  circumstances 
so  known  and  communicated.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  these  special  circum- 
stances were  wholly  unknown  to  the  party  breaking  the  contract,  he,  at  the 
most,  could  only  be  supposed  to  have  had  in  his  contemplation  the  amount  of 
injury  which  would  arise  generally,  and,  in  the  great  multitude  of  cases,  not 
affected  by  any  special  circumstances,  from  such  a  breach  of  contract.  This 
nde  has  been  followed  in  numerous  cases.<^  Where  goods  are  not  delivered 
in  a  reasonable  time  by  a  common  carrier,  the  measure  of  damages  is  any  rea- 
sonable loss  and  expense  occasioned  by  the  delay,  together  with  the  value  of 
the  goods  at  the  time  and  place  they  should  have  been  delivered,  less  their  value 
at  the  time  and  place  of  actual  delivery,"  with  interest  from  the  former  date, 
less  the  freight,  if  unpaid.^ 

Damages  in  Addition  to  Statutory  Penalty. — Under  a  statute  which  pro- 
vides that,  on  refusal  of  a  railroad  to  transport  any  property  or  deliver  it  at 
the  regular  appointed  time,  it  shall  pay  all  damages  sustained,  and  in  case  of 
the  transportation  of  property  shall  in  addition  pay  special  damages  of  five  per 
centum  per  month  on  the  value  of  the  property  at  the  time  of  shipment,  for 
the  negligent  detention  thereof  beyond  the  time  reasonably  necessary  for  trans- 
portation, a  contention  that  the  statute  implies  that  other  damages  accrued  and 

2.  Goods  held  for  prepayment  of  freight.  6.  Withrow  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  159  N. 
—Lord  V.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  105  Me.  C.  222,  74  S.  E.  925;  McDonald  v.  Unaka 
255,   74  Atl.   117.                                                           Thnber  Co.,  88  Tenn.  38,  43,  12  S.  W.  420; 

3.  Where  agent  fails  to  locate  car.^  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Seating, 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  153  Ala.  260,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Tenn.  568,  58  S.  W.  303,  50 
44   So.   837.  L.   R.  A.,  N.  S.,  729,  78  Am.   St.   Rep.  933. 

4.  Measure  and  elements  of  damages.  7.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Douglass, 
— Pilcher  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Ala.  1  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  67. 

316,    46   So.   765.  8.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hanaw,  134  Ga. 

5!  Hadley  v.  Baxendale  (Eng.),  9  Exch.  445,  07  S.  E.  944,  137  Am.  St.  Rep.  227. 
341. 

t 


653 


DELAY  IN  TRANSPORTATION  OR  DKLIVERY. 


§§  941-942 


that  the  five  ix^r  centum  is  to  be  given  only  in  addition  to  other  damages  is 
without   merit.'' 

Actual  Injury  to  Goods. — A  carrier  is  Uable  for  the  actual  injury  to  goods 
which  is  caused  bv  its  delay  in  shipping.!^ 

Rental  Value  of  Goods. — A  carrier  is  liable  for  the  rental  value  of  the 
goods  for  the  time  the  shipper  has  been  deprived  of  their  use  by  the  carrier's 
delay.  ^1 

§  942.  Decrease  iti  Market  Value. — Where  goods  are  intended  far 
market  the  measure  of  damages  for  unreasonable  delay  in  the  transportation  is 
the  decrease  between  the  market  value  of  the  goods  at  their  destination  at  the 
time  when  they  should  have  arrived  there  if  moved  with  reasonable  diligence 
and  the  market  value  of  the  same  goods  at  their  destination  at  the  time  when 
thev  actually  did  arrive  there, ^-  with  interest   from  the   former  date,  less  the 


9.  Damages  in  addition  to  statutory 
penalty.— Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hannay- 
Frericlis  &  Co.,  104  Tex.  m\i,  142  S.  W. 
1163. 

10.  Actual  injury  to  goods. — Lord  v. 
Maine  Cent  R.  Co.,  105  Me.  255,  74  Atl. 
117. 

11.  Rental  value  of  goods. — Lord  v. 
Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  105  Mc.  255,  74  Atl. 
117. 

12.  Decrease  in  market  value. — Moore 
on  Carriers,  p.  425;  Hutchinson  on  Car- 
riers, §§  767,  1367,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Ency.  of 
Law,  2d  ed.,  3S1;  Ray.  Negligence  of  Im- 
posed Duties,  p.  1036;  Simpson  v.  London, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  Q.  B.  Div.  274;  Cory  v. 
Thames  Iron  Works,  3  Q.  B.  181;  Die 
Elbinger  v.  Armstrong,  92   Q.   B.   473. 

England. — CoUard  v.  S.  E.  Railway  Co., 
7  Hurl.  &  Norm.  (Eng.)  79;  Wilson  v.  The 
Lancashire,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  99  Eng.  C.  L. 
632;  Wilson  v.  N.  Castle,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 
E.  L.  &  E.  557;  Gee  v.  London,  etc.,  Rail- 
road (Eng.),  6  Hurl.  &  N.  211. 

Arkansas. — Murrell  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co., 
54  Ark.  22,  14  S.  W.  1098,  26  Am.  St.  Rep. 
17;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mudford,  48 
Ark.  502,  3  S.  W.  814;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Phelps,  46  Ark.  485;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Coolidge.  73  Ark.  112,  S3  S.  W. 
333,  67  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  555,  108  Am.  St. 
Rep.  21,  3  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  582; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Planters'  Gin,  etc., 
Co.,  88  Ark.  77,  113  S.  W.  352;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Newhouse  Mill,  etc.,  Co., 
90    Ark.   452,    119   S.   W.    646. 

Florida. — Norris  v.  Savannah,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  23  Fla.  182,  1  So.  475,  11  Am.  St.  Rep. 
355. 

(7 iMrgid.— Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hanaw, 
134  Ga.  445.  67  S.  E.  944,  137  Am.  St. 
Rep.  227;  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  85  Ga.  497,  11  S.  E.  809;  Goodin 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  125  Ga.  630,  54  S.  E. 
720,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1054,  5  Am.  & 
Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  573;  Cooper  v.  Young,  22 
Ga.  269,  68  Am.  Dec.  502,  collected  cases 
in  note  505;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pritchard.  77  Ga.  412,  1  S.  E.  261,  4  Am. 
St.  Rep.  92:  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas 
Grate  Co.,  81  Ga.  602,  9  S.  E.  600;  South- 


ern   Exp.   Co.  V.    Briggs,   1    Ga.   App.   294, 
57  S.  E.  106G. 

Illinois. — Priestly  v.  Northern  Indiana, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  111.  205,  79  Am.  Dec.  369; 
Sangamon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  14  111. 
156;  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Foster,  127  111. 
App.  201;  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rae,  18 
111.  488,  68  Am.  Dec.  574;  McCabe  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  154  111.  App.  380; 
Euston  &  Co.  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  147  111.  App. 
594. 

Indiana. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wood  (Ind.  App.),  84  N.  E.  1009;  Pitts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knox,  177  Ind.  344, 
98   N.    E.   295. 

Iowa. — Hudson  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
92  Iowa  231,  60  N.  W.  COS,  54  Am.  St. 
Rep.    550. 

Kentuckv. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Nel- 
son. 97  S.  W.  757,  30   Ky.  L.  Rep.  114. 

^Iassacllusetts. — Fox  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  148  Mass.  220,  19  N.  E.  222,  1  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  702;  Ingledew  v.  Northern  Rail- 
road (Mass.),  7  Gray  86;  Cutting  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  13  Allen 
381;  Scott  V.  Boston  Steamship  Co.,  106 
Mass.  468;  Harvey  z:  Connecticut,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  421,  26  Am.  Rep.  673. 

Michigan. — Sisson  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  14"AIich.  489,  90  Am.  Dec.  252. 

MississipM. — American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jen- 
nings. 86  Miss.  329,  38  So.  374,  109  Am. 
St.  Rep.  70S;  Silver  v.  Kent,  60  Miss. 
124:  Railway  v.  Ragsdale,  14  Miss.  460. 

Missouri. — Hardin  Grain  Co.  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  120  Mo.  App.  203,  96  S.  W. 
681;  Cowherd  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mo.   App),    131    S.    W.   755. 

Xczi.'  York. — Note  to  Griffin  v.  Colver, 
16  N.  Y.  489,  69  Am.  Dec.  718;  Ward  v. 
New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  47  N.  Y.  29,  7 
Am.  Rep.  405 ;  Kent  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  22  Barb.  278;  Medbury  v.  New 
York,  etc..  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  26  Barb.  564; 
note  to  Dana  v.  Fiedler,  12  N.  Y.  40,  62 
Am.  Dec.  130:  Shannon  v.  Comstock  (N. 
Y.).  21  Wend.  457,  34  Am.  Dec.  262; 
Bracket  v.  McNair  (N.  Y.),  14  Johns.  170, 
7  Am.  Dec.  447;  Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  19  Barb.  36;  Jones  v.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (N.  Y.),  29  Barb.  633; 


§  942 


CARRIERS. 


654 


Bracco    v.    Merchants'    Despatch    Transp. 
Co.,  113  N.  Y.  S.  131,  61  Misc.  Rep.  60. 

North  Carolina. — Harper  Furniture  Co. 
V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  1-18  N.  C.  87,  62 
S.  E.  145,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483,  138  Am. 
St.  Rep.  588;  Davidson  Development  Co. 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  503,  61  S. 
E.  381;  Lee  v.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  136 
N.  C.  533.  48  S.  E.  809;  Boyle  v.  Reeder, 
23  N.  C.  607;  Foard  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  53  N.  C.  235.  78  Am.  Dec.  277;  Rocky 
Mt.  Mills  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119 
X.  C.  693,  25  S.  E.  854,  56  Am.  St.  Rep. 
682;  Sharpe  z:  Southern  R.  Co.,  130  N.  C. 
613  41  S.  E.  799;  Neal  v.  Pender-Heyman 
Hardware  Co.,  122  N.  C.  104,  29  S.  E. 
96,    65    Am.    St.    Rep.    697. 

Ohio. — Wyler  Ackerland  &  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  83  O.  St.  293,  94  N. 
E.  423;  Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'DonngU, 
49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  34  Am.  St. 
Rep.  579,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  117;  Dever- 
eaux  V.  Buckley,  34  O.  St.  16,  32  Am. 
Rep.    342,    344. 

Pennsylvania.— 'Ecke\  v.  Murphey,  15  Pa. 
488,    53  "Am.    Dec.    607. 

South  Carolina.— Nettles  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.,  7  Rich.  L.  190,  62  Am.  Dec. 
409  and  note  411;  McKerall  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  338,  56  S.  E.  965; 
Rutland  v.  Southern  Railway,  81  S.  C. 
448,    62   S.    E.   865. 

rr.rfl.f.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mill 
Elevator,  etc.,  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  87 
S.  W.  753;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Philips,  63  Tex.  590,  594;  Haberzettle  v. 
Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
527,  103  S.  W.  219;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McCarty,  82  Tex.  608,  18  S.  W.  716;  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Foster  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  86  S.  W.  44;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pettit,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  588,  589,  22  S. 
W.  761;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorquo- 
dale,  71  Tex.  41,  47,  9  S.  W.  80;  Texas, 
etc  R.  Co.  V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491; 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Webb,  20  Tex. 
Civ  App.  431,  440,  49  S.  W.  526;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Fagan,  72  Tex.  127,  9  S. 
W.  749,  2  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  75,  13  Am.  St. 
Rep.  776;  Garlington  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  274,  78  S.  W. 
368. 

Wisconsin. — Peet  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  Wis.  594,  91  Am.  Dec.  446,  450. 

Where  goods  shipped  have  a  market 
value,  and  there  is  nothing  to  indicate 
the  specific  purpose  for  which  they  were 
ordered,  damages  for  delay  in  delivery  are 
usually  the  difference  between  the  market 
value  at  the  time  fixed  for  delivery  and 
that  when  they  were  in  fact  delivered. 
Harper  Furniture  Co.  V.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  30  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  483,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  588. 

Where  there  is  delay  in  transportation 
of  goods  intended  for  sale  at  destination, 
and  the  market  price  has  fallen  in  the 
meantime,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the 
difference  in  market  price  between  the 
time   when   they   should   have   arrived   and 


that  when  they  were  delivered,  together 
with  any  other  and  incidental  damages 
naturally  and  proximately  flowing  from 
the  delay.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Car- 
penter, 52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  585,  114  S.  W. 
900. 

Hutchinson  on  Carriers,  §  771,  thus 
states  the  rule:  "If  the  goods  are  in- 
tended for  sale  in  the  market  at  desti- 
nation, and  the  carrier  unreasonably  and 
negligently  delay  their  transportation,  it 
is  now  universally  agreed,  whatever 
doubts  may  have  been  at  one  time  en- 
tertained upon  the  subject  that  the  general 
rule  by  which  the  damages  are  to  be 
computed,  if  goods  of  the  particular  kind 
have  fallen  in  market  value  during  the 
r'elay.  or  if  they  have  depreciated  in  qual- 
ity because  of  the  delay,  is  the  difference 
1)etween  the  market  value  when  the  goods 
should  have  arrived  and  the  value  at  the 
time  of  their  delivery,  the  carrier  being 
lialile  to  the  extent  of  the  depreciation, 
with  interest  from  the  time  when  they 
should  have  been  delivered."  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  20  Te.x.  Civ.  App. 
431,   49    S.   W.    526. 

An  instruction  that  the  measure  of  a 
recovery  for  delay  in  the  delivery  of 
freight  is  the  difference  between  the  value 
at  the  point  of  shipment  and  the  value 
at  the  point  of  destination,  after  the  lapse 
of  a  reasonable  time  for  effecting  the  car- 
riage, less  the  freight  charges,  is  incor- 
rect in  that  it  is  more  favorable  to  the 
plaintiff  than  the  measure  prescribed  by 
law.  Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
Ga.   386,   9    S.    E.    1076. 

At  common  lavsr,  the  measure  of  the 
carrier's  liability  for  negligent  delay  in 
transporting  goods  is  the  depreciation  in 
market  value  at  the  time  and  place  they 
should  have  been  delivered  and  the  mar- 
ket value  according  to  their  condition  at 
the  time  and  place  of  actual  delivery  or 
tender,  together  with  reasonable  loss 
proximately  caused  by  such  delay.  Bul- 
lock 7'.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  64  S.  E. 
234,  82   S.   C.   375. 

The  selling  price  at  the  place  of  deliv- 
ery is  the  true  measure  of  damages.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Peru-Van  Zandt  Imp. 
Co,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac.  408,  87  Pac.  80, 
117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1058,  9   Am.   &  Eng.   Ann.   Cas.  790. 

Under  Georgia  Civ.  Code  1910,  §  2773. 
the  measure  of  damages  for  a  failure  to 
deliver  goods  in  a  reasonable  time  is  the 
difference  between  the  market  value  at 
the  time  and  place  they  should  have  been 
delivered  and  the  time  of  actual  delivery, 
and  it  is  error  to  instruct  that  a  carrier 
could  be  held  liable  for  the  condition  the 
goods  were  in  on  the  Monday  following 
the  Saturday  of  their  arrival,  or  as  soon 
thereafter  "as  they  could  be  sold."  West- 
ern, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Summerour,  77  S.  E. 
802.  139   Ga.  545. 

Decisions  contra. — "The  question  in 
Conger    v.    Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    13    N. 


655 


DKLAV    IX    TKANSI'OKTATION    OR   UKMVKKV 


§  942 


freight,  if  un[)aid.'^ 

Rule  Not  Peculiar  to  Carriers. — The  princijjle  which  allows  the  difference 
in  market  \aluc  lictwccn  the  two  periods  of  time  as  a  measnre  of  damages  of 
course  finds  its  almost  universal  application  in  the  case  of  common  carriers,  as 
they  do  the  princij)al,  if  not  the  entire,  transportation  of  the  country.  But  it 
does  not  proceed  from  the  extraordinary  care  required  of  them  by  the  common 
law,  or  any  other  stringeiU  rules  ajjplicd  to  them,  but  is  e(|ually  binding  upon 
any  party  who  undertakes  to  do  for  another  a  specific  thing  within  a  specified 
time."" 

Analogy  to  Case  of  Loss  of  Goods. — The  rule  applied  in  the  case  where 
the  goods  are  lost,  that  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between  the 
value  of  the  goods  at  the  point  of  shipment  and  that  at  the  point  of  destination, 
does  not  apply  to  the  case  where  there  is  merely  a  delay  in  the  transjjortation 
of  the  goods. ^^  Where  the  goods  are  lost,  the  injury  to  the  consignee  is  the 
excess  of  the  cost  of  the  goods  at  the  point  of  destination,  over  the  cost  of  the 
goods  at  the  point  of  shipment,  which  is  the  loss  occasioned  him  by  the  neces- 
sity of  substituting  the  goods  with  others  purchased  at  the  place  of  destination, ^"^ 
but  where  the  goods  are  delayed  the  consignee  can  not  substitute  others  for 
them,  as  it  is  his  duty,  despite  the  delay,  to  accept  the  goods. ^"  Clearly  the  two 
rules  are  not  analogous.  However,  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  carrier 
agrees  to  ship  the  goods  to  another  point  after  their  arrival  at  the  original  point 
of  destination,  the  measure  of  -damages  for  delay  in  holding  the  goods  at  the 
original  destination  is  the  difference  in  values  at  the  changed  destination.^*' 

What  Constitutes  Market  Value. — The  measure  of  damages  is  the  dif- 
ference between  the  market  value  of  the  lumber  at  the  date  of  the  shipment,  as 
evidenced  by  the  contract  price  which  had  been  offered  at  that  date,  and  the 
market  price  of  the  same  goods  when  they  were  sold  after  delay  in  delivery.^^ 


Y.  Super.  Ct.  375,  was  whether  the  ship- 
per could  recover  from  the  carrier  dam- 
ages occasioned  by  a  loss  of  market 
through  dela3\;  and  the  court  intimated 
that  such  damages  are  too  speculative 
in  their  character  to  form  the  basis  of 
legal  action."  Sisson  v.  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  .14  Mich.  489,  90  Am.  Dec.  252. 

In  Wibert  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(N.  Y.),  19  Barb.  36,  it  was  held,  in  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to 
deliver  butter  in  a  reasonable  time,  that 
the  difference  between  the  value  of  but- 
ter at  the  time  it  should  have  been  de- 
livered and  its  value  at  the  time  of  actual 
delivery  could  not  be  recovered  as  dam- 
ages, l)ecause  the  loss  was  not  the  actual 
and  proximate  result  of  the  act  com- 
plained of.  "The  reasoning  of  the  court 
is.  that  the  fall  in  price  was  not  in  con- 
sequences of  the  delay,  and  therefore  the 
carrier  was  not  liable  for  the  resulting 
loss.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  this  point 
was  not  passed  upon  by  the  court  of  ap- 
peals when  the  case  reached  that  tribunal 
— 12  N.  Y.  245 — as  the  case  seems  to  us 
to  lay  down  a  rule  of  damages  wholly 
unwarranted  bv  reason  or  authority." 
Sisson  V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Mich. 
489,  90  Am.  Dec.  252. 

13.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hanaw,  134 
Ga.  445,  f)7  S.  E.  944.  137  .\m.  St.  Rep. 
227. 

14.  Rule  not  peculiar  to  carriers.^ 
"There    is   nothing   in   the    point   made   by 


appellants'  counsel  that  the  measure  of 
damages  does  not  apply  when  the  delay 
occurred  through  the  fault  of  the  railroad 
company  before  they  assumed  the  atti- 
tude of  common  carriers  by  signing  a  bill 
of  lading."  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Xichol- 
son,  (■)!   Tex.  491. 

15.  Analogy  to  case  of  loss  of  goods. — 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson,  61  Tex. 
491. 

16.  See  post.  "Loss  of  or  Injury  to 
Goods,"    chapter    12 

17.  See  ante,  "Duty  of  Consignee  to 
Accept    Goods,"   §   924. 

18.  San  .\ntonio.  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Thomp- 
son   (Tex.    Civ.    App.).    66    S.    W.    792. 

19.  What  constitutes  market  value. — 
Where  an  action  was  brought  against 
a  railroad  company  for  delay  in  deliver- 
ing a  car  of  b'mber  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages was  equal  to  the  difference  between 
the  market  value  of  the  lumber,  at  the 
date  of  shipment,  as  evidenced  by  the 
contract  price  which  had  been  oflFered 
the  shipper  at  that  date,  and  the  market 
price  of  the  same  lumber  when  it  was 
sold,  after  the  delay  in  delivery,  with  the 
storage  charges  during  the  time  the  lum- 
ber was  held  for  a  rising  market,  the 
holding  for  a  rising  market  a"d  the  ex- 
pense incident  thereto  having  been  made 
necessary  by  the  delay  in  delivering  the 
shipment  accorfb'ntr  to  contract.  N'~"'^oU'. 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Wilkinson,  106  Va.  775,  56 
S.   E.  SOS. 


§  942 


CARRIERS. 


656 


\\'hile  a  shipper  whose  commodity  fails  to  reach  the  market  at  a  proper  time 
through  the  neghgence  of  the  carrier  is  entitled  to  recover  the  market  price, 
nevertheless,  where  a  shipper  shipped  corn  so  that  it  would,  if  delivered  promptly, 
have  reached  their  destination  on  a  day  when  for  a  few  hours,  because  of  a 
corner  in  the  com  market,  corn  was  worth  twice  as  much  as  it  was  the  day 
before  or  the  day  after,  this  artificially  advanced  price  could  not  be  considered 
the  market  price.-*^ 

Market  Reports  in  Newspapers. — Newspaper  reports  of  the  state  of  the 
market  are  competent  evidence  to  prove  the  market  value  as  the  measure  of 
damages.-^ 

At  Ultimate  Destination. — The  measure  of  damages  is  the  marke  value  of 
the  goods  at  the  place  of  ultimate  destination,  known  to  the  carrier,  and  not  an 
intermediate  point  to  which  the  carrier  contracts  to  transport  the  goods.22 

Additional  Damages. — The  measure  of  damages  for  delay  in  delivering 
goods  received  by  a  carrier  for  transportation  is  the  difference  between  the 
market  value  of  the  goods  at  the  time  of  delivery  and  at  the  time  when  by  rea- 
sonable diligence  they  should  have  been  delivered,  together  with  incidental  dam- 
ages naturally  flowing  from  the  delay,  and  special  damages  where  the  shipper 
informed  the'  carrier  when  the  contract  of  shipment  was  made  of  special  cir- 
cumstances requiring  expedition  in  the  shipment.^^  If  there  is  other  deteriora- 
tion than  that  in  the  market  value  due  to  the  delay  of  the  carrier  that  must 
also  be  taken  into  consideration. 2^' 

Where  Carrier  Has  Knowledge  Goods  Intended  for  Market. — This  rule 
applies  where  the  carrier  is  chargeable  with  knowledge  that  the  goods  carried 
are  intended  for  the  market.^^  The  cases  generally  make  no  mention  of  knowl- 
edge of  the  shipper,  which  would  undoubtedly  arise  from  the  nature  of  the 
goods  themselves.  The  rule  is  said  to  apply  in  ordinary  cases,  and  it  is  an  or- 
dinary case  where  no  special  information  is  given  the  carrier  as  to  the  purpose 
for  which  the  goods  are  shipped,  other  than  that  arising  from  the  nature  of 
the  goods  themselves.  Where,  owing  to  the  failure  of  an  express  company  to 
deliver  a  box  containing  souvenirs,  suitable  for  sale  only  in  the  city  to  which 
sent,  within  a  reasonable  time,  they  were  without  market  value,  the  measure  of 
damages  was  the  market  value  of  the  souvenirs  when  shipped,  though  the  ex- 
press company  was  not  informed  of  the  contents  of  the  box.^^ 

Where  Goods  Injured  by  Delay. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  un- 
reasonable delay  in  delivering  goods,  on  proof  that  the  goods  were  such  as  were 
called  for  by  the  contract,  and  in  good  condition  when  shipped,  and  of  negli- 
gent delay  of  the  carrier,  resulting  in  damage  to  them,  the  shipper  is  entitled 
to  recover  the  difference  in  the  market  value  of  the  goods  in  the  condition  in 
which  they  would  have  arrived  but  for  the  delay,  and  that  in  which  they  did 

20.  Johnson-Brinkman  Comm.  Co.  v.  fendants'  delay,  it  would  be  both  illogical 
Wabash    R.    Co.,    64    Mo.    App.    590.  and  unjust   to  hold  that   defendants   shall 

21.  Market  reports  in  newspapers. —  be  discharged  because  the  injurious  con- 
Sisson  V.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Mich.  sequences  of  their  act  did  not  result  until 
489,  90  Am.  Dec.  252.  the   cattle   were    out   of  their   own   hands. 

22.  At  ultimate  destination. — The  con-  Sisson  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Mich, 
tract  of  the   defendants   was   to  transport  489,   90   Am.   Dec.   252. 

the  cattk  from  Toledo   to   Buffalo.     The  23.     Additional      damages. — Pilcher      v. 

defendants  were  informed  when  they  en-  Central,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  155  Ala.  316,  46  So. 

tered  into  the  contract   that  the  ultimate  755. 

destination    was    to    an    Albany    or    New  ^    .p^^^      ^^       j,    ^o.  v.   Nicholson,  61 

York  market;   and  they  must  be  held   to  ,j,        ^^^ 

have   assumed   their   obligations   in    refer-  '         '  •       ,        1  1   j  j 

ence  to  that  fact.     If,  in  fact,  there  was  no  .    25.  Where  carrier  has  knowledge  goods 
fall  in  prices  before  the  cattle  had  reached  intended  for  market.— Devereauxt;.  Buck- 
Buffalo,   but   afterwards,   and   before   they  ley,  34  O.  vSt.  16,  32  Am.  Rep.  342. 
could  be   delivered  at  Albany,  a  loss  had  26.      Lambert-Murry     Co.     v.     Southern 
occurred  as  the  direct  consequence  of  de-  Exp.  Co.,  146  N.  C.  321,  59  S.  E.  991. 


657  DELAY    IN   TRANSPORTATION    OR   DELIVERY.  §    942 

arrive.2"  Where  a  carrier  of  fniit  delayed  the  transportation  and  failed  to  ice 
the  car  during  transit,  causing  the  fruit  to  rot,  and  the  consignee  refused  to  ac- 
cept the  fruit,  which  was  of  some  value,  when  tendered  for  delivery  at  the 
point  of  destination,  and  the  carrier  sold  the  fruit  for  all  it  was  then  worth, 
the  proceeds  belonged  to  the  consignee,  who,  in  addition  to  that  amount,  was 
entitled  to  recover  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  fruit  if  delivered  in 
good  condition  and  the  value  as  delivered,  less  reasonable  expenses  incurred 
by  the  carrier  in  making  the  sale.-*^ 

Where  Receipt  of  Goods  Delayed. — This  rule  has  also  been  applied  in 
cases  where  the  carrier  sinii^ly  delays  the  receipt  of  the  goods  but  does  not 
refuse  to  rcceixc  tlicm.-'' 

Where  Goods  Shipped  to  Another  Market.— The  rule  applies  regardless 
of  the  fact  that  the  goods  were  afterwards  shipped  to  a  market  other  than  the 
original  destination.^"  If  by  reason  of  the  delay  there  is  no  market  value  for 
the  goods  at  destination,  and  consequently  they  are  shipped  to  another  market, 
the  measure  is  the  difference  in  market  value  at  destination  when  they  should 
have  arrived  and  what  they  sold  for  on  the  other  market.^ ^  Where  a  railroad 
agent  at  the  point  to  which  goods  were  consigned  agrees  to  send  the  car  con- 
taining them  as  soon  as  it  arrives  to  another  point,  and  thereby  their  destina- 
tion is  changed  to  the  latter,  the  measure  of  damages  for  delay  in  holding  the 
car  at  the  original  destination  is  the  difference  in  values  at  the  changed  desti- 
nation.^'- 

Where  Goods  Misdirected.— The  railroad  company  is  responsible  in  dam- 
ages for  depreciation  in  value  of  goods  between  the  date  of  misdirection  and 
date  of  its  coming  into  hands  of  rightful  consignee. ^^ 

Where  Market  Value  Does  Not  Fluctuate.— As  to  perishable  articles  of 
fluctuating  value,  as  grain,  live  stock  and  such  like,  this  rule  is  doubtless  "the 
tme  one.  But  it  seems  that  the  difference  in  market  value  at  the  two  times 
is  not  the  measure  of  damages  where  the  value  of  the  property  is  not  subject 
to  fluctuation  during  the  interval,  as  where  the  goods  shipped  consists  of  ma- 
chinery. If  this  were  the  measure  of  damages,  there  would  be  no  great  incen- 
tive to  carriers  to  perform  promptly  a  contract  for  the  delivery  of  such  articles, 
as  the  articles  are  not  liable  to  deteriorate  in  a  few  days  or  months.^-* 

Goods  Having  Actual  Value. — The  shipper  of  a  commodity  to  the  market 
for  sale,  who  fails  to  get  it  to  the  market  through  the  negligence  of  the  carrier, 
is  entitled  to  base  his  claim  for  damages  on  the  market  price,  regardless  of  ac- 
tual value.-''' 

Goods  Having  Market  Value.— This  rule  applies  where  the  goods  have  a 
market   value. •*•'      Where,   owing  to   the   failure   of   an   express  company  to   de- 

27.  Where    goods    injured    by    delay.—  32.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
Garlinf,non  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  34       son    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),   6G   S.   W.   792. 
Tex.   Civ.  App.  274,  78  S.  W.  3G8.  33.  Where  goods  misdirected.— Vincent 

28.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cumbie,  101  "'•  Rather,  :n  Tex.  77.  Vis  .Am.  Dec.  516; 
Ark.    172.    141    S.   W.  9;]0.  GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2  Texas  .\pp. 

29.  Where   receipt   of   goods  delayed.—       ^'^'l  Swu  ^  ^^^"    ,  ,        ^ 

Innian  &  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  ^^-  ^^^.^^  market  va  ue  does  not  fluc- 

Tex.    Civ.   App.   39,  37   S.   W.   37,   affirmed  l"**^-"  .'"v^^^-''' ■   ^c^rUiern    Indiana,   etc.. 

in    93    Tex.    643,    no    op.,    citing    Houston,  ^^-  ^O'  2t;  111.  20o,   .9  Am.   Dec.  3r.9:   Har- 

etc,   R.   Co.  V.   Smith,  63   Tex.   322;    Gulf,  Pfl   f.^^mture   Co.   r.   Southern    Exp.    Co., 

etc..   R.   Co.   7'.   Hume.   87   Tex.   211,   27   S.  ]^^    ^:    ^-    ^~\  '''~,  ^-    ^     14.5.    128   Am.    St. 

W.  110,  and  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nichol-  ^^7,    ''^^-  'f  t    >    ■"^-   ^-  i^'  ^P'      x   . 

son.   61   Tex    491  ^^-    Goods   havmg  actual   value. — John- 

-on-Brinkman   Comm.    Co.  v.   Wabash    R. 


30.    Where    goods    shipped    to    another 


Co.,  64   Mo.  App.  590. 


market^Houston,   etc     R    Co    v.   Foster  gg.    Goodshaving   market   value.-Har- 

(Tex.    C.v.    App.).   86    S.   W.   44.  ^^^    Furniture    Co.   z:    Southern    Exp.    Co.. 

31.   Missouri,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Carpenter,  i48    N.    C.   87,   62   S.    E.    145,    128   Am.    St. 

52  Tex.   Civ.   App.   585,   114   S.   W.   900.  Rep.  588,   30  L.   R.  A.,   N.   S..  483. 

1  Car— 42 


s  942  CARRiKRS.  658 

liver  a  box  containing?  sonvenirs,  suitable  for  sale  only  in  the  city  to  which  sent, 
within  a  reasonable  time,  thev  were  without  market  value,  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages was  the  market  value  of  the  souvenirs  when  shipped,  though  the  express 
company  was  not  informed  of  the  contents  of  the  box.^^'  Pleasure  of  damages 
for  delay  in  transporting  and  delivering  goods  which  are  not  intended  for  the 
market  is  ordinarily  the  rental  value  of  the  goods  during  the  delay,  with  legal 
interest  from  the  time  the  goods  should  have  been  delivered.^^^ 

Goods  Valueless.— Where  the  evidence  shows  that  at  the  time  of  delivery 
the  goods  have  become  valueless,  a  recovery  of  the  full  value  of  the  goods  when 
antrwbere  thev  should  have  been  delivered  is  ])roper.=''' 

Goods  Ordered  for  Specific  Purpose.— W  here  there  is  nothing  to  indi- 
cate the  specific  purpose  for  which  the  goods  were  ordered,  the  damages  are 
usually  the  ditTerence  in  the  market  value  of  the  goods  at  the  time  fixed  for 
deliverv  and  that  when  thev   were  in   fact  delivered.-*'" 

Goods  Purchased  at  High  Price.— The  measure  of  damages  for  delay  in 
a  shipment  of  goods  is  the  difi:'erence  in  the  market  price  at  the  time  they  ought 
to  have  been  delivered  and  of  actual  deliver}-,  irrespective  of  whether  the  goods 
were  purchased  at  a  high  or  low  price.-^'^ 

Goods  Redelivered  to  Consignor.— Where  redelivery  of  the  goods  to  the 
consignor  by  a  carrier  after  they  had  been  returned  to  him  was  delayed,  the 
shipper's  measure  of  damages  was  the  difiference  between  the  market  value  of 
the  goods  when  redelivery  should  have  been  made  and  their  value  at  the  time 
redeliverv  was  tendered."*- 

Perishable  Goods. — The  measure  of  damages  for  delay  in  the  shipment  of 
perisliable  goods  is  the  market  price  at  the  place  of  destination  at  the  time  the 
goods  were  due  there,''^  provided  the  petition  therefor  warrants  it,  and  does 
not  specificallv  plead  elements  of  damage,  when  the  recovery  is  restricted  to  the 
elements  alleged.^'^ 

Goods  Consisting  of  Samples.— In  an  action  against  an  express  company 
for  failure  to  deliver  samples  of  goods,  the  damages  should  be  measured  by  th" 
fall   in  ])rice  of  the  goods  represented  by  the  samples.-''"' 

Particular  Goods. — This  rule  applies    to   shipments  of  machinery,-**'  cans  to 

37.  Where  goods  have  no  market  value.  E.  809;  Fox  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148 
— Lambert-Murry  Co.  v.  Southern  Exp.  Mass.  220,  19  N.  E.  222,  1  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
Co.,   146   N.   C.  321,   59   S.   E.  991.  702;   Hutchinson   on   Carriers,  §  767;   Ray 

38.  Brown  v.  Adams.  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  on  Imposed  Duties  of  Freight  Carriers, 
Cas      §    390  P-   1036."     St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cool- 

39.  Goods  valueless.— Southern  Exp.  idge,  73  Ark.  112,  83  S.  W.  333,  108  Am. 
Co.  V.  Briggs,  1  Ga.  App.  294,  57  S.  E.  St.  Rep.  21,  67  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  555,  3  Am. 
1066.  &   Eng.   Ann.    Cas.   582. 

40.  Goods  ordered  for  specific  purpose.  44.  Parsons-Applegate  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
—Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern  Exp.  etc..  R.  Co.,  1:56  Mo.  App.  494,  118  S. 
Co.,    148   N.   C.   87,   62   S.    E.   145,   128   Am.        W.    101. 

St.   Rep.  588,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  483.  45.     Goods     consisting     of     samples.— 

41.  Goods  purchased  at  high  price. —  Where  cotton  samples  are  shipped  from 
Rutland  v.  Southern  Railway,  81  S.  C.  an  interior  market  to  the  market  at  Gal- 
448,    62    S.    E.   865.                        '  veston,    delay   in   delivering   such    samples 

42.  Goods  redelivered  to  consignor. —  will  render  the  carrier  liable  for  the  de- 
Norfolk,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  I'otter,  110  Va.  cline  in  the  price  of  cotton.  Wells  Fargo 
427,    66    S.    E.    34.  Exp.    Co.    v.    Samuels,   11   Tex.    Civ.   App. 

43.  Perishable    goods.— Parsons-Apple-  15,  17,   31    S.  W.  305. 

gate  Co.  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  46.  Machinery.— In  the  absence  of  no- 
Mo.  App.  494,  118  S.  W.  101.  tice  to  or  knowledge  Ijy  a  carrier_  as  to 
"it  can  not  be  disputed  that,  in  the  the  special  use  to  be  made  of  a  shipment 
absence  of  this  contract,  the  legal  liabil-  of  machinery,  the  only  damages  recover- 
ity  would  be  for  the  price  at  Chicago  at  able  for  a  delay  in  shipment  is  the  differ- 
the  time  the  potatoes  were  due  there.  St.  ence  between  the  value  when  delivery 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mudford,  48  Ark.  should  have  been  made  and  the  value^ 
502,  3  S.  W.  814;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  when  it  was  made.  Bracco  v.  Merchants' 
V.  Phelps,  46  Ark.  485;  ^ast  Tennessee,  Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  113  N.  Y.  S.  131,  61 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Johnson,  85  Ga.  497,  11   S.  Misc.   Rep.   60. 


e 


659 


DKI.A^'   IX   TRAXSrORTATIOX   OR  DELIVERY. 


§§  942-943 


he  used  in  canning  vegetables, ■*"   and  berries.'** 

§  943.  Loss  of  Profits.— The  inclination  of  the  earlier  authorities  to  hold 
that  conteni])laled  prohts  per  se  were  improper  elements  of  damage  has  given 
way  under  the  riper  wisdom  of  jurisprudence,  and.  instead  of  holding  to  the 
earlier  inclination,  the  weight  of  authorities  in  modern  jurisprudence  either 
holds  or  concedes  that,  where  a  loss  of  profits  is  not  too  remote  or  conjectural 
to  be  susceptible  of  computation  with  reasonable  accuracy,  they  are  proper  ele- 
ments of  damages."*" 

Notice  to  Carrier. — I'.efore  recovery  can  be  hud  for  hjst  profits  the  carrier 
should  be  notiried  at  the  time  of  making  the  contract  of  the  specific  puqjose  for 
which  the  goods  are  to  be  u.sed,  and  of  the  losses  in  profits,  or  losses  expected 
to  be  sustained  by  not  haviiig  the  use  of  the  goods. ■'•"  In  an  action  against  the 
carrier  for  delay  in  transportation  there  may  be  a  recovery  of  all  the  damages 
caused  the  injured  party,  which  includes  gains  prevented  as  well  as  losses  sus- 
tained. The  damages  must,  however,  be  such  as  may  fairly  be  supposed  to 
have  entered  into  the  contemplation  of  the  parties  when  they  made  the  contract, 
that  is,   such   as   mi^lit    naturally  be  expected  to   follow   its   violation,  and   they 


47.  Cans  used  in  canning. — The  measure 
of  damasics  to  a  consignee  for  delay  in 
shipping  a  car  load  of  cans  to  he  used  in 
canning  tomatoes  is  the  difference  between 
the  market  value  of  the  cans  at  the  time 
when  it  should  have  Iieen  delivered  and 
its  value  at  the  time  of  delivery,  and,  in 
addition  to  this,  the  consignee  may  re- 
cover the  amount  reasonably  spent  after 
the  car  was  delayed  in  telephoning  and 
telegraphing  to  locate  tlie  car  and  secure 
its  delivery.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hop- 
kinsville  Canning  Co.,  1152  Ky.  .')7S,  11  (>  S. 
W.  Tr.s. 

48.  The  measure  of  the  shippers'  dam- 
ages for  a  delaj'-ed  shipment  of  berries 
which  were  sold  by  the  carrier  on  arri- 
val was  the  market  value  of  the  berries 
on  the  date  which  they  would  have  ar- 
rived if  transported  with  reasonable  dili- 
gence, less  charges  for  transportation  and 
refrigeration.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
v^per])er   c^   Co..   \\~   Md.   595,  84  Atl.  72. 

49.  Loss  of  profits. — '"This  rule  is  rec- 
ognized witli  approval  by  each  and  all 
of  the  following  authorities  cited  by 
counsel  for  plaintiff  in  error  in  support 
of  his  first  proposition.  Strawn  v.  Cogs- 
well, 28  111.  457;  Frazer  v.  Smith,  60  111. 
145;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jessee,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  40,3,  and  authori- 
ties cited;  People's  Sav.  Bank  v.  Water- 
loo, etc..  Transit  Co.,  118  Iowa  740,  92 
N.  W.  091;  Bartow  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  73  N. 
J.  L.  12,  02  Atl.  489;  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hill,  03  Tex.  381;  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.  V.  Crall,  39  Kan.  580,  18  Pac.  719; 
Moulthrop  .-•.  Hvett,  105  .\la.  493,  17  So. 
32,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  139;  Williams  v.  'Is- 
land City  Mercantile,  etc.,  Co.,  25  Ore. 
573,  37  Pac.  49;  Brigham  &  Co.  v.  Car- 
lisle,  78  Ala.  243,  50  Am.  Rep.  28;  Gas 
Co.  7'.  Glass  Co.,  56  Kan.  014.  44  Pac.  621; 
Cutting  V.  Miner,  30  App.  Div.  457,  52 
N.  Y.  S.  288,  5  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  348;  Griffin 


V.  Colver,  16  N.  Y.  489,  69  Am.  Dec.  718r 
Western  Gravel  Road  Co.  v.  Cox,  39  Ind. 
200;  Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Southern  Sup- 
ply Co.,  112  Ga.  1,  37  S.-  E.  130;  Bell  v. 
Reynolds,  78  Ala.  511,  50  Am.  Rep.  52: 
Pollock  &  Co.  V.  Gantt,  69  Ala.  373,  44 
Am.  Rep.  519;  Witherbee  v.  Meyer,  155 
N.  Y.  446,  50  N.  E.  5S."  Ft.  Smith,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Williams,  30  Okla.  726,  121  Pac. 
275.    40    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    494. 

In  an  action  for  damage  caused  by  de- 
lay in  the  shipment  of  fruit,  it  would  not 
])e  a  correct  rule  for  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages to  say  that  "the  plaintiffs  are  en- 
titled to  recover  only  what  they  paid  for 
the  peaches,  such  other  loss  as  the  proof 
shows  tliat  they  sustained  in  consequence 
of  such  failure  incurred  in  and  about  the 
loading,  the  superintending  or  loading, 
less  what  they  have  realized  from  the  sale; 
not  the  profits  that  ma^'  have  been  real- 
ized from  the  sale  in  New  York,  in  case 
the  instructions  had  been  followed  and 
the  fruit  delivered  earlier  in  Xew  York." 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Skellie,  86  Ga.  686, 
12   S.   E.   1017. 

50.  Notice  to  carrier. — Arkansas. — Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Planters'  Gin,  etc., 
Co..  88  Ark.   77,   113   S.  W.   352. 

Illinois. — Priestly  z:  Northern  Indiana, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  111.  205,  79  Am.  Dec.  309. 

Kcntuckv. — Franklin  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.   Co.    (Ky.),   116   S.   W.  765. 

Massachusetts. — Harvey  v.  Connecticut, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Mass.  421,  26  Am.  Rep. 
673. 

Oklahoma. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Farmers'  Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okla.  270. 
125  Pac.  894;  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Wolfe,  01   Neb.  502,  86  Pac.  441. 

Texas. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hassell, 
23  Tex.  Civ.  App.  681,  58  S.  W.  54;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
300,  22  S.  W.   700,  23   S.  W.  320. 


§§  943-944 


CARRIERS. 


660 


must  be  certain  both  in  their  nature  and  in  respect  to  the  cause  from  which  they 
proceed."'^ 

Market  at  Place  of  Destination. — There  is  no  rule  which  subjects  a  com- 
mon carrier  to  a  greater  damage  for  a  breach  of  his  contract  than  the  amount 
of  profits  which  the  shipper  might  have  made  over  the  freight  and  cost,  by  a 
sale  at  the  time  and  place  at  which  the  article  to  be  transported  was  to  be  de- 
livered, provided  there  be  a  market  for  the  article  there.  In  case  there  is  no 
market  for  the  article  but  the  owner  requires  them  for  his  own  use,  he  can  not 
recover  profits  which  he  might  have  realized  by  the  sale  of  articles  into  which 
he  might  manufacture  the  article.^- 

§  944.  Expenses  Occasioned  by  Delay. — The  shipper  is  under  duty  to 
so  handle  the  goods  as  to  reduce  the  damages  as  much  as  possible,  and  he  is 
entitled  to  have  considered  in  estimating  his  damages  the  necessary  expense  to 
which  he  was  put  in  thus  reducing  the  damages. ^^  Reasonable  expenses  oc- 
casioned by  the  delay  may  be  allowed  as  an  element  of  damage. ^^  Expenses  of 
the  consignee  in  tracing  the  goods, ^'^  as  telegraphing  or  telephoning,^**  are  nat- 
ural results  of  the  carrier's  delay  in  transporting  the  goods,  for  which  the  con- 
signee can  recover.  Goods,  having  been  billed  by  mistake  of  the  carrier's  agent 
to  the  wrong  destination,  were  returned  to  the  correct  destination,  where  an  at- 


51.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pritchard, 
77  Ga.  412,  1  S.  E.  261,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  92. 

.'Mlegrations  of  loss  of  profits  which 
would  have  accrued  to  plaintiffs  upon  the 
fulfillment  of  a  collateral  contract,  in  con- 
sequence of  a  delay  on  the  part  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  in  the  delivery  of  freight,  are 
properly  stricken  upon  demurrer,  where 
it  does  not  appear  that  the  contract,  from 
the  fulfillment  of  which  profits  would  have 
accrued,  was  in  the  contemplation  of 
parties  at  the  time  the  carrier  received 
the  freight  for  transportation.  Goodin  v. 
Southern  R.  Co..  125  Ga.  630,  54  S.  E. 
720,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1054,  5  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  573. 

52.  Market  at  place  of  destination. — 
Cooper  V.  Young,  22  Ga.  269,  68  Am.  Dec. 
502. 

Where  there  was  no  special  contract 
sued  on  or  proved,  it  was  error  to  admit 
evidence  to  show  that  the  consignees  had 
bargained  off  the  cotton  shipped  at  three- 
eighths  of  a  cent  per  pound  over  the 
market  price,  if  they  could  have  received 
it  within  a  reasonable  time,  where  the 
carrier  knew  nothing  about  the  bargain, 
was  not  informed  of  it  and  not  in  privity 
with  it  at  all.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Flournoy,  75  Ga.  745. 

In  an  action  for  damages  on  account  of 
delay  by  a  common  carrier  in  delivering 
goods,  it  was  error  to  admit  evidence  of 
the  profit  which  the  plaintiff  would  have 
made  by  selling  such  goods  if  he  had  re- 
ceived them  promptly,  after  proof  only  of 
the  shipment  and  the  delay  in  deliver3^ 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hanaw,  134  Ga.  445, 
67  S.   E.  944,   137   Am.   St.   Rep.  227. 

53.  Expenses  occasioned  by  delay. — 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood  (Ind. 
App.),  84  N.  E.  1009. 

54.  England. — Black  v.  Baxendale,  1 
Exch.  410. 


Kentucky. — Franklin  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Ky.),  116  S.  W.  765. 

North  Carolina. — Rocky  Mt.  Mills  v. 
Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  N.  C.  693, 
25  S.   E.  854,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.   682. 

Ohio. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476,  21  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  117,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  579. 

South  Carolina. — McKerall  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  338,  56  S.  E.  965; 
Nettles  V.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  7  Rich. 
L.    190,    G2    Am.    Dec.    409. 

Texas. — San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Josey  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  71  S.  W.  606; 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Douglass,  1 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  67. 

55.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hazlett,  35 
Okla.   12,  128  Pac.  105. 

"Amongst  the  cash  items  expended  by 
the  plaintiff  is  one  for  'telegrams,  time, 
and  expenses  looking  for  boilers,  and 
team  for  hauling  expected  boilers,  $15.' 
We  think  that  this  should  have  been  al- 
lowed: Waite  V.  Gilbert  (Mass.),  10 
Cush.  177."  Swift  River  Co.  v.  Fitchburg 
R.  Co.,  169  Mass.  326,  47  N.  E.  1015,  61 
Am.  St.  Rep.  288. 

Where  goods  are,  through  the  negli- 
gence of  the  carrier,  delivered  to  the 
wrong  person,  the  consignee  may  recover 
the  necessary  expenses  incurred  in  find- 
ing them  and  taking  possession  of  them, 
as  the  result  of  the  search  mitigated  the 
damages  and  formed  a  proper  claim 
against  the  carrier.  Savannah,  etc.,  R. 
Co-.  V.  Pritchard,  77  Ga.  412,  1  S.  E.  261, 
4  Am.  St.  Rep.  92. 

56.  Murrell  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  54  Ark. 
22,  14  S.  W.  1098,  26  Am.  St.  Rep.  17;  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hopkinsville  Canning 
Co..  132  Ky.  578,  116  S.  W.  758;  Haber- 
zettle  V.  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  527,  103  S.  W.  219. 


661  DELAY    IN    TRANSPORTATION    OR   DELIVERY.  §    944 

tempt  was  made  by  the  connecting  carrier  to  collect  charges  for  the  extra  haul 
resulting  from  the  mistake.  Here  the  refusal  of  plaintiff  to  pay  such  charges 
and  leave  the  matter  for  future  adjustment  resulted  in  a  further  delay.  No 
willful  wrong  or  oppression  on  the  part  of  the  receiving  company  was  shown. 
The  measure  of  the  plaintiff's  damages  is  the  value  of  the  use  of  the  goods 
during  the  first  delay  and  any  necessary  expense  incurred  in  informing  the  com- 
pany of  its  nonreceipt,  without  including  the  expense  of  trying  to  locate  the 
goods  after  giving  the  first  notice,  or  the  delay  and  expense  connected  with  se- 
curing an  adjustment  whereby  the  goods  were  eventually  released  without  pay- 
ment of  the  extra  freight.^'  Rut  a  consignee  can  not  recover  the  expenses  in- 
curred by  him  on  a  trip  to  the  point  of  destination  to  look  after  the  shipment.'*^ 

Storing  and  Preserving  Goods. — Storage  charges  during  the  time  that  the 
goods  are  held  at  tlieir  destination  for  a  rising  market,  where  the  holding  for  a 
rising  market  and  the  expense  incident  thereto  are  made  necessary  by  the  de- 
lay in  delivering  the  shipment  according  to  the  contract,  are  recoverable 
by  the  shipper.^^  If  a  carrier  wrongfully  delays  the  transportation  and  de- 
livery of  orange  boxes,  the  shipper  can  not  leave  the  oranges  exposed  to  the 
weather  at  the  carrier's  loss.  It  is  the  duty  to  preserve  the  property  and  house, 
or  protect  the  same  from  damage  by  cold,  if  it  can  be  reasonably  done,  and  it 
is  his  right  to  recover  of  the  carrier  the  reasonable  expense  therefor,  together 
with  the  proximate  damages   tor  the  delay.^'^ 

Demurrage  Paid  by  Shipper. — Where  a  carrier  undertaking  to  deliver 
lumber  to  a  vessel  knew  at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  contract  that  the  ad- 
verse party  would  be  compelled  to  pay  demurrage  charges  if  the  cargo  was  de- 
layed, but  delayed  delivery  for  an  unreasonable  time  and  thereby  forced  the  ad- 
verse party  to  become  liable  for  demurrage,  the  carrier  was  liable  for  the  amount 
of  the  demurrage.*'^  Where,  owing  to  unreasonable  delay  by  a  railroad  in  for- 
warding a  car  load  of  grain,  the  consignee  refused  to  accept  it,  so  that  the  con- 
signor was  compelled  to  leave  it  in  the  car,  and  the  railroad  company  demanded 
and  received  demurrage,  the  consignor  was  entitled  to  recover  the  demurrage  in 
an  action  for  the  damages  occasioned  by  the  delay. ^'^ 

Same — Knowledge  of  Carrier. — That  a  carrier  did  not  know  when  con- 
tracting for  the  transportation  of  lumber  that  demurrage  would  accrue  by  rea- 
son of  a  delay  did  not  relieve  it  from  liability  for  demurrage  charges,  where, 
after  the  arrival  of  the  lumber  at  destination,  it  undertook  to  deliver  the  lumber 
to  a  vessel  with  knowledge  that  a  delay  in  delivery  would  incur  liability  for  de- 
murrage.^^ 

Selling  Goods  at  Another  Point. — \\1iere  a  shipper,  in  pursuance  of  the 
duty  to  reduce  damages,  ships  the  goods  to  other  points,  and  there  sells  them, 
the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the 
original  destination  of  the  shipment  at  the  time  it  should  reasonably  have  ar- 
rived there  and  the  actual  selling  price  at  the  point  where  it  was  disposed  of,  al- 
lowing for  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  transportation.^^ 

Expense  of  Traveling  with  Goods. — A  carrier  having  no  notice  that  the 
shipper  intended  to  follow  the  goods  and  sell  them  at  destination  is  not  liable 

57.  Yazoo,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Christmas,  89  61.  Demurrage  paid  by  shipper.— 
Miss.  686,  42  So.  169.                                                   Southern  R.  Co.  r.  Lewis.  165  Ala.  4.51,  .51 

58.  Southern    R.    Co.    v.    Coleman.    1,53        So.  863. 

Ala.  266,  44   So.   837.  62.   Texas,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Kolp    (Tex. 

59.  Storing  and  preserving  goods. — Nor-       Civ.  .^pp.),  88  S.  W.  417. 

folk,   etc..    R.   Co.   r.   Wilkinson,   56    S.    E.  63.      Same — Knowledge      of      carrier. — 

808,  106  Va.  775.  Southern    R.    Co.   :■.    Lewis.    li>5    .Ma.    451. 

60.  Williams   v.    Atlantic,    etc..    R.    Co..        51  So.  863. 

56  Fla.  735,  48  So.  209,  24  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  64.    Selling     goods   at   another    point— 

134,  citing  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.   Necl,  Pittsburgh,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Wood    (Ind. 

56  Ark.  279.  19  S.  VV.  963,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  App.),  84  N.  E.  1009. 
R.  R.  Cas.  428. 


§§  944-945 


CARRIERS. 


662 


for  special  damages  arising  from  delay  in  shipment,  such  as  loss  of  the  ship- 
per's time  and  expenses  incurred  by  him  in  following  the  goods  in  ignorance  of 
the  delay. ''-^ 

Purchase  of  Duplicate  Goods. — If  the  goods  are  absolutely  worthless,  the 
shipper  can  recover  the  full  amount  of  the  cost  that  he  is  put  to  in  getting  their 
duplication.  The  measure  of  his  damage  is  the  cost  of  the  duplicate  machinery 
minus  the  value  of  the  delayed  machinery  utilized  to  its  best  advantage.''^ 

§  945.  Interest  on  Value  of  Goods. — The  delay  of  the  carrier  is  a  breach 
of  contract  and  the  shipper  can  recover  interest  as  a  part  of  his  damages.^^' 
When  the  property  is  delivered  by  the  carrier,  but  a  loss  has  ensued  to  the  ship- 
per from  a  failure  to  deliver  it  within  a  reasonable  time,  no  reason  is  per- 
ceived why  interest  on  the  amount  of  the  loss  may  not  also  be  allowed  from  the 
time  compensation  for  the  loss  is  demanded.  In  actions  of  pure  tort,  which 
do  not  sound  in  contract,  as  where  the  property  of  a  third  party  is  destroyed 
or  injured  through  the  negligence  of  a  carrier,  the  usual  practice  is  to  leave  the 
allowance  of  interest  on  the  damages  which  may  be  assessed  to  the  sound  dis- 
cretion of  the  jury.  But,  as  the  case  at  bar  is  founded  upon  a  breach  of  con- 
tract, it  may  well  be  distinguished  from  the  case  last  cited.*^^  In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  goods,  the  shipper  is  enti- 
tled to  interest  at  the  legal  rate  on  the  value  of  the  shipment  for  the  time  it 
was  delayed."'-'     Interest  is  allowed  on  the  decrease  in  market  value." ^ 

Interest   on  Judgment. — ^See  elsewhere."^^ 


65.  Expense  of  traveling  with  goods. — 

Franklin  :•.   Louisville,  etc.,   R.   Co.   (Ky.), 
116  S.  W.  7G.5. 

66.  Purchase  of  duplicate  goods. — Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  c'.  Planters'  Gin,  etc., 
Co..  88  Ark.  77,  113  S.  W.  352;  Wabash 
R.  Co.  z:  Harris,  55  111.  App.  159. 

67.  Interest  on  value  of  goods. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phelps,  46  Ark.  485; 
Rocky  Mt.  Mills  r.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  119  N.  C.  693,  25  S.  E.  854,  56  Am. 
St.  Rep.  682.  See  ante,  "Decrease  in 
Market  Value,"  §  942. 

"In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
for  failure  to  transport  property  in  ac- 
cordance with  its  contract,  the  general 
rule  is  to  allow  as  damages  the  value  of 
the  property,  with  interest  upon  such 
value  from  the  time  when  it  should  have 
been  delivered,  if  it  is  not  delivered  at 
all.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estill,  147 
U.  S.  591,  622,  37  L.  Ed.  292,  13  S.  Ct. 
444."  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Truskett. 
44  C.  C.  A.  179,  104  Fed.  728,  affirmed  in 
186  U.  S.  480,  46  L.  Ed.  1259,  22  S.  Ct. 
943. 

Where  a  common  carrier  delays  in  car- 
rying produce,  interest  on  its  value  after 
the  time  when  it  should  have  been  deliv- 
ered may  be  recovered.  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Jackson,  62  Tex.  209.  See 
Brown  v.  Adams,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  390. 

But  it  has  been  held  that  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  to  recover  for  delay  in 
transporting  plaintiff's  freight,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  fraud,  delinquency,  or  injustice 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier,  plaintiff  can  not 
recover  interest  as  a  part  of  his  damage. 


Texas,    etc..    R.    Co.    r.    Wright,    2    Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  339. 

68.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Truskett, 
44  C.  C.  A.  179,  104  Fed.  728,  affirmed  in 
186  U.  S.  480,  4G  L.  Ed.  1259,  22  S.  Ct. 
943. 

69.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hannay-Fre- 
richs  &  Co.,  104  Tex.  603,  143  S.  W.  1163, 
modifying  judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  130 
S.  W.  250. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure 
to  deliver  cattle  within  the  time  agreed, 
interest  from  the  date  of  the  breach  of 
the  contract  (if  the  suit  is  considered  as 
ex  contractu),  or  from  the  date  of  the  in- 
jury (if  the  action  be  viewed  as  one  in 
tort),  may  be  allowed,  if  plaintiff  recov- 
ers damages.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Haynes,  64  Miss.  604,  1  So.  765. 

For  wrongful  delay  in  shipping  goods 
the  damages  usually  supposed  to  be  in 
contemplation  constitute  the  difference 
in  the  value  of  the  goods  when  they 
should  have  been  and  when  they  were 
delivered,  and  in  other  cases  the  value 
of  the  use  of  the  goods  may  be  recovered 
if  they  are  in  condition  to  use,  and  in  the 
absence  of  any  appreciable  loss  from  ei- 
ther source  the  interest  on  the  money  in- 
vested in  the  goods  themselves  during  the 
wrongful  delay  is  the  correct  measure  of 
compensation.  Davidson  Development 
Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  503,  61 
S.  E.  381. 

70.  See  ante,  "Decrease  in  Market 
Value,"  §  942. 

71.  Interest  on  judgment. — See  post, 
"Judgment,"  §  974. 


663 


DELAY   IN'   TK.\XSI*(JkTATIOX  OR  DELIVERY. 


§§  946-947 


§  946.  Mental  and  Physical  Suffering. — Generally  damages  for  mental 
and  physical  suft'ering  are  not  recoverable  a;,'ainst  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the 
shipment  of  goods.  It  has  been  so  held  where  the  shipment  of  household  goods, 
wearing  apparel'-  or  goods  used  in  giving  an  exhibition"^  were  delayed.  But 
where  a  package  containing  medicine  for  the  plaintiff's  wife  which  was  known 
to  an  express  company  was  not  promptly  delivered  by  the  company,  physical 
and  mental  suffering  of  the  wife  causetl  by  the  delay  were  held  proper  basis  for 
recovery,  but  damages  for  symi^athetic  mental  sufferings  of  the  husband  on 
account  of  the  i)ain  of  his  wife  were  held  too  remote.'"*  And  a  carrier  being 
informed,  when  a  package  was  delivered  to  it  for  transportation,  that  it  con- 
tained medicine  for  a  sick  girl,  and  that  it  was  important  that  it  should  be  de- 
livered without  delay,  it  is  unnecessary  to  recovery  for  suffering  by  her  from 
delay  in  its  delivery,  that  the  order  for  the  medicine  made  by  her  father  and 
doctor,  when  in  fact  she  was  unconscious,  should  have  been  with  her  knowledge 
and  approval."-' 

Delay  in  Shipping  Corpse. — W  here  a  corpse  arrived  an  hour  before  the 
time  appointed  for  the  funeral,  and  the  plaintiff',  the  widow  of  deceased,  of  her 
own  accord  postponed  the  funeral  until  the  following  day,  she  is  not  entitled  to 
damages  for  mental  anguish  because  of  delay,  though  before  the  arrival  of  the 
corpse  some  of  the  friends  of  the  family  had  departed."*^ 

§  947.  Liability  as  for  Conversion. — .Mere  unreasonable  delay  in  trans- 
porting does  not  amount  to  conversion,  so  as  to  authorize  the  consignee,  upon 
the  arrival  of  the  goods,  to  reject  them  and  sue  for  their  full  value.  His  rem- 
edy is  to  sue  for  the  damages  he  has  sustained  by  reason  of  the  delay.'"     The 


72.  Mental  and  physical  suffering. — 
Brown  z\  Adams,  ;!  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  390. 

73.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
delay  in  transporting  plaintiff's  museum, 
for  a  certain  exhibition,  plaintiff  can  not 
recover  for  mental  anguish  experienced 
because  of  the  delay.  Yoakum  v.  Dunn, 
1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  .524,  21  S.  W.  411. 

74.  Shipment  of  medicine. — Pacific  Exp. 
Co.  r.  Black,  <S  Tex.  Civ.  App.  363,  27  S. 
W.  830,  citing  Western  Union  Tel.  Co. 
V.  Cooper,  71  Tex.  507,  9  S.  W.  598,  1  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  728,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  772; 
Gulf,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  z:  Richardson,  79  Tex. 
649,  15  S.  W.  689;  Western  Union  Tel.  Co. 
V.  Hoffman,  80  Tex.  420,  15  S.  W.  1048, 
26  Am.  St.  Rep.  759;  Hale  v.  Bonner,  82 
Tex.  33,  17  S.  W.  605,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
336,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  850. 

There  was  testimony  before  the  court 
in  this  case  from  which  it  might  be  im- 
plied that  M  was  the  agent  of  *the  com- 
pany to  receive  the  package  for  shipment. 
He  was  notified  of  the  fact  that  the  pack- 
age contained  medicine  for  Mrs.  B,  who 
was  sick,  and  that  it  was  important  that 
it  should  be  sent  on  the  next  train.  This 
was  notice  to  the  company  rendering  it 
liable  for  the  injury  occasioned  by  its 
neglect  in  forwarding  the  package  with 
reasonable  dispatch.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  z\ 
Black,  8  Te.x.  Civ.  App.  363,  27  S.  W.  830. 

75.  Hendricks  z'.  Ainerican  Exp.  Co., 
138  Ky.  704,  128  S.  W.  1089,  32  L.  R.  A., 
N.   S..  867. 

76.  Delay  in  shipping  corpse. — Alabama 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Brady,  160  Ala.  615, 
49  So.  351. 


77.  Liability  as  for  conversion. — 5  Am. 
&  Eng.  Ency  of  Law,  221;  Hutchinson 
on   Carriers,   §§   328,   775. 

.Alabama. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mont- 
mollen,  145  Ala.  468,  39  So.  820,  117  Am. 
St.  Rep.  58;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson, 
78  Ala.  587;  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Grab- 
felder,  83  Ala.  200,  3  So.  432;  Southern 
R.   Co.  z:  Moody,   151  Ala.  374.  44   So.  94. 

Arkansas. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Nuesch,  99  Ark.  568,  139  S.  W.  679;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Pfeifer,  90  Ark.  524. 
119  S.  W.  642,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1107:  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Cumbie,  101  Ark. 
172,  141  S.  W.  939:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
t'.  Planters'  Gin,  etc..  Co.,  88  .\rk.  77,  113 
S.  ^\^  352. 

Michigan. — Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Burrows.  33   Mich.  6. 

Xczi'  Jersey. — Higgins  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co..  83   N.  J.   L.  398,  85  Atl.  450. 

Xew  York. — Briggs  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  28  Barb.  515;  Magnin  z: 
Dinsmore,  70  N.  Y.  410,  26  Am.  Rep. 
608;  Wamsley  z\  Atlas  Steamship  Co., 
168  N.  Y.  533.  61  N.  E.  896,  85  Am.  St. 
Rep.  699;  Scoyill  z'.  Griffith,  12  N.  Y.  509. 

South  Carolina. — Shaw  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.,  5  Rich.  L.  462.  57  Am.  Dec. 
768. 

Texas. — Baumbach  z'.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  650,  23  S.  W.  693;  Gulr. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Darby,  28  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
229,  67  S.  W.  129;  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  z: 
Hanson.  41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  174,  175,  91 
S.  W.  321;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  lackson.  4 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  47,  15  S.  W.  128; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Booton,  4  Texas  -App. 
Civ.   Cas.,  §   67,   15   S.   W.  502;   Galveston, 


§  947 


CARRIERS. 


664 


owner  can  not  charge  the  carrier  with  a  conversion,  or  the  value  of  the  goods, 
for  a  delay,  however  long,  if  they  are  safely  kept,  unless  they  have  been  de- 
manded of  the  carrier,  and  their  delivery  refused.  Delay  on  the  part  of  a  car- 
rier does  not  constitute  a  conversion  of  the  goods,  no  matter  how  long  con- 
tinued, so  as  to  make  him  liable  for  their  value ;  and,  so  long  as  the  goods  remain 
in  specie,  the  plaintiff  can  recover  from  the  carrier  only  the  damages  which  he 
has  sustained  by  the  delay."®  There  may  be  a  possible  case  where  the  property 
has  ceased  to  be  of  any  Aalue  at  all,  such  as  wholly  decayed  perishable  goods. "'^ 

Damage  after  Refusal  to  Accept. — In  an  action  for  damages  from  delay 
in  the  transportation  of  goods,  by  reason  of  which  they  were  rendered  worth- 
less, plaintiff  can  not  recover  for  any  loss  occasioned  by  his  refusal  to  receive 
the  goods  when  tendered  by  the  carrier  on  their  arrival.®" 

Where  Goods  Useless  to  Consignee. — The  consignee  must  accept  the 
goods  although  at  the  time  of  arrival  they  are  of  no  use  to  him.  Plaintiff  had 
a  carload  of  lumber  on  one  of  defendant's  cars  which,  by  agreement,  was  to  be 
delivered  at  a  point  on  its  track  about  a  mile  distant,  where  defendant  was 
building  a  house.  The  lumber  was  not  delivered  there  until  about  a  month  and 
a  half  later,  when  plaintiff  refused  to  receive  it,  having  in  the  meantime  pur- 
chased lumber  to  supply  his  needs.  He  sued  for  the  value  of  the  lumber.  It 
is  well  settled  that  mere  delay,  however  unreasonable,  on  the  part  of  the  car- 
rier in  delivery  of  the  goods,  does  not  amount  to  a  conversion ;  the  consignee 
must  receive  it  when  tendered,  so  long  as  it  retains  its  identity  and  is  not  ren- 
dered wholly  valueless.  He  should  have  accepted  it  and  held  defendant  liable 
for  the  actual  damages  which  he  had  sustained. ^^  But  it  has  been  held  that 
where,  by  reason  of  the  delay  of  a  carrier  in  delivering  a  part  of  a  machine 
shipped,  such  part  had  become  useless  to  the  owner,  and  he  was  compelled  to 
replace  it  with  another,  he  is  not  bound  to  receive  such  part  when  tendered  to 
him,  but  is  entitled  to  recover  its  value  of  the  carrier  at  the  time  and  place  it 
should  have  been  delivered,  with  interest. ^^ 


etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Watson,  1  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  813;  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Martin, 
2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  342;  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Tyler  Coffin  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  81  S.  W.  826;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Somerville  Mercantile  Agency  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  104  S.  W.  1072.  See  ante,  "Duty 
of  Consignee  to  Accept  Goods,"  §  924. 

Mere  "delay  on  the  part  of  the  car- 
rier does  not  constitute  a  conversion  of 
the  goods,  no  matter  how  long  continued, 
so  as  to  make  him  liable  for  thei;  valvu;; 
and,  so  long  as  the  goods  remain  in  specie, 
however  much  they  may  he  depreciated 
in  value,  the  consignee  or  owner  must 
receive  them  when  tendered,  and  can  re- 
cover from  the  carrier  only  the  damages 
which  he  has  sustained  by  the  delay." 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Everett,  37  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  167,  83   S.  W.  257. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier, 
where  the  complaint  alleged  a  breach  of 
the  contract  to  deliver  certain  goods,  and 
the  proof  showed  only  unreasonable  de- 
lay in  delivery,  the  court  erred  in  render- 
ing judgment  for  the  total  value  of  the 
property.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Moody,  l.'l 
Ala.  374,  44  So.  94. 

Not  conversion  per  se. — If  a  carrier 
failed  to  deliver  goods  within  a  reason- 
able time,  it  does  not  amount  to  a  con- 
version per  se.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Martin,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  342. 


Where  goods  temporarily  lost. — Where 
an  express  company  lost  plaintiff's  trunk 
and  failed  to  deliver  the  same  on  demand 
within  a  reasonable  time,  but  later  found 
the  same  and  ofifered  a  delivery,  there 
was  no  conversion,  and  it  was  only  liable 
for  the  damage  occasioned  by  the  delay. 
Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Hanson,  41  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  174,  91  S.  W.  321;  Baumbach 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  650, 
:33   S.   W.  693. 

78.  Ryland  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
55   W.   Va.    181,   46   S.    E.   923. 

79.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Montmollen, 
145  Ala.  468,  39  So.  820,  117  Am.  St.  Hep. 
58;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Hanaw,  134  Ga. 
445,   67    S.    E.  944,    137  Am.   St.   Rep.    227. 

80.  Damage  after  refusal  to  accept. — 
In  an  action  for  damages  from  delay  in 
the  transportation  of  fruit  trees,  etc.,  it 
was  error  to  refuse  to  charge  that  if  the 
trees,  when  they  arrived,  and  were  ten- 
dered to  plaintiff,  were  but  partially  dam- 
aged, he  could  recover  only  for  such  por- 
tion as  was  damaged.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gates,  38  S.  W.  648,  15  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   135. 

81.  Where  goods  useless  to  consignee. 
Baumbach  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  650,  23  S.  W.  693. 

82.  Plaintifif  shipped  to  himself  over  de- 
fendant's road  a  cotton  press,  in  several 
pieces,  one  of  which   (a  sill)  was  delayed 


665 


DELAY  IN  TRANSPORTATION  OR  DELIVERY. 


§§  947-948 


Where  Goods  Destroyed  by  Act  of  God.— Where  a  carrier  received  goods 
for  transportation,  and,  owing  to  delay  in  carriage  and  delivery  at  the  point  of 
destination,  the  goods  were  still  in  the  possession  of  the  carrier,  when  a  large 
part  of  them  were  destroyed  by  an  unusual  storm,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for 
conversion  of  the  goods  so  destroyed. ^^  liut  where  a  carrier  received  goods 
for  transportation,  and  while  in  the  company's  possession  a  large  portion  of 
them  were  destroyed  by  a  storm,  and  the  carrier  recovered  a  portion  of  them 
and  retained  them  an  unreasonable  time,  the  company  is  liable  for  conversion 
of  the  goods  so  recovered  and  retained.**^ 

Demand  and  Refusal. — The  owner  can  not  charge  the  carrier  with  a  con- 
version, or  the  value  uf  the  goods,  for  a  delay,  however  long,  if  they  are  safely 
kept,  unless  they  have  been  demanded  of  the  carrier,  and  their  delivery  re- 
fused.«^  Where  a  consignee,  having  heard  nothing  from  the  goods  shipped, 
asked  the  carrier  what  had  become  of  the  goods,  and  was  told  that  he  did  not 
know,  there  was  no  demand,  so  as  to  render  the  carrier  guilty  of  conversion.''® 

Effect  of  Tender  of  Goods. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  con- 
version of  certain  goods,  in  which  no  demand  on  the  carrier  for  the  goods  and 
refusal  on  its  part  were  shown,  and  in  which  it  appeared  that  defendant  still 
had  the  goods  in  its  possession,  a  tender  of  them  was  a  defense  to  the  action.®^ 

§  948.  Mitigation  of  Damages.— A  shipper  does  not  lose  his  right  to 
recover  from  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  delivery  of  goods  in  consequence  of  hav- 
ing received  them  and  disposed  of  a  portion  of  them  at  private  sale.  These 
facts  may  be  considered  in  mitigation  of  damages  to  a  certain  extent,  but  the 
cause  of  action  having  accrued  by  the  delay,  the  carrier  is  obliged  to  make  good 
the  loss  resulting  from  his  neglect,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  goods,  it  is  well 
settled,  is  no  bar  to  the  action.*^'"*  Damages  to  which  a  shipper  is  entitled  by 
reason  of  delay  are  not  to  be  diminished  by  or  in  consequence  of  a  statement 
put  upon  the  record  by  counsel  for  the  carrier,  even  with  the  consent  of  the 
shipper's  attorney,  that  on  a  certain  day  the  goods  were  sold  by  the  carrier,  it 
not  appearing  that  such  sale  was  made  by  or  with  the  consent  of,  or  notice  to, 
the  shipper.^^     In  an  action  for  damages  against  an  express  company,  for  neg- 

in  its  delivery  over  a  month,  in  conse- 
quence of  which  plaintiff  purchased  an- 
other sill.  Held,  that  plaintiff  was  not 
bound  to  receive  the  sill  when  tendered 
to  him,  as  by  reason  of  the  delay  it  had 
become  useless  to  him,  he  having  been 
compelled  to  replace  it  with  another,  and 
detached,  as  it  was,  from  the  press,  it 
was  value  less.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ma- 
etze,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  631. 

Under  Georgia  Code. — In  a  suit  against 
a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  in  a 
reasonable  time,  the  measure  of  damages 
is  that  prescribed  by  the  Civil  Code,  § 
2319;  and  where  the  evidence  shows  that 
at  the  time  of  the  actual  delivery  the 
goods  had  been  rendered  valueless  by 
the  negligent  delay  of  the  carrier,  a  re- 
covery for  the  full  value  of  the  goods 
when  and  where  they  should  have  been 
delivered  will  be  upheld.  Hutch.  Carr. 
(3d.  Ed.).  §  651;  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Johnson,  85  Ga.  497,  11  S.  E.  809; 
Schulze  z:  Great  Eastern  R.  Co.,  19  Q. 
B.  Div.  30,  30  Amer.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  134. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Briggs,  1  Ga.  App. 
294.  57  S.   E.  lor.c. 

83.  Where  goods  destroyed  by  act  of 
God.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Darby,  28  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  229,  67  S.  W.  129. 


84.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Darby,  28  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  229,  67   S.   W.  129. 

85.  Demand  and  refusal. — Ryland  v. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  \V.  \'a.  181, 
46  S.  E.  923. 

A  carrier  is  not  liable  as  for  convert- 
ing goods  unreasonably  delayed,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  a  demand  for  delivery  and  re- 
fusal thereof  while  the  goods  are  in  its 
possession.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Moody, 
169   Ala.    292,    53   So.    1016. 

86.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tyler  Cof- 
fin Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S.  W.  826. 

87.  Effect  of  tender  of  goods.— St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Tvler  Coffin  Co. 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.),  81   S.   \V.  S26. 

88.  Mitigation  of  damages. — Rathbone 
I'.  Xcal,  4  La.  .\nn.  503.  50  Am.  Dec.  579. 

89.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  un- 
reasonable delay  in  the  transportation  of 
certain  goods,  a  statement  put  in  the  rec- 
ord by  counsel  for  defendant,  with  the 
consent  of  plaintiff's  attorneys,  that  on 
"the  26th  day  of  December."  the  year  not 
appearing,  "the  goods  in  question  were 
sold  for  $163.28"  at  a  certain  place,  it  not 
appearing  that  such  sale  was  made  by  or 
with  the  consent  of,  or  upon  notice  to, 
plaintiffs,  was  ineffectual  to  diminish  the 
damages.  Shidlovsky  t'.  Mallory,  etc., 
Co.,  Ill  N.  Y.  S.  778,  60  Misc.  Rep.  67. 


§§  948-949 


CARRIERS. 


666 


ligently  delaying  for  a  period  of  fourteen  days  the  shipment  of  a  piece  of  ma- 
chinery necessary  for  the  operation  of  plaintiffs'  mill,  the  fact  that  the  same 
piece  of  machinery  was  delayed  for  four  months  at  the  place  where  it  had  been 
sent  for  repairs,  does  not  preclude  the  plaintiffs"   right  of  recover}'.-*" 

§§  949-951.  Goods  Intended  for  Use  of  Consignee— §  949.  In  Gen- 
eral.—In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  delixer}-  of  goods,  where 
the  goods  are  not  intended  for  sale  in  the  market  of  destination  but  are  intended 
for  some  use  by  the  owner,  there  being  no  special  circumstances  such  as  would 
make  the  carrier  liable  for  special  loss,  the  carrier  can  be  held  liable  only  for 
that  inconvenience  to  which  the  owner  has  been  put  by  the  deprivation  of  the 
property  pending  the  delay. ''^  But  where  the  goods  are  shipped  for  a  special 
purpose  or  for  present  use  in  a  given  way,  and  these  facts  are  known  to  the 
carrier,  he  is  responsible  for  the  damages  fairly  attributable  to  the  delay  and 
in   reference  to  the  purpose  or  the  use  indicated."'-     The  detriment  caused  by 


90.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell  (Tex.), 
6   S.   W.  763. 

91.  Goods  intended  for  use  of  con- 
signee.— American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jennings, 
86  Miss.  329,  38  So.  374,  109  Am.  St.  Rep. 
708:  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  V.  Brookhaven 
Mach.  Co..  71  Miss.  663,  16  So.  252;  Silver 
V.  Kent,  60  Miss.  124;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458;  Yazoo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Christmas,  89  Miss.  686,  42  So.  169; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  631;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
bert. 4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  366,  22  S.  W.  760, 
23    S.    W.    320. 

Where  goods  are  intended  for  the  own- 
er's personal  use  the  measure  of  damage 
for  delay  in  delivery,  in  the  absence  of 
special  circumstances,  is  value  of  the  use 
of  such  property  during  the  delay,  and 
the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  depreciation 
in  market  value  by  reason  of  such  delay. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Hindsman,  1 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  204. 

Where  goods  shipped  are  not  intended 
for  sale  in  the  market  of  destination,  but 
are  intended  to  serve  some  specific  pur- 
pose of  the  owner,  in  the  absence  of  spe- 
cial circumstances  which  may  make  the 
carrier  liable  for  some  special  loss  or  for 
the  expense  which  the  owner  may  be  put 
to  by  the  carrier's  negligent  delay,  the 
carrier  can  be  held  liable  only  for  the  in- 
convenience to  which  the  owner  has  been 
put  by  being  deprived  of  the  use  of  his 
property  during  the  time  of  the  delay. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jessee,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  403. 

Mr.  Hutchinson  in  his  work  on  Car- 
riers, §  776,  lays  down  the  rule  thus: 
"Where  the  goods  are  not  intended  for 
sale  in  the  market  of  destination,  but  are 
intended  to  serve  some  specific  purpose 
of  the  owner,  the  rule  that  the  carrier 
will  be  liable  for  depreciation  in  the  mar- 
ket value  during  his  negligent  delay  will, 
of  course,  not  be  applicable;  and  in  the 
absence  of  special  circumstances  which 
may  make  the  carrier  liable  for  some 
special  loss  or  for  the  expense  to  which 
the  owner  may  be  put  by  his  negligent  de- 
lay, he  could  be  held  liable   only  for  the 


inconvenience  to  which  the  owner  had 
been  put  by  being  deprived  of  the  use 
of  his  property  during  the  time  of  the 
delay;  which  must  be  determined  as  a 
question  of  fact  by  the  jury,  by  ascer- 
taining from  the  evidence  the  value  of 
its  use,  the  criterion  of  which  would  be, 
in  most  cases,  its  rental  value  during  the 
delay;  or,  in  case  of  an  absolute  refusal 
to  transport  according  to  contract,  for 
such  time  as  would  be  requisite  to  ob- 
tain the  article  by  another  conveyance 
or  from  some  other  source."  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hassell,  23  Tex.  Civ.  App.  681, 
683,   58   S.   W.   54. 

92.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  z\  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  128 
Am.  St.  Rep.  588,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  366,  368,  22  S.  W.  760,  23  S.  W.  320; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Pettit,  3  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  588,   589,   22   S.   W.  761. 

Where  a  common  carrier  undertakes 
to  deliver  property  shipped  within  a  cer- 
tain time,  with  notice  of  the  purpose  for 
which  shipped,  it  is  liable,  on  a  breach, 
for  any  special  losses  which  might  rea- 
sonably have  been  anticipated  by  the  par- 
ties as  a  probable  result  of  a  delay.  Gal- 
veston, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watson,  1  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  813. 

In  Priestly  v.  Northern  Indiana,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  111.  205,  79  Am.  Dec.  369,  dam. 
ages  were  allowed  for  the  use  of  machin- 
ery during  the  time  it  was  wrongfully  de- 
layed in  shipment.  The  court  said:  "The 
proposition  can  not  be  entertained  for  a 
moment  that,  under  a  contract  to  deliver 
in  a  reasonable  time  valuable  machinery, 
such  as  described  in  the  declaration,  the 
difference  in  the  market  value  of  such 
machinery  at  the  time  it  was  in  fact  de- 
livered and  when  it  should  have  been  de- 
livered is  all  the  damages  the  owner  of 
the  machinery  is  entitled  to  claim.  If 
this  was  the  measure,  there  could  be  no 
great  incentive  to  carriers  to  perform 
promptly  a  contract  for  the  delivery  of 
such  articles,  as  they  are  not  liable  to 
deteriorate  in  a  few  days  or  months." 
Harper    Furniture    Co.    v.    Southern    Exp. 


667 


DKI.AV    I\    TRANSPORTATION    OR   DKLIVERV. 


§  949 


the  delay  is  the  loss  of  the  use  of  such  machinery  during  the  time ;  and,  where 
the  purpose  of  the  machinery  and  the  period  of  its  use  are  known  to  the  car- 
rier, the  expense  incurred  in  ohtaining  other  machinery,  the  expense  of  main- 
taining idle  hands,  the  rental  \  aluc  of  4he  machinery,  if  ascertainable  with  rea- 
sonable accuracy,  or  the  interest  on  money  invested  in  idle  machinery,  are 
proper  elements  of  damage;  but  remote  and  conjectural  matters,  such  as 
interest  on  money  borrowed  for  speculative  purposes,  or  damage  done  to  cotton 
purchased  with  such  borrowed  money — matters  not  proximately  growing  out  of 
the  delay — are  not  proper  elements  of  damage.  Neither  are  loss  of  profits 
a  proper  element  unless  expressly  mentioned  and  made  a  condition  of  the  con- 
tract at  the  time  of  its  execution,  and  then  only  when  such  profits  can  be  es- 
timated with  reasonable  certainty."^  A  carrier  which  has  notice  of  the  special 
purpose  to  which  the  consignee  intends  to  put  machinery  shipped  over  its  line 
may  be  charged  with  any  special  damage  resulting  from  delay  in  the  transpor- 
tation, which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  was  reasonably  within  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  shiiDment.'^"* 

Damages  Must  Be  Certain. — The  damages  recoverable  from  the  carrier 
must  be  ccriaiii  bi»lh  in  llicir  nature  and  in  respect  to  the  cause  from  which 
they  proceed.''^'  An  owner  of  a  public  ginnery  delivered  a  part  of  the  ma- 
chinery to  a  carrier  for  transportation  to  a  designated  point,  to  be  repaired  by 
the  consignee.  The  carrier  delayed  the  delivery  of  the  machinery.  The  owner 
testified  that  a  certain  definite  amount  was  a  fair  profit  for  ginning  a  bale  of 
cotton,  but  he  could  only  estimate  the  number  of  bales  that  went  to  his  gin 
during  the  days  his  plant  was  shut  down  in  consequence  of  the  delay.  The 
profit  on  each  bale  depended  on  contingencies.  The  owner  was  held  entitled  to 
nominal  damages  only ;  the  estimate  of  what  he  might  have  earned  by  operating 
the  gin.  had  the  shipment  been  promptly  delivered,  being  speculative.^** 

Knowledge  of  Carrier. — In  order  to  recover  lost  profits  as  special  dam- 
ages from  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  shipment  of  the  goods,  the  carrier 
at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  shipment  to  it  must  have  notice  of 
the   use    for    whicli    the   goods   are    intended,'''  or   the    character   of     the   goods 


Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  128  Am. 
St.  Rep.  .588,  30  L.  R.  .\.,  N.  S.,  483. 

In  Griffin  z:  Colver,  16  N.  Y.  489,  494, 
69  Am.  Dec.  718,  it  is  laid  down  that  the 
broad,  general  rule  in  such  cases  is  that 
the  party  injured  is  entitled  to  recover 
all  his  damages,  including  gains  prevented 
as  well  as  losses  sustained;  and  this  rule 
is  suliject  to  but  two  conditions:  "The 
damages  must  be  such  as  may  fairly  be 
supposed  to  have  entered  into  the  con- 
templation of  the  parties  when  they  made 
the  contract,  that  is,  must  be  such  as 
might  naturally  be  expected  to  follow  its 
violation;  and  they  must  be  certain  both 
in  their  nature  and  in  respect  to  the  cause 
from  wliich  they  proceed."  Deming  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  45.j.  2  Am. 
Rep.  267,  272. 

93.  "Whatever  detriment  was  caused,  or 
whatever  harm  was  done,  resulted  not 
from  any  fluctuation  in  market  values, 
but  from  being  deprived  of  the  specific, 
mechanical  use  for  which  this  machinery 
was  intended,  and  without  wliich  plaintiff 
could  not  operate  its  gin.  Hence  it  seems 
to  us  that  whatever  net  benefit  or  value 
the  use  of  this  machinery  would  have 
been  to  consignee  is  the  true  measure  of 
damages.      Its   use,    in    the    specific    office 


for  which  it  was  designed,  is  the  thing 
which  plaintiff  lost.  Now,  what  injury 
resulted  from  this  loss,  what  detriment 
was  caused,  what  harm  was  done  to  plain- 
tiff by  losing  the  use  of  this  machinery, 
and  what  measure  is  to  be  applied  in  as- 
certaining such  harm,  are  the  questions 
to  be  determined."  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Famers'  Union  Gin  Co.,  34  Okla.  270, 
125   Pac.  894,  899. 

94.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Gilbert.  4  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  366,  22  S.  W.  760,  23  S.  W. 
320. 

95.  Damages  must  be  certain. — Deming 
f.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4S  X.  H.  455,  2 
Am.  Rep.  267:  Griffin  z:  Colver,  16  N.  Y. 
489.  69  .A.m.  Dec.  718. 

96.  Southern  R.  Co.  ::  Coleman,  153 
Ala.   2C)ii,   44   So.  S;i7. 

97.  Knowledge  of  carrier. — Kentucky.— 
Brand  z:  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  108  S.  \V. 
356,   32    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1335. 

Xczv  Jersey. — Higgins  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  83  N.  J.  L.  398,  85  Atl.  450. 

Nezc  ForA-.— Goodfield  v.  Piatt  (App. 
Term.),  130  N.  Y.  S.  180. 

Texas. — Ligon  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
3  Texas  .\pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  lessee,  2  Texas  -App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  403;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Compton 


§  949 


CARRIERS. 


668 


must  be  such  that  may  be  reasonably  inferred  therefrom.'-^**  In  the  leading 
case  on  this  subject.''^'  the  action  was  against  the  defendants  as  common 
carriers  for  not  delivering  seasonably  a  broken  iron  shaft  sent  to  the  man- 
ufacturers as  a  pattern  for  another  for  plaintiffs'  mill,  and  it  was  held  that  the 
plaintiffs  were  not  entitled  to  damages  for  the  loss  of  profits  while  their  mill 
was  stopped  in  consequence  of  defendants'  delay;  notwithstanding  the  plain- 
tiffs' agent  told  the  defendants'  clerk  when  the  shaft  was  sent  to  them  that  the 
mill  was  stopped,  and  the  shaft  must  be  sent  immediately,  and  the  clerk  replied 
that  it  would  reach  its  destination  the  next  day.  The  opinion  of  the  court  was, 
that  this  was  not  notice  of  such  special  circumstances  as  would  lead  the  defend- 
ants to  contemplate  such  loss  of  profits  as  a  natural  consequence  of  a  delay 
in  forwarding  the  shaft,  inasmuch  as,  for  aught  that  was  said  to  defendants, 
the  plaintiffs  might  have  had  another  shaft;  or  there  might  have  been  other 
defects  in  the  machinery  that  would  have  stopped  the  mill.^  Where  a  carrier 
contracted  with  an  agent  of  an  undisclosed  principal  for  the  transportation  of 
machinery,  without  being  informed  of  any  special  circumstances  requiring  prompt 
delivery,    but   was    subsequently   notified    thereof,    and   negligently    delayed   the 


(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  220;  Haberzet- 
tle  V.  Trinity,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  527,  103  S.  W.  219. 

In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in 
shipment  of  engine  to  be  used  in  ginning 
cotton  for  that  season,  when  it  did  not 
appear  defendant  was  notified  of  such 
purpose  and  no  special  damages  were  al- 
leged or  proved,  permitting  recovery  for 
rental  value  was  error.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  366,  22  S.  W. 
760,  23  S.  W.  320. 

Allegations  of  loss  of  profits  which 
would  have  accrued  to  plaintiffs  upon  the 
fulfillment  of  a  collateral  contract  in 
consequence  of  the  delay  on  the  part  of 
a  common  carrier  in  the  delivery  of 
freight  are  properly  stricken  upon  demur- 
rer, where  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
contract,  from  the  fulfillment  of  which 
profits  would  have  accrued,  was  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  parties  at  the  time 
the  carrier  received  the  freight  for  trans- 
portation. Goodin  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
125  Ga.  630,  54  S.  E.  720,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  1054,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  573. 

Plaintiff  shipped  a  photographic  outfit 
to  a  certain  place  by  defendant's  railroad, 
for  a  particular  purpose.  It  did  not  ap- 
pear that  defendant  at  any  time  had  no- 
tice of  the  particular  purpose  of  its  ship- 
ment, or  of  the  particular  necessity  or 
advantage  to  plaintiff  of  their  delivery 
at  the  place  of  destination  at  a  certain 
date,  or  that  plaintiff  would  suffer  any 
special  damage  by  delay.  Held,  that  the 
measure  of  damages  for  failure  to  trans- 
port and  deliver  the  goods  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  was  the  rental  value  of  the 
goods  during  the  delay,  they  not  being 
goods  intended  for  market,  and  that  loss 
of  profits  claimed,  of  an  uncertain  kind, 
were  not  allowable.  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Jessee,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
403. 

Where  mill  castings  were  deposited 
with  an  express  company  without  instruc- 
tions  as   to   the   necessity   for   an    expedi- 


tious transportation,  and  that  pending 
their  return  the  mill  would  have  to  be 
shut  down,  the  shipper  can  not  recover 
for  loss  from  the  interruption  of  his  busi- 
ness. Higgins  V.  United  States  Exp.  Co., 
83   N.  J.  L.  398,  85  Atl.  450. 

Must  be  pleaded  and  proved. — If  an 
article  is  intended  for  use  in  business  at 
destination,  and  the  carrier  unreasonably 
delays  its  transportation,  the  owner  can 
not  recover  for  the  loss  of  its  use  during 
the  delay,  or  the  profits  which  he  would 
thereby  have  made  if  it  had  been  season- 
ably delivered,  unless  he  alleges  and 
proves  that  the  carrier,  at  the  time  the 
contract  for  its  transportation  was  made, 
is  informed  of  the  special  use  to  which  it 
was  to  be  put.  Clarke-Lawrence  Co.  v. 
Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  423, 
61   S.  E.  364. 

98.  Brand  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  108 
S.  W.  356,  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1335. 

99.  Hadley  v.  Baxendale,  9  Exch. 
(Eng.),  341. 

"The  general  doctrine  of  this  case, 
which  was  decided  in  1854,  has  been  rec- 
ognized and  followed  in  both  the  English 
and  American  courts,  and  is  regarded  as 
a  leading  case.  Sedg.  on  Dam.  (4th  Ed.), 
81  to  84,  notes  and  cases,  and  also  pp.  406, 
409.  See,  especially,  cases  collected  on 
p.  81.  Humphreysville  Copper  Co.  v.  Ver- 
mont Copper  Min.  Co.,  33  Vt.  92."  Dem- 
ing  V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  455, 
2  Am.  Rep.  267. 

In  the  absence  of  knowledge  by  the 
carrier  of  the  purpose  for  which  a  ma- 
chine was  to  be  used,  the  measure  of 
damages  does  not  include  the  profit  con- 
signee might  have  realized  from  its  op- 
eration during  the  time  delayed,  nor 
rental  value  together  with  teams,  wagons 
and  hands  to  operate  it.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hassell,  23  Tex.  Civ.  App.  681,  58 
S.  W.  54. 

1.  Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48 
N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep.  267. 


669  DELAY    IN    TRANSPORTATION    OR   DF.LIVERY.  §    949 

transportation,  it  was  liable  for  special  damages  so  arising  after  it  had  a  rea- 
sonable opportunity  to  avoid  further  delay  after  such  notice.^  In  an  action  for 
damages  for  loss  of  a  tobacco  crop,  on  failure  to  furnish,  as  per  contract,  at  the 
stipulated  time,  certain  flues  to  use  in  curing  tobacco,  it  was  contended  that  no 
special  damages  could  be  recovered,  inasmuch  as  plaintiff  failed  to  show  that 
defendant  had  knowledge  that  such  damages  would  result  from  a  failure  to  de- 
liver the  tlucs,  but  the  court  held  that  it  was  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
in  localities  where  tobacco  is  cultivated  that  if  it  is  not  cut  and  cured  in  apt 
time  serious  loss  is  the  necessary  consequence,  and  such  knowledge  would  be 
assumed  against  defendant  engaged  in  manufacturing  the  flues  and  his  agent 
engaged  in  selling  the  same.^ 

Proximate  and  Remote  Damages. — The  damages  must  be  such  that  it 
might  naturally  be  expected  to  follow  from  the  violation  of  the  carrier's  agree- 
ment to  transport  and  deliver  the  goods.^  Where  a  carrier  delays  the  trans- 
portation of  machinery  for  a  mill,  the  loss  sustained  by  the  shipper  of  the  sav- 
ing in  expense  of  the  operation  of  the  mill  as  a  two-press  mill,  as  contemplated, 
and  as  a  one-press  mill,  as  it  is  required  to  do  on  account  of  the  carrier's  delay 
in  delivering  the  machinery,  is  speculative,  and  not  recoverable.**  The  plaintiff 
alleged,  in  substance,  that  he  shipped  his  photographing  outfit  on  the  defend- 
ant's road,  to  be  transported  a  distance  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles.  The 
shipment  was  made,  and  it  was  the  plaintiff's  desire  to  have  his  outfit  at  the 
point  of  destination,  ready  for  business,  two  days  later.  There  were  troops 
stationed  at  that  place,  and  the  time  selected  by  the  plaintiff  to  open  his  busi- 
ness there,  was  payday  of  the  troops,  which  continued  about  six  days.  His 
outfit  did  not  reach'  such  place  until  five  days  thereafter,  and  some  tent  poles 
did  not  reach  there  at  all.  In  consequence  of  this  delay  and  loss,  he 
was  prevented  from  opening  his  business  until  fifteen  days  after  the  ship- 
ment, when  payday  had  expired.  He  claimed  as  damages  the  value  of  the 
articles  lost  and  six  hundred  dollars  loss  of  profits.  It  was  held,  on  general 
demurrer,  that  the  facts  alleged  showed  a  good  cause  of  action,  but  that  a  spe- 
cial exception  to  the  petition,  that  the  damages  claimed  were  too  remote,  should 
have  been  sustained  as  to  the  damages  claimed  for  loss  and  profits.*^  But  it  has 
been  held  that  a  consignee  may  recover  for  the  loss  of  a  tobacco  crop  from  the 
delay  of  the  carrier  to  deliver  certain  flues  used  in  curing  tobacco."^ 

Under  Interstate  Commerce  Act. — Where  there  is  a  delay  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  machinery  intended  for  a  special  use  known  to  the  carrier,  it  is  re- 
sponsible for  such  damages  as  are  fairly  attributable  to  the  delay,  having  been 
informed  that  special  damages  would  result  therefrom,  though  it  is  bound  to 
accept   the   shipment   when   tendered,   and   under  the    Interstate   Commerce   Act 

2.  Virginia-Carolina  Peanut  Co.  r.  At-  parties  to  this  contract  of  carriage."  Wil- 
lantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  N.  C.  148,  71  S.  Hams  f.  .Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Fla.  735, 
E.  71.  48   So.  209.  211,  24  L.   R.  A.,   N.   S..  134. 

3.  Neal    r.    Pender-Heyman    Hardware  5.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  Planters'  Gin, 
Co..  122  N.  C.  104,  29  S.   E.  96,  65  Am.  St.  etc..  Co.,  88  Ark.  77.  113  S.  W.  352. 
Rep.  697.  6.    Galveston,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.   Jessee.    2 

4.  Proximate    and    remote    damages. —       Texas  App.   Civ.  Cas..   §  403. 

Deming  r.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  4S  N.   H.  In  a  suit  against  a  carrier   for  delay   in 

455,  2  Am.   Rep.  267;  Griffin  ?•.  Colver,  16  shipment,    loss    of   profits    can    not    be    al- 

N.  Y.  489,  69  Am.  Dec.  718.  lowed  as  damages,  unless  data  of  estima- 

"We    think    it    perfectly    clear    that    the  tion  arc   so  definite  and   certain   that   tliey 

defendant,    in    view    of   the    allegations    of  can  he  ascertained  by  calculation  and  car- 

the  declaration,  can  not  be  held  lialile  for  rier  had  notice  that  such  damages  would 

loss  and  damage  in   the  enforced  idleness  ensue  from  the  delay.     Galveston,  etc.,   R. 

of    persons    employed    to    pack    and    ship  Co.  v.  Jessee,  2   Texas  App.   Civ.    Cas.,   § 

plaintiff's    oranges    on    his    orange    groves  403. 

at    Rock    Ledge.      It    can    not    reasonably  7.  Neal    r.    Pender-Heyman     Hardware 

be  supposed  that  this  element  of  damage  Co.,  122  N.  C.  104,  29  S.  E.  96,  65  Am.  St. 

entered    into    the    contemplation    of    the  Rep.  697. 


§§  949-950 


CARRIERS. 


670 


can  not  make  a  special  contract  to  compensate  it  for  the  additional  risk.'' 

§  950.  Measure  and  Elements  of  Damages.— Expense  as  Measure  of 
Damages. — Costs  and  expenses  incurred  by  a  shipper  in  consequence  of  the 
delav  in  the  shipment  of  material  to  be  used  in  building  are  recoverable  as 
damages.^  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  delivering  machinery  for 
plaintiiT's  mill,  plaintiff  could  recover  the  difference  between  the  expense  of 
shutting  down  the  plant  during  the  installation  of  the  machinery  at  the  later 
period  and  what  it  would  have  been  at  the  earlier  period  had  the  machinery  ar- 
rived within  a  reasonable  time,  provided  the  fixed  charges  of  the  mill  were  less 
when  the  machinery  was  due  than  when  it  was  installed,  and  such  clement  of 
the  damage  was  brought  to  the  carrier's  attention  at  the  time  of  shipment. ^"^ 
But  a  shipper,  suing  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  transportation  and  delivery  of  a 
shipment,  can  not  recover  the  expenses  incurred  by  him  on  a  trip  to  the  point 
of  destination  to  look  after  the  shipment. ^^ 

Wages  Paid  Employees. — Wages  paid  to  workmen  constitute  an  element 
of  damages  m  an  action  for  delay  of  material  used  in  building  ^^  or  milling.^' 
Where,  because  of  delay  of  a  train  through  the  alleged  negligence  of  defendant 
carrier,  a  crew  of  men  assembled  by  plaintiff  were  detained  for  four  days,  the 
measure  of  damages,  if  the  delay  was  negligent,  was  the  aggregate  wages  paid 
men  and  the  amount  paid  for  their  board  and  lodging  during  the  time.^^  But 
in  an  action  for  damages  from  delay  in  the  delivery  of  certain  machinery,  the 
plaintiff,  without  notice  to  the  carrier  that  employees'  wages  would  be  lost  in 
event  of  delay,  can  not  recover  therefor. ^^ 

Profits  as'  Elment  of  Damages. — In  order  to  recover  lost  profits  as  spe- 
cial damages  from  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  shipment  of  goods,  the  carrier  at 
the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  shipment  to  it  must  have  notice  of  the  use  for 
which  the  goods  are  intended,  or  the  character  of  the  goods  must  be  such  that 
such  use  mav  be  reasonablv  inferred  therefrom. ^^     In  an  action  for  delay  in  the 


8.  Under    Interstate    Commerce    Act  — 

\ct  Feb.  4.  1887.  c.  104,  24  Stat.  .379,  U. 
S.  Comp.  St.  1901,  p.  3154;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Planters'  Gin,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ark. 
77,  113  S.  W.  3.J2. 

9.  Measure  and  elements  of  damages. 
— Rockv  Mt.  Mills  z:  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.  Co.."ll9  N.  C.  693,  25  S.  E.  854,  Sfj  Am. 
St.  Rep.  682. 

10.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Planters' 
Gin.  etc.,   Co.,   88  Ark.   77,   113   S.  W.  352. 

11.  Southern  R.  Co.  7'.  Coleman,  15'3 
Ala.    266.    44    So.    837. 

12.  Wages  paid  employees. —  Rocky  Mt. 
Mills  V.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  J 19  N. 
C.  693,  25   S.   E.  854,  56  Am.   St.   Rep.  682. 

Where  an  express  company  had  notice 
that  a  steam  shovel  shaft  was  necessary 
to  the  operation  of  a  railroad  construc- 
tion outfit,  it  was  liable  for  special  dam- 
ages consisting  of  the  rental  value  of  the 
outfit  and  the  wages  of  plaintiff's  crew 
during  the  period  of  its  negligent  delay. 
Elzy  r.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  141  Iowa  407, 
119  X.  W.  705. 

In  an  action  for  failure  of  a  carrier  to 
deliver  goods  according  to  contract,  it 
is  proper  to  admit  evidence  of  losses  l)y 
reason  of  an  expense  of  hands,  etc.,  dur- 
ing a  necessary  suspension  of  business 
occasioned  by  the  default  of  the  carrier 
for  a  period  during  which  the  plaintiff 
could    not,   by    ordinary    diligence,    have 


supplied  himself  with  the  article  by  other 
means.  Cooper  z:  Young,  22  Ga.  269,  68 
Am.  Dec.  502. 

13.  Priestly  v.  Northern  Indiana,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  111.  205,  79  Am.  Dec.  369;  Mor- 
row V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.), 
123  S.  W.  1034;  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Dar- 
nell   (Tex.),   6   S.   W.   765. 

Expenses  for  help  of  a  mill,  necessarily 
under  pay  and  idle  while  the  mill  is  shut 
down  owing  to  delay  in  transportation  of 
freight,  which  the  carrier  knew  must  ar- 
rive before  the  mill  could  start,  are  re- 
coverable as  damages.  Morrow  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  (Mo.  App.),  123  S.  W. 
1034. 

14.  White  z'.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Ill    Minn.  167,  126  N.  W.  533. 

15.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hazlett,  35 
Okla.   12,   128   Pac.   105. 

16.  Profits  as  element  of  damages. — 
Brand  v.  Illinois  Cent  R.  Co.,  108  S.  W. 
356.  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1335;  Stone  r.  Adams 
Exp.  Co.  (Ky.),  122  S.  W.  200. 

The  shippers  of  part  of  a  machine  by 
express  can  not  recover,  as  special  dam- 
ages for  delay  in  delivery,  the  loss  of 
profits  on  contracts  for  goods  to  have 
been  made  on  the  machine,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  an  express  contract  giving  no- 
tice to  the  carriers  of  the  necessity  for 
immediate  delivery.  Goodfield  v.  Piatt 
(App.  Term.),  130  N.  Y.  S.  180. 


671  DELAY    IN   TRANSPORTATION'    OR   DELIVERY.  §    950 

shipment  of  a  machine  the  fact  that  the  profits  in  operating  the  machine  would 
have  been  greater  at  destination  than  at  other  points  is  not  an  element  of  dam- 
ages where  carrier  had  no  knowledge  of  such  fact.^"  Where  a  shaft  used  in 
an  electric  plant  fell  out  of  a  car  in  transit  and  was  broken,  after  which  the 
express  company  had  it  repaired  and  forwarded  to  the  owner,  damages  claimed 
for  loss  of  profits  in  being  prevented  from  running  the  plant  while  the  shaft 
was  being  repaired  were  special  damages,  and  hence  could  not  be  recovered 
unless  the  carrier  had  notice  of  the  use  for  which  the  shaft  was  intended,  either 
actually  or  b\-  plain  inference  from  the  nature  of  the  thing  transported.'^  And 
to  recover  for  loss  of  profits  of  an  established  business  by  its  interruption,  it 
must  be  shown  what,  for  a  reasonable  time  previous  thereto,  were  the  usual 
income  and  e.xpenses.  and  such  average  earnings  will  constitute  a  standard  for 
measuring  the  loss.  Loss  of  expected  profits  of  a  mill,  due  to  interruption  of 
the  business,  is  recoverable,  where  the  business  is  an  established  business,  and 
the  amount  of  such  jirofits  is  made  reasonably  certain  by  comj)etent  proof, ^® 
but  not  where  the  profits  are  merely  speculative.-"  Where  a  pop-corn  wagon 
was  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transportation,  with  information  that  it  was 
wanted  at  its  destination  on  a  certain  day,  for  a  special  occasion,  the  measure 
of  damages  for  failure  to  trajisport  it  in  time  for  the  day  mentioned  is  the  loss 
of  the  profits  which  would  have  been  made  on  that  day,  but.  as  to  other  days, 
the  measure  of  damages  would  be  the  fair  rental  value  of  the  wagon. -'i  The 
court,  in  an  action  for  loss  of  anticipated  profits  from  interruption  of  a  business, 
should  define  profits  for  the  jury,  and  call  their  attention  to  the  rule  of  law  by 
which  they  are  to  be  guided  in  determining  the  amount  of  i)rofits.--  But  in  an 
action  for  wrongful  delay  in  shipjiing  a  boiler  required  for  the  operation  of  cer- 
tain machinery,  profits  of  the  enterprise  were  disallowed  as  a  proper  basis  of 
damages,  and  it  was  held  that  the  cost  of  hands  necessarily  kept  unemployed  by 
reason  of  delay,  with  interest  on  capital  unproductive  for  the  time,  was  the 
correct  rule  for  award  of  the  damages.-'' 

Profits  on  Sales. — A  shipper,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in 
transporting  machinery  for  his  sawmill,  can  not  by  way  of  damages  show  loss 
from  inabilitv  to  fill  a  contract  for  lumber,  because  of  the  delay  in  transporta- 
tion, in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  the  carrier  was  notified  of  the  fact  of  such 
contract.-^  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  transporting  cotton  seed 
mill  machinery,  the  plaintiff  can  not  recover  as  special  damages  losses  sustained 

17.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Hassell.  23  maj'  recover  the  value  of  the  use  of  it  at 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  681,  58  S.  W.  54.  such     destination     during     the    period     of 

18.  "The  damages  arising  from  loss  of  the  fair  intended  to  be  exhibited  at.  and 
profits  between  the  time  when  the  shaft  s"ch  value  could  not  be  more  properly 
should  have  arrived  and  the  time  when  determined  than  by  ascertauiing  what  the 
it  did  arrive  were  special  damages.  Illi-  probable  net  profits  would  have  been, 
nois  Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Hopkinsville  Canning  ^  °'''^""]  ''•  •^"""'  ^  ^^^-  ^'^-  '^PP-  ^-*' 
Co.,   132   Ky.   578,   116   S.   W.   758,  and   the  21   S-  jA  .  411.  . 

cases   therein   cited:    Patterson   z:    Illinois  .    22.  The  word     profits     m  a  manufactur- 

Cent    R    Co      123   Ky    783    97   S    W    426  '""    *^'"    agricultural    business    means    the 

30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  78."     Stone' t".  .\dams'Exp!  "et  earnings,  or  the  excess  of  returns  over 

Co     (Ky.),   122   S.   W.  200.  expenditures,    and    relates    to    any    excess 

■itx     -Kf  ""         -Kf  ■    -D         11     /-  which    remains   after   deducting   from    the 

m       ^°T'T9rc;^wTn^^       '•  '■^turns    the    operating    expenses    and    de- 

(Mo.  App.).   123   S.  W.   1034.  preciation  in  capital,  and  also,  in  a  proper 

20.  Southern  R.  Co.  r.  Coleman,  153  case,  interest  on  capital  emploved.  Mor- 
Ala.  266,  44  So.  837.  citing  Reed  Lumber  row  r.  Missouri  Rac.  R.  Co.  (Mo.  .\pp.), 
Co.  V.   Lewis,  94  .\la.  626,  628,   10  So.  333;  v23   S.   W.   1034. 

Moulthrop  z:   Hyett,   105  .\la.  493,  17   So.  23.    Raiiwav  r.    Ragsdale,    14    Miss.   460. 

32,  53  .\m.   St.   Rep.  139.  cited  in  Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern 

21.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  ?•.  Compton  (Tex.  Exp.  Co..  148  X.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  30 
Civ.  App.).  38  S.  W.  220.  L.   R.  A..  X.  S..  4S3,  128  Am.  St.  Rep.  588. 

And    where    a    carrier    was    notified    of  24.  Profits  on  sales. — Louisville,  etc.,  R. 

purpose  of  shipping  a  museum,  on  failure  Co.  7'.  Mink,  126  Ky.  337,  103  S.  W.  294, 
to  transport  it  to  its  destination,  shipper       31   Ky.   L.   Rep.  833. 


§  950 


CARRIERS. 


672 


on  contracts  for  seed  niade,  not  only  subsequent  to  the  notice  to  the  carriers 
but  after  the  carriers'  default;  such  contracts  not  having  been  made  in  reliance 
on  the  carrier's  fulfillment  of  its  obligation.^^  But  evidence  of  loss  of  profits 
by  the  necessary  suspension  of  iron  works  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of  a 
common  carrier' to  deliver  coal  according  to  contract  is  inadmissible  in  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  a  failure  to  transport  and  deliver  under  his  contract. 2° 

Rental  Value  of  Goods. — Measure  of  damages  for  delay  in  transporting 
and  delivering  goods  which  are  not  intended  for  the  market  is  ordinarily  the 
rental  value  of  the  goods  during  the  delay,  with  legal  interest  from  the  time  the 
goods  should  have  been  delivered.-"  This  is  the  measure  of  damages  in  the 
absence  of  special  notice  to  the  carrier.^s  The  rental  value  of  the  property  de- 
laved  should  be  estimated  with  reference  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case;  and, 
if  there  is  a  market  rental  value,  such  value  would  control,  but,  if  there  was  no 
market,  the  value  may  be  ascertained  by  proof  of  such  elements  or  facts  af- 
fecting the  question  as  may  exist,  and  by  the  opinions  of  witnesses  properly  in- 
formed on  the  subject.29  But  where  goods  can  not  be  said  to  have  rental  value, 
the  measure  of  damages  for  delay  in  delivering  such  goods  would  be  the  value 
of  the  use  of  goods  to  the  owner  during  the  delay,  excluding  from  estimate  re- 
mote, speculative  and  uncertain  damages  restricting  estimate  to  natural,  direct, 
certain  and  proximate  injury  sustained. ^^ 

Interest  on  Value  of  Goods. — Where  the  period  a  public  ginnery  was 
stopped  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of  a  carrier  to  promptly  transport  and 
deliver  a  part  of  the  machinery  thereof  was  so  short  that  the  ginnery  had  no 
rental  value,  interest  on  its  value  for  that  period  is  the  proper  measure  of  dam- 


25.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Planters' 
Gin,   etc.,   Co.,   88   Ark.   77,  113   S.   W.   352. 

26.  Cooper  v.  Young,  22  Ga.  269,  68 
Am.  Dec.  502. 

27.  Rental  value  of  goods. — Elzy  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  141  Iowa  407,  119  N.  W. 
705;  Lord  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  105  Me. 
255,  74  Atl.  117;  Brown  v.  Adams,  3  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  390.  And  see,  to  the 
same  effect,  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  les- 
see, 2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  403;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Maetze,  2  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  631;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Comp- 
ton   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  220. 

Where  a  shipper  is  deprived  of  the  use 
of  property  and  the  property  is  such  that 
it  can  not  be  replaced,  the  measure  of  his 
damages  for  delay  .in  transportation  is  the 
ordinary  worth  of  the  property  for  use. 
Weston  V.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  190 
Mass.  298,  76  N.  E.  1050,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  569,  112  Am.  St.  Rep.  330,  5  Am.  & 
Eng.   Ann.    Cas.   825. 

Plaintiff  shipped  on  defendant's  rail- 
road a  cotton  press  in  several  pieces,  which 
was  delivered,  except  one  piece,  a  sill,  of 
which  plaintiff  immediately  notified  de- 
fendant, and  plaintiffsent  for  and  received 
another  sill  after  a  delay  of  over  a  month. 
Held,  that  the  plaintiff's  measure  of  dam- 
ages was  the  reasonable  cost  of  replacing 
the  delayed  sill,  and  the  fair  rental  value 
of  the  press  during  the  delay  caused  in 
the  operation  thereof  by  the  failure  to  de- 
liver the  sill  promptly,  together  with  legal 
interest  on  such  damages.  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Maetze,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  631. 


Claim  was  made  for  a  carrier's  delay 
in  shipping  to  M.  a  new  invention  for 
renovating  feathers,  which  had  no  es- 
tablished rental  value.  Evidence  showed 
that  the  machine  was  moved  from  town 
to  town  as  the  supply  of  feathers  to  be 
cleaned  became  exhausted,  and  that  at 
M.  the  supply  of  feathers  and  the  profits 
were  greater  than  at  other  places,  due  to 
working  up  the  supply  during  such  delay. 
There  was  testimony  as  to  the  rental 
value  of  the  machine,  together  with 
horses  and  wagons.  Held,  that  the 
measure  of  damages  was  the  fair  rental 
value  of  the  machine,  to  be  determined 
from  its  character,  capacity,  and  running 
expenses,  and,  in  the  absence  of  specific 
instructions  how  to  arrive  at  such  value, 
it  was  error  to  refuse  charges  that  no 
recovery  could  be  had  for  any  special 
benefit  from  use  of  the  machine  at  M., 
and  to  find  the  rental  value  of  the  ma- 
chine alone,  without  teams,  wagon,  and 
hands  to  operate  it.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hassell,  58  S.  W.  54,  23  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
681. 

28.  In  an  action  for  negligent  delay  in 
delivery  of  machinery,  the  measure  _  of 
damages,  in  the  absence  of  special  notice, 
is  its  rental  value  pending  delivery,  with 
the  reasonable  expenses  incurred  in  en- 
deavoring to  secure  delivery.  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hazlett,  35  Okla.  12,  128 
Pac.  105. 

29.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  631. 

30.  Brown  v.  Adams,  3  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  390. 


673  '  DELAY    IN    TRANSPORTATION'    OR    DKIJVKRV.  §    950 

ages,  if  claimed.-'^  It  not  appearing  that  a  carrier  of  a  shipment  of  brick  knew 
that  it  was  to  l)e  used  in  a  building  of  any  si)ecial  size  or  kind,  or  that  its  diver- 
sion would  work  the  delay  in  the  consignee's  building  o])erations  that  resulted, 
the  shipment  being  ordered  for  the  trade  as  far  as  it  reasonably  appeared  to  the 
carrier,  and  it  not  appearing  that  there  was  any  change  in  value  of  the  brick 
during  the  delay  in  replacing  the  diverted  shipment,  the  consignee's  measure  of 
damage  is  limited  to  interest  on  the  amount  invested  in  the  shipment  during  the 
delay.-'-  Where  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  for  negligently  failing  to  de- 
liver machinery,  which  caused  the  shutting  down  of  a  flouring  mill,  the  com- 
l)laint  did  nf)t  allege  nor  the  evidence  sliow  that  any  definite  profit  was  lost,  nor 
that  the  contract  was  such  as  to  inform  defendant  that  any  loss  of  special  profit 
would  ensue,  it  was  error  to  admit  evidence  showing  what  the  special  profit  would 
have  been  during  the  time  the  mill  was  shut  down,  as  the  proper  measure  of  dam- 
ages was  the  legal  interest  on  the  capital  invested,  and  such  other  damages  as 
were  the  direct  and  necessary  result  of  defendant's  negligence. ^^ 

Earning  Capacity  of  ,Goods. — Plaintiff  shipped  over  defendant's  line  a 
grading  outfit,  consisting  of  a  car  of  mules  and  a  car  of  grading  implements, 
and  informed  defendant's  agent  that  he  was  sending  the  outfit  to  the  point  of 
destination  to  fulfill  a  contract ;  that  his  laborers  were  also  being  carried  along 
with  him,  and  their  wages  would  begin  as  soon  as  they  arrived ;  that  it  w^ould 
be  necessary  for  the  cars  to  go  forward  together  in  order  that  work  might  com- 
mence at  once  on  their  arrival.  In  an  action  for  damages  caused  by  the  delay 
in  delivering  the  car  of  grading  implements,  an  instruction  allowing  plaintiff  to 
recover  the  net  earning  capacity  of  the  teams  and  grading  implements  during  the 
period  of  the  alleged  delay  was  not  erroneous,  as  defendant  was  put  upon  no- 
tice that  plaintiff  would  suffer  this  special  damage  if  such  delay  occurred.'^'* 

Where  Goods  Replaced. — Where  after  an  unreasonable  delay  the  consignee 
rei)laces  the  goods  with  others,  he  can  recover  the  costs  thereof. ^-^  Where,  ow- 
ing to  delay  in  the  transportation  of  machinery,  the  shipper  was  compelled  to 
duplicate  the  same,  but  the  carrier  did  not  convert  the  machinery  shipped.  It 
was  still  the  property  of  the  shipper,  and  its  damage  was  the  cost  of  the  dupli- 
cated machinery  less  the  value  of  the  delayed  machinery  utilized  to  its  best  ad- 
vantage.■''^' 

Question  for  Jury. — The  damages  must  be  determined  as  a  question  of  fact 
b}-  the  jury,  by  ascertaining  from  the  evidence  the  value  of  use  of  the  goods. ^^ 

Loss  on  Collateral  Contract. — Plaintiff,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
delay  in  transporting  machinery  for  its  sawmill,  can  not,  by  way  of  damages, 
shou^  loss  from  inability  to  fill  a  contract  for  lumber,  because  of  the  delay  in 

31.  Interest  on  value  of  goods. — South-  terest  on  the  capital  invested,  expenses 
ern  R.  Co.  v.  Coleman,  153  Ala.  266,  44  incurred  in  endeavoring  to  get  the  delayed 
So.  837;  Davidson  Development  Co.  v.  machinery,  of  unemployed  employees,  and 
Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  503,  61  S.  E.  such  other  damages  as  were  the  direct 
381.  and  necessary  result  of  defendant's  negli- 

32.  Davidson  Development  Co.  v.  South-  gence;  to  which  rule  we  still  adhere." 
ern    R.    Co.,   147   N.   C.   503,   61   S.    E.    381.  Sharpe  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  130  N.  C.  613, 

33.  "'The     facts    in    this   case   are    very  41  S.  E.  790.  800. 

similar  to  those  in  Foard  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  34.     Earning     capacity     of     goods.— St. 

R.  Co.,  53   X.  C.235,  78  .\m.  Dec.  277,  where  Louis,   etc..   R.    Co.  v.    Lamb,   95   .\rk.   209, 

a   part   of  the  machinery — a   steam   pipe —  12S  S.  W.  1030. 

was    negligently    delayed    by    the    railroad  35.    Where   goods    replaced.— Gulf,    etc.. 

company,    on    account   of   which    the    mill  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 

was    left    idle    for    some    length    of    time.  §  631. 

There     the     court     held     that    the    profits  36.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Planters 

which   the   mill   would   have    made    would  Gin,  etc.,   Co.,  88  Ark.  77,  113  S.  W.  352. 

be  too  vague,  indeterminate,  and  uncertain  37.   Question  for  jury.- Galveston,   etc., 

to    be    correctly    estimated,    and    hold    the  R.   Co.  v.  Jessee,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 

measure   of   damages   to   be    the    legal   in-  §  403. 

1  Car— 43 


§§  950-951  CARRIERS.  .  674 

transportation,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  the  carrier  was  notified  of  the 
fact  of  such  contract. ^s 

§  951.  Particular  Goods. — Used  in  Household. — The  measure  of  dam- 
ages for  delay  in  the  deHvery  of  goods  consisting  of  household  necessities  and 
wearing  apparel  intrusted  to  a  carrier  for  shipment  is  the  reasonable  value  of 
the  use  of  the  property  to  the  owner  during  the  time  of  the  delay.=*'> 

Used  in  Trade. — \\'here  the  carrier  has  notice  of  its  nature,  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  damages  resulting  to  the  shipper  from  delay  in  the  transportation  and 
delivery  of  goods  intended  "for  use  in  trade.  The  carrier  is  liable  to  the  nursery- 
man for  resulting  damages  in  the  delay  in  the  shipment  and  delivery  of  an  order 
book,  where  the  delay  rendered  the  nurseryman  unable  to  fill  orders.^^  The 
proper  measure  of  damages  for  the  failure  of  a  railway  company  to  deliver  a 
traveling  man's  trunk  containing  samples  is  the  value  of  the  use  of  the  prop- 
erty during  the  delay,  including  such  incidental  expenses  and  damages  as  were 
in  the  contemplation  of  the  parties  when  the  contract  for  carriage  was  entered 

into.-'^ 

Used  in  Manufacturing. — \\here  a  carrier  delays  the  delivery  of  a  piece 
of  machinerv  used  for  manufacturing  an  article,  the  measure  of  damages  is  the 
value  of  the  crude  material  which  was  lost  through  the  delay.-*^  Where  the 
delayed  goods  are  gin  machinery,  the  proper  measure  of  damages  is  the  rental 
value  of  the  machinery  during  the  time  it  has  been  delayed. -^^^  For  the  delay 
in  the  shiument  of  cotton  for  use  in  a  mill,  special  damages  may  be  allowed,  if 
it  appears  that  the  carrier  had  knowledge  of  the  pur]30se  for  which  the  cotton 
was  required,  and  that  stopping  the  mill  would  follow  from  delay.'*^  In  an  ac- 
tion by  the  shipper  against  the  carrier  for  delay  in  shipping  a  piece  of  machin- 
ery necessary  to  the  operation  of  plaintiff's  sawmill,  the  jury  may,  in  estimating 
damages,  consider  the  loss  of  time,  the  expense  of  idle  servants,  contracts  which 
the  shipper  had  to  fill,  and  profits  arising  from  the  operation  of  the  mill.  In 
such  case  multiplying  the  amount  of  loss  per  day  by  the  number  of  days,  Sun- 
day excepted,  will  give  amount  plaintiffs  are  entitled  to  recover.-^"^  Interest  on 
the  capital  invested  in  a  plant  during  the  time  it  was  necessarily  idle  as  a  re- 
sult of  delay  in  a  shipment  of  iron,  and  the  wages  paid  during  such  time,  can 
not  be  taken  as  the  measure  of  damages,  where  there  was  nothing  to  indicate 
the  use  to  which  the  iron  was  to  be  put,  or  that  any  special  damages  would  be 
sustained  Ijy  delay  in  prom])t  shipment. 4'^' 

Used  in  Milling  and  Lumbering. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay 
in  delivery  of  log  wagons  to  a  mill  and  lumber  company,  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages is  not  the  usable  value  thereof  during  the  delay,  but  is  the  difference  in 

38.  Loss  on  collateral  contract. — Louis-  IVitchard,  77  Ga.  412,  1  S.  E.  261,  4  Am. 
ville,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Mink.    128    Ky.    337,       St.  Rep.  92. 

103  S.  W.  294,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  833.  "In  Savannah,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Pntchard, 

39.  Goods  used  in  household.— Missouri,  '/  Ga.  412,  4  Am  St.  Rep.  92,  1  S.  E.  ^61 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Clifton  (Te.x.  Civ.  App.),  80  damages  were  allowed  for  mjury  caused 
S.  W.  386:  Brown  v.  Adams,  3  Texas  App.  '^Y  wrongful  delay  m  shippmg  a  still 
Civ    Cas     §  390  worm    for   a   turpentme    distillery.        Har- 

The   measure 'of   damages   for   delay   in  P^r   Furniture    Co    '^.Southern   Exp.   Co 

transportation    of    household    goods    was  l^^  \^\V\%\  \    f' IS               ^ 

the  value   of  their  use  to   plaintiff.      Mis-  ^eP-  588,  30  L.  R-  A.  N.  S.    483. 

souri.   etc..   R.   Co.  v.   Dement    (Tex.    Civ.  ^,.^3.    Gulf    etc     R.  Co.  ^'    Gilbert,  4  Tex. 

App.),   115   S.   W.   635.  ^'J,  App.   366,  22  S    W    760,  23  S    W.  320. 

.«s    TT     J  •     ..     J        IT-  n     -r            on  44.    Gee  v.    London    &    Lancashire    Ry. 

40.  Used  in  trade.-\\'ells  Fargo  &  Co.  ^ ,, ^^^  g  ^^^^j  ^  ^  211^  ^i^^d  in  Harper 
V.  Battle,  ->  Tex.  Civ.  App.  .-.32,  24  S.  W  .  ,;^,rniture  Co.  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  148 
353.  N_    C.   87,   62   S.    E.    145,   128   Am.   St.    Rep. 

41.  Conheim    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,       5^^.  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  483. 

104  Minn.  312,  116  N.  W.  581,  15  Am.   &  45,    Pacific   Exp.    Co.  v.   Darnell    (Tex.), 
Eng.   Ann.    Cas.   389.  C,  S.  W.  765. 

42.  Machinery  or  material  used  in  46.  Ashel)oro,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  South- 
manufacturing.— Savannah,   etc.,   R.   Co.   V.  ern   R.  Co.,  149  N.  C.  261,  62  S.  E.  1091. 


675  DKI.AY    IX    TKAXSI'OKTATIOX    OK    DKI.IVERY.  §    951 

their  value,  if  the\-  depreciated  during  the  delay,  at  the  time  when  they  should 
have  heen  delivered  and  at  the  time  that  they  were  delivered,  after  deducting 
the  uni)aid  cost  of  transportation,  unless  the  carrier  had  notice  that  sjiecial  dam- 
ages, or  more  than  ordinary  damages,  would  result  from  failure  to  deliver  in 
time.'' 

Used  in  Building. — W  here  a  shipper,  engaged  in  Iniilding  a  mill,  contracted 
with  a  carrier  for  the  shipment  of  the  mill  machinery  from  the  factory  to  the 
mill  and  the  shipment  was  delayed  through  the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  by 
reason  of  which  workmen  employed  by  the  shipj^er  were  forced  to  lie  idle, 
though  under  pay,  the  measure  of  the  shipper's  damages  is  the  interest  on  the 
unemplo\ed  capital,  the  wages  paid  to  the  workmen,  and  such  costs  and  ex- 
penses incurred  by  the  shipper  in  consecjuence  of  the  delay,'*'*  reduced  by  the 
earnings  recei\ed.  or  wiiicii  by  reasonable  diligence  could  have  been  received, 
from  their  employment,  during  the  delay,  in  other  work.'-'  lUit  a  contractor 
ship])ing  doors,  windows,  and  blinds  by  rail,  to  be  used  in  the  construction  of 
a  building,  can  not  recover  of  the  railroad  company  wages  paid  by  him  to  his 
employees  while  they  were  doing  nothing,  because  of  delay  in  delivery,  where 
the  company  at  the  time  of  shipment  did  not  know  that  such  a  delay  would 
probabK'  result   in  suc-li  damages.''" 

Used  in  Canning  and  Packing. — Special  damages  such  as  shutting  down 
a  cannery  and  the  spoiling  of  tomatoes  by  the  reason  of  the  shut  down,  re- 
sulting from  the  failure  of  a  carrier  to  ship  a  car  load  of  cans  in  time,  can  not 
be  recovered  in  the  absence  of  a  showing  that  the  carrier  had  notice  of  facts, 
which  would  apprise  a  person  of  ordinary  prudence  that  such  loss  would  be 
anticipated  from  the  delay.  Notice  to  a  carrier  by  the  shipper  that  all  con- 
signments of  cans  should  be  rushed  during  the  packing  season  is  not  sufficient 
to  apprise  the  carrier  that  a  consignee  would  be  comjjelled  to  close  dov.-n  its 
cannery,  and  that  its  tomatoes  would  be  spoiled  if  the  shipment  were  delayed, 
so  as  to  permit  a  recovery  for  such  special  damages  from  the  delay. •''^  In  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  a  consignment  of  ice  shipped  by  i^laintilTs 
to  themselves,  plaintiffs  were  not  entitled  to  recover  for  the  loss  of  fish,  for  the 
lacking  of  which  they  intended  to  use  the  ice,  in  the  absence  of  anv  evidence 
that  the  carrier  knew  or  should  have  known  that  the  ice  was  intended  for  that 
purpose,  the  damages  being  limited  to  the  value  of  the  ice  at  destination  at  the 
time  it  should  have  arrived. ''- 

Used  for  Theatrical  or  Amusement  Purposes. — The  ordinary  damages  in 
case  of  a  delay  in  the  transportation  of  tliealrical  property  are  diff'erent  from 
the  ordinary  damages  in  case  of  a  delay  in  the  transportation  of  ordinar\-  mer- 

47.  Used  in  milling  and  lumbering.^  ities.  Ice  is  something  of  general,  every- 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Xewhousc  Mill,  day  use  all  the  year  round,  and  required 
etc..  Co.,  W)  Ark.  4."):.',  ll'.t  .S.  \V.  <i4().  for  many  different  purposes.     Persons  liv- 

48.  Goods  used  in  building. — Rocky  Mt.  ing  in  localities  where  tobacco  is  culti- 
Mills  V.  Wilmington,  etc..  R.  Co.,  119  N.  rated  are  presumed  to  know  what  a  to- 
C.  ()93,  25  S.  E.  854,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  682.  bacco  flue  is  intended  for,  and  that,  if  to- 

49.  McMeekin  v.  Southern  Railway,  82  hacco  is  not  cured  promptly  when  cut. 
S   C.  468   64  S.  E.  413.  serious  loss  will  result.     In  Sledge  v.  Reid. 

'    -      T  •'  \f  •    ij         D     r'^      •.       "^    N.   C.   440,    Mr.   Justice     Bvnum     savs: 

50.  Ligon   t'.    Missouri    lac.    R.    Co.,    3       .^,^^    j^^^    ^^   ^,^^    ^^^        ^j^^     -,^    followhig 

Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  ^  1.  ^,^^  1^^^  ^^  ^,^^  mule,  was  neither  a   nec- 

51.  Used  m  canning  and  packing.— llli-  essary  nor  natural  consequence.  *  *  * 
nois  Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  H<.pkin.svillc  Canning  Ti^e  ^alue  of  the  mule  taken,  and  the  hire 
Co.,  132  Ky.   "jTs,   ID)  S.  \\  .  T.jS.  of  anotlier,   is   the   measure   of   the   plain- 

52.  Ice  used  in  packing  fish. — "Xeal  v.  tiff's  damage.  Anj-thing  bej'ond  this 
Pender-Heyman  Hardware  Co.,  122  N.  C.  would  be  too  remote  and  conjectural,  and 
104",  29  S.  E.  96,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  697,  would  lead  the  courts  into  a  boundless 
pressed  upon  our  attention  by  the  plain-  field  of  investigation.'  See,  also.  Wood's 
tiff's  counsel  in  his  brief  and  oral  argu-  Mayne  on  Damages.  §§  26,  40."  Lewark 
ment,  differs  materially  from  the  case  at  ?'.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  X.  C.  3S3,  49 
bar.    Tobacco  flues  are  different  commod-  S.  E.  882,  883. 


CARRIERS.  676 


§  951 

chandise,  and  for  that  reason  carriers  usually  put  such  property  in  a  different 
classification  from  that  in  which  ordinary  merchandise  is  put.  As  the  owner 
has  to  pay  the  expenses,  or  some  of  the  expenses,  incident  to  using  the  property, 
he  can-  not  recover  the  ordinary  net  earnings,  but  the  ordinary  gross  earnings, 
less  such  expenses,  if  any,  as  the  deprivation  of  the  use  of  the  property  saved 
him  from.^-'  As  a  prerequisite  to  the  recovery  of  earnings  lost  by  the  delay  in 
the  transportation  of  such  property,  it  is  necessary  to  show  notice  that  the 
freight  to  be  transported  is  that  kind  of  freight  and  that  it  is  to  be  used  at  its 
destmation.^-*  Where  a  carrier  contracts  with  a  shipper  to  deliver  certain  ma- 
chinery, a  merry-go-round,  to  a  certain  place  by  a  certain  day  for  a  specific 
purpos'e,  and  has  full  notice  of  the  nature  of  the  purpose,  it  is  fully  warned  of 
the  use  of  which  the  machinery  is  to  be  put,  and  of  the  importance  of  haying 
it  there  on  the  particular  day  specified,  and  of  the  damage  or  loss  of  earnings 
which  would  result  from  failure  to  deliver  same  on  the  day  agreed  upon,  and 
undertakes  such  shipment  with  full  knowledge  that  such  conditions  and  the 
expected  earnings  are  the  moving  motive  on  the  part  of  the  shipper,  and  there- 
upon through  want  of  diligence  fails  to  deliver  such  machinery  until  after  the 
day  agreed  upon,  and  after  the  time  has  expired  when  such  machinery  can  be 
operated  with  any  profit,  such  carrier  is  liable  in  such  amount  as  will  reason- 
ably compensate  the  shipper  for  the  damage  done.  And,  if  the  amount  of 
earnings  or  profits  can  be  estimated  with  a  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy,  they 
then  become  the  most  just  and  adequate  measure  of  damages.-'^-^ 

Used  in  Feeding  Cattle. — A  railroad  company  is  liable  for  special  dam- 
ages for  delay  in  transportation  of  food  for  cattle  if,  at  the  time  of  the  execu- 
tion of  the  contract  of  shipment,  the  carrier  was  aware  that  such  special  dam- 
ages would  arise  from  the  delay.^<^  In  order  that  a  shipper  of  feed  for  cattle 
may  recover  damages  to  the  cattle  which  he  was  feeding,  caused  by  delay  in 
the  transportation  of  the  feed,  he  must  show  that  the  carrier  was  notified  of 
the   special    circumstances    from    which    such   damages    would   probably   flow    in 

53.  Theatrical  property. — Where  scenery  plaintiff  was  entitled    to    recover    all    ad- 

and  theatrical  properties  were  shipped  un-  ditional  expense  incurred  by  him  and  all 

der  a   written   contract,    but    the    carrier  profits    which     he   would    have    received, 

knew  that  they  were  to  be  used  at  desti-  after    deducting   the    expense    of   advertis- 

nation   in   a  widely   advertised   exhibition,  ing  his  show,  if  the  car  had  been  hauled  in 

and   that   the   shipper   was   under   a   great  time  to  enable  him  to  give  the  perform- 

cxpense  in  their  use,  in  an  action  for  neg-  ance.     It  was  proper  for  the  jury  to  take 

ligent    delay    in    transportation,    in    which  into  consideration  the  nature  of  plaintiff  s 

no  loss  of  special  profits  was  sought  to  be  business  and   his  profits  for  a  reasonable 

recovered,  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover  period  next  preceding  the  time  when  the 

his  ordinary  gross  earnings,  less  such  ex-  contract   was   violated.      Illinois    Cent.    R. 

pcnses    if  any,  as   the   deprivation  of   the  Co.  v.  Byrne,  205  111.  9,  68  N.  E.  730. 

use   of  the     property    saved     him     from.  54.    Weston  v.    Boston,    etc.,     Railroad, 

Weston     V      Boston,     etc.,     Railroad,     190  J 90  Mass.  298,  76  N.  E.  1050,  112  Am.  St. 

Mass    298    76  N.  E.  1050,  112  Am.  St.  Rep.  Rep.  330,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  569,  5  Am.  & 

330,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  569,  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Eng.   Ann    Cas.   825. 

Ann     Cas     825  55.    Ft.  Smith,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Williams, 

In  an  action 'against  a  railroad  for  dam-  30  Okla.  726,  121  Pac.  275,  40  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
ages  suffered  by  a  theatrical  company  by  S.,  494  ,  .  ,  ^.  ,^,  ,,. 
reason  of  defendant's  failure  to  haul  a  56.  Used  m  feeding  cattle.— Missouri, 
car  of  scenery  to  a  certain  city  within  the  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  89  Tex.  428,  35  b. 
time  agreed,  the  evidence  showed  that  the  W.  6.  _  ,  ,  .  i  , 
show  could  not  get  to  the  city  so  as  to  Where  a  earner  unreasonably  delayed 
fill  an  engagement  there;  that  the  advance  the  shipment  of  meal  and  hulls,  and  had 
sale  of  tickets  had  been  refunded  to  the  notice  that  they  were  intended  to  feed  the 
purchasers;  that  there  was  a  contract  be-  consignees'  cattle,  and  that  they  were  de- 
tween  plaintiff  and  the  opera  house  pendent  thereon  for  the  feed  and  con- 
whereby  plaintiff  was  to  receive  a  certain  s ignees'  supply  of  feed  was  exhausted  by 
per  cent  of  the  sales;  and  there  was  evi-  reason  of  the  delay,  the  carrier  was  liable 
dcnce  that  the  railroad  was  informed  that  for  the  depreciation  in  the  value  ot  the 
the  object  of  hauling  the  car  was  to  give  cattle  caused  directly  and  proximately  by 
the  theatrical  performance  in  question.  the  delay.  Illinois  Cent  R.  Co.  t'  Moss- 
Held    that  it  was  proper  to  instruct  that  barger,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  121^  91  b.  VV.  ll<ii. 


677 


DKLAV    IX    TRANSF'OKTATION    OR    DF.LIVERV 


§§  951-952 


case  of  delay. •'■■'  W  here  one  shipped  meal  to  himself,  intendinj^  to  feed  it  to 
his  cattle  at  the  point  of  destination,  and  after  a  delay  in  delivery  gave  the  car- 
rier notice  of  the  purpose  for  which  the  meal  was  consigned,  that  his  supply  of 
feed  was  almost  exhausted,  that  he  could  not  supply  himself  elsewhere,  and 
that  the  cattle  could  not  be  changed  to  other  feed  without  loss,  of  which  the 
carrier  did  not  have  notice  at  the  time  of  the  shipment,  he  was  not  entitled  to 
recover  special  damages  for  loss  in  the  weight  of  the  cattle,  extra  work  in  at- 
tempting to  care  for  them,  and  secure  proper  feed,  arising  from  further  delay 
in  delivery,  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time  from  the  giving  of  the  notice.""'* 
Where  cattle  were  without  feed  on  account  of  delay  in  the  shipment  of  meal 
and  hulls,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  consignees  to  use  diligence  to  secure  other 
meal  and  hulls  or  other  suitable  food,  and  they  are  not  entitled  to  damages 
which  they  could  have  prevented  by  reasonable  diligence  in  procuring  other 
food."''-' 

For  Immoral  Use. — It  seems  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  special  damages 
where  the  goods  were  intended  for  an  immoral  or  illegal  use.'-" 

Fertilizer. — There  is  no  foundation  for  special  damages,  where  the  evidence 
discloses  nothing  more  than  an  ordinary  shipment  of  fertilizer,  with  no  notice 
to  the  carrier  at  the  time  it  received  the  goods  of  any  special  use  to  which  it 
was  to  be  api)licd.  or  of  such  scarcity  of  fertilizer  as  to  prevent  the  purchase 
of  two  tons  of  other  guano  by  the  plaintiff. ''^ 

§  952.  Goods  Intended  for  Sale. — Where  property  is  shipped  ^'or  gen- 
eral sale  to  such  purchasers  as  may  be  obtained,  and  the  carrier  unreasonably 
and  negligently  delays  the  transportation,  the  measure  of  damages  for  that  de- 
fault is  the  depreciation  in  salable  quality  and  market  value  of  the  property 
at  the  place  of  destination  between  the  time  when  it  should  have  arrived  and 
when  it  did  in  fact  arrive.^^-  But,  if  the  property  is  sold  at  an  advantageous 
price  before  shipment  on  condition  that  it  be  delivered  within  a  certam  time, 
and  the  carrier,  with  knowledge  of  that  fact,  undertakes  the  transportation,  and 
through  negligence  fails  to  make  the  delivery  in  time,  and  the  conditional  pur- 
chaser declines  to  .receive  the  property  on  account  of  the  delay,  the  liability  of 
the  carrier  is  measured  by  the  difference  between  the  market  value  of  the  prop- 
erty when  it  arrived  at  the  place  of  destination  and  the  price  at  which  it  was 
conditionallv    sold    before    shipment. ^■'^      The    difference   between    the   modes    of 


57.  Daul)e  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  24.  86  S.  W.  797. 

A  carrier  was  not  liable  for  special  dam- 
ages through  a  failure  to  deliver  cotton 
seed  meal  and  hulls  within  a  reasonable 
time  after  receiving  it,  where  it  did  not,  at 
the  time  of  such  receipt,  have  notice  of 
the  purpose  for  which  the  shipment  was 
intended,  nor  the  urgent  necessity  of  its 
prompt  delivery.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Nelson,  97  S.  W.  757,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  114. 

Where  cotton  seed  meal  and  hulls  were 
to  be  shipped  by  a  carrier  from  Memphis 
to  Cecilia,  notice  that  the  purpose  was  to 
feed  cattle  in  Cecilia,  and  that  they  would 
suffer  from  the  delay,  given  to  the  car- 
rier's agent  at  Cecilia  to  those  in  charge 
of  its  freight  department  at  Louisville,  and 
to  its  chief  train  dispatcher,  was  sufficient 
to  bind  tlie  carrier  without  notice  to  the 
bill  of  lading  clerk  at  Memphis.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mossbarger.  28  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1217,  91  S.  W.   1121. 

58.  Patterson  r.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
123  Ky.  783,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  78,  97  S.  W. 
42G. 


59.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mossbarger, 
28   Ky.  L.  Rep.   1217,  91    S.  W.   1121. 

60.  Goods  for  immoral  use. — Gerhard  v. 
Neese,  36  Tex.  635. 

61.  Fertilizer. — Matheson  r.  Southern 
Railway,  79  S.  C.  155,  60  S.  E.  437,  citing 
Travwick  v.  Southern  Railway.  71  S.  C. 
82.  7)0  S.  E.  549,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  563; 
Wesner.  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  z:  Atlantic,  etc.. 
Railroad,  71  S.  C.  211,  50  S.  E.  789:  Guess 
T.  Southern  Railway,  73  S.  C.  264.  53  S. 
E.  421:  Strange  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co., 
77   S.   C.   is:2.   ."   S.    K.   724. 

62.  Loss  of  profit  on  sales. — Hutchinson, 
Carr.,  §  771;  3  Wood,  Railway  Law,  p. 
1607;  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hale, 
85  Tenn.  69,   1   S.  W.  620. 

63.  Hutchinson,   Carr.,  §  772. 
.Irk-iiHsas. — Murrell  v.   Pacific   Exp.   Co., 

54  Ark.  22,  14  S.  W.  1098,  26  Am.  St. 
Rep.  17. 

Gcon^ici. — Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Pritchard,  77  Ga.  412.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  92, 
1  S.  E.  261. 

A'fl«.y<7.y.— Missouri   Pac.   R.   Co.  v.   Peru- 


§  952 


CARRIF.KS. 


678 


measuring  the  carrier's  liability  in  the  two  cases  is  clue  to  the  difference  between 
its  obligations  and  the  consequences  of  their  breach.  In  the  former  case  the 
obligation  is  general,  and  the  loss  and  liability  are  general,  while  in  the  latter 
case"  the  obligation  is  special,  and  the  loss  and  liability  are  special."^  If  the 
goods  are  forwarded  by  a  carrier  in  pursuance  of  a  contract  of  sale  between 
the  consignor  and  consignee,  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  between 
the  contract  price  and  the  value  of  the  goods  when  actually  delivered.^^  The 
measure  of  damages  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  the  transporta- 
tion and  delivery  of  goods  is  the  loss  which  the  fulfillment  of  the  contract  would 
have  prevented,  or  which  the  breach  of  it  has  entailed.  The  general  intent  of 
the  law  is  to  put  the  injured  party,  so  far  as  money  can  do  it,  in  the  same  po- 
sition as  if  the  contract  had  been  performed.*'" 

Knowledge  of  Carrier. — The  damages  for  the  loss  of  a  sale  fall  under  the 
denomination  of  special  damages ;  and,  without  notice  of  the  fact  of  such  sale, 
it  could  not  be  understood  that  such  a  loss  would  have  been  foreseen  or  con- 
templated by  the  parties.  It  is  proper  that  the  carrier  should  understand  the  ex- 
tent of  the  responsibility  he  assumes,  and  the  consequence  of  a  failure  on  his 
part ;  and  if  no  special  circumstances  are  communicated  to  him  he  ought  to  be 
held  responsible  only  for  the  consequences  which  might  ordinarily  be  supposed 
to  flow  from  his  breach  of  contract. ''''■     A  carrier  not  having  been  informed  of 


Van  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac. 
408.  87  Pac.  80,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  6 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1058,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.  790. 

A'ew  Hampshire. — Deming  v.  Grand 
Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  X.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep. 
367. 

"In  such  case  the  loss  would  be  the  dif- 
ference between  the  price  at  which  the 
goods  were  bargained,  and  the  price  the 
consignee  was  enabled  to  sell  them  for  in 
market,  and  the  loss  would  be  the  direct, 
immediate  and  natural  result  of  the  car- 
rier's breach  of  contract  as  in  "the  other 
case."  Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48 
N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep.  267. 

Where  a  carrier,  with  knowledge  that 
a  shipper  has  contracted  to  sell  his  prop- 
erty at  a  given  price,  to  be  delivered  at 
a  certain  time,  accepts  it  for  transporta- 
tion, and  negligently  delays  same,  the 
measure  of  damages  is  whatever  the  ship- 
per has  lost  by  reason  of  the  failure  to 
deliver  in  time.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hogg   (Tex.),  2   Posey  544. 

"In  this  case  the  plaintiff's  evidence 
tended  to  prove  that  he  informed  the  de- 
fendant's agent  that  he  had  a  lot  of  wool 
that  was  sold  if  it  could  go  immediately 
to  Boston,  and  that  if  it  could  not  go  at 
once  that  way  he  should  send  it  by  an- 
other railroad;  and  that  the  agent  told 
him  to  send  it  the  next  morning,  and  it 
should  go  by  the  next  freight  train.  Un- 
der the  circumstances,  the  jury  might 
have  found  that  the  contract  was  entered 
into  for  the  express  purpose  of  enabling 
the  plaintiffs  to  complete  their  contract 
of  sale,  and  we  think  the  defendants 
ought  to  be  charged  with  the  loss  occa- 
sioned by  the  breach  of  their  contract. 
Grififin  v.  Colver,  16  N.  Y.  489,  69  Am. 
Dec.  718."  Deming  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  48  N.  H.  455,  2  Am.  Rep.  267. 


64.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Soutliern 
Seating,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Tenn.  568,  58  S. 
W.  303,  50  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  729,  78  Am. 
St.    Rep.    933. 

65.  Euston  &  Co.  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  147 
111.    App.    594. 

Where  a  carrier  accepts  property  with 
knowledge  that  the  consignor  has  sold 
it  under  a  contract  to'  deliver  it  at  a  cer- 
tain time,  and  by  the  carrier's  negligence 
the  transportation  is  delayed  until  the 
time  for  delivery  has  passed,  thus  caus- 
ing the  consignor  to  lose  said  sale,  the 
measure  of  damages  is  the  difference  be- 
tween the  price  at  which  the  property 
was  contracted  to  be  sold  and  its  market 
value  when  delivered.  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.   Hogg   (Tex.),  2   Posey   544. 

66.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkinson, 
106  Va.  775,  56   S.   E.   808. 

67.  Knowledge  of  carrier. — Deming  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  48  N.  H.  455,  2  Am. 
Rep.  267. 

In  an  action  for  damages,  caused  by 
delay  in  the  transportation  of  fruit  trees 
sold  under  contract  for  delivery  by  a  cer- 
tain day,  special  damages  can  not  be  re- 
covered unless  the  necessity  for  such  de- 
livery was  brought  to  the  knowledge  of 
defendant  at  the  time  of  the  shipment, 
or 'from  the  character  of  the  freight  de- 
fendant was  charged  with  such  knowl- 
edge. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gates,  38 
S.   W.  648,  15  Tex.   Civ.  App.  135. 

"The  rule  is  well  established  that  a 
carrier  may  not  be  required  to  respond 
on  the  breach  of  its  obligation  to  trans- 
port, within  a  reasonable  time,  for  such 
consequential  damages  as  the  loss  of 
.profits  which  depend  upon  collateral  acts 
or  sales,  unless  he  is  informed  of  the 
shipper's  intention  to  transport  the  goods 
for  the  particular  purpose  at  the  time  the 
contract    of     shipment    is     entered     into. 


679 


DELAY   IX    TRANSPORTATION    OR   DELIVERY. 


952 


the  shipper's  intention  to  transport  the  goods  for  the  purpose  of  a  sale  thereof 
at  a  certain  time  which  he  had  advertised,  is  not  Hable,  because  of  its  delay  in 
transportation,  for  the  consequential  damages  of  loss  of  profits  from  such*  sale, 
even  were  they  not  too  remote  anrl  speculative.''^  Where  a  carrier  accepting 
a  shipment  of  berries  for  transjjortation  did  not  know  that  the  shipper  had  sold 
them  at  a  certain  price,  or  that  he  would  lose  the  sale,  if  the  berries  failed  to 
arrive  at  a  certain  point  at  the  time  agreed  upon,  the  carrier  upon  delay  in  ship- 
ment, resulting  in  loss  of  the  sale,  would  not  be  liable  in  damages  for  the  dif- 
ference between  the  figure  at  which  the  berries  had  been  contracted  for  and 
the  amount  for  which  the  shipper  subsequently  disposed  of  them ;  the  price  ob- 
tained being  the  best  possible  under  the  circumstances.*'"  A  carrier  is  presumed 
to  know  what  threshing-machines  are  used  for,  and  that  the  only  purpose  im- 
plement dealers  have  in  shipping  such  property  into  the  heart  of  a  great  wheat- 
growing  country  is  to  sell  it.''" 

Where  Full  Contract  Price  Received. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad 
company  for  dchn  ing  freight,  where  tlie  shipper  received  the  full  contract  price 
for  the  freight  at  the  destination,  notwithstanding  the  delay,  on  sale  to  a  third 
person,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  damages  for  loss  of  profits."^ 

Where  Market  Price  Same. — A  shipper  claiming  special  damages  for  de- 
lay in  the  shipment  of  goods  intended  to  be  sold  by  him  at  destination  can  not 
recover  for  loss  on  goods  returned  to  him  undamaged,  without  showing  that 
the  market  price  at  destination  was  greater  than  that  at  the  place  of  shipment."^ 

The  loss  of  a  commission  is  not  so  remote  as  to  be  excluded  as  an  ele- 
ment of  damages,  where  a  carrier  delays  the  delivery  of  a  threshing-machine 
until  after  the  threshing  season,  thereby  causing  the  cancellation  of  previous 
sales  and  the  loss  of  commissions  of  the  consignee."'' 

Shipment  to  Fill  Penalty  Contract.— For  negligent  delay  in  deliverv  of 
goods,  the  carrier,  who  has  l)een  requested  to  ship  promptly  and  notified  that 
the  goods  were  designed  to  fill  a  penalty  contract,  is  liable  for  such  special  dam- 
ages as  the  shipper  may  reasonably  incur  by  reason  of  his  failure,  occasioned 
by  such  delay  of  the  carrier,  to  perform  his  contract  within  the  stipulated  time."^ 


Unless  such  purpose  is  communicated  by 
the  shipper  to  the  carrier  at  the  time  of 
entering?  into  the  contract,  the  matter  of 
consequential  damages  which  may  arise 
from  the  breach  is  to  be  regarded  as  not 
within  the  contemplation  of  the  parties, 
and  therefore  not  recoverable  in  any 
event.  Though  the  rule  is  that  an- 
nounced in  Hadley  c'.  Baxendale.  touch- 
ing the  I)reach  of  a  contract,  it  is  said  to 
find  appropriate  application  in  those 
cases  where  a  common  carrier  is  sued  for 
the  breach  of  its  common-law  oliligation 
'to  deliver  goods  within  a  reasonable  time, 
as  will  appear  by  reference  to  the  fol- 
lowing authorities."  Dunne  f.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  166  Mo.  App.  .372,  148  S.  W. 
997.  See  Rogan  r.  Wabash  R.  Co..  51 
Mo.  App.  665;  Steffen  v.  Mississippi 
River,  etc..  R.  Co..  156  Mo.  322.  56  S.  W. 
1125;  Gray  r.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.,  51 
Mo.  .\pp.  666. 

68.  Dunne  r.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  166 
Mo.    .\pp.   1372,    148    S.   \V.  997. 

69.  Cowherd  z:  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co. 
(Mo.  App.).  131  S.  W.  755. 

70.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  :■.  Peru-Van 
Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac.  408, 
87  Pac.  80.  6  L.  R.  .\.,  X.  S.,  1058.  117 
Am.  St.  Rep.  468.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.   790. 


71.  Where  full  contract  price  received. 
— Withrow  i:  Southern  R.  Co.,  159  X.  C. 
222,   74   S.    E.   925. 

72.  Where  market  price  same. — Frank- 
lin z:  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Kv.),  116 
S.    W.    765. 

73.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru-Van 
Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295.  85  Pac.  408, 
87  Pac.  80.  6  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  1058.  117 
Am.  St.  Rep.  468.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  .\nn. 
Cas.  790. 

Decision  contra. — In  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  delay  of  goods,  losses  or 
profits  on  sales  were  too  remote  to  fur- 
nish basis  for  recovery.  Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  f.  Douglass.  1  Texas  .\pp.  Civ. 
Cas..  §  f>7. 

74.  Shipment  to  fill  penalty  contract. — 
Where  plaintitT,  in  shipping  pews  to  a 
certain  church,  informed  the  carrier  that 
its  contract  with  the  church  was  a  pen- 
alty contract,  and  directed  immediate 
shipment.  plaiiUifF's  measure  of  damages 
in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  de- 
la_r  in  delivery  was  the  amount  of  for- 
feiture paid  by  it  under  the  terms  of  the 
contract.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  z\  South- 
ern Seating,  etc..  Co..  104  Tenn.  568,  58 
S.  W.  303.  50  L.  R.  .\.,  X.  S..  729.  78  .\m. 
St.    Rep.  933. 


§§  952-953  CARRIERS.  680 

Evidence  of  Shipment  and  Delay  Only. — In  an  action  for  damages  on 
account  of  delay  by  a  common  carrier  in  delivering  goods,  it  is  error  to  admit 
evidence  of  the  profit  which  the  plaintiff  would  have  made  by  selling  such 
goods  if  he  had  received  them  promptly,  after  proof  only  of  die  shipment  and 
the  delay  in  delivery."^ 

Delay  by  Connecting  Carrier. — The  measure  of  damages  against  a  carrier 
contracting  to  deliver  goods  over  a  connecting  carrier,  where  the  goods  are 
delaved  on  the  latter,  causing  loss,  extends  to  gains  prevented  as  well  as  losses 
sustained,  the  damages,  however,  must  be  supposed  to  have  entered  into  the 
contemplation  of  the  parties  when  the  contract  of  transportation  was  made."^" 

§  953.  Goods  Intended  to  Be  Repaired. — Notice  to  Carrier. — Where 
mill  castings  were  deposited  with  an  express  company  for  delivery  to  a  repair 
shop,  and  no  specific  instructions  were  given  to  the  carrier  as  to  the  necessity 
for  an  expeditious  transportation  of  the  castings  by  the  carrier  to  and  from 
the  shop,  and  the  carrier  was  not  informed  that  pending  the  return  of  the  cast- 
ings the  mill  would  have  to  shut  down,  and  the  plaintiff's  business  cease,  the 
damages  recoverable  for  delay  in  transportation  and  return  of  the  castings  do 
not  extend  to  special  damagesJ^  A  carrier  is,  through  its  station  agent  and 
bill  clerk,  under  the  agency  of  whom  it  receives  freight  for  transportation, 
charged  with  notice  rendering  it  liable  for  special  damages  for  delay  in  trans- 
portation; the  shipper  having  before  delivery  of  the  freight  to  them  explained 
that  the  articles,  the  rolls  of  his  mill,  were  being  shipped  for  repair,  and  that 
till  their  return  he  could  do  no  business,  and  marked  on  the  bill  of  lading 
"Rush   through." '^^ 

Notice  to  Agent. — Where  mill  machinery  was  shipped  to  be  repaired,  and 
then  by  a  separate  contract  shipped  back,  to  give  the  carrier  notice  of  special 
circumstances  from  which  damages  would  arise  from  delay  in  transportation, 
so  as  to  make  it  liable  therefor,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  agent  with  whom  the 
first  contract  was  made  knew  thereof,  there  having  been  no  delay  in  the  first 
shipment,  but  the  agent  with  whom  the  second  contract  was  made  must  have 
been  informed  of  such  circumstances.''-' 

Measure  and  Elements  of  Damages. — An  owner  of  a  public  ginnery  de- 
livered a  part  of  the  machinery  to  a  carrier  for  transportation  to  a  designated 
point,  to  be  repaired  by  the  consignee.  The  carrier  delayed  the  delivery  of  the 
machinery.  The  owner  testified  that  seventy-five  cents  was  a  fair  profit  for 
ginning  a  bale  of  cotton,  but  he  could  only  estimate  the  number  of  bales  that 
went  to  his  gin  during  the  days  his  plant  was  shut  down  in  consequence  of  the 
delay.  The  seventy-five  cents  profit  depended  on  contingencies.  Held,  that 
the  owner  was  entitled  to  nominal  damages  only;  the  estimate  of  what  he  might 
have  earned  by  operating  the  gin,  had  the  shipment  been  promptly  delivered, 
being  speculative.^^  The  owner  of  a  cotton  gin  sent  a  piston  rod,  necessary  to 
operate  his  gin,  to  a  machinist  for  repairs,  and  the  rod  was  lost  by  the  carrier 
by  whom  it  was  shipped  to  the  owner,  and  he  sued  the  carrier  for  damages 
owing  to  the  enforced  idleness  of  his  gin.  An  instruction  authorizing  the  jury, 
in  determining  the  rental  value  of  the  gin,  to  consider  time  lost  by  plaintiff"  in 
going  to  defendant's  office  to  inquire  about  the  piston  rod,  was  erroneous. 
The  defendant   carrier  could   not   be  held   liable   for  special   damages   owing  to 

75.  Evidence  of  shipment  and  delay  78.  Morrow  i'.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
only.— Southern   Exp.   Co.  v.   Hanaw,    134        (Mo.  App.),  12.3  S.  W.  1034. 

Ga.   445.   67   S.    E.   944,   137   Am.    St.    Rep.  79.    Notice    to    agent.— Louisville,    etc., 

227.  R.    Co.    ?'.    Mink.    l:2(i    Ky.    337,    31    K}^    L. 

76.  Delay    by    connecting    carrier. — Sa-       Rep.   H33,  103  S.   W .  294. 

vannah.   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Pritchard,   77   Ga.  80.   Measure  and  elements  of  damages. 

412,  1  S.  E.'20l,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  92.  —Southern    R.    Co.  v.    Coleman,    153    Ala. 

77.  Goods    intended    to    be    repaired. —  266,  44  So.  837. 
Higgins  V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  83  N. 

J.  L.  398,  85  Atl.  450. 


681  DKl.AV    IX    TKANSl'OKTATKJN    Ok    1)1-1. IVKKV.  §§    953-958 

the  enforced  idleness  of  the  gin  in  the  ahsence  of  a  showing  either  that  it  had 
notice  of  the  special  circumstances  before  it  received  the  shipment,  or  that  the 
initial  carrier  contracted  for  a  through  shipment,  and  had  such  notice  before 
receiving   the   shipmenl.^i 

§  954.  Time  of  Reporting  Claim  for  Damages.— The  provision  in  a  bill 
of  lading  that  as  a  condition  to  liability  of  the  carrier  all  claims  for  damages 
must  be  reported  by  the  consignee  within  a  certain  time  after  arrival  of  the 
goods,  refers  solely  to  loss  of  or  damage  to  articles  shipped,  and  not  to  special 
damages  to  the  owner  from  delay  in  transportation. '^- 

§§  955-974.  Actions  for  Delay— §  955.  Nature  of  Action.— There  is 
so  great  a  similarity  between  the  action  e.x  contractu  and  e.x  delicto  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  perishable  goods  by  delay  that  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  which  it  is.  The  difference  is  more  in  form  than  in  substance.*-*  In 
some  of  the  decisions  it  is  considered  ex  contractu, «•*  while  in  others  ex  de- 
licto.'^-"* 

§  9  56.  Jurisdiction  and  Venue.— A  railroad  company  in  partnership  with 
another  companv  may  be  sued  with  the  latter  for  delay  in  transportation,  in  a 
county  in  which' the  latter  operates  its  road,  though  the  former  does  not  operate 
a  road  in  such  county,  nor  have  an  agent  there. **^' 

§  957.  Joinder  of  Causes  of  Action. — The  administrator  can  not  recover 
in  the  same  action  for  both  the  menial  suffering  of  the  deceased  and  for  his 
death.  The  two  causes  of  action,  the  one,  on  account  of  the  death  of  the  de- 
ceased, which  was  attributed  to  the  failure  to  receive  in  due  time  oxygen 
shipped  by  the  carrier,  and  the  other,  to  recover  for  the  pain  and  suft'ering  sus- 
tained by  the  deceased  on  account  of  the  failure  to  receive  the  oxygen  in  time 
to  relieve  his  distress,  can  not  be  set  up  in  the  same  petition.^' 

§  958.  Parties. — The  action  must  be  brought  by  the  owner  or  one  having 
a  beneficial  interest  in  the  goods.*^-^  The  ownership  need  not  be  extensive,  and 
an  agent,  factor,  broker,  bailee  or  other  person  having  rights  in  the  property 
to  be  protected  may  maintain  an  action,  and  recover  both  for  himself  and  the 
general  owner.''-'     One  with  whom  a  carrier  of  goods  has  made  a  contract  of 

81.  .\nicrican  E.xp.  Co.  r.  Jennings,  8G  87.  Joinder  of  causes  of  action. — Hend- 
Miss.  329,  38  So.  374,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  ricks  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  138  Ky.  704, 
708.                                                                                         128    S.    W.    1089,   32    L.    R.   A.,    N.    S.,    867, 

82.  Time   of   reporting    claim   for   dam-  ^'^'-J-      .^      .  ,.  ,        .        n     r^ 
ages.-M,,rrow    :.    Missonri    Pac.    R.    Co.           88.    Parties.-Savannah     etc      R     Co_  t-. 
(AIo.   Ap]).).    123    S.    W.    1034.  Commercial   Guano  Co..  103   Ga    590,  593, 
^  „„     .  '  '          r       J  1           r,i     1      .^         Ai  30    S.    E.    555:    Missouri     Pac.    R.     Co.    v. 

83.  Actions  for  delay.— Blodgett  v.  .\h-  Peru-Van  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295, 
bot,  72  Wis.  516.  40  N.  W.  491,  ,  Am.  g.  p^^  ^^g  g^  p^^,  gO  g  ^  R.  A..  N. 
St.   Rep.   873.  5^   jQ5g     jj~    ^^^^     g^    p^p     4gg^   9    j^^^     & 

Trover. — "We    doubt      wlietlier.      under  E„g.    \nn.     Cas.    790;    Clute    i:     Chicago, 

the   circumstances,   trover   will   lie.     Rol)-  etc..    R.    Co.    (Kan.).    Ill    Pac.   431.   30    L. 

inson    ;■.     Austin    (Mass.),     2    Gray     564."  r     \.^  n    g^  1071. 

Swift   River  Co.  r.   Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  169  gg.  '  /^o»;.yaj.— Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 

Mass.  326,  47  X.  E.  101.-.,  61  .\m.  St.  Rep.  Peru-Van    Zandt    Imp.    Co..   73    Kan.   295, 

288.  85   Pac.  408,  87   Pac.   80,  117  Am.   St.   Rep. 

84.  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7\  Walton.  127  468.  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1058.  9  .\m.  &  Eng. 
Ga.   294.   56    S.    E.   419;    Waring   &   Co.   v.  Ann.   Cas.  790. 

Baltimore,  etc.,   R.   Co..  3   Wkly.   L.   Bull.  .l/a//u\— Boston,    etc..    R.    Co.    r.    War- 

893,   7   O.    Dec.   Reprint   553;    Commins   :■.  rior   Mower   Co.,   76   Me.   251. 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  S.  C.  8,  58  S.  E.  .U(7.$-.y(7r/n<.yc//.y.  —  Harrington      v.      King, 

944.  121   Mass.  269;   F'inn  7:  Western  R.  Corp.. 

85.  San   .\ntonio.  etc..   R.   Co.  f.   Graves  ^o   Mass.  524.   17  .\m.   Rep.  128. 

(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  49   S.  W.   1103.  .1/mHr.fo/fl.— Chamberlain     v.     West,     37 

86.  Jurisdiction  and    venue. — San     An-       Minn.  54,  33  N.  W.  114. 

tonio,    etc..    R.    Co.   r.    Graves    (Tex.    Civ.  Ncxv   York. — Green   z:   Clarke,   12    X.   Y. 

App.),  49  S.  W.  1103.  343. 


§§  958-960 


CARRIERS. 


682 


shipment  may  sue  in  his  own  name  for  damages  caused  by  delay  in  the  shipment, 
even  though  he  does  not  own  all  of  the  goods.'^"' 

Consignor  and  Consignee. — There  is  considerable  confusion  among  the  de- 
cisions as  to  whether  the  consignee  or  the  consignor  is  the  proper  party  plain- 
tiff in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  by  delay  in  transportation,  but 
it  is  well  settled  that  the  action  must  be  brought  by  the  owner  or  one  having 
a  beneficial  interest  in  the  property.'*^  The  carrier  has  notice  of  the  interest  of 
both  the  consignor  and  consignee,  and,  if  either  suffers  an  injury  through  its 
delay,  he  should  be  permitted  to  obtain  redress  in  his  own  name  in  a  direct  ac- 
tion against  the  carrier.''-  The  consignee  is  always  presumed  to  possess  the 
necessary  ownership,  until  the  contrary  is  shown. ''-^  Where  a  threshing  ma- 
chine, shipped  consigned  to  a  commission  merchant,  was  delayed  in  transit  by 
the  carrier,  so  that  the  consignee  was  compelled  to  cancel  previous  sales,  the 
consignee  may  recover  in  his  own  name  damages  for  loss  of  the  commission 
and  the  value  of  the  property. •'■* 

§  959.  Limitation  of  Actions. — An  action  for  damages  for  failure  to 
transport  and  deliver  goods  in  a  reasonable  time  is  ex  contractu  and  the  period 
for  limitation  for  such  actions  and  not  for  ex  delicto  applies.'*-^  Where  there 
is  a  promise  to  transport  to  and  deliver  goods  within  a  reasonable  time,  an 
action  for  damages  for  delay  does  not  accrue  to  the  shipper,  instantly  on  the 
promise  being  made,  but  only  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time ;  so  the  neg- 
ligence complained  of  must  have  been  at  a  time  subsequent  to  the  promise. ^*5 

§  96  0.  Prerequisites  to  Bringing  Action. — Acceptance  of  Goods  as 
Condition  Precedent. — The  owner  of  freight  may  not,  because  of  delay  of  the 
carrier  in  delivering  it,  refuse  to  receive  it,  and  sue  the  carrier  for  the  value 
of  the  goods,  though  he  has  been  obliged  to  buy  other  like  goods ;  but  he  should 
accept  it  and  sue  for  the  damages. •^'^  But  it  has  been  held  the  refusal  of  the 
consignee  to  accept  the  goods,  of  some  value,  when  tendered  for  delivery  at 
the  point  of  destination,   does  not  prevent    him    from    bringing  an  action   for 


90.  Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  c'.  Barnett 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.).   26   S.    \V.    7S2. 

91.  Consignor  and  consignee. — Hutch- 
inson on  Carriers,  §§  731-734;  Wood's 
Browne  on  Carriers,  §  599;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Peru-Van  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73 
Kan.  29.5,  85  Pac.  408.  87  Pac.  80,  117  Am. 
St.  Rep.  4f38,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1058,  9 
Am.   &   Eng.   Ann.    Cas.   790. 

92.  Clute  f.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Kan.),  Ill  Pac.  431,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1071. 

"The  consignor  has  been  allowed  to 
recover  for  the  benefit  of  the  consignee 
(6  Cyc.  Law  &  Proc,  p.  513,  note  91), 
and  the  consignee  for  the  benefit  of 
others  having  an  interest  (6  Cyc.  Law  & 
Proc,  p.  511,  note  84).  These  refine- 
ments are  not  in  harmony  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Code."  Clute  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Kan.),  Ill  Pac.  431,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..   1071. 

93.  Consignee. — Ray  on  Carriers  of 
Freight,  1006. 

Indiana. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Poor, 
103  Ind.  553,  3   N.   E.  253. 

Kansas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru- 
Van  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85 
Pac.  408,  87  Pac.  80,  117  Am.  St.  Rep. 
468,  6  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  1058,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  790. 


Kcutiickx. — Smith  v.  Lewis  (Ky.),  3 
B.   Mon.   229. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Griffith  v.  Ingledew 
(Pa.),  6  Serg.  &  R.  429,  9  Am.  Dec.  444; 
Arbuckle  v.  Thompson,  37  Pa.  170. 

Ordinarily,  the  right  of  action  for  de- 
lay or  damages  is  in  the  consignee.  6 
Cyc.  Law  &  Proc.  pp.  510,  511;  Clute  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Kan.),  Ill  Pac. 
431,  30  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1071. 

94.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru-Van 
Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac.  408, 
87  Pac.  80,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  6  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S..  1058,  9  Am.  &  'Eng.  Ann.  Cas. 
790. 

95.  Limitation  of  actions. — Though  a 
bill  of  lading  is  silent  as  to  the  goods 
being  delivered  within  a  reasonable  time, 
yet  that  obligation  is  part  of  the  written 
contract,  and  an  action  for  failure  to  de- 
liver in  a  reasonable  time  is  not  barred 
in  six  years,  but  in  fifteen  years.  Waring 
&  Co.  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Wkly. 
L.   Bull.   893,  7   O.   Dec.   Reprint  553. 

96.  Barker  &  Co.  v.  Glascow  (O.), 
Tapp.  198. 

97.  Prerequisites  to  bringing  action. — 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pfeifer,  90  .\rk. 
524,  119  S.  W.  642,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1107. 


683 


DELAY   IN'  TKAXSI'OkTATION   Ok  DKUVEKV 


!§  960-961 


damages/"^  .       .  ,.       ., 

Payment  of  Freight  as  Condition  Precedent.— A  earner  is  ordinarily  en- 
titled to  retain  possession  of  the  goods  shipped  until  the  freight  charges  thereon 
are  paid ;  "•'  hut,  when  the  carrier  negligently  delays  the  delivery  of  tlie  goods, 
so  that  the  damages  occasioned  hy  such  delay  equal  or  exceed  the  amount  ol 
freight  due  for  transportation,  the  consignee  may  rightfully  demand  the  de- 
livery of  the  goods  without  payment  of  the  freight,  and  a  refusal  by  the  car- 
rier to  surrender  possession  upon  such  demand  is  wrongful  and  amounts  to  a 
conversion.^ 

Extra  Haul  Because  of  Mistake.— The  shipper  is  not  hound  to  pay  charges 
for  the  cxira  haul  l^clOrc  receiving  the  goods,  where  the  goods  were  transported 
an  extra  di.slance  by  a  connecting  carrier,  owing  to  a  mistake  of  the  initial 
carrier. - 

§§  961-964.  Pleading— §  961-963.  Plaintiff's  Pleadings- §  961.  In 
General.— Sufficiency.— In  an  action  for  damages  for  delay  in  the  transpor- 
tation and  delivery  of  goods  it  is  sufficient  to  allege  facts  showing  that  the  car- 
rier received  the  goods  for  transportation  and  failed  to  deliver  them  in  a  rea- 
sonable time.'-      it  is  not  necessary  for  the  ^bi])i)er  to  allege  that  the  delay  was 

tcntion  by  the  carrier  amounts  to  a  con- 
version, for  which  trover  will  lie.  Miami 
Powder  Co.  v.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
38  S.  C.  78,  16  S.  E.  339,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  123;  Ewart  v.  Kerr  (,S.  C),  Rice  203, 
followed. 

Not  hardship  on  carrier. — "In  argu- 
ment the  plaintit^  in  error  oljjected  to  the 
rule  stated  by  this  court  because  of  the 
embarrassments  which  might  be  imposed 
upon  carriers  by  dissatisfied  shippers. 
But  the  rule  contended  for  by  it  would, 
in  our  view,  enable  carriers  to  impose 
much  greater  embarrassment  upon  ship- 
pers. A  rule  which  would  require  a  ship- 
per to  pay  his  debt  to  a  carrier  who  owes 
him  a  greater  sum  does  not  seem  to  be 
a  just  and  fair  way  to  settle  a  contro- 
versy." Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru- 
Van  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac. 
408,  87  Pac.  80,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  6 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  vS.,  1058.  9  :\m.  &  Kng.  Ann. 
Cas.   790. 

2.  Extra  haul  because  of  mistake. — 
Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Christmas.  89  Miss. 
080,  42   So.   109. 

3.  Pleading.  —  Whittle  v.  Southern 
Railway,  SS  S.  C.  172,  70  S.  E.  456;  Gal- 
veston, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jessee,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  403. 

A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier of  freight,  which  alleges  that  it  neg- 
ligently omitted  to  deliver  the  freight  for 
such  a  length  of  time  that  it  was  spoiled, 
to  the  shipper's  damage,  states  a  cause  of 
action  for  negligent  delay.  Pittslnirgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knox.  177  Ind.  344.  98  X. 
E.  295. 

A  petition  which  states  facts  showing 
delay  by  the  carrier  in  tlie  delivery  of  a 
maciiine,  and  asks  for  judgment  for  its 
rental  value,  during  that  time,  is  good  on 
general  demurrer  as  a  claim  for  rent. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pettit,  3  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  588,  22  S.  \V.  761. 


98.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cumbie, 
101    Ark.    172,    141    S.    W.   939. 

99.  Payment  of  freight  as  condition 
precedent.  -Stuiia  Cotton  Oil  Co.  ■.-■. 
The  Red.  River,  100  La.  42,  30  So.  303, 
87  Am.   St.   Rep.   293. 

1.  6    Cyc.    497. 

Kansas. — Alissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Peru- 
Van  Zandt  Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295  85 
Pac.  408,  87  Pac.  80,  6  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1058,  1059,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  9  Am. 
&;  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  790;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Goodholm,  01  Kan.  758,  60  Pac. 
1066. 

South  Carolina. — Miami  Powder  Co.  v. 
Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  16 
S.  E.  339,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  123,  55  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  688. 

J'crmont. — Dyer  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,   42   \t.   441,   1   Am.    Rep.    350. 

IVasliington.  —  Moran  Bros.  Co.  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19  Wash.  266,  53 
Pac.  49,   1101. 

"In  the  case  of  Moran  Bros.  Co.  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  19  Wash.  266,  53 
Pac.  49,  the  supreme  court  of  Washing- 
ton said:  'If  a  carrier  has  negligently 
delayed  delivery  of  goods,  or  otherwise 
subjected  itself  to  lialjility  for  damages 
in  respect  to  the  property  carried,  equal 
to  or  greater  than  the  amount  of  the 
freight,  tlie  consignee  may  maintain  re- 
plevin witlunit  a  tender;  and  the  claim 
for  freight  and  the  claim  for  damages 
may  be  adjudicated  in  the  replevin  suit.'  " 
Alissouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  r.  Peru-Van  Zandt 
Imp.  Co.,  73  Kan.  295,  85  Pac.  408,  87 
Pac.  80,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  468,  6  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  1058.  9  Am.  &   Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  790. 

If  property  is  damaged,  while  in  the 
charge  of  a  common  carrier,  to  a  greater 
extent  than  the  bill  for  freight,  the  lien 
of  the  carrier  is  extinguisiied:  and  the 
consignee  not  only  has  the  right  to  de- 
mand the  property  of  the  carrier  without 
payment   of   the    freight    charges,    but   re- 


CARRIERS. 


684 


§§  961-962 

caused  by  a  connecting  carrier.  This  is  matter  of  defense,  which  need  not  be 
anticipated  bv  the  shipper."*  A  petition  alleging  that  the  carrier  did  on  a  cer- 
tain date  undertake  to  transport  within  a  reasonable  time  certain  goods,  but  that 
it  failed  to  transport  the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  that  the  goods, 
having  been  delayed  a  certain  length  of  time  or  more,  were  damaged  thereby 
to  a  certain  amount,  states  a  cause  of  action.^ 

Duplicity.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  goods  by  delay  in 
shipment,  a  paragraph  of  the  petition  alleging  that,  if  the  goods  were  not  de- 
laved  in  transit,  "they  were  damaged  because  the  company  failed  to  notify  the 
petitioner  of  the  arrival  of  the  car,  as  is  the  general  custom  of  railroads,  at  the 
point  of  destination,  as  well  as  of  this  defendant,  and  that  if  petitioner  was 
notified  it  was  after  the  said  damages  had  been  sustained  and  not  immediate 
notice,  as  is  the  general  custom  to  give,  is  duplicitous.« 

§  962.  Particular  Allegations.— Allegation  of  Negligence.— A  complaint 
alleging  that  the  defendant  carrier  unreasonably  delayed  a  shipment  for  pne 
day?  without  alleging  negligent  delay,  states  a  cause  of_  action  in  contract  against 
the  carrier  for  failure  to  transport  with  reasonable  dispatch." 

Allegation  as  to  Form  of  Contract.— Where  a  petition  alleges  shipment, 
but  not  a  special  contract,  plaintiff  may  not  be  required  to  amend  by  stating 
whether  he  shipped  under  an  oral  or  written  contract. ^ 


4.  Whittle  c'.  Southern  Railway,  88  S. 
C.   172.  70  S.  E.  456. 

5.  Macon,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Walton,  127 
Ga.  294,  56  S.  E.  419. 

A  declaration  which  alleges  that  the 
defendant,  a  common  carrier,  contracted 
with  the  plaintiffs  that  a  consignment 
would  be  carried  from  a  certain  point  on 
a  certain  day,  and  that  the  consignment 
was  not  carried  until  a  later  day, 
whereby  the  plaintiffs  were  damaged, 
sets  forth  a  cause  of  action.  Richmond, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bedell,  88  Ga.  591,  15  S.  E. 
676. 

A  complaint  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier for  delay  in  the  delivery  of  a  car  load 
of  stoves,  which  alleged  that  there  was 
no  market  for  the  stoves  at  the  point  of 
destination,  that  plaintiff  owned  teams 
and  hired  drivers  in  peddling  stoves,  that 
during  the  delay  in  the  delivery  the 
teams  and  drivers  were  unemployed,  re- 
sulting in  loss  to  plaintiff,  that  the  car- 
rier, "or  its  agent,  or  its  agent  at"  point 
of  destination,  knew  that  there  was  no 
market  for  the  stoves,  except  as  above 
set  forth,  and  that  plaintiff  was  sustain- 
ing the  expense  specially  claimed  and 
made  necessary  by  the  delay  of  the  car- 
rier, but  which  failed  to  allege  that  any 
notice  was  given  to  the  carrier  at  the 
time  of  the  making  of  the  contract  for 
shipment  of  the  special  circumstances  on 
which  plaintiff's  claim  for  damages  was 
based,  was  insufficient  to  authorize  the 
recovery  of  such  damages.  Pilcher  z'. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155  Ala.  316,  46  So. 
765. 

A  declaration  which  alleges  that  the 
defendant,  a  common  carrier,  contracted 
with  the  plaintiffs  that  a  consignment  of 
cotton  would  be  carried  out  of  a  certain 


port  on  a  certain  day,  and  that  the  vessel 
did  not  leave  until  a  subsequent  day, 
whereby  the  plaintiffs  were  damaged,  sets 
forth  a  cause  of  action.  Richmond,  etc., 
R.  Co.  c'.  Bedell,  88  Ga.  591,  15  S.  E.  676. 

6.  Duplicity. — Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Walton,  127  Ga.  294,  56  S.  E.  419. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  dam- 
ages to  a  car  of  melons  by  delay  in  ship- 
ment, a  paragraph  of  the  petition  alleged 
that,  if  the  melons  were  not  delayed  in 
transit,  they  were  damaged  because  the 
company  failed  to  notify  petitioner  of  the 
arrival  of  the  car,  as  is  the  general  cus- 
tom of  railroads,  at  the  point  of  destina- 
tion, as  well  as  of  this  defendant,  and 
that  if  petitioner  was  notified  it  was  after 
the  said  damages  had  been  sustained  and 
not  immediate  notice,  as  is  the  general 
custom.  Held,  that  duplicity  in  such  par- 
agraph was  not  cured  by  an  amendment 
which  alleged  merely  that  said  paragraph 
is  amended  so  that  it  shall  read,  "peti- 
tioner shows  that  said  melons  were  dam- 
aged by  reason  of  the  fact  that  said  com- 
pany failed  to  notify,"  etc.,  "remainder  as 
in  petition."  Macon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wal- 
ton, 56  S.   E.  419.  127  Ga.  294. 

7.  Particular  allegations. — Commins  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78  S.  C.  8,  58  S.  E. 
944. 

Where  it  is  alleged  that  the  delay  was 
caused  by  the  negligence  of  the  railroad 
company,  without  stating  what  the  negli- 
gence was,  evidence  of  the  bad  condition 
of  the  track  where  the  delay  occurred  is 
admissible  to  show  such  negligence.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Turner,  1  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  625,  20  S.  W.  1008. 

8.  Allegation  as  to  form  of  contract. — 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Beardwell,  79  Kan. 
40.  99  Pac.  214. 


685  DKI-AV    IN    TkANSI'OKTATION    OR   DKI.IVF.RV.  §    962 

Allegation  of  Right  of  Shipper  to  Sue.— An  allegation  that  the  shipper 
had  sold  the  y()(jd>  i^  not  open  to  the  (jbjcciion  that  it  shows  a  sale  to  a  third 
person,  who  alone  may  sue,  since  it  merely  shows  an  executory  contract  of  sale 
with  the  ri.i,dn  of  the  third  ])erson  to  inspect  and  reject  the  goods."' 

Allegation  of  Acceptance. — A  complaint  in  an  action  for  delay  which  fails 
to  allege  acceptance  of  the  goods  by  the  carrier  is  insufficient.  An  allegation 
in  the  declaration  that  the  carrier  negligently  and  carelessly  failed  and  refused 
to  transport  and  deliver  cars  loaded  by  the  shipper  with  reasonable  promptness 
and  dispatch  after  they  were  loaded  and  delivered  to  the  carrier  to  be  trans- 
ported, by  reason  whereof  the  shipper  suffered  loss,  is  not  equivalent  to  an  al- 
legation that  the  freight  was  accepted  by  the  carrier  for  transportation.^'^  In 
an  action  against  a  railroad  company,  seeking  to  recover  damages  for  its  delay 
in  the  transportation  and  delivery  of  certain  freight,  where  the  declaration  fails 
to  allege  directlv  or  to  charge  that  such  freight  was  ever  accepted  by  the  de- 
fendant for  transportation,  but,  fairly  construed,  the  declaration  would  seem 
to  charge  no  more  than  a  failure  ui)on  the  part  of  the  defendant  to  accept  and 
transport  certain  freight  otYered  to  it  by  the  plaintiffs  for  shipment,  it  is  error 
to  sustain  a  demurrer  to  a  plea  filed  to  the  declaration,  which  avers,  in  sub- 
stance, that,  at  the  times  mentioned  in  the  declaration,  owing  to  an  unusual  and 
extraordinary  condition  of  affairs  which  then  prevailed,  the  defendant  was  un- 
able to  meet  the  demand  upon  it  to  furnish  sufficient  cars  to  shippers  to  trans- 
port all  their  freight:  that  it  did  use  all  reasonable  and  proper  diligence  in  its 
efforts  to  supplv  the  plaintiffs  with  a  fair  and  proper  proportion  of  its  available 
cars;  that  the  plaintiffs  knew,  or  could  have  known  by  the  use  of  reasonable 
diligence,  of  the  existence  of  such  extraordinary  condition  of  affairs,  by  reason 
of  which  the  defendant  would  probably  be  unable  to  supply  them  with  the  cars 
required  bv  them  with  usual  promptness. ^^ 

Allegation  as  to  Deviation.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to 
transport  goods  within  a  reasonable  time,  whereby  the  goods  were  damaged,  a 
paragraph  of  the  petition  claiming  damage  alleged  to  have  resulted  in  conse- 
quence of  defendant's  routing  the  goods  over  a  different  line  from  that  stipu- 
lated in  the  contract  of  affreightment  set  out  a  good  cause  of  action. ^- 

Allegation  as  to  Overcharge  of  Freight. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  delay  in  transportation  of  goods,  a  paragraph  alleging  that  the  plaintiff  was 
damaged  for  overcharge  of  freight  on  the  goods  in  a  certain  sum  sets  forth  a 
legal  cause  of  action.'"' 

Allegation  of  Contributory  Negligence.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
damages  from  delay  in  delivering  fruit  shipped,  a  plea  attempting  to  set  up  con- 
tributory negligence  of  the  consignee  in  failing  to  call  for  it  for  four  days  after 
ai  rival,  but  averring  no  duty  of  the  consignee  to  do  so.  nor  any  notice  of  the 

9.  Allegation  of  right  of  shipper  to  sue.  that   it  shows  a  sale   to  the   third  person 

— A  complaint   in  an   action   by  a   shi])p<-'r  who   alone   may   sue,   since   the   complaint 

for   delay  in   the   delivery   of  corn,  which  merely    shows    an    executory    contract    of 

alleges  a  contract   for  the   transportation  sale  with  the  right  of  the  third  person  to 

of  the  freight  from  a  point  in  Indiana  to  inspect  and  reject  tlie  freight.  Pittsburgh, 

Pittsburg,   consigned   to   the   order   of   the  etc.,   R.   Co.  f.   Kno.x.   177    Ind.   .344,  9S   X. 

shipper,     with     directions     to     notify    his  E.  295. 

agent   on   arrival   at   yards    of  the   carrier  lo.  Allegation  of  acceptance. — Seaboard 

near   Pittsburgh   that   the   shipper's   agent  Air   Line    Railway  r.   Rentz,   60    Fla.   429, 

sold   the   corn   to  a  third  person  at   fifty-  54  So.  13. 

two  cents  a  bushel,  which  was  its  value,  jj    Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway  f.  Rentz, 

that  the   carrier   negligently   failed   to  de-  ^q   pj^    ^.^g    54  So    13 

liver  the  freight  for  several  days,  whereby  Allegation  as  to  deviation.-Macon. 

It    was    damaged    so    that    the    value    was  .       n    .^^         w"  u  ..,    t^-  r->    on.    kr  q 

reduced  to  twenty  cents  a  bushel,  which  etc     R.  Co.  z:  Walton,  1..    Ga.  .04.  56  b. 

was    the    highest    price    the    shipper    could  1^-41.. 

obtain,   and^  for  which   he   was   compelled  13.     Allegation     as     to     overcharge     ot 

to  sell,  states  a  cause  of  action   in   favor  freight.— Macon,    etc..    R.    Co.   v.    Walton, 

of    the    shipper    as    against    the    objection  127  Ga.  294,  56  S.  E.  419. 


§  962 


CARRIERS. 


686 


arrival,  nor  aiiv  fads  that  would  relieve  the  carrier  from  giving  such  notice,  was 

bad.i-*  ' 

Allegation  of  Damages.— A  complaint  agamst  a  carrier  for  delay  m  deliver- 
in<^  a  shipment  of  goods  alleging  the  ditlerence  between  their  value  as  delivered 
an*d  as  it  should  have  been  delivered,  and  payment  for  such  difference  as  dam- 
ages, is  sufficient,  though  such  damages  be  special  damages,  because  of  the 
goods  being  wet  when  delivered  to  the  carrier. i-"' 

Allegation  of  Damage  to  Each  Article.— A  petition  against  a  carrier  to 
recover  damages  for  delay  in  delivering  goods  need  not  allege  the  damage  done 
to  each  article :  it  being  sufficient  to  itemize  the  articles  alleging  the  value  of  each, 
and  the  aggregate  value  of  the  whole.^*^'' 

Allegation "  of  Special  Damages.— To  authorize  recovery  by  shipper  of 
special,  as  distinguished  from  general,  damages  for  delay,  the  complaint  must 
specify  the  grounds  for  special  damages.^^  Where,  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier for  delay  in  delivering  certain  threshing  machinery,  the  consignee  claimed 
special  damages,  in  that  he  lost  the  benefit  of  contracts  with  certain  individuals 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  place  to  which  the  machinery  was  shipped  for  the 
threshing  of  grain,  a  complaint  failing  to  allege  the  names  of  the  persons  with 
whom  it  was  claimed  the  consignee  had  such  contracts  is  objectionable. i'^ 

Notice  of  Special  Circumstances.— The  complaint  must  aver  that  the  car- 
rier at  the  time  of  taking  the  contract  of  shipment,  had  notice  of  the  special  cir- 
cumstances, to  be  held  liable   for  special  damages. i''     The  objects  of  the  ship- 


14.  Allegation  of  contributory  negli- 
gence.— A  plea  which  averred  the  failure 
of  the  consignee  to  present  the  bill  of 
lading  and  call  for  the  fruit  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  as  the  proximate  cause  of 
the  damage,  and  that  the  bill  required 
notice  of  arrival  of  the  fruit,  but  did  not 
aver  that  notice  of  its  arrival  was  given, 
was  bad,  since  the  failure  to  present  the 
bill  of  lading  and  call  for  the  fruit  might 
have  been  due  to  the  want  of  notice. 
Western  Railway  v.  Hart,  160  Ala.  599,  49 
So.  371. 

15.  Allegation  of  damages. — Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  i\  Bigham  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  07  S. 
W.  522. 

16.  Allegation  of  damage  to  each  article. 
— Brown  r.  Adams,  3  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  390. 

17.  Allegation  of  special  damages. — 
Delaney  v.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  70 
W.   Va.   502,  74   S.    E.   512. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  de- 
lay in  shipment  of  goods,  facts  which 
authorize  the  award  of  special  actual 
damages  must  be  alleged  in  the  petition 
in  order  to  entitle  the  complainant  to  re- 
cover such  damages.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Cole,  4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  97,  16  S. 
W.  176. 

-  Loss  of  sale. — In  a  suit  against  a  car- 
rier for  the  loss  of  sale  of  goods  trans- 
ported by  reason  of  its  unnecessary  de- 
lay, such  damages  being  special,  must  be 
specially  pleaded.  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hatchell,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  498, 
500.   55    S.    \V.    186. 

Delay  in  shipment  of  samples. — .'\.ver- 
ment  in  a  petition  in  an  action  against 
an  express  company  for  delay  in  deliver- 
ing  samples    of   cotton    that    the    samples 


were  consigned  to  plaintiff's  agent  at  a 
named  point  and  that  plaintiff  was  dam- 
aged in  a  certain  sum  by  reason  of  such 
delay,  may  admit  proof  of  such  damages 
by  reason  of  a  fall  in  the  market  price 
of  cotton.  Wells  Fargo  Exp.  Co.  v.  Sam- 
uels, 11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  15,  16,  31  S.  W. 
305. 

18.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sproles 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  92  S.  W.  40. 

19.  Notice  of  special  circumstances. — 
Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Battle,  5  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  532,  534,  24  S.  VV.  353;  Pacific  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Darnell  Bros., '  62  Tex.  639;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
366,    22    S.    W.    760,    23    S.    W.    320. 

Shipper  must  allege  carrier  had  notice 
of  necessity  of  promptly  forwarding 
goods  to  authorize  recovery  for  loss  of 
profits.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell  Bros., 
62  Tex.  639,  641. 

Evidence  of  knowledge  on  the  part  of 
the  carrier  of  the  necessity  of  prompt 
delivery,  and  that  the  consignor's  busi- 
ness would  be  suspended  by  any  delay, 
is  inadmissible,  in  the  absence  of  any 
averments  to  that  effect.  Pacific  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Darnell   Bros.,  62  Tex.  639. 

A  complaint  against  a  carrier  for  de- 
lay in  tlie  transportation  of  certain  thresh- 
ing machinery  alleged  that  plaintiffs  used 
22  head  of  horses  and  20  men  at  an  ex- 
pense of  not  less  than  $40  per  day;  that 
said  men  and  teams  were  forwarded  to 
the  destination  of  the  machinery,  so  as 
to  l)e  there  on  the  arrival  of  the  machin- 
ery, and  that  because  of  the  delay,  plain- 
tiffs incurred  an  expense  of  maintaining 
such  employees  and  teams  during  four 
and  a  half  days  at  $40  a  day,  and  that  de- 
fendant,   at    the    time    of    the    shipment, 


687 


DKLAV  IX  TKAXST'OKTATION   f)R  DELIVERY. 


§§  962-964 


ment  of  samples  of  cotton  from  an  interior  market  to  a  market  at  Galveston  is 
too  well  known  to  need  either  averment  or  i)roof  in  an  action  against  an  express 
conipany  for  damages  for  delay  in  delivering  cotton  samples  so  shipped.-"^* 

§  963.  Amendments. — In  an  action  against  an  express  company  for  neg- 
ligently delaying  the  shipment  of  a  piece  of  machinery,  an  amendment  to  the 
petition  alleging  that  defendant's  agent  had  notice  that  the  operation  of  the  ship- 
per's mill  would  he  suspended  until  the  machinery  should  he  returned  does  not 
state  a  new  cause  of  action.-^ 

§  964.  Defendant's  Pleading. — An  allegation  of  loss,  in  an  action  for  fail- 
ure to  transport  orange  hoxes  within  a  reasonahle  time,  that  by  reason  of  the 
premises  plaintiff  incurred  loss  and  damage  in  being  unable  to  pack  and  ship  part 
of  his  oranges  for  the  Christmas  market,  is  insufficient.--  A  plea,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  freight  within  a  reasonable  time,  which 
does  not  show  that  the  cars  referred  to  therein  contained  the  freight,  or  that 
the  shipper  was  responsible  for  the  matters  set  up,  and  which  does  not  show  that 
the  matters  alleged  might  not  have  had  reference  to  a  different  shipment,  is  bad.^-' 

Special  Plea. — The  carrier,  in  an  action  for  damages  for  delay,  can  not,  un- 
der a  general  denial,  take  advantage  of  the  fact  that  the  goods  were  transported 
by  a  connecting  carrier  from  an  intervening  iioint  to  their  destination  where  the 
goods  were  damaged  by  delay,-^  or  that  the  delay  was  caused  by  a  strike.-^ 
Where  the  answer  does  not  contain  a  general  denial,  and  the  special  denial  does 
not  extend  to  the  shipper's  allegations  of  damages,  it  is  only  necessary  for  the 
shipper  to  ])rove  such  allegations  as  are  placed  in  issue  by  the  special  denial. 2'' 

Demurrers  and  Exceptions. — Where  the  complaint  does  not  allege  the  car- 
rier's knowledge,  when  it  received  the  goods  for  transportation,  of  the  si^ecific 
facts  pleaded  from  which  shipper's  damages  accrued,  the  objection  should  be 
made  by  special  exception  to  the  complaint,  and  a  ruling  of  the  trial  court  in- 
voked upon  it,  so  as  to  afford  the  shijjper  an  opportunity  to  amend  his  complaint 
if  the  exception  is  sustained;  and  where  the  carrier  fails  to  make  the  objection 
in   that   manner  and   form,  he   can   not   thereafter  raise   it  by  a  special   charge, 


knew  that  if  there  was  a  delay  piaintififs 
would  be  damaged  in  the  manner  and 
form  alleged.  Held,  that  the  complaint 
was  not  objectionable  for  failure  to  al- 
lege that  defendant  was  notified  of  the 
advance  shipment  of  plaintiffs'  men  and 
teams,  or  that  expense  or  injury  would 
result  from  such  delay  and  the  amount 
thereof.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Sproles 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  92  S.  W.  40. 

20.  "It  is  a  matter  of  common  informa- 
tion that  samples  are  so  sliipped  to  make 
sales  in  the  market  to  which  the  ship- 
ment is  made,  and  not  for  sale  of  samples 
themselves.  It  would  not  be  unreasonable 
to  say  that  the  parties  contemplated  such 
oi)ject  by  the  shipment,  and  fliat  a  breach 
of  the  carrier's  contract  would  involve 
liability  for  decline  in  tlic  price  of  cot- 
ton— the  bales  of  cotton  represented  by 
the  samples.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t:  Nich- 
olson, 61  Tex.  401."  Wells  Fargo  Exp. 
Co.  z:  Samuels,  1 1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  15,  16, 
31   S.   W.  30.-). 

21.  Amendments. — Such  an  amendment 
merely  perfects  the  cause  of  action  al- 
readv  definitely  stated.  Pacific  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Darnell   (Tex.).  6  S.  W.  76.5. 

22.  Defendant's    pleading. — Williams    z: 


Atlantic,  etc.,   R.  Co.,  56  Fla.  735,  48   So. 
209.  24  L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,   134. 

23.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Cash  Grain 
Co..  161  Ala.  332,  50  So.  81. 

24.  Special  plea. — In  an  action  for  dam- 
ages through  delay  in  transporting  mel- 
ons, where  the  complaint  alleged  that 
defendant  received  the  melons  under  an 
agreement  to  deliver  them  at  a  certain 
point,  and  that  by  its  failure  so  to  do 
within  a  reasonable  time  the  melons  were 
rendered  worthless,  it  was  only  necessary 
to  prove  that  defendant  received  tlie  mel- 
ons for  transportation  and  failed  to  de- 
liver them  in  a  reasonal)le  time,  and  de- 
fendant could  not,  under  a  general  denial, 
take  advantage  of  the  fact  that  the  melons 
were  transported  l>y  an  independent  car- 
rier from  an  intervening  point  to  their 
destination  where  they  were  damaged. 
Whittle  V.  Southern  Railway.  70  S.  E. 
456.  88  S.  C.  172. 

25.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
delay  in  transportation,  evidence  of  a 
strike  that  caused  the  delay  was  not  ad- 
missible under  the  general  denial.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Pumphrey  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   42   S.   W.   246. 

26.  Wabash  R.  Co.  :•.  Newton,  etc..  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  no  S.  W.  092. 


§§    964-965  CARRIERS. 

raising  the  question  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  carrier's  complaint  to  support  the 
damages  proved  or  by  exception  to  the  general  charge,  after  all  the  evidence  is 
adduced  upon  the  trial,  or  upon  a  motion  for  new  trial  after  the  verdict  is  re- 
turned.-' 

Sufficiency  on  Demurrer. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  trans- 
portation and  delivery  of  freight,  where  the  declaration  fails  to  allege  that  it  was 
ever  accepted  by  the  carrier  for  transportation,  but  merely  alleges  a  failure  of 
the  carrier  to  accept  and  transport  freight  offered  by  plaintiff  for  shipment,  it 
was  error  to  sustain  a  demurrer  to  a  plea  to  the  declaration  alleging  that  at  the 
time  mentioned  in  the  declaration,  owing  to  an  unusual  condition  of  affairs  then 
prevailing,  the  carrier  was  unable  to  meet  the  demand  upon  it  to  furnish  suffi- 
cient cars  for  shippers  to  transport  all  their  freight;  that  it  used  all  reasonable 
and  proper  diligence  in  efforts  to  supply  plaintiff  with  a  proper  proportion  of 
its  available  cars;  that  plaintiff"  knew,  or  could  have  known  by  the  use  of  rea- 
sonable diUgence  of  the  existence  of  such  extraordinary  conditions  by  reason 
of  which  the  carrier  would  probably  be  unable  to  supply  them  with  usual  prompt- 
ness.-"^ 

§  965.  Issues,  Proof  and  Variance.— Where  a  carrier's  witness  testifies  to 
delays  at  diff'erent  points  than  those  specified  in  the  complaint,  it  can  not  object 
to  the  plaintiff's  testimony  as  to  such  delays  as  not  within  the  issues. ^^  In  an 
action  for  damages  for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  goods,  where  the  complaint 
alleges  that  the  carrier  received  the  goods  under  an  agreement  to  deliver  them  at 
a  certain  point,  and  that  by  reason  of  its  failure  to  do  so  within  a  reasonable  time 
the  goods  were  rendered  worthless,  it  is  only  necessary  to  prove  that  the  carrier 
received  the  goods  for  transportation  and  failed  to  deliver  them  within  a  reason- 
able time.30  Where  it  is  claimed  the  goods  were  injured  by  delay  it  is  necessary 
to  prove  their  condition  when  accepted  by  the  carrier.^i 

Under  Separate  Counts. — In  an  action  of  case  against  a  railway  company 
for  nondelivery  of  goods  in  proper  time,  brought  by  the  owner,  who  was  neither 
consignor  nor  consignee,  and  whose  pleading  describes  the  property,  not  by  ref- 
erence to  bills  of  lading,  but  as  a  designated  number  of  bushels  of  grain,  the 
fact  that  a  bill  of  lading  was  made  out  for  each  car  in  which  the  grain  was 
shipped  does  not  confine  plaintiff  to  proof  of  only  one  car  under  each  count,  but 
he  may  prove  the  entire  shipment  as  one  transaction,  although  made  partly  on 
different  days."- 

Under  Allegations  to  Deliver  in  Specified  Time. — The  declaration  alleg- 
ing an  undertaking  to  deliver  in  a  specific  time,  but  none  to  deliver  in  a  reason- 
able time,  evidence  of  what  would  be  a  reasonable  time  was  inadmissible,  and  no 
recovery  could  be  had  under  the  declaration  as  it  stands  for  failure  to  deliver  in 
a  reasonable  time.     If  the  necessary  allegation  is  supplied  by  amendment,  all  the 

27.  Demurrers  and  exceptions. — Wabash  order  with  directions  to  notifj'  the  third 
R.  Co.  V.  Newton,  etc.,  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  person,  that  the  third  person  was  duly  no- 
App.),  110  S.  W.  992.  tified,    but    refused    to    receive    the    goods 

28.  Sufficiency  on  demurrer.— Seaboard  because  damaged,  and  that  the  shipper 
Air  Line  Railway  v.  Rentz,  60  Fla.  429,  was  not  promptly  notified  of  such  refusal, 
.54  So  13  '^'^^  ^"^  evidence  did  not  show  the  condi- 
'    „X   T                       r       J         •               c        \  tion  of  the  goods  when  shipped,  the  ship- 

29.  Issues,  proof  and  varmnce.-San  An-  ^^^,^  ^^^  ^^^^^^^      St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 

i°"'°'   f:^k\T   I'-iJ-  ""-  Co.   V.   Townes,   93    Ark.    430.    124    S.    W. 

App.),  .0  S.  W.  438.  jQ3g   2g  ^    j^    ^^  j^    s^  572 

30.  Whittle  V.  Southern  Railway,  88  in  an  action  predicated  upon  delay  in 
S.  C.  172,  70  S.   E.  456.                                             transporting        perisha1)le        merchandise, 

31.  Where,  in  an  action  by  a  shipper  for  there  must  be  proof  of  condition  at  the 
damages  from  the  delay  of  the  carrier  in  time  both  of  receipt  and  of  delivery.  Leo- 
notifying  him  of  the  refusal  of  a  third  nard  Seed  Co.  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
person,  to  whom  the  goods  had  been  sold,  162   111.  App.  190. 

to  accept  them,  the  evidence  showed  that  32.      Under      separate     counts. — Illinois 

the  property  was  shipped  to  the  shipper's        Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cobb,  etc.,  Co.,  64  111.  148. 


689 


DF.LAV    IN    TkANSl'OKTATION    OR    UELIVEKV. 


§§  965-967 


relevant  facts  and  circumstances  touchinj^  the  particular  shipment,  as  well  as 
touching  that  class  of  shipments  generally,  may  be  shown  to  ascertain  what 
length  of  time  would  he  reasonahk-.-''' 

Evidence  of  Loss  of  Profits. — Where  in  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
negligently  failing  to  deliver  machinery,  which  caused  the  shutting  down  of  a 
flouring  mill,  the  complaint  did  not  allege  nor  the  evidence  show  that  any  definite 
profit  was  lost,  nor  that  the  contract  was  such  as  to  inform  defendant  that  any 
loss  of  special  i)rofit  would  ensue,  it  was  error  to  admit  evidence  showing  what 
the  special  profit  would  have  been  during  the  time  the  mill  was  shut  down,  as  the 
proper  measure  of  damages  was  the  legal  interest  on  the  capital  invested,  and 
such  other  damages  as  were  the  direct  and  necessary  result  of  defendant's  neg- 
ligence'''^ 

Variance. — A  purchaser  from  a  consignee  who  obtains  the  bill  of  lading 
stands  as  consignee,  and  there  is  no  variance  between  the  declaration  in  an  ac- 
tion for  delay  which  alleges  that  the  freight  was  consigned  to  the  purchaser  and 
the  evidence  disclosing  that  the  freight  was  consigned  to  the  consignee  with  di- 
rections to  notify  the  purchaser,  a  variance  being  a  material  difiference.^^ 

§  966.  Dismissal  and  Nonsuit. — Where,  in  an  action  for  damages  for  delay 
in  shipping  freight,  the  carrier's  breach  of  the  contract  of  shipment  by  undue  de- 
lay is  not  denied,  the  consignee  is  at  least  entitled  to  nominal  damages,  so  that  a 
motion  for  nonsuit  is  pro])erly  denied.-''*'' 

§  967.  Burden  of  Proof  and  Presumptions. — One  suing  for  negligent  de- 
lay in  transporting  freight  must  jirove  negligence  and  damage.''"'  A  carrier  agreed 
to  transport  with  reasonable  dispatch  certain  goods.  The  schedule  time  between 
the  two  points  was  seven  days.  The  goods  arrived  ten  days  after  initial  delivery. 
There   was   no   evidence   that   shipments    were   put  on  the  first  train  leaving  the 


33.  Under  allegation  to  deliver  in  spe- 
cified time. — Ciiitral  R.,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Has- 
selkus,  '.II  Ga.  :;S2,  J  7  S.  H.  838,  44  Am. 
St.   Rep.  ;?7. 

34.  Evidence  of  loss  of  profits. — Sharpe 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  130  X.  C.  (513,  41  S.  E. 
799. 

35.  Variance. — The  allegation  in  the 
declaraticjn  in  an  action  by  a  purchaser 
from  a  consignee  for  the  delay  of  the 
carrier  in  the  delivery  of  freight,  as  to 
when  the  purchaser  became  the  owner  of 
the  freight  by  payment  therefor  and  de- 
livery of  the  bill  of  lading  is  not  descrip- 
tive, and  the  purchaser  is  not  confined 
to  the  date,  though  to  make  out  a  case 
he  must  show  that  the  freight  was  in- 
jured after  he  l)ecame  the  owner  thereof 
and  while  the  carrier  sustained  the  rela- 
tion of  carrier  to  him.  Johnson  &  Co. 
V.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  79  Atl.  1095, 
84  Vt.  48(5. 

Allegations  describing  consignee. — The 
varianci'  hi-twecn  a  jn-lition.  in  an  action 
by  a  shipper  against  a  carrier,  which  al- 
leges that  the  carrier  agreed  to  deliver 
at  designated  places  to  third  persons,  and 
the  proof,  which  shows  that  the  bills  of 
lading  named  the  shipper  as  consignee 
and  contained  directions  to  notify  the 
third  persons,  is  immaterial,  as  the  car- 
rier undertook  to  turn  the  freight  over 
at  destination  to  the  third  persons,  on 
their  presenting  the  bills  of  lading  show- 

1    Car— 44 


ing  they  were  the  persons  authorized  to 
take  charge  of  the  shipments.  Hall  Grain 
Co.  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  Mo. 
App.    308,    128    S.    \V.   42. 

36.  Dismissal  and  nonsuit. — Story  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  151  X.  C.  23, 
65  S.  K.  460.  Sec  ante.  "X'ominal  Dam- 
age,"  §   929. 

37.  Burden  of  proof  and  presumptions. 
— Haasc  &  Sons  Fish  Co.  v.  Merchants', 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  143  Mo.  App.  42,  122  S. 
W'.   362. 

A  shipper  suing  a  carrier  for  delay  in 
the  delivery  of  freight  has  the  burden  of 
proving  delay.  Kansas  City,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Morrison  (Ark.),  146  S.  W.  853. 

Where  a  consignee  seeks  to  charge  a 
carrier  with  lialiility  by  way  of  damages 
or  statutory  penalty  for  delay,  the  burden 
is  on  the  consignee  to  show  that  the 
goods  were  not  transported  according  to 
the  contract  within  a  reasonable  time. 
Watson  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co..  59  S.  E. 
55.    145    N.   C.   236. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  in- 
jury l)y  delay  in  transit,  the  burden  is 
on  the  plaintiff  to  establish  by  a  prepon- 
derance of  the  evidence  facts  entitling 
him  to  recover.  Sterling  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  451,  86  S. 
W.  655,  affirmed  in  101  Tex.  661,  no  op. 
See  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Battle,  5  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  532,  534.  24   S.  W.  353. 


CARRIERS. 


690 


§  967 

place  of  consignment,  or  any  demand  therefor,  that  the  train  took  more  than 
schedule  time,  or  that-  any  shipment  had  heen  carried  in  less  than  ten  days.  No 
presumption  of  negligence  arose,  and  the  plaintitT  did  not  sustain  the  hurden  of 
proving  failure  to  transport  with  reasonable  dispatch.-*-^  But  where  the  delay  in 
a  shipment  is  prolonged  beyond  the  time  within  which  a  like  shipment  is  usually 
transported  between  the  ponit  of  shipment  and  the  point  of  delivery,  the  burden 
is  cast  on  the  carrier  to 'explain  such  delay  and  to  show  that  it  did  not  result  from 
its  negligence  or  the  negligence  of  its  connecting  carrier.-'' 

Where  notice  of  special  damages  from  the  delay  of  freight  was  given  to 
the  carrier's  agent  at  destination,  it  will  not  be  presumed  from  the  carrier's  fail- 
ure to  prove  affirmatively  that  the  machinery  shipped  had  never  arrived  at  des- 
tination, and  that  it  had  so  arrived  and  was  within  the  control  of  its  agent  at  that 
place,  so  as  to  charge  it  with  the  agent's  knowledge  of  such  special  damages.-*]^ 

Perishable  Goods.— Delay  in  the  transportation  of  perishable  freight  raises 
a  prima  facie  presumption  of  negligence  of  the  carrier,  and  to  escape  liability  it 
must  show  that  it  exercised  reasonable  diligence  in  forwarding  the  freight. 
\\'here  a  prima  facie  presumption  of  negligence  of  a  carrier  in  transporting  per- 
ishable freight  is  raised  by  undisputed  proof  of  delay,  whether  the  carrier's  evi- 
dence to  excuse  delav  shows  reasonable  diligence  is  for  the  jury.-^^ 

Of  Excuse  for  Delay.— The  burden  is  always  on  the  carrier  to  satisfactorily 
explain  the  delay  by  showing  want  of  negligence  or  the  intervening  of  an  over- 
powering act  excusing  delay.-* - 


38.  Gamble-Robinson  Comm.  Co.  7'. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co..  107  Minn.  187,  119 
N.  \V.  1068. 

39.  Bacon  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  155 
111.  App.  40. 

Where  the  delay  in  transportation  is 
beyond  the  time  usually  irequired,  the 
burden  is  cast  on  the  carrier  in  an  action 
for  injuries  for  such  delay  to  explain  the 
delay,  and  show  that  it  did  not  result  from 
negligence.  Shoot  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   145   111.  App.   532. 

As  a  carrier  must  use  ordinary  care  to 
avoid  unreasonable  delay  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  goods,  proof  of  an  unusual  de- 
lay shows  negligence  prima  facie  calling 
on  the  carrier  to  excuse  the  delay  and 
thereby  disprove  negligence  to  avoid  lia- 
bility for  a  loss  sustained  in  consequence 
o!  the  delay.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
lett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W.  712. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  an  express 
company  for  delay  in  the  transportation 
of  goods  from  Erie.  Pa.,  to  Lenoir.  N.  C, 
the  evidence  showed  that  the  goods  were 
received  for  transportation  October  28th, 
and  were  not  delivered  until  November 
9th,  a  presumption  of  actionable  negli- 
gence against  the  company  arose,  entitl- 
ing plaintiff  to  a  submission  of  his  cause 
to  the  jury  under  proper  instructions. 
Harper  Furniture  Co.  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,  57  S.  E.  458,  144  N.  C.  639,  12  Am. 
&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  924. 

As  a  carrier  must  use  ordinary  care 
to  avoid  unreasonable  delay  in  the  trans- 
portation of  goods,  proof  of  an  unusual 
delay  shows  negligence  prima  facie  call- 
ing on  the  carrier  to  excuse  the  delay 
and  thereby  disprove  negligence  to  avoid 
liability    for    a    loss    sustained    in    conse- 


quence of  the  delay.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gillett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  99  S.  W. 
712. 

It  seems,  that  on  proof  of  delay  in  de- 
livery a  prima  facie  case  is  made  against 
the  carrier,  and  the  burden  of  proof  rests 
on  it  to  show  that  the  delay  was  from 
a  cause  for  which  it  was  not  responsible. 
It  rests  on  the  carrier  for  the  additional 
reason  that  such  facts  are  peculiarly 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  carrier,  and 
not  easily  ascertained  by  the  shipper, 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkinson,  106 
Va.  775,  780,  56  S.  E.  808,  quoting  5  Am. 
&   Eng.    Ency.   of  L.    (2d   Ed.)    254,   255. 

Where  goods  lost. — A  railroad  company 
is  prima  facie  liable  for  damages  from  a 
delayed  shipment  of  goods,  due  to  car 
lieing  lost.  Unionville  Produce  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  153  S.  W.  63,  168 
Mo.  App.   168. 

40.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jones,  52  Tex. 
Civ.  App.   367,   113   S.  W.  952. 

41.  Perishable  goods. — Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.  V.  Clark,  118  Md.  514,  85  Atl.  61?. 

42.  Of  excuse  for  delay. — St.  Louis,  etc., 
Railway  v.  Heath,  41  Ark.  476. 

A  carrier  delaying  the  transportation 
of  property  has  the  burden  of  showing 
a  special  excuse,  such  as  unusual  rush  of 
business  at  the  time.  McMillan  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  147  Iowa  596,  124  N. 
W.    1069. 

Where  the  delay  in  delivering  freight 
is  extraordinary,  the  burden  is  on  the 
carrier  in  actions  for  damages  for  delay 
to  show  unusual  conditions  justifying  the 
delay.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stark 
Grain  Co.,  103  Tex.  542,  131  S.  W.  410, 
modifying  judgment   120   S.  W.  1146. 


691  DF.r.AV   IX    TRAXSPORTATIOX    OR   DEUVKRV.  §§   967-968 

Shipment  over  Connecting  Carriers. — In  an  action  for  damages  brought 
against  an  initial  and  connecting  carrier  for  delay  in  the  transportation  and 
delivery  of  goods,  if  the  shipjK'r  proves  the  delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  initial 
carrier,  the  delay  and  the  resulting  damages,  and  the  defendants  introduce  no 
evidence  to  show  by  whom  the  delay  was  occasioned,  the  shipper  is  entitled  to 
a  judgment  against  the  initial  carrier  for  the  damages  shown.  Upon  such  a 
showing,  the  burden  is  on  the  initial  carrier  to  show  proper  delivery  to  the  con- 
necting carrier  and    freedom    from   negligence   on    its   part."*-' 

§§  968-969.  Evidence— §  968.  Admissibility  of  Evidence.— In  an  ac- 
tion for  delay  in  transportation  of  goods,  the  time  ordinarily  re(|uirecl  for  car- 
riage, the  prei)arations  by  the  carrier,  the  effort  at  dispatch,  the  character  of  the 
freight,  and  kindred  circumstances  are  admissible."*"*  In  an  action  against  an 
express  company  for  delay  in  the  delivery  of  i)laintiff"s  trunk,  containing  arti- 
cles which  he  intended  to  use  at  a  summer  resort,  evidence  that  the  hotel  to 
which  the  trunk  was  to  be  delivered  and  where  plaintiff  was  to  stop  was  a  high- 
priced  hotel,  patronized  by  people  of  wealtli  and  ])rominence  in  the  business  and 
social  w'orld,  that  many  social  functions  and  entertainments  were  conducted 
there  for  the  benefit  of  the  guests,  and  that  there  were  tennis  courts  and  golf 
links  for  the  use  of  guests,  which  plaintiff  desired  to  use,  had  used  on  former 
occasions,  and  which  he  did  use  after  receiving  the  apparel  contained  in  the 
trunk,  was  admissible,  as  bearing  on  plaintiff's  damage."*^ 

Exact  Time  of  Delay. — Where  a  considerable  delay  is  shown,  evidence  is 
admissililc  to  sliow  the  exact  time  of  delay."*" 

Cause  of  Delay. — In  an  action  for  damages  caused  by  the  unlawful  deten- 
tion of  the  plaintiff's  property  shipped  over  the  defendant's  railroad,  it  is  proper 
to  admit  evidence  showing  the  cause  of  delay,  and  that  the  defendant  used  due 
diligence."*" 

Usage  and  Custom. — Where  in  an  action  for  delay  in  the  delivery  of  the 
goods  the  carrier  relied  on  the  contributory  negligence  of  the  plaintiff"  in  failing 
to  present  the  bill  of  lading,  and  the  evidence  shows  that  when  the  goods  ar- 
rived at  the  point  of  destination  the  carrier  charged  the  freight  on  them  to  the 
plaintiff'  and  accepted  payment  for  the  freight  without  the  presentation  of  any 
bill  of  lading,  evidence  that  it  w^as  not  the  custom  of  plaintiff  to  present  bills 
of  lading  is  admissible."*^  Evidence  of  the  custom  of  the  carrier  as  to  the  plac- 
ing of  cars  in  its  yards  at  the  terminal  point  for  examination  before  acceptance 
is  admissible  to  establish  a  custoni  binding  on  the  carrier."*''     \\'here.  in  an  action 

43.  Shipment  over  connecting  carriers.  48.  Usage  and  custom. —  Tohnson  &  Co. 
— Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilkinson,  106  x\  Central  Vermont  R.  Co..  84  Vt.  486. 
Va.    775,    .56    S.    E.    808,    decided    under    §        70   Atl.   1095. 

1295  of  Va.  Code.  ,  .,  ,,  49.  Johnson  &  Co.  v.   Central  Vermont 

44.  Admissibility      of      evidence.— Ala-        r.  Co.,  84  Vt.  486.  79  Atl.   1095. 
bama,   etc..  R.   Co.   :•.   AlcKenzie.   139    Ga.  ,.-,  ... 

410,  77  S.  E.  647.  45  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  18.  ,    ^^^aT'    •"    T    ""i^]^''    ^^^'"'/    •    ^""'"'t' 

45.  Tames  -■.  American  Exp.  Co..  76  N.  ^°''  ^^1^>'  '"  tie  delivery  ot  freight  the 
T  L  ""S"'  ~0  \tl  Til  issues  were  whether  the  halDilit}-  ot  the 
"■46;  Exact  time  of  delay.-Where.  in  an  "i^'']^'  ^^  ^"^^  had  ceased  before  plain- 
action  aqainst  an  express  company  for  ^'^  '^^'''T  th^i  °'''"^'' • ''^  ^^'^  freight  by 
delay  in  the  transportation  of  uoods.  the  Purchase  from  the  consignee,  and  whether 
evidence  showed  that  fourteen"  days  was  l^'^  ^l^'"^'^  ^^^  ^'^^']  '^"^  in  such  a  posi- 
consumed  in  transporting  goods  from  V°"  \  !  '''^'  l'°  ''"P^  '"  *'"^""^-  ^''" 
Erie.  Pa.,  to  Lenoir,  N.  C,  evidence  to  ^"''''i  ■  ^'^^^^^tom  of  the  earner  as  to 
establish  the  exact  quantum  of  wrongful  ^''.^^  placing  of  cars  in  its  yards  at  the  ter- 
delay  was  admissible.  Harper  Furniiure  """^^  P^*"*  for  examination  before  ac- 
Co.  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  57  S.  E.  458,  ^-^^t'l"^^,  .^^j^.^  admissible  to  establish  a 
144  N.  C.  r.:;9.  1::  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  ^^'^^J"'''  binding  on  the  carrier  Johnson 
go4                                                   '  «t  Co.  i\  Central  Vermont  R.  Co..  84  Vt. 

"47.    Cause    of    delay.— Bcaslcy    v.    Balti-       ^^^''  '''  '^^^-  ^^^'''■ 
more,  etc..    R.  Co.,  27   .\pp.   D.  C.   595. 


§  968 


CARRIERS. 


692 


against  a  carrier  for  delay  in  delivering  lumber  to  a  vessel,  rendering  the  plain- 
till  liable  to  demurrage  charges,  the  issue  is  whether  the  carrier  had  notice  of 
the  charter  party  making  the  plaintiff  liable  for  demurrage  charges,  evidence  that 
all  charter  parties  make  provision  therefor  is  competent  to  show  the  carrier's 
knowledge.^'" 

Failure  to  Care  for  Goods. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  to 
a  shipment  of  melons  through  failure  to  promptly  transport  them,  testimony 
that  the  car  was  improperly  iced  at  an  inten^ening  point  is  admissible  as  tend- 
ing to  show  the  condition  of  the  melons  and  that  the  time  within  which  they 
were  delivered  was  unreasonable/'''^ 

Contract  with  Third  Person.— The  shipper  can  testify  that  he  had  a  con- 
tract with  the  carrier  to  deliver  goods  to  a  vessel  during  her  lay  days,  and  by 
reason  of  the  defendant's  delay,  was  required  to  pay  demurrage.-^- 

Evidence  of  Usual  Time.— Evidence  as  to  the  customary  length  of  time 
consumed  by  freight  trains  in  running  between  the  points  on  defendant's  line 
over  which  the  shipment  was  made  was  admissible  to  show  unnecessary  delay.^-^ 

Evidence  of  Other  Shipment. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay  in 
shipping  fruit,  shippers  of  fruit  between  the  points  in  question  are  properly  al- 
lowed to  testify  to  the  usual  time  required  to  make  the  shipment  to  an  inter 
mediate  point  on  the  route,  and  as  to  their  experience  as  to  the  time  required 
for  the  whole  shipment.^^  Where  bills  of  lading  for  cotton  bound  the  railroad 
only  to  transport  with  as  reasonable  dispatch  as  its  general  business  ^yould  per- 
mit^ evidence,  in  an  action  against  the  road  by  the  shipper  for  delay  in  deliver- 
ing the  goods,  that  a  subsequent  shipment  reached  the  same  destination  prior  to 
the  first  shipment,  is  competent  in  respect  to  delay  on  road's  part,  and  in  refuta- 
tion of  its  plea  that  an  unprecedented  amount  of  freight  prevented  it  from  haul- 
ing the  cotton  more  expeditiously.-^"'  Evidence  that  the  drivers  of  express  wagons 
to  whom  the  goods  were  delivered  agreed  at  the  time  that  they  should  go  on 
a  certain  train,  that  the  shipper  had  made  shipments  before  with  the  drivers, 
and  that  their  contracts  had  been  carried  out,  is  admissible  as  showing  the 
agencv  of  the  drivers  to  receive  goods  and  contract  for  their  shipment. ■^^'' 

Evidence  of  "Want  of  Damage. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure 
to  deliver  samples  of  goods,  testimony  offered  to  show  that  the  shipper  actually 
received  more  for  his  goods  than  they  were  actually  worth  in  market  at  the 
place  of  delivery  should  be  admitted. •'*' 

Evidence  of  Value  of  Goods. — The  exclusion  of  testimony  offered  by  the 
defendant  to  prove  that  cotton  in  bales  is  inferior  to  that  in  samples,  is  error.^^ 

Evidence  of  Market  Value  of  Goods.— It  being  shown  that  the  agents  of 
the  railwav  company  were  informed  at  the  time  of  receiving  the  shipment  that 

50.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  165  Ala.  livery.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  165  Ala. 
4.'.1,   51    So.   863.  -151,   51    So.   86:5. 

51.  Failure  to  care  for  goods.— Whittle  53.  Evidence  of  usual  time.— Texas,  etc., 
V.  Southern  Railway.  88  S.  C.  172,  70  S.  R.  Co.  v.  Crowley  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  86  S. 
E.  456.  W.   342. 

52.  Contract  with  third  person.— Where  54.  Evidence  of  other  shipment.— Ke- 
the  complaint,  in  an  action  apainst  a  car-  mendo  v.  Fruit  Dispatch  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
rier   for   unreasonable   delay   in   the   deliv-  App.),   131   S.   W.   73. 

ery  of  lumber  to  be   furnished  by  plain-  55.   Southern   R.   Co.  v.   Cofer,   149   Ala. 

tiff    to    a    third    person    under    a    contract  565,  43  So.  102. 

requirinj?    delivery    to    a    vessel    under    a  56.    Such    evidence    was    admissible    as 

charter    party    stipulating   for    demurrage,  res  gestae.     Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.   Needharn 

alleged    that    plaintifif    had    a    contract    to  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  94  S.  W.  1070,  affirmed 

deliver  lumber  to  a  vessel  within  her  lay  in  101  Tex.  652,  no  op. 

days,   and   by   which    he   was   required    to  57.     Evidence     of    want     of     damage.— 

pay  demurrage  incurred  in  furnishing  the  Wells  Far.t^^o  Exp.  Co.  v.  Samuels,  11  Tex. 

cargo,    plaintifif    was    properly    permitted  Civ.   App.   15,   17.   :'.l    S.   W  .   305. 

to  testify  that  he  had  such  a  contract  to  58.  Evidence  of  value  of  goods.— Wells 

show  that  demurrage  charges  proximately  Fargo   Exp.  Co.  v.   Samuels,  11  Tex.  Civ. 

resulted    from    the    carrier's    delay    in    dc-  App.  15,  17,  31  S.  W.  305. 


693  DELAY    IN    TRANSPORTATION    OK    DELIVERY.  §   968 

it  was  for  immediate  sale  at  their  destination,  it  was  relevant  to  show  the  state 
of  the  market  at  the  destination  when  it  should  have  been  delivered,  and  the  lower 
price  when  actuallv  delivered. •''■'  The  plaintiff  may  introduce  evidence  of  con- 
tract price  as  tending  to  show  market  price  of  goods.'="  In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  unreasonable  delay  in  the  transportation  of  fruit,  a  witness  who  has 
been  in  the  business  of  shipping  fruit  to  the  same  destination  for  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  and  has  received  from  dealers  their  daily  quotations  as  well  as 
accounts  of  sales  of  fruits  shipped  by  him,  can  testify  from  returns  of  sales  of 
shipments  by  him  at  a  certain  time  as  to  the  market  value  of  such  fruit  at  the 
point  of  des'tination  at  that  time,  also  the  testimony  of  a  resident  of  the  city  to 
which  the   fruit   was  shi])ped   who  sold  the   fruit  in  question,  was  admissible.*!^ 

Evidence  of  Want  of  Neglig-ence.— The  carrier  has  the  right  to  show  if 
it  can  that  llic  shipment  in  (luestion  was  shipped  on  the  first  freight  train  on 
its  road  after  it  had  been  received,  and  that  the  transportation  began  as  soon 
as  the  road  was  clear  and  open  to  the  train. '■- 

Declarations  and  Admissions  of  Shipper.— It  is  reversible  error,  where 
the  plaintiffs  has  recovered  from  a  carrier  a  certain  amount  for  loss  on  a  ship- 
ment of  goods  through  delay,  to  exclude  evidence  of  his  statement,  on  his  re- 
turn from  the  trip,  tliat  he  had  lost  a  much  less  amount.''-' 

Declarations  and  Admissions  of  Agents,  etc.— The  declarations  of  the 
railway  conductor  as  to  the  time  when  his  train  is  due  at  a  station  on  his  roiUe, 
made  while  he  is  running  the  train,  is  competent  evidence."-*  And  a  conversation 
between  its  agent  and  the  shipper  is  admissible  to  show  defendant's  negligence 
for  delay  in  deliverv  under  the  contract  in  bill  of  lading."-^  But  where  it  in  no 
way  appeared  that  'the  delay,  concerning  which  the  statements  of  a  conductor 
we're  offered  as  admissions  of  negligence,  was  one  to  the  fault  of  such  conductor, 
or  that  the  schedule  of  the  delayed  train  was  in  any  manner  under  his  control. 
or  that  he  had  authority  to  speak  for  the  railway  company  in  such  matter,  the 
statements  were  not  admissible.'''' 

Expert  and  Opinion  Evidence.— A  witness  who  has  had  ten  years'  experi- 
ence in  inspecting  cotton  seed  is  qualified  as  an  expert  to  testify  to  the  extent 
of  the  deterioration  in  value  of  seed  through  delay  in  transportation  and  sub- 
jection to  dampness.''"  15ut  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover  for  unrea- 
sonable delav  in  the  delivery  of  freight,  the  opinion  of  its  agent  that  the  claim 
was  just  and  should  be  paid  is  not  admissible  as  evidence  for  the  plaintiff.'^''  _ 

Cumulative  Evidence. — In  an  action  for  injur>^  to  trees  by  delay  in  their 
transportation  l)y  an  express  comjjany.  error  in  admitting  evidence  as  to  the 
good  reputation  of  the  nurseryman   from  whom  ]ilaintift'  received  the  goods  is 

59.  Evidence  of  market  value  of  goods.  63.     Declarations     and     admissions     of 

—Ft     Worth    etc.,    R.    Co.    :.   Grcathoiise.  shipper.— Texas,  etc.,   R.  Co.  f.   I'lsher,  1.) 

82  Tex.  104,  17  S.  W.  834.  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  y-:'-.  -^  S.  \\  .  :!i'2.      _ 

60    Where  a  commission  merchant  tes-  64.     Declarations      and     admissions     ot 

tified  that  his  order  for  a  carload  of  po-  agent,  etc.— Missour^    Pac.    R.   Co.   :^    I-a- 

tatoes   at   CO   cents  per  bushel   f.   o.   b.  at  tjan.  72  Tex.  127.  9  ^.  \\  .  749.  2  L.  K.  A.. 

3.;   he,   the   shipper,  was   also  entitled   to  X.  S..  7.).  13  .\m.  St.   Rep.   <r6. 

show  that   he   had   contracted   to   sell   po-  gS.    Houston,   etc..    R.    Co.   r.    Houx.    15 

tatoes   to  the   commission   company   at   (K)  Tex.  Civ.  App.  502,  40  S.  W.  327. 

cents   per   bushel   f.   o.   b.   cars   at    B.,   the  gg    g^     Louis,    etc..    R.    Co.   z:    Carlisle, 

point  of  shipment— not  that  such  contract  ^^   r^^^    q;^.     j^pp    oes,  78   S.   W.   553,   af- 

price  was  recoverable,  the  defendant  car-  fir,„ed      no    op.;     Cooper    Grocer    Co.     f. 

rier  having  no  notice  of  the  contract    but  Britton    (Tex.    Civ.    App.).    74    S.    W.    91: 

as  bearing  on  the  market  price.     Garling-  Standefer     v.     Aultman.    etc..     Machinery 

ton  V.   Fort  Worth,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  34  Tex.  ^^     .^^  ^p^^    ^j^.    ^pp    ^qq    ~g  g    w.  552. 

Civ    App.   274.   78   S.   W    368  '^    ^^           ^^^        j^j^^    evidence.-San 

r^^i'v/c    F'in,~'  ■  Antonio,   etc..   R.   Co.   ::  Josey    (Tex.   Civ. 

Ga.  f)<s<i.    i~   >.   1--    u)  1  < .  \        \    r-i    o    \\'    rf\i- 

62.    Evidence   of   want   of  negligence.—  ^PP)-   '1  ^  ^^  •  ^O*'- 
Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co.    r.    Kapp.    :!7    Tex.  68.  East  Tennessee,  etc.    R    Co.  r.  Tohn- 

Civ    App.  203,  83  S.  W.  233.  son,  85   Ga.  497.   11   S.   E.  809. 


§§  968-969 


CARRIERS. 


694 


not   reversible,   where   the   sound   condition  of   the  trees   when   received  by  the 
express  companv  was   otherwise  abundantly  established.''-' 

Evidence  of'  Excuse  for  Delay. — Where  the  defendant,  a  railroad  com- 
pany, in  a  suit  against  it  for  unreasonable  delay  in  transporting  stock  from  the 
west  to  the  east,  sets  up  as  an  excuse  that  the  delay  was  occasioned  by  the  want 
of  empty  cars  at  a  particular  point  on  the  route,  it  is  competent  for  the  plain- 
tiff, for' the  purpose  of  meeting  such  excuse,  to  prove  that  empty  cars  passed 
that  point,  going  west,  while  the  stock  was  there  waiting  transportation.'^^ 

§  969.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence.— Mere  proof  of  delay  in 
transportation"!  or  of  deterioration  in  goods'-  does  not  support  an  inference  of 
negligence  of  the  carrier,  but  slight  evidence  of  negligence  is  sufficient  to  raise  the 
inference  that  the  delay  was  negligent.'-^  The  derailment  of  a  train  causing 
delay  in  transportation  of  goods  by  a  carrier  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  negli- 
gence.'"' 

The  derailment  of  the  train  and  the  wreck,  by  which  the  transportation 
of  the  propcrtv  was  so  dela_\ed  that  it  caused  the  damage,  made  out  a  prima 
facie  case  of  negligence  against  the  defendant.''^ 

To  Prove  Notice.— Evidence  of  the  name  and  title  of  the  consignee,  the 
nature  of  the  goods  shipped,  the  mode  of  shipment  and  the  destination,  may 
afford  sufficient  proof  of  notice  to  the  carrier  of  the  necessity  for  prompt  de- 
liverv  to  avoid  special  damages  to  the  consignee.'*^ 

Of  Market  Value.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  for  delay 
in  traufijortation  of  merchandise,  evidence  of  a  broker,  who  had  made  purchases 
of  merchandise  like  that  in  question  at  the  place  in  question  and  at  or  about  the 
time  in  question,  was  sufficient  to  show  prima  facie  the  market  value  of  such 
merchandise  at  the  time  and  place  involved."" 

Failure  to  Give  Notice  of  Arrival. — Under  a  statute  requiring  the  car- 
rier to  give  notice  of  arrival  of  the  goods  to  the  consignee,  delay  in  giving  such 
notice  is  some  evidence  of  delay  in  shipment."'^ 


69.  Cumulative  evidence. — Pacific  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Xeedhani  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  94  S. 
W.  1070,  1071,  affirmed  in  101  Tex.  652, 
no  op. 

70.  Evidence  of  excuse  for  delay. — Tol- 
edo,  etc..    R.    Co.   '•.    Lock-hart.   71    111.   627. 

71.  Weight  and  sufficiency  of  evidence. 
—Holland  f.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  12:5  S. 
W.  987,  1.39  Mo.  App.  702. 

72.  The  mere  fact  that  the  freight  was 
shipped  in  apparently  good  order  and 
properly  packed,  and  was  in  a  deteriorated 
condition  when  delivered  after  a  delay, 
is  not  sufficient  to  require  the  carrier 
to  show  that  it  was  not  negligent.  Haase 
&  Sons  Fish  Co.  v.  Merchants',  etc.. 
Transp.  Co.,  14.3  Mo.  App.  42,  122  S.  W. 
362. 

73.  Holland  t'.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  139 
Mo.   App.   702,   123    S.   W.   987. 

74.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wallace, 
90  Ark.  138,  118  S.  W.  412,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  379. 

75.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Wallace, 
90  Ark.  138,  118  S.  W.  412,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..  379,  citing  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Mitchell,  57  Ark.  418,  21  S.  W.  883;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sandiage,  85  Ark. 
589,   109   S.   W.   551. 

76.  To  prove  notice. — The  facts  relied 
upon  by  the  plaintifif  to  sustain  its  con- 
tention are:    (1)    Its  name,  indicating  the 


character  of  business  engaged  in  by  it. 
(2)  The  nature  of  the  article  shipped,  to 
wit,  an  edger,  a  machine  used  by  saw- 
mills, weighing  about  1,000  pounds,  indi- 
cating an  article  not  of  general  use  but 
for  particular  purpose.  (3)  That  the  ma- 
chine was  shipped  unboxed,  uncovered, 
and  open,  and  thus  observable  by  the  de- 
fendant. (4)  Being  a  single  machine,  in- 
dicating that  it  was  intended  to  be  used 
in  conjunction  with  other  machinery.  (5) 
The  destination,  being  a  section  in  which 
lumber  was  manufactured.  All  of  which 
were  under  defendant's  observation  or 
knowledge  at  the  time  the  contract  of 
carriage  was  made.  Held,  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  notice  of  necessity  for  prompi 
shipment.  Story  Lumber  Co.  v.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  151  N.  C.  23,  65  S.  E.  460. 

77.  Of  market  value. — Euston  &  Co.  v. 
Erie   R.  Co.,   147   111.  App.   594. 

78.  Failure  to  give  notice  of  arrival. — 
In  view  of  Code  1896,  §  4224,  providing 
that  a  common  carrier,  if  the  place  of 
destination  of  freight  is  a  city  of  a  cer- 
tain size,  etc.,  is  not  relieved  from  lia- 
bility as  a  common  carrier  by  reason  of 
a  storage  of  freight,  unless  within  twenty- 
four  hours  after  the  arrival  thereof  no- 
tice is  given  the  consignee,  the  fact  that 
a  railroad  failed  to  give  the  consignee  of 
cotton    notice    of   its    arrival   until   a    cer- 


695 


nivI.AV    IN'    TRANSI'UKTATKJN    OR    DKIJVEKY. 


§§  969-970 


Statutory  Affidavit.— L'lulcr  a  statute  providing  that,  when  any  action  is 
founded  on  an  open  account,  the  party's  affidavit,  or  that  of  his  agent  or  at- 
torney, will  be  sufficient  evidence  of  the  claim,  an  action  ijy  a  shipper  for  dam- 
ages resulting  from  a  delay  in  transportation  of  goods  is  not  an  open  account, 
within  Uk-  nieanin-'  uf  llic  statute.'*^ 

Sufficient  to  Go  to  Jury. — There  is  sufficient  evidence  of  the  carrier's  de- 
lay in  the  shipment  of  perishable  goods  to  go  to  the  jury,  where  it  is  shown  that 
the  consignee  had  been  advised  of  the  shipment,  was  on  the  lookout  for  the 
goods  and  had  made  sales  in  advance,  and  witnesses  had  testified  as  to  the  time 
the  goods  were  received,  it  appearing  the  witnesses  meant  the  time  the  goods 
arrived  and  not  the  time  they  were  rcceived.^*^  Where  the  evidence  shows  that 
the  carrier  had  notice  that  the  goods  were  needed  for  a  special  purpose  and 
that  damages  would  result  from  unreasonable  delay,  from  the  address  of  the 
consignee,  the  mode  of  shipment  and  the  nature  of  the  goods  shipped,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  take  the  question  of  the  amount  of  special  damages  for  delay  in  de- 
livery to  the  jury.**^ 

§§  970-972.  Instructions— §    970.    Province    of    Court    and   Jury.— 

Whether  a  delay  is  unreasonable  and  whether  damage  resulted  therefrom  are 
questions  for  the  jury  under  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case.^^ 

Cause  of  Delay.— L'nder  conflicting  evidence,  the  question  whether  delay  of 
a  shipment  was  due  to  defendant's  negligence,  or  to  an  unavoidable  congestion 
of  traffic,  is  for  the  jury.""-' 

Rule  of  Precedence  in  Unloading  at  Elevator. — W  here  a  carrier  of  corn 
for  delivery  to  an  elevator  for  drying  negligently  delayed  the  transportation,  and 
thereby  caused  the  cars  to  lose  the  precedence  they  would  have  enjoyed  if  car- 
ried promptly,  under  a  rule  providing  for  the  sending  of  cars  to  the  elevator 
in  the  order  of  their  arrival,  the  question  of  the  liability  for  the  injury  to  the 


tain  date,  in  an  action  against  the  road 
for  delay  in  delivering  the  cotton,  was 
some  evidence  that  the  delivery  was  de- 
layed until  at  or  close  to  that  date.  South- 
ern R.  Co.  7'.  Cofer,  149  Ala.  5G5,  43  So. 
102. 

79.  Statutory  affidavit. — Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Gildea.  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  271. 

80.  Sufficient  to  go  to  jury. — Gibson  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  S.  C.  360,  70  S. 
E.    1030. 

81.  Harper  Furniture  Co.  z:  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  87,  62  S.  E.  145,  30  L. 
R.   A.,    N.    S.,    483,    128    Am.    St.    Rep.    588. 

82.  Instructions. — Georgia. — Western,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Summerour,  139  Ga.  545,  77  S. 
E.   802. 

Indiana. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Knox,   177   Ind.  344.  98   N.   E.  295. 

Neiv  Jersey. — Carr  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  81  N.  j"  L.  533,  79  Atl.  323;  Higgins 
V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  83  N.  J.  L. 
398,  85  Atl.   4.50. 

Texas. — Garlington  v.  Forth  Worth,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  34  Tex.  Civ.  App.  274,  78  S.  W. 
368;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kapp,  37  Tex. 
Civ.   App.  203,  83   S.  W.  233. 

The  issue  of  reasonable  diligence  in  the 
shipment  of  freight  is  for  the  jury.  Cum- 
mins V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  S.  E. 
944,  78  S.  C.  8. 

WlK'tlior    an    electric    railroad    company 


used  due  diligence  in  clearing  its  track 
of  a  wreck,  so  as  to-  transport  a  corpse 
witli  promptness,  is  a  question  for  the 
jury.  Alabama  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Brady, 
ino'  Ala.  r,i.-,,  49  So.  351. 

Where  there  is  some  evidence. — Where 
there  is  evidence,  in  an  action  against  a 
railroad  for  damages  from  the  explosion 
of  a  car  of  explosives,  that  the  company 
allowed  the  car  to  be  delayed,  the  ques- 
tion of  negligence  is  for  the  jury.  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beauchamp.  95  Tex. 
496.  68  S.  W.  502,  58  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  716, 
93  Am.   St.   Rep.  864. 

Where  there  is  conflict  in  evidence  in 
an  action  against  an  express  company 
for  delay  in  delivering  samples  of  cotton 
as  to  whether  samples  were  delivered  to 
the  company  for  shipment,  the  issue 
should  be  submitted  to  the  jury.  Wells 
Fargo  Exp.  Co.  v.  Samuels,  11  Tex.  Civ. 
.\pp.   15.   17.  31   S.   W.  305. 

Six  days. — Where  a  carrier  refuses  to 
deliver  goods  to  the  owner  until  the 
amount  due  for  freight  is  ascertained,  it 
can  not  be  said,  as  a  matter  of  law,  that 
six  days  is  so  clearly  a  reasonable  time 
that  there  is  no  room  for  submitting  the 
question  of  due  diligence  to  the  jury. 
Beasley  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  App. 
D.  C.  595. 

83.  Cause  of  delay. — Unionville  Produce 
Co.  z:  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  168  Mo.  .\pp. 
168,   153   S.   W.  63. 


§§  970-971  CARRIERS.  696 

corn,  because  of  delay  in  transit,  because  of  tbe  rule,  was  one  of  fact,  on  it  be- 
ing assumed  tbat  the  rule  atlorded  a  valid  excuse  for  failure  to  deliver  promptly.'** 

Excuse  for  Delay. — Whether  a  carrier  is  excused  for  delay  is  a  question 
for  the  jnry.^^  Where  a  carrier  seeks  to  excuse  its  failure  to  transfer  cars 
of  potatoes  to  the  yard  where  they  were  to  be  delivered  because  of  extraordinary 
demands  and  condition  of  traffic,  a  question  of  fact  is  presented, ^^^  and  it  was 
error  to  instmct  that,  if  plaintiff  and  the  other  dealers  helped  to  block  the  pro- 
duce vard  after  expiration  of  free  days,  plaintiff'  could  not  recover.''' 

Where  Goods  Shipped  for  Sale. — In  an  action  by  a  seller  to  recover  the 
value  of  goods  againsi  a  carrier  to  whom  they  were  delivered  for  transportation 
to  the  buyer,  but  which  were  not  accepted  because  of  delay  in  delivery,  whether 
the  contract  of  sale  provided  that  the  goods  were  to  be  delivered  into  the  actual 
possession  of  the  buyer,  or  whether  they  were  to  be  delivered  free  on  board  cars, 
is  for  the  jury.^^ 

Where  Goods  Shipped  for  Use. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  delay 
in  the  delivery  of  goods  not  intended  for  sale  in  the  market  of  destination, 
where  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  owner's  inconvenience  owing  to  the  de- 
privation of  the  property,  the  question  of  inconvenience  and  damage  therefrom 
is  for  the  jury.^^  \Vhere  a  carrier  had  sufficient  notice  that  tents  were  shipped 
to  be  used  as  stable  for  the  protection  of  horses,  during  severe  weather,  the 
question  whether  the  damages  claimed  to  have  resulted  from  failure  to  deliver 
in  a  reasonable  time  were  the  proximate  result  of  such  breach,  or  were  within 
the  contemplation  of  the  parties  at  the  time  of  making  the  contract,  is  for  the 
jury.-'"^ 

Instruction  Assuming  Facts. — Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
delav  in  the  shipment  of  corn,  the  evidence  as  to  the  time  when  defendant  re- 
ceived the  corn  was  conflicting,  it  was  improper  for  the  court  to  assume  in  its 
charge  that  the  corn  was  received  by  the  carrier  on  a  particular  day.^^ 

Instruction  on  Weight  of  Evidence. — An  instruction  in  a  case  where 
freight  was  delivered  to  a  carrier  on  Saturday,  and  was  not  shipped  till  Mon- 
day, there  being  no  train  Sunday,  that  in  considering  the  question  of  negligence 
of  the  carrier  in  failing  to  transport  the  freight  within  a  reasonable  time  it  was 
under  no  obligation  to  run  its  train  on  Sunday,  and  can  not  be  charged  with 
negligence  in  failing  to  transport  on  Sunday,  if  it  ran  no  freight  train  over  the 
line  that  day,  is  not  open  to  the  objections  that  it  is  on  the  weight  of  evidence, 
that  it  presents  a  hypothetical  issue,  and  not  a  real  question  of  fact,  or  that  it 
singles  out  and  lays  undue  stress  on  an  issue  not  in  the  case.^- 

§  971.  Necessity  and  Propriety  of  Instructions. — In  a  suit  against  a 
railway  for  damage  through  delay  in  transportation  of  goods,  plaintiff  is  en- 
titled to  a  charge  submitting  the  question  of  negligence  where  the  evidence  justi- 
fies such  submission."-'' 

84.  Rule  of  precedence  in  unloading  at  89.  Where  goods  shipped  for  use. — 
elevator. — Hall  Grain  Co.  r.  Louisville,  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2  Texas  App, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    148    Alo.    App.    .308,    128    S.        Civ.   Cas.,  §  631. 

W.  42.  90.  Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Maxwell  (Tex. 

85.  Excuse  for  delay.^W'hether   a   car-        Q\y    App.),  156  S.  W.  548. 

rier  is  excused  by  the  conduct  of  the  ship-  ^'^       Instruction      assuming      facts.— St. 

per   IS    a   question   of    fact   for   the    jury.        j^ouis,    etc..    R.    Co.    r.    Thompson    (Tex. 

^sY^g  Ml  3'^2''^'  ^'^-  -^''J'-^'  1"^  S-  ^^'-  ''^■^• 

Se/joynes  z/.'  Pennsylvania   R.   Co.,  235  ?2-,  Instruction   on   weight   of  evidence. 

Pa.    232,    83    Atl.    1016,    Ann.    Cas.    1913D,  —Rehearing   (Tex     Civ.   App.),   47    b.    W. 

964  384,  denied.     Belcher  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 

87.  Joynes  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  23.5  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  47  S  W.  1020,  re- 
Pa.    232,    83   Atl.    1016,   Ann    Cas.    1913    D,  versed  92  Tex.  593,  50  S.  W.  559.  ^ 

964.  93.   Necessity  and  propriety  of  instruc- 

88.  Where  goods  shipped  for  sale. —  tions. — Lklcher  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Acme  Paper  Box  Factory  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  92  Tex.  593,  597,  50  S.  W.  559,  reversing 
R.  Co.,  148   N.  C.  421,  62   S.   E.   557.  47    S.   W.   384. 


697  DF.I.AV    IX    TRANSPORTATION    OR    DELIVERY.  §§    971-972 

Rule  as  to  Assessing  Damages. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  dam- 
ages resulting  ivom  delay  in  the  delivery  of  goods,  it  is  erroneous  to  instruct 
to  assess  damages  in  case  of  unreasonable  delay,  without  any  direction  as  to  the 
rule  by  which  such  damages  shouUl  le  assessed.''^ 

That  Damages  in  Excess  of  Freight. — In  an  action  of  trover  in  such  case 
the  damage  to  the  property  while  in  the  hands  of  the  carrier  must  be  equal  to 
or  greater  than  the  freight  charges ;  and,  therefore,  where  there  is  no  evidence 
on  the  trial  establishing  this  fact,  it  is  error  for  the  trial  judge,  in  response  to 
the  requests  of  a  defendant  carrier,  to  refuse  to  place  this  element  of  the  case 
before   the   iur\ /'•' 

Distinguishing  Damages  from  Delay  from  Subsequent  Damage. — 
Where  goods  are  injured  by  delay  in  transpc-tation,  and  are  further  injured  by 
the  delay  of  the  consignee  in  removing  them  from  the  car,  the  carrier,  being 
liable  only  for  the  damages  from  delay  in  transportation,  is  entitled,  in  an  ac- 
tion to  recover  damages,  to  a  special  instruction  to  distinguish  between  the  dam- 
ages to  the  goods  at  the  time  of  their  arrival  and  the  damages  from  the  con- 
signee's delay  in  unloading  the  car,  and  it  is  error  to  refuse  such  a  charge,  al- 
though the  matter  is  covered  in  a  general  charge.***' 

§   972.  Form,    Requisites    and    Sufficiency.—  Abstract    Instruction. — 

Goods  having  been  transported  an  extra  distance  by  Jv  connecting  carrier,  owing 
to  a  mistake  of  the  initial  carrier,  the  connecting  carrier  demanded  payment  for 
such  extra  haul  before  permitting  the  shipi)er  to  take  his  goods.  \\'hile  the 
shipper  is  not  bound  to  pay  such  charge  before  receiving  his  goods,  it  is  error 
to  so  charge  as  an  abstract  proposition,  in  an  action  by  the  shipper  to  recover 
from  the  original  carrier  for  delay  resulting  from  his  refufal  to  pay  the  charge 
before  the  matter  is  adjusted."^ 

Applicability  to  Pleadings. — It  is  not  error  for  the  court  to  refuse  an  in- 
struction asked  bv  a  carrier,  excusing  the  carrier  from  the  duty  to  notify  the 
shippers  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  where  such  question  is  not  raised  by  the 
carrier's  pleadings."^  Where  suit  was  brought  against  a  railroad  company  for 
failing  to  deliver  to  the  consignee  two  car  loads  of  watermelons,  -o  the  contract 
of  affreightment,  and  the  evidence  showed  that  they  were  in  fact  delivered  at 
the  point  of  destination  within  a  reasonable  time,  but  the  consignee  refused  to 
receive  them  on  the  ground  that  they  were  damaged  by  not  being  properly 
loaded,  and  that  they  had  become  bruised  and  a  part  of  them  were  rotten,  it  was 
error  to  charge  that  if  the  defendant  did  not  put  the  melons  in  good  safe  cars, 
and  they  had  to  be  transferred  from  the  cars  in  which  they  were  loaded,  wdiereby 
damage  accrued,  the  jury  would  find  for  the  plaintiff  the  amount  of  such  dam- 
age.    This  charge  changed  the  issue  made  by  the  plaintiff  in  his  declaration.^^ 

Instruction  Enlarging  Damages  Pleaded. — An  instruction  directing  the 
jury  to  assess  the  damages  at  the  difference  between  the  market  value  of  the 
goods  when  delivered  and  the  market  value  of  the  same  when  they  should  have 
been  delivered,  is  erroneous,  where  the  damages  so  charged  are  greater  than 
the  damages  pleaded.^ 

94.  Rule  as  to  assessing  damages. — Ya-  98.  Applicability  to  pleadings. — Gibson 
zoo  etc  R  Co.  r.  Christmas.  89  Miss.  <•.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co..  88  S.  C.  360,  70 
6Sfi,'  42   So.   IfiO.  S.   E.   1030. 

95.  That  damages  in  excess  of  freight.  99.  Central  R..  etc.,  Co.  :■.  Avant.  80 
—Miami    I'owder  Co.   r'.   Port   Royal,   etc.,  C.a.   19,=;,  5  S.   E.  78. 

R.  Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  10  S.  E.  339,  21  L.  R.  1-       Instruction       enlarging       damages 

A.,   N.  S..  123.  pleaded. — W'liere  tlie  petition  alleged   that 

96.  Distinguishing  damages  from  delay  pood  tomatoes  were  depreciated  in  value 
from  subsequent  damage. — Guh',  etc.,  R.  a  specified  sum  per  crate  by  the  decline  in 
Co.  V.  Chinski.  5:!  I'ex.  Civ.  .\pp.  21,  114  the  market,  that  a  specified  number  of 
S.  W.   S5^.  crates   were   spoiled,  and   that   plaintiflF  in- 

97.  Form,  requisites  and  sufficiency. —  curred  expense  in  sortins:  the  same,  and 
Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Christmas,  89  Miss.  the  evidence  showed  a  jjrcater  damage  to 
686,  42  So.   169.  a    specified    number    of    crates    than    that 


§§  972-974  CARRIERS.  698 

Applicability  to  Evidence. — In  an  action  against  an  express  company  for 
refusing  to  deliver  a  dead  body  at  night  at  a  station  where  no  night  office  was 
maintained,  the  body  being  carried  to  the  first  night  station  and  returned  the 
next  day,  an  instruction  that  if  defendant's  agent  at  the  destination  knew  be- 
fore the"  arrival  of  the  body  at  night  that  it  would  then  arrive,  and  plaintiff  was 
there  to  receive  it,  and  read}-,  wilhng.  and  able  to  pay  the  charges,  defendant 
was  bound  to  deliver  to  him  on  the  first  arrival  at  the  destination,  was  erroneous, 
as  ignoring  the  validity  of  the  company's  rule  preventing  delivery  at  inght  at 
that  station,  and  as  being  unsupported  by  evidence,  there  being  no  showing  that 
the  agent  had  the  knowledge  predicated  by  the  instruction. - 

Confusing  and  Misleading  Instructions.— Where  in  a  suit  against  a  car- 
rier for  delay  in  transporting  a  machine  the  appellant  asked  the  court  to  charge 
that  the  measure  of  damages  was  the  cash  rental  value  of  the  machine  during 
the  time  of  delay,  he  can  not  complain  of  its  refusal  to  give  a  charge  conflicting 
with  that  proposition,  to  wit:  that  no  recovery  could  be  had  of  the  rental  value 
because  defendant  was  not  shown  to  have  had  notice  that  the  machine  was  to 
be  used  at  once.^  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages  caused  by  its  delay 
in  transporting  goods  which  were  delivered  to  it  on  Saturday,  an  instruction 
that  the  jury  should  determine  whether  the  defendant  was  negligent  in  failing 
to  transport  the  car  within  a  reasonable  time,  when  qualified  by  the  statement 
that  defendant  was  under  no  obligation  to  run  its  train  on  Sunday,  and  was  not 
chargeable  with  negligence  in  failing  to  do  so,  if  it  ran  no  freight  train  over  its 
line  on  that  day,  was  erroneous,  since  it  might  have  led  the  jury  to  believe  that 
defendant  was  not  required  to  transport  the  goods  until  Monday,  whereas  it  was 
plaintift"s  right  to  have  the  court  instruct  the  jury  upon  the  very  facts  proved, 
and  to  direct  their  minds  to  the  very  circumstances  on  which  he  relied.^ 

Errors  Cured  by  Verdict. — In  an  action  against  two  railroad  companies  for 
damages  for  delay  in  the  transportation  of  freight,  it  appeared  that  the  contract 
of  shipment  was  made  with  an  associated  fast  freight  line,  composed  of  the 
two  defendant  companies.  The  court  submitted  to  the  jury  the  issue  whether, 
under  the  contract  of  association,  the  roads  over  which  freight  was  carried  were 
responsible  for  the  entire  obligation  of  the  contract  of  carriage.  The  error,  if 
any,  was  cured  by  verdict  for  the  plaintiff.^ 

§  973.  Verdict. — Where  in  an  action  for  negligent  delay  in  transporting 
perishable  freight,  it  is  agreed  that  the  freight  should  have  arrived  on  a  certain 
day,  and  the  plaintiff's  evidence  shows  that  it  did  not  arrive  until  five  days  later, 
while  evidence  of  the  carrier  fixes  the  arrival  on  the  day  the  freight  should  have 
arrived,  the  verdict  for  the  plaintiff  establishing  an  unreasonable  delay  au- 
thorizes a  recovery,  provided  such  delay  was  the  result  of  the  negligence  al- 
leged by  the  plaintiff.*"' 

§  974.  Judgment. — A  judgment  against  a  carrier  for  damages  for  delay  in 
the  transportation  of  goods  does  not  bear  interest,  under  a  code  providing  for 

pleaded,  an  instruction  directing  the  jury  3.    Confusing    and    misleading     instruc- 

to  assess  the  damages  at  the  difference  be-  tions.— Texas,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   Hassell,   23 

tween   the   market   value   of   the   tomatoes  Tex.    Civ.    App.    681,    683,    58    vS.    W.    .54. 

when   delivered   and   the   market   value   of  ^   Judgment  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  47  S.  W. 

he  same  when  they  would  have  been  de-  reversed.     Belcher  v.   Missouri, 

hvered  had  no  unreasonable  delay  occur-  ^    ^       ^^  ^^^    5^3    ,^^  g    ^    559 

red    was   erroneous    because    it    enlarged  '                          .  ,             ,.          t-,     ,       nr 

the    cause    of    action    pleaded.      Parsons-  5    Errors  cured  by  verdict.--Rocky  Mt. 

Applegate   Co.   v.   Louisville,   etc.,   R.   Co.,  Mills  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R-   Co     119   N. 

118   SW.   101,  136   Mo.  App.  494.  C.  693.  25  S.   E.   854,  56  Am.  St.   Rep.  682. 

2.     Applicability     to     evidence. — Adams  6.    Verdict.— Parsons-Applegate    Co.    v. 

Exp.   Co.  V.   Hibbard.   145   Ky.   818,   141   S.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  Mo.  App.  494, 

W.  397,  38  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  818.  118   S.   W.    101. 


699  DI'I.AV    IX    TRANSPORTATION    (JR    UKUIVERV.  §§    974-976 

interest  <in  jud^micnls  in  recovery  for  delA." 

§§  975-985.  Demurrage,  and  Liability  of  Consignee  or  Owner  for 
Delay — §  975.  In  General.— Definition. — Demurrage  i>  a  sum  fixed  by  the 
contract  of  affreightment  as  a  remuneration  t(j  tlie  shipowner  for  the  detention 
of  the  ship  l)eyond  the  lay  days  allowed  for  loading  or  unloading.'' 

Applicability  to  Railroads. — The  term  "demurrage,"  as  used  in  its  technical 
sense,  a])plies  to  maritime  law,  and  some  authorities  have  held  that  it  is  con- 
fined to  carriers  by  water,  but  it  is  now  generally  used  to  signify  the  charge  for 
the  st(ira,L;e  of  goods   in   railroad  car." 

Reference  to  Maritime  Law. — The  adoption  Ijy  the  railroad  company  of 
the  term  ■■(knuirrage"  as  a  designation  for  this  charge  does  not  require  the 
court  t(j  re>ort  to  the  maritime  law  as  a  standard  for  testing  the  validity  of  the 
regulation.'" 

Terminal  Defined. — Two  yards  of  a  railroad  company  were  about  four 
miles  apart,  both  were  used  as  terminal  points,  and  cars  placed  in  either  yard 
could  l)e  released  when  ordered  by  the  shipper.  There  was  no  evidence  that, 
if  the  cars  had  been  brought  to  the  yard  nearest  to  the  dumi)ing  piers  instead 
of  to  the  other  yard,  the  detention  of  the  cars  would  have  been  less  than  if 
placed  in  the  nearest  yard.  Tt  was  held  that  both  yards  were  a  part  of  the 
terminal.'' 

Power  to  Regulate  and  Control. — The  power  to  regulate  car  service  and 
demurrage  charges  as  to  cars  employed  in  interstate  commerce  is  not  conferred 
upon  the  state  railroad  commission  of  Ohio  by  the  act  of  April  2,  1906,  creating 
and  prescriljing  the  duties  of  the  state  railroad  commission.  Demurrage  charges, 
as  respects  matters  of  interstate  commerce,  are  within  the  control  of  the  inter- 
state commission,  the  state  railway  commission  having  no  power  to  impose  such 
charges  on  interstate  commerce,  l)Ut  as  to  interstate  commerce  the  commission 
has  such  power.' - 

§  976.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Charge. — It  is  the  undoubted  right  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  to  adopt  and  enforce,  as  between  itself  and  its  customer,  any  rea- 
sonable regulation  for  the  conducting  of  its  business,  the  purpose  and  eft'ect 
of  which  is  the  protection  of  the  carrier  and  the  benefit  of  the  public.^-'  The 
carrier,  in  addition  to  its  compensation  for  the  carriage  of  goods,  has  the  right" 

7.  Judgment. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  The  average  time  to  take  a  car  out  of  the 
Southern  Seating,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Tenn.  568,  yards  and  place  it  on  the  piers  to  unload 
58  S.  W.  303,  50  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  729,  78  was  from  30  minutes  to  an  hour.  Both 
Am.  St.  Rep.  933.  See  ante,  "Interest  on  yards  were  used  as  the  terminal  point, 
Value   of  (jQods,"   §   945.  and    cars   placed    in    either   yard   could    be 

8.  Demurrage,'  and  liability  of  consignee  pleased  when  ordered  by  the  shipper,  and 
or  owner  for  delay.-Davis  v.  Wallace,  [here  was  no  evidence  that,  if  the  cars 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,r,57.  3  Cliff.  123;  Wordin  had  been  brought  to  the  yard  nearest  to 
V.  Bemis,  32  Conn.  268,  85  Am.  Dec.  255;  the  dumping  piers  instead  of  to  the  other 
Cross  V.  Beard,  26  N.  Y.  85;  Fisher  v.  y^'^^  t^ie  detention  of  the  cars  would  have 
Abeel  (X.  Y.),  66  Barb.  3S1.  been    less    than    it    was.      Held    to    justity 

.      ,.     ,  .,.                  •,        J        T^-  a  hnding  that  both  yards  were  a  part  of 

9.  Applicability  to  railroads.— Dixon  v.  ^j^^  '-terminal,"  within  the  demurrage 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Ga.  173,  3o  S.  ^^^,^3  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Marshall, 
E-    369.  t;^o   n.  Y.   S.  41,   147  App.   Div.   806,   17   L. 

10.  Reference    to    maritime  law. — Miller       \{_   \_   x.    S.,   193. 

V.   Georgia   R.,  etc.,  Co.,  SS  Ga.   5()3,  15  S.  12.    Power    to    regulate    and    control. — 

E.  316,  30  Am.  St.   Rep.   170,   IS   L.   R.  A.,  Railroad  Comm.  v.  Ann  Arbor   R.   Co..  12 

N.    S.,    323,    50   Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    70.  Q.   C.  C,   N.   S.,  317,   21-31   O.   C.   D.   337. 

11.  Terminal  defined.— A  carrier  adopted  affirming  8  X.  P.,  X.  S.,  233,  19  O.  D.  X. 
demurrimo   nilcs   for  coal   cars  at  a  termi-  !'.  691.  at'tirnied  in  83   O.   St.  476. 

nal  at  whicli   it  maintained  two  yards  for  13.   Right  of  carrier  to   charge.— Miller 

cars    until    called    for.      The    yards    were  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563.  15  S. 

about  four  miles  apart,  and  one  yard  was  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A., 

a    mile     and    a    half    from    dumping   piers.  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  70. 


§  976 


CARRIERS. 


700 


to  charge  tor  their  storage  and  keeping,  as  a  warehousemen,  for  whatever  time 
they  remain  in  its  custody  after  reasonable  opi:)ortunity  has  been  afforded  the 
owner  to  remove  them.^-*  This  right  extends  to  the  adoption  and  enforcement 
of  a  reasonable  regulation  as  to  the  time  in  which  the  cars  of  a  common  carrier 
by  rail  whose  customer  has  the  privilege  of  unloading  the  cars  for  himself  or 
has  agreed  to  unload  such  cars,  as  to  the  time  within  which  the  cars  may  be 
unloaded  free  of  any  expense  for  storage,  and  to  the  fixing  of  the  reasonable 
rate  per  day  at  which  storage  or  other  demurrage  for  delay  shall  thereafter  be 
charged  for  the  use  of  such  cars  so  long  as  they  remain  unloaded. ^^     Railroads 


14.  Compensation    as   warehouseman. — 

Hutchinson  on  Carriers.  §  ;!7S.  South- 
western R.  Co.  V.  Felder,  46  Ga.  433;  Mil- 
ler V.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563, 
15  S.  E.  316.  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  177,  18 
L'.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    70. 

After  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  their 
destination,  the  liability  of  the  carrier  as 
such  ceases,  but  the  carrier  becomes  lia- 
ble for  the  custody  of  the  goods  as  a 
warehouseman,  and  if  the  goods  are  not 
removed  within  a  reasonable  time,  is  en- 
titled to  compensation,  for  which  the 
carrier  has  a  lien  as  warehouseman.  Nor- 
way Plains  Co.  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad 
(Mass.).  1   Gray  263,  61  Am.  Dec.  423. 

15.  Right  to  charge  demurrage. — 11  Ry. 
&  Corp.  L.  J.  49;  Beach.  Ry.  Law,  §  924; 
Jones,  Liens,  §  384;  4  Lawson,  Rights, 
Rem.  &  Pr.,  p.  3146,  §§  1831,  1832;  Wood, 
Ry.  Law,  pp.  1592,  1593,  1600;  2  Wat. 
Corp.  245,  246;  Redf.  R.  R.  (6th  Ed.),  pp. 
67-83;  Amer.  &  English  Enc.  Law,  vol.  2, 
pp.  878-881;  Union  Pac,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cooke,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  89,  note; 
Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  90, 
note;  Pennsylvania  Millers  State  Ass'n  v. 
P.  &  O.  Ry.  Co.,  8  Interst.  Com.  R.  531. 

Alabama. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood 
Mfg.  Co.,  142  Ala.  322,  37  So.  667,  669,  68 
L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  227,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  32, 
4  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  12. 

Georgia. — Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc., 
Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St. 
Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  70,  79;  Dixon  v.  Central, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Ga.  173,  35  S.  E.  369. 

Illinois. — Schumacher  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  207  111.  199,  69  N.  E.  825;  Railway 
Co.  V.  Propst  Lumber  Co.,  114  111.  App. 
659;  Railway  Co.  v.  Dorsey  Fuel  Co.,  113 
111.   App.   382. 

Kentucky. — Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co..  98  Ky.  152,  32  S. 
W.  595,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326,  36  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  850,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  2  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  722. 

Massachusetts. — Miller  v.  Mansfield,  112 
Mass.    260. 

Mississippi. — X'ew  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  George  &  Co.,  82  Miss.  710,  35  So.  193; 
Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85  Miss.  520, 
37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  715. 

Missouri. — McGee  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  71  Mo.  App.  310;  Darlington  v.  Mis- 


souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  1.  72  S. 
W.  122;  Owen  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
83  Mo.  454;  Darlington  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  216  Mo.  658,  116  S. 
W.  530. 

Xczv  York. — Crommelin  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Aljb.  Dec.  472,  43  N.  Y.  90. 

North  Carolina. — Hockfield  v.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  150  N.  C.  419,  64  S.  E.  181,  134 
Am.    St.    Rep.   945. 

OJiio. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher, 

3  O.   N.  P.   122,  5  O.   Dec.   659. 
Pennsylvania. — Pennsylvania    R.     Co.    v. 

Midvale  Steel  Co.,  201  Pa.  624,  51  Atl. 
313,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  836. 

Tennessee. — Swan  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  106  Tenn.  229,  61   S.  W.  57. 

Texas. — ^Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  549,  550; 
Quanah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drummond  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  147  S.  W.  728;  Baumbach  v. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  650,  23 
S.  W.  693. 

Virginia. — X^'orfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams, 
90  Va.  393,  18  S.  E.  673,  674,  44  Am.  St. 
Rep.   916,   918,  22   L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,   530. 

Wyoniing. — Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Cann,  2  Wyo.  3.  But  see  Cleveland,  etc., 
R.  Co.  7'.  Holden,  73  111.  App.  582;  Cleve- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lamm,  73  111.  App. 
592. 

In  ordinary  cases,  the  railway  which 
delivers  a  car  to  be  unloaded  by  consignee 
may  charge  reasonable  demurrage  fixed 
Ijy  regulation  and  brought  to  freighter's 
notice.      Baumbach   v.    Gulf,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

4  Tex.    Civ.   App.    650,   653,   23    S.   W.    693. 
The  consignee  of  two  car  loads  of  coke 

was  notified  upon  their  arrival  that  a 
charge  for  rental  would  be  made  if  they 
were  not  unloaded  within  forty-eight 
hours.  The  notification  was  in  compli- 
ance with  the  rules  of  an  association  of 
railroads,  organized  for  the  purpose  of 
facilitating  the  unloading  of  cars,  and  the 
charge  made  for  the  rental  was  much  less 
than  the  average  earning  capacity  of 
freight  cars.  The  railroad  company  had 
at  the  point  of  destination  no  warehouse 
for  the  unloading  of  bulk  freight,  such  as 
coke.  Held,  that  the  railroad  company 
was  entitled  to  charge  rental  for  the  use 
of  the  cars  after  the  expiration  of  a  rea- 
sonable time  for  unloading.  Schumacher 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  207  111.  199,  69  N. 
E.   825. 


701 


DKI.AV    IN    TKANSI'OKTATION"    OK   DELIVERY. 


§  976 


are  entitled  to  charge  and  receive  extra  compensation  for  extra  service  rendered 
after  the  arrival  of  freight  at  its  destination,  such  as  reconsignment  cliarges, 
car  service  or  switching  charges,  demurrage,  and  the  Hke.'*'  A  railroad  com- 
pany as  a  common  carrier  is  bound  to  furnish  cars  for  the  transportation  of 
freight,  and  it  must  have  control  over  its  cars  in  order  to  perform  its  duties  to 
the  i)ublic.  Tf  persons  to  whom  shipments  of  goods  and  merchandise  were  con- 
signed might  hold  the  cars  without  unloading,  at  their  pleasure  or  convenience, 
and  without  extra  costs  or  charges,  and  thus  deprive  the  railroad  company  of 
the  use  of  its  cars  for  the  transjnjrtation  of  freight,  it  is  very  evident  that  both 
the  railroad  company  and  the  shii)i)ing  public  would  suffer  serious  injury  and 
loss.  The  right,  therefore,  of  a  railroad  comi)any  to  make  and  enforce  reason- 
able rules  and  regulations  to  secure  i)rompt  unloading  of  its  cars  is  clear. ^' 

Necessity  for  Contract.— The  right  to  charge  for  the  storage  of  goods  in 
cars  arises  where  the  goods  are  necessarily  detained  by  virtue  of  the  failure  of 
the  consignee  to  comply  with  his  obligation  to  the  carrier,  whereby  the  carrier 
is  deprived  of  the  use  of  its  cars.'^  Demurrage  is  often  a  matter  of  contract, 
but  not  necessarily  so.'''  Independent  of  any  express  or  implied  contract  of 
plaintiffs  to  be  bound  by  the  rules,  the  modern  doctrine  in  this  country  is  that 
the  right  to  demurrage,  in  such  circumstances,  exists  independent  of  contract 
or  statute.-"  The  very  circumstance  that,  in  ordinary  commercial  voyages,  a 
particular  sum  is  deemed  by  the  parties  a  fair  compensation  for  delays,  is  the 
very  reason  why  it  is,  and  ought  to  be,  adopted  as  a  measure  of  compensation, 
in  cases  ex  delicto.-'  A  corporation  was  organized  to  compress  cotton  and 
operate  a  compress.  It  did  not  authorize  shippers  to  consign  cotton  to  it,  and 
did  not  accept  any  cotton  as  consignee.  As  agent  of  the  owners,  it  delivered 
cotton  to  a  railroad  for  transportation  and  collected  from  the  railroad  the  charges 
for  compensation.  The  corporation  was  not  liable  to  the  railroad  company  for 
demurrage,  there  being  no  contractual  relation  between  the  corporation  and 
the  railroad  with  reference  to  the  shipment  of  cotton. -- 

By  Adoption  of  Regulation. — W  here  a  regulation  of  this  character  is  known 
to  the  customer  before  the  contract  for  transportation  is  made,  it  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed, in  the  absence  of  anv  evidence  to  the  contrary,  that  the  parties  contracted 


16.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85 
Miss.  520,  37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
715. 

17.  Baltimore.-  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  3 
O.  N.  P.  122.  5  O.  Dec.  659;  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Seiberling  &  Co.,  8  O.  C. 
C.    593.   4   O.    C.    D.   210. 

18.  Necessity  for  contract. — Dixon  v. 
Central,  etc..  R.  Co.,  110  Ga.  173,  35  vS. 
E.    369. 

19.  The  Apollon  (U.  S.),  9  Wheat.  361, 
6  L.  Ed.  111. 

20.  United  States. — Hawgood  v.  One 
Thousand  Three  Hundred  and  Ten  Tons 
of   Coal,  21    Fed.   681. 

Georgia. — Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
88  Ga.  563.  15  S.  E.  316,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  323.  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170.  50  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  70;  Dixon  v.  Central,  etc., 
R.   Co..   110   Ga.   173.  35   S.    E.  369. 

Keiitueh'w — Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Ohio,  etc..  R.  Co..  98  Ky.  152.  32  S. 
W.  595,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L.  R.  A.. 
N.   S.,   850,   56  Am.   St.    Rep.   326. 

Massaehusetts.—MiWcr  z:  Manstield,  112 
Mass.  260. 

Missouri. — Owen  r.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  83  Mo.  454;  McGee  v.   Chicago,  etc., 


R.  Co..  71  Mo.  App.  310;  Darlington  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  1.  72 
S.   W.  122. 

Xezv  York. — Huntly  v.  Dows  (X.  Y.),  55 
Barb.  310;  Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Waite,  114  X. 
Y.    S.    1115,   62    Misc.    Rep.   372. 

Virginia. — Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .\dams, 
90  Va.  393,  18  S.  E.  673,  22  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S., 
530,  44  Am.   St.  Rep.  916. 

"Where  the  bill  of  lading  contains  no 
provision  for  the  payment  of  demurrage, 
no  case  has  been  cited  to  show  the  con- 
signee or  his  assignee  is  liable  for  demur- 
rage; and  the  English  authorities  are  uni- 
formly against  such  a  lial)ility;  Young  v. 
Maeller,  5  El.  &  B.  755;  Chappell  v.  Com- 
fort, 10  Com.  B.,  N.  S.,  802;  Smith  v. 
Sieveking,  5  El.  &  B.  589."  Gage  r. 
Morse  (Mass.),  12  Allen  410.  90  Am.  Dec. 
155. 

In  Gage  v!  Morse  (Mass.).  12  Allen 
410,  90  Am.  Dec.  155,  the  bill  of  lading 
was  assigned  before  delivery  of  the  goods. 

21.  The  Apollon  (U.  S.).  9  Wheat.  361, 
6    L.    Ed.    111. 

22.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Capital  Com- 
press Co.,  50  Tex.  Civ.  App.  572.  110  S. 
W.   1014. 


976 


CARRIERS. 


702 


with  reference  to  it :  -•=  and  it  is  operative,  whether  inthcated  upon  the  bill  of 
lading  or  not,  and  whether  the  shipments  are  made  to  the  order  of  the  consignor 
with^the  ctistomarv  direction  to  notify  the  customer,  or  directly  to  the  customer 
himself.--*  Demurrage  is  allowed  the  carrier  where  it  discharges  its  duty  and 
delivers  the  car  within  the  proper  time,  and  the  consignee,  by  delay  in  unload- 
ing it,  deprives  the  owner  of  the  car  of  its  use,  for,  in  such  case,  the  parties 
contracting  with  reference  to  the  regulation  of  the  carrier  for  demurrage,  the 
rate  so  fixed  is  adopted  by  the  contract;  but  where  the  carrier  does  not  deliver 
the  goods  according  to  the  contract,  and  for  that  reason  the  consignee  refuses 
to  receive  it,  although  he  has  no  right  to  do  so,  he  can  not  be  said  to  adopt  the 
rate  of  demurrage  fixed  by  the  regulation  of  which  he  is  not  shown  to  have  had 
notice,  and  which  seems  to  apply  to  a  dififerent  state  of  facts.-^ 

Damages  in  Nature  of  Demurrage.— Damages  in  the  nature  of  demurrage 
are  recoverable  for  detention  beyond  a  reasonable  time  in  miloading  only,  where 
there  is  no  express  stipulation  to  pay  demurrage.-''' 

Necessity  for  Bill  of  Lading.— As  between  a  carrier  and  customers  who 
have  notice  of  the  regulation  before  shipments  are  made  and  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  of  an  agreement  to  the  contrary,  a  regulation  of  the  carrier  fixing  a 
rate  of  storage  charges  is  operative,  whether  indicated  upon  the  bill  of  lading 
or  not.-" 

Necessity  for  Statute.— A  reasonable  charge  may  be  imposed  by  earners  by 
rail  on  consignees,  independent  of  statute,  for  the  detention  of  cars  beyond  a 
reasonable  time.-^ 

Goods  in  Car  or  Warehouse.— It  is  not  material  that  the  goods  remain  m 
the  cars  of  the  carrier  instead  of  being  put  into  a  storehouse.-^  The  carrier  is 
as  much  entitled  to  charge  for  the  use  of  its  car  as  for  the  use  of  its  ware- 
house.3(»  W'here  it  is  the  duty  of  the  consignee  to  unload  freight,  and  failing  to 
do  so  he  accepts  the  benefit  of  storage  in  a  car  he  can  not  deny  the  carrier's 


23.  By  adoption  of  regulation. — Miller 
V.   Mansfield,   112  Mass.  360. 

24.  Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88 
Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170, 
18  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Gas.   70. 

25.  Baumbach  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    (',.50,    23    S.    W.    693. 

26.  Damages  in  nature  of  demurrage. — 
\\ordin  r.  Bemis,  32  Conn.  268,  85  Am. 
Dec.   255. 

27.  Necessity  for  bill  of  lading. — Miller 
V.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  15 
S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  70. 

28.  Necessity  for  statute. — Erie  R.  Co. 
V.  Waite,  114  X.  Y.  S.  1115,  62  Misc.  Rep. 
372. 

"In  this  state  demurrage  charges  as  to 
shipments  of  grain  in  car-load  lots  are 
allowed  by  statute.  Section  1115,  Rev. 
St.  1899."  Darlington  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.    Co..   99   Mo.   App.    1,   72   S.  W.   122. 

Virginia  Code,  §§  1202,  1203,  allow  rail- 
road companies  to  make  a  certain  charge 
for  the  shipment  of  produce  and  other 
articles;  and  "for  the  weighing,  storage, 
and  delivery  of  articles  at  any  depot  or 
warehouse  of  the  company,  a  charge  may 
also  be  made,  not  exceeding  the  ordinary 
warehouse  rates  charged  in  the  city  or 
town  in  which,  or  nearest  to  which,  the 
depot  or  warehouse  is  situated;"  but  for- 


bid a  railroad  company  "to  charge  or 
receive  any  fee  or  commission  other  than 
the  regular  transportation  fees,  storage, 
and  other  charges  authorized  by  law  for 
manifesting,  receiving,  or  shipping  any 
goods,  or  other  articles  for  transportation 
on  such  railroad."  Held,  that  said  stat- 
utes do  not  forbid  a  charge  of  $1  per  day 
for  the  detention  of  a  car  more  than 
seventy-two  hours  after  notice  to  the  con- 
signee of  its  arrival.  Lacy  and  Hinton, 
jj.,  dissenting.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Adams,  90  Va.  393,  18  S.  E.  673,  22  L.  R. 
A.,   N.   S.,   530,   44   Am.   St.   Rep.  916. 

29.  Goods  in  car  of  warehouse. — The  re- 
sponsil)ility  of  the  company  for  their  cus- 
tody was  the  same  as  if  they  had  been 
stored,  and  the  company  has  the  right  to 
retain  them  until  the  charges  are  paid. 
Miller    V.    Mansfield,    112    Mass.    260. 

30.  Compensation  for  car  as  warehouse. 
— "Where  the  carrier's  duty  ends  with  the 
transportation  ^of  the  car  and  its  delivery 
to  the  custom'er,  and  no  further  service 
is  embraced  in  the  contract,  the  carrier, 
after  a  reasonable  time  has  been  allowed 
for  unloading,  is  as  much  entitled  to 
charge  for  the  further  use  of  its  car  as 
it  would  be  for  the  use  of  its  warehouse." 
Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563, 
15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   70. 


703 


DKI.AV    IX    TKAXSl'OKTATION    OR    DF.I.IVKRV. 


§  976 


riglU  to  compensation  on  the  grouml  that  sonie  otlier  method  was  not  resorted 

Goods   Shipped  to   Consignee   or   Consignor. — As  hetween  a  carrier  and 

custoiucrs  who  ha\e  n(jticc  oi  the  re<^ailati<jn  hef<;re  shipments  are  made  and  in 
the  ahsen.ce  of  evidence  of  an  agreement  to  the  contrary,  a  regulation  of  the 
carrier  fixing  a  rate  for  storage  charges  is  operative,  whether  the  shipments  are 
made  to  the  order  of  the  consignor  with  the  customer's  direction  to  notify  the 
carrier  or  siii|)pe(l  (h'rectly  to  the  customer  himself.''- 

Goods  to  Be  Shipped  Over  Connecting  Line. — A  railroad  company  which 
receives  freight  for  transmission  beytMul  its  line  without  demanding  i)repayment 
of  charges  can  not  claim  such  charges  until  it  has  carried  such  freight  to  the 
end  of  its  line,  and  is  ready  to  deliver  it  to  the  connecting  carrier ;  and  the  re- 
fusal of  the  consignee  to  receive  the  goods  or  pay  the  charges  at  any  other  point 
does  not  entitle  the  com])any  to  charge  demurrage/'-' 

Goods  Refused  by  Consignee. — The  decisions  which  hold  that  a  carrier 
wdiich  delivers  to  the  consignee  a  loaded  car,  to  be  unloaded  by  him,  may  charge 
reasonable  demurrage,  hxed  by  regulation  and  brought  to  the  notice  of  the 
freighter,  relate  to  ordinary  cases,  where  the  carrier  discharges  its  duty  and 
delivers  the  car  within  the  proper  time,  and  by  the  consignee's  delay  in  unload- 
ing is  deprived  of  the  use  of  the  car;  but  where  the  ])laintiti:'  refuses  to  receive 
the  car,  he  does  not  adopt  by  agreement  a  rate  of  demurrage  fixed  by  a  rule  of 
which  he  is  not  shown  to  have  had  notice,  and  which  seems  to  apply  to  a  dif- 
ferent state  of  facts:  and  there  being  no  evidence  that  the  charges  were  rea- 
sonable, the  court  could  well  conclude  that  the  amount  claimed  was  unreasona- 
ble.-'-» 

Goods  Destroyed. — Where  the  consignee  failed  to  unload  goods  from  a  ves- 
sel within  the  time  allowed,  and  afterwards,  while  the  vessel  was  detained  on 
demurrage,  the  vessel  and  cargo  were  lost  without  the  fault  of  the  master,  the 
consignee  is  liable  for  demurrage.-'^'' 

Charges  on  Cars  of  Another  Carrier. — The  carrier  may  collect  demurrage 
charges  on  a  car  owned  by  another  carrier/'^'  it  is  not  illegal  for  one  railroad  to 
collect  a  charge  for  detention  of  a  car  belonging  to  another  road,  where  the  uni- 
versal practice  is  that  the  road  into  whose  custody  the  cars  is  delivered  is  enti- 
tled to  the  earnings  of  the  car  as  long  as  it  is  in  its  possession. 3" 


31.  Wliile  a  customer  whose  duty  it  is 
to  unload  freight  consigned  to  him  and 
who,  failing  to  do  so  within  a  reasonable 
time,  accepts  the  benefit  of  storage  in  a 
car  by  requesting  or  permitting  the  car- 
rier to  continue  holding  it  unloaded  in 
his  service  and  subject  to  liis  will  and 
convenience  as  to  the  time  of  unloading, 
may  insist  that  the  rates  fixed  shall  not 
be  unreasonable  or  excessive,  he  can  not 
be  heard  to  complain  of  the  method  ot 
storage  and  to  deny  the  carrier's  right  to 
any  compensation  at  all  for  its  service 
on  the  ground  that  some  other  method 
was  not  resorted  to.  Miller  v.  Georgia  R., 
etc..  Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am. 
St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323.  50 
Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.   70. 

32.  Goods  shipped  to  consignee  or  con- 
signor.-Millrr  f.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  S8 
Ga.  5(i;!,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170, 
18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.    70. 

33.  Goods  to  be  shipped  over  connect- 
ing line. — Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Diether,  10  Ind.  App.  206,  37  N.  E.  39. 
106'.),   53  Am.   St.   Rep.   385. 


34.  Goods  refused  by  consignee. — It  was 
so  held  where  the  defendant  claimed  $200 
for  storage  due,  which  was  more  than  the 
value  of  the  lumber.  The  rules  or  de- 
fendant provided  that  storage  would  be 
charged  for  cars  if  not  unloaded  within 
iwenty-four  hours  after  notice  of  arrival — 
for  first  day,  $1,  second,  $2.50,  third  and 
sicceeding  days,  $5  per  day;  and  plaintiff 
was  notified  that  unless  he  received  the 
hmiber  it  would  be  stored  for  his  account. 
Baumbach  r.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ. 
.■\pp.   6.")0.   23    S.    W.    fi'.i.i. 

35.  Goods  destroyed. — Brown  v.  Ral- 
ston.  3ti    \'a.    (9   Leigh)    5:52. 

36.  Charges  on  cars  of  another  carrier. 
— Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  98  Ky.  152,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326, 
32  S.  W.  595,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L. 
R.    A.,    N.    S.,    850. 

37.  Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio, 
etc..  R.  Co..  32  S.  W.  595.  98  Kv.  152.  17 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  726.  36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850,  56 
.\m.   St  Rep.  326. 

.\  railroad  entitled  to  possession  of 
cars,  and  liable  to  the  owners  thereof  for 
a  per  diem  charge  for  their  use  may  re- 


S   977  CARRIERS.  ^^04 

§§  977-979.  Rules  and  Regulations  of  Carrier— §  977.  In  General. 
—Necessity  for.— The  law  compels  the  carrier  to  receive  the  goods  of  the  pub- 
lic and  to  transport  and  deliver  them  within  a  reasonable  time.  To  do  this  it  is 
necessary  that  the  means  of  transportation  shall  be  under  the  carrier's  control, 
and  that  after  the  dutv  of  carriage  has  been  performed,  its  vehicles  shall  not  be 
converted  into  storehouses,  at  the  will  of  consignees,  to  remain  such  indefinitely 
and  without  compensation.  If  no  check  could  be  placed  upon  such  detention, 
it  is  plain  that  the  business  of  transportation  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  private 
interest  or  caprice,  and  that  carriers,  thus  hampered  in  their  facilities,  and  un- 
able to  foresee  the  time  or  extent  to  which  their  vehicles  would  be  diverted  from 
the  work  of  carriage,  could  not  provide  properly  for  the  demands  of  traffic  or 
perform  with  dispatch  their  legitimate  function.  It  would  place  upon  the  car- 
rier the  burden  and  expense  of  supplying  numerous  vehicles  not  needed  for  the 
hauling  of  freights,  thus  requiring  it  to  provide  extra  facilities,  as  well  as  to 
render  extra  service,  without  compensation  beyond  that  received  for  transporta- 
tion. It  would  result  in  the  accumulation  of  cars  on  the  carrier's  tracks,  and 
the  obstruction,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  of  the  movement  and  unloading  of 
trains.  Not  onlv  would  loss  ensue  to  the  carrier,  but  consignees  and  shippers 
in  general,  and  the  people  at  large,  must  suffer  seriously  from  this  hindrance  to 
the*  due  and  regular  course  of  transportation.  In  this  matter  the  public  have 
rights  paramount  to  those  of  any  individual  or  class  of  individuals,  and  the  busi- 
ness of  the  common  carrier  must  be  so  conducted  as  to  subserve  the  general  in- 
terest and  convenience.  Especially  is  this  true  as  to  railroad  companies,  in  view 
of  the  important  franchises  granted  them  by  the  public,  and  the  use  and  control 
thus  acquired  of  highways  upon  which  the  commerce  of  the  country  is  so  largely 
dependent."^ 

Purpose  and  Object. — The  charge  is  not  for  transportation,  storage,  or  de- 
livery of  freight,  and  it  is  not  a  device  or  a  pretext  for  exacting  of  the  shipper  or 
the  consignee  more  than  the  rate  prescribed  by  law^  and  fixed  by  schedule ;  but  it 
is  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  cars  and  the  obstruction  of  the  tracks  by  the 
consignee  for  weeks  and  months  after  the  contract  for  transporting  and  deliver- 
ing tile  freight  had  been  fulfilled  and  ended.  It  is  neither  a  transportation  charge, 
nor  a  storage  charge,  nor  a  terminal  charge,  nor  a  subterfuge  for  adding  to  the 
cost  of  transportation  in  excess  of  the  rates  prescribed.-"-'* 

cover  of  a   consignee   demurrage   charges  rules    and    regulations    to    secure    prompt 

for   unreasonable    delay.      Erie    R.    Co.    v.  unloading  of  its  cars  is  clear.     Baltimore, 

Waite,   114   N.   Y.   S.    1115,   r,2    Misc.   Rep.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  3  O.  N.  P.  122,  5  O. 

372  Dec.  659;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seiber- 

38.   Rules  and  regulations   of  carrier.—  ling  &  Co.,  8  O.  C.  C.  593,  4  O.  C.  D.  210. 

Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  39.   Purpose   and   object.— Norfolk,   etc., 

30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  175,  15  S.  E.  316,  18  R.   Co.  v.   Adams,  90   \a.   393,  44   Am.   St. 

L     R.   A.,    X.    S.,    323,    50    Am.    &    Eng.    R.  Rep.    916,   919,    18    S.    E.    673,   22    L.    R.   A., 

Cas.   70.  N.   S.,  530. 

A  railroa'd  company  as  a  common  car-  The  object  of  the  regulation  of  the 
rier  is  bound  to  furnish  cars  for  the  trans-  carrier  fixing  a  charge  for  the  detention 
portation  of  freight,  and  it  must  have  con-  of  cars  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
trol  over  its  cars  in  order  to  perform  its  revenue  at  all.  That  feature  is  insignifi- 
duties  to  the  public.  If  persons  to  whom  cant,  the  purpose  being  to  facilitate  trans- 
shipments of  goods  and  merchandise  were  portation,  and  the  less  revenue  there  is 
consigned  might  hold  the  cars  without  derived  from  the  enforcement  of  the 
unloading,  at  their  pleasure  or  conveni-  charge  the  greater  the  carriers  are  bene- 
ence,  and  without  extra  costs  or  charges,  fited  and  their  facilities  increased  for 
and  thus  deprive  the  railroad  company  of  serving  the  public.  The  purpose  of  the 
the  use  of  its  cars  for  the  transportation  regulation  is  an  advantage  and  not  an 
of  freight,  it  is  very  evident  that  both  injury  to  the  customer.  Kentucky  Wagon 
the  railroad  company  and  the  shipping  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ky.  152, 
public  would  suffer  serious  injury  and  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326,  32  S.  W.  595,  17  Ky. 
loss.  The  right,  therefore,  of  a  railroad  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850. 
company  to  make  and  enforce  reasonable 


705  IH:i..\Y    IN    TKAXSl'ORTATIOX    OR    DKLIVKRV.  §§    977-97% 

Necessity  for  Counter  Penalties. — That  there  is  no  reciprocity  of  indem- 
nity and  connter  pcnaUy  in  dcnmrraj^e  rules  in  favor  of  the  customer  against  the 
carrier  for  not  pronijjtly  performing  its  duties  as  a  common  carrier,  does  not  in- 
vaHrlate  such  rules. •" 

General  and  Uniform  Application. — The  rule,  to  be  beneficial  to  all  alike, 
must  be  (jf  universal  ajjplication,  and  a  rare  or  exceptional  circumstance,  incident 
to  a  jKirticular  shijjper  at  some  particular  time,  can  not  be  allowed  to  annul  the 
rule.'*'  A  rule  of  a  railroad  commission  forbids  railroads  to  discriminate  in  de- 
murrage rates,  and  re(|uires  them  to  collect  demurrage  at  all  places  on  their  lines 
if  tliev  collect  at  any  i)lace.  The  oj^eration  of  the  rule  is  to  be  suspended  by  the 
commission  when  justice  demands.  Other  rules  of  the  commission  regulate  car 
service  associalious.  Trior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  later  set  of  rules,  a  car 
service  association  had  a  rule  providing  for  the  withdrawal  of  service  on  private 
sidings  in  case  of  the  failure  to  consignees  to  pjomptly  settle  bills  for  car  service 
charges.  Where  a  consignee  refused  to  recognize  the  car  service  association,  and 
refused  to  i)ay  car  service  or  demurrage,  the  withdrawal  of  car  service  on  his 
siding  by  the  car  service  association  did  not  constitute  such  o])pressive  and  arbi- 
trary action  as  to  constitute  the  car  service  association  an  illegal  trust  and  combine 
or  criminal  conspiracy  inimical  to  the  public  welfare.^-  A  demurrage  rule  pro- 
hibiting discrimination  between  persons,  and  providing,  if  car  service  be  collected 
from  one  person,  it  must  be  from  all  who  are  liable,  does  not  prevent  demurrage 
being  collected  for  cars  loaded  with  certain  kinds  of  freight,  though  it  is  not 
charged  where  they  are  loaded  with  other  kinds."*-' 

Construction  of  Rules. — Demurrage  rules  promulgated  by  a  carrier  must  be 
construed  most  favorably  to  the  shipper.-*"*  In  an  action  by  a  carrier  for  de- 
murrage charges  under  a  rule  of  the  carrier  the  court  will  not  give  the  rule  a 
broader  construction  than  its  language  indicates,  unless  the  reason  of  the  thing 
and  the  surrounding  circumstances  require  it  to  do  so."*"' 

§  978.  By  Whom  Promulgated. — That  the  rule  was  promulgated  by  a  per- 
son or  board  of  persons  representing  a  combination  of  carriers  does  not  impair 
its  effect  as  a  regulation  of  a  particular  carrier.  A  common  carrier,  though  a  cor- 
poration, makes  a  regulation  its  own  bv  adopting  it  and  acting  upon  it,  irrespective 
of  the  source  from  when  it  is  derived."*" 

Rules  Framed  by  Car  Service  Association. ^A  number  of  railroads  en- 
tering a  city  may  enter  into  a  car  service  association  without  surrendering  their 
corporate  autonomy  and  functions,  and  delegate  the  control  and  management  of 
their  business  as  common  carriers  to  the  arbitrary  control  of  the  manager  and 
committee  of  the  car  service  association,  and  thereby  abolish  competition,  and 
the  rules  of  the  association  as  to  demurrage  charges  are  not  for  that  reason 
illegal."*' 

40     Necessity    for    counter    penalties.^  43.  Xcw  Orleans,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  George 

Kentucky  WaKon   Mfi?.   Co.  v.   Ohio.  etc..  &   Co..    s:2    Miss.    Tio.    :{:.    So.    19.3. 

R.   Co..  98   Ky.   152.  .')(■)  Am.   St.   Rep.   :i2().  44.    Construction    of    rules.^Staten    Is- 

32  S    W    595    17    kv.   L.    Rep.   72(5,  3()   L.  land    Rapid    Transit   R.    Co.    v.    Marshall 

R.  A..  X.   S..  850.       "  (App.    Term).    117    N.    Y.    S.    1034.    judg- 

41.  General   and  uniform   application. —  ment  aftirmed  121  X.  Y.  S.  82. 

It   is   not   necessary   tliat    an   exception   he  45.    Staten    Island    Rapid   Transit   Co.   r. 

made   in   behalf  of'  shippers  by   reason   oi  Marshall,   121    X.  Y.   S.   82,  13G  App.   Div. 

unfayorable     weather      conditions.       Ken-  571. 

tucky   \Va!?on    Mfg.   Co.   v.   Ohio.   etc..   R.  46.    By    whom    promulgated.— Miller    v. 

Co     98   Ky    152.   56   Am.   St.   Rep.   326,   32  Georgia   R..   etc..   Co..   88   Ga.   5(53,   30  Am. 

S    iv     595,    17    Ky.    L.    Rep.   726,   30    L.    R.  St.    Rep.    170.    15    S.    E.    316.    18    L.    R.    A., 

A.      N     S      850     '  N.  S..  323,  50  Am.  &   Kng.    K.   Cas.  70. 

42.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85  47.  Rules  framed  by  car  service  asso- 
Miss  520  37  So.  939.  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  ciation.— Kentucky  \Yagon  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
715.  ■  Ohio.  etc..  R.  Co..  98  Ky.  152.  56  Am.  St. 

1   Car— 45 


§§  978-979 


CARRIERS. 


706 


Shipper  Not  Consulted. — Where  all  the  carriers  in  a  city  formed  a  car  service 
association  and  appointed  a  manager  and  committee,  which  promulgated  rules  to 
regulate  charges  for  demurrage,  the  facts  that  a  shipper  was  not  consulted  in  the 
framing  of  the  rules  and  had  no  voice  in  the  selection  and  appointment  of  the 
manager  or  committee,  do  not  invalidate  such  rules.^*^ 

SulDordinate  Agents. — Where  by  a  general  rule  of  a  railroad  company  known 
to  the  consignee  demurrage  and  storage  were  chargeable  to  all  patrons  but  a 
special  contract  was  made,  not  with  the  authorities  who  promulgated  the  rule  but 
with  subordinate  agents,  and  for  the  express  purpose  of  avoiding  the  application 
of  the  rule  in  the  given  instance,  a  breach  of  the  contract  by  one  of  the  same  agents 
who  co-operated  in  making  it  affords  no  cause  of  action  against 'the  company."*^ 

§  979.  Notice. — Necessity  of  Notice. — A  consignee  can  not  be  held  liable 
for  demurrage  fixed  by  a  rule  of  which  he  had  no  notice,'*"  unless  the  rate  of 
demurrage  is  shown  to  be  reasonable.^ ^  The  consignee  being  advised  of  the 
arrival  of  cars  for  him,  formal  notice  is  not  necessary  to  make  him  liable  for  de- 
murrage.^- 

Rules  contained  in  bills  of  lading,  imposing  demurrage  for  dilatory  unload- 
ing of  cars,  are  binding  upon  consignees,  though  they  be  in  fact  ignorant  of  their 
existence. ^^ 


Rep.  326,  32  S.  W.  595,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
726,  36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850;  Phillips  Co.  v. 
Erie  Railway,  6  O.  C.  C,  X.  S.,  505,  14 
O.    D.    X.    P.   706. 

The  fact  that  a  l)ill  for  demurrage 
charges  due  a  railroad  was  made  out  by 
direction  of  a  car  service  association,  to 
which  the  railroad  intrusted  its  business 
in  the  collection  of  demurrage,  and  on 
its  letter  heads,  does  not  justify  the  con- 
signee in  refusing  to  pay  such  demurrage. 
Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85  Miss. 
520,   37   So.  939,   68   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,  715. 

The  fact  of  the  enactment  of  Acts  1898, 
p.  97,  c.  82,  making  car  service  associa- 
tions subject  to  the  control  and  supervi- 
sion of  the  railroad  commission,  is 
indicative  of  a  legislative  intent  that  such 
associations  shall  not  be  deemed  within 
the  inhibition  of  Code  1892,  §  4437,  defin- 
ing trusts,  and  declaring  therti  illegal,  or 
of  Acts  1900,  p.  125,  c.  88,  which  accom- 
plishes the  same  purpose.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Searles,  85  Miss.  520,  37  So.  939, 
68    L.    R.    A.,    N.    S.,    715. 

Where  a  numl)er  of  railroad  companies, 
by  mutual  agreement,  enter  into  a  car- 
service  association  and  adopt  such  reason- 
able rules  and  regulations,  it  is  the  same 
in  effect  as  if  each  company  for  itself  had 
adopted  the  same.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Fisher,  3  O.  N.  P.  122.  5  O.  Dec.  659. 
And  see  Phillips  Co.  v.  Krie  Railway,  6 
O.    C.   C.    X.   S.,   505.    14   O.    D.    X.    P.   706. 

48.  Shipper  not  consulted. — Kentucky 
Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98 
Ky.  152.  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326.  32  S.  W. 
595,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L.  R.  A.,  X. 
S.,   850. 

49.  Subordinate  agents. — Thus,  where 
the  rules  of  the  company  required  pay- 
ment of  demurrage  on  goods  not  removed 
within  forty-eight  or  sixty  hours  after 
their  arrival  and  also  provided  for  the 
storage    in   warehouses    of   goods    not    re- 


moved within  a  certain  time,  the  storage 
and  drayage  to  be  at  the  expense  of  the 
consignee,  and  these  rules  were  known  to 
the  plaintiff  who  contracted  with  the  de- 
fendant's station  agent  and  soliciting  agent 
that  in  consideration  of  a  large  shipment 
of  freight  over  the  defendant's  railway  no 
demurrage,  drayage  or  storage  would  be 
charged  against  him,  a  breach  of  the  con- 
tract as  to  storage  gave  the  plaintiff  no 
right  of  action  against  the  company  to  re- 
cover the  money  paid,  and  it  was  not  er- 
ror to  grant  a  nonsuit.  Harris  v.  Cen- 
tral  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  91   Ga.  317,  18   S.   E.   159. 

50.  Notice. — Before  such  rules  or  regu- 
iations«can  be  enforced  against  a  particu- 
lar consignee,  it  must  be  shown  that  he 
bad  knowledge  thereof.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Fisher,  30  O.  N.  P.  122,  5  O. 
Dec.    659. 

51.  A  consignee  who  refuses  to  accept 
the  goods  on  the  ground  of  delay  in  de- 
livery by  the  carrier  can  not  be  held  liable 
for  demurrage  fixed  by  the  rules  of  the 
carrier,  of  which  he  had  no  notice,  unless 
the  rate  of  demurrage  is  shown  to  be  rea- 
sonable. Baumbach  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4   Tex.    Civ.   App.   650,   23    S.   W.   693. 

A  carrier  by  rail  may  establish  a  rule 
fixing  a  reasonable  rate  for  the  detention 
of  cars  after  a  sufficient  period  for  un- 
loading, without  specific  notice  to  the 
shippers  or  consignee.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.  V.  Bulah  Shaft  Coal  Co.,  42  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  187. 

52.  Xew  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  George 
&   Co.,   82   Miss.   710,   35    So.    193. 

53.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85 
Miss.  520,  37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A..  X.  S., 
715. 

A  shipper  who  signs  a  contract  under 
which  freight  is  received  by  a  common 
carrier,  by  the  terms  of  which  the  shipper 
agrees  to  remove  the  freight  within  forty- 
eight  hours   after  notice   of  its  arrival,   is 


707 


I»1:LAV     IX     IK.WSI'OKI  ATIOX    OR    I  ([-XIVrvRV. 


§§  979-980 


Form  and  Requisites  of  Notice. — The  carrier  is  not  bound  to  serve  a  ver- 
batim copy  of  the  rule  on  the  shipper.''''  The  shipper  is  sufficiently  charged  with 
knowledge  of  a  demurrage  rule  by  the  regular  rendering  to  him  of  bills  for  the 

violation  thereof.'''-'^' 

§   980.  Time   and  Amount   of   Charge. — Reasonableness   of   Time. — It 

is  reasonable  that  a  railroad  company  should  have  some  rule  as  to  when  freight 
should  be  removed  from  its  cars.-"'"  The  rule  must  allow  time  to  meet  all  cases 
likely  to  arise. •^''  The  period  of  forty-eight  hours, •''•'*  which,  computed  under 
car  service  rules,  extends  to  near  sixty  hours,  not  including  Sundays  and  legal 
holidays,  within  which  the  customer  is  required  to  unload  the  carrier's  cars 
after  delivery,  is  not  an  unreasonable  time  fr(jin  which  to  start  a  demurrage 
charge."'''"  Neither  is  a  period  of  twenty-four  hours,'''^  nor  one  of  four  days.'^^ 
On  the  issue  as  to  what  was  a  reasonable  time,  evidence  as  to  the  distance  of 
the  consignee's  home  from  the  station  is  not  admissible.''- 

Computing  Time. — L'nder  demurrage  rules  providing  that  the  delivery  of 
cars  consigned  to  a  siding  used  exclusively  l)y  individuals  located  thereon  shall 
be  considered  as  effected  when,  if  the  siding  is  full,  the  road  offering  the  cars 
would  have  made  delivery  had  the  siding  permitted,  delivery  will  commence, 
though  the  cars  filling  the  siding  are  for  another  consignee,  having  equal  right 
to  use  the  siding."'*     Where  the  bill  of  lading  provides  for  a  lien  for  demurrage, 


bound  by  its  terms  altliougli  the  contract 
was  not  read  l)y  liini  and  he  failed  to 
know  its  coiUcnts.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Seiberlin-  &  Co.,  8  O.  C.  C.  593, 
4  O.   C.  D.  210. 

The  fact  that  important  conditions  of 
the  contract  are  written  or  printed,  after 
the  signature  and  on  an  opposite  page, 
does  not  vary  the  rule  where  there  is  an 
express  reference  to  such  conditions  on 
the  face  of  the  contract  above  the  signa- 
ture. New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seiberling 
&  Co..  8  O.  C.   C.  59.-!.  4  O.  C.   D.  210. 

54.  Form  and  requisites  of  notice. — 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Midvalc  Steel  Co., 
201  Pa.  624,  51  Atl.  313,  88  Am.  St.  Rep. 
836. 

55.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Midvale  Steel 
Co.,  201  Pa.  624,  51  Atl.  313,  88  Am.  St. 
Rep.    S3r.. 

56.  Time  and  amount  of  charge. — Xew 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seiberling  &  Co.,  8 
O.   C.   C.  593,  4  O.   C.  D.  210. 

57.  Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ky.  152,  32  S.  W.  595,  17 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850, 
56   Am.   St.    Rep.   326. 

58.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Seiberling 
&  Co.,  8  O.  C.  C.  593,  4  O.  C.  D.  210. 

"A  rule  of  a  railroad  company  that  a 
party  to  whom  freight  is  consigned  must 
receive  the  same  within  fortj'-eight  hours 
after  notice  is  a  reasonable  one,  and  a 
charge  for  storage  after  that  time  is  legal. 
Gulf  City  Constr.  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  121  .\la.  621,  25  So.  579."  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Lockwood  Mfg.  Co.,  142 
Ala.  322,  37  So.  667.  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
227,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  32,  4  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  12. 

A  rule  of  carriers  that:  "A  charge  of 
one  dollar  shall  be  imposed  for  car  serv- 
ice   for    and    upon    each    car    carried    over 


any  i)orlion  of  its  line  of  railroad  not 
unloaded  liy  the  consignee  within  forty- 
eight  hours  from  the  time  said  car  arrived 
at  the  destination  thereof,  ready  for  de- 
livery to  such  consignee,  for  each  day  or 
part  of  day  after  said  forty-eight ,  hours, 
not  including  Sundays  and  legal  holidays, 
during  which  said  car  should  remain  un- 
loaded, the  said  charge  being  payable  by 
the  consignee  or  person  receiving  the 
car,"  is  reasonable  and  valid.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  V.  Midvale  Steel  Co.,  201 
Pa.   624,  51   Atl.  313,  88  Am.   St.    Rep.   836. 

59.  Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  98  Ky.  152,  32  S.  W.  595,  17 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850. 
5C,   Am.   St.   Rep.  326. 

60.  A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that 
the  carrier  may  make  a  reasonable  charge 
for  a  failure  of  the  consignee  to  unload 
his  propertj'  from  the  carrier's  cars  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  its  arrival  is  a 
reasonable  provision,  and  hence  it  was 
not  error  for  the  trial  court  to  charge  that 
the  parties  were  l)ound  thereby.  Swan  7'. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106  Tenn.  229,  61 
S.    W.   57. 

61.  A  rule  or  regulation  requiring  con- 
signees, on  receiving  notice  of  the  arrival 
of  cars,  to  unload  the  same  within  four 
days  thereafter,  or  pay  the  delivering  com- 
pany one  dollar  per  car  per  day,  for  all  the 
time  over  said  period  of  four  days  that 
such  cars  shall  remain  on  the  tracks  of 
said  company  without  being  unloaded,  is 
a  reasonable  rule  or  regulation,  and,  there- 
fore, legal  and  valid.  Baltimore,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Fisher,  3  O.  N.  P.  122,  5  O.  Dec. 
659. 

62.  Schumacher  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
207    111.    199.    69    N.    E.    825. 

63.  Computing  time. — New  Orleans,  etc.. 
K.  Co.  r.  George  &  Co.,  82  Miss.  710,  35 
So.   193. 


§  980 


CARRIF.RS. 


708 


a  railroad  company  mav  charge  for  the  time  the  goods  are  detained  and  until 
demurrage  is  actually  p'aid.'^'*  In  the  rules  of  a  railroad  company  requiring  the 
payment  of  demurrage  on  cars  where  more  than  a  stated  number  of  days 
elapse  '•between  the  date  of  arrival  of  each  car  and  date  released,"  "date  of 
arrival"'  means  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  car  in  the  yards,  and  not  upon  a 
pier  besides  a  ship,  nor  the  time  when  notice  of  arrival  is  given  the  shipper, 
and  the  "date  released"'  does  not  mean  the  date  when  the  car  is  unloaded,  but 
the  date  when  the  consignee's  vessel  is  registered  at  the  pier  as  ready  to  load.*^^ 
In  the  absence  of  any  custom  to  the  contrary,  Sundays  are  computed  in  the 
calculation  of  lay  days  at  the  port  of  discharge ;  but  where  the  contract  s])ecifies 
working  davs.   Sundavs  and  holidays  are  excluded   in  the  computation.'''^ 

Reasonableness  of  Charge.— As  it  is  the  legitimate  object  of  this  rule  to 
prevent  the  di\ersion  of  cars  from  the  work  of  carriage,  it  would  seem  but 
proper  that  the  charge  for  their  use,  wdien  detained  as  a  means  of  storage,  should 
not  be  such  as  to  encourage  customers  to  adopt  that  means  instead  of  the  more 
regular  and  usual  methods.'''  Rules  of  a  carrier  imposing  reasonable  charges 
on  consignee  for  delay  in  unloading  cars  are  enforceable.*^^  The  customary 
rates  for  storage  in  warehouses  and  elevators  need  not  be  made  the  measure 
of  compensation  where  the  storage  is  in  cars  on  the  tracks  of  a  railroad.  A 
uniform  charge  of  so  much  for  a  car  per  day  is  not  unreasonable  because  the 
cars  vary  in  capacity,  nor  because  a  part  of  a  day  is  charged  for  as  a  whole 
day.^'-'  A  charge  can  not  be  regarded  as  unreasonable,  so  long  as  a  reasonable 
time  is  allowed  for  unloading,  and  so  long  as  the  charge  for  the  use  of  the 
cars  beyond  that  time  is  not  excessive.'"  A  dollar  per  day  for  each  car  is  a 
reasonable  charge.'^ 

In  Excess  of  "Value  of  Goods. — Where  the  carrier  claims  demurrage  in  an 
amount  in  excess  of  the  value  of  the  goods  shipped  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  such  charge  is  reasonable,  the  court  will  conclude  that  the  amount  claimed 
is  unreasonable. '- 


64.  Pennsylvania   R.    Co.   v.    Samuel,    4.5 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  348. 

65.  A  coal  company  contracted  with  a  rail- 
road company  for  the  carriage  of  coal  from 
the  mines  to  tide  water  at  Elizabethport, 
N.  J.,  where  the  coal  was  loaded  upon  ves- 
sels. When  cars  arrived  in  Elizabethport 
they  were  placed  in  the  railroad  company's 
general  yards  until  a  vessel  of  the  ship- 
per was  ready  to  load,  when  it  regis- 
tered at  the  railroad  company's  pier,  and 
sucji  company  berthed  it,  and  ran  the  cars 
out  on  the  pier,  and  dumped  the  coal  into 
the  vessel  as  an  incidental  part  of  the 
transportation.  Sometimes  there  was  de- 
lay waiting  for  a  vessel  or  a  berth.  The 
schedule  of  rules  respecting  charges  filed 
])y  the  railroad  company  with  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  required  the 
payment  of  demurrage  when  there  was  an 
average  detention  of  cars  for  more  than 
five  days,  computed  on  the  basis  of  the 
time  "between  the  date  of  arrival  of  each 
car  and  date  released."  Held,  that  the 
"date  of  arrival"  meant  the  time  of  the 
arrival  of  the  car  in  the  yards,  and  not 
upon  the  pier,  nor  the  time  when  notice 
of  arrival  was  given  the  shipper's  agent, 
and  that  the  "date  released"  did  not  mean 
the  date  when  the  car  was  unloaded,  but 
the  date  when  the  shipper's  vessel  was 
registered  at  the  pier  as  ready  to  load;  the 
car    being    then    released    so    far    as"  the 


shipper  was  concerned,  and  any  further 
delay  being  that  of  the  railroad  company. 
Order,  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Hite,  1G6  Fed.  976, 
reversed.  Hite  v.  Central  Railroad,  171 
Fed.    370,   9(3   C.    C.   A.   32G. 

66.  Brooks   v.    Minturn,    1    Cal.    481. 

67.  Reasonableness  of  charge. — Miller  v. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  15  S.  E. 
316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  70. 

68.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  George 
&  Co.,  82  Miss.  710,  35  So.  193. 

69.  Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga. 
563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L. 
R.    A.,    N.    S.,    323,    50    Am.    &    Eng.    R.  ' 
Cas.  70. 

70.  Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88 
Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep. 
170,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.  70. 

71.  Miller  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88 
Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am.  St.  Rep. 
170,' 18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323,  50  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  70;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Mid- 
vale  Steel  Co.,  201  Pa.  624,  51  Atl.  313, 
88  Am.   St.   Rep.  836. 

A  charge  of  one  dollar  a  day  for  each 
day  after  four  days  is  reasonable.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fisher,  3  O.  N.  P. 
122.    5    O.    Dec.    659. 

72.  In  excess  of  value  of  goods. — Baum- 
bach  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
G50,  23   S.  W.   693. 


709 


DKI.AV    IN    TRANSl'OKTATION    OR    DKl.IVFvRV. 


§§  980-981 


Interest  on  Cost  of  Car. — The  charge  may  be  more  than  the  usual  per 
centum  on  the  first  cost  of  the  car.  The  carrier  does  not  construct  cars  for  the 
purpose  of  storing  i)roj)erty  in  them,  and  their  use  for  transportation  involves 
the  use  of  costly  railway  tracks  and  other  expenditures.'^'' 

As  at  Maritime  Law. — The  fact  that  the  term  was  arloptcd  from  the  mari- 
time law  1)\  railroad  companies  as  a  designation  of  the  charges  for  goods  stored 
in  cars  does  not  re(|uire  that  the  principles  which  govern  on  this  point  untkr 
maritime  law  shall  control  in  determining  the  rates  of  carriers  by  land.'"* 

Question  for  Jury. — Whether  a  particular  rule  or  regulation  is  or  is  not 
reasonable  in  its  re(|uirements  is,  when  the  facts  are  shown,  a  q'uestion  of  law 
for  the  court,  and  not  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury.'"' 

§   981.  Arrival  and  Continuance  at  Destination  and  Nature  Thereof. 

— The  obligation  of  the  carrier  is  not  alone  to  carry  the  cargo,  but  it  is  in  ad- 
dition to  deliver  it  at  the  place  of  discharge  in  the  port  of  destination  men- 
tioned in  the  bill  of  lading:  and  the  consignee  incurs  no  liability  for  demurrage 
until  such  delivery  is  made  or  tendered.'"  A  railroad  comj^any  is  not  entitled 
to  demand  or  receive  demurrage  until  it  is  in  a  condition  to  tender  a  delivery 
of  the  goods  at  a  convenient,  safe  and  unintermpted  point  at  its  depot.'^"  In 
the  absence  of  a  provision  in  a  bill  of  lading  declaring  a  lien  for  delays  before 
reaching  private  sidings,  a  carrier  of  freight  can  not  base  a  lien  for  demurrage 
on  provisions  for  constructive  placing  of  cars  contained  in  schedules  filed  with 
the   Interstate  Commerce  Commission.'*^ 

Arrival  at  Port. — A  contract  to  deliver  goods  at  a  port  implies  more  than 
bringing  the  vessel  into  water  within  a  line  drawn  across  the  mouth  of  the 
harbor;  in  the  absence  of  any  special  provision  and  of  any  custom  to  discharge 
into  lighters,  it  imports  that  the  carrier  is  to  bring  his  vessel  to  some  wharf, 
or  convenient  or  customary  ])lace  of  discharge,  where  he  can  deliver  and  the 
consignees  receive  the  cargo,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  port ;  and  where  a 
vessel  can  not  be  brought  to  any  wharf  on  account  of  ice,  the  carrier  is  not 
entitled  to  demurrage  for  delay."^  Under  a  bill  of  lading  requiring  a  vessel 
to  deliver  a  cargo  of  coal  at  a  specified  dock,  the  voyage  is  not  completed,  and 
the  lay  days  for  discharging  do  not  commence  to  nui,  until  she  reaches  such 
dock  and  is  in  condition  to  discharge,  unless  she  is  prevented  from  reaching  it 
through   the  active   fault   of  the  charterer  or  consignee.'^"      Where,   by  the  bill 


73  Interest  on  cost  of  car. — Kentucky 
Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co..  98 
Ky.  152,  32  S.  W.  595.  17  K.  L.  Rep.  72G, 
36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850,  56  Am.  St.  Rep. 
32(5. 

74.  As  at  maritime  law. — Miller  v.  Geor- 
gia R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A..  X.  S., 
323.  50  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  70. 

75.  Question  for  jury. — Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z\  I'ishcr,  3  O.  X.  P.  122,  5  O.  Dec. 
659. 

76.  Arrival  and  continuance  at  destina- 
tion and  nature  thereof. — Manson  v.  New 
York,  etc..  R.  Co..  31  Ecd.  297,  24  Blatchf. 
448,  citing  Mcintosh  v.  Sinclair.  11  Ir.  C. 
L.  456;  Aylward  v.  Smith.  Ecd.  Cas.  No. 
688,  2  Lowell  192;  Parker  v.  Winlow.  7  El. 
&  Bl.  942;  Hodgdon  z\  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  46  Conn."276,  33  Am.   Rep.  21. 

77.  Tlie  legal  eflfect  of  its  undertaking 
is  to  deliver  the  goods  at  a  point  and  in  a 
manner  to  enable  the  consignee  to  re- 
ceive them  without  inconvenience,  delay 
or   interruption.      After   notice   it   may   re- 


quire prompt  action  on  the  part  of  the 
consignee,  but  he  may  demand  of  it  free, 
convenient,  safe  and  undisturbed  access 
to  his  goods.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hunt,  83  Tenn.   (15   Lea)   261. 

The  primary  duty  of  a  railroad  com- 
pany in  carrying  goods  includes  delivery 
of  the  goods  to  the  consignee  at  destina- 
tion, and  the  carrier  is  not  entitled  to  an 
additional  charge  for  car  service  until  such 
duty  is  performed.  Carrizzo  t.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  123  N.  Y.  S.  173,  m  Misc. 
Rep.  243,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  579. 

78.  Carrizzo  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
123  N.  Y.  S.  173,  66  Misc.  Rep.  243,  9  L. 
R.  A..  N.  S..  .-.79. 

79.  Arrival  at  port.— Hodgdon  v.  New 
York,  etc..  R.  Co..  46  Conn.  276,  33  Am. 
Rep.   21. 

80.  In  re  2.098  Tons  of  Coal.  67  C.  C. 
A.  671.  135  Fed.  317;  Harrison  i\  Smith, 
14  C.  C.  A.  656.  67  Fed.  354;  Randall  v. 
Sprague,  21  C.  C.  A.  334.  74  Fed.  247, 
Hagerman  v.  Norton,  46  C.  C.  A.  1,  105 
Fed.  996. 


§    981  CARRIERS.  710 

of  lading,  the  cargo  is  to  be  delivered  free  of  handling  at  the  private  dock  of 
a  consignee  known  to  have  special  facilities  for  unloading,  the  vessel  will  be 
entitled  to  demurrage  for  unnecessary  delay  of  the  consignee  in  beginning  the 
discharge,  although  the  total  time  consumed,  including  the  delay,  is  not  longer 
than  would  have  been  occupied  in  discharging  at  a  public  dock  of  the  same 
port  with  the   inferior   facilities   there   afforded. "^^ 

Arrival  on  Particular  Track. — A  bill  of  lading,  providing  that  the  carrier 
mav  charge  for  detention  of  cars  after  they  have  been  held  forty-eight  hours 
for  unloading,  and  may  hold  the  property  subject  to  a  lien  therefor,  merely 
authorizes  the  carrier  to  charge  demurrage  when  the  cars  have  been  held  for 
unloading,  and  not  to  give  such  right  where  they  have  been  placed  upon  a 
storage  track  awaiting  switching  to  a  place  where  they  could  be  unloaded.**^ 
But  where  the  consignees  refuse  to  accept  any  delivery  except  on  a  designated 
track  where  deliver}^  can  not  be  made,  the  carrier  is  not  bound  to  make  deliv- 
ery elsewhere  before  commencement  of  the  running  of  free  time.'^^  Where  on 
the  arrival  of  certain  cars,  the  carrier  offers  to  deliver  by  spotting  them  on  any 
available  track  for  unloading,  and  the  consignee's  reply  that  they  want  the  cars 
as  soon  as  possible  to  work  so  that  they  can  unload  and  avoid  teaming  ex- 
penses, there  is  not  a  refusal  by  the  consignee  to  accept  delivery  except  on  a 
particular  track. ^*  A  statement  in  a  bill  of  lading  that,  wdiere  cars  are  detached 
from  trains  on  private  sidings,  the  goods  shall  be  at  the  owner's  risk,  does  not 
provide  a  lien  for  demurrage. ^-^ 

Arrival  at  Coal  Piers. — Rules  stipulating  that  demurrage  will  be  charged 
at  designated  coal  i)iers  for  the  detention  of  coal  cars  held  for  transshipment, 
promulgated  by  a  terminal  carrier,  required  to  deliver  at  such  piers  a  consignee's 
coal,  do  not  authorize  the  collection  of  demurrage  for  the  detention  of  coal  cars 
at  a  freight  yard  under  the  control  of  the  carrier  twelve  miles  distant. ^"^ 

Awaiting  Orders. — A  carrier's  rule  tha't  cars  for  unloading  should  be  con- 
sidered placed  when  they  are  held  awaiting  orders  from  consignors  or  con- 
signees apjilies  only  after  the  carrier  is  ready  to  make  delivery  and  the  con- 
signee neglects  or  refuses  to  designate  the  place  for  deliver}^''*■^ 

Held  for  Transshipment. — Under  a  demurrage  rule  of  a  carrier,  stipu- 
lating that  demurrage  would  be  charged  at  a  designated  place  for  detention  of 
coal  cars  held  for  transshipment,  the  date  of  arrival  of  cars  at  a  place  twelve 
miles  distant  from  the  place  specified,  in  another  state  and  upon  the  lines  of 
another  railway,  was  not  the  proper  date  to  be  taken  in  computing  the  total 
detention  of  the  cars  where  tlie  cars  were  held  solely  for  the  convenience  of 
the  carrier.^'*^ 

Contract  for  Payment  before  Delivery. — Where  the  bill  of  lading  under 
which  goods  are  shipped  provides  that  the  delivering  carrier  may  make  a  rea- 
sonable charge  for  detention  of  any  car  wdnich  is  held  twenty-four  hours  for 
unloading  and  may  hold  the  property  subject  to  a  lien  for  demurrage,  and  that 
the  consignee  shall  pay  all  charges  before  a  delivery  of  the  property,  and  the 
consignee  has  a  yard  to  which  a  side  track  has  been  constructed  by  a  carrier 
other  than  the  jjlaintift',  though  cars  can  be  transferred  from  the  plaintiff's  track 

81.  I'ionecr  Fuel  Co.  f.  McBricr.  28  C.  86.  Arrival  at  coal  piers. — Staten  Island 
C.  A.  400,  84  Fed.  495.  Rapid   Transit    R.    Co.   v.    Marshall    (App. 

82.  Arrival  on  particular  track.— Car-  Term),  117  N.  Y.  S.  1034,  affirmed  121  N. 
rizzo  v.   New   York,   etc.,    R.    Co.,    123    N.  Y.   S.  82. 

Y.  S.  17.3,  66  Misc.   Rep.  243,  9  L.   R.  A.,  87.    Awaiting    orders.— Wooley    7'.    Chi- 

N.   S.,  .579.  caRO,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  Wis.  183,  r.',(S  N.  W. 

83.  Wooley   v.     Chicago,     etc.,    R.    Co.,       o^f, 

^■'2.^X1':-  ^?^'  ^^'^r?- ^-  ^'^^-       r,    n       ..a  88.      Held      for      transshipment.— ludg- 

84.  Wooley  v    Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150       ^^^^.^^^     ,,.   ^^.    y    ^    ,„.,^    affirmed.  Staten 

Wis.  183,  136  N.  W.  616^  j^l^,^^,   j^      ij  Transit  Co.  v.  Marshall,  121 

85.  Carnzzo  v    New  York^  ^^^■']^-  5^?-       X.   Y.   S.  82,   136  App.   Div.   571. 
123   N.   Y.   S.   173,  66   Misc.   Rep.   243,   9   L.  •       •    -  .  fi 

R.   A.,   N.   S.,   579. 


711 


DKLAY    IN'    TRAXSKJKTATIO.V    OR    DKLIVERY. 


§  981 


to  this  side  track,  the  consignee  is  liable  to  the  payment  of  demurrage  before  a 
delivery  of  the  property,  and  hence  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  -plaintiff  to  place 
the  cars  on  {ho  consicmee's  side  track  before  making  a  demand  for  demurrage. ^^ 

Designation  of  Berth. — A  designation  by  a  charterer  of  a  berth  for  a  ves- 
sel, on  notice  of  its  arrival  in  port,  was  given  within  a  reasonable  time  when 
delivered  within  two  or  three  hours  from  such  notice  of  arrival.'-*^' 

Continuance  at  Destination. — In  order  for  the  carrier  to  enforce  demur- 
rage charges,  it  must  show  that  the  cars  on  their  arrival  were  placed  on  its  side 
tracks  in  suitable  and  convenient  places  for  unloading  and  were  so  kept  for 
the  .full  period  allowed  tlie  consignee  for  unloading,  without  charge."^  How- 
ever, the  car  need  not  be  at  all  times  in  a  convenient  place  for  unloading,  pro- 
vided the  consignee  is  not  unreasonably  hindered  or  delayerl  in  unloading,-'-  nor 
need  the  car  be  kept  in  the  same  spot  or  place.  If,  in  receiving  other  freight 
and  removing  unloaded  cars,  it  becomes  necessary  to  shift  the  i)Osition  of  a  car 
awaiting  unloading,  such  shifting  will  not  relieve  the  consignee  from  the  duty 
of  unloading  in  the  time  allowed  therefor  without  charge,  provided  the  car, 
after  shifting  is  left  in  a  convenient  place  for  unloading.'-'-*  The  cars  after  their 
arrival  at  their  destination,  though  not  kcjjt  accessible  at  every  moment  of  time 
are  to  be  treated  as  remaining  accessible  if  the  carrier  is  always  ready  to  render 
them  so  within  the  shortest  ])racticable  time,  not  longer  than  a  few  hours,  after 
being  notified  that  the  consignee  is  ready  to  unload.'-''* 

Notice  of  Arrival. — Notice  to  the  transferee  of  a  consignee  of  the  arrival 
of  a  car  of  coal  is  sufficient  to  establish  the  right  of  a  carrier  to  demurrage, 
whether  the  notice  was  given  by  the  railroad  company,  the  consignee,  or  other 
parties."-'     Where  one  ships  carloads  of  grain  to  himself  at  a  station  on  a  con- 


89.  Contract  for  payment  before  de- 
livery.—  riaintiff  received  three  cars  of 
stone  over  delendant's  road.  Due  notice 
of  its  arrival  was  given  plaintifT,  together 
with  the  amount  of  the  freight  charges 
thereon,  but  plaintiff  did  not  pay  the  same 
until  ten  days  after  the  arrival  of  the  cars, 
when  defendant  refused  to  deliver  the 
stone  until  demurrage  charges  had  been 
paid.  Plaintiff  had  a  stone  yard  to  which 
a  side  track  had  been  constructed  by  a 
company  other  than  defendant,  though 
cars  could  be  transferred  from  defendant's 
track  to  this  side  track.  The  bill  of  lad- 
ing under  which  the  stone  was  shipped 
provided  that  the  delivering  carrier  might 
make  a  reasonal)le  charge  every  day  for 
the  detention  of  any  car  and  for  use  of  the 
track  after  the  car  had  been  held  twenty- 
four  hours  for  unloading,  and  might  add 
such  charges  to  all  other  charges 
thereunder,  and  hold  such  property 
subject  to  lien  therefor,  and  that  the  con- 
signee should  pay  all  charges  before  a 
delivery  of  the  property.  It  was  held,  in 
conversion  for  the  value  of  the  stone,  that 
the  defendant  was  entitled  to  the  payment 
of  the  demurrage,  under  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, 1)efore  a  delivery  of  the  property,  and 
hence  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  defend- 
ant to  place  the  cars  on  plaintiff's  side 
track  l)cfore  making  a  demand  therefor, 
as  such  would  constitute  a  delivery  of  the 
propertv.  Swan  t'.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
lOr.  Ton'n.  L>'J'.t,  Cl   S.  \V.  ST. 

90.  Designation  of  berth. — The  St. 
Bernard,  105  Fed.  99-t. 


91.  Continuance  at  destination. — Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher,  3  O.  X.  P. 
122,  0  O.   Dec.  659. 

92.  If  a  car  is  placed  and  kept  in  a  suit- 
al)le  place  for  unloading  for  the  four  days 
prescribed  by  the  rule,  and  the  consignee 
fails  to  unload  it,  he  will  be  liable  for  car 
service  thereafter,  though  the  car  may 
not  at  all  times  be  in  a  convenient  place 
for  unloading,  provided  he  is  not  there- 
after unreasonal)]}-  hindered  and  delayed 
in  unloading.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Fisher,  3  O.  N.  P.  122,  5  O.  Dec.  659. 

93.  But  if  a  car  is  shifted  from  day  to 
(la\'  and  from  place  to  place,  and  is  not 
at  any  time,  for  the  full  period  of  four 
daj-s,  in  a  suitable  place  for  unloading, 
the  company  can  not  recover  car  service 
therefor.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fisher, 
3  O.  X.  P.  122,  5  O.  Dec.  659. 

94.  It  was  so  held  in  construing  a  reg- 
rlation  expressed  in  this  language:  "It 
lieing  understood  that  said  car  or  cars 
are  to  be  placed  and  remain  accessible  to 
tlie  consignee  for  the  purpose  of  unload- 
ing during  the  period  in  which  held  free 
of  demurrage  and  that  when  the  period 
of  such  demurrage  charge  commences 
the}'  are  to  remain  accessible  to  the  con- 
signee for  unloading  purposes."  Miljer  v. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co..  88  Ga.  563.  15  S. 
E.  316.  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A.. 
X.  S..  323,  50  Am.  &  "Eng.  R.  Cas.  70. 

95.  Notice  of  arrival. — Chicago,  et<;.,  R. 
Co.  i'.  Woolner  Distilling  Co.,  160  111.  App. 
192. 


§§  981-982  cARRii'RS.  712 

necting  line,  and  the  grain  in  transit  is  transferred  from  the  cars  in  which  it 
was  fi'rst  shipped  to  the  cars  of  the  connecting  hne,  on  its  arrival  at  its  desti- 
nation, a  notice  by  the  carrier  to  the  shipper  of  the  arrival  of  the  number  of 
cars  of  grain  consigned,  in  its  cars  bearing  certain  numbers,  is  sufficient  notice, 
without  informing  him  in  what  cars  it  was  originally  shipped,  or  into  what  cars  . 
it  had  been  transferred  in  transit,"  to  render  him  liable  for  demurrage  on  his 
failure  to  unload  it  within  proper  time  after  arrival.'-"'  I'nder  a  carrier's  rule 
that  it  shall  give  prompt  notice  by  mail  or  otherwise  of  the  arrival  of  freight, 
such  notice  can  not  be  given  so  as  to  authorize  the  carrier  to  charge  for  storage 
until  the  cars  containing  the  freight  have  been  placed  in  such  a  position  that 
they  may  be  unloaded  and  thus  change  the  carrier's  relation  to  that  of  ware- 
housemen.^" 

§  982.  Persons  Liable  for  Demurrage.— Consignor.— A  shipper  of 
corn,  who,  knowing  that  the  one  to  whom  he  consigns  it  could  not  pay  for  it, 
and  knowing  also  that  he  himself  is  expected  to  pay  for  the  use  of_  the  car 
while  the  corn  is  in  it,  allows  it  to  remain  on  the  tracks  until  he  sells  it  to  an- 
other party,  is  liable  for  the  use  of  the  car.^s  Where  the  consignor  has  notice 
that  a  consignee  had  refused  to  accept  car  loads  of  goods,  and  directs  the  car- 
rier to  reship  them,  with  direction  to  allow  all  charges  to  follow,  and  the  sec- 
ond consignee  also  refuses  to  accept  the  goods,  the  consignor  is  liable  for  de- 
murrage."^ Where  a  consignor  ships  the  first  of  several  deliveries  of  iron,  and 
subsequently  the  railroad  company  notifies  him  that  the  purchaser  will  not  ac- 
cept the  iron,  and  thereafter  he  ships  other  deliveries,  consigning  them  to  his 
own  order,  although  the  purchaser  continues  the  embargo,  and  the  cars  remain 
unloaded  on  the  tracks  of  the  railroad,  the  consignor  is  liable  to  the  railroad 
company  for  demurrage;  and  if,  after  the  embargo  is  raised,  the  railroad  com- 
pany refuses  to  release  the  cars  until  the  demurrage  is  paid,  the  consignor  is 
liable  for  demurrage  from  the  time  the  embargo  is  raised  until  the  time  when 
he  finally  pays  the  original  demurrage,  if  the  bill  of  lading  provides  for  a  lien 
for  demurrage.^ 

Consignee. — A  consignee,  receiving  and  disposing  of  the  cargo,  is  liable  for 
demurrage. - 

Agent. — An  agent  who  buys  produce  and  ships  it  for  another,  having  no 
concern  with  it  afterwards,  is  not  responsible  for  damages  growing  out  of  a 
failure  of  the  owner  to  cause  delivery  within  a  reasonable  time,  in  the  absence 
of  an  express  stipulation  to  that  effect."^  Where  a  person  agrees  to  have  a 
vessel  loaded  for  another  at  the  wharf  of  a  railroad  company  where  it  is  cus- 
tomary -to  load  vessels  in  turn,  and  for  the  railroad  company  to  do  the  loading, 
which  was  done,  causing  the  delay,  such  person  is  not  answerable  for  demur- 
rage, he  having  no  personal  control  over  the  loading.^  The  owner  of  a  vessel, 
having  abandoned  his  lien  on  the  cargo  for  demurrage,  can  not  maintain  an 
action  for  damages  against  the  shi])pers,  who  were  merely  agents.-' 

Holder  of  Bill  of  Lading. — A  carrier,  in  delivering  a  cargo,  -is  not 
bound  to  look  beyond  the  owner  and  holder  of  the  bill  of  lading.  As  he  has 
the  control  of  the  delivery  and  acceptance  of  the  goods,  he  is  responsible,  on 

96.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hunt  (Tex.  154,  citing  Irzo  v.  Perkins,  10  Fed.  779; 
Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  549.  Neilson    v.    Jesup,    .30    Fed.    138;    Reed    v. 

97.  United  States  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Weld,  6  Fed.  304;  Sprague  v.  West,  Fed. 
185   Fed.   820.  Cas.    No.    13,255    Abl).   Adm.    548. 

98.  Persons  liable  for  demurrage.— Hunt  3.  Agent— Stafford  v.  Watson,  22  Fed. 
V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  Cas.  No.  13,276,  1  Biss.  437,  2  Chi.  Leg. 
31   S.  W.   523.  News   385. 

99.  Baltimore,  etc.,  J^.  Co.  v.  Samuel,  48  4.  The  Schmidt,  27  Fed.  G71. 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  274.  5.    Stafford    v.    Watson,    22    Fed.    Cas. 

i.    Pennsylvania    R.    Co.  v.    Samuel,    45       No.  13,276,  1  Biss.  437,  2  Chi.  Leg.  News 

Pa. 'Super.  Ct.  248.  385;    Irzo  v.    Perkins,    10    Fed.   779;      The 

2.    Consignee.— Gates   v.  Ryan,    37    Fed.       William  Marshall,  29  Fed.  328. 


713 


DKLAY    IX    TRANSPORTATION-    OR   DELIVERY. 


§    982 


accepting  the  goods  under  the  bill  of  lading,  for  demurrage  according  to  its 
terms.  I  fe  can  not  relieve  himself  from  responsibility  by  subcontracts  for  a 
delivery  to  others,  who  do  not  act  directly  under  the  bill  of  lading,  but  only 
under  the  consignee's  orders.*'  The  fact  that  the  defendant  purchased  the 
freight  after  arrival  by  obtaining  the  bills  of  lading  properly  indorsed,  the 
freight  having  been  .shipped  to  the  order  of  the  consignor,  is  no  defense  to  an 
action  for  demurrage  by  the  carrier."  Under  a  bill  of  lading  which  provides 
for  the  payment  of  freight  and  average  accustomed,  the  indorsee  is  entitled  to 
take  the  goods  within  a  reasonable  time  after  their  arrival,  under  the  ordi- 
nary rules  of  law  as  to  liability  for  damages  for  detention,  such  as  apply  in 
the  al)sence  of  any  .specific  agreement.  Had  the  bill  of  lading  provided  for 
the  payment  of  freight  and  all  other  conditions  as  i)er  charter  party,  the  con- 
signee would  be  liable  for  demurrage  as  specified  in  the  charter  jjarty.**  Where, 
after  a  vessel  is  loaded,  the  master  signs  bills  of  lading  providing  for  the  pay- 
ment of  freight,  but  neither  the  bills  of  lading  nor  the  charter  party  bind  the 
cargo  for  the  payment  of  demurrage,  and  the  bills  of  lading  come  into  the 
hands  of  third  persons,  who  make  advances  on  them  without  notice  of  any 
claim  for  demurrage,  the  consignees  of  the  bills  of  lading  are  not  liable  for 
the  payment  of  demurrage. '^ 


6.  Holder    of    bill    of    lading.— J.,     the 

owner  ami  consiL^iiee  of  certain  iron  rails, 
sold  them  to  arrive,  to  a  railroad  com- 
pany, to  be  delivered  "ex  ship,  free  of 
duties;  terms,  cash  on  handing  invoice 
and  order  on  vessel  when  they  arrive  in 
T^^ew  York."  On  arrival,  J.  entered  the 
goods  at  the  customhouse,  and  paid  duties 
and  freight.  P.  &  C.  who  had  acted  as 
agents  for  J.  in  some  matters  concerning 
the  rails,  procured  the  ship  a  berth,  and 
received  from  J.  the  invoice  and  order  on 
the  vessel  for  delivery,  with  a  request  to 
collect  payment  from  the  railroad  com- 
pany, which  they  subsequently  did.-  There 
was  unreasonable  delay  in  unloading  the 
ship,  partly  in  removing  the  iron  from 
the  dock,  and  partly  through  difficulty  in 
getting  lighters.  Held  that,  whether  or 
not  P.  &  C.  really  acted  in  reference  to 
the  delivery  of  the  iron  for  themselves  or 
for  the  railroad  company,  J.  was  liable  to 
the  ship  for  the  demurrage,  and  must  look 
to  his  vendees  or  to  P.  &  C.  for  his  in- 
demnity, if  the  delay  was  by  their  fault. 
Neilsen  v.  Jesup,  30  Fed.  138. 

7.  The  assignment  of  the  bill  of  lading 
and  the  acceptance  of  the  freight  there- 
under constituted  an  adoption  by  the  de- 
fendant of  the  liabilities  as  well  as  the 
rights  under  the  contract  of  shipment.  A 
denial  of  a  promise  to  pay  under  such  cir- 
cumstances is  a  denial  of  an  express 
promise  only.  .•Ks  a  denial  of  an  implied 
promise  it  is  a  mere  conclusion.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  Tract.  Co.  v.  Norfolk,  etc.. 
Railway.  lS-28  O.  C.  D.  543,  8  O.  C.  C,  N. 
S..    134. 

8.  "The  bill  of  lading  for  the  lumber  in 
question  provided  for  'paying  freight  for 
said  lumber  as  per  charter  party  dated 
7th  March.  1S93.  and  average  accustomed.' 
A  bill  of  lading  in  this  form  imposed  upon 
the  indorsee  of  the  bill  of  lading  who  re- 
ceived   the    goods    under    it    none    of    the 


stipulations  of  the  charter,  except  such 
as  pertained  to  the  payment  of  freight. 
Chappel  V.  Comfort  (Eng.).  10  C.  B.,  N 
S..  802;  Smith  v.  Sieveking  (Eng.),  4  El. 
&  Bl.  945;  Fry  v.  Mercantile  Bank,  L.  R. 
1  C.  P.  689;  Dayton  v.  Parke,  142  X.  Y. 
391,  37  N.  E.  642.  It  was  no  notice  to 
him  of  any  other  provisions  of  the  charter, 
such  as  that  he  must  discharge  a  certain 
quantity  of  lumber  per  day,  or,  in  default 
thereof,  pay  a  specified  price  per  day  foi 
any  further  detention  of  the  vessel.  Un- 
der this  bill  of  lading,  the  vendee  was 
entitled  to  take  the  goods  within  a  rea- 
sonable time,  according  to  the  circum- 
stances, on  arrival,  and  under  the  ordinary 
rules  of  law  as  to  liability  to  damages 
for  detention,  such  as  apply  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  specific  agreement.  This  is 
a  very  different  liability  from  that  of  a 
specific  agreement  that  assumes  all  risks 
of  detention,  from  whatever  cause,  and 
agrees  upon  a  specified  rate  of  damages. 
Had  the  bill  of  lading  provided  for  the 
payment  of  freight  and  'all  other  con- 
ditions as  per  charter  party,'  the  latter 
provision  would  have  been  construed 
ejusdem  generis,  as  imposing  upon  the 
consignee  the  payment  of  something 
more  than  freight,  and  would  have  in- 
cluded the  obligations  referred  to  in  the 
charter  party  respecting  the  rate  of  de- 
livery, and  the  payment  of  the  demurrage 
specified,  though  not  necessarily  includ- 
ing independent  provisions  of  the  charter 
party  relating  to  different  subjects.  Rus- 
sell V.  Niemann.  17  C.  B..  N.  S..  162; 
Serraino  z:  Campbell.  25  Q.  B.  Div.  501: 
Id..  [lS9i]  1  Q.  B.  2S3;  Wegener  z:  Smith, 
1.-)  C.  B.  285;  Porteus  v.  Watney,  3  Q.  B. 
Div.  534."  Burrill  v.  Crossman.  65  Fed. 
104. 

9.  One  Hundred  and  Twelve  Sticks  of 
Timber,  IS  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10.524.  S  Ben. 
214. 


983 


CARRIERS. 


714 


§  983.  Lien  for  Demurrage.— Under  what  seems  to  be  the  weight  of  modern 
authority,  a  carrier  has  a  Hen  for  demurrage  on  the  goods  while  in  its  control,^" 
even  without  an  express  stipulation  therefor  in  the  contract  of  shipment.^!  But  it 
has  been  held  that  all  liens  are  created  by  law  or  by  contract  of  the  parties;  and 
when  the  law  gives  none,  neither  party  can  create  one  without  the  consent  or 
agreement  of  the  other.^^      \  common  carrier  has  no  lien  upon  goods  for  dam- 

11.  Darlinc;ton  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
99   Mo.  App.^1,  72   S.   VV.   122. 

"Nor  do  we  think  it  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  such  lien  that  it  arise  from  a 
specific  contract  providing  for  the  same, 
but  that  such  right  and  contract  may 
arise  by  implication,  as  in  t'le  case  of 
warehouse  charges  to  a  railroad  company 
that  has  stored  goods,  transported  by  it, 
when  not  received  by  the  consignee 
promptly  at  the  place  of  delivery.  Miller 
V.  Mansfield,  112  Mass.  260;  Merchants', 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Moore,  88  111.  136, 
30  Am.  Rep.  541;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Alexander,  20  111.  23;  Darlington  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  1,  72  S.  W. 
122;  Barker  v.  Brown,  138  Mass.  340." 
Schumacher  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  207 
111.   199,  69  N.   E.  825. 

"It  is  claimed,  however,  by  appellant 
that  the  case  of  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jenkins,  103  111.  588,  lays  down  the  rule 
contrary  to  the  views  we  have  above  ex- 
pressed, and  that  that  case  should  be  con- 
trolling in  the  present  case.  We  think 
not.  That  case  seems  to  have  related  to 
or  grown  out  of  the  shipment  of  goods  in 
less  quantity  than  a  car  load  lot."  Schu- 
macher V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  207  111. 
199,    69    N.    E.    825. 

A  lien  for  proper  demurrage  charges 
exists  independently  of  any  stipulation 
therefor  in  the  contract  of  shipment,  and, 
in  an  action  to  enforce  the  same,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  aver  or  prove  a  special  con- 
tract with  reference  thereto.  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  Railway  v.  Mooar  Lumber  Co.,  6  O. 
C.  C,  N.  S.,  638,  17-27   O.   C.  D.  588. 

12.  Nicolette  Lumber  Co.  v.  People's 
Coal  Co.,  213  Pa.  379,  62  Atl.  1060,  3  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  327,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  550,  5  Am. 
&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  387. 

A  railroad  company  has  no  lien  upon 
goods  for  demurrage  in  absence  of  con- 
tract. East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hunt,  83  Tenn.  (15  Lea)  261. 

"The  English  rule  is  that  no  lien  exists 
for  demurrage  cliarges  under  the  mari- 
time law  unless  it  is  expressly  provided 
by  contract  (Birley  v.  Gladstone,  3  Maule 
&  S.  205),  and  some  of  the  American 
courts  have  followed  the  Englisli  doctrme. 
Gage  V.  Morse  (Mass.),  12  Allen  410,  90 
Am.  Dec.  155;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jenkins,  103  111.  588;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Holden,  73  111.  App.  582;  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago  Lumber  Co., 
15  Neb.  390,  19  N.  W.  451 ;  Crommehn  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  N.  Y.  90,  1 
Al)b.  Dec.  472."  Darlington  v.  Missouri 
Pac.   R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  1,  72  S.  W.   122. 


10.  Lien  for  demurrage. — Southern  R. 
Co.  f.  Lockwood  Mfg.  Co.,  142  Ala.  322, 
37  So.  667,  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  227,  110  Am. 
St.  Rep.  32.  4  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  12; 
Schumacher  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  207 
111.  199.  69  X.  E.  825;  Kentucky  Wagon 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  Ky.  152. 
32  S.  W.  595,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  36  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  850,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326. 

"We  think  the  right  to  make  the  rule 
and  to  enforce  it  is  pretty  thoroughly  es- 
tablished by  the  modern  American  cases, 
and  that  the  defendant  had  a  lien  upon 
the  lumber  which  had  not  been  unloaded 
fiom  the  Oregon  car.  Barker  v.  Brown, 
13S  Mass.  340;  Steinman  v.  Wilkins  (Pa.), 
7  Watts  &  S.  466,  42  Am.  Dec.  254; 
Schmidt  v.  Blood  (N.  Y.),  9  Wend.  268, 
24  Am.  Dec.  143."  Darlington  v.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  1,  72  S.  W.  122. 
The  authority  of  the  case  of  Gage  v. 
Morse  (Mass.),  12  Allen  410,  90  Am.  Dec. 
155.  is  overturned  by  the  later  Massachus- 
etts case  of  Miller  v.  Mansfield,  112  Mass. 
260.  The  Nebraska  case  followed  the  case 
of  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  103  111. 
588.  without  comment.  Coming  to  the  re- 
cent cases,  we  find  the  following  decisions 
hold  that  the  right  of  lien  exists  independ- 
ent of  contract:  McGee  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  71  Alo.  App.  310;  Miller  v.  Georgia 
R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Ga.  563,  15  S.  E.  316,  30  Am. 
St.  Rep.  170,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323;  Ken- 
tucky Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  98  Ky.  152,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  32  S. 
W.  595,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326,  36  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  850;  Miller  v.  Mansfield,  supra,  and 
4  Elliott,  R.  R.,  §  156;  Darlington  v.  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  1,  72  S.  W. 
132. 

A  railroad  company  has  a  common  law 
lien  upon  the  property  in  a  car,  for  its 
proper  demurrage  charges  against  such 
car,  and  may  enforce  the  same  by  refus- 
ing to  deliver  such  property  until  payment 
of  the  demurrage  charges  has  been  made. 
Pittsburgh,  etc..  Railway  v.  Mooar  Lum- 
ber Co.,  6  O.  C.  C,  N.  S.,  638,  17-27  O.  C. 
D.   588. 

"The  railroad  commissions  of  some  of 
the  states  have  recognized  the  rule  and 
the  right  to  enforce  demurrage  charges — 
the  Kansas  commission  in  the  case  of 
Davis  V.  Missouri,  K-  &  T.  R.  Co.,  Com- 
missioners' Reports  of  Kansas  (1891),  p. 
21;  the  Iowa  commission,  in  Rotlischild  v. 
Railroad,  Commissioners'  Reports  of 
Iowa  (1887),  p.  783;  the  Missouri  commis- 
sion, in  the  case  of  E.  R.  Darlington  & 
Co.  %'.  Central  Car  Ass'n  of  St.  Louis,  May 
]6,  1901."  Darlington  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,   99    Mo.   App.   1,   72   S.  W.    122. 


715  DliLAV    I.\    TKANSI'OKTATIOX    OR    UIXIVERV.  §    983 

ages  arising  from  the  neglect  of  the  consignee  to  take  them  away  within  a  rea- 
sonaljlc  time  after  notice  to  liim  of  their  arrixal.  lience,  the  consignee  of  goods 
shipped  h\'  railroad  is  not  Ijound  by  rides  and  regulations  of  the  company  pro- 
viding for  a  hen  for  demurrage,  though  puljhshed  without  his  or  the  consignor's 
assent  thereto  when  the  contract  for  shii)])ing  the  goods  was  made.  Even  a 
knowledge  of  such  rules,  without  assent  thereto  will  not  atifect  the  shipper  or 
consignee. 1-'  The  right  of  a  common  carrier  to  a  lien  extends  to  charges  con- 
nected with  the  expenses  of  transportation  strictly.''*  The  inconvenience  or 
expense  occasioned  by  the  detention  of  cars  constitutes  a  claim  in  the  nature 
of  a  demurrage,  hut  the  carrier  must  seek  his  redress  in  the  ordinary  manner 
for  the  breach  of  an  implied  contract  to  pay  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the 
cars,     lie  can  not  enforce  it  by  a  detention  of  the  goods.'"' 

Statutory  Provision. — The  i)rovision  of  the  Mississippi  Code,  giving  a  lien 
for  freight  and  storage,  cou])led  with  a  power  to  sell  therefor,  applies  to  de- 
murrage  charges    for   delay    in   unloading   cars."'' 

A  carrier  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  has  a  lien  for  demurrage  on 
a  shipment  left  in  the  car  after  the  expiration  of  the  free  time  allowed  by. the 
interstate  tariffs  to  which  the  shipment  was  made.  The  last  connecting  carrier 
of  an  interstate  shipment  can  a])])l\'  the  proper  interstate  tariffs  and  collect  de- 
murrage on  foreign  cars  in  its  possession  used  in  transporting  interstate  ship- 
ments.'' 

Where  Goods  Damaged. — The  right  of  a  vessel  carrying  cargo  free  of 
handling  to  a  lien  for  demurrage  for  delay  of  the  consignee  in  beginning  to 
discharge  is  not  affected  by  the  fact  that  the  delay  arose  from  the  refusal  of 
the  consignee  to  receive  the  cargo  because  damaged  in  transit  by  an  excepted 
peril,  and  the  fact  that  during  the  delay  the  consignee  was  negotiating  with  the 
owner  to  purchase  the  damaged  cargo  at  a  reduced  price. "^ 

For  Other  Cars. — Where  demurrage  is  due  on  several  cars  constituting  a 
shipment,  the  charge  for  each  car  need  not  be  enforced  against  it  separately, 
but  enough  may  be  retained  to  satisfy  the  charge  against  all."^ 

Relinquishment  of  Lien. — Discharging  cargo  after  giving  notice  of  a  claim 
for  demurrage  is  not  a  waiver  of  the  lien,  where  such  cargo  is  placed  on  the 
dock,  and  kept  separate  from  other  goods,  so  as  to  be  capable  of  identification.-'^ 
The  placing  by  a  carrier  of  a  car  on  the  team  track,  to  l)e  unloaded  by  the  con- 
signee, is  not  such  an  al)solutc  deliver}^  to  him  of  the  lumber  therein  as  to  cut 
off  any  future  right  of  lien  thereon  of  the  carrier  for  demurrage  charges  be- 
cause of  the  consignee  not  unloading  in  the  time  limit  therefor.-'  A  carrier 
does  not  waive  its  lien  for  demurrage  on  shipments  left  in  cars  after  the  free 

13.  Chicaj^o,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Jenkins,  103  16.  Statutory  provision. — Code  of  Miss. 
111.  588,  distinf^uished  in  Schumacher  7*.  1892,  §  2108;  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Chicago,   etc.,   R.    Co.,   207    111.    199,   09    N.       George  &  Co.,  82  Miss.  710.  35  So.  193. 

E.  825.  17.    Gault  Lumber  Co.  v.  Atchison,  etc.. 

A  carrier  has  no  lien  on  freight  for  de-  R.  Co..  37  Okla.  24.  130  Pac.  291. 

murrage  for  delay  in  unloading  the  barges  ig.      Where     goods     damaged.— Pioneer 

on  which   it   was  carried  at   their  point   of  Fuel   Co.   i\   McBrier,   2s   C.   C.   A.   466,   84 

destination,    and    has    no    right    to    retain  p^^    4()- 

possession  of  the  goods  until  the  demur-  ^^     '-^^^  ^^^^^  cars.-Xew  Orleans,  etc.. 

rage    is    raid       Nicolette    Lumber    Car.  j,    ^^    ,.    ^.^,^^^        ^^  ^       ^2   ^^j^^    „jO    35 

People  s  Coal  Co.,  213  Pa.  379,  62  Atl.  1060,  ^. 

3   L.   R.  A.,   N.  S.,  327,  110  Am.  St.   Rep.  '  "^^  ^''•'^  ,.        .  ,                 ,     ,. 

550.  5  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  387.  ^  20      Relmquishment     of     lien.— Pioneer 

14.  2  Redtield  on  Railways  (6th  Ed.),  F"el  Co.  v.  McBrier,  2S  C.  C.  A.  466,  84 
p.   193.     Xicolctte   Lumlier   Co.  v.  People's  I'*^^'-  -i-'^- 

Coal  Co.,  213  Pa.  379,  62  Atl.  1060,  3  L.  R.  21.    Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood  Mfg. 

A.,  N.  S..  327,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  550,  5  .A.m.  Co.,   142  Ala.  322,  37   So.  667.  68   L.   R.  A., 

&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  387.  X.  S..  227,  110  Am.  St.   Rep.  32,  4  Am.  & 

15.  Crommelin    v.    New    York,    etc.,    R.  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  12. 
Co.,  43  X.  V.  90,  1  .Abb.  Dec.  472. 


§§  983-984 


CARRIERS. 


716 


time  for  unloading  has  expired  by  permitting  a  carrier  to  remove  a  portion  of 
the   shipment. -- 

§§  984-985.  Remedies  and  Defenses— §  984.  Of  Carrier.— Refusal 
to  Switch  Cars.— h  is  the  chity  of  a  raih-oad  to  switch  and  place  cars  com- 
ing from  its  own  lines  or  tended  to  it  with  proper  transfer  switching  charges 
bv  any  connecting  line,  and  it  can  not  excuse  itself  from  the  performance  of 
it's  duty  by  the  existence  of  disputes  as  to  the  correctness  of  demurrage  charges 
withheld  pending  adjustment,-'^  or  the  existence  of  a  combination  of  the  con- 
signee and  others  to  resist  the  enforcement  of  the  rules  of  a  car  association 
as*  to  demurrage  and  who  refuse  to  pay  for  car  service.--^  This  duty,  however, 
can  not  be  enforced  bv  a  consignee  who  has  wrongfully  refused  to  pay  the 
demurrage  charges  under  the  rules  of  the  association,--^  nor  by  a  consignee  who 
has  not  only  wrongfully  refused  to  pay  demurrage  charges  incurred  in  the 
past,  but  has  expressed  'his  intention  of  persisting  in  his  refusal  even  if  such 
charges  be  justlv  incurred  in  the  future. ^'^  A  rule  of  a  car  serAnce  association, 
provtding  that  where  consignees  refuse  to  pay,  or  unnecessarily  defer  settle- 
ment of,  car  service  charges,  cars  will  not  be  switched  to  the  private  sidings 
of  such  persons,  but  deliveries  will  only  be  made  on  public  delivery  tracks  of 
the  companv,  is  legal  and  enforceable.-' 

Jurisdiction.— A  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  has  jurisdiction  to  de- 
termine in  the  first  instance  the  indebtedness  of  a  shipper  to  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  demurrage,  under  the  rules  adopted  by  the  company  and  filed  ^yith 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  where  it  depends  on  the  construction, 
and  not  on  the  reasonableness  or  unreasonableness,  of  such  rules,  although  the 
latter  question  is  one  primarily   for  the  commission. ^"^ 

Declaration.— A  declaration  averring  that  plaintiff  and  defendant  were 
parties  to  a  contract  of  shipment  over  plaintiff's  road,  that  since  the  demurrage 
rule  was  adopted  it  has  formed  part  of  the  contract  of  shipment,  sufficiently 
avers  an  implied  contract  for  payment  of  demurrage.-^ 

Issues  and  Proof.— Where  an  order  of  a  car  service  association  is  reason- 


22.  Gault  Lumber  Co.  r.  Atchison,  etc., 
R.  Co..  37  Okla.  24.  130  Pac.  291. 

23.  Remedies  and  defenses. — Yazoo,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Searles,  8.5  Miss.  520,  37  vSo. 
939.  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  715. 

24.  Kentucky  Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio, 
etc..  R.  Co..  98  Ky.  152,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726. 
32  S.  W.  595,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  326,  36  L. 
R.   A.,   X.   S..  850. 

25.  A  customer  having  committed  the 
first  wrong  and  thus  caused  the  carriers  to 
do  the  wrong  complained  of,  is  not  in  a 
position  to  ask  relifef  in  equity.  Ken- 
tucky Wagon  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  98  Ky.  152,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  726,  32  S. 
W.  595,  36  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  850,  56  Am.  St. 
Rep.  326. 

26.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85 
Miss.  520,  37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
715. 

27.  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Searles,  85 
Miss.  520,  37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
715. 

Rules  of  a  car-service  association  of 
railroads  making  a  reasonable  charge  for 
the  use  of  cars  and  tracks  for  the  time 
consignee  unreasonably  delays  to  unload 
goods,  providing  that  when  cars  are  not 
unloaded  within  the  time  limit  such  charge 
must  be  paid  before  the  goods  can  be  un- 


loaded, and  that,  should  any  consignee, 
1)eing  the  owner  of  a  private  siding  de- 
cline to  pay  such  charges  in  arrear,  the 
companies  may  refuse  to  place  other  cars 
on  such  siding  for  unloading  until  all  ar- 
rears are  paid,  are  all  reasonable  and  valid. 
Phillips  Co.  V.  Erie  Railway,  6  O.  C.  C, 
N.  S.,  505,  14  O.  D.  N.  P.  706. 

28.  Jurisdiction. — -"It  is  true  that,  un- 
der the  decision  of  the  supreme  court, 
in  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Abilene  Cotton 
Oil  Co.,  204  U.  S.  426,  27  S.  Ct.  350,  51 
L.  Ed.  553,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1075, 
the  reasonableness  of  a  rate  or  charge 
can  not  be  inquired  into  in  an  independ- 
ent suit  by  court  and  jury,  prior  to  ac- 
tion by  the  interstate  commerce  commis- 
sion, finding  the  established  charge  to  be 
unreasonable.  In  the  case  before  us, 
however,  the  court  is  asked  to  say,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  what  the  schedule  of  rules 
in  regard  to  charges  for  demurrage,  filed 
by  the  defendant  company,  actually  is, 
without  regard  to  the  reasonableness  or 
imreasonableness  thereof."  Hite  v.  Cen- 
tral Railroad,  96  C.  C.  A.  326,  171  Fed. 
370. 

29.  Declaration. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co. 
V.  Midvale  Steel  Co.,  201  Pa.  624,  51  Atl. 
313,   88   Am.    St.    Rep.    836. 


717  ni'.I.AV    IN    TRANSI'(JRT.\Tir)X    OR    DKLIVrlRV.  §§    984-985 

able  in  its  j^cncral  tenor  and  effect,  the  question  whether  it  was  rightfully  in- 
voked in  a  particular  instance  does  not  attect  the  question  of  whether  the  asso- 
ciation is  or  is  not  a  trust  or  combine.^"  Proof  that  the  plaintiflf  was  unable 
to  unload  material  at  once  does  not  of  itself  establish  the  carrier's  right  to  col- 
lect demurrage,  in  the  absence  of  proof  that  the  plaintitY  failed  to  unload  the 
cars  c()nsi,L;ni-il   williin   the   rc(|uire(l   time.''' 

Sufficiency  of  Evidence. — Under  a  statute  providing  that  proof  that  a 
party  has  been  comijclled  to  pay  more  for  services  by  reason  of  the  unlawful 
act  or  agreement  of  a  trust  than  he  would  have  been  compelled  to  pay  ex- 
cept for  such  unlawful  act  or  agreement  shall  be  conclusive  proof  of  dam- 
age, mere  proof  tliat  one  has  been  compelled  to  pay  more  for  a  service  than 
his  com[)etitors  were  paxin^-  for  tlic  same  service,  without  proof  that  such  ex- 
cessive payment  was  due  to  the  alleged  wrongful  act  and  agreement  complained 
of.  does  not  constitute  the  required  i)roof  of  damage.'-- 

Qnestions  of  Law  and  Fact.— A  rule  on  its  face  may  apparently  be  rea- 
sonal)lc,  eiilier  as  time  allowed  for  unloading  or  as  to  the  extent  of  the  pen- 
alty by  which  it  is  sought  to  enforce  a  reasonal)le  time  limit,  or  the  reasonable- 
ness of  the  rule  may  be  doubtful,  in  either  of  which  cases  the  evidence  is  for 
the  jury.-'-'  Where  the  rule  is  manifestly  a  reasonable  one,  both  as  to  time  and 
charge,  the  court  will  not  take  up  time  by  instructing  a  jury  to  find  the  fact.^"* 
Whether  a  particular  rule  or  regulation  is  or  is  not  reasonable  in  its  require- 
ments is,  when  the  facts  are  shown,  a  (fuestion  of  law  for  the  court,  and  not 
a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury. -''•'• 

§  985.  Of  Consignee. — Where  the  bill  of  lading  allows  a  given  number  of 
days  to  the  consignee  for  un!oa<ling,  a  contract  is  impljed  on  his  part  that,  from 
the  time  when  the  ship  is  at  the  usual  place  of  discharge,  he  will  take  the  risk 
of  any  ordinary  vicissitude  which  may  occur  to  prevent  the  release  of  the  ship 
at  the  e\]Mration  of  the  running  days.^*^ 

Inability  to  Unload. — The  fact  that  neither  the  consignee  nor  the  one 
charged  with  the  duty  of  unloading  cars  is  able  to  receive  and  unload  them 
within  the  free  time,  after  notice  of  their  arrival  will  not  relieve  the  consignee 
of  the  obligation  to  pay  demurrage  or  car  service  charges  on  cars  used  in  in- 
terstate  shipments.-"" 

Condition  of  Weather. — A  consignee  of  freight  was  not  excused  from  non- 
compliance with  his  duty  to  unload  it  from  the  cars  within  the  time  stipulated 

30.  Issues  and  proof. — Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  folk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  90  \a.  393.  18 
Co.  V.  Soarles.  So  Miss.  520,  37  So.  939,  S.  E.  673,  22  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  530,  44  Am. 
68   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S..   715.  St.    Rep.    916. 

31.  Wooley  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  a  rule  of  a  carrier  imposing  a  charge 
Wis.   ISH,   136   N.  W.   616.  of  $1  per  day  for  time  a  car  remains  un- 

32.  Sufficiency  of  evidence.— Yazoo.  loaded  after  forty-eight  hours  from  time 
etc..  R.  Co.  f.  ^Scarles.  85  Miss.  520,  37  j^  is  ready  for  delivery  to  the  consignee, 
So.  939,  tis  L.   R.  A..  X.   S.,  71.).  ^\■^Q    reasonableness    of    which    is    not    de- 

.     33.    Questions  of  law  and   fact— Penn-  uj^jj^    jg   manifestly    reasonable,   and    need 

sylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Midvale  Steel  Co.,  201  „ot    be    submitted    to    a   jury    with    direc- 

Pa.  624,  51  Atl.  313,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  83().  tjo^   go   to   find.      Pennsylvania    R.    Co.   v. 

Whether  or  not  a  demurrage  charge  is  Midvale    Steel    Co.,    201    Pa.    624,    51    Atl. 

reasonable    is    a    question    of    fact.      Ken-  -^^y^^  gg  ^m.  St.  Rep.  836. 

t"'=^>;,^\^-°"   5!^^f;  ^°-  ';  °i"°'   %'   ?o  35.     Baltimore,    etc..    R.    Co.    v.    Fisher, 

?^\r^^-oHr  T   'r     A    \t^q  \'-^n    ^,    An.  3   O.   X.   P.   122,   5   O.   Dec.   659. 

S.   W.  o9o,  36  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  8o0,  56  Am.  _,              '.                ,,                           ^. 

St    Rep    326  36.     Of     consignee. — Manson     v.      Xew 

34.     Pennsylvania     R.     Co.    v.     Midvale  York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  31  Fed.  297    24  Blatcht. 

Steel  Co.,  201  Pa.  624,  51  Atl.  313,  88  Am.  t^^'   citing   Tns   x-.    Byers     34    Law   T.     X. 


St.    Rep."  836,     citing    Kentucky     Wagon  S-   526;    Randall  v.    Lynch,   2   Camp.    352; 

Mfg.  Co.  V.  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co..  98  Ky.  152,  Cross  z:   Beard,   26   X.  \.  S5. 

32  S.  W.   595,   17   Ky.   L.   Rep.   726,   36   L.  37.      Inability      to      unload. — Xcbraska 

R.    A.,    X.    S..   850,    56   Am.    St.    Rep.    326;  Transfer  Co.  r.   Chicago,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  90 

Miller  v.   Mansfield,   112  Mass.   260;   Nor-  Xeb.   488,   134   X.   W.   163. 


S   935  CARKIKRS.  718 

in  the  bill  of  lading  bv  reason  of  the  extreme  condition  of  the  weather.^s  ^ 

Seizure  by  Government.— It  seems  that  where  a  chartered  vessel  is  seized 
and  detained  bv  a  revenne  officer  of  the  United  States,  the  charterer  can  not 
be  made  liable  "for  demurrage  during  the  period  of  such  detention. »» 

Rush  of  Business.— Excuse  for  failure  to  unload  freight  where  goods  are 
shipr.ed  by  a  vessel,  to  be  unloaded  at  a  dock  and  put  on  railroad  cars,  but 
owing  to  an  unexpected  number  of  vessels  arriving  at  one  time,  the  freight  was 
not  unloaded  immediately  but  in  order  of  the  arrival  of  the  vessel,  the  shipper 
is  excused  from  liabilitv  for  demurrage.-*'^ 

Offset  of  Claim.— the  fact  that  a  consignee  has  an  unadjusted  clann  for 
damages  against  a  railroad  is  no  valid  excuse  for  his  refusal  to  pay  demurrage 
on  cars  undulv  detained  bv  him.-*^ 

Recovery  of  Overcharges.— A  car  service  rule  recjuiring  prompt  payment 
of  demurrage  charges  and  providing  that  no  claim  of  mistake  or  overcharge 
will  be  considered  unless  the  bill  for  demurrage  is  first  promptly  paid,  does 
not  subject  consignees  to  a  liability  to  imposition  in  the  collection  of  demurrage, 
but  leaves  them  free  to  prosecute  actions  for  damages  for  the  collection  of 
overcharges  or  for  refusing  to  render  services  when  no  demurrage  is  due  or 
payment  thereof  has  not  been  unduly  delayed.-*-  In  a  suit  by  a  consignee  for 
damages  for  extorting  excessive  demurrage  charges  or  for  withholding  car 
service  under  a  pretended  claim  for  demurrage,  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier 
to  prove  the  proper  assessment  of  unpaid  demurrage,  and  that  payment  thereof 
had  been  refused  or  unduly  delayed,  within  the  terms  of  a  rule  requiring  the 
prompt  pavment  of  demurrage  charges.-*-^ 

Pleading. — In  a  carrier's  action  for  demurrage,  an  allegation  that  the  car- 
rier delivered  cars  to  the  defendant  in  such  large  numbers  and  so  unreasonably 
concentrated  them  as  to  prevent  the  defendant  from  handling  them  promptly, 
choking  and  overwhelming  the  defendant's  side  track  with  cars,  when  they 
knew  it  was  impossible  for  defendant  to  handle  and  unload  them,  stated  a  suffi- 
cient, defense. ■*■* 

Affidavit  of  Defense. — Where  a  declaration  for  demurrage  on  cars  is  ac- 
companied by  an  account  giving  exact  details  as  to  each  car,  an  affidavit  of  de- 
fense makes  no  issue  by  stating  generally  that  the  demurrage  rule  is  not 
applicable  to  defendant,  because  in  many  cases  the  detention  was  caused  by  re- 
loading, and  that  this  is  embraced  in  the  charge  of  delay  in  unloading,  defend- 
ant showing  that  it  has  the  means  of  specifying  particulars  by  stating  that  it 
will  produce  at  the  trial  its  own  records  to  prove  that  plaintiff's  were  inade- 
quate as  a  basis  of  claim.-*'' 

38.     Condition    of   weather.— Darlington  lector    for    their    damages."      Brooks      v. 

V.    Missouri     Pac.     R.    Co.,    99    Mo.    App.  Minturn.   1   Cal.   481. 

1,  72  S.  W.  122.  40.    Rush   of   business. — Wordin   v.    Be- 

'  39.     Seizure    by    government. — "If    the  mis,  .'!2   Conn.  208,  8.5  Am.  Dec.  255. 

seizure  were  legal,  and  occasioned  by  any  41.     Offset    of    claim.— Yazoo,    etc.,    R. 

act  or  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  defend-  Co.   v.   Searles,   85    Miss.   520,   37    So.   939, 

ant — such   as   a   neglect   to   pay   duties   on  G8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  715. 

the    cargo— then,    the    plaintiffs    will    be  42.    Recovery    of    overcharges.— Yazoo, 

entitled    to    recover    the    full    amount    of  etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Searles,    8.-)    Miss.    520,    37 

freight     (see    Morgan    v.    Insurance     Co.  So.  939,  68   L.   R.  A.,  N.  S.,  715. 

(U.  S.),  4  Dall.  455,  1  L.  Ed.  907),  and  per-  43.     Yazoo,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Searles,    85 

haps   demurrage,   upon    which    latter   sub-  Aliss.   .'20,  37  So.  939,  68  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 

ject   I   express   no   opinion   at   present.      If  715. 

the     seizure     were     illegal,     I     think    the  44.     Pleading.— Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

plaintiffs  may,  within  the  principle  of  the  v.    Empire    State    Chemical    Co.,    189    Fed. 

case  of  Morgan  v.  The   Insurance   Co.  of  174. 

North  American,  recover  the  full  amount  45.    Affidavit  of   defense.— Pennsylvania 

of    freight,    but    no    demurrage.      In    such  R.   Co.  v.   Mid  vale   Steel   Co.,  201   Pa.   624, 

case   the   plaintiffs   must  look   to   the    col-  51  Atl.  313,  88  Am.  St.  Rep.  836. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Loss  OR    I X  JURY   TO   GoODS. 

I.   What    Law   Governs,   §   986. 

II.  Nature  and   Validity  of  Contract  of  Transportation.  §  987. 

III.  Care    Required  of  Carrier,  §§  988-1010. 

A.  In  General,  §  988. 

B.  Liability  as   insurer.  §§  989-1010. 

a.  General  Rule,  §  989. 

b.  Exceptions  and   Excuses,  §§  990-1004. 

(1)  .\ct  of   God,   §§   990-994. 

(a)  In  General.  §  990. 

(b)  What   Constitutes   Act   of   God,   §   991. 

(c)  Negligence  Concurring  with  Act  of  Gbd,  §  992. 

(d)  Where   Danger  Should   Have  Been  Anticipated,  §  99.3. 

(e)  Duty  to  Prevent  Act  of  God  from  Causing  Injury,  §  994. 

(2)  Act  of  Public   Enemy,  §§  995-997. 

(a)  In   General,  §  995. 

(b)  Thieves  and  Robbers,  §  996. 

(c)  Strikers,    Rioters,    Mobs    and    Insurrectionists,    §    997. 

(3)  Fault   of   Shipper   or   Owner,   §§   998-1002. 

(a)  In  General.  §  998. 

(b)  Goods   Improperly   Marked,   §   999. 

(c)  Goods    Improperly   Packed.    §    1000. 

(d)  Goods    Improperly    Loaded,    §    1001. 

(e)  Misrepresentation  or  Concealment  of  Nature  or  Value  of  Goods,  §  1002. 

(4)  Inherent    Infirmities    of   Goods,    §    1003. 

(5)  Act   or   Mandate   of  Public   Authority.   §   1004. 

c.  Carriers  to  Which   Rule  Applicable,   §§   1005-1009. 

(1)  In   General,  §  1005. 

(2)  Carriers   Not  Owning   Means  of  Transportation,  §   1006. 

(3)  Carriers  of  Mon^,  §  1007. 

(4)  Persons   Occasionally   Carrying,   §    lOOS.  • 

(5)  Forwarders,  §  1009. 

d.  Commencement  and  Termination  of  Liabilit}',  §   1010. 
IV.  Goods  Shipped  on  Chartered  or  Private  Cars,  §  1011. 

V.  Acts  or  Omissions  Rendering  Carrier  Liable  in  General,  §§  1012-1016. 

A.  In  General,  §  1012. 

B.  Proximate  Cause  of  Loss  or   Injury.   §   1013. 

C.  Negligence   of  Agents  or  Servants,  §   1014. 

D.  Negligence  or  Misconduct  of  Third  Person,  §  1015. 

E.  Deviation  or  Delay.  §  1016. 

VI.  Mode  or  Means  of  Transportation.  §§   1017-1021. 

A.  In   General.  §   1017. 

B.  Means   of  Transportation    in    General,    §    1018. 

C.  Duty  as  to  Perishable  Goods,  §  1019. 

D.  Carrying  Goods  on  Open  Cars.  §  1020. 

E.  Means   for   Loading  and   LTnloading,    §    1021. 
VII.  Duties  after  Injury,  §   1022. 

VIII.   Eflfect  of  Insurance.  §§   1023-1029. 

A.  In   General,   §   1023. 

B.  Contract    for    Benefit    of    Insurance,    §§    1024-1029. 
a.  Power  to  Stipulate  and  Validity.  §  1024. 


CARRIERS. 


720 


b.  Operation  and   Effect,  §§   1025-1028. 

(1)  Right  of  Shipper  to   Recover  from  Carrier,  §   1025. 

(2)  Right  of  Carrier  to   Recover  from   Insurer,  §   1026. 

(3)  Effect   as   Defeating  Insurer's    Right   of   Subrogation.    §    1027. 

(4)  Inconsistent   Stipulations   in   Contract   and   Policy,   §    1028. 

c.  Suits   against   Carrier.   §   1029. 
IX.  Claims  for  Damages,  §   1030. 

X.   Extent  of  Liability,   §   1031. 
XI.  Actions  for  Loss  or  Injury.  §§   1032-1089. 

A.  Nature   and   Form,   §    1032. 

B.  Right  of  Action  and   Defenses,   §§   1033-1035. 

a.  In  General,  §  1033. 

b.  Conditions   Precedent,   §   1034. 

c.  Defenses,    §    1035. 

C.  Jurisdiction    and    Venue,    §    1036. 

D.  Parties,  §  1037. 

E.  Pleading.   §§    1038-1051. 

a.  Declaration,   Complaint,   Petition   or   Bill,   §§   1038-1049. 
(1)   In  General,  §  1038. 

(2).  Necessity    and    Sufficiency    of    Allegations,    §§    1039-1047. 

(a)  Plaintiff's  Title  or  Interest,  §  1039. 

(b)  That    Defendant   a   Common   Carrier,   §   1040. 

(c)  As  to  Consideration,   §   1041. 

(d)  Delivery    to    and   Acceptance    by    Carrier,    §    1042. 

(e)  As  to   Contract   of  Carriage,   §   1043. 

(f)  Negligence  of  Defendant,  §  1044. 

(g)  Description  of  Property.  §  1045. 

(h)  Damage   and  Value   of  Goods,  §   1046. 
(i)   Special  Statutory  Proceeding,  §  1047. 

(3)  Amendments,   §   1048. 

(4)  Aider   by   Answer,    §   1049. 

b.  Plea  or  Answer,  §  1050. 

c.  Admissions   in   Pleadings,   §    1051. 

F.  Issues.   Proof  and  Variance,  §§   1052-1055. 

a.  In  General,  §  1052. 

b.  Evidence   Admissible  under  Pleadings,   §   1053. 

c.  Matters   to    Be   Proved,   §   1054. 

d.  Variance,   §   1055. 

G.  Evidence,  §§  1056-1067. 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  §§   1056-1060. 

(1)  Plaintiff's  Burden  of  Proof  in   General,  §   1056. 

(2)  Defendant's    Burden    of    Proof    in    General,    §    1057. 

(3)  Condition  of  Goods  When   Received  by  Carrier,   §   1058. 

(4)  Shipment  Composed  of  Several  Classes  of  Goods,  §   1059. 

(5)  Where   Transportation   under    Special   Contract,   §    1060. 

b.  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill  of  Lading,   §   1061. 

c.  Admissibility  of   Evidence,   §§   1062-1066. 

(1)  In  General,  §  1062. 

(2)  Declarations  and  Admissions,  §  1063. 

(3)  Opinion    Evidence,   §   1064. 

(4)  Documentary    Evidence,    §    1065. 

(5)  Parol  Evidence,  §  1066. 

d.  Weight  and    Sufficiency   of   Evidence.   §    1067. 
H.  Damages,  §§  1068-1085. 

a.  Extent  of   Liability,    Measure   and    Elements   of   Damages.   §§    1068-1080. 
(1)   In   General,   §    1068. 


721 


LOSS    OR    INjrKV    To    GOODS. 


§  986 


(2)   Loss  of  Goods.  §  1069. 

(■^)   Injury  to  Goods,   §§   1070-1072. 

(a)  In   General,  §   1070. 

(b)  Ri,t,'ht   to   Abandon   Goods,   §    1071. 

(c)  When   Damaged  Goods  Sold,  §  1072, 

(4)    Freight,    Allowance   and    Deduction,    §    1073. 

(0)  Interest,   §    1074. 

(6)  Expenses  of  Owner,  §   107."). 

(7)  Goods    Shipped   under   Contract   of   Sale,   §    1076. 

(8)  Goods    Having    Xo   Market   Value,  §   1077. 

(9)  Profits,  §  1078. 

(10)  Special   Damages,  §  1079. 

(11)  Exemplary  Damages,  §  1080. 

b.  Duty  of  Owner  to  Mitigate  or  Avert.  §  1081. 

c.  Evidence  as   to  Value   or   Damage,   §§   1082-1084. 

(1)  In   General,   §   1082. 

(2)  Admissibility,  §  108.3. 

(3)  Weight    and    Sufficienc3^    §    1084. 

d.  Recovery   as   Affected   by   Allegation   of   Damages,   §    1085. 
I.   Province   of  Court   and   Jury,   §§   1086-1087. 

a.  In  General,  §  1086. 

b.  Particular  Questions  of  Law  or  Fact,  §   1087. 
J.   Instructions.  §   1088. 

K.  Verdict,   §   1089. 

§  886.  What  Law  Governs. — .As  a  general  rule  the  law  of  the  place  where 
the  contract  of  carriage  i.s  made  governs  in  determining  the  liability  of  the  car- 
rier, unless  the  parties  at  the  time  of  making  it  had  some  other  law  in  view.' 
This  rule  admits  of  some  variation  in  practice,  dependent  sometime  upon  the 
question  as  to  where  the  contract  is  to  be  performed,-  or  where  it  is  breached. ^ 
As  to  requirements  which  are  to  be  wholly  performed  in  one  state  the  laws  of 
that  state  govern ;  •*  so  the  laws  of  the  state  where  de'iverv  is  to  be  made  fix  the 


1.  What  law  eoverns. — Palmer  f. 
Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.,  101  Cal.  187.  35 
Pac.  630;  Bertonneau  r.  Southern  Pac. 
Co.,  17  Cal.  App.  439,  120  Pac.  53;  Liver- 
pool, etc..  Steam  Co.  z-.  Phenix  In?.  Co  . 
129  U.  397.  9  S.  Ct.  469,  32  L.  Ed. 
7SS. 

In  transporting:  eoods  from  Mexico 
into  Texas  the  liability  of  a  common  car- 
rier is  determined  l)y  the  Inws  of  ^Icx- 
ico.     Cantu  v.   Bennett,   39   Tex.   303. 

2.  Bertonneau  z:  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  17 
Cal.  App.  439,  120  Pac.  53. 

W^here  a  package  is  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier in  New  York  to  1>e  delivered  in 
Ohio,  and  is  negligently  lost,  in  an  ac- 
tion for  such  loss  the  place  of  delivery 
is  the  place  of  the  performance  of  the 
contract,  and  the  law  of  Oliio  governs. 
Tacobson  &  Co.  z:  .\dams'  Exp.  Co.,  1 
O.  C.   D.  212,   1   O.  C.  C.  381. 

Civ.  Code,  California.  §  2200,  which 
exempts  carriers  of  specified  valualiles, 
etc.,  from  liability  in  excess  of  $50,  un- 
less they  have  notice  of  the  nature  of 
the  freight,  etc.,  does  not  apply  to  a 
through    shipment     from     anotlicr    state 


over  connectng  lines;  the  place  of  per- 
formance of  the  contract,  as  aflfecting 
the  applicaliility  of  laws,  not  being  de- 
termined by  the  place  of  delivery,  and 
the  code  provision  not  being  applicable 
on  the  theory  that  it  afTects  only  the 
remedy.  Bertonneau  f.  Southern  Pac. 
Co..    17   Cal.   .\])ii.   439.    120   Pac.   5:v 

Where  contract  to  be  partiy  performed. 
y-.-\.  contract  of  carriage,  though  made 
in  a  foreign  state,  is  not  necessarily 
governed,  in  matters  of  construction 
and  eflfect,  by  the  laws  of  that  state, 
where  the  contract  is  to  be  parth-  per- 
formed in  another  state.  Carter  '&  Co. 
:•.  Southern  R.  Co..  3  Ga.  App.  34,  59  S. 
E.  209;  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Broome, 
3   Ga.   .\pp.   641,  60   S.   E.  355. 

3.  A  carrier's  liability  for  loss  of  goods 
shipped  from  New  York  to  Kentucky, 
which  loss  occurred  in  Kentucky,  was 
governed  by  the  Kentucky  law.  Cin- 
cinnati, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Hansford  &  Son, 
100   S.   W.  251,  30   Ky.   L.   Rep.   1105. 

4.  Carter  &  Co.  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
3  Ga.  App.  34.  59  S.  E.  209;  .Atlanta,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  z:  Broome.  3  Ga.  .App.  641.  60 
S.   E.   355. 


1   Car — 46 


§§  986-987  cARRii-Rs.  722 

liability  of  the  carrier  for  the  care  of  the  goods  after  reaching  their  destination.^ 
Where  goods  were  lost  by  fire  in  another  state,  in  which  the  rule  as  to  a  car- 
rier's liability  would  be  different,  as  the  question  is  a  commercial  one  the  courts 
of  the  state  in  which  the  action  is  brought  will  adhere  to  their  own  rule  in  that 
respect.'' 

Validity  of  Contract. — On  interstate  shipments,  the  general  rule  is  that  the 
lex  loci  contractus  and  not  the  lex  fori  prevails  as  to  the  validity  of  the  con- 
tract, but,  although  a  contract  be  valid  where  made,  yet  if  it  contravenes  the 
public  policy  of  the  state  where  it  is  to  be  in  part  performed  and  is  sought  to  be 
enforced,  it  will  not  be  enforced.  The  public  policy  of  the  latter  state  can  not  be 
set  at  naught  either  by  comity,  or  the  will  of  the  contracting  parties.'' 

§  987.  Nature  and  Validity  of  Contract  of  Transportation. — To  render 
a  common  carrier  liable,  a  particular  agreement  for  hire  is  not  necessary,^  nor 
is  it  necessary  to  pro\e  a  written  contract,  as  the  law  implies  in  the  absence  of 
such  a  contract  an  obligation  to  deliver  in  good  condition  to  the  person  from 
whom  freight  is  accepted.'^*  But  if  there  is  an  express  written  contract,  an  ac- 
tion can  not  be  brought  by  the  assignee  of  the  bill  of  lading  on  an  implied  prom- 
ise arising  from  the  carrier's  duty  to  transport  and  deliver.^"'  Where  in  loading 
and  packing,  another's  goods  were  not  distinguished  from  the  shipper's  and  both 
alike  were  leceived  by  the  carrier  from  the  shipper,  its  liability  for  loss  extends 
to  all  the  goods,  though  the  contract  was  made  with  the  shipper  alone. ^^  Where 
a  carrier's  agent,  through  error,  omitted  a  part  of  the  goods  from  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing which  were  put  in  the  car  with  his  knowledge  after  its  first  loading,  and  the 
carrier  collected  its  charges  therefor,  the  shipper  is  entitled  to  recover  for  the 
crates  so  omitted  on  proof  of  loss.^-  A  contract,  imposing  upon  a  carrier  the 
exclusive  duty  of  safe-keeping,  may  be  implied  by  usage,  or  by  a  particular  course 
of  dealing  between  the  parties ;  but  the  implication  that  the  carrier  assumes  the 
duty  of  immediate  transportation,  and  hence  the  responsibilit}'  of  an  insurer, 
without  knowing  to  wb.at  place  and  to  whom  goods  are  to  be  shipped,  must  be 
clear.  1-' 

What  Law  Governs. — As  to  what  law  governs  as  to  the  validity  of  a  con- 
tract of  carriage,   see  elsewhere.^'* 

Effect  of  Invalidity  of  Contract  of  Carriage. — W  hen  a  carrier  accepts 
pro]:)erty  for  transportation,  the  law  imposes  upon  it,  in  the  absence  of  a  binding 
contract  limiting  its  liability,  the  duties  of  either  a  common  or  private  carrier,  ac- 
cording to  the  facts,  for  the  violation  of  which  it  will  be  liable,  regardless  of  the 
legal  sufficiency  of  the  contract  of  carriage.^-*  The  fact  that  the  contract  is  in 
violation  of  law  or  involves  an  illegal  act  does  not  prevent  or  affect  the  shipper's 
right  to  recover  for  losses  occasioned  by  the  negligence  or  wrongful  act  of  the 
carrier.^"     And  a  carrier  can  not  defend  an  action  for  damages  resulting  from 

5.  Heath  v.  South  Bound  R.  Co.,  4G  22.3  Pa.  148,  72  Atl.  .516,  21  L.  R.  A., 
S.   C.   104,  24  S.   E.   166.  N.    S.,    ISS. 

6.  Dunham  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ( N.  12.  Omission  of  part  of  goods  from 
Y.).  46  Hun  245,  11  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  472;  bill  of  lading.— Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
Faulkner  v.    Hart,    82    N.    Y.    iU.    37    Am.  Hams,   i:i9   Ga.   .357,   77   S.    E.   153. 

Rep.  .574.  13.  Central,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Sigma  Lum- 

7.  Validity  of  contract. — .\dams  Exp.  ber  Co.,  170  Ala.  627,  54  So.  205,  Ann. 
Co.   7'.    Green.    112    Va.   527,   72    S.    E.    102.  Cas.  1912  D,  965. 

8.  Agreement  for  hire  unnecessary. —  14.  What  law  governs. — See  ante, 
Allen  7\   Sewall    (N.   Y.),  2   Wend.   327.  "What   Law   Governs."   §   986. 

9.  Written  contract  unnecessary. —  I\u-  15.  Effect  of  invalidity  of  contract  of 
ben's  v.  Luflgate  Hill,  etc.,  Co.,  65  Hun.  carriage. —  ludse  r.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 
025,    20    N.    Y.    S.    481,    48    N.    Y.    St.    Rep.  189    l-ed.    ]()]4. 

732.  16.    'I'lie     fact     that    one    who     delivers 

10.  Knight  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  goods  to  a  carrier  for  transportation 
141  111.  110,  30  X.  E.  543,  affirming  40  carries  on  business  under  a  firm  name. 
HI.    .A.pp.    471.  when  in   fact  he  has  no  partner,  and  thus 

11.  Lloyd  7'.   Haugh,   etc.,  Transfer  Co.,  violates  a  law   of  the   stale,  is   no  defense 


72Z 


LOSS    OR    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§§  987-988 


its  negligence  in  transporting  goods  on  the  ground  that  the  consignor  could  not 
lawfully  acquire  title  to  them.'"  JUit  it  is  held  that  a  shipper  of  property  in 
violation  of  the  proclamation  of  the  president  of  the  L'nited  States  can  not  re- 
cover against  the  carrier,'^  and  that  in  an  action  for  the  recovery  of  the  value 
of  intoxicating  li(|uors  lost  during  transportation,  the  j^laintiff  must  allege  and 
prove  that  lu'  o\\  lu'd  and  possessed  tlie  liipiors  with  lawful  intent.''' 

Where  Carrier  Refuses  to  Ship  Goods. — A  carrier  is  ntjt  liahle  for  negli- 
gence in  caring  for  hay  after  its  delivery  for  shipment  where,  the  hay  not  heing 
branded  as  re(|uired  hy  statute,  it  refuses  to  ship  it.-"' 

Transportation  after  Rescission  of  Contract. — W  here  the  ship])er  right- 
fully rescinds  the  contract  for  transportation  and  forhids  the  carrier  to  under- 
take the  carriage,  the  carrier,  in  insisting  on  carrying  the  goods,  does  so  at  its 
own  peril,  upon  risks  and  responsihilities  incident  to  the  emjdovnient,  without 
regard   to  anv   limitation   of   liahilily  contained   in   the  contract  originallv.-' 

Void  Provision  in  Bill  of  Lading. — A  jjrovision  of  the  bill  oif  lading  that, 
if  the  1)111  is  assigned,  it  must  lie  presented  to  the  carrier,  properly  indorsed, 
before  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  the  place  of  destination,  is  unreasonable 
and  \()id.-- 

Preference  in  Rates. — .\  shipper's  action  for  loss  of  goods  can  not  he  de- 
feated because  he  was  given  a  preference  in  rates  under  the  interstate  commerce 
law,  where  the  right  was  ex])ressly  recognized  by  the  commerce  commission  in 
an  <adniinislrati\  c  ruling.--' 

Special  Contracts  of  Carriage. — Where  contracts  for  transporting  goods 
are  special  contracts,  and  specify  the  shijiment  to  be  at  owner's  risk,  he  can  only 
recover  under  such  special  contracts ;  and  if  the  goods  shipped  under  such  special 
contracts  were  lost  by  fire,  the  carrier  or  its  agents  exercising  such  care  as  a 
prudent  man  would  as  to  his  own  goods  in  ])rotecting  tlicm  from  unforeseen 
accident,  plaintiff  can  not  recover.--* 

§§   988-1010.  Care  Required  of  Carrier— §   988.  In  General.— A  com- 


to  ail  action  hj-  him  against  ti:c  cuTier 
for  injuries  to  the  goods  in  course  of 
transportation,  if  in  fact  he  is  the  true 
owner  of  the  goods.  Wood  v.  Krie  R. 
Co.  (N.  Y.).  9  Hun  648.  affirmed  in  7:2 
N.  Y.   inc.,  :3S  Am.   Rep.   12,). 

Contract  violating  interstate  commerce 
act. — .Vet  Feb.  4.  1SS7.  c.  104.  24  Stat. 
379  (U.  S.  Comp.  St.  1901.  p.  31.)4). 
Warren  v.  Cleveland,  etc..  R.  Co..  1,")() 
111.    App.    111. 

Though  goods  are  shipped  under  a 
contract  hy  which  a  special  rate  is 
charged,  and  a  rebate  allowed,  in  vio- 
lation of  the  interstate  commerce  act. 
such  fact  will  not  relieve  the  carrier  of 
liability  for  the  loss  of  the  goods.  In- 
surance Co.  V.  Delaware  Mut.,  etc.,  Ins. 
Co..   91    Tenn.    .t.'^7.    19    S.    W.   7r>.'). 

Contract  violating  postoffice  laws. — 
Wliere  tlie  prdcf  shows  the  tielivery  of 
a  letter  or  package  containing  money, 
to  be  carried  between  two  places,  at  each 
of  which  is  a  postoffice.  a  recovery  may 
be  had  on  a  count  charging  the  defend- 
ant as  a  bailee  to  deliver  the  money  on 
request,  even  if  the  contract  to  carry  is 
conceded  to  lic  invalid,  as  opposed  to 
the  postoffice  laws.  Hosea  f.  McCrory. 
12  Ala.  :M!). 

That  a  shipper  delivered  goods  to  a 
carrier   with    the    intention    of    smuggling 


them  is  not  a  defense  to  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  the  loss  of  the 
goods,  if  the  carrier  was  ignorant  of  the 
intent,  and  was  not  implicated  in  the 
smuggling.  Donovan  v.  Compagnie  Ge- 
nerale  Transatlantique.  .'59  X.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  .^)19. 

17.  Fanriers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Detroit, 
etc..  R.  Co..  17  Wis.  372. 

18.  Cantu   v.    Bennett.   39    Tex.   303. 

19.  Sommer  v.   Cate,   22   Iowa  SS."). 

20.  Pickard    r-.    Rayley.    4<i    Me.    200. 

21.  TransDortation  after  rescission  of 
contract. —  Dauohy  : .  Silliiiian  (X.  Y.).  2 
Lans.   ■">(■)  1. 

22.  Void  provision  in  bill. — Bishop  v. 
Empire  Transp.  Co..  3.3  X.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  99. 

23.  Preference  in  rates. — Santa  Fe,  etc., 
1\.  Co.  V.  Grant  Bros.  Constr.  Co..  13 
Ariz.  186,  108  Pac.  467.  where  the  agree- 
ment for  a  reduced  rate  for  the  ship- 
ment of  a  railroad  contractor's  outfit 
was  included  in  the  specifications  and 
contract,  under  which  lie  was  the  suc- 
cessful  bidder. 

24.  Special  contracts  of  carriage. — Bal- 
timore, etc..  R.  Co.  :■.  Rathbone.  1  W. 
Va.  87,  88  Am.  Dec.  664.  See  ante.  "Spe- 
cial Contracts,"  chapter  8;  post.  "Limi- 
tation of  Liability."  chapter  14. 


§  988 


CAKRIKRS. 


724 


mon  carrier  as  such  is  bound  to  exercise  the  strictest  care  -''  and  extraordinary 
diHgence -"  to  transport  safely  the  goods  intrusted  to  it.  The  carrier  must 
use  that  degree  of  attention  and  care  which  the  occasion  and  sul)ject  committed 
to  its  trust  demand,-"  and  its  duty  is  not  measured  by  that  which  is  usual  and 
customarv  for  otlier  carriers  to  do  under  like  circumstances.-^  Whenever  the 
situation  or  condition  of  the  goods,  from  accident  or  from  any  cause,  becomes 
such  as  to  require  special  care  or  attention,  the  carrier  must  put  itself  in  place 
of  the  owner,  and  do  for  them  all  that  might  reasonably  be  expected  of  a  care- 
ful and  prudent  person,  and,  if  necessary,  it  would  be  its  duty  to  incur  any  rea- 
sonable expense  in  their  preservation.-'*  The  degree  of  care  necessary'  depends 
on  the  known  condition  and  character  of  the  f reight ;  =5"  but  is  not  measured  by 
the  value  of  the  goods  shipped,='i  or  by  the  amount  of  freight  to  be  paid  where 
the  shipper  makes  no  concealment  or  misrepresentation,  and  the  carrier  has 
means  as  ample  as  the  shipper  to  ascertain  the  nature  and  value  of  the  goods. "- 


25.  Care  required  of  carrier. — Carpen- 
ter z\  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Del.),  fi 
Pen.  15,  64  Atl.  252;  Klair  z:  Philadel- 
phia, etc..  R.  Co.,  2  Boyce's  (25  Del.)  274. 
78  .\tl.  10S5;  Niagara  r.  Cordes  (U.  S.), 
21  How.  7.  u;  L.  Kd.  41. 

26.  Extraordinary  diligence.  —  Central, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Manchester  Mfg.  Co.,  6 
Ga.  App.  254.  64  S.  E.  1128.  See  Bibb  2'. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
508,  84   S.   W.  663. 

Extraordinary  diligence  is  that  ex- 
treme care  and  caution  which  very  pru- 
dent and  thoughtful  persons  use  in  se- 
curing and  preserving  their  own  prop- 
erty. Wallace  z:  Clayton,  42  Ga.  443; 
Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  White.  88  Ga. 
805.  15  S.   E.  802. 

By  the  Georgia  Civil  Code,  §  2264,^  it 
is  declared  that  a  common  carrier  ''as 
such  is  bound  to  use  extraordinary  dili- 
gence." Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs' 
Pharmacy  Co.,  135  Ga.  113,  68  S.  E.  1039. 

27.  Wolf  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  43  Mo. 
421,  97  Am.   Dec.  406. 

A  carrier  must  exercise  such  diligence 
as  is  required  by  law  to  protect  the 
goods  from  destruction  and  injury  result- 
ing from  conditions  which,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  due  care,  may  l)e  averted  or  coun- 
ter-acted. It  must  guard  the  goods  from 
destruction  or  injury  by  the  elements 
from  the  effects  of  delays,  and  from 
other  sources  of  injury  which  it  may 
avert,  by  the  exercise  of  care  and  ordi- 
nary intelligence.  Taft  Co.  z'.  American 
Exp.  Co.,  133  Iowa  522.  110  N.  W.  897. 
10  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S..  614;  Beard  v.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa  518,  44  N.  W.  800, 
7   L.   R.  A.  280,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  381. 

Apples  shipped  in  bulk  in  winter. — 
Where  plaintiff  shipped  apples  in  hulk 
from  New  York  to  Minnesota  in  winter, 
it  was  not  for  the  jury  to  determine 
whether  the  railroad  company  receiving 
the  freight  in  Chicago  was  required  to 
immediately  transfer  the  fruit  to  another 
car,  or  send  the  car  to  the  roundhouse, 
but  -it  was  only  required  to  exercise  rea- 
sonable care.  The  carrier  was  not  re- 
quired to  anticipate  that  a   car  of  apples 


so  loaded  would  be  delivered  in  its  yard, 
and  be  prepared  to  take  extraordinary 
precautions  to  protect  the  fruit  from 
frost.  Calender-Vanderhoof  Co,  z',  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R,  Co.,  109  N.  W.  402,  99  Minn. 
295. 

28.  Hinton  z:  Eastern  R.  Co.,  72  Minn. 
339,    75    N.    W.    373. 

29.  M.  P.  R.  Co.  z'.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  575. 

Danger  from  inherent  infirmity  of 
goods. — When  goods  become  exposed  to 
danger  of  deterioration  or  destruction 
from  their  own  inherent  infirmity,  it  is 
the  carrier's  duty  to  employ  at  least  a 
reasonable  degree  of  skill  and  diligence 
to  preserve  them.  M.  P.  R.  Co.  v. 
Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.. 
§   575. 

Danger  from  fire. — The  diligence  re- 
quired of  a  carrier  in  regard  to  preserv- 
ing goods  in  the  course  of  transportation 
by  him  from  loss  by  fire  is  not  limited  to 
avoid  setting  fire  to  such  goods,  but  ex- 
tends also  to  protecting  and  preserving 
them  from  destruction  after  a  peril  from 
fire  has  become  apparent.  Atlanta,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy  Co.,  135  Ga. 
113,   68   S.   E.   1039. 

30.  Character  and  condition  of  goods. 
—Barron,  etc.,  Co.  v.  C,  C,  C.  &  St.  L. 
R.  Co..  8  N.  P.,  N.  S.,  517,  19  O.  D.  N,  P. 
710,  affirmed  in  80  O.  St.  707,  11  O.  C. 
C,  N.  S..  602,  21-31  O.  C.  D.  142. 

Diligence  does  not  require  that  all 
goods  shall  receive  the  same  care.  Some 
may  be  properly  loaded  on  open  cars. 
Others  may  be  forwarded  by  regular 
freight  trains;  others,  on  account  of 
their  perishable  nature,  must  be  sent  by 
fast  freight;  others,  because  of  their 
great  inherent  value,  must  be  shipped  un- 
der special  precautions  to  prevent  loss 
by  theft.  Georgia  Southern  R.  Co.  z-. 
Johnson,  etc,  Co..  121  Ga.  231,  48  S.  E. 
807. 

31.  Value  of  goods. — Adams  Exp.  Co. 
z:   Green,    112   Va.   527,   72   S.    K.    102. 

32.  Amount  of  freight  as  affecting  de- 
gree of  care. — Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  z'. 
Maddox,  75  Tex.  300,  12  S.  W.  815. 


/AT) 


LOSS    OK    IMURV    TO    GOODS. 


§  988 


Whether  the  carrier  has  discharged  the  duty  of  using  care  and  (HHgence  in  the 
transportaticjii  of  goods  is  to  be  judged  with  reference  to  the  nature  of  the 
service,  and  the  circumstances  and  exigencies  under  which  it  is  to  he  per- 
formed."'^ 

To  Anticipate,  or  Protect  Goods  from,  Act  of  God. — .\s  to  care  re(|uired 
of  the  carrier  lo  aiilicipaU-  or  iir(jtccl  good>  from  ilic  act  of  God,  see  elsewhere.''* 

Contract  Limiting  Liability. — Where  by  contract  the  carrier  is  exemi)t  from 
Habihty  for  loss  from  certain  causes,  it  is  bound  to  use  ordinary  diligence  in 
protecting  the  goods  intrusted  to  it  from  loss  from  such  causes.-'"' 

A  carrier  of  good  gratuitously  •'''•  is  only  liable  for  losses  due  to  gross 
negligence.'''     v^o  it  is  not  liable  f(jr  goods  stolen  without  negligence  on  its  i)art.-'** 


33.  H(jIIa(lay  v.  Kennard  (U.  S.).  \2 
Wall.  :>.-.4,  :-'0  L.  Ed.  390. 

34.  Act  of  God. — See  '  post,  "Where 
Daiij^cT  Sliould  Have  Been  Anticipated," 
§  <)!).■{:  "Duty  to  Prevent  .^ct  of  God 
from  Causing?  Injury,"  §  994. 

35.  Contract  limiting  liability. — Little 
Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Talbot.  47  .\rk.  97, 
14  S.  W.  471.  vSce  post,  "Limitation  of 
Lial)ility,"    chapter    14. 

36.  Carrier  of  goods  gratuitously — 
Illustration. — Gold  dust  was  taken  on 
l)oard  of  the  steamer  New  World,  to  he 
carried  gratuitously  from  Sacramento  to 
San  Francisco;  the  clerk  of  the  boat  hav- 
ing given  the  owners  of  the  dust  actual 
notice  that  he  would  receive  gold  dust  or 
money  only  on  condition  that  no  charge 
should  be  made  and  no  responsil)ility  in- 
curred.    Fay  V.  New  World,  1  Cal.  348. 

Evidence  that  the  freight  clerk  of  an 
express  company  on  the  day  of  leaving 
their  employ  delivered  his  trunk  to  his 
successor,  saying  he  would  send  it  by  ex- 
press: that  he  paid  nothing  for  the  trans- 
portation; and  supposed  it  would  go  free, 
but  expected  to  pay  if  asked;  and  that 
the  company  always  forwarded  the  bag- 
gage of  the  employees  to  and  from  the 
different  offices,  held  to  warrant  a  jury 
in  finding  that  the  bailment  was  not 
gratuitous.  Gott  v.  Dinsmore,  111 
Mass.    45. 

The  defendant  was  one  of  tlie  com- 
panies forming  a  continuous  and  connect- 
ing line  of  railroads  from  T.  to  B.,  en- 
gaged in  the  business  of  transporting 
freight  from  the  former  to  the  latter 
place.  By  an  arrangement  between  such 
companies,  cars  loaded  with  freight  were 
run  from  each  terminus  over  the  whole 
length  of  said  line.  The  plaintiffs,  being 
sliippers  of  oil,  at  T.,  provided  and  fur- 
nislied  wooden  tanks  of  their  own  for 
holding  oil  to  be  transported  over  the 
said  continuous  line  from  T.  to  B.;  and, 
by  an  arrangement  between  them  and 
one  of  the  companies,  such  tanks  were 
placed  on  platform  cars  belonging  to 
that  company,  and  fastened  thereto,  for 
safety,  but  they  were  to  remain  the  prop- 
erty of  the  plaintiflfs.  Cars,  with  tanks 
thereon,  filled  with  oil  belonging  to  the 
plantifTs,    were    run    between    T.    and    B. 


.•\fter  the  tanks  were  emptied  of  their 
contents  at  B.,  the  cars,  with  the  empty 
tanks  thereon,  were  liy  the  same  line  re- 
turned to  T.  The  carriers  furnished  the 
plaintiffs  with  a  bill  of  lading  for  each 
shipment  of  oil,  specifying  the  quantity 
of  oil,  but  no  mention  was  made  of  the 
tanks.  No  bill  of  lading  was  furnished 
on  the  return  of  the  empty  tanks;  nor 
was  any  consideration  paid  for  the  trans- 
portation thereof,  independent  of  that 
paid  for  the  transportation  of  the  oil 
from  T.  to  B.;  nor  was  any  special  ar- 
rangement made  as  to  the  return  trans- 
portation. Two  of  said  tanks,  filled  with 
oil,  owned  and  shipped  by  the  plaintiffs 
to  B.,  while  being  carried  on  said  cars, 
and  while  on  that  part  of  the  line  owned 
and  operated  by  the  defendants,  were, 
with  their  contents,  burned  up  and  de- 
stroyed. Held,  that  although  no  com- 
pensation was  paid  to  the  companies,  di- 
rect!}', for  the  transportation  of  the 
empty  tanks,  yet  that  they  received  a 
compensation  in  a  legal  sense,  in  the 
payment  of  freight  on  the  oil.  and  that 
the  plaintiffs  were  entitled  to  recover  the 
value  of  the  tanks  destroyed.  Spears  v. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ( N.  .Y.),  67 
Barb.    513. 

Where  the  undertaking  of  a  carrier  is 
that  persons  sending  grain  over  the 
route  are  entitled  to  liave  the  empty 
bags  returned  without  cliarge  for  freight, 
this  is  not  to  be  deemed  a  gratuitous 
l)ailment.  Pierce  :•.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  -IW  Wis.  :;s7. 

That  a  carrier  meant  to  carry  goods 
gratuitously,  if  not  communicated  to  the 
owner,  does  not  render  the  bailment  a 
gratuitous  one.  Gray  v.  Missouri  River 
Packet  Co..  64  Mo.  47. 

37.  Liability  of  carrier  without  hire. — 
.llalhiiiui. — Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Ger- 
son,  102  .\la.  409,   14  So.  873. 

Massachusetts. — Clark  v.  Eastern  R. 
Co.,    139    Mass.   423,    1    X.    E.    12S. 

Mississtf/'i. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Tronstine,  04  Miss.  834,  2  So.  255. 

Missouri. — Gray  r.  Missouri  River 
Packet  Co.,  64  Mo.  47. 

Nczo  Jersey. — Dudley     v.    Camden,    etc., 


38.  When    goods    stolen. — Fay 

World,   1   Cal.  34>^, 


New 


CARRIERS. 


726 


§§  988-989 

But  it  is  held  that  if  such  carrier  enter  upon  the  execution  of  the  business  in- 
trusted to  it,  it  is  bound  to  use  a  degree  of  dihgence  and  attention  adequate  to 
the  performance  of  the  undertaking/'" 

A  private  carrier  is  boiuid  only  to  exercise  reasonable  care  ni  respect  to  the 
goods.-"'  but  is  liable  for  failure  to  use  ordinary  care.'^ 

§§  989-1010.  Liability  as  Insurer— §  989.  General  Rule.— The  rule  is 
that  in  the  absence  of  contractual  slii)ulations  ^-  a  carrier  is  responsible  as  an 
insurer  for  the  safety  of  the  goods  intrusted  to  it  for  transportation  and  is  liable 
for  any  loss  or  damage  thereto.-*^'  unless  caused  by  the  act  of  God,-'^  or  the  public 

Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174,  23  L.  Ed.  872; 
Burritt  v.  Rench,  4  McLean  325,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2201;  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fair- 
banks &  Co.,  33  C.  C.  A.  611,  90  Fed.  467; 
Hannibal  Railroad  v.  Swift,  12  Wall.  262, 
20  L.  Ed.  423;  Holladay  v.  Kennard,  12 
Wall.  254,  20  L.  Ed.  390;  Myrick  v.  Mich- 
igan Cent.  R.  Co.,  107  U.  S.  102,  27  L.  . 
Ed.  325,  1  S.  Ct.  425;  New  Jersey,  etc., 
Nav.  Co.  V.  Merchants'  Bank,  6  How. 
344,  12  L.  Ed.  465;  St.  John  z'.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12228,  1  Woods 
612;  Saunders  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  62  C. 
C.  A.  523.  128  Fed.  15,  11  R.  R.  R.  596,  34 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  596;  Strous^ 
7:  W^abash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Fed.  209;  The 
Commander-in-Chief,  1  Wall.  43,  17  L. 
Ed.  609;  The  Maggie  Hammond,  9  Wall. 
435,  19  L.  Ed.  772;  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21 
How.  7,  16  L.  Ed.  41;  The  Snap,  28  Fed. 
527;  The  Zenobia,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18209, 
Abb.  Adm.  80;  Tompkins  f.  Dutchess, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,087a;  York  Co.  7'.  Cen- 
tral R.  Co.,  3  Wall.  107,  18  L.  Ed.  170; 
Inman  &  Co.  ?'.  Seaboard,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
159  Fed.  960. 

Alabama. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Johnston,  75  Ala.  596,  51  Am.  Rep. 
489,  22  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  437;  Jones 
z'.  Pitcher  &  Co.,  3  Stew.  &  P.  135,  24 
Am.  Dec.  716;  Knox  v.  Rives,  etc.,  Co., 
14  Ala.  249,  48  Am.  Dec.  97:  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Cowherd,  120  Ala.  51,  23 
So.  793;  Selma,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Butts,  43 
Ala.  385,  94  Am.  Dec.  694;  South,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Henlein,  52  Ala.  606,  23  Am. 
Rep.  578;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  66 
Ala.  167,  41  Am.  Rep.  749,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  419;  Southern  R.  Co.  z'.  Levy, 
144  Ala.  614,  17  R.  R.  R.  50,  40  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  50,  39  So.  95;  Tallas- 
see  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  z'.  Western  Railway, 
128   Ala.   167,  29   So.   203. 

Arkansas.— 'Fordyce  v.  McFlynn,  56 
Ark.  424,  19  S.  W.  961;  Kansas  City,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Barnett,  69  Ark.  150,  61  S.  W. 
919;  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot, 
47  Ark.  97,  14  S.  W.  471;  Packard  v. 
Taylor,  etc.,  Co.,  35  Ark.  402,  37  Am. 
Rep.  37;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nevill, 
60  Ark.  375,  30  S.  W.  425.  28  L.  R.  A. 
80,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  208;  St.  Louis,  etc.. 
Railway  v.  Lesser,  46  Ark.  230. 

California.— Agnew    v.    Steamer    Contra 

44.  Act  of  God.— See  post,  ".A.ct  of 
God,"  §§  990-994. 


Ferry  Co..  42  N.  J.  L.  25,  30  .\m.  Rep. 
501. 

Tr»»t'.y.yt't'.— Kirtland  v.  Montgomery, 
31  Tenn.  (1  Swan)  452;  Jenkins  v.  Mot- 
low,  33  Tenn.  (1  Sneed)  248,  60  Am.  Dec. 
154;  Coward  z:  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  84  Tenn.    (16  Lea)   225. 

liisconsin.— Fierce  7'.  Milwaukee,  etc., 
R.    Co..   23    Wis.   387. 

Failure  to  provide  means  for  extin- 
guishing fire. — In  an  action  to  recover 
for  loss  of  a  trunk  in  defendant's  bag- 
gage room,  where  it  was  placed  without 
defendant's  consent,  failure  of  the  de- 
fendant to  provide  suitable  means  for 
the  extinguishment  of  fire  was  not  of  it- 
self gross  negligence,  making  defendant 
liable  for  the  loss  of  the  trunk  by  an  ac- 
cidental fire.  Clark  v.  Eastern  R.  Co., 
139   Mass.  423,  1    N.   E.  128. 

39.  Kirtland  v.  Montgomery,  31  Tenn. 
(1  Swan)  452;  Jenkins  v.  Motlow,  33 
Tenn.   (1   Sneed)  248,  60  .\m.  Dec.  154. 

40.  Private  carrier. — Faucher  z'.  Wil- 
son. OS  N.  H.  338,  38  Atl.  1002,  39  L.  R. 
A.   431. 

Ordinary  care  and  diligence. — Samms 
V.  Stewart.  20  O.   69,  55  .\m.   Dec.  445. 

41.  lackson  Architectural  Iron  Works 
V.  Hurlbut,  158  N.  Y.  34,  52  N.  E.  665,  70 
Am.  St.  Rep.  432,  affirming  15  Misc.  Rep. 
93.  36  N."  Y.  S.  808. 

43.  See  post,  "Limitation  of  Liability," 
chapter  14. 

Where  gold  dust  is  received  for  trans- 
portation, and  the  carrier  delivers  to  the 
shipper  a  bill  of  lading  which  states  that 
it  is  received  at  San  Francisco,  and  that 
"on  arrival  at  Panama  the  same  is  to  be 
forwarded  across  the  Isthmus,  and  to  be 
reshipped  by  one  of  the  United  States 
Mail  Steamship  Company's  ships  to  New 
York,  *  *  *  and  to  be  delivered  in 
like  good  order  and  condition  at  the  port 
of  New  York,  dangers  of  the  seas  (land 
carriage  and  river  navigation,  "thieves, 
and  robbers)  excepted,"  and  the  f^old 
dust  is  not  delivered,  the  carrier's  liable, 
unless  he  shows  that  he  was  prevented 
from  delivering  it  by  some  of  these 
causes.  Simmons  v.  Law,  21  N.  Y.  Su- 
per. Ct.  (8  Bosw.)  213,  affirmed  in  (1866) 
42  N.  Y.  (3  Keyes)  217,  4  Abb.  Dec. 
241. 

43.  Carrier  liable  as  insurer. — United 
5/a/<.^._Railroad  Co.  v.  Varnell,  98  U. 
S.    479,    25    L.    Ed.    233;    Bank    v.    Adams 


/^/ 


LOSS  OK  INjlKV  TO  GOODS. 


§    989 


Costa,  27  Cell.  425,  87  .\m.  Dec.  87;  Bo- 
hannan  z:  Hamnioiul,  42  Cal.  227;  Hooper 
v.  Wells,  VnTiio  &  Co.,  27  Cal.  11,  85  Am. 
Dec.  211;  Jackson  r.  Sacramento  Val.  R. 
Co.,  23  Cal.  268;  Scammon  v.  Wells 
Fargo  &  Co.,  84  Cal.  :ni,  24   Pac.  284. 

Connecticut. — Clark  v.  Richards,  1 
Conn.  54;  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam 
Nav.  Co.,  15  Conn.  5:i9,  39  Am.  Dec. 
398;  Richards  v.  Gill)ert,  5  Day  415;  W'il- 
liams  r.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487,  7  Am.  Dec. 
235. 

Dclaivarc. — Culbreth  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst.  392;  Klair  v.  Wil- 
mington Steaml)oat  Co.,  4  Pen.  51,  7  R. 
R.  R.  821,  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
821,  54  Atl.  694;  Pennevvill  v.  CuHen,  5 
Har.  238;  Reed  v.  Wilmington  Steamboat 
Co.,  1  Marv.  193,  40  Atl.  955,  1  Hardcsty 
127;  Truax  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
3  Houst.  233;  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,    R.   Co..   6   Pen.   15,   64   .\tl.  252. 

Florida.— C\ydt  Steamship  Co.  v.  Bur- 
rows,  36    Fla.    121,    18    So.   349. 

Georgia. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
War  field.  129  Ga.  473,  59  S.  E.  234;  Sa- 
vannah, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilcox,  etc.,  Co., 
48  Ga.  432;  Ohlen  v.  .\tlanta,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  2  Ga.  .\pp.  323.  58  S.  E.  511;  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  V.  Shea,  38  Ga.  519;  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  r.  Palmer,  48  Ga.  85; 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Purcell,  37  Ga.  103, 
92  .\m.  Dec.  53;  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Hines,  etc.,  Co..  19  Ga.  203;  Central, 
etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Lippman,  110  Ga.  665,  36 
S.  E.  202.  50  L.  R.  A.  673;  Cooper  v. 
Berry,  21  Ga.  526,  68  Am.  Dec.  468; 
Cooper  V.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  412,  110  Ga.  659, 
36  S.  E.  240:  Dibble  f.  Brown.  12  Ga. 
217,  56  Am.  Dec.  460;  Fish  v.  Chapman, 
2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Dec.  393;  Georgia  R. 
Co.  V.  Beatie,  66  Ga.  438,  42  Am.  Rep. 
75;  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Spears,  66  Ga.  485. 
42  Am.  Rep.  81;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am.  Dec.  783. 

By  Civil  Code,  §  2264.  the  same  lia- 
bility in  effect  is  imposed  upon  a  com- 
mon carrier  as  at  common  law.  Cooper 
V.  Raleigh,  etc..  R.  Co.,  110  Ga.  659,  36 
S.  E.  240.  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
412;  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Warfield. 
129   Ga.   473.  59  S.   E.  234. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peo- 
ple, 56  111.  365,  8  Am.  Rep.  690;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Sawyer,  69  111.  285;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Shea,  66  111.  471; 
Coles  :•.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co..  41  111. 
App.  607;  Gulliver  v.  .A.dams  Exp.  Co.. 
38  111.  503;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Fran"k- 
enberg.  54  111.  88.  5  .\m.  Rep.  92;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  f.  McClellan,  54  111.  58.  5  Am. 
Rep.  83;  Merchants'  Despatch  Trans]). 
Co.  r.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  1  111.  .Anp. 
399;  Peoria,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  United  States, 
etc..  Co..  136  III.  643,  27  N.  E.  59,  29  Am. 
St.  Rep.  348;  Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  20  111.  407.  71  Am.  Dec.  286;  United 
States  Exp.  Co.  z:  Hutchins,  67  111.  348; 
Western    Transp.    Co.    z:    Xewhall,    24    111. 


466,  76  .\m.  Dec.  760;  Woods  v.  Devin, 
13  111.  746;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, 242  111.  178,  89  N.  E.  1022,  44  L. 
R.  A.,   N.   S.,  358. 

Indiana. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell, 
31  Ind.  20,  99  Am.  Dec.  582;  Bansemer 
2'.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ind.  434,  87 
Am.  Dec.  367;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Woodwar<l,  164  Ind.  360,  17  R.  R.  R.  7, 
40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  7,  72  N. 
E.  558;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicho- 
laj,  4  Ind.  .\pp.  119,  30  N.  E.  424;  Pitts- 
burg, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  HoUowell,  65  Ind. 
188,  32  Am.  Rep.  63;  Powers  f.  Daven- 
port, 7  Blackf.  497,  43  /\m.  Dec.  100; 
Simpson  r.  Dufour,  126  Ind.  322.  26  N.  E. 
69,  22  .\m.  St.  Rep.  590;  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Tapp,  6  Ind.  .\pp.  304,  33  N.  E. 
462;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Henry,  170 
Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  710,  reversing  80  N. 
E.   636. 

Iowa. — Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
69  Iowa  485,  29  N.  W.  597,  27  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  59;  McCoy  z:  Keokuk,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  44  Iowa  424;  Swiney  z\  .\merican 
Exp.  Co.  (Iowa)  115  N.  W.  212;  Gilbert 
Bros.  T'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Iowa)  136 
N.  W.  911:  Cownie  Glove  Co.  f.  Mer- 
chants' Dispatch  Transp.  Co.,  130  Iowa 
327,  106  N.  W.  749,  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  419, 
4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1000. 

Kansas. — Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Patten,  3  Kan.  App.  338,  45  Pac.  108; 
Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  f.  Nichols,  etc.,  Co., 
9  Kan.  235,  12  Am.  Rep.  494;  Kansas 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Reynolds,  8  Kan.  623:  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Sherlock,  59  Kan. 
23,  51  Pac.  899;  Watkins  Merchandise 
Co.  7'.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  lOS  Pac.  116, 
82  Kan.  308;  Stiles  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  33   Ky.  Rep.  625.   110   S.   W.  S20. 

Kentucky. — Bland  v.  Adams  E.xp.  Co., 
1  Duv.  2.32,  85  Am.  Dec.  623;  Cincinnati, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  103  Ky.  705,  46  S. 
W.  11;  Farley  z:  Lavary.  107  Ky.  523. 
21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1252.  54  S.  W.  840.  47  L. 
R.  A.  383;  Hall  &  Co.  z:  Renfro.  3  Mete. 
51;  Robertson  &  Co.  z:  Kennedy,  2  Dana 
430,  26  Am.  Dec.  466;  Chesapeake,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z:  Hall.  136  Ky.  379,  124  S.  W.  372; 
Lewis  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135  Ky. 
301.  122  S.  \y.  184.  25  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  938, 
21   Am.   &   Eng.  Ann.   Cas.  527. 

Louisiana. — Berje  z:  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  37  La.  Ann.  468;  Cranwell  z\  The 
Fanny  Fosdick.  15  La.  Ann.  436.  77  Am. 
Dec.  190;  De\'illers  v.  Schooner  John 
Bell,  6  La.  Ann.  544;  Hunt  z:  Morris,  6 
Mart.,  O.  S.,  676,  12  Am.  Dec.  4S9; 
Thomas  z:  Morning  Glory,  13  La.  .\nn. 
269.  71  .\m.  Dec.  509;  Van  Hern  f.  Tay- 
lor. 7  Rob.  201.  41  Am.  Dec.  279. 

Maine. — Emery  v.  Hersey,  4  Greenl. 
407,  16  .\m.  Dec.  268;  Fillebrown  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  55  Me.  462.  92  .\m. 
Dec.  606;  Parker  z:  Flagg.  26  Me.  181, 
45  Am.  Dec.  101;  Sager  z:  Portsmouth, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Me.  22S.  ,50  .Km.  Dec.  659; 
Wood  z:  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  98  Me.  98, 
50    .\tl.    457.    9    R.    R.    R.    721,    32    Am.    & 


§  989 


CARRIERS. 


728 


Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  721.  99  Am.  St.  Rep. 
339. 

Maryland. — Boyle  v.  McLaughlin,  4 
Har.  &  J.  291;  Fergusson  r.  Brent.  12 
Md.  9,  71  Am.  Dec.  582. 

Massachusetts. — Claflin  z:  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  7  .\llen  341;  Evans  z\  Fitchburg 
R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  142,  15  Am.  Rep.  19; 
Gage  V.  Tirrell,  9  Allen  299;  Hastings  v. 
Pepper,  11  Pick.  41;  Smith  z:  New  Ha- 
ven, etc.,  R.  Co..  12  Allen  531;  Swetland 
z:  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  Mass.  276. 

Michigan. — Heller  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  109  Mich.  53,  66  X.  W.  667,  63  Am. 
St.  Rep.  541;  Black  z:  Ashley,  80  Mich. 
90,  44  N.  W.  1120. 

Minnesota. — Christenson  v.  American 
Exp.  Co.,  15  Minn.  270,  Gil.  208,  2  Am. 
Rep.  122;  Lindsley  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  36  Minn.  539,  33  N.  W.  7,  1  Am.  St. 
Rep.  692:  Moulton  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  31  Minn.  85,  16  X.  W.  497,  47  Am. 
Rep.  781. 

Mississit>{>i. — Bennett  v.  Byram  &  Co., 
38  Miss.  17,  75  Am.  Dec.  90:  Gilmore  z. 
Carman,  1  Smedes  &  M.  279,  40  Am. 
Dec.  96;  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Weiner, 
49  Miss.  725;  Neal  z:  Saunderson,  2 
Smedes  &  M.  572,  41  Am.  Dec.  609;  Pow- 
ell V.  Mills,  30  Miss.  231,  64  Am.  Dec. 
158;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Moon,  39 
Miss.  822;  Whitesides  r.  Thurlkill,  12 
Smedes  &  Al.  599.  51  Am.  Dec.  128. 

Missouri. — Costigan  v.  Michael  Transp. 
Co.,  33  Mo.  App.  269;  Daggett  v.  Shaw, 
3  Mo.  264,  25  Am.  Dec.  439:  Davis  z: 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  340,  1  S. 
E.  327;  Doan  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co.,  38 
Mo.  App.  408;  Hill  v  Sturgeon,  28  Mo. 
323;  Leonard  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54 
Mo.  App.  293;  Lupe  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  77;  Read  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199:  Wolf  z:  Amer- 
ican Exp.  Co.,  43  Mo.  421.  97  Am.  Dec. 
406. 

Nebraska. — Black  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Neb.  197,  46  N.  W.  428;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Planning,  23  Neb. 
552,  37  N.  W.  462;  Ringwalt  z'.  Wabash 
R.  Co.,  45  Neb.  760,  64  N.  W.  219;  Wa- 
bash R.  Co.  V.  Sharpe.  76  Neb.  424,  107 
N.  W.  758,  124  Am.  St.  Rep.  823;  Sun- 
derland Bros.  Co.  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  89   Neb.   660,  131   N.   W.   1047. 

Nezi)  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 
222;  Moses  v.  Norris,  4  N.  H.  304;  Rix- 
ford  V.  Smith,  52  N.  H.  355,  13  Am. 
Rep.  42. 

Xezv  Jersey. — Mershon  v.  Hobensack, 
22  N.  J.  L.  372;  New  Brunswick,  etc.. 
Co.  V.  Tiers.  24  N.  J.  L.  697,  64  Am.  Dec. 
394. 

Nezv  York. — Adams  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.,  151  N.  Y.  163,  45  N.  F.. 
369,  34  L.  R.  A.  682,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  CI 6; 
Allen  V.  Sewall,  2  Wend.  327;  Ames  v. 
Astor,  6  Cow.  266;  Colt  z\  McMechen,  6 
Johns.  16^,  5  Am.  Dec.  200;  Conger  v. 
Hudson    River    R.    Co.,    13    N.    Y.    Super. 


Ct.  375;  Cragin  v.  New  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  51  N.  Y.  61,  10  \m.  Rep.  559;  De- 
Mott  V.  Laraway,  14  Wend.  225,  28  Am. 
Dec.   523;   Howe  v.  Oswego,  etc.,   R.  Co., 

56  Barb.  121;  Jackson  Architectural  Iron 
Works  v.  Hurlbut.  158  N.  Y.  34,  52  N.  E. 
665,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  432;  Kemp  v.  Cough- 
try,  11  Johns.  107;  McArthur  v.  Sears,  21 
Wend.  190;  McKinney  v.  Jewett,  90  N. 
Y.  267,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  209;  Mal- 
lory  V.  Tioga  R.  Co.,  39  Barb.  488;  Mer- 
rill r.  Grinnell,  30  N.  Y.  594;  Merritt  v. 
Earle,  31  Barb.  38,  affirmed  in  29  N.  Y. 
115,  86  Am.  Dec.  292;  Michaels  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am. 
Dec.  415;  Miller  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co..  10  N. 
Y.,  431,  Seld.  Notes  64;  Park  v.  Preston, 
108  N.  Y.  434,  15  N.  E.  705;  Parsons  v. 
Hardy,  14  Wend.  215.  28  Am.  Dec.  521; 
Penn  v.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  204, 
N.  Y.  S.  577,  34  N.  Y.  St.  Rep_.  695; 
10  Am.  Rep.  355;  Robinson  v.  Cornish,  13 
Schieffelin  v.  Harvey,  6  Johns.  170,  5 
Am.  Dec.  200;  Sherman  v.  Wells,  28 
Barb.  403;  Waldron  v.  Fargo.  170  N.  Y. 
130,   62    N.   E.   1077. 

North    Carolina. — Backhouse     v.    Sneed, 

5  N.  C.  173;  Boner  v.  Merchants'  Steam- 
boat Co.,  46  N.  C.  211;  Harrell  r.  Ow- 
ens, 18  N.  C.  273;  Patterson  v.  North 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  64  N.  C.  147;  Thomas 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  131  N.  C.  590.  42  S. 
E.  543,  6  R.  R.  R.  860,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,   N.   S..  860. 

North  Dakota. — Duncan  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  17  N.  Dak.  610,  118  N.  W. 
826,   19   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,   952. 

Ohio. — Minnesota  Min.  Co.  v.  Chap- 
man, 2  West.  L.  M.  75,  2  O.  Dec.  Reprint 
207;  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ambach,  10 
O.   C.  C.  490,  6   O.   C.   D.   574,   affirmed  in 

57  O.  St.  38,  47  N.  E.  1039;  Welsh  v. 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  O.  St.  65,  75 
Am.  Dec.  490;  Wilson  v.  Hamilton,  4  O. 
St.  722;  Lawrence  v.  McGregor  (O.), 
Wright  193;  Long  v.  Louisville,  etc.. 
Packet  Co.,  7  N.  P.,  N.  S..  14,  18  O.  D. 
N.    P.   699:    McGregor   &   Co.   ■;:'.    Kilgore, 

6  O.  358;  Canal  Boat  Montgomery  z\ 
Kent,  20  O.  54;  Railroad  Co.  v.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476;  Trans- 
fer Co.  V.  Kelly,  36  O.  St.  86,  38  Am. 
Rep.  558;  Davidson  z'.  Graham,  2  O.  St. 
131. 

Oregon. — Oakes  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  20  Ore.  392,  26  Pac.  230,  12  L.  R. 
A.  318.  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  126;  Lacey  v. 
Oregon  P.,  etc.,  Co.   (Ore.),  128   Pac.  999. 

Peiinsyhania. — American  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Second '  Nat.  Bank,  69  Pa.  394,  8  Am, 
Rep.  268;  Beckham  v.  Shouse,  5  Rawle 
179,  28  Am.  Dec.  653;  Eagle  v.  White, 
6  Whart.  505,  37  Am.  Dec.  434;  Harring- 
ton t'.  M'Shane,  2  Watts  443,  27  Am. 
Dec.  321;  Hart  z'.  Allen,  2  Watts  114; 
Hays  V.  Kennedy,  41  Pa.  378,  80  Am.  Dec. 
627;  Leonard  v.  Hendrickson,  18  Pa.  40, 
55  Am.  Dec.  587;  Simpson  z'.  Hand,  6 
Whart.  311.  36  Am.  Dec.  231;  Verner  v. 
Sweitzer,    32    Pa.    208;    Willock   z:    Penn- 


729 


LOSS    OR    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§    989 


sylvania  R.  Co.,  ItiC  I 'a.  184.  30  Atl.  948, 
27  I..  K.  A.  228,  45  Am.  St.  Rep.  G74; 
Gordon  .- .  Little,  8  Serg.  &  R.  533.  11  Am. 
Dec.    632. 

South  Carolina. — Campbell  v.  Morse, 
Harp.  468;  Cliarleston,  etc.,  Steamljoat 
Co.  V.  Basf)n,  Harj).  262;  Cook  f.  Gour- 
din,  2  Nott  &  McC.  19;  Everleigh  v.  Syl- 
vester, 2  Brev.  178;  Kwart  v.  Street,  2 
Bailey  157,  23  Am.  Dec.  131;  Harrington 
V.  Lyles,  2  Nott  &  McC.  88;  M'Call  v. 
Brock,  5  Strob.  II'J;  McClures  v.  Ham- 
mond, 1  Bay  '.»'.),  1  \m.  Dec.  598;  Patton 
V.  Magrath,  Dud.  159,  31  Am.  Dec.  552; 
Porcher  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  14  Rich. 
L.  181  ;  Reaves  v.  Waterman,  2  Speers 
197.  42  .^m.  Dec.  364;  Singleton  v.  Hil- 
liard,  1  Strob.  203;  Slater  v.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  96,  6  S.  E.  936; 
Smyrl  7'.  Niolon,  2  Bailey  421,  23  Am. 
Dec.  146. 

Tennessee. — Baker  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  10  Lea  304,  16  Am.  &  Rng.  R. 
Cas.  149;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  lack- 
son,  53  Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  271;  Craig  v. 
Childress,  7  Tenn.  (Peck)  270,  14  Am. 
Dec.  751;  Jones  v.  Walker,  13  Tenn.  (5 
Yerg.)  427;  Lewis  &  Co.  v.  Ludwick,  46 
Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  368,  98  Am.  Dec.  454; 
Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Katzenberger, 

84  Tenn.  (16  Lea)  3S0,  1  S.  W.  44,  57 
Am.  Rep.  232;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
David,  53  Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  261,  19  Am. 
Rep.  594;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lillie, 
112  Tenn.  331,  78  S.  W.  1055.  105  Am.  St. 
Rep.  947;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stone, 
112  Tenn.  348,  79  S.  W.  1031,  105  Am.  St. 
Rep.  955;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Womack, 
48  Tenn.  (1  Heisk.)  256;  Turney  v.  Wil- 
son, 15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  340,  27  Am.  Dec. 
515;  Watson  v.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 
Tenn.    (9    Heisk.)   255. 

Texas.— .\vno\d  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335, 
82  Am.  Dec.  617;  Chevallier  v.  Straham, 
2  Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Gulf.  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Ellison,  70  Tex.  491,  7  S.  W. 
785;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  12  S.  W. 
677;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'.  Berg- 
man (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  64  S.  W.  999; 
Houston,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v.  Dwyer.  29  Tex. 
376;  Philleo  v.  Sanford,  17  Tex.  227,  67 
Am.  Dec.  654;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Turner  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  37  S.  ■  W.  643; 
Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hertzberg,  17  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  100,  42  S.  W.  795;  Gulf,  etc.. 
R.    Co.     V.     Roberts     (Tex.     Civ.     App.), 

85  S.  W.  479;  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fel- 
ker,  40  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  604,  90  S.  W.  530; 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Halloren,  53 
Tex.  46,  ,S7  Am.  Rep.  744;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  :•.  Browne,  27  Tex.  Civ.  App.  437, 
66  S.  W.  341;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Burke,  55  Tex.  323,  9  .\m.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  59;  Williamson  &  Co.  v.  Texas,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  138  S.  W.  807; 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson.  61  Tex. 
491;  British,  etc..  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gulf.  etc.. 
R.  Co..  63  Tex.  475.  51  Am.  Rep.  661; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Trawick,  68  Tex. 
314,    4    S.    W.    567:    Gulf,    etc..    R.    Co.    v. 


Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McCorquodale,  71  Tex.  41, 
9  S.  W.  80;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wentworth,  8  Tex.  Civ.  .App.  5.  27  S.  W. 
680,  aftirmed  in  87  Tex.  311;  Texas  Cent. 
R.  Co.  f.  Hunter  &  Co.,  47  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  190,  104  S.  W.  1075;  .Abbott  Gin 
Co.  r.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    26:i,    122    S.    \V.    284. 

The  Texas  statute  maintains  the  com- 
mon-law liability  of  the  carrier.  See 
Rev.  St.  art.  278,  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Harris,  1  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1257; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :•.  Nicholson.  61  Tex. 
491. 

I'ennont. — Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38 
Vt.  402.  91  .\m.  Dec.  350;  Day.  etc..  Co. 
c'.  Ridley.  16  Vt.  48,  42  Am.  Dec.  489. 

r/>gj«;a.— Parish  &  Co.  v.  Reigle,  52 
Va.  (11  Gratt.)  697,  62  Am.  Dec.  666; 
Friend  v.  Woods,  47  Va.  (6  Gratt.)  189, 
52  Am.  Dec.  119;  Herring  r.  Chesapeake, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  R.  R.  R.  262.  32  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  262,  45  S.  E.  322,  101 
Va.  778;  Murphy,  etc..  Co.  v.  Staton,  17 
Va.  (3  Munf.)  239;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Beasley,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Va.  788,  790, 
52   S.    E.   566.   3    L.    R.   A.,   N.   S.,   183. 

Under  the  Virginia  statute  the  liabil- 
ity of  an  initial  carrier  of  goods  with  re- 
spect to  acts  done  on  its  own  line,  re- 
mains as  at  common  law.  Section  1294. 
c.  24,  Code,  1904.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   T.   Pew,   109  Va.   288,  64   S.    E.   35. 

West  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Morehead.  5  W.  Va.  293;  McGraw  z. 
Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361, 
41  Am.  Rep.  696,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
188;  Hurley  &  Son  z:  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  68  W.  Va.  471,  69  S.  E.  904;  Hutchin- 
son z:  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va. 
128.   59   S.    E.   949,   14   L.   R.  A.,   N.   S.,  393. 

JVisconsin. — Goldberg  v.  Ahnapee,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  105   Wis.  1,  80  N.  W.  920.  47   L.   R. 

A.  221.  76  Am.  St.  Rep.  899;  Klauher  z: 
American  Exp.  Co.,  21  Wis.  21,  91  Am. 
Dec.  452;  Strohn  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
23  Wis.  126,  99  Am.  Dec.  114;  Wood  z: 
Crocker,  18  Wis.  345.  86  Am.  Dec.  773. 

JFvomtng. — Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blyth.  9  Wyo.  410,  118  Pac.  649,  119  Pac. 
875,  Ann.  Cas.  1913  E,  288. 

England. — Coggs  v.  Bernard,  2  Ld. 
Raym.  (Eng.)  909;  Culver  z:  Lester.  32 
Can.  L.  J.  (Eng.)  421;  Foward  z:  Pitland. 
1   D.  &  E.   (Eng.)   27;   Hill  z:  Scott.  2  Q. 

B.  371.  713;  Nugent  z:  Smith,  1  C.  P. 
Div.  423;  Portsmouth,  etc..  Steamoacket 
Co.  (Eng.),  11  Exch.  618;  Riley  z:  Home, 
5  Bing.  (Eng.)  217;  Trent,  etc.,  Nav.  Co. 
r.   \\'ood.   4    Doug.    (Eng.)   2sr. 

"The  liab'lities  of  a  common  carrier 
may  be  distinguished  into  two  distinct 
classes,  according  to  their  nature:  the 
one,  a  liability  for  losses  bj-  neglect  on 
the  part  of  the  carrier  or  his  agents 
which  is  the  liability  of  a  bailee,  arising 
from  omission  of  duty;  the  other,  a 
liabilit}'  for  losses  by  accident,  mistake, 
or    other    unavoidable    occurrence,    with- 


§  989 


CARRIERS. 


730 


enemv-*^  the  fault  of  the  shipper.**'  inherent  infirmities  of  the  goods,-*'  or,  by  an 
act  of  pubHc  authoritv.^«  So,  where  freight  is  lost  or  damaged  while  in  the  pos- 
session of-  a  carrier,  'it  can  not  escape  its  common-law  responsibility  by  merely 
province  that  the  loss  or  damage  was  not  occasioned  by  its  negligence,"*  ■'  or  that 
it  has'iised  the  utmost  care  and  diligence.-'^'  Carriers  of  goods  being  msurers 
are  not  relieved  from  liability  by  the  fact  that  the  loss  or  damage  happened  from 
some  unknown  cause,°i  or  could  not  have  been  avoided  by  any  human  vigilance.^^ 
Origin  and  Foundation  of  Rule.— The  rule  imposing  such  high  responsibility 
upon  a   carrier  of  goods  grew   out  of   a  situation  which  required  that  kind  of 


out  any  actual  fault  on  the  part  of  the 
carrier,  which  is  the  liability  of  an  ni- 
surer,  and  founded  upon  a  principle  of 
the  common  law."  Davidson  v.  Gra- 
ham 2  O.  St.  131.  followed  in  Graham  & 
Co.  r.   Davis   &  Co.,  4   O.   St.  :5r,2,  375. 

Liability  similar  to,  but  not  strictly 
that  of  insurer. — "A  carrier  is  not  an 
insurer,  though  often  loosely  so  called. 
The  e.xtent  o1  his  responsibility  may  be 
equal  to  that  of  an  insurer,  and  even 
greater,  but  its  nature  is  not  the  same. 
His  contract  is  not  one  for  indemnity, 
independent  of  the  care  and  custody  of 
the  goods.  He  is  not  entitled  to  a  ces- 
sion of  the  remains  of  the  property,  or 
to  have  the  loss  adjusted  on  principles 
peculiar  to  the  contract  of  insurance;  and 
when  a  loss  occurs,  unless  caused  by  the 
act  of  God.  or  of  a  public  enemy,  he  is 
always  in  fault."  Hall  z:  Railroad  Cos. 
(U.    S.).    13    Wall.    367.    20    L.    Ed.    594. 

Rule  should  not  be  applied  to  new 
cases. — In  Boyce  v.  Anderson  (U.  S.),  2 
Pet  150.  7  L.  Ed.  379,  cited  in  Chicago, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Zernecke,  183  U.  S.  582, 
46  L.  Ed.  339,  22  S.  Ct.  229,  it  was  said 
that  the  law  applicable  to  comnion  car- 
riers of  goods  is  one  of  great  rigor  and 
should  not  be  applied  to  new  cases,  and 
the  court  refused  to  treat  slaves  as  goods 
and  chattels,  but  regarded  them  as  pas- 
sengers. 

Doctrine  not  to  be  overturned  by 
courts. — The  general  doctrines  respect- 
ing the  liability  of  common  carriers  are 
as  clearly  and  firmly  settled  by  the  un- 
interrupted current  of  decisions  in  the 
English  and  American  courts  as  any 
principles  of  the  law  can  be;  they  are 
not  to  be  overturned  or  shaken  by  any- 
thing short  of  legislative  enactment. 
Philleo  V.  Sanford,  17  Tex.  227,  67  Am. 
Dec.  654. 

45.  Act  of  public  enemy. — See  post, 
"Act   of    Puldic    Enemy,"   §§   995-997. 

46.  Fault  of  shipper  or  owner. — See 
post,  "Fault  of  Shipper  or  Owner," 
§§    998-1002. 

47.  Inherent  infirmities  of  goods. — See 
post.  "Inherent  Infirmities  of  Goods," 
§    1003. 

48.  Act  of  public  authority. — Duncan  f. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co...  17  X.  Dak.  610, 
118  N.  W.  826,  19  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  952. 
See  post,  "Acts  or  Mandate  of  Public 
Authority,"  §  1004. 


49.  Absence  of  negligence. — Delaware. 
—  Klair  v.  Wilmington  Steamboat  Co. 
(Del.),  4  Pen.  51,  7  R.  R.  R.  821,  30  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.   Cas..   N.   S.,   821,   54  Atl.   694. 

Illinois. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Canadian 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  107  111.  App.  386;  Porter  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407,  71  Am. 
Dec.   286. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
89  Mo.  340,  1  S.  W.  327;  Hill  r.  Stur- 
geon, 28   Mo.   323. 

Xczv  Jersey. — Mershon  v.  Hobensack, 
22    N.   J.    L.    372. 

Xczv  York. — Howe  v.  Oswego,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  56  Barb.  121;  Ladue  v.  Griffith.  25 
N.  Y.  364,  82  Am.  Dec.  360;  Mc Arthur 
f.  Sears,  21  Wend.  190;  Merritt  v.  Earle, 
31  Barb.  38.  affirmed  in  29  N.  Y.  115,  86 
Am.  Dec.  292;  Miller  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co., 
10  N.  Y.  431.  Seld.  Notes  64. 

OrrgOH.-— Oakes  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co..  20  Ore.  392.  26  Pac  230,  12  L.  R. 
A.  318,  23  Am.  St.   Rep.   126. 

Pennsylvania. — Harrington  v.  M'Shane, 
2  Watts  443,  27  Am.  Dec.  321;  Verner 
z'.   Sweitzer.   32   Pa.   208. 

S\nith  Carolina. — Ewart  v.  Street,  2 
Bailey  157.  23  Am.  Dec.  131;  McCall  v. 
Brock,   5    Strob.    119. 

Tt^nr.s-.— Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Turner 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   37   S.   W.   643. 

J'irginia. — Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Staton, 
17   Va.    (3   Munf.)    239. 

50.  California.— Agnew  v.  Steamer 
Contra  Costa,  27  Cal.  425,  87  Am.  Dec.  87. 

Georgia. — Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
W'hite,  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802;  Ohlen 
z'.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  323, 
58    S.    E.    511. 

Nezi'  For/c .—:\IcArthur  v.  Sears  (N.  Y.), 
21  Wend.   190. 

0/zio.— Union  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  7'.  Indian- 
apolis, etc.,  R.  Co.,  1  Disn.  4S(),  12  O. 
Dec.    745. 

South  Carolina.— McCaW  v.  Brock  (S. 
C),  5  Strob.  119;  Ewart  t'.  Street  (S. 
C),  2  Bailey  157,  23  Am.  Dec.  131. 

51.  Cause  of  loss  or  damage  unknown. 
— Turncy  z\  Wilscjii.  i:.  Tcnn.  (7  Ycrg.) 
340,   27   Am.    Dec.   515. 

52.  Loss  unavoidable  by  human  vigi- 
lance.—Albright  V.   Penn,   14  Tex.   290. 

"No  force,  however  great,  no  accident 
however  inevitable,  no  fraud  however 
beyond  his  control,  will  excuse  him." 
Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex.  115,  47  Am. 
Dec.   639. 


731 


LOSS    OH     INJURY    T(J    GOODS. 


§§  989-990 


security  for  the  protection  of  the  public ;  ^"''  and  is  founded  upon  public  policy,^* 
arisinf^  from  the  public  nature  of  the  carrier's  employment,''''  and  the  extensive 
contrcjl  it  exercises  o\c-r  tlu-  jiropc-rty  of  others."''' 

Goods  Addressed  to  Carrier  or  Agent  as  Consignee. — The  liability  of 
the  carrier  is  not  lessened  by  the  fact  that  the  {^oods  were  addressed  to  carrier 
or  its  agent  as  consignee.''' 

Effect  of  Custom. — The  liability  of  a  common  carrier  can  not  be  altered  by 
evidence  of  a  custom,  universally  known  and  recognized  in  the  particular  river 
trade,  by  which  the  carrier  was  exempted  from  liability  for  loss,  unless  it  pro- 
ceedcil   from  nc-i^ligi-nce  or  ilishoncstv  on  it^  p.irt.''^ 

The  Carmack  amendment  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  imj^jsed  a 
lialiility  for  scjme  default  in  the  carrier's  common-law  duty  as  a  commrjn  carrier. 
and  not  liabiliiv  as  an  insurer."'-' 

§§  990-1004.  Exceptions  and  Excuses— §§  990-994.  Act  of  God— 
§   99  0.  In  General. — The  authorities  all  agree  that  the  carrier  is  not  an  insurer 

in  respect  lo  what  is  called  an  act  of  God."*'    And  it  is  not  liable  for  losses  result- 


53.  Origin  of  rule. — .\tlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    c'.    Riverside    Mills.   2H)    U.    S.    186,    .55 

L.   Ed.   1(57,  31   S.  Ct.   104,  :n    L.   R.  A., 
N.    S.,    7. 

The  rule  was  not  a  part  of  the  ancient 
common  law.  It  had  its  orign  in  what 
was  supposed  to  lie  the  commercial  ne- 
cessities of  ICn.t'land  at  a  time  when  the 
government  afforded  imperfect  protec- 
tion to  goods  in  transit,  and  when  rol)- 
beries  were  of  frequent  occurrence.  It 
was  first  recognized  and  received  its  first 
judicial  announcement  as  a  principle  of 
law  in  the  W'oodliefe  and  Curtis  case,  de- 
cided in  the  thirty-eighth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Gatcwood.  79  Tex.  89,  14  S.  W.  91.S;  Van 
Santvoord  z:  St.  b^hn  ( N.  Y.),  6  Hill 
157. 

54.  Foundation  of  rule. — "The  rule  is 
intended  as  a  guard  against  fraud  and 
collusion,  and  is  founded  on  the  same 
broad  principles  of  public  policy  and  con- 
venience whicli  govern  in  the  case  of  inn- 
keepers. This  principle  of  extraordinarj' 
responsibility  was  taken  from  the  edict 
of  the  prretor  in  the  Roman  law,  and  it 
has  insinuated  itself  into  the  jurispru- 
dence of  all  the  civilized  nations  of  Fm- 
rope."  2  Kent.  805,  9th  Ed.  Sword  z'. 
Young.  89  Tenn.  126,  14  S.  W.  481,  604, 
quoting    2    Kent.    (9th    Ed.)    805. 

"This  rule  is  a  politic  establishment 
contrived  by  the  policy  of  the  law  for 
the  safety  of  all  persons,  the  necessity 
of  whose  affairs  oblige  them  to  trust 
these  sort  of  persons  that  tliej^  may  l)e 
safe  in  their  ways  of  dealing."  Lord 
Holt,  in  Coggs  z\  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Ray- 
mond, 909,  quoted  in  .\tlantic,  etc..  R. 
Co.  z:  Riverside  Mills,  219  U.  S.  186,  55 
L.  Ed.  167.  31  S.  Ct.  164.  31  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  7:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Zer- 
necke,  183  U.  S.  582,  46  L.  Ed.  339,  22 
S.  Ct.  229;  Chevallier  z:  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115.   47   Am.    Dec.   639. 

Should  not  be  departed  from. — The 
old    rule    that    a    common    carrier    is    an- 


swerable for  all  losses  not  occasioned  by 
act  of  God  or  the  public  enemy  is 
founded  alike  in  justice  and  in  sound 
policy,  and  ought  never  to  be  departed 
from.  Arnold  z\  Jones,  26  Tex.  335,  82 
Am.   Dec.   017. 

55.  Hannibal  Railroad  z:  Swift  (U.  S.), 
12  Wall.  262,  20  L.  Ed.  423;  Gait  z:  Ad- 
ams Exp.  Co.  (D.  C),  McArthur  &  M. 
124.  48  Am.  Rep.  742;  Samms  v.  Stewart, 
20  O.  69.  55  Am.  Dec.  445. 

56.  Davidson  z:  Graham,  2  O.  St.  131, 
followed  in  Graham  &  Co.  ;•.  Davis  & 
Co..    4    O.    St.    362,    37.-). 

57.  Goods  addressed  to  carrier  as  con- 
signee.—  Ficnnett  f.  Northern,  etc..  Co.. 
12    (  )rv.   4'.),   6    Pac.    160. 

58.  Effect  of  custom. — Turney  :■.  Wil- 
son. 15  Tenn.  (7  Vcrg.)  340,  27  Am.  Dec. 
515. 

59.  Carmack  amendment  of  June  29. 
190(i.  to  the  act  of  February  4,  1887,  §  20 
under  which  a  carrier  receiving  propertj^ 
for  interstate  transportation  is  required 
to  issue  a  receipt  or  bill  of  lading  there- 
for, and  is  made  liable  to  the  holder  for 
"any  loss,  damage,  or  injurj^  to  such 
property  caused  by  it."  or  by  any  con- 
necting carrier  to  whom  the  property 
mav  be  delivered.  Adams  Exp.  Co. 
z:  Croninger,  226  U.  S.  491,  57  L.  Ed.  314, 
33  S.  Ct.  148,  44  L.  R.  A..  N.  S..  257; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Latta,  33  S.  Ct. 
155,  226  U.  S.  519,  57  L.  Ed.  328.  revers- 
ing judgments  Latta  z-.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  172  Fed.  850,  97  C.  C.  A.  198.  and 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Latta.  184  Fed. 
987.    106    C.    C.    .\.    664. 

60.  Act  of  God  relieves  carrier. — 
I'liiti'd  States. — Bank  f.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  93  U.  S.  174.  23  L.  Ed.  872;  New 
lersey.  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  z'.  Merchants'  Bank 
"(U.  S.).  6  How.  344,  12  L.  Ed.  465;  Pearce 
f.  Newton.  41  Fed.  106;  Strouss  z:  Wa- 
bash, etc.,  R.  Co..  17  Fed.  209;  The  Mag- 
gie Hammond  (U.  S.),  9  Wall.  435.  19 
L.  lul.  772:  Reed  r.  United  States  (U. 
S.),      11     Wall.     591.      20     L.     Ed.      220; 


§  990 


CARRIERS. 


732 


Primrose  z:  Western  Union  Tel.  Co..  154 
U.  S.  1,  3S  L.  Ed.  S83,  14  S.  Ct.  1098; 
Niagara  :•.  Cordes  (U.  S.).  21  How.  7,  16 
L.  Ed.  41;  The  Delaware  (U.  S.),  14 
Wall.  ."jTy.  20  L.  Ed.  779;  York  Co.  v. 
Central  R.  Co.  (U.  S.).  3  Wall.  107,  18 
L.  Ed.  170;  Railroad  Co.  z:  Varnell,  98 
U.  S.  479.  480.  25  L.  Ed.  233;  Clark  z: 
Barnwell  (U.  S.),  12  How.  272.  13  L.  Ed. 
985;  Railroad  Co.  r.  Reeves  (U.  S.),  10 
Wall.    176,    19    L.    Ed.    909. 

Alabama. — Jones  v.  Pitcher  &  Co.,  3 
Stew.  &  P.  135.  24  Am.  Dec.  716;  Knox 
z:  Rives,  etc..  Co.,  14  .\la.  249,  48  Am. 
Dec.  97;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cow- 
herd, 120  Ala.  51,  23  So.  793;  Selma.  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Butts,  43  Ala.  385.  94  Am.  Dec. 
694;  Smith  z:  Western  Railway.  91  Ala. 
455,  8  So.  754,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  929,  11  L. 
R.  A.  619;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein. 
52  Ala.  606,  23  Am.  Rep.  578;  South,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Wood.  66  Ala.  167,  41  Am.  Rep. 
749,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  419;  Sprowl 
v.  Kellar,  4  Stew.  &  P.  3S2;  Southern  R. 
Co.  z:  Lew,  144  Ala.  614,  39  So.  95,  17 
R.  R.  R.  50,  40  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S..  50. 

Arkansas. — Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Barnett.  69  Ark.  150,  61  S.  W.  919;  Lit- 
tle Rock,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Talbot.  47  Ark. 
97,  14  S.  W.  471;  Packard  r.  Taylor,  etc., 
Co.,  35  Ark.  402.  37  Am.  Rep.  37;  St. 
Louis,  etc..  Railway  c'.  Lesser,  46  Ark. 
236. 

California. — Agnew  v.  Steamer  Contra 
Costa.  27  Cal.  425,  87  Am.  Dec.  87;  Bo- 
hannan  z\  Hammond,  42  Cal.  227; 
Hooper  z:  Wells.  Fargo  &  Co.,  27  Cal. 
11,  85  Am.  Dec.  211;  Jackson  v.  Sacra- 
mento Val.  R.  Co.,  23  Cal.  268;  Scam- 
mon  V.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  84  Cal.  311. 
24    Pac.   284. 

Colorado. — Blythe  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  15  Colo.  333,  25  Pac.  702,  11  L.  R. 
A.,  615,  22  Am.   St.   Rep.  403. 

Connecticut. — Clark  v.  Richards,  1 
Conn.  54;  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam 
Xav.  Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  Am.  Dec.  398; 
Williams  v.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487,  7  Am. 
Dec.  235. 

Dclaz^'arc. — Klair  v.  Wilmington  Steam- 
boat Co.,  4  Pen.  51.  7  R.  R.  R.  821,  30  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S..  821,  54  Atl.  694; 
Pennewill  v.  Cullen,  5  Har.  238;  Reed  v. 
Wilmington  Steamboat  Co.,  1  Marv.  193, 
40  .A.tl.  955,  1  Hardesty  127;  Truax  o 
Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.".  3  Houst.  233; 
Klair  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Bovce's   (25   Del.)   274,  78  Atl.   1085. 

Georgia. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lippman,  110  Ga.  665,  36  S.  E.  202,  50 
L.  R.  A.  673;  Cooper  v.  Raleigh,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  110  Ga.  659,  36  S.  E.  240,  18  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  412;  Dibble  v. 
Brown.  12  Ga.  217,  56  Am.  Dec.  460; 
Fish  V.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Dec. 
393;  Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Beatie,  66  Ga. 
438,  42  Am.  Rep.  75;  Georgia  R.  Co.  v. 
Spears,  66  Ga.  485,  42  Am.  Rep.  81; 
Southern     Exp.    Co.    v.    Newby,     36    Ga. 


635,  91  Am.  Dec.  783;  Ohlen  v.  Atlanta, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  323,  58  S.  E. 
511;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.'  Warfield, 
129  Ga.  473,  59  S.  E.  234;  Forrester  v. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co..  92  Ga.  699,  19  S. 
E.  811;  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 
97  Ga.  777,  25  S.  E.  759;  Savannah,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Guano  Co.,  103 
Ga.    590.    30    S.    E.    555. 

Illinois. — Gulliver  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
38  111.  503;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clcllan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Transp.  Co.  v.  Kahn, 
76  111.  520;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United 
States,  etc.,  Co..  136  111.  643.  27  N.  E. 
59,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  348;  Porter  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407.  71  Am. 
Dec.  286;  United  States  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Hutchins,  67  111.  348;  Woods  v.  Devin, 
1.3  111.  74(i;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Frankenberg,  54  111.  88,  5  Am.  Rep.  92; 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  People,  56  111.  365, 
8  .\m.  Rep.  690;  Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co. 
Z'.  Chicago,  89  N.  E.  1022,  242  111.  178, 
44    L.    R.    \..    N.    S..    358. 

Indiana. — Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yohe, 
51  Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep.  727;  Pittsburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  T'.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188, 
32  Am.  Rep.  63;  Powers  v.  Davenport, 
7  Blackf.  497.  43  Am.  Dec.  100;  Toledo, 
etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Tapp,  6  Ind.  App.  304,  33 
N.  E.  462;  Walpole  v.  Bridges,  5  Blackf. 
222;  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry, 
170  Ind.  94,  83  N.  E.  710.  reversing  80 
X.  E.  636;  Reid  v.  Evansville.  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  35  X.  E.  703,  10  Ind.  App.  385,  53 
Am.  St.  Rep.  391;  Bansemer  v.  Toledo, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  25  Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec. 
367. 

lozva. — Cownie  Glove  Co.  v.  Mer- 
chants' Dispatch  Transp.  Co.,  106  X. 
W.  749,  130  Iowa  327,  114  Am.  St.  Rep. 
419.  4  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  1060:  Swiney  z'. 
American  Exp.  Co.,  115  N.  W.  212;  Gil- 
l^ert  Bros.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136 
X.  W.  911;  Hewett  z-.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co.,    63    Iowa    611,    19    N.    W.    790. 

Kansas. — Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Xich- 
ols.  etc.,  Co.,  9  Kan.  235,  12  Am.  Rep. 
494;  Watkins  Merchandise  Co.  v.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Kan.  308.  108  Pac. 
116;  Sauter  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  78 
Kan.   331,   97    Pac.   434. 

Kentucky. — Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
W^ebb,  103  Ky.  705,  46  S.  W.  11;  Farley 
z:  Lavary.  107  Ky.  523,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1252,  54  S.  W.  840,  47  L.  R.  A.  383;  Hall 
&  Co.  V.  Renfro,  3  Mete.  5i;  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hall,  136  Ky.  379, 
124  S.  W.  372;  Lewis  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  135  Ky.  361,  122  S.  W.  184,  25  L. 
R.  .'\..  X.  S.,  938,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.    527. 

Louisiana. — Dalzell  v.  Saxon,  10  La. 
.•\nn.  280;  Thomas  z'.  Morning  Glory,  13 
La.   Ann.    269,    71    .A.m.    Dec.    509. 

.Maine. — Emery  v.  Hersey,  4  Greenl. 
4C7,  16  Am.  Dec.  268;  Parker  v.  Flagg, 
26    Me.    181,    45    .Am.    Dec.    101;    Sager    v. 


733 


LOSS    OR    IXJUkV    TO    G(K)DS. 


§  990 


Portsmouth,   etc.,    R.    Co.,   :u    Me.   22S,    ->0 
Am.    Dec.    fiV.). 

\Uir\laml. — Boyle  7-.  McLaughlin,  4 
Har.  &  J.  201. 

Massachusetts. — Kvans  v.  Fitchburg  R. 
Co.,  Ill  Mass.  142,  13  Am.  Rep.  Ill; 
Gage  V.  Tirrell,  9  Allen  21)9;  Hastings 
V.  Pepper,  11  Pick.  41;  Smith  v.  New 
Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  12  Allen  5:51;  Swet- 
land  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mass. 
276. 

.l/iV/(i.i;a//.— Black  v.  Ashley,  44  N.  \V. 
1120,   80    Mich.   •»(). 

Minncsofa. — Christenson  v.  American 
Exp.  Co.,  15  Minn.  270,  Gil.  208,  2  Am. 
Rep.  122:  lones  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  91  Minn.  229.  11  R.  R.  R.  fiGl.  34 
Am.  &  Hng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  (561.  97  N. 
W.    893,    103   Am.    St.    Rep.   507. 

Mississippi. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Bigger,  66  Miss.  319,  6  So.  234;  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Weincr,  49  Miss.  725; 
Powell  V.  Mills.  30  Miss.  231.  64  Am. 
Dec.  158;  Neal  v.  Saundcrson,  2  Smedes 
&  M.  572.  41  Am.   Dec.  609. 

Missouri. — Ballentine  v.  North  Mis- 
souri R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  491,  93  Am.  Dec. 
315;  Daggett  v.  Shaw,  3  Mo.  264,  25  Am. 
Dec.  439;  Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
89  Mo.  340,  1  S.  W.  327;  Read  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199;  Steam- 
boat Lynx  V.  King,  12  Mo.  272.  49  Am. 
Dec.  135;  Wolf  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
43  Mo.  421.  97  Am.  Dec.  406;  Merritt 
Creamery  Co.  v.  Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co., 
128    Mo.    App.    420.    107    S.    W.    462.      ■ 

Nebraska. — Black  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  30  Neb.  197.  46  N.  W.  428;  Ring- 
wait  V.  Wabash  R.  Co..  45  Neb.  760.  64 
N.  W.  219;  Sunderland  Bros.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co.,  89  Neb.  660.  131  N. 
W.    1047. 

AVw  Hampshire. — Aloses  v.  Norris,  4 
N.   H.  304. 

Xcw  Jersey. — Mershon  v.  Hobensack, 
22    N.    J.    L.372;    New    Brunswick,    etc.. 

Co.  v.  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.  697.  64  Am.  Dec. 
394. 

A'rti'     York. — Adams     v.     New     Jersey 

Steamboat   Co.,   151    N.    Y.    163,   45    N.    E. 

369,    34    L.    R.    A.    682.    56    Am.    St.    Rep. 

616;   Camden,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Belknap,  21 
Wend.    354;    Cragin    v.    New    York    Cent. 

R.    Co.,    51    N.    Y.    (il,    10    Am.    Rep.    559; 

Hollister    v.    Nowlcn.    19    Wend:    234,    32. 

Am.    Dec.    455;    Howe    r.    Oswego,    etc.. 

R.     Co..     56    Barb.     121;     McCormick     v. 

Pennsylvania  Cent.  R.  Co.,  80  N.  Y.  353; 

Merritt  7'.   Earle,  31    Barb.  38.  affirmed   in 

29   N.   Y.   115,  86  .\m.   Dec.  292;   Miller  7'. 

Steam  Nav.  Co.,  10  N.  Y.  431,  Seld  Notes 

64;    Read   7'.    Spaulding,   30   N.    Y.    630.   86 

Am.   Dec.   426.  affirming   18   N.   Y.    Super. 

Ct.  395;   Sherman  7'.   Wells,  28   Barl).  40;i; 

Waldron  7'.   Fargo,   170   N.   Y.   130.  62   N. 

E.     1077;     Colt    7'.     McMechen.     6    Johns. 

160.   5   Am.   Dec.  200. 

North    Carolina. — Harrell    7'.    Owens,    18 

N.    C.   273;    Thomas   v.    Southern    R.    Co., 

131    N.    C.    590.    42    S.    E.    543.    6    R.    R.    R. 

860,   29   Am.   &    Eng.    R.-  Cas.,    N.    S..   860. 


North  Dakota. — Duncan  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co..  17  N.  Dak.  610,  118  N.  W. 
826,   19   L.    R.  A.,   N.   S.,  952. 

0/no.— Railroad  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  49 
O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476;  Bowman  v.  Hil- 
ton, 11  O.  303;  Canal  Boat  Montgomery 
V.  Kent,  20  O.  54;  Transfer  Co.  v. 
Kelly,  36  O.  St.  86,  38  Am.  Rep.  558; 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  36  O. 
St.  448;  Welsh  v.  Pittsburg,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  10  O.  St.  65,  75  Am.  Dec.  490;  Dav- 
idson 7'.  Graham.  2  O.  St.  131;  Long  v. 
Louisville,  etc..  Packet  Co.,  7  N.  P.,  N. 
S..    14,    18   O.    D.    N.    P.   699. 

Ore'^oii. — Oakes  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  20  Ore.  392.  26  Pac.  230.  12  L.  R.  A. 
318,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  126;  Lacey  7'.  Ore- 
gon, R.,  etc.,  Co..  128  Pac.  999. 

Fcnnsvhania. — Beckham  v.  Shouse,  5 
Rawle  179,  28  Am.  Dec.  653;  Eagle  r. 
White,  6  Whart.  505,  37  .\m.  Dec.  434; 
Harrington  v.  M'Shane,  2  Watts  443,  27 
Am.  Dec.  321;  Hays  v.  Kennedy.  41  Pa. 
378.  80  Am.  Dec.  627;  Long  7'.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  343.  23  Atl.  459,  14 
L.  R.  A.  741.  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  732;  Mor- 
rison 7'.  Davis  &  Co..  20  Pa.  171,  57  .Am. 
Dec.  695;  Verner  7'.  Sweitzer,  32  Pa.  208: 
Willock  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  166  Pa. 
184,  30  Atl.  948,  27  L.  R.  A.  22)?,  45  Am. 
St.    Rep.   674. 

South  Carolina. — Campbell  v.  Morse. 
Harp.  468;  Cook  7'.  Gourdin,  2  Nott  & 
McC.  19;  McCall  7'.  Brock.  5  Strob.  119: 
Porcher  v.  Northeastern  R.  Co.,  14  Rich. 
L.  181;  Reaves  7'.  Waterman,  2  Speers 
197,  42  Am.  Dec.  364;  Slater  v.  South  Caro- 
lina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  96,  6  S.  E.  936: 
Smyrl  v.  Niolon,  2  Bailey  421.  23  Am 
Dec.  146;  Ewart  7-.  Street.  2  Bailey  157. 
23  Am.  Dec.  131;  Ferguson  7'.  Southern 
Railway,  91  S.  C.  61.  74  S.  E.  129. 

Tennessee. — Jones  v.  Walker,  13  Tenn. 
(5  Yerg.)  427;  Lewis  &  Co.  v.  Ludwick. 
46  Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  368.  98  Am.  Dec. 
454;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Katzen- 
berger,  84  Tenn.  (16  Lea)  3S0,  1  S.  W.  44 
Am.  Rep.  232;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  David,  53  Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  261. 
19  Am.  Rep.  594;  Nashville,  etc..  R.  Co. 
v.  Stone.  112  Tenn.  348,  79  S.  W.  1031. 
105  Am.  St.  Rep.  955;  Nashville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  King,  53  Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  269; 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  Lillie,  112  Tenn. 
331,  78  S.  W.  1055,  105  Am.  St.  Rep.  947: 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  7-.  Glenn.  S4  Ten-. 
(16  Lea)  472.  1  S.  W.  102;  Turney  7'. 
Wilson,  15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  340,  27  Am. 
Dec.  515;  Watson  7'.  Memphis,  etc..  R. 
Co..  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.)  255;  Craig  7-. 
Childress,  7  Tenn.  (Peck)  270,  14  Am. 
Dec.    751. 

Te.vas. — Arnold  7-.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335. 
82  Am.  Dec.  617;  Chevallier  v.  Straham. 
2  Tex.  115.  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Gulf,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Levi.  12  S.  W.  677;  Houston, 
etc.,  Nav.  Co.  7'.  Dwyer,  29  Tex.  376; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Felker,  40  lex. 
Civ.  App.  604,  90  S.  W.  530;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co  7'.  Halloren,  53  Tex. 
46,      37    Am.      Rep.    744;       International, 


990 


CARRIERS. 


734 


ing  from  such  cause  unless  it  expressly  insures  against  them."^ 

Must  Be  Proximate  Cause.— A  carrier  is  not  exempt  from  liability  for  the 
loss  of,  or  damage  to,  goods  occasioned  by  the  act  of  God,  unless  such  act  is  the 
proximate,  not  merely  the  remote,  cause  of  injury  complained  of.''- 


etc.  R.  Co.  V.  Wentworth,  8  Tex. 
Civ!  App.  5,  11,  27  S.  W.  ()80.  affirmed  in 
87  Tex.  311;  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  z\  Hun- 
ter &  Co..  47  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  190,  104 
S.  \\".  1075;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z'.  Hynes,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  20,  21  S.  W. 
622;  Fentiman  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455,  460.  98  S.  W. 
939;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trawick,  (iS 
Tex.  314.  4  S.  W.  567;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Roberts  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W. 
479;  Abbott  Gin  Co.  r.  Missouri,  etc..  R. 
Co..  57  Tex.  Civ.  App.  2(53,  122  S.  W. 
284. 

Vermont. — Day,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ridley,  16 
Vt.  48,  42  Am.  Dec.  489;  Spencer  v.  Dag- 
gett. 2  Vt.  92. 

Virginia. — Herring  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  101  Va.  778,  45  S.  E.  322,  9  R.  K. 
R.  262,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.. 
262:  Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  z:  Staton,  17  Va. 
(3  Munf.)  239;  Chesapeake,  etc..  R.  Co. 
z:  Beasley.  etc.,  Co..  104  Va.  788.  52  S. 
E.   566.   3    L.    R.   A..    N.    S.,    183. 

West  J'irgiiiia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293;  Mc- 
Graw  z:  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  18  W. 
Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  696,  9  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  188;  Maslin  z'.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  14  W.  Va.  180.  35  Am.  Rep. 
748;  Hutchinson  z\  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  393. 

Wisconsin. — Klauber  v.  American  Exp. 
Co..  21  Wis.  21,  91  Am.  Dec.  452;  Strohn 
V.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23  Wis.  126,  99 
Am.   Dec.   114. 

Wxoniiug. — Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blyth,  19  Wyo.  410,  118  Pac.  649,  119 
Pac.  875,  Ann.  Cas.  1913   E,  288. 

England. — Coggs  v.  Bernard,  2  Ld. 
Raym.  (Eng.)  909;  Forward  z:  Pittard, 
1   D.   &  E.    (Eng.)    27. 

61.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  f.  Glenn,  84 
Tenn.    (If,    Lea)    472.    1    S.    W.    102. 

The  implication  of  an  exception  as  to 
losses  occasioned  by  inevitable  accident 
may  be  repelled  by  i>arol  proof,  con- 
nected with  advertisements  and  cir- 
culars of  agreement  to  insure  a  safe  de- 
livery, without  any  exception,  for  inevi- 
table accidents.  Morrison  v.  Davis  & 
Co.,  20  Pa.   171.  57  .\m.   Dec.   695. 

If  a  carrier  specially  undertakes  to  de- 
liver safely  any  article  carried,  it  will  1)C 
bound  by  its  undertaking  to  answer  for 
the  loss,  although  it  may  happen  from 
an  unavoidable  accident.  Gaither  v. 
Barnct    (S.    C),   2    Brev.   488. 

Stipulation  not  having  such  effect. — A 
provision  in  a  bill  of  lading.  "Damage  or 
deficiency  in  quantity  specified,  if  any,  to 
be  deducted  from  charges  by  consignees," 
should   not  be   construed,   in   the   absence 


of  evidence  that  such  was  the  intent,  as 
extending  the  liat)ility  of  the  carrier  to 
losses  within  the  ordinary  exception  of 
losses  caused  by  the  act  of  God,  but 
should  be  restricted  to  damage  or  defi- 
ciency caused  by  his  default  or  neglect. 
Price  z\  Hartshorn,  44  N.  Y.  94,  4  Am. 
Rep.   645.   affirming   44    Barb.    655. 

62.  Must  be  proximate  cause  of  injury. 
i')iitcd  States. — Tompkins     v.   Dutchess, 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   14,087a;   King  z\  Shepherd, 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    7,804,    3    Story    439. 

Jlabania. — Sprowl  z'.  Kellar,  4  Stew.  & 
P.  382;  Steele  z'.  McTyer,  31  Ala.  667.  70 
Am.  Dec.  516;  Jones  v.  Pitcher  &  Co., 
3  Stew.  &  P.  135.  24  Am.  Dec.  716. 

Gcoriiia. — Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Benson  &  Co.,  86  Ga.  203,  12  S.  E.  357, 
22  Am.  St.  Rep.  446;  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  White  &  Co.,  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E. 
802. 

////;i(h'.s-.— Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Cur- 
tis. 80  111.  324. 

lozva. — Wood  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
68  Iowa  491,  27  N.  W.  473,  56  Am.  Rep. 
861;  Hewitt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63 
Iowa   611,    119    N.    W.    790. 

Kentucky. — Cassilay  v.  Young,  4  B. 
Mon.  265^  39  Am.  Dec.  505;  Cincinnati, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Weljb,  103  Ky.  705.  46  S. 
\V.   11. 

Maryland. — Fergusson  v  Brent,  12  Md. 
9,  71  Am.  Dec.  582;  Boyle  z\  McLaughlin, 
4  Har.   &  J.  291. 

MU-liigan. — Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Burrows,   33   Mich.   6. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  449;  Read  t'.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199;  W^olf  z\  Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co..  43  Mo.  421,  97  .\m.  Dec. 
406. 

Kcz^'  .Icrscv. — New  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co., 
V.  Tiers,. 24  N.  J.  L.  697,  64  Am.  Dec.  394. 
Nezv  York.— Merrkt  v.  Earle,  31  Barb. 
38,  affirmed  in  29  N.  Y.  115,  86  Am.  Dec. 
292;  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
30    N.   Y.   564,  86  Am.   Dec.    415. 

South  Carolina.— Ewart  v.  Street,  2 
Bailey   157,   23   Am.   Dec.   131. 

Tennessee. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jack- 
son,   92    Tenn.    326,    21    S.    W.    666. 

7\,.i-rt.s-.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCor- 
quodale,  71  Tex.  41.  9  S.  W.  SO;  M.  P.  R. 
Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  .\pp.  Civ. 
Cas.,    §    575. 

Washington.— Sm\t\\  v.  North  American 
Transp.  i::o.,  20  Wash.  580,  56  Pac.  372, 
44    L.    R.   A.    557. 

]Vest  Virginia.— McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.',  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696,  9  \m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188;  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293; 
Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  63 


735 


LOSS    OK    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§§  990-991 


Providential  Delay.— A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  damage  to  a  shipment  due 
to  pnn  iilc-ntial  delay  in  transi)ortation."'' 

§  991.  What  Constitutes  Act  of  God.— In  General.— An  act  of  God 
which  will  excuse  a  carrier  for  loss  of  goods  is  such  an  unavoiflable  or  inevitable 
accident''*  as  can  not  be  prevented  by  human  care,  skill  or  foresight,*'-'^  but  re- 


W.  Va.  12S,  .V.I  S.   1',.  ".tt'.t,   14  L.    R.  A..  X. 
S.,  39;j. 

Instances  where  act  of  God  not  prox- 
imate cause. —  In  Lanjj:  r.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  l.-i4  I'a.  342.  2G  Atl.  370.  20  L.  R.  A. 
3G0,  35  Am.  vSt.  Rep.  84(5,  it  appeared  that 
a  train  containing  several  carloads  of 
whiskey  was  overtaken  by  the  Johnstown 
flood,  but  was  not  swept  away:  that  the 
train  was  left  upon  the  track,  and  the  cars 
were  uninjured,  but,  owing  to  the  de- 
struction of  the  track  ahead,  it  could  not 
resume  its  journey;  that  while  the  train 
was  waiting  for  the  track  to  be  repaired, 
thieves,  in  open  daylight  and  in  presence 
of  the  trainmen,  who  made  no  resistance, 
broke  open  the  cars  and  seized  some  of 
the  whiskey;  that  a  volunteer  guard  of 
citizens  interfered  and  protected  the  train 
iluring  the  niglit  and  part  of  the  follow- 
ing clay  and  then  destroyed  the  re- 
mainder of  the  whiskey  to  prevent  it  from 
falling  into  the  hands  of  the  dangerous 
element  in  the  community;  that  the 
trainmen  made  no  efforts  to  protect  the 
train,  but  as  soon  as  tfie  thieves  began 
to  break  open  the  car  with  axes,  they 
turned  their  backs  and  left  the  neighbor- 
hood. It  was  held,  that  the  flood  was  not 
the  cause  of  the  loss,  but  merely  created 
the    opportunity    for    plunder. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
loss  of  goods,  it  appeared  that  a  severe 
storm  produced  an  unusually  low  tide, 
and  thereby  caused  the  carrier's  barge  to 
strike  against  a  timber,  projecting  from 
the  wharf  so  low  in  ordinary  tides  as  to 
be  no  cause  of  injury.  Held,  that  the 
storm  would  not  release  the  carrier  from 
liability  for  the  loss,  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  caused  by  an  act  of  God,  since  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  loss  was  the  pro-  ' 
jecting  timber.  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co. 
f.  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.  61)7,  64  Am.  Dec. 
394. 

63.  Providential  delay.— M.  P.  R.  Co.  i: 
Barnes  l^-  Ci>.,  :.'  Texas  .\pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
575. 

64.  What  constitutes  act  of  God. — • 
United  States.— The  Majestic,  IIG  U.  S. 
375,   41    L.    Hd.    103i),    17   S.   Ct.   597. 

Delaware. — Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  6   Pen.   15,   64  Atl.   252. 

Georgia. — Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349, 
46  Am.   Dec.  393. 

Indiana. — Walpole  v.  Bridges,  5  Blackf. 
222. 

Louisiana. — Brosseau  &  Co.  v.  The  Hud- 
son, 11   La.  Ann.  427. 

Tennessee. — Lewis  &  Co.  v.  Ludwick, 
46  Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  368,  98  Am.  Dec. 
454. 

By   the  phrase,   "act   of   God,"   is   meant 


all     unavoidable    or    inevitable    accidents. 
Walpole  V.   Bridges   (Ind.),  5   Blackf.  222. 

The  words  "inevitable  accident."  are 
synonymous  with  the  phrase  "the  act  of 
God."  Xeal  v.  Saunderson  (Miss.),  2 
Smedes  &  M.  572,  41  Am.  Dec.  009.  See 
Blythe  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Colo. 
333,  25  Pac.  702,  22  .\m.  St.  Rep.  403,  11 
L.   K.  A.  615. 

The  phrase  "unavoidable  accidents,"  is 
equivalent  to  "inevitable  accidents."  Fow- 
ler V.  Davenport,  21  Tex.  626;  Fish  v. 
Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.   Dec.  393. 

65.  Not  preventable  by  human  care. — 
United  States. — Tompkins  v.  Dutchess, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   14,087a. 

Alabama. — Sprowl  v.  Kellar  (.A.la.),  4 
Stew.  &  P.  382. 

Colorado. — Blythe  v.  Denver,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  15  Colo.  333,  25  Pac.  702,  22  Am.  St. 
Rep.  403,  11   L.  R.  .\.  615. 

Dehncare. — Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Del.),  6   Pen.   15,  64  Atl.  252. 

////«oi.f.— Wald  V.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  162  111.  545.  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L.  R.  A. 
356,  53   Am.   St.   Rep.  332. 

Louisiana. — Brousseau  &  Co.  v.  The 
Hudson,  11  La.  Ann.  427. 

IVest  rirginia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.!  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188. 

Wisconsin. — Klauber  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  21   Wis.  21.  91   Am.   Dec.  452. 

The  foundation  of  the  rule  that  the  act 
of  God  excuses  the  failure  to  discharge 
a  duty  is  the  maxim.  "Lex  neminem  co- 
git  impossibilia."  If  by  the  use  of  rea- 
sonable care,  prudence,  and  diligence  un- 
der the  circumstances  of  a  particular  case 
it  is  possible  to  discharge  the  duty,  then 
those  circumstances  do  not  constitute 
a  valid  excuse  for  a  failure  to  perform  it. 
Nothing  less  than  a  fortuitous  gathering 
of  circumstances  preventing  the  perform- 
ance of  a  duty  as  could  not  have  been 
foreseen  or  overcome  by  the  exercise  of 
reasonable  prudence,  care,  and  diligence 
constitutes  an  act  of  God  which  will  ex- 
cuse the  discharge  of  the  duty.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Boyce,  39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  195. 
196,  87  S.  W.  395,  afiirnied  in  101  Tex. 
639,   no  op. 

Illustrations. — A  carrier  is  liable  for 
damage  to  carpets  caused  by  the  bursting 
of  casks  of  chloride  of  lime,  caused  by  an 
excess  of  unslacked  lime  in  the  composi- 
tion, though  both  lime  and  carpets  were 
well  stored,  and  the  bursting  of  the  casks 
was  unusual.  Brousseau  &  Co.  z'.  The 
Hudson,   11    La.   Ann.   427. 

Though  ships  in  dock  were  generally 
mooredwith  the  stern  to  the  stream,  de- 
fendant's  ship  was  moored  with   the  bow 


§  991 


CARRIERS. 


736 


suits  from  a  direct  and  violent  act  of  nature/"^  such  as  lightning,  storms,  inunda- 
tions, earthquakes,*^'  perils  of  the  sea,"'^  or  floods,  etc.,*^"  and  is  exclusive  of  human 
agency."'^^'  The  terms  "vis  major"  and  "casus  fortuitus"  are  used  in  the  civil 
la\v  in  the  same  sense  as  "act  of  God"  in  the  common  law;'^    but  the  rule  of 


to  the  river,  that  she  might  better  meet 
an  expected  hurricane.  On  the  fall  of  the 
tide,  the  ship  groimded;  and,  owing  to  a 
declivit.v  in  the  dock,  water  in  the  ship 
ran  to  the  bows,  injuring  plaintiff's  goods, 
which  were  stored  there.  Held,  that  the 
damage  was  not  occasioned  by  the  act 
of  God,  as  the  bottom  of  the  dock  was 
known,  and  it  must  have  been  foreseen 
that  the  water  must  be  thrown  to  one 
end  of  a  vessel  setting  on  a  declining  bot- 
tom. Ewart  V.  Street  (S.  C),  2  Bailey 
157.  23  Am.  Dec.  131. 

The  fact  that  a  moored  vessel  sprung 
a  leak  after  it  was  grounded  on  the  fall- 
ing of  the  tide,  thereby  damaging  a  ship- 
per's goods,  does  not  show  that  the  dam- 
age was  an  act  of  God,  and  unavoidable 
by  human  agency.  Ewart  f.  Street  (S. 
C).  2  Bailey  157,  23  Am.  Dec.  131. 

66.  Act  of  nature. — United  States. — 
Tompkins  :-.  Dutchess.  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,087a. 

Delazi'arc. — Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Del).   6   Pen.    l-"..   64  Atl.   2.-.2. 

Illinois. — Wald  v.  Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co., 
162  111.  545.  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L.  R.  -A..  35fi, 
53  Am.  St.   Rep.  332. 

Louisiana.- — Brotisseati  &  Co.  v.  The 
Hudson,   11    La.   Ann.   427. 

Texas. — Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115,  47  Am.   Dec.   639. 

Virginia. — Friend  v.  Woods,  47  \'a.  (6 
Gratt.)   189,  52  Am.   Dec.   119. 

West  Virginia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361.  41  Am.  Rep. 
696.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188.  _ 

IVisconsin. — Klauber  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  21  Wis.  21.  91   Am.   Dec.  4.")2. 

Obstruction  in  river  from  mixed  causes. 
—In  Mcrritt  r.  Earle  (X.  Y.),  31  Barb.  3S, 
affirmed  in  29  X.  Y.  115,  86  Am.  Dec.  292, 
it  is  held,  that  loss  of  a  vessel  occasioned 
by  an  obstruction  in  a  river,  produced  ])y 
mixed  causes,  and  which  is  not  the  re- 
sult of  the  operation  of  natural  forces 
upon  natural  objects  alone,  or  the  shores 
or  the  bottom,  is  not,  in  a  logical  or  le- 
gal sense,  the  act  of  God. 

67.  Alabama. — Jones  v.  Pitcher  (.\la.), 
3  Stew.  &  P.  135,  24  Am.  Dec.  716. 

Delaware. — Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Del.),  6   Pen.   15.  64  Atl.  2.->2. 

Georgia. — Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349, 
46  Arn.  Dec.  393. 

Louisiana. — Brousseau  &  Co.  v.  The 
Hudson,  11  La.  Ann.  427. 

Texas. — Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  International,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Halloren,  53  Tex.  46,  37  Am. 
Rep.  744. 

West  Virginia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696,  9  Am.  &  Eng.   R.  Cas.  188. 


Jl'iscousin. — Klauber  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  21    Wis.  21.  91    Am.  Dec.  4:)2. 

68.  Perils  of  the  sea. — United  States. — 
Reed  r.  United  States  (U.  S.).  11  Wall. 
591,    20    L.    Ed.    220. 

Georgia. — Fish  v.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349, 
46  Am.   Dec.  393. 

Texas. — Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115.  47  Am.  Dec.  039. 

West  Jlrginia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696.  9  Am.  &   Eng.   R.  Cas.   188. 

69.  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Del.),  6  Pen.  15,  64  Atl.  252.  See 
post  "Floods,"   this  section. 

70.  Exclusive  of  human  agency. — 
United  States. — Dibble  v.  Morgan,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,881,  1  Woods  406;  The  Ma- 
jestic, 166  U.  S.  375,  41  L.  Ed.  1039,  17 
S.  Ct.  597,  citing  2  Kent.   Com.  592. 

Alabama. — Jones  z'.  Pitcher  &  Co. 
(Ala.),  3  Stew.  &  P.  135,  24  Am.  Dec.  716. 

Georgia. — Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
field.   1   Ga.  App.  203.  58   S.   E.  236. 

Maryland. — Fergusson  v.  Brent,  12 
Md.  9,"  71  Am.  Dec.  582. 

Nczo  ./'LT.yt'v.-rNew  Brunswick,  etc., 
Co.  z:  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.  697,  64  Am.  Dec. 
394. 

Nezv  For/c— Merritt  v.  Earle,  29  N.  Y. 
115,  86  Am.  Dec.  292,  affirming  31 
Barb.  38. 

r(?.ra.y.— Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115,   47   Am.    Dec.   639. 

The  term  "act  of  God"  means  some- 
thing superhuman,  or  something  in  op- 
position to  the  act  of  man.  Merchants' 
Despatch   Co.  z:   Smith,   76   111.   542. 

Contra. — In  Hays  z'.  Kennedy,  41  Pa. 
378.  80  Am.  Dec.  627,  it  is  said:  "It  is 
impossible  to  exclude  the  intervention  of 
man  from  those  accidents  which  are 
called   acts   of  God." 

And  in  Price  v.  Hartshorn,  44  N.  Y. 
94,  4  Am.  Rep.  645,  affirming  44  Barb. 
655,  it  is  held,  that  where  a  jettison  be- 
comes necessary,  for  the  preservation  of 
the  remainder  of  a  cargo,  by  reason  of 
a  violent  storm,  the  loss  is  by  act  of  God, 
although  occasioned  through  the  imme- 
diate agency  of  men. 

71.  Civil  law  terms. — Brousseau  &  Co. 
V.  The   Hudson,   11    La.   Ann.  427. 

Loss  not  due  to  vis  major  or  casus 
fortuitus. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  the  loss  of  goods,  it  appeared  that 
the  goods  were  destroyed  by  tlic  Inirst- 
ing  of  casks  of  chloride  of  lime  in  the 
hold  of  the  vessel,  attributed  to  an  excess 
of  unslacked  lime  in  the  composition  of 
the  chloride.  Held,  that  the  carrier  was 
liable,  the  cause  of  the  loss  not  being 
vis  major  casus  fortuitus.  Brousseau  & 
Co.  V.  The  Hudson,  11   La.  Ann.  427. 


7Z7 


LOSS  OR  IXJUKV  TO  GOODS. 


§  991 


liability  is  not  the  same  as  under  the  common  law."-  It  is  held  that  the  carrier 
is  liable  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  caused  by  the  collision"^  or  stranding  of 
its  vessel,'"*  or  Ijy  the  vessel  striking  the  mast  of  a  sunken  ship."^  And  it  is  held 
that  the  striking  of  a  vessel  on  a  rock  is  not  an  act  of  God,  though  the  officers 
were  misled  by  a  buoy.''*  lUit  it  is  also  held  that  the  striking  of  a  vessel  on  a 
rock  not  generally  known,  and  not  actually  known  to  the  master  of  the  vessel, 
is  the  act  of  (iod.''  There  is  a  conflict  as  to  whether  the  carrier  is  liable  where 
its  boat  runs  on  an  unknown  snag  in  the  channel  of  the  river."**  The  carrying  of 
a  boat  against  a  bank  by  a  current  in  the  stream  has  been  held  not  due  to  an  act 
of  God.""  In  an  early  case  it  was  held  that  where  a  vessel  ran  aground  and 
sank  in  consequence  of  the  sudden  cessation  of  the  wind,  the  accident  was  due 
to  an  act  of  God.^"  The  ujxsctting  of  a  carrier's  wagon  on  a  decayed  bridge  across 
a  stream  is  not  an  unavoidable  accident.**' 

Earthquake. — Where  the  injury  to  property  transported  by  a  carrier  is 
caused  cniircl}-  by  an  eartli(|uakc.  the  carrier  is  not  liable  in  the  absence  of  negli- 
gence on  its  part.'**- 

Floods. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  freight  which  is 
caused  by  an  unprecedented  flood  which  could  not  have  been  anticipated  or 
guarded  against  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care.'"'' 


72.  Hunt  V.  Morris  (La.),  fi  Mart.,  O. 
S.,  fiTfj,  12  Am.  Dec.  489,  holding  tliat  in 
absence  of  negligence  carrier  not  liable 
for  loss  of  goods  on  steamer  destroyed 
by  fire  while  aground. 

73.  Collision  of  vessel. — Mershon  v. 
Hobensack,  2-1   X.  J.   L.  ;{72. 

\\  here  defendant's  boat,  carrying 
plaintiff's  goods,  collided  with  another 
boat  and  sunk,  without  fault  on  the  part 
of  her  master  or  crew,  defendant  was 
not  relieved  from  liability  for  the  loss  of 
plaintiff's  goods  on  the  ground  that  the 
accident  was  chic  to  the  act  of  God.  Hays 
1'.   Keniu'dy.    H    Ta.  :!7S,  80  .\m.   Dec.  627. 

74.  Stranding  of  vessel. — The  strand- 
ing of  a  vessel,  and  resulting  loss  of 
cargo,  during  a  storm,  by  the  reason  of 
the  fact  that  a  light  of  another,  pre- 
viously stranded  vessel  was  mistaken  for 
a  range  light,  which  mariners  used  in 
steering  into  the  harbor — the  range  light 
being  invisible,  and  the  false  light  being 
nearly  in  its  position — was  not  an  acci- 
dent due  to  the  act  of  God,  because  it 
had  occurred  in  part  through  the  inter- 
vention of  human  agency.  Alc.Vrthur  v. 
Sears   (X.   Y.).  21   Wend.   190. 

Bar  in  river. — In  Friend  v.  Woods,  47 
Va.  (G  Gratt.)  189,  52  Am.  Dec.  119,  a 
carrier  stranded  his  boat  upon  a  l)ar 
which  had  been  formed  in  the  river  a 
few  days  before  the  boat  had  proceeded 
on  its  voyage,  the  bar  resulting  from  a 
rise  of  a  tributary  river.  The  officers 
and  crew  of  the  lioat  were  ignorant  of 
the  bar,  when  the  lioat  stranded  upon  it. 
The  carrier  was  licld   liable. 

75.  Steamboat  colliding  with  mast  of 
submerged  sloop — Possibility  of  seeing 
mast. — In  Merritt  r.  Earle,  29  X.  Y.  115, 
SC)  Am.  Dec.  292,  an  action  against  the 
owner  of  a  steamboat  for  the  value  of 
property  lost  while  being  transported,  it 
appeared  that  the  immediate  cause  of  tlie 

1   Car— 47 


accident  and  loss  was  the  contact  of  the 
steaml)oat  with  the  mast  of  a  sloop 
wiiicli  had  been  sunk  in  a  squall,  two 
days  before;  and  that  the  mast  was  out 
of  water  fifteen  or  sixteen  feet  at  low 
water,  and  was  visible  the  day  before 
and  the  same  day  of  the  accident.  It 
was  lield,  that  the  loss  was  not  caused 
by  an   inevitalile  accident,  or  act  of  God. 

76.  Vessel  striking  rock. — Fergusson  v. 
Brent.  12  Md.  9,  71  .\m.  Dec.  582,  wherein 
it  appeared  that  tiie  vessel  was  overtaken 
by  a  heavy  fog,  which  induced  the  cap- 
tain to  make  for  a  harbor,  where  there 
were  many  vessels  safely  moored  at  the 
time.  When  approaching  the  harbor, 
and  while  he  was  at  the  helm,  the  look- 
out notified  him  of  a  buoy,  whereupon 
he  bore  away,  and  the  vessel  struck  on 
a  rock  about  thirty  yards  from  the  buoy, 
damaging  plaintiff's  goods. 

77.  Williams  v.  Grant,  1  Conn.  4S7,  7 
Am.    Dec.   2.3."). 

78.  Unknown  snag. — In  Steele  v.  Mc- 
Tyer,  31  Ala.  ()67,  70  Am.  Dec.  516,  and 
Turney  v.  Wilson,  15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.) 
340,  27  \w\.  Dec.  515.  the  carrier  was 
held  liable.  But  in  Smyrl  v.  Niolon  (S. 
C),  2  Bailey  421.  23  Am.  Dec.  146.  the 
contrary    was    Iiold. 

79.  Current  carrying  boat  against  bank. 
—Craig  V.  Childress,  7  Tenn.  (Feck)  270, 
14    Am.    Dec.    751. 

80.  Sudden  cessation  of  wind. — Colt  v. 
-McMichcn  (X.  Y.),  6  Johns.  ItU),  5  Am. 
Dec.   200. 

81.  Fish  V.  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349.  46  .\m. 
Dec.   393. 

82.  Earthquake.— Slater  v.  South  Caro- 
lina  R.   Co.,  29   S.   C.   9ti.   6   S.   H.  936. 

83.  Unprecedented  fl  o  o  d.  —  United 
States. — Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Reeves 
(U.  S.),  10  Wall.  176,  19  L.  Ed.  909; 
Strouss  z:   Wabash,   etc..   R.    Co.,*  17   Fed. 


§  991 


CARRIERS. 


738 


Lightning-. — Lightning  is  an  act  of  God  relieving  a  carrier  from  liability  for 
loss  of  or  damage  to  goods. '^'^ 

A  snowstorm  of  such  violence  as  to  prevent  the  moving  of  trains  is  an  act  of 
God.'^^ 

An  unprecedented  storm  is  held  to  constitute  an  act  of  God  relieving  a  car- 
rier from  liabilitv  fur  injury  to  freight.^''*'     But  the  carrier  is  liable  where  it  re- 


209;    Missouri     Pac.    Ry.     Co.    x'.    United 
States.  47   Ct.   CI.  266. 

Alabama.—Smhh  v.  Western  Railway, 
91  Ala.  455,  8  So.  754,  24  \m.  St.  Rep. 
929.   11    L.    R.   A.   619. 

Georgia.— Wallace  v.  Clayton,  42  Ga. 
443. 

///i"Hoi.y.— Wald  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  162  111.  545,  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L.  R.  A. 
356,   53  Am.  St.   Rep.  332. 

Louisiana. — Dalzell  v.  Saxon,  10  La. 
Ann.   280. 

Missouri. — Vail  v.  Pacific  Railroad,  63 
Mo.   230. 

Ohio. — See  American  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Smith,  33  O.  St.  511,  :51  Am.  Rep.  561. 

Pennsxlvania. — Morrison  v.  Davis  & 
Co.,  20  "Pa.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  695;  Long 
V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  343,  23 
Atl.  459,  14  L.  R.  A.  741,  30  Am.  St.  Rep. 
732. 

Texas. — Fentiman  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455,  98  S.  W.  939. 
A  flood  may  be  an  act  of  God,  although 
as  great  a  flood  occurred  at  the  same 
place  many  years  before.  Fentiman  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
455,   98    S.   W.    939. 

The  Johnstown  flood,  caused  by  the 
breaking  of  a  dam  which  retained  a 
large  volume  of  water  at  a  high  eleva- 
tion, due  to  extraordinary  and  unprece- 
dented rains,  and  thereby  letting  into  a 
narrow  valley  a  volume  of  water  twenty 
feet  to  thirty  feet  in  height,  was  an  act 
of  God.  Wald  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44  N.  E.  888,  162  111.  545,  35  L.  R.  A.  356, 
53  Am.  St.  Rep.  332;  Long  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  147  Pa.  343,  23  Atl.  459,  14 
L.    R.    A.    741,    30    Am.    St.    Rep.    732. 

Illustrations. — A  sudden  and  unex- 
pected rise  in  the  river  to  a  height  never 
known  before,  by  which  goods  in  a  rail- 
road depot  were  injured,  is  an  act  of 
God,  for  which  the  carrier  is  not  liable. 
Read  v.  Spaulding,  18  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
395,  affirmed  in  30  N.  Y.  630,  86  Am. 
Dec.  426. 

A  carrier  by  canal  is  excused,  on  the 
ground  of  inevitable  accident,  for  a  loss 
of  goods  caused  by  a  dam  in  the  canal 
giving  way  in  consequence  of  an  extra- 
ordinary flood,  if  no  want  of  diligence  or 
skill  is  attributable  to  the  carrier.  And, 
although  horses  are,  in  general,  part  of 
the  equipment  of  a  canal  boat,  for  the 
sufficiency  of  which  the  carrier  is  re- 
sponsible, yet  the  mere  fact  that  the  boat 
was  delayed  on  her  way  by  lameness  of 
a  horse,  in  consequence  of  which  she 
happened  to  be  at  the  place  of  the  flood 
when    it    occurred,    will    not    render    the 


carrier  liable.  Morrison  v.  ^IcFadden 
(Pa.),  5  Clark  23,  3  Am.  L.  J.,  N.  S.,  462; 
Morrison  v.  Davis  &  Co.,  20  Pa.  171,  57 
Am.    Dec.   695. 

Defendant  at  New  Orleans  received,  to 
be  delivered  at  Louisville,  molasses 
which  he  agreed  to  reship  thence  to 
Pittsburg.  In  accordance  with  a  usage 
shown,  the  molasses  was  landed  at  Port- 
land two  mudes  below,  but  within  the 
corporation  of  Louisville,  and  its  reship- 
ment  at  once  engaged.  The  boat,  how- 
ever, on  which  the  reshipment  was  to 
have  been  made,  did  not  comply  with 
its  engagement;  and  shortly  after  the 
river  rose  so  rapidly  that,  with  every 
exertion  the  molasses  was  in  part  dam- 
aged, and  in  part  lost.  Held,  that  de- 
fendant was  not  liable.  Dalzell  v.  Saxon, 
10    La.   Ann.   280. 

84.  Lightning. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  340,   13   S.  W.  191. 

85.  Snow  storm. — Ballentine  v.  North 
Missouri  R.  Co.,  40  Mo.  491,  93  Am.  Dec. 
315;  Black  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 
Neb.   197,   46   N.   W.   428. 

A  snowstorm  in  Missouri  in  the  win- 
ter season  is  not  an  "act  of  God,"  in  the 
sense  in  which  that  term  is  used.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smissen,  31  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
549,  73  S.  W.  42,  affirmed  in  97  Tex.  649, 
no  op. 

86.  Unprecedented  storm. — Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  McKenzie,  5  Ala.  App.  605, 
59  So.  345;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Bergman  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  64  S.  W. 
999;  Herring  v.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
101  Va.  778,  9  R.  R.  R.  262,  32  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  262,  45  S.  E.  322. 

Tornado. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  for 
the  results  of  a  tornado,  with  no  con- 
curring negligence  on  its  part.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Compton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
38  S.  W.  220;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Crier,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  434,  100  S.  W. 
1177,   affirmed   in    102   Tex.   583,   no   op. 

Whirlwind. — Carrier  is  not  liable  for 
injury  to  goods  received  by  it  for  ship- 
ment and  blown  from  its  platform  by 
an  unprecedented  whirlwind,  where  car- 
rier was  not  concurrently  negligent. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Compton  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  38   S.  W.  220. 

A  tempest  is  an  act  of  God.  See  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337,  13  S. 
W.    191. 

Cars  blown  from  track  by  storm — Fire 
from  stove  or  lamp. — In  Blythe  v.  Den- 
ver, etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Colo.  333,  25  Pac. 
702,  11  L.  R.  A.  615,  22  Am.  St.  Rep.  403, 
it  appeared  that  the  express  car  con- 
taining   the    package    whose    value    was 


739 


LOSS    OR    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§  991 


ceives  j^oods  during  a  severe  storm  which  causes  their  loss.**" 

Fire. — A   loss   occasioned   by   accidental   fire,   not   arising   from   negligence  or 
carelessness,  is  not  within  the  exception  of  a  loss  caused  by  act  of  God,**"  unless 


sued  for,  with  three  others,  were  blown 
from  the  track  by  a  violent  gale  of  wind, 
into  such  a  position  that  all  the  freight 
must  have  been  thrown  into  one  corner, 
at  the  top  of  the  car;  that  the  car  was 
immediately  set  on  fire  by  the  stove  or 
lamp  therein,  and  so  quickly  consumed 
that  the  messenger  escaped  with  dilTi- 
culty;  that  the  wind  was  so  violent  as  to 
make  it  almost  impossilile  to  stand  or 
walk  at  the  time;  and  that  the  package 
could  not  have  been  rescued  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  proper  exertion.  It  was  held, 
that  the  finding  of  the  jury  that  the  act 
of  God  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the 
loss,  and  that  there  was  no  negligence, 
was   full}'  warranted  by  the  evidence. 

Delay  of  perishable  goods. — Where  a 
railroad  com])any.  in  transporting  a  car 
load  of  melons  and  green  corn,  is  de- 
laj'cd  by  a  violent  and  protracted  storm, 
in  consequence  of  which,  when  the  goods 
arrived  at  their  destination,  they  were 
in  a  decaying  and  damaged  condition,  it 
is  not  liable  therefor,  in  the  absence  of 
negligence  on  its  part.  M.  P.  R.  Co.  v. 
Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§   575. 

87.  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tiers. 
24   N.  J.   L.  697,  64  Am.   Dec.  394. 

88.  Accidental  fire. — United  States. — 
Arthur  t'.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  204  U.  S. 
505,  51  L.  Ed.  590,  27  S.  Ct.  338;  Bank  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174,  23  L.  Ed. 
872;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Androscoggin  Mills 
(U.  S.),  22  Wall.  594.  22  L.  Ed.  724;  Con- 
stable t'.  National  Steamship  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  51,  38  L.  Ed.  903,  14  S.  Ct.  1062;  York 
Co.  V.  Central  R.  Co.  (U.  S.),  3  Wall.  107, 
18  L.  Ed.  170;  New  Jersey,  etc..  Nav. 
Co.  V.  Merchants'  Bank  (U.  S.),  6  Ylovi. 
344.   12   L.    Ed.  465. 

Georgia. — See  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  White.  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802;  At- 
lanta, etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy 
Co.,   135   Ga.    113.  68   S.   E.   1039. 

Illiuois. — Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  111.  407.  71  Am.  Dec.  286. 

Maine. — Parker  v.  Flagg,  26  Me.  181, 
45  Am.  Dec.  101. 

Mississippi.  —  Gilmore  v.  Carman 
(Miss.),  1  Sniedes  &  M.  279.  40  Am.  Dec. 
96.  Compare  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mill- 
saps,  76  Miss.  855,  25  So.  672,  71  Am.  St. 
Rep.  543,  holding  that  a  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  property  destroyed  by  fire  not 
originating  on  its  premises  and  for  which 
it  is   not   responsible. 

New  York. — Miller  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co., 
10  N.  Y.  431,  Seld.  Notes  64,  affirming 
13  Barb.  361;  Gould  v.  Hill  (N.  Y.),  2 
Hill  623. 

Ohio. — Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  O.  St. 
131;  Graham  &  Co.  r.  Davis  &  Co.,  4 
O.    St.    362,    375;    Minnesota    Min.    Co.    i'. 


Chapman.    2    West.    E.    M.    75,   2    O.    Dec. 
Reprint  207. 

.S'outli  Carolina. — Patton  i:  Magrath 
(S.  C),  Dud.  159,  31  .^m.  Dec.  552;  Sin- 
gleton V.   Hilliard   (S.  C).   1    Strob.  203. 

Te.ras. — Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115,  47  .'\ni.  Dec.  639;  Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Bath,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  697,  44  S. 
W.   595,   affirmed   in   93   Tex.   731,   no   op. 

Conlra. — In  General  Eire  Extinguisher 
Co.  r.  Carolina,  etc.,  Co..  137  N.  C.  278, 
19  R.  R.  R.  336.  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.  S..  336.  49  S.  E.  208,  it  is  held,  that 
tiiough  the  carrier  was  negligent  in  fail- 
ing to  forward  goods  shipped,  it  was  not 
liable  for  the  loss  of  the  goods  by  fire, 
where  it  was  not  negligent  with  respect 
to  the  fire,  in  absence  of  evidence  that 
its  negligence  in  failing  to  forward  was 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss.  .\nd 
see  Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Millsaps.  76 
Miss.  855,  25  So.  672,  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
543. 

In  Louisiana  it  is  held  that  while  com- 
mon carriers  are  not  insurers  against  loss 
or  damage  by  fire,  they  are  liable  under 
Rev.  Civ.  Code  1870,  art.  2754,  unless 
they  can  prove  that  loss  or  damage  was 
occasioned  by  accidental  or  uncontrolla- 
ble events.  Lehman,  etc.,  Co.  z:  Mor- 
gan's Louisiana,  etc.,  Co.,  38  So.  873.  115 
La.  1,  70  L.  R.  A.  562,  112  Am.  St.  Rep. 
259. 

Where  a  steamboat  was  destroyed  by 
fire  at  night,  while  returning  from  a  trip 
to  procure  wood,  and  while  it  was 
aground,  defendant  was  not  liable  for 
loss  of  goods  in  the  absence  of  proof  of 
negligence.  Hunt  z:  Morris  (La.),  G 
Mart.,  O.  S.,  676,  12  Am.   Dec.  489. 

"The  most  resistless  conflagration,  if 
occasioned  by  human  agency  withoift 
any  negligence  whatever  on  the  part  of 
the  carrier,  will  furnish  no  valid  ground 
of  exemption.  Chevallier  Z'.  Straham,  2 
Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639."  Gulf.  etc.. 
R.  Co.  z'.  Levi,  76  Tex.  337.  340,  13  S.  W. 
191. 

Fire  can  not  be  considered,  in  itself, 
an  unavoidable  danger,  and  in  case  of 
loss  from  that  cause  the  defendant  is 
l)ound  to  show  the  origin  or  cause  of 
tlie  fire,  to  bring  himself  within  the 
exception;  otherwise,  the  presumption 
is  it  might  have  been  avoided  by  proper 
care.  L'nion  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  z'.  Indianap- 
olis, etc..  R.  Co.,  1  Disn.  480,  12  O.  Dec. 
745. 

Chicago  fire. — Loss  Iiy  fire,  as  in  the 
great  C!hicago  fire  of  1871,  will  not  relieve 
a  carrier  from  his  undertaking.  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Co.  z:  Smith,  76  111.  542. 

But  in  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  z:  Bur- 
rows, 33  Mich.  6.  it  was  held  that  car- 
riers  are    not   bound    to   be   prepared    for 


CARRIERS. 


740 


§  991 

the  fire  was  caused  by  lishtning.'^-^  or  the  spontaneous  combustion  of  the  goods 

carried.'"'  .  .  .     ^    ,  ,^ 

Chang-es  in  Temperature.— A  carrier  is  not  an  insurer  against  damage  to 

freight   from  changes  in  temperature,  unless  the  circumstances  imposed  on  the 

carrier  that  obhgation.''^  ,  .,      .  •,    ., 

Freezing  Weather.— \\here  goods  are  frozen  while  m  transit,  the  carrier 
can  not  except  under  very  exceptional  circumstances,  escape  liability  on  the 
ground  'that  the  damage  was  caused  by  an  act  of   God.'-'-'      But  it  is  held  that 


unusual  or  extraordinary  contingencies, 
such  as  the  great  Chicago  fire,  which  no 
ordinary  prudence  or  foresight  could  rea- 
sonably   foresee    or    anticipate. 

Fire  diverted  by  wind. — Defendants, 
who.  as  carriers,  were  hauling  cotton, 
placed  it  at  night  within  fifteen  feet  of 
a  camp  fire.  The  fire  was  renewed  at 
midnight,  at  which  time  no  wind  was 
blowing;  but  in  the  morning  the  cotton 
was  found  to  be  on  fire,  the  wind  having 
arisen  and  blown  the  fire  into  the  cot- 
ton. Held,  that  the  accident  was  not 
due  to  the  act  of  God.  Chevallier  z\ 
Straham.  2  Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639. 

Same— Distant  fire.— In  Miller  z\  Steam 
Nav.    Co..    10    X.    Y.    431,    Seld.    Notes    64. 
affirming   13   Barb.  361,  it  is  held,  that  an 
accident^al  fire,  not  caused  by  lightning,  is 
not   the   act   of   God,   although   the   proxi- 
mate  cause   of   the   burning   of   the   goods 
was  a  sudden  gust  of  wind  diverting  the 
course  of  a  distant  fire  so  as  to  drive  the 
flames  in  the  direction  of  and  upon  them. 
Dry  weather  and  violent  wind. — On  the 
day   that    a    carrier   received    property    for 
transportation   a   fire  broke   out  a   quarter 
of  a  mile  distant.     It  being  very  dry  and 
the    wind    blowing    with     great    violence, 
the   fire   spread  rapidly  and  consumed  the 
carrier's   warehouse   together   with   a  por- 
tion   of    plantifif's    property.       Held,    that 
the   loss  was   not   the   result   of   inevitable 
accident   or   the   act   of  providence.     Par- 
sons f.   Monteath    (N.   Y.),   13   Barb.   353. 
Fire    from    engine    equipped    with    best 
spark    arrester. — Where      a      contract      of 
carriage    contained    no    limitation    of    the 
carrier's    common-law    liability,    the    fact 
that    the    carrier    used    care    to    equip    the 
engine,    handling    the    car    in    which    the 
goods   were   shipped,  with   the   best  spark 
arrester,    and    that    such    engine    was    op- 
erated   by    a     skillful    engineer,     did     not 
exempt   the   carrier   from   liability   for  de- 
struction  of  the  goods  by  fire  communi- 
cated by  a  spark  from  the  engine.     Gulf, 
etc..  R.   Co.  V.  Roberts   (Tex.   Civ.   App.), 
85    S.    \V.   479. 

Fire  caused  by  explosion  of  boiler  of 
another  steamboat. — In  McCall  r.  Brock 
(S.  C).  5  Strol).  119,  it  is  held,  that  a  loss 
by  fire,  which,  occurring  in  another  boat, 
renders  a  common  carrier  liable,  will 
render  him  equally  so  if  he  carries  in  a 
steamboat,  even  though  the  loss  be 
caused  by  an  explosion  of  its  boiler— 
and  this  without  any  regard  to  his  dili- 
gence or  negligence. 


89.  Fire  caused  by  lightning. — United 
States. — New  Jersey,  etc.,  Nav.  Co.  v. 
Merchants'  Bank  (U.  S.).  6  How.  344, 
12   L.   Ed.  465. 

Ohio. — Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  O.  St. 
131. 

Tr.n?.?.— Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115,   47    Am.    Dec.   639. 

90.  Spontaneous  combustion. — Massa- 
chitsetts. — Evans  v.  Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  11 
Mass.   142,  15  Am.   Rep.   19. 

Xezv  Hampshire. — Rixford  v.  Smith,  52 
N.    H.   355,    13   Am.    Rep.   42. 

Tt\n7.y.— Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
115,  47   \m.   Dec.  639. 

91.  Change  in  temperature. — White  v. 
Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Ill  Minn.  167, 
126    N.  W.   533. 

92.  Freezing  weather.  —  Alabama.  — 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein,  52  Ala. 
606,  23   Am.   Rep.   578. 

Arkansas. — Fordyce  v.  McFlynn,  56 
Ark.  424,  19  S.  W.  961;  St.  Louis,  etc.. 
Railway  v.  Lesser,  46  Ark.  236. 

Georgia. — Cooper  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  412, 
110  Ga.  659,  36  S.  E.  240;  Georgia  R.  Co. 
V.  Spears,  66  Ga.  485,  42   Am.   Rep.  81. 

///;;!o;.y.— Burke  v.  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  87  111.  App.  505;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.   Dorman,  72   111.   504. 

loiva. — McCoy  v.  Keokuk,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44  Iowa  424. 

Kansas. — Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nich- 
ols, etc.,  Co.,  9  Kan.  235,  12  Am.  Rep. 
494;  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  8 
Kan.   623. 

Massachusetts. — Smith  v.  New  Haven, 
etc.,   R.   Co.    (Mass.),   12  Allen   531. 

Minnesota. — Lindsley  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  36  Minn.  539,  33  N.  W.  7,  1  Am. 
St  Rep.  692;  Moulton  v.  St.  Paul,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  31  Minn.  85,  16  N.  W.  497,  47 
Am.   Rep.  781. 

Missouri. — Lupe  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  77. 

Xcbraska. — Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Washlnirn,   5   Neb.   117. 

Nezu  Hampshire. — Rixford  v.  Smith,  52 
N.   H.  355,  13  Am.   Rep.  42. 

New  York. — Clarke  v.  Rochester,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  14  N.  Y.  570,  67  Am.  Dec.  205; 
Mynard  z'.  Syracuse,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  N. 
Y.   180.  27   Am.   Rep.  28. 

OJiio. — Wilson  v.  Hamilton,  4  O.  St. 
722. 

Tennessee. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
W>nn,   88   Tenn.   320,    14   S.    W.   311. 

Texas.— Missouri  Pac.  R.   Co.  v.  Fagan, 


741 


LOSS    OR     INJLKV     TO    GOODS. 


§§  991-992 


where  the  goods  are  frozen,  the  carrier  is  not  resi)onsible,  if  it  has  been  guihy  of 
no  previous  nej^digence  or  misconduct,  hy  which  such  loss  or  damage  may  have 
been  occasioned."'* 

Hot  Weather. — A  shipper  of  lard  in  the  summer  months  takes  the  risk  of 
damage  occasioned  by  the  excessively  hot  weather,  unless  some  neglect  or  fault 
can  be  charjj^ed  u])nn  the  carrier,  contributing  to  the  loss."-* 

Insanity  of  Employee. — If  an  engineer,  accompanied  by  the  conductor,  neg- 
ligently wrecks  a  car  and  causes  a  loss  of  goods,  the  loss  is  not  an  act  of  God 
so  as  to  excuse  the  carrier  though  the  engineer  was  insane  at  the  time."'' 

§  992.  Negligence  Concurring  with  Act  of  God. — There  is  a  conflict 
among  the  authorities  as  to  the  liability  of  a  carrier  where  the  loss  of  goods  in 
its  possession  is  due,  not  solely  and  only  to  an  act  of  God,  but  to  an  act  of  God 
combined  with  the  negligence  of  the  carrier.  Many  cases  hold  that  a  carrier  is 
not  exempt  from  liability  for  a  loss,  if  it  has  been  guilty  of  any  previous  negli- 
gence or  misconduct  which  brings  the  projjerty  in  contact  with  the  destructive 
force  of  the  actus  Dei,  or  unnecessarily  exposes  it  thereto ;  the  act  of  God  must 
have  been  the  sole  cause  of  the  loss.'-"^     Some  cases  hold  that,  although  the  car- 


72  Tex.  127,  1)  S.  W.  74<),  2  L.  R.  A.  75, 
13  Am.  St.  Rep.  77G;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Harris.  ()7  Tex.  Ififi.  2   S.  W.  .574. 

Vermont. — Kimball  v.  Rutland,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  26  Vt.  247,   ()2   Am.    Dec.   o()7. 

West  Virginia. — Maslin  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  W.  Va.  180,  35  Am.  Rep. 
748. 

Wisconsin. — Ayres  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  71  Wis.  372.  37  X.  W.  432,  5  Am.  St. 
Rep.  22C.. 

Cold  weather  in  the  latitude  of  Texas 
in  the  month  of  December  is  not  that  act 
of  God  which  would  excuse  a  carrier 
from  the  performance  of  its  contract. 
The  carrier  must  be  held  to  have  antici- 
pated such  weatlier  at  the  time  of  enter- 
ing into  the  contract.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Coggin,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  423,  99 
S.    W.    1052. 

93.  McGraw  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
18  \V.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep.  69(1.  9  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.  Cas.  188. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the  loss  of  fruit  trees  frozen 
while  en  route.  plaintifT  must  show  tliat 
the  freezing  was  caused  by  unnecessary 
delay  in  transporting  the  trees,  or  that 
they  were  carelessly  exposed  and  the 
company  is  not  liable  if  the  trees  are 
frozen  while  remaining  in  the  cars  at  the 
terminus  of  the  route,  instead  of  being 
placed  in  the  warehouse,  if  the  cars  af- 
forded a  better  shelter  than  the  ware- 
house. Vail  V.  Pacific  Railroad,  63  Mo. 
230. 

Assumption  of  risk  by  shipper. — In 
Swetland  v.  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.,  102 
Mass.  276,  it  is  said  in  the  opinion:  "If 
the  owner  of  the  goods,  which  are  lia- 
ble to  be  injured  liy  freezing,  chooses  to 
send  them  at  a  season  of  the  year  when 
they  are  exposed  to  such  risks,  he  takes 
the   risk   himself." 

94.  Hot  weather. — Xelson  z\  Woodruff. 
Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  10.117,  affirmed  in  1  Black 
156,   17   L.   Ed.   97. 

95.  Insanity      of     employee. — Central. 


etc.,  R.  Co.  i\  Hall.  52  5.  E.  679.  124  Ga. 
322,  41  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.,  898.  110  Am.  St. 
Rep.    170. 

96.  Negligence  concurring  with  act  of 
God — Carrier  held  liable. — United  States. 
—  Dil)ble   1-.   Morgan,    I'etl.   Cas.    Xo.   3.881, 

I  Woods  406;  The  Zenobia.  Fed.  Cas. 
Xo.  18,209.  Abb.  Adm.  80;  Tompkins  :-. 
Dutchess,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,087a. 

Alabama. — McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  14  So.  370,  48  Am. 
St.  Rep.  29,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  178; 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sigma  Lumber 
Co..  170  Ala.  627,  54  So.  205,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912D,  965;  Alabama,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Quarles,  145  Ala.  436.  40  So.  120.  117 
Am.  St.  Rep.  54,  5  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  867, 
42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S.,  69;  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Elliott  &  Son,  150 
Ala.  381,  43  So.  738,  124  Am.  St.  Rep.  72. 
9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1264;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Gidley.  119  Ala.  523,  24  So.  753. 

Georgia. — Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Benson  &  Co..  86  Ga.  203.  12  S.  E.  357, 
22  Am.  St.  Rep.  446;  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  White  &  Co.,  88  Ga.  805.  15  S.  E. 
802;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commercial 
Guano  Co.,  103  Ga.  590,  30  S.  E.  555; 
Brunswick,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  97  Ga. 
777,  25  S.  E.  759;  Forrester  f.  Georgia 
R.,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Ga.  699,  19  S.  E.  811; 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy 
Co.,    135    Ga.    113.   68    S.    E.    1039. 

Illinois. — Edison  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 
70  111.  App.  654;  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  r. 
Curtis,  80  111.  324;  Wald  r.  Pittsburg,  etc.. 
R.  Co..  162  111.  545,  44  N.  E.  888.  35  L. 
R.  .A.  356,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  332.  Compare 
Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago.  242 
111.  178,  89  X.  E.  1023.  44  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
358;  Green-Wheeler  Shoe  Co.  z:  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  130  Iowa  123,  106  X.  W.  498, 
5   L.   R.   A..   X.   S.,  882. 

Kentucky. — Southern  R.  Co.  r.  Smith, 
31    Ky.   L."  Rep.  243.   102   S.   W.  232. 

Louisiana. — See   Watts    &   Co.  f.   Saxon, 

II  La.   Ann.  43. 

.Ujrv/a«(/.— Bovle  z:  McLaughlin  (Md.), 


§  992 


CARRIERS. 


742 


rier  may  have  contributed  in  a  remote  way,  by  its  own  negligence  or  laches,  to 
the  loss  of  the  goods,  if  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  is  the  act  of  God,  it 


4  Har.  &  J.  291;  Fergusson  z'.  Brent,  12 
Md.  9,   71  Am.  Dec.  582. 

Minnesota. — Jones  v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  91  Minn.  229,  11  R.  R.  R.  6G1,  34 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  661,  97  N. 
W.  893,  103  Am.  St.  Rep.  507:  Bibb 
Broom  Corn  Co.  v.  Atchinson,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
94  Minn.  269,  102  N.  W.  709,  14  R.  R.  R. 
407,  34  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  407, 
110   Am.    St.    Rep.    361,    69    L.    R.    A.    509. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  89  Mo.  340,  1  S.  W.  327;  Pruitt  v. 
Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62  Mo.  527;  Read 
z:  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  Mo.  199; 
Wolf  z:  American  Exp.  Co.,  43  Mo.  421, 
97  Am.  Dec.  406;  Gratiot  St.  Warehouse 
Co.  T'.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  S.  W. 
11,   124   Mo.   .\pp.   545. 

Xebraska. — Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Sharpe, 
76  Neb.  424,  107  N.  W.  758,  124  Am.  St. 
Rep.  823;  see  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Manning,  23    Neb.   552.  37   N.   W.  462. 

A'ezc  Jersev. — New  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.  697,  64  Am.  Dec.  394. 

Nezi'  York. — Condict  v.  Grand  Trunk 
R.  Co.,  54  N.  Y.  500;  Michaels  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am. 
Dec.  415;  Read  z:  Spaulding,  30  N.  Y. 
630,  86  Am.  Dec.  426,  affirming  18  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  395;  Dunson  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  3  Lans.  265;  Mer- 
ritt  z:  Earle,  29  N.  Y.  115,  86  Am.  Dec. 
292,  affirming  31  Barb.  38. 

Pennsxlvania. — Liverey  v.  Philadelphia, 
64   Pa.   106,  3   Am.   Rep.   578. 

South  Carolina. — Sonneborn  &  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  65  S.  C.  502,  44  S.  E. 
77;  Ferguson  v.  Southern  Railway,  91  S. 
C.  61,  74  S.  E.  129. 

Texas. — Chavallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex. 
W5,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  M.  P.  R.  Co.  z: 
Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  575;  Pinkerton  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
117  Mo.  App.  288,  93  S.  W.  849.  See 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Texas  Star  Flour 
Mills  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  143  S.  W.  1179. 

Where  loss  or  damage  is  caused  by 
the  act  of  God,  a  carrier  is  not  liable  for 
such  loss  or  damage,  though  it  may  have 
been  negligent,  unless  it  can  be  made  to 
appear  that  there  was  some  causal  con- 
nection recognized  by  the  law  between 
such  negligence  and  the  loss  or  damage 
incurred.  Fentiman  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455,  98  S.  W.  939, 
and  authorities  cited.  Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  i:  Crier,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  434, 
100  S.  W.  1177,  affirmed  in  102  Tex.  583, 
no   op. 

IVest  Virginia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696,  9  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188. 

Illustrations. — Where  a  railroad  com- 
pany, connecting  with  a  boat,  unloaded 
freight  intended  for  the  boat  on  the  river 
bank    below    high-water    mark,    wlien    it 


was  raining  and  the  river  was  rising,  the 
boat  not  then  being  at  the  wharf  and  . 
there  being  no  necessity  for  unloading  at 
that  time,  the  company  can  not  escape 
liability  for  damage  to  the  goods  caused 
by  their  being  submerged,  on  the  ground 
that  the  damage  was  caused  by  an  act  of 
God.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Commer- 
cial Guano  Co.,  30  S.   E.  555,   103  Ga.   590. 

Where  the  common  carrier  received 
goods  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  to  transport 
to  the  consignee  at  Mattoon,  111.,  and 
carried  them  by  way  of  Chicago,  instead 
of  the  most  usual  and  direct  route,  by 
way  of  Indianapolis,  and  while  stored  in 
Chicago,  awaiting  a  reshipment,  they 
were  destroyed  by  the  great  fire  of  1871, 
held,  that  the  carrier  was  not  excused 
from  liability  on  the  ground  of  inevitable 
accident,  as  there  was  no  compulsion  to 
take  the  goods  through  Chicago.  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Transp.  Co.  •;:'.  Kahn, 
76   111.   520. 

Defendant,  who  engaged  to  carry 
freight  to  a  certain  port,  and  there  re- 
ship  to  another  port,  deposited  the 
freight  at  a  port  three  miles  from  the 
agreed  destination,  and  departed,  leaving 
it  on  the  bank,  where  it  reinained  for 
several  days,  when  it  was  partly  de- 
stroyed by  flood.  Held,  that  defendant 
was  liable,  though  his  agent,  on  discov- 
ering the  danger,  used  extraordinary  dil- 
igence in  removing  the  freight  to  a  place 
of  safety.  Watts  &  Co.  v.  Saxon,  11  La. 
Ann.  43. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
for  damages  caused  by  the  freezing  of 
certain  casks  of  wine,  where  it  appeared 
that  the  cold  weather  was  not  the  sole 
cause  of  injury,  and  that  the  loss  would 
not  have  taken  place  had  not  the  negli- 
gence and  inattention  of  the  defendant 
co-operated  with  the  cold,  plaintiff  is  en- 
titled to  recover.  Wolf  v.  American 
Exp.  Co.,  43  Mo.  421,  97  Am.  Dec.  406. 

A  railroad  company  cannot  excuse 
themselves,  as  for  inevitable  accident,  by 
sliowing  that  the  cars  were  thrown  off 
the  track  by  accidentally  running  over 
a  man,  if  it  also  appear  that  the  man 
was  a  drover  attending  to  cattle  on  the 
train,  and  fell  off  because  no  proper 
place  was  provided  for  such  attendants, 
and  he  was  compelled  to  stand  on  the 
bumpers;  and  this,  though  the  man  fell 
off  by  his  own  carelessness — the  com- 
pany having  no  right  to  put  him  in  such 
a  position.  Goldey  Z'.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  .'iO   Pa.  242,  72  Am.   Dec.  703. 

Where  a  carrier  attempted  to  cross  a 
fording  place  in  a  creek,  between  sun- 
set and  dark,  while  a  shower  was  ap- 
proaching, without  examining  the  state 
of  the  ford,  and  the  wheels  of  his  wagon 
stuck   fast,   and   the   water   rose   with   ex- 


743 


LOSS    OK     IXJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§  992 


will  be  excused.''"  The  conflict  is  exemplified  in  the  case  where  a  carrier  has 
negligently  delayed  a  shipment,  thereby  exposing  it  to  loss  by  an  act  of  God. 
One  line  of  cases  holds  that  the  carrier  is  liable.'***  while  others  sustain  the  op- 


traordin.iry  sudik-iiness,  so  as  to  injure 
the  K"o<ls  in  tlie  wagon,  he  was  held 
liable  for  the  (himaerc  thus  caused.  Canii)- 
l)ell  ?■.    Morse    (  S.   C.i,   Tlarp.   4r,s. 

If  a  carrier  has  departed  from  the  line 
of  duty,  and  has  violated  his  C(jntract, 
and  while  thus  in  fault,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  that  fault,  the  goods  are  in- 
jured liy  an  act  of  Ood,  which  would  not 
otherwise  have  produced  the  injury,  then 
the  carrier  is  not  protected.  Michaels  v. 
New  York  Cent.  R.  ^c,  30  N.  Y.  564.  86 
Am.  Dec.  415;  Read  v.  Spaulding.  30  N. 
Y.  630,  86  .Am.  Dec.  426,  affirming  18  N. 
Y.   vSuper.   Ct.   :!<»-,. 

Where  a  carrier  negligently  leaves 
goods  exposed  on  a  wharf,  he  is  liable 
f(ir  tiu'ir  loss  even  though  occasioned  by 
immediate  act  of  God.  Morgan  f.  Dib- 
ble.  29  Tex.   107,  94   Am.   Dec.  264. 

Must  prove  foundered  vessel  sea- 
worthy.—  If  a  vessel  fiumders.  the  own- 
ers, as  common  carriers,  must  prove  that  ' 
she  W'as  seaworthy,  before  they  can 
bring  themselves  within  the  excuse  of 
its  being  the  act  of  God.  Bell  v.  Reed 
(Pa.\  4   Bin.   127.   5  Am.   Dec.   398. 

Wrongful  refusal  to  deliver  on  de- 
mand.— A  railroad  company  transported 
goods  to  destination  and  notified  the 
owner  to  take  them  away.  In  response, 
the  owner  promptly  called  at  the  freight 
depot,  tendered  the  charges  due  and  de- 
manded delivery  of  the  goods,  wliich 
demand  the  railroad  company  refused. 
The  next  day  an  unprecedented  flood  oc- 
curred which  damaged  the  goods.  Held, 
that  the  company  having  refused  the 
owner's  demand  and  wrongfully  detained 
the  goods,  held  them  at  its  own  risk,  and 
was  responsible  for  the  damage  caused  by 
the  flood.  Henry  v.  .\tchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  109  Pac.  1005.  83  Kan.  104.  28  L.  R. 
A..   N.   S.,    1088. 

Loss  by  perils  of  sea  when  goods  im- 
properly stowed. — "Goods,  though  lost  by 
perils  of  the  sea,  if  they  were  stowed  on 
deck  w-ithout  the  consent  of  the  shipper, 
are  not  regarded  as  goods  lost  l)y  the 
act  of  God  within  the  meaning  of  the  mar- 
itime law.  nor  are  such  losses  regarded 
as  losses  by  perils  of  the  sea  wliich 
will  excuse  the  carrier  from  delivering 
the  goods  shipped  to  the  consignee  un- 
less it  appears  that  the  manner  in  which 
the  goods  were  stowed  is  sanctioned  by 
commercial  usage,  or  unless  it  affirma- 
tively appears  that  the  manner  of  stow- 
age did  not,  in  any  degree,  contribute  to 
the  disaster;  that  the  loss  happened  with- 
out anj^  fault  or  negligence  on  the  part 
of  the  carrier,  and  that  it  could  have  been 
prevented  by  human  skill  and  prudence, 
even  if  the  goods  had  been  stowed  under 


deck,  as  required  by  the  general  rules  of 
the  maritime  law."  The  Delaware  (U.  S.), 
14  Wall.  579,  598,  20  L.  Ed.  779.  And 
see  Lawrence  v.  Minturn  (U.  S.),  17 
How.   100,   15    L.    Ed.   58. 

97.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves 
(U.  S.),  10  Wall.  176,  19  L.  Ed.  909.  See 
cases  in  second  succeeding  note. 

98.  Authorities  holding  carrier  liable. — 
Alabama. — Alabama.  etc.,  R.  Co.  V. 
Quarles,  145  Ala.  436,  40  So.  120.  5  L.  R. 
.•\..  N.  S.,  867,  117  Am.  St.  Rep.  5^,  19  R. 
R.  R.  69,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  69. 
(Goods  detained  11  days.)  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Elliott  &  Son,  150  Ala.  381,  43 
So.  738,  124  Am.  St.  Rep.  72,  9  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  126.     (Goods  delayed  four  days.) 

Georgia. — Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802  (Goods 
wrongfully  detained  after  arrival).  See, 
also.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Benson 
&  Co.,  80  Ga.  203,  12  S.  E.  357,  22  Am. 
St.  Rep.  446. 

Illinois. — Wald  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  162  111.  545,  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L.  R.  A. 
356,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  332. 

Compare  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, 242  111.  178,  89  N.  E.  1022,  44  L.  R. 
A.,  N.  S.,  358,  holding  that  though  defend- 
ant railroad  was  negligent  in  not  getting 
the  car  containing  plaintiff's  butter  out 
of  its  freight  yards  before  the  destruc- 
tive part  of  an  unprecedented  flood,  con- 
stituting an  act  of  God,  came,  it  was  not 
liable,  unless  it  was  warned  of  the  ap- 
proach, not  merely  of  a  rise  in  the  river, 
but  of  the  flood. 

lozi'a. — Green-Wheeler  Shoe  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co..  130  Iowa  123,  106  N. 
W.  498,  5  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  882.  See.  also. 
Hewett  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Iowa 
611,   19   N.  W.  790. 

Kentucky. — Cassilay  v.  Young  (Ky.),  4 
B.  Mon.  265,  39  .\ni.  Dec.  505.  (Stoppage 
short  of  reshipment  point.)  See,  also, 
Hernsheim  f.  Newport  Xews,  etc.,  Co..  18 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  227.  35  S.  W.  1115. 

Minnesota. — Bibb  Broom  Corn  Co.  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Minn.  269,  102 
\.  W.  790,  14  R.  R.  R.  407,  37  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S..  407,  69  L.  R.  A.  509, 
110  Am.  St.  Rep.  361. 

Xebraska. — Sunderland  Bros.  Co.  v. 
Thicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Neb.  660,  131  N. 
W.  1047;  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Sharpe,  76 
Neb.  424.  107  N.  W.  758.  124  Am.  St.  Rep. 
823;  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Manning,  23 
Neb.  552,  37  N.  W.  462. 

Nezv  York. — Read  v.  Spaulding,  30  N. 
Y.  630.  86  Am.  Dec.  426.  affirming  18  N. 
Y.  Super.  Ct.  395;  Bostwick  v.  Baltimore, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  712;  Dunson  v. 
New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  3  Lans.  '265; 
Heyl   z:    Inman    Steamship    Co.,    14    Hun 


§  992 


CARRIERS. 


744 


posite  doctrine  and  hold  that  the  carrier  is  excnsed,  although  the  goods  would 
not  have  been  exposed  to  such  injury  but  for  the  delay.''"'  It  has  been  held  that 
the  mere   fact  that  the  captain   of  a   well-fitted  boat   was   inexperienced   is  not 


564;  Tierney  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
76  N.  Y.  305;  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.   Co.,  30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am.  Dec.  415. 

JJ'cst  J'irgiiiia. — McGraw  v.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41  Am.  Rep. 
696,  9  Am.   &  Eng.  R.   Cas.   188. 

99.  Vnited  States. — Memphis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  Reeves  (U.  S.),  10  Wall.  ITC.  19 
L.  Ed.  909;  Thomas  v.  Lancaster  Mills, 
19  C.  C.  A.  88,  71  Fed.  481;  Scott  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  19  Fed.  56; 
Empire  State  Cattle  Co.  v.  Atchison,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  135  Fed.  135,  affirmed  in  147  Fed. 
457,  77  C.  C.  A.  601. 

Kansas. — Rodgers  z'.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  75  Kan.  222.  88  Pac.  885,  10  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  658,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  441; 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  78  Kan. 
490,  97   Pac.  465,   18  L.   R.   A.,  N.   S.,  177. 

.Va/»r.— O'Brien  v.  McClinchy,  68  Me. 
557. 

Massaclnisctts. — Denny  v.  New  York 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  13  Gray  481,  74  Am.  Dec. 
645.  See,  also,  Hoadley  z:  Northern 
Transp.  Co.,  115  Mass.  304.  15  Am.  Rep. 
106. 

Michigan. — See  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co. 
z:  Burrows,  33  Mich.  6. 

Mississippi. — Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Millsaps,  76  Miss.  855,  25  So.  672,  71  Am. 
St.  Rep.  543;  Merchants',  etc.,  Ass'n  v. 
Wood,  64  Miss.  661,  2  So.  76. 

Missouri. — Elam  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  117  Mo.  App.  453,  93  S.  W.  851;  Mof- 
fatt  Comm.  Co.  v.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co., 
113  Mo.  App.  544,  88  S.  W.  117;  Lighl- 
foot  &  Son  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  126 
Mo.  App.  532,  104  S.  W.  182.  Compare 
Armentrout  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  1 
Mo.  App.   158. 

Nezv  Mexico. — McVeagh  v.  Atchinson, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  N.  Mex.  327,  5  Pac.  457. 

North  Carolina. — General  Fire  Extin- 
guisher Co.  V.  Carolina,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137 
N.  C.  278,  49  S.  E.  208,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.,   N.   S.,  336. 

0/2 /o.— Daniels  v.  Ballantine,  23  O.  532, 
13  Am.  Rep.  264. 

Pennsxhania. — Clarke  v.  Needles,  25 
Pa.  338;"  Morrison  v.  Davis  &  Co.,  20  I'a. 
171,  57  Am.  Dec.  695. 

Tennessee. — Lamont  &  Co.  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.)  58. 
See,  also,  White  v.  Conly,  82  Tenn.  (14 
Lea)   51,  52  Am.  Rep.  154. 

Texas. — Hunt  Bros.  v.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  74  S.  W.  69,  af- 
firmed in  97  Tex.  637,  no  op.;  Interna- 
tional etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bergman  (lex. 
Civ.  App.),  64  S.  W.  999;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Darby,  67  S.  W.  129,  28  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  229;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  North 
Texas  Grain  Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  93,  74 


S.  W.  567;  Fentiman  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455,  98  S.  W.  939. 
Compare  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McCorquo- 
dale,   71   Tex.   41,   9   S.   W.   80. 

J'ennont. — Davis  v.  Central  \'ermont 
R.   Co.,  66  Vt.  290,  29  Atl.  313. 

J'irginia. — Herring  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  101  Va.  778,  9  R.  R.  R.  262,  32 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  262,  45  S.  E. 
322. 

Illustrations. — A  common  carrier,  who 
transports  goods  safely  to  their  destina- 
tion, is  not  responsible  for  injuries  to 
them  l)y  a  flood  while  in  the  depot  at 
that  place,  although  the  goods  would  not 
have  been  exposed  to  such  injury  but  for 
delay  in  transportation.  Denny  z\  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  13  Gray  481, 
74  Am.   Dec.  645. 

Wheat  shipped  by  plaintiff  over  the  de- 
fendant railroad  was  damaged,  and  a  part 
of  it  totally  destroyed,  in  an  unprece- 
dented storm,  which  occurred  while  the 
wheat  was  still  in  the  possession  of  the 
railroad  company.  The  railroad  had  been 
guilty  of  negligence  in  failing  to  place 
the  wheat  on  the  proper  elevator  tracks 
promptly,  so  that  it  could  be  unloaded, 
and  in  other  ways;  and,  but  for  its  negli- 
gence, the  cars  '  would  probably  have 
been  unloaded  when  the  storm  occurred. 
Held,  that  the  storm  was  the  proximate, 
and  the  company's  negligence  the  re- 
mote, cause  of  the  injury  to  the  wheat, 
and  the  company  was  not  liable.  Hunt 
Bros.  V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),   74   S.   W.   69. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  common 
carrier  for  good$  lost  in  Jan  unprece- 
dented storm,  it  appeared  that  the  place 
of  storage  was  safe  under  usual  condi- 
tions, and  that,  though  it  was  possible 
to  have  delivered  them  on  the  morning 
of  the  storm,  the  bad  weather  deterred 
the  drayman,  and  it  did  not  appear  that 
there  was  any  safer  place  after  the  dan- 
ger became  apparent,  the  company  was 
not  liable.  International,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Bergman  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  64  S.  W.  999. 
Lame  horse — Canal  boat  overtaken  by 
flood.— In  Morrison  r.  Davis  &  Co.,  20 
Pa.  171,  57  Am.  Dec.  695,  it  appeared 
that  freight  carried  in  a  canal  boat  was 
injured  by  the  wrecking  of  the  boat, 
caused  by  an  extraordinary  flood.  It  was 
held,  that  the  carrier  was  not  rendered 
liable  merely  by  the  fact  that,  when  the 
boat  was  started  on  its  voyage,  one  of 
the  horses  attached  to  it  was  lame,  and 
that  in  consequence,  such  delay  occurred 
as  prevented  the  Ijoat  from  passing  the 
place  where  tlie  accident  happened, 
though  beyond  such  place  it  would  have 
been  safe. 


745 


LOSS    OR    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§§  992-993 


sufficient  to  render  the  boat  liable  for  loss  resulting  from  a  sudden  storm  and 
not  from  his  incomjjctency.^ 

§  993.  Where  Danger  Should  Have  Been  Anticipated. — An  act  of  God 
is  no  excuse  where  the  carrier  could  have  anticipated  the  danger  and  provided 
against  it  or  avoided  it  by  the  exercise  of  proper  care.-  Where  a  carrier  under- 
takes to  transport  a  shipment,  knowing  at  the  time  that  a  portion  of  its  route  is 
obstructed  by  floods,  the  existence  of  the  floods  is  not  such  an  act  of  God  as  will 
relieve  it  from  liability  for  injuries  to  the  shipment  while  being  carried  over 
anotlier  route.-'  It  is  the  duty  of  railroads  in  constructing  their  roadbeds  to 
guard  against  floods  which  may  be  anticipated,  though  some  may  be  extraor- 
dinary and  unusual;  '    but  they  are  not  liable  for  failure  to  guard  against  extraor- 


1.  Hart  V.  Allen   (I'a.).  2  Watts   114. 

2.  Where  danger  should  have  been  an- 
ticipated.— (')iitcd  States. — Southern  Pac. 
Co.  7:  Sclioer,  ".2  C.  C.  A.  268,  57  L.  R. 
A.  707,  114  Fed.  466,  3  R.  R.  R.  254,  26 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  254. 

Georgia. — The  carrier  is  required  to  ex- 
ercise extraordinary  diligence.  Section 
2066,  Code.  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Commercial  Guano  Co.,  103  Ga.  590,  30 
8.  E.  555;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Wliitc, 
88  Ga.   805,   15   S.    E.   802. 

Precautions  for  the  protection  of  the 
goods  which  would  have  been  available 
as  against  any  previous  Hood  of  which  the 
carrier  (a  railroad  company)  had  knowl- 
edge, would  not  necessarily  fill  the  meas- 
ure of  extraordinary  diligence,  inasmuch 
as  history  or  tradition  might  make  it  in- 
cumbent on  the  carrier  to  have  more 
knowledge  than  that  actually  possessed. 
In  such  matters  it  might  be  just  to  treat 
the  means  of  knowledge  as  equivalent  to 
actual  notice.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802. 

Illinois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ash- 
mead.   58   111.   487. 

Indiana. — Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Heath.  22  Ind.  App.  47,  53  N.   E.   198. 

Louisiana. — Carrier  is  bound  to  the 
most  exact  diligence.  See  Blocker  v. 
Whittenburg,  12  La.  Ann.  410;  Watts  & 
Co.  r.  Saxon,  11   La.  Ann.  43. 

Missouri. — Clark  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  39 
Mo.  184,  90  Am.  Dec.  458;  Ellet  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo.  518,  12  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  183;  Hill  v.  Sturgeon,  28  Mo. 
323;  Wolf  V.  American  Exp.  Co.,  43  Mo. 
421.  97  Am.  Dec.  406. 

Montana. — Xelson  v.  Great  Northern 
R.  Co.,  28  Mont.  298,  9  R.  R.  R.  311,  32 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  311,  72  Pac. 
642. 

A'cbraska. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Manning,  23  Neb.  552,  37  N.  W.  462. 

SoKtli  Carolina. — Ewart  v.  Street,  2 
Bailey   157,   23   Am.   Dec.   131. 

Tennessee. — Laniont  &  Co.  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.   (9  Heisk.)   58. 

Te.ras. — Philleo  v.  Sanford.  17  Tex. 
227,  67  Am.  Dec.  654;  St.  Louis,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Bland  (,Tex.  Civ.  App.).  34  S.  W. 
675. 

West  J^irginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293. 


Whether  an  extraordinary  flood,  caus- 
ing loss  of  goods  in  possession  of  car- 
rier, constituted  an  act  of  God,  sufficient 
to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability,  de- 
pends on  whether  it  could  have  been 
foreseen  and  guarded  against  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  reasonable  care.  Ferguson  v. 
Southern  Railway,  91  S.  C.  61,  74  S.  E. 
129. 

Common  carriers  are  not  bound  to 
make  extraordinary  provision  for  an  act 
of  God  which  could  not  reasonably  have 
l)een  anticipated.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Fries,  87   Pa.   234. 

Reflux  of  tide — Vessel  grounded. — In 
Charleston,  etc..  Steamboat  Co.  r.  Bason 
(S.  C),  Harp.  262,  it  appeared  that  the 
steamboat  of  defendants,  when  going 
through  an  inland  passage  to  Charleston, 
grounded  from  the  reflux  of  the  tide,  and, 
in  consequence  of  which,  she  fell  over 
and  bilge  water  rose  in  the  cabin  and  in- 
jured a  box  of  books  belonging  to  plain- 
tiff. It  w^as  held,  that  defendants,  as 
common  carriers,  were  liable  for  the  loss 
so  occasioned. 

Unusually  low  tide — Vessel  pierced  by 
timber  projecting  from  wharf. —  In  New 
Brunswick,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tiers,  24  N.  J. 
L.  697,  64  Am.  Dec.  394,  it  is  held  that 
the  fact  that  a  severe  storm  produced  an 
unusually  low  tide,  and  thereby  caused  the 
carrier's  barge  to  strike  against  a  timber 
projecting  from  the  wharf  so  low  as  in 
ordinary  tides  to  l)e  no  cause  of  injury, 
will  not  excuse  the  carrier  for  the  loss 
of  the  goods  caused  by  the  timber  pierc- 
ing the  vessel. 

Rain. — In  Klauber  z\  American  Exp. 
Co..  21  Wis.  21,  91  Am.  Dec.  452,  it  is 
held,  that  against  all  ordinary  occurrences 
of  rain,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  provide; 
and  if  it  does  not,  and  damage  ensues  to 
the  goods,  it  must  bear  the  loss.  .\nd  see 
Philleo  V.  Sanford,  17  Tex.  227.  67  Am. 
Dec.  654. 

3.  Transportation  undertaken  with 
knowledge  of  flood. — Adams  \'.\p.  Co.  v. 
Jackson.  92  Tenn.  :;:.'r..  21   S.  W.  iii'ii>. 

4.  Duty  in  constructing  roadbeds. — Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Davidson.  60  S.  W. 
278.  25  Tex.  Civ.  App.  134.  See  Inter- 
national, etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Halloren.  53  Tex. 
46.  37  Am.  Rep.  744. 

Rain    overflowing    the    road    bed    of    a 


§§  993-994 


CARRIERS. 


746 


dinarv  floods  unknown  to  common  experience,  and  which  could  not  have  been 
reasonably  anticipated  in  the  construction  of  the  road."'  A  carrier  is  not  bound 
to  provide  against  an  unprecedented  emergency,  such  as  a  greater  flood  than  was 
ever  known  before  in  that  locality,  unless  it  has  reason  to  suspect  that  such 
emergencv  is  about  to  arise.''  And  it  is  not  required  to  procure  cars  of  sufficient 
strength  to  withstand  a  storm  which  it  can  not  reasonal)ly  anticipate  as  likely 
to  occur." 

§  994.  Duty  to  Prevent  Act  of  God  from  Causing  Injury. — A  carrier 
must  use  reasonable  care  and  diligence  to  jjrotect  freight  from  loss  or  danger 
even  from  a  cause  against  which  it  is  not  an  insurer,  such  as  the  act  of  God,  and 
if  it  fails  to  do  so  and  loss  results  therefrom,  it  is  lialjle."^     It  is  generally  held 


railroad  and  washing  away  a  part  of  its 
embankment  from  under  the  cross  ties 
can  not  l)e  considered  an  act  of  God  in 
such  sense  as  to  relieve  the  railroad  from 
liability  for  not  furnishing  sufficient 
drainage  to  properly  carry  away  die  rain, 
unless  it  was  so  far  outside  the  range  of 
ordinary  human  experience  that  the  duty 
of  exercising  reasonable  care  did  not  re- 
quire the  railroad  to  anticipate  and  pro- 
vide against  it.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 
Boyce.^39  Tex.  Civ.  App.  195,  87  S.  W. 
395,  affirmed  in   100  Tex.  639,   no  op. 

5.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall- 
oren,   53   Tex.    46,   37   Am.    Rep.    744. 

The  railroad  company  in  constructing 
its  roadbed  need  not  take  into  account 
the  history  of  previous  floods  within  the 
memory  of  living  men,  as  due  care  may 
be  shown  in  locating  the  road,  though 
information  from  the  inhabitants  was  not 
sought  after.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Bland  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  34  S.  W.  675. 

6.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  King,  53 
Tenn.    (6   Heisk.)    269. 

Extraordinary  floods,  that  may  reason- 
ably be  anticipated,  must  be  guarded 
against,  without  reference  to  the  infre- 
guency  of  their  occurrence.  The  fact  that 
floods  not  provided  for  have  occurred 
only  at  long  intervals  constitutes  no  de- 
fense. Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pomeroy,  67 
Tex.  498.  3  S.  W.  722;  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Madden,  etc.,  Co.,  46  lex.  Civ. 
App.  597,  103  S.  W.  1193,  affirmed  in  102 
Tex.  578,  no  op. 

7.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Texas  Star  Flour 
Mill  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  143  S.  W.  1179. 

8.  Duty  to  prevent  act  of  God  from 
doing  injury. — I'lntcd'  States. — Holladay 
z:  Kenard,  12  Wall.  254,  20  L.  Ed.  390; 
Pearce  v.  Newton,  41  Fed.  106;  Strouss 
V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Fed.  209;  The 
Aline.  19  Fed.  875;  The  M.  M.  Chase, 
37  Fed.  708;  Southern  Pac.  Co.  v.  Schoer, 
52  C.  C.  A.  ^68,  57  L.  R.  A.  707,  114  Fed. 
466,  3  R.  R.  R.  254,  26  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.,  N.  S.,  254. 

Alabama. — Smith  v.  Western  Railway, 
91  Ala.  455,  8  So.  754,  24  Am.  St.  Rep.  929, 
11  L.  R.  A.  619. 

Connecticut. —  Peck  v.  Weeks,  34  Conn. 
145. 


Georgia. — Wallace  v.  Clayton,  42  Ga. 
443. 

IHiitois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  7>. 
Adams.  42  111.  474,  92  Am.  Dec.  85;  Wald 
z'.  Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.,  162  111.  545,  44 
N.  E.  888.^35  L.  R.  A.  356,  53  Am.  St. 
Rep.   332. 

Indiana. — Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Heath.  29  Ind.  App.  47,  53  N.  E.  198;  Cin- 
cinnati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  103  Ky. 
705,  46  S.  W.  11. 

Missouri.— Clark  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  39 
Mo.  184.  90  Am.  Dec.  458;  Dav's  z'.  Wa- 
bash, etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Mo.  340,  1  S.  W.  327; 
Ellet  z:  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  Mo.  518, 
12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  183;  Hill  v.  Stur- 
geon, 28  Mo.  323;  Read  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,  60   Mo.   199. 

Nebraska. — Black  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Neb.  197,  46  N.  W.  428;  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co  v.  Manning,  23  Neb.  552.  37 
N.  W.  462;  Sunderland  Bros.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Neb.  660,  131  N.  W. 
1047;  Wabash  R.  Co.  v.  Sharpe,  76  Neb. 
424,  107  N.  W.  758.  124  Am.  St.  Rep. 
823. 

Pennsylvania. — Morrison  z\  McFadden 
(Pa.),  5  Clark  23,  3  Am.  L.  J.,  N.  S., 
462. 

South  Carolina. — Charleston,  etc..  Steam- 
boat Co.  V.  Bason,  Harp.  262;  Ewart  v. 
Street,  2  Bailey  157,  23  Am.  Dec.   131. 

Tennessee. — Lamont  &  Co.  v.  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.)   58. 

rr.ra.y.— Philleo  v.  Sanford,  17  Tex. 
227,  67  .\m.  Dec.  654;  St.  Louis,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Bland  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  34  S. 
W.    675. 

Under  the  Carmack  amendment  (Act 
June  29,  1906,  c.  .1591,  §  7,  34  Stat.  593  [U. 
S.  Comp.  St.  Supp.  1911,  p.  1307] )  to  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Act  (Act  Feb.  4, 
1887,  c.  104,  §  20,  24  Stat.  386'  [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  1901,  p.  31691),  a  carrier  is  not 
excused  from  liability  for  destruction  of 
goods  by  flood  unless  he  shows  some  ac- 
tivity in  protecting  them  as  necessity 
arises.  National  Rice  Mill  Co.  v.  New 
Orleans;  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  So.  708,  132  La. 
615. 

Inaccuracy  in  a  weather  bureau's  fore- 
cast held  no  detense,  where  the  carrier 
showed  no  reasonable  activity  to  protect 
the    shipment   after   being   warned    of  the 


747 


LOSS    OR    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§  994 


that  the  carrier  is  not  re(|uired  to  exercise  the  hi^jhest  diligence  but  only  such 
care  as  an  ordinarily  prudent  person  or  carrier  would  use  under  like  circum- 
stances." J  kit  in  some  jurisdictions,  the  carrier  must  exercise  extraordinary 
diligence.'"  It  is  held  that  where  an  un])recedented  Hood  is  threatened  as  the 
result  of  a  general  storm,  it  is  ilic  carrier  s  duty  to  exercise  unusual  care  to  see 
that  a  car  loaded  with  lime,  likely  to  become  ignited  by  water,  be  kept  removed 
a  safe  distance  from  the  cars  loaded  with  rice."     As  to  goods  which  arrive  too 


impfiidiii^'^  tlnod.  Xatiuiial  Rice  Mill.  Co. 
V.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  K.  Co.,  (Jl  So.  708, 
133   La.   Cl.-,. 

Where  the  only  means  of  protection 
was  by  occupying  the  track  of  another 
road.  It  can  not  Ik-  said  lliat  a  railroail 
conii)aiiy  i.s  j.(uilty  of  ne^liKcncc  as  a  mat- 
ter of  law  in  failinj?  to  protect  freight  in 
its  yards  afj;ainst  an  unusual  and  extra- 
ordinary flood.  Wallace  v.  Clayton,  42 
Ga.  44;5. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  against 
steanil)oat  owners  for  the  loss  of  goods, 
it  appeared  that  on  the  voyage  a  storm 
arose  which  caused  the  boat  to  lay  to, 
and,  while  thus  laying  to,  it  took  in  water, 
and  was  in  a  sinking  condition.  Held, 
that  if  the  loss  was  caused  by  the  sink- 
ing of  the  boat,  and  that  could  have  been 
prevented  by  prudence  and  skill  on  the 
part  of  the  officers  of  the  boat,  the  owners 
were  liable.  Sprowl  v.  Kellar  (Ala.),  4 
Stew.  &  P.  382. 

A  carrier  failed  to  deliver  promptly  cer- 
tain fruit  trees,  because  of  high  water, 
rendering  a  part  of  its  line  impassable, 
whereby  the  trees  were,  when  received, 
dead,  l)ut  did  not  show  that  it  could  not 
have  sent  them  over  another  line.  Held, 
that  the  loss  was  not  occasioned  by  the 
act  of  God.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Manning,  23  Neb.  552,  37  N.  W.  462. 

A  carrier  is  responsible  for  injuries  to 
perishable  goods  (potatoes)  by  cold, 
where  due  care  in  view  of  all  the  circum- 
stances was  not  taken  to  protect  them. 
Wing  T.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
1    Hilt.   23.). 

Where  the  grounding  of  a  boat  while 
waiting  for  the  tide  was  unavoidable,  but 
resulting  injury  to  cargo,  by  the  heeling 
of  the  boat,  might  have  been  avoided  by 
selecting  a  level  bottom  for  grounding, 
or  by  removing  goods  after  that  accident 
occurred,  the  carrier  is  liable.  Charleston, 
etc.,  Steamboat  Co.  v.  Bason  (S.  C), 
Harp.  2t)2. 

Defendant  undertook  to  transport 
plaintiff's  cotton,  l)ut,  owing  to  the  de- 
struction of  a  bridge  by  an  unusual  flood, 
the  cotton  was  delayed,  during  which  time 
it  was  injured  and  depreciated  in  weight 
by  the  bursting  of  the  bagging,  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  handled.  Held, 
that  defendant  was  liable  for  the  damage. 
Lipford  V.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (S.  C), 
7  Rich.  L.  400. 

That  the  roadbed  of  a  railroad  company 
was  damaged  by  an  unprecedented  flood, 
necessitating  the  shipment  of  goods  by  a 
more    circuitous    route,    does    not    relieve 


th  •  carrier  from  liaijility  for  the  damages 
caused  thereby,  where,  by  the  exercise 
of  reasonable  care,  it  could  have  guarded 
against  the  effect  of  the  floods.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Bland  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  34 
S.  W.  (575. 

A  steamship  brought  a  consignment  of 
oranges  to  New  York,  where  she  arrived 
on  December  2<>th.  The  weather  was  so 
cold  as  to  render  it  impossible  to  land 
oranges  without  freezing  them,  and  con- 
tinued below  zero  for  several  days.  The 
oranges  were  landed  in  spite  of  the  con- 
signee's objection,  and  their  value  was 
tor  the  most  part  destroyed.  Held,  that 
tlie  act  which  destroyed  the  cargo  was 
not  the  "act  of  God,"  but  of  man,  in  dis- 
charging the  oranges  at  an  unsuitable 
time.     The  Aline,  19  Fed.  875. 

9.  Care  of  ordinarily  prudent  person  or 
carrier. — Railroad   Co.  v.    Reeves    (  L'.    S.). 

10  Wall.  176,  19  L.  Ed.  909;  Black  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Neb.  197,  46  N.  W. 
428;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  David,  53 
Tenn.  (6  Heisk.)  261,  19  Am.  Rep.  594; 
Lamont  &  Co.  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
56  Tenn.   (9  Heisk.)  58. 

In  circumstances  of  danger,  the  law- 
requires  of  a  carrier  ordinary  care,  skill, 
and  foresight  in  attempting  to  escape; 
and,  in  great  danger,  great  care  is  the 
ordinary  care  of  prudent  men.  Morrison 
V.  McFadden  (Pa.),  5  Clark  23,  3  Am. 
L.  J.,  N.  S.,  462. 

In  case  of  emergency,  or  when  property 
confided  to  his  care  is  placed  in  jeopardy 
by  some  vis  major,  the  carrier  is  bound 
to  use  actively  and  energetically  all  the 
means  of  his  command,  that  he  might, 
reasonably,  be  expected  to  possess, 
to  meet  the  emergency  and  save  the 
property.  Lamont  &  Co.  v.  Nashville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tjnn.   (9  Heisk.)   58. 

In  order  to  charge  a  common  carrier 
with  goods  lost  in  an  unprecedented 
storm,  plaintiff  must  sliow  that  by  ordi- 
nary prudence  it  could  have  protected 
the  goods  after  becoming  aware  of  the 
impending  danger.  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Bergman  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  64  S. 
W^   999. 

10.  Georgia.— Q'w.  Code,  §  2066.  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  White,  88  Ga.  805, 
15  S.  E.  S02. 

Louisiana. — Blocker  r.  Whittenliurg,  12 
La.  Ann.  410.     See  Watts  &  Co.  f.  Saxon, 

11  La.  Ann.  43. 

11.  National  Rice  Mill.  Co.  f.  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  La.  615,  61  So. 
708. 


§§  994-995 


CARRIERS. 


748 


late  to  admit  of  giving  the  usual  notice  to  the  consignee  before  a  flood  occurs, 
the  carrier  is  bound  to  the  exercise  of  extraordinary  diligence  in  protecting  them 
from  damage;  but  if  they  are  .damaged  in  spite  of  such  diligence,  the  carrier  will 
be  excused.^-  It  is  held,  that  a  common  carrier,  upon  our  western  waters,  is  not 
responsible  for  not  drying  merchandise  which  has  been  wet  and  damaged  by  in- 
evitable accident.^"' 

§§  995-997.  Act  of  Public  Enemy— §  995.  In  General.— A  carrier  is 
not  an  insurer  against  loss  of  or  damage  to  freight  occasioned  by  acts  of  the 
public  enemy,  and  if  the  carrier  has  exercised  due  diligence  it  is  not  liable  for 
losses  so  caused.^"*     In  order  that  the  carrier  may  avail  itself  of  the  rule  that  it 


12.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White, 
88   Ga.  805,   15   S.   E.   802. 

13.  Steamboat  Lynx  v.  King,  12  Mo. 
272.  49  Am.  Dec.   135. 

14.  Act  of  public  enemy  relieves  car- 
rier.— l')iitcd  States.— HoWaday  v.  Ken- 
nard.  12  Wall.  254.  20  L.  Ed.  390;  Rail- 
road Co.  V.  Reeves,  10  Wall.  176,  19  L. 
Ed.  909;  Primrose  v.  Western  Lnion  Tel. 
Co.,  154  U.  S.  1,  38  L.  Ed.  883.  14  S.  Ct. 
1098:  Niagara  v.  Cordes,  21  How.  7,  16 
L.  Ed.  41;  York  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co., 
3  Wall.  107,  18  L.  Ed.  170;  Railroad  Co. 
z'.  Varnell,  98  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  Ed.  233; 
The  Delaware.  14  Wall.  579,  20  L.  Ed. 
779;  Clark  v.  Barnwell,  12  How.  272,  13 
L.   Ed.   985. 

Alabama. — Jones  v.  Pitcher  &  Co.,  3 
Stew.  &  P.  135,  2  Am.  Dec.  716;  Knox  c. 
Rives,  etc.,  Co.,  14  Ala.  249,  48  Am.  Dec. 
97;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowherd, 
120  Ala.  51,  23  So.  793;  Selnia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Butts.  43  Ala.  385,  94  Am.  Dec.  695; 
South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henlein,  52  Ala.  606, 
23  Am.  Rep.  578;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  41  Am.  Rep.  749,  9 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  419;  Southern  R.  Co. 
V.  Levy,  144  Ala.  614,  39  So.  95,  17  R.  R. 
R.  50,  40  Am.  &  Eng.   R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  50. 

Arkansas. — Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Barnett,  69  .-Krk.  150,  61  S.  W.  919;  Little 
Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Talbot,  47  Ark.  97, 
14  S.  W.  471;  Packard  v.  Taylor,  etc., 
Co.,  35  Ark.  402,  37  Am.  Rep.  37;  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  Railway  v.  Lesser,  46  Ark.  236. 

California. — Agnew  V.  Steamer  Contra 
Costa,  27  Cal.  425,  87  Am.  Dec.  87;  Bohan- 
na.i  V.  Hammond,  42  Cal.  227;  Hooper  v. 
Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  27  Cal.  n,  85  Am. 
Dec.  211;  Jackson  v.  Sacramento  Val.  R. 
Co.,  23  Cal.  268;  Scammon  v.  Wells  Fargo 
&  Co.,  84  Cal.  311,  24  Pac.  284. 

Connecticut. — Clark  v.  Richards,  1 
Conn.  54;  Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam-Nav. 
Co.,  15  Conn.  539,  39  Am.  Dec.  :i98;  Wil- 
liams V.  Grant,  1  Conn.  487,  7  .\m.  Dec. 
235. 

Delazvare. — Klair  v.  Wilmington  Steam- 
boat Co.,  4  Pen.  51,  7  R.  R.  R.  821,  30 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  821.  54  Atl. 
694;  Pennewill  v.  Cullen,  5  Har.  238;  Reed 
V.  Wilmington  Steamboat  Co.,  1  Marv. 
193,  40  .\tl.  955,  1  Hardesty  127;  Trau.x 
V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst. 
233. 

Georgia. — Central,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Lipp- 


man,  110  Ga.  665,  36  S.  E.  202,  50  L.  R.  A. 
673;  Cooper  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 
Ga.  659,  36  S.  E.  240,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas..  N.  S.,  412;  Dibble  v.  Brown,  12  Ga. 
217,  56  Am.  Dec.  460;  Fish  v.  Chapman,  2 
Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Dec.  393;  Georgia  R.  Co. 
V.  Beatie.  66  Ga.  438,  42  Am.  Rep.  75; 
Georgia  R.  Co.  v.  Spears,  66  Ga.  485,  42 
Am.  Rep.  81;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Newby,  36  Ga.  635,  91  Am.  Dec.  783; 
Ohlen  V.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ga.  App. 
323,  58  S.  E.  511  ;  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wilcox,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Ga.  432;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warfield,  129  Ga.  473, 
59  S.  E.  234;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802;  Forrester 
V.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Ga.  699,  19 
S.  E.  811;  Brunswick,  etc.,  R.'  Co.  v. 
Smith,   97    Ga.    777,   25    S.    E.    759. 

Illinois. — Gulliver  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
38  111.  503;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clellan,  54  III.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Mer- 
chants' Despatch  Transp.  Co.  v.  Kahn.  76 
111.  520;  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  United 
States,  etc.,  Co.,  136  111.  643,  27  N.  E. 
59,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  348;  Porter  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407,  71  Am. 
Dec.  286;  United  States  Express  Co.  v. 
Hutchins,  67  111.  348;  Woods  r.  Devin, 
13  111.  746,  56  Am.  Dec.  483:  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Frankenberg,  54  111.  88, 
5  Am.  Rep.  92;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
People,  56  111.  365,  8  Am.  Rep.  690; 
Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cnicago,  89  N. 
E.  1022,  242  111.  178,  44  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
358. 

Indiana.— Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yohe,  51 
Ind.  181,  19  Am.  Rep.  727;  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hollowell,  65  Ind.  188.  32  Am. 
Rep.  63;  Powers  v.  Davenport,  7  Blackf. 
497,  43  Am.  Dec.  10'^;  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Tapp,  6  Ind.  App.  304,  33  N.  E. 
462;  Walpole  v.  Bridges,  5  Blackf.  222; 
Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry,  170  Ind. 
94,  83  N.  E.  710,  reversing  80  X.  E.  636; 
Reid  V.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  N.  E. 
703,  10  Ind.  App.  385,  53  Am.  St.  Rep. 
391;  Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co..  25 
Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec.  367. 

Iowa. — Cownie  Glove  Co.  v.  Merchants' 
Dispatch  Transp.  Co.,  106  N.  W.  749,  130 
Iowa  327,  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  419,  4  L.  R.  A., 
N.  S.,  1060;  Swiney  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  115  N.  W.  212. 

Kansas. — Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nichols, 
etc.,    Co.,   9    Kan.    235,    12    Am.    Rep.    494; 


749 


LOSS    OR    IXJUKV    TO    GOODS. 


§  995 


is  exempt  from  lialiility  for  injuries  resultinj^  from  the  act  of  the  public  enemy, 


Watkins     Mcrcliaiulise     Co.     v.     Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  8a  Kan.  :{08,  108  Pac.  llfi. 

Kentucky. — Hall  &  Co.  v.  Renfro,  3 
Mete.  51;  Chestipcake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hall,  l.iC.  Ky.  37'.),  124  vS.  W.  372;  Lewis 
V.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  135  Ky.  361, 
122  S.  W.  184,  25  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  938,  21 
Am.  &  Hnjr.  Ann.  Cas.  527;  Farley  v. 
Lavary,  54  S.  W.  840,  107  Ky.  523,  21 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1252.  47  L.  R.  A.  383;  Stiles 
V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  S.  W.  820,  33 
Ky.   L.   Rep.  ()25. 

Louisiana. — McCraiiie  z'.  Wood,  24  La. 
Ann.  4()();  Thomas  v.  Morning  Glory,  13 
La.  Ann.  209,  71  Am.  Dec.  509. 

Maim-. — Emery  v.  Hersey.  4  Grecnl. 
407.  If)  Am.  Dec.  2(58;  Parker  v.  FlagR. 
2G  Me.  181.  45  Am.  Dec.  101;  Sager  v. 
Portsmouth,  etc..  R.  Co.,  31  Me.  228,  50 
Am.  Dec.  ()59;  Wood  v.  Maine  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  98  Me.  98,  50  Atl.  457,  9  R.  R.  R.  721, 
32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  721,  99 
Am.  St.   Rep.  339. 

Marvlaud. — Boyle  v.  McLaughlin,  4 
Har.  &  J.  291;  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Harper,  29   Md.  330. 

Massachusetts. — Evans  v.  Fitchburg  R. 
Co..  Ill  Mass.  142,  15  Am.  Rep.  19;  Gage 
V.  Tirrell.  9  Allen  299;  Hastings  v. 
Pepper.  11  Pick.  41;  Smith  v.  New  Haven, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  12  Allen  531. 

.1/i(7n><7;;.— Black  v.  Ashley.  44  N.  W. 
1120,  80  Mich.  90. 

Minnesota. — Christenson  v.  American 
Exp.  Co..  15  Minn.  270,  Gil.  208.  2  Am. 
Rep.  122. 

Mississif^pi. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bigger,  ()f5  Miss.  319.  (5  So.  234;  Mobile. 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Weiner.  49  Miss.  725;  Pow- 
ell V.  Mills.  30  Miss.  231,  64  Am.  Dec. 
158. 

Missouri. — Austin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
Packet  Co..  15  Mo.  App.  197;  Clark  v. 
Pacific  R.  Co..  39  Mo.  184,  90  Am.  Dec. 
458;  Duggett  r.  Shaw.  3  Mo.  264,  25  Am. 
Dec.  439;  Davis  r.  Wabash,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
89  Mo.  340.  1  S.  W.  327;  Read  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co..  60  Mo.  199;  Steamboat  Lynx 
V.  King.  12  Mo.  27.  49  Am.  Dec.  135; 
Wolf  V.  American  Exp.  Co..  43  Mo.  421, 
97  Am.  Dec.  406;  Merritt  Creamery  Co. 
V.  Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.,  128  Mo.  App. 
420.    107    S.    W.    462. 

A'ebraslca. — Ringwalt  v.  Wabash  R.  Co., 
45  Neb.  760,  64  N.  W.  219;  Wabash  R. 
Co.  V.  Sharpe.  76  Neb.  424.  107  N.  W.  758, 
124  Am.  St.  Rep.  823;  Sunderland  Bros. 
Co.  i:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89  Neb.  m\ 
131   N.   W.   1047. 

Xezv  Hampshire. — Moses  z\  Norris,  4 
N.  H.  304. 

Nezi'  .Jersey. — Mershon  v.  Hobensack, 
22  N.  J.  L.  372;  New  Brunswick,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Tiers,  24  N.  J.  L.  697,  64  Am.  Dec. 
394. 

Nezi'  York. — Adams  r.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat    Co.,   151    X.   Y.   163,   45   N.   E. 


■  Ut'.i,  .(4  L.  R.  A.  682,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  616; 
Allen  V.  Sewall,  2  Wend.  327;  Camden, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belknap,  21  Wend.  354; 
Cragin  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  51 
N.  Y.  61,  10  Am.  Rep.  559;  Heincman  7-. 
Cjrand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  31  How.  Prac.  430, 
1  Sheld.  95;  HoUister  r.  Xowlen,  19 
Wend.  234.  32  Am.  Dec.  .455;  Howe  v. 
Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Barb.  121;  Mc- 
Arthur  v.  Sears,  21  Wend.  190;  Mallory 
r.  Tioga  R.  Co., .39  Bar)).  488;  Merritt  r. 
F.arle.  31  Barb.  38,  affirmed  in  29  N.  Y. 
115,86  Am.  Dec.  292;  Miller  t.  Steam  Nav. 
Co..  10  N.  Y.  431.  Seld.  Notes  64;  Read 
V.  Spaulding,  30  N.  Y.  630,  86  .-Km.  Dec. 
426,  affirming  18  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  395; 
Rol)inson  7-.  Cornish,  13  N.  Y.  S.  577.  34 
N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  695;  Sherman  v.  Wells.  28 
Barb.  403;  Spaids  z'.  New  York  Mail 
Steamship  Co..  3  Daly  139;  Waldron  v. 
Fargo.  170  N.  Y.  130.  62  N.  K.  1077; 
Colt  V.  McMechen,  6  Johns.  160,  5  Am. 
Dec.   200. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Harrell  v.  Owens.  18 
N.  C.  273;  Patteison  7'.  North  Carolina 
R.  Co..  64  N.  C.  147;  Thomas  7'.  Southern 
R.  Co.,  131  N.  C.  590.  42  S.  E.  543.  6  R. 
.R.  R.  860,  29  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
860. 

North  Dakota. — Duncan  7-.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  17  N.  Dak.  610,  118  N.  W.  826, 
19  L.   R.  A..   N.   S..  952. 

Ohio. — Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Aml)ach. 
10  O.  C.  C.  490.  6  O.  C.  D.  574.  affirmed  in 
57  O.  St.  38.  47  N.  E.  1039;  Welsh  7'.  Pitts- 
burg, etc..  R.  Co.,  10  O.  St.  65,  75  Am. 
Dec.  490;  Railroad  Co.  v.  O'Donnell,  49 
O.  St.  489.  32  N.  E.  476.  503;  Bowman  v. 
Hilton,  11  O.  303;  Canal  Boat  Montgom- 
ery 7'.  Kent.  20  O.  54;  Transfer  Co.  v. 
Kelly,  36  O.  St.  86,  38  Am.  Rep.  558; 
Pittsl)urgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett,  36  O. 
St.  448;  Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  O.  St.  131. 

Oregon. — Oakes  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  20  Ore.  392.  26  Pac.  230.  12  L.  R.  A. 
318,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  126;  Lacey  v.  Oregon 
R..  etc.,   Co.    (Ore.),   128   Pac.  999. 

Petinsvlz'ania. — Beckham  7'.  Shouse.  5 
Rawle  179.  28  .\m.  Dec.  653:  Eagle  z: 
White,  6  Whart.  505,  37  Am.  Dec.  434; 
Harrington  v.  M'Shane.  2  Watts  443.  27 
Am.  Dec.  321;  Hart  7'.  Allen.  2  Watts  114; 
Hays  V.  Kennedy,  41  Pa.  378.  80  Am.  Dec. 
627;  Verner  7'.  Sweitzer.  32  Pa.  20S;  Wil- 
lock  7'.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  166  Pa.  184, 
30  Atl.  948.  27  L.  R.  A.  228.  45  Am.  St. 
Rep.    674. 

Rhode  Island.— Unhb^rd  &  Co.  7'.  Harn- 
dcn   Exp.  Co..  10  R.  L  244. 

South  Carolina. — Campbell  7'.  Morse, 
Harp.  468;  Charleston,  etc..  Steamboat 
Co.  7'.  Bason,  Harp.  262;  Harrington  7-. 
Lyles,  2  Nott  &  McC.  88;  McCall  v. 
Brock.  5  Strob.  119;  Porcher  7-.  North- 
eastern R.  Co..  14  Rich.  L.  181;  Slater  v. 
South  Carolina  R.  Co..  29  S.  C.  96.  6  S. 
E.  936;  Smvrl  z:  Niolon,  2  Bailev  421,  23 


§  99i 


CARRIERS. 


750 


it  must  be  free  from  fault  at  the  time.^*^  A  common  carrier  is  liable  if  it  negli- 
gently exposes  freight  to  capture  by  a  public  enemy,  in  consequence  of  which  it 
is  captured  or  destroyed.^*'' 

Who  Are  Public  Enemies. — The  term  "public  enemy"  is  understood  to  ap- 
ply to  foreign  nations,  with  whom  there  is  open  war,^"  and  to  pirates,  who  are 


Am.  Dec.  14(5:  Ewart  r.  Street  (S.  C),  2 
Bailej-  157.  23  Am.  Dec.  131. 

Tennessee. — Jones  v.  Walker,  13  Tenn. 
(5  Yerg.)  427;  Lewis  &  Co.  r.  Ludwick, 
46  Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  368,  98  Am.  Dec.  454; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  T'.  Katzenberg,  84 
Tenn.  (16  Lea)  380,  1  S.  W.  44,  57  Am. 
Rep.  232;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lillie, 
112  Tenn.  331.  78  S.  W.  1055,  105  Am. 
St.  Rep.  947;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stone.  112  Tenn.  348,  79  S.  W.  1031,  105 
Am.  St.  Rep.  955;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Glenn.  84  Tenn.  (16  Lea)  472.  1  S.  W. 
102;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Womack,  48 
Tenn.  (1  Heisk.)  256;  Turney  z'.  Wilson, 
15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  340,  27  Am.  Dec.  515; 
Watson  V.  Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn. 
(9  Heisk.)  255;  Adams  Exp.  Co  v.  Jack- 
son, 92  Tenn.  326,  21  S.  W.  666;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  320, 
14  S.  W.  311;  Lamont  &  Co.  v.  Nashville, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk.)  58;  Nash- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson.  53  Tenn. 
(6  Heisk.)  271  Craig  v.  Childress,  7  Tenn. 
(Peck)    270,   14   Am.   Dec.   751. 

Texas. — Arnold  v.  Jones,  26  Tex.  335, 
82  Am.  Dec.  617;  Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2 
Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Levi  (Tex.),  12  S.  W.  677;  Interna- 
tional, etc..  R.  Co.  z'.  Bergman  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  64  S.  W.  999;  Houston,  etc.,  Nav. 
Co.  v.  Dwyer,  29  Tex.  376;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Roberts  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W. 
479;  Abbott  Gin  Co.  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  Tex.  Civ.  App.  263,  122  S.  W.  284; 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wentworth, 
8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  5,  27  S.  W.  680;  Texas 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter  &  Co.,  47  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  190,  193,  104  S.  W.  1075;  Al- 
bright V.  Penn,  14  Tex.  290;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.^  V.  Trawick,  68  Tex.  314,  4  S.  W.  567. 

Virginia. — Herring  v.  Chesapeake,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  101  Va.  778,  45  S.  E.  322,  9  R.  R. 
R.  262.  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  262; 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves,  97  Va.  284, 
33  S.  E.  606;  Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Staton, 
17  Va.  (3  Munf.)  239;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Beasley,  etc.,  Co.,  52  S.  E.  566,  104 
Va.  788,  3  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  183. 

West  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293;  McGraw  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361,  41 
Am.  Rep.  696.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188; 
Maslin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  14  W. 
Va.  ISO,  35  Am.  Rep.  748;  Hutchinson  v. 
United  States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59 
S.  E.  949,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  393. 

Wisconsin. — Klauber  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  21  Wis.  21,  91  Am.  Dec.  452. 

Wyoming. — Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blyth,    19    Wyo.    410,    118    Pac.    649,    Ann. 


Cas.  1913E,  288,  rehearing  deViied  119 
Pac.   875. 

England. — Coggs  v.  Bernard.  2  Ld. 
Raym.  (Eng.)  909;  Forward  v.  Pittard,  1 
D.  &  E.   (Eng.)   27. 

A  contract  to  deliver  goods  at  the 
"point  proposed"  is  subject  to  the  com- 
mon-law qualification  of  losses  occasioned 
by  the  act  of  the  public  enemy.  Neal  v. 
Saunderson  (Miss.),  2  Smedes  &  M.  572, 
41    Am.  Dec.  609. 

A  bill  of  lading  stipulating  that  the 
goods  shall  be  delivered  (the  dangers  of 
tlie  seas  only  excepted),  without  addi- 
tional compensation,  does  not  enlarge  the 
carrier's  liability  so  as  to  render  it  liable 
for  a  loss  arising  froin  the  act  of  a  public 
enemv.  Gage  v.  Tirrell  (Mass.),  9  Allen 
299. 

15.  Carrier  must  be  free  from  fault. — 
Dunson  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.),   3   Lans.   265. 

16.  Caldwell  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    2,;303,   1    Flip.   S5. 

Goods  delaying  one  day. — A  railroad 
company  received  goods  for  transporta- 
tion which  were  placed  on  cars,  and  hav- 
ing gone  a  part  of  the  distance,  the  cars 
containing  the  goods  were  detached  from 
the  train,  and  other  cars  taken  up  in  their 
place,  which  train  arrived  safely  at  its 
destination.  The  cars  left  behind  were 
taken  on  the  train  of  the  following  day, 
and,  while  on  the  way,  the  train  was  cap- 
tured and  burnt  by  the  pul^lic  enemy. 
Held,  that  the  railroad  company  was  not 
liable.  Clark  v.  Pacific  R.  Co.,  39  Mo.  184, 
90  Am.   Dec.  458. 

17.  Who  are  public  enemies. — Foreign 
nations  at  open  war. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Levi  (Tex.),  12  S.  W.  677;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Womack,  48  Tenn.  (1  Heisk.)  256; 
Lewis  &  Co.  V.  Ludwick,  46  Tenn.  (6 
Coldw.)   36S,  9S  Am.   Dec.   4r)4. 

Confederate  soldiers  on  Kentucky  soil 
were  held  public  enemies  in  Bland  v.  Ad- 
ams Exp.  Co.  (Ky.),  1  Duv.  232,  85  Am. 
Dec.  623;  Frank  v.  Keith  (Ky.),  2  Bush 
12.3. 

Army  or  government  of  Confederate 
States  within  own  territory. — The  destruc- 
tion of  the  property  Ijy  the  confederate 
army  can  not  be  set  up  by  a  common  car- 
rier in  Tennessee  as  an  act  of  the  "public 
enemy."  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estes, 
54  Tenn.  (7  Heisk.)  622,  24  Am.  Rep.  289. 
See  S.  C,  78  Tenn.  (10  Lea)  749.  Com- 
pare Lewis  &  Co.  c'.  Ludwick,  46  Tenn. 
(6   Coldw.)    368,   98   Am.    Dec.   454. 

And  in  Patterson  v.  North  Carolina  R. 
Co.,  64  N.  C.  147,  it  is  held,  that  the  des- 
truction  of  property,   under   tlie   authority 


751 


LOSS    OR     IX  JURY    TO    GOODS. 


§§  995-996 


considered   at   war   with   all   mankind,''^   but:  not   to  thieves  and  roLbers,^^  or  to 
strikers,   rioters,   nu^bs   and   insurrectionists.^" 

Duties  of  Carrier.— W  hen  goods  are  threatened  to  be  destroyed  or  seized 
by  a  public  enemy,  the  carrier  is  bound  to  use  due  diligence  to  prevent  such  de- 
struction or  seizure,-'  and  orcUnary  negligence  in  this  respect  will  render  it 
liable.--  When  property  is  removed  from  a  car  by  public  enemies,  it  is  incum- 
bent upon  the  carrier  to  care  for  the  property  and  if  it  fails  to  do  so  in  such 
reasonable  manner  as  is  necessary  and  practicable  under  all  the  circumstances, 
and  the  property  is  lost,  the  carrier  will  be  held  liable.-'^ 

§  996.  Thieves  and  Robbers. — The  liability  of  a  carrier  as  an  insurer  of 
goods  carried  extends  lo  l()s>cs  caused  by  the  acts  of  thieves  or  robbers,  such 
persons  not  being  within  tlie  lerni  "public  enemies."--*     The  reason  of  the  rule 


of  the  Confederate  States,  in  1862,  can  not 
be  claimed  as  the  act  of  a  public  enemy, 
by  a  railroad  company  situated  within  tiie 
limits   of   that   government   and   authority. 

But  in  Hubbard  &  Co.  v.  Harnden  Exp. 
Co.,  10  R.  I.  244,  where  certain  goods  sent 
by  express  were  seized  about  the  last  of 
April,  ISOl,  by  an  officer  of  the  Confeder- 
ate government  at  Savannah,  Ga.,  and 
placed  in  a  bonded  warehouse,  and  sub- 
sequently sold  for  nonpayment  of  duties 
levied  on  thorn,  after  the  consignee  had 
been  notified  that  they  would  be  sold  un- 
less he  paid  the  duties,  it  was  held,  that 
the  express  company  had  been  deprived 
of  the  goods  by  the  acts  of  the  pul^lic  ene- 
mies, and  was,  therefore,  not  liable  for 
their  value. 

United  States  troops. — The  liability  ^f 
a  common  carrier  for  tlie  safe  delivery  of 
goods  is  not  relieved  by  showing  that 
they  were  destroyed  by  an  overwhelming 
force  of  United  States  soldiers  under 
the  command  of  an  army  officer,  this  not 
being  a  destruction  1)y  "public  enemies." 
Seligman  v.  .Vrmijo,  1   X.  Mcx.  4.")9. 

Same — Within  Confederate  lines. — ^In 
the  late  civil  war,  the  troops  of  the  United 
States  were  a  "public  enemy,"  against 
whose  act  a  common  carrier,  within  the 
Confederate  lines,  did  not  insure.  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  V.  WomacK,  48  Tenn.  (1 
Heisk.)   25C). 

18.  Pirates. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wo- 
mack,  4S  Tenn.  (1  Heisk.)  256;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Levi  (Tex.).  12  S.  W.  677;  Lewis 
&  Co.  V.  Ludwick,  46  Tenn.  (6  Coldw.) 
368,  98  Am.  Dec.  4.")4.  See  Hays  v.  Ken- 
nedy, 41   Fa.  37S,  SO  Am.  Dec.  627. 

19.  Thieves   and     robbers. — See 
"Thieves  and   Robljcrs,"  §  996. 

20.  Strikers,      rioters,     etc. — See 
"Strikers,     Rioters,     Mobs     and     Insurrec- 
tionists," §  997. 

21.  Diligence  required  of  carrier  to  pre- 
vent loss.  -Holladav  v.  Kcnnard  (U.  S.), 
12   Wall.   25 1.   20    L.    l-.d.   :i',)(i. 

22.  Ordinary  negligence  renders  car- 
rier liable. — Holladav  v.  Kennard  (U.  S.), 
12  Wall.  2.-i4.  20  L.   lul.  390. 

What  is  ordinary  negligence  depends  on 


post. 


post. 


the  character  of  the  employment.  Where 
skill  and  capacity  are  required  to  accom- 
plish an  undertaking,  it  would  be  negli- 
gence not  to  employ  persons  having  those 
qualification.  Holladay  v.  Kennard  (U. 
S.),  12  Wall.  254,  20  L.   Ed.  390. 

23.  Wallace  v.  Sanders,  42  Ga.  486. 

24.  Loss  by  thieves  and  robbers. — .-i/a- 
/)<;»/(/.— The  Belfast  v.  Boon  &  Co.,  41 
Ala.  50;  Boon  &  Co.  v.  The  Belfast,  40 
Ala.  184. 

Arkansas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Xe- 
vill.  60  Ark.  375,  30  S.  W.  425,  28  L.  R. 
A.  80,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  208. 

Indiana. — Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Holl- 
owell,  65  Ind.   188,  32  Am.  Rep.   63. 

Keiv  York. — Schieflfelin  v.  Harvey  (X'. 
Y.),  6  Johns.  170,  5  Am.  Dec.  206. 

Ohio. — Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  O.  St. 
131;  Graham  &  Co.  v.  Davis  &  Co.,  4  O. 
St.    362,   375. 

Pennsylvania. — Hays  v.  Kennedy.  41  Pa. 
378.  80  Am.  Dec.  627. 

Tennessee. — Lewis  &  Co.  v.  Ludwick,  46 
Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  368,  98  Am.  Dec.  454; 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  7'.  Womack,  48  Tenn. 
(1  Heisk.)  256;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Estes.  54  Tenn.  il  Heisk.)  622,  24  Am. 
Rep.  289. 

Texas.— 0\i\U  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Levi.  76 
Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191;  S.  C.  12  S.  W. 
677;  Chevallier  v.  Straham.  2  Tex.  115.  47 
Am.  Dec.  639. 

West  ]'lrs.lnla. — Hutchinson  z\  L  nited 
States  Exp  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E. 
949.   14   L.   R.   A.,   N.    S.,  393. 

Under  the  laws  of  Mexico,  a  carrier  is 
not  liable  for  a  shipper's  goods  stolen  by 
robbers.      Cantu  v.   Bennett.  39   Tex.   303. 

Larceny  by  agent  or  employee.— A 
carrier  is  liable  for  a  larceny  by  its  agent 
in  charge  of  the  property.  Chesapeake, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Hall.  136  Ky.  379.  124  S.  W. 
372:  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Bank,  lOS  Ala. 
517.  18  So.  664. 

The  owners  of  a  ship,  though  there  be 
no  fault  or  negligence  on  their  part  are 
answerable  for  goods  which  they  have 
undertaken  to  carry,  if  embezzled  or 
stolen  by  the  crew.  Schieflfelin  r.  Harvey 
(X.  Y.),  6  Johns.  170.  5  Am.  Dec.  206. 


§§  996-998 


CARRIERS. 


752 


furnished  by  the  earlier  decisions  is  that  the  shipper  might  lose  his  goods  by 
collusion  between  the  carrier  and  lawless  persons,  thieves,  or  robbers.-^ 

§  997.  Strikers,  Rioters,  Mobs  and  Insurrectionists. — Strikers,  rioters, 
mobs  and  insurrectionists  are  not  public  eneniies  and  a  carrier's  common-law 
liability  extends  to  losses  occasioned  by  them.-'- 

§§   998-1002.  Fault  of  Shipper  or  Owner— §   998.  In  General.— It  may 

be  stated  as  a  general  rule  that  a  carrier  who  has  used  due  care  is  not  respon- 
sible for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  resulting  from  the  neglect,  or  wrong  of  the 
shipper  or  owner.-'     When  the  owner  accompanies  the  goods,  the  general  lia- 


25.  Reason  of  rule.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Gatewood.  79  Tex.  89.  14  S.  W.  913; 
Coggs  z\  Bernard,  2  Ld.  Raym.  (Eng.) 
909. 

Lord  Mansfield  in  Forward  r.  Pittard, 
1  D.  &  E.  (Eng.)  27,  said:  "If  an  armed 
force  come  to  rob  the  carrier  of  the  goods 
he  is  liable;  and  a  reason  is  given  in  the 
books,  which  is  a  ])ad  one,  viz,  that  he 
ought  to  have  a  sufficient  force  to  repeal 
it;  but  that  would  be  impossible  in  some 
cases,  as  for  instance,  in  the  riots  in  the 
j'ear  1780.  The  true  reason  is,  for  fear 
it  may  give  room  for  collusion,  that  the 
master  may  contrive  to  be  robbed  on  pur- 
pose, and  sliare  the  spoil." 

Presumption  that  police  of  state  ade- 
quate protection. — In  Hays  v.  Kennedy, 
41  Pa.  378,  80  Am.  Dec.  627,  it  is  said:  "By 
the  very  nature  of  his  contract,  the  car- 
rier, by  himself  or  his  agents,  is  bound  to 
be  always  with  the  goods  during  their 
carriage,  and  the  law  presumes,  and  must 
in  all  ordinary  cases  presume,  that,  if 
watchful,  the  ordinary  police  of  the  state 
will  be  entirely  adequate  for  his  protec- 
tion. It  is,  therefore,  because  he  is  pre- 
sumed, and  almost  conclusively  presumed, 
to  be  in  fault  in  such  case,  that  he  is  held 
liable." 

26.  Strikers,  rioters,  etc. — Arkansas. — • 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Nevill,  60  Ark. 
375,  30  S.  W.  425,  28  L.  R.  A.  80,  46 
Am.   St.   Rep.  208. 

Illinois. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  242  111.  178,  89  N.  E.  1022,  44  L. 
R.  A.,  X.  S.,  358,  afifirming  144  111.  App. 
293. 

Indiana. — Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holl- 
owell,  65   Ind.   188,  32  Am.  Rep.  63. 

Ohio. — Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  O.  St. 
131,  followed  in  Graham  &  Co.  v.  Davis 
&  Co.,  4  O.  St.  362,  375. 

Tennessee. — Lewis  &  Co.  v.  Ludwick,  46 
Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  368,  98  Am.  Dec.  454; 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Womack,  48  Tenn. 
(1  Heisk.)  256;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Estes,  54  Tenn.  (7  Heisk.)  622,  24  Am. 
Rep.  289. 

Texas.— GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  76 
Tex.  337,  13  S.  W.  191;  Chevallier  v.  Stra- 
ham,  2  Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levi   (Tex.),  12  S.  W.  677. 

West  Virginia. — Hutchinson  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E. 
949,   14   L.   R.   A.,   N.    S.,   393. 

27.  Fault  of  shipper  or  owner. — United 


States. — Niagara  v.  Cordes  (U.  S.),  21 
How.  7,  16  L.  Ed.  41;  Railroad  Co.  v.- 
Varnell,  98  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  Ed.  233;  The 
Delaware  (U.  S.),  14  Wall.  579,  20  L.  Ed. 
779;  Clark  v.  Barnwell  (U.  S.),  12  How. 
272,  13  L.  Ed.  985;  Choate  i'.  Crownin- 
shield.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,691,  3  Cliff.  184; 
The  David  &  Caroline,  5  Blatchf.  266,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,593;  The  Huntress,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,914,  2  Ware   (Dav.  82)   89. 

Alabama. — McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  14  So.  370,  48  Am.  St. 
Rep.  29,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  178; 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Levy,  39  So.  95,  144 
Ala.  614,  17  R.  R.  R.  50,  40  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.,  N.  S.,  50. 

Arkansas.— St  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Law,  68  Ark.*  218,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.   S.,  286,  57  S.  W.  258. 

California. — Bohannan  v.  Hammond,  42 
Cal.  227;  Stockton  Lumber  Co.  v.  Cali- 
fornia Xav..  etc.,  Co.,  10  Cal.  App.  197, 
101    Pac.    541. 

Colorado.— Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Rainey,  19  Colo.  225,  34  Pac.  986,  61  Am. 
&    Eng.    R.    Cas.    302. 

Connecticut. — Candee  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  73  Conn.  667,  49  Atl.  17,  21  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  434;  Clark  v.  Rich- 
ards, 1  Conn.  54;  Williams  v.  Grant,  1 
Conn.   487,   7   Am.    Dec.   235. 

Delaware. — Reed  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3  Houst.  176;  Culbreth  v.  Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Houst.  392;  Car- 
penter V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Pen. 
15,  64  Atl.  252;  Reed  v.  Wilmington 
Steamboat  Co.,  1  Marv.  193,  40  Atl.  955, 
1  Hardesty  127;  Pennewill  v.  Cullen,  5 
Har.    238. 

Georgia. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Whittle,  27  Ga.  535,  73  Am.  Dec.  741; 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy 
Co.,  135  Ga.  113,  68  S.  E.  1039;  Ohlen  v. 
./\tlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ga.  App.  323,  58 
S.  E.  511;  Coweta  County  v.  Central,  etc., 
R.  Co..  4  Ga.  App.  94,  100,  60  S.  E.  1018; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warfield,  129 
Ga.  473,  59  S.  E.  234;  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Lippman,  110  Ga.  665,  36  S.  E. 
202,    50    L.    R.    A.    673. 

////«oj.f.— Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Clellan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Erie 
R.  Co.  V.  Wilcox,  84  111.  239,  25  Am.  Rep. 
451;  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Kenwood  Bridge 
Co.,    170   111.    645,   49   N.    E.    215. 

Indiana.— ToXtAo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tapp, 
6  Ind.  App.  304,  33  N.  E.  462;  Evansville, 


753 


LOSS    OR    IXJUKV    TO    GOODS. 


§  998 


bility  of  the  carrier  is  limited  to  the  extent  that  it  is  in  no  sense  liable  for  any 


etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Keith,  :i5  X.  E.  296,  8  Ind. 
App.  57;  Reid  v.  Evansville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
35  X.  E.  703,  10  Ind.  App.  385,  53  Am. 
St.   Rep.   391. 

lozi'a. — Cobb,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois  Ceni. 
R.  Co.,  38  Iowa  601:  Hart  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa  485,  27  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  59.  29  X.  W.  597;  Cownie  Glove 
Co.  7'.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.. 
106  X.  W.  749.  130  lou-a  327,  114  Am. 
St.  Rep.  419.  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1060. 

Kansas. — Watkins  Merchandise  Co.  f. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82  Kan.  308,  108 
Pac.    116. 

Kentucky. — Farley  v.  Lavary.  107  Kv. 
523.  21  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1252,  54  vS.  \V.  840. 
47    L.   R.   A.   383. 

Lt>uis{a)ta. — v^anthur  Z'.  Xew  Orleans, 
etc..    R.   Co.,   28   La.   Ann.   67. 

Maryland. — Philadelpiiia.  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Diffcndal.    109    Md.    494,    72    Atl.    193,    458. 

.^fassacluisclts. — Hastings  v.  Pepper 
(Mass.)  H  Pick.  41;  Pratt  v.  Ogdens- 
bury.  etc..   R.   Co.,    102   Mass.  557. 

Michigan. — Black  v.  Ashley,  80  Midi. 
90,   44    X.   W.    1120. 

Missouri. — Haynes  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.. 
54  Mo.  App.  582.  See  Daggett  r.  Shaw, 
3    Mo.   264,   25    .\m.    Dec.   439. 

N^ezi.'  Hampshire. — Stimson  v.  Jackson, 
58  X.  H.  138:  Rixford  v.  Smith,  52  X.  H. 
355,  13  Am.  Rep.  42;  Moses  z-.  Xorris.  4 
N.    H.    304. 

Kczi.'  York. — Harris  v.  Northern  In- 
diana R.  Co.,  20  X.  Y.  232;  Xelson  v. 
Stephenson,  12  X.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  538; 
Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y.  35,  50 
How.  Prac.  457,  20  Am.  Rep.  442.  See 
Sherman   f.    Wells,   28    Barb.   403. 

North  Carolina. — Lee  v.  Raleigh,  etc., 
R.  Co..  72  X.  C.  236;  Currie  v.  Seaboard, 
etc.,   R.   Co..   156   N.   C.   432,   72   S.    E.  493. 

North  Dakota. — Duncan  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co..  17  X.  Dak.  610,  118  X.  W. 
826,    19    L.    R.    A.,    X.    S'.,   952. 

O/a'o.— Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Graham,  26 
O.  St.  595;  .American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Smith. 
33  O.  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561;  Railroad 
Co.  z:  O'Donnell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  X.  E. 
476. 

Oklalwvta. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  'v. 
Beatty.    27    Okla.    844,    116    Pac.    171. 

Oregon. — Goodman  f.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 
Co..  22  Ore.  14.  28  Pac.  894,  49  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  87;  Lacey  v.  Oregon  R., 
etc.,    Co.    (Ore.),    128    Pac.    999. 

South  Dakota. — Heumphreus  v.  Fre- 
mont, etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  S.  Dak.  103,  65  N. 
W.  466.  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S..  546. 

Tennessee. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Kauf- 
man, 59  Tenn.  (12  Heisk.)  161;  American 
Lead  Pencil  Co.  z'.  Xashville,  etc..  Rail- 
way. 124  Tenn.  57,  134  S.  W.  613,  32  L.  R. 
A.,  X.  S..  323. 

Texas. — Bonner  z\  Grumliach,  2  Tex. 
Civ.  .App.  482.  21  S.  W.  1010:  Ft.  Worth, 
etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Word   (Tex.  Civ.  .App.),  32 

1  Car— 48 


S.  W.  14;  Texas  Exp.  Co.  v.  Scott,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  72,  16  Am.  &  Eng. 
K.  Cas.  Ill;  Chevallier  z\  Straham,  2  Tex. 
Il.">.  47  .Am.  Dec.  039;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Scrivener,  2  Texas  .App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
328;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  12  S.  W. 
677;  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Trawick,  68  Tex. 
314.  4  S.  W.  567;  House  z:  Soder,  36  Tex. 
629;  Albright  v.  Penn,  14  Tex.  290;  M.  P. 
R.  Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  575;  Fentiman  Z'.  Atchison, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  455,  98  S. 
W.    939. 

J'erntont. — Ross  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
49    Vt.   364,   24   Am.    Rep.    144. 

I'irginia. — Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Staton, 
17    Va.    (3    Munf.j    239. 

West  Virginia. — Roderick  v.  Baltimore, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  7  W.  Va.  54;  McGraw  v.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co..  18  W.  Va.  361,  41 
Am.  Rep.  696,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188. 

Wisconsin. — Congar  v.  Chicago,  etc,  R. 
Co.,  24  Wis.  157,  1  Am.  Rep.  164;  Jen- 
kins T'.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Wis.  112; 
Miltimore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37 
Wis.  190;  Klauber  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
21    Wis.   21.   91    Am.   Dec.   452. 

England. — Barbour  v.  South  Eastern 
R.  Co..  ;;4  L.  T.  (Eng.)  67. 

Illustrations. — If  the  consignor  put 
conibustil)lcs  in  a  car  in  violation  of  the 
carrier's  rules,  negligently  and  wrong- 
fully, and  a  fire  was  caused  thereby, 
which  destroyed  his  goods,  he  could  not 
recover.  Pratt  v.  Ogdensbury,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   102  Mass.  557. 

Where  a  contract  for  the  shipment  of 
.semi-perishable  evaporated  apples  pro- 
vided that,  if  the  fruit  was  not  removed 
by  the  consignee  within  twenty-four 
hours  after  its  arrival  at  destination,  it 
might  be  kept  in  the  car  at  the  sole  risk 
of  the  owner,  and  the  consignee  was 
promptly  informed  of  the  arrival  of  the 
fruit  at  its  destination,  and  knew  the  char- 
acter of  the  fruit,  the  weather  conditions, 
and  the  provisions  of  the  contract  of 
shipment,  but  failed  to  unload  the  fruit 
for  several  da3's.  made  no  effort  to  pro- 
tect it.  and  did  not  complain  as  to  its 
being  kept  in  the  car,  although  fully  in- 
formed thereof,  he  was  guilty  of  such 
negligence  as  to  preclude  a  recovery 
from  the  carrier  for  injury  resulting  to 
the  fruit  from  being  left  in  the  car. 
Becker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  96  X.  A*. 
S.    1.    109   App.    Div.   230. 

Where  a  railroad  permits  consignees 
of  produce  to  sell  it  from  cars  in  a  yard 
known  as  the  "market  yard."  but  does 
not  permit  any  one  consignee  to  have 
more  than  three  cars  at  a  time  in  the 
market,  and  other  cars  are  kept  in  an- 
other j-ard  until  a  car  is  emptied  and  re- 
leased, a  consignee  can  not  recover  for 
a  loss  from  deterioration  of  produce  in 
the  storage  yard,  where  delaj'  in  delivery 


§  998 


CARRIERS. 


754 


injury  or  loss  that  mav  occur  throui^h  the  act  of  tlic  owner  or  through  any  agency 


to  the  market  yard  was  due  to  the  neg- 
lect of  the  consignee  in  emptying  the 
cars.  Laughlin  Bros.  Co.  v.  Philadelphia. 
etc..    R.   Co..   74   Atl.   418.   22,-)    Pa.    540. 

Where  the  car  load  of  freight,  when 
burned,  was  standing  on  an  industrial 
switch  leading  to  the  shipper's  ware- 
house, and  the  fire  was  started  by  a  coal 
oil  stove  in  the  office  of  the  warehouse 
being  turned  over  by  one  of  the  shipper's 
employees,  firing  the  warehouse,  from 
which  the  flames  spread  to  the  car,  de- 
stroying its  contents,  the  act  of  the  ship- 
per's employee  in  starting  the  fire  was 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  of  the 
car;  it  then  being  in  the  possession  of 
the  shipper,  and  not  of  the  carrier. 
American  Lead  Pencil  Co.  r.  Nashville, 
etc..  Railway,  124  Tenn.  57,  134  S.  W. 
61.3.   32   L.    R.   A..    X.    S..   323. 

Instances  when  shipper  or  consignee 
not  negligent. — The  fact  that  a  shipper 
packed  and  shipped  applies  in  Xovemlier 
from  Xew  York  to  Minnesota  in  a  box 
car  did  not  constitute  contributory  neg- 
ligence so  as  to  preclude  recovery  for 
damages  by  frost,  which  defendant  rail- 
road company  might  have  prevented  l)y 
reasonable  care.  Calcnder-Vanderhoof 
Co.  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  109  X.  W. 
402.    99    Minn.    295. 

The  fact  that  a  shipment  remained  in 
the  depot  at  the  destination  five  days  after 
plaintiff  paid  the  freight  charges  and 
signed  the  waybill  does  not  show  con- 
tributory negligence.  Saunders  t'.  South- 
ern   Railwayr  90    S.   C.    79.    72    S.    E.    637. 

Though  a  shipper  discovers  before 
loading  or  the  departure  of  the  car  that 
it  is  not  suitable  for  carrying  perishable 
goods,  he  is  not  thereby  guilty  of  con- 
tributory negligence,  or  does  not  assume 
the  risk,  if  he  can  not  relieve  himself  of 
the  situation.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  z'. 
McLean,  55  Tex.  Civ.  App.  13,0,  118  S'. 
W.    161. 

In  an  action  by  a  consignee  against  a 
carrier  for  damages  to  fruit  from  de- 
fective drainpipes  in  a  refrigerator  car 
used  by  plaintiff  for  storage  after  the  re- 
lations of  carrier  and  w-arehouseman  had 
terminated,  where  it  appeared  that,  if  the 
fruit  had  been  removed  from  the  car,  it 
would  have  spoiled  immediately  because 
the  consignee  had  no  cold-storage  facili- 
ties, the  consignee  would  not  be  negli- 
gent in  failing  to  do  so.  And  the  ducy 
did  not  devolve  upon  the  consignee  to 
repair  the  car  to  prevent  damage  to  the 
fruit.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tripis 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),   117   S.   W.    199. 

Where  plaintiff  shipped  goods  con- 
signed to  himself  at  a  flag  station  on  de- 
fendant's road,  where  defendant  main- 
tained a  warehouse,  plaintiff  was  not 
guilty   of   laches   in    that   he   was   not   pre- 


pared to  receive  and  remove  the  same 
until  the  day  following  the  day  on  which 
he  received  notice  of  arrival.  Xormile 
7'.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  77  Pac.  1087.  36 
Wash.    21,    67    L.    R.    A.    271. 

A  shipper  who  in  routing  a  shipment 
selected  a  longer  route  than  he  could 
have  taken  was  not  guilty  of  contribu- 
tory negligence  causing  injury  to  the 
shipment,  where  the  carrier  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  ordinary  care  could  have  trans- 
ported the  shipment  without  damage. 
Uber  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Wis. 
431,    13S    X.    \V.   57. 

Underestimating  weight  of  article 
shipped. —  It  is  not  a  part  of  the  implied 
contract  of  shipment  that  a  shipper 
should  declare  the  true  weight  of  an 
article  shipped,  and  a  shipper  is  not  lia- 
ble for  negligence  in  understating  the 
weight  of  an  article  of  ol)vious  nature, 
where  an  injury  occurs  because  the  tackle 
used  in  unloading  it  is  insufficient,  though 
adequate  for  the  weight  stated.  Hanna 
z:  Pitt,  106  X.  Y.  S.  14.5,  121  App.  Div, 
120. 

Shipping  bridge  trusses  exceeding 
agreed  height. — A  bridge  builder  loaded, 
upon  a  flat  car,  bridge  trusses  that  ex- 
tended sixteen  feet  four  inches  from  the 
platform  of  the  car,  after  having  ob- 
tained permission,  through  the  agent,  to 
ship  trusses  fifteen  feet  high.  In  at- 
tempting to  take  the  car  under  a  bridge, 
the  trusses  were  injured.  Held,  that  the 
shipper  could  not  recover  unless  the  rail- 
road company  knew  the  actual  height  of 
the  trusses.  And  a  charge  that  if  any 
agent  or  employee  of  the  defendant  saw 
the  car  after  it  was  loaded,  and  made  no 
objection  to  it,  the  defendant  was  liable, 
was  error.  Pennsylvania  Co.  z'.  Ken- 
wood Bridge  Co.,  49  X.  E.  215,  170  111. 
645.    reversing   69    111.    App.    145. 

Loss  by  fire — Placing  cotton  on  plat- 
form near  track. —  It  is  not  contributory 
negligence  per  se  for  a  shipper  to  place 
cotton  for  shipment  on  a  private  plat- 
form, so  close  to  passing  engines  that 
it  is  in  danger  of  being  ignited,  and  to 
leave  it  there  without  watch  or  guard, 
if  the  platform  was  constructed  for  the 
purpose  of  receiving  freight  and  has  been 
used  by  the  railroad  company  for  re- 
ceiving cotton.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Fire    Ass'n.    55    .Ark.    163,    18    S.    W.    43. 

Loading  in  accordance  with  plaintiff's 
instructions. —  Where  a  railroad  company 
to  whom  peaches  were  delivered  for 
shipment  was  bound  to  load  the  fruit 
and  furnish  regulation  material  necessary 
to  properly  load  it,  anxl  the  evidence  in 
an  action  for  the  spoiling  thereof  show^ed 
that  they  were  loaded  by  agents  of  the 
company  in  accordance  with  instructions 
from    the    plaintiff,    and     tliat    the}'    were 


755 


LOSS    (iR    INJLKV    TO    GOODS. 


§    998 


that  is  under  his  exchisive  control.-'*  This  rule,  however,  only  requires  the 
owner  to  exercise  care  and  dili^'ence  :  that  everything  was  not  done  that  skill  or 
prudence  could  have  suggested  is  no  bar  to  a  recovery.-"  .\nd  it  is  not  a  ground 
for  limiting  the  responsibility  of  the  carrier,  where  no  interference  is  attenipteil 
with  its  control  of  the  property  carried,  that  the  owner  accompanies  it  and  keeps 
watch  for  its  safety.'-"  Where  goods  are  lost  because  of  latent  defects  in  ap- 
pliances for  unloading  furnished  by  the  sliip])er,  the  carrier  is  not  liable.-' ^ 

Negligence  and  Contributory  Negligence.— Some  cases  hob!  that  if  lost  or 
injury  to  freight  is  caused  jiarily  by  [he  iR-gligence  of  the  .shipper  and  partly  by 
the  negligence  of  the  carrier,  there  can  be  no  recovery,  unless,  by  ordinary  care, 
the  shij)per  could  not  have  avoided  the  consequences  of  the  negligence  of  the 
carrier."-  Hut  it  is  also  held  that,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier,  on  a  common- 
law  contract  of  carriage,  without  reservations  or  exception,  for  failure  to  deliver 
property  shipped  in  good  condition,  contributory  negligence  on  the  part  of  the 
]ilaintiff  is  not  awiilablc  as  a  defense. ■'■' 

Where  a  shipper  of  inflammable  and  explosive  acids  does  not  give  no- 
tice to  the  carrier  of  their  nature,  it  is  relieved  from  liability  for  the  loss  of  the 
goods  due  to  explosion  and  tire  cau.sed  by  a  portion  of  the  acids  leaking  from 
their  containers. •'^■* 


loaded  in  the  best  manner  possible  with 
the  material  furnished,  there  was  no  sucli 
negligence  of  the  plaintiff  as  will  pre- 
clude a  recovery.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Woldert  Grocery  Co.  (Te.x.  Civ.  .-\pp.). 
144    S.    \V.    1194. 

28.  When  owner  accompanies  goods. — 
\\'il>(in  f.  llaniilttm.  t  < ).  Si.  T:>;i:  Xuii- 
nelee  r.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  I\.  Co.  (Mo. 
A  pp.),    129    S.    W.    762. 

Car  under  control  of  shipper's  agent. 
— While  a  carrier  is  held  to  l)e  an  insurer 
of  the  safety  of  property  while  it  is  in 
his  possession  as  a  carrier,  the  rule  does 
not  apply  where  the  goods  were  trans- 
ported in  a  car  which  was  left  in  the  ex- 
clusive control  of  the  shipper's  agent, 
and  the}'  were  destroyed  by  his  act;  and 
in  such  case  it  is  immaterial  whether  the 
agent  was  careful  or  negligent.  Hart  r. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Iowa  485,  29  N. 
W.  .-)97,  27  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  ,J0. 

Agreement  in  violation  of  law. — Where 
the  owner  of  property  shipped  by  rail, 
by  agreement  with  the  ca)rrier,  under- 
takes to  care  for  it  in  the  course  of 
transportation,  and  it  is  destroj-ed  through 
his  act.  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the 
loss,  although  the  agreement  may  have 
been  in  violation  of  Code,  §  i:^08,  provid- 
ing that  "no  contract,  receipt,  rule,  or 
regulation  shall  exempt  any  corporation 
engaged  in  transportation  of  persons  or 
property  by  railway  from  lial)ility  of 
common  carrier."  Hart  f.  Chicago,  etc.. 
R.  Co..  69  Iowa  48.5.  29  .\'.  W.  .-)97,  27  .Am. 
&    Kng.    R.   Cas.   59. 

29.  \\iIson  f.   Hamilton,   4   O.   St.   722. 

30.  llannil)al  Railroail  r.  Swift  (l*.  J?.). 
12    Wall.    262,    20    L.    I'.d.    l:.*:;. 

31.  Defects  in  appliances  furnished  by 
shipper. — The  owner  of  a  hogshead  of 
molasses  furnished  a  common  carrier 
with  skids  wherewith  to  unload  the  same 
from  his  wagon;   but  the   skids,  owing  to 


a  latent  defect,  broke  under  the  weight 
of  the  hogshead,  and  the  contents  thereof 
were  lost.  Held,  that  the  owner  could 
not  maintain  an  action  against  the  car- 
rier for  the  loss.  Loveland  v.  Burke,  120 
Mass.    1.39,    21    Am.    Rep.    507. 

32.  Negligence  and  contributory  negli- 
gence.—Keed  ::  riiiladelphia.  etc.,  R.  C<.. 
(Del.),  3  Houst.  176.  See  Coweta  County 
V.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ga.  .\pp.  94.  60 
S.    E.    1018. 

The  fact  that  a  consignee,  after  discov- 
ering the  carrier's  negligence  in  failing 
to  transport  the  goods  in  a  reasonable 
time,  tailed  to  use  ordinary  care  to  avoid 
the  injury  caused  by  such  negligence, 
will  not  preclude  him  from  recovering 
the  damages  actually  caused  to  him  by 
such  negligence,  which  he  co'dd  not.  by 
ordinary  diligence,  have  prevented.  Bel- 
cher V.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co..  50  S.  W. 
559.  92  Tex.  593,  reversing  47  S.  W  3S4 
1020. 

33.  McCarthy  7:  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co., 
102  Ala.  193,  14  So.  370.  48  .Am.  St.  Rep. 
29,  61  .Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  178.  wherein 
it  is  said:  "Xo  where  in  the  books  can 
be  found  any  reference  to  the  defense 
of  contributory  negligence  against  the 
common-law  liabilitj-  of  common  carriers 
of  goods.  .And  in  the  nature  of  things 
there  can  be  no  such  defense,  to  speak 
with  any  approach  to  le^al  accuracy. 
There  must  always  be  negligence  on  the 
part  of  a  defendant  or  else  it  cannot  be 
said  that  a  plaintiff  has  been  guilty  of 
contrilnitory  negligence.  *  *  *  When  he 
(the  carrier)  relies  u])on  the  other  excep- 
tion to  that  rule  of  liability,  that  which 
rests  upon  the  fault  of  the  sliipper.  he 
must  bring  himself  entirely  and  perfectly 
within  it  by  negativing  all  contributory 
fault   of   his   own." 

34.  Bradley  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc..  R.  Co., 
145   .App.   Div.  312,   129   X.   Y.   S.   1045. 


§§  998-999 


CARRIERS. 


756 


Duty  of  Consignor  as  to  External  Protection. — As  to  external  protection 
of  the  goods,  the  owner  is  not  required  to  cover  them  so  as  to  be  safe  against 
the  action  of  rain  or  wind  or  fire  not  happening  by  the  act  of  God.''^ 

§  999.  Goods  Improperly  Marked. — It  is  the  duty  of  the  shipper  of  goods 
to  have  them  properly  marked,  and  if  he  neglects  to  do  it,  and  there  is  a  loss  in 
consequence,  without  any  fault  of  the  carrier,  he  must  bear  the  loss;^^  but  if 
there  is  a  loss  through  any  want  of  reasonable  caution  on  the  part  of  the  carrier, 
or  its  servants,  it  will  be  responsible.-'"  And  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  owner 
of  goods,  in  delivering  them  to  a  carrier  incorrectly  addressed,  does  not  defeat 
his  right  to  recover  for  a  loss  of  the  goods  ui)on  the  ground  of  contributive  neg- 
ligence, if  the  carrier's  agents  received  them  with  knowledge  of  the  error.^s  if 
the  carrier  accepts  goods  which  are  not  marked  to  any  place  of  destination,  or 
are  marked  to  a  place  that  has  no  existence,  it  is  liable  for  a  loss  where  they 
are  carried  to  another  station  and  there  left.-'-' 

Goods  Marked  Only  with  Initial. — \\  here  the  consignor  marks  the  goods 
with  the  initials  only  of  the  consignee,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  entering  them  on 
the  bill  of  lading  in  the  name  of  a  stranger,  wdiereby  the  goods  are  lost.-*"'  And 
where  a  carrier  receives  goods  whicli  are  only  marked  wath  the  initials  of  the 
consignee  and  gives  a  bill  of  lading  therefor,  specifying  the  consignee,  it  is 
bound  to  remark  the  goods  if  that  is  necessary  to  insure  their  safe  delivery.'* ^ 


35.  External  protection. — Klauher  z'. 
American  Exp.  Co..  2]  Wis.  21,  91  Am. 
Dec.  452. 

36.  Goods  improperly  marked. — United 
States.— Th&  Huntress.  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,914.  2  Ware   (Dav.  82)    89. 

Alabama. — Broadwood  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co..  41   So.   709,    148   Ala.   17. 

Missouri. — Weaver  v.  Southern  R.  Co., 
13.5   Mo.   App.   210,   115   S.  W.   500. 

New  Hampshire. — Stimson  v.  Jackson, 
58   N.    H.    138. 

Tennessee. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Kauf- 
man.   59   Tenn.    (12    Heisk.)    161. 

Where  a  box  improperly  directed  was 
delivered  to  a  railroad  for  transportation 
and  was  safely  carried  to  its  destination, 
and  there,  after  having  been  kept  for 
two  months  and  due  diligence  exercised 
to  ascertain  the  consignee,  was  delivered, 
by  reason  of  the  improper  direction,  to 
the  wrong  person,  the  company  was  not 
liable  for  the  loss.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.   Hodapp,  83  Pa.  22. 

Goods  directed  to  wrong  place. — A. 
chartered  a  car,  which  he  loaded  with  fur- 
niture to  be  sent  to  O.,  Ha.  He  shipped 
the  car  via  the  C.  railroad  to  the  B.  rail- 
road at  G.,  where  it  was  duly  delivered. 
By  mistake  of  A.  or  his  agent,  the  car 
was  directed  to  O.,  Del.  In  consequence 
of  this  misdirection,  the  goods  were  de- 
layed and  finally  reached  A.  much  dam- 
aged. In  an  action  by  A.  against  B.  he 
was  nonsuited.  Knorr  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Pa.),  2  Wkly.  Notes  Cas. 
187. 

County  omitted  in  marking — Two  towns 
of  same  name. — The  contrilnitory  negli- 
gence of  the  shipper  in  only  marking 
goods  to  the  town  and  state  to  which  it 
is  to  be  sent,  omitting  the  county,  will 
relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  loss 
which    results    from    the    fact    that    there 


are  two  towns  of  the  same  name  in  the 
state.  Congar  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
24  Wis.  157,  1  Am.  Rep.  164. 

37.  The  Huntress.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,914,  2 
Ware    (Dav.    82)    89. 

The  carrier  is  liable  when  guilty  of 
negligence  without  which,  notwithstand- 
ing the  shipper's  mistake  in  directing 
goods,  the  loss  would  not  have  occurred. 
vSo,  it  is  liable  for  loss  of  goods  where, 
though  improperly  directed  they  would 
have  reached  their  intended  destination 
but  for  the  changing  of  the  directions 
])y  the  carrier's  agent.  Weaver  v.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  115  S.  W.  500,  135  Mo.  App. 
210. 

38.  Carrier's  knowledge  of  imperfect  ad- 
dress.— O'Rourke  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
44    Ifjwa    52(). 

Where  the  directions  are  not  clear,  it  is 
the  carrier's  duty,  unless  an  emergency 
arises,  to  hold  the  goods  and  ask  further 
instructions  from  the  shipper.  Weaver  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  135  Mo.  App.  210,  115 
S.  W.  500. 

Where  goods  were  marked  with  the 
name,  bijt  not  with  the  place  of  destina- 
tion, when  received  l)y  the  carrier,  though 
it  was  the  shipper's  fault  that  the  goods 
were  not  properly  marked,  the  carrier 
can  not  be  heard  to  complain  thereof, 
because  it  received  the  freight  in  that 
condition,  and  thereby  waived  any  defect 
in  the  manner  in  which  it  was  marked  or 
directed.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maetze,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  631. 

39.  Goods  marked  to  place  that  does 
not  exist. — (i'Kourke  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   44    Iowa    526. 

40.  Goods  marked  only  with  initials. — 
Forsythe  v.  Walker,   9   Pa.    148. 

41.  Krender  v.  Wolcott  (N.  Y.),  1  Hilt. 
223. 


757 


LOSS  OK    IXJLRV   TO  GO(JDS. 


§    1000 


§  1000.  Goods  Improperly  Packed. — In  the  absence  of  negligence  on  their 
part,  carrier^  are  iioi  liable  for  los^e^  resulting  from  the  defective  manner  in 
which  goods  are  packed  by  the  owner. ^■-  Jlut,  though  goods  be  improperly 
packed,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  other  injuries  to  which  the  bad  packing  did  not 
contribute.-* •■'  The  owner  of  liquids,  or  any  articles  shipj^ed  in  casks,  of  any 
description,  is,  in  the  first  instance,  chargeable  with  the  duty  of  supplying  proper 
ones,  and  would  presumptively  be  responsible  for  a  loss  arising  from  their  insuf- 
ficiencv  or  defects,-*^  but  the  carrier  is  not  excused  from  liability  for  loss  caused 
by  standing  a  cask  on  end,  instead  of  on  the  bilge,  by  the  fact  that  the  barrel 
was  old  and  defectiNC*'' 

Duty  of  Carrier  Receiving  Goods  Improperly  Packed. — If  a  carrier  ac- 
cepts for  carriage  goods  improperly  packed,  it  is  bound  to  exercise  due  care  for 
their  safe  carriage ;  ■*"  and  where  goods  are  not  in  a  proper  condition  to  be 
shipped  in  safety,  it  is  bound  to  stow  them  with  reference  to  their  condition.^ "'' 

Presumption  That  Goods  Properly  Packed. — Shippers  of  large  expe- 
rience, in  llie  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  are  presumed  to  use  the  best 
method  of  packing  for  the  particular  kind  of  carriage.-* ** 


42.  Goods  improperly  packed. — Ala- 
bama.— Broadwood  7'.  Southern  \i\p.  Co., 
148  Ala.   17,  41  So.  7()y. 

Dclazi-arc. — Culbreth  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Del.),  3  Houst.  392;  Car- 
penter V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Del.), 
6   Pen.    15,   64   All.   252. 

Georgia. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ja- 
cobs' Pharmacy  Co.,  135  Ga.  113,  68  S.  E. 
1039;  Coweta  County  z:  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  94.  100.  60  S.   E.  1018. 

Minnesota. — Shriver  v.  Sioux  City,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  24   Minn.   306.  31  Am.   Rep.   353. 

Nczv  Hampshire. — Rixford  v.  Smith,  52 
N.    H.   355,    13   Am.    Rep.   42. 

0/mo.— Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Graham,  26 
O.  St.  595. 

Oregon. — Goodman  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 
Co.,  22  Ore.  14,  28  Pac.  894,  49  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  87. 

Te.vas.—A\hr\ght  v.  Penn.  14  Tex.  290; 
Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans-Snyder-Buel 
Co..  100  Tex.  190.  97  S.  W.  466,  affirming 
42  Tex.  Civ.  App.  60;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wittnebert,  101  Tex.  368,  108  S.  W.  150, 
14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1227,  16  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.  Cas.  1153,  reversing  104  S.  W. 
424. 

Wisconsin. — Klauber  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  21  Wis.  21,  91  -\m.  Dec.  452. 

Neglect  to  pack. — If  damage  is  caused 
to  furniture  l)y  the  shipper's  neglect  to 
pack  it,  the  company  is  not  responsible. 
Barbour  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  34  L.  T. 
(Eng.)    67. 

Notwithstanding  the  bill  of  lading  ac- 
knowledged receipt  of  goods  in  good 
order,  the  carrier  may  show,  in  case  ol 
injury  to  the  goods,  and  as  against  the 
owner  of  them,  that  it  was  occasioned  by 
insufficiency  in  the  cask,  etc.,  in  which 
they  were  packed,  and  not  by  any  negli- 
gence on  its  part.  Zerega  v.  Poppe,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  is,2i:!.  .\1)1>.  Adm.  397. 

The  loss  must  actually  result  from  the 
defective  packing  and  tlirougli  no  fault 
of  the  carrier.  Zerege  v.  Poppe,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   18,213,  Abb.  Adm.  397. 


43.  Injuries  from  another  cause. — 
Shriver  r.  Sioux  City.  etc..  R.  Co.,  24 
Minn,    ".nc,   :ji    Am.    Rep.   3."/!. 

44.  Failure  of  shipper  to  furnish  proper 
casks. — Nelson  v.  Stephenson,  1:.'  X.  Y. 
Super.    Ct.   538. 

Wrong  casks  furnished  by  carrier. — .\ 
railroad  company  l)y  mistake  delivered 
empty  casks  to  consignees  wiiich  had 
contained  turpentine,  when  they  should 
have  delivered  casks  which  had  contained 
ketchup.  The  company's  servants  knew 
the  casks  were  to  be  refilled  with  ket- 
chup. The  consignees  not  knowing  of 
the  mistake  refilled  the  casks  with  ket- 
chup, which  was  spoiled.  In  an  action  by 
the  consignees  against  the  railroad  com- 
pany, it  was  held  that  there  could  be  no 
recovery  for  the  loss  of  the  ketchup. 
Cunningham  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  254,  49  L.  T. 
(Eng.)    394. 

45.  Thompson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
27  Iowa,  appx.,  561. 

46.  Duty  of  carrier  as  to  goods  improp- 
erly packed. — Union  E.xp.  Co.  :■.  Graham. 
26  U.  St.  595;  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hotchkiss,  14-24  O.  C.  D.  431,  435. 

Where  a  carrier  accepts  goods  improp- 
erly packed,  their  condition  lieing  open 
to  ordinary  observation,  the  duty  attaches 
of  using  due  care  for  their  safe  carriage, 
and  the  carrier  is  subject  to  all  the  lia- 
I)ilities  ordinarily  attaching  to  an  ordinary 
shipment  of  the  same  character.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rice,  169  Ala.  265.  52 
So.   918. 

47.  The  David  &  Caroline,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    3,593,    5    Blatchf.    266. 

48.  The  Moravian,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,7S9, 
2  Hask.  157. 

Where  goods  are  shipped  in  cases,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  appearance  or 
condition  of  tiie  goods,  on  l)eing  opened 
after  delivery,  affording  ground  for  rea- 
sonable inference  that  they  were  improp- 
erly packed,  or  unless  some  evidence  to 
that    eflfect    is    given,    the    presumption    is 


§  1001 


CARRIERS. 


758 


§  1001.  Goods  Improperly  Loaded.— A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  any  dam- 
age resulting  solelv  from  the  negligence  of  the  shipper  in  loading  the  freight  on 
the  cars-*^  According  to  some  of  the  cases,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  such 
damage,' notwithstanding  knowledge  of  its  employees  of  the  improper  loading.-^^ 
But  according  to  others  the  carrier  is  liable  for  injury  to  goods  shipped,  though 
thev  were  improperly  loaded,  if  the  improper  loading  was  apparent  to  the  ordi- 
nary observation  of  'the  carrier's  servants. ^i  And  it  is  held  that  if,  after  knowl- 
edge by  the  carrier  of  the  existence  of  a  danger  caused  by  the  shipper's  negli- 
gence in  loading  a  car,  the  goods  may  be  preserved  by  the  use  of  extraordinary 


that  thev  were  properly  packed,  although 
the  bill'  of  lading  contains  the  clause, 
"weight,  contents  and  value  unknown." 
English  z\  Ocean  Steam  Nav.  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.  Xo.  4.490,  2  Blatchf.  425. 

49.  Goods  improperly  loaded. — Alabama. 
—McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  102 
Ala.  193.  14  So.  370,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   178,  48  Am.   St.   Rep.  29. 

Georgia.— East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Whittle,  27  Ga.  535,  73  Am.  Dec.  741. 

lUiiiois. —  Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Kenwood 
Bridge  Co..  170  111.  (545.  49  N.  E.  215; 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dunbar,  20  111.  623, 
71  Am.  Dec.  291. 

Xczi:  Hamt>sliirc.—Ri:<.iovd  v.  Smith.  52 
N.   H.  355.   13  Am.   Rep.  42. 

rr-n75.— Pecos,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Evans- 
Snyder-Buel  Co.,  100  Tex.  190,  97  S.  W. 
466;  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Word 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  14;  Gulf, 
etc  R  Co.  V.  Wittnebert,  101  Tex.  368, 
108  S.  W.  150,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1227, 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  1153,  reversing 
104    S.    W.    42. 

A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  damages  to 
a  wagon  caused  by  its  being  blown  from 
a  platform  car  during  transportation, 
where  the  shipper  assumed  the  sole 
charge  and  responsibility  of  loading  and 
fastening  the  wagon,  and  there  had  been 
a  high  wind  for  a  sufficient  time  before 
the  train  started  to  enable  him  either  to 
further  fasten  the  wagon,  or  to  counter- 
mand the  order  for  its  shipment.  Mil- 
timore  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Wis. 
190. 

Liability  to  persons  hiring  cars. — If  a 
railroad  company  charters  some  of  its 
cars  to  an  individual,  who  loads  them 
himself  and  in  his  own  way,  the  company 
is  not  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  any 
injury  to  the  property  in  such  cars  aris- 
ing from  imperfect  loading.  East  Ten- 
nessee, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Whittle,  27  Ga.  535, 
73  Am.  Dec.  741;  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dunl)ar,  20   111.   023,   71  Am.   Dec.   291. 

Shipper  loading  cars  at  his  factory. — 
The  fact  that  a  shipper  loads  his  cars  at 
his  manufacturing  establishment  for  his 
own  convenience,  instead  of  delivering  the 
freight  at  the  station  for  loading,  does 
not  make  him  the  agent  of  the  carrier, 
so  as  to  make  the  latter  responsiljlc  for 
damages  resulting  from  improper  loading. 
And  the  carrier  is  not  required  to  inspect 
the  manner  of  loading  every  load.     Penn- 


sylvania Co.  V.  Kenwood  Bridge  Co.,  170 
111.  645,  49  N.  E.  215,  reversing  69  111. 
App.   145. 

Effect  of  delay. — Plaintiffs  had  control 
of  the  loading  of  the  car  in  which  corn 
was  shipped,  and  loaded  the  corn  in  the 
car  themselves,  while  it  was  wet,  and  in 
a  condition  to  be  damaged  by  being 
bulked  in  the  car.  Held,  that  defendant 
was  not  responsible  for  damages  occasioned 
thereby,  notwithstanding  the  fact  of  a  de- 
lay in  the  transportation  thereof.  Gal- 
veston, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.   Cas.  §  138. 

If  there  is  no  evidence  to  remove  the 
presumption  of  negligence  on  the  part  of 
the  carrier,  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  judg- 
ment, though  the  improper  loading  of  the 
goods  contributed  to  the  injury.  Mc- 
Carthy V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ala. 
193,  14  So.  370.  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  29,  61 
Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    178. 

50.  Knowledge  of  improper  loading. — 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Drought  & 
Co.    (lex.    Civ.    App.),    100    S.    W.    1011. 

Negligence  of  shipping  noticed  by  for- 
warder of  freight. — Where  plaintiff  loaded 
heavy  machinery  upon  a  platform^  car, 
and  blocked  its  wheels  with  insufficient 
blocking  insecurely  nailed,  by  reason 
whereof  the  machinery,  while  being  trans- 
ported by  defendant,  broke  from  its 
fastening  without  fault  of  defendant,  in 
the  running  of  the  train,  or  in  mainte- 
nance of  the  track,  and  was  injured,  the 
defendant  was  not  liable  therefor,  al- 
though its  yard  master  and  forwarder  of 
freight  cars  saw  the  fastenings  and  no- 
ticed their  insufficiency,  before  the  in- 
jury was  done.  Ross  v.  Troy,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,     49   Vt.   304,  24   Am.   Rep.   144. 

51.  Improper  loading  apparent  to  car- 
rier.— McCarthy  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  14  So.  370,  48  Am.  St. 
Rep.  29,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.   Cas.   178. 

Connecting  carrier  not  chargeable  with 
notice. — Where  the  goods  are  improperly 
loaded  by  the  shipper  in  close  cars,  which 
come  from  the  initial  carrier  to  a  con- 
necting carrier  with  their  doors  closed, 
the  improper  loading  is  not  to  be  held 
apparent  to  the  connecting  carrier,  and 
no  duty  rests  upon  the  connecting  car- 
rier to  open  the  cars  to  see  whether  the 
loading  was  properly  done.  McCarthy  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  193,  14 
So.  370,  48  Am.  St.  Rep.  29,  61  Am.  & 
Eng.    R.    Cas.    178. 


759 


LOSS    OR    IXJUKV    TO    GOODS. 


§§  1001-1002 


care  on  its  part,  it  will  not  Ije  relieved  from  liability,  if  it  is  negligent  in  this 
regard,  bv  settini(  up  the  original  negligence  of  the  shipper. ^- 

Duty  of  Inspection. — It  is  held  that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  a  railroad  company 
which  recei\e>  a  hiailed  car  from  the  consignor  or  from  another  railroad  com- 
pany to  make  an  inspection  of  the  manner  of  loading,  when  the  defect  can  not 
be  discovered  by  external  examination. •"'■'  Hut  it  is  also  held  that  where  the 
owner  loads  the  goods  the  carrier  has  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  loading  is  such 
as  to  secure  their  safety  '' 

Negligence  of  Consignor  Imputed  to  Consignee. — In  an  action  by  a  con- 
signee against  a  C(jmmon  carrier  ftjr  damages  to  goods  which  were  improperly 
loaded  by  the  consignor,  the  negligence  of  the  consignor  is  imi)uted  to  the  con- 
signee."'^ 

§  1002.  Misrepresentation  or  Concealment  of  Nature  or  Value  of 
Goods. — it  is  held  that  where  the  consignor  fraudulentl}  conceals  from  the 
carrier,  or  misrejiresents,  the  value  or  nature  of  goods,  the  carrier  is  relieved 
from  liabilitv  in  case  of  loss  without  its  default.'''*     And  in  no  case  is  it  held 


52.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R  Co.  v.  Jacol)s'  Phar- 
macy   Co.,    i;i5    Ga.    li:5,   (58    S.    R.    1039. 

53.  Duty  of  inspection. — Gulf,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  \Vittiiol)crt,  101  Tc.x.  iJfiS.  108  S.  W.  150, 
14  L.  R.  .\..  X.  S.,  1.'227.  It;  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.   Cas.    ll."):{,   rcvcr.sinq:   104   S.   W.   424. 

54.  Hannil)al  Railroad  v.  Swift  (U.  S.), 
12    Wall.    •.>(•,:.•.    :.'()    L.    VA.    42:;. 

55.  Negligence  of  consignor  imputed 
to  consignee. — McCarthy  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  193.  14  So.  370.  48 
Am.  St.  Rep.  29,  (U  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
178. 

56.  Misrepresentation  or  concealment 
of  nature  or  value  of  goods. — Louisiana. — 
Lcvois  r.  Calc,  17  La.  Ann.  302. 

Massachusetts. — Phillips  v.  Earle  (Mass.), 
8    Pick.    182. 

Mississippi. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Phillips  &  Co.   (Miss),  GO  S.   E.  572. 

AVxc  Vorlc. — Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  38 
N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  248;  S.  C,  62  N.  Y.  3"), 
riO  Hovx'.  Prac.  457,  20  Am.  Rep.  442; 
Richards  v.  Westcott,"  15  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
589;  Sewall  v.  Allen  (N.  Y.),  {>  Wend. 
335. 

Peuiisylraiiia. — Relf  v.  Rapp,  3  Watts 
&  S.  21," 37  Am.  Dec.  528;  Coxe  v.  Heisley, 
19  Pa.   243.  " 

Tennessee. — Shackt  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  94  Tenn.  658,  30  S.  W.  742,  28  L.  R. 
A.   176. 

Te.vas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  York, 
2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  638;  Texas 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Dupree,  2  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  318;  Texas  Exp.  Co.  v.  Scott,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  72,  16  Am.  & 
'Eng.  R.  Cas.  ill;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  JBurke,  55  Tex.  323,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  59;  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Pitman,  30 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  62C..  71   S.  W.  312. 

Rationale  of  Doctrine. — A  common 
carrier  is  entitled  to  protection  against 
liability,  sought  to  be  thrown  upon  him, 
by  concealment  or  fraud,  which  he  would 
not  otherwise  have  assumed;  and  no  one 
has  a  right,  by  any  concealment  or  arti- 
fice, to  disarm  him  of  that  vigilance,  which 


tlie  nature  and  extent  of  the  danger  rea- 
sonably demands;  or  to  deprive  him  of 
the  increased  compensation  which  a  more 
hazardous  or  responsible  service  justly 
entitles  him  to  receive.  Richards  v. 
Westcott,  15  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  589. 

If  questions  as  to  the  nature  and  value 
of  the  goods  are  answered  improperly, 
so  as  to  deceive  the  carrier,  there  is  no 
contract  between  the  parties  and  no  de- 
livery. Despatch  Line  f.  Glenny  &  Co.. 
41  O.  St.  166,  reversing  10  Am.  L.  Rec. 
172,  6  O.  Dec.  Reprint  1142;  Railwav  Co. 
V.  Simon.   15  O.  C.   C.  123,  8  O.  C.  D.  540. 

Illustrations. — A  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  the  loss  of  a  box  containing  valuable 
articles,  when  it  is  so  disguised  as  to 
resemble  those  which  generally  contain 
articles  of  small  value,  and  no  notice  is 
given  him  of  the  contents.  Warner  v. 
Western  Transp.  Co.,  28  N.  Y.  Super  Ct. 
490;  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Everett,  37 
Ga.   688. 

Where  one  sent  to  an  express  com- 
pany, by  a  young  negro  slave,  a  box  three 
i)y  four  inches  in  size,  tied  by  a  string, 
and  containing  a  dimond  pin  worth  $500, 
without  notifying  the  company  of  the 
value  of  the  contents,  held,  that  the  com- 
pany was  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  the 
pin  from  the  box.  Everett  v.  Soutliern 
Exp.   Co..  46  Ga.   303. 

Where  notice  .that  a  ship  would  not 
be  responsible  for;  jewelry,  unless  the 
value  were  disclosed,  is  brought  home  to 
plaintiff,  who,  without  disclosing  the  na- 
ture or  value  of  articles,  intentionallj' 
ships  them  so  as  to  conceal  their  real 
character,  the  owners  are  not  liable. 
Baldwin    v.    Collins    (La.).    9    Rob.    468. 

Plaintiff  shipped  by  defendant  com- 
pany various  parcels,  including  a  basket 
containing  silver  and  various  stuffs  used 
by  his  wife  in  her  millinery  business. 
The  lot  had  the  general  appearance  of 
household  goods,  and  the  agent  receiving 
the  parcels  cried  out  in  plaintiff's  hear- 
ing,   "Household   goods"    to   which    plain- 


§  1002 


CARRIERS. 


760 


that  the  shipper  can  recover  more  than  the  apparent  vaUie  of  the  property  ac- 
cording to  representation  made  where  he  misrepresents  its  character,  or  mis- 
leads the  carrier  as  to  its  vahie.^'     A  person  omitting,  without  fraud,  to  state 


tiff  made  no  objection,  and  they  were 
shipped  as  such.  On  the  bill  of  lading 
was  written.  "Owners'  risk  rel.  to  value 
$5.00,"  which  meant  that  defendant's  lia- 
bility was  limited  to  $5  per  100  pounds, 
but  plaintiff  testified  that  he  thought  that 
it  meant  that  he  would  receive  $500  in 
case  of  loss.  Plaintiff  was  an  intelligent 
German  machinist,  who  had  traveled 
much,  and  had  resided  two  years  in  the 
country,  and  his  wife  had  been  in  business. 
Some  of  the  articles  in  the  basket,  being 
silver,  would  not  have  been  received  as 
freight,  and  some  would  have  been  car- 
ried only  at  a  rate  much  higher  than  that 
for  household  goods.  Plaintiff  testified 
that  he  did  not  know  that  rates  of  freight 
were  different  according  to  classification. 
Held,  that  the  plaintiff  could  not  recover 
for  the  loss  of  the  contents  of  the  basket. 
Shackt  z'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  Tenn. 
658.  30  S.  W.  742,  28  L.  R.  A.  176. 

Where  a  carrier's  charges  for  trans- 
porting packages,  when  the  true  value 
is  stated  in  the  receipt,  and  it  exceeds 
$50,  are  greater  than  when  no  value 
is  stated,  and  the  shipper  knows  this, 
and,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a 
lower  freight  charge,  does  not  insert 
the  value  in  the  receipt,  and  the  car- 
rier does  not  know  the  true  value,  and, 
if  it  did,  would,  besides  making  a  greater 
charge,  use  greater  precaution,  this  is  a 
fraud  on  the  carrier,  releasing  it  from  lia- 
bility where  the  package  is  stolen.  Pa- 
cific Exp.  Co.  V.  Pitman,  71  S.  W.  312,  30 
1  ex.   Civ.  App.  626. 

Where  one  ships  a  valise  containing 
money  by  a  common  carrier,  if  the  agent 
of  the  carrier  at  the  time  of  receiving  the 
valise  asked  the  shipper  if  it  contained 
money,  and  he  replied  that  it  did  not,  the 
carrier  will  not  l)e  responsible  for  its  loss 
while  in  his  possession.  Texas  Exp.  Co. 
z'.  Dupree,  2  Texas  App.   Civ.  Cas.,  §  318. 

Reply  held  not  false  statement. — A  re- 
ply by  a  shipper,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry 
of  the  carrier's  agent  as  to  whether  the 
package  contained  anything  l)reakal)le  or 
anything  requiring  it  to  be  given  special 
attention,  that  it  did  not,  was  not  a  false 
statement  of  the  facts,  though  the  pack- 
age contained  a  valuable  diamond  ring. 
Head  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App. J, 
126    S.    W.    682. 

57.  Recovery  of  only  apparent  value. 
— United  States.  —  Earnest  v.  Express 
Co.,    Fed.    Cas.    No.   4248,    1    Woods   573. 

California. — Hayes  v.  Wells,  Fargo  & 
Co.,  23   Cal.   185,  83  Am.   Dec.   89. 

Civ.  Code,  §  2200,  provides  that  "a 
common  carrier  of  gold,  *  *  *  upon 
loss  or  injury  of  such  articles,  *  *  * 
is  not  liable  for  more  than  the  value  of 
the   articles   named  in   the   receipt  or   bill 


of  lading."  Scammon  v.  Wells  Fargo  & 
Co.,  84  Cal.  311,  24  Pac.  284. 

Georgia. — Everett  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,  46  Ga.  303;  Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Collins,  77  Ga.  376,  3  S.  E.  410,  4  Am. 
St.  Rep.  87;  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Moore.  80  Ga.  522,  5  S.  E.  769.  See 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jones,  7  Ga.  App. 
165,  66  S.  E.  492;  Way  v.  Southern  Ry. 
Co.,    132    Ga.    677.    64    S.    E.    1066. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea, 
66  111.  471;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Thomp- 
son, 19  III.  573.  See  Oppenheimer  &  Co. 
V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  69  111.  62,  IS 
.•\m.  Rep.  596;  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Marcus,   38   111.   219. 

Kciituckv. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Hall,  13"'6  Ky.  379,  124  S.  W.  372;  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  V.  Fox,  131  Ky.  257,  115  S. 
W.    184,    117    S.    W.    270. 

Minnesota. — Douglas  Co.  v.  Minnesota 
Transfer  R.  Co.,  62  Minn.  288,  64  N.  W. 
899,    30    L.    R.    A.    860. 

Ohio. — Despatch  Line  v.  Glenny  &  Co., 
41  O.  St.  166;  Railway  Co.  v.  Simon,  15 
O.    C.    C.    123,    8    O.    C.    D.   540. 

South  Carolina. — Bottum  v.  Charleston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  S.  C.  375,  51  S.  E.  985, 
2  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  773,  110  Am.  St.  Rep. 
610;  Galveston  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quilhot 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    134    S.    W.    261. 

J'ir^^iiiia. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Green, 
112   Va.    527,   72   S.    E.    102. 

The  ignorance  of  an  agent  as  to  the 
contents  of  the  package  delivered  for 
shipment,  and  .innocence  of  any  inten- 
tion to  deceive  the  carrier,  or  to  conceal 
the  value  of  the  goods,  do  not  affect  the 
liability  of  the  carrier  where  the  princi- 
pal intended  to  deceive  the  carrier  or  to 
conceal  the  value  of  the  goods.  Chesa:- 
peake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall,  136  Ky.  379, 
124   S.   W.   372. 

That  articles  of  greater  value  are  placed 
in  the  same  box  with  ordinary  freight  is 
not  such  a  concealment  of  the  character 
of  the  goods  as  relieves  the  carrier  from 
liability  for  the  loss  of  the  ordinary 
freight.  Hyde  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Steam- 
ship Co.,  17  La.  Ann.  29. 

Illustrations. — Where  the  shipper  made 
misrepresentations  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
goods  shipped,  representing  them  to  be 
household  goods,  when  in  fact  a  part  con- 
sisted of  jewelry  and  wearing  apparel, 
the  company  was  exempt  from  liability 
as  to  the  jewelry  and  wearing  apparel, 
because  it  never  contracted  to  carry  such, 
but  was  not  exempt  as  to  the  household 
goods.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore, 
80  Ga.  522,  5  S.  E.  769. 

Where  a  shipper  delivered  to  an  ex- 
press company  a  package  wrapped  in  Ma- 
nilla paper  and  tied  with  a  twine  string, 
but  not  sealed,  which  contained  the  music 
and    libretto    in    manuscript    of   an    opera, 


761 


■  LOSS    OK    INJURY    TO    GOODS. 


§    1002 


the  character  and  contents  of  packages,  fully,  may  be  precluded  from  receiv- 
ing the  value  of  the  articles  so  omitted;  but  his  right  to  recover  for  articles 
enumerated  will  not  be  afifected.^**  If  a  shipper  is  guilty  of  no  fraud  or  negli- 
gence, or  deception,  which  misled  the  carrier  into  accepting  a  shipment  for  less 
freiglit  than  it  was  entitled  to  receive,  he  may  recover  the  value  of  the  articles 
lost.''''     if  a  carrier  is  t(jld  that  a  package  containing  money  is  very  valuable,  or 


valued  at  $1, ().")<),  stating  merely  that  it 
contained  "music,"  without  mentioning 
its  value,  and  hiyjjled  over  the  thirty-five 
cents'  charges  asked,  until  he  obtained  a 
reduction  of  10  cents,  he  could  not,  on 
the  destruction  of  the  property  by  the 
burning  of  the  express  car,  recover  its  full 
value;  it  appearing  that,  had  the  company 
known  the  value  of  the  package,  it  would 
have  charged  a  much  higher  rate,  and 
would  have  shipped  the  package  in  a  safe 
as  a  "money  package,"  in  which  event  it 
would  not  have  been  destroyed.  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Wood,  25  S.  E.  430,  98  Ga. 
268. 

A  shipper,  by  concealing  valuable  silks 
and  furs  in  a  bundle  having  the  appear- 
ance of  bedding  only,  and  thereby 
shipped  at  a  low  rate  of  freight,  releases 
the  carrier  from  liability  for  loss,  except 
as  to  what  may  properly  be  termed  "bed- 
ding." Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shea,  66 
111.  471.  See  Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Collins,  77  Ga.  370,  3  S.  E.  416,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.   S7. 

Where  a  box  of  pictures  was  shipped 
with  household  effects  and  billed  as  glass, 
in  the  absence  of  actual  fraud,  the  carrier 
is  only  liable  for  the  value  of  a  box  of 
household  glass.  Bottum  v.  Charleston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  S.  E.  985,  72  S.  C.  375,  2 
L.  R.  .\..  X.  S.,  77:1,  110  Am.  St.  Rop.  010. 

Cigars  misdescribed  as  smoking  to- 
bacco.— A  shipper  of  cigars  misdescribed 
as  smoking  tobacco,  though  guilty  of 
fraud,  deception,  or  negligence  in  mislead- 
ing the  carrier  to  ship  the  cigars  for  less 
freight  than  it  was  entitled  to  receive,  is 
nevertheless  entitled  to  recover  for  the 
loss  of  the  cigars,  and  the  reasonable 
value  of  the  tobacco  as  described.  Jen- 
kins V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  S.  E.  407, 
84  S.  C.  520. 

While  the  interstate  commerce  act 
(Act  Feb.  4,  1887,  c.  104,  §  10,  par.  3,  24 
Stat.  382,  as  added  by  Act  March  2.  1889, 
c.  382,  §  2,  25  Stat.  858  [U.  S.  Comp.  St. 
1901,  p.  3160])  prohibits  a  shipper  from 
obtaining  the  transportation  of  property 
at  less  than  the  regular  rates  then  es- 
tablished and  in  force,  by  fraudulent 
representations  as  to  value,  and  makes 
such  fraud  a  misdemeanor  and  imposes  a 
penalty  therefor,  it  does  not  prevent  the 
shipper,  on  loss  of  the  goods,  from  recov- 
ering their  apparent  value  according  to 
fraudulent  representations  made,  since,  as 
the  carrier's  charges  were  based  on  that 
value,  it  is  fair  and  just  that  it  should  be 
held  liable  for  their  loss  upon  the  same 
basis  of  value.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Green, 
112   Va.   527,  72   S.    E.    102;    \isanska    v. 


Southern   Exp.   Co.,  92  5.   C.  573,  75  S.  E. 
902. 

58.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Womack,  48 
Tcnn.   (1   Heisk.)   :.•:.';. 

59.  Where  shipper  not  guilty  of  fraud 
or  negligence. — Jenkins  v.  Atlantic,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  84  S.  C.  520,  66  S.  E.  407  (shipper 
may   also   recover   freight   paid). 

Failure  of  a  carrier  to  ascertain  the  true 
value  of  a  package  to  be  carried  and  to 
cliarge  its  regular  schedule  rates  therefor 
as  authorized  hy  Michigan  Pub.  Acts  1909, 
Xo.  300,  could  not  defeat  the  shipper's 
right  to  recover  the  full  value  of  the  pack- 
age if  lost,  in  the  absence  of  any  showing 
of  limitation  of  liability  in  the  contract  of 
carriage  or  fraud  or  deceit  of  the  shipper. 
Farnsworth  v.  Xational  Exp.  Co.,  166 
Mich.  070.  132  X.  W.  441. 

Illustrations. — A  shipper  who  sent  a 
package  to  an  express  company  for  ship- 
ment, inclosed  in  a  pasteboard  box, 
wrapped  with  heavy  brown  paper,  and 
containing  articles  of  merchandise  or  nov- 
elty goods  of  the  class  that  are  sold  by 
dry  goods  stores,  retail  hardware  stores, 
and  others,  and  which  the  express  corn- 
pany  knew  the  shipper  was  engaged  in 
dealing  in,  and  he  received  a  receipt  stat- 
ing that  the  value  was  asked,  but  not 
given,  that  the  package  was  accepted  at 
the  owner's  risk  of  breakage  as  merchan- 
dise only,  and  contained  no  money,  jew- 
elry, or  valuables,  the  recovery  in  case  of 
loss  being  limited  to  $50,  was  not  guilty 
of  fraud  upon  the  express  company  in 
shipping  the  package  in  the  ordinary 
freight  department,  and  not  in  the  money 
department,  and  in  not  disclosing  its  con- 
tents to  the  express  company.  Fine  & 
Bro.  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  10  Ga.  App. 
101,  73  S.  E.  35. 

The  defendant  corporation  gave  the 
plaintiff  a  receipt  for  goods  to  be  for- 
warded, among  which  was  specified  "1 
cradle."  The  cradle  was  wrapped  up  in 
a  piece  of  carpet,  and  bound  with  cords, 
and  there  was  evidence  introduced  tend- 
ing to  show  that  the  plaintiff  had  told 
one  of  the  defendants'  agents  that  it 
contained  a  valise.  Held,  that  the  de- 
fendants were  liable  for  the  loss  of  the 
valise.  Harmon  v.  Xew  York  &  E.  R. 
Co.    (X.   Y.).   28    Barb   323. 

Where  the  agent  of  the  shipper  truth- 
fully says  that  he  does  not  know  the  value 
of  a  trunk,  and  he  receives  a  receipt  stat- 
ing that  the  value  was  asked  and  not 
given,  there  is  no  fraudulent  concealment 
of  the  value  of  the  trunk,  whereby  a 
cheaper  rate  was  obtained  so  as  to  af- 
fect the  liability  of  the  carrier  for  the  loss 


§  1002 


CARRIERS. 


762 


as  valuable  as  money,  though  not  told  that  it  contains  money,  his  responsibility 
is  not  lessened  on  the  ground  of  concealment  or  fraud/^*^' 

Proximate  Cause  of  Loss  or  Injury. — It  is  held  that  the  misrepresenta- 
tion by  a  shipper  as  to  contents  of  shi]nnent  in  order  to  obtain  lower  rates  does 
not  present  a  recovery  for  loss  of  the  shii)ment  where  the  misrepresentation  did 
not  contribute  to  the  loss.^^ 

Misstatements  Need  Not  Be  Intentional. — If  the  shipper's  misstatements 
as  to  the  contents  of  a  box  shipped  were  material,  and  caused  the  carrier  to  omit 
the  performance  of  some  attention  which  the  goods  required,  whereby  they 
were  lost,  it  would  not  be  responsible  for  such  loss,  whether  the  misstatements 
were  intentional  or  inadvertent.*'- 

Carrier  Must  Exercise  Ordinary  Care. — Though  a  carrier  is  absolved 
froni  lial)ility  as  insurer  because  of  misrepresentations  by  the  shipper  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  goods  shipped,  whereby  the  carrier  was  induced  to  omit  pre- 
cautions which  it  would  oth.erwise  have  employed,  it  is  liable  as  bailee  for  fail- 
ure to  exercise  ordinary  care  to  safely  deliver  the  property.''*^ 

Duty  of  Carrier  to  Make  Inquiry  and  of  Shipper  to  State  Value  and 
Nature  of  Goods. — Some  of  the  authorities  hold  tliat  it  is  the  duty  of  the  car- 
rier to  ask  questions  as  to  the  nature  and  value  of  the  goods, *•■*  and  that  a  mere 


of  the  trunk  by  fire.  Southern  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Keeler,  109  Va.  459,  64  S.  E.  38. 

That  an  express  company  accorded 
shipments  of  the  vahie  of  $50  and  over  a 
higher  degree  of  care  than  shipments  un- 
der that  value,  that,  had  it  known  the 
value  of  the  shipment  involved,  it  would 
have  accorded  it  the  unusual  and  extra- 
ordinary care  that  shipments  of  its  value 
were  accorded,  that  the  shipper  had 
knowledge  that  valuable  shipments  were 
handled  with  more  care  than  shipments 
of  ordinary  value,  and  that  the  contract 
prepared  by  the  company  had  a  blank 
space  containing  the  word  "value,"  as  a 
request  to  the  shipper  to  value  the  ship- 
ment, and  that  by  his  failure  to  do  so  it 
was  not  informed  of  its  value  and  was  de- 
prived of  the  opportunity  of  giving  the 
shipment  unusual  care,  do  not  amount  to 
a  case  of  fraudulent  representation  or 
concealment  of  the  value  of  the  shipment, 
and  afford  no  defense  to  an  action  to  re- 
cover its  full  value.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Green.  112  \'a.  527,  72  S.  E.  103. 

Where  the  words  "Contents  unknown" 
are  written  above  the  signature  to  the 
bill  of  lading  for  cases  of  domestics,  one 
of  which  is  not  delivered,  the  shipper,  on 
proving  that  the  lost  case  contained  silk 
goods,  and  not  domestics,  may  recover  its 
value,  where  the  misdescription  was  not 
intended  to  deceive,  and  it  is  not  pre- 
tended— that  a  knowledge  of  the  true 
contents  would  have  inauced  a  higher 
freight  or  greater  watchfulness.  Fassett 
V.  Ruark,  3  La.  Ann.   094. 

A  designation  of  goods  shipped  as  emi- 
grant movables  covered  the  shipper's 
goods  consisting  of  typewriter,  diction- 
ary, wearing  apparel,  trunk,  and  personal 
effects,  and  did  not  estop  the  shipper  from 
claim.ing  their  actual  value.  O'Connor  v. 
Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  118  Minn.  223, 
136   X.  W.   743. 


Cigars  shipped  as  "smoking  tobacco." — 

The  distinction  between  cigars  and  smok- 
ing tobacco  as  a  basis  of  separate  freight 
classification  and  rates,  considered  with 
respect  to  the  nature,  use,  comparative 
value,  and  risk,  is  not  so  marked  that  a 
shipment  of  cigars  as  "smoking  tobacco" 
is  of  itself  evidence  of  the  shipper's  fraud 
or  negligence;  it  appearing  that  cigars 
"corded  and  sealed"  are  subject  to  the 
same  rate  as  smoking  tobacco,  while  ci- 
gars not  corded  and  sealed  take  a  higher 
rate.  Jenkins  z'.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  66 
S.    E.    407,    84    S.    C.    520. 

Where  articles  consisting  of  bedding' 
and  clothing  are  marked  "Bedding,"  the 
clotliing  Ijeing  wrapped  up  in  the  bedding 
and  no  value  being  placed  on  the  goods 
at  the  time  of  shipment,  in  the  absence 
of  evidence  that  the  clothing  had  been  so 
placed  to  conceal  its  value,  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  the  loss  of  the  clothing.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Clark,  2  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.  §  512. 

60.  Dwight  V.  Brewster  (Mass.),  1  Pick; 
50,  11  Am.  Dec.  133;  Allen  v.  Sewall  (N. 
Y.),  2  Wend.  327. 

61.  Proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury. — 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Phillips  &  Co. 
(Miss.),  60   So.   572. 

62.  Misstatements  need  not  be  inten- 
tional.— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ray 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    127    S.    W.    281. 

63.  Carrier  must  exercise  ordinary  care. 
— Head  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  126  S.  W.  682. 

64.  Duty  of  carrier  to  make  inquiry. — 
Merchants'  Despatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Bollcs,  80  Til.  473;  Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Fargo  (N.  Y.),  45  How.  Prac.  90;  Des- 
patch Line  V.  Glenny  &  Co.,  41  O.  St.  166, 
reversing  10  Am.  L.  Rec.  172,  6  O.  Dec. 
Reprint  1142;  Railway  Co.  v.  Simon,  15 
O.   C.   C.   123,  8  O.  C.  D.  540. 

Labeling    a   box    as   containing   articles 


763 


LOSS    OK    IXJUKV    TO    G(XJDS. 


§    1002 


failure  on  the  part  of  the  shipper  to  inform  the  carrier  as  to  their  value  is  not, 
per  se,  such  fraud  as  will  discharge  the  carrier,  though  they  be  of  unusual  value, 
where  no  improper  means  were  used  to  conceal  the  value.'*''  J>ut  it  is  also  held 
that  a  shipper,  tendering  a  carrier  an  article  of  unusual  value  not  apparent  from 
casual  insjjection,  is  bound  to  disclcjse  the  \alue,  and  a  failure  so  to  do  is  a  fraud 
in  law  absolving  the  carrier  from  liability   for  its  loss.'*"     And  in  any  case  the 


of  a  different  nature  and  value  from  its 
real  contents  will  dispense  with  further 
inquiry  li\  the  carrier  as  to  its  con- 
tents. Rcif  z:  Rapp  (Pa.),  3  Watts  &  S. 
21,  37  Am.   Dec.  .■)2K. 

Where  pictures  are  shipped  in  a  box 
marked  "Glass,"  the  carrit-r  is  not  required 
to  iuijuire  iniu  the  nature  and  value  of 
the  contents  of  the  box.  Bottum  v. 
Charleston,  etc..  R.  Co.,  51  S.  E.  985.  72 
S.  C.  375,  2  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  773,  110  Am. 
St.    Rep.   (JIO. 

65.  Duty  of  shipper  to  state  value. — Il- 
linois.— Merchants'  iJe>patch  Transp.  Cu. 
r.  Bolles,  SO  111.  473. 

Lotiisiaiui. — Levois  z'.  Gale,  17  La.  Ann. 
302:  Baldwin  v.  Collins  (La.),  9  Rob.  468. 

Miissactiusctts. — Phillips  v.  Earle  (M^ss.), 
8    Pick.    1S2. 

AVic  ]'ork. — Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  z'. "Fargo, 
35  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  434;  S.  C,  45  How. 
Prac.  90:  Sewall  v.  Allen  (N.  Y.),  6  W^end. 
335. 

Ohio. — Jacobson  &  Co.  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  1  O.  C.  C.  381,  1  O.  C.  D.  212.  See 
Wilson  V.   Hamilton.  4   O.   St.   722. 

Pcinisyhtniiii. — Caldwell  v.  United  States 
Exp.   Co.,  3G  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  465. 

Tc.vcis. — Texas  Exp.  Co.  v.  Scott,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  72,  16  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  Ill;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Quilhot  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  123  S.  W. 
200;  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Maddox,  75 
Tex.  300,  12  S.  W.  815;  Head  r.  Pacific 
Exp.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  126  S.  W.  682. 

The  fa'lure  of  the  shipper  to  advise  a 
common  carrier  of  the  value  of  the  article 
presented  for  carriage,  and  that  its  ac- 
tual value  is  greater  than  its  apparent 
value,  will  not  affect  his  rights,  unless  it 
justified  the  carrier  in  adopting  the  course 
of  conduct  through  which  the  loss  oc- 
curred. Gait  z:  Adams  Exp.  Co.  (D.  C), 
Mc.Arthiir   ^\:   ^L  124,  48  Am.   Rep.  742. 

Illustrations. — A  clause  in  a  carrier's 
contract,  viz  "Specie,  drafts,  bank  bills, 
and  other  articles  of  great  intrinsic  or 
representative  vahie,  will  only  be  taken 
upon  a  representation  of  their  value,  and 
b}'  a  special  agreement  assented  to  by  the 
superintendent,"  does  not  apply  to  a 
family  portrait  delivered  to  the  carrier  in 
a  wooden  case,  so  as  to  prevent  a  recov- 
ery against  the  carrier  for  the  loss  of  the 
portrait,  in  the  absence  of  notice  of  value 
or  of  the  making  of  such  special  agree- 
ment. Green  z'.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 
Mass.  221.  35  Am.  Rep.  370. 

A  IVox  seven  or  eight  inches  long,  by 
five  or  six  high  and  wide,  made  of  three- 
fourths  or  seven-eighths  inch  boards, 
wrapped  in  heavy,  brown  paper,  tied  with 


heavy  twine,  and  sealed  with  sealing  wax 
at  every  crossing  of  the  twine  and  on  the 
knot  where  it  was  tied,  addressed  to  a 
well-known  silver-manufacturing  com- 
pany, and  weighing  about  twenty  pounds, 
was  delivered  to  a  carrier  without  any 
statement  made  as  to  its  value  or  con- 
tents, no  questions  being  asked  on  those 
subjects.  The  box  in  fact  contained  sil- 
ver coin.  This  box  was  transmitted  to 
tlie  carrier  through  an  expressman,  who 
knew  that  the  carrier  had  in  his  place  of 
husincFS  two  counters — one  for  ordinary 
merchandise,  and  the  other  for  money 
packages.  He  delivered  the  box  at  the 
counter  for  ordinary  merchandise,  but  he 
did  not  know  the  contents  or  value  of 
the  box,  and  made  no  statement  on  the 
sul)jcct.  The  sum  he  charged  for  the  box 
was  less  than  was  ordinarily  charged  for 
valual)le  packages.  Held,  that  these  cir- 
cunistances  did  not  constitute  fraud,  im- 
position, unfair  concealment,  or  disguise. 
Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fargo,  35  X.  Y. 
Super.   Ct.  434. 

Valuable  negatives  marked  "photo 
goods." — Plaintiff  sliipped  valuable  nega- 
tives of  prehistoric  cities,  represented  to 
be,  and  marked,  "photo  goods."  If  their 
character  had  been  known,  a  higher  trans- 
portation rate  would  have  been  charged. 
No  inquiry  or  representations  were  made 
as  to  the  value  of  the  shipment.  Held, 
that  the  evidence  did  not  raise  an  issue  of 
fraud  or  concealment  as  to  the  character 
and  value  of  the  goods.  Southern  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  D'Arcais,  64  S.  W.  813,  27  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    57. 

The  mere  failure  of  a  shipper  to  state 
that  a  package  contained  a  valuable  ring 
does  not  absolve  the  carrier  from  liability 
for  loss  of  the  ring.  Head  z'.  Pacific  Exp. 
Co.   (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  12f,  S.  W.  <;s2. 

The  shipment  of  silverware  and  expen- 
sive china  in  a  box  and  barrel  is  not  so 
unusual  nor  is  their  value  so  extraordinary 
as  to  require  the  shipper  as  a  matter  of 
law  to  give  notice  to  the  carrier  of  their 
nature  and  value  in  absence  of  a  request 
for  such  information,  in  order  to  recover 
for  their  loss  en  route.  Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Quilhot  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  134 
S.  W.   261. 

66.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  f.  Pope.  5  Ga. 
App.  f.SO.  (i3  S.   E.  809. 

Envelope  containing  valuable  article. — 
Coinnioii  carriers  who  are  engaged  in 
transporting  and  delivering  letters  are  not 
liable  for  the  loss  of  any  article  of  spe- 
cial value  contained  within  a  letter  envel- 
ope, unless  at  the  time  of  its  delivery  to 


§§  1002-1003 


CARRIERS. 


764 


neglect  of  a  shipper  to  disclose  the  contents  of  a  package  offered  for  transpor- 
tation is  a  fraud  on  the  carrier,  if  there  is  anything  in  its  form  or  outward  ap- 
pearance likely  to  deceive  the  carrier/'"  whether  so  designed  or  not.^'**  It  is 
held  that  where  property  requires  peculiar  Care  and  attention  for  its  safe  trans- 
portation, the  shipper  should  make  known  to  the  carrier  the  necessity,  in  order 
that  proper  precaution  may  be  used.'^'''  In  some  instances  it  is  provided  by  stat- 
ute that  shippers  give  notice  of  the  character  and  value  of  goods."" 

Property  Having  Peculiar  Value. — Where  a  carrier  has  no  notice  of  the 
peculiar  value  of  an  article,  only  its  market  value  can  be  recovered  for  its  loss 
under  a  statute  providing  that  the  peculiar  value  may  be  recovered  against  one 
who  had  notice  thereof.'^ 

Liability  Limited  Where  Value  Not  Disclosed.— Where  a  carrier  limits 
its  liability  to  a  specihed  amount,  if  the  value  of  the  property  is  not  stated  by 
the  shipper,  and  the  goods  are  of  greater  value  than  the  amount  specified,  silence 
alone  on  the  part  of  the  shipper  as  to  the  real  value,  although  there  be  no  in- 
quiry by  the  carrier  and  no  artifice  to  deceive,  is  fraud  in  law  which  discharges 
the  carrier  from  liability  for  ordinary  negligence." - 

§  1003.  Inherent  Infirmities  of  Goods. — Carriers  are  not  insurers  that 
goods  shall  reach  their  destination  in  the  same  condition  in  which  they  were 
shipped;  and  they  are  not  liable  for  ordinary  wear  and  tear  of  goods  in  the 
course   of  transportation,   or   for  their   ordinary   loss,   deterioration   in   quantity 


them  thev  are  informed  of  its  value. 
Hayes  v.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.,  23  Cal.  185, 
83   Am.   Dec.   89. 

Trunk  containing  money  or  jewelry. — 
A  shipper  of  a  trunk  by  freight  must 
notify  the  agent  of  the  carrier  that  it 
contains  money,  as  a  carrier  need  not  ac- 
cept money  to  be  shipped  as  freight,  un- 
less it  is  first  notified,  so  that  it  may 
charge  a  rate  sufficient  to  justify  it  in 
taking  the  degree  of  care  observed  in  the 
transportation  of  money,  notwithstanding 
the  constitution  declaring  that  the  com- 
mon-law liability  of  a  carrier  shall  not 
be  limited.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hall,   136   Ky.   379,  124   S.  W.   372. 

A  trunk,  described  as  a  traveler's 
trunk,  was  given  to  expressmen  to  carry 
to  the  passenger  depot  of  a  railroad. 
Among  other  articles,  it  contained  $432 
worth  of  jewelry,  intended  for  sale  as 
merchandise.  It  was  delivered  at  the  des- 
ignated place,  but  the  jewelry  was  miss- 
ing. Held  that  the  expressmen,  being 
without  fault,  and  having  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  trunk  contained  anything 
but  the  ordinary  convenient  baggage  of  a 
traveler,  were  not  liable  for  the  value  of 
the  lost  jewelry.  Richards  v.  Westcott, 
15   N.   Y.   Super.   Ct.   589. 

67.  Harrington  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  108 
Minn.  257,  122  X.  W.  14,  23  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  745;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quil- 
hot    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    134    S.    W.    261. 

Silence  of  one  tendering  a  package  to  a 
carrier  for  shipment  may  constitute  a 
fraud  upon  the  carrier,  without  any  intent 
of  the  shipper  to  deceive,  if  the  size, 
shape,  or  appearance  of  the  package  mis- 
leads the  carrier  as  to  the  value  of  the 
contents.  Porteous  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
112   Minn.   31,   127    N.   W.   429. 


68.  Harrington  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  108 
Alinn.  257,  122  N.  W.  14,  23  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,    745. 

69.  Shipper  must  notify  carrier  as  to  ne- 
cessity for  particular  care. — Wilson  v. 
Hamilton,    4   O.   St.    722. 

An  express  company,  in  the  transporta- 
tion of  brittle  goods  without  notice  of 
their  character,  is  not  liable  to  the  extent 
of  common  carriers.  American  Exp.  Co. 
V.    Perkins,   42    111.    458. 

Sufficient  notice. — Where  a  box  contain- 
ing a  glass  bottle  filled  with  oil  of  cloves 
was  delivered  to  a  carrier  by  water, 
marked:  "Glass.  With  Care.  This  Side 
Up,"  there  was  a  sufficient  notice  to  the 
carrier  of  the  value  and  nature  of  the  con- 
tents to  charge  him  with  loss  in  transit, 
occasioned  by  the  breaking  of  the  box. 
Hastings   v.    Pepper    (Mass.),   11   Pick.   41. 

70.  Under  Rev.  St.  U.  S.,  §  4281,  requir- 
ing shippers  of  trinkets,  lace,  etc.,  to  give 
to  carriers  by  vessel  written  notice  of  the 
true  character  and  value  thereof,  in  order 
to  entitle  them  to  recover  for  loss,  fans 
and  parasols  made  of  delicate  arid  ex- 
pensive materials,  ornamented  with  carv- 
ing, fragile  in  construction,  and  intended 
more  for  ornament  than  for  use,  although 
possessing  to  some  extent  the  quality  of 
utility,  are  "trinkets,"  and,  though  con- 
stituting a  part  of  a  lady's  paraphernalia, 
arc  not  clothing.  Ocean  Steamship  Co.  v. 
Way,  90  Ga.  747,  17  S.  E.  57,  20  L.  R.  A. 
123. 

71.  Property  having  peculiar  value. — S. 
D.  Civ.  Code,  §  2326;  Hess  v.  South  Da- 
kota Cent.  R.  Co.,  30  S.  Dak.  538,  139  N. 
W.    334. 

72.  Liability  limited  where  value  not  dis- 
closed.— Magnin  v.  Dinsmore,  62  N.  Y. 
35,  50  How.  Prac.  457,  20  Am.  Rep.  442. 


765 


LOSS  OK  IN'JIKV  TO  GOODS. 


§  1003 


or  (iuality  in  the  course  of  the  irij),  or  from  inherent  natural  infirmity  and  tend- 
ency to  damage.'-'     The  owner  of  goods  sent  by  a  carrier  is  not  insured  by  th« 


73.  Inherent  infirmities  of  goods. — United 
Stales. —  Jaiiiuy  z\  Tudor  Co.,  '.'>  I'"cd.  814; 
Lamb  v.  i'arkniaii,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  8020,  1 
Spr.  ;J4;{;  Lawrence  v.  Lieutenant  Admiral 
Cylloniljerg,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8139;  Nelson  v. 
Woodruff,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,  117;  The 
Howard  ( U.  S.),  18  How.  2:u,  l.>  L.  Ivd. 
363. 

A'-l.-iiiisas. — Little  Rock,  etc.,  K.  Co.  v. 
Talbot,    47    Ark.    97,    14    S.    \V.    471. 

Dclincare. — Klair  v.  Wilmington  Steam- 
boat Co.,  4  Pen.  51,  7  R.  R.  R.  821,  30 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  821,  54  Atl. 
694;    Trua.x   v.    Philadelphia,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

3  Houst.  233;  Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  6  Pen.  15,  (U  Atl.  252;  Reed  v. 
Wilmington  Steamboat  Co.,  1  Marv.  193, 
40  Atl.   955,   1   Hardesty   127. 

Gcargia. — Brown,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Clayton, 
12    Ga.    564;    Georgia    R.    Co.   v.   Johnson, 

113  Ga.  589,  38  S.  E.  954;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Bailey.  7  Ga.  App.  331,  66  S.  E.  960; 
Fish  V.  Chapman.  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am.  Dec. 
393;  Ohlen  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ga. 
App.  323,  58  S.  E.  511;  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Warfield,  129  Ga.  473,  59  S.  E.  234; 
Forrester  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  92  Ga. 
699.  19  S.  E.  811;  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lippman,  110  Ga.  665,  36  S.  E.  202,  50 
I,.  R.  A.  673;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Goetchius.  135  Ga.  170,  68  S.  E.  1110; 
Coweta    County   v.    Central,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

4  Ga.    App.    94,    60   S.    E.    1018. 
////;;r)ii-.— Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.    v.    Mc- 

Clellan,  54  111.  58,  5  Am.  Rep.  83;  Ohio, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Dunbar,  20  111.  623,  71  Am. 
Dec.   291. 

Indiana. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Nicholai.  4  Ind.  App.  119,  30  N.  E.  424; 
Pittsl)urgh.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  "Morton,  61 
Ind.    539,    28    Am.    Rep.    682. 

loiiJa. — Beard  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79 
Iowa  518,  44  N.  W.  800.  7  L.  R.  A.  280, 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  381;  Gilbert  Bros.  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  136  N.  W.  911; 
Cownie  Glove  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.,  130  Iowa  327,  106  N.  W.  749, 

114  Am.  St.  Rep.  419,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1060. 

Kcntiichv. — Farley  v.  Lavary,  107  Ky. 
523,  21  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1252,  54  S.  W.  840,  47 
L.  R.  A.  383;  Hall  &  Co.  v.  Renfro,  3  Mete. 
51;  Lewis  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 
Ky.  361,  122  S.  W.  184,  25  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
938.  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  527; 
Schwartz  &  Co.  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  32  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  777,  106  S.  W.  1188;  Stiles  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep.  625,  110 
S.   W.   820. 

}[assacliusctts. — Evans  r.  Fitchl)urg  R. 
Co.,  Ill   Mass.  142,  15  Am.   Rep.   19. 

.U/V/m\'</».— Black  V.  Ashley,  80  Mich.  90, 
44  N.  W.  1120. 

Mississi-t^H- — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Abels.  60  Miss.  1017.  21  .-Km.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  105;  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Bigger, 
66  Miss.  319.  6  So.  234. 


.Missouri. — Funsten  Dried  Fruit,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mo.  App. 
426,  143  S.  W.  839;  Daggett  r.  Shaw,  3 
Mo.  264,  25  Am.   Dec.  439. 

A't'tc  Ilampsliirc. — Faucher  v.  Wilson,  68 
N.  H.  338,  38  Atl.  1002,  39  L.  R.  A.  431; 
Rixford  v.  Smith,  52  N.  H.  355,  13  Am. 
Rep.    42. 

Xorih  Carolina. — Currie  v.  Seaboard, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  156  N.  C.  432,  72  S.   E.  493. 

Xortli  Dakota. — Duncan  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  17  N.  Dak.  610,  118  N.  W.  826, 

19  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  952. 

Ohio. — American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Smith,  33 
O.  St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561;  Toledo,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Ambach.  10  O.  C.  C.  490,  6  O. 
C.  D.  574.  affirmed  in  57  O.  St.  38,  47  N. 
E.  1039;  Canal  Boat  Montgomery  v.  Kent, 

20  O.  54;   Pittsburgh,  etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Bar- 
rett,   36    O.    St.    448. 

Oregon. — Lacey  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc..  Co. 
(Ore.).    128    Pac.    999. 

Texas.— M.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes  &  Co, 
2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  575;  Fentiman 
V.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co..  44  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
455.  98  S.  W.  939;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Levi,  76  Tex.  337.  13  S.  W.  191:  Texas 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Hunter  &  Co.,  47  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  190,  104  S.  W.  1075;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hynes.  3  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  20,  21  S.  \Y.  622;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Levi,  12  S.  W.  677;  Albright  v.  Penn, 
14  Tex.  290;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Tra- 
wick.   68  Tex.   314.  4   S.  W.   567. 

J'irginia. — \'irginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sav- 
ers.   67    Va.    (26    Gratt.)    328. 

JVest  J'irginia. — Br.ltimore.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Morehead.  5  W.  Va.  293;  McGraw  i:  Bal- 
timore, etc..  R.  Co.,  18  W.  Va.  361.  41 
Am.  Rep.  696.  9  .Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  188. 

A  carrier  of  merchandise  is  only  liable 
for  such  deterioration  in  merchandise  car- 
ried as  is  attributable  to  its  negligence. 
Ruddell  7'.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  152  111. 
App.  218;  Joerg  i'.  Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
152   111.   .\pp.  229. 

The  freezing  of  potatoes  by  a  carrier 
will  l)c  licld  to  1)L'  cau.-^cd  by  the  nature 
of  the  property,  so  as  to  exempt  him  from 
lialiility.  provided  he  has  been  guilt}'  of 
no  previous  negligence  or  misconduct 
wiiich  can  be  considered  the  proximate 
cause  of  the  injury.  McGraw  z\  Balti- 
more, etc..  R.  Co..  18  W.  Va.  361.  41  Am. 
Rep.  696.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  ISS. 

Moisture  of  cotton  received  prior  to 
lading. — The  responsil)ility  of  the  carrier 
does  not  extend  to  damages  resulting  to 
a  cargo  of  cotton  in  bales,  from  moisture 
of  the  contents  of  the  bales  received  pre- 
vious to  the  time  of  lading,  which  could 
not  have  been  discovered  by  the  master 
of  the  vessel  and  where  the  vessel  was 
seaworthy,  and  there  was  no  subsequent 
negligence  on  the  part  of  the  master  with 
respect  to  protecting  the  cotton.  Clioate 
r.  Crowninshield.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2.601.  3 
Cliff    184. 


§  1003 


CARRIERS. 


766 


carrier  against  their  explosion,""'  spontaneous  combustion,"''  putrefaction,  dis- 
solution, growth,  disease."''  fermentation,""^  acidification,  effervescence,""^  evapo- 
ration.'^'^ unavoidable  leakage,'^'^'  or  natural  decay. "^^  A  carrier  of  perishable 
goods  is  liable  for  damages  for  its  failure  to  exercise  due  care  in  view  of  the 
nature  of  the  goods,''-  and  must  show  that  the  loss  was  caused  by  the  inherent 
qualities  of  the  goods  unmixed   with  negligence  on   its  part.**-' 


74.  Explosion. — Rixford  f.  Smith.  52  X. 
H.  355.  13  Am.  Rep.  42;  The  Nitro-Gly- 
cerine  Case  (U.  S.).  15  Wall.  524,  21  L. 
Ed.    20(>. 

75.  Spontaneous  combustion. — Rixford 
r.  Smith,  52  X.  H.  ;J55,  13  Am.  Rep.  42; 
Evans  r.  Fitchburg-  R.  Co..  Ill  Alass.  142, 
15  Am.  Rep.  19;  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
v.  Morton,  61   Ind.   539,  28  Am.   Rep.   682. 

If  a  fire  destroying  a  car  load  of  high 
proof  spirits  was  of  spontaneous  origin, 
caused  by  contact  with  the  air,  the  car- 
rier was  not  liable  therefor  where,  on 
delivery  of  the  car  to  the  consignee,  it 
notified  his  agent  that  one  of  the  barrels 
containing  the  spirits  was  broken.  Roth- 
child  Bros.  7'.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co. 
(Wash.).     123     Pac.     1011. 

76.  Putrefaction,  etc. — Rixford  v.  Smith, 
52  X.    H.   355.   13  Am.   Rep.   42. 

77.  Fermentation. — Rixford  v.  Smith,  52 
X.  H.  355,  13  Am.  Rep.  42;  Evans  v.  Fitch- 
burg  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  142,  15  Am. 
Rep.  19. 

A  common  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the 
loss  of  molasses  by  the  bursting  of  the 
barrel,  caused  by  the  fermentation  of  the 
contents.  Faucher  v.  Wilson,  38  Atl.  1002, 
68    X.   H.   33S.   3!)    L.    R.   A.   431. 

78.  Acidification  and  effervescence. — 
Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Morton,  61  Ind. 
539,   28   Am.    Rep.   682. 

79.  Evaporation. — Evans  z'.  Fitchburg 
R.   Co.,   Ill   Mass.   142,   15  Am.   Rep.   19. 

80.  Unavoidable  leakage. — Xelson  v. 
\\'oodruff.  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  10,117;  Evans  v. 
Fitchburg  R.  Co.,  Ill  Mass.  142,  15  Am. 
Rep.  19.  ' 

In  Xelson  v.  Woodruff,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,117,  it  is  held,  that  a  common  carrier 
is  not  responsible  for  leakage  from  bar- 
rels, if  they  are  such  as  are  commonly 
used  for  similar  purposes,  and  became  un- 
fitted to  hold  their  contents  from  causes 
connected  with  the  nature  and  condition 
of  the  article  which  the  carrier  could  not 
control. 

Hog's  lard  having  certain  qualities 
which  make  its  leakage  from  ordinary 
barrels  or  wooden  casks  unavoidable  in 
hot  weather,  a  person  who  ships  it  in 
that  condition  from  a  southern  port  for 
a  long  voyage,  through  low  latitudes  in 
midsummer,  takes  upon  himself  the  risk 
of  all  loss  necessarily  proceeding  from 
that  cause.  Xelson  v.  Woodruff,  Fed. 
Cas.    Xo.    10.117. 

Alcohol  reduced  in  strength — Failure  to 
prove  carrier  in  fault. —  In  Jordan  v.  Amer- 
ican Exp.  Co.,  86  Me.  225,  29  Atl.  980, 
which  was  an  action  against  an  express 
company   for   not   safely   carrying  alcohol 


contained  in  tin  cans  and  I^oxed,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  carrier  receipted  for  two 
l)Oxes,  not  valued,  nor  contents  specified. 
The  boxes  were  delivered  to  the  plaintiff, 
apparently  in  the  condition  received,  ex- 
cept they  were  wet,  presumably,  in  the 
absence  of  proof,  from  leakage.  There 
was  no  oroof  that  the  cans  were  full  when 
delivered  to  plaintiff.  The  complaint  was 
that  the  alcohol  was  reduced  in  strength 
in  transit.  It  was  held  that  the  action 
could   not   be   maintained. 

81.  Natural  decay. — Delaware. — Carpen- 
ter v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co..  6  Pen.  15, 
64    Atl.    252. 

Indiana. — Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Morton,  61  Ind.  539,  28  Am.  Rep.  682. 

.'[farvland. — Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Diffendal,   109   Md.   494,   72  Atl.   193. 

.Massachusetts. — Evans  v.  Fitchburg  R. 
Co.,    Ill   Mass.   142,   15   Am.   Rep.   19. 

AVti'  Hampshire. — Rixford  v.  Smith,  52 
X.    H.   355,   13   Am.    Rep.   42. 

Ohio. — Long  v.  Louisville,  etc..  Packet 
Co.,  7  X.  P.,'  X.  S.,  14,  18  O.  D.  X.  P. 
699;  American  Exp.  Co.  z:  Smith,  33  O. 
St.  511,  31  Am.  Rep.  561;  Railroad  Co.  v. 
O'Donnell,   49   O.   St.  489,   32   N.    E.   476. 

Fruit  shipped  being  inherently  subject 
to  decay,  and  the  bill  of  lading  being- 
qualified  with  that  condition,  the  vessel 
is  not  responsible  for  its  sound  delivery, 
without  evidence  of  some  misfeasance  ot 
the  master  which  set  in  action  or  aggra- 
vated such  tendency.  Lawrence  t'.  Lieu- 
tenant Admiral  Callomberg,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,139,  affirmed  in  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  3,716,  1 
Black    170,    17    L.    Ed.    89. 

If  the  value  of  peaches  was  lessened 
because  of  natural  deterioration  while  in 
possession  of  the  carrier  without  its 
fault,  it  would  not  be  liable  to  the  own- 
ers. Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  z'.  Goetchius, 
135    Ga.    170,   68    S.    E.    1110. 

82.  Carrier  must  exercise  due  care. — 
Trakas  v.  Charleston,  et-^.,  R.  Co.,  87  S. 
C.   206,   69    S.    E.   209. 

A  carrier  was  lial)le  for  damage  caused 
liy  decay  in  a  shipment  of  fruit,  if  by  ex- 
ercise of  reasonable  skill  and  diligence 
the  decay  could  have  been  prevented.  M. 
P.  R.  Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  575. 

83.  Carrier  must  be  free  from  negligence. 
— Forrester  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc..  Co..  92 
Ga.  699,  19  S.  E.  811;  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Georgia  Fruit,  etc.,  Exch.,  91  Ga.  389, 
17  S.  E.  904.  See  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Diffendal.  109  Md.  494,  72  Atl.  193, 
458. 

Unreasonable  delay  in  forwarding  per- 
ishable freight  would  1)C  negligence  on  the 


767' 


LOSS    OR     IXTURV    TO    GOODS. 


§§  1004-1005 


§  1004.  Act  or  Mandate  of  Public  Authority.— Act  of  Military  Au- 
thority.— -A  carrier  is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  shipped  contrary  to  the 
dircclifjiis  of  the  owner  in  obedience  to  a  military  order,^'*  or  for  goods  seized 
and   destroyed   under  military   authority. *'•'' 

Seizure  under  Legal  Process. — A  carrier,  surrendering  in  good  faith  and 
witliout  ii(.-.i;Ii.m.iK(.'  i^ooiU  taken  under  a  \aii(l  legal  prcjcess  issued  against  the 
owner  is  excused  frcjui  furtlKr  liability,'"'  and  is  not  liable  for  losses  occasioned 
there]  )y.^' 

§§  1005-1009.  Carriers  to  Which  Rule  Applicable  §  1005.  In  Gen- 
eral. Railroads.  The  rule  that  a  common  carrier  is  an  insurer  of  goods  and 
lial)le  for  all  bjsses  unless  occasioned  bv  the  excepted  causes  ai)])lies  to  all  classes 
of  common  carriers.'**'  of  which  railroads  afford  the  most  numerous  examples. ^^ 
.V  railroad  company  oi)crating  a  meagerly  equi])ped  railway.'"'  and  a  company 
receiving  freight  before  its  road  is  completed,  and  when  it  is  only  running  con- 
struction trains,'-*^  are  res])onsible  as  common  carriers.  As  to  liability  of  rail- 
road comj)anies  conveying  chartered  or  private  cars,  see  elsewhere. "- 

Express  Companies. — Express  companies  are  subject  to  all  the  common- 
law  liabilities  of  common  carriers,"-'  though  they  have  no  means  of  transjKjrta- 
tion  of  their  own  and  em])lov  the  vehicles  of  other  carriers  for  that  purpose.^"* 


part  of  the  carrier  l)ccause  proloiiffin^  the 
time  within  which  hy  the  operation  of 
natural  loss  decay  would  he  produced  and 
such  negligence  would  therefore  contrih- 
ute  to  causinj?  the  injury.  Forrester  v. 
Georjjia  R..  etc..  Co.,  92  Ga.  (')!)<).  19  S.  F.. 
811. 

84.  Losses  occurring  through  act  of 
military  authority. — Railroad  Co.  v.  Hurst, 
oS    Tenn.    (11    Hcisk.)    ()2.5. 

A  carrier  shipping  goods  to  a  distant 
place  in  obedience  to  a  military  order,  and 
storing  them,  is  not  liable  for  a  loss  oc- 
curring by  fire  without  his  negligence, 
though  the  owner  had  not  had  sufficient 
time  to  look  after  them  after  he  learned 
where  they  were.  Railroad  Co.  ?'.  Hurst, 
.58    Tenn.    (11    Heisk.)    ^2',. 

85.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estes,  54 
Tenn.  (7  Hcisk.)  622,  24  Am.  Rep.  289; 
S.   C,   78   Tenn.    (10   Fea)    749. 

86.  Seizure  under  legal  process. — Clif- 
ford 7'.  Brockton  Trans]).  Co.,  214  Mass. 
466,  10]  N.  E.  1092.  See  ante,  "Goods 
Seized   under   Legal   Process,"   §§  870-874. 

87.  M.  P.  R.  Co.  r.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2 
Texas  .A^pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  57;');  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  Belton  Oil  Co.,  45  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp. 
44,   99   S.   \V.   4:!0. 

88.  Carrier  to  which  rule  applicable — 
Who  are  common  carriers. — See  ante. 
"l\rs(>n.s  ;inil  Corpoi  alions  Who  .\re 
Common   Carriers,"  §§   3-18. 

89.  Railroads.— Helliwcll  7'.  Grand  Trunk 
Railway,  7  Fed.  68,  10  Biss.  170.  See 
ante,  "Railroad  Companies,"  §  3.  .And 
see,  also,  ante  and  post,  the  particular 
sections. 

Railroad  companies  are  subiect  to  lia- 
bility as  common  carriers,  although  their 
charters  do  not.  in  so  many  words,  pro- 
vide that  thev  shall  be.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.    7'.    Thonipson,    19    Til.    578. 

Under   the   Texas   statute,   a    railroad    is 


responsible  as  a  common  carrier.     Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491. 

90.  White  7'.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
Ill    Minn.   167,   126   N.   W.   533. 

91.  Little  Rock.  etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Glidewell, 
39    .Ark.    487. 

92.  Chartered  or  private  cars.— See 
post,  "Goods  Shipped  on  Chartered  or 
Private  Cars,"  §   1011. 

93.  Express  companies.  —  Alabama. — 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hess.  53  .Ala.  19; 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  7'.  Crook,  44  .Ala.  468, 
4   Am.   Rep.   140. 

Georgia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Newby, 
36   Ga.   635,   91    .Am.    Dec.   783. 

Illinois. — Gulliver  7'.  .Adams  Exp.  Co.,  38 
111.    503. 

/n(f/fl»a.— Express  companies  are  made, 
by  statute  (1  Gav.  &  H.  St.  p.  327).  com- 
mon carriers.  American  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Hockett,  30  Ind.  250,  95  Am.  Dec.  691; 
United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ru.sh,  24  Ind. 
403. 

Missouri. — Kirby  7'.  .Adams  Exp.  Co.,  2 
Mo.  App.  369. 

.Vr7C'  )'o;-A'.— Sherman  7'.  Wells.  28  Barb. 
403;  Belger  7'.  Dinsmore,  51  N.  Y.  166,  10 
Am.  Rep.  575;  Read  7'.  Spaulding,  18  N. 
V.  Super.  Ct.  395;  Landsbcrg  7'.  Dinsmore 
(N.    v.),    4    Daly    490. 

Failure  to  comply  with  a  statute  declar- 
ing such  companies  common  carriers  does 
not  relie\e  an  exi>ress  company  from  re- 
sponsibility as  such  carrier.  United  States 
Exp.   Co.  V.  Rush,  24   Ind.  403. 

94.  District  of  Columbia.— Ga\t  z:  -Ad- 
ams Exp.  Co.  (D.  C),  Mc.Arthur  &  M. 
124,   48   .Am.    Rep.   742. 

.Mabama. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  7'.  Ash- 
ford,   126   .Ala.   591.   28   So.   732. 

Massachusetts. — Buckland  7'.  .Adams  Exp. 
Co..  97   Mass.   124.  93   .Am.   Dec.  68. 

Minnesota. — Christenson      7'.      American 


CARRIERS. 


768 


§  1005 

And  the  status  of  an  express  company  is  not  changed  h>-  an  agreement  with 
the  shipper  that  it  is  to  be  held  hable  as  a  forwarder  only,'-'-  or  by  calhng  itselt 
an  "express   forwarder."  ^'■' 

Wagoners  who  carry  goods  for  hire  are  subject  to  the  same  habdity  as  com- 
mon carriers.'-''  ...  ,  , 

Transfer  companies,   are  Hable  as  common  carriers  tor  loss  or  damage  to 

goods.-'-  ,  .....  .,. 

Carriers  by  Water.— The  general  rule  of  a  common  carriers  liability  ap- 
plies to  carriers  by  water."'-' 

Ferrymen  —The  law  regards  a  public  ferryman  as  a  common  carrier,  and 
thrown  upon  him  the  same  duties  and  liabilities.^  And  a  private  ferryman,  not 
on  a  public  road,  mav  incur  the  liabilities  of  a  common  carrier  by  notoriously 
undertaking  to  transport  for  hire  all  persons  indifferently,  with  their  carriages 
and  croods:^  but  this  is  a  question  for  the  jury.=^  But  one  who  keeps  a  ferry 
for  his  own  use.  and  for  the-  convenience  of  customers  to  his  mill,  and  who 
charges  no  ferriage,  is  not  liable  as  a  common  carrier.^ 

Switching  Companies.— A  railroad  company  taking  loaded  cars  from  its 
connection  with  aiuuhcr  road,  transferring  them  by  a  switch  engine  over  its  own 


Exp.  Co.,  15  Minn.  270,  Gil.  208,  2  Am. 
Rep.   122. 

Ohio.— United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Back- 
man,  28  O.  St.  144. 

South  Carolina. — Stadliccker  r.  Combs  & 
Co.    (S.   C),  9   Rich.   L.   193. 

95.  Gait  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  (D.  C),  Mc- 
Arthur   &   M.   124,   48   Am.   Rep.   743. 

96.  Buckland  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  97 
Mass.    124.    9.3    Am.    Dec.    68. 

97.  Carriers  by  wagon, — Philleo  v.  San- 
ford,  17  Tex.  227,  67  Am.  Dec.  654;  Gor- 
don z-.  Hutchinson  (Pa.),  1  Watts  &  S. 
285,  37  Am.  Dec.  464;  Chevallier  v.  Stra- 
ham,  2  Tex.  115,  47  Am.  Dec.  639.  See 
Herring  v.  Utle,  53  N.   C.   270. 

98.  Transfer  companies. — Arkadelphia 
Mill.  Co.  V.  Smoker  Merchandise  Co.,  100 
Ark.    37,    139    S.   W.    680. 

99.  Carriers  by  -water. — United  States.— 
Niajjara  v.  Cordes,  21  How.  7,  16  L.  Ed. 
41;  The  Commander-in-Chief,  1  Wall.  43, 
17  L.  Ed.  609;  The  Maggie  .Hammond,  9 
Wall.  435,  19  L.  Ed.  772.  Tompkins  v. 
Dutchess,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    14,087a. 

Alabama. — Jones  v.  Pitcher  &  Co.,  3 
Stew.  &  P.  135,  24  Am.  Dec.  716. 

Connecticut. — Hale  v.  New  Jersey  Steam- 
Nav.  Co..  15  Conn.  539.  39  Am.  Dec.  398; 
Richards  v.  Gilbert,  5  Day  415;  Clark  v. 
Richards.    1    Conn.   54. 

.Ui.f.yo »;-/.— Daggett  v.  Shaw,  3  Mo.  264, 
25  Am.  Dec.  439. 

South  Coro/nia.— McClures  v.  Hammond, 
1  Bay  99,  1  Am.  Dec.  598;  Harrington  v. 
Lyles,  2  Nott  &  McC.  88;  Faulkner  v. 
Wright,  Rice  107;  Patton  v.  Magrath, 
Dud.  159,  31  Am.  Dec.  552. 

Texaj. — Houston,  etc.,  N&v.  Co.  v. 
Dwyer.  29  Tex.   376. 

Carrier  on  lake. — McArthur  v.  Sears  (N. 
Y.),  21  Wend.  190;  Spencer  v.  Daggett,  2 
Vt.    02.  .  .     . 

A  boatman  is  a  common  carrier,  within 
the  rule.  Harrington  v.  Lyles  (S.  C),  2 
Nott    &   McC.   88;    Turney   v.   Wilson,    15 


Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  340,  27  Am.  Dec.  515; 
Gordon  v.  Buchanan,  13  Tenn.  (5  Yerg.) 
71;  Moss  v.  Bettis,  51  Tenn.  (4  Heisk.) 
661,  13  Am.  Rep.  1;  Johnson  v.  Friar,  12 
Tenn.  (4  Yerg.)  48,  26  Am.  Dec.  215. 
Compare  Eveleigh  v.  Sylvester  (S.  C),  2 
Brev.    178. 

Contra. — In  an  early  case  it  was  held 
that  the  master  or  owners  of  a  vessel 
transporting  goods  on  the  high  seas  are 
not  common  carriers  within  the  meaning 
of  the  rule.  Aymar  v.  Astor  (N.  Y.),  6 
Cow.   266. 

1.  Ferrymen. — Alabama. — ■  Babcock  z. 
Herbert,   3   Ala.   392,   37   Am.    Dec.   695. 

Arkansas.— Harvey  v.  Rose,  26  Ark.  3,  7 
Am.   Rep.  595. 

California. — May  v.  Hanson,  5  Cal.  360, 
63   Am.   Dec.   135. 

Kentucky.— UaW  &  Co.  v.  Renfro,  3 
Mete.    51. 

lozva. — Slimmer  v.  Merry,  23  Iowa  90; 
Whitmore  v.  Bowman,  4  G.  Greene  148. 

Missouri. — Pomeroy  v.  Donaldson,  5 
Mo.    36. 

Ohio. — Wilson  v.  Hamilton,  4  O.  St. 
722. 

Pennsylvania. — Smith  v.  Seward,  3  Pa. 
342. 

Tennessee. — Sanders  v.  Young,  38  Tenn. 
(1    Head)    219.   73   Am.   Dec.   175. 

rr.rfl.?.— Albright  v.  Penn,  14  Tex.  290.^ 
If  a  ferryman  combines,  as  is  frequently 
the  case,  with  the  business  of  a  ferryman, 
the  carrying  of  merchandise  without  the 
presence  of  the  owner,  he  is  bound  by 
the  obligations  of  a  common  carrier  as  to 
such  property.  New  York  v.  Starin,  106 
N.  Y.  1,  12  N.  E.  631. 

2.  Hall  &  Co.  V.  Renfro  (Ky.),  3  Mete. 
51;  Littlejohn  v.  Jones  (S.  C),  2  McMul. 
365,    39    Am.    Dec.    132. 

3.  Littlejohn  v.  Jones  (S.  C),  2  McMul. 
365.   39   Am.   Dec.   132. 

4.  Self  v.  Dunn,  42  Ga.  528,  5  Am.  Rep. 
544. 


769 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§§  1005-1006 


track  to  a  spur  of  its  own,  and  receiving  its  compensation  from  the  connecting 
road,  is  liable  as  a  cfjuinion  carrier  for  the  safety  of  the  goods  transferred.^ 

Carriers  of  Passengers  may  by  special  contract  or  general  course  of  busi- 
ness become  liable  as  common  carriers  as  to  articles  not  strictly  within  their 
line  of  business.'' 

Trustees  and  Receivers. — The  fact  that  a  railroad  is  in  the  custody  of  the 
court  (Iocs  not  render  the  receiver  appointed  by  the  court"  any  the  less  liable  as 
a  common  carrier."  Trustees  of  an  insolvent  railroad  company,  who  operate 
the  road,  are,  it  seems,  liable  for  loss  of  goods  as  common  carriers.^ 

A  mail  carrier  may  become  liable  as  a  common  carrier."' 

One  agreeing  to  tow  a  vessel  out  of  a  port  is  not  liable  as  a  common 
carrier.  1" 

Carriage  of  Goods  Not  Transported  for  Public  Generally. — A  common 
carrier  of  certain  kinds  ol  good^  i.->  not  liable  a>  ;-iich  where  it  transports  other 
kinds  of  goods,  which  it  does  not  transport   for  the  public  generally.^' 

§  1006.  Carriers  Not  Owning  Means  of  Transportation. — Transpor- 
tation companies,  not  owning  or  controlling  any  means  of  conveyance  them- 
selves, but  engaging  on  their  own  behalf  in  the  business  of  transporting  freight 
through  the  agency  and  over  the  lines  of  other  carriers,  of  their  own  selection 
and  employment,  are  common  carriers  and  insurers  of  such  freight  while  it  is 
being  carried   for  them  by  the  other  carriers. ^- 


5.  Switching  companies.— Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  i'.  Wichita,  etc.,  Grocery  Co.,  55 
Kan.   ',2:>.  -11)   I'ac.  899. 

6.  Proprietors  of  stage  coach. — The 
practice  of  conveying  for  hire,  in  a  stage 
coach,  parcels  not  belonging  to  passen- 
gers, renders  the  proprietors  of  the  coach 
liable  as  common  carriers  for  the  loss  of 
such  parcels.  Dwight  v.  Brewster 
(Mass.),  1  Pick.  50,  11  Am.  Dec.  133; 
Powell  z'.  Mills,  30  Miss.  231,  64  Am.  Dec. 
158;  Beckham  z'.  Shouse  (Pa.),  5  Rawle 
179,  2S  Am.  Dec.  653;  Goodwyn,  etc.,  Co. 
V.   Douglas    (S.   C),    Cheves   174. 

A  street-railway  company,  may  become 
liable  as  a  common  carrier  of  merchandise 
on  its  cars.  Levi  v.  Lynn,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mass.),    11    Allen   300,   87   Am.   Dec.    713. 

Railroad  company.— See  Elkins  v.  Bos- 
ton, etc.,   R.   Co.,  23   X.   H.  275. 

Two  instances  of  the  transportation  of 
goods  l)y  a  passenger  train,  witliin  two 
years,  lor  which  freight  was  paid  to  the 
baggage  master,  is  not  evidence  of  a  cus- 
tom to  thus  transport  goods,  or  that  the 
public  understood  that  such  a  custom  ex- 
isted. Elkins  r.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  23 
X.  H.  275. 

7.  Receivers. — Beers  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  34  ]\(i.  244.  See  Paige  v.  Smith,  99 
Mass.  3'.)."). 

8.  Trustees.— Faulkner  v.  Hart,  44  N. 
Y.    Super.    Ct.    471. 

Trustees  of  a  railroad  mortgage,  given 
to  secure  bonds  of  the  company,  fore- 
closed, and,  by  permission  of  the  court, 
bid  at  the  sale.  TThey  purchased  the  road, 
and  operated  same  for  the  benefit  of  their 
cestuis  que  trustent.  Held  that,  as  to 
the   public,   they  were   operating  the   road 

1    Car — 19 


as  owners,  and  were  liable  as  common 
carriers.  Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  43  N.  Y. 
598,  afiirming  2  Lans.  486. 

9.  Mail  carrier. — The  statute  of  the 
United  States  (Acts  11th  Cong.  c.  54) 
making  it  unlawful  for  a  mail  carrier  to 
take  any  letter  or  packet,  and  deliver  it 
to  the  person  to  whom  it  was  sent  does 
not  apply  where  a  mail  carrier  for  hire 
takes  bank  notes  in  a  sealed  envelope, 
and  delivers  them  according  to  the  di- 
rection; and  in  an  action  against  him,  as 
a  common  carrier,  for  the  loss  of  the 
package,  he  can  not  set  up  such  statute 
as  a  defense.  Dwight  v.  Brewster 
(Mass.),  1  Pick.  50,  11  Am.  Dec.  133. 

10.  Towage  of  vessel. — Pennsylvania, 
etc.,  Xav.  Co.  v.  Dandridge  (Md.),  8  Gill. 
&   J.    248,    29   Am.    Dec.    543. 

11.  Carriage  of  goods  not  transported 
for  public  generally. — Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Harris,  1  Te.xas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
1257. 

A  statute  prohibiting  "common  car- 
riers of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandises 
from  limiting  their  common-law  liability, 
does  not  either  limit  or  extend  the  class 
of  propertj'  to  be  embraced  by  the  car- 
rier transporting  goods  for  hire."  Tex. 
Rev.  St.  art.  278;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.   Harris,   1  Texas  -\pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  1257. 

Carriage  of  money. — See  post,  "Car- 
riers  of   Money,"   >j    l(i()7. 

12.  Carriers  employing  means  of  trans- 
portation of  other  carriers. — United  States. 
—Rank  f.  Adams  Hxp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174, 
23    L.    Ed.    872. 

.^llalhJiim. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ash- 
ford,  126  Ala.  591.  28  So.  732;  Southern 
Exp.    Co.    t'.    Crook,    44    Ala.    468,    4    Am. 


1007 


CARRIE^RS. 


770 


§  1007.  Carriers  of  Money.— Where  it  is  the  regular  occupation  of  a  car- 
rier, as  in  the  case  of  an  express  company,!^  to  transport  money  or  its  repre- 
sentatives, it  is  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  loss  or  damage  to  the  same.^* 
It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  a  carrier  of  ordinary  freight  is  also  a  carrier  of 
money  or  its  representatives.  In  order  to  render  the  carrier  liable  as  such,  it 
must 'be  clearly  proved  that  it  held  itself  out  to  the  public  as  such.i^  But  it  is 
held  that  the  proprietors  of  a  stage  coach  accustomed  to  carry  parcels  not  be- 
longing to  passengers  are  liable  as  common  carriers  for  the  loss  of  a  package 
of  money.^''  And  it  is  also  held  that  the  owners  of  a  vessel  are  responsible  as 
common  carriers,  for  money  or  gold  taken  on  board  as  freight  for  transportation.^' 

Liability  as  Dependent  upon  Compensation.— It  is  held,  that  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  depends  ui)on  the  fact  whether  or  not  it  received  the  money  to 
carr>'  for  a  compensation :  and  though  there  be  no  stipulated  price  for  the  serv- 
ice, yet,  if  the  usage  in  such  cases  implies  an  agreement  to  pay  the  earner  for 
such  service,  it  will  be  liable.i^  Where  the  owner  of  a  boat  claims  that  the  car- 
riage of  banknotes  was  by  private  contract  between  the  plaintiff  and  the  cap- 
tain, the  mere  fact  that  the  captain  was  permitted  to  retain  the  compensation 
for  "carrying  does  not  of  itself  exonerate  the  owner  from  liability  as  a  common 
carrier  for  their  loss.^^ 

Effect  of  Usage.— To  render  a  boat  liable  as  a  common  carrier  of  money, 
it  must  be  its  usage  to  carry  money  for  hire,^"  or  the  known  usage  of  the  trade 


Rep.   140;  Southern   Exp.   Co.  v.  Hess,   53 
Ala.    19. 

Colorado. — Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co. 
V.    Cornforth,    3    Colo.    280,    35    Am.    757. 

Illinois. — Edison  v.  Pennsylvania  Co., 
70  111.  App.  654;  Gulliver  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co,  38  111.  503;  Merchants'  Despatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Kahn,  76  111.  520;  Michi- 
gan Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Curtis,  80  111.  324; 
Wald  V.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  162  111. 
545,  44  N.  E.  888,  35  L.  R.  A.  356,  53  Am. 
St.  Rep.  332. 

Indiana. — American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hock- 
ett,  30  Ind.  250,  95  Am.  Dec.  691;  United 
States   Exp.   Co.   v.    Rush,   24   Ind.   40:5. 

Massachusetts.— Buc\<i.\d.n6.  v.  Adams 
Exp.    Co.   97    Mass.    124,   93   Am.   Dec.    68. 

Missouri.— KnsX.'m  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.. 
Packet  Co.,  15  Mo.  App.  197. 

New  Forife.— Langworthy  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  E.  D.  Smith  195;  Place  v. 
Union  Exp.  Co.,  2  Hilt.  19;  Mercantile 
Mut.  Ins.  Co.  V.  Chase,  1  E.  D.  Smith  115. 

0/n'o.— United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Back- 
man,  28  O.  St.   144. 

Pennsylvania. — Chouteaux  v.  Leech,  7 
Leg.   Int.   109,  9   Leg.   Int.  78. 

Tennessee. — Merchants'  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Bloch  Bros.,  86  Tenn.  (2  Pickle)  392,  6 
S.  W.  881. 

13.  Carriage  of  money — Express  com- 
pany.— United  States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hut- 
chins,    67    111.    348. 

14.  Kuter  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co., 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,955,  1  Biss.  35;  Citizens', 
etc.,  Bank  v.  Nantucket  Steamboat  Co., 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,730,  2  Story  16;  Sher- 
man V.   Wells    (N.   Y.),   28    Barb.   403. 

15.  ///tuou.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Thompson,   19   111.   578. 

Kentucky.— hte  v.  Burgess,  9  Bush  652. 
New    Forfe.— Sewall    v.    Allen,    6    Wend. 
335,    overruling    2    Wend.    327. 


The  charter  of  a  common  carrier  upon 
Lake  Champlain,  extended  to  the  carry- 
ing of  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise, 
and  "all  other  articles  and  things  usually 
transported  by  water,"  on  that  lake,  and 
it  appeared  that  bank  bills  were  usually 
carried  by  the  water  craft  upon  that  lake 
at  the  time  the  corporation  received  its 
charter  and  went  into  operation.  It  was 
held  that  the  carrier's  powers  extended 
to  the  carrying  of  bank  bills,  and  that  if 
it  assumed  the  risk  of  carrying  such  arti- 
cles, it  was  liable  as  a  common  carrier. 
Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v.  Champlain 
Transp.   Co.,   23   Vt.   186,   56   Am.   Dec.   68. 

A  carrier  of  "goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise" will  not  necessarily  be,  pre- 
sumed to  be  a  common  carrier  of  money 
and  bank  bills.  Lee  v.  Burgess  (Ky.), 
9    Bush.    652. 

The  term  "merchandise"  does  not  ap- 
ply to  mere  evidence  of  value,  such  as 
notes,  bills,  and  checks.  Citizens'  Bank 
V.  Nantucket  steamboat  Co.,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,730,  2  Story  16. 

16.  Dwight  V.  Brewster  (Mass.),  1  Pick. 
50,  11  Am.  Dec.   133. 

17.  Sulakowski   v.    Flint,   22   La.   Ann.   6. 

18.  Liability  dependent  upon  compen- 
sation,—Kirtland  V.  Montgomery,  31 
Tenn.    (1   Swan)    452.  . 

19.  Farmers'  etc..  Bank  v.  Champlam 
Transp.   Co.,   23   Vt.   186,   56  Am.   Dec.   68. 

20.  Effect  of  usage. — Choteau  v.  The 
St.  Anthony,  16  Mo.  216,  holding  that  the 
act  of  the  captain  of  a  boat  in  takmg 
bank  bills  for  transportation  is  not  prima 
facie  evidence  of  the  liability  of  the  boat 
as    a   common    carrier. 

Proof  of  the  usage  of  the  clerks  of 
steamboats  to  receive  and  carry  pack- 
ages from  one  port  to  another,  without 
hire,    in    the    expectation    that    such    boat 


771 


LOSS  (Mi    INJl'KY   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1007-1009 


that  it  should  so  carry  it.-'      Proof  of  a  custom  by  boats  to  carry  money   for 
customers  to  gain  patronage  does  not  establish  a  custom  to  carry  it  for  hire.-- 

§  1008.  Persons  Occasionally  Carrying. — A  j^erson  whose  business  is 
not  the  carr)ing  of  goods,  and  wlio  does  not  hohl  himself  out  to  the  world  as 
such,  will  not  be  liable  as  an  insurer,  although  he  may  occasionally  carry  goods 
for  hire.-''  l>ut  such  person  is  liable  if  he  assumes  the  occupation  (jf  carrier.-"* 
or  contracts  specially  to  carry  goods  and  deliver  them  in  "good  order  and  con- 
dition, unavoidable  accidents  only  excepted."  -•'•  The  question  whether  a  jjer- 
son  whose  princi])al  occupation  is  farming,  but  who  at  certain  seasons  of  the 
year  makes  contracts  for  transportation  of  goods  with  those  who  chose  to  em- 
ploy liim,  is  liable  as  a  common  (jr  private  farrier  is  for  the  jury.-" 

§  1009.  Forwarders. — Parties  undertaking  merely  to  forward  goods,  by 
a  carrier,  other  than  themselves,  are  only  forwarders,  and  not  carriers,  of  such 
goods,  and  do  not  assume  the  responsibility  of  insurers.  -'  Where  parties  do- 
ing business  as  forwarders  and  also  as  common  carriers,  agree  orally  to  trans- 
I)ort  merchandise,  to  l)c  delivered  to  them  from  time  to  time,  and  subsequently, 


would  be  preferred  by  the  parties  in 
their  shipments  of  freisht,  is  insufficient 
to  hind  the  owners.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  Mail 
Line    Co.    v.    Boal,    15    Ind.    345. 

21.  Choteau  v.  The  St.  Anthony,  16  Mo. 
216. 

Although  ordinarily  a  steamboat  may 
not  be  compelled  to  take  charge  of  money, 
yet,  if  the  general  usage  of  boats  in  a 
particular  trade  to  take  charge  of  money 
is  shown,  the  delivery  of  money  to  a 
particular  boat  will  be  governed  by  this 
common  usage.  Hosea  2'.  McCrory,  12 
Ala.    349. 

The  owners  of  a  steamboat  are  re- 
sponsible as  common  carriers  for  loss  of 
a  cash  letter  delivered  to  the  clerk,  if  the 
jury  find  that  it  is  the  general  custom  of 
steamboats  to  carry  such  letters,  al- 
though thev  are  delivered  to  the  clerk  and 
carried  without  ciiarge.  Garey  v.  Meag- 
her &  Co.,  33  Ala.  630. 

22.  Chouteau  v.  The  St.  Anthony,  20 
Mo.   51 9. 

23.  Persons  occasionally  carrying. — Al- 
lis  V.  Voight,  99  Mich.  125,  51  X.  W.  190; 
Faucher  v.  Wilson,  68  N.  H.  338,  38 
Atl.  1002,  39  L.  R.  A.  431;  O'Rouke  v. 
Bates,  133  N.  Y.  S.  392,  73  Misc.  Rep. 
414;  Fish  v.  Clark,  49  N.  Y.  122,  affirming 
2  Lans.  176;  Satterlee  v.  Groat  (N.  Y.),  1 

Wend.    272;    v.    Jackson,    2    N.    C. 

(1  Hayw.)  14;  Samms  r.  Stewart,  20  O. 
69,  55   .Xm.   Dec.  445. 

Contra. — A  person  who  undertakes, 
though  only  pro  hac  vice,  to  carry  by 
river  for  hire,  without  special  contract, 
incurs  the  responsibility  of  a  common  car- 
rier. Moss  V.  Bettis,  51  Tenn.  (4  Heisk.) 
661,  13  Am.  Rep.  1,  citing  Gordon  v. 
Hutchinson  (Pa.),  1  Watts  &  S.  285.  37 
Am.  Dec.  464,  wherein  it  is  held  that  one 
who  carries  goods  for  hire  is  subject  to 
the  same  liabilities  as  a  common  carrier, 
although  that  lie  not  his  principal  and 
direct  liusiness,  but  only  his  occasional 
and   incidental   employment. 


Illustrations. — Where  it  was  proved 
that  defendant  owned  a  sloop,  and  was 
specially  employed  by  the  plaintiffs  to 
make  two  trips  to  carry  grain,  held,  that 
this  fell  short  of  proof  sufficient  to  make 
him  a  common  carrier.  Allen  v.  Sack- 
rider,  37   N.  Y.  341. 

One  who  sends  his  servant  to  transport 
goods  belonging  to  a  particular  person 
from  one  place  to  another,  with  special 
instructions  not  to  take  the  goods  of  any 
other  person  for  transportation,  is  not 
liable  as  a  common  carrier  in  case  of 
loss  of  the  goods,  notwithstanding  he 
was  once  a  common  carrier,  but  had 
abandoned  the  business.  Satterlee  v. 
Groat   (N.  Y.),  1   Wend.  272. 

If  the  owners  of  a  flatboat  only  pro- 
pose to  carry  the  cotton  of  particular 
persons,  they  can  not  be  held  liable  as 
common  carriers  to  a  third  person,  with 
whom  the  master  of  the  boat,  in  viola- 
tion of  their  instructions,  makes  a  con- 
tract for  freight.  Steele  v.  McTyer.  31 
Ala.   667,  70   .Km.   Dec.   516. 

24.  Chevallier  v.  Straham,  2  Tex.  115. 
47    Am.    Dec.    639. 

25.  Fish  z:  Chapman,  2  Ga.  349,  46  Am. 
Dec.   393. 

26.  Haynie   r.    Baylor,    18    lex.    498. 

27.  Forwarders. — Goodrich  v.  Thomp- 
son, 27  X.  V.  Super.  Ct.  75;  Hersfield 
f.  Adams  (X.  Y.),  19  Barb.  577;  Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co.  V.  Second  Nat.  Bank,  69 
Pa.  394,  8  Am.  Rep.  268.  See  ante, 
"Transportation  and  Forwarding  Com- 
panies."  §    8. 

Loss  by  accidental  fire. — If  goods  are 
under  tlie  control  oi'  parties  as  forward- 
ers and  not  as  common  carriers,  and  are 
consumed  by  accidental  fire  in  a  ware- 
house without  any  fault  or  negligence 
on  their  part,  they  are  not  liable,  unless 
they  had  agreed  for  compensation  paid, 
to  insure  them,  and  iiad  failed  to  do  so. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  z\  Mc\'eigh,  61  Va. 
(20   Gratt.)    264. 


§§  1009-1010 


CARRIERS. 


72 


on  receiving  a  portion  thereof  to  be  transported  pursuant 'to  the  contract,  they 
execute  an  instrument  stating  that  the  same  was  received  to  be  forwarded,  they 
are  responsible  as  common  carriers,  and  not  as  forwarders.-^  Under  a  contract 
by  a  companv  engaged  in  assembhng  car  load  lots  of  goods  for  shipment,  it  is 
immaterial,  to  a  recovery  for  damage  to  the  goods  and  for  cartage  and  storage 
charges  paid  before  a  delivery  of  the  goods  could  be  obtained,  whether  such 
companv  was  a  mere  forwarder,  or  a  forwarder  and  distributor,  as  it  was  obli- 
gated to  carrv  out  its  undertaking,  without  regard  to  what  name  it  used  in  desig- 
nating its  business.-" 

§  1010.  Commencement  and  Termination  of  Liability. — A  carrier's 
common-law  liabilit}"  as  an  insurer  of  freight  does  not  attach  until  the  freight 
has  been  actually  or  constructively  delivered  to  and  accepted  by  it  for  trans- 
portation.'""^ \Miere  the  liability  has  begun,  it  continues  until  there  has  been  a 
proper  deliverv.'"'^   or  the  carrier  has  in   some  way  been  discharged  of  his  pe- 


28.  Blossom  r.  Griffin.  i:5  X.  V.  o<J!>, 
G7    .\m.    Dec.    T.J. 

Warehouseman  and  carrier — Freight 
received  for  forwarding  by  his  own  or 
other  boats. — In  Ladne  v.  Griffith.  25  N. 
V.  3ii4.  S2  Am.  Dec.  300,  it  appeared  that 
a  warehouseman  at  Buffalo  was  also  a 
carrier  on  the  Erie  canal,  and  used  to  re- 
ceive freight  from  the  west  and  forward 
it  to  the  east  by  the  first  boat  going, 
whether  his  own  or  that  of  other  car- 
riers: that  he  received  goods  shipped  from 
Detroit  addressed  to  his  care  at  Buffalo  and 
marked  "to  go  from  Buffalo  to  East 
Albany,  at  30  cts.  per  lOO  lbs."  it  was 
held,  that  the  presumption  was  that  the 
goods  came  to  his  possession  as  a  car- 
rier, and  having  been  burned,  although 
without  his  fault,  while  in  his  warehouse 
awaiting  transportation,  he  was  liable  for 
their   value. 

29.  Garberson  v.  Transcontinental 
Freight  Co.,  51  Wash.  213,  98   Pac.   612. 

30.  Commencement  of  liability. — See 
an'e,  'AVlien  Liability  Commences,"  chap- 
ter 5. 

The  rule  that  carriers  are  insurers  of 
property  intrusted  to  them  is  only  inci- 
dental to  the  contract  of  carriage,  and 
does  not  begin  earlier  than  is  necessary 
to  secure  faitliful  execution  of  such  con- 
tract. Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Exp. 
Co..  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L.  R. 
A..    N.    S.,   393. 

31.  Proper  delivery. — Arkadelphia  Mill. 
Co.  V.  Smoker  Merchandise  Co.,  100  Ark. 
37,  139  S.  W.  680;  Bowman  v.  Hilton,  11 
O.  303;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelm,  121 
Minn.  .343,  141  N.  W.  295,  44  U  R.  A., 
X.    S.,    995. 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  exempts  a  car- 
rier from  liability  from  loss  by  fire,  and 
the  goods  are  burned  while  in  the  car, 
but'  after  they  had  been  formally  deliv- 
ered to  the  consignee,  a  judgment  in  his 
favor,  without  proof  that  the  fire  was 
caused  by  the  carrier's  negligence,  can- 
not be  sustained.  St.  L.,  I.  M.  &  S.  R. 
Co.  V.  Bone,  52  Ark.  26,  11  S.  W.  958. 

Mode  and  sufficiency  of  delivery. — See 
ante,  "Transportation  and  Delivery  of 
Carriers,"    chapter    10. 


The  liability  of  a  drayage  company  as 
a  carrier  of  goods,  receiving  goods  from 
a  car  on  a  house  track,  continued  until 
it  had  completed  the  carriage  by  the  ac- 
tual delivery  of  the  goods  to  the  con- 
signees at  their  place  of  business.  Ark- 
adelphia Mill.  Co.  V.  Smoker  Merchan- 
dise   Co.,    100   Ark.   37,    139   S.   W.   680. 

Where  consignee's  agent  had  surren- 
dered bill  of  lading,  gone  to  the  car 
which  had  been  spotted  on  the  delivery 
tracks  for  delivery,  and  had  broken  the 
seal  and  entered  the  car  before  a  fire 
occurred,  there  was  a  delivery  and  the 
carrier  was  not  liable.  Rothchild  Bros. 
V.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co.  (Wash.),  123  Pac. 
1011. 

Delivery  at  intermediate  point. — One 
who  delivers  goods  to  a  carrier  for  trans- 
portation to  a  designated  point  may  ac- 
cept delivery  thereof  at  an  intermediate 
point,  and,  when  he  does  so,  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  terminates.  Whitin  v. 
Pendegast,    50    N.    Y.    674. 

Delivery  to  connecting  carrier. — A  bill 
of  lading  executed  at  New  York  de- 
scribed the  goods  as  marked:  "D.  W. 
Mott  &  Bros.,  Memphis,  Tenn.  To  be 
transported  to  Philadelphia,  and  there 
delivered  to  the  Penn.  R.  R.,  all  rail  to 
Cincinnati,  Ohio."  Held  that,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  indication  to  the  contrary, 
the  ultimate  destination  was  Memphis, 
and  that  the  agents  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Railroad,  who  at  Cincinnati  had  for- 
warded them  thither  by  steamboat,  were 
not  liable  for  their  loss.  Brown  &  Co.  v. 
Mott    &    Bros.,    22    O.    St.    149. 

Goods,  the  property  of  A.,  were  for- 
warded by  B.  by  railroad  from  Baltimore 
to  be  delivered  at  St.  Louis,  and  were 
so  injured  before  reaching  their  destina- 
tion as  to  be  valueless.  In  an  action  by 
A.  to  recover  their  value  from  the  rail- 
road, it  was  proved  that  the  damage  was 
done  after  the  goods  were  transferred  to 
another  railroad,  and  that  the  receipt 
given  by  the  company  shipping  the  goods 
contained  the  clause  that:  "The  respon- 
sibility of  the  company  is  to  terminate 
when  the  goods  are  unloaded  from  the 
cars.      Goods    intended    for    all    rail    must 


17^ 


LOSS  OR   INJURY   TO  GOODS. 


§    1010 


culiar  rclalicni  to  the  properly.'^-  TIic  liability  of  a  common  carrier  as  an  in- 
surer does  not  continue  longer  than  is  necessary  to  secure  faithful  and  efficient 
execution  of  the  contract  of  carriage,-'-'  and  it  can  be  held  responsible  as  sucii 
only  so  long  as  there  remains  something  necessary  to  be  done  or  to  happen  in 
order  to  terminate  its  liability  as  carrier.^-*  Where  a  common  carrier  has  trans- 
ported goods  to  destination,  and  the  consignee  has  paid  the  freight  and  given 
his  receipt  for  the  shipment,  the  contract  of  carriage  is  complete.''-'"  Where  a 
common  carrier  takes  goods  being  transported  by  it  from  the  cars,  and  places 
them  in  a  warehouse  for  reshipment,  and  they  are  there  destroyed  by  tire,  the 
goods  are  still  in  transit,  and  the  carrier's  liability  as  an  insurer  continues,  and 
it  is  liable  for  the  loss.^**  Where  a  carrier  agrees  to  deliver  imported  goods  in 
bond  to  the  consignee  at  an  internal  port  of  entry,  it  is  liable  for  losses  sustaine<l 
while  the  goods  are  detained  in  a  warehouse  in  the  original  port  of  entry,  be- 
cause of  the  carrier's  failure  to  j^reparc  and  tile  the  necessary  clearance  papers."'^ 


be  marked  "'rhrouk'h  l)y  rail.'  Jiiver 
goods,  via  Wlieeling  or  Parkersburg, 
must  be  marked  on  this  ticket."  Held, 
that  the  responsibility  of  the  defendants 
ceased  upon  unloading  the  cars  at  the 
terminus  of  their  road,  and  that  the  pro- 
vision that  the  goods  might,  in  certain 
contingencies,  be  transported  from  that 
place  by  steamboat,  forbade  the  interpre- 
tation that  the  unloading  of  the  cars 
could  mean  unloading  at  the  place  of 
destination.  McCann  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    20    Md.    202. 

Rule  requiring  removal  within  certain 
time. — 'I  1k'  liability  of  a  carrier  under  a 
rule,  rixed  by  himself,  that  all  articles  of 
freight  must  be  taken  away  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  being  unloaded, 
does  not,  it  seems,  cease  within  twenty- 
four  hours,  though  within  that  time  he 
unloads  them  within  a  warehouse,  unless 
they  are  delivered  to  one  authorized  to 
receive  them.  Angle  &  Co.  v.  Mississippi, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,   '.)   Iowa   487. 

A  bill  of  lading  provided  that  prop- 
erty not  removed  with  twenty-four  hours 
after  arrival  at  destination  may  be  kept 
in  the  car,  depot,  or  place  of  delivery  of 
the  carrier  at  the  owner's  risk,  or  may 
at  the  carrier's  option  be  stored  at  the 
owner's  risk  and  cost,  sul^ject  to  the 
carrier's  freight  lien.  Held,  that  such 
clause  was  only  applicable  to  property 
after  it  had  reached  its  tlestination  and 
did  not  apply  to  hay  transported  under 
a  contract  re(|uiring  delivery  at  ship's 
side  within  lighterage  limits  of  the  port 
of  New  York,  which  had  only  readied 
the  rail  terminal  at  the  time  it  was 
stored  and  destroyed.  Bolles  v.  Lehigh 
Valley  R.  Co.,  l.'j'.t  Fed.  G94,  Sij  C.  C.  A. 
5C>2. 

Delivery  in  dangerous  condition. — Car- 
rier was  nut  lialile  lor  loss  of  snoods  from 
fire  after  delivery,  although  they  v/ere  in 
a  dangerous  condition  when  delivered, 
when  the  consignee  accepted  delivery 
with  knowledge  of  their  condition. 
Rothchild  Bros.  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co. 
(Wash.),   12;i    Pac.    1011. 

32.     Cleveland,   etc.,    R.    Co.   v.   Sargent, 


l'.»  (J.  St.  438.  (Resumption  of  posses- 
sion by  owner.)  Bowman  v.  Hilton,  11 
O.  30:i;  McGregor  &  Co.  v.  Kilgore,  0 
O.  358.  See  ante.  "Failure  or  Refusal 
of  Consignee  to  Receive  Goods,"  §  868; 
"Goods  Seized  under  Legal  Process,"  §§ 
870-874;  post,  "Stoppage  in  Iransitu," 
chapter    17. 

33.  Hutchinson  v.  United  States  E.\p. 
Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  .V.J  S.  F.  '.149,  14  L. 
R.    A.,    N.    S.,    393. 

34.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowherd, 
120  Ala.  51,  23  So.  793;  Mobile,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Prewitt,  46  .Ala.  63,  7  Am.  Rep. 
586;  Tallassee  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Western 
Railway,  128  Ala.  167,  29  So.  203;  Jack- 
son V.  Sacramento  Val.  R.  Co.,  23  Cal. 
268;  American  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hockett,  30 
Ind.  2.J0,  95  Am.  Dec.  691;  State  v.  Cree- 
den,  78  Iowa  556,  43  N.  W.  673,  7  L.  R. 
A.  295:  Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad  (Mass.),  1  Gray  263.  61  Am. 
Dec.  423;  Burnell  v.  New  York  Cent. 
R.-  Co..  45  N.  Y.  184,  6  .\m.  Rep.  61; 
Mierson  v.  Hope,  32  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
561;  \'an  Horn  v.  Kermit  (N.  Y.),  4  E. 
D.    Smith    453. 

35.  Stewart  v.  Central,  etc..  R.  Co.,  3 
Ga.  App.  397,  f)0  S.  I-'..   1. 

Payment  of  freight  alone. — Goods 
transported  by  a  railroad  arrived  at  the 
place  of  destination,  and  were  placed  on 
the  platform  of  the  depot  at  the  usual 
place  of  discharging  goods  read)-  for  de- 
liver}' to  the  consignee  in  good  order, 
and  he  was  notified  of  their  arrival,  and 
l)aid  the  freight  on  them.  Held,  that  it 
seems  that  the  payment  of  the  freight 
without  any  arrangement  as  to  the  fur- 
ther custody  of  the  goods  is  equivalent 
to  deliver}',  so  far  as  to  throw  the  risk 
of  loss  on  the  consignee.  New  Albany, 
etc..   R.    Co.   V.    Campbell,    12    Ind.   55. 

36.  Goods  being  reshipped. — Merchants' 
Despatch  Transp.  Co.  f.  Kahn,  76  111. 
520. 

37.  Cownie  Glove  Co.  v.  Merchants' 
Dispatch  Transp.  Co..  106  N.  W.  749. 
130  Iowa  327.  4  L.  R.  A..  .\.  S..  1060,  114 
Am.    St.    Rep.   419. 


§  1011 


CARRIERS. 


774 


§  1011.  Goods  Shipped  on  Chartered  or  Private  Cars— Power  of 
Carrier  to  Charter. — A  common  carrier  having  the  exckisive  right  of  trans- 
portation of  passengers  and  freight  over  its  road  in  its  own  cars  and  by  means 
of  its  own  motive  power  has  the  right  to  charter  or  hire  an  entire  train  or  any 
part  of  it  to  another  company  or  individual. •'"' 

Liability  of  Carrier. — In  the  case  of  a  chartered  car,  as  in  other  cases  of 
carriage  of  freight,  the  responsibihty  of  the  carrier  begins  with  the  deHvery  to 
it  of  the  goods  and  ends  with  its  deHvery  of  them  at  the  place  of  destination. ^'^ 
But  where  one  hires  the  use  of  cars  from  a  railroad  company  to  be  used  in  the 
transportation  of  freight,  to  be  loaded  as  the  hirer  choose,  or  to  be  left  in  the 
control  of  the  shipper  or  his  agent,  the  company  does  not  incur  the  risk  of  a 
common  carrier  Avith  respect  to  the  contents  of  such  cars  while  transporting 
them.-**^'  The  remedy  of  the  hirer  for  injuries  must  be  on  the  contract  for  hire  and 
the  implied  undertaking  of  the  company  that  the  hired  cars  are  substantial  and 
will  be  duly  carried  to  their  point  of  destination,  etc.^^ 

A  special  contract  between  a  railroad  company  and  one  who  has  chartered 
a  car.  as  to  the  liability  for  loss  of  the  goods  shipped  in  such  car,  will,  if  legal 
and    reasonable,   be   enforced.'*- 

Private  Cars. — A  common  carrier's  liability  does  not  attach  to  a  railroad 
company  that  has  contracted  to  move  property  in  the  shipper's  own  cars  con- 
trolled by  his  own  agents,  and  though  operated  by  railway  employees,  run  upon 
a  schedule  to  suit  the  shipper.'*^     But  it  is  held  that,  in  such    case,  the  defendant 


38.  Power  to  charter  cars. — East  Ten- 
nessee, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Whittle,  27  Ga. 
535,  73  Am.   Dec.   741. 

39.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Anderson, 
58    Ga.    393. 

40.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Whittle,  27  Ga.  535,  73  Am.  Dec.  741; 
Chappell  V.  Western  Railway,  8  Ga.  App. 
787,    70    S.    E.    208. 

Goods  destroyed  by  shipper's  agent. — 
The  rule  that  a  common  carrier  is  an  in- 
surer of  the  safety  of  freight  does  not 
apply  where  the  goods  were  transported 
in  a  car  left  in  the  exclusive  control  of 
the  shipper's  agent,  and  they  were  de- 
stroyed by  his  act;  and  in  such  case  it  is 
immaterial  whether  or  not  such  agent 
was  negligent.  Hart  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  69  Iowa  485,  29  N.  W.  597,  27  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.   Cas.   59. 

Manner  of  loading. — Where  parties  hire 
the  use  of  cars  from  a  railroad,  to  be 
used  in  the  carriage  of  freight,  to  be 
loaded  as  the  hirers  choose,  the  railroad 
does  not  incur  any  risk  as  to  the  mode 
adopted  in  loading  the  cars.  Ohio,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Dunbar,  20  111.  023,  71  Am. 
Dec.    291. 

That  the  employees  of  the  carrier  re- 
tain the  management  of  a  train  chartered 
by  it  to  an  individual,  docs  not  render 
the  carrier  liable  as  a  common  carrier 
for  injuries  to  property  shipped  on  the 
train.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Whittle,   27    Ga.   535,   73   Am.   Dec.   741. 

41.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Whittle,    27    Ga.    535,    73    Am.    Dec.    741. 

Where  a  railroad  company  hired  to 
the  proprietor  of  a  theatrical  company 
a  baggage  car  for  the  transportation 
of    theatrical    properties,    and    in    connec- 


tion with  the  car  furnished  lamps,  one 
of  which  exploded  on  account  of  hav- 
ing been  neglectfully  filled,  whereby 
the  properties  in  the  car  were  burned, 
the  value  of  the  properties  so  burned 
may  be  recovered  in  an  action  ex 
contractu  brought  against  the  railroad 
company  by  the  person  to  whom  the 
car  was  rented  and  who  owned  the 
properties,  on  the  theory  that  while 
the  contract  did  not  expressly  refer 
to  the  lamps,  or  warrant  that  they  were 
in  reasonably  safe  condition,  neverthe- 
less such  was  a  reasonable  implication 
flowing  from  the  contract  as  made,  and 
that  the  burning  of  the  properties  was 
reasonably  to  have  been  anticipated 
from  the  furnishing  of  defective  lamps. 
Further  damages  flowing  from  the  l^reach 
may  (so  far  as  they  were  within  the 
contemplation  of  the  parties  at  the  time 
the  contract  was  made)  be  also  recov- 
ered. Chappell  V.  Western  Railway,  8 
Ga.    App.    787,    70    S.    E.    208. 

42,  Special  contract. — Central  R.,  etc., 
Co.   z'.    Anderson,    58    Ga.    393. 

43.  Private  cars. — Coup  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  56  Mich.  Ill,  22  N.  W.  215,  50 
Am.  Rep.  374,  wherein  the  court  said: 
"It  is  a  misnomer  to  speak  of  such  an  ar- 
rangement as  an  agreement  for  carriage 
at  all.  It  is  substantially  similar  to  the 
business  of  towing  vessels,  wliich  has 
never  been  treated  as  carriage.  It  is, 
although  on  a  larger  scale,  analogous  to 
the  business  of  furnishing  horses  and 
drivers  to  private  carriages.  Whatever 
may  be  the  liability  to  third  persons  who 
are  injured  l)y  carriages  or  trains,  the 
carriage  owner  can  not  hold  the  persons 
he  employs  to  draw  his  vehicles  as  car- 
riers." 


//.^ 


LOSS  OR    INJURY   TO  GOODS. 


§§    1011-1012 


will  be  liable  as  a  common  carrier  for  an  injury  to  the  cars  resulting  from  the 
(lerailment  of  the  train."*^ 

§§  1012-1016.  Acts  or  Omissions  Rendering  Carrier  Liable  in  Gen- 
eral—  §  1012.  In  General. — A  loss  caused  by  the  negligence  of  the  carrier 
constitutes  a  liabihiy  nf  the  carrier  at  common  law.-*-"'  A  common  carrier,  to 
exempt  itself  from  liability  for  injuries  hapjK-ning  to  goods,  while  it  is  engaged 
in  transjiorting  them  for  hire,  must  show  that  it  was  free  from  fault  at  the  time 
the  injury  or  damage  occurred,  and  that  no  act  or  neglect  on  its  part  concurred  in 
or  contributed  to  the  injury.-*"  The  carrier  is  liable  for  losses  occasioned  by 
misdirecting  the  goods.^'  sliijjping  them  prematurely,'***  leaving  them  in  a  place 
exposed  to  fire,-*''  miloading  them  at   an   impro])er  time,-'"   failing  to  place  them 


44.  Mallory  v.  Tioga  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
39    Barl).   488. 

45.  Loss  caused  by  negligence  of  car- 
rier.—  British,  etc.,  Marine  Ins.  Co.  V. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co..  63  Tex.  475,  479,  51 
Am.  Rep.  661;  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Zim- 
merman &  Co.,  81  Te.x.  G05,  608,  17  S. 
W.    239. 

46.  Michaels  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co., 
30  N.  Y.  564,  86  Am.  Dec.  415;  Read  v. 
Spauldinj?,  30  N.  Y.  630.  86  Am.  Dec. 
426,   affirming   18   N.   Y.    Super.   Ct.   395. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  estab- 
lish the  liability  of  common  carriers  for 
the  loss  of  goods  carried  by  them,  to 
show  that  the  loss  was  occasioned  solely 
by  their  negligence.  If  their  act  or 
omission  was  in  itself  a  want  of  ordinary 
care  and  diligence,  and  contril)uted  to 
the  loss,  it  is  not  for  the  court  or  jury 
to  measure  in  what  proportion  or  degree, 
imless  the  loss  must  have  happened  not- 
withstanding such  negligence.  Lamb  v. 
Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  2 
Daly   454. 

Where  a  vessel  transporting  freight 
was  run  into  and  sunk  by  a  steamer  in 
the  night,  and  those  in  charge  of  the 
vessel  were  guilty  of  negligence  in  hav- 
ing no  watchman  on  the  deck,  the  own- 
ers of  the  vessel  were  liable  to  a  shipper 
for  the  value  of  freight  lost,  though 
those  in  charge  of  the  steamer  were  also 
guilty  of  negligence.  Converse  v.  Brain- 
erd,  27   Conn.   607. 

47.  Goods  misdirected  by  carrier. — 
Vincent  v.  I-Jatlur,  :;i  'lex.  77,  86,  '.)s  Am. 
Dec.    51(). 

48.  Injuries  caused  by  premature  ship- 
ment.—Where  a  carrier,  after  informing 
tlic  owner  of  goods  delivered  to  it  for 
transportation  that  they  will  be  held  at 
place  of  receipt  till  the  freight  charges 
are  prepaid,  ships  the  goods  without  pay- 
ment, and  without  notice  to  the  owner, 
it  is  lial)le  for  damages  resulting  from 
such  premature  shipment.  Campion  r. 
Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4:!  l-ed.  77:.,  11  L. 
R.   A.   128. 

49.  Leaving  cotton  in  exposed  place. — 
When  a  carrier  leaves  a  car  load  of 
cotton  at  an  intermediate  station,  on  a 
side    track,    within    ten    feet    of    tlie    main 


track,  in  danger  of  fire  from  sparks 
from  passing  engines,  and  without  a 
guard,  this  is  evidence  of  gross  negli- 
gence, and,  unexplained,  will  make  the 
carrier  liable  for  all  losses  occasioned 
by  such  negligence.  Purcell  v.  Southern 
Exp.    Co..   34    Ga.    315. 

\  railway  company  received  a  quantity 
of  cotton  for  transportation,  and  had  it 
placed  on  l)arges  for  carriage  to  another 
city,  to  be  placed  on  its  cars.  By  di- 
rection of  the  company  the  barges  were 
detained  a  mile  or  two  below  the  proper 
place  for  the  delivery  of  freight  to  the 
company  and  at  a  point  where  there  was 
such  a  large  amount  of  shipping  as  to 
necessitate  the  mooring  of  the  barges 
much  nearer  the  channel  of  the  river  and 
passing  steamers  than  would  have  been 
necessary  at  any  point  in  that  neighbor- 
hood. The  prevailing  winds  at  that  sea- 
son blew  from  passing  steamers  towards 
the  barges,  and  on  the  bank  near  by 
trains  were  constantly  running.  .After 
the  barges  had  been  so  moored  for  sev- 
enteen days,  the  cotton  caught  fire  from 
a  passing  steamer.  Held,  that  the  com- 
pany was  negligent  in  placing  the  cotton 
in  such  an  exposed  position.  Thomas  v. 
Lancaster  Mills.  71  Fed.  481,  19  C.  C. 
A.    88. 

A  railroad  companj'  received,  and  is- 
sued l)ills  of  lading  making  it  liable  for 
loss  by  fire  in  case  of  negligence,  for, 
uncompressed  cotton,  and,  under  author- 
ity of  the  assignee  of  the  bills,  sent  it  to 
a  compress  company,  and.  after  it  was 
compressed,  allowed  it  to  remain  for  an 
unreasonal)le  length  of  time  on  the  plat- 
form of  the  compress  company,  exposed 
to  sparks  from  passing  engines,  and  it 
was  burned  up.  Held,  that  the  company 
was  lial)le  for  the  cotton.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  McFadden.  89  Tex.  138.  33  S. 
W.    853. 

50.  Unloading  goods  at  improper  time. 
— .\  common  carrier  will  be  held  liable 
for  damage  caused  to  goods  whicli  lie 
has  transported  to  the  place  of  destina- 
tion, and  landed  during  a  rainstorm, 
without  giving  notice  to  the  consignees 
of  their  arrival,  although  the  goods  were 
but  a  few  hours  exposed,  and  his  agent 
made    some    etfort    to   protect    them    from 


§  1012 


CARRIERS. 


776 


in  a  warehouse,^^  negligently  handling  them,"'-  or  failing  to  require  instruc- 
tions as  to  their  transportation. ^^  Placing  a  wooden  car  next  to  the  tender 
of  the  locomotive,  or  permitting  the  express  messenger  to  ride  in  the  front  pas- 
senger car,^-*  or  failing  to  place  cars  within  fire  and  police  protection  when 
temporarily  standing  on  side  tracks, ^""^  is  not  evidence  of  negligence.  Unload- 
ing goods  on  Sunday  is  not  fault  or  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  in  the 
absence  of  proof  that,  by  the  law  of  the  state  where  the  loss  happened,  such 
act  was  unlawful. ^"^  Where  a  carrier  refuses  to  receive  goods  for  transporta- 
tion, because  badly  packed,  it  is  not  liable,  as  a  trespasser,  for  their  destruc- 
tion, without  negligence  on  its  part,  while  being  separated  by  it  from  other 
freight  with  which  they  had  been  improperly  mixed,  and  which  it  is  such  car- 
rier's duty  to  transport.^'"  The  fact  that  a  station  agent  persuaded  the  consignee 
of  freight  to  receive  goods  in  a  damaged  condition,  and  pay  the  freight  does 
not  render  the  carrier  liable  for  damages  when  it  would  not  otherwise  be  re- 
sponsible unless  the  agent  was  authorized  to  assume  such  liability.^** 

Effect  of  Custom. — That  it  was  the  custom  of  steamboats  to  carry  torch- 
lights at  night  on  board  does  not  affect  the  liability  of  the  owners  of  a  steam- 
boat for  a  loss  by  fire  caused  by  the  negligent  use  of  such  lights. ^'-^ 

Goods  in  Bad  Condition  When  Received  by  Carrier. — A  consignor  can 
not  reco\er  for  loss  of  perishable  goods  ship])ed  in  bad  condition,  even  though 
the  carrier's  negligence  contributed  to  the  loss,  unless  by  ordinary  care  the 
former  could  not  have  avoided  the  consequences  of  the  latter's  negligence. ^"^ 


the  rain  by  which  they  were  damaged. 
Withers  v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co. 
(X.   v.),  48   Barb.  455. 

A  carrier  of  perishable  goods,  with 
notice  that  they  would  be  injured 
by  rain,  unloaded  them  after  notice  to 
the  consignee,  but,  before  the  consignee 
could  take  all  of  them  from  the  landing, 
they  were  injured  by  rain,  the  carrier 
making  no  attempt  to  protect  them. 
Held,  that  the  carrier  was  liable.  Mc- 
Andrew  v.  Whitlock,  52  N.  Y.  40,  11  Am. 
Rep.  657,  affirming  32  X.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
62.3. 

Where  a  shipment  of  apples  is  un- 
loaded from  a  packet  upon  a  wharf- 
boat  in  the  early  evening,  and  during 
the  night  the  apples  are  frozen,  the  car- 
rier is  liable  to  the  consignee  for  the 
damages  thus  sustained.  Long  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  Packet  Co.,  7  X.  P.,  N.  S., 
14,  18  O.  D.  X.  P.  699. 

51.  Failure  to  place  goods  in  ware- 
house.— Where  plaintiff  shipped  a  ma- 
chine together  with  certain  tools,  etc., 
consigned  to  himself  at  a  flag  station  on 
defendant's  road,  where  defendant  main- 
tained a  warehouse  and  side  track,  but 
no  station  or  agent,  the  carrier,  not  hav- 
ing placed  the  tools  and  cable  in  its 
warehouse  on  their  arrival,  as  it  might 
have  done,  was  liable  to  plaintiff  for 
their  loss.  X'ormile  v.  Northern  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  77  Pac.  1087,  36  Wash.  21,  67  L.  R. 
A.    271. 

52.  Negligent  handling  of  goods.^ 
When  cotton  is  injured  and  depreciated 
in  weight  by  the  bursting  of  the  bagging, 
and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  handled, 
the  carrier  is  liable.  Lipford  v.  Char- 
lotte, etc.,  R.  Co.  (S.  C.j,  7  Rich.  L.  409. 


53.  Failure     to     require    instructions. — 

Plaintiff  contracted  to  transport  for  de- 
fendant, from  his  works,  from  1,200  to 
5,000  barrels  of  salt,  annually,  for  three 
years.  The  contract  provided  in  detail 
for  plaintiff's  compensation  and  the  de- 
ductions to  be  made  therefrom  for  salt 
lost  in  transit.  Held,  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  plaintiff  to  attend  at  the  works 
of  defendant  at  such  times  as  suited  his 
convenience,  to  receive  the  salt  from 
time  to  time  as  he  was  ready,  and  com- 
mence its  transportation,  and  to  apply 
for  the  instructions  requisite  as  to  its 
points  for  transportation,  and  if  he  com- 
menced the  transportation  without  re- 
quiring such  instructions,  any  loss  occa- 
sioned thereby  was  attributable  to  his 
own  fault.  White  v.  Toncray,  46  \a. 
(5   Gratt.)    179. 

54.  Placing  wooden  car  next  to  loco- 
motive.— Adams  Hxp.  Co.  z'.  Sharpless  & 
Sons,    77    Pa.   ."516. 

55.  Failure  to  place  cars  within  fire  and 
police  protection. —  Insurance  Co.  v.  Lake 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  152  Ind.  333,  53  N.  E. 
382. 

56.  Unloading  goods  on  Sunday. — 
Shclton  z\  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 
59   X.  Y.  25S,  4S  How.   Prac.  257. 

57.  Goods  refused  because  improperly 
packed. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Insurance 
Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),   28   S.   W.   237. 

58.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Gardner,  127 
Ga.  320,  56  S.   E.  454. 

59.  Effect  of  custom. — Hililer  r.  Mc- 
Carthy,  31   Ala.   501. 

60.  Goods  in  bad  condition  when  re- 
ceived by  carrier. — Reed  z'.  Pliihidelphia, 
etc.,    R.    Co.    (Del.),   3    Houst.    176. 


777 


LOSS   OR    IN  JURY   TO   GOODS, 


§  1012 


Goods  Injured  While  Detained  for  Freight.— It  is  held  that  as  a  carrier 
may  properly  refuse  to  deliver  goods  until  payment  of  its  charges  for  freight, 
negligence  iii  caring  for  them  while  so  detained  is  not  a  cause  of  action  in  trover 
for  their  conversion.''' 

If  the  condition  of  the  contents  of  a  box  is  unknown  to  a  carrier  re- 
ceivin.i,^  llie  box  for  shipnic-nl,  ;i  laihnc  to  guard  a.i^ain^-t  lialulity  for  the  condi- 
tion of  the  goods,  hv  examination  or  ^iipulali(jn,  is  negligence.*'- 

Payment  of  Freight  in  Illegal  Currency,— If  a  common  carrier  accepts 
goods  to  ])e  carried  for  hire,  the  fact  that  the  freight  was  paid  and  accepted 
in  an  illegal  currency,  would  not  affect  its  liability  for  the  loss  of  the  goods 
by  negligence.*'^ 

Obligation  of  Carrier  to  Insure  Goods, — .\n  agreement  between  a  ware- 
houseman and  a  railroad  comi^any  providing  that  the  latter  would  deposit  all 
cotton  received  by  it  for  shipment  with  the  warehouseman,  to  be  compressed, 
and  that  he  would  insure  such  cotton  while  in  his  possession,  does  not  impose 
upon  the  railroad  company  any  obligation  to  insure  in  event  of  the  warehouse- 
man's  failure  to  do  so."-* 

Particular  instances  of  acts  not  constituting  negligence  are  set  out  in  the 
notes.""' 


61.  Goods  injured  while  detained  for 
freight. — Crossan  r.  New  York.  etc..  R. 
Co..  140  Mass.  19G,  21  N.  E.  367,  14  Am. 
St.    Rep.   408,   ?>   L.    R.   A.   766. 

62.  Morsanton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio,  etc., 
R.  Co..  121  N.  C.  514,  28  S.  E.  474,  61 
Am.  St.  Rep.  liT'.i. 

63.  Payment  of  freight  in  illegal  cur- 
rency.— Southern  Exp.  Co.  f.  W'oniack, 
4S  Teiin.    (1    Heisk.)    2;J6. 

64.  Obligation  of  carrier  to  insure 
goods. —  Lancaster  Mills  v.  Merchants' 
Cotton- I'ress  Co.,  S'.i  Tcnn.  (5  Pickle)  1, 
14   S.   W.   :n7,   24   Am.    St.    Rep.   .".Sf,. 

65.  Acts  not  constituting  negUgence.^ 
A  carrier  is  not  chargeable  with  negli- 
gence in  failing  lo  take  precautions  to 
guard  against  the  danger  from  fire  to 
cotton  awaiting  transportation  in  locked 
box  cars  on  a  side  track,  in  the  open 
country,  estaljlished  and  maintained  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  planters  in 
that  neighborhood,  where  the  carrier  is 
merely  following  a  practice  which  has 
continued  for  years  without  any  result- 
ing loss  or  complaint.  Charnock  "'. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  194  U.  S.  432,  48  L. 
Ed.  10.57,  24  S.  Ct.  671,  affirming  51  C. 
C.  A.  78.  113   Fed.  92. 

If  a  railroad  train  of  nine  cars  loaded 
with  various  lots  of  freight  l)ecomes  ob- 
structed by  a  snowstorm,  so  that  four 
of  the  cars  must  be  left  liehind  on  a  cold 
night  without  shelter,  and  tlic  conductor 
is  able  to  select  which  cars  shall  bo  left, 
and  knows  that  one  car  contains  goods 
which  will  be  injured  by  freezing,  he  is 
not  bound  as  matter  of  law  to  take  that 
car  forward  rather  than  other  cars  con- 
taining goods  of  which,  in  respect  to 
their  liability  to  injury  by  freezing,  he 
knows  nothing.  Swetland  v.  Boston, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    102    Mass.    27G. 

Where  a  carrier  received  a  car  of  or- 
gans  on    a   certain    day   in    regular   course 


of  business,  together  with  seventy-four 
other  cars,  the  act  of  the  carrier  in  ten- 
dering such  car  on  the  following  day 
with  the  others  to  a  connecting  carrier, 
which  only  accepted  forty  of  them,  de- 
clining the  others  on  account  of  its  in- 
ability to  handle  them  because  of  a  flood, 
did  not  show  negligence  of  the  carrier 
contributing  to  the  damage  of  the  or- 
gans in  such  car  by  the  flood.  Arm- 
strong, etc.,  Co.  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
26  Okla.  352,  100  Pac.  216,  29  L.  R.  A., 
N.    S.,    671. 

A  carrier  to  which  fruit  was  delivered 
for  shipment  when  the  temperature  was 
below  freezing  point  is  not  negligent  in 
forwarding  the  fruit  on  the  day  of  re- 
ceipt, instead  of  retaining  it  in  storage 
until  warmer  weather.  Tucker  v.  Penn- 
svlvania  R.  Co.,  11  Misc.  Rep.  366,  32  X. 
Y.  S.  1,  reversing  10  Misc.  Rep.  35,  30  N. 
Y.   S.   811. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  neg- 
ligence in  failing  to  remove  tobacco 
from  a  warehouse,  by  reason  of  which 
it  was  burned,  it  appeared  that  plaintiff 
had  purchased  tobacco  from  the  owners 
of  the  P.  warehouse,  some  of  which  was 
stored  in  the  B.  warehouse.  The  ware- 
house receipts  for  the  tobacco  were 
stamped  "P.  Warehouse."  and.  with  or- 
ders on  the  warehousemen  for  delivery 
of  same,  were  delivered  to  defendant  on 
July  3d,  who  had  contracted  to  store  the 
tobacco  in  a  warehouse  owned  by  it. 
On  account  of  prior  orders  for  work,  de- 
fendant was  unable  on  that  day  to  han- 
dle the  tobacco.  On  the  6th  (the  5th  be- 
ing Sunday,  and  the  4th  legal  holiday), 
defendant  delivered  the  orders  to  the  P. 
warehouse,  but,  on  account  of  orders 
ahead  of  plaintiff's,  it  could  not  get  the 
tobacco  that  day.  but  on  the  next  day 
did  receive  it  as  fast  as  it  was  deliv- 
ered  to   it.      It   did    not   know   any   of   the 


§  1013 


CARRIERS. 


778 


§  1013.  Proximate  Cause  of  Loss  or  Injury. — Where  carriers  are  re- 
sponsible bv  reason  of  negligence  they  are  only  liable  for  the  ordinary  and  prox- 
imate consequences  of  their  faults,  and  not  for  those  which  are  remote  and 
extraordinary.*"^  It  is  held  that  if  a  carrier  has  been  delinquent  in  any  of  its 
duties,  and  a  loss  has  occurred  while  its  wrongful  act  was  in  force,  it  is  per- 
mitted to  show,  in  defense,  although  prima  facie  liable,  that,  although  it  may 
have  been  in  default,  yet  the  loss  was  independent  of  that  default,  and  must 
have  happened   although   the  delinquency  had  never  existed.^" 

Loss  during  Negligent  Delay. — Where  goods  are  destroyed  by  fire  during 
a  negligent  delav  it  is  held  that  the  delay  is  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss  ren- 
dering die  carrier  liable ;  '^^  but  there  are  cases  holding  to  the  contrary .^^  Where 
plaintitts  had  control  of  the  loading  of  a  car  of  corn  and  they  loaded  the  corn 
while  it  was  wet,  and  in  a  condition  to  be  damaged  by  being  bulked  in  the  car, 
the  carrier  was  not  responsible  for  damages  occasioned  thereby,  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  of  a  delay  in  the  transportation."^*^*  As  to  loss  occasioned  by  the 
act  of  God  during  negligent  delay,  see  elsewhere."^ 

Particular  instances  of  proximate  cause  of  loss  or  injury  to  goods  are  set 
out  in  the  notes.' - 


tobacco  was  stored  in  the  B.  warehouse, 
which  was  burned  the  night  of  the  7th. 
Held,  that  defendant  \yas  not  negligent 
in  failing  to  remove  the  tobacco  from 
the  B.  warehouse,  so  as  to  render  it  li- 
able for  its  value.  Stewart  v.  Gracy,  93 
Tenn.  (9  Pickle)  314,  27  S.  W.  664. 

66.  Carrier  liable  for  proximate  conse- 
quences.— Morrison  z\  McFadden  (Pa.), 
r,   Chirk   2?,. 

When  the  proof  fails  to  connect  the 
carrier  with  any  fault  touching  the  arti- 
cle intrusted  to  it  for  carriage,  no  action 
can  be  maintained  against  it  to  recover 
damages  for  not  safely  carrying  mer- 
chandise. Jordan  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,    86    Me.    22.5,    29    Atl.    980. 

Though  a  vessel  be  defective  or  the 
carrier  negligent,  yet,  if  these  circum- 
stances do  not  contril^ute  .to  the  loss, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable,  if  otherwise  ex- 
cused. Hart  z:  Allen  (Pa.),  2  Watts  114; 
Hill  z:  Sturgeon,  35  Mo.  212,  86  Am.  Dec. 
149. 

67.  Hill  V.   Sturgeon,   28   Mo.   323. 

68.  Loss  by  fire  during  negligent  delay. 
— Deming  v.  Merchants'  Cotton  Press, 
etc.,  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306,  17  S.  W.  89,  13 
L.  R.  A.  518;  Hernsheim  v.  Newport 
News,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Ky.  L.  Rep.  227,  35 
S.    W.    1115. 

The  failure  of  a  carrier  to  move  a  car 
load  of  lumber,  after  being  made  ready 
for  shipment  and  notice  thereof,  renders 
it  liable  for  the  loss  of  the  lumber  by 
its  subsequent  destruction  in  the  burning 
of  adjacent  property  without  the  carri- 
er's fault,  (jreen  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  163  Ala.  138,  50  So.  937.  But  see 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sigma  Lumber 
Co.,  170  Ala.  627,  54  So.  205,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912D,  965. 

A  railroad  company  erected  a  platform 
for  the  purpose  of  shipping  cotton,  and 
the  course  of  business  adopted  was  for 
parties  to  store  cotton  on  it  to  be  shipped 


by  the  next  freight  train.  Plaintiff  stored 
cotton  on  the  platform,  but  it  was  not 
taken  by  the  next  freight  train,  and,  after 
such  train  had  passed,  the  cotton  was  de- 
stroyed by  fire  set  by  a  passing  locomo- 
tive of  the  company.  Held,  that  the 
company  was  lial)le  for  the  loss  of  the 
cotton.  Meyer  v.  Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
41  La.  Ann.  639,  6  So.  218,  17  Am.  St. 
Rep.  408;  Whitehurst  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    131    La.    139,    59    So.    42. 

69.  Scott  V.  Baltimore,  etc..  Steamboat 
Co.,  19  Fed.  56;  Thomas  v.  Lancaster 
Mills,   19   C.    C.   A.   88,   71   Fed.  481. 

70.  Contributory  negligence  of  shipper. 
—Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Smith,  2 
Texas  -App.   Civ.  Cas.,  §   138. 

71.  Loss  by  act  of  God  during  delay. — 
See  ante,  "Negligence  Concurring  with 
Act   of   God,"   §   992. 

72.  Instances  of  proximate  cause. — A 
traiSc  agreement  required  defendant,  a 
standard-gauge  road,  one  of  the  parties 
thereto,  to  maintain  a  third  rail  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  other  party,  a  nar- 
row-gauge road.  The  rail  was  not  main- 
tained; wherefore  cotton  shipped  on  the 
narrow-gauge  road  could  not  be_  for- 
warded, and  was  thrown  off  and  injured 
by  the  rain  and  mud.  Held,  that  defend- 
ant was  not  liable;  the  proximate  cause 
of  injury  lieing  the  exposure  of  the  cot- 
ton to  the  rain  and  mud,  and  not  the  vio- 
lation of  the  contract,  which  imposed  no 
obligation  on  defendant  to  receive  or 
care  for  the  cotton.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Neel,  56  Ark.  279,  19  S.  W.  963. 

Where  goods  were  delivered  by  a  rail- 
road company  to  a  transfer  company  and 
destroyed  by  fire  while  in  its  possession, 
the  fire  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the 
loss,  and  the  drayage  company  could  not 
escape  liability  on  the  ground  that  the 
consignees  had  delayed  making  payment 
of  drafts  attached  to  the  bill  of  lading, 
and     thereby     delayed     surrender    of    the 


77') 


U)SS  OR    INTL'RV   TO  GOODS. 


§  1014 


§  1014.  Negligence  of  Agents  or  Servants. — Carriers  are  responsible, 
by  reason  of  the  duties  imposed  upon  them  as  carriers,  for  the  negligence  of 
their  agents  or  servants  in  and  about  the  carriage  of  freight,"^  including  its  re- 


j4()i)(ls  to  the  transfer  company.  .Krka- 
delphia  Mill.  Co.  v.  Smoker  Merchandise 
Co.,   100  Ark.  37,   139  S.  W.  G80. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  damage  to  goods  lost  by  fire 
the  fact  that  the  fire  originated  in  a 
steam  cotton  compress  erected  on  the 
company's  premises  witii  its  permission, 
hut  not  under  its  control,  does  not  es- 
tal)lish  negligence  in  the  company,  the 
permission  to  erect  the  same  not  l^eing 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  injury.  Chalk 
&  Co.  V.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N.  C. 
4;.':;. 

Where  a  railroad  moves  a  burning  car 
to  save  its  own  property,  such  action, 
and  not  the  original  lire,  is  the  proximate 
cause  of  the  burning  of  other  property 
near  which  the  car  is  moved.  Latta  v. 
New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co..  59  So.  250,  131 
La.    2T;.\    Ann.    Cas.    1914A,    '.is.s. 

Leaving  car  door  open — Loss  by  fire. 
— Wiiile  a  car  containing  binding  twine 
was  in  the  freight  yard  of  a  railway  com- 
pany ready  for  unloading,  a  fire  broke 
out  in  a  building  twenty-three  feet  away, 
situated  on  property,  on  the  other  side  of 
an  alley,  not  belonging  to  the  company. 
The  car  was  then  moved  promptly,  but 
in  the  meantime,  and  within  twenty  min- 
utes of  the  breaking  out  of  the  fire,  the 
twine  caught  fire  from  sparks  entering 
through  the  car  door,  which  had  been 
left  open  about  ten  inches.  Held,  that 
the  leaving  open  of  the  .door  was  not 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss.  Scott 
V.  Allegheny  Val.  R.  Co.,  172  Pa.  646, 
33    Atl.    712. 

Carrying  high  proof  spirits  with  the 
barrel  in  a  broken  condition  was  not  the 
proximate  cause  of  a  fire  destroying  the 
spirits,  which  originated  in  some  way 
after  the  consignee  had  taken  possession 
and  when  his  agents  were  entering  the 
car  to  remove  the  goods.  Rothchild 
Bros.  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  68  Wash. 
527,   123    Pac.   1011,  40  L.   R.  A.,  N.  S.,  773. 

Failure  to  use  ordinary  care  to  extin- 
guish fire. — Where  plaintifY's  goods,  while 
in  the  custody  of  defendant  railway 
company,  were  destroyed  by  a  fire  which 
originated  without  defendant's  fault,  but 
which  might  have  been  extinguished  be- 
fore the  goods  were  destroyed,  if  defend- 
ant had  used  ordinary  care,  defendant's 
negligence  was  the  cause  of  the  loss. 
Peerless  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  f.i    Atl.   .-n.   73   X.    H.   :!2S. 

Failure  to  exercise  reasonable  care  in 
giving  notice  of  arrival  of  perishable 
freight  held  proximate  cause  of  an  in- 
jury to  the  freight.  Uber  7'.  Cliica.go, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  1.-)!   Wis.  431.  13S  X.  W.  :.:. 

Where  defendant  carrier  improperly 
added  a  charge   for   icing  to   the   expense 


bill  of  a  car  of  cabbage,  but  this  error 
was  not  the  cause  of  the  consignee's  re- 
fusal to  accept  the  car  and  pay  a  draft 
attached  to  l)ill  of  lading,  which  caused 
a  delay  resulting  in  loss  from  the  de- 
terioration of  the  cabbage,  defendant  was 
not  Iial)le  for  such  loss  because  of  the 
addition  of  the  icing  charge.  Freeman 
7'.  Quebedcau.x  fTe.x.  Civ.  App. ),  151  S. 
W.    643. 

73.  Liability  for  negligence  of  agents 
or  servants. — Untied  States. — Bank  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174,  23  L.  Ed. 
872. 

Alabama. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Cavender,   170   Ala.   601,   54   So.   54. 

IHinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nei- 
mann,  84   111.  .-Xpp.  272. 

Louisiana. — Williams  &  Sons  v.  Mor- 
gan, 32  La.  Ann.  .168;  Watts  v.  Saxon, 
11  La.  Ann.  43. 

Massachusetts. — Hamil  v.  New  York, 
etc.,   Co.,  177  Mass.  474,  59  N.   E.  75. 

Missouri. — Otis  Co.*  v.  Missouri  Pac. 
R.   Co.,   112   Mo.   622,   20   S.   W.   676. 

Nerv  Yorh. — Rosenblum  v.  Weir,  113 
N.  Y.  S.  520,  affirmed  in  117  N.  Y.  S. 
1146,  132  App.  Div.  929;  Howe  v.  Os- 
wego, etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  56  Barb.  121; 
Fein  v.  Weir,  114  N.  Y.  S.  426,  129  App. 
Div.   229. 

Pennsylvania. — Willock  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  166  Pa.  184,  30  Atl.  948,  45  Am. 
St.    Rep.   674,   27   L.   R.   A.   228. 

Texas.— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brass 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.).  133  S.  W.  1075;  Ed- 
wards &  Co.  V.  Texas  Mid.  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   84   S.   W.   1097. 

Jl'voniini^. — Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Blytii,  19  Wyo.  410,  118  Pac.  649,  119  Pac. 
875,   Ann.   Cas.   1913   E.  288. 

Express  company  employing  railroad 
company  to  transport  goods. — An  ex- 
press cunipany  is  liable  lu  a  sliipper  lor 
the  full  value  of  goods  destroyed  tiirough 
the  negligence  of  a  railroad  company 
wliich  it  has  employed  to  do  its  trans- 
porting. Boscowitz  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
93  111.  523,  34  Am.  Rep.  191.  See  Bank 
V.  Adams  Express  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174,  23 
L.    Kd.   S72. 

When  warehouseman  becomes  agent  of 
owner. — Where  a  railroad  company,  on 
failure  of  a  consignee  to  receive  goods 
shipped,  stores  such  goods  in  a  ware- 
house, taking  a  receipt  in  its  own  name, 
the  storing  will  be  held  to  be  for  the 
benefit  of  the  owner,  subject  to  the  com- 
pany's lien  for  freight  charges;  and  the 
warehouseman  is  therefore  the  agent  of 
the  owner,  and  not  of  the  railroad  com- 
pany. Gregg  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co..  147 
111.  550,  35  N.  E.  343,  37  Am.  St.  Rep. 
238,  affirming  47    III.   App.   590. 


§  1014 


CARRIERS. 


780 


ceipt  for  future  carriage ;  '■*  and  where  the  servant  is  acting  within  his  author- 
ity, the  carrier  is  responsible,  though  the  wrong  or  damage  be  done  inad- 
vertently and  with  tlie  purpose  to  accomplish  its  business  in  an  unhiwful 
manner.'-' 

Negligence  in  Unloading  Goods. — The  proprietors  of  a  railroad  are  hable 
for  want  of  ordinary  care  in  their  servants  in  unloading  freight  from  their  cars, 
though  the  consignee,  knowing  it  to  be  the  rule  of  the  carriers  that  he  must  un- 
load freight,  and  that  if  he  did  not  unload  it  within  a  certain  time,  the  carriers 
would,  has  neglected  to  unload  it."'' 

Cotton  Destroyed  by  Compress  Company. — Where  cotton  is  negligently 
damaged  or  destroyed  by  a  compress  company  after  there  has  been  delivery  to 
a  carrier  for  transportation,  the  carrier  is  liable  as  the  compress  company  is  its 
servant.'" 

Delegation  of  Duties  by  Carrier. — A  common  carrier,  who  undertakes  to 
perform  an  entire  service,  has  no  authority  to  constitute  another  person  or  cor- 
poration the  agent  of  the  consignor  or  consignee.  He  may  employ  an  agency, 
but  it  must  be  subordinate  to  him,  and  not  to  the  shipper,  who  neither  employs 


74.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavender, 
170  Ala.  601,  54  So.  J4. 

Joint  negligence  of.  servants  and  an- 
other.— Where  a  truckman  is  employed 
to  convey  heavy  articles  to  a  railroad 
station,  and.  after  agents  of  the  company 
have  received  the  articles  and  assumed 
charge  of  them  for  the  purpose  of  trans- 
portation, assists  them  in  loading  the  ar- 
ticles on  the  cars,  the  company  will  be 
liable  for  damages  resulting  from  the 
joint  negligence  of  the  truckman  and  its 
servants.  Merritt  v.  Old  Colony,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  (Mass.),  11  Allen  80. 

75.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cavender, 
170   Ala.    f)01,   .54   So.    54. 

76.  Negligence  in  unloading  goods. — 
Kimball  z-.  Western  R.  Co.  (Mass.),  G 
Gray  542. 

77.  Cotton  injured  by  negligence  of 
compress  company. — Wliere  the  owner 
of  cotton  delivers  to  a  railway  company 
the  warehouse  receipts  of  a  compress 
company,  and  the  railway  company  ac- 
cepts them  and  issues  bills  of  lading 
thereon  to  the  owner,  and  the  cotton  is 
injured  by  exposure  to  the  weather  after 
delivery  to  the  compress  company,  the 
railway  company  is  liable  for  the  loss, 
l)ecause  it  occurred  while  in  the  hands 
of  its  agent,  the  compress  company. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Jones  Cotton  Co.,  167 
Ala.   575,   52   So.   899. 

Where  a  carrier,  in  a  bill  of  lading  for 
the  shipment  of  cotton,  reserves  the 
right  to  have  it  compressed,  and  after- 
vvards  places  it  in  the  hands  of  a  com- 
press company  for  that  purpose,  such 
compress  company  becomes  the  agent  of 
the  carrier;  and,  if  the  cotton  is  damaged 
or  destroyed  by  the  negligence  of  the 
compress  company,  the  railway  company 
is  liable  to  the  owner.  Otis  Co.  v.  Miss- 
ouri Tac.  R.  Co.,  112  Mo.  622,  20  S.  W. 
676. 

A  railroad  company  received,  and  is- 
sued bills  of  lading  for,  uncompressed 
cotton,    and,    in    accordance    with    written 


authority,  sent  it  to  be  compressed.  After 
having  remained  an  unreasonable  length 
of  time  with  the  compress  company,  it 
was  destroyed  by  fire.  The  bill  of  lading 
provided  that  the  railroad  company 
should  not  be  liable  for  loss  by  fire,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  its  negligence.  Held, 
that  the  company  was  liable  for  the  loss 
of  the  cotton.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McFadden  (lex.  Civ.  App.),  32  S.  W.  18. 

A  carrier  required  by  the  railroad  com- 
mission regulations,  when  requested  l)y 
the  shipper  of  cotton,  to  deliver  the  cot- 
ton to  the  nearest  compress  on  the  line 
of  its  route  for  compression,  but  not  re- 
quired to  deliver  it  to  any  other  com- 
press, having,  at  the  request  of  the  ship- 
per, noted  on  the  l)ill  of  lading  that  it 
was  to  he  compressed  at  another  com- 
press, and  there  delivered  it,  is  none  the 
less  liable  for  it  as  a  common  carrier 
while  in  the  possession  of  the  compress, 
though  the  shipper  was  interested  in  such 
compress,  as  such  delivery  must  still  be 
deemed  a  part  of  the  railroad's  duty  as 
a  common  carrier;  it  having  by  its  bill 
of  lading  reserved  the  right  to  have  the 
compressing  done  at  its  cost.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Brass  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  133 
S.    W.    1075. 

A  carrier  which  issues  bills  of  lading 
to  a  shipper  in  return  for  receipts  given 
liy  a  compress  company  for  cotton  in  the 
latter's  custody  is  liable  for  loss  by  fire 
due  to  negligence  of  the  servants  of  the 
compress  company  in  caring  for  the  cot- 
ton while  awaiting  the  compression  and 
loading  which  the  railway  company  had 
ordered  done  for  its  own  convenience 
and  at  its  own  cost,  where  such  com- 
pany, if  it  did  not  regard  the  presentation 
of  the  receipts  as  a  tender  of  the  cotton, 
or  if  it  were  not  a  valid  tender,  could, 
notwithstanding  the  rules  of  the  Texas 
state  railroad  commission  as  well  as  its 
own  rules,  have  refused  to  sign  the  bill  of 
lading.  Arthur  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27 
S.  Ct.  338,  204  U.  S.  505,  51  L.  Ed.  590, 
reversing   139   Fed.   127. 


781  LOSS  OR  INJURV  TO  GOODS.  §§  1014-1017 

it,  pays  it,  nor  has  aii)    rij^iit  to  interfere  with  it.     Its  acts  become  his,  because 
clone  in  his  service,  and  by  his  direction."^ 

§   1015.  Negligence  or  Misconduct  of  Third  Person. — A  carrier  will  not 

be  excused  from  liahilil)-  for  the  loss  of  ^mmxU  1)\    the  neglij^cnce  or  misconduct 
of  a  third  i)erson."'-' 

§  1016.  Deviation  or  Delay. — Deviation. — .As  to  liability  of  a  common 
carrier  for  1(jss  of  or  injury  to  j^oods  accruing,'  during  deviation,  see  elsewhere. ^'^ 

Delay. — The  liabilit\  of  the  carrier  for  losses  occurring  during  delay  is 
treated  elsewhere.'*' 

Where  a  carrier  fails  to  furnish  cars  at  the  time  agreed  and  Ijecause 
of  such  failure,  frciglU  shipped  fails  to  connect  with  a  train  of  a  connecting 
carrier  anrl  is  damaged  Ijy  delay,  the  company  is  liable  therefor. *'- 

§  1017-1021.  Mode  or  Means  of  Transportation— §  1017.  In  Gen- 
eral.— Mode  of  Transportation  in  General. — If  a  carrier  takes  the  most 
dangerous  of  two  modes  of  conveyance  round  a  fall,  he  does  so  at  his  own 
risk.s3  ;\i-,(j  where  there  are  two  customary  routes,  one  through  a  cold  country 
and  one  through  a  warm  one.  and  the  latter  route  becomes  obstructed,  the  car- 
rier is  negligent  in  sending  over  the  cold  route,  without  notice  to  shipper  or 
consignee,  goods  whicli  it  is  bound  to  know  are  destructive  by  frost. ^■^ 

Must  Obey  Directions  of  Owner. — A  carrier  is  liable  for  damage  occa- 
sioned by  disregard  of  the  directions  given  by  the  owner  as  to  the  mode  of  con- 
veyance.^''^ 

Duty  with  Regard  to  External  Protection. — .\  shii)per.  by  consenting 
that  his  goods  may  be  carried  on  deck,  does  not  thereby  assume  the  risk  of  their 
loss  or  injury ;  and,  if  the  carrier  has  contracted  to  cover  and  protect  them,  he  is 
liable  for  damage  from  rain  occasioned  by  the  want  of  such  protection,  and  the 
fact  that  the  shipi)er  knew  that  the  goods  were  not  covered  wdien  the  boat  de- 
jxirled  is  imm.'iterial.^'''' 

Manner  of  Stowing  or  Packing  Goods. — .A  carrier  is  negligent  in  stow- 
ing a  barrel  of  oil  on  end  in  a  car,  when  the  safer  way  is  to  stow  it  on  the  bilge, 
like  other  barrels  in  the  same  car.*^"  The  mere  fact  that  a  railroad  corporation, 
transporting  bales  of  cotton  as  a  common  carrier,  packed  them   into  a  car  so 

78.  Delegation  of  duties. — Bank  v.  Loss  or  Injury."  §  1013.  See,  also,  ante. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  S.  174,  23  L.  Ed.  "Delay  in  Transportation  or  Delivery." 
872.     See  Watts  v.  Saxon,  11  La.  Ann.  43.       Chapter    XL 

Where    an    express    company,    engaged  82-     failure    to     furnish     cars     at     time 

to    transport      packaffes.      etc.,    from    one  ^f'"^^f:— ^f.'/^'^;,^i'  V^'''^-^^-  ^°-  ''•  ^'^°''g^' 

point   to   another,   sends   its   messen.c;er   in  30    Okla.    12,    1;2<     lac.    s.l._ 

Charlie   of  them  on   the   car   set  apart  for  83.   Mode  of   transportation   in    general. 

its    use    by    the    railroad     company     em-  —Lawrence    v.    McGregor     (O.),    Wright 

ployed  to  perform  the  service,  the   latter  l^-^-                           o       ,            t^         ^        .«,^ 

company    becomes      the      agent      of    the  ^  8*.    Pierce    v.     Southern     Pac.    Co.     120 

former.     Bank  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93  U.  Cal.   l.'sr,.  47   Pac.   874,   :.'l   Pac.   302,  40   L. 

S.    174,    23    L.    Ed.    872.  R-,;^-    ^T'O. 

„„--,.                       .         J     .      r  i.u'  J  85.      Directions     of     owner. — bager    v. 

79.  Negligence   or   misconduct   of   third  p,,rtsmoutli.   etc..    R.    Co..   31    Me.   228.   50 

?"o??-~«     '■,"•"  'o.  V    T^f ''ran    M  ■  •  •       Am.    Dec.    r,.V.):    Colbath    -•.    Bangor,    etc.. 
L.  3<2,  aftirmed  in  23  x\.  J    L.  580;  Howe       ^    ^        ^^^  ^^^    ^.^    .^    .^^,    ^^g 

r.  Oswego,  etc..  R.  Co.   (N.  Y.),  ab  Barb.  j^  ^  common  carrier  accepts  a  package 

^■^  •  having   legible    directions    as    to    carriage, 

Public  enemy.— Sec  ante.  ".\cts  of  Pub-  \^  jg  liable  for  loss  from  failure  to  observe 

lie   Enemy,"  §§   9'.)r)-997.  sucii   directions.     Colbath  v.  Bangor,  etc., 

80.  Losses    occurring   during   deviation.  R.  Co..  74  Atl.  918,  105  Me.  379. 

— See  ante,  "Route  and  Deviation  There-  86.    Duty   with   regard   to   external   pro- 

from,"    §§    813-834.  tection. — Schwinger    v.     Raymond,     Sa    X. 

81.  Losses  occurring  during  delay. — See       ^-   l'^--  •^S  -^m.   Rep.  415. 

ante,    "Xegligcnce    Concurring    with    Act  87.   Stowing   goods. — Thompson   -■.   Chi- 

of    God,"    §     992;    "Proximate     Cause    of       cago,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    27    Iowa,    appx.,    561. 


§§  1017-1018 


CARRIERS. 


782 


tightly  that  on  their  taking  fire  the  car  could  not  be  unloaded  is  not  conclusive 
of  negligence  in   the  packing.'"^ 

Loss  Incident  to  Particular  Mode  of  Transportation. — A  carrier  is  not 
responsible  for  a  loss  which  occurred  from  a  cause  necessarily  incident  to  the 
particular  mode  of  transportation  which  was  equally  well  known  to  the  carrier 
and  the  shipper. ^'^ 

§  1018.  Means  of  Transportation  in  General. — A  carrier  is  bound  to 
furnish  suitable  and  safe  vehicles  and  means  of  transportation  for  the  carriage 
of  goods  it  undertakes  to  carry  and  transport,  and  is  liable  for  losses  caused 
by  its  failure  to  do  so,""  though  it  is  entitled  to  determine,  in  the  first  instance, 
the  sufficiency  of  the  vehicles  furnished.'-'^     The  carrier  is  bound  to  provide  a  ve- 


88.  Packing  goods. — Pemberton  Co.  v. 
New   Y..rk.   etc..   R.    Co.,   104   Mass.   144. 

89.  Effect  of  custom. — Philleo  v.  San- 
ford,  17  Tex.  227,  (w  Am.  Dec.  654;  Chev- 
aillier   T'.    Fatten.    10    Tex.    344.    346. 

90.  Duty  to  provide  suitable  means  of 
transportation. — United  States.  —  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fairbanks  &  Co.,  33 
C.  C.  A.  611,  90  Fed.  467;  Hannibal  Rail- 
road V.  Swift  (U.  S.),  12  Wall.  262,  20  L. 
Ed.  423;  Railroad  Co.  v.  Pratt  (U.  S.), 
22  Wall.  123,  22  L.  Ed.  827,  49  How. 
Prac.  84;  The  Northern  Belle  v.  Rob- 
son,  154  U.  S.  571,  19  L.  Ed.  748.  14  S. 
Ct.    1166. 

Alabama. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chi- 
cago Varnish  Co.,  169  Ala.  287,  53  So. 
832. 

.Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Marshall,    74   Ark.    597,    86    S.    W.    802. 

Illinois. — Terre  Haute,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Crews,  53  111.  App.  50;  Beard  v.  Illinois, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa  518,  44  N.  W.  800, 
7  L.  R.  A.  280,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  381. 

Kentucky. — Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Louisville,  etc..  Stove  Co.,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
924,   111   S.   W.   358. 

Maine. — Sager  v.  Portsmouth,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  31   Me.   228,  50   Am.   Dec.   659. 

Mississipf^i. — Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Searles,   71    Miss.   744,    16   So.   255. _ 

Missouri. — Nicholson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  141  Mo.  App.  199,  124  S.  W.  573; 
Potts  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,.  17  Mo. 
App.  394. 

New  York. — Loomis  v.  Lehigh  Valley 
R.    Co.,   208    N.    Y.   312,    101    N.    E.   907. 

North  Carolina. — Forrester  &  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  553,  61  S.  E. 
524,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  508,  15  Am.  & 
Eng.   Ann.   Cas.   143. 

0/a"o.— Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  O'Don- 
nell,  49  O.  St.  489,  32  N.  E.  476;  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fisher,  3  N.  P.  122, 

5  O.    Dec.    659;    State    v.    Cincinnati    etc., 
R.    Co.,   47    O.    St.    130.    23    N.    E.    928. 

Pennsylvania. — Willock  v.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  166  Pa.  184,  30  Atl.  948,  45 
Am.   St.   Rep.  674,  27   L.   R.  A.  228. 

Tennessee. — Railroad  v.  Dies,  91  Tenn. 
177,  18  S.  W.  266;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.    Co.   v.    Bloch,   86   Tenn.   392,   410, 

6  S.    E.    881,   6   Am.    St.    Rep.    847. 


Texas. — Hunt  v.  Nutt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
27   S.   W.   1031. 

At  common  law  a  common  carrier,  re- 
ceiving grain  or  produce  for  shipment  in 
bulk,  is  bound  to  furnish  cars  equipped 
with  grain  doors  or  bulkheads  rendering 
the  car  safe  and  suitable  for  the  purpose 
intended.  Loomis  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R. 
Co.,  101  N.  E.  907,  208  N.  Y.  312.  modify- 
ing judgment  132  N.  Y.  S.  138,  147  App. 
Div.    195. 

Any  failure  of  a  carrier  to  furnish  cars 
suitable  and  safe,  which  could  have  been 
avoided  by  due  care,  is  negligence. 
Railroad  v.  Dies,  91  Tenn.  177.  179,  18  S. 
W.    266. 

"The  nature  of  the  goods  must  be  con- 
sidered in  determining  the  carrier's  duty. 
Some  metals  may  be  transported  in  open 
cars.  Many  articles  of  commerce,  when 
transported,  must  be  protected  from 
rain,  sunshine,  and  heat,  and  must  have 
cars  fitted  for  their  safe  transportation." 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson  &  Co., 
55  Tex.   Civ.  App.  407,  118  S.  W.  853,  855. 

Hidden  defect. — A  ferryman  is  liable 
as  a  common  carrier  for  a  loss  resulting 
from  an  internal  defect  in  the  forging  of 
the  hook  and  chain  used  to  fasten  the 
ferry  boat,  undiscoverable  by  the  closest 
inspection,  and  unavoidable  by  human 
care,  skill  and  foresight.  Albright  v. 
Penn,    14    Tex.    290,    298. 

Horses  are  part  of  the  equipment  of  a 
canal  boat,  and  if  one  of  tliem  l^e  lamed, 
and  by  reason  thereof  the  carrier  is  dis- 
abled to  escape  from  danger  into  which 
he  has  fallen,  he  is  not  excused.  Mor- 
rison V.  McFadden   (Pa.),  5  Clark  23. 

91.  Nicholson  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
141    Mo.    App.    199,    124    S.    W.    573. 

Right  of  shipper  to  recover  for  appli- 
ances furnished  to  car. — ^In  an  action  by 
a  shipper  of  hay  to  recover  for  standards 
voluntarily  erected  by  him  upon  flat  cars 
for  safety  of  transportation,  held,  that 
the  railroad  company  was  not  liable;  no 
special  contract  being  proved,  and  the 
rule  applying  that  the  carrier  is,  in  the 
first  instance,  the  judge  of  the  sufiiciency 
of  his  carriages.  Sloan  &  Co.  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  Mo.  220. 


783 


LOSS  OR    INJURY   TO  GOODS. 


§    1018 


hide  fitted  to  encounter  all  ordmary  risks  of  transportation.''-  Thus,  if  merchan- 
dise of  one  owner  is  carried  in  cars  in  the  same  train  with  cars  containing  a  com- 
bustible substance  of  another  owner,  the  carrier  must  take  every  precaution 
against  the  sprcacHng  of  any  fire  which  may  occur,  one  of  which  precautions  is 
a  coupling  whicli  alUnvs  the  cars  to  be  f|uickly  separated."'' 

It  is  not  the  duty  of  a  shipper  to  inspect  a  car  furnished  by  a  carrier,  or 
to  exercise  care  to  kiinw  wIk-iIkt  the  ear  i^  in  cfjiidition  ;  but  he  may  assume 
that  the  carrier  would  nOt  have  <hrected  tlie  ])lacing  of  the  goods  in  the  car  un- 
less it  was  suitable. '■'■* 

Means  of  Transportation  Belonging  to  Another. — In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  injury  to  prcjperiy  shipped  in  a  defective  car,  it  is  no  defense  that 
the  car  belonged  to  another  carrier.'-'''  And  the  carrier  is  liable  for  loss  caused 
by  defects  in  cars  leased  from  the  consigtior  under  an  agreement  by  which  it 
was  to  keep  the  cars  in  repair  at  consignor's  cost."*' 

Knowledge  by  Shipper  of  Defects  in  Car. — The  fact  that  a  person  who 
delivered  goods  to  a  carrier  for  transportation  accepted  a  defective  or  unsuita- 
ble car  for  their  conveyance,  knowing  it  to  be  defective,  does  not  exempt  the 
carrier  from  liability  for  the  destruction  of  the  goods,  through  the  defect  in  the 
car,  while  in  course  of  transj)ortation,  without  proof  of  a  distinct  agreement  on 
his  part  to  assume  the  risk  arising  from  that  cause.""     .And  it  is  held  that  the 


92.  Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  VVamsutta 
Oil  Refill.,  etc.,  Co.,  r..3  Pa.  14,  3  Am.  Rep. 
51.5. 

Where  a  carrier  was  relieved  from  li- 
ability as  an  insurer  by  tlic  terms  of  the 
contract  to  carry  a  draft,  it  was  held  to 
Iiave  used  proper  dilipfcnce  and  foresight 
in  placing-  the  draft  in  a  safe  while  carry- 
ing it  upon  a  steamboat,  although  upon 
opening  the  safe,  after  a  fire  which  had 
destroyed  the  boat,  the  contents  of  the 
safe  were  found  in  ashes.  Frank  v. 
Adams   Exp.   Co.,  18   La.  Ann.  279. 

93.  Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta 
Oil  Refin.,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Pa.  14,  3  Am. 
Rep.  51.5. 

94.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Louisville, 
etc.,  Stove  Co..  Ill  S.  \V.  :!.-.s,  ;^'!  Ky.  L. 
Rep.    924. 

95.  Means  of  transportation  belonging 
to  another. — Austin  ?■.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  Co., 
1")  Md.  .\pp.  197;  Wallingford  v.  Colum- 
bia, etc.,  R.  Co..  26  S.  C.  258,  2  S.  E.  19; 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago  Varnish 
Co.,  169  Ala.  287,  53  So.  832;  Cincinnati, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Fairbanks  &  Co.,  33  C. 
C.  A.   611,   90   Fed.   467. 

A  common  carrier  is  liable  for  loss  of 
goods  resulting  from  defects  in  car  used 
for  transportation,  the  existence  of  which 
imply  negligence,  although  the  car  be- 
longed to  another,  and  was  procured 
by  the  carrier  for  the  particular  ship- 
ment at  the  special  request  of  the  ship- 
per, upon  his  paying  the  additional  ex- 
pense, and  the  shipment  was  made  in  its 
then  condition — the  car  being  of  a  kind 
acceptable  to  the  carrier,  and  commonly 
used  in  making  like  sliipmcnts.  Railroad 
V.    Dies,   91    Tenn.    177,    18   S.    \V.   266. 

96.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  x\  Chicago 
Varnisb    Co..    169    Ala.    2S7,    .5:?    So.    832. 

97.  Knowledge  by  shipper  of  defects 
in   car. — ['nitcd    States. — Railroad     Co.     v. 


Pratt  (U.  S.),  22  Wall.  123,  22  L.  Ed.  827. 
49  How.  Prac.  84;  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Fairbanks  &  Co.,  33  C.  C.  \.  611, 
90  Fed.  467. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Marshall,   74   Ark.   597,  86   S.   W.   802. 

Kentucky. — See  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Louisville,  etc..  Stove  Co..  33  Ky.  L. 
Rep.    924,    111    S.    W.    358. 

Ma^saMi^ettsI — Pratt  v.  Ogdensburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Mass.  557. 

N^czv  Yark. — Ogdensburg,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Pratt  (U.  S.),  22  Wall.  123,  22  L.  Ed. 
827,   49    How.    Prac.   84. 

North  Carolina. — Forrester  &  Co.  v. 
Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  553,  61  S.  E. 
524.  15  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  CaS.  143,  18 
L.   R.  A..  N.  S.,  508. 

Texas. — Hunt  v.  Nutt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
27    S.    W.   1031. 

Effect  of  provisions  in  contract  of 
shipment. — A  provision  in  the  contract 
of  shipment  that  the  shipper  accepts  the 
car  provided  by  the  company  does  not 
protect  the  latter,  if  the  car  proves  de- 
fective. Wallingford  v.  Columbia,  etc., 
R.   Co..   26   S.   C.  258.  2   S.   E.   19. 

A  carrier  is  not  protected  against  lia- 
bility for  loss  or  injury  to  goods  result- 
ing from  defects  in  a  car  by  a  stipulation 
in  the  bill  of  lading,  accepted  by  the  ship- 
per, to  tlie  effect  that  he  had  examined 
the  car  himself  and  found  it  in  good 
order,  and  accepted  it  as  suitable  and 
sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  his  shipment. 
Railroad  v.  Dies,  91  Tenn.  177,  18  S.  W. 
266. 

Shipper's  objection  to  substitution  of 
another  car. — \\'lioro  a  carrier  tciulere<! 
a  slii])per  a  car  in  wliicli  to  load  a  stock 
of  goods  and  the  shipper  went  to  con- 
siderable trouble  and  expense  in  load- 
ing the  car,  and  thereafter  the  carrier, 
because    of    the    car's    defective    roof,    of- 


§§  1018-1019 


CARRIERS. 


784 


carrier  is  not  relieved  from  responsibility  in  suCh  case,  even  though  there  was 
an  agreement  that  it  should  not  be  responsible.-*'^  But  the  rule  does  not  apply 
to  transportation  by  wagons  where  the  shipper  selects  and  approves  the  wagons 
to  be  used.''-' 

If  the  consignor  undertakes  to  furnish  the  cars  used  in  transportation, 
the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  a  loss  resulting  from  their  defective  condition.^ 

§  1019.  Duty  as  to  Perishable  Goods. — A  carrier  undertaking  to  trans- 
port perishable  goods  is  bound  to  furnish  cars  especially  adapted  to  the  preser- 
vation of  such  goods  during  the  time  required  for  their  transition  from  the  place 
of  shipment  to  the  place  of  destination  under  the  contract. ^  If  it  undertakes  to 
carry  perishable  property  in  vehicles  specially  adapted  to  preserve  that  kind  of 
propertv.  it  becomes  responsible  for  defects  in  such  vehicles,  if  damage  re- 
sults.^ The  carrier  is  not  relieved  of  responsibility  to  the  consignee  therefor 
by  the  fact  that  it  had  the  car  inspected  by  the  shipper  from  whom  the  goods 
were  brought."* 


fered  to  substitute  another  car,  but  fi- 
nall}%  upon  the  shipper's  objection  to 
the  substitution,  undertook  the  transpor- 
tation of  the  goods  after  ordering  the- 
reof repaired,  the  shipper,  because  of 
such  objection,  was  not  estopped  from 
claiming  damages  for  the  destruction  of 
his  goods  by  water  coming  in  through 
the  roof  of  the  car.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
f.  Townsend  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  106  S. 
\V.   760. 

98.  Railroad  Co.  v.  Pratt  (U.  S.),  22 
Wall.  123,  124,  22  L.  Ed.  827,  49  How. 
Prac.    84. 

99.  Transportation  by  wagon. — Carr  v. 
Schafer,  l.J  Colo.  48,  24  Pac.  873,  distin- 
guishing Merchants'  Dispatch  &  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Cornforth,  3  Colo.  280,  25  Am.  Rep. 
7.>7. 

1.  When  shipper  furnishes  cars. — Cen- 
tral, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Chicago  Varnish  Co., 
169  Ala.  .287,  53  So.  832.  See  Cleveland, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  Stove  Co., 
33  Ky.  L.  Rep.  924,  111  S.  W.  358.  See 
ante,  "Goods  Shipped  on  Chartered  or 
Private   Cars,"   §   1011. 

Where,  under  an  agreement  between 
defendant  railroad  company  and  a  con- 
signor, the  latter  was  authorized  to  se- 
lect cars  for  the  transportation  of  its 
merchandise,  and  it  selected  a  car  which 
had  been  delivered  to  it  loaded  with  sand 
for  the  shipment  of  a  consignment  of 
glass  to  plaintiff,  and  damage  resulted  by 
reason  of  the  unsuitableness  of  the  car, 
the  railroad  company  was  not  liable  to 
the  consignee  for  negligently  furnishing 
an  unsuitable  car,  since  as  against  the 
railroad  company  the  consignee  was 
bound  by  the  consignor's  selection  un- 
der such  agreement.  Edward  Frohlich 
Glass  Co.  V.  Pennsylvania  Co.,  101  N. 
W.  223,  138  Mich.  116,  110  Ann.  St.  Rep. 
310. 

A  refrigerator  car  was  loaded  by  plain- 
tiff with  apples,  and  consigned  to  de- 
fendant carrier,  under  agreement  that 
the  latter  should  not  be  liable  for  loss 
or  damage  by  causes  beyond  its  control 
or  by  heat.     The  car  was  under  the  con- 


trol of  defendant  for  two  days,  and  the 
temperature  varied  from  forty-seven  to 
sixty-eight  degrees  above  zero.  It  was  at 
a  season  when  cold  weather  was  to  be 
anticipated,  and  the  car  was  selected  to 
keep  the  apples  at  a  uniform  tempera- 
ture. Before  consignment,  plaintiff  kept 
the  car  ventilated  by  keeping  one  or 
more  of  the  side  doprs  open;  but  these 
were  so  constructed  that  they  could  not 
be  kept  open  in  transit,  and  they  were 
air-tight  when  closed.  The  car  was  not 
designed  to  be  ventilated,  and,  though 
there  was  an  ice  box  open  at  the  top, 
it  could  not  be  kept  open  while  in  transit. 
Held,  that  there  was  no  such  negligence 
on  the  part  of  defendant  as  to  make  it 
liable  for  damage  caused  by  heat  and 
lack  of  ventilation.  Densmore  Comm. 
Co.  z\  Duluth,  etc.,  Railway,  77  N.  W. 
904,    101    Wis.    563. 

2.  Duty  as  to  perishable  goods. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Renfroe,  82  Ark. 
143,  100  S.  W.  889,  10  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
317. 

3.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  54 
111.  App.  130,  affirmed  in  159  111.  53,  42 
N.  E.  382,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  143;  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McLean,  55  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  130,  118  S.  W.   161. 

Illustrations. — When  a  carrier  under- 
takes to  transport  perishable  goods  in 
cars  having  appliances  for  ventilation,  it 
assumes  the  duty  to  make  all  the  ap- 
pliances available  for  the  safe  transporta- 
tion of  the  goods,  in  the  absence  of  any- 
thing in  the  contract  to  the  contrary. 
Western    Railway   z'.    Hart,    160   .\la.    599, 

49  So.  371. 

A  railroad  company  furnishing  refrig- 
erator cars  for  the  transportation  of  meat 
is  liable  for  damages  caused  by  defects 
in  the  car  whereby  warm  air,  is  admitted 
into  the  car,  causing  the  meat  to  spoil. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  54  111.  App. 
130,   affirmed   in   159   111.   53,   42    N.    E.   382, 

50  Am.   St.   Rep.   143. 

4.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  159 
111.  53,  42  N.  E.  382,  50  Am.  St.  Rep.  143, 
affirming  54  111.  App.  130. 


785 


LOSS  f)I<  INJL'KV  TO  GOODS. 


§  1019 


Carrier  Using  Cars  of  Another. — A  carrier  can  not  escape  responsibility 
for  its  failure  to  provide  cars  reasonably  tit  for  tlie  conveyance  of  the  particular 
class  of  goods  it  undertakes  to  carry  by  alleging  that  the  cars  used  for  the  pur- 
poses of  its  own  transit  were  the  property  of  another."'  A  carrier  which  uses 
the  cars  owned  and  prepared  for  use  by  a  refrigerator  company  for  the  trans- 
portation of  perishable  goods  consigned  to  it  by  shippers  is  under  the  same 
obligation,  as  to  shipi)ers,  to  care  for  the  goods,  as  it  would  have  been  had  the 
refrigerator  cars  belonged  to  it.'' 

Duty  to  Carry  in  Ventilated  Car,  and  as  to  Ventilation. — \\  here  a  car 
rier  receixes  perishable  gnoiis  lor  >liipniem  at  a  seascjn  when  a  ventilated  car 
is  the  only  reasonably  safe  means  of  carrying  them,  and  ships  in  an  ordinary 
unventilatcd  box  car,  it  is  liable  for  the  damage  resulting  therefrom."^  Where 
a  shipper  directs  the  carrier  to  carry  goods  with  ventilators  in  a  certain  condition, 
and  the  carrier  follows  the  instructions,  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  injury  re- 
sulting from  the  ventilation  ;  **  but  otherwise,  when  the  carrier  violates  the  in- 
structions of  the  shipper  and  injury  occurs  thereby.'-'  I'nder  a  custom  that  a 
carrier  sh.all  not  open  or  close  the  ventilators  of  a  car,  or  change  them  from  the 
position  in  which  placed  by  the  ship])er,  unless  so  notified,  the  carrier  may  as- 
sume, on  failure  to  give  notice,  that  the  shipper  does  not  desire  the  ventilators 
changed,  and  is  not  liable  for  failure  to  do  so.''^ 


5.  Carrier    using    cars    of    another. — St 

Louis,    etc..    R.    Cr>.    :■.    Renfroe,    82    Ark. 
14:{.  100  S.  \V.  889.  10  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  317. 

6.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cromwell, 
<)8  Va.  227.  ."i.-)  S.  E.  444,  49  L.  R.  A.  462; 
Gibson  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 
Ark.    4;!'.t.    124    S.    \V.    1033. 

Illustrations. — .\  carrier  using  a  car  of 
a  refrigerator  company  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  perishable  goods  is  liable  for 
a  loss  caused  by  negligence  in  failing  to 
keep  the  drain  holes  of  the  car  open. 
Gibson  v.  Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93 
Ark.  439,   124   S.   W.   1033. 

Where  a  carrier  undertook  to  trans- 
port a  shipment  of  strawberries  and  to 
furnish  a  refrigerator  car  and  to  ice  the 
same,  it  could  not  escape  liability  for 
damage  to  the  shipment  because  of  a 
failure  to  properly  ice  the  car  by  show- 
ing that  the  car  belonged  to  another  cor- 
poration and  that  under  the  agreement 
between  it  and  the  carrier  the  duty  of 
icing  the  car  devolved  on  the  other  cor- 
poration. St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ?•.  Ren- 
froe, 82  Ark.  143,  100  S.  \V.  889.  10  L. 
R.  A..  X.  S..  ::ir. 

7.  Duty  to  carry  in  ventilated  car,  and 
as  to  ventilation. — Forrester  t'.  Southern 
R.  Co..  147  X.  C.  553,  61  S.  E.  524,  18 
I..  R.  .\..  X.  S.,  .508,  1.-.  Am.  c^-  I'^ng.  .\nn. 
r':i>.    14.! 

Contra. — A  railroad  company  is  not 
liable  for  injuries  to  fruit  shipped,  re- 
sulting from  failure  to  place  it  in  a  ven- 
tilated car.  unless  an  obligation  on  the 
part  of  the  company  to  place  it  in  such 
a  car  is  shown.  Davenport  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania   R.    Co..   :!4   .\tl.    .■)9.    173    Pa.   398. 

Evidence  of  custom. —  In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  by  railway  for  damages 
to  lemons  shipped  in  the  month  of  .\]>ril. 
occasioned    by    their    negligent    transpor- 

1    Car— 50 


tation  in  an  unventilated  car,  upon  proof 
of  a  custom  in  the  fruit  trade  of  shipping 
lemons  in  ventilated  cars  in  warm 
weather,  evidence  is  admissible  to  show 
whether,  during  the  period  between  cold 
and  hot  weather,  transportation  com- 
panies used  their  own  judgment  in  select- 
ing cars,  or  the  shippers  gave  instruc- 
tions to  the  companies.  Giles  v.  Fargo, 
60  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  117,  17  N.  Y.  S.  476, 
43   N.   Y.   St.   Rep.   65. 

8.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Davis-Fowler 
Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  133  S.  W.  309;  Gil- 
lett  z'.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  68  S.  W.  61  (see  95  Tex.  681.  no 
op.);  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Smissen,  31 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  549,  551,  73  S.  W.  42,  af- 
firmed in  97  Tex.  649,  no  op. 

Where  a  shipment  of  vegetables  was 
made  in  the  month  of  February,  when 
freezing  weather  is  not  unusual,  and  the 
consignors  directed  the  carrier  to  leave 
open  a  vent  in  the  car,  they  could  not 
recover  for  loss  caused  by  severe,  but 
not  unprecedented,  cold  weather.  Gillett 
z:  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
t)8  S.  W.   61    (see  95  Tex.  681,  no  op.). 

9.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Davis-Fowler 
Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   App.),    133   S.    W.   309. 

Where  a  shipper  directed  the  carrier 
in  a  bill  of  lading  to  carrj'  bananas  with 
the  ventilators  of  the  car  closed  and  the 
pli;gs  all  out,  and  the  carrier  closed  the 
ventilators  l)ut  left  the  plugs  all  in.  the 
principle  that  the  carrier  is  not  respon- 
sible for  loss  or  injury  to  goods  occa- 
sioned bj'  their  being  improperly  loaded 
by  the  shipper  has  no  application,  and 
the  carrier  is  liable  for  injury  occasioned 
by  violating  the  instructions.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Davis-Fowler  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.).    133   S.   W.  309. 

10.  Schwartz  &  Co.  z:  Erie  R.  Co..  32 
Ky.    L.    Rep.    777.    106    S.    W.    1188. 


§  1019 


CARRIF.RS. 


786 


Duty  to  Carry  in  Refrigerator  Cars. — It  has  been  held  in  cases  decided 
before  refrigerator  cars  had  come  into  general  use  that  a  carrier  is  not,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  bound  to  furnish  refrigerator  cars  to  carry  perishable  goods,  but 
that  under  certain  circumstances  it  might  be  a  question  for  the  jury  whether  the 
carrier  acted  reasonably  in  not  furnishing  such  cars.^^  P)Ut  later  cases  hold 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier  to  fumish  such  cars  where  it  is  necessary  for  the 
safe  transportation  of  perishable  goods.' ^  \  carrier  which  agrees  to  ship  fruits 
in  a  through  refrigerator  car.  so  as  to  guard  against  frost,  is  liable  for  their  loss 
occasioned  by  being  transferred  to  an  ordinary  car  and  frozen,  notwithstanding 
a  stipulation  in  the  bill  of  lading  against  liability  for  injuries  due  to  the 
weather.'"' 

Duty  as  to  Icing. — The  carrier  is  required  to  use  i)roper  care  for  the  pro- 
tection and  preservation  of  the  property  which  it  acce])ts  for  transportation,  and, 
when  a  failure  to  ice  cars  would  amount  to  want  of  such  care,  it  would  be  an 
act  of  negligence.'"^  And  the  carrier  is  not  relieved  from  liability  by  the  fact 
that  it  has  no  refrigerator  cars  where  the  goods  could  have  been  carried  safely 
bv  the  use  of  ice  in  ordinary  cars.'"*  Though  a  shipi)er  observed  the  condition 
of  a  car  as  to  insufficient  refrigeration,  yet  if  the  agent  assured  him  that  the 
railroad  companv  would   furnish  the  ice,  the  company  would  be  liable.'"     The 


11.  Duty  to   carry   in  refrigerator   cars. 

—Udell    r.    Illinnis    Cent.    R.    Co..    1?>    Mo. 
App.   254. 

A  common  carrier  who  runs  a  refrig- 
erator car  is  not,  in  the  absence  of  an 
express  contract  to  carry  by  the  refrig- 
erator car,  liable  for  damages  to  an  ar- 
ticle carried  by  it,  occasioned  by  heat 
during  transit.  Wetzell  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  12   Mo.  App.  .599. 

12.  Beard  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79 
Iowa  518,  44  N.  W.  800,  7  L.  R.  A.  280, 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  381.  See  International, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  -c'.  Welbourne  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  113  S.  W.  780,  and  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  7'.  McLean,  55  Tex.  Civ.  App.  130, 
118   S.   W.   161. 

By  virtue  of  the  care  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  goods  transported  by  them  which 
is  required  of  carriers,  a  railroad  receiv- 
ing butter  for  shipment  south  in  sum- 
mer is  bound  to  ship  the  same  in  such 
manner  as  to  prevent  injury  by  heat. 
Beard  f.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 
518,  44  X.  W.  800,  7  L.  R.  A.  280,  18 
Am.   St.   Rep.  381. 

The  obligation  of  a  railroad  company 
to  furnish  refrigerator  cars  for  butter  re- 
ceived for  transportation  in  hot  weather 
is  not  discharged  by  the  fact  that  the 
freight  charges  thereon  were  the  rates 
for  common  cars,  that  being  no  evidence 
of  an  agreement  that  such  cars  should 
be  used.  Beard  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
79  Iowa  518.  44  N.  W.  803,  following 
Beard  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 
518,  44  N.  W.  800,  7  L.  R.  A.  280,  18  Am. 
St.    Rep.   381. 

13.  Effect  of  stipulation  against  liabil- 
ity.— Merchants'  Dispatch  &  Transp.  Co. 
V.  Cornforth,  3  Colo.  280,  25  Am.  Rep. 
757. 

14.  Duty  as  to  icing. — Brcnnisen  ?'. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  100  Minn.  102,  110 
N.  W.  362,  363,  10  .\m.  &  Eng.  .Ann.  Cas. 
169. 


The  duty  to  provide  suitable  cars  ex- 
tends to  proper  refrigeration  according 
to  established  custom.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McLean,  55  Tex.  Civ.  App.  130, 
118    S.   W.   161. 

Though  a  carrier  does  not  expressly 
contract  to  furnish  a  refrigerator  car  for 
perishable  commodities,  if  it  accepts  such 
commodities  for  transportation,  and  in 
fact  furnishes  a  refrigerator  car,  it  im- 
pliedly undertakes  to  exercise  the  dili- 
gence as  to  icing  that  that  class  of  goods 
require.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Welbourne  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  113  S.  W. 
780. 

A  car  of  cabbage  was  loaded  by  ten 
o'clock  a.  m.  March  15,  1907,  and  defend- 
ant carrier  immediately  notified,  but  per- 
mitted it  to  stand  on  the  siding  without 
refrigeration  until  the  night  of  the  _  16th, 
and  the  car  was  not  then  iced  until  the 
morning  of  the  17th,  when  the  cabbage 
had  already  begun  to  spoil.  On  arrival 
at  destination,  it  was  a  total  loss.  Ninety- 
five  per  cent,  of  all  shipments  of  perish- 
able produce  were  carried  by  defendant 
on  its  passenger  trains,  and  the  car  in 
question  could  have  lieen  shipped  on  a 
passenger  train  which  went  north  at  six 
o'clock  on  March  15th  but  for  defendant's 
rule  against  carrying  more  than  one 
freight  car  at  a  time  on  its  passenger 
train,  and  tliat  a  tank  car  was  being  car- 
ried on  the  train  in  question.  Held,  that 
such  rule  was  no  defense  for  defendant's 
failure  to  sooner  move  and  refrigerate 
the  shipment,  under  its  duty  to  transport 
IJerisliable  pro])erty  with  reasonable  dis- 
patcli.  McLean  <■.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   118   S.   W.   578. 

15  Beard  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79 
Iowa  518,  44  N.  W.  800,  7  L.  R.  A.  280, 
18  An).   St.   Rep.   381. 

16.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  139 
Ga.    :>57,   77    S.    E.    153. 


787  LOSS  (JK   INJLKV    TO  GOODS.  §§    1019-1020 

carrier  is  entitled  to  obey  the  consignor's  direction  not  to  ice,  and  will  not  be 
resjjonsible  for  damages  consequent  on  such  instruction  unless  through  an  un- 
reasonable delay  in  transportation  it  becomes  the  carrier's  duty  to  disregard  the 
instruction.'"  The  rule  of  a  railroad  company  not  to  re-ice  refrigerator  cars 
unless  they  could  get  a  certain  amount  of  ice  in  the  ice  tanks,  unknown  to  a  ship- 
per, and  not  embraced  in  his  contract,  does  not  relieve  the  company  from  the 
duty  imposed  by  the  contract  of  re-icing  the  refrigerator  at  specified  points  in 
the  journey.'^  Where  a  shipper  of  fruit  undertakes  to  sup]jly  the  car  with  ice, 
an  injury  to  the  goods  in  consequence  of  the  heat  must,  in  the  absence  of  evi- 
dence showing  a  default  on  the  carrier's  part,  be  assumed  to  result  from  the 
shipper's  failure  to  supply  sufficient  ice  for  the  car.'"  A  carrier  receiving  a 
refrigerator  car  loaded  with  fruit  must  use  ordinary  care  to  keep  the  car  iced, 
though  the  bill  of  lading  showing  that  the  car  is  loaded  with  fruit  is  silent  on 
the  subject :  and  though  it  is  customary  among  shippers  of  fruit,  when  the 
weather  is  warm,  to  cause  instructions  to  be  placed  in  the  bill  of  lading  in  ref- 
erence to  icing.-"  Where  goods  are  damaged  because  the  cars  were  not  iced, 
if  the  plaintiffs  knew  or  had  notice  that  their  contract  for  icing  was  not  with  the 
carrier,  the  carrier  is  not  liable,  even  though  the  bill  of  lading  was  given  by  it 
and  the  mone\-  for  icing  the  car  was  paid  to  its  agent.-' 

Injuries  after  Passing  from  Defendant's  Possession. — W  here  a  carrier 
was  bound  to  furnish  a  suitable  car  for  the  shipment  of  cabbages,  and  to  suffi- 
ciently ice  the  same,  and  the  cabbages  were  damaged  by  reason  of  the  carrier's 
negligence,  it  was  liable  for  damages  so  sustained,  though  some  of  the  injuries 
resulted  after  tiie  sliipinenl   had  ])assed   from  its  ])Osscssion.-- 

Where  the  consignee  has  possession  of  a  refrigerator  car,  and  only 
he  and  those  authorized  l)y  him  have  access  to  its  interior,  the  carrier  is  not 
bound  to  repair  defective  drain  pipes  therein,  unless  it  has  knowledge  of  the 
defective  condition.-*^ 

§  1020.  Carrying  Goods  on  Open  Cars. — Although  the.  shipment  of  cot- 
ton on  open  flat  cars  may  not  be  in  itself  such  negligence  as  would  make  the 
carrier  liable  under  all  contingencies,  yet,  when  such  shipment  is  made,  there  is 
devolved  on  the  carrier  the  duty  to  take  additional  ])recautions  for  the  protec- 
tion and  safety  of  the  cotton.-^     A  railroad  company  may  carry  on  a  platform 

17.  Instructions  of  consignor. — Texas  21.  McCunncll  Pjids.  :.  Si'utlicrn  R. 
Cent.  R.  Co.  r.  Dorsey,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.        Co..   144   X.   C.  S9,   .-)(•,   S.   l-"..   :..".'.•. 

377,  70  S.   W.   'u')-.   Southern   Exp.   Co.  r.  22.  Injuries  after  passing  from  defend- 

Fant  Fish  Co.,  12  Ga.  App.  477.  78  S.   K.  ant's  possessioi^ — Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  z: 

197.  Wilkorson    P.ros.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.).   82    S. 

18.  Effect  of  rule  unknown  to  shipper.  ^^  •    l^^'^'-'- 

— Orem.    etc..     I'roduce    Co.    r.     XortliLin  23.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :•.  Tripis  (Tex. 

Cent.  R.  Co.,  lor,  M.l.  i,  r.i;  Atl.  4:u\.  Civ.   App.).   117   S.   W  .   190. 

19.  Where  shipper  undertakes  to  supply  ,,  ^4.  Carrying  goods  on  open  cars.- 
ice.-ChicaKO,  etc.  R.  Co.  r.  Reyman  iJi  /7J''^'Vi  V-'i  ?'n  ^ "  '•  ^ ''  '''"'"  '''' 
Ind.    278,    76    N.    E.    970.    reversing    73    N.  t>  V-^'          V                  v          i         . 

P    rQ~  Held   neghgence. — A    railroad    company 

■  "*  '■  ...  loaded  cotton  on  flat  cars  in  a  train  con- 
Where  the  shipper  ot  Iruit  undertook  sistin-  of  both  flat  and  box  cars.  and. 
to  supply  the  refrigerator  car  with  ice.  although  both  classes  of  cars  contained 
the  carrier  had  a  right  to  assume,  ex-  cotton,  none  was  burned,  except  that  on 
cept  as  facts  may  have  existed  that  put  the  flat  cars.  Held,  that  failure  to  place 
It  on  notice  to  the  contrary,  that  tlie  ship-  ^he  cotton  in  box  cars  was  nedisience. 
pers  had  furnished  enough  ice  to  keep  x^^v  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Faler,  .".S 
the   car   cool   until   a   delivery   to  the   con-  Miss.  911. 

signee    could     be    had    in     the     ordinary  Effect      of      custom— carrying    in    open 

course  of  business.     Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  boats.— In    au    action    against    a    common 

z:  Reyman   (Ind.).  73   N.  E.  o87,  reversed  carrier  upon  a  bill  of  lading  for  a  failure 

on    another    point    in    70    N.    E.    970.    if.c.  ^q   deliver   cotton    in    good    order,   a    plea 

I""-   ~'^-  that    it    was    the    custom,    known    to    the 

20.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Jackson,  plaintiflf,  to  transport  cotton  and  other 
55  Tex.   Civ.   App.   407,   118   S.   W.   853.  freight     between    the     points     named    in 


§§  1020-1022 


CARRIKRS. 


788 


car  a  box  so  large  that  it  can  not  be  ])ut  into  a  box  car.  due  precaution  being 
taken  to  keep  it  from  getting  wet.-'^ 

Contract  for  Shipment  on  Open  Cars. — When  the  consignor  of  goods 
agrees  that  they  may  be  loaded  and  transferred  on  open  cars,  the  carrier,  in  the 
absence  of  negligence  on  its  part,  is  not  liable  for  any  damage  caused  to  the 
goods  by  being  so  loaded  and  transported.-''  But  in  such  case  it  is  held  that  the 
carrier  is  liable  for  a  loss  by  fire  resulting  from  its  negligently  failing  to  furnish 
suitable  means  and  appliances  to  prevent  the  goods  from  taking  fire.-' 

§  1021.  Means  for  Loading  and  Unloading. — A  carrier,  in  taking  freight, 
is  bound  to  use  sound  and  proper  hands  and  machinery  for  loading  and  unload- 
ing, and  the  safe  handling  and  removing  the  goods,  and  if  loss  ensue  from  the 
failure  in  anv  particular  the  carrier  must  bear  it.-^  A  carrier  who,  in  unloading, 
uses  the  machinery  of  another  in  hoisting  the  goods  from  his  boat,  is  liable  for 
damage  to  the  goods  resulting  from  a  break  in  the  machinery.-^  But  the  car- 
rier mav  show  a  local  usage  requiring  the  consignee  to  furnish  suitable  appa- 
ratus for  unloading  goods,  and,  where  such  usage  is  shown,  the  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  the  breaking  of  such  apparatus."*' 

§  1022.  Duties  after  Injury. — It  is  the  duty  of  a  carrier,  when  goods  in 
its  care  are  injured,  to  make  reasonable  exertions  to  repair  the  injury  or  arrest 
its  progress.'"'^  \\'here  goods  arrive  at  their  point  of  destination  and  the  pack- 
ages or  casks  are,  by  the  fault  of  the  carrier,  in  a  damaged  condition,  so  that  they 
can  not  be  handled  without  loss  and  further  damage,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  carrier 
to  repair  the  casks,  if  possible,  before  the  owner  can  be  compelled  to  receive 
tb.em.''-     Where  an  express  company,  on  receiving  a  package  for  transportation, 


the  bill  of  lading  in  open  l)oats,  and  that 
all  the  damage  which  the  cotton  sus- 
tained was  caused  .by  the  rains  which  fell 
during  the  voyage,  constitutes  a  good 
defense  on  demurrer.  Chevaillier  v.  Pat- 
ton,  10  Tex.  344,  approved  in  Philleo  v. 
Sanford,  17  Tex.  227,  67  Am.   Dec.   G54. 

25.  Burwell  z:  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  94 
X.   C.  4.51. 

26.  Contract  for  shipment  on  open  cars. 
— -VVestern,  etc.,  Railroad  z'.  Exposition 
Cotton  Mills,  81  Ga.  522,  7  S.  E.  916,  2 
L.  R.  A.  102. 

27.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ?■.  Moss,  60 
Miss.    1003.   4:)   Am.    Rep.    42S. 

28.  Duty  to  provide  suitable  means  for 
loading  and  unloading. — McGregor  & 
C').  r.  Kilgore,  (>  O.  :i.5S,  27  \m.  Dec.  260. 

Where  carrier  not  liable. — If  \.,  for 
whom  goods  are  transported  by  a  rail- 
road company,  authorized  B.  to  receive 
the  delivery  thereof,  and  to  do  all  acts 
incident  to  the  delivery  and  transporta- 
tion thereof  to  A.,  and  B.,  instead  of  re- 
ceiving the  goods  at  the  usual  place  of 
delivery,  requests  the  agent  of  the  com- 
pany to  permit  the  car  which  contains 
the  goods  to  be  hauled  to  a  near  depot 
of  another  railroad  company,  and  such 
agent  assents  thereto,  and  assists  B.  in 
hauling  the  car  to  such  depot,  and  B. 
there  requests  and  obtains  leave  of  that 
company  to  use  its  machinery  to  remove 
the  goods  from  the  car,  then  the  com- 
pany   that    transported    the    goods    is    not 


answerable  for  the  want  of  care  or  skill 
in  the  persons  employed  in  so  removing 
the  goods  from  the  car,  nor  for  the  want 
of  strength  in  the  machinery  used  for 
the  removal  of  them,  and  can  not  be 
charged  with  any  loss  that  may  happen 
in  the  course  of  such  delivery  to  A. 
Lewis  V.  Western  R.  R.  Corp.  (Mass.), 
11    Mete.    509. 

29.  DeMott  f.  Laraway  (N.  Y.),  14 
Wend.   225,   28   Am.    Dec.   523. 

30.  I^oveland  v.  Burke,  120  Mass.  139, 
21    Am.    Rep.   507. 

31.  Duties  after  injury. — Chouteaux  v. 
Leech  &  Co.,  18  Pa.  224,  57  Am.  Dec.  602. 
See  ante,  "Duty  to  Prevent  Act  of  God 
from   Causing   Injury,"   §   994. 

Duty  to  dry  goods. — If  packages  of 
fur  Ijecome  wet,  the  carrier  should  have 
them  opened  and  dried.  Chouteaux  v. 
Leech  &  Co.,  18  Pa.  224,  57  Am.  Dec.  602. 

If  merchandise  on  board  a  boat  gets 
wet  by  accident,  and  no  exertion  is  made 
to  dry  it,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  the  dam- 
age, though  his  engagement  was  to  de- 
liver safely,  "the  dangers  of  the  river  ex- 
cepted." Bird  V.  Cromwell.  1  Mo.  81,  13 
Am.  Dec.  470;  Ewart  v.  Street  (S.  C), 
2   Bailey    157.  23   Am.   Dec.   131. 

Contia. — The  master  of  a  steamboat 
carrying  wheat,  which  was  wet  by  inev- 
itable accident,  is  nut  1--'^V  ^nr  damages 
because  he  did  not  dry  the  wheat.  Steam- 
]>oat  Lynx  v.  King,  12  Mo.  272,  49  Am. 
Dec.    135. 

32.  Breed  v.   Mitchell,  48  Ga.  533. 


789 


LOSS  (JK    IXJIKV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1022-1023 


is  not  infoniictl  thai  it  c()ntain>  <i(jl(l,  the  coiwpany  is  not  negligent  in  failing  to 
search  the  ruins  of  the  express  car  after  a  tire  in  order  to  recover  the  proj)- 
erty.^''  Where  a  consignee  directed  the  carrier  not  to  re-ice  fish  in  transit,  and 
decay,  resulting  from  failure  to  re-ice,  made  transportation  unsafe,  the  carrier 
could  discharge  f)r  destroy  the  shi])nuMU   without  liability. ■•' 

Where  the  consignee  refuses  to  receive  any  part  of  the  shipment,  <>r 
to  co-operate  in  examining  the  go(jds,  and  claims  reimhursemeni  as  for  total 
loss,  the  carrier  will  not  be  held  guilty  of  '"converting"  the  goods,  by  reason 
of  calling  in  disinterested  and  competent  persons  and  having  broken  jjackages 
repacked,  and  unbroken  i)ackages  opened  and  examined,  in  order  to  ascertain 
the  character  and  condition  of  their  c( intents.'-'' 

§§  1023-1029.  Effect  of  Insurance— §  1023.  In  General.— The  ship- 
per or  owner  of  goods  may  maiiUain  an  actiou  against  a  common  carrier  for 
loss  of  or  injury  thereto,  notwithstanding  the  goods  are  insured, ^'^  or  the  insurer 
has  advanced  the  amount  of  damage.-'"  Where  a  shipper  has  received  from 
his  insurer  the  part  of  the  loss  insured  against,  he  may  sue  the  carrier,  not 
oidy  in  his  own  right,  for  the  unpaid  balance  due  to  himself,  but  as  a  trustee 
for  the  insurer  for  the  amount  paid  by  him  :  and  the  carrier  can  not,  in  such 
suit,  set  up  such  payment  by  the  insurer  as  a  defense  pro  tanto,  the  carrier 
having  no  right  to  call  upon  the  insurer  for  contribution. •''^  A  clause,  in  a 
policy  of  insurance  on  goods  in  transportation,  that  in  case  of  loss  the  insured 
shall  proceed  against  the  carrier  in  the  first  instance,  is  valid,  as  against  the 
carrier.'*'' 

Policy  Reciting  Release  of  Carrier. — A  fire  policy  obtained  by  a  shijjper 
on  goods  shipped,  reciting  the  release  by  assured  of  the  carrier  from  liability 
under  its  bill  of  lading,  and  the  waiver  by  the  insurer  of  any  right  of  subroga- 
tion against  the  carrier,  constitutes  no  defense  to  a  claim  of  the  shipper  against 
the  carrier  for  the  burning  of  the  goods,  there  being  no  such  privity  between  it 
and  the  parties  to  the  contract  of  insurance,  with  reference  thereto,  as  to  author- 
ize it  to  receive  anv  benefit  from  it  as  against  instired.-*" 


33.  Rowan  ::  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.,  80 
N.  Y.   S.  220.   80   .\pp.   Div.  .31. 

34.  Soutliern  F.xp.  Co.  f.  Fant  Fish 
Co..   12   Ga.   App.  477,  7S  ?.   F.   107. 

35.  Refusal  to  receive  goods. — Silver- 
man V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  2r,  So.  447, 
51   La.   Ann.   178.->. 

36.  Effect  of  insurance. — Merrick  r'. 
Brainard    (X.   V.),   :;s    P.arh.   .-)74. 

37.  Effect  of  payment  by  insurer. — 
United  States. — Steamship  Wellesley  Co. 
f.  Hooper  &  Co..  ms  C.  C.  A.  71,  IS.-, 
Fed.   73.3. 

Pciiits\lvania.—  Ga\es  v.  Hailman,  11 
Pa.  51. 'i." 

South  Carolina. — Burnside  v.  Union 
Steamhoat  Co.   (S.  C),  10  Rich.  L.  113. 

Tc.n7,y.— Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Zimmer- 
man  &  Co.,  SI    Tex.  CO.-..   17   S.   \V.  230. 

Where  the  insurer  advanced  the  value 
of  goods  destroyed  to  the  owner  as  a 
loan  without  interest,  witli  the  under- 
standing that  the  latter  sltouhl  sue  the 
carrier,  and.  if  successful,  repay  tlic  loan, 
and.  if  unsuccessful,  retain  tlie  money 
as  payment  of  the  insurance,  it  was  held 
that  this  arrangement  was  no  har  to  a 
libel  by  the  owner  against  the  carrier. 
The  Guiding  Star.  53  Fed.  936. 


Carrier  receiving  benefit  of  insurance. 
— An  express  company  receipted  for 
goods  left  to  them  to  be  forwarded  by  a 
])articular  vessel,  and,  that  vessel  being 
withdrawn,  sent  them  by  another,  which 
was  lost.  Held,  that  the  fact  that  the 
owner  demanded  and  collected  the  in- 
surance on  a  portion  of  the  goods  could 
not  operate  to  relieve  the  express  com- 
pany from  lialiility  for  such  loss,  the 
sum  tints  received  being  deducted  from 
the  value  of  the  goods  for  which  the  ex- 
press company  had  become  liable,  and. 
Iiaving  received  the  benefit  thereof,  the 
companv  had  no  ground  of  complaint. 
Goodrich  :■.  Thompson.  44  X.  Y.  324.  af- 
firming 27   X.   "N".   Super.   Ct.   7.-.. 

The  action  may  be  brought  in  the 
name  of  the  insurer  or  of  the  insured  for 
its  benefit.  Steamship  Welleslev  Co.  f. 
Hooper  &  Co..  los  C.  C.  A.  71.  1S5  Fed. 
73;!. 

38.  Gales  z:   Hailman.   11    Pa.   515. 

39.  Tnman  z:  South  Carolina  R.  Co.. 
120   U.    S.    12S.   0   S.   Ct.  240.  32   L.   F.d.   612. 

40.  Policy  reciting  release  of  carrier. — 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Brass  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).   133   S.   W.   1075. 


§  1024 


CARRIKRS. 


790 


§§  1024-1029.  Contract  for  Benefit  of  Insurance— §  1024.  Power 
to  Stipulate  and  Validity.— A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  or  shippuig  con- 
tract that  a  carrier,  when  liable  for  a  loss  of  the  goods,  shall  have  the  beneht 
of  any  insurance  that  may  ha,ve  been  effected  upon  them,  is  valid  as  between 
the  carrier  and  the  shipper.-* i  This  results  from  the  right  of  the  carrier  to 
insure  the  goods  for  its  protection.-* ^  Such  a  provision  m  a  bill  of  lading  is 
not  invalid  by  reason  of  its  being  in  contravention  of  any  rule  based  on  pubic 
policy-* 3  Hence  it  must  be  that  in  the  absence  of  stipulation  m  a  policy  to  the 
contrarv  the  insured  mav  without  invalidating  his  policy  make  such  contracts 
with  a  carrier  limiting  the  liability  of  the  latter  as  may  be  lawful  under  the  laws 
in  force  at  the  place  of  shipment,  or  such  other  laws  as  may  be  applicable ;  for  the 
parties  oucrht  to  be  presumed  to  contract  with  reference  to  the  right  of  the  car- 
rier to  refuse  to  receive  and  transport  freight  without  a  contract  limiting  its 
liability  in  so   far  as  this  may  lawfully  be  done  under  the  law  governing  the 

shipment."*"*  .  ,  •     j  ^     • 

Rio-ht  to  Require  Shipper  to  Insure.— A  shipper  can  not  be  required  to  in- 
sure °f  or  the  carrier's  beneht  as  a  condition  on  which  the  freight  will  be  re- 
ceived and  transported,  and  a  stipulation  in  the  contract  of  carriage,  requiring 
the  shipper  to  procure  insurance  for  the  benefit  of  the  carrier  m  case  of  loss, 
or  one  requiring  him  when  he  does  effect  insurance  to  procure  such  as  will  pro- 
tect the  carrier, 'is  void.-*-'^  A  refusal  to  give  the  carrier  the  benefit  of  any  insurance 
already  secured  is  in  eft'ect  but  a  refusal  to  insure  for  its  benefit.  And  the  shipper 
mav  reject  a  bill  of  lading  containing  a  stipulation  by  the  carrier  for  the  benefit 
of  'the  insurance  and  have  his  goods  transported  on  one  that  does  not  contain 
that  provision.^'' 

Effect  of  Statute.— A  statute  forbidding  common  carriers  to  impose  re- 
striction of  their  liabilitv  is  not  infringed  by  a  provision  in  a  bill  of  lading  that 
the  carrier  shall  have  the  benefit  of  any  insurance  to  the  owner  on  the  freight.-*' 


41.  Contract  for  benefit  of  insurance.-- 
Utiitcd  States. — Phoenix  Tns.  Co.  v.  Krie. 
etc..  Transp.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  312.  29  L.  Ed. 
873.  6  S.  Ct.  750,  1176;  Liverpool,  etc.. 
Co.  z:  Phenix  Ins.  Co..  129  U.  S.  397,  462. 
32  L.  Ed.  788,  9  S.  Ct.  469;  Queen  of  the 
Pacific,  180  U.  S.  49,  .56.  45  L.  Ed.  419,  21 
vS  Ct.  278.  See,  also.  The  Germanic,  196 
U.  S.  589,  599.  49  L.  Ed.  610,  25  S.  Ct. 
317;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,112,  10  Biss.  18; 
Bradley  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  153 
Fed.  350,  82  C.  C.  A.  426;  Rintoul  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Blatchf.  439, 
17  Fed.  905;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Burr, 
130  Fed.  847,  65  C.  C.  A.  331. 

New  York. — Mercantile  Mut.  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Calebs,  20   N.   Y.   173. 

T^;ira.y.— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Inter- 
national, etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  84  Tex.  149,  1.52, 
19  S  W.  459;  British,  etc.,  Marine  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  475.  480, 
51  Am.  Rep.  661;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 
Zimmerman  &  Co.,  81  Tex.  605,  17  S. 
W.  239. 

England.— Veck  v.  North  Staffordshire 
R.  Co.,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  473,  9  Jur.,  N.  S., 
914,  32  L.  J.  Q.  B.  1023,  8  L.  T.  768;  Ash- 
den  V.  London  B.  &  S.  C.  R.  Co.,  L.  R. 
5.  Ex.  D.  190,  42  L.  T.  586,  28  W.  R.  511, 
44   T.    P.   20?,. 

42.  Right  of  carrier  to  insure. — British, 
etc..  Marine  Ins.  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  63  Tex.   475,   51   Am.   Rep.   661. 


43.  Public  policy. — British,  etc.,  Marine 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex. 
475,  51  Am.  Rep.  661;  Insurance  Co.  v. 
Easton,  73  Tex.  167,  11  S.  W.  180,  37  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.   Cas.   671. 

44.  Insurance  Co.  v.  Easton,  73  Tex. 
167,  176,  11  S.  W.  180,  37  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   071. 

45.  Requiring  shipper  to  insure. — 
United  States. — Inman  v.  South  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  128,  139,  32  L.  Ed.  612, 
9  S.  Ct.  249;  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Phe- 
nix Ins.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  397.  32  L.  Ed.  788, 
9  S.  Ct.  469;  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Lockwood  (U.  S.),  17  Wall.  357,  21  L. 
Ed.  627;  Bradley  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co., 
153   Fed.  350,  354,  82  C.  C.   A.   426. 

Pennsylvania. — Willock  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,  "l66  Pa.  184,  45  Am.  St.  Rep.  674, 
30    Atl.    948,    27    L.    R.    A.   228. 

Texas. — Insurance  Co.  v.  Easton,  73 
Tex.  167,  179,  11  S.  W.  180,  37  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.   671. 

England.— Peck  v.  North  Staffordshire 
R.   Co.,   10   H.   L.   Cas.  473. 

46.  Refusal  to  give  benefit  of  insurance 
already  secured. — Insurance  Co.  v.  Eas- 
ton, 73  Tex.  167,  11  S.  W.  180,  37  Am. 
&   Eng.   R.  Cas.   671. 

47.  Texas  statute. — British,  etc..  Ma- 
rine Ins.  Co.  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex. 
873;  Rintoul  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
475,  51   Am.   Rep.   661. 


791 


LOSS  OR    IXIl'kV   TO   GOODS. 


§§  1024-1025 


Loss  by  Negligence  of  Carrier. — A  condition  in  a  bill  of  lading  providing 
that  the  carrier  shall  have  the  benefit  of  any  insurance  on  the  goods  held  by 
the  owner  is  valiil  as  between  the  ])arties,  thouj^h  a  loss  occurs  through  the  neg- 
ligence of  the  carrier."*^  Such  a  stipulation  in  the  contract  of  shipment  is  not 
an  unreasonable  and  unjust  exemption  from  !iabilit\-  for  negligence ;  ■*'•'  but  the 
contrary  is  held  in  Pennsylvania.-''"' 

Consideration. — A  stipulation  thai  the  carrier  should  have  the  benefit  of 
any  insurance  on  the  goods  to  be  carried  is  valid  without  a  special  consideration 
therefor  to  the  shipper,  and  will  not  be  held  invalid  simply  because  there  was 
no  corresponding  reduction  of  frei,i,du  charges.''^ 

Power  of  Agent  of  Shipper  to  Assent  to  Stipulation. —  In  absence  of  n(j- 
tice  to  contrary,  the  carrier  may  assume  that  the  agent  of  the  ship{jer,  having 
authority  to  make  contract  for  shipment,  has  the  power  to  assent  to  stipula- 
tions   for   benefit   of    insurance. ■'•- 

§§  1025-1028.  Operation  and  Effect— §  102  5.  Right  of  Shipper  to 
Recover  from  Carrier. — In  stii)u]ating  for  the  benehl  of  insuraiice  the  carrier 
does  not  limit  its  common-law  liability  to  the  shipper  for  any  loss  that  may  oc- 
cur."^'^  The  fact  that  the  carrier  may  have  the  right  to  reimburse  itself  from 
an  insurer  or  third  party  for  losses  under  the  shipping  contract  will  afford  no 
defense  to  an  action  against  it  by  the  shipper.  It  must  first  pay  and  may  then 
sue  on  the  policy."'^  Such  a  stipulation  does  not  entitle  the  carrier  to  receive 
the  benefit  of  the  insurance  or  to  a  tender  thereof,  before  an  action  can  be 
brought  against  it  for  the  loss.-''-'  Where  the  contract  of  insurance  does  not 
cover  losses  caused  by  the  carrier's  negligence,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  losses 
so  occasioned,  notwithstanding  a  stipulation  that  it  should  have  the  benefit  of 
any  insurance  effected  on  the  goods.-"''' 

Effect  of  Payment  by  Insurer. — \\here  a  carrier  provided  in  its  contract 
of  shii)ment  that  it  should  have  the  benefit  of  any  insurance  effected  upon  the 
goods  to  be  transported,  the  owner,  if  he  has  received  from  the  insurance  com- 
pany the  amount  of  the  loss,  wmII  be  precluded  by  such  stipulation  from  recover- 
ing against  the  carrier.-"'"     Such  facts,  however,  the  carrier  must  show  to  avoid 


48.  Loss    by    negligence    of    carrier. — 

Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  7'.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.,  117  U.  S.  312,  ()  S.  Ct.  750,  117(5.  2!) 
L.  Ed.  873;  Riiitoul  7:  New  York  Cent., 
etc..  R.  Co..  21  Blatchf.  439.  17  Fed.  905; 
Piatt  7'.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co..  108  N. 
Y.  358,  13  N.  Y.  S.  R.  660,  15  N.  E.  393, 
32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  517,  11  Cent.  Rep. 
101. 

49.  Rintoul  7'.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.. 
Co..   17   Fed.   905,   21    Blatchf.   439. 

50.  Willock  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  166 
Pa.  184,  30  .\tl.  948,  45  .\m.  St.  Rep.  074, 
27    L.    R.    A.    22s. 

51.  Consideration  unnecessary. — Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  7'.  International,  etc., 
Ins.    Co..    84   Tex.    149,    19    S.    W.    459. 

52.  Power  of  agent  of  shipper  to  as- 
sent to  stipulation. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
7-.  Intcrnalional,  etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  S4  '[\k. 
149,  153,  19  v^.  \V.  459,  citing  Ryan  &  Co. 
V.  M.  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  05  Tox.  13.  23  Am. 
&   Eng.  R.  Cas.  TO.i. 

53.  Right  of  shipper  to  recover  from 
carrier. — British,  etc..  Marine  Ins.  Co.  7. 
Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co..  03  Tex.  475,  51  .Am. 
Rep.  661. 

The  shipper  does  not  hind  himself  to 
insure,  or  to  do  anything  which  will  re- 
sult  in   benefit   to   the   carrier.     There    is. 


therefore,  no  contract  of  exemption 
against  liability  for  loss  by  negligence, 
no  agreement  that  the  carrier  shall  be 
indemnified,  but  the  contract  simply  is 
that,  in  the  contingency  of  insurance,  a 
consequent  benefit  will,  in  case  of  loss, 
result  to  the  carrier.  British,  etc..  Ma- 
rine Ins.  Co.  7'.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex. 
475,  480.  51   Am.   Rep.   661. 

54.  British,  etc.,  Marine  Ins.  Co.  7-. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  475,  51  .\m. 
Rep.  661. 

55.  Inman  7'.  Soutli  Carolina  R.  Co., 
129   U.    .^.    12s,   9   S.   Ct.   249,   32    L.    Ed.   012. 

56.  Insurance  not  covering  losses  by 
negligence. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7.  Zim- 
nurnian   i^  Co..  81  Tex.  605.  17  S.  W.  239. 

57.  Effect  of  payment  by  insurer. — 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7-.  Zimmerman  &  Co., 
SI  Tex.  605.  17  S.  W.  239:  Rintoul  7-. 
New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
905.  21    Blatchf.   439. 

Right  of  carrier  regarded  as  counter- 
claim.—  If.  the  riLrliis  of  tlie  carrier  may 
be  regarded  as  in  the  nature  of  a  counter- 
claim by  way  of  recoupment  or  set-off, 
then  the  question  arises  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  stipulation,  assuming  it  to  be 
otherwise  valid,  and  w-hat  would  amount 
to  a  breach  of  it.     By  its  terms  the  ship- 


§§  1025-1026 


CARRIERS. 


792 


liabilitv  ^^ 

The  "advancement"  by  the  insurer  to  the  insured  of  the  insured  value 
of  the  croods  does  not  constitute  a  "payment"  in  such  sense  as  to  preclude  the 
assured*' from  recovering  from  the  carrier  the  amount  of  its  common-law  lia- 
bilitv.^'' .  .  ,  .       r 

Agreement  by  Insurer  to  Pay  Loss.— In  an  action  against  the  earner  for 
damao-e  to  goods  conveved  under  a  contract  stiixilating  for  the  benefit  of  in- 
surance, it  is  no  defense  that  the  insurer  has  agreed  to  pay  the  shipper  for  his 

loss  ^'^ 

Liability  Limited  to  Value  at  Place  of  Shipment.— W  here  a  bill  of  lad- 
ino-  hniited  the  HabiHtv  of  the  carrier  to  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place  of 
shipment,  and  provided  that  it  should  have  the  benefit  of  any  insurance  efifected 
bv  the  owner,  the  carrier  can  not  claim  the  benefit  of  insurance  covering  the  in- 
creased value  of  the  goods  at  the  port  of  destination,  which  the  owner  had  the 
right  to  effect  for  his  own  protection.^'! 

§  1026.  Right  of  Carrier  to  Recover  from  Insurer.— Where  a  carrier 
in  a  bill  of  lading  reserves  the  right  to  recover  insurance  on  goods  destroyed  in 
transitu,  for  destruction  of  which  it  is  liable,  the  insurance  company  is  liable 
to   such  carrier.^'- 


pers  were  not  compelled  to  insure  for 
the  benefit  of  the  railroad  company;  but 
if  they  had  insurance  at  the  time  of  the 
loss,  which  they  could  make  available  to 
the  carrier,  or  which,  before  bringing  suit 
against  the  company,  they  had  collected, 
without  condition,  then,  if  they  had 
wrongfully  refused  to  allow  the  earner 
the  benefit  of  the  insurance,  such  a 
counterclaim  might  be  sustained,  but 
otherwise  not.  Inman  v.  South  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  128,  9  S.  Ct.  249,  32  L. 
Ed.    612. 

58.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmerman  & 
Co..   81    Tex.   605,   17    S.   W.   239. 

59.  Advancement  not  constituting  pay- 
ment—Gulf, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Zimmerman 
&  Co.,  81  Tex.  605,  17  S.  W.  239. 

Illustrations. — A  bill  of  lading  pro- 
vided that,  in  case  of  loss  or  injury  of 
the  goods,  the  damage  should  be  ad- 
justed on  the  basis  of  their  value  at  the 
place  and  time  of  shipment,  and  that  the 
carrier  should  have  the  benefit  of  any 
insurance  effected  by  the  shipper.  He 
insured  the  goods  for  their  value  at  the 
port  of  destination,  but  the  policy  con- 
tained a  provision  that  in  case  of  any 
agreement  between  the  assured  and  any 
carrier  whereby,  in  case  of  loss  for  which 
the  carrier  would  be  liable,  he  should 
have  the  benefit  of  the  insurance,  there 
should  be  no  liability  on  the  policy  be- 
yond the  amount  which  was  not  recover- 
able from  the  carrier,  and  to  make  good 
the  loss  temporarily  by  advancing  money 
pending  delay  in  collecting  from  the  car- 
rier, which  should  not  affect  the  final  lia- 
bility of  the  insurer.  The  goods  were 
damaged  in  shipment,  and  the  insurer 
advanced  a  sum  to  the  owner;  taking  a 
receipt  by  which  he  agreed  to  prosecute 
his  claim  against  the  carrier,  and  to  re- 
fund to  the  insurer  the  amount  collected. 
Held,  that  such  advance  was  strictly 
within    the   terms    of   the   policy,   and   did 


not  constitute  a  payment  of  the  loss, 
whereby  the  carrier  could  claim  the  bene- 
fit under  the  bill  of  lading  as  set-off  in  an 
action  by  the  owner  to  recover  the  dam- 
ages. Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Burr,  130 
Fed.  847,  65  C.  C.  A.  331. 

A  bill  of  lading  provided  that,  in  case 
of  loss  or  damage  to  the  goods,  the  car- 
rier should  have  the  benefit  of  any  in- 
surance for  or  on  account  of  the  owner, 
and  should  be  subrogated  to  its  rights  be- 
fore any  demand  on  account  of  such  loss 
or  damage  should  be  made.  The  shippers 
obtained  a  policy  of  insurance  on  the 
goods,  conditioned  that  it  should  not  in- 
ure directly  or  indirectly  to  the  benefit 
of  any  carrier  or  bailee  by  stipulation  in 
l)ill  of  lading  or  otherwise,  and  that  it 
should  be  null  and  void  to  the  extent  of 
any  amount  recovered  from  any  car- 
rier or  bailee.  The  goods  having  been 
lost  by  the  carrier,  the  insurer  advanced 
to  the  shippers  an  amount  equal  _  to 
the  insurance,  taking  a  receipt  reciting 
that  it  was  received  "as  a  loan  without 
interest,  and  repayable  only  to  the  ex- 
tent of  any  net  recovery  we  may  make 
from  the  carriers  responsible  for  the 
loss."  Held,  that  the  advance  made  by 
the  insurance  company  did  not  extin- 
guish the  liability  of  the  carrier  nor  con- 
stitute a  defense  to  an  action  against  it  to 
recover  for  the  loss.  Bradley  v.  Lehigh 
Valley  R.  Co.,  153  Fed.  350,  82  C.  C.  A. 
436,   affirming  145   Fed.   569. 

60.  Effect  of  agreement  by  insurer  to 
pay. — Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spratt 
(Ky.),   2   Duv.   4. 

61.  Liability  limited  to  value  at  place 
of  shipment. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Burr,   KJO  Fed.  847,   65   C.   C.  A.  331. 

62.  Right  of  carrier  to  recover  from  in- 
surer.— British,  etc..  Marine  Ins.  Co.  r. 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  475,  478.  51 
Am.  Rep.  661. 


793 


I/)SS  Ok    INJLKV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1026-1028 


Where  There  Are  Several  Carriers.— Wlicrc  a  part  (jf  the  goods  was 
shipped  from  an  inland  point  under  a  through  bill  of  lading  which  contained 
two  sets  of  conditions,  the  first  set  relating  exclusively  to  land  carriage,  and 
the  second  to  the  ocean  transportation,  the  carrier  could  not  avail  itself  of  a 
clause  contained  in  the  first  set  of  conditions  concerning  the  right  of  the  carrier 
to  have  the  benefit  of  any  insurance  on  the  goods  for  the  loss  of  which  it  might 
be  liable  when  the  goods  were  lost  at  sea.''-'* 

§   1027.  Effect  as  Defeating  Insurer's  Right  of  Subrogation. — Where 

a  shipping  contract  or  a  bill  ui  laiiiiii;  i)r(j\idc>  thai  an\  iii>uraniL-  on  the  goods 
shall  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  carrier,  payment  of  the  insurance  to  the  shi]>per 
discharges  the  carrier,  and  prevents  the  insurance  comjjany  from  maintaining 
an  action  against  the  carrier  for  causing  the  loss,**-*  although  the  negligence  of 
the  carrier  contributed  thereto.*"' •'''  The  rule  that  an  insurer,  when  he  has  in- 
demnified an  owner  of  property  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  a  carrier,  is  entitled  to 
all  the  means  of  indemnity  which  the  satisfied  owner  held  against  the  carrier, 
and  that  the  owner  can  not,  after  loss,  relinquish  any  rights  to  which  the  in- 
surer is  entitled,  docs  not  mean  that  the  owner  and  the  carrier  may  not,  at  the 
time  the  goods  are  shipped,  and  before  insurance  is  effected,  make,  without 
fraudulent  concealment,  a  valid  agreement  that  any  insurance  shall  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  the  carrier.*'" 

§  1028.  Inconsistent  Stipulations  in  Contract  and  Policy. — The  ef- 
fect of  a  carrier's  stipulating  in  its  contract  of  shipment  for  the  benefit  of  any 
insurance  that  may  have  been  effected  upon  the  goods  to  be  transported,  where 
previously  thereto  the  shijjper  has  obtained  a  policy  providing  that  the  insurer 
shall  be  subrogated  to  the  claim  of  the  insured  against  the  carrier,  is  to  invali- 
date the  contract  of  insurance  and  defeat  a  recovery  by  the  insured  on  the  pol- 
icy.*'"    The  carrier's  liabilitv  for  loss  of  goods  is  the  ultimate  liability,  while  that 

63.  Where  there  are  several  carriers. — 

Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  i\  riicnix  Ins.  Co., 
129  U.  S.  397,  9  S.  Ct.  4r)9,  32  L.  Kd.  788; 
Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Insurance  Co.,  129 
U.    vS.   4<;4,   9   S.    Ct.   480,   .■)2    L.    Ed.   800. 

64.  Effect  as  defeating  insurer's  right 
of  subrogation. — L'liitcd  States. — Phcenix 
Ins.  Co.  V.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  117  U. 
S.  312.  29  L.  Ed.  873,  6  S.  Ct.  750,  117G; 
New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.  za  Lockwood 
(U.  S.),  17  Wall.  357,  21  L.  Ed.  627;  Liv- 
erpool, etc.,  Co.  z:  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  129 
U.  S.  397,  32  L.  Ed.  788,  9  S.  Ct.  469. 

Nc7V  York. — Piatt  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  108  N.  Y.  358,  15  N.  E.  393,  13  N.  Y. 
S.  R.  660,  11  Cent.  Rep.  101,  32  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  517;  Connecticut  Fire  Ins. 
Co.  V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  399,  29  Am. 
Rep.   171. 

Texas. — British,  etc..  Marine  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  475,  51  Am. 
Rep.  661;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Inter- 
national, etc.,  Ins.  Co.,  84  Tex.  149,  19 
S.  W.  459. 

In  Wager  i:  Providence  Ins.  Co.,  150 
U.  S.  99,  37  L.  Ed.  1013,  it  was  said  that, 
in  case  of  loss,  the  carrier  is  primarily 
liable  to  the  shipper,  and  the  posi- 
tion of  an  insurer  is  substantially  that  of 
a  surety.  The  insurer  can  recover,  there- 
fore, after  payment  of  a  loss,  by  subro- 
gation to  the  rights  of  the  shipper,  and 
upon  no  other  ground;  so  that  whatever 
amounts     to    an     extinguishment  of     the 


right  of  action  of  the  shipper  againsr 
the  carrier  must  defeat  the  insurer's  right 
to  subrogation. 

65.  A  bill  of  lading  contained  a  pro- 
vision that  the  carrier  should  have  the 
benefit  of  insurance  effected  by  the  in- 
sured in  case,  of  liability  for  loss,  but  pro- 
vided that  the  carrier  should  not  be  lia- 
ble for  loss  by  perils  of  navigation.  A 
loss  occurred  through  the  perils  of  nav- 
igation as  the  proximate  cause,  but  to 
which  the  negligence  of  the  carrier  re- 
motely contributed,  and  the  insurers  paid 
the  loss  to  the  shippers.  Held,  that  the 
insurers  were  not  subrogated  to  the 
rights  of  the  shippers,  and  could  not 
maintain  an  action  against  the  carrier. 
I'hirnix  Ins.  Co.  7'.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 
Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    ll.ll:.'.    lo    Biss.    is. 

Loss  by  negligent  stranding. — Such  a 
stipulation  limits  the  right  of  an  insurer 
of  the  goods,  upon  paying  to  the  shipper 
the  amount  of  a  loss  bj-  stranding,  oc- 
casioned by  the  negligence  of  the  car- 
rier's servants,  to  recover  over  against 
the  carrier.  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co.  t'.  Phenix 
Ins.  Co..  129  U.  S.  397,  462,  32  L.  Ed. 
7SS,  9  S.  Ct.  469;  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  z: 
Erie,  etc..  Transp.  Co.,  117  U.  S.  312.  29 
L.    Ed.   873.    6    S.   Ct.   750.    1176. 

66.  Rintoul  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   20   Fed.   313. 

67.  Effect  of  inconsistent  stipulations. 
— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z\  International, 
etc..    Ins.    Co..   84   Tex.    149,    19    S.   W.   459. 


§§  1028-1029  CARRiiCRS.  794 

of  the  insurer  is  that  of  an  indemnitor  in  ah  cases  in  which  the  insiu-ance  con- 
tract does  not  stipulate  to  the  contrary,  or  in  which  a  contrary  intention  may  not 
be  fairly  inferred  from  the  time  and  circumstances  of  the  contract.  If  the  m- 
sured  wishes  a  policy  that  will  place  the  ultimate  liability  on  the  insurer,  he  must 
so  make  his  contract  as  to  protect  the  carrier  afterwards  to  be  selected  by  hmi.^^ 

Notice  of  Stipulation  in  Policy.— An  open  policy  of  insurance  which  stipu- 
lates that  '"this  insurance  shall  not  enure  to  the  benefit  of  any  carrier,"  is  not 
void  as  being  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  when  violated  by  a  contract  between 
the  insured  and  a  carrier  by  which  the  latter  should  be  subrogated  to  the  rights 
of  the  insured  in  case  of  loss,  avoids  the  policy,  and  neither  the  insured  nor  the 
carrier  can  assert  rights  under  it  in  case  of  loss,  and  this  though  both  the  car- 
rier and  the  insured  were  in  fact  ignorant  of  the  stipulation.'"'"^ 

Notice  to  Insurer  of  Stipulation  in  Bill  of  Lading.— Where  the  bill  of 
lading  is  prior  in  point  of  time  to  the  policy,  which  recites  the  fact  of  shipment, 
this  is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  policy  was  issued  with  notice  of^the  right  se- 
cured by  the  carrier  bv  contract  and  in  suliordination  to  that  right."^*^ 

Effect  of  Voluntary  Payment  by  Insurer.— Where  a  shipper  has,  by 
inconsistent  stipulation  with  a  carrier,  defeated  the  insurer's  right  to  subroga- 
tion, payment  by  the  insurer  is  purely  \oluntary  and  gives  no  rights  against  the 
carrier.     No  subrogation  would  follow  from  such  payment  against  the  carrier.'^  ^ 

§  1029.  Suits  against  Carrier.— Pleading  and  Proof.— A  petition  stat- 
ing that  plaintilT  was  the  owner  of  certain  goods  injured  while  in  the  carrier's 
possession;  that  he  had  transferred  to  an  insurance  company  one-half  of  his 
right  of  action,  and  that  his  suit  was  for  one-half  the  damages  sustained,  for 
the  use  of  the  insurance  company,  discloses  a  good  cause  of  action,  and  the  mere 
allegation  that  the  cause  of  action  had  been  transferred  does  not  compel  him 
to  negative  the  illegality  of  such  transfer.  The  allegation  that  the  suit  was  for 
the  use  of  the  insurance  company  is  proper  to  protect  its  interest,  and  it  is  not 
necessary  to  show  by  averment  or  proof  how  the  insurance  company  acquired 
its  interest. '^2 

Supplemental  Petition. — A  supplemental  petition  in  a  suit  by  an  insurance 
companv  against  a  carrier  who  has  received  the  benefit  of  insurance,  which 
does  not  allege  that  the  carrier  had  notice  of  want  of  authority  in  the  shipper's 
agent  to  make  such  a  contract,  is  defective,  and  an  exception  thereto  should  be 
sustained. "^^ 

Answer. — Where  plaintiff  alleges  a  transfer  of  one-half  of  his  right  of  ac- 
tion to  the  insurance  company  and  that  the  suit  is  for  the  use  of  such  company, 
if  the  carrier  relies  on  anything  in  the  transfer  to  defeat  the  action,  as  that  the 
cause  of  action  had  been  devoted  to  an  illegal  purpose,  it  should  set  it  up  in  its 
answer.""* 

68.  Insurance  Co.  v.  Easton,  7.3  Tex.  72.  Pleading  and  proof— Suit  by  shipper 
1G7,  11  S.  W.  180,  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  for  benefit  of  insurer. — East  Line,  etc.. 
671.                                                              '  R.    Co.   V.   Hall,   64  Tex.   615. 

69.  Notice  of  stipulation  in  policy. —  To  entitle  the  shipper  to  recover  for 
Insurance  Co.  v.  Easton,  73  Tex.  167,  11  the  use  of  the  insurance  company,  the 
S.  W.  180.  37  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  671. _  averment  and  proof  need   not  go  further 

70.  Notice  to  insurer  of  stipulation  in  ^j^^n  to  show  a  right  of  recovery  in  the 
bill  of  lading.— British,  etc.,  Marine  Ins.  shipper,  the  record  plaintiff;  for  this  pur- 
Co.  V.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  475,  51  pogg  ^^e  suit  is  not  the  suit  of  the  insur- 
Am.  Rep.  661;  Insurance  Co.  v.  Easton,  ^nce  company.  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
73  Tex.   167,   173,   11  S.  W.   180,  37   Am.   &  ^,    Hall,   64  Tex.   615,   621. 

E"g-  5,'  C^s-  ^^''1-  ,      ^                        .  u      •  73.      Supplemental      petition.— Missouri 

71.  Effect  of  voluntary  payment  by  m-  p^^     j,      g^     ^,     International,    etc.,    Ins. 
surer -Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.   z.     Interna-  ^^  ^^^    ^^               ^9  g    ^    459 
tional.   etc.,   Ins.   Co.,  84  Tex.   149,   1.j2,   19  „\     .                   „     ^   ,  .           .        o     r^    „ 
S    W.   459;   British,   etc.,   Marine    Ins.   Co.  74.  Answer.— East   Line,   etc.,   R.   Co.    v. 
V.   Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  Tex.  475,  51  Am.  Hall,  64  Tex.  615. 

Rep.   661. 


795  LOSS  OK   INJIKY  TO  GOODS.  §§    1029-1031 

Evidence. — \\  here  the  carrier  claims  ihe  benefit  of  insurance,  it  must  show 
clearly  that,  under  the  terms  of  the  contract,  it  is  entitled  thereto."^  it  must 
prove  that  such  insurance  was  procured  by  the  shipper,  and  paid  by  the  in- 
surer;'^*' and  that  the  shipi)er  had  refused  to  allow  the  carrier  the  benefit  of 
itJ^  Where  plaintiff  suing  a  carrier  for  injuries  to  goods  by  fire  alleges  that 
he  had  transferred  to  an  insurance  company  one-half  of  his  right  of  action  the 
transfer  when  offered  in  evidence  can  not  be  excluded  on  the  gr(jund  that  it 
contained  other  matters  than  the  bare  transfer  itself.'" 

§  1030.  Claims  for  Damages. — Where  the  c(jntract  between  a  shipper 
and  a  carrier  contains  no  sti]ndalion  as  to  the  time  within  which  a  claim  for  loss 
or  damage  to  the  shipment  must  be  made,  or  where  such  stipulation,  if  made, 
is  void,  the  shipper  is  not  re(|uired  to  give  iwtice  of  his  claim,  but  may  e^ue 
thereon  at  any  time  within  that  fi.xed  by  the  statute  of  limitations  of  the  state.'^ 
Where  a  statute  required  that  a  claim  should  be  filed  with  the  agent  of  the  car- 
rier at  the  point  of  destination,  filing  the  claim  with  the  soliciting  freight  agent 
at  destination  is  a  sufficient  filing.'*" 

Waiver  of  Defect  in  Claim. — Where  a  claim  was  presented  for  damages 
to  freight,  and  recei\e(l  without  objection,  and  afterwards  treated  as  pending, 
a  provision  that   it  must   be  \eritk'(l   is  waived.**^ 

Efifect  of  Filing-  Subsequent  Claim. — Where  a  claimant  for  damages  to 
freight  filed  a  claim  against  the  carrier  for  the  value  of  the  goods  and  freight 
within  the  time  required  by  his  contract  of  shipment,  the  fact  that  he  also  after 
that  time  filed  a  claim  for  the  value  of  the  goods  without  the  item  for  freight 
would   not   preclude  his  recovery  under  the  first  claim. **- 

Adjustment  of  Claim. — A  railroad  company  has  the  right  in  adjusting  in- 
jury to  property  caused  by  its  negligence  to  contract  to  kee])  the  injured  property 
and  pay  the  owner  its  value  in  settlement  of  the  damages.'^'' 

Waiver  of  claim  for  damages  by  receiving  goods,  paying  freight,  etc.,  is 
treated    elsewhere. '^'^ 

The  reasonableness  of  a  rule  of  an  express  company  requiring  that,  in  case 
of  a  claim  being  made  for  a  package  lost  in  transit,  the  original  receipt  must  be 
produced  within  thirty  days  annexed  to  the  notice  of  loss,  is  one  for  the  jury 
to  determine  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  proper  instructions  by 
the  court. ■'^•' 

§  1031.  Extent  of  Liability. — Tt  may  be  stated  generally  that  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  in  case  of  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  extends  to  the  amount  of 
damage  sustained.^^  The  extent  of  the  carrier's  liability-  may  be  affected  by  a 
contract  made  stibsequent  to  the  consignee's  refusal  to  receive  goods  damaged  by 

75.  Burden  of  proof. — ^Tnman  v.  South  p.  81),  providin°r  penalty  for  loss  of 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  139  U.  vS.  128,  .32  L.  Ed.  property.  Bell  7:  v'^outliern  Railway,  77 
f)12,   0   S.    Ct.    249;    Liverpool,   etc.,    Co.   v.       S.   C.  7S,  57  S.   E.  r,S9. 

Phenix    Ins.    Co.,    129   U.    S.    397.    4<>.3.    32  81.  Waiver  of  defect  in  claim.— Wabash 

L.   Ed.  78S.  9  S.   Ct.  4t;9.  R.    Co.    v.    Brown.    1.52    111.    484,    39    N.    E. 

76.  Proof  that    insurance     procured. —       273.  affirniinc;  "il   111.  .\pp.  f>:tG. 

Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.   f.    Zimmerman    &   Co.,  82.   Effect  of  filing  subsequent  claim. — 

81   Tex.   605.  609,   17    v^.   \V.   239.  Jenkins   r.    Atlantic,   etc..    R.    Co.,   6.5   S.    E. 

77.  Inman    v.    South    Carolina    R.    Co.,       (136.  s:',   S.   C.    IT:;. 

129  U.  S.  128,  9  S.  Ct.  249,  32  L.  Ed.  612.  83.  Adjustment  of  claim.— Chicago,  etc.. 

78.  Admissibility  of  transfer.— East  R-  Co.  :•.  Katzcnhach,  2i)  X.  E.  709,  118 
Line,   etc..    R.    Co.   :■.    ll.ill,   f.4   Tex.   615.  I"fl-   ^~^- 

79.  Claims  for  damages.  Southern  R.  84.  Waiver  of  claim.— See  post,  "De- 
Co.  f.   Mooresville    Cotton    Mills,   187  Fed.        tenses."   ij   1():'..5. 

72.  109  C.   C.  .\.  300.  85.    Question    for    jury. — .\dams      Exp. 

Generally   as   to   limitation   of  time  for  Co.    f.    Gordon,    5    O.    C.    C.    N.    S.,    563, 

presenting    claim,     see    post.     "Limitation  17-27   O.   C.   D.   243. 

o\   Lial)ility."  chapter  14.  86.      Extent      of      liability. — See      post, 

80.  Act   Feb.  23,  1903   (24  St.  at  Large,  "Damages,"  §§  1068-1085. 


1031-1032 


CARRIKRS. 


796 


delay.^'  As  to  the  ettect  of  the  shipper's  misrepresentation  or  concealment  of 
the  nature  or  value  of  goods  as  affecting  the  extent  of  liability,  see  ante,  "^^lis- 
representation  or  Concealment  of  Nature  or  X'akie  of  Goods,"  §  100^. 

§§  1032-1089.  Actions  for  Loss  or  Injury— §  1032.  Nature  and 
Form. — Ex  Contractu  or  Ex  Delicto. — Damages  for  loss  of  or  injury  to 
property  while  in  a  carrier's  custody  may  be  recovered  either  in  an  action  ex 
contractu  or  one  ex  delicto  at  the  option  of  the  pleader.^s  In  all  actions  on  the 
case,  against  a  carrier  for  a  loss  or  injury  done  to  property,  the  wrong  is  the 
gist  of  the  action,  and  the  contract  collateral  thereto;  but,  in  all  actions  of  as- 
sumpsit against  a  carrier,  the  contract  to  deliver  is  the  g-ist  of  the  action.*'^  In 
an  action  in  assumpsit  against  carriers  for  the  loss  of  goods,  where  the  facts 
are  such  that  it  is  a  question  whether  the  carriers  obtained  possession  of  the 
goods  otherwise  than  as  trespassers,  even  if  they  got  the  goods  as  trespassers, 
the  form  of  the  action  is  no  obstacle  to  a  verdict  against  them.'"^ 

Trover. — Trover  will  not  lie  against  a  common  carrier  for  goods  lost  or 
damaged  by  nonfeasance  merely;''^  nor  for  any  act  or  omission  which  amounts 
to  negligence  merely,  and  not  to  an  actual  wrong/'^  Unless  the  property  shipped 
is  totally  destroyed",  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  its  full  value  as  for  conversion, 
but  the  remedy  is  an  action  for  injuries  to  the  property  as  for  breach  of  the 
contract  of  carriage.'*^ 


87.  Effect  of  contract. — Grinnell  v. 
Wisconsin  Cent.  Co.,  47  Minn.  569,  50 
N.  W.  891. 

Effect  of  agent's  mistake, — Where  a 
consignee  refused  to  receive  goods  on 
the  ground  that  they  were  damaged  on 
account  of  delay,  and  a  contract  was 
made  between  him  and  defendant  car- 
rier's agent  by  which  the  goods  were 
turned  over  to  him,  to  be  disposed  of 
on  defendant's  account,  defendant  to  pay 
the  difference  between  the  proceeds  and 
the  costs  and  charges  for  the  goods,  a 
mistake  of  the  agent  in  thinking  the 
goods  damaged,  does  not  affect  defend- 
ant's liability  on  the  contract.  Grinnell 
V.  Wisconsin  Cent.  R.  Co.,  47  Alinn.  569, 
50   N.   W^   891. 

88.  Action  ex  contractu  or  ex  delicto. — 
United  States. — Central  .Trust  Co.  v. 
East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70   Fed.  764. 

Georgia. — Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  El- 
liott, 3  Ga.  App.  773,  774,  60  S.  E.  363; 
Lytle  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App. 
219,  221,   59   S.   E.   595. 

Missouri. — Blackmer,  etc.,  Pipe  Co.  v. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Mo.  App.  479, 
119  S.  W.  1;  Wernick  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  131  Mo.  App.  37,  109  S.  W.  1027. 

New  Jersey. — Mershon  v.  Hobensack, 
22   N.  J.   L.  372. 

New  York. — Catlin  v.  Adirondack  Co., 
81  N.  Y.  639,  11  Abb.  N.  C.  377;  Hawkins 
V.  Hoffman,  6  Hill  586,  41  Am.   Dec.  767. 

Pennsylvania. — Smith  v.  Seward,  3  Pa. 
342;  Howard  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  47 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  416;  Solomon  v.  Adams 
Exp.   Co.,  47   Pa.   Super.  Ct.  423. 

T^.t-a.y.— Kansas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rose- 
brook-Josey  Grain  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
114  S.  W.  436;  Ft.  Forth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McAnulty,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App.  321,  326,  26 
S.  W.  414.  See,  also.  G.,  C.  &  S.  F.  R. 
Co.   V.    Levy,   59   Tex.    542,   548,   and    Gal- 


veston,   etc,    R.    Co.    V.    Roemer,    1    Tex. 
Civ.   App.   191,   20   S.   W'.  843. 

J'irginia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
\>igh,  61   Va.    (20  Graft.)   264. 

89.  Carter  z\  Graves,  17  Tenn.  (9 
Yerg.)    446. 

90.  Cooper  r.  Berry,  21  Ga.  526,  68 
.\m.   Dec.   468. 

91.  Trover. — Alabama. — Central  R.,  etc., 
Co.  7'.  Lampley,  76  Ala.  357,  52  Am.  Rep. 
334. 

Massachusetts. — Bowlin  v.  Nye  (Mass.), 
10   Cush.  416. 

New  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Norris,  4. 
N.  H.  304. 

Xezv  York. — Hawkins  v.  Hoffman  (N. 
Y.),  6  Hill  586,  41  Am.  Dec.  767;  Dela- 
ware Bank  z:  Smith  (N.  Y.),  1  Edm.  Sel. 
Cas.  351. 

Ji'est  J'irginia. — Dudley  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  W.  Va.  604,  607,  52  S.  E. 
718,  3  L.  R.  A..  N.  S.,  1135,  112  Am.  St. 
Rep.   1027. 

Defendant  received  for  transportation 
certain  bars  of  iron,  and,  while  on  the 
road,  his  vehicle  broke  down,  and  the 
iron  was  left  on  the  highway  over  night. 
On  arriving  at  his  destination,  it  was 
discovered  that  two  bars  of  the  iron  were 
missing.  Held,  that  an  action  of  trover 
would  not  lie  against  the  carrier,  but  that 
the  shipper's  action  was  on  the  contract. 
Moses  r.   Norris,  4  N.   H.  304. 

92.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lampley,  76 
.\la.    357,    52    Am.    Rep.    334. 

93.  Iowa. — Parsons  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  144  Iowa  745,  123  N.  W.  776. 
25   L.  R.   A.,   N.   S.,  842. 

Missouri. — Redmon  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  90   Mo.   App.   68. 

Texas.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Everett, 
37   Tex.   Civ.   App.   167,   83   S.   W.   2.-,7. 

Where  a  car  load  of  chops  was  injured 
in    transit    by    wetting,    the    fact    that    the 


')7 


LOSS  OR   IXJURV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1032-1034 


Where  there  is  a  special  contract  varyinj,'  the  coimiion-law  liability  of 
the  carrier,  the  action  is  properly  bronj^ht  on  the  special  contract,  and  not  on 
the  common-law  liability. '•*■* 

Common-Law  or  Statutory  Liability. ^An  action  to  recover  for  the  loss 
of  goods  will  be  presumed  to  be  upon  the  carrier's  common-law  liability,  and 
not   upon  the  statute  where  the  essential  allegation  to  statutory  liability  is  not 


made 


To  Recover  Proceeds  of  Goods  Sold. — W  here  the  carrier  lost  jKirt  of  the 
goods,  and  sold  the  balance  at  the  i)oint  of  destination  in  pursuance  of  authority 
contained  in  the  contract  of  shi])ment,  assumpsit  is  tlie  proper  form  of  action 
for  the  shipiKT  to  bring  to  recover  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  from  the  carrier."** 

§§  1033-1035.  Right  of  Action  and  Defenses— §  1033.  In  General. 
— Persons  Entitled  to  Sue.-  .\.>  to  ])ersons  entitled  to  maintain  action  against 
a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods,  see  elsewhere.''" 

That  the  bill  of  lading  had  not  been  transferred  to  the  owner,  at  the 
time  lie  demanded  the  goods,  by  the  bank  to  which  they  were  consigned,  is  not 
fatal  to  his  right  to  recover  for  injury  to  the  goods  while  being  held  for  the 
pavmcnt  of  freight  in  excess  of  that  due  where  the  carrier  refused  to  deliver 
to  him  for  the  specific  reason  that  he  would  not  pay  such  excessive  amount.'*^ 

Assignability  of  Right  of  Action. — .\  right  of  action  against  a  common 
carrier  for  injurv  to  goods  while  in  its  care  for  transportation  is  assignable.^^ 

§  1034.  Conditions  Precedent. — Where  state  bonds  are  lost  through  the 
carrier's  negligence,  the  owner  may  recover  their  value  without  stating  in  the 
complaint,  and  without  having  furnished  to  the  carrier  as  a  condition  precedent, 
the  numbers  or  dates  of  the  bonds,  there  being  no  rule  of  the  company  requir- 
ing it.^ 

Payment  or  Tender  of  Charges. — It  is  held  that  in  an  action  for  loss  of 
goods,  j)ayment  or  tender  of    freight  need  not  be  proved.-     It  is  the  duty  of  a 


consignee  was  in  the  wholesale  trade,  to 
wliich  the  chops,  in  tlieir  damaged  con- 
dition, were  unsuitable,  did  not  entitle 
him  to  refuse  to  accept  them  and  sue  the 
carrier  for  iheir  original  value.  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pitts  &  ^on.  .37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
212,    8.3    S.    W.   727. 

Where  goods  retain  a  substantial  value 
after  tlu'  injury,  the  owner  can  not  re- 
fuse to  take  tliem,  and  sue  the  carrier 
for  their  entire  value;  hut  can  recover 
only  for  the  diminution  in  value.  Mc- 
Cirath  Bros.  v.  Charleston,  etc..  Railway. 
91  S.  C.  .'■)."j2.  7.-.  S.  E.  44.  42  L.  R.  A..  N. 
S..    TS2,    Ann.    Cas.    1914.\.    (U. 

Machinery  being  so  injured  by  a  car- 
rier that  it  is  valuable  only  for  old  iron, 
for  which  it  wnuld  brinji',  at  the  price 
therefor  of  twenty-five  cents  a  hundred 
pounds,  fifty-five  to  seventy-seven  cents, 
its  net  value  to  its  owner,  if  anything,  by 
reason  of  the  expense  of  receiving  it. 
finding  a  purchaser,  and  delivering  it,  is 
so  insignificant  that  it  will  not  be  con- 
sidered as  regards  his  right  to  sue  for 
and  recover  its  entire  value  before  the 
injurv.  McGrath  Bros.  v.  Charleston, 
etc..  Railway,  91  S.  C.  5.-)2,  7.5  S.  E.  44,  42 
L.   R.  .\..  N.  S.,  782,  Ann.  Cas.  1914A,  64. 

94.  Special  contract. — Boaz  7'.  Central 
R..  etc.,  Co..  S7  Ga.  4()3,  13  S.  E.  711: 
Indianapolis,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Forsythc.    4 


Ind.  App.  32G,  29  X.  E.  1138:  Kimball  v. 
Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  \'t.  247,  62  Am. 
Dec.  .J67. 

95.  Common  law  or  statutory  liability. 
— Central,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Jones.  7  Ga. 
App.  165,  66  S.  E.  492.  Ga.  Civ.  Code, 
189.-),  §  2298. 

96.  To  recover  proceeds  of  goods  sold. 
— v^tevens  :•.  Savward  (Mass.),  3  Gray 
lOS. 

.  97.  Persons  entitled  to  sue. — See  ante, 
"Right  to  Maintain  Action  against  Car- 
rier?'   §§   809-811. 

98.  Clegg  :••  Southern  R.  Co..  13.5  X. 
C.   148,  47' S.   E.  667,  65  L.  R.  A.  717. 

99.  Assignability  of  right  of  action. — 
Norfolk,  itc.  R.  Co.  ;.  Read.  S7  \'a.  IS."). 
VI   S.    I-:.   :>'.».-.. 

1.  Conditions  precedent. — Martin  v. 
.\nurican    i'.xp.    Co..    !;•    W  is.    336. 

2.  Payment  or  tender  of  freight  where 
goods  lost. —  l-"erguson  :.  Capi>eau  iMd.i. 
C.    liar.    \:   J.   .394. 

Where  part  of  the  goods  are  lost  by 
neglect  of  the  carrier,  the  owner  may 
maintain  an  action  for  the  value  of  the 
goods  lost,  without  previous  payment  or 
tender  of  freight,  if  he  has  received  t.ie 
remainder  of  the  goods  with  the  carrier's 
consent.  Alden  v.  Pearson  (Mass.).  3 
Grav    342. 


§§  1034-1035 


CARRIERS. 


798 


consignee  whose  property  is  injured  while  in  the  control  of  a  carrier  to  pay  all 
the  freight  charges,  and  then  sue  the  carrier  for  the  injury  done.'*  Rut  where 
the  damages  are  equal  to  or  exceed  the  amount  of  the  charges,  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  the  plaintitT  should  allege  and  prove  that  he  had  paid  or  tendered  the 
amount  due  for  freight.-*  And  it  is  held  that  it  is  no  defense  to  an  action  for 
damages  that  the  freight  has  not  heen  paid.^''"  The  fact  that  the  consignor  had  not 
paid  or  tendered  the  freight  charges  on  goods,  in  the  absence  of  demand  for 
prepayment,  does  not  absolve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  damages  thereto, 
since  the  usual  custom  is  to  collect  the  freight  on  delivery  to  the  consignee, 
thereby  waiving  the  right  to  prepayment.*' 

Demand  as  Condition  Precedent. — An  action  may  be  maintained  against 
a  carrier  for  loss  of  goods  without  proof  of  demand  at  the  place  of  destination. 
when  the  evidence  shows  that  the  goods  never  reached  the  destination.'  Where 
the  carrier  lost  part  of  the  goods,  and  sold  the  balance  at  the  pointof  destina- 
tion, no  demand  on  him  for  the  proceeds  is  necessary  to  enable  the  shipper  to 
maintain  an  action  therefor,  though,  if  it  were,  the  commencement  by  the  car- 
rier of  an  action  for  a  balance  of  freight,  being  equivalent  to  a  refusal  to  ac- 
count for  the  proceeds,  gave  the  shipper  an  immediate  right  of  action. '^ 

§  103  5.  Defenses. — Receiving  Goods. — Receiving  from  a  carrier  prop- 
erty which  has  been  damaged  by  it,''  or  a  part  of  which  is  missing,^"  is  no  waiver 
of  plaintiff's  claim  for  the  damage  sustained,  as  nothing  short  of  a  release  or  the 
acceptance  of  something  in  satisfaction  is  a  bar  to  his  right  of  action."     And  an 


3.  Where  goods  injured. — Miami  Pow- 
der Co.  r.  Port  Royal,  etc..  R.  Co..  .38 
S.   C.   78.    16    S.    E.   3.39.   21    L.    R.    A.    123. 

4.  When  damages  exceed  charges. — 
Miami  Powder  Co.  v.  Port  Royal,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  47  S.  C.  324,  25   S.   E.  153. 

5.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rudy,  173 
Ind.  181,  89  N.  E.  951,  reversing  87  N. 
E.   555. 

6.  Prepayment  of  freight. — Evansville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Keith,  S  Ind.  App.  57,  35 
N.  E.  296. 

7.  Demand  as  condition  precedent. — 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Meyer,  78  .-Ma. 
597. 

8.  Stevens  v.  Say  ward  (Mass.),  3  Gray 
108. 

9.  Waiver  by  receivinsc  goods. — Howe 
f.  Oswego,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (X.  Y.),  56  Barb. 
121;  Bowman  z:  Teall  (N.  Y.),  22  Wend. 
306,  35  Am.  Dec.  562:  Underwriters' 
Agency  f.   Sutherlin.  55   Ga.  266. 

In  an  action  to  recover  for  damage  to 
goods  while  in  defendant's  possession 
for  transportation,  it  is  no  defense  that 
the  consignees  accepted  the  goods  if 
they  notified  the  consignors  of  their 
damaged  condition,  and  did  not  accept 
as  purchasers.  Withers  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co.   (N.  Y.),  48  Barb.  455.  _ 

Receiving  goods  short  of  their  destina- 
tion docs  not  relieve  the  carrier  from  li- 
ability to  the  consignee  for  damages  to 
the  goods  caused  by  its  negligence  while 
transporting  them.  Lesinsky  v.  Great 
Western    IDispatch,    10   Mo.    App.    134. 

In  the  absence  of  a  reasonable  regu- 
lation upon  the  subject  by  the  carrier, 
the  fact  that  the  consignee  received  the 
goods    without    giving    notice    of    a    claim 


that  they  were  injured,  as  he  well  knew, 
does  not  work  forfeiture  or  waiver  of 
his  claim  for  damages.  Ohio,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z\   Nickless.  73    Ind.   382. 

In  Louisiana  it  is  held  that  the  con- 
signee's receipt  of  goods  is  concliisive 
that  he  is  satisfied  with  their  condition 
at  delivery.  If,  from  their  outward  ap- 
pearance, they  have  been  opened,  he 
should  refuse  to  receive  them  until  the 
contents  be  examined  or  the  master  noti- 
fied to  attend  their  examination;  but  if 
he  take  them  out  of  the  latter's  sight 
without  saying  anything,  and  deposit 
them  where  he  and  his  agent  alone  have 
access,  he  can  not  recover  for  any  defi- 
ciency. Monro  v.  The  Baltic  (La.),  1 
Mart.,  O.  S.,  194.  See  Marcy  v.  Warner, 
17  La.  Ann.  34.  Compare  Oakley  i'.  Rus- 
sell  (La.),  6  Mart.,  N.  S.,  58. 

A  master  can  not  exonerate  himself  on 
the  ground  that  the  consignees  received 
the  goods,  if  they  made  objections  to 
which  he  replied  "that  they  might  re- 
ceive the  goods,  and  he  would  settle 
afterwards."  Bernadon  v.  Nolte  (La.),  7 
Mart..    O.   S.,   278. 

10.  Howe  f.  Oswego,  etc..  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.).    56    Barb.    121. 

The  receipt  by  the  owner  of  the  whole 
number  of  casks  of  goods  shipped  does 
not  prevent  him  from  maintaining  an 
action  against  the  carrier  for  the  loss 
of  part  of  the  contents,  unless  the  jury 
find  that  he  received  the  property  as  and 
for  the  compliance  with  the  contract  of 
the  carrier.  .Alden  r.  Pearson  (Mass.), 
3   Gray   342. 

11.  Bowman  <■.  Teall  (N.  Y.),  22  Wend. 
306,   35   Am.    Dec.    562. 


799  LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS.  §    1035 

acceptance  of  a  ijortion  oi  a  cargo  of  malt  first  unloaded  by  an  inspector  of  the 
consignees,  who  examined  it  as  it  was  taken  from  the  boat,  does  not  constitute 
an  acceptance  of  the  residue,  so  as  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  for  sub- 
sequent damage  by  leakage. '- 

Effect  of  Receipt  Given  on  Obtaining  Goods. — A  receipt  given  to  the  car- 
rier for  goods  before  they  are  examined  does  not  conclude  the  consignee  from 
showing  the  actual  condition  of  his  property,  in  an  action  for  loss  of  portion  of 
the  goods, ^-^  or  for  damage  thereto.'"* 

Act  of  Saving  Goods. — A  shipper  being  notified  by  the  carrier  that  the  boat 
containing  the  goinls  had  sunk,  and  that  he  could  not  deliver  the  goods,  does  not 
waive  his  right  to  recover  damages  thereto  by  his  act  of  saving  what  he  could 
from  the  wreck.'"' 

Waiver  by  Paying  Freight. — Where  a  common  carrier  performs  its  con- 
tract to  transport  and  deliver  goods,  a  payment  of  the  freight,  or  a  submission  to 
judgment  therefor,  does  not  preclude  the  owner  of  the  goods  from  recovering 
damages  for  injuries  received  by  the  goods  during  their  transit.  Me  may  pay 
the  freight  and  sue  for  the  damages,  or  set  up  his  damages  by  way  of  counter- 
claim in  an  action  to  recover  the  freight,  or  he  may  bring  a  cross  action."' 

Selling  Goods  to  Third  Person. — The  owner  may  recover  from  a  carrier, 
where  his  claim  is  established  by  clear  and  distinct  proof,  for  injury  to  goods  in 
transportation,  discovered  after  delivery  to  him,  though  he  sells  them  before 
making  a  claim  against  the  carrier,  and  without  giving  it  oi)portunity  to  insj^ect 
them.''' 

Lien  for  Charges.— Where  failure  to  deliver  goods  on  demand  of  the  con- 
signee is  not  placed  on  the  ground  of  a  lien  for- charges,  a  carrier  can  not  plead 
such  lien  in  defense  of  a  subse(|uent  action  for  loss  of  the  goods. ''^ 

Mistake  in  Making  Out  Bill  of  Lading. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
failure  to  deliver  all  the  articles  mentioned  in  the  bill  of  lading,  the  carrier  may 
defend  on  the  ground  that  its  agent  made  a  mistake  in  making  out  the  bill.'^ 

Effect  on  Consignee  of  Release  by  Consignor. — .\  release  and  contract  of 
indemnity  to  a  common  carrier,  execute*!  by  the  consignor  without  authority 
from  the  consignee,  is  no  bar  to  an  action  by  the  consignee  for  damage-^  to  the 
goods.-" 

Failure  to  Call  for  Assessment  of  Damages. — W  here  the  clerk  of  the  con- 
signee of  goods  on  discovering  that  they  were  damaged  did  not  notify  the  car- 
rier, and  did  not  call  for  a  board  of  sun'ey  to  assess  damages  according  to  the 
rule  recognized  in  commercial  usage,  but  assessed  the  entire  damages  himself: 

12.  Scheu  T'.  Benedict.  110  X.  Y.  .jlO.  were  wet.  Mears  i'.  Xew  York.  etc..  R. 
22   X.    K.   ^^)7■^.   l.".   .\m.   St.   Rep.  42(),  Co.,    52    Atl.    610.    75    Conn.    171.    5r,    L.    R. 

13.  Effect  of  receiot  given  on  obtaining        A.  884.  96  Am.   St.   Rep.   192. 

goods. —  Porter    :•.    Chicai;o,    etc.,    R.    Co..  15.    Act    of    saving    goods. — Lengsfeld 

20   Iowa   73.  7\    Tones.   11    La.   Ann.   r>24. 

A  receipt  given  by  a  party  to  common  16.    Waiver     by     paying     freight. — Sch- 

carriers    for    goods    transported    by    them  winger    7\    Raymond.    83    X.    Y.    192.    3«? 

will  not  be   set  aside  on  the  bare  allega-  Am.       Rep.       415.       See      Underwriters' 

tion    that   he    never   received    such    goods.  Agency   r.   Sutliorh'n.   55   Ga.   2t'.t'>. 

with    no    explanation    tending    to    explain  17.  Selling  goods  to  third  person.— The 

how  he  came  to  make  a  formal  admission  F.lmira    Sheplierd.    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    4.418, 

of    their    receipt.      Chapman     :■.    Camden.  (^   Blatchf    341 

^*^A  ^M^°n-^''- v^V'''''''•r"^     p     r  18-    Lien"  for   charges.-Lonisville.    etc.. 

14.  Monell    f.    Xorthern    Cent.    R.    Co.        r.    /^  \f   n    ■        - , .    \  i      -n- 
(N.   Y.).   10   Hun   585.                                                    ^-  ^'^-  '-■   ^^^^"'•'■^^    '••   Ala.  39.>. 

.A  consignee  of  goods  employed  an  ex-  .  19-  Mistake  m  making  out  bill  of  lad- 
press  company  to  cart  the  goods  to  his  ing.— Cohen  Bros.  :■.  Missouri,  etc..  R. 
home,  and  its  agent  at  the  depot  looked  Co..  44  Tex.  Civ.  .\pi>.  ;si.  ;i>  s.  W  .  4P,7 
at  the  box  containing  the  goods,  and  20.  Effect  on  consignee  of  release  by 
signed  a  "clear"  receipt,  making  no  com-  consignor. — Cream  Citj'  R.  Co.  f.  Chi- 
plaint.  Held  not  to  preclude  the  con-  cago.  etc..  R.  Co..  63  Wis.  93,  23  X.  \V. 
signee     from      showing     that      the     goods  425.   53   .\m.   Re]i.   267. 


§§  1035-1036 


CARRIERS. 


800 


and  thereafter,  as  the  packages  were  opened  for  sale,  he  (Hscoyered  increased 
damages,  the  consignee  is  restricted  to  the  amount  ct  damages  first  assessed  by 
the  clerk. -^ 

Goods  Damaged  before  Received  by  Carrier.— .\  common  carrier,  sued 
on  its  common-law  liability  for  loss  or  injury  of  goods  received  by  it  for  trans- 
portation, may  relieve  itself  of  liability  by  showing  that  the  goods  were  damaged 
before  it  received  them.-- 

Effect  of  Unlawful  Rate. — That  a  rate  given  to  a  shipper  may  be  in  viola- 
tion of  the  rates  fixed  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  does  not  affect 
the  carrier's  liabilitv  to  respond  or  the  shipper's  right  to  recover  for  loss  of  the 

goods. -^ 

A  violation  of  Interstate  Commerce  Act,  §  10,  prohilnting  false  billing, 
false  classification,  false  weighing,  or  misrepresentations  as  to  the  contents  of  a 
package,  by  which  a  discrimination  is  obtained,  constitutes  no  defense  to  a  car- 
rier's liabilitv  for  loss  of  goods  ship{)ed  in  interstate  commerce,  resulting  from 
a  violation  of  its  duties  as  a  carrier.--* 

That  no  person  was  appointed  to  receive  goods  at  their  destination  is 
no  defense  in  an  action  to  recover  for  their  loss  if  the  goods  never  in  fact  ar- 
rived at  the  destination.-'' 

That  the  carrier  does  not  know  who  is  the  real  owner  of  goods  received 
for  transportation  is  no  defense  in  an  action  for  their  loss.-'' 

Plaintiff's  failure  to  procure  insurance  on  the  goods  is  no  excuse  for  a 
carrier,  in  an  action  against  him  for  negligence.-' 

§  1036.  Jurisdiction  and  "S^enue.— In  many  states  there  are  statutes  reg- 
ulating the  jurisdiction  and  venue  of  actions  against  carriers  for  loss  of  or  injury 
to  goods. -^ 


21.  Failure  to  call  for  assessment  of 
damages. — Williams      :•.      The      Columbia, 

1  Wash.   T.   9.-.. 

22.  Goods  damaged  before  received  by 
carrier. — Ohlen    z:    Atlanta,    etc.,    R.    Co.. 

2  Ga.   App.   32.3,  58   S.   E.   511. 

23.  Effect  of  unlawful  rate. — Central. 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Butler  Marlile,  etc..  Co.,  8 
Ga.  App.  1.  68  S.  K.  r:.'. 

24.  Violation  of  interstate  commerce 
act. — xAdams  Exp.  Co.  r.  Chamherlin- 
Tohnson-Du  Bose  Co.,  75  S.  E.  GOl,  138 
Ga.  455. 

25.  No  person  to  receive  goods. — Phil- 
lips r.   Earle    (Mass.).   S   Pick.    ls2. 

26.  Carrier  ignorant  of  real  owner. — 
Lloyd  V.  Haugh,  etc.,  Transfer  Co.,  22.3 
Pa.  148,  72  Atl.  5' 6,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
188. 

27.  Failure  to  procure  insurance. — Bre- 
nan  r.  Shelton   (S.  C),  2   Bailey    152. 

28.  Jurisdiction  and  venue. — Arkansas. 
— Kirby's  Dig.,  §  0068,  provides  that  an 
action  may  be  brought  against  a  rail- 
road company  upon  a  liability  as  carrier 
in  any  county  through  which  the  road 
passes.  Section  6758  provides  that  a 
railroad  company  leasing  another  rail- 
road wholly  or  partly  in  this  state  is 
subject  to  all  the  laws  of  the  state  gov- 
erning railroads.  Section  6732  provides 
that  the  term  "railroad  corporation"  shall 
include  all  corporations  operating  roads 
in  this  state,  whether  as  owner,  lessee, 
etc.      Section   7702   provides    that    all    gen- 


eral provisions,  terms,  etc.,  shall  be  con- 
strued liberally  in  order  to  effect  the  true 
legislative  intent.  Defendant  did  not  own 
a  line  of  road  in  S.  district,  but  ran  a 
through  train  into  the  district  over  the 
line  of  another  road.  Plaintiff  delivered 
goods  at  S.  for  shipment  over  defendant's 
line  and  another  road,  and  sued  for  de- 
fendant's negligent  failure  to  make  ship- 
ment. Held  that,  construing  all  the  sec- 
tions together,  defendant's  road  passed 
through  the  S.  district  wi.hin  the  mean- 
ing of  §  6068,  so  as  to  permit  an  action 
against  it  in  that  district.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Jaber,  107  S.  W.  1170,  85  Ark. 
332. 

Georgia.— Civ.  Code  1895,  §  2334.  de- 
claring that  a  carrier  shall  be  sued  in 
the  county  in  which  the  cause  of  action 
originated  for  injury  to  property,  and  also 
on  all  contracts,  confers  jurisdiction  of 
an  action  for  delivering  goods  in  bad  or- 
der, on  the  courts  of  the  county  where 
they  were  delivered,  whether  the  action 
be  e.x  contractu  or  ex  delicto.  If  the  ac- 
tion proceed  ex  delicto  the -carrier  does 
not  defeat  the  jurisdiction  by  showing 
that,  physically  considered,  the  loss  or 
damage  did  not  occur  in  the  county  where 
the  delivery  in  good  order  should  have 
been  made.  Brooke  v.  Nashville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  5  Ga.  App.  253,  62  S.  E.  1002  (dis- 
tinguishing and  affirming  Brooke  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  492,  60  S.  E. 
218);  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Warfield, 
129  Ga.  473,  59  S.   E.  234;  Lytle  V.  South- 


801 


LOSS  OK   IN'IL'RV  TO  GOODS. 


§    1037 


§  1037.  Parties. — As  to  itivjpcr  parties  to  maintain  actions  against  carriers 
for  lobS  or  injury  to  goods,  see  elsewhere.-" 

Suit  against  Receiver. — A  receiver  appointed  to  assume  charge  of  the  af- 
fairs of  a  raihoad  company  may  be  held  responsible  for  the  damage  actually 
sustained  l>y  a  shipper  of  freight,  through  the  negligence  of  the  receiver's  agents 
and  employees,  in  any  case  in  which  the  company  could  be  so  held.  IJut  where 
the  receiver  is  ajjpointed  by  a  court  of  equity  he  can  ncji  be  sued  at  law  withcjut 
permission  of  the  appointing  court.'"' 


crn  R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  21'J,  222.  r,9  S.  H. 
595;  Burns  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  0 
Ga.  .App.  014.  ()5  S.   1''.  ')H2. 

Cases  not  fallin}^  within  the  provisions 
of  this  section  are  j^overncd  by  the  gen- 
eral law.  Nonresident  corporations  are 
within  the  purview  of  this  section,  as  to 
contracts  made  and  torts  committed  in 
the  state.  Lytle  v.  vSouthern  R.  Co.,  3 
Ga.  App.   219.  220,  59   S.    E.   595. 

A  suit  e.\  delicto  aj?ainst  a  nonresident 
railway  company,  arisinjf  out  of  its  fail- 
ure to  deliver  safely  a  shipment  of  goods 
at  a  point  in  another  state,  may  be 
brought  in  any  county  in  this  state  in 
which  legal  service  of  process  can  be 
made.  Lytle  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  3  Ga. 
App.  219,  59  S.   E.  595. 

Under  Civ.  Code  1895,  §  3298,  provid- 
ing that  railroad  companies  shall  be  sued 
in  the  county  in  which  the  cause  of  action 
originated  for  the  purpose  of  recovering 
damages  for  injuries  to  personal  property, 
it  must  affirmatively  appear  that  the 
cause  of  action  originated  in  the  county 
where  the  suit  was  filed.  Brooke  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  492, 
60  S.  E.  218. 

Kcntxicky. — Civ.  Code,  Prac,  §  73,  pro- 
vides that  an  action  against  a  carrier 
must  be  brought  in  the  county  in  which 
defendant  resides,  or  in  which  the  con- 
tract is  made,  or  in  which  the  carrier 
agrees  to  deliver  the  property.  Brunk  v. 
Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  174,  105 
S.    W.    443. 

Plaintiff,  who  resided  in  E.  county, 
shipped  goods  to  that  county;  the  ship- 
ment being  over  defendant  road  from  St. 
Louis  to  R.,  in  M.  county,  in  this  state, 
and  from  there  to  E.  county  1)}^  another 
road.  A  suit  was  brought  in  the  M. 
county  circuit  court  to  recover  for  dam- 
age to  the  goods  while  in  the  St.  Louis 
yards.  Defendant's  residence  is  not  in 
M.  county.  Held  that,  since  the  propertj' 
was  to  be  delivered  in  M.  county,  an  ac- 
tion to  recover  damages  arising  out  of 
the  breach  of  the  contract  of  carriage  for 
injury  to  the  goods,  etc.,  \wd.y  be  brought 
in  that  county.  Wilson  v.  Louisville,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  112  S.  W.  585,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep.  985. 

In  an  action  against  an  initial  and  an 
intermediate  carrier  for  loss  of  goods,  it 
appeared  that  tlie  initial  carrier  accepted 
plaintiff's  goods  for  transportation  to  a 
town  in  another  county  into  which  the 
line  of  neither  defendant  ran:  the  bill  of 
lading    providing    tliat    the    rcsponsii>ility 

1    Car— 51 


of  each  company  should  cease  on  delivery 
to  a  connecting  carrier.  Held,  that  a 
plea  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  the 
county  of  final  destination  was  properly 
sustained.  Brunk  v.  Ohio,  etc.,  R  Co 
105  S.  W.  443,  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  174. 

An  action  to  recover  damages  for  loss 
of  property,  is  properly  brought  in  the 
county  in  which  plaintiff  resides,  that  bc- 
nig  a  county  into  which  the  carrier  passes, 
and  also  the  county  in  which  the  contract 
was  made  and  the  injury  occurred.  Plotz 
V.  Miller,  51  S.  W.  170,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  25?. 

Louis'uma.—VwA^v  Code  Prac,  art.  105, 
subd.  9,  providing  that  in  all  cases  where 
anj'  corporation  shall  commit  trespass,  or 
do  anything  for  which  an  action  for  dam- 
ages lies,  it  may  be  sued  in  the  parish 
where  the  damage  is  done  or  trespass 
committed,  as  amended  by  Act  No.  44  of 
1910  to  cover  passive  violation  of  con- 
tract by  public  carriers,  and  by  Act  No. 
93  of  1888,  giving  the  right  to  sue  at  the 
place  of  delivery,  an  action  against  a  ear- 
ner for  damages  e.x  contractu  because  of 
negligent  handling  of  machinery  shipped, 
may  be  brought  either  in  the  parish  where 
the  property  was  damaged,  at  the  domi- 
cile of  defendant,  or  at  the  place  of  de- 
livery of  the  machinery.  Lafayette  v. 
Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  Exp.,  129  La.  323,  56 
So.  257. 

_  Texas. — Under  an  early  statute,  an  ac- 
tion on  a  contract  of  transportation  by 
a  common  carrier  could  be  brought  in  the 
county  where  the  goods  were  to  be  de- 
livered or  in  the  county  where  the  de- 
fendant resided.  Barrow  v.  Philleo,  14 
Tex.  345,  346. 

Where  a  carrier  operating  no  line  oi 
road  in  Texas,  but  having  agencies  in 
several  counties  therein,  gives  a  bill  of 
lading  for  the  delivery  of  goods  in  a 
county  in  which  it  has  no  agent,  with  a 
stipulation  limiting  its  liability  to  injuries 
accruing  on  its  own  road,  suit  for  injury 
to  the  goods  is  properly  brought  in  the 
county  of  their  delivery,  under  Rev.  St. 
1895,  art.  1194,  permitting  one  who  has 
contracted  in  writing  to  perform  an  ob- 
ligation in  a  particular  county  to  be  sued 
therein,  or  where  he  has  his  domicile. 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hornbeck,  90  Tex. 
490.  39  S.  W.  564. 

29.  Parties. — See  ante.  "Right  to  Main- 
tain   Action    against    Carrier,"    §§    S09-S11. 

30.  Suit  against  receiver. — !Melendy  v. 
Barbour,   78   \'a.   544. 


CARRIERS. 


802 


§§  1037-1038 

Joinder  of  Parties.— A  shipper  who  contracts  with  a  carrier  may  recover 
damages  to  a  shipment  withont  joining  any  other  person  having  an  interest  in  the 
goods  as  partv  plaintiff.^ ^  It  is  held  that  the  consignor  of  goods,  not  to  be  de- 
livered except  upon  production  of  bill  of  lading  and  payment  of  draft,  and  his 
assignee  of  the  bill  of  lading  in  whose  favor  the  draft  was  drawn,  are  properly 
joined  as  plaintiffs  in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  the  loss  of  the  goods.-^- 
There  is  a  conflict  as  to  whether  the  consignee  can  sue  alone  where  another  per- 
son is  part  owner  of  the  goods.=^=^  An  action  for  damage  to  a  shipment  is  prop- 
erly brought  in  tort  jointly  against  the  railway  and  the  transportation  company 
which  contracted  to  ship  the  property .^"^ 

8S  1038-1051.  Pleading— §§  1038-1049.  Declaration,  Complaint, 
Petition  or  Bill— §  1038.  In  General.— Whether  Action  on  Case  or  m  As- 
sumpsit.—it  is  sometimes  verv  difficult  to  distinguish  whether  a  declaration, 
complaint  or  petition  states  a  cause  of  action  on  the  case  or  in  assumpsit.''  The 
alleviation  which  especially  distinguishes  the  counts  in  case  from  those  in  assump- 
sit ts  the  omission  of  the  consideration  and  the  averment  of  negligence.-^*'  A 
declaration  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  goods  in  transit,  alleging  the  considera- 
tion the  promise,  the  breach,  and  the  giving  of  the  notice  of  loss  required  by 
the  bill  of  lading,  states  a  cause  of  action  in  assumpsit  upon  the  contract  of 
carriage.^" 

Construction  of  Petition.— If  a  petition  is  ambiguous  as  to  whether  it  is  a 
proceeding  ex  contractu  or  ex  delicto,  the  court,  in  the  absence  of  a  demurrer 
adequate  to  compel  the  plaintiff  to  make  his  allegations  more  specific,  and  to  re- 
lieve the  ambiguity,  will  so  construe  the  petition  as  to  uphold  the  fullest  recovery 
to  which  the  plaintiff  may  be  entitled  under  all  the  facts  of  the  case  as  they  ap- 
pear.38 


31.  Joinder  of  parties. — Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Barnett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26  S. 
W.  782,  783;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith,  84  Tex.  348,  19  S.  W.  509;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Klepper  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
24  S.  W.  567. 

A  contrary  doctrine  seems  to  be  held 
in  Swift  z:  Pacific  Alail,  etc.,  Co.,  106  N. 
Y.  206,  12  N.  E.  583,  holding  that  the  mer- 
chandise being  whale  oil,  the  product  of  a 
whaling  voyage,  evidence  that  seamen  on 
the  whaling  vessel  "were  interested  in  the 
oil"  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  that  they 
are  partners  or  joint  owners,  so  as  to  re- 
quire them  to  be  joined  as  plaintiffs.^ 

32.  Consignor  and  assignee  of  bill  of 
lading.— Hartwell  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   15   Ky.   L.   Rep.   778. 

33.  Where  consignee  part  owner. — In 
Alabama  it  is  held  that  the  consignee  may 
sue  alone.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Arm- 
stead,  50  Ala.  350,  cited  in  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Touart,  97  Ala.  514,  516,  11 
So.  756. 

In  Kentucky  the  Alabama  rule  seems 
to  prevail.  See  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tingle, 
10   Ky.  L.  Rep.  358. 

In  Texas  the  part  owner  must  be  made 
a  party  to  the  suit.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.   Rushin,  3  Texas  App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  317. 

34.  Parties  defendant. — Merchants',  etc., 
Transp.  Co.  t.  Eichbcrg,  71  Atl.  993,  109 
Md.  211. 

35.  Whether    action   on   case    or   in   as- 


sumpsit.— See  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v. 
Stock   &   Sons,    104   Va.   97,   51   S.    E.   161. 

Petition  setting  forth  cause  of  action 
ex  delicto. — Southern  R.  Co.  z'.  Horner, 
115   Ga.  381,  41   S.   E.   649. 

Petition  foimded  on  bill  of  lading. — A 
petition  alleged  that  plaintiff  shipped  cat- 
tle from  Memphis,  Tenn.,  to  Ft.  Worth, 
Tex.,  over  several  lines  of  connecting 
railroad,  one  of  which  was  defendant's 
line;  that  said  shipment  was  made  "on 
through  bills  of  lading,  and  at  agreed  and 
through  rates,  for  the  whole  route,  the 
contracts  and  bills  of  lading  of  each  of 
said  railroads  in  regard  to  the  shipment 
of  cattle  being  recognized  and  carried 
out  by  the  other;"  that  the  cattle  were 
damaged  by  the  negligence  of  defendant, 
etc.  Held,  that  the  petition  was  founded 
on  the  special  contract  evidenced  by  the 
bill  of  lading,  and  not  on  the  liability  of 
the  carrier  at  common  law.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Wheat,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§    165. 

36.  Wright  v.  McKee,  37  Vt.  161. 

37.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stock  & 
Sons,   51   S.    E.    161,    104   Va.   97. 

38.  Construction  of  petition. — Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Pope,  5  Ga.  App.  689,  690, 
63  S.  E.  809,  wherein  it  is  held  that  the 
rule  is  in  no  wise  inconsistent  with  the 
rule  that  equivocal  or  ambiguous  state- 
ments of  facts  will  be  construed  most 
strongly  against   the   pleader. 


803 


LOSS  OR    INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


|§  1038-1040 


Joint  Liability  of  Connecting  Carriers. — A  complaint  showing  thai  goods 
were  shipped  by  contract  with  one  of  the  defendants,  to  be  transferred  to  a  given 
point  in  care  of  another  carrier,  but,  in  violation  of  that  contract,  they  were 
transferred  to  the  other  defendant,  and  that  they  were  destroyed  while  in  pos- 
session of  the  latter  defendant,  is  sufficient  to  sujjport  the  action  against  the  de- 
fendants.■■" 

The  allegations  of  a  bill  should  be  sufficiently  explicit  to  warrant  a  de- 
cree a,L,^ainsl  the  defendant,  and  if  they  are  not.  a  dcnuuTer  tliereto  will  be  sus- 
tained."*^ 

§§  1039-1047.  Necessity  and  Sufficiency  of  Allegations— §  1039. 
Plaintiff's  Title  or  Interest. —  In  an  anion  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or 
injury  to  goods  the  plaintiff's  ownershij)  of  the  goods  or  his  interest  entitling  him 
to  sue  should  be  alleged.^  ^  It  is  held  that  where  the  consignee  sues,  he  need 
not  aver  that  he  is  the  owner,  as  the  law  will  presume,  when  nothing  appears 
to  the  contrary,  that  such  is  the  fact,  and  that  the  contract  for  transportation  of 
the  goods  was  made  with  him  as  such  owner.^- 

§  1040.  That  Defendant  a  Common  Carrier. — In  order  to  recover  against 
a  common  carrier,  as  sucli,  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods,  the  declaration  or  com- 


39.  Joint  liability. — I  n  dependence 
Mills  Co.  V.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72 
Iowa  535,  :'A  X.  W.  320,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 
258. 

40.  Allegations  not  sufficiently  explicit. 
• — .A  hill  a.L^aiiist  a  firm  and  an  express 
company  alleged  that  complainants,  at 
S.,  shipped  goods  to  such  firm  at  G.,  to 
be  delivered  on  complainant's  order,  and 
forwarded  by  said  express  company  to 
its  office  at  G.  a  C.  O.  D.  bill,  to  which 
was  attached  the  bill  of  lading,  with  in- 
structions to  collect,  etc.;  that  the  firm 
claimed  the  shipment  was  by  mistake, 
and,  after  about  ten  months,  proposed 
to  take  the  goods,  and  give  a  note  at 
eight  months,  and  sent,  by  express,  a 
note  to  complaints,  who  acknowledged 
its  receipt  by  letter,  and  on  the  same 
day  they  delivered  to  said  express  com- 
pany, in  S.,  an  order  notifying  it  that 
the  firm  had  settled  the  C.  O.  D.  bill, 
and  to  turn  over  to  the  firm  the  bill 
of  lading,  and  let  the  C.  O.  D.  bill  come 
back;  that  nine  days  afterwards  the  goods 
were  destroyed  by  fire  in  the  depot  at 
G.,  where  they  had  remained;  that  com- 
plainants do  not  know  whether  or  not 
such  company  forwarded  said  order  of 
release,  or  refused  to  deliver  said  bill  of 
lading  to  said  firm,  and,  if  it  appear  that 
said  firm  were  deprived  of  th*^  right  to 
take  said  goods  from  the  depot  by  failure 
of  such  company  to  perform  its  duty,  it 
would  be  liable  to  complainants  for  the 
amount  of  said  note,  etc.,  "as  charged, 
which  is  accordingly  done."  Held,  that 
the  allegations  against  the  express  com- 
pany were  not  sufficiently  explicit  to 
make  the  company  liable  and  a  demurrer 
to  the  bill  should  have  been  sustained. 
Cole  V.   Kankin    (Tenn.),  42  S.   W.  72. 

41.  Plaintiff's  title  or  interest — Allega- 
tions held  sufficient. — A  complaint   which 


charges  the  carrier  with  the  loss  of  "cer- 
tain goods,  the  property  of  the  plaintiff," 
sufiiciently  shows  the  interest  of  the 
plaintiff.  Ames  v.  First  Div.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
12  Minn.  412,  Gil.  295. 

A  complaint  which  alleges  that  the 
carrier,  in  consideration  of  reasonable 
compensation  to  be  paid  by  consignor, 
agreed  to  safely  carry  to  a  certain  place 
and  there  deliver  to  the  consignee,  or  or- 
der, certain  goods  and  property  of  con- 
signor of  the  value  of  $178.50,  sufficiently 
alleges  that,  the  property  consigned  for 
shipment  belonged  to  the  consigrnor.  Zalk 
V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  98  Minn.  65. 
107    N.   W.  814. 

In  an  action  by  a  consignee  against  the 
carrier  to  recover  for  damage  to  goods 
in  transit,  the  general  allegation  that  the 
consignee  had  purchased  the  goods  from 
the  consignor,  and  was  the  ow-ner  thereof 
at  the  time  they  were  damaged,  is  a  suf- 
ficient allegation  of  ownership.  Texas 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Dorscy.  70  S.  \V.  575.  .^0 
Tex.   Civ.   App.  377. 

Allegation  that  consignor  owned  the 
goods  is  unnecessary,  wiiere  it  appears, 
and  tlu-  reviewing  court  has  previously 
held  that  consignor  had  such  an  interest 
in  the  goods  that  he  had  a  right  to  stop 
them  in  transitu,  provided  consignee  was 
insolvent,  and  that  defendant  railway 
recognized  that  right,  and  made  a  new 
agreement  with  consignor,  whereby  the 
company  agreed  and  undertook  to  deliver 
the  goods  to  one  other  than  consignor, 
whereby  they  were  lost.  Howe  :■.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  O.  C.  C.  606.  10  O. 
C.  D.  220. 

42.  Where  consignee  sues. — United 
States  Mail  Line  Co.  r.  CarroUton  Fur- 
niture Mfg.  Co.,  101  Ky.  658,  19  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  833,  42  S.  W.  342. 


§§  1040-1042 


CARRIERS. 


804 


plaint  must  aver  that  the  defendant  is  a  common  carrier,'-  or  set  out  facts  con- 
stituting it  such  in  law.-*-*  ,       ,   r      i     .   • 

Aider  by  Verdict.— Where  a  petition  tails  to  aver  that  the  defendant  is  a 
common  carrier,  but  alleges  a  contract  to  carry  made  with  it,  the  petition  is  good 
after  verdict,  when  the  proofs  showed  that  defendant  was  exercising  the  othce 
of  a  carrier,  and  did.  in  fact,  so  contract  and  act  m  this  mstance.^-^ 

8  1041  As  to  Consideration.— In  an  action  ex  contractu  against  a  car- 
rier the  averment  of  consideration  must  be  direct  and  explicit,  and  not  by  way 
of  inducement  merelv.-*^  It  is  a  sufficient  averment  of  consideration  that  the 
defendant  agreed  to 'carry  the  goods  "for  a  valuable  consideration."-''  It  need 
not  be  alleged  that  the  freight  charges  were  paid  or  tendered.-i^ 

In  an  action  ex  delicto  to  recover  for  goods  destroyed  m  transit,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  allege  that  a  compensation  was  paid  or  agreed  to  be  paid  for  the 
carriage  of  the  goods.-*'-^ 

8  1042  Delivery  to  and  Acceptance  by  Carrier.— The  declaration  must 
allege  a  deliverv  of  the  goods  to  the  carrier,-'"  and  that  it  accepted  or  undertook 

43    That   defendant   a   common   carrier. 

— Louisvillo.  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Gerson,  102 
\\a.  409.  14  So.  873;  Jones  z:  Pitclier 
(Ala.).    3    Stew.    &    P.    135,    24    Am.    Dec. 

Compare  Mershon  v.  Hobensack,  22  N. 
J  L  372,  holding  that  in  assumpsit  it  is 
not  necessary  to  allege  that  defendant 
is  a  common  carrier,  but  that  such  allega- 
tion is  necessary  in  an  action  on  the  case. 

Allegations  held  sufficient. — In  an  ac- 
tion by  a  consignee  to  recover  for  cot- 
ton lost  by  defendants  as  carriers,  an  al- 
leo-ation  that  defendants,  "before  and  at 
the  time  of  shipment,  were  the  owners 
and  proprietors  of  the  boat,  and  copart- 
ners in  freighting,  and  which  boat  had 
been  usually  employed  in  conveying  and 
transporting  cotton  for  hire,  suthciently 
alle-^ed  that  the  owners  were  coinmon 
carriers.  Jones  v.  Pitcher  (Ala.),  3  Stew. 
&   P.   135,   24   Am.   Dec.   716. 

A  complaint  against  a  railroad  for  the 
loss  of  a  box,  alleging  that  the  box  was 
delivered  to  defendant  "to  be  carried  by 
it  as  a  common  carrier  of  freight,  suth- 
ciently alleges  that  the  box  was  dehvered 
to  defendant  as  a  common  carrier.  Kan- 
sas Citv,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Spann,  40  So.  83, 

145   Ala.   679.  >r    .-    •    u      n 

44.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Mc\  eigh,  61 
Va.    (20   Gratt.)    264. 

Illustrations.— The  master  of  a  steam- 
boat plying  on  a  navigable  river  is  pre- 
sumed to  be  a  common  carrier,  and,  in 
an  action  for  the  purpose  of  charging 
him  as  such,  the  burden  is  on  the  defend- 
ant to  show  the  contrary,  if  he  denies  the 
fact,  although  the  declaration  only  al- 
leges that  the  defendant  is  master  of  a 
certain  steamboat,  without  alleging  in  so 
many  words  that  he  is  a  common  car- 
rier.    Bennett  v.  Filyaw,  1  Fla.  403 

A  complaint  alleged  that  plaintiffs 
caused  to  be  delivered  to  defendant  cer- 
tain property  in  good  condition  to  be 
carried  by  defendant  over  its  road  to  li., 
and  thence  to  be  forwarded  to  plaintiff  at 
L     and  that  defendant  received  the  goods 


for  said  carriage  and  delivery,  but  failed 
to  deliver  them  to  plaintiffs  in  good  or- 
der. Held,  that  the  words  "to  be  for- 
warded" import  an  obligation  to  assume 
responsibility  for  the  transportation  of 
the  goods  from  E.  to  L.,  and  for  their 
delivery  to  plaintiffs.  Davis  v.  Jackson- 
ville Southeastern  Line,  126  Mo.  69,  28 
S.   W.   965. 

The  allegation  that  "the  defendant,  be- 
fore and  at  the  time  of  the  committing 
of  the  grievance  hereinafter  mentioned, 
was  the  owner  and  proprietor  of  a  cer- 
tai.i  railroad,  to  wit,  the  Baltimore  & 
Ohio  Railroad,  and  of  certain  carriages 
used  by  it  for  the  carriage  and  convey- 
ance of  goods  and  chattels  in,  upon,  and 
along  said  railway,  from  a  certain  place, 
to-wit,  Parkersburg,  Wood  county,  West 
\'irginia,  for  .hire  and  reward  to  it,  the 
defendant  in  that  behalf,"  is  a  sufficient 
allegation  that  the  defendant  was  a  com- 
mon carrier.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Morehead,    5    W.    \a.    293. 

45.  Aider  by  verdict. — Kain  v.  Kansas 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  Mo.  App.  53. 

46.  Consideration — Action  ex  contractu. 
— Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  106  \'a 
645,    56    S.    E.    567. 

Insufficient  averment. — An  averment 
that  tlie  defendant,  in  consideration  of 
the  delivery  to  it  of  certain  goods,  issued 
its  bill  of  lading,  by  which  it  "undertook, 
promised,  and  agreed"  to  carry  the 
goods  to  their  destination,  is  not  such  an 
averment  of  consideration  as  is  necessary 
in  assumpsit.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co;.  v. 
Smith,   106  Va.   645,   56   S.    E.   567. 

47.  Jarrett  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  74 
Minn.  477,  77  N.  W.  304;  Carter  v.  Graves, 
17  Tenn.  (9  Yerg.)   446. 

48.  Jarrett  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  7t 
Minn.  477,  77  N.  W.  304;  Ferguson  v. 
Cappeau  (Md.),  6  Har.  &  J.  394. 

49.  Action  ex  delicto. — Hall  v.  Cheney, 
36   N.   H.   26.     See   Wright  v.   McKee,   37 

Vt-   If"'!-  .  T     J  u 

50.  Delivery  to  earner. — Jordan  v.  Haz- 
ard, 10  Ala.  221.     See  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R. 


805 


LOSS  OR    IXJURV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1042-1043 


to  carrv  llK-ni.''^ 

Time  of  Delivery. — A  iKtiiion  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damage  to 
goods  nuisi  alle^H-  tlie  time  wlien  the  carrier  received  the  goods.-'- 

Place  of  Delivery.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  of  goods  m 
transit,  the  refusal  to  re(|uire  i)laintiffs  to  show  in  the  hill  of  particulars  where 
the  goods  and  cars  were  delivered  to  defendant  was  not  error  where  defendant 
was  not  emharrassed  in  making  its  defense  hy  the  lack  of  such  statement.''* 

§  1043.  As  to  Contract  of  Carriage.— In  declaring  on  the  contract  of 
carriage,  great  exaclnos  is  demanded.''  Where  one  elects  to  sue  a  carrier  for 
failure  tV^perform  its  dutv  instead  of  suing  on  the  contract,  he  need  not  set  out 
the  precise  terms  of  the  contract.'-"'  In  such  case,  a  petition,  alleging  that  plani- 
tiff  delivered  to  defendant  freight  for  transportation,  sufficiently  avers  the  con- 
tract of  shipment,  without  alleging  its  terms  or  attaching  a  copy  thereof  to  the 
petition.'"  A  i)etition  alleging  that  defendant  is  a  common  carrier,  and  fully 
setting  out  the  fact  constituting  the  cause  of  action  for  injuries  in  transit  to  a 
shipment  and  charging  a  hreach  of  duty  imposed  on  defendant  hy  law.  is  suffi- 
cient without  an  express  declaration  on  any  hill  of  lading  or  contract  of  carriage 
which  may  have  heen  made."'"  .\nd  it  may  be  sufficient  without  any  allegation 
as  to  the  'issuance  of  a  hill  of  lading.''^  Under  a  statute  providing  that,  where 
anv  ])leading  is  founded  on  a  written  instrument,  a  copy  thereof  must  he  filed 
with  the  complaint,  in  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  goods  in  time 
and  good  condition  tlie  complaint  should  be  l)ased  on  the  bill  of  lading.-"'-' 

Co^nditions  Limiting  Liability.— Conditions  in  a  contract  of  carriage  limit- 
ing the  carrier's  liability  should  be  stated."" 

Privity  of  Contract. — Where  suit  was  brought  against  two  railroad  com- 
]xmies  for  damages  on  account  of  an  alleged  breach  of  contract,  and  the  petition 
failed  to  show  anv  privity  of  contract  between  the  plaintiff  and  one  of  the  de- 
fendants, a  demurrer  filed  by  it  was  properly  sustained."^ 

Immaterial  Allegations.— Tf  there  are  i^rovisions  in  the  contract  of  carriage 
other  than  are  usnallv  cnilxxlied  therein  it  is  not  necessary  to  aver  the  reasons 
that  infiuenced  or  tlic  juirposes  that  controlled  the  shipper  or  carrier  in  inserting 


Co.  V.  Venable  Bros.,  117  Ga.  142,  43  S.  E. 
407.  holding:  that  an  allegation  that  de- 
fendant received  the  goods  as  in  good  or- 
der at  a  named  station  on  its  line  and 
transported  them  to  their  destination  does 
not  make  the  action  one  brought  solely 
under  the  terms  of  Ga.  Civ.  Code.  §  2298. 

51.  Acceptance  by  carrier. — Sommer- 
ville  V.  Merrill   (Ala.),  1    Tort.   lOT. 

52.  Allegation  of  time  when  carrier  re- 
ceived goods. — Missouri  I'ac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Crtath.   :;   Trxas   .App.   Civ.   Cas..  §  83. 

Sufficient  allegation. — A  complaint  for 
loss  of  commercial  fertilizers  declaring  on 
nine  invoices  of  chemicals  and  dissolved 
bnne.  covering  different  days  during  three 
months,  and  alleging  that  twenty  barrels 
of  chemicals  and  sixty-six  of  dissolved 
bone  were  never  delivered,  and  that  plain- 
tiff does  not  know  on  what  "days  the  80 
barrels  *  *  *  lost  were  received  *  *  *  for 
shipment,"  is  not  indefinite  or  uncertain 
in  failing  to  allege  "on  what  day  or  days" 
they  were  received  liy  the  carrier.  Dun- 
bar, etc..  Co.  V.  Port  Royal,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
19  S.   C.  601. 

53.  Place  of  delivery  to  carrier. — Ches- 
apeake, etc.  R.  Co.  -■.  Stock  &  Sons,  51 
S.   E.   101.    104   \'a.   '.»:. 

54.  Allegations   as   to    contract.— Weed 


V.  Saratoga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  19  Wend. 
.5.34;  Camp  v.  Hartford,  etc..  Steamboat 
Co..  4.".  Conn.  ,",;',:',. 

Indorsement  need  not  be  set  out. — Mat- 
ter printed  on  the  l)ack  of  the  freight  re- 
ceipt is  but  a  notice  and  not  a  part  of  the 
contract,  and  therefore  the  indorsement 
need  not  be  set  out  in  the  declaration  as 
part  of  the  contract.  Western  Transp. 
Co.  V.  Xewhall.  24  111.  466.  76  Am.  Dec. 
TOO. 

55.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v  Cody.  119 
Ga.  371.  46  S.  E.  429;  Atlanta.  e*c..  R.  Co. 
7'.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy  Co..  135  Ga.  113.  68 
S.   H.  1039. 

56.  Charleston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Duck- 
worth. 7  Ga.  App.  350.  66  S.   E.  1018. 

57.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berry.  42 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  470.  93  S.  W.  1107. 

58.  Martin  v.  Fort  Worth,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
3  Tex.  Civ.  App.  550.  22  S.  W.   1007. 

59.  2  Tnd.  Rev.  St.  44.  Indianapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  ?'.  Rcmmy.  \^^  Inil.  .MS. 

60.  Conditions  limiting  liability. — Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rathbone.  1  W.  V'a. 
87.  88  Am.  Dec.  064;  Ferguson  f.  Cap- 
pcau   (M(l.\  0   Har.   &  J.  394. 

61.  Privity  of  contract. — Guthrie  v.  At- 
lantic, etc..  R.  Co..  119  Ga.  603.  40  S.  E. 
824. 


§§  1043-1044 


CARRIERS. 


806 


them ;  such  allegations  add  nothing  to  the  legal  effect  of  the  contract.*'-  As  it 
is  no  excuse  for  a  carrier,  in  an  action  against  it  for  negligence,  that  the  plain- 
tiff engaged  to  procure  insurance  on  the  goods  carried,  and  failed  so  to  do,  it  is 
not  necessary  in  declaring  against  the  carrier,  to  set  forth  such  engagement, 
nor  to  allege  that  it  has  been  fulfilled,  nor  to  aver  an  excuse  for  nonfulfiUment.*'-' 

§  1044.  Negligence  of  Defendant. — Ordinarily  to  recover  for  the  loss  of 
or  damage  to  property  it  is  sufficient  to  allege  that  the  defendant  undertook  the 
transportation  of  the  property  as  a  common  carrier  and  that  it  was  lost  or  dam- 
aged while  in  its  possession.**-*  It  need  not  be  alleged  that  it  was  defendant's 
duty  to  carry  the  goods  safely,  since  such  duty  is  implied  by  law.*'''  In  a  count 
in  trover  it  is  unnecessary  to  allege  the  carrier's  duty  as  such,  if  its  business  is 
set  fortii,  together  with  its  negligence,  and  the  loss  resulting  therefrom.^*'  When 
negligence  is  alleged  a  general  averment  of  negligence  is  sufficient,  and  particular 
acts  of  negligence  need  not  be  alleged.^''     In  such  an  action  specific  allegations 


62.  Immaterial  allegations. — Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rathhonc,  1  W.  Va.  87,  88 
Am.   Dec.   664. 

63.  Brenan  v.  Shelton  (S.  C),  2  Bailey 
152. 

64.  Defendant's  negligence. — McFad- 
den  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  92  Mo.  343, 
4  S.  W.  689,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721;  Kelly  v. 
Benedict  (La.),  5  Rob.  138,  39  Am.  Dec. 
o30. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
to  recover  the  value  of  a  car  load  of 
mules  destroyed  by  fire  through  defend- 
ant's negligence,  the  petition  alleged  the 
deliver}-  and  loss  of  the  property  while  in 
defendant's  possession  as  a  common  car- 
rier, and  charged  negligence  in  managing 
and  operating  the  train,  whereby  the  car 
containing  the  mules  was  set  on  fire,  and 
the  mules  destroyed.  Held  that,  even 
without  the  last  allegation  of  negligence, 
the  petition  was  sufficient.  McFadden  v. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  92  Mo.  343,  4  S.  W. 
689,  1  Am.  St.  Rep.  721. 

65.  Duty  to  carry  safely.— Lang  v. 
Brady.  73  Conn.  707,  49  Atl.  199. 

66.  Wright  v.  McKee,  37  Vt.  161. 

67.  General  averment  sufficient. — Con- 
necticut.— Peck  V.  Weeks,  34  Conn.   145. 

Georgia. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  War- 
field,  129  Ga.  473,  59  S.  E.  234;  S.  C,  3  Ga. 
App.   187,  59  S.   E.  604. 

Illinois. — East  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  111.  App.  279,  re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  123  111.  594,  15 
N.  E.  45. 

Massachusetts. — School  Dist.  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ma.'-s.  552,  3  Am.  Rep. 
502. 

Minnesota. — McCauley  v.  Davidson,  10 
Minn.   418,   Gil.   335. 

Unless  the  pleading  is  attacked  by  mo- 
tion, a  general  averment  of  negligence  is 
sufficient.  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Vincent, 
58   Xeb.    171,   78   N.   W.   457. 

Under  the  New  York  statute  (Code 
Civ.  Proc,  §  481),  requiring  the  com- 
plaint to  state  plainly  and  concisely  the 
facts    constituting    each    cause    of    action. 


a  complaint  against  a  steamship  company 
for  negligence  in  transporting  goods, 
which  avers  that  defendant  undertook  to 
transport  certain  furs  from  and  to  points 
named,  being  paid  therefor,  and  that  it 
"so  negligently  and  carelessly  misbehaved 
itself"  in  the  matter  that  plaintiff  sus- 
tained damage,  is  insufficient,  and  a  mo- 
tion to  make  more  definite  should  be 
granted.  Rubens  v.  Ludgate  Hill  Steam- 
ship Co.,  49  Hun  608,  2  N.  Y.  S.  30,  21 
Abb.   N.   C.   464,   17   N.   Y.   St.   Rep.   17. 

Illustrations. — In  "an  action  against  a 
carrier,  the  declaration,  after  stating  the 
delivery  of  poultry  to  be  carried,  the  de- 
fendant's reception  of  it  on  board  his 
boat  for  that  purpose,  that  the  boat  did 
not  start  within  a  reasonable  time,  al- 
leged that  "the  defendant  so  negligently, 
carelessly,  and  improperly  conducted 
himself  in  this  behalf  that,  for  want  of 
due  care  in  said  defendant  and  his  serv- 
ants, said  poultry  was  not  conveyed  to 
New  York,  and  delivered  to  the  plaintiffs, 
until  the  same  became  and  was,  in  con- 
sequence of  said  carelessness  and  negli- 
gence, damaged  and  spoiled,  and  of  no 
value  to  the  plaintiffs."  Held,  that  these 
allegations  applied  not  only  to  negli- 
gence in  not  proceeding  to  New  York, 
but  also  in  not  taking  proper  care  of  the 
poultry  while  transporting  it.  Peck  v. 
Weeks,   34    Conn.    145. 

A  declaration  alleging  that  the  carrier 
"negligently  unloaded"  coal,  "mixing  it 
with  soil  and  different  kinds,"  sufficiently 
sets  out  the  breach  of  the  carrier's  duty 
in  unloading  in  an  unsuitable  place,  or  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  different  kinds 
were  mixed  together.  Rice  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Corp.,  98  Mass.  212. 

Averment,  in  a  declaration  against  a 
carrier  for  loss  of  goods,  that,  by  reas(jn 
of  the  negligent  manner  in  which  defend- 
ant conducted  himself,  the  goods  "were 
wholly  lost  to  the  plaintiff,"  is  sufficient 
negation  of  delivery  of  the  goods  accord- 
ing to  the  contract  for  carriage.  Wil- 
liams V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  W. 
Va.  33. 


807  LOSS  OR  IXJURV  TO  GOODS.  §§    1044-1046 

of  ncj,^Hgc-nce  may  be  treated  as  suri)lusage."** 

Failure  to  Ice.— A  petition  alle{,nng  failure  of  the  carrier  to  properly  re- 
frij^erate  a  car  of  fruit,  to  ice  the  car  at  its  destination,  to  keep  it  iced  so  as  to 
properly  preserve  the  fruit,  and  that  the  car  was  almost  entirely  without  ice  when 
turned  'over  to  plaintiff,  was  not  demurrahle,  as  not  alleging  when  and  where 
the  car  should  have  been  iced,  or  what  would  have  been  i)roi)er  icing."" 

The  carrier's  knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  goods  shipped  with 
respect  to  damages  likely  to  result  from  delay  in  transit,  or  facts  from  which 
such  knowledge  may  be  'inferred,  should  be  alleged  in  an  action  for  recovery  of 
such  damages.'" 

Where  Carriage  Gratuitous.— Allegation  of  Gross  Negligence.—.!  com- 
plaint which  alleges  a  delivery  of  goods  to  a  common  carrier,  and  acceptance  by 
him,  to  be  conveyed  without  reward,  the  loss  of  the  goods  occasioned  by  the  gross 
negligence  of  the  defendants,  together  with  the  value  of  the  goods  and  the 
amount  of  the  loss  to  the  bailor,  states  a  ground  of  action.' ^ 

§  1045.  Description  of  Property. — The  petition  or  complaint  in  an  action 
for  loss  of  pro])erty  should  describe  the  property  so  as  to  show  what  is  in- 
tended.'- A  complaint  in  an  action  for  loss  of  a  draft,  merely  alleging  by  whom 
and  on  whom  it  was  drawn,  and  not  stating  the  date,  amount  of  the  draft,  or 
the  time  when  payable,  is  insufficient.'-^  But  it  is  held  that  the  comi)laint  need 
not  state  the  numi)er  or  dates  of  state  bonds."-'  Allegations  that  a  lost  box  con- 
tained pictures  of  plaintiff's  dead  wife,  etc..  which  could  not  be  reproduced,  and 
plaintiff's  family  Bible,  containing  the  family  records,  were  proper  as  descriptive 
of  the  articles  charged  to  have  been  lost.'^ 

§  1046.  Damage  and  Value  of  Goods.— W  here  no  motion  is  made  for  a 
more  specific  statement,  a  complaint  averring  plaintiff's  ownership  of  certain 
goods  destroyed,  their  amount,  a  demand  for  the  same  or  payment  of  its  value, 
and  demanding  damages  in  the  sum  of  a  certain  amount,  interest,  and  costs,  is 
sufficient,  although  no  value  of  the  goods,  nor  the  fact  that  plaintiff  was  dam- 
aged by  their  loss,  is  specifically  alleged.""  A  complaint  for  loss  of  a  draft, 
merely  alleging  that  the  draft  was  worth  a  certain  sum,  is  insufficient  as  a  state- 
ment of  the  value,  but  a  statement  of  the  sum  for  which  it  wns  drawn  would  be 
sufficient:  it  being  unnecessary  to  allege  that  the  drawer  had  funds  on  deposit 
sufficient  to  pay  it.'' 

68.  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Warfield,  72.  Description  of  property.— Galves- 
129  Ga.  473,  59  S.  E.  234;  Southern  Exp.  ton,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Quilhot  (Tex.  Civ. 
Co.  V.  Bailey,  ''  Ga.  App.  331,  66  S.  E.  App.),  123  S.  W.  200,  holding  that  a  pe- 
960;  Deen  v.  Wheeler,  7  Ga.  App.  507,  tition  describing  property  as  "one  chest 
515,'  67  S.  E.  212.  of   silver,"   and   as   "one   punch   liowl.   one 

A  petition  alleging  that  defendants  un-  H.   P.  vase,  and   two  C.   G.  howls."  with- 

dertook    as    carri^ers    to    convey    property  out   even   stating  the   material   thereof,   is 

for  hire,   and   failed   to   do   so.   and   speci-  subject  to  special  exception  to  suttic.ency 

fying  the  acts  of  negligence  whicli  caused  of  description. 

the    loss,    is    not    sul)ject    to   exception    as  73,   Description     of     draft. — Zeigler     v. 

uniting  distinct  causes  of  action^a  cause  Wells.      etc..    Co.,    23    Cal.    179,      S3    .Am. 

ex    contractu    with    one    ex    delicto;    the  Dec.    ST. 

specification    of    the    negligent    acts    may  74.    Description    of     bonds. — Martin     z: 

be  regarded  as  surplusage.     Kelly  v.  Ben-  American   l-'.xp.  Co.,  I'.i  Wis.  33("). 

edict   (La.).  ,-.  Rob.  138,  39  Am.  Dec.  530.  ^g     Missouri,    etc..      R.    Co.    i:    Dement 

69.  Failure  to  ice.— Southern    R.   Co.  v.  ^^^^^    q-^^.    App.L  115  S.  W.  635. 

^\o.''cL^rieV'^  knowledge' of ''character  of  '6;  ^^^"^fgf,  ^"^  ^^^"^  °f.  e°°ds.-Inde- 

goods.-Wyler.     etc.,      Co.    r.     Unusvllc,       ^^^^'i^''   ^^'%^^/^^]^'X''^  ^';' ^ 
etc     R.   Co.,  6   N.   P.,   X.   S.,  589,   18   O.   D.        Co.,   .2  Iowa  o3o,  34  N.  W.  .20.  2  .\m.  bt. 

N.    P.    722.  ^^P-    '~^^- 

71.     Where     carriage     gratuitous.— Mo-  77.    Zeigler  r.   Wells,   etc.,    Co.,    23    Cal. 

Cauley    7'.    Davidson.    10    Minn.    41S,    Gil.  179.  83  Am.  Dec.  87. 
335. 


§§  1046-1050  CARRIERS.  808 

Necessity  for  Demanding  Interest. — Under  a  statute  making  the  carrier 
liable  for  the  amount  of  loss  or  damage  to  freight  en  route,  together  with  inter- 
est thereon  from  the  date  of  fiHng  the  claim  until  its  payment,  the  complaint  in 
an  action  against  the  carrier  therefor  need  not  demand  interest  in  order  to  re- 
cover it."^ 

§  1047.  Special  Statutory  Proceeding. — In  a  special  proceeding  given  by 
statute  it  is  essential  that  the  complaint  set  forth  those  facts  and  contain  those 
allegations,  which  show  that  the  case  fell  within  the  provisions  of  the  statute.'''* 

§  1048.  Amendments. — An  action,  based  on  the  carrier's  common-law  lia- 
bility, can  not,  by  amendment,  be  converted  into  a  suit  founded  upon  a  statutory 
liability. ^^^  In  a  suit  to  recover  damages  for  freight  burned  up  at  the  point  of 
deliverv  to  the  carrier,  an  amendment  changing  the  destination,  from  a  point 
with.out  to  a  point  within  the  same  state,  does  not  introduce  a  new  cause  of 
action.^^  Where  a  petition  has  the  fault  of  duplicity,  in  that  it  sets  up  in  one 
count  allegations  suitable  to  an  action  against  the  carrier  receiving  the  goods  "as 
in  good  order,"  and  also  to  an  action  against  it  upon  a  coiumon-law  liability  for 
the  loss  of  the  goods,  and  a  special  demurrer  calls  attention  to  this  dereliction, 
the  plaintiff  may  save  his  suit  from  dismissal,  by  filing  an  amendment  showing 
his  election  to  proceed  upon  only  one  of  the  theories. '^- 

§  1049.  Aider  by  Answer.— Althotigh  a  complaint  be  deficient,  in  that  it 
does  not  allege  that  demand  was  made  for  the  delivery  of  goods  at  the  point  of 
consignment,  such  demand  is  rendered  unnecessary  by  an  answer  which  alleges 
that  the  same  had  been  delivered  according  to  the  agreement. ■'"'•"• 

§  10  50.  Plea  or  Answer. — Effect  of  General  Denial. — In  an  action 
against  a  common  carrier  for  loss  of  goods,  a  general  denial  puts  the  plaintiff 
upon  the  proof  of  his  cause,  whatever  else  the  defendant  may  have  pleaded. ^^ 

Effect  on  General  Denial  of  Answer  Containing  Special  Defense. — In 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  all  the  articles  mentioned  in  the 
bill  of  lading,  the  fact  that  the  answer,  in  addition  to  a  general  denial,  contained 
a  special  defense  that  the  bill  was  procured  by  fraud  of  the  shipper  did  not  pre- 
clude the  defense  of  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  carrier's  agent  in  making  out 
the  bill.""' 

The  sufficiency  of  the  answer  must  be  determined  by  the  case  made  bv  the 
petition,  and  that  it  might  be  a  good  answer  to  some  case  is  not  sufficient ;  the 

78.  Necessity  for  demanding  interest. —  by  adding  an  averment  that  defendant 
Harter  i\  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (w  vS.  received  the  machinery  from  a  connect- 
E.   29n,   8.5   S.    C.    192.  ing  road   "in   good  order"  so  as   to   allege 

79.  Special  statutory  proceedings. — Tlie  a  statutory  liability  under  Code,  §  3480, 
Galena  v.  Beals,  5  Wis.  91;  Gray  v.  The  providing  that,  "where  there  are  several 
Reveille,  f)  Wis.  59.  connecting  railroads  under  different  com- 

In    proceedings    under    Wisconsin    Rev.  panics,    the    last    company    which    has    re- 

St.    c.    116,    to    recover    damages    for    the  ceived    the    goods    as    'in    order'    shall    be 

nonperformance      of    a    contract      of      af-  responsible  to  the  consignee  for  any  dam- 

freightment,   the    complaint   must    set   out  ages."     Exposition  Cotton  Mills  v.  West- 

the  jurisdictional  facts  that  the  injury  re-  ern,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  83   Ga.  441,   10  S.  E.   113. 

suited   from  the  negligent  default  or  cul-  81.   Charleston,     etc.,   R.   Co.     v.    Duck- 

pable    misconduct      on    the    part    of    those  worth,   7   Ga.   App.   3.50,   66   S.    E.    1018. 

having  the  vessel  in  charge,  whereby  the  82.  Atlanta,    etc.,  R.   Co.    v.    Broome,  3 

injury  occurred.     Gray  v.  The   Reveille,  6  Ga.   App.   641,   00  S.   E.   355. 

Wis.   59.  83.   Aider   by   answer. — Zalk     v.      Great 

80.  Amendments. — Hartwell  R.  Co.  v.  Xortlurn  R.  Co.,  9S  Minn.  65,  107  N.  W. 
Kidd,   10   Ga.  App.   771,  74   S.   E.   310.  814. 

A    declaration    against    a    railroad    com-  84.  Effect  of  general  denial.-^Fowler  v. 

pany  for  damage  to  machinery  in  transit,  Daven])ort,  21  Tex.  iV.li\. 

caused   by  the   negligence   of  the   defend-  85.    Answer   containing   special   defense, 

ant's   agents,    states   a  cause   of  action   at  — Cohen    Bros.   v.    Missouri,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

common    law;    and    can    not    be    amended  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  381,  98  S.  W.  437. 


809 


LOSS  OR    INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1050 


answer  must  present  a  defense  to  the  case  made  by  the  petition.^"  An  answer 
averring  want  of  authority  in  the  defendant's  agent  to  receive  and  carry  pack- 
ages of  money,  without  compensation  to  the  defendant,  and  without  its  knowl- 
edge, is  not  bad  as  amounting  to  the  general  issue,  where  there  is  no  averment 
in  the  complaint  that  the  defendant  was  engaged  in  the  business  of  carrying 
packages  of  money  for  hire.''"  An  answer  pleading  violation  of  a  stipulation 
as  to  the  giving  of  notice  of  the  claim  for  projjerty  destroyed  within  a  certain 
time,  should  allege  that  ])laintiff  knew  of  the  destruction  at  the  time  thereof. '''* 
Where  the  validity  of  a  carrier's  contract  depends  upon  the  reasonableness  of  a 
])rovision  as  to  the  giving  of  notice  in  case  of  injury  to  stock  the  carrier  must, 
in  order  to  avail  itself  of  th.is  i)rovision  as  a  defense,  allege  in  its  answer  a  state 
of  facts  showing  that  the  shipi)er  had  failed  to  give  the  notice  before  defendant 
delivered  to  its  connecting  line,  and  that  he  had  the  opportunity  to  do  so.^'' 

A  plea  not  distinctly  denying-  the  averment  of  the  declaration  that  the 
carrier  did  not  sat'eK  carr\  the  goods,  but  alleging  a  limitation  of  liability  in  the 
terms  of  the  bill  of  lading,  is  not  a  good  plea.'"' 

Matters  Which  Must  Be  Specially  Pleaded. — Many  defenses  must  be 
specialK  ]>lea(led,  as  that  the  defemlant  had  been  released  from  contract,  or  that 
the  goods  were  onlv  ])artially  lost.'"  that  part  of  goods  sued  for  did  not  belong 
to  plaintiff,"-  that  defendant  failed  to  give  notice  of  loss  within  a  reasonable 
time."'*  If  the  carrier  wishes  to  contend  that  the  wholesale  and  not  the  retail 
price  of  the  property  should  govern  in  fixing  the  amount  of  damages,  facts  sup- 
porting such  contentions  should  be  specially  pleaded.-'-* 

An  estoppel  must  be  pleaded  strictly.""' 

Pleading  Contract  of  Carriage. — In  an  action  against  carrier  for  loss  of 
freight,  where  plaintitT  ])lea(ls  the  contract  of  carriage,  its  ])rovisions  inure  to 
the  benefit  of  defendant  without  being  pleaded  by  it."'' 

Right  to  Damaged  Goods. — In  an  action  against  a  railroad  to  recover  the 
value  of  goods  damaged  in  transit,  defendant,  on  being  held  liable  for  the  dam- 
ages sued  for,  is  not  entitled  to  an  order  awarding  the  damaged  goods  to  it  in 
the  absence  of  a  i^roper  pleading  on  its  part  seeking  to  recover  such  goods."" 

Right  to  Claim  Reduction  of  Verdict. — Where,  in  an  action  for  the  loss  of 
cigars  shipi:)cd  as  "smoking  tobacco,"  the  carrier  did  not  claim  in  its  answer  for 
a  ditiference  of  unpaid  freight  at  a  higher  rate  prescribed  for  cigars,  it  could  not 
claim  a  reduction  of  the  verdict  for  plaintiff  to  the  extent  of  the  dift'erence,  in 


86.  Sufficiency  of  answer. — Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Harris,  67  Tex.  106,  172, 
2    S.    W.    -.74. 

87.  Answer  not  amounting  to  general 
issue. — Cincinnati,  etc.,  Mail  Line  Co.  z'. 
r.(ial,    1.^    Ind.    .34.5. 

88.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Brass  (Tex. 
Civ.    -Xpp.),    133    S.   W.    1075. 

89.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  88 
Tex.   r>9:i,  32   S.   W.   510. 

90.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson 
(Pa.).   3   Atl.   783,  2   Sad.   291. 

91.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harn,  44 
Tex.    62S. 

92.  McGregor  z'.  Oregon  R.,  etc..  Co.. 
50  Ore.  527.  <)3  Pac.  465,  14  L.  R.  A..  X. 
S.,  66S. 

93.  Soutliern  R.  Co.  z'.  Mooresville 
Cotton  Mills.  187  Fed.  72,  109  C.  C.  A. 
390. 

94.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Barden 
(Tex.    Civ.   .\pp.),    132   S.    W.    83. 

95.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Fox,  i:>l  Kv. 
257,    115    S.   W.    184,    117   S.   W.   270. 

A  plea  in  an  action  for  daniage  to  goods 
was  insuliicient  to  estop  plaintit?  from 
claiming    that    the    value    was    more    than 


$75,  where  it  alleges  that  plaintiflf  fraud- 
ulently stated  that  the  value  of  the  goods 
was  $75  in  order  to  obtain  a  low  freight 
rate,  but  fails  to  allege  that  defendant 
did  not  know  that  the  value  was  more 
than  $75.  or  that  it  was  deceived  by 
plaintiff's  statement  as  to  value.  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  V.  Fox,  131  Ky.  257,  115  S. 
W.   184,  117  S.  W.  270. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss 
of  freight,  a  plea  of  estoppel  by  reason 
of  plaintiff  having  received  the  bill  of 
lading  after  loss,  and  having  forwarded 
it  to  defendant  with  his  claim  for  dam- 
ages, was  insutticient.  where  it  alleged 
no  facts  showing  tiiat  defendant  acted 
on  the  contents  of  tlie  bill  of  lading  to 
its  prejudice,  or  that  it  was  misled  by 
anything  plaintiff  did  with  reference 
thereto.  McGregor  i-.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 
Co.,  50  Ore.  527,  93  Pac.  465,  14  L.  R.  A., 
N.   S.,  668. 

96.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Groves.  48 
Tex.    Civ.    .App.    45.    106    S.   W.    416. 

97.  Right  to  damaged  goods. — Mis- 
souri, etc..  R.  Co.  f.  Kahn  (Tex.  Civ. 
A  pp.).  91   S.  W.  816. 


§§    1050-1053  CARRIERS.  810 

order  to  relieve  itself   for  liability  for  a  statutory  penalty,  on _  the  ground  that 
plaintilT  was  not  entitled  to  recover  the  amount  claimed  by  him.^s 

Time  of  Amendment  of  Answer. — It  is  not  error  to  refuse  to  allow  de- 
fendant carrier  to  amend  its  answer  on  the  hearing  and  during  the  argument  so 
as  to  rely  on  a  clause  in  its  receipt  to  complainants  providing  that  claims  for 
damages  against  it  must  be  presented  within  thirty  days,  in  the  absence  of  suf- 
ficient reason  for  failure  to  move  to  amend  earlier,  the  defense  presented  by  it 
being  merely  technical.'''^ 

§  1051.  Admissions  in  Pleadings. — When  a  carrier  refuses  to  pay  dam- 
ages demanded  for  injury  to  goods  on  the  ground  that  they  were  carried  at 
"owner's  risk,"  the  jury  may  infer  a  waiver  of  other  grounds  of  defense,  and 
an  admission  that  the  goods  were  damaged  while  in  possession  of  the  carrier. ^ 

General  Denial  and  Special  Plea. — Where  the  plaintitT's  right  to  recover 
depended  upon  the  fact  being  shown  that  defendants  were  partners  in,  or  joint 
owners  of  a  boat,  upon  which  cotton  was  freighted  and  lost,  and  there  was  a 
plea  of  the  general  denial,  and  a  special  plea  admitting  the  joint  ownership,  each 
plea  presented  a  separate  issue  and  the  admissions  contained  in  the  special  plea 
must  be  taken  in  reference  only  to  the  issue  presented  by  it ;  and  the  admission 
thus  made  does  not  dispense  with  the  necessity  of  the  plaintiff's  proving  the 
partnership  or  joint  ownership  except  as  to  the  issue  presented  by  such  special 
plea.- 

§§   1052-1055.  Issues,  Proof  and  "Variance— §   1052.  In  General.— In 

an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  such  matters  are  in  is- 
sue as  are  properly  put  in  issue  by  the  pleadings  and  proof.' 

§  10  53.  Evidence  Admissible  under  Pleadings.— In  General.— In  ac- 
tions against  carriers  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods,  the  general  rule  applies  that 
the  evidence  to  be  admissible  must  correspond  with  the  allegations  and  be  re- 
stricted to  the  issues.  So  evidence  is  inadmissible  to  show  loss  of  goods  shipped 
or  delivered  at  any  other  time  than  that  alleged,*  or  to  show  damages  to  other 
property  than  that  specified  in  the  petition.^  Where  plaintiff'  sues  on  a  verbal 
contract  for  shipment,  and  relies  upon  such  contract  as  the  law  implies  from 
mere  delivery  of  goods  to  a  railroad  company  to  be  carried  as  freight,  and  no 
written  contract  is  alleged,  a  written  contract  introduced  by  defendant  is  not 
relevant.''  Where  the  complaint  alleged  a  contract  to  "carry  and  deliver"  goods, 
the  bill  of  lading,  showing  a  contract  to  carry  and  deliver  such  goods  upon  cer- 
tain conditions  named,  can  not  be  excluded  as  being  a  different  contract  from 

98.  Right  to  claim  reduction  of  freight.  presented.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Bell, 
—Jenkins   z\    Atlantic,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    W>    S.       62    N.    E.    103.5,    65    O.    St.    408. 

E.   407,    84    S.    C.    520.  Where,    in    an    action    a,^-ainst    a    carrier 

99.  Time  of  amendment. — Cole  v.  Ran-  for  loss  of  goods,  plaintiff  did  not  allege 
kin  (Tenn.),  42  S.  W.  72.  that    the    loss    occurred    through    the    car- 

1.  Admission  implied  from  resting  de-  rier's  negligence,  and  the  carrier  pleaded 
fense  on  specific  around. — Soutli,  etc.,  R.  a  release  given  in  consideration  of  a 
Co.  V.  Wilson,  78  Ala.  587,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  lower  freight  rate  by  which  it  was  agreed 
R.    Cas.  41.  that  the  goods   should  be   shipped  at  the 

2.  Fowler  v.   Davenport,  21  Tex.  626.  owner's    risk,    the    invalidity    of    such    re- 

3.  Issues — Illustrations. — Where,  in  an  lease  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability 
action  to  recover  of  a  carrier  the  value  for  loss  resulting  through  its  negligence 
of  a  package  lost  in  transit,  the  petition  was  not  in  issue.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
sets  out  a  bill  of  lading  containing  a  stip-  Blyth,  19  Wyo.  410,  118  Pac.  649,  119 
ulation    limiting    the    lialjility    of    the    car-  Pac.   87.5,   Ann.   Cas.   191.'!   E,  288. 

rier  to  $50,  unless  the  value  of  the  article  4.  Evidence  admissible  under  pleadings, 

is     disclosed,  and    admits     that    the  value  — Witzler  v.   Collins,   70   Me.  290,  35   Am. 

was    not    disclosed,    and    alleges    that    the  Rep.    327. 

package      was     lost     through      the      car-  5.  Missouri    Pac.    R.    Co.    v.    Smith,    84 
rier's   negligence,   and   the   answer  admits  Tex.  348,  19  S.  W.  509. 
the   loss   and   defendant's   liability   to   $50,  6.  Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway  v.  Fried- 
no    issue,    except    that    of    negligence,    is  man,    128    Ga.    316,    57    S.    E.    778. 


811 


LOSS  Ok   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§  1053 


that  set  out  in  the  complaint  J  Where,  in  an  action  to  recover  for  injury  to 
freight  shipped  from  a  foreign  slate,  the  carrier  sets  up  a  special  contract,  the 
consignee  may  show  that  the  contract  was  void  under  the  laws  of  the  foreign 
state  without  pleading  such  laws."  And  when  the  carrier  offers  evidence  to 
prove  that  loss  was  occasioned  by  act  of  God,  it  is  competent  for  plaintiff  to  set 
it  aside  by  proof  of  negligence,  or  other  facts  establishing  that  the  loss  was  not 
in  fact  pro.ximately  caused  by  the  act  of  God,  without  specially  pleading  the 
same." 

Under  General  Issue  or  General  Denial. — It  may  be  shown  under  the  gen- 
eral issue,  in  assumpsit  against  a  common  carrier,  that  the  goods  were  destroyed 
by  the  public  enemy.'"  L'nder  the  general  denial  the  defendant  may  show  that 
it  did  not  receive  and  agree  to  transport  the  goods  described  in  the  i)etition.'' 
L'nder  the  plea  of  non  assumpsit,  not  verified  as  required  by  statute,  defendant 
can  not  deny  the  execution  of  the  bills  of  lading  sued  on ;  but  evidence  is  ad- 
missible tending  to  show  that  the  marks  on  the  cotton,  when  received  by  defend- 
ant for  shiiiment,  answered  the  marks  described  in  the  bills  of  lading,  and  that 
the  contract  contained  in  them  has  been  fully  performed  by  defendant. '- 

Particular  instances  of  evidence    which    have    been  held  admissible  '•'  or 


7.  Hill  f.  Georgia,  etc.,  Co.,  43  S.  C. 
461,  21   S.   E.  337. 

8.  Frasier  v.  Charlestown,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
73  S.  C.  140,  52  S.  E.  964. 

9.  M.  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Barnes,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.    Cas.,   §    ")7."). 

10.  What  may  be  shown  under  gen- 
eral issue. — Southern  I'.xp.  Co.  f.  W'o- 
mack,    ts  I'cnn.   (  1    Heisk.)   256. 

11.  What  may  be  shown  under  gen- 
eral denial. — Plaintiff  averred,  that  de- 
fendant "received  and  agreed"  for  a  re- 
ward to  transport  a  case  of  "plate"  glass, 
which  was  broken  through  defendant's 
negligence.  Under  an  answer  denying 
each  and  every  allegation,  defendant  in- 
troduced evidence  that  it  gave  a  receipt 
for  "one  case  of  rough  glass."  on  which 
receipt  was  plainly  marked  "The  actual 
contents  of  packages  must  be  stated  on 
this  receipt."  Held,  that  such  evidence 
was  admissible  under  the  general  denial, 
as  showing  that  defendant  did  not  re- 
ceive and  agree  to  transport  plate  glass. 
Great  Western  Despatch,  etc.,  Shore  Line 
V.    Glcnny,    41    O.    St.    166. 

12.  Unverified  plea. — Hurd's  Rev.  St. 
111.,  p.  1075  (,Prac.  Act,  §  34);  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  7'.),  7  S. 
Ct.    1132,   30   L.    Kd.    1077. 

13.  Evidence  admissible. — An  allega- 
tion that  the  defendant  not  only  failed 
and  refused  to  comply  with  its  obliga- 
tion, but  converted  to  its  own  use  the 
goods,  was  sufficient  to  admit  proof  not 
only  of  conversion,  but  of  loss  by  negli- 
gent breach  of  the  contract  of  transporta- 
tion. M.  P.  R.  Co.  r.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2 
Texas    .\pp.    Civ.    Cas.,    §    575. 

In  an  action  for  damages  to  fruit  from 
defective  drainpipes  in  a  refrigerator  car, 
which  plaintiff,  the  consignee,  after  tlie 
relations  of  carrier  and  warehouseman 
had  terminated,  had  rented  for  the  stor- 
age of  fruit  at  the  destination,  a  petition 
alleging  defendant's  negligence  in  failing 
to  repair  the  pipes  was  sufficient  to  admit 


proof  of  any  facts  going  to  show  the  neg- 
ligence, including  the  promise  of  defend- 
ant's agent  to  repair,  though  no  such 
promise  was  mentioned  in  the  pleadings; 
the  duty  to  repair  not  depending  on  a 
specific  promise,  but  arising  from  the 
fact  that  the  pipes  were  defective  after 
knowledge  l)y  defendant.  Missouri,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Tripis  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  117 
S.    W.    liti). 

That  defendant  not  in  control  of  road. 
—Plaintiff  alleged  the  undertaking  on  the 
part  of  defendant  to  carry  the  goods 
safely,  the  negligence  of  the  company, 
and  consequent  loss  of  the  goods.  De- 
fendant specifically  denied  each  allega- 
tion. Held,  that  evidence  that  the  road 
was  not  in  the  control  of  defendant,  but 
of  a  receiver,  was  admissible.  Kansas 
Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Searle,  11  Colo.  1,  16  Pac. 
32S. 

That  notice  given  of  peculiar  value  of 
goods. — In  an  action  for  damages  for 
shelling  corn  shipped  in  the  ear,  plaintiff 
may  show  that  he  notified  defendant 
that  the  corn  shipped  was  for  seed,  and 
not  for  ordinary  purposes,  though  such 
notice  was  not  averred  in  the  petition 
which  alleged  that  the  corn  was  of  pecu- 
liar value  for  such  purposes.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  f.  Nevin,  31  Kan.  385,  2  Pac. 
795. 

That  goods  lost  by  inevitable  accident. 
— In  an  action  against  a  coninion  carrier 
for  the  loss  of  goods,  it  is  error  to  ex- 
clude evidence  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
that  the  goods  were  lost  by  inevitable  ac- 
cident, where  the  defense  pleaded  was 
that  the  goods  were  lost  b\-  inevitable 
accident.  Xeal  v.  Saunderson  (Miss.),  2 
Smedes    i1-    M.    572.   41    .\m.    Dec.    609. 

That  plaintiff  claimed  damages  on  dif- 
ferent grounds. — Where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  plain- 
tiff's shipment  of  apples,  the  complaint 
charged  defendant  with  negligence  in 
closing  the  air  vents  in  the  cars,  whereby 


§§  1053-1054 


CARRIERS. 


812 


inadmissible  ^-^  under  pleadings  are  set  out  in  the  notes. 

§  1054.  Matters  to  Be  Proved. — Proof  is  not  required  of  allegations  of 
the  class  that  are  usually  denominated  impertinent,  and  which  may  be  struck  out 
as  surplusage,  but  allegations  that  form  the  very  substance  of  the  contract  of 
carriage  must  be  proved.^"'  In  an  action  against  a  carrier,  for  a  breach  of  his 
duty  as  such,  although  negligence  be  averred  in  the  complaint,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  show  anv  positive  misconduct,  to  sustain  the  averment.^''  In  Kentucky  by 
statute  it  is'  provided  that  allegations  concerning  the  value  or  amount  of  dam- 
ages, accompanied  by  a  statement  of  facts  showing  an  implied  promise  to  pay 


the  apples  were  spoiled,  defendants  were 
properly  permitted,  on  cross-examination 
of  one  of  plaintiff's  witnesses,  to  ask  if 
plaintiff  had  not,  at  another  trial,  claimed 
damages  on  different  grounds,  without 
any  special  allegation  in  regard  thereto 
in  defendant's  answer.  Cane  Hill,  etc., 
Co.  v.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).   95    S.   W.   731. 

Under  general  allegation  of  ownership. 
— In  an  action  l)y  a  consignee  of  per- 
ishable freight  against  the  carrier  and 
consignor  to  recover  for  damages  thereto, 
the  consignee's  title  was  in  issue;  the 
claim  being  that  the  property  belonged 
to  the  consignor.  In  a  supplemental  pe- 
tition, and  by  way  of  estoppel,  the  con- 
signee alleged  that  he  had  presented  a 
claim  to  the  company,  which  it  had  re- 
fused to  pay,  saying  that,  if  the  goods 
were  damaged,  it  was  the  fault  of  the 
carrier,  from  which  the  consignee  must 
collect  his  claim,  whereby  the  consignee 
was  induced  to  sue  the  carrier.  Held, 
that  the  facts  so  alleged  were  admissible 
under  the  consignee's  general  allegation 
of  ownership.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Dorsey,  70  S.  W.  57.5.  30  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
377. 

Proof  of  custom. — Where  the  petition 
in  an  action  for  damages  to  butter,  caused 
by  being  carried  in  an  ordinary  freight 
car,  charges  defendant  with  negligence  in 
not  taking  proper  precautions  to  pre- 
serve the  butter,  evidence  of  a  custom 
among  railroads  of  putting  butter  into 
cold  storage,  when  refrigerator  cars  are 
not  ready  to  receive  it,  is  admissible. 
Beard  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  79  Iowa 
518,  44  N.  W.  800,  7  L.  R.  A.  280,  18  Am. 
St.    Rep.    :'.8]. 

14.  Evidence  inadmissible. — On  a  com- 
plaint in  two  counts — First,  on  the  writ- 
ten contract;  and,  second,  on  the  carrier's 
common-law  liability — evidence  of  a  prior 
oral  agreement  is  inadmissible,  even  un- 
der the  second  count,  to  vary  the  writ- 
ten contract.  Snow  v.  Indiana,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   109   Ind.  422,  9   N.   E.  702. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier 
for  the  loss  of  freight  stored  in  its  ware- 
house, evidence  that  defendant  owned  the 
building  in  which  the  fire  started  that 
destroyed  defendant's  warehouse,  and 
had  leased  it  to  a  lard  company'  whose 
use  of  it  made  it  dangerous  to  the  ware- 
house,   was    inadmissible    where    defend- 


ant's negligence  in  that  respect  was  not 
pleaded.  Standard  Milling  Co.  v.  White 
Line  Cent.,  etc.,  Co.,  122  Mo.  258,  26  S. 
W.    704. 

Plaintiff  having  ordered  a  l)oat  which 
was  shipped  by  defendant's  steamship 
line,  found  when  it  arrived  that  it  was 
seriously  damaged,  and  refused  to  re- 
ceive it;  whereupon  defendant  agreed 
that  if  it  did  not  replace  the  boat  with 
a  new  or  perfect  one  within  a  reason- 
able time,  it  would  pay  plaintiff  the 
value  of  the  damaged  boat.  It  was  held 
that  evidence  of  cost  of  the  boat  was 
properly  excluded,  there  was  nothing  in 
the  pleadings  to  authorize  the  introduc- 
tion of  such  evidence.  The  defendant 
could  not  introduce  evidence  of  another 
and  different  contract  than  the  one  al- 
leged by  plaintiff  unless  it  had  itself  al- 
leged it.  New  York,  etc..  Steamship  Co. 
V.  Island  City  Boating,  etc.,  Ass'n,  2  Tex. 
Civ.   App.   490,   491,   21   S.   W.   1007. 

Bill  of  lading. — In  assumpsit  against  a 
railroad  company  to  recover  goods  al- 
leged to  have  been  lost  by  defendant, 
who  had  engaged  as  common  carrier  to 
transport  the  same  for  hire,  where  the 
declaration  contains  only  the  common 
counts,  without  regard  to  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, and  which  contains  valid  exceptions 
against  loss  or  damages  by  fire,  etc.,  the 
bill  is  not  admissible  in  evidence,  not  be- 
ing applicable  to  any  of  the  counts.  Bal- 
timore, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rathlione,  1  W. 
Va.  87,  88  Am.  Dec.  664. 

Loss  of  profits. — An  averment  that 
plaintiff  was  under  contract  did  not  war- 
rant evidence  of  proof  of  loss  of  profits, 
in  the  al)sence  of  proof  of  knowledge  by 
the  carrier  thereof  at  the  time  of  ship- 
ment. Williamsport,  etc..  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  W.  Va.  741,  77 
S.  E.  3:i:!. 

15.  Matters  to  be  proved. — Stout  v. 
Coffin,   2S    Cal.    65,    68. 

Where  a  complaint  alleges  that  the 
carrier,  warehouseman,  and  forwarding 
defendant  received  goods  as  a  common 
merchant,  to  be  kept  by  him  and  con- 
veyed to  a  certain  place  and  delivered  to 
the  plaintiff,  no  recovery  can  be  had 
against  the  former  for  the  loss  of  the 
goods,  without  proof  that  he  contracted 
to  carry  them.     Stout  v.  Coffin,  28  Cal.  65. 

16.  Merritt  7'.  liarle,  31  Barb.  38,  af- 
firmed  in   29   N.   Y.   115,  86   Am.   Dec.  292. 


813 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§§  1054-1055 


such  \aluc  or  daiiiaji^c,  need  not  be  proved  unless  traversed.'" 

§  1055.  Variance. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  damage  to 
goods,  the  general  rule  api^lies  that  the  proof  must  correspond  to  the  allegations 
and  that  any  material   \ariance  is   fatal  to  plaintiff's  recover)."*     The  jjlaintiff 


17.  Kentucky  statute,— Civ.  Code,  §  12G. 
Merchants'  Uispatcli  '1  ransp.  Co.  v.  Hos- 
kins,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep.  799,  41  S.  W.  31, 
44  S.   W.   :i<;2. 

A  petition  setting  up  the  value  of 
goods,  and  a  written  contract  under  wliich 
defendant  agreed  to  carry  and  deliver 
them  safely  to  plaintiff — the  contract 
limiting  defendant's  responsiljility  for  the 
goods  in  a 'number  of  particulars — con- 
tains an  implied  promise  of  defendant 
to  be  responsilile  for  the  goods,  except 
under  the  contingencies  guarded  against, 
within  Civ.  Code,  §  120.  Merchants'  Dis- 
patch Transp.  Co.  v.  Hoskins,  41  S.  W. 
31,  44  S.  W.  3(52,  19  Ky.  L.   Rep.  799. 

Formerly  it  was  provided  by  Civ. 
Code  ls.-)4.  §  153,  that  the  value  of  the 
articles  alleged  to  have  been  lost  must 
be  proved,  though  alleged  in  the  declara- 
tion and  not  noticed  in  the  answer. 
Huston    V.    Peters    (Ky.)    1    Mote,    n.'.s. 

18.  Material  variance — Illustrations. — 
In  an  action  for  damages  for  the  loss  of 
a  chest  shipped  by  defendant's  railroad, 
where  the  allegation  in  the  petition  is 
that  the  company  undertook  to  carry  the 
chest  to  Camden,  and  the  bill  of  lading 
introduced  by  plaintiff  as  evidence  of  the 
contract  shows  the  agreement  to  have 
])een  to  carry  the  chest  to  New  York,  the 
terminus  of  defendant's  road,  there  is 
a  fatal  variance,  and  it  is  immaterial  that 
on  the  margin  of  the  bill  of  lading  are 
the  words,  "To  be  shipped  for  Camden 
from  New  York."  Jenneson  v.  Camden, 
etc.,   Transp.    Co.    (Pa.).   5   Clark   409. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  dam- 
ages to  plaintiff's  sliipment  of  apples, 
damages  arising  after  arrival  of  the  ap- 
ples and  before  their  delivery  could  not 
1)6  recovered  under  an  allegation  of  the 
petition  that  the  apples  were  damaged  on 
their  arrival  at  destination.  Cane  Hill, 
etc.,  Orchard  Co.  v.  San  .\ntonio,  etc., 
R.    Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    .^pp.),   95    S.    W.    751. 

There  was  a  variance  between  an  alle- 
gation that  the  damage  was  caused  from 
delay  in  transportation  and  proof  that  it 
arose  from  lack  of  refrigeration  which 
was  not  alleged.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
McLean,  55  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  130,  118  S. 
W.    If.l. 

Where  the  petition  for  injuries  to  goods 
alleges  an  express  agreement  of  carriage, 
no  recovery  can  be  had,  in  the  absence  of 
proof  of  an  express  agreement.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rackusin  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
145    ?.    \V.    734. 

Immaterial  variance. — In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  injuries  sustained  liy 
cattle  and  hogs  during  transportation,  it 
is  not  a  material  variance  that  they  are 
descriliod   in   the  written  contract  of  ship- 


ment as  one  car  load  of  cattle;  the  ac- 
tion being  treated  as  one  of  tort,  and  not 
as  founded  on  the  contract.  Central  R. 
Co.    V.    Pickett,    »7    Ga.    734,    13    S.    E.   750. 

.\  variance  in  an  action  for  damages 
to  goods  shipped  in  that  the  initials  of 
the  consignee  on  the  wayl^ill  were  differ- 
ent from  those  of  plaintiff,  though  the 
surname  was  the  same,  was  not  necessa- 
rily material  or  fatal.  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Barfield,  58  S.  E.  230,  1  Ga.  App. 
203. 

In  a  suit  against  a  carrier,  the  declara- 
tion stated  the  goods  to  have  been  de- 
livered to  the  defendant  on  board  a 
schooner,  to  be  safely  carried  from  one 
port  to  another  on  Lake  Erie,  "the  dan- 
gers of  the  seas  only  excepted."  The  ex- 
ceptive clause  contained  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing offered  in  evidence  was,  "The  dan- 
gers of  the  lakes  and  rivers  only  ex- 
cepted." Held,  that  the  variance  was  im- 
material. Harrison  v.  Hixson  (Ind.),  4 
Blackf.    22G. 

In  an  action  against  a  common  car- 
rier to  recover  for  goods  lost  by  fire  at 
the  end  of  the  transit,  but  before  the  lia- 
bility of  the  carrier  had  terminated,  the 
plaintiff  alleged  a  verbal  contract  by  the 
carrier  to  carry  the  goods,  by  an  all-rail 
route,  at  an  agreed  rate,  within  a  speci- 
fied time.  The  defendant  denied  that  he 
carried  the  goods  under  the  contract  as 
alleged,  but  admitted  that  he  carried 
them  under  bills  of  lading  not  differing 
from  the  verbal  contract  as  to  rate  or 
time,  but  which  provided  for  carrying 
them  over  his  usual  route,  not  all-rail, 
and  claimed  exemption  from  the  loss  by 
the  terms  of  such  bills  of  lading.  Held, 
that  the  answer  was  substantially  in 
avoidance  of  liability  for  loss  at  the  end 
of  the  transit;  and  therefore  plaintiff 
was  entitled  to  recover,  unless  the  proof 
showed  that  such  exemption  was  a  part 
of  the  contract  for  shipment,  and  that  the 
carrier  was  without  fault,  although  the 
special  provision  as  to  an  all-rail  route 
had  not  been  proved  as  alleged.  Gaines 
V.  Union  Transp.,  etc..  Co.,  2S  O.  St.  418. 

In  an  action  against  "a  carrier  for  loss 
of  goods  by  fire  after  they  were  delivered 
to  defendant,  the  petition  alleged  that  the 
goods  were  accepted  by  defendant,  and 
that  it  had  agreed  with  plaintiff  for  val- 
uable consideration  to  transport  and  de- 
liver the  same  to  their  destination,  nam- 
ing the  place  to  which  each  car  was  des- 
tined, and  that  defendant  negligently  de- 
laved  the  transportation,  where!)}-  both 
the  said  cars  were  destroyed.  The  testi- 
mony, which  was  not  objected  to  at  the 
trial,  showed  that  the  cars  were  delivered 
to    defendant,    not    for    shipment    to    their 


§  1055 


CARRIERS. 


814 


can  not  declare  upon  one  cause  of  action  and  recover  upon  another.^''^'  So  where 
the  complaint  declares  on  the  common-law  liability  of  the  carrier  if  it  appears 
that  the  shipment  was  made  under  a  special  contract  or  bill  of  lading,  no  recov- 
er}' can  be  had.-*^  And  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  as  such,  no  recovery  can 
be  had  on  evidence  showing  liability  as  a  warehouseman. 21  Conditions  in  the 
contract  of  carriage  limiting  the  carrier's  liability  should  be  stated,  and  where 
the  declaration  sets  out  merely  an  ordinary  engagement  of  a  common  carrier, 
proof  of  a  contract  containing  a  special  exception  of  the  general  liability  of  com- 
mon carriers  constitutes  a  fatal  variance.22  A  suit  for  goods  alleged  to  have 
been  lost  bv  a  carrier  out  of  shipments  covering  a  season  can  not  be  maintained 
as  a  suit  on  special  contract  for  a  particular  shipment,  where  the  allegation  as 
to  the  loss  is  <7eneral,  and  it  can  not  be  shown  out  of  which  shipment  the  loss 
occurred.-^ 


was  to  receive  for  this  purpose  was  no 
part  of  th"  regular  f-iglU  rate  to  - 
paid  for  the  transportation  ot  the  cars 
but  certain  f^xed  switching  charges.  The 
evidence  further  showed  the  deln^ery  o^ 
the  cars  to  defendant  and  their  loss  oy 
fire  Held,  that  the  suit  was  or  negli- 
gent loss  and  not  for  the  failure  to 
fr'ansport'to  points  of  destination  and 
that  the  allegations  as  to  the  P^^^^  m 
destination      were    immaterial,      and    that 

Grain    Co.    (Tex.    Civ.    App.).    H-l    ^-    ^^  ■ 

'^^A  shipper  sued  a  common  carrier  on  its 
common  law  liability  for  negligence  re- 
suS  in  injuries  to  the  property  shipped. 
In  defense  a  written  contract  between  the 
cartfes  was  shown,  which  was  not,  how- 
ever effective  to  vary  the  common-law 
iTab  iity  of  the  carrier  in  the  premises^ 
Held,  that  the  variance,  ^f/^f'  ^f  5°^ 
fatal.  San  Antonio  etc.,  R.  Co  J.  Uo 
Ian    (Tex.    Civ.   App.),   80   S.   W.   302. 

Effect  of   failure  to   object.— In   an   ac 
tion  against  a  carrier,  under  a  complain 
Thich  Alleges   that,  before   the   arnva^   o^ 
the    <^oods    at    their    original    destination, 
tte  consfgnee  had  left  that  P  ace    and    he 
carrier     was     directed     to     forward     the 
gooTs    from     thence    to   him    at     another 
olace     but    that    he    neglected    so    to    do 
tTkctcd   so   negligently   that   the   good 
were  lost,  evidence  that,  when  the  prop 
erty  had  reached  its  destination,  the  con- 
signee's agent  demanded  a  delivery  of  it, 
whkh  was  refused  by  reason  of  the  neg- 
Ugence    of    the    defendant,    will    sustain    a 
re^covery  against  the   carrier;   there  be  ng 
no    objection    taken    at    the    trial    to    the 
variance.      Rosebrooks  J-    Dinsmore    (N 
Y  )    4  Abb.  Dec.   118,  36  How.  Prac.  138, 
5  Abb.  Prac,  N.  S.,  59. 

19.  Harris  v.   Hannibal,  etc.,   K.   Co.,  6t 

^%heJt  a  plaintiff  sets  forth  in  his  pe- 
tition that  the  defendant,  a  railroad  com- 
pany by  failing  to  use  ordinary  care  and 
diligence   in   the   management  of  its   rail 


road  cars,  caused  the  plaintiff  to  lose  a 
negro  slave  who  escaped  from  the  com- 
pany's custody  during  transportation,  but 
the  instructions  are  predicated  on  the 
ground  of  a  contract,  and  the  respon- 
sibilities of  a  bailee  or  common  carrier 
are  applied  to  the  defendant,  a  judgment 
for  the  plaintiff  will  be  set  aside,  although 
there  was  no  demurrer  to  the  petition. 
Harris  z'.  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Mo. 
307. 

20.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ragsdale, 
14  Ind.  App.  406,  42  N.  E.  1106;  Snow  v. 
Indiana,  etc.,  R.,  Co.,  109  Ind.  422,  9  N. 
E.    702. 

21.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight, 
122  U.  S.  79,  30  L.  Ed.  1077,  7  S.  Ct.  1132; 
Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grabfelder,  83 
Ala.  200,  3  So.  432;  Stout  v.  Coffin,  28 
Cal.  65;  Gratiot  St.  Warehouse  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  221  111.  418,  77 
N.    E.    67.5. 

Complaint  alleging  liability  as  carrier. 
— A  complaint  in  assumpsit  declaring  on 
an  undertaking  to  carry  three  boxes  of 
goods  to  a  certain  point,  there  to  be  de- 
livered, which  was  superseded  by  another 
undertaking  to  reship  the  goods  and  de- 
liver them  back  to  the  shipper  at  another 
point,  and  alleging  that  the  carrier  neg- 
ligently lost  part  of  the  goods  during 
such  reshipment,  declares  on  a  liability 
as  carrier,  and  not  as  warehouseman. 
Aronson  z'.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  70 
Pa.    68. 

22.  Declaring  on  unconditional  con- 
tract— proving  contract  limiting  liability. 
— Connecticut. — Camp  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
Steamboat   Co.,  43   Conn.  333. 

Maryland. — Ferguson  v.  Cappeau  (Md.), 
6    Har.    &   J.    394. 

A'czv  York. — Fairchild  v.  Slocum  (N. 
Y.),   19   Wend.   329. 

Ohio. — Davidson  v.  Graham,  2  O.  St. 
131. 

Pennsylvania. — Stump  v.  Hutchinson, 
11   Pa.  533. 

West  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Rathbone,  1  W.  Va.  87,  88  Am.  Dec.  664; 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Skeels,  3  W. 
Va.    556. 

23.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Gross  (Miss), 
22    So.    946. 


815 


LOSS  OR   INTL'RV  TO  GOODS. 


1055-1056 


Failure  to  Prove  Allegation  of  Negligence. — Where,  in  a  declaration  in 
an  action  against  a  common  carrier,  averments  which  attect  only  tiie  rule  of 
care  and  negligence  which  should  govern  the  case  are  inserted,  the  failure  to 
prove  the  allegation  of  negligence  is  no  variance,  and  the  plaintitif  may  recover 
without  such  proof,  provided  the  evidence  shows  a  case  under  the  general  rule 
respecting  the  ]ial)ility  of  carriers.-* 

Omission  to  Set  Out  Indorsement  on  Freight  Receipt. — As  matter  printed 
on  the  hack  oi  the  freight  reccipl  i>  not  ;i  ])ari  of  ilie  c(jiitract,  omitting  to  set 
out  the  indorsement  in  the  declaration  as  part  of  the  contract  can  give  rise  to 
no  variance.-^ 

A  recovery  based  on  evidence  broader  than  the  allegations  of  the  pe- 
tition can  ntjt  he  sustained.-''  So,  under  counts  against  a  defendant  merely  as 
carrier  or  hailee  of  property,  the  shipper  can  not  recover  for  losses  resulting 
from  the  misrepresentation  of  the  defendant's  agent,  wherehy  the  plaintiff  was 
induced  to  ship  on  a  slow  instead  of  a  fast  train.-' 

§§  1056-1067.  Evidence— §§  1056-1060.  Presumptions  and  Burden 
of  Proof. -^—§  1056.  Plaintiff's  Burden  of  Proof  in  General.— Prima 
Facie  Case. — In  an  action  against  a  cunimon  carrier  the  plaintitV  makes  a  prima 
facie  case  by  proving  that  the  goods  were  received  by  the  carrier  for  transpor- 
tation and  that  it  failed  to  deliver  them  according  to  its  undertaking.^'^ 


24.  Failure  to  prove  allegation  of  neg- 
ligence.— Saryent  f.  Birchard,  4;{  Vt. 
oTO. 

25.  Failure  to  set  out  indorsement.  — 
Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Xewliall,  :M  111. 
466,  76  Am.  Dec.  760. 

26.  Atchison  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  80 
Mo.   213. 

27.  Maslin  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14 
W.  Va.  ISO,  35  Am.  Rep.  748. 

28.  Presumptions  and  burden  of  proof. — 
Generally  as  to  carriers  by  water. — See 
post,   "Carriers   l)y    Water,"    Part    \'II. 

In  action  agcunst  carrier  of  live  stock. 
— See  post,  ".\ctioiis,"  chapter  20. 

29.  Prima  facie  case. — United  States. — 
The   K.   Al.   Xortoii,   l.".    l-ed.   686. 

Alabama. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Levy,  144 
Ala.  614,  39  So.  95,  17  R.  R.  R.  50,  40 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  50;  Mouton 
V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Ala.  537,  29 
S..  602,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
673 

Georgia. — Coweta  County  v.  Central, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Ga.  App.  94,  60  S.  E.  1018. 

Illinois. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 
Radbourne,  52   111.  App.   203. 

Indiana. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Liveright, 
14  Ind.  App.  518,  41  N.  E.  350,  43  X.  E. 
162. 

lozva. — Angle  v.  Mississippi,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  18  Iowa  555. 

Kentucky. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Craw- 
ford, 8  Ky.  L.  Rep.  619;  Crawford  v. 
Adams  Exp.  Co.,  7  Ky.  L.  Rep.  362. 

.l/(;i»t'.— Little  :■.  Boston,  etc.,  Railroad, 
66  Me.  239;  George  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  358;  Bennett  v.  Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co..  83  Me.  236,  22  Atl.  159,  49 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  56,  13  L.  R.  A.  33; 
Tarbox  v.  Eastern  Steamboat  Co.,  50  Me. 
339. 


Massachusetts. — Cass  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Mass.).  14  .-Mien  448. 

Minnesota. — Witakcr  v.  Chicago,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  115  Minn.  140,  131  X.  \V.  1061. 

.)Iissouri. — Kirby  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co., 
2  Mo.  App.  369. 

AVtc  ForA'.— Merritt  v.  Earle,  31  Barb. 
38;  Westcott  v.  Fargo,  63  Barb.  349,  6 
Lans.  319. 

Pennsylvania. — Grogan  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  114  Pa.  523,  7  Atl.  134,  60  Am. 
Rep.  360;  .^dams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Holmes 
(Pa.),  9  Atl.  166;  Bell  v.  Reed  (Pa.), 
4  Bin.  127,  5  Am.  Dec.  398;  Adams  Exp. 
Co.   V.    Holmes    (Pa.).   9    Atl.    166. 

South  Carolina. — McCall  v.  Brock  (S. 
C),  5  Strob.  119;  Ewart  v.  Street  (.S.  C). 
2  Bailey  157,  23  Am.  Dec.  131;  Smyrl  v. 
Niolon  (S.  C),  2  Bailey  421,  23  .\m.  Dec. 
146. 

Tcvas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 
4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  76.  26  S.  W.  239;  Rvan 
&  Co.  v.  M..  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  65  Tex.  13, 
23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  703;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Home.  69  Tex.  643,  9  S.  \V. 
440;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  China  Mfg. 
Co.,  79  Tex.  26,  14  S.  W.  785;  Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Efron  (Tex.  Civ.  .App.).  38 
S.  VV.  639;  Head  v.  Pacific  Exp.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  126  S.  W.  682;  Fenti- 
man  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  455,  98  S.  W.  939;  Gulf.  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Roberts  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  85 
S.  W.  479;  M.  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co..  2 
Texas  -"^pp.   Civ.   Cas.,  §   575. 

J'ir(^inia. — Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Staton, 
17   Va.    (3   Munf.)    239. 

Ji'isconsin. — Black  v.  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co.,  55  Wis.  319,  13  X.  W.  244,  42  .\m. 
Rep.    713. 

Loss  of  money  delivered  to  express 
company. — In  an  action  a.uaiiist  an  ex- 
press company  for  tlie  loss  of  money  de- 


1056 


CARRIERS. 


816 


Delivery  to  Carrier. — In  an  action  against  a  common  carrier  for  loss  or  in- 
jury to  goods,  plaintiff  must,  in  the  first  instance,  show  that  they  were  delivered 
to  the  carrier.^o  .    ,        .         ,         ,  •       r  -,    w 

Nondelivery  by  Carrier.— The  burden  ot  showmg  that  the  carrier  failed  to 
deliver  the  goods  to  the  consignee  rests  upon  the  plaintiff'  in  an  action  for  their 
loss;  3^  but  slight  evidence  will  be  sufficient  to  throw  upon  the  carrier  the  burden 


livered  to  it  for  transportation,  it  is 
only  necessary  for  plaintiff  to  prove  the 
delivery  of  the  money  to  defendant  and 
its  failure  to  deliver  it  to  the  consignee. 
United  States  z:  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  15  Fed. 
Rep.   SOT. 

30.  Delivery  to  carrier. — United  States. 
—United  States  z:  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  15 
Fed.  867;  Manning  v.  Hoover,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  90-14,  Abb.  Adm.  188;  The  Willie  D. 
Sandhoval.   92   Fed.   2S6. 

Alahmiia. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Echols,  97  Ala.  556,  12  So.  304. 

Crt/!/o;-jna.— Ringgold  v.  Haven,  1  Cal. 
108. 

Florida.— Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Har- 
ris, 26  Fla.  148,  7  So.  544,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  457,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  551. 

Georgia. — Ocean  "Steamship  Co.  v.  Wil- 
der, 107  Ga.  220,  33  S.  E.  179;  Southern 
R.   Co.   V.   Allison,   115    Ga.   635,   42   S.   E. 

15. 

/HdiflHa.— Fitzgerald  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  24  Ind.  447,  87  Am.  Dec.   341. 

Michigan. — Bonfiglio  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  125  Mich.  476,  84  N.  W.  722; 
Marquette  v.  Kirkwood,  45  Mich.  51,  7 
N.   W.   209,   40  Am.    Rep.   453. 

Minnesota.— Boehl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  191,  46  N.  W-  333. 

Nezv  York.— Ahrams  v.  Piatt,  23  Misc. 
Rep.  637,  52  N.  Y.  S.  153;  Canfield  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  Rep.  238;  Jean,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Flagg,  45 
N.  Y.  Misc.  Rep.  421. 

South  Carolina.— Hipp  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,   50  S.    C.   129,  27    S.   E.   623. 

Tennessee.— IWinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Southern,  etc.,  Co.,  104  Tenn.  568,  58  S. 
W.  303,  50  L.  R.  A.  729. 

Where  a  shipment  consists  of  a  num- 
ber of  articles,  and  the  bill  of  lading 
issued  by  the  carrier  makes  no  further 
reference  to  the  character  or  identity  of 
the  separate  articles  composing  the  ship- 
ment than  the  approximate  weight  of  the 
shipment  as  a  whole,  the  shipper  should 
show,  otherwise  than  by  the  bill  of  ladmg, 
that  all  of  the  articles  contained  in  the 
shipment  were  in  fact  delivered  by  him 
to  the  carrier.  Tryon  Co.  v.  Hutchinson 
Lumber,  etc.,  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  643,  70 
S.  E.  H7. 

Essential  to  existence  of  contract. — In 
absence  oi  proof  that  goods  were  deliv- 
ered to  defendant  carrier,  or  delivered  in 
good  condition,  any  presumption  that  it 
received  them  goes  behind  its  duty  and 
enters  into  the  origin  of  the  contract  for 
carriage,  since  there  is  nothing  for  the 
contract      to    act    upon      until    the    goods 


come  into  the  carrier's  charge  and  until 
that  is  proved,  the  contract  is  not.  Mar- 
quette V.  Kirkwood,  45  Mich.  51,  7  N. 
W.  209,  40  Am.  Rep.  453. 

Presumption  where  portion  of  freight 
received  or  delivered. — Wliere  a  lot  of 
goods  were  shipped  together  and  em- 
braced in  the  same  way-bill,  and  part 
of  them  were  delivered  to  the  consignee 
and  part  not,  the  presumption  is  that  the 
entire  lot  were  received  by  the  carrier. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hepner,  3  Colo. 
App.    313,   33    Pac.  ^. 

Where  several  packages  are  shipped  by 
freight,  and  one  bill  of  lading  is  issued, 
and  the  connecting  carrier  received  a 
portion  of  the  shipment,  it  will  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  received  it  all.  Bradley 
V.  Northwestern  R.  Co.,  57  S.  E.  1101, 
77  S.  C.  317. 

31.  Burden  of  proving  nondelivery  by 
carrier. — Alabama. — Barron  v.  Mobile, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ala.  App.  555,  56  So.  862. 

California. — Ringgold  v.  Haven,  1  Cal. 
108. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dick- 
inson, 74  111.  249. 

Louisiana. — Silverman  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  51  La.  Ann.  1785,  26  So.  447. 

Maine. — See  Tarbox  v.  Eastern  Steam- 
boat Co.,  50   Me.   339. 

.Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Schumacher,  29  Md.  168,  96  Am.  Dec. 
510. 

Mississippi. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Provine,  61  Miss.  288. 

Nezv  York. — Hirsch  v.  Hudson  River 
Line,  26  Misc.  Rep.  823,  57  N.  Y.  S.  272; 
Place  V.  Union  Exp.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  2  Hilt. 
19. 

Xorth  Dakota. — Morris  v.  Minneapolis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.   (N.  Dak.),  141  N.  W.  204.- 

Ohio. — See  Zeigler  v.  Freeman,  12  O. 
C.  C,  N.  S.,  122,  21-31  O.  C.  D.  342; 
Klunk  V.  Hocking  Valley  R.  Co.,  74  O. 
St.    125,    135,    77    N.    E.    752.  _ 

Pennsxlvania. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Raiordon,  119  Pa.  577,  13  Atl.  324,  4  Am. 
St.   Rep.  670. 

Tf-vflj.- Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Phil- 
ipson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  39  S.  W.  958; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Capper,  38  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  61,  84  S.  W.  694;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Douglas  &  Sons,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  28. 

rcrmont.— Day  Catlin  &  Co.  v.  Ridley, 
16    Vt.   48,   42   Am.   Dec.   489. 

In  a  shipper's  action  for  a  shortage  in 
a  shipment  of  grain  upon  arrival  at  desti- 
nation, the  burden  was  on  plaintiff  to 
prove  that  a  portion  of  the  grain  received 


817 


LOSS  OR   IXJURV  TO  GOODS. 


§  1056 


of  showing  delivery  to  the  consignee.-'-  The  fact  that  the  goods  have  not  ar- 
rived at  destination  after  tlie  hipse  of  a  reas(jnahle  time  warrants  the  inference 
that  they  have  heen  lost."'-'  Where  it  was  shown  that  it  was  the  custom  of  de- 
fendant carrier  to  notify  consignees  of  arrivals  of  their  goods,  the  presumption 
is  that,  if  the  goods  had  arrived,  notice  would  have  heen  given. ^*  Proof  by  the 
plaintiff  that  the  defendants'  boat  was  capsized,  and  the  {property  flamaged,  and 
a  portion  thereof  carried  to  a  place  out  of  their  course,  throws  the  burden  of 
proof  on  the  dc-f(.'ndaiU>  tn  accdiuit   for  the  property. •'-'' 

Delivery  to  Carrier  in  Good  Condition. — It  is  held  that  the  plaintiff  must 
introduce  e\  idence  tending  to  i)r(jve  that  the  projjcrty  was  in  an  undamaged  con- 
dition when  received  by  the  carrier  and  was  in  a  damaged  condition  when  de- 
livered to  the  consignee.-'"  \\'herc  the  i)laintiff  proves  a  bill  of  lading  for  trans- 
portation to  destination,  and  a  delivery  of  certain  goods  there  a  month  after- 
wards in  a  damaged  condition,  in  the  absence  of  contrary  evidence  the  presump- 
tion is  that  tlu'x-  wvvc  tlu-  goods  covered  by  the  bill.''" 

Actionable  Negligence. — The  jdaintiff  is  not  ordinarily  re(|uired  to  show, 
in  the  first  instance,  that  the  injury  upon  which  the  action  is  based  was  due  to 
negligence     for     which     the    carrier    is    responsible.-'"      But    it     is     held     where 


by  defciulant  was  not  delivered.  Morris 
V.  Minneapolis,  etc..  R.  Co.  (X.  Dak.), 
141    N.   W.   204. 

Contra. — Wlieelcr  r.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  ,-{  Ml).  App.  ;{.-).s. 

32.  Slight  evidence  sufficient. — The  Fal- 
con, Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  4<117.  3  Blatchf.  G4; 
Woodbury  z:  Frink,  14  111.  279;  Chicapro, 
etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Dickinson,  74  111.  249;  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Provine,  61  Miss. 
288. 

33.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Montag,  1  Ga. 
App.  649,  o7  S.   E.  933. 

34.  Jonesville  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Soutliern 
Railway,  58  S.   E.  422,  77  S.  C.  480. 

35.  Day  Catlin  &  Co.  v.  Ridley,  16  Vt. 
4S,  42   Am.   Dec.   4S9. 

36.  Delivery  to  carrier  in  good  condi- 
tion.— I'niU'd  States. — The  \'incenzo,  10 
Ben.  228,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.   16,948. 

CoJiiiccticut. — Mears  v.  New  York,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  75  Conn.  171.  52  Atl.  610.  56  L.  R. 
A.  884,  96  Am.   St.   Rep.   192. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ben- 
jamin,  63   111.   283. 

Louisiana. — See  Silverman  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  La.  Ann.  1785,  26  So. 
447. 

Maine. — Little  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad, 
66   Me.  239. 

.Miclii^an. — Marquette  v.  Kirkwood,  45 
Mich.  5^1,  7  N.  W.  209,  40  Am.  Rep.  453; 
Marquette  z'.    Langton,  32   Mich.   251. 

.Minnesota. — Paterson  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  95    Minn.   57,   103   N.   W.   621. 

Xezv  York. — Brooks  v.  Dinsmore,  6  X. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  281;  Hirsch  v.  Hudson  River 
Line,  26  Misc.  Rep.  823,  57  N.  Y. 
S.  272;  Smith  v.  Xew  York  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  43  Barb.  225.  affirmed  in  41  X.  Y. 
620;  Thyll  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
N.  Y.  S.  175. 

Oregon. — Goodman  r.  Oregon,  R.,  etc.. 
Co.,   22   Ore.    14,   28    Pac.    894. 

Te.ras. — Bath  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
34  Te.x.   Civ.   .\pp.  234,  78  S.  W.  993;  Mis- 

1   Car— 52 


souri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Breeding.  4  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  154,  16  S.  W.  184;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Capper,  38  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
61,  84  S.  W.  694.  See  I.  &  G.  X.  R.  Co. 
V.  Blanton,  etc..  Co.,  63  Tex.  109.  See 
post,  "Condition  of  Goods  When  Re- 
ceived  by   Carrier,"   §    1058. 

Wet  hay. — In  an  action  against  a  rail- 
road company  for  negligence  in  carrj^ng 
hay.  whereby  it  was  wet  and  damaged, 
it  is  essential  for  plaintiff  to  show  the 
condition  of  the  hay  when  delivered  to 
the  compan}-.  Marquette  v.  Langton,  2 
Mich.    -Zr,!. 

Bill  of  lading  endorsed  "-weight  and 
contents  unknown." — In  WcntwiTth  t-. 
Realm,  16  La.  -\nn.  18,  it  appeared  that  a 
shipper  took  a  bill  of  lading  with  the 
endorsement  upon  the  margin  '\veight 
and  contents  unknown."  and  on  the  ar- 
rival of  the  vessel  at  X'ew  Orleans  the 
freight  was  condemned  by  the  Port  War- 
den to  be  sold  as  damaged  goods.  It 
was  held  that,  under  such  bill  of  lading, 
the  common  carrier  has  complied  with  its 
contract  when  it  has  delivered  the  box 
containing  the  goods  externally  in  good 
order  and  condition  at  the  time  of  the 
proof  rests  upon  the  consignee  to  show 
that  the  contents  of  the  liox  were  in  good 
order  and  condition  at  the  time  of  the 
shipment. 

Where  the  defense  is  that  the  goods 
reached  destination  in  good  condition  it 
is  immaterial  wiiether  the  burden  of  prov- 
ing that  the  goods  were  in  good  condi- 
tion when  they  were  reached  by  the  car- 
rier is  placed  on  plaintiff  or  defendant. 
St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Musgrove,  153 
Ala.  274.  45  So.  229. 

37.  Identity  of  goods. — Barrow  7-.  Phil- 
leo.    14    Tex.    345. 

38.  Westcott  7'.  Fargo  (X.  Y.),  63  Barb. 
349,  (■)  Lans.  319;  Tarbox  v.  Eastern 
Steamlioat  Co..  50  Me.  339;  Doan  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,   R.   Co..  38   Mo.   .\pp.  408. 


§  1056 


CARRIER?. 


818 


the  suit  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  freight  is  hased  upon  the  alleged  negligence  of 
the  carrier,  or  that  of  its  employees,  plaintiff  lias  the  hurden  of  proying  such 
allegation,-''^  and  that  the  negligence  aheged  \yas  the  proximate  cause  of  the  in- 
jury.-*" 

Value  of  Lost  Freight.— Plaintiff,  in  an  action  to  recover  the  value  of  freight 
lost  \yhile  in  the  defendant  carrier's  custody,  must  prove  its  value.-* ^  In  the  ab- 
sence of  all  evidence  to  the  contrary,  the  law  \vill  presume  that  bank  notes  de- 
livered to  a  common  carrier  for  transportation  are  worth  their  nominal  value.-^^ 
The  carrier's  refusal  to  count  money  delivered  to  it  in  a  sealed  package  for  car- 
riage,- at  the  request  of  the  consignee,  will  not  create  any  presumption  against 
it  as  to  the  amount  contained  in  the  package.'*-'' 

That  Defendant  a  Common  Carrier.— In  an  action  to  recover  against  de- 
fendant as  a  common  carrier,  plaintiff  must  prove  that  such  was  defendant's 
statu  s.^^ 


39.  Suit  based  on  alleged  negligence. — 

Uitifcd     States.— The      New      Orleans,      2(') 
Fed.  44. 

Alabama. — Frederick  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  31  So.  968,  133  Alji-  486. 

/oTca.— Taft  Co.  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
133  Iowa  522,  110  X.  W.  897,  10  L.  R.  A.. 
N.    S.,    614. 

Michigan. — George  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   108   Mich.   572.   66  N.   W.   479. 

Minnesota.— Roehl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  191,  46  N.  W.  333. 

Missouri. — George  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  358;  Farr  v.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.,  100  Mo.  App.  574.  75  S.  W.  183; 
Ficklin  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  117  Mo.  App. 
211,  93   S.   W.   861. 

0/2/0.— Childs  V.  Little  Miami  R.  Co., 
1  Cin.  R.  480,  13  O.  Dec.  672. 

Vermont. — Mann  v.  Birchard,  40  \  t. 
326.  94  Am.  Dec.  398. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  common 
carrier  for  the  value  of  goods  delivered 
for  transportation,  plaintiff  alleges  that 
the  goods  were  destroyed  by  fire  through 
the  negligence  of  the  defendant,  and  the 
defendant  denies  any  negligence  on  its 
part,  and  alleges  that  the  goods  were  de- 
stroyed while  in  its  warehouse  after  hav- 
ing been  transported  to  their  destination, 
the  burden  is  upon  the  plaintiff  to  show 
defendant's  negligence.  Denton  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Iowa  161,  2  N.  W. 
1093,  35  Am.  Rep.  263. 

40.  Peterson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
19  S.  Dak.  122,  102  N.  W.  595,  18  R.  R. 
R.  48,  41  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  48. 

41.  Value  of  lost  freight.  —  United 
States.— The  E.  M.  Norton.  15  Fed.  686; 
Seller  v.  Pacific,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  12,644, 
Deady  17,  1  Or.  409. 

Georgia. — Purcell  v.  Southern  Exp.  Co., 
34  Ga.  315;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,   88   Ga.   805,   15   S.    E.   802. 

///!«oi5.— Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Stettan- 
ers,  61  111.  184,  14  Am.  Rep.  57. 

Iowa. — Cownie  Glove  v.  Merchants', 
etc  Transp.  Co.,  130  Iowa  327,  106  N. 
W.  749,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  1060,  114  Am. 
St.   Rep.   419. 

Louisiana. — Chapman    v.    Xew    Orleans, 


etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  La.  Ann.  224,  99  Am.  Dec. 
722;  Kirk  v.  Folsom,  23  La.  Ann.  584. 

Maine. — Little  v.  Boston,  etc.,  Rail- 
road,   66   Me.   239. 

Missouri. — Grier  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  108  Mo.  App.  565,  84  S.  W.  158; 
Kirby  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  2  Mo.  App. 
369;  Lupe  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo. 
App.  77;  McFall  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  117 
Mo.   App.   477,   94   S.   W.    570. 

Tt'.n/jr.— Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Glosson.  1  Texas  App.   Civ.  Cas.,  §  324. 

Failure  to  take  bill  of  lading — Amount 
of  grain. — A  shipper  of  a  cargo  of  grain, 
who  takes  no  bill  of  lading  from  the  car- 
rier, is  bound,  in  an  action  brought  for 
short  delivery,  to  prove  the  amount  de- 
livered by  him  to  the  carrier  to  be  trans- 
ported. Manning  v.  Hoover,  Fed.  Cas. 
Xo.  9044,  Abb.  Adm.  188. 

42.  Value  of  bank  notes. — Harris  v. 
Moody.  17  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  210;  S.  C, 
30   N.   Y.   266,  86  Am.   Dec.   375. 

43.  Money  in  sealed  package — Failure 
of  carrier  to  count. — Fitzgerald  z\  Adams 
Exp.   Co.,  24   Ind.  447,  87  Am.   Dec.  341. 

44.  That  defendant  a  common  carrier. — 
United  States.— Chizens'  Bank  v.  Xantuc- 
ket  Steamboat  Co.,  2  Story  16,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2730;  The  Westminister,  62  C.  C.  A. 
406,    127    Fed.    680. 

Alabama.—South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
71  Ala.  215,  46  Am.  Rep.  309,  16  Am.  & 
Eng.   R.   Cas.  267. 

Cfl/i/or/Hfl.— Ringgold  v.  Haven,  1  Cal. 
108. 

Tr-t-a^.— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Doug- 
las, 2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  28. 

Carrier's  liability  beyond  its  own  line.— 
Where  it  is  sought  to  extend  tlie  liabil- 
ity of  a  carrier  Ijeyond  its  own  line,  the 
burden  is  upon  the  party  seeking  to  es- 
tablish such  liability  to  show  an  express 
contract  by  which  the  company  becomes 
liable,  as  common  carrier,  beyond  its 
own  route;  and  such  contract  must  be 
shown  by  real  and  satisfactory  evidence. 
Taylor  v.  Maine  Cent.  R.  Co.,  87  Me. 
299,  32  Atl.  905,  2  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N. 
S.,  614. 


810 


I.OSS   OR    1X1  cm'    T(i   (".(JOUS. 


§   1056 


Payment  or  Tender  of  Charges. — It  is  not  necessary  to  prove  payment  or 
teiKkr  of  frri^lit  cliari,'cs.  as  where  jfoods  are  delivered  to  a  common  carrier  for 
transportatinu  a  pnimisr  to  pa\    tlie  cliarj^'es  will  be  presumed.^'" 

When  Loss  or  Injury  Occurred. — \\  here  a  shi]jnient  delivered  to  the  car- 
rier in  good  order  is  received  in  had  order,  it  is  presumed  that  it  was  damaged 
while  in  the  carrier's  possession,'**'  whether  such  damage  was  open  or  concealed.'*'^ 
And  where  goods  are  delivered  securely  boxed  to  a  common  carrier  for  carriage, 
and  a  part  only  are  delivered  by  it  to  the  consignee,  the  presumption  is  that  tlie 
loss  occurred  while  the  goofls  were  in  the  carrier's  j)ossession.''** 

Loss  during  Common -Carrier  Possession. — Some  of  the  cases  seem  to 
hold  that  tlic  Iiurdcn  i>  upon  plaiiuilT  i<i  sliow  that  the  loss  of  or  injury  to  freight 
complained  of  occurred  while  the  carrier  was  responsible  for  the  property  as  a 
common  carrier.-*"  Hut  there  is  a  holding  that  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to 
show  that  its  liability  as  common  carrier  had  ceased  before  the  loss  occurred.''" 

Where  Shipper  Travels  in  Charge  of  Shipment. — Ordinarily,  the  burden 
of  j)roof  is  on  the  carrier  to  account  for  frei.^ht  lost  during  transit,  but  in  case 
of  a  si)ecial  contract  under  which  the  shii)per  accomi)anies  the  shipment  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  charge  of  it  en  route,  the  burden  is  upon  the  shij^per  of  prov- 
ing that  a  loss  was  the  result  of  the  carrier's  negligence."'^ 


45.  Payment  of  freight. — Win  no  f. 
Illinois  Cent.   R.  d.,  :il    Iowa  .JHIL 

46.  When  damage  occurred. — Savannah, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  HoflFniavcr,  75  Ga.  410; 
Kelly  V.  Southern  Railway.  8-4  S.  C.  240. 
66   S.    E.    198. 

Where  a  carrier,  instead  of  deliverins:  a 
trunk  at  the  port  as  required  by  its  con- 
tract, without  giving  the  owner  an  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  or  take  charge  of  it 
for  the  purpose  of  entry,  sent  it  to  the 
customhouse,  and.  after  entry  and  re- 
lease, forwarded  it  liy  an  express  com- 
pany to  the  owner's  address,  it  had  the 
burden  of  showing  that  a  loss  therefrom 
did  not  occur  while  it  was  in  its  actual 
custody.  Judgment  (1902)  79  N.  Y.  S. 
1103.  77  -Xpp.  Div.  469,  affirmed.  Fasy 
V.  International  Xav.  Co..  70  N.  E.  1098, 
177  N.  Y.  591. 

47.  Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffmaycr, 
75  Oa.  410. 

48.  Only  portion  of  freight  dehvered. — 
Rice  V.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo. 
App.  27.  See  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mercantile  Claim  Co.,  8  Ga.  App.  17,  68 
S.  E.  492. 

49.  Loss  during  common-carrier  pos- 
session.— Soulli,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Wood,  71 
Ala.  215,  46  Am.  Rep.  309,  16  Am.  &  Hng. 
R.  Cas.  267.  Compare  South,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
T'.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167,  41  Am.  Rep.  749, 
hoi(Hng  that  the  burden  is  upon  the  de- 
fendant to  prove  that  its  liability  had 
terminated  before  the  injury  occurred. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richardson.  53 
Kan.  157,  35  Pac.  1114;  Nave  v.  Pacific 
Exp.  Co..  19  Mo.  App.  563;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  f.  Heath  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  18  S. 
W.  477;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Llano  Live 
Stock  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  33  S.  W.  748; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  t'.  Breeding,  4  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  154.  16  S.  W.1S4;  Cur- 
tis r.  Chicago.  i.tc.,   R.   Co.,   is  Wis.  I'.r.'. 

Burden  of  showing  loss   of  freight   be- 


tween time  of  delivery  to  carrier  and  time 
car  left  on  side  track. — In  Soutli.  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Wood.  71  Ala.  215,  16  Am.  St.  Rep. 
309.  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  267,  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company,  as  a  common 
carrier,  to  recover  for  its  failure  to  de- 
liver corn  received  by  it  for  transporta- 
tion to  a  designated  point  on  its  road, 
at  which  there  was  neither  depot  or 
agent,  it  appeared  that  the  corn  was  re- 
ceived by  the  company  and  transported 
in  good  condition  to  the  place  of  desti- 
nation, and  the  car  in  which  it  wa"s 
shipped,  was  placed  on  a  side  track  by 
the  consignee,  where  it  remained  for  sev- 
eral days,  with  no  one  in  charge  of  it  or 
protecting  it;  and  that  when  the  corn 
was  taken  from  the  car,  there  was  a  de- 
ficiency in  quantity.  It  was  held  that 
the  burden  of  proof  was  on  the  plaintiff 
to  show  that  the  loss  occurred  between 
the  time  when  tlie  corn  was  received  by 
the  company,  and  the  time  when  the  car 
containing  it  was  left  on  the  side  track, 
that  1)eing,  under  the  facts  of  this  case,  a 
delivery,  and  not  on  the  defendant  to 
show  that  the  loss  occurred  after  the 
car  was  placed  on  the  side  track. 

50.  Peoria,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  L'nited  States 
Rolling  Stock  Co..  136  111.  643.  27  X.  E. 
5<,i.  ;.".i   Am.   St.   Rep.  348. 

51.  Where  shipper  travels  in  charge  of 
shipment. — .lUilhiiiui. — .Alabama.  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  Thomas,  89  .Ala.  234,  7  So.  762; 
Central  R.,  etc..  Co.  v.  Smith.  85  Ala. 
47,   4   So.    708. 

.■irhansas. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Weakly,   50   Ark.   397.   8   S.   W.    134. 

Califoniiti. — Ringgold  r.  Haven.  1  Cal. 
108. 

Io7i.'a. — Winne  7\  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
31  Iowa  583;  Winn  z'.  .\merican  Exp. 
Co.,   149   Iowa   259.   128   X.   W.   663. 

Kentucky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Hedger    (Ky.),   9   Bush   645. 

Missouri. — Clark    f.    St.    Louis,    etc.,    R. 


§§  1056-1057 


CARRIERS. 


820 


Upon  What  Line  Goods  Injured. — W  here  the  evidence  fails  to  show  that 
the  goods  were  ever  out  of  the  carrier's  possession,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the 
shipper  to  show  upon  what  line  of  railway  the  goods  were  injured.''- 

§  1057.  Defendant's  Burden  of  Proof  in  General.— Carrier  Must  Prove 
Itself  Not  Responsible. — After  it  has  been  sliown  that  the  goods  were  de- 
livered to  the  carrier  in  good  condition  and  that  it  failed  to  deliver  theiii  or  de- 
livered them  in  a  damaged  condition,  the  presumption  is  that  the  carrier  was  neg- 
ligent and  it  has  the  burden  of  proving  that  the  loss  or  damage  resulted  from 
some  cause  for  which  it  was  not  responsible,-'^  such  as  an  act  of  God  "'-'  or  the 


Co.,  04  Mo.  440;  McBeath  v.  Wabash, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  445. 

Pcuusvlrania. — Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v. 
Raiordon,  119  Pa.  577,  13  Atl.  324,  4  Am. 
St.   Rep.  670. 

Texas. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold, 
16  lex.   Civ.   App.   74,   40   S.   W.    829. 

JViscoiisiii. — Doty  v.  Strong  (Wis.),  1 
Pin.  313. 

Contra. — In  Louisiana  it  is  held  that 
the  carrier  must  show  that  the  injury 
was  occasioned  by  the  fault  of  a  shipper 
or  his  servants.  Roberts  v.  Riley,  15  La. 
Ann.   103,   77   Am.   Dec.   1S3. 

Where  defense  of  special  contract  not 
available. — In  an  action  against  a  buyer 
for  tlie  price  of  l^ananas  sold,  in  which 
defendant  filed  a  cross  action  against 
plaintiff  and  the  carriers,  the  carriers 
alleged  in  defense  that  any  damage  to  the 
fruit  was  caused  by  the  negligence  of 
the  shipper's  agent  who  accornpanied  the 
shipment  under  the  contract  between  the 
shipper  and  the  consignee,  but  no  such 
contract  between  the  carriers  and  the 
shipper  was  alleged.  Held  that,  since  no 
benefit  could  inure  to  the  carriers  from 
the  contract  between  the  shipper  and  con- 
signee, the  burden  was  not  on  the  con- 
signee to  show  that  any  damage  to  the 
fruit  was  not  the  result  of  the  messen- 
ger's negligence.  Kemendo  v.  Fruit  Dis- 
patch Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  131  S.  W.  73. 

52.  Upon  what  line  goods  injured. — 
Yoakum  v.  Dunn,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  524, 
526,    21    S.    W.    411. 

53.  Burden  on  carrier  to  prove  itself 
not  responsible. — United  States. — Argo 
Steamship  Co.  f.  Seago,  42  C.  C.  A.  128, 
101  Fed.  999;  Ceballos  v.  Warren  Adams, 
20  C.  C.  A.  486,  74  Fed.  413;  Choate  v. 
Crowninshield,  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  2,691,  3  Chff. 
184;  Cumming  v.  Barracouta,  40  Fed.  498; 
Hudson  River  Lighterage  Co.  v.  Wheeler 
Condenser,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Fed.  374;  The 
Jefferson,  31  Fed.  498;  Kerr  v.  Norman, 
Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  7,732,  1  Newb.  525;  The 
Martha,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9.14.5,  Olc.  140; 
The  Queen,  78  Fed.  155;  The  Samuel  E. 
Spring,  29  Fed.  397;  The  Staincliffe,  15 
Fed.  350;  Turner  v.  Black  Warrior,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,253,  1  McAll.  181;  United 
States  V.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  15  Fed.  867; 
The  Westminster,  62  C.  C.  A.  406,  127 
Fed.    680;    The    Wildcroft,    126    Fed.    229; 


The  Williams  Taber  (U.  S.),  2  Ben.  329; 
The  Zone,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,  220  22  L. 
Rep.  725,  2  Spr.  19;  Western  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Guiding  Star,  37  Fed.  641. 

Alabama. — Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Lit- 
tle, 71  Ala.  611,  12  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
37;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cowherd,  120 
Ala.  51,  23  So.  793;  Monton  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X. 
S.,  673,  29  So.  602,  128  Ala.  537;  Rich- 
mond, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Trousdale  &  Sons, 
99  Ala.  389,  13  So.  23,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  41; 
Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Parker,  123  Ala. 
683,  27  So.  323;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wilson,  78  Ala.  587,  27  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  41;  South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  66 
Ala.  167,  41  Am.  Rep.  749;  Barron  v.  Mo- 
bile, etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ala.  App.  555,  56  So. 
862;  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rice,  169 
Ala.  265,  52  So.  918,  29  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
1214. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Birdwell,  72  Ark.  502,  82  S.  W.  835;  St. 
Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Coolidge,  73  Ark. 
112,    83    S.    W.    333. 

California. — Agnew  v.  Contra  Costa,  27 
Cal.  426,  87  Am.  Dec.  87;  Jackson  v.  Sac- 
ramento Valley  R.  Co.,  23  Cal.  268;  Wil- 
son z'.  California  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  Cal. 
166,   29    Pac.    861,    17    L.    R.   A.    685. 

Colorado. — Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Stu- 
peck,  50  Colo.   151,  114   Pac.  646. 

Connecticut. — Boies  v.  Hartford,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  37  Conn.  272,  9  Am.  Rep.  347;  Mears 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  75  Conn.  171, 
52  Atl.  610,  56  L.  R.  A.  884,  96  Am.  St. 
Rep.    192. 

Florida. — Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Har- 
ris, 26  Fla.  148,  7  So.  544,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   457,   23   Am.   St.   Rep.   551. 

Georgia. — Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wooten,  87  Ga.  203,  13  S.  E.  509;  Central 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382,  17 
S.  E.  838,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  37;  Cohen  v. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.,  53  Ga.  128;  Columbus, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Kennedy,  78  Ga.  646,  3  S. 
E.  267;  Cooper  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110 
Ga.  659,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S., 
412,  36  S.  E.  240;  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Keener,  93  Ga.  808,  21  S.  E.  287,  44  Am. 
St.  Rep.  197;  Purcell  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,  34  Ga.  315;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
White,    88    Ga.    805,    15    S.    E.    802;    Van 

54.    Act    of    God.— See    ante,    "Act    of 

God,"    §§    990-994. 


821 


LOSS  OR   INJURY   TO  GOODS. 


§  1057 


Winkle   &   Co.  v.   vSouth    Carolina   R.   Co., 
.'{H  Ga.  "^2. 

Civil  Code,  189,j,  §  22(54,  provides  that 
in  cases  of  loss  the  presumption  of  law 
is  against  tlie  carrier.  Southern  R.  Co. 
V.   Montag,   1    Gu.   App.   049,   fi50,   .'57   S.    K. 

y:j:j. 

The  provision  includes  also  injury  or 
damage  to  the  goods.  Central  R.,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Hassclkus,  91  Ga.  382,  17  vS.  E. 
838,  44  Am.  St.   Rep.  37. 

Illinois. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Stettaners, 
01  111.  184,  14  /\m.  Rep.  57;  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Fox,  113  111.  App.  180; 
Burke  v.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  87  111. 
App.  50'>:  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rad- 
hourne,  52  111.  App.  203;  Nonotuck  Silk 
Co.  V.  .-Xdams  Exp.  Co.,  100  111.  App. 
519,  judgment  affirmed  99  X.  E.  893,  250 
111.    00. 

hidiaua. — Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Liveright. 
14  Ind.  App.  518,  41  N.  E.  350,  43  N.  E. 
102;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Racer,  5 
Ind.  App.  209,  31  N.  E.  853;  Toledo,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Tapp,  0  Ind.  App.  304,  33  N.  E. 
402;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell 
(Ind.),  91   X.   E.  735. 

lozi'a. — Angle  v.  Mississippi,  etc.,  R.  Co  , 
18  Iowa  555;  Grieve  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  104  Iowa  059,  74  N.  W.  192;  McCoy 
V.  K.  &  D.  M.  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa  424; 
Mitchell  z:  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  40 
Iowa  214;  St.  Clair  r.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  80  Iowa  304.  45  X.  W.  570;  Tiller  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Iowa),  24  R.  R.  R. 
581,  47  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  581, 
112  X.  W.  031;  Winne  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co..  31  Iowa  583;  Cownie  Glove  Co.  v. 
Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  100  X.  W. 
749,  130  Iowa  327,  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  419,  4 
L.    R.    A.,    X.    S.,    1000. 

Kentucky. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Walker, 
119  Ky.  121,  83  S.  W.  100,  47  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.,  X.  S..  145,  24  R.  R.  R.  145.  67  L. 
R.  A.  412.  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1025;  Ohio,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Tabor.  98  Ky.  503,  32  S.  W.  108, 
36  S.  W.  18,  17  Ky.  L.  Rep.  508,  1411, 
34  L.  R.  A.  685;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Bourne,    15    Ky.    L.    Rep.   445. 

Louisiana. — Chapman  r.  X^ew  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  La.  Ann.  224,  99  Am.  Dec. 
722;  GriefT  v.  Switzer,  11  La.  Ann.  324; 
Lehman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Morgan's,  etc., 
Steamship  Co.,  115  La.  1,  38  So.  873,  18 
R.  R.  R.  559,  41  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X. 
S.,  559;  Price,  etc..  Co.  r.  The  Uriel,  10 
La.  Ann.  413;  Roberts  f.  Riley,  15  La. 
.Ann.  103.  77  .\m.  Dec.  183;  Silverman  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  51  La.  Ann.  1785, 
20  So.  447;  Tardos  v.  Toulon,  14  La.  Ann. 
429,  74  Am.  Dec.  435;  Mahon  7'.  The 
Olive  Branch,  18  La.  Ann.  107;  Kirk  v. 
Folsom,  23  La.  Ann.  584. 

Maine. — Bennett  v.  American  Exp.  Co., 
S3  Me.  230,  22  Atl.  159.  49  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  50.  13  L.  R.  A.  33;  Dow  v.  Port- 
land Steam  Packet  Co.,  84  Me.  490,  24 
Atl.  945;  Little  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad, 
00  Me.  239;  Tarbo.x  z'.  Eastern  Steamboat 
Co.,  50  Me.  339. 


.Massaeltusetls.  —  Alden  v.  Pearson 
(Mass.),  3  Gray  342;  Cass  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Mass.),  14  Allen  44H;  Lewis  v. 
Smitli.    107    Mass.   334. 

.U;V/u^'a;i.— Wallace  i:  Lake  Shore,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    133   Mich.   033.   95    X.   W.   750. 

.Minnesota. — Bpchl  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  Minn.  191,  40  X.  W.  333;  Hinton 
V.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  72  Minn.  339.  75  X. 
W.  373;  Hull  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  41 
.Minn.  510,  43  X.  W.  391,  5  L.  R.  A.  587, 
10  Am.  St.  Rep.  722;  Lindsley  v.  Chicago, 
etc..  R.  Co..  30  Minn.  539,  33  X.  W.  7,  1 
Am.  St.  Rep.  092;  Shriver  v.  Sioux  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  Minn.  500,  31  Am.  Rep. 
353;  Powers  Mercantile  Co.  v.  Wells 
I'argo  &  Co.,  93  Minn.  143,  12  R.  R.  R. 
504,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  X.  S.,  504, 
100  X.  W.  735;  .\mmon  f.  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  120  Minn.  438,  139  X.  W.  819; 
Hrennisen  z:  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  101 
Minn.  120.  Ill  X.  W.  945;  Fockens  v. 
United  States  Exp.  Co..  99  Minn.  404.  109 
X.  W.  834.  Compare  Jones  v.  Minneap- 
olis, etc..  R.  Co..  91  Minn.  229,  97  X.  W. 
893.  103  .\m.  St.  Rep.  507.  See  Whitaker 
v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  115  Minn.  140. 
131  X.  W.  1001.  holding  that  the  burden 
remains  on  plaintiff  throughout  the  trial 
to  show  carrier's  negligence,  and  he  is 
simplj'  aided  by  the  presumption  of  neg- 
ligence arising  from  the  delivery  to  the 
carrier  in  sound  condition  and  receipt  by 
consignee  in  damaged  condition. 

Mississippi. — Burnham  v.  Alabama,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  81  Miss.  40,  32  So.  912;  Chicago, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Abels.  60  Miss.  1017.  21  .\m. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  105;  Gardner  v.  Xew  Or- 
leans, etc..  R.  Co.,  78  Miss.  040,  29  So. 
409;  Southern  E.xp.  Co.  z'.  Seide.  07  Miss. 
009,    7    So.    547. 

Missouri. — Anderson  v.  Atchison,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  93  Mo.  App.  677,  3  R.  R.  R.  42. 
20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  X.  S.,  42,  67  S. 
W.  707;  Hill  z:  Sturgeon,  28  Mo.  323; 
Ketchum  z:  American  Merchants'  L'nion 
Exp.  Co.,  52  Mo.  390;  Kirby  z:  Adams 
Exp.  Co.,  2  Mo.  -App.  369;  McFall  z:  Wa- 
bash R.  Co.,  117  Mo.  App.  477.  94  S.  W. 
570;  Xave  z:  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  19  Mo. 
App.  503;  Read  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
60  Mo.  199;  Rice  v.  Indianapolis,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  27;  Wolf  v.  .American 
Exp.    Co.,   43   Mo.   421,    97   Am.    Dec.   400. 

Xezi'  Hampshire. — Hall  7'.  Chenev.  30  X. 
H.  20;  Shelden  7-.  Robinson,  7  X.'H.  157. 
20  Am.  Dec.  720. 

Xezc  Jcrsev. — Hunt  7'.  Morris.  12  X.  J. 
L.  175,  22  Am.  Dec.  300. 

.\V7C'  York. — Blum  z'.  Monahan.  73  X'.  Y. 
S.  102.  30  Misc.  Rep.  179;  Bowden  7-. 
Fargo.  2  Misc.  Rep.  551.  22  X.  Y.  S.  889; 
Brooks  7'.  Dinsmore.  3  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  587; 
Campe  7'.  Weir.  28  Misc.  Rep.  243.  58  N. 
Y.  S.  10S2;  Canfield  7-.  Baltimore,  etc..  R. 
Co..  93  X.  Y.  532.  10  Am.  cS:  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
152,  45  .^m.  Rep.  20S;  Colt  7-.  McMechen 
(X.  Y.).  6  Johns.  160.  5  Am.  Dec.  200; 
Fairfax  z:  Xew  York.  etc..  R.  Co..  67  X. 
Y.  11;  Heyl  7'.   Inman  Steamship  Co.   (X. 


§  1057 


CARRIERS. 


822 


Y.),  14  Hun  504:  Hoffbert  z:  Bumford, 
88' N.  Y.  S.  940;  Hutkoflf  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co..  29  Misc.  Rep.  770,  01  N.  Y.  S. 
254;  Merritt  v.  Earle.  31  Barb.  38;  Moore 
V.  Evans  (N.  Y.),  14  Barb.  524;  Morris 
V.  Wier,  20  Misc.  Rep.  586,  46  N.  Y.  S. 
413:  Park  v.  Preston,  108  N.  Y.  434,  15 
N.  E.  705;  Schmidt  v.  Blood  (N.  Y.),  9 
Wend.  268.  24  Am.  Dec.  143;  Sejalon  v. 
Woolverton.  31  Misc.  Rep.  752,  64  N. 
Y.  S.  48;  Steers  v.  Liverpool,  etc..  Steam- 
ship Co.,  57  N.  Y.  1,  15  Am.  Rep.  453; 
Strong  V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  91  App. 
Div.  442,  86  N.  Y.  S.  911;  Trimble  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  App.  Div.  403, 
57  N.  Y.  S.  437;  Wheeler  v.  Oceanic 
Steam  Nav.  Co.,  125  N.  Y.  155,  26  N.  E. 
248,  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  729,  3  Silvernail  Ct. 
App.   276. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Everett  v.  Norfolk, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  138  N.  C.  68,  50  S.  E.  557,  1 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  985,  18  R.  R.  R.  551,  41 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  551:  Hinkle 
V.  Southern  R.  Co..  126  N.  C.  932,  36  S. 
E.  348,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  685;  Mitchell  v. 
Carolina  Cent.  R.  Co.,  124  N.  C.  236,  32 
S.  E.  671,  44  L.  R.  A.  515;  Parker  v. 
Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  133  N.  C.  335,  45 
S.    E.    658,    63    L.    R.    A.    827. 

0/„-o.— Bowman  v.  Hilton,  11  O.  303; 
Union  Mut.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Indianapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  1  Disn.  480,  12  O.  Dec.  745;  United 
States  Exp.  Co.  v.  Bachman,  2  Cin.  R. 
251,  13  O.  Dec.  885,  affirmed  in  28  O. 
St.  144;  Graham  &  Co.  v.  Davis  &  Co.,  4 
O.  St.  362;  Davidson  v.  '  Graham,  2 
O.  St.  131;  Welsh  v.  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  10  O.  St.  65,  75  Am.  Dec.  490;  Penn- 
sylvania Co.  v.  Yoder,  1  O.  C.  C,  N. 
S.,  2S3,  15-25  O.  C.  D.  32:  Fatman  &  Co. 
V.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Disn.  248, 
13   O.   Dec.   152. 

Oklahoma. — Patterson  v.  Missouri,  etc., 
R.    Co.,   24   Okla.   747,    104    Pac.   31. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Holmes  (Pa.),  9  Atl.  166;  American  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Sands,  55  Pa.  140;  Buck  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  150  Pa.  170,  24  Atl.  678, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  800;  Bell  v.  Reed  (Pa.), 
4  Bin.  127,  5  Am.  Dec.  398;  Empire 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta  Oil  Refin.,  etc., 
Co.,  63  Pa.  14,  3  Am.  Rep.  515;  Grogan 
V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  114  Pa.  523,  7  Atl. 
134,  60  Am.  Rep.  360;  Hays  v.  Kennedy, 
3  Grant  351;  Menner  v.  Delaware,  etc., 
Canal  Co.,  7  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  135;  New 
York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Eby  (Pa.),  12 
Atl.  482;  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Miller, 
87  Pa.  577,  13  Atl.  324,  4  Am.  St.  Rep. 
670;  Phoenix  Pot- Works  v.  Pittsburgh, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  139  Pa.  284,  20  Atl.  1058; 
Haugh,  etc.,  Transfer  Co.,  72  Atl.  516,  223 
Pa.  148,  21  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  188. 

South  Carolina. — Ewart  v.  Street  (S. 
C),  2  Bailey  421;  Johnstone  v.  Richmond, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  S.  C.  55,  17  S.  E.  512; 
McCall  V.  Brock  (S.  C),  5  Strob.  119; 
Smyrl  v.  Niolon  (S.  C),  2  Bailey  421,  23 
Am.  Dec.  146;  Wallingford  v.  Columbia, 
etc.,   R.    Co.,   26   S.    C.   258,   2   S.    E.    19; 


Wardlow  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.  (S. 
C),  11  Rich.  L.  337;  McCord  v.  Atlan- 
tic, etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  S.  E.  477,  76  S.  C. 
469. 

Tennessee. — Deming  v.  Merchants'  Cot- 
ton Press,  etc.,  Co.,  90  Tenn.  306,  17  S. 
W.  89,  13  L.  R.  A.  518;  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Wynn,  88  Tenn.  320,  14  S.  W. 
311;  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Bloch,  86  Tenn.  392,  6  S.  W.  881,  6  Am. 
St.  Rep.  847;  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stone,  112  Tenn.  348,  79  S.  W.  1031,  105 
Am.  St.  Rep.  955,  18  R.  R.  R.  88,  41 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  88;  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  V.  Naive,  112  Tenn.  239,  79 
S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R.  A.  443,  13  R.  R.  R. 
126,  35  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  126; 
Turney  v.  Wilson,  15  Tenn.  (7  Yerg.)  340, 
27  Am.  Dec.  515;  Gordon  v.  Buchanan, 
13  Tenn.  (5  Yerg.)  72;  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Womack,  48  Tenn.  (1  Heisk.) 
256,  267;  Craig  v.  Childress,  7  Tenn. 
(Peck.)  270,  14  Am.  Dec.  751;  Railroad 
V.  Mitchell,  58  Tenn.   (11  Heisk.)   400. 

Texas. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bryan 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  37  S.  W.  234;  Bibb  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
508,  84  S.  W.  663;  Fire  Ass'n  v.  Leob, 
25  Tex.  Civ.  App.  24,  59  S.  W.  617;  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Shanley,  36  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  291,  81  S.  W.  1014;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Browne,  27  Tex.  Civ.  App.  437, 
66  S.  W.  341:  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Scott,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  76,  26  S.  W.  239; 
Ryan  v.  M.,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  65  Tex.  13, 
23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  703;  Galves- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ball,  80  Tex.  602,  16 
S.  W.  441;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Zimmer- 
man &  Co.,  81  Tex.  605,  17  S.  W.  239; 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mclntyre,  36 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  399,  82  S.  W.  346;  Gulf, 
etc.,   R.   Co.  V.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  270,  275, 

15  S.  W.  568,  18  S.  W.  948;  Fentiman  v. 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98  S.  W.  939,  44 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  455;  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  T.  Home,  69  Tex.  643,  9  S.  W.  440; 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  China  Mfg.  Co , 
79  Tex.  26,  14  S.  W.  785. 

Vermont. — Day  Catlin   &  Co.  v.   Ridley, 

16  Vt.  48,  42  Am.  Dec.  489;  Mann  v. 
Bichard,   40   Vt.   326,   94  Am.   Dec.  398. 

Virginia. — Murphy,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Staton, 

17  Va.  (3  Munf.)  239;  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Reeves,  97  Va.  284,  33  S.  E.  606. 

ll'est  J'^irginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293;  Bosley  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  54  W.  Va.  563, 
10  R.  R.  R.  458,  33  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.    S.,    458,    46    S.    E.    613. 

Wisconsin. — Black  v.  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co.,  55  Wis.  319,  13  N.  W.  244,  42  Am. 
Rep.  713;  Browning  v.  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co.,  78  Wis.  391,  47  N.  W.  428,  10  L.  R. 
A.  415,  23  Am.  St.  Rep.  414;  Lamb  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  101  Wis.  138,  76  N. 
W.  1123;  Kirst  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
46  Wis.  489,  1  N.  W.  89;  Uber  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  151  Wis.  431,  138  N. 
W  57;  Struebing  Co.  v.  Merchants'  Des- 


823 


I^OSS  OR  INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§  1057 


patch  Transp.  Co.,  142  Wis.  (J57,  120 
\.   \V.   21. 

Rationale  of  rule. — Where  goods  are 
dclivL-red  into  the  possession  of  a  com- 
mon carrier,  it  must  show  that  it  used 
due  care  for  their  preservation,  for  tlie 
shipper  is  not  supposed  to  be  present 
during  the  transportation,  and  the  goods 
are  in  the  custody  of  the  carrier  and  its 
agents.  Tardos  v.  Toulon,  14  La.  Ann. 
429,   74   Am.   Dec.   435. 

It  is  safest  to  presume  that  a  carrier 
is  negligent  who  refuses  to  show  to  the 
contrary,  when,  if  such  is  the  fact,  he 
has  but  to  call  his  own  agents  to  the  wit- 
ness stand.  His  employees  are  with  the 
goods  during  the  whole  time  tiiey  are 
under  his  ciiargc,  by  day  and  by  night. 
They  are  with  them  at  all  places,  whether 
at  depots  or  when  the  train  is  at  its 
greatest  speed,  or  the  ship  is  in  mid- 
ocean.  The  owner  is  presumptively  ab- 
sent. Ryan  &  Co.  v.  M.,  K.  &  T.  R. 
Co.,  65  Tex.  13,  20.  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    TO.".. 

If  goods  were  properly  prepared  for 
shipment  and  loaded  under  the  carrier's 
inspection,  and  accepted  by  it  for  ship- 
ment, il  is  presumed  that  any  damage  to 
the  goods  shown  wiien  uidoaded  at  des- 
tination would  not  have  occurred  if  they 
were  transported  and  stored  with  due 
care.  Carleton  v.  Union  Transfer,  etc., 
Co.,  121  N.  Y.  S.  997,  137  App.  Div.  225, 
affirming  117  N.  Y.  S.  1021,  164  Misc. 
Rep.  51. 

Freight  not  accounted  for. — Where  the 
carrier  not  only  fails  to  deliver  freight, 
but  also  fails  or  refuses  to  give  an  ac- 
count as  to  the  manner  of  its  loss,  it 
must  be  presumed  that  such  cause  was 
the  carrier's  negligence.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Little,  71  Ala.  611,  12  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  37;  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
W'alker,  119  Ky.  121,  24  R.  R.  R.  145, 
47  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.,  N.  S.,  145,  83  S. 
W.  106,  26  Ky.  L-  Rep.  1025,  67  L.  R. 
A.  412;  George  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
57  Mo.  App.  358;  Shelden  v.  Robinson, 
7  N.  H.  157,  26  Am.  Dec.  736;  Canfield 
V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  532, 
16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  152,  45  Am.  Rep. 
268;  Black  v.  Goodrich  Transp.  Co.,  55 
Wis.  :;!'».   i:i   X.   W'.  244,  42  Am.   Rep.  713. 

Goods  damaged  by  wet. — A  common 
carrier  has  the  burden  of  proving  that 
damage  to  goods  in  its  custody  by  wet 
was  not  due  to  its  negligence.  But  a 
jury  need  not  infer  negligence  on  the 
part  of  a  common  carrier  from  the  mere 
fact  that  goods  are  wet  while  in  its  pos- 
session, but  such  fact  may  be  considered 
in  connection  with  the  other  evidence  in 
the  case.  Mears  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  75  Conn.  171,  52  Atl.  610,  56  L.  R.  A. 
884,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  192.  See  The  Queen, 
78    Fed.     155. 

Steamboat  run  into  river  bank. — Neg- 
ligence must  l)e  presumed  where  it  is 
shown    tiiat    the    steamboat    carrj'ing    the 


freight,  when  proceeding  quietly  up  the 
river,  was  run  into  the  bank  l>y  the  pilot 
so  hard  as  to  knock  a  hole  into  the  bot- 
tom of  the  boat  big  enough  to  sink  it, 
and  no  reason  was  shown  for  the  acci- 
dent. Louisville,  etc.,  Packet  Co.  v. 
Smith,  22   Ky.   L.   Rep.   1323,  60  S.  W.  524. 

Breakage. — Proof  of  breakage  of  goods 
in  the  hands  of  the  common  carrier 
makes  a  prima  facie  case  of  negligence 
against  the  carrier,  and  the  burden  of 
proof  is  thrown  on  it  to  show  due  care 
and  diligence.  Ketchum  v.  American 
Merchants'  Union  Exp.  Co.,  52  Mo.  390. 
See  Heck  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  51  Mo, 
.App.  532  (machine  delivered  with  legs 
broken);  Bowden  v.  Fargo,  2  Misc.  Rep. 
551,  22  N.  Y.  S.  889  (safely  packed  piano 
broken);  Campe  v.  Weir,  28  Misc.  Rep. 
243.  58  N.  Y.  S.  1082  (both  violin  and 
crate  broken);  Hutkoff  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co..  29  Misc.  Rep.  770,  61  N.  Y.  S. 
254,  affirmed  in  30  Misc.  Rep.  802,  63  X. 
Y.  S.  198  (case  of  plate  glass  shattered — 
other  cases  in  good  condition);  Hudson 
River  Lighterage  Co.  v.  Wheeler  Con- 
denser, etc.,  Co.,  93  Fed.  :;74  (casting 
found    cracked). 

Goods  stolen  at  destination. — Where 
goods  are  stolen,  while  in  the  possession 
of  a  carrier  after  arriving  at  their  desti- 
nation, in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  it  is  presumed  that  the  loss 
resulted  from  the  carrier's  negligence. 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Keener,  93  Ga. 
SOS,   21    S.    v..   2S7,   44    .\ni.   St.    Rep.    197. 

Failure  to  account  for  portion  of  freight 
saved  from  freshet. —  In  Charlotte,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Wooten,  87  Ga.  203,  13  S.  E.  509, 
it  is  held  that  though  goods  saved  by  a 
common  carrier  from  the  perils  of  a 
freshet  were  damaged  by  passing  through 
the  freshet,  yet  if  some  saved  are  unac- 
counted for,  and  it  is  not  shown  that 
the  freshet  caused  their  loss,  or  what 
their  condition  was  when  they  disap- 
peared, a  recovery  for  their  value  may 
be  had  against  the  carrier  without  deduct- 
ing anything  for  conjectural  damage 
which  they  maj-  have  sustained  by  reason 
of  tile   freshet   before   their   loss  occurred. 

Goods  carried  at  "owner's  risk." — 
Wlien  loss  or  damage  to  goods  occurs 
while  they  are  in  the  possession  of  the 
carrier,  though  carried  at  "owner's  risk." 
the  carrier  must  make  at  least  a  prima 
facie  showing  that  it  was  not  caused  by 
its  negligence.  South,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Wil- 
son, 7S  .Ma.  5S7,  27  Am.  &  F.ng.  R.  Cas.  41. 

Accidents  which  usually  result  from 
negligence. — -When  a  thing  is  shown  to 
liave  l>een  under  the  management  of  the 
defendant  common  carrier  or  its  servant, 
and  the  accident  in  which  the  loss  or  in- 
jury to  freight  occurred  is  such  as  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  things  does  not  hap- 
pen if  those  who  have  the  management 
use  proper  care,  it  affords,  reasonable 
evidence,  in  the  absence  of  explanation, 
that  such  accident  was  due  to  negligence 


CARRIERS. 


824 


§  1057 

public  enemy,^^  the  fault  of  the  owuer,'"^  iuhereut  iufiruiities  iu  the  goods, ^'^  act 
or  mandate  of  public  authority,'"'^  or  to  some  cause  against  which  the  carrier  had 
relieved  itself  from  liability  by  special  contract/»'^  And  it  is  held  that  this  rule 
applies  to  perishable  goods,^'^  and  to  carriers  using  the  means  of  transportation 
of  others.^^  The  fact  that  an  article  was  not  properly  packed  or  loaded  when 
delivered  to  the  carrier  does  not  exempt  it  from  making  proof  that  a  loss  alleged 
w^as  not  attributable  to  its  negligence.'-- 

The  Carmack  Amendment  to  the  Interstate  Commerce  Act  re-estab- 
lished the  common-law  rule  that,  when  freight  is  delivered  to  a  carrier  in  good 
condition  and  reaches  its  destination  in  bad  condition,  the  presumption  of  negli- 
gence arises  throwing  the  burden  on  the  carrier  of  exonerating  itself  from  lia- 


for  which  the  carrier  is  responsible.  Rm- 
toul  V.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 
Blatchf.   439,   17   Fed.   905. 

Occurrence  of  accident  during  perform- 
ance of  act  not  ordinarily  cause  of  injury. 
— Where  plaintiff  showed  that  his  goods 
were  injured  while  in  the  possession  of 
defendant  railroad  company  as  bailee  for 
hire,  and  that  defendant,  when  applied  to 
by  him.  gave  no  account  of  the  injury 
except  merely  that  it  occurred  while  de- 
fendant's agents  were  performing  an  act 
which,  when  performed  with  due_  care, 
does  not  ordinarily  cause  such  an  injury, 
the  jury  were  warranted  in  inferring  neg- 
ligence for  which  defendant  was  respon- 
sible. Kirst  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
46  Wis.  489,  1  N.  W.  89.  See  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Zimmerman  &  Co.,  81  Tex. 
605,    608,    17    S.   W.    239. 

Failure  to  find  box  delivered  to  car- 
rier—No evidence  introduced  by  carrier. 
—In  Morley  v.  Eastern  Exp.  Co.,  IIG 
Mass.  97,  it  appeared  that  A.  delivered  a 
box  containing  his  property  to  a  common 
carrier  at  one  town  to  be  carried  to  an- 
other town;  that  the  box  was  directed  to 
B.  at  the  later  town;  that  A.  had  made 
efforts  to  find  the  box,  but  had  not  been 
able  to  do  so;  that  he  had  made  inquiries 
at  both  towns  at  the  offices  of  the  car- 
rier; that  he  had  not  seen  the  box  since 
he  sent  it;  and  that  he  had  inquired  of 
B.  about  the  box.  It  was  held  that  this 
was  not  sufficient  evidence  ,to  maintain 
an  action  by  A.  against  the  carrier  for 
the  value  of  the  box  and  its  contents,  al- 
though the  carrier  put  in  no  evidence. 

Presumption  of  negligence  not  over- 
come.—Where  holly  in  shipment  was  in- 
jured by  freezing,  the  presumption  of 
negligence  of  a  carrier  was  not  overcome 
by  evidence  that  defendants  accepted  the 
car  as  loaded  by  plaintiff  and  transported 
it  without  delay  to  its  destination.  Press- 
ley  Co.  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  (Minn.), 
136-  N.  W.  11. 

Statutory  presumption  strengthened.— 
In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company 
for  damages  to  stock  carried  by  it,  the 
defendant's  evidence  merely  consisted  of 
a  showing,  from  the  appearance  of  the  car 
in  which  the  stock  had  been  carried,  that 
the  train  had  not  been  derailed.     No  em- 


ployee in  charge  of  the  train  was  pro- 
duced to  account  for  the  injury.  Held, 
that  the  statutory  presumption  of  the 
company's  negligence,  under  Code,  §  3033 
was  strengthened  by  the  presumption  of 
fact  arising  from  this  failure  to  produce 
material  witnesses.  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   V.    Kennedy,   78   Ga.   G46,   3   vS.    E.   267. 

55.  Act  of  public  enemy. — See  ante, 
"Acts  of  Public   Enemy,"   §§  995-997. 

56.  Fault  of  owner. — See  ante,  "Fault  of 
Shipper  or   Owner,"   §§   998-1002. 

57.  Infirmities  in  goods. — See  ante,  "In- 
herent  Infirmities  of  Goods,"  §  1003. 

58.  Act  of  public  authority. — See  ante. 
"Act  or  Mandate  of  Public  Authority," 
§   1004. 

59.  Contract  relieving  from  liability. — 
See  post,  "Limitation  of  Liability,"  chap- 
ter 14. 

It  is  incumbent  on  a  carrier  having  dif- 
ferent contracts,  by  one  of  which  it  in- 
sures the  goods,  and  by  the  other  the 
shipper  assumes  all  risk,  to  show  the  con- 
tract actually  made.  Mcintosh  v.  Ore- 
gon R.,  etc.,  Co.,  105  Pac.  66,  17  Idaho 
100. 

60.  Perishable  Goods. — Georgia. —Cen- 
tral R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382, 
17   S.   E.   838,  44  Am.   St.   Rep.   37. 

Minnesota. — Fockens  v.  United  States 
Exp.  Co.,  99  Minn.  404,  109  N.  W.  834; 
Brennisen  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  101 
Minn.   120,   111   N.   W.   945. 

South  Carolina. — Trowbridge  v.  Charles- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  S.  C.  183,  73  S.   E.  78. 

Evidence  that  vegetables  when  loaded 
were  in  good  condition,  that  their  char- 
acter was  such  that  if  properly  handled 
they  would  have  reached  destination 
without  damage,  and  that  they  in  fact  ar- 
rived in  a  damaged  condition,  is  presump- 
tive evidence  of  negligence,  which  was 
not  rebutted  by  proof  of  proper  icing, 
etc.  Ammon  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  139 
N.    W.    819,    120    Minn.    438. 

61.  Carrier  using  means  of  carriage  of 
others.— Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rad- 
l)Ourne,   52   111.   App.   203. 

62.  Article  improperly  packed. — Union 
Exp  Co.  V.  Graham,  26  O.  St.  595;  Mc- 
Carthy V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ala. 
193,  14  So.  370,  48  Am.   St.   Rep.  29. 


825 


LOSS  OK  INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§  1057 


bility/'''      The   amendment   does   not   in\alidate  a   state   law   fixing  the   onus  of 
proof. ''"• 

Act  of  God  or  Public  Enemy. — \\  here  the  carrier  claims  that  the  loss  or 
injury  was  the  result  ui  an  act  of  (^(jd  or  the  public  enemy,  the  burden  rests 
upon  it  of  proving  such  defense.'^'"  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that  after  the  carrier 
has  shown  in  defense  that  the  cause  of  the  loss  of  or  injury  to  the  freight  is  one 
covered  by  a  common-law  exemption,  the  plaintiff  must  introduce  evidence  to 
prove  that  the  proximate  or  contributing  cause  of  the  daiuage  sustained  was  the 
carrier's  negligence.''"  (Jther  cases  hold  that  the  burden  rests  upon  the  carrier 
of  proving  not  only  that  the  cause  so  set  up  as  a  defense  was  the  proximate  one, 
but  that  it  was  guilty  of  no  negligence,  of  commission  or  omission,  with  respect 
to  protecting  the  freight.''" 


63.  Carmack  amendment. — Act  June  29, 

]90(i,  c.  a. V.I  I,  S  r,  :;i  Stat.  593  (U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  Supp.  1911,  p.  1307),  amending 
Act  Feb.  4.  1SH7,  c.  104,  §  20,  24  Stat.  38ti 
(U.  S.  Comp.  St.  1901,  p.  3169);  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Scott  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  156 
S.  W.  294. 

64.  National  Rice  Mill.  Co.  v.  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  R.  Co..  132  La.  ()15,  61  So.  708. 

65.  Act  of  God  or  public  enemy. — 
United  States. — Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Reeves  (U.  S.),  10  Wall.  176,  19  L.  Ed. 
909;  The  Majestic,  17  S.  Ct.  597,  166  U. 
S.  375,  41  L.  Ed.  1039.  reversing  60  Fed. 
624,  9  C.  C.  A.  161,  23  L.  R.  A.  740,  modi- 
fying  56    Fed.    244. 

Califoniia. — Jackson  v.  Sacramento  Val- 
ley  R.    Co.,   23    Cal.   268. 

Georgia. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hassel- 
kus,  91  Ga.  382,  17  S.  E.  838,  44  Am.  St. 
Rep.  317;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White, 
88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802;  Central,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Hall,  124  Ga.  322,  52  S.  E.  679,  4 
L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  898,  110  Am.  St.  Rep. 
170;  Van  Winkle  &  Co.  v.  South  Carolina 
R.  Co.,  38  Ga.  32;  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy  Co.,  135  Ga.  113,  68 
S.  E.  1039;  Wallace  v.  Sanders,  42  Ga. 
486.     See  Civil  Code,  §  2265. 

Louisiana. — Lehman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mor- 
gan's, etc..  Steamship  Co.,  115  La.  1,  38 
So.  873,  18  R.  R.  R.  559,  41  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas..  N.  S.,  559. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   89   Mo.    340.    1   S.   W.   327. 

OA'/(7/io»»rt.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Logan,  etc.,  Co.,  105  Pac.  343,  23  Okla. 
707,    29    L.    R.   A.,    N.    S.,   663. 

Pennsylvania. — Hays  v.  Kennedy,  41  Pa. 
378,  80  Am.  Dec.  627;  Leonard  v.  Hen- 
drickson,  18  Pa.  40,  55  Am.  Dec.  587. 

South  Carolina. — Ferguson  v.  Southern 
Railway.  91   S.   C.  61,  74   S.   E.  129. 

Texas.— Ryan  &  Co.  z^.  M.,  K.  &  T.  R. 
Co.,  65  Tex.  13,  23  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
703. 

J'irginia. — Murphy,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Station, 
17    Va.    (3    Munf.)    239. 

Jl'est  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z\   Morehcad,  5  W.  Va.  293. 

66.  Burden  of  proving  carrier's  negli- 
gence proximate  cause.  —United  States. — 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reeves  (U.  S.), 
10  Wall.   176.  19  L.  Ed.  909. 


Alabama. — See  Western  R.  Co.  z:  Har- 
well,  91   Ala.   340,   8   So.   649. 

lo-wa. — Mitchell  z:  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  46   Iowa  214. 

Louisiana. — Kirk  v.  P'olsom,  23  La.  Ann. 
584. 

Minnesota. — Jones  v.  Minneapolis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  91  Minn.  229,  97  N.  W.  893,  103 
Am.    St.    Rep.   507. 

Missouri. — Davis  z:  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  89  Mo.  340.   1  S.  W.  327. 

Xezo  York. — Lambert  z:  Benner,  31  N. 
Y.  Super.  Ct.  665.  See  Russell  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co.,  50  X.  Y. 
121. 

Oklahoma. — Armstrong,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.,  20  Okla.  352,  109  Pac. 
216.  29  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  671. 

Texas.— M.  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Barnes  &  Co.. 
2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  575. 

67.  California. — Jackson  v.  Sacremento 
Valley    R.    Co.,    23    Cal.    268. 

Georgia. — Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hall. 
124  Ga.  322,  52  S.  E.  679,  4  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  898,  110  Am.  St.  Rep.  170;  Central  R.. 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Hasselkus,  91  Ga.  382,  17  S. 
E.  838,  44  Am.  St.  Rep.  37;  Savannah,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Commercial  Guano  Co.,  103  Ga. 
590,  30  S.  E.  555;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  White.  88  Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802;  Van 
Winkle  &  Co.  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 
38  Ga.  32;  Wallace  v.  Sanders,  50  Ga.  134. 

Civil  Code,  §  2265,  provides  that  in  or- 
der for  a  carrier  to  avail  itself  of  the  act 
of  God  as  an  excuse,  it  must  establish 
not  only  that  the  act  of  God  or  excepted 
fact  ultimately  occasioned  the  loss,  but 
that  his  own  negligence  did  not  con- 
tribute thereto.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 
Jacobs'  Pharmacy  Co.,  135  Ga.  113.  68 
"S.    E.    1039. 

Indiana. — See  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Mitclicll   (Ind.),  91   N.   E.  735. 

Louisiana. — So  provided  by  Rev.  Civ. 
Code,  art.  2754.  Jean  Webre  c'.  Kendall, 
etc.,  Co.,  12  La.  Ann.  446;  National  Rice 
Mill.  Co.  r.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
132  La.  615,  61  So.  708. 

Pcnns\lvania. — Hays  v.  Kennedy,  41 
Pa.  378",  SO  Am.  Dec.  627;  Leonard  :-. 
Hcndrickson,  18  Pa.  40.  55  .\m.  Dec.  5ST. 

South  Carolina. — Ferguson  v.  South- 
ern Railwav,  91  S.  C.  61,  74  S.  E.  129. 

Texas.— R\an  &  Co.  z:   M.,  K.   &  T.   R. 


1057 


CARRIERS. 


826 


Contributory  Negligence  of  Shipper.— A  defendant  earrier  has  the  hurden 
of  estabh?hing  that  the  aheged  contributory  negUgence  of  the  shipper,  in  loading 
or  marking,  or  otherwise  affecting  the  freight,  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the 
damage  sued  for/'-^  though  the  shipper  accompanied  the  goods."'-^  It  is  only  when 
the  lols  is  shown  to  have  originated  from  an  act  of  the  shipper,  and  he  seeks  to 
hold  the  carrier  on  the  ground  of  its  subsequent  negligence  in  not  avoiding  or 
lessening  the  damage,  that  he  has  the  burden  of  proof/"' 

Inherent  Infirmities  of  Goods. — W  here  a  common  carrier,  sued  for  loss  or 
damage  to  goods,  defends  on  the  ground  that  the  loss  or  damage  accrued  through 
an  inherent  vice  or  natural  deterioration  of  the  goods,  the  burden  of  establishing 
such  defense  is  upon  defendant.' ^ 

Where  a  carrier  relies  upon  a  special  custom  to  relieve  it  from  liabil- 


Co.,   65   Tex.   13.   23   Am.   &   Eng.   R.   Cas. 
703.. 

JVcst  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc,  R.  Co. 
v.   Morehead.   5   W.   Va.  293. 

After  it  is  shown  by  dates  of  shipment 
that  the  goods  had  time  to  arrive  and  be 
delivered  to  the  consignee  before  a  flood 
occurred  which  destroyed  them,  the  bur- 
den of  showing  what  part  of  the  goods, 
if  any.  did  not  arrive  within  that  time, 
is  upon  the  carrier.  And  then  the  burden 
is  on  the  consignee  to  show  the  damage 
done  to  those  which  did  arrive,  and  the 
amount  thereof,  in  order  to  recover  on 
the  ground  of  negligence  in  not  giving 
notice  of  arrival,  or  in  not  delivering  ap- 
plication. Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'. 
White.   S   Ga.   80.5.    15   S.   E.   802. 

Injury  occasioned  by  natural  dangers 
incident  to  navigation. — It  is  not  suffi- 
cient for  the  carrier  to  render  it  probable 
that  the  injury  to  freight  was  occasioned 
by  one  of  the  natural  dangers  incident 
to  the  navigation.  It  is  incumbent  upon 
him  to  show  that  he  has  used  diligence 
and  proper  skill  to  avoid  tlije  accident, 
and  that  it  was  unavoidable.  Jean  Webre 
V.    Kendall,    etc..    Co..    12    La.    Ann._  446. 

Possibility  of  loss  notwithstanding  ut- 
most endeavors  of  crew  and  absence  of 
negligence. — In  the  case  of  loss  of  freight 
in  transit,  the  onus  probandi  lies  on  the 
carrier,  to  exempt  him  also  from  the 
liability,  and  it  is  not  enough  for  him  to 
prove,  where  the  goods  are  carried  by 
water,  that  the  navigation  is  attended 
with  so  muchj  danger  that  a  loss  may 
happen  notwithstanding  the  utmost  en- 
deavors of  the  watchman  and  crew  to 
prevent  it  and  that  the  person  conduct- 
ing the  boat  possesses  competent  skill, 
has  used  due  diligence,  and  provided 
hands  of  sufficient  strength  and  experi- 
ence to  assist  him.  Murphy,  etc.,  Co. 
V.   Staton,   17   Va.    (3   Munf.)    239. 

Act  of  public  enemy. — In  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company  for  the  loss 
of  goods,  where  there  was  evidence  tend- 
ing to  show  that  they  were  taken  from 
the  car  by  the  Confederate  army,  the 
burden  was  on  the  company  to  show 
that  they  exercised  due  care  to  save  the 
goods  after  they  were  thrown  out  of  the 
car    or    the     existence    of     such     circum- 


stances  as   prevented   its   exercise.      Wal- 
lace V.  Sanders,  42  Ga.  486. 

68.  Contributory  negligence  of  shipper. 
— .Uabaiiui. — See  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Rice.  169  Ala.  265,  52  So.  918.  29  L.  R. 
A.,    N.    S.,    1214. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc/,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pape,   100  Ark.   269,   140   S.   W.  265. 

Georgia. — The  carrier  must  negative 
contributory  negligence  on  its  own  part. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jacobs'  Pharmacy 
Co.,  135  Ga.  113,  68  S.  E.  1039. 

Ohio. — Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r 
Gibson,  8  O.  C.  C,  N.  S.,  345.  18-28  0 
C.  D.  538.  See  Union  Exp.  Co.  v.  Gra- 
ham. 26  O.  St.  595. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Menner  v.  Delaware, 
etc.,   Canal  Co.,  7   Pa.  Super.   Ct.  135. 

Texas. — Belcher  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  92  Tex.  593.  50  S.  W.  559;  Kemendo 
V.  Fruit  Dispatch  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
131  S.  W.  73.  See  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Capper,  38  Tex.  Civ.  App.  61,  84  S.  W. 
694. 

Freight  carried  on  deck — Shipper's 
consent. — The  ship-owner  has  the  bur- 
den of  proving  that  the  shipper  Icon- 
sented  that  his  property  might  be  carried 
on  deck.  So  held  in  The  Peytona,  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   11.058.  2   Curt.   21. 

Possibility  of  plaintiff  preventing  dam- 
age.— The  Inirden  of  proof  is  upon  a  de- 
fendant carrier  to  show  that  any  part  of 
the  damages  occasioned  to  plaintiff  by 
defendant's  negligence  with  respect  to 
the  freight  could  have  been  prevented  by 
plaintiff,  and  what  part,  if  any.  Belcher 
f.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Tex.  593,  50 
S.   W.   559. 

69.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pape,  100 
Ark.   269,    140    S.   W.   265. 

70.  St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  z'.  Pape.  100 
Ark.    269.    140    S.    W.    265. 

71.  Inherent  infirmities  of  goods. — 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Bailey,  7  Ga.  App. 
331,    66    S.    E.    960. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  de- 
livering a  barrel  of  cider  with  the  head 
burst,  leaving  only  a  small  quantity  of 
cider  in  the  barrel,  where  the  only  de- 
fense relied  on  was  that  the  cider  had 
fermented,  the  burden  of  proving  the  de- 
fense is  on  the  carrier.  Green  v.  Indian- 
apolis, etc.,   R.  Co.,  56  Mo.  550. 


827  LOSS  OR  INJURY  TO  GOODS.  §  1057 

ity   for  loss  of  goods  to  which   it  is  otherwise  subject,  the  burden  of  proof  is 
upon  it  to  establish  such  custom." - 

Burden  as  to  Means  of  Transportation. — If  freight  be  lost  or  injured  in 
an  accident  hap]jening  U)  or  by  reason  of  that  which  a  common  carrier  has  pro- 
vided for  the  transportation,  the  law  presumes  the  accident  to  be  (hie  to  the  want 
of  proper  care  and  jnits  upon  the  carrier  the  burden  of  reheving  itself  from  that 
presumption."''  W  here  grain  shijjped  on  defendant's  cars  is  found  on  delivery 
to  be  damaged  by  water,  the  presumption  that  the  cars  were  in  good  order,  raised 
by  evidence  that  the  cars  of  defendant  were  universally  inspected,  as  provided 
by  the  rules  of  the  company,  and  would  have  been  condemned  if  in  bad  order,  is 
not  conclusive,  but  the  question  of  their  condition  is  for  the  jury."-*  Loss  of  the 
door  to  a  car  containing  freight,  unexplained,  raises  a  presumption  of  negligence 
on  the  jiart  of  the  carrier."'' 

Shipper's  Knowledge  of  Defects  in  Vehicles. — Where  the  owner  of  {prop- 
erty to  be  transported  makes  his  own  selection  of  the  carrier's  vehicles,  as  to 
defects  not  plainly  apjjarent  or  visible,  the  burden  is  on  the  carrier  to  show  that 
such  owner  had  knowledge  of  them,  in  an  action  for  damages  to  the  property 
caused  by  such  defects."'' 

As  to  Tracing  Lost  Freight. — .\n  express  company  has  it  within  its  power 
to  trace  goods  and  (lisco\er  where  they  were  lost,  while  it  is  not  so  with  the 
shipper,  and,  therefore,  the  burden  is  upon  the  company  to  show  that- it  has 
used  rea'^onable  care,  to  trace  lost  goods."' 

Delivery  in  Good  Condition. — On  proof  that  a  carrier  received  goods  in 
good  condition,  the  burden  rests  on  defendant  to  show  delivery  in  the  same  con- 
dition to  the  next  carrier  or  to  the  consignee  :  such  proof  being  within  its  power."* 

That  Plaintiff  Received  Voucher  as  Payment. — \\  here  plaintiff  received 
and  retained  a  voucher  from  a  carrier  in  payment  for  certain  damaged  goods 
but  did  not  take  ste])s  to  collect  the  same,  the  burden  was  on  the  carrier  to  show 
tliat   plaintitT   receixed   the   voucher  as   ])avnient.'" 

Presumption  from  Failure  to  Introduce  Evidence. — \\  here  the  evidence 
tends  to  tix  a  liability  on  the  carrier  who  has  it  in  its  power  to  offer  evidence  of 
all  the  facts  as  they  existed,  and  rebut  the  inferences  which  the  proof  tends  to 
establish,  and  it  refuses  to  offer  such  proof,  the  natural  inference  is  that  the 
proof,  if  produced,  instead  of  rebutting,  would  support,  the  inference  against  it.""" 

72.  Special  custom. — Irisli  v.  Milwau-  76.  Shipper's  knowledge  of  defects  in 
kee,  etc..  R.  Co..  19  Minn.  376  Gil.  323,  vehicles. — Harris  :'.  Xortlicrn  Indiana  R. 
18   Am.    Rep.   :'.W.  Co.,  2()   X.   Y.  2;;2. 

73.  Burden  as  to  means  of  transporta-  77.  As  to  tracing  lost  freight. — .\dams 
tion. —  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Raiordun,  Exp.  Co.  i'.  Stettaners,  i">l  111.  1S4.  14 
119    Pa.    577,    13   Atl.   324.   4   Am.    St.    Rep.  Am.   Rep.   .-.7. 

()70:    Trace   7\    Pennsylvania    R.     Co.,     2f)  78.  Delivery  in  good  condition. — Orem, 

Pa.    Super.    Ct.   4(i().  etc..    Prodnce    Co.    :•.    Northern    Cent.    R. 

Burden  of  proving  subsequent  accident  Co..   106  Md.  1.  66  Atl.  4.;6. 

beyond   carrier's   control. — When    the    car  79.    That    plaintiff    received   voucher    as 

is    defective     at    tlie     time     of     injury    to  payment. — ^Ic)ody    z\    Soutliern     Railway, 

freight   transported   in   it,   and   the   defect  T'.»  S.  C.  2'.iT,  (lo  S.  K.  Til. 

contributed  to  the  injury,  the  onus  is  on  80.   Presumption  from  failure  to   intro- 

the  carrier  to  disprove  negligence,  and  it  duce    evidence. — Pennsylvania    R.    Co.    :. 

must    show    that    the    defect    arose,    not  .Anoka    Xat.    Bank.    108    Fed.   482,   486.   47 

from   the   insufficiency  of  the  vehicle,  but  C.   C.  .A.  454. 

from    some    sul)sequent    accident    bej'ond  Where  plaintiff,  in   an  action  against  a 

its  control.     ICmpire  Transp.  Co.  f.  \Vam-  railroad    company    to    recover    for   a    loss 

sutta    Oil    Refin.,    etc.,    Co.,    63    Pa.    14,    3  of    goods    in     shipment,     introduces    evi- 

Am.   Rep.   515.  dence   which   tends   strongly   to   show   in- 

Unseaworthiness    of   vessel. — See     post.  ferentially    that    defendant    managed    and 

"Carriers  l)y   Water,"   Part  VII.  controlled    the    line    of    road    upon    which 

74.  Searles  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  the  loss  occurred,  although  it  was  owned 
69  Miss.  186,  13  So.  815.  by   a    separate    corporation,    such    as    that 

75.  Little  Z'.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  66  the  managing  ofticers  of  the  two  com- 
Me.  239.  panics     were    the    same,     that     defendant 


CARRIERS. 


828 


§§  1057-1058 

§  1058.  Condition  of  Goods  When  Received  by  Carrier.— vSome  cases 
hold  that  it  iinist  be  presumed,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  on  the  subject,  that 
freio-ht  was  delivered  to  the  carrier  in  the  same  condition  as  that  in  which  it  was 
delivered  by  it  to  the  consignee.^^^  But  there  are  cases  holding  that  when  the 
carrier  delivers  goods  to  the  consignee  in  a  damaged  condition,  it  must  prove, 
in  order  to  exonerate  itself,  that  they  were  in  such  condition  when  delivered  to 
it  by  the  consignor  as  it  is  presumed  that  the  goods  were  received  l)y  it  in  good 

order. ''^-  .   ,  , 

Bill  of  Lading  Not  Conclusive  as  to  Condition  of  Freight.— As  a  general 
rule,  the  plaintiff,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  fur  damage  to  freight,  makes 
out  a  prima  facie  case  bv  producing  the  receipt  of  the  carrier  acknowledging  that 
the  freight  was  delivered  to  the  carrier  in  good  order,  but  such  an  acknowledg- 
ment is  a  mere  recital  and  not  conclusive. ^-^ 


held  itself  out  to  the  public  as  operating 
the  line  by  advertising  it  as  a  part  of  its 
system,  etc.,  and  defendant,  although 
having  it  within  its  power,  fails  to  pro- 
duce evidence  to  show  the  actual  rela- 
tion between  the  two  companies,  it  is  a 
reasonable  presumption  that  such  evi- 
dence would  support  plaintiff's  conten- 
tion, "and  the  jury  is  justified  in  de- 
termining the  issue  in  favor  of  the  plain- 
tiff. Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Anoka  Nat. 
Bank.  108   Fed.  482.  47   C.   C.  A.  454. 

81.  Condition  of  goods  when  received 
by  carrier. — United  States. — Ceballos  v. 
Warren  Adams,  20  C.  C.  A.  486,  74  Fed. 
413;  Choate  v.  Crowninshield,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,691,  3  Cliff.  184;  Kerr  v.  Norman, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,732,  Newb.  525;  Soule  v. 
Rodocanachi,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,178,  Newb. 
504;  The  Alartha,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,145,  Olc. 
140;  The  Williams  Taber  Co..  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    17,757. 

Alabama. — Grey  v.  Mobile  Trade  Co.. 
55  Ala.  387,  28  Am.  Rep.  729;  South, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Henlein,  52  Ala.  606,  23 
Am.  Rep.  578;  Steele  v.  Townsend,  37 
Ala.    247,   79   Am.    Dec.   49. 

Connecticut. — Mears  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  75  Conn.  171,  52  Atl.  610,  56  L. 
R.   A.   884.   96   Am.    St.    Rep.   192. 

F/or/dfl.— Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Har- 
ris, 26  Fla.  148,  7  So.  544,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.    Cas.   457,   23   Am.   St.   Rep.   551. 

Illinois. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fox, 
113  111.  App.  180;  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Radbourne,  52  111.  App.  203. 

Iowa. — Grieve  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co, 
104  Iowa  659,  74  N.  W.  192;  McCoy  v. 
K.  &  D.  M.  R.  Co.,  44  Iowa  424;  Powers 
V.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.,  130  Iowa  615,  105 
N.  W.  345;  Winne  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,   31    Iowa   583. 

Louisiana.— "V^rAos,  v.  Toulon,  14  La. 
Ann.    429,    74    Am.    Dec.    435. 

Minnesota. — Boehl  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    44    Minn.    191,   46    N.    W.    333. 

Missouri.— ^uAAy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  20  Mo.  App.  206;  Davis  v.  Wal)ash, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  449;  Doan  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  o8  Mo.  App.  408; 
Nave  V.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.,  19  Mo.  App. 
563;  Read  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 
Mo.  199. 
New   York. — Brooks  v.   Dinsmore,  6  N. 


Y.  St.  Rep.  281;  Caldwell  v.  Erie  Trans- 
fer Co.,  13  Misc.  Rep.  37,  33  N.  Y.  S. 
993,  67  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  843;  Hoffbert  v. 
Bumford,  88  N.  Y.  S.  940;  Smith  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  43  Barb.  225,  af- 
firmed in  41  N.  Y.  620;  Brooks  v.  Dins- 
more,   3   N.   Y.    St.   Rep.   587. 

Pennsylvania. — Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hol- 
mes (Pa.),  9  Atl.  166;  American  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Sands,  55  Pa.  140;  Buck  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  150  Pa.  170,  24  Atl.  678, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  800;  Hays  v.  Kennedy 
(Pa.),  3  Grant  351;  Castellucci  v.  Le- 
high  Valley   R.   Co.,  40  Pa.   Super   Ct.  24. 

Tennessee. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Wynn,  88  Tenn.  320,  14  S.  W.  311;  Mer- 
chants' Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v.  Bloch, 
86  Tenn.  392,  6  S.  W.  881,  6  Am.  St.  Rep. 
847. 

Texas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Breed- 
ing, 4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  154,  16  S. 
W.  184;  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  D'Arcais, 
27   Tex.    Civ.   App.   57,   64    S.   W.   813. 

Where  the  shipper  forwarded  goods  to 
a  customer  for  inspection,  and  the  goods 
were  subsequently  returned  in  a  damaged 
condition,  there  is  no  presumption  that, 
while  in  the  hands  of  the  customer,  they 
remained  in  the  same  condition  as  when 
originally  shipped.  Brooks  v.  Dinsmore, 
6  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  281. 

82.  Alabama. — Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Moore,  51  Ala.   394. 

Georgia.— Br \t A  v.  Mitchell,  48  Ga.  533; 
Henry  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga. 
815,  15  S.  E.  757;  Hartwell  R.  Co.  v. 
Kidd,  10  Ga.  App.  771,  74  S.  E.  310;  The 
Ocean  Steamship  Co.  v.  McAlpin,  69  Ga. 
437;  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Nailon,  7  Ga. 
App.  430,  431,  67  S.  E.  116;  Central,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Mercantile  Claim  Co.,  8  Ga. 
App.  17,  19,  68  S.  E.  492;  Fain  v.  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  734,  736,  60  S.  E. 
359;  Ohlen  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2 
Ga.    App.    323,    58    S.    E.   511. 

Goods  presumed  in  good  order. — 
Where  it  does  not  appear  that  the  car- 
rier received  the  goods  in  bad  order,  the 
presumption  is  they  were  in  good  order. 
Henry  v.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga.  815, 
15    S.    K.    757. 

83.  Bill  of  lading  not  conclusive  as  to 
condition  of  freight. — United  States. — 
Choate    v.    Crowninshield,    Fed.    Cas.    No. 


829 


LOSS  OR  IXJIKV  TO  COODS. 


§§  1059-1061 


§  1059.  Shipment  Composed  of  Several  Classes  of  Goods. — Where  a 

sliipment  was  ci^inp(j>e(l  (jI  >c\LTal  classes  of  ;^()()(1>.  and  a  purticjii  of  it  was  lost, 
there  is  no  legal  presnniption  as  to  whether  such  jjortion  belonged  to  the  least 
or  most  \aluable  class,  or  to  any  particular  class.''* 

§  106  0.  Where  Transportation  under  Special  Contract. — As  to  pre- 
sumptions and  burden  (jf  proof  where  a  special  c(jntract  is  set  up  as  a  defense 
in  an  action  against  the  carrier  for  loss  or  injury  to  goods,  see  elsewhere.*^ 

§  1061.  Necessity  of  Producing  Bill  of  Lading.— In  an  action  against  a 
common  carrier  founded  on  its  c<jnimon-law  liability,  it  is  not  necessary  to  pro- 
duce in  evidence  a  bill  of  lading  of  the  property  alleged  to  have  been  lost  or  in- 
jured, as,  if  there  is  a  special  contract  restricting  the  common-law  liability  of 
the  carrier,  ii  devolves  on  the  carrier  to  allege  and  prove  it.^"^  But  where  the 
action  is  founded  on  a  bill  of  lading,  then  the  bill  of  lading  must  be  produced 
in  evidence,  or  its  nonprcjduction  must  be  accounted  for,  and  its  substance  proved 
as  alleged.'"*^ 


2,G91,  :i  Cliff.  1H4;  Cunarcl  vSleamship  Co. 
V.  Kelley,  115  Fed.  678;  The  Moravian, 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,789,  2  Hask.  157;  The 
California.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,314,  2  Sawy. 
12;  The  Colombo,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,040,  3 
Blatchf.  521;  The  Martha,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,145,  Olc.  140;  Seller  v.  Pacific,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,044.  Deady  17,  1  Or.  409;  Turner 
V.  Black  Warrior,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,253,  1 
McAll.  181. 

Connecticut. — Mears  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  75  Conn.  171,  52  Atl.  610,  56  L. 
R.  A.  884,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  192. 

Louisiana. — Lengsfield  v.  Jones,  11  La. 
Ann.    624. 

Maine. — Tarbox  v.  Eastern  Steaml)oat 
Co.,   50    Me.    339. 

Mississippi. — Gardner  v.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,    78    Miss.    640,    29    So.    469. 

Xczu  J'or/^.— Harnett  v.  Westcott,  56 
N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  213,  3  N.  Y.  S.  7,  18  N. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  962;  Jean,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Flagg, 
45  Misc.  Rep.  421;  Thyll  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  84  N.  Y.  S.   175. 

North  Carolina. — Burwell  z\  Ralcigli, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  94  N.  C.  451,  25  Am.  &  Kng. 
R.   Cas.   410. 

Oregon. — Seller  v.  Pacific,  Deady  17,  1 
Or.   409,   Fed.   Cas.   No.    12,644. 

South  Carolina. — Stadhecker  v.  Combs 
&  Co.   (S.  C),  9  Rich.  L.  193. 

rr.ra.f.— Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Holder,  10 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  223,  30  S.  W.  383.  See 
ante,  "As  Warranty  or  Evidence  of  Quan- 
tity, Quality  or  Condition  of  Goods,"  §§ 
488-494. 

A  bill  of  lading  signed  by  the  carrier 
acknowledging  the  receipt  of  the  goods, 
"to  be  delivered  in  good  order  to  A.  at 
B..  is  prima  facie  evidence  that  they  were 
in  good  condition  when  received  by  the 
carrier,  but  is  not  conclusive,  and  the 
carrier  may  prove  that  the  goods  were 
damaged  before  they  came  into  his  pos- 
session. In  such  case,  the  burden  is  on 
the  carrier  to  prove  such  fact.  Tarbox 
v.    Eastern    Steamboat   Co.,   50   Me.   339. 

84.  Shipment  composed  of  several 
classes  of   goods. —  in    Lake   Shore    Nitro- 


Glycerine  Co.  z\  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  75 
111.  394,  which  was  a  suit  against  a  com- 
mon carrier,  to  recover  for  the  loss  of  the 
greater  part  of  a  shipment  of  carboys, 
part  containing  nitric  acid  and  the  others 
containing  sulphuric  acid,  the  former  be- 
ing of  much  greater  value,  the  proof  was 
unsatisfactory,  as  to  the  proportion  of 
each,  but  there  was  proof  tending  to 
show  that  the  car  contained  the  acids  in 
the  usual  proportions  to  be  mixed  in  the 
manufacture  of  nitro-glycerine.  The 
court  instructed  the  jury  that  "the  legal 
presumption  is  that,  the  burden  of  proof 
being  on  the  plaintiff,  all  the  acids  so 
lost,  and  not  proven  to  have  l^een  nitric, 
and  most  valuable,  must  have  been  sul- 
phuric, and  of  the  least  value."  It  was 
held  that  there  was  no  legal  presumption 
in  such  a  case,  but  it  was  a  question  of 
fact  from  the  evidence,  whether  the  car- 
boys, or  most  of  those  destroyed,  con- 
tained   nitric    or    sulphuric    acid. 

85.  Special  contract. — See  post,  "Limi- 
tation   of    Lial)ility,"    chapter    14. 

86.  Necessity  of  producing  bill  of  lad- 
ing.— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z\  Nicholson, 
2  Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §   168. 

Where  the  declaration  against  a  car- 
rier for  negligent  carriage  is  joint  against 
the  party  signing  the  bill  of  lading  and 
another  not  signing  it,  avers  an  "agree- 
ment" disconnected  with  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing not  alleged  to  be  in  writing,  states 
the  bill  of  lading  as  an  inducement  to  the 
cause  of  action,  does  not  make  profert 
of  it,  and  the  breaches  assigned  seem  to 
be  of  the  joint  "agreement."  and  not  of 
the  contract  contained  in  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing, the  declaration  will  lie  construed  as 
one  in  tort,  and  not  "founded  on"  the 
contract,  so  as  to  require  profert  of  the 
bill  of  lading,  under  Code  Tenn.  §  2893. 
Whittcnton  Mfg.  Co.  f.  Memphis,  etc.. 
Packet  Co.,  21    Fed.  896. 

87.  Where  bill  foundation  of  action. — 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■.  Wheat.  2  Texas 
.\l)p.    Civ.    Cas.,   §    165:    Missouri    Pac.    R. 


C. 


Nicholson.  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 


1062 


CARRIERS. 


830 


§§  1062-1066.  Admissibility  of  Evidence— §  1062.  In  General.— Rel- 
evancy and  Materiality  of  Evidence. — Generall}-.  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rier for  loss  of  or  damage  to  goods,  evidence  which  is  relevant  and  material  to 
the  issues  is  admissible. '^^  Evidence  which  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial  is  inad- 
missible.^^ and  is  properly  excluded.  '"^ 


§  168:  G.  H.  &  S.  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Van  Win- 
kle. 3   Texas   App.    Civ.    Cas..   §   44:!. 

Where  in  a  suit  against  a  carrier  the 
petition  alleged  that  plaintiff  shipped 
cattle  from  Memphis,  Tenn..  to  Ft. 
Worth,  Tex.,  over  several  lines  of  con- 
necting railroad,  one  of  which  was  de- 
fendant's' line,  and  that  said  shipment 
was  made  "on  through  hills  of  lading, 
and  at  agreed  and  through  rates  for  the 
whole  route,  the  contracts  and  bills  of 
lading  of  each  of  said  railroads  in  regard 
to  shipment  of  cattle  being  recognized 
and  carried  out  by  the  other;"  that  the 
cattle  were  damaged  by  the  negligence 
of  defendant,  etc..  the  suit  was  upon  the 
bill  of  lading.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Wheat,   2  Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,   §   165. 

88.  Relevancy  and  materiality  of  evi- 
dence.— See  ante,  "Evidence  Admissible 
under    Pleadings,"    §    1053. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  damages  to  goods  alleged  to 
have  been  injured  by  water  while  in 
transit,  evidence  is  admissible  to  show 
that  no  rain  fell  while  the  property  was 
on  defendant's  road,  and  that  the  car  in 
which  it  was  being  transferred  was  not 
allowed  to  be  stopped  near  by  any  water 
tank.  Burwell  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co..  94 
N.   C.  451,  25  Am.   &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  410. 

In  an  action  for  damages  for  injury  to 
fruit  trees  en  route  plaintiff  testified,  that 
the  orders  for  both  shipments  were  ob- 
tained by  salaried  traveling  men,  and  that 
one  shipment  was  sold  for  a  certain  price 
and  was  not  delivered,  and  that  plaintiff 
told  defendant's  agent,  on  November  2d 
or  3d,  that  if  he  did  not  receive  the  ship- 
ment promptly  and  in  good  condition  he 
would  refuse  it,  and  also  testified  that 
plaintiff's  customers  were  to  receive  the 
shipments  at  destination  on  November 
2d.  Held,  that  the  evidence  was  admis- 
sible on  defendant's  claim  that  plaintiff 
was  negligent  in  not  being  ready  to  re- 
ceive the  trees  at  destination,  especially 
in  view  of  defendant  having  introduced 
an  order  for  trees  from  one  of  plaintiff's 
customers  requiring  them  to  be  delivered 
at  such  destination  in  October,  Novem- 
ber, or  December  with  notice  by  mail  of 
the  date  of  delivery.  Young  v.  Southern 
R.    Co.,   157   N.    C.    74.  72   S.    E.   835. 

When  a  bridge  truss  loaded  upon  a  flat 
car  is  so  high  that,  in  attempting  to  take 
it  under  a  bridge  upon  defendant's  rail- 
road, it  is  injured  by  coming  in  contact 
with  the  bridge,  the  load  being  higher 
than  the  shipper  agreed  it  should  be,  and 
the  shipper  claims  that  the  defendant 
might  have  taken  the  car  to  its  destina- 
tion  without  going  under  the  bridge,  and 


shows  that  it  afterwards  did  take  cars 
laden  in  a  similar  manner  by  another 
route,  it  is  error  not  to  allow  the  defend- 
ant to  show  that  at  the  time  of  the  in- 
jury the  route  under  the  bridge  was  the 
only  track  it  owned  or  operated  by  which 
it  could  deliver  the  shipment.  Pennsyl- 
vania Co.  V.  Kenwood  Bridge  Co.,  49  N. 
E.  215,  170  111.  645,  reversing  69  111.  App. 
145. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
value  of  a  chest  and  its  contents,  which 
were  enumerated  in  the  petition,  a  wit- 
ness, after  stating  the  value  in  detail  of 
a  number  of  articles,  was  asked  if  she 
knew  the  value  of  the  chest  and  contents, 
and  answered  in  the  affirmative,  stating 
the  value.  She  also  stated  that,  besides 
the  articles  she  had  specially  mentioned, 
there  were  some  others  which  she  had 
not  named.  Such  statement  was  not 
made  in  answer  to  any  question,  but  in 
connection  with  her  testimony  relating 
to  the  contents  of  the  chest.  Held,  that 
an  objection  to  her  testimony  on  the 
ground  that  there  was  evidence  tending 
to  show  that  there  were  more  goods  in 
the  chest  than  was  sued  for  was  not  well 
taken.  Seyfarth  z'.  vSt.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
52   Mo.   449. 

89.  Irrelevant  and  immaterial  evidence 
— Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  failure  to  deliver  cotton 
shipped,  the  issue  was  whether  the  cot- 
ton had  lost  in  weight  from  natural 
causes,  or  through  the  fault  of  the  car- 
rier. Held,  that  evidence  that  other 
people's  cotton  had  been  stolen  by  the 
carrier's  agents  at  the  place  where  the 
plaintiff's   cotton   had   been   delivered   was 

90.  In  an  action  by  a  county  against  a 
carrier  for  loss  of  a  convict  car  or  wagon 
by  fire,  evidence  of  the  superintendent  of 
the  convicts  that  he  told  one  of  them  to 
look  after  the  fire  which  was  in  the  car, 
offered  to  show  diligence  1)y  the  super- 
intendent in  protecting  the  car,  was 
properly  excluded  as  immaterial,  since  it 
did  not  matter  what  directions  the  su- 
perintendent gave,  but  the  question  was 
whether  they  were  followed.  Coweta 
County  t'.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  S.  E. 
1018,  4   Ga.   App.   94. 

Where  a  carrier's  liability  for  goods 
destroyed  before  their  delivery  to  the 
consignee  was  tried  on  the  single  issue 
of  defendant's  negligence,  and  so  sub- 
mitted to  the  jury,  the  exclusion  of  an  al- 
leged contract  offered  by  defendant, 
whereby  its  liability  was  limited,  was  not 
error.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Plum- 
mer  (Ky.),  35  S.  W.  1113. 


831 


LOSS  OR  INJLRV  TO  GOODS. 


1062 


Nature  of  Liability. — i'or  the  purpose  of  showing  that  goods  when  injured, 
were  in  the  possession  of  defendant  as  carrier  and  not  as  warehouseman,  evi- 
dence that  the  faihire  of  defenchmt's  agent  to  delixer  the  goods  on  the  morning 
of  their  arrival,  hefore  they  were  injured,  to  those  plaintiff  sent  for  them,  was 
wrongful,  is  material.'"  And  as  hearing  upon  the  question  whether  a  railroad 
company  had  received  goods  for  transj^ortation  as  a  common  carrier,  and  as 
confirmatory  of  the  statement  of  an  agent  that  it  had  not,  the  defendant  may 
ask  the  agent  whether  it  was  not  the  custom  to  weigh  and  mark  goods  as  they 
were  taken  for  transportation,  the  goods  in  question  not  having  been  weighed 
and  marked. "-' 

Title  to  Property  Shipped.  —  in  an  action  by  a  consignor  against  a  carrier 
for  the  loss  of  property,  a  contract  between  the  consignee  and  consignor  is  ad- 
missible to  show  ownership  of  the  property."''  And  it  is  error  to  exclude  testi- 
mony to  show  that  the  pro]:)erty  did  not  belong  to  the  plaintiff  but  to  one  of 
defendants  as  alleged  by  them.''^ 

Proof  of  Loss. — The  fact  that  the  plaintiff",  after  the  goods  shoubl  have  been 
delivered,  made   in((nirics   for  tiicm   oi  the  carrier,  is  admissible  in  evidence  of 


inadmissible.  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Brimson, 
63    Ga.    504. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the  nondelivery  of  freight  lost 
from  its  depot  after  transportation,  proof 
that  other  freigiit  of  the  same  kind  was 
always  cared  for  by  it  in  the  same  man- 
ner, and  that  none  had  ever  been  lost, 
is  immaterial.  Lane  r.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co..    tl2    Mass.   4.55. 

In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany for  damages  to  fish  shipped,  evi- 
dence that  other  shipments  made  on  the 
same  day  to  a  different  destination  from 
the  same  I)atch  of  fish  were  paid  for 
without  complaint  was  not  admissible,  in 
absence  of  a  showing  that  all  of  the  fish 
shipped  that  day  were  prepared  for  ship- 
ment in  the  same  manner.  Wells  Fargo 
&  Co.'s  Exp.  V.  Gentry  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
154   S.   W.   36.3. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
damages  to  plaintiff's  shipment  of  poul- 
try by  delay  in  transportation  and  failure 
to  properly  ice  the  car,  the  admission  of 
evidence  that  certain  other  poultry  re- 
jected by  the  consignee  thereof  and 
thereafter  purchased  by  plaintiff  and  in- 
cluded in  bis  shipment  was  error,  the 
cause  of  the  rejection  not  being  stated, 
and  the  evidence  l)eing  calculated  to 
cause  the  jury  to  lielieve  that  the  poul- 
try was  rejected  because  it  was  tainted 
or  otherwise  defective.  Patterson  &  Co. 
f.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  126 
S.   W.   336. 

In  an  action  for  loss  of  goods  testi- 
mony of  plaintiff  as  to  the  value  to  him 
of  the  use  of  the  goods  during  tbeir  de- 
layed transportation  was  inadmissible; 
there  being  no  evidence  of  any  delay. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dement  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),    115    S.   W.    635. 

Where  defendant  was  sued  for  injuries 
to  a  car  of  vegetables  caused  by  its  neg- 
lect to  keep  them  properly  iced,  evi- 
dence   that    other    cars      shipped     in    tbe 


same  way,  just  before  and  just  after  the 
injured  shipment,  arrived  in  good  condi- 
tion, was  irrelevant  and  inadmissible. 
Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Harlan  (Tex. 
Civ.   App.),   62   S.   W.   971. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  re- 
cover for  an  engine  intrusted  to  its  care, 
and  lost  in  transit,  testimony  as  to 
whether  or  not  it  was  practicable  to 
carry  such  machine  on  an  ordinary 
freight  car  is  not  admissible  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  making  of  the  contract.  Ames 
r.  First  Div.,  etc..  R.  Co.,  12  Minn.  412. 
Gil.   295. 

Where  a  contract  for  the  shipment  of 
goods  contained  no  exception  as  to  loss 
hy  fire,  although  the  usual  bills  of  lad- 
ing issued  by  the  carrier  did  contain  this 
provision,  in  an  action  for  the  price  of 
the  goods,  the  same  having  been  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  a  copy  of  such  bills  of 
lading  is  not  evidence  for  the  transporter. 
Clyde   T'.    Graver,   54    Pa.   251. 

Value  of  car  containing  goods. — In  an 
action  against  a  railroad  companj-  to  re- 
cover the  value  of  cotton  received  for 
transportation,  and  destroyed  by  fire 
while  on  board  of  the  cars,  the  value  of 
the  car  burnt  has  no  relevancy  to  the 
question  at  issue.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R. 
Co.   z\    Edmonds,   41    .\la.    6<)7. 

Evidence  of  damage  to  other  freight 
than  that  specified  in  the  statement  of 
the  cause  of  action,  and  as  to  the 
amount  of  such  damage,  is  inadmissible 
and  it  is  error  to  admit  such  testimony. 
Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith.  84  Tex. 
348,   351,    19   S.   W.    .■>()'.». 

91.  Nature  of  liabUity. — Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Dunlap,  148  Ala.  23,  41  So.  826. 

92.  Vaughan  z:  Raleigh,  etc..  R.  Co.,  63 
X.  C.  11. 

93.  Title  to  property  shipped. —  Hess  v. 
South  Dakota  Cent.  R.  Co..  30  S.  Dak.  538, 
139    X.    W.    334. 

94.  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Moore.  47 
Tex.    Civ.    App.    531,    105    S.    W.    532. 


1062 


CARRIERS. 


832 


their  having  been  lost/^"'  To  charge  a  carrier  with  an  alleged  deficiency  in  the 
goods  delivered,  the  testimony  of  the  persons  who  actuall\-  loaded  the  vessel  is 
the  best  evidence.'^'' 

Evidence  of  Other  Losses. — In  an  action  for  loss  of  goods,  evidence  as  to 
losses  of  other  goods  1)\-  other  persons  is  incompetent.''" 

Value  of  Goods  and  Amount  of  Damage. — Generally  as  to  admissibility 
of  evidence  as  to  the  value  of  the  goods  shipped  and  the  amount  of  damage  sus- 
tained by  loss  of  or  damage  thereto,  see  elsewhere. *-'■'* 

Character  of  Goods. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  of  a  box 
of  goods,  evidence  as  to  its  contents  is  admissible. ^^  And  where  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing described  goods  as  two  "bundles  of  carpet,"  evidence  that  the  bundles  con- 
tained other  articles  than  carpet  is  admissible,  where  the  appearance  of  the 
bundles  suggested  that  they  contained  something  besides  carpet,  and  the  articles 
were  not  shipped  at  a  reduced  rate.^ 

Condition  of  Goods. — Generally,  evidence  as  to  the  condition  of  goods  is 
admissible.-  Plaintiff  can  not  introduce  evidence  of  the  condition  of  property 
at  a  distant  point,  from  which  it  w^as  shipped  by  vessel  to  the  place  where  it  was 
delivered  to  defendant,  unless  more  direct  proof  is  unavailable ;  and  where  such 
evidence  has  been  admitted  it  is  proper,  on  cross-examination,  to  inquire  into 
the  mode  of  transshipment,  the  manner  of  its  storage,  the  weather,  and  the  con- 
dition of  the  property  on  its  arrival.-"^  Evidence  that  the  person  receiving  goods 
made  no  complaint  as  to  their  condition,'*  and  that  he  signed  a  receipt  reciting 
that  they  were  in  good  condition,''  is  admissible. 

Weight  of  Goods. — \Miere  some  of  the  contents  of  a  box  have  been  lost,  it 
is  competent  to  show  what  goods  were  in  the  box  when  it  started,  and  wdien  it 
was  delivered,  and  for  that  purpose  to  show  the  weight  at  the  beginning  and 
end  of  its  transportation;  but  it  is  not  error,  upon  objection,  to  refuse  to  allow 


95.  Proof  of  loss. — In.sfledew  v.  North- 
ern   R.    Co.    (Mass.),   7   Gray   86. 

96.  Cafiero  v.  Welsh  (Pa.),  8  Phila.  130, 
Fed.   Cas.    No.   2286. 

97.  Evidence  of  other  losses. — Rags- 
dale  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  69  S.  C.  429,  48 
S.  E.  466.  See  Central  R.  Co.  v.  Briin- 
son,   63    Ga.    .504. 

In  an  action  against  the  driver  of  a 
stagecoach  for  nondelivery  of  money  in- 
trusted to  him,  evidence  that  third  per- 
sons had  admitted  that  another  package 
of  money  was  stolen  from  the  stage  on 
the  same  day  is  not  competent  to  prove 
the  loss.  Shelden  v.  Robinson.  7  N.  H. 
1.57.   26  Am.   Dec.   726. 

98.  Value  of  goods  and  amount  of  dam- 
age.—  Set    post.    "Achnissihility,"    §    1083. 

99.  Character  of  goods. — Bottum  v. 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51  S.  E.  985.  72 
S.  C.  375,  2  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  773,  110  Am. 
St.  Rep.  610. 

1.  Benson  v.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35 
Utah  241,  99  Pac.  1072,  19  Am.  &  Eng. 
Ann.   Cas.   803. 

2.  Condition  of  goods. — Where  it  ap- 
peared in  an  action  against  an  express 
company  for  damages  to  a  shipment  of 
fish  that  the  fish  shown  to  witness  was 
of  the  same  batch  of  fish  as  those 
shipped,  evidence  of  such  witness  as  to 
the  condition  of  the  fish  at  a  certain 
time  was  admissible.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.'s 
Exp.  V.  Gentry  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  154  S. 
W.   363. 


Condition  week  after  shipped. — Where 
potatoes  were  left  by  the  plaintiff  at  a 
certain  depot,  under  a  contract  for  their 
transportation  to  Chicago  on  the  same 
day,  and  they  were  not  shipped  until  the 
next  day,  it  was  not  error,  in  an  action 
for  injuries  to  the  same,  by  freezing,  al- 
leged to  have  occurred  in  transitu,  in 
consequence  of  such  delay,  to  permit  a 
witness  to  testify  as  to  their  condition 
when  seen  by  him  in  the  warehouse  of 
the  consignee,  at  Chicago,  a  week  or 
more  after  they  were  shipped.  It  was  a 
question  to  be  determined,  upon  the 
whole  evidence,  whether  the  potatoes 
were  frozen  in  transitu,  or  subsequent  to 
their  arrival  at  Chicago.  Curtis  v.  Chi- 
cago,  etc.,    R.    Co.,   18   Wis.   312. 

3.  Condition  when  delivered  to  defend- 
ant.— Marquette  v.  Langton,  32  Mich.  251. 

4.  Failure  to  make  complaint. — Patter- 
son &  Co.  7'.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),    126   S.   W.   336. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  damage  to  freight  by  water,  de- 
fendant was  properly  allowed  to  show 
that  the  expressman  receipting  for  the 
goods  at  the  depot  looked  at  the  box 
containing  them,  and  made  no  complaint. 
Mears  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  52  Atl. 
610,  75  Conn.  171,  56  L.  R.  A.  884,  96 
Am.   St.   Rep.   192. 

5.  Patterson  &  Co.  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    126    S.    W.    336. 


833 


LOSS  Ok   IXJIKV   T(J  G(J(J1jS. 


§  1062 


a  witness  to  testify  that  ])laintiff  knowingly  only  paid  the  freight  rate  on  a  cer- 
tain nuniher  of  pounds  of  freight."  To  establish  the  weight  of  a  number  of 
bales  of  cotton  burned  while  in  the  carrier's  possession,  it  is  competent  for  ])lain- 
tilf  to  prove  the  average  weight  of  a  greater  number  of  bales,  of  which  the 
burned  bales  were  a  portion,'  or  he  may  i)rove  the  weight  of  all  the  bales  which 
were  delivered  to  the  carrier,  and  of  the  bales  which  were  not  lost,*^  in  order  to 
enable  the  jury  to  ascertain  the  weight  of  the  bales  which  were  destroyed. 

Evidence  of  Custom. — In  some  instances  evidence  of  custom  is  admissible, 
such  as  a  custom  lo  deliver  goods  without  re(|uiring  the  production  of  the  bill 
of  lading.-'  a  custom  respecting  deliveries  for  immediate  shijjment,'"  the  custom 
and  usage  of  well-appointed  and  managed  railway  companies  as  to  the  mode  of 
shipment  of  baled  cotton,''  the  custom  as  to  the  time  for  unloading  damaged 
fruit,'-  and  the  custom  of  defendant's  servant  to  examine  and  keep  open  air 
vents  in  cars.^-'  But  where  goods  in  transit,  while  lying  in  the  carrier's  freight 
house,  were  destroyed  by  fire,  evidence  as  to  the  custom  of  other  railroad  com- 
panies to  keej)  oil  and  to  fill  and  light  their  lamps  in  their  freight  rooms  is  in- 
admissible." .\nd  in  an  action  against  a  ferryman  for  a  loss  occasioned  bv  his 
neglect  to  put  up  the  chain  at  the  end  of  his  boat,  he  can  not  give  in  evidence 
a  custom  at  other  ferries  on  the  same  river  to  put  up  the  chain  at  the  request 
of  passengers,  and  not  otherwise.^''  The  fact  of  delivery  not  being  susceptible 
of  positive  proof,  evidence  of  usage  or  custom  as  to  delivery  is  inadmissible.'" 

As  to  Care  Exercised. — Generally,  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  the  care 
exercised  by  the  carrier,  whether  it  was  negligent  or  the  contrary.'"     So  in  an 


6.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Yudelson, 
135  Ga.  7:;i.  7o  S.   I'..  r>7*\. 

7.  Weight  of  cotton  destroyed. — Sniitli 
V.    North    Carolina    R.    Co.,    (18    N.    C.    107. 

8.  Montgomery,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Ed- 
monds.  41    .\la.   <)t)~. 

9.  Evidence  of  custom. — Where,  in  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  goods 
destroyed  in  the  delivering  carrier's  de- 
pot, defendant  claimed  that  the  goods  had 
been  destroyed  by  fire  after  the  expira- 
tion of  a  reasonal)le  time  within  wliich 
the  consignee  should  have  removed 
them,  and  after  defendant  had  refused  to 
deliver  when  delivery  was  first  demanded 
because  no  waybill  had  been  received 
from  the  initial  carrier,  it  was  competent 
for  plaintiff  to  show  that  the  delivering 
station  was  a  prepay  station,  and  that  it 
was  the  custom  of  defendant's  agent  to 
deliver  freight  at  such  station  to  the 
owner  or  consignee  without  requiring 
the  production  of  a  bill  of  lading.  Bow- 
don  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  So.  21)4, 
148    Ala.    2<). 

10.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burrow  & 
Co.,   11(3   S.   W.    l'.)S,   8<)   .\rk.    178. 

11.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Manches- 
ter  Mills.  88  Tenn.  ().53,  14  S.  W.   314. 

12.  Presley  Co.  7'.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
139  X.  W.  f)0;t,  120  Minn.  295. 

13.  Custom  as  to  air  vents. — In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  carrier  for  damages  to 
plaintitf' s  shipment  of  apples  through  de- 
fendant's negligence  in  failing  to  keep 
open  air  vents  in  its  car.  testimony  of 
defendant's  conductor  that  it  was  his  cus- 
tom to  carefull)'  examine  all  vents  and 
see  whether  they  were  open  or  closed, 
was  admissible,  witness  having  previously 

1   Car— 53 


testified,  in  response  to  plaintiff's  ques- 
tion, that  it  was  his  duty  to  keep  the 
vents  open,  and  having,  on  redirect  ex- 
amination, stated  that  it  was  his  custom 
to  perform  such  duty.  Cane  Hill,  etc., 
Co.  z'.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),   95    S.    W.    751. 

14.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Payne,  15  Tex. 
Civ.    App.   58,   38   S.   W.   366. 

15.  Miller      v.      Pendleton      (Mass.),    8' 
Gray  547;  see   Lewis  z:  Smith,   107   Mass. 
334. 

16.  Fact  of  delivery. — Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  z:  Pagan,  72  Tex.  127,  130.  9  S.  W. 
749,    2    L.    R.    A.    75,    13    .\m.    St.    Rep.    776. 

17.  On  an  issue  as  to  whether  a  rail- 
road carrier  was  negligent  in  failing  to 
control  a  fire  whicli  started  in  its  yards, 
evidence  as  to  the  facilities  provided  by 
the  city  for  extingiiishing  fires  was  prop- 
erly admitted.  Peerless  Mfg.  Co.  z\  Xew 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Atl.  511,  73  X.  H. 
328. 

Remonstrances  to  carrier's  servants. — 
In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  recover 
for  injuries  received  by  cattle  while  in 
course  of  transportation,  remonstrances 
to  the  defendant's  employees  because  the 
cattle  were  improperly  stowed  were  held 
admissilile  to  show  that  the  attention  of 
those  in  charge  was  called  to  the  diffi- 
cultj'.  Black  z\  Camden,  etc.,  Transp. 
Co.    (,X.    v.),    45    Barl).    40. 

Whether  flood  might  have  been  antic- 
ipated.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  loss  of  goods  whjle  in  a  railroad  yard 
by  a  Hood  submerging  the  yard,  evidence 
of  a  flood  fifty-nine  j-ears  liefore  and  of 
the  tradition  of  a  flood  al)out  one  hun- 
dred   years     before,     followed    by     proof 


CARRIERS. 


834 


§  1062 

action  for  injury  to  goods  it  niav  be  shown  that  similar  articles  shipped  in  the 
same  way  were 'usually  in  a  damaged  and  broken  condition  on  their  arrual  or 
that  they  usually  arriy'ed  uninjuredV'^  and  where  goods  haye  been  lost  by  reason 
of  a  col'lision,  it  is  proper  to  introduce  eyidence  as  to  contriyances  employed  by 
other  carriers  to  preyent  similar  accidents,  and  to  sho\y  that  such  contriyances 
were  not  in  use  by  defendant.i»  The  fact  that  the  shipper  places  a  small  yalu- 
ation  on  his  property  is  admissible  on  the  question  of  whether  the  proper  man- 
ner of  shipment  was  adopted  by  the  carrier  in  yiew  of  such  yaluation.20  Eyi- 
dence as  to  care  taken  on  rainy  days  is  not  admissible  to  show^  care  taken  on 
fine  days,  nor  eyidence  as  to  care  generally  taken  on  rainy  days  to  show  care 
taken  on  a  certain  rainy  day.-^ 

Condition  of  Car.— In  an  action  against  a  earner  for  damage  to  goods 
shipped,  eyidence  as  to  the  condition  of  the  car  is  admissible.--  And  it  is  error 
to  exclude  testimony  tending  to  show  that  plaintiiT  had  knowledge  of  the  char- 
acter and  condition  of  the  car. 2^ 

Competency  of  Servant. — Th.e  plaintiff  may  introduce  eyidence  that  the 
carrier's  servant  was  unfit  for  seryice.^-^  And  where  goods  were  injured  as  the 
result  of  the  negligent  driving  of  defendant's  drayman,  eyidence  that  he  was 
drunk  when  he  called  for  them  is  admissible.-''  But  defendant  can  not  intro- 
duce evidence  of  the  caution  and  skill  of  the  servant  who  had  charge  of  the 
goods  lost  unless  plaintiff  attempts  to  predicate  his  claim  to  damages  on  proof 
of  the  want  of  skill  of  such  seryant.^^ 

Evidence  of  Subsequent  Precautions. — Evidence  of  precautions  taken 
after  the  happening  of  the  injury  is  not  admissible  to  prove  antecedent  negli- 
gence.-'' 

that  one  of  the  brakemen  on  the  train 
was  unfit  for  service  in  coupling  the  cars 
again  by  reason  of  a  wound  received  in 
an  accident  the  night  before  was  rele- 
vant. Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ?■.  Johnson 
(Tex.),    19    S.   W.    867. 

25.  Kates  Transfer,  etc..  Co.  f.  Klas- 
sen,  6  Ala.   App.   .301,   59   So.   355. 

26.  Caution  and  skill  of  servant. — 
Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Edmonds, 
41    Ala.    ()fi7. 

27.  Evidence  of  subsequent  precau- 
tions.— Cunningham  z'.  Pennsylvania  R 
Co.,  40  Pa.  Super.   Ct.  212. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
death  of  chickens  smothered  while  car- 
ried in  an  ordinary  express  car,  the  ad- 
mission of  evidence  that,  after  the  ship- 
per had  complained  of  the  loss,  the  car- 
rier began  to  use  another  kind  of  a  car 
for  like  shipments,  was  error,  though  the 
trial  occurred  more  than  two  and  one 
half  years  after  the  loss,  and  though  it 
did  not  appear  that  the  change  was  not 
made  until  long  after  the  loss.  Wells 
Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.  v.  Mitchell  (Tex.  Civ. 
Api).),  ]:'.9   S.   W.   926. 

Evidence  not  violating  rule. — In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  railroad  company  to  re- 
cover for  the  loss  of  cement  which  was 
destroyed  in  cars  on  a  siding  during  a 
flood,  there  was  testimony  that  prior  to 
the  particular  flood  the  tracks  had  been 
raised  as  a  precautionary  measure.  A 
witness  for  the  company  testified  that, 
after  the  tracks  had  been  raised,  cars  had 
not  been  removed  from  the  siding  at 
times    of    flood.      Held,    that    plaintiff   was 


that  the  high-water  mark  of  the  more 
recent  flood  was  higher  than  the  flood 
in  question,  and  that,  before  the  location 
of  the  yard,  the  chief  engineer  of  the 
carrier  had  knowledge  of  the  prior 
floods,  was  admissible  on  the  issue  of 
whether  the  flood  in  question  might 
'  reasonably  have  been  anticipated  by  the 
carrier.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Madden, 
etc.,  Co.,  103  S.  W.  1193,  46  Tex.  Civ. 
App.   597. 

18.  Steele  r.  Townsend,  37  Ala.  247,  79 
Am.    Dec.   49. 

19.  Boscowitz  V.  Adams  Exp.  Co.,  93 
111.    523,    34   Am.    Rep.    191. 

20.  Winn  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  149 
Iowa  259,   128   N.  W.   663. 

21.  The  man  who  carted  the  goods  to 
plaintiff's  house  testified  that  the  weather 
was  clear  at  the  time.  It  appeared  that 
it  rained  later  in  the  day.  Held,  that  a 
question  asked  him  by  defendant  as  to 
the  care  he  took  on  rainy  days  was  prop- 
erly excluded.  Mears  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  .52  Atl.  610,  75  Conn.  171,  56  L. 
R.  A.  884,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  192. 

22.  Condition  of  car. — Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Barfield,  58  S.  E.  236,  1  Ga.  App. 
203. 

23.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Moore,  105 
S.   W.   532.   47   Tex.   Civ.    App.   531. 

24.  Brakeman  unfit  for  service. — In  an 
action  again.-,t  a  railroad  company  for 
damage  done  to  cattle  while  in  transit 
over  its  road,  where  it  appeared  that  the 
cars  became  uncoupled  while  in  motion, 
and  the  bringing  of  the  cars  violently  to- 
gether again   caused   the   injury,  evidence 


835 


LOSS  OR   INjUKV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1062-1063 


Why  a  car  was  not  re-iced  may  not  be  shown  in  an  action  for  breach  of  a 
carriers  contract  to  re-ice  a  car  of  tomatoes  at  certain  points  on  the  ronte.-^ 

Offer  of  Reward. — On  the  qnestion  of  whether  a  carrier  admitted  his  Ha- 
bility  for  goods  lost,  evidence  of  his  having  offered  a  reward  for  their  recovery 
is  admissil)le.-'* 

Mode  of  Shipment. — b'videncc  that  the  person  shipping  the  goods  was  of- 
fered two  iiKjdcs  of  shipment,  one  called  "owner's  risk,"  at  a  certain  rate,  and 
the  other  "sliipper's  risk,"  at  a  higher  rate,  and  chose  the  former,  is  admissible.'-" 

Evidence  insufficient  to  fix  the  identity  of  the  goods  is  properly  e.x- 
cludcrl   ill  an  action  against   the  carrier   f(jr  freight   inipro]>erIy  delivered.''' 

Hearsay  Evidence. — In  an  action  for  damages  to  a  car  of  vegetables  caused 
by  not  keeinng  them  sufficiently  iced,  evidence  by  the  consignor  that  all  the  veg- 
etables were  fresh  from  farm  wagons,  and  accepted  by  his  foreman  as  being  in 
first-class  condition,   is  not   lK-arsa\.''- 

Impeaching  or  Contradicting  Evidence. — Kvidence  intended  for  impeach- 
ing or  contradicting  a  witness  should  I)c  exchidcd  unless  it  would  have  that 
tendency. •'•■' 

Manufactured  Evidence. — Papers  which  constitute  no  part  of  the  contract 
for  the  deli\ery  oi  the  goods  are  inadmissible  on  behalf  of  the  carrier,  as  this 
would  i)ermit  it  to  manufacture  evidence  for  itself. •''•* 

Harmless  Error. — A  part\-  can  not  com]:)lain  of  the  admission  of  evidence 
which  docs  not  prejudice  him.'-' 

§  1063.  Declarations  and  Admissions. — The  declarations  and  admissions 
of  the  carrier's  agent   respecting  business  within  the  sco])e  of  his  authoritv  to 


entitled  t  >  show  in  contradiction  of  the 
defendant's  witness  that  cars  had  been 
removed  subsequent  to  the  elevation  of 
the  tracks,  the  admission  of  such  testi- 
mony not  violating  the  rule  of  the  text. 
Cuiniingham  ?•.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  40 
Pa.    Super.    Ct.    212. 

28.  Why  a  car  not  re-iced. — Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.  f.  Orcm.  etc.,  Produce  Co.. 
Ill    .\I(1.   :!.)(>,  7.3   .-\tl.   o71. 

29.  Offer  of  reward, — Bennett  r.  North- 
ern Pac.  Exp.  Co.,  12  Ore.  49,  6  Pac.  160. 

30.  Mears  r.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
75  Conn.  171,  52  Atl.  610,  56  L.  R.  A. 
8S4,  96  .-Km.   St.   Rep.    192. 

31.  Evidence  insufficient  to  fix  identity 
of  goods.— Callaway  :•.  Si)Utlu>rn  R.  Co., 
12(i   Ga.    1'.).").   .").")    S.    E.   2;{. 

32.  Hearsay  evidence. — Ft.  Worth,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Harlan  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  62  S. 
W.   971. 

33.  Impeaching  or  contradicting  evi- 
dence.—  In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for 
damage  to  a  shipment,  where  witness 
testified  he  did  not  know  the  origin  of 
the  fire,  it  was  error  to  admit  an  affida- 
vit previously  made  by  him  that  he  sup- 
posed it  was  caused  by  passing  engines. 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bath  &  Co..  17 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  697,  711,  44  S.  W.  .->9.-).  af- 
firmed, in   '.Kl   Te.x.   7:!1,    no   (ip. 

Agent's  certificate  giving  amount  of 
goods  destroyed. — .\n  agent  of  a  railroad 
company,  on  the  day  after  a  fire,  drew  up 
a  statement  in  the  form  of  a  certificate, 
giving  tlie  amount  of  plaintiff's  goods  de- 
stroyed   while    in    the    possession    of    the 


company,  etc.  The  railroad  company  in- 
troduced the  deposition  of  the  agent  as 
to  the  same  facts.  Held,  that  the  state- 
ment was  admissible  evidence  to  contra- 
dict the  deposition  in  case  it  disagreed 
with  the  statement,  and  the  attention  of 
the  witness  was  called  to  that  fact.  East 
Line,  etc.,   R.   Co.  f.   Hall.  64  Tex.  615. 

34.  Manufactured  evidence. — Erb  7: 
Koekuk  Packet  Co.,  r.i  Mo.  5.3.  which 
was  an  action  to  recover  the  value  of 
three  boxes  of  goods  shipped  at  St. 
Louis  on  board  of  one  of  the  defendant's 
boats,  to  be  delivered  at  Leavenworth. 
It  appeared  that  the  boxes  were  included 
in  the  bill  of  lading,  but  not  included  in 
the  receipt  given  at  the  place  of  destina- 
tion. Held,  that  evidence  of  a  waybill 
on  a  railroad,  and  a  manifest  of  a  steam- 
boat running  over  a  portion  of  the  line 
over  which  the  goods  had  to  pass,  was 
inadmissible  to  explain  the  discrepancy 
between  the  bill  of  lading  and  the  re- 
ceipt. 

35.  Harmless  error. — On  an  issue  of  a 
carrier's  negligence  in  permitting  a  con- 
signment of  perishable  freight  to  remain 
on  its  tracks  in  summer  without  icing, 
the  admission  of  a  telegram  from  the 
carrier's  servant  to  its  claim  agent,  that 
when  the  car  was  inspected  the  goods 
appeared  in  good  condition,  that  one- 
third  of  the  ice  remained,  and  a  certain 
quantity  was  put  in,  the  inspection  being 
shortly  before  the  ice  was  put  in,  does 
not  prejudice  defendant.  Lamb  :■.  Chi- 
cago, etc..  R.  Co..  76  N.  W.  1123.  101 
Wis.    138. 


§  1063 


CARRIKRS. 


836 


transact  and  made  while    he    was    engaged    in   such  husincss  are  admissible.''" 


36.  Declarations  and  admissions  of 
carrier's  agent. —  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  :'. 
Felker.  40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  004.  1)0  S.  \\  . 
530:  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Christie, 
5   \\'.   \'a.  o25. 

Illustrations. — Where  an  agent  of  a 
carrier,  wliile  engaged  in  tracing  and  lo- 
cating a  car,  stated  that  it  had  not  yet 
reached  a  certain  place,  the  declaration 
was  admissible  as  part  of  the  res  gestrc 
in  an  action  for  damages  to  the  shipment 
contained  in  the  car,  as  was  also  a  state- 
ment made  by  another  agent  when  he 
was  attempting  to  adjust  plaintiff's  claim 
for  damages,  and  when  he  and  plaintiff 
were  examining  the  shipment  to  ascer- 
tain tlie  damages.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Watkins.  4o  Tex.  Civ.  App.  321,  100 
S.   W.    162. 

In  an  action  for  damage  and  loss  to  a 
shipment  of  oil,  there  was  no  error  in 
admitting  evidence  of  statements  by  the 
soliciting  freight  agent  of  one  of  the  car- 
riers and  the  local  freight  agent  of  the 
other  that,  if  consignee  would  accept  the 
oil.  "they  would  see  them  through,"  as 
it  tended  to  show  the  inducement  of- 
fered consignee  to  receive  the  oil,  and 
that  by  receiving  it  consignee  did  not  in- 
tend to  waive  damages.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Oriental  Oil  Co.,  51  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  336,  111  S.  W.  979. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  defi- 
ciency in  cotton  seed  shipped,  where 
there  was  evidence  that  the  witness  was 
the  agent  of  defendant  railroad  at  a  cer- 
tain station,  and  had  received  as  such 
agent  the  cotton  seed  in  question,  and 
that  one  B.  was  agent  of  defendant,  and 
as  such  had  weighed  the  cotton  seed  in 
question,  it  was  competent  for  the  wit- 
ness to  testify  what  the  correspondence 
was  between  these  two  agents  of  the  de- 
fendant in  regard  to  such  matter.  Rags- 
dale  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  r>l  S.  E.  540,  72 
S.    C.    120. 

In  an  action  to  recover  for  the  loss  of 
a  trunk  shipped  by  express,  evidence 
that,  on  demand  being  made  to  the  pres- 
ident of  the  express  company,  he  ad- 
mitted that  the  trunk  had  been  in  the 
company's  possession,  is  admissible. 
Harnett  r.  Westcott,  56  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
213,  3   N.  Y.  S.  7,   18   N.  Y.   St.   Rep.  962. 

In  an  action  for  loss  of  goods,  inter- 
views with  the  carrier's  agent  in  an  at- 
tempt to  locate  the  goods  were  admissi- 
ble. Fein  v.  Weir,  114  N.  Y.  S.  426,  129 
App.   Div.  299,  affirmed  in  92   N.   E.   1084. 

Declaration  of  freight  claim  agent. — 
In  an  action  for  loss  of  freight,  evidence 
that  declarations  were  made  by  a  gen- 
eral agent  of  tlie  railway  company,  in- 
vested with  authority  to  adjust  claims 
against  it,  within  the  scope  of  his  agen- 
cies, show  that  the  authority  of  the 
freight  claim  agent  was  such  as  to 
render  his  report  as  to  the  claim  in  ques- 


tion l)inding  as  admissions  against  car- 
rier. Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Gernon,  84 
'l\'X.    141,    142.    19    S.    W.    461. 

Written  communications. — In  an  ac- 
tion for  freigln  burned  after  delivery  for 
shipment,  a  postal  card  written  the  ship- 
per by  the  carrier's  agent  after  the  fire, 
stating  that  the  carrier  would  not  as- 
sume further  responsibility  for  the 
freight,  was  admissible  to  show  that  the 
agent  knew  the  freight  had  been  deliv- 
ered for  shipment.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
c'.  Burrow  &  Co.,  116  S.  W.  198,  89  Ark. 
178. 

An  express  company  received  at  St. 
Louis  a  ])ox  of  goods  directed  to  the 
town  of  J.,  stipulating  that  its  liability 
should  cease  upon  delivering  the  goods 
to  another  carrier  at  the  agency  of  the 
company  nearest  J.  The  box  was  deliv- 
ered to  the  other  carrier  at  M.,  and  never 
reached  J.  In  tracing  it,  the  St.  Louis 
agent  directed  his  letter  to  an  agent  at 
T.,  which  was  nearer  to  J.  than  M.,  and 
received  a  reply  that  the  box  had  been 
lost  in  the  burning  of  a  car.  This  reply 
the  St.  Louis  agent  indorsed,  asking  the 
shipper  to  present  claim,  invoice,  and  re- 
ceipt for  settlement.  Held,  in  an  action 
for  the  loss,  that  the  letter,  reply,  and 
indorsement  were  competent  as  an  ad- 
mission of  liability.  Schutter  z'.  Adams 
Exp.  Co..  5   Mo.  App.  316. 

A  letter  received  by  due  course  of  mail, 
purporting  to  be  written  by  the  general 
claim  agent  of  a  railroad  corporation, 
and  upon  its  printed  letter  heads,  in  re- 
ply to  a  letter  addressed  to  the  corpora- 
tion or  to  such  claim  agent  and  sent 
through  the  mail,  is  presumptively  genu- 
ine and  authorized,  and  is  admissible  in 
evidence  without  further  proof  that  such 
person  is  the  general  claim  agent  of  the 
corporation  or  that  the  letter  was  writ- 
ten by  the  party  by  whom  it  purports  to 
l)e  signed.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  J'.  Mc- 
Intyre,  36  Tex.  Civ.  App.  399,  82  S.  W. 
346. 

Declarations  held  inadmissible. — C. 
sought  to  recover  the  value  of  a  trunk 
and  contents,  lost  from  the  cars  of  de- 
fendant. On  the  trial  the  evidence  ad- 
mitted that  B.,  who  was  since  deceased, 
a  clerk  in  an  office  of  defendant,  declared 
some  time  after  the  loss  that  he  had  dis- 
covered what  had  become  of  the  trunk; 
that  it  had  been  put  ofif  the  cars  at  a  cer- 
tain point  and  the  contents  lost.  Held, 
that  there  being  no  effort  in  the  case  to 
fix  the  liability  of  the  defendant  by  rea- 
son of  any  act  or  agreement  of  the  sup- 
posed agent  B.,  but  a  mere  attempt  to 
prove  by  his  declarations  a  fact  with 
which  he  was  not  in  any  way  connected, 
and  of  which  he  did  not  appear  to  have 
any  personal  knowledge,  the  evidence 
was  improperly  admitted.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Christie,  5  W.  Va.  325. 


837 


LOSS  OR    INJURY'   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1063-106: 


Where  some  of  the  contents  of  a  box  have  been  lost,  any  admission  which  ma> 
have  been  made  by  the  consignee  in  reference  thereto  is  adniissiljle.-'" 

§  1064.  Opinion  Evidence. — In  an  action  against  carriers  for  injuries  to 
goods,  witnesses  who  ha\c  (luaHlied  as  ex])erts  may  give  their  o|)ini(jn  as  to  the 
cause  of  the  (himage.-'''  A  non-expert  witness  can  only  testify  as  to  facts.^"  In 
an  action  to  recover  the  value  of  cotton  lost  by  fire  it  is  not  error  to  refuse  to 
permit  the  question  to  be  answered,  whether  everything  was  done  which  could 
be  done  to  sa\e  the  cotton   from  being  burned.'" 

§  1065.  Documentary  Evidence.— Bill  of  Lading.— A  bill  of  lading  ac- 
kiiowkdgiiig  the  receipt  of  goods  is  evidence  of  their  delivery  to  the  carrier.^ ^ 

Waybill. — In  an  action  for  loss  of  freight,  the  waybill  which  went  with  the 
freight  is  comjjetent  evidence  against  the  carrier.-*-  Where  the  plaintiff  intro- 
duces a  waybill  in  evidence  by  offering  a  ])art  of  it,  the  defendant  has  the  right 
to  have  the  entire  pajier  submitted  to  the  jury.-*-' 


37.  Admission  of  consignee. — Louis- 
ville, etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Yudclson,  135  Ga. 
7:U,   70   S.    K.   576. 

38.  Expert  and  opinion  evidence. — 
Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Bath,  40  Tex. 
Civ.  .^pp.  270,  90  S.  \V.  55,  affirmed  in 
101  Tex.  641,  no  op.  (that  dama^^c 
caused   hy   fresh,   and   not  by   salt   water). 

39.  Illustrations  of  testimony  as  to 
facts. — In  an  action  for  the  loss  of  sev- 
eral barrels  of  molasses  in  shipment,  tes- 
timony that  the  witness  had  inspected 
the  shipment  at  a  certain  point,  but  was 
unable  to  stop  the  leakage,  as  all  of  the 
barrels  seemed  to  be  in  good  condition, 
and  the  leakage  appeared  to  be  from  fer- 
mentation, was  not  a  conclusion  of  the 
witness.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'. 
Drought  &  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  100  S. 
W.  101 1. 

In  an  action  for  tlie  loss  of  several 
barrels  of  molasses  in  shipment,  testi- 
mony that  "some  of  the  barrel  heads 
showed  to  have  been  staved  inwards  by 
heavy  blows  from  the  outside,"  was  not 
a  conclusion  of  the  witness,  but  testi- 
mony as  to  a  fact.  International,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.  Drought  &  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
100  S.  W.   toil. 

On  an  issue  as  to  the  cause  of  dam- 
age to  a  shipment  in  transit,  the  testi- 
mony of  a  witness  tliat  it  was  his  judg- 
ment, from  the  general  appearance  of  the 
shipment,  that  it  was  due  to  tlie  im- 
proper storing  or  packing  of  the  goods 
in  the  car,  was  admissible  as  the  state- 
ment of  a  fact,  and  not  merely  an  opin- 
ion. Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  "'.  Warner,  42 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  280,  93  S.  W.  4S9,  affirmed 
in  101  Tex.  664,  no  op. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
damages  to  a  car  of  vegetables,  caused 
by  not  keeping  them  sufficiently  iced,  ev- 
idence that  the  vegetables  were  carefully 
packed,  and  that  the  car  was  well  iced 
with  five  hundred  pounds  of  ice  when  it 
left  the  starting  point,  is  not  objection- 
able, as  stating  a  conclusion.  Ft.  Wortli, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Harlan  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.). 
62   S.   W.  971. 


Statement  of  opinion.— Testimony  of 
a  carrier's  agent  at  the  delivering  point, 
that  barrels  in  which  flour  was  shipped 
were  green  when  loaded  on  the  cars,  and 
that,  by  piling  them  several  tiers  deep, 
the  barrels  were  bent  out  of  shape,  and 
tile  flour  spoiled,  may  be  regarded  as  a 
statement  of  an  opinion.  Gulf,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Frank  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  48  S. 
W.  210. 

40.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ed- 
monds, 41   Ala.  667. 

41.  Bill  of  lading. — Harrison  r.  Hix- 
son  (Ind.),  4  Blackf.  226;  Mussellam  r. 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
90S,  104  S.  W.  337:  Fasy  r.  International 
Nav.  Co.,  177  N.  Y.  591,  70  N.  E.  1098, 
affirming  79  N.  Y.  S.  1103,  77  App.  Div. 
4()9. 

Sufficient  identification  of  consignee. — 
In  an  action  against  a  carrier  tor  loss  of 
freight  alleged  to  have  been  consigned 
to  "A.  G.  B.,"  the  bill  of  lading  issued  to 
"W.  R.  B."  is  admissible  in  evidence  on 
it  appearing  that  the  goods  had  been  or- 
dered and  paid  for  by  "A.  G.  B.."  and 
that  the  seller  had  always  addressed  him 
as  "W.  R.  B."  Bullock  v.  Charleston. 
etc.,    R.    Co..   64   S.    E.   234.   82   S.   C.  375. 

That  the  defendant  acknowledges  in  a 
bill  of  lading  the  receipt  of  other  goods 
also,  is  no  objection  to  its  admission  as 
evidence  of  the  delivery  of  certain  goods 
to  the  carrier.  Wallace  :•.  X'i^us  (Ind). 
4  Blackf.  :.'•■,(). 

Bill  executed  by  one  defendant  admis- 
sible against  all. — Where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  a  ship- 
ment, plaintiff  alleged  that  defendants 
belonged  to  a  certain  system  and  were 
partners,  and  partnership  was  not  de- 
med.  the  bill  of  lading,  although  exe- 
cuted by  one  of  the  partners,  was  ad- 
missible against  them  all.  St.  Louis,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  7:  Watkins,  45  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  321, 
100   S.   W.   162. 

42.  Mussellam  :•.  Cincinnati,  etc..  R. 
Co..   104   S.   W.   337.   :!1    Ky.    L.    Rep.   '.lOS. 

43.  Part  of  waybill  introduced  in  evi- 
dence.— Where,    in    an    action    against    a 


§§  1065-1066  cARKiiiRS.  838 

Memorandum. — An  insiruniciu  ilated  at  the  place  and  time  of  shipment,  and 
in  the  form  of  the  ordinary  bill  of  lading,  but  without  sig-nature,  which  was  de- 
livered to  the  consignee,  with  the  goods,  on  payment  of  the  charges,  is  admis- 
sible as  an  original  memorandum  of  the  shipment,  notwithstanding  a  certificate 
attached  thereto,  dated  more  than  a  year  after  the  time  of  shipment,  and  signed 
by  the  carrier's  agent  at  the  place  of  shipment,  to  the  effect  that  the  instrument 
was  a  cop\-." 

The  books  of  a  shipper,  shown  to  have  been  kept  by  a  competent  book- 
keeper ill  the  usual  course  of  its  business,  are  admissible-  against  the  carrier  to 
establish  the  weights  of  carloads  of  cotton  seed  as  shown  by  entries  therein, 
though  neither  the  bookkeeper  making  the  entries  nor  the  person  who  weighed 
the  cars  aiul  announced  the  result  testify  with  reference  thereto.-^'' 

Written  Admissions. — The  admissibility  in  evidence  of  written  admissions 
is  treated  elsewhere.-*'' 

Necessity  for  Proof  of  Execution. — A  bill  of  lading  not  declared  upon  is 
not  evidence  in  an  action  to  recover  goods  lost  by  a  carrier  without  proof  of  its 
execution. -^"^  But  where  the  bill  of  lading  is  alleged  in  the  petition  to  have  been 
signed  bv  the  defendant,  it  is  admissible  in  evidence  without  proof  of  its  exe- 
cution, if  its  execution  be  not  denied  by  the  defendant  under  oath  in  its  answer."*^ 
Where,  in  an  action  against  connecting  carriers  for  injuries  to  cotton,  certain 
dray  receipts  were  given  by  witness  for  the  cotton  on  delivery  thereof  to  a  steam- 
ship company,  such  receipts  are  not  objectionable,  in  that  they  are  not  shown  to 
have  been  executed  by  the  witness.^'*  A  certificate  of  weight  not  shown  to  be 
an  exact  copy  of  the  book  of  original  entries,  or  that  it  was  given  in  the  regular 
course  of  business,  by  one  authorized  to  do  so,  is  inadmissible  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  loss  of  grain  in  transit,  to  prove  the  delivery  of  the  grain  to  and 
reception  thereof  by  the  carrier.-'''^ 

§  1066.  Parol  Evidence. — Where  the  consignor  of  goods,  in  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  their  loss,  introduces  the  bill  of  lading  to  prove  the  de- 
livery of  goods,  he  may  show  by  parol  testimony  that  the  goods  belong  to  him- 
self, and  not  to  the  consignee. ^^  But  it  is  held  that  where,  in  an  action  to  re- 
cover for  goods  lost  by  a  carrier,  plaintiff'  produces  a  bill  of  lading,  parol  proof 
that  the  goods  were  shipped  by  the  shipper  •named  therein  as  the  agent  of  plain- 
tiff is  inadmissible.-^-  W'hen  the  bill  of  lading,  by  reason  of  contradictions 
therein,  is  not  conclusive  as  to  the  contract  between  the  parties,  the  plaintiff" 
may  show  the  real  contract  under  which  the  carrier  received  tlie  property.''-"'     In 

carrier   for   damages   to    goods    in    transit.  48.  Barrow  v.  Philleo,  14  Tex.  345,  346; 

plaintiff  introduces   in   evidence   a  waybill  Texas,    etc.,   R.    Co.    t'.    Logan,  3    Texas 

of  a  prior  connecting  road,  with   the  ex-  App.    Civ.    Cas.,   §    186. 

ception     of    a    sentence    written    in     lead  49.  Dray     receipts. — Houston,     etc.,     R. 

pencil,   reciting  that   the   goods,  when   re-  Co.  v.   Bath,  40  Tex.   Civ.  App.  270,  00  S. 

ceived,    were    in    a   badly-damaged    condi-  W.   .55. 

tion,  it  is  error  to  exclude  that  sentence  50.  Certificate     of    weight.— Emison     v. 

when  subsequently   offered   by  defendant;  OIijo,  etc.    R    Co     12   O    C    D    727 

it    not    appearing    that    the    sentence    was  d    -n      '1        -j        "      tt       •         ~        rr- 

written   subsequent  to  the  making  of  the  ^^\F^f°^   ^pf^'^'^f •To?^"'"^"    "'    ^''^' 

waybill.      Goodman     v.    Oregon    R.,     etc.,  '^^'^   <I"^'>'  ^  ^^''''^^-  -6- 

Co..  22   Ore.   14.  2S   Pac.  894.  52.   Peck    v.    Dinsmore    (Ala.),    4    Port. 

44.  Memorandum. — Weide      v.      David-  212. 

son,   15   Minn.  327,  Gil.  258.  53.  When    bill     not     conclusive. — Salts- 

45.  Books  of  shipper. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  man  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Hun 
Co.  V.  Belton  Oil  Co.,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  448,  20  N.  Y.  S.  361,  48  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
44,   99    S.   W.   430.  .'55,    in    which    case    the    body    of    the    bill 

46.  Written  admissions. — See  ante,  stated  that  defendant  agreed  to  forward 
"Declarations   and   .Admissions,"   §   106.';.  its    car    of    plaintiff's    property    from    Av- 

47.  Necessity  for  proof  of  execution. —  oca,  N.  Y.,  to  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  and  the 
Peck  T.  Dinsmore  (.\!a. ),  4  I'ort.  212;  St.  heading  of  the  bill  showed  that  the  car 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Cc>.  v.  Watkins,  45  Tex.  was  to  he  taken  from  Avoca  to  Elkhart, 
Civ.   App.   321,   100    S.    W.    162.  Ind. 


839 


LOSS  OR  INJURY  TO  GOODS, 


§§  1066-1067 


an  action  for  loss  of  frcij^lit,  evidence  of  the  circumstances  of  the  giving  of  a 
receipt  by  tlie  carrier  for  the  frei},'ht  is  achnissihle  to  support  the  defense  that 
the  freight  had  not  been  dehvered  t(j  it.'-* 

§  1067.  Weight  and  Sufficiency  of  Evidence.  In  General.— The  rules 
as  to  the  \\eif,dit  and  sutViciency  of  evidence  in  actions  against  carriers  f<jr  loss 
of  or  damage  to  goods  are  the  same  as  in  other  civil  actions.''"' 


54.  Circumstances  of  giving  receipt. — 
Mussfllam  ;■.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Iti4 
S.  W.  :{:{7.  :n   Ky.  L.  Kcp.  'kis. 

55.  Weight  and  sufficiency  of  evidence. 
— In  actions  against  carriers  of  live 
stock,  sec  also,  post,  "Actions,"  chap- 
ter 2n. 

As  to  loss  occurring  at  sea,  sec  post. 
•"Carriers    liy    Water,"     i'art    \'II. 

Evidence  sufficient  to  sustain  verdict 
or  judgment  for  plaintiff. — Central,  etc., 
R.  Co.  :.  Mercantile  Claim  Co.,  8  Ga. 
App.  17,  08  S.  E.  402;  Oostanaula,  etc.. 
Steamboat  Co.  v.  Hampton.  65  S.  E.  303, 
6  Ga.  App.  499;  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Broome,  60  S.  E.  355.  3  Ga.  App.  641;  Il- 
linois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mossbarger,  28  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  1217,  91  S.  \V.  1121;  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Watkins,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1254, 
91  S.  W.  1122;  Brennisen  v.  Pennsylva- 
nia R.  Co.,  100  Minn.  102,  110  N.  W.  362, 
10  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  169;  Banks  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  Ill  Minn.  48,  126 
N.  \V.  410;  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Garrison  (Tex.  Civ.  App."),  79  S.  W.  611; 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Japhet  &  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  129  S.  W.  1194. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the  loss  of  a  bale  of  cotton, 
plaintiff's  evidence  showed  that  the  bale 
was  loaded  on  a  dray  to  be  delivered  to 
defendant,  and  that  defendant's  check 
clerk  had  signed  a  receipt  for  the  bale  in 
the  drayman's  receipt  book,  l)ut  that  the 
receipt  had  been  erased.  Defendant's 
check  clerk  testified  that  he  had  signed 
the  receipt,  but,  on  being  informed  by 
the  head  clerk  that  he  had  made  a  mis- 
take, he  erased  his  signature.  Defend- 
ant's head  clerk  testified  that,  in  billing 
out  the  cotton  in  the  depot  for  shipment, 
he  had  been  unable  to  find  the  bale  in 
question:  that  lie  then  directed  tlie  check 
clerk  to  mark  off  his  receipt  for  the  bale; 
and  that,  had  the  bale  been  received,  wit- 
ness would  have  discovered  it  when  he 
billed  out  the  cotton.  Held,  that  a  ver- 
dict for  plaintiff  was  warranted  by  the 
weight  of  the  evidence.  Savannah,  etc., 
R.  Co.  :■.  Steininger,  84  Ga.  579.  11  S.  E. 
236. 

Defendant  received  a  piano  from  plain- 
tiff at  W.  to  be  carried  to  L..  and  to  be 
there  delivered  to  a  connecting  line.  De- 
fendant's tracks  crossed  tlie  tracks  of  the 
other  line  at  L..  where  they  were  con- 
nected by  a  "Y."  Defendant  delivered 
the  piano  to  two  draymen  at  L.  to  be 
transferred  to  the  station  of  the  other 
carrier,  and  while  in  the  draymen's  pos- 
session  it  was  injured   by  a   fall   from   the 


•  Iray.  Held  sufficient  evidence  to  sus- 
tain a  verdict  for  plaintiff.  Missouri 
I'ac.  R.  Co.  V.  Young,  25  Neb.  651,  41  N. 
W.  646. 

W  here  goods  were  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier and  placed  in  a  sealed  car  and  set  on 
a  switch,  and  an  unprecedented  flood 
came,  and  no  evidence  as  to  the  condi- 
tion after  the  flood  was  offered,  the  goods 
in  question  not  being  identified  in  the 
car  after  the  flood,  tlie  perishable  goods 
caught  in  the  flood  being  dumped  in  the 
river,  and  the  goods  in  controversy  were 
not  of  such  character  and  those  identi- 
fied were  forwarded  to  their  destination, 
and  those  not  identified  were  forwarded 
to  the  claim  department,  and  the  goods 
in  controversy  never  reached  their  des- 
tination, and  there  was  no  showing  as  to 
the  same  by  the  claim  department,  a  ver- 
dict against  the  carrier  will  not  be  dis- 
turbed. Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Logan, 
etc.,  Co.,  23  Okla.  707.  29  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.. 
663,    105    Pac.    343. 

Evidence  that  plaintiff  delivered  a 
basket  to  a  servant  of  defendant  railroad 
company  to  be  shipped  over  its  road, 
that  this  servant  was  the  same  person 
who  had  repeatedly  shipped  baskets  for 
her,  and  that  on  this  occasion  he  said 
that  he  shipped  it,  and  that  neither  she. 
nor  any  one  for  her  ever  received  the 
basket,  justifies  a  judgment  in  favor  of 
plaintiff  for  the  value  of  the  basket. 
Quarrier  v.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.,  20  W. 
Va.  424.  IS  Am.  &   Eng.  R.  Cas.  535. 

Evidence  insufficient  to  sustain  verdict 
for  plaintiff. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i'. 
Beacli,  20   Okla.   155,  108   Pac.   1098. 

Evidence  held  insuflicient  to  sustain  a 
recovery  on  count  of  the  complaint 
based  on  carrier's  common-law  liability 
as  an  insurer  under  its  contract.  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Adams  Mach.  Co.,  165  Ala. 
430,    51    So.    779. 

lividence  for  plaintiff  in  an  action 
against  a  railroad  company  for  loss  of 
freight  by  fire,  showing  a  hole  in  the 
smokestack  of  a  certain  locomotive, 
claimed  to  have  set  the  fire,  but  shown 
by  the  proof  not  to  have  been  in  the  vi- 
cinity at  the  time,  was  ground  for  re- 
versing a  judgment  for  plaintiff,  though 
there  was  evidence  tending  to  show  that 
another  engine  set  the  fire;  it  not  appear- 
ing that  the  latter  was  defective.  Den- 
ver, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Peterson.  09  Pac.  578, 
30   Colo.  77,  97   Am.   St.   Rep.   76. 

Where  there  is  no  evidence  to  show 
that  the  machine  injured  was  delivered 
to   the   carrier   in   good   condition,   or   that 


§  1067 


CARRIERS. 


840 


Nature  of  Liability. — Evidence  that  defeiulaiit  received  the  goods  sued  for 
under  a  contract  to  ship  them  and  gave  a  hill  of  lading  therefor,  is  sufficient  to 
show  liability  as  a  common  carrier.''" 

Capacity  to  Contract. — Parol  evidence  that  a  railroad  corporation  estab- 
lished bv  law  in  one  state  has  held  itself  out,  through  its  agents,  as  a  com- 
mon carrier  over  a  railroad  in  another  state,  is  sufficient  ])rima  facie 
evidence  of  its  capacity  to  contract  for  such  carriage  to  maintain  an  action 
against  it  for  the  loss  of  merchandise  intrusted  to  it.-"^" 

Contract  to  Carry. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  of  goods, 
evidence  that  the  goods  were  shipped  in  the  name  of  a  person  as  the  agent  of 
plaintitt.  and  were  the  property  of  plaintiff,  is  not  sufficient  to  establish  an  un- 
dertaking to  carry.''"^ 

Execution  of  Bill  of  Lading. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  damages 
to  a  shipment,  proof  of  the  execution  of  the  bill  of  lading  may  be  made  by  cir- 
cumstantial evidence."'" 

Ownership. ^In  an  action  for  injuries  to  goods  the  plaintiff  can  not  recover, 
in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  that  he  is  the  owner  of  the  goods  or  has 
an  interest  therein  entitling  him  to  maintain  the  action.''" 


it  was  injured  while  in  the  carrier's  pos- 
session, a  verdict  for  plaintiflf  for  $137 
is  unsupported  by  the  evidence,  though 
he  testifies  that  at  the  time  of  the  trial — 
two  years  after  the  receipt  of  the  ma- 
chine— it  is  worthless,  but  that  he  has 
used  it  during  that  time  with  only  $37.50 
paid  for  repairs.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Breeding,  4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
154.    16    S.    W.    184. 

Verdict  against  weight  of  evidence. — 
In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company 
for  loss  of  freight  destroyed  in  a  fire 
which  burned  the  company's  freight  de- 
pot, two  witnesses  for  plaintiff  testified 
that  engine  No.  553  passed  the  freight 
depot  shortly  before  the  fire,  and  that 
sparks  were  escaping  from  a  small  hole 
in  its  smokestack;  and  other  witnesses 
testified  to  seeing  such  engine  in  the  yard 
at  the  time,  and  to  subsequent  examina- 
tion of  the  engine,  revealing  a  hole  in  the 
smokestack,  several  v,-eeks  later.  The 
engineer,  fireman,  and  brakeman  of  the 
train  supposed  to  have  set  the  fire  testi- 
fied that  its  engine  was  No.  554,  a  com- 
panion engine  of  No.  553;  and  the  latter 
was  shown  by  its  engineman  and  other 
railroad  employees,  and  the  engine  rec- 
ord, to  have  been  at  another  place  on  the 
day  of  the  fire.  Held,  that  a  verdict  for 
plaintifif  based  on  the  theory  that  the 
fire  was  set  by  engine  No.  553  was  mani- 
festly against  the  weight  of  the  evidence. 
Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Peterson,  69  Pac. 
578,   30   Colo.   77,  97   Am.    St.    Rep.   76. 

More  than  nominal  damages. — Evi- 
dence held  to  show  chunage  justifying 
more  than  nominal  damages.  New  York, 
etc.,  Transp.  Line  v.  Baer  &  Co.,  84  Atl. 
251,    118    Md.    73. 

56.  Nature  of  liability. — Lcngsfeld  v. 
Jones.    11    La.   Ann.   624. 

57.  Capacity  to  contract. — McCluer  v. 
Manchester,  etc..  Railroad  (Mass.),  13 
Gray    124,    74    Am.    Dec.    624. 


58.  Contract  to  carry. — Peck  v.  Dins- 
more    (Ala.),    4    Port.    212. 

59.  Execution  of  bill  of  lading.— St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins,  100  S.  W. 
162,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  321.  See  ante, 
"Proof  of   Execution   of   Bill,"   §   599. 

60.  Ownership  —  Illustrations. — Where, 
in  an  action  for  injuries  to  goods,  plain- 
tiffs testified  that  he  made  the  shipment, 
and  that  it  was  consigned  to  H.,  but 
there  was  no  evidence  that  the  property 
belonged  to  plaintiff,  or  that  he  had  any 
interest  therein  after  it  was  delivered  to 
the  carrier,  he  could  not  recover.  Mex- 
ican Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Locke  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  126  S.  W.  296. 

In  an  action  to  recover  for  loss  of 
property,  a  letter  from  the  carrier  ac- 
knowledging receipt  of  the  property  to 
be  forwarded  is  a  sufficient  recognition 
of  the  plaintiff  as  its  owner.  Stadhecker 
V.  Combs  &  Co.  (S.  C),  9  Rich.  Law. 
193. 

In  an  action  for  damages  to  cattle 
shipped  over  defendant's  railroad,  and 
which  were  bruised  and  injured  by  im- 
proper transportation,  so  that  they  lost 
25  per  cent  in  value,  plaintiffs  alleged 
that  they  were  partners,  and  the  cattle 
were  shipped  on  defendant's  road  through 
plaintiffs.  A  witness  testified  that  he 
knew  plaintiffs;  that  he  l:)OUght  thirty  of 
the  cattle,  for  which  he  paid  them  .a 
certain  sum  each  for  the  smallest:  that 
they  were  in  the  stock  pen  at  the  railroad. 
P.  testified  that  the  cattle  were  the  lot 
shipped  by  him  over  defendant's  road. 
Held,  that  the  partnership,  not  being  de- 
nied under  oath,  need  not  be  proved 
(Rev.  St.,  art.  1265),  and  that  the  evi- 
dence, on  demurrer  to  it,  authorized  the 
inference  that  the  cattle  belonged  to 
plaintiffs.  Good  v.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.),   1   S.   W.   854,  4   L.   R.   A.   S01.^_ 

In  an  action  by  "E.  F.  Dawson"  for 
damages    to    a    shipment,    evidence    of    a 


841 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1067 


Defense  of  a  Common-Law  Exemption.— W  hen  a  carrier  sets  up  the  de- 
fense that  the  loss  of  property  delivered  to  him  for  transportation  was  occa- 
sioned by  the  public  enemies  of  the  state,  he  must  establish  that  fact  Ijy  clear 
and  satisfactory  evidence.'" 

That  Carrier  Received  Goods.— In  absence  of  pro.jf  that  the  carrier  re- 
ceived for  transportation  the  goods  claimed  to  be  lost  and  damaged,  a  judgment 
against  the  carrier  in  an  action  for  (hnnagcs  for  loss  and  damage  in  transit  is 
not  sustained  by  evidence.''-  In  an  action  to  recover  for  loss  of  property,  a 
letter  from  the  carrier  acknowledging  receipt  of  the  property  to  be  forwarded 
is  a  sufficient   recognition  of  its  receipt  by  the  carrier.''-^ 

That  Goods  Lost  While  in  Custody  of  Carrier.— In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  the  loss  of  property  while  in  its  custody,  the  plaintiff  must  furnish 
satisfactory  proof  of  the  loss;"'-*  but  he  is  not  required  tfj  ])rove  it  to  a  mathe- 


shipment  by  "Dawson  &  Co."  was  insuffi- 
cient to  show  ownership,  .\tchison.  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Dawson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  '.)() 
S.  W.  r,o. 

61.  Clear  and  satisfactory  evidence. — 
Wallace   r.    Satulers.    r>o    Ca.    i:!4. 

62.  That  carrier  received  goods. — Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  z\  Cunihv  Mercantile, 
etc..   Co.    (Tex.   Civ.   .\pp.).   122  S.   \V.   "jGH. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  for  the 
value  of  cotton  alleged  to  have  been  de- 
livered by  ijlaintiff  to  defendant  railroad 
company  for  shipment,  evidence  held  to 
support  a  verdict  for  defendant  on  the 
ground  that  tlie  cotton  had  never  been 
delivered  to  or  received  by  it.  Smith  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Ark.  647,  1H2 
S.    W.    926. 

In  an  action  against  two  express  com- 
panies for  l)reakage  of  plate  glass  in- 
trusted to  tliem  as  carriers,  the  bill  of 
lading  purporting  to  he  issued  by  only 
one  of  them,  and  nothing  in  the  record 
tending  to  show  that  the  other  ever  as- 
sumed any  liability  in  their  carriage,  the 
judgment,  l)eing  against  both,  was  re- 
versed as  unsupported  l)y  the  evidence. 
Merchants'  Despatch  z:  Smith,  44  111.  :n9. 

Suit  against  the  South  Carolina  Rail- 
road Company  for  cotton  lost.  Proof 
that  the  cotton  was  delivered  to  an  in- 
terior railroad  company,  terminating  at 
the  interior  end  of  defendants'  railroad, 
and  consigned  to  a  firm  in  Charleston, 
but  no  proof  that  it  came  into  the  pos- 
session of  defendants,  nor  that  the  two 
roads  were  joint  contractors.  Held,  that 
the  proof  was  insufficient.  South  Caro- 
lina R.  Co.  V.  Bradford  ( S.  C).  10  Rich. 
L.  307. 

Evidence  Iield  to  show  that  tobacco 
was  delivered  to  a  carrier  tor  transporta- 
tion l)efore  its  destruction  l)y  fire,  so  as 
to  charge  the  carrier  as  an  insurer  with 
liability  for  its  loss,  though  no  notice 
was  given  to  the  carrier  after  the  load- 
ing had  been  completed.  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  American  Tobacco  Co.,  104  S. 
W.    377,   31    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1013. 

Evidence  that  wool  was  delivered  at 
the  station  of  a  common  carrier  in  sacks 
marked  witli  the  name  and  address  of  the 
owners,   whose   place    of   business   was   in 


Boston,  and  with  the  initial  of  the  agent 
who  had  purchased  it;  that  the  weights 
and  numbers  were  upon  all  the  sacks; 
that  previous  shipments  had  been  made 
by  the  same  agent  at  the  same  place  to 
the  same  principals,  during  the  same  sea- 
son; and  that  when  said  agent  delivered 
this  wool,  he  piled  it  in  on  part  of  the 
building,  pointed  it  out  to  the  defendants" 
agent,  and  said.  "That  pile  of  wool  is 
for  Boston" — is  evidence  of  a  delivery  to 
the  carrier  for  shipment  to  the  principals 
at  Boston.  Nichols  v.  Smith,  11."j  Mass. 
332. 

Evidence  held  to  justify  a  findmg  that 
the  goods  were  delivered  to  an  author- 
ized agent  and  that  they  were  never  de- 
livered hy  him  at  the  carrier's  office. 
Fein  v.  Weir,  114  N.  Y.  S.  426.  129  App. 
Div.  299,  affirmed  92  N.  E.  1084. 

63.  Stadhecker  z:  Combs  &  Co.  ( S.  C), 
9    Rich.    L.    193. 

64.  That  goods  have  been  lost. — Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Schumacher,  29  Md. 
168,   96   Am.    Dec.    510. 

Loss  not  shown. — In  an  action  against 
tlie  last  of  several  connecting  carriers  for 
failure  to  deliver  one  barrel  of  molasses 
of  a  car  load  shipped  to  plaintiflF,  he  did 
not  show  what  number  of  l^arrels  was 
shipped,  or  that  their  condition  was  dif- 
ferent on  arriving  at  their  destination. 
The  evidence  showed  that  the  enipty  bar- 
rel was  dry,  and  that  no  head  for  it  was 
found  in  the  car.  Held,  tfiat  no  loss  in 
transit  was  shown,  and  plaintiff  is  not 
entitled  to  recover.  Cooper  v.  Georgia 
Pac.  R.  Co..  92  Ala.  329,  9  So.  159,  25  Am. 
St.    Rep.    59. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  re- 
cover the  value  of  a  box  and  its  contents, 
the  evidence  showed  the  delivery  of  the 
box  to  the  carrier  directed  to  B.  at  L., 
to  be  delivered  to  D.;  that  plaintiff  had 
made  efforts  to  find  the  box,  l)ut  had  not 
been  alile  to  do  so;  that  he  had  made  in- 
quiries at  the  office  of  the  carrier  in  l)Oth 
towns,  and  had  also  inquired  oi  B.;  and 
that  he  had  not  seen  the  box  since  he 
shipped  it.  Held  not  sufficient  evidence 
that  the  carrier  had  lost  the  box,  to  en- 
title   plaintiff    to    maintain    an    action    for 


§  1067 


CARRIERS. 


842 


matical  certaintv.  but  siniplv  to  such  degree  as  would  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  the 
minds  of  the  jiirv  of  the  fact.'-''  On  proof  of  delivery  of  property  to  a  carrier 
in  a  <^ound  condition,  and  of  a  failure  to  deliver  it.  a  sufficient  cause  is  made  to 
sustain  a  recoverv  for  loss  bv  the  shipper.««  Mere  proof  of  the  difference  be- 
tween initial  and' terminal  weights  may  be  sufficient  to  make  out  a  prima  facie 
case  of  loss  of  part  of  a  shipment  of  grain  during  transportation."^'"  Where  the 
property  asserted  to  have  been  lost  by  the  carrier  is  accounted  for,  and  the  ap- 
parent discrepancy  explained  by  a  slight  mistake  in  numbering,  a  verdict  against 
the  carrier  should  be  set  aside. "^ 

Delivery  to  Carrier  in  Sound  Condition  and  Delivery  to  Consignee  in 
Damaged  Condition.— Proof  of  delivery  of  goods  to  a  carrier  in  sound  con- 
dition,'"''' and  of  their  redeliverv  at  the  end  of  the  route  in  damaged  condition,''^ 


its    value.      Morley   f.    Eastern    Exp.    Co., 
116   Mass.   97. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  re- 
cover for  a  package  of  jewelry  lost  from 
a  box,  the  loss  not  being  discovered  un- 
til after  delivery  to  the  consignee,  there 
was  evidence  that  the  box  had  been 
opened,  and  the  nails  redriven,  but  none 
as  to  the  care  taken  of  the  box  from  the 
time  of  the  delivery  to  the  discovery  of 
the  loss.  Held  insufficient  to  warrant  a 
finding  that  the  package  was  abstracted 
while  in  the  carrier's  possession.  Can- 
field  V.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co..  75  N.  Y. 
144,  reversing  4  N.  Y.   Super.   Ct.  562. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  show  that 
the  loss  occurred  before  delivery  to  con- 
signee. Brown  v.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
112  Pac.  147.  83  Kan.  574. 

65.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schu- 
macher,   29    Md.    168,    96    Am.    Dec.^   510. 

Evidence  showing  loss  while  in  car- 
rier's possession. — Where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  freight,  the 
original  bill  of  lading  showing  receipt  of 
six  boxes  of  goods  consigned  to_ plaintiff, 
and  the  carrier's  receipt  to  plaintiff  for 
freight  charges  on  five  of  the  boxes  ac- 
knowledged a  shortage  of  one  box,  for 
loss  of  which  the  action  was  brought,  the 
evidence  showed  that  the  loss  occurred 
while  the  goods  were  in  the  carrier's  pos- 
session, be  Lorme  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   60   S.   E.   440,  79   S.   C.   370. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  corpo- 
ration for  the  loss  of  a  case  of  goods  in- 
trusted to  it  for  carriage,  there  was  evi- 
dence that  the  case,  together  with  other 
goods  filling  two  cars,  was  delivered  to 
the  defendant  at  L.,  to  be  transported  to 
P.,  whence  it  was  to  be  carried  by  a  line 
of  steamers  to  A.;  that  the  two  cars  were 
received  by  the  agents  of  the  steamer 
from  the  defendant,  "unopened,  and  just 
as  they  were  received,"  and  were  kept  on 
their  wharf,  carefully  watched  and  guarded, 
until  the  goods  were  transferred  to  the 
steamer;  and  that,  on  unloading  the  cars, 
it  was  found  that  the  case  was  not  in 
either  car.  The  defendant  asked  tlie 
judge  to  rule  that  there  was  no  evidence 
of  the  loss  of  the  case  between  L.  and 
the  depot  at  P.  Held,  that  this  ruling 
was    rightly    refused.      Green    v.    Boston, 


etc.,   R.   Co.,   128   Alass.   221,   35   Am.   Rep. 
370. 

In  an  action  to  recover  for  loss  of  a 
traveling  bag  from  a  carrier  of  parcels 
for  hire,  to  whom  it  was  intrusted  to_  be 
delivered  at  a  designated  depot  in  time 
for  a  particular  train,  a  prima  facie  case 
it  made  out  by  the  testimony  of  the 
plaintiff  that  he  inquired  at  the  baggage 
room  at  the  proper  time,  and  was  unable 
to  find  his  baggage.  Zeigler  v.  Freeman, 
12  O.  C.   C,  N.  S.,  122,  21-31  O.  C.  D.  342. 

66.  Duncan  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
16  N.  D.  610,  118  N.  W.  826;  Taugher  v. 
Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  21  N.  D.  Ill, 
129  N.  W.  747.  See  ante,  "Plaintiff's  Bur- 
den  of   Proof   in    General,"   §    1056. 

Evidence  sufficient  to  show  nondelivery 
to  consignee. — Tradewell  v.  Chicago,  etc  , 
R.  Co.  (Wis.),  136  N.  W.  794;  Central, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Manchester  Mfg.  Co.,  64 
S.    E.   1128,  6   Ga.   App.   254. 

67.  Morris  v.  Minneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(N.  D.).  141  N.  W.  204. 

68.  Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Goforth 
(Miss.),   14   So.  457. 

69.  Delivery  to  carrier  in  sound  condi- 
tion.— Swiney  v.  American  Exp.  Co. 
(Iowa),  115  N.  W.  212;  Duncan  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  16  N.  D.  610,  118  N. 
W.  826;  Armstrong,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  26  Okla.  352,  109  Pac.  216, 
29   L.    R.   A.,    N.    S.,   671. 

Illustrations. — Evidence  of  a  witness 
that  he  assisted  in  packing  the  goods, 
and  that  he  knew  they  were  put  up  in 
such  a  manner  that  there  was  no  possi- 
bility of  their  sustaining  injury,  except 
from  neglect  or  carelessness,  was  suffi- 
cient to  show  a  delivery  to  the  carrier  in 

70.  Redelivery  in  damaged   condition. — 

Swiney  v.  American  Exp.  Co.  (Iowa.), 
115  N.  W.  212;  Duncan  v.  Great  North- 
ern R.  Co.,  16  N.  Dak.  610,  118  N.  W.  826; 
Armstrong,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  26  Okla.  352,  109  Pac.  216,  29  L.  R- 
A.,    X.    S.,    671. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  warrant 
a  finding  that  the  goods  were  damaged 
prior  to  carrier's  delivery  to  a  drayman 
at  destination.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Musgrove,  153  .'\la.  274,  45  So.  229. 


843 


LOSS  OR  INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§  1067 


makes  a  sufficient  case  to  sustain  a  recovery  of  damages  by  the  shipper.  The 
fact  that  a  consignee  has  received  of  a  common  carrier  the  goods,  without  ob- 
jection, and  receipted  for  them  as  in  good  order,  is  only  presumptive  evidence 
that  they  have  not  been  damaged  in  the  carrier's  hands.' ^  Where  phiintitt  gave 
no  evidence  that  goods  were  in  good  c(jn(hti(jn  when  deHvered  to  the  carrier: 
but  defendant,  in  attempting  to  show  that  the  goods  were  fhimaged  l>y  reason 
of  bad  packing,  prochiccd  evidence  which  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that  the 
damage  occurred  while  the  property  was  in  transit,  and  the  evidence  as  to  the 
mode  of  packing  was  conflicting,  the  jury  might  find  from  defendant's  testi- 
mony that  the  damage  occurred  while  the  goods  were  in  transit,  without  accept- 
ing tlif  tlu()r\-  of  the  witnesses  that  it  was  caused  by  careless  packing."- 

Negligence. — The  general  rules  as  to  the  weight  and  sufficiency  of  evidence 
to  i)rove,'''   or  dispro\e  negligence,"'*   appl\-   to  actions  against  carriers   for  loss 


good  order.  Hall  v.  Morrison's  Adm'r.  20 
Tex.    179. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  dam- 
ages to  property  transported  by  it,  evi- 
dence that  the  property  was  in  good 
condition"  when  loaded  on  the  car,  and 
that  the  car  was  receipted  for  in  good 
condition  when  it  reached  defendant's 
road,  tends  to  show  that  the  property 
was  in  good  condition  when  received  by 
defendant.  Modern  Match  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, etc..  R.  Co.,  104  X.  W.  19,  140  Mich. 
570. 

Where,  in  an  action  for  damages  to  an 
automobile  in  transit,  plaintiff  testified 
that  it  was  in  good  condition  when  de- 
livered, and  in  a  damaged  condition  when 
received  it  was  sufficient  to  establish 
prima  facie  that  the  automobile  was  re- 
ceived by  defendant  in  good  condition. 
Paterson  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  103  N. 
W.   621,   9,5   Minn.   57. 

Where  the  recital  in  a  receipt  given  by 
a  carrier,  that  goods  received  by  it  for 
transportation  were  in  good  condition, 
was  corroborated  by  evidence,  the  fact 
that  it  rained  on  the  day  the  goods  were 
shipped  did  not  show  that  they  were  ex- 
posed to  rain  while  being  delivered  to 
the  carrier  and  did  not  prevent  a  finding 
that  the  goods  were  in  good  condition 
when  delivered  to  it.  Struebing  Co.  v. 
Merchants  Despatch  Transp.  Co..  12fi  N. 
W.   21,    142   Wis.   t)57. 

71.  Effect  of  receipt  given  by  consignee. 
— Bloomingdale  v.  Durell,  1  Idaho  33. 

72.  Leo  V.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 
Minn.   4:;s.    15   X.   W.   S72. 

73.  Evidence  sufficient  to  show  negli- 
gence.— Marande  v.  Te.\as,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
42  C.  C.  A.  317,  102  Fed.  246,  reversed 
in  22  S.  Ct.  340.  184  U.  S.  .173.  46  L.  Kd. 
487;  Presley  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
139  N.  W.  609,  120  Minn.  295;  Fockens 
V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  99  Minn.  404, 
109  N.  W.  834;  Brennisen  v.  Pennsvl- 
vania  R.  Co.,  101  Minn.  120,  11  N.  W. 
945:  Peerless  Mfg.  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  61  .\tl.  511,  73  N.  H.  328;  Farmer 
V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  25  S.  Dak.  96, 
125  N.  W.  575;  Fire  .Ass'n  f.  Loeb.  25  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  24,  59  S.  W.  617.  affirmed  in  94 
Tex.  690;  .\tchison.  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Madden, 


etc..  Co.,  103  S.  W.  1193,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
597  (negligence  in  depositing  goods  in  yard 
in  view  of  approaching  flood);  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Gilmore  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
152  S.  W.  1102  (negligence  in  not  notify- 
ing consignee  of  arrival  of  freight);  Na- 
tional Rice  Mill.  Co.  v.  New  Orleans,  etc., 
R.  Co..  61  So.  768.  132  La.  615  (negligence 
in  failing  to  save  property  from  impend- 
ing  finod). 

Where  an  express  company  contracted 
to  carry  certain  berries  in  a  refrigerator 
car,  evidence  that,  when  the  car  arrived, 
the  ice  bunkers  of  the  car  were  found  to 
be  nearly  empty  and  the  berries  spoiled, 
was  sufficient  to  establish  the  carrier's 
negligence.  Taft  Co.  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  133  Iowa  522,  110  X.  W.  897,  10  L. 
R.    A.,   N.    S.,   614. 

Proof  by  the  plaintiff  that  the  injury 
might  have  been  avoided  by  the  exercise 

74.  On  an  issue  as  to  the  liability  of  a 
railroad  company  for  goods  damaged  in 
an  unprecedented  storm,  where  there  was 
no  evidence  as  to  the  effect  of  the  storm 
on  its  cars,  or  to  show  that  they  were 
broken  or  leaks  caused  as  a  result  there- 
of, mere  evidence  that  the  cars  contain- 
ing the  goods  appeared  to  be  good,  close, 
dry  cars,  and  the  testimony  of  the  con- 
ductor that  the  cars  were  in  good  condi- 
tion at  a  certain  point,  was  insufficient  to 
clear  the  company  of  negligence,  not  ex- 
cluding the  possibility  of  their  leaky  con- 
dition. Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Browne,  66 
S.    W.    341,   27    Tex.    Civ.    App.    437. 

Cotton  was  destroyed  at  the  burning  of 
a  compress.  Several  witnesses  were  near 
when  the  alarm  sounded,  but  did  not 
know  what  caused  the  fire.  The  switch 
engine  had  not  been  near  for  three  and 
onj-half  hours.  The  cotton  was  on  two 
cars  on  a  side  track  near  the  compress. 
One  of  the  cars  was  saved.  What  effort 
was  made  to  save  the  other  was  not 
shown,  nor  what  precautions  had  been 
taken  for  the  protection  of  cotton  in 
cars  on  the  side  track.  Held,  that  the 
evidence  did  not  show  that  the  loss  oc- 
curred without  fault  on  the  part  of  the 
carrier.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  China 
Mfg.   Co.,   79   Tex.   26.    14   S.   W.   785. 


1067 


C.\RRn-:RS. 


844 


of  or  injury  to  goods.     It  is  enough   for  the  phiintiti  to  (hsolose  circumstances 
sufficient    to   raise   a     fair    inference    of    negligence.''       W  here,    in     an    action 


of  reasonable  skill  and  attention  on  the 
part  of  the  carrier  sufficientl}'  establishes 
the  negligence  of  the  defendant.  Read  Z'. 
St.  Lonis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  00  Mo.  199. 

Where  in  an  action  for  claj'  pots  dam- 
aged in  transitu,  it  is  shown  that  the  pots 
were  sound  and  carefully  packed  in  the 
car,  but  that  they  were  shifted  about  and 
badh-  damaged  when  received,  though 
similar  pots,  packed  in  like  manner,  had 
uniformly  arrived  unbroken,  the  jury 
were  warranted  in  finding  that  damage 
was  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  carrier. 
PhcEnix  Pot-Works  v.  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co..    139    Pa.    284,    20   Atl.    1058. 

Evidence  that  the  pier  where  the  vessel 
lay  was  covered  by  a  building  owned  by 
the  defendant  steamship  company,  whose 
interior  was  open  throughout,  and  whose 
ends  and  sides  were  made  of  pine  boards; 
that  in  one  room  was  a  stove,  two  feet 
from  a  partition,  with  the  pipe  running 
through  the  ceiling,  and  with  no  protec- 
tion around  either  stove  or  pipe;  that  the 
fire  came  from  that  room,  and  soon  con- 
sumed the  steamship;  and  that  there  was 
no  sufficient  watch,  warranted  a  finding 
that  the  fire  was  caused  by  the  negligence 
of  the  defendant.  Hill  Mfg.  Co.  z:  Provi- 
dence, etc..  Steamship  Co.,  125  Mass.  292. 

In  an  action  for  injury  to  wheat  from 
a  flood  while  in  a  car  standing  on  a  side 
track,  it  appeared  that  at  7:30  a  train 
which  ■  had  put  from  the  station  was 
driven  back  by  water  over  the  track.  Be- 
fore that  time  the  company's  agent  at  the 
station  had  noticed  that  the  water  was 
rising.  At  about  8:30  the  agent  asked  the 
conductor  and  engineer  to  haul  the  cars 
from  the  side  track  to  the  main  track, 
which  was  on  higher  ground,  and  which 
was  at  no  time  covered  by  the  water; 
but  they  refused,  fearing  that  the  water, 
which  was  then  over  the  side  track,  would 
put  out  the  fire  in  the  engine.  They  testi- 
fied, however,  that  a  short  time  after 
they  got  back  to  the  station  they  looked, 
and  the  water  was  not  over  the  side 
track.  Held,  that  the  evidence  was  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  a  verdict  for  plaintiffs, 
on  the  ground  that  the  loss  was  due  to 
the  failure  of  defendant's  agents  to  ex- 
ercise ordinary  care  and  diligence  in  re- 
moving it  to  a  place  of  safety.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Keedy,  75  Md.  320, 
23    Atl.    643. 

Where  the  evidence  showed  that  the 
fruit  when  shipped  was  in  good  condition, 
and  properly  packed  in  a  refrigerator  car, 
and  the  only  reason  for  its  failure  to 
reach  its  destination  in  sound  condition 
was  the  failure  of  the  carrier  to  keep  the 
car  ventilated  and  iced,  the  evidence 
showed  the  negligence  of  the  carrier  and 
not  the  character  of  the  fruit.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson  &  Co.,  55  Tex. 
Ciy.   App.   407,   118   S.   W.   853. 


Plaintifif  shipped  two  lots  of  fruit  trees 
over  defendant's  railway;  one  lot  to  pur- 
chasers, which  were  delayed  in  their  ar- 
rival, on  account  of  which  the  purchasers 
refused  to  take  them,  and  plaintiff  had 
to  sell  them  at  a  loss.  When  plaintiff 
shipped  these  trees,  he  notified  the  agent 
of  defendant  of  his  contract  with  the  pur- 
chasers, and  that,  if  the  trees  did  not 
reach  them  by  a  certain  time,  they  would 
be  a  total  loss  to  him,  as  the  purchasers 
would  not  take  them  after  that  date. 
The  other  lot  were  frozen  and  killed  in 
transit.  They  were  in  good  order  when 
shipped.  Held,  that  a  verdict  awarding 
plaintiff  damages  for  both  lots  would 
be  sustained,  the  evidence  showing  neg- 
ligence on  the  part  of  the  carrier's  serv- 
ant. Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Talley,  2 
Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas..   §  765. 

Negligence  of  corn-press  company. — 
Evidence  that  the  carrier,  after  receiving 
cotton,  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  a  third 
party,  to  be  compressed;  that  the  com- 
press was  a  large  shed,  open  on  the  east, 
where  a  platform  forty-five  feet  wide 
reached  a  railroad  track  on  which  were 
several  cars  loaded  with  cotton,  from  one 
of  which  a  servant  of  the  compress  com- 
pany removed  a  bale  in  which  the  fire 
originated  about  five  minutes  afterwards; 
that  the  officers  and  employees  of  the 
compress  company  indulged  in  smoking 
under  and  around  the  shed;  that  one  em- 
ployee had  been  seen  .carrying  matches 
behind  his  ear;  that  on  the  day  of  the 
fire  an  officer  of  the  company  was  seen 
under  the  shed  walking  over  some  cotton 
with  a  lighted  cigar  in  his  hand,  held, 
sufficient  to  support  a  finding  that  the 
fire  arose  from  the  negligence  of  the  com- 
press company.  Otis  Co.  z'.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.   Co.,   112   Mo.  622,  20   S.   W.  676.  _ 

Evidence  insufficient  to  show  negli- 
gence.— The  fact  that  the  floor  of  a  rail- 
road warehouse  was  saturated  with  oil, 
and  that  the  company  permitted  com- 
bustible material  to  be  collected  there, 
where  there  is  nothing  to  show  the  cause 
of  the  fire  that  destroyed  the  warehouse 
and  its  contents,  does  not  show  negli- 
gence so  as  to  authorize  a  recovery  by 
one  whose  goods  were  burned.  Texas 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Flanary  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
50   S.   W.    726. 

75.  Witting  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
101  Mo.  631.  14  S.  W.  743,  20  Am.  St. 
Rep.  636,  10  L.  R.  A.  602.  holding  that 
where  plaintiff's  evidence  was  that  a  foun- 
tain was  properly  packed  and  delivered  to 
the  carrier  in  good  order,  and  that  when 
it  reached  its  destination  one  side  of  the 
crate  was  broken,  and  one  of  the  inside 
stays  broken,  and  the  others  out  of  place, 
there  is  no  error  in  refusing  an  instruc- 
tion in  the  nature  of  a  demurrer  to  the 
evidence. 


845 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1067 


on  the  contract  of  carriage,  plaintiff  does  not  plead  that  the  loss  was 
due  to  the  carrier's  negligence,  mere  proof  of  nondelivery  of  the  goods  by 
the  carrier  is  not  ])rima  facie  evidence  that  the  goods  were  lost  by  reason  of 
the  carrier's  negligence  within  the  rule  that  a  carrier  can  not  limit  its  liability 
for  the  negligent  loss  of  goods  by  a  special  contract,  though,  if  negligence  be 
alleged,  proof  of  the  nondelivery  of  the  goods  would  be  sufficient  prima  facie 
evidence  to  re(iuire  the  carrier  to  show  that  the  loss  was  due  to  a  cause  for  which 
it  was  not  responsible.'"  Evidence  that  cabbages  had  just  been  cut,  were  sound 
and  hard  when  shipped,  but  decayed  in  transit,  and  were  badly  damaged  on 
reaching  destination,  warranted  a  finding  that  defendant  railroad's  cars  were 
either  not  ])r()pcrlv  c()ii>tructcd  or  not  refrigerated.'' 

Identification  of  Goods  Lost. — It  is  held  that  no  recovery  can  be  had  in  a 
suit  for  a  general  shortage  of  two  bales  of  cotton  alleged  to  have  been  lost  by 
a  carrier  out  of  shipments  covering  a  whole  season,  where  no  cotton  is  identified 
as  that  which  was  lost."'*  In  an  action  to  recover  for  nine  bales  of  cotton,  the 
average  weight,  class,  and  value  of  which  is  shown  by  the  evidence,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  identify  the  cotton  by  marks  or  brands,  or  by  a  certain  number  of 
pounds,  if  the  jury  are  satisfied  in  regard  to  the  nine  particular  bales  of  cotton, 
and  are  able  to  say  the  nine  bales  sued  for  were  the  property  of  the  plaintiff."'^ 

As  to  Value  or  Damage. — Generally,  as  to  the  weight  and  sufficiency  of 
evidence  to  sliow  value  or  damage,  see  post,  "Weight  and  Sufficiency,"  §   1084. 

Additional  Instances. — In  the  notes  are  set  out  numerous  decisions  of  the 
courts  as  to  the  weight  and  sufficiency  of  evidence  to  show  particular  facts, 
such  as  the  cause  of  the  loss  or  damage,"^"  misrepresentation  or  concealment  of 
the  nature  of  goods  by  the  shipi)er.''^  to  what  destination  goods  were  marked.*"- 


76.  Oregon,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Blyth.  IS) 
Wyo.  410.  118  Pac.  649.  119  Pac.  875. 
Am.  Cas.  1913  E,  288. 

77.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  McLean. 
55    Tex.    Civ.    App.    i:i().    lis    S.    W.    If.l. 

78.  Identification  of  goods  lost. —  Illi- 
nois Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Gross  (Miss.),  22 
So.    946. 

79.  Montgomery,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Knlb, 
73   Ala.   396.   49   Am.    Rep.   54. 

80.  Cause  of  loss — Sparks  from  en- 
gine.— Testimony  of  a  witness  that  he 
saw  sparks  coming  from  defendant's  en- 
gine and  blowing  in  the  direction  of  the 
cotton,  either  on  the  night  in  which  the 
fire  occurred  or  the  night  before,  and 
about  two  and  one-half  hours  earlier 
than  the  hour  at  which  the  fire  occurred, 
authorized  the  jury  to  conclude  that  the 
cotton  was  set  on  fire  l)y  the  sparks  seen 
by  the  witness.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Beard.  7S  S.  W.  2.-.3.  34  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
ISS. 

Removal    from    one    car    to    another. — 

Tlie  mere  fact  that  oranges  and  lemons 
shipped  in  boxes  were  transferred  from 
one  car  to  another  of  the  same  kind,  due 
to  the  defective  condition  of  the  car  on 
which  they  were  originally  shipped — the 
unloading  being  accomplished  by  running 
the  cars  on  parallel  tracks,  thereby  re- 
quiring the  carrying  of  the  boxes  only 
about  twenty  feet — does  not  sufficiently 
show  that  the  fruit  was  damaged  by  sucli 
removal,  or  the  extent  of  the  damage, 
so  as  to  entitle  the  shipper  to  recover  for 
damages  to  the  fruit  from  decay.     Corso 


t'.  New  Orleans,  etc..  R.  Co.,  48  La.  .\nn. 
1286.    20    So.    752. 

Spontaneous  combustion. — Where  spon- 
taneous combustion  was  merely  shown  to 
have  been  a  possible  cause  of  the  fire, 
and  the  carrier's  expert  testified  that  the 
evidence  did  not  indicate  any  particular 
cause  of  the  fire,  and  that  no  substance 
had  been  mentioned  which  would  refer 
it  to  spontaneous  combustion,  the  evi- 
dence was  insufficient  to  justify  a  finding 
upon  the  theory  that  the  fire  was  due  to 
spontaneous  combustion.  Lloyd  v.  Haugh. 
etc..  Transfer  Co.,  72  Atl.  516.  223  Pac. 
148.  21   L.  R.  A.,  N.   S.,  188. 

Act  of  God. — Evidence  held  to  show 
that  the  damage  was  caused  by  an  act  of 
God.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas  Star 
Flour  Mills  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  143  S.  W. 
1179. 

81.  Concealment  by  a  shipper  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  goods,  discharging  the  car- 
rier from  liability,  is  not  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  initial  carrier's  agent  issuing 
the  bill  of  lading  did  not  give  a  full  and 
complete  description  thereof.  Central, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Jones,  66  S.  E.  492,  7  Ga. 
App.   165. 

Evidence  held  to  sustain  finding  that 
carrier  was  not  misled  as  to  the  character 
or  value  of  the  goods  by  any  statement 
of  the  shipper,  or  by  the  nature  of  the 
packages  or  the  markings  thereon.  Gal- 
veston, etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Quilhot  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).    134   S.   W.   261. 

82.  Destination. — Evidence  held  insuffi- 
cient   to    support    a    finding    that    goods 


§  1067 


CARRIERS. 


846 


that  the  name  of  destination  was  changed  by  the  carrier,'*-'  that  cars  were  ordered 
with  ice,'^"'  that  goods  were  received  for  immediate  shipment,^"'  that  the  carrier  con- 
sented to  goods  being  placed  on  the  platform  before  ready  for  shipment,"*"'  that  a 
shipment  was  diverted,'^"  that  a  fire  in  a  carload  of  cotton  had  been  in  the  cotton 
at  the  time  of  loading  the  car,'^^  that  cotton  took  fire  while  on  side  track,^''  that 
carrier  waived  notice  of  limitation  as  to  the-amonnt  of  its  liability  in  case  of 
loss,  and  that  limitation  was  not  assented  to  by  plaintiffs,'"'  that  there  was  a 
total  loss,''i  that  property  was  of  no  value  after  injury,"-  that  a  comi)ress  com- 
pany was  defendant's  agent  for  receiving  the  cotton  destroyed,"'-'  that  plaintifif's 
claim  was  filed  for  a  certain  amount,-'-*  that  defendant's  agent  refused  to  give 
plaintiff  the  key  to  warehouse  until  it  was  too  late  to  move  the  freight  before 
fire  spread  to  the  building,^-"*  the  amount  of  the  loss  of  each  of  the  plaintiffs,''*^ 
that  lost  goods  were  of  a  certain  value,''"  and  a  custom  extending  liability. ^^ 


were  marked  tor  a  certain  destination. 
Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hill,  84  Ark.  362, 
105   S.  W.  877. 

A  receipt  given  by  a  carrier  for  goods 
shipped,  and  stating  the  destination,  is 
only  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  goods 
were  marked  for  such  destination.  South- 
ern Exp.  Co.  z:  Hill.  10,5  S.  W.  877,  84 
Ark.   36S. 

83.  Change  of  name  of  destination. — 
Where  the  name  of  the  place  of  destina- 
tion specified  in  the  waybill  is  changed 
in  the  course  of  transportation,  evidence 
that  the  copy  given  by  defendant  to  the 
consignee  did  not  show  the  change;  that 
it  was  passed  to  a  connecting  company, 
when,  if  it  ran  to  the  place  named  in_  the 
alteration,  defendant  would  have  retained 
it;  and  that  the  waybill  delivered  by  the 
connecting  company  specified  the  original 
place  of  destination — will  justify  a  finding 
that  the  change  was  made  by  defendant. 
Harris  v.  Cheshire  R.  Co.  (R.  I.),  16  Atl. 
512. 

84.  That  ice  was  ordered. — Where,  in 
an  action  for  damages  to  cabbages  by 
failure  to  properly  ice  the  cars,  plaintiff 
testified  that  defendant's  agents  had  in- 
structions to  ice  all  the  cars,  that  the 
records  covering  the  movements  of  cars 
showed  with  one  or  two  exceptions  that 
the  cars  were  ordered  without  ice,  and 
the  written  requisition  for  the  cars  failed 
to  contain  an  order  for  ice,  did  not  tend 
to  disprove  a  finding  that  ice  was  ordered. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLean,  55  Tex. 
Civ.   App.   130,   118   S.   W.    161. 

85.  Goods  received  for  immediate  ship- 
ment.— St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burrow 
&   Co.,    116   S.   W.   198,   89   Ark.    178. 

86.  Yarborough  v.  Southern  Railway, 
78    S.    C.    103,   58    S.    E.   936. 

87.  Diversion. — In  an  action  against 
a  carrier  for  injury  to  four  car  loads  of 
grain  by  a  flood,  an  averment  in  the  state- 
ment of  claim  that  the  cars  were  di- 
verted from  the  usual  course  of  transit 
by  placing  them  in  a  c«=trtain  yard,  instead 
of  carrying  them  to  a  certain  other  yard, 
is  not  borne  out  by  the  proof,  where  it 
was  specified  in  the  bill  of  lading  that  the 
grain  should  be  carried  to  "the  usual 
place  of  delivery  at  said  destination,"  and 


the  undisputed  evidence  was  that  for 
seven  years  prior  to  the  f^ood  all  con- 
signments of  grain  for  delivery  at  the 
point  in  question,  unless  specially  con- 
signed to  consignees  who  had  private  sid- 
ings, had  been  placed  in  the  yard  in  which 
the  grain  was  placed  for  inspection  and 
reconsignment,  and  that  plaintiff  knew 
of  the  usage  and  expected  the  cars  to  be 
placed  there.  Smith  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   72   Atl.   264,   223   Pa.   118. 

88.  Latta  v.  New  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
59  So.  250,  131  La.  272,  Ann.  Cas.  1914A, 
988. 

89.  That  cotton  was  burned  while  in  a 
car  on  a  side  track  does  not  show  that 
the  cotton  took  tire  while  on  such  side 
track,  there  being  no  other  evidence  to 
such  effect.  Insurance  Co.  v.  Lake  Erie, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  E.  382,  152  Ind. 
333. 

90.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  Cutter,  140 
111.  App.  324,  judgment  affirmed  Cutter 
7'.  Wells,  Fargo  &  Co.  (Ill),  86  N.  E. 
695. 

91.  Total  loss. — In  an  action  by  a  con- 
signee for  damages  to  a  keg  of  syrup 
which  had  soured,  and  for  a  penalty  for 
delay  in  allowing  the  claim,  evidence  held 
to  warrant  a  finding  that  there  was  a  to- 
tal loss,  although  the  keg  itself  was  prob- 
ably in  good  condition  and  worth  about 
twenty-five  cents,  thus  relieving  the  con- 
signee from  the  duty  of  accepting  the 
goods  and  giving  him  the  right  to  sue 
for  the  entire  value  of  the  goods.  Wil- 
kins  V.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  C),  75 
S.  E.  1090. 

92.  Berley  v.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
64   S.   E.   397,   82  S.   C.   232. 

93.  Texas  Mid.  Railroad  v.  Edwards  & 
Co.,  56  Tex.  Civ.  App.  643,  121  S.  W. 
570. 

94.  Harter  z'.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
67   S.   E.   290,  85   S.   C.   192. 

95.  Donnell  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R.  Co., 
84   Atl.    1002,    109    Me.    500. 

96.  Arkadelphia  Mill.  Co.  v.  Smoker 
Merchandise  Co.,  100  Ark.  3^,  139  S.  W. 
680. 

97.  Kettenhofen  v.  Globe  Transfer,  etc., 
Co.,    70   Wash.    645,    127    Pac.   295. 

98.  Custom     extending    liability. — Evi- 


847 


LOSS  OR   IXU'RV  TO  GOODS. 


1068 


§§  1068-1085.  Damages— §§  1068-1080.  Extent  of  Liability,  Meas- 
ure and  Elements  of  Damages — §  1068.  In  General. — The  liability  of  a 
common  carrier  to  make  ctjinpensation  for  gocjds  or  property  lost  by  it  extends 
at  common  law  not  onl}'  to  the  dnty  imposed  upon  it  by  law  to  safely  transport 
the  goods,  but  also  to  its  responsibility  to  make  reparation  by  way  of  damages 
in  favor  of  the  owner  of  the  property  to  the  fullest  extent  fixed  and  allowed  by 
law  in  such  cases.""  The  owner  may  recover  the  actual  damages  sustained.^ 
as  the  direct  and  necessary  consequences  of  the  loss  or  injury  of  goods.-  He 
is  restricted  to  such  actual  loss  and  can  not  recover  what  erroneously  appeared 
lo  ])c  the  (lamages  when  the  goods  first  arrived.'' 

Remote  and  Speculative  Damages. — The  general,  if  ncjt  the  universal, 
rule  applicable  in  cases  where  compensation  is  sought  for  the  consecjuences  of 
the  wrongful  or  negligent  act  of  a  carrier,  or  for  the  violation  of  its  contract, 
is  that  it  is  responsible  only  for  the  proximate  and  not  the  remote  consequences 
of  its  actions. ••  Damages  which  arc  uncertain  and  speculative  arc  not  recover- 
able.^ 

Liability  for  Acts  of  Agent. — While  a  carrier  is  liable  for  the  actual  dam- 
ages to  goods  shipped  caused  by  the  act  of  his  agent  done  in  the  usual  course 
of  his  employment,  yet  he  is  not  responsible  for  wanton  and  willfvd  flamages 
done  by  the  agent  without  his  consent  or  subsequent  ratification.*^ 

Where  No  Loss  Is  Sustained. — If,  by  an  actual  sale  and  receipt  of  the 
price,  the  consignee  protects  liiniself  against  any  loss  resulting  from  the  goods 


dence  held  not  to  sliow  a  custom  extend- 
ing a  railroad's  liability  as  common  car- 
rier for  goods  ready  for  delivery  at  des- 
tination. Knight  V.  Southern  Railway,  G7 
S.    E.    IC,    8.^,    S.    C.    78. 

99.  Common-law  liability. — Galveston, 
etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Ball,  S(»  Tex.  cori,  G06.  16  S. 
W.   441. 

As  to  effect  of  stipulations  limiting  lia- 
bility or  fixing  value  of  goods,  see  post, 
"Limitation  of  Liability,"  chapter  14. 

Under  the  Texas  statutes,  the  liability 
of  a  common  carrier  for  loss  of  freight 
is  that  imposed  by  the  rules  of  the  com- 
mon law.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  76 
Tex.  337,  340,  13  S.  W.  191;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Douglas  &  Sons,  2  Texas  App. 
Civ.    Cas.,    §    28. 

1.  Actual  damages — Illustrations. — In 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  injury  to 
goods,  part  of  which  plaintiff  had  sold. 
he  may  recover  actual  damages  for  in- 
jury to  the  portion  unsold.  Henry  v. 
Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  89  Ga.  815,  15  S.  E. 
757. 

Where  the  injury  to  the  goods  is  less- 
ened by  the  action  of  the  plaintiff,  the 
carrier  should  only  be  charged  with  ac- 
tual loss,  and  plaintiff  should  be  allowed 
for  expenses  incurred  in  so  doing.  Rob- 
ertson V.  National  Steamship  Co.,  60  N. 
Y.  Super.  Ct.  132,  17  N.  Y.  S.  459,  42  N. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  694. 

Where,  through  the  negligence  of  a 
carrier,  meat  consigned  to  Europe  was 
partly  destroyed,  and  a  portion  taken  for 
the  ship's  use,  the  shipper  can  recover 
of  the  carrier  for  the  meat  used  by  the 
ship  as  well  as  for  that  destroyed.  Sher- 
man V.  Innian  Steamship  Co.  (.N.  Y.),  26 
Hun  107. 

2.  The  plaintiff  was  about  to  commence 


the  publishing  of  a  newspaper  in  Cin- 
cinnati, and  w-as  waiting  for  the  machin- 
ery to  arrive  from  New  York,  where  it 
had  been  purchased.  The  carriers  had 
been  notified  of  these  facts  when  they 
contracted  to  carry  the  machinery  to  Cin- 
cinnati in  four  daj'S.  \  part  of  the  ma- 
chinery was  lost.  Held,  that  the  carrier 
was  liable  for  the  direct  and  necessary 
consequences,  including  wages  of  men 
who  were  idle  for  want  of  the  machinery 
after  the  time  when  it  was  to  have  been 
delivered,  and  the  cost  of  efforts  made 
to  recover  the  machinery,  as  well  as  the 
cost  of  replacing  that  which  was  lost,  and 
whicli  could  only  be  replaced  by  order- 
ing it  from  the  manufactorj-  in  New 
York.  Cincinnati  Chronicle  Co.  v.  White 
Line  Cent.  Transit  Co..  1  Cin.  R.  300,  13 
O.  Dec.  561. 

3.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Godair,  3  Tex. 
Civ.  App.   514,  22   S.   W.   777. 

4.  Remote  damage. — Evans  v.  Rudy,  34 
Ark.  3S:i:  Daniels  v.  Ballatine.  23  O.  St. 
532,  13  Am.  Rep.  264;  Alderson  v.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W. 
617,  affirmed  in  93  Tex.  678,  no  op. 

5.  Yoakuin  v.  Dunn,  1  Tex.  Civ.  .-Kpp. 
524,  21  S.  W.  411,  holding  that  the  follow- 
ing charge  was  erroneous:  "If  you  find 
that  by  reason  of  the  total  or  partial  loss 
of  some  of  the  articles  belonging  to  the 
collection  or  museum,  the  whole  collec- 
tion is  depreciated  in  value,  and  rendered 
unfit  for  profitable  exhibition,  you  will 
consider  such  incidents  and  results,  for 
the  purpose  of  determining  the  actual 
damage  you  find  the  plaintiff  has  sus- 
tained." 

6.  Liability  for  acts  of  agent. — Mendel- 
sohn v.  Anaheim  Lighter  Co.,  40  Cal. 
657. 


CARRIERS. 


848 


§§  1068-1069 

being  damaged  in  transitu,  he  can  not  recover  of  the  carrier  anything  beyond 
nominal  damages  and  costs,  although  he  may  be  hable,  on  account  of  warranty 
or  fraud  in  making  the  sale,  to  refund  to  the  purchaser  a  part  of  the  priceJ 

Possibility  That  Goods  Damaged  by  Freshet  before  Loss.— Though 
goods  saved  by  a  carrier  from  the  perils  of  a  freshet  were  damaged  by  passing 
tiirough  the  freshet  without  its  fault,  yet,  if  some  not  saved  are  unaccounted 
for,  aiid  it  is  not  shown  that  the  freshet  caused  their  loss,  or  what  their  condi- 
tioii  was  when  they  disappeared,  a  recovery  for  their  full  value  may  be  had."^ 

§  1069.  Loss  of  Goods. — The  general  rule  is  that  where  goods  are  lost  or 
destroved  the  carrier  is  liable  for  their  value  at  the  place  of  destination  at  the 
time  they  should  have  been  delivered,'^  with  interest  thereon   from  that  time,^'^ 


7.  Where  no  loss  sustained.— Henry  v. 
Central  R..  etc.,  Co..  89  Ga.  815,  15  S.  E. 
757. 

8.  Goods  damaged  before  loss. — Char- 
lotte, etc.,  R.  C(i.  c'.  Wooten,  S7  Ga.  203, 
13  S.   E.   50'J. 

9.  Loss  of  goods — Value  at  destination. 
— United  States. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jurey,  111  U.  S.  584,  28  L.  Ed.  527,  4  S. 
Ct.  566;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estill, 
147  U.  S.  591,  622,  37  L.  Ed.  292,  13  S.  Ct. 
444.  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  487;  Primrose 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  154  U.  S.  1, 
14,  38  L.  Ed.  883,  14  S.  Ct.  1098;  Wood- 
ward V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1  Biss.  403, 
Fed  Cas.  No.  18006;  Ormsby  v.  Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Fed.  706,  2  McCrary  48. 

Alabama. —South,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wood, 
72  Ala.  451,  18  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  634; 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gilmer,  89  Ala. 
534,  7  So.  654,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  450; 
Echols  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  Ala. 
366,  7  So.  655;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Kelsey,  89  Ala.  287,  7  So.  648,  42  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  584;  East  Tennessee,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Johnston,  75  Ala.  596,  22  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  437,  51  Am.  Rep.  489;  South- 
ern R.  Co.  V.  Hatter  &  Son,  165  Ala.  423, 
51  So.  723. 

Ca///or»ja.— Ringgold  v.  Haven,  1  Cal. 
108;  Hart  v.  Spalding,  1  Cal.  213. 

Georgia. — Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  82  Ga.  386,  9  S.  E.  1076;  Chattanooga 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Thompson,  133  Ga. 
127,  131,  65  S.  E.  285;  Taylor  &  Co.  v. 
Collier,  26  Ga.  122. 

/»J/a»a.— Wallace  v.  Vigus  (Ind.),  4 
Blackf.  260. 

///i»oi.y.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dick- 
inson, 74  111.  249;  Northern  Transp.  Co. 
V.  McClary,  66  111.  233;  Plaff  v.  Pacific 
Exp.  Co.,  159  111.  App.  493;  S.  C,  251  111. 
243,    95    X.    E.    1089. 

/ott'O.— Robinson  Bros.  v.  Merchants' 
Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  45  Iowa  470;  Cobb, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 
601. 

Kentucky.— Addims  Exp.  Co.  v.  McDon- 
ald (Ky.;,  1  Bush.  32;  Cincinnati,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Spratt  (Ky.),  2  Duv.  4;  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hansford,  30  Ky.  L. 
Rep.   1105,   100   S.   W.  251. 

Louisiana. — Burke  v.  Clarke,  11  La.  206; 
Price,  etc.,  Co.  v.  The  Uriel,  10  La.  Ann. 
413;    Rathbone   v.    Neal,   4   La.   Ann.    563, 


50  Am.  Dec.  579;  Lewis  v.  The  Success, 
18  La.  Ann.  1;  Porter  v.  Curray,  7  La. 
233. 

Maine. — Little  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad, 
66  Me.  239;  Perkins  v.  Portland,  etc.,  R. 
Co..   47    Me.   573,   74   Am.   Dec.   507. 

Maryland. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pumphrey,  59  Md.  390,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   331. 

Minnesota. — Jellett  v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Minn.  265,  16  x\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
246,    15    N.    W.    237.. 

Mississippi. — Vicksburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ragsdale,  46  Miss.  458.  See  Mobile,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Robbins  Cotton  Co.,  94  Miss. 
351,  48  So.  231. 

Missouri. — Union  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Traube, 
59  Mo.  355,  8  Am.  R.  Rep.  441;  Davis  v. 
Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  449,  re- 
versed on  other  grounds,  89  Mo.  340; 
Rice  V.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Mo. 
App.  27;  Sturgeon  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  65  Mo.  569. 

Nebraska. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Lawler,  40  Neb.  356,  58  N.  W.  968,  61 
Am.   &   Eng.    R.    Cas.   255. 

Xetu  Hampshire. — Hackett  v.  Boston, 
etc.,   Railroad,  35  N.   H.   390. 

Xezi'  York. — Sturgess  v.  Bissell,  46  N. 
Y.  462;  Harris  v.  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
61  N.  Y.  656;  Sherman  v.  Wells  (N.  Y.), 
28  Barb.  403;  Rice  v.  Ontario  Steamboat 
Co.  (N.  Y.),  56  Barb.  384;  Harris  v.  Pan- 
ama R.  Co.,  18  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  312; 
Davis  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
1    Hilt.  543. 

North  Carolina. — Lewark  v.  Norfolk, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  N.  C.  383,  49  S.  E. 
882. 

Ohio. — Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  28  O. 
St.  358,  14  Am.  R.  Rep.  143;  McGregor  & 
Co.  V.  Kilgore,  6  O.  358,  27  Am.  Dec.  260; 
Louis  V.  Buckeye,  1  Handy  150,  12  O. 
Dec.  74. 

Oregon. — Prettyman  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc., 
Co.,  13  Ore.  341,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
413,    10   Pac.   634. 

Pennsylvania. — Lucesco  Oil  Co.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  2  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  477;  Gill- 
ingham  v.  Dempsey  (Pa.),  12  Serg.  &  R. 
183;  Ruppel  V.  Allegheny  Valley  R.  Co., 
167  Pa.  166,  31  Atl.  478,  46  Am.  St.  Rep. 
666;   Hand  v.  Baynes   (Pa.),  4  Whart.  204, 

10.    Interest   as   element    of   damages. — 

See  post,  "Interest,"   §   1074. 


849 


LOSS  OR    INJURY  TO  COOUS. 


§  1069 


Xi  Am.  Dec.  .>4;  Warden  7\  Greer  (Pa.),  « 
Watts  424. 

South  Carnliiia. — Kyle  v.  Laurens  R.  Co. 
(S.  C),  10  Rich.  L.  :iH2,  70  Am.  Dec.  231; 
Shaw  V.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.  ( S.  C), 
5  Rich.  L.  402,  57  Am.  Dec.  768;  Walling- 
ford  V.  Columbia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  S.  C. 
258,  2  S.  E.  I'J,  :tO  Am.  &  Knu.  R.  Cas.  40; 
Brown  z'.  Northwestern  Railroad,  75  S. 
C.  20,  54   S.    H.   821). 

Tennessee. — Dean  v.  V'accaro,  39  Tenn. 
(2  Head)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744;  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kelly,  91 
Tenn.  699,  20  S.  W.  312,  17  L.  R.  A.  691, 
30  Am.  St.  Rep.  902;  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Mason,  79  Tenn.  (11  Lea)  116, 
16  .\m.  &  EnK.  R.  Cas.  241.  Sec  Cole 
7:  Rankin  (Tenn.),  42  S.  W.  72.  Com- 
pare, Edminson  f.  Baxter,  5  Tenn.  (4 
Hayw.)    112,  9  .\m.   Dec.  75. 

Texas. — Eowler  v.  Davenport,  21  Te.x. 
626;  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Cook,  s  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  376,  27  S.  W.  769;  M.  P.  R. 
Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  575;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark.  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  512,  18  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  628;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Tankersley,  63  Tex.  57;  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  491;  Southern 
Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  D'Arcais,  64  S.  W.  813,  27 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  57;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Payne,  38  S.  W.  366.  15  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
58;  Wolfe  i:  Lacy,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Tex.  349, 
351;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Pagan,  72 
Tex.  127.  132.  9  S.  W.  749.  2  L.  R.  A.  75. 
13  Am.  St.  Rep.  776;  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Efron  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  38  S.  W. 
C39;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  3  Texas 
App.  Civ..  Cas.,  §  192;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Booton,  4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  67,  15 
S.  W.  909;  T.  B.  &  H.  R.  Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery. 4  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  238, 
16  S.  W.  178;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ball,  80  Tex.  602,  16  S.  W.  441;  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Webb,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
431,  439.  49  S.  W.  526;  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co. 
T.  HofTecker  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  123  S.  W. 
617;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  191;  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  z: 
Hertzberg.  17  Tex.  Civ.  App.  100,  42  S. 
W.  795;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'. 
Parish,  18  Tex.  Civ.  App.  130,  132,  43 
S.  W.  1066;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Roberts 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W.  479;  Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Dement  (Tex.  C'w.  App.). 
115  S.  W.  635;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z: 
Hewett,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  273; 
Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Martin.  2  Texa., 
App.   Civ.   Cas..   §   342. 

I'ermont.  —  Laurent      v.       \aughn.       lid 
Vt.    90. 

I'irgiiiia. — Chesapeake,    etc..    R.     Co.    v. 

Stock   &    Sons.    104   \'a.   97.   51    S.    E.    161. 

West    J'ir^iiiiia. — Quarrier    z\    Baltimore. 

etc..  R.  Co.,  20  W.  \'a.  424.  is  Am.  &  Eng. 

R.  Cas.  535. 

ll'isconsin. — Chapman  z'.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  26  Wis.  295,  7  Am.  Rep.  81;  Whit- 
ney z:  Chicagro.  etc..  R.  Co..  27  Wis.  327. 
5  Am.  R.  Rep.  291;  Dean  z\  Chicago,  etc.. 
R.  Co..  43  Wis.  305. 
1    Car— 54 


lingl'ind.— Brandt  v.  Bowlby,  2  B.  &  Ad. 
932,  22  E.  C.  L.  214;  O'Hanlan  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  6  B.  &  S.  484.  118  E.  C. 
L.  484;  Anderson  v.  North  Eastern  R 
Co..  9  W.  R.  519.  See  also  Redman'i 
Law  of  Ry.  Carr.  (2d  Ed.),  p.  134;  Hiort 
T'.  London,  etc..  R.  Co.,  4  Exch.  Div.  188, 
27  W.  R.  778;  Waller  z:  Midland  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  L.  R.  4  Ir.  376.  revers- 
ing L.   R.  1    Ir.  520. 

Canada. — Worden  v.  Canadian  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  13  Ont.  Rep.  652.  30  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  127;  Leader  z\  Northern  R.  Co..  3 
Ont.  C.  &  Div.  92.  16  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
287. 

By  the  terms  of  a  sale  of  machinery, 
$400  of  the  price  was  to  be  paid  on  deliv- 
ery, and  of  this  the  buyers  had  paifi  $100, 
and  the  seller  had  it  consigned  to  its  own 
order,  and  drew  on  the  buyers,  bill  of 
lading  attached,  for  $300.  Held,  that  the 
seller  under  these  conditions  could  sue 
the  carrier  in  case  of  its  loss  for  its  full 
value,  and  recovery  could  not  be  reduced 
by  the  amount  paid  on  account  for  which 
it  was  bound  to  account  to  the  buyers. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  Mach.  Co., 
165   Ala.   4:;f;.   51    So.   779. 

Not  credit  price. — Where  freight  is 
lost,  the  carrier  is  liable  to  the  consignee 
for  its  value  at  the  time  of  the  loss  at 
the  place  of  destination,  and  not  for  the 
credit  price  at  which  the  consignee  bought 
it.  Brown  z\  Northwestern  Railroad.  54 
S.    E.   829,  75   S.   C.   20. 

Where  title  passed  to  buyer. — A  seller 
and  purchaser  agrood  that  the  property  in 
goods  siiould  pass  to  the  purchaser  when 
delivered  to  the  carrier  at  the  place  of 
shipment,  but  that  the  seller  should  re- 
tain the  right  of  possession  until  a  draft 
for  the  purchase  price,  with  bill  of  lading 
attached,  was  paid.  The  carrier  lost  the 
goods  in  transit.  Held  that,  the  title  hav- 
ing passed  to  the  buyer,  the  carrier  was 
lial)le.  not  merely  for  the  sale  price,  but 
for  the  value  of  the  goods,  unless  a  less 
amount  would  cover  the  damage.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Wilson  Hack  Line.  46  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    38,    101    S.    W.    1042. 

Market  value  at  date  of  destruction. — 

Measure  of  damages  for  total  loss  of 
goods,  caused  In'  the  carrier's  negligence 
while  they  remained  in  the  depot  of  des- 
tination, is  the  market  value  of  the  goods 
at  that  place  at  date  of  their  destruction. 
East  Tennessee,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Kellv.  91 
Tenn.  699.  20  S.  W.  312.  17  L.  R.  .\.'  691, 
30   Am.   St.   Rep.   902. 

Freight  in  which  there  is  inherent  de- 
fects.— '\hc  measure  of  damages  for  total 
loss  of  freight  in  which  there  is  an  inher- 
ent defect  is  the  price  it  would  have 
brought  in  the  market  at  the  place  of 
destination  in  the  condition  thej'  would 
have  been  in  had  the  carrier  exercised 
due  care,  less  freight  charges.  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Pagan.  72  Tex.  127.  9  S. 
W.  749.  2  L.  R.  A.  75.  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
776. 


§§  1069-1070  cARRTi-Rs.  850 

deducting  the  unj^aid  cost  of  transportation.^^  The  standard  of  value  to  be 
taken  in  such  case  is  the  wholesale  price.^-  Where  the  only  evidence  as  to  the 
value  of  lost  goods  is  the  price  stated  in  the  hill,  made  out  at  the  time  they  were 
bought,  the  jurv  should  be  limited,  in  assessing  the  damages,  to  the  price  stated 
in  the  bill,  with  interest  thereon  from  the  time  of  the  loss  to  the  time  of  trial. ^'^ 

Carrier  by  Water. — ^^'here  goods  are  lost  during  a  voyage  the  carrier  is 
liable  for  their  value  at  the  port  of  destination,^"*  but  when  the  loss  occurs  at 
the  place  of  landing  before  the  voyage  begins,  the  carrier  is  lialjle  for  their 
value  at  such  jiort.^"' 

Value  at  Nearest  Market. — The  measure  of  damages  for  the  destruction 
by  a  carrier  of  a  collection  of  birds  and  animals  in  a  museum  is  the  value  of 
such  specimens  at  the  nearest  market,  rather  than  the  value  of  the  owner's  time 
in  collecting  them.^'' 

TiOSS  of  Draft. — The  measure  of  damages  for  the  loss  of  a  draft  is  prima 
facie  the  amount  due  thereon,  the  company  being  entitled  to  reduce  that  valua- 
tion by  showing  payment,  insolvency  of  the  maker,  or  invalidity  of  the  draft. ^' 

Partial  Loss. — \\'here  the  goods  are  uninjured  in  quality,  but  there  is  a  par- 
tial loss,  the  owner  can  not  abandon  the  goods  and  recover  their  entire  value ; 
he  can  recover  onlv  the  price,  at  the  place  of  deliverv,  of  the  goods  actually 
lost.i^ 

Agreed  Valuation. — If  two  or  more  articles  of  an  interstate  shipment  are 
shipped  on  an  agreed  valuation  fixed  by  the  shipper,  and  a  part  of  them  is  de- 
livered and  the  balance  lost,  the  shipper  can  recover  only  a  ])ortion  of  the  agreed 
value,  determined  by  the  ratio  of  the  aggregate  value  to  the  amount  stipulated 
as  such  value.''" 

Deduction  of  Factor's  Commissions. — Where  a  common  carrier  under- 
takes to  carry  cotton  to  a  market,  and  it  is  lost,  it  is  not  allowable  for  the  jury 
to  deduct  the  factor's  commissions  from  the  value. -'^' 

Shipment  at  Reduced  Rate. — Where  a  common  carrier  receives  goods  for 
transportation,  at  a  value  lower  than  their  actual  value,  and,  in  conseciuence 
thereof,  ships  the  same  at  a  reduced  rate,  it  remains  liable  for  the  full  value 
of  the  goods,  if  there  is  no  agreement  or  contract  in  the  bill, of  lading  as  to  any 
limitation  on  account  of  loss  or  damage,  by  reason  of  any  reduction  of  freight. ^^ 

§§  1070-1072.  Injury  to  Goods— §  1070.  In  General.— As  a  general 
rule  where  goods  are  injured  under  such  circumstances  as  to  render  the  common 
carrier  liable,  the  owner  may  recover  the  difference  between  the  value  of  the  goods 
in  their  damaged  state  and  what  would  have  been  their  value  at  destination  if 

11.  Deduction  of  unpaid  charges. — See  127;  Dusar  v.  Murgatroyd,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
post,      ••Freight,    Allowance    and      Deduc-       4,199,   1   Wash.   C.   C.   13. 

tion,"  §  lOT.'i.  16.   Value   at   nearest   market. — Yoakum 

12.  Wholesale  price. — Wallace  v.  Vi-  v.  Dunn,  1  'J"cx.  Civ.  App.  524,  21  S.  W. 
gus   (Ind.),  4   Blackf.  260;  Texas,  etc.,   R.       411. 

Co.  V.   Payne,  38   S.  W.  366,   15  Tex.  Civ.  17.    Loss    of    draft.— Zeigler    v.    Wells, 

App.  58.  etc.,   Co.,  23  Cal.   179,  83  Am.  Dec.  87. 

13.  Blumentha!  v.  Brainerd.  38  Vt.  402,  18.  Partial  loss. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
91   Am.    Dec.    350.  Booton,  4  Texas  App.   Civ.   Cas.,  §  67,   1.5 

14.  Goods  lost  during  voyage. — Kansas.  S.  W.  909;  Shaw  z'.  South  Carolina  R.  Co. 
— Emily  v.   Carney,  5   Kan.   ()45.                        •  ( S.     C),    5     Rich.     L.    462,    57    Am.    Dec. 

Xew    York. — Krohn    v.    Oechs,   48    Barb.  768. 

127;    Watkinson    v.    Laughton,    8    Johns.  19.  Portion  of  agreed  value. — Fielder  v. 

213.  Adams    Exp.    Co.,    69    W.    Va.    138,    71    S. 

Pennsylvania. — Gillingham    v.    Dempsey,  E.  99. 

12  Serg.   &  R.  183.  20.    Deduction   of   factor's  commissions. 

Texas. — Fowler    v.    Davenport,    21    Tex.  — Kyle  v.  Laurens  R.  Co.  (  S.  C),  10  Rich. 

626.  L.   :')82,  70  Am.   Dec.  231. 

15.  Goods  lost  before  voyage  begins. —  21.  Shipment  at  reduced  rate. — L.  &  N. 
Lakeman  v.  Grinnell,  18  X.  Y.  Super.  R.  Co.  v.  Levi,  18  O.  C.  C.  873,  8  O.  C.  D. 
Ct.  625;  Krohn  v.  Oechs  (N.  Y.),  48  Barb.  373. 


851 


I<(J.SS   OR   INJURY   TO  CXJODS. 


§  1070 


delivered  in  good  order,--  with  interest,-^  less  tlie  unpaid  costs  of  transporta- 
tion.^^  The  rule  also  a])phes  where  goods  are  taken  for  transportation  to  a 
point  beyond  the  initial  carrier's  line.-'^  The  common  carrier  is  not  Hable  for 
the  whole  vahie  of  i)roperty  damaged  by  his  want  of  care,  so  long  as  its  char- 
acter is  not  so  changed  but  that  it  may  be  applied  to  the  ordinary  uses  of  such 
property,  though  he  will  be  answerable  for  the  depreciation  in  its  value  bv  rea- 
son of  its  being  rendered  unfit  for  some  particular  uses.-'' 

Determination  of  Damages. — The  measure  of  damages  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier  fur  injury  to  .^oods,  caused  by  its  negligence,  should  be  fixed  ac- 
cording to  the  average  of  the  range  of  prices  of  such  goods  in  the  entire  market, 


22.  Where  goods  injured. — .Irkansus. — 
St.  Louis,  Lie,  R.  Co.  V.  Plioonix  Cotton 
Oil    Co.,    ll.j    S.    W.    Ijy.'i,    88   Ark.    594. 

Dchnvarc. — Carpenter  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.   (Del.),  0  Pen.  15.  G4  Atl.  252. 

lozi'a. — Parsons  x'.  United  States  Kxp. 
Co.,  144  Iowa  745,  12:5  N.  W.  77G,  25  L. 
R.    A.,   N.    S.,   842. 

Kcntuckx. — Stone  v.  Adams  Exp.  Co. 
(Ky.),   122   S.   W.   200. 

Louishimi.  —  Henderson  v.  Maid  of 
Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  352;  Oakey  v. 
Russell  (La.),  (i  Mart.,  N.  S.,  58;  Silver- 
man V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  So.  447, 
51    La.    Ann.    1785. 

Michiaau. — See  Marquette  v.  Langton, 
32    Mich.   251. 

Minnesota. — Paterson  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.   Co.,   10.$   N.   W.   ()21,   95   Minn.   57. 

Missouri. — Heil  t'.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

16  Mo.  App.   ?.G'A. 

Xew  York. — Robertson  v.  National 
Steamship    Co..   60    N.   Y.    Super.    Ct.    132, 

17  N.  Y.  S.  459,  42  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  694; 
King  V.  Sherwood,  48  N.  Y.  S.  34,  22  App. 
Div.  548. 

Ohio. — Harshman  v.  Litle  Miami,  etc., 
R.    Cos.    (O.),    Dayton    175. 

Texas. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bell 
(Tex.),  2  Posey  Unrep.  Cas.  517;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Avery  (lex.  Civ.  App.),  33 
S.  W.  704;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Berch- 
field,  12  Tex.  Civ.  App.  145.  33  S.  W.  1022; 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i'.  Silegman  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  298;  Missouri  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Breeding,  4  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  154,  16  S.  W.  184;  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Henry  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  81  S. 
W.  334;  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Calvert, 
41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  236.  91  S.  W.  825;  Texas 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Watson.  54  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  509.  118  S.  W.  175;  Gulf,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Stewart  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  141  S. 
W.  1020;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 
62  Tex.  209,  213,  21  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
126;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Truesdell.  21 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  125,  51  S.  W.  272.  affirmed 
in  93  Tex.  125,  no  op.;  Missouri,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  z:  Webb,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  431, 
49  S.  W.  526;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jarrell,  38  Tex.  Civ.  App.  425,  86  S.  W. 
632,  aflirmed  in  101  lex.  649,  no  op.; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Arnold,  16  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  74.  40  S.  W.  829;  Texas,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  V.  Klepper  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  24  S. 
W.  567;  Reeves  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  U 


Tex.  Civ.  App.  514,  32  S.  W.  920;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Eddins,  7  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
116.  26  S.  W.  161;  Gulf,  etc.,  Co.  z:  Stan- 
ley, 89  Tex.  42.  33  S.  W.  109,  attirming 
29  S.  W.  806;  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
;-.  Wright,  20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  136,  49  S. 
W.  147;  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Smith. 
11  Tex.  Civ.  App.  550,  32  S.  W.  H2s:  In- 
ternational, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Dimmit  County 
Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186.  189. 
23  S.  W.  754;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Harris    (Tex.   Civ.   App.).   138   S.   W.   1085. 

rirgiiiia. — Southern  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jacobs, 
109   Va.   27,   63    S.    E.    17. 

Defendant,  a  common  carrier,  agreed  to 
transport  apples  from  two  of  its  sta- 
tions to  Albany,  and  there  deliver  them 
to  a  steamboat  line  for  New  York.  On 
the  ship's  arrival  in  New  York,  they  were 
found  injured  by  frost  caused  l)y  delay 
in  delivery  at  Albany.  Held,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  proof  of  difference  in  value 
between  the  two  places,  or  that  the  fruit 
was  injured  after  leaving  Albany,  the 
value  of  the  apples  is  their  value  as 
proved  in  New  York,  deducting  the 
freight  from  Albany  to  Ne^y  York  City. 
Marshall  v.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  45 
Barb.   502,   affirmed   in   48   N.   Y.   660. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  in- 
juries to  peaches  by  its  failure  to  prop- 
erly ice  the  cars.  plaintifT's  damage  de- 
pended upon  the  market  value  of  the 
peaches  at  destination.  Perkins  Co.  v. 
-American  Exp.  Co..  85  N.  E.  895,  199 
Mass.    .-.(il. 

Machine  broken  in  transit — The  meas- 
ure of  damage  for  breaking  a  machine 
in  transit  is  the  difference  between  the 
value  of  the  machine  at  the  place  of  de- 
livery at  the  time  and  in  the  condition  in 
which  it  was  delivered  not  including 
wliich  it  ought  to  have  arrived,  and  its 
value  at  the  time  and  in  the  condition  in 
which  it  was  delivered  not  including 
tlie  amount  plaintiff  may  have  expended 
in  repairing  it.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  f. 
Breeding,  16  S.  W.  184,  4  Texas  App. 
Civ.    Cas.,    §    154. 

23.  See  post,  "Interest."  §  1074. 

24.  See  post.  "Freight,  Allowance  and 
Deduction."   §    1073. 

25.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  r.  Tacobs.  109 
\a.    27,    63    S.    E.    17. 

26.  Hackett  v.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad.  35 
N.   H.   390. 


§§  1070-1071 


CARRIERS. 


852 


and  not  according  to  any  sudden  inflation  or  depression  of  prices. ^'^  Sale  by 
auction  in  a  great  mart  of  commerce  is  a  proper  method  of  determining  the 
value  of  goods  damaged  in  the  hands  of  a  carrier.-"^ 

Time  for  Estimating  Damages. — Where  a  shipment  arrived  at  its  destina- 
tion in  the  night,  its  market  \alue  on  the  next  day  was  the  market  value  to  be 
employed  in  determining  the  measure  of  damages  in  an  action  against  the  car- 
rier for  damages  caused  by  imi)roper  handhng.-'-' 

§  1071.  Right  to  Abandon  Goods. — \\  here  property  is  injured  in  transporta- 
tion through  the  neghgence  of  the  carrier,  but  is  not  entirely  worthless,  the  owner 
can  not  refuse  to  accept  it  and  sue  for  its  marget  value,  but  may  recover  only  for 
the  injury.-'"     But  where  the  goods  are  injured  so  as  to  entirely  destroy  their 


27.  Determination  of  damages. — Smith 
V.  Griffith  (X.  Y.).  3  Hill  333,  38  Am.  Dec. 
639. 

28.  The  Queen,  78  Fed.  155;  Pacific 
Coast  Steamship  Co.  v.  Bancroft-Whit- 
ne3'  Co.,  94  Fed.  180,  36  C.  C.  A.  135, 
reversed  on  other  grounds  in  Queen  of 
the  Pacific,  21  S.  Ct.  278,  180  U.  S.  49, 
45    L.    Ed.    419. 

29.  Time  for  estimating  damages. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Henry  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).    SI    S.    W.    334. 

30.  Right  of  owner  to  abandon  goods. 
— Alabama. — -See  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
MontmoUen.  39  So.  820,  145  Ala.  468,  117 
Am.  St.  Rep.  58. 

Louisiana. — The  mere  fact  that  fruit  is 
slightly  damaged  does  not  entitle  the 
consignee  to  refuse  to  receive  it  and  re- 
cover its  full  value.  Corso  v.  New  Or- 
leans, etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  La.  Ann.  1286.  20 
So.  752.  Compare  Meyer  v.  Vicksburg, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  639,  6  So.  218, 
17  Am.  St.  Rep.  408.  See  Henderson  v. 
Maid  of  Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  352,  hold- 
ing that  the  doctrine  of  abandonment  for 
a  constructive  total  loss  does  not  apply 
to    a    contract    of    affreightment. 

Michigan. — Reason  v.  Detroit,  etc..  R. 
Co.,    113   N.   W.   596,    150   Mich.   50. 

Xczu  York. — Mills  v.  National  Steam- 
ship Co.,  5  N.  Y.  S.  258,  25  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
856. 

Texas.— GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  4 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  47,  15  S.  W.  128; 
Baumback  v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  650,  23  S.  W.  693;  Gulf,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Pitts  &  Son,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
212,  83  S.  W.  727;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  r. 
Everett,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App.  167,  83  S.  W. 
257;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Booton,  4  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  67,  15  S.  VV.  909;  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Moore,  47  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  531,  105  S.  W.  532;  G.,  H.  &  S.  A. 
R.  Co.  v.  Van  Winkle  &  Co.,  3  Texas 
Civ.  Cas.,  §  443;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Harn,  44  Tex.   628. 

Where  a  car  load  of  chops  was  injured 
in  transit  by  wetting,  the  fact  that  the 
consignee  was  in  the  wholesale  trade,  to 
which    the   chops,   in    their   damaged   con- 


dition, were  unsuitable,  did  not  entitle 
him  to  refuse  to  accept  them  and  sue  the 
carrier  for  their  original  value.  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pitts  &  Son,  37  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  212,  83  S.  W.  727. 

Where  a  carrier  undertook  in  good 
faith  to  repair  a  machine  injured  in  tran- 
sit, the  fact  that  the  machine  when  ten- 
dered was  in  a  condition  which  rendered 
it  worthless  for  the  purpose  intended,  but 
could,  at  a  moderate  expenditure,  have 
been  so  repaired  as  to  render  it  as  use- 
ful as  before  the  injury,  does  not  justify 
the  shipper  in  abandoning  the  machine 
or  refusing  to  accept  it;  his  remedy  be- 
ing an  action  for  damages.  Parsons  v. 
L'nited  States  Exp.  Co.,  144  Iowa  745, 
123   N.   W.   776,  25   L.   R.   A.,   N.   S.,   842. 

Where  only  a  part  of  property  is  in- 
jured, and  the  remainder  arrives  safely, 
the  consignee  can  not  reject  the  unin- 
jured portion,  and  hold  the  carrier  liable 
for  the  whole.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bivens,  13  Ind.  263;  Silverman  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  So.  447,  51  La. 
Ann.    1785. 

Offer  to  deliver  damaged  goods  on  un- 
reasonable conditions. — In  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z\  Martin,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  § 
342,  which  was  a  case  of  a  total  loss  of 
a  part  of  the  goods,  and  an  offer  upon 
unreasonable  conditions  to  deliver  the  re- 
mainder in  a  damaged  condition,  it  was 
held  that  the  owner  is  not  bound  to  re- 
ceive the  remaining  damaged  portion 
thereof,  but  may  maintain  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  the  value  of  all 
the  goods  as  shipped. 

Effect  of  verdict. — Where  the  verdict 
in  favor  of  the  consignee  in  an  action 
for  the  value  of  damaged  chops  injured 
in  transportation  was  the  same  as  plain- 
tiff would  have  been  entitled  to  recover 
had  he  accepted  and  sold  the  'chops  for 
their  reasonable  value  in  their  damaged 
condition,  the  fact  that  he  unlawfully  re- 
fused to  accept  the  same  and  sued  for 
their  value,  instead  of  the  difference  be- 
tween the  value  as  shipped  and  as  de- 
livered, was  immaterial.  Gulf,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Pitts  &  Son,  83  S.  W.  727,  37  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    212. 


853 


LOSS  OR    IXJIKV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1071-1073 


value,  the  consignee  may  refuse  to  accept  them,  and  hold  the  carrier  for  their 
value."'' 

§  1072.  When  Damaged  Goods  Sold. — Where  goods  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier are  damaged  1)\  the  rising  of  a  sudden  Hood,  the  measure  of  damages  to 
the  owner  of  goods,  where  a  part  of  them  have  been  sold  by  him,  is  the  differ- 
ence between  the  general  value  and  the  amount  realized  by  the  sale.'-  W  here  the 
carrier  sells  damaged  goods,  on  the  refusal  of  the  consignee  to  receive  them,  it 
is  bound  by  such  sale  as  evidence  of  their  value,  and  must  repay  the  owner  so 
much  of  the  loss  as  has  not  been  paid  by  the  insurers. •'•'  Where  a  contract 
of  afYreightment  was  entire,  and  part  of  the  goods  were  lost,  and,  on  the  con- 
signee's refusing  to  accept  the  remainder,  the  carrier  sold  them,  the  shipper  is 
entitled  to  recover  the  proceeds  of  the  sale,  less  charges  for  care,  storage,  wharf- 
age, and  expenses  of  the  sale,  but  no  charges  for  freight  are  to  be  deducted.''* 
In  allowing  damages  to  a  consignee  of  goods,  the  carrier  should  be  credited  with 
the  amount  realized  from  a  sale  of  the  goods  for  the  benefit  of  the  consignee's 
creditors. •'•'' 

§  1073.  Freight,  Allowance  and  Deduction. — Where  recovery  is  based 
on  the  value  of  goods  at  destination,  freight  charges  unpaid  should  be  de- 
ducted; •*''  and,  if  the  charges  have  already  been  i)aid,  the  plaintiff  can  not  re- 


31.  IJraiul  r.  Woir.  o7  X.  V.  S.  731,  27 
-Misc.    Rt-p.   2\2. 

Where  a  machine  is  so  damaged  that 
the  cost  of  repairing  it  would  equal  the 
cost  of  a  new  one,  tlu-  consi^nco  may  re- 
cover its  valiK-.  the  frciKlu  paid,  and  in- 
terest from  the  time  when  it  should  have 
been  delivered,  l)ut  not  damage  result- 
ing from  the  loss  of  its  use,  unless  the 
carrier  knew  of  the  contemplated  use. 
Thomas,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  62  Wis.  642,  22  N.  W.  827,  51 
Am.    Re]).    72."). 

32.  When  damaged  goods  sold. — 
Strouss  z:  Wal)ash,  etc..  R.  Co..  17  Fed. 
209.  See  Magdeburg  General  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Taulson.  29   Fed. '  ."):;o. 

Necessity  of  selling  injured  goods  in 
order  to  establish  damage. — See  post, 
"In    General,"    §    10S2. 

33.  Cassilay  v.  Young  &  Co.  (Ky.),  4 
B.    Mon.    265,    :{9    Am.    Dec.    505. 

34.  Stevens  r.  Say  ward  (Mass.).  3  Gray 

lit-!. 

35.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Lavin, 
136    Ky.    -•').-.,    124    S.    W.    274. 

36.  Deduction  of  unpaid  charges. — Gcor- 
iTJa. — Wilson  v.  Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
Ga.  386,  9  S.  E.  1076;  Taylor  &  Co.  v. 
Collier.    26    Ga.    122. 

Indiana. — Wallace  v.  \'igus  (Ind.),  4 
Blackf.    260. 

Kentucky. — Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Spratt   (Ky.).  2  Duv.  4. 

Louisiana. — Porter  r.  Curray,  7  La.  233. 

.UiV/iiga«.— Marquette  v.  Langton,  32 
Mich.   251. 

Missouri.  —  Gray  v.  Missouri  River 
Packet  Co.,  64  Mo.  47. 

Nczv  Y'ork. — Rice  v.  Ontario  Steaml)oat 
Co.  (N.  Y.).  56  Barb.  384:  Robertson  z: 
National  Steamship  Co.,  60  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  132.  17  X.  Y.  S.  459.  42  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
694. 


Ohio. — Erie  R.  Co.  v.  Lockwood,  2h  O. 
St.    358,    14   Am.    R.    Rep.    143. 

Pcnnsylz-ama. — Tuesco  Oil  Co.  7'.  Penn- 
sylvania  R.   Co.   (Pa.),   2   Pittsl).   R.   477. 

Texas. — Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  Ball, 
80  Te.x.  602,  606,  16  S.  W.  441;  Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jackson,  62  Te.x.  209.  21 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  126;  Fowler  z:  Dav- 
enport, 21  Tex.  626;  International,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  550;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Hoffecker  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
123    S.    W.    617. 

/■ //■.£,' nn'fl. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stock   &  Sons,  51   S.   E.   161,   104  \a.  97. 

Where,  in  an  action  for  the  loss  of 
corn  by  the  sinking  of  a  barge,  the  proof 
showed  that  the  corn  was  worth  forty- 
two  to  forty-three  cents  per  bushel  at 
destination,  and  at  the  price  of  forty-two 
cents,  after  deducting  the  value  of  the 
corn  saved  and  the  freight,  there  was 
left  an  amount  due  to  plaintiff  exceeding 
the  amount  of  the  verdict,  an  objection 
that  the  cost  of  transportation  should 
have  been  deducted  from  the  judgment 
Was  not  sustainable.  Marsden  Co.  z: 
Bullitt  &  Co.,  72  S.  \\\  32,  24  Ky.  L. 
Rep.    1697. 

Reason  of  rule. — The  object  of  the  law 
is  to  give  compensation  for  the  injury, 
and  no  more.  The  carrier  is  compelled 
to  pay  the  enhanced  value  of  the  prop- 
erty at  the  place  of  delivery.  The  owner, 
therefore,  in  recovering  this  value  at  the 
terminal  point  receives  in  substance  and 
effect  the  benefits  of  the  transportation 
as  fully  as  if  the  goods  had  lieen  trans- 
ported and  delivered  to  him.  in  which 
event  he  would  have  been  bound  to  pay 
the  cost  of  transportation.  For  these 
reasons,  perhaps,  the  law  gives  the  car- 
rier the  benefit  of  the  freight  charges  in 
assessing  the  damages.  Galveston,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  z:  Ball.  SO  Tex.  602,  607.  16  S.  W. 
441. 


§§  1073-1074 


CAKRIllKS. 


854 


cover  the  amount  so  paid  in  addition  to  the  value  of  the  goods,  with  interest.^" 
It  is  held  that  no  deduction  can  he  made  for  unpaid  charges,  unless  the  amount 
is  proved. ^'^  And  it  has  heen  held  that  no  deduction  will  he  made  where  the 
defendant  sets  up  no  counterclaim  for  freight;^"  hut  if  is  also  held  that  evi- 
dence of  the  amount  of  freight  unpaid  is  admissihle  on  the  issue  of  damage 
though  not  pleaded  as  a  counterclaim.'"  Where  the  freight  due  a  carrier,  en- 
tered into  the  amount  of  damages  for  which  the  carrier  was  liable  for  loss  of 
the  goods,  limitations  did  not  run  against  the  carrier's  right  to  have  the  freight 
deducted  from  such  damages.-*^  A  carrier  who,  by  his  own  fault,  loses  part  of 
the  goods  sent  by  one  entire  contract,  and  sells  the  remainder  at  the  port  of 
delivery,  after  waiting  for  an  owner  the  stipulated  time,  can  not  set  off  against 
the  consignee,  who  sues  for  the  proceeds  of  the  sale,  any  sum  for  freight,  since 
freight  has   not  l^een   earned.-* - 

Where  plaintiff  recovers  the  value  of  goods  at  the  point  of  shipment, 
in  an  action  for  the  loss  thereof  or  damage  thereto,  it  is  proper  to  add  the  amount 
of  charges  paid  by  plaintiff;"*^  and  unpaid  charges  will  not  be  deducted  in  es- 
timating the  damages.^-* 

Verdict  Not  Deducting  Charge. — Where  the  verdict  is  for  the  full  amount 
of  the  damage  alleged,  it  is  erroneous,  since  no  allowance  was  made  for  the 
amount  due  the  carrier  for  freight ;  and  it  can  not  be  insisted  that  this  was  ac- 
counted for  by  the  jury  by  balancing  the  amount  due  for  freight  with  the  amount 
due  as  interest,  when  no  claim  is  set  up  in  the  complaint  for  interest,  and  there 
is  no  testimony,  and  no  direction  in  the  charge  of  the  court,  in  relation  thereto.^^ 

§  1074.  Interest. — It  seems  to  be  settled  by  the  later  authorities  that  in 
actions  against  carriers  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods,  interest  may  be  recov- 
ered as  an  element  of  damages."*''' 


37.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ball,  80 
Tex.  602,  16  S.  W.  441;  Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Kelley  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  20  S. 
W.  470;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Kemp  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  30  S.  W.  714.  See  Thomas, 
etc..  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  62 
Wis.  642,  22  N.  W.  827,  51  Am.  Rep.  725. 
Contra,  Sherman  v.  Tnman  Steamship 
Co.    (N.    Y.),    26    Hun    107. 

38.  Charges  must  be  proved. — Gray  v. 
Missouri  River  Packet  Co.,  04  Mo.  47; 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nicholson, 
61    Tex.    550. 

39.  Bamberg  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co., 
9   S.   C.   01,  30  Am.   Rep.   13. 

40.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffecker 
(Tex.    Civ.   App.),   123   S.   W.   617. 

41.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hoffecker 
(Tex    Civ.  App.),  123  S.  W.  617. 

42.  Stevens  v.  Sayward  (Mass.),  8 
Gray  215.  And  see  Sayward  v.  Stevens 
(Mass.),  3   Gray  97. 

43.  Jenkins  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 
S.  E.  407,  84  S.  C.  520;  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Ball,  80  Tex.  602,  007,  16  S.  W.  441; 
M.  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2  Texas 
App.    Civ.    Cas.,    §    575. 

44.  M.  P.  R.  Co.  V.  Barnes  &  Co.,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  575.  See  Fine 
&  Bro.  V.  Southern  Exp.  Co.,  10  Ga.  App. 
161.   73   S.   E.  35. 

45.  Verdict  not  deducting  charges. — 
Miami  Powder  Co.  v.  I'ort  l^oyal,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  S.  C.  78,  16  S.  E.  339,  21  L. 
R.   A.    123. 


46.   Interest  as  an  element  of  damages. 

—  Vmtcd  6Va/fj.— Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  'v. 
Jurey,  111  U.  S.  584,  28  L.  Ed.  527,  4  S. 
Ct.  566;  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estill, 
147  U.  S.  591,  622,  37  L.  Ed.  292,  13  S. 
Ct.  444,  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  487;  Prim- 
rose V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.,  154  U. 
S.  1,  14,  38  L.  Ed.  883,  14  S.  Ct.  1908;  Wes- 
tray  v.  Miletus,  Fed.  Cas,  No.  17,461,  af- 
firmed in  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,545,  5  Blatchf. 
335;  Insurance  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  9  Fed.  811  (gross  negligence  on  part  of 
carrier) ;  Woodward  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,    1    Biss.   403,    Fed.    Cas.    No.    18.006. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc..  Railway  v. 
Phelps,  46  Ark.  485. 

Georgia. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,   85   Ga.   497,   11   S.    E.   809. 

Illinois. — In  Northern  Transp.  Co.,  v. 
McClary,  66  111.  233,  and  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Ames,  40  111.  249,  it  was  held 
that  interest  was  properly  allowed  as  an 
element  of  damages.  But  the  contrary 
was  held  in  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Davis, 
54  111.  App.  130,  following  Illinois  Cert. 
R.  Co.  V.  Cobb,  72  111.  148,  holding  that 
interest  is  not  recoverable  unless  its  re- 
covery   is    authorized    by    statute. 

hnva. — Robinson  Bros.  v.  Merchants' 
Despatch  Transp.  Co.,  45  Iowa  470;  Cobb, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa 
001. 

I^onisiana. — Murrell  v.  Dixey,  14  La. 
Ann.  298;  Clines  v.  Frisbee   (La.),  5  Rob. 


$:>:) 


LOSS  OK   INFfKY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1074 


That  the  owner  was  paying  interest  on  a  debt  which  the  goods  shipped 


192.      Compart;    Morgan    v.    Bell    (La.),    4 
Mart.,    O.    S.,   015. 

Massaclittsctts. — Gushing  ?'.  WclLs,  etc  , 
Co.,  98  Mass.  550;  Spring  i'.  Haskiil 
(Mass.),   4  Allen    112. 

Miiiiicsuta. — Cowley  v.  Davidson,  1:5 
Minn.    92,    Gil.    Hr>. 

Missouri. — It  seems  to  be  impossible  to 
reconcile  the  Missouri  decisions  with  one 
another.  In  Gray  z'.  Missouri  River 
Packet  Co.,  04  Mo.  47,  it  was  held  that 
where  live  stock  is  killed  in  the  course 
of  shipment  through  the  gross  negligence 
of  the  carrier,  interest  is  properly  al- 
lowed on  its  value.  But  the  allowance  of 
interest  in  such  cases  is,  to  some  degree, 
within  the  discretion  of  the  court,  and 
where  there  has  been  no  negligence  on 
the  carrier's  part,  the  recovery  of  in- 
terest is  not  permitted.  vSee,  also,  Dunn 
z:  Hannibal,  etc.,  R.  Co..  OS  Mo.  20H. 
In  Padley  z:  Catterlin.  04  Mo.  -Kpp. 
029,  2  Mo.  App.  Rep.  1258,  however,  the 
court  seems  to  be  of  the  opinion  that  it 
is  settled  by  these  decisions  that  plain- 
tiff in  such  actions  is  entitled  to  recover 
interest  on  the  damages  allowed.  But 
in  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Estill, 
147  U.  S.  591,  13  S.  Ct.  444,  37  L. 
Ed.  292,  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  487,  mod- 
ifying 41  Fed.  849,  it  was  held  that  under 
the  statute  and  decisions  of  Missouri  it 
is  improper  to  allow  interest  on  the 
amount  of  damages,  in  an  action  against 
a  carrier  of  live  stock. 

Xczi-  i'ori^.— The  New  York  decisions 
do  not  harmonize  with  each  other.  While 
Sherman  z:  Wells  (N.  Y.),  28  Barb.  403. 
and  Harris  z:  Delaware,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  01 
N.  Y.  650,  support  the  general  rule,  in 
Black  z:  Camden,  etc..  Transp.  Go.  (N. 
Y.).  45  Barb.  40,  it  was  held  that  whether 
interest  should  be  allowed  on  damages 
for  injury  to  property  through  the  neg- 
ligence of  the  carrier,  was  a  matter 
within  the  discretion  of  the  jury.  See, 
also,  Wilson  z'.  Troy,  135  N.  Y.  96,  32 
N.  E.  44.  18  L.  R.  A.  449,  31  Am.  St. 
Rep.  817,  citing  Walrath  z\  RedfieUl. 
18  N.  Y.  457,  402;  Mairs  z'.  Manhattan 
Real  Estate  Ass'n,  89  N.  Y.  498;  Duryee 
z:  New  York,  90  N.  Y.  477,  499;  Home 
Ins.  Go.  z:  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
11  Hun  182,  188;  Moore  z:  New  York.  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  120  N.  Y.  071,  27  N.  E.  791,  4  Silv- 
ernail  Ct.  App.  480.  It  is  also  held  that 
interest  is  not  allowable  unless  the  car- 
rier has  been  guilty  of  negligence  ( Lake- 
man  v.  Grinncil,  18  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  025) 
or  misconduct.  Watkinson  z:  Laughton 
(N.   Y.).   8   Johns,   213. 

O/iio.— Erie  R.  Go.  v.  Lockwood,  28  O. 
St.  358,   14  Am.   R.   Rep.   143. 

Pcinisxhania. — Lucesco  Oil  Go.  v.  Penn- 
sylvania  R.  Go.    (Pa.),  2   Pittsb.  477. 

South  Carolina. — Kvle  v.  Laurens  R. 
Co.  (S.  C),  10  Rich.  L.  382,  70  Am.  Dec. 


2.31.      See    Brown    v.    Northwestern    Rail- 
load,   54   S.   E.   829,  75   S.   C.  20. 

Tc.ras. — Rio  Grande  R.  Co.  v.  Cross,  5 
i  e.\.  Civ.  App.  454,  23  S.  W.  529;  Ft. 
Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greathouse,  82  Tex. 
104,  17  S.  W.  834,  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas. 
157;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Go.  v.  Ball,  80 
Te.x.  002,  10  S.  W.  441;  Galveston,  etc., 
I\.  Co.  z:  Johnson  (Tex.),  19  S.  W.  807; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McCarty,  82  Tex. 
OOM.  IS  S.  W.  710;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Jackson,  02  Tex.  209,  21  .\m.  &  Eng. 
R.  Gas.  120;  Watkins  z:  Junker,  90  Tex. 
584,  587,  40  S.  W.  11,  reversing  38  S.  VV. 
1129;  Carter  z'.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  93  S.  W.  081;  Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Hewett,  2  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Gas.,  §  273.  Some  of  the  cases  hold  that 
interest  should  not  l)e  allowed  unless 
there  is  fraud,  delinquency,  or  injustice 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier;  and  that  in 
such  case  it  is  allowed  by  way  of  punish- 
ment. Fowler  z\  Davenport,  21  Te.x.  026; 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin,  2  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Gas.,  §  342;  Wolfe  v.  Lacy, 
etc.,  Co.,  30  Tex.  349.  In  San  Antonio,  etc., 
R.  Go.  V.  Addison,  96  Tex.  01,  70  S.  W. 
200,  it  was  held  that  interest  is  not  re- 
coverable, eo  nomine,  but  may  be  al- 
lowed by  way  of  indemnification,  as  a 
part  of  the  damages;  it  is  an  element  of 
the  damages,  to  be  included  as  such  by 
plaintiff  in  his  claim  and  by  the  jury  in 
the  verdict. 

rcrmont. — Blumenthal  v.  Brainerd,  38 
Vt.  402,  91  Am.  Dec.  350;  Newell  z\ 
Smith,  49  \'t.  255;  Laurent  v.  Vaughn, 
30   \t.   90. 

I'irgiiiia. — Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stock    &  Sons,   104   Va.   97,   51   S.    E.   101, 

West  Virginia. — Clarke-Lawrence  Co. 
V.  Chesapeake,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  03  W.  \  a. 
423,    01    S.    E.    304. 

ll'iscousiti. — Chapman  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Wis.  295,  7  Am.  Rep.  81; 
Thomas,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wabash,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  02  Wis.  042,  22  N.  W.  827,  51 
Am.  Rep.  725;  Whitney  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.    Co.,   27   Wis.   327,   5   Am.    R.    Rep.   291. 

Interest  recoverable  from  time  of  loss 
or  damage. —^L  P.  R.  Co.  z\  Barnes,  l 
Tc.\as  App.  Civ.  Gas.,  §  575;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Go.  V.  Payne,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  58,  60, 
38  S.  W.  300;  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Efron  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  S.  W.  039; 
International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dimmit 
County  Pasture  Co.,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  186, 
23  S.  W.  754;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Carty.  S2  Tex.   OOS.   IS   S.   W.   710. 

Need  not  be  asked  in  pleadings. — In- 
terest may  be  allowed  on  the  amount  of 
damages  sustained,  though  it  is  not  asked 
for  in  the  pleadings.  Ft.  Worth,  etc..  R. 
Co.  v.  Greathouse.  82  Tex.  104,  17  S.  W. 
S34.  49  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Gas.  157;  Inter- 
national, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lewis  (Tex.  Civ. 
.App.).  23  S.  W.  323,  324;  Houston,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  z:   Tackson.  02  Tex.  209,  21  Am.  & 


;§  1074-1075 


CARRIERS. 


856 


was  intended  to  satisfy  neither  adds  to  his  right  to  recover  interest  nor  enlarges 
the  Hability  of  the  carrier.-*"" 

§  107  5.  Expenses  of  Owner. — The  plaintift'  may  recover  reasonable  ex- 
penses incnrred  in  an  ettort  to  restore  injnred  property  to  its  former  condition,'*''^ 
the  expense  incnrred  in  lessening  the  loss,-^"  and  the  cost  of  efforts  made  for 
the  recover)'  of  lost  property/'^  including  a  reward  paid  for  such  purpose. •'^-  It 
is  held  that  the  plaintift"  may  recover  compensation  for  the  actual  expenses  and 
loss  of  time  caused  by  the  loss  of  property  in  addition  to  its  value. •'^^  Actual 
expenses  incurred  by  plaintiff'  during  a  period  of  delay  in  making  a  journey,  ne- 
cessitated by  defendant's  negligence  in  transporting  her  baggage  to  the  station, 
is  recoverable  as  special  damages."'-*  But  it  is  held  that  the  owner  of  machinery 
lost  in  transportation  can  not  recover  special  damages  for  time  lost  and  expense 
incurred  in  making  successive  calls  for  the  freight  at  the  carrier's  office  without 
proof  of  notice  to  the  carrier's  agent  of  the  value  of  the  time  or  attendant  expense 
or  the  distance  that  would  have  to  be  traveled  in  making  such  calls. ^^  A  carrier 
is  not  liable  for  the  expense  of  discovering  whether  goods  have  been  injured, ^*^ 
or  expenses  of  shipper's  agent  in  going  to  the  place  of  delivery  to  investigate  as 
to  the  goods  which  had  been  rejected. -^"^ 

Attorney's  fees  are  not  recoverable  by  the  plaintiff'  in  an  action  against  the 
carrier  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods. ^^ 


Eng.  R.  Cas.  126.  But  see  Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Dawson  Bros.  (Civ.  App.),  84 
S.  W.  298,  holding  that  interest  can  not 
be  recovered  as  an  element  of  damages 
sustained,  unless  it  is  specifically  pleaded, 
or  the  amount  sued  for  is  sufficient  to 
cover  the  damages  allowed  as  interest 
and  such  other  sum  as  may  be  included 
in    the   recovery. 

Rate. — Where,  in  an  action  to  recover 
for  goods  lost  in  transitu  over  defend- 
ant railroad  compan\''s  road,  there  was 
judgment  for  plaintiff,  the  court  prop- 
erly allowed  interest  on  the  value  of  the 
goods  at  8  per  cent  until  the  law  chang- 
ing such  rate  to  6  per  cent  went  into 
effect,  since  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  the 
current  rate  of  legal  interest  on  the  value 
of  the  goods  lost.  Rio  Grande  R.  Co.  v. 
Cross,  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  454,  23  S.  W.  529; 
Rio  Grande  R.  Co.  v.  Munoz  Successors 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  23  S.  W.  531;  Rio 
Grande  R.  Co.  v.  Cross  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
23  S.  W.  1004.  See  Galveston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Johnson   (Tex.),   19  S.  W.  867. 

48.  Paying  interest  on  debt. — Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Jackson,  62  Tex.  209.  21  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  126. 

49.  Repairing  injury. — Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Tuckett  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  25  S. 
\V.    670. 

The  plaintiff  recover  what  it  cost  to 
put  goods  in  a  salable  condition  after  its 
arrival  at  the  place  of  consignment,  it 
appearing  that  such  expenditure  was 
beneficial  to  the  defendants,  Ijy  reducing 
the  damages  which  they  would  otherwise 
have  sustained  under  the  operation  of  the 
general  rule.  Winne  z\  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,   31    Iowa   583. 

50.  Robertson  v.  Xational  Steamship 
Co.,  60  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  132,  17  X.  Y.  S. 
459,   42   N.   Y.   St.    Rep.   694. 


51.  Cost  of  recovering  property. — Cin- 
cinnati Chronicle  Co.  z'.  White  Line  Cen;. 
Transit  Co.,  1  Cin.  R.  300,  13  O.  Dec.  561. 

52.  Reward. — Greenfield  Bank  v.  Leav- 
itt    (Mass.),   17   Pick.   1,  28  Am.   Dec.   268 

53.  Evans    v.    Rudy,    34   Ark.    383. 

54-  Kates  Transfer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Klassen, 
6   Ala.    App.    301,    59    So.    355. 

55.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  z'.  Jones,  52  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    367,    113    S.    W.    952. 

56.  Expense  of  discovering  whether 
there  is  injury. — Eleven  cases  of  a  car  of 
eggs  being  broken,  and  an  examination 
of  twenty  unbroken  cases  showing  in- 
ternal injury  in  seventeen,  the  consignee 
can  not  collect  of  the  carrier  for  expense 
of  examining  the  other  two  hundred  and 
fifty-two  cases,  having  no  external  in- 
jury, and  showing,  on  examination,  no  in- 
ternal damage.  Martin  v.  Delaware,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    141   N.   Y.    S.   942. 

57.  Western  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Guiding  Star, 
37    Fed.    641. 

58.  Attorney's  fees. — Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Benson,  86  Ga.  203,  12  S.  E.  357, 
22  Am.  St.  Rep.  446,  holding  that  in  the 
absence  of  evidence  that  the  carrier 
acted  in  bad  faith  or  was  stubbornly  liti- 
gious or  put  the  plaintiff  to  unnecessary 
expense,  an  instruction  that  the  jury 
could  add  reasona1)lc  attorney's  fees  to 
tlie  actual   damages,   was  erroneous. 

Interstate  Commerce  Act  Feb.  4,  1887, 
as  amended  by  Acts  Cong.  June  29,  1900, 
and  April  13,  1908,  does  not  authorize_  the 
recovery  of  attorney's  fees  in  actions 
against  carriers,  for  loss  of  or  damage  to 
goods  in  transportation.  Blair  v.  Wells 
Fargo  &  Co.  (Iowa),  135  N.  W.  615;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Harper  Bros.,  201 
Fed.    671,    121    C.    C.    A.    570.       - 


857 


LOSS  (JK    INJLKY   T(J  GOODS. 


§§  1075-1077 


Where  General  Measure  of  Damages  Allowed. — The  rule  that  the  owner 
of  projierty  which  is  injured  in  transportation  must  exert  himself  to  prevent  dam- 
ages or  render  the  injury  as  slight  as  possiljle,  and,  when  he  has  done  so,  may 
recover  his  reasonable  and  necessary  labor  or  expense  jjerformed  or  incurred  for 
the  purpose,  has  no  application  where  he  had  been  allowed  to  recover  the  gen- 
eral measure  of  damages.-"'" 

§  1076.  Goods  Shipped  under  Contract  of  Sale. — f'.enerally  where  goods 
are  shipped  under  a  contract  of  sale  the  contract  price  furnishes  the  standard 
for  the  damages  to  be  assessed.''"  Where  goods  are  shipped  to  a  consignee  with 
an  option  to  take  and  pay  for  them  at  a  price  fixed,  or  return  them,  in  an  action 
against  the  carrier  for  their  loss  the  measure  of  damages  is  not  the  market  value 
at  the  place  of  destination,  but,  at  most,  the  price  fixed,  with  interest,  from  a 
day  when  the  goods  would,  in  the  usual  course  of  carriage,  have  reached  the 
consignee  and  have  been  accepted.'*^ 

§  1077.  Goods  Having  No  Market  Value. — Loss  of  Goods. — The  meas- 
ure of  damages  in  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  articles  having  no  market 
value  and  useful  chietlv  to  owner,  such  as  second-hand  clothing  and  hfjusehold 
goods,  is  the  actual  money  value  of  the  articles  to  the  owner  or  the  actual  loss  in 
monev  sustained  bv  him,''-  not  any  financial  i)rice  that  he  might  for  special  rea- 


59.  Where  general  measure  of  damages 
allowed. — St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Fos- 
ter   (Tex.    Civ.    App. ),   S'.)   S.    W.   4.J0. 

60.  Goods  shipped  under  contract  of 
sale. — Where  the  owner  of  ^^oods  shipped 
had  sold  the  same  for  part  cash  and  part 
credit,  and  lost  the  sale  by  the  goods 
having  been  damaged  in  transit,  his  meas- 
ure of  damage  was  the  difference  between 
the  value  of  the  goods  in  their  damaged 
condition  at  the  time  they  reached  their 
destination  and  the  present  value  of  his 
contract  with  the  buyer.  Gulf,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Coulter  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  138  S. 
W.  16. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  injuries  to  a  shipment  of  potatoes,  it 
appeared  that  the  shipper  had  sold  the 
potatoes  for  delivery  at  a  distant  point, 
that  the  buyer  at  the  point  of  delivery, 
because  of  the  damaged  condition  of  the 
shipment,  refused  to  accept  the  pota- 
toes, but  there  was  no  evidence  to  show 
what  the  sound  potatoes  were  sold  for 
at  the  place  of  delivery,  or  that  diligence 
had  been  used  to  secure  their  market 
price,  the  shipper's  measure  of  damages 
was  the  difference  between  the  total 
amount  of  the  contract  price  of  the  whole 
shipment  agreed  to  be  paid  by  the  l)uyer. 
less  the  freigiit  charges  paid  and  the 
amount  for  which  the  sound  potatoes,  in 
the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  to  ol)tain 
on  their  delivery  at  the  point  of  delivery 
the  market  price,  were  sold.  Texarkana, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Shivel  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
114   S.   W.    19(). 

61.  Magnin  t.  Dinsmore,  (i2  X.  Y.  'M>, 
,50    How.    Prac.    4,")T,    20    Am.    Ivcp.    442. 

62.  Goods  having  no  market  value — 
Actual  loss  to  owner. — .lUilhvna. — Kates 
Transfer,  etc..  Co.  v.  Klassen,  6  Ala.  App. 
301,    59    So.    355. 


Kciituclcv. — .Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Hoeing, 
9  Ky.  L.  "Rep.  814. 

Oklahoma. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dunham,    3(J    Okla.    724,    129    Pac.    862. 

Pcnnsyhania. — ^Lloyd  v.  Haugh,  etc.. 
Transfer  Co.,  223  Pa.  148,  72  Atl.  SIC,  21 
L.   R.  A.,   N.  S.,   188. 

Texas. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wilson 
Hack  Line,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  38,  101  S. 
W.  1042,  atifirmed  in  102  Tex.  595,  no 
op.;  International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nichol- 
son, 61  Tex.  550;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Clark,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  512,  IS 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  628;  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Cook,  2  Te^xas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§  659;  Houston  Transfer,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Whitcomb  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  147  S.  W. 
358;  Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Dement 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    115    S.    W.    635. 

The  measure  of  damages  for  loss  by  a 
carrier  of  household  goods  and  personal 
efTects  is  the  actual  value  of  the  thing 
destroyed  to  the  owner,  considering  its 
cost,  the  practicability  and  expense  of 
replacing  it,  and  such  other  considera- 
tions as  affect  its  value  to  the  owner. 
Lloyd  V.  Haugh,  etc.,  Transfer  Co..  72 
Atl.  516,  223  Pa.  148,  21  L.  R.  A.,  X.  S.. 
188. 

The  measure  of  a  carrier's  liability  for 
property  destroyed  by  his  negligence, 
which  has  not  been  the  subject  of  traffic, 
is  the  fair  value  of  the  property  at  or 
near  the  place  of  its  destruction.  Harris 
V.  Panama  R.  Co..  16  X.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
7.  attirmed   in   .")S   \.  Y.   6(>0. 

Second-hand  vehicles. — In  an  action  lor 
the  value  of  second-hand  vehicles  lost  by 
a  carrier,  where  they  have  no  market 
value,  the  measure  of  recovery  is  their 
actual  value.  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
son Hack  Line,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  38,  101 


§§  1077-1078 


CARRIERS. 


858 


sons  place  on  them,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  the  amount  for  wiiich  he  could  sell 
them  to  others.*^^  Where  a  package  lost  by  an  express  company  in  transit  has  an 
actual  value  as  part  of  a  work,  and  its  loss  must  be  supplied,  the  measure  of  dam- 
ages is  the  cost  of  supplying  it,  which,  nothing  else  appearing,  is  the  cost  of  its 
production.'^-* 

Where  Goods  Injured. — Where  household  goods  in  use  are  injured  while 
being  iranspDrted  1)\-  a  carrier,  the  measure  of  damages,  is  the  ditTerence  in  their 
actual  value  just  prior  to  and  just  subsequent  to  the  injury,  and  not  the  differ- 
ence in  the  market  value  of  similar  goods  at  the  nearest  second-hand  stores. ''^ 

Portraits. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  of  a  portrait  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  is  the  actual  value  of  the  portrait  to  the  plaintift'.'^*^  Damages 
because  of  the  peculiar  value  attached  by  the  owner  to  the  portrait  are  not  re- 
coverable.''' Where  the  portrait  may  be  reproduced  the  owner  is  entitled  to  sup- 
plv  the  lost  portrait,  and  to  recover  of  the  carrier  the  cost.^*^ 

§  1078.  Profits. — Where  goods  intended  for  sale  are  lost  the  carrier  is  not 
liable  for  profits  which  plaintiff'  might  have  made  had  he  resold  the  goods  in  the 
ordinarv'  course  of  his  business.''^'*  Also  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  profits  an- 
ticipated from  the  multiplication  of  copies  of  a  lost  picture  and  -the  sale  thereof.''^' 
Xor  is  it  liable  for  the  rental  value  of  property.' ^ 


S.  W.  1042.  affirmed  in  102  Tex.  595, 
no  op. 

Cost  of  reproducing  or  replacing 
goods. — In  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Key 
(Tex.  Civ.  App.),  58  S.  W.  43,  it  was  held 
that  the  measure  of  damages  is  the  cost 
of  reproducing  or  replacing  the  goods, 
if  they  can  be  reproduced  or  replaced. 
Compare  Houston  Transfer,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Whitcomb  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  147  S.  W. 
358. 

Original  cost. — Where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  sustained 
in  transit  to  goods  which  have  no  rnarket 
value,  the  only  evidence  of  value  is  the 
price  at  which  plaintiff  has  sold  similar 
articles,  it  is  error  to  instruct  the  jury 
to  look  to  the  original  cost  of  the  articles 
injured,  in  estimating  plaintiff's  damage. 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ney  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).    58    S.   W.    43. 

Questions  for  jury — Evidence. — Where 
there  is  no  market  value  for  the  article 
in  question,  alleged  to  have  been  lost 
through  carrier's  negligence,  the  value 
must  be  ascertained  by  the  jury  as  a  fact, 
considering  the  circumstances  which 
would  have  affected  the  market  value  had 
there  been  one.  G.  H.  &  S.  A.  R.  Co. 
v.  Watson,  1  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  813. 

In  ascertaining  the  value  of  household 
goods  in  use  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  damages  sustained  by  the  in- 
jury or  destruction  thereof,  the  original 
cost  of  the  property,  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  used,  its  general  condition 
and  quality,  the  percentage  of  its  depre- 
ciation from  use,  damage,  age,  decay,  or 
otherwise,  are  all  proper  to  be  submitted 
to  the  jury.  Wells  Fargo  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Williams   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  71  S.  W.  314. 

63.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ney  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.),  58  S.  W.  43;  International, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Nicholson,  61  Tex.  550; 
Gulf,  etc.,   R.  Co.  V.  Clark,  2  Texas  App. 


Civ.   Cas..   §   512,   18   Am.   &   Eng.    R.   Cas. 
628. 

In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  to  recover 
for  the  loss  of  household  goods  and 
clothing,  the  value  of  these  articles  as 
second-hand  articles  in  the  public  mar- 
ket is  not  the  measure  of  their  value  in 
fixing  damages.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Frame,    6    Colo.    382. 

64.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  z\  Hoeing,  9  Ky. 
L.    Rep.    S14. 

Architect's  plans. — In  an  action  against 
a  common  carrier  for  loss  of  a  package 
containing  architect's  plans,  the  measure 
of  damages  is  the  reasonable  expense  of 
procuring  new  plans.  Mather  z'.  Ameri- 
can Exp.  Co.,  138  Mass.  55,  52  Am.  Rep. 
25  s'. 

65.  Where  goods  injured. — Benedict  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  91 
S.  W.  811;  Wells  Fargo  Exp.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
liams (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  71  S.  W.  314; 
Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sniythe,  55  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    557,    119    S.    W.     892. 

66.  Loss  of  portrait. — Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Burke,  55  Tex.  323,  40  Am.  Rep. 
808;  Green  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  128 
Mass.  221,  35  Am.  Rep.  370,  holding  that 
in  an  action  for  the  loss  of  portrait  of 
plaintiff's  father,  evidence  that  plaintiff 
has  no  other  portrait  of  his  father  is  ad- 
missiljle. 

67.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  55 
Tex.    323,    40    Am.    Rep.    808. 

68.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burke,  55 
Tex.    323,    343,    40    Am.    Rep.    808. 

69.  Profits.— Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Payne,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  58,  38  S.  W.  366; 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hansford  & 
Son,   30   Ky.   L.    Rep.   1105,   100   S.   W.   251 

70.  Bennett  v.  Drew,  16  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.    355. 

71.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Hewett,  2 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  273  (rental  value 
of  machine);  Burke  z:  Clarke,  11  La.  206 
(wages  of  slaves). 


859 


LOSS  OR   INJURY   TO  GOODS. 


§    1079 


§  1079.  Special  Damages. — In  order  to  render  a  carrier  liable  for  special 
damages  resulting  frcjni  a  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods,  notice  of  the  conditions 
from  which  they  \\(nil<l  result  should  be  given  the  carrier  at  the  time  the  contract 
of  carriage  is  made.'-  So  where,  on  shipment  of  {jrojierty,  there  was  no  notice 
to  the  carrier  of  any  special  use  to  which  it  was  to  be  applied  or  of  such  scarcity 
as  to  prevent  another  purchase  of  a  like  amount  by  consignee,  consignee  was 
not  entitled  to  special  damages  for  its  loss."-'*  '  It  is  held  that  notice  to  a  carrier 
subsequent  to  the  receipt  of  goods  will  render  it  liable  for  damages  accruing 
after  that  time  because  oi  negligence  in  not  tracing  and  finding  the  goods."*     .-\ 


72.  Special  damages. — American  Exo. 
Co.  x:  Kiiiiiii.^s,  ^ti  Miss.  329,  38  So.  374, 
109  Am.  St.  Kcp.  70H;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Pickens  (Te.x.  Civ.  App.).  58  S.  W. 
]")(;:  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  f.  Jones,  .52  Tex. 
Civ.    App.    367,    113    S.    W.    9.52,    9.54. 

In  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belcher,  88 
Tex.  549,  32  S.  W.  518,  the  court  said: 
"The  rule  seems  to  be  settled  that  plain- 
tiff, in  order  to  recover  special  damages 
for  breach  of  a  contract,  must  show  that 
at  the  date  of  the  contract  defendant  had 
notice  of  the  special  conditions  rendering 
such  damages  the  natural  and  probable 
result  of  such  breacli  under  circum- 
stances showing  that  tlie  contract  was  to 
some  extent  based  upon  or  made  with 
reference  to  such  conditions.  Waller  z'. 
Railway,  L.  R.  4  C.  L.  Ir.  376;  Harvey 
r.  Connecticut,  etc..  Railroad,  124  Mass. 
421,   26   Am.    Rep.   673." 

Reasons  for  rule. — "X'arious  reasons 
have  l)een  assigned  for  the  limitations 
thus  placed  upon  the  right  to  recover 
such  damages.  For  instance,  it  is  some- 
times said  that  defendant  is  entitled  to 
the  notice  at  the  time  of  entering  into 
the  contract,  so  that  he  may  protect 
himself  against  such  special  or  extraor- 
dinary liability  by  declining  to  make  the 
contract,  by  inserting  stipulations  pro- 
tecting himself  against  such  lial)ility,  by 
charging  additional  compensation  to 
cover  the  extra  risk,  or  by  making  im- 
mediate extra  preparation  to  guard 
against  the  breach;  and,  again,  it  has 
been  said  that  plaintiff  'ought  not  to  be 
allowed  to  obtain  an  advantage  which  he 
has  not  paid  for.' "  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  z'. 
Jones,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App.  367,  113  S.  W. 
952,  quoting  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Belcher,    88    Tex.    549,    32    S.    W.    518. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  a 
carrier  for  the  loss  of  a  piston  rod  nec- 
essary for  the  operation  of  plaintiff's 
gin,  the  carrier  could  not  l)e  held  liable 
for  special  damages,  owing  to  the  en- 
forced idleness  of  the  gin,  in  the  absence 
of  a  showing,  either  that  it  had  notice 
of  the  special  circumstances  before  it  re- 
ceived the  shipment,  or  that  the  initial 
carrier  contracted  for  a  through  ship- 
ment, and  had  such  notice  before  re- 
ceiving the  shipment.  American  Exp. 
Co.  v.  Jennings,  38  So.  374,  86  Miss.  329, 
109  Am.  St.  Rep.  708. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss 
of  a  consignment  of  ice  shipped  by  plain- 


tiffs to  tiiemselves,  plaintiffs  were  not  en- 
titled to  recover  for  the  loss  of  fish,  for 
the  packing  of  which  they  intended  to 
use  the  ice,  in  the  alisence  of  any  evi- 
dence that  the  carrier  knew  or  should 
have  known  that  the  ice  was  intended 
for  that  purpose.  Levvark  v.  Norfolk, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,  49  S.   E.  882,  137  X.  C.  383. 

Defendant  railroad  was  not  liable  for 
special  damages  where  it  had  no  notice 
that  plaintiff's  shipments  of  cabbages 
were  made  to  fill  a  sale  at  a  special 
price.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  McLean, 
55  Tex.  Civ.  App.  130,  118  S.  W.  161. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  for 
damages  done  to  a  thresher  and  conse- 
quent loss  of  profits  resulting  from  time 
lost  in  having  the  thresher  repaired, 
plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover  damages 
sustained  by  reason  of  not  being  able  to 
thresh  all  the  grain  he  had  contracted  to 
thresh,  where  it  appeared  that  he  had 
shipped  the  thresher  for  the  purpose  of 
threshing  wheat,  and  had  made  contracts 
to  thresh  certain  crops,  and  had  notified 
defendant's  agent  of  that  fact  prior  to 
the  shipment.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z: 
Calvert,  91  S.  W.  825,  41  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
236. 

Where  plaintiff  notified  defendant, 
when  he  shipped  a  museum,  of  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  being  shipped, 
defendant  is  liable  for  such  damages  as 
plaintiff  might  probably  sustain  by  rea- 
son of  the  failure  to  have  the  museum 
thereof  or  exhibition,  in  the  way  of  lost 
profits;  not  eo  nomine  as  net  profits,  but 
as  damages,  to  be  determined  by  ascer- 
taining the  probable  net  profits.  Yoa- 
kum 7\  Dunn,  1  lex.  Civ.  App.  524,  21 
S.    W.    411. 

Insufficient  notice. — Where  the  owner 
of  a  steam  shovel  ships  it  by  rail,  stat- 
ing at  the  time  to  the  agent  of  the  rail- 
road company  that  he  "had  got  a  con- 
tract," and  wanted  to  ship  his  shovel,  and 
the  shovel  is  injured  in  transit,  the  com- 
pany is  not  liable  on  that  account  for 
loss  of  profits  that  would  have  been 
made  by  using  the  shovel,  since  the  state- 
ment as  to  the  use  to  which  the  shovel 
would  put  is  too  vague  to  charge  the  car- 
rier with  special  damages.  Gray  f.  St. 
Louis,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   54   Mo.   App.   666. 

73.  Matheson  z'.  Southern  Railwav,  79 
S.  C.   155,  60  S.  E.  437. 

74.  Matheson  v.  Southern  Railwav,  79 
S.  C.   155,  60  S.  E.  437. 

Where,   after   notice    to    a    carrier    after 


1079-108: 


CARRIERS. 


860 


carrier  is  not  liable  for  special  damages  caused  by  the  loss  of  machinery  in 
transportation  because  of  the  faiktre  of  its  agent  at  destination  to  notify  the 
owner  of  such  loss,  in  the  absence  of  proof  that  such  agent  had  knowledge 
thereof.'"'' 

Pleading'  and  Proof. — Tlie  pleadings  and  evidence  must  show  that  special 
damages  were  contemplated  by  the  carrier  when  the  property  was  received  for 
shipment.'*^  Evidence  as  to  special  items  of  damage  can  not  be  given  unless 
alleged  in  the  petition.' ' 

§  1080.  Exemplary  Damages. — A  carrier  is  liable  for  punitive  damages 
for  a  gross,  willful,  and  tortious  breach  of  the  duty  enjoined  upon  it  by  law  as 
a  common  carrier  for  hire.''"  Where  reckless  or  willful  disregard  of  consignee's 
rights  or  even  indifference  u)  tiiem  does  not  appear,  but  all  the  testimony  tends 
to  show  a  loss  by  theft  from  the  carrier  or  some  mistake,  which  after  diligent 
effort  it  can  not  account  for.  the  carrier  is  not  liable  for  punitive  damages.'-' 

§  1081.  Duty  of  Owner  to  Mitigate  or  Avert. — A  shipper  of  property 
that  became  injured  during  the  transportation  can  not  recover  for  such  further 
injuries  as  he  might  have  averted  by  properly  caring  for  the  property.^'^  After 
the  carrier  has  committed  a  wrong  the  damaged  party  must  not  increase  it,  and, 
if  he  does,  he  can  not  complain  of  loss  or  injury  sustained  by  his  willful  acts  of 
commission  or  omission.^ ^ 

§§  1082-1084.  Evidence  as  to  Value  or  Damage— §  1082.  In  Gen- 
eral.— Presumption. — A  court  can   not  presume  that  goods  lost  by  a  carrier 


shipment  of  fertilizer  of  the  special  use 
to  which  it  was  to  be  applied,  it  made 
diligent  and  prompt  efifort  to  find  and 
deliver  the  same,  it  was  not  liable  for 
special  damages  for  failure  to  do  so, 
within  the  rule  of  the  text.  Matheson  v. 
Southern  Railway.  79  S.  C.  155,  60  S.  E. 
437. 

75.  Pacific  Exp.  Co.  v.  Jones,  52  Tex. 
Civ.   App.   367,   113   S.   W.   952. 

76.  Pleading  and  proof. — Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Brown.  ?,?,  Tex.  Civ.  App.  237, 
238.  76  S.  W.  580;  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Gilbert,  4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  366,  22  S.  W. 
760,  23  S.  W.  320;  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v. 
Battle.  5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  532,  534,  24  S. 
W.    353. 

To  lay  a  basis  for  greater  damage 
against  a  carrier  for  injury  to  or  non- 
delivery of  property  shipped  than  the 
difference  in  value  when  shipped  and 
when  the  goods  are  received  or  lost, 
plaintifif  must  allege  such  special  dam- 
ages as  will  render  the  carrier  amenable 
to  damages  beyond  the  general  rule. 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bell  (Tex.),  2 
Posey   Unrep.    Cas.   517. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  failure  to  deliver  cotton  at  the  des- 
tination named  in  the  bill  of  lading,  the 
consignor  claimed  damages  suffered  l)y 
reason  of  the  consignee's  refusal  to  ac- 
cept after  having  procured  samples, 
which  he  would  not  have  done  if  the 
cotton  had  been  delivered  at  the  proper 
place,  plaintiff  could  not  recover,  in  the 
absence  of  proof  that  the  carrier  was  in- 
strumental in  permitting  the  consignee 
to    procure    the    samples,    or    that    it    had 


any  knowledge  of  the  contract  between 
plaintiff  and  the  consignee,  since  such 
damages  were  special,  and  not  the  prox- 
imate result  of  the  carrier's  breach  of 
contract.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Pickens 
(Tex.    Civ.  App.),   58   S.   W.   156. 

77.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Breeding,  4 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  154,  16  S.  W.  184. 

78.  Exemplary  damages. — Mendelsohn 
V.   Anaheim   Lighter   Co.,  40   Cal.   657. 

Evidence  held  to  show  a  reckless  dis- 
regard of  the  consignee's  rights,  entitling 
him  to  punitive  damages.  Mills  v.  South- 
ern Railway,  73  S.  E.  772.  90  S.  C.  366. 

79.  Matheson  v.  Southern  Railway,  79 
S.  C.   155,  60  S.   E.  437. 

80.  Duty  to  mitigate  or  avert  damages. 
— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Rushin.  3  Texas 
App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  317  (fruit  trees). 

81.  Armistead  v.  Shreveport,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    108    La.    171,    32   So.    456. 

A  carrier  having  failed  to  take  certain 
cotton  seed,  and  to  carry  it  from  one 
point  to  another  according  to  contract, 
and  the  other  contracting  party,  being 
in  possession  of  the  cotton  seed  at  the 
place  of  intended  shipment,  having  aban- 
doned it,  so  that  it  was  lost  or  destroyed, 
the  measure  of  damages  for  which  the 
carrier  is  liable  is  the  value  of  the  seed 
at  the  place  of  intended  delivery,  after 
deducting  its  value  at  the  place  of  in- 
tended shipment  and  the  freight  as 
agreed  upon,  and  adding  to  the  remain- 
der the  expense  which  would  have  been 
incurred  in  preserving  the  seed.  Armi- 
stead V.  Shreveport,  etc..  R.  Co.,  32  So. 
456,   108   La.   171. 


861 


LOSS  OR   IXJURV   TO  GOODS. 


§§  1082-1083 


had  no  market  value  in  place  of  destination,  and  a  fin<ling  "of   full  value     by 
jury  will  he  deemed  the  value  at  that  place. ''- 

Necessity  of  Selling  Injured  Goods  to  Establish  Damage.— It  is  held 
nut  iK-ceNsar\.  in  oidc-r  lo  j^ive  a  ri-lil  of  action  a;4ain>t  a  shipmaster  for  damage 
to  goods  alleged  to  have  been  injured  hy  his  fault,  that  the  damaged  goods  should 
be  sold.  The  plaintitT  may  prove  his  d'amages  in  any  other  comi^etent  manner.**^* 
In  Louisiana  it  is  held  that  the  amount  of  damage  must  be  establi.shed  by  sale 
of  the  goods  at  jmblic  auction. ^^ 

§  1083.  Admissibility.— In  General.— l-.vidence  as  to  the  cost  of  the 
goods,^-'  that  the  shipper  placed  a  small  valuation  on  thern.^"  the  statement  of 
owner's  agent  as  to  value  at  the  time  of  shipment,^'  and  evidence  tending  to  fix 
the  amount  that  damaged  goods  would  have  brought  had  they  reached  their  des- 
tination in  good  condition,"'"  is  admissible.  Evidence  that  some  of  the  articles 
were  torn  and  some  full  of  grease  and  dirt  and  unfit  for  use  is  admissible  as 
descriptive  of  the  extent  of  the  damage.^''  The  original  account  of  sales  at 
destination  of  a  car  of  damaged  vegetables  is  admissible  to  show  the  amount 
realized.'*"  .And  testimony  that  the  amount  realized  from  the  sale  of  vegetables 
at  destination  was  the  cash  market  i)rice  in  their  damaged  condition,  and  that 
they  were  sold  for  the  be.st  market  value  obtainable,  is  admissible.'' ^  It  is  proper 
to  exclude  evidence  insufiicient  to  show  the  market  ])rice  of  freight  lost  by  the 
carrier. "- 

Amount  Paid  by  Consignee  in  Settlement. — In  an  action  by  a  consignee 
ac^ainst  a  carrier  tor  damage  to  goods  (IcfcmlaiU  may  show  the  amount  paid  by 
the  consignee  to  the  purchaser  of  the  goods  in  seitlement  of  the  action  against 
him  b\-  such  pm-chascr.-'-' 

Value  of  Whole  Shipment  Where  Loss  Partial.— In  a  suit  against  a  car- 
rier for  loss  of  cotton  by  fire,  testimony  as  to  the  value  of  the  whole  amount 
destroyed  is  admissible  as  showing  the  value  of  the  part  involved  in  the  suit.*'^ 


82.  Presumptions  as  to  market  value  at 
destination. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Ball,   so   Tex.   m2.   If)   S.   W.   441. 

83.  Necessity  of  selling  injured  goods 
in  order  to  establish  damage. — Shackel- 
ford V.  Patrick  (S.  C),  1  Mill  Const.  311. 
12  Am.   Dec.  032. 

84.  Rule  in  Louisiana. — Smith  v.  Tlic 
Wall.  IS  La.  .\nn.  724;  Henderson  v.  Alaid 
of  Orleans,  12  La.  Ann.  352.  See  Elkins 
&  Co.  V.  New  York,  etc.,  Steamship  Co., 
14    La.    Ann.    (',47. 

Where  the  goods  are  so  damaged  as 
to  be  unsalable,  liie  shipper  is  not  l)Ound 
to  send  tlieni  to  auction  to  he  sold  as  a 
prerequisite  to  his  right  of  action  against 
the  carrier.  Klkins  &  Co.  v.  New  York, 
etc..    Steamship    Co.,    14    La.    Ann.   647. 

It  is  proper  to  give  notice  of  an  auction 
sale  ol"  damaged  goods,  but  the  failure 
to  do  so  will  not  preclude  the  owner 
from  recovering,  when  the  proof  of  dam- 
age is  corroborated  by  independent  tes- 
timony, and  there  is  no  pretense  of  any 
bad  faith  or  sacrifice  of  the  goods,  which 
have  been  sold  by  a  duly  licensed  auc- 
tioneer. Greenwood  r.  Cooper.  10  La. 
.•\nn.   7;m"). 

Expenses  of  sale. —  In  an  action  l)y  the 
shipper  against  a  carrier  for  damage  to 
good.-^  in  transportation,  either  party  has 
a  right  to  require  a  sale  of  the  goods  liy 
auction,  and   the  expenses  will  form  part 


of  the  costs.     Hlkins  &  Co.  r.  New  York, 
etc..   Steamship   Co..   14   La.   Ann.   C47. 

85.  Cost  of  goods. — In  an  action  for 
damage  and  loss  to  a  shipment  of  oil. 
there  was  no  error  in  admitting  evidence 
that  the  oil  cost  consignee,  plus  the 
freight,  a  certain  amount  a  gallon.  Bal- 
timore, etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Oriental  Oil  Co.. 
.-.1  Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  :!:;(•).  1 1 1   S.  W.  '.i7!t. 

86.  Valuation  placed  on  goods. — Winn 
V.  American  Exp.  Co..  149  Iowa  259.  128 
N.  W.  ()(i3. 

87.  Statement  of  agent. — Savannah. 
etc..  R.  Co.  :••  Collins.  77  Ga.  376,  3  S.  E. 
416,  4  .\m.  St.  Rep.  87. 

88.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Orem,  etc., 
Pro(Uice   Co.,   Ill    Md.   356.   73   Atl.   571. 

89.  Kates  Transfer,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Klassen. 
6   .\la.   .\pp.   301.   59   So.   355. 

90.  Original  account  of  sales. — Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  z:  Orem.  etc..  Produce 
Co..  73   .Atl.   571,   111   Md.  356. 

91.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  McLean.  55 
Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  130,  118  S.  W.   161. 

92.  Callawav  r.  Southern  R.  Co..  126 
Ga.    19.-..   .-..-.    S"    E.    2,i. 

93.  Amount  paid  by  consignee  in  set- 
tlement.— St.  Louis,  etc..  R.  Co.  :.  Mc- 
Durmitt  Grain  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  .App.).  87 
S.    W.    35.-.. 

94.  Value  of  whole  shipment  where  loss 
partial. —  Missouri  Lac.  R.  Co.  r.  Slier- 
wood.  84  Tex.  125.  137.  19  S.  W.  455.  IT 
L.   R.   A.   643. 


§  1083 


CARRIKRS. 


862 


Retail  Price  and  Profits. — Evidence  of  the  amount  that  niioht  l)e  realized 
from  a  sale  of  the  goods  at  retail,  or  as  to  the  price  they  would  have  sold  for  at 
public  auction.''"'  or  as  to  what  profit  miyht  he  derived  from  such  sale,'"'  is  inad- 
missible. 

Cost  of  Reproduction  or  Repairs. — In  an  action  for  loss  of  a  family  por- 
trait the  original  cost  and  the  prol)ahle  expense  of  reproduction  may  be  consid- 
ered in  estimating  the  damages."'  Where  it  does  not  distinctly  appear  that  a 
machine  injured  in  transportation  has  a  market  value  at  destination,  evidence  as 
to  the  cost  of  repairing  it  is  admissible."^ 

Value  at  Point  Other  than  Destination. — Generally  unless  it  is  shown  that 
goods  had  no  market  value  at  destination,  evidence  of  their  market  value  at 
some  other  place — as  the  point  of  shipment — is  incompetent. •'■'  Where  there  was 
evidence  that  the  goods  had  no  market  value  at  the.  place  of  delivery,  it  was 
proper  to  admit  evidence  of  the  amount  paid  for  them  in  other  cities,  where  it 
was  also  shown  that  the  i^rices  paid  were  those  charged  by  dealers  in  such  goods, 
and  that  the  goods  were  reasonal)ly  worth  the  same  amount  at  the  place  of 
deliverv.i  It  is  held  couipetent  to  show  the  price  of  goods  at  another  place, 
in  ascertaining  its  value  at  destination  where  the  facilities  for  railroad  transpor- 
tation are  so  great  that  the  value  in  the  one  place  would  tend  to  fix  its  price  in 
the  other.2  It  is  not  error  to  exclude  evidence  of  the  value  of  goods  shipped  at 
the  point  of  their  destination,  where  the  freight  contract  provides  that  in  case 
of  loss  the  amount  thereof  shall  be  computed  at  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the 
time  and  ])lace  of  their  shipment.-"' 

Intrinsic  Value. — Where  it  is  shown  that  goods  have  no  market  value,  evi- 
dence of  their  intrinsic  value  is  admissible,  otherwise  not.-*  The  owner  of  a  lost 
manuscript  mav  testify  as  to  the  time' spent  in  the  preparation  of  the  manuscript 
and  what  he  considered  it  worth.-^ 


95.  Retail  price. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Payne.  38  S.  W.  366,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
58;  Miller  v.  Jannett,  63  Tex.  83,  87; 
Schoolher  v.  Hutchins,  66  Tex.  324,  332, 
1   S.   W.   266. 

96.  Profits. — Texas,-  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Payne,  15  Tex.  Civ.  App.  58,  60,  38  S. 
W.  366;   Miller  v.  Jannett,  63  Tex.   82,  87. 

97.  Cost  of  reproduction. — Houston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Burke,  55  Tex.  323,  40  Am. 
Rep.    80S. 

98.  Cost  of  repairs. — Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  c'.  Calvert,  41  Tex.  Civ.  App.  236,  91 
S.    W.    S25. 

99.  Value  at  point  other  than  destina- 
tion.— Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Dishman,  38 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  277,  85  vS.  W.  319;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Barber  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
30  S.  W.  500;  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rob- 
erts  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  85  S.  W.  479. 

1.  New  York,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.  v. 
Weiss  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  47  S.  W.  674. 
See  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hale. 
85   Tenn.    69,    1    S.    W.   620. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
value  of  property  destroyed  in  transit 
through  its  negligence,  at  a  place  where 
such  property  has  not  been  the  sul)ject  of 
trade,  the  jury  may,  in  deterinining  the 
fair  value  of  the  property,  take  into  con- 
sideration the  fact  that  the  property  has 
a  market  value  at  a  place  other  than 
that  where  it  was  destroyed,  and  to 
which  it  was  destined,  and  towards 
which    the    carrier,    in    the    course    of    the 


usual  and  regular  communication  with 
such  place,  was  then  taking  it,  in  con- 
nection with  the  hazards  and  expenses 
attendant  upon  the  residue  of  the  in- 
tended voyage.  Harris  v.  Panama  R.  Co., 
16  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  7,  affirmed  in  58  N. 
Y.    660. 

2.  Fort  r.  Saunders,  52  Tenn.  (5  Heisk.) 
487. 

3.  Caples  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 
Mo.    App.    14. 

4.  Intrinsic  value. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Roberts    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    85    S.    W.    479. 

Household  goods. — Missouri,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Davidson,  25  Tex.  Civ.  App.  134, 
60  S.  W.  278;  Benedict  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.    (Tex.   Civ.  App.),  91  S.  W.  811. 

Second-hand  vehicles. — In  an  action  for 
the  value  of  a  consignment  of  second- 
hand vehicles  lost  by  a  carrier,  where 
they  had  no  market  value,  the  jury,  in 
determining  their  actual  value,  could 
take  into  consideration  their  cost  when 
new  and  at  second-hand,  what  plaintiff 
paid  for  them,  and  their  condition  when 
they  left  the  seller,  and  all  facts  disclos- 
ing their  history  which  would  enable 
them  to  determine  what  they  were 
fairly  worth.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wil- 
son Hack  Line,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  38,  101 
S.    W.    1042. 

5.  Loss  of  manuscript. — Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Owens,  41  So.  752,  146  Ala.  412, 
8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  369,  119  Am.  St. 
Rep.    41. 


863  LOSS  OR  INjlRV  TO  GOODS.  §  1083 

Pedigree  of  Dog. —  In  an  acli(jii  ai,'ain.st  an  express  company  for  damages  to 
a  dog  while  in  transit,  evidence  of  the  breeding  and  characteristics  of  her  dam, 
of  the  elements  constitnting  her  value,  and  of  the  value  of  her  sire  and  dam,  is 
admissible.'"' 

Proof  of  Value  by  Party. — In  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  damage 
to  property  it  is  c()m])etcnt  for  the  plaintiff  to  testify  as  to  its  value,^  although 
he  had  a  written  bill  showing  the  cost  of  the  goods. ^  So  to  prove  the  value  of 
cotton  lost  in  transit,  the  consignor  may  testify  as  to  its  cash  value,  at  the  time 
of  the  los^.  ])er  pound  i^'ross." 

Claim  for  Damages. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  injuries  to  goods, 
plaintiff's  claim,  fdcd  before  suit  brought,  is  admissible  as  tending  to  show  that  at 
that  time  he  claimed  a  less  amount  of  damages  than  the  amount  stated  in  his 
petition.'"  And  where  the  carrier's  agent  testified  that  plaintiff  had  never 
claimed  more  than  a  certain  amount  of  damages  to  a  shipment.  ])laintiff  could 
introduce,  in  relnittal.  a  written  claim  for  a  larger  sum,  which  he  had  presented 
to  the  carrier  throu.uh  such  agent." 

A  finding  of  arbitrators  not  resulting  in  adjusting  the  dispute,  as  to  dam- 
aged freight,  in  a  suit  afterwards  brought  to  recover  the  damages,  is  not  ad- 
missible in  evidence,  at  the  instance  of  either  party,  over  the  objection  of  the 
other,  even  though  made  in  writing,  and  even  though  it  had  been  long  the  cus- 
tom of  the  carrier,  and  its  custom  at  that  place,  to  adjust  such  disputes  in  that 
manner.' - 

Payment  of  Freight. — In  an  action  for  damages  to  property  in  transporta- 
tion, it  is  competent  for  j^laintift'  to  prove  payment  of  freight  charges,  in  order 
that  the  charge  should  not  be  deducted  from  the  difference  in  value  at  destina- 
tion in  the  condition  in  which  the  property  arrived  and  that  in  which  it  was  de- 
livered.'"    And  so  nonpayment  of  charges  may  be  shown. '^ 

Hearsay  Evidence. — Testimony  of  a  witness  as  to  the  market  value  of  prop- 
erlv  sliipi)c(l  at  a  certain  point,  based  upon  daily  reports  of  the  market  at  that 
jioint,  is  not  liearsa\'  c\  iilcnce.''' 

Expert  and  Opinion  Evidence. — Where  a  witness  shows  that  he  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  market  at  the  place  fixed  by  law  as  the  standard  of  value,  and 
also  with  the  property,  he  may  then  give  his  opinion  of  the  value  of  such 
propertv  in  its  dift'ering  conditions  of  wdiich  he  has  knowdedge,  and  thereby 
furnish  the  data  from  which  the  jury  may  assess  the  damages.'"^     Persons  shown 

6.  Pedigree  of  dog. — Wiiichcll  z:  Xa-  15.  Market  reports. — International,  etc., 
tional    I'.xp.   Co.,  (;4   \'t.   1.").  2:5  Atl.  728.  R.    Co.    7'.    Dimmit    County    Pasture    Co., 

7.  Proof  of  value  by  party. — Savannah,  ,'5  Tex.  Civ.  App.  18(),  2:!  ?.  \V.  7 'A; 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Hoffmavor,  T,>  Ga.  410:  Op-  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  7'.  Maddox.  T.J  Tex. 
penheimer  7'.  Hdney,  2S  Tcnn.  (9  Humph.)  300.  301.   12  S.  W.  81.5. 

385.  16.      Expert    and      opinion      evidence. — 

8.  Savannah,  etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Hoffmayer,  Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Earlier  i  Trx.  Civ. 
75    Ga.   410.  App.),    30    S.    \V.    500. 

9.  Cash  value.— Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  r.  The  opinion  of  a  witness,  not  conver- 
Gernon,   S4  Tex.    141,    T.»   S.   W.   461.  sant  with  the  market  at  the  place  of  des- 

10.  Claim  for  damages. — Missouri,  etc.,  tinatinn.  as  to  the  amount  of  the  dam- 
R.  Co.  V.  Clayton  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  84  ages,  is  inadmissible.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
S.  W.  1069.  V.  Barber   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  .30  S.  \V.  500. 

11.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t-.  Tuckett  Injury  to  bees.— Where  prior  to  the 
(Tex.   Civ.   App.).  25   S.   W.   150.  slnpment    ol    bees,    plaintiff    mtormed    the 

,-       TA-    J-  r  u-..     ^  /-^      *.     1        earner  s  auent   tliat   he   liad   sold   the   bees 

12.  Fmdmg  of  arbitrators.-Cen  ral  ^^^  ^,5,..  ;^.^  ^^^,^^,  delivered,  and  after 
Railroad   7'.    Rogers    .S:    Sons,    (.(,    Ga.    2.>1.       ^,^^^   ,^^^^^  \^^^^  ,^^^.,^   .^^-^^^^^^   j,^   transporta- 

13.  Payment  of  freight.— Missouri,  etc.,  tion  plaintiflf  examined  them,  and  was  fa- 
R.  Co.  7'.  .Tarrell,  3S  Tex.  Civ.  App.  425,  miliar  with  their  market  value  and  the 
86  S.  W.  632,  atfirmed  111  101  lex.  649,  extent  of  their  injury,  he  was  entitled 
no   op.  to    testify   as   to   the   amount   of   damages 

14.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Woldert  sustained,  less  than  the  price  for  which 
Grocery  Co.  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  144  S.  W.  the  bees  had  been  sold.  International. 
1194.  etc.,  R.   Co.  7'.  Aten   (Tex.  Civ.   App.),  81 

S.  W.  346. 


§§  1083-1084 


CARRIERS. 


864 


to  have  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  cost  and  \ahie  of  second-hand  goods,  are 
competent  to  testify  as  experts  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the  loss  of 
such  goods.^'  A  witness  may  testify  as  to  the  weight  of  hogs  at  the  time  of 
shipment,  based  on  liis  opinion  where  it  is  shown  that  he  is  qualified  to  give 
such  an  opinion  ''^ 

Indorsement  on  a  package  by  the  company's  agents,  "Said  to  contain  $300," 
is  evitience  of  \alue.  in  a  suit  to  recover  its  loss.''^ 

That  one  said  before  the  shipment  that  he  would  give  a  certain 
amotmt  for  the  property  is  no  evidence  of  its  vahie,  and  is  ina<huissil)le.-" 

Evidence  that  the  whisky  had  been  shipped  in  fraud  of  the  revenue 
laws,  no  tax  having  been  paid  thereon,  is  admissible  to  determine  its  vahie.  since, 
if  the  tax  had  been  paid,  the  value  of  the  raw  material  would  be  enhanced  to 
that  extent,  and.  if  not  paid,  it  would  be  decreased  to  that  amount.-^ 

Harmless  Error. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  injury  to  property,  the 
admission  of  incomjietent  evidence  as  to  market  value  at  an  earlier  time  than 
the  injury,  is  harmless,  where  the  verdict  is  for  much  less  than  is  warranted 
by  all  the  competent  evidence. -- 

§  1084.  Weight  and  Sufficiency. — Value  of  Goods. — A  judgment  in  an 
action  against  a  carrier  for  goods  lost  can  not  be  sustained,  where  the  evidence 
fails  to  show  the  character  and  value  of  the  goods.--''  In  an  action  to  recover 
for  the  loss  of  a  trunk  it  is  not  necessary  to  prove  specifically  every  article  con- 
tained in  the  trunk,  and  the  value  of  each  article.-^  Under  a  provision  in  a  bill 
of  lading  that  the  amount  of  any  loss  shall  be  computed  at  the  value  of  the 
propertv  at  the  time  and  place  of  shipment,  the  invoice  price  of  the  goods  is 
not  conclusive  as  to  value.--'' 

Value  at  Destination. — Where  in  a  suit  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  injury 
to  i)ropert\-  the  measure  of  damages  is  determined  by  the  value  at  destination  in 
the  absence  of  evidence  of  what  its  value  would  have  been  at  its  destination  had 


17.  Value  of  second-hand  goods. — 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Wilson  Hack  Line, 
40  Tex.  Civ.  App.  38.  101  S.  W.  1042,  af- 
firmed in  102  Tex.  595,  no  op.,  holding 
that  such  evidence  is  not  objectionable 
as   invading   the   province   of   the   jury. 

It  is  not  error  to  exclude  the  testi- 
mony of  a  witness  as  to  the  relative 
value  of  new  and  second-hand  goods, 
when  he  states  that  he  has  no  knowledge 
as  an  expert  as  to  the  value  of  second- 
hand clothing.  International,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Nicholson,  61   Tex.   550. 

18.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Duncan,  .'i 
Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  234. 

19.  Indorsement  on  package. — Weil  ?'. 
Express    Co.    (Pa.),   7    Phila.    88. 

20.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Silegman 
(Tex.   Civ.    App.-),   23   S.    W.   298. 

21.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Kichler,  48 
111.    438. 

22.  Harmless  error. — Galveston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  r.  Williams  (lex.  Civ.  App.),  25 
vS.  W.  1019,  reversing  25  S.  W.  311. 

23.  Value  of  goods. — Houston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  McGlosson,  1  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,   §   224. 

Sufficient  proof  of  value. — In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  goods, 
plaintiff's  testimony  as  to  their  cost,  the 
amount  of  their  use  and  deterioration, 
and    what    they    were    worth    to    him,    will 


be  treated  as  sufficient  proof  of  their 
value.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Giles 
(Tex.    Civ.    App.),    126    S.    W.    282. 

Amount  received  at  sale. — In  an  action 
against  an  express  company  for  the  value 
of  goods  lost  or  destroyed  by  reason  of 
defendant's  negligence,  the  amount  for 
which  it  appears  the  goods  were  a  short 
time  previously  sold  by  complainants  is 
sufficient  proof  of  their  value,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  other  proof  or  of  any  Question 
as  to  the  value.  Cole  v.  Rankin  (Tenn.), 
42   S.   W.   72. 

Evidence  of  the  value  of  an  entire 
shipment  of  which  the  cotton  lost  was  a 
part,  while  admissible,  is  not  sufficient  to 
prove  the  value  of  the  lost  property  in 
the  absence  of  facts  at  least  showing 
tlie  average  weight,  value  and  the  quality  of 
the  cotton,  or  showing  that  such  average 
weight,  value  or  quality  could  not  be 
ascertained.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Sherwood,  84  Tex.  125,  19  S.  W.  455,  17 
L.    R.    A.    643. 

Value  at  place  of  shipment. — Evidence 
held  to  sustain  a  finding  as  to  the  value 
of  the  freight  at  the  place  of  shipment. 
Weinberg  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  S. 
E.   634,   83    S.    C.   468. 

24.  Stadhecker  v.  Combs  &  Co.  (S.  C). 
9   Rich.    L.    193. 

25.  Invoice  price. — Sanders  v.  Southern 
Railway,   72   S.   E.   637,  90  S.   C.   79. 


865  LOSS  OR  INJL'RV  TO  GOODS.  §  1084 

it  been  pro])erly  transported,  a  verdict  can  not  stand.-''  But  it  is  held  that  di- 
rect testimony  as  to  the  value  at  the  place  of  their  destination  is  not  indispen- 
sable, if  there  is  proof  of  the  value  in  the  markets  of  an  adjoining  state,  and 
other  evidence  from  which  the  jury  may  properly  make  an  estimate.-"'  And  it 
is  held  that  a  sufficient  basis  t'o  support  a  finding  b)'  the  court  is  given  by  evi- 
dence, unobjected  to,  of  the  cost  at  retail  in  the  regular  course  of  business  at 
the  jjlace  of  shiijuient  just  prior  to  the  shipment.-''  Ivvidence  by  plaintiff  as  to 
the  market  value  of  goods  at  their  destination  is  sufficient  to  sustain  a  finding 
in  accordance  with  such  evidence,  although  witnesses  for  defendant  who  saw 
the  goods,  or  part  of  them,  at  the  point  of  shipment,  estimated  the  value  of  those 
which  they  saw  at  a  much  less  figure  than  i)laintiff's  estimate.-'' 

Amount  of  Damage. — Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  injury 
to  property,  the  evidence  shows  the  value  of  the  property  when  shipjjed  and 
that  it  was  damaged  to  the  e.xtent  of  one-half  of  such  value,  the  amount  of  the 
damage  is  sufficiently  shown.'"'  Where  in  a  suit  against  a  carrier  to  recover  for 
injuries  to  dress  goods  damaged  by  sea  water  and  soda  ash,  there  is  no  evidence 
of  the  amount  of  the  damage,  a  finding  that  the  goods  were  damaged  one-third 
(jf  their  invoice  value  is  justified  by  common  e-xjierience.-"  Under  an  allegation 
that  some  of  the  grates  were  delivered  in  a  broken  and  damaged  condition,  evi- 
dence that  "the  grates"  were  delivered  in  that  condition  will  not  justify  an 
inference  either  that  all  or  any  jxirticular  number  of  them  were  broken  and 
damaged;  but  it  ought  to  ai)])ear,  approximately  at  least,  how  many  were  so  in- 
jured, and  how  much  the  injury  impaired  or  diminished  their  value.''- 

Experts'  evidence  that  the  value  of  merciiandise  was  fixed  by  the  cost 
price  plus  the  cost  of  carriage,  and  that,  except  as  varied  by  the  freight  to 
(lift"erent  points,  such  property  had  a  uniform  value  in  the  section  of  the  state 
in  which  the  business  was  carried  on,  was  sufficient  to  establish  the  extent  of 
the  loss.-''^ 

Conflicting  Evidence. — Where  tlie  evidence  as  to  the  amount  of  the  dam- 
ages is  conrticting,  that  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff'  sustaining  the  finding  of  the 
jury,  there  is  no  error  in  refusing  to  grant  a  new  trial  on  the  ground  that  the 
verdict  was  contrary  to  law  and  without  evidence  to  support  it.^'* 

Improbable  Testimony. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  household  goods 
destroyed  in  transportation,  damages  will  not  be  held  excessive  merely  because 

26.      Value     at    destination. — Galveston,  received    at    tlie    sale    does    not    show    the 

etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Silcgman   (Tex.  Civ.  App. ),  market   value   of  the   potatoes.     Carter  v. 

2:\   S.   W.   298,  300.  International,      etc.,    R.    Co.    (Tex.      Civ. 

In    an    action    to    recover    the    value    of  App.),  93   S.  W.  681. 

whisk}'  destroyed  by  fire  wliile  in  transit,  27.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mason,  79 

it  appeared  by  the  evidence  that  plaintiffs  Tcnn.    (11    Lea)    IKj. 

liad    shipped    with    defendant,    "1,2()4    gal-  28.    Plaff    v.    Pacific    Exp.    Co.,    l-'SU    111. 

Ions  of  whisky,  then  worth  $2.25."     Held,  App.   493,  judgment   affirmed   in   95   X.    E. 

that  the  evidence  should  be  construed  as  1089. 

showing   the   market   value   per   gallon    at  29.   Gulf,   etc.,   R.    Co.  v.   Roberts    (Tex. 

the    place    of    destination.      Toledo,    etc..  Civ.  App.),  s.")  S.  W.  479. 

R.  Co.  v.  Kickler.  ,51   111.   lo7.  30.      Amount      of      damage. — .\utrey    v. 

Contract  price. —  In  an  action  to  recover  Georgia,   etc.,    R.   Co.,   113    Ga.   OlS,   38    S. 

for    cotton       shipped      over      defendant's  E.   941. 

road   and  alleged   to   have   been   destroyed  31.   Bradford  v.   Cunard   Steamship   Co.. 

l)y    defendant's    negligence,    proof    of    the  147   Mass.   ;")."),  16  N.   E.  719. 

price   at   which   cotton   was   contracted   to  32.  .\tlaiita,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Texas  Grate 

be    sold   is    insufficient   to   show   the   mar-  Co.,  si   Ga.  fi(i:,>,  '.i  S.  E.  600. 

ket   value    at    its    destination.      Galveston,  33.    Expert    evidence. — Te.xas,     etc.,     R. 

etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Efron   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  38  Co.  v.  1  ownsend   (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  106  S. 

S.  W.  639.  W.   7f)0. 

Where     carriers     sold     a     car    load     of  34.  Conflicting  evidence. — Western,  etc., 

potatoes    without    giving    the    buyers    an  Kailroail    v.    Mathis.    77    Ga.    488,   2    S.    E. 

opportunity   to   inspect   them,   the   anmunt  692. 

I   Car — ,j3 


§§  1084-1086 


CARRIKRS. 


866 


plaintift's  testimony  as  to  their  value  seems  improbable."'-'' 

§  1085.  Recovery  as  Affected  by  Allegation  of  Damages. — Where  the 
petition  claims  damages  only  for  the  injury  to  and  loss  of  property  through  a 
collision,  there  can  be  no  recover  for  injury  caused  by  delay  and  detention. "^'^ 
As  to  necessitv  for  pleading  special  damages,  see  ante,  "Special  Damages,"  § 
1079. 

§§  1086-1087.  Province  of  Court  and  Jury— §   1086.  In  General.-"— 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods,  the  case  should  be 
submitted  to  the  jury  where  the  evidence  is  such  that  different  minds  might  rea- 
sonably draw  different  inferences  therefrom, ^•'^  or  where  there  is  any  evidence 
from  which  the  jury  might  properly  find  the  existence  of  a  fact  material  to  the 
issues.^'^  Where  the  carrier  discharges  its  burden  of  proof  as  to  an  issue  it  is 
entitled  to  have  the  question  submitted  to  the  jury,  although,  under  the  evidence, 
they  may  find  a  verdict  against  it.'*"     In  an  action  by  a  consignee  against  a  car- 


35.  Improbable  testimony. — Missouri, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  7'.  Davidson,  25  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    134,   60   S.    W.    278. 

36.  Damages  not  alleged. — Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  z:  Sims  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  26  S. 
W.    634. 

37.  Province  of  court  and  jury — In  ac- 
tions against  carriers  of  live  stock.— See, 
also,  post,  "Carriers  of  Live  Stock,"  Part 
III. 

As  to  carriers  by  water  generally. — See 
post,   "Carriers   by  Water,"   Part   VII. 

38.  Where  different  inferences  may  be 
drawn  from  evidence. — Mouton  r.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  128  Ala.  537,  29  So. 
602,   20   Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.,   N.   S.,   673. 

Plaintiff  was  the  consignee  of  a  car  of 
wagons,  which  was  destroyed  by  fire 
while  in  transit  over  the  defendant  road. 
The  fire  in  the  car  was  discovered  a 
little  after  midnight,  when  the  train  was 
between  stations,  about  four  miles  from 
B.,  a  station  with  a  large  water  tank,  and 
which  the  train  had  just  left.  The  wag- 
ons were  properly  packed  in  the  car 
without  any  inflammable  material,  and 
the  car  door  sealed,  with  the  usual  car 
seals.  On  discovering  smoke  issuing 
from  the  car,  the  train  was  stopped,  but 
no  flame  was  discovered  until  the  con- 
ductor opened  the  door  of  the  car.  A 
small  hole  was  cut  through  the  roof  of 
the  car,  through  which  a  few  pails  of 
water  were  poured,  but,  the  hole  be- 
ing so  small,  some  of  the  water  was 
lost.  On  the  conductor's  orders,  the 
train  was  cut,  and  the  burning  car  taken 
four  miles,  to  W.,  a  station  where  there 
was  no  water  tank  or  appliances  for  ex- 
tinguishing fires.  Held,  that  the  evi- 
dence, though  not  conflicting,  was  such 
that  difi^erent  minds  might  reasonably 
draw  different  inferences  therefrom  in 
regard  to  defendant's  diligence  in  at- 
tempting to  extinguish  the  fire,  and  hence 
it  was  error  for  the  court  to  give  a  gen- 
eral charge  in  favor  of  the  defendant. 
Mouton  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  So. 
602,  128  Ala.  537,  20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas., 
N.  S.,  673. 

39.  Where,    plaintiff     testified     without 


ol)jection  that  B.  delivered  his  trunk  to 
the  carrier  for  transportation,  such  evi- 
dence justified  a  submission  of  the  issue 
of  the  delivery  of  the  trunk  to  the  car- 
rier to  the  jury.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  <'. 
Hanson,  91  S.  W.  321,  41  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
174. 

Evidence  insufficient. — In  an  action  for 
cotton  alleged  to  have  been  delivered  to 
the  defendant  as  a  common  carrier  and 
destroyed  by  fire,  evidence  tending  to 
show  that  the  course  of  dealing  and  cus- 
tom was  to  place  goods  to  be  shipped  on 
the  platform  where  the  cotton  was  de- 
stroyed, and  that  it  was  the  expectation 
and  intention  of  the  owner  and  also  of 
the  railway  company  that  they  were 
placed  there  for  shipment,  and  would  ul- 
timately be  shipped  when  instructions 
were  given  or  when  the  party  was  ready 
for  shipment,  but  not  showing  that  such 
goods  were,  by  virtue  of  the  custom  or 
course  of  dealing,  to  be  thereafter  re- 
garded as  in  the  actual  possession  of  the 
railway,  was  insufficient  to  authorize  sub- 
mission to  the  jury  of  the  question  of  de- 
livery by  reason  of  such  custom.  Mis- 
souri, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Beard,  78  S.  W.  253, 
34   Tex.    Civ.   App.    188. 

40.  Where  carrier  discharges  burden  of 
proof  as  to  an  issue. — Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Richmond,  94  Tex.  571,  63  S.  VV.  619, 
621. 

"If  the  law  required  that  the  carrier 
should  prove  its  defense  so  conclusively 
that  a  jury  could  not  find  against  it  be- 
fore the  court  would  be  allowed  to  sub- 
mit the  issue,  then  there  could  be  no 
state  of  case  in  which  such  issue  could 
be  properly  submitted  on  the  evidence  of 
the  carrier  alone;  for,  if  the  evidence  was 
not  sufficient  to  permit  the  submission, 
the  court  must  direct  the  jury  to  find  for 
the  plaintiff.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
evidence  should  be  so  conclusive  that  the 
jury  could  not  find  to  the  contrary,  then 
there  would  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to 
intrust  them  to  find  for  the  defendant." 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Richmond,  94  Tex. 
571,   63   S.   W.   619,   621. 

In   an   action   against   a   carrier   for   loss 


867 


LOSS  OR  INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§  1086 


rier,  proof  that  the  latter  received  the  goods,  and  on  demand  failed  to  deliver  or 
account  for  them,  is  sufficient  to  require  the  submission  of  the  case  to  the  jury."*^ 
Where  goods  transported  under  a  bill  of  lading  were  injured  by  fire,  alleged  to 
have  resulted  from  the  carrier's  negligence,  plaintilT  was  entitled  to  go  to  the 
jury  on  a  count  alleging  a  cause  of  action  in  contract,  as  well  as  on  a  count  in 
tort,  tJKju^h  it  could  not  rcnviver  on  both."*- 

Direction  of  Verdict. — \\  here  the  evidence  makes  out  a  prima  facie  case,^'' 
as  where  there  is  positive  evidence  of  defendant's  negligence."*^  or  there  is  some 
evidence  to  establish  plaintiff's  case,"*-"'  it  is  error  to  direct  a  verdict  for  defend- 
ant. Where  the  exidence  is  insufficient  to  sustain  a  \erdict  for  one  party,  it  is 
properly  directed  for  the  other. ^''  In  an  action  for  loss  of  goods  through  the 
alleged  negligence  of  a  carrier,  where  there  is  no  direct  evirlence  whether  the 
loss  was  caused  by  the  alleged  negligence  or  liy  a  defect  in  the  tank  furnished 
by  the  consignee,  or  by  causes  specified   in   the  bill  of   lading  as   relieving  the 


of  goods  by  fire  after  arrival  at  destina- 
tion, evidence  tliat  tliere  was  no  fire  left 
in  the  depot  where  the  goods  were,  and 
that  the  place  was  fastened  up,  sul'ticiently 
negatived  its  negligence  so  as  to  require 
the  jury's  determination  of  that  issue. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burton,  165  Ala. 
425,   51   So.   643. 

41.  Cass  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mass.), 
14    .\llen    448. 

42.  Garvan  v.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
210  Mass.  2~:>.  '.)(■.  X.    I",.  717. 

43.  Direction  of  verdict. — Morris  v.  Min- 
neapolis, etc.,  R.  Co.  (N.  Dak.),  141  N. 
W.  204. 

Where  there  is  evidence  of  a  delivery 
of  an  entire  shipment  l)y  the  carrier  in  a 
damaged  condition,  and  that  the  goods 
were  originally  shipped  in  a  good  condi- 
tion, and  evidence  as  to  the  amount  of 
damages  authorizing  recovery  of  a  larger 
amount  as  damages  on  the  entire  ship- 
ment, it  was  error  to  direct  a  verdict  for 
only  a  portion  of  the  damaged  goods  as 
to  which  defendant  conceded  liability. 
Ohlen  V.  .Atlanta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  58  S.  E. 
511,   2   Ga.   .\pp.   :i2:',. 

44.  Positive  evidence  of  negligence. — 
Where  syrups  were  delivered  to  a  car- 
rier to  be  transported  in  barrels  in  good 
order,  and  on  arrival  some  of  the  barrels 
were  in  such  condition  that  the  contents 
had  escaped,  a  charge  that  the  verdict 
must  be  for  defendant  was  properly  re- 
fused. New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f. 
Eby    (Pa.),   12   .\x\.   482. 

Where,  while  a  freight  car  loaded  with 
stoves  was  waiting  at  its  destination  to 
be  unloaded,  rain  went  through  the  roof 
of  the  car,  and  the  stoves  were  found 
damaged  by  rust,  and  a  casual  inspection 
of  the  roof  would  have  revealed  the  un- 
suitableness  of  the  roof,  it  was  error  to 
give  a  peremptory  instruction  for  the  rail- 
road in  an  action  by  the  consignee. 
Gardner  v.  Xew  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 
So.    469,   78    Miss.    640. 

45.  Bank  v.  Southern  Rxp.  Co.,  86  S.  C. 
532,   68   S.    E.   647. 


46.  Evidence  insufficient  to  sustain  ver- 
dict. \ \  rdici  in  an  action  against  a  car- 
rivr  for  dauiage  to  a  car  load  of  peri>haljle 
fruit  from  a  delay  of  two  days,  the  train 
being  side-tracked  because  of  unprece- 
dented rain,  which  overflowed  and  washed 
out  the  track,  is  properly  directed  for  de- 
fendant, though  plaintiff  expresses  the 
opinion  that  defendant  had  not  sufficient 
cause  for  the  delay,  and  though  a  light 
work  train  went  over  the  road  through 
the  water  a  day  earlier  than  the  freight 
train  was  moved;  the  train  dispatcher, 
wiio  was  not  cross-examined,  testifying 
that  no  train  could  go  between  the  place 
where  the  train  was  side-tracked  and  the 
destination  of  the  car,  before  the  day  it 
was  moved,  and  that  a  locomotive  was 
sent  for  and  brought  over  the  train  as 
soon  as  it  could  be  done,  and  that  this 
was  the  first  train  run  over  this  section 
after  it  was  repaired.  Burnham  v.  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co..  32  So.  912.  81  Miss.  46. 

Plaintiff  showed  by  himself  and  other 
competent  witnesses  that  the  inside  doors 
referred  to  were  properly  closed  and 
fastened  with  the  device  furnished  bj-  de- 
fendant for  that  purpose.  The  only  evi- 
dence claimed  to  create  a  conflict  arises 
from  the  fact  that,  a  few  minutes  after 
the  car  started  on  its  journey,  one  of  the 
inside  doors  referred  to  came  open,  and 
a  quantity  of  fla.x  with  which  the  car  was 
loaded  ran  out  through  the  opening  so 
made.  Held,  that  such  door  opening  may 
as  readily  l)e  attributed  to  other  causes 
as  to  tiie  failure  of  the  shipper  to  prop- 
erly fasten  it.  and,  had  the  question  l)een 
submitted  to  a  jury,  a  verdict  for  defend- 
ant, based  upon  the  fact  that  such  door 
came  open  in  transit,  could  only  have 
l)een  arrived  at  by  inference,  and  would 
have  been  mere  guesswork  on  the  part 
of  the  jury  under  the  facts  of  the  case, 
and  that  the  opening  of  this  door  did 
not  create  a  sufiicient  conflict  in  the  evi- 
dence to  constitute  error  on  the  part  of 
the  trial  court  in  directing  a  verdict  for 
plaintiff.  Duncan  v.  Great  Xorthorn  R. 
Co.,  16  X.  Dak.  610.  lis  X.  W.  S26. 


§§  1086-1087 


CARRIKRS. 


868 


carrier  from  liability,  the  court  should  not  sustain  a  demurrer  to  the  evidence  or 
direct  a  verdict.'*" 

A  nonsuit  can  be  ordered  only  when  there  is  an  entire  failure  of  proof  of  a 
material  fact.^^  Where,  in  an  action  for  injuries  to  household  goods  during 
transportation,  evidence  as  to  the  actual  value  of  the  goods  at  their  destination 
was  erroneously  excluded,  the  failure  of  the  court  to  set  aside  the  judgment  of 
nonsuit  was  reversible  error.^'' 

§  1087.  Particular  Questions  of  Law  or  Fact.— What  constitutes  a 
common  carrier  is  a  question  of  law."'"  \\'hether  defendant  comes  under  the 
definition  is  one  of  fact  for  the  jury."'^ 

Whether  defendant  acted  as   a   common  carrier  or  as  a  forwarder 

where  there  is  evidence  tending  to  estalilish  that  he  acted  in  the  latter  capacity 
and  also  evidence  tending  to  show  that  his  general  business  was  that  of  a  com- 
mon carrier  is  a  question  for  the  jury."'- 

Delivery  to  Carrier. — Where  an  action  is  brought  to  recover  for  loss  of 
articles  alleged  to  have  been  delivered  to  a  common  carrier,  the  question  of 
deliverv  is  for  the  jury.^'" 

Effect  of  Contract. — Whether  a  contract  whereby  the  plaintiff,  in  consid- 
eration of  a  lower  rate  of  freight,  assumed  the  loss  and  damage  to  his  property 
changed  the  relation  of  defendant  from  that  of  a  common  carrier  to  a  private 
carrier  is  one  of  law.'""^ 

Whether  goods  were  shipped  under  a  special  contract  is  a  question  of 
fact  for  the  jury."'^ 


47.  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Watkins 
Merchandise  Co.,  76  Kan.  813,  92  Pac. 
1102. 

48.  Nonsuit. — Wallingford  v.  Columbia, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  26  S.  C.  258,  2  S.  E.  19,  30 
Am.    cS:    Hng.   R.    Cas.   40. 

Illustrations. — In  an  action  against  a 
railroad  company  for  injury  to  stock 
shipped  in  a  defective  car,  plaintiff  made 
out  a  prima  facie  case;  and  defendant's 
only  evidence  to  overthrow  it  was  the 
testimony  of  the  one  of  plaintiff's  vvit- 
nesses  on  cross-examination,  together  with 
a  contract  shown  hiin  by  defendant,  and 
claimed  to  be  the  real  contract  between 
the  parties.  Held,  that  defendant's  mo- 
tion for  a  nonsuit  was  properly  refused. 
Wallingford  v.  Colunil)ia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26 
S.  C.  258,  2  S.  E.  19,  30  Km.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.    40. 

In  an  action  to  recover  a  shipment  of 
cotton  alleged  to  have  been  destroyed 
by  fire  while  in  the  custody  of  defend- 
ant carrier,  where  there  was  some  evi- 
dence that  the  cotton  was  delivered  to  de- 
fendant, though  no  bill  of  lading  was 
given,  together  with  evidence  that  it  was 
the  custom  of  plaintiff  to  place  cotton  on 
the  railroad  depot  platform,  which  the 
carrier  would  accept  without  special  no- 
tice to  that  effect,  it  was  error  to  direct 
a  nonsuit.  Copeland  v.  Southern  Rail- 
way, 57  S.  E.  535,  76  S.  C.  476. 

49.  Benedict  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.   Civ.  App.),  91   S.  W.  811. 

50.  What  constitutes  common  carrier. 
— Pennewill  v.  Cullcn  (Del.),  5  Har.  238: 
Avingev  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S. 
C.   26.='/,  7   S.   E.  493,   13  Am.   St.   Rep.   716. 


51.  Pennewill  v.  Cullen  (Del.),  5  Har. 
238. 

A  charge  that  if  defendant,  after  a  re- 
fusal to  carry  plaintiff's  freight,  had  car- 
ried for  a  certain  company  alone  goods 
received  at  a  private  platform,  plaintiff 
cannot  recover,  is  properly  refused,  as 
it  assumes  that  the  position  of  common 
carrier  has  not  been  established,  which  is 
a  question  for  the  jury.  Avinger  v.  South 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  29  S.  C.  265,  7  S.  E.  493, 
13   Am.    St.    Rep.    716. 

52.  Whether  common  carrier  or  for- 
warder.— Schloss  V.  Wood,  11  Colo.  287, 
17    Pac.    910. 

53.  Delivery  to  carrier. — Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Johnson,  2  Ga.  App.  36,  58  S.  E.  333. 

54.  Effect  of  contract. — Kimball  v.  Rut- 
land, etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Vt.  247,  62  Am.  Dec. 
567. 

55.  Whether  goods  shipped  under 
special  contract. — Wallingford  v.  Colum- 
bia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  S.  C.  258,  2  S.  E.  19, 
30  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  40. 

In  an  action  to  recover  damages  for 
the  death  of  hogs  which  had  been  trans- 
ported over  a  railroad,  the  shipper  claimed 
and  testified  that  an  oral  contract  was 
made  for  transportation  to  a  point  be- 
yond the  line  of  the  contracting  company, 
in  which  there  was  no  limitation  of  lia- 
bility, and  that  the  stock  was  shipped  un- 
der that  contract;  that,  after  the  stock 
was  loaded  and  had  left  the  station,  he 
signed  a  paper,  which  he  could  not  well 
read,  and  did  not  read,  but  which  he  sup- 
posed to  be  a  receipt.  The  company  con- 
tended, and  offered  testimony  to  show, 
that    the    only    contract    made    with    the 


869 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1087 


Plaintiff's  Title  or  Ownership. — Where  it  api)ears  that  plaintiff  trans- 
ferred the  bill  of  lading  to  a  third  party,  for  vahie,  but  there  is  evidence  that 
such  transfer  was  only  as  security  for  money  borrowed,  and  without  intention 
to  pass  the  title  the  f|iicstions  of  fact  so  raised  are  for  the  jury.^'' 

Authority  of  Agent. — Whether  or  not  an  agent  of  a  common  carrier  has 
authority  to  do  certain  acts  for  which  it  is  s(jught  to  char<(e  the  common  car- 
rier,"-" and  whether,  in  a  ])articu!ar  case,  a  merchant  shijjping  goods  to  his  cor- 
respondcni,  had  authority  to  make  a  contract  on  behalf  of  the  corresj)on<lent 
for  shipment  on  different  terms  from  those  ordinarily  adopted  by  common  ear- 
ners,''* arc  (juestions  for  the  jury. 

Negligence  of  Carrier. — Ordinarily  what  constitutes  neghgence  on  the  part 
(jf  the  carrier  i>  a  (|uestion   f(jr  the  jury  to  determine/'"     But  there  are  some 


sliippcr  was  the-  writlcn  one  enibodicd  in 
tiic  l)ill  of  lading  siyncd  l)y  the  sliipper, 
and  which,  to  a  great  extent,  limited  the 
liability  of  the  company.  Held,  that  the 
court  was  warranted  in  sul)mitting  to  the 
jury  the  question  of  what  constituted  the 
contract  of  the  parties.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Clark.  48  Kan.  321,  329,  29  Pac. 

56.  Plaintiff's  title  or  ownership. — Hipp 
V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  M  S.  C.  12'.),  27  S.  E. 
62:i. 

57.  Authority  of  agent. — Thurman  i: 
Wells,  Fargo  &  C(x  (X.  V.),  18  Barb. 
5(K». 

Whether  a  freight  claim  agent  of  a  car- 
rier who  passes  on  claims  and  either  re- 
jects or  orders  them  paid  has  authority 
to  adjust  a  freight  claim  and  communi- 
cate the  decision  to  the  claimant  so  as 
to  make  his  statement  to  the  claimant 
bind  the  carrier  held  for  the  jury.  Ten- 
het  V.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.,  64  S.  E.  232, 
82   S.    C.   4r,5. 

58.  American  1  ransp.  Co.  z\  Aloore,  5 
Mich.  3()S. 

59.  Negligence  of  carrier. — United 
5M/t'.y.— Arthur  z:  Te.xas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  204 
U.  S.  505,  51  L.  Ed.  590,  27  S.  Ct.  338; 
Marande  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  184  U.  S. 
173,   192,  46   L.   Ed.  487,  22  S.   Ct.  340. 

Illinois. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cun- 
ningham, 88  111.  App.  289. 

.]fassacliusctts. — Aigen  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Railroad,    132    Mass.    423. 

Micliiiiiui. — Modern  IMatch  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  R.  Co.,  140  Mich.  570,  104  X. 
W.    19. 

South  Carolina. — Ferguson  r.  Southern 
Railway,  91   S.   C.   61,   74   S.   E.   129. 

Wisconsin. — Hecht  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,  132  Wis.  605,  113  N.  W.  68;  Congar 
V.    Galena,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    17    Wis.    477. 

Illustraticns. — The  cjuestion  as  to 
wliether  a  carrier  by  a  canal  boat  agree- 
ing to  deliver  goods  in  good  condition, 
"the  dangers  of  the  navigation  excepted." 
was  negligent,  is  for  the  jury,  where  the 
boat  struck  a  stone  in  the  bottom  of  tb.e 
canal,  and  caused  the  goods  to  become 
wet  and  damaged.  Humphreys  z:  Reed 
(Pa.),  6  Whart.  435. 

In  an  action  by  a  shipper  to  recover 
the    value    of    certain    clay    pots    damaged 


in  transit,  it  was  shown  that  the  pots 
were  sent  carefully  packed  in  the  car.  l)Ut 
on  arrival  they  were  found  to  be  shifted 
about  and  badly  damaged,  and  that  like 
goods  packed  in  the  same  manner  had 
always  arrived  unbroken.  Held  that, 
though  there  was  no  proof  of  a  collision 
or  derailment,  the  question  of  the  carrier's 
negligence  was  one  of  fact  for  the  jury. 
PhcxMiix  Pot-Works  z:  Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    139    Pa.   284,   20   Atl.    1058. 

A  plaintiff  entrusted  a  shipment  of  cot- 
ton to  a  carrier  to  be  carried  by  boat  to 
a  certain  port.  During  the  transporta- 
tion the  boat  was  injured  by  running  into 
a  snag  in  the  river,  and  it  was  found 
necessary  to  transfer  the  cotton  to  the 
bank.  This  the  carrier  proceeded  to  do, 
l)Ut  as  the  river  threatened  to  rise,  he 
left  a  small  amount  of  cotton  in  the  boat 
for  his  hands  to  unload  and  went  to  a 
near-by  town  to  secure  another  boat. 
The  hands  were  dilatory  and  delayed  un- 
necessarily in  the  unloading  of  the  cotton 
so  that  the  part  that  remained  in  the  boat, 
when  the  carrier  left,  was  damaged.  It 
was  held,  that  it  was  a  question  for  the 
jury  as  to  whether  the  carrier  w-as  guilty 
of  negligence  in  leaving  the  cotton  before 
it  was  entirely  unloaded.  Johnson  v. 
Friear,  12  Tenn.  (4  Yerg.)  48.  26  .\m.  Dec. 
215. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  railway 
company  for  the  value  of  cotton  burned 
while  being  transported,  all  engineers 
and  conductors  of  trains  in  which  the  car 
w^as  carried  testified  that  the  engines 
were  in  good  condition  and  carefully 
managed,  and  that  the  car  w-as  tight  and 
securely  sealed,  and  carefully  handled 
and  managed  while  in  their  trains,  and 
there  was  no  evidence  as  to  how  the  fire 
originated,  the  question  of  the  negligence 
of  the  company  was  for  the  jury.  Judg- 
ment (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  61  S.  W.  410.  re- 
versed. Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  ::  Richmond. 
63    S.    W.    619.    94   Tex.    571. 

Leaving  shipment  at  out  of  way  station. 
—  In  an  action  tor  destruction  of  goods 
by  fire,  whether  the  carrier  was  negligent 
in  leaving  the  shipment  at  an  out  of  the 
way  station,  where  there  was  neither  station 
agent  nor  water,  no  inhabitants,  and  no 
one   to  look  after   the   safety   of  the   cars 


§  1087 


CARRIERS. 


870 


cases  in  which  the  court  can   determine   wliat  constitutes   negUgence,   as  where 
the  precise  measure  of  duty  is  determinate,  the  same  under  all  circumstances.^'^ 


containing  it,  held  for  the  jury.  Santa 
Fe,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Grant  Bros.  Constr.  Co., 
13   Ariz.    186.    108    Pac.   467. 

Leaving  shipment  at  place  exposed  to 
danger. — liven  if  a  carrier  of  a  car  load 
of  explosives  was  liable  for  its  destruc- 
tion by  fire  only  in  case  of  negligence, 
yet  it  is  a  question  for  the  jury  whether 
it  was  not  negligence  to  allow  it  to  stand 
for  several  days  unguarded  on  a  transfer 
track,  half  a  mile  from  the  business  part 
of  a  town,  exposed  to  the  risk  of  fires 
built  by  tramps,  who  infested  the  vicin- 
ity, and  from  sparks  of  passing  locomo- 
tives, the  nature  of  its  contents  being  an- 
nounced by  a  placard  thereon.  Phcenix 
Powder  Alfg.  Co.  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  101 
Mo.    App.    412.    74    S.    W.    492. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  goods  destroyed  by  fire  while 
in  a  car  standing  alongside  a  freight  house, 
which  was  burned,  it  appeared  that  the 
freight  house  was  a  wooden  building, 
standing  close  to  the  track,  with  a  shingle 
roof,  covered  with  moss;  that  the  roof 
had  often  before  taken  fire  from  sparks 
from  passing  engines,  as  defendant  knew; 
and  that  a  high  wind  was  blowing  at  the 
time,  and  the  car  was  directly  in  the  path 
of  the  flames.  Held,  that  it  was  for  the 
jury  to  say  whether  defendant  was  neg- 
ligent in  leaving  the  car  so  exposed. 
Tanner  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 
X.  Y.  62:5,  1.5  N.  E.  379.  1  Silvernail  Ct. 
App.    .")69. 

In  an  action  for  injury  to  four  car  loads 
of  grain  by  a  flood,  whether  the  master 
of  the  yard  in  which  the  cars  were  placed 
and  his  assistant,  who  knew  that  floods 
in  which  the  river  rose  over  twenty-eight 
feet  were  not  unusual,  and  that  it  had 
been  above  that  height  four  or  five  times 
in  the  five  preceding  years,  and  had 
reached  a  height  of  32.4  feet,  and  that 
there  had  been  a  rapid  rise  during  the 
day,  were  negligent  in  placing  explicit 
reliance  on  the  reports  from  the  weather 
bureau,  and  the  manager  of  a  river  coal 
company,  whose  experience  gave  weight 
to  his  opinion  that  the  water  would  rise 
twenty-six  or  twenty-eight  feet,  and  pos- 
sibly higher,  and  in  not  removing  the 
cars  to  higher  grounds,  was  for  the  jury. 
Smith  V.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Atl. 
264,   223    Pa.    118. 

Negligence  in  not  getting  goods  to 
place  of  safety  after  knowledge  of  dan- 
ger.—  Pinkerton  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.. 
117    Mo.    App.   288,   93    S.    W.    849. 

Whether  carrier  negligent  in  exposing 
goods  to  danger. — I'cntinian  v.  Atcliison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  9«  S.  W.  939,  44  Tex.  Civ. 
App.    455. 

Knowledge  of  defects  in  car  and  neg- 
ligence    in     failing     to     repair. — Missouri, 


etc.,  R.  Co.  i:  Tripis  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
117   S.   W.   199. 

Negligent  delay  in  transporting  freight. 

— Funsten  Dried  Fruit,  etc.,  Co.  v.  To- 
ledo, etc..  R.  Co..  163  Mo.  App.  426,  143  S. 
W.    839. 

Delivering  goods  during  stormy  weather. 
— Defendants,  common  carriers,  running 
a  line  of  steamers  between  New  Orleans 
and  the  gulf  ports  of  Texas,  were  also 
carriers  of  the  mails;  and  the  times  of 
arrival  and  departure  of  their  steamers 
were  well  known  at  such  ports.  There 
was  evidence  that  it  was  the  uniform 
custom  to  discharge  the  cargo  of  these 
steamers  on  the  wharf  immediately  after 
their  arrival,  to  be  left  until  called  for 
by  the  consignees.  It  appeared  from  the 
testimony  that  the  weather  upon  one  of 
the  days  of  arrival  when  the  plaintiffs 
goods  were  landed  upon  the  wharf  was 
rainy  and  threatening.  The  goods  were 
discharged  as  usual,  and  covered  so  as 
to  protect  them  against  rain,  but  no  no- 
tice was  given  to  the  plaintifif.  In  the 
night  following,  the  goods  were  destroyed 
by  a  hurricane.  Held,  that  it  was  a 
question  for  the  jury,  upon  all  the  facts 
in  the  case,  whether  the  defendant  was 
guilty  of  negligence,  so  as  to  make  him 
liable,  and  that  it  was  error  to  instruct 
them  that  such  a  landing  of  goods  was 
prima  facie  evidence  of  willful  negligence 
on  the  part  of  the  carrier.  Morgan  v. 
Dibble.   29   lex.   107,   94   Am.   Dec.   264. 

As  to  means  of  transportation. — Where 
there  was  considerable  testimony  as  to 
whether  a  stall  in  an  express  car  in  which 
plaintiff's  horse  was  placed  for  shipment 
was  properly  constructed,  the  express 
company's  negligence  was  a  question  for 
the  jury.  Armstrong  v.  United  States 
Exp.    Co.,   159   Pa.   640,   28  Atk  448. 

Where  a  railway  carrier  is  not,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  bound  to  furnish  refrig- 
erator cars  to  carry  perishal)le  goods, 
whether  it  is  negligence  not  to  do  so  is 
a  question  for  the  jury.  Udell  v.  Illino's 
Cent.   R.   Co.,   13    Mo.   App.   254. 

Excessive  speed  in  running  train. — It 
is  a  question  for  the  jury  whether  the 
carrier  was  negligent  in  running  its 
freight  train  at  the  rate  of  fifteen  miles 
an  hour  around  a  curve,  and  over  a 
high  embankment;  that  being  the  great- 
est speed  allowed  for  such  a  train  any- 
where on  the  road.  Lucesco  Oil  Co.  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  (Pa.),  2  Pittsb.  477. 
60.  Empire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wamsutta 
Oil  Refin.,  etc.,  Co.,  63  Pa.  14,  3  Am. 
Rep.  515. 

Negligence  and  liability  on  the  part  of 
a  common  carrier  are  inferences  of  law 
from  the  fact  that  every  available  pre- 
caution was  not  taken  to  prevent  the 
spread  of  fire  on  a  railroad  train  on  which 


871 


LOSS  OR   IXTURV  TO  GOODS. 


§    1087 


\\here  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  loss  In'  fire  at  a  dejiot  of  goods  are  undisputed, 
the  question  of  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  carrier  is  one  of  law  for  the  court.'^^ 
What  constitutes  extraordinary  diligence,"-  whether  the  carrier  has  exercisied 
due  diligence  to  avert  a  loss"''  or  taken  proper  care  of  the  goods,"-*  and  whether 
goods  cfjuld  have  been  saved  by  the  use  of  ordinary  diligence  and  care,"^  are 
questions  for  the  jury.  The  question  whether  a  delay  was  due  to  an  obstruc- 
tion which  defendant  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care  could  have  avoided  is 
for  the  jury.'''' 

Negligence  or  Wrong  of  Shipper. — What  acts  of  the  shijjper  constitute 
negligence  releasing  the  carrier  irom  liability  should  not  be  laid  down  by  the 
coiirl,   but   (k-trrniiiK'd   bv    tbc   jury.''"      Wlietber  the   carrier   was   misled   by   the 


merchandise  was  carried  Uj^etlier  with  a 
coml)Ustil)le  siil)Stancc.  The  question 
need  not  he  sulmiitted  to  the  jury.  F.m- 
pire  Transp.  Co.  v.  Wanisutta  "Oil  Refin., 
etc.,  Co.,  (V-i  Pa.  14,  :5  Am.  Rep.  515. 

61.  Braunton  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  2 
Cal.  -App.  l~:5,  8H  Pac.  205. 

62.  As  to  diligence. — Richmond,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.   White,   8cS   Ga.   805,   15   S.   E.   802. 

63.  Wallace  v.  Clayton,  42  Ga.  443; 
Lawrence  v.  McGregor   (O.),  Wright   19:5. 

In  an  action  to  recover  from  a  railroad 
company  for  goods  lost  hy  an  unprece- 
dented rise  of  a  river,  it  is  for  the  jury 
to  determine  whether  the  carrier  had  such 
premonitions  of  approaching  danger  as  to 
awaken  the  apprehensions  of  men  of  pru- 
dence, or  whether,  in  view  of  the  means 
of  escape,  the  carrier  used  energetically 
all  the  means  at  command  to  meet  the 
emergency  and  save  the  property.  La- 
niont  &  Co.  V.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  5() 
Tenn.   (9  Heisk.)    58. 

64.  After  the  arrival  of  goods  at  their 
destination,  and  notice  to  the  consignee, 
the  latter  commenced  to  remove  them; 
but,  residing  at  a  distance,  he  could  not 
take  more  than  one  load  per  day.  The 
goods  were  thrown  out  of  the  car  on  the 
giound,  and  while  in  this  situation  were 
damaged  by  rain.  Held,  that  the  ques- 
tion whether  defendant  carrier  had  taken 
proper  care  of  the  goods  was  for  the 
jury.  Cook  v.  Erie  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  5S 
Barb.   312. 

Where  defendant  carrier  agreed  to  carry 
plaintiff's  trunk  to  a  station,  and,  in  his 
absence  left  it  on  the  platform,  in  the 
usual  place  for  such  deliveries,  and  it  was 
stolen  therefrom,  but  the  evidence  whether 
plaintiff  was  to  he  there  to  receive  it  was 
conflicting,  the  question  whether  defend- 
ant exercised  reasonal)le  care  in  protect- 
ing it  was  for  the  jury.  Ft.  Wortli  Trans- 
fer Co.  z:  Isaacs  (Tex.  Civ.  Aiip.).  40  S. 
W.  39. 

65.  In  an  action  for  injury  to  wheat 
from  a  flood  wliile  in  a  car  standing  un  a 
side  track,  it  being  in  evidence  tt^at, 
though  the  water  rose  only  a  few  inches 
in  the  car,  the  door  was  never  opened, 
though  the  car  remained  there  some  eiglu 
days,  and  that  the  wiieat  was  sulistan- 
tially  destroyed,    it   was    proper    to    allow 


the  jury  to  determine  whether  defendant's 
agents  could  not,  l)y  the  use  of  ordinary 
diligence  and  ,care.  have  removed  and 
saved  some  of  the  wheat  from  destruc- 
tion. Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Keedy. 
75  Md.  320,  23  Atl.  643. 

66.  Joynes  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  239 
Pa.    93,    8C.    .\tl.    G53. 

67.  Negligence  of  shipper. — Cobl),  etc., 
Co.  V.  llliuMis  Cent.  R.  Co.,  38  Iowa  601. 
vSee  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Tripis  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.).  117  S.  W.   199. 

In  an  action  against  truckmen  for  neg- 
ligence in  unloading  machinery  which 
tliey  had  moved,  the  question  as  to  con- 
triljutory  negligence,  in  that  plaintiff  or- 
dered the  machinery  to  be  unloaded  at 
once,  on  its  delivery  after  dark,  is  for 
the  jury,  lackson  .Architectural  Iron 
Works  z:  Hurlbut.  .-.2  N.  E.  665,  158  N. 
Y.  34,  70  Am.  St.  Rep.  432.  affirming  36 
X.   Y.   S.   808,   15   Misc.   Rep.   93. 

In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company 
for  failure  to  ship  certain  seed,  the  ques- 
tion of  contributory  negligence  in  expos- 
ing the  seed  to  rains,  and  permitting  it 
to  remain  so  exposed  for  a  period  during 
which  rains  would  likely  fall  upon  it, 
wherel)y  it  would  heat  and  spoil,  thereby 
contributing  to  the  injury,  is  for  the  jury 
within  Const.,  art.  23.  §  6,  providing  that 
the  defense  of  contributory  negligence 
shall  in  all  cases  be  a  question  of  fact 
for  the  iurv.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Beatty.   11<;    Pac.    171,  27   Okla.   844. 

Failure  of  shipper  to  furnish  caretaker 
and  means  to  protect  against  fire.— W  lure 
there  was  evidence  of  an  express  contract 
l)ctween  the  common  carrier  and  the 
shipper  of  the  goods  whereby  the  shipper 
was  to  send  a  man  along  with  the  goods, 
shipped  on  an  open  car.  with  a  tarpaulin 
to  cover  them,  and  buckets  of  water  to 
l^rotect  them  against  fire;  and  tliat  the 
siiipper  failed  to  do  this,  and  the  goods 
were  destroyed  liy  fire,  it  was  held  that, 
altliough  tlie  carrier  was  liable  for  negli- 
tieiice.  yet  it  was  a  question  for  the  jury 
wliether  the  goods  were  destroyed  by  the 
negligence  of  the  defendant,  or  in  conse- 
.quence  of  the  failure  of  the  plaintiff  to 
perform  the  contract  on  his  part,  under 
the  evidence  in  the  case.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Purcell.  37  Ga.  103.  92  Am.  Dec.  53. 


§  1087 


CARRII^RS. 


%72 


shipper's   fraud  or  negligence  is  a  ([iiestion   for  the  jury.^''' 

Reasonable  Time  for  Removal  of  Goods. — What  is  a  reasonable  time  for 
the  consignee  to  remove  his  goods  from  a  carrier's  de])ot  is  generally  a  question 
for  the  jury/'"''  But  where  there  is  no  dispute  about  the  material  facts,  the 
question  what  is  a  reasonable  time  is  for  the  court.'"  Reasonable  diligence  on 
consignee's  part  to  inform  himself  of  the  arrival  of  goods,  is  generally  a  ques- 
tion for  .the  jury."^ 

Notice  to  Consignee. — Where  the  evidence  is  conflicting  as  to  whether  the 
consignee  had  been  given  notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  the  question  is  for 
the  jury.'- 

Duty  as  to  Tracing  Lost  Goods. — (Ordinarily  what  railway  companies 
should  do  where  the  shipper  demands  that  lost  goods  be  traced  is  a  question  for 
the  jury,  but  where  the  question  admits  of  but  one  conclusion,  it  is  for  the  court 
to  decide  '•" 

Time  of  Loss. — Whether  goods  were  lost  before  or  after  the  carrier  had  de- 
posited them  in  its  warehouse,  in  order  to  fix  the  liability  of  defendant  either 
as  carrier  or  warehouseman,  is  a  question  for  the  juryJ"^ 

The  cause  of  a  loss  or  damage  to  goods  in  charge  of  a  common  carrier  is 
a  question  for  the  jury.'"'  as  whether  it  was  caused  by  the  carrier's  negligence.''^ 


68.  Jenkins  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 
S.  C.  530.  66  S.  E.  407  (cigars  shipped  as 
"tobacco"). 

69.  Reasonable  time  for  removal  of 
goods. — Lewis  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co  , 
1;{:j  Ky.  361,  122  S.  W.  184,  2.5  L.  R.  A., 
X.  S.,  938,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  527; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ferguson-Mckinney 
Dry  Goods  Co..  97  Miss.  266,  52  So.  797; 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  Mach.  Co., 
165  Ala.  436,  51  So.  779;  Berry  v.  West 
Virginia,  etc..  R.  Co.,  30  S.  E.  143,  44  W. 
Va.   538,   67  Am.   St.   Rep.   781. 

In  McGregor  v.  Oregon  R..  etc.,  Co., 
50  Ore.  527,  93  Pac.  465,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S., 
668,  iu  is  held  that  it  is  proper  to  submit 
the  question  to  the  jury  only  in  case  of  a 
conflict  in  the  testimony,  or  when  the 
facts   are    doubtful   or   complicated,   etc. 

70-  McGregor  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co., 
50  Ore.  527,  93  Pac.  465,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,  668;  Berry  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E.  143,  67  Am. 
St.  Rep.  781;  Normile  v.  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  36  Wash.  21,  77  Pac.  1087,  67  L. 
R.  A.  271. 

71.  Lewis  V.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 
Ky.  361,  122  S.  W.  184,  25  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S.,    938,    21    Am.    &    Eng.    Ann.    Cas.    527. 

72.  Notice  to  consignee. — Citizens',  etc.. 
Bank  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  153  N.  C.  346, 
69  S.  E.  261;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Gil- 
more    (Tex.    Civ.    App.),    152    S.    W.    1102. 

73.  Duty  as  to  tracing  lost  goods. — 
Freiberg  v.  Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  11  O. 
C.  C.  N.  s.,  241,  20-30  O.  C.  D.  669,  af- 
firmed in  83  O.  St.  482. 

74.  Time  of  loss. — Sessions  v.  Western 
R.   Corp.    (Mass.),   16   Gray   132. 

75.  Cause  of  loss  or  damage. — Hall  v. 
Renfro   (Ky.),  3  Mete.  51. 

The  question  wheth-^r  cotton  was  set 
on  fire  by  sparks  fro.">.i  a  locomotive  is 
for  the  jury,  where  the  cotton  was  stored 
in   and   along   the    side   of   open   sheds    in 


close  proximity  to  railroad  tracks  on  each 
side,  although  the  only  locomotive  near 
the  cotton  on  the  day  that  the  fire  was 
discovered  did  not  go  near  the  shed 
where  tiie  fire  started,  and  is  not  shown 
to  have  been  throwing  out  any  sparks, 
while,  if  there  had  Ijeen  any,  the  wind 
would  have  carried  them  in  the  opposite 
diicctions,  since  one  possibility  is  that 
the  fire  was  set  by  other  locomotives  on 
a  preceding  day,  and  smouldered  until 
the  day  it  was  discovered.  Marande  v. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22  S.  Ct.  340,  184  b. 
S.  173,  46  L.  Ed.  487,  reversing  102  Fed. 
246,    42    C.    C.    A.    317. 

Plaintiff  shipped  by  defendant  a  car 
load  of  fruit  in  good  condition,  under  de- 
fendant's contract  to  keep  the  car  below 
a  certain  temperature.  When  the  car  ar- 
rived at  its  destination  the  temperature 
was  found  to  be  very  much  higher  than 
agreed,  and  the  fruit  was  greatly  dam- 
aged. Held,  without  other  proof,  it  was 
for  the  jury  to  say  what  caused  the  dam- 
age. Perishable  Freight  Transp.  Co.  v. 
O'Neill.   41    111.   App.   423. 

76.  Congar  v.  Galena,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17 
Wis.  477;  Funsten  Dried  Fruit,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Toledo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  163  Mo.  App.  426, 
143  S.  W.  389.  See  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Tripis  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  117  S.  W. 
199. 

Whether  the  escape  of  molasses  from 
a  Ijarrel  is  the  result  of  defective  coop- 
erage or  of  the  carrier's  negligence,  theie 
being  evidence  that  the  barrel  was  defect- 
ive, is  for  the  jury.  Menner  v.  Dela- 
ware, etc..  Canal  Co.,  7  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
135. 

•Whether  the  lack  of  ice  caused  the 
damage  is  a  question  for  the  jury.  Mc- 
Connell  Bros.  v.  Southern  R.  Co.,  144 
N.    C.   89,   56   S.    E.   559. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
loss  of  a  car  load  of  tomatoes  alleged  by 


873 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1087 


or  1)\'  an  act  of  (loil.'" 

What  constitutes  an  act  of  God,  sucli  as  will  relieve  a  common  carrier 
from   its  common-law   liability,  is  ordinarily  a  (|uestion   for  the  jury.'" 

Whether  a  carrier  is  bound  to  know  the  character  of  the  contents  of 
packages  intrusted  to  it  is  a  (|uesti<iii  <>{  law  upon  the  facts,  not  a  questitjn  of 
fact  f<ir  a  jur\-  to  llnd."" 

Whether  the  carrier  discharged  its  burden  of  proof  that  the  goods  were 
destroyed  by  an  act  of  (iod,  the  inthlic  enemy,  inherent  defects  therein,  or  neg- 
ligence of  the  shipper  is  for  the  jury,  e.\cei)t  where  evidence  is  so  overwhelming 
as  to  leave  no  rocjui  for  a  reasonable  doubt  that  the  prima  facie  case  has  been 
destrovcd.'"' 

Whether  Whole  Shipment  Transported.— Where  the  railway  company 
retained,  at  tlie  i^oint  of  destination,  cotton  scaled  in  the  same  cars  in  wiiich  it 
was  transported,  and  there  was  no  evidence  that  the  whole  quantity  delivered 
to  it  was  transported  to  such  point,  except  the  mere  fact  that  the  cars,  on  ar- 
rival, were  still  sealed,  it  was  for  the  jury  to  determine  as  to  whether  the  whole 
quantity  delivered   to  th.e  comjjany  had  been  actually  so  transported. ^^ 

Whether  Claim  Made  in  Tirtie  Required.— In  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  dama,i,^c  to  goods,  the  question  whether  the  claim  for  damages  was  made 
within  the  time  re(|uired   is  one  of   fact   for  the  jurv.^- 

Whether  Value  of  Premium  Included  in  Claim. — In  an  action  for  the 
loss  of  a  part  of  a  shipment  of  goods,  it  was  for  the  jury  to  say  whether  the 
value  of  a  premium  which  the  purchaser  received  was  included  in  the  claim  and 
should  be  deducted.^-' 

Effect  of  Receipt  and  Retention  of  Voucher  for  Damaged  Goods.— 
Where  plainlilT  received  a  voucher  from  a  carrier  in  payment  for  certain  dam- 
aged goods,  whether  plaintitT's  failure  to  return  the  voucher  estop|)cd  him  from 


plaintilT  to  lu'vc  rotted  from  the  neglect 
of  the  company  to  properly  ice  them, 
where  the  evidence  is  conflicting  as  to 
whether  the  condition  of  the  tomatoes 
was  caused  by  lack  of  ice  which  defend- 
ant had  agreed  to  supply,  the  case  is  for 
the  jury.  Conrad  Schopp  Fruit  Co.  v. 
Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.,  4.3  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
481. 

Whether  a  lack  of  sufficient  watchmen 
contributed  to  the  loss  of  cotton  liy  fire 
is  a  question  for  the  jury,  notwithstand- 
ing the  contention  that  the  watchmen  ac- 
tually present  discovered  the  fire  as  soon 
as  it  started,  where  it  is  possible  for  the 
jury  to  infer  that  the  fire  might  have 
been  smouldering  for  a  considcralilc  pe- 
riod before  its  discovery,  and  a  sufficient 
force  of  watchmen,  if  present,  might  have 
materially  aided  in  extinguishing  the  fire. 
Marande  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co..  102  Fed. 
246,  42  C.  C.  \.  317;  S.  C,  22  S.  Ct.  340, 
184    U.    S.    173.    4r,    L.    Kd.    4ST. 

Failure  to  provide  facilities  for  extin- 
guishing fire. — The  question  whether  the 
negligence  of  a  railroad  company  in  fail- 
ing to  provide  proper  facilities  for  extin- 
guishing fire  in  cotton  sheds  contributed 
to  a  loss  of  the  cotton  liy  fire  is  for  the 
jury,  where  the  cotton  was  piled  up  high 
around  the  platforms  on  which  hose  was 
kept,  and  when  an  attempt  was  made  to 
use  the  hose  the  water  would  not  come, 
either  because  the  hose  had  become  tan- 
gled, or  otherwise,  and  the  valve  was 
found  already  open  when  one  of  the  men 


tried  to  open  it,  although  the  railroad 
company  contends,  but  without  any  posi- 
tive proof  of  the  fact,  that  one  of  the  em- 
ployees had  opened  the  valve  and  taneled 
the  hose  after  the  alarm  of  fire,  especiajly 
when  there  had  been  no  systematic  in- 
spection thereof,  and  no  fire  drill  had.  and 
no  instructions  given  as  to  the  use  of  the 
apparatus.  Judgment  102  Fed.  24f>,  42  C. 
C.  A.  317,  reversed.  Marande  v.  Texas, 
etc..  R.  Co..  22  S.  Ct.  340.  184  U.  S.  173, 
4fi  L.   Ed.  487. 

77.  Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Boyce.  39  Tex. 
Civ.  .\pp.  19.^),  196,  87  S.  W.  39.).  affirmed 
in  101  Tex.  ()39,  no  op. 

78.  What  constitutes  act  of  God. — 
Fentiman  z'.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44 
Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.  45.5,  4r.O,  98  S.  W.  939. 
See  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  V2r>  Ky. 
r.,56,  31    Ky.   L.   Rep.  243,  102   S.   W.  232. 

79.  Berley  v.  Newton  (N.  V.>.  10  How. 
Prac.  490. 

80.  Whether  the  carrier  discharged  its 
burden  of  proof. —  l-cntiman  f.  Atchison, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  4,).-),  98  S. 
W.  939. 

81.  Whether  whole  shipment  trans- 
ported.—  Hiiip  ■:■.  Southern  R.  Ct,'..  ".'7  S. 
i:.    ('.23,    .-)0    S.    C.    129. 

82.  Whether  claim  made  in  time  re- 
auired. — McConnell  Bro.<5.  f.  Southern 
I'l.    Co..    144    X.    C.    89,    56   S.    E.    559. 

83.  Whether  value  of  premium  included 
in  claim. —  P.urross  :■.  .\tlantic.  etc..  R. 
Co.,  no  S.  H.  ();t2,  79  S.  C.  2.-)0. 


§  1087 


CARRIERS. 


874 


claiming  the  value  of  the  goods  and  a  statutory  penalty,  and  whether  its  receipt 
and  retention  constituted  payment,  are  questions   for  the  jury.^-* 

Additional  instances  of  questions  held  to  he  for  the  determination  of  the 
jurv  are  set  out  in  the  notes. ^^ 


84.  Effect  of  receipt  and  retention  of 
voucher  for  damaged  goods. — ^^()ody  z\ 
Southern  Railway.  7'.)  S.  C.  :29r,  C>()  S.  E. 
711. 

85.  Additional  instances. — An  agent  for 
a  shipper  of  goods,  makinsr  inquiry  over 
the  telephone  as  to  the  arrival  of  goods, 
directed  what  other  persons  should  say 
while  he  stood  at  their  elbow,  and  an 
operator  at  a  telephone  connection  re- 
peated the  inquiry  to  the  carrier's  agent. 
Held,  that  the  reliability  and  accuracy  of 
the  means  of  communication  was  for  the 
jurj'  in  an  action  for  loss  of  the  goods, 
and  that  it  was  for  them  to  say,  also, 
whether  the  message  which  finally 
reached  defendant  fairly  apprised  it  of  the 
fact  that  plaintiff  was  inquiring  for  the 
particular  goods  in  question.  Southern 
R.  Co.  V.  Adams  Mach.  Co.,  165  Ala. 
436,  51   So.  779. 

In  an  action  against  the  owners  of  a 
steamboat  to  recover  the  value  of  a 
sealed  package  of  money  delivered  by 
plaintiff  to  the  clerk  of  such  boat  for 
transportation,  the  proof  was  that,  al- 
though it  was  the  uniform  custom  of 
steamboats  to  carry  cash  letters,  no 
charge  was  made  for  such  service,  iinless 
a  receipt  was  demanded  by  the  shipper, 
when  a  charge  of  one-fourth  of  1  per  cent 
was  made  upon  the  amount  of  the  bills. 
Held,  that  it  was  not  improper  for  the 
court  to  leave  to  the  jury  the  question  of 
fact,  whether  cash  letters  belonged  to 
that  class  or  character  of  goods  wliich 
the  boat  undertook  to  carry  for  hire. 
Knox  7\  Rives,  etc..  Co.,  U  Ala.  249. 

Where  initials  on  waybill  different  from 
those  of  consignee. — Where,  in  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damage  to  goods 
shipped,  it  appears  that  the  initials  of  the 
consignee  on  the  waybill  are  different  from 
those  of  plaintiff,  but  that  the  waybill  was 
issued  without  the  knowledge  of  plain- 
tiff and  in  his  absence,  and  that  the  car- 
rier treated  plaintiff  as  the  owner,  deliv- 
ering to  him  the  freight  and  accepting 
from  him  the  charges,  such  difference 
is  not  a  question  of  variance  between  the 
allegations  and  proof,  but,  instead,  raises 
an  issue  of  fact  for  determination  by  the 
jury.  Georgia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Barfield,  58 
S.  K.  2:i»).  1  Ga.  .\pp.  2o:'.. 

Whether  more  definite  tender  of  dam- 
aged goods  excused. — Where  the  demand 
read.  "We  feel  ju.stified  in  putting  in  a 
claim  for  the  entire  shipment,  and  hold 
the  goods  subject  to  your  inspection," 
and  where  a  later  letter  contained  com- 
plaints that  the  consignees  had  lost  the 
use  of  their  money  for  the  intervening 
period,  it  was  a  question  for  the  jury 
whether   a   fiat   denial   of   liability   by   the 


express  company  did  not  e.xcuse  a  more 
definite  tender  of  the  almost  worthless 
books.  Hardy  v.  American  Exp.  Co.,  65 
N.  E.  375,  182  Mass.  328,  59  L.  R.  A. 
731. 

Amount  of  damage. — Where  plaintiff 
testified  that  ninety-eight  cents  was  the 
damage  to  a  case  of  goods  in  shipment 
and  there  was  no  direct  evidence  in  con- 
tradiction, and  he  relied  for  corrobora- 
tion on  the  facts  that  he  filed  his  claim  for 
ninety-eight  cents,  and  that  defendant  did 
not  contest  the  claim,  but  paid  it  to  an- 
other, while  defendant's  evidence  was  the 
itemized  bill  from  plaintiff's  vendor  filed 
with  the  claim,  which  showed  the  price 
of  a  dozen  bottles  of  olives  was  $2.15  less 
10  per  cent  and  the  claim  for  loss  of  six 
bottles,  whether  the  damage  was  for  the 
amount  claimed  or  for  ninety-seven  cents 
as  claimed  by  defendant  was  for  the  jury. 
Sumrell  z'.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  S. 
E.    585.    152    N.    C.    269. 

Whether  damages  within  reasonable 
contemplation  of  parties. — Defendant  rail- 
road company  received  certain  batteries 
for  transportation,  packed  with  excelsior 
in  four  open  crates.  On  the  top  of  each 
box  was  pasted  a  bill,  with  a  label  in 
large  red  letters.  "This  side  up.  Batter- 
ies. Handle  with  care."  When  the  bat- 
teries were  delivered  it  was  found  that 
they  had  lieen  spoiled  by  being  turned 
over,  and  the  contents  spilled  out.  Held 
that,  whether  the  damages  sustained  were 
within  the  reasonable  contemplation  of 
the  parties  after  the  railroad  company 
had  accepted  the  crates  with  such  injunc- 
tion of  caution  was  for  the  jury.  Hoye 
V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  100  N.  Y.  S.  190, 
114  App.  Div.  821,  affirmed  in  191  N.  Y. 
101,    83    N.    E.    586. 

Whether  goods  tendered  for  immediate 
shipment. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  the  loss  of  cotton  destroyed  by  fire 
while  on  defendant's  platform,  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  had  been  placed  there 
by  defendant's  consent  as  cotton  tendered 
for  immediate  shipment,  notwithstanding 
a  rule  that  the  carrier  assumed  no  risk 
for  cotton  put  upon  its  platform,  unless 
tendered  for  immediate  shipment,  held  for 
the  jury.  Griffin  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
72    S,   E.  46:!,   89   S.    C.   547. 

Reasonableness  of  explanation  why  pe- 
tition claimed  more  than  claim. — Where, 
in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of 
goods,  plaintiff's  claim  before  suit 
brought,  which  was  for  less  than  the 
amount  sued  for,  was  introduced  in  evi- 
dence, and  he  undertook  in  his  evidence 
to  give  an  explanation  why  some  of  the 
items  were  omitted  from  the  claim  and 
why   the   petition   claimed   more    than   the 


875 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1088 


§  1088.  Instructions. — In  General. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
loss  of  or  damage  to  guu(l>,  it  i>  error  to  give  instructions  which  are  calculated 
to  mislead  the  jury,**"  or  are  conflicting,^'   or  which  require  too  high  a  degree 


claim  presented  io  tlie  railroad,  whether 
his  explanation  was  reasonable  and  proper 
was  for  the  jury.  Missnnri,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Claytnn  (Tex.  Civ.  .\pp.),  S4  S.  W. 
lotl'.i. 

86.  Misleading  instructions — Illustra- 
tions.— In  trover  against  a  carrier  to  re- 
cover for  goods  lost  in  transit,  it  was 
improper  to  instruct  tiiat  the  jury  could 
find  a  conversion  if  defendant  so  man- 
aged as  to  interfere  witli  the  rights  of 
plaintiff  to,  and  his  control  over,  the 
property,  so  that  ijlaintitT  lost  the  same, 
since  such  instruction  was  too  indefinite 
for  application  l)y  the  jury,  and  was  cal- 
culated to  mislead  them,  by  permitting 
them  to  find  a  conversion  though  the 
goods  were  lost  through  the  negligence 
of  the  carrier.  Bowlin  ?■.  Nye  (Mass.), 
10  Gush.  4U\. 

An  instruction,  that  the  measure  of 
damages  is  the  difference  in  the  value  of 
the  goods  in  the  condition  in  which  they 
were  delivered  and  their  value  if  deliv- 
ered in  good  order,  is  erroneous,  as  lead- 
ing the  jury  to  include  injuries  necessarily 
incident  to  the  shipping  of  the  goods, 
while  the  carrier  is  liable  only  for  injury 
resulting  from  its  negligence.  Texas 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Watson.  54  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
118  S.   W.   17.-.. 

Instruction  held  not  misleading. — .\n 
instruction,  in  an  action  for  failure  to 
deliver  cotton,  that  a  carrier  is  bound  to 
e.xercise  extraordinary  diligence,  and  in 
case  of  loss  the  presumption  is  against  it, 
and  no  excuse  avails  unless  the  loss  was 
caused  by  the  act  of  God  or  public  enemy, 
vi'as  not  misleading,  w-ithout  first  charg- 
ing that,  before  any  presumption  would 
arise  against  the  carrier,  the  burden  was 
on  plaintiff  to  show  that  the  cotton  was 
never  delivered,  where  upon  the  whole 
charge  the  jury  was  made  to  understand 
that  the  principle  stated  w-as  not  appli- 
cal>le  unless  tlie  jury  was  first  satisfied 
that  the  cotton  was  never  delivered  to 
plaintiff.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Man- 
chester Mfg.  Co.,  G4  S.  E.  1128,  (5  Ga. 
App.    254. 

Where  it  was  doubtful  from  the  evi- 
dence whether  goods,  for  the  loss  of 
which  suit  was  lirought  against  a  rail- 
road company,  were  ever  received  by  de- 
fendant, an  instruction  that  one  railroad 
is  not  responsible  for  loss  occurring  on 
another  is  not  erroneous  as  being  unau- 
thorized or  misleading.  McCaffrey  v. 
Georgia,  etc.,   R.   Co.,  69  Ga.  622. 

An  instruction  that,  in  transferring  ex- 
press matter  from  one  train  to  the  other, 
the  law  imposed  on  the  servants  of  the 
express  company  the  duty  of  exercising 
ordinary  care,  was  not  erroneous  as  mis- 
leading the  jury  and  authorizing  them 
to  find   the   company   guilty   of  negligence 


other  than  that  charged  in  the  declara- 
tion, which  was  in  placing  the  chute  in 
the  car,  wiiere  such  act  was  a  preparatirm 
for  and  a  part  of  the  transfer  of  the  ex- 
press matter,  .\merican  Exp.  Co.  v.  Ris- 
ley,  17'.)  111.  295.  53  N.  E.  558,  affirming 
77    111.    App.   476. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss 
of  cigars  shipped  as  "smoking  tol)acco," 
an  instruction  that  as  a  general  proposi- 
tion tlie  highest  price  of  the  article  at 
destination  with  the  freight  added  is  the 
true  measure  of  damages,  is  not  objec- 
tionable as  intimating  that  the  carrier  is 
responsible  for  the  price  of  the  shipment 
regarded  as  cigars.  Jenkins  v.  .\tlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  66  S.  E.  407,  84  S.  C.  520. 

Plaintiffs  imported  cattle  for  breeding 
purposes,  and  in  the  course  of  their  trans- 
portation l)y  defendant  railroad  company 
they  were  so  injured  in  a  collision  that 
many  of  them,  which  were  with  calf, 
miscarried.  Held,  in  an  action  for  dam- 
ages, that  instructions  that  the  carrier 
was  bound  to  deliver  the  cattle  at  their 
destination  in  as  good  order  as  it  re- 
ceived them,  and  that  if  it  failed  so  to  do 
it  must  pay  the  difference  between  their 
value  in  such  condition  and  their  value  in 
the  condition  in  which  they  were  actually  de- 
livered, are  not  misleading,  when  the  jury 
are  told  in  the  same  charge  that  the  car- 
rier is  lial)le  only  for  injuries  directly 
traceal)le  to  its  negligence.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Estill,  147  U.  S.  591,  13  S. 
Ct.  444.  37  L.  Ed.  292.  54  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   487. 

Verdict  showing  jury  not  misled. —  In 
an  action  against  a  carrier  for  loss  of 
goods,  the  jury  were  instructed  that  the 
plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover  the  value 
of  the  goods  which  the  carrier  failed  to 
deliver,  "for  which  you  may  find  the  de- 
fendant liable  under  the  instructions  and 
evidence,"  "unless  you  believe  from  the 
evidence  that  the  defendant  was  excused 
from  such  delivery  by  such  cause  as  is 
set   out  in   instructions   given  you   for   the 

87.  Conflicting  instructions. — In  an  ac- 
tion against  a  railway  company  for  the 
value  of  goods  placed  near  its  tracks  for 
shipment  and  destroyed  by  fire,  an  in- 
struction on  the  theory  that  the  evidence 
of  the  custom  and  course  of  dealing  in 
permitting  goods  to  accumulate  on  the 
platform  for  shipment  might  be  sufficient 
to  constitute  possession  by  defendant  as 
a  carrier,  was  irreconcilably  conflicting 
with  an  instruction  that  the  defendant 
would  not  be  liable  as  a  common  carrier 
unless  the  cotton  was  received  by  it  for 
immediate  sliipment  and  it  had  received 
shipping  instructions  from  the  plaintiff. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Beard.  7S  S.  W. 
253.   34   Tex.   Civ.   App.    ISS. 


§  1088 


CARRIFlRS. 


876 


of  proof, ^'^  or  which  invade  the  province  of  the  jury,""''  or  which  are  on  the 
weight  of  the  evidence.'"'  It  is  proper  to  refuse  a  requested  charge  which  does 
not  correctly  state  the  law.''^  It  is  not  error  to  give  an  instruction  stating  a 
sound  principle  of  law  and  applicable  to  a  phase  of  the  case  as  developed  by 
the  evidence.*^-  A\'here  the  charge  affirmatively  sets  out  the  plaintiff's  rights 
in  regard  to  the  delivery  and  receipt  of  goods,  the  converse  of  the  affirmative 
part  of  the  charge  is  sufficiently  given  by  the  use  of  a  negative  phrase  implying 
the  plaintitT's  duty  in  regard  to  such  delivery  and  receipt  of  goods.'''' 


defendant."  In  one  of  the  instructions 
for  defendant  the  jury  were  told  tliat 
under  Rev.  St.  U.  S.,  §  4281,  the  plaintiff 
could  not  recover  for  any  articles  com- 
posed of  silk,  manufactured  or  unmaiui- 
factured,  wrought  up  or  not  witli  any 
other  material,  furs,  or  laces,  unless  a 
written  notice  of  the  character  of  the  ar- 
ticles and  their  value  had  been  given  tlie 
carrier  at  the  time  it  received  the  box; 
that  in  assessing  damages  such  articles 
must  be  omitted  from  the  estimate.  Phin- 
tiflf  stated  that  the  aggregate  value  of  the 
goods  in  the  box  was  $2,o36.  and  the 
evidence  indicated  that  the  value  of  the 
lace  and  silk  goods  was  about  $600.  The 
jury  gave  plaintiff  a  verdict  for  $1,604.30. 
Held,  that  they  were  not  misled  by  the 
first       instruction.  Hamburg-American 

Packet  Co.  v.  Gattman,  127  111.  598,  20 
X.   E.  662. 

88.  Instruction  requiring  too  high  de- 
gree of  proof. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
(^.idley,  119  Ala.  523,  24  So.  753  (charge 
requiring  carrier  to  "satisfy"  jury  that 
loss  could  not  have  been  prevented  by 
exercise    of   due    care). 

89.  Instructions  invading  province  of 
jury. —  In  an  action  against  a  railway 
company  for  its  failure  to  deliver  goods 
shipped,  in  which  the  evidence  is  con- 
flicting as  to  whether  they  were  ever 
received  for  shipment,  and  whether  freight 
was  ever  paid  on  them,  an  instruction, 
given  by  the  court  of  its  own  motion, 
that,  "if  the  jury  believe  from  the  evi- 
dence that  defendant  received  pay  on  the 
freight  for  the  goods  in  question,  that 
was  sufficient  evidence  that  the  defendant 
had  the  goods  at  that  time  in  possession,"  is 
erroneous,  as  invading  the  province  of 
the  jury.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 
52    Ala.    278. 

It  being  a  question  for  tlie  jury  whether 
the  carrier  exercised  the  proper  degree  of 
care  under  the  circumstances,  it  is  error 
to  instruct  that,  if  the  jury  find  that  the 
loss  was  in  any  respect  due  to  the 
crowded  condition  of  the  depot,  or  to  the 
want  of  sufficient  hands,  the  carrier  is 
liable.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White, 
88    Ga.    805,    15    S.    E.    802. 

90.  Instruction  on  weight  of  evidence. 
— It  is  a  charge  on  the  weight  of  evidence 
to  tell  the  jury  that  lost  articles  have  no 
general  market  value  where  the  evidence 
as  to  the  nature  of  the  articles,  and  the 
manner  of  their  collection  and  prepara- 
tion, tends  to  show  that  they  are  all  such 


specimens  as  might  have  a  market  -value. 
Yoakum  v.  Dunn,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App.  524, 
21  S.  W.  411. 

Instruction  held  not  erroneous. — In 
an  action  to  recover  for  the  loss  of  a 
package  of  money  shipped  with  defend- 
ant, the  court  instructed  the  jury  that  if 
they  believed  that  the  express  company 
received  the  envelope  with  money  in  it, 
and  afterwards  had  the  envelope  in  its 
possession  without  the  money,  the  jur}^ 
might  infer  that  the  money  was  ab- 
stracted while  in  defendant's  possession. 
Held,  that  the  instruction  was  not  er- 
roneous as  directing  the  jury  on  the 
weight  of  the  evidence.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.    V.    Thornton,    41    Miss.    216. 

91.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
loss  of  goods  in  transit,  there  was  no 
error  in  refusing  a  charge  that  if 
the  conductor  of  a  freight  train  ascer- 
tained that  a  car  was  on  fire,  and  an 
emergency  arose  without  negligence  of 
the  carrier,  and  if  the  conductor  in  good 
faith  took  a  certain  course  which  he 
thought  was  that  offering  the  best  pros- 
pect of  saving  the  goods  from  destruc- 
tion, though  the  course  so  taken  was  a 
mistake,  such  mistake  would  not  be 
chargeable  to  the  carrier  as  negligence. 
Atlanta,  etc.,  R.-  Co.  v.  Jacobs'  Pharm- 
acy   Co.,    135    Ga.    113,    68    S.    E.    1039. 

92.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Williams,  139 
Ga.  339,  77  S.  E.  168,  holding  that  an 
instruction  that  if  a  carrier  carried  lum- 
ber to  its  destination,  and  delivered  it 
to  another  railroad,  which  undertook  to 
carry  it  to  the  particular  point  of  des- 
tination, and  if  the  other  carrier  acted 
as  agent  of  the  defendant,  it  would  be 
immaterial  ;on  which  line  tire  damage 
was   done,  was   not   error. 

93.  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  injury  to  trees  en  route,  the 
court  instructed  that,  if  plaintiff  called 
for  the  trees  at  destination  within  a 
reasonable  time  and  made  a  reasonable 
effort  to  receive  them  if  they  reached 
there  within  a  reasonable  time,  he  was 
not  required  to  stay  until  they  arrived, 
unless  he  had  notice  as  to  when  they 
would  arrive;  but  if  he  made  reasonable 
effort  to  get  them,  and  if  they  did  not 
arrived  within  a  reasonable  time  and 
were  damaged  for  that  reason,  he  would 
be  entitled  to  recover  damages,  "but 
otherwise  he  would  not  be."  Held,  that 
liy  the  qtioted  plirasc  the  court  gave  the 
converse    of    the    affirmative    part    of    the 


877 


l.oss  OK  iXMKV  To  r,ool)^ 


§  1088 


Must  Be  Applicable  to  Pleadings  and  Evidence. — It  is  error  to  give  an 

instruction  mil  apjilii.  ;ilik-  to  ilie  i^^ues  rai>e(l  1)\  tlic  pleadings,  though  it  may 
be  entirely  correct  as  an  abstract  proposition  of  law  ;  '**  and  so  it  is  proper  to 
refuse  an  instruction  not  applicable."'*  It  is  error  to  give  an  instruction  on  an 
issue  not  raised  by  the  evidence,""  or  opi)Osed  to  the  evidence.""  and  it  is  proper 
to  refuse  an  instruction  not  raised  or  supported  by  the  evidence."^     When  the 


instruction,  and  sutliciently  charKed  as 
to  plaintiff's  duty  to  use  reasonable  ef- 
forts to  receive  the  goods  even  if  tliey 
did  not  arrive  witliin  a  reasonable  time. 
Young  f.  Southern  R.  Co.,  l'>7  N.  C.  74, 
72    S.     K.    Sli.'i. 

94.  Applicability  to  issues  raised  by 
pleading. — Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cooper 
;»:.   C.a.   4()f),   '22   S.    E.   549. 

Illustrations. —  It  is  error  to  charge 
that,  if  the  property  was  damaged  by  l)e- 
ing  placed  in  unsafe  cars,  the  jury  should 
find  for  plaintiff,  where  llie  declaration 
merely  alleges  failure  to  deliver.  Central 
R.,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Avant,  80  Ga.  195,  5  S. 
E.    78. 

Where  the  sole  ground  of  liability  al- 
leged in  a  declaration  against  a  railroad 
company  for  damages  to  goods  was  that 
defendant  negligently  unloaded  the  goods 
in  the  rain  and  stored  the  same  in  the 
open  air,  it  was  error  to  charge  that,  if 
the  goods  were  delivered  to  the  wrong 
person  by  the  company,  it  would  consti- 
tute a  conversion  by  defendant  for  which 
plaintiff  could  recover  the  full  value  of 
the  goods,  though  the  evidence  was  con- 
flicting as  to  whether  the  one  who  un- 
loaded the  goods  was  the  agent  of  plain- 
tiff or  of  defendant.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co. 
V.   Cooper,  95   Ga.  406,  22  S.   E.  549. 

A  charge  that  a  railroad  company 
might  be  found  liable  for  the  loss  of 
cotton  deposited  by  the  plaintiff  on  their 
depot  platform,  and  l)urned,  held  to  1)e 
erroneous;  the  declaration  not  alleging 
that  they  received  the  cotton  in  their 
character  of  common  carrier.  Smith  v. 
King's  Mountain  R.  Co.,  3  S.  C.  53. 

Where  the  petition  claims  damages 
only  for  the  injury  to  and  loss  of  horses 
through  a  collision,  it  is  error  to  charge 
that  plaintiff  may  recover  for  injury 
caused  by  delay  and  detention.  Texas, 
etc..  R.  Co.  7'.  Sims  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  26 
S.    W.    634. 

95.  In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for 
loss  of  the  goods  siiipped.  after  they 
were  unloaded,  and  plaintiff  notified  of 
their  arrival,  based  on  its  liability  as  a 
common  carrier,  instructions  as  to  its 
liability  as  a  warehouseman  are  properly 
refused,  no  claim  l)eing  made  in  the  com- 
plaint against  defendant  as  a  warehouse- 
man. Wynantskill  Knitting  Co.  z:  Mur- 
ray. 90  Hun  ."..■■>4.  36  X.  V.  S.  26.  71  X.  V. 
St.   Rep.  3:;. 

96.  Applicability  to  issues  raised  by  evi- 
dence.— Wiiere  there  is  nothing  in  tlie 
pleadings  or  evidence  properly  present- 
ing as  an  issue  in  the  case  the  question 
whether    the    person    by   whom    the    ship- 


per's goods  were  unloaded  from  the  car- 
rier's car  was  or  was  not  authorized  to 
receive  the  goods  for  the  shipper,  and 
the  controlling  question  being  whether 
that  person  in  unloading  and  storing  the 
goods  was  acting  as  agent  of  the  ship- 
per or  carrier,  it  is  error  to  so  shape  the 
instructions  to  the  jury  as  to  present  for 
their  consideration  the  question  as  to  the 
authority  of  such  person  to  receive  the 
goods  and  in  so  qualifying  the  written 
request  of  the  carrier  as  to  submit  tiiat 
question  for  the  jury's  determination  in 
connection  with,  and  as  a  part  of,  the 
question  of  agency.  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co. 
V.   Cooper,  95   Ga.  406,  22   S.   E.  549. 

97.  Instructions  opposed  to  evidence. 
— The  uncontradicted  evidence  being 
that  some  efforts  were  made  by  the  car- 
rier to  save  the  plaintiff's  goods,  it  was 
error  to  charge  the  jury  upon  any  hy- 
pothesis grounded  on  the  assumption  or 
contingency  that  no  efforts  whatever 
were  made.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z\ 
White.   88   Ga.   805.   15   S.    E.   802. 

In  an  action  of  assumpsit  brought  to 
recover  the  value  of  oil  claimed  l)y  the 
plaintiff,  the  declaration  containing  no 
good  counts  except  the  common  counts, 
which  was  in  the  possession  of  defend- 
ant at  the  time  the  action  was  brought, 
and  which  had  not  been  sold  or  in  any 
way  tortiously  disposed  of  by  the  defend- 
ant, and  which  came  into  the  possession 
of  the  defendant  as  a  common  carrier, 
and  not  wrongfully,  it  was  held,  error 
for  the  lower  _court  to  instruct  the  jury 
that  if  they  b'elieved  from  the  evidence 
that  the  oil  was  the  property  of  the 
plaintiff,  it  was  their  duty  to  find  a  ver- 
dict for  the  plaintiff  for  the  value  of  the 
oil,  there  not  being  evidence  before  the 
jury  tending  to  prove  a  sale  of  the  oil 
by  the  plaintiff  to  the  defendant,  but  the 
evidence  clearly  proving  that  there  had 
been  no  such  sale,  and  that  the  defend- 
ant had  only  refused  to  deliver  the  oil 
to  plaintiff  on  demand,  under  the  peculiar 
circumstances  shown  by  the  evidence,  as 
stated  in  the  opinion  of  the  court  in 
Dresser  7\  West  Virginia  Transp.  Co.,  8 
W.    \"a.    .-.-.3. 

98.  Instructions  not  raised  or  supported 
by  evidence. — In  an  action  to  recover  for 
loss  of  goods,  the  refusal  to  instruct  the 
jurj-  "tliat  tiie  mere  fact  of  delivery  of  the 
goods  to  the  defendant  corporation  for 
transportation  raised  a  presumption  that 
such  delivery  was  made  and  the  goods 
received  for  immediate  transportation." 
etc.,  is  justified,  when  it  can  not  be  gath- 
ered   from    the    case    that    there    was   any 


1088 


CARRIKRS. 


878 


liability  of  the  carrier  has  changed  to  that  of  a  warehouseman,  it  is  error  to 
submit  to  the  jury  the  question  of  liability  as  carrier.'"'  Where  the  only  issue  is 
as  to  defendant's  liability  as  a  carrier,^  it  is  error  to  charge  that  it  might  be 
held  liable  upon  its  responsibility  as  a  warehouseman.-  So  where  the  petition 
charges  defendants  as  warehousemen,  and  not  as  common  carriers,''  instructions 


such  "mere  fact  of  delivery  of  the  goods" 
in  evidence,  unaccompanied  by  proof  of 
verbal  communication  between  the  agents 
of  the  parties,  and  of  the  contract  they 
entered  into,  the  true  character  and  terms 
of  which  were  really  the  subjects  of  the 
controversy  between  the  parties.  Jones 
V.  New  England,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.,  71 
Me.   56. 

In  an  action  against  a  company  for 
loss  by  fire  of  cotton  deposited  at  a 
switch  where  there  was  neither  agent, 
station,  nor  platform,  an  instruction  that, 
if  plaintiffs  contracted  with  defendant  to 
furnish  a  car  for  shipment  of  the  cotton, 
and  failed  to  do  so,  by  reason  of  which 
the  cotton  w-as  damaged  by  fire,  defend- 
ant is  liable,  should  be  refused,  where 
there  is  no  evidence  connecting  the  fire 
with  the  failure  to  furnish  a  car.  Kansas 
City,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Lilly  (Miss.),  8  So. 
644. 

In  an  action  for  failure  to  adjust  a 
freight  loss  claim,  it  was  proper  to  refuse 
to  instruct  as  to  the  liability  of  a  gratui- 
tous bailee,  where  there  was  no  testi- 
mony that  the  company  had  given  notice 
that  it  would  no  longer  hold  as  ware- 
houseman; its  liability  being  either  that 
of  carrier  or  warehouseman.  Sanders  v. 
Southern  Railway,  72  S.  E.  637,  90  S. 
C.   79. 

In  an  action  to  recover  for  breach  of 
a  contract  in  failing  to  transport  a  quan- 
tity of  cord  w^ood,  by  reason  of  which 
the  wood  was  w^ashed  away  by  a  freshet 
and  was  lost,  the  court  properly  refused 
to  instruct  the  jury  that  "the  measure  of 
damages  in  case  of  a  failure  to  deliver 
goods  according  to  contract,  and  which 
are  lost,  is  their  market  value,"  etc.,  de- 
fendants not  being  sued  as  common  car- 
riers, and  there  being  no  evidence  of  a 
delivery  of  the  wood  to  them.  And  a 
further  instruction  that  plaintiff  is  en- 
titled to  recover  as  damages  whatever 
he  may  have  expended  in  the  recovery 
of  the  wood  washed  away,  if  the  jury 
believe  that  it  would  not  have  been 
washed  away  if  defendants  had  kept  their 
contract,  is  also  properly  refused,  in  the 
absence  of  any  evidence  to  show  that 
such  damage  can  be  fairly  and  reason- 
ably considered  as  naturally  arising  from 
the  breach  of  the  contract  in  question. 
Slaughter  v.  Denmead,  88  Va.  1019,  14 
S.   E.  833. 

99.  Hurley  &  Son  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   68   W.   Va.   471,   69   S.    E.   904. 

1.  In  an  action  of  assumpsit  against  a 
railroad  company  for  failure  to  deliver 
five  hundred  and  twenty-five  bales  of  cot- 
ton described  in  the  bills  of  lading,  the 
evidence  w^as  that  one  P.,  a  cotton  broker, 


purchased  large  quantities  of  cotton 
from  time  to  time,  and,  under  a  contract 
with  the  defendant  railway  company, 
caused  the  cotton  to  be  compressed,  and 
inade  ready  for  shipping.  When  com- 
pressed, each  bale  was  by  him  weighed, 
classed,  and  marked;  and,  when  a  number 
of  bales  had  been  so  marked,  he  made 
out  a  bill  of  lading,  describing  them  by 
their  appropriate  marks,  and  obtained 
the  certificate  of  the  superintendent  of 
the  compress  company,  indorsed  thereon, 
that  the  cotton  called  for  by  the  bill  was 
in  the  warehouse;  also  the  signature  of 
the  defendant's  freight  agent.  When- 
ever a  sale  was  made,  P.  assigned  the 
proper  bills  of  lading  to  the  purchaser. 
Plaintiffs  claimed  as  such  purchasers  and 
assignees  of  P.  There  was  evidence 
that,  at  the  time  plaintiff's  bills  of  lading 
were  made  out  and  signed  as  above, 
there  was  no  cotton  of  the  grade  called 
for  in  the  warehouse  (and  it  was  con- 
ceded that,  bj'  an  arrangement  between 
P.  and  defendant,  bills  of  lading  were 
often  issued  before  the  cotton  called  for 
had  arrived),  but  that  in  this  instance 
there  was  other  cotton  on  hand  of  an  in- 
ferior grade,  some  of  which  certain  em- 
ployees of  P.,  with  knowledge  of  defend- 
ant's freight  agent,  re-marked  with  marks 
indicating  the  grade  called  for  by  plain- 
tiflf's  bills,  and  that  defendant  forwarded 
this  inferior  cotton  to  plaintiffs.  Held, 
that  in  such  action  the  only  issue  was 
as  to  defendant's  liability  upon  the  bills 
of  lading  as  a  common  carrier.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knight,  122  U.  S.  79,  7  S. 
Ct.    1132,   30   L.    Ed.    1077. 

2.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Knight,  122 
U.   S.   79,  30  L.   Ed.   1077,  7  S.   Ct.   1132. 

3.  Petition  alleging  liability  as  ware- 
houseman.—  In  an  action  against  a  rail- 
road company  for  the  value  of  certain 
goods,  the  petition  alleged  that  on  the  4th 
of  December,  1864,  the  defendants  were 
engaged  in  the  business  of  common  car- 
riers and  as  warehousemen,  running  and 
operating  a  road  from  Chicago  to  Ne- 
vada, and  having  a  warehouse  at  the  lat- 
ter place.  On  this  day,  the  plaintiff's 
goods  were  delivered  to  the  defendants 
at  Chicago,  to  be  transported  to  Nevada, 
as  per  receipt,  etc.,  and  that  said  goods 
were  duly  transported  by  the  defendants 
to  their  said  warehouse  in  Nevada,  and 
were  therein  so  carelessly  and  negli- 
gently kept,  that  the  aforesaid  articles 
were  entirely  lost  and  destroyed,  and  the 
defendants  both  utterly  failed  and  re- 
fused to  deliver  the  same,  etc.  Held, 
that  defendants  were  charged  as  ware- 
housemen, and  not  as  common  carriers. 
Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Iowa  73. 


879 


LOSS  OR   INJURY  TO  GOODS. 


§    1088 


assuming  thai  the)'  arc  to  be  held  as  common  carriers  are  erroneous.^  Where 
the  shipper  claims  and  testifies  that  an  oral  contract  was  made  for  transporta- 
tion in  which  there  was  no  limitation  of  liability,  but  that  he  signed  a  paper, 
which  he  sup])osed  to  be  a  receipt,  and  the  carrier  offered  testimony  to  show 
that  the  only  contract  made  was  the  written  one  embodied  in  the  bill  of  lading 
signed  by  the  shijjper  and  which  limited  its  liability,  the  court  is  warranted  in 
defining  tlie  common-law  liability  of  the  carrier  in  case  the  jury  should  find  in 
favor  of  the  theory  of  the  shipper.-"' 

Necessity  for  Instructions. — The  defendant  is  entitled  to  have  any  defense 
which  the  evidence  tends  to  support  submitted  to  the  jury  under  a  proper 
charge."  Where  the  defendant  claims  that  the  goods  were  damaged  before  re- 
ceived for  shipment  it  is  entitled  to  have  that  issue  distinctly  submitted  to  the 
jury.'  When  a  contract  stipulates  that  after  defendant's  delivery  of  the  goods 
to  a  connecting  line  it  should  not  be  liable  for  injuries,  and  the  evidence  shows 
that  a  large  part  of  the  damages  were  sustained  after  such  delivery,  the  court 
should  instruct  that  defendant  was  not  liable  therefor.^  And  where  the  allega- 
tions of  the  complaint  that  the  goods  were  damaged  while  in  transit  over  de- 
fendant's line  are  unsupported  by  evidence,  defendant  is  entitled  to  an  instruc- 
tion to  that  effect.'-' 

Ignoring  or  Excluding  Pertinent  Questions. — Instructions  which  ignore 
or  exclude  from  the  consideration  of  the  jury  (|uestions  pertinent  to  the  issues 
are  erroneous.^"     So  it  is  proi)er  to  refuse  an  instruction  as  to  defendant's  com- 


4.  Porter  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Iowa    73. 

5.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clark,  48 
Kan.  ;!:M,  ;.>'.i   Pac.  312. 

6.  Necessity  for  instruction. — Where, 
in  an  action  for  the  value  of  a  puncheon 
of  molasses  which  burst  while  in  the 
custody  of  a  carrier,  there  is  evidence 
that  the  cause  was  the  fermentation  of 
the  molasses,  defendant  is  entitled  to 
have  it  considered  by  the  jury  under  a 
proper  charge,  as  the  carrier  is  not  liable 
for  loss  or  damage  resulting  from  de- 
fects inherent  in  the  goods.  Currie  z'. 
Seaboard,  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  S.  E.  493,  156 
N.    C.    432. 

7.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Dorsey,  70  S. 
W.    575,    30   Tex.    Civ.    App.    377. 

8.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Allcorn  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),    23    S.    W.    18(). 

9.  Goodman  v.  Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  22 
Ore.   14,   2S    Pac.   8!)4. 

10.  Instructions  ignoring  or  excluding 
pertinent  questions. —  In  an  action  against 
a  railroad  corporation  for  the  loss  of 
cotton  which  was  destroyed  by  fire  while 
on  board  of  the  defendant's  cars,  S.  tes- 
tified that  the  plaintifif  made  an  oral 
agreement  with  the  superintendent  of  the 
road,  that  he  (the  plaintiff)  would  cover 
the  cotton  with  a  tarpaulin,  and  send  a 
man  along  with  it,  with  buckets  of  water. 
Ihe  court  charged  that,  if  the  contract 
was  made  as  testified  liy  S.,  it  was  still 
incumbent  on  the  defendants  to  prove 
that  there  was  no  negligence  on  their 
part.  Held,  that  this  was  erroneous,  as 
the  effect  of  it  was  to  exclude  from  the 
consideration  of  the  jury  the  question  in 
dispute — whether  the  cotton  was  de- 
stroyed by  the  negligence  of  the  defend- 
ants,  or  by   the   failure   of  the   plaintiff  to 


perform  his  part  of  the  express  contract, 
if  they  should  believe  such  a  contract 
was  made.  Southern  Exp.  Co.  f.  Pur- 
cell,   37    Ga.   103,   92   Am.    Dec.   53. 

In  an  action  for  the  value  of  a  ship- 
ment of  lumber,  it  was  error  to  charge 
that,  if  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  recover 
at  all,  he  was  entitled  to  the  full  amount 
claimed,  there  being  no  controversy  as 
to  the  value  of  luml)er,  as  disregarding 
the  amount  due  for  freight  charges  un- 
paid and  value  of  the  lumber  saved  from 
a  wreck.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Williams, 
77    S.    E.    153,    139    Ga.    357. 

An  instruction  that  if  the  jury  find  for 
plaintiff,  suing  defendant  carrier  for  in- 
juries to  fruit  owing  to  insufficient  re- 
frigeration, they  should  find  the  full 
amount  proven,  and  look  to  the  evidence 
and  see  what  the  amount  proven  is,  is 
improper,  as  authorizing  damages  to  the 
liighest  amount  without  considering  in- 
lierent  defects  in  the  fruit.  Southern  R. 
Co.  V.  Williams,  77  S.  E.  153,  139  Ga.  357. 

In  an  action  against  common  carriers 
at  sea,  to  recover  the  value  of  a  cask  of 
brandy,  the  contents  of  which  have  been 
lost  on  the  voyage  by  leakage,  it  is  er- 
roneous to  charge  the  jury  that  the  only 
question  is  whether  the  cask  was  prop- 
erly made,  and  sufficient,  so  that  with 
ordinary  or  proper  care  the  leakage 
would  not  have  occurred.  Such  an  in- 
struction withdraws  from  the  jury  the 
question  whether  the  cask  was  properly 
stowed.  Tysen  z:  Moore  (X.  Y.).  56 
Barb.    442. 

.\  shipper,  having  sole  charge  of  the 
loading,  loaded  corn  while  it  was  wet. 
The  car  itself  was  secure  against  leakage 
from  rain.  There  was  a  delay  in  trans- 
portation   of   about    two   days,    caused   by 


§  1088 


CARRIERS. 


880 


mon-law  liability  as  an  insurer  which  pretermits  all  inquiry  whether  the  goods 
were  ready  for  delivery. ^  Where  there  is  practically  no  dispute  as  to  a  matter, 
it  is  proper  to  give  an  instruction  withdrawing  the  question  from  the  jury, 
therebv  clearing  the  atmosphere  at  the  trial  and  confining  and  directing  their 
attention  to  the  remaining  questions. i-  Where  the  question  is  whether  defend- 
ant was  liable  as  a  common  carrier  or  as  a  warehouseman,  depending  upon 
whether  a  certain  car  had  been  placed  in  a  proper  position  for  unloading,  it  is 
not  error  for  the  court  in  an  instruction  to  eliminate  every  question  except  that 
as  to  defendant's  liability  as  a  carrier,  where  it  charges  that,  if  the  car  was  put 
in  a  proper  place  for  unloading,  defendant  was  not  liable  on  any  ground. i"' 

Withdrawing  proper  evidence  from  the  jury  is  error. ^^ 

Submitting  Issue  Proved  by  Undisputed  Evidence. — Where  the  evidence 
is  undisputed  that  goods  were  second-hand,  an  instruction  that  the  jury,  in  de- 
termining the  value  of  the  property,  are  authorized  to  take  into  consideration, 
among  other  things,  the  cjuestion  whether  the  property  was  new  or  second-hand, 
is  not  objectionable  as  submitting  the  issue  as  to  whether  the  property  was  new 
or  second-hand.^-'' 

Slight  Technical  Inaccuracy. — An  instruction  is  not  rendered  erroneous 
by  a  slight  technical  inaccuracy,  which  does  iiot  mislead  the  jury.^'' 

Repetition  of  Charge. — It  is  not  error  for  the  court  to  give  a  charge,  re- 
quested by  plaintiff,  which   includes  a  statement  of  the  issues  as  they  have  al-' 


the  drawhead  of  the  car  being  broken. 
In  an  action  by  the  shipper  for  damages, 
the  court  charged  that  if  the  corn  was  in 
a  worthless  condition  when  shipped,  and 
the  damage  did  not  result  from  lack  of 
proper  care  on  the  company's  part,  and 
the  car  was  forwarded  within  a  reason- 
able time,  the  jury  should  find  for  the 
company.  Held  insufficient,  in  failing  to 
call  attention  to  the  act  of  plaintiff  in 
loading  the  corn  in  a  wet  condition,  and 
submitting  to  the  jury  to  determine  how 
far  such  action  contributed  to  the  loss 
complained  of.  Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Smith,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  138. 
In  an  action  against  a  railway  com- 
pany for  goods  which  had  been  placed 
near  its  tracks  for  shipment  and  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  in  which  one  theory  for 
recovery  was  that  the  fire  was  caused 
by  the  negligence  of  the  railway,  and 
another  theory  was  th^t  it  was  burned 
after  it  had  been  delivered  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  railway  as  a  common  car- 
rier, it  was  error  to  instruct  that,  if  the 
fire  was  caused  by  the  defendant's  loco- 
motive, defendant  was  lial)le,  as  defend- 
ant, on  the  theory  first  stated,  was  en- 
titled to  have  submitted  the  issue  of 
plaintiff's  contributory  negligence  in  ex- 
posing the  cotton  to  danger  by  fire. 
Missouri,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Beard,  78  S.  W. 
253,  34  Tex.   Civ.   App.   188. 

11.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  Mach. 
Co.,    16.5    Ala.    436,    .51    So.    779. 

12.  Smith  z:  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  223 
Pa.  118,  72  Atl.  264,  wherein  it  was  held 
that  the  question  of  a  diversion  of  cars 
from  the  usual  course  by  placing  them  in 
a  certain  yard,  instead  of  carrying  them 
to  a  certain  other  yard,  was  in  effect 
withdrawn  from  the  jury  by  a  charge 
that  the  custom  of  delivering  at  the  yard 
where    the    cars    were    placed    had    been 


established  to  the  judge's  satisfaction, 
that  this  was  a  delivery  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  law  because  agreed  to  by  the 
parties,  and  that  the  only  question  re- 
maining was   as   to   negligence. 

13.  Independence  Mills  Co.  v.  Burling- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  535,  34  N.  W. 
320,  2  Am.   St.   Rep.   258. 

14.  In  an  action  against  a  railroad  com- 
pany for  the. loss  of  goods  shipped  by  it, 
defendant's  agent  testified  that,  at  the 
time  of  the  shipment,  plaintiff's  hus- 
band, with  whom  the  agreement  for  ship- 
ment was  made,  stated  that,  if  the  goods 
were  lost,  the  company  would  have  to 
pay  him  $25.  The  court  charged,  in  sub- 
stance, that  unless  it  appeared  that  both 
the  husband  and  the  agent  had  authority 
to  make  such  valuation,  and  actually 
agreed  upon  it,  it  would  not  be  binding 
upon  plaintiff.  Held,  that  the  jury,  in 
ascertaining  the  value  of  the  goods, 
might  properly  consider  such  testimony, 
and  that  the  charge  withdrew  it  from 
their  consideration,  and  was  erroneous. 
Savannah,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Collins,  77  Ga. 
376,  3    S.    E.   416,   4   Am.   St.    Rep.   87. 

15.  Submitting  issue  proved  by  undis- 
puted evidence. — Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Wilson  Hack  Line,  46  Tex.  Civ.  App.  38, 
101    S.    W.    1042. 

16.  Slight  technical  inaccuracy. — Where 
the  court,  in  its  instructions,  made  it 
clear  that,  if  the  berries  shipped  were 
damaged  by  the  reason  of  their  tendency 
to  deteriorate,  considering  their  condition, 
and  the  railroad  company  was  not  neg- 
ligent in  the  handling  of  the  fruit,  then 
tliere  would  be  no  liability,  the  instruc- 
tion was  not  rendered  erroneous  because 
the  court  inaccurately  termed  the  tend- 
ency an  act  of  God.  Fockens  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  109  N.  W.  834,  99  Minn. 
404. 


881 


LOSS  OR    INJURY   TO  COODS. 


§§  1088-1089 


ready  been  stated  in  the  general  charge,  and  also  defines  the  duties  and  Hahihties 
of  common  carriers  substantially  as  given  in  the  general  charge,  thus  repeating 
in   the  t-barge   tlu-sc   matters.'" 

Charge  in  Conjunctive. — W  here,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  dam- 
ages to  plaintitT's  shipment  of  ap]jles,  jjlaintiff  charged  that  through  defendant's 
negligence  the  ai)ples  were  heated,  scalded,  and  decayed,  he  could  not  comphin 
of  a  charge  in  the  conjunctive,  in  the  absence  of  a  request  that  the  heating,  scald- 
ing, and  decaying  be  disjunctively  submitted. ''^ 

Waiver  of  Error  in  Charge. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  goods  lost, 
])laintiff's  failure  to  re(|uest  a  proper  charge  on  the  measure  of  the  carrier's  lia- 
bilitv  does  not  constitute  a  waiver  of  error  in  a  charge  given,  limiting  the  car- 
rier's lial)ilit\-  to  tlie  CNcrcise  of  ordinary  care.''' 

Harmless  Error  in  Instructions. — Error  in  an  instruction  is  harmless 
where  it  is  not  prejudicial  to  the  party  complaining.-"  The  jjlaintifF  can  not 
comj)lain  of  an  instruction  fixing  the  damages  at  the  time  and  place  fixed  by  his 
pleadings,  even   if  it   were  erroneous  in  this  respect.-' 

§  108  9.  Verdict. — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  injuries  to  goods 
shipped  and  ordered  returned,  where  plaintiff  refused  to  receive  them,  and  there 
was  no  evidence  of  the  condition  or  \alue  of  the  articles  refused,  though  the 
rule  as  to  measure  of  damages  was  correctly  stated  as  the  difference  between 
the  value  of  the  articles  as  shipjied  and  as  off'ered  to  be  returned,  it  could  not 
be  applied,  anil,  if  the  verdict  allows  ])laintift"  for  the  articles  not  accepted,  the 
judgment  must  be  reversed.--  Where  the  plaintiff'  contends  that  the  judgment 
is  for  an  insufficient  sum,  the  burden  rests  upon  bini  of  showing  that  a  verdict 
for  a  greater  sum  was  demanded.-^ 


17.  Repetition  of  charge. — Galveston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Tiickctt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
25    S.    W.    !.-.(). 

18.  Charge  in  conjunctive. — Cane  Hill, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Tex.  Civ.   App.),  9,-)   S.   \V.   Tr.l. 

19.  Waiver  of  error  in  charge. — Bibb  v. 
Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  37  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
508.    84    S.    W.    663. 

20.  Harmless  error  in  instructions. — In 
an  action  ayainst  a  carrier  for  tbe  loss 
of  goods,  the  evidence  as  to  the  loss 
being  practically  undisputed,  a  charge 
misleading  and  confusing  as  to  the  value 
of  the  goods  can  not  avail  the  defend- 
ant, being  detrimental,  if  at  all,  only  to 
plaintiff.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Town- 
send   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  106  S.  W.  760. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  for  the 
destruction  of  goods  in  transit,  plaintiff 
testified  to  the  market  value  of  the  goods 
at  their  destination,  while  defendant's 
witnesses  testified  to  their  value  at  the 
point  of  shipment,  and  estimated  such 
value  at  a  sum  far  less  than  plaintiff's 
estimate.  The  court  charged  that  the 
evidence  of  defendant's  witness  was  ad- 
mitted tor  its  tendency  to  disprove  plain- 
tiff's testimony,  and  not  to  establish  value 
as  a  basis  for  the  verdict.  Held,  that 
as  the  charge  was  correct  in  so  far  as  it 
stated  that  defendant's  evidence  was  in- 
competent to  estal)lish  value,  and  any 
error  in  permitting  the  evidence  to  be 
used  at  all  was  favorable  to  defendant, 
the  charge  was  not  prejudicial  to  defend- 

1    Car — 56 


ant.     Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.    Roberts   (Tex. 
Civ.  .-Kpp.),  85  S.  W.  479.  480. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  loss  of  freight  by  reason  of  its  fail- 
ure to  furnish  a  suitable  car,  there  was 
evidence  justifj-ing  a  recovery  of  the 
contract  price  for  which  the  goods  were 
sold,  and,  if  the  market  value  was  the 
proper  measure  of  damages,  plaintiff 
would  have  been  entitled  to  recover 
more  than  the  verdict,  defendant  was  not 
prejudiced  by  an  instruction  authorizing 
a  recovery  of  the  contract  price.  Hous- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Wilkerson  Bros.  (Tex. 
Civ.    App.),    82    S.   W.    1069. 

21.  Where  the  petition  fixed  all  dam- 
a,ges  claimed  at  the  time  of  the  arrival 
of  the  goods  at  their  destination,  plain- 
tiff could  not  complain  of  an  instruct!"  n 
that  the  measure  of  damages  was  the 
difference  between  the  market  value  of 
the  goods  in  the  condition  in  which  they 
arrived  and  their  value  had  they  arrived 
in  proper  condition,  though  the  evidence 
showed  that  the  goods  arrived  during  the 
night  and  were  not  delivered  until  the 
following  day.  Cane  Hill,  etc.  Co  v. 
San  .\ntonio,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.).    95    S.    W.    751. 

22.  Verdict. — Reason  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    150    Mich.    50,    113    X.    W.    596. 

23.  High  Co.  f.  Adams  Kxp.  Co.,  5  Ga. 
.\p]i.    S63.   63    S.    K.    1125. 

Judgment  not  erroneous. — High  Co.  r. 
.•\(lams     i".xi>.     Co..    63    S.     E.    1125.    5    Ga. 

.\i)p.  S6;;. 


CHAPTER   xril. 
Carrier   as    WarehousE-man. 

I.  When  Liability  Begins  or  Ends,  §§  1090-1097. 

A.  Goods  Awaiting  Transportation,  §   1090. 

B.  Goods   Being  Transported,   §   1091. 

C.  Goods  Awaiting   Delivery   to  Consignee,  §i^    1092-1097. 
a.   In   General,   §   1092. 

h.   Express    Companies    and    General    Carriers    by    Water,    §    109:J. 

c.  Railroads   and   Carriers   by   Water   Having   Fixed   Schedule,   §   1094. 

d.  Necessity  for  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods,  §   109"). 

e.  What  Is   Reasonable  Time,   §    109(). 

f.  How   Long   Liability   Continues,   §   109T. 
fL   Duties  and   Liabilities.   §§   1098-1100. 

A.  In    General,   §    109S. 

B.  Degree  of  Care,   §   1099. 

C.  Acts  or  Omissions   Rendering  Carrier  Liable,  §  1100. 
III.  Actions   against   Carrier  as   Warehouseman,   §§    1101-1104. 

A.  In    General— Pleading,   §    1101. 

B.  Evidence,  §   1102. 

C.  Instructions,    §    110,3. 

D.  Finding.   §   1104. 

§§  1090-1097.  When  Liability  Begins  or  Ends— §  1090.  Goods 
Awaiting  Transportation.— The  liability  of  a  carrier,  as  such,  for  goods 
received  for  transportation,  does  not  commence  nntil  the  duty  to  transport  has 
completely  arisen. ^  \\'here  goods  are  delivered  to  a  carrier  for  shipment,  and 
received  to  be  forwarded  in  the  usual  course  of  business,  its  hability  as  carrier 
attaches  immediately  upon  the  delivery  of  the  goods,-  and  it  is  liable  as  such 


1.  Liability  as  carrier — Goods  awaiting 
transportation. — Barron  7'.  F.ldrcdge,  100 
Mass.  4.5.-),  1  Am.  Rep.  126.  See  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  87 
Ark.  26,  112  S.  W.  154.  See  ante,  "When 
Liabilitv    Commences,"    chapter    .5. 

2.  Delivery  of  goods  to  carrier. — 
Missouri. — Gregory  z'.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  46 
Mo.   App.   574. 

New  For^.— Blossom  v.  Griffin,  13  N. 
Y.  569,  67  Am.   Dec.   75. 

0/u'o. —Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  ?■.  Barrett, 
36   O.   St.   448. 

Pennsylvania. — Clarke  v.  Needles,  25  Pa. 
338.  See  ante,  "When  Liability  Com- 
mences,"   chapter    5. 

Under  Texas  statutes. — Lender  Rev.  St., 
art.  2.s:i,  liability  as  a  carrier  does  not 
attach  until  a  bill  of  lading  is  given,  or 
until  the  goods  have  been  delivered  to, 
and  received  by,  the  carrier.  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Wheat,  2  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas., 
§    165. 

Where  one  is  both  a  forwarder  and 
carrier,  and  agrees  to  transport  merchan- 
dise during  a  season  at  a  stated  rate,  in- 
cluding warehouse  charges,  and  receives 
the  shipment  into  his  warehouse  on  a 
bill  of  lading  of  the  goods  "to  be  for- 
warded," he  is  responsible  as  a  carrier, 
and  not  as  a  warehouseman.  Blossom  v. 
Griffin,   1?,   X.    Y.    569,   67   Am.    Dec.   75. 


Instructions  to  forward  goods  forth- 
with may  be  inferred  from  an  established 
course  of  dealing  between  the  shipper 
and  the  carrier,  without  direct  evidence 
of  such  instructions.  Moses  z'.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec. 
222. 

Direction  for  immediate  shipment. — A 
letter  to  freight  agent,  accompanying 
goods  sent  to  carrier's  station,  saying: 
"Will  you  *  *  *  have  these  *  *  * 
marked  according  to  the  address,  *  *  * 
and  forwarded  to  N.?  Will  you  mark 
them  prepaid?  I  will  be  at  the  depot  to- 
morrow, and  get  the  bill  of  lading  and 
pay  the  freight,"  is  a  direction  for  im- 
mediate shipment,  and  does  not  make  the 
marking  of  the  goods  prepaid  a  condition 
piecedent  to  shipment.  Berry  v.  South- 
ern  R.  Co.,  30  S.   E.  14,  122  N.   C.  1002. 

Delivery  of  goods  with  consignee's 
name  and  address  marked  thereon  is,  in 
tiie  absence  of  directions  or  agreements 
to  the  contrary,  equivalent  to  a  direction 
for  immediate  shii^ment.  Gregory  v.  Wa- 
bash  R.  Co.,  46  Mo.  App.  574. 

Stock  shipments. — Where  cattle  have 
been  placed  in  defendant's  pen  for  im- 
mediate shipment  over  defendant's  rail- 
road, and  part  of  them  have  actually  been 
placed  on  the  cars,  the  cattle  are  in  the 
custody    of    defendant    as    a    carrier,    and 


883 


CAKRIKR    AS    WARKHOL'SKMAX. 


§    1090 


if  thev  are  injured  or  destroyed  while  awaiting  transjKjrtation.''     The  test  ques- 


not  as  a  warehouseman.  Ciuh',  etc.,  1^. 
Co.  V.  Trawick,  80  Tex.  ii70,  15  S.  W. 
."ifiH,   18   S.   W.   948. 

Public  notice  that  goods  held  at  own- 
er's risk. —  WluTi-  LicKjds  an-  (li-livtT(.-(l  at 
carrier's  warehouse  lor  transportation 
presently,  the  carrier  is  liable  for  tlie 
floods  as  common  carrier,  notwithstand- 
ing^ a  public  notice,  of  wliich  i)laintiiT  Iiad 
kn(nv]ed{?e,  that  all  goods  would  lie  at 
the  owner's  risk  in  the  company's  ware- 
house, and  that  no  responsibility  would 
be  admitted  for  any  loss  or  injury  ex- 
cept such  as  might  arise  by  negligence 
of  the  agents  of  the  company.  Moses  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  Railroad,  24  N.  H.  71,  55 
Am.   Dec.  22:1. 

Condition  not  affecting  carrier's  liabil- 
ity as  to  goods  awaiting  transportation. — 
A  part  of  a  lot  of  wudl  was  sent  to  a 
railroad  company  for  transportation,  and 
it  was  agreed  tiiat  the  rest  should  be 
sent  on  notice  from  the  company  that  it 
was  ready  to  ship  the  wool.  After  such 
notice,  and  delivery  of  the  rest  of  the 
wool,  the  owner  signed  a  shipping  re- 
ceipt, upon  the  back  of  which  was  a  con- 
dition that  the  company  would  not  be 
responsible  for  articles  conveyed  upon 
its  road,  unless  the  same  were  signed  for 
as  received,  etc.  HeUl,  that  this  condi- 
tion could  not  affect  tlic  company's  lia- 
bility for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  wool 
while  awaiting  transportation,  as  the 
owner  had  a  right  to  treat  the  condition 
as  intended  to  affect  only  the  liability  in 
respect  to  the  carriage  of  the  wool.  De- 
troit, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Adams.  15  Mich.  458. 

Goods  "awaiting  delivery"  does  not  in- 
clude goods  awaiting  transportation. — 
The  section  of  the  charter  of  a  railroad 
company  which  provides  that  the  com- 
pany shall  not  be  responsiiile  for  goods 
on  deposit  in  any  of  their  depots  "await- 
ing delivery"  does  not  include  goods  in 
such  depots  awaiting  transportation,  but 
refers  only  to  such  goods  as  have  reached 
their  final  destination.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Mineral  Springs  Mfg.  Co. 
(U.   S.).   Ki   Wall.   318,   21   L.   Ed.   297. 

Illustrations. — One  who  had  goods  in 
defendant's  warehouse,  under  a  storage 
contract,  terminated  the  storage  agree- 
ment, paid  all  defendant's  charges,  and 
surrendered  the  contract,  and  thereupon 
directed  defendant,  who  was  also  a  com- 
mon carrier,  to  deliver  the  goods  at  her 
residence  the  same  day,  and  paid  the 
transportation  cliarges,  and  defendant  ac- 
cepted and  entered  the  order.  Held 
that,  from  the  time  of  such  acceptance, 
defendant  assumed  the  relation  of  a  car- 
rier. Snelling  v.  Yetter,  49  N.  Y.  S.  917, 
25   App.    Div.   590,  27   Civ.   Proc.    R.   158. 

Hay  dealers,  in  accordance  with  a  rule 
of  defendant  carrier,  were  accustomed  to 
unload    their   hav    into    defendant's    freight 


house,  and  then  to  load  it  on  the  cars. 
Though  frequently  requested,  defendant 
failed  to  furnish  cars  sufficient  to  trans- 
Ijort  the  hay  as  fast  as  delivered,  and  it 
accumulated  until  the  freight  house  was 
full.  '1  he  agent  of  plaintiffs  assignors 
thereupon  notified  persons  supplying  them 
with  hay  not  to  deliver  any  more,  but 
defendant's  agent  told  them  he  would 
fmd  r<jom  for  it,  and  had  the  hay  sul)se- 
(juently  delivered  placed  in  an  open  shed. 
Defendant  had  general  orders  to  ship  the 
hay  as  fast  as  it  could  be  loaded  on  the 
cars.  Held,  that  defendant's  liability  for 
the  hay  as  soon  as  delivered  at  the 
freight  house,  was  that  of  a  common  car- 
rier, and  not  of  a  warehouseman.  Lon- 
don, etc.,  I'ire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  08  Hu'n  598,  2\i  \.  Y.  S.  -'.il,  52  X. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  581.  affirmed  in  144  X.  Y.  200. 
.iO   N.    E.   79,  4:{   .-\m.   St.    Rep.   752. 

.\  railroad  company  employed  a  receiv- 
ing and  shipping  clerk,  whose  duty  and 
practice  it  was  to  correct,  tally,  and  check 
goods  delivered  for  transportation,  and 
hand  his  account  to  the  bookkeeper,  who 
entered  them  on  a  book  kept  for  the  pur- 
pose. By.  this  book  goods  were  shipped, 
but  none  were  shipped  until  receijjted. 
C,  who  had  been  in  the  habit  of  send- 
ing receipts  for  the  company  to  sign 
when  he  delivered  goods  to  it  for  trans- 
portation, sent  a  number  of  barrels  to 
the  company's  freight  house  for  transpor- 
tation, and  directed  to  a  person  residing 
in  a  city  upon  the  railroad.  They  were 
received  by  employees  of  the  company, 
and  the  receiving  clerk  was  present  when 
a  portion  of  them  was  delivered,  and  di- 
rected where  to  put  it.  The  barrels  were 
not,  and  C.  did  not  ask  to  have  them, 
tallied,  counted,  booked,  or  receipted. 
The  same  evening  they  were  destroyed 
in  the  freight  house  by  an  accidental  fire. 
Held,  that  the  company  was  liable  as  a 
common  carrier.  Coyle  v.  Western  R. 
Corp.   (X.  Y.),  47  Barb.  152. 

The  owner  of  goods  about  to  arrive  at 
a  depot  in  C.  wished  them  carried  from 
th  re  to  R. :  and  an  express  company,  by 
their  agent  at  C,  undertook  to  remove 
and  deposit  such  goods  in  their  ware- 
house as  soon  as  possible  on  the  arrival 
of  the  goods  in  C.  and  to  carry  them  from 
C.  to  R.  within  a  reasonable  time,  for  a 
certain  sum,  which  was  paid.  The  goods 
arrived  at  C  and  the  express  company 
received  notice  of  their  arrival.  Held, 
that  the  goods  were  delivered  to  the  com- 
pany as  common  carriers.  Southern  I-'xp. 
Co.   V.    McVeigh,    (>1    \'a.    (20   Gratt.)    2()4. 

3.  .V.Tv'  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston, 
etc..  Railroad,  24  X.  H.  71.  .55  Am.  Dec. 
222. 

O/iio.— Pittsburg,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Barrett. 
36   O.   St.  448. 

Wisconsiu. — White  v.  Goodrich  Transp. 
Co..    4r.    Wis.    49.?,    1    X.    W.    75. 


§  1090 


CARRIERS. 


884 


tion  is  whether  the  carrier  holds  the  goods  only  for  the  purpose  of  transporta- 
tion,  without    further  directions."* 

Goods  Detained  for  Carrier's  Convenience. — Where  a  carrier  receives 
for  transi)ortation  goods  which  are  ready  for  immediate  carriage,  and  it  detains 
the  goods  in  its  warehouse  for  its  convenience,  it  is  liable  as  a  common  carrier.^ 
\\  here  goods  are  deposited  in  a  carrier's  warehouse  to  await  the  usual  trains, 
while  the  goods  remain  in  the  warehouse  the  carrier  is  liable  as  a  common 
carrier.'' 

Goods  Detained  for  Shipper's  Convenience. — Where  goods  are  deliv- 
ered to  a  carrier  to  be  stored  for  a  specified  time,  or  until  the  happening  of  a 
certain  event,"  as  where  they  "are  not  to  be  shipped  till  other  goods  are  deliv- 
ered to  be  shipped  with  them,^  the  liability  of  the  carrier  is  that  merely  of  a 
warehouseman.  Where  goods  are  delivered  to  await  further  orders  before 
shipment,"'  or  are  detained  at  the  request  of  the  consignor,^''  the  liability  of  the 
carrier  during  such  detention  is  that  of  warehouseman  only. 

If  anything  remains  to  be  done  by  the  consignor  of  goods  or  his  agents 


4.  Test  question.  —  Wade  t'.  Wheeler 
(N.  Y.),  a  Lans.  201,  affirmed  in  47  N. 
Y.    658. 

5.  Goods  detained  for  carrier's  con- 
venience.— Missouri. — Gregory  v.  Wabash 
R.    Co.,   46    Mo.    App.    574"^ 

Xczi'  Hampshire. — Barter  &  Co.  v. 
Wheeler,  49  X.   H.  9,  6  Am.  Rep.  434. 

Pcuusvlvania. — Clarke  v.  Needles,  25 
Pa.   33"^ .' 

The  fact  that  the  plaintiff  consents 
that  goods  may  wait  in  the  warehouse 
because  the  carrier  has  no  car  ready  will 
no";  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability  as 
an  insurer.  Gregory  v.  Wabash  R.  Co., 
46   Mo.  App.  574. 

6.  Moses  V.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  24 
N.    H.    71,   55   Am.    I>ec.    222. 

A  carrier  received  freight  for  trans- 
portation, though  it  had  no  trains  sched- 
uled to  carry  it  until  the  following  day. 
The  shipper  knew  the  facts,  and  under- 
stood that  the  goods  would  be  stored  in 
the  depot  until  the  following  day.  Held, 
that  the  carrier  while  holding  the  goods 
at  the 'depot  was  liable  as  carrier,  and 
not  as  a  warehouseman.  Southern  R.  Co. 
V.  Smith,  :il  Kv.  L.  Rep.  243,  102  S.  W. 
232. 

7.  Goods  detained  for  shipper's  con- 
venience.— Si.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Citi- 
zens'   Bank,  87  Ark.  26,   112  S.  W.    154. 

8.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Riggs,  10 
Kan.  App.  578,  62  Pac.  712. 

Where  a  part  of  a  load  of  goods  were 
delivered  to  a  carrier  for  transportation, 
and  were  detained  in  its  depot  to  await 
the  balance  so  as  to  forward  them  in  one 
load,  and  the  goods  were  destroyed  l)y 
fire  before  the  arrival  of  the  balance,  the 
liability  of  the  railroad  company  is  that 
merely  of  a  warehouseman.  Watts  7'. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  106  Mass.  466. 
See  Gregory  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  46  Mo. 
App.   571. 

That  the  carrier  was  authorized  to  for- 
ward goods  as  rapidly  as  delivered,  does 
no*:  render  it  liable  as  a  common  carrier 
fo  •  the  loss  of  a  part  of  the  goods  which 


were  delivered  for  transportation,  and 
detained  in  its  depot,  to  await  the  balance. 
Watts  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  106  Mass. 
466. 

9.  Goods  detained  to  await  orders. — 
United  States. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
United  States   (U.  S.),  39  Ct.  CI.  405. 

Arkansas. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Cit- 
izens'  Bank,   87   Ark.   26,   112   S.   W.   154. 

Massachusetts. — Barron  v.  Eldredge,  100 
Mass.  455,  1  Am.  Rep.  126. 

Michigan. — Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Shurtz,    7    Mirh.    515. 

Nez,'  For/?.— Wade  v.  Wheeler  (N.  Y.) 
3  Lans.  201,  affirmed  in  47  N.  Y.  658; 
O'Neill  V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60  N. 
Y.    138,    reversing   3   Thomp.    &    C.    399. 

O/no.— Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bar- 
rett, 36   O.   St.   448. 

Wisconsin. — Schmidt  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    90    Wis.    504,    63    N.    W.    1057. 

Instances.— Where  a  railroad  finds 
goods  in  one  of  its  cars  without  bill  of 
lading  or  other  instructions,  and  removes 
them  to  a  storehouse,  requesting  and 
awaiting  instructions  which  are  not  fur- 
nished, its  liabilities  are  those  of  a  ware- 
houseman and  not  of  a  common  carrier. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  United  States 
(U.   S.),   39   Ct.   CI.   405. 

A  carrier  who  has  furnished  a  shipper 
with  a  car  which  the  latter  has  loaded 
with  lumber  is  liable  only  as  a  ware- 
houseman, until  notified  of  the  readiness 
of  the  car  for  transportation  and  of  the 
name  of  the  consignee;  and  hence  it  is 
not  liable  as  an  insurer  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  lumber  by  fire  while  the  car 
was  standing  on  its  track  before  it  w^as 
so  notified.  Basnight  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,    Ill   N.    C.   592,    16   S.    E.   323. 

10.  Arkansas. — Little  Rock,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Hunter,   42   Ark.   200. 

Illinois. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mont- 
gomery, 39   111.  335. 

New  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Railroad,  24  N.  H.  71,  55  Am.  Dec.  222. 

Neztj  York. — Rogers  v.  Wheeler,  52  N. 
Y.  262. 


88: 


CAKRIMR    AS    WAKF.  HOL'SKM  AX, 


§§  1090-1091 


after  their  delivery  to  a  carrier  before  they  are  rearly  for  transportation,  the 
carrier  is  only  responsible  for  them  as  a  warehouseman,  and  not  as  a  common 
carrier." 

§  1091.  Goods  Being  Transported.  -Goods  Awaiting  Delivery  to 
Connecting-  Carrier.  — W  here  goods  are  delivered  to  a  carrier  to  be  trans- 
ported to  a  place  named,  there  to  be  delivered  to  a  connecting  carrier  for  fur- 
ther transportation,  the  liability  as  carrier  remains  on  the  first  carrier  until  it 
has  delivered  the  goods  for  transiujriation  to  the  next  one.  Its  liabilitv.  while 
the  goods  are  in   its  depot,   does   not   become  that   of  a   warehouseman^'-  even 


11.  Where  something  remains  to  be 
done. — Judson  z\  Western  R.  Curp. 
(Mass.),  4  Allen  TjSo.  si  Am.  Dec.  718; 
Stapleton  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  94  N. 
W.  739,  133  Mich.  187;  Pittsburg,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Barrett,  3f)  O.  St.  448;  Fisher  v. 
Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  O.  C.  C.  491. 
9  O.  C.  D.  413;  American  Lead  Pencil 
Co.  V.  Nashville,  etc..  Railway,  124  Tenn. 
57,  134  S.  W.  013,  32  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  323. 
See  Dunnington  &  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    155    S.    W.   750,    153    Ky.   388. 

Where  a  carter  conveys  s'oods  designed 
for  shipment  to  the  freight  depot  of  a 
railroad  company,  and  deposits  them  on 
the  platform  of  such  depot,  where  such 
goods  are  customarily  delivered  to  and 
received  by  such  company  for  shipment, 
and  notifies  the  proper  shipping  agent  of 
such  company  of  the  presence  of  such 
goods  on  the  platform,  and  that  they 
are  to  be  shipped  to  a  certain  station  on 
such  railroad  after  one  of  the  articles  has 
been  properly  crated,  and  that  a  person 
will  come  and  crate  such  article  during 
the  day,  and  the  agent  of  the  company 
expresses  his  assent  to  what  is  said  and 
proposed,  this  amounts  to  the  delivery  of 
such  goods  to  the  railroad  company  and 
its  acceptance  of  the  custody  thereof  as 
warehouseman.  Fisher  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  17  O.  C.  C.  491,  9  O.  CD. 
413. 

Goods  held  for  payment  of  freight. — 
Under  Tex.  Rev.  St.,  art.  281,  a  carrier 
is  liable  as  warehouseman  only  for  goods 
consigned  for  shipment  which  are  held 
in  storage  awaiting  prepayment  of  the 
freight;  and  this,  whether  the  storage  be 
gratuitous  or  not.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Morse,  1  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas..  §  411. 

12.  Goods  awaiting  delivery  to  connect- 
ing carrier. —  I'lntcd  States.  —  Micliigan 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mineral  Springs  Mfg.  Co. 
(U.   S.),   If.  Wall.   318.  21    L.    Ed.   297. 

Michigan. — Condon  v.  Marquette,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  55  Mich..  218,  21  \.  W.  321,  54 
Am.   Rep.  367. 

Miiuicsota. — Irish  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  19  Minn.  376,  Gil.  323,  18  .\m.  Rep. 
340;  Lawrence  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15 
Minn.  390,  Gil.  313,  2  Am.  Rep.   130. 

Arte  Vorlc. — Dunson  r.  New  York  Cent. 
R.  Co.  (N.  Y.),  3  Lans.  265;  McDonald  r. 
Western    R.    Corp.,    34    N.   Y.   497. 

IVisconsiii. — Hooper  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  27  Wis.  81,  9  Am.   Rep.  439;   Conkey 


z:  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co..  31  Wis.  ciy,  n 
Am.  Rep.  630,  overruling  Wood  f.  Mil- 
waukee, etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis.  541.  9  Am. 
Rep.    465,    2    Am.    R.    Rep.    312. 

In  the  absence  of  special  agreement  or 
custom,  an  initial  carrier  is  riot  relieved 
from  its  liability  as  insurer  by  simply  un- 
loading them  at  the  end  of  the  route, 
and  storing  them  in  a  warehouse  with- 
out delivery  or  notice  to  the  connecting 
carrier.-  Irish  r.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
19   Minn.  376,  Gil.  :523.   IH  .-Xm.   Rep.  340. 

In  the  absence  of  notice  to  remove 
goods,  an  intermediate  carrier,  which 
lield  tliem  in  its  warehouse  for  thirteen 
days  while  waiting  for  a  through  line  of 
canal  boats  to  the  destination  of  the  con- 
signment, remains  liable  as  a  carrier,  for 
there  was  no  apparent  intention  to  de- 
vest that  liability.  McDonald  v.  Western 
R.   Corp.,   34   N.   Y.  497. 

Effect  of  mistake  in  directing  goods. — 
Plaintiff  shipped  goods  to  be  delivered 
to  a  connecting  carrier,  but.  after  ship- 
ment, discovered  that  the  connecting  car- 
rier was  erroneously  named.  He  applied 
to  defendant,  who  corrected  the  bill  of 
lading,  and  promised  to  see  that  the 
goods  were  properlj'  delivered  to  the  con- 
necting carrier,  and  shipped  from  its 
terminus.  The  goods  were  placed  in  de- 
fendant's warehouse  at  the  terminus,  and 
two  days  later  were  destroyed  by  a 
flood.  Held,  that  the  mistake  in  direct- 
ing the  goods  was  no  defense  to  an  ac- 
tion to  recover  the  value  of  the  goods. 
Dunson  7'.  New  ^'ork  CeiU  R.  Co.  (N. 
Y.).    .3    Lans.    2C)5. 

Goods  stored  by  connecting  carrier. — 
A  warehouseman  who  received  from  a 
steamer  goods  marked  in  his  care  for 
forwarding  by  certain  lines,  he  being  also 
a  carrier  over  a  part  of  the  route,  and 
accustomed  to  forward  by  the  first  boat 
over  tliat  route,  whether  it  was  his  own 
or  another's,  was,  in  respect  to  the  goods, 
a  carrier,  while  he  retained  them  in  his 
warehouse  for  live  days,  awaiting  an  op- 
portunity to  ship  them.  Ladue  v.  Griffith. 
25    N.    Y.    364,   82   Am.    Dec.    360. 

Instances. — Defendant  carrier  placed 
goods  received  in  its  warehouse,  at  the 
termination  of  its  line,  from  whence  car- 
rier by  boat  was  to  receive  them.  Under 
the  custom  prevailing,  defendant  entered 
their  receipt  on  its  books,  which  were 
regularl\      iii-;pected     by     the     carrier     by 


§  1091 


CARRIERS. 


886 


though  tlie  connecting  carrier  is  not  reatly  to  receive  them.^-'  But  it  has  been 
held  that  a  carrier,  which,  pursuant  to  directions  of  the  consignee  to  deliver 
the  goods  to  a  certain  transfer  company,  places  the  goods  in  its  warehouse  to 
remain  until  the  transfer  company  is  ready  to  receive  them,  is  liable  only  as 
an  ordinary  bailee  for  hire.^-*  Where  the  connecting  carrier  refuses  or  neglects 
to  receive  the  goods, ^"''  after  being  notified  of  their  arrival, ^^^  the  first  carrier, 
after  a  reasonable  time.^"  may  store  them,  and  thereafter  its  liability  as  carrier 
ceases,  and  is  simply  that  of  warehouseman. 


boat,  wliich  was  in  tlu'  hal)it  of  removing 
such  goods  without  further  ceremony,  ex- 
cept that  of  receipting  for  them.  No 
special  request  for  the  removal  of  the 
goods  in  question  was  made,  and  they 
were  destroyed  in  defendant's  warehouse 
by  an  accidental  fire  seven  days  after  ar- 
riving there.  Held,  that  defendant's  lia- 
bility was  that  of  a  common  carrier,  and 
not  that  of  a  warehouseman.  Condon  v. 
Marquette,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  55  Mich.  218,  21 
N.  \V.   321,  54  Am.  Rep.  367. 

A  carrier  transported  goods  to  its 
terminus,  marked  for  a  place  beyond,  to 
which  there  was  a  circuitous  connection 
by  rail,  and  also  direct  connection  by  a 
line  of  wagons.  There  was  an  arrangement 
between  the  carrier  and  the  owner  of  the 
line  of  wagons,  by  which  the  latter  hauled 
all  freiglft  for  the  destination  point  in 
question,  which  was  not  otherwise  routed. 
It  w^as  the  custom  to  make  a  trip  when- 
ever sufficient  freight  accumulated  for  a 
load.  Held,  that  while  the  goods  re- 
mained in  the  first  carrier's  warehouse 
awaiting  transportation  by  wagon,  the 
carrier's  liability  was  not  reduced  to  that 
of  warehouseman.  Lawrence  v.  Winona, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Minn.  390,  Gil.  313,  2 
Am.    Rep.    130, 

Defendant's  railroad  was  completed 
only  to  W.,  but  arrangements  were  made 
with  one  P.  by  which  he  was  to  carry  all 
goods  beyond  that  point,  going  to  M., 
and  not  otherwise  consigned  or  directed; 
P.  not  to  charge  above  a  certain  price, 
and  to  look  to  consignees  for  his  charges, 
the  only  interest  defendant  having  in  the 
arrangement  being  to  thereby  increase  its 
freight  business.  Goods  were  carried  to 
W.  and  stored  without  charge,  and  as 
often  as  a  load  accumulated  were  to  be 
carried  forward  by  P.,  who  had  no  regu- 
lar time  for  his  trips.  While  so  stored 
in  the  warehouse,  waiting  for  a  load  to 
accumulate,  certain  goods,  going  to  M., 
were  destroyed  by  fire.  Held,  that  P. 
was  an  independent  carrier,  defendant  an 
intermediate  carrier,  and  that  its  liability 
as  common  carrier  had  not  terminated 
by  the  storage.  Lawrence  v.  Winona, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Minn.  390,  Gil.  313,  2 
Am.    Rep.    130. 

13.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Mitchell,  08 
111.   471,   18  Am.   Rep.  504. _ 

14.  Hartmann  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
39    Mo.    .\pp.    88. 

15.  Refusal  or  neglect  of  connecting 
carrier  to  receive  goods. — Rawson  v. 
Holland,  59   N.  Y.   611,   17  Am.   Rep.  394, 


affirming  5  Daly  155.  See  Wood  v.  Mil- 
waukee, etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis.  541,  9  Am. 
Rep.  405,  2  Am.  _R.  Rep.  342. 

Contract  providing  for  liability  of  car- 
rier having  custody. — A  carrier  can  not 
convert  itself  into  a  warehouseman  by 
proving  that  it  had,  before  the  fire,  ten- 
dered the  goods  to  the  connecting  car- 
rier, and  tliat  the  latter  neglected,  al- 
though without  reasonable  excuse,  to 
take  them  into  its  actual  custody,  where 
the  contract  of  carriage  provided  that  the 
carrier  in  whose  actual  custody  the  goods 
were  when  destroyed  should  alone  be 
liable.  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clayton,  173 
U.   S.   348,  43   L.    Ed.   725,   19   S.   Ct.   421. 

Although  a  carrier  requests  the  con- 
necting carrier  to  remove  the  goods, 
where  it  does  not  specify  any  particular 
time,  and  does  not  give  notice  that  the 
goods  will  be  stored  at  the  risk  of  the 
connecting  carrier  upon  failure  to  comply 
with  the  request,  the  first  carrier  is  lia- 
ble as  carrier  and  not  as  warehouseman. 
Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Clayton,  43  L.  Ed. 
725,    173    U.    S.    348,    19    S.    Ct.    421. 

16.  Notice  of  arrival. — Dunson  v.  New 
York  Cent.  R.  Co.   (N.  Y.),  3  Lans.  265. 

It  seems  that  where  a  carrier  of  goods 
to  be  delivered  to  a  subsequent  carrier 
for  transportation  to  their  destination  has 
given  notice  to  the  second  carrier  of  the 
arrival  of  the  goods,  and  the  latter  fails  to 
receive  them  within  a  reasonable  time 
after  such  notice,  he  may  limit  his  liabil- 
ity by  an  act  showing  such  intention,  as 
by  depositing  in  a  warehouse  with  per- 
haps notice  to  the  forwarders.  Goold  v. 
Chapin,  20  N.  Y.  259,  75  Am.  Dec.  398, 
affirming  10   Barb.  612. 

Sufficiency  of  notice. — The  notice  need 
not  be  in  writing,  but  will  be  implied  from 
the  course  of  dealing  between  the  parties, 
or  from  custom  and  usage  of  the  business. 
Wood  V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 
541,  9  Am.  Rep.  405,  2  Am.  R.  Rep.  343. 

Where  goods  are  received  by  a  carrier 
for  transportation  beyond  such  carrier's 
road,  and  the  uniform  custom  between 
connecting  carriers  is  for  the  first  car- 
rier to  deposit  notice,  in  a  special  box 
in  its  own  depot,  to  which  the  next  car- 
rier has  constant  access,  of  the  arrival 
of  such  goods,  such  deposit  is  sufficient 
Mills  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y. 
622,    0    Am.    Rep.    152. 

17.  The  reasonable  time  which  a  con- 
necting carrier  has  to  take  from  the  first 
carrier  goods  which  are  ready  for  de- 
livery   is    the    earliest     practicable     time 


887 


CAKRIllK    AS    WAKKHOISKMAX. 


§§  1091-1092 


Goods  Being  Delivered  to  Connecting  Carrier. — A  carrier  which  trans- 
ports goods  on  a  river,  and  unloads  them  on  a  lluat  for  delivery  to  connecting 
boats,  does  not  become  a  warehouseman,  for  the  act  is  part  of  the  transporta- 
tion of  the  goods. ^**  And  the  carrier  is  liable  for  their  loss,  though  notice  was 
repeatedlv   given   to   the  connecting  carrier  t(j   take   them.^'-* 

Extraordinary  Interruption  of  Transportation. — In  case  of  an  extraor- 
dinary intcrruplion  of  coninuinicalion  along  the  line  of  transit  Cas  by  storm, 
flood,  earthciuake,  or  war),  necessitating  a  considerable  delay  in  transportation, 
the  carrier  in  whose  hands  the  goods  are  may  st<jre  them,  and  at  once  give  notice 
to  the  consignee,  and  thus  absolve  himself  irom  lial)ility  as  carrier  while  such 
interruiitiiui   continues.-" 

Goods  Stopped  in  Transitu. — W  here  a  shipjier  orders  goods  to  be  stopped 
in  transitu,  and  re(iuests  the  carrier  t(j  hold  them  for  the  shij^per  at  the  place 
of  destination,  after  the  goods  arrive  there,  and  are  so  held,  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility as  such  terminates,  and  his  liability  of  warehouseman  begins.-^ 

Stipulations  as  to  Reshipment. — A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that  the 
carrier,  in  case  of  low  water,  may  reship  in  other  craft,  does  not  vary  his  obli- 
gation to  deliver  safely.  If  sucli  stijjulation  is  resorted  to  his  liability  is  not 
changed  into  that  of  a  warehouseman.--  Under  a  bill  of  lading  reciting  that 
goods  were  "to  be  forwarded  across  the  isthmus,"  and  then  to  be  reshipped,  the 
common  carrier  does  not  cease  to  be  such  as  to  the  transportation  across  the 
isthmus,  and  become  a  bailee  for  hire,  chargeable  only  on  proof  by  the  shipper 
that  the  loss  arose  from  his  negligence  or  that  of  his  servants.--' 

§§  1092-1097.  Goods  Awaiting  Delivery  to  Consignee— §  1092.  In 
General. — What  Law  Governs. — The  law  of  the  state  where  the  contract  for 
transi)ortation  is  made  governs  as  to  when  the  carrier's  liability  as  such  ceases 
and  that  as  a  warehouseman  begins.-'* 


after  the  first  carrier  is  ready  to  deliver 
the  jjoods;  and  this  rule  will  not  be 
modified  by  any  convenience  of  the 
owner  or  second  carrier  requiring  a 
longer  time.  Wood  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.. 
R.  'Co..  27  Wis.  541,  9  Am.  Rep.  46.5,  2 
Am.    R.    Rep.    342. 

Question  for  jury. — A  railroad  com- 
pany carried  goods  to  its  station  to  be 
forwarded  by  boat  to  the  destination. 
The  boat  received  shipments  for  that. 
point  from  the  railroad  frei.ght  house, 
and  made  two  trips  daily.  They  arrived 
by  rail  on  the  1.3th.  and  the  waybills  luid 
to  be  copied  into  the  railroad  company's 
books,  and  the  frciglit  distributed  to  the 
proper  part  of  the  freight  house  for  the 
boat,  and  new  bills  of  lading  made,  and 
the  freight  checked,  before  it  was  ready 
to  deliver  to  the  boat.  This  was  not 
done  in  time  for  the  boat's  morning  trip 
next  day.  but  the  freight  was  ready  for 
her  evening  trip.  She  did  not  take  it 
aboard,  and  it  was  destroyed  by  fire  that 
night,  in  the  freight  house.  Held,  that  it 
was  a  question  for  the  jury  whether  a 
reasonable  time  had  elapsed  for  the  l)oat 
to  remove  the  goods,  so  as  to  reduce  the 
carrier's  lia])ility  to  warehouseman. 
Wood  r.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co..  27  Wis. 
.541.   9   .•\ni.    Rep.    4f,r).   2    Am.    R.    Rep.    342. 

18.  Goods  being  delivered  to  connect- 
ing carrier. — Miller  f.  Steam  Nav.  Co.. 
10  X.  Y.  4.31.  Seld.  Notes  (U,  affirming  13 
Barb.  3iil:  Goold  z:  Chapin  (X.  V.K  10 
Barb.  612. 


19.  Cxoold  V.  Chapin.  20  X.  Y.  259.  75 
.*\m.  Dec.  39S. 

The  float  is  not  a  warehouse,  so  as  to 
relieve  defendants  from  liability  as  car- 
riers, on  the  ground  that  they  had  de- 
posited the  goods  in  a  warehouse  after 
giving  notice.  Goold  7'.  Chapin  (X.  Y.), 
10    Barb.    612. 

20.  Extraordinary  interruption  of  trans- 
portation.— Conkcy  T.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  31  Wis.  ()19.'ll  Am.  Rep.  tv.W.  See 
Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Morehead,  5 
W.    \'a.    293. 

21.  Goods  stopped  in  transitu. — Mac- 
\'eagh  V.  Atciiison,  etc.,  R.  Co..  3  X. 
Mex.   327,   5    Pac.    457. 

The  fact  that  the  shipper  orders  the 
carrier  to  ship  the  goods  to  another  point 
does  not  constitute  a  new  contract  of 
carriage,  unless  the  carrier  undertakes  to 
carry  as  ordered;  and  the  previous  ac- 
knowled.gment  by  the  carrier  that  he  held 
the  goods  subject  to  the  shipper's  order 
does  not  constitute  such  undertaking,  so 
as  to  make  him  lial>Ie  as  carrier  rather 
than  warehouseman  wliile  he  holds  the 
goods.  Mac\eagh  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R. 
Co..    3   N.    Mex.    327.   5    Pac.    457. 

22.  Stipulations  as  to  reshipment.  —Mc- 
Gregor   .*t    Co.    f.    Kilgore.    6    O.    :!.-.'.». 

23.  Simmons  r.  Law.  21  X.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  213.  affirmed  in  42  X.  Y.  (3  Keyes) 
217.  4   Al^Ii.  Dec.  241. 

24.  What  law  governs. — Plaintiffs  con- 
tracted in  Xew  York  with  the  X.  Co.  for 
tlie    transportation    of    certain    goods    by 


§  1092 


CARRIERS. 


888 


Completion  of  Contract  of  Carriage. — A  carrier  is  not  liable  as  a  ware- 
houseman for  the  loss  of  goods,  until  the  contract  of  carriage  has  been  com- 
pleted.-^ And  as  long  as  it  has  control  of  the  goods  and  no  one  else  may  move 
them  without  its  consent,  it  is  liable  as  carrier.-*' 

Delivery  to  Consignee. — It  is  held  that,  upon  delivery  to  the  consignee,  the 
carrier's  liabilitx  beoonies  that  of  a  warehouseman.-"  And  it  has  been  held  that, 
where  the  consignee  has  accepted  a  delivery  of  the  goods  and  sold  and  removed 
some  of  it.  the  fact  that  such  merchandise  still  remains  in  the  carrier's  cars  for 
the  convenience  of  the  consignee  does  not  impose  any  liability  as  warehouseman 
on  the  carrier.^s 


that  companj-  from  New  York  to  Boston, 
and  the  delivery  thereof  to  plaintiflfs  who 
were  the  consignees.  The  goods  were 
received  by  defendants,  who  were  con- 
r.ecting  carriers  over  the  latter  part  of 
the  route,  and  were  residents  of  Massa- 
chusetts. Upon  arrival  of  the  goods  at 
Boston,  they  were  called  for,  but  a  de- 
livery refused  until  the  next  day,  as  it 
was  not  convenient  to  deliver  at  the  time. 
They  were  unloaded  the  same  afternoon, 
and  placed  in  defendant's  warehouse,  but 
too  late  for  delivery;  and  during  the 
night  the  warehouse,  with  the  goods,  was 
destroyed  by  fire.  In  an  action  to  re- 
cover the  loss,  held,  that  defendants  were 
liable;  and  this,  although,  under  the  de- 
cisions of  the  courts  of  Massachusetts, 
the  operators  of  a  railroad,  as  a  matter 
of  law,  cease  to  be  common  carriers,  and 
become  warehousemen,  when  the  duty 
of  transportation  is  completed,  and  goods 
are  deposited  in  a  warehouse  awaiting 
the  orders  of  the  owner  or  consignee. 
Faulkner  v.  Hart,  82  N.  Y.  413.  37  Am. 
Rep.  574,  reversing  44  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
471. 

25.  Completion  of  contract  of  carriage. 
— Wheeler  v.  Oceanic  Steam  Nav.  Co., 
52  Hun  75,  5  N.  Y.  S.  101,  22  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.  590,  reversed  on  other  points  in 
125  N.  Y.  155,  26  N.  E.  248,  21  Am.  St. 
Rep.   729. 

"As  long  as  the  defendant,  in  obedience 
to  its  obligations  as  a  common  carrier, 
was  required  to  move  the  car  upon  the 
track,  its  liability  as  such  common  car- 
rier did  not  cease."  Independence  Mills 
Co.  V.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa 
535,  2  .'\m.  St.  Rep.  258,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.   4.-."i,    :u    X.   W.   320. 

Goods  destroyed  in  course  of  delivery. 
— A  carrier  is  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods, 
where  a  portion  of  them  were  transferred 
to  a  float  belonging  to  such  carrier  pre- 
paratory to  their  delivery,  and  were  there 
destroyed  by  fire.  Miller  v.  Steam  Nav. 
Co.,  10  N.  Y.  431,  Seld.  Notes  64.  af- 
firming 13  Barb.  361;  Goold  v.  Chapin, 
20   X.    Y.   259,   75   Am.    Dec.   39S. 

If  a  carrier  is  delayed  a  whole  season 
by  stress  of  weather  it  is  still  responsi- 
ble for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  goods  as  a 
carrier,  and  not  as  a  mere  warehouseman. 
Western  Transp.  Co.  v.  Newhall,  24  HI. 
466,   76   Am.    Dec.   760. 


Injury  to  vessel. — When  a  vessel  is  so 
disal)led  that  she  can  not  be  repaired,  if 
the  master  can  not  forward  the  goods, 
his  obligation  as  common  carrier  still 
continues.  Minnesota  Min.  Co.  v. 
Chapman.  2  West.  L.  M.  75,  2  O.  Dec. 
Reprint    207. 

26.  Huntting  Elevator  Co.  v.  Bosworth, 
179  U.  S.  415,  45  L.  Ed.  256,  21  S.  Ct. 
183;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Bosworth, 
179  U.  S.  442,  45  L.  Ed.  267,  21  S.  Ct. 
183;  Rau  v.  Bosworth,  179  U.  S.  443,  45 
L.  Ed.  268,  21  S.  Ct.  194;  Bosworth  v. 
Carr,  etc.,  Co.,  179  U.  S.  444,  45  L.  Ed. 
268,  21  S.  Ct.  194. 

27.  Delivery  to  consignee. — The  plain- 
tiff shipped  tubs  of  Initter  by  the  defend- 
ant's boat,  and  directed  the  captain  to 
sell  them  on  arrival.  On  arrival  the  cap- 
tain hauled  the  boat  to  the  pier,  and 
gave  her  in  charge  to  another  agent  of 
the  carrier.  The  next  day  the  butter  was 
placed  on  deck.  The  captain  sold  part, 
and  the  rest  was  stolen.  Held,  that  from 
the  time  the  butter  was  placed  on  deck 
it  was  to  be  deemed  delivered  to  the  cap- 
tain as  the  shipper's  consignee,  and  that 
the  defendant's  liability  thereupon  be- 
came that  of  a  warehouseman.  Labar  v. 
Taber    (N.    Y.),   35    Barb.    305. 

Where  a  carrier  permits  the  consignee 
of  merchandise  to  open  the  cars  contain- 
ing the  same  after  they  have  been  placed 
on  a  spur  track  near  the  consignee's 
warehouse,  and  to  remove  part  of  the 
contents  thereof,  and  exercise  and  retain 
dominion  over  the  same,  and  put  his 
own  locks  on  the  cars,  the  carrier's  lia- 
l)ility,  as  such,  for  the  merchandise  in 
the  cars,  is  terminated.  Vaughn  i'.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  61  Atl.  695,  27  R.  I. 
235. 

Where  the  consignee  of  goods  shipped 
])y  railroad  receipted  for  them  on  their 
arrival  at  their  destination,  removed  _  a 
part  of  them,  and  himself  put  the  remain- 
der up  in  one  of  the  railroad  company's 
Ijuildings,  although  he  fCOukl  have  re- 
moved them  also,  the  railroad  company 
was  not  liable  for  the  goods  on  their 
subsequent  destruction  by  fire.  Stapleton 
V.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  94  N.  W.  739,  133 
Mich.    187. 

28.  Vaughn  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
27  R.  I.  235,  61  Atl.  695. 


8S9 


CAkKIi;K    AS    VVAKKHOUSKMAN. 


§  1092 


Goods  Held  at  Consignee's  Request. — Where  the  goods  are  held  at  the 
rcf[uest  of  the  consignee  and  for  his  con\enience,  tlie  carrier  is  liable  only  as  a 
warehonscnian.-'' 

If  the  consignee  refuse  to  receive  the  goods,  the  carrier's  liability  is  that 
of   a    warehouseman.-'" 

Failure  or  Refusal  to  Deliver  Goods. — W  here  a  consignee  of  goods  called 
for  them  and  was  told  that  tliey  were  there,  bnt  conld  not  be  delivered  to  him 
until  the  next  day,  and  they  were  destroyed  by  fire  that  night,  defendant's  lia- 
bility  was   that  of  a  carrier.-"      W  here  carrier  refused  to  deliver  goods  unless 


29.    Goods    held   at   consignee's   request. 

— .//(;/;</);;(;.-    Soiuhcrii     l\,\p.    Co.    v.    Hol- 
land,  lOy   Ala.   302,    I'J   So.   (Hi. 

Marvlaiid. — United  Fruit  Co.  v.  New 
York,  \tc.,  Transp.  Co.,  104  Md.  567,  65 
All.  415,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  240,  10  Am. 
&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  437. 

Micliif^ait. — Hasse  v.  American  Exp. 
Co.,  94  Mich.  i:i:{,  53  N.  W.  918,  34  Am. 
St.  Rep.  328,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  635. 
Nezi'  York. — Fenner  v  Buflfalo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  N.  Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep.  709,  revers- 
ing 46    Barb.    103. 

Pcnnsyhania. — National  Line  Steamship 
Co.    V.    Smart,    107    Pa.    492. 

rr.ra.s.— Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wever, 
3  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  60;  Texas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Robertson  (Tex.  Civ.  App.), 
143   S.  W.   708. 

IVcst  Virginia. — Hurley  &  Son  v.  Nor- 
folk, etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  W.  Va.  471,  69  S. 
E.  904.  See  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Morehead,  5  W.   \a.   293. 

A  railroad  company  received  goods  for 
transportation,  and  gave  a  bill  of  lading, 
which  stated  that,  after  arriving  at  their 
destination,  the  goods  should  be  held  un- 
der the  liability  of  a  warehouseman,  when 
they  were  placed  in  the  storeroom,  or 
were  to  be  taken  from  the  car  by  the 
consignee.  They  were  kept  in  a  freight 
car  for  several  days  after  reaching  their 
destination,  and  were  then  destroyed  by 
fire.  Before  the  fire  the  owner's  agent 
had  been  wrongly  informed  that  they  had 
been  unloaded,  at  which  he  expressed  re- 
gret, and  requested  the  company  to  store 
the  goods  for  a  few  days.  Held,  that  the 
company  was  not  liable  as  a  common 
carrier.  Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal 
Co.,  118  N.  Y.  118,  23  N.  E.  131,  42  Am. 
&  Eng.   R.  Cas.  410. 

Goods  left  with  carrier's  servant. — A 
railway  company  delivered  to  the  owner 
goods  which  were  in  its  warehouse,  tak- 
ing his  receipt  therefor,  and  by  an  ar- 
rangement between  the  owner  and  the 
ba-ggage  man  a  part  of  the  goods  were 
left  in  the  warehouse,  and  subsequently 
lost.  Held,  that  the  company  is  not  lia- 
ble for  the  goods,  lost,  where  the  bag- 
gage man  had  no  authority  to  make  any 
contract  for  the  company,  his  permitting 
part  of  the  goods  to  remain  in  the  ware- 
house being  his  private  arrangement,  to 
wliich  the  company  was  not  a  party. 
Mulligan  v.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  4  Dak. 
315,    29    N.    W.    659. 


Special     contract    for    storage. —If    the 

(k-leiniaiii  railroad  company,  in  accord- 
ance with  its  ''universal  and  unbroken 
custom,"  at  the  station  to  which  it  trans- 
ported the  goods,  collected  the  freight 
charges  from  the  plaintiff  "on  three  of 
said  shipments  of  freight,  and  then  and 
there  agreed  to  safely  store  and  keep 
said  freight  in"  its  warehouse  at  that 
point  "until  such  time  as  the  same  might 
be  called  for  and  receipted  for  by  the  pe- 
titioner," and  under  this  arrangement  "the 
defendant  company  had  possession  of  all 
the"  plaintiff's  goods  embraced  in  such 
shipments,  "when  the  same  were  de- 
stroyed by  fire"  which  consumed  its 
warehouse,  the  duty  which  the  company 
owed  to  the  plaintiff,  relatively  to  such 
goods,  was  that  of  a  warehouseman,  and 
not  that  of  a  carrier.  Kight  v.  Wrights- 
ville,  etc..  R.  Co.,  56  S.  E.  363,  127  Ga. 
204. 

30.  Refusal  to  consignee  to  receive 
goods. — Ccor'^ia. — AnK-rican  Sugar  Refin. 
Co.  V.  McGhee,  96  Ga.  27,  21  S.   E.  3S3. 

Xcxv  I'orA-.— Adler  v.  Weir.  96  N.  Y.  S. 
736.  49  Misc.  Rep.  134:  Landsberg  v. 
Dinsmore    (N.   Y.).  4  Daly  490. 

Tennessee. — Kremer  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co..  46  Tenn.  (6  Coldw.)  356;  Rankin  v. 
Memphis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56  Tenn.  (9  Heisk) 
564. 

r(U-(;.s-.— See  House  v.  Soder,  36  Tex. 
629. 

Illustrations. — A  local  carrier,  as  agent 
of  the  purchasei  of  goods,  received  and 
receipted  for  them  on  their  arrival  at  the 
depot  of  the  transporting  common  car- 
rier; but  the  purchaser  refused  to  receive 
them  because  of  inconvenient  storing 
facilities  due  to  a  recent  fire,  and  directed 
tlieir  return  to  the  depot.  Held,  that 
the  transit  had  terminated  and  that  the 
common  carrier  held  them  at  the  depot 
merely  as  warehouseman.  O'Neal  i'.  Day. 
53  Mo.  .\pp.  139;  Shoninger  v.  Day.  53 
Mo.    .App.    147. 

Where  goods  arc  sent  by  express  C. 
O.  D..  and  the  consignee  refuses  to  ac- 
cept them,  and  the  shipper,  on  notice 
thereof,  directs  the  express  company  to 
I'old  them  until  called  for.  it  becomes 
liable  to  the  consignor  only  as  a  ware- 
l.ouseman.  Byrne  v.  Fargo,  73  N.  \ .  S. 
943,   36   Misc.   Rep.   543. 

31.  Refusal  to  deliver  goods.— Fisher  i'. 
>sorthern  I'ac.  R.  Co..  49  Wash.  258.  94 
Pac.   1073. 


§§  1092-1093  CARRIERS.  890 

the  con^i'^nee  would  accept  all,  which  he  refused  to  do.  on  account  of  damage 
to  some  of  them,  and  two  weeks  later  the  goods  were  destroyed  by  the  burning 
of  the  depot,  the  defendant  was  liable  only  as  a  warehouseman.32  A  carrier 
is  not  liable  as  such  for  goods  stored  in  its  warehouse  because  it  did  not  know 
who  was  the  consignee,  though  the  goods^  bore  a  mark  which  former  agents 
understood  as  one  used  by  the  consignee."'^ 

Wrong  Information  as  to  Arrival  of  Goods.— \\  here  goods  are  called  for 
by  the  consignee,  and  he  is  informed  that  they  have  not  arrived,  which  prevents 
their  removal,  the  carrier's  liability  as  such  continues.^-*  But  it  is  held  that  if 
the  carrier  subsequently  notifies  the  consignee  that  the  goods  have  arrived  it  is 
not  liable  for  their  loss  after  the  consignee  has  had  a  reasonable  time  to  re- 
move them.-"'^  It  is  also  held  that  the  carrier  is  liable  only  as  a  warehouseman, 
but  that  if  the  goods  are  destroyed  the  owner  may  recover  on  the  ground  that 
the  ne^lis^ence  of  the  carrier  was  the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss.^^^ 

When^Consignee  Unable  to  Remove  Goods.— A  common  carrier's  liabil- 
ity as  '^uch  can  not  be  prolonged  by  the  consignee  beyond  such  time  as  is  usually 
required  for  the  removal  of  goods  at  that  place,  even  though  the  consignees 
inability  to  remove  them  results  from  causes  that  the  consignee  did  not  produce, 
and  could  not  avoid,  if  they  were  not  the  result  of  the  carrier's  procurement 
or  negligence.^'^ 

§  1093.  Express  Companies  and  General  Carriers  by  Water.— Ex- 
press Companies.— Where  it  is  incumbent  on  an  express  company  to  deliver 
goods  10  the  consignee  personally,  it  can  not  change  its  common-law  liability  to 
that  of  a  warehouseman  by  notifying  the  consignee  that  he  can  have  the  goods 
by  calling  for  them.ss  And  where  the  company  does  not  deliver  or  attempt  to 
deliver  the  goods,  it  will  be  liable  for  their  loss  by  theft  from  its  office  during 
the  night  following  its  receipt.^^  But  where  an  express  company  after  diligent 
inquirt-,  can  not  find  the  place  of  residence  of  the  consignee,-^^  or  can  not  make 
delivery  because  consignee,  having  knowledge  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  is  absent 
from  home.-^i  its  liability  as  carrier  is  at  an  end.  When  no  attempt  is  made  to 
deliver  goods  or  to  notify  the  consignee  within  a  reasonable  time,  the  express 
company  remains  liable  as  carrier.42     If  there  is  a  custom  of  giving  notice,  where 

32.  Frederick  r.  Louisville,  etc..  R.   Co.,  of    packages,    except    where    the    place    is 

-[?,?,    -Xla     486,    .31    So.    908.  so  small  as  not  to  justify  the  employment 

33  Failure  to  deliver  caused  by  im-  of  messengers,  or  the  consignee  does  not 
perfect  marking.— Great  Western  R.  Co.  reside  within  a  reasonable  distance  of 
r    Wheeler.  20  Mich.  419.  the    office,   and    then   prompt    notice    must 

34  Wrong"  information  as  to  arrival  of  be  sent.  American  vStandard  Jewelry  Co. 
goods.— Berry  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R.  r.  Witherington,  81  Ark.  134,  98  S.  W. 
Co.,  44  W.  Va.   538,   30  S.   E.   143,   67   Am.  69,'). 

St.     Rep.     781.  39.    American    Exp.    Co.    v.    Baldwin,    26 

35.  Effect    of    subsequent    notice.— Wil-       m.    504.   79   Am.   Dec.    389. 

Hams    r.    Delaware,    etc.,    Canal    Co.,    53  ^^    American    Exp.    Co.   v.    Hockett,   30 

Hun  63.5.  6  N.  Y.  S.  36,  25  N.  Y.   St.  Rep.        j^^,     ^.^^    95    j^^     jy^^     691. 

•'^L ''  ^'^Y'^^'^  ^^-  ...       u      To     '.  41.    Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell,  31  Ind. 

36.  East    Tennessee,     etc.,     R.     Co.     <.'.  Dec     58'> 
Kelly.  91  Tenn.    (7  Pickle)   699,  20  S.  W.       20,    99    Am.    Dec.    58 

312    17  L    R    ^    691    30  Am.  St.  Rep.  902;  42.  No  attempt  to  deliver  or  notify  con- 

S    C     91  Tenn     (7   Pickle)    708,  20   S.  W.  signee.— Goods    were    sent    by   express    m 

^j^    ■'  time  to  have  reached  their  destination  on 

37  Where  consignee  unable  to  remove  Thursday,  but,  being  carried  by  a  cir- 
goods.-Harris  f.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  cuitous  route,  did  not  arrive  until  Satur- 
0   Kv     I      Rep    392      See   post,   IL   VL   X.  day  evening.     The  consignee  called  at  the 

38  '  Express  companies.— Witbeck  v.  office  Saturday  afternoon,  and  was  told 
Holland  (X.  Y.),  55  Barb.  443,  38  How.  that  they  had  not  arrived.  He  In^ed 
Prac  273,  affirmed  in  45  N.  Y.  13,  6  Am.  about  one  hundred  rods  from  the  office, 
Rep '23-  State  v.  Parshley,  81  Atl.  484,  and  was  well  known.  The  goods  re- 
108   Me  '410    37  L    R    A     N    S,  444.  mained  in  the  office,  with   no  effort  being 

In'  Arkansas  it '  is  "the' duty  of  an  ex-  made  to  deliver  them  or  notify  the  con- 
press  company  to  make  personal  delivery       signee     of     their    arrival,     until     luesday 


891 


CARRIER    AS    VVAKKIIOUSEMAX. 


§    1093 


an  express  company  gives  notice  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods, 
and  a  reasonable  time  has  elapsed  within  which  the  consignee  could  come  and  get 
them,  the  company's  liability  as  a  carrier  ceases.-*^  And  it  is  held  that  where 
failure  of  an  express  company  to  give  notice  by  mail  of  the  arrival  of  a  pack- 
age, when  such  is  the  adopted  mode,  is  not  the  proximate  cause  of  delay  in  re- 
moving the  package,  and  the  loss  would  have  occurred  if  it  had  been  mailed, 
and  sufficient  time  had  elapsed  for  the  receipt  thereof  if  notice  had  been  mailed, 
and  the  consignee  had  exercised  reasonable  diligence,  the  carrier  is  liable  as 
warehouseman  only."''*  Where  goods  arc  exj^ressed  C.  O.  D.,  the  liability  of 
the  exi)ress  com])any  as  a  common  carrier  terminates  on  the  safe  carriage  of 
the  goods  to  their  ])lace  of  destination,  notice  to  the  consignee  of  their  arrival, 
and  an  offer  to  deliver  on  payment  of  the  amoimt  charged  against  them.-*^ 
Leaving  an  express  package  in  the  freight  room  of  a  railway  station  at  which 
the  express  office  is  maintained  instead  of  in  the  room  in  which  such  packages 
are  usually  placed  does  not  continue  the  liability  of  the  express  company  as 
carrier."' 

Carriers  by  Water. — In  the  case  of  a  carrier  Ijv  water  where  the  time  of  ar- 
rival is  uncertain  the  consignee  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable  time  after  notice  in 
which  to  remove  the  goods.  Until  the  lapse  of  that  time,  the  ship  remains  lia- 
ble as  a  carrier.-*"     And  consignee's  knowledge  of  the  vessel's  arrival  does  not 


ni.Lilu,  wlien  they  were  destroyed  by  fire. 
Held,  that  the  express  company  was  lia- 
ble for  their  loss.  Union  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Ohleman,    92    Pa.    ?.2?,. 

43.  Reasonable  time  after  notice. — Rob- 
erts V.  Union  Line  Hxp.  Co.,  2  O.  Dec. 
577;  Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  G3  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L. 
R.    A..    X.    S.,    393. 

44.  Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L. 
R.   A..   N.   S.,   393. 

A  consignee  who  had  not  called  for  his 
mail  and  would  not  have  received  notice 
of  the  arrival  of  package  at  express  of- 
fice can  not  hold  express  company  liable 
as  carrier  for  a  package  which  arrived  at 
4:30  Saturday  and  remained  in  the  office 
until  the  following  Monday  night,  when 
it  was  stolen  without  negligence  on  the 
part  of  the  carrier.  Hutchinson  v. 
United  States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128, 
59   S.   E.  949.  14  L.   R.  A..  N.   S.,  393. 

45.  Goods  expressed  C.  O.  D. — Hasse 
f.  .American  l-.xp.  Co.,  94  Alich.  133,  53 
X.  W.   '.U>^,  ?,\   Am.   St.   Rep.   :'.:iS. 

Where  the  consignee  is  not  ready  to 
receive  any  pay  for  the  goods,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  company  to  safely  store  and 
care  for  them,  and  to  hold  them  for  a 
reasonalile  time  to  enable  the  consignee 
to  make  such  payment,  and  to  notify  the 
consignor,  and  the  liability  of  the  com- 
pany meanwhile  is  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man. Hasse  v.  American  Exp.  Co..  53 
N.  W.  918.  94  Mich.  133,  34  Am.  St.  Rep. 
32S. 

Notice  unnecessary. — Goods  were  re- 
ceived l)y  an  express  company,  to  be  de- 
livered to  the  consignee  in  care  of  B.  By 
the  terms  of  the  bill  of  lading  the  com- 
pany was  authorized  to  retain  the  goods 
for  thirty  days,  to  collect  the  price.  B. 
refused   to   receive   the   goods   or  pay   the 


price,  because  the  consignee  was  indebted 
to  him;  but  he  said  the  consignee  would 
be  in  town  in  a  few  days,  and  B.  would 
inform  him  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods. 
The  carrier  retained  the  goods  thirty-nine 
days.  Held,  that  notice  to  the  consignee 
was  not  necessary.  Landsberg  v.  Dins- 
more    (N.   Y.),   4   Daly   490. 

46.  Hutchinson  v.  United  States  Exp. 
Co.,  63  W.  Va.  128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L. 
R.    A..    X.    S.,   393. 

47.  Carrier  by  water. — United  States. — 
Constable  z\  National  Steamship  Co.,  154 
U.  S.  51,  38  L.  Ed.  903.  14  S.  Ct.  1062: 
The  Eddy  (U.  S.).  5  Wall.  481.  18  L.  Ed. 
486;  Richardson  v.  Goddard  (U.  S.).  23 
How.  28,  39.  16  L.  Ed.  412;  The  Xail 
City,  22  Fed.  537;  Germania  Ins.  Co.  v. 
LaCrosse.  etc..  Packet  Co..  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5.361,  3  Biss.  501;  \'ose  v.  .-Mien.  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17.005,  affirmed  in  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,006.  3  Blachf.  289;  The  Citv  of 
Lincoln,  25  Fed.  835;  The  Mary  Wash- 
ington. Fed.  Cas.  No.  9.229.  1  Abb.  U. 
S.  1,  Chase  125;  The  St.  Laurent.  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   12.231.   7   Ben.  7. 

Coiniecticiit. — Graves  z'.  Hartford,  etc.. 
Steamboat  Co..  38  Conn.  143.  9  Am.  Rep. 
369. 

Illinois. — Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Car- 
ter. 62  111.  App.  618;  Crawford  f.  Clark. 
15   111.  561. 

Louisiana. — Kohn  z:  Packard.  3  La.  224. 
23  Am.  Dec.  453;  Kennedy  z:  Roman, 
19   La.   Ann.   519. 

Missouri, — Erskine  v.  Thames.  6  Mo. 
371. 

Xczv  Jersey. — Morris,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Ayres,  29  N.J.  L.  393,  SO  Am.  Dec.  215. 

Nezc  York. — Miller  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co., 
10  N.  Y.  431.  Seld.  Notes  64.  affirming  13 
Barb.  361:  Russell  Mfg.  Co.  z:  New  Ha- 
ven Steaml)oat  Co..  50  N.  Y.  121;  S.  C, 
52    N.    Y.    657;    Solomon    f.    Philadelphia. 


§  1093 


CARRIFRS. 


892 


dispense  with  actual  notice  of  the  time  and  place  the  vessel  would  discharge  her 
rrrgo.-''^     But  notice  may  he  chspensed  with  hy  contract  or  custom.'*"-'     After  the 


etc..  Steamboat  Co.  (X.  Y.),  2  Dalv  104; 
Price  V.  Powell.  3  N.  Y.  322:  Rowland  v. 
Mill!  (N.  Y.),  2  Hilt.  150;  Barclay  v. 
Clvde  (N.  Y.),  2  E.  D.  Smith  95;  Mc- 
Andrew  v.  Whitlock.  32  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  623.  affirmed  in  52  N.  Y.  40.  11  Am. 
Rep.   657. 

Tennessee. — Dean  v.  \'accaro,  ;!9  Tenn. 
(2   Head)    488,  75   Am.   Dec.   744. 

Wisconsin. — Parker  v.  Milwaukee,  etc., 
R.   Co.,  30  Wis.   689. 

Canada. — Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  19  Ont.  Rep.  369,  45  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  413;  Bourne  v.  Catliff.  11  CI.  & 
F.  45,  cited  in  Mitchell  v.  Lancashire, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  L.  R.  10  Q.  B.  256. 

Doubtful  whether  notice  required  in 
modern  times. — The  rule  of  the  text  orig- 
inated prior  to  the  era  of  steam  nav- 
igation, when  a  voyage  from  Liverpool 
to  New  York  rarely  consumed  less  than 
three  w'eeks,  when  the  time  of  the  arrival 
of  the  vessel  could  not  be  forecasted 
with  any  accuracy,  when  crews  were  dis- 
charged immediately  upon  her  arrival, 
and  die  vessel  was  usually  detained  sev- 
eral weeks  in  the  slow  and  laborious 
process  of  unloading,  taking  on  cargo, 
and  refitting  before  setting  out  upon 
another  voyage  and  it  is  doubtful 
whether  it  is  applicable  to  modern  ship- 
ping. Constable  v.  National  Steamship 
Co.,  154  U.  S.  51,  38  L.  Ed.  903,  14  S.  Ct. 
1062. 

Under  a  bill  of  lading  requirmg  "the 
goods  to  be  taken  from  alongside  by  the 
consignee  immediately  the  vessel  is 
ready  to  discharge,"  otherwise  they  will 
be  deposited,  at  the  risk  of  the  consignee, 
in  the  warehouse  provided  for  that  pur- 
pose, personal  notice  to  the  consignee  of 
the  time  and  place  of  discharge  is  not 
necessary.  Constable  v.  National  Steam- 
ship Co.,  154  U.  S.  51,  14  S.  Ct.  1062,  38 
L.    Ed.   903. 

But  under  such  a  provision  it  has  been 
held  that,  after  landing,  the  goods  re- 
mained in  the  carrier's  custody  as  car- 
rier, subject  to  the  modified  responsi- 
bility created  by  the  contract,  until  after 
notice  of  arrival  had  been  given  the  con- 
signee, and  a  reasonable  time  had  elap- 
sed for  their  removal.  Gleadell  v.  Thom- 
son, 56  N.  Y.  194,  affirming  35  N.  Y. 
Super.   Ct.  232. 

Consignee's  store  closed  on  holiday. — 
Where  goods  were  landed  on  a  wharf 
on  the  4th  of  July,  and  accidentally  de- 
stroyed by  fire  the  following  night,  and 
it  appeared  that  the  store  of  the  con- 
signee was  closed  the  whole  of  the  day 
on  which  the  goods  arrived,  and  until 
after  they  had  been  destroyed,  it  was 
held  that  the  carrier  was  excused  from 
giving  notice  of  the  arival  of  the  goods. 
Ely  V.  New  Haven  Steamboat  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  53  Barb.  207,  6  Abb.  Prac.  N.  S.,  72. 
Where     a   steamer    arrived   on    Sunday 


morning,  and  was  moored  to  the  owner's 
dock,  and  no  notice  of  its  arrival  given 
the  consignee — it  being  the  custom  not 
to  unload  until  Monday  or  Tuesday — 
there  was  no  delivery  to  the  consignee, 
so  as  to  relieve  the  carrier  from  liability 
tor  loss  by  fire  occurring  on  Monday.  Hill 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.,  104 
^L-lSS.   122.   6  Am.    Rep.   202. 

That  the  consignee  was  obliged  to  re- 
cive  the  cargo  package  by  package,  does 
not  dispense  witli  the  necessity  of  due 
notice  to  the  consignee,  and  a  reasonable 
opportunity  to  identify  the  goods  and  re- 
ceive them  into  his  custody.  Ihe  Santee, 
Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    12,330,    17    Blatchf.    186. 

That  the  consignee  and  others  had  sub- 
mitted to  a  delivery  to  a  drayman  before, 
when  no  loss  occurred,  will  not  bind  him 
to  yield  his  legal  right  to  notice  when 
it  is  for  his  interest  to  assert  it.  Dean  v. 
X'accaro.  39  Tenn.  (2  Head)  488,  75  Am. 
Dec.  744. 

Where  the  unloading  is  temporarily 
interrupted  ))y  the  crowded  s.tate  of  the 
wharf,  on  account  of  the  other  con- 
signees not  removing  their  goods,  no 
new  notice  need  be  given  on  resumption 
of  the  work.  Salmon  Falls  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Tangier,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,267,  3  Ware, 
110;  S.  C,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,266,  1  Cliff. 
396. 

Where  the  selection  of  a  wharf  other 
than  the  usual  wharf  is  allowable  and 
proper  under  the  usages  of  trade  or  the 
necessities  of  the  case,  the  obligation  of 
the  carrier  to  give  notice  to  the  con- 
signees of  the  time  and  place  of  dis- 
charge is  not  increased  or  modified 
thereby  if  the  consignees  are  not  preju- 
diced by  the  change.  Constable  v.  Na- 
tional Steamship  Co..  154  U.  S.  51,  14  S. 
Ct.    1062,   38   L.    Ed.   903. 

Failure  to  give  actual  notice  to  con- 
signees of  the  time  and  place  of  dis- 
charge of  cargo  unloaded  at  a  wharf, 
other  than  the  vessel's  usual  wharf,  at 
which  the  goods,  before  delivery  to  the 
consignees,  are  destroyed  by  fire,  does 
not  render  the  carrier  liable  for  the  loss, 
where  the  consignees,  had  they  received 
notice,  could  not  have  removed  their 
goods  before  the  fire,  and  where  they 
took  no  steps  on  the  faith  of  the  cargo's 
l)eing  discharged  at  the  usual  place.  Con- 
stable V.  National  Steamship  Co.,  154  U. 
S.   51,   14   S.   Ct.    1062,   3S    L.    Ed.   903. 

48.  Knowledge  of  vessel's  arrival. — 
The  Middlesex,  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,533;  Un- 
nevehr  v.    Hindoo,    1    Fed.   627. 

Mere  knowledge  that  ship  is  unloading 
does  not  impose  upon  the  consignee  the 
duty  of  waiting  at  the  vessel  till  his  mer- 
chandise is  discharged.  Robinson  v.  Chit- 
tenden  (N.  Y.),  7  Hun  133. 

49.  Contract  or  custom  excusing  no- 
tice.— See  post,  "Necessity  for  Notice  of 
Arrival    of    Goods,"    §    1095. 


893 


CAKKIKR    AS    WARKIIOUSIvMAX. 


§§  1093-1094 


goods  are  unloaded,  notice  to  the  consignee,  and  a  reasonable  time  thereafter 
for  their  removal,  the  carrier  is  only  liable  as  a  warehouseman.''"  If  the  con- 
signee refuses  or  neglects  to  receive  the  goods,  the  carrier  is  still  liable  as  bailee, 
and  bound  to  reasonable  care  for  their  safe  custody,  or  to  store  them  on  ac- 
count of  the  owner. ''1  Where  the  owner  of  a  vessel  agrees,  for  a  single  price, 
to  transport  a  cargo  from  one  ])ort  to  another,  antl  allow  storage  thereof  in  the 
vessel  during  the  winter  following  the  voyage,  his  lialnlity  as  carrier  ceases  on 
arrival  at  the  port  of  destination,  and  he  is  thereafter  liable  as  a  warehouseman 
oidy.''- 

§  1094.  Railroads  and  Carriers  by  Water  Having  Fixed  Schedule. — 
Mass'achusetts  Doctrine. — As  to  carriers  by  railroad  and  carriers  by  water 
ha\ing  a  fixed  lime  lor  arrival,  there  is  a  conflict  in  the  cases  as  to  when  the 
carrier's  liability  as  such  ceases  and  its  liability  as  warehouseman  only  attaches. 
v^ome  courts  follow  what  is  known  as  the  Massachusetts  doctrine  and  hold  that, 
where  the  goods  have  reached  their  destination  and  have  been  safely  placed  on 
llie  platform  or  in  a  warehouse  for  delivery  to  the  consignee,  the  carrier's  lia- 
bility as  such  ceases  and  its  liability  as  a  warelKniseman   begins."'-'     It   is  held 


50.  The  Titania,  124  Fed.  97.5,  affirmed 
131  Fed.  239,  (>.)  C.  C.  A.  215;  Salmon 
Falls  Mfff.  Co.  V.  Tangier,  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,207,  .3  Ware  110;  Liverpool,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Suitter,  17  Fed.  695;  De  Grau  v.  Wil- 
son, 22  Fed.  500;  The  Bobolink,  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,588,  ()  Sawy.  14G;  Hirsch  z\  Steam- 
boat Quaker  City,  2  Disn.  144,  13  O. 
Dec.   Reprint  89. 

Illustrations. — W  here  goods  were 
shipped  tii  New  York  under  a  bill  of  lad- 
ing coiuaining  a  clause,  "Goods  to  be 
taken  from  alongside  by  the  consignee 
immediately  the  vessel  is  readj^  to  dis- 
charge, or  otherwise  they  will  be  landed 
l)y  the  master  and  deposited  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  consignee,  and  at  the  risk 
of  fire,  loss,  or  injury,  in  the  warehouse 
provided  for  that  purpose,  or  sent  to 
tlie  public  store,  as  the  collector  of  the 
district  shall  direct,"  and  the  vessel  ar- 
rived on  a  Wednesday  morning,  and  on 
Thursday  the  mercliandise  was  .landed 
in  good  order,  and  phiccd  by  itself  at 
an  accessible  part  of  the  pier,  the  arrival 
of  the  vessel  being  known  to  the  con- 
signees on  Thursday,  who  on  that  day 
had  the  bill  of  lading  stamped  by  the 
ship  as  proof  that  the  goods  had  ar- 
rived, and  also  entered  the  goods  at  the 
customiiouse  and  procured  a  permit  to 
land  them,  but  made  no  attempt  to 
remove  the  goods  till  late  on  the  fol- 
lowing Saturday  afternoon,  when  one 
truck  load  was  taken  away,  and  on  Sun- 
day a  tire  l)roke  out  on  the  pier  and  the 
goods  were  destroyed,  held  that,  when 
the  goods  were  burned,  the  relation  of 
the  shipowners  to  them  as  common  car- 
riers had  been  terminated,  and  they  were 
in  the  custody  of  the  shipowners  as 
warehousemen.  De  Grau  z'.  Wilson,  17 
Fed.   (>98.   affirmed   in   22   Fed.   5t;o. 

A  cargo  of  lemons  and  oranges,  con- 
signed to  defendants,  was  delivered  at  a 
pier  in  the  morning  of  a  certain  day 
along    with     other    consignments     of    the 


same  nature.  All  the  fruit  was  removed 
on  that  day.  except  that  of  the  defendants, 
who  had  actual  notice  in  time  to  remove 
it.  Tlie  pier  was  covered,  and  all  rea- 
sonable precautions  taken  to  protect  the 
fruit  against  frost,  which  precautions, 
however,  did  not  avail,  owing  to  the  se- 
verity of  the  weather.  Held,  that  the  lia- 
bility of  the  shipowner  as  common  car- 
rier terminated  on  the  day  the  cargo 
was  discharged.  Liverpool,  etc..  Co.  v. 
Saitta.  22  Fed.  560.  affirming  17  Fed.  695. 
Where  the  passage  to  the  goods  was 
blocked  by  landing  other  freight,  so  that 
the  consignee  could  not  obtain  access 
to  it,  and  in  this  position  was  damaged 
by  rain  before  removal,  though  a  rea- 
sonable time  had  elapsed  after  notice  of 
its  arrival  for  the  consignee  to  remove 
it  before  the  rain,  it  is  a  question  for  the 
jury  whether  the  carrier  is  liable.  Good- 
win V.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
58    Barb.    195. 

51.  Failure  or  refusal  to  receive  goods. 
— The  City  of  Lincoln.  25  Fed.  835;  The 
Mary  Washington.  1  Abb.  U.  S.  1.  Chase 
125.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9.229;  Crawford  v. 
Clark.  15  111.  561;  Hathorn  z:  Elv.  28  N. 
Y.    78. 

If  the  goods  are  injured  before  notice, 
the  carrier  is  lialde.  tliough  the  consignee 
afterwards  refuses  to  take  them.  The 
Mary  Washington.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9.229.  1 
Abb.    I".    S.    1.    Chase    125. 

52.  Agreement  to  allow  storage  in  ves- 
sel.—  NortDu    :■.      The    Ricliani      Winslow. 


53.  Massachusetts  doctrine. — Gc<>ri^iii.— 
The  Massachusetts  doctrine  prevails  in 
the  absence  of  a  different  custom  as  to 
delivery.  But  where  the  goods  arrive 
out  of  time,  notice  must  be  given  and 
the  consignee  allowed  a  reasonalile  time 
to  call  for  and  remove  them.  See  Civ. 
Code,  §  2295;  Southwestern  R.  Co.  z: 
Felder. '46  Ga.  433.  11  Am.  R.  Rep.  419; 
Western,    etc..    Railroad   z\    Camp.    53    Ga. 


§  1004 


CARRII'RS. 


894 


596;  Almand  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  95 
Ga.  775.  22  S.  E.  674;  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Pound,  111  Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312; 
Kight  V.  Wrightsville.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127 
Ga.  204.  56  S.  E.  363;  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  Pattison,  112  Ga.  468,  37  S.  E. 
766.  See,  also.  Rome  R.  Co.  z'.  Sullivan, 
etc..  Co.,  14  Ga.  277:  Central  R.,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Anderson,  58  Ga.  393,  10  Am.  R. 
Rep.  85;  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Tliomp- 
son.  86  Ga.  327,  12  S.  E.  640,  45  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  422;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  White,  88   Ga.  805,   15  S.   E.  802. 

In  order  to  show  the  existence  of  a 
custom  varying  the  general  rule,  the  cus- 
tom consisting  in  the  company  having 
observed  a  usage  of  notifying  consignees 
of  the  arrival  of  goods,  it  must  he  proved 
that  the  usage  is  of  an  estal)lished  nature, 
and  the  notices  given  of  such  character 
as  to  indicate  that  the  company  intended 
to  remain  liable  as  a  common  carrier  un- 
til the  consignee  had  Jiad  reasonable 
time  to  receive  his  goods.  Georgia,  etc., 
R.   Co.  z:   Pound,  36  S.   E.  312,   111   Ga.  6. 

Illinois. — Gregg  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co., 
147  111.  550,  35  N.  E.  343,  37  Am.  St.  Rep. 
238,  affirming  47  111.  App.  590;  Porter  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407,  71  Am. 
Dec.  286;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Alex- 
ander, 20  111.  23;  Davis  v.  Alichigan,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  111.  412;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
V.  Friend.  64  111.  303;  Richards  v.  Michi- 
gan, etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  404;  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Scott,  42  111.  132;  Vincent  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  111.  33;  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Frankenberg,  54  111.  88, 
5  Am.  Rep.  92;  Merchants'  Dispatch 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Hallock,  64  111.  284;  Roth- 
schild V.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  09  111. 
164;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sawyer,  09  111. 
285,  18  Am.  Rep.  613;  Cahn  v.  Michigan 
Cent.  R.  Co..  71  111.  96;  Merchants',  etc., 
Transp.  Co.  v.  Moore.  88  111.  130,  30  Am. 
Rep.  541;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Jenkins, 
103  111.  588.  See  Schumacher  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  108  111.  App.  520,  judgment 
affirmed,  69  N.  E.  825,  207  111.  199;  Bryan 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109  111.  App. 
181. 

Indiana. — Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Cool.  26  Ind.  140;  Bansemer  v.  Toledo, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  25  Ind.  434,  87  Am.  Dec.  367; 
Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nash,  43  Ind. 
423;  Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Mer- 
riam.  111  Ind.  5,  11  N.  E.  954.  See  New 
Albany,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Campbell,  12 
Ind.  55. 

lozca. — Mohr  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
40  Iowa  579;  Francis  zk  Dubuque,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  25  Iowa  60,  95  .Am.  Dec.  769; 
Hicks  V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  131  Iowa  295, 
108  N.  W.  534,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  235. 

Massachusetts.  —  Thomas  v.  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Corp.  (Mass.),  10  Mete.  477,  43 
Am.  Dec.  444;  Norway  Plains  Co.  v. 
Boston,  etc..  Railroad  (Mass.),  1  Gray 
263,  61  Am.  Dec.  423;  Sessions  v.  Western 
R.  Corp.  (Mass.),  16  Gray  132.  See  also 
Rice   V.    Boston,   etc.,   R.    Corp.,   98    Mass. 


212;  Barron  z:  Eldredge,  100  Mass.  455, 
1  Am.  Rep.  120;  Lane  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  112  Mass.  455;  Stowe  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  521;  Rice  v.  Hart, 
118  Mass.  201,  19  Am.  Rep.  433;  Hall  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp.  (Mass.),  4  Allen 
439,   92   Am.    Dec.   783. 

Missouri. — Gashweiler  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  83  Mo.  112,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  403,  53  Am.  Rep.  558;  Standard  Mill- 
ing Co.  V.  White  Line  Cent.  Transit  Co., 
122  Mo.  258,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  185, 
20  S.  W.  704;  Rankin  v.   Pacific  Railroad, 

55  Mo.  167;  Holtzclaw  v.  Duff,  2f  Mo. 
392;   Cramer   z'.   American,   etc.,   Exp.   Co., 

56  Mo.  524;  Eaton  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  12  Mo.  App.  380;  Bergner  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Mo.  App.  499;  Kansas 
City  Transfer  Co.  v.  Neiswanger,  18  Mo. 
App.  103;  Buddy  v.  Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
20  Mo.  App.  200;  Hartmann  v.  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  39  Mo.  App.  88;  Pindell  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  App.  84; 
Hull  &  Co.  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  00 
Mo.  App.  593.  Compare  Bell  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Mo.  App.  363,  holding  that 
liability  as  a  carrier  continues  until  the 
consignee  has  had  such  time  to  examine 
and  receive  the  goods  as  would  be  nec- 
essarily required  by  one  residing  in  the 
vicinity,  and  informed  of  the  probable 
time  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods,  and  of 
the   carrier's   course   of  business. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Neal  &  Co.  v.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  N.  C.  482;  Tur- 
rentine  z'.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  100  N. 
C.  375,  0  Am.  St.  Rep.  002,  0  S.  E.  116; 
Hilliard  v.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  51 
N.    C.    343. 

Tennessee. — East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Kelly,  91  Tenn.  (7  Pickle)  699.  20  S. 
W.  312,  17  L.  R.  A.  691,  30  Am.  St.  Rep. 
902,  55  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  621;  S.  C,  91 
Tenn.  (7  Pickle)  708,  20  S.  W.  314;  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  V.  Naive,  112  Tenn.  239, 
79  S.  W.  124,  64  L.  R.  A.  443;  Southern 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Kaufman,  59  Tenn.  (13  Heisk.) 
161;  Butler  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  76  Tenn.  (8  Lea)  32,  9  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  249.  See,  also.  Dean  v.  Vaccaro, 
39  Tenn.  (2  Head)  488,  75  Am.  Dec.  744; 
Lancaster  Mills  z'.  Merchants'  Cotton- 
Press  Co.,  89  Tenn.  1,  24  Am.  St.  Rep. 
580,  45  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  423,  14  S.  W. 
317. 

The  statutory  provision  requiring  no- 
tice to  the  consignee  (M.  &  V.  Code 
'I'cnn.,  S  2788)  does  not  extend  the  liabil- 
ity of  tile  carrier.  Butler  v.  East  Tennes- 
see, etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  l"cnn.  (8  Lea)  32,  9 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  249. 

Removal  of  part  of  goods. — In  Ses- 
sions z'.  Western  R.  Corp.  (Mass.),  16 
Gray  132,  after  a  portion  of  the  goods 
had  been  removed,  the  remainder  were 
destroyed  l)y  fire  while  in  the  company's 
warehouse.  It  was  held  that  the  com- 
pany could  be  held  only  as  a  warehouse- 
man. See,  also,  Bassett  v.  Connecticut 
River  R.  Co.,  145  Mass.  129,  13  N.  E.  370, 


895 


CARRIKR    AS    WARK  HOUSF.M  AX, 


§    1094 


that  tlie  liability  as  carrier  ceases  only  after  the  unloading  of  the  goods. ^^^  But 
where  by  custom  or  contract  the  carrier  transacts  its  business  on  the  cars  them- 
selves,"''^ or  completes  its  duty  by  placing  them  in  a  convenient  place  for  un- 
loading,''" it  is  not  necessary  to  unload  the  goods  in  order  to  terminate  its  lia- 
bility as  carrier. 

New  Hampshire  Doctrine. — .V  class  of  cases  follow  what  is  known  as  the 
New  1  lampshirc  doctrine  and  hold  that  the  liability  of  the  carrier  as  such  does 
not  cease  u]Jon  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  their  destination  and  their  deposit 
in  a  warehouse,  but  continues  until  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time  for  the  re- 
moval of  tl'.o  goods  by  the  consignee.-'''^ 


1  Am.  St.  Rep.  44:i;  Rlaisdell  7-.  Connecti- 
cut River  R.  Co.,  14".  Mas.s.  i:52.  13  N.  !•.. 
373. 

Carrier  of  money. — A  carrier  who  was 
in  tlie  habit  of  carrying  larji^e  sums  of 
money  for  hire,  and  keeping  the  same  for 
several  hours  after  its  transportation  in 
a  desk  until  it  is  called  for  and  taken 
away  by  the  owners,  is  liable  merely  as 
a  warehouseman,  if  the  money  is  lost 
from  the  desk.  Conway  Bank  z>.  .Ameri- 
can   I-'xp.    Co.    (Mass.),   s   .Mk'n    ."il:.'. 

Rule  may  vary  with  character  of  con- 
signment.— Independence  Mills  Co.  v. 
Burlington,  etc..  R.  Co.,  72  Iowa  535.  34 
N.  W.  320,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  32  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  45G.  See.  also,  State  v. 
Creeden.  78  Iowa  55().  43  N.  W.  673,  7  L. 
R.    A.   295.   40   .Am.    &    Rng.    R.    Cas.   31. 

Where  goods  are  consigned  "notify"  a 
third  person,  if  such  third  person  fails  or 
refuses  williin  a  reasonable  time  to  ap- 
pear with  the  1)ill  of  lading  properly  in- 
dorsed and  receive  the  goods,  the  car- 
rier's liability  is  that  of  a  warehouseman. 
Florida,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z'.  Berry,  llfi  Ga.  10, 
42    S.    K.    371. 

Failure  to  call  for  goods  within  time 
limited  by  rule  of  carrier. — Where  the 
rule  of  a  railroad  company  required 
freight  to  be  received  and  removed  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  reaching  its  des- 
tination, otherwise  it  would  be  placed  in 
store,  an  unauthorized  delivery  of  goods 
within  the  twenty-four  hours  to  persons 
as  agents  of  the  consignee  will  not 
change  the  liability  of  the  company  from 
that  of  a  carrier  to  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man, on  the  grounds  that  the  persons  to 
whom  delivery  was  made  were  ware- 
liousemen.  and  that  the  goods  were  not 
called  for  by  the  consignee  during  the 
twenty-four  hours.  Angle  v.  Mississippi, 
etc..    R.    Co.,    18    Iowa    555. 

54.  Necessity  for  unloading  of  goods. — 
Porter  z\  Chicago,  t-tc..  1\.  Co.,  20  111. 
407,  71  Am.  Dec.  280 ;  \allette  f.  Ben- 
nett, 69  111.  632;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bensley,  69  111.  630;  Rice  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.    Corp..    98    Mass.    212. 

55.  Where  carrier  transacts  business 
on  cars. — MacW'a^h  r.  .\tcliison,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  3    X.    Me.x.   327,   5    I'ac.   457. 

56.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Reyman, 
166  Ind.  278,  76  N.  K.  970,  73  X.  E.  587. 
See  Dixon  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Ga. 
173,    35    S.    E.    369. 


If,  by  direction  of  the  consignee,  given 
in  respect  of  a  series  of  anticipated  ship- 
ments, of  which  such  goods  form  one, 
they  be  stored  in  a  car,  and  side  tracked 
for  the  convenience  of  the  consignee, 
and  notice  thereof  be  given  the  latter, 
the  liability  of  the  carrier,  as  dependent 
upon  the  safety  of  the  place  of  storage, 
is  at  an  end.  Pindell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  41  Mo.  App.  84. 

Where  it  was  the  usage  to  receive  de- 
livery and  unload  refrigerator  cars  while 
they  were  standing  in  some  convenient 
place,  the  location  of  a  car  at  that  point, 
and  a  readiness  to  permit  the  consignee 
to  take  possession,  relieved  the  carrier 
of  further  obligation  than  that  of  a  ware- 
houseman, without  any  notification  to 
the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Reyman,  166  Ind. 
278,   76   N.    E.   970.   73    N.    E.   587. 

Place  must  be  safe  and  convenient. — 
The  liability,  as  a  common  carrier,  of  a 
railroad  company  transporting  grain, 
commonly  and  most  conveniently  re- 
moved directl}'  from  the  cars  instead  of 
through  a  warehouse,  does  not  cease  un- 
til the  car  is  placed  in  a  safe  and  conven- 
ient location  for  unloading;  and  the  find- 
ing of  a  jury  that  a  car  was  so  placed  that 
it  could,  l)ut  with  difficulty,  be  unloaded, 
justifies  a  verdict  holding  the  company 
liable  as  a  common  carrier.  Independ- 
ence Mills  Co.  z'.  Burlington,  etc..  R.  Co., 
72  Iowa  535,  34  X.  W.  330,  2  .\m.  St. 
Rep.  258,  32  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  456. 

57.  New  Hampshire  doctrine. — Ala- 
haiim. — Bowden  f.  .Atlantic  C«'ast  Line 
R.  Co..  148  Ala.  29,  41  So.  294;  Lou- 
isville, etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  McGuire  &  Co., 
79  Ala.  395;  Collins  v.  Alabama,  etc., 
R.  Co..  104  .Ala.  390.  16  So.  140,  61  .Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  229;  Columbus,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z:  Ludden,  89  Ala.  612.  7  So.  471,  42 
.Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  404;  .Anniston.  etc., 
R.  Co.  v.  Ledbetter.  92  .Ala.  326,  9  So. 
73;  .Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Kidd,  35  .Ala. 
209;  Central,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Merrill  &  Co., 
153  .Ala.  277.  45  So.  628;  Kenncdv  Bros. 
z:  Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co..  74  Ala.  4.30,  21 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  145:  Mobile,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  r.  Prewitt,  46  .Ala.  63.  7  .Am.  Rep. 
586.  See,  also,  Western  R.  Co.  z:  Little. 
86  .Ala.  159,  5  So.  563,  37  .Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  659;  Alabama,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Grabfelder,  83   .Ala.  200.  3  So.  432.     Com- 


^  10^4 


CARRIERS. 


896 


The  English  doctrine  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  New  Hampshire  doc- 
trine.    The  consignee  of  goods  shipped  by  railway  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable 


pare  Southern  Exp.  Co.  z\  Armstead,  50 
Ala.  350. 

Arkansas. — The  carrier  is  liable  as  in- 
surer until  a  reasonable  time  after  notice 
to  the  consignee  (Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
z:  Nevill,  60  Ark.  375,  30  S.  W.  425,  28  L. 
R.  A.  SO.  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  208),  and  until 
proper  delivery  at  destination  (Arkadel- 
phia  Mill.  Co.  Z'.  Smoker  Merchandise 
Co.,  100  Ark.  37,   139  S.  W.  680.) 

California. — The  Massachusetts  doctrine 
seems  to  have  obtained  originall3\  See 
Jackson  v.  Sacramento  X'allc}-  R.  Co.,  23 
Cal.  268.  But  the  New  Hampshire  doc- 
trine now  prevails  in  consequence  of  the 
provisions  of  §  2120  of  the  Civil  Code 
requiring  notice  to  the  consignee  of  the 
arrival  of  the  goods.  See  Wilson  v.  Cali- 
fornia Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  Cal.  166,  29  Pac. 
861,  17  L.  R.  A.  685;  Cavallaro  v.  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Cal.  348,  42  Pac.  918,  52 
Am.  St.  Rep.  94.  See,  also,  Hirshfield  v. 
Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  56  Cal.  484,  7  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.   Cas.  398. 

Connecticut. — Graves  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
Steamboat  Co.,  38  Conn.  143,  9  Am.  Rep. 
369. 

Delazi.'arc. — See  McHenry  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.   (Del.),  4  Har.  448. 

Kansas. — Leavenworth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Maris,  16  Kan.  333;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
V.  Wichita  Wholesale  Grocery  Co.,  55 
Kan.  525,  40  Pac.  899;  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Newberger  &  Bro.,  73  Pac.  57,  67 
Kan.    846. 

Kentucky. — Jefifersonville  R.  Co.  v.  Cleve- 
land (Ky.),  2  Bush  468;  Wald  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Ky.  645,  13  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  853,  18  S.  W.  850;  Briant  v.  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co..  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  47;  Louis- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Jones,  10  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
494;  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tingle,  10  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  358:  Lewis  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  135  Ky.  361,  122  S.  W.  184,  25  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S.,  938,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  Ann. 
Cas.    527. 

Louisiana. — Maignan  v.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  La.  Ann.  333.  See  Segura 
V.    Reed.    3    La.   Ann.    695. 

Maryland. — See  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Green,  25   Md.   72. 

Michigan. — In  AIcMillan  v.  Michigan, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  16  Mich.  79.  93  Am.  Dec.  208, 
the  court  was  equally  divided,  but  the 
views  of  Cooley,  J.,  that  the  New  Hamp- 
shire rule  v/as  the  trre  one  were  approved 
in  Buckley  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  18 
Mich.  121. 

In  the  absence  of  an  express  contract 
or  one  fairly  inferable  from  the  nature  of 
the  business,  the  known  necessities  under 
which  it  is  carried  on,  and  the  established 
usage  between  the  parties,  the  company 
can  not  shift  its  responsibility  as  a  com- 
mon carrier  to  that  of  a  mere  warehouse- 
man by  simply  depositing  the  goods  in 
the    warehouse    at    the    end    of    its    route. 


Feige  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  62  Mich. 
1.  28  N.  W.  685;  Black  v.  Ashley,  80 
Mich.  90,  44  N.  W.  1120,  42  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  428. 

Minnesota. — Pinney  z'.  First  Division, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  19  Minn.  251,  Gil.  211,  20 
Am.  R.  Rep.  71;  Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  133,  Gil.  119;  Arthur 
v.  St.  Paul,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  38  Minn.  95,  35 
N.  W.  718;  Kirk  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
59  Minn.  161,  60  N.  W.  1084,  50  Am.  St. 
Rep.  397,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  2" 3 
(carrier  held  liable  for  goods  stolen  from 
car  while  it  was  at  station).  See  also 
Armstrong  z\  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  4") 
Minn.  85.  47  N.  W.  459,  45  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.   422,   note. 

Nebraska. — Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.  :■. 
Arms,  15  Neb.  69,  17  N.  W.  351. 

Nezv  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc.. 
Railroad,  32  N.  H.  523,  64  Am.  Dec.  381; 
Welch  V.  Concord  Railroad,  68  N.  H. 
206,  44  Atl.  304.  See  also,  Jewell  ?■. 
Grand  Trunk  Railway,  55  N.  H.  84;  Smith 
V.  Nashua,  etc..  Railroad.  27  N.  H.  86.  59 
Am.  Dec.   304. 

Nezv  Jersey. — Bobbink  v.  Erie  R.  Co.. 
82  N.  Y.  L.  547,82  Atl.  877;  Morris,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Ayers,  29  N.  J.  L.  393.  80  Am.  Dec. 
215.  The  latter  case  was  regarded  in  5 
Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law  (2nd  Ed.)  264. 
as  following  the  Massachusetts  doctrine, 
but  it  seems  to  follow  the  New  Hamp- 
shire doctrine,  and  is  so  cited  in  Poyt'i- 
ress  V.  Durham,  etc..  R.  Co.,  148  N.  C. 
391,  62  S.  E.  515,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  427; 
3  Wood  on  Railways  (Ed.  1894)  1935.  and 
Hutchinson   on    Carriers.   §   370. 

New  York. — Mills  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.  622,  6  Am.  Rep.  152;  Hedges 
V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  223,  3 
Am.  R.  Rep.  346;  Zinn  v.  New  Jersey 
Steamboat  Co..  49  N.  Y.  442,  10  Am. 
Rep.  402,  3  Am.  R.  Rep.  340;  McAndrew 
V.  Whitlock,  52  N.  Y.  40,  11  Am.  Rep. 
657;  Rawson  v.  Holland.  59  N.  Y.  611,  17 
Am.  Rep.  394;  McKinney  v.  Jewett,  9") 
N.  Y.  267,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  209; 
Faulkner  v.  Hart,  82  N.  Y.  413,  37  Am. 
Rep.  574,  reversing  44  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
471;  Draper  v.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal  Co., 
118  N.  Y.  118,  23  N.  E.  131,  42  Am.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas.  410;  Solomon  v.  Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  Steamboat  Co.  (N.  Y.),  2  Daly 
104;  Pelton  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
54  N.  Y.  214,  13  Am.  Rep.  568;  Sprague 
V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  637; 
Nicholas  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  89 
N.  Y.  370.  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  103; 
Miller  v.  Steam  Nav.  Co..  10  N.  Y.  431, 
Seld.  Notes  64,  affirming  13  Barb.  361; 
Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  29  N. 
Y.  Super.  Ct.  119;  King  v.  New  Bruns- 
wick, etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  S. 
999,  36  Misc.  Rep.  555;  Lamb  v.  Camden, 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.   (N.  Y.),  2  Daly  454. 

A  provision  in  the  contract  of  shipment 


897 


CAKRII-K    AS    \V ARKllorSI-.M  \.\, 


§    1094 


time,  after  the  goods  ha\e  arri\e(l  at  their  dehtination,  within  which  to  take 
them  away,  and  during  such  time  the  goods  are  in  the  hands  of  the  railway  as 
carrier  anrl  subject  it  to  all  the  liahilitics  which  attach  to  that  character.     Hut  when 


that  the  goods  were  to  l>e  delivered  at 
the  company's  depot  does  not  affect  the 
rule.  Lamb  v.  Camden,  etc.,  Transp.  Co. 
(N.    Y.),   2    Daly   454. 

Ohio. — The  carrier's  lial)ility  as  insurer 
continues  uiUil  after  the  consignee  has 
been  notified  of  the  arrival  of  his  proods 
and  has  had  a  reasonable  time  in  which 
to  inspect  and  remove  them.  Lake  !\rie, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Hatch,  (J  O.  C.  C.  230,  3 
(X  C.  D.  430;  affirmed  in  52  O.  St.  408,  39 
N.  E.  1042,  01  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  293. 
And  see  Gaines  v.  Union  Transp.,  etc., 
Co.,   28  O.   St.  418. 

Oregon. — See  McGregor  v.  Oregon  R., 
etc.,   Co.,  50  Ore.   527,  93   Pac.  405. 

Fcnnsylvaiiia. — The  New  Hampshire 
doctrine  has  l)een  followed  in  some  cases. 
See  Moyer  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  31 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  559;  National  Line 
Steamship  Co.  v.  Smart,  107  Pa.  492; 
Frank  Bros.  &  Co.  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  9 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  129;  Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R. 
Cc.  V.  Waltman  (Pa.),  1  Walk.  139.  But 
the  Massachusetts  doctrine  was  held  in 
McCarty  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30 
Pa.  247;  Shenk  v.  Philadelphia/  Steam 
Propeller  Co.,  60  Pa.  109,  100  Am.  Dec. 
541. 

South  Carolina. — The  New  Hampshire 
doctrine  now  prevails.  Knight  v.  South- 
ern Railway,  85  S.  C.  78,  67  S.  E.  16; 
Deschamps  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  82 
S.  C.  26,  64  S.  E.  144;  Murphy  v.  Southern 
Railway,  77  S.  C.  76,  57  S.  E.  664;  Brun- 
son  V.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  9,  56 
S.  E.  538,  9  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  577.  But 
Wardlaw  v.  South  Carolina  R.  Co.,  11 
Rich.  L.  337,  and  Hipp  v.  Southern  R. 
Co.,  50  S.  C.  129,  27  S.  E.  623,  followed 
the  Massachusetts  doctrine.  See  Spears 
V.  Spartansburg,  etc.,  R.  Co..  11  S.  C.  158, 
where  it  is  said  that  the  carrier's  liability 
as  insurer  does  not  extend  over  the  whole 
time  of  the  existence  of  its  lien  for  freight 
charges. 

Texas. — The  rule  is  declared  by  statute 
to  be  that  the  carrier's  liability  as  such 
continues  until  actual  delivery  to  the  con- 
signee or  his  agent.  l)ut  that  "if  the  car- 
rier at  the  point  of  destination  shall  use 
due  diligence  to  notify  the  consignee,  and 
the  goods  are  not  taken  by  the  consignee, 
and  have  in  consequence  to  be  stored 
in  the  depots  or  warehouses  of  the  com- 
mon carriers,  they  shall  thereafter  only 
be  liable  as  warehousemen."  Rev.  Stat. 
Texas,  arts.  281,  282.  See  the  statute 
applied  in  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Havnes 
&  Co.,  72  Tex.  175,  10  S.  W.  398,  37 
Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  645.  See  also, 
Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  .\dams,  49  Tex. 
748.  30  Am.  Rep.  116;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.    Capps,    2    Texas    App.    Civ.    Cas.,    §    33; 


Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schneider,  1  Texas 
.\pp.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  118;  Galveston,  etc..  R. 
Co.  V.  Hunt  (Tex.  Civ.  App.;,  32  S.  W. 
549,    550. 

Under  the  statute  a  railroad  company 
remains  lialile  as  a  cfjinmon  carrier  fur 
gofjds  not  disciiarged  frtjm  its  car,  though 
a  third  person  has  agreed  with  the  con- 
signee to  unloatl  them,  and  the  car  is  at 
the  place  of  discharge;  there  lieing  no 
agreement  by  the  consignee  to  receive 
the  goods  on  the  car,  and  no  notice,  or 
diligence  to  give  notice,  of  the  arrival 
of  the  car.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Haynes 
&  Co..  72  Tex.  175,  10  S.  VV.  398,  37 
-Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  645. 

I'crmoiit. — Ouimit  v.  Henshaw,  35  Vt. 
605,  84  Am.  Dec.  646;  Blumenthal  v. 
Brainerd,  38  Vt.  402,  91  .\m.  Dec.  3.50; 
Winslow  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Vt. 
700,    1    Am.    Rep.    365. 

Virginia. — Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Stuart's  Draft  Mill.  Co.,  109  \'a.  184,  63 
vS.   E.   415. 

Washington. — Fisher  z\  Northern  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  49  Wash.  258,  94  Pac.  1073;  Hur- 
ley &  Son  V.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co..  6s  W. 
Va.  471,  69  S.    E.  904. 

ll'cst  I'irginia. — Berry  v.  West  X'irginia, 
etc..  R.  Co..  44  W.  Va.  538.  30  S.  E.  143. 
67  Am.  St.  Rep.  781.  See  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Morehead,  5  W.  \a.  293. 

Wisconsin. — Wood  v.  Crocker,  IS  Wis. 
345,  86  Am.  Dec.  773;  Wood  v.  Milwaukee, 
etc..  R.  Co..  27  Wis.  541.  9  Am.  Rep.  564. 
2  Am.  R.  Rep.  342;  Parker  i'.  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Wis.  689,  7  Am.  R.  Rep. 
255;  Lemke  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co..  39 
Wis.  449.  13  Am.  R.  Rep.  406;  Backhaus 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  92  Wis.  393.  66  N. 
W.  400.  See  also  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.   Fairchild.  6  Wis.  403. 

Reason  for  rule. — In  Graves  v.  Hart- 
ford, etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  38  Conn.  143,  9 
Am.  Rep.  369,  the  court  said:  "What- 
ever reasons  there  are  for  imposing  a 
strict  rule  of  responsibility  during  the 
transit,  exist  and  continue  in  full  force 
until  tlie  consignee  has  had  a  reasonable 
time  to  take  the  goods  into  his  own  care 
and  custody.  *  *  *  In  making  the  deliv- 
ery, care  is  needed  to  avoid  mistakes, 
and  attention  required  to  see  if  the  goods 
are  uninjured.  During  the  whole  process 
of  delivery,  until  fully  completed,  the 
goods  should  remain  in  the  care  of  the 
carrier  upon  the  full  responsil)ility  per- 
taining to  him  as  such,  and  he  ought  not 
to  be  allowed  to  lay  aside  that  responsi- 
bility until  the  owner  of  the  goods  has 
had  a  fair  and  reasonable  time  and  oppor- 
tunity   to   receive   them." 

If  the  loss  or  injury  results  from  a  want 
of   ordinary   care  .'ii   tlic   p^irt   of   the   car- 


1   Car— 57 


§§  1094-1095 


CARRIERS. 


898 


such  reasonable  time  has  ela])sc(l,  the  company  becomes  Hable  as  a  warehouse- 
man merely.""'' 

§  109  5.  Necessity  for  Notice  of  Arrival  of  Goods. — Massachusetts 
Doctrine. —  The  authorities  are  in  conllict  as  to  whether  or  not,  in  the  case  of 
carriers  bv  railroad  and  carriers  b}-  water  having  a  hxed  time  for  arrival,  the 
carrier  is  bound  to  give  the  consignee  notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at  their 
destination  in  order  to  terminate  its  liability  as  insurer  and  assume  responsibil- 
itv  as  warehouseman  t)nly."'''  v^ome  courts  follow  the  Massachusetts  doctrine 
and  hold  that  the  carrier  is  under  no  obligation  to  give  such  notice.""     But  no- 


rier,  the  quostion  of  rea.sonal)lc  time  be- 
comes immaterial.  Laml)  z'.  Camden,  etc., 
Transp.    Co.    (N.    V.).    2    Daly    454. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  consignee  to  be 
ready  at  the  place  of  de.stination  to  re- 
ceive the  goods  when  they  arrive,  or 
within  a  reasonal)le  time  thereafter.  Ala- 
bama,  etc..   R.   Co.  7'.    Kidd,  :55  Ala.   200. 

Liability  affected  by  charter.— The 
Michigan  Central  Railway  Company,  un- 
der its  charter,  is  liable  as  warehousemen 
only,  for  goods  transported  over  its  line 
to  Detroit,  and  there  deposited  in  its 
warehouse  awaiting  delivery  to  an  inter- 
mediate consignee.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Lantz,  32  Mich.  502.  Property  on 
deposit  in  depots  is  to  be  considered  as 
awaiting  delivery  as  soon  as  it  is  in  con- 
dition to  be  delivered  to  the  consignee 
when  demanded.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co. 
r.    Hale,   (i   Midi.    24:i. 

In  case  of  portable  boxes  of  merchan- 
dise, the  liability  of  a  railway  company  as 
common  carrier  does  not  terminate  till 
the  goods  are  placed  in  its  freight  room, 
ready  for  delivery  to  the  consignee,  and 
he  has  had  a  reasonable  time  to  remove 
them.  Kirk  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  59 
Minn.  161.  60  N.  W.  1084,  50  Am.  St. 
Rep.   397,  61  ;\m.   &    I'",ng.   R.   Cas.  203. 

Where  goods  have  been  placed  in  a 
railway  company's  depot  to  await  the 
owner's  convenience  in  removing  llieni, 
and  they  are  destroyed,  the  company  is 
liable  only  on  proof  of  its  negligence. 
Pennsylvania,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Waltman 
(Pa.),  1  Walk.  139. 

Illustrations. — ^Where  defendant  deliv- 
ered, on  the  track  at  the  consignee's 
warehouse,  a  carload  of  sugar  on  Sunday 
night,  which  was  there  destroyed  by  fire 
before  working  hours  on  Monday  morn- 
ing, defendant  is  liable,  although  it  was 
the  custom  of  the  consignee  to  break  the 
seals  and  unload  cars  so  delivered  with- 
out further  authority.  Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Wichita  Wholesale  Grocery  Co., 
55   Kan.   525,  40   Pac.   899. 

Five  to  seven  days  were  reasonal)ly  re- 
quired to  transport  goods  frcjm  the  place 
of  shipment,  and  on  the  eighth  day  after 
their  shipment  plaintiff  called  for  them 
at  the  point  of  destination,  l)Ut  they  had 
not  arrived.  He  called  for  them  on  each 
succeeding  morning  for  five  days,  when 
he  left  the  city,  the  goods  arriving  the 
day  after  his  departure.  Held,  that  the 
company    was    lial)lc    for    the    loss    of    the 


goods  by  fire  on  the  niglit  following  their 
arrival.  JefTersonville  R.  Co.  z'.  Cleve- 
land  (Ky.),  2  Bush  468. 

In  Eagle  v.  White  (Pa.),  6  Whart.  505, 
37  Am.  Dec.  434,  the  goods  arrived  at 
their  destination  about  dark  on  Saturday 
evening,  and  at  the  request  of  the  con- 
signee the  car  containing  them  was  run 
on  to  a  side  track  to  remain  until  Monday 
morning,  at  which  time  the  consignee 
opened  the  car  and  found  that  some  of 
his  goods  had  l)een  stolen.  The  carrier 
was   held   liable. 

58.  EngHsh  doctrine. — J^iiiilaiid. — ^Chap- 
nian  v.  Creat  Western  R.  Co.,  5  Q.  B.  Div. 
278,  49  L.  J.  Q.  B.  420,  42  L.  T.  N.  S.,  252. 
See  also  Bradshaw  v.  Irish  North- Wes- 
tern R.  Co.,  7  Ir.  R.  C.  L.  252,  21  W.  R. 
581. 

Canada. — In  Richardson  z'.  Canadian 
I'ac.  R.  Co.,  19  Out.  Rep.  369,  45  Am.  & 
ICng.  R.  Cas.  413,  the  authority  of  Chap- 
man V.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  5  Q.  B. 
Div.  278,  was  recognized  and  followed. 
In  earlier  cases,  the  Massachusetts  doc- 
trine seemed  to  be  announced.  Hall  v. 
Grand  Trunk  R.  Co.,  34  U.  C.  Q.  B.  517; 
Bowie  V.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  U.  C. 
C.  P.  191;  O'Neill  v.  Great  Western  R. 
Co.,  7  U.  C.  C.  P.  203;  Inman  v.  Buffalo, 
etc.,  R  Co.,  7  U.  C.  C.  P.  325. 

59.  Necessity  for  notice  of  arrival. — As 
to  express  companies,  and^  carriers  by 
water  generally,  see  ante,  "Express  Com- 
])anies  and  General  Carriers  by  Water," 
8  1093. 

60.  Massachusetts  doctrine. — Georgia. — 
No  notice  to  the  consignee  is  necessary, 
except  where  the  goods  arrive  out  of 
lime,  in  which  case  notice  must  be  given 
and  the  consignee  allowed  a  reasonable 
time  to  call  for  and  remove  them.  See 
Civ.  Code,  §  2295.  Southwestern  R.  Co. 
V.  Felder,  46  Ga.  433,  11  Am.  R.  Rep.  419; 
Western,  etc..  Railroad  v.  Camp,  53  Ga. 
596;  Almand  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  95 
Ga.  775,  22  S.  E.  674;  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Pound,  111  Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312; 
Kight  V.  Wrightsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127 
Ga.  204,  56  S.  E.  363;  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  z'.  Pattison,  112  Ga.  468,  37  S.  E.  766. 
See,  also,  Central  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son, 58  Ga.  393,  16  Am.  R.  Rep.  85; 
Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Thompson,  86  Ga. 
327,  12  S.  E.  640,  45  Am.  &  I'.ng.  R.  Cas. 
422;  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White,  88 
Ga.  805,  15  S.  E.  802.  Compare  Rome 
R.    Co.   V.   Sullivan,    etc.,    Co.,   14   Ga.   277, 


899 


CAKRIKR    AS    VVAKK  IK  )ISI;MA  X. 


§  1095 


liol(liii,L(    that    tlic    carrier    must    give    no- 
tice. 

Illiiiois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 
42  111.  132;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ken- 
dall, 72  111.  .-\pp.  \()-i;  Richards  r.  Mich- 
igan, etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  404;  Porter  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  111.  407,  71  Am. 
Dec.  28(i;  Davis  v.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
20  111.  412;  Rothscliild  ?•.  Michigan  Cent. 
R.  Co.,  69  111.  104.  Compare  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Sawyer.  GO  111.  2H->,  18  .\m. 
Rep.  ()i:i  (notice  of  arrival  of  bonded 
goods  held  necessary),  and  Jackson  & 
Son  V.  New  York  Cent.  R.  Co.,  1G7  111. 
App.  461,  holding  that  carrier  must  give 
notice. 

Indiana. — Bansemer  v.  Toledo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  2.5  Ind.  4:54,  87  Am.  Dec.  'MM \  Cincin- 
nati, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  McCool,  26  Ind.  140; 
Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Reyman,  160  Ind. 
278,  76  N.  K.  !)70,  73  N.  E.  587.  See 
Pittsl)urg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Nash,  4:!  [iid. 
423. 

loKHi. — Mohr  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
40  Iowa  579;  Francis  v.  Dubuque,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  25  Iowa  60,  95  Am.  Dec.  769; 
Hicks  V.  Wal)ash  R.  Co.,  131  Iowa  295, 
108  N.  W.  534.  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  235. 

Kentucky. — Jeffcrsonville  R.  Co.  v. 
Cleveland"  (Ky.).  2  Bush  468.  Compare 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stiles,  133  Ky. 
786,  119  S.  W.  786;  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Tingle,   7    Ky.    L.    Rep.   441. 

Massachusetts. — Norway  Plains  Co.  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  Railroad  (Mass.),  1  Gray 
263,  61  .A.m.  Dec.  423.  See,  also.  Rice  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Corp..  98  Mass.  212;  Bar- 
ron V.  Eldredge,  100  Alass.  455.  1  Am. 
Rep.  126;  Stowe  v.  New  York,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  113  Mass.  521;  Rice  v.  Hart,  118 
Mass.   201,   19   Am.   Rep.  433. 

Minnesota. — Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   18   Minn.   133,  Gil.   119. 

Where  the  consignee  resides  eighteen 
miles  from  the  station  the  carrier  need 
not  give  notice  to  him,  but  if  he  had  an 
agent  there,  known  to  the  carrier,  such 
agent  was  entitled  to  notice,  and  reason- 
al)le  time  thereafter  to  remove  them. 
Pinney  v.  F'irst  Division,  etc..  R.  Co..  19 
Minn.  251,   Gil.  211,  20  .\m.   R.   Rep.   71. 

Missouri. — Rankin  v.  Pacific  Railroad,  55 
Mo.  167;  Gashweiler  v.  Wabash,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  83  Mo.  112,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
403,  53  Am..  Rep.  558;  Eaton  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc..  R.  Co..  12  Mo.  App.  386;  Bergner 
v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  13  Mo.  .\pp.  499; 
Kansas  City  Transfer  Co.  z'.  Neisvvanger. 
18  Mo.  App.  103;  Buddy  v.  Wabash,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  20  Mo.  .A.pp.  206;  Pindell  v.  St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  34  Mo.  App.  675;  Herf. 
etc..  Chemical  Co.  7'.  Lackawanna  Line, 
70  Mo.  App.  274;  S.  C,  100  Mo.  App.  164. 
73  S.  W.  346;  Ross  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  119  Mo.  App.  290.  95  S.  W.  977.  See, 
also  Bell  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Mo. 
App.  363;  Holtzclaw  r.  DuflF,  27  Mo.  392; 
Cramer  v.  American,  etc.,  Exp.  Co.,  56 
Mo.  524.  Compare  Pindell  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc..   R.  Co.,  41    Mo.  .\pp.  84. 

-Vrti'    .fersey. — Morris,    etc..    R.     Co.     7'. 


.Ayers,    29    \.    J.    L.    393,    80    Am.    Dec. 
215. 

Fennsyhania.—McCany  v.  New  York 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Pa.  247;  Shenk  v.  Phila- 
delphia Steam  Propeller  Co.,  oo  Pa.  109, 
100  Am.  Dec.  541;  National  Line  Steam- 
ship Co.  v.  Smart,  107  Pa.  492.  See  .\llan 
V.  l'enn.sylvania  R.  Co.,  10  Am.  &  Kng. 
R.  Cas.,  N.  S..  347.  Compare  .\llam  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  5  Pa.  Dist.  R.  54. 

Soutli  Carolina. — Layton  &  Sons  v. 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  S.  C.  323.  72 
S.  E.  988;  Knight  v.  Southern  Railway. 
85  S.  C.  78,  67  S.  E.  16;  Spears  z-.  Spar- 
tonburg.  etc..  R.  Co..  II  S.  C.  158.  Set- 
Murphy  V.  Southern  Railway,  77  S.  C.  76. 
57   S.    E.  664. 

M'cst  i'ir^inia. — Notice  is  not  required 
and  the  consignee  must  remove  the  goods 
from  the  warehouse  within  a  reasonal>le 
time.  Berry  z:  West  Virginia,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E.  143.  67  .\m. 
St.  Rep.  781.  Compare  Baltimore,  etc.. 
R.  Co.  ;•.  Morohead.  .".  W.  Va.  293. 

Reasons  for  doctrine. — In  South,  etc.. 
Alaliama  R.  Co.  i:  Wood,  66  Ala.  167. 
9  .Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  424,  41  .Am.  Rep. 
749.  the  court  said:  "It  is  not  unreason- 
able in  such  cases  to  assume  that  the 
consignee  has  already  been  advised  by 
the  consignor  of  the  fact  that  the  goods 
have  been  forwarded  to  him.  It  would, 
too,  be  practically  impossible  to  require 
such  notice  to  each  consignee,  where  the 
arrivals  of  goods  by  this  mode  of  trans- 
portation are  so  frequent  and  various  as 
is  the  case  in  populous  emporiums  of 
commerce  and  the  great  centres  of  rail- 
way traffic."  See,  also,  Norway  Plains 
Co.  V.  Boston,  etc..  R.  Co.  (Mass.).  1 
Gray  2f).i.  61   .\m.   Dec.  423. 

The  custom  of  notifying  consignees 
before  preferring  against  them  a  cliari^e 
of  demurrage  does  not  warrant  the  impli- 
cation that  the  carrier  thereby  agreed 
to  remain  liable  as  a  common  carrier 
rather  than  a  warehouseman  up  to  the 
time  of  the  notice.  Georgia,  etc..  R.  Co. 
V.  Pound,  111  Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312. 

A  custom  that  the  carrier's  liability  as 
such  shall  continue  after  the  transporta- 
tion and  storage  of  the  goods  is  not 
suflicientl}-  proved  by  evidence  which 
shows  no  more  than  that  the  company 
had  l>een  in  the  habit  of  notifying  a  par- 
ticular customer  by  postal  card  of  the 
arrival  of  his  goods  and  informing  him 
that  storage  or  demurrage  would  be 
charged  thereon  unless  they  were  called 
for  within  a  time  specified,  and  that  it 
had  in  this  manner,  and  also  by  mes- 
sages l)y  telephone  and  otherwise,  given 
similar  notices  to  other  customers,  in 
some  of  wiiich  it  was  stated  that  unless 
the  goods  were  removed  as  requested 
they  would  be  "held"  or  "stored"  at  the 
owner's  risk.  Georgia,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
Pound.  Ill  Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312:  Georgia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Pattison.  112  Ga.  468.  37 
S.    !•:.    766. 

The  fact  that  a  carrier  gives  notice  of 


\095 


CARRlKRS. 


900 


tice  should  be  given  where  the  goods  arrive  out  of  time."i  It  is  held  that  the 
same  rule  applies  to  other  corporations  using  railroads  as  a  means  of  convey- 
ance, such  as  merchants'  dispatch  transporiaiion  companies  where  by  their  usage 
they'merelv  undertake  to  deliver  the  goods  at  their  depots.''- 

New  Hampshire  Doctrine. — In  some  jurisdictions  by  force  of  statute  or 
decisions,  the  Xew  Hampshire  doctrine  is  followed  and  until  the  consignee  has 
been  notified  by  the  carrier  of  the  arrival  of  his  goods  the  carrier  remains  lia- 
ble as  insurer ;'  the  carrier  assumes  the  liability  of  a  warehouseman  only,  after 
notice  to  the  consignee  and  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable  time  thereafter  in  which 
to  remove  the  goods/"''^     But  notice  is  excused  where  the  goods  are  not  properly 


the  arrival  of  a  consignment,  and  requires 
its  removal  within  twenty-four  hours, 
does  not  show  that  the  liability  as  car- 
rier continues  to  the  end  of  that  time. 
Richards  7'.  Michigan,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  III. 
404. 

61.  Where  goods  arrive  out  of  time. — 
Frank  r.  Grand  Tower,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57 
Mo.  App.  181;  Southwestern  R.  Co.  v. 
Felder.  46  Ga.  433,  11  Am.  R.  Rep.  419; 
Western,  etc..  Railroad  v.  Camp,  53  Ga. 
596;  Almand  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  95 
Ga.  775,  22  S.  E.  674;  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Pound.  Ill  Ga.  6,  36  S.  E.  312; 
Right  r.  Wrightsville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  127 
Ga.  204.  56  S.  E.  363;  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Pattison,  112  Ga.  468,  37  S.  E.  766. 
Compare  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  White, 
88    Ga.    805,    15    S.    E.    802. 

62.  Mercliants'  Dispatch  1  ransp.  Co.  v. 
Hallock,  64   111.  284. 

63.  New  Hampshire  doctrine. — .-lla- 
bauia. — Xotice  is  now  required  by  stat- 
ute. Code  1907,  §  5604;  Greek-American 
Produce  Co.  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  4 
Ala.   App.   377,   58   So.   994. 

But  it  seems  that  formerly  the  Massa- 
chusetts doctrine  was  held.  South,  etc., 
Alabama  R.  Co.  v.  Wood,  66  Ala.  167, 
9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  419,  41  Am.  Rep. 
749;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  McGuire  & 
Co.,  79  Ala.  395;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Oden.  80  Ala.  38;  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Ludden.  89  Ala.  612,  7  So.  471,  42  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  404.  But  see  Alabama 
Mid.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Darby,  119  Ala.  531, 
24  So.  713;  Collins  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  104  Ala.  390,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
229,  16  So.  140,  and  Kennedy  Bros.  v. 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  74  Ala.  430,  21  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  145. 

Under  Code  1896,  §  4224,  where  the 
destination  of  the  goods  is  a  city  of  two 
thousand  or  more  inhabitants,  and  hav- 
ing a  daily  mail,  the  lial)ility  of  the  com- 
pany becomes  that  of  a  warehouseman 
only  when,  within  twenty-four  hours  after 
the  arrival  of  the  goods,  it  has  stored 
them  in  a  safe  warehouse  and  mailed  a 
notice  to  the  consignee.  The  notice  may 
be  to  a  third  party  where  the  consignor 
so  directs.  Collins  v.  Alabama,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  104  Ala.  390,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
229,  16  So.  140;  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Ludden,  89  Ala.  612,  7  So.  471,  42  Am. 
&  Eng.  R.  Cas.  404.  The  statute  did  not 
lay  upon   the  carrier  a  duty  to  notify  the 


consignee,  but  merely  determined  the 
time  of  termination  of  the  strict  liability 
of  the  carrier.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Burton,  165  Ala.  425,  51  So.  643.  The 
statute  made  no  distinction  l)etween  in- 
corporated and  unincorporated  cities  and 
towns;  and  incorporation  need  not  be 
sliown,  to  take  advantage  of  the  statute. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Johnson,  33  So. 
661,    135    Ala.   232. 

Arkansas. — Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Ne- 
vill,  60  Ark.  375,  30  S.  W.  425,  28  L.  R. 
A.  80,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  208;  Kansas,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Morrison  (Ark.),  146  S.  W. 
853. 

Califuniia. — Notice  is  now  required  by 
statute.  Cal.  Civ.  Code,  §  2120;  Wilson 
V.  California  Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  Cal.  16i), 
29  Pac.  861,  17  L.  R-  A.  685.  See,  also, 
Jackson  v.  Sacramento  Valley  R.  Co.,  23 
Cal.  268;  Hirshfield  v.  Central  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  56  Cal.  484,  7  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
398. 

Kansas. — Leavenworth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V. 
Maris,  16  Kan.  333. 

Louisiana. — Maignan  v.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  24  La.  Ann.  333;  Sleade  v. 
Payne,   14  La.  Ann.  453. 

.l/(;rv/a"rf.— United  Fruit  Co.  v.  New 
York,"  etc.,  Transp.  Co.,  104  Md.  567, 
65  Atl.  415,  8  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  240,  10  Am. 
&  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  437. 

Where  a  carrier  charged,  l)esides  the 
regular  freight  charges,  a  compensation 
for  streetage  to  the  plaintiff's  place  of 
l:)usiness,  it  was  held  that  if  the  course 
of  dealing  between  the  carrier  and  the 
consignee  rendered  personal  notice  of  the 
arrival  of  the  cars  unnecessary,  the  car- 
rier was  not  required  to  give  such  notice 
to  constitute  delivery,  notwithstanding 
the  extra  charge  of  streetage.  Balti- 
more,  etc.,   R.   Co.  V.   Green,   25   Md.   72. 

.Iftc/n'^'f/H.— McMillan  v.  Michigan,  etc., 
R.  Co.,"  16  Mich.  79,  93  Am.  Dec.  208; 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Ward,  2  Mich. 
538;  Walters  v.  Detroit  United  R.  Co., 
139  Mich.  303.  102  N.  W.  745.  See  also 
Buckley  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  18 
Mich.    121. 

Mississippi.— GuU,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuqua, 
36  So.  449,  84  Miss.  490;  Yazoo,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Blum,  102  Miss.  303,  59  So.  92; 
Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ferguson-McKinney 
Dry  Goods  Co.,  97  Miss.  266,  52  So. 
797. 

Xcw  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc., 


901 


c.\rrii:k  as  vv.\ki:noL'jij:MAx. 


§  1095 


R.  Co.,  32  N.  H.  023,  04  Am.  Dec.  :i81; 
Welch  V.  Concord  Railroad,  (>8  X.  H.  200, 
44  Atl.  304;  Smith  z:  Xashua,  etc..  Rail- 
road.  27    X.    H.    80,    5'J    .\m.    Dec.    304. 

AVti'  ]'orL\ — Mills  r.  Michij,'an  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  45  X.  Y.  622,  0  Am.  Rep.  152;  Hedges 
V.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  223,  3 
Am.  R.  Rep.  340;  Rawson  v.  Holland, 
59  X.  Y.  Oil.  17  Am.  Rep.  394;  Solomon 
V.  Piiiladelpliia,  etc..  Steamboat  Co  ,  2 
Daly  104;  McDonald  v.  Western  R.  Corp., 
.34  X.  Y.  497;  Sprague  v.  Xew  York- 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  52  X.  Y.  037;  Duniiam  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Hun  245,  11  X. 
Y.  St.  Rep.  472;  Sherman  v.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.,  64  X.  Y.  254,  affirming  5 
Daly  521;  Zinn  v.  Xew  Jersey  Steam- 
boat Co.,  49  X.  Y.  442,  10  Am.  Rep.  402. 
3  .\m.  R.  Rep.  340;  Browning  z-.  Long  Is- 
land R.  Co..  2  Daly  117;  Grieve  v.  Xew 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co..  49  X.  Y.  S.  949,  25 
App.  Div.  518;  Hedges  z'.  Hudson  River 
R.  Co.,  29  X.  Y.  Super  Ct.  119;  Becker  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  96  X.  Y.  S.  1,  109 
App.  Div.  230;  King  r.  Xew  Brunswick, 
etc..  Steamboat  Co.,  73  N.  Y.  S.  999,  36 
Misc.  Rep.  555;  Pelton  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.. 
R.  Co.,  54  X.  Y.  214,  13  Am.  Rep.  508; 
Weed  z:  Barney.  45  N.  Y.  344,  6  Am.  Rep. 
96;  Faulkner  v.  Hart,  82  X.  Y.  413,  37  Am. 
Rep.  574.  reversing  44  X.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
471;   Price  z\   Powell,  3  X.  Y.  322. 

If  the  consignee  does  not  then  call  for 
the  goods,  liability  as  a  common  carrier 
ceases.  Fcnner  z'.  Buffalo,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 
44  X.  Y.  505,  4  Am.  Rep.  709;  Grieve  v. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  49  X.  Y.  S.  949. 
25  App.  Div.  518. 

Xurth  Carolina. — The  Xew  Hampshire 
doctrine  now  prevails.  Poythress  v.  Dur- 
ham, etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  391,  02  S.  F. 
515,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  427;  Wall-Huske 
Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Co.,  147  N.  C.  407,  01 
S.  E.  277;  Citizens',  etc..  Bank  z:  South- 
ern R.  Co.,  153  X.  C.  346,  69  S.  E.  201. 
But  it  seems  that  the  Massachusetts 
doctrine  was  formerly  held.  See  Xeal  & 
Co.  V.  Wilmington,  etc..  R.  Co.,  53  X.  C. 
482;  Hilliard  r.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
51  X.  C.  ;!43  (question  discussed  but  not 
decided);  Chalk  z'.  Charlotte,  etc..  R.  Co., 
85  N.  C.  423,  9  .-Km.  &  Kng.  R.  Cas. 
106. 

Ohio. — Hirsch  7'.  Steamboat  Quaker 
City,  2  Disn.  144,  13  O.  Dec.  Reprint  89; 
Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  z:  Hatch.  52  O. 
St.  408,  39  N.  E.  1042,  01  Am.  cS:  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  293;  Roberts  z'.  Union  Line  Exp. 
Co.,  2   O.   Diec.   577. 

Oregon. — If  the  consignee  is  absent,  on 
the  arrival  of  the  goods  but  lives  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  place  of  deliv- 
ery, the  carrier  must  notify  him  of  the 
arrival  of  tlie  goods,  after  which  he  has 
a  reasonable  time  to  remove  them;  but  if 
he  is  alisent,  unknown,  or  cannot  lie 
found,  the  carrier  may  place  the  goods 
in  a  warehouse,  and  after  keeping  them  a 
reasonalde  time,  if  not  delivered,  the  car- 
rier's liability  as  such  ceases.     McGregor 


V.    Oregon    R.,   etc.,    Co.,    50    Ore.    527,    93 
Pac.   405. 

Tennessee. — See  Code,  §  3597,  ch.  26, 
p.  841;  Code  1884,  §  2788;  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.  V.  Xaive,  112  Tenn.  239,  79  S.  \V. 
124,  04  L.  R.  A.  443;  Dean  z:  Vaccaro,  39 
Tcnn.  (2  Head)  488,  75  .Am.  Dec.  744; 
Butler  V.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  76 
Tenn.  (8  Lea)  32,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
249,  holding  that  the  statute  does  not 
appear  to  affect  the  liability  of  the  car- 
rier. 

Texas. — The  statute  provides  that  a  car- 
rier shall  remain  lialde  as  such  until  ac- 
tual delivery  to  the  consignee  unless  it 
has  used  due  diligence  to  notify  the  con- 
signee. See  Rev.  St..  arts.  281.  282;  Mis- 
souri Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Haynes  &  Co.,  72 
Te.x.  175,  10  S.  W.  398,  37  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  645;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Adams,  49  Tex.  748,  30  .Am.  Rep.  110; 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  f.  Hunt  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  32  S.  W.  549. 

What  constitutes  due  diligence  depends 
in  some  degree  upon  the  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances of  each  case  in  which  it  is 
to  be  shown,  and  upon  the  custom  and 
usage  of  business  at  the  place  of  deliv- 
ery (Houston,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Adams,  49 
Tex.  748,  30  .\m.  Rep.  116),  and  is  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury.  (Texas,  etc..  R.  Co.  f. 
Gilmore  (Tex.  Civ.  App.).  152  S.  W.  1102). 

Vermont. — Guimit  v.  Henshaw.  35  Vt. 
605,  84  Am.  Dec.  040;  Blumenthal  v. 
Brainerd,  38  Vt.  402,  91  .\m.  Dec.  350; 
Winslow  V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  Vt. 
700,    1    Am.    Rep.   305. 

I'ir'ginia. — See  Xorfolk,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Stuart's  Draft  Mill.  Co..  109  \a.  184,  63 
S.   E.   415. 

Washington. — Xorth  Yakima  Brewing 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Xorthern  Pac.  R.  Co..  95  Pac. 
486,  49  Wash.  375,  10  L.  R.  .A.,  X.  S., 
935. 

Wisconsin. — Wood  v.  Crocker.  IS  Wis. 
345,  86  Am.  Dec.  773;  Lemke  z:  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Wis.  449,  13  .Am. 
R.  Rep.  406.  See  Hermann  7-.  Goodrich. 
21   Wis.    530. 

Canada. — Richardson  v.  Canadian  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  19  Ont.  Rep.  369,  45  .Am.  &  Eng. 
R.   Cas.  413. 

Origin  of  rule.— "The  custom  of  send- 
ing notice  to  the  consignee  sprung  out  of 
the  necessity  of  Imsiness.  and  is  for  the 
l)enefit  and  convenience  of  l)Oth  parties. 
'1  he  railroads  established  this  custom,  the 
public  acquiesced  therein,  and  the  law 
adapts  itself  thereto."  Railroad  Co.  z: 
Hatch.  52  O.  St.  408.  39  X.   E.   1042. 

Where  the  consignee  is  absent  from  the 
terminus  of  tlu-  carrii-r's  route,  and  has 
no  agent  to  whom  delivery  can  be  made 
or  notice  given,  the  carrier  may  terminate 
his  lialiility  as  carrier  l)y  depositing  the 
merchandise  in  a  warehouse.  Xorthrop 
?'.  Svracuse.  etc..  R.  Co.  (X.  Y.).  5  .Abb. 
Prac..  X.  S..  425;  S.  C,  3  .Abb.  Dec. 
3Sf>. 

Effect  of  knowledge  of  consignee. — 
Where       tools     were     ct>iisigned     t<>      the 


1095 


CARRIERS. 


902 


addressed  to  the  consignee's  usual  shipping  i^lace.''"*   or  where  his   residence   is 
unknown  and  the  carrier  fails  to  ascertain  it  after  due  inquiry.'""' 

Effect  of  Contract  or  Custom. — It  is  held  that  the  giving  of  notice  to  the 
consignee  of  the  arrixal  of  goods  may  he  waived  hy  contract,*'"'  and  also  hy  the 
previous  course  of  dealings  hetween  the  parties.*'^     And  notice  may  be  excused 


shipper  at  a  flag  station,  and  on  arrival 
the  consignee,'  in  passing  through  the 
town,  noticed  a  car  containing  siniihir 
goods  standing  on  the  side  track,  where- 
upon he  immediately  took  steps  to  as- 
certain if  the  shipment  belonged  to  him, 
no  notice  of  arrival  on  the  part  of  the 
carrier  was  required.  Normile  r.  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co..  77  Tac.  10S7,  liO  Wash. 
21.  67   L.   R.  A.  271. 

Where  the  bill  of  lading  stipulated  for 
notice  to  a  third  person,  and  provided 
that  if  the  property  was  not  removed  on 
presentation  of  the  bill  within  48  hours 
after  notice,  the  carrier  was  liable  as  a 
warehouseman  only,  the  third  person,  on 
receiving  notice,  must  within  forty-eight 
hours  present  the  bill  if  lie  wished  to 
hold  the  carrier  as  such,  as  after  that 
time  the  carrier  became  a  warehouseman. 
Lyons  v.  New  York,  etc..  R.  Co.,  119  N. 
Y.  S.  703.  affirmed  in  120  N.  Y.  S.  1132, 
136  App.   Div.   !•()■;. 

A  carrier  under  a  bill  of  lading  requir- 
ing notice  to  the  purchaser  from  the  con- 
signee is  liable  as  carrier  until  it  lias 
placed  the  car  in  a  proper  place  for  ex- 
amination by  the  purchaser.  Johnson  & 
Co.  z:  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.  (Vt.),  79 
Atl.    109.5. 

Condition  in  notice. — Where  after  a 
stipulation  for  notice,  without  any  agree- 
ment as  to  the  form  or  conditions  thereof, 
the  carrier  gives  notice,  with  the  condi- 
tion written  thereon,  that  the  liability 
of  the  carrier  terminates  upon  the  arrival 
of  the  goods,  and  the  consignee  receive 
such  notice  without  objection  and  con- 
tinues his  shipments  over  the  road,  such 
condition  is  binding  on  both  parties.  Lea- 
venworth, etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Maris,  16  Kan. 
333. 

64.  Goods  not  properly  addressed. — 
American  Stan(hird  Jewelry  Co.  v.  With- 
erington.  81   Ark.   134,  98  S.  W.  695. 

65.  Pelton  v.  Rensselaer,  etc.,  R.  Co..  54 
N.  Y.  214,  13  Am.  Rep.  568.  See  Zinn 
v.  New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co..  49  N.  Y. 
442,  10  Am.  Rep.  402,  3  Am.  R.  Rep.  340. 

In  Sherman  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  64 
N.  Y.  254,  it  was  said:  "When  the  con- 
signee is  unknown  to  the  carrier,  a  due 
effort  to  find  him  and  notify  him  of  the 
arrival  of  the  goods  is  a  condition  prece- 
dent to   the   right   to   warehouse    them." 

If  the  consignee  is  unknown,  or  absent, 
or  cannot  be  found,  the  goods  may  be 
stored.  Railroad  Co.  v.  Hatch,  52  O.  St. 
408,  39  N.  E.  1042;  affirming  6  O.  C.  C. 
230,  3  O.  C.  D.  430;  Hirsch  v.  Steamboat 
Quaker  City,  2  Disn.  144,  13  O.  Dec.  Re- 
print 89;  Roberts  v.  Union  Line  Kxp. 
Co.,  2  O.  Dec.  577. 


Where  a  i)arty  has  no  fixed  residence, 
and  liis  temporary  stopping  place  is 
not  known  to  the  cai-rier  shipping  his 
goods,  and  on  their  arrival  at  the  point 
of  destination  the  company  places  them 
in  the  warehouse,  it  is  not  at  fault  for 
failing  to  give  the  shipper  notice  of  the 
arrival  of  the  goods.  Butler  v.  East  Ten- 
nessee, etc..  R.  Co..  76  Tenn.  (8  Lea)  32. 
9  Am.   &   Kng.   R.   Cas.  249. 

66.  Contract  dispensing  with  notice. — 
Gashweiler  r.  Wal)ash,  etc..  R.  Co.,  83 
Mo.  112,  53  Am.  Rep.  558;  Illinois  Cent. 
R.  Co.  V.  Carter,  62   111.  App.  618. 

Where  the  bill  of  lading  provides  that 
the  goods  shall  be  taken  from  alongside 
by  the  consignees  immediately  the  vessel 
is  ready  to  discharge,  otherwise  they  shall 
he  deposited  in  the  company's  warehouse 
at  the  owner's  risk  notice  to  the  con- 
signees is  not  necessary.  Constable  v. 
National  Steamship  Co.,  154  U.  S.  51,  38 
L.   Ed.  903,  14  S.  Ct.   1062. 

67.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  62 
111.  App.  618. 

Where  it  has  l)een  the  custom  of  the 
consignee  to  call  daily  and  receive  goods' 
shipped  to  him  by  a  common  carrier,  no 
notice  to  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of 
any  consignment  is  necessary;  but,  where 
the  usage  has  been  for  the  consignee  not 
to  receive  or  remove  goods  arriving  upon 
a  holiday,  as  to  such  goods  the  ordinary 
rule  applies.  The  carrier,  to  relieve  him- 
self from  lialMlity  for  damages  to  the 
goods  after  their  arrival,  must  give  no- 
tice and  a  reasonable  time  to  remove; 
otherwise,  the  liability  attaches  until  after 
the  time  of  removal  upon  the  next  day. 
Russell  Mfg.  Co.  t.  New  Haven  Steam- 
boat Co.,  52  N.  Y.  657.  See  S.  C,  50  N. 
Y.   121. 

Question  for  jury. — In  an  action  against 
a  railroad  company  for  the  value  of  oats 
shipped  l)y  plaintiff  directed  to  a  military 
officer  at  tlie  foot  of  Sixth  street  wharf, 
in  Washington,  D.  C.  there  was  evidence 
that  a  course  of  dealing  between  defend- 
ant and  the  consignee  to  the  effect  that 
the  consignee's  depot  was  the  Sixth  street 
wharf  in  Washington,  he  being  the  for- 
age agent  of  the  government;  that  it  was 
his  duty  to  report  every  night  to  another 
officer  all  cars  that  arrived  at  the  foot 
of  Sixth  street;  that  as  many  as  twenty 
cars  a  day  were  received  at  such  depot 
on  the  government  wharves,  whence  oats 
were  shipped  to  Alexandria.  The  custom 
was  to  deliver  all  cars  marked  for  the 
first  officer  referred  to  at  the  foot  of  Sixth 
street.  Held,  that  the  court  should  have 
left  it  to  the  jury  to  find  whether  the 
course    of    dealing    between    the    railroad 


903 


C.\KKIi:i<    AS    WAKKIIOUSEMAX. 


§§  1095-1096 


where  a  usage  or  custom  prevails  which  dispenses  witli  it;''*'  but  sucli  usage 
or  custom  must  be  so  clear  and  notorious  as  to  atiford  a  presumption  that  all 
parties  acted  with  an  understanding  of  its  character  and  application.'^'-*  And 
notice  must  be  given  where  the  carrier  contracts  to  give  notice,""  or  where  it 
is  tlu-  custom  (if  the  parties  for  it  to  be  given."^ 

Sufficiency  of  Notice. — As  to  sufficiency  oi  notice  of  arri\al  of  goods,  see 
elsewhere. "- 

§  1096.  What  Is  Reasonable  Time. — Some  courts  hold  that  the  liability 
of  a  carrier  as  sucli  continues  until  the  consignee  has  had  a  reasonable  oppor- 
lunit\-  to  rcmo\c    the    goods    on    arri\al    at    their    destination.""'     It  is  held  that 


compaii}-  anil  the  consisnee  was  such  as 
to  make  it  unreasonable  to  expect  per- 
sonal notice  of  the  arrival  of  the  cars, 
and  if  sucli  course  of  dealing  renderc(l 
sucli  notice  necessary,  or  dispensed 
witli  it,  then  the  company  was  ncjt  imper- 
atively required  to  give  such  notice,  to 
constitute  delivery,  notwithstanding  an 
extra  cliarge  of  strcetagc.  Baltimore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Green,  2'>  Md.  72. 

68.  Effect  of  usage  or  custom. — Illinois. 
—Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Carter,  62  111. 
App.    IJIS. 

Xcw  York.— Gihson  v.  Culver  (N.  Y.), 
17  Wend.  305,  31  Am.  Dec.  297;  Atlantic 
Nav.  Co.  V.  Johnson,  27  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
475.  Compare  Mierson  v.  Hope,  2 
Sweeney  5(5. 

Vermont. — Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  v.  Chap- 
lain Transp.  Co.,  16  \\.  52.  42  Am.  Dec. 
491. 

Contra. — A  custom  of  a  railroad  com-- 
pany  not  to  notify  consignees  of  the  ar- 
rival of  goods  at  a  station  where  there 
was  no  freight  agent  will  not  relieve  the 
company  from  liability  for  injury  to 
goods  after  their  arrival  at  such  station, 
where  the  consignee  was  not  notified. 
Allam  V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  5  Pa.  Dist. 
R.    54. 

The  liability  of  a  carrier  does  not  termi- 
nate until  notice  of  the  arrival  of  the 
goods  at  their  destination  has  been  given 
the  consignee,  irrespective  of  any  custom 
on  the  part  of  the  railroad  not  to  give 
such  notice.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fuqua, 
36    So.   449,   84    Miss.   490. 

The  usage  or  custom  of  a  port  can  not 
dispense  with  delivery,  or  notice  of  the 
landing  of  the  goods.  Dean  v.  Vaccaro, 
39  Tenn.   (2   Head)   488,  75  .\m.   Dec.   744. 

Custom  as  to  holiday. — Where  it  is  a 
general  and  uniform  custom  at  a  place 
to  which  freight  is  consigned  not  to  give 
notice  of  arrival  on  the  4th  of  July,  neg- 
ligence can  not  be  predicated  on  the  fail- 
ure of  a  carrier  to  give  notice,  and  one 
who  ships  goods  to  an  agent  at  a  place 
where  such  custom  prevails  is  bound  by 
such  custom,  though  he  had  no  actual 
knowledge  thereof.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co. 
V.  Naive,  112  Tenn.  239,  79  S.  W.  124,  04 
L.  R.  -A.  443. 

69.  Usage  or  custom  must  be  notorious. 
— The  Alarv  Washington,  Feci.  Cas.  No. 
9,229,    1    Al)b.   U.    S.    1.    Chase    125;    Howe 


V.  Lexington,  I-'ed.  Cas.  N'o.  6,767a.  See 
Gibson  V.  Culver  (N.  Y.),  17  Wend.  305. 
31    .\m.    Dec:   297. 

Contra.— See  Turner  7-.  Huff.  46  /\rk. 
222.   55   Am.    Rep.   5s(l. 

70.  Contract  to  give  notice. — Tanner  v. 
Oil  Creek  R.  Co.,  53  Ph.  411;  Layton  & 
Sons  V.  Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90  S.  C. 
323.   72    S.    F.   988. 

Where  a  bill  of  lading  contains  a  pro- 
vision and  condition  to  the  effect  that,  "if 
the  word  'order'  is  written  immediately 
l)efore  or  after  the  name  of  the  party  to 
whose  order  the  property  is  consigned, 
the  surrender  of  the  bill  of  lading,  prop- 
erly indorsed,  shall  be  required  before  de- 
livery of  the  property  at  destination,"  and 
the  words  "order  notify"  appear  before 
the  name  of  the  consignee  thereon,  such 
bill  of  lading  requires  notice  to  the  con- 
signee. Lavton  &  Sons  v.  Charleston, 
etc..    R.    Co..    72    S.    F.    988,   90   S.    C.   323. 

That  notice  was  contrary  to  the  rules 
of  the  freight  office  does  ncjt  excuse  the 
carrier's  failure  to  notify  the  consignee 
where  it  contracts  to  do  so.  Tanner  v. 
Oil   Creek   R.   Co.,   53   Pa.   411. 

71.  Custom  to  give  notice. — Aabama. — 
Such  custom  does  not  have  the  effect  of 
imposing  the  positive  duty  to  give  such 
notice,  but  merely  affects  the  time  of 
termination  of  the  liability  of  the  carrier 
as  such.  Central,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Burton, 
165  Ala.  425,  51   So.  643. 

Georgia. — Richmond,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
White,   88   Ga.   805,   15   S.   F.   802. 

Kentucky. — Bryant  v.  Louisville,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  47;  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.  V.  Hopkinsville  Canning  Co.,  132  Ky. 
578,   116  S.   W.   758. 

Missouri.— Vvd^nk  v.  Grand  Tower,  etc., 
R.  ,Co..  57  Mo.  App.  181;  Kerf,  etc.. 
Chemical  Co.  v.  Lackawanna  Line.  100 
Mo.    App.    164.   73    S.    W.    346. 

The  usage  may  be  dispensed  with  by 
an  express  stipulation  to  tliat  etTect  in 
the  contract  of  shipment;  but  a  stipula- 
tion that  the  goods  are  to  be  called  for 
on  the  dav  of  their  arrival  docs  not  have 
that  effect.  Herf.  etc..  Chemical  Co.  v. 
Lackawanna   Line.  7::   S.   W.  346,   100  Mo. 

App.   164. 

72.  Sufficiency  of  notice.— See  ante, 
"Duties    in    ^Llking    Delivery."    §    S45. 

73.  See  ante.  "Railroads  and  Carriers  by 
Water  Having  Fixed   Schedule."  §   1094. 


§  1096 


CARRlliRS. 


904 


such  reasonable  time  is  not  to  have  reference  to  the  peculiar  situation  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  consignee,  but  is  such  time  as  would  give  to  a  person  residing 
in  the  vicinitv  of  the  place  of  delivery,  and  informed  of  the  usual  course  of  the 
carrier's  business  and  of  the  time  when  the  goods  may  be  expected  to  arrive, 
suitable  onportunity,  within  the  usual  business  hours,  to  inspect  the  goods  and 
take  theni  away.""*  It  is  also  held  that  what  constitutes  such  reasonable  time 
depends  upon  the  circumstances  of  each  particular  case/^  such  as  the  character 
of  the  freight,'"  and  the  proximity  of  the  consignee  to  the  point  of  delivery  and 
his  knowledge  of  the  arrival  of  the  shipment.'"  Computation  of  the  reasonable 
time  in  which  a  consignee  may  apply  for  and  remove  freight  begins  when  it  is 
at  the  place  and  ready  for  delivery  in  the  usual  manner.' ^"^  It  is  also  held  that 
the  period  of  reasonable  time  begins  when  the  consignee  knows,  or,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  reasonable  diligence  should  know,  that  the  goods  have  arrived. '^'^ 
Instances  of  reasonable  time  are  set  out  in  the  notes.^" 


74.  What  is  reasonable  time. — Maryland. 
— United  Fruit  Co.  r.  New  York,  etc., 
Transp.  Co..  104  Md.  567,  65  Atl.  415,  8 
L.   R.  A.,   N.   S..  240. 

Minnesota. — Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  18  Minn.  133,  Gil.  119;  Pinney  v.  First 
Division,  etc..  R.  Co.,  19  Minn.  251,  Gil. 
211,  20  Am.  R.  Rep.  71. 

Xczi'  Hampshire. — Moses  v.  Boston,  etc., 
Railroad,  32   N.   H.   523,  64  Am.   Dec.  381. 

Wisconsin. — See  Wood  v.  Crocker,  18 
Wis.  345,  86  Am.  Dec.  773. 

75.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill  & 
Co.,  153  Ala.  277,  45  So.  628;  Poythress  v. 
Durham,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  148  N.  C.  391,  62 
S.  E.  515,  18  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  427;  North 
Yakima  Brewing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  49  Wash.  375,  95  Pac.  486,  16 
L.   R.  A.,  N.   S.,  935. 

76.  Briant  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  47. 

77.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill  & 
Co.,  153  Ala.  277,  45  So.  628;  Briant  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  47. 
Contra,  Berry  v.  West  Virginia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30  S.  E.  143,  67  Am. 
St.   Rep.  781. 

78.  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Adams  Mach. 
Co.,  165  Ala.  436,  51  So.  779. 

79.  Lewis  v.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  135 
Ky.  361,  122  S.  W.  184,  25  L.  R.  A.,  N. 
S..  938,  21   Am.  &  Eng.  Ann.  Cas.  527. 

80.  Instances  of  reasonable  time- 
Plaintiff  consigned  goods  to  himself  at 
Waseca.  They  arrived,  a  portion  on 
March  8th  and  part  on  March  10th,  and 
were  unloaded  ready  for  delivery  on  the 
morning  following  their  arrival.  He  first 
called  for  them  March  16th,  and,  no  one 
being  present  to  deliver  them  to  him,  he 
went  away,  and  March  17th  they  were 
destroyed  by  fire.  Held,  that  a  reasonable 
time  in  which  to  remove  them  had 
elapsed.  Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
18   Minn.  133,   Gil.   119. 

Where  the  consignee,  after  being  noti- 
fied on  Saturday  afternoon  of  the  delivery 
of  the  shipment  on  the  dock,  allows  part 
of  it  to  remain  there  until  the  following 
Wednesday  afternoon,  when  it  is  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  the  carrier  is  not  liable 
as    a    carrier    for    its    loss.      Wynantskill 


Knitting  Co.  v.  Murray,  90  Hun  5.)4,  36 
N.  Y.  S.  26,  71  _N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  33. 

Notice  of  arrival  on  November  25,  was 
given  the  owners  the  same  day;  the 
goods  were  discharged  on  the  27th;  and 
the  owners  had  three  full  days  in  which 
to  remove  them  before  December  1st, 
when  it  was  discovered  that  part  of  the 
goods  had  been  lost  since  the  29th.  Held, 
that  the  owners  had  had  sufficient  time  by 
the  exercise  of  due  diligence  to  remove 
them.  Tarbell  v.  Royal  Exch.  Shipping 
Co.,  53  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  190;  S.  C,  110 
N.  Y.  170,  17  N.  E.  721,  6  Am.  St.  Rep. 
350. 

Goods  arrived  Thursday,  and  were  dis- 
charged on  dock  Friday.  Notice  was 
mailed  Thursday  evening,  but  did  not 
reach  the  plaintiff  till  Saturday  forenoon. 
Saturday  was  very  stormy,  and  the  goods 
were  not  called  for  until  Monday,  when 
they  were  found  to  be  greatly  injured  by 
rain.  Held,  that  Monday  was  a  reason- 
able time  to  remove  the  goods.  Solomon 
V.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  Steamboat  Co.  (N. 
Y.),  2   Daly  104. 

After  the  arrival  of  goods  they  were 
placed  on  a  platform  at  the  depot  for  the 
convenience  of  delivery  to  consignees, 
and  remained  there  for  nearly  two  days. 
Notice  of  their  arrival-  was  given  to  plain- 
tiff, who  paid  the  freight  charges  with 
full  knowledge  of  the  place  of  deposit; 
and  in  the  afternoon  of  the  second  day 
they  were  destroyed  by  fire.  Held,  that 
defendant's  liability  as  carrier  had  ceased. 
Chalk  V.  Charlotte,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  85  N.  C. 
423,   9   Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    106. 

The  consignee  of  a  package  of  money, 
who  lived  one  mile  from  the  station,  re- 
ceived .notice  Monday  evening  that  the 
package  had  arrived,  but  did  not  call  for 
it  until  Wednesday  noon.  The  package 
was  lost  in  the  meanwhile.  Held,  that 
the  consignee  did  not  call  for  the  pack- 
age within  a  reasonable  time,  and  hence 
the  carrier  was  not  liable.  Adams  Exp. 
Co.  V.  Tingle,  7   Ky.   L.   Rep.  441. 

The  consignee  of  money,  who  learned, 
by  meeting  the  station  agent  at  another 
place  than  the  destination  point,  that  the 
money    had    arrived,    and    who    proceeded 


905 


CARRIER    AS    WARF.HOL'SIC.MAN. 


§  1096 


Where  the  goods  did  not  arrive  on  time,   and  when  the  consignee  ex- 


to  his  home,  14  miles  Iroiu  the  lieslina- 
tion  point,  and  was  about  sending  for  the 
money  the  next  day,  when  it  was  de- 
stroyed, had  had  a  reasonable  time  to  re- 
move it.  Roberts  v.  Union  Line  Exp.  Co., 
2  O.  Dec.  577. 

Where  the  only  reason  why  goods 
ready  for  delivery  by  a  carrier  -were  not 
removed  before  destroyed  by  fire  was 
because  the  consignee  wished  to  have  the 
bill  of  lading  when  he  paid  the  freight, 
and  had  not  received  it  from  the  con- 
signor although  he  had  written  for  it  sev- 
eral times,  a  reasonable  time  for  removal 
had  elapsed  where  the  goods  had  re- 
mained in  the  depot  some  weeks  after  ar- 
rival, and  the  consignee,  about  a  week 
before  the  tire,  had  knowledge  of  their 
arrival,  and  the  carrier's  only  liability  was 
that  of  a  warehouseman.  Knight  v. 
Southern  Raihvav,  <)7  S.  E.  !(>,  85  S. 
C.    78. 

Where  a  Ijox  laj-  in  a  railroad  com- 
pany's freight  house  from  the  17th  of 
September  to  the  24th,  the  consignee 
knowing  the  fact,  and  on  the  night  of 
the  24th  was  stolen,  it  was  held  that  a 
reasonable  time  had  elapsed.  Blumenthal 
V.   Brainerd,  38  Vt.  402,  91   Am.   Dec.   350. 

Where  goods  were  held  at  destination 
three  and  one-half  months  after  arrival 
when  they  were  sold  for  freight  charges, 
the  carrier's  liability  as  a  carrier  had 
ceased,  and  had  become  that  of  a  ware- 
houseman when  the  goods  were  sold. 
Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stuart's  Draft 
Mill.   Co..   109   \'a.    184,   63   S.    E.   415, 

Plaintiff  called  at  defendant's  freight 
office  and  said  that  he  desired  to  pay 
the  freight  bills  and  remove  the  ship- 
ment. He  was  informed  that  the  freight 
bills  would  be  ready  at  any  time  after 
noon  on  that  day;  but  plaintifif  did  not 
call  for  the  containers  in  the  afternoon, 
and  they  were  destroyed  the  following 
night  by  fire,  without  negligence  on  de- 
fendant's part.  Plaintifif's  place  of  busi- 
ness was  but  400  feet  from  the  ware- 
house where  the  containers  were  stored, 
and  the  only  reason  why  they  were  not 
taken  away,  during  the  afternoon  of  May 
5th,  before  the  fire,  was  that  it  did  not 
suit  plaintifif's  convenience.  Held,  that  de- 
fendant's relation  as  carrier  had  been 
terminated,  and  that  it  was  not  responsi- 
ble for  the  loss  of  the  containers.  North 
Yakima  Brewing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Northern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  95  Pac.  486,  49  Wash.  375, 
16  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  935. 

Plaintiff  shipped  goods  by  defendant's 
road  to  W.,  where  they  were  received  at 
the  depot  at  5:30  p.  m.  on  Saturday,  and 
were  destroyed  l)y  fire  about  noon  on  the 
following  Tuesday.  Held  tliat,  plaintiff 
had  a  reasonable  time  in  which  to  remove 
the  goods.  Lemkc  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
39  W'is.   449.   13   Am.    R.    Rep.  406. 

One  day  is  a  reasonalilc  time  to  unload. 
1    Car— 58 


and  remove  to  a  distance  of  one  mile  03 
balej  of  hops,  so  as  to  change  the  car- 
rier's liability  to  that  of  a  warehouseman, 
where  the  consignee  has  sufficient  drays 
availal)le  to  effect  the  removal.  Brand  r. 
New  Jersey  Steamboat  Co.,  10  Misc.  Rep. 
128,  30  N.  Y.  S.  903,  02  N.  V.  St.  Rep. 
470. 

Three  days  after  notice  held  reasonable 
time.  Anniston.  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ledbetter, 
92  Ala.  320,  9  So.  73;  Backhaus  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  92  Wis.  393,  00  N.  W. 
400. 

Where  a  piano,  which  could  have  been 
removed  from  the  carrier's  depot  in  about 
an  hour,  is  allowed  to  remain  three  days 
after  its  arrival,  the  carrier  will  be  held 
liable  only  as  a  warehouseman,  notwith- 
standing consignee  lived  twenty-eight 
miles  away.  Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Ludden,  89  Ala.  012,  7  So.  471,  42  Am.  & 
I'.ng.    R.    Cas.    404. 

Where  a  cart  shipped  to  the  shipper,  as 
consignee,  was  received  at  the  delivery 
point  on  September  27th,  and  the  con- 
signee notified  thereof,  the  carrier  was 
only  liable  as  a  warehouseman  for  its  loss 
by  fire  on  October  1st,  even  though  the 
consignee  did  not  arrive  at  the  place  of 
delivery,  or  have  an  agent  there,  till  after 
such  time.  Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Peter- 
son, 69  Pac.  57S,  30  Colo.  77,  97  Am.  St. 
Rep.    70. 

Six  days  lield  reasonable  time.  Welch 
V.  Concord  Railroad,  68  N.  H.  200,  44  Atl. 
304. 

Plaintiff  received  four  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  bales  of  cotton,  which  had 
been  shipped  over  defendant's  road. 
Plaintiff  immediately  began  to  haul  the 
cotton  in  wagons  to  its  factory,  which 
was  six  miles  distant.  The  station  plat- 
form would  only  hold  about  one  hundred 
bales,  and  the  rest  were  allowed  to  re- 
main in  the  cars  until  room  was  made 
for  them  on  the  platform.  SLx  days  after 
its  arrival  one  hundred  and  three  bales 
on  the  platform  and  twenty-five  bales  in 
a  car  were  destroyed  by  fire.  Held,  that 
such  six  days  was  a  reasonable  time 
within  which  the  cotton  might  have  been 
removed,  as  a  matter  of  law,  and  hence 
the  liability  of  the  defendant  as  a  com- 
mon carrier  had  ceased,  under  the  bill 
of  lading,  providing  that  lial)ility  as  a 
carrier  ceased  on  the  arrival  of  the  goods 
at  their  destination.  Tallassee  Falls  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Western  Railway,  29  So.  203,  128 
Ala.    li'.T. 

Eight  days  held  more  than  a  reasonable 
time.  Leavenworth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maris, 
10    Kan.   333. 

Nine  days. — Where  goods  shipped  to 
a  consignee  under  a  contract  providing 
that,  if  not  removed  in  twelve  working 
hours,  they  should  remain  stored  in  the 
freight  station  at  the  owner's  risk,  were 
stolen  nine  davs  alter  arrival  having  been 


§  1096 


CARRIERS. 


90o 


pected  them,  that   fact  is  to  be  considered  in  deterniinini:^  whether  a  consignee 


meanwhile  seized  on  attachment  against 
the  consignee,  who  failed  to  claim  them, 
it  was  held,  that  the  carrier  had  become 
a  warehouseman.  Frank  Bros.  &  Co.  i: 
Central    R.    Co.,   9    Pa.   Super.    Ct.    129. 

Eighteen  days  between  the  mailing  of 
notice  o\  the  arrival  of  goods  at  their 
destination  and  their  destruction  by  fire 
is  more  than  a  reasonable  time  for  their 
removal  by  the  consignee.  Southern  R. 
Co.  f.  Adams  Mach.  Co.,  1(55  Ala.  43().  51 
So.   779. 

Instances  of  what  is  not  reasonable 
time. — .\  shipment  was  read}-  for  delivery 
at  about  noon  and  was  burned  that  night. 
It  did  not  appear  where  the  consignee  re- 
sided or  was  engaged  in  business,  or 
that  he  knew  of  its  arrival  or  readiness 
for  delivery.  Held  that,  it  was  not  a 
reasonable  time  within  wliich  the  com- 
pany's liability  should  be  changed  from 
that  of  a  carrier  to  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man. Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill  & 
Co.,   153  Ala.   277,   45   So.   628. 

In  the  absence  of  statute  or  custom, 
from  the  arrival  of  goods  at  destination 
on  Friday  at  3  p.  m.  to  Monday  at  1:45 
a.  m.  was  not  a  reasonable  time  for  their 
removal  bj'  the  consignee  so  as  to  termi- 
nate the  liability  of  the  carrier  as  such. 
Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Burton,  165  Ala. 
425,   51    So.   643. 

A  steamboat  discharged  a  shipment  of 
twenty-six  bales  of  cotton  Saturday  after- 
noon, about  sunset.  The  consignor,  who 
was  then  present,  received  notice,  but  was 
able  to  remove  twenty  bales  only.  On 
Monday  following,  the  consignee  was  re- 
quired to  remove  another  shipment,  which 
had  previously  arrived,  and  did  not  call 
for  the  remaining  six  bales  until  about 
2  o'clock  p.  m.  Five  bales  had  then  dis- 
appeared. There  was  evidence  that  it 
was  customary  for  the  consignee  to  have 
at  least  forty-eight  hours  within  which 
to  remove  goods  from  the  wharf.  Held, 
that  the  consignee  was  not  guilty  of  any 
negligence,  and  that  the  carrier's  lial)il- 
ity  did  not  end  when  the  cotton  was  first 
demanded  by  the  consignee.  Sleade  v. 
Payne,    14    La.    Ann.    453. 

Goods  arrived  at  the  carrier's  freight 
house  between  1  and  3  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon.  In  the  usual  course  of  busi- 
ness, from  two  to  three  hours  were  re- 
quired to  unload  the  freight  from  the  cars 
into  the  warehouse,  and  no  goods  could 
be  removed  therefrom  after  5  o'clock  un- 
til the  next  morning.  During  the  night 
the  goods  were  consumed  by  fire.  Held, 
that  upon  these  facts  the  jury  were  war- 
ranted in  finding  that  the  consignee  had 
not  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  take  the 
wool  into  his  possession  before  the  fire. 
Moses  V.  Boston,  etc..  Railroad,  32  N. 
H.   523,   64   Am.   Dec.   381. 

A  railroad  company  is  liable  for  goods 
destroyed  in  its  cars  by  fire  on  the  night 


after  their  arrival,  if  the  consignee,  imme- 
diately on  notice  of  their  arrival,  begins 
to  remove  them,  using  a  reasonable  num- 
ber of  teams,  and  discontinues  his  labors 
only  at  the  end  of  the  usual  working 
hours  of  the  day.  Dunham  z\  Boston, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  46  Hun  345,  11  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.   472. 

Notice  of  arrival  of  the  goods  re- 
ceived by  the  consignee  after  dark,  in 
the  month  of  February,  would  not  re- 
quire him  to  call  for  them  before  busi- 
ness hours  the  next  day,  and  the  carrier 
is  lial)le  if  the  goods  are  burned  that 
night  in  its  warehouse.  Lake  Erie,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Hatch,  6  O.  C.  C.  230,  3  O.  C.  D. 
430. 

Plaintiff's  agent  learned  of  the  arrival 
of  the  goods  in  question  between  4  and 
5  o'clock  p.  m.,  which  was  a  few  hours 
after  the  car  in  which  the  goods  were 
transported  reached  destination.  The 
shipping  receipt  had  not  arrived,  and  it 
was  customary  for  the  carrier's  office  to 
close  at  6  p.  m.  Plaintiff  did  not  remove 
the  goods  that  night,  during  which  they 
were  destroyed  by  fire.  Held,  tliat  the 
loss  occurred  before  the  expiration  of  a 
reasonable  time  for  the  removal  of  the 
goods  as  a  matter  of  law.  McGregor  v. 
Oregon  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Ore.  527,  93  Pac. 
465. 

Goods  wdiich  arrived  at  their  destina- 
tion at  11  o'clock  a.  m.  were  unloaded  in 
defendant's  depot  between  1  and  3  p.  m., 
and  were  probably  ready  for  delivery  to 
the  consignee  about  4  o'clock  p.  m.  The 
depot  was  closed,  as  usual,  at  6  p.  m., 
and  the  goods  were  destroyed  by  fire  the 
next  morning,  before  business  hours. 
Held,  that  a  reasonable  time  for  the  con- 
signee to  take  the  goods  away  had  not 
elapsed  before  their  destruction,  and  de- 
fendant continued  liable  for  them  as  a 
common  carrier.  Parker  v.  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Wis.  689,  7  Am.  R.  Rep. 
255. 

Goods  for  the  plaintiffs,  transported 
over  the  defendant's  railroad,  reached  the 
station  at  the  place  of  their  destination 
near  sundown,  and  were  taken  from  the 
cars  and  placed  in  the  warehouse  of 
the  company  about  dark  on  Sunday  night, 
and  a  few  minutes  afterwards  the  ware- 
house was  closed  for  the  night.  The 
warehouse  was  three-quarters  of  a  mile 
from  the  plaintiffs'  place  of  business. 
Their  cartman  had  called  for  the  goods 
on  Saturday  afternoon  about  3  o'clock, 
and  was  told  l)y  the  freight  agent  that  he 
need  not  come  again  that  day,  as  it 
would  be  late  before  the  freight  train 
would  arrive.  He  was,  however,  in- 
formed about  dusk  that  the  goods  had 
come,  btit  made  no  effort  to  get  them,  as 
it  was  nearly  time  for  the  warehouse  to 
close.  Before  Monday  morning  the 
goods   were  destroyed,   together  with   the 


907 


CARUIKR    AS    WAKIvHOUSKMAN. 


§    1096 


had  such  reasonahk-  opportunit)'  to  reinrne  the  ^oofls  as  would  terminate  the 
hahihly  of  a  railroad  as  a  common  carrier. *"' 

The  consignee's  distance  from  the  depot  or  means  or  removal  i-  umi  i.j 
be  considered   in   deterniiiiin;^   wlial   is   a   rea'^onahle   time.""- 

Where  there  is  a  stipulation  for  notice,  without  limitations  or  conditions, 
of  the  arrival  of  <.(o()d>,  du-  na^Diiahlc  lime  for  ri-nio\al  cdmint-iurs  with  the 
date  of  the  notice.^-' 

When  Question  for  Court  or  Jury. — The  (|uesiion  wiiciiicr  a  consijinee  has 
had  a  reasonahlc  lime  in  which  to  ninove  jifoods  after  their  arrival  at  the  i>lace 
of  destination  is  a  (|uestion  for  the  jury,  if  there  he  a  conllict  of  evidence  as 
to  the  material  facts,  or  when  the  facts  are  donhtful ; '*■'  hut  if  the  evidence  is 
undisputed,^''   or  the   facts  few  and   >ini|ile.^*'  the  (|ui-stion   is  one   for  the  court. 


warehouse,  without  fault  of  the  defend- 
ant. Held,  that  the  defendant  was  liable 
for  the  .  goods  as  a  common  carrier. 
Wood  V.  Crocker.  IS  Wis.  34.5,  8(5  Am. 
Dec.  77:5. 

The  consignee  of  flour  sent  hy  rail 
demanded  the  flour  at  the  freight  depot 
the  morning  after  its  arrival  which  was 
late  in  the  afternoon,  and  it  was  not  to 
be  found.  The  railroad  company  was 
held  liable.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co.  v. 
Fairchild.   i>   \\'is.    lo:;. 

81.  Goods  arriving  out  of  time. — JcfTer- 
sonvillc  R.  Co.  v.  Cleveland  (Ky.),  2 
Bush.    4r)8. 

82.  Distance  from  depot.^Berry  v. 
West  Virginia,  etc..  R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  .538, 
30  S.  E.  143,  G7  Am.  St.  Rep.  781;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Ferguson-McKinney  Dry 
Goods  Co.,  97  Miss.  266,  52  So.  797.  But 
see  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Merrill  &  Co., 
1.53    .Ma.    277.    45    So.    628. 

That  the  consignee  lives  twenty-eight 
miles  from  the  place  to  which  the  goods 
are  consigned  will  not  be  considered  in 
determining  what  is  a  reasonable  time 
after  the  arrival  of  the  goods  within 
which  he  should  have  called  for  them. 
Columbus,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ludden,  89  Ala. 
612,  7  So.  471,  42  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
404.  See  Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Aldredge,  3S 
So.    805.    142    .'\la.    3C.S. 

83.  Stipulation  for  notice.  —  Leaven- 
worth, etc..    R.    Co.  V.   Maris.   16   Kan^  333. 

84.  Question  for  jury. — United  States. 
— Broadwell  r.  Butler.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1910. 
6   McLean  296. 

Massachusetts. — Sessions  v.  Western  R. 
Corp.    (Mass.).    16    Gray   132. 

Miunesota. — Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc..  R. 
Co..  18  Minn.  133,  Gil.  119,  8  Am.  R.  Rep. 
363. 

M/.f.yo»n.— Frank  r.  Grand  Tower,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  57  Mo.  App.  181. 

Ncxi'  York.— Roth  v.  BulTalo.  etc..  R. 
Co..  34  N.  Y.  548,  90  Am.  Dec.  736; 
Hedges  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y. 
223,  3  Am.  R.  Rep.  346;  reversing  6  Robt. 
N  Y.  119.  See  Lamb  7\  Camden,  etc., 
Transp.  Co.  (N.  Y.).  2  Daly  454. 

Xorth  Carolina.— Voxthrcss  v.  Durham, 
etc..  R.  Co..  148  N.  C.  391,  62  S.  E.  515. 
18  L.   R.   A..   N.   S..  427. 


.South  Carolina. — Knight  v.  Southern 
Railway.   85   S.   C.    78.   07    S.    E.   10. 

West  I'irfiinia. — Berry  v.  West  \'irginja, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  44  W.  \a.  538.  30  S.  E.  143. 
67  Am.  St.  Rep.  781. 

Il'iconsin. — Lemkc  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co..  39  Wis.  449.  13  .\xn.  R.  Rep.  400; 
Wood  V.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 
541.  9  Am.  Rep.  465.  2  .Am.  R.  Rep.  342. 
lini^htiid. — Coxon  r.  North  Eastern  R. 
Co..  4   Ry.  &  C.  T.  Cas.  2S4. 

Where  the  passage  to  the  wharf  was 
so  blocked  liy  landing  other  freight  that 
the  carts  of  the  consignee  could  not  ob- 
tain access  to  his  goods,  which  were  dam- 
aged by  rain  l)efore  removal,  held,  that 
it  was  a  question  for  the  jury  to  deter- 
mine whether  under  circumstances  a  rea- 
sonable time  had  elapsed  after  notice  of 
its  arrival  for  the  consignees  to  remove 
it.  before  its  injury  by  the  rain.  Good- 
win r.  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  (N.  Y.), 
5S    Barb.    195. 

85.  Question  for  court — .Uahama. — 
Cohiml)us.  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Ludden.  89  Ala. 
612,  7  So.  471.  42  .\m.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas. 
404. 

Colorado. — Denver,  etc..  R.  Co.  z:  Teter- 
son,  30  Colo.  77.  69  Pac.  57S.  97  Am.  St. 
Rep.  76. 

Kentucky. — .Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tingle. 
7  Kv.  L.  Rep.  441. 

.Missouri. — Frank  f.  Grand  Tower,  etc.. 
R.   Co..   57    Mo.   -App.    181. 

.Wtc  J'orA'.— Laporte  7-.  Wells  Fargo  & 
Co.'s  Exp..  48  N.  Y.  S.  292.  23  App.  Div. 
267:  Hedges  i:  Hudson  River  R.  Co..  49 
N.   Y.  223,  3   Am.   R.   Rep.  346. 

.Xorth  Carolina. — Povthress  v.  Durham, 
etc..  R.  Co..  148  N.  C.  391.  02  S.  E.  515. 
18    L.    R.   A..    N.    S..   427. 

South  C(ir(7/(»<7.— Knight  f.  Southern 
Railway.   85   S.   C.   78.  07   S.   E.   10. 

ll'est  I'ir^iuia. — Berry  v.  West  \'irginia. 
etc..  R.  Co!.  44  W.  Va.  538.  30  S.  E.  14^. 
67   Am.   St.   Rep.   781. 

Wisconsin. — Lemkc  v.  Chicago,  etc..  R. 
Co..    39    Wis.   449,    13    .Am.    R.    Rep.    400. 

86.  Frank  f.  Grand  Tower,  etc..  R.  Co.. 
57  Mo.  .App.  181;  Lemke  7'.  Chicago,  etc.. 
R.  Co..  3"  ^^■i-     •''•    i:f  Am.  R.  Rep.  406. 


CARRIERS. 


908 


§§  1097-1098 

8  1097  How  Long  Liability  Continues.— A  carrier's  liability  as  ware- 
houseman continues  so  long  as  it  keeps  the  goods  in  its  warehouse/'^'  or  until  it 
notifies  the  consignee  that  it  will  not  insist  on  storage  charges.^^ 

88  1098-1100.  Duties  and  Liabilities— §  1098.  In  General.— Duty 
to  Store  in  Safe  Place.— A  carrier  must  provide  a  reasonably  safe  , place 
where  freight  can  be  stored ;  ^•'  or,  as  was  stated  in  another  case,_  it  is  bound 
to  use  ordinary  care  and  prudence  in  providing  a  depository/'"  It  is  not  bound 
to  provide  a  place  that  is  fireproof.-'^  W'bere  a  carrier  has  no  depot  or  ware- 
house at  the  place  of  destination  for  the  storage  of  such  freight  as  corn,  it  has 
a  rit^ht  to  warehouse  the  corn  in  cars  on  side  tracks.^^ 

Duty  to  Keep  Watch.— A  carrier  liable  as  a  warehouseman  need  not  em- 
plov  -I  watchman  to  guard  the  goods  transported  by  it,  where  they  are  awaiting 
deliverv  to  the  consignee  at  the  proper  place.'^-'     A  railroad  company  is  not  re- 


87.  How  long  liability  continues.— The 
City  of  Lincoln.  25  Fed.  siio;  Lane  v. 
Boston,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    112    Mass.    455. 

88.  Brunson  v.  Atlantic,  etc..  R.  Co.,  7(5 
S.    C.    9.    56   S.    E.    538,   9    L.    R.   A.,    N.    S., 

89.  Duty  to  store  in  safe  place.— Mer- 
chants', etc.,  Transp.  Co.  v.  Alerriam,  111 
Ind.  5.  11  N.  E.  954;  American  Exp.  Co. 
V.  Hockett.  30  Ind.  250.  95  Am.  Dec.  fiOl; 
Whitnev  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 
327;  Bates  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140 
Wis.   235,    122   N.   W.    745.  ,  •   ,     ■ 

For  the  selection  of  a  wharf  which  is 
known  to  be  weak  for  the  discharge  of 
its  cargo,  a  vessel  is  liable.  The  City  of 
Lincoln,   25    Fed.    835. 

In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany to  recover  damages  for  the  failure 
to  deliver  a  package  of  money,  an  an- 
swer alleging  that  it  placed  the  package 
in  a  safe  owned  by  defendants,  where 
they  usually  kept  money  packages,  and 
safelv  locked  the  same;  that  the  package, 
rema'ining  thus  securely  locked  up  for  sev- 
eral days,  and  no  one  calline:  for  it,  was 
stolen  by  burglars,  who,  in  the  nighttime, 
broke  into  the  office  of  the  defendants 
and  broke  open  the  safe,  and  stole  the 
package  of  money,  without  any  fault  or 
neglect  of  the  defendants,  was  not_  sufti- 
cient  to  show  a  good  defense.  It  did  not 
show  that  either  the  building  or  the  safe 
was  of  such  a  character  and  construction 
as  to  render  them  a  safe  place  for  the 
deposit  of  money  unguarded.  American 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Hockett,  30  Ind.  250,  95  Am. 
Dec.   091. 

The  fact  that  a  carrier  took  adequate 
precautions  against  fire  on  its  own  prem- 
ises docs  not  exonerate  it  from  liability 
as  a  matter  of  law  for  the  destruction  of 
goods  from  a  fire  originating  on  adjoin- 
ing premises  which  it  did  not  own  nor 
control,  although  such  fire  was  so  violent 
that  it  was  impossible  to  prevent  it  from 
spreading  to  its  own  building,  where  it 
had  full  knowledge  of  the  manifest  danger 
to  its  own  premises  arising  from  the  spe- 
cially hazardous  condition  of  those  ad- 
joining, and  took  no  means  to  guard 
against   it.     Under   such   circumstances   it 


may  have  been  culpable  negligence,  and 
a  breach  of  duty  as  a  bailee  for  hire,  to 
place  the  goods  in  such  warehouse.  Judd 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  Steamship  Co.,  117 
Fed.  206,  54  C.  C.  A.  238,  affirmed  128  Fed. 
7,   r,2    C.    C.   A.   515. 

Wooden  warehouses,  roofed  with 
shingles,  and  managed  and  controlled  by 
prudent  agents,  are  lawful  depositories 
for  the  storage  of  goods  at  railway  de- 
pots by  the  carrier.  Lewis,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  144. 

In  a  town  of  800  inhabitants,  a  Ijurglar 
pried  up  a  window  that  was  nailed  down 
in  a  wooden  building  inclosed  with 
boards,  and  whose  door  was  locked,  and 
stole  goods  stored  by  an  express  com- 
pany. Held,  that  the  company  was  not 
negligent  in  storing  in  such  a  building. 
Grossman  v.   Fargo    (N.  Y.),   6   Hun   310. 

In  villages  the  same  degree  of  security 
can  not  be  required  of  a  warehouseman 
or  a  common  carrier,  either  as  to  fire  or 
burglary,  as  in  cities.  If  there  is  no  bet- 
ter or  safer  place,  he  may  properly  leave 
a  box  of  jewelry  overnight  in  his  express 
office,  used  for  such  purposes.  Laporte 
V.  Wells  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp.,  48  N.  Y.  S. 
292,   23   App.   Div.   267. 

90.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brownlee 
(Ky.),   14   Bush.   590. 

91.  Warehouse  need  not  be  fireproof.— 
Adix  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  150  Iowa 
379,   i::o   X.   W.    162. 

92.  Using  car  as  warehouse. — Gratiot 
St.  Warehouse  Co.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  221  111.  418,  77  N.  E.  675,  affirming 
judgment    122    111.    App.    405. 

93.  Duty  to  keep  watch. — Texas  Cent. 
K.  Co.  V.  Flanary  (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  50 
S.    W.    726. 

A  carrier  is  not  required  to  keep  a 
sufficient  watch  to  preserve  goods  stored 
in  its  depot  from  loss  by  fire,  where  it 
is  only  liable  for  the  exercise  of  reason- 
able care  and  diligence.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Gidley,  119  Ala.  523,  24  So.  753. 

Where  a  car  containing  plaintiff's 
merry-go-round  was  placed  on  a  side 
track  four  miles  from  town,  near  an 
amusement  park,  and  while  standing  there 
the    car    and    contents    were    destroyed    at 


909 


CAKRIKR    AS    WAKKHol'SEM AN, 


S    1098 


quired  to  keep  a  continuous  watch  durinj^  the  night  in  its  depots  ai  small 
jjlaces,'-''*  or  wliere  the  value  of  goods  stored  is  small ;  '•'"'  and  the  mere  fact  that 
a  depot  had,  on  several  occasions,  been  broken  open,  and  articles  of  small  value 
taken,  does  not  impose  such  a  duty  on  the  company.'"' 

Duty  to  Give  Notice. — It  is  not  re(|uired  of  the  warehousemen  at  a  railroad 
station  to  notifv  consignees  living  at  a  distance  of  the  arrival  of  their  goods, 
either  through  the  mails  or  otherwise.'-''  Although  a  carrier,  as  warehouseman, 
fails  to  notify  the  consignor  of  the  consignee's  refusal  to  accejU  the  goods,  it 
is  not  liable  for  the  subse(|uent  loss  of  the  goods  by  theft  from  it,  in  the  absence 
of  proof  of  negligence  as  a  bailee.''^ 

Duties  with  Regard  to  Perishable  Goods. — The  carrier  as  warehouseman 
is  bound  to  exercise  common  and  ordinary  ])rudence  in  the  storing  of  perishable 
goods.'*"'  ])Ut  a  carrier  is  not  negligent  in  failing  to  unload  semiperishable  freiglit 
after  notifying  the  consignee  of  their  arrival  at  destination,  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  that  it  knew,  or  in  the  exercise  of  reasonable  diligence  should  have 
known,  that  the  freight  would  have  been  in  better  condition  if  unloaded.^ 

Sale  of  Property  to  Prevent  Loss. — .\  carrier  liable  as  a  warehouseman 
mav  sell  propcrlN-  to  i)rc\eut  loss  by  decay.  Any  kind  of  imminent  danger  of 
loss  or  destruction   will   iustif\-  a  sale  in  such  case.- 

Statutes  Making  Railroad  Companies  Liable  for  Damage  by  Fire. — A 
railroad  corporation  is  not  liable,  under  statutes  which  provide  that  a  railroad 
company  shall  be  liable  for  damages  sustained  by  fire  from  its  engines,^  or 
originating  in  operating  its  road,"*  for  goods  destroyed  by  fire  while  in  its  pos- 
session as  warehouseman  or  depository. 


night  bj'  fire,  the  railroad  company  was 
not  negligent  in  failing  to  keep  a  watch- 
man at  the  car  to  protect  its  contents 
from  possible  danger  from  fire.  Adix  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co..  150  Iowa  379.  130 
X.    W.    ir,2. 

94.  Lewis,  etc..  Co.  v.  Louisville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  144;  Merchants' 
Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  z'.  Hoskins,  14  Ky. 
L.    Rep.    927. 

95.  Where  the  daily  average  of  goods 
stored  in  a  railroad  warehouse  does  not 
exceed  $500.  ordinary  care  does  not  re- 
quire the  company  to  keep  a  night  watch 
about  such  warehouse  or  to  have  some 
one  sleep  therein.  Kronshage  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  40  Wis.  587;  Pike  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,    R.    Co.,   40   Wis.   583. 

96.  Merchants'  Dispatch  Transp.  Co.  v. 
Hoskins.  14   Ky.  L.   Rep.  927. 

97.  Duty  to  notify  consignee. — Neal  & 
Co.  r.  Wilmington,  etc..  R.  Co.,  53  N.  C. 
4S2. 

98.  Duty  to  notify  consignor. — Adlcr  r. 
Weir,  9f.  X.  V.  S.  73(i,  49  Misc.   Rep.   i:!4. 

99.  Duties  with  regard  to  perishable 
goods. — Burroughs  v.  Grand  Trunk  R. 
Co.,    67    Mich.    351.    34    N.   W.    875. 

The  defendant  placed  eggs  received  by 
freight  in  its  warehouse  on  December 
11th.  While  there  the  temperature  from 
December  17th  to  December  22d  was 
from  zero  to  7  deg.  above.  Eggs  would 
freeze  in  this  warehouse  with  the  ther- 
mometer at  8  deg.  above  zero.  The  eggs 
were  frozen  when  examined  after  the 
22d.  Held,  that  the  defendant  was  lialilo 
for  damages.  Burroughs  r.  Grand  Trunk 
R.    Co.,   (57   Mich.   351.   34    X.   W.   875. 


Effect  of  custom. —  In  a  suit  against  a 
connecting  carrier  for  injury  to  pcrisha- 
i)le  goods  l)y  freezing  while  stored  in  its 
warehouse  at  Buffalo,  X.  Y.,  it  was  im- 
material that  railroad  companies  both  in 
Buffalo  and  Michigan  generally  have  and 
use  warehouses  which  are  not  protection 
to  perishable  goods  against  freezing,  and 
that  they  do  not  undertake  to  give  such 
protection  to  property  in  their  warehouses. 
Burroughs  v.  Grand  Trunk  R.  Co..  34  X. 
W.  875.  07  Mich.  351.     (By  divided  court.) 

1.  Becker  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  9(5 
X.  Y.  S.  1.  109  App.   Div.  230. 

Where  a  contract  for  the  shipment  of 
evaporated  fruit  provided  that  property 
not  removed  by  the  cctnsignec  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  its  arrival  at  des- 
tination might  be  kept  in  the  car  at  the 
sole  risk  of  the  owner,  the  carrier,  after 
notifying  the  consignee  of  the  arrival  of 
the  fruit,  was  not  bound  to  unload  the 
fruit,  and  put  it  in  cold  storage,  to  await 
the  consignee's  pleasure  and  convenience, 
and  was  not  negligent  in  leaving  the  fruit 
in  the  cars  for  several  days.  Becker  7'. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  9C,  X.  Y.  S.  1.  100 
.'Xpp.    Div.    230. 

2.  Sale  to  prevent  loss. —  Dudley  f.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co..  .-.>  W.  \a.  004,  52  S. 
E.  71S.  3  L.  R.  A..  X.  S..  113.-,.  112  Am. 
St.   Rep.   1027. 

3.  New  Hampshire  statute.— Gen.  Laws, 
c.  K',2.  $;;  >'.  9;  Welch  r.  Concord  Rail- 
road,  '-.s    X.    H.   ::i";.    }4   .\tl.   304. 

4.  Oklahoma  statute.— St.  1893.  c.  37: 
Walker  :•.  I'.ikUbcrry.  7  Ok1r>.  -.'''<  54 
Pac.   553. 


S  1099 


CARRIKRS. 


910 


§  1099.  Degree  of  Care. — Bailee  for  Hire — Ordinary  Care. — It  is  held 
that  a  carrier  which  has  carried  property  for  hire  and  is  keeping  it  for  a  rea- 
sonable time  in  its  own  warehouse,  at  the  point  of  destination,  until  it  shall  be 
called  for,  is  a  bailee  for  hire.''  As  such  it  is  liable  only  for  the  want  of  ordi- 
nary care  in  th.e  custody  of  the  goods ; "   and  the  care  exercised  should  be  in 


5.  Bailee  for  hire. — Hardman  v.  Alon- 
tana  Union  R.  Co.,  83  Fed.  88,  21  C.  C. 
A.   407.   39   L.   R.   A.   300. 

That  goods  were  stored  in  cars  instead 
of  a  waroliouse  did  not  change  the  rail- 
way compan3''s  position  as  a  depository 
for  hire.  Dixon  v.  Central,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
110    Ga.    173.    35    S.    E.    369. 

Necessity  for  knowledge  of  notice  of 
storage  charges. — In  an  action  to  recover 
from  a  railway  compan3%  as  a  bailee  for 
hire,  the  valne  of  goods  alleged  to  be  lost 
from  its  warehouse  through  its  negli- 
gence, it  was  not  error  for  the  court  to 
refuse  to  instruct  the  jury  that  a  certain 
printed  notice  posted  in  defendant's  de- 
pot, relating  to  the  rates  charged  for  the 
storage  of  goods  not  removed  within  two 
days  after  being  unloaded  from  the  cars, 
and  limiting  to  defendant's  liability  for 
property  remaining  in  the  freight  depot, 
could  not  be  considered  as  creating  a  con- 
tract between  the  plaintifif  and  defendant 
for  the  storage  of  the  goods,  unless  it 
should  appear  that  the  plaintiff  knew  of 
said  notice,  and  acquiesced  in  its  terms. 
Dimmick  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  18 
Wis.    471. 

6.  Ordinary  care. — United  States. — 
White  c.  Colorado  Cent.  R.  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,543,  5  Dill.  428,  3  McCrary 
559;  The  Titania,  124  Fed.  975,  affirmed 
in  131   Fed.  229,  65   C.   C.  A.  215. 

Alabama.— Southern  R,  Co.  v.  Aldredge, 
142  Ala.  ,368,  38   So.   805. 

California. — Jackson  v.  Sacramento  Val- 
ley R.   Co.,  23   Cal.  268. 

Delczi'arc. — McHenry  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.   (Del.),  4  Har.  448. 

Georgia.— Kiglit  v.  Wrightsville,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  127  Ga.  204,  56  S.  E.  363.  See 
Civ.  Code,  1895,  §§  2928,  2930.  Western, 
etc.,  Railroad  v.  Camp,  53  Ga.  596. 

///i«o/.s.— Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 
42  111.  132;  Bryan  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R,  Co., 
169    111.    App.    181. 

/;i(//a;ui.— Merchants',  etc.,  Transp.  Co. 
V.  Merriam,  111  Ind.  5,  11  N.  E.  954; 
Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i:  McCool,  26  Ind. 
140. 

loica. — Leland    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

(Iowa),   23   N.   W.   390;   Adix  v.   Chicago, 

etc.,  R.   Co.,  150  Iowa  379,  130  N.  W.  162. 

Kansas. — Leavenworth,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 

Maris,   16   Kan.  333. 

Kentucky. — Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Brownlee  (Ky.),  14  Bush  590;  Adams 
Exp.  Co.  V.  Tingle,  10  Ky.  L.   Rep.  358. 

.l/arv/rt»d.— Baltimore,     etc.,    R.     Co.     v. 

Schumacher,  29  Md.  168.  96  Am.  Dec.  510. 

Massachusetts. — Lane     v.     Boston,     etc, 

R.  Co.,  112  Mass.  455;  Thomas  v.  Boston, 


etc.,  R.  Corp,  (Mass.),  10  Mete.  477,  43 
Am.  Dec.  444;;  Norway  Plains  Co.  v.  Bos- 
ton, etc..  Railroad  (Alass.),  1  Gray  263,  61 
Am.    Dec.   423, 

Minnesota. — Derosia  v.  Winona,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  133,  Gil.  119,  8  Am.  R. 
Rep.   363. 

Missouri. — Bush  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  3  Mo.  App.  62;  Hull  &  Co.  v.  Mis- 
souri   Pac.    R.    Co.,    60    Mo.    App.    593. 

Nezv  Ha-iupshire.- — Brown  v.  Grand 
Trunk  Railway,  54  N.  H.  535. 

.Vf'Ti'  York. — Grieve  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  S.  949,  25  App.  Div.  518; 
Hathorn  v.    Ely,   28   N.   Y.   78. 

Ohio. — Hirsch  v.  Steamboat  Quaker 
City,  2  Disn.  144,  13  O.  Dec,  Reprint  89. 

Pennsylvania. — Moyer  v.  Pennsylvania 
R.  Co.,' 31  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  559;  Allam  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  3  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
325, 

South  Carolina. — Brunson  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  76  S.  C.  9,  56  S.  E.  538,  9  L. 
R.  A.,  N.  S..  577. 

7V.ra,^-.— Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Flanary 
(Tex.  Civ.  App,),  50  S.  W.  726;  Texas, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Morse,  1  Texas  App.  Civ. 
Cas.,  §  411;  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Schnei- 
der, 1  Texas  App.  Civ.  Cas.,  §  118. 

West  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Morehead,  5  W.  Va.  293;  Berry  v.  West 
Virginia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  44  W.  Va.  538,  30 
S.  E.  143,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  781;  Hutchin- 
son V.  United  States  Exp.  Co.,  63  W.  Va. 
128,  59  S.  E.  949,  14  L.  R.  A.,  N.  S.,  393; 
Hurley  &  Son  v.  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  68 
W.   Va.   471,   473,   69   S.    E.   904. 

Wisconsin.  — T)\mm\ck  v.  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Wis.  471:  Pike  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Wis.  583;  Kronshage  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  Wis,  587;  Whit- 
ney V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis.  327. 
Care  demanded  of  other  warehouse- 
men.— Leland  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Iowa),   23    N.    W.   390. 

Diligence  used  as  to  own  property. — 
Standard  Milling  Co.  v.  White  Line  Cent. 
Transit  Co.,  122  Mo.  258,  26  S.  W.  704, 
61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  185. 

Evidence  that  the  care  used  was  such 
as  carriers  usually  exercise  al^out  similar 
freight,  is  competent,  but  is  not  controll- 
ing evidence  upon  the  question  of  due 
care.  Cass  t'.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
(Mass.),  14  Allen  448;  Lane  v.  Boston, 
etc.,   R.   Co.,   112   Mass.  455. 

A  stipulation  in  a  bill  of  lading  that 
goods  be  forwarded  to  "depot  only"  does 
not  authorize  the  carrier  to  unload  the 
goods  at  such  depot,  and  give  them  no 
further  attention,  but  it  is  responsible 
therefor      as      a      warehouseman.        Mer- 


911 


CARKIKK    AS    WAKlUIOL'SEMAX. 


§  1099 


proportion  to  the  loss  likely  to  be  sustained  by  want  of  such  care."  A  carrier  as 
warehouseman  is  liable  for  the  loss  or  destruction  of  goods  caused  by  its  neg- 
ligence.*^ In  the  absence  of  negligence  on  its  part  a  carrier  is  not  liable  for  dam- 
ages caused  to  the  goods  by  storm."  or  for  their  loss  by  theft  '"  or  fire."     A 


chants',  etc..  Transp.   Co.  :•.   Mcrriain.    Ill 
Tml.  ."),   1  1    X.    I'",  '.t.'.l. 

A  bill  of  lading  provided  that  freight, 
unless  removed  on  the  day  of  its  dis- 
charge, was  "liable  to  1)C  storcil  at  the 
risk  and  expense  of  the  owner;  all  mer- 
chandise at  owner's  risk  while  on  the 
wharf."  The  ^oods  in  question,  wliile 
stored  on  the  wharf,  were  damaged  bj' 
an  unusually  high  tide.  Held,  that  the 
company  was  bound  to  use  rcasonal)le 
care  in  storing  the  goods,  and  was  liable 
as  a  warehouseman  for  ordinary  neglect. 
Merchants',  etc..  Transp.  Co.  v.  Story,  50 
Md.  4.  :;;!  Am.  Rep.  29,3. 

Illustrations. — A  cargo  of  lemons  and 
oranges,  consigned  to  defendants,  was 
delivered  at  a  pier  in  the  morning  of  a 
certain  day  along  with  other  consign- 
ments of  the  same  nature.  All  the  fruit 
was  removed  on  that  day,  except  that  of 
the  defendants,  who  had  actual  notice 
in  time  to  remove  it.  The  pier  was  cov- 
ered, and  all  reasonalile  precautions 
taken  to  protect  the  fruit  against  frost, 
which  precautions,  however,  did  not 
avail,  owing  to  the  severity  of  the 
weather.  Held,  that  the  carrier's  duties 
as  warehouseman  were  fulfilled.  Liver- 
pool, etc..  Co.  V.  Saitta,  22  Fed.  560,  af- 
firming 17  Fed.   695. 

In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany to  recover  the  value  of  a  package 
of  bonds,  an  ai:sw-er  setting  up  that  de- 
fendants deposited  the  package  in  a  good 
and  secure  iron  safe  of  a  respectable  and 
responsible  merchant  of  the  village,  and 
caused  the  safe  to  be  securely  locked, 
said  safe  being  the  most  secure  place  of 
deposit  in  the  village,  showed  that  the 
defendants  exercised  reasonable  care  as 
bailees.  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Darnell,  31 
Ind.  20,  99  Am.  Dec.  582. 

Where  goods  were  in  a  lighter,  await- 
ing removal  by  the  consignee,  who  re- 
peatedly informed  the  captain  of  the 
lighter  that  he  would  remove  them  dur- 
ing the  day.  but  late  in  the  afternoon 
sent  word  tliat  he  would  not  remove  them 
that  day.  whereupon  the  captain  covered 
them  with  tarpaulins,  instead  of  putting 
them  in  a  warehouse,  he  used  reasonable 
care  as  a  warehouseman.  Brand  z\  New 
Jersey  Steamboat  Co.,  10  Misc.  Rep.  12S, 
■50  N.  Y.  S.  903,  62  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  470. 

If  a  carrier  who  is  in  the  liahit  of  car- 
rying large  sums  of  money  for  hire,  and 
keeping  the  same  for  several  hours  after 
its  transportation,  and  until  it  is  taken 
away  by  the  owner,  deposits  money, 
which  has  been  so  carried,  in  a  w^ooden 
desk,  under  lock  and  key,  in  his  office,  to 
wliich    another    person     lias    access,    ami 


which  is  situated  in  a  railroad  station, 
which  is  open  to  all  comers,  and  then 
leaves  the  building  for  several  hours  in 
the  middle  of  the  day,  with  no  person  in 
cliarge  of  it,  the  judge  cannot  rule,  as  a 
matter  of  law,  in  an  action  against  the 
carrier  for  a  loss  of  the  money,  that  the 
evidence  fails  to  show  such  want  <>i  care 
as  to  render  him  liable.  Conwav  Bank  f. 
American  F.xp.  Co.  (Mass.),  8  Allen  .512. 
Where  a  railroad  agent  received  goods 
into  the  company's  warehouse  at  a  coun- 
try station,  which  was  an  ordinary 
wooden  l)uilding  kept  fastened  by  locks 
and  bolts  day  and  night,  and  situate<l  but 
two  hundred  yards  from  the  agent's 
dwelling,  it  was  held  that  ordinary  care 
of  the  goods  was  exercised,  so  that  the 
company  was  not  liable  for  their  loss  by 
theft.  Neal  &  Co.  z:  Wilmington,  etc., 
R.    Co..    53    X.    C.   482. 

7.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Scott.  42  III. 
132:  Baltimore,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Schu- 
macher. 29  Md.   lOS.  96  Am.  Dec.  .MO. 

8.  Illinois. — .American  Exp.  Co.  v. 
Baldwin,  26   111.   504,  79  .\m.   Dec.   389. 

Iitdiaihi. — Merchants',  etc..  Transp.  Co. 
r.  Merriam.  Ill    Ind.  5,  11    X.   E.  954. 

Mississif'p!. — Yazoo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i. 
Blum.   102  Miss.  303.  59  So.  92. 

Xcw  York. — Grieve  v.  New  York.  etc.. 
R.  Co..  49  N.  Y.  S.  949.  25  App.  Div.  518; 
Becker  z:  Pennsylvania  R.  Co..  96  X.  Y. 
S.    1.   109   App.    Div.  230. 

Though  the  carrier  has  no  freight  de- 
pot, liut  atlo])ts  that  i>i  a  railroad  C'lin- 
pany,  it  is  liable  for  goods  destroyed 
through  its  negli.gence  as  a  warehouse- 
man. Mercliants'.  etc.,  Transp.  Co.  :•. 
Merriam,   111    Ind.   5.   11    X.    E.   954. 

9.  Damage  caused  by  storm. — Gulf, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Xorth  Texas  Grain  Co., 
32  Tex.   Civ.  .\pp.  93.  74  S.   W.  .567. 

.\  buyer  of  certain  grain  shipped  by 
rail  refused  to  receive  it,  and  the  rail- 
road company  requested  the  parties  in 
interest  to  direct  the  disposition  of  the 
trrain.  which  they  refused  to  do.  and. 
there  being  no  proper  storage  facilities 
at  the  place  to  which  the  grain  was  con- 
signed, the  railroad  took  it  to  another 
town,  14  miles  away,  where  it  was  prop- 
erly stored.  Held,  that  the  railroad  com- 
pany was  not  liable  for  damages  to  the 
grain  caused  by  an  unprecedented  storm. 
Gulf.  etc..  R.  Co.  :.  Xorth  Texas  Grain 
Co..   71    S.  W.   5C.7.  ::2  Tex.   Civ.   App.  93. 

10.  Loss  by  theft. —  King  z:  Xew 
Brunswick,  etc..  Steamboat  Co..  73  X.  Y. 
S.  999.  36  Misc.  Rep.  555;  Byrne  z:  Fargo. 
7.i    X.   Y.   S.  943.  36   Misc.   Rep.  543. 

11.  Loss  by  fire. —  Murphy  f.  Southern 
Railwav.   57    S.    I'..   664.   77    S.    C.  76. 


§  1099 


CARRlEKe 


'12 


carrier,  as  warehouseman,  is  not  liable  for  the  destruction  of  goods,  caused  by 
the  neghgence  of  its  employee,  who  was  an  independent  contractor.'' - 

Where  Goods  Held  Gratuitously. — Where  a  carrier  holds  goods  gratui- 
tously in  its  warehouse  after  their  arrival  at  their  destination,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  consignee,  it  is  liable  only  for  losses  caused  by  gross  negligence. i='  But 
it  has  been  held  that  the  extension  of  time  within  which  goods  might  be  re- 
moved without  additional  charges  did  not  change  the  rule  of  liability  on  the 
carrier  to  use  ordinary  diligence.'' ■*  Where  the  owner  requests  agents  of  the 
carrier  to  keep  the  goods,  which  they  refuse  to  do,  and  the  owner  leaves  the 
goods  at  the  depot,  he  does  not  thereby  make  the  agents  his  own,  so  as  to  be 
chargeable   with   their  acts.^-^ 

Compulsory  Bailee. — Where  goods  arrive  in  a  damaged  and  perishing  con- 
dition, from  causes  for  vvdiich  the  carrier  is  not  responsible,  and  the  consignees 
decline  to  receive  them,  the  carrier  becomes  a  compulsory  bailee,  bound  only  to 
such  reasonable  care  as  a  prudent  man  would  take  of  property  of  which  he  has 
become   the  involuntary  custodian.^*'' 

Questions  for  Court  or  Jury. — The  question  whether  the  carrier,  as  a 
wareliouscman,  exercised  ordinarv  care  is  generally  for  the  jury.''"     But  where 


12.  Brunswick  Grocery  Co.  v.  Bruns- 
wick, etc..  R.  Co..  32  S.  E.  92,  t06  Ga.  270, 
71    Am.   St.    Rep.   249. 

IS.  Goods  held  gratuitously. — Georgia. 
—Kenny  Co.  r.  Atlanta,  etc..  R.  Co.,  122 
Ga.  365,  50  S.   E.   132. 

Maine. — Knowles  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  38  Me.  55,   61   Am.   Dec.  234. 

Missouri. — Hapgood  Plow  Co.  v.  Wa- 
bash R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  App.  372. 

Xeii'  Hampshire. — Brown  v.  Grand 
Trunk  Railway,  54  N.  H.  535. 

Xorth  Carolina. — McCombs  v.  North 
Carolina  R.  Co.,  67  N.  C.  193. 

Ohio. — Roberts  v.  Union  Line  Exp 
Co.,   2   O.    Dec.   577. 

South  Carolina. — Brunson  v.  Atlantic, 
etc.,  R.  Co..  76  S.  C.  9,  56  S.  E.  538,  9  L. 
R.  A.,  N.   S.,  577. 

Tennessee. — Kremer  v.  Southern  Exp. 
Co.,  46  Tenn.    (6   Coklw.)   356. 

JVest  Virginia. — Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
z:  Morehcad.  5  W.  Ya.  293. 

■Where  a  carrier  is  prohibited  by  its 
charter  from  charging  for  storage,  it  is 
liable  only  as  a  gratuitous  bailee  for 
property  deposited  with  it  in  its  ware- 
house to  await  orders  from  the  owner 
for  its  transportation.  Michigan,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  f.    Shurtz,   7   Mich.   515. 

Illustrations. — Where  the  agent  of  a 
consignee  removes  most  of  the  goods 
from  a  car,  but  leaves  some  in  it  on  ac- 
count of  approaching  night,  and  the  car 
is  broken  open  after  having  been  locked 
by  the  agent  of  the  railroad  company  and 
the  goods  are  stolen,  the  railroad  com- 
pany is  only  liable  for  gross  negligence 
as  a  gratuitous  bailee.  Kenny  Co.  v.  At- 
lanta, etc.,  R.  Co.,  50  S.  E.  132,  122  Ga. 
365. 

Plaintiff  shipped  some  hay  l)y  defend- 
ant's road,  and  on  its  arrival  plaintiff  re- 
quested that  it  might  remain  in  the  cars 
until  he  was  ready  to  remove  it  to  a  boat. 
The   track   on  which   the   cars   stood   and 


the  one  on  defendant's  wharf  being  the 
only  one  from  which  freight  could  be 
shipped,  defendant  moved  the  cars  onto 
the  track  on  the  wharf,  which  was  then, 
and  had  been  for  several  months,  over- 
loaded with  iron,  and  gave  way.  precipi- 
tating the  hay  into  the  water.  Held,  that 
defendant  was  a  gratuitous  bailee  and  not 
liable.  Knowles  t'.  .\tlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
38   Me.  55,  61  Am.   Dec.  234. 

Where  the  owner  of  goods  is  present 
at  their  arrival  at  the  place  of  destina- 
tion, and  is  then  notified  that  the  car- 
rier will  not  store  them,  and  still  leaves 
them,  if  the  carrier  does  store  such 
goods,  it  will  be  liable,  as  a  depositary, 
for  gross  negligence  in  the  care  of  them. 
Smith  I'.  Nashua,  etc..  Railroad.  27  N.  H. 
86,   59   Am.   Dec.   364 

Where  goods  are  stored  in  the  car  of 
a  railroad  company  without  its  knowl- 
edge or  consent,  and  it.  needing  the  car, 
stores  the  goods  in  its  warehouse,  as  a 
matter  of  accommodation  to  the  owner, 
it  is  not  responsible  for  the  burning 
thereof,  unless  it  is  the  result  of  its  gross 
negligence.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  t'.  Flan- 
ary   (Tex.  Civ.  App.),  45  S.  W.  214. 

A  railroad  company  which  permits  a 
person  to  store  his  wool  in  a  car.  merely 
as  a  matter  of  accommodation,  without 
any  agreement  on  his  part  to  ship  the 
wool  over  such  road  or  to  pay  any  sum 
as  freight  or  storage,  is  liable  for  the 
loss  of  the  wool  by  fire  only  in  case  of 
gross  negligence.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Flanary   (Tex.   Civ.   App.),  50   S.   W.  726. 

14.  Western,  etc.,  Railroad  ?'.  Camp,  53 
Ga.  596. 

15.  Smith  V.  Nashua,  etc.,  Railroad,  27 
N.   H.   86,  59  Am.   Dec.  364. 

16.  Compulsory  bailee. — The  Bobolink, 
Fed.  Cas.   No.   1,5ss.  6  Sawy.  146. 

17.  Question  for  jury. — United  States. 
— Judd  7'.  New  York,  etc..  Steamship  Co., 


913 


CARRIER    AS    WAREHOUSEMAN. 


§§  1000-1100 


there  is  no  clis]jute  as  to  the  facts,  the  question  may  become  one  for  the  court.'* 
Where  the  consignee  was  notified  of  the  arrival  of  goods,  Ijut  failed  to  take  them 
away  for  more  than  two  days  after  their  arrival,  and  a  regulation  of  the  com- 
pany, publicly  i)osted,  directed  a  charge  to  be  levied  for  storage  of  goods  under 
such  circumstances,  it  was  proper  to  leave  to  the  jury  the  question  whether  the 
carrier  was  a  ])ai]ec  for  hire  or  jjcrforming  a  gratuitous  service. '=' 

§  1100.  Acts  or  Omissions  Rendering  Carrier  Liable.— Proximate 
Cause  of  Loss.— A  carrier  in  its  capacity  as  warehouseman  is  liable  only  for 
the  ordinary  and  proximate  consequence  of  its  faults.-" 


117   Fed.   20(;.  r>4   C.   C.   A.  2;iS,  affirmc<l   in 
128  Fed.  7,  (12  C.  C.  A.  r,l.-). 

Alabama. — Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Al- 
dredge,   142   .Ma.   368.   38   So.   805. 

Arkaiisas.-^St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Dodd,  ;-)<)   Ark.   317,  27   S.    W.  227. 

Massacliiisctts. — Sec  Barron  v.  Eldredge, 
100  \[ass.  4.-).-),  1  Am.  Rep.  126. 

Illustrations. — Where  a  carrier's  agent 
testified  that  the  depot  in  which  the 
.goods  sued  for  were  kept  was  a  safe 
place,  and  that  it  was  kept  locked  at 
night,  and  also  in  the  day,  whenever  de- 
fendant's employees  were  not  present, 
which  was  all  the  evidence  on  that  sub- 
ject, in  an  action  for  failure  to  deliver 
the  goods  whether  or  not  there  was  a 
want  of  ordinary  care  was  for  the  jury. 
Southern  R.  Co.  z:  Aldredge.  38  So.  So"-;, 
142  Ala.  368. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  liable  as 
warehouseman  for  goods  destroyed,  it 
appeared  that  the  goods  were  stored  in  a 
warehouse  near  which  was  piled  a  large 
quantity  of  cotton,  the  cotton  being  very 
near  the  railroad  tracks.  About  fifteen 
minutes  after  a  train  passed,  the  cotton 
caught  fire,  which  extended  to  the  ware- 
house in  which  plaintiffs'  goods  were 
stored.  Held,  that  it  was  a  question  for 
the  jury  whether  defendant,  as  a  ware- 
houseman, exercised  ordinary  care  in 
protecting  the  goods.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  7'.    Dodd,   59   Ark.   317,   27   S.   W.  227. 

A  steamship  company  received  from  a 
connecting  carrier  a  consignment  of 
wool,  which  it  placed  in  its  shed  adjoin- 
ing the  dock  to  await  shipment,  and  while 
there  the  shed  and  its  contents  were  de- 
stroyed by  fire,  which  originated  in  an  ad- 
joining shed  owned  by  others.  Both 
sheds  were  of  wood,  and  very  dry.  and 
the  one  in  which  the  fire  originated  con- 
tained a  large  quantity  of  jute,  which 
was  very  inflammable,  and  particularly 
exposed  to  danger  from  fire.  In  an  ac- 
tion by  the  owner  to  recover  the  value 
of  the  wool,  there  was  evidence  tending 
to  show  that  the  company  had  knowl- 
edge of  the  condition  of  the  adjoining 
shed,  and  that  it  had  no  watchman,  and 
little,  if  any,  fire  protection;  also  that 
while  defendant  employed  a  watchman 
its  shed  was  not  as  well  constructed  to 
withstand  a  fire  from  the  outside  as  oth- 
ers along  the  docks,  and  that  there  were 
no    fire    hydrants    within    easy    reach,    as 


there    were    in    the    case    of    other    sheds. 
Held,   that   the   question   whether   defcnd- 


granted   118   Fed.  826,  55  C.  C.  A.  438.  af- 
firmed  in   128   Fed.  7,  62  C.  C.  A.  51.5. 

18.  Question  for  court.— Laporte  r. 
Wells  Fargo  &  Co.'s  Exp..  48  X.  Y.  S. 
292.  23   .\pp.   Div.  267. 

19.  Dimmick  :•.  Milwaukee,  etc..  R.  Co., 
18    Wis.    471. 

20.  Proximate  cause  of  loss — Instances 
when  defendant  liable.— A  railroad  com- 
pany holding  pr(i],t.Tty  in  its  warehouse 
as  a  bailee  for  hire  allowed  a  car  marked 
"Powder."  whicii  was  in  fact  empty,  hut 
locked,  to  be  placed  in  close  proximity 
thereto.  The  warehouse  caught  fire,  and 
the  property  was  destroyed  solely  be- 
cause the  firemen  were  prevented, 
through  reasonable  fear  of  the  powder 
car.  from  extinguishing  the  fire.  Held. 
that  the  company  was  lial)Ie  for  the  loss. 
Hardman  z:  Montana  Union  R.  Co..  8.3 
Fed.  88,  27  C.  C.  A.  407.  39  L.  R.  A.  300. 

Where  goods  are  placed  by  a  carrier 
in  its  warehouse,  and  the  consignee  in- 
quires for  them  a  number  of  times,  but 
is  told  each  time  they  are  not  there,  the 
carrier  is  liable  as  a  warehouseman  for 
their  destruction  by  fire,  notwithstanding 
the  fire  may  have  occurred  without  any 
negligence  on  its  part,  as  the  failure  to 
('eliver  was  the  proximate  cause.  East 
Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r-.  Kellv.  91  Tenn. 
(7  Pickle)  708.  20  S.  W.  314.  following 
Deming  v.  Merchants',  etc..  Storage  Co., 
90  Tenn.  306.  17  S.  W.  89.  13  L^R.  A. 
518. 

Instances  where  defendant  not  liable. 
— Barrels  containing  oil  were  carelessly 
handled  l)}-  the  employee  of  defendant, 
and.  while  leaking,  were  delivered  to  an- 
other carrier  in  an  adjoining  warehouse, 
where,  through  negligence  of  the  other 
carrier,  the  oil  took  fire,  and  both  ware- 
houses were  consumed.  Held,  that  the 
first  carrier  was  not  liable  for  the  <le- 
struction  of  the  .gootls  stored  with  it.  un- 
der a  ')ill  of  lading  exempting  defendant 
from  liability  by  fire,  since  defendant's 
negligence  was  not  tlie  proximate  cause 
of  the  loss.  McMillan  f.  Michigan,  etc., 
R.   Co..  16  Mich.  79.  93  .Am.   Dec.  208. 

In   an   action   against   a   carrit.-   for   the 


§  1100 


CARRlliRS. 


914 


Delivery  to  Unauthorized  Person. — .\  carrier  whose  liability  lias  been  re- 
duced to  that  of  a  warchouseinau  is  lialileif  it  delivers  the  goods  to  an  unau- 
thorized person.-^ 

Delivery  Prevented  Through  Carrier's  Negligence. — A  carrier,  when 
liable  only  as  a  warehouseman,  is  bound  to  deliver  the  goods  on  demand  and 
pavment  of  charges ;  and  if,  through  its  negligence  deliver}-  can  not  be  procured, 
and  goods  are  destroyed  bv  fire,  the  carrier  is  liable. -- 


loss  oi  luinl)er  loaded  in  a  car,  it  ap- 
peared that  the  car  was  furnished  by 
the  carrier  and  loaded  with  lumber,  and 
that  defendant  was  not  notified  that  ii 
was  ready  for  shipment,  nor  of  the  name 
of  the  consignee.  Held,  that  the  fact 
that  the  carrier  permitted  the  car,  after 
it  was  loaded,  to  stand  near  a  dry  kiln, 
in  which  the  fire  originated,  is  not  such 
negligence  as  will  render  it  liable  as  a 
wareliouseman.  since  it  was  merely  a 
gratuitous  bailee,  and  the  destruction  of 
the  car  would  not  be  the  actual  and 
proximate  consequence  of  the  act  com- 
plained of.  Basnight  z'.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   Ill  N.  C.  592,  16  S.   E.  323. 

When  grain  stored  in  a  carrier's  ele- 
vator is  destroyed  by  a  fire  not  caused 
by  its  negligence,  its  delay  in  not  remov- 
ing the  grain  as  speedily  as  it  should  have 
done  does  not  render  it  liable  for  the 
loss;  the  fire,  and  not  the  delay,  being 
the  proximate  cause  of  the  loss.  Davis 
V.  Central  Vermont  R.  Co.,  66  Vt.  290,  29 
Atl.   313,  45   Am.   St.   Rep.   852. 

21.  Delivery  to  unauthorized  person. — 
Alabama. — Alabama,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  KidJ, 
35  Ala.  209. 

California. — Cavallaro  v.  Texas,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  110  Cal.  348,  42  Pac.  918,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.  94. 

Illinois. — Diamond  Joe  Line  z'.  Carter, 
76   111.   App.   470. 

Indiana. — Merchants,'  etc.,  Transp.  Co. 
v.  Merriam.  Ill  Ind.  5,  11   N.  E.  954. 

The  plaintiffs  bought  fifty  barrels  of 
flour,  which  were  on  deposit,  at  the  time 
of  the  purchase,  in  the  freight  depot  of  a 
railroad  company,  taking  from  the 
vendor  an  order  upon  the  company  for 
their  delivery,  and  presented  the  same  at 
the  depot.  The  defendants'  clerk,  in  ac- 
cordance with  their  usual  practice,  took 
the  order,  delivering  a  "flour  check"  in 
return,  which  was  duly  delivered  by  the 
plaintiffs  to  another  clerk,  who  was  au- 
thorized to  deliver  flour  upon  such 
checks,  and  take  receipts  on  the  backs  of 
the  checks,  for  the  amounts  delivered 
from  time  to  ti:"e,  v.ntil  the  checks  were 
filled.  Upon  this  check  twenty-two  bar- 
rels of  flour  were  delivered  to  the  plain- 
tiffs, and  twenty-eight  to  persons  not  au- 
thorized to  receive  them.  Held,  that  the 
defendants  were  liable  for  the  value  of 
the  twenty-eight  barrels,  irrespective  of 
the  degree  of  negligence  of  which  they 
were  guilty.  Hall  t'.  Boston,  etc.,  R. 
Corp.  (Mass.),  14  Allen  439,  92  Am.  Dec. 
783. 


Plaintifl:'.  in  pursuance  of  an  agree- 
ment with  defendants,  advanced  money 
to  purchase  wheat  at  Toledo,  Ohio,  and 
the  same  was  consigned  to  it  at  Oswego, 
on  defendants'  vessel,  to  be  held  by  it  as 
security  for  the  advances,  and  to  remain 
on  board  the  vessel  until  sold.  The  bill 
of  lading  provided  for  the  delivery  to 
plaintiff,  and  was  indorsed  over  and  de- 
livered to  it.  A  portion  of  the  wheat 
was  sold  and  delivered  on  plaintiff's  or- 
der, but  the  rest  was  removed  and  dis- 
posed of,  without  its  consent,  by  the  de- 
fendants. Held,  that  defendants  were  li- 
able therefor  as  warehousemen,  if  not  as 
carriers.  Bank  r.  Doyle,  91  N.  Y.  32,  43 
Am.    Rep.   634. 

In  an  action  against  the  owners  of  a 
steamer  for  nondelivery  of  goods  trans- 
ported by  defendants,  it  appeared  that 
on  the  arrival  of  the  steamer  the  con- 
signees were  notified  of  her  readiness  to 
discharge  the  goods;  that  they  obtained 
and  furnished  the  necessary  permit  for 
the  landing  of  the  goods,  but  did  not  re- 
move them,  and  they  were  placed  by 
defendant  upon  the  wharf,  which  was  in- 
closed, and  was  the  warehouse  desig- 
nated in  the  bill  of  lading;  that  the  ware- 
house was  under  control  of  defendants, 
and  at  the  gate  was  stationed  a  delivery 
clerk,  who  took  receipts  for  the  goods, 
and  without  whose  consent  the  goods 
could  not  be  removed;  and  that  the  goods 
were  called  for  by  a  cartman  not  author- 
ized to  receive  them,  but  who  receipted 
for,  and  was  allowed  to  remove,  them. 
Held,  that  defendants  were  liable  as 
warehousemen  for  the  goods.  Collins  7'. 
Burns.   63    N.    Y.    1. 

22.  Delivery  prevented  through  car- 
rier's negligence. — Derosia  r.  Winona, 
etc..  R.  Co.,  IS  Minn.  133,  Gil.  119,  8  Am. 
R.    Rep.    363. 

Illustrations. — Where  tlie  carrier  has 
become  lial^le  only  as  a  warehouseman, 
and  the  goods  are  demanded  by  the 
owner,  and  he  is  informed  by  its  agent 
that  the  goods  have  not  arrived,  and  after- 
wards the  depot,  together  with  the  goods, 
is  burned,  the  failure  to  deliver  the  goods 
on  demand  of  the  owner  is  such  negli- 
gence as  will  render  the  company  liable. 
Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  z\  Moyer,  40  Kan.  184, 
19    Pac.    639,    10   Am.    St.    Rep.    183. 

Plaintiff,  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
time  from  the  arrival  of  goods  by  de- 
fendant's railroad  at  their  destination  to 
take  them  away,  al)out  4  o'clock  in  the 
afternoon    went    for    them,    found   defend- 


915 


CARKIKR    AS    WAKKHOUSEMAX. 


§    1100 


Storing-  Explosives  with  Goods.— It  is  ncgligeiue  on  ihc  pan  of  a  carrier 
to  place  expl(jsi\cs  in  il>  uarelKnise,  along  with  goods  of  a  combiistihle  nature, 
and  it  is  liable  f(jr  their  destruction  resulting  fnjin  the  presence  (jf  the  ex- 
plosives.--'^ 

That  the  floor  of  a  warehouse  was  saturated  with  oil,  and  that  the 
carrier  permitted  conihustihle  material  t<j  i>e  collected  there,  where  there  is 
nothing  to  show  the  cause  of  the  fire  that  destroyed  the  warehouse  and  its  con- 
tents, does  not  show  negligence  so  as  to  authorize  a  recovery  l)y  one  whose  goods 
were  burned.--*  "^ 

Particular  Instances. — .Mlowing  a  drunken  person  to  sleej)  in  the  ware- 
Ikuisc.-'  or  a  wood  tire  to  be  made  in  a  traction  engine  forty  feet  from  a  wooden 
depot  roofed  with  shin<;les,  where  there  is  no  reasonable  grounds  to  apprehend 
danger.-''  is  held  not  to  be  negligence.  P.ut  allowing  an  engine  to  pass  a  plat- 
form, on  which  cotton  is  stored,  at  a  high  rate  of  speed,  throwing  sparks,  shows 
negligence.-"     Further  instances  of  negligence  are  set  out  in  the  notes.-** 


ant's  warcliouse  open,  but  no  one  about, 
and  aiter  waiting  fifteen  or  twenty  min- 
utes, and  no  one  coming,  went  awa^',  and 
did  not  return  that  day.  The  morning  of 
the  following  day  the  warehouse,  with  the 
goods,  was  destroyed  by  fire.  Held  that, 
unless  the  absence  of  all  persons  from  the 
warehouse  at  that  time  would  have  been 
permitted  l)y  a  wareliouseman  of  ordi- 
nary prudence  and  care,  defendant  was 
guilty  of  negligence,  for  which  it  might  be 
liable;  and  if  an  ordinarily  prudent  man, 
after  waiting  as  plaintiff  did,  might  rea- 
sonably conclude  that  to  wait  longer,  or 
call  again  that  afternoon,  within  the  usual 
business  hours,  would  have  been  useless 
to  enable  him  to  procure  the  delivery  of 
the  goods,  he  would  be  justified  in  doing 
neither,  and  the  loss  occurring  thereby 
migln  be  attributed  to  the  negligence  of 
defendant.  Derosia  f.  Winona,  etc..  R. 
Co.,  18  Minn,  i;!;!,  Gil.  119,  8  Am.  R.  Rep. 
,3(i:!. 

23.  Storing  explosives  with  goods. — 
White  :•.  Colorado  Cent.  R.  Co.,  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    17,.54,"5,    5    Dill.    428,    3    AlcCrary 

While  plaintiff's  goods  were  lying  in 
the  freight  depot  of  the  defendant  rail- 
way company,  which  was  responsible  for 
them  as  warehouseman,  a  drayman 
brought  a  carboj'  of  sulphuric  acid  to  the 
depot,  and  left  it  inside.  The  defendant's 
rules  forbade  receiving  acid  into  the  de- 
pot, but  all  the  defendant's  emploj'ees 
were  engaged  elsewhere,  and  there  was 
no  one  to  enforce  the  rule,  or  see  where 
the  acid  was  placed.  In  consequence  of 
a  leak  in  the  carboy,  an-  explosion  was 
caused,  which  set  fire  to  the  depot,  and 
plaintiff's  goods  were  destroyed.  Held, 
that  defendant  was  negligent.  Farmers' 
Loan,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Oregon  R.,  etc..  Co.,  Tii 
Fed.  ]()();?. 

24.  Texas  Cent.  R.  Cr..  :■.  Flannrv  (Tex. 
Civ.  App.).  .-)()  S.  W.  TL'i;. 

25.  Drunken  person  sleeping  in  ware- 
house.— Young  f.  Wilmington,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   11(5    N.    C.   '.);!2,   21    S.    i:.    177. 


26.  Allowing     fire     near     warehouse, — 

Lewis,  etc.,  Co.  v.   Louisville,   etc  ..    K.   Co., 
i:!    Ky.    I.,    kc]).    144. 

27.  Allowing  engine  to  pass  throwing 
sparks. —  Texas,  etc..  iv.  Co.  : .  \\  evc-r.  3 
Texas   Ap]).   Civ.   Cas.,   §  (iO. 

28.  Damage  from  flood. —  In  an  action 
against  a  carrier  for  damages  to  goods 
consisting  of  books,  it  appeared  that  the 
goods  were  unloaded  upon  the  wharf,  and 
notice  of  their  arrival  sent  to  the  con- 
signee. The  wharf  was  well  covered,  and, 
save  for  its  proximity  to  the  water,  a  se- 
cure place  for  storage.  The  damage  was 
caused  by  the  wharf  becoming  flooded. 
due  to  a  violent  rainstorm.  It  appeared 
that  this  was  the  first  time  the  part  of  the 
wharf  on  which  the  goods  were  stored 
had  been  flooded  within  twenty  years. 
Both  a  day  and  a  night  watchman  were 
employed  at  the  wharf.  The  rainstorm 
began  about  12  p.  m..  and  the  wharf  be- 
came flooded  al)out  2  p.  m.,  when  the 
watchman  attempted,  without  success,  to 
remove  the  goods.  Held  a  finding  that 
tlie  carrier,  as  a  warehouseman,  was  neg- 
ligent in  caring  for  the  goods,  would  not 
l)e  disturbed.  Merchants',  etc..  Transp. 
Co.  r.  Story,  .".o  Md.  4,  :«  .-Km.   Rep.  293. 

Failure  to  take  receipt. — Certain  goods 
were  discliarged  fron:  defendant's  steamer 
on  its  private  wharf,  to  which  only  de- 
fendant, and  those  permitted  by  it.  had 
access;  the  owner  had  constructive  pos- 
session, but  delayed  removing  them,  and 
left  them  in  charge  of  defendant,  during 
which  time  they  were  lost.  It  was  de- 
fendant's rule  that  no  goods  should  be 
taken  from  the  wharf  without  a  receipt, 
but  no  receipt  was  taken  for  the  missing 
goods.  Held,  that  defendant  was  negli- 
gent in  not  taking  a  receipt,  as  the  prop- 
erty could  not  have  been  removed  with- 
out its  consent,  tacit  or  otherwise.  Tar- 
l>ell  V.  Royal  Kxch.  Shipping  Co.,  110  N. 
V.  170,  17  X.  E.  721.  6  .\m.  St.  Rep.  350. 
reversing  .">;;   X.   V.   Super.   Ct.   190. 

Express  companies.  —  Property  was 
locked  up  in  a  safe,  and  the  key  was  put 
in    the  coat    pocket    of    the    expressman. 


§§  1101-1102 


CARRIERS. 


916 


§§  1101-1104.  Actions  against  Carrier  as  Warehouseman — §  1101. 
In  General — Pleading. — There  is  no  distinction  belween  the  right  of  a  con- 
signor to  sue  a  carrier  and  his  right  to  sue  a  warehouseman,  either  in  tort  or  on 
contract.-^  The  storage  of  the  goods  does  not  create  a  new  contract,  which 
must  be  pleaded  and  distinguished  from  the  original  contract  of  transportation 
in  order  to  recover  the  goods  or  their  value.-'^'^  And  an  objection  that  a  carrier 
was  sued  as  such,  whereas  the  evidence  showed  its  liability  to  be  that  of  a  ware- 
houseman, is  untenable,  where  answer  in  confession  and  avoidance  presented 
issue  of  liability  as  a   warehouseman.^'' 

§  1102.  Evidence. — Presumption  and  Burden  of  Proof. — Where  the  re- 
lation of  common  carrier  is  once  shown  to  have  existed  if  the  carrier  seeks  to 
escape  liability  on  the  ground  that  its  responsibility  for  the  safety  of  the  freight, 
at  the  time  the  loss  or  injury  complained  of  occurred,  was  that  of  a  warehouse- 
man only,  it  has  the  burden  of  producing  evidence  in  support  of  such  conten- 
tion.^- it  is  held  that  in  an  action  against  a  carrier  as  warehouseman,  the  bur- 
den of  proyiug  negligence  is  upon  the  plaintiff. •^•''     But  it  is  also  held  tb.at  where 


which  was  left  hanginp;  near  an  open  win- 
dow of  a  room  on  the  ground  floor  of  a 
house  in  the  city,  where  the  expressman, 
who  was  a  sound  sleeper,  slept,  and  the 
key  was  stolen,  the  safe  opened,  and  the 
property  stolen.  The  company  was  lield 
liable.  American  Exp.  Co.  z\  Baldwin,  26 
111.  504,  79  Am.  Dec.  389. 

In  an  action  against  an  express  com- 
pany, as  warehouseman,  to  recover  a  pack- 
age of  money,  it  appeared  that  defend- 
ant's agent,  on  retiring,  placed  the  money 
on  his  dresser,  and  that  he  did  not  miss 
it  till  the  consignee  called  for  it  on  the 
following  day,  at  which  time,  instead  of 
going  to  the  dresser,  he  looked  for  it  in 
his  express  case  and  other  places,  and 
stated  that  he  must  have  sent  the  money 
away  that  morning  by  mistake.  It  did 
not  appear  that  the  door  of  the  agent's 
sleeping  room  was  locked,  and  there  was 
no  evidence  of  a  theft  or  loss  of  the 
money,  other  than  the  fact  that  it  was 
missing.  Held,  that  a  verdict  for  plaintiff 
was  warranted.  Bagley  Elevator  Co.  t'. 
American  Exp.  Co.,  63  Minn.  142,  6.5  N. 
W.  264. 

An  express  clerk  attempted  to  deliver 
a  package  at  the  office  of  the  owner,  which 
he  found  closed.  He  left  a  notice,  which 
was  received  by  an  employee  of  the 
owner,  who  went  to  the  express  office 
for  the  package,  but  was  told  that  the 
clerk  had  not  returned  yet.  On  the  re- 
turn of  the  clerk,  the  package  was  placed 
in  a  fireproof  safe.  No  demand  was  made 
for  it  afterwards.  A  fire  occurred,  and 
the  package  was  lost  by  the  watchman 
taking  it,  with  other  packages,  from  the 
safe  to  send  it  to  a  place  of  safety.  Held, 
that  there  was  not  sufficient  evidence  of 
negligence  on  the  part  of  the  company 
or  its  agents  to  render  it  liable  for  the 
loss.  Howard  Exp.  Co.  t'.  Wile.  64  Pa. 
201. 

Failure  to  notify  consignee  of  fire. — 
Where  a  freight  car  containing  plaintiff's 
merry-go-round  was  burned  at  night  be- 
fore  it   was   unloaded,   and   there   was   no 


evidence  that  the  carrier's  night  dis- 
patcher knew  where  plaintiff  resided  or  his 
telephone  call,  and  plaintiff  could  not  have 
reached  the  fire  in  time  to  have  saved  any 
of  his  property  if  he  had  been  notified 
promptly,  the  railroad  company  was  not 
negligent  in  failing  to  do  so.  Adix  t'. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  Iowa  379,  130 
N.    W.   162. 

29.  Action  against  carrier  as  warehouse- 
man.— Edgerton  :■.  Chicago,  etc..  R.  Co., 
240   111.   311,   88    N.    E.   808. 

30.  Pleading. — Wilson  v.  California 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  94  Cal.  166,  29  Pac.  861,  17 
L.  R.  A.  685;  Hoyt  v.  Nevada  County, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  68  Cal.  644,  10  Pac.   187. 

31.  See  Texas,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Morse,  1 
Texas  App.  Civ.   Cas.,  §  411. 

32.  Responsibility  as  warehouseman 
only. — Peoria,  etc..  R.  Co.  z\  United 
States  Rolling  Stock  Co.,  136  111.  643,  27 
N.  E.  59,  29  Am.  St.  Rep.  348;  Chicago, 
etc.,   R.   Co.  V.  Warren,   16   111.   502. 

33.  Burden  of  proving  negligence. — 
United  Stafcs.—De  Grau  v.  Wilson,  17 
Fed.  698,  affirmed  in  22  Fed.  SOO;  vStrauss 
V.  Wilson,  17  Fed.  701. 

Illinois. — Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ken- 
dall,   72    111.    App.    105. 

Kentucky. — See  Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tin- 
gle,  10  Ky.   L.   Rep.  358. 

Mississippi. — Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Fergu- 
son-McKinney  Dry  Goods  Co.,  97  Jiliss. 
266,  52  So.  797. 

Missouri. — Standard  Mill.  Co.  v.  White 
Line  Cent.  Transit  Co.,  122  Mo.  258,  26 
S.    W.   704,   61    Am.    &    Eng.    R.    Cas.    185. 

Nciv  York. — Grieve  v.  New  York,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  49  N.  Y.  S.  949,  25  App.  Div.  518: 
Lyons  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  119  N. 
Y.  S.  703,  affirmed  in  120  N.  Y.  S.  1132, 
136  App.  Div.  903. 

Nezv  Jcrscv. — Frank  Bros.  &  Co.  v. 
Central   R.   Co.,  9  Pa.   Super.  Ct.   129. 

Xortli  Carolina. — Young  v.  Wilming- 
ton, etc.,  R.  Co.,  116  N."C.  932,  21  S.  E. 
177. 

Pennsylvania. — Moyer     v.      Pennsylvania 


917 


CARRIER    AS    WAKKHOUSKM AX. 


§  1102 


a  carrier,  liable  as  a  warehouseman,  fails  to  deliver  on  demand  goods  intnisted 
to  it,  or  does  not  account  for  such  failure,  prima  facie  negligence  will  be  im- 
puted to  it,^^  and  it  has  the  burden  of  showing  that  the  loss  was  not  occasioned 
by  its  negligence.^^  And  it  can  not  rebut  this  presumjjtion  by  mere  proof  thai 
the  goods  can  not  be  found,  without  any  affirmative  explanation  for  their  dis- 
appearance.-"' Where  the  nature  of  the  accident  itself  affords  j^rima  facie  proof 
of  negligence,  the  failure  of  the  carrier  to  furnish  pnjof  that  it  took  proi)er  pre- 
cautions may  subject  it  to  the  inference  that  such  jjrecautions  were  omitted.^' 
So  where  it  is  shown  that  the  fire  causing  the  Ujss  was  set  by  sparks  from  de- 
fendant carrier's  engine,-''*  or  occasioned  by  the  carelessness  of  its  emi)loyces,'" 
it  has  the  burden  of  jiroving  that  the  loss  was  not  due  to  its  negligence. 

Admissibility  of  Evidence. — Generally  evidence  relevant  and  material  to 
the  issues  raised  l)v  ihe  pleadings  is  admissible  to  show  the  carrier's  negligence 
or  freedom  from  negligence  and  the  care  used  by  it  in  the  custody  of  the  goods 
in  an  action  against  it  as  a  warehouseman.-*"  .Accordingly  evidence  as  to  the 
existence  of  labor  disturbances,^'  the  character  and  l<jcation  of  the  warehouse,*^ 


R.  Co..  31  Pa.  vSuper.  Ct.  S.'iO;  Frank  Bros. 
&  Co.  V.  Central  R.  Co.,  9  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
129. 

Under  a  bill  of  lading  exempting  car- 
rier from  loss  by  fire  in  an  action  against 
it  for  goods  destroyed  by  fire  in  its  ware- 
house, where  they  were  awaiting  reship- 
ment  to  the  point  of  tlieir  destination, 
plaintiff  can  not  recover,  unless  he  proves 
negligence.  Hornthal  v.  Roanoke,  etc., 
Steamlioat  Co.,  107  N.  C.  7fi.  11  S.  R. 
lOl'.i. 

Defense  not  implicating  bailee  in  neg- 
ligence.— It  is  a  sufficient  defense  if  the 
bailee  accounts  for  a  loss  in  a  way  not 
implicating  himself  in  negligence  unless 
the  bailor  proves  negligence.  Farnham 
V.  Camden,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  55  Pa.  53. 

34.  Failure  to  deliver  on  demand. — 
Southern  R.  Co.  r.  .-Xldredge,  142  Ala.  308, 
38  So.  805,  25  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S., 
519;  Wilson  r.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  62 
Cal.  164;  Aaronson  z'.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  23  Misc.   Rep.  666,  52   N.  Y.  S.  95. 

The  disappearance  of  goods  in  the  pos- 
session of  a  carrier  holding  them  as  ware- 
houseman only  raises  a  presumption  of 
negligence  on  its  part  in  the  care  of  the 
goods.  Lyons  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
120  X.  Y.  S.  1132,  136  -App.  Div.  903.  af- 
firming 119  N.  Y.  S.  703. 

35.  .-//(Tt(7;»a.— Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Ald- 
redge,  142  .\la.  368.  38  So.  805,  25  .-\.m.  & 
Eng.  R.  Cas..  N.  S..  519.  But  see  Fred- 
erick f.  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co..  133  .Ma. 
486.  31  So.  968.  Compare  Collins  v.  Ala- 
bama, etc.,  R.  Co.,  104  Ala.  390.  16  So. 
140,  61  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  229,  holding 
that   plaintiff   must   prove    negligence. 

C(T/;7or;;ifl.— Wilson  v.  California  Cent. 
R.  Co..  94  Cal.  166,  29  Pac.  861.  17  L.  R. 
.\.  685;  Tackson  r.  Sacramento  \'alley  R. 
Co..  23  Cal.  268. 

Cfliiuccticut. — Boies  v.  Hartford,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  3?  Conn.  272,  9  .-Km.  Rep.  347. 

GrcruifT.— .Almand  v.  Georgia  R.,  etc.. 
Co.,  95  Ga.  775.  22  S.  fe.  674. 

Massachusetts.— Cass  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  (Mass.).  14  Allen  448.  Compare 
Lamb  r.  Western  R.  Corp.  (Mass.),  7  W- 


len  98,  hfilding  that  if  the  plaintiff  proves 
simply  that  the  goods  were  stolen  from 
the  depot,  and  fails  to  offer  any  evidence 
of  a  want  of  ordinary  care  on  the  part  of 
the  carrier,  the  judge  may  properly  rule 
that  the  evidence  is  insufficient  to  main- 
tain the  action. 

South  Carolina. — Wardlaw  v.  South 
Carolina   R.   Co.,    11    Rich.    L.  337. 

South  Dakota. — Farmen  v.  United 
States  Exp.  Co.,  25  S.  Dak.  96,  125  N.  W. 

36.  Aaronson  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
52    X.    \.    S.   '.15.  23    Misc.    Rep.   6f,t-.. 

37.  Where  accident  shows  prima  facie 
negligence. — Russell  Mfg.  Co.  '-.  Xcw 
llavLii   Snamboat  Co..   .-)0   X.  Y.   121. 

38.  Fire  from  engine. — Lebnd  :-.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,   R.  Co.   (Iowa),  23   X.  W.  390. 

39.  Carelessness  of  employees. — St. 
Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Martin  (Tex.  Civ. 
App.),  35  S.  W.  28. 

40.  Admissibility  of  evidence. — In  an 
action  against  a  railroad  company  for 
damage  to  mercliandise  after  it  had  been 
unloaded  from  the  cars,  and  after  the  con- 
signee had  been  notified  that  it  was  ex- 
posed and  could  not  lie  stored,  evidence 
for  the  tlefendants  that  the  consignee  was 
usually  notified,  upon  the  arrival  of  mer- 
chandise for  him.  that  it  could  not  be 
stored  and  must  he  immediately  removed. 
is  admissible,  as  bearing  both  upon  the 
defendants*  negligence  and  upon  the  rea- 
sonalileness  of  a  delay  on  the  part  of  the 
consignee  in  removing  the  goods.  Stowe 
f.  Xew  York.  etc..  R.  Co..  113  Mass.  .V21. 

41.  Existence  of  labor  disturbances. — 
Upon  the  issue  as  to  tlie  negligence  of  a 
railroad  company  in  failing  to  employ  a 
sufficient  numlier  of  watchmen  to  guard  a 
large  quantity  of  cotton  piled  upon  its 
wharf  against  fire,  evidence  as  to  the  ex- 
istence at  the  time  of  lalior  disturbances 
relating  to  men  employed  on  ships  load- 
ing at  such  wharf  was  competent.  Texas, 
etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Coutourie.  135  Fed.  46.'5. 
68  C.  C.  A.   177. 

42.  Character  and  location  of  depot. — 
In  an  action  against  a  railroad  company 


§  1102 


CARRIKRS. 


918 


that  defendant  had  negUgently  stored  intiammable  materials  therein,-^'^  the  custom 
of  other  carriers  as  to  keeping  night  watch,  etc.,^-*  that  the  defendant  used  the 
care  usually  exercised  in  the  vicinity  by  other  carriers,-*'"  that  on  account  of  an 
accumulation  of  freight  in  the  warehouse  which  could  not  l)c  moved  because  of 
the  low  stage  of  water,  the  plaintiff's  goods  were  detained  until  destroyed  by 
lire,-*"'  is  held  admissible.  One  of  the  issues  being  as  to  the  negligence  of  de- 
fendant, goods  in  its  depot  having  been  destroyed  by  fire  set  by  lightning,  testi- 
mony of  an  expert  as  to  the  test  of  the  lightning  arrester  some  time  before  the 
fire  is  competent.-*'  Defendant,  being  sued  as  a  common  carrier,  and  claiming 
that  it  held  the  goods  destroyed  as  a  warehouseman  only,  may  show  that  they 
were  not  left  for  immediate  shipment,  l)ut  were  to  be  held  till  the  rest  were 
brought  the  next  morning.-*'' 

Evidence  Inadmissible.^ — In  an  action  against  a  carrier  as  warehouseman 
for  the  loss  of  goods,  evidence  by  the  defendant  that  other  goods  of  the  same 
kind  were  alwavs  cared  for  in  the  same  manner,  and  that  none  had  been  lost 
before,  is  immaterial ;  ■*'■'  and  a  contract  limiting  liability  as  carrier  is  also  im- 
material.^*' In  such  an  action  evidence  as  to  the  carrier's  custom  of  storing 
goods  of  its  employees. 5''  and  as  to  how  far  plaintiff  lived  from  the  depot,'''^ 
has  been  held  inadmissible. 

Instances  of  sufficiency  of  evidence  as  to  ordinary  care.''^^  and  to  show 


to  recover  the  value  of  goods  destroyed 
by  fire  alleged  to  have  been  due  to  de- 
fendant's negligence  while  they  were  in 
its  hands  as  carrier,  and  stored  in  its  de- 
pot, plaintifif  may  show  the  character  and 
location  of  the  depot,  the  materials  of 
which  it  was  composed,  its  liability  to 
take  fire  on  exposure,  etc..  to  show  de- 
fendant's negligence  in  failing  to  store 
the  goods  in  a  reasonably  sale  warehouse. 
Whitney  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  27  Wis. 
327;  Bates  z:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  140 
Wis.   235,   122    N.   W.    745. 

In  an  action  against  a  carrier  to  re- 
cover for  goods  lost  by  fire  while  stored 
in  a  warehouse,  through  the  alleged  neg- 
ligence of  defendant  in  storing  them  in 
an  unsafe  place,  evidence  is  admissible 
showing  the  condition  of  surrounding 
buildings,  or  that  smoking  in  the  locality 
had  been  prohibited  by  a  city  ordinance, 
as  bearing  on  the  issue  as  to  such  negli- 
gence. Judd  V.  New  York,  etc..  Steam- 
ship Co.,  130  Fed.  991. 

Evidence  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
freight  house  for  the  business  usually 
done  and  as  to  its  contents  at  the  time  of 
the  damage,  is  admissible  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  care  used  l)y  the  carrier  in  the 
custody  of  the  merchandise.  Stowe  t'. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mass.  521. 
43.  Negligence  storing  of  inflammable 
materials. —  In  an  action  against  the  re- 
ceivers of  a  railroad  company  for  the 
loss  of  a  lot  of  wool  by  fire  while  in  the 
freight  house,  evidence  that  oil  had  been 
stored  therein,  and  leaked  out  upon  the 
floor,  and  that  other  inflammable  mate- 
rials were  in  the  end  near  the  wool,  and 
that  the  adjacent  windows  were  broken, 
within  30  feet  of  which  a  locomotive  had 
passed  15  minutes  before  the  fire  was  dis- 
covered, is  proper  for  the  jury  on  the  is- 
sue of  a  want  of  ordinary   care   as   ware- 


houseman.     Nichols   z'.    Smith,    115    Mass. 
332. 

44.  Evidence  as  to  custom. — Evidence 
that  it  was  customary  for  a  railroad  com- 
pany, in  that  part  of  the  country,  to  keep 
a  night  watch  about  its  freight  depot,  a 
light  burning  in  the  office,  etc.,  is  not 
conclusive  upon  the  point  whether  a  com- 
pany, whose  general  practice  was  in  ac- 
cordance with  such  custom,  had  exercised 
ordinary  care  as  to  goods  stored  therein, 
]mt  is  evidence  for  the  jury  to  consider 
in  that  connection.  Derosia  v.  Winona, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  18  Minn.  133,  Gil.  119,  8  Am. 
R.  Rep.  363. 

45.  That  defendant  exercised  usual  care. 
— Cass  z'.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  (Mass.), 
14  Allen  448;  Lane  z\  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
112  Mass.  455. 

46.  Accumulation  of  freight  in  ware- 
house.— Horntlial  r.  Roanoke,  etc.,  Steam- 
boat Co.,  lOr  N.  C.  7G,  11  S.  E.  1049. 

47.  Expert  testimony. — Missouri  Pac.  R. 
Co.  z:  Riggs.  10  Kan.  App.  578,  62  Pac. 
712. 

48.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  z:  Riggs,  10 
Kan.  App.   578,  62   Pac.  712. 

49.  Evidence  held  immaterial. — Lane  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  112  Mass.  455. 

50.  Contract  limiting  liability. — Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Moyer,  40  Kan.  184,  19  Pac. 
639,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  183. 

51.  Evidence  of  custom. — Merchants', 
etc.,  Transp.  Co.  z'.  Story,  50  Md.  4,  33 
Am.  Rep.  293. 

52.  Southern  R.  Co.  z:  Aldredge,  142 
Ala.    368,    38    So.    805. 

53.  Sufficiency  of  evidence  as  to  ordi- 
nary care. — Defendant  undertook  to  carry 
a  ])ackage  of  money  consigned*  to  plain- 
tiff. The  package  ^arrived  at  its  destina- 
tion on  Monday  e'vening,  of  which  fact 
the  consignee,  who  lived  about  a  mile 
from    the    station,    was    informed    on    the 


919 


CAKRIKR    AS    WAKi: HOUSEMAN. 


§§  1102-1103 


custom,-'-*  are  set  out  in  the  notes. 

§  1103.  Instructions. — Where  the  only  issue  is  as  to  defendant's  liability 
as  a  carrier,  it  is  .error  t(j  cliarge  the  jury  upon  any  theory  of  liahility  as  ware- 
houseman.'"' .\n(l  where  tlie  only  issue  is  whether  defendant  is  j^uilty  of  negli- 
gence in  burning  goods,  it  is  error  to  give  an  instruction  based  on  a  hyjMjthetical 
delivery  to  defendant  for  shipment.''"  A  charge  that  if  the  defendant  failed  to 
deliver  the  property  and  undertook  to  dei)Osit  it  in  its  warehouse,  its  liability 
would  be  that  of  a  warehouseman,  correctly  submits  to  the  jury  the  question 
whether  defendant  delivered  the  property  to  its  agent  to  be  deposited  in  its 
warehouse  or  to  plaintiff.'"'  It  is  proper  to  refuse  a  recjuested  charge,  requiring 
too  high  a  degree  of  proof,"'"'  or  one  not  supported  by  the  evidence.''*-'     Where 


same  day.  Defendant's  agent  testified 
that  he  saw  tlie  package  in  tlie  drawer, 
where  valuables  were  kept.  Tuesday  even- 
ing; that  nc.\t  morning,  when  he  went  to 
tlie  office,  he  discovered  that  the  store- 
room in  which  tlie  office  was  kept  had 
been  entered  in  the  night,  but  that  he 
did  not  look  after  the  money  in  question 
until  noon,  when  for  the  first  time  he 
discovered  that  it  was  gone.  Defendant 
moved  the  court  to  instruct  the  jury,  as 
a  matter  of  law.  that  defendant  had  ex- 
ercised ordinary  care  for  the  safety  of 
the  money.  Held  that,  since  defendant 
assumed  the  burden  and  therefore  neces- 
sarily undertook  to  show  that  it  had  ex- 
ercised ordinary  care  in  the  keeping  of 
the  money,  the  court  could  not  say  that 
its  own  evidence  was  conclusive  on  plain- 
tiff. Adams  Exp.  Co.  v.  Tingle,  in  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  358. 

Plaintiflf's  goods,  after  being  trans- 
ported by  defendant,  a  common  carrier, 
were  upon  the  latter's  wharf,  and  were 
destroyed  by  fire  occurring  in  the  night- 
time, originating  on  the  wharf.  A  large 
quantity  of  other  freight  was  on  the 
wharf,  and  was  also  destroyed.  Evidence 
was  given  tending  to  show  that  no  ap- 
paratus or  means  for  extinguishing  fires 
were  kept  there.  A  private  watchman 
was  left  in  charge  with  some  colored  men, 
but  neither  of  them  were  produced  as 
witnesses,  nor  did  it  appear  that  he  was 
at  his  post,  or  that  any  person  was  on 
the  wharf  when  the  fire  l)rokc  out.  Held, 
that  the  evidence  was  such  as  to  require 
the  sul)mission  of  the  question  of  neg- 
ligence to  the  jury.  Russell  Mfg.  Co.  z: 
New  Haven  Steamboat  Co..  50  N.  Y.  121. 

Evidence  that  a  railroad  company, 
which  has  in  its  custody  as  warehouse- 
man a  valise  containing  property  of  value, 
placed  it  upon  the  floor  of  its  dock,  which 
was  guarded  by  watchmen,  who  checked 
oflf  everything  that  went  out.  is  not  in  it- 
self sufficient  to  establish  conclusively 
that  the  disappearance  of  the  contents  of 
the  valise  in  question  was  not  due  to  want 
of  proper  care,  .\aronson  f.  Pennsyl- 
vania R.  Co.,  52  N.  Y.  S.  '.»5.  2:5  Misc.  Rep. 
666. 

54.  Evidence  insufficient  to  show  cus- 
tom.—  l".\i(lence  that  the  carrier  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  notifying  a  particular  cus- 


tomer by  postal  card  of  the  arrival  of  his 
goods,  and  informing  him  that  storage 
or  ilcmurrage  would  Ijc  charged  thereon 
unless  they  were  called  for  within  the 
time  specified,  and  had  also  given  mes- 
sages by  telephone  and  otherwise  to 
other  customers,  in  some  of  which  it  was 
stated  that  unless  the  goods  were  removed 
as  requested  they  would  be  held  or 
stored  at  the  owner's  risk,  is  insufficient 
to  show  a  custom  varying  the  general 
rule  that  after  the  arrival  of  the  goods  at 
their  destination  the  carrier  is  only  liable 
as  a  warehouseman.  Georgia,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.   Round,   111   Ga.  G.  36  S.   E.  312. 

55.  Instructions. — St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Kni--;ht.  122  L'.  S.  79,  7  S.  Ct.  1132,  30 
L.   Ed.  1077. 

56.  Gulf,  etc..  R.  Co.  r.  Courtney  (Tex. 
Civ.  .\pp.).  23  S.  W.  226. 

57.  Georgia  R..  etc..  Co.  v.  Thompson, 
86  Ga.  :{27,  12  S.  E.  640.  4.",  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  422. 

58.  Charge  requiring  too  high  degree 
of  proof. — Southern  R.  Co.  r.  Aldredge. 
14  .\la.  ;!GS,  ;iS  So.  8(15,  where  the  court  re- 
fused a  requested  instruction  that,  if  the 
jury  were  not  satisfied  to  a  reasonable 
certainty  whether  the  goods  were  left 
with  defendant  at  defendant's  risk  or  at 
plaintiff's  risk,  the  jury  could  not  find 
a  verdict   for   plaintiff. 

59.  Charge  unsupported  by  evidence. 
— Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  :•.  Smith,  >>1  Tex. 
47'.i.    17   S.   W.    i:!:i. 

Illustrations. — Where  in  an  action  for 
value  ui  goods  destroyed  by  fire  while  in 
a  railway  depot,  the  testimony  showed 
that  employees  of  the  railway  company 
in  charge  of  the  depot  were  engaged  in 
saving  the  property  during  the  fire,  in 
the  discharge  of  their  duties,  it  was  proper 
to  refuse  an  instruction  that  the  railway 
company  would  not  as  a  warehouseman 
be  responsible  for  the  negligence  of  its 
servants  about  matters  not  in  line  of 
their  duty.  Galveston,  etc..  R.  Co.  r. 
Smith,   81    Tex.   47').    17    S.   W.    133. 

Where,  in  an  action  against  a  carrier 
for  loss  of  goods  stored,  there  was  no 
evidence  that  .\.  received  the  goods  from 
the  carrier's  agent,  but  the  evidence  was 
clear  that  the  goods  never  went  out  of 
the  possession  of  defendant's  agent  until 
they    were    lust,    a    requested    instruction 


CARRIERS. 


920 


§§  1103-1104 

improper  evidence  has  been  admitted  over  objection,  it  is  error  for  the  court 
to  refuse  to  charge  that  such  evidence  could  not  be  considered  for  any  purpose. ^^' 
Error  in  charging ''^  or  refusing  to  charge''-  may  be  cured  by  instructions. 

§  1104.  Finding. — In  an  action  against  carrier  for  loss  of  goods  by  fire, 
where  the  issue  presented  by  the  pleadings  was  whether  defendant  negligently 
allowed  the  goods  to  remain  in  the  depot  without  notice  to  the  consignee,  a  find- 
ing that  the  consignee  did  not  have  reasonable  time  to  inspect  and  remove  the 
goods  in  the  usual  course  of  business  after  they  were  received,  and  before  they 
were  destroved.  is  outside  the  issue.'^^^ 


that  if  defendant  received  the  goods  from 
the  carrier's  agent,  and  asked  him  to 
allow  them  to  remain  until  he  could  send 
back  for  them,  and  when  he  sent  back  for 
them  they  were  not  there,  such  facts  did 
not  establish  defendant's  negligence,  was 
properlv  refused.  Southern  R.  Co.  v. 
Aldredge,  38   So.  805,   142  Ala.   368. 

60.  Where  improper  evidence  admitted. 
—Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Aldredge,  142  Ala. 
368,  38  So.  805  (fact  that  plaintiff  lived  27 
miles  from  depot). 

61.  Instructions  curing  error. — In  an 
action  against  a  railroad  company,  as 
warehousemen,  for  a  failure  to  deliver 
property  received  by  them,  the  judge's 
instruction,  "that  if  the  property  was 
taken  by  mistake  from  the  defendants' 
depot,  and  they  exercised  ordinary  care 
in  the  matter,  they  w'ould  not  be  liable," 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  in- 
struction, "but  if  the  defendants'  agent 
delivered  it  by  mistake  to  a  wrong  per- 
son   they    would    be    answerable,"    is    no 


cause    for    a    new   trial.      Lichtenhein    v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.   (Mass.),  11  Cush.  70. 

62.  A  charge  that  the  burden  was  on 
plaintiff  to  prove  to  a  reasonable  cer- 
tainty that  the  goods  were  lost  on  ac- 
count of  defendant's  negligence,  and  if 
the  evidence  as  to  negligence  was  so 
equally  balanced  that  the  jury  were  not 
convinced  to  a  reasonable  certainty  that 
the  goods  were  lost  on  account  of  negli- 
gence, and  if  the  goods  were  kept  in  de- 
fendant's depot  with  reasonable  care, 
plaintiff  could  not  recover,  cured  error 
in  refusing  to  charge  that  if  the  jury 
were  reasonably  satisfied  that  the  de- 
fendant kept  the  goods  in  its  depot  with 
reasonable  care,  and  that  some  one  stayed 
in  the  depot  in  the  day,  and  kept  it  locked 
at  night,  plaintiff  could  not  recover. 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  Aldredge,  38  So.  805, 
142   Ala.    368. 

63.  Finding  outside  of  issue. — Missouri 
Pac.  R.  Co.  r.  Newberger,  63  Kan.  884. 
65    Pac.    655. 


I  aw  library 

UT«VEMITY  .K  CAUFORNU 


!i.il?.^'^.^^~.'^"'\'^^'^^0>if.lUBRJ. 


AA    000  742  674 


^?fs 


'i>~- 


